Hereditary

Here is a true rarity for me - I saw a film twice on its initial cinematic release. It's not often, if ever, I end up doing this, unless I am seeing, say, a Marvel film with two different sets of friends. I had a couple of reasons I wanted to re-watch A24's latest horror release, Hereditary, again. One, our original screening was ruined by what was quite possibly the worst audience I have ever endured a film with (which will be outlined in an upcomoing article) which largely ruined the atmosphere the film was masterfully building up. And two, I think it's a film that demands a second viewing anyway - even if my original screening Hereditary wasn't ruined, I imagine I would have had an itch to see it again. Armed with my Cineworld Unlimited card and a spare evening, I thought why not and I willing ventured back in its creepy and unnerving world. So, how does Hereditary hold up on a second viewing? 

After the death of her elderly and often very difficult mother, miniature-model artist and mother of two Annie Graham (Toni Collette) begins to settle into a world without this domineering matriarchal figure in her life. While Annie feels revealed that her mother has passed on, she is having a hard time reconciling the legacy she has left behind. With an awkward, distant and pot-smoking teenage son, Peter (Alex Wolff), and an insular younger daughter, Charlie (Milly Shapiro), it's not exactly the best environment for Annie to come to terms with all of these varying emotions. However, another tragedy strikes as Annie begins to question if something more malevolent is stalking her family which only intensifies her increasing list of woes... 

Hereditary is a thoroughly depressing, and rather brilliant, piece of cinema



Hereditary succeeds at creating this constant sense of mood and dread over the course of its 2 hour run time. It is a film in no hurry to reach any kind of conclusions and revels in the horror that is slowly unfurling in front of our little family. This is the debut feature film from Ari Aster and he employs a style that can only be described as a cross between Stanley Kubrick and Wes Anderson. The long, drawn-out takes of Kubrick can be felt as we creep around every corner of the home while the perfectly framed symmetry (not to mention the prominent use of miniatures and doll houses) has a distinct flair of Mr. Anderson. As such, the film is unflinching in not letting its audience escape the unfurling family drama on screen. Aster just lets the camera rest on his characters and it becomes almost unbearable at times - Annie unloading about her traumatic childhood in front of a grief counselling group, the look on Peter's face at the end of an ... interesting drive home, Annie trying to convince her family to join in a séance etc... It's great stuff and if you enjoy slow-paced horror, Hereditary is definitely a film for you.

The cast is absolutely stellar. Wolff and Shapiro are both completely convincing as down-in-the-dumps siblings and Gabriel Byrne manages to make something out of Annie's husband - an everyday kind of guy stuck in a nightmare world. The show completely belongs to Toni Collette though who is both sympathetic and slightly terrifying in her portrayal of a mother slowly unravelling. The sustained takes of her face embellished in sheer horror are unforgettable and it's a truly standout performance from a slightly underrated actor (I loved her in the comedy-horror/Christmas staple Krampus from a few years ago). Due to the strength of the cast and the brilliant filmmaking technique, Hereditary never feels its two hour plus running time. The way the film slowly teases out character details and reveals is quite something.

Hereditary has a stellar cast and some standout filmmaking that makes the two hours fly by



Ok, so I'm keeping the review a little light here mostly because it's a film that just needs to be experienced but I do have to talk about the ending, which has been causing controversy in some circles. Again, I don't want to go into it too much for fears of spoiling it, so I will keep my thoughts brief. I love the audacity of it and it's something I appreciated more on a second viewing, as there are plenty of clues throughout the film leading up to it. I think what undoes it slightly is due to a few unfortunate shots which I can only describe as comedy shots. They are unintentionally funny and there's one that got the audience both times we watched it. Now all that said, thematically and story-wise, the film does plant a lot of these ideas very carefully throughout the run time so I think it's definitely a film you need to see twice. 

So, despite a few technical mis-steps in the finale, I actually do rate Hereditary really highly, perhaps even Top 10 films I've seen this year territory. While I don't think it's quite as strong or rich as A24's other horror masterpiece The Vvitch, Hereditary is a very absorbing film that truly succeeds in getting under your skin. It has a stellar cast, perfectly sustained mood and has the power to disturb and terrify even the most hardened horror fan. Hereditary can join an increasingly long line of new horror classics.  



So we initially saw the film on a Saturday night which proved to be a disaster due to the impatient audience (more on that in an upcoming article). So, me and my partner's plan was to see it on a week night and hope the theatre was empty. To our shock, the cinema was full again for our second screening despite this! I was a bit disheartened at first but the audience was fine They only laughed at the parts I expected them to and even then it wasn't to the same volume as the guffawing from last Saturday...



