Sonic Adventure revisited

It is without question that the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise was at its best when it was a 2D platformer, hitting its peak with the release of Sonic 2 in November 1992. That particular game is still my favourite from my childhood, the hours played before and after school were well and truly worth it. I still play it on my DS from time to time.

When Sonic first burst onto our screens in 1991 most games were ponderous and slow. This was changed with Sonic the Hedgehog, the sheer speed alone was like nothing else on the market at the time, the levels were colourful and imaginative, the soundtracks impulsive, and as with all of the other 2D Sonic games, the levels became less linear and more of a challenge the further you went into the game. What also helped Sonic was the fact that he was a cool looking character, he was the kind of character you didn't mind having on your lunch box or T-shirt, which was very rare at the time for a videogame character, perfect for a mascot.

But since the glory days of the 2D Mega Drive games, Sonic's foray into 3D has been mixed at best, most have been average and forgettable, but one of the first, and was highly praised on release, and that was Sonic Adventure, which was released as a launch title for the Dreamcast. Although it wasn't anywhere near a Mario 64 beater everyone was hoping for, it was still a highly respected game that averaged scores into the late 80s mark by most critics.

So when I discovered my old Gamecube sitting in the garage the other day, I went out and bought a copy of Sonic Adventure DX. Playing it was a stark reminder of how much games have technically advanced in the last decade. Most obvious of these is the voice acting  and movement of characters, most of which are pretty good in most games these days. In Sonic Adventure these are both terrible, the dialogue is cringe worthy, the voice acting is diabolical and doesn't run in tune with the characters mouths as they speak. The in game cut scenes are laughably bad, the designs of the main hubs within the game are static and motionless.

Of course none of these bad things get to the heart of the game, the heart of the game has some dynamic and very fun elements to it, some of which still hold up well today.There are five playable characters, the best of these is Sonic, of all of the levels he has the most exciting and enjoyable ones, this is because the gameplay is all about speed, and at their best they showcase what Sonic games are capable of in 3D, and they give off a similar experience to what it felt like when you played the old 2D games at their best.

But there is still a problem, the levels do seem very short and linear, there are times when you could just hold down the up button and do nothing else, as the character goes through loops, with the camera fixed in front or behind you. The disparity in quality in some levels is also evident, while some are fun, others are just boring. Because the levels are set in the real world instead of Mobius, they lack any kind of imagination, none of the levels here are anything compared with Green Hill Zone, Marble Zone, Sandpolis Zone, from the 2D games.

There are certain set pieces within some levels that are memorable and still enthralling to play to this day, examples include the run away from a killer whale and speeding down a skyscraper. The other characters in the game have varying levels of quality, with Tails you have to beat Sonic in a race to get the emerald at the end of the level, it's okay but feels like a downgraded version of the Sonic levels. Knuckles and Amy are often ponderous and frustrating at times, although they still have their moments. Playing as the robot E-102 Gamma is actually very good, and feels like an old arcade shooting game. Big the cat is worst of the bunch, the game requires you to fish for the frog that he has lost, overall it's just boring and forgettable.

The game is still decent and worth going back to, there are some very good moments but too often it feels disjointed and too short, and when it is challenging it isn't in a way that wants you to keep playing, it's just frustrating.

That said Sonic Adventure still has its place in the Sonic the Hedgehog library, and is certainly a bright spot since the end of the 16 bit era.

At some point I will replay Sonic Adventure 2, and give you my thoughts.

Zero Dark Thirty- Review

A fine and engaging yet dark thriller, that insists on the up most attention

Zero Dark Thirty is director Katherine bigelows first film since 'Hurt Locker', based around the search for Osama Bin Laden after the tragic events of 9/11, and the lead up to his eventual discovery and assassination  The story centres around CIA operative Maya (Jessica Chastain), the film plays like a journey, the journey she had to take in the decade long search for someone who was once the most wanted man in the world.

Jessica Chastains performance is believable  I felt emphatic towards Maya as the film successfully depicts the struggles and hurdles that she takes, from the beginning of the film to the end. At times the narrative seemed to jump from one plot to another far too quickly, although there is a clear direction the film is taking you, at times it just seems like it's plodding along, tease after tease, question after question. It might just be the fact that I have read a number of books about 9/11 and the aftermath, which general audiences wouldn't have.

