Reviews by Loyal-T

The "Rainbow Six" series seemed to had already come and gone in terms of mainstream popularity by the time "Vegas" rolled around for the Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and PC nearly two years ago. The first game in the long-running series was a groundbreaking first-person tactical shooter that both broke barriers for the strategy/stealth FPS genre and moved units on a massive scale as well, whereas "Rainbow Six: Lockdown," "Vegas's" predecessor, was more a cut-and-dried action shooter that few seemed to notice, thus halting "Rainbow Six's" firm grip on the subgenre. Within that same timeframe other stealth-oriented series', consequently, took over where the “Rainbow Six” franchise had firmly jumped the shark ("Ghost Recon" and "Splinter Cell," for example).

It is all the more befitting then that "Vegas" be a return to the tried-and-true "Rainbow Six" formula; that is assessing the situation, breaching, clearing and playing it tactically. "Lockdown," however mediocre it may have been, was only mediocre because it broke the unwritten rules as to how a "Rainbow Six" game should be made. Intensity and scripting don't necessarily go hand-in-hand and that is what "Vegas" gets right. It should also be noted that much of the strategy of previous “Rainbow Six” games were gone also, leaving nothing but a hollow shell that was more akin to an action shooter than the much-celebrated first-person, squad-based stealth games that were the previous titles . "Vegas" successfully integrates the above mentioned intensity, tension, and tactics, more or less, by way of its tight focus on "you are there" squad-based combat that truly manages to immerse rather than by way of thousands of "Lockdown"-ish scripted sequences and even its C-grade action flick shtick.

But be warned, though; "Vegas" is not an action game. Clips will be spent and limitless rounds will be fired, but play this run and gun and you're toast. The focus has been firmly placed back on getting the upper hand over your enemies stealthily, tactically even, then eliminating them quietly and with the help of your squad. Aiding you in your "journey" through a terrorist-infested virtual Las Vegas are your aforementioned squadmates who, surprisingly, help a lot more than they harm and also a plethora of interesting, but resourceful, physical tools that you will need to survive.

For example, slide your Snake Cam underneath a door to see what's going on inside the room adjacent to you without detection, or rappel down the sides of buildings (sometimes very immensely structured buildings) and then send you and your squad crashing through a window for a rather cinematic, uncouth entrance; these are just a few of the more crucial aspects of game play in which you can wholly control. And the Snake Cam, first and foremost, not only allows you to get the drop on enemies quietly and efficiently, it also gives you the opportunity to set up targets for your squad so when you do decide to breach the entrance, your fellow Rainbow operatives will take them down on sight.

Rappelling down structures seems a very small aspect of game play when one considers the bigger picture. Not only does it get you to locations much quicker than walking, say, a floor or two down, you can also attack your enemies from the outside in. Rappel down a building - either rightside up or upside down - and you are able to eliminate enemies by shooting them through the glass. Not only a cool game play addition, it is also a very useful combat aid.

Utilizing your squad effectively in firefights and even in basic map navigation is also very important. Without them, you are as good as dead. Position your aiming reticule anywhere within the visible vicinity and send your fellow Rainbow operatives there by pressing A. Have them regroup by holding down on the D-pad or you can have them change their combat approach (e.g. infiltration or assault) by pressing LB. Almost any door can be interacted with (apart from being opened by you or Snake Cammed) by you and your squad. You can position them to breach and clear a room, frag a room, or simply clear it by each respective press of the D-pad once they are in position. These are very important commands and you will find, more often than not, that finding out how to properly use your squad in combat is key to coming out victorious in any of "Vegas's" dynamic combat situations.

And for the first time ever in a "Rainbow Six" game there is also a cover system. Pressing and holding LT while facing many assorted cover objects conceals you from most enemy fire. While in cover you can either suppress fire by simply pulling Right Trigger or you can push the left stick in the left, right or up directions, respectively, to lean out and allow for a more precise shot. Zooming can be used - when in cover - by pressing in the right stick (also used for aiming down the sights/scope when not in cover). The new cover system specifically designed for "Vegas" is a fantastic addition to the series that is both easy to use and tremendously intuitive.

“Vegas” plays excellently, sure, but it also looks excellent as well. It was one of the first games to use advanced Unreal 3 Engine technology, and being a year and a half old at this point, its surprising that it still looks as good as it does. Most impressive are the outdoor environments; that is where the lighting and vast architectural design gets a chance to truly shine. Although the Unreal 3 Engine is probably more known for vast lighting detail and superbly textured character models (which are just as superb here) than memorable locales, “Vegas” manages to put you smack-dab in the middle of this virtual Vegas without ever signifying that you are NOT part of this immense illusion. The character models, as mentioned, are also finely detailed and highly bump-mapped, though I will admit that facial detail isn’t all that it could be. That is easily overlooked though. A year and a half after release and “Vegas” still looks top-of-the-line, which is no small feat.

More importantly though is the game’s sound design. Weapons sound accurate and bombastic which is all that can be asked of them. Sounds of environmental damage, such as slowly damaging a parked car with gunfire and listening to it fall apart piece by piece or hearing bullets fly past your head then pound into the wall behind you, is incredibly immersive. It was refreshing to see the in-game sequences layed out to the player with little to no music; it placed firm emphasis on the action and its accompanying sounds of battle. But music, when applied, is incredible and immersive in and of itself. Voice acting is also solid, though at times the quality of the audio is rather poor..

