Video game review #9: Judge Dredd: Dredd VS Death

 So its been just over 8 years since my last dedicated video game review? That's long enough right? Yeah not too bad.

Then again, consistency has always NOT been a characteristic of my timing on this blog so what's the harm in reviewing a long-forgotten FPS game based off of a much-loved sci-fi franchise?

Judge Dredd: Dredd VS Death is one of those little gems that, while maybe not leaving a huge overall impact on the gaming industry and the scene of FPS titles, still deserves credit as a fine example of simple gameplay and simple storytelling creating a compelling and enjoyable experience.

The Judge Dredd comics that are part of the 2000AD comic series and first published on 05/03/1977 have become the hallmark for action-based comics with dark and adult themes. The comics have rightfully earned their place as some of the most seminal in the medium and even spawned two films; a terrible but nonetheless fun cheesy popcorn flick in 1995 starring Sylvester Stallone and a 2012 film starring Karl Urban in a more faithful and grittier adaptation of the comics.

In terms of tone and style, I'd say that this 2003 first-person-shooter video game is somewhere between the two movies. It has a fair bit of grimdark, grit and realism that can be found in the 2012 movie but also the theatre, one-liners and set-piece moments of the 1995 movie. 

While the atmosphere is a good balance between grit and cinema, the actual gameplay is a lot more consistent. The shooting has a decent amount of impact but there isn't as much variation in the weapons as you'd expect from an early-2000s FPS. You get a selection in this game from a pistol, a rifle that doubles as a sniper rifle and assault rifle, two different types of shotguns, a laser rifle and a laser pistol that is about as powerful as a newborn kitten and a strangely ineffectual grenade launcher. The real standout though is the Lawgiver pistol which is a seminal part of the Judge Dredd mythos as it is a multi-weapon handgun that is linked to the biological ID of it's registered user who has to be a Judge like Dredd. It's easily the best weapon in this game showcasing a rapid-fire mode, heat-seeker bullets, armour-piercing rounds, immolating fire bullets and the one-solution-solves-all-problems that is high-explosive rounds. I quite honestly never found any need to use anything other than rapid-fire and high-explosive rounds on the lawgiver which is a bit sad as I would've liked to see more set-pieces where I was forced or inclined to make better use of the lawgivers' alternate fire modes. As it is, the gunplay still has a good bit of impact and you do really feel like you're an all-conquering law judge in Mega City One.  

Outside of the shooting, the gameplay is pretty straightforward and while it doesn't have the sleuthing segments of the James Bond PS2 games or the physics puzzles of Half Life 1 & 2, it does have a simple formula that is undeniably compelling and enjoyable. depending on where you are, you'll be facing gangs corrupting the underbelly of the city or a mix of vampires, zombies and death cultists bringing about untold destruction to the innocents of your city. With the more human enemies, you can capture them and sentence then to time behind bars or you can shoot your way towards justice and a safer Mega City One. The way the simplicity of that gameplay finds itself to be so compelling is by doing just a couple of things for the fundamentals of the game but making them as accessible and rewarding as possible.

That's not to say the gameplay is flawless though, I can imagine that some people will yearn for something with a bit more variety. However, the game is only 5-6 hours long with the single player in mind so its not like you'll be playing long enough for this to become an issue. The other main problem I had with the gameplay is that the civilian AI is impossibly janky and stupid. On one level in a mega mall, I had to rescue civilians being attacked by zombies in a nightclub. The civilian AI would follow me wherever I went but their natural pathing was so one-note and unintelligent that when they came to the 'specified safe zone' they'd horizontally line up. But if I led all of them in at the same time or walked centrally to the escape exit then the last of the survivors would get stuck behind the line of other civilians and the game would refuse to register me completing that objective. This definitely happened at least two more times thus forcing me to do minor restarts. Its not a total gamebreaker, but the AI is possibly the weakest fundamental part of the gameplay. 

The visuals are also another possible downside. They don't look like excremental doggy chowder but its not the most handsome game either. I gather they were probably going for a similar cartoon feel to the comics but its presented in a much less seamless way here. The design isn't the problem but the graphics and how said design is implemented has certainly aged chunkily in a visual manner. That being said, while the graphics have aged poorly, there is a definite rough charm to them and the game feels like a game of its time as a result of that in the best way possible.

So while the game is a little bit imbalanced, it is fun in a refreshingly simple way. So what's the story like? Again, its pretty simple but definitely mixed with a bit more complexity. It does help to have read a little bit into the mythos of the Judge Dredd comics but its not entirely necessary. In this game you have to deal with a death-worshiping cult who are trying to release the four demonic 'dark judges' who are perverse and dark parodies of Judge Dredd and his colleagues who come from a dead parallel world that is a dark parody of Earth after all life has been exterminated. The dark judges work off of the basis that living itself and consuming the resources that the world needs to operate is a crime and they aim to judge every living being by killing them. Its grimdark in its purest sense and ties perfectly into the ethos of a 2000 AD-type comic. What gives a good bit of narrative juice to the concept of the four dark judges is that they are loosely based off of the four horsemen of the apocalypse with Judge Death being marked as guilty by the hall of judges of not only murder (well duh) but also genocide and bloody omnicide (where you are found guilty of wiping out an entire species in a process that may also result in your own death). So yeah, I think the stakes are pretty high.

Throughout the game you're working towards the overall goal of stopping the dark judges from gaining fully material forms so they can enact their full powers with the aim of ending all life on earth. During the Necropolis event in the comics, the dark judges were able to turn Mega City One into a city of the dead by murdering 60 million of its occupants. With hints to their previous exploits in the lore being fed through character's basic reactions to their presence as well as chapter title cards, you get a well-balanced sense of just how dangerous and threatening the judges are. Considering they can kill you pretty quickly in the game (with the exception of Judge Fear), the dark judges hold an immersive sense of threat and magnitude that draws you into the story by the sheer magnitude of their evil and just how much they need to be stopped.

This game overall is like a cheeseburger, its simple and you know what you're getting in for but the key here is in the execution in the ingredients. Yes its a cheeseburger, but its a great cheeseburger in a seeded brioche bun with A1 Wagyu beef and lamb fat with top-tier gouda and cheddar as well as some artisan gherkins and dry slaw along with homemade burger sauce and bbq sauce along with a side of traditional Belgian fries that have been triple-fried. This game isn't super complicated but it doesn't need to be. Be it something wholesome and kid-friendly or something bloody and grimdark, you sometimes just need a simple injection of fun.

