Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi Movie Review

Released: 15th December 2017 (Worldwide)

Length: 152 Minutes

Certificate: 12A

Director: Rian Johnson

Starring: Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Adam Driver, Domnhall Gleeson, Andy Serkis, Kellie Marie Tran and Benicio Del Toro

Star Wars made an immensely successful comeback with JJ Abram’s opening chapter and since its thunderous return to the big screen two years ago, all eyes have pointed to what the next episode will do to expand the sequel trilogy. By taking on a different direction, the latest chapter in the Star Wars saga, for all its divisive reception, has achieved something that no other entry can claim; a full subversion of expectations.

Taking place directly after The Force Awakens, the resistance led by General Leia Organa (Played by the late Carrie Fisher in her final film performance) along with ace pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) and turn-cloak Stormtrooper Finn (John Boyega) evacuate their base in a hurry as the First Order bears down on them at the behest of Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), General Hux (Domnhall Gleeson) and Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis); with their options running out with every passing minute, the shrinking band of rebel forces takes some risky steps in a bid to come out on top. Meanwhile Rey (Daisy Ridley) finds an aging Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) on a backwater planet and the two set about exploring the nature of the force and the endless conflict between light and dark. The force itself plays a key role in Episode VIII and the ways it is used (especially outside of the action) are both extensive and intriguing while the thematic elements, which look to the past and the often-grey area of conflict lead to the narrative’s greatest strength; the many twists and turns. I was constantly wondering which way things would go and while there isn’t anything on the scale of The Empire Strikes Back, The Last Jedi still makes its mark for being very surprising. The plot’s only real shortcoming is an extended tangent to a casino planet involving Finn and newcomer Rose (played by Kelly Marie Tran); it felt tacked on, attempting to add some further background to the Star Wars Universe while instead serving as a distraction to the central action.

The main characters in The Last Jedi are still just as compelling as they were in its predecessor. At the centre of the film is Rey and Luke Skywalker who both deliver some excellent chemistry alongside some fascinating developments to their characters. Rey is possessed with a quiet confidence and yet she still has much to learn, compelling the audience to follow her arc. Returning after over three decades, Luke Skywalker feels broken-down, having lost his faith in the Jedi Order and the path he takes throughout the film results in many emotional moments. On the other side of the proceedings, other characters also rise to the occasion. Poe Dameron is forced to come to terms with his often-reckless space combat antics and Finn finds himself going to the extra mile to keep the resistance alive. Kylo Ren is every bit as tortured as he was in Episode VII; the conflict inside him manifests into something much more unstable this time around and you find yourself wondering what he will do next. Snoke’s sinister mannerisms channel the Emperor from the original trilogy while expanding on the nastier uses of the force. Some of the side characters don’t fare as well however, despite being performed with dedicated gusto. Laura Dern’s rebel admiral character, apart from a visually stunning space set-piece, rarely feels like a cohesive part of the resistance. Rose attempts to develop as a character, only to fall flat in the face of the main cast and while I won’t give away Benicio Del Toro’s role, it’s very miniscule. Gwendoline Christie’s Captain Phasma is once again snubbed as well, something the sequel should have worked to fix.

Right from its opening shots, you’ll notice that Episode VIII uses more saturated and striking aesthetics. It’s a very sleek look that characterises the film’s darker tone, bringing it more in line with last year’s Rogue One; a heavy use of jet black and pure red hangs over the space sequences, a symbol of the powerful force relentlessly pursuing the rebels. This is contrasted with the more spiritual setting of Luke’s island where some brilliant natural lighting from the sun enhances the sense of mystery that engulfs both him and Rey. The shots give off a tremendous sense of scale while also continuing the same whirling cinematography that really pulled the audience into the action in The Force Awakens. Some of the First Order ships from hulking dreadnoughts to a massive flagship in the shape of a stealth bomber are the major highlights. Episode VIII works well to maintain the balance between computer effects and physical models as well while the score by John Williams once again brings the emotion in all the right places; there are also points where the music speaks more softly or ceases entirely but those are best left discovered on your own viewing. It’s simply another visually stunning science fiction film, but overall, it feels more gargantuan than other films in the genre this year.

Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi is a very anomalous entry in the franchise’s four-decade long history, but I mean that in the best possible way; director Rian Johnson has made some very bold steps to both shake up the tried and true formula while also challenging how you think about the universe as a whole. It succeeds despite an unneeded second act tangent and a few underdeveloped characters and had me thinking long after it wrapped up.

Rating: 4/5 Stars (Great)

Justice League Movie Review

Released: 17th November 2017 (UK and United States)

Length: 120 Minutes

Certificate: 12A

Director Zack Snyder (With Joss Whedon brought in)

Starring: Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Jeremy Irons, Jason Momoa, Ray Fisher, Ezra Miller, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Diane Lane, Ciaran Hinds and J.K Simmons

Four years into the DC Extended Universe’s lifespan, we’ve reached what WB hopes is the first zenith of its grand cinematic crusade. Can the next ensemble production bounce back after several failed attempts? Regretfully, Justice League struggles along, finding immense difficulty in getting audiences onboard for its rushed vision.

