Moonlight Movie Review

Released: 17th February 2017 (UK and Ireland)

Length: 111 Minutes

Certificate: 15

Director: Barry Jenkins

Starring: Trevante Rhodes, Ashton Sanders, Alex Hibbert, Andre Holland, Jharrel Jerome, Jaden Piner, Mahershala Ali, Naomie Harris, Janelle Monae and Patrick Decile

Depending on the perspective, telling a story based around race and the society it inhabits can be a daunting line to walk; some films fall into the trap of stereotypical representation while failing to provide a full picture. Showing unwavering maturity and dedication towards authenticity, Moonlight breaks out of oft-mishandled territory to deliver a rich, captivating tale of one person’s journey through life.

Told across three chapters, Moonlight follows Chiron (played by Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders and Trevante Rhodes respectively) as he struggles to grow up in a run-down area of Miami; between his neglectful mother (Naomie Harris), bullies who hound him at school and the endless pressure to maintain a strong masculine image, the protagonist goes through a great deal of hardship while trying to figure out just who he wants to be. It’s very much a film about identity and how that notion of self can be shaped and twisted over a lifetime; as Chiron goes through many pressures, the film captures this so vividly while incorporating themes of sexuality, parenthood and the expectations of black culture into the narrative. You get the sense that the place environment Chiron grows up in is very disconnected from other parts of the city, tough and unforgiving. While it is mostly based within character interactions, the film fixates its gaze on the main character, never shifting aside or bringing in any unnecessary material; because we never leave Chiron’s perspective, every scene lands with the right amount of emotion and nuance and the slow pacing only adds to the passage of time as we watch him grow up, only to be met with new obstacles.

With an all-black cast, Moonlight delivers a far more complex and deeper portrayal of what are often clichés or archetypes. All three actors playing Chiron deliver heaps of emotion, encapsulating the struggle he has with self-acceptance. As a boy, his eyes are often downcast and he is often unwilling to speak up, through his teenage years he feels out of place and as an adult, he appears to have given in to the external forces around him. An immense amount of sympathy is generated for the protagonist; you’re pulled into his viewpoint and able to understand every action he takes, which often ends up getting him into trouble. Often his only means of support is often a few select individuals around him; Mahershala Ali plays the Cuban drug dealer Juan. His part in the film is fairly small but the paradox his character possesses as a father figure to Chiron is succinctly presented; he feels obliged to support the boy where he can but also has flaws of his own that get in the way, a very multidimensional character. Similarly, Chiron’s mother Paula is equally well-portrayed portrayed; her addiction to drugs and time with prostitution are only interrupted with brief glimpses of affection, demonstrating the massive void between her and her son. Even Chiron’s closest friend Kevin (also played by three actors: Jaden Piner, Jharrel Jerome and Andre Holland) is subjected to the same peer pressures and the consequences of those strain their friendship immensely. Every character in Moonlight is tremendously realised; each contributing to Chiron’s life in varying ways and deepening his personal journey even more.

Moonlight differs greatly from contemporaries that have covered its topics. Unlike the gritty tone of 1991’s Boyz N the Hood, director Barry Jenkins sought to portray the setting as well as the characters in as realistic a manner as possible, focusing more on the day-to-day life of the society. With this comes an intoxicating effect that brings the audience fully into the fold; you feel as if you’re with these characters, walking the path they take, only stopping when the film dips to black between each of its three chapters. This is done through several methods of presentation; intimate point of view shots put across the individual perspectives, zeroing in on the intense facial expressions. Visually, the camera switches between several styles to personify the characters and their mannerisms, alternating between smooth panning and an uneasy shakiness that ties in beautifully with every scene. The setting of Miami is used in a minimalistic way, serving as a backdrop to direct more attention towards the main performances. For Chiron himself, voices and images become distorted as his anxieties rise, emphasising the sheer confusion he faces growing up and the music also reflects this; mellow pieces present a figure adrift, unable to find the freedom to be himself. Lighting is one of the film’s more outstanding achievements; much of the film takes place at night, away from the intensity of the tropical sun, thus creating a relaxed tone alongside the natural sounds of the ocean. The lens Moonlight casts over the life of a black man placed against a rough upbringing and even rougher environment is sincere and lovingly crafted.

Moonlight is beautifully shot, wonderfully acted and imbues its narrative with a grounded feeling that is superbly focused on telling a real story with real human characters. It stands out in a medium populated with endless blockbusters and is more than worth your time.

Rating: 5/5 Stars (Exceptional)

Post-Viewing: The Monsterverse's Character Problem

Taking cues from the likes of Marvel and DC, Universal and WB’s “Monsterverse” is on the way. It promises showdowns of epic proportions, a modern-day update to those classic rumbles between monsters in rubber-suits. But there is a serious obstacle stopping it from reaching the heights of its gargantuan monsters; the trend of one-dimensional characters.

