Sicario (Review) - 'Sicario' Means 'Amazing Movie' in English

It's a concept we've seen a million times before: Good cop witnesses atrocities; good cop joins shady group to put an end to said atrocities; good cop discovers they might not be on the right side of the law; good cop tries to stop misdoings. That's the funny thing about Sicario, really. If you pull all of its pieces apart one-by-one, then it's not exactly unique or imaginative. But that doesn't matter. Every actor and every shot is so incredibly engrossing, that you completely forget the formula - you're totally drawn in. 

The film opens with Emily Blunt's character Kate Mercer performing a ram-raid on a known property with ties to the Mexican cartel. Things don't quite end up as expected, however, and she begins to see with blinding clarity that kicking in doors won't reach the guys on the top. So, when her actions are noticed by government higher-ups, she's enlisted to join a specialist task force that give her the assurance they'll get a chance at "the real guys behind this". After a particularly bloody trip to Juárez, Kate begins to see that maybe the people she's with aren't necessarily the good guys, and that she might be entering a world which she's far from familiar with. 

The first thing you'll notice about this unexpectedly brilliant movie is how beautiful it looks. Yes: rotting corpses hidden in walls might not be a pretty sight, but you'd be forgiven for thinking so when it's delivered in such a stylised and enthralling way. There are a few shots in particular that manage to tell far more than pages of dialogue ever could, and they're intensely impressive to even the most passive of viewers. A single frame is never wasted in Sicario, and that's precisely how it should be. 

But, as I mentioned, the acting is just as sharp. Emily Blunt in the lead role is a perfect fit, as she manages to portray exactly what the viewer is feeling; we don't honestly know who these people are, or if they're even within the law, and neither does she. The absolute star of the show has to be Benicio Del Toro as the sinister and enigmatic Alejandro, however. From the very first time we see him, Del Toro leaves you full of questions that might not even get resolved. Not only does he add to the disconcertingly mysterious tone of the entire movie, but his guarded motives are one of the things that keep you watching so intently. Josh Brolin also delivers a strong performance as Kate's polar opposite with the character of Matt Graver; a gung-ho fighter who never fails to see the funny side amongst the mangled corpses. 

Kate (Emily Blunt)

And if we're going to cover all of our bases, then I ought to point out just how perfectly the movie is scored. Before we even catch a glimpse of Juárez, we already know how dangerous it is from a long, panning shot of the mountains accompanied by music that wouldn't seem out of place in any horror flick. You genuinely fear for Kate's life as she's violently thrown into a world she neither understands, nor can put an end to. The film ends on a similarly bleak note that'll leave you with plenty to think about. 

If you're going in to Sicario for an out-an-out popcorn flick, then you're better off looking elsewhere. This is heavy content, and it's delivered in a style that perfectly suits just that; violence is visceral and destructive, not glamorous. If you think you can stomach it, though, then it's well worth your time. 

The Martian (Review) - Super Starman

Rarely do films based off of books stick so closely to their source material. I'm not one of these people who endlessly laments when movie adaptations stray from the work that they're based upon, but I was genuinely surprised by how accurate The Martian was at depicting the tone and events of the popular book by Andy Weir. 

The film opens to Matt Damon very nearly dying. Well, we as the audience know he survives, but to everybody else concerned (and believe me: that concerns plenty of people), Mark Watney dies while the crew are leaving the iconic red planet. And so, as the crew of six becomes five, we discover that Mark is holding on to his dwindling life by a delicate thread. Soon after waking up, Mark comes to the realisation that he will most likely die on Mars; unless he can somehow survive for literally years and inform NASA of his existence. 

It's a pretty brilliant premise, and one which feels relatively similar to something like 127 Hours or Castaway in its execution. Here we have a survivalist who, against all apparent odds, must survive long enough to escape his natural prison - and what a prison it is. Ridley Scott presents the Martian planet in beautiful, desolate wide-shots that really give a sense of just how isolated a man would feel when he is literally the only human being on an entire planet. Surprisingly, there's also a vast amount of comedy based around this premise, which was hinted at in the trailers: "I don't want to come off as arrogant here, but I'm the best botanist on the entire planet." This is appropriate, as the book also depicted Watney as a very charismatic individual; perhaps more so than the movie manages to achieve. Regardless, Matt Damon is fairly excellent in the role, and adds hugely to the overall entertainment that the film provides.

But he's far from alone in the stellar acting department. It would take too long to name every famous actor present in The Martian, so here's just a few familiar names: Jessica Chastain, Jeff Daniels, Sean Bean, Kate Mara, Donald Glover, and Chiwetel Ejiofor. It's a star-studded cast to say the least, and nobody is particularly wasted throughout the movie. Sure, because of the sheer amount of talent present, it's understandable that some characters receive less limelight than others, but everybody gets their chance to shine. Saying that, I was a tad disappointed that Michael Peňa had little chance to flex his comedic muscles, but only because he was probably one of the funniest parts of the recent Ant Man. 

There's a fair amount of contention over one aspect of the movie, however: the run-time. It may only be 2 hours and 20 minutes long, but certain segments do seem to drag a little, and there's a scene added at the end (that wasn't in the book) which feels inconsequential to the overall story. I won't spoil anything, but the film's ending wouldn't have been worsened at all if this scene had simply been removed. 

I'd also like to make a particular mention for the soundtrack - both original score, as well as existing songs incorporated into the movie. Though David Bowie's Life on Mars? might have been too obvious, there's still his equally iconic Starman featured, as well as other 80s classics from ABBA and, going even further back, The O'Jays. Similar to Guardians of the Galaxy, the juxtaposition of futuristic space travel with memorable songs made the film feel a little more grounded in reality. Additionally, the score composed by Harry Gregson-Williams (who played a large role in the Metal Gear Solid games) is just as mesmerising, and really evokes a sense of films like Alien - also by Ridley Scott. 

Verdict

While not quite as incredible as I'd hoped it would be, The Martian is still well worth your time. If not for the catchy soundtrack full of disco, then you ought to see it for Matt Damon's pretty spot-on portrayal of Mark Watney in his isolated home. You might be yawning towards the end, but it's still a movie that's not going to be a waste of your time. 

"I'm gonna have to science the shit out of this."

