Fifa 15

Tags

Alien : Isolation, Ashley Westwood, Diego Costa, EA Sports, Everton, Fabian Delph, Far Cry 4, Fifa 14, Fifa 15, Football Manager, Game Review, Goals, Lee Cattermole, Leicester, NHL 15, Ori and the Blind Forest, Plants vs Zombies : Garden Warfare, Playstation 3, Playstation 4, Pro Evolution Soccer, Scott Arfield, Sunset Overdrive, Ultimate Team, Wayne Routledge, Xbox 360, Xbox One, Yaya Toure

“Fifa 15” may be the best football game out there at the moment, and for once EA has actually tried to improve their game and change things for the better, but sadly this game is still inherently flawed. “Fifa 15” is far from perfect and it can also be extremely frustrating, which means that in the few days that I’ve had the game I haven’t actually enjoyed it. I believe that the franchise as a whole will benefit from the changes made in this game, and it will act as a solid platform for future releases, but “Fifa 15” is a strangely underwhelming experience.

The re-introduction of tournament mode to the Xbox One version of this game is very welcome (although it never should’ve been dispatched with in the first place). The emotion that this mode is able to generate is quite scary; whether it be when my opponent lost Diego Costa to a severe long-term injury, or my own 3-2 loss away at Leicester with Everton, this game can really get under your skin, which is testament to how well it brings passion to the table. The marketing campaign for this game was all about the fact that the developers had focused on generating a sense of emotion not felt in previous instalments, so that players would ‘feel the game’ and have a more immersive experience, and I do feel as though that has been achieved for the most part.

However, the maddening gameplay has hampered my experience of playing “Fifa 15”, and as I play the game I am slowly led into a land of red mist and hatred for all humanity, so much so that I don’t actually care about what song is being sung at the Etihad or whether Yaya Toure just pushed Scott Arfield! The way in which “Fifa 15” is really able to build emotion isn’t through the elements that EA have added to the game but in how poor the gameplay is at certain points when you are trying your very best to learn and become better than your friends.

via origin.com

As far as I’m concerned you aren’t genuinely in control whilst playing this game because the mechanics aren’t repeatable or predictable. One free-kick will hit the wall from 25 yards out whereas the next will fly over the bar, yet you’ve inexplicably taken that free-kick from exactly the same position and applied the same input! You can’t truly enjoy “Fifa 15” because you can’t consistently manipulate its mechanics to the standards that you’d expect. Every time that you concede a goal you’ll feel somehow cheated because either the AI has gone to sleep or your intentions have been misrepresented by the player you’re controlling, and when you miss a chance you’ll always detach yourself from the mistake and ask why the striker didn’t bury it. The latter happens a lot on football games because people are inherently complacent and sports games are competitive beasts, but whatever underlying issues you have when it comes to mistakes you make on games will be accentuated greatly by this awfully clunky attempt at a football simulator.

There are a lot of unwanted glitches in “Fifa 15” and although they can be funny to begin with they become very tiresome once they’ve happened ten or twenty times. The way in which my player will do a back-flip as a celebration, and in the process travel through another player, is no longer entertaining… it’s just stupid! “Fifa” prides itself on realism; this year the developers at EA have added more player likenesses, real referees, and every Premier League stadium… so why can’t they make a game that works? How am I supposed to ‘feel the game’ if the players are able to float through one another when the ball is out of play?

via origin.com

This isn’t the only glitch in “Fifa 15”, as there are moments in which a referee will get stuck on an invisible wall and waste ten minutes of a match simply because the developers are more interested in quippy rhetoric than they are in a functioning, well-rounded gaming experience. In a match I played against my brother (Everton vs. Leicester) I was a goal behind when the referee proceeded to run around the opposition player trying to book him, wasting ten minutes of the match and meaning that my free-kick would be the last kick of the game. I was genuinely infuriated even though all that was happening was that I was losing on a badly designed game which frankly isn’t worth getting upset over. Problems like this in a AAA game are completely unforgiveable and to find this many in a game in the first week of its release verges on ridiculous. Who gets paid to test this trash anyway? I think they should be retrospectively docked their pay.

Unfortunately, at this point people are used to mistakes in the “Fifa” franchise and they ignore them because they’re football fans who want a specific type of gaming experience in their lives. They want a game which is presented in such a way that they can feel as though they’re taking part in a Premier League/La Liga/Bundesliga match and that’s what “Fifa” gives them because EA has a monopoly on the league licensing. They’re manipulated by a developer that doesn’t care at all about the mechanics in the game and is more interested in how their marketing will appeal to a demographic that they already have a stranglehold on; closing their eyes and failing to see the issues with the product that they so desperately crave.

Additions to the game such as grass cutting up under foot, mud on player’s shirts, and more stadiums are fine, but they’re far from essential. I enjoy seeing the pitch wear as a match progresses but I rarely have time to notice it when it’s me holding the controller because I’m trying to focus on winning the match! I’d much prefer the time that was spent on creating these features to have been spent on making the gameplay more rewarding, and it consistently annoys me that EA focus on superficial tweaks rather than refining their mechanics.

via vg247.com

The cut scenes which have been introduced into the game to highlight the player’s reactions are boring and overused, so much so that I’m already tired of them after just a few days, and I fail to see how they significantly alter the experience of playing the game. These new elements could be seen as baby steps towards an impressive football game further down the line, but I truly believe that “Fifa 15” is miles away from being worth the same amount of money as other games in the industry.

“Fifa 15” has seen a large number of players have their likenesses recreated in order to make the game feel as realistic as possible. The likes of Lee Cattermole are right there in front of your eyes as you play, for once the teams lower down the table have been shown a bit of respect on this front, and many more fans will get to control their favourite players. This is a big improvement from the last game and something which really makes me smile as I play, because I enjoy knowing that these players are no longer indistinguishable figures with footballer’s names. I also feel that having so many players actually ‘in the game’ makes Ultimate Team far more entertaining, because getting a player like Wayne Routledge in a gold pack no longer feels like a sick joke, I can enjoy having this player as part of my squad.

Despite this praise, I still believe that every player in the Premier League should’ve had their face scanned, or at least a large majority, simply because of the financial power of EA. They have the resources to employ thousands of people to work on this game from all around the world so I can’t personally understand what stops them from scanning every player’s face into the game, other than a request not to be in the game by a player.

via origin.com

I also think that there should be more variation in the weather which is available in this game, as there are only four types of weather condition to choose from, ‘Clear’, ‘Overcast’, ‘Rain’, and ‘Snow’. Each match only has one condition available to it, and you can’t control the severity of the snow falling on the grass or any other interesting features of that kind. The fact that you can’t simply randomise what weather you want for a particular game is just ludicrous, and most of the time I simply play in clear conditions because I forget to alter the weather in the settings.

In our tournament mode my brother and I have ten teams each from the Premier League in an effort to recreate the experience in our living rooms considering the fact that we will never get the chance to actually be there on the pitch. But how can things possibly feel authentic when we have to agree on weather conditions prior to each match? I hate the fact that I can’t play in the rain or the snow against a human opponent because my opposition doesn’t enjoy doing so and this would be very easy to alter, but like so many things in “Fifa 15” this problem has been overlooked.