Around halfway into Kong: Skull Island, a character is picked off from a makeshift boat by a group of fluffy Pterodactyls in a nasty death scene and John C Reilly’s character says: “He’s gone, there ain’t nothing to say”. This one line perfectly sums up the issue that plagues the modern incarnations of the classic movie monsters; both films have human characters but they aren’t worth caring about. They get big name actors to draw people in, but they don’t do anything with them. They give the human characters plenty of screen time to try and get the audience on-board but then fail to follow through by not making them interesting. In short; having bad characters means that an entire chunk of your movie is lacking which takes away from the package as a whole.

Bruce Cabot, Fay Wray and Robert Armstrong in the original 1933 King Kong

A mournful choir in Godzilla's 1954 debut from Toho

Both the original Kong film in 1933 and Godzilla in 1954 had their strong moments for the human characters; King Kong had three great leads for Ann Darrow, Carl Denham and Jack Driscoll respectively whereas Godzilla melded the tragedies of nuclear war with a population under attack by an unstoppable monster. As silly as the premises were, they did pour in plenty of substance on top. Modern films seem to have a much harder time with this balance; do they focus more on the monsters and delivering that unabashed destruction, or do they try to tell stories with people caught up in the chaos with the monsters as a side-note? Both modern incarnations have tried to offer some human drama but have fallen flat on both occasions; the characters aren’t relatable, don’t go through much change and don’t display many emotions. These modern monster films are far from dramas but if they plan on dedicating most of the screen-time to the humans, they need to deliver on that front.

It also doesn’t help that the motives of the human characters can be very silly at times; in Godzilla, Brody constantly leaves his family behind to focus on other things and towards the end of Skull: Island, one character tries to sacrifice himself, out of nowhere for no discernible reason, by detonating grenades to kill one of the creatures, only to be tail whipped into the side of a cliff and blown up. This creates an even bigger disconnect with the characters; when you have them do these nonsensical things, it makes their demises comical as opposed to feeling sorry for them. Special effects and seeing monsters chomp down on humans can only get you so far; the Alien vs Predator films made the terrible mistake of making all their characters vastly unlikeable, creating a desensitising effect that hung over all the bloody carnage, which didn’t fare much better. It would be a shame to see the upcoming monster-thon sink to that level.

In a developing film series that’s trying to give some humans as well as the monsters some time, these issues will only stick out more and more the longer it goes on. The best films and the cinematic universes that surround them can balance these elements together seamlessly and if the upcoming Monsterverse wants to be taken seriously by audience, it needs to achieve this balance.

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

Kong: Skull Island Movie Review

Released: March 10th 2017 (United States)

Length: 118 Minutes

Certificate: 12A

Director: Jordan Vogt-Roberts

Starring: Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Corey Hawkins, Jing Tian and John C. Reilly 

King Kong is one of the most famous creations in all of cinema, having had plenty of cinematic productions over the years since his original 1933 debut. After more than a decade, the giant ape returns in Kong: Skull Island, this time on the side of Universal and Warner Bros for their upcoming Monsterverse. Much like a certain monster from Japan, it delivers on the visual level but falls very short in plot and characterisation.

Taking place against the backdrop of the Vietnam War, the film follows the exploits of the Monarch organisation, as they investigate a strange island concealed from the world by raging storms and superstitions. Led by William Randa (John Goodman) and Houston Brooks (Corey Hawkins), they gather together a team of mercenaries and armed escorts and venture out. Dropping seismic charges to map the island, the team is abruptly attacked by the giant gorilla (This time beefed up to the size of a New York skyscraper) who destroys their transports and leaves them stranded; separated into two main groups, the humans try to escape the island, taking on all manner of nasty creatures along the way. The film takes place almost entirely on the island and swaps between two main teams. For most of the first half, Skull Island’s tone is all over the place, diminishing its appeal and coming off as quite jumbled. Is it trying to be a creepy creature feature? Light hearted adventure with comedic moments? Or a brooding war against man and beast? It recklessly swings back and forth between these for half of its runtime; had it kept its focus consistent, the elements that work would have had a lot more impact. Things often move a bit too quickly for their own good; there are some frightening moments to be found involving the creatures for example but because the film sees fit to toss them aside and jarringly flip back to the lighter aspects of the narrative. Much like Godzilla, it does pick up towards the end with another fiery action sequence set around a gloomy lake surrounded by the forests.

