Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

Tags

Avengers: Infinity War, Baby Groot, Black Panther, Bradley Cooper, Chris Pratt, Comedy, Dave Bautista, Drax, Ego, Film, Film Review, Gamora, Groot, Guardians of the Galaxy, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, James Gunn, Josh Brolin, Karen Gillan, Kurt Russell, Mantis, Marvel, Marvel Cinematic Universe, Michael Rooker, Movie, Movie Review, Nebula, Peter Quill, Pom Klementieff, Rocket, Space, Spider-Man, Spider-Man: Homecoming, Star-Lord, Superhero, Superhero Movie, Thanos, The Avengers, Thor: Ragnarok, Vin Diesel, Yondu, Zoe Saldana

via flickr.com

“Guardians of the Galaxy” was a cultural phenomenon back in 2014, with a slew of interesting characters, a great soundtrack which helped to entice a wider audience, and a sharp script. It was a merchandise-machine churning out CD’s, Pop figurines, and t-shirts by the boatload, and it catapulted the careers of Chris Pratt and Dave Bautista to heights that even they probably didn’t expect before its release. So, how on earth was a sequel ever going to live up to the hype?

With this film James Gunn faced the almost impossible task of producing the same refreshing feeling that the original evoked without making changes to a winning formula; to balance comedy, action, and character development, whilst continuing to flesh out the movie’s world and protect the wider interests of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Unfortunately, in my opinion this juggling act of tone and story failed to live up to the high standards that the original film set, and although this wasn’t a surprise I still found myself feeling frustrated when the end credits began to roll.

via unionemonregalese.it

By all accounts “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” is not a terrible movie, but in many ways it’s a movie which feels unnecessary and fails to capture the imagination. Given the fact that James Gunn has an entire galaxy to play with and a set of already interesting and established characters it’s disappointing that for the most part this story takes place either within the interior of a spaceship or on a planet that isn’t explored in a meaningful way, and personally I couldn’t escape the feeling that more could’ve been done.

You could say that this is a result of the fact that “Vol. 2” is a character-driven movie; after all, it’s a story which at its core revolves around family dynamics and overcoming your past. There’s the dynamic between the Guardians themselves and how Rocket (Bradley Cooper) feels undervalued now that Groot (Vin Diesel) isn’t an equal companion, the exploration of the fractured relationship between Nebula (Karen Gillan) and Gamora (Zoe Saldana), and most importantly the relationship between Quill (Chris Pratt) and his estranged father, Ego (Kurt Russell).  However, if you want to explain this film’s failings when it comes to its world-building by appealing to a focus on character development then you’re going to have to explain why nothing was achieved on that front.

via superherohype.com

In my opinion this film was a step backwards for many of its main characters, particularly Rocket who became less sympathetic and much more annoying. In “Guardians” we empathised with Rocket because he had been mistreated and abused, and it was clear that his aggression was a way of lashing out at the society which made him feel like vermin. This was amplified by the fact that Rocket was experimented on and didn’t ask to be the way that he was made, because this as a concept is something that a lot of people can relate to.

As such, it made no sense from my perspective to position Rocket as a character who felt undervalued by the rest of the Guardians in “Vol. 2”, even though his relationship with Groot was significantly changed, because the events of the first film lead to the audience and the rest of the Guardians already accepting him for who he was. The time that Gunn spent making Rocket less likeable in this film should’ve been spent either on a different subplot which afforded us a chance to see more of the galaxy, or on Ego’s planet with characters like Drax (Dave Bautista) and Mantis (Pom Klementieff), as their scenes together were very entertaining and provided extra insight into their characters.

via moviepilot.com

Beyond specific issues I had with this film’s narrative and the way that characters were treated, the most jarring aspect of it for me was that it didn’t feel necessary. The only thing that “Vol. 2” achieved was to tell us who Star-Lord’s father was, and ultimately I don’t feel as though making that discovery significantly changed anything going forward. The wider ramifications for the MCU were minimal at best, with Thanos (Josh Brolin) only being mentioned in passing and Ego’s plan failing with little consequence when considered alongside the chaos that occurs in “Avengers” movies.

“Guardians” was a law unto itself – it worked in isolation and the best thing about it was that it felt new and exciting without the need for cameos or a barrage of Easter Eggs. However, “Guardians” also properly introduced Thanos into the MCU, and with “Infinity War” on the horizon it was hard to accept such a disconnection from everything else that Marvel is doing right now. There was clear continuity from the first film to the second film as you would expect from any sequel, but there wasn’t a conscious effort made to plant the seeds of what comes next, other than an after-credits scene which teased Adam Warlock. Obviously the pieces will come together in films such as “Thor: Ragnarok”, “Spider-Man: Homecoming”, and “Black Panther”, but that doesn’t change the fact that this film felt too isolated from the rest of the MCU to be taken seriously in the current superhero movie landscape.

via vfxblogsite.files.wordress.com

Nevertheless, despite the tone of this review so far I think it’s only fair to mention that the comedy in “Vol. 2” was fantastic (for the most part). I don’t think that this film was quite as successful on that front as the original was, simply because a lot of the jokes feel derivative given that they’re building on what characters said and did in that film, but I still found myself laughing a lot more than I usually do when I’m at the cinema. Gunn clearly knows what he’s doing when it comes to comedic dialogue and one-liners, and despite a drop in quality from the first film to the sequel the tone is consistent throughout.

Once again the performances were good across the board, and I definitely look forward to seeing the Guardians in “Infinity War”. The issues I had with this film weren’t the result of what the actors did or how they handled their characters, they were more to do with the direction of the film and the story, which I felt was unambitious and remarkably dull.

The only performance that I would question was Chris Pratt’s, because although I think he’s brilliant he didn’t really work well with Kurt Russell in my opinion. The two didn’t have a lot of chemistry on screen together and they didn’t feel like father and son at all. This could’ve made sense because they were estranged, but Pratt played it as though his character was excited and relieved to have finally met his father when he was speaking to supporting characters like Gamora, yet was understated in his enthusiasm when they were together. This could be an issue with direction, or you could place the blame on Russell because he was the newcomer to the series, but from my perspective there was something off about Chris Pratt’s performance in this film.

via denofgeek.com

So, on the whole “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” was a disappointment. It’s important to understand that whilst my critical opinion of the film isn’t particularly favourable I still had an okay time watching it. As a film taken in complete isolation there’s no one aspect of it that makes it a bad movie – the cinematography, the effects, the performances (mostly), the writing, and the direction are all fine and in some cases great! The problem is that it didn’t live up to the original, (which in all honesty I didn’t think it would), and it didn’t offer anything new to its legion of fans. To me it felt like a copy-and-paste sequel which lacked ambition and hampered its characters, so although it was polished and undoubtedly funny it left a sour taste in my mouth.

6/10

My Favourite Films of 2016

Tags

10 Cloverfield Lane, Adam McKay, Alien Invasion, Aliens, Amy Adams, Anna Kendrick, Anomalisa, Anton Yelchin, Arrival, Ben Affleck, Best Animated Film, Best Picture, Brie Larson, Charlie Kaufman, Christian Bale, Cinema, Cloverfield, Comedy, Comic Book Movie, Comics, Dan Trachtenberg, Dave Johns, David Thewlis, Deadpool, Django Unchained, Don't Breathe, Emma Donoghue, Film, Games, Goodnight Mommy, Green Room, Hardcore Henry, Horror, Hunt for the Wilderpeople, I Daniel Blake, Imogen Poots, Jacob Tremblay, Jake Gyllenhaal, Jeremy Renner, John Goodman, Julian Dennison, Kill Bill, Mark Ruffalo, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Michael Keaton, Morena Baccarin, Movie Review, Nocturnal Animals, Patrick Stewart, Psychological Horror, Pulp Fiction, Quentin Tarantino, Rachel McAdams, Reservoir Dogs, Room, Ryan Gosling, Ryan Reynolds, Samuel L. Jackson, Sausage Party, Space, Spotlight, Stanley Tucci, Steve Carell, Stop-Motion, Superhero, Superhero Movies, Taika Waititi, The Accountant, The Big Short, The Hateful Eight, The Oscars, Thriller, Violence, Wade Wilson, What We Do in the Shadows

via screencrush.com

2016 was an exceptional year for film. The level of quality was so high that I’ve decided to extend my list from 10 films to 15, and even so there are a couple of absentees such as “Sausage Party” and “Don’t Breathe” that I was very tempted to add.

My favourite films of the year will appear on this list in ascending order from the ones that I liked a lot to the ones that I liked the most. If you think that I’ve missed out any exceptional films then please feel free to comment with the ones that you think should appear – you may recommend something that I end up loving! Otherwise, please read and enjoy!

15. Hardcore Henry

via comingsoon.net

“Hardcore Henry” captures everything that’s good about the action genre and crams it into 90 minutes. It’s an adventure that feels so much larger than life that it could never possibly happen, yet the first-person camera allows the audience to experience the action through their own eyes much like they would if they were playing a video game.

The similarities between how this film is presented and how a first-person shooter would be presented are undeniable, and even someone like my dad who doesn’t actually play video games immediately mentioned that “Hardcore Henry” reminded him of that medium. As such this film isn’t particularly pretty; much of it passes by in a blur just as it would if it were happening to you in real life, as quick movements by the leading man result in disorientation and a lack of camera focus. This might prove challenging for some, and as such I wouldn’t recommend this movie to absolutely everyone, but I thought that it worked for the most part and felt like a natural extension of the found footage genre.

The film’s biggest shortcoming is undoubtedly its story, which feels as though it belongs in a game more than it does on the big screen, but this doesn’t ruin the movie as a whole. It’s not that the story isn’t clear throughout or that it doesn’t feature prominently, it’s just that it acts as a vehicle for the action rather than the main attraction, and you’re never really able to care about the hero or the villain because the natural association to video games neutralises any sense of danger. It’s simply impossible to become invested in the way that would be required to make the story feel worthwhile because other aspects of the film take centre stage and push it to one side.

Nevertheless, from start to finish this film is pure entertainment and if you like gore and well-choreographed action set pieces then there’s no reason that you can’t enjoy it for what it is.

“Hardcore Henry” isn’t a film for cinema purists, but in my opinion it encapsulates everything that a film of this ilk should be; funny, violent, and visually captivating, it’s escapism at its finest.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/hardcore-henry/

14. The Accountant

via moviehole.net

Like “Hardcore Henry”, “The Accountant” is an entertaining film that’s fun to watch from start to finish but isn’t always intelligent. That isn’t to say that its story is lacking in any meaningful way or that it’s a simple blockbuster, but in order to buy into what’s happening on screen you often have to rely on the suspension of disbelief. I’m fine with this provided that the film in question is able to retain my attention and keep me invested in its characters, so whilst I don’t think this film’s story is particularly ground-breaking I was very happy once I’d left the cinema.

Affleck’s lead performance was the standout feature of the film as his comedic timing made what could’ve been a clichéd action movie feel more like a nuanced black comedy, and his mannerisms made his character undeniably likeable throughout.

Whether or not you’ll have an affinity for this film depends on whether or not you can become invested in the story that it presents, and this is something which could prove to be problematic for some viewers as there are parts that fall flat and unintentionally muddy the waters, but in my opinion it’s a nice movie with a couple of standout moments that elevate it towards being fantastic.

