Classic Movie Themes: Excalibur (1981)
Excalibur (1981) is a visually arresting retelling of the Arthurian legend. Filmed at a time when studios where happy to finance large budget fantasy films, John Boormans movie is not your typical sword and sorcery fodder. It’s an adult adaptation of Mallory's Morte' D'arthur, filled with scenes of sex and violence, driven by some eclectic and eccentric performances from the ensemble British cast. The film boasts a handsome production design with a very stylised aesthetic. The Irish locations are lush and verdant. This is not intended to be a historically accurate portrayal of the source text but more of a visual homage. Excalibur evokes both the mythic power of Tolkien and the operatic splendour of Wagner. Boorman had tried to adapt The Lord of the Rings a decade earlier.
Excalibur (1981) is a visually arresting retelling of the Arthurian legend. Filmed at a time when studios where happy to finance large budget fantasy films, John Boormans movie is not your typical sword and sorcery fodder. It’s an adult adaptation of Mallory's Morte' D'arthur, filled with scenes of sex and violence, driven by some eclectic and eccentric performances from the ensemble British cast. The film boasts a handsome production design with a very stylised aesthetic. The Irish locations are lush and verdant. This is not intended to be a historically accurate portrayal of the source text but more of a visual homage. Excalibur evokes both the mythic power of Tolkien and the operatic splendour of Wagner. Boorman had tried to adapt The Lord of the Rings a decade earlier.
The soundtrack for the film blends original material by composer Trevor Jones along with classical pieces. The opening scenes in which Uther Pendragon is victorious in battle plays out against Siegfried's Funeral March from The Ring by Richard Wagner. This arrangement was specially recorded by London Philharmonic Orchestra and conducted by Norman Del Mar. It is a very imposing sequence, especially the entrance of Merlin (Nicol Williamson). The use of classical music in movies is not as easy as some may think and it requires a lot of skill to choose an appropriate piece that compliments the movie’s visual. Boorman's choice of Wagner is both wise and appropriate and thus greatly enhances the movie.
Below is the edited version of the track specifically designed for the movie, followed by a full recording.
The Trivialisation of World War II?
I have enjoyed Sniper Elite 4 and all of the sundry DLC immensely since its release in Spring. The game presents an interesting alternative to the traditional shooter with its stealth based level design. The latest instalment, Obliteration (the third part of an ongoing story), is set in an empty Bavarian town and has an intricate map with an authentic period feel. It offers opportunities for both long range sniping and close quarters stealth kills. Overall, I have found that the franchise provides engaging and complex gameplay, as well as satisfying the players baser need for blood and violence. However, playing this and other similar titles got me thinking. It would appear that World War II, one of the defining periods of the last century that still has ramifications today, is in certain quarters now simply a setting, a plot device or a Hitchcockian MacGuffin. Is the broader subtext of this major event now irrelevant to a generation of players because they have no immediate connection to this period in history? If that is the case, exactly when does it become acceptable for something of this magnitude, to be trivialised in this manner (if that is indeed the case).
I have enjoyed Sniper Elite 4 and all of the sundry DLC immensely since its release in Spring. The game presents an interesting alternative to the traditional shooter with its stealth based level design. The latest instalment, Obliteration (the third part of an ongoing story), is set in an empty Bavarian town and has an intricate map with an authentic period feel. It offers opportunities for both long range sniping and close quarters stealth kills. Overall, I have found that the franchise provides engaging and complex gameplay, as well as satisfying the players baser need for blood and violence. However, playing this and other similar titles got me thinking. It would appear that World War II, one of the defining periods of the last century that still has ramifications today, is in certain quarters now simply a setting, a plot device or a Hitchcockian MacGuffin. Is the broader subtext of this major event now irrelevant to a generation of players because they have no immediate connection to this period in history? If that is the case, exactly when does it become acceptable for something of this magnitude, to be trivialised in this manner (if that is indeed the case).
If memory serves, in early 2010 EA ran into some PR problems during the run up to the launch of Medal of Honor, when it was revealed that in the multiplayer mode players could play as the Taliban. Needless to say, this decision was robustly challenged by sections of the “popular” press, politicians and many bodies representing servicemen and their families. Eventually, EA capitulated and changed the multiplayer game so that the enemy was known as the Opposing Force or OP4 in military jargon. If we dispense with the tabloid hyperbole and faux moral outrage from blustering politicians, it would appear that the main objection to this situation was that there are still many servicemen and women as well as their families that have suffered directly or indirectly at the hands of the Taliban. It is the current and ongoing human connection to the associated events in Afghanistan that were problematic and thus causes potential public outrage.
So, it would seem that time and an emotional link to the matter in hand, decides whether a historical event is either a bonafide setting for a game or nothing more than tasteless exploitation. Because when you apply these criteria to World War II then we find that many people, especially those under twenty-five, have no living relatives that served or grew up during that era. Hence the passage of time renders these profoundly important events into abstract, textbook history. Effectively it becomes something to be read about, but with no immediate bearing on one’s current existence, although obviously the complete opposite is true. This sense of disconnection with the past is further compounded by socio-political and economic change. Culturally speaking contemporary London, as seen through the eyes of a twentysomething, is a world apart from what my Father’s generation experienced, seventy plus years earlier.
Both my Grandfathers served during World War II. One was an Army Surgeon and the other served in the Eighth Army. My Father was born in 1929 and lived in South London during the Blitz. For him and his peers, World War II was a defining point in his life. He still uses to this day the phrase “before the War” as a means to reference the societal difference between then and now. I grew up in the seventies knowing many men and women who had served. There was a Theology teacher at one of my schools who had spent several years in a Japanese P.O.W camp. One of our neighbours when I was growing up, was a veteran and a member of The Burma Star Association. I would conservatively estimate that for at least four decades after the end of World War II, British society was still tangibly experiencing its fallout in some shape or form.
Yet, time and tide wait for no man. Call of Duty will be releasing their latest instalment of their game in November this year and the franchise is returning to its roots with a World War II setting. Due to the immense popularity of this FPS, a substantial percentage of players who are young, will be introduced to a historical setting that they are not overly familiar with. What will they make of the Normandy landings, the scale of the loss of life and the fundamental causes for World War II itself? Will they simply see the Germans as “baddies” by cultural default? Has the inherent evil of Nazi policies and of Hitler himself any immediate significance, or are they now nothing more than clichéd exemplars of stereotypical notions of evil. Have the passage of time and popular culture simply neutered them of their potency?
As I stated at the start of this post, this article stems from a train of thought and still remains a point to ponder, rather than a working theory. Such a subject needs to be explored by greater thinkers than I and no doubt have been. Already I’m pondering counterpoints to my own assertion. For example, I grew up at a time when a substantial number of comics still had stories set in World War II. Precious few were of any note. Where these also contributing to the trivialisation process I have suggested? What about the films and TV dramas that filled theatres and broadcasting schedules during the post war decades? Are comedies such as 'Allo 'Allo! or Hogan's Heroes artistically justified or potentially just as offensive and exploitative as games such as Sniper Elite (assuming you see them in such terms)?
As someone who tries to avoid the binary or a tendency towards knee-jerk responses, these are all difficult questions to answer. Especially at a time when rationality has been usurped by the cult of virtue signalling and an addiction to “finding offense”. I would like to think that common sense may prevail but even that seems to be a term that we cannot agree upon these days. As for the trivialisation of World War II and potentially many other important events and causes, I think that it will remain a hotly debated topic. If you’re looking for games publishers to act and think responsibly then I’m sure the majority will disappoint you. Morality seldom deters and as we have seen, change is usually only embraced if there is risk to the bottom line. As for myself, I have sufficient gumption not to allow the depiction of World War II in video games to impact upon my real-world perspective of those historical events themselves. Yet I still have a nagging feeling from time to time that something about these titles is somehow “troubling”.
Dunkirk (2017)
Dunkirk is an extraordinary war movie, that eschews the traditional sprawling format of its predecessors, filled with celebrity cameos and contrived expositionary dialogue. Instead Christopher Nolan manages to embrace the concept of “show, don’t tell”, yet uses what little dialogue he has to succinctly punctuate the unfolding story with emotion and gravitas. There is a sense of spectacle, yet it is far from the stark and dispassionate CGI we usually see. Through creative and focused editing Nolan generates a palpable sense of tension, be it in the air with extraordinary aerial dogfights or on the ground as men flee sinking ships and dodge artillery fire. Dunkirk facilitates an intense and emotional journey during its lean 106 minute running time. It is altogether a remarkable piece of cinema.
Dunkirk is an extraordinary war movie, that eschews the traditional sprawling format of its predecessors, filled with celebrity cameos and contrived expositionary dialogue. Instead Christopher Nolan manages to embrace the concept of “show, don’t tell”, yet uses what little dialogue he has to succinctly punctuate the unfolding story with emotion and gravitas. There is a sense of spectacle, yet it is far from the stark and dispassionate CGI we usually see. Through creative and focused editing Nolan generates a palpable sense of tension, be it in the air with extraordinary aerial dogfights or on the ground as men flee sinking ships and dodge artillery fire. Dunkirk facilitates an intense and emotional journey during its lean 106 minute running time. It is altogether a remarkable piece of cinema.
