Flash Game Reviews: Shift

In my mid-teens I played a lot of Flash games. They were free and could often be amazing. In fact, I have played some Flash games which were far superior to most console games I’ve played. Some Flash games you could tell were a labour of love and others you knew were just shat out for one reason or another. These reviews on Flash games are my tribute to the people who made these games and caused me to spend a lot of my time playing them.

One of the biggest names in Flash games is Armor Games, the company that annoys me and my spellchecker because it is spelled with the American version of “armour.” In 2008 a game was released by “Tony” (Antony Lavelle) who makes games for the site. This game is Shift.

Shift has no real story. It’s a puzzle platformer. You are Subject 32763 and you must get from the first screen to the last by puzzle platforming. That’s pretty much it. The entire premise of the game. But that’s fine. With my Flash games I don’t require deep story or anything, I want a fun game to play.

And fun it is! As it’s a puzzle platformer you obvious jump from one platform to another and the puzzle aspect is trying to figure out how to get there. The way this is achieved is so simple yet so ingenious. Just press the Shift key. When you do that the level turns around 180 degrees and your character goes upright in this new level. So where you would initially have this:

all you have to do is press Shift and you get this:

 and then you can complete the level and go onto the next. So simple, yet so clever. It also makes for some very interesting ways to solve the level.

To advance to the next level you need to get to the door, but sometimes you will have platforms blocking you. To get these out of the way all you need to do is collect one of the various keys on the level and you’ll have a path set out for you. Again, simple but effective.

The look of this game is also great. The simple black and white motif allows you to instantly recognise which part of the level you are on. Also, the simplicity just suits the game itself. It’s a simple game that plays amazingly.

The music playing in the background is great too. Very simplistic but fun and it fully immerses you in the game itself. The entire game has a cheek about it, constantly throwing insults and jokes at you and... wait a second. It’s Portal. This game has been influenced by Portal!

A simple puzzle platformer that is still somewhat challenging and has great audio, simplistic visuals and some omnipresent entity that mocks you. It even has a “The cake is a lie” thing going on!

Well, the game seems aware it’s influenced by Portal. I’ll give it that, though the references to Portal do annoy me (as they do with most games). But even if it is influenced by Portal I don’t mind. Some of the greatest things out there are almost directly influenced by other great things. And this game is great! I really advise playing it if you haven’t already. It isn’t a very long game, but it is worth it if you have a few minutes spare.

Plus, this game is great for another thing: it has brilliant sequels!

Final Verdict: 8/10

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge (1985)

THIS REVIEW WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS!

This film really confuses me. I don’t quite know what to think about it. It isn’t confusion in the same way as A Nightmare on Elm Street confused me. Everything seems established a bit better in Freddy’s Revenge and some things make a lot more sense. No, I’m confused because I’m not sure to what extent I like or dislike this film. I suppose actually writing about it will help me get my thoughts around it.

For one, I’m pretty sure the ending of the first film has been retconned to “everyone died and Nancy went insane” but that isn’t made entirely clear. That at least gives a simple ending to the first film and allows the events of the original to make more sense. Not sure if I like this, though.

Then we have the fact that our main character, Jesse (Mark Patton), seems to be slowly getting taken over from the dream world so that Krueger (Robert Englund) can commit murders through him. That should bring in some more psychological horror aspects as Jesse doesn’t know when he will become a violent killer. But Jesse never seems entirely phased by this. Only when he is changing into Krueger or just killed someone does he actually seem scared at all. Not only this, but it also means nothing really happens in the dream world. This makes the first film being about killing the kids in their dreams almost pointless.

However, it does lead to some creepy scenes and does build a little bit of tension. It is also an interesting concept, not being able to control oneself and becoming some violent supernatural killer. But this never comes up often enough, with Jesse being mostly himself throughout the film. There’s little to no tension. Thankfully, it does build up to a scene of violence and death, but this is all too little too late. And at the end Krueger is defeated by the power of love (cop out) and then everyone acts like nothing ever happened.

Oh, and then Freddy’s hand bursts out some girl’s stomach and the school bus goes careening off somewhere. THE END!

I’m going to go ahead and say I am not going to look forward to the ends of these films. I think they will all turn out disappointing.

But I have to say that overall I do find that this film does some things a bit more right than the original. It’s more clear cut, less confusing and a lot less ridiculous. Nonetheless, I think I have to say that I don’t really like this film. Barely anything happens in it and the overall climax was a bore, just to have some lovey-dovey nonsense come along and ruin what should be some epic ending, what with Freddy running around and all.

