Unlce Ted's Advice Corner #1

Just before we get into the jist of things today I would like to say sorry for being so unreliable recently and because of that I am changing the number of reviews from 2-per-week to 1-per-week, this is being done so that you lot get regular reviews that aren't being delayed so often.  Of course I'll still bring out smaller, extra reviews here and there so that you guys are suitably satiated (hmm that's a nice rhyme).

Now onto today's shindig...or whatever.  Today I'll tell you lads and ladies how to have the best time possible at a restaurant.

step 1: no matter what your diet is or who you're with or whether you're a Nyan cat, just choose what your gut instinct and taste tells you to go for.  Even if that thing is smothered in cheese, reeking purely of garlic or simply presented like a dog's dinner then you must still get it.

step 2: if you're waiting for ages for your food then it's always a good idea to have something to entertain yourself with in the meantime.  If you're with someone who doesn't have something like that just talk to them to pass the time or read your book to them or even tell them what's happening on your PSP.

step 3: usually there is a high chance of you sitting two or three tables away from some screamy little 3 or 4-year-old so you can do one of three things to cancell the little b******s voice out.  You can either; Listen to an I-pod or MP3 player, say to the person minding the child "excuse me could you please keep him/her quiet? Thanks" or my personal favourite, chuck the little git into the poultry freezer and leave them there.

step 4: If the person (or imaginary person) you are eating with is getting on your arse/nerves then just call someone who is better-looking over to your table and ask the person who you are already eating with to move away.

step 5: although it is funny to annoy the waiter by doing a rubbish French or Spanish accent or pretending that you're perfect (no-one is) it is (unfortunately) best to avoid such entertainment.  The reason for this is that you may find that after doing so, your newly arrived chocolate cake or spaghetti has some spit or excrement in it.

I hope that you guys are brimming with good tips and I'll be seeing you all later this week!

Please note that the notes of advice in this article are not utter Bull**** but are genuine advice points given buy a man who is definitely not completely insane.

apology

sorry guys no review today, one will definitely be out tomorrow.  The reason why there isn't a review this weekend is because I haven't tried any new mediums recently but I did go to an art exhibition this Thursday just gone so I'll review that tommorow. Again I am really sorry that I keep delaying my reviews but there's always a good reason.

game review #7: upcoming releases

What with the first of the big releases of the next year already out (Warhammer 40k SPACE MARINE) I think that its a good time to look forward to the other big releases coming out in the near future, and perhaps seeing wether they'll be as great as rasberry and white chocolate cheesecake or as useless as the Kardashian twins (yes I am unfortunate enough to know of theire existence as well).

The first title that everybody is talking about is the much anticipated Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.  As I said a couple of reviews back I don't think that the COD series has brought much to the gaming world in terms of new ideas and innovations since the mighty Modern Warfare emerged nearly half a decade ago.  The COD series overall still retains it's generic consumer-charm but that charm is deteriorating fast and took a heavy knock with the legendarily crap Black Ops.  Things aren't looking great with the upcoming MW3 though because the gameplay looks virtually the same, the graphics have for some reason advanced very little since MW2 and whoop-de-doo, its mostly coloured grey, white, brown and black (just like every other bloody shooter these days).  All in all I don't think MW3 is going to be a real cracker of a shooter like say Left For Dead 2 or Modern Warfare were but it does actually look considerably more fun than Black Ops was so I could be wrong.

The other of the biggest two releases coming out over the next several months is of course Battlefield 3.  As I've said before I like the Battlefield series quite a bit and my favourite installment to the series is still the underatted Battlefield 2142, I'm not sure however what to feel about this new installment.  My gut keeps giving me a sense of impeniding doom about this game but then again my gut is a right idiot who keeps persuading me to pig out on boring snacks like digestive buiscits.  It does seem to be quite appealing and fun though, in fact it seems like its taken and combined aspects from many of the battlefield games; the great vehicle driving/piloting of the Battlefield 1942 triology and Battlefield 2, the fantastic reward system of the Battlefield 2142 duology and the intense 'reaction time-workout' shootouts of the online and campaign modes of the Bad Company installments.  It could be good, i'm not really sure.  I mean there hasn't been must talk about the singleplayer and they seem to have kept the advancment on melee combat on a minimum as usual, but generaly I have an alright feeling about this one.

Now we move onto less popular and less intersting titles.  The first of these smaller titles is Resistance 3 which has...wait...this bloody game is already out!  Ah whatever, I'm pretty sure I can find a few words for it. Compating it to its two predecessors, Resistance 3 seems to be the most advanced and fun installment of its series yet what with taking many of the greatest gameplay aspects of Half-Life 2 (e.g. no automatically regenerating health, being able to carry at least 12 weapons at once etc) and applying them to the amusing Resistance storyline.  It does look to be a promising new game and the graphics are pretty good, the only problem from the sounds of it is its quite formula plot, however it also looks as fun as hell so it shouldn't sting too bad..

The next game that is soon to come out is The Heist: Payday which by the looks of things is pretty appaling. Even just looking at the trailer you can see loads of problems: No plot whatsoever, graphics that make it look like it was made for the Xbox or PS2 in 2001, unimaginitive gameplay and combat scenes that are even more generic than Call Of Duty, no juicy character development, no exciting objectives, no brilliant variety betweeen different enemies and challanges and of course it only has 6 maps.  JUST 6 BLOODY, SAMEY MAPS.  Oh yeah there are are no missions with more than a minute outside of a building.

Of course there are many other titles coming out in the nexy several months or year or two but if I listed them all then I'd be here for ages so I'm only going to say this once; if you are thinking of gettign any of the new releases later this year just get Resistance 3, Serious Sam 3 and Battlefield 3.  The reason why I am saying this is because all the other big releases this year look like utter s***...*sighs*...oh well.


P.S Happy Jewish New Year!

apology

sorry no review today, but I will definetly bring one out tommorow

Game review 6: Warhammer 40k Space Marine

Here's your average 3rd person shooter of today, you are the leader of a group of genetically (or at least inexplicably bad-ass) marines sent by humanity (or in other cases the US) to a factory planet/region to combat a fearsome and seemingly un-stoppable invasion by either brutal aliens, Russia or mystical cults with stupid names.  Supprisingly however this is an alright game, of course with any game it has its faults such as slightly "eh" multiplayer mode and having a pretty pants last boss in the singleplayer.  But despite that it is a fairly well balanced shoot-em-up with varied kinds of enemies, a multiplayer mode that's actually an alright laugh and it features my favourite warriors in the whole WH40k universe: the Ultramarines space marines 2nd company.


I know that the Warhammer 40k universe is somewhat nerdy as a whole (that goes for its storyline too) but as I've said before I can't stand the board and card games, when I want to talk about WH40 its about the storyline, pivotal characters and the big ass battles.  And this is what this game is like, it keeps to the nerdy roots of the franchise it is from in terms of how the different members of each species and organization behave and operate but it appeals to people who might not really be into WH40k by giving them a game that is neither too unique or too generic.

The campaign in Space Marine starts off by quickly telling us that a forge/factory world of the imperium of humanity is under attack by space orks who are trying to steal 100 foot -tall walking war machines called warlord titans.  You are then told that the imperial guard soldiers on the planet are being pummeled into hamburgers and that a huge reinforcement fleet is on its way, however, this fleet is going to take days to arrive in system to the planet and so a force of genetically enhanced space marines from the Ultramarines is dispatched.  We are then introduced to the 3 main good guys who are preparing to make a combat-jump from a soaring gunship; Leandros (a slightly annoying and pretty thick headed novice), Sidonus (a typical grizzled and battle-hardened seargant who is your 2nd in command) and the main character Titus (the commander of the Ultramarines 2nd company who is possibly hiding a dark secret.