The torture scenes which have gathered so much controversy happen at the beginning of the film, there not as graphic as I thought they might be, if there is any effect on you it will be from a psychological point of view rather than the acts themselves. Whether it was intentional to make a point or not on the writers part, we learn that the acts of torture themselves don't come of any use.

The tone of the film is very dark, although understandable it might put off some people,although not inexplicably shown there are scenes that show terrorist attacks, the London 7/7 attacks is included in this.

The final moments when the Navy S.E.A.L.s team break into Bin Ladens hideout are executed perfectly because we see the vast majority of it through night vision goggles, from the point of view of each soldier. The tension and suspense is helped by the lack of background music, as the team of Navy S.EA.Ls move from one room to the next until the moment comes when Bin Laden is killed.

For all of its exhilaration and curiosity, when the film ends it does feel like a relief, but in a good way. And I liked that the final scene leaves us asking more questions.

Verdict- An unmissable film 4/5        

  

Django Unchained Review

A very quirky and exhilarating film that is a fine return to form for Quentin Tarantino

I have to admit I'm not Quentin Tarantino's biggest fan, most keep me entertained to a certain degree, he has a certain and very unique ability to make the small details in a film seem so big, but I wouldn't bother to watch most more than once, and I still believe it's true that his best films were his earlier ones, where the budgets were far more constrained, and perhaps less cartoonish in terms of the violence. However Django Unchained is certainly one of Tarantino's finest and most daring film to hit the big screen, and follows on in a similar style to Inglorious Bastards. The film certainly showcases many of the things that you would expect from a Tarantino film, over the top violence, constant swearing, and very well rounded but witty script.

The film is set in 1858, two years before the American Civil war, around the time that the slave trade was still going on, the film first starts in Texas and then eventually to Mississippi. As the namesake suggests, the film is based on a black slave called Django (Jamie Foxx) who is freed by a bounty hunter called Dr King Schultz (Christopher Watlz), from there they begin to hunt down the Brittle brothers, as the film progresses we see the two men work together as a pair of bounty hunters, until the last half of the film where they decide to track down Django's wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), who is a slave working on a plantation by the name of 'Candyland', owned by Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), it is also here that we are also introduced to Stephen (Samuel Jackson), who is a servant of sorts to Calvin Candie.

Performances are excellent all round, each actor fulfills each role with perfection, my particular favourite was DiCaprio's as the villain, not only is he menacing but fascinating at the same time, which is a rarity in most antagonists in modern day films. I honestly could not imagine other actors in their place, it's without doubt the film's strongest point.

Visually the film is superb and depicts the time it's set in as I would imagine it would be, and like all Tarantino films a snappy soundtrack is also provided, although some songs do a feel little out of place.

The gunfights in the film, although graphic can't be taken too seriously due to the sheer fact that they are so over the top and laughable at times. But there are parts where the violence is brutal, and where I actually found myself uncomfortable watching, these included whipping, a rather nasty scene involving a bunch of dogs let loose on a slave, and the historically inaccurate 'mandigo' fighting, where two slaves are made to fight one another for entertainment, there's only one scene that is shown but its so utterly brutal it was disturbing. Perhaps it's the subject of slavery that makes it so profound and hard to watch, it only reminds you that isn't too long in the past that such a cruel act of inhumanity existed.

Another aspect of the film that I also felt uncomfortable was the use of the word 'niggar', it actually felt like it was said in just about every other sentence of the script, which is understandable in the sense that it's set around the time of slavery, but what made it worse was the fact it was used in so many ways for comedic effect.

Other slight niggles at the film will include its running time, at nearly three hours long, towards the end it can get very bum numbing. But that said I was never once bored, and the film had my attention throughout, the last third of the film and the finale are when it's at it's best. Tarantino himself pops up in a small cameo role at the end, and provides one of the funniest moments in the entire film.

