Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts

Tuesday, 4 September 2012

REVIEW: Compliance

A true story about how we are taught to respect authority and how far that can go ...

It's just a normal day at a US burger joint, then the phone goes and it's the police saying that one of their workers has stolen money from a customer. There's no officers available to come down and he asks the manager to search the girl ...

So begins a day that turns into a horrific sequence of events. The whole time I was watching it, I was thinking 'This is stupid, how can any of this be real? No-one would be that stupid' but lo and behold, if you look online you will see that every single thing that happens in the film, happened in real life. ABC even did a documentary on it and you can watch it all on security camera footage if you really wanted proof.

The film is superbly acted with a great cast. It's claustrophobic environment, and the tightness of the shots to heighten the emotional impact, combined with the brilliant pace of the dialogue makes for a horribly awkward, intense and disgusting experience that will stay with you for days. It's simplicity is it's greatest achievement and the juxtaposition of the people eating in the restaurant only a few mere metres away is always reminding you that this isn't a weird dream, it isn't some horrid Hostel like prison but that it occurred as 'real-life' was still taking place, normal families were just outside not knowing what was happening at the back.

The shots of the food slowly getting more disgusting as the events do, start to take on a different meaning. You might never be able to look at a straw in a cup the same way again for instance. The one long take from the police department for instance is a very clever, subtle way to let you into some story information without shoving it in your face. The subtle power plays that the caller manages to do, the way he enforces his authority every so often and the fact that this isn't even just for some sexual kick but perhaps for sick amusement, is a very smart way of bringing you into the action as well. It allows you to understand the situation more and perhaps see how this all was allowed to happen.

The characters also feel believable in an unbelievable situation. Ann Dowd is incredible as the middle aged female manager who hasn't really got much of a life, still feels awkward being around younger people and yet doesn't want to feel like an old dear. She clearly hasn't got a backbone and her conviction as she talks to her staff is lacking at best. They clearly have no respect for her and neither do the general public it seems. She's a wet busybody who thinks she's more important than she actually is. She's also incredibly stupid and naive which doesn't help her case. A telling scene is at the end when she is retelling the story, and the interviewer proves her wrong by showing her evidence, but she can't think of an answer. You can see the stupidity and sheer obnoxiousness of the woman shine through as she doesn't want to believe she's done something bad so instead she talks about New Orleans and the weather there, clearly not understanding about certain recent events there and portrays perfectly the small-minded rural America blinkered view of the world. Uneducated and a blind follower of any authority figure.

The film is extremely cleverly shot and scripted and put together very delicately. It could so easily look like a cheap uninspired piece, but instead it is a gripping piece of work that has worked its way up to one of my top films this year. I guarantee you will enjoy it and if you dig around further about what actually happened, I think you'll be even more shocked.

Rating: 9/10

Sunday, 29 July 2012

ARTICLE: Silent Hill: Revelations 3D & Why Games To Films Don't Always Work

Welcome to Silent Hill.... Again.

I am a big fan of Silent Hill and when I say, Silent Hill, I mean the games not the film - and when I say the games I mean the first, well ... three - and when I say the first three I mean, Silent Hill 2.

It must be said that Silent Hill 2 was one of the greatest games I've played - mainly because it understood that it wasn't a town, it was a state of mind. Silent Hill doesn't exist - it's where you go to be judged. Never before had the ending of a game hit me with such an emotional shock that it made me reconsider the hours and hours I'd invested beforehand with this character. It was amazing,  however, the rest of the games (Homecoming, Downpour etc. which I've played but never reviewed simply because they are so bad I don't want to relive the experience) have failed to reach the heady heights.

The first Silent Hill was great but more a bag of ideas than an amazing game, if you go back to play it again (you can download from PSN store) you'll see how awful the controls are, the voice acting and all that, but the right feeling was there. It could be said that the first Silent Hill film was similar. It had the right idea, it was a mixed bag of Silent Hill 1 and 2, it just failed because it wasn't scary, there was poor acting and it failed to compel. Visually it worked, but there was no real depth. Why they didn't take the story from Silent Hill 2 is beyond me - and it looks like Silent Hill Revelations is a film adaptation of Silent Hill 3 therefore completely skipping over the best game of the series. Very strange.

There's the running argument that games into films just don't work. The main reason is because you can't simply transfer the ideas to a big screen. Silent Hill works as a game because you invest a lot of time into the people, you are truly scared of dying so you don't have to restart from the last save point, you slowly reveal what happens, and to fit in this process into 90 minutes when it usually takes 9 hours or so is tough, especially when people are so concerned about taking the best bits when Silent Hill works best as a slow-burner, with the pay-off's being more story based than 'monster' based. It's not the monsters that scare you, it's the lead-up and anticipation, it's the humans and their motives.

Silent Hill, like all good horror, knows that these monsters, this world, is just an extension of the psyche of the protagonist but the film made it seems like it was a ghostly alternate dimension or something. It just didn't work.

So we come to Revelations where the main pull is that it's in 3D. Unfortunately, I'm going to the cinema to see it, same as every new Silent Hill game that comes out I have to buy and complete - full well knowing that it will be shit, but there's this hope, this glimmer, that maybe I might be able to revisit that Silent Hill I love and detest at the same time, but every time I'm disappointed.

This trailer speaks volumes in that there's again no depth, but looks great


Sunday, 26 February 2012

REVIEW: The Descendants

Will Academy Golden Boy Clooney Do It Again?


A lot of people have asked me what I thought of this film and if you can't be bothered to read the below then I can sum it up in one word - "Alright".

For more greater detail on why, let's just say it's another Clooney vehicle. People might say how the focus should be on Payne and they are correct. However, I'm just not a huge fan of his. People writing reviews in magazines (the ones that get paid to write and get loads of time to do it and rarely know what they are talking about etc. - not bitter of course) have been writing love letters to Payne saying how they missed his work and it's been ages since his last film. You know why it's been ages? Because he's been spending that time working on Hung - a TV series I've neither seen or had the inclination to see.

Anyway, off the point, Sideways was a good movie - but I felt it was Giamatti who really made it. Payne's shtick of a 'journey' both literally and metaphorically is so cliched that it's tough to enjoy one film about it. Let alone three. I thought his true masterpiece was the largely undervalued Election and would gladly watch that again than watch this. However, time and time again he does seem to like the mid-life crisis of American males. It's just nothing new and Descendants is proof of this.

George Clooney plays a man whose wife is in critical condition. At the same time his large extended family have a huge deal in place with him at the centre of selling off some family plot. The painstakingly obvious idea of family is never buried within the story, it's clear as day - the land is a metaphor for his family. He won't 'give it up'. It's almost embarrassing to watch. As he delves a little deeper, he finds out his wife was cheating on him so makes it a task to find the people close to her, including the other man in her life. In a way, she has brought the family closer together than she perhaps ever could have done in life. It's a sad tale but one that is full of melancholy, a Payne favourite.

A lot of people describe this as a comedy, it's not. It's full of some weird funny awkward moments and Clooney's warmth shines through as he clearly understands the character, but Oscar worthy? Seriously? It's a completely forgettable film with some okay performances. The little girl is annoying, the teenager's boyfriend even more annoying (a male teenager from the Nineties it seems indicating Payne is quite out of touch) and the peripheral characters not really even worth mentioning. There are some touching, tender moments but with the amount of quality that was produced in the latter half of last year, this should be buried somewhat, not leading the pack.

The bit I really enjoyed the most was the end. A quiet, thoughtful, unassuming look at the family who are now sitting down and facing us, a role reversal to presume that it is now our turn to live our lives, tell our stories and get on with everything. It's simplicity is a touch of genius but something that can't save the entire film.

It's George Clooney being George Clooney (has he had work done?) in another slow, character led piece.

Good, but by no means great, or even fantastic.

Rating: 6/10

Saturday, 22 October 2011

REVIEW: LA Noire

Team Bondi have now disbanded claiming that producing LA Noire was akin to slave labour. In it's lead-up, LA Noire was one of the most talked about games for quite a while, but did it live up to all expectations?


The reason why this has taken me so long, is because the third and final disc on the 360 didn't work. It gathered dust until I rented the game out and completed it but when I returned to it, any novelty value long dead and gone, it dawned on me how irritating this game can be.

