Fargo Series Review (Season 1)

Back in 1996, a little film named Fargo became an overnight success, while also establishing the Coen brothers as master craftsmen in film. Nearly twenty years later and the film and its creators have made a comeback, this time debuting on the smaller screen. With an unpredictable plot, deep characters and strong ties to its source material, Fargo stands as one of the best crime dramas to come out in recent years.

Fargo’s structure is based on an anthology with a different story each season and the first of these surrounds Lester Nygaard (Martin Freeman), a relatively unsophisticated and lowly man. Despite having a fairly solid livelihood, Lester can’t help but fell dissatisfied; he’s beaten down in both his work and free time and even his wife sees him as a spineless man with little to offer. A chance meeting with the sinister Lorne Malvo (Billy Bob Thornton) compels Lester to do something wild and thus begins a winding tale of foreboding twists and turns that eventually sees the entire police force getting involved. Fargo boasts one of the most unpredictable plots ever seen in a crime drama; although the series does hold some parallels with the 1996 film that preceded it, you never really know just what is going to happen next. Will Lester get out of the mess he finds himself in? Will Malvo get his due? Who else has a role to play in this story? These are just some of the questions that will keep you guessing all the way to the end. The other big strength of Fargo as a TV series is that it all feels plausible and realistic; it’s a fictional tale, and yet the superimposed text at the start of each episode “This is a true story” can easily dupe the audience into suspending their disbelief. Fargo does what any good TV series should; it keeps the audience invested, tells an unpredictable yet coherent story and also stays true to the film it is based on.

The characters of Fargo have their own ties to the original film but manage to set themselves apart with their varied performances. Lester is such a sneaky, slimy individual; something which only continues to grow and expand over the course of the series as he hides behind his conscience and deceives others. I found him similar to Frank Underwood from House of Cards in this regard; you loath him at many points, but it’s always unclear just what kind of sneaky deed he’s going to commit next. Lorne Malvo is a strong counterpart to this; someone so cold, calculating and ruthless that he fully commands every scene he’s in. Standing on the opposite wavelength are our protagonists Deputy Molly Solverson and Officer Gus Grimly, played by Allison Tolman and Colin Hanks respectively. What makes the protagonists so memorable in Fargo is their perseverance; suffice it to say, they go through a lot in order to unravel the mystery, making the audience root for them the whole way through. Each and every one of the characters goes through believable and detailed journeys over the course of the series. Not only that, but they also feel just as authentic and fleshed out as the plot; there isn’t a single weak link and they all play their roles with equal range and gusto.

While it may have been swept under the rug by other popular shows, Fargo is a dark yet fantastic programme that entices and engages its audience across its ten episodes. It’s a perfect fit for the small screen, forming strong ties with its source material while taking it in surprising and unexpected new directions. If you’re a fan of the Coen brothers and their work, the series is a must, but it still carries more than enough to satisfy the common viewer sparingly. (Just be sure to watch the original film first!)

Rating: 5/5 Stars

Post-Viewing: Why Mission Impossible is still going strong after nearly twenty years

The roots of Mission Impossible can be traced all the way back to the sixties, where a relatively innocent American TV series gained a strong following with audiences. Pairing the inspiration of a classic TV series with a long list of dedicated filmmakers proved to be an excellent match. The Mission Impossible film series has managed to thrive even whilst its fellow action franchises such as Die Hard and Terminator have fallen well short of their respective pedigrees in recent years. Why is this? The answer is mostly down to the differing takes on the series and the production members who have stayed on from the very beginning.

The original Mission Impossible, directed by Brian De Palma in 1996 was the right film at the right time. Tom Cruise, having risen to prominence with Top Gun ten years prior was a fan of the original television series and following a deal with Paramount, the film was put into production; what made the film work from the offset was the way in which it incorporated and adapted just about every trend that made up the TV series, while spicing it up with some death-defying stunts which would eventually solidify Cruise’s reputation as one of the best stuntmen in the movie business. It was also very focused around espionage with numerous double-crossings and secret undertones. Mission Impossible went on to become the third highest grossing film of 1996, kicking off the franchise incredibly well.

MI:2, while probably the weakest of the series is still a guilty pleasure of many; it’s John Woo’s signature over the top style that carried over from films such as Hard Boiled, The Killer and Face-Off. This is made evident by the heavy metal riff placed on the series main theme as well as the sheer ridiculousness of some of the stunts. It went for straight-forward no holds-barred action, though some thought this approach strayed a bit from what made the series so memorable in the first place. Nevertheless it was no Die Hard 5 and the series wasn’t dragged through the mud to the point of no return, making it eligible for a third entry.