There’s a lot of talent brought to the table in Kong: Skull Island, but they aren’t utilised very effectively; once again we have a monster film where you just don’t care about the human characters, despite the ample screen-time they’re given. Almost every character is both too one-note and too under-developed with a script that doesn’t give much to go on; instead many act as fodder for the creatures to kill over the course of the film. Tom Hiddleston is mostly along the same lines of Aaron-Taylor Johnson from three years back; square-jawed and dull while Brie Larson never adds anything to her character’s basic photography profession. We don’t learn a thing about biologist San Lin (Jing Tian) or Houston Brooks (Corey Hawkins) throughout the film and their performances are relegated to bouncing off conversations at specific intervals. The soldier’s attempts at camaraderie fall rather flat, as does John C. Reilly whose comedic relief thuds with little success. The only actor who really gets his moment to shine here is Samuel L. Jackson playing a relentless war colonel who wants nothing more than to see Kong dead; the film does make a small effort to flesh out his character in the first act and his dialogue, as always, is capably engaging. Considering how the film spends most of its time on the humans, it’s very disappointing to see the cast wasted like this.

Kong’s latest big screen adventure certainly looks the part, beginning with the monster himself; he towers over the entire film, always projecting that sense of scale and Terry Notary’s great motion capture work delivers a powerful presence. The island itself looks great as well, with weather effects and hazy hues giving off that warm, sweat-filled feel of the jungle, though the environments aren’t quite as claustrophobic as you’d expect, creating a slight knock on tension. Skull Island is shot brilliantly with long distance shots flying across the island, alongside more intimate angles in the middle of the jungles and swamps. The occasional use of first person shots is a curious choice, one which almost gamifies particular scenes while showing off the creatures in closer detail. Not every aspect of the film’s presentation works fluidly; much like how the film can’t pin down a consistent tone, the music bounces in and out of sixties rock without much rhyme or reason, further disrupting the proceedings; it was as if the songs were drafted in to merely match the film’s Vietnam setting. I saw the film in 3D and it really doesn’t add anything to the film other than the occasional creature launching itself at the camera. Kong’s latest outing feels much more laidback than previous iterations, but it’s mostly well helmed overall.

Kong: Skull Island stands above Godzilla’s 2014 let-down for giving the titular monster the screen-time he deserves, but that isn’t saying much when the human characters are still so horribly bland and uninteresting. The film’s look and action are once again solid but balancing the creatures with the big-name actors hasn’t improved that much. If we’re getting a cinematic universe out of these films, they’ll need to fix these problems as soon as they can.

Rating: 2.5/5 Stars (Mediocre)

Post-Play: 5 Ways to make Fallout 4 a better role-playing title

Where is the Fallout franchise going these days? Many long-term fans cried foul when Fallout 4 was released in 2015; in some ways, this is down to overzealous hype but others (myself included) feel the series is moving too far away from what made it work. I wrote a similar post on the mobile title Fallout Shelter two years back, which is rather indicative of the direction Bethesda has taken the series. When looking back, it’s Fallout: New Vegas that 4 should be taking its inspiration from, adding to and improving on its brilliant role-playing facets. Instead Fallout 4 is streamlined to a fault and makes baffling several steps backwards when it should have aimed to move forward. While there are some aspects it did get right, namely the shooting, power armour, glowing sea and a few select locations, the game itself was quite the let-down. The reusing of several sound clips from Skyrim and the ill-advised choice of having companions steal player XP are only the tip of the iceberg. Recently I finished the game and was incredibly disappointed to find a lacklustre ending which involved a shameless repeat of Fallout 3’s climax, a lousy cap-off to the worst story of the entire series. Taking some cues from other titles, here are five ways that Fallout 4 could have been made deeper, planting it firmly in the role-playing genre the franchise is known for.

1. A more detailed story that properly develops characters and settings alongside interconnected DLC

Both the beginning and ending of Fallout 4 have their faults, but it’s the opening that stands as the larger waste of potential; Ron Pearlman's absence as a narrator is already underwhelming but the way the game fails to capitalise on its opening cutscene is even more so. Less than five minutes in, you're rushed to Vault 111 without any time for development; it's definitely a move to appeal to a more casual audience who just wants to get into the action. Fallout 4 deserves better. Don’t have the story start as the bombs fall, instead begin it sometime before the Great War; allow the player to freely explore the neighbourhood and surrounding areas of Boston alongside NPCs which you can really get to know before the inevitable bombardment occurs. Take us to the power stations that are slowly running out of resources and introduce a gradual fear and paranoia rising towards the advent of war. Why not go a step further and have the prologue set during the closing days of the war with China, setting it in Anchorage to tie it in with Fallout 3's DLC? It would go a long way towards immersing the player in the world, creating a real sentimentality as it is lost to the nuclear holocaust.

