Hellboy (2019) - Insert Obligatory "Purgatory" Subtitle Here

Going into a film with an open mind is sometimes difficult. With the media hype machine being what it is and the slew of viewer scores and opinions one can find online, being purely objective is nigh on impossible. What you can do though, is make a conscious effort to filter it all out and give whatever it is you’re watching a super large benefit of the doubt. Which is exactly what I did with the rebooted Hellboy when I rented it the other night. I willed myself into a state of ready acceptance, blocking out the critic reviews I’d already seen and the trailer that had underwhelmed, to achieve a near zen like peace.

Then, I sat back and discovered that it is possible to feel ripped off at only £1.99. It must be said that I am a fan of Ron Perlman’s Hellboy and that the meditation I underwent before hitting play was, in no small part, to give David Harbour a fair shake. This, however, proved unnecessary. Not because he was miscast, his voice and general temperament actually supporting his inclusion, but because with direction and writing this woeful they could have brought in the actual Devil and it would have been all for nought.

Neil Marshal is best known for his low budget horror film Dog Soldiers, bouldering with monsters, The Descent and, if you’re me, post-apocalyptic cheese fest, Doomsday. He’s never really broken out into mainstream Hollywood and has made his name more recently directing various episodes of shows such as Westworld and Game of Thrones. On the face of it, with a relatively small budget of 50 million dollars and what is a monster property to boot, he seems like a good choice to blend the comic book world with that of cult success. What we get instead is a smattering of passable action sequences, some genuinely interesting creatures and cinematography and a storyline so botched and rushed it will give you whiplash.

Many of these narrative problems stem from Summit Entertainment’s deranged notion of creating their own cinematic universe, with a further five films originally planned to spin off from the many poorly fleshed out sub plots Hellboy introduces over its two-hour run-time. Corporate greed once again trumping the business of making a good, standalone movie. *Cough*, Joker. The fact that Marvel has been the only success in this area has never deterred the financial adventurism of other and arguably lesser mortals. The film, therefore, has the unfortunate feeling of being simultaneously overlong while also underdeveloped.

The cast, meanwhile, is a decidedly mixed bag. As already mentioned, David Harbour was a fine choice to take on the role of hell’s greatest hero, but some others were distinctly lacking. Most notably Daniel Dae Kim as Major Ben Daimio and Sasha Lane as Alice Monaghan. I can’t tell you whether their characters are true to the source material, rather what I can tell you is that both American actors put on the worst English accents I have ever heard. It really does border on parody more than once and puts the final nail in any hope of a successful group dynamic. Thankfully, Mila Jovovich is in her element as Nimue, the wicked Blood Queen but due to deficiencies in the writing is criminally underused and can only provide light relief. Similarly, Ian McShane delivers a spirited, if oddly characterised performance as Hellboy’s adopted father. Where John Hurt of the original was nurturing and patient, McShane is biting and sarcastic, creating an adversarial relationship which fails to engage or be borne out by the finale.

Albeit, a very pretty lady.

The plot itself is confused by its corporate origins and attempt to tell a personal story. In both prior movies, Hellboy was depicted as a tortured hero, desperate for acceptance in a world which reviled him. In The Golden Army this gave Prince Nuada’s arguments weight as the film played upon Hellboy’s isolation and bitterness, forcing him to make a difficult choice. Hellboy (2019) however, simply ramps up the character’s angry outbursts and tempts him with a pretty lady. It’s not an improvement and as always with reboots, if it doesn’t go beyond the original work it’s not worth making. The only new addition of note being the buckets of blood and violence that litter the film's run time for no actual reward, other than a quick glance at the clock. As for the script, I knew all was lost when Hellboy uttered the phrase, “Shit of God,” while battling a giant. It was genuinely cringe inducing. Other pearls sprinkled throughout the film include, but are not limited to:


“Could you Google translate that for me?” in response to some magic gobbledegook.

“We make sure she doesn’t come back for the sequel,” when discussing what to do about the bad guy.

“Why does this book have so many words in it?” Need I say more?

All in all, not the best and surprisingly, not the product of a bloated team of staff writers. One mind was this bad all by itself.

Between the breakneck pace of the story, the shoddy writing and lazy direction, there is very little to recommend the new Hellboy. It doesn’t surpass it predecessors, other than perhaps in the CGI department and falls flat more often than not. It’s sense of humour is juvenile, its plot predictable and teaser ending, laughably optimistic. If there was any love in the film’s production, it was clearly buried under poor financial decisions and worst of all, has likely destroyed any hopes of seeing the former cast ever reprise their roles. A sin for which there can be no forgiveness.

Star Trek Beyond Expectations

Being a Star Trek fan has always been a double edged bat’leth.  On the one hand it has enjoyed some of the finest science fiction writing to date with both The Wrath of Kahn and First Contact topping the majority of the competition.  On the other however, is The Motion Picture.  Enough said.  But then came the event.  The trauma.  The reboot.  Which is in no way a commentary on the movie’s quality, but the fear engendered by the very notion of a new Kirk, a new Spock and a new Enterprise.  For while undoubtedly mainstream, Star Trek has always been off centre in terms of its popularity; the very term “Trekkie” becoming part of everyday lexicon to denote a rather nerdy individual.  A king among all geeky men.  

Brought to you by Apple IN SPACE!

The new Trek was specifically designed to do away with all that.  It was meant to be sleek, cool and oozing sex appeal.  Even Spock became the focus of some serious man crushes.  It also did away with the techno-babble that so flummoxed and confused the regular going public.  Something Star Trek had always been famous for; the inversions of field polarities and harmonic resonances being part of every true Trekkie's vocabulary.  Instead, we got “lightning storms in space”, thanks J.J.  As you may be able to tell, I was not over enamoured with this dumbing down but I enjoyed the first two movies well enough.  They were fun if uninspired and wiled away a few hours in a thinned out universe I still loved.  Originality however, was sorely lacking.

             

 Much as with the new Star Wars a fear of doing too much outside the established norm bred complacency and not a little laziness.  The first was centred entirely on resetting the continuity and making it clear Trek was now cool.  The second clung so tightly to The Wrath of Kahn’s popularity that it left little in the way of effort and committed multiple plot convenience sins.  Super blood, interplanetary beaming technology and why, oh why the Klingons let the slaughter of dozens of soldiers go without even a shrug, to name a few?  But, as I said, they’re fun movies nit picking aside.  With Beyond therefore, I was expecting more of the same.  So colour me speechless when all did not go according to presumption.

