FINALLY, finally we get a marvel film that's all good. Oh don't get me wrong, the Iron man films were great but in neither of them did you ever get to really know the awesome villains all that well and with Thor you got a great film that was hampered by lack of variety in locations. Captain America is the best Marvel film yet, not necessarily because of the awesome fight scenes or the great plot or even the bad-ass villain. This film's main good point is the main character; Captain America (Chris Evans) himself.
Any character who has read a marvel comic knows or has at least heard of Captain America, the very first member of the super-hero Avengers team and probably the first true super-hero created by Marvel Comics. For those of you who might not be so familiar with this legend of the comic world; Captain America is a young man named Steve Rogers who when enlisting into the US army during WW2 and getting refused for the 5th time is offered one last chance by a mysterious scientist. The scientist then alters and greatly improves Steve's genetic coding, physical capabilities and internal organs with a 'super soldier serum'. Steve then adopts the name 'Captain America', gets the iconography and flag of the US stitched onto his new suit, obtains a shield made out of super-rare metal and paints it red, white and blue and then uses all this to clobber the Nazis and A secret organisation called 'Hydra'.
Essentialy, what this film does is it simply shows us two things that are quite simple in themselves and are also central to Chris Evans's character; 1-the film shows us the origins of Captain America and how he began his life-long battle against the devious Hydra organisation and 2-we are also shown that the central reason why Steve Rogers becomes the captain is because he is a 'good guy'. No really, that's his entire motivation. He doesn't exactly fight for any country's set of ideals (even though he's a walking US flag), he simply fights 'Hydra' and its mad leader (a former Nazi scientist called the 'Red Skull' played by Hugo Weaving) because he doesn't like bullies and he just wants to do the "right thing". Usually I'd puke on a film whose main character's motivation is something like that but in the case of a character like Captain America and in a film this good (I hate to say it) this actually fits very nicely.
Although we see many characters in the film such as Peggy Carter (Cap's first love played by Hayley Atwell) and Howard Stark (Iron Man's jerk of a father played by Dominic Cooper) the film concentrates almost entirely on the two main characters, Captain America and the Red Skull. This makes the film greatly enjoyable by showing us in tremendous detail why the main bad guy and main hero want to take each other down so bad. It also allows the audience to enjoy more, the characters who are most influential/central/important to a film like this.
In this film we find out that Steve Roger's first task when he became Captain America was to stop the Red Skull using Hydra to make some ancient Norse, glowing cube power a tremendously strong array of weapons to take over the world (by destroying half of it in the process of course). In the film we get plenty scenes with these awesome weapons created by the Red Skull's power which include; laser rifles that disintegrate people, plasma cannon tanks and energy based artillery and bombers. The potency of these weapons is emphasized greatly in how worried the different good-guys get when talking about what the Skull is trying to do with them.
Because of this, you get this great feeling that the heroes are up against something big and deadly that can very well kill them and even entire cities of people. Because of the danger posed by the weapons and the Captain being a really 'good guy', you are able to sympathise better with the heroes because you know that they just have to win.
So as a whole its a really good film. The acting is good, the camera shots are good, the character development is great, the action scenes are effin' A, the characters themselves are marvellous and all this is put together by a good cast doing a great job. So I don't think I need to say any more, all that I will say is that you should all see this film because it is damn good and definitely worth not missing. Rating-10/10
Friday 29 July 2011
Wednesday 27 July 2011
Old Film Review #3: Godzilla (released in 1998)
Ugh...this is really bad. Bad enough to make me puke up my herbal tea and soya and berry muffin. Bad enough to make me stop halfway through a game of Left 4 Dead 2 and punch the wall. Bad enough to make the fourth Indiana Jones film look great. Bad enough...well you get the picture. It's really annoying that this film is so bad because of the fact that Godzilla is really quite interesting and without a doubt, one of the big daddies of all big-name monsters (just between King Kong and just above Dracula). I mean, when you look at the film from a wide perspective you see that the acting is crap, most of the actors are crap, the storyline is rubbish and the film ends with a cliffhanger that doesn't promise a sequel in the slightest and on top of that this sea of crap blots out the talent of the one good actor in the film (Jean Reno).
The story of the film is that Godzilla (a roughly 100 foot tall cuddly lizard who can swat helicopters out of the sky with its tail) is an accidental side-creation of French nuclear tests in the Pacific who has migrated towards Manhattan after clobbering a Japanese cargo ship. Even before Godzilla has arrived, Dr Niko Tatopoulos (played really badly by Matthew Broderick) comes (slightly all too conveniently) to believe that the reason why there have been odd signals coming in to Manhattan is because of Godzilla. And he thinks all this despite the fact that the film doesn't really tell us until Godzilla actually shows up a while after he says all this. Anyhoo, just before Godzilla goes bananas when the US army shoots at the big bugger Broderick's character teams up with Jean Reno's French special forces team, naturally to blow up godzilla's egg nest before America is hit by a tidal wave of big-ass lizards just like Godzilla.
Actually, the film isn't all bad. The plot is alright, Jean Reno is always a blast to watch and the CGI is actually pretty dang good. Uh...actually that's it, no really, that's all that's good about this film. There is definitely nothing else that I can say about this film that is good. Every shot is uninteresting, especially in the poorly-put together chase scene between Godzilla and a squadron of US gunship helicopters. And especially in the bland, final battle scene between Reno's commandos and a bunch of Godzilla's vicious little kiddies. Most of the acting in the film is total pants, no, not as bad as in Dungeons & Dragons, but pretty bloody bad all the same especially from Dr Niko's faceless, nameless dork of an uncharismatic ex-girlfriend.
Look, I'm not gonna waste any more of your time complaining about this sack of poo so I'm going to say it up and straight. This is a lifeless, poorly-made, uninteresting, uncharismatic, overly-formula, full-of-bad-acting pile of rotten tripe. And THAT is me being kind to this film that is by far Roland Emmerich's worst piece of directing and film making in the whole of his otherwise glorious career. Go ahead my friends and never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever see this film...why? Because its SHIT.
