Inspirational Speeches in Movies

Oh we love a good "pick the troops up" speech in a movie, don't we! Also known as the St. Crispin's Day speech, my favourite one is actually a very quiet affair in the excellent but ignored, Serenity. But I want to start with an actual St. Crispin's Day Speech delivered by the amazing Billy Zane in Tombstone.
Background: Billy and his acting troupe have landed in the ominous and aptly named Tombstone to entertain the locals. Unfortunately for him, the locals include one of the most notorious gangs of the wild west, The Cowboys, who are just as likely to shoot you as they are to poke fun at you. Zane's courage and delivery wins them over. Well done Billy:

Gotta have some Aaron Sorkin. When it comes to speeches, the man is a master. I don't know if this is his best one (his television shows are an embarrassment of riches) but given the current climate (and President) I think this needs to be in here.

Background: President Andy Shepard (Michael Douglas) has seen his numbers drop in recent months because he started dating lobbyist Sydney Ellen Wade (Annette Bening). The Republican candidate, Bob Rumson (a brilliantly smarmy Richard Dreyfuss) has been scoring points with "judgemental America". Sydney has just dumped The President because, in order to keep his job he's thrown her job under the bus. He realises he was wrong and sets about making it right.

Next up, Alien 3. Now, you probably hate this movie (if you do, you're wrong) but you cannot deny the delivery here.
Background: After Ripley crash lands on Fiorina 161 she is rescued by the locals. Sadly for her the locals are prisoners and they are all terrible. Dillon (Charles S. Dutton) is the leader of the pack and when an Alien starts picking them off, Ripley formulates a plan to kill it. Unfortunately for her, most of the inmates hate her. Fortunately for her, Dillon has her back...



Return of the King. This one doesn't get enough love. It's an odd one because it's in one of the most successful movies ever made and it's a fantastic piece of acting by Viggo Mortensen. Well I'm happy to give it some love here.
Background: Frodo and Sam are deep in Mordor trying to destroy the one ring. Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli lead their troops to the Black Gate of Mordor to call out the Dark Lord. It's all a ruse to by Frodo time. The numbers are against them, they cannot win. Nobody told Aragorn!

This next speech is more motivational than inspirational but I think it deserves a spot on my list because of the wonderful delivery and dark humour.

Background: O-Ren Ishii (a brilliant Lucy Liu) has taken over "the council" and one of her peers is less than happy. She listens to his concerns before responding in deadly fashion. Truly memorable stuff:

Let's up the cheese factor, shall we. Independence Day isn't a great movie but when it landed in the mid 90's it was the absolute bollocks! It hasn't aged very well though and when you read the dialogue of this speech you'll wonder how it made it to final draft. It's to Bill Pullman's credit that he, almost, makes it work.

The movie, Pearl Harbour is an abject lesson in how NOT to do inspiration because if you thought Bill Pullman's effort above was risible well you ain't seen nothing yet. Endurance points if you make it to the end of this puke-fest:

                                     
Did you make it? :)

Moving on. Sports movies generally have their speeches right before the final fight or match, depending on the sport and they're generally pretty good. Some of them are low key affairs but the best ones start out quiet with the speechmaker adding something human to the mix, usually personal loss or failings and it all ends with a defiant "yes we can" moment from all involved. The best of these is delivered by Al Pacino in Any Given Sunday. Enjoy:

How do we top that one? Well, I think most people recognise this next one is the best one. I saw this in the cinema back in the 90's and the place went nuts. It's the only time I went to a movie where there was a standing ovation when it was over and the moment it went from enjoyable romp to cast iron classic was when Mel delivered this speech. It's absolute perfection and the fact that it's wormed its way into popular culture (along with Freeedooooom) is no surprise.
Background: The English have been butchering the Scots for long enough. William Wallace thinks he can take them but he needs the Scottish army to stick together. I nearly signed up for the fuckin' 'RA when I heard this:

And finally my personal favourite. I love this because of how it's delivered. No shouting. No chest beating. Just a steely determination and total commitment to his beliefs. Yes, I love the characters far too much but I'm able to dial that back and analyse it without bias and I think Nathan Fillion's delivery is top notch. I also adore the writing. The lighting on our hero isn't bad either.
Background: The crew of Serenity have uncovered a government secret that could potentially take down The Alliance... if they can survive a suicide run against impossible odds to deliver the message:

Feel free to share your favourites!

Cheers,

G.

What is the Problem with Superman?

When Bryan Singer wrestled control of Superman Returns from Brett Ratner in the mid 2000's we all rejoiced. Singer had just made the excellent X-Men 2. Ratner was (and remains) a paint by numbers director. He took over X-Men 3. Most of us felt like Superman's gain was very much X-Men's loss. As it turned out, both movies are noteworthy for being very well made but missing something.

When I went to see Superman Returns in 2006 I was excited beyond belief and the movie started quite well. There's a simply incredible rescue scene early on which I hoped would be a tone setter. Check it out:

That ranks right up there with the very best Superman action sequences and Brandon Routh, while clearly channelling Christopher Reeves, did a great job in the movie... except for one thing. A thing that wasn't his fault. A thing that just doesn't sit well with me or anyone else to be honest. Despite all the thrilling heroics in the movie, Superman straight up creeps on Lois Lane. You could argue he has always done this but listening in on conversations between Lois (Kate Bosworth) and her partner Richard White (played by professional safety net guy James Marsden) was just gross... and Superman should never be gross.

Meanwhile Kevin Spacey did his best to dislodge Gene Hackman as the greatest Lex Luthor ever. He came up short. It's not that he was bad, it's just he seemed to be trying very hard to be evil. Hackman just played the character with ease. All of this was compounded by the fact that Superman Returns is a hard remake of Superman 1978 to the point that they added unused footage of Marlon Brando from the '78 movie and what it gains in some incredible technical wizardry carried out by the CGI team it loses in the charm stakes. There's no "you've got me, who's got you" moments here. And how could there be, especially with a kid in danger. This utterly brilliant scene showcases magnificent special fx and I do enjoy it very much but it is caught in that awkward spot between fun and actual genuine terror...

Again, that's just a showstopper of a moment and everyone concerned should be very proud of themselves.

Some people hated the idea that Lois and Superman had a baby. I didn't mind it. Might it have been shit in later movies? Yeah it might have been but we'll never know because Superman Returns was a box office failure. With a production budget of $270m Superman Returns only managed to pull in $391m. That doesn't even include advertising expense which was substantial but let's assume advertising cost fuck all, you might think that $120m is a decent return on investment? You'd be mistaken. Warner Bros don't put $270m into a production to cover expenses and get a few quid back. They throw that kind of money out there to make mega bucks and this movie did not deliver mega bucks.

