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

Ted's film reviews: Army of Darkness (released 1992)

Image source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106308/mediaviewer/rm2861960192

Today we have an action film classic that has undeniably and fully deservedly earned its status of being a cult-classic amongst its contemporaries of the genre and when it was made.  However, much like a number of other classic action films and similar media from the 1980s and 1990s, while the quotable bits and iconic scenes have earned their referential icon status, the weaker bits of the film are forgotten about and don't rear their ugly head until you actually watch the piece of media in question.  Ladies and gentlemen, that piece of media of the day is the 1992 cult hit Army of Darkness starring the almighty chin man that is Bruce Campbell.

Made on the back of the two enormously successful and cheaply-made Evil Dead films (released 1981 and 1987), Army of Darkness was a bit of a departure from its predecessors in that it was the first entry into the franchise with a definitively large budget.  Part of the appeal of the first two movies is that, much like a lot of Quentin Tarantino's earlier work, a lot was achieved on a low budget via creative cinematography.  While a similar sense of cinematography being used to cover up the cracks is present in Army of Darkness, it doesn't really feel as genuine or even as effective considering the higher budget and production quality compared to the previous movies.  That isn't to say that the film is bad in terms of the cinematography but I feel that it should've either gone whole hog for being a low-budget skimmer of a movie or a full-blown blockbuster.  Not to say that finding a middle ground in this regard is impossible but that in the case of this movie, it felt a bit over-ambitious on the part of the filmmakers to try to this extent. 

But, as theoretically lopsided as the movie might be, this aspect doesn't ruin the whole meal rather just a small part of it and thankfully, this doesn't take away from the delightfully simple plot.  After the events of Evil Dead II, Ash (played by Bruce Campbell) is transported back in time to a highly fictionalised past where two warring kingdoms are spilling each others blood in the medieval era all while the land is being ravaged by an army of undead monsters and daemons being led by a malevolent undying king.  After proving that he has what it takes to be the hero to retrieve the foul book that is the Necronomicon to reverse the curse placed on this begotten land, Ash is handed his trademark chainsaw arm and sawn-off shotgun before setting off to claim the book for his newfound friends and hopefully find a way back to his time and home.  Through some inevitable hijinks however, the evil king is not immediately defeated and Ash is tasked with fighting off a demonic invasion and uniting the two warring kingdoms while still struggling to survive.

Its a real classic tale format of a badass outsider being plunged into unfamiliar territory that you somehow know, even with that hero's limited knowledge, that they'll deal with like they're poaching some eggs.  This basic tale is spiced up with a, what was at the time modern and topical hero with similarly natured technology, character who acts as a contemporary audience proxy and through a mixture of wit, dumb luck and having A SAWN OFF SHOTGUN, is able to win the day, get the girl and say some memorable lines that live on in movie pop-culture history.

With such a simple plot, one would suspect that the quality of the film throughout isn't much to talk abut especially considering the earlier discussion about the thematic inconsistency with the other films.  Thankfully, the quality of the acting is such that this doesn't really matter and this is supported by some refreshingly simple script writing.  I do like complex acting performances and screenplays as well as scripts but sometimes, while you might fancy a steak tartan, you may also fancy a humble and simplistic beef burger.  The cast and script seem to know from the offset that they're not creating something too deep or 'high art' and as a result they just relish in having fun making a dumb, cheesy and endearingly plain and simple popcorn flick.

Again, as mentioned above, the film is far from perfect.  The acting isn't amazing across the board and Bruce Campbell is the only one who is good throughout the whole movie and the thematic pacing does feel a bit wonky.  Not to mention, the introduction of the main villain feels a tiny bit contrived and its not always clear what the rules are of the new magic and swords world that Ash is adventuring in.  But, as similarly mentioned earlier, the enjoyment factor of the film is quite high and even if you don't ignore its faults, you can still enjoy Army of Darkness as a bit of good old dumb fun.

Camerawork/cinematography: 5.5/10

Writing/screenplay: 6/10

Acting: 7/10

Direction: 7/10

Personal enjoyment: 9/10

Ted's film reviews: Alien (Released 1979)

Image source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/mediaviewer/rm2990766080 

I guess, considering how long it has been since my last blogpost, that I should apologise for not having uploaded anything here in a while.  And while I am sorry, I guess it makes a certain amount of sense considering how many years came between the subject of today's review and its sequel.  That's because the film being reviewed here is the seminal sci-fi horror masterpiece Alien (1979) which for a while was considered something of a lone diamond in the rough until its equally venerated sequel Aliens came out 7 years later.

