The Day The Earth Stood Still Review

The Day The Earth Stood Still is a remake of a 1951 science fiction film of the same name. The remake stars Keanu Reeves (The Matrix, Speed and Constantine) as Klaatu, an alien sent to earth for plot destroying reasons, and Jennifer Connelly (Hulk, Blood Diamond and Labyrinth) as Helen Benson, his unwitting and thoroughly retarded love interest who, conveniently, is a scientist and, perhaps not so conveniently has massive issues with her step-son (played by Jaden Smith of The Pursuit of Happiness and being Will Smith's son fame). The film cost $80,000,000 to make and is distributed and presumably funded by 20^th Century Fox, who's executives have quite clearly lost their tiny little minds!

Don't get me wrong, I loved the 1951 film, but who in their right mind would pay $80,000,000 for a remake of a film that nobody remembers? I'm going to be completely honest with you all and admit that there were only 37 other people in the cinema with me and every other film was sold out! No-one wanted to see this pile of shit. Everyone in that cinema had been hoping to catch the last showing of Quantum of Solace or the opening weekend of Twilight. People went to see Transporter 3, a film starring Jason Statham (War, The Bank Job and Death Race [Remake]) a man so bad at acting that he has acting doubles to deliver any lines with more than one vowel in them (that was joke by the way. Jason can do two vowels), over this.

Admittedly, I had avoided going to this film the week beforehand for fear that it would be sold out...

So, where to start? The plot? I did like the originals plot so it can't be too bad, right? Wrong. The plot of the remake centres around the same premise as the 1951 film, in that an alien, named Klaatu, comes to earth in order to decide whether the human race should live or die. This and the giant robot are the only similarities. There are so many inconceivably stupid plot devices to list and such little time, so I'll just cut to the chase: the ending is abysmal. Not only does Klaatu have no motivation to make the decision that he reaches, he in fact posses logical reason to go against himself. You could put it down to love but that would have required some romantic dialogue somewhere in the film.

It would also have required some chemistry between Reeves and Connelly, of which there is none. In fact Reeves gives his most wooden and pathetic performance ever caught on camera. I'm serious and if you doubt me watch about ten seconds of his performance here and then watch him deliver one line in anything else. Just in case you think that Reeves is actor, remember Speed? 'Cause he was in that and this performance is worse by far. It's that bad! He still manages to outshine the rest of the cast by miles. Pretty much everyone but Reeves has to think for a bout twenty seconds before delivering a line, even if the line is one word. I'm starting to think that acting doubles might not be a bad idea.

Never mind though, the $80,000,000 had to be spent on something and it sure as hell couldn't be the actors or the script. It had to go on some of the most awesome CGI ever, right? Wrong. I could do this CGI! I take A-level ICT and I could do better than this presumably expensive CGI. In flash. I have honestly never seen CGI this bad in a film produced in the last five years. It hurts to look at sometimes and it entirely defeats the point of the film anyway. The 1951 version created tension through clever and subtle use of admittedly awful props. The remake creates the sensation of being physically violated (in a bad way) through loud and obnoxious use of utterly dreadful CGI.

At the end of the film people cheered. They cheered because it was over. They cheered because Keanu Reeves' career is also obviously over. They cheered because their minds had been raped and they had lived to tell the tale. Most of all they cheered because they had united in their hate. I cried. I cried because it was over. I cried because Hollywood had destroyed one of my favourite cult classics. I cried because $80,000,000 had vanished from the face of the earth. Most of all I cried because this film broke me, in a way that no other film has in a long time. The timid optimism brought in by No Country For Old Men and The Dark Knight earlier this year is gone. The earth may not have stood still, but I did.

That was a corny ending for my review right? Right.

0/10

Star Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Clones Review (War on Star Wars Part Three)

I haven't really ranted properly in a while, perhaps I'm mellowing slightly, perhaps I'm becoming more conformist and dull or perhaps there just hasn't been a film bad enough to drag me down from the dizzying high I got when I watched The Dark Knight earlier this year. Who knows? More importantly, who cares?

Anyway, it is with this statement in mind that we must return to the War on Star Wars. We have now reached part three of this epic battle of unpaid lonely embittered internet critic versus popular franchise and can thus far summarise only that very people care what I think. It is with that fact in mind that I shall continue my just and righteous crusade, free of the inhibitions offered by popularity and recognition, by reviewing Star Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Clones.

I do talk a lot of bollocks sometimes, don't I?

Episode 2 is set ten years after the events of The Phantom Menace and the plot marks the beginning of the clone wars, one of the more ridiculous events to occur within Star Wars history. Whereas Episode 1 signalled the beginning of the end for Star Wars, in every single way and Episode 3 condemned the series, or at least the prequel trilogy, to depths of box office depravity, Episode 2 actually shows a brief respite from the swamps of Lucas' aged and decrepit mind in that it actually improves upon Episode 1. It's still a mess though.

The plot of Episode 2 revolves around the politics of the Star Wars universe, which wouldn't have necessarily been a bad idea if anyone had even the roughest idea of how democracy actually works within the republic. Admittedly there is a loose explanation of this within the film but it doesn't make sense, none of it makes sense. The entire system seems to revolve around electing the first person to offer an eloquent speech, which in retrospect seems like a system that America should employ immediately. No more Republicans, right?

I'm not going to talk about the crazy politics too much because it boils down to, big things are happening in high places and some people aren't happy about this so they try to assassinate Padmé, the one person who actually seems to understand the word democracy. What happens in between this plot set-up and the finale of the film is largely irrelevant and unfolds in a mess of hammy dialogue, bad acting and worse choreography.

As with Episode 3 no-one but Ewan McGregor can express more than one emotion on screen, Hayden Christensen is a flurry of angst and the word midichlorians pops up a few times. There are a couple of moments which intrigued me, like when Anakin goes to get revenge on the Tusken Raiders for killing his mother, but it's too badly scripted and acted to be credible.

I think I'm finally starting to figure out what is actually wrong with the prequel trilogy and it's not what I expected. It isn't the inclusion of retarded plot devices like midichlorians, or retarded characters like Jar Jar Binks; it's the lack of emotion. Episodes 1-3 should be about the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker, his emotional turmoil through these times and his utter loss of himself leading to his transformation into Darth Vader. He should be a tortured and likeable character not an arrogant self-serving prick. The dialogue should be dark, not pun-laden and depressingly contrived. The blame doesn't rest entirely on Lucas' shoulders, Christensen is responsible as well.

3/10

Wanted Review

I never wanted to see Wanted. I also didn't want to open the review with a ridiculous pun, but sometimes the universe has a way of making everything slide in to place. Awkwardly. As for why I didn't want to see Wanted, it just looked stupid from the trailer. Angelina Jolie having the laws of physics bent around her? I'll admit that maybe a few penises have bent the laws of physics for that girl, but bullets damn well wouldn't (I'm just as confused about the sentiment contained within this sentence as you are).

As it stands my convictions against Wanted are wholly valid. It is quite simply the stupidest film I have seen since Snakes on a Plane, and it doesn't even realise it. The plot actually starts very well, as we follow an extremely likeable lead, Wesley Gibson (played by the utterly unappreciated James McAvoy), through the utterly depressing and futile nature of his life, all accompanied by a scathing and rude commentary which sounds some much like the inside of my brain it's scary. Then Wesley stumbles upon a cult of assassins who can bend the laws of physics and follow the orders of a magical loom that communicates in binary and I'm not even exaggerating.

The plot actually gets stupider. No-one ever questions why they follow the orders of a loom, how they got their powers, why they kill the people the loom tells them to (actually looked at briefly, given an awful and flimsy answer by an obviously insane person), or even how the people who started the fraternity (the aforementioned cult of assassins) understood binary, a code which quite simply wasn't available to cults of weavers (that's right, the assassins used to be weavers. Why? I have no idea) 1,000 years ago. The film simply ignores the fact that everything beyond the opening is completely stupid and utterly impossible.

Other than the vast majority of the film's plot Wanted is okay. It fits nicely into the category of “loud, obnoxious action films” which seems so popular with people who don't really appreciate good films. It has an awesome soundtrack, which fits perfectly with the film, it's shot fairly nicely and the acting is as good it gets in these kinds of films. Admittedly the dialogue is awful but when dealing with secret cults which follow the orders of a magical loom what do you expect?