The film's tagline 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of vengeance' does a pretty good job of summing up the film, as revenge movies go it is one of the best I have ever seen, and for nearly three hours of escapism and entertainment, it provides great value for money and is certainly a step in the right direction for Tarantino.

Verdict- 4/5

  

Texas Chainsaw 3D- Review

A dire re-imagining  to a franchise that is still living on past glory's.

I am a massive fan of all things horror, and when I go into a horror movie I keep an open mind and judge it for what it is. Like most genre films, it's content within the story and film that matters most, and in terms of horror movies (particularly slasher movies) they need to provide a certain tension and suspense, and characters that are more than wallpaper. I would also include an imaginative villain, which the 'Chainsaw' series certainly has.

I knew of the terrible reviews that was given to the film going into it, so I wasn't expecting much, as is usually the case with most other horror films. This isn't the only time that the Texas Chainsaw films have been rebooted, the 2003 remake and the prequel were actually decent in my opinion, and rather entertaining.

The film follows on from the original, and begins showing the house from the original, without spoiling anything the film then jumps forward to the present after a dramatic shoot out scene. The main protagonist is Heather Miller (Alexandra Daddario). On receiving a letter that she has inherited an estate from her Grandmother she immediately travels with her friends to Texas. As with the originals, they pick up a hitchhiker on the way, it's when they arrive at the house, where the chainsaw wielding villain hides that the film begins.   

The film itself has been stripped down to the bones, and it's low budget is noticeable, not that you necessarily need a lot of money to make a good horror film. You would think that this could benefit the film, as Mark Kermode mentioned in his BBC review, the original 'Chainsaw' relied very little on buckets of gore, it was it's psychological effect on the audience that worked well and shocked.

The moments of suspense are few and very far between, and end too swiftly to make any impact. Despite this the build up is not too bad, and kept me engaged throughout, but it's when the eventual appearance of Leatherface and the killings begin that the film just falls flat in every way.

It's ironic in an age where horror films seem to be nothing more than a blood fest that Texas Chainsaw 3D comes across as timid, and the death scenes boring and unimaginative. It's made even worse with the fact that none of the characters make you think or feel for them, so once their dead, they are just dead, move on to the next victim. 

Hints of Leatherface's persona and psychique are touched upon when his basement lair is explored, and as the film progresses into the last third there is an aspect to his story that is linked to the beginning of the film. He certainly isn't the brutal beast that appeared in the 2003 remake and prequel, who's menacing appearance on screen was one of the reasons why they worked reasonably well. 

But it's the last fifteen minutes of the film that really kills it, as it descends into an illogical mess and contrived silliness. One particular one liner was very cringey (you will know which one I'm talking about if you chose to see the film). The 3D is non existent, by my own recollections there were only two moments where the effect was used, and one of those was the title opening. I did not have the option to go to a standard screening, but if you can please do, the extra money for the glasses just isn't worth the cost.

The film is not entirely terrible and unwatchable, you'll just be watching the whole thing thinking you would have done things differently, there are the customary pretty ladies which are nice to look at of course, and at 92 minutes long there are certainly worst ways to spend your time.

           

Verdict-1.5/5

Resident Evil 6 (campaign mode) Review

If ever a video game was undone by it's own ambition it would be Resident Evil 6, an entrance into a series whose quality is really beginning to feel questionable

As an avid fan of all things Resident Evil I was really looking forward to Resident Evil 6, long before it was even confirmed in January 2012. When It was revealed it was done so in a full length video trailer and followed on with the 'No Hope left' viral campaign. My first impressions of that trailer were not overwhelming, and much of the problems I predicted then would eventually come true in the final version. With those doubts in mind I was still looking forward to the game, despite some critics reservations I actually really enjoyed Resident Evil 5, it had its flaws but I thought it was a worthy successor to Resident Evil 4.

Resident Evil 6 was released in October so I have come to the game a bit later than I usually do with most other Resident Evil games, but I managed to play through and complete all of the campaign modes over the Christmas holidays. 

The main story is rather formulaic and based around the outbreak of a C-virus, which has been caused by bio terrorist group Neo Umbrella, which spreads across a number of places across the globe. There is an option of three campaigns in the game, these involve the return of BSAA member Chris Redfield and Piers, Raccoon City survivor Leon Kennedy and Helena, the older version of Sherry Birkin (from Resident Evil 2), now a US government agent, who is partnered with mercenary Jake Muller.

