Three Older Console Games To Play Again

The original Xbox and PS2 were what introduced me to video games and were some of the first consoles I had. In honour of the joy they bought me I recently began playing them again in my spare time, begging the question, which games were the best of those? Now it would be easy for me to say Spider-Man 2, Battlefront 2 and Crash Bandicoot, so I’m going to try and pick three less traditional titles. Here it goes…

Number Three: Godzilla Unleashed
Godzilla Unleashed.jpg

Though I would later discover the PS2 version I played was a lesser version of what the Wii had to offer, with more monsters and much better combat mechanics, I had one hell of a god time on this monster of a game. Godzilla Unleashed is a monster fighting game that takes place in 3D worlds you can run around and interact with; You can pick up buildings and throw them at your enemies, throw your enemies into skyscrapers and knock them down, tunnel under ground, teleport and all this awesome crazy stuff. The game came with a campaign in which you could play as four factions; Earth’s monsters (Godzilla, Mothra and his other allies), The Global Defence Force (A bunch of giant robots like Jet Jaguar who defend the planet), Aliens (King Ghidorah, Gigan and such) and, finally, the Mutants (Monsters like Destoroyah and Megalon). Which ever faction you pick leads to a different ending and it’s pretty awesome. The objectives are pretty straight forward but it’s fun and doesn’t feel repetitive.  Additionally the game had a traditional fighting mode where you could have up to four monsters trying to kill each other at once, and even team battles. There was also an awesome unlock system in which you could buy more monsters, maps and collectible stuff to keep you enticed and the grind was good. I remember playing for hours to unlock the Alien Mothership map and Space Godzilla as a playable monster. I highly recommend playing this game if you can.

Number Two:
Spiderman 1 game

Now, I know you all knew this list couldn’t be complete without a Spider-Man game. I chose this one; Spider-Man, based off of the first Spider-Man movie by Sam Rami. Though this game didn’t have free-roam, it is still a bomb-ass game with some bomb-ass missions. This game is the perfect example of how to step up difficulty because this game’s missions go from “easy as pie”, to “better step it up”, to “holy-cow, don’t kill me!” perfectly. The boss battles in this game were where this came in. Even at a young age I remember being able to defeat the Scorpion in like five seconds, but then when it came to fighting the Shocker in the subway, I had one hell of a difficult time even getting to the boss fight, let alone beating it. Considering it didn’t have free-roam, as all later Spider-Man titles would, this game was somehow enticing, with smooth combat and a mix of combat heavy and stealth missions. Yes; Stealth missions. As well as kicking the crap out of thugs you got to sneak around Oscorp at night, avoiding the spot lights of patrolling security robots. It was cheesy, but truly amazing. What I loved though is that if you beat the game on the hardest difficulty or entered a cheat-code, you got to play the whole Campaign as the Green Goblin, with a whole, new fully voice acted story where you play as Harry Osborn trying to find out who killed his Dad. The missions are basically exactly the same, but changed slightly to fit this story. There are no cut scenes for this Goblin story, however, probably due to limitations of the time. It’s anti-climactic, but by far the absolute coolest cheat code I have ever input into a game to this very day. If you play this game, please play the original Xbox version, as there are extra missions available for it that cannot be accessed on the PS2 version.

Number One:
Medal Of Honor Rising Sun.jpg

Medal of Honour Rising Sun is a game that holds true to my heart; It will always me held close and dear, as the very first FPS game I played as a child. To this day it still impresses me, with a campaign so grand that the pure ambition of it puts some titles today to shame. What amazes me most is that when the game opens, in Pearl Harbour, you are not on deck watching some epic cinematic thing happen; You are below deck, getting awoken by a massive thud and then have to help the crew of your ships extinguish flames to stop the boat from sinking after a torpedo strike. You have to manoeuvre through this ruined ship and get to deck after saving everyone to fight a battle you can’t win. Once above deck you are given a weapon that is deliberately useless for shooting at planes with and there is this sense of hopelessness as you struggle to fight this dive-bombing Japanese planes. When your boat sinks, inevitably, you get rescued by a patrol boat, and man the anti-air gun as your driver tries to escape the Harbour with you. As well as this sequence being amazingly action packed and, at times, difficult, the game takes moments to slow down as the driver talks about how horrific and awful it is that so many people are dying around you… There is just something so human about this game, and I love it. Aside from Campaign, the game has a solid multiplayer, which you can play with bots and split-screen for a good time, that it heavily arena based. It feels like Quake, or Doom, only without the super fast pace and no weird power-ups or teleporters. The encounters are so funny because it’s always a rush to see who can get the rocket launcher on the map first and memorise its spawn, and re-spawn points. Medal Of Honour Rising Sun is a game cemented in my very soul and childhood. It is one I’ll never forget. It is challenging, but not insanely difficult and it can be frustrating but, at the same time, enjoyable. I loved and still do love every thing this game has to offer.

The Most Overrated MCU Movie Ever (Doctor Strange)

As I said in my previous review of Spider-Man Homecoming, I find the MCU to be a very 50/50 franchise. It has amazing films and god awful films… But it also has one other type of film; The same type of film that Doctor Strange is: “Meh” films. It’s not good, not bad, it’s just “meh”.

But Doctor Strange is a film of trickery. When I saw this film in the cinema I was in absolute awe, I fell in love with this film and was convinced it was another quality film to add to my Marvel collection. When I bought this on DVD though and saw it a second time, I found myself actually struggling to stay interested. It wasn’t that the film was poorly directed, poorly acted or poorly written; This film succeeds on those fronts. What I came to realise is that there’s absolutely nothing special about this film.

Doctor Strange trainging.jpg

After sometime of thinking why this film disappointed me so much, I came to one final and ultimate conclusion: It is just another generic superhero origin story that we have all seen a thousand times over and should be tired of by now. This film is about a man who gets in an injury and then goes on a search for knowledge and skill to overcome his injury, during which he is introduced to a much bigger world and must take on the responsibility to save the world. Sound like any other film you’ve ever seen? Iron Man? Daredevil? Hell, any action movie ever made?

In fact this films parallels to Iron Man are through the roof. The protagonist is a sassy, witty and skilled rich guy (Tony Stark and Stephen Strange) who has a “sort-of” love interest who we can see he likes, but nothing really ends up happening between them (Pepper Pots and Christine Palmer). They get an injury and find their salvation in some eastern part of the world (Afghanistan and Nepal), where they discover their true potential (To build a weaponised suit and wield magic). After seeing this world, they are introduced to evil that they must take it upon themselves to destroy (The Ten Rings and Kaecilius). During this undertaking they discover these villains were only puppets to a larger, more dangerous villain (Obadiah Stane and Dormammu), who they must then also defeat. Then there is a teaser in the end credits where the character will interact with the Avengers (Tony meets Nick Fury and Strange meets Thor). It’s a copy and paste, essentially. I’ve seen this film before. A thousand times. This formula has been done to death. Even films like Skyfall follow this formula, only they don’t lean on saving the world, but protecting someone or something smaller (M, in the case of Skyfall).

