Team CeX smashed it at i57 last weekend where they came out top in the DOTA2 tournament. Massive congrats to the team and thanks to all their supporters!
ORIGINAL ARTICLE:
Want to see the Team CeX e-sports teams in action this weekend? We cleaned up at the last Counter Strike Open at i56 and we'll be at Birmingham's NEC this weekend for Insomnia57 to compete in the Counter Strike, DOTA2 and Street Fighter V tournaments!
Can't make it? Don't worry, you can watch all the action HERE.
Team CeX are:
CS:GO Team:
Andrew "Resu" Robson
Carl "Peggyyyyy" Kneale
Charley "Charley" Walker
Jonathan "Sheekey" Sheekey
Kristians “CINDER” Bogdanovs
Dota2 Team:
Ross "Welp" Pritchard
Alder "Beesa" Beano
Lewis "Kundral" Turner
Robert "Rime" Pratt
Cai "Cook" Davies
Street Fighter V players:
Kieran Reynolds
Katy "CarnagePrincess" Gardner
Ali "TurkishHand" Yildirim
Interested in representing Team CeX in your favourite competitive game? Get in contact with us and let us know.
Out on Xbox One on April 5th, Quantum Break by Remedy is a game that is so good at each individual aspect that when it changes it, it leaves you wanting more of the same. Imagine you’re sitting there playing the hottest new release and the gameplay has reached its climax. They’ve found your location and have swarmed on you. You’re surrounded. Utilising your unique abilities, you slow time around them, create ripples and domes. Shoot a magazine of bullets into that time and when the dome collapses it causes a massive explosion taking out a couple of enemies. But while that’s happening, you’ve already moved on the next enemy whizzing by their bullets to get behind them and switch to your shotgun. With one pull of the trigger the camera focuses on the last enemy falling in slow motion, and then you take a few steps away and a cut-scene plays. Then, a live-action episode plays for the next twenty-five minutes. It’s jarring and really always leaves you wanting more.
This isn’t a bad thing. In fact, the developers do an incredible job at everything. But due to their taking of chances, it can feel like it gets in its own way. If you’ve played a Remedy game before then you know to expect heavy narrative. Don’t expect 12 hours of running from area to area constantly shooting at ever-stronger enemies. This is a game that cares about pace, it cares about making every encounter feel unique and different to every other one you’ll face throughout your 10 or so hours.
You play a vast majority of the game as Jack Joyce who’s best friend and brother find a way to create a time-travel device. Things go awry though and the explosion gives both you and your friend Paul Serene powers. It’s not that simple though as the fractures in time are not good and as the game progresses they become more frequent and the inevitability of time stopping altogether is fast approaching. Serene though, knowing that this is coming uses his company Monarch to research a way to move through this permanence. Jack Joyce wants to stop him as well as fix time before its too late.
It’s a complicated story that is given its time to be explained by moments of exploration while the story unfolds, introducing cut-scenes as well as live-action episodes at the end of each act. There are four episodes in all that will take just over an hour. While this may feel like it gets in the way, they are incredibly well produced, feeling not out of place in a prime-time slot on American TV. Acting is impressive from an impressive cast and while the plot can feel a bit hokey, it’s all written and delivered will enough to ever air on embarrassing. They can be skipped of course and even though the live-action is centred on secondary characters, it helps reinforce the surrounding subplots and scenarios without forcing them into the game itself.
The game is heavily focused on the story and this means you won’t spend a huge amount of time shooting and utilising your powers. This is the game's biggest downfall due to the simple fact that they don't give you more of it all. I would have loved a wave based system or challenge maps where you could play the game as intended or with mutators. Once the game ends all you can do is replay the game on a different difficulty mode and make different choices.
Nobody does experiments like Remedy and Quantum Break was their biggest risk yet and there just isn't as enough game here to call it a masterpiece and the fact that it is a game is disappointing. Still, every moment is awesome.
In 2011, one of the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives was captured after 16 years on the run…at the time of his arrest, he was 81 years old. The man in question was James “Whitey” Bulger, a now-convicted murderer and former organized crime boss of the Winter Hill Gang in Boston. Through the 70s and 80s, Bulger was the King of Boston – ruling over his land with violence, extortion and narcotic distribution. But throughout that time, he carried a secret – he was an FBI informant. Now, years after his arrest, comes the long-awaited big-screen version of his life. This is Black Mass.
Out now on DVD & Blu-ray, Black Mass stars a near-unrecognisable Johnny Depp as the notorious crime lord. Based on the 2001 true-crime book of the same name, the film begins in 1975 and finishes up with Bulger’s 2011 arrest – suffice to say, this film is packed. But very rarely does Black Mass feel rushed. The plot is a thoroughly engrossing gangster story and although it’s nothing hugely fresh, it’s still edge-of-the-seat stuff. I don’t know enough about the true story to comment on accuracy but from what I have read, it doesn’t seem too bad – and at the end of the day, it isn’t a history lesson. It’s a crime thriller. And thrill it does.
This is a film that truly belongs to Johnny Depp. Calling it his favourite film he’s been in yet, Black Mass is absolutely 110% Depp’s finest work to date. As the violent and unpredictable gangster, Depp delivers a chilling performance and steals every single scene he’s in. Hell, you can’t take your eyes off him. And not in the usual way his fans can’t take their eyes off him…Here, you can’t look away out of fear. But despite this, the film isn’t an all-out Depp movie – this is a film of two leads. While some would argue it’s an ensemble piece, the film’s plot really boils down to two characters. Bulger, of course, and John Connolly. Portrayed by Joel Edgerton, Connolly is the FBI agent who recruits Bulger as an informant and begins an agent-informant friendship with him, ultimately getting himself too deep into the criminal underworld of Boston. Edgerton is fantastic here too, holding his own against Depp – a feat that many actors would struggle with up against a performance that good.