The story of the film is that Godzilla (a roughly 100 foot tall cuddly lizard who can swat helicopters out of the sky with its tail) is an accidental side-creation of French nuclear tests in the Pacific who has migrated towards Manhattan after clobbering a Japanese cargo ship. Even before Godzilla has arrived, Dr Niko Tatopoulos (played really badly by Matthew Broderick) comes (slightly all too conveniently) to believe that the reason why there have been odd signals coming in to Manhattan is because of Godzilla. And he thinks all this despite the fact that the film doesn't really tell us until Godzilla actually shows up a while after he says all this. Anyhoo, just before Godzilla goes bananas when the US army shoots at the big bugger Broderick's character teams up with Jean Reno's French special forces team, naturally to blow up godzilla's egg nest before America is hit by a tidal wave of big-ass lizards just like Godzilla.
Actually, the film isn't all bad. The plot is alright, Jean Reno is always a blast to watch and the CGI is actually pretty dang good. Uh...actually that's it, no really, that's all that's good about this film. There is definitely nothing else that I can say about this film that is good. Every shot is uninteresting, especially in the poorly-put together chase scene between Godzilla and a squadron of US gunship helicopters. And especially in the bland, final battle scene between Reno's commandos and a bunch of Godzilla's vicious little kiddies. Most of the acting in the film is total pants, no, not as bad as in Dungeons & Dragons, but pretty bloody bad all the same especially from Dr Niko's faceless, nameless dork of an uncharismatic ex-girlfriend.
Look, I'm not gonna waste any more of your time complaining about this sack of poo so I'm going to say it up and straight. This is a lifeless, poorly-made, uninteresting, uncharismatic, overly-formula, full-of-bad-acting pile of rotten tripe. And THAT is me being kind to this film that is by far Roland Emmerich's worst piece of directing and film making in the whole of his otherwise glorious career. Go ahead my friends and never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever see this film...why? Because its SHIT.
Monday 25 July 2011
Restaurant Review #1: Maggie's Cafe' in Lewisham
Arrrr me hearties! This here be a right good feasting hole fer filling ye gullet! Actually...I'm not sure why I started off the review like that but what I say is true, Maggie's Cafe' in Lewisham is a great place to get a hearty meal. This little popular spot of feasting has been around in south east London for a good 20 years or so, in that time it has not only collected many regular customers but also considerable popularity in its area.
Now let me say that not only is the food good but the cafe' looks pretty darn inviting. Kept clean and manned by a dedicated staff headed by the friendly brothers who run the place, Oliver and Anthony Khondoker, Maggie's Cafe' is by far one of the most presentable cafe's this side of London. Not only is the place good-looking and run by friendly people but the food is (to be somewhat dramatic) incredibly-f*****g-bleeding-exceptionally marvellous.
Not only is there a good quality to the food but the variety of meals to choose from is somewhat awesome. You can choose from the usual British cafe' meal of an all-day breakfast (a meal I VERY highly recommend) to a hearty lamb roast dinner. There are also pretty deliciously-simple meals to choose from as well such as very tasty baguettes, well-made beans on toast or even a nice and hot soup. But despite this, Maggie's cafe' does not just cater for one particular person but all kinds of people what with there being many vegetarian and many low-fat meals as well as the kind of meals I listed earlier.
To make the experience of going here all the sweeter, the hot drinks (a choice of Tea, Coffee or hot chocolate) are bottomless (yay!). There is one meal above all others in the cafe' however, one that towers up in popularity, quality, enjoyment etc etc. This meal is the make it yourself all-day breakfast (don't worry you don't cook it yourself), the premise of this popular choice for Maggie's cafe' customers is that you choose a selection of fry-up ingredients from a (quite long) list and choose as many of the items on the list as you want. What makes this meal truly great though is that no matter how many items you choose from the list it will still be £5.00 and with such choice and the big portions, that's a pretty good deal.
The real heart, atmosphere and soul of the cafe' however comes, most of all, from one of the original founders of the cafe' who still works there: the great Maggie herself. Maggie passed the rule of the cafe' down to her sons in 2004 but despite that, she maintains this odd air of command, cheerfulness and order around the customers (in the sense that she makes sure they are happy) and the staff (in the sense that they keep everything going smoothly).
All in all I can only think of two criticisms at all for Maggie's Cafe'; 1-There could be a greater variety of hot drinks (perhaps some herbal teas or hot Bovril) and 2-there could be a slightly greater variety of vegetarian fixed meals. But really, I am personally prepared to overlook that because the food is good (especially the roast dinners), the staff are good and friendly (especially Maggie and her sons) and above all the place looks like a cafe' should be; clean, tidy and cosy. So I say if you're in south-east London and you need a hearty/big meal then Maggie's will most likely fit the bill juuuuust right. Rating-9/10
Now let me say that not only is the food good but the cafe' looks pretty darn inviting. Kept clean and manned by a dedicated staff headed by the friendly brothers who run the place, Oliver and Anthony Khondoker, Maggie's Cafe' is by far one of the most presentable cafe's this side of London. Not only is the place good-looking and run by friendly people but the food is (to be somewhat dramatic) incredibly-f*****g-bleeding-exceptionally marvellous.
Not only is there a good quality to the food but the variety of meals to choose from is somewhat awesome. You can choose from the usual British cafe' meal of an all-day breakfast (a meal I VERY highly recommend) to a hearty lamb roast dinner. There are also pretty deliciously-simple meals to choose from as well such as very tasty baguettes, well-made beans on toast or even a nice and hot soup. But despite this, Maggie's cafe' does not just cater for one particular person but all kinds of people what with there being many vegetarian and many low-fat meals as well as the kind of meals I listed earlier.
To make the experience of going here all the sweeter, the hot drinks (a choice of Tea, Coffee or hot chocolate) are bottomless (yay!). There is one meal above all others in the cafe' however, one that towers up in popularity, quality, enjoyment etc etc. This meal is the make it yourself all-day breakfast (don't worry you don't cook it yourself), the premise of this popular choice for Maggie's cafe' customers is that you choose a selection of fry-up ingredients from a (quite long) list and choose as many of the items on the list as you want. What makes this meal truly great though is that no matter how many items you choose from the list it will still be £5.00 and with such choice and the big portions, that's a pretty good deal.
