The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies Movie Review

Since 2001 the adaptations of Tolkien’s Middle Earth have captivated audiences everywhere and after thirteen long years the saga finally comes to a close with The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies; a film which has effectively carried the momentum generated by last year’s “The Desolation of Smaug”.

Picking up immediately after last year’s film, Battle of the Five Armies concludes the journey of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and the company of dwarves; having inadvertently unleashed the villainous dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) on the nearby settlement of Lake-town, the group soon realises that they must not only tangle with the dragon but the marching Orc army led by Azog as well, leading to a clash between multiple races who all have their claims to the Lonely Mountain. At 144 minutes long, BOTFA is the shortest of the trilogy and yet it’s also the most balanced in terms of narrative, providing plenty of screen time divided amongst the main characters. There’s hardly a moment where the character focus becomes unbalanced as they all have their own roles to play in the battle. Peter Jackson has constantly defended his decision to extend The Hobbit into a trilogy and BOTFA possesses the best example of that; a great scene featuring the wizards Gandalf (Ian Mckellen) and Saruman (Christopher Lee) along with elves Galadriel (Cate Blanchet), and Elrond (Hugo Weaving) is not only an incredibly tense moment but it also gives a strong link to the Lord of the Rings where the original novel could not. The film also has a great build-up; negotiations between dwarves, elves and humans placed against the ever looming threat of Azog and his army of Orcs give a constant reminder of the battle to come. Unfortunately once the battle comes and goes, the ending does leave a lot to be desired; some of the conclusions feel really rushed, especially the characters who were added in just for the films who don’t really receive a great deal of closure. Perhaps the production crew were trying to avoid prolonging the ending which was irritating for some in 2003’s Return of the King but it still sticks out nonetheless.

Despite its title, Battle of the Five Armies does feature a fair amount of character development in the lead up to the big fight, focusing mainly on Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage); a combination of both his lust for the Arkenstone and disdain for those who would take the Lonely Mountain’s gold away threatens to corrupt and destroy his character and from this we see his character come full circle from his original cause to ultimate redemption. This is contrasted against Bilbo who must not only survive the battle but also finds himself tasked with keeping Thorin’s mind in the right place, even if it means going against his wishes. Bard’s (Luke Evans) tale is lesser in scope but we see him rise from simple bowman to a noble leader over the course of the film. The other characters maintain their performances from the previous films and as such remain likeable and interesting. The lone exception to this is Ryan Gage as Alfrid; he tries his best to add some comic relief to the plot but all he ends up doing is serving a huge distraction from the film’s more action based proceedings.

With a gargantuan battle promised, Battle of the Five Armies is more than capable of putting across the same grand scale that makes the saga as a whole so memorable. The Lonely Mountain feels vast and expansive both inside and out, providing an area ripe for the species of Middle Earth to clash upon. Special mention should also go to the appropriately frightful fire effects when Smaug lays waste to the surrounding areas at the start of the film. The action itself is all well framed, giving a consistently clear view of the heavy action that take place. There’s also quite a few new creature designs this time around from burrowing worms to giant trolls with catapults on their backs which fit into Tolkien’s fantasy setting very well. With that said, some audiences may enjoy the conflict more than others. You get the sense that the final battle was trying so hard to be the ultimate finale of a story which has taken thirteen years to tell on screen and whilst it is suitably large and expansive, it unavoidably falls below the likes of Helms Deep and Minas Tirith as some aspects of the battle receive more attention than others. The clash between the dwarf army and the Orcs in particular can never really reach its ultimate climax as the film focuses more on the main characters and their struggles instead of the overall picture. Regardless of these gripes, Battle of the Five Armies offers just as great a spectacle as all the other films set in Middle Earth have done over the years.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is a fond, if imperfect farewell to one of the greatest fantasy adventures of all time. There’s no denying that The Hobbit trilogy will forever sit in the shadow of its superior predecessors but Battle of the Five Armies still does enough to make a reasonable impression.

Rating: 4/5 Stars

5 Niggling Things: Dishonored

“No piece of media is ever perfect”; those words, placed in my review of “The Last of Us” have led to this new series. The games that I rate highly all have a moment or two that keep them from entering the realm of complete flawlessness. Hopefully I won’t be too nit-picky, but here it is; “5 Niggling Things” with Arkane Studio’s Dishonored.

1. The occasionally fiddly sword play

Taking the more direct approach in Dishonored almost always results in clashing swords with opposing guards and while it is often brutally satisfying to cut your way through to your target, problems begin to arise when battling multiple foes. There’s no way to counter or block multiple strikes at once or chain takedowns together, meaning that unavoidably, you’ll take damage whilst trying to eliminate an entire group of enemies. This makes the swordplay an unnecessary annoyance at times. If there had been a wider range of combat moves to upgrade as the game went on, that would have put the sword combat on the same level as the other ranged weapons at Corvo’s disposal.

2. Predictable plot twists

After creating such an interesting world which draws from the likes of Bioshock and Half Life 2, I had high hopes that Dishonored would also match this with an equally thoughtful and developed plot; unfortunately while Dishonored’s plot does have some intriguing characters and themes, it ends up relying too much on tired twists that really diminished the impact of the story. The worst offence comes after the supposed final mission where Corvo eliminates the corrupt Lord Regent; he returns to the Hound Pits Pub a job well done, grabs a drink and what do you know? He gets betrayed again, this time by the people he thought were his allies in the fight and is dumped in the flooded district of Dunwall to die. It didn’t completely spoil the game’s setting and atmosphere but it did diminish the game’s overall impact a bit, leaving the gameplay to make up for it.