Moreover, apart from “Vegas’s” game play and graphics, AI is also one of its strong points. Enemies interact with you and your squad realistically, often finding cover, flanking, and working as a team. Your squadmates also tend to act as a real squad, focusing fire, responding to your orders efficiently, and helping out quite a bit in combat. Although its not perfect, it’s certainly a step up from the average “Lockdown” and prior “Rainbow Six” games given the vast advancement in modern technology.

I’ve played through “Vegas” for the PC and I’ve played through it again for the 360 and I’ll be completely frank with you, the 360 version is THE version of the game to get. A better framerate, more precise controls, easier maneuverability; it all just combines to form a better game. “Vegas” was above average on the PC but 100% exceptional on the 360. Although "Lockdown's" successor is not quite on par with the original "Rainbow Six" or its equally impressive sequel, "Rogue Spear," it's definitely one of the best “Rainbow Six” games to come along in some time. It has nearly everything you could ask for in a tactical shooter and then some. One of the best 360 games to date, as well as one of the best of its genre. I fervently wait until I can get my hands on the sequel.

Perhaps I was too harsh on “BlackSite: Area 51” in my PC review of the much-maligned first-person shooter. Perhaps I wasn’t harsh enough. Whatever the case may be, let it be known that Midway’s sci-fi/action/alien romp is NOT a bad game. Far from it, actually. Facts are facts, though, and the verdict here is that Midway’s console-to-PC port is a misguided, buggy, horribly unoptimized affair that also happens to be instantly forgettable.

But you’d think with the night-and-day differences between consoles and gaming PCs that the PC version of the game would have far outshone the 360 iteration of the title by a mile. It’s assumptions like that I’d thought I’d already learned not to make. The Xbox 360 version of the glitchy shooter is nothing special, rest assured, but it is far from being the nearly unplayable experience its PC brethren is.

Let’s start immediately with what separates the two. For starters, the PC version – even running on my AMD Dual Core 5200+ with 2 gigs of RAM and an NVidia GeForce 8600 GT – caused massive slowdown. It was unplayable at times and, most others, just not very enjoyable. The 360 version, however, remedies this. Although the framerate isn’t as consistent as I would like it to be, it is certainly a hell of a lot better than that of the PC incarnation of the game. There’s also the issue of glitches, bugs, and the other assorted goodies that stem from a rushed development schedule, such as the infamous “weapon floating.” These things don't seem to happen nearly as often, though. Clipping isn’t a problem much anymore, either.

I was also thankful to see that NPCs and squadmates didn’t disappear from out of the fucking blue whenever the game’s tempered Unreal 3 Engine decided they should. Perhaps this problem was PC-centric, I can’t be sure. I do, however, know that the much welcomed boost in framerate and what appears to be a bigger focus on fixing up small technical aspects of the game (i.e. clipping, texturing and adding a higher resolution to shadows) were appreciated by me.

Otherwise, the Xbox 360 version is identical to any other iteration of BlackSite including the PC edition. Game play-wise, there isn't much to separate this title from other first-person shooters on the market and, apart from the numerous glitches, that is what will ultimately divide players. Some, like me, may be able to get the most out of its cut-and-dried, plain-as-vanilla approach while others probably want a little more depth with their FPS (think last year's "The Darkness" or the 2000 PC action/RPG hybrid "Deus Ex" and its 2003 sequel, "Deus Ex: Invisible War").

The squad control is a refreshing alternative in a game that is, otherwise, simply point-and-shoot fare. The plot is also refreshing in that it touches on various could-be shady aspects of our government, such as made-up conspiracy theories, super-soldier programs, what Area 51 is REALLY for, and the treatment of our war veterans. But the environment in which this all takes place - your typical run and gun FPS - doesn't quite gel with a plot that seems to scream "open-ended." A sandbox game might have been the better choice; who really knows. And that squad system that I briefly mentioned doesn't really help matters either. You can position your squad, tell them to focus-fire, or have them open doors when a glowing icon appears over them with the RB button. It doesn't really matter, though, as they are poor shots and don't help a lot in combat. The only problem is your character, Aeran Pierce, can't seem to open doors on his own. That's right, having your squad breach/open them is almost the ONLY way to get into closed areas.

Even the game's Morale System - which measures how well you and your squad are doing in combat - is a flubbed idea. It sounds much deeper on the box than it actually ends up being in-game. In essence, it all boils down to this; take too much damage without dealing enough towards your enemies and your squad's morale drops. Take less damage while dishing out more towards your enemies - along with headshots - and their morale increases. But what does that morale mean? It simply means that with high morale they will become more aggressive and help out more in firefights or, if the morale is waning, your squad will become much more cautious in combat. I really can't say I noticed a difference between the two, though. They acted surprisingly similar with either high or low morale.

However average the game play may be, you can't deny "BlackSite's" striking visual prowess. While some textures are muddy and seem unfinished (something like placeholders until better textures were created) the majority of the game looks spectacular. Great lighting and shading and superb characters models in a game that is, very much so, almost the pinnacle of what the Unreal 3 Engine is capable of. Although there are times when object shadows can distort at a distance and, as I previously mentioned, some textures appear half-finished, the game is very classy visually and one of the best looking Unreal 3 Engine game's I've come across. Environments are also a plus as bump mapping - and their semi-destructability (which makes from some truly intense shootouts) - seems to play a big part in their beauty. There are some impressive set pieces that take place outdoors and, thanks to incredible lighting and architecture, they won't be forgotten anytime soon. Some of the best lighting to date, as well as some of the most detailed characters models and grandiose architecture to date as well.