All in all, it's a decent rental if you want a film you don't have to understand or care about. Although it could have been on a par with the first Matrix film if all the bollocks about the loom had been dropped (I may be a little obsessed with the stupidity of this plot device); the beginning shows masses of promise and the ending is wonderfully subversive, it's just all the middle bits which get in the way.

7/10

Call of Duty 5: World At War Review

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was one of the best games of last year, which is no mean feat when you consider that Bioshock and Halo 3 were released in the same year. CoD4 combined already intuitive combat with excellent level design, outstanding multiplayer and a modern setting in order to transform the Call of Duty series forever and what's more; it almost worked.

Sadly with the release of Call of Duty 5 the series makes a laborious march home to the war torn European landscape which is the second world war. Despite the fact that the game deals with parts of the war never before seen in a Call of Duty game (the conflict with the Japanese and the final Russian assault on Berlin) it's hard to ignore the apparent fact that the series has regressed. Gone is the mildly intriguing plot which held the last game together. Gone are the modern weapons and equipment. In with old and out with the new seems to be the strategy here and it shows.

Other than the games complete and utter lack of an intriguing storyline (everyone knows how WW2 ended), or compelling narrative (the plot now being told through overly dramatic cut scenes rather than players experiencing events themselves), the campaign seems to have kept most of what made CoD 4 great. The levels are still excellently designed with very few dull moments, guns are still satisfying and the games is still intuitive.

Multiplayer is where the game really manages to show itself off. The system from CoD 4 seems to have been taken and edited slightly to fit the old setting and everything works as it should. There are still very few games that can stand up to the Call of Duty series in terms of mulitplayer.

So, is CoD 5 better than it's predecessor? No. Not by a long shot. CoD 5 is a meagre offering in comparison. Whilst still an excellent shooter which any self-respecting PS3, or Xbox 360 owner should own (there are no self-respecting Wii owners, just for reference), the return to WW2 is a massive step back and whilst this might not affect the game's technological or gameplay qualities, it still seems to infest the game with an ill-omen of boredom.

7/10

No Country For Old Men Review

The Coen brothers have been responsible for several of my favourite films. O' Brother Where Art Thou?, Miller's Crossing and The Ladykiller's (remake) are all in my top ten favourite films, so it may not come as a surprise when I say that I was really looking forward to No Country For Old Men. However, it will probably come as a surprise that I'm reviewing the film now, almost a year after it's release, and that I didn't see the film at the cinema, and that I only paid £5.99 for the standard edition of the DVD, well that's probably more of a reflection upon my financial situation than anything else. Just thought it was time that you guys realised how much of my blood, sweat and tears goes into these reviews. Not literally of course.

Now that utterly irrelevant, time wasting tangent is behind us I can begin to actually write about the film. The plot of the film can be summed up in three short sentences:

1. Man stumbles upon crime scene and large sum of money.

2. Man takes money and runs.

3. Psychopathic killer and cop pursue man.

The film does have a lot more to it than this, but that's roughly what the actual plot surmounts to, and it's by no means a bad thing. The fact that the plot doesn't need masses of time to be developed fully allows the Coen brothers time to develop tension. The lack of any character development beyond a want for money or justice allows the Coen brothers to elevate the dialogue and action within the film to levels dominated by subtext.

No Country For Old Men is an odd film. Whilst being exceptionally violent, and profoundly horrible, most of the physical violence is sudden and bizarrely unmoving. The plot of the film just ends, with no warning. The lack of any real sound track both creates massive of tension, and gives absolutely no release. The acting in No Country For Old Men is absolutely superb. Everyone gives their absolute best when performing, and with actors like Tommy Lee-Jones setting the standard for the rest of the cast, absolute best is simply outstanding.

To put it simply, No Country For Old Men doesn't feel like a film, it feels real. Which makes everything so much more terrifying. Whilst this film has masses of problems, most prominent being that the entire film is incredibly slow and all of it requires absolute attention, it managed to keep me consistently entertained, thoroughly wrecked my nerves and certainly gave me a lot to think about.

Finally, I'm sorry if this review seems a little disjointed and confused but No Country For Old Men really confused me. I liked it but I'm not really sure why.

8./10

Watchmen Review

The media is a fickle fiend, most of the media we consume throughout the course of our lives is either depressingly average, or utter crap. However, on occasion, a media product so spectacular, meaningful and life affirming restores our faith as consumers and continues to fuel the media machine that we all know, hate and love. Watchmen is one of these products.

The comic's plot line centralises on a world in which superheroes, or “masked vigilantes”, have had their time in the limelight and become both inadequate to fight crime and criminals themselves. The story starts with the murder of The Comedian, a government controlled superhero and, through a combination of traditional comic book story-telling and lengthy text sections, advances through an expertly woven and uncompromising narrative, with a steady and unrelenting pace.

Everything about the comic's plot is absurdly well written, from the introduction of the characters, to the comics conclusion (which is such a shocking reflection upon the futility of humanity's actions that it had me thinking for weeks after I had finished reading the comic) Moore's writing is so complete and perfectly realised that I actually can't fault it at all. Watchmen has the depth of the greatest novels and the scope of the greatest films.

The artwork accompanying Moore's skilled writing captures the ethos and atmosphere of the comic perfectly and whilst there are a few issues with the consistency of certain character's appearances, it's rather difficult to care when the world of a comic is so expertly crafted.

The only flaw I can find in Watchmen is that it's ideas are exceptionally elevated and weighty for the genre, and those new to the comic book format will struggle with it's content. Indeed the comic makes it very clear for the beginning of the narrative that this is not a comic for weak readers with an up front, brutal murder.

All in all, Watchmen is the best comic book ever written and like all great pieces of literature, art or film, it is exceptionally dark, and sometimes difficult to cope with. I recommend becoming familiar with the comic book genre before embarking upon the reading of Watchmen, simply so you can finish this marvel of modern entertainment.

10/10

Fable 2 Review

Peter Molyneux knows nothing about technology. More specifically he knows nothing about technologies limitations. With Fable he promised us a fully free roaming world, in which we as players would be able to do anything from killing Hobbes to raising a family. What we actually got was one of the most linear story-driven action RPGs ever, it was good but it wasn't what we were promised. With Fable 2 we are promised that Lionhead will not only deliver what they promised with Fable but they will also add new features like online multiplayer and trees that grow realistically (and let me be the first to say exactly how this feature is going to revolutionise the industry. It isn't).

My expectations for the game were immediately dashed when I found out that Lionhead were unable to deliver online multiplayer upon the games release. Whilst this feature will apparently be added by the time you read this review the lack of this feature upon immediate release only proves one fact. Peter Molyneux is a liar!

Other than online multiplayer and trees which grow realistically Fable 2's most talked about feature is emotion. Now you would be forgiven for asking exactly what this means, if anything. Does it mean that the disk has massive mood swings, or that a gas containing anti-depressants is released into the air during gameplay? Well the answer is simple, neither you moron! It means you, as a player, are meant to get emotionally attached to the characters.

Now I'm not sure if it's simply my misanthropic, emotionally retarded, narcissistic and profoundly unstable nature speaking when I say that I hate every single character in Fable 2, especially the ones you're meant to identify with. Every “living” being in Albion is retarded, and even the sound of Stephen Fry's (Jeeves and Wooster, A Bit of Fry and Laurie, QI, Stephen Fry in America, LittleBigPlanet, Blackadder, all right I admit it, I'm a fan of Stephen Fry but in all honesty, who isn't?) voice simply wasn't enough to prevent me from wanting to kill everything in sight!

This may in part be due to the flimsy excuse for a plot holding these characters together. You start the game as a child, more specifically an orphan in order to comply with code of generic fantasy storylines, whose sister is quickly and brutally murdered by the ever dubious Lord Lucien (wherever do they think of these names?) as he attempts to prevent himself from being killed in a manner prophesied by one of the ever vigilant blind girls who seem to litter Albion in the same way that rings of power litter Middle-Earth. The plot henceforth advances with the player making arbitrary choices between the insipid extremes of Good and Evil with ultimate goal never being advanced beyond the commonly known “stop the bad guy”. That's it. I'm not joking. This is your emotion.

Gameplay wise Fable 2 is basically Fable with larger environments and more social interaction, a feature made utterly pointless by my absolute hatred of Albion's inhabits. Graphically Fable 2 is a mixed bag, with some environments inspiring awe and others inspiring a big pile of blandness (really should have thought about that sentence).