3. Granny Rags or Slackjaw?

Towards the end of the game, Corvo comes across an encounter between the mysterious Granny Rags and gang boss Slackjaw. They have been against each other over the course of the game and now marks the final part of their participation in the storyline. Will Corvo throw Slackjaw into Granny Rag’s mystic cooking pot, or will he free Slackjaw and kill off Rags for good? It’s an interesting dilemma but it also stands out as the one time in the campaign where the game’s freedom of choice is interrupted and you’re forced to decide one way or the other to proceed onwards. Ignoring both characters and getting the key to the door is an unnecessarily difficult process, especially if you’re going for the no alert and no kill playthroughs; attempting to pickpocket the key from Granny Rags always results in her detecting you, making this choice an infuriating part of the story.

4. Infinitely respawning enemies on the final mission

Dishonored’s 9 main missions pack in a great deal of variety; from the multi-layered areas of Dunwall’s streets, the covert operation into Lady Boyle’s party and the final infiltration of Kingfisher Island where all the game’s obstacles and hazards are thrown at you. There’s one tiny thing that keeps the Kingfisher island mission from standing out; respawning enemies. After going through the entire game, successfully eliminating opponents and slipping by undetected, the final mission has enemies reappear in the same location after eliminating one of them, resulting in several annoying moments of getting caught and having to reload a save. This is more of a problem once Corvo breaches the fort and must make his way to the lighthouse as countless numbers of the same enemies emerge from the same steel battlements. Ultimately the issue of respawning enemies does affect the game’s immersion just a tiny bit, a shame, given how the setting and characters actively work to draw the player in.

5. A few inconsequential moments

Dishonored builds its name on player choice, something which it does incredibly well throughout its single player mode. Will you kill indiscriminately, creating high chaos and ultimately hurling the city of Dunwall to a much darker outcome or will you choose to be merciful where others are not? This core moral choice extends into the level design which offers countless ways to traverse and eliminate Corvo’s targets and the game’s three different endings. Indeed you’ll be hard pressed to find a game that can match Dishonored in this regard. But occasionally there are a few instances where the choices you make don’t really have any kind of payoff later on. In one mission for example, you can choose to help Slackjaw obtain a code to a painter’s safe and he will eliminate two of Corvo’s targets non-lethally in return. Devious players will obtain the code but will rob the safe before returning to Slackjaw; this involves getting past the crime boss’s men. The problem is that this deed never comes back to haunt Corvo later on; there’s no hit squads sent out, no berating, no anything. The same can also be applied to the citizens Corvo may happen to rescue or assist, who only give small benefits linked to the mission at hand. These moments stick out because most of the time, Dishonored handles player choice excellently, weaving subtle changes in the levels to reflect the level of chaos. Perhaps if a sequel was to be developed, Arkane Studios could focus on giving more weight to these seemingly ordinary choices.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 Movie Review

Since they began in 2012, the film adaptations of The Hunger Games trilogy have been met with great mainstream success, putting them alongside the likes of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. The end is beckoning for Suzanne Collin’s dystopian series, but by splitting the final book into two parts, we’re left with a somewhat lacking opening chapter.

Picking up immediately after Catching Fire, Mockingjay sees Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) moved out of District 12 and into an underground bunker, where the resistance has begun laying plans to strike against the capital of Panem and its tyrannical dictator President Snow. Led by President Alma Coin (Julianne Moore) and assisted by Plutarch Heavensbee (the late Phillip Seymour Hoffman), the resistance aims to use Katniss as a symbol; a rallying cry for the oppressed to come together and fight back. Mockingjay Part 1 is a very static movie; aside from the ruins of District 12, the film takes place almost exclusively in the resistance bunker where Katniss takes parts in various acts of propaganda, whilst others, such as her best friend Gale (Liam Hemsworth) carry out other tasks to grow the resistance. Those who have read the book will notice that only a small amount of material is present in this opening chapter and because of this, the film’s plotline does take a hefty knock. Because of the lack of proper action, Part 1 fails to produce a good build-up which will carry over into next year’s finale. We do see reminders that the Capital’s forces are always lingering in the background, but you never get the sense that things are becoming more and more intense as the plot really doesn’t go anywhere important. It also feels like decisive cuts were made just for this film; we really don’t learn anything new about the setting or the characters that inhabit them which stands at a huge contrast to the previous two films. Whilst the plot of Mockingjay Part 1 may satisfy the biggest fans of the titular book regardless, it comes off as being quite muted for everyone else.

The characters of Mockingjay maintain mostly the same performances that were seen in Catching Fire. Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss is again excellent in the way she channels both the heartbreak of seeing District 12 destroyed and the enormous burden which is placed on her by the resistance; she remains one of the strongest heroines in modern film. The other characters maintain their traits; the loyal Gale, the light-hearted Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), and the comedic Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), who has ditched the fancy garments of the capital for a more basic rebel style. Regretfully though, the returning actors never really get a chance to show off their full talents because the thin plot gives them so little to work with. As for the new characters, they do look the part, but most of them really don’t do much to make their presence known. Natalie Dormer attempts to portray a strong parallel to Katniss with Cressida, but all she really does is bark commands to film the rebel’s propaganda every now and again. Colonel Boggs (Mahershala Ali) is quite commanding in his presence but most of his lines come off as really generic and samey, fitting into the gruff military commander type. The one exception to this is President Coin who does make an impression through her strong-willed mannerisms. You’ll find yourself drawn to the characters you remember, yet detached from the ones that are introduced in Mockingjay: Part 1, making the overall casting mixed in quality.

With District 12 having been destroyed at the end of the previous film, Mockingjay takes advantage of this by using destructive imagery to put across a gritty tone which the plot fails to match; when Katniss surveys the ruins and witnesses the fatalities of the capital’s most ruthless attacks, you hold an even greater dislike for the antagonists than ever before. There’s also a fair few serene moments layered across the narrative, reminding the audience that Part 1 is more “calm before the storm” than a direct build-up. The action (what little there is of it) is well shot and the music (which was composed by popular singer Lorde) fits both the setting and themes just as well as the previous soundtracks. It’s a shame that the plot gives little room for more dazzling sights and imaginative costume designs seen in the first two films, but ultimately the presentation of Mockingjay: Part 1 is acceptable enough.