Gameplay 8/10

Story 6.75/10

Graphics 5/10

Soundtrack and sound design 8.5/10

Fun factor 9/10

Fundamental/overall/objective score 7.5/10

So bad its good #1: Mindhunters (Released 2004)

Again, as I've said many times before, sorry about not posting anything on this here blog in a while.  BUT HEY!  At least you guys can rely on one thing being consistent here with your (probably) favourite blog!; inconsistency!.

And speaking of consistency, there is perhaps no other form of film I enjoy more than ones which are trying to be profound or good but fail either through lack of skill or sheer ineptitude.  Today's offering truly does fit this bill consistently throughout its runtime and so, again with thanks to the University of Sussex Sci-fi and Horror society for helping me to see this film again, I give you the bountiful gift that is the 2004 underrated horror classic, Mindhunters!

Image source: www.imdb.com/title/tt0297284/mediaviewer/rm47553792

In all honesty though, I would think that it'd be fair to forgive someone for thinking that they were going into a moderately entertaining horror/action flick at the very least .   The plot is pretty straightforward and should, on a face level, make for decent viewing. 

In the bygone age of 2004 USA, a team of undergraduate junior FBI investigators and profilers are sent by their crime investigation tutor Jake Harris (played by Val Kilmer) to a US Navy seals training facility on a remote island to conduct a mock manhunt for an imaginary serial killer.  However, as soon as Harris leaves and the exercise begins, the investigators are gradually killed off one by one for real by an elusive assassin that the rest of the survivors have to unite against. All this has to be done while the team are all suspecting each other of being the killer and attempting to solve the murders.  This isn't made any simpler for the team by the last minute inclusion on their expedition of federal department officer Gabe Jensen (played by James Todd Smith (aka LL Cool J)) who was previously unknown to the rest of the students.  Can Jensen and the FBI undergrads put aside their differences or will they all be picked off one by one by the mysteriously planned traps that all seem to target one particular team member one at a time?

Now doesn't that just sound like the plot of an underrated classic?  Well in a sense it is because despite having a cast including a few half-decent actors and a nice and simple plot, the narrative, characters and pacing quickly go into a cavalcade of goofy failure.  What really makes me warm to the failures of Mindhunters though is that unlike the vast majority of Uwe Boll's films, this flick wasn't made with a lack of care put into it and in contrast to anything from The Asylum film studio, it wasn't intentionally made to be bad.  Add to this that all of the best actors are given the worst lines, are underutilised or killed off right at the start in combination with considerable incompetence all round and your have a crapshoot of grand proportions.  And its not for a joke either, its all played 100% straight, trimmings and all.

On the point of decent actors being killed off way too early (SPOILER WARNING), Christian Slater is one of the first to go in what is easily the funniest death scenes in the film which is nicely helped along with easily the worst bit of CGI in a film that showcases no good CGI at all.  But while it is perhaps understandable not to make the biggest use of a one-note actor like Christian Slater, you'd expect a seasoned great of the craft like Val Kilmer but instead, the 1990s heavy hitter is just given a small bag of generic lines and is in the film for a grand total of just a few minutes. 

The last gasp bastion of providing a possibility of a good performance would be LL Cool J who, if not a talented actor, always provides warming charisma. Instead, J seems to have been given little to no good direction on top of easily the three most notoriously bad lines in the film (watch the film in full you'll get what I mean).  With the three most promising talents of the cast taken out of commission or improperly used (perhaps less so in LL Cool J's case because he is still able to really sell his lines with passion) you're left with a cast of either walking horror thriller stereotypes or cardboard cut-outs who desperately try (or at least I think that's what they're trying to do) to glean some ironic quality out of the horrendous script, archetypal early-2000s pop soundtrack or lame duck direction.

Image source: https://www.horrortalk.com/reviews/40-movie-reviews/291-mindhunters.html

In a strange bit of contrast though, there are some genuinely unironic and true bits of quality sprinkled throughout the movie.  While the CGI sucks major cobblers, the action scenes where some of the CGI can be found are among the only small handful of scenes in the film with any good direction.  The final gunfight between the main character and villain at the end of the film in a ice pool is genuinely gripping. Meanwhile, a scene much earlier in the film where LL Cool J and Clifton Collins Jr both have to work together against the clock in order to save themselves from a hallway filling with electrified water is made truly intense by the score actually being suitable for once and LL Cool J performing some half-decent stunt work along a hole-riddled wall.  The stunt work in general is actually pretty decent and even when the action isn't at its best, such as the fistfight between LL Cool J and detective Harper (played by Jonny Lee Miller), the action scenes are between participants that are only about as tough as one another so no scrap ever feels uneven and has at least a satisfactory level of intensity.

Just note, this isn't anywhere near enough to rescue the film and make it a genuine and unironic 5/10 film experience at least.  But on the flipside, its not like the genuinely good bits of the film highlights the cons of the film and make them worse either. It is true that there was a good deal of potential for this film to be genuinely good but Mindhunters is one of the few bad films where the bits that are genuinely and unironically good make you incur pain from how much better the film could've been. Instead, how I would describe this dilemma of an ironically bad/good film having unironically good bits in it is that in Mindhunter's case, its more like going to a Chinese restaurant near the end of serving hours to have a delicious chow mein and then getting some free fresh leftovers from the kitchen warm out of the kitchen right as you're leaving and as the restaurant is closing.  You didn't expect such a development and one thing is of a higher quality than the other, but its sill very tasty and you're happy to enjoy it regardless.

So to CONCLUDE!  Mindhunters is an awfully made film in an objective sense but is made with such effort and passion behind it that it both gives the film an admirable charm whilst also highlighting the genuinely good aspects of the film. And even when the awful script rears its scruffy head, its usually with a line that you either laugh your knickers off at or can't help but at least give a mirthful smile to.  So would I recommend Mindhunters?  Ironically I would. Definitely in a so bad its good way, you can glean a great deal of enjoyment of this flick while also appreciating some actually decent fight choreography. Do not go into this film with expectations of it being a satisfactorily well-made film or being constantly rip-roaringnly funny throughout, it might sound weird to do that but trust me, you'll enjoy the film all the more for doing so.

 Camerawork/cinematography: 4/10

Directing: 3/10

Acting: 5/10

Writing & plot: 5.5/10

Personal enjoyment: 10/10

OVERALL RATING: 27.5/50

Old film review #6: Braindead aka Dead Alive (Released 1992)

Hello ladies and gentlemen and welcome back to my very overdue film review series!  Not only have I not posted anything on this blog in several weeks which is bad enough in of itself, BUT, I haven't done a review of a film from many years past in almost 2 years here on Blogger. To rectify both of these heinous issues I though I might do a review of the film I saw when I went to attend the 2nd October 2017 meeting of the University of Sussex Horror & Sci-fi society.  This film in question is the cult classic legend of a zombie flick known to some as Braindead and others as Dead Alive.