Thankfully, unlike a lot of film series where the second movie is regarded more highly than the original (see the original Star Wars trilogy (1977-1983)), Alien is on a similar if not equal level of quality as its 1986 sequel albeit for different reasons.  Whereas Aliens is one of the most important action films of the late-20th century with the film influencing many other properties in action moviedom as well as shooting-based video games, Alien has a more central importance to the idea of horror fiction in film particularly more so than the movie does to any other medium.  You only really have to look as far as Event Horizon (1997) as proof of this.  Yet despite Aliens having more of an immediately obvious cultural impact on the wider scape of popular culture and films specifically, I would still say that both films are at least as good as one another in terms of their quality.

And whereas Aliens has its strengths mainly in its pacing, set pieces and action scenes, Alien seems to get the majority of its praises from its atmosphere-building, sense of suspense, acting and the very-impressive-for-its-time practical effects.  Thankfully, these points of praise are very well-founded as we'll discuss in a bite but first, THE PLOT!

Image source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/mediaviewer/rm2611876352 

In the far flung future, humanity has breached the stars of our galaxy and begun to delve into space exploration where explorers are stored in cryogenic pods to survive long trips and wherein these very trips are funded not by governments and space agencies but by private paramilitary corporations.  This is not the hopeful world of exploration seen in the Star Trek franchise but one where humanity barely escaped its own atmosphere and where the crews of many explorations are expendable to companies like the Weyland-Yutani corporation who, in particular, are the ones funding the expedition at the centre of the plot of Alien.  When the film begins, we see the crew of this expedition, including the main character Ripley (played brilliantly by Sigourney Weaver) waking up several weeks early from their destination after having been frozen in cryogenic sleep.  Upon waking, Ripley, along with the rest of the crew of the spaceship Nostromo are alerted to a distress signal and upon finding its location they also uncover a colony of alien-looking egg chambers.  After their detour to this place, the crew go back to the ship and head on their way before quickly realising that they have a murderous and most unwanted guest on their ship.

What I like about the plot, much like a number of seminal action or sci-fi films from the late-1970s to early-1980s, is that the overall concept is rather simple.  No introspective deep thinking in the overall plot, rather the main concept of the story itself is kept as simple as possible meanwhile any philosophising, what little there is, is left up to the people in the movie for character-building moments.  And Alien has a load of these moments such as when the nature of a conversation between the crew about exploration and safety protocols indirectly brings up the drudging prospect of living a sterilised and entirely-for-profit lifestyle under a corporation like the previously-mentioned Weyland-Yutani.  Thankfully, as interesting as these character moments are, they aren't too plodding or overly-frequent to distract away from the action and are instead used to carefully set up a sense of false-security before the eponymous alien explodes into the movie and wreaks havoc.  

Once this period of atmosphere-building is done and dusted we're then made all the more aware of the other two main strengths of the film in the form of the acting and decent, at least for its time, practical and special effects.  The acting in particular is kind of a given towards its high quality when you consider how many spectacular actors and actresses performed on the cast here including Sigourney Weaver, Tom Skerritt and John Hurt.  However, what makes the spread of acting performances so good in this film isn't just the talent amongst the cast but the casting itself specifically.  Weaver, as young as she was in 1979 was easy to take as the scared but pragmatic Ripley while Hurt is enthralling as the wary and weary Kane.  Seriously, whoever was in charge of the casting for this movie, I hope they got a bottle of whiskey and a box of truffles.

Image source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/mediaviewer/rm3452767744 

And the same really has to go for the team who worked on the special and practical effects.  I won't talk too much about it because the practical effects in particular are key to the first big reveal/plot twist of the film involving John Hurt.  However, even though you hear it said about a large number of famous films made around the same time as Alien, it is no less true for this classic.  I feel sometimes that while it hasn't fallen off the map, practical effects isn't as much of a seminal art of sorts in modern cinema as it was in 1979.  Some features like Dunkirk (2017) and Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) do seem to be reviving this underappreciated art and I am eternally grateful for that.  However, if you want to see an example of practical effects in their prime and at their most creative, watch Alien and you will not be disappointed.

Overall, the film is a classic, there really is a sense that all of the legendary praise heaped on this feature is thoroughly deserved and totally not unwarranted.  Its a peculiar situation where, even though I would not say the film is perfect due to some of the acting being sub par and direction at times being run of the mill, I would still say this film is an undeniably excellent film and easily ranked amongst all the classics of the sci-fi genre including the films that are indeed perfect.  Conclusion:  watch this film and then watch its sequels pronto.