Which, to be honest, was another problem. Freddy getting out properly and doing things ruins the supernatural feel of the character. He no longer just has power in dreams and the outside world to a lesser extent. No, now he just goes right ahead and kills people in the real world. In trying to make a better story they seem to have ended up with a less creepy villain.

So I guess I’m less fond of this film. What I liked the most about the previous movie, the villain, has been stripped down to just a normal killer, in a way. The pacing of this film was terrible, at times plot points would go nowhere and there's the tiniest amount of tension or suspense. I realise now I have focussed mainly on the plot, but not what happens within the film. This is mainly because nothing happens in the film, but there is a bare bones plot in there somewhere. It’s hard to talk about a film like that.

Hopefully there will be more to talk about in the later films, be it good or be it bad!

Final Verdict: 3/10

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

THIS REVIEW WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS!

I’ll be honest with you: I don’t quite understand the popularity of this film. Maybe it isn’t this film in and of itself, but rather the franchise. But A Nightmare on Elm Street holds a 95% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Granted, this seems to be mostly from horror reviewers, but the point still stands: this film is popular.

Maybe it’s the villain. Freddy Krueger, only really referred to as Fred Krueger in this film. Freddy is a pretty good villain. He is scary looking and pretty eerie. He doesn’t speak much, but when he does it’s either funny or creepy. The fact that he seems to toy with his some of his victims before killing them suits the character and the mere fact that he is a child murderer would be disturbing to some.

At first I was quite upset that Freddy didn’t actually seem to get much time on screen but that really works for his creepiness factor. The less you see him, the more you fear him. Sadly, when it comes to the climax he seems pretty useless and is comically taken down at one point by a sledgehammer (come on, he’s some supernatural being!), which takes away from his legitimacy as a fearsome villain.

The acting in this film is also another positive for this film. All of the actors are pretty good, especially the leading cast, such as Heather Langenkamp as Nancy, and Johnny Depp. Langenkamp is the heroin of the film and she carries off her role perfectly, unlike the girl who gets killed first, played by Amanda Wyss.

So we have two positives, but why does this film confuse me?

Well, it’s the execution of the plot. You see, Freddy is dead, killed by the parents on Elm Street because he was a child murderer and got off of prison on a technicality. So now he is getting back at the parents by killing their children in their dreams, where he has power. It's a very interesting a good basic plot to the film.

But I find that it all falls apart when we see Freddy affecting things outside of the dreams. One of the characters is killed off by being hanged by his bed sheets in a police station cell. How does he do this? Does he have control over anything to do with the bed? Depp’s character is clearly awake when he is killed, blood gushing up to the ceiling from a hole in his bed in a ridiculous manner. At the end of the film he gets out of the dream and tries to kill the main character.

By the end of the film we have all of the characters alive again, together in a convertible. Then the cover comes up and it’s in the design of Freddy’s shirt, the doors all lock, the windows all go up and the car drives away. The Nancy’s mum is then waving them off and suddenly Freddy’s clawed hand busts through the door and drags the mum in. The End!

What? What happened there?! Was this all a dream? I get the feeling that this is like some sort of Inception dream within a dream within a dream/which reality is reality and which is the dream stuff going on. I have no idea what happened at the end there, nor what happened before it. The movie has made no effort to explain these things and instead just leaves me sitting here feeling confused.

This is why the popularity of this film confuses me. Conceptually it's really good but it just fails in execution. Freddy’s powers are confusing and the events of the film are questionable. It’s such a shame because A Nightmare on Elm Street does a great job at building up tension and suspense, but this is all sadly taken over by confusion as the film goes on.

And when the better version of this film is the parody from The Simpson's Treehouse of Horror VI then there may be some issues with the source material.

But maybe when I think A Nightmare on Elm Street is popular I’m thinking of the franchise, and not the initial film in the series. I’m sure I’ll find out as this series continues.

Final Verdict: 4/10

Video Nasties: Don’t Look in the Basement (1973)

THIS REVIEW WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS!

a.k.a. The Forgotten

Year Re-Released: 2005 (uncut)

Before we look at this film let’s look at the synopsis on the back on the DVD case doesn’t help the film at all, boasting “twisted fantasies which includes urder”. Oh boy, I can’t wait to find out what “urder” is!

Don’t Look in the Basement is set in Stephens Sanitarium, possibly the worst mental health institute in the US as patients are free to roam around the secluded building. This is in the hopes that they will just somehow snap out of their fantasies just because they get to act them out. Sounds like not only would that reinforce these behaviours, but it also sounds extremely dangerous, which is exactly what it is.

