Retrospective Movie Review – God's Not Dead (2014)

   So you want me to review this? Fine, here's your freakin' review! Numerous people have asked me to go over this gem of a film even though they mostly already know my thoughts on it and the only reason I haven't done it already is because I know a lot of people who will freak out over it. I am of course talking about the surprisingly profitable 2014 Christian drama film God's Not Dead. Before I begin, I think it would be helpful to point out that I am an Evangelical Christian. Therefore, I think I am qualified to fairly critique this film, especially since (as we'll see) God's Not Dead was made with people like me in mind. And as always, these are simply my own opinions so feel free to disagree. Also: spoilers ahead.

   We begin with Josh Wheaton (Shane Harper) on his first day of college as he heads to his first-year philosophy class, which is taught by Professor Radisson. The professor is played by Kevin Sorbo, who honestly gives the only solid performance in the whole flick. Radisson is an overbearing, arrogant, yet slightly insecure teacher who wants to save time by avoiding pointless debates and so he tries to force all of his students to declare that “God is dead”. But Josh can't do it because it conflicts with his faith. Appalled, Radisson then arbitrarily challenges Josh to a series of debates judged by the students to prove God's existence, which will result in the wasted time Radisson was trying to avoid. If Josh loses, he fails the course.

   Yeah, I'm sure this is all kinds of legal. But instead of, you know, doing something sensible like speaking to the dean or contacting a human rights tribunal, Josh decides to commit all of his time and effort towards defending his faith and winning the debate. (Yeah, this is one of those college movies where the main character seems to work only at one course. I guess he's choosing to fail the others?) The problem with this debate is that it doesn't please Kara, Josh's girlfriend of six years, also a Christian, but evidently not a very good one. She wants him to throw the debate because she thinks that losing will hurt his chances of becoming a professional... something-or-other, it wasn't very specific. Upon learning of his intentions to see the debate through, Kara dumps Josh. Really? After being together through all of high school and (I'm assuming) most of middle school, this is what ends it? After this scene Kara simply vanishes from the rest of the movie, and what's more, Josh doesn't even seem all that bothered by this loss. So yeah, they must've had a lousy relationship.

   In the meantime, we have a multitude of undercooked subplots that we need catching up on; thank goodness that they're full of people speaking in plain expository dialogue for us. One of these people is Amy, a stereotypical, obnoxious, atheist, left-wing blogger who (I'm not kidding) confronts Duck Dynasty's Willie Robertson about how hunting and praying on national television is bad. You sure you don't want to ask him about the gays instead? (Lol, couldn't resist!) Amy is dating a self-absorbed, douchebag, rich, businessman named Mark (also atheist). Or at least she was before she broke the news to him that she's found out that she has possibly terminal cancer. That's right; Mark (Dean Cain) instantly dumps Amy because she now has cancer and he blames her for ruining the fancy dinner they had planned that evening. This scene is so abjectly cruel that I laugh out loud every time I see it. They somewhat try to build a sympathetic case for Mark later on by having him visit his dementia-stricken mother, but by that point it's hopeless; the guy even treats his own mother like crap, too. There's another subplot about Mark's sister Mina. It turns out that Mina (a Christian) is dating Radisson, who talks down to her every chance he gets, even going so far as to humiliate her in front of his colleagues at a dinner party. What a jerk! Why does she like this guy? Subplot #7832 focuses on Reverend Dave, a local pastor whose rental cars keep stalling, preventing him and his friend Jude from going on a road trip to Knott's Berry Farm. Riveting... Nevertheless, this does afford him the chance to give guidance to a girl named Ayisha. Yes, in our last subplot we follow Ayisha, a student from a Muslim family who keeps her Christian faith a secret from her father. But her good-for-nothing little brother tattles on her, leading to Ayisha's dad beating the ever-loving crap out of her and throwing her out into the street!

