No man's sky review

Platform: Playstation 4

A flawed but absorbing space adventure like nothing I've played before

Eighteen quintillion planets to explore and discover, just the sheer number is unimaginable, and it's only when you go out into space for the first time and open up the galactic map does that number really hit you. While it's impossible to explore each of them, the sheer ambition of No Man's Sky really is something to behold, and despite all of its failings, Hello Games should be applauded for its efforts.

At heart No Man's Sky is a first person survival game as much as it is about exploration, you start on a randomly selected planet in a star system on the outskirts of the galaxy, your Starship has crashed and in pieces. So it's up to you find the materials to repair it so you can leave the planet for space and get to the centre of the galactic core. 

The first few hours of the game act as an introductory tutorial as you learn more about how to mine the materials you need for your ship. It can be a bit of a slog at first, but once you fix your Starship, the mechanics of the game begin to flow, and it doesn't really change much from there on.

It is only by upgrading and crafting your inventory that you can explore the vast reaches of space and mine the best materials from the planets you visit. There are three kinds of inventory slots, an Exo-suit, one for your Starship, and another is your multi-tool. The inventory system is very basic but fiddly, and until you upgrade it extensively it can be a bit of a chore to use, and it doesn't help that you have to open up the menu to be able use it. But it does become less of a problem the further you progress and the more items you have.

The objective on each of the planets is the same throughout, as you fly from one question marker to the next, finding upgrade formulas, mining materials and visiting trade outposts or alien monoliths. After a while this does become tedious, especially if the planets you come across are boring. But the game is saved by the great feeling of progression you get from upgrading your inventory, and trading the resources you've mined so that you can acquire better Starships to warp to other star systems with.   

The planets are all procedurally designed, so all eighteen quintillion of them have various differences from one another. You will encounter glorious shades of forest planets to ocean ones, right down to bland rock planets. After a while, the wonderment of each of them begins to fade as the differences are often very minor, and for every five planets that you visit, maybe only one of them might actually be interesting.

Life on these planets is sparse, and the designs of the species you do encounter are mixture of dinosaurs and zoo animals. Discovering them is rewarding at first, because just like the planets, you can name them once discovered, but it begins to wear off very soon as you realise that they're for the most part all nearly identical, and act as nothing more than wallpaper to the planets landscape. The interaction with the species is also quite limited, as you can feed them and nothing much else, although you may have to kill some if they're hostile.

There are three types of alien NPCs in the game, all have different personas, and you can learn their own individual languages by opening monoliths on the planets you visit. But once again your interaction with them is very limited and they are more or less cardboard characters, and you will only ever encounter them in space stations and trading posts.

The exploration of space is wonderful at first but it quickly becomes static, freighters you see are just kind of there, and you can't land on asteroids as the developers had promised. But going from one star system to the next is a very rewarding, and each star system is unique from one another. Just as there are awe inspiring views from the different planets you visit, the same can be said when you see the alignment and scale of the different star systems you explore.

The combat in space and on the ground is passable at best, hostile species are rare, but on each planet you will have to deal with robots called Sentinels which attack you if you cause too much harm to the planet you're on. In space you will have to deal with pirates which attack you, none of this is particularly challenging or exciting, but it's only a minor part of the game that won't detract from your overall experience, but it could have been better.

Although No Man's Sky is a shared universe to some degree, with eighteen quintillion planets in the game it's unlikely that you will visit other players discoveries all too often, which does ask the question of what the point of it all is? A better mapping system to connect players discoveries is a real missed opportunity. But in No Man's Sky the journey is far greater than the destination.

No Man's Sky is bold and like no other game I've played before, and without doubt the moments of inspiration can't take away the game's eventual repetitiveness. Although shallow, the game still has me hooked because I want to keep discovering planets in this shared universe, and with the promised updates the game could still get better.

If you enjoy playing games by yourself and willing to try something that's different to what you might have played before then No Man's Sky is for you. If you're a sceptic and curious, then wait for a deep sale.

Verdict: 7/10

  

    

Suicide Squad review

Director: David Ayer
Running time: 123 minutes

A wasted opportunity with a few nuggets of redemption

Much like Batman v Superman, Suicide Squad is probably an idea better in concept than it ever could be in execution. A film about an ensemble of comic book bad guys as the main protagonists has never been done before, and the trailers were effective with its dark tone and offbeat characters.

Set after Superman's death, the government assemble a group of some of the most villainous characters from the DC lore, and send them into Midway city to defeat an enigmatic entity.

There are moments when Suicide Squad works, but those moments are few and far between. There is little action to really speak of, sure there's a few gunfights before the eventual final showdown with the main villain (one of the most generic in a comic book film). But none of the action is exciting, it's all blandly generic with no weight behind it because the story is scant at best, and the characters motivations are weak meaning that nothing much is ever really at stake.

It isn't helped when the locations are so boring and contained, only about three or four streets and a skyscraper actually take place in the empty city of Midway.

The first twenty minutes of the film are by far its best, as each of the characters have small monologue introductions alongside bizarre choices of music (some work while others are just distracting). Because of its snappy pace and exposition, in its entire run time the beginning of the film is the only time when anything feels engaging. Of the ensemble of characters, only two of them are actually interesting, and it is these characters that save the whole thing from being criminally bad.

Will Smith's screen presence and zippy line delivery just about brings Deadshot to life, an otherwise hokey character who has a daughter he misses (shown through a number of flashbacks). He's the only character with any form of a story arc, and the one with the most screen time and emotional connection to.

Margot Robbie is fine as Harley Quinn, the star attraction and probably the only character those not too familiar with the DC universe might have a vague recognition of. Her role is more or less eye candy with an abundance of one liners for comic relief, sometimes it works but other times it just comes across as flat, and trying too hard. The script doesn't really do the role any justice.

Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) is impressively intimidating as the government official who is co-coordinating the entire operation. Who would have thought she'd turned out more villainous than the actual suicide squad.

Those looking forward to the Joker (Jared Leto) will be disappointed, who is nothing more than a glorified cameo with less than ten minutes of screen time. Appearing as a mob boss cloaked up in jewellery and colourful attire. I wasn't too impressed, the character wasn't frightening or funny, just creepy, so I'll need to see this interpretation in a bigger role.

The other characters might as well be wallpaper, characters with props and little else. The lack of any real action set piece doesn't help because it means the non existent character development can't be glossed over. Killer Croc, one of the most fearsome Batman villains literally has nothing to do.

And the plot is a bit of a mess, suffering the same problems that Batman V Superman had, where the narrative is full of scenes that offer nothing to the central plot, and with subplots introduced and forgotten.

All in all, Suicide Squad is mildly entertaining, the casting is nigh on perfect and it is by no means a bad film, but one with huge wasted potential that doesn't live up to the hype that proceeded it. By the time the credits rolled I wondered what the whole point of it was.

Verdict: 2.5/5


         

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