I know it may seem that I hate Fable 2. I don't. I'm just bitterly disappointed. Fable 2 doesn't even entirely deliver upon Molyneux's promises for Fable. You'll be fine with this game if you don't listen to anything that he says, but otherwise you'll feel like me: profoundly ripped off. I really don't see the point in Fable 2, it would have been far easier and just as successful if Lionhead had released Fable HD.

7/10     

Heroes (Season One) Review

Heroes is horrendously popular and as result of this I missed it's original TV run. You see, I have an odd tendency to avoid popular television whenever possible, even if I like the idea behind a show. This is partially the result of my misanthropic nature, which invariably leads me to conclude that the vast majority of people are one hundred percent pants on head retarded, and partially due to the fact that I never have time to schedule around television. Which seems odd for someone so interested in the media.

In an attempt to break the mould and conform (shut up! I know it's an oxymoron) I picked up a copy of Heroes Season One, decided that my social life and education have already taken up enough of my time and watched the entire thing in as little time as possible. One thought stuck out in my mind upon the completion of disk 7: “Damnit, people other than me are right sometimes!”

Now that my overly long and utterly pointless introduction is out of the way we can begin. Heroes' storyline revolves around the lives of a bizarrely high amount of seemingly unrelated characters who discover that they posses immense power which manifests itself in various different abilities. As the plot progress the characters are slowly drawn together by a serious of cataclysmic events which helps them understand their powers, the nature of humanity and themselves a lot better and whilst this plot may seem overly clichéd and generic, I assure you, it is far from it.

My first worry was that with so many characters it's often exceptionally easy for writers to provide certain characters with less intriguing plot lines and less intelligent character development than other characters and whilst Heroes occasionally falls into this trap, by the the end of the series each of the characters' is equally interesting and believable being. In fact Heroes somehow manages to make the inclusion of so many characters a blessing, as with each character there is often an accompanying visual style and a different tone, so if you don't like a certain character, a certain visual style or a certain tone Heroes should manage to satisfy you with a different character, visual style and tone in the next scene.

The acting is superb across the board, with everyone doing their best to compliment each other's talents and compensate for each other's flaws. The music and art direction in Heroes are also outstanding, with both the music and visual style for each sequence or character suiting the moment perfectly.

All in all. I was wrong. Heroes is, whilst by no means a masterpiece, an excellently put together and enthralling ensemble of all forms of talent. I still hate popular culture though, if only for the continuation of my own narcissistic ego, or the preservation of my misanthopically fuelled existence.

I need a life.

9/10

Saw Review

This may come as a shock to you, as it did to many of my friends but prior to preparing for this review I had never seen a single film in the Saw series. It just never really appealed to me. Everyone always talks of these films as if they're made entirely to gross people out, which has never struck me as good horror. Horror should be creepy, blood and gore isn't creepy it's just bloody and gruesome. However I decided that since Saw V is being released this Halloween I would give the series a try. Well, at least the first film.

The film's plot begins with two men waking up inside of a bathroom. They are chained to the walls and there is a corpse in the centre of the room. Through the use of flashbacks we as an audience are given the characters backgrounds and gradually told they have been captured by the infamous “Jigsaw”, a serial killer who uses traps made in a style that Batman's Joker (See The Killing Joke for an example of these “fun houses”) would be proud of in order to make his “victims” better themselves after they realise how precious life is.

Which would be a great plot set-up, unfortunately there is nothing else to the plot. At all. You never find out the identity of Jigsaw, the trap plays out like it's meant to and character development never really advances beyond the archetypes of “I'm dying”, “I need to save my family” or “Jigsaw told me to do it”. Although I must admit that there is a sort off sick pleasure in watching Jigsaw's trap work properly.

There isn't actually that much gore in Saw. The film tries very hard to create tension by hinting at the violence that could happen, and attempting to make Jigsaw a formidable figure and on some levels it achieves these things. There are one or two genuinely scary scenes, sadly they're often overshadowed by the predictability of the traps or the fact that Jigsaw is a rip off of The Joker in every single way possible.

Don't get me wrong Saw is enjoyable, if only to marvel at how well people manage to rip off Batman, it just isn't scary. The hint that something gory is going to happen isn't enough to make me stay up all night with the lights on, one particaularly gruesome scene won't haunt me forever, to put it simply horror needs to be creepy! This can only be achieved through the use of long haired children!

I'm going to go watch Japanese horror and sulk now.

7/10

Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith Review (War on Star Wars Part Two)

Among fans Revenge of the Sith is often considered to be the worst film set in the Star Wars universe, which has always seemed to be an unfair judgement to me when The Star Wars Christmas Special, Caravan of Courage and Ewoks: The Battle for Endor (don't worry reviews of these are coming) are still all technically Star Wars films. It seems to me that Revenge of the Sith is simply the worst Star Wars film in the saga (consisting of Episodes I-VI), which is still an amazing feat...

The main problem with Revenge of the Sith is quite simple: only one person in the entire film can act at all. Don't get me wrong this film has a lot of other problems, bad scripting, bad CGI and George Lucas to name but a few, and whilst they couldn't really have been overlooked if the acting was up to scratch, they might have been tolerated by some of Lucas' more retarded fans.

However must be given when due and therefore credit most definitely must be given to Ewan McGregor (Trainspotting) for being the only vaguely competent actor present within the entire film. To put it simply compared to the rest of the performances on show in this film, Ewan McGregor's Obi-Wan is comparable to Al Pacino's Michael Corleone, that's only comparatively speaking however. In reality Mcgregor only ever actually flexes his acting muscle once within the film, and even then it's half-heartedly which should give you a vague idea of how everyone else manages.

By far the worst performance in the film comes from Hayden Christensen (Jumper) as Anakin Skywalker, our infamous co-lead. To put it simply Christensen's performance consists of pausing to look moody in between the delivery of lines no matter what context they are meant to be in, screeching and crying as much as it is humanly possible to and speaking as monotonously as possible. In short he is the living personification of emo.

The script is simply appalling. Every single character in the film acts as a living, breathing expository device, dialogue is laden with puns and overly dramatic expressions of melancholy, and character development is given the depth of three lines at most. Love scenes are embarrassing, often consisting of Padmé and Anakin gazing at each other with equally retard expressions whilst telling each other how attractive they are repeatedly. Married people do not talk like that!

The action sequences in the film are the highlights, however they are still abysmal. CGI flies over each sequence with little purpose or direction, Lightsaber's seemingly explode when they hit each other and actor's perform badly choreographed fights which look like elaborately staged renditions of Strictly Come Dancing.

To put it simply the film is a mess. It isn't the worst film I've ever seen. It isn't even the worst Star Wars film I've ever seen but it's still bad. Very bad.

3/10

Soul Calibur 4 Review

Despite the obvious misspelling of the word calibre in the series' title (just because it's intentional doesn't make it okay) the Soul Calibur games have always been my favourites within the beat-em-up genre. No other games within the same premise offer the same accessible depth as the Soul Calibur games do, no other games within the same genre have produced such a mastery of story-telling and customisation moving hand in hand and no other games in the genre where fists reign have given you the option to wield a giant sausage whip.

Soul Calibur 4 is set... somewhere within the Soul Calibur universe, at... some point in time and this is sadly the games main flaw. As a player you should always have a want, nay a need of motivation (even within a beat-em-up) and the fact that SC4 (I feel sickened about the fact that I just abbreviated) fails, from the beginning of the game, to give you as a gamer any context or character development in order to justify, or even motivate you to play the game from beginning until end, makes the entire experience a rather lacklustre one.

The plot advances from this seemingly empty void that the developers had dared to call a beginning, by the manner of text screens which mean nothing. No, seriously these text screens literally mean nothing. They give you no details about your next fight, you characters background or even the world surrounding you (for that matter, WHERE IS SOUL CALIBUR SET?). In fact the game reduces it's entire experience to one simple phrase, “beat the shit out of the other guy”.

Now because of the genre it could be argued that this simple ethos is perfectly valid way in which to develop the game and in some ways it is. The actual gameplay is some of the most stream-lined seen in the beat-em-up world in recent years. Controls are simplified as to keep the game accessible for new players, as per usual one button is allocated to a horizontal attack, one to a vertical attack, one to a kick, and one to a block. Whilst this might seem overly simple at first you'll soon realise that depending on your characters speed, direction and previous moves, these simplistic controls can be changed and utilised to devastating effect.