Dunkirk features a non-linear narrative with three separate stories that overlap, often providing a different perspective upon the other. The Mole follows three infantrymen as they try to jump the queue and find an alternative means off the beach. The Sea is the story of a Father and son who take their family boat to Dunkirk to rescue survivors and how they pick up a “shell shocked” soldier along the way. The Air focuses on three Spitfire pilots as they try to provide cover for the retreating ships. What Dunkirk doesn’t do is wallow in an excess of historical background detail, contrived patriotism or emotional manipulation. There is no Winston Churchill and more importantly no evil Nazis. The enemy remains conspicuously distant either sniping, shelling or dive bombing. Nolan places the audience in the centre of a military disaster, stripped of most of its subjective context. The tension and sense of threat is constant and authentic.
Hans Zimmer scores Dunkirk with discordant ambient tones. It is far from a traditional soundtrack but as stated, Dunkirk is not a traditional war movie. This is not just a movie about a major military defeat but a tale of those souls caught in the middle of it all. They do not have the benefit of historical hindsight and the film is effectively an exploration of men enduring catastrophic events happening around them. However, Dunkirk is not bereft of character development and there are strong performances by Mark Rylance, Cillian Murphy and Tom Hardy. Rather than building complex backstories and playing with our feelings towards the cast, Christopher Nolan creates genuine jeopardy and is not averse to delivering tragedy without the ubiquitous clichéd Hollywood trappings.
A few critics have already accused Dunkirk as being a soulless representation of combat, citing similarities with the set pieces in the Call of Duty video game franchise. Yet this is not the case. Yes, the physical effects are staggering and the films technical excellence is beyond reproach. But there are touches of humanity conveyed through the subtlest use of dialogue or nuanced acting throughout the film. It is there when Mark Rylance tells Cillian Murphy “there’s no hiding from this son, there’s a job do”, and when Tom Hardy perceptibly winces as he realises that despite being low on fuel he cannot leave an allied ship exposed to a German bomber. It is in these honest scenes that Dunkirk finds its greatness. And when the armada of “little ships” finally arrives to strains of Hans Zimmer’s evocative variation of Nimrod, it is profoundly moving.
I suspect that in the same way Saving Private Ryan significantly altered the depiction of war in film back in 1998, Dunkirk may well have a similar effect henceforward. I’m sure some audiences may view the film through the prism of Brexit and vicariously try and champion it as a metaphor for their cause. However, I think that Christopher Nolan’s delineation of this military disaster that was spun in to a political triumph, elevates it above such partisan perspectives. Dunkirk is an intense, gripping and credible view of the nature of war and its impact upon those caught in it. It strength lies in vignettes of human drama set amid an epic and destructive canvas. It is also a compelling drama imbued with a tangible sense of suspense. Cinema seldom gets this good. Go see it on the biggest screen you can find.
Jurassic World (2015)
Hollywood is a cyclical place and often repeats decisions it's successfully made in the past. During the early seventies, the mainstream film industry head hunted a lot of up and coming talent from the independent film making community, or took a chance on directors who were fresh out of film school. It was a means to an end and a way to tap into the new talent that was proving popular and lucrative. Similarly, Warner Bros. followed suit in 2014 when Gareth Edwards was hired to direct the multi-million-dollar Godzilla reboot. His previous movie was the self-financed indie Sci-Fi picture Monsters. Godzilla went on to be both a box office and critical hit.
Hollywood is a cyclical place and often repeats decisions it's successfully made in the past. During the early seventies, the mainstream film industry head hunted a lot of up and coming talent from the independent film making community, or took a chance on directors who were fresh out of film school. It was a means to an end and a way to tap into the new talent that was proving popular and lucrative. Similarly, Warner Bros. followed suit in 2014 when Gareth Edwards was hired to direct the multi-million-dollar Godzilla reboot. His previous movie was the self-financed indie Sci-Fi picture Monsters. Godzilla went on to be both a box office and critical hit.
So, after years of languishing in development hell, the job of making Jurassic World was finally given to director Colin Trevorrow, who like Edwards only had at that time, a single small feature film credit to his resume. But "talent will out" as the expression goes and Jurassic World has proven to be a very respectable entry to the franchise. It develops the existing themes established in the previous three movies and manages to add several contemporary angles. It is tonally astute and finds the right balance between action, suspense and wry humour. The cast is spot on and the narrative is well paced. It doesn't skimp on the "wow" factor either and the digital and animatronic dinosaurs on display still genuinely impress.
What I liked most about Jurassic World is its keen sense of social observation and the fact that despite the Velociraptors, Pterosaurs and Indominus Rex it still nails what humans are like. So many of the ideas that are developed, ring true. Jurassic World is depicted as a declining financial undertaking for its owners because Joe public has grown accustomed and bored with dinosaurs. For many of the tourists the parks denizens have become as common place as elephants. The movie also does an excellent job of cataloguing the monetisation of the holiday resort. There are known brands everywhere, the same way there are in real world theme parks. Kids seem more interested by their smartphones than by the dinosaurs.
Another interesting theme that runs through the movie is that of animal psychology. Chris Pratt has not “tamed” the group of Velociraptors he works with but through behavioural science has managed to condition them and learn how to interact with them on their own terms. Now as this movie was designed to be a summer blockbuster, naturally such ideas are taken to extremes but it does raise some good questions about exactly how intelligent were dinosaurs, especially those that hunted in packs and therefore required a working form of social interaction.
Once again composer Michael Giacchinno rises to the challenge of writing a soundtrack for a franchise that already has an established set of iconic themes. He uses John William's cues sparingly and effectively. His own original material is as ever, intelligent, appropriate and of the highest quality. Overall the score helps maintain a sense of continuity to the proceedings. The same can be said about the visual effects work by Industrial Light and Magic and Legacy Effects (formerly Stan Winston Studios). Despite the fourteen-year long hiatus Jurassic World still has the same ambience as its predecessors.
The box office success of Jurassic World yet again demonstrates the public's ongoing fascination with dinosaurs. When I first saw this movie upon its release, you could hear a pin drop for most of the two-hour running time, only for it to be replaced by screaming at the appropriate junctures. I wholeheartedly believe that pretty much everyone left the cinema thoroughly entertained. The tension and thrills remained upon a second viewing two years on. Jurassic World works because the production team fundamentally understands the material that they're making. No postmodern irony or cynicism, just dinosaurs with big pointed teeth and a movie that doesn't try to fix something that isn't broken.
Collecting
Once again Syp over at Bio-Break has written a post that provides a talking point for other bloggers. This time it’s about collecting which is a very broad church indeed. When I was a child it was a common mantra of adults at the time to “get a hobby”. I suppose from their perspective a busy and engaged child is one that is likely to stay out of trouble and frankly it’s still sound advice. Many hobbies involve collecting and this can tangentially teach positive lessons such as fiscal prudence, patience and learning about that which you enjoy. In his post Syp raises the point as to whether he’s missed out by never having been bitten by the collecting bug but he also reflects on some practical problems associated with such pastimes. I was going to leave a comment on the post but it soon became apparent that it would be a little too long, so this blog post is my response.
Once again Syp over at Bio-Break has written a post that provides a talking point for other bloggers. This time it’s about collecting which is a very broad church indeed. When I was a child it was a common mantra of adults at the time to “get a hobby”. I suppose from their perspective a busy and engaged child is one that is likely to stay out of trouble and frankly it’s still sound advice. Many hobbies involve collecting and this can tangentially teach positive lessons such as fiscal prudence, patience and learning about that which you enjoy. In his post Syp raises the point as to whether he’s missed out by never having been bitten by the collecting bug but he also reflects on some practical problems associated with such pastimes. I was going to leave a comment on the post but it soon became apparent that it would be a little too long, so this blog post is my response.
When I was young, I dabbled with collecting. Comics, trading cards, action figures are some of the things I doggedly pursued. But often I found that time, money and the practicalities of being a child, IE being busy playing, meant that such enterprises were doomed. It was not until the early nineties, when I had a job and a sizeable disposable income, that I was able to sustain the practical realities of collecting. I think this is an important factor to mention. Collecting requires passion which is something available to all age groups. Money is something that we don’t have continuous access to all our lives and it subtly alters the dynamic of collecting. It is far easier to start your collection while you still live at home and have “spare cash”. Marriage, family and mortgages can radically alter this equation.
Being a consummate film fan and an ardent completist, I started collecting films on what was the best physical medium of the time; LaserDiscs. In the early nineties, VHS sell-through tapes where king. However, if you were a serious movie aficionado, who wanted superior picture and sound quality as well as alternative cuts of a film, then LaserDiscs was where it was at (Daddy-o). At the time, a VHS tape of a popular film such as Terminator 2 would cost about £10. If you wanted the Director’s Cut of the same movie, in the correct aspect ratio with optional commentary by the cast, then it would cost between £30 to £40 on LaserDisc. It was a superior viewing experience all round. Although there were UK releases on this format, they were somewhat limited. A far greater choice was available if you bought US and European imports. Buying internationally also added to the allure of collecting.
Because of my passion for film, I bought circa 1991 a LaserDisc player that was dual standard (NTSC/PAL) and a new TV that could handles both UK and US picture standards. I think I spent near £750 on both. Over the next few years, I spent a great deal of time and money building up a collection of classic and cult films. Due to prohibitive censorship laws that prevailed in the UK at the time, a lot of the material I bought was technically illegal to import. There was a network of small companies at the time that worked within various legal loopholes to offer a specialist purchasing service. Thus, I owned the Director’s Cut of George A. Romero’s Dawn of the Dead at a time when it was only available in the UK in a pre-cut version. I also had the Criterion version of RoboCop in all its bloody glory. But the jewel in the crown of my collection was the Star Wars Trilogy in their original theatrical versions. LaserDiscs satisfied my needs as a fan as well as a film purist. For about seven or so years, I spent thousands of pounds on my collection. Being twelve-inch discs, they took up comparable space to a vinyl music collection.