Camerawork/cinematography: 8/10

Directing: 7.5/10

Writing: 8.25/10

Acting: 9.5/10

Personal enjoyment: 10/10

Film review: Starship Troopers (released 1997)

With the 20th anniversary of this violent sci-fi classic being last year, which also coincided with the release of the animated feature Starship Troopers: Traitor of Mars, I figured now that was as good a time as any to review this bloodthirsty classic.  

Image source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/mediaviewer/rm611522560?ref_=tt_ov_i

But before we look in-depth at the significance of the film, we must first look at the equivalent aspect of its source material. The original novel that Starship Troopers is based on was published way back in 1959 and written by the legendary and ahead-of-his-time liberal writer Robert A. Heinlein. Big man Rob was definetly a unique mind amongst mainstream sci-fi writers in the age of segregation and sexual closetedness in western media in the 1940s-60s. In a stark contrast to some writers of his similar popularity in the mainstream at the time, Heinlein featured a number of storylines with protagonists, and main ones at that, of colour and themes that expressed sexual freedom and liberal individualism. 

In the original Starship Troopers book, we see a proto-facist military society fighting against a bug-like alien army with a force of heavily armoured and mechanised infantry. Throughout this relatively small novel, we repeatedly read about scenes of the higher-ups in this society acting as if their near constant politicking and beaurocratic management is helping to win the war. In actuality, it is the highly trained soldiers in their supremely advanced mech suits that are winning the war with skill and bravery. In a sense, the original book is taking a jab at the beaurocratic nature of such goverments and the actions of politicians in heavily militaristic societies taking credit for advancements and victories that are gained via the efforts of others upon their command. However, there is this running theme throughout the book that war and conflict are intrinsic parts of human nature. This might've been more relevant in the mid-1940s-late-1950s when the nuclear arms race and cold war were really picking up speed in the wake of the Second World War (1939-45) and the Korean War (1950-53). But, in a moment of brutally poor timing for the intended message of the book, the Vietnam war (1961-75) would properly break out a few years later and thus the public perception would change in much of the west towards the national duty to wage war in the sake of liberty. Especially after events like the Tet Offensive (1968), many in places like the USA, Canada and UK realised that gaining liberty and emancipation was possible through less violent means. An interesting and well-written book with a controversial but thought-provoking message indeed. A message with horrendous timing? Absolutley.

Therefore, does the film adaptation made almost 40 years later show any alternations to the original themes and messages of the book and indeed Heinlein's overall ethos that he showed in his writing? For starters, the film does represent a proto-facist and highly militaristic society at war with a bug species known as the arachnids. However there are a few big differences. The first is visually obvious in that the soldiers in the film are used and equipped much more as simple mobile infantry and thus, incur heavy casualties in gruesome fashion. Second, the society that our main characters serve is framed in stark contrast with a decidedly less political and much more satirical edge. Whereas war is seen in the book as a natural part of human nature, the film sees it as one part of our world that we would do well to try and steer clear of considering how much it can damage the younger generations. Considering the carnage amongst the mobile infantry of the Earth Federation during the iconic scene showing the assault on the planet Klendathu, the film can also be seen as making use of the events of the Vietnam War that happened after the book came out as an allegory for that very same conflict. What I mean by this is that the landing of Klendathu scene, on top of being a badass action scene and having an iconic song named after it, is a decent allegory for the Vietnam war; showing a technologically superiror invading army being unanimously humiliated by an arguably more simplistic and less advanced enemy. Case in point, you should not go to war unless it is absolutely necessary and you should also never treat your enemy with no respect.

So enough about postulating and theorising, how good is the film itself? Well, while I think it is very enjoyable I have to admit that it is quite dumb. Quite dumb indeed. Now that isn't the fault of the source material and deeper message of the film which as mentioned above, are fairly intelligent. Rather, this is down to some of the acting and a great deal of the dialogue being a tad over the top and kind of silly. One example is a scene towards the beginning of the film where Casper Van Dien's Johnny Rico and his girlfriend Carmen Ibanez (played by Denise Richards) flirt in the middle of class over an inter-school messaging system. Despite being a decently themed scene, the facial acting of both actors and the way the visuals are designed makes the whole thing cheesier than a plate of Hunters Chicken. Well...to be honest, the numerous romance scenes are all like that. In fact, I would perhaps not centre a war film around romance but rather survival. Although...I would imagine that romance was not a central theme of the original book so it was used as an interesting additional way of showing the distruction of the younger generations through conflict in the film. Admittedly, while the camerawork isn't absolutely sensational, it does the job fine and frames the secenes of particular carnage very well. Same thing goes for the acting too...I guess. It isn't anything on the levels of the peformances seen in Apocalypse Now (1979) but again, like the cinematography it does its job fine enough.