2. Better faction interplay as well as a neutral option for those who don’t wish to ally with any faction

Fallout 4 has four separate factions; Minutemen, Railroad, Brotherhood and Institute but they play off each other very badly over the course of the game; put simply, it’s a poor man’s version of New Vegas without any of the consequences. Sure, you can turn a settlement over to the Brotherhood but the Minutemen will have absolutely no reaction to it at all; they should have gotten more and more disgruntled with you if you continued to take settlements away from them. Add to that the lack of links between quests and you have a very inconsequential web of quests. Even the game's ending completely disregards faction choices with the Minutemen receiving no closure at all if you chose to side with the Brotherhood and much of the endgame involves walking into a faction hideout and killing everything in sight. Previous titles offered a chance to come to a diplomatic solution, creating truces and even changing the thinking of some characters which felt incredibly rewarding.

In addition, to better balance out the level of choice, a neutral option should also be made available, one where the character focuses solely on his or her son (or daughter if that could be added in). With a better story that fully fleshes out the player’s wife and son, there’s a real attachment to be found with simply rescuing your child and keeping them safe from the horrors of the wasteland. On top of that, what kind of parent would you want to be? Open? Protective? Ruthless? In this way, the changes would impact the child’s line of thinking, creating a real consequence for the player’s actions; as things heat up between the factions, the task of protection would become more difficult, forcing you to make more tricky decisions to ensure your safety.

3. More interesting settlements with unique NPCs and functions

Settlements in Fallout 4 are a good idea for further customisation, but their execution is incredibly one note, resorting to bland NPCs going about the same business and statistics at every turn. Why not have the settlement system provide further benefits with a consistently high happiness level? Perhaps some could create supplies of ammunition and aid items at a reduced price while others delivered a steady stream of mercenaries ready to fight alongside you? Having a strong network and trade routes between settlements will increase these benefits further, while neglecting them will cause them to leave your service. On top of that, have settlements grow dynamically with buildings springing up from NPCs, not just the player as time goes on. Over time it would become a system with some similarities to Metal Gear Solid 5's Mother Base, possibly even feeding into the neutral pathway mentioned above. If all the settlements are in service to the Sole Survivor, the player will be in spitting distance of taking the entire Commonwealth wasteland for themselves.

4. More imaginative perks as opposed to iterative ones

The removal of skills was another ill-advised move to make Fallout 4 as streamlined as possible and this also shows through the perks which are purely iterative, merely increasing the damage of your attacks and the effectiveness of certain abilities rather than giving the player new tools to play around with. Specialism in specific playstyles is one of the key factors in replaying a Fallout title and this varies between players. Give them perks that really allow them to embrace a particular role; for the player who favours power armour, give them the ability to craft fusion cores from raw materials and the ability to place two separate upgrades in the same armour slot. Or for the player who prefers stealth, add the option to create noise distractions, detect traps with the Pip-Boy or hack turrets and robots remotely. For those who play with plenty of speech and charisma options, offer them the ability to create an entire squad of followers, creating battle tactics for each individual member. Making perks specific to playstyles would drastically improve the replayability of Fallout 4 as a whole; even Skyrim had some worthwhile abilities as skills were levelled up.

5. A better conversation system which keeps the list view while also allowing for plenty of choice between good natured and mean-spirited options

By far the biggest flaw of Fallout 4 shows through its conversation system; a bid to make interaction more seamless and immersive instead made it more irksome. Conversations bug out frequently and are often interrupted by the in-game action; on top of that, the options the player is given are extremely limited with persuasive options entirely controlled by charisma going towards asking for more caps after a quest. You're not allowed to be evil in Fallout 4, unless you count the tacked-on raider quests in the Nuka-World DLC; on this occasion, bringing back the list system would be a welcome change as it offered a wide range of choices in previous games. Instead of karma, the new conversation would go hand-in-hand with the aforementioned reputation system. This will encourage the player to watch their words depending on the situation and will offer even more input on the proceedings overall. Modders have fixed the buggy conversations, bringing them back to a list view but the lack of choice remains an issue.

As of this post, I’ve uninstalled Fallout 4 from Steam after just under 60 hours of play; after the bad ending and complete insignificance of all player choice, I just can’t see myself playing through it again. Instead I’m more than content with going back to Skyrim with its DLC and the countless mods alongside a world far more expansive and enjoyable to play through. My hope now is that Obsidian Entertainment gets to make another Fallout game with a new engine alongside Bethesda's updated combat system. Perhaps they can get the series back on the right track.

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

Logan Movie Review

Released: March 3rd 2017 (United States)

Length: 137 Minutes

Certificate: 15

Director: James Mangold

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Dafne Keen, Stephen Merchant, Boyd Holbrook and Richard E. Grant

Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart make their final appearances in the X-Men saga with Logan, an emotional farewell to one of the most prolific and well-known characters in super-hero cinema. It easily stands among the best films in the long-running franchise.

