Editorials
The Ruined Potential of ‘Castlevania: Lords of Shadow 2’ a Decade Later
Konami tried something new to inject new blood (no pun intended) into the Castlevania series with 2011’s Lords of Shadow, a new series that completely disregarded the established timeline. The result gave fans a cinematic platformer that dipped into the God of War series with its combat (for good and bad), but ultimately lacked that “something” for many that made it a Castlevania game. With Lords of Shadow 2, those hoping that things would get better were ultimately disappointed. It also didn’t help that reports after the game’s release illustrated Lords of Shadow 2‘s troubled development. But with 10 years now gone by, is that disappointment also lessened?
After the events of Lords of Shadow, where protagonist Gabriel Belmont (Robert Carlyle) becomes the vampire known as Dracula, Lords of Shadow 2 sees Gabriel awaken 1000 years after an encounter with his son, Alucard (Richard Madden), weakened and with no memory of why he was dormant in the first place. Gabriel’s only desire is to die, but being immortal prevents this. Zobek (voiced by Patrick Stewart), a member of the Brotherhood of Light from the first game and Gabriel’s foe, promises to grant Gabriel his request with the Vampire Killer whip, but only after aiding Zobek in his mission to stop the resurrection of Satan (Jason Isaacs) by his acolytes.
Story-wise, developer MercurySteam decided to take Lords of Shadow 2 where no Castlevania game had gone previously by centring on the Prince of Darkness himself. Not only that, but taking the Castlevania series itself into modern times. Granted, it wasn’t the “traditional” story of Dracula, but the possibility of incorporating Gabriel’s own story leading up to his transformation, as well as the exploring of his new role as Dracula, held a lot of potential. Gabriel’s story jumps between the past and present, which if done properly, could have yielded a lot of pathos for a man who had lost his wife and his son, but also had to grapple with his inner conflicts.
Instead, that all turned into a muddled mess that never formed into a cohesive plot. Disjointed and difficult to follow, plot points and devices are conjured up from nothing. Gabriel’s Combat Cross, for example, is now known the Vampire Killer whip, one of the most powerful weapons in existence that is capable of killing Dracula. Even though we are told that Dracula cannot die, since he is God’s Chosen. Likewise, Alucard’s Crissaegrim sword, which was forged with the tip of the Vampire Killer ship—the same whip that is supposed to be able to kill Dracula, by the way—won’t kill Dracula, but instead would put him into a deep sleep until the sword was removed from Dracula’s body. No explanation is given for why Alucard knows this, or why the sword wouldn’t kill Dracula.
The nonsense continues with the plot point regarding one of Satan’s acolytes owning the Bioquimek Corporation, a pharmaceutical company that has come up with a virus that essentially turns humans into demons. Never mind the fact that being asleep for centuries has resulted in Gabriel somehow knowing what a pharmaceutical company is, but when confronting the acolyte, Gabriel remarks about the disease being “manufactured” and that there must be an “antidote”. Again, it’s all a case of a character somehow knowing information when logically they shouldn’t, unless it was explained away at some point unbeknownst to the player.
Nitpicking? Perhaps, but with the amount of cutscenes the game contains, not to mention the calibre of voice actors, you would think they would have presented a story that wouldn’t waste all of that. Contrast this with the story of Lords of Shadow, which in spite of the few plot twists, was clear easy to follow.
If the issues with the plot points weren’t enough, there are the sequences of timeline jumping. Again, what could have been an excellent way in terms of the story to have Gabriel grapple with his past with the now-child version of Trevor is squandered. These sequences as a whole grind the story to a halt, taking away from the main story that’s taking place in the present. On top of that, it’s never explained whether the castle is a dream, or if Gabriel has been physically transported to the past. It very much seems like the teams working on the game never really communicated with one another to balance the length of these segments in the Castle. On the plus side, these Castle sequences do bring back what attracted players to the original Lords of Shadow. The detailed environments, the platforming, and of course, the callback to the Metroidvania exploration. It’s just a shame that it at times feels like there are two separate games here that have been stitched together, with the story to tie it all together being an afterthought.