You play (for the most part) Cole, an LA detective and war hero who likes to play things by the book. As the game progresses you work your way through Homicide, Vice, Traffic and Arson in multiple cases where each case acts like an episode of a TV series. There are smaller story arcs and a grander arc which is a confusing mix of army morphine, Cole's mates, a strange doctor and someone setting fire to houses. It has to be said that the most interesting arc was the initial Homicide story where you are trying to find a serial killer who likes his women. However, the way the case ended was weak to say the least. After that, it plateaus somewhat with some highs and lows but never really giving you anything new. I was also constantly bemused by what was happening and why we kept getting flashbacks into Cole's military past (which does become clearer later on). Cole's rule-abiding behaviour is quite boring and when he is 'shamed' it does come out of nowhere and completely out of character, especially when we see what his by-the-books actions have done in the past. It's a complex narrative, and not in a good way - if I don't understand it, I don't care about it and then I lose interest, which speaking to others seems to be the case a lot of the time.

This is sold as a narrative heavy game and the stories themselves are served well, I just can't stand the protagonist and found pretty much every other character more interesting. Even his final redemption at the end of the game was pretty lame. However, there's a lot of hours of gameplay here and I never got truly bored. It's quite linear but there is a sandbox element and at times you get calls to other cases, however sometimes these can take about ten minutes or more of driving to get to depending on where you are in the city. You can also unlock cars, 'landmarks' etc. but seeing as you'd have to drive to get there, and as great as the driving is, it's not Grand Theft Auto, so you're not exactly excited to do it.

Depending on choices you make, how well you do etc. will affect the narrative of the case, however not the entire game. Apart from dying, you're pretty much never going to lose. Essentially, you could get everything wrong and do nothing and although you might get a 1 out of 5 star rating for the case, it won't matter to your progression, it only means that you miss out on some story elements in the case that would be interesting. You're there to play a game after all, not rush through it.

Graphically, LA Noire is exceptional. LA as a city is lush, rich and full of life and the face motion technology they use is exquisite with some outstanding results. You recognise a lot of other Mad Men characters that have decided to join their co-star. The soundtrack is beautiful and this is a well crafted game, everything is put together in such a way that even the non-gamer would be impressed. However, what really lets it down is the gameplay.

The problem is that the actual playing of the game is crucial to the enjoyment of the viewer and LA Noire is repetitive and at best, stupidly easy. The shootouts are too few and far between with some annoying controls and the chase scenes are fun, but usually consist of just holding up on the control pad. What really annoys me are the interrogations. You have a simple system of truth, doubt or lie. However, what they say isn't necessarily a lie. If someone says to you - "Do you know Tom?" "Well it depends on which Tom now doesn't it" is that truth, doubt or lie? They look like they are lying, but it's true, it does depend on what Tom. But then you get it wrong and if you press lie, you have to back it up with proof - which sometimes could be anything. Cole also seems to go berserk every time you press Lie, he suddenly starts shouting and threatening out of nowhere which jars with the game. It's a flawed system and I don't think it was thought out enough at all.

Also the general set-up of each case is you arrive at the scene, the 'looking' music starts, you walk around until your control vibrates, you have a look and keep going until the 'looking' music stops. You talk to whoever you need to, get your partner to drive you to the next scene, chase or shoot someone and so on and so forth. A couple of times you have a couple of suspects, and I was constantly awaiting if I made the right choice - however, I have no idea still and it grates on me. I thought at the end we would see who was actually guilty. Case after case after case is the same layout but a different story with only minor changes.

I feel like LA Noire is all style and no substance. It's smooth and slick but with a story that I thought should be a lot darker (though is still quite dark at times), with a character more complex and especially if this is a film noir rip-off - an anti-hero at least, there should be more varied and advanced gameplay with a better overall storyline. There was so much here that could have made this game exceptional but instead it arrives at mediocre. It's definitely worth playing, a lot of fun and all, but there was so much that could have been improved on that you can't help but feel it was a chance slightly wasted. Good effort, but better luck next time. It's just a shame that Team Bondi's demise probably means the same for LA Noire - let's just hope someone somewhere has been taking notes.

Rating: 7/10

Friday, 2 September 2011

REVIEW: The Inbetweeners

I should get this out of the way immediately - I don't find The Inbetweeners that funny. However, I can understand why people like it, but I don’t think anyone was really prepared by how well the film has done.


I’m not going to go into numbers and bore you, but put it this way, The Inbetweeners movie has done really, really well. The tale of four young lads on their first proper holiday has been quite a fan favourite but despite this, I can’t help but think it’s relatively average at best. In fact, I felt the film was worse than the episodes, which I don’t rate that highly either.

I should go into why I don’t like it as people might be opposed to the review if they think I’m just trying to be anti-mainstream (yes Inbetweeners is mainstream). Firstly, I hate the way it constantly flashes back to what’s happened earlier in the episode. I’ve just seen it, why do I need to see it again? It’s as if they are trying to waste time or make some kind of Wonder Years immediate nostalgia feel to the episode. Nostalgia again cropping up with it’s use of music, old and new, so that the older folks can remember being kids and listening to The Cure etc. It’s a subconscious attempt to involve all and then proceed to make fanny and dick jokes.

I do think some of the jokes are well constructed but the plots are quite feeble at best and sometimes the horrible cliché of a catchphrase reers it’s ugly head, Wetherspoon’s becoming full of people throwing Inbetweener’s in-jokes at each-other like they’ve just discovered wanking and want to tell everyone about it. It’s easy for me to say this though from the outside looking in, but what I find strange is essentially this Middle England youth culture that’s depicted is actually a glorified, feel-good jaunty that has no-one ever really learning a lesson or developing at all. The movie tries to do this, but essentially it’s just a bunch of scenes linked together with the writer’s thinking ‘how can we make this scene more awkward? Shall we throw another dick joke in?’

The acting is also terrible, which can be seen in the recent Chickens where, again, the Inbetweener’s actors play just another part of themselves. The acting in the film is just as bad, if not worse.

Oh yes, the film. I forgot about that. Right well, firstly there is absolutely no way those girls would be interested with those guys and the ending made me want to throw a grenade onto the boat and end them all for being so sickly ‘nicey nice’ and everything working out perfectly. It’s just so bloody feel-good cheesy nonsense that is ‘cutting-edge’ because it uses filthy humour. Sorry, I digress again.

You have to understand, I don’t hate The Inbetweeners. If it’s on, I’ll watch it. I just don’t get the fascination or the ridiculous success of it. It’s sometimes quite lazy and feels like a dirty Grange Hill – the times where it’s supposed to be emotional or dramatic are instead cringeworthy.

Anyway, the film just feels like the crew of the show wanted a bit of an excuse for a holiday. I must have laughed about once every ten or fifteen minutes, which is good for a comedy film, but not great. The middle sags to a horrible degree and I’d rather they just squeezed this into a one hour special on channel 4 or something, but then it wouldn’t have made multi-millions I guess.

One good thing about it is it seems that it brings people together. Everyone remembers the awkwardness of being a teenager, the creative namecalling, the comraderie of your mates and the obsession with anything that was rude. Dick jokes have always plagued comedy for centuries, so I guess why should it stop now? It doesn’t matter how old you are, a dick joke will always go down well (that’s what she said).

So the movie has it’s awkward moments, it’s stupid moments, it’s physical slapstick and some clever set-ups, but I never once thought this was a great comedy. The end also had got me hating it even more by the time I walked out and everyone saying how much they loved it and already talking about ‘that bit’ and ‘remember when’ – yeah, I just saw it. I went home and watched some American Office instead and felt a lot better.

See it if you fancy a chuckle, but it’s ‘alright’. I also doubt I’ll ever bother to sit down and watch it again either, which is saying something itself.

Rating: 5/10

Wednesday, 17 August 2011

REVIEW: The X Files (Entire Series)

Warning: X-Files is bad for your mental and physical health. 


I'm sure, like the rest of the world, everyone was aware of The X Files; a Twilight Zone, B-Movie, Monster-of-the-Week series that got people talking and was full of creative, horrifying and often scary ideas. However, even though more and more people got pulled in season after season, fans became irritated and soon lost interest leaving it to be cancelled after 9 successive years.

