Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) Review

"My philosophy is if you worry, you suffer twice" - Newt Scamander.

We've had Star Wars prequels, Lord of the Rings prequels, and now that other massive fantasy franchise has its own prequel. Yes, the immensely popular Harry Potter series has finally returned in the guise of a new prequel series: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Having already made an absolute killing at the box-office, it would appear that audiences were craving a new entry in the series, despite all seven Harry Potter books being adapted for the screen over the course of eight films between 2001 and 2011. So now that we have a new series of prequels to lead us into the story of Harry Potter, can the first entry match the imagination and wonder of the series' other films?

Set seventy years before Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001), Fantastic Beasts takes place in New York City. British wizard Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) arrives in America and quickly runs into trouble. His suitcase, home to many magical creatures, is accidentally swapped with "No-Maj" (non-magical person) Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler). Not long after, many of the creatures escape into the city, and it's up to Newt, along with Jacob and fellow wizards Tina (Katherine Waterston) and Queenie (Alison Sudol) to retrieve them. However, the wizarding world is about to be thrown into greater chaos, as dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald is on the loose, and the Ministry of Magic are quick to accuse Newt's magical creatures as accomplices to his crimes...

Despite being full of all manner of creatures and special effects, Fantastic Beasts knows that the winning formula lies with its characters. Like the Harry Potter films, we have a very likeable core cast here, each playing really well off one-another but also being developed throughout. Eddie Redmayne's boundless energy and quirkiness is a winning combination in the role of Newt, effortlessly creating an engaging lead. He and the hapless Jacob make for a great comedy duo, with Jacob being the character the audience can connect with the most due to his non-magic background. We are thrown into this magical world as Jacob is, and so we discover things along with him, with Newt as our guide to all the film's wonder. As one would most likely guess, there is a romantic element to the film, as Tina and Queenie are obviously attracted to Newt and Jacob, receptively. Thankfully, the romance is downplayed, which allows the sisters to actually aid the group rather than having a less significant role of simply being being attracted to the male heroes. Tina keeps the team focused and Queenie is more compassionate and cunning, allowing for a good dynamic between the four principal heroes.

But every hero needs a good villain, and our primary villain is Colin Farrell as Percival Graves. I was initially apprehensive of seeing Farrell as the villain, having witnessed just how hammy he can be in 2003's Daredevil. I was pleased to see him take a very different approach here, focusing on being a menacing, manipulative presence. He is charged with tracking down Newt, and his verbal confrontation with him during the film's third act is one of the film's highlights. Acting as interrogator, Graves and Newt are clearly exact opposites, with Newt's caring demeanour being no match for Graves' intense, cold-hearted approach. There is a lesser villain in the guise of Mary Lou Barebone (Samantha Morton), a No-Maj with a strong hatred for witches and wizards. Her side of the story includes the film's darkest themes, such as domestic violence against her adopted son Credence (Ezra Miller). Like the romance, this is downplayed, which I thought was a very appropriate choice, as too much focus on this wouldn't have helped advance the plot further and would no doubt be a concern for parents taking children to see the film. The dark subject matter is handled with maturity by director David Yates, and so Fantastic Beasts succeeds in having a sinister edge without ever straying too far from being a primarily fun adventure.

As one might expect, the film is jam-packed with special effects. Everything from creatures to wands to teleportation happens throughout Fantastic Beasts. However, I felt that the sheer volume of effects in such a short period of time was too much to handle, and so it felt as if the film was being crushed under the weight of some of them. In the opening half hour, almost every single shot had some sort of digital effect, and a lot of times the CGI creatures where acting directly at the camera lens. Clearly, these moments where made with 3D in mind, but it still felt like too much of it was going on so early. I don't think I've seen so many digital effects at once since Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (1999). The climatic battle, involving a great many more digital effects, drags on a bit too long, almost as if there were several ideas on how the film should end and the filmmakers just decided to include all of them. That being said, the effects are well done and the finale has a good amount of drama, all that was needed was perhaps a bit more discipline as to the volume of effects and the length of the climax.


Overall, Fantastic Beasts is probably the most fun blockbuster released this year. It is made with so much love for the material that you can't help but smile whilst you watch it. Having enjoyed the earlier Harry Potter films more than the later ones, I found myself greatly enjoying this film as it has the feel of entries like The Philosopher's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets.  There are some darker moments in Fantastic Beasts, but the focus is always on the characters and their fun interactions, meaning that younger audiences should come away feeling thrilled rather than frightened. It's nice to see such a high-profile film have such a sensible approach as to how far it should go with "heavier" material, and Fantastic Beasts gets the balance just right. I look forward to seeing more of these characters in the next entry, and will no doubt revisit this magical world when released for home viewing. If you haven't done so already, get to your nearest cinema to experience the magic of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them! 

Doctor Strange (2016) Review

"I learned to tap into powers I never knew existed" - Dr. Stephen Strange

"Less superpowers, more magic" declares 2016, as we move into the final phase of blockbusters for the year. With Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them serving as a prequel to the magical Harry Potter series and a new entry in the Star Wars universe set to dominate the box-office, Marvel Studios have decided to join in the fun with their most popular sorcerer making his big screen debut. Doctor Strange is the latest entry in the ever-growing Marvel Cinematic Universe, and is the first film since 2014's Guardians of the Galaxy to not be a sequel. 

The film follows renowned surgeon Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) living his ideal lifestyle, surrounded by wealth and awards. However, after a horrendous car accident, Stephen's body is damaged to the point where his hands will never be able to replicate his previous skills. Becoming a bitter and lonesome individual, he finally seeks aid in Nepal from a sorceress known as the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton). The Ancient One, along with sorcerers Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and Wong (Benedict Wong), teaches Stephen their magical ways, including travelling through various dimensions. This brings Stephen into contact with the sinister Kaecillius (Mads Mikkelsen) and his cohorts, former students of the Ancient One, who plan to conjure an entity known as Dormammu to engulf the Earth.