A clever way to solve this problem would be to put intermittent weather conditions into the game, so that you can start a match with lovely clear skies and end it in pouring rain, but I don’t see that happening in the near future. I admit that adding something like this into “Fifa” could be a challenge because it seems like the developers can only create a rigid variation of their last game each time, but I’d like to see a future football game feature dynamic weather.

via gamezone.com

I’d also like there to be some kind of wind in the game because this could potentially effect the way the ball moves in the air and change the gameplay. Right now the ball moves in the same way in the air every time a particular technique is used – the ball never swerves unnaturally and it never dips at the last second – so it would be genuinely interesting if EA implemented a feature into the game which forced players to consciously alter their style of play. When you sit back and consider issues like this, ones relating to game physics, you come to the conclusion that anyone who claims that “Fifa 15” is realistic is simply deluded; what they mean is that it’s the most realistic version of “Fifa” that they have played so far, but that means almost nothing given that each time a new “Fifa” is released the developers simply build on what they had the previous year.

The inclusion of a system whereby you actually enforce tactics on each individual player is a great idea, and it sounds fantastic when explained in an interview, but in reality the system doesn’t work, and the choices available to gamers are painfully dull and limited. I use the same tactics in almost every match, regardless of the team I am using, because all I am hoping for is to ‘Cut Passing Lanes’ and ‘Get In Behind’. I would praise EA for adding this feature if it was executed well, because it could be genuinely revolutionary, but it isn’t utilised properly in “Fifa 15”. I want to tell my players so much more than I can; I want to tell each individual player what their role is from set pieces so that I can be truly effective, as is done in “Football Manager”, or tell my A.I. to make diagonal runs across defenders so that everything doesn’t feel so static! However, I’m sure that even if I did that it wouldn’t make a difference, because when I tell my comrades to do something extremely simple and clear they just ignore me, allowing huge holes to appear in my defence. If I ask Ashley Westwood to ‘Stay Back Whilst Attacking’, and tell Fabian Delph to ‘Get Forward’ whilst we are on the attack, I don’t expect to see Westwood sprinting past Delph into the final third!

The new features in this game aren’t actually positive, they’re all completely lacking, meaning that this just feels like another game from EA in which they have lazily added unfinished elements at the last minute, which sound impressive, but are actually being saved for the next annual instalment (something we saw in “Fifa 14” on next-gen consoles, and with the recently released “NHL 15”).

via eldojogamer.com

The techniques for passes and shots in “Fifa 15” are still far from perfect, and I feel that “Pro Evolution Soccer” has the edge on that front. In fact, I still think that the demo for that game is a much more enjoyable experience than playing this game! When shooting on the turn the players still lose their balance far too often, and they simply refuse to wrap their foot around the ball to actually generate power, meaning that cutting inside and having a shot usually consists in curling the ball into the bottom corner, rather than trying to smash the ball into the top corner. This is a fault which could be overlooked, but I’m pointing it out because even though I’m supposed to feel immersed in the game, I’m restricted in terms of what I can do if I really want to win the match. The way that the game is designed means that no matter what’s added there are only one or two effective ways to play the game, so each game doesn’t feel organic or new at all, every game is the same.

The goalkeeping is different as promised, and it is true that there are lots of new ways to score, but these ways will usually be courtesy of a mistake which is in no way your fault. These moments are completely unfair, and they ruin your enjoyment of the game, because you can be the better team in terms of possession and chances, but in one moment that can be ruined by a goalkeeping error. I will concede that this happens in real football, but this is a game and in games you should be allowed to succeed as a result of your performance, and things have to be consistent. If the opposition keeper makes a save at one end, your keeper should save a similar shot, supposing that this shot is actually saveable. If this doesn’t happen then gamers really do feel let down and angry, and so they aren’t really having a good time.

Fun shouldn’t be sacrificed for ‘authenticity’, especially when that authenticity isn’t properly achieved, and you deserve to be rewarded for ability. When a bad player who has put far less time into the game than you can just play a through ball to a fast striker, side foot a shot down the middle, and end up 1-0 ahead, how can you not resent the game?

via torrentsgames.org

Speed is still far too important in “Fifa 15”, and the defending on the game is absolutely atrocious. The A.I. in this game are so stupid that it is truly laughable, and the way they act is in no way realistic. As you attack you will notice that the defenders on the opposing team will part like the Red Sea, so that you can simply tap the Y button, (or the Δ button depending on your console of choice), and be in on goal. This might seem like it isn’t a problem if you enjoy scoring the same sorts of goals over and over, but for me finding the net has become completely joyless, and I have only been playing the game for a matter of days.

The online matches can be very frustrating, because the penalty for bad internet connection is extremely unfair. Whether or not your WiFi is working is completely out of your control and is something which you shouldn’t be penalised for. I lost my first Seasons game on “Fifa 15” because my internet went down for all of ten seconds, something which very rarely happens in my household. I had no way of changing the situation and I was in control of the match, but because of the way things work on “Fifa” I was given a loss.

I am aware that a lot of people quit on “Fifa” when they aren’t winning, and those people should obviously be punished with a loss, but there has to be a way to distinguish between quitting and losing connection. If I lose connection I shouldn’t then lose the match, the match should become void for me and my opponent should get a victory because his time has been wasted. That loss will be on my record forever, until the next version of this game comes out, so I will always have to see it and think of how poorly regulated the online gameplay is on “Fifa 15”.

via store.playstation.com

As I started the game up I was shown a series of rewards which I was supposed to receive for sticking with “Fifa” and playing the previous game, one of which was the promise that I would start in Division 9 on Seasons mode, because I had achieved a certain level on that mode in “Fifa 14”. That didn’t happen. I am in Division 10 with 0 wins, 0 draws, and 1 loss. I was also given some packs on Ultimate Team to get my squad up and running, which I received, but I was given less packs than my brother who hadn’t played the game any more than me. I have completely lost faith in EA’s ability to control what goes on in their games, as it seems to me that they are happy to push out games each year which are full of bugs, glitches and mistakes, all in the name of profit.

Be A Pro clubs online is still as fun as ever, and I’m not ashamed to say that I clocked over 100 games on “Fifa 14” on that particular mode. However, as my player was transferred across from “Fifa 14” he must have lost his leg or some other footballing apparatus, because he was returned to me with a rating of 76. I’m so glad that I put the effort into the last game to score 70+ goals, so that my Pro could have a shooting rating of just 73 in this edition.

via sensiblegaming.com

Now, I realise that many people get a great deal of enjoyment out of this game, and I won’t deny that when I’m playing on career mode, on an easy enough difficulty, I enjoy hitting 6 or 7 in the back of the net. Still, I can’t see myself ever really enjoying this game if a team presents a challenge to me. The defensive positioning of the A.I. around me and their lack of responsiveness towards any kind of movement is completely diabolical and ruins any enjoyment for me, because I just can’t be bothered to change player every two seconds to fill a gap I see opening. I know what you’re thinking, ‘this guy can’t play the game, he must just be rubbish’, but no, I’ve won tournaments on these games before and I don’t mean on tournament mode! I mean against strangers in public places for money and or prizes!

I have already lost my patience with the online aspect of “Fifa 15”, tournament mode just makes me angry, and career mode is either too easy, too hard, or not very fun at all depending on what difficulty you decide to play on. Ultimate Team is quite dull because nothing crucial has changed to keep things interesting, although the prospect of getting better players than people I know does at least give me some motivation to carry on playing.

