Finding Dory: review

Director: Andrew Stanton
Running time: 97 minutes

Pixar produce another fine addition to their library

No film studio has had the consistent influx of quality content quite like Pixar, The Good Dinosaur might have been a bit of misstep. But on the whole, each of their animated features have something special that can't be replicated by other animation studios. Which is why their films are beloved by those of all ages.

Set one year after Finding Nemo. Dory (Ellen DeGeneres), an unrelentingly upbeat, blue fish with a short memory span suddenly gets flashbacks from her childhood, where she once had a family before losing them. She can only recall that they lived in the Morro Bay, so she sets out to find them with returning characters Marlin and Nemo. Their journey eventually leads them to an aquarium, where they meet and are helped by a grumpy, red octopus called Hank (Ed O'Neill).

Finding Dory is full of vivid colour, the visuals ooze off of the screen and it moulds well with the optimistic tone of the film. With that said, towards the end there are a few teary moments (it wouldn't be a Pixar film without one).

As we'd expect from Pixar, the wonderfully designed and charming characters are what's at the heart of the film. With its snappy dialogue, you can't help but root for all of the characters because while flawed they're all innocent enough in their goals to care about.

The final third of the film is far more action-centric than I expected, with a crazy escape plan involving a lorry bursting through a highway on the wrong side of the road. Which seemed a little out of place, but still very entertaining nevertheless.

Also, at the centre of Finding Dory is a positive message about family, belonging and never giving up on those you love. Dory's flashbacks to her childhood are a reminder of how we take our loved ones for granted until they are no longer with us.

What stops Finding Dory from being sublime is its rushed final act, and at times it can feel emotionally manipulative. And to be honest it is inferior to Finding Nemo. 

Verdict: 4/5




 

Jason Bourne: Review

Director: Paul Greengrass
Running time: 123 minutes


A decent if formulaic cat and mouse action thriller.

Due to the volatile world we live in, the topic of surveillance and security has moved on from what you might call the streets, to the world of cyber technology. This has happened at the same time that social media has expanded its role in the everyday world. Which makes for a great combination for a modern day action/thriller, Bond touched on it in Spectre, and now the Bourne series returns to do the same but with mixed results.

Set twelve years after the Bourne Ultimatum, Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) is now living as an illegal street fighter on the borders of Albania and Greece. When former agent Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles) hacks into the accounts of the CIA, she uncovers files that relate to Jason Bourne, so she goes to Greece to inform him. The two of them are then pursued by the CIA director Robert Dewey (Tommy Lee Jones) and head of cyber ops division Heather Lee (Alicia Vikander).

From there the film is more or less a cat and mouse chase from one location and action set piece to the next. The action is raw and effective, the fight scenes are bone crushingly exciting and the car chases blend in well with the real life locations. But it's hampered by overly fast editing and constant close ups, which gets distracting after awhile.

While the plot is engaging it also straddles along rather predictably, as the characters just keep reacting from one plot device to the next. With little danger, Bourne overcomes everything in the most convenient and convoluted ways, which creates very little tension.

The hacked files eventually reveal more about Bourne's past, and through a series of flashbacks the story comes full circle. But there isn't any emotional attachment to the character to care enough, which isn't helped when Matt Damon couldn't have said much more than fifty lines in the whole film. It's odd how uninteresting the character has become compared to the first three films.

The supporting cast is a mixed bag, Tommy Lee Jones is suitable for the part of a superior minded CIA director. While Alicia Vikander seems a little out of place, not only is her character nothing much more than a overused plot device, she has the same stiff and charmless expression throughout.

Shoehorned into all of this is a rather underused and ineffective subplot about big corporate silicon valley tech companies and their ambiguous relationship with the government. In this case it's the fictional 'Deep Dream' headed by a smug Aaron Kaloor (Raz Ahmed). It's a subject matter that deserves more than just a side note in a film series that I'm not sure it even belongs in.

The first half of Jason Bourne is really promising, it begins interesting enough and the stakes are really high, and the action is thrilling. But it soon falters and plods along to a final car chase through Las Vegas that's overlong and exhausting. Before ending in a wholly nimble way.

Verdict: 3/5






   


  

star Trek: Beyond

Director: Justin Lin
Running time: 122 minutes

Much like its predecessors, Beyond is a good Sci-Fi blockbuster, but nothing much else.

