Friday, 23 August 2013

Battlefield 3

Platform: PS3

Released: 2011

So I got a PS3 recently (only about 6 years after it was released) and have been using it a fair amount as you might expect.

One of the games I was most eager to play was 'Battlefield 3', partly to see how good it is, partly also to compare it to 'Call of Duty' games. Battlefield players/fans, it seems to me at least, make a point of dissing Call of Duty games online more regularly than the other way around; common arguments (that Battlefield fans make) are that Battlefield games are more realistic and more team-based, whereas Call of Duty are games where people run around shooting aimlessly; or that Call of Duty is played by 12-year-olds while Battlefield has a mature fanbase; you get the idea.

I'll start off with the single player campaign; the story follows a fairly standard (in my experience) structure for first person shooters where the protaganist (Blackburn) is being questioned, and relates the story in flashback about how/why he got to where he is now. You get to play as Blackburn in some of the missions, and some other characters along the way as well.

One of the USPs of Battlefield games is that you get to use tanks, aircraft, vehicles etc; this seemed exciting in principal, but in the game itself, you only get one mission in a tank, one in a plane, and that's about it.

Another feature is that the game features dynamic maps, i.e. the environment is destructible and breaks up when shot/blown up etc. This feature works well in the game and adds an extra level of strategy to some sections as you can't just hide behind the same thing for too long as it might get destroyed; as I may have hinted there, this is fairly limited though, you can noticeably shoot lots of stuff in the game (like signs etc) and they don't destroy at all, they just show bullet marks.

As for the story itself, it's fairly standard, and I found most of the characters rather bland; certainly compared to the two 'Call of Duty: Black Ops' games, which featured several memorable characters, it was below par. The best character is a Russion agent called Dima; the two missions where you get to play as him are the most exciting in the game.

I should mention the controls here as they affect the campaign and multiplayer; I find it strange that the PS3 controller features two trigger buttons (L2 and R2) but the games makers have chosen instead to utilise the L1 and R1 buttons as the ADS and trigger buttons. Added to the low PS3 analogue sticks, I found this quite uncomfortable at times as it cramps your fingers a bit.

As for the multiplayer, I found this to be quite good fun, though in comparison to COD, seems very limited. For starters, there's far fewer game modes than COD, and most of the ones here are just different forms of Team Deathmatch, which, in my opinion is always the most boring game mode in FPS games.

There's also far less customisation than on COD. There's only four classes available, and it takes quite a while to level any of the classes up, leaving you with essentially the same four choices of loadout for a considerable period of playing time.

There's noticeably fewer maps to; there's only nine, compared to COD which has anywhere from fourteen to eighteen. This isn't too much of a problem in the short-term, but can get a bit boring after you've played on the same few maps quite a few times. That said, the maps are much bigger than on COD games, so it does give them a little more life. (You can of course pay over the odds for some more maps.) The bigger maps do pose some problems; while they are needed to enable the use of aircraft and vehicles, it also means you often spawn miles from the action, leading to a frustrating few minutes while you run across the map to get back into the game.

One feature of the multiplayer is that it allows players to rent (and control) their own servers. This is very expensive (at $30 per month), though if people can afford it, it's their choice I suppose. The problem with this is that the server-owners have complete control over the game, meaning they can (and do) kick players, switch teams around and generally do what they want. I've been kicked three times from games, even though I've always abided by the "rules" set out at the start of those matches. On each occasion, the team I was on was winning; take from that what you will. 

Overall, Battlefield 3 is a good game, no doubt, let down slightly by a rather mundane campaign, occasionally awkward controls and a lack of customisation options in the multiplayer section. I don't find it to be as enjoyable as any COD games I've played, though that's not to say it's without merit. For players who want slower-paced games on larger maps, with aircraft/vehicles etc, it's the better choice. For me, I prefer the faster pace and greater variation of COD. I would still be interested in playing future Battlefield games, though I will be getting the new COD game ('Ghosts') as a priority.