Overall I feel that this is an average game with a lot of faults and I think that people would be better off saving their money for upcoming titles such as “Alien: Isolation”, “Sunset Overdrive”, and “Ori and the Blind Forest”. If you didn’t have friends to play with on this game then I don’t think that it would be worth the time of day, and even if you do, all the game does is take that time and fill it with repetitive gameplay and boring cut scenes. This instalment has changed a lot of things about “Fifa” as a whole, but it has also ruined other great things and has inherited a lot of the issues which should’ve been resolved from the predecessor. “Fifa 15” is either a game which doesn’t integrate new mechanisms effectively or a manipulation of the fact that sports games are released annually; either way it’s a step backwards for the franchise.

5.5/10

Advertisements

As Above, So Below

Tags

As Above So Below, Ben Feldman, Cinema, Drew Dowdle, Edwin Hodge, Film, Francois Civil, Harry Potter, Hell, Horror, Indiana Jones, John Erick Dowdle, Movie Review, Paris Catacombs, Perdita Weeks, Predators, Prison Break, The Blair Witch Project, The Descent, The Mummy, Tomb Raider

I’ve been looking forward to this film for quite a long time. When I first saw the trailer I thought that it looked like everything I wanted from a horror film; a menacing setting, horrible creatures lurking around every corner, and a sense of terror that seemed as though it would be truly frightening. This film literally wants to take you to Hell, what could be more horrific than that?

Going into this film with such high expectations could’ve potentially set me up for a fall, but I have to say that “As Above, So Below” didn’t disappoint me. It was a difficult film to watch, and I spent a lot of the running time with my hands over my eyes, barely able to see what was happening on screen. The tension which the sound and the setting created, along with what I thought was an intelligent usage of amateur camera work, made for a very interesting and enjoyable experience. I disagree completely with people out there who seem to think that this is an imitator of great films like “The Descent” because the premise is completely different. Just because this movie wants to take you underground to build a feeling of claustrophobia and a sense of dread doesn’t mean that it’s a knock-off of “The Descent”.

The film was set in what was undoubtedly an amazing location for a horror flick, the Paris catacombs, which hold the remains of no less than six million human beings. As if that isn’t creepy enough on its own, this film also wants to house the gateway to Hell in that very same location! It’s a great idea and something which hasn’t really been explored in any great horror movies before.

via ent.ltn.com.tw

The film revolves around Scarlett Marlow (Perdita Weeks), an archaeologist with a slightly frustrating set of skills, which make her somewhat less believable as a character. It feels as though she only has so much knowledge so that we don’t ask questions as to how she can solve ridiculous riddles as quickly as she does, but in fact we just ask different questions, such as, how did she possibly have time to get all these degrees when she doesn’t look a day over 25? Alongside Marlow we have a former lover named George (Ben Feldman), a trio of Parisian miscreants said to know their way around the catacombs, lead by Papillon (Francois Civil), and Benji (Edwin Hodge) the no-questions-asked cameraman.

Together they delve deep under the earth in order to find Nicolas Flamel’s stone, which is said to possess the power to grant eternal life. If you are familiar with “Harry Potter” then you probably know all about the philosopher’s stone, but “As Above, So Below” still remains credible despite the slightly silly goal. However, I feel as though there could’ve been any number of things for Marlow to search for, so I’m not sure why the treasure had to be something we’ve already seen in a childish fantasy. In any case, the search leads the characters into a battle for their lives, as they encounter the demons of their pasts in the devilish catacombs.

via collider.com

“As Above, So Below” also has moments in which it feels a bit like an adventure film, rather than a bona fide supernatural horror. I’ve seen a couple of interviews in which John Erick Dowdle (the director and co-writer of this movie) and Drew Dowdle (brother and co-writer) talk about the fact that the “Indiana Jones” films were an influence on this movie, as well as “Tomb Raider” (considering the strong female lead). It’s clearly apparent that those kinds of influences played a part in the filmmaking process, because before we delve into the real depths of the catacombs this could be a campy action film. It was a really refreshing build up, because it didn’t take itself all that seriously; we gained insight into where the group were headed through some very cool reveals, such as Papillon’s signature tag of “Pap” on the wall. I couldn’t help but smile at how the film was made; it reminded me of watching “The Mummy” as a child, feeling terrified even though nothing was actually happening on screen. I feel as though this movie would’ve been celebrated at that time and would’ve gotten much kinder reviews.

Despite the fact that I enjoyed the film, I do feel as though it missed a few opportunities, such as the fact that we’re left to imagine some of the conflict which relates to the character’s suffering, which is a shame because there were plenty of interesting ideas to develop. The fact that there are several characters going down into the catacombs means that there are several pasts to be explored, and each character should’ve had an interesting back story to delve into.

Obviously the group is chosen partly at random, (because Scarlett doesn’t really know that much about Papillon and his team), so for the sake of realism it’s probably better that a couple of them haven’t had amazingly horrible pasts, but I would’ve liked to learn more about the characters and had one or two of them be mysterious or secretly evil. Even a twist where one of the characters actually wanted to lead the others to their demise would’ve been very intriguing, and there’s no reason why this movie couldn’t have done something like that. I’m reminded of the film “Predators”, in which a nasty group of mercenaries and fighters are dropped onto an alien planet in order to be hunted for sport by the iconic titular characters. (SPOILER ALERT) In that film one of the characters turns out to be a little more vicious than he let on, and is actually a serial killer, which was quite a good twist for what was otherwise an average movie. I feel as though “As Above, So Below” would’ve really benefited from something like that, because it did end up being a bit repetitive by the end, and we were simply waiting for the next supernatural creature to sneak up on the group.

via 123wtf.me

I also feel as though this movie might’ve been a bit more enjoyable if less had been shown on the trailer (although the trailer was pretty awesome). There are points in the movie in which potentially brilliant jump scares are ruined by the fact that you’ve already seen what is about to happen on the trailer, which is particularly annoying in a horror film, when surprise is often the best way to get a good scare. However, the parts of the trailer which do give away the game were what got me so excited to see the film in the first place, so it would be wrong to be too critical. If nothing substantial had been shown on the trailer and I had seen the reviews, (which I feel have been unfairly critical), then chances are that I wouldn’t have driven to the cinema for an 11pm late showing of this movie.

Both the beginning and the end of “As Above, So Below” were somewhat weak. The film felt slightly forced at the start, and I feel as though everyone was just waiting for the characters to delve down into the catacombs. The main characters seemed to have super-intelligence in order to get the plot moving forward in what I felt was a rapid pace, and that continued as Scarlett and George solved ancient riddles with consummate ease. (SPOILER ALERT) The ending suffered, as there really is no way to carry on after you’ve faced what these people have faced down in the catacombs. You know that the world is so different than how it appears and your life can never be the same; Hell is real and it’s right under your feet. There wasn’t a convincing happy ending available for this film, so maybe everyone should’ve just died, even if that sounds a tad dark. If you can’t provide an ending which is both uplifting and believable then don’t try to; better to be realistic than to preserve your characters for a life in a mental institute.

via wheretowatch.com

The found footage in this movie worked well, which I was surprised by because I don’t usually enjoy that kind of filming. There was a lot of shaky camerawork but I don’t see why that necessarily has to be a major problem. The thing that annoys me most about hidden camera films, or films in which people run around with a camera in their hand, is that they’d give up on filming at the first sign of danger. However, in this movie that’s dealt with in a very clever way, even if it’s slightly convenient for saving on budget, because the cameras are placed on the character’s head lamps. They don’t have to think about filming as characters, so everything feels that little bit more real than say “The Blair Witch Project”, in which we get moments where characters insist that the cameras be turned off, and fill screen time with pointless bickering. The way in which this movie was filmed made the claustrophobic scenes feel all that more urgent and uncomfortable, particularly in a moment where Benji is stuck between the catacomb ceiling and a large amount of human remains (a scene which sadly was seen on the trailer).