Beyond is the third film in the rebooted Star trek timeline, J.J Abrams has gone and in comes Justin Lin. And the result is more or less the same.

The story follows a familiar beat, with the Enterprise assigned on a rescue mission into an uncharted nebula, on the way they're attacked by a fleet of drones led by the film's villain Krall (Idris Elba). With the Enterprise eventually destroyed, the crew are forced into making a crash landing on a mysterious and hostile planet.

From there the film switches between the various groups of crew members as the plot unfolds. Which is to the film's credit as all of the characters share the same sense of struggle and intrigue. Only helped by the wonderful chemistry between each of them, because unlike most big tentpole blockbusters, Beyond is successful in showcasing the friendship and humanity in its character interactions.

I liked the introduction of Jaylah (Sofia Boutella), a physically strong female character who isn't just there as a token addition but whose role is central to the plot. But it's the scenes between Spock (Zachary Quinto) and Bones (Karl Urban) that are a particular highlight, not only are their scenes the funniest but they're also the ones in which we have the most emotional investment in.

Because without the characters fine collective chemistry, the film would fall under the weight of what is very much a by the numbers script.

The story doesn't venture into any new territory, there are a few twists here and there, but for the most part it's serviceable at best. The action scenes are visually splendid and frantic, but feel a little unimaginatively executed, a bike scene from the trailer is as good as it gets. And while there is certainly a lot at stake, it all feels a bit weightless and just going through the motions.

There is a hint of exploration, and the locations are immersive enough to feel as though you're on the same journey as the crew of the Enterprise. But there is only a hint of it, the use of 'Yorktown' (a Tomorrowland type city space station that the crew visit, and in which Krall tries to destroy) looks elegant but feels like a waste in a series about the unknowns of space.

Krall is a mixed bag, he's a strong villain but not really menacing enough, his screen presence doesn't really bring out any great tension or fear. While Elba is a fantastic actor, he's layered in a heft of make up, of which the final design is very generic and uninspired. The character's arc changes at the end as a twist unravels about his true identity, of which was a nice surprise but wholly unsatisfying.

Beyond is a good and fun blockbuster film that's entertaining for the time that you're in its company, but it doesn't offer much more. If you liked the previous two movies in the rebooted series, then you're on familiar ground here. If you didn't think much of the previous two films, then Beyond will not give you much that's different or change your mind.

Verdict: 7/10

Glorifying violence and good protagonists

I have been meaning to write this blog for some time, I could just never figure out what angle I should approach it, and what subjective assertions I could argue. But I've come round to it since I finally started watching ‘Game Of Thrones’, so here are my ramblings.

Now, I know I've come to the ‘Thrones’ party quite late, in the past I had tried many times to watch it but I couldn't get any further than the halfway point of the first season. The reason why? I found none of the characters relatable or sympathetic, there was no one I wanted to follow in the world being represented.

I put all that aside a few weeks ago, I would just get through each episode, and see what all the fuss is about. And I don’t regret it, 'Thrones' is a decent show, it’s certainly much better in the first three seasons, but it’s not an amazing show. Only half of the characters are interesting and flawed, while the other half are either pointless or just malicious. It’s success is hinged on its soap opera style story telling, and the twists and variety of characters are enough to keep audiences thirsting for more. And to be fair, the performances are by and large very good.

The simple, unfortunate answer is that humans have always been violent towards one another, our history is more or less written in blood, I won’t go into the details. But regardless of geopolitical or religious reasons, humans are still animals but with a conscience, social beings that can inflict relentlessness cruelty on one another, let alone other beings.

But I'm talking about violence in fiction.

Overly explicit cruelty and violence is one of the things ‘Thrones’ has plenty of, some of it so distasteful I have had to mute the sound and look away. Unfortunately it’s also one of the things that seems to attract people to the show, the show is clever in that it creates characters so repugnant we don’t feel any real emotion when something bad does happen to them.

Why do we find it so entertaining to watch people being killed? (even if it is fictional), in part it’s because it’s fantasy, it’s not real, and it’s something that most people would never be callous enough to carry out. And we also like to see the big bad guy get his comeuppance.

When I was young I was obsessed with action movies, especially the Arnie and Bruce Lee ones, but now I just find them stupid and shallow (albeit entertaining).