The Visit (Review) - Worth an RSVP

Families can be a nightmare, can't they? I'm sure everybody has certain relatives who refuse to speak to eachother, so the premise for The Visit is instantly relatable. Once her kids find out that she hasn't spoken to her parents in years, a single mother (Kathryn Hahn) decides to let them go and spend a week at their grandparent's house. Because of the huge rift between her and her parents however, the mother doesn't go with her kids, as she instead goes on a cruise with her partner. In order to document their trip, the eldest of the two children, Becca (Olivia DeJonge), brings a couple of video cameras. After a few days at their isolated home, however, the kids soon realise that something isn't quite right. 

I went into The Visit knowing literally nothing about the movie: I hadn't seen any trailers, nor even seen a poster for the film. In fact, the only reason I decided to go and watch it was because I had nothing better to do, and I'd heard that it was a horror. Because of this sight unseen approach, I had literally zero expectations for the film - a huge benefit for any modern movie. This lack of expectations meant that the sky was the limit for how much I would enjoy The Visit, and I'm happy to say that it's well worth the price of admission. The plot isn't the freshest I've seen in recent memory, and it clearly borrows elements from icons of the horror genre (the day of the week appearing on-screen regularly, a la The Shining, for example), but it's still interesting and keeps you guessing up to the inevitable reveal. 

Something that surprised me slightly about The Visit was that it was a found-footage movie, although it managed to sway slightly from the mundane stereotypes found within these films. Sure, there were moments such as hiding a camera downstairs to capture footage in the night, but otherwise things felt relatively fresh in this respect. Perhaps this is because while the movie wants to be found-footage, there's times when the camera is operated in a manner that would be completely unnatural if held by a normal teenager. For example, while on a Skype call with their Mum, the camera is positioned behind the two kids. Now, this could obviously be set-up by them with a simple tripod, but it just doesn't feel like something that you would film. For the most part, though, the documentary-esque way in which the story is presented and filmed keeps the pace and tension high, and really adds to the overall feel of the film. 

Something that doesn't entirely add to the movie is the relationship between the two kids, and their characterisation as individuals. First of all, Becca begins the movie spouting academic jargon that would confuse even an adult, and it just feels awkward to say the least. Also, though he's eventually redeemed slightly by other events of the movie, Becca's brother Tyler (Ed Oxenbould) is downright irritating. Sure, I might have a slight bias as I've never been a fan of children in movies (or at all, to be honest), but his pseudo-rapper persona that he adopts is just cringe-worthy. As I said, this is amended a little later by his strengthening relationship with Becca, but there's times that his arrogance draws a little from the events playing out. 

Nana (Deanna Dunagan)

This slight diminishing of tension is an issue throughout the film, as while The Visit is primarily a horror/ thriller, there are segments that are very humourous in a tongue-in-cheek style. While this isn't a problem, there's certain scares that are lessened by a moment of comedy, and vice versa. Personally, I would have preferred if the film had gone all-out horror, but maybe this is just a point of personal preference, rather than a fault of the movie itself. 




Verdict
It won't stick with you as the best film of the year, but if you have a spare afternoon then there'd be far worse things to do than see The Visit. It has moments of genuine tension, and the occasional scene that will make you laugh out loud. While the film runs for about 10 minutes too long, it still manages to tell an interesting story with a twist that, while not revolutionary, it's unlikely you'll see coming. And considering M. Night Shyamalan's last few movies have been panned both critically and commercially, this turned out to be a very nice surprise. 

"Would you mind getting inside the oven...

to clean it?"

Until Dawn: Games Becoming More

This past week, a few friends and I played through the thoroughly enjoyable Until Dawn for PS4. Taking heavy inspiration from the slasher teen flicks of the 80s, the game focuses on a group of teenagers as they return to a remote, isolated cabin following a tragedy that they brought on exactly one year prior - sounds familiar, right? Well, like games such as Heavy Rain, Until Dawn attempts to create more than just a traditional game. In fact, the experience is crafted in such a way that for those not necessarily playing, it almost feels as if you're watching a lengthy horror movie. 

Now, games have emulated movies to a certain extent for years. The Metal Gear Solid series, for example, contains insanely long cut-scenes that rival some of Hollywood's own efforts at engaging storytelling. But if you asked somebody unfamiliar with games to sit down and enjoy an instalment from this series, they wouldn't have the faintest clue where to begin. And this is understandable; between these moments of nothing but viewing are lengthy, complicated gameplay segments that are immediately foreign to anybody not involved in videogame culture. So why is Until Dawn any different? Well, it simplifies the actual 'playing' sections to their most base level, while also maintaining a strong sense of player engagement. 

What this does is create an experience that is just as enjoyable for viewers as it is for players, and it shows: a quick search on YouTube reveals videos of the game with view-counts passing the millions. The interesting point to this, however, is that while the game is selling well, it isn't doing so at the rate of popular franchises such as GTA or Call of Duty. NPD sales figures show that for August, the game is at 7th place in the charts. Now, the whole culture of watching people play games on the internet is an ever-growing one, but it's interesting to see a game that is arguably being viewed far more than actually played. Is this a bad thing, though? Of course not. 

If anything, this shows that the medium of videogames is expanding into popular culture more so than ever before. What we have here is a game that has captivated the attention spans of people who may not necessarily consider themselves a player of videogames. A game that, for better or worse, is being enjoyed passively just as much as it is actively. Can the same be said for music, or TV, or even films? Here is an experience that is entirely unique to the videogame industry, and just goes to show just how diverse of an industry it is. If you want to sit down with some friends and play through Until Dawn, you can, but you can also find just as much enjoyment watching somebody else do so. 

Hopefully, the success (both sales-wise and through sheer popularity) of Until Dawn will lead to more experiences such as this. Games that engage both the players and audience, and go out of their way to truly make you feel a part of the experience. Even if you'd consider yourself as far from a player of games as black from white, you should at the very least see what the fuss is all about, and might see that this is a medium far beyond what others can achieve. 

Oh, and this was originally going to be a flat-out review of the game, but I felt this would be a little more interesting. If you're interested in a review: You should buy this game. Not only is it a hugely enjoyable, interesting and engaging story wrapped up with some tight controls and believable characters, but purchasing it also shows that a variety of content is favoured in mainstream videogame culture. 

Legend (Review) - Two Much of a Good Thing

Tom Hardy is a pretty incredible actor - there's no real question there. So when I heard that he'd be playing not one, but both of the notorious Kray twins, I was excited to say the least. As with most movies, trailers began spilling out and the film seemed to be getting better and better. So where did it all go wrong? 