In the 9 minute lead up to the opening credits appear one of the dangerous patients attacks the chief doctor with an axe and another crushes a nurse’s head after the patient thinks the nurse is trying to steal her “baby”. Now with these two out of the way one doctor is left, but that’s OK because a new nurse is on her way. Then the film gets tedious and boring.

The biggest problem with this institute is that some of these people are clearly dangerous. One character seems to take it upon himself to call judgment on everyone and is violent about it. Another is a Sergeant, but he doesn’t do anything, though is most probably volatile due to having shellshock from the Vietnam War. The woman with the doll is violent towards people who she deems threatening.  

Some of these people also feel like they shouldn’t be there, aside from a man called Sam, who has the mind of a child. We also have some guy who just comes across as a nasty person, not insane. There’s also an old lady who just seems like an old lady.

There’s also a nymphomaniac who really shouldn’t be in the institute. The premise of “living out fantasies” can only go so far with her, as she is unable to act upon them because no one will have sex with her, therefore the chief doctor cannot cure her. I think she is only there to increase the creepiness factor in the only genuinely creepy scene where it is implied that she has had sex with a fresh corpse.

The reason I have been talking about the patients so much is because this is pretty much all the film is about: looking at insane people for 70 minutes until the climax of the film. It isn’t entertaining and isn’t scary or creepy. It’s just boring,

When the climax does finally come along there is a clever twist where it turns out that the doctor currently running the institute is actually one of the patients and that the nurse is the only sane one there. Then people just start dying for no real reason. The not-doctor kills one of them, then the necrophilia scene, then the nurse finds the chief doctor in the basement and kills him in fear, then the patients go to kill the nurse, then Sam saves her, then they go to kill the not-doctor, she dies, nurse escapes through the basement, Sam comes back and kills them all for killing the not-doctor, the end.

Seriously, that’s how it ends. Stuff just kind of happens and then THE END!

I suppose I can kind of see why Don’t Look in the Basement a Video Nasty. It has some nudity (two occasions where breasts appear) and some violence, along with the implied necrophilia (it is implied, though the box says necrophilia is in it). So those are some reasons it may have been banned, but there’s nothing really solid to go on here.

I don’t really recommend this film. If you want a slasher  this isn’t the film for you and if you want One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest critique on mental institutions in the US then I can’t say you’ll get that here either. Just watch something else and you’ll be more entertained. Not only this but this film never tells you what “urder” really is. That’s just disappointing!

Final Verdict: 1/10

Saw: The Final Chapter (2010)

 THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!

Oh, man, this movie was something special. I kind of love this movie. It has nothing to do with it being good or having a good story or anything like that. No, I love this movie because it so bad that it is hilarious and fun to watch. Really bad and really fun!

This finale feels like some sort of self parody, not a serious end to the franchise. It seems as if the people who made this movie were having a laugh and giving the finger to people who truly cared about this series.

The movie suffers from many things. One of these things is bad acting. Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) is comically transparent and evil - though he always was – but now it just feels ridiculous. Jill Tuck (Betsy Russell) always wears the same facial expression and Detective Matt Gibson (Chad Donella) was impossible to take seriously due to the terrible acting.

On top of this we have a nonsensical plot. Someone (Sean Patrick Flanery) claims to have escaped Jigsaw’s game and has released a book to show how great he now finds life. Of course, this guy is a phony, but no one seems to understand this. Surely someone would examine the scars on his body or have questioned him thoroughly or something to expose him. Also, this book is mean to have been released and all within the timeline of the films. This doesn’t seem likely to me.

Of course it is him put in the game, where he is given some of the most impossible tasks so far. So impossible we realise this series has given up and just started killing people willy nilly.

Which is why it is now a slasher flick. Oh yeah, Hoffman goes around shanking dudes just because. Obviously he learned nothing from Jigsaw, making everything in the previous films pointless.

So, basically, this franchise has now lost all of its identity just for blood, death, gore, violence and a body count. This is even the first Saw film (and, of course, last) to have an opening death scene that is never brought up. And this death scene takes place in public, for some reason, where a bunch of idiots just crowd around and watch as people show how terrible they are at acting.

Oh, and it turns out Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) is alive and is now the new Jigsaw. Only took them 6 movies to bring him back for a terrible twist ending. We now have no idea what Kramer’s legacy really is because there is no legacy shown. We can’t assume anything because we aren’t given the appropriate material to base a judgement on anything. It’s stupid.

But despite all of this I loved this film, purely because it was so bad. It was almost glorious in how it tried to ruin the series. It isn’t quite up to par with Highlander II levels of ruination, but it goes for it.

But here we are, at the end of this series. What have I learned?

