Movie Review - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

   It's not a good sign when the Shia Labeouf parody trailer “Dawn of Do It” looks more appealing than a film's actual trailer. But c'mon, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is the first film to have both the Dark Knight and the Man of Steel in it, so superfans are pretty much obligated to see it. But is it any good? Let's find out!

   The movie begins with a brief retelling of Batman's origin story. I would make a joke here about how almost every Batman movie has to have one of those, except here it feels like a shot-for-shot remake of the origin story we saw in Batman Forever. Anyways, we then see Bruce Wayne in Metropolis during the events of Man of Steel in a brilliant scene that illustrates just why Wayne doesn't like Superman. We're then introduced to Batman in a creative scene that looks like it's from a horror movie. Also Batman now brands his victims... yeah. We then cut to - - for cryin' out loud! How much more jumping around could this movie possibly do? The pacing on this film is so dang messy and so dang fast, that the film's first half scarcely has any scenes that are longer than a minute. This actually really irritated me; hardly anything was as developed as it should have been. The film's second half is like a disjointed mishmash of ill-explained events. So very long story short: Lex Luthor manipulates Batman and Superman into fighting each other as he also tries developing weapons to use against Superman. It's a plot that just throws everything but the kitchen sink at you, and it honestly could have been two separate movies. It's a film loaded with dream sequences, Jesus allegories, and terrorism/War on Terror metaphors. It also takes forever to end; just when you think you've seen the last scene another one pops up. Nevertheless, I have to give it to them, the scene where Batman and Superman finally square off is by far the highlight of the film. That part alone is worth the price of admission.

   Batman v Superman has a pretty large cast of notables, and for the most part they do a fine job. Ben Affleck is a capable Batman and an even better Bruce Wayne, all disillusioned and obsessed-like. Not the best Batman, but still very good. Also, this Batman kills people; this didn't bother me but others might be up in arms. (Side note: the new batmobile looks way better this time. It's sleeker, leaner, and less like a tank.) Wonder Woman was kind of cool. It's just too bad that she doesn't really do anything until the end. (Also, she looks suspiciously like Scarlett Johansson... just sayin'.) Jesse Eisenberg was a so-so Lex Luthor. I didn't much care for him, but you can tell he's trying, perhaps a little too hard. Doomsday just sucks, plain and simple. Aside from being completely CG and having no dialogue, Doomsday is absolutely nothing like he is in the comics (at least any that I've read). He's got a weird array of random powers that had me scratching my head. Lastly there's also a few cameos of other heroes that are sure to come in the DC expanded universe sequels, but they're just awkwardly inserted here, as if we're suddenly watching a bunch of short teaser trailers.

   The architect behind Batman v Superman is Zack Snyder, who previously directed such superhero films as Watchmen (2009) and Man of Steel (2013), this movie's prequel. If you're familiar with his work, you'll notice a lot of his conventions here. This includes slow-mo, dream sequences, obvious symbolism, and parallelism. In short, his direction is decent this time around. The action scenes are intense yet watchable. The film is also very computer generated effects-heavy which doesn't always look that great, especially during the final fight scene. The 3-D is very “meh” - by the halfway point I had honestly forgotten I had those 3-D glasses on my face.

   Overall, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice fails to measure up even to the average Man of Steel. This one isn't well written, it's very unfocused, it's not well-paced, and it feels just a bit too long. It's worth viewing if you really want to see Superman and Batman on the same screen together. Otherwise, this is one chapter of the cinematic DC universe you need not concern yourself with.

   Grade: two out of five.

Bond Film Rankings - Part 1

It's been a while since I wrote something 007-related, so here it is, the one list that all James Bond fans have thought of doing, yet no two James Bond fans would ever completely agree with: ranking all 24 films from worst to best. Now of course, this list is just my opinion and honestly I've already rewritten the order on this several times already. So if you don't agree with me here, that's OK; I'll probably end up changing my mind on this order sooner or later anyways. Please note that I'm not including movies like Never Say Never or either of the unofficial Casino Royale films. I haven't seen them (and they don't look all that good anyways). Also, I'd just like to point out that although there have been a few bad 007 movies made, I still consider it a great series of films. Even the bad ones are still very much watchable (except maybe one). So let's do this!