Sometime after the death of Superman (Henry Cavill), Batman (Ben Affleck), fearful of an approaching threat, brings together several extraordinary individuals to fight; these include Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller). With the arrival of Steppenwolf (Ciaran Hinds), the team finds themselves tackling the latest threat to the planet. The problem of cramming in the plot isn’t as blatant as it was before, but it still causes many problems. Multiple origin stories and other plot elements are rushed through without any substance, side characters are again side-lined or completely wasted (Looking at you J.K Simmons…) and action sequences (except for the last battle) often end abruptly, with a few jarring jump-cuts strewn about the runtime for good measure. There’s also a few awkward shifts to an unnamed family the film wants us to care about so badly with no success. The most egregious flaw in the plot however is the second act; because of a grave mistake committed by its 2016 predecessor: Batman v Superman, an entire portion of the film puts Steppenwolf on the backburner just to bring back a certain hero of the DC Universe which, much like BVS, lands with absolutely no impact whatsoever. The plot tries so hard to pull you in but there is no battle cry, no astounding moment where the heroes all come together as one. So many of Justice League’s narrative problems could have been solved by giving each character their own film first and the way it again skips over these backstories results in an incredibly hollow and pedestrian story. The only exceptions to the rule are the portions taking place in Wonder Woman’s world because we’ve already been introduced to that and can easily latch onto it.

With some strong performances entering the DCEU over the years, Justice League mostly continues that trend without really going further; Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot are again great, despite having to stomach a serving of expository dialogue. The actors all do their best and deliver their performances well enough but there’s simply no context to any of the new characters; they fit their archetypes and that’s it. Flash is the comic relief, but he never follows through to deliver some witty jokes, Cyborg is moody and brooding and Aquaman is a rebellious delinquent, but their characters don’t really grow or change which would have created a stronger connection. As for Steppenwolf, he’s another painfully weak villain that might as well have been pulled out of a hat and deposited in the production. Outside of a few short moments, the team’s chemistry simply isn’t memorable or believable; they “come together” because the plot needs them to and because many of the newcomers aren’t developed, they don’t feel very well-rounded either.

Opting for a more light-hearted tone after last year’s critical bombing, Justice League is immediately a lighter, less saturated film to look at. The lighting has more a natural look, with characters standing out amongst the backgrounds. Special effects are on point with the Flash getting most of the attention with some dazzling energy effects pulsating around him while the action slows down in a way quite like X-Men’s Quicksilver. The action scenes are well-shot and well-choreographed, but that’s all it has to offer. The massive uptake in CGI means we don’t get anything to the level of Batman’s vicious Arkham-Style fist fight from last year. It’s fun to watch the team fight together but it doesn’t reach the epic peak the film so desperately wants to obtain. Overall, the world feels mostly external in Justice League; for all its detailed effects, the film doesn’t work to pull the audience in as the settings just aren’t cohesive enough to form an immersive whole, creating further disconnects with the action. For the music, legendary composer Danny Elfman was brought onboard but there aren’t many notes you’ll really remember coming out of the theatre outside of a few popular tracks drafted in to play in the background.

Justice League has got to be one of the most underwhelming ensemble productions I’ve ever seen; yet again we have a DC film where the lack of build-up and development really hurts the film’s overall impact. It speaks volumes of the patchy, often hackneyed production schedule laid down by Warner Bros as a studio. The action is flashy and entertaining, but then again, so too is every other DCEU film released so far and Justice League really doesn’t deliver anything beyond that, nor does it manage to mend the damage inflicted by previous outings.

Rating: 2/5 Stars (Disappointing)

Murder on the Orient Express Movie Review

Released: November 2nd 2017 (UK)

Length: 114 Minutes

Certificate: 12A

Director: Kenneth Branagh

Starring: Kenneth Branagh, Tom Bateman, Daisy Ridley, Leslie Odom Jr, Michelle Pfeiffer, Josh Gad, Judi Dench, Penelope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Derek Jacobi, Marwan Kenzari and Johnny Depp

Adapted twice since its original publication in 1934, Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express journeys to the big screen a second time in 2017 with an updated take from Kenneth Branagh. When taken on its own terms, the film is an effective mystery with more than enough intrigue to keep the audience guessing.

Set in the 1930s, Murder on the Orient Express follows a collection of different faces and personalities as they travel on the Orient Express from Istanbul to France; as the title suggests, things don’t go according to plan and Belgian Detective Hecule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh) finds himself tasked with solving a murder mystery with every passenger onboard the train being a potential suspect. Some of the faces on board include a dignified princess (Judi Dench), Governess Mary Debenham (Daisy Ridley), Dr Arbuthnot (Leslie Odom Jr.), religious follower Pilar Estravados (Penelope Cruz) and the snide assistant Hector McQueen (Josh Gad). Once they get on that train, the mystery proceeds fluidly as Hecule conducts his investigation, questioning each of the passengers while the plot occasionally dips into black and white flashbacks. With more details gradually revealed over the film’s runtime, it all plays out just like a classic detective novel and a few snappy twists also work to pile on the unpredictable nature of the plot. It doesn’t quite maintain this pacing all the way through though; the first act moves a bit too fast for its own good; the bustling markets of Istanbul are a neat backdrop, but we don’t learn so much about the characters and their individual traits before the board the titular train, which ends up feeding into amount of time dedicated to each passenger further down the line.