That said, I can understand the argument that Black Mass is an ensemble piece. The cast is stuffed full of talent, including Peter Sarsgaard, Jesse Plemons, Rory Cochrane, W. Earl Brown, Corey Stoll and Kevin Bacon. Even Benedict Cumberbatch shows up to play the other Bulger brother, Boston’s senator William Bulger – but seeing Cumberbatch attempting to play a guy from Boston is a little uncomfortable. And the 2 hour run-time, cut down from an initial 3, means some characters don’t get a lot to do – and the film almost suffers for it. Pacing is a minor issue here from time-to-time, but before you know it, Depp has commanded your attention again with his hypnotic performance and you forget what you were thinking just like…wait, what was I talking about?
Director Scott Cooper, known for Crazy Heart and Out Of The Furnace, creates a hauntingly dark and eerie atmosphere throughout Black Mass which, along with Depp’s performance, makes the film stand out alongside the countless other gangster films of recent memory. Cinematographer Masanobu Takayanagi’s visuals are beautifully and fittingly bleak, and the frequent reminder of the setting makes Boston a character in itself. Special mention should also go to Tom Holkenborg’s elegant and moody score that only strengthens this atmospheric experience.
Black Mass is without doubt one of the finest crime films of recent years, led by Depp’s finest performance to date. Any other year, he would’ve been a serious Oscar contender. But this was DiCaprio’s year – if anybody beat him, there would’ve been riots. Still, this is a thoroughly engrossing film that demands your attention throughout and will leave you in stunned silence right through the end credits.
Black Mass is an incredible film and now that it’s available to own, it’s an offer you can’t refuse. 4/5.
Out now on DVD & Blu-Ray, Heist is a film you’ve seen a thousand times before and don’t really need to see again. Jeffrey Dean Morgan plays Vaughn, a father without the financial means to pay for his daughter’s medical treatment. As a last resort, he partners up with a co-worker (Dave Bautista) to rob the casino they work at in an incredibly misguided attempt to show he’s a good father. Things naturally go tits up, the pair end up hijacking a bus and…honestly, it doesn’t really matter. It’s shit. And for those getting excited by reading the IMDb cast-list and seeing De Niro playing ‘The Pope’, hold your horses. While I would love to see De Niro playing Pope Francis in a casino heist movie, t’is not to be. Yet. We all know De Niro would star in Pope’s Eleven any day of the week, judging by his recent filmography! But no, his character here is Frank Pope - the gangster boss of the casino. Of course he’s the best thing about the film and brings far more depth to the role than I imagine the script even included, but that’s De Niro. He might star in shit films, but he’s rarely shit in them – even if all he does here is sit around on his arse, deliver some exposition and puff away on an e-cigarette.
Jeffrey Dean Morgan is pretty solid too, and I’m sure when he starts appearing in The Walking Dead this year and earns himself an army of fans, this film – along with all of his others – will be revisited again and again and plastered all over Tumblr and Pinterest. The rest of the cast however is a mixed bag. Bautista struggles to act and just angrily snarls at people for the duration, and the delightfully named Morris Chestnut portrays The Pope’s muscle with uneven results. In the lady corner, former fighter Gina Carano brings a rather wooden performance to the table as a law-lady in pursuit of our ‘heroes’, while Kate Bosworth turns up as De Niro’s daughter for one scene then fucks off. Remember her? She used to be a big thing! She was Lois Lane in Superman Returns, for goodness sake! Oh, wait…we don’t speak of that film. Sorry.
Funnily enough, Heist is directed by a mann (ha ha) named Scott Mann. Funny why, I hear you cry. Well, because the great De Niro heist film of the 1990s – Heat – was directed by Michael Mann. Great fun, right? The most fun you’ll have with this film is that fact. Enjoy it. But anyway, on the subject of direction, Mann stages some pretty decent action. Chases and shoot-outs are exciting and credible enough for a film of this calibre, but it all feels a little desperate. And outside of the action, there’s not a lot he can do with the painfully generic and predictable screenplay by Stephen Cyrus Sepher and Max Adams, two men who clearly watched every heist movie ever and said “we can do that”.
On the whole, Heist is a pretty damn shoddy B-movie that seems one Nicolas Cage short of being hilariously bad. While you might enjoy watching it with a few beers and some mates, ready to heartily take the piss out of how predictable and mediocre it is - there’s nothing here in terms of high-brow entertainment. If you’re a De Niro fan, give it a look but be prepared to not see much of the man. Otherwise, there’s not a lot to say about Heist. It’ll be forgotten within weeks, at which point you’ll be able to pick a copy up in your local charity shop for 20p.
Heist doesn’t pull off the crime, and walks away with a poor 1/5.
In 1961, experiments began at Yale University that shook the Earth. Three months after the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, an experimenter devised a study to answer the popular question of the time – “could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders?”. The study measured the willingness of participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that would (apparently) cause serious injury and distress to a stranger (who was in fact an actor). Unexpectedly, the study found that a very high proportion of people were prepared to obey. The man behind this study was Stanley Milgram.
Experimenter, which is out now on DVD, tells his story. Played incredibly by Peter Sarsgaard, the film is based mainly around Milgram’s iconic obedience experiment. But we also see a lot of his life before and after it - before the study we see how he met his wife and devised the experiment, and after it we see how he published a book (which was made into a TV movie entitled The Tenth Level in 1974 starring William Shatner) and how he failed to follow the study with another of equal power, which the film suggests affected him for the rest of his days. Narratively, the film doesn’t do anything largely original – it’s a fairly straight-forward biopic of a man and his work. It is how the story is delivered that makes Experimenter stand out from the crowd.
