You know what I abseloutley despise with all my black heart about popular film franchises? That's right...sequels that get gradually worse and worse as the series gets longer and its popularity becomes far bigger (turn that into a euthanism and I'll force you into a tag-team wrestling match against Hulk Hogan and The Rock with Justin Beiber as your partner). Now this is apparent with many series's and has always been the case with movie series' that have a cult following and/or grand armee' of fans such as the Die Hard, Star Wars and Twilight series's (admittedly the Twilight series has always been as good-quality as a skyscraper made out of PVC glue and rotten, sodden garlic baguettes). But if there is anything I hate more than this, it is a movie that has been hyped up for so long like a heavily-baked poo and then proves to be so disappointing because of one or two major features that the cons of said film largely overshadow those good factors that, by all rights, should be shining through.
Case in point, Iron Man 3. Now I feel really bad giving this film a load of shtick but the thing is that it deserves it. I feel really bad for doing it because there are allot of talented people involved in the making of this film such as the legendary Robert Downey JR playing the dual part of Iron Man and Tony Stark. Furthermore, when I initially came out of the cinema after having watched this film I thought it was really good, so good in fact that I initially believed it to be even better than Iron Man 2. However, a week later and with notable hindsight knowledge and thought it is pretty clear to me now that this film is; A - Not as good as Iron Man 2, B - really quite disappointing and C - So bad in particular regards that all the good things in this film are largely overshadowed.
Now before I get into this dissapointment-flavoured smoothie I must explain the plot. Following off from the events of the much-acclaimed Avengers Assemble, we find that the much-loved business man Tony Stark (Robert Downey JR) who leads a public double life as the technology-enhanced super hero Iron Man is leading a relatively common life (as common as the life of an extremely eccentric multi-millionaire can be) but is constantly being plagued by anxiety attacks on account of the tremendous battering and alien attacks he had to take on in Avengers Assemble. As if that isn't bad enough however, it seems that there are a wave of bomb attacks wrecking the USA and Tony is the only one who can tackle the problem but just as he is about to attempt this while at the same time trying to keep his relationship with his girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) on track his house is bombed to dust. And as if to make matters worse, Tony is separated from the one person he loves and is hundreds of miles away with a prototype Iron Man suit that doesn't work and still has to conduct his investigation while at the same time being attacked by a force of super-soldier assassins that have been injected with a revolutionary serum called Extremis. On top of this, he also has to hunt down a known-terrorist called the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) who is supposedly carrying out these raids and is supported by a shady weapons company and also find out what the bad guy's plot is and how it involves the president of the United States of America. Thus begins Tony Stark's (aka Iron Man's) adventure of self-reliance, self-discovery and stupid plot holes.
Now taking that into account it could be said that this sounds like an action-packed plot but that is where Iron Man 3 stumbles greatly. Even taking into account the 2 hours and 10 minutes running time of the film (probably half an hour more if you have to sit through all those forsaken adverts at the cinema), the plot and all the aforementioned action-packed events and sub-plots blasting around Downey's anxiety-riddled millionaire are oddly cramped and feel rushed despite the films' hefty running time. Perhaps it isn't the running time however but rather the sheer Ribena-gargling, toilet-flushing, eye-bursting, brain-achingly large number of plots, side-plots and sub-plots that are chaotically mixing all together. And this is the aforementioned area where Iron Man 3 lets itself down in such a substantial way that it overshadows all the good bits and bobs about the rest of the film. I mean come the bloody hell on man! How confusing do you have to make things look when your film is a comic book film about an eccentric American who flies around in robot suits fighting cartoony bad guys? I mean come on! The first two Iron Man films were pretty much about the same self-discovery Tony Stark has to take (albeit on increasingly dangerous and important levels) in his battle against anxiety, self-arrogance and said cartoonishly-whacky baddies, and they were so easy to follow! This film makes the 1999 disastrously-bad Ukrainian war/history/adventure film With Fire and Sword look as simple as an episode of Thomas the Tank-engine.
Now that is the film's main weakness but there are others which are so jarring they make my piss turn solid with hatred and exasperation. The most eye-rollingly, disappointingly obvious one is how the main villain besides the evil Mandarin is revealed...in the first 15 minutes just by his attitude. HOLY SHIT. That is pretty freaking bad. But taking this into account, there was also another weakness in the film that jarred against me even more. Now I'm just going to point this out as plainly as I can but for the rest of this paragraph I must issue A SPOILER WARNING! Now as we reach the film's climax, Tony claims that he wants to live a normal life with his under-emphasised girlfriend Pepper and has the shrapnel that has been embedded in his chest since the first Iron Man by a rocket blast removed through surgery so that he does not have to have the little blue power generator in his chest preventing the shrapnel entering his heart. ....WHY...DIDN'T...HE...DO...THAT...IN...THE...FIRST...PLACE!!?!?!??!?. I mean seriously? That shrapnel could've killed the guy and the Iron Man suit works just fine in the Marvel comics without it! Furthermore, in the second Iron Man, the generator in Tony's chest is killing him paradoxically slowly, thus, removing the shrapnel from his chest and the generator in turn so late in the series just makes all the emotional drama and gravitas of Tony having said generator in his chest in the past two films TOTALLY POINTLESS! And as if to add kick to the balls to punch in the teeth, the way in which you see the Extremis soldiers being killed is really incoherent as one minute you seem them taking petrol-station explosions and gunshots and being totally fine while the next minute they're being taken out by the same ordinary guns and Iron Man's puny repulsor rays. Yeah look, I personally think the Silver Surfer is more powerful and he's infused with the power of the cosmos, not relying on a robot suit that is prone to malfunction.
Now as I said before, I think there are some good parts to this film and I feel bad therefore for having railed on the film as a whole in such a manner. First off, the idea that Tony has to basically fight back against the Extremis-enhanced assassins by just making up stuff and highly rudimentary gadgets as he goes along for most of the film gives the self-discovery side of the film great gravitas and suspense. Secondly, the models of Iron Man suits that appear in this film are so varied and glorious in all their splendour and kick-assery that you feel like a 5-year old let loose in the pic 'n' mix isle at Sainsbury's. Furthermore, the action despite all the confused plots about Extremis, Tony's completely token and run-of-the-mill evil ex-girlfriend and the cons of Americanised versions of non-American cultures is very well filmed and is something that director and screenplay-writer Shane Black can truly be proud of.
In conclusion, I would maybe recommend this film if you are a big fan of the Marvel films, particularly the Iron Man ones, so far but otherwise...nah. It feels like a really big let-down just like all the other third or fourth sequels to series's that need a little extra boost or have simply run their course and that is where the film really fails. Lots of people and critics have been stating that Iron Man 3 is better than the notably-debated Iron Man 2 but I would disagree with them. Iron Man 3 is the Iron Man series's weak point by far and it shows particularly in the film's confusing plot and other cons blot out the action and character development all the actors and the good Mr Black have so clearly worked hard upon.
Summary: see this film if you really feel motivated but don't expect a re-tread of Iron Man.
Stay tuned and keep happy.
Thursday, 2 May 2013
Sunday, 21 April 2013
Restaurant review #2: The Mogul
When someone mentions an Indian takeaway in the UK, I tend to imagine greasily mouth-watering side dishes, rich sauces and aromatically pleasing rice. As is the case however with proportion of other similarly popular takeaways in the UK such as Pizza, Fish 'n' Chips and Chinese takeaways, some Indian takeaways can sometimes fall under the category of many such takeaways simply serving overly-greasy, rich and aromatic food that has no passion or aesthetic quality to it. And that good sirs and madams is where the glorious Mogul Indian restaurant and Mogul takeaway (both of them in different parts of Greenwich, London) come in. Not only is there a definite sense of character and enthusiasm put into the food that comes out of the Mogul near the Cutty Sark museum and its takeaway outlet, but the food from the cooks at the Mogul balances culinary aesthetic with a good balance of aromatic smells, nicely balanced flavours and food that employs mouth-wateringly traditional Indian cooking but doesn't overflow with grease as many takeaways do.