Well, that's not entirely fair. There's not necessarily anything wrong with Legend, as it's a reasonably competent crime biopic detailing the retention and decay of the Kray twins' power in the East End of London. Rather than beginning with an introduction to how they grew their empire, the film instead opens with Reggie Kray already at the top of his game: police officers fear him, rivals fear him, and he's generally adored by locals who see him as a beacon of protection - or instiller of fear. Once his mentally unstable brother comes onto the scene, however, thing begin to go awry. Not only physically formidable, Reggie's brother Ronnie is also a paranoid schizophrenic who will use his brute strength to intimidate and nullify those who stand in his way. Sound pretty cool, right? Well, I thought so too, until Reggie's love interest Frances (Emily Browning) comes onto the scene. 

And this is where things began to feel a little off. I was expecting an out-and-out crime drama with enough violence to justify its 18-rating, but instead we got half of that, and half of a fairly mundane romance Reggie and Frances. Don't get me wrong: I don't mind romantic sub-plots in movies. In fact, in the case of critically acclaimed films like Forrest Gump, a romantic partnership can add numerous layers to the plot. But in the case of Legend, it's just a bit boring and predictable. I won't spoil anything, but the story hits all the beats you'd expect, and even the ending isn't a huge shock. Also, the film features a constant narration by Frances that accompanies the key events of her relationship with the twins, but it's weak to say the least. I'm a huge fan of interesting narration in movies, and it can often add an entirely new layer of depth to an already interesting story (such as A Clockwork Orange). But in Legend, it's just boring, and Emily Browning comes off as bored when delivering her lines.

When the film's on-point though, it's really on. The moments shared between Tom Hardy and...well, Tom Hardy, are especially memorable. One fight scene involving Ronnie and Reggie in particular is both funny and hard-hitting, and there's plenty of scenes that manage to create that engaging atmosphere that keeps you interested - even between the slower-pace of Reggie's relationship. The way in which both brothers appear on-screen together is also admirable, as there's never a moment at which you feel like one of the brothers has been digitally added to appear with the other. 

A relatively minor issue I had with the two lead characters, however, was that they were often characterised by a single feature that was stretched to its absolute maximum. This isn't a huge issue with Reggie, as his relationship with Frances made him layered enough to empathise with. Ronnie, on the other hand, seemed to be identified a lot of the time solely by the fact he's gay. Sure, it was surprising to hear that such an iconic gangster was openly homosexual, but the number of scenes that played with this idea became a little stale. The conversation in the trailer ("I like boys") was entertaining, but then we're shown homosexual parties galore, and Ronnie's numerous boyfriends pop up like caricature cartoons. 

Verdict
It might sound like I hated Legend - I didn't. I just felt so underwhelmed after the months of expectation and intrigue. Tom Hardy is understandably brilliant with what he's been given to work with, but the plot of the film feels like it treads so much common ground. Honestly, if Hardy hadn't played both of the brothers so competently, then this wouldn't be worth watching, even on DVD. However, if you can excuse the consistently average side-plot with Frances, then there's a movie here worth checking out. 

"Reggie was a gangster prince of the East End, Ronnie Kray

was a one-man mob."

Ant-Man (Review) - Small Hero, Big Success

Perhaps one of the most unknown additions to the Marvel cinematic universe, Ant-Man revolves around the character of Scott Lang (Paul Rudd). Scott's a fairly regular guy who rarely sees his daughter anymore due to a split from his ex-wife, and has recently been released from prison after being caught and tried for burglary. Once out, Scott quickly gets himself back into trouble again after robbing a house and discovering an enigmatic red and black suit. This is, of course, the Ant-Man suit belonging to its original creator, Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas). Conditions arise that lead Hank Pym to enlist the help of Scott in order to break into a heavily guarded facility and steal a similar suit, so that its power cannot fall into the wrong hands. 

At its heart, Ant-Man is a comedic heist movie which contains superhero elements. Sure, there's plenty of ties to the larger Marvel universe -- a plot line that takes place at the new Avengers HQ, for example -- but otherwise this is a much smaller affair. And that's not exactly a bad thing. One of my issues with Age of Ultron was that consequences were constantly being upped to the point where the film just felt silly and far too over-the-top -- an impressive feat for a movie about super-powered icons. Ant-Man, on the other hand, focuses almost entirely on a regular guy who gains his powers semi-reluctantly and uses them so that he can eventually see his daughter regularly again. 

Paul Rudd is also absolutely great in the titular role, and adds a considerable amount of comedy to the movie. It's not quite as funny or entertaining as the excellent (and arguably best Marvel movie) Guardians of the Galaxy, but the humour certainly makes this worth a watch. Also, because the stakes aren't quite as in your face throughout, the film is also approachable for those who have been otherwise put off by the likes of the Avengers or similar high-budget superhero films. That's not to say Ant-Man is lacking in budget, however, as the special effects when Scott shrinks to the size of an ant are simply fun to look at. This is especially true when he battles the main villain of the movie in a child's bedroom, which was a scene featured in the trailer. 

Scott Lang (Paul Rudd)

Unfortunately, the villain of Ant-Man is where the movie falls down slightly. Darren Cross (Corey Stoll) plays a nefarious successor to the company Hank Pym began, and his motivations seem to boil down to nothing more than "I'm evil and hate people". Honestly, he could have been called something like 'Mr. BadMcPerson' and I wouldn't have been surprised. Once he dons the opposing suit and becomes Yellowjacket in the latter half of the movie, then things begin to get a tiny bit more interesting, but he's ultimately forgettable. A good example of what to expect is when Cross uses a lamb for an experiment that will likely fail, and when asked why he can't use mice, he simply replies: "What's the difference?". I mean, sure, he's right, but that just seems like overkill. 

Verdict
Ant-Man might not be the very best Marvel film available, but it's also far from the worst, and could potentially be one of the funniest. It's an enjoyable movie that plays very nicely into the larger Marvel universe, but its relatively fresh nature also means that it can be appreciated as its own thing. I'm not saying that you need to rush out and watch it right now, but if you have an opportunity, then you could do far worse. 

"This is not some cute tech like the 

Iron Man suit!" 

Terminator Genisys (Review) - Another Misfire

I don't understand why it's so hard to produce a Terminator movie that lives up to the iconic first two instalments. I personally didn't hate either T3 or even Salvation, but they were inarguably inferior to their excellent predecessors. Not only is Genisys another example of how seemingly difficult it is to achieve success with this franchise nowadays, but it's also the weakest entry in the series. 

