12 Days of Overlook

UPDATE: Today, we finished our first event (12 Days of Overlook), and tonight we finish out 2012. To everyone who has visited our site and those who continue to visit it, you have our genuine thanks. Next year, we have much to look forward to regarding media. From AAA games, to blockbuster films, and hopefully, the start of a new console generation. We will be bringing you reviews and articles all of next year and we hope that you continue to support us just by reading our posts. Tomorrow, we start our second event, but tonight, we celebrate. To 2012, and to all of you. Thank you, and have a happy New Year.

Austen and Ryan


As the holidays draw near, and we begin to hibernate in our homes, who wants to do anything else but play some games and watch some movies? We figured that this would be the perfect time to launch the site officially, starting with a massive wave of content spread over, you guessed it, twelve days. Starting on December 14th, we will update our "About Us" page and, more importantly, release our mission statement along with our review scoring rubric. We will then begin releasing a review, or article every day leading up to the 25th of December. On Christmas Day itself, we will be releasing reviews for two Christmas Day launch movies. We have been working tirelessly to produce content for you over the past few weeks, and we cannot wait for you all to begin reading it. See you on the 14th!

Austen and Ryan

Django Unchained Review

A Little Less Than Silent

Austen Goslin

If there is a place for subtlety, Quentin Tarantino has never been there. Which is exactly the way it should be; and if Django Unchained is any indication, he won't be going any time soon.

Borrowing its name from Franco Nero's classic spaghetti western; Django follows the journey of an ex-slave as he and his German bounty hunting partner search for Django's Black-German wife at Candieland. The plot is grand, ridiculous, and most importantly, distinctly Tarantino at every turn.

Waiting for them there is plantation owner Calvin Candie, one of the most hilariously haunting villains since Col. Hans Landa from Tarantino's previous film, Inglourious Basterds. For someone whose spent most of their life playing sweet and innocent, it is refreshing to see Leonardo DiCaprio’s brilliant turn as a crazed southern plantation owner. Candie is a villain who ignores knowledge in favor of pure power and evil, this combination adds devilishly to Candie's already horrifying brand of charm.

Candie is met famously by his foil, Doctor King Shultz, a German bounty hunter whose moral compass is essentially absent, except on the subject of slavery. In his second time working with Tarantino, Christoph Waltz gives a performance no less mesmerizing than the first (the previously mentioned Col. Hans Landa). Each actor's best time on screen is their time spent opposite Waltz. Waltz seems to possess a special quality, in this film especially, that forces his fellow actors to rise to his level of talent when on screen near him.

As fantastic as the performances are, it is the Tarantino script that stands on point in Django Unchained. His clever dialog masquerades as crude as it advances the plot under the careful guise of irreverence. Django Unchained represents one of Tarantino's more carefully measured efforts as he methodically establishes a focused cast of well developed characters, rather than assault the audience with a barrage of character after colorful character.

This more careful approach is, in some ways, a detriment as you lose the charm of Tarantino's enumerable side characters. However, this measurement also leads to a more engaging story whose more careful focus helps establish a more solid connection to the films characters.

In similarly Tarantino fashion, this film is violent. It is a violence that exists on a level similar to that of Kill Bill as Django dispatches enemies with nary a glance in their direction. Despite this, it is also one of the few Tarantino films to question the intention of violence, this notion is however quickly dispatched with little thought explained away as the nature of a character's world. This is one of the few missed opportunities to be found in Django, although it would almost feel out of place for anything more than a passing nod to the ethical dilemmas raised by film violence.

That being said, Tarantino does allow for a significant amount of the films run time to be spent pondering the nature of the slavery present in Pre-Civil War America. On this subject, he seems almost worryingly pragmatic in his presentation of the three views. The first presented is that of Doctor King Shultz who, feels that slavery is of the utmost evil, beyond even killing. Next we have the view of Calvin Candie who, sees slavery as a means to an end, as well as the natural order of a lesser species of human submitting to their superiors. Finally we are given Django's view, a realistic portrait of slavery as a necessary evil of the time, one unfit for those we love, but not entirely unneeded. While this view instills a slightly uncomfortable feeling in the viewer, it also fits the film perfectly, as few things are meant with condemnation, but rather acceptable as things that may have happened.