One area where the film peforms really well but perhaps shouldn't is in the soundtrack. I say this because the film mainly centres the soundtrack, without much variation on the song from the Kledathu drop. Now I am not complaining, as said above, it is a good tune for this kind of movie. Furthermore, its only really used in scenes where its really necessary for mood-setting.

In conclusion, I would not expect a great deal of hypothesising in this film or really in-depth conversations about warfare and the destructive impact it can make on the minds of otherwise healthy men and women. Again, if you want a piece of that pie, you really should do yourself a solid and watch Apocalypse Now. Or, I would also point out the interesting way this topic is analysed in other films like Full Metal Jacket (1987) or Wings of Honneamise (1987). Mind you though, Starship Troopers, even if you ignore its background, is still a thoroughly entertaining war film and packs more than enough blood 'n' guts for all you meatheads out there. It certainly has a hearty dose for ol' Ted here. On top of this, the actors all look good, the soundtrack does well enough, the direction is generally pretty decent and it has Denise Richards in it who is always nice to see in a well-dressed military uniform and smiling. I...may have revealed a bit much there but...in any case, watch this film as it is a blast. In fact, watch the animated films Starship Troopers: Invasion (2012) and Starship Troopers: Traitor of Mars (2017) as well as the poorly-aged but still decent cgi cartoon Roughnecks (1999-2000) and ignore the two sequels to the original film and you will have a good summary of this franchise.

Camerawork/Cinematography: 5.5/10
Direction: 6/10
Sound/soundtrack/sound design: 7.8/10
Writing & plot: 7/10
Acting: 5.25/10

Personal enjoyment: 9/10

Year-old film reviews #1: Arrival

Ok so I figured that doing a new film review or an old one wouldn't really be suitable for a film that had only just been released a year before.  So, for the types of films and movies that were release around a year or so before I saw them, I've decided to set up this little side-series on this blog to accommodate for such a niche issue.

Anyway, without any further ado, lets get into arguably the most boring sci-fi film of this decade so far!  And yes, I think that Arrival is worse and definitely more boring than Interstellar.

Once again, thanks to the good people at the University of Sussex Sci-fi and Horror society for providing me with the opportunity to see this film.

Image source: https://truereviewsnow.wordpress.com/2017/01/19/arrival-sci-fi-redefined/

As an initial warning, I should mention that the article I sampled the above picture from described this grey mush of a film as redefining sci-fi as a genre.  Considering how that seems to be a phrase surrounding any somewhat artsy sci-fi epic these days I am not entirely convinced or enticed to believe such a statement about Arrival.  At least with Interstellar, while it was mostly boring, there were some aspects and parts of that film that I felt were interesting to study in how bad they were.  There isn't even anything close to that in Arrival sadly.

The concept of the story is great but its tragically let down by dull execution.  With such a potentially juicy concept as humanity trying to peacefully establish communication with extra-terrestrials after their first contact, you'd at least expect the narrative to be interesting.  But alas, not even the story, even with such a promising basis, is anything noteworthy.  Well...unless you count endless shades of boring grey as promising but I would respectfully disagree with you in that case.

Image source: http://mymoviewallpapers.com/arrival-2016-movie-wallpaper-03.html

I'd expect from the concept of the narrative and the talent cast at hand that we'd at least be watching a film with engaging dialogue scenes one at a time.  But in all honesty, it seems more like each scene develops the same point over and over again, bit by bit until the point comes for the story's point to burst out like a depressingly grey phoenix of mediocrity.  Considering that these scenes are mostly the same as the next, by the time that the point of the film was revealed right at the end I was bored rigid.  It might sound harsh to summarise the plot of this film in such a short paragraph, but, considering how much time I spent reading twitter or the label of my empty Lucozade bottle I think that this was a fair description.

In all fairness to the plot, its downfall isn't helped by uninspired direction and dreadfully droll acting from what is an otherwise talented cast.  Director Denis Villeneuve has definitely got some solid creative chops but I feel that creativity is something he may have overemphasised in the visual direction of most scenes.  Where some moments in the film should really grab me visually, they instead feel empty because so much effort has gone into making certain set-piece moments and shots look impressive that the meat and bone of the film, by that I mean the narrative and writing, is glaringly ignored.  This translates significantly into a cast of well-regarded and seasoned actors who provide some of the most forgettable performances of their careers.  When I can say that this is Forest Whitaker's most boring appearance in a film, that should be pretty telling.  Granted, that may just be me, but when I also see other talented actors such as Jeremy Renner and Amy Adams just stroll through their lines without much emotion, I'd think its not just a single actor's issue but something that affects the majority of the film.