All of the campaigns link up to one another in the last third of each one, and they all have their slight differences with one another in terms of game play. But this is where the problem lies, all of the campaigns are action orientated from the first minute to the last, filtered with endless quick time events. One of the biggest complaints that was made about number 5 was the fact that it had been made into too much of an action game with very little thought for exploration. Well Capcom have gone one step further with 6, environments act as nothing more than a setting, constraining the gameplay to a corridor to corridor shooting fest. One aspect that Resident Evil 4 managed to get right was the balance between exploration and action, even number 5 managed to do this to a much lesser extent. Although fun at first, the gameplay in Resident Evil 6 gets to the point where it just becomes tedious, no matter what campaign you're playing.

The same can be said for the relentless quick time events, certain cinematic set pieces in the game brilliantly add to the gaming experience, one particularly memorable moment includes an underwater sea monster, but on the whole they appear far too often for the most simplest of tasks, and break up the flow of the game.

Two of the campaigns are set in two main locations, Chris and Sherry's campaigns are set in the fictional European country of Edonia and the fictional Chinese city of Lanshiang, Leon's campaign begins in the American town of Tall Oaks before he too heads to China. My personal favourite was Sherry and Jake's, not only do they have the best interaction with one another they also have the most interesting story, I also enjoyed the antagonist 'Ustanak', who chases you through the game, it brings back memories of Nemesis in Resident Evil 3. 

Chris Redfield's campaign is the most boring and uninteresting, as it doesn't deviate much from a run and shoot em up. Leon's campaign is sublime in the first half, with the return of slow zombies and moments of suspense in dark rooms and corridors, for a while it brings back nostalgic memories of what Resident Evil once was. But by the time you arrive in China, the campaign turns into a live action movie, as one QTE leads onto another, this happens without any end in sight, you eventually get to the point that you actually want the game to end, which is never good.

Each campaign is about 5-6 hours long, so there is plenty on offer, in many ways the game is just too big, although all three cross into one another I think the game would have been best served with just one long campaign instead of three. Bringing Leon and Chris into the same game seems to have been done to just bring them together, perhaps if they were both in the same campaign together, that might have been intriguing.  

Improvements include the fact you can now move and shoot at the same time, with so many enemies on screen at once, at times it is very helpful. The item system is also an improvement on the previous two games in the series, I liked the fact that your health meter appears as blocks and you can stock up on your inventory.

The graphics are decent enough but hardly push the 360 to its limit, comparing it to Max Payne 3 (which I was playing at the time, and did not complete) it does look very basic in the environmental detail. Enemy design is again good enough but hardly imaginative, aside from the mini bosses and main bosses the game lacks any real tension or sense of fear, the zombies and j'avo just seem like cannon fodder. Classic BOW's in the vein of the lickers and Hunters are missing and it is very evident. Files and documents are no longer in the main part of the game but as extras, which was a big mistake because they add depth to the story of the game, which this game lacks in abundance.

Despite it's flaws Resident Evil 6 is still a good game, one that fans and non-fans will appreciate, but it's still without doubt one of the weakest. It was with Resident Evil 3 that the old style fixed camera angles that the series began to feel dated and needed to freshen up. The same is for number 6, if there is another entry it will need to move the series in a different direction but still attain the essence of what a Resident Evil game is, a suspenseful survival horror that hooks you in from the first minute to the last, preferably with the light off. None of this can be said for Resident Evil 6  

Verdict-6/10

   

I have only held a gun once, and don't want to hold one again

I have only just managed to get time to write about the subject of guns, in light of the recent Sandy Hook massacre. As so many other commentators have already said about the tragedy of the event, it embodies everything that human wickedness and evil are capable of, and how fragile the human mind really is.The last moments of those (especially the young infants) that were killed is unbearable to even think about, the birthdays and weddings that were taken away from their futures is the cruelest any human can conflict on another. And I could never imagine what it must feel like for those who have cruelly lost loved ones in such a barbaric manner.