If there is one fault to be found in Django Unchained, it is in the details. While it may seem a problem of irrelevant significance, one scene stands out as a less among the predominately fantastic film. It is a scene intended to set up the third act and establish motivation for the remainder of the film. Unfortunately, it is instead a boring scene as we watch one character come to a rather obvious realization over the course of a ten minute dinner. This scene lies two thirds of the way through the second act and breaks the films other wise immaculately measured pacing.

Conclussion:

Despite this incredibly minor flaw, Django Unchained is one of the most entertaining and well crafted movies to be released this year. Django Unchained is one of the most steady and unflinching looks at a mortifying time in our nation's history; Tarantino provides us this look with a hint of realism, mixed perfectly with his trademark absurdity at its absolute best.  

Far Cry 3 Review

American Psycho

Ryan Gilliam

What is Far Cry 3? Adventure, terror, drug-trips, tomb raiding, hang-gliding...Far Cry 3 is many things. Far Cry 3 is the sorta-sequel to Far Cry 2. I say “Sorta-sequel” because, mechanically, they have similarities, but in most ways they are very different, just as Far Cry 1 was to Far Cry 2. Far Cry 3 fixes almost all of the problems held by Far Cry 2, but it manages to throw in its own little problems as well.

Far Cry 3 is about a group of rich, white, American punks who vacation on an island

together. One of these Americans is you, Jason Brody. Jason, his older brother,

his younger brother, his girlfriend, his older brother’s girlfriend, his angry friend, and his

stoner friend all get captured by the same psychopath, Vaas. They are separated

(seemingly into groups of two,) and forced to survive.

The game opens strongly, with a really powerful first 15 minutes that turns

into a really fascinating first couple hours. What makes this beginning so interesting isn't

the gameplay, the story, or even the incredible villain we see in Vaas, what makes this start so interesting is Jason Brody. Brody’s older brother is a veteran and has seen plenty of combat, Brody, however, has never hurt a fly and is so emotionally torn up by witnessing death and being forced to kill, that there is no possible way to go but down into the depths of his humanity. While the first half of Far Cry 3 is seemingly about “saving your friends” its more about a 20 something young man discovering the

darkness he possess within, and how much he actually enjoys showing it. It works really well for the first five or six hours, but seems to disappear into "plot points past" in the later half.

While Jason is on the Rook islands, he comes in contact with the pirates led by Vaas (and Vaas’ boss Hoyt,) and the Rakyat warriors, a tribal group led by Vaas’ sister Citra. The Rakyat welcomes Jason as one of their own, gives you some mystical tattoos, and teaches you to become a survivor. When the game begins and you are welcomed into the Rakyat family, you are treated as an equal, but as Jason becomes more of a badass, the power shifts, and suddenly there is a white man who is the only one strong enough to save these poor tribal losers. While it seems that in every game or movie, the protagonist is “The One” and the only hope for civilization, it does not excuse the fact that you are a blatantly white, rich, handsome American, riding in on your white hoarse (or in this case red hang-glider) to save the helpless, stupid, expendable natives from

destruction by the hands of their black oppressors.

There are several amazing characters here, but the best one by far is the games posterchild, Vaas. Vaas is more monster than man, and was obviously inspired by the Joker. He is insane, terrifying, and a delight to watch work. It is a shame, that he sees so little screen time, and that his climax is very...unfulfilling. 

When this game was first announced, the press focused a lot on the crazy hallucinogenic drugs created by Dr. Earnhardt. There are several moments in the story where Jason will hallucinate due to drugs or...other means. In the beginning, these are really cool and are very reminiscent of the Scarecrow sections of Batman: Arkham Asylum. Later in the game, however, they become a tool for when the writers seem to get stuck. Whenever there is a seemingly unsolvable problem, or a plot point that is really stretching it, Jason will hallucinate, and then move on quickly. This leads to many confusing moments later in the story that you are just supposed to accept as “cool” and move on even though I

ended up feeling cheated out of any real answers or explanation. I'm all for ambiguity,

but this is not the way to do it.