Image source: http://horrorfreaknews.com/horrors-7-sinister-senior-citizens

Image source: http://www.horror-movies.ca/2011/07/dead-alive-bluray-release-date/

Despite its well earned status as a cult classic, one might think that Braindead/Dead Alive is some nasty schlock judging from its cheap-looking presentation in posters and trailers.  Something that is reinforced when looking at the film's small $3,000,000 budget, even small in a comparative sense for the early-1990s.  However, I would argue that the state of quality that the film turned out in despite these misgivings far outweighs most concerns some might have about the way the film was advertised and how it looks.  In fact, I would argue that the cheap look of the film ads to its darkly comedic nature and really highlights the top-notch quality of the practical effects which I would argue are the best parts about the film.

Although this is not to say that the practical effects are without some sort of downside.  While I do think these effects and make up throughout the film are fantastic, they are such good quality and in such surplus that when things get gruesome later into the film I can imagine some moviegoers getting a bit queasy.  However, if you're into plentiful butchery in your movies, this film will be an absolute treat.  I'd also say the same if you're not the type for these kind of films but are still interested in looking generally at filmmaking and practical effects as a whole as well as specifically in the horror & zombie genres.

Image source: http://theevileyeuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/dead-alivebraindead-review.html

Easily the best example of these legendary practical effects is in the equally iconic lawnmower scene towards the end of the film.  What this features is Timothy Balme's initially timid Lionel mulching dozens of the undead in a row with a somewhat-not-very-sharp-looking lawnmower.  There was a point in time when this scene held the record for the most fake blood used in a single movie scene.  While this record was later broken you can really tell that it earned that record well and good.  Another good example of the film's glorious make up department and other effects is in the gradual collapse of Lionel's mother Vera (Played by Elizabeth Moody) after she is bitten and infected with the zombie virus of the Sumatran rat monkey.  This gruesome display of effects is not for the squeamish but it does have a kind of gruesome artistry to it that has to be desired for both the skill and creativity of it all.  Even more so considering the already mentioned small budget that the filmmakers had to work with.

Continuing on with the point about the nature of the characters, the acting and writing really helps the characters shine despite the directing and writing not being perfect.  Lionel has easily the best arc of any character in the film going from the timid doormat son to Vera to being a resourceful, brave and badass hero that steps up to the plate when the zombie outbreak gets out of hand.  What makes this arc truly great is how much of a clod Lionel is at the beginning of the film what with him not only being timid and not very bright but also making decisions that contribute to the zombie outbreak happening.  But when push comes to shove, he evolves from a weedy sod of a character into an admirable if still goofy hero.  Helped along by Balme's darkly comedic and likeable turn as the character, Lionel is easily my favourite character in the film.

Despite this, there are also several other well-written and acted characters such as the beautiful and equally resourceful Paquita (Played by Diana Penalver), the slimy and vile Uncle Les (Played by Ian Watkin) or the aforementioned Vera played superbly in an overbearing turn by Elizabeth Moody.  Linked together by a narrative that switches from slow-paced dark comedy to comedic butchery halfway through the film, these characters are all given plenty of time to develop and evolve.  All this helped along with a script that hits most of the notes in a deliciously dark comedic manner.

Image source: http://www.interrogatingideologywithachainsaw.com/2014/08/dead-alive-1992-lawn-mower-to-oedipus.html

However, if there are any aspects of the film that I could criticise about the film there are two that jump to mind.  The first of these is that the tonal shift halfway through the film is a bit jarring.  But, in all fairness, this is helped by the earlier-mentioned good acting, funny script and amazing action and practical effects.  I can imagine the slow pace being more of a problem in the first half of the film for some than it was for myself but there are worse issues for a film of such a small budget to have.

The other main issue I have with the film is more so to do with other reviews of this classic movie.  I've seen some people compare Lionel's relationship with his mother Vera to being a classic mirror of the Oedipus complex.  While this is possibly not entirely inaccurate I think this possibility is a bit overstated.  While there may be reason to argue this theory, I'd argue that the relationship between Lionel and Vera is more of an overbearing mother smothering her son well into maturity because of unfounded or overzealous fears.  This is something I believe that is reinforced by a plot twist regarding Vera that Lionel uncovers late into the film.  While the plot twist is not the best conveyed and kind of comes out of nowhere, it supports the idea that Vera is more single-minded, overbearing and moralising in her governance of Lionel's life than being romantic with him.

Regardless of either of these issues, the film is an undisputable classic.  As mentioned above, even if you do not enjoy the gore or the narrative, the writing and sheer skill of the practical effects is enough to at least appreciate the film and earn it a hearty cult classic status.  A cult classic status that it rightfully deserves on account of the film not having the best opening weekend in its three biggest countries in 1992 and 1993 in Spain, the UK and the USA.  So if you can grab a copy of this film or see a viewing of it at your local indie cinema then I definitely recommend it.  It isn't perfect but nothing is and besides, those practical effects are legendarily magnificent.

Camerawork/cinematography: 7/10

Directing: 8/10

Writing: 7.5/10

Acting:7.5/10

Special and practical effects: 10/10

Overall rating: 40/50

New film review #22: The Revenant (8th Jan 2016 for US, 15th Jan 2016 for UK)

Image source: http://moviehole.net/201699850the-revenant

Ok so it should be obvious but I'm definitely not talking about that pile of shite of a 2009 vampire movie that also happens to be called The Revenant but am instead talking about a current, harrowing and relatable movie of survival and revenge revolving around the story of legendary early-1800s US frontiersman Hugh Glass played amicably by Leonardo DiCaprio.  I suppose that goes really without saying but despite how niche the 2009 film was I found out while researching for this review that it has something of a following that reviews it quite positively and I just couldn't figure out why considering how shite it is.

Fortunately, this current Alejandro González Iñárritu tour de force should make you realise that an action/adventure film can not only be thoughtful and delve into human emotions but also have a highly-relatable and sympathetic main character without too much dialogue.  Now there is a common theme in a lot of modern action and revenge films I hear about that many of them have too much discussion and generally not enough 'show don't tell'.  This I can certainly see being prevalent in a lot of modern films such as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015) or anything Steven Segal has made since the early-2000s with exception to Half Past Dead (2002) or Machete (2010) (although the former was shit and the latter starred him as a bit-part villain).  However, there is a time when some action, adventure and yes, even revenge films have to take just a short moment to talk back and fortunately The Revenant finds a good balance between speaking and action for the most part.