Director Michael Almereyda wanted Experimenter to be ‘playful’ in nature from the beginning of the production, as he felt that’s how Milgram himself would deliver his story. As such, Experimenter is filled with rather unique traits for a film of this genre. Firstly, many sequences take place in settings that embrace the fact they’re clearly not real. Green screens are used to create blatantly projected backdrops in many scenes, even of basic building interiors. Could this be to reflect the concept of creating ‘realities’ for experimenting, and assuming we will buy it? Are we merely subjects in another experiment of obedience, asking us to accept what we see before us as real? Who knows. But it works. The clearly manufactured world of Experimenter does perfectly represent the unreal world of experimental manipulation that Milgram lives in. Adding to this, Sarsgaard’s Milgram frequently breaks the fourth wall in a way that would make Deadpool proud. After director Almereyda watched old videos of Milgram addressing the camera, he felt it was ‘essential’ that he do the same in this film. Telling us his story and letting us in on the experiments with him, it creates a unique experience – especially when there’s an elephant in the room. Watch the film, and you’ll understand what I mean…
While the second half of the film does fall slightly into run-of-the-mill biopic territory, the first half – particularly covering the iconic study – is among the best the genre has to offer. The film oozes style and perfectly reflects the character and the times. Incredible performances from Sarsgaard and the countless ‘oh, that guy!’s playing the subjects lend a huge amount of believability to this tale and make it feel like a documentary. But this isn’t just a film looking back at an old experiment. It’s a film that holds a mirror to us today, and even looks forward. It asks extremely thought-provoking questions about obedience and human nature. While the surprising results of the study were shocking back in the day, they’re still just as disturbing now. And while it would be impossible to truly repeat this study now - due to people being aware of it being staged - I’m sure in another universe where Milgram hadn’t done it, studies today would find the same result.
Having already inspired countless follow-up analysis studies, documentaries, books and even a song by Peter Gabriel; it feels long overdue that we get a proper biographical film of Stanley Milgram. Now that it is finally here, I am delighted to say that it is brilliant. With an incredible performance from Peter Sarsgaard and impeccable style throughout, Experimenter is a powerful and thought-provoking piece of work. It will stay with you for days. As Peter Gabriel sang, “we do what we’re told”.
Out now on DVD, The Lady in the Van, written by Alan Bennett and directed by Nicholas Hytner, tells the “mostly true story” of a homeless elderly woman, Mary Shepherd, who Bennett encounters by chance and eventually allows her to park her mysterious van on his driveway. Subsequently, Mary (played by Maggie Smith) does not leave for 15 years, and Bennett finds his life rather overtaken by her. Through her interactions with the general public, we get to learn more about the mysterious Miss Shepherd and her background, and the strange relationship between both her and Bennett.
The star of the show here is undoubtedly Maggie Smith, who portrays the abrupt and overtly-religious Mary Shepherd with absolute realism. Of course, she’s never failed to entertain in her other films, but there’s something particularly special about her performance in The Lady in the Van. From the moment we’re introduced to her in her damaged Bedford van she takes hold of the audience. She’s homeless and she’s not shy about it – she arrives on Gloucester Crescent in all her glory, and promptly takes over all talk of the neighbourhood as she moves from space to space. Despite the residents’ welcoming she’s not particularly receptive, although she seems to take a bit more of a liking to Alan and parks outside his house with no intention of leaving. After a series of events including harassment of Miss Shepherd, Alan eventually decides to offer her a space on his unused driveway, and it is here the complicated relationship between the two develops, and we get a real insight into Bennett’s mind as well.
Alex Jennings plays a wonderful Alan Bennett – although slightly confusing at first, he plays two sides of Bennett – the one who does the living and the one who does the writing. He portrays Bennett’s inner conflicts well, and as a viewer we can feel the struggle between him and Miss Shepherd from the very beginning. Bennett often contrasts Miss Shepherd with his own mother, whose age becomes increasingly apparent over the 15 year span of the film. The film may be about Miss Shepherd, but this alternate relationship within the Bennetts (with a whole different set of struggles) is really rather poignant.
The other characters within the film all play important parts, with a lot of well-known actors featuring within. The neighbours have a particularly important role – their interactions with each other sculpt the characters of both Bennett and Miss Shepherd, and give us more of an insight into both of them. Misusing side characters can be a fatal mistake in a film like this, and so it was nice to see Bennett and Hytner paying equally as much attention to them. As with anything written by Alan Bennett, the script is very witty, and really makes the film. The score includes Chopin, which is highly relevant to the storyline, and various other pieces conducted by George Fenton, which really add to the overall feel. I have no complaints about the visuals as they were all beautiful framed, and I got the feeling that a lot of thought had gone into the piece as a whole.
Some might argue that nothing really happens throughout the film, which is true. This isn’t a bad thing though, as Bennett is exploring more the relationships and internal thoughts of the characters. When a film does this well then you don’t really need a plot, and so Bennett succeeded here. Unfortunately, I found the ending a bit too rushed – it didn’t quite wrap it up as smoothly as I hoped, and I felt parts towards the end could have been explored further. I think Alan Bennet was trying to settle it all in his mind, but it didn’t necessarily do it justice. The Lady in the Van is both a quirky and cosy film. I’d say it’s probably more for mature audiences, or those that enjoy more of a ponder than a regular, structured storyline.
It was an enjoyable, easy to follow watch, and so I’m giving it 4/5.
There has been something of a resurgence of interest in the great Dylan Thomas in recent years, thanks to 2014 being the centenary of the poet’s birth. With the BBC’s A Poet In New York and television production of Under Milk Wood along with the phenomenal Set Fire To The Stars starring Elijah Wood and Celyn Jones, not to mention a live performance of a newly discovered Thomas poem at the end of 2015, it seems Dylan Thomas is still alive and with us after all these years. What a good thing that is, as Thomas is – to quote Set Fire To The Stars – ‘the purest lyrical poet in the English-speaking world’. And so, to round off all of this centenary celebrating, director Kevin Allen brings us a lusty and innovative cinematic adaptation of Thomas’ most iconic work; Under Milk Wood.