As far as gameplay is concerned, this game is a blast to play. Depending on how you

build your massive skill tree (through the unique and cool tattooing system), you will

gain advantages in your preferred play style. Want to run around with a knife and bow,

silently eliminating your foes? Make your bow steadier and be able to throw your

enemies' knife into another enemy within range. Wanna be Rambo and murder with

LMGs and RPGs? Take less explosive damage, and pull the pin from an enemy

grenade and kick him into a crowd. The variation of the way you can play is a blast, and I took full advantage of it. It is some of the most improvisational video game fun ever.

The usually bland savannah of Far Cry 2 is replaced with the beautiful jungles, and mountain ranges of Rook island. One thing that carried over from the second Far Cry, is the realistic fire. Fire is a powerful tool in Far Cry 3, as you can set a small area ablaze, destroying your enemies and possibly yourself in the process.

Living inside these lush environments, are the games many animal species. You can

hunt all these animals, and some of them can hunt you. For instance a pig will just let

you kill one before they freak out and run away, no danger. On the other hand, a Bengal

Tiger can quickly ruin your plan by showing up out of nowhere for a quick meal. Animals

are mostly just used for the crafting system. Hunt these, get a bigger backpack, or more

ammo. The animals are particularly useful when they are locked up in a enemy camp.

Depending on the animal (bears work better than the weird carnivorous ostrich thing) all

you have to do is shoot open the cage, and watch your enemies get torn apart by the beasts of Rook island. Wildlife is really what makes this game so unpredictable and a ton of fun to wander around in.

Multiplayer:

Far Cry 3 boasts a impressive single player campaign, along with full multilayer, and co-op

missions. However, while the multiplayer has some cool moments, it does not stand

out amidst the multiplayer giants. This is not because it just isn't as popular, its because

most of the time it feels like a rip off of Call of Duty with much weaker mechanics. Its not completely without its

moments, but I see no reason to play this over any of the other 100 FPS games’

multiplayer.

There is also a co-op campaign that is actually pretty fun. It breaks away from the open approach of the single player, and allows you and four friends to kill pirates up and

down the islands. It’s action heavy, and is given some replayability due to the leveling

and loadout system tied to the multiplayer. The co-op and multiplayer can be fun, but they are in no way the reason you should buy this game.

Conclusion:

Far Cry 3 is an excellent game, and a great AAA title to end 2012. Marring some

frustrating story bits and tacked-on multiplayer, this game soars to some really

impressive heights and is sure to be near the top of many “Best of 2012” discussions. If

you are looking for another big open sandbox game with a ton to do that is

immeasurable amounts of fun to play, dive into the definition of insanity.

Note: Far Cry 3 was reviewed using a retail copy of Far Cry 3 for Xbox 360.

Les Miserables Review

The Blood of the Martyrs 

Austen Goslin

How does one translate one of the most well known, beloved, and bombastic musicals of all time from stage to screen? By taking it even farther of course, and that is exactly what Tom Hooper has done with Les Miserables.

An adaption of an adaption of an adaption, the film is based on the operetta, which is based on the Victor Hugo novel of the same name. Hugo's melodramatic opus is essentially a series of vignettes connected by the transformation of Jean Valjean from a bitter convict to a merciful saint, all set to the back drop of a post-revolutionary Paris. The story is a bit absurd, but that never stops it from inducing sobs from an entire theater full of people. Despite the clearly over the top story, it never feels out of place in a film whose dialog is nearly all handled in song.

Valjean is in nearly every scene of this two and a half hour epic, and Hugh Jackman makes every moment of it a treat. Having been given next to no serious acting roles, it is fascinating to see Jackman's, Tony winning stage presence translate so well to the silver screen. Jackman effortlessly manages to balance the beauty of the songs he sings and the emotion with which they deserve to be imbued.