Mockingjay Part 1 does what it sets out to do well enough, but the underdeveloped new characters and a plot that lacks urgency make it the weakest of the series. This is one case where splitting the film into two parts wasn’t really necessary or justified. Fans of the series will have no qualms with it at all, but most will come away expecting much more, especially from a series which has surged in popularity.

Rating: 3/5 Stars

Interstellar Movie Review

For fourteen years now Christopher Nolan has achieved a near unstoppable success in film, rising to become one of the best directors in the business. Having concluded The Dark Knight Trilogy in 2012, the renowned director has now turned his sights to the realm of science fiction and the result is what can easily be the considered one of the best if not the best film of the year.

Interstellar takes place in the future where the Earth has almost run out of food; dust storms ravage what was once a healthy world and society has devolved into an endless line of struggling farmers. Facing the possibility of extinction, a team of NASA scientists led by Professor Brand (Michael Caine) commissions a team to travel through a wormhole in a bid to find another planet for habitation. The crew is comprised of several scientists and leading man Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) who reluctantly agrees to leave his family behind to serve as the ship’s pilot for the mission. In a similar way to 2001: A Space Odyssey before it, Interstellar is split into several defined acts (minus the text that introduces them). The film begins on Earth where we’re introduced to the characters and the setting they live, which is conveyed brilliantly through the emotional bond between Cooper and his young daughter Murphy (Mackenzie Foy) and from there, the film cuts between outer space and the characters back on Earth as they attempt to unravel theories which will assist in saving the human race. What makes it all work is the build-up that occurs in both the character’s emotions and the inevitable countdown to save humanity; as things grow more and more desperate and out of control, you’ll find yourself believing in the characters to succeed. The film, like many of Nolan’s previous works mixes in several themes and ideas, most notably human nature and the concept of love being something which transcends time and space. With this in mind, the film builds an emotional resonance that not only matches Nolan’s previous work, but leaps beyond the norm for science-fiction. The plot’s one misstep is a poignant moment towards the end of the film, which may stick out as rather confusing for some. But does this damage the narrative in a major way? Not so much for me personally; when every other aspect of the film is so engaging, so immaculately produced, it’s easy to overlook these small flaws.

 

While NASA sends a group of people to the beyond, the film’s central focus never deviates from Cooper, who is characterised with a simple yet strong purpose; an immensely emotive connection to his family. When he looks and weeps over several transmitted messages from his family, you can feel the weight of the burden that is placed on him. McConaughey’s heartfelt performance is matched by Foy’s (and later Jessica Chastain’s) where we see an equal amount of pressure and desperation built up. The other characters, most notably Anne Hathaway as biologist Amelia Brand and the aforementioned Michael Caine are also on hand to give plentiful amounts of reinforcement to the film’s central themes. Even the actors who receive smaller roles such as Matt Damon and Wes Bentley are intriguing in the ways they contribute to the film’s scientific undertones, further engaging the audience in the journey. By possessing a small circle of characters, Interstellar never becomes too uneven, allowing the plot and special effects to sit on a relatively consistent level.

2001 was one of the first science fiction films to dazzle audiences with its spell-binding imagery and if Interstellar’s effects achieve anything, they represent just how far we’ve come in animation. The visuals and settings of Nolan’s latest epic are absolutely stunning, and perfectly draw the audience into the journey beyond the stars. From the gorgeous celestial backdrops to the planets explored by the team, every location feels vast and expansive and on top of it all, the production crew even brought in theoretical physicict Kip Thorne, making many of the film’s portrayals of space travel feel much more grounded in reality. The sound, typical of many Nolan films, is loud and booming; despite the few times it gets in the way of dialogue, you really do feel the roar of the spaceship and the weather effects on each planet. There’s also a heavy use of organs during the more intense scenes which greatly heightens the urgency of the character’s struggles. Suffice it to say that when it all comes together, in terms of technical presentation, Interstellar could well be the most beautiful science fiction film of modern times.

Interstellar is quite simply a modern movie masterpiece; I haven’t been so captivated by a film since 2005’s King Kong. It was never going to be as ground-breaking as something like 2001: A Space Odyssey, but it doesn’t need to be; this is the one film this year that will utterly blow you away and leave you awe-struck and astounded from beginning to end.

Rating: 5/5 Stars

The Walking Dead Season 2 (PC) Review

The original Walking Dead game (the Telltale series, not the crappy Survival Instinct) was a shockwave that no one saw coming in 2012; it’s emotional and gripping story was proof that computer games were more than capable of standing alongside films and literature in terms of detailed narratives. One year on and the developer is now continuing this story with Season 2, another great tale that should be experienced by everyone.

The Walking Dead Season 2, as its name implies picks up where the last season left off; Clementine, the young girl you had to protect in the original game is forced to fend for herself in a ruined world; she eventually meets a new group of individuals (who I won’t spoil here) and they embark on a new journey wrought with danger, loss and difficulty. How will Clementine make it through this new struggle? Well that’s up to the player; just like in the previous games, what makes Telltale’s story that much more engaging is that you can influence it; certain characters can live or die and for season 2, decisions are imported from season 1 and the developer has included multiple endings, providing more incentive for you to go back and play it again. The episodes themselves are all well-paced, with each featuring their own environments and set-piece moments. The characters introduced in the new season are just as well rounded and interesting as those in the original and there are a few surprises in store for those who played the first game. The story’s crowning achievement though is that as you go along, you’ll care about Clementine just as much as you did with Lee in the first season which a rare thing indeed, considering how the viewpoint has shifted between the two seasons.

Across five episodes, The Walking Dead maintains the design of the original; you’ll move from chapter to chapter, interacting with the environment from time and time and of course, get into all kinds of intense scenes. The short interludes between each episode are again very effective in building anticipation for what will happen next. When you first start the game, you’ll have the option of choosing a save file from season 1 to bring into the sequel and while it doesn’t really change the overall direction of the story, you’ll still notice subtle differences on separate playthroughs, particularly in the way certain characters react to Clementine. You can expect to spend another twelve hours across the five episodes on your first time through and even more if you want to go for the alternate routes towards the end credits, making season 2 just as long-lasting as its predecessor.