                        

Lines around the eyes.

From the very beginning there is a feeling that this is a Star Trek film.  Perhaps due to the Enterprise being three years into their five-year mission, or simply that the cast has grown into their roles.  Iconic and daunting as they surely are.  Some are still more fleshed out than others, Chekhov and Uhura still lagging behind in the developmental races, but from Chris Pine we get a better rounded character.  A character who identifies as James Tiberius Kirk.  The rigours of command have finally started to take a toll, making both he and Spock question their places with Starfleet.  It’s a definite nod to the original films, with Kirk’s possible admiralship being dangled as a diverging path.  The road taken in another life and perhaps, even after all that has happened, again here.  It adds definition to a captain who’s seen two movies go by serving the Federation all on a dare, with nary a thought for whether he really belongs.

                                     

Krall, there'll be no cancelling the apocalypse.

The storyline itself feels like it could have been lifted straight from an episode.  Without revealing the whole shebang: The Enterprise answers a distress call, an enemy presents themselves and cue the action.  My main worry was that by not relying on previous material we might have seen a regression to the two dimensional bad guy, the Nero of first movie fame.  For while Into Darkness may have lacked originality, Benedict Cumberbatch nailed the part of Kahn with aplomb and carried the plot through some of its faultier aspects by performance alone.  Eric Banner did not.  As it would seem however, all that was needed was another Brit and some alien prosthetics to transform Idris Elba into Krall, our baddy in residence.  He growls, he snarls and most of all he has a severe and unrelenting hatred of the Federation.  The reasons for which make for an interesting reveal, although they could have gone into more detail.  It’s a forgivable lapse but a missed opportunity to create a villain with a little more depth. 

                                                

Relatable and awesome.

We also see the introduction of Jaylah, ably played by Sofia Boutella of Kingsman fame.  Remember those blades?  The disabled had never been so deadly.  A refreshingly able but flawed character, both Justin Lin and the screenwriters involved deserve a pat on the back.  Vulnerable but competent, brave but unsure, she makes for a fine addition to the crew and it’ll be fun to see whether she returns in future installments.  Hopefully, alongside an absent Carol Marcus who for some reason they were unable to work into Beyond.  One suspects the controversy the internet created over *that* scene in Into Darkness may have played a part, but one never knows.  In any case she contributed mightily to my enjoyment of the film and aided it in pipping Star Wars: The Force Awakens to the post for my favourite science fiction film of the recent past.  Originality is a boon, not a sin and it’s a lesson Star Trek seems to have learned from its previous outings. 

                                                         

Live long and... well you know the rest.

Not to say that we don’t have plenty of nostalgia and tie ins to the wider Star Trek universe.  The passing of Leonard Nimoy is given appropriate attention, a saddened Spock sorting through his aged self’s possessions to find a photograph of the original crew.  There’s also plenty of nods to Enterprise, the black sheep of the Star Trek continuity that demonstrates a respect not only for the source material but just as importantly, the fans as well.  Regardless of one’s position on Captain Archer he and his ship are part of the canon and one of the few parts of the history not retconned by time travel hijinks.  Finally, I mentioned its absence earlier, but we see the return of techno gobbledegook.  Not a lot and certainly not enough to confuse or alienate anyone, but enough to make the crew appear slightly better educated than a bunch of frat boys joyriding in Starfleet’s most advanced warship.  So, on a whole how best to sum up Star Trek Beyond?  It’s solid, dependable and entertaining.  You’ll leave the cinema after two hours feeling content, not necessarily blown away but knowing what you just watched was definitely good.  I am one of those people who is notoriously difficult to please and like many analyse a film even as I’m watching it for the first time.  Inconsistencies, plot holes and laziness are genuinely irritating and yet my radar barely pinged in this instance. Now there’s only one thing left to say.  Justin Lin, we forgive you for Tokyo Drift, we forgive you.

Independence Day: Resurgence - Quietly Into the Night

I am not a wise man.  I like a lot of bad things.  More specifically I’ve enjoyed many a bad movie.  I’ve sat and thought to myself, “Dear god this is garbage,” and yet watched through to the credits being sufficiently amused by a film’s deficiencies to compensate for the overall failure of the attempt.  I did it with Wing Commander, I did it with Battleship and I did it with Batman and Robin.  But this doesn’t preclude the simple fact that they are bad movies.  Their directors creating freaks that we point and laugh at as opposed to visions of narrative and thespian beauty.  

We forgive you for After Earth, come back!

So, the question becomes when faced with such an abomination, was I entertained even if for the wrong reasons?  Was I amused or was I robbed?  Independence Day: Resurgence faced just such a quandary.  Following on from Roland Emmerich’s now two-decade old tour-de-force it was a questionable enterprise right out of the gate.  Minus Will Smith and having to capture the attention of a whole new generation of movie goers it had an uphill battle against the likes of modern blockbusters that dominate the box office.  A world of tie ins, sequels and what has become in no small part an exercise in brand recognition.  As such, I went into Resurgence with my fingers crossed that we were going to see alien invasions kicking it old school with some modern tropes, but still holding a core forged from the original.  But that’s not what happened. That’s not what happened at all.

         

Here on the Internet we’re prone to the extreme opinions and reviews of the masses.  Sometimes the vitriol is justified and often it’s not, but usually the truth falls somewhere in the middle.  So when I say that Independence Day: Resurgence is bad, I want you to understand something.  It's bad in a way that is not funny.  If anything it's borderline tragic with hints of pity and despair.  It's the Gulf of Tonkin incident without the amusing deception and decade long war.  In summary dear reader, it's a bad kind of bad.  So, what went wrong?

                 

Pod people.