The graphics on show here are spectacular, even for a current generation game. Literally everything is eye-candy from character models to backgrounds everything is beautiful. It's not until you realise that environments can break, that can fully appreciate just how beautiful this game is. Sound is also amazing with battle sounds always capturing the moment in it's utmost and background music setting the tone majestically.

To sum up, Soul Calibur 4 is an excellent game which only suffers because of it's complete lack of disregard for the storyline. If your a die-hare Soul Calibur fan you'll be mildly disappointed. Otherwise this is an excellent fighting game which simply must be tried.

9/10

The Thirteen and a Half Lives of Captain Bluebear Review

The Thirteen and a Half Lives of Captain Bluebear (by Walter Moers) is one of the most bizarre things I have ever read, almost on a parallel with Flann O' Briens The Third Policeman, in which a man has an explicit sexual relationship with a bicycle. For those of you in the dark The Thirteen and a Half Lives of Captain Bluebear is a novelization of the adventures of one Moers' more successful television characters, Bluebear, a blue seafaring bear who tells tales of the adventures he has had throughout the course of his life, or lives.

The novel itself takes the reader across the fictional country of Zamonia whilst following the first seventeen and a half of Bluebear's twenty seven lives. Along his travels Bluebear encounters the bizarre locals of Zamonia, including Minipirates, Nocturnomaths and beings from the 2364^th dimension. If this all sound a little bizarre don't worry, it's meant to.

Moers uses a deceptively simple writing style throughout the course of the novel and whilst this might make many critics think that Bluebear is a children's novel, I actually think that it makes the story flow a lot better, keeping a light and funny atmosphere consistently throughout the entire novel. When coupled with Moers' fantastic Seussian cartoons the novel begins to take on the feel of a combination of graphic novel and full blown prose, which is by no means a bad thing.

The fact the Moers use a style similar to that of a graphic novel through me off at first, but upon actually reading the novel I realised that Bluebear is actually one of the best comedy novels I have ever read. The style is light enough to keep casual readers interested and the jokes are funny enough to keep heavy readers happy.

I honestly wasn't sure what I was going to think of this book, at first the Tolkien-esque map at the front of the novel lead me to believe that Moers was going to try and create a massively complex and multi-layered world, then I realised he was just making a joke and I began to enjoy the novel. Whilst Bluebear might not be a masterpiece of fiction it is certainly worth a look, and if like me Moers' whimsical writing style manages to draw you in then I can guarantee that he'll quickly become one of your favourite authors and Bluebear one of your favourite novels.

9/10

The Force Unleashed Review (War on Star Wars Part One)

The Force Unleashed has the power to either erase all of George Lucas' mistakes or single-handedly destroy everything that is, and has ever been, good in the Star Wars universe. Why you ask? The Force Unleashed serves as a connection between the two Star Wars trilogies, meaning that one of three things can happen:

• The demons contained within Episodes I through to III can poison the very heart of the Star Wars saga and kill the beast.

• The presumed angelic symphony of greatness contained within the first three films (IV through to VI) can seep over into the newer trilogy and drown out Lucas' insanity.

• The game could be profoundly average and drown the series in a river of mediocrity.

Considering that this game has the potential to either save the saga or destroy it in one fell swoop, it seems a good place start my War on Star Wars, does it not?

The plot of The Force Unleashed concerns us with Darth Vader's secret apprentice, a man named Starkiller (presumably because the original name factory had run out), the beginning of the Rebel Alliance and an overly clichéd struggle between good and evil. At first I was sceptical that this plot could even work in relation to the rest of the saga (considering Starkiller isn't mentioned in any of the films and he's quite obviously meant to be important), but I must admit that it wasn't awful.

Everything works out as it should in relation to the rest of the saga (if you take the choices which the developers want you to) and the plot unfolds as a swath of fairly well developed cut scenes (Starkiller actually looks real sometimes), clichés and purely expository dialogue. I suppose you could say that the plot is an average, run of the mill, Star Wars “epic”. I can forgive the fact that I didn't care at all about any of the characters because the word “midichlorians” isn't used once within the game.

Gameplay wise The Force Unleashed uses a rather familiar “hack and slash” formula combined with some force based “puzzle” sections and platforming. The game pretends to have some, albeit pretentious, depth by including a levelling system which boils down to “put all your points into health and force powers!”, which I can't really fault it for. All in all the gameplay is average, an enjoyable romp if you find time over the weekend. Just steer clear of the Wii and PS2 versions.

So, is George Lucas once more a shining god in the realm of action films? No. Have all of his mistakes been erased? No. Is he an insane freak who insists on ramming this “midchlorian” crap down our necks? Yes, but that's neither here nor there. Are we drowning in mediocrity? Yes.

6/10

Tropic Thunder Review

I honestly had no idea what to expect from Tropic Thunder when I went into the cinema. I've always had mixed opinions of Ben Stiller (Meet the Parents), Jack Black (School of Rock) and Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man), and a combination of all three seemed like it could only turn out in two ways: the funniest comedy ever made or a gigantic flop worthy of Uwe Boll (Postal). The end result therefore surprised me massively when it managed to avoid both of these expectations.

The end result is not the best comedy ever, simply because it lacks mainstream appeal. To put it simply Tropic Thunder is a film for people who watch, love and understand films. There was not a single moment that I wasn't laughing whilst watching this film, and the first ten minutes are probably the funniest minutes of cinema I have ever seen in my life. Regrettably the people whom I went to see Tropic Thunder with are the kind of people I want this review to apply to, and they didn't find the film even nearly as hilarious as I did.

Whilst Tropic Thunder offers some fairly accomplished jokes for the mainstream (Ben Stiller wearing a panda as a hat, don't worry it'll make sense... sort off) the majority of the jokes on display here are extremely clever and loving spoofs of some of the most beloved films, performances and actors ever to grace our screens (including a loving tribute to Heath Ledger's infamous method acting, obvious tributes to apocalypse now and a spoof of Eddie Murphy which just screams “please sue us!”) and it seemed a little to subtle for most of the audience.

The performances are superb across the board, with veterans Stiller and Downey Jr. in particular giving two of the funniest and most intelligent performances that I have ever seen. The direction is outstanding, especially considering that this is Stiller's first time directing and in spoofing some of the finest films of all time, he is setting himself a tall order.

On occasion the brilliance of this film did dwindle quite considerably, in particular the action sequences and gay jokes, which are both perfect examples of Hollywood dumbing down it's ideas in order to please the brain addled morons I like to call “the general public”. Thankfully the overall film doesn't suffer too much because of it, often because Stiller manages to fairly intelligently spoof some of the best action sequences ever made (who knew a spoof of Saving Private Ryans D-day scene could be funny?).

All in all, go see Tropic Thunder. If you love films then you'll love it, if you like films then you'll like it and if you hate films then what the hell are you doing reading film reviews on the internet?

8/10  

Another Cinderella Story Review

Yes, I am reviewing a chick flick. Yes, I am a dude. Yes, I was forced to do this. Got it? Good. Now that unpleasantness is out of the way, we can begin.

Another Cinderella Story is the sequel to A Cinderella Story, an insipid take on the classic story of Cinderella. I’m not really sure why anyone needed any of Cinderella Story films in the first, what with them consisting of over the top dance routines, bad singing and lame acting, but then again, no film with a level of complexity below that of Apocalypse Now! is really seen as necessary by me now.

So what can I say about Another Cinderella Story? It’s plot follows “teen-heart throb” (also know as “queer in the making”) Joey Parker (“played” by Andrew Seeley) as he tries to find his perfect woman, Mary (“played” by Selena Gomez) in an odd world in which child labour is still okay, teachers seem to flock towards “teen heart-throbs” just as much as children and black people conform to stereotypes and give themselves stupid names like “the funk”. Oh wait, I forgot this was set in America.

Anyway as the plot progresses the film forgets that it was trying to rip off Cinderella and gradually becomes a common feel-good dance movie, without the feel-good part. The scripting is awful, and pun-laden dialogue or “hip-hop” speech is throw at the audience as often as possible, the acting on display is as much as can be expected from a professional dancer and the guy from one tree hill. The soundtrack is as insipid as it is infuriating, with all of the songs sounding like Boyzone on steroids.

I’ve got to give the film some praise though. Not because of it’s content in anyway, but because of it’s cinematography, which has some genuinely inventive shots.

All in all, this film sucks. It’s an unnecessary sequel to an unnecessary film, but it doesn’t really matter anyway because no-one really expects anything from a film entitled Another Cinderella Story and there will be a million other clones of this film which fare much better at the box office because they can afford to have Miley Cyrus in them. See? I’m down with the kids.