   Are you starting to notice a pattern here? Pretty much every non-Christian character in God's Not Dead is a horrible, completely unlikable caricature of an atheist. I've often heard this movie being characterized as a straw man film and I can kind of see why. Rather than building convincing arguments and putting forth some thought-provoking ideas of its own, God's Not Dead seems more content to point out the flaws and issues surrounding its atheist characters. Granted, those issues are sometimes why people in the real world don't accept the gospel, but not to the extremes seen here. Real life isn't often this black-and-white. And wouldn't you believe, half of these secondary plots have nothing to do with learning whether or not God exists – which is, you know, the whole point of the movie!

   Anyways, at first the debate doesn't go very well for Josh. But this doesn't stop Professor Radisson from tracking him down, cornering him, and threatening him into stop “making a fool out of [him]” in his class in an unexpected, over-the-top manner. As the debates go on, and as Radisson's wife/girlfriend (finally) leaves him, Josh begins building momentum and winning over some classmates to his side. In the final debate, Josh gains the upper hand, forcing Radisson to admit that he hates God because He didn't save the young professor's mother despite the prayers. Pretty much everybody in the class then declares Josh to be the debate's winner, including Martin, a foreign student from China whose father has forbidden him to talk about God lest his whole family back at home become blacklisted.

   After this, the different plots all start to converge upon this Newsboys (a real-life Christian pop-rock band) concert at the thinly-veiled not-Staples Center. (By the way, this concert and band was amusingly over-promoted, ad absurdum throughout the whole film.) Here Amy tries another spiteful, backhanded interview, but instead breaks down and ends up praying along with the band members. It seems that everybody wants to go see the Newsboys; Ayisha is there, Mina is there, and so is Josh, who takes Martin with him. Willie Robertson is also there to tell the audience – both the concert's and the film's – to spam message everyone they know the words “God's not dead”, which they all do. Well, I hope you like the USA, Martin, because you probably won't be allowed to go back home now! Willie and the Newsboys congratulate Josh on his efforts; yes, apparently the debate has somehow become major news.

   Even Professor Radisson, now struggling with his beliefs, wants a piece of this action and starts heading for this rockin' concert. On his way there he gets mowed down by an SUV and left for dead. But that's OK, because Reverend Dave and Jude are there to guide him through a deathbed conversion in his final moments. “This is a cause for celebration, my friend,” says Jude, in spite of the corpse still lying right in front of them. Also, Dave took the dead man's mobile phone. What a nice guy. And so our movie draws to a close. (By the way, Ayisha's story remains unresolved, so yeah, I'm going to go ahead and assume that she's now homeless.)

   And that's God's Not Dead, a very one-sided, unfocused, poorly acted (except for Kevin Sorbo) straw man film. Aside from those issues, the movie just looks cheap – like, straight-to-DVD quality. The editing and camera work is uninspired, although there are a few funny shots of Radisson looming over and watching Josh like some kind of Batman villain.

   But by far the biggest problem with God's Not Dead was just how wasteful it was; it is a film that challenges no one. It was made for people who don't want to learn anything new, people who already know what they want to hear and are only looking for their beliefs to be validated. This movie won't make Christians rethink their beliefs and it won't challenge their faith. Likewise, it probably won't win over many non-Christians because it isn't trying to present a fair conversation about whether or not God exists. This movie is simply preaching to the choir. A wasted opportunity. I'm guessing non-Christians will probably dislike this film. However, some friends and I have found that it's good for a laugh; to me at least, this movie falls firmly within the so-bad-it's-good category.

   Now if you liked God's Not Dead, then that's OK. More power to you. I'm not here to take that away from you. I'm just stating my opinion on it, and personally I guess I just wanted something more thought-provoking.

Rating: one out of five.

P.S. - If you are a fan of God's Not Dead, and you're thinking “What the heck, man. You just crapped all over my favourite movie,” don't worry. Next week I'll be a little more constructive; stay tuned for my list of things that could have been done to make God's Not Dead better. See you then.

Movie Review Repost - Project Almanac (2015)

At this time of year, you see a lot of "best/worst movies of 2015" lists. I've always wanted to do one of those, but the problem is that I haven't seen nearly enough movies in one year to do that type of thing. In fact, I didn't see all that many bad movies last year anyways. But for those who are interested, I've decided to repost here my review for the worst movie I saw in 2015: Project Almanac. It wasn't horrible, but looking back I think I was being way too generous with this one. Even if you had heard of it, you've probably already forgotten about it! In which case, enjoy this sad little reminder, and then go watch The Revenant again. Enjoy!