But don’t get me wrong, this film isn’t an awful pile of garbage. I mean, Marvel has made awful piles of garbage and then inserted those into the MCU, but this isn’t one of those films, because this film has some great redeeming qualities.

Doctor Strange Mirror Dimension

First the big one: The visual affects in this film are absolutely incredible. The mirror dimension is an incredible place where the sorcerers can manipulate all of reality, basically, and it makes for some epic moments with floating cities, moving buildings and spells that can destroy everything without it affecting the real world. As well as being a great place for the writers to put mass destruction into, without having to worry about Man Of Steel’s the of backlash, it is also a place of infinite possibilities, to stage unique action scenes, and I am really curious about how they will use the mirror dimension in future films, such as possibly Thor 3 and Infinity War.

I will say however, the visuals in space with Dormammu did look a bit cheesy and way over the top. The sequence where Strange is falling forever, when the Ancient One pushes his soul out of his body goes on for about a minute and a half too long. Way too long, I might add. I felt high. I didn’t want to feel high, but I did. But it’s whatever, the rest of the visuals made up for it.

But this film was still so close to being bland. This film was almost as boring as Thor 2, which is an atrocious abomination of a superhero film (But I’ll review that another time), but one thing saved it. That thing was the Time Stone and Strange’s use of it. I fully expected a cliché magic fight to happen between Strange and Dormammu, where Strange would get the crap kicked out of him but would eventually win, like in every other superhero film. However, the writers must have been struck with sudden inspiration during the climax… The concept of Strange using a time loop to forever trap Dormammu is inspired. I didn’t expect it. When Strange died and then came back I was like, “The hell is going on?”, and then I remember feeling oddly satisfied that for the first time, in a long time, I was seeing a superhero use his intelligence and wit to beat the enemy, rather than his ability to punch things or blow things up.

The problem is, however, this is the only part of the movie that tries to be different. Literally every other moment in the film is unoriginal. When the Ancient One traps Strange on Everest to teach him to use his powers quicker, I wasn’t surprised. I’ve seen tough but good-intentioned mentors before, with secrets; Stick in the Daredevil Netflix series is just like this. So aside from the ending, I’ve essentially seen this film a thousand times before only with different characters. It barely avoids being bland. So bland… So, so bland.

I think the cinema experience is why I enjoyed this film so much the first time around. I had the big screen, epic sound systems and I didn’t know what to expect from the film. That type of scenario probably boosted the film up in my mind. Yet as I casually viewed it at home, knowing what to expect with a normal TV and normal sound system, it just wasn’t as impressive and I saw the film more for what it was: An overrated film.

All I could do to react to this film was say “meh”. A solid “meh” is what I said. There was nothing else to say, and I stand by it now. If I had to give a rating, I’d say this film is an average, unimpressive 6/10, but only barely. If not for the ending or fantastic casting of Benedict Cumberbatch, this would be a solid 5/10. Lucky for those writers, they eventually got original.

So here’s the line up of the MCU right now.

  1. Spider-Man: Homecoming
  2. Doctor Strange

So far we’ve had a good title and a “meh” title. I don’t know whether to review another good one, or a straight up bad one… We’ll see.

 

 

Is The MCU Good? (Spider-Man Homecoming)

Okay so, I thought I’d start something that means I can write more often. I’ll be going through every movie in the MCU and reviewing them in varying length and then ranking them on my personal scale of best to worst. Why? Because I love the MCU and it is full of absolutely amazing films… Unfortunately it is also full of bland, boring, uninteresting pieces of garbage. The MCU is a very 50/50 franchise in my eyes and I hope these reviews I do on the films will help highlight how.

And since Spider-Man Homecoming has just been released, I think I’ll start with that.  Let’s get into it.

spoiler-warning-banner.png

So, dude, was it good? It was. It was very good. I put this films quality down to the insanely good portrayal of the character given by Tom Holland. Tom Holland somehow captures the neediness of Peter Parker (Which Toby Maguire had previously displayed so well) and also captures the coolness and wittiness of Spider-Man (Which was Andrew Garfield’s strong-suit.) Whereas Maguire wasn’t as good at capturing the witty, jokey side of Spider-Man in the heat of a fight and Garfield wasn’t good at all at showing how nerdy Peter Parker was, somehow Tom Holland does both. There is this awesome scene where Spider-Man has to interrogate a criminal to get locations of the villains, but the criminal is not responsive because he recognises how unintimidating Spider-Man’s voice is. There is then this witty-banter between the criminal and Spidey, and Peter’s personality shines as we see him trying to overcome that natural awkwardness he has by trying to be enthusiastic about the situation and intentionally optimistic, despite it not really working out. It’s a great scene where we see Spider-Man and Peter Parker as one character. This is important, I think, because we normally see Peter Parker and Spider-Man portrayed as two different lives of one person, in previous Spider-Man films, but here we get a fresh take where we can really see how they blend together.

The casting for Tom Holland is 10/10. My personal opinion is that Toby Maguire was a thousand times better than Garfield and, though I don’t think Holland is better than Garfield, I would definetly say he’s as good as Garfield in his portrayal and acting. You can tell that Tom Holland really cares about this role and wants to do it right, he’s putting in 110%.

But, I hear you ask, what about the villain? What about the Vulture? Is he another generic pile of crap like Malekith, or Ronan? I mean villains are Marvel’s weak point. Well, let me be the first to say that while this guy is no where near as good as Loki, as he is a bit lifeless at times, he is definetly the best villain we’ve seen in a long, long time from Marvel.

The vulture

Why? It’s because he’s a small scale villain. This guy doesn’t want to take over the world or kill the Avengers, or shoot a big blue laser into the sky; He just wants to sell weapons and use the money to provide for his family. His motivations are very clear not like some, *cough* Ultron *cough*, who want to kill people because the internet said humans do bad things. And the Vulture doesn’t lose in this movie because Spider-Man finds his ultimate weakness or because Spider-Man punches him into submission; He loses because he gets to greedy; He gets so greedy that he nearly dies trying to steal some Stark technology and Spider-Man saves him, despite just being beaten to a pulp, and then the Vulture forgives Spider-Man for stopping him because he saved his life, and because he recognises how greedy he was. In the end credits sequence, he is approached by someone, who I can only assume is the Scorpion (because he has a scorpion tattoo, and talks about being stung with venom or something, so I think my guess is justified), and this guy asks “Yo, do you know who Spider-Man is so we can kill him?” And, by the way, the Vulture does know who Spider-Man is but, instead of selling him out, he says, “Nah, dawg, I have no idea who that guy is.” It’s just refreshing to see a villain who has humanity and isn’t just a mass murderer who has a total disregard for human life. Even after finding out Peter is Spider-Man, he says to Peter “I’ll let you live because your dating my daughter and saved her life, just don’t mess with my stuff again. If you do mess with my stuff again though, I’ll kill you.” It’s so nice to not have a merciless, generic villain. This guy can be reasoned with and it just makes him more believable.