However, time and tide waits for no man and it also doesn’t give a shit about collectors. Towards the end of the nineties, DVD became the de facto medium of choice and so I changed the focus of my collecting activities. Due to regional variations, multiple versions and good old-fashioned censorship, DVD proved to be an even more collectable format than LaserDisc. It was round about this time, when my personal collection of movies was over five hundred that I realised there had been a shift in the pleasure I got from collecting. It was no longer just about seeing the best and most complete version of a much-loved movie. I was in the thrall of the “thrill of the hunt”. A fact borne out by the number of discs I had that remained unwatched, still in their shrink wrap. I was also using up considerable storage space to accommodate my collection and it was proving to be somewhat of a drain on my finances. And then Blu-ray appeared on the market and opened up not only a new avenue of potential collecting but a can of worms. Did I really want to replace so much of my precious hoard?
It’s a curious thing how something that has taken years to amass, can be dispensed with and disposed of in a far quicker time. My Father-in-law was a prodigious collector of coins and medals. He was very proud of his collection and guest were frequently regaled with it. Yet collecting is often very personal and means little to those who do not share similar passions. When my Father-in-law died in 2012, his collection was sold quickly and efficiently to several professional collectors. It was just another asset to be disposed of, once his estate had been settled. And so it was with my film collection. Once I had determined that it was no longer the collection that mattered to me but just the act of acquisition, I felt no reason to continue doing either. The very rare and signed LaserDiscs where sold to a specialist film and memorabilia store. The rest of the DVDs where then sold online, or traded in at game stores. What was left was given away to charity shops.
I’m not sure if I have a major philosophical point to make about collecting, beyond the fact that many people that I’ve spoken to on the subject have had a similar journey. What starts off as a fun undertaking eventually becomes a millstone and possibly a minor addiction. It certainly can become a massive financial drain. I also think that collecting is a very solitary pastime and is not accommodating of relationships and other situations that compete for your time, attention and money. I am now at a point in my life where I have embraced downsizing and decluttering. Technology has also made so much previously rare material readily available. As a film fan, I now live in an age where tracking down high-quality copies of most movies is quite easy. I doubt if I’ll ever collect anything in my life again, yet I cannot totally write off the period of my life in which I did. It was fun initially regardless of where it led and I think it ended up teaching me a lot about myself.
Here's an episode of the Burton & Scrooge Podcast from September 2015. Brian and I have a fairly lengthy conversation about collecting, drawing upon our own personal experiences. The discussion begins at 27:12 into the show.
Shoot 'Em Up (2008)
Michael Davis Shoot ’Em Up is the tale of Mr. Smith (Clive Owen), a drifter with a possible special forces background and a liking for carrots who wants nothing more than to be left alone. However, he finds himself embroiled in a complex political conspiracy once he aids a pregnant woman who is being chased by a hitman. After the woman is killed, he takes the baby and goes on the run with a lactating prostitute (Monica Bellucci). Meanwhile, they are stalked by the intelligent and ruthless Hertz (Paul Giamatti), an ex-FBI forensic psychologist and his never-ending army of foot soldiers. A myriad of elaborate gunfights ensues and Smith slowly pieces together the reasons behind their pursuit. A United States Senator who strongly supports gun control has been breeding babies for their bone marrow to treat his cancer. A prominent gun baron has contracted Hertz to kill the babies, thus ending the senator’s political ambitions. Once the plot is expedited the mayhem continues.
Michael Davis Shoot ’Em Up is the tale of Mr. Smith (Clive Owen), a drifter with a possible special forces background and a liking for carrots who wants nothing more than to be left alone. However, he finds himself embroiled in a complex political conspiracy once he aids a pregnant woman who is being chased by a hitman. After the woman is killed, he takes the baby and goes on the run with a lactating prostitute (Monica Bellucci). Meanwhile, they are stalked by the intelligent and ruthless Hertz (Paul Giamatti), an ex-FBI forensic psychologist and his never-ending army of foot soldiers. A myriad of elaborate gunfights ensues and Smith slowly pieces together the reasons behind their pursuit. A United States Senator who strongly supports gun control has been breeding babies for their bone marrow to treat his cancer. A prominent gun baron has contracted Hertz to kill the babies, thus ending the senator’s political ambitions. Once the plot is expedited the mayhem continues.
It is alleged by director, Michael Davis that Shoot ’Em Up is a satirical look at American gun culture and the way it has become an integral part of the social fabric of the country. It also supposedly lampoons the contemporary action movie focusing on its style, ethics and “raison d’etre”. Whether or not this is the case remains to be seen. Joe Public didn't discern any hidden depths upon the films initial release. As it stands Shoot ’Em Up is simply an action film with a plot more preposterous than Crank, with a bunch of frenetic action scenes cribbed from Hong Kong cinema. The film lurches from a sense of tongue in cheek, to abject incredulity within the first ten minutes of the film, when a bad guy is dispatched by a carrot.
If you want action with a satirical subtext, then it is better represented by the work of Paul Verhoeven. Robocop and Starship Troopers being prime examples. The intellectual pretensions of Shoot 'Em Up definitely got lost during its making. However, there are a few good aspects to the proceedings. It is enjoyable spotting the homages to such classics as Hard Boiled and Django. And some of the dialogue is so excruciating it becomes quite droll. But by and large this film is a mess. Neither Owen or the talented Giamatti can save it. With the message lost, there’s nothing more than a film destined to be wilfully misconstrued by the tabloids. Therefore, avoid Shoot 'Em Up if you are easily offended or intolerant of the cinematic equivalent of the concept album.
George A. Romero (1940 - 2017)
Writer and director George A. Romero will forever be synonymous with the zombie genre and horror movies per se, as his work in this field was pioneering and outstanding. Yet, because of the success of his seminal film, Night of the Living Dead, he also brought a great deal of attention to independent film making and the way film making was financed. He was an intelligent and thoughtful film maker who used the medium of genre movies to explore a variety of socio-political themes. His characters were often flawed but credible and he had a knack for finding humanity in the bleakest of dramatic situations. If Romero had explored such ideas in mainstream cinema he would have garnered far more praise and potentially have won critical acclaim from the cinematic establishment.
Writer and director George A. Romero will forever be synonymous with the zombie genre and horror movies per se, as his work in this field was pioneering and outstanding. Yet, because of the success of his seminal film, Night of the Living Dead, he also brought a great deal of attention to independent film making and the way film making was financed. He was an intelligent and thoughtful film maker who used the medium of genre movies to explore a variety of socio-political themes. His characters were often flawed but credible and he had a knack for finding humanity in the bleakest of dramatic situations. If Romero had explored such ideas in mainstream cinema he would have garnered far more praise and potentially have won critical acclaim from the cinematic establishment.
I had the pleasure of seeing George A. Romero interviewed at the British Film Institute several times over the last two decades. He was a quietly spoken, thoughtful man who was very cinematically literate. He was also very gracious towards his fans, who were often utterly besotted with him and his work. Yet, he took time to answer their questions in a comprehensive and positive way. It also became very clear that he was far removed from the “auteur director” moniker that he’d been saddled with. He spoke very generously about the talent he’d had the pleasure of working with over the years and he certainly lacked the ego we so often see from certain creative quarters. I think this contributed to the clarity and honesty of his film making.
In many ways Dawn of the Dead remains George A. Romero’s magnum opus. It is as pertinent today as a social and political commentary as it was in 1978 upon its release. As a personal preference, I would recommend The Extended Mall Hours Cut of the film which is a fan edit that combines all material seen in the Director’s Cut and Argento Cut of the film. It is as close an approximation of Romero’s original rough cut of the movie as you can find. This version delves in to the human element of the narrative further and really does add a somewhat different tone to the film’s final act. Seldom does mainstream cinema get this thoughtful and as introspective, let alone genre cinema. But that was George A. Romero’s gift. Free from studio interferences and financial imperatives, he could focus on credible and honest film making. He will be missed.
Doctor Who: BBC Cast Jodie Whittaker
This afternoon, the BBC announced that Jodie Whittaker would be the thirteenth incarnation of the Time Lord, Doctor Who; the first woman to be given the role. Quite predictably, the internet went into meltdown, with cheers from some quarters and howls of derision from others. I make no bones about the fact that I got a great deal of Schadenfreude from this. Why exactly? Well we’ll come back to that point a little later. First off let me say that I really don’t mind about this casting decision. From what I’ve seen, Jodie Whittaker is an extremely competent actor and if given robust and engaging material, will excel as the new Doctor. I have no axe to grind here, either from a lore or a socio-political perspective. If the shit fits, wear it, is what I say.
This afternoon, the BBC announced that Jodie Whittaker would be the thirteenth incarnation of the Time Lord, Doctor Who; the first woman to be given the role. Quite predictably, the internet went into meltdown, with cheers from some quarters and howls of derision from others. I make no bones about the fact that I got a great deal of Schadenfreude from this. Why exactly? Well we’ll come back to that point a little later. First off let me say that I really don’t mind about this casting decision. From what I’ve seen, Jodie Whittaker is an extremely competent actor and if given robust and engaging material, will excel as the new Doctor. I have no axe to grind here, either from a lore or a socio-political perspective. If the shit fits, wear it, is what I say.
