Remedy's 'Control' is a disappointing game.

So when it comes to storytelling in games, it's not exactly a secret that telling a good story is not easy. Being able to tell a story (in a pc or console game) that last for 10-15 hours requires a lot of effort and attention to detail from a writer.

Indeed, in order to be able to create a game that works from start to finish, that means that you have to get things right in the story. You have to make sure that you respect the basics and the fundamentals of the craft without taking anything for granted. 

Unfortunately, over the last few years there have been attempts in 'reinventing the wheel' and not taking the craft seriously. Especially when it comes to a 'story-driven' gaming company like Remedy, these guys have been really dropping the ball lately.

By that I mean is that in Remedy's case, the biggest problem with their previous game 'Quantum Break' (a time travel game that bombed) was that they didn't pay attention to their story. They didn't pay attention to their premise, characters or storylines. 

Indeed, as unfortunate as it was, 'Quantum Break' was a game that didn't know what it was about. There was no proper introduction to the characters, the story made little sense and the game even had those 25 minute live action clips between the gaming scenes.

So based on the meltdown of 'Quantum Break', one would have thought that 'Remedy' would have learned from their mistakes. Surely they would try to correct their storytelling ship and try to come up with something that would actually make sense. 

Yet, when me and my friends managed to finish their latest game 'Control' last week, we had to admit that they didn't learn anything from their almost 100 million dollar bomb. The story in 'Control' is even worse than what it was in 'Quantum Break'. 

By that I mean is that even though 'Control' - fortunately - doesn't have those live action clips, this time those other basic elements are even worse. The story doesn't make sense and the writers are completely clueless about what they're supposed to do.

Indeed, once you start playing the game - a female character called Jesse Faden - there's zero exposition in the 'story'. Her visiting (in the beginning) some Federal Bureau office and having super powers is something that is simply supposed to be accepted at face value.

Later on, once our protagonist starts fighting the bad guys, things aren't explained either. There's some evil entity, her brother is missing, there's some scientific experiments going on in the building and she even talks to someone inside her head (!).

Story-wise, what is so unfortunate about these moments in the story (inner dialogue + protagonist talks to someone in her head) is that none of them make even remotely sense. None of the stuff is explained to the gamer in any meaningful way.

Indeed, as you kept playing the game, this 'character knows everything, gamer knows nothing' just keeps getting more and more out of control. There's no story arc, there are no stakes and you just don't know what the point to the whole thing is. 

Not surprisingly, once we finally reached the end credits after playing the game for like 13 hours or so, me and my friends had had enough. We just couldn't believe how incredibly bad every single storytelling aspect in the game had been.

After all, even though our expectations for the ending were low, the so called 'finale' that lead to the end credits was so bad that we felt like throwing things at the screen. It was such an anti-climax that you simply had to see it in order to believe it.

In that sense, when I think about this game and its problems as a whole, it's pretty clear and obvious that the game didn't do well commercially. Despite the usual hype it didn't manage to make the players excited enough to purchase the game.

After all, even though gaming critics did their best to puff up the game's reviews and its reputation (81% on Metacritic), that wasn't enough. 'Control' didn't even make the top-30 lists on any of the platforms that it was released on. 

In that sense, in the end, if you're someone who's thinking about buying the game and thinking that there's something special going on in here, you shouldn't get too excited. You shouldn't get too excited and think that this game has a story that is executed well.

After all, even though in 'Control' there admittedly were some good things about the concept (some super powers and some shooting modes), as a whole these simply were not enough. These weren't enough to offset the bad qualities that the game was full of. 

On the contrary, problems like the game not having any story, the characters & the dialogue being terrible, the pacing issues etc. were simply too much. They were too serious and made it impossible for me and my friends to enjoy the game as a whole.

'Rocketman' is a pretty entertaining film.

Like many others, when I heard that there was going to be a biopic about musician Elton John, I was pretty excited. I felt that there was a pretty solid chance that the film would be at least relatively watchable and worth my time.

