Farewell Blogger ... Hello Wordpress

Due to several reasons I have outlined in the below article I will be transitioning to a new website and format for all future reviews and articles. Unfinished projects I am currently undecided on how to continue. Thanks for all the fish and see you at ..

https://abloggerneedsfocus.wordpress.com/

Update details

https://abloggerneedsfocus.wordpress.com/2018/09/24/a-change-in-approach/

Update





The past couple of months have been a pretty busy period of time for me where I haven't had much time to think about the blog. Over the course of the past few weekends I've been to various different capitals, including those of England, of Scotland, of the former Viking world and of West Yorkshire. I enjoyed a geek-tastic time at Comic Con in my adopted home of Manchester. I ventured to the brilliant Fringe Festival in Edinburgh, taking in the sites and sounds of cutting-edge theatre and the high spirits of revellers and performers. I've been preparing to go on holiday to Iceland in a mere two weeks. I've started to take part in a weekly podcast, Sunday Cinematic Service (check it out on SoundCloud), where me and a couple of chums explore the strange world of religious cinema. I have also begun the preliminary planning on two novels I have in mind, which I am very, very excited about. Plus there's work, life, being healthy (ha) and other stuff. Even my regular Dungeons & Dragons sessions have been on hold until recently!

Time is a funny thing.

This has left relatively little time for making casual trips to the cinema plus the fact August's roster has been fairly uninspiring. I didn't even bother seeing the new Marvel film Ant-Man and the Wasp despite having a clean record of seeing most of them in the cinema. It just looked meh. This is mostly because my "media-time", where I have grabbed some spare moments, has been been filled by enjoying the latest releases in video-games (I've fallen in love with Octopath Traveller and Hollow Knight), catching up on TV shows (we have finished our re-watch of the monumental Deadwood and are getting caught up on Doctor Who in time for the new Jodie Whittaker series and the new season of Orange Is The New Black) and re-discovering my love of reading through authors such as Neil Gaiman, Ursula Le Guin and several others. Plus most of this stuff I can enjoy whilst travelling, which I've done a lot of recently.

This has given me some reflection time on where my blog currently stands. Moreover, I don't really know where to take it. I have been finding writing my regular reviews of the latest cinema releases slightly unsatisfying as of late and I don't know why. I'm motivated to write when I am genuinely enthusiastic about something which I have found increasingly harder to do, which maybe could be down to the fact that most of the films I have seen recently haven't been all that ... spectacular? I don't know, I can't quite put my finger on it. It started to become a little bit of a chore going to the cinema, I guess. I'd want to see films simply so I could write a review about it. I want to keep doing it to a degree because a) it's good for my writing skills and b) it improves my critical functions. However, I think my priorities need to change on how I write these things. Going forward my film reviews will be a little snappier (something I experimented with and enjoyed on the First Reformed review) and I want to start getting into writing longer form pieces on topics that genuinely interest to me. I've recently finished the latesg God of War game and I want to explore how the game reinterprets a slightly troubling series for 2018. In short there will be shorter reviews but more meaty content every month or so. It's been an interesting few years writing reviews and I've continually developed this blog to suit what is going on with me and I feel the time has come to change my approach again if I'm going to keep going with this. It should hopefully work out.

And I will continue the Ghibli Retrospective - I promise...

Incredibles 2



Its taken Pixar 14 years to realise that only one of their classic films, outside of Toy Story, actually needed a sequel. To call Pixar's previous sequel efforts (again outside of Toy Story) a bit sub-par is not entirely accurate but they do often struggle to prove their need to exist. Incredibles 2, however, more than justifies this. Picking up directly after the 2004 masterpiece, Incredibles 2 pulls no punches in pulling the viewer back into the zippy and lively world of the secretly super-powered Parr family. The film is altogether a visual treat, with returning director Brad Bird pushing the animated form to its limit.

Picking up soon after the original, the Parrs find themselves in a similar position to the last film; vilified for their powers. Despite stopping the villainous Underminer, as teased at the end of the last film, this still isn't enough for the heroes to be accepted in the wider public eye. That is until rich sibling / business partners Winston (Bob Odenkirk) and Evelyn Deavor (Catherine Keener) offer an opportunity to make supers legal once again. To do this, they must prove to the public that supers can be trusted again and their chosen candidate to do this is Helen (Holly Hunter). Spending an increased time away from the family on missions and publicity stunts to regain public trust, it falls to Bob (Craig T. Nelson) to hold the unit together with Violet (Sarah Vowell) hitting puberty hard, Dash (Huck Milner) struggling in school and the emergence of the mega-powers of baby Jack-Jack. To make matters worse, the villainous Screenslaver appears and threatens to undermine the work that Helen and co have been doing.