2001: A Space Odyssey

What else is there left to say about Stanley Kubrick's sci-fi masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey? I can really only distil it down to simple terms. Monumental. Awe-inspiring. Frustrating. Innovative. Breath-taking. Timeless. Now on its 50th anniversary, with the aide of Kubrick worshipper Christopher Nolan, the film has been restored onto 70mm print created from the original camera negative and is back where it belongs - on the big screen. Indeed, as Strauss' Also Sprach Zarathustra theme erupted from the theatre speakers as the sun began to rise above the planet Earth in the film's iconic opening title sequence, I might have got a little emotional. And who says Stanley Kubrick is an unemotional filmmaker?

How to describe the plot of 2001: A Space Odyssey? Or even analyse it for a review? It is really a film of four parts exploring the potential history of mankind, so I'm just going to discuss each part in turn. We start in pre-historic times, with a group of pre-human apes. We follow their trials and tribulations trying to survive in an era where homo sapiens were yet to become the dominant species. We explore some of the very basic tenants of human emotions and desires - anger, fear, survival etc. Indeed, one group of apes is put upon by another, forcing them into hiding and potentially starving to death. However, everything changes when they discover a mysterious black monolith that gifts them with new found intelligence. One of the apes, with his improved IQ, discovers that he can use a discarded bone as a weapon and uses it to kill the leader of another group of apes, securing his dominance over the local watering hole. Kubrick uses this sequence to highlight that basic human nature was basically the same millions of years ago and the monolith represents a chance for change. In short, the monolith allows the apes to make the next step towards human evolution, as illustrated in one of the most audacious jumps cuts in history. One of the apes throws a bone into the sky as the camera follows it up before cutting to a space craft hanging in space, illustrating millions of years of human evolution in mere seconds. Brilliant. 

The apes discover the ominous black monolith

In true 2001 one style, this review may end up mostly visually - but there are just too many stunning shots in this film

The most audacious jump cut in history?

The second part follows a scientist, Dr. Heywood Floyd (William Sylvester), on his long and slightly dull journey to the Moon where another black monolith has been discovered. And this is probably where the most continued criticism of 2001 stem from - that it's slow and boring. However, this is rather the point. By slowing down the pace, Kubrick was able to illustrate the vary nature of space itself - its vastness and the sense of isolation astronauts must feel. The use of the grandiose classic music works two fold - it emphasises the immensity of space and breaths excitement into now banal acts such as interplanetary travel and walking in zero gravity, emphasised by the very long and protracted shots. It communicates the majesty of space yet it's now dull thanks to human ingenuity and commodification. It's also a very long film however I would argue that since it is about the history of mankind, I can hardly think of any other way than to make it into an epic without sacrificing some of the artistic integrity. While this part is probably not the most enjoyable part of the film, there is still plenty to marvel at. The space station waltzing to the famous The Blue Danube. The phenomenal model work that still holds up today in 4K. Dr. Floyd trying to work out how to use a zero-gravity toilet. It's a very a effective sequence, as it eloquently explores the mundane nature of day-to-day space travel (I love how the airplane-esque shuttles and space stations are practically devoid of people, implying this is a very privileged mode of transport) even if it isn't traditionally enjoyable.

The second part of the film definitely feels the longest, as it effectively communicates the sheer amount of time it would take to travel to the Moon

The third part (and probably the most famous) deals with astronauts Dave (Keir Dullea), Frank (Gary Lockwood) and the computer HAL-9000 (Douglas Rain), on a voyage to the edge of the currently known universe (for the filmmakers, the edge of the universe in 1968 was Jupiter, pre-dating the discovery of the final planets that make up our solar system). However, Dave and Frank discover that HAL is malfunctioning and poses a grave threat to the mission. This is probably the most traditionally enjoyable part of the film and it is a favourite for most. I feel that this part is the most effective at communicating the "space is lonely" theme of the film, while also looking at humanity's future with artifical intelligence. Little details such as the 7 minute delay between the astronauts and their BBC interviewer or the practicalities of cryogenically freezing the other member to prolong basic elements such as food, water and air or the fact that sound cannot exist in space are elements that only Kubrick could have imagined. He effectively establishes that his scientists are now devoid of any real emotions, making the real human drama of this sequence HAL-9000. Every time I watch the film, I always end up feeling sorry for HAL, especially as Dave slowly removes his memory banks as he sings Daisy, Daisy - even if he messed up and caused the deaths of all the crew members! The slow pace of the second part is still here, though now there is the added tension of stopping HAL from destroying the mission and endangering our characters lives. All the music is completely stripped back, leaving some sequences scored only by Dave breathing through his space helmet. It really is marvellous stuff.