The film's greatest strength is Cumberbatch. As we witness Stephen's evolution of having everything, then nothing, and then more than he could possibly imagine, it is Cumberbatch who draws us in with his commanding performance. He manages to portray the many stages of Stephen's life with complete believably. Never once did I feel he wasn't the fantastic surgeon, the hateful loner, or the all powerful sorcerer. Despite being surrounded by special effects and other high-profile actors, Cumberbatch is the film. So the film boasts perhaps Marvel's most engaging hero to date, but it sadly continues their trend of utterly forgettable villains. Kaecillius is an ex student to the Ancient One who has turned evil (not the most original idea). He is given no personal connection to Stephen and actually says very little throughout the film. Like Christopher Eccleston before him, we have a fantastic actor in Mads Mikkelsen completely underused in a role that seems tailor-made for him. Eccleston's dramatic weight was perfect for the role of Malakith in 2013's Thor: The Dark World, and after playing Bond villain Le Chiffre in Casino Royale (2006) and Hannibal Lecter on television, Mikkelsen is exactly who you want to see be a villain in a superhero film. This is one aspect the MCU desperately needs to improve upon, especially when tackling more famous villains, such as the Vulture in next year's Spiderman film.

The other characters are OK, but nothing special. The Ancient One is certainly the next most important character behind Stephen, as she epitomises the supernatural elements of the story. Despite the Ancient One being older than the other characters can comprehend, she is given a well-grounded performance by Tilda Swinton, who works as a good opposite to Stephen as he begins to learn about magic and the other dimensions. Rachel McAdams plays former lover Christine Palmer, who at first appears as though she will play a main part in the story as she personally knows Stephen better than any other character. However, she is actually given very little to do, disappearing from the film as Stephen learns of his new powers only to show up again all of a sudden. Her reaction to Stephen's new abilities is also a little odd. She barely flinches at seeing him in his astro-form, and then later on doubts him when he mentions he gets around via creating portals. Wong and Mordo aren't given much character, and so I didn't find myself caring for them nearly as much as the film wanted me to. They're not bad characters by any means, but they don't leave much of an impression.

The film also appears to obviously borrow from other blockbusters in terms of plot and visuals. The special effects when the characters enter an alternate dimension which allows buildings to be moved are instantly recognisable from Christopher Nolan's Inception (2010). Whilst impressive, having almost the exact same look is a bit of a distraction and isn't as powerful as intended. The film's climax is exactly the same as another Marvel film: Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007), which I thought was a bit strange considering that film isn't generally held in high regard, and yet it is mirrored here in Doctor Strange. An ancient being attempts to consume the earth and the hero must enter the void of destruction and confront his gargantuan foe face to face in order to stop him. The character of Silver Surfer confronts Galactus this way, and so does Doctor Strange with Dormammu in this film. It's something we've seen done before, and with the film's license to be as wild and imaginative as possible, this seemed a pretty cheap climax.

Despite a few minor gripes, Doctor Strange is at least a consistently fun film. Less downbeat than Captain America: Civil War (2016) and taking a more humorous approach similar to Guardians of the Galaxy is a welcome choice. Cumberbatch is no doubt the highlight, but it does also have some cool action sequences and a decent pace to keep interest. It also knows not to over-stay its welcome, clocking in at around two hours, whereas every other MCU film seems to want to stretch itself over the two and half hour mark. It would be a lie to say that you'd really be missing out on something amazing if you chose not to see it, but for what it is, it achieves its goal of being a fun little adventure with a likeable cast. Not spectacular, but not bad either. 

FIFA 17 - The Journey Review

Here's something of a cinematic experience (and a medium that I never planned to write much about) - FIFA 17's The Journey. Whilst I don't write about games or that industry (aside from a Bioshock post a while back). I thought it would be interesting to include my thoughts on FIFA 17's cinematic (and supposedly authentic) new game mode.

In The Journey the player stars as Alex Hunter, a 17 year old who dreams of following in his granddad's footsteps as a professional footballer. He is naturally talented, and is offered a contract with a Premier League club of the player's choosing, alongside his equally gifted childhood friend Gareth Walker. Upon turning professional, Alex faces the struggles of impressing his coaches, being in the spotlight, and even being sent out on loan to a Championship club. Eventually given another shot, Alex must lead his team to Premier League and Cup glory to solidify his legacy as the hottest young talent in football.

As well as how well he performs on the pitch and in training, the player can decide Alex's personality. This is achieved through having a choice of three pieces of dialogue during cut-scenes: a cool response, a neutral response, and a fiery response. A cool response will make Alex come across as a saint, and will earn him respect from the manager. A neutral response gives Alex an "everyday guy" personality, which will still earn him credibility to the manager, but maybe not as much as choosing the cool option. Fiery is when things get interesting. Alex will become self-centred and aggressive, much to the displeasure of his coaches. However, a fiery personality means more social media followers for Alex, and this in turn means more opportunities to be sponsored by big brands. I greatly enjoyed balancing the cool and fiery responses throughout my time playing, with the fiery choices often being the most amusing. My particular favourite was when we lost a match and the team is talking about how the fans deserve better. I made Alex's response to this conversation be "does it really look like I care?", which was all that was needed to finally get that lucrative sponsorship deal!

Given how matches take place once a week (with exceptions to cup games), you'll find yourself playing regular training drills in order to boost your stats. I found this to be a bit tiresome, but the game forces you to complete these training drills to a consistently high standard, else you risk losing your place in the team. Even so, repeating the same drills over and over again means that my investment waned, and was crying out for an amusing cut-scene to grab my attention. This is what I would say is The Journey's biggest problem: keeping interest in the story and game play when there is so much training throughout. To have to do it after every match kills the games pacing, meaning that I completed a relatively short story mode in small stages. I'm sure this is an area that will be improved should there be an interactive story mode produced for the next FIFA, with The Journey serving as a learning curve as to what works and what doesn't.

The story itself is good for the most part. Having consulted rising stars such as Marcus Rashford, The Journey aims to provide an authentic experience of a young player's sudden emergence on the Premier League scene. There are some pantomime like moments though, especially when the story focuses on Alex's friendship with Gareth Walker. After being sent on loan, Alex notices Gareth becomes more and more cocky, eventually joining another team for big money upon Alex's return. As I chose to play a Manchester United career, Walker ends up joining local rivals Liverpool, and the two ex-teammates are reunited as opponents not long after. So the drama is a tad exaggerated, but at least it's entertaining, and makes the player more determined to have Alex score against Walker's new team.

