Dragon Age 2 - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.

or Why Gaming Snobs Need to Calm the Hell Down.

I love Bioware games, yet it has taken me this long to play Dragon Age 2. It’s true that I was as outraged as anyone when EA announced the release of the game. “Dragon Age: Origins was your best selling game in a decade so you rush out a sequel that changes the core elements that brought people to the series in the first place?” Eventually I got used to the idea, even with all the pretentious ramblings about how Bioware had fallen hard and that the game ‘offers players no choice but to be gay’ because they thought the female companions were annoying. Yep, that really happened.

So yes, I have finished the game. I can be a little pompous, sure, but I only dislike something when I know I dislike it, not because I assume I will. So what are my thoughts? Dive into my first ‘The Good, The Bad, The Ugly’ review and find out.

Readers, meet Elizabeth Hawke.

The Good.

Story - A lot of the complaints surrounding the game are based on the fact that your party runs around maybe 20-25 locations the entire game. While this is undoubtedly a negative, the positive that results from it is a solid and compelling story that could not have been told in an epic tale like that of the Hero of Ferelden’s. The Champion is a Ferelden refugee, not some Grey Warden or prince, so the troubled yet safe streets are the only place where such a story can be set. Even when it is not at the forefront of the game, the trouble between the templars and mages of Kirkwall is omnipresent. Some of the events this leads to are absolutely thrilling, but what the plot can sometimes lack in style can be found in the human drama. Dragon Age 2 is a tale of prosecution, paranoia and greed. Whichever side you take, the tragedy of the situation rings through, and it is hard to forget that both sides have their positives and negatives. Though not as effortlessly told as other Bioware plots due to the claustrophobic setting, it still offers moments of greatness that the wider-scale premise of Origins lacked.

Characters – Dragon Age 2 is spent entirely in the island city of Kirkwall. As a result, characters are not so much developed as heroes fighting for a cause, but as humans struggling to live in a land rife with turmoil. Their flaws feel intrinsic rather than designed as plot points, and as such DA2 offers some of Bioware’s richest characters yet. Group chat is constant throughout the game as you travel around the sections of the city, the best of which bring out traits otherwise veiled by the years that pass between the three acts of the game. What is most exciting is the value of choice when it comes to companions, but more on that later. Supporting characters are strong, but many can easily be forgotten due to the fact that you interact with all of them within such limited confines. Unfortunately, many don’t get the send off they deserve (though it’s not as bad as KOTOR 2), not even the Champion, and as a result some plot points are left gaping. One companion didn’t even show up for me in the final battle for some reason. Nevertheless, Bioware has once again delivered compelling and relatable characters that make the game a pleasure to play. I have heard so many complaints from players that they didn’t like particular characters, and that the game is mediocre for this very reason. Ha! However, none of these complaints are quite as stupid as this one, where one moron says that Dragon Age 2 is a bad game because there’s a gay character and no ‘No Homosexuality’ checkbox in the options. http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/304/index/6661775&lf=8

Speaking of which, I was sixty hours in to Origins when the game decided that my Warden was gay and had Zevran come on to him. While it certainly did detract from the game for me – I’d spent sixty hours developing a character and the game had just taken over for me! – I felt neither offended nor betrayed like that dolt.

 Look, Zevran, you're a real nice guy...please don't kill me in my sleep.

Decisions – The consequence of decision is more important than ever in Dragon Age 2, and that’s saying a lot with Bioware’s history. It is hard not to let the intimate story and struggling characters implant beliefs in you, beliefs that can overcome a player’s considerations of party dynamics before making a decision that could result in a character leaving your party for good. There is a turning point in the third act that fuels the climax, and making the decision that results from it was the single hardest decision I’ve ever made in a game. When the majority of choices are made to define your character, it can stun a player when they reach a point where a decision must be made that will have a far great impact than crafting your character’s personality. There is a negative to the decision making in Dragon Age 2 though, which will be discussed later.

Gear – I will probably take the most criticism for this comment, but I really liked the fact that character’s clothing is pre-determined. There is not much worse than having a threatening or inspiring character marred by a strange assortment of armour just so they are effective in combat. Some costumes change as the game progresses, some stay the same, but the likes of Varric’s unbuttoned shirt and Sebastian’s Chantry armour define the characters much better than a chunky helmet on top of a mage’s dress. This is especially true here, where many items look exactly the same.

Cameos – Cameos are bittersweet in Dragon Age 2. Besides a familiar face most people seem to actually dislike from Dragon Age: Awakenings, as well as two support characters from Origins whose stories are never resolved, most cameos offer little but a tease to ties in future games. That doesn’t change the fact that I was extremely excited when teaming up with Grey Wardens in Lowtown. Beyond that there isn’t much to say. A certain character from Origins, who I had run into during a sidequest, aided my party in the final battle, but I don’t understand why they were even there. Nevertheless, these moments offer good value while they last, and short cameos are better than none at all, correct?

Fighting Mechanics – Though the demo left me feeling like I’d never get used to the fighting system in Dragon Age 2, it didn’t take me long to realise when playing the game proper that battles work exactly the same as they did in Origins. I have heard complaints that the game was made for consoles, and so the PC version (which I played) had a substandard version of the system. What a joke! If anything, the game flows better than Origins. Health and mana/stamina icons on the side of the quickbar keep things moving, so that pausing is more of a tactical option rather than an entirely necessary one. By mid-game I had my system down to the point where I was pausing only when something caused me to change my tactics (like blood-mages suddenly knocking out two of my companions in a couple of seconds), no matter what party members I had. This is definitely an improvement, even without the option of an isometric camera.