Someone shoot me.

4/10

Metal Gear Solid 4 Review

The more observant among you have probably noticed my mentions of the Metal Gear series in other reviews and what with me saying things like “I often put the controller down during cut-scenes (because you never know just Metal Gear-ish a game is gonna be these days)” you would be forgiven for thinking that I loathe the series. Especially the cut scenes. Well it’s about time you learnt that simply because something seems to be true, it doesn’t make it so.

I do not loathe the Metal Gear series. I enjoyed Metal Gear, Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake and Metal Gear Solid yet the series got a little too… preachy, stupid and boring for me later on. For those of you who say that Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty was a good game I have one word for you and that word is Raiden. For those of you who believe Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater was a great game I can name one glaring flaw for you, the “Heal” and “Hunger” systems, both of which didn’t work very well and became annoying.

I’m guessing that by now many of you are assuming that I’m going to say that Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots is a bad game which follows the trend set by MGS2 and MGS3. Well you’re wrong, again. MGS4 isn’t a bad game.

Last time we saw Snake (and by Snake I mean Solid Snake, not Liquid, Solidus, or Naked Snake) was at the end of MGS2 when he was getting all preachy to Raiden about love, reality and human compassion in possibly one of the most lifeless representations of a city ever created, and since then he hasn’t aged well. The plot of the game sends the player on a journey all around the world as they attempt to stop Ocelot from taking over the world’s militia using the SOP system. Along this journey Snake must come to terms with his own mortality and learn some harsh truths about war and how the world at large is run. Sounds clever right? Wrong.

The main problem with the plot is that Kojima (the series’ director, also known as the man who believes hands can posses people) spends most of his time trying to come up with reasonable explanations for things he wrote into previous Metal Gear games, most of which is so unexplainable he has to resort to the tried and tested excuse “nanobots did it”. Not only does this lose him credibility and take the player as far out of the experience as humanly possible, but it also forces the player to notice some of the gigantic plot holes created by Kojima in the past.

Now I know this has been said before, but Kojima’s cut scenes are too long, by about an hour each. I was trying to avoid making this statement because it seems like such a generic statement about the Metal Gear series, but when the player is forced to watch a little girl cook eggs repeatedly, I started to think that maybe it was a valid complaint.

However if you, as an individual can stand Kojima's famously lengthy method of story telling, then the plot here does touch upon some truly important issues, including an advanced commentary of video game culture, the threat of nuclear war, and invasion of privacy. Ultimately Kojima does manage to wrap up the series in the most credible manner possible when his previous plot holes are taken into consideration.

The game play contained within the game is a mixed bag. With controls better suited for stealth game play, and a game consisting primarily of combat, the game does feel slightly cluttered at times. However when MGS4 is good, it is one of the best games I have ever played, with surprises running smoothly alongside predictable Metal Gear AI and stealth sections offering some of the tensest and most enthralling game play I have ever encountered.

Sound is the typical Metal Gear affair, which is not bad by any stretch of the imagination but does get a little tiresome after awhile. The graphics are the jaw dropping symphony of images that one would expect from a next generation game.

MGS4 isn't bad. It isn't everything that people say it is, but it isn't bad. Basically it's a game for the fans, including everything that fans enjoyed from the previous games, everything requested from online forums and cutting out the crap. As a stand alone game it isn't the best, but as a conclusion to the Metal Gear series it excels.

8/10

The Assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford Review

I want this film to be good. Not only because if I can give it a positive review, and keep in line with other critics (apparently this film is a “masterpiece”) it might help to cover up the out burst of cynicism and contempt toward a fellow critic featured in last weeks review of Eulogy, but also because I paid £12.99 for the collector's edition (complete with a booklet which quotes the last line of the film...) of The Assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford and I want to feel like I've spent my money well.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford follows the story of the infamous outlaw Jesse James, and his assassin Robert Ford so there isn't much point in commenting on it. I must confess that before I saw this film I knew nothing of Jesse James beyond the fact that he was an infamous outlaw and Robert Ford killed him. Not good going for an ex-history student with an interest in outlaws...

The one thing I will say about the film's plot is that the script is immaculate after the first ten minutes, which consist of mostly garbled and slurred speech about nothing. Although when the train robbery sequence begins, the film becomes as good as the hype claims. The script tightens, characters become realistic, as opposed to vague and annoying, Brad Pitt becomes a credible actor, anything is possible!

Sound is used to incredible effect within the film, heightening tension consistently until the end of the film, which brings the audience crashing back to earth with a depressingly undramatic, and terrifyingly poignant climax.

The acting is spectacular across the board. Even Brad Pitt, whom I hold a personal loathing towards, manages to produce one of the best performances I have ever seen, with his Jesse James becoming one of the most complete anarchaic psychopaths ever portrayed on screen, second only to Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker in The Dark Knight. However it is Casey Affleck who steals the show, with his portrayal drawing comparisons to Al Pacino's Michael Corleone for obvious reasons.

This film is almost a masterpiece, and if it wasn't for those crucial 10 minutes at the beginning of the film which aren't necessary, interesting, or even logical then this film would go down as one of the best I have ever seen, comfortably behind The Godfather, and The Dark Knight, but as it stands this film is merely amazing, not transcendent.

9/10 

Eulogy Review

Eulogy puts “the fun in funeral” apparently. I assume that this quote, which can be found upon the back of this film's DVD box, is meant to imply that that Eulogy is an amusing film, but some further language analysis reveals just how stupid this quote is.

First off I would like you to swallow your immediate distaste that has risen from reading the quote and focus purely on the language. The word funeral is pronounced “fune-er-al” and not “fun-er-al”, so if we look at this quote objectively, it appears to imply that Eulogy puts a sound, which previously was not featured in the word funeral, into the word funeral; making the word sound something like “fune-fun-er-al”. I assume.

Sorry about that. The success of other critics frustrates me, as do the quotes featured upon the back of DVD boxes, and sentences implying that funerals are fun.

So, I assume that you've realised that Eulogy is meant to be a comedy by now. The job of a comedy is to make you laugh and forget the worries of the world, correct? Even most dark comedy is so far detached from the real world that it still makes you forget your problems, and laugh at the absurdity of the characters. Eulogy achieves this, at times.

In the times when Eulogy manages to actually be funny, it is impeccable. The acting and the script are perfect, sharp, and witty, however when Eulogy isn't funny, it is awful. The witty dialogue turns into drawn out sequences of people getting stoned, which could only be funny to people who are stoned, and the acting turns to an unintelligible, yet star studded, mess.

Basically Eulogy is a hit and miss comedy, like Little Britain, The League of Gentlemen, and most dark comedy. I would recommend it 'cause it puts the fun in "fune-fun-er-al".

Shut up, I'm allowed to be bitter.

7/10

Hellboy 2 Review

[This was originally going to be entered in a competition, hence the word count of 300. Sadly I missed the deadline by a day, due to stupidity.]

Hellboy was a bad film. It was loud, obnoxious, and stupid – basically it possessed all the characteristics of a summer blockbuster. This being said I went into Hellboy 2 with mixed expectations. The effects look very good, and the world looks fully crafted this time around. Sadly, this is where my praise comes to a halt.

The script is the centre of my concerns, it simply isn't consistent enough. A pun laden superhero film script, or a script with potent subtext and relevance in the real world would have been fine. Both of these have a place within the superhero genre (See The Dark Knight if you disagree with the latter point), however when they are combined; bad things happen.

The script genuinely tries to introduce deadly serious concepts like genocide, and the loss of innocence at various points in the film, however the film simply isn't brave enough to push these ideas to their full potential, and often reverts to obsessing over the intricacies of puns. Puns about genocide just aren't funny.

The acting in Hellboy 2 is as good as it possibly can be. Each of the actors show incredible talent when given the chance. Unfortunately the script is so laden with puns and spontaneous character development (the worst character for this is Krauss, who switches his viewpoint on Hellboy at the end of the film for no reason at all) that no amount of talent can fix it.

Ultimately Hellboy 2 is disappointing because it shows a wealth of acting and directorial talent, hampered only by the script, which shows potential but becomes loud, obnoxious, and stupid. I would say that Hellboy 2 is a good summer blockbuster, however there are far better films on offer at this point in time.

