Gods of Egypt

Zach Goodier

Gods of Egypt is an action/adventure film starring GoT’s Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as Horus, the god of air, and Brenton Thwaites as Bek, a mortal thief seeking to right wrongs committed against him, and against all humans. Gerard Butler plays Set, who usurps the throne in order to rule over all of creation. Horus, who fought Set, had his eyes taken when he was beaten, leading to his exile. Bek, sometime later, breaks into Set’s vault and steals the eye in order to help Horus take the throne and save Egypt from Set’s cruel rule.

One look at this pic and you should realize Horus is another Lannister.

What ensues sounds great on paper, but quickly begins to fall somewhat flat. Nikolaj does a great job as Horus, but he basically follows the Jaime Lannister pattern of being an elitist D-bag early on, who then suffers a massive setback that leaves him helpless, before going through an on-screen gradual redemption where he changes his ways and becomes a much more likeable character overall. So, he was basically type-cast for this role, but it still works fairly well. Gerard Butler makes for a decent villain, but it feels like Set is never really fleshed out all that well, we just see him being a terrible person and know he has to be defeated, and that’s about it.

This says everything you need to know about Set: he's big, scary, and tough.

The action is exciting, and that’s where the most excitement will be had in this film. Gods can transform into armored figures that more closely embody the depictions of the gods we know from Egyptian mythology. In these forms, gods like Horus can fly, and they can fight each other with their full power. However, this leads in to one of the weaker parts of the film: the CGI.

Scenes like this try to mix CGI with actor's faces, and it just doesn't quite look right, B for effort, though.

The special effects are somewhat “hit or miss,” with some scenes, like twin giant snakes, looking fairly good, but other scenes fall flat with mediocre CGI that makes you very aware that you’re watching a couple of actors leaning back and forth in front of a green-screen. This somewhat hurts the experience on the visual side, which is kind of important, since most of the supporting cast feels weak, either due to lame acting or a lack of screen-time to work with.

Geoffrey Rush plays Ra, another under-used character that could have been more interesting.

This movie goes for the flash, but instead of going off like fireworks all the way through, it ends up being a mix of a couple fireworks, some sparklers, and quite a few weak party poppers that leave you with mixed feelings about the overall impact. This isn’t a bad movie, but it certainly isn’t a good one, neither.

Good:

-A few high-points with CGI.

-Jaime Lannister being another Jaime Lannister-type guy.

Bad:

-A few low-points with CGI.

-Mediocre acting and uninspired characters throughout.

Scully Rating: 5 out of 10

Halo 5: Guardians

Zach Goodier

Halo 5 is the latest installment in the epic saga by 343 Industries. While the Master Chief is still a major character in the story, he now shares the spotlight with Spartan IV Jameson Locke, a former ONI agent who leads fire team Osiris, while the Chief leads Blue team, a group of Spartans he lead in the days before the first Halo games. They are on a struggle to find the truth behind the awakening of the Forerunner guardians: massive machines that are awakening all over the galaxy, destroying settlements as they awaken.

Osiris is the center of this story, and too little is done with them.

The story is, well, it’s pretty bad. It’s easily the worst of the Halo franchise, which isn’t itself a huge deal, but there is a lot of issues here. For one, the Chief is only around for about 3 of the 15 missions as a character, you spend the rest of the time as Locke. Too much of the story demands you invest in hours of expanded universe content to understand the characters and events taking place, which is a bad idea. To make matters worse, the game’s ending is very disappointing. I won’t spoil things, but the main problem is that there really isn’t an ending, just a massive cliffhanger to lead into the next game.

Some campaign levels are pretty, which is credit to the level design.

This bothers me because, while cliffhangers aren’t that big of deal, they need to at least wrap up a story arc in the game itself. While you could argue that you did finish a chapter by the end, the reality is that you fail to accomplish anything significant by the end of the game, and that any meaningful ending was put off until the next game. You could compare it to Halo 2, but I actually felt this game was even worse with its’ lack of a satisfying conclusion to the campaign.

Locke's hinted past is far more interesting than his tedious and uninspired present.

I came in expecting Reach quality of characters, which isn’t too lofty of a goal to reach, but aside from in-game dialogue, there really isn’t much going on. The only one who stands out is Buck, who many will remember from ODST. He’s with Osiris now, and makes the most of his limited time in the spotlight. Blue team never feels at all relevant as characters. Like Osiris, Blue team just feels like some almost useless extra guns, which are only marginally useful to heal you when you get downed.

Multiplayer is what you will enjoy, with new abilities and fun team combat.

So why would you want this game? Well, for better or worse, the multiplayer is the best ever. New modes, like Warzone, being fun and addictive, with teams competing for points in the middle ground before either assaulting the enemy base itself, or reaching 1,000 points by killing enemies and killing NPC characters that periodically spawn on the map, either Covenant or Promethean. The standard modes are back, but I quickly became addicted to Warzone. Unlocking cosmetic upgrades can be fun, and Warzone requisition packs allow you to spawn with some awesome weapons to suit the situation, but push micro-transactions on you. Overall, the multiplayer alone could be worth buying this game for, if you enjoy Halo’s brand of multiplayer.

Warzone levels are a healthy size for big team combat.

Overall, I’m torn with this game. I fell in love with the story of Halo, and I find this game to be a disgrace on that front. It felt thrown together with little care taken for the characters that we follow, and the destination is far from satisfying. 343 clearly put most of their effort into the multiplayer, which saddens me. However, I can’t argue with the results, since the multiplayer is fast-paced and fun. Still, the campaign is too bad to give this game any glowing recommendation for people like me, who want a good story first, and fun multiplayer a distant second.

Good:

-Awesome return of classic Halo multiplayer.

-Warzone is addictive, and promote good teamwork.

-Return of some of our favorite characters, like Lasky and Buck.

Bad:

-Chief isn’t the star of this show.

-Story is all over the place, and doesn’t end in any satisfying way, instead putting everything off until Halo 6.

-Characters are just thrown in, and little is done with them in the story.

Scully Rating: 6 out of 10