What I do find fascinating are some of the objections raised on Twitter and on the comments section of most major online news outlets. As there’s a lot of ground to cover I’ll try and keep it brief. Everyone, as ever, is entitled to their opinion but let us not forget that opinions are not of equal value. First off, if you object to the casting of Jodie Whittaker out of personal preference, IE there’s another actor you’d have rather seen play the role, then fine. That’s a perfectly okay stance to have. I got a Sainbury’s delivery the other day and they substituted toffee and vanilla ice cream cones with chocolate and nut ones. I prefer the former to the latter. Life is all about preferences of some kind, is it not?
However, there are objections being made which betray a mindset that there are clear gender roles within both fiction and real life and that a woman cannot be “The Doctor”. There are also certain fans who feel that the object of their affections should have some sort of protected status, define specifically by them. If they don’t like something, their fan status should be able to veto the offending decision. It is also not uncommon these days to see push back towards any sort of progressive socio-political decision. Culturally and politically, the west seems to be regressing with regard to social change. And let us not forget that incredulous notion, that a much loved worked of fiction can be “ruined” and that your fond memories can be sullied in some way. I guess this is some variant of the IPCRESS process.
All the above are frankly spurious objections. Some are born of sexism, some of fans intransigence or of outdated cultural conditioning and ideological baggage. Some protest are puerile, others mendacious and sadly a percentage are driven by pure hatred of any sort of social progression. What is important to bear in mind at present, is in the UK specifically, there is no clear majority mindset or consensus on political or social issues. We live in a very divided country and there is no prevailing moral stance. Recent political “surprises” such as Brexit have emboldened certain groups, who previously have kept their specific views hidden. Hence, we see claims that casting a woman is pandering to minority, despite the fact that women are hardly such a demographic. Yet sufficient people feel this way and are happy to express such an opinion.
I have no doubt that be it through personal preference, deep help beliefs or good old-fashioned prejudice, the next season of Doctor Who may well see some old school viewers refrain from watching. However, it is also very likely that this Doctor will also attract a new audience. And before we get into a debate about gender specific role models, can I put forward the rather quaint notion that a role model can potentially appeal to all, irrespective of gender, race, religion and shoe size. Yet despite the ongoing positivity in some quarters and the scope to broaden the viewer base for Doctor Who, it would be foolish to ignore certain practical business criteria. The BBC is a unique organisation but it is not immune from market forces. If for whatever reason they fumble the ball on the next season of Doctor Who and we see a substantial drop in global viewing figures and more importantly, sales, then this casting decision may well be reviewed. We do not yet live in an age where doing the right thing exclusively trumps business.
Finally, I want to return to my early point about Schadenfreude. Fellow blogger Syp (AKA Justin Olivetti) and all round nice guy tweeted this evening “It's like some people are genuinely excited that the new Doctor Who will upset others. Can't just be happy for what it is? I am”. I understand where this sentiment comes from and in principle, it is sound. Sadly, I do not think it is so easy to apply to many situations these days. This entire debacle over the thirteenth Doctor is in many ways a microcosm of the ongoing socio-political culture war. There is no overall prevailing ideology for change at present and politics is extremely sectarian. A percentage of the public have no appetite for further equality and would frankly like to see much of the progress of the recent decades rolled back. I do not wish to see this worldview fill the political vacuum. Sometimes you cannot steer the middle course and have to choose a side. You also have to robustly refute those views you feel are counterproductive. That at times means mocking and using humour, as it an effective political tool.
In the meantime, I shall await with a degree of excitement for the new season of Doctor Who that comes in 2018. I’m sure that the there’s a good chance that the current brouhaha will die down and if a good writing standard are maintained, the thirteenth Doctor will find her audience and keep the franchise popular and on course. Success in this instance would be the best way to counter future arguments along similar lines. Life is essentially about change and we need as a species to get better at dealing with it. Because the rancour that stems from resisting it, is frankly damaging to society.
Licence to Kill (1989)
Licence to Kill was the sixteenth instalment in the James Bond series and the last to star Timothy Dalton as MI6 agent James Bond. He sadly only made two and remains an underrated Bond. Licence to Kill was also the first official James Bond film to use a title not derived from either an Ian Fleming novel or a short story. However, it does contain characters and elements from Fleming's novel "Live and Let Die" and the short story "The Hildebrand Rarity". The film follows Bond's dismissal from MI6 and his vendetta against a South American drug baron. The film was originally due to be called "Licence Revoked" but was changed allegedly to avoid confusion with American audience
Licence to Kill is the sixteenth instalment in the James Bond series and the last to star Timothy Dalton as MI6 agent James Bond. He sadly only made two movies and remains an underrated Bond. Licence to Kill was also the first official James Bond film to use a title not derived from either an Ian Fleming novel or a short story. However, it does contain characters and elements from Fleming's novel "Live and Let Die" and the short story "The Hildebrand Rarity". The film follows Bond's dismissal from MI6 and his vendetta against a South American drug baron after an attack on his friend Felix Leiter. The film was originally due to be called "Licence Revoked" but was changed allegedly to avoid confusion with American audiences.
Licence to Kill was one of the least commercially successful Bond films. It had production costs of approximately $36 million and made only $156 million back at the box office. The previous Bond outing, The Living Daylights had made over $196 million. This drop can be attributed to the decision to release the film in the summer, in direct competition with Lethal Weapon 2, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (starring former Bond Sean Connery) and Batman. Bond films have traditionally been Autumn releases. Due to the death of screenwriter Richard Maibaum and subsequent legal battles over the ownership of the James Bond series, there was a subsequent six year hiatus until the next Bond movie Goldeneye in 1995. Licence to Kill has many unique factors that make it a milestone within the Bond franchise.
Licence to Kill has many unique factors that make it a milestone within the Bond franchise. It the first Bond film to be rated PG-13 in the US and 15 in the UK; all previous films were PG. Violent scenes still had to be trimmed in both the UK and US to avoid a higher classification. Director John Glen decided to make the film stronger in tone to directly compete with the contemporary competition. Action films had become more prevalent during the eighties and often included expensive and elaborate set pieces. These had been in the past the exclusive province of the Bond films. However, the release of the James Bond "Ultimate Editions" on DVD in 2006, restored all previously cut material. The fully uncut print was also sourced for the more recent Blu-ray disc in 2009.
Licence to Kill featured another major change for the franchise. Veteran Bond composer, John Barry was not available at the time of the post production, as he was undergoing throat surgery. Therefore, the soundtrack was composed and conducted by Michael Kamen, a British composer who had already scored several action films such as Lethal weapon and Die hard. Licence to Kill, despite poor financial returns, did perform well with numerous critics. It is still a source of division among fans. It is hard edged, minimalist and reflects the tone of Fleming's early novels very well. Dalton's performance, the lack of fanciful gadgets and glib one liners, is a radical change in style from the self-parodying excesses of Moonraker. Director John Glen deemed it to be the best of his five Bond films. On reflection, the market at the time was simply not ready for such a radical shift in the franchise. It is ironic that Casino Royale successfully managed to make such a change seventeen years later.
"You're Playing Wrong"
There’s one particular topic that appears with tedious regularity on MMO subreddits and forums. That old chestnut about how the genre has become too solo friendly and that it’s to the ruination of the genre. It usually hails from the raiding community and follows a predictable path about high end gear and those who do and don’t deserve it. When you look beyond the initial arguments, you’ll frequently find that such positions are very emotive, couched in judgemental terms and often end in the sentiment “why even play an MMO?” or something comparable. The reason I mention this perennial debate is because it appeared recently on a forum that I still occasionally visit. It saddens me to a degree because, this point has been debunked so many times, yet it still persists (a bit like many political talking points). It also smacks of that attitude I see all too frequently these days. A concern and borderline resentment of what others are doing, irrespective of whether it impacts upon you or not.
There’s one particular topic that appears with tedious regularity on MMO subreddits and forums. That old chestnut about how the genre has become too solo friendly and that it’s to the ruination of the genre. It usually hails from the raiding community and follows a predictable path about high end gear and those who do and don’t deserve it. When you look beyond the initial arguments, you’ll frequently find that such positions are very emotive, couched in judgemental terms and often end in the sentiment “why even play an MMO?” or something comparable. The reason I mention this perennial debate is because it appeared recently on a forum that I still occasionally visit. It saddens me to a degree because, this point has been debunked so many times, yet it still persists (a bit like many political talking points). It also smacks of that attitude I see all too frequently these days. A concern and borderline resentment of what others are doing, irrespective of whether it impacts upon you or not.
So how shall we tackle this question of “you’re playing wrong” because that is effectively what it boils down to. Well, let us start with that very question. Is there a definitive way to play an MMORPG? No is the brief answer. Sure, each MMO has a set of rules and procedures that set out a path of progression. However, nowhere in these rules will you find a statement saying it is mandatory to play this particular way. Humans like to adapt things to suit their own needs. Play is under pinned by imagination and creativity. Therefore, role-players are free to pursue their particular play style in an MMO. Players can create alts and continuously replay specific content only if they wish. It is not essential to be in a guild or to raid and not everyone wants the best gear. Furthermore, I have never seen a major objection towards varied play styles from the developers of an MMO. They usually just seem happy that people can find joy in their creation and the publishers are content to have your money regardless of what you do.