Taking place two decades after 2013’s The Wolverine and connecting to last year’s X-Men Apocalypse, Logan takes into account the continuity set out by Bryan Singer’s X-Men Days of Future Past. Almost every mutant has passed away with Wolverine and Professor X being the only ones left; they’re both shadows of their former selves, dishevelled and tired, hanging on their last lease of life. James Howlett is pulling jobs as a limo driver and doing backhand drug deals to ease Professor X’s mental degeneration. Things change however when Logan comes across a young girl named Laura (Dafne Keen), who possesses very similar abilities to him and a chase begins against the Reavers led by Donald Pierce (Boyd Holbrook) who are hellbent on catching her. We follow the three main characters from beginning to end as they trek across America and parts of Mexico, evading their pursuers and growing closer to one-another in their struggle. What really makes it work is the overall tone which drastically distances itself from every other film in the franchise; this is a dark, grim film that reflects the weariness of the characters within it. No longer are they the noble heroes you remember and one key addition represents this; X-Men comics are present in Logan but rather than feeling like a cheap addition, they work to ground the film in a more realistic setting while also emphasising the distance between the characters and their long-gone friends. It’s incredibly heartfelt and serves the focus of the film; occasional bits of humour are handled delicately before Logan gives way to its strong action sequences. You’ll be genuinely touched by its final moments, even if it does miss an opportunity to tribute Jackman’s performance over the years.

For a concluding chapter, Logan places a great emphasis on its smaller cast. The two main actors are excellent here; they truly capture a bitterness of being the last mutants alive, waiting around to die after losing all their friends. Jackman and Stewart bring an almost culminating effect to their performances here, their old characteristics seeping out of them to form a great amount of sympathy and the connection between them is the deepest and most profound of the entire X-Men series. Newcomer Dafne Keen is really good as Laura, getting across a lot with just her facial expressions and inner rage through much of the film. She transforms into a frenzy of bloodlust in the action scenes, not holding anything back as she plunges claw first into her foes. All is not perfect though; the thin-skinned Caliban (Stephen Merchant), another ally of James and Charles, has a fairly minimal presence in the film, meaning the audience doesn’t have much reason to care for his plight at the hands of the antagonists. Speaking of which, the villains feel a bit underwhelming too which is a shame, considering the forces they command are brutal in their efforts to hunt down our two protagonists. When you have a no-holds barred finale to a beloved character, you want every element to fit together seamlessly and while the villain’s motives are suitably sinister, this isn’t quite matched by their mannerisms. Making them more diabolical and sadistic would have brought them up to speed with the film’s unhinged nature. Jackman and Stewart make a superb final bow, alongside Keen’s great cinematic debut, but the side characters around them could have been better.

Unrestrained by both rating and content, Logan cranks up the violence to its highest level and quite frankly it feels just as welcomed as 2016’s Deadpool. Wolverine cleaves and slices his way through the opposition in a vicious assault, lending to some of most intense action set-pieces of the entire franchise. Guts spill out, unfortunate souls find themselves impaled on the titular character’s claws and Laura is often even more merciless, completely decapitating her foes. It’s all very well shot and choreographed, with relatively simple action effects keeping the focus on Wolverine’s bloody rampages. The look and sound of the film is highly westernised, with an angry orange hue and solemn folk guitar tracks working to further the film’s tone. At points I was reminded of Naughty Dog’s The Last of Us with the way it portrays a journey to a supposed safe haven. The make-up is also a massive contributor to the film’s sad undertones; Wolverine’s healing abilities aren’t what they used to be here and the way he gradually gets more and more beaten up adds even more poignancy to his final chapter. The production design behind Logan complements its narrative effortlessly, standing at stark contrast to its more colourful predecessors.

In some ways, Logan feels a bit overrated with some characters, mostly the villains falling a bit short of their emotional potential. But when it comes to ending a story that has taken seventeen years to tell, the film is a sombre and mature farewell to a character that has populated cinemas the world over. Those who have waited for an uncensored, uncovered portrayal of Wolverine will get everything they asked for.

Rating: 4/5 Stars (Great)

Patriots Day Movie Review

Released: February 23rd 2017

Length: 133 Minutes

Certificate: 15

Director: Peter Berg

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, John Goodman, J.K Simmons, Kevin Bacon, Michelle Monaghan, Vincent Curatola, Jimmy, O. Yang Alex Wolff and Themo Melikidze

Going from the generic Battleship in 2012 to more grounded efforts, last year's Deepwater Horizon was an excellent, yet sensitive recount of the BP oil disaster. With Patriot's Day, Peter Berg appears to have found his niche in filmmaking, a director who pours an outstanding amount of effort into adapting real world events.