As alluded to before, one of the positives that jumped out for Lords of Shadow 2 upon its release was its presentation, which even a decade later, still holds up. The game remains graphically impressive, despite coming out at the tail end of the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360’s lifespans. Regardless of the fact that the game jumps between past and present timelines, both show off some gorgeous and varied exteriors, with the obvious focus on Dracula’s castle, which features several areas that echo what MercurySteam pulled off in the first game. Still, much like the first game, despite the graphical quality, Lords of Shadow 2 still doesn’t quite hit that traditional Castlevania vein in terms of its look and feel that fans wanted. It probably didn’t help that the Castle and the modern exteriors in this sequel were the more impressive of the environments, as the interiors (specifically in the city) still look dull and generic as they did back when the game was released.
By far, the biggest disappointment with Lords of Shadow 2 upon its release was its gameplay. Sadly, that ruined chance to play as Dracula in a Castlevania game in an entertaining way still remains a sore spot, made even worse by time. One of the biggest issues when playing the game back when it was released was that you never felt like Dracula, even with all of these powers and abilities at your disposal. You could literally swap in Gabriel as a human, and nothing would change. Sure, you suck blood in order to regain your health, and you have powers such as mist and the ability to turn into rats. But really, the core mechanics from the previous game, with its aping of God of War and Devil May Cry, and the fact that you’re still facing off against a “big evil”, remain unchanged. You’re not hunting civilians or battling “good guys”. You’re still fighting demons and other monsters.
And who could forget about the stealth mechanics? As if you wanted to ensure that the powertrip fantasy as the Prince of Darkness was ruined by grinding the pacing of the gameplay to a halt. It’s understandable the idea that Dracula is weakened when you first start the game, and that it’s a nice callback to Dracula’s powers from the Bram Stoker novel, but really, MercurySteam could’ve gone about it another way. The problem was that the stealth mechanics had a singular solution. It wasn’t something out of Metal Gear that allowed you to play around to find multiple solutions. You didn’t have Dracula disguising himself as a human, or using his power of illusion or hypnotic abilities. Instead, you crawled around as rats in vents. Even when you returned to full strength—which as explained by Zobek, would allow you to defeat Satan and his acolytes—you still had to employ these stealth mechanics to defeat these guards.
Setting aside the stealth mechanics, the rest of the gameplay for Lords of Shadow 2 still holds up, more or less. It’s again still reminiscent of other titles that employ massive combos and requiring you to upgrade your moveset, but there’s still fun to be had. But that’s again if you take out the whole playing as Dracula thing. The boss fights still feel epic (despite the Titan boss fight being an obvious rip-off of God of War 2‘s Titan fight), and the platforming sections remain enjoyable to traverse. It’s just that much like the game itself, there’s a feeling of stitched-together ideas that lack cohesion.
It’s safe to say that Castlevania: Lords of Shadow 2 still carries a lot of the disappointment that fans felt when it was released. Both as a Castlevania title, and as an action game. Konami did have something going on with Lords of Shadow that scratched a bit of that Castlevania itch, while also opening up possibilities to explore the legendary series in a new light. That potential was ultimately thrown away with Lords of Shadow 2, whether by the internal struggles with development, or by decisions that ultimately seemed like an antithesis to what made the previous game—or a Castlevania title, in general—so interesting and fun. If the rumours are true that Konami is looking to try again with resurrecting Castlevania, one hopes that they remember the pitfalls that caused the Lords of Shadow series to fall so quickly after its promising start.
Soon after the New Hollywood generation took over the entertainment industry, they started having children. And more than any filmmakers that came before—they were terrified. Rosemary’s Baby (1968), The Exorcist (1973), The Omen (1976), Eraserhead (1977), The Brood (1979), The Shining (1980), Possession (1981), and many others all deal, at least in part, with the fears of becoming or being a parent. What if my child turns out to be a monster? is corrupted by some evil force? or turns out to be the fucking Antichrist? What if I screw them up somehow, or can’t help them, or even go insane and try to kill them? Horror has always been at its best when exploring relatable fears through extreme circumstances. A prime example of this is Larry Cohen’s 1974 monster-baby movie It’s Alive, which explores the not only the rollercoaster of emotions that any parent experiences when confronted with the difficulties of raising a child, but long-standing questions of who or what is at fault when something goes horribly wrong.
