TV first impressions #1: Hannibal (2013-2015)

Image source: http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/hannibal-tv-series/images/34599546/title/hannibal-lecter-wallpaper

As with the last few reviews of films on this blog, many thanks to the University of Sussex Sci-fi and Horror society for giving me the opportunity to see this TV show for the first time.

I just wish I could give the same level of thanks to the makers of the 2013 horror/thriller TV series Hannibal for the quality of their project's final form.  This isn't to say that Hannibal is a bad TV show but I feel that it is pretty dull a lot of the time and has a lot of unfulfilled potential.  Now there are a few good points about this show from the first few episodes, so I'll try as best as I can to give them due credit.

First off, I have to give massive credit to Mads Mikkelsen for this inexplicably Danish but nonetheless highly impressive performance as a young Dr Hannibal Lecter.  While his performance as the iconic horror character is somewhat more restrained than that of Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs (1991), Mikkelsen's performance still resonates buckets of charisma and heavy atmosphere.  When he slowly and smoothly walks into the scene, you can feel that something drastic or haunting is about to occur.  Even when your boy Hannibal is just making someone breakfast in this show he reeks of subtle and deeply psychological threat.  Mikkelsen combines this with a greater emphasis on having a hauntingly stony-faced persona than how Hopkins relied on portraying a highly-intelligent but nearly-at-the-breaking-point persona in the 1991 movie.  If it wasn't for Hopkins performances in both Silence of the Lambs and the 2001 movie Hannibal then Mikkelsen's performance as the eponymous Dr Hannibal Lecter would be the very best in the series.

Image source: http://quotesgram.com/hannibal-lecter-tv-show-quotes/

The other main aspects I have to give credit to is the sound design and soundtrack.  The soundtrack does not have a great many memorable tunes but it does its job of amplifying the mood of a certain scene admirably.  Where the series might have a scene that is lacking to, for example, have an atmosphere of tension, the soundtrack for the most part helps amplify this purpose and elevate otherwise lacklustre scenes to being genuinely entertaining.  This is in no small part also helped along by the equally solid sound design.  Admittedly, I feel this is an aspect of the show that may go over people's heads as it did certainly mine before I had some time to think about the first few episodes.  However, it is undeniable that the atmosphere of a horror show or film rests heavily on good sound design.  Granted, this is to different extents depending on what kind of horror we are looking at but the aim and purpose of sound design in horror or thriller films and shows is all the same.  And, fortunately for Hannibal, the show has top-notch sound design that really brings out the best in the most intense and harrowing scenes which really helps with some of the more visually and vocally dull moments.

This dullness unfortunately is something that seems to pop up during the first few episodes a fair bit.  I feel this is in large part down to three major issues I have with the first few episodes; the directing is uninspired for the most part, most of the actors are dull as dishwater and the dialogue is mostly grey and pretty boring.  

Image source: http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/hannibal-television-series/images/36351719/title/hannibal-tv-series-wallpaper

I do feel, at the very least, the less-egregious aspect of these three is the poor-quality direction which does a bad job of grabbing attention in the first few episodes of the show.  The direction might improve later on into the series but the interest of an audience in a TV show heavily relies on it making a deep and lasting initial impact on the viewer.  And despite the best efforts of the director of the first few episodes, I just did not get such a feeling from this show at all.  Even with poor acting talent at hand and a lacklustre script, I firmly believe that a competent director can at least squeeze something entertaining out of such a conundrum.  However, the directing in the first few episodes has little such direction and thus fails to make itself entertaining be that in a genuine sense or being something that is 'so bad its good'.  In all honesty, I would take good-bad over what we got here but to be fair, the show is still generally competently made so I can't be too harsh on the directing.

What I feel that I definitely CAN be mean and nasty to though is some of the mostly horrendous acting which for me, has to be the worst aspect of the initial episodes of the show.  Despite the best efforts of Mikkelsen and Hugh Dancy to provide decent performances in their scenes, which I feel that both men definitely do, they are not above having some bad lines and this goes quadruple for the rest of the cast.  The rest of the cast in the initial run of the show are guilty being either uncharismatic as unbuttered Sainsbury's basic white loaf or skin gratingly annoying.  Most performances like Lawrence Fishburne, Brian Zeller or Hettienne Park are just simply good actors not performing at their best or at least not being given enough opportunity to do so.  But, the worst performance for me has to go to Lara Jean Chorostecki as thoroughly unpleasant reporter Freddie Lounds.  Now I'm not saying that a slimy, loose-on-morals undercover reporter character is out of place in a show like this and I think that Lounds could have been one of my favourite characters if Chorostecki did not play her as unlikeable as possible.  Plus, in fairness to her, this is not entirely down to her as she and the rest of the cast are given a bad script with uninspired direction.  But, I can't shake such a feeling about such an unappealing character as the performance itself really isn't good.