As for the plot; for those of you who may not know, Hugh Glass was a noted US frontiersman in the 1820s hunting for animal pelts while fighting for survival against the harshness of the US frontier, the American forestall winter, avenging bands of native American warriors and even his own fellow frontiersmen.  The events of The Revenant  circle around the life-changing event in 1823 when Hugh Glass was savagely mauled by a grizzly bear near the forks of the Grand River in modern-day South Dakota and was subsequently patched up before being abandoned by fellow frontiersmen Fitzgerald and Bridger and subsequently hunting them down through hundreds of miles of tundra and an abandoned fort on the Yellowstone River. 

Image source: http://teaser-trailer.com/the-revenant-movie-clip/

Now the film does fictionalise some events of Glass' adventure such as portraying Fort Henry as being still occupied when he hunts down Fitzgerald or how the actual journey down the Yellowstone River itself takes less time in the film than it did in real life where Glass had to crawl for several weeks in a row after healing from being mauled by the bear.  Admittedly, some of Glass' adventure is alleged and theorised but it is largely and for the most part based in reliable accounts which does make it a bit egregious to someone who actually studies history like myself that the film Hollywood's some of the real-life events and fictionalises some for thematic purposes.  However, this is sometimes inevitable when making an entertaining film as seen with epics such as Kingdom of Heaven (2005) or Valkyrie (2008).

One thing that definitely alleviates many of the grievances I might have about this issue though is definitely DiCaprio's stellar performance as Glass with DiCaprio at this point in life being roughly near the same age as Glass was when he was mauled by that bear.  This in part gives DiCaprio the extra weight needed in his performance to truly push home the feeling of desperation, determination, anger, revenge and survival wit that Glass was reputed for.  Without a doubt this is one of my favourite if not my very favourite DiCaprio performance yet of his career so far which is even more incredible considering that he barely speaks for the majority of the film with his lines probably taking up half a sheet of A4.  This relates back to the earlier point about 'show don't tell' in that most of the emotion and character development is conveyed through DiCaprio's acting and facial performance which considering how many big performances have been clangered by failing physical performances.  DiCaprio has always been one of my favourite actors and his ability to convey emotion and character development through his facial emotions and performance cannot be understated.  Every actor in this film does the same to the best of their abilities but DiCaprio easily blasts them out of the water with his rifle-musket and dominates the acting with probably his best performance yet.

This compliments the story which in turn is also somewhat minimal and focuses primarily on Glass' struggle for survival against all the odds.  Like Deadpool the simplicity of the story in The Revenant  is one of its main strengths and when applied to the powerful physical performance by DiCaprio is superb.  I won't say too much about the story in this regard as doing so would likely spoil it for some of you out there but I can definitely point out where the story fails and that has to be when it tries to be deep and symbolic.  There are a few moments throughout the film when the music and some really misplaced dream sequences where the film tries to sentimentalise you into feeling a certain way and really just doesn't work.  Thankfully this doesn't happen but when we get cheesy visions of Glass' fictional dead wife it really jars against the mood of the scene that you're watching.  For the most part though, this film conveys its themes and sense of emotion through the suffering of different characters which as mentioned before is done with great skill.

Image source: http://www.inquisitr.com/2646398/the-revenant-star-tom-hardy-talks-leaving-suicide-squad-i-hate-fking-losing-work/

There really isn't much I can say aside from all that I've set out above other than Tom Hardy gives an equally stellar performance as the despicable Fitzgerald, the small bits of action are superbly well done and despite the shoddy symbolism, the cinematography throughout the film is truly superb.  The film might be a bit of a drag for some it rewards the viewer with a truly rewarding ending and an overall superb story about survival and revenge.  Yes, the historical inaccuracies are plentiful and for me personally that was a bit of a piss take but overall the film is well made enough and has enough creativity in the cinematography to outweigh most of the film's misgivings.  I'd say don't see this if you don't like gruelling length-trips but even then I'd still give this an umbrella of recommendation because its easily one of the best historical films released in several years.

Until next time, have fun, don't do anything I wouldn't do and go see The Revenant.

Cinematography/camerawork: 9/10
Acting: 9/10
Story/plot/writing: 6.5/10
Action/set-pieces/key moments: 8.5/10
Direction, lighting and sound: 8/10

OVERALL RATING: Like a hepatitis B jab, this film is a bit gruelling at first and is a bit hard to get through but is ultimately very rewarding and the end result is more than beneficial and enjoyable and you at least get a can of sprite and a chuppa chup afterwards.

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 #1: Why The Phantom Menace isn't as bad as you might think

Considering that in recent months I really haven't been paying much attention to this blog and instead have been focusing primarily on university studies and my burdgeoning Youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHmq7KX4Qc46VGhYzWqQfOg/playlists) (self promotion FTW!), I thought that for my first blog in months I'd start a semi-regular new part of this show and introduce a segment where I 'RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE' in 'MY OWN OPINION' agaisnst misconceived ideas about either overrated, underrated, overhated and underappreciated stratas of comics, films and video games.  SO!  What shall we dwell on for this initial musing?

Ah yes.  The star wars movie that generation X had been waiting for more than a decade and a half to supplant their own sci-fi movie-dominated childhoods since the release of Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983) and the initial introduction into the Star Wars universe for many belonging to generation Y and the millenial youth such as myself.  It is probably a bit embarressing when I think about it that my first foray into the most profitable and endlessley scrutinised intellectual property in popular culture history is through one of its lesser-regarded entries.  Even to this day after growing up with the initial six Star Wars movies, experiencing the wonder that is Disney making a seventh movie, living through the days of those two really underrated Clone Wars cartoons, growing up playing games like Star Wars Battlefront II (2005), Star Wars Empire at War (2006) and Star Wars Republic Commando (2005),  I maintain that the best thing to come out of the franchise so far is the omnipotent blockbuster powerhouse that is Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980).  This film in particular being the best film in the franchise to date, the quintisential sci-fi movie of the early-1980s alongside ET: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) and Blade Runner (1982) albeit still not being my personal favourite sci-fi movie of all time, that distinction would probably still have to go to Robocop (1987). But still, the fact that Phantom Menace was the link between this megafranchise and the new technological and cultural age of the new millenium meant that the first Star Wars film in 16 years had a BIG pair of shoes to fill.