As talented as Jackman is, it is most of the cast that surrounds him that makes this film so much fun to watch. This star studded cast includes Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter as the comical and blundering Thénardiers, whose lighthearted scenes do well to break up what is other wise a solid two hours of sadness. This film also plays host to a new comer of immense talent, Samantha Barks, who plays a hopeless lover of a boy already in love with another. This role demands every bit of attention for the few scenes she is in. Based on her already remarkable theater career, it is no surprise that she possesses one of the finest voices in the cast.

While most of the cast has overwhelming talent and plays their parts well, there are disappointing exceptions. One of these is Russel Crowe's Inspector Javert, the films almost unrelenting antagonist who seems to be almost entirely without consistent motivation. This is of course a problem with the adapted material itself, but it is one that should have been addressed when the re-writes occurred. While these rewrites may worry long time fans, they are entirely necessary, and help the films translation from stage. The second of the films few disappointments is the star crossed lovers, Marius and Cossette, both of whom struggle to rise to the talents of their fellow cast members. The few flaws are vastly out-weighed by the performance of Anne Hathaway.

Her turn as a mother struggling to support her daughter is breathtaking. From her songs to her sobs, she delivers easily the best performance of her career. For all of her almost half hour screen time, Hathaway shines orders of magnitude brighter than anyone else in the film.

All of these performances are captured rather gracelessly by director Tom Hooper. While his visual styling fits the story well, his framing is often awkward and pointless. He seems to have only two settings for the film: huge, epic, far shots, or way too close-ups. The few times he does find a middle ground, he turns the camera to odds angles that have no practical or narrative purpose. It seems as if he was consistently afraid that the singing in the film would turn people off, so the directing had to be startling and unique, however, this attempt falls flat more often than not. For all his faults Hooper's decision to make cast members sing live with the full orchestra gives the film the life that the story needs desperately in order to thrive.

Conclusion:

While its problems are sure to be overlooked by fans, those less familiar with grandiose, over the top nature of theater may find less to like. Despite its noticeable flaws, Les Miserables is a wonderfully acted and gorgeous film that seeks to return movie musicals to their former glory.

Note: Les Miserables was review at a pre-screening event hosted, for Stubs members only, by AMC Theaters.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Review

A Hobbit's Holiday 

Ryan Gilliam

While there are many moments in this world of “Seriously? How have you not seen _______,” this reaction is never as strong as when talking about The Lord of The Rings trilogy. LOTR is loved and adored all over the world, not only through Peter Jackson’s epics, but through video games, music, and the original books. So where does The Hobbit come in? Well, The Hobbit is a prequel that goes back and explains things briefly talked about in the original trilogy. While The Hobbit is a fine (much easier to read than the LOTR) book, Jackson’s translation into film falls shy of the last visit to Middle Earth.

The Hobbit takes place about 60 years before The Fellowship of The Ring, and follows around Bilbo Baggins (Frodo Baggins uncle). It is about a very well-to-do hobbit that gets swept up into an adventure entailing dwarves, a familiar wizard, and a dragon. While the LOTR trilogy is a walk-a-thon for the saving of all of Middle Earth, The Hobbit is simply a heist movie filled with dwarves trying to reclaim their home from the villainous dragon Smaug.

The seriousness, and gravity of the LOTR trilogy just isn't present in The Hobbit due to its more kid friendly story line. This makes for a tone (especially in the beginning) that is mostly charming, but lacking in any real substance.

Where The Fellowship of The Ring began slowly, The Hobbit’s beginning is even slower, overstaying its welcome for a good 30 minutes. The first hour is filled with songs, flashbacks, and fart jokes. It's a disappointing shift from the original trilogies darker tone.

Thankfully, the second and third act feel more like what we are used to seeing in Middle Earth. The battles are epic, the story is darker, and more mature characters are introduced (or re-introduced depending on how familiar you are with the trilogy.) Marring one character that completely ruins the two or three scenes he is, the rest of the movie remains consistently dark, with small bursts of wit.