I've heard some complain briefly about poor sound design and, to an extent, I can agree with them. But considering "BlackSite's" hectic release schedule, the moments where there is absolutely no music during key sequences, as well muted dialogue, are just some of the problems I believe stem from this. Otherwise, the voiceacting is certainly above average and the weapons sounds are satisfying. The music isn't as memorable as I would have liked it to have been in a game about battling aliens and their various offspring, but it'll do. The most unforgivable moments, though, are when there are intense sections of game play that have absolutely no music at all.

Moreover, the 360 version's AI is completely identical to that of the PC's; for better or worse. Enemies tend to move around quite a bit - making themselves hard targets - and manage to find cover often enough, but, beyond that, they are dumber than dumb. They display no real intelligence during firefights and boss battles, as epic as some of them may be in "size" and scope, are incredibly easy. The final fight is one of the most anti-climactic I've ever had the displeasure of taking part in. Whether that be due to rushed programming, poor AI or an amalgam of quality deteriorating aspects, you be the judge.

That truly says a lot about Midway as a once-respected gaming company when they divide a game three ways as such with “BlackSite” (that is the 360, Playstation 3, and PC versions, respectively) and the console versions of the game perform so much more outstandingly than the PC “adaptation.” The same can be said for “John Woo Presents Stranglehold,” an excellent Midway game (if you purchased it for one of the two major consoles) that received a horrid PC release. Case in point; black & white manual that appeared photocopied, numerous bugs & glitches, crashing errors, poor optimization, and numerous other issues.

Although “BlackSite’s” problems don't just stem from a company unconcerned with PC gamers, there were development issues as well. The game was rushed to meet last year’s busy holiday season and, to paraphrase Executive Creative Director of “BlackSite,” Harvey Smith, the game ‘went from Beta to Final [instantly].' But for what it’s worth “BlackSite” is an enjoyable shooter IF YOU GET IT FOR A CONSOLE. A little vanilla and it practically screams “unfinished,” it could have been a lot worse considering the circumstances. Fans of sci-fi shooters will probably dig it (sort of), others probably won’t. There’s not enough content to really sink your teeth into, but for a week’s rent and some easy achievement points, it wouldn’t hurt to give it a shot.7/10

Videogames can be the most entertaining form of media available if interesting ideas are put into the right hands. 2001's "Max Payne" and its 2003 sequel, "Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne," managed to take the magic captured in Honk Kong action cinema and translate it perfectly into the videogame universe. A well-written, intelligent plot and superb voiceacting was complementary to a game that was, otherwise, an amalgam of highly stylized "Matrix"/John Woo-esque action sequences and film noir visuals.

Enter Midway and Tiger Hill's "John Woo Presents Stranglehold." Funny how "Max Payne," a game that openly borrowed from Woo's films (namely his classic “Hard Boiled”) is generally seen as the precursor to the "slow-mo movement" in interactive media. It's interesting to note that without John Woo's unarguably style-over-substance directorial style and long, drawn-out gun battles that take place in nearly all of his films (NAMELY the aforementioned "Hard Boiled") there would be no "Max Payne."

So where does that leave "Stranglehold?" Some call it an inferior retread of a classier, more accomplished title. Others hail it as the defining moment in videogames where the world of movies is perfectly recreated for the player's own amusement. I'm one of the latter. Thanks to endless game play innovations and the power of next-gen hardware, "Stranglehold" is able to be what "Max Payne" only hinted at being nearly a decade ago.

That is not to say that "Max Payne" is not a fantastic achievement or, in fact, a landmark game. It is. But I think there would have still been a "Stranglehold" no matter if the former had been released or not. For lack of a better phrase, "Max Payne" took baby steps, whereas "Stranglehold" is a fully realized assault that firmly places the player in the middle of the action; it is completely and wholly immersive. Sure, "Max Payne" may have a better plot, it may run for much longer, and it may also have been much more groundbreaking, but "Stranglehold" does one thing that "Max Payne" just couldn't do seven years ago.

The words I'm looking for are "total immersion." The John Woo trademarks were certainly there in "Max Payne's" case; diving through the air in slow-motion, dual pistols, sliding across surfaces with the aforementioned guns drawn, big explosions, etc... And "Max Payne 2" certainly upped the ante graphically and plot-wise. But that is probably my biggest complaint with "Stranglehold." It’s incredibly basic story is just one big excuse after another in which to cause wanton destruction. There is nothing satisfactory about the game's story and you will not be the better for having endeared it's cut scenes. It screams senseless melodrama, but that is also a Woo trademark.

But game play is where "Stranglehold" really shines. "Max Payne" was, by and largely, an innovator those seven long years ago. No one had ever played a game where you could alternate between real-time and Bullet Time in an action game or any other genre of game before. "Stranglehold" succeeds in that it mirrors a John Woo film, stylistically, from beginning to end without flaw. You can do everything from engaging in standoffs (either shooting your foe or dispatching of him by shooting items in the environment while also avoiding incoming fire) to running up/sliding down banisters, jumping off walls, diving through the air, swinging from chandeliers, and using "roll carts" to lie on flat and careen towards your enemies with; all of this while shooting nonstop. There is no reload button. It really gives you, the player, a sense of being in a Woo flick, what with all of these trademark moves at your disposal, as well as the ability to consistently fire round after round without ever having to reload.