Also Michael Keaton sells this roll. I mean, for the most part, he is just another Marvel villain that isn’t too special, bar a couple of scenes that show another side of him as I mentioned above, but that’s more down to the writing of the character. Just like Tom Holland, Michael Keaton really seems like he cares about his roll, and it shows. There is a really awkward, uncomfortable and funny scene where Peter finds out Keaton is the father of the girl he’s dating and it is in this scene that Keaton shines as an actor. And I know this isn’t a perfect film… It’s not getting Oscars to anything, but the fact these people are giving such care to their performances really impresses me and I respect that.

As far as the negatives go the romance was awkward and a bit forced. It was established that Peter likes the girl, Liz, but it was never established she liked him. It was hinted at once, I think, but aside from that the only reason she dates Peter is because he asks her to the Homecoming dance and she’s like, “Well I guess so because no one else has asked me yet.” It’s whatever though, because it leads to that awesome scene between Peter and Vulture I mentioned above. It’s weak… but it works for the plot. I think they should have put more effort into it, but at the same time I’m glad they didn’t make it a primary focus.

Side notes… Every god damn thing I read seems to be hyping up Zendaya’s role in this film. She plays the character Michelle Jane, who is an homage to Mary Jane. People seem to be hyping her role up to be massively impactful. I mean she’s a side character who is just there for a bit of comic relief, just in Peter’s friend group. Ultimately she means nothing to the plot of this film. She has a place, don’t get me wrong, and she’s a good actress; I’m not trying to be negative to her, but the media is blowing her role out of proportion. Her role is ultimately tiny, so don’t go in thinking she means anything big. That being said, I did laugh when she gave Peter the middle finger at the Homecoming dance.

Then there’s Flash and… God. He is absolutely fine in this film. Nothing is wrong with him. But because they made him a smart kid instead of a dumb jock, all the idiotic fan boys are like “Oh my god you ruined his character. He has to be a jock, have a football and-” Oh shut up. His role is to bully Peter, does it really matter if he’s a jock or a nerd as long as he does the bullying? No! It doesn’t. Stop criticising comic book films for changing the most insignificant tiny things. Some people were like “Flash isn’t black though in the comics”. Like, who cares? As long as the actor does a good job portraying the character and playing the role (baring in mind he has an incredibly minor role in this film), who cares if he’s black, white, Asian or a fucking Martian? People are like “It’s 2017 so we have to accept that there are 72 genders”, but then go “Yeah, no black actors can portray minor roles of white comic book characters who ultimately mean nothing to the over all plot”.

Let’s start something new: “Black actors and actresses can play white comic book roles without fear of idiotic fan boys complaining about race.” It’s 2017. There’s 72 genders, 100 different sexualities and at least 500 objects you can sexually identify as, so lets just let actors of all races play roles of all races. The only examples of this I think wouldn’t work is if they made someone like Tony Stark black, or Black Panther white… Those wouldn’t work because their race does matter- Tony being a rich, white American guy is important to his character, just as Black Panther being a black African king is important to his character. In that crappy Fantastic Four reboot though, casting Johnny Storm as black was okay. Why? Because Johnny Storm’s race isn’t important to his character at all. A fucking bacteria cell could play Johnny Storm and, so long as it was under a microscope and could somehow talk, the character’s personality wouldn’t change at all.

Anyway, let’s get back on track… Overall this film is at least a 7.5-8/10. As this is the only film I have reviewed so far in the MCU, it right now stands at number one best film. Obviously, as I review more this may change, so here it is:

  1. Spider-Man: Homecoming

Go out and see this film, please, I beg of you. If you are a Marvel fan you will love it. If you’re not and you’re just some parent who is dreading seeing it, but you have to because your kid is obsessed, I can guarantee that even if you don’t like it, you’ll certainly find something in it to laugh at or enjoy. Solid film. One of the better Marvel films. Keep it up, Marvel.

 

 

Halo Wars 2: Are The Leaders Good?

Is Halo Wars 2 a game that is relevant? Right now… It sort of is… I mean the game hasn’t received nearly as much attention as other 343 Halo titles, even Halo 4 and the MCC, but I think that’s more down to this game being an RTS and the core of the Halo fanbase being FPS players. But since 343 and Microsoft had no meaningful news to deliver on Halo 5 or a potential Halo 6 at this E3, Halo Wars 2 took the spotlight for the franchise and will be receiving campaign and firefight DLC. Considering this is a game nobody really wanted or asked for, it’s doing pretty well, and I myself still enjoy playing it.

The game definetly has its ups and downs though and they’re obvious… In my mind this is a “love it or hate it” type of game and I guess I’m in the “love it camp”. But let me explain to you how the game has ended up this way, in my opinion; This isn’t exactly something that can be factually proven, it’s more a point of view kind of thing.

Let’s start with the negatives. One quick note on the Campaign; It ended on a cliff hanger. That sucks and really turns people off. Halo 5 had a cliff-hanger and people weren’t the least bit pleased, Halo 2 had one and, despite that games praise, still left fans wanting a conclusion that didn’t come until the next game. Hopefully the Campaign DLC will fix that and give us some conclusion.

Halo Wars 2 leaders

But now onto the meat of it: Multiplayer. There isn’t much negative I can say about the multiplayer except for the introduction of new leaders. Now don’t read this wrong; I am glad that there are new leaders being introduced as it helps keep the game fresh, but the problem is that most of these new leaders don’t feel very different to me than the base game leaders. I mean the special abilities are different, yes, but the way I play doesn’t feel different. No matter if I’m playing as Johnston, Kinsano or Colony I will still pump out the same units I normally would, despite the fact Johnston has an array of mechs, Kinsano has a bunch of cool flamer units and Colony has big, badass Hunters. Why is it I do this? Because counter unit strategy is key. If I’m playing as Kinsano, for example, against Anders, the only reason I would actually build flame units would be to rush Anders before the sentinel spam begins. Otherwise I have no reason to use any of her unique abilities or unique flame units because, against Anders, I’ll just be pumping out anti-air as usual and then maybe some building killers. What I’m saying is that its hard to use the unique units for some leaders when matched against specific others. This isn’t seriously bad though, so don’t assume I’m trying to make a fuss out of nothing. You can use these unique units in games still to your advantage and to win, but it’s just more effort to do than it is to do a classic marine rush or chopper rush.