Being that I don't review games, I was eager to see how cinematic elements were tackled in The Journey, and for the most part, they hold up. The performances are nice (with cameos from the likes of Harry Kane and James Rodriguez), and the dialogue wheel allows the story and characters to take any number of directions. The repetitive nature of the training wears thin, but I was always eager to see what happened next story-wise. The addition of newly recorded commentary specifically for the game mode is also a nice touch. Whether FIFA will continue to explore story-modes like The Journey is unknown, but if it only serves a one-off thing, you could certainly do worse.

Anthropoid (2016) Review

"Assassinate... murder implies he had a life worth living"  - Josef.

The summer blockbuster season is over, and so the cinemas are no longer full of special effects and action packed fantasies. On a comedown from the melee of superhero smackdowns, September is usually considered a "dead" month for cinema. Anthropoid, however, is a clear standout in this month's offerings for both its premise and cast, featuring Cillian Murphy and Jamie Dornan as two Czechoslovakian soldiers. Their mission: to assassinate SS General Reinhard Heydrich in the midst of the Nazi's rule on their country.

The first half of the film is all character development, with us introduced to Josef (Murphy) and Jan (Dornan) as they make their way to Prague to meet with the resistance. Acting as civilians, we see them go through the struggles of maintaining a low-profile, with Jan's emotions getting the better of him in various situations. This is made all the worse when he and Josef hide out with the Moravec family, allies of the resistance. Jan quickly becomes attached to Marie (Charlotte Le Bon) and, despite his initial concerns towards Jan's actions, Josef slowly forms feelings for Anna's friend Lenka (Anna Geislerova). Now also concerned with the safety of the women they love, Josef and Jan must carry out their assassination sooner then expected, with Heydrich expected to be transferred. From this point on, the film's tension builds to an emotionally draining final confrontation between the remaining resistance fighters and the Nazis, in what is surely one of the best shootouts committed to film.

Continuing his excellent run of work in 2016, and the film's standout performer, is Cillian Murphy. After an incredible third season of hit drama Peaky Blinders, Murphy abandons the cold exterior of gangster Tommy Shelby and brings warmth to his portrayal of Josef. He lights up the screen throughout, even when he has no dialogue. A particularly poignant moment is when Jan tells the family and Josef that Marie has agreed to marry him, and Murphy is able to capture the happiness he feels for his friend as well as his concern for him not being focused on the mission in a single look. A masterclass in subtlety. Jamie Dornan is also believable in his role as the slightly unhinged Jan, easily breaking away from his best known role as Christian Grey in the Fifty Shades of Grey series. As events unfold, Murphy and Dornan's chemistry grows as we explore how Jan slowly becomes more like Josef. Instead of panicking at the thought of death like in an earlier scene, Jan uses the calming techniques Josef taught him to help other members of the resistance during the final battle. This continues the emotional investment the audience feels in a very effective way, as we learn that the mission would be nothing without the loyalty and compassion of the two soldiers.

Of course, the climatic shootout between the resistance and the Nazis has to be mentioned, as it is one of the most gripping sequences of violence in recent memory. Instead of going for the jugular and focusing on cathartic, gory violence, Anthropoid keeps the blood to a minimum, instead focusing on the distress of the resistance fighters and the sheer number of Nazis that are coming for them. There's no fancy editing or over-the-top music, just the prominent sound of gunfire and agonising screams. It really drives home the horror of such acts, and builds to a profound ending where the Nazis attempt to drown the remaining fighters. With seemingly no escape, the sound completely cuts out, and we are forced to experience the desperate struggle with our eyes only. After this sequence, you could hear a pin drop in the screening I was in, and it's something I've continued to think about ever since.

There are other sequences of violence in the film, some of which are very distressing. The Nazi's torture of a young man is shown in some detail, and is made all the more disturbing by the fact that the scene was filmed in a real Nazi torture chamber. Thankfully, the film does not linger too much on these sequences, as the focus is on Josef and Jan. I feel it is important to show these scenes, as the film does not want to shy away from the horrible acts human beings can commit when they believe they are in the right. However, it is still a tough watch and not recommended for any viewer easily disturbed by violence in cinema. 

One minor complaint would be the romance. Don't get me wrong, it isn't portrayed badly, but I just don't feel the focus it gets adds a great deal more drama to a film with an already powerful premise. Certainly not on Josef's side of things, as he is shown to keep Jan on the straight and narrow when he becomes serious with Marie. It seems a little odd that a man with complete focus on the mission would all of a sudden become as dedicated as Jan to romance. Whilst it doesn't necessarily take away any of the film's tension, it didn't add a great deal of weight to it either. I'm not aware as to how big a part Josef's relationship with Lenka effected his actions in real life, but in this film's portrayal it doesn't really come to much. 

Similarly thought-provoking as 2002's The Pianist, Anthropoid is a powerful piece of cinema. Boasting excellent performances, particularly that of Cillian Murphy, it's portrayal of a significant moment in the history of the Second World War is an intense and emotional ride. Leading up to one of the best climaxes in terms of tension, cinematography and adrenaline, it is best experienced on the big screen. From beginning to end, it keeps you glued to the screen, and will have you thinking about what you have just witnessed for many days afterwards. If you can handle the disturbing violence, make sure you head down to your local cinema and support well acted, written and directed works of art such as Anthropoid. You won't be disappointed.

What's next for "Shared Universe" Films?

Shared Universe franchises are all the rage nowadays. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is the highest-grossing franchise of all time, and it now seems every other studio is aiming to replicate that success. With both Marvel and DC set to release more entries into their respective franchises, there appears to be no stopping the superhero juggernaut which has dominated the box-office for years. But who else is set to get the ball rolling for their own multi-film franchises and, more importantly, will audiences stick around long enough for them to be successful?