Superman Returns opened to pretty good reviews and a reasonable opening weekend. So why did it fail to capture the mass imagination? Creepy Superman? Maybe. It's a remake of the first one? Maybe. Or is it that the character just isn't as engaging as he was in 1978? Hard to know. My feeling is that it was all of these things. I actually enjoy the movie on a surface level, I just wish it had cut ties with the 1978 movie. Clearly something needed to change and WB took their time before opting for a complete overhaul.

Enter Zack Snyder!

I went to see Sucker Punch and thought it was appalling. It looked great but, seriously, it was fucking stupid. Apparently everyone else thought it was terrible too as it took a critical mauling and bombed at the box office... big time! It had previously been announced that the director of this movie would be helming the new Superman movie... I was not impressed. But I couldn't argue that the man had a way with a camera. His movies looked fucking beautiful. Box office wise he was a mixed bag. He'd had some success with his well received Dawn of the Dead remake (I hated it) and 300 was a huge hit (wasn't a fan of that either) but he'd stumbled badly with Watchmen though it was received well enough by fans of the books... so this was a risk.

Man Of Steel was announced and Henry Cavill was cast as everyone's favourite Kryptonian... Nobody had a problem with this:

He really is a beautiful man! When the clip came out we all lost our shit. This looked INCREDIBLE. Look at that cast. Look at Costner's delivery of "you are my son". Again, check it out:

And so I went to the cinema to watch this. Despite Snyder's involvement I was excited and hopeful. And I must be 100% honest, I left utterly satisfied. To this day I still like the movie and happily view it from time to time. But we're getting away from the point.
Initial reviews were good. Initial fan reaction was also good but after a few weeks came an enormous backlash from fans who hated the movie. I'll come back to that but nobody could have a problem with the first half of this movie.
Starting on the doomed planet of Krypton we see Russell Crowe pulling off all manner of heroics (surrounded by beautiful and unusual visuals) to get his son off planet so he can survive. It's a fun watch. As is all the stuff leading up to Superman facing off against Zod. This is where the divide happens.

People were unhappy with the level of destruction in the movie and were even more upset by Superman's lack of respect for humanity. "Why wasn't he saving more people?". "This feels more like a Tranformers movie"... you've heard all the gripes. Later, people jumped on the hate wagon and started on the look of the movie. Apparently it wasn't bright enough... Fuck me, everyone's an expert these days!
For me, I thought it looked great and enjoyed that Superman was out of his depth against three fully trained Kryptonian's. There was always gonna be casualties. My one problem with the movie is where Superman and Lois Lane decide to kiss. It's surrounded by rubble where thousands of people have died and it just feels fucking weird. But that's my only issue. I'd rate it as good as something like Age of Ultron and I liked that Superman straight up kills Zod at the end. Again, many didn't like this. "Superman should never murder enemies". Well, I disagree. Zod left him no choice and it was an interesting take on the character. Then again, I don't read comics so maybe that's why I didn't care.

Man Of Steel cost $225m and pulled in $668m. While this was an improvement on Superman Returns, it was still less than WB had hoped for. Once again, Superman just wasn't connecting with audiences the way the studio had hoped he would.
They didn't like Superman Returns because it was too similar to Superman '78 and they didn't like Man Of Steel because it was too different... So what now?

Surely these two heavyweights going head to head would be irresistible to genre fans. Well it definitely caused a stir. Many wanted a standalone Bat movie to lead into BvS and suggested that this was happening too fast. They might have had a point. Ben Affleck was announced as the caped crusader and the internet went nuts. A lot of people hated the idea but there was a lot of support for him too. As it happened nobody need have worried about "Bat-fleck" he was, and is, a rock solid Batman. After more build up than I can ever remember for a super hero movie BvS landed and was immediately pummelled by critics.

Plot: After the destruction caused by Superman in his battle to save earth from Zod and his merry friends, Bruce Wayne decides the earth doesn't need this shit and decides to take matters into his own hands. Meanwhile Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) is planning to play the Bat against the Man of Steel. He also brings to life a "Doomsday" creation out of Kryptonian tech and the blood of Zod. Why? Well, he's nuts.

Whatever. We all went to see the face off and when it finally happens, it is brilliant. While Superman could have ended the fight pretty early on, he underestimates The Bat, who has procured Kryptonite and isn't afraid to use it. He quickly deploys it and kicks seven shades of shit out of Superman and is about to kill him only to be stopped by the fact that their mother's share the same name... no really. I still don't get it. But the movie carries on to its conclusion and Wonder Woman steals the show. Check out her intro:

What a moment that is! And moments are what Zack Snyder does well. That's why his clips look fucking amazing. It's the in between where he fumbles. In some cases his fumbling is movie ruining. Having said that, aren't super hero movies all about moments? Perhaps I'm defending him because I quite enjoyed BvS. But once again, it didn't hit the heights expected at the box office. BvS with a $250m budget reeled in a decent $874m. By no means a disaster and certainly made a few quid, WB would have been hoping for a billion. No question.
Since then, Wonder Woman has gone on to become the jewel in the DC crown with a superb movie of her own and a huge box office return. Can we apply her blue print to Superman? No, no we can't. He's already had his origin movie but what we can do is have Patty Jenkins more involved in future Superman movies. She is the best director DC have used so far and seems to have her hand on the pulse when it comes to what the public wants from these kinds of movies.

There were rumours that Mathew Vaughn would take on Superman. He certainly did a great job with X-Men First Class (the best X-Men movie in my humble opinion) and I could get behind this but again I'd love to see Patty Jenkins take a shot. DC should be in a better place and with names like Patty Jenkins, Joss Whedon and Mathew Vaughn hanging around one must be optimistic.

Justice League came out recently and has flopped... big time. Unfortunately the movie never really stood a chance. Snyder had to leave the project due to a family tragedy and Joss Whedon came in to "finish" the movie. As you can imagine, it's a bit of a mess. An enjoyable mess but a mess all the same. With a cost of €300m the movie has only pulled in $652m and with stiff competition in the cinemas now (Jan '18) it won't pull in much more. Those numbers simply are not good enough but the movie did something perfectly: Superman. All moustache bollocks aside (I didn't notice while I watched) Superman is a delight in the movie. After the stupid resurrection scene (I hate resurrections in movies) he is understandably pissed off, particularly with Batman. He singlehandedly beats the shit out of the Justice League before Lois Lane calms him down and he starts to come round. He shows up to save the League from certain destruction at the hands of Steppenwolf and he is both funny and charming while doing so. He also saves a fuckton of people and is just in great form. This, one has to assume is the Joss Whedon influence...

If Superman is to reclaim his place at the top of the superhero food chain, a couple things need to happen. Patty Jenkins should be heavily involved and having Joss Whedon around couldn't hurt either. Cavill has shown he can do this and do it well so he should be trusted to continue. As regards tone, some people would like a more Marvelesque tone, others enjoyed the "darkness" of Snyder's movies. I just think a good story with likable and enjoyable characters is the most important thing. The tone is dictated by the fucking story, not the other way around and if the movie is good you won't care whether it's dark or light.