HAL-9000 is one of the truly great AI characters of science-fiction

Dave enters HAL's memory banks

Dave, after defeating HAL-9000, discovers that the mission was a ruse all along and the monolith on the moon was signalling towards an area beyond Jupiter, where it is revealed a third monolith is floating about. This leads into the fourth part, and perhaps the most infamous, where conventional narrative is completely thrown out of the window in favour of an intergalactic light-show, as Dave hurtles through time and space itself. The images and the abstract music of György Ligenti (which employs micropolyphony to create sustained dissonant chords that shift slowly over time) all help to communicate a strange and out-of-body experience. Dave reaches the end in an ornate room, where he is ageing rapidly and, on the brink of death, he sees a fourth (or maybe it's the third) monolith that transforms him into the next stage of human evolution, the now famous star child, and returns him to Earth. This is often where some audiences completely lose track of the film and certainly on my first viewing, I was left completely baffled. However, on my fifth viewing (I believe), I've developed my own interpretations of this sequence and it's now probably one of my favourite parts of the film. The monoliths serve as milestones for humanity and help to accelerate evolution. The monolith Dave discovers hanging around Jupiter transports the astronaut through time and space itself, filling his head with the accumulated knowledge of mankind and the universe, as abstractly represented by the crazy light show. Many of the abstract images to me seem to be almost galaxy-like, so I think the monolith is probably showing Dave the creation of the universe and, eventually, the birth of the Earth, as we begin to travel across vaguely familiar Earth-like terrain. At the end of Dave's journey, he finds himself in an ornate room where he can die in a comfortable and recognisably human-surrounding. However, time is in influx and this causes him to age quickly. The monolith does this to show Dave that time is not linear as its final lesson. The monolith then regresses Dave to a highly-evolved version of an infant in order to bring about a new dawn of mankind. The film ends on a powerful note as Dave stares across at the planet Earth. Whether this is hopeful or terrifying is up to the viewer. At least, that's how I read it. 

The stargate sequence is a gorgeous piece of avant-garde cinema

Awe-inspiring? Hopeful? Scary? Creepy? Funny? The star-child illicites a lot of different reactions

Look, I'm not going to pretend that 2001 is one of my favourite Kubrick films. I have to be in a very particular mood to fully enjoy its slower pace. However, in terms of artistic integrity, 2001 is a monumental achievement. If you don't enjoy the film, I can completely understand that and it's no slight on your intelligence (the many defenders of 2001 pull out the "you just don't get it" card, which is just unfair). However, I'm sure most people can at least appreciate what a massive accomplishment this film is, both as a piece of art and as a milestone in filmmaking. I would argue that no film before or since has quite captured the vastness of space, its loneliness and its potential for bettering mankind. Plus, I think you have to remember when this film was made. Man had not landed on the Moon yet and humanity didn't even know what the Earth looked like from afar. Kubrick had to theorise all of this and the fact that most of it ended up being right is a massive testament to his commitment to the film. I just have to give massive kudos to Kubrick for seeing his vision through to the nth degree. Even if I don't 100% enjoy 2001 as a traditional film, it just floors me every time that Kubrick was able to get away with making a film like this. 

Dark Souls Remastered

It’s almost hard to believe that its been 7 years since From Software’s cult classic Dark Souls first appeared on the video game scene to insight both rage and pure adoration from its legions of fans. The game was a key cornerstone of my uni years, with me and my friends pouring hours into its painstakingly designed gothic world which required us to adapt to its higher level of difficulty than the average RPG action-adventure game. While it occasionally inspired rage (I do have one friend who caused a lovely PS3 controller sized hole in his wall due to the game), Dark Souls is a front-to-back classic of the era. And it has returned once again, like a long-slumbering Lovecraftian monster creeping out of the Void, with a new remastered edition for the current gen of consoles. Can replaying it in 2018 live up to my nostalgic memories? Has From Software done anything to improve the game in light of the subsquent sequels and spin-offs (not to mention the studio's grandiose masterpiece Bloodborne)? Is the £25 price tag enough to lure players back to Lordran?