There are two challenges to adapting Under Milk Wood for film. Firstly, it was always intended as a ‘play for voices’ with no visual accompaniment, first read on stage in 1953 before being aired as a radio play in ’54 after Thomas’ death. To add visuals, especially as bizarre as some that you find in this adaptation, could detract from the poetry’s power. Secondly, it was already done as a film in 1972 to much acclaim, with a cast including Richard Burton, Elizabeth Taylor and Peter O’Toole. That adaptation seemed like the only way to adapt it, and that could’ve been a disaster in itself. So why do it again? Kevin Allen, director of Twin Town, gives it his best shot and, thanks to solid direction and a great ensemble cast, it isn’t a complete disaster. But it’s far from perfect.
Rhys Ifans narrates the tale, bringing his wonderful Welshness to Thomas’ words. But he also plays Captain Cat, the blind old sailor haunted by his past. In both of these roles, he’s clearly loving it as he brings Wales’ iconic poet’s work to life. Charlotte Church is Polly Garter, a young mother with a history of lovers. Llyr Ifans, Rhys’ brother, plays the town troublemaker Nogood Boyo. The ensemble cast is made up of Welsh talent, as it should be, with local townspeople in from the beautiful location Solva filling the screen as extras – lending a certain authenticity and sense of community pride to the film.
In terms of narrative, it’s difficult to describe what Under Milk Wood is truly about. Set in the fictional town of Llareggub (read it backwards), it is a disjointed array of sequences – inner monologues, confessions, domestic tales – which serves as a rather trippy and psychedelic snapshot of Welsh small-town life, something Thomas was both praising and gently mocking with tongue firmly-in-cheek back in the original text. But Kevin Allen, with the help of writers Michael Breen and Murray Lachlan Young, makes a few alterations to the original work. The main one is the inclusion of a hugely obvious sexual theme that may have been in the original text as something of a hidden tone. But here, it’s almost Carry On Dylan Thomas as the lusty dildo-filled visuals create such an unusual feel that it’s hard to say what Thomas would make of it.
This is what stops Under Milk Wood from soaring. While the text is incredible – as we all know – this adaptation truly cements the fact that it is a play for voices and not the screen. The frantic, bizarre visuals and generally uneasy sexual feel takes away from the play’s beauty and power, and you find yourself closing your eyes to try and enjoy the words as you’re supposed to. Any film that you have to close your eyes to enjoy is clearly doing something wrong. It’s hard to say who’s at fault here. Director Kevin Allen is of course the man who all fingers point to in this instance, but maybe production designer Marie Lanna and cinematographer Andy Hollis aren’t particularly innocent either. This isn’t to say they’ve done a bad job – it’s a hugely interesting film and the visuals and direction are genius…if this was an original tale. To adapt Dylan Thomas with this style just feels wrong.
To conclude, Dylan Thomas isn’t with us anymore so he can’t say whether these visuals are what he had in mind when he was writing the iconic play. Maybe he never wanted it on screen in the first place. It’s a bizarre adaptation, and although the style didn’t work for me in a Dylan Thomas tale, I do respect the craft of those involved and look forward to see what they come up with next.
Under Milk Wood should probably be left as a ‘play for voices’, as Thomas wrote it. 2/5.
I don’t like my name (Jason), I never really have but as the years have gone on I’ve managed to live with it. In 2010, my name was dragged through the mud by a distraught father looking for his son. It was hell. I have to go through that hell again because Heavy Rain has been remastered for PlayStation 4 along with Quantic Dream’s other PlayStation 3 game Beyond: Two Souls. All joking aside though Heavy Rain is still a great story with a few niggles while Beyond: Two Souls is a bit of a disjointed mess.
Out now for PlayStation 4 and developed by Quantic Dream, Heavy Rain and Beyond: Two Souls Collection is Quantic Dream’s David Cage at his best and worst. The designer of both games, he lacks an editor’s input, someone to cut down his ridiculous story ideas that never pay off. It felt like he had that editor on Heavy Rain but was left to run wild in Beyond.
Beyond: Two Souls looked incredible, featured well-known faces like Ellen Paige and Willem Defoe but the actual story and gameplay felt like a complete mess. One of the biggest problems was the pacing which was scattershot at best to seem more artistic but it almost became in incoherent tragedy. Thankfully, the game allows you to now play through the story chronologically so that the flow feels a bit better. The story though isn’t great and any attempts to be powerful, emotional, or memorable fall flat in a lot of places. The game still looks incredible though with some texture and lighting work done to make it stand up to the big guns on PlayStation 4. There are some locations that feel a bit sparse but I just can’t knock it on its visuals.
The better game of the two is Heavy Rain but it does have a dull opening that I honestly completely forgot about. It’s intentionally slow, making you carry out mundane tasks to illustrate the sad life of the character you’re currently controlling. The mystery of the origami killer though is intriguing and generally well-paced and well-written.
Visually, the game features a much improved lighting system that genuinely makes everything look a lot better. No doubt the rerelease of both these games are for testing reasons to get acquainted with the PlayStation 4’s capabilities with their game engine for their newest game Detroit. Gameplay with both of these games are fairly similar. You’ll spend a lot of you time, walking around and performing rather simple quick time events. The pace at which these quick time events take place drastically change in the context of the scene but do expect some failures as things get noticeably tougher.
In Beyond: Two Souls, the game feels rather static for the most part. You never really feel as though you’re carving out your own story whereas Heavy Rain almost puts the outcome of the story in your own hands. You seemingly get to decide to outcome of everyone involved and honestly it’s more thrilling and enjoyable this way.