After all, since I had already enjoyed 'Bohemian Rhapsody' (same director) and 'Eddie The Eagle', same director & main actor) it wasn't a difficult decision to watch the film. All the signs pointed to the movie being entertaining and enjoyable.

So having now seen 'Rocketman' with my friend this week,  it has to be said that the film didn't really disappoint. The biopic / musical turned out to be pretty entertaining, even though I do have so minor reservations about its story and how it was written.  

In any case, when it comes to the film, the biggest reason that the movie is as watchable as it is, is of course because of its 'star'. There's no question that Sir Elton John is someone who deserved a movie about him and his fascinating life. 

After all, not only is Elton (born Reginald Dwight) an accomplished musician with a long career, but he's also someone who really knew how to push the limits as a performer and who was willing to give his all to make his concerts as entertaining as possible.  

Indeed, in the film's story, it doesn't take long before Elton's (played by Taron Egerton) rare musical talent becomes obvious. Once he gets his hands on a piano as a young kid and learns his craft, it's obvious that he's going to go far.

Not surprisingly, once he finds an equally talented partner to write lyrics for him (Bernie Taupin - who has written pretty much all his lyrics), it's time to go big. The duo moves to the States and wins people over thanks to his catchy songs (and despite his outfits). 

Filmwise, what I really appreciated about the movie is that before I saw 'Rocketman', I didn't know how good of a musician, composer & piano player Elton was. I just hadn't thought about him that much - even as a somewhat fan of his.

After all, even though Taupin wrote the lyrics for his songs, it took so much talent and creativity to compose songs that were that good. His compositions ('Your Song', 'Crocodile Rock' & 'Rocketman' among others) are simply wonderful and timeless classics.

Storywise, it has to be said that even though I enjoyed, the movie, there aren't really that many obstacles for the main character's success in the story. Unlike in 'Bohemian Rhapsody', Elton becomes a superstar almost instantly (in the 1st act of the film).

The problem with this is that since that there aren't that many obstacles later in the movie, there's not that much of a story to tell. This leads to the film being padded with musical bits and being a bit anticlimactic in its final.

In hindsight, even though Elton's struggles with his addictions and not being loved by his parents are relevant and part of his dramatic arc, one could argue that they're not enough. The script could have used some additional character moments to make it stronger.

Still, when I think about the film as a whole, in my opinion the filmmakers were able to the thread the needle rather well and managed to put together a fairly compelling story. They were able to come up with a solid movie despite the flaws in the screenplay.

After all, especially when it comes to Taron Egerton's performance as Elton, he does an absolutely incredible job here. He's so good that his performance should easily earn him at least an academy award nomination - if not an outright win.

In that sense, if you're one of those who enjoyed 'Bohemian Rhapsody' and 'Eddie The Eagle', you should definitely give 'Rocketman' a chance and watch it. You should give it a chance and not be discouraged by some of the negative reviews that it has gotten.

After all, even though the film isn't perfect and has some issues, it's still a good movie. 'Rocketman' is a good movie and as long as you don't take it too seriously, it's likely that you'll enjoy the film and that watching it will put you on a good mood. 

Writing a book can be an exhausting process.

When it comes to writing projects that take a lot effort, it's not exactly a secret that making them work isn't usually that easy. In most cases it takes a lot of effort, rewrites and re-evaluations before the quality of the project can be as good as possible. 

After all, the more demanding and the more time consuming your project is, the more difficult it is to make every aspect of the task work. You cannot expect things to work immediately, no matter how good or talented you might be as a writer.

So the reason that I'm writing about this is that I have had some problems in my own book writing project. I think it's pretty clear that it has been an exhausting process to deliver stuff that meets certain quality standards and that is good enough.

In practice, one of the best indicators of this is that I haven't really felt that good about the quality of the book. At no point did I feel completely confident about the overall quality, even though the script had already been proofread and was well received too.