Perhaps if the story had been tighter and less reliant on convenience then “The Accountant” would’ve placed higher on this list, but even so from my perspective the positive aspects comfortably outweigh the negatives.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/the-accountant/

13. 10 Cloverfield Lane

via variety.com

I love psychological horror, and whilst this film is a little bit tame to confidently place within that genre, it packs everything that’s great about it into its 104 minute runtime.

“10 Cloverfield Lane” is at its most effective in its quieter moments as the audience is left alone to wonder what’s really going on both within the underground bunker and beyond its walls. John Goodman’s powerful performance makes Howard (his character) the focus of attention, with his true intentions being the main source of horror in the film. Goodman provides a sense of unease to every scene that he’s in, even when he’s not losing his mind over the smallest of discourtesies, and it’s because of his performance that this movie works so well.

As the audience you never really know what to think about Howard, and because Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s performance as Michelle is also perfectly considered you can easily buy into what she’s feeling and empathise with her situation.

The only real issue I had with “10 Cloverfield Lane” was that for all of its tension there wasn’t what I would call a significant payoff. Being part of the “Cloverfield” series was both a blessing and a curse for Dan Trachtenberg and his team, because whilst the film gained exposure through its title it also became predictable as a result of it.

The performances and the pacing of the film made it a fun watch and kept you guessing, but once the back and forth was over there was nothing left. Anyone who has seen “Cloverfield” had a reasonably good idea of what kind of disaster was waiting outside, and whilst this didn’t devalue the middle section of the film it did make the ending rather stale. More time spent in the bunker and an ambiguous ending could’ve made “10 Cloverfield Lane” a ten out of ten film, but what we ended up getting was a measured, powerful, and thoughtful film which was robbed of greatness by unfortunate limitations. I still loved it, but it could have placed much higher on the list.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/03/24/10-cloverfield-lane/

12. Nocturnal Animals

via gq.com

“Nocturnal Animals” is one of the more recent releases on this list and it’s also one of the hardest to place. I really liked this movie, more than I expected to going in, and the more that I think about it the more that I want to watch it again.

It plays out like a dream within a dream as Susan (played by Amy Adams) imagines the events of a novel written by her ex-husband, Edward (played by Jake Gyllenhaal), whilst we as the audience watch her deal with the feelings that the story evokes. The novel as it plays out on screen is compelling in itself, even though we know that it doesn’t directly effect anything that’s happening in the film’s depiction of the real world. The novel is just a narrative within the narrative; yet in virtue of the fact that the story being told is about loss and revenge I couldn’t help but become invested in everything that was happening on screen.

I was so invested in the story taking place within the story that its purpose escaped me at various points in the film, making the ending all the more impactful when the credits rolled. The events that occur in Edward’s novel are ‘for Susan’, and the novel is actually an allegory for their marriage and the way that he felt when it came to an end. The novel is designed to emotionally manipulate Susan and validate Edward’s career as a writer at the same time, and this all becomes wonderfully clear when the movie ends.

As I said in my original review, “Nocturnal Animals” is a wonderfully realised revenge film on two fronts. Edward’s book is a tale of revenge in itself but there’s also a calculated act of vengeance taking place in the real world as Edward emotionally torments Susan, and thus it works incredibly well.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/11/21/nocturnal-animals/

11. The Big Short

via screenprism.com

I gave “The Big Short” a rave review back when it came out at the start of the year, and at the time I thought that it had a great chance of winning the Oscar for Best Picture. I thought that it was a very well-written take on a relevant event in our recent history, and I was also impressed by the performances of ensemble cast, but whilst that opinion remains I’m not as high on the film as I was back in January.

The thing that I liked the most about this film was that it didn’t try to force-feed information to its audience in order to get the story going, or at the very least it didn’t try to hide important exposition within conversation. This might’ve meant that for some viewers the film wasn’t instantly accessible, but personally I found it quite refreshing. I didn’t feel as though anything was being dumbed down for the sake of making the film easier to consume, and it seemed as though there was a conscious effort on the part of the writers to explain things in as interesting a way as possible without watering down the content, which I feel is far too rare in film.

Adam McKay used his background in comedy to inject a sense of playfulness into the film when explaining difficult concepts, and thus he made moments in which the audience had to learn technical jargon stimulating when in less capable hands they could’ve been incredibly dull. I can imagine a version of this movie in which extended periods of time are spent on one character explaining the ins and outs of subprime mortgages to another character for no other reason than to clue the audience in, and I think it’s safe to say that that version of this film would not have been nominated for an Oscar.

Overall I’d say that what I liked the most about “The Big Short” was that it was smart and confidently executed. It’s a superb film and the director’s vision feels as though it was realised almost perfectly. The only reason that it doesn’t place higher on this list is that having watched it again and watched many of the films on this list multiple times, I don’t think it’s as entertaining as those films which I’ve placed above it.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/01/28/the-big-short/

10. Green Room

via indiewire.com

“Green Room” is vicious, relentless, aggressive, and shocking. When I wrote my review on this film I described it as honest and that’s exactly what it is. Violence is violent. Pain is painful. Death is quick, brutal, and inevitable.

I wouldn’t describe “Green Room” as a movie for the masses, but from my perspective it’s one of the more realistic and grounded stories of its kind, and if you’re unfazed by graphic violence then it’s also a lot of fun. I’m sure that it would be seen as overly graphic by some, but it was completely palatable for me and I loved the film’s slow build towards a hectic finish. I enjoyed the pacing, the performances, and the overall cinematography, and having watched it again since its release I can say with confidence that it’s better the second time around.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/green-room/

9. Spotlight

via theodysseyonline.com

When “Spotlight” came out it received positive reviews and a lot of Oscar buzz, and as we now know it ended up taking home the big prize at this year’s ceremony. However, upon seeing it I have to admit that I was a little disappointed. I liked it and I thought that the performances were all admirable, but there was something about the approach it took to its narrative that I wasn’t overly enamoured by.

In my review of the film I described it as procedural, in that rather than focusing on the emotional aspect of a very troubling narrative it chose to cast its eye on the way that the story was handled by the news team charged with covering it. This is an unusual way to tackle such an easy to milk topic, and it was one which I found hard to get to grips with on my first watch. I don’t know if perhaps my expectations were slightly high because of the reviews that the film was getting, or if maybe the trailer was a little misleading, but something about the film managed to underwhelm me.

However, after watching it again my opinion has changed quite drastically. I still don’t think that it should have taken home the Oscar for Best Picture, but having now watched the film knowing exactly what to expect I can appreciate what the writers were going for and enjoy the way that the narrative progresses in a way that I wasn’t able to before. The story of how a news team researches, writes, and then reveals such a delicate story is one that is more than worth telling, and this is one of the few instances where a film being inspired by true events really does make it that much more effective.

“Spotlight” isn’t a flashy film, so if you’re expecting fireworks going in then you’re going to be disappointed when things don’t go bang. On the other hand, if you approach the material with an open mind and understand its purpose then it becomes much more interesting and worthwhile. On second viewing I enjoyed “Spotlight” a lot more than I did the first time around, and that’s something that I can’t say for many of the films on this list, which is why it ranks so highly.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/02/06/spotlight/

8. Hunt for the Wilderpeople

via teasertrailer.com

It seems as though “Hunt for the Wilderpeople” disappeared from cinemas almost immediately after its release earlier this year, which is a crying shame considering its undeniable quality and wonderful sense of humour. As far as straight-up comedies go this one was easily my favourite of the year, and it’s just a shame that more people couldn’t have experienced it in cinemas.

Still, it’s now on Netflix along with director Taika Waititi’s “What We Do in the Shadows”, which is arguably as good if not better than this film, so it’s definitely worth watching if you get the chance.

The film revolves around Ricky Baker (Julian Dennison), a teenage boy struggling with life having been dubbed a “bad egg” by child services. The story behind the story is emotional and tragic, but for the most part Ricky’s background is used for comedic effect, and he often references darker moments in his past with a childlike disinterest. This disinterest serves the character and the film’s tone well, but it would be unfair to say that the narrative is devoid of genuine emotion or sadness. It’s clear that when Ricky speaks about his past his foster father is taking it all in and growing in affection for the boy, and we quickly pick up on the fact that Ricky is labelled as a “bad egg” because he’s acting out given that most of the people in his life have either died or neglected him.

This provides the background behind the hijinks that make this film as humorous as it is, as Ricky runs off into the Australian Outback sparking a terribly organised manhunt. Again, I wouldn’t recommend “Hunt for the Wilderpeople” to everyone, because this type of comedy won’t resonate in the same way with others as it does for me, but if you like the sound of an overweight child reciting explicit haikus to a grumpy old man whilst trying to evade child services then this film is for you!

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/hunt-for-the-wilderpeople/

7. The Hateful Eight

via theodysseyonline.com

Quentin Tarantino tells a story like no one else. The dialogue in his movies is distinct in both its delivery and its style, and from the moment that one of his films starts you know exactly what tone he’s going for. Expletives punctuate every sentence and violent death is played for comedic effect in spite of how ugly it may be, and everything is just so refreshing throughout.

If nothing else Tarantino’s films are engaging provided that you’re willing to pay attention. “The Hateful Eight” is probably the most dialogue-heavy film that Tarantino has made to date, so if you aren’t willing to sit back and listen then you aren’t going to enjoy this movie. However, if you are then you should be able to appreciate the fact that Tarantino makes exposition more entertaining than any other filmmaker, and that this film is as polished as any of his previous endeavours.

Similarly to “Reservoir Dogs” this film takes place almost entirely in one location, using an ensemble cast to make motivations unclear and generate tension without the need for excessive action on screen. It’s a slow burn but you always feel ready for things to go south, and when they do it’s both humorous and violent, making you laugh and wince at the same time. If you love Tarantino’s movies then this is exactly what you want going in, and I think it’s fair to say that any fan of “Pulp Fiction”, “Django Unchained”, “Kill Bill”, etc., will enjoy this film from the first minute to the last.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/the-hateful-eight/

6. I, Daniel Blake

via thr.com

“I, Daniel Blake” is a soul-crushing film in the best kind of way. It makes you question the established order and re-evaluate your feelings towards people who are struggling around you. It takes the prejudices of society and turns them on their head, demonstrating how the unemployed in Britain are hampered by a system which is set up to help those who know how to exploit it rather than those who need it the most.

Daniel (played by Dave Johns) is a widower who has suffered a heart attack on the job and has been deemed unfit to work by his doctor, yet he is denied the help that he needs from the government and instead has to apply for Job Seekers Allowance despite the fact that he can’t actually take a job without endangering his life. We watch as he tries to do everything that’s required of him in order to get the money that he needs to survive, whilst also failing to meet the demands placed on him by the Job Centre due to his inability to handle modern technology. Nobody is willing to help Daniel despite the fact that the issues that he’s having could easily be resolved with the proper guidance, and he’s treated like a nuisance despite his best intentions.