 Plus, it's as ridiculously bloody as ever.

Tech Tree – Glorious. Class skills such as lockpicking and DPS are now mapped to stat points, which would understandably annoy some hardcore-RPG fans, but makes screwing up a character’s function a lot harder. In Origins I had to stop my first playthrough at the Proving in Orzammar because my Grey Warden simply could not handle the final fight. It’s my fault for deciding I wanted a particular character and dismissing the effectiveness of them in a game. Stat points make it much easier to create the character you want without having to concern yourself with not being able to contend with enemies later in the game. Talents trees also help here. There’s nothing quite like starting out and instantly being able to determine what talents you wish your characters to have and how you will get them there. It’s simple but effective, without making spending skill points a shallow task.

See? Nice and simple.

Sound Design – I think I am safe in saying Bioware have hit a highpoint in sound design when it comes to Dragon Age 2. From a crackling fireball to the Florence & the Machine song that closes the game, sound offers value and variety where repetitive level design can’t. The voice acting is as strong as ever.

The Bad.

Difficulty – There is often complaint that the game is too easy on normal and too difficult on hard. This isn’t what I necessarily agree with, though it can be true for seasoned RPG players. The real problem with the difficulty though is that it is uneven. The act two boss is extremely hard (I almost changed difficulty settings just to get through it since there was nowhere to swap my healer in before the fight), especially since some players will have the option to duel them rather than charge in with an entire party, while the end fight (M, for those who have played it, after having to fight O anyway) didn’t cause me any trouble at all. In fact, I think there were one or two times when some unknown source healed my entire party, even though none of them had any less than 50% of their health. The good news is that if players want a challenge there are still some out there. Revenants are back; you just have to go looking for them, but unlike in Origins once you find them you must fight them.

Bugs - I played version 1.3 of the game, yet still faced a few bugs. Two were meaningless – for one I completed the quest before it appeared in my log and the other gave me a sidequest that wouldn’t update, hence I couldn’t finish it – but the other, a companion quest, annoyed me. The bug has existed since the first release of the game, and causes the final two cutscenes related to the quest to play before the quest is even made available. I only experienced one of them though, so I didn’t even get to see what the companion would say as a result of the quest being completed. This wasn’t helped by the fact that this third act companion quest should not have even happened, since a decision I made in the character’s second act quest meant that they did not have an important item which was key to the whole event.

Textures - Characters look great. Environments look good, just not in conversations where they tend to appear as flat and ugly. Equipment looks terrible. Swords were a garbled mess, clothing was anything but dynamic, and a few times item effects were blocky. It was enough that I never got over it, even though graphic quality is not a primary concern for me when I play a game.

 Look at that statue. Unforgivable.

The Ugly.

Pacing – While the story and characters are great in Dragon Age 2, the pacing is certainly not. It’s easy to forget who characters are, while some crucial characters don’t even make an appearance or receive a reference until late in the game. There’s a key moment that impacts the Champion personally near the end of act 2, but when it happened I had to force myself to care. It has no resounding value. The worst part though is that there are three story arcs in the game – the Deep Roads, the Qunari, and the feud between mages and templars – yet the most important of them receives the least attention. The first takes up a whole act, yet even the game gives up on it eventually, since in act 2 the impact is nothing more than a potential change of home base and a companion quest. The Qunari are something special, and their change of appearances certainly pairs well with their philosophies and brutality, but once it reaches its conclusion they are all but forgotten. The reason pacing can’t be considered bad, however, is because the sense of time does wonders for the relationships between all characters in the game. In Origins your companions were all together facing the same situations. They would tell you more about themselves as the game progressed, but what the player learned were revelations, not changes. Dragon Age 2 is different. The lives of companions and NPCs are impacted by elements other than the Champion’s presence, so there’s always a feeling of uncertainty, no matter how friendly a character may have seemed when you met them three years ago.

 The Qunari have had a facelift, and it looks good on them.

Taking Sides – This is my biggest gripe with the game. As you’re playing Dragon Age 2, you’ll feel like you need to take a side in the escalating conflict between mages and templars. Occasionally quests will require you to do so...and yet it never seems to make a difference. I played as a mage and I supported the mages (though not blood magic), yet I was often forced to fight mages regardless. I can’t comprehend why. Spoiler (highlight to read): Why was I forced to fight the head of the Circle of Mages, and why couldn't I try to stop him from using blood magic? By the end I felt there was the side of the mages, the side of the templars, and the side of the Champion. There are points like the major event near the end of the game where the side your Champion has taken prior in quests and with companions should have changed the way it plays out, yet it doesn’t. This was one of the killers of the game for me. The reason I don’t consider it objectively bad though is because not every player will experience the game like this. Hell, even the Champion in the announcement trailer was a blood mage. I imagine for most that things line up for them regardless, or that they see some of the tragic downfalls of characters as part of the dramatic tension. Yes, they are, but that doesn’t make me feel any less like my Champion was alienated.

 Even the Hawke featured in the announcement trailer was a blood mage. I don't get that.