Of course, given how badly JL has performed at the box office, some thought WB might pull the plug on the whole thing but this would be a mistake. In Wonder Woman they have a bonafide box office super star for this generation. They also have an Aquaman movie deep (ahem) in post production. They will be hoping James Wan (a great director) can work some magic there. If he does and with Wonder Woman 2 on the way, DC might just rescue this whole thing. But it needs a strong Superman. We all do...

Cheers,

G.

Nancy Meyers Movies: I'm a Fan But...

I saw Baby Boom in the cinema when I was 11 years old and I loved it. I didn't know or care who was responsible for the movie but it occurs to me that I've been a fan of Nancy Meyers for 30 years. The recently released Home Again has the name Nancy Meyers all over it though not where it counts. Nancy neither wrote nor directed the movie and the results have been predictable. Opening the film on the same weekend as Stephen King's IT was a huge blunder and it did make me wonder how an actual Nancy movie would have fared against Pennywise... Then I just started thinking about her movies in general so here we are!

I was watching The Intern a while back and I was enjoying it. Ann Hathaway plays the adorable, successful, business owning woman so well that you'd just have to assume that Ann Hathaway is actually all of those things and more. Robert De Niro does more in his opening monologue than he has in years. As it happens, he is the intern of the piece and his wisdom and life experience trickle down to help the young professionals around him. It's breezy, it's well paced and it's fun...

Still, a couple of things stuck in my craw. There is a scene in the movie where Ann Hathaway has a few drinks with a few worker bees and gets a bit drunk. Take a look...

Really? Jack Nicholson era guys? Yes, men dressed better back then but they also controlled everything... Meyers is clearly a feminist and writes successful women very well. However, her bygone era fantasies that things (and men) were so much better "back then" seem to fly in the face of the equality that women really should have by now. Men weren't all like Robert De Niro's character in this movie. Actually, hardly any of them were... When I bring this up the reaction is generally of the "It's a fucking movie G, relax" variety. I did and, this minor quibble aside, I thoroughly enjoyed the film.

The other thing that comes to mind (as it always does with these movies) is just how rich everyone is... Now, this isn't so much a complaint as much as it is an observation. You look at any Meyers movie and everyone is fucking loaded. What Women Want, Something's Gotta Give, The Holiday, It's Complicated. All these people stink of money! To be fair, they are all in great jobs and you get the impression they worked hard to get to this point of comfort in their lives but you also get the impression that they've never known any real hardship. Again, that's just an observation but the stakes in these movies rarely seem high. I mean, if Diane Keaton (likes to write from her house in the Hamptons) had ended up with Dr. Keanu "super fucking handsome" Reeves in Something's Gotta Give instead of Jack Nicholson would you have been overly sad? If the answer to that question is yes I am genuinely worried about you. Keanu is so fucking perfect in that movie I wouldn't have been surprised if Jack had ended up going after the young doctor instead of Keaton!

Something's Gotta Give, for me at least, is Nancy's best movie. Diane Keaton is an absolute delight in it. Genuinely funny, she's an irresistible mix of high intellect and infectious quirkiness. She's also the best thing in the movie. That said, Jack Nicholson doesn't phone it in either. In fact, whenever I watch the movie (which is a lot) I get the distinct impression that he's working his ass off and loving every second. They are a formidable duo and brought this excellent script to life as only they can. The moment I saw those leads and directed by Nancy Meyers I was sold. I went to see this movie with my then girlfriend and we brought our mothers because we knew they'd have fun. It is here that I think Nancy Meyers deserves a fuck-ton of credit. Her movies entertain people of all ages. Sure, casting older actors will help but there's a wicked wit in the writing that brilliantly bridges the gap between people in their 20's and people in their 70's. It's fascinating how she manages to do it but do it she (mostly) does.

The next movie of Nancy's I saw was It's Complicated... Before I get into that movie let me just say this: Meryl Streep is the world's greatest actor. This isn't a fucking gender thing either guys. She's better than Hanks, Daniel Day Lewis... everyone. So why did It's Complicated fail to reach me the way Something's Gotta Give did? Quite simply, the incredible décor of the surroundings is so overwhelming that it actually took me out of the fucking movie. I know I mentioned the "rich people, no problems" stuff earlier but in this particular movie it reaches maddening levels of that. Every interior is somebody's beautiful house or high class hotels or somebody else's beautiful house. I mean it's enough to make Victoria fucking Hagen blush. So, on to the "first world problem" for Streep. She and her ex husband (Alec Baldwin being Alec Baldwin) have an innocent dinner together which, of course, ends in them screwing. Baldwin, predictably, is married to a woman young enough to be his daughter and suddenly Streep goes from ex to other woman and all this happens just as she is starting to connect with Steve Martin. The addition of Steve Martin to this movie should have been a good thing and he does have some nice scenes with Streep but his talents are criminally underused and his charming, quiet guy is absolutely pummelled off the screen by all and sundry. Unforgivable waste of talent there. As it happens there is nothing even remotely complicated about the movie. It's not that the movie is so bad, I mean look at that cast. But imagine how good it could have been if that cast had been given things to do. Fun fact: The house Streep's character lives in recently sold for $10.5m...


So what do audiences want? One thing is clear, Nancy Meyers movies make money! And back in the days when Mel Gibson wasn't seen as a complete lunatic she did a really fun movie called What Women Want with him. It received a mixed reception from the critics but audiences seemed to enjoy it and I certainly did. Once again, everyone is filthy rich. Mel lives in a gorgeous apartment and is a serial womaniser. He works in a beautiful building, making commercials that are aimed at young men and he is on the verge of a major promotion. Then along comes Helen Hunt. She ends up getting Mel's job because the company isn't competing in the ladies market and there are vast sums of money to be made. She gives everyone a box of "woman stuff" and tells them to go home and try to think about how to appeal more to women. Mel, of course, hates the idea but after a bottle of red wine he relaxes and throws himself into the assignment. He ends up in the bathtub, hair dryer in hand and unconscious. However, rather than being dead he is imbued with the power to hear the thoughts of nearby women. He quickly turns this to his advantage and by using Hunt's work ideas against her putting him two steps ahead of her. In doing so though he gets to know her and, as you'd expect, he falls for her. And she for him. Many critics give the movie shit for not looking too deeply into what women actually want but for those of us looking for some sweet romantic fun with solid performances and an abundance of chuckles, What Women Want delivered.
For the record, I suspect what women want is similar to what men want. Love, security, choices, a job and somewhere safe to live and raise our kids should we choose to have them... That some critics didn't seem to get this says more about them than this movie.