Image source: http://rockmyvegansocks.com/hannibal-the-vegan/

But perhaps the saddest aspect of this show to compare to previous entries into the Hannibal Lecter franchise is the lacklustre script and writing in general.  Even the poor-quality previous entries into this franchise have had some memorable lines but when you compare the 2013-2015 series to entries such as The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal (2001), you begin to realise that the dialogue in this entry is just not memorable enough to make any significant impact in the beginning.  This all adds up with the acting and directing to make a first few episodes that could grab the viewer by the nose and wrench them in but it falls so short of that supposedly easy task.

In conclusion, I wish I liked this TV show a lot more and its not like it doesn't have good things going for it.  In a way, I wish the series was given more effort into its first 2 to 5 episodes than into the style of the whole show or its advertising.  As a result, the show relies heavily on nostalgia, name recognition and a generally talented cast without focussing on the spine of what makes a good show; a good script, direction, acting and an immediately grabbing initial run.  Either these aspects are missing or are not prominent enough in Hannibal which isn't too much of a surprise that it only lasted a few dozen episodes over just under 3 years.  I kind of wish this wasn't the case but the show really is as sleep-inducing as Mads Mikkelsen's recent Carlsberg adverts.

Camerawork/cinematography: 6.5/10

Directing: 4.5/10

Acting: 4/10

Writing: 4.25/10

Soundtrack and sound design: 8.25/10

Overall rating: 27.5/50

New film review #19: Star Wars Episode VII: The force awakens

Image source: www.thewrap.com

Short version of review: Star Wars Episode 7 is not only one of the best mainstream blockbusters of the last couple of years but is also a promising start to the new star wars trilogy despite some considerable flaws.  If you're a fan of the star wars films or even just big blockbusters I'd say go see it but be prepared for some shoddy dialogue and internal-universe inconsistencies.

Long version of review:

So yeah, as you probably summarised by the 10 millionth review released about the latest instalment into this vaunted franchise at this point, Star Wars Episode 7 is one of the best big releases of the year and is well worth seeing for both the Star Wars loyalists and the movie-going majority.  This isn't of course to say that this is the best film of the year period as even I would say that in terms of intra-universe consistency, Star Wars 7 was outdone earlier in the year by smaller scale action films and the likes of Ant-Man which itself, while having a much smaller scale than most Marvel movies, had a consistent narrative and internal logic in comparison to Star Wars 7.

Usually I would try and make a film review by approaching whatever pros and cons come to mind first but with this film I have to approach it as if it were an essay topic by making a brief synopsis of the subtext then going on to have a crack a deciphering from both my own opinion and objective film-making whether this film is worth seeing or not.

So the plot; It's Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (1977) but with a female as the main lead and one of the main characters being black while the new villains are a cagey rehash of older ones from the earlier days of the series.  And Really, this is probably the biggest problem with The Force Awakens in that when he strove to create a film that would appeal to the older lifelong fans of the series, J.J.Abram ended up creating a film that was much more of an homage than an actual film experience or continuing sequel, an aspect to many reboots or long-awaited sequels that have severely limited or even killed their respective films (see Terminator Genesis released earlier this year).  This entry into the series manages to elevate itself above most of the adverse effects of this aspect of the film by easily being the darkest star wars film to date and having one stand out moment around the time of the final battle.  You guys'll know what it is when it comes, trust your uncle Ted on this mmm'kay?  Really though I feel that this is the biggest problem with the film, by creating a homage to the older part of the franchise, ol JJ has ended up missing out on moving the overall narrative of the series forwards in as meaningful way as possible which isn't to say that the narrative is all bad as we'll get to in a bit.