6/10

World of Warcraft Review

This review is going to be difficult for me. I always liked Blizzard and the Warcraft games; DotA is my favourite mod, and I listen to Basshunter (a little too much), and now I have to tear down one of the most acclaimed games to ever come from Blizzard. That's right; WoW is going down.

Now you may wonder if I can possibly bring anything new to the table. Well my answer is short and sweet: no, I can't, but your still going to read this. You see those of you who enjoy WoW will read this because you want someone to confirm that it is “TEH BEST GAME EVAR!!1!” and those of you who don't enjoy WoW just want to know that there are critics out there who agree with you. Basically you're looking for validation.

So basically I'm going to lay my phat reviewer beats (far, far too much Basshunter) down on this game and you're going to pay absolutely no attention and think whatever you want to. This is an exercise in futility. Understood?

WoW is an MMORPG and because of this its gameplay boils down to: go to a certain place, kill some stuff until your powerful enough to go to the next place, so you can kill some more stuff to get to the next place... you get the picture. I personally find this a mind-numbingly dull experience, especially when the fact that the player isn't rewarded with anything more than becoming a generic action hero at the end of the process is taken into consideration. I mean at least with Final Fantasy there is a plot (of sorts).

I suppose I could take all of this in stride if the other aspects of the game were any good, but they aren't. The graphics are awful, and believe me when I say that this is still a valid point because Blizzard are still updating the game frequently (more on this later). Everything looks like some form of cartoon mush – to the extent that I have difficulty telling what the difference between an Orc and a Dwarf is. I know this may seem like a minor thing when the game highlights enemies in giant red circles for all the world to see, but it's just shoddy art design – something which the Warcraft universe has never suffered from before-hand.

Sound is used in the game to appalling effect, with most battle sounds coming from the “generic sword strike” school of gaming, and all music sounding like Beethoven having a stroke. I suppose my main problem with this is that none of the sound effects help to draw me into the game, they pull me out of it and hit me in the ears for ever even thinking of being immersed in the game.

However the presentation isn't all awful, most of it is, but not all. There is admittedly a varied amount of scenery, most of which is distinctive and unique, which it has to be because of the game world's sheer size. Players do need to know where they are (looking at you Morrowind).

Speaking of players, has anyone but me noticed how annoying everyone in WoW is? For example, a simple walk through Goldshire (the human starting area) can result in about 5 duel requests from level 70s with nothing to do, followed by hours of flaming if you choose to decline. I mean come on, if you've got nothing to do but pick on lower level players for fun – turn off the game! Assuming you still know that WoW is a game.

I know that every MMO game has to have a certain number of creepy people who do nothing else playing it, but the amount of level 70's simply standing around in WoW is phenomenal! I suppose this is why I'm really getting at WoW, it is far too popular, and Blizzard will just not let it die. Patches are released every month or so (they often do nothing other than make the game more unbalanced), which leads me to believe that WoW isn't actually a finished project, or Blizzard are really good at milking the cash cow.

I know that WoW being popular shouldn't affect its score, but it does. The gameplay itself is only average at best, the graphics quite clearly aren't good enough, and the sound is truly awful at times – but WoW would still be passable if it wasn't for it's fan base. In truth the game should have died a couple of years ago. There are far better MMO's out there, to name one: EVE Online, which has more depth and strategy in its first 20 minutes than WoW does in all of the game.

Ultimately this review matters to no-one but me. Those of you who support the game will pick up on any of the positive things I've mentioned (or alternatively flame me to death), and those of you who hate WoW will pick up on the negative. Think whatever you want, one lousy critic doesn't matter right?

5/10 – WoW is average, yet horribly overated.

P.S. - To any annoyed WoW fans out there, please spam the following email address (bytesmedia@live.co.uk) and leave it at that.

Alone in the Dark review

The Alone in the Dark series has often been referred to as the very pinnacle of puzzle-based survival-horror gaming, which admittedly sounds a bit stupid because the genre has two hyphenated words used to accurately describe it; but the point still stands that the Alone in the Dark games used to be brilliant.

This game has received an unprecedented, and somewhat unfathomable amount of bad press, which seems a little unfair, well at least if you base your judgement on the preview videos. The game begins with Edward Carnby (minus bitching moustache) waking up in a hotel room full of men (Oh come on, how couldn't he be gay?), apparently situated in New York. Why he was there, or why these men have the most fake accents I have ever heard is left to the player's imagination. I think Carnby probably hired some [Insert ANY Nationality here, I haven't got a clue] prostitutes, who just happened to enjoy bondage and guns a little to much. Oh and the bad accents are a result of the developers spending the budget on McDonalds food.

What immediately struck me about this sequence was that the game instructed me to click the right thumb stick in order to make Carnby blink. Am I going to be doing this often? Is it necessary? I usually put the controller down during opening cinematics (because you never have any idea how Metal Gear-ish games are going to be these days) so this feature does absolutely nothing but annoy me. Why the right thumb stick anyway? Isn't that usually used for aiming? This doesn't bode well for the rest of the game, does it?

The plot of the game is mind-numbingly stupid anyway. Basically it results to using every single cliché that has ever been made in regards to Gothic plots involving the devil (It isn't a spoiler, if you can't figure out that Lucifer was going to rear his ugly head then you might need to go back to school), except the most important one. There is no final confrontation in this game, it just finishes. Admittedly there are two “endings” but neither of them actually provide a conclusion to the game. I can't decide whether they wanted to leave it open for a sequel and missed the mark a bit, or they simply ran out of money before the game was finished. Either way they messed it up horribly.

Everything about the game play in this game is completely broken. The controls are terrible upto the point of the game being unplayable. In first person view you don't turn any where near quickly enough (even on the highest sensitivity), and in third person you can't turn without steering Carnby into a ditch. The melee combat is awful due to the fact that hits takes far too long to line up, and even longer to perform. The driving controls aren't even worth mentioning.

In regards to the combat within the game, unless you have a source of fire with you or near you, you can't win! It's IMPOSSIBLE! Will someone please explain to me why tapping an enemy with anything will set their entire body on fire instantaneously but hitting them in the head with a battle axe with as much force as humanly possible does nothing? It makes no sense whatsoever. Not only is it stupid, it also proves that the fire physics, the crowning glory of this game, are completely broken. I mean think about it, if a fire will not spread in a museum no matter what you do, but an entire person can light on fire instantaneously from the tap of any flaming object, then surely the entire idea of fire spreading realistically is complete bullshit!
Even if I did believe that the fire physics actually work, then I would still be annoyed, because to accomplish anything; you NEED fire! It's the equivalent of Valve using the puzzle with the see-saw and the breeze blocks, FOR THE ENTIRE GAME!

The driving sections of Alone in the Dark are the most appalling thing ever created by man, the nuke pails in comparison. You spend at least half of these sequences either dead or dying, even if you do nothing wrong! For example: I was driving along a road with absolutely no obstacles, when for no reason I can think of my car catapulted itself into the stratosphere! What's worse than this happening once, is the fact that it happens CONSTANTLY!

Even the inventory system is horrible. First off it's done in real time, which means that every time you want to get an item out you have risk being mauled to death, by every single creature within a five mile radius, because some how they always seem to attack you when your lamenting about the fact that the items you need to combine are always in slots on opposite sides of the jacket. Secondly it looks stupid, and Carnby ends up looking like a flasher. Finally, if Carnby is holding open the jacket with BOTH hands how the hell does he get items, telekinesis?

This game is a crime against human-kind, there is nothing you can say to defend without looking like an idiot. Nothing works as it's intended to, the plot is the equivalent of George Lucas pitching a horror film (minus the magnetic aliens) and worst of all it doesn't even finish. I mean even the tag line sucks. “They told us that Central Park was for us, they lied” what the hell are you talking about? Who told us? Why did they need to? Why would they lie? All questions you'd expect the game to answer right? Wrong! The game does nothing but confuse you more. The reality of this game is that I still have about four pages worth of ranting to go through, I haven't even touched upon the puzzles or the script, but I don't need to, all I need to say is that even masochists will hate this game.

0/10

Kung Fu Panda Review

The title says everything doesn't it? I mean how much can I possibly write about a film entitled “Kung Fu Panda”? There can't really be any subtext in this film, there's no chance of this bringing you enlightenment and changing your life, and as far I can see no real reason to laugh after you've gotten over the initial concept. However I suppose that I'd better give this a fair review, otherwise all the Jack Black fans (a joke in itself) out there will come tear me to pieces.

