Lucas Bolton Reviews - Super Mario Advance 4 (2003): Super Mario Bros 3 GBA review

In recent times, the Mario series has become hugely significant to me as a franchise. Even though it is easy for many to label Mario as a blank slate, I find him charming and likable because of how expressive he is, and the general heroism he embraces.
My first exposure to Super Mario Bros was actually not on NES or SNES, but actually on the Gameboy Advance (a.k.a GBA). Along with Rayman Advance, Super Mario Advance was one of the first games I played on the system. While it was Doki Doki Panic utilising Mario, Luigi, Peach and Toad as playable characters, it was still a well rounded game with fun characters, interesting water, ice and desert lands, and tight platforming control.

Shortly afterwards, I played Super Mario 64 at a friend's house. Being a Crash Bandicoot and Spyro kid, I was amazed I missed out on a classic venture. At the same time, I actually didn't realize it was the same age that Crash was. I think Crash Bandicoot probably just looked a bit more modern to a young me. I got Super Mario Advance 4 when I seen at in GAME one day, and I was awful at it. I could barely get past World 2 back then, so I never managed to properly appreciate it at the time. But the graphics had me in awe, and I was in love with the colourful Grass Land, and Desert Land.
Last year, I had this resurgence of playing the games again after my Legend of Zelda stint took off. I completed Super Mario World with all 96 exits, and beat the original NES Super Mario Bros on the 3DS without any warping. So I delved back into my catalogue of GBA games this year, and decided to play Super Mario Advance 4 again. And I don't regret my decision at all.

As a remake, it actually includes an epic intro showing Bowser taking over the 7 lands as Mario and Luigi are prompted into action, equipped with Raccoon suits. It adds a little more production value to the game, and I adore its inclusion over the lack of one in the NES and All Stars Version. There was also a special world known as "World E" that can be accessed if the player has an E-card handy. It is a nice distraction from the main adventure.
As far as the overhaul goes, the best addition has to be the Save feature. Mario Bros 3 is an expansive game (not on the same level as Mario 64 or Ocarina of Time, but for a 2D platformer, there is a lot to do), and some maps (like the Ice Land) have 10 levels. They aren't overly long as a result, but they can offer oodles of different challenges from Pirhanna plants getting in the way of your jumps, Lakitu going manic, enemies who shoot fire projectiles in the sky levels, and plenty of airships to test your reflexes. So to have a save feature that lets you keep all the progress you earned by completing any level beforehand makes a major difference for navigation, and keeps the game flowing for me.

The game itself (as you could probably guess) is a great platformer with lots of variety, and some of the best control available in any 2D Mario platform game (tied with World for me). Mario's weight and acceleration can possibly throw some reckless players off guard, but for the running and jumping prevalent in the series, it is second to none. Mario has a P meter that builds up the longer you run. When it reaches this limit, you run at a decent pace, while not being at Sonic speeds, fitting the level design impeccably. As you jump, the floatiness allows for easier landing of your jumps. Whether short or long, the smoothness of the controls is undeniable.
However, where the game shines in mechanics, and complex level design (with many levels acting as a maze, an obstacle course, scrolling level as well as the usual platforming in the sky you would expect from a Mario game), the power-ups are my absolute favourite thing about the game. There are 6 excellent power-ups: Raccoon leaf, Tanooki leaf, Fire Flower, Frog Suit, Hammer Bros Suit, and Kuribo's Shoe (found in only 1 World 5 level). They add an extra layer of fun to the game, making every challenge slightly easier if you are able to hang onto them. The Tanooki leaf is essentially the Raccoon leaf with the ability to turn into a statue, making it possible to deflect projectiles, and destroy spiny enemies. The Frog suit makes swimming a breeze. The Hammer Bros suit is game breaking destruction that can kill any enemy in your vicinity. And the Fire Flower can defeat most enemies if you aim it just right.

You can obtain a lot of these power-ups in Mushroom houses and enemy encounters (usually with a Hammer Brother) on the map. They are satisfying to obtain for your inventory, and it lets the player be more creative with their playing skills. For instance, there is usually a pipe above each level, and the Raccoon suit lets you fly up to that pipe, and skip a huge chunk of the level. In the Ice Land, there are coins in the ice that can be uncovered using the Fire Flower. It shows you that Nintendo understands what makes a game fun, and how they are aware Mario is capable of much more than running and jumping.
The bosses are all over the place too. Individual Boombooms are found in the Fortress stages, and the Koopalings are found in each Airship in World 1-7. As you progress through the game (all the way to World 8) Bowser becomes even more threatening than previously imagined as he puts Mario through the ultimate test of reflexes on his many airships, and in his own castle where you finally have the last showdown with him.