Boasting an extensive all-star cast, the 2017 rendition of Murder has plenty of talent to draw in the crowds, even if some receive more screen-time than others. Kenneth Branagh carries the central perspective as Detective Hercule Poirot and it’s an excellent performance; he’s serious about solving the case but also has a down-to-earth approachability to him that ensures things never become too self-serious. The other performances are all relatively solid; each actor on the roll creates their individual personas with enough substance to differentiate themselves from the others. Daisy Ridley, Leslie Odom Jr, Josh Gad and Michelle Pfeiffer are all equally great in this regard. But as mentioned before, the film inevitably finds problems in giving every A-list actor enough time to make their presence felt onboard the train. Willem Dafoe and Judi Dench feel particularly underused and others such as Lucy Boynton’s Countess Andrenyi feel rather insignificant to the greater narrative. Despite this missed potential, there isn’t a single weak link on the train, creating a balanced viewpoint as to who could be the killer.

While it’s minimalistic in its approach to presentation, Murder on the Orient Express still features its fair share of directorial polish; the period piece sets and costume work are all spot on with a firm embedding in the thirties that really pulls the viewer in. Most of the train is a real set with detailed, often luxurious looking objects with a reduced amount of computer effects limited to the train’s exterior and outdoor sequences. For most of the runtime, the action takes place inside the train and this was the right choice. There’s quite a bit of visual trickery employed during the camerawork, from tracking shots, POVs and a few overhead views; the camerawork keeps the viewer guessing, particularly when it comes to the character’s true motives and identities. One brilliant moment comes when Willem Dafoe’s character is split into three by a nearby reflection in the glass. The music is equally traditional with calm notes giving way to more emotional pieces that really convey the true scale of the murder mystery. All-in-all this latest version of MOTOE has a lot of respect for its time, while also adding in a few cinematic touches to create its own feel.

Despite its awkward position as a remake, Murder on the Orient Express is a juicy, engrossing mystery that just about anyone can get immersed in. The performances, while somewhat out of balance are all very strong, especially Kenneth Branagh, who will keep you hooked with both narrative and filmmaking prowess. If you’ve never seen a previous version of the film, this is the perfect time to jump in.

Rating: 3.5/5 Stars (Good)

Stranger Things Series Review (Season 2)

Released: 27th October 2017 (UK)

Created by: The Duffer Brothers

Number of Episodes: 9

Where to Watch: Netflix

Starring: Winona Ryder, David Harbour, Finn Wolfhard, Noah Schnapps, Gaten Matarazzo, Caleb McLaughlin, Milly Bobby Brown, Charlie Heaton, Natalia Dyer, Sadie Sink, Sean Astin and Paul Reiser

2015’s Stranger Things stood as arguably the biggest success story for Netflix, turning many of its cast members into sensations overnight. With such a large following, The Duffer Brothers have once again returned to deliver a follow-up that’s big on heart as well as escalation.

Taking place one year after the first season, the town of Hawkins has mostly settled back into its regular groove; but the traumatic experiences remain etched into the residents, with the young Will Byers (Noah Schnapp) not quite free from his traumatic time in another dimension. This is the springboard for another unseen, demonic presence that seeks to drown the entire town in death and destruction. Much like the first season, Stranger Things bases its pacing within the growth of mysteries, developing the characters and finally bringing it all together; this time around, things accelerate much more quickly, which speaks volumes of season 2’s heightened stakes. Characters bounce around in separate groups, heading to varied locations to piece together. The only time the narrative goes off on a tangent (and not for the best) is in episode 7; a character (played by Linnea Berthelsen) with close ties to Milly Bobby Brown’s Eleven is introduced in the season’s opening but she doesn’t play any role in the problems that plague Hawkins and instead comes off as a missed opportunity. Yet aside from this one episode, the series makes a brilliant pacing shift from build-up to full-on intensity. There are also some incredibly heartfelt moments toward the end of the series and these bind the characters together so tightly that you’ll connect with all of them even more than you did before.

Stranger Things’ collection of actors of actresses is again excellent, with each holding distinctive characteristics. Having been absent for a good majority of season one, Noah Schnapp is superb here; with Will having the wildest moments across the episodes, he brilliantly captures that internal struggle and when paired up with Winona Ryder’s Joyce and Charlie Heaton’s Jonathon, makes for a strong family dynamic. Sheriff Jim Hopper (David Harbour) is again strong, with the series examining his softer side much more intimately. While less emphasis is placed on their misadventures around town, the child actors remain immensely likeable but what’s interesting this time around is that they each have a story thread on their shoulders that needs to be overcome. Mike (Finn Wolfhard) is still getting over losing Eleven, Dustin (Gaten Matarazzo) finds himself taking care of an odd-looking pet and Lucas (Caleb McLaughlin) finds himself trying to win over newcomer Maxine (Sadine Sink), a tomboyish girl with a penchant for skateboarding and arcade games. The cast is completed by two veteran eighties actors: Sean Astin, the original Goonie, as Joyce’s new fling Bob and Paul Reiser from Aliens, a film season 2 pours in plenty of tributes to. I liked how there wasn’t really a definitive antagonist this time around; instead season 2 places this focus squarely on the creatures that pour in from the opposite dimension, with the government mostly on a middle ground between the two sides. Above all else though, not a single character is lacking or underdeveloped.