There is also the Massive D(estructability) engine created specifically for "Stranglehold" that plays a large part in its success. Had the game played like any other third-person shooter, only with the gimmick of Bullet Time (now called Tequila Time - named after the main character) it would have likely fared much worse with fans and critics. The Massive D engine allows for nearly every single object in the game to be destroyed. Objects aren't just destructible at certain locations, rather, they are FULLY destructible and you can use this greatly to your advantage. Shooting a sign above an enemy will cause it to fall down on top of him, killing him. The same can be done with statues that may be looming over them. Lights, air conditioners, and nearly every other object in the game can be shot to have the same effect. But this can also be a detriment to you as well. Your cover can literally be destroyed. Kick up a table by pressing LB next to it and, within seconds, it will be nothing but shredded splinters. Take cover onto posts and watch as pieces of brick and plaster fly apart to reveal portions of your body. It really is amazing to watch this engine work. Nothing is predetermined, as I've mentioned. The damage made to objects is 100% random.

I would be remiss, however, if I didn’t mention the Tequila Bombs. As you progress throughout the singleplayer portion of the game, you unlock one Tequila Bomb at a time, at separate times. They are controlled by the D-Pad. Pressing left slightly refills your health meter, up allows you to use Precision Aim, right is Barrage, and down is the Spin Attack. Precision Aim finds Tequila focusing on one target, firing one round, and it will result – based on where your foe is hit – a plethora of predetermined death animations. Something of an in-game cut scene. Barrage allows you to fire off incredibly rapid shots while sustaining no damage, whereas the Spin Attack lets Tequila spin 360 degrees and, whether there are four enemies on-screen or 14, he will shoot them all. You can collect paper cranes (a nod to “Hard Boiled”) scattered throughout stages of each chapter to refill your Tequila Bomb gauge every so often.

Unsurprisingly, "Stranglehold" is powered by the Unreal 3 Engine, though I can't say it’s one of the better looking games using this powerful new technology. For a better representation of what this engine can do, take a look at "Gears of War," "Turok" or the excellent "Army of Two." Although "Stranglehold's" textures look great within more abundantly lit areas, in darker locales the textures tend to look rather murky and indistinguishable. I will give the developers credit for discarding the industrial look of the engine and creating locations that were much more open and grandiose, though. The character models, as per usual with the engine, look the best. Environments are lit well and feature some nice post-processing but each section looks far too similar and suffers from some mildly low-res texturing.

Perhaps the one thing "Stranglehold" has over any other action game of this ilk, including "Max Payne," is its sound design. Weapons sounds are fantastic, music is loud and bombastic, and voiceacting is supplied by a host of talents, including Inspector Tequila himself, Chow Yun-Fat. His presence alone adds an air of credibility to the game that would have been sorely missed otherwise.

It is certainly understandable, considering the game's short length and ease in difficulty, that the lack of respectable AI would be a big issue with most gamers. As important as that is in nearly every other game on the market, the dumb enemies tend to help "Stranglehold" live up to its promise of being a playable John Woo film. Dumb enemies make for easy targets; easy targets make for satisfying kills. Even when the number of enemies gets to the point of overbearing, the game is never too difficult or the intelligence of your foes too complex that you can't get yourself out of the situation. I found that mildly refreshing.

With this Collector's Edition of "Stranglehold" Midway has seen fit to include a fantastic bonus disc, as well as cover art that, I personally think, is miles ahead of the standard art. The bonus disc contains a wealth of features, such as a great making-of documentary, extended cinematics (with comparisons to early storyboards), a trailer for the Dragon Dynasty edition DVD of "Hard Boiled," a sound design featurette, additional storyboards, and more. If you can still find this edition, it's well worth the money. Fans of the game will definitely appreciate the behind-the-scenes info these documentaries dish out.

In a nutshell, "Stranglehold" is NOT for everybody and I say that very loudly. Personally, I'm a big John Woo fan. From "Hard Boiled" to "Face Off" to "Windtalkers," I love the man's work through and through, and odds are if you respect and admire his films as much as I do, "Stranglehold" is the game you've been waiting for for what seems like decades. It has style, class, an amazing physics engine, and more action than you could ever want. Sure, some people are going to complain about its length (between 6-8 hours), its lackluster AI, and repetitive game play, but that is what makes "Stranglehold" such a unique experience. Well, not so much the length, but certainly the continuity in action that some folks mistake for repetition. It really is both a sequel and something of a tribute to "Hard Boiled." Woo fans will love it to pieces. Everyone else, you just wouldn't understand.

I’ll start this review by stating that I’m a big fan of videogame developer Infinity Ward. Their breakthrough smash “Call of Duty” is one of my all-time favorite games and its sequel, “Call of Duty 2,” is right up there with it. Their latest war time foray, “Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare,” took the tried-and-true formula that they’d patented with their two previous outings and incorporated a real-world plot and a bunch of new game play enhancements that makes it stand head and shoulders above its predecessors. It may just be 2007’s best shooter.

But where does that leave the black sheep of the series, “Call of Duty 3?” Developed by acclaimed developers Treyarch (who also worked on a couple of the console-only titles in the series such as “Call of Duty: Big Red One”), I didn’t expect much from a “Call of Duty” game NOT developed by the Ward. Not to mention it was a console-only title, much like “Big Red One,” though not only available for next-gen systems. But I’m a bargain hunter at heart and finding a game like “Call of Duty 3,” with its original Limited Edition bonus disc intact, for $30 was an offer I couldn’t refuse. So I took her home, unwrapped her, and popped her into my trusty 360. It was then that I was treated to an experience far unlike any other the “Call of Duty” series had yet to offer.

You see, being developed by an entirely different team means a bunch of different things for this particular entry in the series. For starters, there are four different subplots going on adjacent to the main plot – that being the Normandy Breakout you are taking part in. There are four different Allied factions that you take control of throughout the singleplayer campaign, automatically, of course; the Americans, the British, the Canadians, and the Polish. As mentioned, each of these factions has a corresponding subplot. They aren't held together by a handful of loosely related missions like previous "Call of Duty" games. As a big example, the Canadian portion of the game is about a soldier who is believed to be a coward by his superiors but, unsurprisingly, gets to prove them all wrong by the section's end.