Image source: https://www.cinemaclock.com/bri/vancouver/movies/arrival-2016/photos

At this point in the review, I would usually mention something about the more technical aspects of the film such as camerawork, sound design, the soundtrack or different sets.  But these aspects are just so grey and uninspired that I'd basically be repeating my points about the direction, acting, writing and plot albeit in a different context.  This brings up a good point actually.  If I have not talked in full about the appropriate aspects of a film for an interview, does that make the interview incomplete?  You'd reasonably argue 'yes' in most cases.  However, considering that I'd just be repeating points that I'd already made about other aspects of Arrival, I feel that this has to be the exception to the rule.  Sorry if that seems like a cop-out but I would genuinely be more entertained reading a phone book than watching this film again.

In conclusion, do not watch this film unless you like untoasted, ASDA basics white, dry bread for breakfast and if you think white chocolate is too bitter. I might repeat certain phrases sometimes, but even I'm not as bad as Arrival.

Camerawork/cinematography: 5/10

Directing: 5/10

Acting: 5/10

Writing/plot: 5/10

Personal enjoyment: 5/10

Overall rating: 25/50

Old film review #7: Moon (Released 2009)

Ok so if you ladies and gentlemen want a tonal whiplash you've come to the right place!  Now I'm not saying this about the sci-fi mindbender of a film Moon.  Instead, I am saying this in regards to the comparison in tone of this week's old film review in the form of Moon and last weeks' feature, the 1992 zombie cult classic Braindead aka Dead Alive.  But enough dallying around, lets get into this shindig!

Thanks again to the Sussex Sci-Fi and Horror society as I saw this film during their most recent meeting.

Image source: https://superior-realities.com/2015/03/14/retro-reviews-in-time-and-moon/

So let me start off with what I believe is the best part of the movie.  The performance of Sam Rockwell as the film's main character Sam Bell.  Sam (the character not the actor obviously), is a maintenance and collection astronaut for an inter-global energy company called Lunar Industries.  When we start the film we see and hear him explain how Lunar Industries uses people such as himself to collect a newly-found fuel called Helium 3 from the moon and transport it in shuttles back to Earth to provide nearly three quarters of the Earth's renewable energy.  What makes Rockwell's performance so good here is that he portrays Sam as an everyday Joe who is waiting for his 3-year work contract on a moon base to end.  But while doing this, he  also displays concern and clear confusion when something unfamiliar happens to Sam at different points throughout the film.

What makes this particularly exceptional is not only that Rockwell performs this action well, but that he does it with minimal contact with other characters to work off of.  The only other major character in the film is a slightly unsettling but still friendly and likeable robot called GERTY (Voiced by Kevin Spacey).  Considering that GERTY is only able to portray emotion through different smiley face emoticons on its primary computer screen and that this is the only other major character that Sam interacts with, Rockwell's portrayal of clear and different emotions must be lauded.

However, in regards to the acting talent on display in this movie, I do feel that Kevin Spacey is somewhat underutilised.  Now this isn't to say he does a bad job as his performance as the robot GERTY is well-delivered.  This performance also helps to help give Rockwell deliver a suitably mysterious and at times both optimistic and cautious atmosphere through his acting and interaction with the environments around him.  And on top of this, Spacey has undeniably proven himself as a capable actor in numerous roles throughout his career in video games, movies and television.  But I still can't shake the feeling that his expressive and atmospheric voice is a tad underutilised or even wasted in portraying an emotionless robot who is a sporadic support character.  Still, two very solid performances from both Spacey and Rockwell.

Image source: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/182767-robots-that-sweat-breathe-and-get-goosebumps-to-manipulate-your-emotions

The other main pro of the film that I want to point out is the direction of the film and the camerawork, particularly in mood-setting.  With the film being set in just a few rooms and locations on and around the moon base that Sam works on, there is not a great variety of environments to build different atmospheres and moods upon.  Therefore, this task falls upon the shoulders of the actors, camerawork and directing in the case of Moon.  And while I would not say that the directing or camerawork are as proportionally good as the acting they are both still very well executed and realised.  The camerawork consists of a number of still shots albeit from differing angles when a change of mood is about.  Some spaces and familiar rooms around the set have consistent camera angles so when a change of camera angle or composition happens in one of the set areas you get the feeling that something unusual is afoot.  This is done very well in Moon towards the aim of amplifying the mood and atmosphere that the film is going for at a given moment.  In turn, the direction helps this camerawork and the actors perform to a high-level with minimal environment variety and budget size.