Rating: 3/5

Thursday, 22 August 2013

St. Elmo's Fire

Director: Joel Schumacher
Writers: Joel Schumacher, Carl Kurlander
Starring: Emilio Estevez, Rob Lowe, Ally Sheedy, Andrew McCarthy

Released: 1985


The Brat Pack grow up! About a group of friends trying to adjust to life after university, this film guides us through the trials, tribulations, hook-ups, break-ups and general fuck-ups of the friends.

If my description makes this sound like an interesting film, then I apologise, because this is truly fucking awful. I never cared for any of the 80s Brat Pack films anyway, but this might well be one of the worst of them, which is really saying something.

I don't know where to begin on describing all the shit things about this film, but I'll give it a go. The characters are all whiny, selfish bitches; each one is like a two dimensional cardboard cut-out of a different type of person, from the selfish yuppie to the virginal, caring, homely, blonde woman. I can't for one minute believe that these people would be friends with one another. Almost all the actors in this film are terrible, especially Emilio Estevez as the weird stalker-type(!) and Demi Moore as a coked-up yuppie(!) with a step-mother fixation(!); only Andrew McCarthy and Ally Sheedy aren't instantly stabbable.

The film is also really badly made, it looks like a cheap shit TV movie, the kind that you watch and think, "I could make a better looking film by drawing pictures on my cock and shaking it about and filming it." Seriously, bad episodes of Murder, She Wrote look better than this. The music made me want to punch myself in the ears, particularly the seemingly hundreds of scenes featuring Rob Lowe playing the saxophone, which no-one needs to see or hear, especially with the offensive mullet he's sporting.

I could go on, but I don't want to kill myself. At least not until I get to play on the forthcoming WiiU. The only value in watching this film is to turn the sound down and look at how shit the haircuts and clothes are. Even then you would still hate it and yourself and will want to invent a time machine and go back to the 1980s and kill a load of people with big guns. Joel Schumacher might well be the worst film director ever and I hope bad things happen to him.

Rating: 0.5/5

Wednesday, 21 August 2013

The Fifth Element

Director: Luc Besson
Writers: Luc Besson, Robert Mark Kamen
Starring: Bruce Willis, Milla Jovovich, Ian Holm, Gary Oldman

Released: 1997


In this film, there's some aliens, some stones, a perfect person, some more aliens... I could describe the film properly but it would make my brain bleed. Essentially, some evil wants to destroy Earth, a "perfect" being is saved by Bruce Willis and a priest, and they must work together to stop the evil.

I can remember when this film came out; word got around amongst people I knew that this was going to be the best sci-fi film ever because it took the best elements from Star Wars, Blade Runner, etc, and was going to be all put together to be totally awesome!

Sadly, this is far from the actual truth. This is actually a phenomenally terrible film. The (pointless) rip-offs are endless, and go way beyond the idea of being homages, especially from Star Wars, from Ian Holm's character being dressed like Obi Wan Kenobi to the design of the spaceships. The dialogue is consistently terrible, most of the characters are deeply annoying (especially those played by Gary Oldman and Chris Tucker), the story is stupid and messy, the music is shit and the humour is crass and unfunny. The whole film is structured and acted like a farce, but not a very good one.

The only saving grace of this film is that, when it's not shamelessly ripping off other (and better) films, it is actually quite impressive visually. The set design and special effects are largely excellent and inventive; it's actually quite strange to see such a bright sci-fi film, with a colour scheme being full of white, orange and light blues.

This film could best be described as being elegant trash, which might seem fun, but sadly isn't in this case. It's terrible.

Rating: 1/5

Monday, 19 August 2013

Casino

Director: Martin Scorsese
Writers: Nicholas Pileggi, Martin Scorsese
Starring: Robert De Niro, Sharon Stone, Joe Pesci

Released: 1995


Martin Scorsese, he knows how to make gangster films, right? He's done this, Goodfellas, erm, Gangs of New York, erm, The Departed... OK, maybe he's not done as many as I thought.

Set in Las Vegas in the 1970s and 80s, the film tells the story of Sam Rothstein (De Niro), who runs a casino (the clue's in the film's title), mob enforcer Nicky Santoro (Joe Pesci) and Rothstein's wife Ginger (Sharon Stone).

