Brotherhood (2016) Review

"The only person more dangerous than someone with nothing to lose... is someone who stands to lose everything." - Sam.

Known to mainstream audiences as the clumsy Mickey Smith in Doctor Who, Noel Clarke very quickly established a new identity for himself in 2006's urban crime film Kidulthood, Flexing both his acting and writing muscle, Clarke's story of teenagers living in west London packed a thought-provoking punch, never shying away from depicting the dysfunctional and dangerous lives of the characters. Shrugging off the shyness of Mickey, Clarke portrays "bad-boy" Sam Peel with fierce intensity. Sam's aggressiveness ultimately ends up ending the life of the film's protagonist, and the 2008 sequel, Adulthood, explored the effects this has on Sam as well as the people he knows. After writing and directing Adulthood, Clarke returned to the series with the final chapter: Brotherhood, once again in the role of actor, writer and director. But could the series still be as thought-provoking as the first entry, and was the film a worthy conclusion to a trilogy ten years in the making?

Sam is no longer is the aggressive young man of the previous films and has settled down with his partner Kayla (Shanika Warren-Markland) and his two kids, working various jobs. But old tension's re-surface after his musician brother Royston (Daniel Anthony) is shot, with the assailant leaving a letter for Sam. Dragged back into his old life, Sam sets out to confront the people responsible, with Royston's friend Henry (Arnold Oceng) tagging along to help. But there are still old scores to settle with the returning Curtis (Cornell John), whose nephew was killed by Sam in Kidulthood. With Curtis and his brother's assailants surrounding him, Sam faces the ultimate test to keep his family safe, but realises he way have to go back to his old ways in order to do so.

The most rewarding thing in this third film is the performance of Clarke and his writing for Sam. We've seen him go from villain to anti-hero, and in Brotherhood he starts out as neither. As Clarke has grown older since the last film, so has Sam, with him now facing responsibility as a father and partner. These are by far the most interesting parts of the film as Sam is so different to how we have seen him before. But Clarke can also pull off the vengeful side to Sam as things begin to spiral out of control around him. Channelling his inner thug, Sam is a man on a mission in the film's final act, with Clarke giving a powerful performance, particularly when he squares off against Curtis. The only negative I have towards Sam in this film is his act of unfaithfulness to his partner. Early on in the film, he meets a woman asking for directions, and Sam agrees to go back to her flat afterwards. She quickly seduces Sam into having sex with her, with Sam unaware he is being filmed. This evidence his show to Kayla later, thereby stacking greater odds against Sam to win back everything he fears to completely lose. As Sam has become more likeable and mature from the start of this film, having him be unfaithful feels out of place. He had learned his lessons from similar acts in the previous films, so to have him so easily act this way didn't make much sense to me.

The other characters are hit and miss, with some being likeable and others totally unbelievable. Arnold Oceng gives the film a lighter tone as Henry, very much the comic relief. He means well, but his constant white lies to his girlfriend of course get him into trouble. He's like a sitcom character, which could easily be a turn-off for those wanting a serious tone from beginning to end. Personally, I found it to be refreshing for the series to include a character who was more fun and not be so flawed, especially compared to the troubled teens from the first film and the villains. The villains are sadly where things get silly for the film. Whilst their intentions to hurt Sam and his family are certainly scary, the performances become far too comical to take seriously, especially when they also have ridiculous names. A gang with members who have given themselves the names Mookz (Jason Maza), Yardz (played by grime rapper Stormzy) and Hugz (Leeshon Alexander) don't sound like the most intimidating bunch of baddies you'll ever hear of. Camping it up the most is Jason Maza as the film's primary antagonist, with a performance wacky enough to blend right into either of the sequels to Green Street (2005). Cornell John is still good as Curtis, but his quest for revenge against Sam feels sidetracked by the other villains and their apparent connection to some of the series' other characters. Perhaps with more focus on him, his despicable actions would've had greater impact.

Brotherhood also breaks the barriers of realism considerably more than its predecessors, with the final third involving military-esque weaponry and Henry's girlfriend still not cottoning on to his increasingly silly lies. The scenes with Sam and his gang raiding the home of the villains is certainly entertaining, but still feels a little too extreme for a film trying to portray a gritty, realistic depiction of Sam. Then there's Henry's girlfriend believing every blatant lie he tells her as he tries to aid Sam. Once or twice is okay, but to have her believe every lie is a bit far-fetched. It also doesn't help that these moments are accompanied by gangster film cliches, such as Curtis waiting ominously for Sam with his back turned away from the camera when the two first meet again. With such an honest portrayal of urban life explored in Kiduthood, Brotherhood bites off more than it can chew with moments like this. Thankfully, the cliche moments aren't enough for us to not care about the outcome for Sam, and the ending does feel like his story has come full circle.  With the film clearly stating that this is the last entry in the series, the ending leaves Sam with a more positive outlook on life, which is a welcome sight after the darkness and tough situations he's put himself and others through.