These factions each have their own unique brand of game play mechanics also. For example, the American missions seem to favor assault, the British are “Medal of Honor” flavored, that is placing charges and infiltrating depots and factories. The Canadian missions are much like the Americans’, though noticeably lessened in scope, and the Polish finds you commandeering a tank until the conclusion of that section. Vehicles are also brought into the picture, such as driving a Brit jeep through enemy territory and, as mentioned, filling the boots of a Polish tank commander.

There are also “mini-games” of sorts that must be completed throughout the course of game play. Placing C-4 charges requires you to press the action button on the designated location, then moving the Right Stick clockwise until the charge is set, then pressing a random button (the button is reassigned each time this must be done) to arm it. There are also what I like to call “grappling mini-games” where you must fend off an attacker at close range. It is usually a surprise attack from the enemy from around a corner or darkened area. Button combinations that you must fulfill are given to you (randomly) which you can fight off your attacker with through a first-person viewpoint. I felt these sequences In particular added a great sense of cinematic immersion not seen in a “Call of Duty” game before and I would like to see them implemented again.

Although Treyarch may not be Infinity Ward, the battles are still just as intense even if they do not remain as grandiose. The sounds of warfare come through crystal clear with the complement of windows shattering, semi-destructible environments, and a nice particle system. There are ragdoll physics in the game, but they are only put to work during explosions which, consequently, send your foes, as well as your allies, sailing through the air if nearby. The predetermined death animations delivered from your primary and secondary weapons, though varied, happen far too quickly, but I was happy to see the great hit detection system from the previous “Call of Duty’s” return here.

While “Call of Duty 2” looked great for 2005, it hasn’t managed to age as well coming into the early parts of 2008. Considering “Call of Duty 3’s” age – a game released two years ago – it still manages to look fantastic. Although during nighttime sequences character models and environments can look bland, with the right lighting and shading, they become marvelously detailed. That is, perhaps, the best feature of “Call of Duty 3’s” graphics engine; its lighting capabilities. Stand in a doorway, looking towards the horizon and you’ll see haze from the sun saturate over the sides of the doorframe. Shadows react realistically to all objects on the screen, including the incredibly realistic character models. As far as these models are concerned, they are bump-mapped highly and textured tremendously well. Blades of grass are individually detailed and crumple as you walk through them. I would highly recommend playing this one with an HDTV to appreciate – even two years after its release – its full graphical capabilities.

Even with the intense, cinematic moments, the perfect graphics, and the effective use of orchestrated music, this is NOT an Infinity Ward game in one big way; the pathfinding. Many times you will encounter your fellow soldiers’ running back and forth or up and down trying to find the “hot spot” to end a mission once you are already there. Often they will stand in your line of fire or, on occasion, will get in your way as you toss a grenade. Yes, that means it WILL come bouncing back at you. There was even an instance during game play where I had to beat my comrades up a flight of stairs because, if I didn’t, they would block my path each and every time, thus meaning I couldn’t continue the mission. Movements are motion-captured well and I loved the cut scenes, but the pathfinding was some of the worst I have seen in any game to date.

Considering how amateurish the pathfinding is, you would expect half-assed AI as well. If you’re playing through the game on the easiest difficulty available, it won’t be much of a challenge until you get to the tail-end of the game. Enemies will begin tossing thousands upon thousands of grenades at you to flush you out and they suddenly become sharpshooters. But they never flank and I found myself able to pick every single one of them off. On harder difficulties, the AI presented a much greater challenge. Hardcore gamers will certainly want to go all out with the difficulty level before starting a new campaign.

“Call of Duty 3” is so close to being up there with its older brethren that it’s almost frustrating. If it wasn’t for the wonky pathfinding, this would be a 4 1/2 star game and you can take that to the bank. I can’t count how many times I was wholly immersed in the experience only to have one of my fellow Allies run around in a circle to try and trigger the cut scene hot spot. It looks horribly unprofessional, and for a “Call of Duty” sequel, it’s an unforgivable flaw. But everything else, from the atmosphere, to the intensity, to the music, is exactly as you’d like it. With the addition of the mini-games and some light vehicle action, this is probably the most different of the four main “Call of Duty” games; something of a second cousin. But that doesn’t make it any less of a necessity.

I think, perhaps, the only way one could enjoy this film is to not be a fan of the games. The "Hitman" character and universe as its presented here is incredibly flawed. Nearly everyone who has seen this film who is also a fan of the videogame franchise has their own theories as to who should have played Agent 47 and why, and I'm sure none of them said "hey, Timothy Olyphant, he would make a great 47!" There's no doubt in my mind that a more fan-friendly version of "Hitman" would have been darker, grittier, and more character/plot-driven. Word on the streets is director Xavier Gens' original cut of the film was exactly that, but Fox decided to push the release date back, schedule some reshoots, and turn Gens violent thriller into your more atypical actioner. But this is the million dollar question; can this cut still be enjoyed, even if on a more carnal level?

I've played every "Hitman" game to date, though I can't say I'm the biggest fan of them. That's probably why I don't feel completely betrayed by Fox's decision to treat this like any other action film with the greater exception being the inclusion of its main character - a bald-headed hitman - whose "name" just so happens to be Agent 47. Those are about the only similarities between this film and the videogames apart from a number of scenes that mirror images and moments from select "Hitman" games. Olyphant is a decent 47 and manages to capture the character's "walk" and gestures nicely, but he shows too much emotion in body language and facial expressions far too often for his performance to feel like a true reenacting of the videogame character.