Well, for one, don’t let unfounded prejudices stop you from watching films, you might be pleasantly surprised. Also, that torture porn is somewhat lucrative, but mostly idiotic in this day and age. And finally, the Saw franchise is completely mental!

Final Verdict: 1/10

Saw VI (2009)

THIS REVIEW IS TRYING ITS HARDEST NOT TO SPOIL A SINGLE THING AND HOPEFULLY IT HASN'T, BUT HERE'S A WARNING JUST IN CASE!

I’m shocked I’m about to type this, but here we go: The 6^th Saw film is my favourite in the series. Seriously, I am not kidding. When watching the utter tripe we got from the 4^th and 5^th films, with a lacklustre 3^rd film, I thought the last two films would be awful!

It’s weird to think that, as I watch the Saw films, I think it should be a TV show. All of them seem like they should be hour long episodes in an American TV series. The flashbacks remind me of Lost and the crime segments remind me of CSI. Yet if it was an American TV show then it would have been cancelled because of Saw IV being so badly received, so not all would have turned out well for it.

I honestly don’t want to spoil any of the plot for this movie. It is great as a standalone piece of cinema. What I can say is the general premise of the film, as well as the opening. Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) has got away with pinning the Jigsaw copycat killings on Agent Strahm and is now assisting Jill (Betsy Russell) in carrying out John Kramer’s (Tobin Bell) final requests. This consists of making a man play a game where he has to decide on how much he values other people’s lives. Even saying that I have spoiled it slightly, but it’s okay, it is deeper than that.

The tests in this film are pretty damn good. They are simple, yet effective, not unlike the very first film’s game. They all consist of difficult decisions that weigh heavily on the subject’s mind when trying to figure out what to do in such a short period of time. The tests are honestly extremely suspenseful, unlike the tests in the other films, and you feel sorry for the man when he is trying to complete them.

The directing in this film has got a thousand times better, so much so that I feel I have overcome my epilepsy and motion sickness. The acting is so much better and the twists make sense and are suspenseful. It’s hard for me to comment on anything in this film without saying “I really liked it.” Well, Hoffman is transparently evil, but I’m OK with that.

Just... go watch this film. It’s great.

Now to watch the one that had the worst ratings. 10% on Rotten Tomatoes, eh? Pretty bad... Ah well, at least it’s the last one!

Final Verdict: 9/10

Saw V (2008)

THIS REVIEW WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS!

2 + 3 = 5.

Just as this is true, it seems that Saw V is just Saw II and Saw III rolled into one ugly mess. Granted, this film is not as boring, confusing and downright rubbish as Saw IV, but it is still terribly lacklustre.

At the end of Saw IV we found out that Agent Strahm (Scott Patterson) looks exactly like Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) and this means that trying to piece together events is rather confusing. This lead me to believe, at first, that the ending to Saw IV was more confusing than it actually was. I wrote the review after figuring out they were two completely different people.

A shame, then, that these two people are the leads for this film. Strahm is boringly going on a hunt for knowledge, attempting to discover who the hell put him in some crazy trap that goes against the rules laid out by the films by having no instructions and no way of escape unless Strahm improvises, which he does.

Strahm's research teaches us that Hoffman is a bad guy, which we figured out from the end of Saw IV. However, what we didn’t know is that Hoffman has a slightly different story to Amanda Young, so obviously it needs to be shown in near entirety. Which is boring, because I honestly don’t care. If they simply showed the reason why Hoffman is Kramer’s apprentice then I wouldn’t have minded, but this film decides to show every little step to Hoffman becoming Jigsaw Killer V2.0.

The film, like Saw II, starts off with an opening kill, which is annoying enough. But it gets moronic as it turns out Hoffman created the elaborate device before becoming an apprentice. Where did this detective get his engineering know-how? The film doesn’t answer this. Obviously this is something we don’t need to know about this guy’s backstory.

The game set up is boring to watch too. It is set up in four rooms with five players, going from the first room to the next and to the next. The game seems to require Darwinian “survival of the fittest” gameplay, but in an obvious twist it turns out they were meant to work together, and they totally could have, in order to finish properly and not be terrifyingly mutilated and risk further death.

But wait, what about the third room, which has a bath in the middle of it where an electrical current must pass through to open the next door. But this can only happen if someone is in the bath, therefore dying due to electric shock. They couldn’t all grab a cord and do it individually as they would all run the risk of dying. So this defeats the purpose of the end room!

Yet again, the directing and editing annoys me, and all of the characters try their best to make me hate them. But it doesn’t feel as bad as Saw IV. At least, it isn’t as offensive. Kramer gets to come back for some more flashbacks and he is back to his usual self. Nonetheless, this film still sucks and I don’t recommend it. Just watch Saw II and Saw III, then try to imagine them condensed into one film.