Heavy Rain and Beyond: Two Souls Collection is one hit and one miss. 3/5.
★★★☆☆
Jason Redmond
Heavy Rain and Beyond: Two Souls Collection at CeX
The premise of The Division is pretty intriguing. A version of the smallpox had been spread throughout New York on Black Friday through money. It's an attack that is equally terrifying and believable. It's something that could happen and would really have a devastating effect. This is all just a frame to have a pretty excellent MMO shooter with fun RPG elements.
Developed by Ubisoft Massive and out now on Xbox One and PlayStation 4, The Division is more than just a cover shooter set in an open New York City. There’s numbers everywhere. Those expecting a tactical shooter because the Tom Clancy name is attached then prepared to be surprised. Notice how I didn’t say disappointed? Sure, as a third-person shooter it functions really well but what’s most impressive about The Division is everything that’s added to it to create a deeper package, not a more bloated one.
I’ll get the one downside out of the way first: the narrative. Remember I said the premise was cool? Well, the execution leaves a lot to be desired. You never care about the people you interact with nor do you care about their situations. It takes itself way too seriously and ends up falling flat in this regard. Everything else though is pretty superb. The cover shooting through New York City feels great. Your character can easily move from cover to cover and there is a great freedom to how the player moves in and out of cover to take on waves on enemies. It’s fluid and impactful keeping the core gameplay enjoyable.
But it’s all the systems beneath that will keep you invested. As you complete missions, side-missions, and encounters you will earn XP and points for one of three wings of your Base of Operations. These will give your players a bunch of skills, abilities, and passive improvements. The Division is touted as a classless MMO but there are a ton of options to suit your play style. From perks and abilities to free run of all weapon types, The Division can feel radically different depending on what you choose. If you team up with friends or even matchmake with strangers, you can take roles and play differently to suit the team.
The most interesting aspect of The Division though is the Dark Zone. This is where “your stories” happen and will more than likely be the biggest talking point with other players. In this area, other players can kill you and all AI enemies are more relentless. However, the area yields much greater rewards for your character. Simply picking them up though doesn’t mean it’s now in your inventory. You must make your way to one of the evacuation zones and call in a helicopter. Once that’s called in you have 90 seconds to put your gear on the rope and stay alive. The only problem though is that here is when you become a sitting duck and ambushes can easily occur. It’s tense and when you’re killed and have your stuff stolen it’s frustrating but you cannot deny that it gets your heart going.
You may be surprised to see just how much The Division has numbers coming out of everything but the core gameplay is incredibly solid to match. It very much feels like an introduction to MMOs but even if you are a veteran, the core gameplay is so satisfying that it’s easy to sink yourself into it for a few hours at a time. The core level cap of 30 will take a couple dozen hours to max but reaching the Dark Zone level cap of 99 will take much longer.
Bleak, impressive, and beautiful in the darkest of ways. 4/5.
When iconic love-him-or-hate-him innovator Steve Jobs died at the end of 2011, public interest in the man was high. He was everywhere. And of course, Hollywood noticed this. Two films were announced about the tech giant. The first would be titled Jobs, would star Ashton Kutcher, and would be released in 2013. It came and went without much interest, and was critically panned – with 27% on Rotten Tomatoes, the film is labelled a ‘over-sentimentalized made-for-TV biopic’. But then, there is the second film – Steve Jobs.
Out now on DVD & Blu-ray, Steve Jobs is a different beast altogether. While Steve Jobs is of course based upon the same man, it is a superior and disparate piece of work. Directed by Danny Boyle and written by the great Aaron Sorkin, Steve Jobs takes a slightly unorthodox approach to biographical filmmaking. While the aforementioned Jobs was a rather standard rags-to-riches life story, this film takes place in 3 real-time acts – each just before a product launch. We begin in 1984 as Steve (Michael Fassbender) prepares to launch the Mac. Then we jump ahead to 1988 for his NeXT computer launch, before finishing up in 1998 before the unveiling of the iMac. This unusual format works extremely well for the complex subject, giving a ‘painting’ of Jobs rather than a ‘photograph’, as writer Aaron Sorkin puts it.
With the film playing out like theatre, it simply must have good performances to survive. Thankfully, it delivers this in spades. Michael Fassbender brings his finest performance yet as the eponymous hero, demanding our attention for every minute he’s on screen – which is near enough the duration. Kate Winslet, nominated for several awards alongside Fassbender for her performance as Joanna Hoffman, is somewhat underwhelming in comparison. Maybe this is just because she’s in the shadow of a truly breathtaking lead, but there’s something about her here – mainly her shaky Polish accent - that doesn’t seem as good as the award academies evidently thought. Seth Rogen, Jeff Daniels, Michael Stuhlbarg and Katherine Waterson more than make up for this with incredible supporting work that round off the cast with great aplomb.
But these performers can only shine with a strong script – and again, Steve Jobs gives us this. Aaron Sorkin’s dialogue-stuffed screenplay feels like Shakespeare, making this a fine companion piece to Justin Kurzel’s Macbeth in which Michael Fassbender also starred. Each of the 40(ish) minute acts fly by in what feels like seconds thanks to this consistently engrossing writing. Flashbacks are scarcely used, with the majority of scenes consisting of Jobs talking (or arguing) with someone - don’t expect any specific, stand-out moment. The film’s scenes all blend into one real-time tale as we follow Jobs from room-to-room, armed with his quick wit and bitter disposition. Think Birdman, without the surrealism.