As a result, and due to my initial love for The X Files, I decided to go back and start from the very beginning and what a journey it was. Keep in mind, every season has about 24/25 episodes which last 45 mins, sometimes longer and that I've been watching it every spare minute since February until last week. If you've been wondering why there hasn't been many movie reviews, or many of anything on this site, it's because X Files has taken up all my time. I've almost killed myself doing it, constantly watching episode after episode until finally after what seems like a lifetime, it comes to an end. Well, apart from the subsequent films. So let me tell you what I thought.

If you speak to Joe Bloggs about X Files, more often than not he'll tell you that he liked the early seasons and then it all went a bit weird. This, to summarise, is pretty much what happened. When X Files had stand-alone weekly episodes, they worked best - obviously like any show, overarching narratives are what keep people hooked continuously, but it was these storylines, the big 'epic' conspiracies etc. that really killed it. It became the victim of it's own self-belief in a world where EVERYTHING is real. There's no doubting anything and the annoying thing is, after seeing so much, going through everything, Scully still refuses to accept some pretty obvious truths. New characters often glide in with cynicism, but this mix of 'real-world' and X Files world contradicts itself constantly and becomes rather infuriating. Not only this but the sagging middle seasons have very, very few episodes which are alright at best. They take the piss out of themselves way too much as well with parodies, self-aware jokes and nonsensical situations like being the stars of a Hollywood movie, going inside a computer game and more to add insult to injury. By the end of it all, you realise that the whole thing is a bloody joke and completely ridiculous. It's either serious or it isn't, the tonal mix is, at times, a welcome relief but soon wears thin.

However, there are some good points. Duchovny goes from enjoying the role of Mulder to mocking it to hating it and then just leaving, only to continue coming back in what you can clearly see is for just the money. Gillian Anderson however holds the whole thing together - in the face of sheer absurdity she brings a gravitas to it that only a real actress can accomplish. Everyone around her knows it's dumb, that X Files had it's day a long time ago, but still she gives every scene her all and doesn't think anything is beneath her.

In spite of this, there's so much I hated about X Files that it's hard to list. The dialogue is terrible, the storyline is ridiculous and full of holes, the acting can be abysmal and annoyingly, they even use past actors again as different roles. What X Files does best is come up with imaginative stories that are completely out-of-the-box, and when it does it right, it really comes through. It's a shame that looking back at 9 years worth of material, that the lows are so low and the highs so high, it's completely unpredictable.

The main surprise and real highlight for me was Robert Patrick as Agent Doggett. Once he enters he brings a real breath of fresh air to the series and is a brilliant counter-point to Scully, the too few episodes where it is just them two are some of my favourite epsiodes of the entire lot. His straight-talking Jersey boy attitude and downright manliness give the show a macho image that it was crucially lacking. A lot of the time Mulder moans, whines, and is annoyingly constantly correct, so that when he reappears with Doggett on the scene, you can't help but root for Patrick when you really feel the writers want you to side with Mulder. It's very well done and it's a shame that it could never take off properly with Robert Patrick being the main character. Part of this was because they tried to team him up with Monica Seles or whatever her name is, some 'pyschic' FBI agent that lacks both depth, charisma and talent - her crutch in life? Cigarettes. Jesus she's bland.

It's a real shame that X Files didn't continue but with a story so out-of-hand, characters bordering on the ridiculous, acting with a lot left to be desired and it's obsession with moving away from simple, one-off stories to big government conspiracies just confused the hell out of me. It's a perfect example of taking something simple and convoluting it to the point where it's no longer identifiable. The last episode, a final attempt to sum up what the hell had been happening was unfortunately too little too late, it had been surfing on it's initial success for too long and this episode shows how stupid the whole thing had become. I highly recommend The X Files, but instead of watching the whole thing, I'd talk to someone like myself and only watch particular episodes. It's not quantity, it's quality. I just wish someone could have told Chris Carter.

Also, why the hell he decided to do a spin-off on the most irritating people on The X Files, The Lone Gunmen, is beyond me.

Some terrible mistakes were made and the show paid the price. When it worked, it really worked. But in reality it was a broken monstrosity that wouldn't look out of place within it's own realm.

Someone give Robert Patrick a job please.


Rating: 6/10

Sunday, 10 July 2011

REVIEW: Assassin's Creed - Brotherhood

So I finally finish the sequel to ... the sequel in what is rather an addition to Assassin's Creed II rather than a completely new story all together.


The story carries on from pretty much where Assassin's Creed II left off, however Ezio has now basically had that apple thing stolen from him and plans to get it back - with some people to kill along the way. Desmond, his modern day counterpart, is still a bit confused by what's going on inside his head and with the irritating Danny Wallace by his side trying to be funny, you're luckily spending most of your time in Rome.

There are some notable differences though, not only Rome being the main city this time round but also it feels a lot smoother. The hustle and bustle of the city is still mesmorising and I can't help but get completely engrossed in the city, like it's a second home. Brotherhood has advanced some more while Ezio has been away. The idea of renovating different businesses to increase your income is quite an obsessive distraction, however having to kill a nearby head guard person to allow you to do it can be rather tiresome and systematic. The main idea of 'Brotherhood' though is the quite innovative notion of recruiting assassin's and sending them out around the world on missions. Not only do they get stronger and level up as you go along, but during gameplay you can call on them to take out enemies. However, once I'd realised this, completing certain missions became a piece of cake and sometimes made the game a whole lot easier. It's a blessing and a curse.

There's not much to criticise here as Assassin's Creed II was a great piece of gaming and this adds a whole new layer to it but lacks the character depth of it's predecessor. I enjoyed the narrative of the second one, but then this was never meant to be anything to drive the narrative forward apart from the shocker ending. If you haven't played any of these games before, this is a great one to delve into as it has all the glorious benefits from the other titular games but keeps things quite simple. I couldn't be bothered to try and do the game 100%, which I did for the last one as I really felt I'd had enough jumping around and assassinating to last a lifetime, but there's a whole lot here that can keep you occupied for a long time to come.

A lot of this time-consuming business is also a lot of jumping around dark caves, cellars and what-not as you try to negotiate yourself around places. I sometimes wish it didn't have these points, as it lacks the excitement that something like Uncharted would have, and it just turns into some weird platform-esque game, which I can really be doing without. After a while, you just want to stop climbing and jumping around and falling only to do it again and again.

The graphics look great, the city is beautiful, the gameplay exquisite and the story-line, though a little bit cobbled together to get another Ezio story out, still proves to be engaging and fun nonetheless. Had this been more of a turning point for the narrative, then I would give this a higher mark but as it stands, it really is just a bridge to what I would like to have been Assassin's Creed 3 but instead is another Ezio storyline in Assassin's Creed Revelations. It goes to show what great games truly can achieve when you try something different.

Rating: 9/10

Thursday, 26 May 2011

REVIEW: Portal 2

From the ashes of Half Life 2 came a weird creature called Portal that created quite a stir and ended up having a rather large, cult following. It was an attachment with The Orange Box which went on to sell millions and Portal itself had apparently revolutionised the puzzle genre in a way that hadn't been seen since perhaps Tetris. Now Portal 2 is here - so what's all the fuss about?


Truth be told I never got into Portal. In fact I never got into Half Life 2, I never really got into Counterstrike and I never even completed Half Life. However, such was the excitement for Portal 2 and that I kept being repeatedly told that I would enjoy it that I thought I'd give this game a go.

Essentially, it's beauty is in it's complexity in simplicity. Even though all you do is point, shoot and occasionally jump, it becomes a joy to solve each and every puzzle and the reason why is because of the physics involved with using portals. You have a gun that shoots two different portals, an orange one and a blue one, and that's it. You can only shoot them onto certain surfaces, but when you do you can walk through them. That's the entire game. However, where you place them and how you get to certain places is the trick and once you've figured it out you can't help but feel the satisfaction that you were able to figure out something that was actually very complicated.