Continuing its deep dive into eighties nostalgia, Stranger Things Season 2 keeps all the traits you loved about the first; foreboding synthesisers, a slew of classic music and the snappy transitions that jump between related items and people. But with a darker threat and more sinister tone, the producers peel back the layers between the town of Hawkins and the Upside Down even more. Some nasty looking tunnels and a greater number of grotesque creatures up the amount of bloody carnage and the lighting has also received a large boost, with the dimly blue tint of the upside matched against apocalyptic skies. The government lab oozes zany retro science, with hazmat suits and flamethrowers reminiscent of John Carpenter’s “The Thing” and the setting of 1984 gives way to other neat references, most notably Ghostbusters and the arcade title Dragon’s Lair. Despite the madness that goes down, the action is still well-shot, always keeping the characters in frame.

Stranger Things Season 2 is simply a fantastic thrill ride, with only a single speed bump along the way; it may split the characters up for its more intense moments, but it brings them closer together emotionally. Add to that a flurry of more extravagant special effects and you have a more than worthy follow-up to the original.

Rating: 4.5/5 Stars (Brilliant)

Controversy Clocking Episode 11: The onset of loot boxes and gambling

While 2017 has been a mostly strong year for gaming, there is one trend that has risen above all the rest to become the most controversial. I previously talked about microtransactions in CC episode 4 but now that problem has mutated into something much worse; the intrusion of loot boxes and the subsequent entrance of gambling into video games.

The first loot box systems debuted in Bioware’s Mass Effect 3 and Valve’s Counter Strike Global Offensive in 2012 which created an entire market of crates containing textures for weapons and other items; the latter sowed the seeds for the problem we have five years later; CSGO’s crates were already playing on expectations and luck; either you get the adrenaline rush of a rare item or get disappointed by a common one, which psychologically compels you to shell out more cash to keep spinning the wheel. It’s an internal need for a reward that lies at the centre of gambling, which creates a compulsive need to keep on spending money. Add to this the intentional efforts from developers to make game progression an endless grind and you have a toxic manipulation effect in place.

From here, microtransactions would only become more irksome; rather than listening to player feedback, publishers instructed developers to make them worse and give us more of them. The Mass Effect series went from charging a maximum amount of £3.99 a pack in 3 to an outrageous £69.99 in Andromeda. At first, players dismissed these changes, again seeing the microtransactions as optional but as time went on, they became a greater part of larger AAA titles. This boiled over in 2017 in which a collection of games adopted loot boxes and worse still, made them a pivotal part of gameplay.

This year, three of the biggest games to take on the nasty trend of loot box gambling included Middle Earth: Shadow of War, Star Wars Battlefront II and Assassin’s Creed Origins. Shadow of War featured a rather insulting store page with an orc rubbing his hands together (they literally aren’t even trying to hide their greed…) to buy orc followers for your army, something which also carried over into the online multiplayer mode. Star Wars Battlefront II buried a lot of good-will by making a blatantly pay-to-win system with upgradeable star cards and while Assassin’s Creed Origins isn’t quite as intrusive with its loot boxes, the methods it uses to manipulate consumers are still egregious. The most disappointing part of all this is that each of these games are still genuinely fun to play, but all of them are soured by the onset of awful business ethics designed to squeeze every penny out of players.

Not only are loot boxes making their way into more and more titles; they’re also directly impacting game development and decisions made by publishers. Recently EA shut down Visceral Games and cancelled their linear single player Star Wars game; many believe this is because this type of game can’t be riddled with microtransactions the same way other genres can. The most egregious aspect of loot boxes is that they seem far more impervious than any other rotten business practice in the industry. The lazy movie licenced games of previous generations were struck down by low review scores which reduced their sales drastically, causing publishers to almost completely drop their development. Online passes (which required an additional fee to access multiplayer features) were canned after a heap of negative feedback and season passes, while still present in some titles, are fewer and further between than they were before.

But loot boxes are different; they’re placed into a game, framed as entirely optional extras before developers and publishers start to push their luck and gradually make them a more pivotal aspect of the game; in turn, they slowly twist the more manipulative aspects of microtransactions to get people to pay more. The problem has become so bad that companies have sprung up with the sole intention of getting players to pay more for small insignificant digital items. Moreover, the controversies surrounding the gambling invading video games are having little to no impact on game sales, something that is sure to compel companies to keep putting loot boxes in.

The aftermath

It appears that the gaming industry has finally found a business practice that can be exploited to the max without any fear of losing sales or reputation; both Shadow of War and Star Wars Battlefront II are sure to sell millions regardless of their intrusive loot-box systems. How can the community push back against this problem? It will take a widely concerted effort…

1. Now that they are starting to take note, game reviewers and critics (both mainstream and third party) must begin factoring pay-to-win systems into their review scores. If a system like the one in Battlefront II exists, that game should automatically be docked a point or two; despite the criticism levelled at mainstream reviewers, they still have the power to affect sales and once these figures change, publishers will take note. On top of that, they must also ask more questions to hold companies accountable over their practices.