I would be interested in seeing Xavier Gens' original cut of the film if only to get a better sense of what a darker, gritter "Hitman" film could have been like without the constant explosions and gun fights that littered this version. It's said that the relationship between 47 and Nika (Olga Kurylenko) is explored much more deeply in the original cut and the film as a whole is very character-driven. But this version of the picture, working as pure cinematic fluff, is something above average in its own right. The "Hitman"-esque moments were much welcomed, and the action sequences were filmed with just the right amount of flair. Gens camera angles were truly involving at times as well and there was nary a moment where I felt the picture was strictly "point-and-shoot." The sets were very "Hitman"-like, though the rest of the film felt like your run-of-the-mill action picture in comparison.

I wouldn't have gone with Timothy Olyphant to portray Agent 47 (Ed Harris or Jason Statham, perhaps), but he performed the role admirably. You do get the sense that 47 is a stone-cold killer and will do anything to get the job done, but Tim shows too much emotion to be a convincing 47. Kurylenko is nice eye candy but that's about it. As usual, Robert Knepper (Yuri Marklov) is a joy to watch and ignites the screen whenever he's on it. I was most impressed by Dougray Scott who should, by all means, have had a better career by this point. The man has undeniable talent and it’s a shame his career hasn't taken off the way it should. Danish actor Ulrich Thomsen gives the role of Mikhail Belicoff all he's got, but the villain is so poorly written that I doubt very few could have made the character memorable.

There's a fine line between love and hate as they say and "Hitman" draws it. Diehard fans of the videogames will, no doubt, hate this, while those who only casually play the games or don't play them at all will be able to stomach it or, better yet, probably like it. It all comes down to that. The real "Hitman" adaptation, the one fans of the games have been waiting for with bated breath, is sitting in Fox's vault somewhere... probably until numerous petitions come flying at their doors. And while this unrated print doesn't add anything substantial to the film (i.e. plot or exposition) those that felt the theatrical cut wasn't violent/bloody enough will certainly be pleased this time around.

The most remarkable thing about sequels is that they are highly regarded as nothing more than cheap cash-ins to superior first films. "Die Hard 2: Die Harder" is no exception. But I'm probably one of the few who prefers it to the admittedly overrated "Die Hard: With a Vengeance," though the first entry remains my favorite in the franchise. Perhaps the reason I feel "Die Harder" is such a strong sequel, but much less intelligent than the first, is because it is atypical summer blockbuster fare, which I am very much a fan of. Although the original "Die Hard" is considered by some to be a popcorn flick, it is nonetheless an INTELLIGENT popcorn flick. "Die Hard 2" follows the original film's formula, only with half the smarts. As a result, we are ensured that this sequel will be a more sonically entertaining experience, but to be enjoyed on a more basic level.

You can't get mad at that, though. "Die Harder" is a by-the-books summer blockbuster that probably would have been better received if it had been a standalone action flick and not a sequel to the now-classic original. The film manages to work, though, because it takes a different approach to the then-flourishing "Die Hard" formula. The first picture had an intelligent edge that most action pictures of the time lacked. It sold tickets. "Die Hard 2" sees the John McClane character - as well as Bruce Willis - truly become an action hero and star. The film is loaded with spectacular set pieces, bloody shootouts and numerous explosions, as well as a pace that is as frenetic as frenetic can be.

John McTiernan, director of the original, was replaced by newcomer Renny Harlin for this second outing. It’s debatable whether or not Harlin was a better fit than McTiernan (for the concept of the film… probably). Harlin obviously wanted a slightly different picture than the type of smart action/adventure McTiernan delivered with the first. Willis’ McClane, though still not quite the invincible action hero he would become in “Live Free or Die Hard,” is the obvious focus of the film. The character evades incredulous amounts of gun fire by rolling, ducking, driving, and ejecting. Harlin shrouds the film in shadows, slow-motion, and more squibs than you can shake a stick at. While the first “Die Hard” was violent, there is more than enough violence and bloodshed here for two films.

The only thing truly disappointing about “Die Harder” is that the performances aren’t as strong as those in the first film. Sure, Willis is great as always and what little we see of Reginald Veljohnson (Sgt. Al Powell) is terrific, but many of the new faces were underwhelming. The film’s main antagonist, Col. Stewart (William Sadler), just can’t compete with the likes of Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) from the first film, nor any of his more charismatic henchmen. An Argyle-ish character would have been nice, as would a much welcomed return of the infamous limo driver, but he is absent. John Amos is decent, as is Dennis Franz, but many of the side characters are hurt by weak actors and poor scripting. Even Willis’ one-liners this time out didn’t seem as amusing.

Though some may consider it a cheap imitation of a better film, “Die Hard 2: Die Harder” ratchets up the violence, the explosions, the FX, and the action via a much higher budget. This picture, in a nutshell, is the first “Die Hard” set in an airport with a different director and a "bigger is better" mentality. While the movie could have used better casting and a more intelligent script, "Die Harder" is entertaining in a dumb action flick sort of way. As far as sequels go, this is still one of the best. It may only expound on an already-established formula by making everything “bigger,” but isn’t that what a sequel is supposed to do?