If you get to a certain height for instance and put a portal beneath you, with a second portal in the distance which happens to be at a 45 degree angle then when you fall into the portal, it will launch you in the air on the other side of the room. This might not make sense, but this is probably one of the simplest tricks you have to learn how to use in order to continue through the game. Along the way there are buttons, holo-bridges, mini turret robots and different liquids that let you bounce, speed up and more. All you need to know is nothing is there on accident, everything has a purpose. Including the little blocks that really do help.

It's extremely well thought out and makes the puzzle solving enjoyable without being too easy yet not frustrating either - a hard line to manage and one that Portal 2 successfully pulls off. However, my problem is that it actually relies too heavily on the puzzle solving and, as a full game, I thought it fell rather short of delivering a fully packaged experience.

Firstly, the plot carries on from the first Portal (I think) and so everything that was once bright, white and shiny has been slightly ruined. Stephen Merchant plays the robot helping you out and provides the laughs, but in a sense his voice is so unique that you can't help but think of his face rather than the robot. At the same time, his voice acting, especially near the end is laughable for different reasons and even though it's meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek in his very self-aware way, it takes away from the immersive experience of the game. The graphics are also somewhat dated and it just feels like a PC game from about 5 years ago. The sound is almost awful at times, often a signature riff is heard when you're doing different things to do with the puzzle but  it sounded cheap and farcical. The plot of merely trying to escape is simple enough, but you'd rather just solve the puzzles and Portal 2 knows this. So it does have a story, but it's always trying to move you on to the next puzzle, which is probably a good thing.

I enjoyed this game, but thought that so much time had been spent developing the puzzles that by adding a nice, whole story they thought they could sell it as a full game when I thought it was rather short. The co-op was something I dabbled with, and would work well if with the right person but I can imagine it could get very frustrating very fast. Overall, the puzzle element was amazing and well worth it, but as a gaming experience I'd rather there just be a whole load of levels as I really wasn't bothered about the story. Great, simple and a whole lot of fun but it's not one of the best games I've ever played - I enjoyed it as much as I enjoy sitting down with a book of sudokus - which might give me a whole heap of satisfaction but doesn't necessarily make it one of my favourite books.

Great fun, but smash it out over a few days and move on.

Rating: 7/10

Tuesday, 12 April 2011

REVIEW: Source Code

Duncan Jones, David Bowie's kid and the guy who did 'Moon' makes his proper Hollywood debut with thriller 'Source Code' with a tanned Jake Gyllenhaal and a pretty Michelle Monaghan.


Have you ever seen that Tony Scott film with Denzel Washington called 'Deja Vu'? Well if you have, get ready for some ... Deja Vu - because it's a similar premise. The whole point of Source Code is to not give too much away so let me tell you the bits that don't give anything away to begin with. Basically, Jake is a soldier sent into someone else's body in a train that's about to blow up, however he only has 8 minutes to find the bomber. That's pretty much it.

The thing is, this is sold subconsciously as the next 'Inception' - if you look at the movie poster it's him running while stuff seems to blow up and away in the background, like that bit in Inception. It's also got a British director at the helm and even the font is essentially the same. The colour palette for the entire film could also be considered similar to Inception, it's blue greyish visuals reminiscent of Nolan's masterpiece. However, it doesn't even begin to get as close to it.

The thing is, Source Code doesn't really make sense, and then it goes off on one anyway. The initial Groundhog Day-like humour feels slightly jarring - should I actually be finding this funny? I guess so. Also when he looks into the mirror to see someone else stare back, I was expecting him to say 'oh boy' (Quantum Leap reference there for non Sci-Fi fans). The problem is, it's tough without giving too much away. The constant repetition feels like an actor's studio, after studying Drama myself for a while, there was always the classic exercise of acting out a scene again and again, remembering gestures etc. and it feels like that, in fact I think Gyllenhaal overplays his hand many times and I would argue is actually mis-cast. Monaghan is a good counterpoint to try and keep the idea somewhat grounded in reality whereas it's really Vera Farmiga and the hugely underrated Jeffrey Wright that feel like the true actors. They are the shady military bodies sending poor Gyllanhaal's Stevens back into time. But then is it time he's being sent into?

Apparently, the science is that after death the brain has an 8 minute window of memory and somehow they are able to tap into the memory of this guy 'Sean' who was on the train that Stevens is sent back into. I'm still unclear walking out of the movie whether it was tapping into the brain, or tapping into time. The idea is that he can't change time, because it's already happened and so there would be a parallel universe in accordance with whether he stopped it or not. I thought it was just a computer program as at one key point, the 'code' starts to falter and he starts to lose a grip. The ending, which I'll come to later in case you haven't seen it (I'll put up an alert), makes no sense whatsoever and what makes this different from Inception is that, in some weird way, I can work out the science in Inception but in this I can't, and it frustrates me as it loses it's appeal by just trying to be a bit different. It has in fact, 'pulled a lost'.

The acting is so-so, the directing was OK but then it wasn't anything crazy - some helicopter shots, stuff in a train car, stuff in a military room, stuff in a weird shell. If anything it's the editing which is commendable by letting it flow seamlessly together without causing too much of an obstruction. However, I didn't think this was particularly well crafted. In fact, for a thriller I didn't get much thrills and the idea of resetting the clock takes away from the danger element. The first hour or so of the film is spent trying to figure out who the bomber is, and that's interesting - the audience play along with Stevens as to who the culprit may be. However, once you've figured it out, it's an anti-climax that then afterwards tries to take a more personal route as Stevens carries on on his own mission. It doesn't even matter if he stops the bomb, he just has to find the bomber who, in this present day reality, is threatening to unleash a bigger bomb. Everyone's already dead and they can't be saved we are told again and again.

There's not that much action, there's a couple of twists that were okay and an ending left up for interpretation (which I will come to) and it's better than Scott's 'Deja Vu', but not by much. Gyllenhaals' persistent, frustrating questions deny the audience of the speed needed and there's a tiny sequence where it's suggested he has been back multiple times and the idea of 'dying' again and again has taken it's toll leaving him clearly exhausted, but it's a lazy piece of exposition. This is nothing like Inception, there were bits that made me laugh out loud a lot that eased the tension, but there wasn't that much tension really anyway. I was dissatisfied but my girlfriend suggested that it was good to see something original on the screen, which is true but I felt it was a mixed bag. It should have either kept to the modern-day action flick, the Eighties Sci-Fi-er or the Hitchcockian thriller but instead it felt like a garbled take on a single idea of going back in time for 8 minutes - which in theory is a good one. Perhaps they tried to do too much? Or maybe they did too little? I just don't think I'd ever watch it again and didn't come out thinking it was that great. There will be people who like the concept, who respect the director and the actors, that it's a bold attempt at something, but really this will one of those films people will forget by this time next year. Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe it's because the ending really made me angry ... I'll give the rating now but scroll underneath for the reason why, but it will include Spoilers.

Rating: 6/10




*SPOILERS*

Okay, so I guess the key thing is establishing whether he's actually going 'back in time' or whether it's some weird computer 'code'. Let's say for arguments sake that he is actually going back in time and each time he's offsetting a parallel universe. In that case, where the hell is the original Sean? Once Stevens 'dies' he's left in Sean's body? What's that about? What will happen when he has to meet his parents again? How will he teach History? He's been meeting this girl for a little bit and now steals her away from the guy she's obviously crazy over? It doesn't work. Also some have argued that he's dead and this is his heaven. It's a stupid theory because if it was his afterlife, we wouldn't be cutting away to the Source Code division, neither would he have Sean's face, nor would there have been flashes of this parallel universe during the film. It would also mean that there would be two Stevens' in one dimension which, if Back To The Future taught me anything, could create a paradox that would spell the end of the Universe! Or whatever. It was annoying and logically didn't work. People say 'oh, it's just a bit of fun' but for me to clarify it as fun in it's own world, it should always make sense in the context it has set up. Inception might be full of stuff that doesn't really add up but it makes sense in it's own weird way, the best films always do. It's one of my main arguments against Lost is that for it to work and sufficiently entertain, it cannot cheat the audience, which it did. I always remember when Hitchcock made Stage Fright, he always said his greatest mistake was duping the audience into thinking a flashback was real. The audience have to trust the filmmaker, and to exploit it is the same as exploiting the trust you give to anyone. You are passively subject to the director's wishes and he knows that he's already got you, so he can do what he likes. Source Code unfortunately is the same as this, and even though it made for an entertaining film, I really thought it would be more than it was. Instead it's a mediocre sci-fi/action film that's been done before and ends up just getting on my nerves.