Now before I get into the always-anticipated description of the food, I feel it necessary to describe the pleasingly warm atmosphere to be found within the walls of the Mogul restaurant. Located at 10 Greenwich Church St, a stone's throw away from Greenwich market and a 4-5 minute walk away from the Cutty Sark museum. The outside of the Mogul restaurant is modestly welcoming but not garish while also being simply painted and advertised but at the same time also having an air of inviting warmth. And that is just the atmosphere to be found once you walk in the door, warmth and a definite inviting air about the place. Like the outside, the inside has simple painting and decoration but is aesthetically pleasing in that regard while the furniture within the resturant is comfortable and (thank freaking goodness) doesn't wobble as the furniture of so many restaurants before it. On top of that, the staff in the Mogul are also helpful and informative about the differences and characteistics of and between each dish while at the same time not being overly-pushy but also managing to be freindly enough so that you feel welcomed both as a customer and visitor. As for the takeaway outlet at 192 Trafalgar Rd, the atmosphere feels a little rushed but the same helpful attitude from the staff is present there.
Now enough about the arty side of the restaurant and its takeaway and onwards to the truly important aspect of this review; the mouth-wateringly, nose-tingly, eye-achingly, stomach-grumblingly delicious food. The meals that are available at the Mogul are the usual kind of meals you'd expect from an Indian restaurant. There are some popular favourites such as chicken tikka masala, Bombay potatoes and onion bahjis. But the main thing (or at least in my slightly mad opinion) that characterises the food at the Mogul is that it is generally mild and instead of going all out on fire and brimstone dishes of crazy levels of spiciness, tends to serve meals that concentrate on massaging and tingling rather than sweating and tempering the taste buds.
Naturally there are some spicy dishes but it seems that the main aim of the food at the mogul is to give the usual diner there a delightful rather than challenging Indian cuisine experience. Now don't get me wrong, I love spicy food as I have tons of Tabasco mustard, wasabi, peri-peri sauce and the like on my food at home and also tend to sometimes get particular spicy dishes out at a restaurant when I'm feeling brave. Sometimes however, as we all might, I occasionally feel the urge to simply chew on something from the sun-swept lands of India that is flavoursome more so than it is spicy.
Naturally my usual meal from the Mogul reflects this wholeheartedly. For the basis of my meal it of course has to be a rice, and in my case I usually prefer the Mogul's saffron rice as despite the fact that the Mogul's possibly more popular pilau rice has more of an interesting palate and smell. I personally like the saffron rice more due to its interesting colours and mellow, perpetually nutty flavour.
As for vegetable dishes I usually like to go for the sag paneer; a course of cooked spinach with rectangular chunks of oh-so glorious, whey-based haloumi cheese (I honestly don't know how to spell that one). In particular, the sag paneer has a nice flavour to it as the mild flavour of the spinach is modest and vibrant while at the same time allowing for the chunks of cheese to stand out as beacons of truly expressive flavour within this mighty dish.
Subsequently, I usually also like to go for something extra such as Bombay potatoes which in particular at the Mogul, are not cooked in the usually dry and independently-flavoursome manner as in many other Indian restaurants but are instead cooked with a sauce meaning that there is more room to interpret the flavour and cooking of the potatoes themselves.
As for the main dish I usually go for something a little gamy and mild, specifically at the Mogul I usually go for the murgh dhansak which combines grilled chicken with lentils in a sweet and sour sauce that is pleasant for those with a penchant for more mild flavours while at other occasions, I may also go for the rogan josh which combines tenderly-cooked chunks of lamb with a rich tomato/garlic/onion hybrid of a sauce for those who have more of a palate for more extravagant culinary experiences. To top it all off I usually get a garlic naan which clearly has a flavour of garlic about it which is thankfully not too strong and wash that all down with a refreshing cobra beer and glass of water.
In comparison to the restaurant I personally prefer the food that is to be found there over the mogul takeaway, but as is the case with most people, I find it more relaxing sometimes just to sit back, relax and call up a delivery with free popadoms while lazing on my rear end on the sofa while watching ITV's Britain's got Talent on a Saturday night and swigging a couple of ice cold brews. And that isn't to say that the cooking at the Mogul takeaway outlet is inferior to a great degree, oh no, it just means that there are some slight differences in flavour, I think, between there and the restaurant which aren't even all that noticeable for the most part. What in turn makes the food from both the restaurant and the takeaway outlet truly appealing however isn't just the well-balanced flavours and aromatherapy-esque smells but also the reasonable prices with largely range from roughly £5 on some of the more simple dishes like panch ratten karai to £12 on a few extravagant ones like tandoori king prawns.
In conclusion, this restaurant has stood the test of time and developed its culinary might for nearly 40 years and it most certainly shows. Not only is the food good, but the customer service is informative and helpful yet not pushy and the character of the Mogul is shown through that. The one and only criticism that I have of this beacon of Anglo-Indian cooking is that some dishes like the sag paneer and onion bahjis may lack a little bit of character that could truly make them amazing via not having enough spice. Regardless however, the food is still good and the prices are reasonable for the most part. So if you're in south-east London, I recommend you venture to the Mogul.
Venture out and feast as royalty!
Food: 9/10
Customer service: 8/10
Atmosphere: 8.5/10
Price: 8.25/10
Overall: 33.75/10
Now before I get into the always-anticipated description of the food, I feel it necessary to describe the pleasingly warm atmosphere to be found within the walls of the Mogul restaurant. Located at 10 Greenwich Church St, a stone's throw away from Greenwich market and a 4-5 minute walk away from the Cutty Sark museum. The outside of the Mogul restaurant is modestly welcoming but not garish while also being simply painted and advertised but at the same time also having an air of inviting warmth. And that is just the atmosphere to be found once you walk in the door, warmth and a definite inviting air about the place. Like the outside, the inside has simple painting and decoration but is aesthetically pleasing in that regard while the furniture within the resturant is comfortable and (thank freaking goodness) doesn't wobble as the furniture of so many restaurants before it. On top of that, the staff in the Mogul are also helpful and informative about the differences and characteistics of and between each dish while at the same time not being overly-pushy but also managing to be freindly enough so that you feel welcomed both as a customer and visitor. As for the takeaway outlet at 192 Trafalgar Rd, the atmosphere feels a little rushed but the same helpful attitude from the staff is present there.
Now enough about the arty side of the restaurant and its takeaway and onwards to the truly important aspect of this review; the mouth-wateringly, nose-tingly, eye-achingly, stomach-grumblingly delicious food. The meals that are available at the Mogul are the usual kind of meals you'd expect from an Indian restaurant. There are some popular favourites such as chicken tikka masala, Bombay potatoes and onion bahjis. But the main thing (or at least in my slightly mad opinion) that characterises the food at the Mogul is that it is generally mild and instead of going all out on fire and brimstone dishes of crazy levels of spiciness, tends to serve meals that concentrate on massaging and tingling rather than sweating and tempering the taste buds.
Naturally there are some spicy dishes but it seems that the main aim of the food at the mogul is to give the usual diner there a delightful rather than challenging Indian cuisine experience. Now don't get me wrong, I love spicy food as I have tons of Tabasco mustard, wasabi, peri-peri sauce and the like on my food at home and also tend to sometimes get particular spicy dishes out at a restaurant when I'm feeling brave. Sometimes however, as we all might, I occasionally feel the urge to simply chew on something from the sun-swept lands of India that is flavoursome more so than it is spicy.
Naturally my usual meal from the Mogul reflects this wholeheartedly. For the basis of my meal it of course has to be a rice, and in my case I usually prefer the Mogul's saffron rice as despite the fact that the Mogul's possibly more popular pilau rice has more of an interesting palate and smell. I personally like the saffron rice more due to its interesting colours and mellow, perpetually nutty flavour.