Aside from a few small additions, the gameplay in The Walking Dead Season 2 is both basic, yet accessible, relying on quick time events and slower paced exploration controls to engage the player. One of the major additions this time is click and hold which comes into play in certain actions like lighting matches. It’s a light touch, but it does make sense in the context of what you’re doing. Aside from this, the game’s controls remain predominately the same; exploring environments still merely requires you to simply find the correct items in the correct order to proceed or heading to certain rooms to trigger the next story sequence. Major decisions are handed out to you in larger quantities this time around and they seem to give you less time to make choices, which does succeed in ratcheting up the tension of the episodes. The gameplay in Walking Dead Season 2 is a formula which works for the genre; if you were fine with it before, you’ll be able to jump right in and enjoy the game.

Keeping the same cell-shaded art style that made the original so absorbing; The Walking Dead Season 2 is another title that really can fit seamlessly into the world created by Robert Kirkman. Despite the art style veering away from realism, the character animations, particularly on their faces have not faltered one bit from one season to the next, meaning that the characters never stop being  wholly believable. There’s also a wide variety of music that has been brought in, which compliments the game’s dark atmosphere beautifully; “Remember Me” by Anadel was one of my favourites amongst others that are sure to pull at your heartstrings. The game appears to run much better than the first as well, with much less jitters and pauses on screen. The only real knock on the game’s presentation is an irritating white screen crash which happened a few times during play and did pull me out of the experience a little bit. Still, the game’s unique art style and brilliant voice acting do rescue the overall package, ensuring that the game remains a deeply immersive undertaking.

Niggling flaws hold it back a little, but The Walking Dead Season 2 is nonetheless another strong and emotional journey from Telltale that will once again invite you to care about its characters and the bleak world they inhabit. There really isn’t any reason not to try it out, especially for those who played (and cried) through the original game.

Rating: 8.5/10

XCOM: Enemy Unknown Game Review (PC)

Released in 1994, the original XCOM: Enemy Unknown (also known as UFO defense) is considered one of the best strategy games ever created, so when a 2012 reboot was announced by popular developer Fireaxis Games, many were sceptical. Fans of the series can rest easy as this new incarnation of a classic game more than lives up to the original’s legacy.

XCOM: Enemy Unknown is set in 2015 where the Earth comes under attack from an alien attack; traditional military warfare proves ineffective, so an elusive council of nations begins the XCOM project, a conglomerate of high-tech troopers, scientists and engineers to combat the alien threat. As commander of this team, your goal is to uncover the true meaning of the invasions and hopefully defeat the aliens. It’s a very simplistic plot but where the game sets itself apart is through something which is rarely present in strategy games; constant reminders and the attachment it builds between the player and their troops. Because there are always alien abductions and other missions sprinkled in-between major plot points, you always feel as if the aliens are lingering and could take over the planet at any moment; this drives you to grin and bear through the pressure for the motivation of beating the game.

XCOM’s lone single player mode puts you in command of the titular project and from the get-go you’ll feel the pressures of that role. You’ll be playing through two primary mechanics; isometric combat and base management with both feeding into the other; at your base, you’ll be building upgrades and buildings, researching technology and conducting overall management of the alien threat. The ant farm system is both intuitive and easy to get into, with different rooms and facilities allowing you to scan the globe to pass the time needed for upgrades, view and customise soldiers, check panic levels within nations, research technologies and construct new items and buildings in engineering. It’s in this section of the game where strategy expands far beyond simple combat scenarios; you’ll need to choose where you put your funding, research and building efforts carefully. Do you want to upgrade your troops or build better equipment for them? Which research project will be most valuable in the future? How long and how much of your resources will it take to build this new facility? It’s these kinds of choices that really get you into your role as a commander and choosing poorly or ignoring missions to spend time building upgrades can often result in grave consequences including under-prepared resources and the potential to lose missions. You’ll have to be especially mindful of countries leaving the XCOM project as if that happens too many times, the game is over and you’ll have to either revert to an earlier save game or in the case of iron and classic difficulties, start over from the beginning. Scanning the globe causes missions to pop up, which can range from simple alien abductions where your squad must clear the area of all hostiles, bomb disposal, aerial combat against UFOs and civilian rescues. As you go through the campaign, story missions will appear on the map and the aliens will introduce deadlier foes for your troops to deal with. The only real issue with the design is that it lacks a couple of features which would have made the campaign just that little bit more engaging, such as base defence and controllable interceptors in UFO combat. This matters little though; with its drastically upscaling difficulty and demanding strategic choices, you’ll always be on edge in XCOM: Enemy Unknown, something which very few strategy games can accomplish.

For a more demanding challenge, XCOM: Enemy Unknown’s online multiplayer offers a highly tactical battleground to test your skills. Squads are fully customisable with both human and alien units with a point system. To play in the ranked servers, you’ll need to ensure you meet the point limit which will often mean choosing more basic units to start off with. There’s a good mix of maps from outdoor forests to metallic interiors, though the mode itself seems a little bare bones, only offering basic combat matches. Of course the main reason to try out multiplayer is the aliens; it’s a real treat to see how the opposite side plays, with their increased focus on machinery and psychic powers.