Incredibles 2 reunites the Parr family for a high energy sequel that works past the more standard elements of the plot



I think the film's greatest disservice was its trailers. It painted the look of a fairly run-of-the-mill sequel (now it's Helen who is spending time away from the family!) and emphasising the Bob-can't-look-after-his-kids plotline. Fortunately, the film manages to work past the slightly more standard elements of the plot into something that not only expands upon the world but remains faithful to the spirit of the original. It doesn't redefine the paradigm in the same way that, say, Toy Story's sequels did but it's just fun spending more time with the cast in a story that does a great service to them. I enjoyed the more nuanced takes on the characters, especially Violet who really comes into her own in this one, and all the actors continue to be an absolute delight (especially Holly Hunter). The dual storylines work to a degree but I do wish a bit more time was spent with the family together. This is a minor gripe because both plotlines work on their own separate levels; the mystery and intrigue of Helen investigating Screenslaver works well when intercutting with the more comedic Bob storyline.

The jump in technology is quite apparent, especially if you have viewed the original film recently in preparation for the sequel. As just some examples that spring to mind, the higher fidelity on Bob's wrinkles, the hair physics on Violet and the greatly improved cityscapes all add to an almost visual representation of the development of Pixar since 2004. Add into this the art deco design work, the jazzy soundtrack of returning composer Michael Giacchino and the bold direction of Bird and you have genuinely one of the most visually arresting action films in years. Every set-piece lands perfectly and offers chances for the heroes' power to be the stars of the scenes (something Marvel films often forget to do). Just when I thought I had seen enough "chase after the train" action sequences, Incredibles 2 somehow makes the whole concept exciting again.

While the plot is slightly less than super-powered, and I do wish more time was spent with the family together, Incredibles 2 is a fun and incredibly nostalgic ride that tows the line between fan-service moments for grown-up fans and enough visual flair, drama and comedy for pretty much the rest of the audience. I would say it doesn't quite have a patch on the original but it's certainly a valiant effort that made me smile and laugh a hell of a lot.



I normally would say it's time to close the book and I'm not a massive supporter of the Pixar sequels in general. After all, this was a studio that built itself on the foundation of creativity and offering the audience something new with each film. If they have to exist however I would rather have Incredibles sequels, as the format suits a series and as long as they find interesting ways to keep the stories interesting, of course.

First Reformed

Here's a wonderful anomaly. Seemingly out of no where, Paul Schrader has a new film in cinemas. The shocking part is that it's actually pretty God damn great. After years in the wilderness, the writer of Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and The Last Temptation of Christ and director of Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters has at last fuelled his talents in a project worthy of him. And what a film this is. Morally complex, beautifully shot, thematically heavy and has a truly standout central performance from Ethan Hawke honestly make First Reformed one of my films of the year so far.

Reverend Ernst Toller (Ethan Hawke) is an isolated pastor at a historic Dutch Reform church in upstate New York on the verge of celebrating its 250th anniversary. Dealing with a increasingly harrowing case of stomach cancer and rampant alcoholism, Toller is a man plagued by demons (his son died in the Iraq war leading in part to the dissolution of his marriage) and a moral sense responsibility to his dwindling congregation. Relegated to a tourist attraction, Toller has to compete with its nearby parent church, Abundant Life, which boasts a 5000 strong congregation and seemingly endless supplies of money. He takes to writing a journal for a year that he promises to destroy at the end of the process, perhaps as a way to work through the various issues in his life. Along the way, he befriends a young couple, Mary (Amanda Seyfried) and Michael (Philip Ettinger), who are expecting a child soon. However, Michael is suffering from a deep depression brought about by the current state of the world, in particular towards the environment. At the behest of Mary, Toller begins to counsel Michael and is soon pulled into a world and conclusions previously unseen by the troubled reverend...

First Reformed is a phenomenal exercise in restrained style and performance that has some pertinent things to say in 2018 

 



This is the definition of a slow burner, in true New Hollywood style. First Reformed is in no particular rush to reach any kind of foregone conclusions. The cast is excellent overall, in particular a stand-out performance from Seyfried, an actor I always underrate in my head. Speaking of underrated, Ethan Hawke just continues to shine as one of America's must under-appreciated actors. Reverend Toller is at once sympathetic and monstrous. Managing to tap into contemporary concerns such as radicalisation and the role of faith in modern society, Hawke effectively follows a Taxi Driver-style narrative that can only end in tragedy. A scene where Toller pours Pepto-Bismal into his glass of whiskey as the camera slowly zooms in must be a reference to a similar scene in Taxi Driver.

Instantly, First Reformed sets itself apart from modern filmmaking by framing itself in stunningly square 1:37:1 aspect ratio. This creates the effect of almost watching live theatre; with the outer edges of the frame gone, you simply can't look away from the human drama unfolding on screen. The winter scenery is also perfectly evocative of the inner turmoil of Reverend Toller, creating an almost borderline apocalyptic kind of setting. It's meaty stuff and the juxtaposition of the rickety old church against the modern trappings of the all-singing all-dancing Abundant Life creates an evocative paring for the setting of the film that just contributes to the overall mood of the piece. In particular, the empty space of Toller's clergy home, devoid of TVs or any real connection to the outside world, just creates this sense of unending isolation.

First Reformed comes as a highly recommended watch. It's a slow-burner but one that richly rewards its viewer with an evocative tale that feels like it belongs in the now. It's a meditative piece on the place of faith in modern society and manages to appropriate Travis Bickle for the 21st century, just in priest robes. Here's hoping this signals a renaissance for Schrader.





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