The only problem I had with the found footage nature of “As Above, So Below” was right at the start of the film, as Scarlett visited Iran for a clue as to where she might find Flamel’s stone. She explained that she could get killed for what she was doing to the camera, whilst a group of people sat around her and could hear everything she was saying. She then continued to film as she ran through a street full of people. I know that she’s a bit of a daredevil, willing to do anything to learn the truth about this stone, but the film doesn’t seem to be her top priority and I don’t believe that she would risk her life or the endeavour to find the stone on filming those moments.

via youtube.com

The performances in this movie were all quite good, and I ended up liking most of the characters as a result. I have seen Ben Feldman and Edwin Hodge before, the former in “Silicon Valley” and the latter in “The Purge”, but I hadn’t previously come across the rest of the cast, so they had to win me over. At first I thought that Perdita Weeks was going to be quite annoying because she was a bit of a know-it-all, but as things progressed she endeared herself to me and became likeable. Francois Civil was the stand out in the film for me and as a result Papillon was my favourite character. He made me laugh in the outside world and he was also very convincing in his dread at the prospect of taking an unmapped passageway through the catacombs. I also think that Cosme Castro deserves a mention for his role as La Taupe. He reminded me a bit of Haywire in “Prison Break” in that he seemed to be a mentally unstable and broken man; Castro gave a performance which really highlighted the anguish that he must have faced in the deeper parts of the catacombs. 

The final thing I’d like to praise in this film is the sound work. There was only five of us in the cinema, so the heightened sound really had an impact on us. The idea of adding trumpets to signify that the dead rising was a great move, it made me wonder what was about to attack the protagonists, bringing a cautious smile to my face as well as a sense of real fear.

“As Above, So Below” is about as good as a horror film gets these days, that’s not to say that it was perfect, but it was certainly better than most of the recent additions to the genre. No one in the cinema was screaming or gasping, instead they were just too scared to watch! I was a nervous wreck on the way home, and that’s owed to the immersive nature of this movie. The story isn’t air tight, but the film uses its found footage element in a very impressive way and you really feel a sense of fear throughout, meaning that this film is never boring. If you enjoy being scared and watching a movie through your fingers then I would definitely recommend “As Above, So Below”.

7.5/10

Sin City 2: A Dame to Kill For

Tags

Bruce Willis, Cinema, Clive Owen, Eva Green, Film, Frank Miller, Jeremy Piven, Jessica Alba, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Josh Brolin, Juno Temple, Lady Gaga, Mickey Rourke, Movie Review, Penny Dreadful, Powers Boothe, Ray Liotta, Robert Rodriguez, Rosario Dawson, Sin City, Sin City 2 : A Dame To Kill For

“Sin City” was a great film, the visuals were stunning, the story was interesting and the characters were all likeable. It deserved a sequel… but it didn’t get one. “Sin City 2: A Dame to Kill For” is not a sequel to the events of the first film, it is a film featuring four separate tales which are loosely connected to one another by certain characters popping up every now and again in tales which aren’t actually their own.

I read a few reviews prior to watching the movie because I was really excited to see it and they all said the same thing – that this was a film with impressive special effects but it doesn’t come together as well as its predecessor – and in spite of what I’d like to think those reviews are completely fair. The only section of this film which acts a true sequel to the “Sin City” is the final act, in which we finally get to see Nancy Callahan (Jessica Alba) take on Senator Roark (Powers Boothe), but that was also the weakest part of the movie!

However, despite the fact that I don’t believe this film to be a genuine sequel to the original, I’d be lying if I said that I didn’t enjoy it. It’s difficult to watch a movie with so much potential struggle to make the most of its characters and create a compelling narrative, but I was really glad to revisit Basin City. Watching this film in all its vicious 3D glory is just fun. The film genuinely feels like a comic book coming to life and I won’t be overly harsh on Robert Rodriguez or Frank Miller for failing to recreate the brilliance of the first movie, because it was an exceptional film and probably took some of the best material from the graphic novels away from any future sequel.

via variety.com

There are four main stories in this film which revolve around different protagonists. The movie opens with Marv (Mickey Rourke) in an act entitled ‘Just Another Saturday Night’, which was quite a weak start. (SPOILER ALERT) Marv decides to teach a group of frat boys a lesson after they attack a homeless man, and in the process we get to see where he grew up, in a place called the projects. I thought that the projects were an interesting place and would’ve enjoyed finding out a bit more about them, but the scene doesn’t last very long at all and has very little impact on the rest of the movie.

‘Just Another Saturday Night’ establishes the fact that there is going to be a lot of stylised violence and narration, just like there was in the first film, but apart from that it doesn’t have much of a part to play in proceedings. We are told that Marv is wearing a Bernini coat and that he doesn’t know where it came from, so it’s quite clear that over the course of the film we will see him again and find out exactly what’s gone on, but that’s the only cross-over that this tale has with the rest of the film.

via sincity-2.com

Joseph Gordon-Levitt takes centre stage in the second tale of the film, and that story was my personal favourite. ‘The Long Bad Night’ came in two parts, the first before the title piece of the film and the longest segment – ‘A Dame to Kill For’ – and the second immediately after. I felt that having the story split in that way was a good idea, and kept you interested in what was going on, because it’s as though you are watching a brand new story. The other tales were played from start to finish, and then the film simply moved on to the next character’s scenes; I don’t think that makes for a very compelling movie. By having three stories played out from start to finish it feels as though we are watching a series of separate films, which can sometimes work, but if you break the stories up you have a film which flows and keeps the audience interested, because they want to know what happens next for a character that they were starting to like.

Gordon-Levitt plays Johnny, a man returning to Basin City in order to earn some money on the slots and the poker table. He’s a suave gambler and he never loses, hitting the jackpot immediately after walking into Kadie’s place (the bar in which Jessica Alba shows off her slut-dropping skills). The bar is a character of its own in this film, making an appearance in every tale. (SPOILER ALERT) Feeling confident, Johnny decides to try his hand at poker in a back room, playing against one of the two main antagonists in the film, Senator Roark. From there things only go downhill for Johnny, as he humiliates Roark and pays the price, leaving us wondering what will come next as the first part of the story comes to an end.