Image source: www.hypable.com

Now irregardless of Mr Abram's previous works with the likes of the Star Trek reboots (2009 & 2014) this isn't certainly the worst he could've done and while I think a more experienced director would've done a much better job it can't be denied that Mr Abram has a notable passion for these big-name franchises like Star Wars and Star Trek. Of course one of the biggest criticisms that is levelled at Abram when he tackles big name properties like this is that he'll go much more out of his way to making an homage rather than a genuine continuation of the overall narrative of the series he's working on.  I really hope that they get some other directors into direct the next few Star Wars films not out of spite against ol Abram but primarily to get a bit more experience in the directors seat and some more varying directing styles into the lifeblood of the next few films.  Still, irregardless of his previous missteps, and there are many, I think Abram did what he could on this one despite an occasionally spotty script. 

In fact, I'd have to say this is the other main criticism with the film in that the dialogue and plot points come and go at points without any meaning but at other times mark themselves out as some of the finest film scenes of the year.  The dialogue more than the scenes feels like it suffered from a lack of oversight as the pseudo-romantic banter between John Boyega's Finn and Daisy Ridley's Rey falls almost as hard as the reception to the Star Wars Holiday Special (1978, don't watch that one unless you like watching perverted wookies, a make-up smothered Mark Hamill stare into the camera and a heroin and coke-high Carrie Fisher sing).  To be fair though, most of the dialogue between these two stand-out actors is reasonably identifiable.  Note I said actors there though because while the dialogue in this film is mostly passable or tepid, the acting and passion that the actors all deliver their lines with, even the lacklustre villains, is second to none.  While he's well into his 70s in this film, Harrison Ford still delivers even the cheesiest and worst-written of his lines as Han Solo with all the cool and sarcastic wit that he did back in the late 1970s and truly makes this old smuggler the stand-out character that he always was.  Carrie Fisher, C3-P0 and R2-D2 also make stand-out appearances although I will be honest that I was filled with dread when I saw threepio again as he's easily one of my least favourite characters in the series aside from Jar Jar Binks and pre-teen Anakin Skywalker from the Phantom Menace (1999).

And that's all I can say negatively about the film before straying dangerously into spoiler territory so I'll tie all that off with the criticism that the villains, while okay enough and certainly evil on a massive scale, just don't have the same impact that the galactic empire did despite having an even larger space laser than either of the two death stars.  Also, I must mention that the military size of the First Order seems really inconsistent as one minute you're seeing thousands of storm troopers lined up defending the main villain's base and the next they're sending out barely a squadron of tie fighters or even a single company of storm-troopers.  A minor criticism but one that will certainly burrow under your skin a little bit if you really look at it.

So onto the pros and there are certainly many!  I kind of feel like this film is a bag of revels chocolates in that some parts are good, others tepid and some mediocre but not devaluing from the overall experience.  One part that I did think was truly transcendent above the shite in this film was the acting performances from Boyega as Finn (a former storm-trooper turned renegade who is pulled in with the new republic) and Ridley as Rey (a scavenger from the planet Jakku striving to make a living in a very hostile world and who may have more to her than initially obvious).  I can never deny a good bit of territorial bias but it is good to see two actors who are not only British like myself but also like myself are from London. making it big with two great performances in arguably one of the greatest film franchises of all time.  Like I said above, Boyega and Ridley have to work with some genuinely poor dialogue especially in the pseudo-romantic sections but thankfully their interactions are more about relying on each other to survive (hopefully that'll continue into the later films) their chemistry feels genuine despite the pants script they're given to work with.  Like Ford, Fisher and even Chewbacca, these two young hopefuls make as best as they can do with a shoddy script and give off two of my favourite performances of this year.  Certainly not on the level of course with performances like Marlon Brando in The Godfather (1972) or Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan (1998) .  However, these two young hopefuls are two actors who I'll certainly be rooting for in the future to put out stand-out performances such as these and make it big.