Final Verdict: 2/10

Saw IV (2007)

THIS REVIEW WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS!

Be warned, this is  a long one...

This film feels like a turning point for me. The first three I enjoyed to an extent. The first two I thought were good, the third being a bit crap but a good way to end the trilogy. Well, it just so turns out Saw IV made Saw III look great by comparison.

I can’t quite tell what exactly makes me dislike Saw IV, but I’m going to go ahead and say everything. The directing and editing of this film was horrible. Remember in the Saw II review how I said that I fear of getting epilepsy? I may well have it now because of this films constant flashing. I also have motion sickness because the camera keeps moving around far too much.

The game this time seems completely ridiculous. It doesn’t feel like Rigg (Lyriq Bent) needs to be completing it on his own. He has to go outside, into the city, to complete some tasks, and yet he doesn’t get any help. At all. Also, the fact that he is no longer stuck in a single room or a building just doesn’t feel right for the series. Because outside there is no control over what happens, so it is only due to convenience that the game works.

The game, yet again, turns into a twist (M. Night Shyamalan would be proud). If he didn’t try to complete the game this time then everyone would have lived and it would have all have been fine. Oh, wow, you got me there that time, Saw.

But not only this, we find out that this film is a midquel. It takes place during the events of Saw III, meaning that it was Kramer (Tobin Bell) who set all of this up and not some long lasting legacy left by him, which would have been interesting. No, instead we are treated to a filler movie, which does a lot in ruining the story for us.

You see, John Kramer is a dick. OK, maybe he was already a dick, but he was kind of understandable. He thought people should start respecting their own lives more because he realised how truly precious it was. Fine. But no, it turns out he was to have a child, but his wife had a miscarriage. He then blocked her out of his life and decided to kill the guy who caused the death in the first game. This all feels so wrong and unnecessary, ruining a character as well as badly handling the death of an unborn child to the point that I am angry at the movie (and I won’t get started on the badly handled rape, which, again, angered me).

But on top of this we have Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) coming back from Saw II to die an anti-climactic death that I really didn’t think he deserved as well as Jeff Denlon (Angus Macfayden) from Saw III being killed in yet another anti-climactic fashion. These both take place in the ending of the film, which feels rushed and choppy, not really selling the over-complicated plot it was going for. Oh, and we now have another apprentice who has decided to follow Kramer because... he thought it was a good idea? I’m not sure, it isn’t very clear.

Then I got thinking: why does Kramer hate the police? All of his previous victims seemed to be people who deserved to learn the values of life and to care more, like a drug addict, an obsessed man who stopped caring about his family, and criminals in general. This time it seems to be a man who wants to help and save people. Several police get brought into the mix as well. It perplexes and puzzles me. I just guess the writers stopped caring.

On top of all of this we have other, more nit-picky issues. I saw a boom mic in an interrogation scene and during the opening autopsy I could see the facial mask that Tobin Bell was wearing. An issue with continuity is confusing, as Amanda Young is mentioned at a time before the autopsy and discovery of Amanda Young as an apprentice (because something tells me that Daniel from Saw II knew she was).

The editing was annoying, quickly flashing 5 different reactions to pain or someone’s speech, which just looked silly, and at one point an interrogator yells the same words 5 times due to the editing. It’s hard to put into words, but if you watch this film or have watched it then you might know what I mean.

Plus, and this is very nit-picky, the origin of the pig mask seems useless. The only reason it seems to be used is because Kramer wore one once when kidnapping someone, so thinks now it is a great idea to do it.

To be honest, though, when I say “if you watch this film” I’m being far too presumptive, especially considering what I am about to write.

DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM! It is really terrible. I had no fun, zero fun, watching this film. It takes the previous films and decides it doesn’t like them being good and decides to try and make you hate it. The torture porn is still prevalent. Tough issues are handled badly. Most of all, though, and I think this was my biggest issue, this film is completely unnecessary. It adds nothing to the series so far. It doesn’t take away, but it definitely tries to ruin it. This really is the worst Saw film so far.

Final Verdict: 1/10

The Inbetweeners Movie (2011)

The Inbetweeners is well known for its humour. It’s crude, sexual and, at times, incredibly childish. On paper this TV series should not have worked, but something about the show, be it the characters, the writing, the jokes or storylines, captured the heart of the British public. With its popularity unquestionable it is not entirely unsurprising that this series spawned a film.

To those unfamiliar with The Inbetweeners, the TV show focuses on four teenage boys in Sixth Form trying to cope with being outsiders whilst still trying to integrate themselves in normal society, become men and have sex. So, basically, what most teenage boys do. The show was based around a lot of awkward and gross out comedy which was timed perfectly to attain optimum amusement.