As for vegetable dishes I usually like to go for the sag paneer; a course of cooked spinach with rectangular chunks of oh-so glorious, whey-based haloumi cheese (I honestly don't know how to spell that one). In particular, the sag paneer has a nice flavour to it as the mild flavour of the spinach is modest and vibrant while at the same time allowing for the chunks of cheese to stand out as beacons of truly expressive flavour within this mighty dish.
Subsequently, I usually also like to go for something extra such as Bombay potatoes which in particular at the Mogul, are not cooked in the usually dry and independently-flavoursome manner as in many other Indian restaurants but are instead cooked with a sauce meaning that there is more room to interpret the flavour and cooking of the potatoes themselves.
As for the main dish I usually go for something a little gamy and mild, specifically at the Mogul I usually go for the murgh dhansak which combines grilled chicken with lentils in a sweet and sour sauce that is pleasant for those with a penchant for more mild flavours while at other occasions, I may also go for the rogan josh which combines tenderly-cooked chunks of lamb with a rich tomato/garlic/onion hybrid of a sauce for those who have more of a palate for more extravagant culinary experiences. To top it all off I usually get a garlic naan which clearly has a flavour of garlic about it which is thankfully not too strong and wash that all down with a refreshing cobra beer and glass of water.
In comparison to the restaurant I personally prefer the food that is to be found there over the mogul takeaway, but as is the case with most people, I find it more relaxing sometimes just to sit back, relax and call up a delivery with free popadoms while lazing on my rear end on the sofa while watching ITV's Britain's got Talent on a Saturday night and swigging a couple of ice cold brews. And that isn't to say that the cooking at the Mogul takeaway outlet is inferior to a great degree, oh no, it just means that there are some slight differences in flavour, I think, between there and the restaurant which aren't even all that noticeable for the most part. What in turn makes the food from both the restaurant and the takeaway outlet truly appealing however isn't just the well-balanced flavours and aromatherapy-esque smells but also the reasonable prices with largely range from roughly £5 on some of the more simple dishes like panch ratten karai to £12 on a few extravagant ones like tandoori king prawns.
In conclusion, this restaurant has stood the test of time and developed its culinary might for nearly 40 years and it most certainly shows. Not only is the food good, but the customer service is informative and helpful yet not pushy and the character of the Mogul is shown through that. The one and only criticism that I have of this beacon of Anglo-Indian cooking is that some dishes like the sag paneer and onion bahjis may lack a little bit of character that could truly make them amazing via not having enough spice. Regardless however, the food is still good and the prices are reasonable for the most part. So if you're in south-east London, I recommend you venture to the Mogul.
Venture out and feast as royalty!
Food: 9/10
Customer service: 8/10
Atmosphere: 8.5/10
Price: 8.25/10
Overall: 33.75/10
Monday, 15 April 2013
Game review #8: World of Tanks
In this modern day and age, video games have come along way from when they were simply pixelated adventure quests about unlucky-in-love Italian plumbers or matches about tennis as shown by moving white blocks that had to captivate their audiences with little else besides retrospectively primitive graphics and game-play with little pretence towards a story of sorts. In this modern day and age we now have games that are able to focus on all of these holy tenets of video games by combining increasingly realistic graphics with more extensive writing and immensely more advanced game-play on consoles that are a world apart in sophistication compared to the consoles of the 1970s and 1980s. However, with this advancement also comes the possibility that some games such as Final Fantasy XIII or Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots will focus more on the storyline and eschew game-play in order to advance the plot which let me tell you, is far from the best method of immersing the common gamer in your game.
That's where games such as World of Tanks, made by Wargamming Studios and designed for use on computers, comes in as this particular MMO (Massively-Multiplayer-On-line) has no story whatsoever and virtually, if not entirely, focuses solely on game-play and the development of game-play over story. Now I am most certainly impartial to both story and game-play-biased games, but when a game such as World of Tanks concentrates solely on game-play and manages to do it so well as the first Mario land games in a day and age when story holds such a strong reign over much of modern gaming my black, bitter heart soars to the heavens above. Now if you don't know what an MMO is, its a game where you advance slowly in a large-scale on-line community by participating in adventure quests in small parties and battle against mythical creatures as shown by the much-acclaimed World of Warcraft series in order to achieve higher ranks and better equipment and skills. In World of Tanks you advance in tiers rather than ranks and most of the game-play rather than some of it is based around harnessing your personal skills in combat. Initially you start off with a slot for a vehicle in your garage filled by the first tier vehicle of each of the playable nations which include; the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, America, France, China and Nazi Germany.
As expected with all MMO's, when you start off in World of Tanks you will be very weak and most likely die allot however, the more you battle, the more you will inevitably learn the weaknesses and strengths of each tank and earn greater amounts of experience points and in-game credits to advance to higher tiers of tanks. On top of this, the relative ease with which you will be able to advance up the first few tiers of vehicles will allow you to try out different tank types (specifically; Light tanks, Medium tanks, Heavy tanks, Tank destroyers and Self-propelled artillery) from each individual nation to properly sum-up what the play-style of your garage will inevitably represent. As is also the case with allot of MMO's, some content in World of Tanks can only be bought with real money with which you can by in-game 'gold' which allows you to create more garage slots and buy 'premium' tanks which are unavailable by other means except as a gift to be bought outside of the game itself. However, the good thing about this is that it is not always necessary to advance without buying gold and that when it is necessary most 'premium' tanks and other similar actions that are only available through paying real money don't cost too much money unless you buy higher tier 'premium' vehicles or a year-long 'premium' account.
That's enough for the technicalities, let's now move on to the glorious, tread crunching, armour-smashing, cannon-blasting tactics and types of game play that are to be found in this world of steel beasts! As mentioned before, there are six nations and four types of tanks, the differences between the different types of tanks are in themselves, very notable, but what is even more important to take into account is the play-style attributed to each tank tree of each country. One of the foremost countries in the game is Germany: these tanks are generally good for their wunderbar-tough armour, range of their main guns, ability to penetrate heavier armour and, in the case of heavier heavy tanks, tank destroyers and self-propelled artillery vehicles, fearsome damage output. On top of that, the Germans also have some of the highest amounts of health points on their top/tenth tier heavy tanks and tank destroyers. The one problem with the Germans however is their speed and manoeuvrability despite having tanks on their medium and light tank trees, many German tanks lack the speed and manoeuvrability of their main rivals, the Soviets.
The Soviets are largely at the other end of the spectrum of tank design in the sense that they seem to mostly focus more on the damage output of their main guns, speed, manoeuvrability and well-designed rather than simply thick-as-mushroom gravy armour. therefore, unlike the German tanks which excel at holding flanks and sniping, Soviet tanks equally excel at ambushes due to their low profiles (heights), flanking attacks and close-range assaults. In contrast to the Germans, the main weaknesses of the soviets are lighter armour on many tanks (excluding the frontal armour on the most popular soviet tanks amongst the heavies and tank destroyers such as the KV-5 heavy and Object 263 tank destroyer), lower penetration and accuracy on the guns of many heavies and some artillery and some tanks that take the Soviet penchant for speed so far that they take a great deal of taming in order to prevent crashes.
Similarly to the Soviets, the tanks of the Chinese also centrally focus on speed, well-designed rather than heavy armour, manoeuvrability and damage output on the main guns. The reason for this is that seeing as how all of the tanks are from the years between 1917 and the end of the 1960s, and this was the period that communist China and Russia were very close allies, it is only natural that the communist Chinese government which came about much later than the one in Russia holds some influences of Soviet tank design. The one thing that sets out the Chinese apart from other nations however is that whereas the other nations all have individual tank trees, all Chinese tank trees share the same first 5 tanks imported from other countries; the French FT-17 (tier 1), the British VAE type B (tier 2), the Japanese Type 2597 Chi-Ha (tier 3), the American M5A1 Stuart (tier 4) and the Soviet T-34/76 (tier 5).
