Call of Duty 2 (2005)

If you've never played a Call of Duty game at this point, it's probably best to skip Call of Duty 2 (and probably 3 for that matter) if you were going to start. I have a hard time judging CoD games since they all essentially exist as carbon copies of each other, with a few minor things tweaked here and there. It can be tricky to tell in this day and age if CoD2 was innovative in any capacity. (I honestly have no idea! All I know is that it plays just like every CoD game I've played.)

The single player campaign is pretty generic. There's some cheesy, cliche dialogue from those ol' badass soldiers, who seem to enjoy fighting wars more than people who fought wars could even imagine. There are a ton of one liners that really undermines any possible depth to any story. If they were trying to show that war is hell, they sure did a great job making everyone enjoy themselves. I get it, it's a game and you want the player to have fun, but it's another thing altogether to have all of the characters seem so enthusiastic about possible bloodshed. In this way, Call of Duty has always fallen far short of what Band of Brothers did. It's impossible to really compare the two for a multitude of reasons, but you can see Band of Brothers' fingerprints all over those World War II era shooter games.  They just don't do much to promote an idea that war isn't supposed to be fun.

The game is broken up into various campaigns - British, American, and Russian. I'm always surprised at how much we love to play as Russians given that they were pretty brutal during the war (a war which they also helped Germany start). The most interesting campaign is by far the British, largely because it takes place in the African theater - a rather neglected part of the war. The Russian campaign is pretty much what you expect of a Russian story. They are short on supplies, greatly outnumbered, and the nasty Germans are on the march. So you must defend your homeland in the snowy winter with minimal supplies. And of course, you get the nasty Russian commanders who threaten to shoot them if they disobey orders. The American campaign is also rather typical. It pretty much only revolves around the invasion of Normandy. You just narrowly get off your raft before it gets shelled, a la Saving Private Ryan. The shock knocks you down and someone helps you up slowly as you look around to see people getting slaughtered. You are guaranteed at least two of these scenes in every Call of Duty that comes out.

The gameplay is pretty generic by today's standards. You've got your reload button, your shooting trigger, your grenade button, your weapon swap button, you're crouch, and you're jump. There really isn't anything else to it. It's rather bland, but I suppose one does play Call of Duty for its simplistic gameplay. "Easy to pick up, difficult to master" is a key part of its successful formula. The most annoying thing about CoD2, however, is the inability to run. I's pretty annoying to have to trudge around everywhere without being able to sprint.

One element that I really enjoyed was how the missions occasionally forced you to hole up and repel an oncoming attack. Probably the most entertaining of these involved having to climb an old tower so you could take up a sniping position. Meanwhile, Germans were coming from all around. It wasn't so important that you shoot them all; you just needed to take out the mortar crews. It was kind of fun to slow down the forward momentum of the rather linear levels (something that is again common in all the games). Of course, it was a little annoying to have to destroy tanks by running up to them with explosives. It really seems like you should be able to destroy them with a few well placed rounds from a picked up Panzerschreck. Only seems fair since when you're in a tank, they can destroy you! The tank mission, by the way, was more cumbersome and tedious than it was fun and awesome. If they were going to do it so that you had a view from inside the tank, it almost seems like a better idea to have the AI drive and you just control the turret. Having to control both was clunky, at best.

Overall, it's a simplistic and vaguely fun shooter. It's not the most entertaining nor the best of the Call of Duty games, but the nice thing about these games is that they all are pretty much the same. So if you enjoyed one, you'll probably enjoy them all. Still, there is nothing particularly stunning about 2, and it might even hurt the more recent games to go back and replay it. You realize how little the game has actually changed over the course of its life time. Shoot, from copying scenes to missions to level layouts, you literally have the same character designs. Yes, Modern Warfare's Captain Price is strongly featured in this game. And yes, he looks pretty much exactly the same.

REDUCTIVE RATING:  It's Fine

Dance Games (Plus a Random Smattering of Kinect and Wii Stuff)

One of the more fun casual party games to emerge in the age of the Nintendo Wii was Just Dance, a game centered around players awkwardly trying to mimic the shadows of professional dancers on screen while all their friends laugh. For a game that - as a game - has a glaring fundamental flaw, it's actually really fun! (That flaw, of course, is that Just Dance for Wii wants players to move around completely, but the reality is that all one has to do is move the arm to match the location of the remote indicator. The Wii will only track your arm. It is telling that despite this, however, more often than not the "unwritten rule" among players is that one must imitate everything on screen.)

With the Wii becoming the third best selling home console of all-time (just narrowly behind the original Sony Playstation), motion controls took over the moment of a generation. Rushing to compete, Sony created their motion control system in the completely forgettable Playstation Move - which interestingly might make a comeback due to the advent of VR. Microsoft, on the other hand, gave us the much maligned Kinect. Despite many issues with the Kinect, the least of which being a camera system that often could not detect black people, it is worth some credit that Microsoft opted to try something a little different. It was still gimmicky technology, but at least they didn't try to just do a pure one-to-one rip off of the Wii the way the Playstation Move was. Instead, they opted for a more advanced system that, theoretically, would track the player's entire body.