“I, Daniel Blake” is a grim but exceptionally good film. As someone who has been unemployed for a long stretch of time and who has also worked in customer services, I can say with certainty that the barriers that are put in place to stop people accessing the help that they need in this film are completely accurate, and also completely ridiculous. As such, “I, Daniel Blake” is simultaneously beautiful and despicable; casting a light on just how broken the world is, and on how we systematically fail to treat people with the respect that they deserve on a daily basis.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/11/04/i-daniel-blake/

5. Arrival

via collider.com

“Arrival” takes what I would call the traditional alien invasion movie formula and throws it out of the window, focusing on the communication barriers that stop us from coming together in the face of disaster rather than on how we could fight back against an extra-terrestrial aggressor.

It’s a time consuming and deliberate approach which may not appeal to all cinemagoers, but it’s one that makes this film feel utterly unique. It makes the idea of an alien invasion seem almost plausible by approaching its concept with a scientific eye, which makes it more engaging to watch than any blockbuster could ever be.

The film’s pacing allows the audience to come to their own conclusions and add to the mystery behind the narrative, which in turn creates tension without the need to present conflict on screen and gives the film a technical feel. It grounds the movie with a sense of realism that it has no right to have and gives it an urgent, foreboding tone.

It’s an interesting take on a genre which has been explored many times before, and it was one of the most visually striking movies that I saw this year. It’s a focused and intelligent film with a clear narrative thread, and the understated performances of Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner make for a captivating experience.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/11/16/arrival/

4. Goodnight Mommy

via youtube.com

“Goodnight Mommy” is an Austrian horror film about twins whose mother comes home from the hospital with a face full of bandages after an undisclosed accident – do I really need to explain why I love this movie?

As a fan of the horror genre and a twin myself I made it my mission to see this movie, and I even dragged my dad along with me. What we saw was a harrowing but ingenious film carried by two exemplary performances from real life twins Elias and Lukas Schwarz, and a story which was perfectly paced and wonderfully twisted. In no way does “Goodnight Mommy” rely on jump scares in order to unsettle its audience, instead it uses silence and children’s laughter to create an eerie and almost idyllic tone, interspersed with moments of tension within the family dynamic as ‘The Mother’ is incredibly tired and quick to temper due to the struggle that is her recovery.

The real meat of the story doesn’t take place until the closing moments, at which point the writers take the film from first gear straight into fifth in a chaotic explosion of grief and denial. This ending is measured and carefully presented so as to allow you to empathise with every character whilst also hoping out of curiosity that the worst will happen, capping off what is an almost faultless film.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/03/11/goodnight-mommy/

3. Anomalisa

via youtube.com

Upon its release “Anomalisa” was called the most human film of the year, and although this was a slightly superficial tagline, it still rings true today.

Essentially this is the story of a man going through a mid-life crisis, and although it’s an inventive and insightful take on its subject matter it’s actually very simple in its execution. The majority of the movie takes place in the Fregoli hotel and in truth not a lot happens on screen. There’s nothing grandiose about the narrative, no significant twists or turns to propel the film towards greatness, just puppets created by 3D printers and the genius of Charlie Kaufman.

“Anomalisa” achieves excellence through charm, clarity, and intelligence. Through the medium of stop-motion Kaufman and co. are able to portray true human emotion as they are unstifled by the intricacies of an actor’s performance. As such the characters’ mannerisms are accurate and honest throughout, making the internal struggle of Michael (voiced by David Thewlis) in particular abundantly clear and allowing the audience to empathise with him as a result.

I’ve seen plenty of animated films in the past year, but none of them were quite as endearing or thought-provoking as this one. “Anomalisa” is a masterpiece created by one of the best filmmakers alive today, and although its story is simple its examination of the human condition is a triumph.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/03/17/anomalisa/

2. Deadpool

via flickr.com

“Deadpool” is the second movie on this list that I paid to see twice at the cinema; it never stops being funny, no matter how many times I watch it, and although it can be vulgar at times I still think that the scenes between Wade (Ryan Reynolds) and Vanessa (Morena Baccarin) are as powerful as any in terms of raw emotion.

A lot of people treat “Deadpool” as either a comedy or a superhero movie when they talk about it, but I think that that kind of categorisation is unfair and does the film an injustice. “Deadpool” is a movie which would be entertaining even if we had no idea how to characterise a ‘super hero’. It’s a great action movie due to its well-choreographed fight sequences, witty one-liners, and commanding lead performance; a hilarious comedy with pitch perfect writing and excellent delivery, and a compelling love story with the two lead actors demonstrating genuine chemistry and warmth in their respective roles.

“Deadpool” is a near perfect movie and it just works. It feels as though it turned out exactly as intended and as though everyone was pulling in the same direction, and it treats its source material with respect. Not all of the jokes find their mark, but as I’ve said I don’t think that this movie should be treated solely as a comedy, and for each joke that doesn’t land there’s another that leaves you breathless with laughter.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/deadpool/

1. Room

via flickr.com

From the moment that I saw this film I knew that it would be at the top of this list. “Room” is a beautiful film, and it isn’t just one of my favourite movies of the year, it’s one of my favourite movies period. It made me feel regret, sorrow, sadness, and joy in equal measure, and despite the bleak reality of the situation there was a genuine sense of hope echoing throughout.

Jacob Tremblay’s performance was a revelation and his character’s obliviousness towards his own reality was heartbreaking and heartwarming at the same time. His rapport with Brie Larson was obvious throughout and both of them deserved the acclaim that they received for their performances.

There was something about this film that I found immensely captivating and emotional, and I came out of the cinema after seeing it with the urge to watch it again immediately. It’s a tragic film but it’s also uplifting because of the relationship between Jack (Tremblay) and Joy (Larson); it would be easy to think of Room as Jack’s world because it’s all that he knows, and to him it’s all that there is, but really his world is his mother. She’s the only person that matters to him and he doesn’t need anyone else, and it’s this bond that makes “Room” as emotional as it is.

In my opinion, “Room” is everything that a film should be. It’s insightful but tells a contained story, it’s performed amazingly, it’s well-directed, and most importantly it’s wonderfully written which I’m sure is down in no small part to Emma Donoghue’s book of the same name; I just don’t see any kind of flaw in the entire movie. Clearly I would recommend this film to just about anyone and it’s one that I’ve watched many times since its release, and although I enjoyed every film on this list “Room” sits comfortably above them all as my favourite of 2016.

https://benjaminwhittaker.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/room/

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

Tags

Cinema, Darth Vader, Episode VIII, Felicity Jones, Film, Movie, Movie Review, Rogue One, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Science Fiction, Space, Star Wars, The Death Star

via youtube.com

“Rogue One” is a well-shot movie which has its place in a binge of the “Star Wars” franchise, but personally I wouldn’t choose to watch it again. As someone who was never really bit by the “Star Wars” bug I found it hard to fall in love with this movie. To me it felt like this film was aimed at the existing audience rather than general moviegoers despite the fact that it was promoted as a new story, and without a pre-existing affection for the series I found the subpar acting extremely hard to swallow. The fact that the story makes sense of plot holes from the original trilogy does improve the movie as a whole because it makes it feel worthwhile, but it doesn’t hide the fact that “Rogue One” only exists to keep the merchandise bandwagon rolling until Episode VIII comes out.

My biggest gripe with this film is that almost everyone watching knows that the characters are going to succeed in their efforts to steal the plans for the Death Star. Of course, knowing how a story is going to finish doesn’t necessarily devalue that story as a whole, but it did mean that I struggled to become immersed in the experience on this occasion.

Without the pull of top quality acting or an unclear conclusion I was consumed by a feeling of indifference, and I couldn’t bring myself to care about the characters despite the fact that the stakes were admittedly high. These factors led to my complete lack of interest in anything that was happening on screen, and ultimately made the film feel hollow and pointless from my perspective.

via indiewire.com

I’d have much preferred a story which was set within the “Star Wars” universe but was also disconnected from the original trilogy, the prequels, or the new ongoing trilogy, as this would’ve meant that I could judge the characters based on their personalities rather than in virtue of their importance to stories that I’ve already seen play out. A film of this ilk would’ve given me something fresh to enjoy, rather than providing me with the same experience I’ve already had except with worse acting and a less interesting story.

This last point is contentious because for many the fact that this film is able to make sense of the Death Star’s fundamental structural flaw is enough to make its story both necessary and compelling. However, if we’re being cynical then it seems obvious that resolving problems within the overarching narrative is a convenient excuse to cash in on a franchise which carries serious name value. I admit that this excuse is a clever one, but the series would’ve thrived without any alterations.

Moreover, this film’s ability to tie things together from the original series doesn’t actually make it a better standalone film; in fact, part of me wonders if the writing was made easier by how clear the ending must have been from the moment the idea was pitched, after all, the majority of the characters in this film mysteriously don’t appear in the original trilogy!

via StarWars.com

The only real work “Rogue One” had to do was to explain why the Death Star was fatally flawed because we already know how the plans for the Death Star were passed on. People have lived without that information for decades, so it seems ludicrous to suggest that we needed this movie. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that “Rogue One” is terrible in any way, shape, or form. There’s plenty to like about it such as well-choreographed action sequences, entertaining cameos, and impressive visuals, but it could’ve been a lot better.

Overall, I think that “Rogue One” is an average film masquerading as a masterpiece. Take away the cameos and the fan service and you’re left with a paint-by-numbers movie with a direct-to-DVD cast. It works fine as a stop gap to whet the appetite prior to Episode VIII’s release, but it isn’t a great film in its own right.

6/10

The Oscars 2016 Predictions

Tags

45 Years, Academy Awards, Adam McKay, Alejandro G. Inarritu, Alicia Vikander, Anchorman, Animation, Anomalisa, Artificial Intelligence, Batman, Best Actor, Best Actor In A Leading Role, Best Actress In A Leading Role, Best Animated Film, Best Director, Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Big Hero 6, Birdman, Boy & the World, Bridge of Spies, Brie Larson, Brooklyn, Bryan Cranston, Carol, Cate Blanchett, Charlie Kaufman, Charlotte Rampling, Christian Bale, Cinema, Cinematography, Comedy, Concussion, Corey Hawkins, Creed, Dexter, Disney, Diversity, Dr. Dre, Drama, Eddie Redmayne, Editing, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Ex Machina, Film, Fox, George Miller, Her, Horror, Inside Out, J. J. Abrams, Jacob Tremblay, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jennifer Lawrence, Jim Carrey, Journalism, Joy, Kate Winslet, Kirsten Dunst, Lady Macbeth, Lenny Abrahamson, Leonardo DiCaprio, Macbeth, Mad Max, Mad Max Fury Road, Marion Cotillard, Mark Ruffalo, Mark Rylance, Matt Damon, Michael Fassbender, Michael Keaton, Movie Review, O'Shea Jackson Jr., Pixar, Pulitzer Prize, Quentin Tarantino, Rachel McAdams, Rambo, Rap, Ridley Scott, Rocky, Rocky Balboa, Room, Rooney Mara, Saoirse Ronan, Sci-Fi, Shaun the Sheep, Shaun the Sheep Movie, Side Effects, Sky, Sky Anytime, Sound Mixing, Space, Special Effects, Spotlight, Star Wars, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Steve Jobs, Stop-Motion, Straight Outta Compton, Sylvester Stallone, The Big Short, The Danish Girl, The Gift, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, The Hateful Eight, The Martian, The Oscars, The Oscars 2016, The Revenant, Thriller, Tom Hanks, Tom Hardy, Tom McCarthy, True Detective, Trumbo, UK, USA, When Marnie Was There, William Shakespeare

This year’s Oscars is a controversial affair. A lot of the talk surrounding the award ceremony has centred on a lack of diversity in both the films chosen and the voting panel, as films like “Creed”, “Concussion”, and “Straight Outta Compton” have been overlooked despite commercial and critical success. I’m not about to lose my temper over that issue or dwell on it too much, (although I do think that it’s slightly ridiculous that the Academy is predominantly made up of elderly white men), but at the same time I have to say that this is a very weak year.