So, I think most players know the score with Dark Souls now. It's a ruthless and beautifully designed game that drops you in with little-to-no hand-holding, moving from one challenging area to the next. It's hard as nails, obtuse as hell (if you're into lore, Dark Souls should be a definite look in) and is very addictive. With every death, you want another go. Another go to get deeper into the mysterious world of Lordran. To discover more secrets. Encounter horrific new enemies. Challenge the mighty bosses. And soak in the spawling locales. All this while you slowly level your character in an infinitely complex system that allows for fun variations on the starting classes (I always seem to favour a Miracle-based tank). There's plenty of replay value with New Game+ that ups the difficulty, meaning it's always enticing to come back for more.

Dark Souls Remastered is a welcome return to a classic game



Right off the bat, Dark Souls Remastered looks gorgeous. The remastering team have done a great job of really drawing those colours out in greater clarity. Compared to the dull colour scheme of Dark Souls III, the original game is a more vibrant yet somehow moodier experience then what came after. You don't need to have everything rendered in grey-scale to be terrifying (Dark Souls III). The team have also upscaled the game to run at a higher frame rate, so infamously laggy areas such as Blightown can now be enjoyed with smoother clarity (though enjoy is not a term one uses in Blightown).

The best addition though is the password system, a new feature in the later games. The original Dark Souls allowed you to summon other players in to help you out on tricky areas or tackle challenging bosses together. By return, the summoned player would received EXP as you run round someone else's world. It's a great way of helping each other and gaining EXP. Winner, winner. However, you could only summon in players who were in a certain range of your current level (10% each way I believe). This meant that me and my friend group had to remain fairly sync with our levels in order to help each other. Another risk this system presented was the possibility that other players could summom you before your friend could and also face potentially long waiting times for each other's summon signs to appear in the respective player's world (this could be mere seconds or up to an hour). The password system introduced later in the series meant that friends could set a phrase that would match to each other's game and allowed for an easier time summoning. Private match-making basically. So the choice to add this feature into Dark Souls Remastered is a God send.

Get ready to re-fight the plethora of classic bosses, including the might Gargoyles



Outside of the technicalities of remastering the game and tinkering with minor mechanics, the thing I was most interested in was how the game held up, considering all the developments the series and From Software have made since the original release. And honestly, it still does the job though not without a couple of niggles. The first half of the game is flawless. The mood is heavy and each new area is challenging and interesting, starting from the medieval style Undead Burg down to the pits of Blightown to the highest peaks of the Italian Gothic inspired architecture of Anor Londo. The pace just continues to build and build as the player vanquishes increasingly difficult foes culminating in the legendary Smough and Orenstein fight. Then the player gets the ability to fast travel around the world and some of the magic is diminished. Part of Dark Souls' immense "charm" was that sense of dread around every corner as you went further and further away from your place of comfort in the beginning of the game to increasingly darker depths. I can't think of any other way From Software could have handled the second half of the game better, as physically back-tracking to the scattered four locations that make up the game's final act would have been a real chore, but I think it's fair to say that you lose that sense of dread and the joy of discovering how the whole world is interconnected. That and I find the final four locations not quite as inspiring as those in the first half (Demon Ruins and its infamously bad ending boss fight, the Bed of Chaos, springing to mind). Part of this was due to a rushed schedule to get the game finished on time and unfortunatey it shows now. One does wonder if From Software could have used this chance to improve upon these sections but that's a whole other debate (check out Jim Sterling's video on this for a levelled discussion - link at the bottom of the page). However, these levels do offer interesting challenges and some excellent and unforgettable boss fights (even if we're just looking at them purely based on an art design level). And if you get bored of that, you can unlock the hidden areas of the game or fight your way through the very tough DLC.

As it stands, Dark Souls Remastered is about what I wanted from this re-release; a shiny new version of the game that clears up the visuals, up-scales the frame-rate and offers improved online match-making so me and my friends have an easier time finding each other when we’re in dire need of help. I suppose an argument could be made that From Software essentially coasted it on this release and Dark Souls Remastered only serves to remind consumers what a solid game that original one was. Some slight niggles aside, I was delighted to find that Dark Souls lived up to my memory. I still find the annoying parts annoying (Bed of Chaos) but when it gets cooking, it's one of the richest and most appetizing meals on the menu. If you haven't played the game, now is the perfect opportunity. You'll never play an action-adventure game in the same way again.

 



So if you're interested, I thought I'd list my thoughts on the other games in the series, along with Bloodborne.

I find with the Souls series it's a case of diminishing returns. That said, I really like Dark Souls II a lot. When it first came out I was crushingly disappointed but decided to re-visit it when the Scholar of The First Sin edition came out, that added the DLC and tweaked aspects of the original game. I would advise getting this version as I had a blast playing it. It's probably more unforgiving than Dark Souls, in that it's not as fair a game, and some of the locations are a bit unremarkable but I don't know, I just enjoyed the heck out of it.