The last movie I'm going to talk about is The Holiday. This is a movie that is hated as much as it is loved. I've never heard anyone say "yeah it's okay". It's always "Oh I fucking love that movie" or the opposite of that. 
So what's the what? Kate Winslet and Cameron Diaz swap homes for a while to just get away from their shit. Winslet is trying to forget about an asshole at work and Diaz wants away from her shitty half who has been nailing his secretary... (men are such assholes, aren't they) As you'd expect, both can afford to do this and are spoiled rotten when they land in each other's dwellings. For me, Diaz gets the slightly better deal as she ends up in an absolutely beautiful country cottage.

The postcard exterior is matched only by the coziness of the interior. Mind you Winslet does very well too as the Diaz home exudes luxury. Take a look:

Our heroines quickly fall into good company. Winslet finds comfort in a surprisingly affable Jack Black and friendship in an adorable Eli Wallach. Meanwhile in good old Blighty, Diaz is quickly won over by the ample charms of Jude Law. Despite the absolute "this would NEVER happen" nature of The Holiday, Meyers works a minor miracle by making us forget about the absurdity of it all. The movie, afterall, is called The Holiday. It wants you to forget the humdrum of your actual life and surrender to the surface beauty of it all. Just don't look under the hood as it might expose something you don't want to admit about yourself... more on that later.
The Holiday ends the way most of Nancy's movies do. The people we're rooting for get what they want therefore we get what we want and we sit there with big, stupid smiles on our faces.

You may have noticed that I'm using the actor's real names. This is simply because at no point in any of these movies do the people feel like real people. They feel like the next stage in human evolution devoid of the petty issues that plague us mere mortals though they never truly embrace their obvious superiority which makes them all the more irresistable. It's GENIUS!!!

"So what's the problem?" I hear you ask. For me, nothing. I have no problem at all. I genuinely enjoy most of Nancy's movies. The reasons are twofold. Nancy Meyers's is a much better writer/director than she gets credit for and I am shallow. I've always admitted it and I'm not ashamed. Meyer's movies are successful. Just pick a random one to look up on box office mojo: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=intern.htm and you'll see. Also, I'm not sure whether this was premeditated or not but she has tapped into a huge market. We are shallow creatures. Oh yes. Deny it all you want but you want that fucking house. You want handsome friends. You want that amazing job that pays you more than you deserve. You want to be Ann Hathaway in the Intern or Mel Gibson in What Women Want. But most of all you want their problems. You want their problems because they're not really problems at all...

Nancy has a way with words. She's been the driving force behind some truly memorable movies but I'm just not sure if there's a lot to her movies and maybe there doesn't have to be. To quote the woman herself: “Well, I don’t see a lot of movies telling stories about complicated women with real problems,” she says, “and studies tell you that’s true. So I can’t say it’s gotten better. I have to be honest with you, I think it’s gotten worse.” Amen sister!

Cheers,

G.

Whitewashing and Racism in Hollywood: My Two Cents

Whitewashing is a casting practice in the film industry of the United States in which white actors are cast in historically non-white character roles.

See that picture of Mickey Rooney? I've laughed at that... many times. Not in a funny way (at least not entirely) but in a "how the fuck did anyone think this was okay?" kind of way... You might say it was a different time but just because this happened in 1961 doesn't make it any less wrong.
Whitewashing has long been a problem in Hollywood but it has evolved into something else today. There's a quiet racism at work in the industry that shows no sign of going away. Chris Rock explains it much better than I (apologies in advance for the Jennifer Lawrence footage):

I think that's a very fair assessment of where we're at. I would like to add though that I've seen Concussion and in no fucking universe was Will Smith nomination worthy. He was good. He was his usual magnetic, charming self. Oscar worthy? Erm, no.

There continues to be a fuck-ton of accusations aimed at movies, actors, directors and as shown above, awards ceremony organisers. Many of these are justified but some are not. Some are actually complete bollocks and come from what I can only assume is some kind of liberal white guilt that means well but, as my god fearing friends would say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Here's just a few of my favourites.
                                                                   
                                          Matt Damon and The Great Wall Of China

Matt Damon has said some stupid fucking things in the recent past but I think we can all agree, he seems like a decent chap whose heart is in the right place. Last year, Damon starred in a movie called The Great Wall. Here's the clip:

Soon after the movie came out, the White Guilt Brigade piped up with their accusations of whitewashing. Now, you can argue the toss all day about white actors playing actual Asians and you'll win those arguments but when a movie comes out about a load of monsters attacking China you need to take a step back... and that really should be the end of it but never underestimate a whiney liberal. With no historical frame of reference they quickly shifted their argument in another direction: "The main role should have gone to a Chinese actor" they screamed. So let's see. A fictional story of a foreigner helping the Chinese fight off hordes of monsters should have had a Chinese lead... Why? Seriously, why? "He's white and I'm sick of seeing white people save the world" (for the record a Chinese woman does the world saving in the movie but don't let the facts get in the way of your self loathing). Then don't watch it. Watch Hero or House of Flying Daggers or Curse of the Golden Flower (that's FLOWER down the back). Hero in particular is beautiful and not a westerner in sight.

The Great Wall was a joint Chinese/American venture and as it happens the Chinese company sought out Matt Damon to play the part. Last word to the man himself: "the role was always intended to be European,” saying that “once people see that it's a monster movie and it's a historical fantasy and I didn't take a role away from a Chinese actor ... it wasn't altered because of me in any way.” The only thing you can accuse this movie of is being a bit silly. Whitewashing? Get a fucking grip!

                                                  Tilda Swinton Meets Dr. Strange

I went to see Dr. Strange and I was engrossed from start to finish. As you know by now I detest comics so I had no idea what I was going to see. The cast boasted several world class thespians (that's THESPIANS down the back) including Tilda Swinton. I've always been more fascinated by than a fan of Tilda Swinton. There's just something about her that unsettles me. Obviously it's down to the characters she plays rather than the person she is but in Dr. Strange she was completely wonderful. I loved her character. I loved her performance and she was, in my view, the best thing about the movie. I was deeply upset when she bought it (assuming she has, nobody dies at Marvel Towers) and my wife agreed as we gushed over the movie in the car on the way home. The next day, I started to look up reviews etc to see how the movie was doing and that was when I saw the accusations of whitewashing. Swinton's role should have gone to an Asian, they yelled!

Her character "The Ancient One" was originally an old Asian man. They could live with the character being female but British? Unacceptable! The MNAAA (look it up) blasted the director and the writer. Kelly Hu (who?) chimed in and you know what? I saw their point... for a while.
Swinton is far too classy for all this social media bollocks but she was upset by the accusations. She reached out to Margaret Cho, through email, for guidance. What Cho did after that was disgraceful. On a podcast she said she felt like Swinton's "house Asian" (through email? really?) and made a big deal about Swinton not wanting the emails published. Swinton got wind of this and (brilliantly) put Cho in her place by showing everyone the emails. You can read them here: http://www.vulture.com/2016/12/read-tilda-swintons-emails-to-margaret-cho-doctor-strange-controversy.html Bottom line, Cho adds nothing to the "Hollywood bad" argument. And again, I'd be in agreement but for one thing... If big bad Hollywood had gone to the source, ie the comics and cast this character accurately, this is what they would have been casting:

Cast that and don't cause controversy, I fucking dare you!!!