Now that overly brief summary of the series is over let’s look at The Inbetweeners Movie.

The plot involves the four lads, Will (Simon Bird), Simon, (Joe Thomas), Jay (James Buckley) and Neil (Blake Harrison) deciding that the best way to end their stint at Sixth Form is to go on a holiday to Malia, Crete. Simon uses this to get over his ex-girlfriend, Carli (Emily Head), whilst the others use it as a chance to try and get as much sex and booze as possible. From here onwards it is a tale of friendship, coming of age and a quest for clunge.

This acting in this film is fantastic. Anyone who watched the TV series will be glad that the standards of the TV series are kept in this film, and will also be able to understand the characters more, which might be a daunting task for newcomers. This is accompanied by fantastic script-writing, where jokes come thick and fast and as crude as ever.

But surprisingly for a film based upon the TV show we get some honestly heart-warming and touching moments. Characters interact with each other so well, be it between established friends or the people they meet on holiday. This does produce some funny moments, but the moments where it gets seriously do tug at your heartstrings. You know that these guys really care about each other, even though their exterior tells you otherwise.

But the film isn’t just about serious moments. The film is a comedy, and it truly deserves that title. The jokes are hilarious. They remain as crude and sexual as they were in the TV series, but tenfold, producing a film that has you laughing from beginning to end.

The Inbetweeners Movie is a true coming of age story, showing the trials and tribulations of growing up and realising that you will soon no longer be able to leave near each other because of university. It delivers this is an amazing comedic style without faltering and is well worth seeing. Not necessarily an essential cinema film, but essential for almost anyone who is a teenager or young adult and definitely an essential Summer film!

Final Verdict: 9/10

Saw III (2006)

THIS REVIEW WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS! 

You know that prediction of torture porn? The thing I HOPED this series didn’t devolve into? Well this is what has happened, and it is only 3 movies in.

OK, that’s kind of unfair. There isn’t much of this torture porn in the film, but that’s another area that this film falters in. When, on the few occasions, it shows the game going on, it is over the top with its torture of its victims and the death of one, who gets frozen, is utterly ridiculous. In fact, that woman is, for some reason or another, naked (or at least, I presume she is, all you see is breasts). This is the definition of torture porn and it is unnecessary.

The plot meanders through two hours of your precious time, going from the game to flashbacks to a woman attempting to assist a dying John Kramer (the Jigsaw Killer) so that he may survive through the test. Yet this isn’t after 15 minutes of uselessness as a detective discovers a dead body with the trademarks of the Jigsaw Killer, followed by her getting killed in a similar fashion and then another 10 minutes of setup until we can actually get to the plot. That’s 25 minutes of the film. Wasted.

And after this barely anything happens. The plot moves slowly, the characters are impossible to connect with and everything falls into place far too easily.

The entire film turns out to be a game for Amanda Young, Kramer’s apprentice. He wants to see if she is capable of keeping someone alive. You see, she has murdered people and creates games that are impossible to complete. Kramer made sure his games were possible to complete and has never murdered anyone.

But this all seems pointless when, in the first film, the only way Lawrence was allowed to escape was by killing Adam. He essentially condoned that murder and made it impossible for Adam to escape. I'm getting some mixed messages here!

On top of this, the game he set up for Amanda was reliant on her committing murder. He knew she would murder from the start, so why would he have her as an apprentice? This movie raises too many questions that the film doesn’t answer.

Plus, this actually turns into one great big Rube Goldberg Machine (something I’m going to be thinking a lot about in the later films, I bet). It depends on exact timing, people doing exactly what Kramer wanted them to do, just so everything could fall into place. With this amount of uncertainty in events Kramer’s plan could have easily backfired, something that I believe the character would not want happening and would make sure everything was set up so that it couldn’t happen any other way.

With Saw II I did have a lot of issues with it, but I still enjoyed it. This one just seemed like a waste of time to me. It was good at ending the first trilogy, but it wasn’t a good film. At all. The biggest problem was its lack of focus and length. If it could concentrate more on key parts of the film it would have been a lot better.

Well, now into Saw IV we go, a film that begins the “I’ve heard people say these ones are the shit ones” saga of the Saw franchise.

...

Final Verdict: 4/10

Saw II (2005)

THIS REVIEW WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS!