But now for the positives: The new leaders; Commander Jerome and The Arbiter are a step in the right direction for how new leaders should be. This is because, I find, they are harder to use due to the fact their abilities heavily impact how you use them. This is because their offensive abilities are both severely limited (meaning you can’t just spam carpet bombs, turrets and aerial assault all at once), and that their abilities are instead heavily lenient towards supporting pre-existing units.

Halo Wars 2 New Leaders

Both of these leaders are heavily based on support tactics. The Arbiter is the most. He only really has one offensive ability, which is called a plasma shot, but it’s only really useable against infantry. It can damage vehicles but not as much unless you put multiple points into it and is essentially useless against air units. The Arbiter instead has stasis fields that either make your units invulnerable, but the catch is they can’t move or attack while in stasis. It’s good for protecting your troops against other leaders offensive abilities, but not much else. However it can also put enemy units into stasis so your units can kill them without them so much as even trying to fire back at you. The Arbiter also has some unique upgrades to the grunt squads, which I sometimes find myself actually using because it makes them actual viable units to use against marines and (sometimes, but not always) flame thrower units. Additionally he has Elite Raiders, which are building killer units. These are infantry units that are available straight off the bat at barracks, making them good rush units if you have the necessary power and supplies.

Then there’s Jerome. He has one major offensive ability which is calling down debris from space to crush enemies (don’t ask me how he does it, he must have a big magnet). He does have access to turrets but they are weaker than the turrets other leaders have from what I’ve experienced. They die a lot faster than, say, Cutter’s turret drop would. However units near the turrets get a morale boost, which basically increases their health and armour while they’re within its radius. This is what all of Jerome’s other abilities essentially revolve around; Increasing morale of nearby units. All these abilities on their own are pretty useless, but if you combine them all together and dump loads of leader points into them they can be really effective.

Both leaders have unique troop transport vehicles which is what really makes them interesting. Arbiter, for instance, has Phantoms. What you can do is buy a bunch of Phantoms and put all your troops inside so when you’re attacking an enemy base or defending your own, the enemy has no idea what your army consists of until you press the deploy button and release them from the vehicle. Jerome has armoured ground transport trucks though, rather than Phantoms, but they serve the same purpose. It also makes it a lot easier to move your units around the map, especially without giving away what you have to the enemy, so it becomes harder for the enemy to build counter-units.

I think the Icons Of War update is a huge improvement on Halo Wars 2. Whereas with other DLC leaders you might have thought, “Oh… this leader is different because you unlock the turret or glassing beam ability two stages earlier than you normally would and also they have a fire and healing power that’s a bit better than the base leader’s healing and fire power”, you are now thinking “Wow, Jerome and Arbiter both have a set up of powers that really encourages me to focus on my army instead of pumping twenty leader points into a cluster bomb to essentially insta-kill the enemy army.” Jerome and Arbiter both encourage a different play style, which makes them harder to use because I feel like, aside from a few minor changes, the other DLC leaders didn’t encourage this to an extent that really mattered, aside from maybe the Colony.

This encouragement of alternate playstyles is good and it sets Jerome and Arbiter apart from the other leaders, so you feel like there is more depth to your game when playing with or against them. I really do encourage 343 and the folks at Creative Assembly to follow this line of thinking when releasing future DLC leaders.

So if you’re hesitant about the new DLC leaders or haven’t played Halo Wars 2 for a while I would encourage you to buy this DLC, because it’s the most unique DLC leader pack so far, and because Halo Wars 2 still feels fresh. The sentinel spam isn’t as viable as it used to be… Cutter’s archer missiles will actually hit the target before the enemy can move and the Eradication Banished ability is as deadly as ever. Do jump in. This game deserves more praise.

Wonder Woman Versus Rotten Tomatoes

Wonder Woman is a great movie. A really great movie! It seems like 2017 truly is the year of good superhero movies with Logan and Guardians Of The Galaxy 2 already getting off to a good start, Wonder Woman now joins the pile of awesome movies in the genre.

But it wasn’t worthy of a 93% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Wonderwoman rotten tomatoes.png

93%? Really? Was this movie good? Yes, very. Was this movie 7% short of being a perfect movie? No! Of course it wasn’t! As good as the film was and as much as is deserves praise, it doesn’t deserve this!

And I know the critics over at Rotten Tomatoes don’t represent critics everywhere or everyone as a whole; No critic does. But they are still a respected source of ratings for movies and, particularly, superhero movies.

I’m going to make a very bold statement right now. I cannot prove it is true. I cannot factually back this up. But I genuinely think this movie got a near perfect score because every other movie in the DCEU has received incredibly low ratings. Now, before you call me a Marvel fan boy, hear me out. I’m going to be objective and fair about this.

Look at all these ratings:

 

 

Suicide Squad rotten tomatoesBVS rotten tomatoesMan of steel rotten tomatoes

 

 

The score for these DC movies has progressively got worse from Man Of Steel (2013), to Suicide Squad (2016). But it’s not the history of low scores that I think prompted these critics to exaggerate how much they liked Wonder Woman. No, it’s something far more idiotic.

It’s because of idiots on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and all kinds of media that preach that these movies are master pieces. These people are fan boys and they are a plague on the Earth. The sooner they go extinct the better. They don’t seem to realise it is possible to like these movies without being a fan boy because, well, anyone can like what they want. So let me distinguish between normal people who like these films and fan boys before I take a dump on them.

What Is A Normal Person Who Likes These Movies?
A normal person who likes these movies is just that- A normal person; A person who can confidently say “I liked Man Of Steel, Batman Versus Superman and Suicide Squad. But if you don’t like it, I don’t mind.” These are rational people. They may offer arguments to defend their opinion on the film and discuss the nature of the films reasonably.

But a fan boy? No. You can’t do this with them.

So…

What Is A Fan Boy?
A fan boy is an immature, child-like, insecure obsessive human being, who’s sole purpose in life is to validate their own opinions by putting others down. A fan boy is a person so insecure about their own opinion that they start a petition to get Rotten Tomatoes taken down because they disagree with their opinions… Oh that actually happened by the way: A group of fan boys started a petition to get Rotten Tomatoes shut down for negatively rating DC films. Here’s proof:

 

Idiots on change.org.png
Here’s a link to it: https://www.change.org/p/dceu-fans-shut-down-rotten-tomatoes

These people are so stupid. How did this get 188 supporters? I just- I want to sleep forever after seeing this. Just look at it! Look at how it’s written! “I’m pretty sure they don’t know shit about the comics“, it reads. Okay so lets think about this: Critics don’t give a shit about the comics. All critics want is a good movie. If you want some amazing frame-by-frame comic book adaptation then I have some news for you… It won’t happen. And it’s not like the film makers care about the comics either since superman literally directs the battles he’s in into occupied towns and cities (Shots fired)!