All of these control schemes, of course, are rather gimmicky and have many problems. For example, the Kinect was inherently at a disadvantage given that it required noticeably more room to utilize than the Move or Wii. Additionally, that whole "track the whole body instead of just a moving controller" thing essentially limited the number of players that could use it. For reference, anyone who maybe did not have the use of their legs and were constrained to a wheel chair could still use the Wii or PS Move so long as they could swing their arm. If you're someone who has recently suffered any sort of back injury like a herniated or bulging disk, that too would limit your access to the Kinect in a way that it wouldn't for the Wii or Move. To call the Kinect an "ableist technology" would not in be inaccurate, though it is worth stating that this statement is not meant in any sort of political meaning. Rather, by virtue of what the technology actually is, it requires people to be relatively healthier and more fit than even the Nintendo Wii or PS Move.

Still, for all the flaws as video games, many dance games are quite fun! They simplicity of the controls make them easily accessible for anyone interested and able to play them. They're solid party games, allowing video games to perhaps anchor the party without alienating those who never play them. Plus, there is the added benefit of some physical activity, which is rarely a bad thing.

I thought now that we are fairly removed, however, it would be worth actually revisiting them by myself to get a sense of which games are worth it and which ones should be skipped. Admittedly, my selection of options is very limited. In my possession are Just Dance 2 and Just Dance 2014 on the Wii. On the Kinect, I have The Michael Jackson Experience and Dance Central. At the same time as figuring out which of these is worth it for any Kinect or Wii owners, I'll also briefly discuss a random smattering of other Kinect and Wii games. Still pretty limited, of course. Some are fitness games while others are more like tech demos. So here we go! (This seemed like a good project for my "cross train" day.)

JUST DANCE 2   (2010)  - Wii

Just Dance kind of is the top dog in the dance game genre at this point, perhaps even surpassing the famous Dance Dance Revolution as the best dance game ever. (They're quite different, of course.) The follow up to the hot title improved a bit upon the original formula, but the games don't really change things up too much. Just Dane 2 is just as simple as the original, although loses the "Last One Standing" mode from the first, which was actually a pretty neat mode. Instead, Just Dance 2 focuses primarily on two player modes. More songs include two dancers in the choreography, allowing for greater multiplayer. There is also a battle mode, which isn't really anything super impressive. Then there is the "Just Sweat" mode which essentially attempts to count calories based on your score. It's not especially accurate, but it's' a good way to try and get players to use games as physical activities as well.

For most of the Just Dance games, it really comes down to either how many people you want playing at once, or the song list. Where the sequel excels is in its song selections and dance routines. Some of the most memorable choreography and most fun dances to perform are within this one. For my money, Boney M's "Rasputin" and the Bollywood track "Katti Kalandal" are two of the best in the franchise.

Worth It?   I think most of the Just Dance installments are worth it. If you only select one, this one might not be the one to pick unless you are more enamored with the track list. But I'd argue it's worth picking up anyway if you have a Wii since at this point, it's old enough to be pretty cheap.

Yes. It's worth it.

JUST DANCE 2014   (2013)  - Wii

Again, the main difference between Just Dance 2014 and various other Just Dance games is ultimately its song selection and dance routines. The core game features a weaker list than Just Dance 2, but the popularity of DLC allowed for more and better options later, which definitely makes it overall better. Additionally, each song has multiple routines to choose from. This actually improves the game as you don't just get stuck doing the exact same choreography for an individual song over and over again. Of course, odds are you'll prefer one and stick with that, but still, the "mash up" option forces skilled or quick players to have to adapt quickly to new maneuvers.

The battle modes in these games are usually interesting, but very flawed. Here, players choose a song, which takes up half of the battle. Players performing better and scoring more points with more accuracy land "hits" on their opponents, knocking off a chunk from their life bar. It's sort of Street Fighter, but with dancing. Of course, the glaring issue with this mode is that motion controls rarely feel particularly accurate, resulting in a game that never exactly feels fair. This is fine when doing random songs just for fun, but when there actually are stakes, it can get very frustrating when you have no idea why you're not scoring points.

There's also more of an online element, wherein players can perform on the "World Stage." It's a friendly competition wherein anyone can jump in and perform the same routine, seeing how many points they can score and where they land on the leader board. Players also vote on the next song, forcing competitive players to potentially expand beyond their comfort zone. It's actually pretty neat. It's one of the few times where Nintendo's crappy online play system actually improves the experience. Since you can't see other users, their names, or communicate, it makes it super easy to compete even if a little shy, with no concerns over being mocked or belittled.

Worth it?   Yes. The song selection is ok, but the DLC tracks make it great, and the World Stage is pretty rad. Plus, if you have enough room, several songs allow up to four players! (Then again, who has that kind of room?)

Yes. This would be my most recommend of this list.

DANCE CENTRAL  (2010)  - XBox360 with Kinect

The thing that makes Just Dance so much better than Harmonix's Dance Central is that it's so much simpler. Sure, you don't necessarily need to match all of the dancer's movements, but everyone does anyway because it's more fun that way. Dance Central utilizes XBox's Kinect motion tracker to force players to match both arms and legs. It's a neat idea, but there are several problems with this.