XCOM’s isometric combat system is much more intimate than most strategy games on the market; you’ll take turns moving a squad of up to six soldiers across the grid, taking shots at enemies and potentially using each class’s unique abilities. The heavy packs a heavy machine gun and rocket launcher, support is best at healing, assault rushes in with shotguns and stun guns and snipers take aim from afar. Each squad member is useful in their own way and as they gain kills and complete missions, they will level up to acquire even more abilities, which pays dividends in defeating the more dangerous alien types. Taking shots is based on percentages so if you’re faced with an unlikely hit, you’ll want to go with the reactionary overwatch, cover-boosting “hunker down” or reload the trooper’s weapon to ensure they won’t be caught off guard next turn. Even with multiple upgrades to your squad and their loadouts, you’ll quickly learn that there is no such thing as a perfect playthrough in XCOM; just like in real conflict, you will inevitably lose battles, suffer casualties and see countries withdraw from the project and this only adds to the intense nature of the combat itself. As your soldiers become more and more important with the ranks they gain, you will dread the enemy’s tactics and often ruthless efficiency in the way they constantly throw more deadly units at you. In combat, you must move with caution so as not to find yourself overwhelmed, choose a well-rounded squad to fit whatever enemies you may encounter, and most importantly, choose your cover and tactics very wisely. If your squad suffers heavy damage or casualties in a mission, you’ll be forced to use a less desirable team which will in turn, hurt your future efforts down the road. On the whole, the combat in XCOM: Enemy Unknown is very unpredictable which heightens the tension even more across the entire game.

This modern rendition of XCOM uses an animated style which falls somewhere in-between cartoon and cell-shaded. A heavy use of blue reflects the futuristic setting and the XCOM project itself. There’s a wide range of imaginative creature designs on display, who all have their own often grotesque movements and attack animations. Whilst some of the mission environments do repeat a bit, there is a good variety, including forests, towns and more mechanical areas throughout the campaign which all benefit from some detailed destruction effects. The music is suitably tense during missions and the game runs very well with only a few dips in frame rate during combat. The game also makes use of many cinematic camera angles to add great impact to every kill, making victory every bit as gratifying as it should be. Overall, the technical presentation of XCOM: Enemy Unknown is just as detailed and well-crafted as the rest of the game.

XCOM: Enemy Unknown is one of the most engaging and intense tactical experiences that modern gaming has to offer; it does the original justice whilst also doing a great job of updating it for modern audiences. If you can stomach the challenging difficulty then there’s no reason to miss out on this excellent game.

Rating: 9/10

Fury Movie Review

The setting of World War Two has been used many times in film, with numerous stories of soldiers, civilians and other perspectives that retell the most deadly and widespread conflict in history. With modern films from this category, it’s becoming more and more difficult to offer something which hasn’t been done before. With the newly released Fury however, director David Ayer and company have mostly succeeded in this regard.

Set in rural Germany in 1945, Fury focuses on the titular tank and the crew that mans it. Seargent Don “Wardaddy” Collier and his comrades are given a simple mission; push through Germany and take each town as they go. For the task, they are given a new member, the young and inexperienced Norman Ellison (Logan Lerman). As the squad battles their way across European battlefields, they encounter remnants of society and all manner of deadly obstacles. The plot is comprised of mostly heavy combat sequences broken up by a couple of more subdued moments in between. Like many war films before it, Fury homes in on the degeneration and desensitisation of humanity present in any major conflict and this is made immediately apparent with Norman’s arrival; he’s never killed anyone before and yet he is often at the mercy of the crew who have all become fully consumed by the act of killing and all have their own ways of dealing with the pressure. Fury does a fine job of conveying the experiences of the soldiers, and the premise is incredibly simple, allowing audiences to quickly focus on the characters.

The film’s title may match the name of the tank but ultimately Fury is a film about the crew. At the centre is the bond between Sgt “Wardaddy” and Norman which is a very interesting one. At first it seems that Norman is at Wardaddy’s mercy as he is forced to engage in matters he would want nothing to do with, but as Norman ventures deeper into warfare, his sergeant becomes a kind of mentor for him, training him how to act in and out of battle. The side characters are more straightforward; having all been impacted by the war, they’re more detached and even callous about Norman’s arrival in the unit. If there’s any issue with the characters, it’s that aside from Pitt and Lerman, the other characters don’t get nearly as much development; they mostly fall under archetypes of the genre including violent brute and constant drinker. When the film is trying hard to give us a new perspective on World War Two, these somewhat underdeveloped characters do stick out a fair bit. There’s also some character threads which suffer from similar issues; there are a few moments where “Wardaddy” takes a moment to hide his emotional side from his crew and this doesn’t really receive any kind of payoff. Similarly Norman’s transformation from scared young boy to ruthless combatant seems a little rushed, with him moulding almost instantly in the film’s first act. Despite these gripes, the film does manage to put its characters first which was definitely the right choice to make for a film in this genre.

Fury’s depiction of World War Two combat is a grey and gritty one; you’ll notice that compared with other films in the genre, there’s hardly any light or serenity in the environments which gels seamlessly with the futility of the soldier’s struggle. The authenticity on display here is outstanding, which comes primarily through the use of real tanks, including the only operational Tiger 131 in the world (which is stored at The Tank Museum in Bovington, England). The sounds are among the best you’ll ever hear in a war film; every shell and bullet impact as tanks and infantry engage each other is incredibly impactful, transporting you into the setting effortlessly. The cinematography is also highly commendable both in and out of the tank; low angle shots show off the gargantuan scale of the war machines and despite the cramped nature of the interior sections, the film offers a clear view of the action despite the carnage that unfolds on-screen. The final piece of the presentation is the lighting which really comes into its own in the final battle which makes great use of weapon flashes to create a foreboding and moody atmosphere.

Fury offers a different perspective on a long standing film genre, maintains a dark and grimy tone throughout and is ultimately able to stand alongside some of the best films based on the conflict. Any fans of action or war films shouldn’t let it slip past them this year.

Rating: 4/5 Stars

House of Cards Series Review (Seasons 1 and 2)

When it comes to television, the realm of the political is a difficult niche to fill; either audiences deem it to be too dry for regular viewing or the producers play it safe by concentrating on realistic issues and affairs tackled in the real world. The most recent contribution to this genre is House of Cards, a series which manages to get the balance just right, resulting in what could easily be considered one of the best political dramas ever made.