Locations – While it’s understandable that the Champion’s story takes place over the same few locations in Kirkwall it does get a little stale. There’s little more Bioware could do though, short of closing off more locations between acts. I think that would have only made things worse. All the same, it never felt like a grind to retread old territory, and the map made travel time all but vanish.
Money – Why is it that in the games where money is virtually valueless that it’s easiest to obtain? I did not buy a single thing in Dragon Age 2 besides runes, though I certainly could have used the gold in Origins. Still, I certainly didn’t have as much as I did in Mass Effect.

And so the game ends. Varric’s tale is over and we see or hear nothing more about the Champion and their companions. What we do get though is a glimpse of what Dragon Age 3 will hold. Both the Hero of Ferelden and Grey Warden are missing, the Imperium , Ferelden and Orlais are preparing for war, and though it has been confirmed that the third game in the series will yet again see a new protagonist, there is little doubt that we will be seeing our past characters in action, at least in some form. Of course the Grey Warden in Origins never spoke, but the way Hawke was designed in Dragon Age 2 means that from the chosen dialogue options the Champion could certainly hold a conversation without player-aid in which their personality would, at least, closely match what we’d expect. It shall be interesting to see.

 I hope he is the one telling the story of Dragon Age 3 too. Varric kicks ass.

So is the game good? Certainly. Is it great? There are moments of greatness in Dragon Age 2, definitely, but I don’t believe it’s quite what any of us had hoped for. The ending is disappointing, but so was the ending for Dragon Age: Origins. There were so many complaints (http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-ii is a good place to start) but most of them seem to be from buffoons who haven’t even played the game. They just want to complain that what the game offers is not what they wanted. Gamers are the most fickle people around, though I don’t disagree with every issue brought up. On a side note, the fact that people suggest gamers play Neverwinter Nights 2 instead is ridiculous. I found that game clunky and the camera impossible to control.

I recommend giving it a try. There's no risk in it, so long as you go in knowing what you're getting is not Dragon Age: Origins 2.

What I would have done better: Oh, EA, you screwed up big time. You know how all the whining is stopped before it is even begins? A simple name change. Calling this Dragon Age: Bloodlines or Dragon Age: Annulment, something like that, and following it up with a more expansive, true-to-form sequel entitled Dragon Age 2 means people know this as a game related to but not directly connected with Dragon Age: Origins. That way they don’t complain when you change everything.

Edit: Thought I'd add this for those interested in seeing just how fast battle in Dragon Age 2 is compared to Dragon Age: Origins.

 
Note that Morrigan has been killed by the dwarf to the left there who holds a melee weapon. Look how far away I took her in an attempt to block, only to have it fail! This never once happened in Dragon Age 2. Also notice her head gear and think back to my point about gear. (She's got the axe and shield because that battle ran so long her mana ran out. I did not play with Morrigan using an axe and shield.)

Due Date - We're Well Past It.

Leave your comfort zone, and expect a sour aftertaste.

American comedies can be hard to watch. With these films there may be some clever writing and good performances, but more likely pratfalls, stupid humour and bodily functions. Although Due Date’s director had success due to the former with The Hangover, this film is more like his more his films steeped in the latter, like Old School and Starsky & Hutch.

A run in with amateur actor Ethan Tremblay (Zach Galifianakis – The Hangover) sees soon-to-be-father Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr. – Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang) kicked off his flight home and banned from the friendly skies. Left without his wallet and luggage, he is forced to hitch a ride with Ethan in order to make it back to LA for the birth of his child.*

*Read: An insufferable, socially retarded Ethan Tremblay (Zach Galifianakis – The Hangover) spends what feels like an eternity on a road trip with violent, child beating asshole Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr. – Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang) in which the two vie to deliver the least funny line in a film that is anything but humorous.

I don’t know who to hate more. Ethan is a clichéd comedy-moron who isn’t as goofy as he is embarrassing to watch. Peter’s constant reminders for him to go to the bathroom before getting back in the car aren’t even slightly funny the first time, and the sub-plot that focuses on the scattering of his father’s ashes does little more than pad a film and result in a single joke that can be seen coming from its inception. 

 Ah, now I understand why he's not funny.

Then there’s Peter, or should I say Robert Downey Jr.? The man is a great actor but he’s spent way too long playing smug, well-to-do characters. Though it is easy to be empathetic early on for this man, so desperate is he to go home and be with his wife when she gives birth, these feelings soon dissipate when he punches a young boy in the stomach. 

Peter Highman would make a good father.

The fact that he even gets in the car with Ethan is the least believable part in this film. If any of us met a guy like Ethan, we’d assume he was psychotic and stay as far away from him as possible. After all he has been through, Peter is way too quick to jump into the passenger seat.

The film tries really hard to be both humorous and dramatic, yet fails undeniably at both. It tries hard to instil moments of tension between the characters here and there that are more than just the quirky events you’d expect in such a film, but most fade away within a minute of being revealed.  This is especially evident just before the film’s climax in a scene atop the Grand Canyon (which references a much, much better film) where Ethan’s true lunacy is revealed. In the end it does nothing but remind us how reprehensible these characters are.

This is a film to be avoided, even if you tend to have faith in the cast and crew behind it. I watched Due Date solely on the belief that Downey Jr. can make anything enjoyable. He certainly proved me wrong here. 