First of all, the flesh puppets...  I mean actors.  Alien invasion movies are straight forward affairs with plenty of A to B writing.  That’s no bad thing, for a tight story with the right script can be great, much like the original Independence Day.  It allows for maximum  explosions and just the right amount of character development.  As we don’t want characters we don’t give a damn about but equally we don’t want to be flipping through their family albums while all the cool stuff happens off camera.  Resurgence however, falls into the former category; so much so that neither I nor my friend could remember any of the new characters’ names come the credits.  Not a one.  Nada.  Liam Hemsworth remained Liam Hemsworth; not Will Smith (no matter how desperately they wished otherwise) remained not Will Smith and Bill Pullman, somehow, was not President Whitmore.  In point of fact the only new character that achieved their purpose was the Chinese pilot played by Angelababy (stage name), who doubtless helped draw cinemagoers in the ever more lucrative Asian markets.  There’s even a line to the effect of, “China has been the most important partner in developing our super anti-alien defences,” thrown in near the beginning.  It’s so transparent that unless English is your second language, you’ll flinch when you see it. 

                                  

Bigger ship, bigger fun.

As for the narrative itself it’s uninspired but not fatal alone.  The aliens come back, other aliens show up and declare themselves the enemy of the original aliens and war ensues.  Then things fall down.  For we are shown/told all of this in forced exposition that feels so disconnected from the first movie it’s hard to see how one leads to two.  The invaders are now lead by “Harvester Queens” and only by killing this Alien knockoff can they be thwarted, although it has never been done before!  Apart from last time when they nuked the sons of bitches.  But that’s semantics.  After this we’re subjected to a very familiar set of events.  The humans are overwhelmed, the alien ship lands, the humans launch a daring but ultimately doomed assault on the now 3000 kilometres sized mothership before defeating them at Area 51 just in the nick of time.  It was almost like paying one’s entry fee to see a favourite film performed by second-rate actors.  That was nice; I was too young to see the original at the cinema. 

                                        

The family underachiever.

The stinking, putrid glue that holds it all together is the script.  For without one it’s just a bunch of people gesturing dramatically and dying without context.  In hindsight, this may have been an improvement, but you live and learn.  Remember those modern tropes that we mentioned earlier?  Well they’re present, albeit in their worst possible forms.  I’m talking about the quips.  The unending, unfunny and unrelenting quips that are so desperately ill-judged at times it makes you wonder at Emmerich’s sanity.  The great thing about the original was that while it was funny (“Welcome to Earth!”) it was also plausible.  That the characters were saying one-liners and mouthing off as a coping mechanism for the fact the entire world was ending around them.  It’s what people do.  Admittedly sometimes a one-liner is just a one-liner, but they never felt misplaced.  In Resurgence however, I didn’t laugh once.  No one in the audience did either.  It was offensive, it was juvenile and best summed up by Liam Hemsworth whipping his dick out to take a piss as to distract a bunch of aliens.  He was talking at the time which made it even worse.

                                                 

I could go on for another five pages documenting this movies sins but by the time I’d finish it would be an inquiry ten years in the making.  An entire dissertation could be squandered on the terrible effects alone before running a financial breakdown on what exactly they spent that 165 million dollars on.  Other than the nine writers who “contributed” to the films creation of course, which goes some way towards explaining the horrendously fractured narrative.  But I digress.  For there is only one message you should take away from this review and that is stay away.  Hide.  Take shelter.  Independence Day: Resurgence is an atrocity not only for its violation of a classic, but because it took everything wrong with the current mega-movie industry and distilled it into something more unwatchable than Transformers: Age of Extinction.  Sadly, there’s no such thing as a cinematic crime against humanity, so if you need me that’s where I’ll be.  At The Hague, protesting for one.

Retro Rehash - Die Clanner! MechCommander Review

Like most people living here in the West I am party to the glitz and glamour of the First World.  Champagne, caviar, murdering the occasional prostitute and passing off the storage locker in which I keep their remains as a business expense.  Yet, the greatest example of my bourgeois pride is undoubtedly my Steam account, with its 248 games and backlog so mountainous it contends with Snowden for Britain’s highest peak.  So, of course, I’m here to talk about MechCommander, a now freeware RTS that you can download for nothing off the web.  To those reading in less developed nations you have just pinpointed the weakness in our soft, consumerist underbelly; but before the proles of the world rise up and cast our wasteful asses into the sea let’s wax lyrical about giant robots doing battle across the stars.

         

For those of you born after the great PC revolution that sowed the seeds of all video game greatness (this may be revisionist history), there used to be this little table top game called Battle Tech.  Set in a universe of warring houses, political intrigues and galactic conquest it demanded the use of miniatures, dice and hours of commitment.  Luckily, the good fellows over at FASA Studios (may they rest in peace) recognised that even humble folks like myself needed to exercise generalship over an elite cadre of Battle Mechs in pursuit of ultimate victory, sometimes.  And in 1998 they delivered the dream of every layman out there with the first MechCommander.

               

Battle Tech has a rich backstory which I encourage you to look into; unlike many other sci-fi universes it hasn’t fallen to the predations of money making and general enfeeblement that typifies much of Games Workshop’s and Star Wars fair.  MechCommander opens with the invasion of the planet Port Arthur, currently held by the forces of Clan Smoke Jaguar and follows your war of liberation from start to finish.  It’s worth noting that for the diehard fans out there MechCommander is a great addition to the lore, fleshing out the backstory to the reformation of the Star League and retaliation following the original Clan Invasion.  While for the uninitiated it offers a perfect backdrop for shooty, shooty fun with substance, thereby catering for everyone.  The intro is full motion video gold and much like Wing Commander shows how FMV’s should be used.  While the acting isn’t perfect it’s better than most and adds a dramatic flair to the proceedings that traditional computer rendered video just couldn’t match.  If you doubt it, check it out below.

                            

Following the model of a squad based combat system whereby you enter into each mission with a specified drop weight limit, each ‘Mech and pilot you lose can have a catastrophic knock on effect further down the line.  Of the two, the latter is typically more difficult to replace, for as each mission goes by those same pilots gain valuable skill improvements in areas like gunnery and sensor management, eventually achieving veterancy status.  As such, you end up with a core group of elites capable of handling the heaviest and deadliest of your war machines.  Their deaths are therefore cause for genuine mourning as your lance is accordingly diminished by their loss.  When losing ‘Mechs however, it’s all about what you can salvage from the battlefield and hock between missions. Whether that be the battle damaged steed of a former opponent or from numerous enemy caches scattered around the combat zone.  Everything adds up, with you typically choosing the choicest pieces of hardware for yourself, selling the rest to turn a profit and reinvesting in new weapons, pilots and ‘Mechs along the way.  Although it must be noted that while I’ve had units taken down (usually by prestigious amounts of weapons fire) I’ve almost always salvaged what I’ve lost, leading to a rather low attrition rate in my mechanised death machines.  Therefore, once the maintenance crews finished scraping the remains of the last occupant from between the dashboard they were ready to be forced back into the fight.