Similarly, the French also start off their tank trees rather oddly in comparison to other nations. Whereas the tanks of other nations are generally slower the higher the tier they are, French tanks oddly enough start off snail-like slow while the higher-tier French vehicles go faster than an ice-cold bottle of French white wine on a warm summer's afternoon. On top of this, tanks of tier 5 and below for the French tend to have very tough armour for their tier while the higher tier tanks have comparatively weak armour for their tiers. However despite these oddities the French combine well-designed armour, guns with great penetration and rates of fire, heavier tanks with both crazy top speeds and auto-loaders (loading chambers that allow you to fire in quick succession) to create lower tier tanks that excel at defending and higher tier tanks that can overrun the enemy superbly through flanking attacks.
In comparison to all these nations, the American tanks may seem to be the most balanced and perhaps suit players with a generally flexible and freestyle approach to this type of game. Lower tier American tanks on all branches and higher ones on the medium branch follow the speedy, raider-like approach as most Chinese and Soviet tanks, many American artillery vehicles rival German and Soviet ones in damage output, the Americans have great frontal-armour like the Soviets and French and also like the French, have guns with great penetration, accuracy and rate of fire. What makes the American vehicles stand out from the crowd however is the terrifying range of their main guns, damn tough turret armour and finger-licking' good acceleration. With these advantages in play, many American vehicles are able to find de-elevated positions, dig-in, snipe away the enemy's health and move with immediate alacrity when danger rears its ugly-ass head. However, the one downside to these fine examples of American ingenuity is that for the most part, the hull armour on American tanks is pathetic meaning that they are best used in sniping positions and on un-defended flanks.
Lastly we come to one of the most talked about nations of them all, the tea-drinking, roast beef-scoffing, pint -guzzling, queen-glorifying bejewled sceptre that is Great Britain. Naturally, as it was the British who invented the battle tank you would expect British tanks to be the best designed and most powerful in the game, but as it is they are not the most damaging and have some rather odd designs indeed my old-chaps. For the most part, the British tend to have some of the lowest damage outputs for their main guns and have only just been introduced into the game recently meaning that they only have tank trees for mediums, heavies and tank destroyers. Furthermore, the British heavy tanks are compounded by nail shatteringly, irritatingly un-couth and downright 'I dare say!' slow speeds between tier 4 and 8 while medium tanks of the same tier have armour that is notably easy to penetrate. However, the British are surprisingly versatile for a number of play-styles in the sense that all British tanks have good accuracy, guns with great penetration, 10-year-old-Christmas-cake-tough frontal armour on higher tier vehicles and in the case of most light, all medium and some heavy tanks, the British are superbly mobile with truly splendid top speeds.
Subsequently, it might be a good idea to fight up the first few tiers by yourself or with just a couple of friends by creating a temporary 'platoon' to go into battle with each other. However, as your garage and kill-ratio progresses, you may find it more preferable to join the many number of clans that are constantly battling across the world, specifically ones centred in the country you live in. There is no reason to do or not do this depending on your viewpoint but if you take one bit of advice on how to play World of Tanks it is this; always co-operate with your team-mates and promote teamwork through your actions otherwise it might not only be the enemy team you find firing armour-piercing shells at you.
In conclusion; I strongly recommend this game. I know it may seem daunting with all this speak of multiple play-styles and nations to be found in the game but that's all part of the fun of playing World of Tanks as it allows you to be creative and have fun playing the same game in an uncounted number of different ways. What makes this game truly fabulous aside from the increasingly sophisticated physics engine, increasingly refined graphics and increasing variety of vehicles is the fact that it is totally free! OH FREAKING YEAH!!! This game is so free I could write an essay about how marvellous it is to simply go onto www.worldoftanks.com or .eu, click 'play for free', wait to download the game for 2 minutes and make yourself a well-earned cup of mint tea while the game takes its time to install which despite the wait is well worth it as you then venture forward into the World of Tanks.
Oh and BTW: congratulations to the World of Tanks European server on it's 2nd birthday!
That's where games such as World of Tanks, made by Wargamming Studios and designed for use on computers, comes in as this particular MMO (Massively-Multiplayer-On-line) has no story whatsoever and virtually, if not entirely, focuses solely on game-play and the development of game-play over story. Now I am most certainly impartial to both story and game-play-biased games, but when a game such as World of Tanks concentrates solely on game-play and manages to do it so well as the first Mario land games in a day and age when story holds such a strong reign over much of modern gaming my black, bitter heart soars to the heavens above. Now if you don't know what an MMO is, its a game where you advance slowly in a large-scale on-line community by participating in adventure quests in small parties and battle against mythical creatures as shown by the much-acclaimed World of Warcraft series in order to achieve higher ranks and better equipment and skills. In World of Tanks you advance in tiers rather than ranks and most of the game-play rather than some of it is based around harnessing your personal skills in combat. Initially you start off with a slot for a vehicle in your garage filled by the first tier vehicle of each of the playable nations which include; the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, America, France, China and Nazi Germany.
As expected with all MMO's, when you start off in World of Tanks you will be very weak and most likely die allot however, the more you battle, the more you will inevitably learn the weaknesses and strengths of each tank and earn greater amounts of experience points and in-game credits to advance to higher tiers of tanks. On top of this, the relative ease with which you will be able to advance up the first few tiers of vehicles will allow you to try out different tank types (specifically; Light tanks, Medium tanks, Heavy tanks, Tank destroyers and Self-propelled artillery) from each individual nation to properly sum-up what the play-style of your garage will inevitably represent. As is also the case with allot of MMO's, some content in World of Tanks can only be bought with real money with which you can by in-game 'gold' which allows you to create more garage slots and buy 'premium' tanks which are unavailable by other means except as a gift to be bought outside of the game itself. However, the good thing about this is that it is not always necessary to advance without buying gold and that when it is necessary most 'premium' tanks and other similar actions that are only available through paying real money don't cost too much money unless you buy higher tier 'premium' vehicles or a year-long 'premium' account.
That's enough for the technicalities, let's now move on to the glorious, tread crunching, armour-smashing, cannon-blasting tactics and types of game play that are to be found in this world of steel beasts! As mentioned before, there are six nations and four types of tanks, the differences between the different types of tanks are in themselves, very notable, but what is even more important to take into account is the play-style attributed to each tank tree of each country. One of the foremost countries in the game is Germany: these tanks are generally good for their wunderbar-tough armour, range of their main guns, ability to penetrate heavier armour and, in the case of heavier heavy tanks, tank destroyers and self-propelled artillery vehicles, fearsome damage output. On top of that, the Germans also have some of the highest amounts of health points on their top/tenth tier heavy tanks and tank destroyers. The one problem with the Germans however is their speed and manoeuvrability despite having tanks on their medium and light tank trees, many German tanks lack the speed and manoeuvrability of their main rivals, the Soviets.
The Soviets are largely at the other end of the spectrum of tank design in the sense that they seem to mostly focus more on the damage output of their main guns, speed, manoeuvrability and well-designed rather than simply thick-as-mushroom gravy armour. therefore, unlike the German tanks which excel at holding flanks and sniping, Soviet tanks equally excel at ambushes due to their low profiles (heights), flanking attacks and close-range assaults. In contrast to the Germans, the main weaknesses of the soviets are lighter armour on many tanks (excluding the frontal armour on the most popular soviet tanks amongst the heavies and tank destroyers such as the KV-5 heavy and Object 263 tank destroyer), lower penetration and accuracy on the guns of many heavies and some artillery and some tanks that take the Soviet penchant for speed so far that they take a great deal of taming in order to prevent crashes.