Perhaps unbeknown to audiences, a brand new Shared Universe series was started in 2014, with Legendary Picture's release of Godzilla, directed by Gareth Edwards. Eventually, the rumours of a new Shared Universe was confirmed, with a Godzilla sequel, standalone King Kong film and an eventual crossover pitting the two monsters against one-another all confirmed to be released within the next few years. The idea of remaking King Kong is old hat, with the 1933 original re-imagined in 1976 and 2005. The combination of King Kong and Godzilla is also nothing new, with the two monsters meeting in 1963's Japanese produced crossover. Over fifty years have passed, and to me this remake is way overdue. Despite the fact it will greatly contrast the original film with its superior special effects, audience's seeming dislike of "vs." films will surely work against it. It will no doubt boast huge spectacle and action, but its success will ultimately come down to whether audiences are engrossed enough in this franchise after another Godzilla film and King Kong film. If the upcoming Kong: Skull Island is too similar to 2014's Godzilla, enthusiasm for the big showdown (set for a 2020 release) will drop. As Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad have proved this year, critical reception means nothing for Shared Universe films compared to the amount of money they can generate for the studio, and the Godzilla-Kong franchise will have stiff competition from Marvel's dominance of the summer blockbuster season.

Disney's upcoming Star Wars films look to be creating a Shared Universe as well. With the new prequel film, Rogue One, the series could reintroduce previously unseen characters into the sequels to 2015's Episode VII, creating a much larger universe across each new film. Money should be no obstacle for the sequels, given the enormous success of Episode VII. However, an abundance of prequels may become tiring, especially how there already exists a prequel trilogy and a Han Solo origin film has been green-lit. After 10 years absence until Episode VII was released, audiences were quick to make the latest Star Wars film one of the most successful, and so I don't think the plethora of Star Wars sequels will be seen as being as "tiresome" as the next lot of Marvel and DC films.

One genre which I feel could start its own Shared Universe within the next few years is the horror genre. With recent remakes of Frankenstein and Dracula, the opportunity to combine those famous characters may have passed, but who's to say another crossover following in the footsteps of Freddy vs. Jason won't happen soon? If it were to happen, it could possibly involve remaking classic horror cinema that hasn't been re-imagined for contemporary audiences, such as 1987's Hellraiser. What matters is whether the films can remain scary and bring something new to the table, something in which recent horror remakes have severely lacked. Whilst I don't think a horror Shared Universe would be anywhere near as successful as Marvel, DC, Godzilla and Star Wars, it would provide a more radical alternative to the growing list of Shared Universe franchises.

With Marvel's Doctor Strange and Star Wars' Rogue One to see out the year, 2017 could prove to be the defining year for Shared Universe films. Will audiences flock to the cinema to see yet another Spiderman remake? Will Kong: Skull Island be able to match the success of Godzilla? Can DC win back the critics with Wonder Woman and Justice League? All will be revealed in what will be another year packed with these types of films, and I'll be sure to review some of them upon release.

Suicide Squad (2016) Review

"Oh, I'm not gonna kill you... I'm just gonna hurt you really, really bad." - The Joker.

Months after the critical failure of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, DC's next instalment in their cinematic universe seemed destined to follow in its footsteps. From the tone set by the first trailer, it looked like it took itself too seriously and had all the grimness that made BvS unengaging. DC, not wanting another high-profile flop on their hands, responded to this by re-shooting scenes with more humour injected, as well as two new trailers featuring "Bohemian Rhapsody" and "Ballroom Blitz", giving the film a more colourful and fun look. Still, critics have bashed this film just as much as BvS. A fair amount of fans however, seem to view Suicide Squad as an clear improvement. Having recently seen the film for myself, my initial thoughts fall somewhere between the two, but with a more positive overall feeling.

Taking place after the death of Superman, intelligence operative Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) decides to fight fire with fire, assembling a team of imprisoned supervillains as a "suicide squad" to carry out highly dangerous missions for the government. This rag-tag group includes expert marksman Deadshot (Will Smith), the crazy Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), infamous thief Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), the now pacifistic El Diablo (Jay Hernandez) and cannibalistic Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje). Led by special forces agent Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman), the squad is deployed when a mystical being know as Enchantress (Cara Delevingne) rebels against her captivity by the government. With Enchantress intent on wrecking havoc on humanity, the squad must stop her and weave their way past her forces, as well as Harley's psychopathic boyfriend the Joker (Jared Leto), in order to prove that even the "worst of the worst" can do some good.

The plot has received a fair amount of criticism, with the idea that focusing on a rescue mission for the majority of the film's running time is nothing new. Whilst it isn't the most original idea, it allows there to be more focus on the characters and their abilities. Again, this isn't the best writing for supervillain characters you'll see, but they are at least memorable and are given a decent amount of backstory. Deadshot and Harley Quinn are given the majority of backstory, and they both push the other members of the squad to the side with their quips and chemistry with one another. That isn't to say the others don't get their moment to shine, but they don't drive the plot forward as much as Deadshot and Harley. At least all the performances are of a good standard, which is by far the film's greatest strength. Margot Robbie steals the film as Harley Quinn, and I couldn't imagine another actress playing this role after seeing her performance. Will Smith adds his usual coolness to Deadshot, which is more than welcome in a film featuring so many super-powered characters. I also liked Cara Delevingne's split-personality portrayal of Enchantress, which adds a more emotional edge to the story, with Rick Flag's relationship with Enchantress' alter-ego June pushed to breaking point by her evil scheme. 

One the most anticipated characters was Jared Leto's Joker, making his first cinematic appearance since 2008's The Dark Knight. After two fantastic portrayals by Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger, Leto had an awful lot to live up to. He gives a strong performance here, but as the Joker isn't really a main part of the story I don't think I can form a full opinion on his portrayal of the character until I see more of him. The new design was met with a mixed reception, but I felt it worked for the new direction of the Joker being more of a gangster. He has tattoos, jewellery and plated teeth, giving him a modernised look that we haven't seen before. I knew he wasn't in the film too long, but he was in it more than I expected, and all of his scenes with Harley certainly had the feel of a comic book brought to life. I look forward to seeing Leto expand his performance in the franchise's next instalments.