Wednesday, 6 April 2011

NEWS: Tron 3 - More Details Released!

Good news for those who loved Tron:Legacy (like myself) - Kosinki will be back to direct the third movie with original screenwriters Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz.

Apparantly Kosinki is the highest grossing first time director of a live-action film EVER, so that's quite impressive. It took a phenomenal $399 million and JJ Abrams' MI:3 took $397.5 - a small, yet huge, margin. There might have been a huge amount of money thrown at it to be fair, but still, it's quite impressive. There's also going to be a theme ride at Disney called ElecTRONica - and let's be honest, it might be my wet dream. If Olivia Wilde was sitting next to me, it would be perfect. Can someone ask her? I'd appreciate it. Apparently she's dating Justin Timberlake so that could be a problem ...

There was also a teaser trailer (perhaps fan-made?) of young Dillinger (Cillian Murphy in the film) who, for anyone who paid attention to the original Tron, will know is the son of the main evil guy in the original movie. The robot voice also signals the original computerised enemy (South Park's 'Moses' for anyone who might not have seen Tron) which could make things interesting ...

REVIEW: Burke & Hare

Why does John Landis do this to himself? He hasn't done a film since 1998's Susan's Plan and ... Blues Brothers 2000 - so where did it all go wrong? And why does it keep going wrong?

You would think with such a line-up as Tom Wilkinson, Simon Pegg, Andy Serkis, Isla Fischer, Tim Curry, Bill Bailey, Christopher Lee, Ronnie Corbett and more that it would have to go fairly wrong to be awful and it's the cast that really keep this atrocity afloat.

The story goes that Pegg and Serkis as Burke and Hare go around snatching bodies to sell them for science. But to raise income they start killing people to get their numbers up and Wilkinson's Dr. Knox is happy to receive them. At the same time, Pegg is falling for Fischer as she commits to her dream of putting on Macbeth at a local theatre. Soon enough the authorities, played wonderfully by Corbett, catch up to them.

The story is simple and the script very, very unfunny. That's not really much of a surprise since it comes from the guys who wrote St. Trinians and to be honest, it isn't much different in tone. The macabre arc completely jars with everything, they try so hard for the characters to be likeable yet slightly evil and selfish. It's a horrible mixture and a strange final redemption is too little too late and really brings you out of the film. There's also not much screen time or banter between Burke and Hare, especially as soon as Fischer gets involved and Burke's wife is played by Jessica Hynes who you can't help but feel sorry for as she keeps getting Pegg's handouts.

Pegg is the more innocent, starry eyed dreamer of the two which makes him the least interesting character of the whole piece. Serkis hardly gets a look in and it's a shame as he seems much more up for killing and is a lot more complex in a way that anything could be complex in this film. The whole thing about the play, which takes up a lot of screen-time, is that it keeps shifting the focus away and no matter how many cameos you throw in  (including the old guys from Trading Places), it's just getting in more buckets to stop a sinking ship of a movie. However, Wilkinson and Curry amongst others did lift the piece from the gutter on more than one occasion but I couldn't help but think my eyes were being dug out in a vain attempt to get access to my brain and make me become dumber until I started thinking that Paul Whitehouse falling down some stairs is really, really funny.

This was supposed to be Landis' big comeback but it felt like an annoying, humourless, stupid attempt to do something quite dark (they are serial killers after all) and put a fluffy edge to it. I found it to be a complete waste of time and because of the people involved and the money thrown at it - it makes me think that this should have been so much more. I wasn't that bored throughout the piece so I guess that's something, but this is lazy writing and acting and feels like someone has filmed a themed murder mystery and made a 90 minute feature about it.

Rating: 3/10

Thursday, 31 March 2011

REVIEW: Dead Space iPhone App

While my Dead Space 2 disc sorts itself out and inbetween Homefront, Crysis 2 and trying to complete Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, I've managed to fit in time on my daily commute to do the odd bit of Dead Space on my iPhone - but is it any good?


Playing games on the iPhone differ in quality. If it's something as simple as Angry Birds or Tiny Wings, it usually fares better; but when there are slidy controls, a weird 'two-button' system that hardly ever works and it's trying to be like a PSP - that's usually where it fails. Which is what makes Dead Space so interesting. Having been catered for the huge iPhone and iPad market, the guys at EA have made a rather small but perfectly formed bit of fun that will keep Deadites like myself going.

Will it ruin either Dead Space 1 or 2? No. It's a stand-alone game that, as far as I can tell, has no real bearing to the main storyline. You play someone who looks like Isaac Clarke but isn't, instead you're trying to get about some business and then all hell breaks loose. There is a bit of a plot to it, but without ruining anything, it's nothing that will make you remember it for years to come. Instead, the game relies on the fact that it's fun to play and a bit different from other games on the same platform.

Firstly, what you'll notice is the graphics have done the best with what they've got and it's quite impressive. The world you're in feels large yet keeps that claustrophobic feeling that made the original so unique. They've turned a problem into a creative solution. There are different types of enemies, you have different guns and suits, all of which can be upgraded and you can jump around in Zero-G - it's very much the bare bones of Dead Space, which isn't a bad thing.

What impresses the most is the control system works quite well. The left hand side of the screen is to move and the right hand side to look around, much like two conventional joysticks - then you tap to aim and tap again to shoot. You still have your status effect and can reload when you like and change your weapon mid-battle. It's clearly been thought out and, even though it can be fiddly, it's actually fairly easy to play. But then, that's another problem ...

There wasn't that many times where I thought I would die. The last boss for example I did first time and without much difficulty, the reason being is that you're health automatically recharges so if you run around for long enough, you're health will be full - a tactic I used many a time. You just have to make sure you don't get stuck! If you're out of ammo you can use your status to slow them down and chop away - repeat until completion. Therefore, it's not going to frustrate you too much unless it's a bug, and I did come across a few. There were times that you can't progress until you've killed all the monsters around - a "lockdown" situation - but sometimes you have killed them all, and you still can't progress meaning you have to restart from an earlier checkpoint. Very frustrating. I also ran into a fair bit of lag which made the game unplayable at times, but when I returned to it, it was fine.

The game itself wasn't terrifying but had some great trippy moments. There were a few good jumps and slowly losing your mind is actually quite fun. I had to say that it was fairly short though, app. 4 hours, but then I didn't know what to expect. It kept me entertained on a lot of long commutes and sometimes made them longer by making me miss my stop! It's not exactly pick up and play, but it does autosave enough for it not to be much of an issue if you only want to play it for five minutes or so.

Overall, for an iPhone game it's one of the best out there and definitely the most forward-thinking in terms of the format being a respectable gaming platform, so I'll mark it in context of that, but it falls short on a few elements and really felt more like a stop-gap rather than an amazing game in it's own right. It did extremely well for what it was, but then at the end of the day, it's still a game I was playing on my phone. Worth the money, but nothing essential.

Rating: 7/10

Wednesday, 9 February 2011

REVIEW: Never Let Me Go

Keira Knightley, Andrew Garfield and Carey Mulligan star in the adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro’s novel of the same name. Is it the strange British sci-fi that is meant to sweep up the awards? No, it’s just “The Island” set in rural posh Britain. I think it’s time to let go…
It’s a strange film for director Mark Romanek to decide to make. Having had a history of making music videos, he branched out into features with “One Hour Photo” – which I adored and still enjoy watching having watched it again on my Sky Anytime last week. But what brought him to “Never Let Me Go”? The tale of three children living in some weird, parallel universe where humans are manufactured to donate their organs until ‘completion’ – otherwise known as dying – isn’t something you’d think Romanek would attach himself to and to be honest, he shouldn’t have.