The real heart, atmosphere and soul of the cafe' however comes, most of all, from one of the original founders of the cafe' who still works there: the great Maggie herself. Maggie passed the rule of the cafe' down to her sons in 2004 but despite that, she maintains this odd air of command, cheerfulness and order around the customers (in the sense that she makes sure they are happy) and the staff (in the sense that they keep everything going smoothly).
All in all I can only think of two criticisms at all for Maggie's Cafe'; 1-There could be a greater variety of hot drinks (perhaps some herbal teas or hot Bovril) and 2-there could be a slightly greater variety of vegetarian fixed meals. But really, I am personally prepared to overlook that because the food is good (especially the roast dinners), the staff are good and friendly (especially Maggie and her sons) and above all the place looks like a cafe' should be; clean, tidy and cosy. So I say if you're in south-east London and you need a hearty/big meal then Maggie's will most likely fit the bill juuuuust right. Rating-9/10
Friday 22 July 2011
Game Review #3: Dawn Of War 2 (released in 2009)
Ever since I started playing the Dawn Of War games I've had this odd little soft spot for the general storyline of Warhammer 40k. I mean, I'm not into the monotonous tabletop game and confusing card game but the stories and ideas behind the whole WH40K universe are surprisingly captivating and interesting.
The story for this game is relatively simple yet quite enjoyable; you are an unnamed force commander of the Blood Ravens space marines sent to the home-sector of the Blood Ravens to help defend it from an invasion of Orks (a brutal, green-skinned race of savages with rough English accents). After only a few battles on a desert and a jungle planet you suddenly discover that there are two other alien species assailing the sector as well. The numberless Tyranids arrive suddenly to attempt to devour the sector and the mysterious Eldar arrive to prevent this happening, by blowing up the sector. Of course however, this being your home-sector. you are thrust into battle after brutal battle against these enemies in an attempt to hold the sector until reinforcements arrive whilst also finding a way to destroy the Tyranids.
The best thing about Dawn Of War 2 is that in contrast to the four Dawn Of War games that preceded it, Dawn Of war 2 concentrates on the player wielding a few squads rather than a whole army. In every mission in the campaign (except for one in the middle and one at the end) you are dropped into combat with your commander and a choice of 3 of your 5 other units. The units you get are made up of; an infantry squad led by a bald guy, a scout squad led by a dude with a ridiculous robot eye, a heavy weapons squad led by an asshole, a jump pack assault squad led by a newbie and a massive heavy-armoured walker. because you have such a small force to into battle with each time, you are forced to really think about what squad weapons load-outs and combos you want. If you are facing an attacking mission then use swift-moving squads etc, so on so forth.
On top of that the difficulty level is a bit odd. The first two difficulty levels are bloody easy but the top two are harder than a 10-year old Christmas cake. But If you are having trouble doing a certain mission then simply do loads of side missions and unlock some powerful weapons (e.g. a hammer that can take down tanks or a plasma cannon). That brings me to my next point: the campaign's side missions. All in all there is roughly 20 missions as well as the many side missions that vary from 'blow up some generators' to 'kill a big alien in an arena'. Whereas the main missions provide plenty of varying combat situations the side missions offer like 3 or 4, each of which is relatively similar to each other. But aside from that, the campaign is tremendously fun and challenging. What also emphasizes this greatly is the fact that the space marines are genetically enhanced super-soldiers. They are all hulking, heavily-armoured brutes but swift-moving troopers and because of this you get a real feel that you can just power through any enemy. Now let me tell you, when you've got that feeling playing this game you literately can beat anything.
Another thing that makes Dawn Of War 2 so enjoyable is the great voice-acting. I'll admit, I have seen better-voice acting in other games but the voice-acting in this one makes the characters all feel genuinley believable. You even get a feeling that the Ork and Eldar characters are believable in the sense that the Orks are all incomprehensible brutes and the Eldar being massively arrogant. The only race in the game that doesn't have great voice acting is the Tyranids, namely because they don't talk whatsoever but make up for it with some awesome unit names.
Don't get the feeling that the single-player is the only good thing about this game though. The multi-player battles that you can join are truly entertaining, especially having been based around the legendary strategy game Company Of Heroes. One aspect of the game however, that is brilliance incarnate above all is the 'last stand' mode. In the 'last stand' mode you choose a champion from one of the races in the game, select a weapons load out and then drop into an arena with two other players to fend off against wave after wave of enemies. Seeing as how there is only 3 of you facing huge waves of attackers you really have to work as a team; when one of your buddies gets downed you help them up, you must co-ordinate your different fighting styles etc etc.
As with the campaign, in multilayer and 'last stand' the more you play the more goodies and unlocks you gain (as well as going up in the worldwide rankings). This can be very satisfying especially when you've been slaving away at the multi-player mode for days on end and you finally gain your wanted upgrade after several slogging matches with other players.
I can't think of anything else, bad or good, to say about the game. It forces you to time and co-ordinate every decision so carefully that you have to be paying attention to your whole force, not just one part of it. So I say "buy this game yer frigging gits" because in a genre of gaming that has been defiled so many times, Dawn Of War 2 is a strategy game that like Company Of Heroes and Red Alert 2 is fun no matter how many times you play it.
The story for this game is relatively simple yet quite enjoyable; you are an unnamed force commander of the Blood Ravens space marines sent to the home-sector of the Blood Ravens to help defend it from an invasion of Orks (a brutal, green-skinned race of savages with rough English accents). After only a few battles on a desert and a jungle planet you suddenly discover that there are two other alien species assailing the sector as well. The numberless Tyranids arrive suddenly to attempt to devour the sector and the mysterious Eldar arrive to prevent this happening, by blowing up the sector. Of course however, this being your home-sector. you are thrust into battle after brutal battle against these enemies in an attempt to hold the sector until reinforcements arrive whilst also finding a way to destroy the Tyranids.