The second part follows immediately from the events of the first, and it isn’t too difficult to predict what is going to happen. Johnny seeks revenge, and that’s as much as I should say. ‘The Long Bad Night’ was the best section of the film, because it re-establishes the fact that Senator Roark really isn’t very pleasant, and it also feels fresh and new. The other segments all focus too heavily on characters we’ve already seen, even ‘A Dame to Kill For’, because it features Old Town and Marv. This section has the trademark violence and visual style of “Sin City”, as well as a young cocky lead playing off an experienced actor in Powers Boothe.

via youtube.com

The longest part of this movie is ‘A Dame to Kill For’, as you would expect given the film’s title, and it did a decent job of keeping my attention. Josh Brolin did a fine job as Dwight McCarthy, having replaced Clive Owen who played the character in the first film. However, I would’ve liked to actually see him ‘let the monster out’ because I was expecting him to have some kind of inner rage which was never really shown. Clive Owen gave one of the best performances in “Sin City” so it was a shame that he didn’t return, but in “Sin City” it is mentioned that he had a new face so it makes sense that his character was recast (‘A Dame to Kill For’ takes place before ‘The Big Fat Kill’).

Eva Green is very good in this movie, even if some of her scenes are slightly over the top, and she definitely deserves to be regarded as a dame to kill for. I don’t think that many of the men in this film would’ve believed that she was who she pretended to be, given the nature of the film and its predecessor, but once her true colours were revealed she was a very entertaining villain. (SPOILER ALERT) This tale revolves around Ava Lord’s (Eva Green) trickery of Dwight and the subsequent quest for revenge which follows. There isn’t much more to the story than that, which did make me question why this was chosen as the main sequence of the film, but the performances are good and it’s a fun little tale.

via sincity-2.com

Finally, we have the conclusion to Nancy Callahan’s character-arc, ‘Nancy’s Last Dance’, and it follows a familiar theme – revenge. Nancy did a lot of dancing in this film and it was the only redeeming factor for her character; we all agree that Jessica Alba is a very attractive human being, so I don’t think that we need to see her prance around a stage half-naked quite so much. The time that she spent showing off her body could’ve been spent on real character development, making the story that little bit more interesting. I don’t know if the writers felt that it was enough to show that Nancy was sad about John Hartigan’s death and just go from there, given the fact that she is a returning character, but she wasn’t exactly deep in the first movie. I doubt that anyone really cared about her, despite the fact that everyone wanted to see Roark breathe his last breath.

‘Nancy’s Last Dance’ refers to Nancy’s last stand with Senator Roark, and is what you would expect from a sequel to the first film, but it is also the most boring part of the movie and contains what I consider to be the most rigid acting. Nancy is a very one dimensional character and Jessica Alba isn’t exactly a brilliant actress; all in all this segment of the movie only served to show that “Sin City” didn’t need a sequel, in that the stories ended in an interesting way and didn’t require any further development.

via download-wallpaper.net

“Sin City 2: A Dame to Kill For” worked best when completely new characters were on screen and were allowed to flourish in the dark underworld that is Basin City. This leads me to think that maybe the best course of action, as far as continuing with on screen “Sin City” content is concerned, would be to adapt the material to television. It would be really interesting to watch a different story unfold every other week in this setting and would give a lot of talented actors the chance to show what they can do in a gritty drama. Sadly I don’t think that this will ever happen because of the financial requirements of making a show shot entirely on green screen with the quality of actors it would need to succeed, but if it was made I think it would do very well and I’d definitely watch it.

As far as the stories themselves go I’d say that they weren’t awful but they left a little to be desired. They all had the right tone for a “Sin City” movie and every part had the token good guy fighting against an aggravating villain/villains, but there was something missing in each one. Each section left a sour taste in my mouth as they repeatedly fell flat just as they reached their climax. There were no real surprises or twist endings, which was such a shame considering the fact that each tale was leading into the next part of the movie. Surely the idea is to leave the audience wanting more, so in that sense the execution of these stories was quite poor.

Furthermore, the way in which this film played with time was just strange; if you want to tie a film together in a cohesive way then it really doesn’t make sense to have it broken up by stories which are years and years apart. You can’t just have Marv show up each time and say, ‘here’s someone you know, let the action commence’, there needs to be something connecting the dots. It wasn’t that hard to follow, but the way in which the film was organised felt unnecessarily confusing.

via sincity-2.com

The performances in “Sin City 2: A Dame to Kill For” were pretty good; Josh Brolin, Eva Green and Joseph Gordon-Levitt were the stand-outs, and I don’t think it’s any coincidence that those actors were new to the franchise. I haven’t actually seen a lot of Josh Brolin in the past, but I felt that he did a really good job in this movie. Whether or not his part really required that much acting is definitely debatable, but I was more immersed in the film whilst he and Eva Green were on screen.

Before seeing the film I was already a fan of both Eva Green and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. They’ve both been involved in some really interesting projects recently and I felt that casting them in this film was a great move from the filmmakers. Eva Green was, in my opinion, the only great thing about “Penny Dreadful”, because she was able to make you feel so much affection for her whilst also having a dark side that was truly terrifying. Her character had two distinct dimensions which were both extremely compelling, and she showed that she is excellent at playing both the hero and the villain, switching between those two personas in an instant. That particular attribute made her perfect for her role in this movie. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, on the other hand, brings a sense of self-assurance to each role he plays, and that was exactly what was required for the slick nature of his character.

via technologytell.com

However, the actors returning to the series seemed much less fresh than the newcomers, particularly Jessica Alba and Mickey Rourke who were both massively underwhelming. Mickey Rourke almost seemed to be playing a parody of his character in the first movie in this instalment, with his rough tone and ridiculous glee at the prospect of violence, he dismantled everything that was so entertaining about his character. He presented much less of a presence in this film, and that definitely weakened his performance, because his fight scenes were slow and he seemed lethargic, which I suspect is down to his age. His performance, coupled with the writers deciding it would be a good idea to make him seemingly invincible, made Marv the worst character in “Sin City 2: A Dame to Kill For”.

“Sin City 2: A Dame to Kill For” also suffered by leaving a few questions unanswered, for instance, why was Marv alive? If you’ve seen the first film then you will be aware that at the end of “The Hard Goodbye” Marv faced the electric chair and sadly died, so in order for him to appear in this film he must have died some time after the events of ‘That Yellow Bastard’. But, in “Sin City” Marv visits Nancy in the middle of his story and she seems fine, she isn’t the emotional wreck you see in this movie. There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for why this is the case, I might just need to do a bit more research, but my point is that I shouldn’t have to in order to enjoy the movie! This film doesn’t explain what the timeline is and neither does its predecessor; it’s the job of the filmmaker to make things as clear as possible unless being obtuse benefits the movie, which is this case it definitely does not.

(SPOILER ALERT) A few moments before the end of the movie there is a scene in which Senator Roark is addressing Nancy, and he says that he told her he would make her scream… but that happened in Nancy’s own dream sequence/hallucination, or at least it seemed to by the way that the scene was filmed. At first I thought that this was just an error, either on my part or the writer’s, because he didn’t directly say that he would make her scream.

via pinterest.com

However, it would be interesting if we were actually supposed to wonder whether or not Nancy dreamed the killing of Roark. She seemed to be taking a descent into madness as her story progressed, and she was show thinking about Roark as she laid in the fetal position in bed, so perhaps that was what we were meant to take from the film. That would actually make the ending a lot more credible, because we never really got to see what we wanted to see, we just got a fade to black, and so many dreams end just before the good part. I don’t know if I’m being overly optimistic about this movie having some kind of deeper meaning, and maybe trying to salvage what was a stupidly abrupt ending, but thinking about it in that way made me enjoy the film that little bit more than I would have.