The plot of the film follows the panda Bo (Jack Black), as he trains to become the Dragon Warrior, a Kung Fu master capable of killing the evil snow leopard Tai Lung (also a master of Kung Fu), all of which makes perfect sense when put in the context of this film. Now I assume that any reasonable adult will, upon hearing the plot of this film transcribed in the manner that I just have, assume that Kung Fu Panda is both non-educational and morally bankrupt. Let me assure them that neither statement is true, and that Kung Fu Panda offers both the wholesome morals that any children's film should, and a beginner's guide to the teachings of the philosophys behind the martial art of Kung Fu. All in all the plot manages to hold up against my scrutiny. It's quite well scripted, features some amusing scenes, and has a genuine moral undertone.

The animation in Kung Fu Panda is nothing less than what you would expect from a film by Dreamworks (a jaw dropping symphony of colour and technical accuracy, a dream work (excuse the horrible, horrible pun) if you will), and neither is the voice acting. I was actually astounded at how good Jack Black (Be Kind Rewind, School of Rock, and Tenacious D: The Pick of Destiny) was in this film; mainly because he was so unlike himself. Not to discount the other voice actors in the film, who all give good performances.

Ultimately I'm fairly uninformed about the genre that this film slides into, being slightly to old to care about it anymore. I suppose I'd recommend it as it will certainly keep children happy, and it isn't to difficult for older audiences to sit through. However if you are of an age older than ten, and have no reason to go and see this film other than mild curiosity, I'd recommend that you go and see The Dark Knight instead, even if you've already seen it.

7/10

The Dark Knight Review

Batman Begins was one of the most successful superhero based films of recent years. It was dark, edgy, and yet still retained the light-hearted nature often associated with the superhero film genre. I wasn't that fond of it. I've always been a fan of Gothic Batman, there's something that appeals to me about insane mortals fighting in an entirely psychotic manner, so it may say more about me than about Batman Begins when I say that the film wasn't dark or complex enough for me. That being said lets move onto my review of The Dark Knight.

The plot of The Dark Knight is set almost directly after Batman Begins and centres on the conflict between The Joker (portrayed by Heath Ledger – I'll get to it don't worry) and Batman (Christian Bale). The script for the film, written by the film's director, Christopher Nolan (Memento, The Prestige and Batman Begins) and his brother Jonathan Nolan (The Prestige, Memento) is immaculate. Although the film becomes incredibly complex, throwing various twists and turns which often shock the audience to it's core, and the subtext of the film is incredibly detailed and meaningful, not a single line ever feels out of place or obscure; unless of course it's meant to be.

The plot itself is an adrenaline fuelled masterpiece which sweeps the audience up within a tidal wave of complex character development, meaningful subtext and speeches, and breath-taking action sequences (greatly improved since Batman Begins); and doesn't let go until days after you've seen the film.

The acting throughout the film is superb. Top spot goes to the unforgettable portrayal of The Joker by Heath Ledger (I'm Not There, Candy, The Brother's Grimm), which has quickly become my favourite representation of The Joker, my favourite villain. It's a marvel to watch this performance, whether watching Joker tell one of several stories about how he got his scars, or simply watching how the man moves. Ledger's portrayal is complete, faultless, dark, disturbing, funny, and perfect all at the same time, Ledger effectively becomes The Joker. It truly is a tragedy that Ledger died prematurely earlier this year.

In regards to the other performances within The Dark Knight, they're mostly almost as good as Ledger's. Bale (The Prestige, Batman Begins, 3:10 to Yuma) is my favourite Batman out of any other in popular culture, not only is his performance deep, dark, and profoundly disturbed, but he also allows himself to be pushed out of the lime light by fellow actors, something a good Batman should always aspire to. Aaron Eckhart (The Black Dahlia, Thank You For Smoking) also gives a truly deep, and dark portrayal of Harvey Dent, again never breaking character or becoming unbelievable.

Gary Oldman (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Batman Begins, Bram Stoker's Dracula) gives yet another brilliant performance as Commissioner Gordon, a character who was side-lined in Batman Begins and has now been fully and brilliantly realised. Michael Caine (Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Actors), and Morgan Freeman (Batman Begins, The Shawshank Redemption) both give exceptional performances as supporting cast members. Now we come to the one and only criticism that I have of this film, Maggie Gyllenhaal (Donnie Darko, Sherrybaby), or the Rachel Dawes character if you will.

It's not that Gyllenhaal gives an awful performance (although she is intensely annoying when she speaks for some reason), or indeed that a love interest is a bad idea for a Batman storyline, I just think that she doesn't really fit into the cast or the film, until she is expressly needed for advancing the Batman, and Harvey Dent characters. Luckily Gyllenhaal does the best that anyone could with the role, and her screen time is mercifully kept to a minimum.

The cinematography and general feel of the film is outstanding. The entire film has a sort of dark, gritty tinge to every frame, which not only looks beautiful, but also helps to set the scene and raise tension hugely. The costume design is also immaculate, again most of the attention will be focused on Ledger; but he does play The Joker so it is fair. Music, and sound are used fantastically throughout the film; often helping to bring tension to an absolute boil, until a grim and satisfyingly violent moment often allows a brief moment of relaxation (which I found very odd), before The Joker speaks again.

Ultimately this film is a Masterpiece, it isn't perfect, but nothing is or ever will be. Everything about the film is smooth and brilliantly realised, and although there are a few issues with casting and realism; this film reminds me of why I go to the cinema. I go for the message; and this film's message is both true and necessary. The Dark Knight has earned it's score, and shall go down with Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather as one of the greatest films of all time.

10/10

Grand Theft Auto 4 Review

Grand Theft Auto 4 Review

GTA 4 broke my 360! I say this statement in a mix of fear and pain, and yet I refuse to hold grudges against game for it. Instead I’ll hold grudges against this game for creating controversy and unrivalled praise that it doesn’t deserve. I’ll hold grudges against it for acting as a tutorial for the majority of the game, and I’ll hold grudges against it for giving the player the illusion of choice!

I’m going to start with the plot, a plot which has previously been called “genuinely engrossing” and “compelling”, and is neither of these. Having said that many of you can anticipate my opinion of the plot and I’m happy to say your all wrong! Grand Theft Auto 4’s plot certainly isn’t devoid of merit, indeed at points in the game I found that I had become genuinely attached to certain characters and found events I couldn’t control truly upsetting. Here lies my main problem with the games plot.

The game tries so hard to create the perfect plot, including elements such as romance which the player can pursue if they wish to. Unfortunately the games plot is set almost in stone (with a few minor choices that give a choice between money or instant and violent gratification), and characters that I didn’t spend to much time with were often integral to the plot. This often left me with a feeling akin to “who cares” and the game somewhat lost my respect because of this.

I have many problems with the plot of the game yet one of the main ones was it’s pacing, which often involves the player performing menial tasks in order to play an (often outstanding) climax mission, after completing these missions the player then has to complete more menial tasks. The main problem with this is the fact that the game barely rewards the player for completing these missions until the huge cash reward which is often available for completing the “climax mission”, and in a game where money does little more than allow a player to purchase weapons, ammo, and health in order to be able to complete more menial mission, this seems a little stupid.

Another problem with this method of storytelling is that the bank robbery mission, which occurs halfway through the game, is the most exciting and brilliantly realised mission available within the game, which in turn leaves no motivation for the player to continue the games storyline until the end mission. Now, whilst we're on the topic of the games final mission, I intend to rant about it (see my next paragraph).

I came to the final missions of the game expecting a shoot-out which would excel the bank mission in every single way, a driving section comparable to finest moments in any driving game, and a bitter-sweet ending to the plot, which by this point was confusing and broken. I sort off got one of these things, the endings bitter-sweet. The shooting section of the mission is all-right, a bit bland, but it's okay. The driving section of the mission is annoying, and uses boats (boats are bad in GTA 4).

To sum-up the plot is no mean feat, considering it's not finished, and never will be on the PS3 (this doesn't really effect me though, considering I own a copy of the 360 game), but if I absolutely had to, say if I was cornered by several angry Wii owners, I would say that it's okay, but nothing compared a good film or to a lesser extent the Metal Gear series. Needless to say any argument I may have in this area is useless, as everyone, their mother, and their pets now owns at least five copies of the game, and beholds the plot as the Goliath of God.