First off, for anyone who isn't an experienced dancer (which presumably, most players don't have a lot of time in the world of choreographed dance routines), it's just a bit too much to have to deal with on the fly. Where Just Dance isn't exactly punishing if you struggle to keep up with the icons, Dance Central can be frustrating to score points in, since you might be missing the leg stuff while focusing on the arm stuff. It's just too much. It is a little telling that the option before "Perform It!" in the menus is "Break it down!" Though this game might be better than Just Dance if you are looking to actually learn some full routines, it is far less fun to put on while a bunch of friends are over with a ton of energy to expend.

Secondly, the Kinect itself is not particularly reliable. Everything that isn't a legitimate controller or mouse and keyboard is always going to have trouble in that department, but the Wii remote and sensor bar is noticeably more accurate and reliable that the Kinect's tracking.

Finally, the song selection is just not that great. Not to say that there are no good songs or routines, but it's not especially exciting.

Worth it?  Only if you're a serious dancer looking to practice routines, really. The learning curve is just too steep by comparison to other dance games.

I'd skip it.

MICHAEL JACKSON: THE EXPERIENCE  (2010)  - XBox360 with Kinect

I feel a bit disingenuous trying to even talk about this one like it's a game, because it's really not. It's more of a teach tool for actual dancers to better learn Michael Jackson's moves. As a result, I don't feel qualified to comment on it. The tutorial videos (which is a big chunk of the game) actually are useful for anyone wanting to learn some Michael moves! But you don't exactly need a game, XBox360, and Kinect for that when so many videos can be found online. It's a shame, though, because a Michael Jackson dance game that is more accessible to casual players would actually be really awesome. Picture Beatles Rock Band, but with Michael Jackson and Just Dance instead.

Worth it?   Definitely only if you are an experienced dancer, or are obsessed with trying to learn Michael dance moves.

Otherwise, skip it.



And now, onto the random selection of other motion control games that you won't play a ton of, but may or may not be worth picking up if it's cheap, if only for the novelty.

KINECT ADVENTURES!   (2010)  -  XBox360 with Kinect

This is essentially the tech demo "game" to show what the Kinect is capable. Unfortunately, that isn't much. The introductory game - a raft game wherein you must collect coins, directing the boat by stepping to the sides and jumping - is practically unplayable. At no point in my playthrough did the Kinect register any of my jumps. I suspect it's simply because the Kinect is not very good at tracking, but admittedly a bunch of the failed jumps could have been the result of bad timing. Unfortunately, for a tutorial game, is offers no real timing hints to help you understand when you might need to step or jump.

Normally, it's great when they don't. Allowing the player to figure it out for themselves is usually good game design. Here, however, players are introduced to a fundamentally new and unusual control scheme. The introductory tutorial text is actually pretty self-explanatory and is filled with stuff a player could figure out within seconds of starting the game. It's the timing and calibration that needs work.

Even worse was after the tutorial game and getting into the menus, my Kinect was almost completely incapable of tracking my gestures to select additional games. I admit to not trying every game, but in my defense, it was practically impossible to select some of them because the Kinect was so unreliable and wonky.

Worth it?  Definitely not. In fact, the Kinect itself is probably just not worth it at all.

YOUR SHAPE: FITNESS EVOLVED  (2010)  -  XBox360 with Kinect

If you do find yourself curious about the Kinect, or you inherit one or someone gives you theirs out of sheer frustration, the thing it's probably best for is fitness tracking like Your Shape: Fitness Evolved. Though part of these games function to sell additional work out programs or advertise sports drinks, it does provide some rather decent workout routines that can be accomplished without consuming too much time. Generally, I stick with things like cardio-boxing.

Obviously, these things aren't exactly games. You do earn game-like things, such as experience points and whatnot, but there isn't really a point. It's more just potentially a motivation tool. I actually enjoy having this for my cross training days, typically, as there are several routines that I find give me a solid work out. The tracking isn't always great, but it can provide some pointers at times for whenever you are messing up. Having some AI vaguely function as a quasi-trainer can be helpful.

Worth it?   If you have a Kinect and you want to use it for something productive, sure. But I would not recommend getting a Kinect just so you can use these fitness programs. They're relatively solid, but there is no shortage of video work out programs you can find.

WII SPORTS  (2006)  -  Wii

Wii Sports served as the tech demo to highlight the capabilities of the Wii and its new motion control system. Where Kinect Adventures! failed because the tech was just bad and the games weren't fun, Nintendo managed to solve both of those issues years before. Wii Sports includes some logical options to showcase the technology. Baseball, bowling, golf, tennis, and boxing are all solid games to play. Even more, they're incredibly intuitive. Though they tell you what to do, anyone can literally just pick it up and figure it out. Though inevitably some things, like elements of boxing, feel kind of cheap because the motion controls aren't that amazing, everything else is fun and accessible to new players. There's a reason the Wii spread to a lot of casual gamers. Sure, you're not going to spend hours playing Wii baseball, but you will spend some time playing tennis with your siblings or friends.

Worth it?   Totally! It's definitely a good introduction to the console and its unique controls.

WII PLAY   (2006)  -  Wii

Like Wii Sports, this game was built more as an introduction to the Wii remote controls, giving players a low stakes way to get the hang of things. The big difference, of course, is that these games aren't entirely fun. They're basically mini-games that could be found in a blander version of Mario Party. They do work a few more elements into the repertoire for new players, such as twisting, pulling, and pushing rather than just swinging, but holding a remote and pointing it at the television is pretty self-explanatory.