Trying to profit off of nostalgia, Terminator Genisys essentially re-tells the first movie's plot, but with some time-bending changes. Like that movie, Genisys begins in the year 2029, when Skynet has won the war and has enslaved humanity. John Connor (Jason Clarke), our last hope, sends his one true friend Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) back to 1984, so that Reese can protect John's mother from death at the hands of a terminator. However, when Reese is sent back in time, he quickly realises that things aren't at all how he expected, and Sarah Connor (Emilia Clarke) is far from the helpless damsel that he thought she would be. 

The film starts promising enough. With an advancement in our own technology comes a better view of what Terminator's fictional war will look like, and the film begins by showing us this bleak future. The machines reign supreme, and humans being gathered into death camps provides some pretty sombre images. Even once Reese is sent back, the movie still remains enjoyable; especially for those who have seen the original Terminator, as Genisys does a good job of providing an updated, shot-for-shot remake of that film's opening scene. However, once we meet Sarah Connor for the first time, things begin to go downhill. I haven't seen Game of Thrones, but based off of this movie alone, I don't think that Emilia Clarke is that good of an actress, and especially bad at representing the now iconic heroine of Sarah Connor. Fair enough, they've tried blending elements of Terminator 2, with Sarah now being a hardened badass, but it's never really explained why she's such a badass. There's some flimsy explanation about how she met her Terminator (affectionately called "Pops") when she was 9, but no real information is given to explain how that scenario came to be. 

Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger)

And Sarah's Terminator is the only thing that really redeems this movie in any way, for one reason only: Arnie's back. Returning in his titular role as the Terminator, Arnold Schwarzenegger's performance is on-point and the same as in the other instalments for the series. The best lines, stunts, and moments throughout the movie are thanks to nobody but Schwarzenegger, and he manages to make the movie slightly bearable. Sure, there's a weird bullet-loading montage halfway through which involves Reese and the Terminator, but by that point you've given up hope of the film getting much better. 



Verdict
There's not a lot more to say about Genisys, because it's simply not a very good movie. The acting is poor, a lot of the action is boring, and without Arnold's presence, it would be completely unwatchable. It's cool to see the throwbacks to the original movie, but all that does is make you wish that you were watching that instead, and if you haven't seen the original, then these references will be completely lost on you. Instead of seeing Genisys, buy the boxset of the other instalments (yes, even T3 and Salvation), and enjoy some of the best sci-fi movies ever made. 

"You're nothing but a relic" 

Inside Out (Review) - Pixar at its Best

It's tough to beat the sheer entertainment found in a Pixar movie. Sure, they've not all been to the standard of Toy Story, but they're very rarely sub-par. With this latest release, the animation studio has proven once again that they're truly unbeatable when it comes to making films for all audiences, with Inside Out managing to tell a relatable, incredibly original story filled with funny and likeable characters. 

The plot to Inside Out is probably one of the most original I've heard of, and is a considerable reason why the movie is as special as it is. Basically, the film depicts how everybody has emotions embodied within their head, who cooperate to make us function and act the way we do. Focusing on a young girl called Riley (Kaitlyn Dias), we get to see Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyliss Smith), Fear (Bill Hader), Anger (Lewis Black) and Disgust (Mindy Kaling), as they try to keep Riley's emotions in check. However, when Riley's family leave their hometown of Massachusetts to live in San Francisco, things begin to go awry. 

I won't give away too much more of the plot, because I went in to the film not knowing much, and that's how it should be. Just know that while there's plenty of character interaction and humour that adults will enjoy, there's also a great, adventurous story within Inside Out that kids will appreciate just as much. The best part about the film, however, is the voice acting behind the characters themselves. Anybody familiar with The Office (U.S.) will instantly recognise Sadness and and Disgust as Phyliss and Kelly from that show, respectively. Bill Hader as Fear is also hugely entertaining, and the other emotions don't lack in talent either. If anything, the fact that they're so entertaining eventually becomes detrimental to the movie, because there's just not enough time to focus on everything.  

Visually, Inside Out is an absolute joy. The HQ that the emotions live in is imaginative and colourful, and this is only heightened once you get to see other parts of Riley's mind. All of the characters also look exactly how you'd expect (Sadness is always blue, for example), and this all comes together to make a movie that's just fun to watch. In fact, there's not really a huge deal you could find wrong with Inside Out. The story may lack any weighty surprises, but it's easy to follow and provides a great grounding for the rest of the movie to grow off of. A personal complaint that isn't exactly a negative on the movie's part is that there's some hilarious moments when you see into other people's minds and how they are controlled, though these were all left until the very end in a montage sequence. Littering these throughout the movie might have led to more consistent laughs, but there's still plenty of humour that made everybody genuinely laugh out loud. 

Verdict
There's not a great deal more to say about Inside Out, because it's a solid Pixar movie: If you're a fan of Pixar, then you'll love it. With an imaginative idea that's fleshed out and populated with interesting characters, there's very little to dislike in this movie. It's not quite up there with Toy Story, but it's slightly above Wreck-It Ralph. Definitely worth a watch. 

Instead of a quote, I thought I'd post this trailer 

to the movie, because it's a great indication of what

you're in for: 

Jurassic World (Review) - Almost Awesome

I desperately want to like Jurassic World. Chris Pratt is great, dinosaurs are cool, and the Jurassic series is beloved by many - the original being the best, naturally. And at times, I really did enjoy this fourth instalment. However, for every moment of Jurassic World that entertained, there was a handful of inane, eye-rolling scenes that dragged the film down as a whole. 

Set twenty-two years after the events of the original Jurassic Park, the film shows how John Hammond's vision from that movie has finally been realised. Ignoring the deaths caused by the dinosaurs a few decades prior, a grand theme park has now been opened on Isla Nublar, along with all the grandeur that that brings. Triceratops petting-zoos and Sea World-esque exhibits draw in guests, but there's always something bigger and better being worked on in order to drum up hype for the park. This comes in the form of a new dinosaur that is created from the DNA of other animals, and is more deadly than anything seen before. As expected, one thing leads to another, and soon the new beast is roaming the park, hunting anything in its path. 

Sounds cool, right? I thought that too. Couple this with the aforementioned presence of Chris Pratt as a Dino-whisperer, and some truly spectacular dinosaurs envisioned on-screen, and you'd think that you have yourself a brilliant return to form for the Jurassic series. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The movie tries to spin this spectacular world of beasts around the developing relationship of two brothers, and in doing so, becomes predictable and clichéd. A perfect example of this is an early juxtaposition which transitions from cool dinosaurs to a conversation between the brothers about whether their parents will get divorced. It's ham-fisted, and genuinely funny in how awkward it makes the film feel. 