Whilst it certainly is the most "out-there" film in the trilogy, Brotherhood at least keeps us interested in its central character and portrays an appropriate evolution of his personality. The cliches and silliness in some moments can be off-putting, but the film never drags and has some standout performances. Most importantly, it shows that Noel Clarke can continue to engage audiences through his triple offering of acting, writing and directing, something which very few British talents can lay claim to with his level of success. Overall, its a memorable conclusion to Clarke's passion project, and the series is one I feel will pass the test of time when looked back on.

Kong: Skull Island (2017) Review

"I spent thirty years trying to prove the truth: monsters exist"- Bill Randa.

It's been twelve years since we last saw everyone's favourite giant ape on the big screen. Now he's back, bigger and badder than ever. Kong: Skull Island serves as a reboot to the series, and establishes Kong in the shared MonsterVerse in which a crossover with Godzilla is planned for 2020. With the original King Kong being one of my favourite films, I'm always keen to see what's next for the series, especially after hearing the news of the upcoming crossover. As a blockbuster, this new entry ticks all the right boxes, but if you're expecting the same levels of greatness as seen back in 1933, then this really falls short of the mark.

Story-wise, the film shares a similar plot to the original, with a group of explorers arriving on Skull Island, encountering natives, as well as a few brushes with death via the various creatures they encounter. And, of course, there's a giant ape who is worshipped as a god. However, instead of a film crew and an actress who is captured by Kong for the majority of the film, we have a mixture of soldiers and scientists who are sent to prove the existence of monsters on Earth. Sure enough, after dropping explosives on his territory, Kong greets the team by destroying their helicopters and killing a significant number of the crew. With the team split up, they must head to the north of the island and signal for rescue, that is of course if the headstrong Colonel Packard (Samuel L. Jackson) can learn to get along with former serviceman James Conrad (Tom Hiddleston) and pacifistic photojournalist Mason Weaver (Brie Larson). With all manner of creatures after them, it's a race against time for the outnumbered humans, but Packard is intent on showing Kong that man is the superior species...

The film's biggest star is sadly one of the film's biggest problems. No, not Tom Hiddleston or Samuel L. Jackson, but rather Kong himself. Despite being larger than ever before (around 100ft tall) and taking on many opponents, Kong serves very little purpose to the story. He isn't given anything interesting to do, whereas he originally formed attachments to some of the human characters, particularly Ann Darrow in two of the other films. Whilst this film is a reboot and doesn't feature any previous characters, not having this connection and Kong not being central to the plot takes away what makes him a memorable and tragic character. There is a suggestion that Weaver "understands" Kong better than the other characters, almost acting as the Ann Darrow replacement, but it comes far too late in the film and still doesn't give Kong much of a purpose. I liked the appearance of Kong, however. He stands upright and is very agile, not to mention a powerful opponent for the other monsters. It is suggested that Kong is still growing in size, and hopefully he'll grow fast enough for his upcoming confrontation with Godzilla.

As seen in the trailer, and in the tradition of the other Kong films, there are other monsters roaming the island. Throughout the film, the humans encounter creatures such as a giant water buffalo, giant daddy longlegs and even a giant stick insect (although it's more of a log than a stick). Whilst these creatures are at least given there own individual set piece, I lost count of the amount of times they emerged after being camouflaged. Every creature appeared to be introduced in this manner, to the point where I was numb to seeing it. The biggest letdown, however, has to be the new monsters. Dubbed as "Skullcrawlers", these beasts move at lightning speed and are apparently so terrifying that the island natives built a giant wall to keep them away from their village. The design of the monsters appears all too familiar, with the most obvious connection being the monster from Cloverfield (2008). I found these monsters to be very underwhelming, especially given how the natives respond to them and them supposedly being a worthy adversary for Kong. Whilst the sequences in which the humans encounter them have their moments, I didn't believe for one second that these things posed any sort of threat to Kong, and so overall, they are a missed opportunity to give the film a unique, memorable monster.