Similarly to last year, I’m not going to waste time analysing every single category. I don’t have enough knowledge of things like editing or sound mixing to give an educated opinion, so to offer one would be both pointless and arrogant. Instead, I’m going to focus on the big awards that end up on the front of DVD boxes, and probably offer a cynical view or two.

Best Picture

Let’s kick things off with what I believe is one of the weakest categories at this year’s Academy Awards. Eight movies have been nominated for Best Picture this year, and in my opinion, only three of them deserve the recognition. “Room”, “The Big Short”, and “Spotlight” are all films that have a level of artistic quality worthy of the Oscars, whilst also being entertaining enough to interest mainstream audiences, which is why they deserve their place at the ceremony in my opinion.

My favourite of the three is “Room”, which I think is a wonderful movie, but I’d be happy if any of them won. The same can’t be said of the other five, although in the interest of fairness I should admit that I haven’t seen “Bridge of Spies” or “Brooklyn”.

From my perspective, “The Revenant” is ridiculously overrated, but the cinematography and the direction are top notch. Alejandro G. Iñárritu certainly knows what he’s doing, and the cast at his disposal is very impressive, so it isn’t exactly a surprise that “The Revenant” impressed what is a very predictable panel. I expect it to take home the award, but I have to say that I will be incredibly disappointed if it does.

I actually think that it would be a shame if “The Revenant” won Best Picture, because a lot of people will rate it on that basis and take for granted that it’s a great film, when in actual fact there’s a lot wrong with it. I haven’t met anyone who thought that it was exceptional, and in the group of people that I refer to when I say ‘anyone’ there’s a lot of variety. I’m talking about casual cinemagoers and extremely intelligent fans of film alike, so I really don’t like the fact that the Academy is speaking for what the rest of the world will believe is the majority by calling this film the best. It just isn’t; pure and simple.

“Mad Max: Fury Road” earns its spot for very similar reasons, because whilst I didn’t think it was an exceptional film, the cinematography, direction, and special effects were all pretty admirable. I do think that it’s a polarising film, with a lot of people loving it for its action and its quirkiness, and others just not getting it. I’m somewhere in between, because although I enjoyed how the movie was filmed, I really wasn’t that enamoured by the story. I thought that the positive aspects definitely could’ve been preserved whilst making the story a lot more exciting, but on the whole I did enjoy the experience, and I think it’s good that this kind of film can be nominated.

“The Martian” isn’t bad, but it didn’t deserve to be nominated, because we’ve seen this film ten times before but with more capable actors and a more interesting story. I suppose that the direction was good, as was the cinematography, but that’s about it. The fact that the Academy think that this movie deserves to be acknowledged after ignoring “Straight Outta Compton”, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens”, “Ex Machina”, “Macbeth”, “The Gift”, and “The Hateful Eight”, is an absolute disgrace. I don’t want to be overdramatic, but I honestly believe that there are filmmakers out there who deserve acknowledgement much more than the people involved in making this lacklustre movie.

With that out of the way, I’d like to take a moment to relax and imagine a world where the nominations for Best Picture are; “The Big Short”, “The Hateful Eight”, “Mad Max: Fury Road”, “Room”, “Spotlight”, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens”, “Straight Outta Compton”, and maybe “The Revenant”. A nice variety which celebrates quirky filmmakers like Tarantino, a wonderful franchise set in space, and the legacy of an influential rap group; whilst also enlightening the public about an earth-shattering Pulitzer prize winning journalistic investigation and America’s failing economy back in 2008/09. With “Mad Max” and “The Revenant” thrown in there too because the people behind the cameras did a good job, and everyone likes DiCaprio and Hardy. Peace in the world.

Nominees – The Big Short, Bridge of Spies, Brooklyn, Mad Max: Fury Road, The Martian, The Revenant, Room, Spotlight.

What I Think Will Win – The Revenant.

What I Want To Win – Room.

Directing

For me, this is probably the fairest category at this year’s awards. If I have one gripe it would be that J. J. Abrams didn’t get a nomination, because although “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” wasn’t really expected to win any Oscars, he did an incredible job in making it accessible to a wider audience whilst still pleasing die-hard fans. He also managed to maintain continuity, and create several avenues for the sequel, so in my opinion he deserved recognition.

I think that last year’s winner, Alejandro G. Iñárritu, did another great job with “The Revenant”. That might sound crazy because I don’t really like the film, but the performances, cinematography, sound, etc., are all good, and the director oversees those aspects.

I also think that Lenny Abrahamson did an incredible job with “Room” – I absolutely loved that movie, and he did a wonderful job of getting the best out of child-actor Jacob Tremblay. In my opinion, it should be between those two.

Nominees – Adam McKay (The Big Short), Alejandro G. Iñárritu (The Revenant), George Miller (Mad Max: Fury Road), Lenny Abrahamson (Room), Tom McCarthy (Spotlight).

Who I Think Will Win – Alejandro G. Iñárritu.

Who I Want To Win – Lenny Abrahamson.

Actor In A Leading Role

This, for me, is by far the most frustrating category. In my mind none of the nominees actually deserve their nominations, which is a crazy thing to be able to say.

Leonardo DiCaprio does better work than the competition, and I want him to win the award as much as the next person, but he doesn’t really do a lot. He crawls about a bit, wheezes, and whispers, but I’d back most actors to do what he did in “The Revenant”. He deserves to win an Oscar at some point, even if it ends up being the Lifetime Achievement award, because he is a great actor with a string of brilliant performances to his name, but I think it would be a real shame for him to win the award for what is one of his least memorable performances. It’s not that he’s bad in “The Revenant”, but he didn’t give the best performance of the year by a leading man.

Other actors nominated include Michael Fassbender and Matt Damon. Fassbender is an actor I really like, but in my opinion he’s been nominated for a performance that isn’t even his best this year! He’s fantastic in “Macbeth”, conveying an array of emotions and displaying an understanding of his character’s motivations, yet he’s been nominated for his performance in “Steve Jobs”; a film which most cinemagoers forgot immediately after leaving the theatre. I know that biopics are the voter’s favourite type of film, but surely they like Shakespeare too? I’d have thought that they would’ve nominated him for “Macbeth” on the basis of the trailer alone!

Damon is another actor who everybody knows can act, but it feels like he’s been nominated this year simply for turning up on set! Excuse my sarcasm, but he barely does anything in “The Martian”, and no one could ever convince me that he deserved a nomination. There are plenty of actors who I felt gave better performances than him this year, but because of his reputation and the fact that “The Martian” was directed by Ridley Scott, he got the nod!

Every lead actor in “Straight Outta Compton” had more to do and performed better than Damon did in “The Martian”, with O’Shea Jackson Jr. and Corey Hawkins really excelling as Ice Cube and Dr. Dre respectively. This is one of the big issues I have with the Academy and the aforementioned diversity issue, because I struggle to believe that a group of elderly white men can truly appreciate a movie about a rap group fighting against the system – mostly because it is a system that they were a part of! It’s crazy that a movie that was as brilliant as “Straight Outta Compton” was overlooked in so many categories, when it seems as though the panel was scraping the bottom of a very dull barrel.

I also feel that Jacob Tremblay should’ve been nominated, and that he should’ve won, because his performance is utterly outstanding considering his age and the issues that “Room” tackles. It’s very rare that a child-actor performs to an acceptable standard, so for Tremblay to be as likeable and considered as he is in “Room” is a revelation that should’ve been celebrated, rather than ignored.

So, it’s fair to say that I’m not a fan of the Academy’s nominations in this category, but if I had to choose the best of a bad bunch then I’d probably pick DiCaprio; although the cynical side of me has a suspicion that the category was made intentionally weak so that he could finally win… but don’t be quoting me if you have a conspiracy theory!

Nominees – Bryan Cranston (Trumbo), Eddie Redmayne (The Danish Girl), Matt Damon (The Martian), Michael Fassbender (Steve Jobs), Leonardo DiCaprio (The Revenant).

Who I Think Will Win – Leonardo DiCaprio.

Who I Want To Win – Leonardo DiCaprio.

Actress In A Leading Role

I’ve already admitted that I haven’t seen “Brooklyn”, the film for which Saoirse Ronan has been nominated, and I’m going to be honest here… I haven’t seen “Carol”. Neither “Carol” nor “Brooklyn” really appealed to me, and I actually thought that “Brooklyn” looked pretty terrible, so I’m not off to a good start in my predictions for this one.

I respect Cate Blanchett as an actress, and I think Saoirse Ronan is pretty good as well, so I believe people when they tell me that their performances are Oscar-worthy, but I still don’t feel inclined to find out for myself. At some point in the future I’ll probably make my own decision on whether or not they deserved to be nominated, (probably when “Carol” and “Brooklyn” appear on Sky Anytime and I have nothing else to watch), but for now I can’t make a case for either one of them.

A woman I can make a case for is Brie Larson, and because I’m a complete fanboy for “Room” I probably should. In my opinion, Larson is fantastic in “Room”. She’s incredibly believable as a damaged woman struggling to cope with freedom after living in captivity for seven years, and her charisma with co-star Jacob Tremblay is really sweet. She doesn’t put a foot wrong at any point in the movie, and she expresses herself in a beautifully sincere yet anguished way. She’s just brilliant, and I’m desperate for her to win!

Sadly, wishes rarely come true, and if I am honest with myself I don’t think she’ll take the award home. Not enough of a fuss has been made of “Room” as a movie, and I think the same can be said for the actors involved; a trend which I think will continue at this year’s Oscars ceremony.

Nevertheless, I’ll accept any winner other than Jennifer Lawrence, because “Joy” is an awful movie and there’s nothing special about her performance. She’s fine because she is a talented actress, but her performance isn’t good enough to save the film from mediocrity – how she has been nominated really is beyond belief.

Nominees – Brie Larson (Room), Cate Blanchett (Carol), Charlotte Rampling (45 Years), Jennifer Lawrence (Joy), Saoirse Ronan (Brooklyn).

Who I Think Will Win – Cate Blanchett.

Who I Want To Win – Brie Larson.

Actor In A Supporting Role

I have no massive issues with any of the nominations in this category, (other than Tom Hardy’s because he’s completely forgettable in “The Revenant”), but at the same time I don’t think that any of the actors involved gave an outstanding performance. When I think of an actor winning in this category, I think of someone who stole their film and gave a performance that was better than the leading man’s, but none of the actors nominated for this award achieved in that way.