   Going in, I had no clue what this movie was about. All I knew about Project Almanac was that it was in found-footage style, and since I don't much care for those kinds of films my expectations were rather low. Was I right?

   Not really, somewhat, I guess. I will say that the film was slightly better than I expected. Project Almanac follows David and his friends as they stumble upon David's late dad's unfinished prototype of a time machine. Unlike most time travel movies, it focuses less on the possibilities of temporal displacement and more on the ethics involved in it and how it affects its participants' relationships. And so for this reason it makes sense that our characters are more than a little careless, self-centred, and irresponsible. Anyways, the film presents some interesting ideas concerning time travel, such as what happens when you go back and meet your past self, as well as how a time traveller's psyche is affected by having the power to go back to see and do anything. Unfortunately this story's adverse consequences (ripple effects) could have benefited from a clearer explanation. Also the ending was quite sloppy, with a bunch of unanswered questions.

   The actor portraying David – Jonny Weston – does a pretty good job, even if he does look way too old to be in high school. The rest of the cast is just OK, nothing special.

   Now let's talk about the whole found-footage schtick for a minute. For a film dealing with experimentation in time travel told from one point of view, it seemed like a good idea but it could've been handled better. Project Almanac suffers from consistency problems that are symptomatic of a lot of FF style films (i.e. it breaks the FF rules). Which camera are we supposed to believe filmed the whole movie? Was it the GoPro, the camera phone, or the old-school camcorder? Or was it a combination of all three? Either way, that camera has an impressive microphone range! And of course the film also has those super-serious scenes that no one in the right mind would ever be filming in real life. And lastly, the whole found-footage tone is kind of ruined when the movie includes cutaway shots to other locations, ominous zoom-ins, private moments where it's obviously just one person alone, and – worst of all – musical scoring!

   Despite this, Project Almanac is watchable enough. There's not much else to say really. If you want to watch it, watch it. If you don't, then don't.

Rating: two-and-a-half stars out of five.

Movie Review - The Revenant

   It's a brand new year, so let's start it off right with some violent crap! Is The Revenant really as boring as people say? Is this the film that will finally get Leo his Academy Award? Let's find out.

   The Revenant is loosely based on the experiences of fur trapper Hugh Glass. Taking place in the unorganized American frontier territory in the 1820's, Hugh Glass is left for dead by his trader partners after a vicious grizzly bear attack. He must then fight through his injuries, unfriendly wildlife, the elements, rival trappers, and hostile Native tribes to reach civilization and get his revenge. His backstory is revealed throughout via trippy dream sequences. The story isn't exactly anything new; instead the film places more of an attempt to engross the viewer into the overall experience. This it does an excellent job of, thanks in part to its focus on harsh realism (mostly), its slower pace, and its grittiness juxtaposed against the natural beauty of the locations. This is amplified by the fact that there are often long stretches without any dialogue.

   Leonardo DiCaprio is Hugh Glass, a role that goes through some dark places and tough situations. His does his job admirably, often with minimal speaking. It's definitely Oscar-worthy, though personally I doubt it'll take the cake on that one. Equally as impressive is Tom Hardy as John Fitzgerald, a disgruntled trapper most concerned with his own survival.

   As one might expect from a survival-revenge-thriller movie, The Revenant is pretty violent and bloody, but it is necessary and ironically satisfying. It's got the most ferocious bear attack this side of Faces of Death. The ending fight scene is agonizingly slow and exhausting, just as it should be; the fights in this film feel natural and intense.

   But by far the film's greatest strength is its production, especially the cinematography. Every shot looks gorgeous and you can tell that each one was meticulously plotted, framed, calculated, and lit. With numerous long, continuous shots that often take up a whole scene, is it any surprise that this film was directed by Alejandro Iñárritu, the same guy who did 2014's Birdman? (You know, that movie where the opening shot was over 100 minutes long.) Action scenes are made better by having the subject – for example, a character or a knife that characters are fighting over – always in the centre of the shot, or at least being followed by the camera the whole time. The production also displays great attention to detail. The sets, costumes, and makeup all look tiptop, right down to the characters' yellow, cracked teeth that I couldn't stop staring at for some reason.