I'm going to be frank with you. I felt the first "Boogeyman" was inept on nearly every level. It had rather tense atmosphere, but the plot was paper thin and everything but its haunting scenery and aforementioned atmosphere was utterly forgettable. The picture attempted something of a supernatural ending, which I won't give away here, but to say that it didn't work would be understating it greatly. "Boogeyman 2," its sequel in name-and-reference only, takes the idea of the "boogeyman" and moves the series in a completely new direction.

The first film flirted with the notion of its titular monster being all in lead Barry Watson's head. It was rarely a physical entity. The words inscribed on this semi-sequel's box art read "Fear. In the Flesh," perhaps hinting not-so-subtly that this will NOT take the same approach as the rather meek original. Director Jeff Betancourt has turned this into - what some may consider - a "run of the mill" slasher flick with out-of-place sex and gratuitous violence prerequisites met. Although "Boogeyman 2" still acknowledges that there may lurk a boogeyman outside the physical (which I appreciated), the focus is more on insane asylum teenage slicing and dicing.

I'm proof positive that Betancourt will catch a lot of flak for this sequel, and I do understand that the criticism is well deserved on some fronts. As much as I enjoy slashers, this film rarely "breaks the rules," if you will. How many times have you heard this one; people start dying left and right and no one seems to believe the only character who thinks someone MAY be offing them. Or this one; while people are dying, two characters still seem to find time for a little promiscuity. And, not to mention, the Scooby-Doo-like unmasking of the killer (thought that got played out by the time the 2000s rolled around) simply does NOT work. But visually the film looks great. There's a certain sinister element that Betancourt conveys well, though I'd dare say it’s more thanks to solid set design and cinematography. The minimal scares are handled effectively and there's tons of atmosphere present throughout as well.

Most surprising about a direct-to-DVD horror sequel, though, is when its acting manages to be above par. "Boogeyman 2" won't have anyone shining up their Oscars, but it’s much better acted than the original. Not to mention, having the inimitable Tobin "Jigsaw" Bell in the house is an unarguable plus. The characters as a whole are rather unbelievable at times, though they are suffering from mental illnesses which, if you're feeling lenient, you could say causes these actions. The smorgasbord of clichés on hand is probably more to blame on the script than any of the actors. Bottom line, I bought the performances even if no character was overly likeable. I could, however, have done with someone who knew how to carry themselves better as a masked villain. Whoever was behind the mask lacked in presence so bad it hurt.

If this hadn't been a sequel to the woefully mediocre "Boogeyman" and was, instead, a standalone slasher flick, I probably wouldn't be as forgiving of its flaws as I am. As a sequel, it doesn't really work. It only mildly references the original, but is miles ahead of its predecessor in quality. The scares are there, the gore is plentiful, and the acting is way above par for a film of this genre. Most, though, will either love or hate "Boogeyman 2" for the simple fact that it has little to do with the first and is pretty much its own film. But that is precisely why it stands on its own two feet so well.

The "torture-porn" subgenre is in serious need of some new blood. "Hostel: Part II" did shit at the box office, and "Saw IV," though still an overperformer, was the lowest grossing entry since the first. Enter Roland Joffe's "Captivity." If there was ever a horror film that fully embodied the traits of the shunned older/younger brother - screaming for attention by doing everything in its power in which to get it - "Captivity" is certainly it. Twisted for the sake of being twisted and gross for the sake of being gross, I'd dare say Joffe's down 'n' dirty little ditty is, however, far more effective at times than those two gross-out franchises I've made mention of only moments ago.

Essentially, "Captivity" is a one trick pony. The only reason one should or could want to see this film is because of its startlingly harrowing "torture" sequences, and perhaps torture isn't the right word. Some may label it torture, but I'm not talking overt physical torture in the "Hostel"/"Saw" sense as much as I'm referring to more subtle, mental torture. Kill your dog or I kill you, for example. Or even force-feeding the protagonist small, severed ligaments and various pieces of intestinal matter - after mixing them in a blender - through a funnel. The actions taken against our lead and their very unusual nature will stick with you long after the movie is over.

Most impressive about "Captivity," if not the unusual nature of the film, is Roland Joffe's direction. His visuals are rather unique at times, other times intensely atmospheric, creating both a perfect sense of tangible ambience and dread throughout. I vibed to the dark brown and grey sets as well. The filters did an excellent job of conveying a morbid tone and, if nothing else, Joffe, and also his DP, did a bang-up job of relaying mood. Thankfully, Joffe sees fit to take a few moments here and there to explore Cuthbert's character a bit as well and I appreciated that. Do not be mistaken though, "Captivity" clocks in at a brief 89 minutes - leaving little room for exposition - as the film firmly centers itself around its bitter, violent content more than any sort of realistic character development.

Acting is always a tough call in a film of this nature. The performances, as they are here, are rather bland and forgettable. Elisha Cuthbert does well enough, but there were times where I was pulled out of the illusion by some of her rather questionable actions (her character is supposed to be scared shitless but finds time to fix her hair). Daniel Gillies is decent enough when playing "quiet," so to speak, but when it’s time to get those emotions going, he’s utterly laughable. I haven't seen overacting like that in ages. I was impressed, though, by the very likeable Pruitt Taylor Vince. The man was born to be an actor and, even in his very small role, he proves it undeniably.

I've heard some call "Captivity" one of the worst movies of all time. Granted, it doesn't have much of a point, nor a reason for existing, but its mean streak and horribly grotesque sequences of "torture" will surely shock some. That's all this film aims to do, really; shock. I've seen better acting, certainly, but in a modern release, there are few movies that will go this far this often. I don't know about you, but this is how I like my movies - mean and to-the-point. "Captivity" isn't for everybody, but supporters of the "torture-porn" subgenre will find something worth liking.