Christian Bale is good-ish in “The Big Short”, but he isn’t really on screen very often, and the same can be said of Mark Ruffalo in “Spotlight”. Both actors are very capable and they rarely let a film down, but this year their performances weren’t exceptional in any way. They simply turned up and did what they do, but I don’t feel that they went above and beyond expectations.

I can’t really pick a winner from the category – it’s anyone’s game – but I hope that Sylvester Stallone gets the nod; he’s had a great career and he made some of my favourite childhood movies, so it would be nice to see him being acknowledged as a genuinely good actor. I think that the Academy might operate with a similar logic and give him the award, because they’re all at an age where they probably enjoyed “Rocky” and “Rambo”, and none of the other actors in the category really deserve it any more than him.

Nominees – Christian Bale (The Big Short), Mark Ruffalo (Spotlight), Mark Rylance (Bridge of Spies), Sylvester Stallone (Creed), Tom Hardy (The Revenant).

Who I Think Will Win – Sylvester Stallone.

Who I Want To Win – Sylvester Stallone.

Actress In A Supporting Role

Marion Cotillard should’ve won this award; it’s as simple as that. I count her as a supporting actress in “Macbeth” because that film is inherently about its titular character, and also because Lady Macbeth isn’t on screen very often, but I accept that whether or not she plays a supporting role is questionable. Nonetheless, when she does appear she’s absolutely awesome, giving one of the most haunting and captivating performances of the year. She’s an actress that the Academy really likes, so I am genuinely surprised that she didn’t get a nomination this year, but they didn’t get it right in any other category so I suppose they weren’t going to get it right in this one.

Having said that, I do rate every actress on this list pretty highly, and I’ll be fine with whoever wins the award. Rooney Mara is pretty great in everything I’ve ever seen her in; “Side Effects”, “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo”, and even “Her”, despite the fact that she’s only on screen for a few minutes. But, as I’ve said, I haven’t seen “Carol” yet, so I can’t make a case for her.

I thought that Rachel McAdams was pretty decent in “Spotlight”, and I do have a soft spot for her, so I’d be more than happy for her to win, but she doesn’t do any more than the other actresses who have been nominated.

I’m also a fan of Alicia Vikander, although it is early days in her career, and I thought that she was fantastic in “Ex Machina”. She was scarily believable as a robot pretending to be human, which can’t have been easy to pull off, so I think she could win an Oscar in the future. However, “The Danish Girl” wasn’t a film for me, and I don’t think that she deserves to win this award ahead of the other nominees.

Of all the actresses nominated in this category I would personally like Jennifer Jason Leigh to win, simply because she elevated “The Hateful Eight” to another level, which I don’t think the rest of these actresses did for their respective films. Of all the great actors in that film she gave the most memorable performance, which is saying a lot, and she really made the most of the brilliant dialogue that she was given.

Still, I think that Kate Winslet will win the award for Best Supporting Actress… because she’s Kate Winslet. In my opinion the Academy plays favourites, and Winslet is the biggest name on the list.

Nominees – Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl), Jennifer Jason Leigh (The Hateful Eight), Kate Winslet (Steve Jobs), Rachel McAdams (Spotlight), Rooney Mara (Carol). 

Who I Think Will Win – Kate Winslet.

Who I Want To Win – Jennifer Jason Leigh.

Best Animated Feature Film

Last, but not least, is the award for Best Animated Film. I have to confess that I’m a lot less invested in this category than I was last year, because in my opinion the films aren’t of the same calibre. I absolutely loved “Big Hero 6”, and I thought it was more than worthy of its Oscar win in 2015, but when I look at the 2016 nominees I just don’t see a movie at that level of quality.

“Anomalisa” is a film that may make me eat my words, because I really want to see it, but sadly it hasn’t been released in the UK yet, (it gets its release on March 11^th), so I don’t know whether or not it deserves to win the award. Charlie Kaufman (“Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”) is at the helm, which makes me think that it probably does, but it would be unfair of me to make that statement when I haven’t even seen the movie yet!

From a personal perspective, I would love to see the “Shaun the Sheep Movie” win an Oscar, because the novelty of that would be hilarious and actually quite heart-warming. In reality I don’t think that it will happen, but I’ve got my fingers crossed anyway.

In my opinion, “Inside Out” is the odds-on favourite to take home this award. I wouldn’t be completely happy with that outcome myself, because I don’t think that it’s as original as people make out, but it’s still a fun idea that’s pretty well executed.

Nominees – Anomalisa, Boy & the World, Inside Out, Shaun the Sheep Movie, When Marnie Was There.

What I Think Will Win – Inside Out.

Who I Want To Win – Shaun the Sheep Movie.

The Martian

Tags

Cinema, Film, Jessica Chastain, Kate Mara, Kristen Wiig, Mark Watney, Mars, Matt Damon, Michael Pena, Movie Review, NASA, Ridley Scott, Sean Bean, Space, The Martian, Water on Mars

via denofgeek.com

“The Martian” is a confused and ultimately mediocre film. Whilst it isn’t ‘bad’ by any stretch of the imagination, it never manages to elevate itself above being an average film with a good premise, to a great movie that goes above and beyond its initial idea.

The film is about Mark Watney (Matt Damon), an astronaut left stranded on Mars after he’s hit by debris during a serious storm. His team left him behind because they presumed that he was dead, given that he wasn’t responding to their calls and his body wasn’t visible in the darkness of the storm. After waking up alone and assessing the situation, Watney comes up with a plan to make life sustainable on the alien planet, using his botanist skills to create an artificial habitat in which to grow plant life. The film focuses on Watney as he attempts to make the best of his situation, but when he isn’t on screen we watch NASA as they do what they can to rescue him.

via foxmovies.com

The most surprising thing about “The Martian” is its sense of humour. The film constantly uses comedy to create a connection between the audience and Watney, and whilst the jokes do hit every now and again, the comedy meant that the tone was unclear and left Damon a bit short. Damon played a man staying positive in the face of adversity, so he made light of the crazy situation he was in, but that shouldn’t have been his entire character. It would’ve been possible to keep some of the jokes (which got old by the end) whilst also giving Damon the chance to portray the darker side of Watney’s isolation. He didn’t have any direct human contact for a substantial period of time, so I would’ve liked to see how this changed his personality, no matter how jovial a person he may have been before.

The personality that Watney was afforded was most often portrayed through the use of a video log, which Watney used to keep track of his day-to-day life on Mars. This video diary made the audience chuckle, as Watney said such lines as – ‘I’m going to have to science the shit out of this’ – but it was also painfully obvious that its place in the film was to provide exposition.

The video diary was used to inform the audience of many things, including Watney’s profession and the way that water can be artificially created; this was an intelligent way to put across important information, but when you realise what’s happening the diaries become quite annoying. I would’ve preferred if the film went one way or the other, putting across information subtly through items just in shot, or having Watney break the fourth wall and telling the audience everything directly. Either of these methods would’ve been less jarring than the use of the video diaries, and the latter would’ve still allowed for comedic moments.

via gamezone.com

Whilst Damon was decent in the film and had a lot of screen time, the ensemble cast wasn’t properly utilised in my opinion. Sean Bean had no place in the film and Kate Mara was completely wasted as her character was underdeveloped. Furthermore, in a film so focused on making its audience laugh, Kristen Wiig was pushed into the background, not once delivering a funny line. She’s one of the best comedy actresses in the world yet she never got the chance to show it.

I can’t help but feel like these small roles were meant for lesser-known actors who could adequately deliver their lines and then back off, so I have to wonder why Kristen Wiig, Kate Mara, Sean Bean, Michael Peña, and Jessica Chastain were cast at all. Rather than enhancing the quality of the film, their presence distracted me, given that they weren’t fully-formed characters and they are so recognisable. I feel like these great actors wanted to work with Ridley Scott, so they turned up on set for a few quick days of filming.

Overall, “The Martian” is an okay film, but it never quite reaches the level of quality that it aspires to. Ridley Scott is capable of making a spectacular movie, and the cast is amazing on paper, but sadly the end product just doesn’t make the grade. It drags on quite a bit and to say that Watney is on a volatile planet not congenial to human survival, he really doesn’t struggle as much as he should. Maybe he’s just that smart, but we have no idea what his background is or what his specific role was on the mission, so we can’t make that assessment. “The Martian” isn’t terrible, but there’s nothing particularly special about it, and I certainly wouldn’t recommend it.

6/10

The Theory of Everything

Tags

A Brief History of Time, Albatross, Best Actor, Best Picture, Biography, Biopic, Cinema, Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Film, Golden Globes, Jane Hawking, Les Miserables, Movie Review, Science, Space, Stephen Hawking, The Oscars, The Theory of Everything, The Universe, Time

via filmhoek.nl

Stephen Hawking is a brilliant scientist, he’s a man known in almost every household and his theories affect how we understand the universe, even if we don’t know that it was him that came up with the ideas we appeal to. However, what a lot of people don’t think about when Stephen Hawking is mentioned is that there was a time before he was famous, a time before his work was so influential, a time when he was just like everyone else.

“The Theory of Everything” wants you to realise that this man has gone through a hell of a lot in his lifetime, and his story is both triumphant and inspirational. There was a time when Stephen Hawking had to wake up in the morning, knowing that there would be a day in which he wouldn’t be able to walk, talk or even move, and yet he still had the courage to finish his PhD, raise three children and love his wife. This is an amazing story if ever there was one, and I am so glad that I took the time to see it told.

This is a biopic, so the only thing that you really need to know about the story is that it attempts to capture some of the most significant moments in Stephen Hawking’s life (as well as the life of his first wife, Jane, played by Felicity Jones). At the start of the movie I thought things were moving along slightly too quickly, because there were things I wanted to know, such as what Hawking’s relationship with his parents was like, but that’s just a testament to the achievements Stephen Hawking has made during his life.

via hbo.com

There wasn’t enough time in this movie to explore such things, because this is a romantic drama in its purest form, and in order to really develop the relationship between Stephen (played by Eddie Redmayne) and Jane, time had to be spent fleshing out their characters. That development paid off nicely; I was very impressed with the emotion that the two were able to create throughout the movie, and I have no real complaints about the direction this film took when chronicling the events of Hawking’s life.

The acting in “The Theory of Everything” is spectacular, and I’m so pleased that Eddie Redmayne won a Golden Globe for his performance. He really is fantastic, and of all the people that were nominated, I believe that his was both the best performance, and the most difficult performance to pull off. He had to be so careful and sensitive in portraying such a brilliant man, because he isn’t just playing the part of a person suffering from motor neurone disease, (which would be challenging enough), he’s also attempting to capture Hawking’s likeness and character. From what I have seen and read, I understand that he did that incredibly well, so well in fact that Hawking reportedly felt as though he was looking in a mirror when he saw the film.