Cohen begins making his underlying points early in the film as Frank Davis (John P. Ryan) discusses the state of the world with a group of expectant fathers in a hospital waiting room. They discuss the “overabundance of lead” in foods and the environment, smog, and pesticides that only serve to produce roaches that are “bigger, stronger, and harder to kill.” Frank comments that this is “quite a world to bring a kid into.” This has long been a discussion point among people when trying to decide whether to have kids or not. I’ve had many conversations with friends who have said they feel it’s irresponsible to bring children into such a violent, broken, and dangerous world, and I certainly don’t begrudge them this. My wife and I did decide to have children but that doesn’t mean that it’s been easy.
Immediately following this scene comes It’s Alive’s most famous sequence in which Frank’s wife Lenore (Sharon Farrell) is the only person left alive in her delivery room, the doctors clawed and bitten to death by her mutant baby, which has escaped. “What does my baby look like!? What’s wrong with my baby!?” she screams as nurses wheel her frantically into a recovery room. The evening that had begun with such joy and excitement at the birth of their second child turned into a nightmare. This is tough for me to write, but on some level, I can relate to this whiplash of emotion. When my second child was born, they came about five weeks early. I’ll use the pronouns “they/them” for privacy reasons when referring to my kids. Our oldest was still very young and went to stay with my parents and we sped off to the hospital where my wife was taken into an operating room for an emergency c-section. I was able to carry our newborn into the NICU (natal intensive care unit) where I was assured that this was routine for all premature births. The nurses assured me there was nothing to worry about and the baby looked big and healthy. I headed to where my wife was taken to recover to grab a few winks assuming that everything was fine. Well, when I awoke, I headed back over to the NICU to find that my child was not where I left them. The nurse found me and told me that the baby’s lungs were underdeveloped, and they had to put them in a special room connected to oxygen tubes and wires to monitor their vitals.
It’s difficult to express the fear that overwhelmed me in those moments. Everything turned out okay, but it took a while and I’m convinced to this day that their anxiety struggles spring from these first weeks of life. As our children grew, we learned that two of the three were on the spectrum and that anxiety, depression, ADHD, and OCD were also playing a part in their lives. Parents, at least speaking for myself, can’t help but blame themselves for the struggles their children face. The “if only” questions creep in and easily overcome the voices that assure us that it really has nothing to do with us. In the film, Lenore says, “maybe it’s all the pills I’ve been taking that brought this on.” Frank muses aloud about how he used to think that Frankenstein was the monster, but when he got older realized he was the one that made the monster. The aptly named Frank is wondering if his baby’s mutation is his fault, if he created the monster that is terrorizing Los Angeles. I have made plenty of “if only” statements about myself over the years. “If only I hadn’t had to work so much, if only I had been around more when they were little.” Mothers may ask themselves, “did I have a drink, too much coffee, or a cigarette before I knew I was pregnant? Was I too stressed out during the pregnancy?” In other words, most parents can’t help but wonder if it’s all their fault.
At one point in the film, Frank goes to the elementary school where his baby has been sighted and is escorted through the halls by police. He overhears someone comment about “screwed up genes,” which brings about age-old questions of nature vs. nurture. Despite the voices around him from doctors and detectives that say, “we know this isn’t your fault,” Frank can’t help but think it is, and that the people who try to tell him it isn’t really think it’s his fault too. There is no doubt that there is a hereditary element to the kinds of mental illness struggles that my children and I deal with. But, and it’s a bit but, good parenting goes a long way in helping children deal with these struggles. Kids need to know they’re not alone, a good parent can provide that, perhaps especially parents that can relate to the same kinds of struggles. The question of nature vs. nurture will likely never be entirely answered but I think there’s more than a good chance that “both/and” is the case. Around the midpoint of the film, Frank agrees to disown the child and sign it over for medical experimentation if caught or killed. Lenore and the older son Chris (Daniel Holzman) seek to nurture and teach the baby, feeling that it is not a monster, but a member of the family.