                                            

This is in no way to suggest that the game is easy, with creating the right mixture of ‘Mechs and loadouts to complete mission objectives sometimes being an empirical process.  I reloaded… a lot and given that you can only save between drops it can really eat up the time and be a tad frustrating.  Especially when you get almost to the end of a mission and run into, say, a Madcat. Are you ambushing multiple convoys?  In which case compact firepower and fast ‘Mechs are your best friend.  Or are you holding a forward base against staggering odds?  Your only hope being your heavies, with thick armour and overwhelming ordinance.  There are also a variety of limited special abilities such as artillery strikes (both large and small) and sensor probes, which accentuate your overall capabilities. These are allotted during your mission brief and cannot be changed.  There’s nothing quite like maneuvering an enemy vehicle into your kill zone and bringing the rain.  Add to this the addition of support like minelayers and scout vehicles and you can really have some fun figuring out the best way to meet your objectives.

                                                     

When looking at MechCommander I’m filled with a certain nostalgia, partially from the use of FMV’s but also the general feel of the game.  It’s been a good while since I played a new RTS of the same calibre that also made me feel like I was part of a real universe, that was truly immersive.  MechCommander achieves this in a variety of ways, from each set of missions being broken up into separate “operations” and the fact that while you’re the invading force, your enemy still outclasses you in a fair fight.  Clan ‘Mechs are where the action is at, trust me.  This, coupled with the variety of mission types and complexity makes you rely on outwitting your opponent as much as outfighting them.  The feeling you get bringing down a Catapult heavy packed with LRM’s (Long Range Missiles) up close and personal is hard to beat.  It was like watching a pack of dire wolves bring down an oliphaunt.  Most importantly of course, it’s free and will cost you nothing to try.  At best it might introduce you to a new and interesting sci-fi universe; at worst you’ll be unable to get it working and be out ten minutes.  But since this can easily be avoided by just copying all the game files into a folder and running the game from there, I doubt it.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

The real concern when considering the unstoppable Marvel movie juggernaut is, when will it end and how? There are literally billions of dollars tied up in Thor, Iron Man, Captain America and the rest of the coterie.  So one has to wonder when, if ever, the studio will pull the plug in order to preserve the overall quality?  A serious question when you realise that some characters are signed up for a nine movie contract.
   
With that being said I approached Captain America: The Winter Soldier with a fair amount of excitement. From initial reviews and the trailer it looked like we were in store for a more rounded and engaging outing in comparison to the first film, a film I am still not particularly fond of.  There might have even been a certain wilful naivete on my part, having been mortified by the disaster that Man Of Steel would turn out to be after an apparently solid trailer and reaction.  Therefore I wanted The Winter Soldier to be a success if only to stave off becoming any more jaded to the comic book universe as a whole.  Whether that be DC, Marvel, Dark Horse or the funny pages.
             

Some heroes are prettier than others, eh?

Following the Avengers there was always the likelihood that one superhero wasn't going to be enough to sate an audience, at least not without a stellar story line, that it would feel like taking a step back.  A little like Thor: The Dark World turned out.  An entertaining, but uninspired walk around the Marvel block.  The Winter Soldier on the other hand delivers on both counts, treating us not only to the stars and stripes Captain himself, but Natasha Romanoff, assassin, spy and all round composite badass.  This is then capped with a tight narrative that is not only better than it's predecessor, but actively builds upon it.  It almost makes you think the execs and producers have some kind of plan for the series.  Crazy.
                             

It's quite clear from the off that the writers wanted to develop the Cap beyond his origin story, beyond being a clean cut goody who wouldn't put a toe wrong.  We did get a little of this in Whedon's tour de force, but it was fleeting and only hinted at a rebellious streak rather than featuring it.  In the Winter Soldier we get a more in depth look at Rogers as he tries to adapt to modern life, at one point pulling out a list of films, music and events he needs to catch up on after his sixty years on ice.  It's a nice touch that highlights the man out of time element.  We are further drawn to his sense of displacement and loss when he visits the museum exhibition depicting himself and his team during the Second World War, and by a conversation with the now dying Peggy Carter.  It all instils a sympathy for Rogers that was sorely lacking in the Avengers, in which his age was more of a joke than genuine character trait.

Air superiority is a serious SHIELD consideration.

                                   
This all blends seamlessly with the main plot and the Captain's increasing disillusionment with the way in which SHIELD operates.  As he says to Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury, "This isn't freedom, it's fear."  While he's talking about the helicarrier weapon systems, it sums up the juxtaposition between the murky world in which characters such as Black Widow live, breathe and take lunch, and the star spangled honesty that Rogers perceives himself as hailing from.  It's a clash of ideologies between the old and the new, acting as a fairly accurate allegory for the modern world.  It poses the question, how far would you go to maintain order?  How many principles and how many decent men would you sacrifice for the greater good?  I actually think it's the most grown up and well executed Marvel film to date.

In a surprise turn the relationship between Captain America and Black Widow was one of the film's highlights.  There was a genuine chemistry on screen as they played off one another, their differences making for an ensemble team that proves highly effective.  Given Romanoff's Russian background I had been hoping for a closer tie in with the Winter Soldier himself, for what there is proves to be little more than a token story. Although with the amount of self doubt and treachery that plays throughout the film, perhaps it was best to avoid anymore tangled subplots.  To ask for more could be construed as plain greedy and we do get to see the two face off in a classically well executed set piece.  So don't worry, there's action aplenty to compliment the story.
     