P.S. Sorry it's been so long since my last review. It's been a crazy year.

The Six Best Albums of 2010

I'm not going to spend too much time writing an introduction to this list. Suffice it to say that this contrasts highly with any lists I constructed in 2009, whether I was aware of the bands or not. This is due to a couple of reasons:

- Soundwave Festival. From blatant recycling across the lineup in 2009 to a group of bands I had no interest or knowledge of in 2010, I realised that the only thing that remained appealing to me about Soundwave Festival were the friends I had made through it. Hence I started looking at the lineups of other festivals, and many of these albums came to me as a result of this.

- The generosity of Dylan in exposing people to every album he thinks they will enjoy or will allow them to stretch their taste. 

- Seeing a few bands I really like perform mediocre gigs.

And here...we...go:

1. Ef - Mourning Golden Morning

The lighting of the torch at the 2030 Olympics in Sweden was a little surreal.

Swedish band Ef's third album was about as illusive as information on the band itself, which is rather remarkable. Mourning Golden Morning's sound is as diverse as it is recognisable, with hints of greats such as Explosions in the Sky, Mogwai, The Appleseed Cast and Eluvium left resonating in the deeply emotional and seemless folds that define every track. The ability to pick every reference eventually works against the album, however, and after a few listens you will return to these better bands. Don't let this turn you off it though. While Mourning Golden Morning lasts, and it does in doses, it is a sensational experience worthy of your time. 

What I would have done better: Less links to music listeners will be going back to a week after first giving this a spin.

5. Jonsi - Go

Artwork inspired from a deleted scene in Zatoichi where Jonsi falls victim to the title character.

It's easy to eternally associate a band's frontman with everything the band offers us, and this is especially so with the foreign and ethereal music by Icelandic legends Sigur Ros. And while Jonsi's debut away from Sigur Ros, Riceboy Sleeps, definitely took a step away from the expected sound thanks to its folky, atmospheric tones Go offers us a more familiar sound with added assets that truly define Jonsi's step away from the band that first brought him to our attention. If you think of Sigur Ros as the film Ikiru - dark, and simplistic yet striking - then Jonsi is the film Hero - bright, bold and beautiful in its complexity and depth. The range of instruments and styles (I never thought I'd find myself jumping up and down with a smile on my face to a song written by this guy) on every track results in the truly unique experience everyone expected with this album.

What I would have done better: Removed that Ikiru/Hero comparison. I know it's pretentious, but that is truly the way I see it, ok? Jeez.

4. Beach House - Teen Dream

 

You think the artwork is subtle? Wait until you hear the songs.

Bloody hell, this album is repetitive! So why is it so damn addictive? The more you listen the more you will realise that Teen Dream isn't repetitive, it's simple. But in being simple Victoria Legrand and Alex Scully have created such a subtle yet resonant album that embeds itself into your mind like you wouldn't expect. Tracks like Norway and Lover of Mine are deceptively vivid, and what may sound like melancholy opens up to profound beauty that will enrapture you with every listen.

What I would have done better: Some more diversity would have been nice. Everytime I play Teen Dream for people they inevitably make a comment that every song sounds the same.

3. Blonde Redhead - Penny Sparkle

Open up, open up some happiness.

Here is a band from the days when shoegaze was on it's way out and Elizabeth Fraser was still revered as the voice of God. Here is a band that could easily be called the best on its label, even one which releases such treasures as Ariel Pink, Bon Iver and The National. When a band has released eight albums I think you stop debating which is their best, but still my attraction to this album was immediate and severe. To call it a monument to my music gods is dismissing the fact that Penny Sparkle is not only a breath of fresh air but a fun album that can appeal to many tastes. Even if you don't get nostalgic for the shoegaze and dream pop of the 1990's like I do this is worth a few listens.

What I would have done better: Guest vocals! This album begs for it, especially on some of the outstanding tracks such as My Plants Are Dead.

2. Menomena - Mines

 Back on Earth anything that even resembled the Na'vi was met with resentment.

It's been a long time since I've listened to an album featuring tracks that feel so subtly interwoven that it's like you're watching a film and can't wait to see how everything develops. I got that feeling from Mines. Beyond that it is hard to explain why it is my second favourite album of the year. Everything works so well, from the basic acoustic guitar rifts, to the heartfelt but often scathing lyrics, and Danny Seim's crackling voice. This is a great indie chill-out album worthy of your attention.

What I would have done better: Sometimes I just wish Menomena would play something a little heavier. I think they'd be good at it.

1. Los Campesinos! Romance is Boring

I don't really get this. I don't care.

Wow. Not only is this my favourite album of 2010, but my favourite album of all time. Welsh band Los Campesinos! deliver on all fronts like every indie kid with an acoustic guitar wish they could. There are so many features to a single song: catchiness, complexity, brilliant vocal combinations, witty and intelligent lyrics, and overall the feeling that you're listening to a band of equally talented and respected musicians, not just a vocalist with backing instruments. It's hard not to just go fanboy on this, but Romance is Boring was the only album I listened to in my car for months and months. No other album I listened to this year even compared, and that's why every time you pass me in my car you'll see me singing out 

"Please just let me be the one who keeps track of the freckles and the moles on your back!"