There are some things that bugged me, such as the use of pop songs throughout the first act. For starters, it feels like a rehashed idea for a film featuring a team of comic book characters, as Guardians of the Galaxy already did this to great effect two years ago. Whilst the songs in that film worked, only a few of them do in Suicide Squad. The film opens with "House of the Rising Sun" by The Animals, perfectly setting the tone and atmosphere. With its haunting guitar and keyboard, the song is an appropriate companion for the villains, just as the use of The Rolling Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil" is the perfect song for the headstrong Amanda Waller. However, the use of Black Sabbath's "Paranoid" had me scratching my head, as well as the absence of pop music in the film's second act. The film keeps its fast-paced, fun vibe throughout with plenty of action and character banter, so the absence of the pop tunes is all too obvious. If the filmmakers where adamant they wanted to have pop tunes accompany and reflect the characters, why leave them out in the second act? There's also some choppy editing in places, especially in some of the action sequences. This is a particular pet peeve of mine, as I like to be able to see the choreography and hard work that goes into making them, especially when the film appears to champion a practical approach. The last fight with Enchantress suffers from this, as well as some fairly murky lighting, adding to the confusion.

Suicide Squad is far from perfect, but it's nowhere near as bad as critics are making it out to be. It might not be the most original idea (and the industry is definitely suffering from "superhero fatigue"), but of the other three comic book films I've seen in cinemas this year, this was by far the most enjoyable. The re-shoots have certainly improved what looked like another grim entry in the DC Extended Universe, and by not obsessing over setting up sequels, can be enjoyed as a standalone film. Had it not been released in the year when it finally seems critics are giving up on superhero films, I don't think it would be getting anywhere near the amount of flack its received so far. It boasts a talented cast that delivers on all fronts, and there's never a dull moment. The editing in some scenes and so-so soundtrack moments did not deter the experience of a fun little adventure. Fans seem more pleased with it than critics, but even if your not a fan of comic book films, you still may find enough to enjoy in Suicide Squad than you would in most films in this genre. 

Side note: My opinion on the whole "shut down Rotten Tomatoes" thing is that it's both childish and ridiculous. If you disagree with the critics' opinion on Suicide Squad (like I do), or any other film for that matter, express why you think they're wrong and what you enjoyed about the film. Requesting a critical website that viewed a film you enjoyed in a negative light to be shut down is plain silly, as there are plenty of websites that allow you to express what you love about the films you enjoy. 

Thoughts on BvS Ultimate Edition

With Suicide Squad soon to be released, I thought I'd offer another look at DC's previous film, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. However, what I want to focus on is the new version of the film (the "Ultimate Edition), which extends the film's running time to three hours. I reviewed the theatrical release earlier this year and stated how I felt it was a disappointing mess, so how does this new, R rated version stack up against it?

One of my main gripes with the theatrical release was how imbalanced the motivations of Batman and Superman were. There are clear enough reasons why Batman hates Superman, but the film never dedicated enough time as to why Superman should hate Batman. In the Ultimate Edition, the balance is restored somewhat by having more scenes of Superman (as Clark Kent) investigating Batman's "reign of terror" in Gotham. Two new scenes help to show how Batman's brand of justice has effected the residents of the city, with Clark even meeting the partner and child of one of Batman's victims. She warns Clark that Batman cannot be reasoned with, and that the only way to stop him is "with a fist". We see the influence this has on Superman when he confronts Batman towards the end, as he quickly turns to violence after failing to negotiate with him. Had this been expanded on further throughout the film as the reason why the two heroes end up battling, it would have made for a more satisfying altercation, as there would be genuine motivation for both characters to confront one another. Like in the theatrical release, however, Superman only engages Batman in a fight because Lex Luthor threatens to kill his mother, which is a much weaker idea than having them fight over a clash of morals and principle.

There is also more of a focus on Lex's plan to frame Superman, which in turn makes Lois Lane's role in the film bigger. Whilst these new scenes help to shed some light on how Lex has staged these events, the plan is still a confusing mess, and I was still scratching my head has to what his ultimate goal is. I was happy to see more time devoted to developing the story, but it any improvements over the theatrical version in this area are moderate. This, along with the Clark Kent investigation scenes, is where the majority of the new scenes are included, which is an overall wise decision as they where the two weakest aspects of the the original cut.

As far as action, there's not a lot of new stuff included. The main conflict between Batman and Superman has the odd extra punch thrown in, but that's about it. Thankfully, I'm pretty sure no new footage of the battle with Doomsday is included, as that scene dragged on and on in the original cut. With the new R rating, I was expecting a more drastic change in the violence presented in the film. I don't think having the film be more bloody would be an improvement (the film has to also appeal to young fans as well), but I still felt cheated given how the change in rating is so drastic. The scene where Batman takes down a room of thugs (arguably the best scene in the film) has some blood added in and an implied moment of Batman either killing or severely wounding one thug who stabbed him in the shoulder. This is the only instance where the violence feels a lot more adult The other action sequences, particularly the one at the end, still feel like standard superhero stuff.

I'm at a loss as to whether this new cut of the film greatly improves on the theatrical release. On the one hand, we get to see some of the better ideas that were not included which helps to make the confusing plot slightly more coherent. On the other hand, these added scenes tease us with "what could have been" had they been more significant, rather than having them lead into the disappointing motivations of the characters we saw in the theatrical release. I can't say I recommend it, but it at least means we get to see the complete version of the film. I'd much rather see what Zack Snyder fully intended us to see (even if it still isn't good) than a chopped up mess that was seen as either too long or too violent by censors.

Manchester United: The Five Weirdest Louis van Gaal Tactics/Decisions

And now for something completely different. Rather than a film review, I thought some fresh content about one of my other interests would change things up a bit. One thing most people know about me is that I supported Manchester United Football Club, and I am greatly anticipating the upcoming season under new manager Jose Mourinho. Whilst looking back at the previous campaigns, which were by in large disappointing, it got me thinking about all the strange occurrences we endured under the management of Louis van Gaal. Off the pitch, van Gaal was known for his amusing quips and on again/off again relationship with the press. The happenings on the pitch were equally up and down, with us winning the FA Cup this year, but failing to qualify for next season's Champions League. I've thought long and hard about the moments on and off the pitch that left me most puzzled by this unique individual, and in no particular order, here are the top five:

5. Phil Jones taking corner kicks

A phrase that became something of a summary of van Gaal's approach, this was one of the most unpredictable (and unwanted) tactics in the two seasons under the Dutchman. With plenty of talented players good enough to deliver a decent corner kick, van Gaal opted for defender Phil Jones, a player with little-to-no experience of delivering at set piece situations. Whether this was an attempt simply to puzzle the opposition or he genuinely believed he had finally found the right man to take corner kicks remains a mystery. Needless to say, the decision didn't last long, and fellow Dutchman Daley Blind was appointed to deliver corner kicks for the whole of the 2015/16 season.