As for the question "why even play an MMO?" it is utterly irrelevant to the debate. A player’s motivation for playing and indeed the very manner in which they play is no business of anyone else as long as it remains within the TOS of the game. Another common argument and variation upon this theme is that MMOs are meant to be social games and that the very foundation of the genre is the need for continuous interaction with other players. I remember Massively OP writer Jef Rehard claiming not so long ago that “this is a social genre. This is not your world. It's our world, and how you interact with and ultimately shape it is most definitely my concern". Yet the reality is that a MORPG is only social in so far as it includes game mechanics that can facilitate group interaction. They are there as an option and are seldom mandatory. Therefore, MMORPGs are not solely "a social genre" and it is worth noting that the word social does not feature in the acronym. It is also a common misconception that the social dimension that can be found in MMOs, is a result of the game itself. It is not. The game certainly provides a framework for group interaction but ultimately the social element is organically generated by the players themselves. The game at most is a conduit. Gather people together in any social interaction, friendship and fun will present itself.
As for the issue, as to "who's world is it", the answer is simple. It's the publishers. Gamers frequently make the mistake of believing they have a far greater stake in the object of their affection, beyond their consumer rights. We are all nothing more than a customer and any claim suggesting some vicarious form of collective ownership is nonsense. Fandom is a wonderful thing and has many positive aspects but at times it does cause a form of “tunnel vision” that impacts upon some players sense of perspective. MMORPGs are products created to make money. That is their primary purpose. They are not there to provide a social service nor are they under any obligation to foster a morally righteous community. Such activities are simply a byproduct of their use by the player base. There is equal scope for the community to go in the other direction and become toxic.
The MMORPG genre has changed greatly over the last decade and is now quite different from how it was. All consumer products evolve over time. Why is this situation any different? If one finds oneself aggrieved by such change surely it would be logical to blame it upon market forces and the nature of capitalism, rather than on those players that have elected to pursue their entertainment in a different way to you, as is their right? Thus, the argument that “you’re playing wrong” is a fundamentally flawed concept based on faulty data and incorrect assumptions. It also stems from fundamental misunderstanding of what a players role is within the traditional business and customer relationship.
So, in conclusion, concerns over other MMO players habits are misplaced. Beyond abiding by a games TOS (and hopefully maintaining good manners and common decency), a solo player has no obligation to anyone else and is free to pursue their own endeavours within a game in whatever fashion they see fit. As ever with debates of this kind, it is largely a matter of semantics and logical thinking. As a player who predominantly plays MMORPGs solo, the only way my actions affect other players is through the indirect medium of prevailing business trends. IE being part of a group that offers more business potential to the developers. Carping about this is a bit like complaining that not enough people buy a particular brand of coffee that you like and as a result the supermarket no longer stocks it.
Finally, there is a slight hint of a sense of moral outrage associated with this re-occurring argument. Such sentiment is misplaced in a reasoned and rational argument. This is ultimately a discussion about business decisions and how market forces govern product change. Personal indignation based upon perceived injustices does nothing more than cloud the debate. Developers know that they can't please all customers and it would be beneficial is gamers reciprocated. If as a gamer find yourself on the wrong side of a change of policy or game mechanic, then that is sad for you but beyond that it is of no more significance. However as reasoned and rational discussion is not de rigueur in any public arena at present, let alone just in gaming, I suspect we haven’t seen the last of the “you’re playing wrong” debate.
Lockout (2012)
Let's cut to the chase. Lockout is derivative, clichéd, has some dodgy CGI FX work and has nothing new to add to the Sci-Fi sub-genre of future prison action movies. However, that does not mean that the movie is not enjoyable. On the contrary, if approached with the right mind set, then Lockout can be an entertaining experience, which will have you chuckling as it ticks boxes in a knowing fashion and offers some budget action and hard-boiled dialogue. It certainly isn't going to win any awards, but is does everything that a B movie should do. If you treat it as such then you won't be misled.
Let's cut to the chase. Lockout is derivative, clichéd, has some dodgy CGI FX work and has nothing new to add to the Sci-Fi sub-genre of future prison action movies. However, that does not mean that the movie is not enjoyable. On the contrary, if approached with the right mind set, then Lockout can be an entertaining experience, which will have you chuckling as it ticks boxes in a knowing fashion and offers some budget action and hard-boiled dialogue. It certainly isn't going to win any awards, but is does everything that a B movie should do. If you treat it as such then you won't be misled.
For starters, think Escape from New York, then No Escape and then finally Fortress. Follow that order to find the appropriate level. Where John Carpenter made Snake Plissken a Clint Eastwood/John Wayne hybrid, Guy Pearces' Snow is more of a John McClane/Han Solo crossover. Lockout never strays into being a total rip-off of Carpenter's work, but it sails close to bounderies of what can be labelled "a homage". Guy Pearce, armed with pumped biceps and an arsenal of waggish badinage plays Snow, a former government agent who must single-handedly rescue the President’s daughter (Maggie Grace), from a space prison to escape (for some particular reason as Homer Simpson said). The prisoners are the usual collection of cinematic sociopaths, although Hydell (Joseph Gilgun), the psychotic brother of the prisoner’s leader, has all the best lines and is immense fun to watch. Stuff gets blown up, fist fights ensue, the laws of physics are conveniently bent to suit the plot as you expect from such movies.
When Luc Besson initially started putting his name to broader action productions, it was a pleasant alternative to mainstream Hollywood fodder. The European vibe brought something new to familiar action material. However, these movies are now plagiarising the very material they seek to be different to and the distinction is not so great now. Written and directed by relative newcomers James Mather and Stephen St. Leger, Lockout perhaps needed a more experienced pair of hands at the helm. The movie was shot on location in Belgrade but also had extensive green screen footage shot in post-production. The movie struggles to integrate both elements. However, it's quirky continental pedigree, tongue in cheek approach, along with its fast pace does allow the directors to effectively "blag it".
I was in an unusually forgiving mood when I saw Lockout in the movie theatre on its release and chose to ignore its faults and simply dealt with it like a DTV action title from the eighties. I even smirked when Snow balked at being beaten by a guy called Rupert. However, this is the sort of movie that plays a lot better in the home entertainment market. It’s something that goes well with a few beers and a curry. If you are a casual film viewer, you may wish to give this one a miss as it lacks some of the polish of bigger budget releases. For those who have a deeper love for the action genre and have sat through Freejack and Fortress 2: Re-Entry, then you can take this one on the chin easily.
The Raven (2012)
The Raven is a high concept movie in which author Edgar Allan Poe discovers that a serial killer is copying his literary work. It mixes a traditional Gothic sense of style with postmodern depictions of violence and has a quirky, erudite and fun screenplay. The film has a strong streak of gallows humour running through it and a solid cast. It is however an unbalanced production that never quite hits its stride, despite its fast pace. Like director James McTeigue's earlier film V for Vendetta I suspect that The Raven may be another slow burner, finding its audience over time rather than initially.
The Raven is a high concept movie in which author Edgar Allan Poe discovers that a serial killer is copying his literary work. It mixes a traditional Gothic sense of style with postmodern depictions of violence and has a quirky, erudite and fun screenplay. The film has a strong streak of gallows humour running through it and a solid cast. It is however an unbalanced production that never quite hits its stride, despite its fast pace. Like director James McTeigue's earlier film V for Vendetta I suspect that The Raven may be another slow burner, finding its audience over time rather than initially.
The cast is strong with Luke Evans, Alice Eve and John Cusack as Poe. Brendan Gleeson sports a splendid pair of sideburns (grips) and as usual provides an assured performance as Poe's father-in-law. The cinematography is reminiscent of Hammer's baroque style with a hint of Argento thrown in, courtesy of DP Danny Ruhlmann. The dialogue is equally whippy and writers Ben Livingston and Hannah Shakespeare script is not without merit. Poe fans will enjoy spotting the many homages both great and small. Yet despite its virtues The Raven still doesn't quite reach the heights of the material it references.
A lot of the films shortcomings stem from the character of Poe himself. John Cusack’s performances is strong and he is very watchable but is perhaps a little too good looking compared to the alcoholic, drug addicted, dissipated reality of the author. Furthermore, the film pits Poe as a foil to Detective Emmett Fields, rather than making him the lead in the investigation. The dynamic although well-structured seems wrong. Shouldn't Poe, the creator of the great fictional detective Monsieur Dupin, not be taking the lead in the solving the ongoing crimes? The denouement when the killer is unmasked in true Scooby Doo fashion, also doesn't come as a major surprise.
The Raven, despite its uneven nature is still an enjoyable film and it is nice to see period set costume horror making a welcome return. If you liked V for Vendetta, I suspect that you may also embrace this movie. It has many of the former's strengths and weaknesses. Those who favour the current vogue of horror film making, as seen in the likes of Paranormal Activity or any of the recent reboots, may be disappointed. The Raven may well improve with a second viewing and I intend to do so at a later date. I shall not say anything further less I give in to my urge to say "nevermore" or make a reference to the Teletubbies.
H. P. Lovecraft's The Shadow Out of Time (2012)
The writings of H. P. Lovecraft have been an inspiration for many a film maker. Their brooding atmosphere along with intriguing blend of science and the occult, offers a wealth of themes to be explored. Unfortunately, there have been very few movies that have come anywhere near to capturing the spirit of the author. So, it was with great interest that I watched the fifteen-minute short film The Shadow Out of Time. This low budget production made by independent film makers Richard Svensson, Daniel Lennéer and Christopher Johansson, succinctly distils a classic Lovecraftian tale without losing any of the ambience of the source text. It puts to shame some of the hand-fisted adaptations that have preceded it.
The writings of H. P. Lovecraft have been an inspiration for many a film maker. Their brooding atmosphere along with intriguing blend of science and the occult, offers a wealth of themes to be explored. Unfortunately, there have been very few movies that have come anywhere near to capturing the spirit of the author. So, it was with great interest that I watched the fifteen-minute short film The Shadow Out of Time. This low budget production made by independent film makers Richard Svensson, Daniel Lennéer and Christopher Johansson, succinctly distils a classic Lovecraftian tale without losing any of the ambience of the source text. It puts to shame some of the hand-fisted adaptations that have preceded it.