I was okay with the similarities to David Fincher’s Seven in the first Saw. It was the first in the series, the plot was great and the directing was good too. It carried itself as a standalone piece with obvious influences from elsewhere. But now we have yet another Saw film with heavy Seven themes. It’s at this point I’m wondering “Will the series ever stop being like Seven?” Though I would like this, I fear it will soon turn out to be pure torture porn, akin to Hostel, having the same lack of depth and maturity in its script.

Not that I have got that out of the way I will give a brief summary of Saw II. Imagine the first Saw, but this time the plotline of the captured people runs simultaneously to that of the investigation outside of this. Oh, and now we have 8 captured people as opposed to 2. You basically have the same movie. This time the 8 people are trapped in an entire house, which they must escape or a deadly nerve gas will kill them in a few hours. There are syringes of antidote around the household so that they can save themselves, but these involve completing tasks. One of these 8 people is the son of a detective (Donnie Wahlberg), which is where the investigation comes in. A brutal, brutal investigation.

This is where I get to some spoilers. The majority of the film revolves around completing tasks to get the syringes. But the problem with this is that none of the tasks in the film are completed successfully. One person gets two syringes; then dies before escaping; another person gets their hands trapped; another task ran out of time, bringing images of a deadly Crystal Maze. There is no tension in the film regarding these tasks because none of them ever get successfully completed, thus we stop caring.

The story is pretty well told, but it goes a bit slow. As I just said, there isn’t much tension or suspense. Not only this but the characters aren’t very well developed, being extremely one dimensional and thus are hard to identify with. Nonetheless, the plot does move forwards and we are treated to revelations throughout the movie, all culminating to a twist ending that features word play that Derren Brown would be proud of.

As I alluded to in the opening paragraph, this does seem to come dangerously close to torture porn. The fact that the film starts with an opening death made me sigh, and the gore and blood did come close to being excessive and was almost played merely for kicks. This is where I fear the plot will suffer, just to give fans what they want.

But, despite all this, I did enjoy Saw II. It was an interesting story with a good origin story for the Jigsaw Killer. The effects were good and some of the traps, while a bit over the top and Rube Goldberg-ish, seemed pretty inventive and realistic. I have to say I’m quite surprised to see how good these films are.

However, if the editing of the other films causes the screen to constantly flash and have super fast cuts like this film did then I might end up not being able to do the rest of the films as I may end up getting epilepsy!

Final Verdict: 6/10

Saw (2004)

THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!

The Saw franchise has always repulsed me. Not because of the apparent gorefest it features. No, it is the fact that each film has been released year after year, apparently showing exactly the same story but murdering its victims in different ways, similar to the Final Destination franchise.

This constant churning out of films offended me in some way. They all appeared to be complete and utter cash cows, made solely to make money rather than to produce good cinema. It is the main reason why I have avoided the franchise until this day.

In this series of blogs I will be looking at each of the Saw films individually, from 2004 to 2010 (not including the initial pitch from 2003). I will be writing my views on the film as well as a brief summary of the plots as soon as I have finished watching the film, to be posted (hopefully) daily. I don’t know if I will like these films or not, though I’m not going in with any high hopes. So let’s start from the beginning.

The film (created by James Wan and Leigh Whannell) opens to two men being locked in a room, chained to pipes on opposite ends of the room, a dead man laying in the middle of the room, holding a tape recorder and a gun, most probably used to blow his brains out. The living men are Adam (Leigh Whannell) and  Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes). For the first 15 minutes of the film the two men fumble around the room, trying to piece together the puzzle laid before them.

Lawrence is given the instructions that he can only escape if he kills Adam within 6 hours. If he doesn’t then he will die, Adam will die and Lawrence’s wife and daughter will be killed. The men find, through clues, that there are two saws in a bag in the room, not strong enough to cut through the chains, but seemingly strong enough to cut through their legs.

After these first 15 minutes, the majority of the story is now told through flashback, which shows other victims, the people involved in the investigation as well as the family of Lawrence. We find out that the reason people are put in these situations is that the killer believes they do not value their lives enough, and so must now be force to appreciate their lives to the fullest.

The story told is surprisingly unlike what I expected it to be. I expected, most probably from trailers and hearsay, that the film would be full of gore, violence, mutilation and dismemberment. But there is a surprising amount of plot in this film. In fact, at its core, Saw is a crime thriller, similar to David Fincher’s Seven. In fact, the creators of the film were directly influenced by Seven and it really shows. There are similar elements to the plot and the investigation, though not focussed on to a great extent, feels somewhat similar. In fact, the villain of the film feels like a carbon copy of John Doe, the murderer in Seven.

