It movie review

Director: Andy Muschietti
Running time: 135 minutes


Impressive, but it still managed to remind me of every other modern horror movie.

It is an adaptation of Stephen King's classic novel of the same title, I loved the novel, but to be honest I can't remember much of the mini series from the nineties, outside of a few scenes.

This adaptation is directed by Andy Muschietti (Mama) and the story has been brought forward to the late nineteen eighties from the source materials fifties. Set in the suburban, American town of Derry, where every twenty seven years a mysterious, shape shifting evil comes out from the sewers and preys on the children.

The main focus of the story is on a group of school misfits, better known as the losers club, who come together through a series of events. It is the performances of the children that really give the movie a rock solid foundation, their friendship is believable and shown wonderfully in each of the scenes they appear. Touching moments of them all together, along with comedic dialogue give the movie a lot of heart and character development.

They individually bring their own dimension and nuances to to the group, and for me they were the best part of the movie.

**

Bill Skarsgard's portrayal of Pennywise the clown is sinister and conniving, within a flash he can transform from an innocent man child to an intimidating, nightmarish psychopath. With his bunny teeth and less colourful make up, this version of Pennywise feels like an evil entity that happens to be dressed up like a circus clown, rather than Tim Curry's portrayal in the mini series, which looked like a weirdo dressed up in a borrowed clown costume.

It succeeds in creating a monster from something that exists to entertain children. Disguise is one of the best forms of horror and mystery, so Pennywise has his place in popular culture, much to the disappointment of real life clowns I'd imagine.

**

But Skarsgard's performance is somewhat let down by the moments in which the movie is trying to scare you. For all of its great use of creepy atmosphere and foreboding direction, it falls into the trap of overly using sound as a substitute for real tension. It's something that every modern horror movie appears to do these days.

There aren't too many cheap jump scares but moments when character's ought to be frightened or in peril, are drowned out by loud banging effects. Because of this nothing feels natural, it's just an unimaginative way of using sound effects to try and prod the audience into feeling scared.

Is the movie scary? Not really, I say that as someone who's never really found any horrors scary, but there are disturbing moments of gore that might unsettle certain people. Both of the supernatural and natural kind.

There are also a few clever moments when Pennywise frantically chases towards the camera in pursuit of his victims. It's only in these fleeting seconds that we feel the characters fear reflect onto ourselves, which is a shame.

It's also to the movie's credit that it was made for the sole purpose of an adult audience in mind, a bit of a rarity for modern horror movies.

**

It is an impressive horror movie overall, it was better than I had always expected, but it changed nothing from what we have already seen before. It's held together by the fantastic performances of its cast and a surprisingly human story. For me this is a definite recommendation, whether you are a horror fan or not.
 

Verdict: 3.5/5

Life is Strange: Before the storm (episode 1) review

*PS4 version

It's great to go back to Arcadia Bay in this promising beginnings of a prequel


Life is Strange was a huge and wonderful surprise when I played it, I jumped in rather late into its release, around the the fourth episode and not too far from the fifth and final one. It was Centred on student Max Caulfield, who discovers that she has the powers to rewind time. Despite its flaws it was engaging and thoughtful from start to finish, and it had me completely hooked.

Before the Storm is a three part episodic prequel focused on Chloe Price, who was one of the most important figures in Life Is Strange. This episode's story is relatively bare bones and doesn't have a mystery box hanging over it like the first game, for the moment it's more character driven and focused on Chloe's mourning of her dead father and her relationship with another student Rachel Amber.

The game is best described as a point and click adventure but with greater freedom to interact with the environment. The environments are contained but work as puzzles that drive the game forward, this might mean you have to interact with objects and NPCs in a certain way to get to the next narrative point. A good example of this is in the beginning of the game when you have try and get into a concert by persuading the bouncer, if that fails you have to sneak your way inside.

**

The rewinding time power that was such a unique function of the last game has gone and replaced with a backchat option which is part of the dialogue choices you have to make, it comes into play when you get into heated arguments. While it suits the boisterous character of Chloe it does feel a little tacked on and lacks the dynamism of the rewinding time ability. But it is just a small function of the game, it's a reactive tool rather than a narrative plot device.

There does seem to be less gameplay agency as well, cutscenes also seem to be a bit longer, but i think this is because of the shift in a more character driven direction, and the narrower story beats (so far).