Rotten Tomatoes is really being nasty“. Okay, let me stop right there because I can already tell this was written by a child. Anyone that uses words like “nasty” or “mean” to describe a company, organisation or any other lager entity is clearly in need of going back to pre-school.

Normal people who like these movies probably agree that the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are bad but, at the same time, they aren’t insecure idiots who want to shut it down for having a differing opinion… Because they’re normal! Oh, and they’re also not offended by people with other perspectives! But these fan boys… These- These fan boys are out of control!

That being said I would agree Man Of Steel, Batman Versus Superman and Suicide Squad sucked. Man of Steel not so much. I’d give it like 60% or 65%; I think 55% is a bit harsh. But the other two movies fully deserve their awful ratings.

Wonder Woman is, in comparison to these movies, worthy of a 93% rating. But in comparison to other films also reviewed on this site and just other films in general, it is not worthy. It doesn’t come close. Just off of the top of my head I would probably give it a solid rating between 68% and 72%. This film is not near perfect at all, it has plenty of flaws. Let’s just compare what the critics seem to think this film is equivalent to…

Star Wars Rotten Tomatoes.png Just look: Wonder Woman isn’t as good as the original Star Wars. Wonder Woman did not inspire a generation. Wonder Woman isn’t an art piece. Wonder Woman doesn’t have an impactful message. It’s a dumb, fun superhero movie; Which is good, because that’s all it had to be to succeed. It mixed some dumb, fun stuff with some semi-serious tones and conveyed its darker themes through dialogue that wasn’t condescending or too dark- It knew what it was doing. It’s a smart movie, but it’s not intelligent or sophisticated. Nothing about it screams or even whispers “near perfect”. It’s not worth 93%.

These obsessive, insecure, easily offended fan boys have, I believe driven Rotten Tomatoes to exaggerate their score. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that the critics genuinely did like this movie. I am not accusing them of faking their rating; I am suggesting they may have been driven to simply blow their good opinions way out of proportion.

To finish this I just want to cover my ass and say that Wonder Woman isn’t the only superhero movie to be blown out of proportion by critics. Captain America Civil War, while being my favourite Marvel film, is not worth the 90% it has been given. It is probably around 78% or 79%. It’s great… but at the same time it’s just a fun superhero movie.

These movies aren’t going to the Oscars so, fan boys, chill out and just like the movies for what they are and stop taking these things so seriously.

 

 

What on Earth Were Telltale Thinking?

So I just finished the Walking Dead A New Frontier.

It’s shit.

“Why is it shit?”, I hear you ask. The answer is simple: It builds really well; Episodes 1 through to 4 with competence, and then episode five takes a massive turd on the whole thing. In this look back at the game I’d like to give criticism on what I think went wrong and also point out the things I enjoyed because, as I said above, the last episode is the one that ruined the whole season, not the others.

First I have to be honest with you though; I have only got one of the games endings. I got the ending where Javier’s family survives, except for David, and then they all go on to lead Richmond to a brighter, better future. I have read other small reviews praising alternative events that take place in the game, which I didn’t get, and they seem to think this game is good because of that. But let me be clear, while it is inevitable that some endings will always be better than other endings, whether it’s a fact like one ending to Life Is Strange is distinguishably better than the other, or whether it’s subjective like the multiple endings to season 2 of The Walking Dead, that doesn’t mean any of the endings should metaphorically resemble raw sewage… Like my ending did, in comparison to what I’ve seen and heard about others.

No one died in my ending. Everyone lived. I guess it’s good, but it’s not emotional at all. The thrill of season 1 was no matter how hard you try to keep everyone alive or as a member of the group, someone would die and someone would be forced to leave. It was a hard realism. Even Lee, the players character, has a send off despite the fact his choices may have led him to become the most favoured member of the group by everyone, he still dies. In season 2 someone has to die. It’s about whether the player thinks Kenny’s time is up or whether what Jane did with AJ, to manipulate Kenny, is reason enough to let her be the one to die. Or you could kill them both. But in A New Frontier everything is wrapped up in a bow in what is considered the “good ending”, whereas the other seasons didn’t have a “good ending”, they just had something that could maybe be considered a “good ending”.

In my play through Jesus hated me because I basically an asshole to anyone that wasn’t Kate or Clementine. I shot Conrad, helped a depressed doctor kill himself, treated Gabe like dirt, treated David like he meant less than nothing (and also had a fight with him on two occasions that I had the opportunity too), told David Kate wanted to leave him, kept smashing the baseballs in the flashback to make David feel bad, destroyed badgers skull, executed Max myself and tried to leave with Kate because I didn’t care about Richmond… at all. David and his cause could go to hell as far as I was concerned- And so could Gabe, he was an asshole the whole time. I saved him from Conrad and he repays me by outing me killing Conrad to the others, then wonders why I’m mad at him and let him have no part in any of our plans. It’s whatever; It’s how I played the game. I enjoyed making these choices, these are the bits I loved. I was free to be an asshole if I wanted to, and I was. So props to them for that… but episode 5 just kind of ripped the whole game down, like none of that mattered.

Episode 5… God… Where to begin?

The following are a list of Telltale games I have played: The Wolf Among us (10/10), The Walking Dead Season 1 (8/10), The Walking Dead Season 2 (9/10), Tales From The Borderlands (10/10). As you can tell… I am a Telltale fan boy when it comes to these choice games. I know they’re probably not this good in most people’s eyes but I just want to show you how I see them so that when I say, “Episode 5 of A New Frontier is literally the worst piece of content I’ve ever played in a Telltale game”, you understand just how much I mean it. Here’s why:

I chose to save Tripp in episode 4 which, of course, ends up in Tripp dying and Ava surviving instead. I felt sad Tripp died. When Ava survived I was enjoying it because it was dynamic and unexpected, highlighting how good a villain Joan could be by taking our control of choice in the game in a way that didn’t make the choice making element useless. But then episode 5 makes this choice useless anyway! Because Ava dies abruptly, randomly within three seconds and after only one conversation with her by falling to her death with a walker. It is not telegraphed, which is good, but there is no minor set up either. There is no danger or tension in the scene she dies in and, also, no emotion. It’s literally random. Look it up on YouTube… It’s stupid. Then, in the next scene, David cares for about 2 seconds an then everybody forgets it happened. (Also Tripp, despite being Dead, can be seen in the background of one of the shots after this, which means this episode was maybe rushed out).