Then, eventually, you get back to the engaging, exciting moments which you'd hoped for. Chris Pratt bonding with Velociraptors, only for his relationship with them to be truly tested when an assistant falls into the exhibit is exciting and tense, and exactly the kind of thing I'd wanted to see. Cut back to the eldest of the two brothers being apathetic and downright nasty to his younger sibling, and that excitement is immediately destroyed. In trying to create relatable moments that keep the story grounded, Jurassic World succeeds in nothing but a lessening of the experience. 

And to be perfectly honest, if Chris Pratt wasn't in the movie, then there'd be little to rave about. Cementing his presence as a genuinely likeable guy with Guardians of the Galaxy, he manages to make the film at least a little enjoyable. Though the relationship between Pratt's character Owen and the stereotypical businesswoman Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) is forced - like most in the film - it's far from the worst aspect of the movie. This isn't a particularly positive point in the film's favour, though: Jurassic World shouldn't need Pratt in order to make it bearable. 

Owen (Chris Pratt)

As a little side note, it's also disappointing how much CGI the film relied upon, considering how much the original asserted the use of practical effects to remain relevant even today. It's not uncommon for modern blockbusters to be CGI-heavy, and I don't consider this an automatic negative for a movie. With Jurassic World however, it just seems such a waste, because the 1993 original showed how animatronics and practical effects can easily rival dinosaurs generated by a computer.  That's not to say that practical dinosaurs and effects aren't found in the movie, it's just that they're heavily outweighed by their computer generated counterparts. 

Verdict
Jurassic World was so close to being really great. If the film literally cut half of the scenes that pitifully tried to push family relationships, then it would be a far better, albeit very short movie. There's elements of it such as the dinosaurs and action scenes that show what could have been, which is why the aforementioned 'character development' moments feel so stilted and unnecessary. Having the two brothers hate eachother, only to rekindle their relationship isn't interesting or fresh; it's boring. If you planned on seeing this film already or if you're a huge fan of the series, then it's probably worth checking out. Otherwise, you're better off waiting for the DVD, or seeing if it ends up on Netflix in a year. 

"You just went and made a new dinosaur? 

Probably not a good idea."

Mad Max: Feminist Propaganda?

With the release of the brilliant Mad Max: Fury Road came an outcry of dismay from several men's rights activists about how the movie is nothing more than a work of feminist propaganda, and that it ought to be boycotted at every cost. The main reason for this averse reaction is simple: the main character is arguably somebody other than the titular Max. In fact, it's Charlize Theron's 'Furiosa' who takes the leading role for most of the film, which defies many gender stereotypes we've had within action movies for a very long time. Does this mean that Fury Road is a man-hating, feminism-glorifying piece of cinema? Of course not. 

In the world of Fury Road, men are the overwhelmingly predominant gender. Villain Immortan Joe's hope of a future heir relies upon his five 'breeders', who he keeps locked up in his fortress, in the hope of producing a male child. Furiosa rescues these women and takes them far from Joe's evil grasp, trying to reach the promised 'green place' from where she came. However, during all of this, Max himself is present. Sure, he begins the movie captured and chained to the front of a car, but he's soon set free and is forced to side with Furiosa to ensure any chance of survival - and in that lies the key point. Max sides with Furiosa; he's not overshadowed by her. 

There's a handful of scenes that have made people particularly angry, one being a moment at which Max hands Furiosa a sniper in order for her to shoot at a far away target effectively. Three bullets remain in the gun, and Max shoots two - both of them miss. To save wasting all three, Max acknowledges that Furiosa's previous display of marksmanship is superior to his, and so he hands her the gun, which she places on his shoulder; using Max as a makeshift bi-pod. This scene doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Max is a man and Furiosa is a woman. An earlier scene shows how her talent with a gun surpasses that of Max's, and so she completes the task at hand. It's been established that Max is more of a regular guy than an all-out action hero, and so for him to be perfect at every stereotypically masculine skill would not only seem unrealistic, but go against the established narrative of the Mad Max series. 

Another point of contention that has riled up certain groups of people is that Fury Road's director George Miller hired Eve Ensler to talk to the five wives in the film (alongside others) in order to give a perspective of their situation. Eve is the writer of 'The Vagina Monologues', and is a woman's rights activist. Many took this as George Miller having a feminist agenda when producing the movie (though this wouldn't necessarily be a terrible thing), but Eve only offered insight and advice to some of the actors and actresses. If it results in a better, more grounded movie, then why would this be such a huge issue? 

The fact of the matter is that Furiosa is a strong, empowering female character who can easily stand alongside the likes of Ellen Ripley or Sarah Connor. This doesn't mean that Max is less than her; nor does it mean he's superior. In Fury Road, Max and Furiosa end up being equals, and both have a joint motivation: survival. How about, instead of being so concerned with the politics of a movie like this, we enjoy it as the amazing, exhilarating action film that it is? Having women in leading roles within movies isn't a terrible thing, and that should honestly go without saying. But we can still have our Jason Stathams and Sylvester Stallones, too. 

Because it's about equality, right? 

Mad Max: Fury Road (Review) - Fantastically Fuelled Action

Wow. That's all I can really say. After nearly two hours of non-stop action, it's hard to properly explain exactly what you've just seen. Mad Max: Fury Road is an insane, balls-to-the-wall action film at its most pure. It's minimal on dialogue, and packed to the brim with explosions, cars, and face-melting stunts that are an absolute joy to behold. Believe the hype: this is one of the best action films in years. 

The film opens with our hero Max (Tom Hardy) being captured by a group of albino savages, and taken back to their encampment. Led by fearsome dictator Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne), this sinister oasis becomes Max's prison, as he is bled dry to fuel the mindless followers of Joe. Meanwhile, a mysterious driver of Joe's goes rogue, and takes his 'breeders' in search of her childhood home. Max joins this woman along the way, and mayhem ensues spectacularly. 

While the story is relatively interesting, it's little more than a vehicle to drive the relentless chaos forwards. Max is a man of few words, as are most of his allies; there's lengthy periods without any dialogue, but unlike artsy films such as Drive, these speechless segments are filled with chases and fire. The film itself is essentially a two-hour chase across the arid desert, and is predominantly a showcase for just how mental things can get. There's about 30 minutes of downtime littered throughout, which allows for some character development and expansion of the world, but Fury Road often opts for action instead of words. In fact, it's in these moments of solace that you'll find yourself moderately bored, waiting for the next huge event to spark things off once more. 