It’s Alive takes these ideas to an even greater degree in the fact that the Davis Baby really is a monster, a mutant with claws and fangs that murders and eats people. The late ’60s and early ’70s also saw the rise in mass murderers and serial killers which heightened the nature vs. nurture debate. Obviously, these people were not literal monsters but human beings that came from human parents, but something had gone horribly wrong. Often the upbringing of these killers clearly led in part to their antisocial behavior, but this isn’t always the case. It’s Alive asks “what if a ‘monster’ comes from a good home?” In this case is it society, environmental factors, or is it the lead, smog, and pesticides? It is almost impossible to know, but the ending of the film underscores an uncomfortable truth—even monsters have parents.
As the film enters its third act, Frank joins the hunt for his child through the Los Angeles sewers and into the L.A. River. He is armed with a rifle and ready to kill on sight, having divorced himself from any relationship to the child. Then Frank finds his baby crying in the sewers and his fatherly instincts take over. With tears in his eyes, he speaks words of comfort and wraps his son in his coat. He holds him close, pats and rocks him, and whispers that everything is going to be okay. People often wonder how the parents of those who perform heinous acts can sit in court, shed tears, and defend them. I think it’s a complex issue. I’m sure that these parents know that their child has done something evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still their baby. Your child is a piece of yourself formed into a whole new human being. Disowning them would be like cutting off a limb, no matter what they may have done. It doesn’t erase an evil act, far from it, but I can understand the pain of a parent in that situation. I think It’s Alive does an exceptional job placing its audience in that situation.
Despite the serious issues and ideas being examined in the film, It’s Alive is far from a dour affair. At heart, it is still a monster movie and filled with a sense of fun and a great deal of pitch-black humor. In one of its more memorable moments, a milkman is sucked into the rear compartment of his truck as red blood mingles with the white milk from smashed bottles leaking out the back of the truck and streaming down the street. Just after Frank agrees to join the hunt for his baby, the film cuts to the back of an ice cream truck with the words “STOP CHILDREN” emblazoned on it. It’s a movie filled with great kills, a mutant baby—created by make-up effects master Rick Baker early in his career, and plenty of action—and all in a PG rated movie! I’m telling you, the ’70s were wild. It just also happens to have some thoughtful ideas behind it as well.
Which was Larry Cohen’s specialty. Cohen made all kinds of movies, but his most enduring have been his horror films and all of them tackle the social issues and fears of the time they were made. God Told Me To (1976), Q: The Winged Serpent (1982), and The Stuff (1985) are all great examples of his socially aware, low-budget, exploitation filmmaking with a brain and It’s Alive certainly fits right in with that group. Cohen would go on to write and direct two sequels, It Lives Again (aka It’s Alive 2) in 1978 and It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive in 1987 and is credited as a co-writer on the 2008 remake. All these films explore the ideas of parental responsibility in light of the various concerns of the times they were made including abortion rights and AIDS.
Fifty years after It’s Alive was initially released, it has only become more relevant in the ensuing years. Fears surrounding parenthood have been with us since the beginning of time but as the years pass the reasons for these fears only seem to become more and more profound. In today’s world the conversation of the fathers in the waiting room could be expanded to hormones and genetic modifications in food, terrorism, climate change, school and other mass shootings, and other threats that were unknown or at least less of a concern fifty years ago. Perhaps the fearmongering conspiracy theories about chemtrails and vaccines would be mentioned as well, though in a more satirical fashion, as fears some expectant parents encounter while endlessly doomscrolling Facebook or Twitter. Speaking for myself, despite the struggles, the fears, and the sadness that sometimes comes with having children, it’s been worth it. The joys ultimately outweigh all of that, but I understand the terror too. Becoming a parent is no easy choice, nor should it be. But as I look back, I can say that I’m glad we made the choice we did.
I wonder if Frank and Lenore can say the same thing.
‘Infested’ Review – One of the Best Spiders Attack Horror Movies in Years
Dev Patel’s ‘Monkey Man’ Is Now Available to Watch at Home!
Five Underseen Vampire Horror Movies to Stream This Week
‘Stream’ – Horror Movie from the Team Behind ‘Terrifier’ Sets August Theatrical Release
Limited Edition ‘Creature from the Black Lagoon’ Monster High Doll Releasing This Week!
You must be logged in to post a comment.