Similarly to the Soviets, the tanks of the Chinese also centrally focus on speed, well-designed rather than heavy armour, manoeuvrability and damage output on the main guns. The reason for this is that seeing as how all of the tanks are from the years between 1917 and the end of the 1960s, and this was the period that communist China and Russia were very close allies, it is only natural that the communist Chinese government which came about much later than the one in Russia holds some influences of Soviet tank design. The one thing that sets out the Chinese apart from other nations however is that whereas the other nations all have individual tank trees, all Chinese tank trees share the same first 5 tanks imported from other countries; the French FT-17 (tier 1), the British VAE type B (tier 2), the Japanese Type 2597 Chi-Ha (tier 3), the American M5A1 Stuart (tier 4) and the Soviet T-34/76 (tier 5).
Similarly, the French also start off their tank trees rather oddly in comparison to other nations. Whereas the tanks of other nations are generally slower the higher the tier they are, French tanks oddly enough start off snail-like slow while the higher-tier French vehicles go faster than an ice-cold bottle of French white wine on a warm summer's afternoon. On top of this, tanks of tier 5 and below for the French tend to have very tough armour for their tier while the higher tier tanks have comparatively weak armour for their tiers. However despite these oddities the French combine well-designed armour, guns with great penetration and rates of fire, heavier tanks with both crazy top speeds and auto-loaders (loading chambers that allow you to fire in quick succession) to create lower tier tanks that excel at defending and higher tier tanks that can overrun the enemy superbly through flanking attacks.
In comparison to all these nations, the American tanks may seem to be the most balanced and perhaps suit players with a generally flexible and freestyle approach to this type of game. Lower tier American tanks on all branches and higher ones on the medium branch follow the speedy, raider-like approach as most Chinese and Soviet tanks, many American artillery vehicles rival German and Soviet ones in damage output, the Americans have great frontal-armour like the Soviets and French and also like the French, have guns with great penetration, accuracy and rate of fire. What makes the American vehicles stand out from the crowd however is the terrifying range of their main guns, damn tough turret armour and finger-licking' good acceleration. With these advantages in play, many American vehicles are able to find de-elevated positions, dig-in, snipe away the enemy's health and move with immediate alacrity when danger rears its ugly-ass head. However, the one downside to these fine examples of American ingenuity is that for the most part, the hull armour on American tanks is pathetic meaning that they are best used in sniping positions and on un-defended flanks.
Lastly we come to one of the most talked about nations of them all, the tea-drinking, roast beef-scoffing, pint -guzzling, queen-glorifying bejewled sceptre that is Great Britain. Naturally, as it was the British who invented the battle tank you would expect British tanks to be the best designed and most powerful in the game, but as it is they are not the most damaging and have some rather odd designs indeed my old-chaps. For the most part, the British tend to have some of the lowest damage outputs for their main guns and have only just been introduced into the game recently meaning that they only have tank trees for mediums, heavies and tank destroyers. Furthermore, the British heavy tanks are compounded by nail shatteringly, irritatingly un-couth and downright 'I dare say!' slow speeds between tier 4 and 8 while medium tanks of the same tier have armour that is notably easy to penetrate. However, the British are surprisingly versatile for a number of play-styles in the sense that all British tanks have good accuracy, guns with great penetration, 10-year-old-Christmas-cake-tough frontal armour on higher tier vehicles and in the case of most light, all medium and some heavy tanks, the British are superbly mobile with truly splendid top speeds.
Subsequently, it might be a good idea to fight up the first few tiers by yourself or with just a couple of friends by creating a temporary 'platoon' to go into battle with each other. However, as your garage and kill-ratio progresses, you may find it more preferable to join the many number of clans that are constantly battling across the world, specifically ones centred in the country you live in. There is no reason to do or not do this depending on your viewpoint but if you take one bit of advice on how to play World of Tanks it is this; always co-operate with your team-mates and promote teamwork through your actions otherwise it might not only be the enemy team you find firing armour-piercing shells at you.
In conclusion; I strongly recommend this game. I know it may seem daunting with all this speak of multiple play-styles and nations to be found in the game but that's all part of the fun of playing World of Tanks as it allows you to be creative and have fun playing the same game in an uncounted number of different ways. What makes this game truly fabulous aside from the increasingly sophisticated physics engine, increasingly refined graphics and increasing variety of vehicles is the fact that it is totally free! OH FREAKING YEAH!!! This game is so free I could write an essay about how marvellous it is to simply go onto www.worldoftanks.com or .eu, click 'play for free', wait to download the game for 2 minutes and make yourself a well-earned cup of mint tea while the game takes its time to install which despite the wait is well worth it as you then venture forward into the World of Tanks.
Oh and BTW: congratulations to the World of Tanks European server on it's 2nd birthday!
Saturday, 13 April 2013
Old film review #4: Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief (2010)
Let me start off this review by saying one thing, I have no underwear o...oh wait that's the wrong script. Hang on a moment...ah here we are, It's good to be back! I know I haven't done a review for nearly a year now but I thought that now is as good a time as any to return to the world of critics, thus here I am! And I thought it only appropriate that I return to this glorious position of magnificence by doing one of the earliest types of reviews that I ever did, a film review!
In particular, I've chosen a strange specimen of a film in the sense that I see it as both being old and yet relatively new, and at the same time under-appreciated but also somewhat pretty weak. Now there are many films that fit this bill, but the one I have chosen is the 2010 adventure/action/comedy/mythology romp titled Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief.
Like many such films mostly centred around action and adventure, we follow the rise to glory of an aspiring hero as they are flung out of the ordinary world and into a world where magic reigns, mythical creates represent challenges to the hero's weaknesses and where obnoxious and slightly irritating comedy relief characters hold reign over much of the side-plots In this case we follow the case of Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) who discovers through being attacked at a museum by a 'fury' from the legends of Greek myth that he is a demigod; a son of a mortal woman and the Greek sea god Poseidon. When he is attacked Percy discovers not only is he a demigod but also that his aforementioned, obnoxious comedy relief/best friend character Grover (Brandon T. Jackson) is a goat/man hybrid called a 'satyr' and that he himself is destined to be trained at a camp governed by the centaur Chiron (Pierce Brosnan) where demigods like himself spar in order to prepare for possible conflicts between the gods. Unfortunately for Percy, he is sent to this camp just as such a civil-war of the Greek gods is about to start over who has stolen mighty Zeus's (Sean Bean) master lighting bolt, the start of which sees the underworld god Hades (Steve Coogan) kidnap his mother and blackmail him into bringing the lightning bolt to the underworld in the suspicion that Percy is in possession of it. Naturally Percy is all for charging in to save his mother and the day but his superiors advise against it, however, he naturally disobeys them and thus sets out on an adventurous quest for clues to who the lightning thief is and how to get to the underworld with Grover and the demigod Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario) in tow.
And thus begins a supposedly epic adventure quest to save the damsel (or in this case, redundant mother character) in distress and save the world before it is literally ripped to shreds. Now this might seem like a somewhat familiar and run-of-the-mill premise for a story as it has been done before in films such as Jason and the Argonauts (1963) or Clash of the Titans (the 1981 original, not the 2010 crappy-ass remake), but what really makes this particular telling of such a tried and tested formula is the characters and the way that they interact with tenets of Greek mythology along the daring road of their quest. Percy Jackson in particular is played amusingly well by Lerman as he is shown to be your archetypal white, working-class pseudo-moody American teenager (at least how that demographic is shown by Hollywood movies) and yet is not awed by the fact that he is a demigod like so many movie heroes before him but is instead scared witless by the prospect of fighting in a mythical civil-war. This in turn is compounded by the comical way in which Percy points out the logical reasons and counter-arguments as to why it is so weird that his best friend is half goat and that he is the son of the sea god. On top of this, while Grover is most certainly annoying, he does provide some good comedy relief here and there by generally being both heroically loyal to Percy and a lecherous rouge with an addiction to the daughters of Aphrodite (the Greek goddess of love). As for the references to Greek mythology, the main characters mainly go through these references by having to collect pearls in order to get out of the underworld which are in turn scattered throughout the lairs of Medusa (Uma Thurman), the mighty Hydra and the manipulative and mind-controlling lotus eaters. Most entertaining of all the Greek gods and mythological legends however is the role of Hades played by Coogan who shows the god of the underworld not as the brooding and brimstone-like creature of darkness in traditional Greek mythology but as a heavy rock-loving, leather-wearing biker with the laziest attitude to his whole scheme of evil that you'd see from any villain of his calibre.