After all, among other things, I felt that the pacing of the story wasn't good enough and that the structure in the book version was lacking. The chapters were too rushed and in some cases clearly didn't have a balanced beginning, middle and end.

Furthermore, even though the story as a whole was well thought out, I felt that there was content in the adaptation (the story is based on my movie script) that perhaps didn't fit in tonally. There were some 'comedic' and 'ironic' scenes that just didn't work.

What made the process so gruelling is that even though I tried my best to rewrite and keep pushing with the project, my rewrites just weren't good enough. I didn't manage to spot all the problems even though the book kept getting somewhat better.

Fortunately, once I managed to take a complete break from the project during the summer (more than two months) this helped to clear my thoughts. This 'lucky' break gave me a chance to think about something else than writing.

Not surprisingly, once I got back to writing, I managed to get things done. I managed to do things like make the book longer (by 25%), give the chapters a better pacing and even kill some of those 'darlings' from the script that didn't work in the book version.

As a whole, all these good things happened because I finally took a long break and managed to give up on some of those stubborn ideas that I was desperately clinging on to. I had finally accepted that certain things in the story needed to be adjusted or changed.

In that sense, when I take a look at this project as a whole, it's pretty clear that writing good stuff is not just about putting in the hard work and putting in the hours. You shouldn't rely too much on your almighty persistence to fix your problems.

After all, even though it's crucial to have a good writing routine and to have a good work ethic, you should remember that simply pushing hard won't always be enough. There are other factors too that affect your success as a writer.

In the end, especially in my case, had I not taken a break from writing three months ago, there's no chance that I would have written something decent. There's no chance that I would have managed to get the book in a shape that is 'good' enough.

After all, even though I did try my best, before the break I was entirely too married to some of my ideas and wasn't able to see the forest for the trees. I wasn't able to understand that the book wasn't finished and that I still needed to make some changes.

In that sense, if your task doesn't seem to go well either, you should try giving yourself a break too. You should try that break, because even though taking it might not be easy, there's a good chance that it works and that it's something that will actually work for you.

Movies that I've managed to see lately.

Even though I've lately been busy doing other things, this week me and my friend found time to watch some films that have been recently released on dvd. We watched some movies after having not seeing anything in the last couple of months.

In order to entertain ourselves, we gave a chance to three recent movies. We watched a Transformers spin-off movie 'Bumblebee', a female 'Superbad' film 'Booksmart' and 'Mary Poppins Returns', a remake of the classic movie from the 60s.

So the first movie that we watched is 'Bumblebee', a Transformers spin-off that had received pretty solid reviews. This was supposed to be a film that gets the series back on track after all those terrible movies in the series.

After all, it's not exactly a secret that every Transformers film after the first one has been more or less completely unwatchable. There hasn't been any real 'story' in these cgi-films that have been all about mindless action and explosions. 

Fortunately, 'Bumblebee' as a spin-off works surprisingly well and doesn't repeat the mistakes of the sequels and works as a stand alone movie.  Instead of taking its audience for granted, it pays attention to its premise and its origins.

Indeed, when I watched the movie with my friend, we couldn't help but to notice that the film does a good job in being 'childlike'. The story is entertaining and pays attention to all those things that can make a script work.

Still, the biggest star in the movie (even though the actors do a good job) is definitely the 'Bumblebee' character itself. As an audience member, you can't help but to find the 'machine' to be likable and you can't help but to feel for it over the course of the film.

In that sense, if you're like me and so many others who gave up on the series a long time ago, 'Bumblebee' is certainly a movie that you should watch. It's well made, entertaining, funny and as a whole, manages to put you on a better mood. 

The second movie that we watched is 'Mary Poppins Returns'. This is a movie that I had wanted to watch for quite some time, because I thought that there was a good chance that watching it would be fun and that the film would lift my spirits.

After all, even though I can't remember much about the original 'Mary Poppins', it was likely that the remake wouldn't disappoint either. Those responsible for the musical would do their best to respect the spirit of the original and make it as good as possible.