There can be no question that Redmayne pulled off the role in a very impressive way, and after about twenty minutes he really does become Stephen Hawking. There’s no underlying thought in your mind telling you that you’re watching a man playing pretend, which is amazing when you really think about it. I completely forgot that I was watching an actor play his role, which always enhances my enjoyment of a movie, and adds to my appreciation of it when I leave the cinema.

via amazonaws.com

Felicity Jones played her part wonderfully in this film, portraying a sense of sadness throughout, despite the fact that she’s always smiling and making the best of her situation. She made me believe in the character, because she conveyed how painful her life was, which in turn showed just how much Jane loved her husband, refusing to walk away no matter what the cost would be to her own happiness. It was a tragic love story, made all the more heartbreaking by the clear chemistry between the two leading actors. Both Redmayne and Jones have been in great movies before, with Redmayne recently appearing in “Les Miserables”, and Jones playing one of the main roles in “Albatross”, a personal favourite film of mine, so I hope that the fact that they carried this movie on their young shoulders will lead to them getting some major roles in the future.

The most surprising and wonderful thing about “The Theory of Everything” is that it is very funny, despite the fact that its subject matter is undeniably serious and at times extremely upsetting. Redmayne gives Hawking real personality, and shows that there is a cheeky, boisterous side to the man that the public thinks they know so well. This is a side of Hawking which in reality we don’t get to see, so to get a glimpse of what he’s like behind closed doors feels very special.

There are moments in this movie when you really do laugh, despite the fact that seconds before you were close to tears, because in spite of everything, Hawking (as a character) doesn’t take himself too seriously, and delivers some hilarious and self-deprecating one liners. These comedic moments do a great job of making sure that the subject matter doesn’t become overwhelming, and they take the film away from tearjerker territory. They play a key role in making the film what it is, as this isn’t supposed to be a depressing tale, it’s a story of overcoming great odds and triumphing over adversity, because after all, Hawking was given two years to live, and has completely surpassed that expectation.

via pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com

There are two lines in the movie which cement that fact into your mind; the first comes early in the movie, just after Hawking’s diagnosis, in which his father tells Jane that this will be a ‘very heavy defeat’, and the second comes towards the end, as that prediction has been proved wrong, and Hawking states that ‘there should be no limit to human endeavour’. That’s what this movie is all about, the fact that no matter what happens to you or how bad it gets, you can always make the best out of what you have, and that in doing so you have succeeded in your life. It doesn’t matter what the world throws at you, as long as you are here, you have to throw everything you have right back at it.

The subject matter was dealt with in a refreshing and interesting way, showing that this man is just that, and that despite his intelligence he’s still flawed. People like Stephen Hawking become something strange in everyday life, they become an idea in our heads, and we don’t stop to appreciate that they’re just like us. I’m close to the age that Hawking would’ve been when he was diagnosed, I’m in the process of completing my degree, and I have genuine ambitions, hopes and dreams which right now feel like they are available, but very far away. I don’t know what I would do if I faced what Hawking did, but I know that he is extraordinary for coping, and that his wife (as portrayed in this movie) is also a truly astounding woman. This movie makes you stop and think about what people are truly capable of, it has something relevant to say about the nature of our existence, and it isn’t just cashing in on one man’s amazing story.

All in all, “The Theory of Everything” is a fantastic film. It’s wonderfully executed, well performed, and shows restraint when telling an incredible story. As a biopic it’s almost perfect, because it makes you feel something for its characters, whilst also inspiring you to want to be more and make more of yourself. When you leave the cinema, having seen this film, you’ve acquired a new perspective and appreciation for a man that you already knew was exceptional, which is all that you could possibly ask for.

9/10

Interstellar

Tags

Anne Hathaway, Batman, Batman Begins, Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, Cinema, Dallas Buyers Club, Film, Following, Gotham, Gravity, Guardians of the Galaxy, Hans Zimmer, Inception, Insomnia, Interstellar, Jessica Chastain, Mackenzie Foy, Man Of Steel, Matt Damon, Matthew McConaughey, Memento, Michael Caine, Movie Review, Space, Star Trek, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, The Illusionist, The Prestige, True Detective

“Interstellar” is quite possibly Christopher Nolan’s worst movie, and yet within its three hour long run time it has some of the best moments of cinema I have ever seen. I’d been looking forward to this film for over a year, because like most people I’ve loved every Christopher Nolan movie I’ve seen (excluding “Man of Steel” because Nolan wasn’t directing, and “Following” because sadly I haven’t seen that movie).

For the first two and a half hours I was like a child staring in awe at the beautiful recreation of space Nolan had created, and preparing myself for a very positive review. “Interstellar” was a visual feast attacking my senses and filling my mind with ideas of time relativity and intergalactic travel, and I loved the moments which felt as though they were grounded in some form of reality, or based upon a strong scientific world-view. However, the ending completely ruined “Interstellar” for me, and has left me with an extremely bitter taste in my mouth.

I’m still disappointed that Nolan didn’t just cut the ending out, because to me it took the emotion from the rest of the film and threw it out of the window, with a laughable take on humanity’s place in this vast and powerful universe. There was a far better, more well-suited ending for the film, an ending which was in fact found within the movie itself. I believe that the last 20-30 minutes of this film could’ve easily been omitted, and there would’ve been a believable and worthy ending right there. If I ever watch “Interstellar” again I will know when to change the channel.

via indiewire.com

The story in “Interstellar” is a bit wacky from the start, with no real explanation for why the earth has suddenly become inhabitable, and no background information on the characters. Nevertheless, the audience can buy into the world and support the premise, because on screen you have a blockbuster powerhouse known as Matthew McConaughey, who right now is one of the most popular and best actors around. You also have one of the most revered filmmakers in the world masterminding the film’s direction, and an all-star supporting cast including Anne Hathaway and Michael Caine, so it’s very easy to relax at the start when you have niggling suspicions that things aren’t going to be quite as amazing as you’d want them to be.

“Interstellar” revolves around Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), a wise-cracking farmer who has become dissatisfied with his mundane existence, attempting to survive in a world of dwindling resources and dying crops. His stock is slowly depleting due to the state of the world he finds himself in, and dust is infecting the lungs of the next generation, so that his children could be a part of the last generation on Earth. It isn’t the ideal existence, and it’s understandable that Cooper doesn’t feel that he has much purpose on Earth, because although his job is an important one given the dying planet, it is one which is ultimately futile. He has an obligation to his children to keep them safe, and clearly there is purpose there, but that overlaps with his goals for going into space to save humanity!

By staying with his children he would provide them with valuable emotional support, but by saving the planet he can give them a real future, a continued life on Earth or another viable planet. So you can understand why Cooper eventually goes into space. When he does, the film becomes incredibly interesting and entertaining, as Cooper and his companions travel through a wormhole in order to find a planet which could be congenial to human survival. They must make difficult decisions in order to save as much time as they can in space (given ideas of time presented in the film, which suggest that time can differ greatly in different regions of space – the group can spend one hour of their time on a certain planet, but this will cost them nine years back on Earth), so that Cooper can see his children again, and Amelia (Anne Hathaway) can see her father one more time before he dies.

via images.everyeye.it

Parts of the movie were fascinating and warranted further explanation. (SPOILER ALERT) For example, a crucial plot point in the film is that there are twelve explorers who have ventured through the wormhole, potentially giving their lives, to find a planet which could facilitate human life. This drives the film, as Cooper and his crew attempt to follow the remaining signals which are still being sent by the explorers, in order to discover the best possible world and begin work on a colony on that planet.

The exploits of these explorers are potentially more exciting than Cooper’s struggle to save his children, and could provide just as much of an emotional punch, as each of these brave astronauts presumably gave up their futures to save the rest of the world, leaving their families and friends behind. The moments when the group explore these planets are where this movie really shines, and more time should’ve been spent on developing the planets and the characters on them. I would’ve liked to know more of Miller, who was never found on the first planet visited, and even Mann (Matt Damon) could’ve done with a bit more time being developed as a real person, rather than just a character who was convenient for moving the plot forward.

The quiet moments in which the human passengers are at the mercy of space are thrilling, and they force you to think of the universe which is moving along right beside you, a world which you are in fact a part of. Watching how beautiful Nolan’s vision of space is really makes you think about how you view the real world, because we do forget that we are a part of such an amazing universe. Talk of wormholes, black holes and even other planets belong to science fiction, they are often used to tell stories of a grand nature like “Guardians of the Galaxy” and “Star Trek”, but they exist. They are here hurtling around the vast emptiness of space and so are we.

via dneg.com

The realism Nolan brings with the special effects in this movie, and the emotional connection he creates between the characters, keep you grounded in the real world, but the story still feels as though it is as far from genuine possibility as anything could possibly be. You really feel that these people are at the mercy of something far greater than themselves, and you understand our own insignificance and lack of control over the larger forces in the universe. It is these moments where “Interstellar” is as beautiful and glorious a piece of cinema as anything I have ever seen.

The graphics in this movie were immaculate, and they added to a sense of realism which the emotion of the leading actors had already brought. It’s amazing to think that people actually created the world you were seeing around Cooper and Amelia. These character’s lives and the whole universe on display comes directly from the mind of Christopher Nolan, and that is truly incredible. Nolan can go from creating a bleak and sinister Gotham grounded in reality, and then take his audience into a fantastical dream world in “Inception”, or into space for “Insterstellar”. He deserves praise for both his ambition and his creativity, even though this film wasn’t quite as good as I had hoped.

There were some incredibly interesting and moving pieces of dialogue, for example, when Cooper explained to Murph (Mackenzie Foy) that when people become parents they become memories for their children, and his explanation that he couldn’t be that, that he was still his own man. It was a solemn way of declaring that he was effectively abandoning his child, but also a stunning way to explain that he knew his decision was at least in some sense wrong. Moments like this are when this movie is genuinely brilliant, and they reel the audience in at just the right time, as Cooper is about to venture into the unknown and risk his life for humanity. You become incredibly invested in the story and the characters, and this keeps you interested during scenes which could’ve seemed slightly ridiculous.

via media.tenor.com

The performances were fantastic for the most part, and as usual McConaughey was brilliant. He portrayed a magnificent emotional performance, bringing some members of the audience to tears (including the person I went to the cinema with). He had great chemistry with Mackenzie Foy, and I really bought into their relationship in the early parts of the movie. Their last interaction was genuinely moving, even if it was seen on the trailer. McConaughey really showed the inner struggle of a character leaving his family behind, knowing he may never see them again, and his sacrifice for the good of humanity was utterly heroic. He brought a sense of understanding and understated sorrow to the role, and I am probably his biggest fan right now.

The supporting cast were impressive, but that was to be expected due to the calibre of actors in the roles. Anne Hathaway and Matt Damon stole a couple of scenes from McConaughey, and I enjoyed the movie the most when Damon was on screen. I am aware that his performance has been slightly polarising, but I really liked it. He showed some of the stupidity and insanity you’d expect from a man who had been alone on an alien planet, not knowing whether or not he would see another person ever again, and he was extremely weird at certain points, which I found quite entertaining.