However, as amusing as the references to Greek mythology, Coogan's Hades and the Percy/Grover duo are, this film does have its weak points, and by the electrifying beard of Zeus are they jarring. The foremost of these barricades to the film's success is the fact that the story is so token and so run-of-the-mill that it is sometimes very hard for the story to be propped up alone by the dashing and comedic exploits of our heroes. This perhaps would be a redundant problem were it not for the fact that Hades, Grover, Percy and the main and clunkily-revealed-at-the-last-minute main villain Luke (Jake Abel) are the only interesting and engaging characters who keep you drawn in to the story. As it is, all the other pivotal characters, most notably Annabeth, Percy's mother, Poseidon and even Pierce Brosnan's Chiron, are either underplayed to the extent that they are notably uninteresting or are simply shown so little throughout the film that they become redundant themselves both in character and relevance to the story. However, what is most personally grating to me is how badly the main villain,. Luke, is revealed to be the aforementioned lightning thief near to the end of the film in what has to be one of the most clunky, sudden and jarring character reveals in recent movie history. Just as Percy, Annabeth and Percy's mother escape from the underworld to deliver the master lightning bolt to Zeus, they are halted in their tracks atop the apex of the empire state building by Luke who has played the support character throughout the film by giving the main characters mythology-Intel and directions. Being the son of Hermes (the flying/fleet-footed messenger of the Greek gods) Luke swoops in, swipes the lighting bolt and literally out of the blue, almost immediately says to Percy's face "I'm the lightning thief". The fact that this is conveyed with so little build-up makes it one of the most underwhelming villain reveals I have seen in recent years and is further made worse by the fact that its done in the last (and uncomfortably-rushed) 15 minutes of the film.
Taking this all into account, it would be fair to say that Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief is a poor excuse for an adventure film. However, it still holds up to no small extent as an action film with comedy elements such as Grover's lewdness and the riveting battles against the Hydra and the fight between Percy and Luke at the film's climax. Yet the cons of this film such as Percy's under-played ability to manipulate water and the slew of un-engaging side characters meant that when this film came out, it was generally under-appreciated in the sense that it had a more colourful main character than most films of its type in modern cinema and that it had some star actors such as Thurman, Brosnan and Coogan which were mostly ignored.
Yet I personally think that Chris Columbus's directing of Rick Riordan's novel of the same name is an admirable attempt to meld modern film-based pop culture with ancient and eternal mythology from a culture that spawned democracy. In conclusion: see this film but don't expect to be awed by its approach to ancient mythology.
I hope you enjoyed this review and as mentioned before...
I
HAVE
RETURNED!!!
In particular, I've chosen a strange specimen of a film in the sense that I see it as both being old and yet relatively new, and at the same time under-appreciated but also somewhat pretty weak. Now there are many films that fit this bill, but the one I have chosen is the 2010 adventure/action/comedy/mythology romp titled Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief.
Like many such films mostly centred around action and adventure, we follow the rise to glory of an aspiring hero as they are flung out of the ordinary world and into a world where magic reigns, mythical creates represent challenges to the hero's weaknesses and where obnoxious and slightly irritating comedy relief characters hold reign over much of the side-plots In this case we follow the case of Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) who discovers through being attacked at a museum by a 'fury' from the legends of Greek myth that he is a demigod; a son of a mortal woman and the Greek sea god Poseidon. When he is attacked Percy discovers not only is he a demigod but also that his aforementioned, obnoxious comedy relief/best friend character Grover (Brandon T. Jackson) is a goat/man hybrid called a 'satyr' and that he himself is destined to be trained at a camp governed by the centaur Chiron (Pierce Brosnan) where demigods like himself spar in order to prepare for possible conflicts between the gods. Unfortunately for Percy, he is sent to this camp just as such a civil-war of the Greek gods is about to start over who has stolen mighty Zeus's (Sean Bean) master lighting bolt, the start of which sees the underworld god Hades (Steve Coogan) kidnap his mother and blackmail him into bringing the lightning bolt to the underworld in the suspicion that Percy is in possession of it. Naturally Percy is all for charging in to save his mother and the day but his superiors advise against it, however, he naturally disobeys them and thus sets out on an adventurous quest for clues to who the lightning thief is and how to get to the underworld with Grover and the demigod Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario) in tow.
And thus begins a supposedly epic adventure quest to save the damsel (or in this case, redundant mother character) in distress and save the world before it is literally ripped to shreds. Now this might seem like a somewhat familiar and run-of-the-mill premise for a story as it has been done before in films such as Jason and the Argonauts (1963) or Clash of the Titans (the 1981 original, not the 2010 crappy-ass remake), but what really makes this particular telling of such a tried and tested formula is the characters and the way that they interact with tenets of Greek mythology along the daring road of their quest. Percy Jackson in particular is played amusingly well by Lerman as he is shown to be your archetypal white, working-class pseudo-moody American teenager (at least how that demographic is shown by Hollywood movies) and yet is not awed by the fact that he is a demigod like so many movie heroes before him but is instead scared witless by the prospect of fighting in a mythical civil-war. This in turn is compounded by the comical way in which Percy points out the logical reasons and counter-arguments as to why it is so weird that his best friend is half goat and that he is the son of the sea god. On top of this, while Grover is most certainly annoying, he does provide some good comedy relief here and there by generally being both heroically loyal to Percy and a lecherous rouge with an addiction to the daughters of Aphrodite (the Greek goddess of love). As for the references to Greek mythology, the main characters mainly go through these references by having to collect pearls in order to get out of the underworld which are in turn scattered throughout the lairs of Medusa (Uma Thurman), the mighty Hydra and the manipulative and mind-controlling lotus eaters. Most entertaining of all the Greek gods and mythological legends however is the role of Hades played by Coogan who shows the god of the underworld not as the brooding and brimstone-like creature of darkness in traditional Greek mythology but as a heavy rock-loving, leather-wearing biker with the laziest attitude to his whole scheme of evil that you'd see from any villain of his calibre.
However, as amusing as the references to Greek mythology, Coogan's Hades and the Percy/Grover duo are, this film does have its weak points, and by the electrifying beard of Zeus are they jarring. The foremost of these barricades to the film's success is the fact that the story is so token and so run-of-the-mill that it is sometimes very hard for the story to be propped up alone by the dashing and comedic exploits of our heroes. This perhaps would be a redundant problem were it not for the fact that Hades, Grover, Percy and the main and clunkily-revealed-at-the-last-minute main villain Luke (Jake Abel) are the only interesting and engaging characters who keep you drawn in to the story. As it is, all the other pivotal characters, most notably Annabeth, Percy's mother, Poseidon and even Pierce Brosnan's Chiron, are either underplayed to the extent that they are notably uninteresting or are simply shown so little throughout the film that they become redundant themselves both in character and relevance to the story. However, what is most personally grating to me is how badly the main villain,. Luke, is revealed to be the aforementioned lightning thief near to the end of the film in what has to be one of the most clunky, sudden and jarring character reveals in recent movie history. Just as Percy, Annabeth and Percy's mother escape from the underworld to deliver the master lightning bolt to Zeus, they are halted in their tracks atop the apex of the empire state building by Luke who has played the support character throughout the film by giving the main characters mythology-Intel and directions. Being the son of Hermes (the flying/fleet-footed messenger of the Greek gods) Luke swoops in, swipes the lighting bolt and literally out of the blue, almost immediately says to Percy's face "I'm the lightning thief". The fact that this is conveyed with so little build-up makes it one of the most underwhelming villain reveals I have seen in recent years and is further made worse by the fact that its done in the last (and uncomfortably-rushed) 15 minutes of the film.