Despite the obvious negatives of this movie, I still feel as though it was unfairly reviewed. It isn’t a terrible movie; it’s entertaining and has a distinct visual style which is still impressive nine years after “Sin City” was released. The special effects were stunning, particularly as the water rippled around Eva Green, and as characters seamlessly turned into silhouettes running across blank backgrounds, transforming the screen into a mesmerising moving comic book. I feel as though the impact of the computer generated imagery has been lost on some of the audience as a result of the first movie, which is a shame, because to have a film which looks this good is still a real achievement. Other films like “The Expendables 3” will get away with simply being entertaining and action packed this summer because that’s what they aim to be, so I think that this film should be praised for succeeding in the area which it primarily focuses on.

“Sin City 2: A Dame to Kill For” was an entertaining movie, with some good performances and interesting new characters. The stylised violence and black and white hero versus villain mentality of the first film returned to make this an enjoyable revisit to the seedy world that is Basin City. However, the performances of the returning actors didn’t live up to what was produced in “Sin City”, and it felt as though the inclusion of the original film’s characters was only a tool, used in order to sell tickets. This film had the potential to be one of this summer’s best, but in the end it failed to meet the high standards which were set by its predecessor and fell short of expectations.

6/10

Into The Storm

Tags

Cinema, Film, Gravity, Into The Storm, Movie Review, Rain, Richard Armitage, Sarah Wayne Callies, Storm, The Day After Tomorrow, Tornadoes, Twister

via gratianads90.files.wordpress.com

When I saw the trailer for “Into The Storm” I was sceptical, it looked a bit like “Gravity” to me, in that it seemed as though it would have good visual effects but nothing else. There are people out there who might think that comparing a movie to the Oscar-winning “Gravity” is pretty high praise, given its success, but I am not one of those people, to say that I disliked that particular film would be a massive understatement.

“Into The Storm” is a clichéd mess of a film, and despite its grand nature I wouldn’t recommend seeing it in a cinema. There isn’t actually a lot to it and the effects aren’t groundbreaking enough to warrant paying the price of the ticket. This movie feels as though it belongs on a dodgy daytime television channel rather than the big screen, and you would only watch it at home if there was absolutely nothing else on. This film doesn’t have that much going for it, so if you see it you really shouldn’t be surprised by the fact that it’s complete garbage.

You don’t have to be a storm chaser to figure out the plot of this movie, just watch “Twister” or “The Day After Tomorrow” and you’re halfway there, except this film is less interesting and has a much lower level of acting. “Into The Storm” is about Gary Fuller (Richard Armitage) trying to find his son in the midst of a storm that is ‘bigger than any storm that has ever been’ (I’m directly quoting a line from the trailer there, that’s the standard of writing we’re working with). In the process he crosses paths with a group of documentary filmmakers who are carelessly following the storm, and things only get more ridiculous from there.

via rickysfilmreviews.com

I’ll admit that written down the story doesn’t sound all that bad, but we aren’t talking about a journey through a panicked city filled with exciting action sequences and massive destruction. We’re talking about a lot of shaky cameras, multiple tornadoes doing as little damage to any interesting structures as possible, indestructible main characters who should’ve died ten times over, completely deserted streets, and a lot of predictable dialogue such as ‘oh my god’ and ‘this is unlike anything I’ve ever seen’. There were moments in “Into The Storm” where the characters said things that were just plain idiotic; ‘he’s not breathing’, when a character has been drowning for about five minutes, or ‘I don’t have any signal’ (I don’t get signal when I go to my kitchen, never mind getting signal in the eye of a tornado). This film could’ve been written by a secondary school student and directed by a monkey.  

“Into The Storm” is such an unintelligent movie, plagued with clichés and ridiculous plot points. The token storm chasers seem to know all there is to know about their field, yet they aren’t successful and they don’t come across as intellectual at any point.

The film only flirts with the idea of a “love story”, and when it does things get quite boring. Donnie Fuller (Max Deacon) and Kaitlyn Johnson (Alycia Debnam-Carey) are good looking teenagers, they go to the same school and they’re approaching graduation, but we’re led to believe that they have never had a proper conversation. The former is the main character’s son (we haven’t seen that before – just pretend “The Day After Tomorrow” didn’t happen), and his acting isn’t exactly brilliant. There’s something so absurd about his character, he speaks calmly and is expressionless for the majority of the movie, even though he’s in a terrible situation with someone that he barely knows. The handiness in the fact that Donnie decides to make a move on the love of his life on the day that all Hell breaks loose is just ridiculous, and you feel that it’s just a convenient way to move the story forward. The way that the “love story” culminates says everything about this film, it really is bizarre, all that Donnie’s effort amounts to is a hug and Kaitlyn deciding that he is ‘sweet’, how humiliating! He puts his life at risk just to find the friend-zone!  

via geeknation.com

The trailer for “Into The Storm” was slightly deceptive, because it disguised the fact that it was advertising a found footage movie. I was actually really annoyed by that and felt slightly cheated, because the only found footage film I’ve ever enjoyed is “Paranormal Activity”, and if I had known that this was going to be filmed through a series of handheld cameras I probably wouldn’t have wasted my money. A movie like this just doesn’t work as a found footage film; there’s no way that these characters would be so reckless as to stand and stare at a tornado, camera in hand; their lives are in genuine danger. What’s even more absurd is that some scenes aren’t shot through handheld cameras or cameras mounted to vehicles! For instance, when an extremely large tornado threatens to kill our heroes towards the end of the movie, we see footage that couldn’t possibly have been filmed by anyone (not if they valued their lives). I really don’t understand why you would ruin the majority of a film with found footage if you aren’t going to fully commit to it.  

The special effects in this film were quite good, the tornadoes started off looking fairly menacing and they were complimented by the heightened sound in the cinema, so I was hoping for some interesting visuals. However, as the film progressed the computer generated imagery lost all of its power and became extremely tedious, because we only saw tornadoes. There just wasn’t enough variety. A storm isn’t made up of six or seven tornadoes which get progressively bigger, there’s thunder, lightning, heavy rain, fog; things which if used correctly could’ve made this movie a lot more interesting. The effects were all that this film had going for it so the fact that they weren’t absolutely amazing meant that “Into The Storm” was a really unpleasant movie to watch.  

None of the performances in this movie are good. None of them. I have seen certain reviews approving the performances of one or two actors, particularly Matt Walsh for his role as Pete Moore, but being the best of a bad bunch isn’t high praise. I actually felt that Matt Walsh didn’t seem to care about what he was doing for the majority of the film, and maybe that’s why some people thought he was okay, because he didn’t take his part too seriously, but I just thought that he seemed uninterested.

via amazon.com

It was a shame that Richard Armitage was so poor in this film, because he is a good actor. In “Spooks” he is excellent, he really won the audience over after replacing one of the most loved characters on the show. However, his accent in this movie is unforgivable. He only sounds American at the end of each sentence, as if he’s struggling to get the accent right until he’s said a few words for practice. A lot of the time he just sounded like he does in “The Hobbit”, which was extremely distracting and it was just embarrassing to watch. Sarah Wayne Callies was awful as Allison Stone, she has no personality and isn’t likeable in any way whilst on screen; it continues to baffle me that she gets casted for anything.  