                                                                   Godzilla

I'm going to keep this one short. FUCK. OFF!!!!

Let's take a breath and discuss actual whitewashing. There have been some recent examples that are hilarious. My personal favourite? Emma Stone was cast as a Chinese/Hawaiian in Cameron Crowe's spectacular misfire, Aloha. That's right. They cast this lady

to play a woman of Chinese/Hawaiian decent. Aloha is a movie that spends much of its running time making no sense at all and I have to assume it does this to try to distract everyone from the fact that Emma Stone was cast in this role. It fails.

The above is impossible to top but these two come close...

 and...

I've long since grown tired of seeing Johnny Depp wearing more make up than Motley Crew and wearing stupid fucking hats but there's just something spectacularly wrong seeing him in this get up. Having endured the movie, I found no solace in his performance either. As for Jake Gyllenhall. Well, who do you get of play the Prince of Persia? Literally fucking anyone else...

                                                   Tom Cruise and The Last Samurai

When I went to see this movie in the cinema, whitewashing was a phrase I'd never heard aimed at movies. I'd seen the clip. I'm a fan of Crusie. Edward Zwick makes gorgeous looking movies. Yeah, I was always going to go see this one. The movie was a financial success and has a lot more good reviews than bad. It's interesting that a big Hollywood movie of this size has gone relatively under the radar with the whitewashy folk. Only recently has it taken flak from John Oliver in a hilarious segment about whitewashing. Why is this?

Well, everyone has a blog (ahem) a facebook page, a twitter account (I gave up on twitter in 2012) a platform to voice their rage. And boy do we love doing it. Look at me go!!! We live in a world of immediacy. It's shiny object syndrome. Why take a shot at a movie that came out fourteen years ago when we can attack Dr. Strange? It doesn't matter that these characters aren't real, we get to shout and look like we care about social justice because Tilda Swinton played a cartoon character. This is our world right now, sadly.

So is The Last Samurai whitewashing? The character of Nathan Algren is fictional and he's American. So no, no it isn't. Not even a little. If this is about you not enjoying white heroics in foreign lands I again ask you to watch something else... Seriously, Hero is amazing! Or Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. Also incredible. The rest of us will enjoy The Last Samurai for the triumphant actioner it is. Have a look at this scene:

                                                                         Dunkirk

Moving away from the east and much closer to home, Christopher Nolan hasn't escaped the white guilt crosshairs for his depiction of the events at Dunkirk during World War 2. The gripe? Whitewashing. Why? There's no Indians or Africans in the movie. Nolan has yet to comment and truly, that is the wisest course of action. You cannot reason with these people. They see problems where there aren't any and it doesn't matter that people who actually survived the event thought the movie was incredibly accurate. Oh no. You sir, Dunkirk survivor or not, are wrong.

According to John Broich, an associate professor of history at Case Western Reserve University there were "maybe a few hundred Indian soldiers" among hundreds of thousands on the beach. As far as I'm concerned that's check mate on this issue. Could there have been Indians in the movie? Sure. Did there need to be Indians in the movie? No.

As for the Africans. Again according to Broich: "soldiers from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and elsewhere were key to delaying the German attack." All manner of heroics were carried out by these brave soldiers and they made unquantifiable sacrifices. And you know what, I want to see that movie. I think I would enjoy it a great deal. Here's the thing though, Dunkirk is NOT THAT MOVIE!!! But we live in an age where facts are becoming less and less important. Feelings are all the rage and that is a dangerous place to be.

But since I brought feelings up, Dunkirk made me feel like an entitled prick. The things these people endured compared to what we complain about today... I can't verbalise how embarrassed I am by this and it's laughable that whitewashing is what some people latch on to after such a harrowing and powerful movie.

                                                      Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

I fucking loved Rogue One. It had grit, it had fun, it had action, it had amazing fx and it had a great cast. While I watched the movie and was blown away by it, it never occurred to me that the cast was so diverse. I only realised this when I took to the internet to check on reviews to see if others shared my enthusiasm. Many did but there was this other voice. A voice that made me want to throw my laptop at the wall. This voice stated: "having such a diverse cast is an obvious and cynical ploy by the studio to appeal to as many people as possible to secure as much money as possible." I just don't know how to respond to that. But let's just assume, for shits and gigs, what they're saying is true. It doesn't matter! Why? Because these guys were awesome:

If it was a cynical cash grab then cash grab away Hollywood. If you continue to hit us with brilliant characters like these two then work away I say.

It would be naïve of me not to mention money. Ridley Scott recently came under fire for his tactless quote about the movie Exodus: Gods and Kings. Scott's quote: “I can’t mount a film of this budget, where I have to rely on tax rebates in Spain, and say that my lead actor is Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such. I’m just not going to get it financed. So the question doesn’t even come up.” Ouch! Wretched comment but the fact is Christian Bale will get you financed and all movies, from An American Tale to Zombieland are made to make money.

Here's another hard to face truth. Exodus: Gods and Kings cost about $140m and made about $270m. Would it have fared better with a cast more appropriate to the story? The answer to this should be a resounding yes but in all honesty, we just don't know.

Which brings me back to Chris Rock. During his opening at the Oscars he asked for black actors to get more opportunities. And he's of course correct. It should go further though. Give people from all backgrounds and all ethnicities the same chances and choices that white actors get. That way we can avoid nonsense like John Wayne playing Genghis Khan (seriously, that happened) and it'll hopefully go some way to stopping people crying over problems where there aren't any.

"But there are problems G," I hear you say. Yes, I know but your bullshit revolution is getting in the way of actual revolution. You're bitching about Matt Damon fighting dragons in China when you should be asking why there's still a gender pay gap or worse a gender/colour pay gap. While you're agreeing with Jada for saying Will should have been nominated you're forgetting that only one black actress has ever won an academy award for best actress. And you're screaming at La La Land for being about white people like that's some sort of crime. When that didn't wash (ahem) you said it was whitewashing Jazz ... I'll let John Legend take that one: "Well, black people certainly did invent jazz, and there's a lot of wonderful black jazz musicians playing right now, and a lot of wonderful jazz musicians of other races playing right now. I don't think it should be the responsibility of one film to tell the overarching narrative of jazz. If we were relying on La La Land to do that, then clearly it doesn't tell the full story of jazz. But a filmmaker portraying a certain point of view, their perspective, then it's OK that it doesn't incorporate every perspective.

The only way it would be a shame is if it were supposed to be a representation of all jazz and all things jazz, but I think it's more from [director Damien Chazelle's] point of view. This is the story he wanted to tell. Because it's gotten so big, it's gotten that added pressure on it to be the jazz film, and if it is the jazz film, then it does underrepresent the influence of black people. But if it's just a great film from one filmmaker's point of view — it's great at doing that."