Worth it?   Not really, especially if you already have Wii Sports.

GHOST SQUAD  (2007)  -  Wii

One of the things about the remote controls is that it allowed the shooter arcade games to come into our homes. Ghost Squad is an example of that. Generally one of those arcade games with the plastic guns that you aim and shoot at a screen while the characters move around on rails, the game translates pretty well on Wii. There isn't really much of a difference except, of course, you're using a remote control instead of a plastic gun (although certainly there were plenty of peripherals to make it feel more like the arcade controls).

These games are fun, but they aren't all that memorable. Odds are, you'll spend some time playing with friends, but this is definitely a game that primarily collects dust on the shelf.

Worth it?   If you like arcade games, you can get it pretty cheap, so sure. I don't think it's a total waste. But it isn't something you'll get a ton of hours out of.



And so there you have it. Brief overviews of some of these activity-based games. Essentially, just get Just Dance games. The Wii and Kinect are primarily made up of gimmicky games with little to retain the players for any prolonged period of time. Of course, there are some exceptions for the Wii  (which I will get to at some point on this blog). In the meantime, Just Dance games are really the only activity games with much value.

Shin Godzilla (Godzilla Resurgence) (2016)

Hitting a limited number of theaters for less than a week, Godzilla fans in America had only a small window to catch the latest Toho installment in the world-famous film franchise. The fact that it released theatrically in the US at all is, frankly, a miracle, probably owed to the internet. Trailers had released long before, causing many Stateside fans to campaign the Japanese movie studio to bring it here. Funimation managed to get the rights for limited screenings. After over a decade-long absence, the Japanese Godzilla was back, but was he better?

For the first time in Japanese Godzilla history (so don't think of Gareth Edwards and Legendary Pictures' 2014 Godzilla, and you should just forget Roland Emmerich and TriStar's 1998 Godzilla ever existed anyway), Toho put forth a new Godzilla film that is not in any way a sequel. Yes, virtually every Godzilla film since the original has been a sequel of sorts, even when they tried rebooting the series with The Return of Godzilla (1984) and then again with the Millennium series. Every Godzilla movie to this point told a story that followed the events of 1954. In Godzilla: Resurgence, however, the world has never seen Godzilla before. There was never a giant creature that rampaged through Tokyo not long after the atomic bombs. With that, the new film is the first complete Japanese remake of the Big G.

In many ways, the end result is a film similar in tone and themes to the original. In Gojira, much of the drama is centered around political and ethical reactions to the creature. The original film dealt with Japanese frustrations with their US occupiers, but also dealt with the moral dilemma of whether to kill or study the monster. In Shin Godzilla, the entire human story is a scathing criticism of an overly bureaucratic government more interested in formalities and protocol than actually getting things done. Mixed with visual cues clearly recalling the 2011 Tohoku earthquake, tsunami, and subsequent Fukushima nuclear plant incident, it is not hard to see that this film functions to address Japanese concerns with their modern government and its ability to handle disasters. Though often dragged out, eventually getting kind of boring, the use of a kaiju film to criticize those in charge is a big part of what makes Shin Godzilla feel very much in the same vein as the original.

Unfortunately, this also makes up the majority of the film, which runs just about two hours. Though the politics of the film are intriguing and compelling - making it perhaps one of the most interesting human plot lines in a Godzilla film in decades, especially when it gets into the global political stuff - the long running time and lack of real character arcs or development make it feel longer than it is. Character arcs are not a requirement for a good film, of course. However, in this case, the lack of them adds to a film that feels longer than it needs to be by easily a half an hour.

What makes Shin Godzilla feel the most like the original film is in the destructive capabilities of the titular villain. Godzilla is back as a lumbering force of devastation. At no point are we meant to root for the monster. We're not even meant to think of Godzilla as "cool" in this film. There is street level destruction that we see, highlighting the human cost (even if by the end, they have safely evacuated the city completely, giving them free rein for any and all destruction). It is also the result of a hideous and intimidating redesign of the King of Monsters. This will likely be the most talked about aspect of the film, and could wind up being one of the more polarizing debates in Godzilla circles! "How did you feel about the redesign?" is something many fans might still struggle to answer for years to come. (I am virtually no closer to an answer myself after almost a full week.)

I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE REDESIGN FEATURES NOT SHOWN IN THE TRAILERS AND CAME AS A HUGE SURPRISE TO ME. BE WARNED IF YOU WANT TO GO IN TOTALLY BLIND. 


See, the thing is that we all knew Godzilla was redesigned to be this ugly creature from the trailers, but those trailers don't really even show the half of it. First of all, Godzilla is constantly "evolving" throughout the film. The first form is this super top heavy thing that can't stand on its hind legs, flopping around as it ran instead. With giant eyes and mouth agape, it looked ridiculous and almost too silly for the serious tone the film was going for. He almost resembles a snake more than he does Godzilla. Eventually, he does evolve to walk on his hind legs, but still retains absurdly tiny forearms and an amusingly long tail. Distant shots depicting the profile make it look a bit goofy as a result. However, close ups (especially of the face) were often freaky. With smaller eyes, more prominent teeth, and a tougher, more cracked coat of scales, this Godzilla is the most terrifying look in the monster's history. It looks like it is going to kill everyone on the planet. (The red glow emitted from his body made for an especially frightening profile shot at night.)

