Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Pokémon Sword (2019 Video Game)
3/10
Gamefreak used Pokemon Sword. It's not very effective...
12 December 2019
This review will be split in two main parts, the first will be an out of context review, meaning I will review the game simply as it stands on it's own. This is for people who aren't necessarily huge Pokemon fans and don't care about how the game fits into a larger gaming context. The second part will be an in context review where i look at how the game reflects off of my expectations as a fan and game consumer. To finish I will talk briefly about what i hope to get from future games in the series.

Out of Context Review: Let us start out positively. The game runs as game freak wants it to run. I noticed no frame drops or slow downs in the 35 hours i have played so far. No game crashes, no install issues, the game works (is the bar low enough?) The new Pokemon in the game are fine, for the most part. I should point out here that I am normally highly critical of most new Pokemon so the fact that I actually found about 30% of them likable is surprising. However the middle and final stage evolutions for the 3 starter Pokemon are all incredibly disappointing, becoming all too humanoid and off putting by the time I was a few hours into the game. When you add to this that some new Pokemon are version exclusive as always, that there are a limited number of Pokemon available to catch from older games, that legendary Pokemon aren't available to catch until very late in the game, that most of the coolest Pokemon either don't evolve or evolve once into some weird looking thing, I found it very hard to find 6 fully evolved Pokemon that i wanted on my team to join in my adventure.

So how is the adventure? well... it's rather boring. The game suffers from endless pauses to gameplay so that one-note characters can talk about things that I don't care about or teach me things that i already know. There are far too many cases of me just wanting to get to the end of a conversation, it finally ending, me taking 3 steps, and a new conversation starting automatically. I found myself begging the game to set me free and just let me play. When I finally made it to the open Wild Area of the game I thought that I might have gotten my wish but there just isn't much to do in this area. There are wild Pokemon, obviously, and the camera is finally free and fully controllable, but ultimately it just feels like you're passing through to get to the next town. Graphically the game varies massively, from stunning caves and forrests to the down right ugly textures found in the Wild Area, I found myself happily surprised on occasion but mostly shaking my head at pixelated models and muddy backgrounds. Model animations are oddly stiff and characters frequently walk and turn in place, battle animations also feel lacking and game music also leaves much to be desired. The game's structure is overwhelmingly linear, outside of the wild area. There are zero decisions to make as to where you want to go, there is no exploration and there are no dungeons to get through. You literally just walk from one town to the next doing what you're told. If you try to go the wrong way you will be stopped by a dumb looking member of the badly named team "YEll" every time. This is their main function in the game, no joke, apart from blocking your way at every turn, they don't do much of anything in the game, which i was happy about because as I said, they're real stupid.

Pokemon Sword is also not a challenging game. During my playthrough I made an attempt to keep myself under levelled by not catching very many Pokemon and I picked the starter with a dissadvantage in the first two gyms. Although this kept the game more interesting than it would otherwise have been during the first half, I only ever lost one battle because I didn't want to walk back and heal up before a gym. When you finally make it to the final league, the game is once again interrupted to wrap up the tedious story that takes a weird turn out of the blue and lets you catch the strongest Pokemon in the game (easily, with a single Pokeball) right before the title match, just in case the game wasn't easy enough. In the end, Pokemon Sword fails on story and technical criteria while adding very little to gameplay and was overall hugely disappointing.

In Context Review: I am a huge Pokemon fan. fan of the anime, fan of the trading card game and of course a fan of the games. I got my first Gameboy advanced with Pokemon leaf green which is my favourite game to this day. I have since played Pokemon Ruby, White, Y, Omega Sapphire, Sun on Nintendo hardware and bought a Switch console in part to play Let's go Pikachu. If you add the time and money spent watching and re-watching the animated series on VHS, renting and watching the movies, collecting and trading hundreds (if not thousands) of cards, replaying games, and playing ROMs on emulators, I have invested a lot (some might say far too much) in this franchise.