**

The graphics are basic and nothing to shout about, they certainly aren't what you'd call a current generation. And while the eyes convey character emotion, the facial animations are not particularly good, there's no difference between a character's sadness and their happiness. But the experience is so rewarding none of this was game breaking whatsoever, in many ways it gives it an odd charm, but I'd be lying if I said that it was something to gloss over.

**

With so much focus on emotional choices connected to the character, the dialogue is thankfully an improvement over its predecessor, it's still a bit patchy and unnatural in places, but there is nothing here that is noticeably cringey. If you're engrossed in the story and the emotional beats that the game is trying to portray, you'll be able to turn a blind eye to what is one of the series evidently weaker features.

**

Seeing as we return to Arcadia Bay, some of the locations do return, this might be a problem with prequels in other game series but I loved going back because the setting feels like a character itself rather than just a backdrop. While your exploration is restricted, the locations feel like they are lived and breathed in, little nuances will be familiar to your own everyday life.

This is helped by the game's sombre atmosphere, there's a great use of daylight as a visual cue, it always hangs over Arcadia Bay in a peculiar way. Making its isolation feel uneasy but peaceful.

Aside from Chloe there are a few returning characters from the first game, usually in slender cameo roles, although there's a possibility that they could have a bigger influence in later episodes. But I was surprised by how much I really cared for Chloe herself, a person who I'd struggle to like in reality, and one who was a bit overbearing and often quite annoying in the first game. But I really warmed to her this time round, while she has a teenage angst that results in conflict, her brashness is naive but sympathetic. She has become a character I feel personally invested in.

Verdict: 8/10

This is a promising start and I can't wait to see where it goes in the next two episodes, even if I do know the eventual fate of the main characters. I found myself getting really emotional at times as I began to understand the inner strengths and weaknesses that Chloe possesses.

If you were a fan of the first Life is Strange this is a must have, for those who have not played the first one I'd recommend you try its first episode, it's free on almost all platforms. If you like it then buy the rest of the episodes as well as this one, the price isn't steep for what you get in return.

Sonic Mania review

Sonic Mania review (PS4 version)



Sonic Mania is a blast in the past that just falls just short of pure excellence

Playing the old Sonic Mega Drive games brings back fond childhood memories, I used to play them to death before and after school, and it is no lie that Sonic 2 is my favourite game of all time. But I still had my doubts about Sonic Mania when it was first revealed, was going back to the past really the way forward for the franchise? So I kind of kept my eye away from the game until its release, and having completed it I can safely say that it was a worthwhile endeavour. Sonic Mania is a very good game, but it's not without some flaws.

The game is headed up by Christian Whitehead, who created the successful Sonic mobile games, it's best described as a semi greatest hits, with eight levels taken from the original classic 2D Sonic games and four new ones built from scratch.

Aside from a few deviations, Mania plays like a traditional Sonic game, you have to get from point A to B with familiar tropes such as robot enemies, high loops, plenty of speed dash, and inventive boss battles.

The levels are wonderfully colourful and vibrant, and set on numerous themes. We have the Green Hill Zone of course, arguably THE classic Sonic level. It's also the only one that is particularly linear, because all of the levels branch out far more than I expected, which not only notches up the difficulty level but it also means that the game doesn't just rely on pushing the right button as you speed from one end of the level to the other.

My favourite level is the Mirage Saloon, a wild west themed level that hasn't been done in a Sonic game before, it also helps that it has the best music. It's one of the four new levels, all of which are surprisingly better than the remix levels, it might be because they are brand new but not only they do have a visual oomph, they also introduce innovative ideas that change up the gameplay formula in surprisingly subtle ways. One of the best examples of this is in the Metallic Madness level, where at various points Sonic changes from the foreground to the background.

Studiopolis is another of the impressive new levels, it's kind of reminiscent of the Carnival Night Zone in Sonic 3. The least impressive of the new levels is the very last one, Titanic Monarch, seeing as it is the last in the game it's the hardest of the lot, and one in which the new ideas added don't quite gel as well.

However, as fun as the levels are there were times when the enemies don't mesh well with the design. On most levels there will be at least one moment when you'll waltz right into an enemy that you were either too slow to see on the screen or its colour design simply clashed with the background. But these are just minor gripes.