Due to the fact The Hobbit book isn't even as long as one of the LOTR books and Jackson is splitting The Hobbit into three near three hour movies, he adds quite a bit. When the announcement came that The Hobbit would be split into thirds, there was much concern about filler and accusations of “money grabbing.” Surprisingly, Jackson manages to not only pull off almost everything he adds, but he also makes it feel organic, as if it were just hidden within the pages of The Hobbit to begin with.

The film makes it through roughly six chapters out of 20 in the book. The film is quite long and clocks in at about two hours and 49 minutes. When The Hobbit part one does end, it ends well, making the full year wait for part 2 a difficult one for fans new and old.

As one would expect, The Hobbit has a stellar cast to breath life into all the many characters. While it is nice to see Ian Holm reprise his role as Bilbo (he plays old Bilbo this time around and is only in about 15 minutes,) his younger half, Martin Freeman, plays the originally stuck-up and prim hobbit with stunning perfection. All the dwarves do well (despite that fact that Bomber seems only there to be a “fat gag”,) and they are led by Thorin (Richard Armitage), and his right hand dwarf Balin (Ken Scott). Armitage and Scott really complement each other well, and lead the huge pack of dwarves with elegance and ferocity. It is no surprise that, in addition to Freeman, the two veteran LOTR actors really make this film shine. Sir Ian McKellen returns as Gandolf the Grey and preforms stunningly, as would be expected. Also returning (supposedly for the last time ever) is Andy Serkis as Gollum. Despite the fact that Gollum is only in about 30 minutes of the movie, he manages to steal the show with absolute ease.

Where Jackson was once a director who believed in practical effects and sets, he seems to have traded in that hat in favor of the “new digital age.” This film, unlike LOTR, is filled with CGI effects. From CGI Goblins, to landscapes, to tiny woodland creatures, there seems to be a lack of interaction. Where I could really feel Aragorn plunge that sword deep into the belly of Lurtz at the end of Fellowship, the trolls here do not even feel as “lived in” as the cave troll in the mines of Moria back in 2000.

48 FRAMES WARNING:

As most films buffs know, most movies are shown at 24 frames per second (meaning the amount of moving pictures that you see during a second of film.) While The Hobbit released in the standard 24fps, it also released in a 48fps version labeled in most theaters as “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey: High Frame Rate.” While I cannot allow this to detract from the merits of the film itself, I do have mixed feelings about it. In 48fps, the CGI looks much better, but the cost on your sanity is too great.Things feel too smooth, too bright, and too fast. Even if you have never been motion sick in your life, you should bring one of those airplane bags with you to see The Hobbit 48fps. It is not  awful, it is, however, unnecessary. Film should not ever switch too this format. If you see it once in 24fps, and you are curious about the change in frame rate, I would not discourage you from quenching that curiosity. I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey first in IMAX 3D and the next day in 48fps 3D. I would highly recommend the IMAX version and suggest you stay away from 48fps unless you have a real interest in such things.

Conclusion:

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is not a bad movie, nor is it just mediocre. The Hobbit is a good movie that just never reaches the high points of the original trilogy. However, The Hobbit is still an absolute blast and will certainly scratch that Middle Earth itch for you once again.

Call of Duty: Black Ops II Review

Days of Future Past

Ryan Gilliam

The Call of Duty franchise has evolved quite a bit since the first one was released in

2003. The series hit an all time high five years after, in 2007, when Call of Duty 4:

Modern Warfare was released. Modern Warfare redesigned and changed multiplayer

games forever, a feat rarely achieved and only with such games as Quake, Counterstrike, and the original Halo. Now that the series is in its ninth year, Call of Duty: Black Ops II has been released, and while it is solid, and a good Call of Duty game, it fails at its major

marketing push, change.

Black Ops II is expansive and packs nearly three full games worth of content into its tiny

little box. For this reason, I have chosen to split this review up into three separate parts,

each detailing a specific mode.

Campaign:

To be frank, there hasn't been a great Call of Duty campaign since Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. While Call of Duty: World at War, and Call of Duty: Black Ops certainly had some strong moments, nothing has really compared to getting hit by a nuke or the glory of sniping as your superior officer in “All Ghillied Up.”