As for the human characters, there really isn't much to say. None of them are really developed enough to care if they survive the ordeal. The actors, however, do all they can with what they are given. There are no bad performances to speak of, and the film would feel significantly duller without the inclusion of a quirky John C. Reilly. Reilly's character does tend to create a farcical tone to the whole thing (as if the film isn't strange enough already!), but he does get the funniest lines and moments in the film. Samuel L. Jackson also has plenty of charisma to keep things moving nicely. I will give special mention to Jackson and the script for including one of the funniest, unexpected quips ever. After attacking Kong, Weaver attempts to plea with the Colonel, arguing that "the world is better than this". The Colonel's response is a simple statement of "Bitch, please", completely shattering the seriousness of Weaver's argument. Tom Hiddlestone really has nothing to work with here, and so I didn't end up forming an attachment to his character, despite the fact he's the hero and being a fan of the actor. Everyone else is there to be eaten or squashed by the monsters, and nothing other than that.

I enjoyed the monster battles, though, and they are by far the main reason to see the film. They are brutal and not afraid to show the damage these massive beasts cause. The heft and weight of the monsters, despite being all CGI, was also well realised. The monsters aren't flipping around without care like you'd see with the robots in the Transformers films, but rather each movement feels heavy and powerful. The action scenes do include some pretty weird moments though, such a scene where a Skullcrawler eats a character holding a camera. The camera continues to flash repeatedly after being swallowed by the monsters, which is one of the oddest ways to try and create tension I think I've ever seen. There's also a moment where Kong uses a long boat chain as a weapon, something which bares an uncanny resemblance to Scorpion from the Mortal Kombat video games.

Whilst I wasn't expecting the film to come anywhere near to creating the same impact as the 1933 original film, Kong: Skull Island is still far less impressive than I had hoped it would be. The battles are fun and the performances have their merits, but the unremarkable cast of characters and lack of some fresh ideas makes for an underwhelming reboot. Kong is very impressive to look at, but the core tragic nature of the character is lost in a sea of lazy monster designs and a clunky script. With Kong set for a few rounds of fighting against the equally iconic Godzilla, here's hoping the giant ape returns to his former glory when he stars in what could be the biggest monster clash ever made. Until then, Kong: Skull Island will definitely need some time to grow on me.

What can we expect from Alien: Covenant?

With two fantastic films, two dodgy sequels, two crossover films and a prequel (of sorts), the Alien franchise has seen more than its fair share of highs and lows. Starting in 1979, Ridley Scott's original horror masterpiece introduced audiences to one of the most chilling creatures ever depicted on film, as well as Sigourney Weaver's iconic Ellen Ripley. James Cameron continued the franchise's success in 1986, opting for a more action-packed approach. After Cameron's Aliens, Alien 3 (1992) and Alien: Resurrection (1997) both failed to live up to expectations. Years later, the franchise combined with the Predator series, spawning two films. Both Alien vs. Predator (2004) and Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007) were both financially successful, but fan and critical reaction was largely negative. In 2012, Ridley Scott returned to the series to direct Prometheus, a film set before the events of Alien but primarily focusing on its own mythology. Now with Scott once again at the helm of the upcoming Alien: Covenant (2017), this article will explore what audiences can expect based on three factors of my choosing: the fan reaction to Prometheus, the look of the film based on the trailer, and Ridley Scott's own sayings as to how his new film links with the rest of the series.

First, I'd like to look at Prometheus, seeing as how it is the latest film in the series to be released. I was really excited to see it back when it came out, especially with Ridley Scott back to direct and to focus solely on the Alien series and not be another crossover. The film follows the crew of the titular spaceship as they explore a distant planet. Archaeologists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) have discovered a star map leading them to the planet, believing that the planet could hold clues to the origin of the human race. Along with the android David (Michael Fassbender), the crew soon discover a threat in the guise of the Engineers, a humanoid alien race. Shaw and David survive the encounter with the Engineers, and set off to find their home planet to discover why the Engineers intended to destroy humanity.