Image source: www.starwars.com

Despite what I also said about the inconsistencies with the villains and their military in this film I also have to say that the action scenes are great as they always have been throughout the series.  Aside from the fact that all of the lightsaber battles (excluding the last one) are a bit lacklustre, the bigger scale battles are all great and definitely showcase not only the star wars universe's capacity for allowing for big scale battles to act as an insulation to the narrative but also for Abram's ability to direct big scale action as seen in the two Star Trek reboots.  The X-wing v Tie fighter battles, while feeling somewhat copy and pasted from A New Hope are still great and with the added edge of violence and darkness, the conflict and combat situations now have a new visceral punch to the as compared to the previous films in the franchise.  On top of this, while the planet killing weapon the First Order have is a straight up copy of the two death stars, it is still a technological and planetary marvel being a base and laser built into the being of  a literal planet making it much larger than the two original space stations before it.  Considering that this weapon also has the power to destroy multiple planets at once it also has a far greater threat and fear factor to me personally than the original two death stars did albeit with the fact that it seems to lack the same level of defensive lasers that the two death stars even had individually.  Irregardless of this, the action is great and if you don't care too much for story or are just looking for a simple action flick then this is certainly the film for you although having some great acting performances and at least three stand-out scenes doesn't hurt either.

I will say before I give my conclusion that the greatest strengths of this film come through when the motivations and emotions of characters are shown through actions and not words and there are two distinctive scenes where this happens with Rey.  One of them being a defining character revelation midway through the film and the other coming right at the very end.  Keep a lookout and you'll see what I mean.  It just goes to show that while some things are best explained by dialogue, for something like Star Wars it might just be better to rely more so on the acting chops of the new generation of actors being brought into the franchise to explain through action rather than through words.  I'm not saying that they should never talk through because that would be a bit weird.

Image source: comicbook.com

In conclusion, despite the many problems with The Force Awakens, it is still easily one of the best big-name blockbusters of the last couple of years and one of my favourite films of this year alone.  Despite having internal inconsistencies, lacklustre villains and a variety of shitty dialogue it also delivers with some excellent action segments, great individual acting and a few stand-out scenes that do well to prop up the narrative of the oncoming new trilogy.  I would say that it's an improvement on the prequels and while it certainly is better than episode 1 and 2, The Force Awakens is only around the same level as episodes 3 and 6 and is certainly not on the same level as episodes 4 and 5. I like all of the main star wars movies to a degree (even despite how much I've slagged off Episode 2, it still has some of the best action in any sci fi movie ever, just ignore the pants story and characters) and I'm happy to say that while The Force Awakens isn't as good as it could've been, it is still worth seeing considering all that I've just said.

So until next time, enjoy whatever you're watching, take care and may the force be with you.

Cinematography/camera-work: 8.75/10

Acting: 9.5/10

Story/plot/ writing: 5/10

Action/set-pieces/key moments; 9/10

Directing, lighting and music: 7.25/10

OVERALL RATING: 39.5/50

Venue that I saw this movie at: Peckhamplex (The Peckhamplex is the premier cinema venue in the South East London area of Peckham and while not particularly large overall it has a few screens that are large enough to provide a great cinema going experience.  This becomes more prominent considering that John Boyega himself is from Peckham)

Respectful disagreement #2: Why bad endings to games do not always ruin them

Ok, so undoubtedly since the rise of story-driven game titles in the late-1980s particularly with the Castlevania and Legend of Zelda franchises, there have been those few special games for whom many are enthralled by until they get to the ending and are crushingly disappointed either by the final boss or the conclusion to the games' overarching story.  Perhaps the greatest examples of this in recent years are Mass Effect 3 (2012), Halo 2 (2004) and the Final Fantasy XIII trilogy (2009-2014).  Now for the first two I have to say that the anger towards their controversial endings was somewhat misguided.

Out of these three examples, Mass Effect 3, the final segment of the massivley popular trilogy of space-adventure epics featuring what many call one of the best video games of all time (Mass Effect 2 (2010 for PC & Xbox 360, 2011 for PS 3)), probably gains the most disproportionate hatred for its admittedly pretty weak ending.  Now don't get me wrong, while I didn't perhaps get into the franchise as a whole (with exception to the final level of the first game and most of the second game of course), I do freely admit and firmly beleive that the three not-all-that-dissimilar endings of the third game were pretty bad and didn't represent the full potentional of how the developers and designers could go about ending this truly epic storyline.  I don't think its as much a mishandling of the material as it was a struggle to find a suitably epic ending to the story of the franchise and while the epic aspect in this case was more than acheived, the actual excecution and meaning of it was cluttered, flimsy and each different ending on its own and also compared to each other were pretty weak compared to the enticing end of the third game and the heart-stoppingly action-packed ending of the second one.