The plot follows an academic, Nathaniel Wingate Peaslee who collapses during a lecture to find that he has exchanged bodies with an extraterrestrial life form from Earth's past history. His own body is occupied by the alien who spend the next two years studying the present era. Eventually the process is reversed and Peaslee attributes the events to a mental collapse. However, it becomes apparent that he is not the only one to have had this experience. His resulting investigation leads him to Australia and an uncomfortable truth emerges. The story touches upon the experiences of both individuals and hints at a further menace that threatens the future of both species. Told via narration, the film is set in the 1900s and reflects the cinematic style of the time.
The period setting along with its stylised format really enhances the unfolding story. Åke Rosén performance is very much in the appropriate idiom and John Hutch narration embellishes without descending into melodramatics. Overall this is a polished production when you consider the budgetary and the logistical constraints imposed upon the film makers. It never ceases to amaze me the dedication and love that fans can muster to create such outstanding work using just “over the counter” hardware and software. Therefore, I thoroughly recommend The Shadow Out of Time and would urge readers to check out the creators You Tube channel for further H. P. Lovecraft adaptations.
The Myth of the Perfect Video Game
Jim Sterling posted an interesting video this morning exploring the ongoing obsession of major games studios with trying to find the perfect video game and how they’re on a hiding to nothing. He cites market research conducted by the food industry in which two rival companies tried to find the perfect pasta sauce. To cut a long story short it turns out there was no universally favoured product and a third of those polled actually wanted a type of pasta sauce that wasn’t even available. The conclusion of this analysis was that success was dependent on offering a broad range of products. To quote Mr. Sterling, “there is no perfect pasta sauce, just perfect pasta sauces”. Let it suffice to say this anecdotes parallels with the gaming industry are obvious. Games perpetuate features that work, which end up being adopted by other rival products. This leads to a lack of innovation and constrained creativity.
Jim Sterling posted an interesting video this morning exploring the ongoing obsession of major games studios with trying to find the perfect video game and how they’re on a hiding to nothing. He cites market research conducted by the food industry in which two rival companies tried to find the perfect pasta sauce. To cut a long story short it turns out there was no universally favoured product and a third of those polled actually wanted a type of pasta sauce that wasn’t even available. The conclusion of this analysis was that success was dependent on offering a broad range of products. To quote Mr. Sterling, “there is no perfect pasta sauce, just perfect pasta sauces”. Let it suffice to say this anecdotes parallels with the gaming industry are obvious. Games perpetuate features that work, which end up being adopted by other rival products. This leads to a lack of innovation and constrained creativity.
After watching this video, I immediately thought of the MMORPG genre and how it is an exemplar of this theory. Since World of Warcraft established its dominance of the market, all major Triple A titles have sought to replicates Blizzard’s success. Thus, there are numerous franchise based and non-franchise based theme park MMOs, running on hybrid B2P and F2P business models. Most are couched in generic fantasy trappings, all offering skills trees, crafting, reputation factions, as well as major or minor quests. MMOs can be entertaining but after you’ve played through three or four, the similarities soon become apparent, with the only major difference being the setting and theme of the overall game. At present, if you want innovation in MMOs you have to look to the independent gaming scene.
The search for a winning formula and how it often leads to generic products, is sadly common to most consumer industries. Boy Bands, Reality TV shows and junk food are just some of the examples of where this can lead. Producing “more of the same” ultimately stagnates the market and so the revenue stream is far from indefinite. The slasher boom of the eighties was lucrative but ultimately ran out of steam. So will the MCU and other major movies franchises. Therefore, why should gaming be any different. However, one thing Jim Sterling doesn’t explore in his video is what happens after the inevitable crash that comes from doggedly pursuing an unobtainable business goal, such as the “perfect video game”.
History shows that when the mainstream ceases to innovate and engage with its customers, creativity emerges from the fringe. It happened in the film industry during the late sixties and early seventies when independent films started to gain both critical and commercial success. The conventional music industry was similarly side lined by the emergence of punk and then later with hip hop. The rise of the internet has facilitated a wealth of content outside of commercial television. It caters to bespoke and niche markets. So, although mainstream gaming may well be heading for a commercial crash, what comes after may well be worth the wait and the current inadequacies of the market. In the meantime, if we as gamers wish to expedite these changes, we need to look to ourselves and what we buy. Exercising consumer choice sends a potent message.
Parents and Movie Ratings
Movie ratings in the UK are overseen by the British Board of Film Classification. A movie legally requires certification to be shown theatrically or released on DVD or Blu-ray. Ratings are governed by guidelines that have been determined through public consultation, expert advice and peer review. In recent years the BBFC has become a measured, informed and progressive body that broadly reaches appropriate decisions that are mainly agreed with by cinema audiences. UK ratings, unlike their US counterparts, are exclusionary. Films rated 15 or 18 prohibit the admission of those below that age. With regard to home media, it is illegal to rent or sell DVD or Blu-ray discs rated similarly.
Movie ratings in the UK are overseen by the British Board of Film Classification. A movie legally requires certification to be shown theatrically or released on DVD or Blu-ray. Ratings are governed by guidelines that have been determined through public consultation, expert advice and peer review. In recent years the BBFC has become a measured, informed and progressive body that broadly reaches appropriate decisions that are mainly agreed with by cinema audiences. UK ratings, unlike their US counterparts, are exclusionary. Films rated 15 or 18 prohibit the admission of those below that age. With regard to home media, it is illegal to rent or sell DVD or Blu-ray discs rated similarly.
In the past the BBFC has made poor decisions and policies have varied under various directors. However a far more level headed attitude has prevailed of late and I believe the organisation now makes sound decisions. More importantly the organisation remains independent and free from political interference and industry lobbying. The BBFC has a wealth of resources available on its website and provides great detail about how it has arrived at a rating. They even go so far as to give readers spoiler warnings, when discussing the content of a movie. Strong language, drug use and violence as well as adult themes are listed if they feature in the film.
As a parent that has raised a child, I applaud such rigour and in-depth information. Being a movie fan, I have always had an immense love of cinema. Naturally my son was exposed to a lot of films while growing up. However personal fandom was never allowed to trump common sense and both my wife and I always took time to consider the suitability of any material we watched with our son. It is something I encourage all parents to do. Ratings are there to inform and an assist. We currently live in an age where there is a wealth of information available. Therefore making an informed decision about family viewing need not be difficult.
Sadly despite the wealth of resources available parents still remain oblivious to ratings and I have often seen children in theatres watching movies that are patently unsuitable for them. Furthermore they are frequently distressed and I do wonder about the long term harm that can be done by such ill-considered parenting. Two such examples from 2015 were Jurassic World and SPECTRE. On both occasions I sat next to families with children under the age of ten who were far from happy about certain scenes. It should be noted that both these movies were rated 12A which is broadly equivalent to the US PG-13 rating. In recent years, it has become the most common rating in the UK film industry and potentially the most misunderstood.
The most common problem associated with the UK 12A rating, is the fact that is an advisory rating. According to the BBFC website “Films classified 12A and video works classified 12 contain material that is not generally suitable for children aged under 12. No one younger than 12 may see a 12A film in a cinema unless accompanied by an adult. Adults planning to take a child under 12 to view a 12A film should consider whether the film is suitable for that child”. Therefore, as a parent, if you’re planning to take children under the age of 12 to see a movie such as Kong: Skull Island, it is incumbent upon you to determine if the film is suitable and whether the child in question is mature enough to enjoy the film without becoming upset or distressed. The 12A rating is not by default a guarantee that a movie is child friendly, nor does it mean that the movie in question is exclusively marketed towards children per se.
At present mainstream film making loves the PG-13/12A rating. It makes a film accessible to the broadest of audiences, thus maximising box office takings, while still accommodating a degree of sex, violence and strong language. The rating can also encompass a variety of adult themes and material that is dour, bleak and even threatening. This is specifically why the advisory nature of the rating needs to be acted upon. Just because younger children can be admitted to see films with this rating, doesn’t by default mean that they should. Cinema, like TV should not be used as a convenient babysitting service. Perhaps some parents would be wise to reflect upon this and take more time to research a movie before allowing their children to watch it. The BBFC website like so many others can be easily accessed by phone. Continued failure by lax parents to adhere to rating correctly, could potentially lead to a more draconian system being implemented.
Running Around Shooting Things
I took advantage of the current summer sales and pre-ordered the next instalment of Call of Duty, succinctly named WWII, due to be released in Autumn. After straying far from the established model, it’s nice to see CoD returning to its roots. The Second World War is a tried and tested formula and will no doubt be well received by fans of the franchise. As I have said before, COD is not a revolutionary product and as far as I know has never claimed to be. It provides a standard formula with sufficient variation, which is commercially viable and demonstrably popular. Those gamers that constantly rail against these games are on a hiding to nothing. You might as well complain about pop music being mainstream and accessible.
I took advantage of the current summer sales and pre-ordered the next instalment of Call of Duty, succinctly named WWII, due to be released in Autumn. After straying far from the established model, it’s nice to see CoD returning to its roots. The Second World War is a tried and tested formula and will no doubt be well received by fans of the franchise. As I have said before, COD is not a revolutionary product and as far as I know has never claimed to be. It provides a standard formula with sufficient variation, which is commercially viable and demonstrably popular. Those gamers that constantly rail against these games are on a hiding to nothing. You might as well complain about pop music being mainstream and accessible.