Based on the novel by Michael Dobbs and the original UK mini-series from 1990, House of Cards takes one man’s elaborate scheme to gain power and places it on the grandest stage of all, The White House. Kevin Spacey plays Francis Underwood, chief whip of the democrats; after he is passed over for Secretary of State, he vows to climb the ranks of the political totem pole, whilst being assisted by his wide Claire (played by Robin Wright). Underwood also begins an affair with journalist Zoe Barnes (Kate Mara) who agrees to spin stories in exchange for information that will help her rise in the media sector. On his conquest for a higher spot of power, Frank must contend with rebelling party members, numerous scandals and countless other obstacles that often expand worldwide. It’s these issues that give the series a serious dose of relatability that is rarely present in television dramas and in addition they keep the audience fully invested; you’ll always be wondering just how Underwood and his cohorts will manage get through the situation at hand. Of course the political backdrop with heavy diplomatic dialogue won’t appeal to everyone and newcomers to the topics discussed may find the plotlines a little tricky to follow but aside from its complexity, House of Cards is most definitely not one to fold over as it goes on.

House of Cards is a very character driven series and both the main and side characters are all especially memorable. Kevin Spacey gives one of his best performances as Francis; he’s such a cold and often sadistic politician and yet despite these repulsive characteristics, there’s not a single moment where he doesn’t fascinate the viewer. Robin Wright is his perfect match, bringing an equal level of cold decisiveness to Claire Underwood. In fact that’s something you’ll find about many of the women in House of Cards; many of them are very strong willed and progressive in their roles, which sometimes isn’t the case in other popular dramas. There’s also a contrast between old and young, with the inexperienced Zoe Barnes being stacked up against and often intimidated by Frank over the course of the series. The main thing which makes the characters work is their shady nature; nearly every character in the series has something to hide or some kind of dirty secret which they don’t want stumbling out into the open which not only consistently intrigues the audience but reinforces the prime theme of corruption. There are a lot of characters, with more being introduced as things go on but each and every one of them contributes in their own way to the web of intrigue and political drama.

House of Cards features many important themes but it also makes use of a fair few techniques to entertain its audience. I mentioned before that Spacey continuously fascinates as Frank Underwood, he does so by taking a moment or two to look towards the camera and narrate his plans to the audience; this technique (which was also used in the original 1990 series) is incredibly effective, meaning that no matter how ruthless Underwood becomes, you’ll be forever entranced by his sly quips. The series is certainly very adult in both its depiction of real issues such as alcohol abuse and its seamless implementation of controversial deeds including phone hacking and working relationships and this contributes to a rather dark tone which is enforced much more in season 2. You’ll witness people being destroyed by their personal demons and external addictions, or be stepped on by others who also seek more power and bad deeds for their own personal gain. Simply put, the production facets of House of Cards are always working to compliment the plot and characters; you’ll really appreciate the effort the crew put into this area time and time again.

House of Cards is a complex series which doesn’t always offer easy answers, nor does it cater to a wide audience, but its detailed performances and deep thematic plotlines more than carry the day. If you have any sort of interest in politics, journalism or both, you can’t afford to miss out on this brilliant series.

Rating: 4.5/5 Stars

Gone Girl Movie Review

With a variety of great films under his belt, David Fincher has risen to become one of the best directors in the Hollywood business. Coming off of the recent political drama House of Cards, Fincher has now set his sights on Gone Girl, with impressive results.

Gone Girl follows the story of Nick (Ben Affleck) and his wife Amy Dunne (Rosamund Pike). Nick arrives home one evening to find his wife gone and a series of cryptic clues and broken furniture left behind. He finds himself embroiled with both the media (personified by Missi Pyle’s Ellen Abbott) and Detective Rhonda Boney (Kim Dickens) in his search, but as things go along a seemingly ordinary mystery devolves into a web of lies and hidden secrets. Just as the police begin to question Nick’s honesty, so too does the audience question his integrity; did he kill his wife? Or if not, why and how did she leave him? This burning debate gradually develops as the film swaps between the perspectives of Nick and his wife with flash backs whilst also bringing in new characters which have their own roles to play in the search. On top of a plot which consistently moves forward, the film weaves in detailed themes which are constantly on display; these include the difficulties of marriage, mental degeneration, keeping up appearances and the pressures from the media and other external sources. The film gets especially dark in its later act with often disturbing acts of violence permeating the haggard minds of the characters. The ultimate conclusion, however does stick out as rather confusing and maybe a little anti-climactic; I won’t ruin it here but you may well leave the film expecting slightly more closure, especially to Nick’s side of the story.

A movie of this genre thrives on its characters and those featured in Gone Girl are both detailed and often quite relatable. Ben Affleck does a great job of conveying the sheer frustration and isolation Nick feels from being unable to find his wife and constantly being hounded by the media, allowing the audience to put themselves in his perspective. Rosamand Pike is also brilliant as Amy, putting across the character’s deterioration over the course of the film. The flashbacks strewn about the film’s first act give us a lot of time to get to know the two and in doing so, we’re all the more curious as to what will become of their ultimate commitments to each other. The side characters in the film are also well done; Nick’s sister Margo (Carrie Coon) and his lawyer Tanner Bolt (Tyler Perry) have important parts to play in the overall story arc and their own more light-hearted characteristics play off the main leads well. On the other hand Ellen Abbott’s character is one you will love to loath time and time again thanks to her endlessly senseless accusations. Gone Girl’s characters and plot stand on an equally tuned level, creating a steady level of quality across the board.

Gone Girl is deftly paced, intelligent and complex, making it another winner from director David Fincher. The film’s slower developments and confusing resolutions may not ring true for everyone, but for those who want something beyond the usual predictable film tropes; this is most definitely one to watch.

Rating: 4.5/5 Stars

Retro Review: Half Life 2

First played: 2007 on PS3 via The Orange Box

When it comes to first person shooters many games in the genre nowadays tend to play it safe, opting for a simplistic story and persistent online multiplayer to win over an audience. The Half Life series has never fallen into this pattern and the second game in the venerable franchise was no doubt a watershed moment for gaming as a whole.