The best thing about Dawn Of War 2 is that in contrast to the four Dawn Of War games that preceded it, Dawn Of war 2 concentrates on the player wielding a few squads rather than a whole army. In every mission in the campaign (except for one in the middle and one at the end) you are dropped into combat with your commander and a choice of 3 of your 5 other units. The units you get are made up of; an infantry squad led by a bald guy, a scout squad led by a dude with a ridiculous robot eye, a heavy weapons squad led by an asshole, a jump pack assault squad led by a newbie and a massive heavy-armoured walker. because you have such a small force to into battle with each time, you are forced to really think about what squad weapons load-outs and combos you want. If you are facing an attacking mission then use swift-moving squads etc, so on so forth.
On top of that the difficulty level is a bit odd. The first two difficulty levels are bloody easy but the top two are harder than a 10-year old Christmas cake. But If you are having trouble doing a certain mission then simply do loads of side missions and unlock some powerful weapons (e.g. a hammer that can take down tanks or a plasma cannon). That brings me to my next point: the campaign's side missions. All in all there is roughly 20 missions as well as the many side missions that vary from 'blow up some generators' to 'kill a big alien in an arena'. Whereas the main missions provide plenty of varying combat situations the side missions offer like 3 or 4, each of which is relatively similar to each other. But aside from that, the campaign is tremendously fun and challenging. What also emphasizes this greatly is the fact that the space marines are genetically enhanced super-soldiers. They are all hulking, heavily-armoured brutes but swift-moving troopers and because of this you get a real feel that you can just power through any enemy. Now let me tell you, when you've got that feeling playing this game you literately can beat anything.
Another thing that makes Dawn Of War 2 so enjoyable is the great voice-acting. I'll admit, I have seen better-voice acting in other games but the voice-acting in this one makes the characters all feel genuinley believable. You even get a feeling that the Ork and Eldar characters are believable in the sense that the Orks are all incomprehensible brutes and the Eldar being massively arrogant. The only race in the game that doesn't have great voice acting is the Tyranids, namely because they don't talk whatsoever but make up for it with some awesome unit names.
Don't get the feeling that the single-player is the only good thing about this game though. The multi-player battles that you can join are truly entertaining, especially having been based around the legendary strategy game Company Of Heroes. One aspect of the game however, that is brilliance incarnate above all is the 'last stand' mode. In the 'last stand' mode you choose a champion from one of the races in the game, select a weapons load out and then drop into an arena with two other players to fend off against wave after wave of enemies. Seeing as how there is only 3 of you facing huge waves of attackers you really have to work as a team; when one of your buddies gets downed you help them up, you must co-ordinate your different fighting styles etc etc.
As with the campaign, in multilayer and 'last stand' the more you play the more goodies and unlocks you gain (as well as going up in the worldwide rankings). This can be very satisfying especially when you've been slaving away at the multi-player mode for days on end and you finally gain your wanted upgrade after several slogging matches with other players.
I can't think of anything else, bad or good, to say about the game. It forces you to time and co-ordinate every decision so carefully that you have to be paying attention to your whole force, not just one part of it. So I say "buy this game yer frigging gits" because in a genre of gaming that has been defiled so many times, Dawn Of War 2 is a strategy game that like Company Of Heroes and Red Alert 2 is fun no matter how many times you play it.
Thursday 21 July 2011
Old Film Review #2: Harry Potter and the Philosophers stone (released in 2001
Ah! This film takes me back! I mean yeah I'm only 17 so I'm not really very old but still, I've grown up with this particular film series for most of my life so far. And what with the last Harry Potter film having been released recently, I thought it might be a nice idea to take a little trip down memory lane and review the first instalment of possibly the longest film series (next to the Bond and Star Wars series') of the last 10 years.
Set in a slightly alternate world where magic users (witches and wizards in this case) live secretly alongside normal humans, Philosopher's Stone follows the main character of the series, Harry (a young British boy with tremendous magic potential and an odd scar), as he follows the beginnings of his destiny. As the film begins we are told that somehow, Harry's parents were killed in some terrible incident when he was born. And from that day on he has lived with his cruel and neglectful Auntie, Uncle and (very fat) cousin as well as a peculiar, lighting-fork shaped scar on Harry's forehead. One day on a rainy holiday Harry is visited by A large wizard by the name of Hagrid (but you might as well call him Father Christmas because of how he behaves) and is whisked away to the magic school of Hogwarts to begin his journey to become a great wizard. Now the best thing about this film is how intricate the society of the witches and wizards is and how much information there is in the Harry Potter universe. You aren't just revealed to the 'legends' of magic, but also ways in which the magic-users use their powers to hide themselves and how there are mystical beasts roaming the halls of Hogwarts.
Some of the amazing stuff in the universe of this film can be simple (such as a mail delivery service based around owls) or complicated (a mirror with a strange past that shows anyone's deepest desires). As Harry (played by a very squeaky Daniel Radcliffe) arrives at Hogwarts via a magical train and begins his journey in Hogwarts alongside the equally squeaky Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) he begins not only to learn more about magic and his strange past but also about a powerful stone. A stone so powerful that it could effectivley ressurect the most evil wizard who's ever lived, so you know there's a lot at stake here. On top of having to face a powerful sorcerer at the end of the film and prevent him from using a slightly-average-looking stone of untold power, you also get a real feel that Harry has real trouble fitting in at his first year in Hogwarts. In some places the film jumps forwards four or five weeks to give you a better overview of our hero's progress, and although this has been botched in many films it works well in this one giving a good basis for the audience to be sympathetic towards Harry.
Now talking about Harry, Daniel Radcliffe actually plays him really annoyingly on account of having a squeaky voice when this film was made. The same (unfortunately) can be said of some of the other main characters such as Ron and Hermione. This can be overlooked however by the (like I said earlier) wonderful universe that the film is in and also the headmaster of Hogwarts, Albus Dumbledore (played by the great Richard Harris). Dumbledore is everything that every little kid wishes their headteacher to be like; humourous, kind, strong-willed, clever and above all, looking like a cross between Gandalf and Father Christmas. There are even more rich characters played aptly in the film such as the school's caretaker and Harry's guardian Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), the wonderfully sly alchemy teacher Snape (Alan Rickman) and the snotty-nosed, posh, young wizard Draco (Tom Felton).