24 – Die Another Day (2002)

No surprise here. Long story short, DAD was the film that cartoonified it up so badly that the producers were forced to hit the reset button on a 40 year long series. Instead of being stylized and witty like Bond films should be, this one opts for impossibly over-the-top silliness – featuring the series' first and thankfully only “yo mama” joke to date – and blatant references to the past films shoved in your face (it was the 40^th anniversary, after all). Bond is pretty much indestructible in this outing, despite the fact that Pierce Brosnan is on the verge of being too old for his role. With laughable dialogue, a ludicrous plot, a headache-inducing theme song, dated/cheesy editing, and cheap special effects, Die Another Day was just too juvenile and lame to be worthy of carrying on this great series. I can't think of a single thing that I like about this movie.

23 – Moonraker (1979)

I know some people like this movie, and that's fine. But for me, Moonraker's campiness levels are too damn high. The jokes are just simply dumb and overplayed, the fight scenes are awkward, the romance is colourless, the product placement is naked, the pop culture references are puzzling, and the plot is a carbon copy of the previous film's (The Spy Who Loved Me). But aside from the little things, the movie as a whole is just downright silly. I mean, Bond is in space? How did it get to this point? This isn't all that far from an Austin Powers scenario. I guess this is what happens when studio executives give their movie a budget that's too big and orders to copy the success of other recent films (in this case Star Wars). However, the film is saved by some ambitious special effects, some impressive stunt work, and a fun villain in Hugo Drax.

22 – A View to a Kill (1985)

Don't let the exciting theme song by Duran Duran fool you; this is a Bond film for old people. How else do you explain a 57-year old Roger Moore spending the film's first half at an estate for rich steeplechase enthusiasts? Yawn. Both the Bond girls suck, too. Stacey Sutton is a scream queen who does nothing and May Day (played by Grace Jones) is almost cool... except she looks like a dude. But the film's one saving grace is the villain Max Zorin, played by none other than the great Christopher Walken. He's so transparently, delightfully evil that he's impossible not to enjoy. There's a part where he laughs maniacally while he guns down his underlings with a submachine gun in a mine. Now that's entertaining. Otherwise, there's just no momentum to this tired instalment of the franchise.

21 – Octopussy (1983)

Octopussy isn't an awful movie, it's just very forgettable. Aside from an exhilarating opening scene and a few goofy moments that I can't help but chuckle at this is pretty much the most unremarkable 007 film. And there's really not much else to say. If you haven't seen it, then you didn't miss much. But having said that, if you've ever wanted to see James Bond in a clown costume, then I guess Octopussy is a must-see for you.

20 – Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

Tomorrow Never Dies is a lot like Octopussy, just slightly improved and somewhat more memorable. It's not a bad film, it's just very, very average. I don't know what it is, but Hamburg just felt like a boring place to set half the film in. Ho Chi Minh City was pretty cool though, and Wai Lin is one of the coolest Bond girls ever – she breaks just as many faces as Bond does! Unfortunately the most stand-out thing about TND is how lame the villain (played by Jonathan Price) is, and how dumb his plot is. All in all, Tomorrow Never Dies is an easy enough film to watch: the kind you put on when you don't want to really think about anything.

19 – Quantum of Solace (2008)

It's infected with the Bourne virus! I don't think this film quite deserves all the hate that it gets. Having said that, I do admit that Quantum of Solace is the most disappointing 007 film of them all – especially since I am fan of Daniel Craig's Bond. There's lots of things wrong with QoS, but I'd be willing to forgive some of them (the lousy theme song, the unimpressive villain) if the overall movie was any good. Unfortunately, QoS is shot like some kind of wannabe-arthouse film project oozing with pretentiousness not suited at all to a Bond film. Also the action scenes are incomprehensibly edited, with that needlessly choppy cutting and shaking of the camera that we've all come to hate. I'm not joking when I say that I actually had to rewind and rewatch several action scenes simply because my eyes could not for the life of me understand what had happened. If only a few things were reworked, we could have had another classic. Craig and Judi Dench both give great performances, and the leading lady Camille Montes is a really interesting character. But overall, Quantum of Solace is a mixed bag.