But did the ending of Mass Effect 3 really ruin the game as a whole?  Okay sure, the ending was a pile of crusty wank but the game itself was still suitably epic up until that point, the gameplay was almost as good as in Mass Effect 2 and the impact of your choices in previous games as well as in the current one had a deep, meaningful set of both moral and philosophical implications to them.  Regardless of how you look at it, even with the shitty ending, Mass Effect 3 still works as a game and experience.  Think of it like having the best 3-course meal you've ever had but when the waiter offers you an after-dinner mint he/she instead sucks on an imperial mint for 30 seconds then spits it at you but then apologises for doing so.  ....Ok...that metaphor might be a bit extreme but you get my point.  People applauded the game itself for staying true to its predecessors while allowing for a more epic story and more difficult and challenging circumstances within which the refreshingly simple game mechanics could truly flourish.  Combining this alltogether with the series' recurring aspect of allowing decicions made in playthroughs of previous games to impact the story of the current one and you have am experience that is emboldened by so many well received strengths even going so much as to include.

Of course this is just the opinion of one person, a man who in fact has never been any good at any of the Mass Effect games.  Regardless, even as soemeone who sucked as bad at playing these games as Square-Enix are at convincing everybody that the Final Fantasy XIII trilogy was worth any good will, I have to admit that the story of the Mass Effect series is something so bombastic, large and epic that you have to admire it for its scope as it just manages to elevate itself above the crappy ending at the end of the thrid game.  Yet sometimes there might be a bad ending which when looked at closer, actually reveals a clever thematical and narrative ploy to raise the plot of a game from average to hihgly enthralling.  Take a step forwards, one of the most famed and popular FPS games of all time, Halo 2.

Image taken from: http://www.avwproductions.com/techheads/wordpress/why-halo-2-is-the-greatest-game-of-all-time/

To all extents and purposes, one could just as easily argue that the Halo Series (2001-) has as much of an epic storyline and plot as that of the Mass Effect games.  In Halo as in Mass Effect, we follow an elite corps (in this case the mighty spartan marines) as they combine with the united forces of either humanity or an allied galaxy to fend off the advances of an enroaching alien speacies hellbent on total annihalation.  I was perhaps never that into the Halo games as much as my two best freinds Brendan and Sam (aka Thunderrunner487 and Telescuffle respectivley) perhaps best shown by how a good chunk of their millenial memorabilia is tied to the original Halo trilogy while mine was tied to games like Spyro: Year of the Dragon (2000) or Company of Heroes (2006).  Regardless, I have to admire the Halo series for combining its likewise bombasitc and enthralling storyline with its refreshingly simple gameplay and sometimes very relatable characters particularly in games like Halo Reach (2010).  It is perhaps not too hard then to see why the series as a whole has gained such a widespread following in the mainstream gaming public and why my freind Sam (aka Telescuffle) has pointed out to me that his favourite game in the franchise to this date is Halo 2.

Image taken from: http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/File:Halo_2_028.jpg

But what about the ending to Halo 2 that has so many people up in a tizzy when they talk about it?  After all, the game was released in 2004 and so its been quite a while since the initial controversy about Halo 2's ending has died down.  If you don't know however, Halo 2 ends with Master Chief (the main character of the series) boarding a battered warship headed towards a swirling sapce battle around planet earth asked by the character Admiral Hood what he is doing before Cheif calmy replies "Sir, finishing this fight" as the game then fades to black after which the credits roll.  In a purely thematical sense, I can perhaps see why people were pissed by this ending when the game first came out as it is indeed very abrupt, leaves little closure on the story of the game individually and leaves us unsure about the fate of Master Chief other than his oncoming glory in the fight that he's yet again heading towards. 

Now to be fair, this would be frustrating to a first time player.  However, contextualised within the game itself and the original trilogy as a whole, the ending to Halo 2 makes a twisted sort of sense.  The game itself rides narrativley upon the idea that humanity is in a desperate struggle with the alien forces known as the covenant and the flood,  in order to defeat this threat, Master Cheif and the player are repeatedly thrown into harsh and bloody missions throughout with many citing Halo 2 as having some of the hardest in the franchise to date.  Therefore, the openess of the ending leaves it up to the player to realise that as the initial threat has been dealth with, there is still much to do and it is only up to Master Chief (and in turn the player, thus creating a narrative connection between Chief and the player) to deal with it and thus 'finish the fight'.  This in turn creates an interesting advertising and narrative hook as 'finnishing the fight' was the general tagline of Halo 3 (2007) resulting in a strong narrative link between the two games.