   All in all, The Revenant, is an excellent film for people who enjoy intense survival films or even just people who like good-looking quasi-artsy movies. Its violence, slow pace, and emphasis away from conventional storytelling might be a turnoff for some viewers (who'll then find it boring). But for everyone else, The Revenant is a thrilling adventure and a great way to start off 2016.

Rating: five out of five!

Band of Brothers Vs. The Pacific

   Which HBO miniseries is better: Band of Brothers or The Pacific? It is a question that has plagued mankind since... well, since 2010 I guess. Actually “plagued” might be too strong a word; most people agree that BoB (2001) is the superior 10 part non-fiction Second World War series. But that's not to say that The Pacific (TP, 2010) was bad or anything. They're both very good; I must've watched them both a half-dozen times or so. Both series have their strong points and shortcomings. Today I'm going to go over the strengths and weaknesses of both series and determine just how correct the majority is on this one.

Theme, Mood, and Tone

   Let's begin with the biggest difference between the two miniseries: the theme. One need not look further than the shows' titles to learn what their themes are. Band of Brothers is about a group of men who fight together throughout the war and form special bonds. It's about the comradeship that develops between them by their shared experiences. In sharp contrast, The Pacific focuses more on the effects of a hostile, unfamiliar, and chaotic environment on the individuals involved in fighting. It seeks to portray the emotional and psychological realities of the war on its participants. These are two very different themes, as different as the conflicts that they depict. For example BoB explores themes like duty, bravery, brotherly love, and responsibility whereas TP brings up themes like survival, hate, fear, ungratefulness, stress, and loss. This makes sense seeing how the European Theatre of Operations is remembered as a noble struggle to free people from fascism, whereas the war in the Pacific took place in hostile, dirty environments, amongst unfamiliar cultures, and against an enemy no one knew much about. Similarly, it's normally the European theatre of operations that is glorified in pop culture, while the Pacific War remains largely misunderstood. It is important to note that both series make a strong effort at portraying realism; it's just that the two conflicts were very different in nature and thus warranted a different understanding. This is perfectly exemplified by a quick scene in The Pacific's last episode, where a cab driver – a former paratrooper – refuses to take a marine's money out of respect for all the tough crap that he had been through in the Pacific War.

Both series also have very different endings, and it's not hard to guess which series is more uplifting. Band of Brothers will leave you happy, The Pacific will make you cry.

Story, Narrative, and Characters

   As with all good stories, the themes of these two series are vitally embedded within their stories. Let's begin by looking at Band of Brothers. Based off the Stephen Ambrose book of the same name, this series follows Easy Company (2^nd Battalion, 506^th Parachute Infantry Regiment) and everything they go through from boot camp in 1942 all the way to their occupation of Austria in August 1945. Dick Winters (lieutenant, then captain, then major) serves as the series' main-ish character; while some episodes have main characters of their own, he's still a major supporting character throughout. As he rises through the ranks, Winters learns how to take responsibility for fighting the war while at the same time looking out for the welfare of his men. Meanwhile, the dozens of supporting characters under him must each overcome the physical and emotional obstacles that confront them throughout the war. By the end, everybody (everybody who survives, anyways) finds a way through it all, making for a happy ending.

   In terms of narrative, The Pacific could not be any more dissimilar. This series was based on no less than four books and it follows three main characters – John Basilone, Robert Leckie, and Eugene Sledge – all of whom served in the First Marine Division. However since these three didn't really serve together in the same units or at the same times, the narrative switches focus frequently, often within a single episode. Generally speaking, the first few episodes are about Basilone and Leckie, the middle few are mostly about Leckie and Sledge, and the last few are almost completely about Sledge. If I recall correctly, there's only a couple scenes where two share screen time together. The three Marines are each affected differently by the war. Basilone ends up becoming a reluctant hero after Guadalcanal, but he still feels the need to fulfill his duty to the Corps. A smartass seeking adventure, Robert Leckie has his confidence greatly shaken up by the war, but after returning home he bounces back. Eugene Sledge – arguably the main character of the series – is a young idealist whose world is turned upside down by the barbarity of the war. He struggles to hold on to his faith and compassion, and after returning home he has great difficulty fitting back in. Needless to say, there's quite a lot of variety in character arcs to be found here. Like BoB, TP's cast contains a multitude of supporting characters but they aren't nearly as developed or memorable. Honestly, I still have trouble remembering a lot of their names despite having watched every episode several times.