Right from the off, the main problem I have here is I have no idea of the greater concept here. I enjoy tales about small lives in a changing world, whether it’s blockbusters like Spielberg’s War of the Worlds or Night of the Living Dead or The Road – the idea of putting normal people in extraordinary situations is an age-old popular trait. However, with Never Let Me Go the children in question aren’t ordinary and what is actually happening here is drip fed throughout the film in tiny tid-bits that aren’t enough to hold my interest. I want to know why humans are brought up to donate, what decision was behind this, why set it from 70’s to 90’s Britain, what other methods they have been doing, why the school was supposed to special? Everything is hinted on and even answered in some cases, but not to the extent or depth that I wanted. I’m not saying I want to be spoon fed information but I want to be given enough either from the start, or before certain events occur, that put the rest of the film and certain decisions into context.



Then again, I’m putting the film into literal terms. I’m sure there are deeper levels at work here that are probably more profound in the book, but instead they reveal themselves during the final scene as Carey Mulligan ponders death and love and it feels too little too late. I just can’t justify that this is an intelligent, creative film – instead it has been handled poorly and it’s just boring. The only thing that kept me going through it was trying to find out the reasons for all this cloning, donating and how it’s supposed to work in society but you only ever get the viewpoint of Carey Mulligan who has little or no interaction with the ‘outside’ world, whom I guess are just OK with this. Why haven’t they run away? Why are they obliged to donate? Why is it so good to ‘complete’? I wanted to know more and was left completely unsatisfied – I couldn’t give a toss about the love story, but they are guessing that you do – baring in mind the couple don’t get together until near the end and these characters are so detached from your sympathies by this point that the quiet, somber mood instead feels like indifference.

To it’s credit, a lot of the shots look great and the cinematography isn’t anything amazing, but it does border on impressive. Knightley is almost sufferable and Garfield is acting by the numbers, Mulligan fortunately holds the whole film together but even she fails to impress. The adult cast are only in half of the film and the children at the beginning make me want to bang my head against a wall – it’s their situation that intrigues me, not their characters. Everyone is just so wet the whole time – moaning and emotional, or emotionless, and you don’t really see much of Britain during this period save a café. The whole ‘art as an insight into your soul’ as proof of the human condition is so disgustingly blatant that it might as well be saying ‘art is about pretty pictures’. I hated everything about this film except the mediocre acting and the fact that they are brought up just for their organs rather than for humans – farmed if you will. The lame analogy of how their completion is just like our completion by spelling it out word for word is beyond patronising. If something is based on a book, it doesn’t mean it’s clever or should be considered as such. Like a clone, sometimes a terrible film can hide amongst the others and not get noticed.


I wouldn’t watch this film again and frustrating as it is, I have seen worse. It’s a complete disappointment and what I hate the most is that it has this appearance of being clever, moody and emotional when actually it’s catered for people who thought The Da Vinci Code was the best book they’ve ever read. People who don’t read basically. I don’t wish to sound like I think I’m better than others, but seeing as 40 million copies were sold, I’m better than 40 million people. Hey, I don’t make up the figures. I only hope it made people who hate reading go and buy some more books and then realise that Da Vinci Code was shit. I read Angels & Demons as well. Shit. But anyway, I’m going off track here …
If someone has read the book and feels it has done it a massive injustice then let me know but based upon this film, I’m going to steer clear of this book like it was Anthrax. If you love Knightley, she’s hardly in it, Garfield looks like his mind is elsewhere and you could spend 2 hours doing something better with your time rather than waste it on this. Huge disappointment but yet, such a good idea.
Except that The Island did it with Ewen McGregor and Scarlett Johansson. If Michael Bay has done a similar film better than yours – you know you’re in trouble.



Rating: 5/10

Sunday, 30 January 2011

REVIEW: Barney's Version

Paul Giamatti stars in this strange drama/comedy about Barney, a TV producer who has had a string of ladies and booze and also a hint of murder ...


This was totally not the film I thought it would be. From the cover it looks like a funny, 'indie', happy film about a charming, charismatic man but yet it couldn't be further from the truth. Instead, "Barney's Version" was a melancholy, sad, tear-jerker about a man who makes a lot of mistakes and he might seem like a miserable, old, sleazy git but in essence he's a victim and by the end, you seem to completely sympathise with him.

We are introduced to Barney as an old man making prank phone calls, as a bitter, twisted, lonely specimen who is accused of murder by that guy from the Tesco adverts. We soon jump back in time and see Barney's first wife - the bohemian, messed up Rachelle Lefevre who is completely self-obsessed but when it's over, Barney is ridden with guilt and, once his career starts picking up he runs into Minnie Driver. Driver is a self-righteous, rich, Daddy's girl and Barney marries her not out of love, but out of the need to succeed. As his father played by Dustin Hoffman states, he'd be a fool not to marry her. Hoffman's role as the single father, a man who also has his own demons, is incredible and should have picked up an Oscar nomination - simple, effective and without any acting flab. Barney's love for another woman during his marriage might seem perverse and wrong in the eyes of society, but once you scratch away at the surface, you see he is truly a romantic and feels that Mirium (Rosamund Pike) is the one he should be with. It's like the passionate scene at the end of a rom-com, but more realistic. All the while, he's being accused of killing his best friend, whom he misses like mad and his drinking is getting worse.

After getting shown up by friendly neighbour Blair, Mirium leaves to take a break and spends it with Blair - a man with morals, integrity and quite the looker. Unfortunately, Mirium leaves him for Blair - it's not paranoia when they really are after you. The rest I really can't say because it would ruin the film, but you get an insight into the man that you'd love to hate. "Barney's Version" was marketed in completely the wrong way, it's a tale where if you saw him through anyone else's eyes, he would look like a prick but instead you see the method in the madness, you see his love of his father and fear of being alone. You see how he has been mistreated by women, that his peers are more successful and better looking, that he can only gain confidence when he drinks, the guilt over his previous relationships and that sometimes that grumpy, bitter old man might not have been born that way but deep down, he's a nice guy really.

Jumping in and out of different time periods proves how incredible the make-up is, it looks completely realistic and is much more stunning than the millions spent on Benjamin Button for instance. The acting was incredible and Giamatti again proves that he has some of the best acting chops in the business. I couldn't help but watch the film and feel myself drawn towards Barney's character, even when he's being a dick you know where it's coming from and you sympathise with him and it proves that nothing is black and white, sometimes you need to know the whole story - as unflattering, honest and horrible as it might be, it's not necessarily a bad thing.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film, but I did find the end quite emotional and even though it was handled right, I felt it was a slightly unnecessary way to heighten the emotion but then, it became about a man losing power, that by taking away his superficial evil, you saw that behind it all he's just a man that wanted to love and to be loved. I challenge anyone not to get emotional by watching Barney's slow break down into oblivion and not be affected by a character that was perfectly imperfect.

Rating: 8/10

Tuesday, 18 January 2011

NEWS: BAFTAAAAAA

What a surprise. The King's Speech is taking over the BAFTA's - how very exciting (yawn) ...

God what a Wild Bore ... but here it is - the list! I've highlighted in RED who will win and in BLUE who I want to win - in case anyone is bothered. If it's both red, assume I also want them to win.

The list is pretty boring to be honest, so flip through and see if you agree. Let's hope the Oscars is a bit more inventive, or maybe it's just been a shit year for film?


Best supporting actress

AMY ADAMS – The Fighter

HELENA BONHAM CARTER – The King’s Speech

BARBARA HERSHEY – Black Swan

LESLEY MANVILLE – Another Year


MIRANDA RICHARDSON – Made in Dagenham



Best supporting actor


CHRISTIAN BALE – The Fighter


ANDREW GARFIELD – The Social Network


PETE POSTLETHWAITE – The Town (He's dead so he's got to get it!)