2. Any gambling commissions and regulators need to classify loot boxes not as optional content but gambling; by automatically upping the age rating and making consumers aware of sinister practices, this will also put a dent in sales and punish companies for bad corporate behaviour. There have been a couple of petitions to make this happen, including one in the UK which has made it government discussion. China has also made a law requiring companies to disclose the exact odds of loot box contents.

3. Any video makers, streamers or YouTubers showing off the opening of loot boxes on their channels should either limit or stop making these videos entirely, thus reducing the incentive and encouragement for others to visit the in-game stores.

(Images used for the purposes of review and criticism under fair use)

Thor: Ragnarok Movie Review

Released: 24th October 2017 (UK)

Length: 130 Minutes

Certificate: 12A

Director: Taika Watiti

Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Tessa Thompson, Jeff Goldblum, Idris Elba, Karl Urban and Mark Ruffalo

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is a near unstoppable juggernaut but for all its successes, the Thor films are typically viewed as the weaker entries in the franchise. With a new director onboard, the trilogy ends with Ragnarok, a real step up from its somewhat underwhelming predecessors.

Serving as a sequel to both Thor: The Dark World and Avengers: Age of Ultron, the hammer wielding god continues his search for the Infinity Stones, only to be faced with a new threat. It’s the end of days for Asgard as Hela (Cate Blanchett), the Goddess of death, easily beats both Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki (Tom Hiddleston) and begins laying plans for her galactic conquest. From the offset, Ragnarok marks itself as very different from the first two films; it’s more laidback in tone and the central hero is a lot less serious than he was before. With an added dose of humour and a more charismatic narrative, the film is immediately more attractive to audiences. On top of that, the stakes feel a lot higher, with the god of thunder out of his depth and forced to partake in a gladiator arena on a far-off planet, he’s got a lot more to overcome. While it takes place a great distance from other entries in the MCU, there’s also a couple of cameos to keep building connecting the dots; you already know about the Hulk making an appearance after two years of absence but there’s another I won’t spoil here. Some of the best comedic moments come through call-backs to previous films, especially 2012’s The Avengers. For all the plot’s strengths though, the first act is a bit lacking; it opts to rush through character moments without giving much build up to Hela’s first appearance; she just pops up out of nowhere. Outside of that though, the second and third acts move at such a wild clip that you’ll hardly mind too much.

Having softened since his debut in 2011, Chris Hemsworth’s Thor is incredibly likeable and when paired up with his brother Loki, there’s some brilliant back and forth banter between them. The cast grows organically over the course of the film and while some of the side characters receive more screen-time than others, the central team formed to take on Hela has a strong helping of camaraderie, almost to the point of becoming a second group of Guardians. Tessa Thompson’s Valkyrie works to deepen the lore of Asgard further and Cate Blanchett is wickedly evil as Hela, her design and mannerism looking especially sinister. I was surprised to see Jeff Goldblum make his debut in the MCU as the Grandmaster of the backwater planet; his strange, kooky performance had me cracking a smile at several points. Rounding out the cast is Mark Ruffalo, whose dual performance as the Hulk and Bruce Banner is again excellent; placing him on a planet so far away from Earth also results in plenty of challenging moments for the character. The bond between him and Thor is strong here, showing how far they’ve come since their original brawl five years ago.

Imbued with a sizzling techno style straight from the eighties, Thor: Ragnarok is a huge and ultimately welcomed departure from the first two films from an aesthetic standpoint; the bright colours of the second act go a long way towards diversifying the colour palette, reflecting the wilder personality of the narrative. The action is appropriately destructive, with many of the backdrops being laid waste to other the course of the film; a confrontation with a fiery demon is a highlight, but the film also leverages its sci-fi setting to deliver some more extravagant space shooter sequences, bringing it more in line with a certain other set of Marvel heroes. The heavy use of electro-synths for the soundtrack is dazzling enough but the use of Led Zepplin’s “Immigrant Song” (which has some roots in Norse Mythology) that plays at both ends of the runtime is even better, bringing a real weight to the action scenes. It’s topped off by a blasting light show as the titular hero unleashes his power in a ferociously entertaining climax; special effects matched by the great-looking art-style make Ragnarok a superb leap forward.

It doesn’t have the best opening act, but Thor Ragnarok is leaps and bounds above its predecessors; picking up the torch left by Captain America: Civil War, the film delivers another strong third entry while getting another Marvel hero into place for the next grand get-together. You won’t be disappointed by Thor’s third chapter.

Rating: 4/5 Stars (Great)

Why we're drawn to punishing difficulty in games: My Thoughts

Rareware's Battletoads: Often considered the most difficult game of all time

Difficulty in games has been on an interesting journey over the past three decades; the early generations of NES and SNES where extra lives and continues couldn’t come soon enough, turned into more modest offerings in 3D. In the first half of the 2000s we saw a tough title here and there such as Ninja Gaiden’s 3D outings but these were mostly relegated to the hardcore crowd before gaming went mainstream in 2007.