4. Selling Robin van Persie and Javier Hernandez in the same transfer window

Whilst perhaps not the strangest decision, this is the one that angered me the most, as these two were my favourite United players. In the summer of 2015, Javier Hernandez returned to United after a season-long loan at Real Madrid, adding to our striker options after we had decided not to purchase loanee Radamel Falcao on a permanent basis. During this time, Robin van Persie was sold to Turkish club Fenebahce after suffering his weakest season at United, scoring only 10 goals in all competitions. Whilst I was sad to see him leave, I was pleased to see Hernandez get another chance in the team, making substitute appearances against Newcastle and Club Brugge. After missing a penalty kick against Brugge, Hernandez was almost instantly sold to Bayer Leverkusen, where he scored 26 goals in all competitions. To further rub salt in the wound, van Persie rediscovered his scoring touch (despite not appearing as regularly as he perhaps would have wanted), netting 20 goals.

3. Angel Di Maria = Striker?
United broke the British transfer record when exciting playmaker Angel Di Maria joined for £59.7million. Primarily a winger or centre-mid, Van Gaal decided that the best way to utilise this talent was to play him up-front, making Di Maria ineffective in any game he played in that position. Di Maria lost confidence and finished his first season at the club with 4 goals in all competitions. His United career came to a swift end upon refusing to join up with the team on a pre-season tour of the United States, and he was sold to Paris Saint-Germain soon after.

2. Super-sub Nick Powell
After a dismal display in the 2015/16 Champions League group stage, United had to deliver a massive performance in Germany against VfL Wolfsburg in their final match. It was a must win situation, and the game was a crazy affair, with United taking the lead only to eventually concede 3 goals, with the game finishing 3-2. In this must-win game, van Gaal gambled on youngster Nick Powell (who had only scored one goal for the club and was continuously sent on loan throughout his United career), replacing Juan Mata towards the end of the match. Whether Powell actually touched the ball in the game is lost on me and, to the surprise of everyone except van Gaal, he made no impact in the game. Such was the difficulty of Powell finding a place in the first team, that he was released by United upon expiry of his contract. 

1. Miss a penalty, back of the queue
If there's one tactic I expect Mourinho to never consider, it's this one. Robin van Persie, Wayne Rooney and Juan Mata all fell victim to van Gaal's methods of who takes penalty kicks, with the rule being that if you miss, the next in line takes your place. The penalty kick is one of the most nerve-wrecking situations for players and fans, but van Gaal thought it would be a good idea to increase that pressure by having this stupid system in place. Van Perise was the first victim, missing what would have levelled the score against West Brom in the 2014/15 season. That same campaign, Rooney missed against Liverpool, though United won the match thanks to two Juan Mata goals. The Spaniard enjoyed a good run from the spot, but eventually missed against FC Midtjylland in the Europa League. Most teams stick to one player taking penalties, but United have seen several players take them under van Gaal, with only Mata doing well under the Dutchman's management. Here's hoping Mourinho chooses one player to score from the spot. Someone like new signing Zlatan Ibrahimovic, perhaps?

X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) Review

"Everything they've built will fall!" - Apocalypse.

It seemed as though barley any time had passed between the release of three mammoth-sized superhero films. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice bored me, and so Captain America: Civil War acted as a painkiller and showed that superheroes in conflicted could be entertaining and not such a drag. After no time at all, we have yet another superhero film, and it seems as though people are treating X-Men: Apocalypse as the "one too many" release. Audiences are quickly being burnt out with the plethora of comic book films which are showing no signs of slowing down, but is the eighth entry in the X-Men franchise deserving of the disinterest, or is it just a case of it being released at the wrong time?

Following on from the craziness of 2014's Days of Future Past, X-Men: Apocalypse keeps things relatively straight-forward. Once again focusing on the younger incarnations of the X-Men, we are re-introduced to iconic characters such as Cyclops (Tye Sheridan) and Jean Grey (Sophie Turner). Their journey to become X-Men can't come soon enough, as an ancient evil in the guise of Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac) has awoken. Seeking to purify the world so that only the strongest mutants are the dominant species, Apocalypse assembles a new team of followers, including Magneto (Michael Fassbender). It's now up to Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and the other X-Men to prevent Apocalypse from carrying out his plan.

Bryan Singer returns to direct, after continuing the franchise's success with Days of Future Past. Though he was able to tell a dizzying story in that film coherently, his direction here has the opposite effect. The story is less complex, but the pacing is a little off to begin with. Most of the first act has to establish where the characters are after the events of the last film, re-introduce the younger incarnations of the X-Men and also introduce the mythology of Apocalypse. It's a lot to juggle and the film comes across as imbalanced because of it. When it appears that Singer has finally got the ball rolling, there is an out-of-nowhere moment that halts everything. Colonel Stryker (Josh Helman) reappears and captures some of the X-Men, so the one's left behind have to go and rescue them. No of this seems to have any connection to the main plot of Apocalypse, and it takes up way too much screen-time. The sequence only exists to have Hugh Jackman keep up his record of appearing in every X-Men film, but I don't see much point in having another scene showing us the origins of Wolverine when X-Men 2 (2002) already told us plenty.

One thing the film did make we realise was how much I've missed seeing James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender as Charles Xavier and Magneto. Many fans loved their chemistry in X-Men: First Class (2011), and both actors are as fantastic as ever here. In this film, we see them forced to contemplate exactly where they stand on the existence of both humans and mutants, with Magneto joining forces with Apocalypse and Charles having to confront Apocalypse on a telepathic level. Their scene's are the best parts of the film, and I'd be more than happy to see them return for more. Both characters are infinitely more compelling than the villain, which I'm sad to say doesn't fit the supposed massive scale I expected. With Apocalypse seeing himself as more a of a god than a mutant, I expected a stronger presence than menace, but he has very little to do and doesn't demonstrate much of his powers throughout the film. His backstory sets him up to be the most incredible foe the X-Men have ever faced, but he only confronts the team once and doesn't achieve much other than assembling his essential "Four Horseman".