It is a wonderful adventure that keeps on building. The difficulty and bosses can be manic at times, and World 6 and 7 really test my patience. But it has become one of my favourite games to play because of the engaging (and sometimes complex) level design, beautiful soundtrack, (i.e. The Ice Land map)  refined controls, variety of worlds, and (of course) excellent power-up selection, Super Mario Bros 3 on GBA is my favourite version of the game, and I think it is more accessible than the NES and SNES versions overall.. This game, and Majora's Mask are one in a kind.

Lucas Bolton Reviews - Documentary: Abused, the Untold Story (2016)

Since 2012, the sinister truth about one man changed the way police handle inquiries into allegations of sexual abuse. Operation Yewtree emerged. It forced copious hospitals (most notably Stoke Mandeville, and Broadmoor Hospital), Duncroft school, and the BBC to look into serious reports that there was a miscarriage of justice that took place in each institution. An untouchable force whose death meant that the truth would finally catch up with him...

Shortly after the Dame Janet Smith report into over 70 counts of sexual abuse by the shamed TV presenter Jimmy Savile was made public on February of this year, BBC1 were planning to run an hour and a half documentary that had been a year in the making. It was going to interview several of Savile's victims, and give them a voice for their stories to be heard without any sign of Savile's face throughout the documentary.  In a way, I actually found it more creepy how one of the clips they showed was the back of his head as he went into Broadmoor as "entertainment officer". There was an air of ominousness that prevailed. The documentary was given the name "Abused: The Untold Story".
Dee Coles was the first person to have her interview aired on TV, so it only seemed appropriate that she would get the first say when his funeral was brought up as the timeline of his abuse began unfolding. Her account of being a 14 year old girl who was starstruck by him while she and her Mum seen him on vacation is slowly shattered by the pain she felt after he attacked her in his caravan, and she was unable to tell her Mum, fearing that she would suffer the same heartache she was burdened with afterwards. It was a moment where you really felt the turmoil of the story. She even admitted that she took beater blockers on her first interview so that she could relay the story without much reserve, however she opted not to use them this time, making it really hard hitting for her.

The first person to be interviewed way back in 2011 when Savile died was Karen Ward, who had been watching the funeral on TV, outraged by all of these people saying he was a saint for raising £40m for charity (regarded now as a smokescreen for his activities), and a great British eccentric at the heart of the establishment (which, with hindsight, the "eccentricity" was a clever disguise for his undercurrent of darkness). She wrote her account of abuse at the hands of JS who was a "cigar smoking celebrity" (as the narrator put it) who went to Duncroft regularly in the early 70's. He would bring in gifts (like cigarettes, perfume etc.), offer trips in his Rolls Royce and access to his TV shows (Clunk Click) as a way of enabling his abuse on all of the girls. When Newsnight reporter Meirion Jones read the account, and discovered that it was an accurate description of his aunt's school Duncroft, and that "JS" was indeed Jimmy Savile, he knew that the stories and allegations he heard were becoming true. Meirion wasn't there when her interview was taken place, but the Newsnight team (including journalist Liz MacKean) went to Karin's house to get her to speak on camera. Shortly afterwards, the BBC slated tributes to be broadcast in honour of Savile, and this clashed with the Newsnight story in a MASSIVE way, causing the story to be shelved.
 The document is a scary reflection of the power and influence he wielded over people even in death.
Another story in the documentary was based on a trial that was transpiring in 2015 about a girl who was abused when she was 9 years old. This was a case that had been reopened in the wake of the Savile scandal, and it was used as an example of how big of an impact the scandal had on the nation.  Something that struck me about the documentary though was that it seemed to be a convenient way for BBC to try and make amends for their failure to protect children from the harm that Savile sewed over 5 decades. The other thing is the digitalized faces that were used on the victims of predatory paedophile DJ's Chris Denning and Ray Teret. It was too distracting and disturbing for its own good, and their anonymity would have been better protected if it was behind silhouette, in my opinion.