But there is a worrying trend that we now glorify violent protagonists as well, they can only ever achieve their aims through force and becoming the very thing that their antagonists are.  

So called strong female characters can only be written as physically competent warriors, equal to their male counterparts. A good example of this is the character Rey in ‘Star Wars: Force Awakens’, who is no violent character but someone who is just too hyper competent.

A better example is the character ‘Lara Croft’ from the Tomb Raider games. In the originals she was a sassy archaeologist who killed to get what she wants. In the rebooted version, in the cut-scenes she was played out as a vulnerable survivor, but in gameplay she is nothing more than a serial killer.

Video games can be forgiven slightly because as soon as you pick up the controller, the game becomes a sport. While video games can have wonderful stories (Life is Strange, etc), their art and purpose is entirely gameplay focused.  

But I’d like to see more remorseful protagonists in fiction, I’d like to see them succeed without using any kind of violence. While it’s easier to create an absolute evil interesting, is it possible to create someone of absolute goodness without being boring? It’s rarely tried, and I can’t think of anyone from the top of my head.

I’ll end this by saying that I think gratuitous violence in fiction ultimately desensitizes us to real violence that we see daily on our TV screens. And in regards to strong characters of all kinds of creed, I find it more interesting when violence is a last resort, and our heroes don’t define themselves by their antagonists.

  

Kung Fu Panda 3 review

A fun, beautiful, if a little formulaic animated movie, that the kids will sure enjoy.

I confess that I've never seen any of the previous Kung Fu panda movies from start to finish, so I went into this a little blind. So it was a relief to come out of the theatre with a smile on my face, as well as those of my young siblings.

The story sees Po (Jack Black) reunited with his long lost father Li (Bryan Cranston), who takes him to a secret panda village where Po originally came from. Along the way a supernatural villain called Kai is defeating all of the Kung Fu masters in China. So Po and his friends are the only thing that stand in his way.

While the story isn't particularly interesting, or anything close to the complexity of a Pixar feature, it never tries to be anything other than a beat by beat flow of comedy sketch pieces, and action sequences. And believe me, there are plenty of laughs in this movie, I chuckled many times, and there was constant laughter amongst even the adults in my screening. Much of the humour is forced and childish, but it all works nevertheless because the characters are so charming and likeable.

Fans of the previous entries will be delighted to see the return of old characters such as Tigress, Monkey, Mantis, Viper and Crane. Although there seems to be less of a group narrative in this movie as Po goes on his own journey.

But the most impressive thing is the animation, which is sublime. The bright colours of the locales and designs ooze off of the screen, and there's times when the animation cuts into a variety of 2D anime scenes, which give it a beautiful far eastern feel, while never feeling out of place.

I can't see why fans of the first two movies wouldn't like this one, my young siblings thought it was the best one they had seen yet. It also helps that the movie is fairly short at 95 minutes, and because it feels like a full on extended action cartoon, not a second feels like it's dragging.

Verdict:3.5/5    

Rise of the Tomb Raider: Review

(This is a review of the single player mode only, and on the Xbox One version)

I adored the 2013 Tomb Raider reboot, I loved it so much that I completed it on the original 360 version and the definitive version on the Xbox One. It was a thrilling joyride, with great combat and immersive platforming, everything I love in a video game. So I've been long anticipating its successor.

To give a brief outline of the plot, in Rise we see Lara Croft one year after the Yamatai incident from the previous game, she follows her father's research into the lost city of Ketzah and the Divine source, which promises immortality. On the way she is hunted by a paramilitary organization called 'Trinity' who are after the same thing. Much like its predecessor, the story is one of the game's weaker points, which I'll allude to later in the review.

It briefly begins in Syria, and then moves to Siberia for the vast majority of the game. First things first, the game is absolutely gorgeous to look at, the environments feel alive, whether it's the vivid sunset in the Syria section or the sheen surface of the ice cliffs you climb with the pick axe. The game is a visual masterpiece, the environments ooze off of the screen and the character models are sublime. The production values really are second to none.



Crystal Dynamics appear to have listened to criticisms that the reboot was too linear and lacked any meaningful tombs, so they've made Rise more expansive than its predecessor, and it encourages more exploration through the large hub areas in-between the game's progression. In these hubs are collectables to pick up and optional tombs to explore. Some of which can't be explored until you have certain items or ability upgrades. They're not quite open world, but they increase the length of the game, and give more agency to the player.