Rothstein runs the said casino successfully, but things start to go wrong when his mob bosses send Santoro as his protection; Santoro quickly spirals out-of-control, creating a multitude of problems for Rothstein, especially when he decides to start his own crew and committing robberies and killing off rivals.

At the same time, Rothstein falls for Ginger, a hustler under the spell of a former boyfriend (James Woods). Despite marrying and having a daughter, Ginger is never committed to Rothstein and turns to drink and drugs.

I have a lot of problems with this film. Firstly, the entire film seems to be told in flashback (for no obvious reason), with constant voice-overs from De Niro and Pesci. These get especially annoying when introducing seemingly every single character in much the way that happens in terrible Guy Ritchie films ("Pistol Pete was a stand-up guy who's just done a six-point for hitting a judge with a purple dildo" etc). The constant voice-overs tell the entire story, leaving a lot of scenes redundant. Maybe my view of this has been warped by years of terrible cockney gangster films that have used this trick to death, but it doesn't make it any less bad that it was done here before films that were influenced by it.

Rating: 1/5

Saturday, 17 August 2013

Premier League Predictions

The new football season starts today. Here are my traditionally terrible predictions.

1. Man City
2. Chelsea
3. Man Utd
4. Arsenal
5. Tottenham
6. Liverpool
7. Everton
8. Swansea
9. West Ham
10. Southampton
11. Fulham
12. Aston Villa
13. Sunderland
14. Norwich City
15. West Brom
16. Stoke City
17. Hull City
18. Cardiff City
19. Newcastle Utd
20. Crystal Palace

FA Cup: Chelsea

League Cup: Chelsea

Champions League: Barcelona

I've gone for Citeh to win as I think they have the strongest squad, although obviously I don't want them to win. As a United fan, I'd just about be happy with third in Moyes's first season in charge, assuming we don't bring in any big names before the end of the transfer window (like Fabregas or Ozil). I still think Arsenal will get their annual fourth place, despite Spurs strengthening over the summer, and I can't see Liverpool doing anything special owing to the terrible collection of defenders they have.

Controversially, I have gone for Newcastle to get relegated. They ended last season really badly, and I predict that to continue, followed by Pardew to get sacked, then Joe Kinnear to get put back in charge. That won't end well. As much as I like Ian Holloway, they have a very weak squad, and I can't see Cardiff doing anything either.

Given Mourinho's record in the past, I can see him going all out in the cups, which is why I think Chelsea will win both, and I think Barcelona will come back strong in the Champions League this year with the signing of Neymar.

Wednesday, 14 August 2013

The Man Who Knew Too Much

Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Writer: John Michael Hayes
Starring: James Stewart, Doris Day

Released: 1956


A remake of one of Hitchcock's own earlier British films, The Man Who Knew Too Much features an American family, the McKennas, who start the film on holiday in Morocco.

The family befriends a mysterious Frenchman, Louis Bernard, who later dies in Dr McKenna's (Stewart) arms, but not before whispering a message about a murder plot in London to him. The family are then plunged into a nightmare situation they don't really understand when a British couple staying at their hotel kidnaps the family's son, Hank.

With little help from the authorities, Dr and Mrs McKenna (Day) go to London to try and find their son themselves. There, they get caught up in a plot to kill a visiting Prime Minister by the people who took their son.

This film was made by Hitchcock as a contractual obligation, and it shows at times. The film seems unfocused and crawls along at a slow pace, and the standard of acting in the film (Stewart aside) is not the best. The plot is quite thin (especially for a film that lasts for 2 hours), and is not packed with the usual twists and thrills that you would expect from a Hitchcock film. The (pre-)finale involving the conclusion of the murder plot at the Royal Albert Hall (actually filmed in LA) is the highlight of the film, but is then spoiled by a mediocre second finale at an embassy where the McKennas go to get their son back.

Overall, this is one of Hitchcock's worst films. Despite the efforts of James Stewart, it is badly acted by almost everybody in the film, badly plotted (the whole film seems to involve an improbable series of good/bad coincidences, depending on how you look at them), and is actually quite boring. This is barely worth watching unless you're a Hitchcock or Stewart fanatic.

Rating: 2/5