Black Ops II’s campaign is quite an interesting one. The missions take place in both 2025, and the 1980s. The 2025 missions are full of some neat future gadgets, a surprisingly interesting story, and fun new future weapons. It is partially for this reason that I found myself dreading all of the 80s missions, and partially becauseI just didn't care about anything that was happening. The old guns all feel the same and the missions just fell flat more often than not.

While these missions “past missions” certainly bring forth important story elements,

such as the introduction to the grand villain of both past and future Raul Menedez, they

are generally little to no fun and often rely on lame set pieces and generic

environments.

The future missions, however, save this Call of Duty. The environments and encounters

are fun and varied. The “near future” gadgets and weaponry really shine whether it be

wrist launched grenades, flight suits, or Bond-like sticky gloves. The future campaign

does suffer from a few minor political hiccups however, such as the mission aboard the

U.S.S. Obama or the random female president. While these things are certainly possible for

2025, they feel forced in and too much attention is put on them to make it seem organic.

Black Ops II brings decision making to the usually straight forward Call of Duty

campaigns. Now, if you fail to stop a key target from being kidnapped, you lose them,

and could potentially change other missions. These “decisions,” or in some cases

“failures,” can change not only your ending, but cutscenes throughout the campagin.

Choosing who lives and who dies is nothing new to the video game world, but it is a

welcome addition to Call of Duty.

Keeping in the vain of “choice,” players are also allowed to bring their own custom

loadouts into a campaign mission. This adds some fun replayability, as you will not be able

to use all of the guns unless you complete mission specific challenges. While this isn't reinventing the wheel, being able to truly choose your play style in the campaign make it a

hell of a lot more fun.

Between the missions, you will have an option to do “Strike Force Missions.” In these

missions you can switch from soldier, to turret, to giant tank-bear-cannon-thing and

command them all using a RTS like “god mode” to complete the objective. Unfortunately,

unless you are playing as one of these units directly, there is little hope of accomplishing

your mission since the AI is so unintelligent and weak. The missions are occasionally

frustrating and don't add very much of anything. The only bonus, is that strike force

missions will allow you to fix an outcome of a previous story mission, or add something

entirely different to your unique story.

The story is fairly complex with a villain that actually has motivation and may not truly

just be “evil for evil’s sake.” I enjoyed the story and found it interesting to have a picture painted of 2025. It really embraces the idea of machinery dominating everything in the future and the dangers that potentially lie with complete automation.

While most characters are voiced very well and written fine, nobody stands out quite like

your future military buddy Harper, brought to life by the forever awesome Michael

Rooker. Rooker constantly makes you feel like your roaming around with a badass at

your side.

Black Ops II’s campaign has some great bits, mixed with an equal amount mediocre

moments. While this campaign isn't as good as Modern Warfare’s in 2007, it is certainly

a step in the right direction.

Multiplayer:

Multiplayer has obviously been a crucial aspect to the Call of Duty franchise since 2007.

This time around, there are a few noticeable tweaks, but nothing really life-changing

here.

All of the fan favorite modes return in Black Ops II multiplayer. The best additions, as far

as playlists are concerned, come in two forms, the first old, the second new.

First off, party games like “Gun Game,” “One In the Chamber,” and “Sticks and Stones,”

will now grant you experience. This is a change from the original Black Ops where you could bet the Call of Duty currency on the outcome of the game, you didn't earn any

experience, and nobody cared. While it may seem small, this change is a great

incentive to play these games. Not because they are experience boosters, but because

hardcore people who only care about ranking up will now get to enjoy these without

feeling as if they are wasting precious time.

Second, League Play has been added into Black Ops II. Very similar to “The Arena” in

Halo Reach, League Play allows the player (and their friends) to play a variety of

playlists to rank up and be placed in a league. This will match the players according to skill. What makes it even better, is that everything unlocked, meaning everyone is on equal ground. So whether you are a pro and want to tackle only the best of the best, or you have no idea what you are doing and you just want to try out all the guns, League Play really allows for the definitive Call of Duty experience.