MARK RUFFALO – The Kids Are All Right


GEOFFREY RUSH – The King’s Speech



Best actress


ANNETTE BENING – The Kids Are All Right


JULIANNE MOORE – The Kids Are All Right

NATALIE PORTMAN – Black Swan


NOOMI RAPACE – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo


HAILEE STEINFELD – True Grit


Best actor


JAVIER BARDEM – Biutiful


JEFF BRIDGES – True Grit


JESSE EISENBERG – The Social Network


COLIN FIRTH – The King’s Speech - I haven't seen Biutiful but I can't justify any of the others winning it


JAMES FRANCO – 127 Hours


Best animation


DESPICABLE ME – Chris Renaud, Pierre Coffin


HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON – Chris Sanders, Dean DeBlois

TOY STORY 3 – Lee Unkrich


Best film not in the English language

BIUTIFUL – Alejandro González Iñárritu, Jon Kilik, Fernando Bovaira

THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO – Søren Stærmose, Niels Arden Oplev


I AM LOVE – Luca Guadagnino, Francesco Melzi D’Eril, Marco Morabito, Massimiliano Violante

OF GODS AND MEN – Xavier Beauvois

THE SECRET IN THEIR EYES – Mariela Besuievsky, Juan José Campanella


Best adapted screenplay


127 HOURS – Danny Boyle, Simon Beaufoy

THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO – Rasmus Heisterberg, Nikolaj Arcel

THE SOCIAL NETWORK – Aaron Sorkin

TOY STORY 3 – Michael Arndt


TRUE GRIT – Joel Coen, Ethan Coen


Best original screenplay

BLACK SWAN – Mark Heyman, Andrés Heinz, John McLaughlin

THE FIGHTER – Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson

INCEPTION – Christopher Nolan

THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT – Lisa Cholodenko, Stuart Blumberg

THE KING’S SPEECH – David Seidler



Best director

127 HOURS – Danny Boyle


BLACK SWAN – Darren Aronofsky

INCEPTION – Christopher Nolan

THE KING’S SPEECH – Tom Hooper

THE SOCIAL NETWORK – David Fincher


Outstanding British debut


THE ARBOR – Director, Producer – Clio Barnard, Tracy O’Riordan

EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP – _Director, Producer – Banksy, Jaimie D’Cruz


FOUR LIONS – Director/Writer – Chris Morris

MONSTERS – Director/Writer – Gareth Edwards

SKELETONS – Director/Writer – Nick Whitfield


Best British film

127 HOURS – Danny Boyle, Simon Beaufoy, Christian Colson, John Smithson

ANOTHER YEAR – Mike Leigh, Georgina Lowe

FOUR LIONS – Chris Morris, Jesse Armstrong, Sam Bain, Mark Herbert, Derrin Schlesinger

THE KING’S SPEECH – Tom Hooper, David Seidler, Iain Canning, Emile Sherman, Gareth Unwin

MADE IN DAGENHAM – Nigel Cole, William Ivory, Elizabeth Karlsen, Stephen Woolley


Best film

BLACK SWAN – Mike Medavoy, Brian Oliver, Scott Franklin

INCEPTION – Emma Thomas, Christopher Nolan

THE KING’S SPEECH – Iain Canning, Emile Sherman, Gareth Unwin


THE SOCIAL NETWORK – Scott Rudin, Dana Brunetti, Michael De Luca, Céan Chaffin

TRUE GRIT – Scott Rudin, Ethan Coen, Joel Coen

Saturday, 1 January 2011

Catfish

What happens when you add someone you don't know as a 'friend'? A world where internet dating is the norm? Where faceless social networking can allow anything to happen? Well you probably get a bunch of guys with hard-on's pissing about, a bit like this ...


Before I begin, I heard about this film months and months ago when it was making a ripple in the festival circuit - that isn't bragging, it's because unfortunately researching the film, I uncovered the ending by accident. Which means that I already knew what was going to happen coming into the film, which probably ruins it from the start.

I also heard a lot of stuff about it being fake, that the guys knew way before they 'find out' but Metro kept going on about how amazing it is and a few friends have said it's incredible. Unfortunately, I'd disagree and I actually think it was quite horrible to watch, for reasons that might not be apparent.

In case you don't already know, Nev is starting to flirt with a girl on Facebook called Meghan and his brother is filming it as it goes along. It starts off quite strange anyway, Nev has been sent a painting of his photo by Abi, an eight year old girl, he starts chatting to her and they become pen pals. I found this a bit strange in the first place, a 24 year old man shouldn't have an 8 year old female pen pal but, whatever, I'll let it slide. Soon he starts talking to the mother, who looks hot and he fancies her too, but then the 19 year sister of Abi called Meghan pops into the picture. He starts texting her and flirting as well. It's all quite disgusting really but portrayed in a sweet fashion. The art Abi paints is also shit, the phone calls feel awkward and it's not until the music comes into play that they start realising something is wrong.

The problem is, I can see why people think it's fake. For the rest of the film, Nev has a knowing smile on his face and in the last half hour or so, as awkward as it is, they are clearly revelling in the boyish nature of knowing they've found a story. Nev isn't gutted, he's not embarrassed, he's enjoying the results and as sad as it is, it's exploiting this sadness. It's looking down on someone, almost mocking them by even releasing the film and yet patronises the audience by trying to make it sympathetic and sweet. Nev is your everyday middle-class male, he has his Macbook, he photographs dancers, he's mixed race in a central city, he's good looking and he's pretty much like every person who goes to a film festival. This will probably upset people but it's true. When they enter the suburbs, a farm, when they see the kind of people, the lives they lead, it has no real effect on them, they can up and leave it and look back and laugh, but the others can't. The way it is dealt with in the trailer is as a horror, the city folks fear of suburbia (see Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Deliverance, The Hills Have Eyes etc.) and it's not very fair.

I felt that even though, as a basic story, it worked by being quite tense and enjoyable and that it's subject matter is very modern but it becomes less about social networking and more about society. At one point, without trying to ruin it, the subject says "You gave me access to a life I could only dream of" - or something or other - and as scary as it might first appear, it's mainly just sad. Sometimes they have to just imagine living the lives people are luckily handed, that through this faceless media they can be someone else, they can live the lives they want and it's a question of who is taking advantage of who. In a strange way, they needed each other. Even if the Nev's one was more base perhaps.

Once the truth is found out, they stay there for a bit too long, they ask questions and pry into their lives. It's embarrassing to watch, especially since the subject in question is clearly a bit mental and it's almost poking fun under the guise of being serious. Whether or not people think it's fake, they can't deny that the guys knew that they had a film on their hands.

Overall, it's a good film to watch the once and if you've ever had a strange Friend Request on Facebook or if you've ever done online dating you'll probably enjoy it more, but really I felt it was strange from the beginning and got stranger as it continued. There's lying, but then there's another level of lying where it becomes a mental health problem and to exploit it, in the cleverest way of not exploiting it by making it a 'twist', then it becomes sensationalist. It's just cashing in on the whole Facebook popularity thing anyway whether it means to or not. I didn't like the guys involved, I didn't like the way the film was handled and I think underneath the façade of it being a film about the dangers of Facebook, it's a horrible, selfish, mocking way of doing so. But saying that, I can't help but admit I enjoyed watching it, and clearly a lot of other people do as well, but I'm a bit worried that people are taking a bit too much pleasure in watching it and it's most certainly not particularly well made. It's a story - that's all, and they got lucky. They don't make the film what it is, the subject does. The idea of the catfish is also interesting, I think it leaves you with the thought of who the real 'catfish' is and, to some extent, it does inspire a lot of questions, but really I felt like this was three guys having a laugh and the tone displeased me. A decent watch and will make some interesting water cooler moments, but essentially nothing more than that. Go watch Black Swan.

Rating: 6/10

Thursday, 30 December 2010

Tron: Legacy

After reviewing the Tron Legacy soundtrack and the Tron Evolution tie-in game, finally here is the review for Tron: Legacy - and it certainly is a Merry Christmas for one and all.


Before starting to delve into The Grid and it's inhabitants, I have to start by saying I've always been a huge Tron fan. As a kid, I would often pick up Tron again and again to watch over and over and has always had a special place in my heart, so when the initial concept footage for Tron 2 was released, you could imagine my excitement. Since then, I've been cautious not to get too over-excited. Sure the trailers look incredible, Daft Punk (whom I adore) were signed on to do the music, Jeff Bridges was going to do it, it was going to be 3D and also in IMAX. I had to bestill my beating heart that every time I get over-excited about a film, it very often disappoints and I didn't want that to happen here. Not to Tron. Please.