After clobbering the orks in a few hard-fought strikes and battles the Ultramarines find an inquisitor (a psychic agent of humanity who roots out evil) and get him to take them to some sort of weapon that can win the war.  But suprise suprise the inquisitor is acting all suspicious-like and is not all that he seems to be, oh yeah, humanity's mortal enemies (the demonic forces of chaos) show up at some point out of nowhere.  So the storyline is a bit typically-warhammer 40k but the same is for every computer game from this franchise.

There are really only 3 major problems with the game but they are glaring ones; 1-the weapons available to use are varied but some WH40k weapons have been left out entirely, 2-the Multiplayer is glitchy and somewhat laggy and most annoying of all 3-the final boss battle in the single-player campaign is easily beaten. 

And that's the extent of what can be said about this game, it's a good all-rounder of a shoot-em-up based around a fantasy sci-fi universe that is highly uniqe and thus balnces out how generic the gameplay is.  Bottom line is; if you are into games like Gears Of War but want something with at least a bit of the grit and gruntyness taken out  then by all means play Space Marine.

apology

Sorry guys no review today, there definitely will be ones this Wednesday and Sunday though

Food Review 1-the Co-Operative

What’s the best thing about the independent chain of supermarket known as the Co-Operative?  I’ll tell you what, it’s the fact that you can get small things for on-the go quite cheaply.  Yeah sure you can get that from many supermarket chains, but the real bonus about the Co-Op is that its got so many fair-trade products that help poor and far away communities that you can’t help but feel good about shopping there.  On top of that the Co-Op is a huge collection of independent businesses all under the same name so you get a real feeling that although you’re buying from a big chain you are actually helping the little man out a bit.

What makes this all the sweeter is as well as being an ethically correct establishment, the Co-Op is also wonderfully cheap.  With deals such as 4 brown bread rolls for £1 or 9 two-finger kit kats for £1 and a  sandwich with crisps and a drink for only £3, you can’t help but feel that you are getting your money’s worth.  This is emphasized further by the quality of the Co-Op’s home brand products, such as its sandwiches or pain au chocolate being second-to-none for supermarket home brand food & drink.

Another thing I also like very much about the Co-Op is the variety of products (both branded and homebrand) that are available to purchase.  There are many kinds of big name brands to sample such as walkers or Mcoys and Hovis or Burgen, however if you want to sacrifice quality for lower prices then buy the homebrand products by all means.  Except there's one thing about that and that is (like i said earlier) the homebrand products from the Co-Op from the humblest pint of milk to the most extravagant chocolate cake are actually pretty danm good.  

So you could buy the branded products except the homebrand products are just as good and are also cheaper, the only exceptions for this are the sweets, fizzy drinks and crisps.  The homebrand products for these foods/drinks at the Co-Op are not as good as some branded products so you may as well fork out a teensy little bit more when you want to treat yourself at the Co-Op.  

All in all, the Co-Op is probably the best all-round supermarket chain in the UK; it's cheap, there are many fair trade products to choose from, there is much variety in all the products and the homebrand cakes are freakin' tasty as hell.  So take it from me people, the Co-Op (in my opinion) is the best.

apology

really sorry guys but there's no review coming out today. It's a bit late, I'm really tired and im trying to block out the crappy sounds off the radio station: Capital FM.  I know there have been a fair few delays recently and I'm genuinley sorry but for the most part it's down to the fact that I haven't seen any new films recently or finished any new games.  I will be bringing reviews out regularly in the near future though but for now I must humbly apologise.  Now there definetly will be a review tommorow so don't you beauties worry.

apology

I know I haven't released a review for a short while but I promise i'll bring one out tommorow.  I know I'm just a devil, but belive me folks, running a blog is pretty danm hard.

Old Film Review #3: Moonraker (released in 1979)

If there's one film series that's always going up and down its definitely the James Bond series, it's not like the Toy Story and Back To The Future series's which were good the whole way through because they all had solidly connecting storylines.  Perhaps that's the reason why the Bond series has had many ups and downs over the years, perhaps the series needs a storyline that links the films solidly together and not just have characters reminisce about past adventures.  Now in my opinion Moonraker is by far the second worst of the Bond films (the worst being Quantum Of Solace and the third worst being On Her Majesty's Secret Service) mainly because of that fool Roger Moore.

Now don't get me wrong, I personally think Roger Moore as a person is a damn fine guy, but as an actor I think he sometimes sucks.  Well in the Bond films at least, in everything else he's been in he's been alright.  The main problem I have with the Roger Moore-Bond is that he seems incredibly smug and punchable and really the way that you should see Bond is as a charismatic, witty, clever and strangely loveable sex-king of a secret agent, not as someone you'd rather just nut in the face.  On top of that the comedy coming from Roger Moore's Bond comes across as way too light-hearted and jokey whereas the comedy of Bond is best kept as either poking fun at the bad guy or simply being deliciously-dark comedy.  one exception to this is Roger Moore's first Bond film Live And Let Die which in my opinion is the best bond film yet (just above The Living Daylights and Die Another Day)

The plot of this instalment into the Bond series is that Bond is sent by MI6 to investigate a slightly suspicious space shuttle-making company that's headed by a multi-millionaire named Hugo Drax (played rather excellently by Michael Lonsdale) about the matter of a space shuttle made by Drax's company that went mysteriously missing.  As is the case with your average Bond film the seemingly kind-hearted multi-millionaire who owns the big company of some sort is actually using as a front of sorts for a scheme to take over the world or something similarly evil.  The aim of the main bad guy in this film is to use an experimental space station and shells of nerve gas to exterminate human life on earth and then start the human race anew with a bunch of genetically perfect people.

Overall this film is pretty lame, most of the fights are kind of fake looking (I know they're acting but they're supposed to make it look convincing), the one good chase scene is ruined by a couple of really bad jokes that are in it and the name of the love interest in this film is basically a subtle but crude sex joke (Holly Goodhead, see? it means...ah never mind).  Although this film is a bit pants there are some bits that do it great justisce; Michael Lonsdale is an effin' brilliant main bad guy, the legendary Richard Kiel kicks ass as Jaws (the best main henchman in film history next to Darth Maul in my opinion) and the battle in space at the end of the movie (as mad and out of place as it is) is really well done and ads a pretty good touch to the end of the movie.

Despite all those good things and the other pluses in the film (e.g. the boat chase in the Amazon rain forest and the dramatic opening scene) I can't say that this is a good film because it really isn't.  It isn't all that well put together, the jokes suck ass, some good bits are ruined by bad jokes or bad characters and although the storyline is a right good'un it's also kinda messy and goes completely non-existent at one point.  But hey, if you like Roger Moore no matter what then I guess you could watch it.  Or you could just watch one of his better movies such as Live And Let Die or The Spy Who Loved Me or The Cannonball Run etc.