MI3 was the first entry I saw at the cinema in 2006 and it definitely went for a more gritty and visceral tone. JJ Abrams has always had a flashy, cinematic flair to his films and MI3’s adoption of this style resulted in some highly intense moments. The bridge attack around half-way through the film still stands as one of the best action sequences of the entire series and possibly most action films in the 2000s as well. By the time the film’s final fight between Ethan and Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s Owen Davian came about, the tension could not be any higher; when you see Ethan rise up and absolutely pummel the villain, it’s incredibly impactful and satisfying. While MI3 was a strong step up from the second, it didn’t manage to do quite as well commercially. Ironically it would be the fourth entry that would really elevate the franchise to where it is today.

As for Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, that entry marked the point where the series reached its peak in popularity; it’s the highest grossing film in the series and with good reason. Brad Bird really did up the production values and set-piece moments for the fourth film in the series; a surprising change for a director more commonly known for animated films such as The Iron Giant and The Incredibles. While Ghost Protocol did suffer from perhaps the weakest villain in the entire series, it did set a new bar for action in the series. The tense climb up the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, the stealthy infiltration of the Kremlin and the final chase through a shifting car storage plant were all equally engaging and entertaining. But the film went beyond that, placing more emphasis on a lighter tone and most notably Ethan’s team and the camaraderie they share throughout the film; this is what sets the franchise apart from other similar films of its kind and it’s another major element of what made Ghost Protocol so successful in 2011.

As the twenty-first highest grossing film series of all time, Mission Impossible has definitely gone the extra mile to earn that title. All the way through the series, Tom Cruise has served as a strong driving force for the series; not only has he starred in the main role in every film, but he’s also been a producer on each of the five entries. It’s clear that he knows the franchise better than anyone else and knows exactly how to make it work; and as such, we’ve seen five successful movie-making collaborations in a row that have never gone off the rails, while keeping the spirit and quality of the series despite making use of different tones over the years. When it comes to spy franchises in films, you could say we have a trifecta of brilliant franchises to choose from; comprised of James Bond, the Bourne films and Mission Impossible. The series has made an undeniably strong mark on the genre and if all goes to plan, it should continue to do so. 

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation Movie Review

Mission Impossible is one of the most venerable action franchises in film; it’s also a rare case of a series which has gotten better and better over time. After a four year wait, the series has returned once again with Rogue Nation, potentially claiming the distinction of best summer action film of 2015 in the process.

The film picks up immediately after the previous film with IMF agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) in pursuit of the omnipresent Syndicate organisation. What is it and what do they want? It’s Ethan’s job to find out and after a relatively straightforward opening action sequence, the likes of Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg), Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames) and William Brandt (Jeremy Renner) all get roped into a highly unpredictable, highly entertaining thrill ride which takes them to multiple locations around the world. Building on top of the layer Ghost Protocol created, the mission this time around is more a game of wits; the Syndicate is no easy opponent and Ethan and his team must not only beat them at their own game, but also avoid the prying eyes of the CIA, led by Alan Hunley (Alec Baldwin) who seeks to shut down the IMF following their less than subtle operating procedures. The shadowy nature of the organisations present leads to far more twists and turns than you’d expect in the series, which adds to the tried and true formula of intense action sequences broken up by more subdued character driven moments. The franchise’s extravagance is also intact, with flashy scenes in Austria and London showing off the high tech gadgets the series is known for. In short, Rogue Nation gives us increased stakes and a faster pace, setting the film apart from its predecessors while also giving it a different kind of tone; something which the series has prided itself on with different directors over the years.

If you’ve seen any of the previous films in the Missions Impossible series then you’ll know exactly what to expect from the simple yet strong main characters; Tom Cruise is once again great as Ethan Hunt, bringing both an array of emotions and an exemplary physical contribution to the proceedings. Simon Pegg is just as good as he was in Ghost Protocol, maintaining the comic relief a second time. Going into the film, I had a sinking suspicion that Swedish actress Rebecca Ferguson would be under-used as a love interest, but nothing could be further from the truth; her performance as Ilsa Faust is highly detailed and thoughtful. Throughout most of the film it’s difficult to tell just what her motivations are and this creates even more unpredictability in the plot. Dare I say it; she could match Tom Cruise in terms of acting prowess in the series despite not always holding the spotlight. Rounding off our package of protagonists is Ving Rhames as Luther; it’s great to see him make a full comeback after his absence in Ghost Protocol. Even the villain (played by Sean Harris), a major sore point of the previous film, is far more developed and fleshed out, with proper ties to both the characters and the plot as opposed to the sake of simply having an antagonist. The returning characters of Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation are just as well-rounded and developed as you’d expect, but the newcomers could be even better, elevating the film above the “play it safe” routine of many sequels.