The Six Most Disappointing Albums of 2010

I listened to more albums in 2010 than I ever have thanks mostly to the recommendations of friends and a few significant changes in my overall taste. As I write this though I wonder if my change in taste is a result of the disappointment the next six releases brought. Though none of these are actually bad releases - unlike with films I usually don't make big risks with music I expect to be crap - there were definitive elements in all that left me wishing I was listening to something else.

6. Arcade Fire - The Suburbs

Ready to Start? I was hoping you'd just give up now. (Kidding, Kidding.)

Where do you think you're going? Hear me out! The Suburbs is not on this list because it reached number one on the Billboard Top 200, nor because it was a bad album. The Suburbs is the sixth most disappointing album of the year because every song makes 'No Cars Go' sound dark. It was the distinct mood and varying style that Arcade Fire harnessed that made their first two albums masterpieces, so what was the point of making a concept album that will only limit the genius these men and women have displayed in the past? Eventually the band was going to disappoint at least one of their fans, and it was probably going to be me. Ask anyone who has had a conversation with me about music. The album grows on me more and more with every listen though, so will it retain its position for long? Well yes, of course.

What I would have changed: Forget the concept album basis. You want to make songs about the suburbs? Write them like the four Neighbourhood songs on Funeral. Neighbourhood #1 was nothing short of a godsend.

5. Omni - Minus the Bear

Omni: the Latin word for 'all'. Ironic.

This choice would be higher on the list if I didn't actually find it appealing for the first few months after release. Hell, I even listened to it in my car. But where The Suburbs grows on me with each listen I lose interest in Omni every time I recall something the album is obviously lacking which the band has shown works time and time again previously. Minus the Bear are one of my favourite bands for several reasons: a dancy, addictive math-rock beat with strong poetic and thematic lyrics, as well as the sensual vocals of Jake Snider. All of these things were abandoned on this album, and I can tell you why. Omni is a record released by a band who are playing more festivals and larger shows. All previous albums and EPs have an intimate, exciting atmosphere which is lost to all but the biggest fans in a crowded and buzzing location. The song 'Into the Mirror' is the album's only redeeming feature in my ears now, featuring a sliver of the heart that drew people to Minus the Bear in the first place thanks to guest vocals by Rachel Flotard of Visqueen. To anyone who wants to check out Minus the Bear: start with any album but this one. Please.

What I would have done better: It's simple. They should have kept with the style they are loved for. Songs about sex and passionate atmosphere are what Minus the Bear were born to do.

4. Band of Horses - Infinite Arms

Omni? Infinite Arms? Maybe it's these titles that are making me expect too much from these albums.

You either love or hate Band of Horses' southern-rock/folk style. To you it's probably relaxing or monotonous. Well Infinite Arms breaks the mold...by being an exaccerbated example of why this is. The result? I have not been able to get into Infinite Arms in the slightest. What's interesting is that the album was Grammy nominated, and their most commercially successful album yet, so surely there must be some appealing factor that I'm missing, right? Personally, I think Band of Horses have gone down the same road with Infinite Arms as former member Mat Brooke has with Grand Archive's ultimately boring release 'Keep in Mind Frankenstein'. Whether it's good music or not it is completely forgettable, which is not what I felt about their first two albums. I assume a lot of fans will dispute my choice here, but it's on the list because quite a while after I purchased it I still found myself asking whether I'd actually listened to it yet or not. It took too long to remember I had.

What I would have done better: Change it up a little bit more. This relates to every album they've released. I know they can do it, but why haven't they?

3. Gaslight Anthem - American Slang

I know some American slang that relates to how I felt after listening to this: underwhelmed.

Another choice that isn't going to sit well with a lot of people, American Slang sees Gaslight Anthem shift from their punk origins to a more blues-inspired theme. While there are standout songs - The Diamond Church Street Choir being the best of them - overall it doesn't quite work for me. Gaslight Anthem's appeal can be best explained via the distinction on their first album, Sink or Swim, between punk-heavy songs and folky tunes. It was a perfect blend that inspired images of The Boss and other great artists, but that flavour is missing on American Slang. I don't listen to it very much at all, where Sink or Swim and The '59 Sound are still on heavy rotation. This felt like the obvious path for Gaslight Anthem, but the result was rather underwhelming.

What I would have changed: The boys were bound to release such a 'bluesy' album eventually, but such a radical shift was uncalled for.

2. Lydia - Assailants

I don't think I'm wrong when I say that scavenger on the cover is meant to be Universal Records.

Lydia were a perfect example of why little bands don't suit big labels. This December, It's One More Then I'm Free was a phenomenal debut featuring production value long forgotten thanks to the loudness war, and Illuminate was heartfelt, catchy and overall an exciting evolution for the band. Then they were signed to Universal. First the band's female presence (and voice) Mindy White left, followed shortly by the departure of guitarist Steve McGraw. When they finally released this long anticipated album...it really didn't add up to any more than Illuminate b-sides. The album was exceptionally short and it was clear the band had lost their passion thanks to label interference. I can't blame them, and I look forward to what all band members are set to release in the future, but this was still an exceptional disappointment.

What I would have done better: I can't blame them for moving on to Universal Records, but I wish they hadn't. 

1. Wintersleep - New Inheritors

I know I sure inherited discontent for the band after this forgettable album.