Critically and commercially, Prometheus was largely successful. However, the film garnered a more mixed response from fans. Whilst universal acclaim was given to the design and performances (in particular Michael Fassbender), elements of the plot were criticised. The main focus of negativity from fans seemed to be aimed at where exactly the film fits into the timeline of the original Alien film. There are references to the aliens and hints towards similar discoveries by the crew, but with some expecting Prometheus to link directly to Alien, people where left confused. The surprise at the end of Prometheus was to see what initially appears to be the first alien, as it closely resembles the creatures from the other films. This creature, known as the Deacon, only appears briefly but makes for an impactful ending to the film. But the Deacon's close resemblance to the other aliens would only generate more confusion. Seeing as Prometheus pre-dates Alien, many initially thought it to be the first alien to have existed, but the film clarifies this isn't the case by depicting statues of the aliens earlier in the film. With the title of the new film clearly stating it to be a closer link to the original Alien, perhaps Alien: Covenant be more like how some fans expected Prometheus to be and straighten out some of the confusions from the first film.

At the end of last year, we finally got our first look at the sequel to Prometheus. Before this, the film had already caught attention by going through a title change. Originally named Alien: Paradise Lost, the new title was revealed to be Alien: Covenant. Like Prometheus, the film takes its title from the name of the spaceship featured in the film. The R-rated trailer begins with a horrific death scene before creating a mysterious atmosphere. We see shots of incredible landscapes as well as dark corridors, and of course a brief glimpse of an alien. Michael Fassbender is also featured in the trailer, as well as several new characters. From this trailer, it appears as though Alien: Covenant will match the look of Alien more than Prometheus, due to the gore and darkness. However, the shots of landscapes and the use of music lean more towards the tone of Prometheus. With this trailer, one can hope that the film feels equally balanced, showing clear direction that not only is this the sequel to Prometheus, but also a more direct prequel to Alien. Check out the trailer for yourselves below:

But how will Alien: Covenant fit in with the next instalments in the series? Ridley Scott has stated that there will be more sequels following on from Alien: Covenant, and intends them to clearly lead into Alien. Seeing as how Alien: Covenant echoes the look of the original Alien and the sequels will eventually take us to the start of that film, where does that leave the established plot points of Prometheus? The focus was initially on the Engineers and Dr. Shaw's journey to discover their home planet, but the trailer has no references to this. Will the Deacon alien be featured in the sequels, or was it just an added surprise at the end of Prometheus? Despite Scott's intentions to the have a closer link to Alien, these elements of the story cannot be ignored, otherwise Prometheus has not much purpose within the story leading into Alien. I am a great admirer of Scott's direction of Prometheus, as it was clearly linked to Alien but also told us a story was hadn't seen before. I just hope he hasn't given in to fan demands of wanting a direct prequel to Alien and tells the story he wants to tell. Whatever the direction of the new film, we don't have long to get our answers, as Alien: Covenant arrives in May...

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) Review

"We have hope. Rebellions are built on hope!" - Jyn Erso

Happy New Year to all. I've held off reviewing the latest Star Wars as by the time this review goes out, I will have seen the film twice. Being that Star Wars is one of my favourite film series, I think it's only fair to give my full opinion after having seen it again in the cinema. One of the biggest films of last year, Rogue One has been a massive hit with critics, but more of a mixed bag with fans. Me personally, I'm leaning more to the critics side for this one. Finally, I'd like to mention that this review does contain spoilers, so if you have yet to see the film, check back here after you've seen it.

In the opening text of 1977's Star Wars, we are informed that the Rebels have stolen plans to a weapon known as the Death Star, an enormous space station used by the Galactic Empire to spread fear throughout the galaxy. Rogue One takes place a few days before this event, where we meet Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), whose father Galen (Mads Mikkelsen) has been captured by Director Orson Krennic (Ben Mendelsohn) to complete the Death Star's construction. In an attempt to rescue her father, Jyn joins the Rebels, teaming up with Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) and droid K-2SO (Alan Tudyk). Upon learning that the plans to the Death Star are located on a planet occupied by the Empire's military, Jyn assembles a rag-tag group of soldiers to launch a desperate assault against the Empire in a bid to rid the galaxy of their rule.

When I first heard of the plot of the film, I wasn't too excited. Granted, we've never seen the story of how the Rebels stole the plans to the Death Star, but I didn't think it was an interesting enough idea to sustain a two-hour plus blockbuster. However, upon the reveal of a new plot point that will change the way you look at the original Star Wars, I was fully immersed. One thing most people point out as being one of the silliest aspects in the first Star Wars was how easy it was to blow up the Death Star. In Rogue One, that issue is addressed with a clever solution as to why that is. From that point on, I was completely drawn in, and it allowed me to appreciate director Gareth Edward's new angle for a Star Wars film. Tone-wise, Edwards has crafted a very different look to previous entries in the series, appropriately going for a grittier, darker presentation. The violence isn't highly stylised, instead opting for intensity and suspense. There is no slick choreography or crazy stunts like in the prequel trilogy, which allows for greater drama and engagement. It's the first Star Wars film to actually feel like a war film, which was a good decision given the nature of the story and to give audiences something new.