Half Life 2’s story is set twenty years on from the original; the resonance cascade (a portal being opened into another dimension with catastrophic results) at the Black Mesa research facility drew the attention of the Combine, who have invaded Earth and imprisoned the human race in City 17, an crumbling Eastern European city which also doubles as their main base of operations. The protagonist Gordon Freeman is brought out of stasis and deposited into the city and he begins to work with the Lambda resistance group to fight back against the alien race. From the moment you step off the train at the beginning of the game, Half Life 2 oozes atmosphere and mystery, seamlessly introducing you to its bleak world and the oppressive alien race who occupies it. Homes are brutally raided; the voices of long-gone children echo through disused playgrounds and all manner of creatures and vehicles patrol the streets. There are no cutscenes or moments where you’re forced to stand and watch through the game’s main sequences, ensuring that the game’s immersion never loses its impact. Adding to this is a plethora of brilliant voice acting and facial animation that draws you into the character’s struggles just as well as any pre-rendered cut-scene could. Half Life 2’s dystopian world of totalitarianism blended with dystopia and science fiction is an incredibly rich world, something which you will no doubt get lost in while playing through the game.

Half Life 2’s lone single-player campaign lasts around eleven to twelve hours; this is a bit short by today’s standards, but where the game goes above and beyond most shooters is through its pitch perfect pacing. Valve has always proven they are the best in set-piece moments in shooters and Half Life 2 is arguably the finest example of that talent. You’ll engage in a thrilling chase and eventually turn the tables against a Combine helicopter, blast your way through zombie-infested Ravenholm, and infiltrate a heavily guarded prison using aliens which dogged you before. These are just some of the excellent moments that will stay with you long after beating the game and you may find yourself wanting to play them all over again. Through the campaign mode, you’ll be defeating enemies and solving light puzzles, collecting various weapons as you go. Although the levels are mostly linear, there are several instances, such as a coastal drive where you can go off the beaten path to discover supply caches left by Resistance members or interact with certain items in the game world such as traps and devices. The game proceeds at a breakneck pace, always keeping the player invested by introducing new gameplay scenarios that switch up the standard action, making Half Life 2’s campaign one of the best in the genre.

If there’s one word to sum up the first person combat in Half Life, it’s gratifying. Every weapon, despite often being traditional in nature packs a punch in its own right from the iconic crowbar to the devastating Combine pulse rifle. But where Half Life 2 really changed the game was through the introduction of the Gravity Gun; acquired around a third into the campaign, the device allows Gordon to pick up items and throw them around. It’s so versatile and deep that it, combined with the Havok physics engine, continues to set Half Life apart from every other shooter on the market; not only can it be used to save ammunition and use objects as shields to block enemy attacks, but it also comes into play with several physics based puzzles that require the player to find the way to press forward. Adding to the deep gameplay is a huge variety of environments and enemies, each of which require different tactics to succeed; Combine foot soldiers work together to flank and attack Gordon, Antlions and headcrab zombies swarm the player and hulking striders require much more caution (and plenty of rockets) to engage effectively. All of Half Life 2’s systems and mechanics come together to produce a master class in first person shooter gameplay, something that developers are still trying to match today.

Even 10 years on, Half Life 2 remains one of the best and most beloved PC games ever made and for good reason. It’s one of the crowning jewels in Valve’s PC gaming career that is still a blast to play through, not to mention the impact it had on story-telling and gameplay for the genre.

My recommendation: Buy this game! It is more than deserving of a spot in your PC library, especially if you’re a fan of shooters. It can be found in retail, on Steam for a discounted price or in The Orange Box, which is by far the best value package as you also get the two episodic expansions as well. Though I’d say you should play the original game first to fully understand the story (in its original form from Steam or the brilliant Black Mesa mod which can be found here http://www.blackmesasource.com/)

Rating: 9/10

Scottish Independence: What went on and what happens next

On the 18^th of September 2014, 84.59% of the Scottish population went to the polls to decide the future of their country; at the final count, as we’ve seen “No” won over “Yes” by 55% against 44% of votes.

The “No” campaign won out for several reasons, most notably how it and its supporters worked to stem the vote count for “Yes”. Whenever there was a surge in votes for “Yes”, the “No” campaign quickly worked to counteract this, creating surges of their own to keep themselves ahead of the opposing side (in this case, the party leaders journeyed up to Scotland). Many Scottish citizens felt that going independent was too much of a risk economically and were more inclined by the offerings of the “Better together” campaign. Daniel Weissman of the Bournemouth University Politics society raised the question as to whether independence would have been a reasonable choice for Scotland; because it was impossible to tell how the country would have coped in the future, the vote could have been considered a potentially costly gamble at best. Scotland’s economy will consistently grow with England’s and the vote also put shares up for the pound once results came through. In addition, the Royal Bank of Scotland will not relocate to London, allowing their operations to continue without any interruption. By staying with England, six hundred thousand jobs can be created through trading which benefits both nations and above all else, Scotland will not lose its power and presence as a nation by staying with England. 

Of course a vote as large as this wasn’t without controversy; there have been accusations of bias and swayed votes floating around both the media and those who campaigned for the “No” vote. Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond has been especially vocal on this, stating that the British party leaders misled voters with their campaigns. The oil supplies from the North Sea were an important part of debate as officials were apparently misled over amounts of the substance which forms a large part of Scotland’s economy. There was also an incident involving Andy Murray receiving abuse on Twitter after his decision to support the “Yes” campaign hours before the referendum began.

But what could have happened had Scotland actually made history by voting “Yes”? Many economists argue that Scotland may have struggled without the pound, a drawback which George Osborne enforced and was then supported by Labour leader Ed Miliband. It was also debated that the country’s impact, presence and influence on the world would have been significantly diminished if they split from the UK. Going independent would have also had an effect on Britain’s military; a member of the Navy based in HMNB Clyde, the force’s headquarters in Scotland, said that the base would either have to be declared sovereign territory or relocated south of the border had Scotland chosen to vote yes.  But on the other hand it was also argued that on its own, Scotland could have better tackled financial inequality amongst its citizens; a problem which Scottish members of Parliament feel was brought on and exacerbated by Westminster policies. In addition, being independent would have also allowed Scotland to fully shape itself as a nation; some of the primary areas up for consideration included the Scottish NHS, which some feel could have been freed from the privatisation that plagues the English organisation and branched out on its own.