This mediocre, repetitive, uninspired release came as such a shock that I forgot it existed after my first listen for close to six months. It insulted my very soul. 2007's Welcome to the Night Sky is an awe-inspiring album, and due to its varied style, meticulous production value and strong lyrics it is one of my favourite and most listened to records ever. The main problem is that every song here sounds the same, and in a way that is nothing short of infuriating thanks to short verses leading on to choruses that are usually formed by having the band sing the name of the song again and again. When Wintersleep made the transition from their intimate, whispered sound in 'untitled' to the broader and more complex songs of Welcome to the Night Sky a lot of fans became hostile and said the band were taking a wrong turn. I think they predicted New Inheritors. From this point on I'll just pretend the album doesn't exist, and instead start hoping that the inevitable failure of this record doesn't mean they won't release a follow up. I am disappointed.

What I would have done better: Welcome to the Night Sky pt.2. The band showed they didn't need traditional structure or a specfic sound to create a fantastic album, so why does New Inheritors exist?

Last year wasn't all bad, however. Check in over the next couple of days for a list of the six albums of 2010 that are on high repeat at my place.

Back to the Future: Why New Technology is Sending Us Backwards - Part One

Note: This is an article written in all seriousness. If you're just here for the entertainment please continue scrolling down the page, as I promise it gets better than this. If you're in it for the long run though, know that this blog will be separated into four parts: Blu-ray, digital distribution, region coding, and my take on the industry itself. Enjoy.

We're going backwards. No, that's not entirely true. What we're doing is getting cheap and lazy. The average consumer would save a few dollars and forgo quality (or just steal it; you save quite a few dollars there) while the industry complains about piracy without offering viable alternatives to over-priced physical content. The move from VHS to DVD revolutionised the home entertainment sector in a way more profound than is immediately obvious, cleaving the industry in two and rewriting the guidelines for film marketing while offering quality products worth every cent.

Now we have blu-ray...and on a user's end there's still very little to get excited about. High Definition televisions have sold exponentially well, especially with Australia's current move into the digital domain, while blu-ray itself has had very limited success. There are various reasons for this, but I'll just tell you the most important:

- Please note I have a Samsung Series 5 B550K LCD Television, often considered one of the best in its range for HD content of all kinds. -

1) Transfers.

One of these is House of Flying Daggers on blu-ray. The other is House of Flying Daggers at a quality lower than that used for DVD. Without the headings would you spot the difference?

I don't read reviews of films anymore. I read the reviews for the blu-ray discs themselves. Why? Distributors seem to be under the impression that aspect ratio and data size are the only reason people buy blu-ray, so they use any old source footage to blow up in order to fit the screen and as much of the disc as possible. The result is big images looking bad. Here are a few examples from my limited blu-ray library:

Generation Kill

Even at this size you can see the noise and washed out colour. I still linked to the 1080 image, if you'd like to click.

I first watched this online via a 17" monitor of limited capability that had glare issues thanks to three different light sources in the room. Still, I could make out the night scenes better than I could on my TV. The problem is that at regular contrast levels it's too dark to make anything out, and by raising the contrast the image creates a lot of noise, which is extremely distracting. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, you might as well buy the DVD version.

The Wrestler

 This was their chance to impress. They failed.

Just because this was one of Hopscotch's first blu-rays doesn't give them an excuse to release The Wrestler in this condition. You end up paying more for less, with an unimpressive image and less special features than the cheapest DVD option.

Ran

 Did someone leave the sprinkler on stage left?

This was the biggest disappointment of all my blu-rays, and is why I have all but stopped purchasing them and now make a point of reviewing before buying. Ran was released by StudioCanal, a distribution company of moderate esteem. What we get, however, is a transfer that looks worse than the DVD version. Most reviews suggest otherwise, but I am a big Kurosawa fan, and when I see banding in the best of his colour films I feel cheated. 

Even some of the best releases have their problems, depending on their source. Here is a fantastic link to a site that explains why by down-upgrade tests which compare the source quality with the full-scale quality. You'll be surprised to note how many (including a lot of popular films) have a quality similar to or less than a regular DVD. The Playstation 3 has a 1080p upscaler. If you have the console you might as well buy the DVD in a lot of cases, since pixel-for-pixel you are getting the same image.

2) Blu-ray quality is directly compatible with TV quality.

Of course this is the case with every medium, but with high definition television the distinction is more important than ever. Every television is unique, they often require a careful application of settings to make a good picture great, and many consumers are still confused by digital terminology. There's not much else to say about this, as a movie lover is going to want to buy the best anyway, but the question is why anybody else would bother with an upgrade if there's no benefit. 

3) Cost.

A film has been out for fifty years. It's $12 on DVD. Finally it gets released on blu-ray...for full price. Nothing of broad interest has been changed; it can't be after so long, especially if it hasn't been perfectly archived. Full price is a relative term too. If one film was released by two distribution companies they would inevitably have different costs, since each group decides the costing range of their catalogue. A blu-ray from Fox averages out to be the most expensive. That's something I'll go more into next time, however.

4) It's not technology for the average home.