   As you might have guessed, The Pacific's narrative is much less linear; it bounces around time and space a lot. Again this isn't unlike the Pacific War's campaign itself, what with US troops leapfrogging back and forth across islands that no marine had heard of before. Since we're not following just one unit, this means we get to see the war's scope on a much larger scale. In addition to combat, we see characters enlist, leave home, train, date, go on leave, and return home. (The return home is by far the most interesting of these scenarios.) There's even a few female characters, something BoB had none of.

Action

   The action scenes are also affected by the series' respective scope. For instance, since Band of Brothers follows a whole company of characters, the battle scenes show the progression of the whole battle from multiple participants' points of view (similar to Saving Private Ryan, but on a larger scale). On the flipside, The Pacific's battle scenes only show the action to the extent of the main character's involvement. For example, if there is a battle involving John Basilone then only the parts directly involving Basilone would be shown. The tone of the action scenes are also very different. In keeping with its overall tone, TP's action is always serious, intense, gritty, violent, and dirty. BoB, while it can sometimes be gritty as well, isn't quite as intense, but more dramatic, fast-paced, and even humourous at times.

   Unfortunately, The Pacific's action scenes seem to blend in after a while. A lot of the locations look similar, making it hard to gauge progress and remember the places' names. Band of Brothers' action is more built up – perhaps by virtue of having a commanding officer as a main character – and thus ends up being more memorable.

Other Differences

   As mentioned above, each series has certain advantages over the other. Here's a brief list of what each one did better:

• Most Band of Brothers episodes begin with some brief quotes from the real life Easy Company veterans. The interviewees' identities aren't revealed until the end of the last episode.
• Band of Brothers episodes actually have titles, whereas The Pacific's episodes are just numbered (Part 1, Part 2, etc.). Pay attention, HBO: if you're watching either series from a box set, episode titles make it way easier to remember where you left off!
• Each episode of TP begins with a map indicating what part of the world the story is unfolding in.
• BoB has some stand-alone episodes that can be watched on their own. Try doing that with an episode of TP, and you'll be lost.
• Both series have very good acting, but The Pacific should be commended for bringing onboard actors who are age-appropriate for their roles. BoB's actors all look 5-10 years too old.
• The Pacific has the much better epilogue, showing real-world photographs of each character and detailing what happened to them later on in their lives.

Alos, both series display roughly the same amount of historical accuracy; the main events are done fairly accurately, but some smaller things got changed around a bit for the sake of drama.

Conclusion

   Comparing Band of Brothers to The Pacific reminds me a lot of an exercise in my WWI history class where we had to compare Ernst Jünger's Storm of Steel to Louis Barthas' Poilu. The two accounts of the war experience was very different, but both were very well executed. One series portrays – some might say, glorifies – a “company of heroes” working together to fulfill their duties. The other is a much more personal story of a few individuals trying to stay alive and retain their souls during moments that are not always easy to watch.

   While both series are good, I'd have to agree with the majority that Band of Brothers is the greater of the two thanks to its more memorable characters and more satisfying action scenes. The Pacific falls short by virtue of its counter-intuitive, sometimes unfocused narrative. TP took more risks with how it did things, and as a result ends up being closer to modern, anti-war film territory (it invokes how today's soldiers have to make sense of being sent off to unfamiliar parts of the world to fight enemies that they don't understand). Since it's relevant for a modern audience and it portrays a slice of WWII that doesn't receive as much popular attention as it deserves, I'd be willing to say that The Pacific is the more important of the two series. But as far as entertainment value goes, Band of Brothers is better overall.

   Curahee!