PS4 exclusive Bloodborne came next and it's bloody excellent. It's probably From Software's best game, the ultimate culmination of everything they learned making Demons Souls (which I've never finished and would love a remaster of) and the Souls series. It's a masterpiece of art design, level design and gameplay. It's slightly more accessible than the Souls series but still hard as nails. An essential modern-classic.

Ok I call Bloodborne the best From Software game but the original Dark Souls will always be my favourite.

Dark Souls III on the other hand is by far the worst game in the series. The levels are utterly forgettable with a drab art design. It's a Frankenstein's monster of a game trying to combine the gameplay styles of Dark Souls and Bloodborne. The enemies are quick and reactive like in Bloodborne but they forgot to make the gameplay quick and reactive in order to combat said enemies (a la Bloodborne). This means the whole game is just a huge chore. I don't know who dropped the ball here but it's a disappointing way for the series to end.

 

Jim Sterling video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTNRPkuhvyw

Suspiria

Few films can hope to have the seismic impact that Dario Argento’s Suspiria had on release in 1977. Make no mistake - this is one of the essential cornerstones of the horror genre.

A few things led me to re-watch Argento’s horror cult classic. One, me and my partner were looking to soak in an atmospheric horror film for the evening. Two, it would present a chance to watch the brand new 4K remaster on the recently released Blu-Ray. And three, there’s a renewed buzz around the film in light of the recently released trailer for the upcoming, and surprisingly promising looking, American remake. Plus, it had been a while since I'd seen it and I was eager to enter its strange and illogical world once again.

Suspiria is fairly basic narrative-wise but makes up for it with impeccable technique

The plot of Suspiria is very simple. American ballerina Susy Bannion (Jessica Harper) travels to Freiberg, Germany to study at a very prestigious dance school. The whole atmosphere of the place seems very off, with the staff dealing with the recent murder of one its students in a fairly blasé way (they just upfront tell Susy, a brand new student, this fact just as she walks through the door). As the atmosphere builds and builds, Susy teams up with fellow student Sara (Stefania Casini) to solve the mystery of the strange happenings in the school and eventually discover (spoilers) it is run by a witch coven.

The plot of Suspiria is very basic but this is done to make room for other wider elements the film is toying with. Indeed, Suspiria is part of a larger body of Italian horror films that come under the term giallo. In general, (there's plenty discourse on this genre and loads of disagreements) these films have an unusual lack of a coherent narrative arc. Most will have a mystery story framing the narrative but this will soon descend into a general disregard for realism in terms of the acting and dialogue along with the film revelling in nonsensical plot elements and reveals. I would argue that Suspiria is not quite as out there as some of the films in this genre (Argento's follow-up, Inferno, takes these concepts into absolutely insane territory) but it is a good general example of all these concepts coming together to make for a successfully disorientating and horrific experience yet still be slightly approachable, thus making it a good entry way into the world of Italian horror.

Suspiria revels in the protracted murders of its victims

Few horror films look as stunning as Suspiria. In a genre not particularly renowned for its use of colour (outside of blood red), Argento’s bold use of primary colours is still unprecedented. Using film stock from the 1950s to achieve the effect, the film feels like a hallucinatory fever dream with the shifting colour scheme used to indicate changes in mood, tone and character emotion. One of the best descriptions of the film I have heard is that it's like Grimm’s Fairy Tales meets German Expressionistic masterpiece The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari in Technicolour. In this regard, the set-design is also immaculate, placing an emphasis on symmetry and retaining that almost fairy-tale-like quality. The dance school is just one of them iconic horror locations and is filled with loads of strange characters - the bossy instructor Miss Tanner, the weird maid-and-boy-servent duo, the giant servant Pavlo (who has recently acquired a new set of false of teeth) and the blind piano tutor being just some of the strange figures filling the place with character.

Oddly, I think the dubbing works really well. It is clearly dubbed (as was the case with most Italian exports at the time - there's a big history about Italian filmmaking in the 1960-70s about why and how films were dubbed but I won't get into it here) but I think the slightly stunted dialogue that doesn't quite match the lip movement of the actors gives the film just another added layer of being slightly off. The soundtrack by prog-rock band Goblin goes wonderfully in sync with all of this however, with the now iconic music etched into all audiences who have seen this film. The soundtrack is loud and fairly uncomfortable, with voices whispering and occasionally shouting over the music (including the words "witch" well before the reveal in Act Three).