There were a few things that didn't work so well for me, though. The atomic breath had randomly been changed from blue to purple. Plus, the way he used it required that his mouth slowly open very wide, with the lower jaw splitting almost like Predator. He looked like a drunk snake unsure if it were going to puke or not. Then, this strange black mist poured out, followed by an impressive fireball that lit nearly the entire city up in one of the biggest "holy crap!" moments in Japanese Godzilla history. But then that terrifying fire turned into a less intimidating purple beam that looked at home on an episode of Dragonball Z.   He doesn't wind up using it that often as a result, but that part isn't so problematic since he didn't really use it that often in the original film either. (I'm not opposed to changing the color, for the record. I just didn't think changing it to purple really made it better, and the texture of the beam was less impressive.)

Easily the aspect that will be most discussed is the tail. The tail, it turns out, offers a second exit point for the atomic beams, so at one point, he was shooting the purple radiation from his mouth and his tail at the same time. To me, this felt rather silly, something that had little substantive purpose and instead was done just to "look cool." It was the Godzilla equivalent of a double-bladed lightsaber in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Yet the most lasting image, and not just because it is the very last image, is of a close up on the tail. As the camera slowly zooms in, we can see what appears to be some sort of life forms on the tail. Actually, that is a bit misleading. It's not that they were on the tail. It's that they were the tail! We can't exactly see what those life forms are - they looked like human skeletons with dorsal spines - and others have pointed out that they thought they spotted whale bones throughout the tail as well. This prompts the question of, "what the hell am I looking at?"

It's creepy as heck! The close up of the tail reminded me more of The Rotten from Dark Souls II more than anything from any other kaiju film I've ever seen. It was insane and disturbing, which is why I feel so conflicted. In context of the film, Godzilla shouldn't be a monster you actively like. Yet I can't help but feel like they were a little too harsh to the monster in its design! (It also makes me wonder what the future of the franchise is, since this design is not suited for fighting other monsters, so do they expect to continue with that as the model, or do they plan to just let creators re-imagine Godzilla however they want, or do the just have no plans for future Godzilla movies at this point?)

Either way, it does succeed in leaving an impression and generating talk.

OK! DONE WITH THOSE SPECIFICS! IF YOU WERE SKIPPING REDESIGN TALK AND SPOILERS, YOU CAN PICK UP FROM HERE!

The other thing about Godzilla Resurgence is that they try their hand at more creative shots. It is hard to really pinpoint the role of the camera in the film. It changes between the traditional overseeing steady-cam, giving the audience the sense that they are omniscient viewers of the events unfolding. At other times, it changes to a shaky cam to give the impression that you are there and the camera is another character present as these things occur. Then, it often resorts to found footage style shots to give a more ground-level view of Godzilla's rampage, with the camera actually functioning as another character. And then there are the strange variations of camera position. When the group of politicians and scientists stare at data on a computer screen, the camera appears to be within the screen, looking out at the people who are looking in. There are also some weird placements of the camera, like on the seat of a chair as one person slides it to another.

It doesn't always work, and creates a sort of incoherent visual look, but many elements were interesting and different enough to stand out among the history of generally boring shot composition from the franchise's history.

It's been a few days since I watched this, and I'm still no more certain as to how I feel about it. As an American fan who has seen two less-than-stellar American interpretations (though I did enjoy Gareth Edwards's take), I really wanted to see Godzilla get re-imagined by the people and society that created him in the first place. Godzilla is inherently interesting in that his popularity spans the globe, and yet he was a uniquely Japanese creation born out of uniquely Japanese experiences. Indeed, directors Hideaki Anno (of Evangelion fame) and Shinji Higuchi (who worked on another giant creepy thing in Attack on Titan) very much updated Godzilla for a new generation, whose concerns are a bit different than past eras.

Godzilla Resurgence is the first time Toho produced a traditional remake, one that does not follow the events of 1954's classic Gojira. Not everything works, and it isn't the classic that the original was. It isn't reinventing anything, but it changes quite a lot from the typical formula. One excellent part of the film sure to be criminally ignored when discussing it is the use of the score. There are two classic Akira Ifukube tracks featured in the film. Both work within the film and a nice nod to one of the men who helped fully realize the icon. At the same time, they often added tracks that sounded like a track from the original, but was different. It was as if they didn't have the rights, so came up with something that sounded similar. This was actually brilliant as it reinforced the eerie sense that this was like Godzilla - it felt familiar - but this wasn't the Godzilla you know.

As a die hard Godzilla fan, I wasn't necessarily into the look in a broader sense, but it worked within the context of the film. Additionally, I'm left wondering what the future holds. It is difficult to make more Godzilla movies without featuring him fighting other monsters, and this version of Godzilla doesn't lend itself to that aspect very well. I don't think Toho really wants to just have a new re-imagining every few years, since it tried that in a manner with the Millennium series to limited success.

Yet it's hard to imagine this latest installment not being among the most discussed of the franchise. There was a lot to process, and a number of elements sure to be divisive among fans. It might not be the single weirdest Godzilla film to date (for all the times people give that to Godzilla vs. Hedorah, I tend to lean All Monsters Attack), but it's definitely up there.

With Legendary Pictures set to eventually release an American sequel to their re-imagining, and supposed build up to an American King Kong vs. Godzilla, there is plenty of renewed interested. Toho has done well not over-managing their creators in Resurgence, allowing a complete re-envisioning that updates a lot and makes the King of Monsters relevant again. In the past, Toho has had a problem with rushing production on sequels and over-saturating their own market. As strange as it might sound in an age where Disney will release a Star Wars film every year, and all studios release multiple superhero flicks every year; Toho cannot simply expect to make a Godzilla flick once a year like before and expect the same results. Resurgence was vastly different than any Godzilla film to date, and it was coming off of the longest retirement of the franchise. While I don't want to see another five years before another Toho Godzilla film, I think patience is a wise virtue to adopt when working on the next one. We've been down this road a bunch, now.

So if you're a Godzilla fan, you kind of have to make sure you see this one. Everyone will certainly be talking about it.

RATING: Pretty Good

Dark Souls II (Scholar of the First Sin)

Having finally jumped on board the Dark Souls train earlier this year, it made sense to continue onto its somewhat inconsistent sequel. In this case, I picked up a copy of the Scholar of the First Sin edition for Playstation 4. Being Dark Souls, I heard mostly positive things going into it, but there was a sprinkling of complaints and criticisms.

Perhaps the most glaring difference between Dark Souls and Dark Souls II is the boss designs. Though there are a few good bosses with the right amount of challenge and intimidating design, the majority of them are forgettable. Many of them are even rather straight forward to defeat. Of course, a generally reliable tactic would always be to circle around and stab in the back, but that's almost all there is in Dark Souls II. Many bosses have an attack that damages in a close "area of effect," forcing players to have to step back from time to time, but that circle-stab tactic is efficient. The DLC provides some pretty challenging bosses, but with just a small handful of exceptions in the main game, they aren't really worth noting. Just for a comparison on the final bosses: it took me maybe five to six hours total of trial and error to beat Gwyn, Lord of Cinders at the end of Dark Souls. To defeat Nashandra at the end of Dark Souls II, it took all of ten, maybe fifteen minutes, tops.

(Probably my biggest complaint with bosses, though, is how frequently they resort to "two on one" set ups to provide the challenge. Almost always, the hardest bosses are the ones that tip the balance numerically.)

Of course, that is not to say the game is easy overall. For the first half of the game, I actually struggled a lot more with the basic levels than I did with the bosses. It seemed like there were a lot more areas of ambush, and there were more moments with an almost overwhelming number of enemies attacking at once. Some of the common enemies are noticeably tougher than the previous game. There appeared to be fewer traps laid about the pathways, but the environments did tend to create more opportunities for plummeting to death. Plus, there were some areas with status-inflicting stones that made traversing the corridors more difficult. In the Black Gulch, for example, you have to navigate a minefield of poison-spitting stones. In the Shaded Ruins, there are stones that inflict curse if you wander near. The use of environment seemed a bit better in terms of adding to the difficulty.

But that leads to one of the biggest annoyances within the game. In the first Dark Souls, you accumulate souls and then spend them to level up your attributes at bonfires. Any bonfire will do. In Dark Souls II, however, you level up by speaking to someone in the hub town of Majula. This means that wherever you are, you need to find a bonfire, warp back to Majula, talk to the Emerald Herald, speak with her, and then you level up. Functionally, it is ultimately the same. Since you can warp to and from any bonfire, it essentially is the same as being able to level up anywhere. It gets kind. It feels like a waste of time, and you can't help but wonder why exactly it is that you can't just level up at the bonfire you're at.

The ability to warp to and from all bonfires also kind of hurts the game in some respects. You wind up losing a bit of connection to the world. Instead of having to backtrack frequently and get a better lay of the land, you can wind up just going from bonfire to bonfire, and then just warping whenever you need to get anywhere. It essentially takes away from some immersion in the world. In the first game, warping came late as a reward. Until then, you had to wander. Not only did this give players a better understanding of the world's layout; it also gave players a stronger connection to it since we had to walk everywhere. The inconvenience of constantly retreating to Majula to level up is slightly off-set by the convenience of being able to warp anywhere else, but it kind of loses some of that original Dark Souls feeling of having to work your way back, especially to find your merchants.

One of the biggest changes to the gameplay is the way dying makes an impact. Souls still get dropped at the spot of your death, but when you return in Hollow form, there is an actual penalty. Every time you die, your max health drops a bit. Die again in Hollow form, it drops more. If you find yourself dying a lot (and being Dark Souls, there are sections where you likely might), then you constantly respawn with less and less health, which makes the game more difficult. You can revert back to Human form with a human effigy, but sometimes those come few and far between.

I think I understand the point of this design element. In terms of the game's lore, Hollow form is a cursed form of being. According to the mysterious narrative, being in Hollow form is not supposed to be great. In the first game, you die and respawn, but there is no discernible difference between Human and Hollow. The only real consequence of being in Hollow is that you can't summon allies should you need them. They clearly wanted to put more emphasis on the horrible side of being Hollow, so they created a much more pronounced punishment. However, I found this to be a little bit problematic in the early stages of the game. It's so easy to die in those early moments. When you get to a point of greater difficulty, this change actually makes the game harder. Eventually, I did break through and was able to push on, but there was a good stretch early on where losing health every time you died (and especially with the lack of human effigies in the beginning) just made the game feel frustrating and unfair. I'm not so sure making a game harder when players are starting to struggle more really is great design, myself.