Speaking of leveling up and loadouts, that is the biggest change from previous Call of

Duty games. Black Ops brings the “Pick 10 System” forward. With “Pick 10,” players are

able to completely customize a class, getting rid of secondary weapons in favor of an

extra perk. Everything is assigned one point, and you can add and remove up to ten

points. Don't want a pistol? Good, have a point back. Want an extra grenade? Its gonna

cost you a point.

It is a system that, in theory, sounds revolutionary, in practice however, it really doesn't

seem to effect much. This isn't to say its bad. I think it will be difficult to go back to the

very firm, straight forward loadouts in other Call of Duty’s. Despite how innovative this

system seems, you will still mostly see the same classes, with a few extra tweaks. If you

were hoping this would change everything, keep hoping for a few more years.

As far as gun and map design are concerned, this multiplayer seems just about “okay”. Very few guns feel unique, and all the maps are just generally mediocre. Like with every game, there are certainly favorite and least favorite maps. In this case however, I find my “favorites” to just be the maps I don’t detest.

One of the more annoying tweaks to Black Ops II, are the insanely quick deaths. Where

as in other Call of Duty games, I may escape from an encounter alive, in Black Ops II, it

appears to be “jump, or be jumped.” Rarely have I been attacked and managed to get

away, and the same is true for my victims. This can get tiresome in the beginning when you are unfamiliar with maps and common hiding places. Depending on how tolerant

you’re feeling that day, three instant deaths due to SMG could put you off for some time.

While this isn't the best Call of Duty multiplayer experience of late, it is still a hell of a lot of fun. With League Play and the “Pick 10 System,” I certainly think other iterations could learn from Black Ops II.

Conclusion:

When it all comes down to it, Black Ops II is fun. It’s not too innovative in most places

and sure it’s more of the same, but is that really that bad? If you cant get enough of

military shooters, or have taken a break from them, and are interested in getting back in,

consider jumping into Black Ops II for a helluva good time.

Skyfall Review

Shocking
Ryan Gilliam 

In 1962, Dr. No was released to the world, and the Bond film franchise was born. Now on its 23rd official installment, and its sixth Bond actor, Skyfall has landed a huge success. While there have certainly been excellent Bond films in the past, Skyfall sores above the others.

In Skyfall, we see the return of Daniel Craig as Bond (the pistol wielding, ass kicking, sex magnet, super spy of MI6), and Dame Judi Dench as M (the aging, fiery, head of all the British secret service). In addition to these familiar faces, we are introduced to Eve (Naomie Harris), a fellow agent of Bond's, Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), a bureaucrat who at first seems more foe than friend, and most importantly, Silva (Javier Bardem), the dark, psychotic villain. All five of these actors play their parts beautifully, surpassing the performances in any Bond film of recent memory.

Skyfall shows the audience a damaged and aging Bond, who is thrown off his game after being pronounced dead within the first ten minutes of the film. After his “resurrection”, we are treated to watching the usually precise and perfect 007 falter in many of his usually natural tasks due to being shot multiple times. The humanizing and vulnerability of Bond is something that was briefly seen in 2006’s Casino Royale, but wasn't quite explored to fruition. Finally, six years later, we get to see the world's favorite spy suffer in more ways than the loss of a loved one. 

As per Bond tradition, we are treated to a menacing and evil villain in Silva. Javier Bardem manages to steal every scene he is in. Whether through his dialogue, or small mannerisms, he is entrancing to watch. He demands the audience's attention in a way that was last seen with the late Heath Ledger’s Joker in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight.

While Silva steals the show, the real praise is to be given to Dame Judi Dench and Daniel Craig. This Bond film truly shows the unique relationship between M and Bond. There is an unspoken mother to son love between the two that is dealt with so beautifully. Bond and M spend most of the third act together. This allows the audience to, for the first time in series history, see their relationship as more than a voice in the ear of a killer.

From suave one-liners, to crippling insanity, the script really propels the actors into glory. The movie has significant depth to its story and characters, while still feeling reminiscent of its legacy. The jokes never feel forced, and the occasionally solemn tone is a welcome addition to the campy Bonds of yesteryear.