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation proves once again that the series is second to none when it comes to physical stunt work in the action genre. You’ve already seen Tom Cruise hanging on for dear life from the side of a A400 Airbus cargo plane, but like the other films in the series, Rogue Nation always has a trick up its sleeve. The film’s finest moment comes around hallway through, where a trio of fantastic and well-crafted set piece moments in Morocco come roaring in one after the other; it’s riveting stuff, the best of which I won’t spoil here. The cinematography remains top notch across every action scene, making use of a variety of angles to really transport the audience into the action. The music is just as strong, matching every scene with its arrangement and variation. Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation wouldn’t have worked as well as it does without great stunt work and special effects; I’m happy to report that the filmmakers still have a strong understanding of what makes the franchise work.

Mission Impossible Rogue Nation is easily the biggest and best of the entire series. Its breakneck pacing, intense stunts and strong characters all coalesce perfectly in one of the best action films of the year. It’s also great to see it break the trend of bad fifth entries in film franchises. There’s absolutely no reason to miss this terrific thrill-ride if you’re a fan of action or films in general.

Rating: 5/5 Stars

Controversy Clocking Episode 1: The Mess that is the Exclusivity Deal

Welcome to a series I call Controversy Clocking; in it I’ll be commenting on numerous controversies and bad business decisions in gaming (and possibly the film industry) while also looking at any positive steps that have been taken to ensure they don’t happen again. For this first episode I’m putting exclusivity on the chopping block, specifically that seen on modern gaming consoles.

The business surrounding the exclusivity deal has recently become very messy and the PlayStation 4 and the Xbox One are the prime offenders, putting out large sums of money to buy out companies in a bid to get more units sold. It all gets rather confusing when you have games like Star Wars: Battlefront and Call of Duty Black Ops 3; titles which have exclusive betas and early access on Xbox One and early map packs on PlayStation 4.

Unfortunately the bad decisions surrounding exclusivity went a step further, with companies taking games which originally released on all platforms simultaneously and forcing consumers to wait for the sequel to come out on the opposite platforms many months down the line. The most infamous case of this was Microsoft’s acquisition of Rise of the Tomb Raider last year; many of the fans acted with outrage to the decision, a vast majority declaring that they would not buy an Xbox One just for the game. The anger still continues to this day, more so from the PlayStation crowd who were especially frustrated at having to wait all the way to the fourth quarter of 2016. Sure enough, Square Enix recently came out to officially confirm that the game would arrive on both the PlayStation 4 and PC in 2016. One of the biggest problems with these kinds of deals is that they’re so vague with how they came about; while some may say that Bayonetta 2 wouldn’t have existed without support from Nintendo, others are quick to call out Microsoft and Sony for bribing other companies. What is the difference between supporting the developer and straight up bribery? It’s always been hard to tell given how the transparency of companies could be better.

One of the main tactics employed in exclusivity deals nowadays is something I like to call “sugar-coating”; the process goes as follows…

Step 1: A company makes an announcement of a game, presenting it as an exclusive to their system. This is sometimes accompanied by a brief message stating “First on this console” which quickly flashes by, missing the common viewer.

Step 2: The inquests from the gaming community begin, asking whether or not the title is a full or timed exclusive. Both the console manufacturer and the game developer who took the payment either misdirect or refuse to answer the question, prompting wild speculation and guessing games.

Step 3: Several months roll on and the community still has no answer to their question; the sugar coating finally ends and the game company confirms a release date on other platforms (which we recently saw with Rise of the Tomb Raider on PS4 and PC).

I recently went over to a friend’s house to play some Smash Bros for the Wii U and I also showed him the trailer for the Final Fantasy 7 HD remake; he was really excited for the game and turned to me afterwards saying “Looks like I’ll have to get a PS4 to play the game”. I then pointed out that the message at the end said “Play it first on PlayStation 4”, implying that the game may come to PC at some point. It was interesting to see this kind of sugar-coating working on people; had I not pointed out that the remake may well have been a timed exclusive, he may well have gone on to put down the money for a PlayStation 4. As much I hate to admit it, these kinds of deals do work to a certain extent; why else would the companies keep paying out for them if they didn’t convince people?

What have the exclusivity deals done? Ignited the fanboy wars, angered fanbases and above all else, confuse and mislead consumers. Content in multi-platform releases and franchises that were once multi-platform should not be split off in this way and ultimately the deals really don’t have any point to them. If the content is going to come out on other systems anyway then why do it?

The aftermath

Thankfully when it comes to exclusivity deals, a positive move was made recently; Phil Spencer, the head of Xbox recently came forward to say that there wouldn’t be any more third-party deals like the one they did for Rise of the Tomb Raider. Instead Xbox will focus on its first party content in the future and this is the right choice to make. While exclusive content may be here to stay, it’s good to see that Microsoft saw and took on-board the anger and frustration from the gaming community and chose to cut back on these kinds of decisions.