Letterboxing is more prevalent than ever. Why? More and more films are being shot at aspect ratios larger than a television can handle. The only way blu-ray producers can fit the images onto a screen is by letterboxinggoing to consider this a technological advancement. Not to mention the fact that the colour range of every blu-ray needs to be down-converted before it can be encoded, hence any film can have contrast or colour banding issues that can be easily amplified if played on a lower-mid to low-end television. The earlier blu-rays were often released with lossless audio since there was such an amount of space on the disc. Now they don't. In fact, stereo isn't even supported much any more. Too bad if you can't afford/fit eight speakers into your room.

5) Digital Rights Management.

DRM has been a plague for just over a decade now, often being used by companies to steal information and driving people to piracy in order to get working copies of products. Thanks to the tyranny of Fox (what do you know?) blu-rays support a DRM named BD+, which restricts the backup of discs for personal use. BD+ has resulted in many tech-heads refusing to support blu-ray, as the discs themselves are already extremely easy to damage due to thin layers and a small aperture meaning even minimal error can cause massive problems.

More often than not when we buy a blu-ray we're purchasing the exact same product on a new medium. The problem is that the medium is more advanced than the technology, which usually results in disappointment if you're like me and want to see some of your favourites revitalised or miss out on a visually impressive film at the cinemas. Rather than focusing on releasing quality, viable products, distributors are now relying on gimmicks to sell units. One popular example is the blu-ray/DVD/digital download boxset. Not only does this raise production costs but also nullifies the primary reason why we now buy blu-rays instead of HD DVD - capacity. Then there's the release of multiple versions of the same film, something that DVD buyers have complained about for years. When these don't result in sales stores are dropping prices much quicker than any time during the DVD's history (I've seen some brilliant titles on blu-ray that are cheaper than I've ever seen them on DVD, but I don't know the quality/know the quality is poor so I don't buy it).

Blu-ray will be the last physical distribution method of its kind, there is little doubt. Not because it has failed; after all, it still has great potential, but because its arch-rival grows more attractive and available by the day. But just how soon will it meet its demise? Check back soon for part two of this series of articles as we look at the rise of digital distribution.

A Quantum of Solace; it's what you'll have for Ian Fleming and Albert R. Broccoli after seeing this

Bond and Camille in search of Quantum of Solace's plot.

Why does everything have to be so gritty and epic these days? Some would be surprised to hear me say this, but there's nothing wrong with having fun with a film. The Bourne Saga wasn't so brilliant that every action film has to try and emulate it anyway.This is especially the case for the Bond series, one of the largest franchises in movie history. 

The series' appeal can be broken into three sections:

1. Real stunts.

No pixels were harmed in the making of this film.

2. A larger than life hero fighting larger than life villains.

The reason the Korean War ended in a stalemate? They fought with guns instead of hats.

3. Humour that transcended cheesiness.

Yeah...not what I meant.

Then MGM and EON Entertainment decided to reboot the series to make it, well, what every other action film wanted to be. Gone were the gadgets, the tropes and the fun characters. In was a blonde Bond (why did people make such a big deal out of this?) to take the series 'back to its roots' with a remake of the first ever Bond film adapted from the first ever Bond novel - Casino Royale. The interesting thing is that it worked. The action, the vistas, the pacing, it was marvellous. Daniel Craig proved he was worthy of playing this iconic character, even if he couldn't deliver a one-liner without sounding embarrassed. 

Two years later out came Quantum of Solace, the first literal sequel in the franchise's history. And what did we get?

1. CGI injected, ADD addled action scenes.

Look at that. Look at it. Do you want to spend your money to go to the cinemas in order to see this? Do you even care about what's happening here?

The action in this film is simply meaningless. The movie sets it up for about twenty seconds, often with an amateur effect like cutting out the sound or going into slow motion, and then Bond runs in and kills his opponents so quickly and effectively - all without taking a single punch - you'll wonder if director Marc Forster only shot these sequences because he felt obliged. The worst fight is certainly a scene where Bond confronts villain Dominic Greene, only to run away in a chase scene intercut with shots of a Puccini opera. I actually laughed aloud.

2. The characters are bland and uninspired.

This is the main henchman in the film. His name is Elvis. His gimmick is that in the third act he has a neck brace.

The only character who gets any consideration from the script is Bond. His motive is vengeance for the death of Vesper in Casino Royale. Revenge is the cliche motivation of every action hero these days, but at least he has motivation. Most characters, including Bond girl Camille and CIA agent Felix just waste space on the screen, and it's up to other characters to drop a line or two close to the end of the film in order to give them any value. The characters who do have motivation, however, don't get the screen time to make us care. The biggest disappointment is certainly the incredible French actor Mathieu Amalric's Dominic Greene though. He gives us nothing, and his wicked scheme - to take control of 60% of Bolivia's water - is worse than the Die Another Day theme song.

3. The film is played straight and without purpose.

Her name is Strawberry Fields. We don't find that out until THE CLOSING CREDITS!

Daniel Craig still sucks at one-liners. That isn't the real issue though. The issue is that Quantum of Solace is a direct sequel to Casino Royale, but beyond minute references the only real link is the last two minutes of the film. Before that we don't get much but sweeping shots of a CGI Bolivian desert. So not only is this film played straight, but everything else that is so enjoyable about Bond films - a dangerous enemy, grand locations, and a simply awesome ending - are forgotten too. 