“Into The Storm” also suffers from a complete lack of character development and emotion; I made no connections with any of the characters and I know nothing about any of the their pasts or motives. The death of the Gary Fuller’s wife is thrown around every now and again in conversation, yet we never get any real understanding of the situation and I felt no sympathy for him given the terrible acting. It’s as though the filmmakers thought that mentioning the tragedy would make us care about his character, but that’s just senseless. I couldn’t care less about what happened to this man’s wife because I couldn’t care less about him! If you want me to give a damn then you should give your character a personality, you can’t make me sympathise with him if I know nothing about him. For all I know this man could be a complete monster who didn’t truly love his wife at all. Obviously that’s not a genuine possibility for the character, but if the writers aren’t willing to give him a persona then I will, and I won’t be kind.  

Despite its numerous problems, “Into The Storm” did have two really memorable death scenes. The deaths themselves were quite clearly about to happen, so there wasn’t even the slightest element of surprise, but they were very cool. The tornado of fire was one of the best visuals on the trailer and I was glad that something interesting happened with it in the film, however, no one in their right mind would go anywhere near it. The film tried to give the character a reason to risk his life, but that reason was so stupid that it was laughable. If there is ever a television programme on the best movie deaths then one of the deaths in this movie might find its way onto it, but the film as a whole might make its way onto a similar programme, listing the worst films of 2014.  

“Into The Storm” isn’t a good movie. There are lots of things out there on Netflix and Sky Movies which are much more worthy of your time and your money, so I’d recommend giving it a miss. However, I didn’t walk out of the theatre feeling let down by it, because frankly I was expecting something pretty bad to begin with. The cast was average, the story seemed silly, and the whole premise has been done thousands of times before. I went to see the film mostly out of curiosity, hoping that it might be a little better than it looked on the trailer, but I’m afraid that what you see is what you get in this case. If you want to see a movie for cheap thrills then fine, turn your brain off, relax, and you might be able to forgive the terrible directing and awful acting; but if you do see “Into The Storm” you have to be aware that it’s just a glorified television movie which happens to have a few big budget tornadoes trying, and failing, to keep you interested.  

4/10

Guardians of the Galaxy

Tags

Bradley Cooper, Chris Pratt, Comics, Guardians of the Galaxy, I Am Groot, Marvel, Peter Quill, Ronan, Stan Lee, The Avengers, Vin Diesel, Zoe Saldana

After sitting through a string of Marvel films that I didn’t really care for, “Guardians of the Galaxy” was a welcome change. This is the first film that isn’t a sequel to be released by the company in quite a few years, and it brought back memories of Marvel at its glorious best.

“Guardians of the Galaxy” is funny, charming, and also manages to have some very entertaining action sequences with characters that are immediately likeable and endearing. The comedic tone of the film makes it feel like a comedy with an added adventure element rather than an action movie with a few forced jokes. This makes a massive difference when you consider other Marvel films, for example “The Avengers”, which was a superhero movie with comedy injected into it at unnatural times for no apparent reason. I felt that the comedic moments in “The Avengers” were very confusing, considering the fact that these superheroes were supposed to be saving the world from total destruction, which is a job you should take quite seriously. “Guardians of the Galaxy” on the other hand puts its comedy at the forefront, and really uses its tone to great effect, which makes me believe that the filmmakers knew what they wanted this movie to be when they started making the film.

via marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com

What sets this movie apart from other Marvel films is that you don’t have to be an avid comic lover or lover of Marvel in order to enjoy it. The action set pieces and jovial nature of the film, as well as the nostalgic soundtrack and pop culture references, make this a movie for all ages; whereas other Marvel films feel as though they are catered towards a young audience or people who came into contact with the source material at a young age.

Superhero films always seem to make light of the fact that the characters face certain doom around every corner, and when the films are set on Earth I find that very frustrating, because if there is a good chance that you and everyone you’ve ever loved is going to die then you really shouldn’t be wasting any time feeding your ego or making light of the situation. This movie manages to quell those kinds of thoughts because all of the characters are outcasts living in outer space. None of the Guardians have any loved ones left to speak of, they aren’t heroic in the strict sense, and they aren’t who they are because they want to save the world, so I can believe that they wouldn’t feel quite as much pressure or responsibility as other heroes. For the Guardians nothing is really out of the ordinary, there is a chance of death all the time for bounty hunters, Ravagers and daughters of tyrants, so there’s a real believability in their attitudes toward the situation.

However, “Guardians of the Galaxy” does fall victim to many of Marvel’s trademark faults. There are moments in this movie in which emotion is forced on the audience in a very annoying way, which I personally just can’t buy into when I watch these sorts of movies. I know full well that this movie is about being excited by special effects and cheering for things that go boom, so when a sentimental scene rears its ugly head I either switch off or try to overanalyse what I’m seeing. For instance, (SPOILER ALERT), the movie opens with a younger version of our leading man losing his mother to cancer whilst still on Earth. That kind of moment will resonate with a lot of people in the theatre, but not because of the performances or the dialogue happening on screen. What I noticed was the terrible child acting and the numerous clichés. Nothing that was happening was particularly groundbreaking, so there was no point in getting emotionally invested.

via marvel.com

The film itself tells the story of Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), an outlaw journeying through space accompanied by his ‘Awesome Mix Tape’. Quill was abducted from Earth as a child and is now a Ravager going by the name of Star-Lord; early on he gets himself into trouble by stealing an orb wanted by the villain of this film, Ronan (Lee Pace). He meets Rocket (Bradley Cooper), Groot (Vin Diesel), Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and finally Drax the Destroyer (Dave Bautista) as he attempts to sell the orb for a profit, and the movie really begins once the group are together and the actors can play off one another.

The story is reasonably simple and it isn’t too hard to predict what’s going to happen next, but it works well because it allows the audience to gain an insight into what the characters are about and what their motives are. Four of the five main characters want to sell the orb for ‘units’, and the other wants revenge against Ronan for the murder of his family, so their motives aren’t exactly noble, the Guardians are more antiheroes than superheroes. The movie is about getting these characters to the point where the opposite is true and we can really see them as the saviours of the galaxy, so it’s fair to say that the story takes a backseat, in exchange for compelling character development.

via marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com

The performances of the main cast were all very good, each actor seemed to understand their role, and the chemistry between the group seemed legitimate (albeit two characters are computer generated). Chris Pratt really won me over as Peter Quill, as I hadn’t really seen much of him prior to this film. His dancing was pretty hilarious and he seemed as though he was actually enjoying what he was doing for the majority of the movie. On the back of his excellent voice acting in “The Lego Movie” he is fast becoming one of my favourite actors. I also thought that Zoe Saldana did a great job as Gamora, she was fierce and had a presence but she was also very likeable, and that was a pleasant surprise because I usually don’t like her acting.

However, at times Dave Bautista did seem slightly out of place. He does well enough considering his background and he delivers some of his lines in a way which gave me a smile and a chuckle, but his character doesn’t actually get into enough fist fights to warrant the casting and all in all it seemed slightly strange. It would be easy to blame Bautista for the fact that Drax is probably the least memorable of the Guardians, but I think that his character was slightly underused in the movie, as he doesn’t get that many meaningful moments. Hopefully in the next instalment Bautista will be given more screen time, with more to do, so that he can prove that he was right for the part.

via marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com

Visually the heroes are quite impressive, and they all look very cool; Star-Lord’s mask is brilliant, Groot looks innocent but strong (just as he should look), and Rocket is a gun-wielding racoon so it’s hard to go wrong there, particularly when you consider the amount of emotion the filmmakers were able to create on his face.