Although there is much required of the main character's wits and strengths in the final battle of the film, the main pleasure of watching Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone derives from the second act. This in itself is unusual seeing as how usually when a person sees a Film, the bits they look forward to most are the first and final acts as they tell the most about the story. Now if I'm really honest I can't think of many bad things to say about the film other than the annoyingly squeaky voices of the main characters'. This is a genuinely enjoyable film with good actors, a good plot, great characters and a definite sense of magic about it (haw-haw).
So take my advice and watch this film for old times sakes folks, and even if you haven't seen it (god only knows why after its been around for 10 years) see it anyway because its good even if you're not particularly into the Harry Potter books. So sit back and enjoy this film, that is if you can stand the volume of squeakiness for more than 15 minutes.
Set in a slightly alternate world where magic users (witches and wizards in this case) live secretly alongside normal humans, Philosopher's Stone follows the main character of the series, Harry (a young British boy with tremendous magic potential and an odd scar), as he follows the beginnings of his destiny. As the film begins we are told that somehow, Harry's parents were killed in some terrible incident when he was born. And from that day on he has lived with his cruel and neglectful Auntie, Uncle and (very fat) cousin as well as a peculiar, lighting-fork shaped scar on Harry's forehead. One day on a rainy holiday Harry is visited by A large wizard by the name of Hagrid (but you might as well call him Father Christmas because of how he behaves) and is whisked away to the magic school of Hogwarts to begin his journey to become a great wizard. Now the best thing about this film is how intricate the society of the witches and wizards is and how much information there is in the Harry Potter universe. You aren't just revealed to the 'legends' of magic, but also ways in which the magic-users use their powers to hide themselves and how there are mystical beasts roaming the halls of Hogwarts.
Some of the amazing stuff in the universe of this film can be simple (such as a mail delivery service based around owls) or complicated (a mirror with a strange past that shows anyone's deepest desires). As Harry (played by a very squeaky Daniel Radcliffe) arrives at Hogwarts via a magical train and begins his journey in Hogwarts alongside the equally squeaky Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) he begins not only to learn more about magic and his strange past but also about a powerful stone. A stone so powerful that it could effectivley ressurect the most evil wizard who's ever lived, so you know there's a lot at stake here. On top of having to face a powerful sorcerer at the end of the film and prevent him from using a slightly-average-looking stone of untold power, you also get a real feel that Harry has real trouble fitting in at his first year in Hogwarts. In some places the film jumps forwards four or five weeks to give you a better overview of our hero's progress, and although this has been botched in many films it works well in this one giving a good basis for the audience to be sympathetic towards Harry.
Now talking about Harry, Daniel Radcliffe actually plays him really annoyingly on account of having a squeaky voice when this film was made. The same (unfortunately) can be said of some of the other main characters such as Ron and Hermione. This can be overlooked however by the (like I said earlier) wonderful universe that the film is in and also the headmaster of Hogwarts, Albus Dumbledore (played by the great Richard Harris). Dumbledore is everything that every little kid wishes their headteacher to be like; humourous, kind, strong-willed, clever and above all, looking like a cross between Gandalf and Father Christmas. There are even more rich characters played aptly in the film such as the school's caretaker and Harry's guardian Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), the wonderfully sly alchemy teacher Snape (Alan Rickman) and the snotty-nosed, posh, young wizard Draco (Tom Felton).
Although there is much required of the main character's wits and strengths in the final battle of the film, the main pleasure of watching Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone derives from the second act. This in itself is unusual seeing as how usually when a person sees a Film, the bits they look forward to most are the first and final acts as they tell the most about the story. Now if I'm really honest I can't think of many bad things to say about the film other than the annoyingly squeaky voices of the main characters'. This is a genuinely enjoyable film with good actors, a good plot, great characters and a definite sense of magic about it (haw-haw).
So take my advice and watch this film for old times sakes folks, and even if you haven't seen it (god only knows why after its been around for 10 years) see it anyway because its good even if you're not particularly into the Harry Potter books. So sit back and enjoy this film, that is if you can stand the volume of squeakiness for more than 15 minutes.
Friday 15 July 2011
Old Film Review #1: Dungeons & Dragons (released in 2000)
Short version of review: ARGH! My bloody eyes are burning from how crap this is! And my ears are falling off from the rubbish voice acting!
Normal version of review: 'sigh'. Its at times when I watch films like this that I wonder how many other such abominations of film-making there are out there and why they all haven't contributed to an apocalyptic downfall of the film industry.
So yes, as you probably guessed already from the short version of this review; the 2000 film of Dungeons & Dragons is about as much use as a diarrhoea flavoured ice-lolly. To put it simply, there is nothing good about this film; the CGI is incredibly dodgy, some plot events go totally unexplained, the characters are all forgettable except for the one good black guy who is the first to die and on top of all that the two main bad guys are the living embodiments of 'over the top ridiculousness'. But don't worry!, The very formula, stereotypically-fantasy, 'been-done-a-thousand-times-before' plot will save the day!. The plot follows a pair of thieves, Ridley (the one with stupid hair played by Justin Whalin) and Snails (the typical 'not-too-clever' sidekick played by Marlon Wayans), on a quest in which they team up with a team of fantasy characters (a dwarf and elf who hardly do anything and an anoying, geeky mage) whereby they have to stop some guy from using some red staff to summon loads of dragons and whatever.
Folks, to say that this film is bad is putting it kindly. To say that its really bad is putting it lightly. To say that its a f*****g piece of s******g garbage is still to kind. To say that its about as detestable, bad, ugly and deplorable as Margret Thatcher is about right, no really, its THAT bad. On top of all the horror iv'e already heaped on this monstrosity its quite fair to say that all except one (Jeremy Irons) of the actors are unrecognisable no-bodies. Double that with the fact that they all botch every one of their scenes and lines and you have a film that in some places is nearly impossible to watch, oh yeah, there's hardly any character development (just like in the Transformers films).
Despite all this its actually worth watching the damn thing just to see the totally over-the-top turn at the end of the film by Iron's character 'Profion' and Profion's main henchman: a bald guy with red ears, crappy-looking armour and (god only knows why) purple/blue lipstick. To make this all worse, the main henchman with blue/purple lipstick is by far the worst actor in the entire film. His lips are always jutting to one side, all of his lines are spoken so badly that they sound like he's got a loaf of bread stuck down his throat and his face only knows 3 expressions (blank, blank but slightly annoyed, in over-the-top pain).