As readers know, I didn't rate the game very highly but Daft Punk's score got top marks (both reviews can be found on the right hand side or on Youtube's 'thewildboretv' channel) and once the film was released it got some very mixed reviews but I tried my best to keep out of it until I'd seen the final product myself, which was in centre seats at Waterloo's IMAX by the way.

If you don't know already, Tron Legacy takes place after the events of Tron (but not Tron 2.0 - the PC game for those non-geeks) where Kevin Flynn is taking advantage of being able to enter digital space by playing God and creating his own world. However, random beings, pieces of code or whatever they are, called ISO's have turned up and inside them could be the answers to the Universe, apparently. However, Flynn's 'supervisor' program Clu has a lot of ideas above his station and believes the ISO's to be imperfections and thus destroys them in The Purge (events of Tron Evolution). Kevin Flynn is banished and is hiding out with the beautiful Olivia Wilde (Quorra). Meanwhile, Sam Flynn, heir to his father's company, is busy causing havoc and being a rebel in the real world until he enters The Grid where luckily all his extreme sports hobbies come in good use.

Firstly the visuals are probably the best I've seen in anything, ever. It looks fucking cool and is absolutely incredible to witness. The first time we see the Tron world, it's unlike anything I've ever seen before. In this respect, the 3D-ness (is there a word for it?) works perfectly and it's the best use of 3D effects I've seen yet, and yes that's including Avatar. However, there is one massive flaw and I've seen it crop up time and time again in reviews - and that's the young Jeff Bridges as Clu. It simply doesn't work. It looks like Tom Hanks from The Polar Express or something, it is clearly animated and really stands out as he stands next to real people. It's a shame that technology has come leaps and bounds but actors don't have to worry, because recreating actual people won't be an issue for a while. It's a shame because it takes away from the rather dramatic scenes rather than adding to it.

The script is slightly flawed and they try to push in some key lines inbetween the set pieces but it's mainly because the pace is so incredibly fast. From disc wars to light cycle races to hand to hand combat the action is relentless and slows down in the right places to put it into context. If anything it's too textbook. Ever since Disney began, their writers were apparently handed out a guide to The Hero's Journey, a simple guide to Joseph Cambell's 'Hero Of A Thousand Faces', and it's essentially a template to creating an engaging storyline and one that can be traced as far back as Greek mythology and beyond. I know of it because I did a whole blooming thing on it in University. But Tron Legacy follows it point by point without missing a step which means that it might be simple but yet it's a familiar story, much like Star Wars or The Matrix but they had more depth. In fact, what Tron Legacy is missing, which is key, is the sense that it's part of a bigger thing and it feels way too self-contained without much knowledge of the actual geography of the place. To some this might seem indifferent, but subconsciously it works to give you a sense of realism and interaction. An example I often use is Alien, you often feel like you know the layout of the ship and it's a highly successful way of allowing your imagination fully integrate with the film by creating, arguably, boundaries. It's not saying you have to know where everything is, just that you realise that it's a part of the bigger picture. Unfortunately, there's not enough sense of what goes on inside The Grid and you're a bit confused as to where everything is. Why would they put the games arena right at the edge of the Outlands for instance? It sounds like nit-picking but I feel subconsciously people pick these things up, which is often why people find it hard to summarise why they did or didn't like a film. Pop psychology there folks or perhaps just slightly patronising.

You could argue that the whole point of The Grid in digital space is that it is infinite and these are programs, not living people, but I wanted there to be a bit more time in the 'city' part of the Tron Legacy world. What do these programs get up to? Do they couple off? Is it a working society? Why do they have to eat? Where is the food coming from? People can take it at face value but these are questions I found myself wanting to know the answers to after I left. Not in a geeky way of knowing every detail, more a way of wanting to understand the world more.

What's great about this storyline though is that a huge amount of history, myths and religion can be compared to it. Everything from the Nazi's, Cain and Abel, Darwinism, The New Testament, The Big Bang, Pat Pong, the Romans etc. could be related to this film and, in a way, the film itself is post-post-modern. A digital world within a digital world within the real world, where does the line end? You could read all sorts into it, that perhaps it is Flynn's purgatory, that it was Sam's dream, that it's the afterlife or perhaps it's just a simple story of a son searching for his father's love. Either way, it's not as superficial as most action films and, although it's not perfect, it's a great attempt to satisfy newcomers and fanboys alike.

The characters work quite nicely, Cillian Murphy makes a brief appearance (and one that will most definitely turn up in a sequel) as Ed Dillinger's son, the main villain in the 1982 Tron film, but it's a great glimpse into what will most certainly be a great sequel to come. Garrett Hedlund is remarkably perfect for Sam Flynn's role, it's never too cocky nor too naive, but does play up to the all-American rebel that tends to be popping up a lot (see Chris Pine in Star Trek as an example). It also made me laugh that his name is Sam and when asked how old he is, he states "27" - "Cor! Just like me! It's like I'm in the bloody film!" - I didn't say that, but I felt like saying it.

Jeff Bridges, I thought, did a great job as well. I had already read that people thought he was too much like The Dude and it had put some people off, however I honestly think it's only because he uses phrases such as 'man' and 'zen', which is a bit like not being able to see the forest for all the trees. People accustomed to the first film will know that Flynn was all about being laid-back and cool, it was pretty much what steered the first film, he had to be forced into action and indeed forced to mature which was the whole point of his journey in Tron. What people also forget is that he would have been a hippy child of the Seventies and seeing as he is trapped in The Grid for twenty odd years, he would not have been privy to cultural movements and therefore it might seem cheesy, but in fact works perfectly for the narrative. I was scared that Bridges would play his role too jolly, too happy-go-lucky like the original Flynn but fortunately, he has a lot more gravitas, probably not as much as I originally hoped (I wanted him to be a dark, angry, almost evil character - something to come perhaps?) but he is still clearly quite disturbed. His black and white grainy dreams looking more like a sketch, as if his dreams of the past are almost like out-of-date technology, which finally come back to colour as he is brought almost 'back to life' in a sense by the return of his son. People might think the journey is about Sam, but I'd argue it might be more about Kevin.

Bridges also plays Clu, who is very child-like and lashes out when he doesn't get his way. Just like in the first film, Kevin Flynn must conquer his immaturity, his fear, his naivety in order to continue, all of which is summed up in Clu. The real stand-out performance for me, for more than one reason is Olivia Wilde as Quorra, her wide-eyed innocence is as effective as her strength in such a powerful feminine role - she is clearly very sexual (the best leather-clad female on-screen since Pfiffer's Catwoman in Batman Returns) but it doesn't define her. Fellow House fans will already know that she is one of the most gorgeous women about at the moment and she certainly proves it here. Her cat-like appearance (and I bloody love cats) helps in her feline performance but she is more than just a love interest, which is respectable these days by itself. She will be on FHM's list next year if she isn't already. Is she?

Martin Sheen as a strange David Bowie character mixes up the seriousness with a bit of zaniness but the whole scene feels rather forced and I felt the club could have been a bit more impressive, even if it does have Daft Punk in it. The rest of the cast do look slightly like extras in a Tron version of The Warriors, or perhaps Emo-Rockers but for all the manliner, it does kind of work.

The whole world feels dark, gloomy, a constant storm hanging overhead, and slightly depressing, but in a good way, it's better than an iPod white future and Daft Punk's music over the top creates an amazing French soundscape that works perfectly into the film. It's further proof that as amazing as certain composers are, sometimes it's good to hand out work to more popular, respected musicians instead of a James Bond-esque title song that artists usually get dumped with. The film also has some light comic relief to stop people thinking it takes itself so seriously, it is after all a Disney film. But advert director Joseph Kosinki has done an incredible job and other gamers out there will recognise his work in the Gears Of War and Halo 3 adverts that did so well.

Watching this film in 3D and especially in IMAX was a treat for the eyes, but it wasn't a perfect spectacle, however it was perfect for me. Okay so it might be a little too close to Star Wars, the Jedi, Storm Troopers, Death Star and all that, but at least it knows it (you'll know what I mean when you see it). It's incredible to watch but is flawed in a few areas which means that speaking objectively I will have to mark it as such. But as a fanboy I'd definitely give a 10/10. May there be many more Tron's to come! I bloody loved it.

Rating: 8/10