Image taken from: http://www.avwproductions.com/techheads/wordpress/why-halo-2-is-the-greatest-game-of-all-time/

Now personally, my favourite game in this particular franchise will always be the orignal Halo: Combat Evolved (2001) which revolutionised the idea of the modern FPS after the era of Doom and Quake and before Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (2007) came along years later and came to dominate the culture of modern FPS games in the 7th game generation.  Arguably, next to games like COD4, Unreal Tournament (1999), Serious Sam (2001), Resistance 2 (2008), Battelfield Bad Company 2 (2010), Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2 showed that simple gameplay combined with a straightforward plot intertwined with large scale situations and stakes and threatening situations that challenged your abilities as a gamer and hero could not only create for a grabbing game that shook you to your bones but drew you into its gameplay and story to play more and pay more attention to it.  I've certainly experienced this with some series that I've had alot to complain about such as the original Dawn of War (2004-2008) quadrilogy or the Supreme Commander games (2007-2010) but Halo 2, out of most of the games that seemed to define late-6th generation storytelling and gameplay acheived this more than most as Halo 3 went on to become one of the most highest-grossing games of all time and one of the best reviewed and most popular FPS games of recent memory.

So with Mass Effect 3's ending expained in a technincal sense and the ending of Halo 2 explained from a standpoint of narrative storytelling and player interraction through gameplay and dialogue, where does this leave the also controversial ending of Final Fantasy XIII developed by Square Enix and released in 2009?

Image taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_XIII

Now in comparison to the Mass Effect  and Halo series, with exception to Final Fantasy VI (1994) and Final Fantasy IX (2000), I've never had a huge amount of interest in the Final Fantasy (1987-) series as a whole or even for most of the individual games.  However, as a (for the most part) indifferent game to the franchise, I can understand the attraction of the series within itself as a whole and within the individual games thanks to the enthralling RPG elements, the usually epic storylines, the engaging struggles of the characters and the inclusion of some of gaming's most iconic and nastiest vilains like Final Fantasy VI's Kefka or VII's (1997) Sephiroth. 

But anyway, enough contextualising, what about Final Fantasy XIII's ending.  Well, this might sound bad, but I really can't remember much about what the ending was like or what it represented.  This might stem from how unengaging the plot of the game was or how much I disliked the main protagonist Lightning or how much the game seemed to drag later on or how disinteresting the main vilain was but I really can't remember much about this game's ending.  At the end of it all (a nice little reference to Final Fantasy Dissidia's (2008) final boss there for you all) Final Fantasy XIII is a perfect example of not involving your player through some means or another (for me it was mainly the grinding length of the game and the unlikeable main protagonist) which in turn kills the involvement of a player in the game's ending and story.  Now I've played good games with one or two aspects that have killed the prospect of a good ending such as Darkstar One's (2006) ending being incredibly cheesy and going against the style and ethos of the game or Max Payne 3's (2012) ending which was severley weakened by the suprising unlikeability of the main character souring the ending.
However, whereas those games were still enjoyable for the most part and were only partially soured by their endings, I didn't enjoy Final Fantasy XIII for the most part, wasn't drawn into the main protagonist's main struggle despite their shortcomings like in Darkstar One and as a result, combining this with the excrutiating length of the game and its disgustingly sequel-bait ending, I couldn't bring myself to remember or care much about the ending after I finished slogging though the game as a whole.  Subsequently, when I found out how much of a sequel-bait ending the game had with the onset of overly-expensive paid-DLC and a trilogy that not even the most devout Final Fantasy fans asked for, I felt deflated and disinterested by Final Fantasy XIII's ending.

As a result, I think that the evidence is pretty clear from looking at these three games that it isn't a bad ending that ruins the game, its a bad ending combined with either a bad or unengaging game that ruins the game.  Mass Effect 3, despite the ending that essentially went against the entire series and all it stood for, did not ruin the overall experience either I nor many gamers had with the game itself.  On top of this, the prospect of cheap DLC soon after the game's release that sorted out some of the narrative problems of the ending sweetened the deal a bit and besides, from my viewpoint at least, I would argue that the ending of Mass Effect 3 was not just down to bad writing but perhaps a great deal of admirable but misplaced overambition.  Halo 2 in turn is perhaps a greater example of misinterpreted storytelling a-la the ending to Dawn of War 2: Chaos Rising (2010) that tried something ambitious, pulled it off, but could've perhaps done with being a bit clearer and more elloquent as telling from the general reaction to it.  Final Fantasy XIII in turn is an example of how even with great production value and design as well as graphics, a game that does not involve the player on a personal level or interest them as such will fail regardless of the ending and even if the ending is good (which it wasn't in this case), the game will still struggle to rise above it's flaws, especially if it's a poor follow up to a series of very popular games.