Taking this all into account, it would be fair to say that Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief is a poor excuse for an adventure film. However, it still holds up to no small extent as an action film with comedy elements such as Grover's lewdness and the riveting battles against the Hydra and the fight between Percy and Luke at the film's climax. Yet the cons of this film such as Percy's under-played ability to manipulate water and the slew of un-engaging side characters meant that when this film came out, it was generally under-appreciated in the sense that it had a more colourful main character than most films of its type in modern cinema and that it had some star actors such as Thurman, Brosnan and Coogan which were mostly ignored.
Yet I personally think that Chris Columbus's directing of Rick Riordan's novel of the same name is an admirable attempt to meld modern film-based pop culture with ancient and eternal mythology from a culture that spawned democracy. In conclusion: see this film but don't expect to be awed by its approach to ancient mythology.
I hope you enjoyed this review and as mentioned before...
I
HAVE
RETURNED!!!
Friday, 4 May 2012
New Film Review #5: Avengers Assemble
Right first things first; it. is. FUCKIN A. To be back. I know I haven't done a review of anything in a really long time but I thought that a brilliant film such as Avengers Assemble (which by the way is better than any of the previous Marvel films) would be a good place to start over. Ah yes, with this gem in superhero films I shall rise up again in the world of critiques like a sweary, Jewish, short-sighted, Justin Beiber-hating, crazed phoenix (admittedly that analogy sounds a bit poncy but hey, it's me so what do you expect?).
Anyhow lets start off like we used to with the shit first then ice cream second...oh don't look at me like that I haven't done this in a long time. As with any film based off of a long running series of any kind or a legendary book, Avengers Assembled mucks up on a couple of things the most jarring of which for me was the fact that the Avengers team in the film is not the original one from the comics which was made up of the Hulk, Iron-man, Thor, Ant-man and The Wasp. the other main kick in the shin for me was how often the main villain Loki (who is Thor's half-brother and the Norse god of mischief for any of you who need to watch more superhero films) changes his appearance from the magnificently sparkly and fabulous (with a big emphasis on "fabulous") cloak and helmet that he wore in Thor to some black-as-pitch long-coat that makes Loki look like a slightly emo and rapey version of Rick Astley.
But putting all that to one side I have to say that this film is an abseloute cracker; it's far better than any of the previous films by Marvel studios (especially the disastrous Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer) and includes some of the best actors in the modern world of acting as some of my favourite heroes and even includes some surprisingly good knee-jerk comedy. The acting in particular is very very good indeed, not necessarily because the actors themselves are any good (although Samuel Jackson is always acting LIKE A BOSS) but because they are acting in that cheesy I-am-going-to-state-the-obvious-then-act-all-serious-'n'-shit way that characters behave in the actual comics and not like a bunch of talentless look-alikes like in Blade 3 (not to diss Wesley Snipes because he too acts LIKE A BOSS). In any sort of film that kind off approach to acting and playing out your character as an actor would make you look like you'd just sniffed a grand worth of PVC glue but in a superhero film with such ridiculous characters (such as the Norse god of thunder and a man with a shield who wears a hideous costume and yet is the most serious character in the cast), a bombastic end-battle between 6 superheroes and an entire bleedin' army and combine that with a deliciously simple plot then you my friends have one hell of a superhero movie.
As for the aforementioned simplistic plot itself what more do you want?: Loki the Norse god of mischief and trickery (played brilliantly by Tom Hiddleston after his début appearance in the mediocre War Horse) steals the glowy-cube-thing that appears in Thor and uses it to garner a deal with an alien race (the schittari, hey I couldn't find a proper pronunciation of it okay?) in order to gain revenge on Earth by helping said alien race invade and crush humanity. In a desperate effort to stop Loki the main force of good in the Marvel universe SHIELD (Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division), led by director Nick Fury (played LIKE A BOSS of course by Samuel Jackson) gathers together a poorly-coordinated, all round bad-tempered, frayed group of superheroes to combat this threat to the continued existence of the planet. Naturally, hearing about a film like that which has had not as much preparation as Avengers Assembled has would make me feel sceptical but with said preparation in the form of an entire series of films you can't help but anticipate a film like this so much that my nostrils excrete pure liquid joy.
As for the action scenes, there could be more variety instead of a procession of superhero VS main bad guy and./or faceless army of third-rate henchmen and/or other members of the main heroes team in a series of forests, cities, towns and an airborne aircraft carrier...wait...that actually sounds like a feckin great variety! Oh who am I kidding there really is nothing wrong with this film is there? (apart from the couple of snags I mentioned in the intro of course). The action of course is the best part of the film with the different heroes using a multitude of abilities and even the weapons of enemy henchmen against the baddies charging at them, of course those baddies mostly consist of henchmen who get messed up like a plate of lasagne in front of me but the film manages (in a surprisingly catch-you-unaware way) to convince you that the aforementioned henchmen are a serious threat. This in turn is something that is embodied very well also by the main villain who we get to see is most definitely evil even with facing his half-brother in battle, this combined with how many henchmen Loki has at his command and the sheer ability and power he holds makes it very convincing that the main heroes are in for the fight of their lives. Something that in turn I will guarantee make you root for them every step of the way.
The last thing I must touch upon before I get back to playing Medieval 2: Total War and crying over my lack of a love life is the acting. Now I found many minor snags in this film in many areas (not like the ones mentioned in the intro which are for me, at least, major ones) but the factor of the film where I found the most number of minor problems was with the acting itself, yes I can hear you spitting at me already but just hear me out. The acting is not necessarily all-round bad (especially with the likes of Robert Downey JR, Scarlett "DAT ass" Johansson and Chris Hemsworth acting their handsome/beautiful asses off) but there are some incredibly generic close-up shots that make characters look like the most blank-slated bad-asses (occasionally) especially in the case of one particular face-shot in the final battle of Jeremy Renner (as the dude with the bow, Hawkeye) that makes him look like the biggeest douche bag this side of Jersey Shore.
Regardless of that it is very hard for me to fault this film; the films leading up to this one have been good, the action is good, the directing and producing is marvellous, the acting is holed in areas but nonetheless highly admirable, the plot is simple and yet brilliant (like an ice cold can of Vimto on a sunny day) and the special effects in some places are truly breathtaking. Chances are that many of you who read this will have already seen the film but for those of you who haven't seen it, even if you don't like action/hero movies and/or the Marvel comics themselves I would highly recommend this with one hand on my heart and another on a copy of the Secret Invasion anthology. So yeah...go see it and again, it's actually kind of nice to be back.
Anyhow lets start off like we used to with the shit first then ice cream second...oh don't look at me like that I haven't done this in a long time. As with any film based off of a long running series of any kind or a legendary book, Avengers Assembled mucks up on a couple of things the most jarring of which for me was the fact that the Avengers team in the film is not the original one from the comics which was made up of the Hulk, Iron-man, Thor, Ant-man and The Wasp. the other main kick in the shin for me was how often the main villain Loki (who is Thor's half-brother and the Norse god of mischief for any of you who need to watch more superhero films) changes his appearance from the magnificently sparkly and fabulous (with a big emphasis on "fabulous") cloak and helmet that he wore in Thor to some black-as-pitch long-coat that makes Loki look like a slightly emo and rapey version of Rick Astley.