The Winter Soldier is a film that plays well upon it's connections, whether that be to the Marvel lore, between Captain America and SHIELD or the modern world and how we respond to threats in reality.  It doesn't molly coddle the viewer with special effects and quippy one liners (although there are plenty to be had) instead of asking questions that you might not expect from a comic book movie.  Steve Rogers in many ways serves as a mirror to an idealism that could be said to no longer exist, maybe it never did.  When you faced your enemies head on, when morality was less clouded by the intricacies of politics and extremism.  He is a straight shooter in a time when double speak and harsh action are the norm and in that sense it's hard not to love him.  He's honourable, he fights for what he thinks is right and most of all, he's human.  Sure he's beefed up with super human strength but his doubts, his worries and the traits that define him are undeniably mortal.  Unlike Thor or even Iron Man, he's grounded and serves as an empathetic vehicle for the stories trials and challenges.  Not to oversell it or anything.  Overall then this latest Marvel outing is a must see, if only so you can say you were there when comic movies took a leap forward, or there when they piqued.  Either way, this isn't one to miss.

20 Menthol Cools - Riddick

Returning to our cinemas after a nine year hiatus, Vin Diesel's anti hero sci-fi saga continues in the self titled, Riddick. To say that the film's existence is a miracle is not an exaggeration. With the support of no major studio behind it and a rather luke warm response at the box office in it's previous outing, another tour on the big screen didn't really seem likely to be in the offing. But they did it, and by they I mean the unstoppable merc killer himself, Vin Diesel and director of both previous installments David Twohy. It's hard not to respect the commitment behind Riddick, with the Fast and the Furious star leveraging his own house to help fund the project. Without a doubt this was a labour of love that is rare in the current incarnation of Hollywood.

The font of all Riddickness.

Now I must let it be known up front that I am a massive Pitch Black fan and despite it's flaws, thoroughly enjoyed the Chronicles of Riddick. As such I was going into this film prepared for blood, action and an all round entertaining sci-fi adventure. By the same token however, I was braced for cataclysmic systems failure and a disappointment not seen since Sucker Punch (May the gods curse you Zack Snyder). It's the price of being a fan, especially an objective one that you may suffer from time to time while grasping for the next hit. As such I was keeping an open if slightly guarded mind.

First of all it has to be said that Riddick gets off to a slow start, with at least a 25 minute period before things really kick into high gear. I've read here and there about people getting up and leaving, something which still baffles me, as if I've paid, I ain't going anywhere. But it's a necessary build up you'll come to realise; it sets the scene and brings Riddick back into line with the original film. A lone predator against the galaxy. We get closure on the whole Necromonger paradigm, Karl Urban returning for a short scene that confirms his sci-fi loyalty credentials and see Riddick in his own environment. Perhaps as close to happy as sociopathic, monster killing, nocturnal hunters can realistically get. So right there is a reason to stick around, because you know hell is going to be riding in damn soon to ruin the relative calm. And boy does it, in the form of nasty pincer tailed aliens wanting to chow down on our resident anti hero, with the only escape being a group of mercs out for his head.

Nice to have you back Karl, however briefly.

It could be argued that Riddick is a copy of the first film, marooned on a planet with some deadly locals, but that's selling it short. It's all part of bringing Riddick back to basics and then some; the some in this case being the human element ala bounty hunters. Every good action film needs a bad guy and into place steps Jordi Molla as Santana, a man who will settle for nothing short of Riddick's head in a box, literally. He kind of reminded me of Lena Headey's Ma-Ma from Dredd, totally bat shit crazy and merciless to boot. He's exactly the kind of character you love to hate and relish taking a beating. Also when your main protagonist is wanted by half the galaxy for a string of murders and other miscellaneous criminal activity, it's always a good idea to up the psycopathy levels on your main villain.

Let's get those drums beating.

This review couldn't and wouldn't be complete without mentioning Katee Sackhoff of Battlestar Galactica fame. She's a member of another group of mercs lead by Boss Johns (Matt Nable) who is hotly pursuing Riddick to his own ends. It's actually a nice tie in to the first film, so I'll try not to spoil it. A lot of fans will simply be happy to see Miss Sackhoff in a big screen release, but that would be undercutting her performance entirely. Much like her Galactica alter ego, Starbuck, she's tough as nails and knows how to handle herself. But where as Starbuck was unstable and often unsure of herself, Dahla has no such qualms. Delivering two of the beatings to Santana that you will so enjoy. As Sackhoff says, "She's the toughest character I've ever played..." Quite the nod from such a sci-fi veteran.

A complaint that could be leveled against Riddick is that is appears a bit bear bones in the scenery department. What there is, while very well shot and enjoying a high quality of CGI veers slightly towards the minimalist. Personally it didn't seem like much of a problem as the nostalgia trip when compared with the first film is considerable. But I suppose some people might have liked a different setting, maybe a city or some such, much like the change between Predators one and two. Going back to Dredd though, I'd say that it works much as it did for Karl Urban's action flick, being a setting for the characters rather than a distraction from them. On the CGI front as well it has to be said that the creature effects are superbly executed, with Riddick picking up a pet dingo/dog animal early in the film that for all intense and purposes never betrays it's computer coded origins.

Riddick, it's really a big budget RSPCA film.

But what of Vin himself you ask? Does he deliver, or has the pressure of funding, helping to write and produce the movie effected his performance? Not in the slightest, this is pure Riddick and really feels like a film that was put together with a lot of reverence for the character. Diesel has stated that he "fell in love" with our hero from almost the get go way back in 2000, and it's not hard to see why.  It's difficult not to like Riddick for his intelligence, his martial prowess and even, weirdly, his moral code. He's not a monster and when compared with Santana comes across as positively balanced, a man who does evil things out of necessity and maybe (sometimes) a little enjoyment. Not that he isn't undeniably awesome at killing, maiming and inspiring terror. For as he says while eyeing Jorgi Molla's character, in chains of all things, "You go in the first five seconds" and not for a moment do those in the audience doubt it. Riddick is a force of nature and you're damned if you get in his way.

So in this third and hopefully not final outing, if the box office is anything to go by, we're really treated to some proper sci-fi action. None of the pretensions and over reliance on CGI that has come to charaterise the sci-fi movie industry, I'm looking at you Avatar, but a solid character driven story with lots of action. It's also nice to see Riddick developing as a character, a process which has steadily evolved over the previous two installments until he's not the same man who was willing to maroon three innocent survivors back in Pitch Black. So go and see Riddick, be patient and most of all, Rule the Dark.