I Remember being very impressed with the jump from the DS systems to the 3DS systems with Pokemon X and Y having over 450 Pokemon included all with 3D models and spread evenly throughout the game to make the world feel real. With the inclusion of the original starters for nostalgia and the random trades to make filling the Pokedex a reality, it seemed like a great game. So when it came to making the next jump, to a Nintendo home console, i was excited.

The first game I played on the Switch was Pokemon Let's go Pikachu which was surprisingly enjoyable despite the glaring omission of wild battles, so i was primed for their return in the next game in the series. As the first trailers for Pokemon Sword and Shield were revealed, I didn't see much to get excited about. Not a ton of cool new Pokemon, not a discernible improvements in graphics, animations of world building. The new Dynamax feature didn't interest me (and turns out to not be such a big deal, which i was actually happy about.) Then the news broke that not every previous Pokemon would be featured in the game, as in, would not be designed into the game, not even to trade over from older games, simply not there. My initial reaction was something like "well that's okay as long as the games are good, I understand they can't do everything with limited time and game size, and i'm sure they'll at least have my favourites and still probably about 600 total" however as i read and considered other reactions i realised that it shouldn't matter whether MY favourites were included if it meant others weren't, that just seemed selfish. As more news broke and the developers claimed that work had to be focused on new animations and model and that was the reason for the reduction in Pokemon, despite animations and models looking all too familiar, my scepticism grew. Then i remembered Pokemon X and Y, released in 2013 for a much much weaker system had 457 different Pokemon not including different forms or mega evolutions. Then I remembered that games for home consoles are more expensive so the new game would cost about 50% more than previous titles. Then I remembered that Pokemon is the most profitable multi-media franchise in history and that far less profitable games look way better and don't seem to recycle models or animations from previous games. If the developers needed more time or money or programmers, they have no excuse for not investing it to make the best games possible. They don't need to half ass development and they don't need to lie about why content is missing, they have the money and resources to make it better. In the end, there are (only) 400 Pokemon in the game and somehow they have left out almost all of my favourites (my poor Dragonite.) I have no idea where all those resources went, why wasn't the whole game open world like the Wild Area? why did the Wild Area look so much worse than the rest of the game? How can the biggest game series in history, 6 years in the future, on more powerful hardware have less game content without even providing a substantial improvement to graphics, story, game length or anything else. Where have those resources gone?

Pokemon: Breath of the Wild I hope Game freak takes some time off to reconsider the direction of the series instead of spitting out one game a year. I would be okay to see sequels to Let's Go or even Generation 4 remakes as long as the next new game is a substantial upgrade from what we got this year. I want the upgrade to be as large as the jump to the 3DS. Give me a fully open world game, give me a huge world to explore, give me 18 gyms, one for each type, why not? Make them scale to the player so you can take them on in any order. Give me 900 free roaming Pokemon in the over-world and make a seamless transition to encounters and battles. I basically want Pokemon to go the way that Zelda did in Breath of the Wild. I don't even care if they steal their engine, it looks and runs great on the Switch, they can even steal the map, I don't care, just add a few Pokemon centers, gyms, wild Pokemon and trainers, a league to finish, keep the climbing and swimming mechanics and just set me free in the world of Pokemon. Even if you don't want this exactly, there is no reason why we should be expecting anything less than a game of this scope.
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ad Astra (2019)
3/10
Terrible script, pretty visuals.
24 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Okay so we're gonna make a movie where some army people tell Brad Pitt he needs to go to space and then along the way he meets other people who tell him where he needs to go, and the movie will have a built in device in which Brad Pitt talks straight to the camera explaining exactly what he's doing and how he feels about it and then on top of that we will add narration in which Brad Pitt tells us what he's really doing and how he really feels about it, just so no one is confused. There will be a scene where he arrives at the moon and it looks exactly like an airport on earth and the audience will be like "Oh my god, look there's a Starbucks on the moon and there's a subway, It's exactly like Earth" and then the narration will be like "Look at this moon airport, its terrible, it's just like earth, I hate it" And that's when a guy shows up and explains to Brad Pitt how the moon has disputed territory and how there are moon pirates, even though Brad Pitt lives in this world and would probably know this, the audience doesn't but now they do. And then they get on a moon rover and then look here's some moon pirates and then oh look they're gone again. And we'll hire Donald Sutherland, but not for an entire movie shoot, for about a week, we'll see how far we get. we'll just write him out and never mention him again, it'll be fine. And we'll hire Liv Tyler but make sure she doesn't have any dialogue scenes. So Brad Pitt finds out that his dad is alive "somewhere near Neptune" and not dead as he previously thought. And his first question isn't "what information leads you to think he's still alive?" it's not "what do you mean somewhere near Neptune?", "why do you think he's responsible for crazy antimatter explosions that somehow don't blow his ship but affect us here equally on earth, moon and mars?" or "why do I need to travel in person, first to the moon, then to mars to send what is essentially an encrypted voicemail?" his reaction is essentially just to agree even though we later find out that he doesn't believe that his dad is responsible, that they are essentially making it up to cover themselves. Also we'll add a scene near the beginning where Brad Pitt opens a video message from his dad from when he was a child and Tommy Lee Jones will be his dad and his acting will be hilariously terrible and take the audience right out of the movie.