I've been called a homophobe because I've no interest in watching Brokeback Mountain (it just looks depressing) and a racist because I've no interest in watching Moonlight (it just looks depressing) those responses to my taste in movies are bonkers but also indicative of the scream first, think later world we live in.

I watched a movie a few months ago called Get Out. It's probably the most intelligent movie I've ever seen. It also happens to be a horror movie. It made me question everything about racism and it genuinely made me wonder if I'm part of the problem. And maybe I am. I'm still wrestling with it. Get Out is honest and I urge everyone to see it. We must continue to look within and ask ourselves if something truly is deserving of our rage and when it is we should scream until we are heard. Save your vitriol for when it really matters. We must not dilute actual travesties with irrational sympathy.

Cheers,

G.

Rotten or Fresh?

We're coming up on 20 years since the launch of Rotten Tomatoes and it's been in the news a fair bit in recent times. So, does Rotten Tomatoes really matter? Does it impact at all on box office returns? Or is it just a place to go out of interest/morbid curiosity?

Admit it, you've all been there. Patiently awaiting the reviews of that movie you've been looking forward to for fucking months. I do it all the time!!! Right now I'm monitoring Alien: Covenant sitting pretty on an RT score of 75% at the time of writing and a couple of weeks ago I was desperately hoping for a high score for Guardians of the Galaxy 2, also sitting pretty on 81%. But before we go any further, an explanation of rotten tomatoes is probably prudent just in case you live under a rock... or Achill Island.

Click on this link: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jaws as you can see Jaws has a rotten tomatoes score of 97%. The average rating is 9.2 out of 10 and out of 74 reviews 72 are "fresh" while 2 assholes gave it a "rotten" review. There's a few things to absorb here. 97% is an aggregate score of the reviews collected by the site. While that is a fantastic result, what you need to note is the average rating (under the tomato) Jaws gets a 9.2/10 which is staggering. There are many fresh movies that get by on an average score of 6.5/10. So that'll get you a fresh result but 6.5 ain't a 9.2 is it... here's a good example: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/phantasm_remastered_2016 Also worth looking at is the audience response. Some movies get absolutely lambasted by critics but are much more warmly received by audiences. Last years Batman V Superman (more on this later) took a critical mauling (28%) with an average score of 4.9/10 but fared better with audiences (63%) with an average score of 3.6/5: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/batman_v_superman_dawn_of_justice

Moving on. The first time I can remember any major controversies with RT was back in 2012 when it had a comment section open to the public. Christopher Nolan's Rise of the Dark Knight was imminent and the first swell of reviews were positive but, as generally happens, not everyone loved the movie. The first reviewer to dare to post anything even slightly negative, Marshall Fine, was bombarded with comments that ranged from mother's basement nerd rage to death threats. RT did the only thing they could do. They shut down the comments section. Frankly, it's worrying that people who hadn't even seen the movie felt the need to threaten this guy and it's not like he bashed the movie. He just, quite rightly, pointed out that it was the weakest of the trilogy and found some of it "nonsensical".

I could lash out at nerd rage all day but for the purposes of this blog, the question I want answered is, did rotten tomatoes collection of reviews and subsequent aggregate score (87%) have any bearing on the box office of the movie? Well let's see how much it made: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batman3.htm at just shy of $1.1bn which is a slight increase over the previous instalment which holds a higher rating, you'd have to think it didn't. If the movie had received a slew of negative reviews would it have mattered? That's open to opinion. But a movie as successful as this only makes that kind of money if a lot of people go to see it more than once. Clearly this was a well liked movie and people did go back.

Now let's look at another hugely anticipated movie, also a third part, that wasn't so warmly received. The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies. This movie sits on a rotten score of 59% which is just 1% shy of a fresh score. With an average score of 6.3/10 the critics just weren't that into it. How did it fare at the box office? http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hobbit3.htm As you can see $956m is more than enough to compensate for lukewarm reviews and the audience response was much warmer than the critical one. Again, you'd have to say that RT had little or no bearing on the general public.

So what is all the fuss about? Well back in March 2016, Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice flew into our screens and despite a decent early buzz, it was absolutely battered by critics. A couple of months ago Brett Ratner (pictured below with The Rock and Eddie Murphy) was speaking at the Sun Valley Film Festival where he described Rotten Tomatoes as “The worst thing that we have in today’s movie culture". He went on:  “I think it’s the destruction of our business. I have such respect and admiration for film criticism. When I was growing up film criticism was a real art. And there was intellect that went into that. And you would read Pauline’s Kael’s reviews, or some others, and that doesn’t exist anymore. Now it’s about a number. A compounded number of how many positives vs. negatives. Now it’s about, ‘What’s your Rotten Tomatoes score?’ And that’s sad, because the Rotten Tomatoes score was so low on Batman v Superman I think it put a cloud over a movie that was incredibly successful.”

Whatever you think about Ratner's movies, there is no doubting the man is a giant of the industry and his words matter. The problem he faces here is rotten tomatoes only post opinions by other people. RT itself doesn't have an opinion in its review section. So attacking the site's reviews means you're attacking opinions. So when Ratner says film criticism was a real art but RT is the destruction of the business, it could be argued that he's attacking the very thing he purports to admire. Or to put it another way: numbers don't make shit up, people do!

So is it accurate? Or does Ratner have a point? Well, let's do a little experiment. Think of a movie that you know to be brilliant and adored the world over. For the purposes of this blog I will pick The Godfather. I think we can all agree that meets the criteria. So what is the RT score? https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/godfather Now think of a movie you know to be utter dreck. I will run with Transformers 2. So what is the RT score? https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_revenge_of_the_fallen Now think of a movie that you fucking adore but you know is a terrible movie. I'm gonna go with Friday the 13th part 2. What's the score? https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/friday_the_13th_part_2 As far as I'm concerned those three results are absolutely spot on.

Another superb acid test as to the validity of RT that you can do in your own time? The movies of M. Night Shyamalan. I mean, it's pretty fucking spot on even if I enjoy some of the ones that were panned...

Bottom line, if film makers are worried about a fucking movie review site it's a good thing. Because your movies will get reviewed, there will be an aggregate score and if your movie is terrible the score will reflect this. If you want to avoid this, MAKE BETTER MOVIES!!! Brett Ratner is responsible for the Rush Hour trilogy...

Cheers,

G.

Tone Block?

A friend of mine is going to see the RTE Orchestra play along with the 90's smash hit movie Independence Day next month. I've watched this orchestra do the same for Return of the King (more on ROTK later) and they are amazing. So I thought about going to the ID4 gig myself... for about 3 seconds. See, I watched the movie pretty recently in preparation for a viewing of the sequel. As I watched I was solidly entertained opening 20 minutes or so. But as the movie went on something just wasn't sitting right with me. I couldn't place it. Then suddenly it hit me, or rather Will Smith hits an alien in the face and quips "Now that's what I call a Close Encounter" before lighting up a cigar.