That said, I can see some positive aspects to it. For starters, if you don't keep getting frustrated to the point of quitting altogether, the increasing difficulty early on forces players to experiment more to figure out how to beat enemies that are giving them trouble. So much of the Dark Souls experience is built around learning the environment and the enemies and the game itself. While I maybe found the health cost to be a bit too steep, it did force me to try new approaches to certain areas. By the end of the game, my overall impression was that it was actually a bit too easy. Additionally, one of the ways to obtain human effigies is to help other players beat bosses in jolly cooperation, or to invade and win PVP battles. So, the shortage of human effigies early could potentially push some players into doing more online stuff (which is not my thing at all, but it might be for others). While I was not a fan of the less health the more you die mechanic, I do recognize potential benefits to it.

Leveling up has never really been as important as upgrading equipment, but it seems to matter even less in the sequel. In fact, leveling comes pretty easily. For comparison, I beat Dark Souls at around level 85. I beat Dark Souls II at around level 215. (Granted, I also spent twice as long playing the latter, but that's still a substantial difference.) The thing that's funny about that, too, is that the game has these sort of preventative measures to deal with the possibility of grinding and over-leveling. Another break from the original game is that in II, enemies only respawn a certain number of times. If you kill the same enemy X number of times, they disappear from the game entirely. This means that it is possible to clear the entire game so that you could wander around without encountering anyone.

I think the idea is that this prevents players from simply grinding to the point that they become too powerful with their stats. It means that there is a finite number of enemies, and a finite number of souls you can possibly collect in a given playthrough. The one downside to this is that if you do find yourself repeating a section for a while, eventually you find yourself walking about with no concerns. It can make areas rather boring. Of course, they clearly don't mean for you to do much backtracking with the warp system in place from the beginning, but it can still render some parts safe and tedious to trek through. At times, it even seems strategic to clear the area before a boss so that you can level up and provide a safe path straight to a big fight from the bonfire, limiting the consequences of a potential loss.

For my money, I still prefer the first game. I found the sequel to be very frustrating early on in a way that the original game wasn't, and it took a much longer time before I actually felt comfortable in II. (As an aside, I also found the lock-on function dreadfully inadequate and far less reliable than in the first game.) That said, Dark Souls II isn't exactly disappointing, even if many bosses actually were. It is still a satisfying challenge, and the experience is still unreasonably rewarding. It just felt a little more disjointed in all its design elements as a whole. Still, there's something to be said about the fact that I spent over twice as many hours on Dark Souls II. It does retain almost all of the elements that made the original game so great.

REDUCTIVE RATING: Pretty Good

The Magnificent Seven (2016)

SPOILER WARNING: Please note that this will have a bunch of major spoilers. One of the aspects to the film I wanted to discuss most requires diving into the outcome. 


Once a major genre in Hollywood history, the Western had appeared to go the way of the panda. Not quite extinct, but not voluminous in numbers. We got some good ones here and there, sure. 3:10 To Yuma got an entertaining remake. Jee-woon Kim made one of the most fun Westerns and action movies with The Good, The Bad, The Weird in South Korea. There have been a smattering of interesting additions to the genre scattered throughout the years. Yet the genre has long been replaced in pop culture. In many ways, the modern superhero comic book movie is the new Western.

The Magnificent Seven does a good job injecting what makes a good Western fun, while also updating it to fit modern cinematic sensibilities. In some senses, it pretty much is a Marvel movie - with an underdeveloped, simplified villain, plus making sure each member of the team had a specific strength. Still, the original Magnificent Seven, while a good, fun Western, wasn't exactly the high point of the genre. Few seem to really take ownership of Westerns as well, so a remake of it didn't cause much of a commotion the way that a more beloved film where fans have taken ownership like, say, Ghostbusters did. 

The classic formula is in tact. Denzel Washington stars as Chisolm, a warrant officer hunting down fugitives in the wild west in post-Civil War America. He has a run in with Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett) who offers to pay him everything her town has in order to protect it from a greedy capitalist (Peter Sarsgaard) hellbent on taking their land to exploit a gold mine. Despite the odds of surviving such a job, Chisolm takes it and begins building a team that includes the classic gunslinger archetype Faraday (Chris Pratt), the former Confederate sniper Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke), his faithful Asian companion Billy Rocks (Byung-hun Lee), the Mexican outlaw Vasquez (Manual Garcia-Rulfo), the frontiersman Jack Horne (Vincent D'Onofrio), and the lone Native American known as Red Harvest (Martin Sensmier). Together, for reasons often left unknown, the ragtag group of societal misfits ride off to defend the town of hard-workin' average folk from the oppressive greed and power of a heartless corporate shill.  (It is here where I'll plug that if you haven't seen Seven Samurai, the source of The Magnificent Seven, you should. Themes that should have been more explored in the American versions actually get some time of day in Akira Kurosawa original.)