But hey, even if you still don't get it, let me sum it up to you guys with this analogy.  Mass Effect 3 and Halo 2 are like classy dinners with great service and music where the starter is a 5 star meditteranean tapas and the main course is a perfectly seasoned and well cooked moussaka but the pudding is just a bag of jelly beans served on a paper plate.  Final Fantasy XIII on the other hand is a takeout from a crappy 2-star chicken 'n'chips shop where your order is late and wrong, the only music on hand is the same 5 tunes all day from Capital F.M radio and the server has left a hair in your vanilla milkshake when you clearly asked for chocolate.

New film review #18: Anti-social (Origo film group, directed by Reg Traviss, starring Gregg Sulkin, Meghan Markle & Josh Myers)

Image taken from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3475596/?ref_=nv_sr_6

It's interesting that the first film review I haven't done in a while is one that by all extents and purposes hasn't had a huge amount of reviews out yet or advertisement.  Admittedly this has had some advertising on sites like IMDB or www.unilad.co.uk so its not like anyone doesn't know about it but still, have you guys really heard as much of this flick as you have Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens or The Avengers: Age of Ultron?  In all fairness though, I really don't think that sort of thing should take away from the quality of a film even if its another Transformers sequel starring Rob 'what movie should I ruin today' Schneider.  

Another potential problem that this movie could've had that might've impacted it's overall quality is that, in my opinion, modern metropolitan British crime thrillers tend to have an overly-stylised sensibility with more style over substance a-la Lock, stock and two smoking barrels (1998).  This tends to be because of how London and most British cities, as a pop-culture reference point in modern films isn't used as a character in of itself unlike perhaps Moscow, New York or Paris thus resulting in London and other major British urban areas being represented more as nothing more than blank framing devices for the style and story of a big film.  Naturally, this is a little different on television as many TV shows do indeed represent British cities with a little bit of character in of themselves (I.E. Doctor Who (1963-)  or Spooks (2002-)).  But when a film set in the swirling, multicultural miasma of British urban life is as precise, intimate and realistic as director Reg Traviss' Anti-social, its a kind of natural progression to show wherever in Britain (or any country really) you've set your film to have a good amount of character that the real-life place has whether it be the industrial hardiness of Hull, the political and social liberal character of Brighton or the metropolitan trading centre combined with hard-worn suburbia of London.

So what's the film about eh?  Well  in all honesty, out of all the film's I've reviewed over the last 4 or so years with exception to Interstellar (2013), Anti-social has probably the most straightforward plot.  Naturally, there are character developments and plot twists throughout but the overall synopsis of the film is rather refreshingly straightforward and simple for a modern-set British urban life drama.  Anyhow, based on a true story, Dee (Gregg Sulkin) is an anarchic street graffiti artist who aims his passions at critiquing the capitalist system in North and Central London while his older brother Marcus (Josh Myers) is a secretive smash & grab jewlery robber as part of his own motorcycle gang who is out to carve out a living in the city for himself and support Dee and their  mother.  On the way to the top, Marcus must dodge rival gangs, the law and the flaws of his own machinations while Dee is moving towards the high-life of alternative art while dodging the detritus and fallout of his brother's crimes.  On top of this, Dee must not only help Marcus to look after their mother but  also look after his own future and the livelihood of himself and his girlfriend Kirsten (Meghan Markle).