Ranking the Splinter Cell Games

Splinter Cell games are awesome! Ever since first playing Chaos Theory, I've been hooked. There are few games out there that provide the same sense of satisfaction from running around undetected and beating dudes unconscious. Makes you feel like a total badass, Sam Fisher does. So just for fun, I'm going to list all six console games in order of amazingness. Keep in mind, this is all just my opinion, (I've only played the Xbox versions) plus I'm mostly basing these rankings on the single-player campaign. Let's go!

6. Splinter Cell: Double Agent (2006)

Splinter Cells one through three were all pretty similar, so I understand that Ubisoft wanted to try something different and and keep things from getting stale. So rather than the usual story of NSAgent Sam Fisher working to defeat an evil mastermind, we instead see Sam Fisher disowned by the NSA, become an undercover agent in a terrorist organization (JBA), do horrible things, and kill his boss. Admittedly, the story is rather interesting – there's even a romance option – but by the end it doesn't feel very satisfying. And just to tease us, they made the first level resemble Chaos Theory. While there are some fun levels – like Shanghai and the cruise ship – most of them are pretty frustrating in that you have two sets of conflicting objectives to meet. On top of this, there's not one, not two, but three levels where you're wandering around JBA headquarters running errands on a time limit. This is just as tedious as it sounds – and even more difficult. Also, I found the final level to be frustratingly difficult, even with this game's regenerating health system (making this the first game in the series to do away with the health bar). Double Agent is the only Splinter Cell game to have multiple endings. This sounds pretty cool, until you find out that the endings all suck! Add in too many daylight missions and some unimpressive graphics (even on the 7^th generation console version) and you've got a Splinter Cell game that just doesn't feel right at all.

5. Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow (2004)

I'm not saying that Pandora Tomorrow is a bad game; it is a game that I feel little enthusiasm for. It still has all the things that made the first Splinter Cell game good and it adds in some new cool moves and a better inventory interface. It also has some memorable levels that are fun to revisit, like the LAX airport level, the submarine pen, and the train level. But my main problem with Pandora Tomorrow is that it's way too difficult. Enemies seem to spot you more easily, there's too many sections where you're forced out of stealth and into action, and you're not allowed very many alarms. Even when I use a walkthrough it still takes me forever to finish levels like Jerusalem (the second half) and Indonesia. It's this extreme difficulty and the uninteresting story that makes Pandora Tomorrow a low priority for me when choosing which games to replay.

4. Splinter Cell: Conviction (2010)

Before playing this game, I'd already heard all the complaints. Night-vision has been replaced with monochrome. Sonar vision is over powered. There's no nonlethal takedowns. You can't use your knife. There aren't many ways to distract enemies. You can't interrogate enemies – you can't even grab them or hide their bodies. There's not much variety in level settings (most of them take place in Washington, D.C.). There's no SC2000. The enemies never shut up. In spite of these criticisms, I finally got around to playing Conviction, and I found that it was still a lot of fun. I was surprised by how much I ended up liking it. Ubisoft finally introduced an autosaving checkpoint system, making each level more bearable. Michael Ironside delivers his best ever performance as Sam Fisher in a story that follows the ex-agent trying to find out what happened with his supposedly dead daughter. It's perhaps the most engaging Splinter Cell story yet, and it's certainly darkest and grittiest. Interrogations have turned into tortures, and Sam seems uninterested in leaving anyone alive. More than any other game in the series, Conviction focuses a lot on (sometimes unsilenced) gunplay, introducing customizeable weapons as well as the ability to pick up enemy weapons. It seems that this game was made to appeal more to the casual FPS gamer with the inclusion of a mark-and-execute mechanic (AKA the win button) and a Gulf War level that doesn't feature any stealth gameplay at all. It's a very different entry in the series, to say the least. For most of it you're not in your badass ops suit, you're running around in slacks and a pullover! Overall, Conviction is a good game; it's just not all that great a Splinter Cell game.