TV Review #1: The Pranker

I like it when every now and again there comes along a little comedy show with a catchy name that is balls-out hilarious or at least edgy in a good way.  The Pranker is a small comedy prank show on BBC 3 that has been going for just about 2 months and is presented (and primarily acted in) by a previously not-very-well-known comedian called Ross Lee.  Ross is the kind of comedian that I like to call a bloody madman, he performs pranks on people in The Pranker on people that just make you cringe with both embarrassment and laughter.  It's good to see a new and hilarious face amongst British comedy what with all the unfunny ones (such as Lee Evans or Russel Brand) and the complete sell-outs (such as Michael Mcintyre or Robert Webb).  This is also made all the sweeter by Mr Lee being an excellent actor which definitely goes towards helping him to make his sketches all the funnier.

I wouldn't call Ross Lee a comedian who can make people cringe and laugh so much as say Sasha Baron Cohen but he definitely has great talent and potential in the comedy world.  The mix of sketches that Ross does are the usual mix; there are a few running characters such as a man who's a stud for old ladies,  a hugely un-pc policeman and a man who breaks things in shops by over-testing them.  And of course there are a few singular sketches in each episode that are simply mad as a hat of chickens (such as the sketch in the first episode that's about a satanic hippy).

I can't say much about this show other than it's very funny and the actors in it are very talented and on their ways to becoming great.  But then again, you can't say much about a piece of medium (whether it be film, TV, radio or print) that is comedy or mostly comedy otherwise you'd be ruining the experience of it all for everyone else.  Despite all that, I definitely suggest you try catching up on and watching this show because it's by far the funniest thing to hit British TV since Peep Show.

apology

hey guys.  really sorry about not bringing a review out today but i was just too busy with preparing to go to Belgium.  I'll be back on Monday.

Game Review #5: Battlefield VS Call Of Duty

I thought it might be a good idea to do this for my first review back from my week of summer camp in Norwich mainly because I've always taken quite an interest in the differences and heated competition between these two legendarily popular 1st person shooter series'.

On paper, these two series' look very similar; they both have been going for between 10-15 years, have many of their games set in different eras and also put a lot of emphasis on their multipayer modes.  On the whole these two series' are very similar but for the first half of its existence, the Battlefield series kept bringing out games that were getting worse such as Battlefield Vietnam and Battlefield 1942-Road to Rome.  This began to change however, when out of nowhere rode a magnificent knight in polished black armour riding a magnificently white stallion...uh, sorry.  What I meant to say was 'then out of nowhere came the gaming gem that was/is Battlefield 2142'.  Unlike It's predecessors, Battlefield 2142 wasn't bland and samey but interesting and fun as hell.  It introduced a new unlock function to the series whereby you could get funky weapons, gadgets and power ups for your different classes (recon, support, engineer and medic) and changed the setting from today or the second world war to a mad global conflict amidst a mostly frozen earth in the year 2142 where the powerful Pan Asian Coalition is on an unstoppable drive to conquer everything.  Although it didn't have any good single-player, Battlefield 2142 was an intense and highly enjoyable game.

Whereas the first half of the Battlefield series may not have been so great, the first half of the Call Of Duty series was pretty alright.  I say that it was only all right because as a whole the first half of the COD series was pretty samey, it was however full of fun titles (all set in WW2) where you were able to fight through various different famous campaigns in widely varying environments (such as a snowy airfield or a town in the middle off the sahara).  After several years and quite a few titles, the people behind COD decided to take the series to a whole new level and transform the setting from WW2 to the modern day in the appropriately named Modern Warfare.  This gave the series a new edge as the mad, runny-jumpy-stabby gameplay was combined with cool looking modern guns allowing the player to fight groups of enemies with a greater variety of weapons than any other before it in the series.  The huge boost in the popularity of the series has lasted since then but has been marred by the utterly dreadful Call Of Duty-Black Ops.

Okay now that we've discussed the history of Battlefield and Call Of Duty a little bit, lets get into what's good and bad about their games.  On the whole I personally prefer the Battlefield series mainly because with every new instalment they seem to look at what they did well or bad in the last game then bring in a new development that negates that problem.  I do like the COD series as well though, in each campaign you fight alongside engaging characters and are able to perform some awesome tricks with a large variety of weapons. The most striking difference, I think, between the two series' is that whilst Battlefield games usually have better multiplayer and weak singleplayer, with the COD games it is the other way around.  I can't think of a way to explain why this usually comes to be through the actions of the people who make the games but I can explain somewhat through the games themselves.

The biggest reason why this is so is because whereas the layout and the including of many types of vehicles to drive in the Battlefield games emphasize that the series as a whole is aimed at a more varied sort of audience.  The only way to go into battle in a COD game is to go in on foot by yourself with just your own weapons, this in itself contributes to the online mode of COD games being always repetitive and boring which is helped hardly at all by the lack of variety in the online maps for the COD games.  I always think that a game should have not only a well balanced and enjoyable multiplayer but also a truly excellent singleplayer that you can use to just have fun on your own or practise certain tactics.  Now despite the fact that most Battlefield games have poor singleplayer (bar Battlefield Bad Company 1) the multiplayer is so varied what with the staggering number of maps in each game, countless ways to approach an objective (be it by land, sea or even air) and balanced game types.  As I already pointed out, the multiplayer in COD games is not so good due to a lack of considerable, overall variety.  I could overlook this due to the campaigns always being filled with great characters and fun missions but the gameplay style of Call Of Duty is getting old fast and this was very glaring indeed in Black Ops.

I suppose, at the end of the day the reason why I seem to enjoy Battlefield games more is due to the fact that in both singleplayer and multiplayer you are forced to work with your allies as a group or you get your arse handed to you on a plate with coleslaw and chips.  This gives the series a real sense of authenticity, sort of like as if you're in a real combat situation, therefore you get a much more intense and enjoyable experience.  In the Call Of Duty games, working as a team gets boring after a while and although it does work you eventually just have to go out yourself.  This showed me how samey the combat in COD games can get where 10 men can get easily done in by 1 man with a revolver.

So if you want my advice go for the Battlefield series for a fix of 1st person shooting.  Because despite COD having good singleplayer and going well with chips and ketchup, you just can't beat the Battlefield experience of having made it through a blazing war-zone because you had your friends watching your back

A Little Heads Up

Hey everyone, I just thought I'd let you know in advance that there won't be any reviews this Friday and Tuesday as I am going on a residential week with 'X-UK' to a place near Norwich for the week.  I will however, be arriving back in London this Saturday coming so don't fret, I'll be back soon.  Now just before I go I'd like to ask all of you if you could suggest something to me to review when I get back.  I just thought it might be nice to do that.  Anyhoo, I'm gonna take my leave now and wish you all a great week.

Old Film Review 4: IP man (released in 2009)

There are a lot of films out there that are meaningful, some are not.  There are lots of films that revise a certain subject or simply highlight it, sometimes to the point of glorifying that particular subject.  IP man is one kind of film I like, it explores the beginning of the journey of the legendary Chinese kung-fu master named IP-man (known more widely in his home country as master IP) towards fame and immortality in the martial arts world.  Oddly enough, the most interesting thing about this film (the fact that it is about the beginning of the journey of the man who trained the legendary Bruce Lee) is only told to us at (literally) at the very end of the movie.

Just before he became famous in China and then the world, IP man was a respected and highly-skilled practitioner of a highly-disciplined form of kung-fu in his home town of Fo Shuan, a town that housed many schools for different forms of kung-fu.  Although he was almost unmatched in kung-fu, greatly-liked by the townsfolk and well-off, IP man was a particularly inept (yet very caring) father.

There really isn't much to say about IP man in terms of storyline, I mean it's a true story about a man following his chosen path and overcoming personal problems along the way.  The best thing about the film is (of course) the kung-fiu bouts and battles throughout the movie especially when Ip himself challanges 10 Japanese soldiers to a bout in a hall and brutally beats them all single-handed.  As with most action or fighting movies however, the best fight scene is the last one.  In this movie it's an intense scene where Ip famously spared with (and killed) a martial arts-practising Japanese general, an event that resulted in the uniting of the Chinese people during the Japanese occupation.

The other main aspect about this film that's definitely worth noting is how patriotic the film is.  This is though, very well founded patriotism  on the film's part on account of the scenes of Japanese atrocities during the 1930s being very accurate.  The film shows (to an almost rage or tear-inducing effect) the pains and depravities put upon the Chinese by the Japanese army during the 1930s and it uses that to set up a good basis for Ip man going on a fearsome revenge-rampage in the second half of the film.

This is one good kung-fu movie about a man who (indirectly) contributed a great amount to the world of action-cinema and inspired an entire country.  Even if all that doesn't interest you then the awesome fight scenes still should.

Monthly News Review #1: The London Riots

Y'know this is what we all need.  Especially with all the worlds economies facing trouble and the presence of long-slogging wars in the middle-east oh and don't forget all those disasters in Japan and Australasia at the beginning of the year.  Mind you this country is under a conservative government at the moment, a government led by a man who I can only describe as "a snooty total wanker".

What really grinds my gears about these riots (which have now spread to Manchester, for f***s sake) is that they were all kicked off by one event that had/has nothing to do with the rioteers' current motives.  A short while ago a man was shot and killed  in London and for a couple of days and nights people angrily took to the streets about it.  At this moment in time however, the motives of the rioters seems to just be; smash, burn and loot.  A set of motives that I can definitely say, belongs to a bunch of idiots.

But there is another side to this intense story.  If you look at the movements, motives and general beings of those involved in the riots you can clearly see that many are unemployed.  A problem that only arises under a government that can't provide enough jobs for the people it watches and presides over (hint hint).  What I'm trying to say is not that if the government under David Cameron had provided more jobs then the riots would've been avoided.  But rather if David and his cronies had done so then the riots perhaps wouldn't be so severe.

This all is made worse by the reducing of police numbers since "mister wanker" came to office which in itself is made all the worse by the British public being highly devoid of trust in the British police.  What is really stupid is that when there aren't enough police the British public ask for more to be trained but when numbers are at a high level then the public accuse the British coppers of "heavy handedness".  Now this may be true that the British police are considerably heavy-handed at times (especially at the memorable G20 protests) but being so bloody indecisive about such a matter isn't going to help anyone whatsoever.

The last thing I want to highlight is the lives ruined by the rioters.  In this mad orgy of  destruction and burning that has been spreading across the country there have been many shops that have been destroyed.  All of these shops of course are the main source of income for many people and families.  Some shops have been lightly damaged but this only consists of a handful of the shops that have been attacked.  Many shops (especially corner shops owned by not particularly rich families)  have been burnt to ash and cinder or assaulted and smashed to beyond recognition.  Many family shops that have been around for years such as a boutique in Peckam have been annihilated which has resulted in not only the ruining of lives but also the tremendous breaking of hearts.

People, I ask you three things. 1-support the people who have been affected negatively by these riots and don't join the rioters.  2-keep in contact with those you hold dear. And finally, 3-under NO circumstances AT ALL must you go out for the next 2 or 3 (possibly more) nights, I just don't want any more people to get hurt.

Game Review #4: Serious Sam-The second encounter

Sometimes when you're at home you may get angry at someone or something and just want to take your anger out on a bunch of jackasses.  Of course this would get your ass arrested really quick if you did it to real people in the street so I suggest playing Serious Sam-The Second Encounter.  The reason why I say that about the game is that it is not only fun, funny and offering many ways to explore but it chucks you into so many huge battles with enemies that outnumber you many times over that you can't help but be relaxed by the carnage you can create.

Unlike with the plots of all the games and films I've reviewed so far, I can't really say much about the plot of this game.  It's hinted at quite a few times, explained somewhat in the beginning video and hinted at some more through the enemies you face.  But the plot isn't important in this game.  What's really important is getting your weapons, walking out into rolling fields and then facing off against regiments of enemies all at once in a mad display of carnage and pure fun.  The extent of the plot that I did understand was that Serious Sam is humanity's finest soldier and he is being sent through different time periods to do something to some guy who is mentioned through out the game like 2 or 3 times.  The main bad guy has no option than to send wave after wave of demons, headless assault troops, biological walkers with fish-looking heads, chain-gun wielding giant scorpions and leaping bull-like skeleton creatures to grind Sam into meaty dust.

Overall there are only 6 settings over the course of the 4 time periods in the campaign: ancient Egypt, ancient Babylonia, medieval Poland, an underground lava cavern, abandoned ancient cities in the Amazon and snowy mountain towns. Despite there only being so few environments you always feel like you've stepped into a totally different world each time you complete a handful of levels and that's really the way the setting in a 1st person shooter should be.  One slightly annoying thing about the settings in this game however is that no matter which time period or location you are in, the enemies are always the same, "sigh".  But I am however prepared to overlook that because like  I said: the environments are nicely balanced and the enemies and bosses are as fun as a bag of drunk parrots.

The weapons in the game are somewhat similar to what you'd find in any other adventure/1st person shooting game but the variety of weaponry you get is fun nonetheless.  All in all you get; dual revolvers, a combat knife,  a pump shotgun, a double-barrelled shotgun, a sub-machine gun, a mini gun, a chainsaw, a laser chain-gun, a sniper rifle, a flame-thrower, a rocket launcher, a grenade launcher, a ridiculously over-powered cannon that fires rolling cannon balls and of course, a hand-bomb that if you detonate it kills EVERY enemy in the room.  These weapons don't have a massive deal of variety between them and the enemies always come at you in big waves and ambushes but the enemies are varied and the weapons fun enough so that this problem is pretty easy to overlook.

Like with the legions of grunts and such that you face in big battles, the bosses that regularly pop up are also uber-enjoyable.  They can range from 65-foot tall demons that unleash volleys of miniature suns to experimental bio-titans that dwell in dungeons and have laser beams blasting from their shoulders.  With some bosses you can only use certain weapons, for example: with the Mayan wind god that you face off against at the end of the south american time period you can only use explosives which forces you to really conserve your ammunition.

And that's all I can and will say about Serious Sam-The Second Encounter.  Partly because I want you all to see for yourselves how good it is and also because it is such a simple game. It's just you (a wise-cracking muscle-head in a white T-shirt and jeans) with a hoard of weapons facing against legions of varying enemies.  definitely get this game people because by the laws of gaming I have found that it is bad-ass.

New Film Review #3: Horrible Bosses

Eh.  Yes just eh.  That is literally the extent of what I feel towards this film.  It didn't need to be made or conceived and the actors in it could've used their time doing better stuff.  But that in itself is sad you see, mainly because I think that all the individual roles are done quite well; the acting isn't half bad, the camera work is good and the atmosphere building is actually really quite good.  To be very honest, the main thing that lets this film down is its plot and how it progresses.

The plot at first sounds good but it's hard to like it mainly because most of the problems faced by the main (and unlikeable) characters (Dale (Charlie Day), Nick (Jason Bateman) and Kurt (Jason Sudeikis)) are resolved slightly all-too-conveniently.  In fact that's actually quite weird, the main characters are unlikeable but their bosses who they are trying to murder are all endearing (despite all being horrible and crazy).  Anyhoo, as the film begins we are introduced to each character in turn and each of these three plucky fellows then explains why they hate their bosses.  The one exception to this is Kurt who is best buds with his boss until his boss dies early in the film and is replaced by his coke-snorting wanker of a son.  As their jobs get more and more un-enjoyable as the film goes on, the three friends decide to hatch a daring plan to kill each other's bosses.  But of course things happen that complicates their plans blah blah blah. Y'know, even though the plot sounds good, when you get into watching the film it really is kind of boring and slightly formula.

Now the 'Horrible Bosses' are by far the jewels in the otherwise slightly rusty crown that is this film.  Dale's boss (played by a sexy Jennifer Aniston) is a raving, blackmailing and downright slutty dentist who constantly badgers Dale for sex whilst threatening to ruin his upcoming marriage.  Nick's boss (a mad Kevin Spacey) is a slave-driving madman who frames Nick for being an alcoholic and insults his family all whilst stealing important titles in the company. And finally comes Kurt's boss (played by a sleazy Colin Farrel), the son of Kurt's deceased and former boss who constantly is horrible to everyone, snorts drugs, gang-bangs prostitutes and desecrates his dead dad's beloved business. There are a few other enjoyable characters in the form of a few cameos, especially the solidly weird cameo by a mysterious Ioan Gruffud (you'll see what I mean when you see it).

And that's about it.  Apart from a not very good set of main good guys and plot, a set of hilarious bad guys, some fun cameos, and a fun chase scene halfway through the film there is nothing much to say about Horrible Bosses.  And as I said earlier, this is a sad thing for me because all the individual parts of this film are quite good/well done.  It's just a pitty that the film is generally unfunny, uninteresting and has a slightly pants ending.

New Film Review #2: Captain America

FINALLY, finally we get a marvel film that's all good.  Oh don't get me wrong, the Iron man films were great but in neither of them did you ever get to really know the awesome villains all that well and with Thor you got a great film that was hampered by lack of variety in locations.  Captain America is the best Marvel film yet, not necessarily because of the awesome fight scenes or the great plot or even the bad-ass villain.  This film's main good point is the main character; Captain America (Chris Evans) himself.

Any character who has read a marvel comic knows or has at least heard of Captain America, the very first member of the super-hero Avengers team and probably the first true super-hero created by Marvel Comics.  For those of you who might not be so familiar with this legend of the comic world; Captain America is a young man named Steve Rogers who when enlisting into the US army during WW2 and getting refused for the 5th time is offered one last chance by a mysterious scientist.  The scientist then alters and greatly improves Steve's genetic coding, physical capabilities and internal organs with a 'super soldier serum'.  Steve then adopts the name 'Captain America', gets the iconography and flag of the US stitched onto his new suit, obtains a shield made out of super-rare metal and paints it red, white and blue and then uses all this to clobber the Nazis and A secret organisation called 'Hydra'.

Essentialy, what this film does is it simply shows us two things that are quite simple in themselves and are also central to Chris Evans's character; 1-the film shows us the origins of Captain America and how he began his life-long battle against the devious Hydra organisation and 2-we are also shown that the central reason why Steve Rogers becomes the captain is because he is a 'good guy'.  No really, that's his entire motivation.  He doesn't exactly fight for any country's set of ideals (even though he's a walking US flag), he simply fights 'Hydra' and its mad leader (a former Nazi scientist called the 'Red Skull' played by Hugo Weaving) because he doesn't like bullies and he just wants to do the "right thing".  Usually I'd puke on a film whose main character's motivation is something like that but in the case of a character like Captain America and in a film this good (I hate to say it) this actually fits very nicely.

Although we see many characters in the film such as Peggy Carter (Cap's first love played by Hayley Atwell) and Howard Stark (Iron Man's jerk of a father played by Dominic Cooper) the film concentrates almost entirely on the two main characters, Captain America and the Red Skull.  This makes the film greatly enjoyable by showing us in tremendous detail why the main bad guy and main hero want to take each other down so bad.  It also allows the audience to enjoy more, the characters who are most influential/central/important to a film like this.

In this film we find out that Steve Roger's first task when he became Captain America was to stop the Red Skull using Hydra to make some ancient Norse, glowing cube power a tremendously strong array of weapons to take over the world (by destroying half of it in the process of course).  In the film we get plenty scenes with these awesome weapons created by the Red Skull's power which include; laser rifles that disintegrate people, plasma cannon tanks and energy based artillery and bombers.  The potency of these weapons is emphasized greatly in how worried the different good-guys get when talking about what the Skull is trying to do with them.  
Because of this, you get this great feeling that the heroes are up against something big and deadly that can very well kill them and even entire cities of people.  Because of the danger posed by the weapons and the Captain being a really 'good guy', you are able to sympathise better with the heroes because you know that they just have to win.

So as a whole its a really good film.  The acting is good, the camera shots are good, the character development is great, the action scenes are effin' A, the characters themselves are marvellous and all this is put together by a good cast doing a great job.  So I don't think I need to say any more, all that I will say is that you should all see this film because it is damn good and definitely worth not missing.   Rating-10/10

Old Film Review #3: Godzilla (released in 1998)

Ugh...this is really bad.  Bad enough to make me puke up my herbal tea and soya and berry muffin.  Bad enough to make me stop halfway through a game of Left 4 Dead 2 and punch the wall.  Bad enough to make the fourth Indiana Jones film look great.  Bad enough...well you get the picture.  It's really annoying that this film is so bad because of the fact that Godzilla is really quite interesting and without a doubt, one of the big daddies of all big-name monsters (just between King Kong and just above Dracula).  I mean, when you look at the film from a wide perspective you see that the acting is crap, most of the actors are crap, the storyline is rubbish and the film ends with a cliffhanger that doesn't promise a sequel in the slightest and on top of that this sea of crap blots out the talent of the one good actor in the film (Jean Reno).

The story of the film is that Godzilla (a roughly 100 foot tall cuddly lizard who can swat helicopters out of the sky with its tail) is an accidental side-creation of French nuclear tests in the Pacific who has migrated towards Manhattan after clobbering a Japanese cargo ship.  Even before Godzilla has arrived, Dr Niko Tatopoulos (played really badly by Matthew Broderick) comes (slightly all too conveniently) to believe that the reason why there have been odd signals coming in to Manhattan is because of Godzilla.  And he thinks all this despite the fact that the film doesn't really tell us until Godzilla actually shows up a while after he says all this.  Anyhoo, just before Godzilla goes bananas when the US army shoots at the big bugger Broderick's character teams up with Jean Reno's French special forces team, naturally to blow up godzilla's egg nest before America is hit by a tidal wave of big-ass lizards just like Godzilla.

Actually, the film isn't all bad.  The plot is alright, Jean Reno is always a blast to watch and the CGI is actually pretty dang good.  Uh...actually that's it, no really, that's all that's good about this film.  There is definitely nothing else that I can say about this film that is good.  Every shot is uninteresting, especially in the poorly-put together chase scene between Godzilla and a squadron of US gunship helicopters.  And especially in the bland,  final battle scene between Reno's commandos and a bunch of Godzilla's vicious little kiddies.  Most of the acting in the film is total pants, no, not as bad as in Dungeons & Dragons, but pretty bloody bad all the same especially from Dr Niko's faceless, nameless dork of an uncharismatic ex-girlfriend.

Look, I'm not gonna waste any more of your time complaining about this sack of poo so I'm going to say it up and straight.  This is a lifeless, poorly-made, uninteresting, uncharismatic, overly-formula, full-of-bad-acting pile of rotten tripe.  And THAT is me being kind to this film that is by far Roland Emmerich's worst piece of directing and film making in the whole of his otherwise glorious career.  Go ahead my friends and never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever see this film...why?  Because its SHIT.

Restaurant Review #1: Maggie's Cafe' in Lewisham

Arrrr me hearties!  This here be a right good feasting hole fer filling ye gullet!  Actually...I'm not sure why I started off the review like that but what I say is true, Maggie's Cafe' in Lewisham is a great place to get a hearty meal.  This little popular spot of feasting has been around in south east London for a good 20 years or so, in that time it has not only collected many regular customers but also considerable popularity in its area.

Now let me say that not only is the food good but the cafe' looks pretty darn inviting.  Kept clean and manned by a dedicated staff headed by the friendly brothers who run the place, Oliver and Anthony Khondoker, Maggie's Cafe' is by far one of the most presentable cafe's this side of London.  Not only is the place good-looking and run by friendly people but the food is (to be somewhat dramatic) incredibly-f*****g-bleeding-exceptionally marvellous.

Not only is there a good quality to the food but the variety of meals to choose from is somewhat awesome.  You can choose from the usual British cafe' meal of an all-day breakfast (a meal I VERY highly recommend) to a hearty lamb roast dinner.  There are also pretty deliciously-simple meals to choose from as well such as very tasty baguettes, well-made beans on toast or even a nice and hot soup.  But despite this, Maggie's cafe' does not just cater for one particular person but all kinds of people what with there being many vegetarian and many low-fat meals as well as the kind of meals I listed earlier.

To make the experience of going here all the sweeter, the hot drinks (a choice of Tea, Coffee or hot chocolate) are bottomless (yay!).  There is one meal above all others in the cafe' however, one that towers up in popularity, quality, enjoyment etc etc.  This meal is the make it yourself all-day breakfast (don't worry you don't cook it yourself), the premise of this popular choice for Maggie's cafe' customers is that you choose a selection of fry-up ingredients from a (quite long) list and choose as many of the items on the list as you want.  What makes this meal truly great though is that no matter how many items you choose from the list it will still be £5.00 and with such choice and the big portions, that's a pretty good deal.

The real heart, atmosphere and soul of the cafe' however comes, most of all, from one of the original founders of the cafe' who still works there: the great Maggie herself.  Maggie passed the rule of the cafe' down to her sons in 2004 but despite that, she maintains this odd air of command, cheerfulness and order around the customers (in the sense that she makes sure they are happy) and the staff (in the sense that they keep everything  going smoothly).

All in all I can only think of two criticisms at all for Maggie's Cafe'; 1-There could be a greater variety of hot drinks (perhaps some herbal teas or hot Bovril) and 2-there could be a slightly greater variety of vegetarian fixed meals.  But really, I am personally prepared to overlook that because the food is good (especially the roast dinners), the staff are good and friendly (especially Maggie and her sons) and above all the place looks like a cafe' should be; clean, tidy and cosy. So I say if you're in south-east London and you need a hearty/big meal then Maggie's will most likely fit the bill juuuuust right.                                                    Rating-9/10

Game Review #3: Dawn Of War 2 (released in 2009)

Ever since I started playing the Dawn Of War games I've had this odd little soft spot for the general storyline of Warhammer 40k.  I mean, I'm not into the monotonous tabletop game and confusing card game but the stories and ideas behind the whole WH40K universe are surprisingly captivating and interesting.

The story for this game is relatively simple yet quite enjoyable; you are an unnamed force commander of the Blood Ravens space marines sent to the home-sector of the Blood Ravens to help defend it from an invasion of Orks (a brutal, green-skinned race of savages with rough English accents).  After only a few battles on a desert and a jungle planet you suddenly discover that there are two other alien species assailing the sector as well.  The numberless Tyranids arrive suddenly to  attempt to devour the sector and the mysterious Eldar arrive to prevent this happening, by blowing up the sector.  Of course however, this being your home-sector.  you are thrust into battle after brutal battle against these enemies in an attempt to hold the sector until reinforcements arrive whilst also finding a way to destroy the Tyranids.

The best thing about Dawn Of War 2 is that in contrast to the four Dawn Of War games that preceded it, Dawn Of war 2 concentrates on the player wielding a few squads rather than a whole army.  In every mission in the campaign (except for one in the middle and one at the end) you are dropped into combat with your commander and a choice of 3 of your 5 other units.  The units you get are made up of; an infantry squad led by a bald guy, a scout squad led by a dude with a ridiculous robot eye, a heavy weapons squad led by an asshole, a jump pack assault squad led by a newbie and a massive heavy-armoured walker.  because you have such a small force to into battle with each time, you are forced to really think about what squad weapons load-outs and combos you want.  If you are facing an attacking mission then use swift-moving squads etc, so on so forth.

On top of that the difficulty level is a bit odd.  The first two difficulty levels are bloody easy but the top two are harder than a 10-year old Christmas cake.  But If you are having trouble doing a certain mission then simply do loads of side missions and unlock some powerful weapons (e.g. a hammer that can take down tanks or a plasma cannon).  That brings me to my next point: the campaign's side missions.  All in all there is roughly 20 missions as well as the many side missions that vary from 'blow up some generators' to 'kill a big alien in an arena'.  Whereas the main missions provide plenty of varying combat situations the side missions offer like 3 or 4, each of which is relatively similar to each other.  But aside from that, the campaign is tremendously fun and challenging. What also emphasizes this greatly is the fact that the space marines are genetically enhanced super-soldiers.  They are all hulking, heavily-armoured brutes but swift-moving troopers and because of this you get a real feel that you can just power through any enemy.  Now let me tell you, when you've got that feeling playing this game you literately can beat anything.

Another thing that makes Dawn Of War 2 so enjoyable is the great voice-acting.  I'll admit, I have seen better-voice acting in other games but the voice-acting in this one makes the characters all feel genuinley believable.  You even get a feeling that the Ork and Eldar characters are believable in the sense that the Orks are all incomprehensible brutes and the Eldar being massively arrogant.  The only race in the game that doesn't have great voice acting is the Tyranids, namely because they don't talk whatsoever but make up for it with some awesome unit names.

Don't get the feeling that the single-player is the only good thing about this game though.  The multi-player battles that you can join are truly entertaining, especially having been based around the legendary strategy game Company Of Heroes. One aspect of the game however, that is brilliance incarnate above all is the 'last stand' mode.  In the 'last stand' mode you choose a champion from one of the races in the game, select a weapons load out and then drop into an arena with two other players to fend off against wave after wave of enemies.  Seeing as how there is only 3 of you facing huge waves of attackers you really have to work as a team; when one of your buddies gets downed you help them up, you must co-ordinate your different fighting styles etc etc.
As with the campaign, in multilayer and 'last stand' the more you play the more goodies and unlocks you gain (as well as going up in the worldwide rankings).  This can be very satisfying especially when you've been slaving away at the multi-player mode for days on end and you finally gain your wanted upgrade after several slogging matches with other players.

I can't think of anything else, bad or good, to say about the game.  It forces you to time and co-ordinate every decision so carefully that you have to be paying attention to your whole force, not just one part of it. So I say "buy this game yer frigging gits" because in a genre of gaming that has been defiled so many times, Dawn Of War 2 is a strategy game that like Company Of Heroes and Red Alert 2 is fun no matter how many times you play it.

Old Film Review #2: Harry Potter and the Philosophers stone (released in 2001

Ah!  This film takes me back!  I mean yeah I'm only 17 so I'm not really very old but still, I've grown up with this particular film series for most of my life so far.  And what with the last Harry Potter film having been released recently, I thought it might be a nice idea to take a little trip down memory lane and review the first instalment of possibly the longest film series (next to the Bond and Star Wars series') of the last 10 years.

Set in a slightly alternate world where magic users (witches and wizards in this case) live secretly alongside normal humans, Philosopher's Stone follows the main character of the series, Harry (a young British boy with tremendous magic potential and an odd scar), as he follows the beginnings of his destiny.  As the film begins we are told that somehow, Harry's parents were killed in some terrible incident when he was born.  And from that day on he has lived with his cruel and neglectful Auntie, Uncle and (very fat) cousin as well as a peculiar, lighting-fork shaped scar on Harry's forehead.  One day on a rainy holiday Harry is visited by A large wizard by the name of Hagrid (but you might as well call him Father Christmas because of how he behaves) and is whisked away to the magic school of Hogwarts to begin his journey to become a great wizard.  Now the best thing about this film is how intricate the society of the witches and wizards is and how much information there is in the Harry Potter universe.  You aren't just revealed to the 'legends' of magic, but also ways in which the magic-users use their powers to hide themselves and how there are mystical beasts roaming the halls of Hogwarts.

Some of the amazing stuff in the universe of this film can be simple (such as a mail delivery service based around owls) or complicated (a mirror with a strange past that shows anyone's deepest desires).  As Harry (played by a very squeaky Daniel Radcliffe) arrives at Hogwarts via a magical train and begins his journey in Hogwarts alongside the equally squeaky Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) he begins not only to learn more about magic and his strange past but also about a powerful stone.  A stone so powerful that it could effectivley ressurect the most evil wizard who's ever lived, so you know there's a lot at stake here.  On top of having to face a powerful sorcerer at the end of the film and prevent him from using a slightly-average-looking stone of untold power, you also get a real feel that Harry has real trouble fitting in at his first year in Hogwarts.  In some places the film jumps forwards four or five weeks to give you a better overview of our hero's progress, and although this has been botched in many films it works well in this one giving a good basis for the audience to be sympathetic towards Harry.

Now talking about Harry, Daniel Radcliffe actually plays him really annoyingly on account of having a squeaky voice when this film was made.  The same (unfortunately) can be said of some of the other main characters such as Ron and Hermione.  This can be overlooked however by the (like I said earlier) wonderful universe that the film is in and also the headmaster of Hogwarts, Albus Dumbledore (played by the great Richard Harris).  Dumbledore is everything that every little kid wishes their headteacher to be like; humourous, kind, strong-willed, clever and above all, looking like a cross between Gandalf and Father Christmas.  There are even more rich characters played aptly in the film such as the school's caretaker and Harry's guardian Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), the wonderfully sly alchemy teacher Snape (Alan Rickman) and the snotty-nosed, posh, young wizard Draco (Tom Felton).

Although there is much required of the main character's wits and strengths in the final battle of the film, the main pleasure of watching Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone derives from the second act.  This in itself is unusual seeing as how usually when a person sees a Film, the bits they look forward to most are the first and final acts as they tell the most about the story.  Now if I'm really honest I can't think of many bad things to say about the film other than the annoyingly squeaky voices of the main characters'.  This is a genuinely enjoyable film with good actors, a good plot, great characters and a definite sense of magic about it (haw-haw).

So take my advice and watch this film for old times sakes folks, and even if you haven't seen it (god only knows why after its been around for 10 years) see it anyway because its good even if you're not particularly into the Harry Potter books.  So sit back and enjoy this film, that is if you can stand the volume of squeakiness for more than 15 minutes.

Old Film Review #1: Dungeons & Dragons (released in 2000)

Short version of review: ARGH!  My bloody eyes are burning from how crap this is!  And my ears are falling off from the rubbish voice acting!

Normal version of review: 'sigh'.  Its at times when I watch films like this that I wonder how many other such abominations of film-making there are out there and why they all haven't contributed to an apocalyptic downfall of the film industry.

So yes, as you probably guessed already from the short version of this review; the 2000 film of Dungeons & Dragons is about as much use as a diarrhoea flavoured ice-lolly.  To put it simply, there is nothing good about this film; the CGI is incredibly dodgy, some plot events go totally unexplained, the characters are all forgettable except for the one good black guy who is the first to die and on top of all that the two main bad guys are the living embodiments of 'over the top ridiculousness'.  But don't worry!,  The very formula, stereotypically-fantasy, 'been-done-a-thousand-times-before' plot will save the day!.  The plot follows a pair of thieves, Ridley (the one with stupid hair played by Justin Whalin) and Snails (the typical 'not-too-clever' sidekick played by Marlon Wayans), on a quest in which they team up with a team of fantasy characters (a dwarf and elf who hardly do anything and an anoying, geeky mage) whereby they have to stop some guy from using some red staff to summon loads of dragons and whatever.

Folks, to say that this film is bad is putting it kindly.  To say that its really bad is putting it lightly.  To say that its a f*****g piece of s******g garbage is still to kind.  To say that its about as detestable, bad, ugly and deplorable as Margret Thatcher is about right, no really, its THAT bad.  On top of all the horror iv'e already heaped on this monstrosity its quite fair to say that all except one (Jeremy Irons) of the actors are unrecognisable no-bodies.  Double that with the fact that they all botch every one of their scenes and lines and you have a film that in some places is nearly impossible to watch, oh yeah, there's hardly any character development (just like in the Transformers films).

Despite all this its actually worth watching the damn thing just to see the totally over-the-top turn at the end of the film by Iron's character 'Profion' and Profion's main henchman: a bald guy with red ears, crappy-looking armour and (god only knows why) purple/blue lipstick.  To make this all worse, the main henchman with blue/purple lipstick is by far the worst actor in the entire film.  His lips are always jutting to one side, all of his lines are spoken so badly that they sound like he's got a loaf of bread stuck down his throat and his face only knows 3 expressions (blank, blank but slightly annoyed, in over-the-top pain).

People, I could go on and on and on and on about how bad this film is like how the girl playing 'the empress' is one of my top 10 worst actors EVER, but i've exhausted my complaining glands enough for today.  So I leave you with two small things.  1-an urgent request  for you all only to see this film for the stupid ending.  And 2-a short review of the film Grease 2: GRAHH! my bloody ears are falling off!, again!.

Game Review #2: 007 Agent Under Fire (released in 2001)

First things first, I'd just like to quickly apologise for not bringing a review out yesterday.  You see, I was traversing the sea of souls, whilst trying to play Guitar Hero on my way to the book store and long story short; I wasn't able to bring out a new review.  So because of that here's a review of an old and really good Bond game that I grew up with!

The premise of this old, gem of a PS2 game is; you are the legendary bad-ass MI6 agent James Bond on a mission to stop a sinister organisation, with a dramatic emblem and even more dramatic name, from cloning some world leaders in order to take over the world... or something like that.  See, the weird thing about the plot in this game, is although it’s very much like the plot in all the other Bond games and films (i.e. Bond meets a woman who may be evil and discovers from her about an evil organisation and then teams up with a good woman to knock it out etc etc), the plot of 007 Agent Under Fire actually gets pretty difficult to follow at some points.  Thankfully however, the game compensates for that with some awesome guns, some unintentionally comedic aspects to the game (eg: the most inaccurate sub-machine gun in a game ever), a truly entertaining split-screen mode and of course a laser gun in split-screen mode that can only be described as the "you lose, bitch" cannon.

Like the plot, the graphics aren’t up to much. I mean, it looked good back in 2001, but today it looks like every character has been constructed out of bits of cardboard and toilet rolls.  Nowadays though, that in itself contributes to the game being all the more comedic and appealing.  There are some cut-scenes in the campaign where, because of the graphics, you get the feeling that all of the characters are completely void of any emotions, which may also be due to the slightly pants voice acting.  Now you're probably wondering why I'm saying so many bad things about a game that I said I've always liked.  The truth behind that is that all of the flaws in the game are balanced by other flaws; crappy AI in the campaign compensates for dreadful accuracy in most of the guns and great deals of unintentional comedy compensate for a pretty token plot.

The best thing about the game funnily enough however isn't the gameplay, comedy, cracking vehicle sections or women with box-shaped boobs, but the typical, trademark bond gadgets.  In the campaign you're given a typical bond-style selection of gadgets to help you achieve your objective; a laser for locks, a decryption device for large doors, a grapple hook for grappling onto hooks, etc etc.  On top of getting plenty of handy gadgets in the campaign you're given a couple in split-screen mode; the Q-Jet and Q-Claw.  As far as names go these two gadgets are pretty self-explanatory, with the Q-Jet you press the button to activate and you can blast around on rooftops having dogfights with rubbish assault rifles.  The Q-claw is also bags of fun. In the campaign you can only use it on all-too obvious grates scattered around each level, but in the split-screen multi-player mode you can use it on any surface which means that you're transformed suddenly into a frantic version of Spider-Man wielding a rocket launcher and revolver. The gadgets consequently add hilarious and endless possibilities to the generally close combat multiplayer maps.

As well as the unimaginative names for the gadgets in the campaign you're also forced to do several vehicle sections.  Now vehicle sections are hard to pull off especially in a shooting game where you spend the rest of the time in 1st person view.  Surprisingly though, the vehicle sections in Agent Under Fire are actually not half bad.  In total the game has only three or four and for a pretty short campaign of 12 levels that's a pretty good number of driving sections. In most of the vehicle sections you zoom about in a beautiful car fitted out with missiles, chain-guns, oil-slicks and whatnot.  The best vehicle section by far however is half-way through the game where Bond crashes his car into a warehouse and surprise, surprise; he steals a cold-war heavy tank to rampage around the city streets with.  Although being highly un-realistic, this section is balls-out fun especially when you shoot a passing fuel train on a bridge to collapse the bridge onto two other tanks.

So aside from the stupidly easy campaign (especially the bosses) and graphics that makes Mortal Kombat look like the nuts, 007 Agent Under Fire is actually a pretty damn good game especially for revisiting the days when the latest bond game or film wasn't total crap.  So get an old second-hand PS2, then get this game and I guarantee that you'll  be shaken not stirred (ba-dum-tish).

New Film Review #1: X-men first class

Now this is what an X-men film should be like!
None of that wishy-washy, black leather-clad, brooding balloney that plagued the last 4 X-men films, no, this is the real deal.  This film is colourfully dramatic yet surprisingly smart, it has scenes of utmost intelligence and serenity and action scenes that put the whole of all of the previous 4 X-men films to shame.

The premise of this film is pretty simple yet tantalisingly interesting, what it shows is the events and happenings that led the most important X-men characters (primarily Magneto and Professor X) to the events spanning the first 3 films of the series.  The plot is also a big plus in this film; its the 60s and Sebastian Shaw (a super powerful mutant/former Nazi doctor, played by Kevin Bacon) is trying to start world war 3 using the Cuban missile crisis as a launching point so that he can establish mutants as the dominant species of earth.  The only thing standing between Shaw and his followers' success is a young team of CIA funded mutants led by a young (future enemies)  Professor X (played by James McAvoy) and Magneto (played by Michael Fassbender).

One little fact that we're let in on (one that I was certainly surprised by) is that the alluring and shape-shifting Mystique (played pretty well by Jennifer Lawrence) is in fact the step-sister of Professor X.  Ah sod it, who cares about that!  The main thing I want to talk about is the bit we all anticipated in the trailer; that big-ass aerial battle near the end of the film where Magneto lifts a freaking nuclear sub out of the Atlantic using his powers.

Now you're probably thinking; is that action scene at the end really as bombastic and brilliant as its shown to be in the trailer? Answer: indeed it is my freinds!  Not only is it well-shot and the ideas behind it brilliant (i.e. the sub being levitated out of the water, the X-man Banshee flying low-level over water being chased by a girl with huge wings) but the tension of not knowing what will happen in the next shot is palpable.  This contributes greatly towards the battle scene near the end of the film being all the more enjoyable.  Another factor that contributes to this greatly is that you really know that if the good guys lose then the world will end in a nuclear war, the idea of such a horrid end to the world makes the cause that the good guys are fighting for all the more sympathetic.

I would reveal more about what happens and develops in the film but I wouldn't do that to anyone who hasn't seen X-men first class yet because you really need to see for yourself how good this film is.  The weird thing about this film though is that one of the main reasons why it could be received so well  by other critics is (like I said earlier) that it is considerably well-made compared to the last 4 X-men films which weren't so great.  There really is only two bad things I can say about this film folks: 1-it could've done with a few more action sequences and 2-January Jones (playing Emma Frost) really doesn't perform as well as the other actors/actresses in this film (especially with Fassbender and Lawrence).

Apart from that it's the best super-hero movie to come out in quite a while so go see it.  Score:3.75/5

Game Review #1: Duke Nukem Forever

Let me just say off the bat that Duke Nukem Forever is not a very good game.  Oh yeah, sure it has a muscle-bound kick-ass guy with an Arnold Schwarzenegger hair cut as the main protagonist, but on the whole it’s really not all that good.  One of the main reasons for it not being a very good game is due to the fact that the anticipating public has had to wait more than 12 years (12 freaking years!!!) for this game, only to find out after release, that it's less use than a poo-flavoured lolly. What I really mean though, is that it under-achieves tremendously, and not just with the game play.  The characters fighting alongside Duke are all one-note, the music isn't as blood-pumping as it was in the many, many trailers and on top of all this the ending is a massive fart.

The annoying thing however, is that I was expecting the gameplay to involve many different weapons, which you used in a variety of different environments and a multitude of situations. The reality of this of course is very different. Unlike in equivalent, but much better games, like Serious Sam, there very few weapons or power ups in the game, and the whole experience is made up of near-identical shoot/go action sequences broken up occasionally by slightly more interesting sections where you're shrunk to the size of a rat.  As well as a lack of weapon varieties there isn't much to look at in terms of environments; you spend the first third of the game in a tower and city, the second third in a desert, and the last part running around in a brownish-coloured industrial plant (whoop-de-bloody-doo).

I could go on and on listing how bad and utterly time-wasting this game is (i.e. its lack of enemy varieties, the last boss being a copy of the first one but with more health), but I won’t waste your time.  Do yourself a favour; if you see Duke Nukem Forever being offered at a price that's good or bad do not buy it whatsoever.  It is by far the biggest computer game disappointment I’ve had since buying Mass Effect, which was so tedious I nearly cried.  There is however, one good thing about this game; its excessive amounts of nudity (Huzzah!).