And this is where Danny Boyle comes in. His directing elevates Steve Jobs from great to f***ing brilliant. With cinematographer Alwin H. Küchler, Boyle captures the three acts in three different formats. Our first act, taking place in 1984, is shot on 16mm film. The second, in 1988, is shot on 35mm. And the final 1998 act is shot on digital. With Daniel Pemberton’s adaptive score and Elliot Graham’s impeccable editing, this combination of visuals and sound alone perfectly represents the film’s three eras.
Steve Jobs has come into some shit for not being flawless in terms of accuracy, but Boyle and Sorkin say this was never their intention. This inaccuracy begins with Fassbender’s appearance. It’s no secret he doesn’t look a great deal like Jobs, but this was something that Boyle made clear was never important to him, stating "we were very clear right from the get-go that this wasn't about a physical impersonation at all”. And Sorkin has admitted that the film is only ‘loosely’ based on Walter Isaacson’s iconic authorized biography of Jobs. The film captures the essence and ‘the idea’ of Jobs, but it’s not a documentary. This isn’t an issue if you accept that going in. And hey, find me a ‘factual’ film with no inaccuracy in it. I dare you.
If you want the true, tell-all story of Jobs, watch Alex Gibney’s exhaustive documentary – The Man in the Machine. But if you want an engrossing character study rammed full of fantastic writing, phenomenal acting and superb directing…look no further. Steve Jobs is one of 2015’s best films, and easily one of the finest biopics in the history of cinema. iPerfect.
Love or hate his products, we can all agree that Steve Jobs is an incredible piece of cinema. 5/5.
It’s the age-old question – one that has divided school yards and friendships for decades; One side never budging in their opinion and the other unwavering in theirs. Many arguments have been had and many valid points raised but still the two sides are at an impasse. Today, we finally get to talk about it and maybe get a little closer to finding a solution that have divided lives: Who would win in an all-out war: Zombies or Plants?
Developed by Popcap and out now for Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and PC, Plants vs. Zombies Garden Warfare 2 is bloody brilliant. Don’t let the colourful visuals or the quirky personalities fool you, PvZ Garden Warfare 2 is a balls to the wall excellent competitive shooter. While the first game was surprisingly good given what it essentially was, Garden Warfare 2 holds up against the biggest there is and honestly, it’s a contender.
While the first game was fun, it lacked content or even depth to the whole overall structure. It had a simplistic menu that allowed for competitive or cooperative and that was about it. Everything was based around playing online. Here, everything can be played by yourself and you won’t be at a disadvantage.
Even if the first Garden Warfare looked good and played well, it felt like a budget title. Plants vs. Zombies Garden Warfare 2 is feature-rich; in fact, upon first glimpse, it can all feel a bit overwhelming. The main menu is actually a mode called Backyard Battleground where you are free to explore an open area. This area is used to practice the classes (14 in total). it’s also used to understand all the mechanics as well as get to grips with the feel of the gameplay as well as buy sticker packs, complete missions, check the bounty board, and jump into the multiplayer. I feel like just breathing out reading that. There are a ton of things to do and although the framework may look a little unusual, it’s a great way of breaking things down without feeling overwhelming. When you’re done playing around in the expansive Backyard Battleground, the game gives you a number of missions, co-op, and the competitive multiplayer to enjoy.
This is when the game really gets its rotting nails (or thorns depending on which side you choose) into you. Everything you do earns XP which levels up each class as well as your overall level. You will also earn coins which are used to buy sticker packs that will either give you consumable cards that allow you to spawn small buddies in battle or cosmetic items for your characters to even unlocking sub-classes that can drastically change how a certain class plays. There may be 14 base classes but these sub-classes make it a whole lot more ensuring options are always available. The gameplay and its mechanics are incredible. There’s a great sense of balance to the vast roster, their abilities, and a certain character being overpowered doesn’t nearly feel the same way as it did in the original. There is also a better variety to the maps on display and everything comes together in a truly special way.
After more than 10 hours with the game, I feel like I’ve only begun which is a great thing. The first Garden Warfare felt barebones and you only continued your playtime with it solely on the enjoyment factor of actually playing the game. You always feel like you’re progressing in Plants vs. Zombies Garden Warfare 2. Couple that with excellent variety in terms of classes on both sides and game modes and you’ve got the makings for one of the most memorable shooters to come out in some time. While the first game felt like an experiment, Garden Warfare 2 is the real deal.
It looks stupid and/or weird but trust me, it’s roots are firmly planted with the best of them. 5/5.
Suffragette is, as the title suggests, a film about the tiresome crusade of the Women’s Suffrage cause of the early 1900s, where women protested for the right to vote. After many years of going unnoticed by the government, the Suffragettes find they have to resort to more startling methods in order to get the publicity they need to help get the law changed. Although the film is fictional itself, it directly mirrors the struggles that women faced to be able to get their voices heard.
Most documentaries about the Suffragettes focus on Emmeline Pankhurst, the leader of the activist group, and how she led the Women’s Social and Political Union to a very distant victory. Thanks to director Sarah Gavron (Brick Lane, This Little Life) and funding from the BFI, we get to see the story from the point of view of the real foot soldiers of the time. We focus particularly on Maud Watts (played by Carey Mulligan), a young married woman who falls into the movement after reaching breaking point with her long working days, evenings of women-related tasks, and the awful antics of her boss, who sees the women in the laundry factory as his own sexual playthings.
This film is different from other British films though – unlike period films like The King’s Speech, this one is gritty, brutal, and contains distressing scenes throughout. It was very different from what I was expecting, but in a very good way.
Pankhurst only features once in the whole film, with the focus much more on both the ground-level attacks from the Suffragettes and the espionage-tactics from the government. It’s not dressed up or ‘Hollywood-ised’ at all – you see everything as it was and there’s rarely a happy moment that isn’t followed by something either distressing, miserable, or just plain grim. It really depicts the struggle well, and led me to understand the reasons behind the increasingly violent situations the women had to cause.