So when me and my friend watched the film, it didn't take long before we fell in love with the world of the film and its universe. There's just something special about the story of the flying nanny who comes to help those in need.

After all, over the course of the film I couldn't help but to enjoy how entertaining and immersive everything was. The characters, the action scenes and the musical pieces were great, even though I'm usually not a big fan of musicals.  

Not surprisingly, when it comes to the acting in the film, the cast is also wonderful. Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins, Lin-Manuel Miranda as Jack and the rest (Meryl Streep, Colin Firth, Dick Van Dyke, Angela Lansbury) are just superb in their roles.

In hindsight, the only real problem with the film has to do with its screenplay that is a tiny bit lacking in certain places. Especially when we reach the third act in the movie, it feels that the story doesn't 'turn' well enough and the drama is a bit too clumsy.

Still, when I think of the movie as a whole, it's clear that this is a fun movie. 'Mary Poppins' is an uplifting movie that I would recommend for everyone who wants to feel like a child again and who doesn't want to take everything in life too seriously. 

The third and the final movie that we watched with my friend is 'Booksmart', a comedy starring Johan Hill's sister Beanie Feldstein. This a film that I thought we needed to watch based on its positive reviews by the movie critics. 

After all, since the movie had a really good rating - a solid 97% fresh on Rottentomatoes.com - we more or less had to give it a chance. Clearly this film had to be at least somewhat watchable and not completely hopeless. 

So when it comes to the movie, 'Booksmart' is pretty much a female version of 'Superbad'. Almost every aspect of the film (story beats, premise  and the overall theme 'desperation') mirrors the 'original' version pretty closely.

Not surprisingly, when you watch the film and its characters, it's difficult not to see Jonah Hill in Feldstein's character. They clearly resemble each other and have many of the same manners and characteristics as actors.

Qualitywise, I managed to like the movie more than my friend did.  The film - even though formulaic and episodic - was funny in places and was better than some of the other female comedies that have been released lately (Ghostbusters, Bridesmaids etc.). 

Still, when it comes the film as a whole, I'm not sure that it is necessarily worth all its critical praise. It isn't in my opinion necessarily any better or different than movies that we've already seen many times ('Superbad', 'Harold & Kumar'). 

In that sense, whether you'll like 'Booksmart' really depends on your taste in movies. There's a chance that you'll like it, but there's also a chance that you don't find it entertaining and that it won't be worth your time.

'I think you should leave' is an awful sketch show.

When it comes to television shows or movies that are funny, it's not exactly a secret that things aren't looking good at the moment. There aren't really any funny films or tv shows out there currently that would be even remotely worth watching or worth your time. 

After all, the reason that most shows - as unfortunate as it is - are so bad is that they lack even the most basic ingredients that would make them good. There's nothing in them that would give them even a tiniest chance to be about something that would make sense.

So when it comes to one of these current horrible, yet supposedly 'funny' shows, one of them is Netflix's 'I think you should leave'. This is a sketch show that a lot of critics (even in my country) have been raving about and saying that it's the best show in years. 

However, having now given the series a proper look, the problem with the show is that it just isn't any good. Despite the assurances by the critics, the show doesn't work and is easily one of the worst comedy series' that I have seen in a long time.

So when it comes to the series, the biggest issue that I have with it is that the show isn't even trying to be smart or well thought out. It's not even trying to create characters or situations that would be realistic or that would make sense.

Instead, the whole point seems to be that it just tries to be as dumb as possible as it could ever be. Its hacky approach falsely pretends that there's value in being pointless and convoluted without even trying to be remotely coherent.

Indeed, the basic 'formula' (if there's any) is that a sketch starts with some random scenario and then it gets pointlessly more 'cringe' as it goes on. The skit keeps dragging on without really coming up with any sort of decent ideas or structural beats.

For example, on the show there's stuff like a sketch with baby crying on a plane (picture above), which leads to a passenger yelling at another passenger as annoyingly as possibly. That's basically all there is to this 3-4 minute unfunny skit.