Over the years I played numerous FPS franchises such as Doom, Quake and Battlefield. Recently I’ve strayed in to cooperative variants such as Overwatch and For Honor. They all have their respective merits and downsides. But they all have to be offset against my relative lack of skill with the FPS genre. Map familiarity, optimising your load out and effective tactics are required skills if you want to get the most from the games. Skills that I lack. As a result, many of these titles have never fully satisfied me and lived up to the frenetic experience that the marketing depicted. However, COD, particularly the Treyarch produced instalments, have not fallen into this category.
The barriers to success are lower due to the mechanics of the game. Weapons physics and map designs are less esoteric and there is also an opportunity for luck. Even the most myopic of players will be presented with a chance to get kill sooner or later, even if it is simply by a player spawning in front of you. What some see as dumbing down is the foundation of the games appeal. For those that want a more challenging experience there are harder game modes. But for those that don't want a strict learning curve or the intricacies of more sophisticated games, COD provides a quick fix. There is also the offline multiplayer option in some instalment for those who wish to play against bots.
I have spent time in various incarnations of Battlefield where the multiplayer experience has been very good. But that has often been dependent on the server I was playing on. I have also had times when endless running across the map only to be shot the moment I arrived at the action, became very trying. The way certain players monopolise some of the vehicles is also a pain at times. Simply put, being a poor player inhibits your enjoyment of the game. With CoD, this simply doesn't arise as often. You may at times chance across some tedious troll but this can be addressed with the judicious use of the mute button. Overall you can jump into the action and quickly start enjoying the game without having to think to hard or worry about tactics. Overwatch has a similar accessibility about it. If you desire a greater challenge you can always find it with the variety of options these games offer.
The FPS genre provides a variety of products, catering to a broad range of tastes. Each has its place in the market and arguing that one is better than another seems as senseless to me as saying apples are better than oranges. There are times when I will knuckle down and attempt to up my game when playing something like Red Orchestra 2 Heroes of Stalingrad. It often helps in a more complex environment to be part of an organised team. On other occasions, I am happy to take a more leisurely approach because sometimes, all I want to do is run around and shoot things. It is then that I recapture that enjoyment I had when playing Unreal Tournament, back in 1999. Because isn't having fun what gaming is supposed to be about?
What’s My Age Again?
As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, I am a child of the seventies. I was born in late 1967 so my most formative years were from about 1973 onwards. I really don’t remember a great deal of things prior to the age of five. Does anyone? Now the thing about the seventies is that in many ways it was a transitional decade. It had one foot in firmly planted within the post war socio-economic and cultural norms. The other was set in the new era of societal change that came about during the Sixties. Hence, I was raised with a mixture of both old school and modern values, ethics and ideologies. I believe these have provided me with a broad spectrum of “soft skills” (a term I abhor but it serves a purpose in this instance) that have been beneficial.
As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, I am a child of the seventies. I was born in late 1967 so my most formative years were from about 1973 onwards. I really don’t remember a great deal of things prior to the age of five. Does anyone? Now the thing about the seventies is that in many ways it was a transitional decade. It had one foot in firmly planted within the post war socio-economic and cultural norms. The other was set in the new era of societal change that came about during the Sixties. Hence, I was raised with a mixture of both old school and modern values, ethics and ideologies. I believe these have provided me with a broad spectrum of “soft skills” (a term I abhor but it serves a purpose in this instance) that have been beneficial.
As I approach the sober age of fifty, I have reflected a great deal upon my own world view and that of my fellow countrymen. In this instance, I’m using the catchall term world view to bundle together thorny issues such as politics, international diplomacy, crime and punishment. Also, let’s throw in prevailing public morals, social etiquette and manners. The reason I’ve placed all these in a figurative “bag” because it then makes it easier to broadly explore them. And the reason I wish to do this is because I feel there has been a major cultural shift in all of these and that the UK no longer has a prevailing consensus regarding many of these points.
The last few years have demonstrated that the UK is a divided country; politically, economically and socially. There are a broad spectrum of opinions and views abroad in the land and a lot of anger too. The latter is often unfocused, and in certain quarters is based upon perceptions and feelings rather than tangible facts. Frequently, I will read things via social media or traditional newsprint and find myself confronted with ideas, concepts and feelings that are utterly alien to my way of thinking. Now I’m more than capable of accepting the notion that other people may well hold differing views to me. I’m sufficiently old fashioned to even go as far as to believe fervently in their right to do so. However, what I struggle with at present is the binary nature of so many ardently held views. There is no scope for debate, accommodation or compromise, which are the underpinnings, for better or for worse, of any functioning democracy. You are either for or against. Part of the solution or part of the problem. Enlightened or a traitor. And don’t go thinking you can dodge this intellectual cul-de-sac by sitting on the fence. Not having an opinion is just as much of a crime as having a differing view.
I care for my parents, both of whom are in their late eighties. I live in an affluent, white middle-class, London suburb with a high proportion of elderly residents. By that I mean people who have retired and draw their pension. Therefore, every day at shops, clinics and bus stops, I am directly and indirectly exposed to the world views of this socio-economic group. A generation that grew up when the UK still had an empire and was a world power. A time when the country had a more clearly defined class system and set of consensual morals and prevailing social norms. Religion and faith were strong influences upon society. Multiculturalism was an abstract principle and anything other than heterosexuality was “wrong”. Jobs for life existed, along with final salary pensions and affordable housing. IE Homes that could be bought on a single income because they only cost four or five times your annual salary. This is also the generation that had a cultural predisposition towards deference to authority, tradition and maintaining the status quo.
Because of these factors and possibly many others, this stratum of society tends to have somewhat fixed views and are often discombobulated by the pace of modern life and much of the social change that has happened of late. There is a tendency to look back at the past romantically rather than objectively. Views and opinions from such quarters are often shaped by feelings rather than critical thinking. Now it is not my intent to demonise this particular generation, nor undermine their achievements. I merely seek to highlight that their prevailing world view has been shaped by the politics and culture of the post war years and that it is not necessarily a stance that makes them well equipped to deal with the ongoing global changes that well all now face. One can cogently argue that Brexit and other recent political events are driven by a resistance to globalisation and social advancement. However, such pushback doesn’t halt change. It merely postpones or temporarily redirects it.
My son and his wife are both under twenty-five. They have permanent jobs with as stable an employer you can find at present. Through fiscal prudence and good fortune, they are currently on the property ladder. In these respects, they are very similar to their grandparents and great grandparents. However, when it comes to politics and other mainstream social and economic opinions they have very different outlooks. Traditional party politics and ideologies are not favourably viewed. They’re seen as being outdated, inflexible and inward looking. Pride in one’s country is still present but is not blindly given and is tempered by historical perspective. Equality in all walks of life is embraced and seldom seen as an issue. International travel for both leisure and work, provides a different view of the world, borders and freedom of movement. National rivalries and entrenched tribalism are simply irrelevant to the young because they lack the historical baggage that their elders insist upon carrying.
Being the age that I am, there are some superficial habits, trends and affectations embraced by the young that I don’t immediately warm to. For example, internet culture and ideas of privacy can be very different. Easy access to credit is something I never had in my youth. I do worry about its proliferation and the impact it has on those born into such a world. Yet broadly speaking the young give me hope. Despite my grouchy demeanour I don’t regard them as whippersnappers. They are often compassionate and motivated. They have no interested in the bloviations of tribal politics. They expect solutions from all politicians, over and above party loyalties. They embrace equality and see beyond the confines of their own geographical borders. And most importantly, they are not yet jaded and cynical. Thus, they are not hamstrung by preconceptions that things can’t change. They dare to dream because life, or more to the point other people, haven’t yet shot them down in flames.
So, as I approach half a century and the world around me becomes increasingly binary, I look at the older generation and their current world view and reluctantly conclude that I cannot condone it. We need to look forward and not backwards. The past can never be restored and nostalgia seldom accurately reflects what actually transpired. Therefore, it is with the young that I believe that I have more in common. Because the world we are shaping now, they will have to endure long after we’ve gone. To ignore their wishes, hopes and aspirations is at the very least selfish and at worst a malevolent act of betrayal. Sadly, I don’t think this is a broadly accepted view at present. The under twenty-fives are simply seen as another subset of the electorate to be courted, rather than as potentially the most important sector of society. History sadly has a habit of repeating itself. Cicero wrote ““Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book". That was over two thousand years ago. Can our divided country move forward with any sort of unity or are we destined to pull in different directions until time simply eliminates certain world views?
NB: Due to the nature of this post I couldn't think of any specific images that were relevant. So I decided to use some fun ones just to break up the text.
Mrs. Brown, You've Got a Lovely Daughter (1968)
I was channel surfing a while back when I stumbled across Mrs. Brown, You've Got a Lovely Daughter, a feature film starring none other than Herman's Hermits! Now I was aware that after the success of the Fab Four's A Hard Day’s Night and Help, several popular bands tried to follow in their wake. The Dave Clark Five made Catch Us If You Can (directed by John Boorman) and there were numerous vehicles for Cliff Richard. But apparently, Herman's Hermits were signed to MGM records in the US and it was standard marketing practice to make at least one feature film vehicle for their bestselling artists. Apparently, this included Hank Williams, Connie Francis and Roy Orbison although I’m not familiar with the movies they made. Hence there’s nothing really that unusual about this film’s existence.