Now we know that the people don’t want independence, how does Scotland proceed in the future? The answer lies in continued devolution (the giving away of powers) to Scottish Parliament, which will be carried out by either the Labour or Conservative parties. Most recently Ed Miliband and David Cameron had a row over what was the best way to proceed with this tactic. Labour would give Scotland the power to vary income tax by 15p out of every pound as well as complete control over their own elections, meaning that they cannot be dissolved by Westminster. The Conservative party wants to be more lenient in this regard, giving Scotland complete control over its income tax.

But with devolution comes another issue; the West Lothian question remains difficult to solve; is it fair that English MPs have no say on Scottish issues whereas Scottish MPs can participate in both based on devolution? Some analysts have suggested that giving more and more powers to Scotland could result in a greater level of political inequality between Westminster and Scotland. Change will undoubtedly come to Scottish Parliament over the coming months; Alex Salmond has already announced he will be stepping down as First Minister and leader of the Scottish National Party and Scottish MPs are pointing to his deputy Nicola Sturgeon to replace him.

Would a vote for independence ever happen again? Salmond has promised that the dream will never die but as Alistair Darling put it, this has been a once in a lifetime vote. Despite this argument Salmond has claimed that Scotland could still become independent; the process of gradual devolution to the country could end up making the country independent in all but name, meaning Scotland would be able to declare its independence without even needing a referendum at all.

After all the voting and political blowback there’s no real way of knowing whether Scotland would have been better or worse off on their own, but for now the country will remain joined to Britain.

Braveheart Movie Review

In the realm of historical drama, filmmakers are often faced with a dilemma; do they keep as historically accurate as possible for authenticity or do they buck this trend in favour of making their stories as epic and dramatic as possible. Braveheart is a fine example of how using the latter technique can result in a brilliant and timeless film that transports the audience into a rich setting and never let’s go.

Braveheart is the tale of William Wallace (Mel Gibson), a Scottish warrior and hero in the thirteenth century; his people have been subjected to ruthless oppression by the English led by King Edward “LongShanks” ever since he was a boy and he soon gets his reason to fight; after his wife Murron (Catherine McCormack) is killed by English soldiers, Wallace takes up a sword and rallies the Scots to fight for their freedom. Along the way, the born leader and his band of brothers take the fight to the enemy by unconventional means, as well as bringing figures such as Robert the Bruce (Angus Macfadyen) to their cause. Adapted from the epic poem “The Actes and Deidis of the Illustre and Vallyeant Campioun Schir William Wallace” by Blind Harry, Braveheart launches full-on into an vast, varied and engaging tale of valour and courage. The film is excellently paced, sprinkling in great amounts of vicious battles and subdued drama; and with a brilliant and timeless hero at its centre, you’ll be rooting for and engaged with Wallace more and more as the film goes on, something which modern films struggle to do nowadays. Of course the film isn’t completely historically accurate, but by moving away from this the filmmakers were able to produce a plot that not only keeps the audience invested from start to finish, but also manages to translate very well to the big screen.

The characters of this grand tale are mostly very well-rounded and developed. At the centre is Mel Gibson as William Wallace, an excellent and all-around likeable lead; he possesses a strong and determined mind-set and yet despite his tough exterior, he is shown to be a man who is forced to adapt and cope with losses of every kind. Wallace’s main companions (played by Brendan Gleeson and David O’Hara amongst others) provide a good mixture of drama and light comic relief which play off Gibson very well. On the opposing side, we have King Edward “Longshanks” (Patrick Mcgoohan), a truly ruthless dictator who makes for a great antagonist; just as the audience follows Wallace, so too do they hope for the villain to be taken down a notch, which makes for a great conflict. Other side characters also make an impression by going along their personal journeys over the course of the film; Isabella of France (Sophie Marceau) starts off as a bargaining chip, hopeless to have any influence on her husband and the domineering king, but as things go on, she becomes more daring and willing to defy conventions. Likewise Robert the Bruce is constantly torn between his claim to the Scottish throne and loyalty to his fellow kinsman, making for an interesting plotline of morality. The only real issue I had with the cast was that some of the characters could have had more time to develop; for instance “Longshank's” son Prince Edward (Peter Hanly) has an interesting role, but his character doesn’t contribute as much to the proceedings over the course of the film.

Before modern films utilised CGI to make their battles seem much large and expansive in scale, films had to make do with extras and good camera work to set them apart and in terms of sheer spectacle, Braveheart is in a class of its own with its portrayal of medieval combat. It’s really intense stuff, with quick cuts between the two sides and some brutal killing blows; it’s also interesting how the film’s combat is devoid of music, allowing the clashing of swords and shields to be much more impactful. The film is also leaps and bounds ahead in its portrayal of the setting and characters; the vast landscapes of Scotland viewed from afar are some of the most beautiful sights you’ll ever see in a historical drama whilst the make-up and costumes are very well designed to clearly define the English and Scottish armies. The music features a traditional and authentic bagpipe score placed against an emotive main theme which brings a surprising amount of poignancy to the Scot’s struggle. Suffice it say, there’s little in Braveheart that doesn’t work alongside the story and characters to draw the viewer in to its stunning world.

I can say without a shadow of doubt that Braveheart is epic in every sense of the word; it’s well rounded characters, beautiful music and visceral combat all come together to make it one of the best historical dramas, even nearly twenty years later. Historians will no doubt continue to cry foul at its numerous inaccuracies, but for the rest of us, it remains an utterly captivating and enthralling adventure.  

Rating: 4.5/5 Stars