Another example is the uninspiring and pointless skit in which a tv lawyer asks the audience for 3 minutes whether something (sueable) has happened to them. This pointless sketch just went on and on and wasn't funny at any point of its duration.

Still, possibly the worst sketch was the one that had to with 'Baby awards'. This 'best sketch ever' (according to avclub.com) with a baby on stage was so banal, pointless, lacking in creativity and empty that I felt embarrassed on behalf of its performs.

So not surprisingly, once I was finally done with the episodes that I watched, I wasn't impressed at all with the series. I simply wasn't sold by the skits and couldn't understand why anyone would voluntarily watch them and think that they're great.

After all, even though comedy is admittedly at least a bit subjective, there should still be some universal standards that apply. Clearly these guys behind the show weren't coming up with anything that would make even remotely sense.

In that sense, when it comes to this show as a whole, if you're one of those who are thinking about giving this show a chance, you shouldn't get your hopes up too much. You shouldn't be getting too excited about the series despite the hype that it has received.

After all, even though critics have been giving this show their seal of approval, that doesn't mean that you should automatically believe them. You shouldn't be fooled by their supposed critical expertise and think that they know better.

In the end, at least in the case of me and my friends, we absolutely positively hated almost every second of the episodes & sketches that we watched together. We hated the sketches and could barely believe how bad they were.

After all, not only were the skits in general extremely poorly written, but there wasn't really anything else that would have redeemed the show. It was totally obvious that this Netflix series didn't work at all and was totally hopeless.

In that sense, if there's any chance that you could watch something else instead, do that. You should do that because there are so many other classic old shows (like Friends on Netflix) that are actually funny and meaningful, unlike this horrible and awful 'comedy' series.

'Chernobyl' is a great mini-series.

When it comes to television shows that matter and that are important, it has to be said that there aren't really that many of them. Most tv shows just aren't good enough to make us think and to make us reflect about how our society works.

In reality, in order for a show to have actual merit and value, it has to be about something real and meaningful. Its premise has to be 'important' and good enough so that we could actually care about the show and its characters. 

So when I noticed that there was a new HBO series called 'Chernobyl', I for once managed to get my hopes up. I knew that there was a solid chance that the series would work, since its premise was so important and real (a nuclear power plant disaster). 

Having now finally seen all the episodes of this mini-series, I can safely said that 'Chernobyl' indeed works. It is easily one of the best mini-series ever made, even though watching it was admittedly a rather harrowing experience.

So the biggest reason that the series works so well is because it looks and feels completely authentic. The series does a really good job in showing all the horrors of the disaster and what happened during and after of the horrific accident.

Indeed, during this five episode mini-series, we go systematically through every aspect of the disaster: the explosion, the rescue operation, the operation to prevent an even bigger disaster, the investigation and the trial for those who caused the disaster.

When it comes to the series, its narrative comes from its three main characters. You have Valery Legasov, a scientist/investigator (Jared Harris), Boris Scherbina, a politburo chief (Stellan Skarsgård) and Ulana Khomyuk, a nuclear scientist (Emily Watson). 

Over the course of the series, they help to give us a good look of what really happened during and after the accident. Their brave efforts (Watson's character is a composite though) help us understand the scientific, political and the human aspects of the case.

Not surprisingly, we get to see that there were so many things that went wrong that lead to the disaster. It took extreme negligence, hubris and secrecy from the leaders of the power plant and the political establishment for the disaster to occur.

At the same time, just because the series brings up these problems and the flaws in the soviet system, the show isn't just about these things. Criticizing the Russians clearly wasn't the main reason that the show was made in the first place.

Indeed, as you watch the series, you can't help but to notice how the main focus is on the heroic efforts that the soviet servicemen and workers did in the aftermath. Many of them risked their lives knowing that they had to do it in order to save their country.

After all, let's not forget that had they not managed to mitigate the fission process that happened during the explosion and its aftermath, millions would have died. The effects of the explosions would have been severe even in western Europe too.