3. Splinter Cell (2002)

If you're looking for a place to jump into the Splinter Cell series, what better place to try than the beginning? In Sam Fisher's first outing with Third Echelon, we're taken around the world to stop a cyber-terrorist dictator from killing millions of people. Featuring some great voice acting and some impressive gameplay mechanics for its time, the original Splinter Cell is still a lot of fun. If Conviction relied the most on shooting, then Splinter Cell probably did the least. It has some funny moments and some memorable levels: CIA headquarters, anyone? There are a few frustrating parts though. Some levels are insanely difficult (Kalinatek and Abattoir), and there's also a load of sections where the game forces you into action. But on the whole, the first Splinter Cell game is just as fresh and enjoyable as ever.

2. Splinter Cell: Blacklist (2013)

In many ways, Blacklist is a return to form for the Splinter Cell series. Sam Fisher is a stealthy government agent operating from the shadows once again, protecting the USA from bad guys abroad as he runs his own agency, Fourth Echelon. This game continues to rock my socks off with its level variety, its high degree of customization, the multitude of gadgets, a great villain, and the cool takedown animations. There are rewards and incentives for all play styles, whether you'd prefer to stay silent and leave no trace or if you'd rather just kill everyone in sight. For the first time side missions are included, which provide fun extra challenges and – together with the different play styles – dramatically increases Blacklist's replay value. The controls are easily understood and are the most intuitive yet. Nevertheless, some might say this game is dumbed down because of all the tooltip icons, waypoints, and ever-present indicators of all kinds. It is true, there are some things worth complaining about. There are some levels that seem too easy. But on the other hand, enemy dogs will be the bane of your existence (especially if you're going for a Ghost style of play). They are una-freaking-voidable; they will always spot you every time! There's also a bunch of content on the disc that remains locked unless you pay for it again online, which is stupid. But now let's address the elephant in the room: Michael Ironside is no longer the voice of Sam Fisher. Since Ironside's too old to do motion-capture, they replaced him with some guy named Eric Johnson who does a passable job, but still... But you know, the overall product is such a thrill to play that I'm willing to forgive all these shortcomings. Blacklist is just that good.

1. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory (2005)

Was there ever any doubt? Chaos Theory is the best ever Splinter Cell game. For the first time in the series, you were given full control over Sam Fisher's mission performance. It wasn't like earlier games where the player was hindered by awkward controls, wonky animations, or clunky actions. And it wasn't like the following Splinter Cell games where omnipresent tooltip icons and directions treat you like you're a n00b who doesn't know what he's doing. No, Chaos Theory treated you like an adult. It updated and refined everything good from the first two games to perfection. For example, you can now melee attack an enemy from any side (both lethally and non-lethally) and if you've missed something you can pretty much always turn around and navigate all the way back to it. This third Splinter Cell game also gave players complete freedom in how to execute their missions with (mostly) non-linear, open-ended levels. The game was challenging, but in a fairer way; even in the parts where it seems that they're trying to force you into action, there's still multiple options for getting through quietly. This increased playability is heightened by the introduction of a manual/quick save slot feature (thank goodness!). The addition of optional objectives and the mission success rating made replays a must. Aside from having the best gameplay of any Splinter Cell game, Chaos Theory also had impressive graphics and by far the series' best soundtrack. Lastly, the game features the best story that the original trilogy has to offer, which gives players an intriguing mystery and a curious look into Sam Fisher's character. It's the one game that gives players the total package. And that's why Chaos Theory is the best.

Book Vs. Movie - Patriot Games

    Published in 1987, Patriot Games was the second novel in Tom Clancy's “Ryanverse” series, a prequel to The Hunt for Red October. Just like the latter book, this too was adapted into a movie in 1992 directed by Philip Noyce. The Patriot Games film differs noticeably more from its source material than Red October's did, leaving out a lot of material to present us with a more easily digested action film – hence the run time being 20 minutes shorter. Question is: does this make it a better adventure than the book? Let's find out.