Back when Mad Max was first introduced to us back in 1979, Mel Gibson filled the shoes of the enigmatic protagonist. The first instalment was a vastly different movie from what we've got here now, but managed to become something of a cult classic abroad after its Australian conception. Throughout the three movies, Mel Gibson solidified himself as the quietly capable lead, but Tom Hardy does a brilliant job in revitalising the character of Max. Though he's lacking in dialogue, Hardy's Max is still a complex and battered man, which is especially shown through the brief yet interesting flashbacks. Don't worry though: you won't be missing out if you haven't seen the original trilogy...though do yourself a favour and watch The Road Warrior, at the very least. There's plenty of nods and references to this classic throughout Fury Road, too. 

Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy)

Perhaps the biggest surprise is that Max isn't exactly the film's main character, however. While his name may be the one plastered all over the posters, it's Furiosa (Charlize Theron) who drives the movie - and plot - forwards. She's no damsel in distress either, and goes toe-to-toe with Max on several occasions. For years, the problem of weak female protagonists has been a huge area of contention for movie goers. Female heroes like Alien's Ripley and Terminator's Sarah Connor stand out as examples of empowering women in movies, and Fury Road's Furiosa can proudly stand alongside them. If you've ever complained about women's lacking presence in the action scene, then you owe it to yourself to see this movie. 

There's really nothing negative I can say about this film. Sure, the moments of downtime that are rare occasionally feel a little too slow, but they're necessary to make the action feel as intense as it does. Once you've seen a guy rocking out on a double guitar that shoots fire out of its end, you know you're in for a real treat. 

Verdict

Perhaps the biggest surprise for a film I've had in years, Fury Road solidifies its place as a modern-classic action masterpiece. It's ludicrous, ridiculous and absurd, and yet manages to keep you engaged and believing until the very end. I was sceptical that the pace could be held to the same heights as in the trailers, but the film succeeds to do so and then some. You'll come out of the cinema wanting to watch it all again, as every single scene is littered with details, and there's always so much going on amidst the fiery explosions and mayhem. Couple that with the frequency of practical effects instead of blatant CGI, and you've got yourself a real treat. See this movie. Like, now. 

"My name is Max. My world is Fire.

And Blood."

Star Wars Is Pretty Cool

So this past week I decided to fix a terrible mistake I hadn't got around to fixing; I watched the original Star Wars trilogy. I know: how can I possibly claim to be a fan of films without seeing what is quite possibly the most revered, critically acclaimed sci-fi series of all time? Well, the simple fact is that I hadn't ever decided to sit down and actually watch all three films in their entirely, similar to how I finally checked out Lord of the Rings in 2013 prior to the release of the second Hobbit movie. How did I find Star Wars? It's pretty great, actually. 

Now, you might be surprised to read that. No, I didn't think that they were some of the greatest movies ever put to screen, nor would I watch them all again obsessively. To be honest, I don't even think they're some of the very best sci-fi movies of all time (though The Empire Strikes Back would be the closest to this title). Maybe it's because they've been phenomenally over-hyped by literally centuries of fans, or maybe it's because I've just seen so many other sci-fi movies that I can't help but compare Star Wars to them, but I enjoyed this cult trilogy while it lasted...and I think that's okay. 

Before I get ahead of myself, I should probably clarify why I decided to finally check these films out. As you probably know, the latest teaser to J.J. Abrams' Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens was released just under two weeks ago, and needless to say, I found it pretty spectacular. I'd previously been subjected to the Star Wars universe through the brilliant games that had taken place there, like 2005's Lego Star Wars: The Video Game. Most people, however, praise the Star Wars: Battlefront series as being the pinnacle of Lucasarts' foray into the gaming world, and I'd be inclined to agree. Regardless, I'd say it's more than acceptable for somebody to get sucked into this world without ever watching the movies (like I was). After watching the films, though, I've now got a pretty detailed understanding of the context behind these games - a context which 99% of the population probably had many years before today. 

But back to the title of this article, and how Star Wars is 'pretty cool'. After finishing Episode IV: A New Hope (which was initially just referred to as 'Star Wars'), I found it to be a little slow, in all honesty. I could appreciate the charm of classic sci-fi presentation, and the now iconic transition shots of the screen just sliding from one scene to another, but I definitely wasn't shocked in awe at what I'd just seen. Even fan-favourite Han Solo (Harrison Ford) hadn't fully swayed me into fandom; primarily because of Ford's later role in the incredible Blade Runner, in which he plays a similar character with a disregard for authority. Maybe I left it too late to fully appreciate these beloved classics? 

Maybe. Or maybe it's okay to just enjoy something that everybody else loves. I've no doubt that this year's The Force Awakens will be something special, and with a new Battlefront game coming, we've certainly got a lot to look forwards to. Does me not loving Star Wars mean that I don't like the franchise as a whole? Of course not. It just means that while some people might choose to don their Stormtrooper armour and attend conventions, I'll instead enjoy the movies for what they are: entertaining, two-hour epics that tell an interesting - though slightly drawn-out - story. 

Also, if you haven't yet seen the trailer for Episode VII, you really ought to fix that: 

Avengers: Age of Ultron (Review) - Bigger, Louder...Better?

Let me start by saying this: Ultron (James Spader) is a brilliant villain. His motives are villainous, his appearance is downright scary, and his presence rivals some of the best on-screen antagonists we've had in recent memory. Additionally, he's not criminally underutilised like countless other villains are - there are more than a few scenes which he steals effortlessly. Marvel's excellent Guardians of the Galaxy presented us with a forgettable foe in the form of Ronan last year, and thankfully Age of Ultron manages to avoid repeating this blunder. Does that mean it's the best Marvel film made to this point? Definitely not. 

Now, before you stop reading in anger, let me say this: I really enjoyed Avengers: Age of Ultron. It upped the ante in every possible way, with a nigh apocalypse being threatened by an equally apocalyptic foe. All the favourites return, with a greater focus being put on underdog Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), most likely in an attempt to elevate him to the same level as Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr) and Captain America (Chris Evans). We're also given more depth to returning characters like Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson), and that's never a bad thing. Basically, Age of Ultron is more in every imaginable factor. There's higher stakes; the characters are more fleshed out; the action is more intense. The problem is that 'more' does not instantly equate to 'better'. Nor does this mean that it's worse than what we've had before. The reason I'm slightly let down with Age of Ultron isn't because it's a bad movie, it's because it delivers exactly what you expect...and that's about it.