Now admittedly, this is a pretty simple plot as both Dee and Marcus are primarily driven towards their goals by carving out a rich livelihood for themselves while supporting their mum and yet neither of them initially are shown to be particularly in line with traditional ways of doing this and neither are particularly shown to be traditional good guys.  On one hand, Sulkin portrays Dee as an impassioned individual driven not only by the passion of his own art but  also by a slightly naive sense of survival against the fallout of any of his brother's misdeeds.  On the other hand, Marcus performs shocking crimes and even assaults people in certain cases in order to ensure the prosperity of himself, his crew, his girlfriend and most of all his mum and brother.  In essence, apart from any disparate villains scattered throughout the film who want to throw a spanner in the works of our protagonists, no one is fully shown as wholly bad or good.  Even the particularly moralistic Dee and Kirsten are primarily shown as products of their environment with Kirsten being a do-gooding and sincere (slightly annoyingly so) people person as a result of her background as a photo model while Dee is an artistically driven pseudo-anarchist who rebels against the system but eschews any violence.  Marcus is also quite brutish but by no means is an absolute bastard and actually comes to be one of the most sympathetic and realistic characters in the entire film.  All in all, even with the slightly irritating Kirsten, all the characters are quite realistically portrayed and have believable motivations and feel more like humans that you could picture in hard-bitten urban society rather than cartoonish modern caricatures.

And admittedly the characters and writing are at the core of the glue that holds the film together and they are as good as a piping hot meatball mariana Subways after a morning of drinking but for me, the best part of the film is the acting particularly on the part of Sulkin and Myers who are definitely the best actors in the film.  Again, this isn't to say that any of the other actors are not any good as the woman who plays Dee and Marcus's mum is a brilliantly sympathetic character representing single emigrated mothers in a film industry that leaves them somewhat under-represented.  On top of this, the actors who portray the lads of Marcus' crew are ruthless criminals but ultimately likeable hard-men with relatable struggles and mannerisms.  Ultimately there's very little about the characters, writing and acting I can really criticise.  Even with extras, it seems as if Reg Traviss' writing and directing both served their purposes excellently as you're drawn into the struggles, attitudes and goals of each character that the film focuses on from one of Marcus' crew picking up a very sexy pedestrian Rochelle (Caroline Ford) or Dee dodging the law on a motorcycle to help out his brother and friends.

The soundtrack isn't really much of a noteworthy part of the film but ultimately serves the basic purpose to convey the basic emotion of a given scene.  Fortunately for the sound department, the cinematography is excellent with many shots conveying more emotion and meaning of a certain scene than even the actor's acting or the excellent writing.  Without a doubt, this is probably my favourite film for cinematography in terms of modern films since The Wrestler (2008, starring Mickey Rourke) but as ever, no film, not even this one can truly beat the legendary The Godfather (1972 starring Marlin Brando and Al Pacino).  All of the aspects of the film work together towards propelling the film's story towards what should be a satisfying climax with almost-constant twists and turns that convey the very real danger of the struggle that Dee and Marcus are going through.  If only the ending was any good.

Without a doubt, the only real part of the film I can actually feel comfortable criticising is the ending because it is absolute and utter shit.  Before the credits roll, we are treated to an ending that has the potentiality to be interpreted as a possibly happy ending because of the implications for the three main characters of Dee, Kirsten and Marcus in the scene while leaving the film off on a morally and thematically ambiguous note with the general future of the characters clear but how it will exactly turn out as an interestingly ambiguous question left to the viewer's own thoughts without too much sequel-bait.  Unfortunately, as the credits began to roll and I was treated to a 'true' and fully happy ending for Dee and Marcus, my jaw literally dropped at how shmaltzy and sickeningly sweet the future of our three main protagonists seemed to be.  Now there is one point to acknowledge in that this film is based off of a true story and I guess I should grant the film a pardon on the part of that fact and if this is true to the source material that it's based off, Traviss does an admirable job of trying to convey the ending of the story.  However, from a purely logical and cinematic standpoint the actual ending of the film in the credits is horribly themed and goes against virtually all of the rest of the film, in all honesty this is probably going to result in me mark down the film in terms of the plot and story to a considerable degree but even despite this, the film as a whole ultimately works.

In the end, the film is let down to a horrifying degree by the shitty ending but the rest of the film, especially the directing, writing and acting more than makes up for this with the majority of the film's points raising it up to the level that it may just be one of the best films of the year so far in a film that has The Avengers: Age of Ultron, Star Wars Episode VII and Jurassic World being released in it.  Ultimately, the film has tiny flaws throughout and the ending is awful but I would without a doubt say that even despite all that, Anti-social is worth the price of admission.

Cinematography/camerawork: 9/10
Acting: 9/10
Story/plot: 6.5/10
Action/key moments: 10/10
Directing, lighting and music: 8/10

OVERALL SCORE: 42.5/50