Visuals will be pretty good though.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Unbelievably, this movie lives up to the hype
25 April 2018
This is a non-spoiler review. I recommend watching the film without reading any reviews, but if you insist, here we go.

I'm not sure that I have ever been more excited to see a movie, despite being just a casual fan of the MCU (I've seen them all and like quite a few of them) The Winter Soldier and Iron Man being my favorites. (none of them rate above an 8/10 for me, they all fall in the 6-8 range). I stayed well away from tv-spots, interviews and early reactions, got the earliest ticket to the biggest screen in town and I am so glad that I did. This movie not only lives up to the unbelievable hype, but is also the best entry in the series to date.

The first 45-50 minutes of this movie is some of the sharpest, fumiest, action-packiest entertainment i've ever witnessed, it just doesn't slow down, and right when you think it does, it whips right back into it. The first act of this movie is as good as any third act in any comic book movie, accept funnier. If you didn't come for a laugh however, fear not, the movie eventually does take a breath to cover the more weighty parts. Speaking of taking breaths, the effects in the film are outstanding, almost every scene has something that impressed me, be it an establishing shot, a Raccoon closeup or a comic-come-to-life action extravaganza.

Okay so how is the action? Picture the hand to hand combat from The Winter Soldier, the airport scene from Civil War and the battle for New York from the first Avengers, now imagine that they are all happening at once. Although the latter two obviously have the biggest influence because of the scale this movie is on, there is an added element this time around, and one that has been missing for far too long: stakes. Red, juicy stakes and with an extra dose of salt.

Okay but the characters, how are the characters? First of all... they are great. The insurmountable task of balancing, what, 40 A-list actors? (holy shit that's a big cast) is pulled off effortlessly by the directors. Of course there are characters that get less screen-time than i would have liked, such is the nature of the movie, Shuri in particular was a let down since i came out of Black Panther really loving that character, but hey, i understand. Thor was a standout for me, Chris Hemsworth was simply magnificent throughout, and after such a perfect portrayal in Ragnarock, somehow outdoes himself.

This movie made me feel what i think a lot of people felt when watching The Avengers for the first time, personally I don't love that movie, I love bits in it, but as a whole I "only" like it. But every 5 minutes of this movie I felt myself smiling, laughing out load, wanting to stand up and cheer in a way that movies usually dont make me, I was hooked in every sense.

For this reason I have decided to rate it, again "only" a 9 out of 10 (which i pretty high for me) because i simply can't yet know how much i was simply caught up in the moment. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with getting caught up in the moment, but I want to see it again to see how it plays when i know the outcome and am not constantly out of breath. Watching Age of Ultron for the second time, i didn't love it as much as I did the first time (although i still like that movie more than most) so my score right now lies between a 9 and a 10 and a second viewing will decide on which side it falls.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Big Short (2015)
9/10
A Film Everyone Should Be Forced to Watch
28 January 2016
The Big Short (2015)

Adapted from the book by Michael Lewis, The Big Short is the true story of the guys who predicted the eventual crash of the US housing market in the mid 2000's, and if that sounds like the most boring movie you've ever heard of, don't worry, you're dead wrong. Directed by Adam McKay and starring Christian Bale, Ryan Gosling, Steve Carell and Brad Pitt, this is one of the funniest and one of the craziest films of the last year, and at the same time, probably the most infuriating film I have ever seen.