Beginning with From Software’s Demon's Souls in 2009, which earned its place in the pantheon of modern classics and launched a classic gaming franchise, we’ve seen a return to the mainstream of brutally difficult games that really test your skill, standing at a contrast to other games which take the easy route and try to be as accessible as possible. But many more recent titles add a twist, something that really punishes the player for dying or losing a mission. My first crash course in brutal difficulty came with the veteran setting on the older Call of Duty games, but more recently I’ve become drawn to difficult yet rewarding titles that reward the player for overcoming the most impossible odds. By this I’m talking about games which go beyond difficulty settings and offer even more challenging traits.

XCOM: Enemy Unknown in 2012 was the first game I played which had real consequence for losing; your best troops falling in battle and failed missions causing council members to surrender to the aliens, causing a game over. More than any other franchise, XCOM may beat you down but it encourages you to learn from your mistakes, which spurs you to claw your way back from defeat. XCOM 2 would up the difficulty even more with turn timers and a doom clock to keep tabs on throughout the game; after many retries of the campaign, I managed to beat it on ironman mode, a condition that disables saving which felt particularly rewarding after losing over 20 soldiers. Because of its unforgiving nature, XCOM succeeds at putting you in the shoes of a commander desperately trying to battle an overwhelming enemy.

This War of Mine would continue this same trait of perma-death; each survivor you control in the war-torn environment can die of hunger, illness freezing cold or at the hands of violent bandits; lose them all and you lose the game. Each time you go out to scavenge requires a cautious approach and a heavy emphasis on stealth. On top of all that, the actions you take as the survivors can have dire consequences, such as intense depression making them unresponsive to your inputs. I still haven’t managed to survive until the elusive ceasefire is called because resources and crafting materials are incredibly scarce. The game will also throw several unpredictable events at you such as an uptake in crime or the onset of winter (which ended up doing me in on my last playthrough). These elements combined create a powerful atmosphere and emphasise just how ruthless it is for those caught up in war.

Alien Isolation also drew a strong cult following in 2014; earlier this year I beat the game on medium and the main source of difficulty stems from the save stations which serve as the only form of checkpoints throughout the game. This notion of losing progress may have been shunned by some, but for a variety of players Alien Isolation perfectly captured not only the feel and tone of the 1979 classic but also made the Xenomorph a terrifying and unstoppable force again. Any frustration caused by the game’s saving system was alleviated by making it through the dark corners of the Sevastopol station unscathed, feeling you had survived an impossible threat. Of course, the artificial intelligence of the Alien was incredibly unpredictable too, an achievement that few other games can match.

Cuphead’s release this year speaks to the massive volumes of creativity that come from developers, not to mention the way older genres are brought onto modern hardware. The game’s claim to fame in the difficulty aisle is its brilliant boss fights, which all have varying patterns to keep the player on their toes. I played an early demo of it two years ago at FanExpo Toronto and the it certainly showed. While older 8-Bit games were limited by the technology of the time, Cuphead leverages its platforms to create a brilliant update, one whose endearing art style compensates for its tough difficulty.

Ninja Gaiden's Master Ninja mode is said to be one of the most grueling challenges in 3D gaming

So why do we love challenge in games? Because it’s what separates them from every other form of media. Conquering a difficult game is its own reward, leaving a feeling of accomplishment that can’t be matched by watching a film or reading a book. It also drastically improves a game’s atmosphere and tone, putting more pressure on the player depending on the context and pulling them into the avatar’s predicaments. With titles like The Surge and Nier: Automata still making the case for challenging games, there’s still going to be a strong counterweight to all the casual, more easily accessible titles released on the market.

(Images used for the purposes of review under fair use)

R3: 1984 by George Orwell

Released: 8^th June 1949

Genre: Dystopian Science Fiction and Politics

Number of Pages: 311

As one of the most influential writers of the 20^th Century George Orwell is best known for his stories that resonate beyond simply engaging the reader. Is there anything that hasn’t been said or analysed about 1984? All I can offer is my own personal perspective. Ironically for a novel released over fifty years ago, 1984 is far ahead of its time, with some indication of the point we have reached and where we may be going. I had been meaning to get into the novel for a while and picked up a copy during my travels in Greece earlier this year.

The novel follows Winston Smith, a 39-year-old worker at the Ministry of Truth (which deals with lies along with many contradicting institutions). At first, he gets on with his work quietly, fulfilling his duties and doing what the all-seeing, all-knowing Big Brother expects of him. But when he falls in love with fellow employee Julia, the two begin to seek freedom from the system, expressing their opinions and beliefs undeterred by the punishment that awaits them if they are caught. Taking place entirely from Winston’s perspective, we see his thoughts as the bleak world he lives in unravels; facts are manipulated and twisted, war is viewed as a constant and necessary part of society, the downtrodden live in a never-ending squalor and on top of all that, people’s actions are constantly monitored and scrutinised by tele-screens. It’s all done by the directive of The Party who rules with an iron fist.

1984 is the nature of power and the desire to acquire more of it taken to its highest extreme, a society in which the corrupt leaders at the top cannot be toppled and every citizen beneath is hopelessly beholden to an endlessly droning round of propaganda. It delves into great detail at a couple of points, pausing the narrative to lay on thick themes of control in all its forms; social, information and behavioural to the point of no freedom for thought or creativity. There’s a collection of important terms that both lay out the society Winston and Julia live in as well as the strict enforcement of the Party and these are also carefully explained. Doublethink summarises the contradictory beliefs forced upon common people while Newspeak is a language specifically coded to make independent thought impossible. Yet for all the development of the world, Big Brother remains unseen; what does it personify? A master? Man, or woman? Or something entirely different? This central mystery, not to mention Big Brother’s imperviousness to any damage or intervention creates a great amount of discomfort and unease in both the characters and the audience. It’s only the moments where Winston and Julia are in each other’s company that things grow more relaxed and intimate, emphasising the disconnect they share with society at large. The novel also forms the basis of its heart and emotion from this perspective.

While we are far and away from the wholly fascist setting of the novel, aspects of its world, particularly endless surveillance and the bombardment of information from unsavoury media outlets are not unlike our own. The Two Minutes of Hate which keeps Ministry employees in lines speaks to both the resurgence of nationalism in the 21st Century and the vitriol spewed in online arguments. Our current information age sees us subjected to so much information that many lose track of the big picture.

It can be also argued that 1984 inspired two whole generations to form “what if?” scenarios, imagining and foretelling our own personal destruction. One of the biggest entertainment franchises I can think of that takes inspiration from 1984 is Hideo Kojima’s Metal Gear, which homes in on an omnipresent organisation that rules the world behind the scenes, controlling the flow of information and eventually creating a perpetual series of proxy battles in 2008’s Guns of the Patriots which is very similar to the novel’s continuous battles between Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia.

Recommended?

Absolutely… 1984 is a novel that has been constantly viewed over the decades as one of the best pieces of literature ever written and I’m inclined to agree. While the plot is somewhat basic and uneventful, it’s the horrifying world and its striking relevance to today that creates one of the most absorbing plunges into dystopia you’ll ever read. It draws upon countless influences including history, social orders such as Marxism (Proles easily considered short for the exploited Proletariat) and the then recent aftermath of World War Two to create a frightening depiction of a human life dominated by fear and control. Anyone with even a remote interest in reading should get 1984 in their collection as soon as possible.

Entrances into other media include the 1984 film adaptation (A fitting release date…) starring John Hurt and Richard Burton as well as other adaptations in radio and theatre. Paul Greengrass, the filmmaker behind the excellent United 93 and The Bourne Ultimatum is also set to direct a second film adaptation in 2019.

Blade Runner 2049 Movie Review

Released: October 5th 2017 (UK)

Length: 163 Minutes

Certificate: 15

Director: Dennis Villeneuve

Starring: Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana De Armas, Sylvia Hoeks, Robin Wright, Mackenzie Davies and Jared Leto

1982’s Blade Runner is an undisputed sci-fi classic and with such a powerful impact, it’s difficult to imagine anything else in the genre measuring up to it. 35 years in the making, Dennis Villenueve’s Blade Runner 2049 does an incredibly rare thing; not only match and respect the original but arguably surpass it.

Three decades after the events of the first film and replicants, while still widely persecuted, have become a part of society but tension continues to exist both in and out of the city of Los Angeles; there are those who wish to control and those who wish to be free. As the line between human and android blurs further, the new Blade Runner Agent K (Ryan Gosling) and the LAPD find themselves attempting to contain a conspiracy that could set off the fires of conflict between the two. Keeping the same slow pacing of the first, 2049 may use a similar formula but rather than being a basic re-tread or a franchise kick-starter, its narrative is just as imaginative and ambitious as the first film. The mystery is made far more enticing here with the on-screen action often relaying events with minimal dialogue and exposition. The main themes explored in Blade Runner 2049 include control, freedom and the nature of reality; while in the original replicants were a small minority, here they come within reaching distance of surpassing the humans that created them. Simultaneously, the human creators have grown numb to the notion of ethics, treating replicants as expendable armies and servants to increase their already strong influence and power. By venturing outside the bounds of Los Angeles, the film also greatly extends the horizons of an already stunning future world; enormous rubbish collectors spill their contents around the countryside and scavengers pour through the scrap metal that litters the surroundings.

Blade Runner 2049 makes some important steps to fix the problems of the original, beginning with a more well-rounded set of central characters. After delivering a highly nuanced performance in 2011’s Drive, Ryan Gosling is perfectly cast as Agent K; at first, he’s rather devoid of emotion, steadfastly dedicated to his task but the discoveries he makes lead him to question the places of himself and others in this grungy world. While I won’t give away the true nature of Ana De Armas’s character, the connection she shares with K is a tremendous improvement on the original film’s stilted chemistry. The same can also be said of Harrison Ford, who doesn’t take the spotlight away from Gosling yet still maintains Deckard’s gruff personality. On the other side of the coin we have businessman Niander Wallace (Jared Leto) whose fascinating monologues deepen the already mysterious nature of android development. The other side characters such as Robin Wright’s Lt. Joshi of the LAPD and Lennie James’s odd connections with orphaned children work to broaden the world itself, drawing a contrast between the tight inner workings of the city and the unforgiving wastes beyond the walls. By placing its main characters front and centre in the plot, 2049 creates a combination that gels more organically than the original did.