However, that all being said, I cannot deny that the contemporarily small budget for this film really shows in negative ways, especially in regards to the special effects.  Now to be fair, the film does look very well for a film made in 2009 on a even-then-very-small sci-fi film budget of just $5,000,000 USD(Approximately).  But despite this, the special effects are easily the worst part of the film and while Duncan Jones (Director and co-writer) efforts to stretch the budget economically are lauded and admirable, the film's budgetary strains clearly show in the end product.  Without going too far into spoilers, there is one moment where a buggy crashes into a pylon on the moon and the resulting effect of the pylon falling over and the sparks that come out looks like a pirated 4th-rate console game from the original Xbox or PS2.  This fortunately does not spread to every aspect of the film such as set design, costumes or the aforementioned camerawork but it is clearly there and noticeable.

Another major criticism I have is that the directing, while good overall, is not flawless and some moments of character interaction and scene development feel forced especially towards the end of the film.  Again, without going too far into spoiler territory, Sam figures through a number of occurrences on the station where he works that something is afoot with Lunar Industries and his own posting on the moon.  He comes to figure out what this really is later on in the film but some of the moments where he realises and discovers secrets are either poorly-conveyed, stretched out way too long or are just reiterating pieces of information that the audience already know.  This isn't helped when a major plot reveal is told to us not through clever storytelling but by GERTY unloading a horrendous exposition dump that falls flat like West Ham United for a spot in the Europa League or Liverpool in the Premier League title race.

 

Image source: http://www.moviegno.me/review-moon-2009/

In conclusion, I think that Moon has a lot of issues in terms of how its third act is presented, its cheap look and its somewhat inconsistent character interaction and direction.  It seems a shame that the cheapness is a downside considering that last week's old film review subject Braindead/Dead Alive achieved a good look with a budget that was also small compared to its contemporaries of the time.  However, this is still a film worth giving a look if you're into introspective sci-fi films or movies with good plot twists and direction.  Even if these aren't necessarily high up on your priorities for enjoying a good movie, I would still recommend seeing it for the top-quality acting performances by Sam Rockwell and Kevin Spacey who really save this film along with the great camerawork.  Especially if this is on for cheap on a video service like Amazon or Netflix I would give Moon an admiring recommendation so enjoy and I'll see you lot next time!

Camerawork/cinematography: 10/10

Directing: 7/10

Acting: 9/10

Writing: 7/10

Effects: 3.5/10

Overall rating: 36.5/50

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 #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 14: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Hmm...you know this film is interesting for a few reasons.  Naturally you'd want me to go into how that is the case less than you actually want me to tell you what I think of the film but to be honest I really have to bring this one point up.  Asethetically and in terms of characters, setting and background, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is considerably different to the 2011 prequel to the Planet of the Apes franchise Rise of the Planet of the Apes.  However, in a large sense, there is another fundamental way in which this particular prequel is different from its 2011 predecesor in that it is quintisentially a different type of movie despite still largley focusing on the plight and moral as well as intellectual development of the apes such as Maurice, Koba and Caesar from the last film.  what I'm essentially getting at here is that whereas the first film back in 2011 had an action packed finale centring around freedom of spirit and independence in regards to the quintisential apes of hte movie while the rest of the film focused on the dangers of modern science and hte politics therein, this new film focuses on struggling forces of survival throughout with a more indivudally emotional finale focusing on the personal motivations of hte film's characters with the last scence focused more on character development than sequel/prequel-building as was the case with Rise.

What this means is that while Dawn is inexricably linked to the 2011 film, both are comparativley and fundamentally different from one another on a very fundamental and both basic and philosophical level.  Therefore I feel pleased at least in my own twisted, narcissistic and odd manner and personality that while I will have to compare the two films, they are both different in almost every way apart from characters, cast members and the truly astounding and noteworthy technology used to animate the apes in this film.  Oh yeah, by the way, if you don't want to see this film for any discernable reason other than you have to, at least see this film for the amazing special effects making use of both actors, model animation and CGI.  Seriously, I would say that its even worth seeing the film on that basis alone.  Now naturally the film has been out for a while like say a week or so but seeing as how I haven't done a blog or review in a while since my review late last year of the severly underrated Gravity I thought that now would be as good a time to do a new film review as any.