Wait. Un-bracket that. This episode was DEFINETLY rushed out. Ava’s death is nothing but bad writing. The writers were clearly sitting down like “Well Ava has nothing to contribute to this episode so, instead of making her relevant to the story, we will ruin the previous episodes pivotal choice by killing her in the most absolutely idiotic way possible.” Did a two year old write Ava’s death? Would Tripp have died the same way if I had chose to save Ava and Tripp had lived? I don’t know, but the thought is stupid and idiotic in of itself. Someone needs to get fired for writing Ava’s death, along with whoever confirmed with that person that it was a good idea and should be left in the final product. I mean I’m okay with her dying… but not like that!

Then, later in the game, David and Gabe leave the group because David gets mad that Javier and Kate are hooking up, and Gabe is all like “I love my psychotic dad who’s never once been there for me, so I’m going with him.” I didn’t give a damn because, as I said before, I hated Gabe for being a whiney little useless child and I hated David for- for just being himself, I guess. So I chose to, instead of chasing David and Gabe, to help Kate save Richmond. I mean I said before I didn’t care about Richmond, but I liked it and what had happened within it more than both David and Gabe, so it only seemed logical. Anyway… Jesus shows up and is really friendly with me… This was especially weird because he hated me with a burning, fiery passion the last time I saw him. And there’s this really boring sequence on a big digger where Javier and Kate mow through zombies without facing a single hint of danger and have nothing close to resembling a close call, and effectively save the town without putting in a single inkling of effort because Jesus basically does all of the challenging stuff.

It is then revealed, when Clementine returns with Gabe, that David died OFF SCREEN to a walker and Gabe had to shoot him. And she says it so casually like “Yo I saved Gabe! Also your brother died, and also a walker did it, and also Gabe had to shoot him, and also, also, also, also… Hey look, I saved Gabe.” This is another indicator to me the game was rushed out. I mean I know I chose not to chase David but did it never occur to the developers that his DEATH to the hands of his own SON might be something the player would want to see? I’m sure there’s an alternate ending where you do see it, I have no doubt. There’s probably endings where Kate dies and where even Gabe dies, but if David is going to die we should see it in all the endings, I think, as he has become such a pivotal character to Javier’s character after coming to Richmond. Considering I reluctantly saved his settlement from a walker invasion, and hated the man, I’d have relished so much is rubbing my achievements in his face (Again) as he died… Just like I did when I was smashing those baseballs (Which, I might add, is one of the parts of the game that I think was very well written because your choices really did feel impactful even though it was only something as small as hitting a baseball).

I swear I’m not an asshole in real life by the way, but in these types of games I have a tendency to go nuts and murder anyone I can

So David dying off screen pissed me off. But not as much as how bad Clementine’s expositional rant about it was. It was probably the point in the game where I would have felt no guilt or remorse for brutally murdering her.

So then we simply transitioned a few days or weeks ahead to Richmond being rebuilt. This is where it gets stupid. Jesus encouraged me to lead Richmond… despite being in possession of the knowledge that I have been a cold-hearted murderer and have acted like a selfish asshole towards any character that wasn’t Clementine or Kate. He doesn’t even mention the fact he might have forgiven me because of how I chose to save Richmond, he just sort of pretends like he didn’t witness me execute another human being right in front of him a couple of days or weeks before.

For some reason Gabe is cool. I don’t know why. It took Clementine two games to get over killing Lee, and there are still subtle references to Lee in this season, but Gabe is chill about shooting his dad in the face already. Then again, Clementine is more emotional about Lee than her own parents so maybe it’s just a thing that people don’t like their parents in this universe.

It’s just- I don’t know how to communicate this to you.

This review is probably more a of a personal dislike for the events of the game than it is a objective. My review of Life Is Strange, I feel, was objective because I didn’t feel utterly betrayed by it. But episode 5 of A New Frontier is a betrayal. Don’t get me wrong, episode 1, 2, 3 and 4 all have flaws too; They’re not perfect. But they’re good and entertaining, and well written enough to keep me hooked, like most Telltale games are, in my opinion. So why did episode 5 feel so bad? Because it literally felt as if the developers stopped caring about the game. Like they didn’t care what happened, they just wanted it over. It makes no sense.

But, like I said, I have only experienced one ending and my views are probably more personal and emotional than logical and objective, so take my highly negative review with a grain of salt. This episode was, however, bad enough for me to think it ruined the game as a whole because, rather than have a dramatic finale between either David and Javier or the two united against the walkers, I got an off screen death with some condescending exposition.

You could blame my bad experience on the choices I made. But just because some choices will always be better than others doesn’t mean the player should be punished for choosing one over the other.  That’s how I felt about this game. I felt punished by the end. I felt punished because it built up this exciting adventure, but ended on a less that satisfactory note.

What on Earth were Telltale thinking?

 

How Bad Are Quick-Time Events In Games?

We live in a time where technology is becoming absolutely amazing with the things it can accomplish; Planning Mars missions, building AI’s like SIRI into our devices and, most importantly, the capability to create bigger and better video games.

As games have developed so have the stories behind them. What was once “Mario save the Princess” became “Mario save the Princess from Bowser”, became “Mario save the Princess from Bowser in space n 3D planets because you’re our saviour”, finally became *Insert cut scene of storytelling here*. It’s truly remarkable how games have come from moving left and right to blow up spaceships to moving left and right and forwards, and backwards to blow up spaceships because you are someone of importance to the galaxy. Thanks to technology we now have games that craft stories to give them more purpose and for them to deliver their purpose onto us, the players, for us to fulfil.

However… In an attempt to merge story and gameplay, the infamous “quick time event” was created. But are quick time events bad?

This is a question I’m going to answer. The short answer is yes, depending on the level of how cinematic they are and for what reason they are cinematic. Let me now give you the long answer, so you might understand what I mean.

Games that are too cinematic often suffer from poor gameplay or levels. Not always, but sometimes. Take, for example, Call Of Duty Advanced Warfare. “Press F To Pay Respects”. Was a button really needed for this? Was it important to the gameplay or story? No. If you wanted an emotional funeral moment then allowing the player to walk around the funeral and discover Kevin Spacey for ourselves would have been far more immersive and effective. Now take Halo 4 as another example. “Press RB to plant grenade” (Or RT to fire machine gun if you play the MCC). Halo 4 built up the power of its primary villain, the Didact, to a level unparalleled by any single person, even the player… But he’s killed by the worst grenade in the game… In a quick time event.

In my Halo 4 example, rather than having an awesome one on one fight with the Didact, in which the player defeats him by getting through his various stages and health bars, the player is stripped of all freedom and told exactly what to do and when to do it in order to complete the game. In Advanced Warfare the player is forced to pay respects to some dead guy we knew for five minutes who’s death was emotionless, because we also saw five hundred other soldiers on our side get ploughed down in the very same battle, in the previous level.

This is my gripe with quick time events; They take away the players freedom for the sake of a “cool” cinematic moment. Halo 4 wants us to think “Wow how cool was that grenade kill” instead of “I wish I could have killed the bad guy my own way”, and Advanced Warfare wants us to think “Aw, I’m so sad that what’s-his-face died”, instead of “who’s funeral am I at again?” They put the player on rails with no control. The player has no option other than to do what the quick time event tells them or they fail.