One of the best things that this film is able to accomplish, is to break down extremely complicated Wall street jargon and financial principles into everyday language so that everyone can understand them. This is effective for two reasons. Number one; you don't need to be educated on the topic beforehand, which makes this movie accessible to anyone willing to pay attention (and you really do need to pay attention to be able to follow). I have never had an economics lesson in my life, I had no idea what a sub-prime mortgage was, no idea what a credit default swap was, but this movie has a very efficient, funny and direct way of explaining these concepts to the point where I would recommend this flick on pure educational value alone. (Especially if this does NOT interest you.) Number two; it makes it absolutely crystal clear the kind of slimy, disgusting, unconscionable fraud that was taking place right in front of everyone, the kind of criminal activity that went completely unpunished and the blatant outrage that the taxpayers were then asked to pay for the worldwide consequences of those actions. And on top, the film does all of this while being consistently funny throughout its two hour, ten-minute run time.

The Big Short is first and foremost an insane movie. From the way it's directed with documentary-like camera work, narration and the breaking of the fourth wall (talking to the camera), to the risky, yet brilliant premise of mixing such dry subject matter with hilarious satire. Also, bear in mind that the film is technically listed as a drama and although I found it to be very funny, not everyone will. While most of it worked for me I will admit that the purposefully crappy camera- work (we're talking crash zooms, extreme close ups and continual movement of the camera) got to be slightly over the top at certain points and I wish that McKay would've turned it down a notch. However, the craziness is necessary to the story, the fact that this could happen is crazy, that everyone knew what they were doing and did nothing to prevent what was coming is absolutely crazy, and if the film wasn't also crazy I'm not sure it would be possible to tell this story in a way that was entertaining, understandable and historically accurate.

The acting throughout the movie is phenomenal. Christian Bale as usual is great, Ryan Gosling, fantastic, and Steve Carell, probably the best he's ever been. Brad Pitt gets slightly less to do on screen, but he, as well as the many other actors that feature in the film, also does a fine job. (Pitt was also a producer on the project.)

The Big Short is a film that everyone should be forced to watch (yes I really mean forced, just look at what they did to the world, just take a look) it's funny, it's devastating, and the more you think about it, the angrier you'll get. This is a film not just of Paramount Pictures, but of paramount importance.

The Big Short: 9/10
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Steve Jobs (2015)
7/10
Not The Most Efficient Animal
27 January 2016
Steve Jobs (2015)

The third movie, since his death in 2011, which takes both name and inspiration from the late co-founder and CEO of Apple inc. Steve Jobs. (and no, that's not even counting documentaries, TV movies or series.) The difference this time; it's actually pretty good. Directed by Danny Boyle, the film explores the personality of Jobs through the events that take place backstage at three product launches over a span of fourteen years from 1984 to 1998.

The masterfully written screenplay from Aaron Sorkin is brought to life by the brilliant cast including Michael Fassbender in the titular role, nominated for best actor and rightfully so, Kate Winslet who brings both wisdom and humour in her banter with Jobs, Seth Rogen who thankfully turns the humour down to a two and the acting up to a ten, and Jeff Daniels who's all too short scenes were a personal highpoint for the movie.

The film itself is very wordy. If you know of Sorkin's work, you'll know what I mean (yes hallways, yes arguments yes clever witty dialogue). This is not a film where much happens, it's a film built on interaction between characters and you'll need to prepare for that if you're expecting sh*t to go down, because it doesn't. They talk and they talk, and the talking is great, but if the acting and writing isn't enough to entertain you, if you came for the car chases and the gunfights, you came to the wrong place.