So what do I think of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes?  Not as good as the first film in a few areas but certainly good enough to be on par with the original 2011 prequel to the original 1968-1970's film series so much so that I would say that overall it is just as good in some areas and better in others.  But first lets get into the bed of rice at the base of this delicious visionary film moussaka.  The film picks up 10 or so years after the simian flu killed off most of earth's human population at the end of Rise and focuses on the struggles over a week or so between a colony of apes pining for peaceful and indipendent existence in the woods outside los angeles led by Ceasear the chimp played by Andy Serkis and a colony of militarised humans desperatley searching for a hydroenergy dam led by Dreyfus played by the ever-entertaining Gary Oldman.  After the son of one of the apes, Rocket played by Terry Notary, is killed on the border between the ape and human colonies, the whole situation comes down to a tense and terse understanding and peace between Ceasar's camp and Dreyfus' colony as the humans attempt to opperate the vital dam located deep within Ceasar's land.  However, while the intentions of the humans is simply to coexist with the apes and survive, Caesar's millitaristic and vengeful subordinate General Koba played by Toby Kebbel seeks to destroy as many humans as he can for being operated and tested on in a lab in the last film.  After several mishaps involving the arming of the humans with a buried arsenal of weapons, Koba's facist hatred of humans and the token-human-im-an-asshole-so-naturally-I-have-no-real-reason-to-screw-up-the-treaty of Enrique Murciano's character part way through the film, we then are treated to a srawling and action-as-well-as-twist-filled finale.

All in all, this is kind of the same kind of set up in terms of overall story-structure as the 2011 film but perhaps the most important feature that one should take notice of is that despite the primive capabilities of their fighting forces, the apes are more than capable of defeating the humans this time round even though they had a good dust-up on the golden gate bridge at the end of the first film.  I'm gonna admit that I was expecting the entire cast this time to suplement the story as well as was seen in the 2011 film but unfortunatley that just damn aint the case this time round.  Whereas the human charsacters last time were film steryotypes that were well-acted and fitted into the story at appropriate points, the humans this time round are just film steryotypes with little to no purpose outside of Gary Oldman's character and the main human good-guy Malcolm played suprisingly one-note by usually-not-bad actor Jason Clarke who takes the place of James Franco this time round as the main, good and sympathetic human character.  Naturally, seeing as how Franco's character likley died of the simian flu in the last film it was unlikley that he would come back but then one must also the consider the recent controversy of Franco himself texting an underage girl in less-than-appropriate ways was probably a big factor that his only role in the film is a flashback on a video-camera.  However, that's another, more serious matter for another time perhaps maybe if I start doing news blogs again like I did that one time during the 2011 London Riots.

But on the note of the human characters, it must be noted that apart from Oldman's Dreyfus, there is a considerable lack of charisma in virtually every sense in comparison to the last film where actos like Franco or David Oyelowo ate up the screen with characteristical traits like understandable and misguided sympathy and downright deceptive corporate selfishnes respectivley.  In general, the acting last time on the part of the actors playing the humans was just all round better which is in part thanks to the direction of Rupert Wyatt but seeing as how I mentioned earlier that Dawn is equally as good overall in part most likley thanks to this time director Matt Reeves, directorial issues are probably not the case.  Admittedly we have seen good actors bomb spectacularly such as with George Clooney in Batman & Robin (1997) or Sir Ben Kingsley, Michael Manson and Billy Zane in Bloodrayne (2005) both films of which had terrible directors (addmittedly less so with Joel Schumacher on Batman and Robin).  Therefore, it could just be down to mild inexpereince and the lack of any noteworthy actors in the human camp this time round besides Gary Oldman who has been consistently pleasing fiml audiences since the 1980s and particularly with 1990's hits like Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) or Leon the Professional (1994) and has shown recently that he can play likeable good guys with his turn as Commissioner Gordon in the recent Christopher Nolan Dark Knight trilogy (2005, 2008 & 2012).  Perhaps the worst actor this time round is Enrique Murciano who I'm sure isn't really a bad actor in anything else but here comes across as the most token and forgettable asshole-who-screws-everything-up-with-one-unexplained-act-of-idiocy.  Needless to say, I think that the film could've done much better without him seeing as how the main source of initating an inevitable conflict between the apes and humans came from Toby Kebbell this time taking over as Koba from Christopher Gordon in the last film.