People, I could go on and on and on and on about how bad this film is like how the girl playing 'the empress' is one of my top 10 worst actors EVER, but i've exhausted my complaining glands enough for today. So I leave you with two small things. 1-an urgent request for you all only to see this film for the stupid ending. And 2-a short review of the film Grease 2: GRAHH! my bloody ears are falling off!, again!.
Normal version of review: 'sigh'. Its at times when I watch films like this that I wonder how many other such abominations of film-making there are out there and why they all haven't contributed to an apocalyptic downfall of the film industry.
So yes, as you probably guessed already from the short version of this review; the 2000 film of Dungeons & Dragons is about as much use as a diarrhoea flavoured ice-lolly. To put it simply, there is nothing good about this film; the CGI is incredibly dodgy, some plot events go totally unexplained, the characters are all forgettable except for the one good black guy who is the first to die and on top of all that the two main bad guys are the living embodiments of 'over the top ridiculousness'. But don't worry!, The very formula, stereotypically-fantasy, 'been-done-a-thousand-times-before' plot will save the day!. The plot follows a pair of thieves, Ridley (the one with stupid hair played by Justin Whalin) and Snails (the typical 'not-too-clever' sidekick played by Marlon Wayans), on a quest in which they team up with a team of fantasy characters (a dwarf and elf who hardly do anything and an anoying, geeky mage) whereby they have to stop some guy from using some red staff to summon loads of dragons and whatever.
Folks, to say that this film is bad is putting it kindly. To say that its really bad is putting it lightly. To say that its a f*****g piece of s******g garbage is still to kind. To say that its about as detestable, bad, ugly and deplorable as Margret Thatcher is about right, no really, its THAT bad. On top of all the horror iv'e already heaped on this monstrosity its quite fair to say that all except one (Jeremy Irons) of the actors are unrecognisable no-bodies. Double that with the fact that they all botch every one of their scenes and lines and you have a film that in some places is nearly impossible to watch, oh yeah, there's hardly any character development (just like in the Transformers films).
Despite all this its actually worth watching the damn thing just to see the totally over-the-top turn at the end of the film by Iron's character 'Profion' and Profion's main henchman: a bald guy with red ears, crappy-looking armour and (god only knows why) purple/blue lipstick. To make this all worse, the main henchman with blue/purple lipstick is by far the worst actor in the entire film. His lips are always jutting to one side, all of his lines are spoken so badly that they sound like he's got a loaf of bread stuck down his throat and his face only knows 3 expressions (blank, blank but slightly annoyed, in over-the-top pain).
People, I could go on and on and on and on about how bad this film is like how the girl playing 'the empress' is one of my top 10 worst actors EVER, but i've exhausted my complaining glands enough for today. So I leave you with two small things. 1-an urgent request for you all only to see this film for the stupid ending. And 2-a short review of the film Grease 2: GRAHH! my bloody ears are falling off!, again!.
Thursday 14 July 2011
Game Review #2: 007 Agent Under Fire (released in 2001)
First things first, I'd just like to quickly apologise for not bringing a review out yesterday. You see, I was traversing the sea of souls, whilst trying to play Guitar Hero on my way to the book store and long story short; I wasn't able to bring out a new review. So because of that here's a review of an old and really good Bond game that I grew up with!
The premise of this old, gem of a PS2 game is; you are the legendary bad-ass MI6 agent James Bond on a mission to stop a sinister organisation, with a dramatic emblem and even more dramatic name, from cloning some world leaders in order to take over the world... or something like that. See, the weird thing about the plot in this game, is although it’s very much like the plot in all the other Bond games and films (i.e. Bond meets a woman who may be evil and discovers from her about an evil organisation and then teams up with a good woman to knock it out etc etc), the plot of 007 Agent Under Fire actually gets pretty difficult to follow at some points. Thankfully however, the game compensates for that with some awesome guns, some unintentionally comedic aspects to the game (eg: the most inaccurate sub-machine gun in a game ever), a truly entertaining split-screen mode and of course a laser gun in split-screen mode that can only be described as the "you lose, bitch" cannon.
Like the plot, the graphics aren’t up to much. I mean, it looked good back in 2001, but today it looks like every character has been constructed out of bits of cardboard and toilet rolls. Nowadays though, that in itself contributes to the game being all the more comedic and appealing. There are some cut-scenes in the campaign where, because of the graphics, you get the feeling that all of the characters are completely void of any emotions, which may also be due to the slightly pants voice acting. Now you're probably wondering why I'm saying so many bad things about a game that I said I've always liked. The truth behind that is that all of the flaws in the game are balanced by other flaws; crappy AI in the campaign compensates for dreadful accuracy in most of the guns and great deals of unintentional comedy compensate for a pretty token plot.
The best thing about the game funnily enough however isn't the gameplay, comedy, cracking vehicle sections or women with box-shaped boobs, but the typical, trademark bond gadgets. In the campaign you're given a typical bond-style selection of gadgets to help you achieve your objective; a laser for locks, a decryption device for large doors, a grapple hook for grappling onto hooks, etc etc. On top of getting plenty of handy gadgets in the campaign you're given a couple in split-screen mode; the Q-Jet and Q-Claw. As far as names go these two gadgets are pretty self-explanatory, with the Q-Jet you press the button to activate and you can blast around on rooftops having dogfights with rubbish assault rifles. The Q-claw is also bags of fun. In the campaign you can only use it on all-too obvious grates scattered around each level, but in the split-screen multi-player mode you can use it on any surface which means that you're transformed suddenly into a frantic version of Spider-Man wielding a rocket launcher and revolver. The gadgets consequently add hilarious and endless possibilities to the generally close combat multiplayer maps.
As well as the unimaginative names for the gadgets in the campaign you're also forced to do several vehicle sections. Now vehicle sections are hard to pull off especially in a shooting game where you spend the rest of the time in 1st person view. Surprisingly though, the vehicle sections in Agent Under Fire are actually not half bad. In total the game has only three or four and for a pretty short campaign of 12 levels that's a pretty good number of driving sections. In most of the vehicle sections you zoom about in a beautiful car fitted out with missiles, chain-guns, oil-slicks and whatnot. The best vehicle section by far however is half-way through the game where Bond crashes his car into a warehouse and surprise, surprise; he steals a cold-war heavy tank to rampage around the city streets with. Although being highly un-realistic, this section is balls-out fun especially when you shoot a passing fuel train on a bridge to collapse the bridge onto two other tanks.
So aside from the stupidly easy campaign (especially the bosses) and graphics that makes Mortal Kombat look like the nuts, 007 Agent Under Fire is actually a pretty damn good game especially for revisiting the days when the latest bond game or film wasn't total crap. So get an old second-hand PS2, then get this game and I guarantee that you'll be shaken not stirred (ba-dum-tish).
The premise of this old, gem of a PS2 game is; you are the legendary bad-ass MI6 agent James Bond on a mission to stop a sinister organisation, with a dramatic emblem and even more dramatic name, from cloning some world leaders in order to take over the world... or something like that. See, the weird thing about the plot in this game, is although it’s very much like the plot in all the other Bond games and films (i.e. Bond meets a woman who may be evil and discovers from her about an evil organisation and then teams up with a good woman to knock it out etc etc), the plot of 007 Agent Under Fire actually gets pretty difficult to follow at some points. Thankfully however, the game compensates for that with some awesome guns, some unintentionally comedic aspects to the game (eg: the most inaccurate sub-machine gun in a game ever), a truly entertaining split-screen mode and of course a laser gun in split-screen mode that can only be described as the "you lose, bitch" cannon.
Like the plot, the graphics aren’t up to much. I mean, it looked good back in 2001, but today it looks like every character has been constructed out of bits of cardboard and toilet rolls. Nowadays though, that in itself contributes to the game being all the more comedic and appealing. There are some cut-scenes in the campaign where, because of the graphics, you get the feeling that all of the characters are completely void of any emotions, which may also be due to the slightly pants voice acting. Now you're probably wondering why I'm saying so many bad things about a game that I said I've always liked. The truth behind that is that all of the flaws in the game are balanced by other flaws; crappy AI in the campaign compensates for dreadful accuracy in most of the guns and great deals of unintentional comedy compensate for a pretty token plot.
The best thing about the game funnily enough however isn't the gameplay, comedy, cracking vehicle sections or women with box-shaped boobs, but the typical, trademark bond gadgets. In the campaign you're given a typical bond-style selection of gadgets to help you achieve your objective; a laser for locks, a decryption device for large doors, a grapple hook for grappling onto hooks, etc etc. On top of getting plenty of handy gadgets in the campaign you're given a couple in split-screen mode; the Q-Jet and Q-Claw. As far as names go these two gadgets are pretty self-explanatory, with the Q-Jet you press the button to activate and you can blast around on rooftops having dogfights with rubbish assault rifles. The Q-claw is also bags of fun. In the campaign you can only use it on all-too obvious grates scattered around each level, but in the split-screen multi-player mode you can use it on any surface which means that you're transformed suddenly into a frantic version of Spider-Man wielding a rocket launcher and revolver. The gadgets consequently add hilarious and endless possibilities to the generally close combat multiplayer maps.
As well as the unimaginative names for the gadgets in the campaign you're also forced to do several vehicle sections. Now vehicle sections are hard to pull off especially in a shooting game where you spend the rest of the time in 1st person view. Surprisingly though, the vehicle sections in Agent Under Fire are actually not half bad. In total the game has only three or four and for a pretty short campaign of 12 levels that's a pretty good number of driving sections. In most of the vehicle sections you zoom about in a beautiful car fitted out with missiles, chain-guns, oil-slicks and whatnot. The best vehicle section by far however is half-way through the game where Bond crashes his car into a warehouse and surprise, surprise; he steals a cold-war heavy tank to rampage around the city streets with. Although being highly un-realistic, this section is balls-out fun especially when you shoot a passing fuel train on a bridge to collapse the bridge onto two other tanks.
So aside from the stupidly easy campaign (especially the bosses) and graphics that makes Mortal Kombat look like the nuts, 007 Agent Under Fire is actually a pretty damn good game especially for revisiting the days when the latest bond game or film wasn't total crap. So get an old second-hand PS2, then get this game and I guarantee that you'll be shaken not stirred (ba-dum-tish).
Monday 11 July 2011
New Film Review #1: X-men first class
Now this is what an X-men film should be like!
None of that wishy-washy, black leather-clad, brooding balloney that plagued the last 4 X-men films, no, this is the real deal. This film is colourfully dramatic yet surprisingly smart, it has scenes of utmost intelligence and serenity and action scenes that put the whole of all of the previous 4 X-men films to shame.
The premise of this film is pretty simple yet tantalisingly interesting, what it shows is the events and happenings that led the most important X-men characters (primarily Magneto and Professor X) to the events spanning the first 3 films of the series. The plot is also a big plus in this film; its the 60s and Sebastian Shaw (a super powerful mutant/former Nazi doctor, played by Kevin Bacon) is trying to start world war 3 using the Cuban missile crisis as a launching point so that he can establish mutants as the dominant species of earth. The only thing standing between Shaw and his followers' success is a young team of CIA funded mutants led by a young (future enemies) Professor X (played by James McAvoy) and Magneto (played by Michael Fassbender).
One little fact that we're let in on (one that I was certainly surprised by) is that the alluring and shape-shifting Mystique (played pretty well by Jennifer Lawrence) is in fact the step-sister of Professor X. Ah sod it, who cares about that! The main thing I want to talk about is the bit we all anticipated in the trailer; that big-ass aerial battle near the end of the film where Magneto lifts a freaking nuclear sub out of the Atlantic using his powers.
Now you're probably thinking; is that action scene at the end really as bombastic and brilliant as its shown to be in the trailer? Answer: indeed it is my freinds! Not only is it well-shot and the ideas behind it brilliant (i.e. the sub being levitated out of the water, the X-man Banshee flying low-level over water being chased by a girl with huge wings) but the tension of not knowing what will happen in the next shot is palpable. This contributes greatly towards the battle scene near the end of the film being all the more enjoyable. Another factor that contributes to this greatly is that you really know that if the good guys lose then the world will end in a nuclear war, the idea of such a horrid end to the world makes the cause that the good guys are fighting for all the more sympathetic.