The film's tagline boldly proclaimed that "The Only Thing More Terrifying Than The Last 12 Minutes of This Film Are The First 92" and for a 1970s audience, it's hard not to see how this lived up to such a claim. As part of the giallo genre trappings, Suspiria works on a nightmare-like logic. While most American horror films begin in a place of reality before descending into the madness and surreality of the situation, Suspiria and giallo already starts here. The audacious opening, in which we see in gruesome detail the murder of the student fleeing from the school when Susy arrives, is unforgettable in its grisly attention to detail (including a close up of the killer's knife entering the victim's heart) and the impeccable style of the proceedings. And there are few scenes in horror as toe-curlingly nasty as the maggot infestation scene. As the film progress, traditional narrative progression is thrown out of the window in favour of increasingly more audacious set-pieces culminating in Susy's encounter with the leader of the coven. And yes - magic exists in this world.

Quite possibly one of the most audacious openings to any horror film every made

It's hard not to consider, watching it now with a 21st century mind-set, if Suspiria is misogynist or not. With how the beautiful visuals depict brutal violence against women (not to mention some unfortunate comments from Argento himself on the subject of females) it has the potential to be quite troubling. However, Peter Sobczynski in his excellent retrospective article on the film, argues that, in the case of Suspiria, labelling it misogynist is too simple and ignores the numerous ways it is quietly progressive. He points out that the violence does indeed happen to women however all the men in the film are rendered as either strange or completely ineffectual. All the major roles in the film are played by women, they control the action and are the true sources of power (1). Susy herself feels like a prototype for the final girl archetype, paving the way for figures such as Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode in the following year's Halloween. Susy starts the film as a naive young girl finishing up her character arc by toppling the ancient evil woman controlling the dance school. Make of that what you will. I would argue it's not quite up to the standard we'd expect today in terms of representation but for the mid-70s, Suspiria was dealing in some quietly groundbreaking stuff (especially considering the slew of genuinely misogynistic video nasties awaiting release in the 1980s).

So, despite having a fairly basic narrative, Suspiria holds up really well 40 years after its release. It is a case of style over substance but in this instance the style is so good it almost forms a kind of substance in its place (if that makes any sense). What is a basic chilling mystery story about a witch coven becomes an excessive experience in impeccable filmmaking technique that manages to sustain a bizarre and horrific tone across the whole of its run time. Argento would use Suspiria as a launch point to a trilogy of films called The Three Mothers, with each part of the series dealing with a triumvirate of ancient and evil witches. His follow-up, Inferno, served as the second part of the trilogy and the recent final part, The Mothers of Tears, closed the series off. Needless to say though, Suspiria is still Argento at his best and is the premium example of 1970s giallo at its classiest.

Also, watch the recent 4K restoration if you can, either on Blu-Ray or on the big screen. It's a real treat seeing the film remastered and back to how it should have always looked.

References

(1) Peter Sobczynski, ""Do You Know Anything About Witches?" Suspiria at 40" https://www.rogerebert.com/balder-and-dash/do-you-know-anything-about-witches-suspiria-at-40 accessed 10/06/2018

Celeste

I have a slight admission to make: I was a little underwhelmed by Nintendo’s latest platforming masterpiece, Super Mario Odyssey. Don’t get me wrong - the game is a master class in game design, with some gorgeously colourful art design, but I couldn’t shake the feeling of been there, done that before. I decided to pick up Celeste, one of the many inventive indie games filling up the Nintendo Switch’s online store, and this has seemingly scratched my itch for a new and innovative platformer.

Celeste takes the best elements of games such as The Binding of Isaac and Super Meat Boy (the-trial-and-error-approach) with the branching level design of the very best of Nintendo (Super Metroid in particular springing to mind), along with its Mario sensibilities, to form a surprisingly thoughtful and highly addictive addition to the blooming indie market. You play as the red-haired protagonist Madeline, who is trying to reach the summit of the infamous Celeste Mountain. To overcome this, the player must guide Madeline through hundreds of different platform-filled rooms, containing various hazards such as spikes, sheer drops and the terrifying forces of nature. Madeline can jump, do a mid-air dash and can scale horizontal walls, though only for a limited amount of time before her stamina runs out. With no attacks in your arsenal, Celeste requires you to get to grips with its platforming shenanigans - fast.