No doubt there will now be a debate about gun control laws in America, as Obama has already suggested, and quite rightly so. The thought of be able to buy armed fire arms and ammunition so easily (exposed so greatly by Michael Moore in 'Bowling for Columbine') in supermarkets really is hard to comprehend for me. Since the story broke numerous statistics have been thrown around, either way I can only come to the conclusion that there are far too many gun owners in America.

Will gun laws make any difference? I think in the long run it probably would. But no amount of gun laws will eradicate the horrific actions of our fellow man to commit the most heinous of crimes. The underlying issue is far more complex. And with the American culture so indebted to the second amendment and it's constitution, as well as American nature to be antagonistic towards any intrusion of the state, I'm not sure if anything will eventually change. There is also the question of mental health, which seems to be prevalent in many of the perpetrators of these crimes.

But to leave the tragic event behind, I will talk about my own experience of firing (numerous kinds) of guns. I have family in Texas and I went there for the first time in October 09. While there, on my own insistence I was able to use the guns that were privately owned by those who I was staying with. The firearms were a Glock 9 pistol, and an old assault rifle, our targeting practice were empty plastic bottles and a wooden board.

What was most surprising and shocking, was that each of the gun's felt much heavier in my hands than I expected. It felt peculiarly frightening holding something which gave me the power to hurt someone let alone kill them. I still remember the thunderous bang that gave way the first time I pulled the trigger of the Glock 9, and then there was the violent jolt in my arms and shoulders, the impact was certainly an experience I will never forget. With each passing shot I became more reluctant to pull the trigger, and did so only through curiosity and to save face.

In total I must have fired around ten shots with both guns included. But not long after the experience, it all left me cold and fearful of guns in general. Heaven forbid, unless it was a life and death situation I would never want to touch another gun again.

   

The Hobbit: An unexpected Journey- Review

A very good if underwhelming start to a new trilogy

The original Lord of the Rings trilogy was sublime in almost ever way. It defined the very reason why people should spend their money going to the cinema.

The Hobbit is another of those films which is best experienced in the auditorium of a large screen. Based on another Tolkein novel of the same name, the film is centred around a young Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), who had a reasonably minor role in the original trilogy.

Without giving too much away, I liked the fact that the film started moments before the 'Fellowship of the Ring' as an older Bilbo Baggins narrates the prologue to the film. The beginning sets the pace of the film rather nicely, with the introduction of the thirteen Dwarves, as well as Gandalf (Ian McKellen) as they all set out for the lonely Mountain, the home of the Dwarves before it was destroyed by the dragon Smaug.

The film has been cast perfectly, with Martin Freeman impressive as the film's lead, along with the presence of Gandalf again. Despite being a major part of the film, Thorin (Richard Armitage) is the only one of the thirteen Dwarves who really has a substantive role in the film. The fact that they all have weird names will not help either.

Their is also an impressive cameo by Gollum, while brief, although the scene is one of comedic relief, it is also one of the most important because it comes at a point when the film gradually gets darker. Which is also when the film is at it's most interesting.

Visually the film is impressive, overhead shots of the New Zealand landscape draw you into the film, and provide an immersible breakaway from the action. But on of the most disappointing things about the film is that the Orcs are now computer animated. There's nothing wrong with this because they look fine, and it's understandable because there aren't quite so many that appear on screen as the original trilogy. But there was something more intimidating and special about the prosthetic make-up of the Orcs in the original that really set them apart, and made them look so disgustingly antagonistic.

The action scenes are also impressive and well choreographed, if lacking the grand finesse of any in the original trilogy. The finale is particularly gripping however.

But the biggest drawback of The Hobbit is the running time, at two hours and forty five minutes, the film feels much longer than it actually is. The running time isn't the problem but the dull mid section of the film where we are introduced to a set of trolls and a character called Radagast, whose appearance may grate on some people.

The Hobbit, much like 'Fellowship of the Ring', has begun the series as an adventure, a prelude to much bigger things, just as the final scenes before the credits suggest.

Verdict- A very good and satisfactory entrance to a new story, if overstretched at times
3.5/5