I would reveal more about what happens and develops in the film but I wouldn't do that to anyone who hasn't seen X-men first class yet because you really need to see for yourself how good this film is. The weird thing about this film though is that one of the main reasons why it could be received so well by other critics is (like I said earlier) that it is considerably well-made compared to the last 4 X-men films which weren't so great. There really is only two bad things I can say about this film folks: 1-it could've done with a few more action sequences and 2-January Jones (playing Emma Frost) really doesn't perform as well as the other actors/actresses in this film (especially with Fassbender and Lawrence).
Apart from that it's the best super-hero movie to come out in quite a while so go see it. Score:3.75/5
None of that wishy-washy, black leather-clad, brooding balloney that plagued the last 4 X-men films, no, this is the real deal. This film is colourfully dramatic yet surprisingly smart, it has scenes of utmost intelligence and serenity and action scenes that put the whole of all of the previous 4 X-men films to shame.
The premise of this film is pretty simple yet tantalisingly interesting, what it shows is the events and happenings that led the most important X-men characters (primarily Magneto and Professor X) to the events spanning the first 3 films of the series. The plot is also a big plus in this film; its the 60s and Sebastian Shaw (a super powerful mutant/former Nazi doctor, played by Kevin Bacon) is trying to start world war 3 using the Cuban missile crisis as a launching point so that he can establish mutants as the dominant species of earth. The only thing standing between Shaw and his followers' success is a young team of CIA funded mutants led by a young (future enemies) Professor X (played by James McAvoy) and Magneto (played by Michael Fassbender).
One little fact that we're let in on (one that I was certainly surprised by) is that the alluring and shape-shifting Mystique (played pretty well by Jennifer Lawrence) is in fact the step-sister of Professor X. Ah sod it, who cares about that! The main thing I want to talk about is the bit we all anticipated in the trailer; that big-ass aerial battle near the end of the film where Magneto lifts a freaking nuclear sub out of the Atlantic using his powers.
Now you're probably thinking; is that action scene at the end really as bombastic and brilliant as its shown to be in the trailer? Answer: indeed it is my freinds! Not only is it well-shot and the ideas behind it brilliant (i.e. the sub being levitated out of the water, the X-man Banshee flying low-level over water being chased by a girl with huge wings) but the tension of not knowing what will happen in the next shot is palpable. This contributes greatly towards the battle scene near the end of the film being all the more enjoyable. Another factor that contributes to this greatly is that you really know that if the good guys lose then the world will end in a nuclear war, the idea of such a horrid end to the world makes the cause that the good guys are fighting for all the more sympathetic.
I would reveal more about what happens and develops in the film but I wouldn't do that to anyone who hasn't seen X-men first class yet because you really need to see for yourself how good this film is. The weird thing about this film though is that one of the main reasons why it could be received so well by other critics is (like I said earlier) that it is considerably well-made compared to the last 4 X-men films which weren't so great. There really is only two bad things I can say about this film folks: 1-it could've done with a few more action sequences and 2-January Jones (playing Emma Frost) really doesn't perform as well as the other actors/actresses in this film (especially with Fassbender and Lawrence).
Apart from that it's the best super-hero movie to come out in quite a while so go see it. Score:3.75/5
Saturday 9 July 2011
Game Review #1: Duke Nukem Forever
Let me just say off the bat that Duke Nukem Forever is not a very good game. Oh yeah, sure it has a muscle-bound kick-ass guy with an Arnold Schwarzenegger hair cut as the main protagonist, but on the whole it’s really not all that good. One of the main reasons for it not being a very good game is due to the fact that the anticipating public has had to wait more than 12 years (12 freaking years!!!) for this game, only to find out after release, that it's less use than a poo-flavoured lolly. What I really mean though, is that it under-achieves tremendously, and not just with the game play. The characters fighting alongside Duke are all one-note, the music isn't as blood-pumping as it was in the many, many trailers and on top of all this the ending is a massive fart.
The annoying thing however, is that I was expecting the gameplay to involve many different weapons, which you used in a variety of different environments and a multitude of situations. The reality of this of course is very different. Unlike in equivalent, but much better games, like Serious Sam, there very few weapons or power ups in the game, and the whole experience is made up of near-identical shoot/go action sequences broken up occasionally by slightly more interesting sections where you're shrunk to the size of a rat. As well as a lack of weapon varieties there isn't much to look at in terms of environments; you spend the first third of the game in a tower and city, the second third in a desert, and the last part running around in a brownish-coloured industrial plant (whoop-de-bloody-doo).
I could go on and on listing how bad and utterly time-wasting this game is (i.e. its lack of enemy varieties, the last boss being a copy of the first one but with more health), but I won’t waste your time. Do yourself a favour; if you see Duke Nukem Forever being offered at a price that's good or bad do not buy it whatsoever. It is by far the biggest computer game disappointment I’ve had since buying Mass Effect, which was so tedious I nearly cried. There is however, one good thing about this game; its excessive amounts of nudity (Huzzah!).
The annoying thing however, is that I was expecting the gameplay to involve many different weapons, which you used in a variety of different environments and a multitude of situations. The reality of this of course is very different. Unlike in equivalent, but much better games, like Serious Sam, there very few weapons or power ups in the game, and the whole experience is made up of near-identical shoot/go action sequences broken up occasionally by slightly more interesting sections where you're shrunk to the size of a rat. As well as a lack of weapon varieties there isn't much to look at in terms of environments; you spend the first third of the game in a tower and city, the second third in a desert, and the last part running around in a brownish-coloured industrial plant (whoop-de-bloody-doo).
I could go on and on listing how bad and utterly time-wasting this game is (i.e. its lack of enemy varieties, the last boss being a copy of the first one but with more health), but I won’t waste your time. Do yourself a favour; if you see Duke Nukem Forever being offered at a price that's good or bad do not buy it whatsoever. It is by far the biggest computer game disappointment I’ve had since buying Mass Effect, which was so tedious I nearly cried. There is however, one good thing about this game; its excessive amounts of nudity (Huzzah!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)