The film makes slight reference to earlier Bond film License to Kill by featuring a subplot where M is trying to apprehend Bond after fearing that he's going rogue. The reason she thinks this is the case is that she has been told Bond is responsible for killing basically everyone who winds up dead in the film. This is not true, and even though M keeps saying that she trusts Bond completely he never corrects her! If he did the film could have been cut in half. Then you could have removed the other half too, because in trying to set up the idea of a massive evil organisation behind the scenes of these new 007 films it neither contributes nor resolves anything. In fact, I would go as far as to say all it does is waste film.

Unless MGM wants to go bankrupt again the new Bond film that was recently announced better reboot the reboot. Sure, they could close the storyline they set up at the close of Casino Royale, but after this film I don't think anybody would care. Give us Jaws, Xenia Onatopp or Nik Nak any day.

Train Wreck - The Worst Song of 2010

 Note: this is based on when the songs enter the charts. That's the reason for my hatred, after all.

I hate mainstream music. Well, ok, not mainstream music per se, but definitely the songs that generally stain the Billboard Top 100. The music itself is nothing but a marketing tool, and a band's status in the music industry has less value than their celebrity status as individuals.

There has been a lot of terrible music released in 2010; so much so that I would go as far as to say it is one of the worst years for popular music ever (even if Boom Boom Pow was released in 2009). Fly Like a G6 is a good example of this. Not only is this song about nothing (go do your research people, the band said it themselves), but it has introduced such moronic terms as 'getting slizzard' into the international colloquial dictionary. Then there's Chris Brown's Deuces, a song about how he was lampooned because a certain woman didn't know how to keep her mouth shut. Nevertheless it was received well. And let's not go into everything that is wrong with Whip My Hair.

Deuce. Douche.

But none of these qualify as the worst song of 2010. Why? Because as terrible as they are, they're still just as hollow as everything else. It takes something special to be considered the worst song, and that something is the noise created when a bland ukulele riff meets lyrics so horrendous that nearly every line breaks something in my brain every time I hear it. This song is the 8th most downloaded song in history, and a video featuring nothing but the lyrics has over 30 million views and comments where people actually admit to thinking that this is a well written song. I am, of course, talking about Train's Hey, Soul Sister.

Doesn't this face just scream "I know I wrote a shit song but goddamn will the morons of the world still lap this up!"?

Train are one of those bands that have managed to stay relevant because they've just followed the trends rather than setting them, and in doing so can be forgotten for years before coming back to once again sound like everyone else. Although they're a bit late (and a little old) to the mid-tempo pop 'cool guy/s who probably surf and have limited guitar skills' trend it's, once again, the lyrics that make this the worst song of 2010. So I'll let them do the talking.

"Hey, hey, hey" Yep, that's how the song starts. This is one of those elements that annoy me in any song whether I like the band or not; one word/noise filler. If this was just at the start of the song I wouldn't have mentioned it, but since it is repeated several times it's fair game.

"Your lipstick stains on the front lobe of my left side brains." The first true line of the song, and certainly one of the worst. These are the words of someone who has no idea what he is talking about. Let's say we give Pat Monahan a break and guess he's talking about the emotional impact the girl has rather than the fact the plural makes it sound like he has multiple, smaller than average brains. Well that's too bad, because the emotional core of the brain is in the centre. What she just kissed is your speech section. And that's pretty stupid.

"I knew I wouldn't forget you, and so I went and let you blow my mind." Wanted: a meaning for this line.

"Your sweet moonbeam..." So...wait...he's singing about the moon? For those of you playing at home read every line from now on as if that was the case, while I'll just assume this is Pat spewing random noise to rhyme with dream. 

Unless he meant something like this. Then I'm ok with it.

"I know when we collided, you're the one I have decided who's one of my kind." Sounds like this verse was meant to be two lines longer, but because they couldn't fit them in they just took the essence of three lines and crammed them into one. Remember logic was dismissed before this song even started.

"Hey, Soul Sister, ain't that Mr. Mister on the radio, stereo? The way you move ain't fair, y'know." We're up to the chorus and...Mr. Mister? MR. MISTER! What the hell are you talking about? This is Mr. Mister. She is dancing to that? I would have suffered him rhyming sister with Sister2Sister in this case, because at least that makes sense! Also "radio, stereo"? That line is about as redundant as Train themselves.

"Just in time, I'm glad you have a one-track mind like me." What? With no context or meaning, this line is just noise.

"You gave my life direction, a game show love connection we can't deny." Love Connection hey? Witty reference. Too bad the only thing shallower than a game show like Love Connection is reality TV. Pat can at least be glad it's not a Big Brother love connection.

This is a Big Brother love connection.

"I'm so obsessed; my heart is bound to beat right out my untrimmed chest." A love song about Pat Monahan's chest hair, ladies and gentlemen! Swoon! Swoooooooooooooon!

Hence why he makes this face in every photo. This is the face of a man that thinks he is so loved that he can make money for singing about his chest hair. And you know what? The bastard is right.

"...like a virgin, you're Madonna..."

And here it is, folks. The worst line in this song also happens to be not only the last line I can criticise but what gave this song so many 'fail points' towards becoming the worst song of the year.

"So gangsta, I'm so thug..."

Now look at this photo. Look at it.

Because there's nothing more gangsta than a white man in his early forties singing along to a ukulele outside a coffee shop. Besides Snoop Dogg leading a gummy bear army in a fantastic lolly kingdom. But we'll never see that-

Never mind.