I was channel surfing a while back when I stumbled across Mrs. Brown, You've Got a Lovely Daughter, a feature film starring none other than Herman's Hermits! Now I was aware that after the success of the Fab Four's A Hard Day’s Night and Help, several popular bands tried to follow in their wake. The Dave Clark Five made Catch Us If You Can (directed by John Boorman) and there were numerous vehicles for Cliff Richard. But apparently, Herman's Hermits were signed to MGM records in the US and it was standard marketing practice to make at least one feature film vehicle for their bestselling artists. Apparently, this included Hank Williams, Connie Francis and Roy Orbison although I’m not familiar with the movies they made. Hence there’s nothing really that unusual about this film’s existence.
So on to the plot. When Herman Tulley inherits his Grandfather's most prized possession, a greyhound named Mrs. Brown, he and his friends (Barry, Keith, Karl, and Derek) decide to make their fortune racing the dog. After the animal has won the Manchester heat of the National Greyhound Derby, Herman meets wealthy Londoners Mr. and Mrs. Brown and their daughter Judy, a model. Hoping to see Judy again, Herman and his friends decide to take the dog to London for the derby finals and to see if they can find fame with their band. Hijinks, misadventures and sundry shenanigans promptly ensue, along with a handful of contrived song and dance numbers. You know the form.
Sounds harmless enough, doesn't it? Well so you would think. But the plot doesn't follow the usual path you'd expect from such films. The hero doesn't get the girl of his dreams at the end. The dog doesn't win the race it's been entered for. The guys do not find fame with their band. The songs are very eclectic, with one, "The World Is for the Young" verging on suicidal melancholy. There are also some seriously outdated social attitudes displayed, particularly towards women. A young lady is told that if she doesn't stop following them (the band) she'll get "sloshed". When Herman's girlfriend expresses and interest in accompanying them to London, she is told that it's fine as long as she doesn't mind "Cooking and cleaning for five guys". There is also a lot of violent pub brawls and market fights that seem out of step with the rest of the film.
Frankly, this film really threw me. It's just so bizarre and incongruous. The concept of using a film to promote a band seems to have died out these days. I'm sure this comes down to simple financial costs and the fragmentation of the music industry. The last movie of this ilk that I’m familiar with being Spice World and that was an event for the time. Overall, Mrs. Brown, You've Got a Lovely Daughter is not a complete dog’s dinner. It’s more of a curiosity than an outright failure, right up there with Slade in Flame. It’s lack of the inherent “chumminess” you expect with sixties pop is its main selling point. Best recommended to completist music fans and hardcore cinema aficionados. File under "Right turn, Clyde".
Skyline (2010)
When I first saw the initial trailers for Skyline, I was not overly impressed. Once again, here was a film that appeared to offer a great deal of spectacle but was there any substance? Would there be a good script, engaging performances, likeable characters? Call me old fashioned but I do consider these to be important attributes to any film. Well I finally caught up with Skyline, in the comfort of my own lounge, an environment that is often more forgiving that the cinema itself. As I suspected, Skyline turned out exactly as I predicted and once again I was left thinking "so what?" It’s an all too common refrain these days.
When I first saw the initial trailers for Skyline, I was not overly impressed. Once again, here was a film that appeared to offer a great deal of spectacle but was there any substance? Would there be a good script, engaging performances, likeable characters? Call me old fashioned but I do consider these to be important attributes to any film. Well I finally caught up with Skyline, in the comfort of my own lounge, an environment that is often more forgiving that the cinema itself. As I suspected, Skyline turned out exactly as I predicted and once again I was left thinking "so what?" It’s an all too common refrain these days.
Skyline is technically well made. The film opens with a startling event, then lapses into flashback to introduce the characters and set the scene. The story exposition is executed efficiently and within fifteen minutes the film moves on to the action. The cast, drawn mainly from a TV background are competent. These include Eric Balfour, Scottie Thompson and Donald Faisson. The story follows a traditional arc climaxing in what the writers obviously consider a twist. The ending leaves the door firmly open for a sequel should the need arise (Alleged a second movie is being considered starring Iko Uwais). The visual effects are very high quality but they did constitute over 90% of the films overall budget.
Despite all the above, Skyline is derivative, clichéd, predictable and utterly disposable. It is not dull but conversely it is not especially engaging. You can happily watch it whilst performing another task such as gaming, reading or plucking a chicken. The characters are not unlikeable as they were in Cloverfield but they are not sufficiently developed to merit any serious emotional investment. For instance, David Zayas plays an intriguing concierge who seems to be the only practical member of the group. Yet his back story is never explored and apart from a pithy "kiss off" line, his role doesn't really go anywhere.
Directors of Skyline, The Brothers Strause, have a technical background in the industry and own the visual FX studio Hydraulx. Their pedigree in this field speaks for itself. Yet ninety minutes of CGI does not a good film make. Frankly, the proliferation of visual effects in films, TV and advertising these days has somewhat jaded the public's attitude to them. Although they are an expected facet of any production, they are paradoxically diminishing as a major point of interest. How many times have we seen a major US city demolished. In the seventies, this was a rare event but now days it’s as common as politicians lies. Apart from Mad Max: Fury Road, I cannot think of any recent film that got by mainly because of its visuals.
In many respects Skyline is like a fifties B film. It tries very hard to follow the path of larger budget predecessors. You only have to look at the imagery that is used, such as the spaceships over Los Angeles or the squid like harvesting drones. The familiarity of these visuals reflects a sort of cinematic fast food culture. Sadly, it has the same overall results. After an innocuous viewing experience akin to a drive-thru meal, the audience soon forgets the inherently bland movie experience they’ve just partaken off. Without the substance of a genuinely good script or an original idea, alleged big spectacles, such as Skyline, become no more than a hollow one.
Train to Busan (2016)
The horror genre has more than its fair share of bad movies. It’s the nature of the beast (no pun intended). Films of this type can be made quickly and cheaply but have the potential to make a tidy profit. Therefore, they attract not only burgeoning talent but those bereft of any as well. Furthermore, traditional formulas work, so any new innovative production is often followed by a wealth of copycats and knockoff films. To say that the genre is self-plagiarising is an understatement. Yet, from time to time, horror movies can surpass mainstream cinema with regard to social commentary, satire and intelligent adult narratives. Look no further than Dawn of the Dead, The Thing and The Descent if you want three solid examples. Horror is a versatile and malleable genre that can facilitate great stories and reflections upon the human condition.
The horror genre has more than its fair share of bad movies. It’s the nature of the beast (no pun intended). Films of this type can be made quickly and cheaply but have the potential to make a tidy profit. Therefore, they attract not only burgeoning talent but those bereft of any as well. Furthermore, traditional formulas work, so any new innovative production is often followed by a wealth of copycats and knockoff films. To say that the genre is self-plagiarising is an understatement. Yet, from time to time, horror movies can surpass mainstream cinema with regard to social commentary, satire and intelligent adult narratives. Look no further than Dawn of the Dead, The Thing and The Descent if you want three solid examples. Horror is a versatile and malleable genre that can facilitate great stories and reflections upon the human condition.
Although Train to Busan starts with a very tried and tested premise, it quickly establishes itself as more than just a standard horror offering. The emphasis is upon characters with credible foibles and traits. The film presents us with an interesting overview of South Korean socio-economic culture. Class, etiquette and morality are all touched upon in the screenplay but organically, not clumsily. Nor are viewers bludgeoned with any obvious social messages. What the film does well is show us how humans deal with adversity and come to terms with extraordinary circumstances. Unlike so many US horror movies, the protagonists are not obnoxious and as the cast is inevitably culled over the course of the film, we genuinely mourn each loss. Another interesting cultural difference is how the disposal of zombies becomes more complex when firearms are not common place.
Like so many zombie movies, the most engaging scenes are those that happen as the emerging apocalypse unfolds. Despite living in a world surrounded by the media, it’s fascinating how we can remain oblivious while being immersed in it. Something else that Train to Busan does very well is accurately catalogue human reactions to the totally incongruous. Often passengers look on utterly dumfounded, as zombies bite into people’s neck. However, once the magnitude of the situation finally registers, the passengers are innovative as they seek to save themselves. Wet newspaper is stuck on the windows to obscure them. Cell phone ringtones are used to distract the undead.
There are obvious stylistic similarities between Train to Busan and World War Z. The fast moving, aggressive zombies that transform their prey in seconds are again seen in this film. However, director Yeon Sang-ho does more with his smaller budget, making his undead horde far more threatening than the boiling CGI-fest of Word War Z. The zombies in this instance go semi dormant when cut off from the light. They are predominantly attracted to sound and seem to have lost most of their higher reasoning abilities. A closed sliding door is enough to outwit them and they do not use tools or their environment to their advantage. Train to Busan although tense and atmospheric, is not excessively gory. There are blood spurts and the bone crunching zombie transformations are ghoulish but the film does not rely on the extremely grotesque. Tension stems from the viewers concern for the casts wellbeing.
Performances are universally good in Train to Busan, although it would be remiss of me not to single out Kim Su-an as Soo-an. This young actress acquits herself extremely well as the young daughter of work obsessed fund manager. The film takes several bleak turns during the course of its story and I was concerned that it may end in a downbeat manner, similar to Romero’s Night of the Living Dead. However, the final resolution to the tale is poignant and certainly within the idiom of the proceeding one hundred minutes. Overall Train to Busan is an infinitely superior genre outing than most contemporary US mainstream horror films. It is engaging due to its international setting, moral integrity and cultural differences. Sadly, all these positive aspects will more than likely be lost when the US remake is released in 2018.