However, my primary issue with the film lies in the following; at about the eighty minute mark, after we've seen the first two acts of the film, first off, we know the structure of the movie now, we know how the rest is going to play out, we know he's going to have to talk to Hertzfeld, we know he'll talk to Woz, oh and where's Jeff Daniels? There he is, just in time. It became too convenient for the story and a little predictable which I was disappointed with. Secondly, the entire movie is a setup, a build towards three product announcements, and when the film keeps building and resetting, building and resetting, it can get somewhat exhausting, especially with a two-hour-plus runtime. I just didn't feel that "YES!" moment I wanted to feel at the end.

That being said, the film isn't about the products, it's about the man behind them, and by the end I really did get a sense of who this guy was and what drove him. (like, I've always had a grudge against apple because their devices are, as they say, "closed end-to-end" which they address in the movie and which I found very interesting.) I felt like all of the characters were perfectly interesting, but I would have liked to have seen them wrapped up in a more interesting narrative.

The film is shot on 16mm, 35mm and in digital and changes as we progress through time, an interesting and appropriate choice, so don't be worried if you sit down and it looks like you're watching television from the 80's. The score is enthralling and enhances the story in just the right way, particularly in one scene between Fassbender and Daniels which mashes up multiple conversations using exceptional editing. (This was the "YES!" moment I was looking for.)

In the end, Steve Jobs is a great movie that unfortunately just isn't as enjoyable as it is good. Imagine your favourite movie trilogy, now take the best 40 minutes of each movie and put them together as one. It's still good, just not the same, it's missing that connective tissue that if added would make it perfect.

Steve Jobs: 7.2/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Revenant (I) (2015)
8/10
How Much Pain Can DiCaprio Take?
22 January 2016
The Revenant (2015)

Directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu The Revenant follows the true story of the frontiersman Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) who was raped by a wild Grizzly Bear (no not really, just attacked, although in some shots it... never mind, lets just say he's hurt very badly) and left for dead in the wilderness in the 1820's.

From its opening, the film establishes a cold and brutal environment seen through beautiful long takes and stunning, vivid landscapes, which all work together to convey a tremendously unsettling unpredictability from start to finish. Inarritu clearly utilises the skills he picked up from Birdman and puts them to even better use here. This is a cinematic film in every sense of the word from its incredibly wide and immersive visuals which, at times, make you feel surrounded by action, to its loud, at some points, booming score and terrific performances.

Speaking of which, if this is the film that finally gets Leo that Oscar, I for one will be happy. He is perfect. His co-star Tom Hardy demonstrates an unusually cruel yet as usual hard to understand performance, I must admit the subtitles at my screening were for once a welcomed aide in deciphering the Hardy grumble. That being said, together with Domhnall Gleeson (who by the way has probably had the best year of his career already) who also does a great job in this movie, the cast all round was pretty spectacular.

Okay, now to some of the bad. First off, it's long... very long. At two hours and thirty-six minutes the movie does test the viewers patients, especially when every scene is colder and more painful than the one before. However if you enjoy watching Leonardo DiCaprio going from a bad situation to a worse for 156 minutes, this won't bother you. I will admit that the film slows down at a point where I felt it didn't need to and so begins to drag, but DiCaprio's performance was strong enough to keep me engaged through the entire run time, however I also have to acknowledge that this won't be the case for everyone.

Secondly, in at least two dialogue scenes, the person talking was clearly not the voice we were hearing, since the sound and the moving mouth were completely out of sync. I'm not quite sure if this was a stylistic choice, since the likelihood of it having accidental slipped through editing seems unimaginable, but In any event, it completely pulled my attention away from the film and made me wonder what the hell was going on.

In truth, this is a film unlike any that I've ever seen; the visuals alone are incredible to the point where I have no idea how they were able to capture them with a camera. (I mean the bear scene, how did they film that? No seriously... how? Watch it, tell me, I need an answer.) If that isn't impressive enough it is worth pointing out that the movie was made without the use of studio lighting, that means: the sun, the moon, live fires and that's it. Additionally you will never have the right to feel cold after watching this film, ever. However cold you think you could be, Hugh Glass was probably colder. It is abundantly clear that this movie was made for the big screen and demands to be viewed as such, so go watch it, go watch it big.

The Revenant: 8.4/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed