Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Xbox 360: Alan Wake

Developed by Remedy Entertainment, "Alan Wake" is the newest addition to survival horror video games and is Xbox 360 exclusive. If you don't own a Xbox, I apologize that you will not be able to play this masterful game. Because, on every front, "Alan Wake" is a very, very good video game.



Summary:
The player controls Alan Wake, a writer with a serious lack of inspiration. In order to get away from it all, Alan and his wife, Alice, seek out a vacation spot called Bright Falls----a small, seemingly New England town, that runs off of gossip and the local radio station. However, Alan is quickly entangled in lies and inconsistencies, and his wife disappears. Along the way to finding her, Alan begins to find pages to a manuscript with his name on it that he hasn't written yet, and the pages predict the events about to happen.

The game is divided like a television series, in that each "episode" of the game ends with a cliff-hanger, and the next begins with a "Previously on Alan Wake" introduction. There are six episodes that make up the game, and should last around 10 hours if you aren't the kind of person who collects all the manuscript pages and coffee thermoses.

Review (Pros): The biggest issue that I usually have with video games is the control scheme. A game could have perfect scripting, scenery, transitions, voice acting (which this game does), but controls are usually a problem. This is not the case for "Alan Wake." Building upon the over-the-shoulder look utilized by Resident Evil titles and "Dead Space," Remedy perfects the scenario. Alan carries a flashlight that acts as a great, natural reticule for enemy-blasting. In fact, all enemies have to first be "burnt" with a flashlight before bullets can kill them, which is both hectic and fun.

Overall, the game is entirely creepy----the atmosphere, characters, and plot all drive this mood home throughout the experience. Not only do people attack you, but the Darkness that Alan battles can also harness inanimate objects (like train carts) to hurl at you. As a player, you are constantly on your toes. However, you also have a pretty good idea when things are about to attack you. The screen tends to become blurry or a quick cut scene reveals the ambush. This helps the player from being completely ambushed.

Lastly, the story is absolutely fantastic. People can watch you play and be just as sucked in as the gamer----trust me, it happened. It works just like a suspense series on television, providing the viewer with only enough idea of what's going on to get to the end.



My only problem with "Alan Wake" revolves around the fact that it offers very little replay value or reason to play on a higher difficulty. I wish that Remedy had used an ending system, much like that of "Dead Space," in which you have to beat the game a certain number of times to unlock the "true" ending. The only reason to play "Alan Wake" again (instead of jumping on the "Red Dead Redemption" bandwagon) is to unlock manuscript pages that can only be found in Nightmare mode. I've also been told that beating the game on the highest difficulty unlocks another, higher difficulty. I'm not sure if that rumor is true, but it still doesn't entice me.

If you have 60 bucks, I fully recommend "Alan Wake" because of its atmosphere, flawless control scheme, and remarkable story-telling. But if you want your money to last, stick with RDR for some seriously long game play.

In conclusion:
"Alan Wake"
4.5 out of 5

Source of image: Wikipedia

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Movie: Robin Hood

It saddens me that the first response I have heard about this movie is: "It wasn't what I expected." And that's because these people neglected to notice that the film's tagline specifically calls it the untold story; the trailer states "The story behind the legend," "the hero behind the outlaw"----both of which imply a prequel. Not to mention, the beginning of the movie pretty much states in black and white that what you are about to see is the becoming of Robin Hood, not the man as he steals from the rich, but the man before he was outlawed.

This is the most important part to watching this movie. This movie is a prequel. I was severely disappointed that even Movie Bob didn't seem to grasp this; his entire review revolved around the idea that the film was missing the point. But I think a lot of people were the ones missing the point, not the movie.

That being said, I am a huge fan of Ridley Scott. Gladiator is one of my favorite movies (as it should be for everyone), and I really loved Kingdom of Heaven. As stated earlier, Robin Hood follows Robin Longstride as he rises from his lowly position in Lionheart's infantry to the savior of England. That's all I can give you about the plot. I hate spoilers, and I hate summarizing.

Russell Crowe is as good as ever. I don't think he will ever be bad in a movie. Cate Blanchett plays a role (unusual for her) as a relatively weak female, but still manages to keep her head above the surface. The script is very good, the supporting cast is very good, the direction is very good. There aren't very many logistical flaws in this movie.

But I won't say it is the most amazing piece of film ever. It isn't life-changing or ground-breaking. It relies on the same foundations that Scott employs in each of his films; it doesn't change any formulas or try anything new. I doesn't reinvent the wheel, but instead, it borrows and lifts similar aspects of this genre from all over the place. But the movie is simply entertainment. And I have to say, I appreciate that. I appreciate it a hell of a lot more after seeing A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Overall, this movie is worth the price of admission. However, I don't think you need to see it in theaters to enjoy it. It is also a family movie, as there is little actual gore (though a lot of violence) and no nudity or graphic, sexual scenes. And there's quite a bit of comedy, too. It is just good, but you'll have to see for yourself.

And remember, please, the film is a prequel.

In conclusion:
"Robin Hood"
4 out of 5

Source: IMDb.com

Movie: Nightmare on Elm Street

Once upon a time, in the land of 1984, there was a great idea that sprung from the mind of Wes Craven. A Nightmare on Elm Street was brilliant and fresh (originality that Hollywood is seriously lacking today). Freddy Kruger does not kill you by walking behind you, trudging with weapon in plain sight as bystanders seriously neglect the situation. No, he kills you while you sleep. And not in the nice way.

It is a brilliant and terrifying idea, really. To think that the one thing you need to live will kill you is sadistic and perfect for smart horror. Now, what could ruin such a great idea and terrific movie, you ask? How about if there was a remake in 2010 in which Freddy was a child-molesting gardener?

Yes, yes. That could do it.



Enter Samuel Bayer's A Nightmare on Elm Street. And if you're paying attention, a certain producer named Michael Bay appears in the credits. The same producer for these absolutely terrible remakes: Friday the 13th, The Amityville Horror, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and The Hitcher. And you know that thing Bay dedicates his life to? That whole explosion thing? The answer is yes, in case you were wondering. Yes, Michael Bay's patented explosion does make an appearance in A Nightmare on Elm Street. You can smell it from a mile away.

This movie is pretty awful, I have to say. I'll just put it out there. The best part about it is the dream sets. The place the kiddies go in there sleep are amazingly put together, but that does absolutely nothing to help Freddy's terrible lines and the terrible acting. If there was such a thing as a saving grace for this movie, Jackie Haley (Freddy) is about as close as it gets. He makes a fantastic Freddy Kruger. Had the writers actually gave him something to work with, he would have been awesome. But, no. And you know who I blame? Explosion Man. I don't know how he did it, but I know he was behind it all.

There's nothing really left to say. Luckily, it was dollar movie night for college students. And that's about how much I would ever pay for this movie----maybe less. Maybe never see it, ever. Not if you like the original.

All in all, there are some ideas floating around in the movie that could have been really, really good. But that's just it: they were floating. They weren't strung together or flushed out. They were short clips and brief flashes. The movie was bad. Please stop remaking horror films, for the love of god. Just...please.

In conclusion:
"A Nightmare on Elm Street" (2010)
1 out of 5

Source of information: IMDb.com

Saturday, May 8, 2010

Music: Year of the Black Rainbow

I have taken a great deal of time to write a review of Coheed and Cambria's latest album, Year of the Black Rainbow. And there is one major reason for this hesitation: this album is so different than what I expected.


It is not like Good Apollo: Fear or Keeping Secrets----which is certainly my favorite of their CD's. People complain that YOTBR is overproduced, that it doesn't sound like Coheed and Cambria, and these are valid complaints. It is slightly overproduced, and it definitely does not sound like the Coheed and Cambria that I know. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

I think of the metal bands that have recently reinvented their sound, like Atreyu, Aiden (several times), Bullet for My Valentine, and As I Lay Dying, I will say that Coheed and Cambria's transformation is far superior. It isn't one of those changes that are annoying or so far fetched that you chuck the album across the room, hoping it shatters the first time because you just sprained your wrist and don't want to have to try again. I think that this album is interesting and it has some great tracks.

I would say that YOTBR is entirely the middle ground between Coheed and Cambria and Claudio's The Prizefighter Inferno.

There are electronic beats, measures of ambient noise, and strange guitar patches that have never been utilized by this band until now. In watching the studio updates, they explain that they, as musicians, felt uninspired with the same-old, same-old. I totally understand that. I've been in a band that plays the same music every, single song, and it sucks. I get what they wanted to do and I respect it. And I think they were successful.

My verdict is, I really like Year of the Black Rainbow. I think it loses the progressive nature of the band and is much more radio-friendly than previous CD's, but there are some great tracks. I love "World of Lines," "Pearl of the Stars," and "Far." In fact, the singles that were released ("The Broken" and "Here We Are Juggernaut") do not compare to the rest of the album.

If you are a Coheed and Cambria fan, this is certainly a must have. For those who just a new rock sound, pick it up. If you don't have money, don't spend the money----I feel like this is common sense.

In conclusion:
Year of the Black Rainbow
3.25 out of 5

Source: coheedandcambria.com