Now to the game play, which I have mixed feelings about; sort of like a retarded squirrel regarding a pile of nuts. I like the lock-on feature, as it works well the majority of the time (100% of the time being an unachievable goal) and genuinely helped me to find and kill people who were shooting me. I liked the guns, and I support the decision to take out about 50% of the guns from previous games. But the entire shooting section of the game is completely ruined by the cover system, which often embeds Niko in walls and refuses to let him go, and occasionally caused him to stand on top of the thing I was ducking behind.

Even on the few occasions that I did manage to separate Niko from the wall he had thrown himself head first at, he then proceeded to attach himself to a piece of cover directly behind him, and expose his entire back to every enemy in the area. This led me to the conclusion that Niko has all the survival instincts of a rabbit in a monster truck rally held at night.

A lot of people have been talking about how the driving in the game handles a lot more realistically, it doesn't really; most of the cars handle like one of two things:

Good cars: Handle like a cheetah on speed.
Bad cars: Handle like a slug on pot.

If you learn which cars fit into these categories you'll be fine. Basically these rules define the driving of the game, and prove that any claims that the driving is realistic; profoundly wrong.
I have one other major problem with the way that driving has been implemented into the game, and that is the selection of vehicles available in the game. Okay lets take a look at all the classes available in San Andreas:

1. Cars
2. Motorbikes
3. Pedal bikes
4. Boats
5. Helicopters
6. Tanks
7. Jet planes
8. Trucks
9. Golf carts etc.
10. Jeeps

Now lets take a look at the vehicle classes available in GTA 4:

1. Cars
2. Motorbikes
3. Boat
4. Helicopters
5. Trucks
6. Golf carts etc.

So on closer inspection we've revealed that four whole vehicle classes have been removed from the game. Now I don't know about you, but when I hear that a new GTA game is going to be released I immediately begin to think about what vehicle types Rockstar could add to the game. This time I was expecting hot-air balloons, submarines, and loads of other weird and wonderful transport systems – and reality we aren't even allowed to drive tanks, a benchmark of the series!

Don't get me wrong, I understand that Rockstar are trying to take the series in a new, realistic direction and it's unrealistic to assume that Niko, an uneducated thug, already knows how to pilot every vehicle under the sun; but when realism gets in the way of the tried and tested formula which has made the series fun, then I don't see the point. Recently I've been having the very same gripe with a lot of games, and I'm starting to wish that the games industry as a whole
would stop trading fun for realism or artistic direction.

Right, before you (well at least those of you who can form a grammatically correct sentence) start spamming my inbox with complaints about how things like realism, artistic development and complex plots are advancing the industry, not only as a form of entertainment but also an art form, please allow a chance to explain myself. I whole-heartedly agree the aforementioned argument, but only up to the point where these things (realism, artistic development and complex plots) don't stop the product from being entertaining. For the purpose of an example, lets take a look at the Metal Gear series.

Hideo Kojima, the director of the series, has created in the Metal Gear and Metal Gear Solid games one of the most complete, complex, and meaningful video game plots ever; and as a result of this the Metal Gear series as a whole has suffered. The game play is often overlooked, complete understanding of all prior events in the series is often mandatory, and only the few hardcore fans (myself included) of the series remain able to sit through the often feature length cut-scenes. So whilst the Metal Gear series undoubtedly has an accomplished plot, and remarkable art direction; it does not qualify as an excellent video-game, because at times it is dull to it's target audience.

So anyway, back to GTA 4. I'm going to sum-up now because nothing I say about this game is going to do anything other than mildly amuse you. The plot's okay, the gameplay's underwhelming for the series, and the graphics are all right for the current generation of consoles. Ultimately get the game if you want a slightly less wacky GTA.

7/10

Life on Mars Review

Life on Mars is a BAFTA award winning drama starring John Simm and Philip Glenister as detectives in 1973 (or possibly 2006 in Simm's case). The drama spans two seasons which I have decided to review in one review.

I was expecting to hate Life on Mars before I began to watch it; this was mainly due to the fact that I don't generally enjoy serialised dramas, and partly due to the BBC's inability to create dramas which aren't aimed at upper middle class morons with a love of us simple country folk and our jolly music (I'm lower middle class or at the high end of the working class scale).

But everyone should admit it when they're wrong, and I was horribly wrong, because Life on Mars is the best drama that I have ever seen, and to explain why I'm going to have to spoil a small amount of the plot for you good people.

Simm plays Sam Tyler, a detective working in 2006, until his life is turned upside down when gets hit by a car and wakes up in 1973. The audience are led to believe that Sam is in a coma throughout his period in 1973 by the use of voices which Sam can hear in his head and other strange occurrences which no-one but Sam picks up on. This is an extraordinarily clever device which never confirms that Sam is in a coma but merely hints at it.

Whilst in 1973 Sam works as a DI (Detective Inspector) under DCI hunt (played by Glenister). Hunt is the most complex and interesting character ever written into a serialized TV drama and Glenister performs the part perfectly. In fact, all of the acting on displayed in Life on Mars is brilliant, with absolutely outstanding performances from Simm and Glenister who are undeniably the leads.

Life on Mars' real strength lies in its ability to hold a viewer's interest until the very end and beyond that. The finale of the programme is spectacular; not only is it a more-than-satisfactory ending to an excellent series, it manages to single itself out as one of the best pieces television (get that television, not just drama) ever shot; it's thought provoking, meaningful, and gripping. Best of all the last episode challenges everything you know about Life on Mars, and leaves you still challenging it.

Okay so I was horribly wrong about this drama, but I refuse to accept the majority of dramas as acceptable. Life on Mars is a rare jewel, a diamond in the rough and something that is now sacred to me. Which is why I shan't be following up this review with a review of the Life on Mars spin off, Ashes to Ashes, as I previously intended.

9/10

Hancock Review

Hancock is an odd, and somewhat messy film, which I went to see purely because The Dark Knight hasn't been released yet. Let me say that I had no prior knowledge of the film,except that it features Will Smith (Men in Black, I Am Legend) playing an alcoholic superhero, who is obviously quite bad at his job, and that the film is apparently a comedy.

The film opens with a fairly generic chase sequence which confirms the above statement in all of three minutes and serves as one of the four major action sequences, and whilst the sequences has the feeling of Spiderman scene and less of the directing ability, it has two saving features:

The script: This sequence, and indeed all of the film up until the main plot reveal (more on this later), is superbly scripted and features some of the funniest and wittiest dialogue I've seen in a cinema for a very long time.

Will Smith: I often hold Independence Day against Smith (despite the fact that I know it was all Emmerich's fault) but I do know that he is in fact a very good actor, particularly suited for comedy roles (Men in Black I and II), but still able to pull of some semblance of a serious role (I Am Legend, and to a far smaller extent The Pursuit of Happiness); and it is in the role of Hancock that Smith's talent hits me. He pulls of each line and gesture with a wave of charisma that lesser actors would never be able to achieve. Indeed in some places Smith carries the film.
After this sequence's conclusion Hancock spends most of it's time mocking the superhero film genre, Will Smith, anyone who takes these sorts of films seriously and organised crime, whilst occasionally, and regrettably, attempting to carve itself a memorable plot from false hopes, lost dreams, and candy floss. The film continues in this direction, making absolutely no progress in the plot department, and yet still managing to be both witty and likeable, until the major plot twist, which hit everyone in the cinema like a ton of bricks; made of acid.

SPOILER ALERT!

Brace yourself. This plot twist isn't easy to take in, and it ruins what has been otherwise a fairly breezy little comedy which I would have actually recommended. Are you ready? Okay then. Hancock is an alien. Yeah that's right, you read it right, Hancock is an alien! Almost as big of a disappointment as Indiana Jones and the Aliens the Kingdom of the Crystal skulls, isn't it?

Oh, and get this – another character whom I haven't mentioned thus far is not only also an alien, but apparently Hancock's wife. Hancock can't remember any of this because he has amnesia from the last time his wife beat him up.

NO MORE SPOILERS!

Anyway the main problem with this plot twist is that because it's so absurd, unexpected and downright stupid, the film feels that it has to explain itself, a lot. Now I'm all for reasonable and fathomable explanations to Sci-Fi plot devices, but only when they are presented in small, manageable chunks, and the rest of the plot can function alongside these explanations. Unfortunately Hancock completely fails to function as a result of these explanations, and the explanations don't make any sense either.

So, to sum up, Hancock is an extremely broken and disjointed film, which whilst being fairly funny and well scripted up until the halfway point, crumples under the weight of a simple plot twist which would have made the writers of Doctor Who blush.

6/10