Like The Force Awakens, fans were excited to meet new characters in the Star Wars universe, as well as the return of some familiar faces. The new characters comprise the main cast, with Jyn Erso as our protagonist and Orson Krennic as the primary villain. Jyn is very similar to Rey in The Force Awakens, growing up without a real family and being thrust into a war where she will have a key part to play. Starting out as reckless and eventually learning to care about and trust the Rebels, Jyn goes through quite a journey throughout the film's two hours, and I found her to be an engaging lead. I felt her transition to becoming a leader was well handled, as she shows strength and courage right from the beginning, and she uses these qualities to inspire hope for the Rebels. Orson Krennic is quite the opposite. Completely self-centred and using fear to get what he wants, Krennic is a ruthless individual. Such is his desire to elevate beyond his current position, that he clashes with several other members of the Empire, including Darth Vader. He also has history with the Erso family, capturing Galen and killing Jyn's mother at the start of the film. I was very pleased the story didn't just become a revenge fantasy for Jyn and kept its focus on the greater storyline of the Rebel's struggle against the Empire. Still, when Jyn and Krennic finally come face-to-face, it is an emotionally driven confrontation and was one of a number of highlights in the film for me.

Now the spoiler stuff, which I thankfully avoided completely before my first viewing. One of the big talking points of Rogue One is the inclusion of Grand Moff Tarkin, a character who appeared in the first Star Wars played by Peter Cushing. Cushing died in 1994, and so it seemed his character's inclusion in this film was impossible. However, to my amazement, Tarkin actually shows up, with his first appearance facing away from the camera. When he turned around, there was Peter Cushing. Much has now been written about the techniques involved in creating this state-of-the-art digital recreation, but more so on whether or not bringing back dead actors via this technique is indeed ethical. Seeing how the filmmakers received permission and help from Peter Cushing's estate and that Tarkin is a central character to the Death Star story, I think this inclusion was incredible. It was such a shock to see his face again, but I was delighted to see more of this character. Later on, the same process is used to have Princess Leia appear as she did back in 1977, with her delivering the film's last line. Surprisingly, despite her face only appearing for a few seconds, the effect is inferior to the CGI Tarkin, but I still love that they had her in the film, especially now after the passing of Carrie Fisher.

Then there's Darth Vader. Having already been shown in the trailers, I knew he would appear at some point, but I also didn't expect him to play a large role. He has only a few scenes, but I thought each of them were great. He has arguably the best moment in the film: mercilessly cutting down a group of Rebels like the Grim Reaper. James Earl Jones returns to voice Vader, and it really wouldn't be the same without him. Hearing that iconic voice again reminded me of watching the original trilogy as a child, which is exactly how The Force Awakens made me feel. If they continue to make Star Wars films in this way, I'll almost certainly love each and every one of them. 

The negatives I have are to do with the pacing of the beginning and ending. I imagine pretty much everybody has seen the original Star Wars, but I think the film was too reliant on this, as it wastes no time in chucking a ton of exposition at you. We visit far too many planets in such a small amount of time, which makes it difficult to establish exactly who the characters are and at what point in the Star Wars timeline we are in. The ending also throws all it can at you in terms of the final battle. There's ground battles, sky battles and a space battle all going on at the same time, ending with Vader's invasion of the rebel ship. Like the opening of the film, I found it difficult to process where all the characters were despite having seen the film twice now. I enjoyed the action overall, but too much at same time is a bit exhausting, especially when the only battle that really mattered was Jyn and Cassian's attempt to steal the Death Star plans.

While some see Rogue One as the beginning of a process that "cheapens" the Star Wars experience, I for one are more than happy to see more anthology films if they are this well made. Though the beginning and ending was a bit too much all at once, the bulk of the film exceeded my expectations. It builds upon previously established Star Wars elements with new ideas and engaging characters, as well as having more than enough well done fan service along the way. Like The Force Awakens did for the sequel trilogy, Rogue One has paved the way for the next instalments in the anthology series by delivering an exciting, intriguing and thoroughly enjoyable Star Wars film. May the force be with the next films, because Rogue One just upped the game. 

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.