Finally, I would like to mention my feelings of this film alongside my thoughts on the two other superhero blockbusters I have already reviewed. Although X-Men: Apocalypse is clunky and lacks a good villain, it was the first of the three films where I felt I had actually watched a story play out on-screen. Batman v Superman is hardly a film, it exists purely to set up sequels and throw iconic characters at us without focusing on why we should be invested in their conflict or feelings. Civil War, while an entertaining experience, is all built around that one massive fight sequence. The conflict in Civil War is better than BvS, but on reflection, it will serve as an example of how dumbed-down we like our cinema nowadays. Of course, a big selling point of X-Men: Apocalypse is seeing the team fight the villains, but there is much more emotional weight and less hammy acting than  BvS or Civil War. Bryan Singer actually wants to get you invested in his characters, and the chemistry between the cast was more believable and enjoyable overall. Bottom-line: it may not be the best superhero film, but with Civil War being praised as some kind of masterpiece, this was always going to have a lukewarm reception. I, however, cannot fathom why everyone thinks Civil War is so perfect, and so I recommend you check out X-Men for a more engrossing and just as entertaining film. 

Oh, and its a million times better than BvS, just in case you hadn't figured that out yet.

Deathstalker (1983) Review

"Heroes and fools... are the same thing!" - Deathstalker.

With the release of many a blockbuster waiting to soon find themselves reviewed here, I thought I'd change things up a little bit by reviewing a film not many people will have heard of. My choice is the 1983 sword-and-sorcery film Deathstalker, released on the heels of box-office success Conan the Barbarian (1982). Low-budget Conan clones were all the rage back in the early 80's, and  Deathstalker proved to be one of the more successful entries, garnering a cult following and three sequels. It is a fascinating watch today, and will be a guilty-pleasure of mine for many years to come.

The lone-warrior Deathstalker (Rick Hill) is tasked by a witch to retrieve three powerful relics: a sword, an amulet and a chalice. Discovering the sword in a cave, Deathstalker sets out to retrieve the other two relics, which are in the possession of an evil sorcerer named Munkar (Bernard Erhard). Munkar plans to attract the strongest warriors in the land to participate in a fighting tournament, under the false pretence that the winner will inherit his kingdom and riches. Deathstalker, along with new-found compatriots Oghris (Richard Brooker) and Kaira (Lana Clarkson), arrives to participate in the tournament and retrieve the other relics, as well as rescue the captive Princess Codille (Barbi Benton).

At only 80 minutes long, this is a short feature, and the time flies by when watching it because its so entertaining. There are too many crazy moments to count, which makes the film difficult to review. I could talk about the simple plot, for example, in a negative way, but this is the kind of film where the craziness overshadows the more important aspects of a film. So I'll take a look at the characters and some of the film's highlights. Let's start with our hero, Deathstalker. Known only by this name (on the odd occasion hilariously shortening it to simply "Stalker"), he is a powerful warrior with a meat-headed attitude. The very first scene involves him saving a girl from goblin-like creatures, only to undress her before being interrupted. He seeks neither fame nor glory, but is more than happy to accept going on a quest to obtain powerful relics, which will no doubt make him famous and glorified anyway. With his cold demeanour and misogynistic ways, he isn't much of a hero, but he's not as evil as Munkar, which makes him seem more heroic by comparison. Rick Hill is perfect for this role, delivering his cheesy one-liners in his low voice with confidence. When not spouting hilarious dialogue (like the above quip), he is able to appear intimidating due to his large physique and fighting skills. 

Deathstalker's companions are just as memorable as he is, and there are some interesting (and bizarre) creative choices to their portrayals. Kaira is a female warrior who hooks up with Deathstalker, but is also able to fight her own battles. All the other women in the film are portrayed as victims, but Kaira is the exception. She intends to compete in Munkar's tournament, and is more than capable of holding her own in a fight. She does, however, succumb to some of the more misogynistic aspects of the film despite her being a more strong-willed character. She appears bare-chested for most of her screen-time, and Deathstalker forces himself upon her on the first night they meet. No wonder they have such a strong bond: he embarks on a quest that will inadvertently make him famous, and she fights against female oppression, but is more than happy to enjoy Deathstalker having his way with her within hours of first meeting him. Both of them are as morally confused as each other it would seem. She also gets very little dialogue, and is killed off before she even gets a chance to compete in the tournament, making her seem not as important as the other characters. Though she is certainly memorable, it would have been nice to see her last until the end, as it would at least mean one woman triumphs over the male dominance of the film. 

Oghris, like Deathstalker, is a skilled fighter, and at first appears to be a more noble character than the lead. In his first scene, he rescues a woman from being raped (with the eventual help of Deathstalker). However, he indulges himself in having his way with women upon arrival at Munkar's castle, and is secretly in cahoots with Munkar. He also wears a ridiculous piece of armour: a half-vest thing which would appear to be more suitable for a female character. He competes in the tournament and does well, but meets his end at the hands of Deathstalker after learning of his betrayal. The two of them have a pretty good fight scene, with lots of props smashed and a surprising amount of drama. Though much of the film is hard to take seriously, the lack of dialogue involved before they fight makes for a decent portrayal of friends turned enemies.

Bernard Erhard is arguably the best actor in the film. His appearance is weird, with a massive tattoo on the side of his head, but he makes Munkar a threatening villain and more than a match for Deathstalker. Being a sorcerer, he exhibits all sorts of unusual powers throughout the film, the weirdest being the ability to change a man into a woman! He's not over-the-top and bombastic as one might expected in a film of this nature, instead radiating a disturbingly calm presence. He also suffers perhaps the most brutal death in the film: being ripped limb from limb after Deathstalker defeats him.