Unfortunatley, much of the population of popular-culture's response to Phantom Menance  when it initally came out was akin to...

And really?  I think that this reaction may have been a little premature in all that is said and done about the whole enterprise that was The Phantom Menace considering that even if the film was a less-than-stellar follow up to the original trilogy.  Now I know that this sounds a little snobby considering how much I could freely admit that Phantom Menace is a poor follow-up to the original triology while also taking into account how this was the first Star Wars film I ever saw and one of the first films I remember seeing released around the time when I had just turned 5.  However, even as poor a service as this film does to the franchise, on its own?  I'd say its a pretty decent sci-fi and action blockbuster perhaps not on the same EPIC level as the first two movies or other sci-fi flicks like the aforementioned Blade Runner, 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Planet of the Apes (1968) or Soylent Green (1973) but still a good action-packed sci-fi blockbuster on its own terms.   In a sense, its also emblematic of the style and cultural ethos of big blockbusters being releaseed around the end of the 1990s and beginning of the new millenium like The Matrix (1999) which while not necesssaril being a strong selling point, is at least a point to make about how the Star Wars franchise has consistently managed to update along with the general landscape of nerd-based popular-culture. 

So, you guys are probably wondering what I think about the film that works right?  Well allot of things really primarily in its art asethetic.  In fact, many people who argue in favour of this film as both a follow-up to the original trilogy or upon its own merits seem to vaunt the action as its strongest feature and they're probably right but I personally enjoyed the ethos, cultural imagery and style of the film the most.  Admittedley there's no wonderous whimsy as with Endor, any naturally lethal environs as with Hoth but the film at the very least offers up an interesting look at some unfamiliar and new planets like Naboo and Courasaunt and reinvents the Mad Max-style of Tatooine.  Naboo is the place for me where most of the positives about the style lay as this planet in particular is emblamatic of much of the cultural style of sci-fi epics from the late-1990s (again with exception to The Matrix which had more of a retro-futuristic timelessnes)
as it shows a regal smoothness to much of the architechture in a similar sense to the Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-2003).  This is also combined with the uniquely vibrant and timeless cultural stle of the old Star Wars universe and the jedi order which up until Phantom Menace had been an unkown enigma to a large degree in popular culture.  Now think about that for a second, this is the film that introduced us personally to the jedi council which in large part asied from the dark machinations of the sith lords and the life and tribulations of Luke and Anakin Skywalker is in fact the main driving narrative force behind the entire franchise.  So in a sense, not only did this movie update the visual style while keeping in touch with the style prevailent in the old films but also introduced us to one of the most important and mythologised parts of the overall Star Wars narrative.

In turn, what is undoubtedly the other best part of the film is the action scenes.  Admittedley the direction in the lightsaber fights is a little weak and lacking in the same level of elegance and style that made the previous lightsaber fights in the franchise so iconic (although the best lightsaber fight is still the final one from Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005)).  However, the action and fights overall still convey their intended purpose; a rising level of stakes throughout the film's plotline and the ever-present swashbuckling blaster-battles and lightsaber-duels.  My personal favourite action scene either has to be the very first aboard the battle-droid flaghship as Obi-Wan Kenobi (played by Ewan McGreggor) and Qui-Gon Gin (played by Liam 'stop messing with me bad-guys' Neeson) or the very last wherin Obi-wan and Gin face off against the brutal enigma that is Darth Maul (played by Ray Park).

Aside from the aforementioned action and art-asethetic, Ray Park's Darth Maul is definetly the other main aspect of the film that people both love and remember the most.  Up until this point the two representatives of the sith lords had been the half-man half-machine tragic vilain of Darth Vader and the cruel, whizened and dictatorial sadistical evil of Darth Sidious/Emperor Palpatine.  Darth Maul represented a new and fresh take on the dark enigma of the sith lords when Phantom Menace came out as he was definitivley younger than either previous vilains of the franchise, was much more energetic and spoke far less.  Add to this his now-iconic double-bladed red lightsaber (which is still probably the coolest one in the franchise aside from Samuel Jackson's Mace Windu's purple one) and you get one of the most iconic film antagonists and characters in general of the whole of the 1990s.  Darth Maul was also an interesting design and character sidestep when you think about it in the context of the Star Wars franchise as both Sidious and Vader are recognised as two of the most iconic vilains in pop-culture history and were characterised not only by their iconic actions but also their iconic vilanous quotes.  Maul on the other hand is far removed from that image being more colourful, barely saying even a couple of lines throughout the movie and being more younger and enrgetic when we are introduced to him than we were when introduce to Darth Vader in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.  Many people sight either Vader, Sidious or Count Dooku (played in the two sequels to Phantom Menace by the legend Christopher Lee) as the best vilain in the franchise but for a long chunk of my younger, millenial years, my top dog in terms of sci-fi movie vilains was definetly Maul.

So taking all that into account and considering why I still think that this film is the fourth best in the franchise (and yes, I do think its better than Return of the Jedi), what doesn't work about this film?  Well the unrestricted intellectual machinations of George Lucas for one thing.  Its quite clear from the original trilogy as well as his other earlier works that Lucas was and always has been a huge well of creativity and fresh ideas particularly to do with the pop-culture of sci-fi and especially in movies.  For the longest time, even up to this day, he is considered as being one of the most impactful producers and directors in filming history.  Which in turn makes it all the more necessary for him to have some limitations placed on that creativity.  Now I'm not saying that all creativity needs a leash, you only need to look at Quentin Tarentino or a good chunk of the directors of the Marvel movies to see that unrestircted creativity can yield wonderous fruits and good films, depending on the individual and context.  Lucas however, is one of those people in the film industry who like the legendary actor Marlon Brando (1924-2004), is so overbued with creativity that if you completley let him have total control over his work yyou'll end up with something that is far more style-over-substance than people originally thought.  Hence thre reason why Phantom Menace is probably so derided for its plot and rightfully so.  Look, I can freely admit that I really like Phantom Menace but you'll never find me defending the story and plot to a great extent as it goes all over the fuckin place and is thematically, almost nonsensical at certain points.  Certainly, the film has the weakest plot of the franchise despite certainly not being the weakest of the bunch and as such gets lauded as one of the worst films of the 1990s which I just flat out disagree with.  Like I said, the film is far from perfect but taken on its own merits as a cheesy, action-packed sci-fi blockbuster, it kind of adds up to something charming.

You know what isn't charming about the film though? This fucker...