Transcribing murals and collecting documents adds to the story, but it doesn't always work, while it does give the game some length and player agency, the hubs can feel a little tacked on. And although it's hardly open world, it does allow the game to suffer some of the consequences that plague open world games. And that's gameplay filler, which is when small mini game tasks are taking precedence over something more meaningful, such examples include shooting down small drones, breaking communication boxes, etc etc.

The tombs are amazing, they look beautiful, their bigger role in the game is welcome and much needed. But most important of all, they're cleverly challenging. As with Tomb Raider tradition, they make the most simplest of tasks appear impossible. However, I can see why some fans will be disappointed that they're still optional for the most part, and not really at the centre of the game.

Much like the previous game, Rise is in large parts very combat heavy, and acts as a corridor shooter to get from one location to another. The combat is very fun, the targeting system is precise, and the ability to use the environment to shield yourself works perfectly fine. The range of arsenal is roughly the same, you have your basic pistols, shotguns and rifles and the slightly modified explosions option. But it's the bow which still takes centre stage.

The upgrade system has been expanded and given a bit of an overhaul, without being too complicated. The game does shoehorn in stealth elements, which work fine, and there is a certain pleasure in outsmarting the enemies and killing them from behind. But using your array arsenal is far more fun and rewarding. In regards to enemies, it's great to see the bear return to the series, and more prevalence given to the wolves, both are challenging to defeat.

As with all of the previous Tomb Raider games, my favourite part is the platforming that links the game's narrative from one place to the next. Jumping from one ledge to another, climbing up a wall with the pick axe, and swinging from one area to another (with the return of the grapple hook) is exhilarating. In general the interactions with the environments make it feel very accessible and fluid. But those moments feel too short before you're overwhelmed with more combat.



The plot is interesting at face value, but nothing is ever done with it, unlike its predecessor there doesn't feel like there's much at stake, there's no real surprises, and it's all very predictable from start to finish, aside from a minor twists. The main villain Constantine is very generic and lacks any kind of impact, There are less supporting characters, but they have a wider role, but ultimately end up being very forgettable. And the early Syria section of the game could have been utilised for far longer and it comes across as a bit of a missed opportunity, because while the game is great to look at, the Siberian snow and grey does lack variety after a while.

In conclusion, I loved Rise of the Tomb Raider, it's a glorious game that should never have been a timed exclusive for the Xbox One, and I'd recommend it to any XBOX One owner. But despite the welcome introduction of the hub worlds, it doesn't take many risks and all it feels familiar (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). And there's a serious lack of extras once you've competed the game. So it just misses out on being a masterpiece.

Verdict- 8.5

  

  

Bad Youtubers

I love YouTube, I really do, to prove this point I'm currently listening to a movie review as I write this. In fact I watch far more videos on YouTube than I watch TV, it's great because it's free and easily accessible, and you can find anything from old documentaries to boiler issues.

But there's another part of Youtube I hate, the narcissistic and often over sentimental personality channels that litter the site, what I like to call the reality TV shows for the web. Not all of these are bad, but the majority of them are. The worst of them are people who play nasty and provocative pranks on the public, to people who film their entire lives for the web, and people who basically want to get noticed for the sole purpose of being outrageous.

A good example of a bad Youtuber are those who dedicate their entire channels to the 'Fifa' video game series. There's a part of the game in which you can buy micro-transactions, these will usually be packs of cards in which you can buy with your own money or money from the game. In these packs will be random players that you can put into your ultimate team, and then play against other people online, the better the players you have the better you're going to be.

My little brothers watch them all the time, which makes me feel uneasy, not only because each and every one of these people are generally annoying, but because they are making money from something that isn't theirs. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with profiteering from something that isn't directly your own, as long as you're taking that material and using it in an informative and entertaining manner.

I hope everyone has success, no matter what they do in life (and that includes Youtubers). But for me the best Youtubers and the most productive ones are those who have something to say and something to discuss, whose channels are not driven by personality and celebrity. I see the internet as a great way of reaching out to people in all kinds of way. But its getting to the point where it has become a new platform for Z-list celebrity. Where mediocrity is allowed to flourish and be acceptable, and the serious stuff goes unnoticed.