Nonetheless, as its own story it holds up pretty well. There are a few twists and turns that take place in the film that were almost impossible to see coming and the ending was damn well sublime, bringing together everything from the film, from beginning to end, to create one massive “What the fuck?” moment. However, there are some parts of the film that seem a bit silly. A few times I was looking at the situation and wondering why they were acting as they were when there was a far simpler solution to their problems right in front of them.

Sadly, the film missed opportunities to build up tension by making it seem as if Lawrence might kill Adam. Also, the fact that what Adam and Lawrence seem to do for the majority of those 6 hours they have to figure out how to escape is talk about Lawrence’s past, which seems like a waste of time and took me out of the film a little.

Acting in this film is pretty good as well. Some of the characters are played a bit too stereotypically, being purely one-dimensional, but most characters are likeable and it is easy to understand why they act the way they do. Sadly, Cary Elwes let down the acting at times, sometimes putting in a laughable performance.

As a whole, I found Saw to be a pretty good crime thriller, though not quite up to par with the likes of Seven.  Produced on a small budget of $700,000 it gets the job done and doesn’t overstay its welcome.

Wait... I still have 6 more films to watch. Man, I hope they are up to par with this one...

Final Verdict: 7/10

Cowboys & Aliens (2011)

Western films and science fiction have come together before. We have a great films such as the 1973 Westworld and the 1990 film Back To The Future Part III, but we also have the 1999 flop such as Wild Wild West, showing that this amalgam needs to be worked with tentatively. None of these films have dealt with aliens coming to the world of cowboys, bandits and Indians. So now we have Jon Favreau, director of both Iron Man films as well as the well received Zathura, creating a film based upon such a concept.

Cowboys & Aliens is not necessarily based upon a comic but rather the cover art of a comic with the same name. By the sounds of the plot of the comic, Cowboys & Aliens pulls a RED and decides to have nothing to do with the original story and instead create a unique story. And, just like RED, Favreau pulls it off spectacularly.

Set in 1873, a man with amnesia (Daniel Craig) finds himself in a desert where he comes across the town of Absolution, a mining town which is suffering from a dried up gold supply. The only way the town stays afloat is by tough cattle rancher Colonel Woodrow Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford). Absolution is attacked by aircraft who destroy most of the town and abduct many of the townsfolk. The remaining men of the town, alongside the amnesiac follow the aircraft in order to free the abducted townsfolk. The party is joined by Ella Swenson (Olivia Wilde) who appears to know something about the amnesiac. The journey leads to revelations about the characters, especially Craig’s and Wilde’s, as well as several action sequences and encounters with bandits and Apache tribesmen.

The plot may sound ridiculous, and it is to an extent, yet the science fiction and Western elements are both played superbly. The first 15 minutes of the film feel like a great Western film and when the aliens begin to play a part it doesn’t feel out of place, instead giving insight into what would happen in such a situation. The plot has several entertaining and heart-pumping moments, as well as some honestly upsetting scenes, all played with complete seriousness that, surprisingly, works.

All of the characters are interesting and are developed as the film goes on. Dolarhyde is initially shown as somewhat villain-like, but as the movie continues he becomes more likeable and his tough and brash exterior is shown to be justified due to his past in the army, yet his heart is always in the right place. Craig’s character is believable in his actions as an amnesiac and is fully developed, showing a hard past to contend with as he remembers it or it is shoved into his path to rescue the civilians.

Thankfully, the movie never calls the aliens “aliens”. Instead they are called demons, in fitting with the time period. The aliens in the film seem to have taken some inspiration from Alien, where they have a hard exo-skeleton and extendable parts of their bodies. They are truly terrifying and expertly designed. Also, the aliens feel as if they have weight in the movie, actually affecting their surrounding and the people around them, as well as feeling as if they actually exist in this world. This is most likely thanks to the amazing CGI as well as the use of practical puppets.

In fact, the effects in the entire film were great. The CGI very rarely makes itself noticed, making the ships look real and blasts feel like they have effects on the world. The use of practical effects makes this film have a bit more power compared to the overly CGI-dependent films of today. And I praise Favreau for denying requests for 3D, as this would have had absolutely no benefit from the use of 3D and would have just brought hate for the useless conversion.

Yet, with this film I perceive as being a masterpiece, it is not reviewed so highly by others. As I am writing this it is currently at 46% on Rotten Tomatoes, from 206 reviews, and 50/100 on Metacritic, from 41 reviews. This honestly baffles me and find it hard to see why this is. The acting in the film is amazing, the plot is great and the two genres of science fiction and Western blend seamlessly. But each to their own.

Personally, I really recommend this film. All of the reasons above should tell you this. If you get a chance then go see this film. It is really worth it, and if you are a Daniel Craig or Harrison Ford fan you should love it!

Final Verdict: 9/10