Jar Jar Binks is undoubtedly one of both my least favourite film characters as well as probably one of the mose unecessary overall in film history.  Not only is he an unintentionally uncumfortable racial steryotype of afro-carribean mannerisms but he's also annoying as FUCK and definetly needed more trade-federation droids shooting in his direction.  In fact, all of the gungans are annoying characters as too is the character of Watto who we're introduced to when we meet young Anakin Skywalker on Tatooine (don't worry we'll get to him in a second).  But when I look back at it, even taking into account the misguided and overly-unrestricted creativity of Lucas in making this film, Binks is still my least favourite part of the movie.  Not only is he mildly offensive but he's also largley pointless and aggressivley annoying and even as a 5-year old seeing the film for the first time in 1999, I really wanted Neeson and McGreggor to practise their lightsaber skills on him or just abandon him in the swamps of Naboo or on the desert plains of Tatooine. 

The other main reason why people tend to lump this film with other late-1990s and early-2000s sci-fi misteps like TITAN A.E (2000, which I happen to also think is a little over-hated) is because of the admittedly weak peformance as a young and freshfaced Anakin Skywalker by Jake Lloyd.

Now I'm not going to defend Lloyd's peformance in this film as it is definetly his weakness and is a big factor in why people tend to dislike Phantom Menace but I at least tend to think that the hatred aimed towards him because of his peformance and involvement in what amounted to an ultimatley disappointing follow-up to the original trilogy garners him some disproportionate hatred.  Besides, at least he wasn't as bad as Hayden Christensen.

All in all, Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace is perhaps not the best way to follow up the groundbreaking, genre-defining and massive popularity of the original trilogy but as a singular movie ti still holds up.  Its good as an action and sci-fi film, captures at least a small part of the wonder of the earlier years of the Star Wars franchise, defined sci-fi action flicks for half a decade afterwards and gave us at least two now-iconic characters for fans to mull over.

  

But hey, if you even still disagree with me, at least it wasn't as bad as this...

New Film Review #17: Interstellar

Well guys, I'm back!  I realise now that doing big reviews and then going on a hiatus for a few months is now the main thing that characterises this blog aside from my somtimes dry humour (hey I'm British give me a break!) and my obsession over comparing small parts of good movies to entire bad movies from the early 2000s and 1980s.  However, I do have a good reason this time as I have moved into uni accomodation recently and thus for the last 2.5 months I have  been settling into university life and haven't really had much time to get around to making long film reviews although I have been uploading videos onto my YouTube channel which you can check out here!:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHmq7KX4Qc46VGhYzWqQfOg/videos.  MMM! Delicious self-advertising!

But anyway, what film are we looking at today?  Why an overrated, overly-pretentious (bit ironic coming from me I know), overly-cliche, over-expositioned sci-fi adventure film with failing concepts about the 5th dimension (which I'll get into why its so poorly conveyed in a bit),  family love and the survival of the human species against what is actually quite a conceivable enviromental threat to our global crops and a really conveluded plot about inter-dimensional beings of imense creation.  So yeah, I really do not like Interstellar.  Don't get me wrong, the film looks great and all the main actors (Matthew McConaughey, Michael Caine, Anne Hatheway and MAAAAAAAAT DAAAAAAAMON) are excellently placed and do a great job but sadly for the stars and the much acclaimed director Christopher Nolan this film just does not work. And it really is quite sad to be honest, I do really think that Nolan is one of the greatest modern American filmakers of the new millenium and he has shown moments of shining brilliance in films like Batman Begins (2005) and The Dark Knight (2008).  True, those two films were based upon the second most recognisable superhero of all time after superman but if there's someone who knows how to do dark adaptations of Batman and dark psychological thrillers (Inception (2010) duh...) its going to be good ol' Nolan.  And true, the last time someone tried to do a dark, large-scale tale of space-travel, interdimensional discovery and beings with deep philosophical underpinnings, it was successfully realised by Kubrik's masterpiece 2001: A Space Oddessey (1968) which is now remembered today as the best movie of the 1960s and one of the best films of all time.

And in some sense, Interstellar does in fact have a similar plot to Odessey in some regards with particular note to be paid to the main character having an existential journey through time and space in which he sees time be congealed as a physical concept.  A concept that while difficult to convey was done well in both films (albeit better in Odessey).  However, whereas Odessey was moreso concentrating on the exploration part of the interstellar journey (HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEEEE) with some underpinnings of philosophical concepts all linked together by mind-bending visuals, Interstellar also tries to do all this while also informing us of every bit of scientific information that appears apparent to the plot (and I mean EVRY bit of scientific knowledge), fitting in a moral lesson about fathership and family and a strong message about enviromental disaster destroying humanity's last remaining global crop source (i.e. corn).  Oh I know that the lesson about the enviroment is not what Nolan was going for necessarily but you'd better beleive you'll be aware of it by the time that we get to the overly-positive ending.  In all honesty, that is perhaps what really cripples this film for me, the shitty and I mean REALLY shitty ending of the film.  Perhaps the film is also crippled in a sense by its inscistence to pack so many themes besides philosophy about human discovery and interraction and interdimensional experiences but the ending is really what cinches it for me in regards to how badly I feel about this film.

So what's good about this film, quite a bit actually which is wierd...yeah.  Considering I think that this is one of the worst films of the year so far it does actually have some great features and aspects that reallly show up Nolan's modern-neo-noire style of filmaking and features some absolutley stellar peformances (PHHHEEEE HEEE...sorry).  Nolan's direction is perhaps closest to the same direction and asethetic that he showed on the set and in the creation of Inception and it shows in the mind-bending angles of the camera that are shown when humanity reaches a new way of colonisation wherein whole communities can be fitted into tube-shaped space colonies or when McConaughuey's astronaut captain Cooper attempts to dock his dropship with a space station spinning around ceaslesly as of a result of an explosion caused by a suprise villain.  Speaking of which, there are a couple of twists that will turn this film on its head and you will not see them coming.  Halfway through the film, Nolan presents us with a moral and practical dilemma that concerns not only the morals of the characters involved in the mission to rescue humanity but also the survival of the whole human species.  The other big twist comes a bit nearer to the end of the film in a section of the movie which reviewers are calling a 'slog' (and which I respectfully say that they are wrong in that regard) which while messing up a previously strongly-rooted plot point did not upturn the film as a whole.  Admittedly the twists were not as fast and frequent as say Odessey but still knocked me on my arse when I saw the film.