The characters are a lot of fun, but the plethora of strange scenes is what makes Deathstalker the guilty-pleasure that it is. I've heard that some scenes had to be removed or significantly cut down, as the filmmakers were aimed for a runtime of around 80 minutes. If true, it at least makes sense of some of the dodgy editing in certain moments. Sometimes the editing is so fast you can barely process what is happening. There's a scene near the beginning where Deathstalker and a witch fight some of Munkar's henchman, and the dialogue is cut together so fast that it sounds very unnatural. There are other instances where the film feels like it was improvised, such as a fight in Munkar's castle where all hell breaks loose amongst the fighters. It's so chaotic that I feel the director must have said "do whatever you want and we'll keep the best bits in the film". This is my favourite scene in the whole film because its completely ridiculous and features the best method of fighting ever. In a moment of pure brilliance, a pig-like creature rips a man's arm off and uses it to club another man to death. If I had to show one scene that sums up the enjoyable stupidity of Deathstalker, this would be it. Check it out for yourself:

With its memorable characters and cheap charm, Deathstalker is a fun-filled ride from start to finish. Though its depictions of female characters are distractingly old-fashioned, there is still enough action and quotable dialogue to make this a great addition to an ultimately silly genre. Its one of those films best enjoyed with a group of friends, as some of the silliness has to be seen to be believed. Track it down on VHS or DVD, sit back, and switch your brain off for 80 minutes of cheese!

Captain America: Civil War (2016) Review

"I know we're not perfect, but the safest hands are still our own." - Captain America.

My work schedule is finally starting to clear up. But, no matter how busy I was, there was always room to fit in going to see Captain America: Civil War. I really admired last year's Avengers: Age of Ultron (the first film I reviewed on this blog), and so I was looking forward to seeing how these characters have progressed since then. This time around, the Avengers aren't up against a madman wanting to destroy or takeover the world, but instead are torn apart over government interference and personal issues. Boasting new, exciting characters such as Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) and Spiderman (Tom Holland), Civil War aims to up the ante greater than any other MCU film. With it's engaging story and characters as well as incredible action, the film achieves its goal and is a stunning opening chapter in the third phase of the most successful franchise in film history.

Following on one year after the Avengers defeated Ultron, Captain America (Chris Evans) leads Scarlet Witch (Elisabeth Olsen), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Falcon (Anthony Mackie) on another mission. Their attempts to prevent the theft of a biological weapon ends in many innocent lives lost, with Scarlet Witch unable to be in complete control of her powers. This leads Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) to try and convince the team to agree to a new government initiative to keep the Avengers' actions limited, so as to lessen the chances of any more destruction. This causes a fraction within the team, with Captain America insisting they should act on their own freewill, and Iron Man feeling the imitative is the right thing to due after feeling guilty about creating Ultron in the last film. The divide is cemented by an attempt to frame Captain America's friend, Bucky (Sebastian Stan), which is orchestrated by a man named Zemo (Daniel Bruhl). Zemo seeks revenge on the team for the destruction they caused to his country in the last film, and feels the best way to do so is by having them fight one-another. So its Captain America and his Team vs. Iron Man, his team and the government, in the biggest superhero conflict ever devised!

A major plus point for the film is that it invests plenty of time into the motivations, emotions and personalities of the many characters. We've seen the tension between Iron Man and Captain America in previous films, but never have the stakes been this high. There's good drama to be had from Tony Stark (Iron Man) contemplating whether or not the Avengers are any better than "the bad guys" if they aren't supervised, but at the same time, Captain America's thoughts are difficult to argue against. So really, whichever "team" you decide to cheer for will come down to which you find the more cool, as both lead characters put in compelling arguments for and against the supervision initiative. I was also pleased that Scarlet Witch and Vision (Paul Bettany) are further developed. Scarlet Witch has made her transition from evil to good, but she is the most emotionally unstable of the group. Vision, being the all powerful being that he is, is able to understand her struggles, which covers the more sentimental parts of the film. This development aids the conflict as Scarlet Witch joins Captain America's side and Vision joins Iron Man's, which makes for far better viewing than just having a "good" character fight the token "bad" character, as is so often the case with superhero films.

Alongside the well written characters is the outstanding action. After city-scale battles in the two Avengers films, Civil War delivers on keeping up Marvel's high standard. This is helped by pitting the team against on another, as now they are facing their equals in combat. Before, the Avengers battled alien soldiers and robots, but now we get to see an all out battle involving technology, magic and hand-to-hand combat all being used against one another. There is also room for plenty of humour, too, especially when Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) is involved. This prevents the lengthy action sequences from becoming tiring, and is a more than welcome presentation after the anti-climatic Batman v Superman a few months earlier. I don't want to go into too much depth here, as the action is the film's selling point and is best experienced without knowing all the little details.

Aside from the promise of seeing the Avengers battle one-another, much of the film's hype revolved around the introduction of two new characters. The first is Black Panther, who joins the fight after Bucky is framed for murdering his father. With incredible speed and agility, he is more than a match for most of the team. Chadwick Boseman is thankfully given much to do with the role, going from a proud son to a vengeful vigilante, whilst still remaining likeable throughout. However, for all of Black Panther's might and presence, he was never going to top the inclusion of Spiderman, seen here for the first time in the MCU. Whilst it was only two years ago we last saw this character (in the underwhelming mess The Amazing Spiderman 2), audiences aren't growing tired of him anytime soon, as proven by the reaction his reveal received online as well as the screening I was at. Tom Holland is the first teenage actor to play the role, and his performance is noticeably different from previous actor's portrayals as a result. He has a vulnerable look due to his young age, but when in costume, delivers all the humour and tricks one could hope for. I wasn't surprised to see he wasn't in the film too long, as they've yet to fully establish him in the MCU and was more a treat for the fans than anything else. I look forward to seeing him in his own MCU film next year.

The film is selling itself on the spectacle of superhero team vs. superhero team, and you get exactly that. However, there is nothing too surprising overall about the plot, aside from one potential game-changer reveal towards the end. Whilst it isn't as cookie-cutter as other superhero movies, there isn't anything that stands out as brand new, other than the sheer scale of action and characters involved. That said, there is certainly a lot to enjoy throughout, especially the battle at the airport, where all the heroes get a chance to show off their unique abilities. After the depressing tone of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, this film feels like a breath of fresh air. It's much more fun and the conflict is handled so much better as the focus is mainly on Iron Man and Captain America. The supporting characters are all memorable, and it nicely sets up the rest of the series. Chances are you've probably seen the film by now, but if you haven't, go in expecting a fun ride and some decent drama and you'll have a blast.