But not all quick time events are bad in games. Some games do them perfectly. Take Ryse: Son of Rome. In Ryse you can execute enemies by performing quick time events. But whether you get the buttons right or wrong doesn’t effect the animation; You get the kill even if you miss every button. However if you get all the buttons right, and in short time, you receive extra points and health regeneration for the kill. This type of quick time event does not limit the players freedom because the player has chosen to enter the event and the event does not impact the over all story of the game. Furthermore it compliments the gameplay because, if the player is quick at hitting the buttons and gets them all correct, they receive health and bonus points. Most importantly it doesn’t put you on rails. Can you see how unlike the examples I used from Halo 4 and Advanced Warfare, Ryse is able to use cinematic quick time events without sucking the players freedom away? This is because the quick time events in Ryse compliment the gameplay rather than pandering to the story.

There are some quick time events, however, I can excuse in games that are bad by my definition. The way I described bad quick time events could lead you to believe  I think games like The Walking Dead, The Wolf Among Us or various other choice based games are bad, but that’s not what I think. This is because, I would argue, the core gameplay of those games revolves around the in-game choices we make as we play the story and that the quick time events are just filler so we don’t get bored by overwhelming amounts of dialogue. However, I will admit that in TellTale’s latest release, Guardians Of The Galaxy, I would have preferred to (SPOILERS) fight and kill Thanes myself rather than quick time him to death.

So though quick time events may not be inherently bad, there are definetly right and wrong ways to go about implementing them into games. Some games do them better than others and others fall flat on their faces… *Cough* Advanced Warfare *cough*. Despite my bias hatred for them in general, I do have fond memories of kicking ass in God Of War. Even so, I do think games should stick to letting the player maintain their freedom to do whatever they want, even if it means sacrificing a cinematic moment because gameplay is more important that a brief, momentary spectacle.

 

Why DOOM’s Reviews Are Unfair

Unlike most people who bought the game I feel like I was one of few who bought Doom with no prior knowledge of the original games. When I bought this game all I knew of the original was that it essentially laid down the basic fundamental foundation for what most new FPS’s (releasing after it) would follow. But I had never played any of the originals so I wasn’t sure what all the hype was about.

But after buying Doom 2016 and playing it for a respectful amount of time, I can honestly say this game is criminally under-rated. This is strange to me because all I hear, from the majority of people at least, is how amazing this game is; I hear how fun the campaign is, how diverse the enemies, weapons and locations are. But, for some reason, this games online community seems to be nearing death and the game has only been out a year, at the time of me writing this.

I think this is mostly due to the negative reviews critics gave the multiplayer. Doom’s multiplayer was heavily criticised for being new enough. A GameSpot review says the following, “By far you won’t find much in Doom’s multiplayer that hasn’t been done before” and , “There is very little new in Doom’s multiplayer”.  The link to this review is provided here. https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/doom-review/1900-6416432/

But I think there is more to it than that because what these reviewers don’t realise is that Doom was, at the time, one of the only Triple A multiplayer games offering a unique experience. Previously released before Doom in earlier years were games such as Halo 4 and Battlefield Hardline were criticised for their multiplayer mimicking Call Of Duty by some fans and reviewers. Though the formula of these games remained faithful to their respectful predecessors the inclusion lower skill gaps to accommodate new players and tropes associated with Call Of Duty, such as kill streaks, put both of these games in the firing line for some fans, though not all of them.

Yet when Doom comes out as the first Triple A first person shooter in decades to use a classic arena setting for its multiplayer and sets itself apart from the crowd by removing regenerating health, it gets reviews telling us it isn’t new enough. And yes, arguably, this game is just updating an old style of multiplayer games that everyone seems to have moved on from. But within the current market, even now, Doom’s multiplayer is unique.

Here is why:

This game has a big skill gap. If you come onto this game straight off of Call of Duty, Halo 5 or Star Wars Battlefront you will, most likely, get your ass kicked a whole bunch before you start doing anything helpful for your team. The game is incredibly fast paced; More fast paced than Call Of Duty’s maps forcing you into encounters, Halo 5’s new armour abilities and sprint, and Star Wars Battlefronts massive battles.

The reason for this is because your health doesn’t regenerate. So as you’re killing the enemy and playing the objective, you’re also on a constant scavenger hunt for health, armour and ammo. Because of this you’re not only battling the enemy for kills or objective points, but also for health, armour, ammo and more powerful weapons. As a result map control becomes an important aspect of every game because whichever team controls the map has more access to all of these things and is therefore, of course, more likely to get the infamous demon rune to gain the advantage with.

I am reminded of games like Halo 2 or the original Star Wars Battlefront games, which both emphasised map control because the more of the map your team held, the better weapons and vehicles your team had access too. Both of those games were received well. But Doom 2016’s multiplayer… Not so much.

What was received well regarding Doom’s multiplayer was the Snap Map mode, and rightfully so; The scripting and map building the game gives players access too is amazing. But, with all the creativity of Snap Map set aside, I think why this mode was better received was because it was easier. Very few multiplayer versus maps were made in Snap Map; Most were fun mini-games, mazes, obstacle courses and missions against the AI demons. These are all things that are, while incredibly fun, a lot easier than juggling your health, armour, ammo and demon rune spawns.

So what am I saying? I am saying that because this game offers a unique, challenging experience in an age where the majority of FPS’s have a low time to kill, small skill gap and no steep learning curve, that Doom’s multiplayer was unfairly given a bad review because it is hard. It’s a theory. I, of course, cannot prove it as definite fact. But I can try to get you to see things as I do.

Look at it from this angle… How can critics say this game offers not much new and, on that basis, give the multiplayer a negative review when a game like Call Of Duty has been farting out the most repetitive multiplayer of all time with very little changes with each release? I think it’s because games like Call Of Duty are easy. When Call Of Duty changes something in its multiplayer, it is to add something like an ability or kills streak, or gun that is over powered enough to allow you, the player, to kill more things faster.

Even games like Halo have been seeing changes that make them easier. Halo 3, for example, had a high skill gap and some-what reasonable learning curve but, as more games like Reach and Halo 4 (and now Halo 5) came out the games got progressively easier. Halo Reach killed the MLG scene for Halo, for a while, and Halo 4 decreased the time to kill and added sprint. Halo 5 introduced armour abilities; and all of these things make the game easier because they introduce an element of randomness into the game that allow new players to get kills.