Though undoubtedly, some people on the internet who don't know what they're talking about probably complained about the diversity of characters as meaning the film exists to "further SJW propaganda," or that the "SJWs ruined The Magnificent Seven!" Ignoring that that the racial stereotypes in the film hardly fit that narrative (the diversity is a welcome sight in a Hollywood film, but it retains some of those Western stereotypes), this diversity is actually really smart for narrative and structural purposes for the film.

Coming in at just under two hours and fifteen minutes means that there isn't ultimately a ton of time to devote to each character. It focuses on primarily three characters - Chisolm, Faraday, and Emma - with some side development for Goodnight. Everyone else is pretty limited in how much time and attention they get. We get little nods to what Jack Horne's backstory might be, but they never get into detail and leave you guessing. Similarly, Red Harvest doesn't say much. We know he's essentially an outcast from his tribe, but we have no idea why. We don't actually know why Vasquez ended up on a wanted poster. And we don't even know where Billy Rocks is actually from, really. Structurally, there just isn't time to give everyone backstory, or even have the characters themselves develop. Instead, it focuses on a small number, then allows the others to shine through character interactions.

In order to quickly establish that the audience should not think this group of misfits should be able to work, they opt to go with those surface level reasons. Jack Horne once made a living collecting the scalps of Native Americans, and then enters a Native American. Chisolm is a black man wandering the wild west free, and then enters a former Confederate soldier. Faraday makes racist comments about Mexicans, so then enters a Mexican. The film doesn't delve into these conflicts much beyond that; there isn't time. Yet it functions to create an immediate and obvious division among the team, which makes it more impressive when we finally see them all working together and focusing on the job.

Additionally, some might cry about how "all the white guys die!" In regards to the team itself, sure. Faraday, Goodnight, Jack Horne, and Billy Rocks are the members who don't survive the final assault. Before crying foul, there are two things to consider. First, all the white men from the "seven" might die, but there are other white characters that do make it. Teddy (Luke Grims) gets injured, but he makes it. Plus, the entire town was white, and many survive their last stand. Second, and more importantly, it makes for more effective emotion-driving. Given the nature of Hollywood, where white actors are given many more opportunities for leading roles, they recognize that the audience might take more to the actors they recognize. Outside Denzel, that means Chris Pratt, that means Ethan Hawke, that means Vincent D'Onofrio. Pratt plays his typically charming character, so they know people will likely take a liking to him. Similarly, D'Onofrio has emerged lately as a powerhouse actor many have been sleeping on. With the minimal screen time, he makes his character surprisingly endearing. And Ethan Hawke's character is the only one on the team with real conflict. Killing off characters that neither get much screen time, nor are portrayed by recognizable, fan-favorite actors would not have had the same kind of immediate emotional resonance as killing off the often-beloved actors who get more attention.

It makes for a better film than the original, frankly. (Granted, the original wasn't exactly "amazing" itself.)

Note: Chris Pratt might be too sexy for his own good at this point. His Marvel contract has him way too ripped for everything now. I miss Fat Pratt...

In terms of its Western roots, it does a great job doing the slow build up to one crazy, prolonged action sequence. Most of the film comprises of the team's assembly, but concludes with one long, awesome action scene filled with plenty of drama. For anyone who prefers their characters being vulnerable, plenty of them get injured and killed here. There are some cinematic missteps, of course. Sometimes, it is interrupted by an unfortunate, corny looking slow motion shot, for example. But it's largely an edge-of-your-seat type scenario. (The experience reminded me a bit of how I felt watching all of Mad Max: Fury Road.)

One perhaps cheesy aspect that I admittedly can't tell if it works or not is how each character gets a specialty. Goodnight Robicheaux, for example, is especially gifted with a rifle. Billy Rocks (being Asian, no doubt) is good with knives. Jack Horne, being the biggest brute of the bunch, is great with an ax and performs more melee type attacks. Faraday, as the quick handed card playing gambler, is a quick draw and great with pistols. Red Harvest, on account of being Native American, primarily uses a bow and arrow. It's ultimately kind of silly, but it gives it that more modern Hollywood feel. After all, if the Western essentially were the precursor to the modern superhero genre, then it's only fair for this Western to take some elements from the new king of the summer.

The slow build, adrenaline-pumping conclusion is executed really well, doing exactly what you want a good Western to do. It's fun action with some really enjoyable performances and characters. Not everything works, of course. The final bit with a weird shot of CGI headstones feels a bit tacked on, and the last line is corny as heck, but then, it is a big budget Hollywood film. After a summer of nothing but tedious, mind-numbing slogs, it was nice to get something that has a solid structure, doesn't want you to completely tune out but doesn't make you think too much, that's just entertaining.

This might also be a case where the lack of entries in the genre works to its advantage. Superhero films, for example, are a dime a dozen at this point. When every other film seems to be bad, and you get maybe seven or eight of them in the year, you just don't feel like seeing them. What really is different about any of them, at this point? The Magnificent Seven, despite taking some cues from that genre, actually does feel relatively fresh as a result of not having many Westerns coming out in the years prior.

REDUCTIVE RATING: Pretty Good!
(Scale - Terrible..., Pretty Bad, It's Fine, Pretty Good, Amazing!)