The conflict between Bond and the villainous henchmen always happen in an interesting environment. From an unfinished Shanghai skyscraper, to a mansion in Scotland, to a pit inhabited by Komodo Dragons, Skyfall is never boring to watch. The film is beautiful, ascetically speaking, with crisp colors and superb camera shots. Director Sam Menedes really puts his best foot forward, and his hand is seen through every aspect of this film. The trademark world travels of the famous British spy only really appear in the first half of the film. The bulk of Skyfall takes place in London and Scotland, all too familiar terrains for Bond.

The ending is satisfying in a way that lends closure to those who need it and excites for what is to come. The last five minutes will interest anyone enough to come back to Bond next time, and fans of the classic Connery Bond will find themselves squealing with memory-induced delight. The next few years will be filled with impatience as we eagerly await Bond 24.

Conclusion:

Skyfall is an excellent film for fans of the Bond series and new comers alike. Unlike many other action flicks, there is depth to every character and motivation for every explosion. Skyfall has set a new bar for Bond films in the future. While things have always changed throughout 007's legacy, this film is truly shaken, not stirred.

Smashed Review

Live's Worth Saving
Austen Goslin

Smashed is about the addicted, not the addiction. Too often films about alcoholism can turn into sermons on the evils of the drink. Smashed is the rare one that brings a bit of negative bitterness towards sobriety.

Smashed follows the young couple of Kate (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and Charlie (Aaron Paul) Hannah. For them every night is a party and happy hour lasts from dusk till dawn. Their string of ceaseless drinking is only halted by the occasional need for sleep and for Kate's first grade teaching job.

The crux of the story comes with Kate's Momento Mori, which happens to come in the form of throwing up in front of first graders. It's from here that Smashed turns into something truly special. Forgoing standard addiction fair Smashed tells the story of Kate's long road to sobriety with an emphasis on the downsides.

Surrounded by a quasi AA group of an elder generation Kate moves closer to sobriety  We see the effects on friends and family, as well as the tole it takes on her. In this group she is shepherded along her difficult journey by a stellar cast led by Octavia Spencer and NickOfferman.

Throughout her story, Kate suffers heart break at every turn. As Kate tries to find fun in sobriety and retain the friends she knew from drinking,we are shown why sobriety is so difficult. It is an amazing movie that can turn a viewer so starkly against the concept of sobriety.

There is a special feeling contained in every defeat Kate faces, one that viewers can't help but be pulled into. The film always feels strikingly genuine, in a way that seems born out of shared experience between creator and character. Each moment is handled gracefully by script that loves each of it's characters.

These moments are handled with grace by director, James Ponsoldt. He allows the story to be told through the performances rather than asserting selfish  heavy handed presence. Ponsoldt clearly holds the material he is working with in the highest regard, and never tries to tamper too heavily with it. This helps a great deal with the genuine and honest feel that permeates every aspect of the film.

It is this honesty that keeps Smashed from falling into the stereotypical ruts of a recovery story. Watching Winstead crawl from wreckage of Kate's lies and successes is an experience that can only truly be described as human. This humanity is quite possibly the best success of Smashed.

Ina film loaded throughout, with incredible performances, it is the truth in the relationship between Kate and Charlie that truly shines. Winstead and Paul work perfectly off of each other with a chemistry that never feels forced. Seeing young actors perform with such staggering talent is a treat that inspires hope for the future of films.

If there is fault to be found in Smashed, it lies within the story.While the primary story is told with great effectiveness, side stories are often dropped with only a passing mention. This scripting inconsistency could easily be damning for some films, however in the end  the charm and heart of Smashed helps it to easily over come it's few faults.

Smashed is a rare film that handles a heavy topic with brevity and truth. It never allows the viewers attention to slip, and in such a human story  this is a phenomenal feat. Every aspect helps to lend the films quality and depth sadly absent from the majority of major films.Smashed is an honest and beautiful look at the problems of fixing life.