Jamie Blanks is a director who has, arguably, been held down by "the system." Blanks has worked mostly within strict Hollywood guidelines, previously churning out by-the-numbers slashers such as "Urban Legend" and "Valentine" with the main goal being to amass as much money as possible for each respective studio. He's done his part but has gotten virtually nowhere. His latest endeavor, "Storm Warning," is a bit different. While the aforementioned films were of a much higher budget, "Storm Warning" is a low budget, independent Australian horror/thriller that plays the backwoods psychos vs. high society yuppies angle and - being an independent picture - Blanks seems to have had much more creative control over the project.

First and foremost, "Storm Warning" isn't romanticized Hollywood fare and it certainly is not for everyone. Many will hate "Storm Warning" and few will love it. The overtly disturbing subject matter on display here - the mental and physical torture of two innocents at the hands of a group of deranged backwoods rednecks - is not something that a lot of folks care to watch. The film is brash, in-your-face, uncompromising, and quite unnerving. It lacks a certain refinement - most likely from budget deficiency - and the world Blanks creates is nothing short of ugly. But that is not a bad thing. Films of this nature need to be brutal, the villains need to be vile, and when the tables are finally turned, we need a director who will go that extra mile to make sure we cringe.

That is where Blanks excels. This picture isn't the most stylish horror film I've ever seen, though Blanks is a master at creating tension and ambience through angles and lighting. But when there's violence, particularly protagonist on antagonist violence, Blanks makes sure we see everything. His villains are despicable human beings that we loathe by films' end; their highly unjustified treatment towards our rather likeable hero and heroine ensures that they WILL get what they deserve. And when they finally do... it's a joy to watch. Though I do commend Blanks for milking his wonderful locations and setting up some beautifully suspenseful moments throughout, the last 20 minutes of the movie is where his direction is most appreciated.

"Storm Warning" is also surprisingly well-acted considering the miniscule budget. I could take or leave Robert Taylor and his poorly written character, though the rest of the cast was excellent, including Nadia Fares as his strong-willed female comapanion. I was most impressed, however, by John Brumpton, David Lyons, and Matthew Wilkinson as the family of hicks making our leads' lives a living hell. In particular, David Lyons was a standout and was a truly menacing, charismatic, and unpredictable villian that elevated the rest of the family from "cookie-cutter" to "memorable."

I'm not quite sure how to recommend "Storm Warning." Hardcore horror buffs will surely appreciate its go-for-broke, low tech approach, as well as its fantastic direction and unflinching gore FX, though I highly doubt casual viewers of the genre will "get" why those like myself find it so utterly effective. There are better backwoods revenge flicks on the market, but there are few that feel as unforgiving and, dare I say, exceedingly belligerent as "Storm Warning." Take that as you will, but that is refreshing in and of itself.

I think I've finally reached my limit. I've grown tired of the redundant BS that American movie studios keep shoveling down our throats day in and day out. It's not just the horror films folks, its everything. But particularly... if I HAD to be particular... I'm sick of the PG-13 ghost pics and the inane remakes. Judging by the creative output coming from places like the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, I'd dare say they have a much better handle on the genre than us. With that said, for those lucky enough to have seen New Zealander Jonathan King's hilarious killer sheep gore comedy, "Black Sheep," - and LIKED it - you are, in fact, a lucky few. Not many horror/comedies are as dead-on consistently hilarious as this and even fewer are willing to go as far as "Black Sheep" with such little concern for good taste.

If you've seen the trailer, though, and if didn't grab you with its two front hooves, then I would steer clear of the DVD altogether. The film's running gag is that sheep are cute, cuddly creatures - never vicious - and are now out for blood. It's so utterly ridiculous that it’s sure to inspire a laugh or two each time one sees one of these genetically altered beasts attack. But believe me; you'll get your money's worth in other departments as well. Man on sheep action, sheep on man action, and more random sheep jokes/references than you can shake a stick at. The film is damn funny and benefits from knowing when and when not to laugh at itself.

King's film certainly does not look its budget, which is a mild plus. There are vast wide shots, some stunning uses of lighting, and some rather atmospheric sequences that do tend to look quite "Hollywood" at times, negating the thought that this is a low budget production. But that is where "Black Sheep's" similarities to higher budgeted horror flicks end. The film is packed with gut-munching, flesh eating, intestine ripping, severed-foot-throwing, blood spurting, plane-propeller-chopping and other nifty gore gags to make sure we cringe just as much as we chuckle. King's direction is perfect for the visual yuk-yuk's, as well as the sharp dialogue.

As a horror/comedy, it’s refreshing to know that you can walk into one of these and come out unscathed. There is no heady script for the semi-talented actors to try and grasp; just blood, guts, and a bunch of nonsense jokes delivered with just the right amount of enthusiasm and panache to be impressive. The actors do what they have to well enough; that is read the script, deliver the dialogue in the manner it was meant to obtain a laugh and move on to the next scenario. There are no stars in the making here, but the approach is effective.

I liked "Black Sheep" because it was so utterly fucking ridiculous and pointless. Plot holes the size of Mars? Genetically altered killer sheep? Guts and gore? I'm there with bells on. "Black Sheep" is just good times that could have been great times if the pace was tightened up. Gorehounds, though, will be pleased with King's first filmic endeavor as it is something that specifically caters to them. The comedy is also spot-on, as well as the direction and grade-A writing. As usual with Dimension Extreme's DVDs, they do cater to a very specific audience. If you're not willing to accept this as pure cheese that never takes itself seriously, don't even give it a second glance when scanning the racks.