Aside from  Cooper, there are multiple characters who are perfectly played.  Anne Hatheway as doctor Brand, Michael Caine as Brand's father and MAAAAAAT DAAAAAAAMON as a suprise emotional counterpoint at what is possibly the finest moment in the film in a thematical and storytelling sense.  However that's about it and aside from some cool visual concepts, the other attempts to visually conceive certain happenings in the film aside from space travel and travelling though a worm hole or a black hole, the film really doesn't leap out at you.  Even though we focus on Hatheway and MaConaghuey for the majority of the film and sometimes leap back to Caine and DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMON we are also focusing on Ellen Burstyn's Murphy Cooper for a large chunk of the latter parts of the film who acts without much emotional clout or even basic body language and skill of emotional conveyance unlike MacConaghuey who just absolutley shines throughout the film.  taking into accoutn this terrible narrative baggage and the fact that the other main supporting character of Romilly played by David Gyasi totally lacks any emotional depth whatsoever and only serves as a pointless exposition piece.

Oh yeah!  Did I mention the fucking exposition!?!?!?   Beleieve me, the science in this film is largley spot on with exception to points made at the end of the film about the 5th dimension but the characters go on and on and on and on and onandonandonandonandonaondaon about telling you EVRERY...FUCKING...THING about the damn journey!  Sure!  You can spend a large proportion of the movie expositioning to the audience about facts but you have to make it in some way interresting either thematically or in terms of its presentation!  With the exception of Caine and sometimes MacConaghuey, no one explains any scientific knowledge or understanding in the film (especially Burstyn) with anything more than a blank, dry look in their eyes and with little other purpose than showing the filmakers did their homework.  I've been told that this is a minor point and it really isn't, it takes away from the human and emotional suspense and development of the actual characters involved and refuses to let go even when we find ourselves and the movie in interesting situations such as a planet almost entirely made of water where one hour there equals 7 years on earth.  The time-jumping between the narratives of MacConaghuey's and Burstyn's characters is well explained in an interesting manner to be fair and the idea of the 5th dimension and worm holes are fascinating things to consider but the film expositions the hell out of pretty much everything else without simplyfying it in any way for those who (like me) didn't pay attention in science class and want ot understand as much of the film as possible.

Furthermore, this ties into what I think is one of the most controversial points about Nolan's method of filmaking in that he is too dark, grim and stoic in his inter-story narratives, tone and philosophy.  I'm not going to lie and say that I didn't see this in the Dark Knight trilogy (2005-2012) or Man of Steel (2013) the latter of which I probably gave an overly-positive review to at the time. And while I'm usually indifferent to this form of filmaking and its general asethetic, I do think that Nolan tends to overuse it sometimes particularly in the case of Man of Steel and I am tired to a considerable degree of big action, superhero (with the exception of course being the marvel movies in that case) and in Interstellar's case, adventure films being grim and everything having a purpose and every word and moment being heavy and impactful.  I'm not saying that you can't make a movie or even a good movie like that but we see it so often today that I sometimes get depressed and worn out when a big action/adventure piece like this comes out with a great cast and doesn't utilise their greater talents in favour of being dour the whole fucking time.

However, to some degree or another I can forgive all that.  What's that Ted?  Are you pussing out on us at the last stretch?  No.  Absolutley not and I still think that the flaws I mentioned above are painfully apparent in the film.  However, what is unforgivable about this movie is the GOD...DANM...ENDING.  Needless to say, the ending of this movie FUCKING SUCKS.  Instead of giving us a deeper philosophical understanding of what is at play in the movie's narrative and how the adventure of Cooper to finding the problem solving formula needed to save humanity we're given a long-winded and conveluded explanaition about the 5th dimension (with very little linking to the 4th I might add), a really convinent and overly-sweet plot twist that means but fails to warm the heart and a collosall cop-out that tries so hard to show a happy ending to this otherwise grim tale.  I'm sorry but that doesn't happen. Throughout the second half of the film we had this subplot about either two of the plans proposed to MacConaghuey and his team having the potentional to fail and this suprise twist plan we are presented with at the end just falls into our lap, convinetly explains a minor but already ridiculous plot point about a supposed 'ghost' (don't worry the film explains it, albeit stupidly).  How then are we supposed to accept this ending that ties up all lose ends with no emotional baggage and more hopefulness for the advancement of the remaining characters who survived the ordeal?  If Nolan had any idea how to make Interstellar's narrative consistent with the tone, he wouldn't have made the ending such an overly-sweet cop out and instead offered a positive outlook on humanity's future in the age of space travel but perhaps made it somewhat bittersweet on a character level.  Instead we have one of the worst explanations of inter-dimensional beings I have ever heard to neatly tie up every point so the little darlings are not left feeling sad after the movie has ended.

So in conclusion?  I fucking hate Interstellar.  I really have absolutley no clue as to why people are giving it a fucking 9/10 on IMDB when its barely worth the 3/10 I rated it on there.  It really upsets me that this film is so disappointing because all of the potentional therories and concepts and talent behind it is excellent.  But the execution is poor, the narrative is amateurish and the conclusion PISSES ME OFF!  It was bad enough that the film had a poorly-expositioned (although interesting) hook and twist but to be just straight up a bad sci-fi movie is alltogether something different.  And Interstellar managed to pull off both.  DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE.

Plot/Storyline: 1.5/10
Acting: 5/10
Directing/Writing: 4/10
Action/Set pieces/Key moments: 5.5/10
Camerawork/SFX: 8.5/10

Overall rating: 24.5/50

New Film Review 16: The Expendables 3

You know what kind of movie I like best?  The kind of movie that you can simply enjoy but that also gets you thinking about something either emotional, philosophical, political or ideological in any sense wether it be about the historical significance of certain events as in The Last Samurai (2003) or Joan of Arc (1999) or whether it be deeper and more psychological themes of contemplation such as in 2001: A Space Odessy (1968) or basically any film by the legendary animator Hayao Miyazaki.  Now in the last two films I reviewed, this was a clear staple of those two films from the lighting to the dialouge and characters.  Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was essentially a post-apocaliptyc action survival thriller with in-built themes of tolerance, co-existence and ideas about who should lead who in a society that has fallen apart.  Sin City: A Dame to Kill for  didn't concentrate so much on deep themes like this but it did focus somewhat on political corruption, neo-noire gang violence and making outlaws into heroes (at least that's what the trailers say) while putting this all up against the backdrop of a highly stylised visual world.  On the other hand, there are films that aren't really looking for any high-class intellectual recognition like a proverbial black forest gateu made by a 3-star michelin baker but are more like a junky and fun proverbial tub of Ben & Jerry's half baked ice cream.   And the latter case is where Expendables 3 comes blazing in.