The camera work was something that really aided the film from the very beginning – through the quick scenes and shaky movements we feel like we’re really there in the middle of it. The whole thing was very gripping – particularly for the action parts, where there seemed to be no limit as to what might happen next. As someone who hasn’t much knowledge on the Suffragette movement, I found it a very intense watch, and a fascinating insight into what happened. It made me feel incredibly thankful for where I am today, but also angry that it had to go so far. The score was also beautiful – it was highly emotive in parts, and added that extra dimension (yes, I’ll admit it made me cry). That’s a good thing though, because it really connected me with the story. Both the music and the set really added that 1900s feel to the film, and felt very poignant.
Mulligan plays an excellent Maud, with a great cast acting alongside her. Helena Bonham Carter plays Edith Ellyn, one of the main women in the London area responsible for a whole host of things, and it’s quite refreshing to see her in a less bizarre role. Anne-Marie Duff, who plays Violet, makes a great sidekick to Maud, and Brendon Gleeson portrays a very realistic Inspector Arthur Steed.
The bit that really made it for me was the end – before the credits, a list of when each country allowed women’s rights was displayed, which really made it apparent that we’re still not near where we should be in the world. It was nice to add a bit of fact towards the end to back up the contents of the film, but it certainly wasn’t one to leave you feeling on a high.
Suffragette is a great film, but one you really have to be in the mood for before you watch it, and so I’m giving it 4/5.
Victor Halperin's White Zombie, released in 1932, is often cited to be the first zombie film. Since then, the so-called ‘zombie genre’ has become a veritable beast. It seems like, 84 years on, people still can’t get enough of these undead bastards. Films, TV, games, books, music – zombies have been everywhere. We love them, don’t we? But the problem with this is that people are running out of fresh ideas for the genre. Hollywood has come to assume that people will just blindly watch anything with zombies in it, thanks to the enormous success of TV’s The Walking Dead. Originality, or the lack thereof, is becoming irrelevant in this genre.
Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse, which is out now on DVD & Blu-ray, is unfortunately a prime example of this. The film is a highly predictable teen comedy-horror, trying to do what Zombieland did – bring something new to the comedy zombie film after Shaun of the Dead – but failing. Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse follows Ben (Tye Sheridan), Carter (Logan Miller) and Augie (Joey Morgan), three high school students in a scout group led by Rogers (David Koechner). Of course, they’re outcasts and lust over the girls together – almost like an American Inbetweeners. One thing leads to another and they find themselves fighting their way through hordes of zombies in their small hometown, alongside Denise (Sarah Dumont) – a character who could quite easily anger feminist groups for the objectification on show. Spending almost the entire film in a tight white vest and denim shorts, she is purely here to be the ‘hot girl’.
But it’s debatable whether the target audience for this film will care – quite the contrary, they wouldn’t have it any other way. It’s no mistake that Sarah Dumont’s character has found herself front and centre on the UK DVD’s cover, and combining her characterisation with the juvenile humour throughout the film, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse is quite clearly one for teenage boys. As such, is quality really to be expected? This film is made with the intention of being played at 2am during a wild sleepover with a bunch of young lads. They’re not expecting Citizen Kane, are they? They’re expecting jokes about a zombie’s dick being ripped off and thrown into another one’s mouth. Yes, that happens in this film. And that says it all. We don’t need to discuss the scene in which a zombie, ahem, ‘goes down’ on a girl, do we? I thought not…
Ultimately, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse is a perfect indicator of how repetitive the zombie genre has become. While The Walking Dead still rightly dominates the genre, films like this are struggling to compete with it. And with Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead already out there, there’s not many jokes you can add to this story that haven’t been done before. It’s unfortunate, but it happens. Genres go stale. Look at Westerns - they were Hollywood’s biggest output in the 50s and 60s, but they ran out of ideas. Now, they’re a rare treat. One of these days, zombie films might go the same way. Just slow down, Hollywood.
Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse knows its target audience and plays to this, but in doing so, alienates near-everyone else. There’s not a lot to like here if you’re not a teenage boy with a dirty mind, and this is where the film fails. But then, is it failing? Teenage boys, the intended audience, are probably eating it up - if you’ll pardon the pun. But on the other hand, it’s predictable, unoriginal and the acting isn’t great. If any young lads are reading this, give the film a look. You’ll love it. Anyone else? I’m sure you can find better ways to spend your time.
Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse stumbles away with 2/5.
It’s fair to say the ‘Minions’ are one of the most powerful and valuable brands out there at the moment. You can’t go anywhere without seeing the little yellow guys plastered on clothes, toys, food, drink…they’re everywhere. The Despicable Me films from which they came were ridiculously successful, both critically and financially – Despicable Me 2 is the most profitable film in the 101-year history of Universal Studios – so it’s only natural that somebody thought “hey, let’s give them their own movie”. The money men at Universal were probably delighted by this idea, as Minions went on to make $1.1 BILLION worldwide, making it the 10th highest-grossing film of all time and the highest-grossing non-Disney animated film in the history of cinema. But, money aside – is the film actually any good?
Out now on DVD, Blu-Ray and Blu-Ray 3D, Minions is a mixed bag. It serves as a prequel to the Despicable Me films, showing how the Minions evolved from single-celled organisms into beings who exist only to serve villainous masters. We watch as they go through history, serving a T-Rex, caveman, Egyptian pharaoh, Dracula and Napoleon – but as they accidentally kill each one of them through incompetence, they become depressed. They isolate themselves from the world in a cave in Antarctica, but by 1968 become depressed by their aimless existence. Three minions; Stuart, Kevin and Bob, decide to go back out into the world to seek a new master and a new reason to live. This first chunk of the film is pretty entertaining, with some laugh-out-loud moments in the opening montage of historical Minion existence right up until their depression in Antarctica. But after this, the narrative suffers. There are amusing moments in the Minions’ adventure across America and England, but it is the introduction of the evil Scarlet and Herb Overkill (Sandra Bullock and Jon Hamm, respectively) that brings the film down. The flatly-characterised and one dimensional pair slip the film into rather tedious waters, making it a lot more predictable and unoriginal than the unique opening would have you expect.