Celeste is a breath of fresh air in the platforming genre

You are going to die a lot in Celeste. It took me a while to get used to its form of fast, zippy platforming, relying on a split second decisions, precise analog stick movement and some nifty understanding of the game mechanics. All this comes with practice and the more you play Celeste the more it begins to feel like a fighting or DDR game, just without the fighting or the dancing, as it relies on getting into the flow of the controls. The best thing the game does is let the player make errors. If you die in a room, you are simply teleported back to its beginning. Soon, you begin to learn and adapt to the environment of the game. Eventually, when you enter a new room, you start to strategise in your head the best course of action to take to tackle this new platforming-puzzle. The whole thing becomes second nature and fairly involving, with my body literally seizing up at some moments whilst I pulled off a tricky jump. It all really fell into place for me when I reached the end of Level 2, when I was tasked with running away from the embodiment of the dark reflection of Madeline. This was incredibly tough but oh-so satisfying when I managed to navigate the increasingly complex environment and perfectly dodging the attacks of my terrifying enemy. Each room and overall level presents new challenges and platforming-riddles to solve but always comes down to finding different ways of pushing your jumping skills to the test.

For those players who really want to push themselves, Celeste has plenty of branching paths in the level design, hidden rooms and illusive strawberries which offer extra points but require some serious skill to obtain. At first, these seem almost impossible to reach but as your skills refine over the course of the game, the strawberries present a tantalising reward for players who want to put their chops to the test. The game, to its credit, doesn’t judge players who want to take a step back from this extra bit of challenge though.

Celeste, unlike most platformers, has a rich tale to tell

The most surprising element to me was the increasingly tender and passionate story it tells, in particular for a genre not normally renowned for its story-telling. Protagonist Madeline is incredibly relatable as her journey up the mountain clearly has a deeper meaning for the often down trodden character. Madeline is riddled with depression, anxiety, unsure on what her future holds and suffers from panic attacks. Perhaps climbing the mountain, itself a gruelling feat, will provide her with some kind of recourse on how she should live her life. Along the way you meet some great characters, some just being funny asides while others reveal some surprisingly tragic backstories, my absolute favourite being the ghostly proprietor of an abandoned hotel. These character encounters are often as thrilling as the fast-paced platforming.

The overall design of the world is simply wonderful. While the sprite animations are simple and blocky, there is a fluidity to their movement that makes it feel like a retro-inspired game for the HD generation. Backgrounds and weather effects are beautifully realised and the colour design has a bright yet slightly melancholic feel. Dialogue with residents of the mountain are complete with charming and very expressive anime-inspired character art. I would be remiss without mentioning the incredible soundtrack as well. Going from the sweeping 16-bit inspired uplifting tracks in the early part of the game to the more subdued, piano-led score in the second half, composer Lena Raine has crafted a new classic video-game score. Even in the most downbeat of levels, the soundtrack keeps a constant sense of rhythm going to keep the player thinking about executing the perfectly timed jumps to reach the other end of the screen. It’s a gorgeously presented game and a testament to the designers.

So if you’re in the mood for an all together different kind of platformer, I can’t recommend Celeste enough. It took me a while to get used to its style of platforming but when the pieces fell into place, it was one of the most rewarding and endlessly fun platformer I’ve played in years. I can’t wait to see what this creative team have in store for us next. With its snowy-topped peaks, intense gameplay, rich story and the oh-so hummable soundtrack, Celeste is a game I will cherish for a long time to come.

Solo: A Star Wars Story



It took the allure of going to Nando's to get me to see Solo: A Star Wars Story.

So, it's only taken Disney 3 years to run Star Wars completely into the ground. Solo represents Disney's second attempt (after the thoroughly dull Rogue One) to prove that this franchise can work on the same level as its much-touted, and highly successful, inter-connected Marvel Cinematic Universe. However, Solo has been plagued by bad press from the very beginning of its inception. With Phil Lord and Chris Miller (of Lego Movie fame) originally attached to direct the film prospects looked good for a time, but then Lucasfilm fired them well into production due to that old problem of "creative differences" and hired the ultimate journeyman/by-the-books-filmmaker, Ron Howard, to reshoot some 70% of the film. With other rumours spiralling (including the hiring of an acting coach to help the young performers), the lack of advertising that failed to sell the premise, the divisive reaction to The Last Jedi (note: I still think it's great) and the general over-saturation of the brand, I can't say I'm surprised that this is the first Star Wars film to bomb at the box-office. But what is the actual film like?