Patriots Day recalls the Boston Marathon Bombings that took place in the United States on April 15^th 2013 at the hands of Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaevand. It follows many different characters from victims to investigators and the bombers themselves across the city. A straightforward introduction gives a background to each of the characters and their positions before thrusting the audience directly into the heart of the chaos; from here things swap back and forth between the terrorists and their attempts to escape alongside the entrance of the FBI and their investigation into the bombings. As the film runs on, it gives way to some incredibly suspenseful moments that beautifully capture the intensity some victims found themselves in. The film only slows down to display the more heartfelt moments where common people came together in the midst of tragedy and these also stand out. The film simply doesn’t let up and by doing so, gives an unyielding chronicle you won’t be able to look away from.

By casting its lens across a wide variety of characters, Patriots Day aims to give a broad view of the horrific events it portrays. Mark Wahlberg is the leading actor here, but his fictional character Sergeant Tommy Saunders, who aims to embody the Boston Police Department never takes the spotlight away from everyone else for too long. A whirlwind of emotions come into play through the film but as good as the performances are, it's often the little touches that make all the difference; the way FBI staff rub their eyes having gone back over marathon security footage many times and the feeling of isolation as a lone police officer solemnly stays with the body of an innocent child on the empty streets deliver an intense impact. Patriot's Day is very much a matter of perspective; the perpetrators of the bombings and those close to them are also given screen-time, delivering a context behind their reprehensible deeds rather than making them simplistic, one-note villains. On the other hand, members of the Boston authorities portrayed in the film, most notably by John Goodman, J.K Simmons and Kevin Bacon, give off the pressure they were under to bring the bombers to justice. By distancing itself from typical film entertainment, Patriots Day successfully obtains a relatable tone while also delivering an unbiased viewpoint of the marathon as a whole.

Patriot's Day is helmed with realism in mind and from the moment the bombs go off, the film’s editing works especially hard to pull the audience in. The cinematography cuts around the action, capturing the horror and confusion so vividly, often being placed against real CCTV footage to further heighten its authentic tone. Each character is introduced in the style of a documentary with plain white text giving their name and occupation, a succinct means of introducing them to the proceedings. The camera pans down to show grievous injuries inflicted by the explosions and later over the entire city brought to a standstill as the manhunt commences. This is followed up by the well-handled action sequences, which convey the danger of chasing down the armed terrorists better than any conventional action film. The soundtrack is also appropriately vicious without becoming too extravagant, which goes a long way towards distancing the film from a straight-up action flick. Visually, the film offers a very crisp viewpoint throughout its runtime, veering away from Berg’s fictional outings for a firm concentration on authenticity.

Ferociously tense and unrelenting in its commitment to realism, Patriot’s Day is a phenomenal biopic; one which completely envelops the audience inside the tragic events while also taking great care to honour everyone caught up in them equally.

Rating: 5/5 Stars (Exceptional)

Stranger Things Series Review (Season 1)

Released: July 15th 2016

Created by: The Duffer Brothers

Number of episodes: 8

Where to watch: Netflix (UK and United States)

Starring: Winona Ryder, Noah Schnapp, Millie Bobbie Brown, Finn Wolfhard, Gaten Matarazzo, Caleb McLaughlin, David Harbour and Matthew Modine

Relatively new to the entertainment scene, The Duffer Brothers have previously produced Hidden and Wayward Pines. In their Netflix debut, Stranger Things, they wind the clock backwards to form an enticing tribute to all those zany sci-fi flicks.

Set in the small town of Hawkins, Indiana, Stranger Things follows a relatively simple plot; a monster on the lose, an escaped experiment and all manner of different characters caught up in the mystery. When the young Will Byers (Noah Schnapp) disappears without a trace, his mother Joyce (Winona Ryder) and three best friends Mike (Finn Wolfhard), Dustin (Gaten Matarazzo) and Lucas (Caleb McLaughlin) set about finding him, only to be caught up in some sinister business surrounding a girl named "Eleven" with a shaved head and mind-boggling abilities (Mille Bobbie Brown). We follow the tale from multiple perspectives as the plot thickens, a rabbit hole that gets deeper with every episode, inevitably venturing into the realms of scientific and paranormal horror. With a clear focus in mind, Stranger Things has every eighties cliché and pop culture reference down to a tee; kids going around on their bikes and getting into old table-top games, the school bullies who never listen, the care-free high school girls sleeping around in-between study sessions and the divisive lad who doesn’t quite fit in. These have been used many times before but in Stranger Things they have a real charm in the way they transport the viewer back to a simpler time. What's also impressive about the series is that as it goes along, every character is incorporated into the central story in some way, maintaining a steady build-up to the bigger reveals. This method of directing ensures a consistently exciting and intriguing narrative.