Hans Zimmer’s score was tremendous as always, and it fit the film perfectly. It set the tempo for exciting scenes as the team explored the vastness of space, but the movie still knew when silence was key, for example, as doors opened to reveal the empty vacuum of space, and the sound emptied into that vacuum along with everything else. I’ve actually seen people say that the score was distracting or frustrating, but I just think those people weren’t buying into the wonder and beauty of it all, because the score fit that fantastically.

via dneg.com

I’ve also seen reviews that said that the film was too complicated, or that they didn’t understand some of the dialogue, but there isn’t a lot going on at all. You don’t have to be some sort of astrophysicist to understand the movie, you don’t even need a science GCSE, it’s all pretty simple. The only bits that don’t make sense are the parts towards the end which genuinely don’t have a place in the movie, and those scenes are needed for those people out there who are desperate for resolution in their films. It’s those kinds of people that force great directors like Nolan to make a conclusive ending to a film which never needed one, so if you are on that level please don’t complain about how complicated the story was (especially because it just wasn’t), because you ruin movies for the rest of us. I felt that things were actually over-explained to pander towards a larger audience; the concepts at play weren’t overly important, and everything the audience needed to know was repeated multiple times to reinforce the key ideas.

For a long period of the movie I thought that Nolan had pulled it off again, after blowing all other “Batman” films out of the water with his “Dark Knight Series”, he outdid “The Illusionist” with “The Prestige”, which was fantastic, and he made the amnesia storyline interesting with “Memento”. He’s a brilliant director and an all round genius, but he really jumped the shark with this one. He still destroyed “Gravity”, creating a greater spectacle and utilising a more ambitious story, but much like that film, its ending let it down. His vision was commendable for the majority of the movie, and I accept that he was trying to give a conclusion to a wacky and extremely challenging story, offering closure and performing a fan service. However, the ending was a catastrophe.

When the whole audience bursts into laughter towards the end of the movie you know that something has gone array, and I have to step in and say ‘why?’ Why would you shoot yourself in the foot by ending a three hour long, epic piece of cinema, with what was complete and utter garbage? Perhaps Nolan would say that we just don’t know what would happen in the scenario, and his interpretation of events is therefore as credible as anyone else’s, but I won’t buy that.

via blenderartists.org

(SPOILER ALERT) The movie should’ve ended when Cooper went through the black hole, once more into the unknown, facing death with power and glory as Professor Brand (Michael Caine) kept telling us from the start! Instead Nolan attempted to explain what would happen if a person ventured into the darkness, into a place where no man has gone before, and it just didn’t work. I appreciate that he tried it, but you can’t just say ‘I want my story to have a happy ending, so I’m going to send my leading man to a place which no one knows anything about and let him sort things out. No one can tell me I’m wrong because no one knows what would happen’. That’s just a complete and utter cop-out!

SPOILER ALERT – The remainder of this review contains spoilers for key scenes in “Interstellar”.

The ending wasn’t just ridiculous, far-fetched and downright stupid, but it was also extremely strange. I could’ve just about accepted that Cooper could alter the past through a tesseract (a four-dimensional analogue of a cube) found in the centre of a black hole, solving all the world’s problems through the transcendent nature of gravity and love crossing all dimensions (yes that is the plot when you break it down!), if Cooper had then died. However, the fact that he survived that was a disgrace! As I’ve said many times about many different films, there are certain things you just can’t live through and carry on as normal, and this is definitely one of them!

This idiocy was then followed by a final reunion between Murph and Cooper. In this scene Murph was about to die at a very old age, and Cooper arrived just in time to say his goodbyes. But that was just cringe-worthy to the extreme, and both character’s reactions were completely out of step with their personalities as established in the rest of the movie. Neither character seemed to care all that much about their reunion, even though the whole film had played on the relationship between these two people, and we had seen on numerous occasions that the most important thing in Cooper’s life was Murph. This scene ruined the film for me even more so than the scene in which Cooper made his way into the black hole, because it destroyed the memory of the emotional scenes in the rest of the movie.

via dneg.com

The biggest problem with the ending of “Interstellar” was that nothing was explained. I’m still unclear about how Murph realised that the fact that her watch was broken meant that her father was sending her a message in Morse code from another dimension; are we seriously supposed to lay back and take it as Christopher Nolan attempts to force that down our throats? Sit down and ask yourself how this sounds now that I’ve articulated it properly, and ask if you can take yourself seriously if you actually enjoyed the last third of the movie.

The ending of a film is, in my opinion, the most important part, it validates the rest of the movie and is supposed to provide some sort of interesting closure to a story you have been emotionally invested in, not tarnish everything which comes before it. If you’re making a nice dinner for two hours, making sure that the flavours are balanced and each new ingredient works with the rest of the dish, but then spend the next hour slowly pouring an obscene amount of salt into the pot, it won’t be a nice dinner by the end of the three hours! So why doesn’t the same apply to a movie?

Once you’ve seen the ending of this film, you’ve pushed the detonator, and you begin to think of all the other plot holes the movie has. Each scene topples down from top to bottom, and suddenly you’re left with the memory of a far from perfect experience. The character behaviour in the movie is downright weird at times, and you start to question whether or not these characters are in any way believable. Professor Brand offers Cooper the chance to fly a spacecraft which he has been working on for a very long time, for a mission which will determine the future of the human race, even though he had no intention of offering the position to Cooper just hours before. This crucial mission was going to take place anyway without Cooper! Would a man put his life’s work in jeapordy like this because he knows what Cooper has done in the past? Wouldn’t he want to check that Cooper could still do the job?

Brand also sends his daughter (Amelia) into space, having lied to her about his life’s work, and withholding the fact that she will never see him again!

via threerowsback.files.wordpress.com

Cooper accepts the chance of going into space on a life-threatening journey, at the expense of a life with his children, even though he knows that his place on the shuttle isn’t integral to the mission, and he has a fine life back home. Yes the soil is becoming infertile and the world is dying, but he has a family that love him, and there’s every chance that the mission could succeed without him. I know he wants to explore and believes that the human race wasn’t meant to die on earth, but it’s clear that Cooper loves his family more than anything, and that is integral to the emotion which lies behind the scenes in space, so I don’t believe for a second that he would abandon them even if he did think he could save them.

Murph’s behaviour was also extremely odd, because although she would resent her dad for leaving her, of course she would, she had no right to hold it against him for decades! When Cooper is leaving she tries to reconcile with him unsuccessfully, just as he drives away into the dust-filled distance (which I will admit was heart-breaking). This suggests that she understood what her father was doing, so if I understand human behaviour in even the loosest of ways, I would expect that she would want to tell him this at the first given opportunity. Yet she refuses to communicate with her father when given the opportunity, she gives him the cold shoulder for trying to save the planet on which she still lives! I respect her frustration but that’s just downright irrational!

“Interstellar” is like a dysfunctional firework. It flies into the air with beauty and promise, exciting its audience with wonder and awe, and then at the last moment it crashes back down to earth in a blaze of shame and disillusion, exploding on impact, destroying the anticipation it had built and replacing it with anger and confusion. This film promises to be so much more than it actually is, but it never delivers. For a considerable chunk of its run time “Interstellar” deceives the audience with fantastic special effects and an ambitious story, but as the ending leaves you baffled and bemused, the dominoes start to fall. The characters don’t respond to their situations in believable and organic ways, and the story takes you to a ridiculous and nonsensical place. Overall this film is a mess trying to be an abstract work of art, and I will not buy into it.

5.5/10

Alien: Isolation

Tags

Alien, Alien : Isolation, Alien Resurrection, Aliens, Amanda Ripley, Ellen Ripley, Fallout 3, Game Review, Half Life, Horror, Nostromo, Portal, Resident Evil 4, Ridley Scott, Sevastopol, Shinji Mikami, Sigourney Weaver, Space, The Evil Within, Xbox One, Xenomorph

via denofgeek.com

“Alien: Isolation” is one of two recently released games which could potentially see a resurgence of the survival horror genre. Both games utilise the power of next generation consoles, and carry with them a level of nostalgia from a time in which the genre didn’t feel so played out. “The Evil Within” sees the return of Shinji Mikami to the genre which he helped to create, following the iconic “Resident Evil 4”, whereas “Alien: Isolation” capitalises on one of the most famous and beloved horror movies of all time, so as a fan of horror I had a difficult choice to make. As a gamer that can’t afford to buy all the great titles released each month, it was extremely difficult to decide which of these games I should buy. Which would offer the most value for my money? Which seemed scarier? Which game would give me the most enjoyment?

As is clear, I chose “Alien: Isolation”, but having played through the game slowly and carefully, I am unsure whether or not I made the right choice. Have no fear, it’s a great game, and one which I place within my small collection with pride, after all, it offered me a challenge and took a lot of my time. However, as far as actual enjoyment goes, this game doesn’t really succeed. For the first few hours it is a tense and entertaining game of cat and mouse, whether it be with humans, androids, or the fabled xenomorph. But what lets “Alien: Isolation” down is the fact that the fear factor dissipates after just a few deadly encounters with your foes, and what becomes more pressing is the fact that you want to beat the game, and you don’t want to die simply because it would mean being thrown back to a part of the game you have already painstakingly made your way through.

Following my time with this game, I can’t help but feel that it would be more rewarding to watch a YouTuber struggle through a play-through than it is to actually play it yourself, because the experience does become repetitive and grating at around the half-way point, and watching another person play the game would give you a good indication of both the gameplay and the way in which the game makes you feel. There are plenty of aspects of “Alien: Isolation” which could be described as cinematic, so I see no reason why watching a full play-through of the game wouldn’t be a worthwhile experience as a substitute for paying full price for a frustrating game.

via alienisolation.gamepedia.com

I don’t want to be seen as overly critical in my analysis of this game, because what the developers tried to do was very admirable, and in its finer moments “Alien: Isolation” is more worthy of your time and money than most games I’ve played, but at the same time I can’t just ignore the blatant problems which I faced during my time with the game. I played “Alien: Isolation” on the hardest difficulty, which I try to do on most games, because I feel that this way you get the most time out of the game and therefore the most value for money. Spending a lot of time in a game world is something I am keen to do, because I don’t get to play that many games in a year. Playing this game on the hardest setting is a particularly challenging experience, because the resources which you are given on this setting are far from what you require, and the alien is likely to be aware of your safest hiding spots even if you only make the slightest sound, or perform the most timid of movements.

In this game you are constantly on the back-foot, and never before have I felt so underprepared and out of my depth whilst holding a controller in my hands. The alien constantly has the upper hand, and you always feel that despite what your motion tracker is telling you, the beast could be lurking around any corner. Prepare to be a nervous wreck as you scavenge for supplies, carefully monitor how much battery power you have left in your flashlight, and crawl to safety under clunky desks or through claustrophobia-inducing vents. This is a game in which you are the underdog and you are fighting for your life, and the developers have really nailed the conveyance of the way in which your character is feeling, to the way you as a player feel whilst you are leading her. You feel as though you are at Sevastopol and that you are in real danger, and that’s an incredible achievement for a survival horror game.

With the growing number of shooters polluting the video game market these days it shouldn’t come as a surprise that they all feel the same, so it is immensely satisfying to see some original titles coming out for next-gen consoles which aren’t based around holding down the right trigger. “Alien: Isolation” is such a refreshing game to see on a next-generation platform, because it shows that developers want to use this new technology to create interesting and diverse experiences, rather than simply pushing out rushed game after rushed game.

via vox-cdn.com

Despite the fact that it isn’t perfect, “Alien: Isolation” is the type of game I want to see a lot more of in the future, and I feel that given the right kind of tweaking, the survival horror genre could thrive using the new technology. This game deserves credit for getting so many things right, such as the tension, the crafting system and the station itself (which is a stunning representation of the future as it was conceived back in the late 1970’s), because these things aren’t just copies of something we’ve seen before. Even though this game is capitalising on a pre-existing idea, it is able to do so whilst maintaining a certain level of originality, so it deserves a lot of credit for trying to create something new and exciting.