Solo picks up with the titular character as a young man trapped on the shipbuilding world of Corellia. Han hatches a plan to escape with his lover Qi'ra (Emilia Clarke) from their life of petty crime (Bruce Springsteen style) through a convoluted scheme to steal a sample of a highly volatile, and precious, star-ship fuel called coaxium in exchange for passage on an outgoing transport. The plan goes horribly wrong and Qi'ra is captured by the authorities before she is able to board with Han. The young smuggler vows to return as a pilot and signs up with the Empire in order to fufill this dream; the long term goal being returning to Corellia to find and rescue Qi'ra. From here, we follow Han's trials and tribulations over the intervening years, first as a foot soldier for the Empire, then his plan to desert the army (with a little help from a newly befriended Wookiee named Chewbacca), to finally helping out a crew of smugglers, lead by the illusive Beckett (Woody Harrelson) who eventually takes Han under his wing.



Solo has a very shaky beginning that threatens its overall premises but manages to turn it around a fun second half



The problem is that this first half is a complete and utter mess tonally, thematically and as part of the overall film. Characters and plot lines that appear in the first half have little to no baring or consequence on the second half and I suspect that this is where most of the efforts of the re-shoots came from - to make it into the all-encompassing Solo prequel that Lucasfilm assumed the audience wanted and to throw in more fan service. There are some real groaners in here, such as why Han calls Chewbacca "Chewie" and why Han's last name is Solo. Because we've always wondered that. Basically, every possible thread from the original films about this character that could be expanded on is in the film is and some just land horribly. Alden Ehrenreich has the unenviable job of trying to emulate a young Harrison Ford and it's certainly a valiant effort on his part. It does lack some of Ford's rogueish charm but Ehrenreich has enough charisma to lead the film effectively.

When Han and company meet ruthless crime boss Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany) to gain their assignment to steal unrefined coaxium from the spice mines of Kessel and rush it across space through the now infamous run to a refining facility before the highly combustible stuff explodes, the film overall picks up. I suspect that this was the original version of the film's "lock-in" (i.e. the moment when the characters get their "assignment" for the duration of the film and traditionally occurs early in a narrative) however, in the Howard version, this comes well over an hour into the film and much of the damage has already been done. The surprise re-introduction of a character from the opening also really helps to shake up the status quo in what could have been a fairly tired and sexist trope.

Solo has an energised cast, largely helped by spirited performances from Ehrenreich, Glover, Clarke and Harrison



With the disastrous first half out of the way, all of a sudden Solo picks up the pace and becomes a fun, zippy (albeit basic) adventure film that revels in the Western influences that often go unappreciated in the wider discourse surrounding Star Wars. I was shocked to find myself coming round to the film, though only just about. With double and triple crosses, a fun set up for the famous Kessel run, well constructed action sequences, good character moments and an effective third act, Solo just about makes the landing. I also like how it moves into a morally ambigious area as the true nature of Vox's intent for the coaxium is revealed. Much of the fan service from the first half is dropped and I think I honestly would have preferred it if this second half was just expanded into a full film - just as I suspect was the original intent. "An Adventure with a young Han Solo" sounds more appealing to me as opposed to, as I said earlier, an all-encompassing tale about this character's life finishing up (in terms of his character arc) where A New Hope picks up. From this point onwards, the cast's acting chops really shine through, in particular Donald Glover as a young Lando. The only really lamentable aspect in the second half is a sassy robot side-kick, who can't help but feel like an odd reaction to some fan's (ah hum) accusations of Disney injecting "SJW" politics into Star Wars (I can't put enough commas around that hateful term).

Solo: A Star Wars Story is a big hot mess that suffers largely from a disastrous first half that ends up becoming the fun space opera Western it always should have been. When the film begins proper, Solo manages to be a lively time with some quite surprising twists and turns on the way towards its shockingly good small scale finale. I think there's a great film in Solo but the pacing and tonal issues severely damage the overall product, even as its prospects begin to shine. Overall, the cast do a good job at bringing energy to the story and I do give props to Ehrenreich for doing perhaps the most unenviable acting job imaginable - recreating the iconic and swaggering performance of Harrison Ford. The thing is, I think your mileage with Solo will depend on how interested you are in the lore and backstories of this universe. Even though I love the characters and (most) of the films, I'm not particularly bothered about the lore side (I prefer the "this is one part of a wider story that we don't get to see" approach) but I can admit that Solo ultimately becomes a good ol' time. Just.

If anything, it's certainly the best Star Wars prequel.



That said, it is funny to think that, that despite the rage from a certain (minor) part of the Star Wars fanbase who are very vocal in their hatred of the inclusion of """SJW""" politics into Star Wars, that the one that stars the ultimate white male power fantasy is the one that has bombed at the box-office .... go figure.