There is one negative I find almost unforgiving, and that's the boss battles, which are inconsistent in difficulty and rather frustrating. Smart but challenging boss fights have always been a staple of the franchise, each new boss would require a different strategy to beat them. In Mania it is almost impossible to beat bosses without getting hit and losing your rings, and beating them requires as much luck as skill.

They are much easier on repeated playthroughs, but on first encounters some of the frustrations with the boss fights were nigh on close to game breaking and certainly infuriating. Why for the life of me they decided to put bosses at the end of both part one and two of the levels is beyond me.

Special stages include the Blue Sphere from Sonic 3, which is challenging but fun. Completing these stages will get you a chaos emerald, if you get all 7 you'll be able to play as Super Sonic. But believe me it will take multiple goes before you get the hang of them. The other special stage requires you to chase after a UFO under a time limited challenge, which I didn't play much because it was a bit dull.

**

Graphics wise it is nothing more than a souped up 16 bit era game, but this doesn't take away from the heart of the experience, in many respects it gives it a powerful charm and a sense of timelessness. The game does have new animations that were not in the classic Sonic games, they don't change anything but it gives Sonic a bit more character and updates the power up visuals in a nice way.

**

With numerous sittings I think I completed the game in the 3-5 hour mark, it might have even be a bit more, I can't be certain. But it does have plenty of replay value with the inclusion of a multiplayer (which I haven't played admittedly), and the choice of not just playing as Sonic but with Knuckles and Tails too. The levels are slightly different if you play as knuckles.


**

This was a hard game to give a final score on, I loved it for the most part and it gets better on repeated playthroughs. You'll want to keep coming back to master the levels, the bosses become a bit more forgivable, and the soundtrack is brilliant and chimes perfectly with what we expect from an old Sonic game.

But I would have liked to have seen more original levels because they are the best that the game has to offer, and as a lifelong fan of the franchise I think the choice of the old levels they've remixed is a bit dubious. I personally would have chosen differently.

But with such a low price tag (£15.99 in the UK) I would recommend this game in a heartbeat, for those who have never played a Sonic game, there's no better chance to get stuck in. And for fans of the franchise this is a no brainer.

8/10
 

Annabelle Creation: review

Director: David Sandberg
Running time: 109 minutes


An entertaining and occasionally clever horror flick that doesn't conjure up much that's new


Annabelle Creation is a prequel to the first Annabelle and Conjuring movies, the plot is centred on a group of girls and a nun who move into an isolated house from a closed down orphanage. They share their new home with doll maker Samuel Mullins (Anthony LaPaglia) and his wife Esther (Miranda Otto), whose daughter tragically died in a roadside accident twelve years earlier. It's when one of the children find a hidden doll by the name of Annabelle that things don't quite go to plan.

To be honest there's not a lot that's particularly original in this movie, much of the themes of religion, isolation and scary dolls are staples of the horror genre. But much like the Conjuring movies, there are moments of tension which build up masterfully to only then deceive you by going in a direction that is often unexpected.

It's very clever bait and switch, but the payoff is sometimes mixed, the jump scares caught me by surprise but do feel a little bit cheap on occasion. It doesn't thankfully rely on jump scares as much as most horror movies tend to do these days.

While the story might follow the same old tropes we have seen before, the performances really shine through, Talitha Bateman and Lulu Wilson play the two child leads, Janice and Linda, perfectly. Child actors can often be a thorn in horror movies, they are either annoying or just unconvincing. But they made the characters sympathetic and believable, we feel their dread as they go through their supernatural ordeal, and uncover the mysteries of Annabelle.

Another thing worth mentioning is the good use of its setting, while there is nothing about the house's design that stood out from anything else of the genre. It's shot in a way that makes it peculiarly unnerving and menacing, but homely nevertheless. A place that's lived in rather than just a plot device for the characters.

But, as I said, there is not much here that's new, it's a little bit jack of all trades but the master of nothing. And while the plot's central mystery unfolds rather well, the actual origin story of Annabelle is not nearly as satisfying as it could have been. It's kind of predictable and ultimately a wasted opportunity.  

I'd recommend this to anyone who is a fan of the genre, and for those who liked the previous Conjuring movies. There is an abundance of scares and intrigue here, even if it follows a direction we have already seen.