You've still got the witty banter between characters, and the moments of emotion shared in private. Seemingly out of nowhere, there's also a blossoming romance between Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) and the aforementioned Black Widow / Natasha Romanoff, but it's hardly the crux of the whole film. If it weren't for the awesome villain Ulton, however, then Age of Ultron would be nothing more than 'just another Marvel movie'. Is that bad? No! Of course not! If you're a Marvel fan, then you'll love the constant action and tone, but there's nothing new that will bring in new fans. And in that lies the issue: it's just more of the same. 

Think of it this way: somebody's playing a song you enjoy, and you enjoy it so much that they feel the need to crank it to 11. You'll still enjoy the song (if be a little deafened), but soon you'll be moving on to another. That doesn't mean you've grown tired of the tune or lyrics, but eventually it'll get over-played to the point of annoyance. Avengers isn't quite at that point yet, but if Age of Ultron is anything to go by, then it's worryingly close. 

Ultron (James Spader)

When it gets it right though, it really gets it right. Some of the action sequences are jaw-dropping, to the point where it feels like you're watching a comic-book unfold before you. The fights between Ultron himself and the Avengers are particular highlights, because they offer a new challenge for the heroes to overcome, and the seemingly unbeatable nature of Ultron makes for some genuinely intense moments. Sure, certain fights drag on for way too long, but this is more a problem of action movies than of Age of Ultron specifically. One thing that does feel a little off about the film is the sometimes drastic swapping between comedy and impending doom. I'm all up for having humour in Marvel movies, and Guardians of the Galaxy provides an excellent example of a film that doesn't take itself too seriously. Unfortunately, there's times when Age of Ultron wants to have its cake and eat it. You can't try and convey that the world is literally ending, all the while having our protagonists cracking jokes like they're just hanging out. Have one then the other - don't try and blend the two. 

Verdict
Avengers: Age of Ultron is a worthy sequel, but one which plays it a little too safe to truly excel. It does its job, and you're entertained for a little over two hours, but doesn't experiment with many new ideas. Marvel have found what works and stuck with it, and why wouldn't they? If I made $1,000,000,000 then I doubt I'd be straying too far from the formula. 2018's Infinity War really needs to switch things up if it's going to keep from going stale, though. 

"You want to protect the world, but you don't want it 

to change. You're all puppets, tangled in strings...strings!"

Daredevil (TV Review) - Justice Is Blind

Netflix's Daredevil provides a refreshingly unique spin on the superhero genre: It takes the 'super' out of the word entirely. Well - for the most part. That's not to say it isn't an awesome show which you should definitely check out the instant you stop reading this. No, what I mean is that it chooses to ignore the overly-dramatic storylines and constant happy endings; instead opting for a much more down-to-earth approach. 

Unlike most Marvel (and DC, for that matter) properties, this Daredevil TV show commissioned by Netflix rejects the notion that all introductions to a character have to begin at square one, and show a basic origin-story. Episode 1 begins with lawyer Matt Murdock (Charlie Cox) already fighting crime in the dead of night, following a tragic childhood accident that left him permanently blind. Instead of losing all will to live, Matt chose instead to hone his skills and play with the cards he was dealt, training his senses to literal super-human capacity. When he's not incapacitating bad guys, Murdock works alongside long-time friend Foggy Nelson (Elden Henson), bringing down criminals in a more 'traditional' sense. After all, justice is blind. 

As the series progresses, we get to see Matt's gradual progression as a vigilante. After a few initial beatings, he's quickly able to dispatch entire rooms of foes in quick succession, usually only suffering a few blows of his own. A sequence at the end of the second episode shows just how perfectly some of this action is captured, with a fight scene that seems uncannily reminiscent of the iconic 'Corridor Fight' in Korean classic Oldboy - complete with a single, unbroken tracking shot. There's several moments like this littered throughout Daredevil: amazing set-pieces shown in a style that rivals a lot of what you'd see at a cinema. 

But how could we have a superhero without an equally iconic villain? Like the choice to call 'Daredevil' Matt Murdock throughout the series, the infamous 'Kingpin' is referred to throughout this 13-episode drama by his real name: Wilson Fisk (Vincent D'Onofrio). Fisk isn't your typical villain, in that he actually possesses an human personality, along with real, complex emotions. Marvel could have quite easily made him nothing more than a sinister, lumbering foe for Matt to go up against, but we're instead gradually introduced to Fisk through hushed conversations and hesitant glances. Hell, initially he's only referred to as "my employer"; leaving you wondering in desperation as to what a man must be like to strike so much fear into the hearts of his enemies. Once we do get to meet the man himself, the character certainly isn't squandered. Fisk is just as complex a man as our hero Matt, and his awkward nature is rivalled only by his furious temper and scarily violent tendencies. Once you've seen a man decapitate somebody with a car door, it's hard to consider him human, and yet Daredevil somehow accomplishes this. Of course, you'd never cheer for him, but you begin to develop a certain empathy towards Fisk's troubled mind, and - though it sounds crazy - you find yourself understanding some of his brutal outbursts. It's definitely not a show for the faint of heart, but Daredevil's shocking violence doesn't seem out of place in such a bleak, crumbling city. 

Wilson Fisk (Vincent D'Onofrio)

In fact, the only real complaint I'd have with the entire series would be the fact it strives to tell such a grounded, believable story, and yet Matt's powers appear so unbelievably...well, super. The show does a great job of conveying the importance of sound to somebody in Matt's position, but some of the things he manages to pull off are far beyond the realm of possibility. Sure, you're able to suspend your disbelief for the most part, but they certainly stretch that to the absolute breaking point. However, there's more than a few occasions that even the scales a little and see Matt taking a beating far greater than what he gives, so I'll forgive this minor problem. 


Verdict
If Daredevil proves anything, it's that Marvel have managed to conquer the small screen just as well as they have the large. Each episode tells a relatively self-contained story, and yet there's always a main-plot which flows effortlessly through everything. On occasion, there'll be multiple events happening simultaneously, but the show manages to mould them into one, cohesive sculpture. Even if you wouldn't consider yourself an avid comic-book fan, this is more than worth your time. And with a second season just announced, now's definitely the time to get on board. 

"I'm not seeking forgiveness for what I've done, Father.

I'm seeking forgiveness for what I'm about to do."