Doom doesn’t do that, however. Doom does not offer new players free kills so they don’t get mad. Doom makes you learn. And I strongly believe that because of how easy the FPS scene has been recently, that Doom’s multiplayer was negatively reviewed because it made the critics who reviewed use their brains a little too much, and they couldn’t handle it. They had been conditioned to games that hold their hands and couldn’t comprehend the idea that a game would want them to learn how to play by themselves.

But I am in no way saying Doom’s multiplayer is perfect. In my opinion some of the demon types are overpowered and so are some of the weapons and equipment; Not game breakingly so, but enough to justify some concern. What I’m saying is that Doom’s multiplayer is good, even now when there are larger games, like Battlefield 1, out on the market, and that is was unfairly judged. This game doesn’t deserve to be dying.

Doom’s multiplayer is awkward to play upon pickup. You may find yourself playing and waiting for your health to regenerate before realising that isn’t going to be happening any time soon. But Doom is its own style of FPS. It’s old and new. It is heavily inspired and influenced by old arcade style shooters, but it is something fresh amongst the current line up of almost every major FPS title.

Doom is about speed, manoeuvring and out-manoeuvring your enemy depending on the weapon you’re wielding and grenade you have in your pocket, or by the amount of health or armour you have in comparison to your enemy. Your play style changes on the fly depending on how much health, armour and ammo you have scavenged. This game demands your attention. It pulls you in. It’s exciting, fun, engaging and thrilling.

Need something more stimulating than ninety percent of FPS’s on the market (Or Minecraft)? Play Doom.
Miss the ice-cream truck and got mad? Play Doom.
Recently broke up with a long-term partner over some cheeky banter? Play Doom.
Bored? Play Doom.

Not only will you be stimulated and having fun, but you’ll be learning and experiencing a different type of FPS.

 

Charming Movies: Going In Style

I have to admit, when I went to see Going In Style in cinemas I was expecting, not a bad movie, but a movie that would simply serve to pass the time while giving a few laughs. Instead I found very charming movie with that, along with serving laughs, had a message and something to say. I found something charming and enjoyable. This review will contain spoilers, but you can skip down to the last two paragraphs of the review for a brief summary that won’t spoil anything, if you want to decide whether you want to see it or not.

Going In Style stars Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Alan Arkin. All of them, being aging actors, play three old men, who are all best friends, that want to rob a bank. ‘Why’, I hear you ask; Because the company they have worked for, for forty years, has cancelled their pension money for all their employees in order to pay off other debts. This leaves our main characters in the least favourable financial place possible.

It’s worth mentioning now that what I like about this movie is that it isn’t just silliness. And this movie is a comedy, so of course it is fun and stimulating, but it also explores serious themes. The first half of this movie is quite serious and emotional as it tells us Joe (Michael Caine) is going to be evicted from his home, which would mean he, his daughter and grand daughter would all essentially be homeless. We see Albert (Alan Arkin) struggling to accept company in his life or change, as he rejects any advances anyone makes on him. Finally we gain sight that Willie (Morgan Freeman) has some kind of kidney failure and that he’s going to die. To make things worse, the hospital is struggling to find other kidneys for him to have, so it’s not looking good.

With nothing else left to loose, after witnessing a bank robbery himself, Joe decides that robbing a bank is the best course of action. Can you see what I mean? The film uses a silly concept to explore some real issues, and I can respect that as it does it well.

Once Willie and Albert are on board, the three practice their thieving skills in the local super market. This leads to one of the funniest things I have, personally, seen in cinemas for a while now. The sight of Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman stealing entire cartons of eggs, large pork-chops and chickens while Alan Arkin is unable to help, because a shop assistant won’t stop flirting with him, is funny as all hell. Also watching Michael Caine steal an old lady’s mobility scooter, with Morgan Freeman riding in the front basket as they drive through traffic to escape shop security, is also something worth seeing.

The three get caught and decide they need professional help… To rob the bank that is. After Joe talks to a few contacts he finds a “low-life” who will help train them to rob the bank. After putting together alibis, getting gear and practicing the timing of everything the three are ready and rob the place. Willie, however, finds it hard to breathe under his mask due to his health issues and collapses. He is saved, however, when a little girl removes his mask slightly (up to his mouth) to allow him to breathe. Willie thanks the man and they all leave.

This leads to one of the many scenes that make this film so charming.

The three are put in a  line up by the police and the little girl who saw Willie’s face is asked to identify who was involved in the robbery. The girl recognises Willie but doesn’t tell the police he was involved, because Willie had told her about missing his granddaughter and family during the robbery. Instead she says she didn’t recognise any suspects. The emotion behind the scene is hard to express through writing and, of course, how you connect to a film or any piece of media is subjective to how much you, as an individual, are enjoying it. To try and summaries it, there is just something inherently nice about watching a little girl refusing to give up information because she wants the suspect, Willie, to be able to see his family. And there are many charming scenes in this film revolving around family, relationships, health and friendship, but I think this one takes the cake because of how connected I became, as a viewer, to these characters. It is silly, I know. No little girl would withhold this information in real, if they recognised a suspect. But in the context of the film, this scene was just so warm and nice, and kind that I think it takes the cake as the most charming moment.

After the three are removed as possible suspects to the crime and have the money back from the heist, the issue of Willie’s health is raised again as he collapses publicly. This leads to, perhaps, the second most charming and warm moment in the film. Albert decides to donate his kidney to Willie, saving his life, and the two are just lying their on the hospital beds making jokes. This scene of them doing this can summarise the film; Real issues being explored through the use of humour.

Anyway, the film ends with Willie’s life being saved, Joe being able to keep his house and family and Albert getting married to a shop assistant. A happy ending.

So now I have to summarise the film… This film is nothing short of a feel-good film. If you’ve lost your faith in humanity and feel like everyone on Earth is a jack-ass, then this film will make you regain your faith in the human race. It will lay out why humanity sucks and then how friendship and family can help solve the problem. None of it is corny. None of it will make you cringe. Everything in this film is explored reasonably. The silly jokes and funny moments of the film and properly placed, so that the tone of the film is consistent (There’s nothing worse than watching a film that hops from serious-talk to oblivious silliness poorly; But this film does it perfectly by not being too silly, nor too serious). I guess all I have to say now is that this film will make you smile, laugh and connect to the lead characters. It is enjoyable and will be worth your money.

Please go and see this film. I have a feeling that this film won’t do well, despite how well-made it is, because of how stimulated people are with the bombardment of Superhero and action films we have been getting in recent years. I feel like people are going to look at this film and think “this movie stars all old people, not enjoyable”, because every film nowadays is about Hollywood-hunks punching each other. But this film is much better than a solid eighty percent of those punching films because it is funny, witty and actually has a message that goes beyond “Blowing up foreign countries is wrong (Instantly blows up the Kremlin).” And that isn’t to say that these action films don’t have messages, but Going In Style has a more relevant message, and a better one. Please spare some time to watch this film and go to see something different.

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