There's a Reason They Call Them Joes: Retaliation

I am a guilty man. Not Operation Yew Tree guilty but certainly skimming the lines of good taste all the same. I, humble reader, enjoyed G.I Joe: The Rise of Cobra. That's right I am an insurgent, a terrorist, a threat to good wholesome cinema and by god I will not apologise. It was fun, it was over the top and probably dumber than a bag of retarded cats, but it tickled that inner child (appropriately) with all it's techno ridiculousness and shiny explosions. It was before Channing Tatum even tried to act or Jason Gordon Levitt became a household name and for that we were gifted with the film equivalent of action crack. Cheap, nasty and oh-so satisfying. So when I heard there was to be a second outing for the Joes I was accordingly quite pleased. The withdrawal had become near terminal.  I almost watched a Van Damme movie.

But after sitting for the 110 minute runtime willing something interesting to happen I can safely say any and all previous excitement has been extinguished. This wasn't a G.I Joe movie and much like the new Star Trek films bears a brand, not a franchise. Gone are the exciting sonic weapons, the exo suits, the Pit and the majority of the original cast.  Instead we're left with a bunch of everyday soldiers who quite frankly have almost nothing of interest going for them. They're a special forces team with regular weapons and regular tactics. Sure we get to see a couple of bullets that can be guided round corners but it's all too grounded, as if the producers desperately wanted to prove that G.I Joe can be taken seriously after being savaged by the critics. But that doesn't work because, lets face it, G.I Joe is dumb. It's based on a toy line and really right there is enough said. Battleship and theTransformers franchise are two of the worst creations not only in cinema, but the history of language, art, literature, theatre and any other definable entertainment medium. And why dear reader do I not throw The Rise of Cobra on the bonfire as well? Because it had the common decency to do exactly what it said on the tin and not bullshit the viewer that we were watching a serious, dramatic action film. It was clear we were in it for the laughs, the lights and the explosions. Retaliation violated this sacred accord.

It suffered the Call of Duty effect. It came to believe that action was best expressed by contemporary militaries doing contemporary things with a hyperbolic story line thrown in to convince us fun was afoot. In CoD 3 the Russians invade America. In Retaliation Cobra seizes control of the US government by supplanting the president with an impostor. It sends the entire focus of the film into a tail dive, for on the one hand a terrorist organisation led by a toaster faced baddy has used high tech nannite equipment to replace the most powerful man on earth, but at the same time a couple of Green Berets led by the Rock are going to save the day? Talk about a juxtaposition. Now even if you can buy into this massive discrepancy and think maybe it'll have lots of cool explosions and set piece battles, you'd be wrong. Dead wrong. WMD wrong. For an "action" movie there is surprisingly little actioning going on, with the entire middle of the film meandering around the shocking revelation that the president isn't the president and how super evil Cobra is. There's also a plot focussed on Storm Shadow (a Cobra agent who was tricked into diabolical world machinations) but this hardly qualifies as Sherlock Holmes. If anything it's insultingly obvious. Even the 13 year olds in the audience could figure it out.

So having torn the film a new one maybe you're thinking this is the part when I say, "But at least it stars Bruce Willis." Surely any action film is immediately improved by none other than John Motherfucking McClane, hero of bald men everywhere and had he actually starred I might be saying that. He has about 20 minutes screen time, period. Far, far less than the trailer would lead us to believe and you come out feeling more than a little cheated. He was one of the main reasons I wanted to see the damned film, even mitigating my concern at the new, super real look with good old fashioned star power. Instead he appears briefly midway through the movie, buggers off and comes back for the under whelming showdown. Playing ex General Joe Colton he's supposed to be the creator of the G.I Joes, but we never get any exposition or an explanation of any kind. We really are supposed to just be impressed that Bruce Willis is Joe, a revelation which means nothing without any context. I would have killed to have General Hawk come riding in, declare the whole thing retconned and get back to fighting bad guys with Eiffel Tower eating missiles.

Hawk:  "That's right kids, it was all a horrible Cobra trick to convince you the studio are dumbasses."

Retaliation failed because it wanted to be something it wasn't. It wanted to be serious, a film that the critics wouldn't laugh at, a new and more respectable kind of G.I Joe. Whoever decided that whether it be Jon M. Chu, the writers or some suit they deserve pistol whipping. Preferably with one of those big Cobra rifles from the first film. You ruined a ridiculous premise with a need for vindication. You traded science fiction for the Rock. You destroyed your franchise not by making a commercial flop but by making a totally forgettable movie that while possibly spawning a third has no personality, no sense of fun. Retaliation deserves to be consigned to ignominy as a warning to every other studio out there that some films don't need a sequel, even if you're desperate to turn a buck. Rather that you should call a Channing Tatum movie a Channing Tatum movie and move on. Leaving those who despised the first to their fist shaking and we happy few who loved it to our drooling and much fuller wallets.

Retro Rehash - Blitzkrieg

One of the first things to strike me about Blitzkrieg was it's old school feel. This is in no way a negative point, if anything it endeared me to Nivial Interactive's creation faster than any fancy gimmick or graphics ever could. I still prefer the Risk style campaign maps from the original Total War games for god sake. Much of the draw came from the games relative simplicity.  Sure you fight your way through multiple campaigns and battles but there's nothing else gumming up the works. For such an example of mastication failure I point you to the Men of War series, whose attempts at character guided gameplay are woeful in the extreme. Admittedly this isn't helped by some of the worst voice acting ever committed to audio, but it feels listless all the same. Blitzkrieg gives you the units, the locales and the enemy. The rest is up to you and it's extremely
freeing.

Preparation for battle.

From the campaign screen you're presented with the theatre of combat and the missions available in that area. Many are purely optional but grant you special bonuses which can be pretty handy come the historical engagements. From better artillery pieces to heavier armoured units they can give you the edge you need to reach the next campaign area, whether that be North Africa, the fields of Europe or the vast empty reaches of the Eastern Front. At the beginning of each battle you select your unit composition and move out, perhaps accentuated by extra forces on certain maps but with the core of your army held together by your elite units. These can  gain promotions and as such become far more effective on the battlefield.  By the end of the Allied campaign my artillery had become a force for mass destruction, raising enemy held positions like wrathful and very accurate gods.