    Here's a quick plot synopsis: while with his family in London, UK, Jack Ryan finds himself in the middle of an Irish terrorist attack. He intervenes, foiling the plot, killing one of the attackers, and rescuing what turns out to be Prince Charles and Lady Diana. He is lauded as a hero, granted knighthood, and becomes friends with the royals. The surviving terrorist, Sean Miller, is tried and sentenced to life imprisonment. While on his way to prison, Miller's comrades from the Ulster Liberation Army – a rival of the PIRA – eliminate his captors and rescue him. In response to this news Ryan takes up shooting practice and installs a home security system. Later, Miller leads another attack, this time on Ryan and his family in Maryland. Ryan's would-be assassin is intercepted and caught, but Ryan's pregnant wife and daughter are seriously injured when Miller shoots up their car, causing it to crash. Enraged, Ryan rejoins the CIA so that he can track down the ULA and destroy them. Meanwhile, the royal couple are on a visit to the US and the Ryans have them over for dinner. Miller leads yet another attack on the house. After a firefight kills most of the guards, Ryan, his family, the royal couple, and his friends the Jacksons escape in a boat to the US Naval Academy. Abandoning their mission, the terrorists attempt to escape to their freighter and smuggle themselves out of the country, but are intercepted and apprehended by some marines and local police. Ryan reluctantly decides not to kill Miller.

    In contrast with THFRO, the Patriot Games film's changes are mainly made not for the sake of brevity (though there are a few of those), but rather to make it feel more like an action/thriller film. For example, the ULA assassin Annette (who is now Irish instead of French) has a much bigger role in the film probably because hot chicks help sell movies. However, one positive change is that the interactions in the story now feel more personal. For example, the film changes it so that Sean Miller's younger brother is the one killed by Ryan in the opening attack on the royals. This gives a reason as to why Miller is so obsessed with getting revenge, whereas in the book he's just mad at Ryan because he made him fail: not as convincing. Similarly the film portrays Kevin O'Donnell, the ULA's leader, as Miller's adoptive father. Changes like these serve to give more weight to the events in the film and they are good. On the other hand there are changes that only serve to push the film more towards action-spectacle territory. This is most evident in the ending; here only Ryan escapes on a boat, leading the terrorists away from everyone else who hide in a cleft in the cliffs. A furious Miller murders his comrades for suggesting they turn back, boards Ryan's boat, fistfights him, and gets impaled on an anchor just before the out-of-control boat speeds into some rocks and explodes.

    As mentioned earlier, there are some changes that were made to the plot due to the time constraints of a two-hour film. For instance, the scene where Sean Miller is freed during the prison transfer is considerably shorter and less intense (it takes place on a bridge instead of a ferry at sea). Marine Sergeant Breckenridge and his plot about helping Ryan learn to shoot is completely absent. Likewise, Marty Cantor's role is greatly reduced. They've also jettisoned the scene where a fisherman discovers a terrorist's Uzi in a quarry and turns it in to the FBI. However, one interesting change the film made was to have Ryan talk with and receive intel from the Sinn Fean guy campaigning in the US; in the book Ryan angrily lunged at him and then never wanted to see him again.

    It also seemed as if the filmmakers wanted to alter the story to both remain timeless and appeal to a wider audience (i.e. Less offensive). This would explain why the film replaced the royal couple with Lord William Holmes, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. This might also explain why the movie got rid of the whole Sean-got-raped-in-prison thing as well as the plotlines of the racist Miller being forced to cooperate with an African-American terrorist group for his stateside operations.

    Other than that, here's the rest of the film's little differences I was able to spot:

• The assassin tasked with killing Ryan carries out his attack and fails (in the book, marines arrested him before he could do it)
• The whole angry boss cliche is played out between Ryan and his CIA superiors
• Admiral Greer plays a bigger role (Makes sense: when there's a perfectly good James Earl Jones lying around you put him to good use)
• The terrorists don't belong to the ULA, they instead are just an extreme splinter group of the PIRA
• The terrorists kill Dennis Cooley (in the book, they let him tag along for the assault on the Ryan estate)
• The SAS successfully attacks the correct terrorist camp without being scared off by the Libyans
• Jack Ryan's son isn't born before the ending

    And that's it. While I did like the movie, it's pretty clear that the book is the superior version of Patriot Games. While the movie certainly isn't bad – it has some great acting – it isn't quite as suspenseful or immersive as the book, or even the film adaptation of The Hunt for Red October. It instead lands closer to generic action movie territory. Casual Tom Clancy fans might prefer this approach, but not fans of the Ryanverse books. It deviates just a little too much.