But notwithstanding these pretty major issues in the program, I think it is a powerful document of the distress and trauma that Savile caused in his lifetime. It even highlighted the deceit and method of acting he used when he was interviewed by Surrey police in 2009 about allegations at Duncroft. His cool and calm way of answering each question with "Out of the question!" Is evidence that he was overconfident within himself, and had no fear of ever being exposed in his lifetime (it seems he knew that his legacy would be tarnished after death since he once reportedly said "Bollocks to my legacy!"). Considering the 500 victims that he is known to have abused, I find it incomprehensible how undeterred he was. Even when he worked as a dance hall manager at Leeds in the 50's, he managed to narrowly escape charges by paying off one of his accusor's families. He even openly shared his brushes with the law regarding a 16 year old girl he was questioned over in the book "As it Happens". His shell-suits, the vests he wore, his strange looking costumes, and his tinted glasses made him look like a creep. But because this creep was psychopathic, and clever at ingratiating himself to the highest echelons of society, he managed to escape justice in the end. I find him very fascinating to learn about because of this.
Overall, it is a harrowing documentary of a powerful man who enjoyed seeing pain inflicted on others, and the impact his crimes have had on the serious nature of such allegations. It does feel like the BBC are trying to make themselves look moral in a sense, and the digitalization should never been used in the first place. But out of all the documentaries on Savile, it is the only one that focuses extensively on the victims, and it leaves more of an impact because of that.

Lucas Bolton Reviews - "American Experience" Battle over Citizen Kane (1996)

Orson Welles was one of the first iconoclastic filmmakers of the sound era. He managed to be the youngest person to have a contract that allowed him free reign to direct, produce and write any film he could set his theatrical eye on. As shown in this documentary, the film he chose to make would unfortunately be his undoing as far as an illustrious Hollywood career was concerned.

Enter William Randolph Hearst, a newspaper tyrant who ruled Hollywood's actors and producers with an iron fist. It was only inevitable that they were going to crash into eachother on a collision course. This is what the hour and a half documentary "Battle over Citizen Kane" is primarily predicated on. It is commentated by the ever so wonderful voice of the late Richard Ben Cramer, who narrates a lot of documentaries in his own dramatic way. The preface of the documentary is presented by presenter David McCullough who describes these men as "geniuses" both in their own way.
However, I think (as I paraphrase what the journalist Jimmy Breson commented on during the documentary) that Hearst probably underestimated the power of cinema as a tool to destroy a person's reputation. Until Citizen Kane came along...

Now while I do think that the documentary can be over romanticized; Kane has never been confirmed by Welles as being a portrayal of Hearst (though in the 1982 interview, he did make note of the similarities and parallel between Charles Foster Kane and Randolph Hearst; the ruthless ambition, avaricious nature, and the New York Inquirer), and the documentary focused more on Young Welles rather than his later life self, making it seem almost like a Shakespearean battle between the Young Welles and Old dried up Hearst . But when it boils down to the information on both Welles and Hearst, it is an excellent document with lots of different commentators and journalists exploring different anecdotes about their life. The Julius Cesar production by Welles is generally considered the most important work of Shakespeare ever performed on stage according to one of the journalists in the documentary. It delves into the kind of controversy that he evoked in his audience with his stage production, and the War of the Worlds stunt all before Kane became his best known sensation. And Heast's own tabloids exploited the reactions of an entire nation. He could drag an actor's name through dirt if they didn't conform to his rules, and he was hell bent on power above anything else. The documentary painted him as an individual who seen himself as the people's champion, while also being a manipulative magnate who got anything and everything he wished for. His story on the 17 year old murderer who he argued was a victim of modern times is a highlight that shows how cunning he was in his attempts at manipulating public opinion for his own gain.

As the years go on, and the many Sight and Sound polls confirm, Citizen Kane eventually became the most highly praised film of all time by critics everywhere. Welles was the first director to be described as an "auteur" by French critics who coined the term in the 60's. But it wouldn't seem like the film would exist much longer beyond 1941 as one of Hearst's inside people discovered at one of the first showings of Kane that the lead character and his wife was more similar to her boss and his own relationship than she could have possibly imagined.

It is a sublime story of how film became more powerful than the newspapers, and how destructive the
ego can actually be when it gets affected by conflict. Hearst tried to get MGM to destroy the film, but they were unable to do so, especially given the amount of protection that Welles had in his own contract at the time. Though this would cause Welles to be hindered in his future projects, and subsequent films like The Magnificent Ambersons (one of the closest films to that of Welles' own personality) and The Lady from Shanghai (with Rita Hayworth) to be truncated so drastically by all the producers who loathed him. It was poignant in the end, but it goes to show you that, nowadays, Hearst is looked at without much fondness, whereas Welles is loved by many film aficionado's worldwide. If you have ever found newspapers and films fascinating, then I would highly recommend watching this documentary. There is a feeling of fabrication and romanticizaton at times (Jonathan Rosenbaum has his own ambivalent review of the documentary), but the content at its core is really intriguing to learn.