“Alien: Isolation” is genuinely scary in its first few hours, even when the alien is not on screen or even threatening to appear, as noises echo through the deserted space station as if carried by the ghosts of the victims of the deadly xenomorph. Sevastopol is a maze of corpses and darkness, and I can’t think of a more menacing game setting in recent times, which is incredibly high praise considering the fact that horror is one of my favourite genres of both games and films.

Interactions with the xenomorph are very organic, as promised by reviewers and developers alike, and this sense of unpredictability only adds to the feeling of dread, as you see your enemy sniff you out from across the room. Anyone who claims that this game isn’t scary, at any point, is just putting on a facade. The xenomorph is the ultimate predator, stalking you constantly, waiting for the perfect time to strike, and it is this seeming omniscience which renders you helpless as you work your way through the game. This genuine feeling of helplessness is enough to leave you shaking in the corner of your room after playing, and the way in which the alien will screech and sprint at you is bound to cause nightmares.

via technobuffalo.com

When I was first killed by the alien it was kind of hilarious (and I was extremely pathetic). Having seen the alien very infrequently up until my untimely demise, I wasn’t really ready to face it, and when I saw it creeping towards me down an empty corridor all I could do was crouch behind a box and worry. I eventually panicked and threw a flash bang, but I proceeded to sprint away before it had even set off and was promptly impaled through the chest. It is a moment I will think back to and laugh, because it was such an awful way to die for the first time in the game, and I was glad that my Xbox One recorded the moment for me. Sadly these moments are few and far between, and there isn’t much joy to be found in “Alien: Isolation”.

Sevastopol space station is visually striking, and although things don’t look completely realistic, the game has its own style which is very endearing, whilst also sharing a resemblance to games like “Portal” and “Half Life”. The station itself has a futuristic tinge to it, but it still feels grounded in a conception of the future which belongs in the late 1970’s. The computer interfaces look dated and almost obsolete by today’s standards, and yet they grace a ridiculously large space station which contains walking talking androids!

Certain things about Sevastopol did strike me as a bit odd, such as the graffiti on the walls and the extensive vent system. If an alien is chasing you and you are fighting for your life then do you really have time to tag the station? I think your time would be best served calling out into the endless vacuum of space, asking God why he has forsaken you! However, the station is undoubtedly one of the strongest assets of this game, because it looks and feels as though it belongs in the “Alien” universe, and it’s full of interesting areas to explore. I only wish I had more time to stand around and take everything in, because there are times in the game where I want to get a look at what the developers have built, but instead I am rushed along by an all too eager alien.

via avpgalaxy.net

The physics system in “Alien: Isolation” is refreshing in this tense and stressful game, and it allowed me to immediately build up a positive rapport with the game. In one of the first moments of the game, I panned the camera down to Amanda’s feet, and watched as she kicked a poor unsuspecting box! I couldn’t help but laugh and appreciate the fact that I had control of the smaller, less significant objects, which blocked my path. Little details like this should be praised in any game, because they add to the feeling of realism which is required to keep the player immersed. This feature is particularly welcome in this game, as knowing that the tiniest of movements could displace a noisy object means that you just can’t afford to make a wrong move; any noise could catch the attention of the alien.

As I progressed through the game I was surprised at how seriously I took the prospect of death, and how greatly I wished to avoid it. Even the human enemies I encountered before I faced the alien filled me with fear, because I really didn’t want them to kill my character. That is partly down to the fact that I felt as though I was there at Sevastopol fighting for my life, but it is also (probably more so), down to the fact that I didn’t want to have to do everything I had done again!

The scarce amount of save points found in certain areas of the game are both a gift and a curse in the case of “Alien: Isolation”, as they help to make every moment in the game feel precious and important, whilst also causing a massive amount of frustration when things go wrong, particularly if you feel that the game has wronged you in some way. However, “Alien: Isolation” shouldn’t be criticised for this aspect, as it is used to ramp up tension and bring a sense of urgency to each enemy encounter, and it does this very well. I feel that the game could be a bit more fun if the save system was more like an RPG, such as “Fallout 3”, because being able to save the game at any point would mean that the mundane tasks you have to perform wouldn’t be repeated so often, but there is a chance that the game would become much less scary as a result.

via psmedia.playstation.com

There are plenty of repetitive tasks in “Alien: Isolation” which keep it from reaching its full potential, whether it be turning on a generator to restore power, using the security access turner to open a door, or disabling security systems via a computer terminal. These tasks are then accompanied by another series of mundane odd jobs, such as using an ion torch to access a lever which will in turn open a door, or looting dead bodies for precious supplies. Most of these jobs simply allow you to get from A to B, with nothing meaningful happening in the mean time, which is a real shame because the setting and the creature are both perfectly executed, so the game requires each task to match that level of quality.

These aspects of the game are extremely dull and very annoying, especially when you consider the obstacles which plague your path on the way, such as the xenomorph and the armies of androids towards the back end of the game. I am aware that all of these issues exist because the developers want “Alien: Isolation” to feel tense and futile, as the alien could appear at any point, even if all you are doing is matching up shapes on a screen (when using the access turner). But when you are doing these things the game isn’t really that fun, or at least it stops being so after a certain point. Graphically, functionally and conceptually this is a wonderful game, but there’s just not enough cool things to do whilst you are playing. “Alien: Isolation” is repetitive and grating and you don’t want to carry on by the end; the game becomes an exercise in perseverance, rather than an exciting, enjoyable experience.

The androids can be slightly annoying, because you want to attack them and finally get some sweet relief after out-manoeuvring the alien. I personally feel that they should die a bit more quickly than they actually do, and that each time they attack there shouldn’t be a boring cinematic sequence. The only moments of the game which should be cinematic are the scenes which precede your many deaths, and if this was how the moments with the androids played out, then they would seem more in keeping with the rest of the game, instead of feeling like an afterthought. There are moments in the game at which the android will choke Ripley, but won’t restrict her arm movements, yet there’s no option to pull the trigger on the gun which she was just this second firing at the android! This is a massive flaw and really frustrates me, because it is nothing but an oversight, and a lazy one at that. Nonetheless, the androids are threatening, particularly because of how powerful they are compared to the poor innocent Ripley, and they are well designed, making for an interesting second villain in the game.

via giantbomb.com

Once you have died quite a few times “Alien: Isolation” can become very frustrating, because you have to keep doing the same thing over and over until you get it right. That’s how games should be in my opinion, they should be challenging and there should be a certain amount of trial and error involved, but I can see how this element annoyed certain critics. There comes a point in the game at which defending yourself just isn’t enough anymore, and you feel that you’ve earned the right to really take the fight to the alien, but even the flamethrower can’t give you the feeling of authority you crave, because you have such scarce amounts of ammo and the alien only leaves you alone for a few seconds after you’ve set it on fire! The game needs a change of pace every now and again to keep its audience on side, because it really does become a pain after a while, and I don’t understand why the developers didn’t recognise the problem.

There are details in the game which I truly love, such as the way in which Ripley pulls out her revolver with great force and speed. I also think it’s amazing that you have to reload each bullet separately, and you get to watch Amanda fill the barrels. These little things make me smile more than any xenomorph ever could, and the devil is most definitely in the details. Nevertheless, there are also a lot of problems which have clearly been overlooked by the makers of the game, and there is a real lack of effort which is evident in some smaller aspects. For example, there is an obvious lack of animations for both the android attacks and the alien killing scenes, which leads to the player becoming immune to those moments by the end of their play through. In “Alien: Isolation” you will die, A LOT, and yet there are only four or five animations for the moment at which the xenomorph ends your life. That’s a disgrace and it takes away massively from the fear factor of the game.

I enjoyed the story in “Alien: Isolation”, although it was pretty predictable at times. The way in which nothing seemed to work out for Ripley, and (SPOILER ALERT) the reveal that there was in fact a hoard of aliens lurking under your feet in Sevastopol, was very entertaining, and it felt like a horror film. Furthermore, everything works well in the game, whether it be your selection of fire arms or your ever reliable noisemaker. The melee is enjoyable and reeks of desperation, which fits the nature of the game, and you do feel genuinely strong when you are battling against a human opponent.

via gamerevolution.com

There are a couple of stunning sequences in this game, particularly those which aren’t spent in Sevastopol station. As you explore an unfamiliar planet in search of an alien spacecraft, or fix a satellite on a shaky metal bridge on the outside of Sevastopol, you finally get to look around and see just how graphically impressive this game can really be. Space in “Alien: Isolation” is just plain beautiful, and I wonder why there aren’t more of these fantastic moments in the game. I called my friends into the room several times and insisted that they stay and marvel at the sun shining in the distance, burning menacingly in the vacuum of space. I was truly captivated by what I was seeing, and I feel that if this game had been set on an alien planet following some misfortunate crash landing, it could’ve been twice as good as the game I actually played. I would recommend this game if only for these two short segments, and I don’t think I will forget them for a very long time.

Sadly, there are also two main aspects which let “Alien: Isolation” down, and which keep it from becoming a great game. The first is the collection of related problems I have pointed out throughout the review, such as the game’s repetitive nature, and the alien’s persistence, which only becomes more aggravating and less scary as time goes on. The second is my last and most pressing issue with the game… the ending.

In the space of a month I spent a huge 28 hours as Amanda Ripley, traversing the treacherous maze that is Sevastopol and avoiding the invincible xenomorph, whilst also meeting my maker hundreds of times in the process, and I wanted my reward. (SPOILER ALERT) Alas, that reward never came. I didn’t find my way to freedom. I didn’t escape the xenomorph. It followed me to the end like a captain with his ship.

via bloody-disgusting.com

The ending is ambiguous and so I could believe that I managed to escape the alien and prevent my death, but at the end of the day I was floating in space with no hope of survival! The fact that a light flashed onto my helmet was no consolation, I wanted a nice quiet trip home and a cup of tea when I got there, but instead I was left to die! It wasn’t fair and I was very disappointed by the fact that I didn’t get any real closure. That light could’ve been a flaming asteroid, or a lone scrap of debris flying towards my face. Why would the developers spit on their audience like this? I feel so betrayed after spending so long in the game, and again, the fact that the developers thought that this was the right way to go was just baffling. The ending of “Alien: Isolation” is unforgivable and just plain ridiculous!

“Alien: Isolation” is a brilliant game in theory, it works very well and all the mechanics are perfectly fine. Its setting is one of the most memorable in recent video game history, and I really enjoyed the moments in which I could stop and have a good look around. However, “Alien: Isolation” only flirts with greatness, and it shoots itself in the foot one too many times. The game lets itself down in so many areas, particularly in the fact that the ending ruins the previously interesting story, and that there are far too many repetitive tasks eating away at your time. I want people to play this game for its stronger moments, and I am happy to have it in my collection and to have had the experience, but I won’t be revisiting “Alien: Isolation” any time soon.

6.5/10