Stranger Things features a fairly wide spectrum of actors, though much of the attention is directed towards the younger ones. The child actors all do a terrific job of selling you on their charisma and not once do they ever become annoying or unlikeable; they’re smart and inventive, but can also be more emotional and conflicted at times. It’s very reminiscent of 1985’s The Goonies in which a collection of likeable characters pulls the audience in to a fairly straightforward plot. Millie Bobbie Brown does a particularly excellent job as Eleven, and carries her character's tortured ordeals with great dedication. These great performances are matched, for the most part, by the adult actors. Winona Ryder stands out as Joyce Boyers and her desperate attempts to find her son and David Harbour's Jim Hopper has his personal faults but remains good-natured as the Hawkins Police Chief. Towards the end of the season both characters have some heart-wrenching moments that really get the audience to care for them. If there's one gap in the characterisation, it's the main antagonist played by Matthew Modine. For the first half of the season, his motives do contribute to the mysterious narrative but at the end, he falters quite a bit; not much is revealed about him as the revelations come to light. Apart from this however, the characters of the series all work to immerse the audience; you'll be hoping that they manage to make it through the dark events in one piece.

Stranger Things has a very synthesised look, from the pulsing, luminous soundtrack to the countless homages paid to old eighties fiction; you'll be reminded a lot of Alien, Tobe Hooper's Poltergeist and Stand by Me to name a few. It puts elements of all these fictional works together very well, creating an air of spookiness that hangs over the series; with many scenes being set at night, this sense of tension is only amplified further. As things become more detached from reality, classical family homes give way to suitably icky set designs that push the atmosphere even more. A mixture of practical and digital effects never becomes too intrusive while a flashy neon aesthetic and a carefully chosen soundtrack featuring the likes of New Order nail the feel of an eighties production the series shoots for. Each scene transition is handled deftly, with the script and events often pointing to the next establishing shot and overall the series is very well-produced, falling more in line with a feature length film than a linear series.

It may have a weak antagonist but Stranger Things is otherwise an energised injection of eighties flair, connected to an intriguing mystery that builds and builds over the course of its eight episodes. If you can stomach the creepier aspects, it’s hard not to be pulled into its mysteries.

Rating: 4/5 Stars (Great)

XCOM 2 Game Review

Released: February 5th 2016 (Consoles followed in September 2016)

Developer: Fireaxis Games

Publisher: 2K Games

Certificate: 16

Formats: PC, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One

Format Played: PC

2012 saw the return of the classic XCOM franchise with the passionate and capable reboot: “Enemy Unknown”. Going in a new direction, XCOM 2 does far more than outdo its predecessor, standing among the best strategy games ever produced.

XCOM 2 takes place twenty years after the 2012 reboot in which a battered Earth was completely conquered by the aliens. Brief snippets show the XCOM base destroyed, the Commander being captured by alien forces and humanity signing a “unification” deal. Now under the control of the ADVENT coalition, XCOM is now a resistance movement making use of a repurposed alien battle ship to expose ADVENT’s lies and uncover the alien’s true plans for humanity. The story is far more cinematic and intriguing than the first with more cut-scenes and in-game commentary from the main characters; it provides a solid amount of background information to a world ruled by omnipresent alien overlords. On top of all that, it feels far more personal, with a further incorporation of the player into the cut-scenes; often, the three main XCOM staff members; alongside the returning Council spokesman, Central Officer Bradford, Chief Engineer Lily Shen and Chief Scientist Richard Tygan will address the Commander directly at many points, creating further investment.

The overall design of the game has been drastically overhauled; XCOM 2 makes use of repurposed alien battleship called the Avenger which flies around the world taking on missions and investigating specific occurrences. This could be a set of new rookie soldiers, a cache of supplies (which serve the game’s main currency) or even a scientist or engineer to bring benefits to research and constructing aboard the battleship. You’re also highly encouraged to make contact with other resistance havens around the world, creating a network of suppliers However, each of these events take time to scan and complete and you’ll find yourself saddled with guerrilla op missions; in these you’ll send your squad down to perform a variety of tasks from rescuing or kidnapping VIPs, destroying or protecting a key target and raiding a key supply point. These missions in turn feed into your primary objectives which include researching specific projects, enemies and building rooms on the XCOM ship. Onboard the battleship, you’ll be building better equipment and upgrading it with items scavenged off the battlefield and constructing rooms (within power limits) to improve your squad tactics on the battlefield as well as facilities that can give your soldiers new abilities and training. There’s a lot to keep track of this time around and on top of all that, there’s a timer called the Avatar Project constantly ticking away; if this isn’t delayed or slowed, the game is over and you’ll to reload or try again. Many obstacles can spring up in your mission to overthrow the aliens; there may be an alien facility you need to destroy to delay the Avatar Project, but you need to contact the resistance in that region first. Or there be a room you need to build but you lack the resources and Avenger power to do so. Alien dark events, which can range from reduced supply amounts to a UFO chasing the Avenger around the map are also employed to hamper your efforts, meaning you’ll have to choose which one to counteract the more the resistance expands. The tension that runs through XCOM 2’s veins constantly hangs over the player but it skilfully manages all the information with a fluid menu system that always displays what you should be doing alongside an intuitive interface for the ship itself. Elements of player choice also come to play; you could focus entirely on completing the main objectives and racing to the finish, focusing mainly on building better weapons, or you could concentrate more developing Psionic soldiers with mental abilities sooner by prioritising its research. 