In fact, this is basically the whole premise and aim of the Expendables franchise so far; get together a wholly star-studded cast of action heroes and professional athletes and shoot up some hammy and memorable (albeit with that not being the case in the first film because the villain there was as memorable as a cucumber sandwich with nothing else on white bread) and shoot your way through legions of inept minions in a trashy and cheesy yet endearing and enjoyable throwback to similar action movies from the 1980s and early 1990s.  Now some have said in the past that the second film in the franchise was the weakest by far with the least interesting plot and most uninteresting screenplay but I beg to differ.  While the first film was undeniably fun, its story jumped all over the place, the vilains apart from 'Stone Cold' Steve Austin's muscle bound henchman were forgetable as all hell and there simply wasn't enough character drama or shots of Terry Crews ripping up bad guys with his rapid-fire shotgun.  This was in part thanks to how the action of Expendables 2 was bigger, the story was bigger and while Jet Li was barely in it, that issue was more than made up for with Jean-Claude Van Damne's darkly enjoyable and badass villain uh...Vilain...seriously?  Why not just call him 'Blatantly evil madman'?

But one sentiment that many reviewers and critics are passing around that I simply cannot disagree with is the argument and ideas put forth that point to this entry into the franchise being the best one yet and honestly?...I absolutley agree.  Expendables 2 still has the best villain but Mel Gibson does well in this film as the vile and murderous Stonebanks but apart from that, Expendables 3 feels bigger in every way from the quality of the action to the lighting, character development, overall story, final battle and humour as well as the obvious threat that is implied about Gibson's diabolical arms dealer/mass-murderer Stonebanks.  So what's the story?   This time round, Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) kicks things off by taking his team to free fromer teamate and professional smooth-talker Doc (Wesley Snipes) to then go after a mysterious arms dealer.  Unfortunatley for Ross and his team, they're sucker-punched by the sudden appearance of the arms dealer as former co-founder of the expendables team and professional murdering psychopath Conrad Stonebanks who in an enseuing battle wounds ever-lovable Caesar (Terry Crews) and prompts Ross to disband his team of seasoned old veterans and form a new team of young, spunky and highly skilled professionals with different skill sets. 

This is perhaps the biggest selling point of the film in every conceivable way.  Not only do we have the old guard of the previous installments inevitably return for an action-packed finale but the new young blood of Kellan Lutz, Victor Ortiz, Glen Powell and the beefy yet strikingly beautiful Ronda Rousey as well as some new veterans of old 1980s and 1990s action films in the form of the tough 'n' gruff Agent Drummer (Harrison Ford), the enigmatic Bonaparte (Kelsey Grammer) and the high-octane and energy Galgo (Antonio Banderas) who eats up every scene he's in with bizzare action stunts and crazed humour.  And yet, despite how much I have to admit that I gushed over the casts of the last two films, the new entries into the cast both new and old, adds some fresh life into the already expansive and star-studded cast of the franchise.  This is perhaps what sets apart the film the most from the previous two in that despite how expansive the last two film's casts were, they were nothing as golden and nostalgia-inspiring as the cast of this latest installment.  Add to this the fact that the new, young actors like Rousey or Ortiz add some relatable freshness to the cast and the sheer coolness of adding legends like Ford, Snipes and Banderas into the mix and you have a potent mix that is sure to ensure that the next entries into the franchise will be equally fresh for the forseeable future.

As mentioned before, this means that the action is bigger and by that I also mean more varied.  Oh sure we have a climax centring around a sprawling building complex with wave after wave of minions and tanks for our heroes to chew through and a bloody showdown between Stallone and the main villain.  But Expendables 3, while still essentially being a cheesy thowback to 80s action flicks includes more than its share of precise computer-hacking, hand-to-hand rampages, vehicular slaughters and some stunts that intially seemed stupid, unrealistic and pointless (like Powell's Thorn juming up the side of an apartment block on a motorbike while blazing away with an MP5 sub-machine gun) which, while ultimatley silly, only serve to highlight the sheer enjoyability of the action segments.

Needless to say as is the case with throwback films to popcorn-munching action flicks from the Regan-era of popular culture, the action segments cover up most of the film's 126 minute run-time but despite that, you feel more invested in the struggles of the main characters this time round thanks to some genuinley shocking moments (in the visual sense) of how evil Gibson's character is, the emotional turmoil Stallone's Ross goes through throughout the film and the clear and stark if somewhat cliche tension between the new and young recruits and Stallone's old team.  This elevates Expendables 3 from the status of 'enjoyable and cheesy' as was the case with the first two films to 'COME ON GUYS, LETS FIND THIS EVIL BASTARD AND MAKE HIM PAY!' pumped-up and almost wholly enjoyable in a trashy kind of way.

Now naturally, there are some issues and no film is perfect with exception to Citizen Kane  (1941), The Godfather (1972), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) and My Neighbour Totoro (1988).  As in the last two films, the actors involved are kind of aware that they're making a series of cheesy action flicks and thus, in some places, the acting comes across as a little hammy, cliche or run-of-the-mill.  On top of this, it's again disappointing that very little of the film features what are arguably the best actors in the franchise in the shape of Crews and Li.  Furthermore, while the storyline is certainly more stable and adept at conveying meaning and enjoyment to the audience than in the first film, some sections of the story move way too quickly and lack any real, emotional and visceral depth as was the case with Liam Hemsworth's shocking death near the beginning of Expendables 2.  However, the action, storytelling and development of the characters is certainly up at least a notch over the last two films so you'll definetly see some improvments.

As you guys can tell, I had a blast watching this movie.  Not only is it the best entry into the franchise yet; it also includes interesting new and old actors fresh to the franchise, better camerawork, better action-coordination, better directing, superb base-level enjoyment and a story and motivation for the main characters that is suprisingly competent and compelling.  I could go on and on about how good this film is and while I certainly wouldn't say that its in any way a groundbreaking or amazing film, I'd be more than confident in saying that its one of the best films of the year so far and worth your time if you're the type of person who'd want to go see this.  If you don't, I don't blame you.  However, as it is as a straightforward action flick?...I'd give it a thumbs up, a tip of the hat and a salutory puff on one of Stallone's cigars.

Plot/Storyline: 8/10
Acting: 7/10
Directing/Writing: 7.5/10
Action/Set pieces: 9/10
Camerawork/SFX: 7.5/10

Overall score: 39/50