The main issue is that the Minions just can’t carry a film by themselves. As a sideshow in the Despicable Me films, they worked. Although I was never a fan of the franchise, I could see why they worked and hell, there were some funny moments in the DM films that made me chuckle. But here, putting them front and centre is exhausting for anyone over the age of 5. Liam Lacey of The Globe and Mail described the film as ‘a visual sugar rush for the preschool set’ and I don’t think I could put it any better. It’s the most hyperactively charged thing I’ve seen in a while, as these little yellow bastards blabber incessantly at each other in a completely gibberish, high-pitched language. They fall over, they slap each other, they laugh as they say ‘banana’ and ‘bottom’. Kids LOVE it. But if you’re an adult, you might get tired of the hijinks after the first 15 minutes. Maybe a TV series of Minions would work. They could twat around for 20 minutes at a time, not having to worry about story. They can slap each other and giggle and eat bananas and everyone will be happy. But 90 straight minutes of them doing that? It’s pretty painful. And the only salvation, Scarlet and Herb Overkill and the attempt at a narrative, only makes this worse by changing the tone to complete and utter predictability.
On the plus side, the colourful animation is a visual feast – especially in 3D. Sight gags make up the majority of the humour, especially as the Minions don’t speak English. This is where the film does shine, especially when our heroes reach New York City and London. The film looks stunning. Minions also features probably the finest soundtrack to ever grace a children’s film, purely there to put a smile on the otherwise miserable parents having to sit through the film. The Rolling Stones, The Doors, The Kinks, The Who, The Beatles and Donovan all make appearances in the soundtrack and perfectly compliment the film’s Swinging Sixties vibe.
So, in conclusion, Minions isn’t great. It’s exhausting, frantic and narratively confused. Maybe if you’re a big fan of Despicable Me you’ll be blindly loyal to the characters and love it regardless, but to an outsider or casual fan – Minions is a rather difficult film to enjoy. The kids will love it, but parents – brace yourselves.
Minions is visually impressive and boasts a brilliant soundtrack, but struggles narratively and exhausts the viewer with almost-constant hijinks. 2/5.
2015 brought us two of the finest Shakespearean films in the history of cinema. One of them was a visually-stunning and violent adaptation of Macbeth, starring Michael Fassbender. It was one of the darkest Shakespeare adaptations yet, and was often harrowing in its portrayal of murder and madness. And then we have the other Shakespeare film of 2015…the one with the fart jokes. Yes, the Horrible Histories team gave us Bill.
Out now on DVD, Bill focuses on William Shakespeare’s ‘lost years’ – the period, mysterious to scholars, in which he rose from obscurity in Stratford-Upon-Avon to fame in London. The film suggests ‘Bill’ Shakespeare (Mathew Baynton) was a failed musician who left his home to pursue his dream of becoming a writer, but after one thing led to another, he found himself caught up in King Philip II of Spain’s plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I. The plot is all rather bonkers with some incredibly bizarre humour throughout, particularly from Sir Francis Walsingham (Laurence Rickard) who completely steals the show. While the Horrible Histories series is largely accurate in its facts, Bill was able to take a few liberties with history thanks to taking part in a largely unwritten period of Shakespeare’s life. Former HH co-stars Rickard and Ben Willbond wrote Bill, as well as performing in the film. Rickard said in an interview that "the joy of the "lost years" is we can tell a fun story without trampling on the facts - it gives us licence to take William Shakespeare on a truly ridiculous caper, yet end with him becoming the man the world knows."
The cast of Bill are all brilliant, and in the style of Horrible Histories and the Monty Python films, all play several characters each. The acting troupe at the heart of the film consists of six members – Baynton, Willbond, Rickard, Jim Howick, Simon Farnaby and Matha Howe-Douglas; together they play 40 roles, some real historical figures and some crazy characters. Each of the members have a chance to shine and take part in utter idiocy, with special praise to Baynton who plays Bill largely straight while being surrounded by complete madness. It is the crazy, irreverent humour that makes Bill stand out in today’s painfully crowded comedy genre, and it is this that will make or break the film for you. Despite being that all-too-rare family-friendly comedy film, Bill has a lot to like for all ages. There are a lot of historical references here for the more educated viewers, while children will delight in the fart jokes and slapstick humour. And if you’re the sort of person who hasn’t yet grown out of such childish, infantile and often bizarre humour – you’re my kind of person. Oh, and you’ll love Bill.
Not that you care with a film like this, but the production values are great too. Costumes and sets are decent and the visuals are solid. And on a technical filmmaking side, the pacing is perfect and the bonkers narrative is well-told. But at the end of the day, Bill is basically just a pantomime for the big screen. Wacky humour, colourful costumes and a few men in drag. In a film about Shakespeare. What more could you possibly ask for? Historical accuracy? Don’t be daft.
Bill is a difficult film to review. Because it’s more interested in being daft than delivering a good story or, well, any sense. But because of this, it shines. Bill is one of the finest comedy films of recent years. While its zaniness might be lost on some viewers, you can’t fault a comedy that makes you laugh through such irreverence – especially one that also manages to remain family friendly, and give youngsters their first taste of such bizarre humour. The 1970s had Monty Python’s Life of Brian and The Holy Grail. The 1980s had Airplane and The Naked Gun. The 2010s have Bill. I can’t wait to see what the team come up with next.