Given that there is no resource gathering in Blitzkrieg you have to rely on your own strategic savvy to preserve any operation.  Charging headlong at enemy defences will usually result in a slaughter as hidden anti tank guns and enemy trenches wreak havoc with your forces.  This is where artillery and air power become key for both the spotting and removal of opposition units. From calling in Heinkel bombers to flatten an area to recon planes to spot for your field pieces the use of air power cannot be underestimated.  If anything these two forces in conjunction can win entire battles for you, your tanks and infantry moving into enemy positions all but unopposed.  This is sometimes a little irksome as engagements can devolve into high explosive slanging matches, so it's important to choose your moments to commit your ground troops, usually after a heavy bombardment has exposed a weakness in the enemy line.  Anything else is tantamount to suicide.  Be smart people.

One of the coolest additions Blitzkrieg brings to the table is the ability to lay down defences such as mines, tank traps and trenches to frustrate your opponent. Given that almost everything from bridges to forests are destructible this comes in handy when you need to secure a flank against a counterattack in a decimated area. There's nothing like watching enemy armour flounder against your AT guns and infantry trenches before launching your own into the fray. One of the most important realisations I have had when it comes to Blitzkrieg however, is that it is a game which relies heavily on you to take the reins. It's very easy to dig in and lob shells across the map rather than taking the fight to the enemies front door. Some of this is the failure of the game itself, with ground units feeling too fragile to commit for fear of losing them for no tangible gain. I know I wouldn't attack a village before softening it up with extreme levels of ordinance, but it's a bit frustrating at times when the defenders hold a clear and unexplained advantage. A few times having engaged enemy tanks in the open with my own I've been baffled by the slaughter that has ensued, despite the relative equality or superiority of my own armour. It seems that in trying to make you think your way through problems the designers might have upped the difficulty a little too far, relegating some units to paper tigers in all but name.

Meet the gun line.

Now moving onto more technical issues, hailing from back in 2003 Blitzkrieg's isometric terrain and graphics stand up under modern scrutiny surprisingly well, the shifting weather system being of particular note. There's nothing more inconvenient than a sandstorm invading the map just as your forces advance to evict an enemy anti tank position. The explosions and flashes of guns are credible if not all defining, the explosive crump of artillery being my personal favourite amongst the game's 350 units. It should be noted that not all of these are useful, with infantry demonstrating themselves suited to a defensive role only, although their guns sound convincing even if their effects are negligible.

So what have we learned class? Firstly, that Blitzkrieg requires you to use your noggin. If you don't you'll find yourself frustrated and very, very dead. Secondly, the AI is a little passive but holds a massive advantage in defence. You'll find that some of these advantages shift to you when in the same position, but that the computer is far more effective at employing ground units to punish your lines than you are. I have to say that while this can be annoying it does offer up a real challenge and so should be forgiven in the spirit of cerebral stimulation. And lastly, it's fun, really fun, if you can accept the finite resources and capabilities you're given and use them to out think the enemy. It's particularly rewarding come missions end if you're still in possession of your core units while the German or Allied armour smolders in the background. Blitzkrieg is smart gaming if you want it to be, so give it a go and if it's not for you, there's always Halo Wars.

Retro Rehash - Wing Commander 3: Heart of the Tiger

From the opening full motion sequence I knew I was in for something special with Wing Commander III: Heart of the Tiger.  Whether it was the appearance of Mark Hamill, the movie style dialogue or just the thrill of seeing Luke Skywalker with a moustache, I'm not sure.  It was likely a product of all three.  But in any event I had found my newest addiction, the fix for which I would spend hours pining and then many more hours strapped to my chair with a bucket over my head and a badly painted starscape mounted over my monitor. The third installment in Chris Robert's Wing Commander series, Heart of the Tiger was released way back in 1994, arguably the golden age of space sims and chronicles the story of one Colonel Christopher Blair (Mark Hamil).  Having been raging for the past thirty years the war with the Kilrathi Star Empire is going from bad to worse as the Confederation is pushed to the breaking point.  Stationed aboard the TCS Victory, you and your rag tag band of misfits, lunatics and xenophobes must help to stem the tide and turn the tables on the Kilrathi, while forming lasting friendships and animosities, all of which are rendered in full motion video.  Now, I know what you're thinking.  FMV's are bad.  They're awful.  They're the product of all that is evil in the world, they may even have links to Fascism.  To this I say, you're right, just not this time.
       

"I'm an actor, a real actor.  I'd give that Red Alert Tanya a go mind you."

With a huge budget, a professional screenplay, A-list actors such as Malcolm McDowell, Jon Rhys-Davis, and Tom Wilson Heart of the Tiger is possibly the only example (minus Wing Commander 4: The Price of Freedom) of a well blended FMV/Game experience.  For while that other game of FMV fame Command and Conquer can claim the use of FMV's, they're more tongue in cheek and not of the same calibre.  Wing Commander is meant to be a movie and a video game while C&C is a video game with FMV components.  Anyhow, I constantly found myself hankering after the next cutscene, the next character interaction.  For much like in the far newer Mass Effect series you can get to know and develop friendships with your crew mates.  The dialogue options are boiled down to two responses, such is the complication of acting out every branching conversation tree, but it demonstrates how detailed Chris Robert's creation really was.  These weren't just characters who you blindly followed, you had choices, you decided how things panned out.  And this was way back in 1994.
                 

The Arrow: A need for speed!

Kilrathi Strakha: Stealthy SOB's.

So having gushed over the FMV's lets move onto the meat of the game, the combat.  As otherwise we're just watching a film, a very good film but a film none the less.  Simply put, it's excellent.  From the cockpit design, the selection of both enemy and allied star fighter models and the actual learning curve when pacing your weapons fire to strike the enemy, it's all very impressive.  I particularly enjoyed being able to strafe the hangar deck or hull of an enemy carrier in the Arrow, it's slide ability allowing you to deal maximum damage along a capital class vessels entire length.  It makes for an extremely cool and immersive experience, taking both skill and balls of steel to pull off without getting vaped, especially when one misstep will find you buried in a bulkhead or crashing into a parked Kilrathi fighter.  I did that a fair few times and ended up sucking hard vacuum, for all the two seconds it would have taken my fuel cells to ignite and incinerate my body.  As we've come to expect from our space sims the array of commands and controls available are all in attendance, from being able to order your wingman to cover your ass or shunting power to those rapidly weakening shields.  Nowadays, well in more modern games such as Starlancer and Freespace we take these as a given, but it's always worth remembering how seminal Wing Commander was.  How much like Half Life it defined an entire genre and what we as gamers expect as standard.  If you play Heart of the Tiger just like any other game you'll still love it, but taken as a benchmark in video game history you can appreciate its nuances all the more.
 