Verdict: 3/5

I just don't find superheroes that interesting

I have to confess that i have never been the biggest comic book fan, I have at various times collected 'The Astonishing Spider-Man' and the 'Batman Legends' series that you can get here in Britain. And I do have a vast graphic novel collection, some of my favourites include The Crow and some Hellboy editions, amongst others.

Of all the superheroes it’s Spider-Man and Batman that interest me the most, Spider- Man because he is one of the few superheroes who is remotely relatable beneath the suit. And the idea of Batman is fascinating, a protector who works in the shadows and who brings down the worst of the criminal underworld that exists in most societies. Even if he is a bit of a sociopath who happens to be a billionaire.

The movies are entertaining for the most part, and worthy of a cinema watch, although I am beginning to find them less and less surprising with each passing release.

So why don’t I find superheroes interesting?

Well, as I eluded to in my first paragraph, very few of them are relatable and most have a superiority that I find uncomfortable with. Most are either super genius billionaires, military fighters, monarchic leaders, or simply powerful because they happen to be special.

Let’s take a look at the Avengers team, Captain America is effectively a super soldier, Iron Man is a super genius billionaire, Thor is a god, Hulk is another Scientist who happens to have anger issues, Black Panther is a king. Of course Ant-Man is just a down on his luck thief, but if you look at the bulk of superheroes, they follow a trend of being socially powerful people.

Even Wonder Woman is of monarchical birth, and trained to basically be a skilled killer.

**

Which brings me to my other point, superheroes work within their own view of the world. For example Batman is someone who takes justice into his own hands by using violence, not thinking of the social circumstances of why he exists in the first place.

I of course understand that not all superheroes are like this, and within these fictional black and white worlds they exist in, real evil needs to be stopped.

But I still find so few superheroes particularly interesting, as I said, one of the few that I do find interesting is Spider-Man. Of course the character is a bit of a bully towards his villains, and he too is a talented scientist. But at least Peter Parker is relatable, he lives in New York and his story arcs are far more small world compared with most superheroes.

**

Am I putting too much expectations on characters that shouldn’t be taken too seriously, and who were originally created to amuse little children? Likely.

But with the continuing influx superhero related media from movies to video games, never ceasing to end, it just disappoints me that interesting fictional characters are a bit of a rarity these days. Modern heroes seem to be powerful and that’s it, there aren’t any Luke Skywalker’s created any more. A genuine hero who went from being being zero to hero to save the day, whose journey was filled with mistakes and learning. But despite all his eventual power we knew he was a good guy who succeeded.

In today’s world we either get all powerful characters, the chosen one, or just the anti-hero who wouldn't be that different from the villains in other circumstances. And from my point of view that’s so disappointing, because the world could do with some fictional heroes we can identify with.

3D platformers are dead and that's not a bad thing

There was a time in the 90s when platform games were the marquee titles, specifically those that were made with a mascot in mind. There was always Mario, but it really started after the birth of Sonic the Hedgehog. In time and with the advent of 3D gaming, Mario 64 really changed the landscape and gave us the beginnings of the collect-a-thon.

Looking back I was always more of a 2D platformer, there were exceptions though. I loved Mario 64 and the early Spyro games, Banjo Kazooie I played but never completed. Sonic Adventure and Jak and Daxter also bring back fond memories, and for a bit of a difference there was Conker's Bad Fur Day, which was released in the dying days of the N64.

**

About two years ago I got a chance to revisit some of these old games when Rare Replay was released for the Xbox One. I was a huge Rareware fanboy in its glory days of the N64, so the opportunity to go back to them was a no brainer, especially with the cheap launch price.

To my disappointment I was surprised at how badly dated most of the games were, I had more fun with Battletoads than any of the N64 classics. In fact the only 64 game I liked was Perfect Dark, and that was a first person shooter. The most striking thing about playing the old platform games (Banjo Kazooie titles as well as Conker) was how completely uneven the level design was, and the general shallowness of the experience

These issues can be blamed on the technical limitations of the time, which is why 3D platformers are never likely to make much of a comeback, and why I was massively disappointed with the recent Yooka Laylee, and slightly underwhelmed by the remastered versions of the original Crash Bandicoot trilogy only just released for the PS4.

Yooka Laylee suffers the many faults of the old collect-a-thons from the 90s. With extreme padding, tedious gameplay tropes, frustrating boss battles, nauseating camera work combined with unresponsive controls. It was a game that I played for no more than four or five hours before giving up and never returning.