After half of the world has been blown to smithereens and countless lives have been lost, jokes and a general "yee haw" attitude permeates the movie. The (appalling) sequel doesn't deviate from this either. "They like to get the landmarks" says Jeff Goldblum in the face of horrific destruction. It's a strange reaction at best.

Compare that to Spielberg's take on War of the Worlds, a very similar movie to ID4. A bridge explodes and a terrified Dakota Fanning screams "Is it the terrorists?" as Tom Cruise floors it in the vehicle looking terrified. Later Dakota sees something no kid should see. No "snappy" dialogue here. Take a look:

Tone. It's a thing and it seems to be getting lost among spectacle. That's not to say War of the Worlds doesn't have its fair share of special fx. It really does, many of them are incredible but how the actors react is hugely important. If Tom Cruise had said "I'm just eager to whoop ET's ass" in this movie it would have been completely wrong. When Will Smith says it in Independence Day it's met with a chorus of laughter from his air force buddies. It leaves me more than a bit confused. But there are other examples of this.

                                             Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Before I get into this, I want to state for the record that I adore this movie and this is a quibble, not a deal breaker for me. For the most part, the people in this movie react as you'd expect to the horrific destruction thrown at them from the Mordor hordes. But two of our heroes, Legolas and Gimli, decide to make a game out of all the killing. This started in the previous instalment at the battle of Helm's Deep and is equally distracting in that one. But in ROTK the Pelennor Fields are literally red with blood. King Theodyn led the Rohirrim charge "FOR DEATH". And boy is there death on these fields. But here comes Elfy and Dwarfy for some fun and frolics. It's distracting! Check it out:

                                                                     Titanic

Perhaps the most tonally jarring movie ever made, Titanic does such an incredible job of showing you the devastating events of that fateful night that pitting that against the backdrop of a love story really shouldn't work and, for me at least, it doesn't. Don't get me wrong, Titanic is a movie I can watch and enjoy on a technical level and I get sucked into much of what happens but the dollops of romance just don't feel appropriate. It's difficult to hold onto a love story with the sounds of 1500 people dying nearby.

The things that happen on the ship in the days before the sinking are on some level, fun. But when you know what's coming it just feels a little bit off. The movie wants you to care for these two characters so much that you're devastated when one of them eventually dies. When Jack and Rose kiss at the front of the Titanic the scene ends with a stark reminder of what awaits them and it's truly chilling. Take a look:



By the time Leo succumbs to the cold of the Atlantic, we've witnessed so much death that I was all out of sadness for these two. I mean, yeah I felt bad for them but hearing the constant screams of terrified and dying people loomed large and was far more impactful than the death of Jack Dawson.

There's a line delivered by the late, great Bill Paxton near the end of the movie, "Three years I've thought of nothing except Titanic, but I never got it, I never let it in." One could argue that despite James Cameron's obsession with the ill fated ocean liner, perhaps he doesn't quite get it either...

                                                                    Man of Steel
One of the many criticisms thrown at MOS is the wanton destruction and general disregard for life in the movie. As it happens, this was a huge plot point for the sequel but at the time nobody had any idea that this was the way things were going to go, I'm not even convinced the film makers knew... But as a guy who enjoys these movies I still have an issue with the moment when Lois and Superman first kiss. It happens toward the end of the movie and, well, just watch:

So again we have countless dead among the ruins of Metropolis and this is the moment when they decide to kiss. The dialogue after doesn't help either. It really shouldn't have been in there at all but with all the dazzling spectacle going on, perhaps they felt a "human" moment was needed. This was not the way to go.

There are movies that set out to make you laugh and feel uncomfortable at the same time. Some of these movies are terrific. Get Out is rife with it, Creep is another and The Gift rounds out a solid trilogy of "don't wanna see but can't look away" movies. Here's a very simple but very effective scene from Creep:

  

That's a superb example of how a movie can make us laugh, feel uncomfortable and be a little scared all at once but crucially, there's no ill conceived comedy or inappropriate reaction to genuinely disturbing happenings.

Get Out makes you question whether or not you are racist and has more dark humour (no pun intended) than I could actually take. A brave stance for sure and I'm glad the movie is reviewing well and has been accepted by a large audience. The Gift is a little more conventional but will definitely stay with you.

So there's my little rant for the day. Feel free to share your tonally awkward movies or let me know if you agree or disagree.

Cheers,

G.

Games Played and Enjoyed... Mostly

Been a while since I've blogged about crap that doesn't matter so here I go again. I managed to plough through some great games and one terrible one since Batman Arkham Knight. I'll start with a great one.

                                                         Uncharted 4: A Thief's End

You've probably played at least one Uncharted game before and assuming you have, you know exactly what to expect here. Tomb Raider-esque gameplay, gorgeous graphics, solid voice acting, clever (if delicate) puzzles and shooting... lots of shooting. Oh and Crash Bandicoot! Seriously, he's in there. I'll come back to that!

Mercifully not called Drake's 4tune, Uncharted 4 starts in a prison. Nathan Drake is there, more or less by choice scoping out a job. He's in there with his older brother and in usual Nathan Drake fashion, things turn to shit and the brother is shot and killed... It is here that I will leave the plot as I don't want to ruin anything for you.

Suffice to say, Uncharted 4 is probably the best looking video game I've ever seen. That shouldn't count for much but when something looks this dazzling, it deserves to be praised. Whether it's mountain vistas or deep in the catacombs, graphically Uncharted 4 is a triumph. It doesn't have the same level as isolation as something like Skyrim but then Uncharted has never been a free roaming adventure. It gives a sense of scale but keeps you very much on a trail. A distractingly beautiful trail but a trail nonetheless.

There is an option to play the game with stealth or go in guns blazing. You'll probably end up killing as many assholes as possible with stealth before being caught and going all Rambo on whomever remains. I found this the most satisfying way to play.

There's also a pretty serious attempt by the writers to add depth to the characters and while it is a bit heavy handed, it's a welcome addition. I have nothing but praise for Uncharted 4. If this is the end, it certainly satisfied me. If the smell of cash gets too much for Naught Dog, I'd be happy to jump on for Uncharted 5. If you own a PS4 and you like adventure games, this is an absolute must own!