Needless to say, as in the last film, the ape characters kick FUCKING ASS!  I seriously cannot go into enough depth as to how much I sympathised more with the apes more than the humans (with exception again to Oldman) and how much more so that I recognised them despite being made out of animation and models.  Koba steals the scenes that he inhabits as Caesar's main hunter/general-type advocate hell-bent on destroying the humans for more than understandable reasons as seen in the last film where he was inhumanely experimented on with a drug aiming to cure alzehimers'.  This means that throughout the film as we see the cooperation between apes and humans strengthen we also see Koba turn into a Hamlet/Alexander the great-suicidal-tradgedy of sorts when its clear that his hatred for humans has overtaken his love for Ceaesar and the other apes.  Ceasar in particular this time round again played by Andy Serkis seems to share many of the characteristic similarities of his real-life historical namesake in that this time round he seems allot more weary of the world in an intellectually sympathetic way but is also far more strong and confident not to mention fierce and imposing.  A necessary trait in a leader of such a large group as the apes in this film and even more so considering how we go into looking at Caesar's brilliantly acted teenage and baby sons and his mate.  aside from this character development between films, we see Caesar develop throughout Dawn into a more ideologically realist individual ready to finally accept that he may have to step up to the mantle of being a millitary as well as sociologiccal leader with the prospect of an even more titanic clash with the human military in the inevitable sequel.

Oh yeah, there is definetly going to be a sequel.  Admittedly, Rise  did this allot more subtly at the end of the movie leading myself and a few people I know to assume that this was a one-off prequel which relativley and somewhat neatley explained the regular references to Caesar in the original 1960s series.  This time round however, the sequel-bait-style ending is more in your face, resonating and dramatic which isn't necessarily bad but its just that we've seen it done so many times and with no impact or real promise of a seuquel as seen in The Last Airbender (2010) or Masters of the Universe (1987).  Just on a side note actually, why doesn't anyone talk about how bizarre it is that Dolph Lundgren's characters in films like Masters of the Universe , The Punisher (1989) and The Expendable's  franchise (2010-2014) are all startlingly the same and yet asethetically different in every way?  Seriously, Masters is a spunky and upbeat adventure whereas 1989 The Punisher  is by far the most asthetically dark and depressing comic book movie ever made.  Sorry, I went off on a tangent again didn't I?  Well considering my humour is generally shit I thought that you guys might appreciate the odd look into my short attention-span-based psyche.  But anyway, I am definetly looking forwards to the inevitable sequel to this magnificent prequel of a film and for once I'm excited by sequilitis bait at the end of a movie outside anything related to Star Wars, Marvel films or late 1990's-early 2000's animes like Dragonball Z, Yu-Gi-Oh! or Pokemon.

This makes me more excited to see the directorial work of someone as good at adapting this source material as Wyatt or Reeves because both have done a stellar job so far by making the best sci-fi films in years with both Rise and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and revitalising the franchise virtually to an beyond its original status in less than 3 years.  On top of that, I'm fascinated in seeing where next they take the groundbreaking special effects and actor models used to project, act with and animate the apes as you are able to see the emotion on every ape's face from Maurice to Koba, Caesar and Caesar's son in this film and the last one meaning that you don't have to look confused as modern filmgoers do nowadays when looking back at the then-groundbreaking way of showcasing the humanoid apes in the original film and TV series.  Oh yeah, they actually made a really weird but suprisingly endearing TV series out of the same basis as the orginal Charlton Heston film series.  Oh and on another side note, if I hear any of you badmouth Heston, I will FIGHT YOU ON THE STREET!

So in conclusion, I would highly recommend going to see this film.  It was the first time in months that I went to the cinema with my mum and she didn't fall asleep in the middle of the film meaning that you'll be more than entertianed and moved throghout by some excellent action, storytelling, facial acting, sequel-baiting and shocking moments and twist-turns.  I won't ruin what twists come up at the end of act 2 in the film but trust me...you won't see it coming.  So wether or not you're a new or old fan of the franchise, I would highly recommend this film, there is no telling what good this new extension of the franchise will do but even putting that aside, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a seriously good action film with some limited albeit punchy commentary about loyalty and social coexistence and discrimination put together by a stellar cast topped off by a good screenplay, special effects and director.  However, if you're still not convinced by this review to go see this film I have six words for you...APES RIDING HORSES WIELDING ASSAULT RIFLES.

Plot: 8.75/10
Action: 9/10
Acting: 6/10
Direction: 8/10
Special effects/camerawork: 9/10

OVERALL: 40.75/50