Crash: N.Sane trilogy is not a traditional platformer like some of the others on this blog, but much like Yooka Laylee it is a throwback to the past. Overall it's a fun game that oozes visual charm and I enjoyed a lot of it, but by god is it a bloody frustrating experience. The enemy detection is poor, the jumping mechanic often doesn't feel suited to the level design, and without sounding pretentious, it too is a shallow experience. This is stating the obvious of course, because the Crash Bandicoot titles are just cartoony, get from point A to B games, and there really is nothing wrong with that.

It's just something that I have personally outgrown I suppose.

**

From recent memory the only platform game I've liked was the Ratchet and Clank remaster on the PS4. But even that is more of a third person shooter masked as a platform game, there is elements of collecting stuff but it's a bypass of the game rather than an essential element of it.

Which is how platforming is best used in a game, for example, the 2013 Tomb Raider reboot has some of the best platforming that I have ever come across, and that isn't even a platform game. It just has many segments of platforming between the vast exploring and shooting.

3D platformers were good for their time, they were a great a toolbox that showcased the capabilities of where gaming could go. But with the expanse of technology and the power of new consoles, games became more creative and mature, leaving the old 3D platformers dead.

And it's only now that I've realised that that's not necessarily a bad thing.  

Spider-Man Homecoming review

Director: Jon Watts
Running time: 133 minutes

The third best Spider-Man film


Spider-Man has finally joined the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Homecoming is of course not the first time that we have seen the web swinger in the MCU, as he made his first (and arguably scene stealing) appearance in Captain America: Civil War.

He is without doubt one of the stellar Marvel characters in their vast ensemble, so his lack of presence was always a missing cog in the successful money machine that is the MCU. So has it been worth the wait? yes and no. Homecoming is without question an entertaining action movie and worthy on its own merits, but it ends up lacking an identity, and to some extent I came away thinking it was a little forgettable.

The central cast is near perfect and full of charm, Tom Holland's interpretation as a young, high school attending Peter Parker is both sympathetic and endearing. Although time will tell, he doesn't have the sappy demeanour of Tobey Maguire's interpretation, or the aloof and unsympathetic Andrew Garfield take on the character. The same can also be said of Michael Keaton, who plays the central villain, Vulture. A blue collar contractor who wants to get his revenge on the Avengers. His motivation might be weak and underwritten, but they are at-least understandable, Spider-Man villains tend to pose threats that are smaller in scale compared to other comic book villains, so it follows that tradition.

Robert Downey Jr makes a cameo as Tony Stark, and it is just a cameo. It is nothing like the screen time that the trailer's might've suggested.

While the supporting characters feel like a big part of the story, none are that interesting, Peter's main love interest is just that, his best friend Ned (Jacob Batalon) is a little annoying. And I was surprised by the minimal screen time of Aunt May (Marisa Tomei), who as impressive as she was, couldn't have shared more than two or three scenes with Peter.

**

Another surprise was how passable the action scenes are, none were spectacular and all were a relative decline compared with any of the previous Spider-Man movies. Which links in with my next point, the movie feels peculiarly TV-esque. This might be because there is more of a focus on Peter Parker as a high schooler, it's a central part of the movie, whereas in the past movies it was kind of there in the background with little effect on the main plot outside of the characters interacting with each another.

**

While there's nothing extraordinary or even bad about the direction, or the way that the movie's shot. I was also surprised that the cityscapes of Manhattan were not used, there's boundless ways to be creative with Spidey swinging through the skies, especially in action set-pieces. I'd imagine that this will change in future sequels.

The small scope of the movie isn't entirely bad, the diversity of Queens shines through, and it feels like a character within the story, a place where people actually live rather than just a setting.  

**

The movie fails to be bigger than the sum of its parts, the understandable absence of an origin story and uncle Ben do make the plot feel a little weightless. Which means that the only motivation Peter Parker has is by trying to impress Tony Stark so he can join the Avengers.

However, the movie is well worth your time and money for the entertainment factor alone, it's the funniest of all the Spider-Man movies so far. And none of the humour feels forced, and none of it outstays its welcome. But, above all, it successfully lays the seeds for what should be a promising line of sequels and a deeper take on the mythos of the character.

Verdict: 7/10