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