In that sense, when I think about the series as a whole, I'm so glad that those involved with making the series got the story right. I'm glad that they managed to show who the real heroes were and what they managed to do once the disaster happened.

After all, even though there are certainly some bad 'guys' in the story too, they are not what 'Chernobyl' is about. The series is clearly a tribute to all those who sacrificed themselves and did their part to get things right.

In that sense, if you're one of those who haven't managed to watch this HBO mini-series yet, I would certainly recommend it for you. You should definitely give it a chance and not think that the subject matter is something that you might not like.

After all, even though watching the series isn't always easy, that doesn't mean that this is not an important or a rewarding series. You shouldn't be thinking that just because there are a lot of heart breaking moments, it's not worth watching.

On the contrary, 'Chernobyl' as a whole works and shows that when things get bad, as human beings we'll do the right thing. We'll do the right thing and won't give up, no matter what the human cost is or no matter what political repercussions we'd eventually have to pay.

'Big Little Lies' - Season 2 (so far).

Like many others who spend time watching tv, I enjoyed watching the first season of HBO's miniseries 'Big Little Lies' quite a bit. I found the series to be really well made and was sad to see it coming to its dramatic (and inevitable) conclusion.

Naturally, once I learned that the show would get another season, I was feeling pretty excited. I was eager to know what would happen to these characters and how they would react to the aftermath of what happened at the end of season one.

So having now seen the first three episodes of season two of 'Big Little Lies', I can say that the series still works. There are a lot of things going on, even though story-wise the series climaxed in its first season's finale (Perry's death).

When it comes to the second season, the main story continues with the aftermath of the homicide. The grieving mother of Perry (played by Meryl Streep) comes to snoop around and to find out what really happened during that fateful evening.

Not surprisingly, it doesn't take long before she becomes suspicious about the incident and its aftermath. She notices that things certainly aren't as they seem and that almost everyone in town has something to hide about their lives.

Indeed, during the first three episodes of the season we're reminded again that pretty much all of these characters have problems and are messed up. Perry's homicide is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the secrets that these characters have.

Among other things, Celeste is still having nightmares about Perry beating her up, whereas Jane is trying to bring up her son (Perry's). Madeline is dealing with her adultery issues, whereas Renata furiously hates her husband.

Furthermore, when we also remember that Bonnie is feeling guilty about saving Celeste (that led to Bonnie accidentally killing Perry), it's not surprising that there are a lot of things going on. Clearly Streep's character has a reason to be there.

So when it comes to these storylines and the quality of the series, the biggest reason that 'Big Little Lies' works so well is that it actually cares about its characters. It pays attention to them without making the characters over the top or too melodramatic.

After all, I couldn't help but to notice that there's a really wonderful balance between drama and comedy on the show. It manages to bring laugh out loud moments between some of those more dramatic and even heart wrenching moments.

Especially when it comes to those scenes that involve the school principal and Madeline, the writers on the show manage to pull off some amazing scenes. It's clear that we're dealing with some absolute world class stuff here.

In that sense, when you consider that there are still four episodes to be aired, I'm confident that this is going to be a good season. I'm confident that the quality of the season is going to stay high and that the storylines are going to be solid.

After all, there are so many talented people working on the series (actresses like Streep, Dern, Witherspoon,  Kidman, Woodley & a writer like David Kelley). Clearly they have done their best to make sure that this series would work as well as possible.

In the end, even though there have been some very minor issues with the episodes (some of the scenes have been a bit too short), those mistakes don't mean that much. The positive aspects clearly outweigh the negative ones here.

In that sense, if you're one of those fence sitters who hasn't given this show a chance yet, you should definitely give 'Big Little Lies' a go. You should give it a go and not be discouraged just because you might think that this is not a series for you.

After all, even though the series might at first seem like it's a bit superficial, it's not. It's not a superficial show and once you get to know to these characters, you can't help but to feel for them and be interested in knowing what is going to happen to them.