However, the villains are quite forgettable once you leave the theatre. Physically Ronan is imposing, and he is as evil as you’d expect from a villain in this type of film, but we never really see him doing anything all that horrible. His goals are so basic that you can’t hate him, you don’t actually care what he’s doing, he just wants power and unless you’ve never seen a film like this before you will be fully aware that he is destined to fail, I won’t even dignify that fact with a spoiler alert. He’s completely lacking in depth, and the fact that we see Thanos (who is clearly more powerful and menacing than Ronan) makes Ronan’s presence in this film pretty pointless. Thanos (Josh Brolin) looms over the movie from the very moment that he appears on screen, because you know full well that he is going to appear again at some point, so when he doesn’t get much screen time you know that the filmmakers are just using this movie to set up a sequel. I understand that this movie is establishing who the Guardians are and their relationship as a group, while also trying to create a compelling world for them to live in, but I still would’ve liked a more developed villain.

via collider.com

There are also side-villains such as The Collector (Benicio Del Toro) and Nebula (Karen Gillan) which could’ve been far more interesting. The Collector basically tries to keep as many different creatures captive as he can, for reasons unknown (other than cruelty and fascination), and has a wide variety of prisoners in his home. When he appeared on screen I was quite intrigued as to what part he would have to play in the narrative, and I was hoping that he would inconvenience the Guardians by trying to imprison Groot, because he seemed very interested in him. I feel as though a story like that would’ve been a welcome break from the orb and Ronan, and would’ve allowed for a little bit more tension in the film, as well as offering further insight into Rocket and Groot’s relationship, so it was a shame that The Collector didn’t actually do anything of note. Nebula had a couple of decent moments in the film, and was a threatening villain, but she had the potential to cause a lot more damage to our heroes than she actually did, and I feel as though she was being saved for the sequel or another future film.

The soundtrack was exactly what it claimed to be… awesome. The great thing about the soundtrack for “Guardians of the Galaxy” is that it has a real part to play in the movie, and eliminates the need for an original score. The songs mean a lot to Quill because they remind him of home and his life on Earth, and you can see how much his mix tape means to him by his enjoyment as he listens to it and the fact that he is willing to put his life at risk to retrieve it. The choices of song such as ‘Cherry Bomb’ and ‘Hooked on A Feeling’ fit the film so well and they bring a sense of joy to the movie. When ‘Cherry Bomb’ is playing there’s a montage happening on screen, in which the Guardians are preparing for their final confrontation with Ronan; the great thing about that choice of song is that it’s fast and loud, and it gives you an indication of what the battle is going to be like. Music has a way of influencing how you feel as an audience regardless of what’s happening on screen, something which “Guardians of the Galaxy” is very aware of, and uses to great effect.

via collider.com

The special effects were good, and when everything was still they were brilliant, but when the action sequences were happening the effects made the film slightly difficult to watch. In one particular scene the Guardians are attempting to evade Ronan’s forces in separate spaceships, all of which look very similar, and that sequence was very confusing. Everything was happening so fast that the screen became a bit of a blur, so I didn’t really know what was going on or who was being shot at. However, I don’t think that this is a massive fault on anyone’s behalf, it’s just an inevitability when you have to create a world, characters, vehicles and weapons and then blend them together in a moment which lasts just a few seconds.

As a whole I feel that the film was successful, but I do feel that there were a few questions left unanswered. The fact that Quill was abducted so soon after his mother’s death just seemed a bit odd; there was about a minute between one of the most traumatic moments of his life and his intergalactic kidnapping, which seemed a bit like kicking a child while he was down. As the film goes on we do get an understanding as to why that might have happened, but going into the film not really knowing anything about the story, I found that scene very strange and it definitely didn’t reel me in.

The film had one or two clichés, but it knows what it’s doing and each time a certain self-awareness is demonstrated by one of the characters. For example, at one point the characters stand as they decide that they will fight for one another and that they are a team, but Rocket says exactly what we are all thinking and doesn’t want to stand up. I found that quite refreshing, because Marvel films are filled with scenes that might as well have been copied and pasted into each movie. This film actually pokes fun at that issue and gives an insight into the fact that Marvel knows its problems. Not only does that make this film more appealing to me, but it also makes me hopeful that future films won’t have the same problems we’ve encountered before.

via paninicomics.es

At points in this movie I found myself slightly annoyed by the fact that certain things weren’t being properly explained, and then at other moments I felt as though things were being force-fed to the audience, as if everyone was 10 years old. I never understand why a writer would make a character narrate what’s happening on screen in conversation, because we aren’t that stupid, we can see the screen and process basic information. If someone is too stupid to understand what’s going on then they can go on Wikipedia when they get home and look up the story, don’t take everyone else out of the film.

Nevertheless, it is annoying when a scene leaves you with an unanswered question, because for the next five minutes all you are doing is thinking of different possibilities for why a certain character is acting as they are. (SPOILER ALERT) – A perfect example of this was when the leader of the Nova Corps and her team were watching the destruction of their city via a hologram. There was no indication as to where they might be watching the hologram from, so we were left to assume that they too were in the city, yet they didn’t act threatened in any way. Everyone else in the city was running from debris, desperately trying to survive, and yet these individuals were comfortable enough to stand still and twiddle their thumbs, watching the show. This left me with three possibilities:

1) The place in which they were hiding was protected by some kind of force field, meaning that they were incredibly selfish not to open the doors and let the occasional citizen in.

2) The place in which they were hiding was not in the same area as the destruction.

3) They were simply lucky enough to stay safe when they were actually being very careless and really should’ve died.

None of those choices are in any way satisfactory and what they were doing just didn’t make sense! It wasn’t a massive scene and I doubt that many people in the cinema cared enough about those characters to give it a second thought, but you can’t simply ignore the problem and cut back to our heroes fighting Ronan, you have a serious issue on your hands which needs to be addressed!

via screenrant.com

(SPOILER ALERT – AGAIN) The final problem I had with the film was the scene in which Quill decided to save Gamora by putting his mask on her face (in the middle of space). I don’t have a problem with believing that he would do that, or the fact that it allowed her to breathe, but I do have a problem with his stupidity in doing it. The reason that he couldn’t just put her in his pod was that there wasn’t enough room for two people, and it was also said that the pod wasn’t designed to go as far into space as he had taken it. However… he had rocket boots. Boots which not all that long ago allowed him to fly into a spaceship in order to escape a prison. I can only assume that he didn’t use them because they too weren’t designed to go that far into space, or, he wouldn’t have been able to get back to solid ground using them, but without a clear explanation I just felt a bit let down by the scene.

“Guardians of the Galaxy” was a good movie, but it was a GREAT Marvel movie. The life has been sucked out of the superhero genre since the brilliant “Dark Knight” films, with movies like “The Amazing Spiderman 2” and “The Avengers” being churned out for profit without any soul or care, but this film has brought the genre back from the brink. It’s not without its issues, but nor is any film, and there are moments in this movie which more than make up for any negatives (particularly when Groot is trying to explain himself to the others or when Star-Lord decides it’s time to dance). “Guardians of the Galaxy” will appeal to all ages, with rich characters, a great soundtrack, good special effects and real humour, it is definitely worth seeing and deserves its success.

8/10