2049 is every bit as mesmerising as its predecessor, but the excellent attention to detail and efforts to expand on the original environments puts it over the top. The blues of the first film’s setting are contrasted with a ferocious orange that oozes atmosphere in the film’s third act. Making use of computer generated effects, every location feels palpable and real, with the camera often slowly panning around to explore or remaining static to create a huge sense of scale. Much like the methodical pacing, the camerawork uses cuts sparingly, allowing the finer points of the story to sink in seamlessly. The same holds true for the music; this time the dynamic synths are complemented by a set of ominous drums which hammer the rising tension into the audience and soundtrack also features several intense swells that powerfully convey the revelations discovered by the characters. The spurts of action that do occur don’t last long but they feel incredibly visceral, matching the thunderous pounding of the compositions. Not content with aping the look and style of the original, the sequel builds on top of an already excellent aesthetic, creating a high standard for both modern computer effects and immersion.

Blade Runner 2049 is an awe-inspiring package of thought-provoking themes, jaw-dropping environments and superb acting prowess; it’s the perfect sequel to the 1982 original and moreover it’s one of the best films of the year.

Rating: 5/5 Stars (Exceptional)

Blade Runner Movie Review

Released: June 25th 1982

Length: 117 Minutes

Certificate: 18

Director: Ridley Scott

Starring: Harrison Ford, Sean Young, Rutger Hauer, Edward James Olmos, M. Emmet Walsh, Daryl Hannah, William Sanderson and Joe Turkel

Science fiction is territory ripe for exploring vibrant, thought-provoking stories; some take us off-world while others take a more grounded approach, homing in more on the human species and where we may be heading. Coming off the 1979 classic Alien, Ridley Scott would continue his ground-breaking work in science fiction with Blade Runner, a masterful showcase of how imaginative and absorbing the genre can be.

Drawing its inspiration from the Phillip K. Dick story: “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” Blade Runner takes place in a futuristic Los Angeles consumed by industrialisation and ruled by corporations. The advent of biological android invention (known in this universe as replicants) led by the Tyrell Corporation has threatened to shift the balance of human life and the Blade Runners are police officers who specialise in locating and “retiring” said subjects. Harrison Ford’s Rick Deckard is drafted back into the force to hunt down a series of androids who have escaped from off-world colonies. His investigation takes place in multiple locations around the city with some rather monotone narrations from Ford layered across the runtime. It’s incredibly slow and methodical, with only a few moments of action sprinkled here and there; a deliberate decision. In terms of thematic resonance, Blade Runner is in a league of its own; the entrance of replicants brings to light several questions about human nature, how we change and often damage the environment around us as well as our ability to create only producing more problems. The future city has an air of intolerance to it, with people bombarded with the dangling carrot of starting life anew on another planet; there’s no doubt that society is on the ropes and this collection of themes works to enhance the somewhat straightforward plot.

While Blade Runner offers an engaging set of themes, the main characters don’t fare quite as well. Harrison Ford portrays Deckard with a solemn mood to create the image of common man just trying to get by. But his narrations just aren’t engaging and the film falls into the trap of telling the audience, rather than showing them the mystery unravelling. Sean Young’s Racheal, an attendant at the Tyrell Corporation, is also well defined in the way she commits to her work but the character isn’t without problems; the bond between Deckard and Rachel feels particularly weightless without much chemistry between the two actors. On the other hand, many of the side characters and the way they fit into the world bring a great amount of intrigue; the replicants, led by Rutger Hauer’s phenomenal performance as Roy Batty are downtrodden, seeking an understanding and meaning to their existence; when they can only rely on each-other rather than the humans that created them, it creates a kind of pathos for their struggles that blurs the line between protagonist and antagonist. While the interactions could be better, the characters for the most part do succeed at deepening the already rich themes of the narrative.

The slow pacing of Blade Runner will be a point of contention for some; dropping the action to instead focus on building one of the most immersive and engrossing worlds ever put to film. The dingy, low-lit cityscapes of 2019 Los Angeles are absolutely stunning from the establishing shots with miniatures right down to the real sets inhabited by the actors. The shots that pan over the towering skyscrapers and the endless rainfall; it all epitomises dystopia with the characters often feeling downcast, wearing very rough clothing and getting their fix of food in tacky looking corner shops. The heavy use of synths hangs over every shot, transplanting the film’s noir style perfectly and there’s always something going on in the background to sell the world. It’s simply the most detailed science fiction landscape ever put to film; even with some inconsistencies in the theatrical cut, Blade Runner’s intoxicating illusion of a future world never falters; it’s guaranteed to stun anyone who watches it, even more than three decades later.

Having gained such a gargantuan cult following, Scott’s 1982 sci-fi flick is not without its flaws, which is mostly due to the main performances. The original theatrical cut does magnify the film’s problems somewhat; with plot elements such as the dream sequence missing and some aesthetical hiccups, the film feels incomplete. With that said, Blade Runner is still a must-see film, a legend of the science fiction genre whose incredible special effects and atmosphere have inspired countless contemporaries and filmmakers.

Theatrical Cut Rating: 4/5 Stars (Great)

Final Cut Rating: 4.5/5 Stars (Brilliant)