Prepare to die... Again.... And Again.

So we've had the worship, the fanatical displays of sacrifice to Robert's creation and now it's time for the harder truths.  The wee failures here and there.  The first and most striking to me, perhaps due to a modern perspective more than genuine flaw, is the feeling of repetitiveness.  This is far more prevalent in the earlier parts of the game as the story slowly builds up a head of steam, as without a definite direction to be following it begins to feel like you're jumping all over the place, blasting some bad guys at various way points and then buggering off.  As the game progresses this does abate, with more capital class ships being thrown into the mix and missions linking more tangibly with the overall story.  For while protecting a convoy of freighters can be fun, it doesn't plug into the experience in the same way as punching a hole through a Kilrathi blockade as to allow the Victory to escape.  Maybe I'm being picky as blending FMV's with game play seamlessly is doubtless difficult, but then again some greats do take their sweet time getting going.  The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, Babylon 5 and the Mighty Morphing Power Rangers to name but a few.  That show had less than nothing before Tommy showed up, and then we got nothing but gold.  It should also be noted that on any given mission you can only take the grand total of one wing man with you.  This in itself is a bit limiting, especially given the general incompetence of some of your co-pilots, (cough, Flint).  As I mentioned above however, this could be a failure of the time as we've come to expect super-high-class rendered-bullshit powered multiplayer in our games.   It'd be nice to have a little more backup though.
         
As always with any review you have to straddle the line between being informative and giving away every detail which defines what you're reviewing.  It can be hard, for how else are you to get people to understand exactly how amazing or truly terrible something is without being specific?  In such a vein I can say only this about Wing Commander 3: Heart of the Tiger.  In my humble opinion it is one of the greatest games I have ever played, and I don't say that lightly.  Granted the only other game I've played is Cricket Revolution, but I learned a lot from that experience.  Some of which can only be properly analysed with the help of a seasoned mental health professional.  So there you go, slow starter, excellent game play, movie style cutscenes.  It's an instant classic.  Now play it.

And just in case you're still unsure, heres a trailer that will blow your socks off.  Or at least mildly impress you.

2500 Years in the Making: Coriolanus

I used to hate Shakespeare.  Not because it was bad or I couldn't understand it, but because like every other English school child I was forced to read it.  Not just once, but again and again as we painstakingly analysed every single sodding line.  It would, I think, make an excellent form of punishment.  Imagine the horror of being told to make notations for every nuance, every metaphor or else to do it all again with a whole new play.  Kids would learn very quickly to shut the hell up and behave, lest they want to bleed from the ears, I can tell you that much.  Yet, now I'm older and no longer have the educational gun to my head, I've found that I rather enjoy SOME of Shakespeare's work, most notably being Kenneth Branagh's Henry V and Leonardo Dicaprio's modern retelling of Romeo and Juliet.  So, when I saw the trailer for Coriolanus my interest was naturally piqued.  Modern warfare and classic literature?  Just try and stop me.
 

The armour of contempt: Caius Marcius.

Having been written between 1605 and 1608, the first thing I have to say is how well the story has aged.  Obviously revamped and brought into the 21st century by director Ralph Fiennes, Coriolanus and it's tale of pride and treachery is still as relatable and tragic as it was 400 years ago.  General Caius Marcius, played here by none other than Lord Voldemort and director Ralph Fiennes himself, is a hero of Rome, bane of their hated enemies the Volscians and noble to the core.  His disdain for the plebeians, the common folk is well known, demonstrated early in the film as he faces down a rioting mob.  Awarded the title Coriolanus he is set to be Consul, before the machinations of politicos and his own pride banish him from the very city he has given everything to protect and into the arms of his greatest enemies.  As a character it is hard to like Coriolanus, his arrogance and brutality too overbearing for the modern pallet, but you can respect him for staying true to his convictions.  Fiennes's portrayal is intense and moving, bringing to life a legendary general who is now believed to have never existed.  While his fall from grace is as deserved as engineered by those who would seek power themselves.
         

"This is Shakespeare!"

The supporting cast is an impressive array, with Brian Cox, Vanessa Redgrave, an under used Jessica Chastain and Gerard Butler as Volscian leader Tulfus Aufidius .  Each performance, while not necessarily stunning, is in line with Shakespeare's characters.  Each wrangling for their own agendas, their own advancement while Coriolanus is immovable in his convictions.  Relegated to being a pawn as he singularly refuses to play the games of those around him.  I have to say that Butler took me by surprise, his roughness, his inner Leonidas giving him the perfect counterpoise to Fiennes's calculated yet refined Roman general.  The parallels between the modern West and the Middle East are clear to see, but aren't forced in our faces, the tale of a 2500 year old struggle between the civilised Romans and the more barbaric Volscians successfully being preserved and not sacrificed to contemporary politics.  This is still first and foremost the tragedy of one man.
                   

Modern Warfare, 2500 years in the making.

Overall the modern setting is successful if a little jarring at times.  It's odd to see a military figure lauded as a hero or a man in a suit spouting Shakespearean cant, but once you get past the initial disorientation the story takes care of the rest, as do the action scenes.  While these aren't extensive, they are well choreographed as is the fight between Caius Marcius and Tulfus Aufidius.  My only complaint was that there wasn't more of it, that a few more explosions and a bigger battle would hardly of compromised the Shakespearean tone.  But hey, that could just be my Die Hard side talking.
                               
The problem Coriolanus has is that it's a little too far outside the norm for literary buffs and not Hollywood enough for the majority of film goers. It would definitely explain the films overall poor performance, but it would be unfair to judge it by this alone.  Shakespeare naturally puts many of us off, memories of hours pouring over one work or another forever seared into our brains.  So, what I would say is give Coriolanus a chance to change your minds.  Now that you're a little older, a little wiser, the language is far from insurmountable and leaves you feeling pretty clever come the closing credits.  How many movies can claim that?