Oooh I almost forgot, there's a wonderful scene early in the game where our charming hero turns on a PS1 and plays Crash Bandicoot...awesomely, you play on his behalf. It really is quite clever because as much fun as it is, it also confirms that games are much better now...
Score: 9/10 Trophy count: 21%

                                                                   DOOM

There was a definite fear factor involved when I loaded up the latest installment of DOOM. The old games, you see, are still wonderful. They look dated now but it matters not. Seeing a Doom creature or even a Doom key card immediately brings back memories. All of them good. The sounds of distant creatures, the aggression of the beasts not just against you but against each other. The genius of the level design and the simplicity of the premise: just shoot anything that moves. Doom may be the most beloved franchise in gaming history. Even the (unfairly) maligned Doom 3 has now got a sizable following. So yes, there was trepidation when I loaded up my new Doom. It lasted about 30 seconds...

Doom immediately has you killing and maiming creatures in all manner of industrious ways and honestly, the intensity of those old games is replicated and at times, even surpassed. Doom is a fucking delight. Again, the beauty is in the simplicity. If it moves, kill it. There are diversions and additions, power ups and even a "plot" but you didn't come here for any of that. You came here to kill monsters. Here's a random clip of the joys within:

If I had one gripe with Doom it'd be that some of the later bosses were extremely tough but that could just be me being a rubbish gamer and truth be told a little patience was all I needed to overcome those difficulties. Bottom line, if you like old Doom you'll like new Doom. One tip, turn all background music off (fucking awful death metal shite) it's way more atmospheric hearing the noises of creatures and victims in the distance.
Score 9/10 Trophy Count: 31%

                                                Duke Nukem 20th Anniversary

Following on from the state of the art brilliance of Doom 4 I picked up and chewed through Duke Nukem's brilliant 20th Anniversary re-release. So what do you get? You get four classic Duke games to blast your way through, all of the trade mark non pc Duke comments are present and correct. You also get a brand new fifth episode made by the original designers and a few other tech bells and whistles that mean nothing to me. The question is, does it hold up? The answer is a resounding yes!!! Like classic Doom, Duke Nukem will always be brilliant. Sure, it's dated but the level design is bliss and the shoot first ask later attitude is wonderfully satisfying. Duke is still a chauvinist, too old to change him now but he kicks alien ass like no other and while he is very much of his time, the new fifth episode will have you pining for a Duke game update in the same vein as Doom... here's hoping!
Score: 8/10 Trophy Count: 73%

                                                               Resident Evil 6

Where to start with this? They can't all be winners but if you were let down by RE5 you'll be positively beaten down by this entry. Resident Evil 6 is terrible. Really fucking awful. The graphics are fine and some of the weapons are fun but that's where the positive ends. I'm not sure if it's the stupidly over the top action sequences, the terrible dialogue (I know RE has always had terrible dialogue but where it used to be charming, now it's rage inducing) or maybe it's just that this whole enterprise just isn't in any way scary, creepy or interesting. It's really hard to know where to start. I don't know how they could have got it so spectacularly wrong. Is there any joy to be had in using so many classic characters? Eva, Chris, Leon to name but a few... the answer is a hard NO! They're all terrible.

Plot: There's a virus. It mutates people... then it mutates on top of the mutations until you just don't care. Anyway, your job is to kill the hordes of undead using different characters from the RE stable and watch as the game ties up all the different story threads... Fuck me it's a chore! I'm about 70% of the way through, I just don't know if I can see it through to the end. AVOID!!!!
Score: 3/10 Trophy Count:14%

                                                                       Outlast

If RE6 couldn't deliver anything resembling survival horror thrills, Outlast sure as fuck did. Again, the premise is simple: Go to creepy hospital, record your findings, try not to get killed by the horribleness within. Make no mistake, things will try to kill you in this hospital. Most of the attackers are human, there's a "Nemesis from RE3" type of character that's also best avoided and one or two other surprises but the best part of this game is that you don't have any weapons. You have a video camera. You take notes and you record, sometimes to be a journalist, sometimes to use the light supplied by the camera in the darkness.

                          
                           
Outlast is an effective shocker. It is similar to Alien Isolation (though not quite as good) and it doesn't overstay its welcome. I did it in about six hours, a good gamer could easily peel an hour or two off that but while you're playing you will be scared and fully immersed. I wouldn't be paying more than a tenner but it is certainly worth a dip at the right price!
Score: 8/10 Trophy Count: 24%
                                                               Final Fantasy VIISomeone told me a few months ago that FFVII was released on PS4... "whatever" was my response. Then they mentioned trophies.... I had to have them all. And down the rabbit hole I went. It's easy to forget what a cast-iron classic FFVII really is. A victim of it's success it became "cool" to mock it or say FFVI is waaaaay better. People like this should spend less time comparing and more time enjoying. But I digress, getting into FFVII is really, really, easy. The game lures you in with easy battles and an enjoyable story. Materia is still genius and a crucial part of the enjoyment of the game. Limit breaks are still wonderful. There is an option to play the game constantly with limit breaks, at 3 times the speed or without the interruption of random battles. All three of these options can be turned on and off with the touch of a button and you will use them at some point.

But ultimately it was the trophies that brought me back. In my previous playthroughs, I'd never beaten Ruby or Emerald weapon.

Ruby, I'd always found particularly galling insofar as, I'd spend literally hours going toe to toe and Ruby would just straight up cheat by disappearing one or two of my characters and leaving me alone. I learned to use this to my advantage this time around and armed with the proper materia and Knights of the Round I managed to defeat the big fucker! But I did need Knights of the Round and I did need it fully levelled up! And getting it is no easy task!

Knights of the Round is on an island that is only accessible via a Golden Chocobo. This is also something that I didn't bother with on my previous playthroughs but I wanted those trophies and thusly, I needed a Golden Chocobo. Thank frack for a guy on YouTube who showed me a way of doing it really quickly. I won't post here in case he doesn't want me to but if you want to know how, contact me and I'll hook you up.

There were other enjoyable things I did which I hadn't bothered with before. I defeated Emerald Weapon, I got everyone's final limit breaks and I got Don Corneo to pick me over the girls. I also went on a date with Barret which was hilarious and they were tough trophies to get! But I got them and I was most pleased.

One trophy that will boil your piss is the one named "Coming up all nines". This requires you to earn 99,999,999 gil. My initial feeling was that this was a pisstake and impossible! it isn't impossible but it does require grinding. You'll need 72 or so fully raised "All materias" and you'll need to sell them all. Sounds like a lot of work but with the game sped up and grinding in the northern crater where you'll mind magical pots and assuming you've got enough elixirs to throw at them (see below) it is doable in a few hours. There is a trick to getting 99 elixirs and instructions are readily available online...

Final Fantasy VII is just a great game to revisit. Sephiroth is still an amazing villain, the game still sucks you in and the score is just as stirring as it ever was. If you do go back in and want all the trophies, pay close attention to the online guides as it's easy to miss a couple of them. Save often and you should be fine.
Score: 10/10 Trophy Count: 100%

Next I'll be playing Rise of the Tomb Raider and after that I expect it'll be The Last Guardian (assuming they don't delay it for PlayStation 5). I'm sure I'll squeeze a couple more in before I come back. Happy gaming!

Cheers,

G.