Chappie (Review) - A Disappointing Waste

I really wanted to like Chappie. The third movie by sci-fi director Neill Blomkamp, Chappie tries to tell a story of human corruption and deal with issues such as the ethics of robotics, as well as grand ideas such as humanity itself. Instead, it presents you with a group of detestable characters and expects you to empathise with them, or at the very least, put up with their abhorrent personalities until the mundane climax and inevitable ending. 

The film begins with at least a certain degree of promise. Set in a futuristic South Africa, the film opens with an introduction to the new mechanised police force, who lack the ability to be corrupt or ineffective. After one robot is rendered useless from an explosion, engineer Deon Wilson (Dev Patel) decides to repair it and test out his recently created artificial intelligence, in hopes of creating the first fully-conscious machine. However, Deon is kidnapped by a group of desperate criminals who demand that he hands over the robot in order to use it as an accomplice to their crimes. Held at gunpoint, Deon agrees, but only if he can visit frequently in order to teach Chappie's child-like mind how to think. 

However, rather than showing the development of Chappie and allowing you to marvel in how similar robots could be to humans, Chappie then decides to show two hours of the criminals (played by South African rap-rave group 'Die Antwoord') corrupting Chappie and turning him into one of their own. This wouldn't be so bad if the criminals had any sort of on-screen presence, but they're as cliché as they come. The decision to cast real-life musicians in roles which have them literally playing themselves was a terrible one, as neither of these miscreants have any kind of acting talent, and neither are particularly endearing. Also, many of the scenes in which they feature are accompanied by a selection of their music, which is frankly appalling. The biggest problem, however, is that towards the end, the film then portrays supposedly 'dramatic' scenes in which you're meant to feel sadness towards the violence depicted, but this simply isn't the case. 

In fact, Hugh Jackman plays a rival to Deon who is meant to be seen as the villain, but you're left hoping that he will succeed in wiping the scum off of the Earth. This is definitely not a good sign, and leads to you not caring about anyone in the film whatsoever. If I had to pick one character I warmed to, it would probably be Chappie himself, but even he is let down by poor character development and a lack of good supporting roles. Sure, there's some early scenes where it seems like Chappie may be going a certain path and truly questioning what is right and wrong, but then this is squandered by some terrible acting, dialogue, characterisation, and just general issues. 

If it seems like I completely resent Chappie, that's not quite the case. It is indeed a bad movie, but is far from the worst I've seen. I'm just bitterly disappointed, because it had such a good concept that was thrown aside in favour of a mundane, predictable story delivered by dreadful individuals. There's plenty of films which have the antagonist in a central role, so this isn't why I disliked the film so much. Movies such as No Country for Old Men, for example, have a bitterly evil character at their core, and yet still succeed based upon the performance of said character being excellent. Chappie fails this, and then some. 

Verdict
I honestly couldn't recommend you go and see Chappie, even if you're a huge fan of District 9 or even 2013's Elysium. It strives to tell a meaningful story about humanity and how easily a child-like mind could be influenced, but does it through such inane means that it just comes off as boring and lifeless. After about an hour I was already waiting for the film to end so that I could leave, which should speak far more than anything else. If you're craving some artificial intelligence sci-fi, go and watch the brilliant Ex Machina instead. 

"People are always fearful of something

they don't understand"

House of Cards: Season 3 (TV Review) - Frank's Back...Again

If you had told me that House of Cards would be one of my favourite TV shows back when the first season aired, I probably would have laughed in your face. Sure, it was good, but it was far from spectacular. Now, two seasons later, and I can firmly stand behind this statement. Not only is season 3 of this incredible show the best yet, but it ends on a cliffhanger which is shockingly unfair in the excitement it creates. 

Francis & Claire Underwood
(Kevin Spacey / Robin Wright)

Elevated from merely Mr. Underwood to Mr. President, Francis Underwood is a scarily powerful man. Not everybody agrees with him, and in fact most of this season shows just how controversial of a figure he is, but he's a powerful entity nonetheless. The season begins with Francis (Kevin Spacey) striving to nationalise his 'America Works' programme - a system which plans to raise employment exponentially across the United States. Early on however, Frank is driven to withdraw from the presidential vote in 2016...though this is only a minor setback in the Underwood's grand scheme. Meanwhile, Frank's wife Claire Underwood (Robin Wright) is determined to achieve power of her own, and hopes to do this by becoming head of the U.N. If season 1 was about uprising and 2 concerned treachery, then this instalment most certainly revolves around the absolute corruption of power. 

For anybody who has seen the show before, you'll know what I mean when I say that the previous season began with a fairly brutal episode. It dived head-first into the deep-end, and didn't pull any punches. Now, while this chapter of the Underwood story is definitely anything but slow, it doesn't feature quite the same level of intense suspense found previously. What this does contain, are countless moments of gripping conversation and subtleties which rival any number of scenes depicting high-octane action. Yes, this fuse is a slower burn than before; but it's one which leads to an extremely satisfying explosion at its climax. 

In terms of a television series replicating the same cinematic flair of a movie, House of Cards is easily miles ahead of most other content available right now. The cinematography is beautiful and aptly sinister, the acting is beyond entertaining, and the multiple, intricately linked story lines are as engaging as ever. Obviously, Kevin Spacey's performance as President Underwood is the stand-out for the series, but Robin Wright as Claire has more of a presence this time around than ever before. For every action by Frank, there's an equally interesting reaction from Claire, all of which bubbles to a shocking conclusion setting up season 4 - no doubt to be released this time next year. 

In terms of things I didn't like with this season, they're small but still worth mentioning. Some plot-lines which flow seamlessly in the earlier half of the season eventually dry-out and disappear later on, which is a little disappointing, as they are as interesting as anything else - such as the rivalry borne between Frank and the Russian President, Victor Petrov (Lars Mikkelsen). Also, particular moments which are intended to shock and surprise fail to do so because they're so apparent early on, but the truly sinister twists hit their mark where intended. 

Verdict

Season 3 of House of Cards is an interesting predicament: It's book-ended by episodes which aren't quite as thrilling as the previous instalment's, and yet the chapters within these manage to escalate it beyond anything that has came before. Yes, I believe it to be the best season yet and some of the finest television I've seen, but that's because I have such an investment in these characters after two prior seasons building their characters. For an outsider, the plot of season 3 may seem comparatively weaker to at least the second season, but the brilliant monologues delivered by Frank and the insidious tone maintained throughout still mean that it is well-worth a watch. 

"You wanna know what takes real courage? 

Holding it all together, when the stakes are this high."