But it doesn’t stop there; XCOM 2 has a comprehensive customisation system for soldiers with every aspect of their outfits being interchangeable. You can even write your own biographies (and possibly epitaphs), furthering your attachment to them over the course of every campaign. Each soldier created is saved to a character pool which can be saved and exported. XCOM 2 also has a multiplayer mode where you can again play as the aliens but not much has really improved from the original game; there aren’t many unique additions to set it apart from other strategy games or even its own single player mode. A cooperative mode would better suit the series. I felt that this didn’t hamper the overall package which has clearly focused on delivering the deepest and most tactical campaign in the series to date. Finally, the game is completely open to modders, the biggest being Pavonis Interactive with their recently released “Long War 2” conversion. There’s an absolute ton of customisable content here and modding will continue to add to that over time.

XCOM 2 maintains the shifting tensions and unpredictability that have defined the series. On ground level, cover is still incredibly important, as is putting your soldiers at a higher elevation so they can hit those all-important shots which are again determined by percentages and a roll of the dice among other stats. Taking turns between the player and the aliens, four classes make up the tactical decisions this time and each is far more versatile than before; rangers are close quarters experts who pack a sword for melee combat, specialists make use of gremlin drones to hack targets and heal the squad, grenadiers pack heavy machine guns and grenade launcher for crowd control and sharpshooters snipe from afar. Promoting your troops and giving them more devastating abilities remains immensely enjoyable but on the other hand it’s all the more heart-breaking to lose them as well as any equipment they were carrying at the hands of the aliens. Moving your soldiers around the map is a diligent process but the guerrilla warfare theme gives way to its biggest new addition; concealment. Often your squad will start off a mission hidden from view of the aliens; as you inch forward, you’ll be able to manoeuvre into position and unleash often devastating ambush attacks, eliminating several foes in a single turn. There’s also a greater focus on destructible environments; a well-placed explosive or heavy weapon can shred armour points on enemies or blow out the floor of a higher building, causing fall damage. Yet despite all these new tactics, equipment and considerations, XCOM 2 is brutally difficult, even more so than its predecessor which mostly comes through the numerous new enemy types; the aliens can mark your soldiers for a boost to aim, disable their weapons, resurrect fallen comrades, launch aerial bombardments and even come crashing through the scenery, leaving your soldiers out in the open. Finding Sectoids that can mind control your troops as early as the third mission is very indicative of the game’s focus; add to that the numerous timed missions that offer a limited amount of turns and you a tough challenge that will require carefully considered strategy both on and off the battlefield. For the most part, XCOM 2 feels fair, though there are some rare cases where things become cheap, especially on higher difficulties where the aliens manage to hit some baffling shots. The game ultimately creates and sustains a harrowing struggle that’s immensely rewarding to overcome.

Reducing the cell-shaded style in favour of a more realistic look, XCOM 2 looks far more vibrant and appealing than the first; everything from the procedurally generated levels to the armour the soldiers carry packs much more detail. The setting itself commands an immense irony, an idealistic future utopia with an undercurrent of sinister human abduction and experimentation running through it. A collection of military march themes gets the blood pumping in the lead-up to every mission, while also flaring up the tension when combat finally erupts between humanity and the aliens. A greater variety of effects also permeates every battle; explosions, fire and acid effects are particularly detailed. At launch, the game did have a fair few technical issues; but with some updates, the game’s stability has improved; currently it runs well, with a hint of framerate drops here and there during loading screens; some visual glitches such as soldiers picking up a fellow compatriot through a wall can also be a bit distracting. Overall though, XCOM 2 improves upon what was established, taking advantage of updated hardware to deliver a more realistic look.

Outside of a few technical hitches and a somewhat basic multiplayer mode, everything in XCOM 2 has been taken to a higher level, making it one of the best sequels in recent memory. More strategic choices to make, more customisation, more dastardly alien creatures to contend with and above all else, the same massive level of challenge that the series is known for. It’s an absolute must-buy if you have any sort of interest in strategy games, tactical or otherwise.

Rating: 9.5/10 (Superb)