But putting all that to one side I have to say that this film is an abseloute cracker; it's far better than any of the previous films by Marvel studios (especially the disastrous Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer) and includes some of the best actors in the modern world of acting as some of my favourite heroes and even includes some surprisingly good knee-jerk comedy. The acting in particular is very very good indeed, not necessarily because the actors themselves are any good (although Samuel Jackson is always acting LIKE A BOSS) but because they are acting in that cheesy I-am-going-to-state-the-obvious-then-act-all-serious-'n'-shit way that characters behave in the actual comics and not like a bunch of talentless look-alikes like in Blade 3 (not to diss Wesley Snipes because he too acts LIKE A BOSS). In any sort of film that kind off approach to acting and playing out your character as an actor would make you look like you'd just sniffed a grand worth of PVC glue but in a superhero film with such ridiculous characters (such as the Norse god of thunder and a man with a shield who wears a hideous costume and yet is the most serious character in the cast), a bombastic end-battle between 6 superheroes and an entire bleedin' army and combine that with a deliciously simple plot then you my friends have one hell of a superhero movie.
As for the aforementioned simplistic plot itself what more do you want?: Loki the Norse god of mischief and trickery (played brilliantly by Tom Hiddleston after his début appearance in the mediocre War Horse) steals the glowy-cube-thing that appears in Thor and uses it to garner a deal with an alien race (the schittari, hey I couldn't find a proper pronunciation of it okay?) in order to gain revenge on Earth by helping said alien race invade and crush humanity. In a desperate effort to stop Loki the main force of good in the Marvel universe SHIELD (Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division), led by director Nick Fury (played LIKE A BOSS of course by Samuel Jackson) gathers together a poorly-coordinated, all round bad-tempered, frayed group of superheroes to combat this threat to the continued existence of the planet. Naturally, hearing about a film like that which has had not as much preparation as Avengers Assembled has would make me feel sceptical but with said preparation in the form of an entire series of films you can't help but anticipate a film like this so much that my nostrils excrete pure liquid joy.
As for the action scenes, there could be more variety instead of a procession of superhero VS main bad guy and./or faceless army of third-rate henchmen and/or other members of the main heroes team in a series of forests, cities, towns and an airborne aircraft carrier...wait...that actually sounds like a feckin great variety! Oh who am I kidding there really is nothing wrong with this film is there? (apart from the couple of snags I mentioned in the intro of course). The action of course is the best part of the film with the different heroes using a multitude of abilities and even the weapons of enemy henchmen against the baddies charging at them, of course those baddies mostly consist of henchmen who get messed up like a plate of lasagne in front of me but the film manages (in a surprisingly catch-you-unaware way) to convince you that the aforementioned henchmen are a serious threat. This in turn is something that is embodied very well also by the main villain who we get to see is most definitely evil even with facing his half-brother in battle, this combined with how many henchmen Loki has at his command and the sheer ability and power he holds makes it very convincing that the main heroes are in for the fight of their lives. Something that in turn I will guarantee make you root for them every step of the way.
The last thing I must touch upon before I get back to playing Medieval 2: Total War and crying over my lack of a love life is the acting. Now I found many minor snags in this film in many areas (not like the ones mentioned in the intro which are for me, at least, major ones) but the factor of the film where I found the most number of minor problems was with the acting itself, yes I can hear you spitting at me already but just hear me out. The acting is not necessarily all-round bad (especially with the likes of Robert Downey JR, Scarlett "DAT ass" Johansson and Chris Hemsworth acting their handsome/beautiful asses off) but there are some incredibly generic close-up shots that make characters look like the most blank-slated bad-asses (occasionally) especially in the case of one particular face-shot in the final battle of Jeremy Renner (as the dude with the bow, Hawkeye) that makes him look like the biggeest douche bag this side of Jersey Shore.
Regardless of that it is very hard for me to fault this film; the films leading up to this one have been good, the action is good, the directing and producing is marvellous, the acting is holed in areas but nonetheless highly admirable, the plot is simple and yet brilliant (like an ice cold can of Vimto on a sunny day) and the special effects in some places are truly breathtaking. Chances are that many of you who read this will have already seen the film but for those of you who haven't seen it, even if you don't like action/hero movies and/or the Marvel comics themselves I would highly recommend this with one hand on my heart and another on a copy of the Secret Invasion anthology. So yeah...go see it and again, it's actually kind of nice to be back.
Monday, 3 October 2011
Unlce Ted's Advice Corner #1
Just before we get into the jist of things today I would like to say sorry for being so unreliable recently and because of that I am changing the number of reviews from 2-per-week to 1-per-week, this is being done so that you lot get regular reviews that aren't being delayed so often. Of course I'll still bring out smaller, extra reviews here and there so that you guys are suitably satiated (hmm that's a nice rhyme).
Now onto today's shindig...or whatever. Today I'll tell you lads and ladies how to have the best time possible at a restaurant.
step 1: no matter what your diet is or who you're with or whether you're a Nyan cat, just choose what your gut instinct and taste tells you to go for. Even if that thing is smothered in cheese, reeking purely of garlic or simply presented like a dog's dinner then you must still get it.
step 2: if you're waiting for ages for your food then it's always a good idea to have something to entertain yourself with in the meantime. If you're with someone who doesn't have something like that just talk to them to pass the time or read your book to them or even tell them what's happening on your PSP.
step 3: usually there is a high chance of you sitting two or three tables away from some screamy little 3 or 4-year-old so you can do one of three things to cancell the little b******s voice out. You can either; Listen to an I-pod or MP3 player, say to the person minding the child "excuse me could you please keep him/her quiet? Thanks" or my personal favourite, chuck the little git into the poultry freezer and leave them there.
step 4: If the person (or imaginary person) you are eating with is getting on your arse/nerves then just call someone who is better-looking over to your table and ask the person who you are already eating with to move away.
step 5: although it is funny to annoy the waiter by doing a rubbish French or Spanish accent or pretending that you're perfect (no-one is) it is (unfortunately) best to avoid such entertainment. The reason for this is that you may find that after doing so, your newly arrived chocolate cake or spaghetti has some spit or excrement in it.
I hope that you guys are brimming with good tips and I'll be seeing you all later this week!
Please note that the notes of advice in this article are not utter Bull**** but are genuine advice points given buy a man who is definitely not completely insane.
Now onto today's shindig...or whatever. Today I'll tell you lads and ladies how to have the best time possible at a restaurant.
step 1: no matter what your diet is or who you're with or whether you're a Nyan cat, just choose what your gut instinct and taste tells you to go for. Even if that thing is smothered in cheese, reeking purely of garlic or simply presented like a dog's dinner then you must still get it.
step 2: if you're waiting for ages for your food then it's always a good idea to have something to entertain yourself with in the meantime. If you're with someone who doesn't have something like that just talk to them to pass the time or read your book to them or even tell them what's happening on your PSP.
step 3: usually there is a high chance of you sitting two or three tables away from some screamy little 3 or 4-year-old so you can do one of three things to cancell the little b******s voice out. You can either; Listen to an I-pod or MP3 player, say to the person minding the child "excuse me could you please keep him/her quiet? Thanks" or my personal favourite, chuck the little git into the poultry freezer and leave them there.
step 4: If the person (or imaginary person) you are eating with is getting on your arse/nerves then just call someone who is better-looking over to your table and ask the person who you are already eating with to move away.
step 5: although it is funny to annoy the waiter by doing a rubbish French or Spanish accent or pretending that you're perfect (no-one is) it is (unfortunately) best to avoid such entertainment. The reason for this is that you may find that after doing so, your newly arrived chocolate cake or spaghetti has some spit or excrement in it.
I hope that you guys are brimming with good tips and I'll be seeing you all later this week!
Please note that the notes of advice in this article are not utter Bull**** but are genuine advice points given buy a man who is definitely not completely insane.
Sunday, 2 October 2011
apology
sorry guys no review today, one will definitely be out tomorrow. The reason why there isn't a review this weekend is because I haven't tried any new mediums recently but I did go to an art exhibition this Thursday just gone so I'll review that tommorow. Again I am really sorry that I keep delaying my reviews but there's always a good reason.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)