18 – Diamonds are Forever (1971)

This is what a Connery-era 007 film gone wrong looks like. Don't get me wrong, DaF is still sufficiently entertaining, but in a tongue-in-cheek manner that few were expecting. It seems weird that Connery's – who's starting to show his age this time – last Bond outing took a sherp turn for the camp. (Given that this was the last film before the Roger Moore era, it was definitely a sign of things to come!) The theme song and the bond girls are both pretty cool this time, but the locations aren't quite up to par. The villains aren't much better; Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd are just weird, and really what was the point in bringing back Blofeld if he's going to be both unrecognizable and portrayed by such a lacklustre actor? This movie is watchable enough, though not one that I watch often.

17 – The Man With the Golden Gun (1974)

Sometimes I don't quite know how to feel about this, Moore's second outing as agent 007. The first time I saw it, I loved it. The second time I saw it, I thought it was just OK. Overall, it's somewhat similar to that of its predecessor, Live and Let Die, but with higher stakes and a better cast. TMWtGG's tone is all over the place, like it tried being slightly more serious while still maintaining the light-hearted breeziness of LaLD. There's a scene with a mind-blowingly awesome stunt involving a car jump, but it's nearly ruined by a silly slide-whistle sound effect. And that right there pretty much sums up the whole film: it's almost awesome.

16 – Dr. No (1962)

Oh yeah, baby! Where the whole series began. The quintessential, basic, timeless Bond film. You've got a captivating cast, some groovy gadgets, a memorable score, great locations, and some killer action scenes all in a retrospectively campy tone. It's beautiful. Watching Dr. No today is enough to give viewers goosebumps upon hearing such immortal lines. Our introduction to the title character – with the “Bond, James Bond” line as he lights a cigarette while the theme creeps in – is nothing short of epic. You may be wondering why I've decided not to rank it higher on this list. I have nothing against Dr. No. It's just that I think most other Bond films have since 1-upped it in some way, that they've done everything this film has done and more. But still, you should go watch it.

15 – The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

What do I say about this one? Yeah, it's a classic that everybody likes. Yeah, Roger Moore finally fully embodied the role of agent 007 this time. Yeah, the action is astounding – the battle scene with the subs rivals the spectacular shootout scene in You Only Live Twice – and the stunts are jaw-dropping. But the one thing that ruins it for me is the casting. Curt Jurgens is simply a boring villain. Barbara Bach is a bit wooden and not all that believable as a KGB agent. And Richard Kiel's Jaws is just silly (which pretty much makes me the only 007 fan in the world who doesn't like Jaws). Otherwise, it's great.

14 – For Your Eyes Only (1981)

FYEO is commonly known as the “serious” and “darker” of the Moore-era Bond films. I wouldn't go that far. After all this is the movie that has scenes where Bond battles hockey player-henchmen (scoring goals by throwing their bodies into the net), a talking parrot sweet-talks Prime Minister Thatcher over the phone, and Blofeld is brought back just so he can be killed off immediately. It also has a plot where a 16 year old girl tries to seduce Bond, but that was actually pretty funny (it seems that even agent 007 is not without limits). What I do like about For Your Eyes Only is that it does go for a more simplified, back-to-basics adventure. In addition to a more hardened portrayal of Bond, we're also treated to Melina Havelock, one of the more notable on-par-with-Bond Bond girls, the kind who can hold their own in an action scene. A lot of Bond fans really like FYEO and so do I. If you want to see Roger Moore approach the role of James Bond differently, then consider giving this one a try.

13 – The World is Not Enough (1999)

Let me start by saying that I totally understand why some people might not like this film: the outlandish gadgets, the gratuitous fanservice, the more dramatic tone, and Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist (which, c'mon, there's no way it wasn't meant as a tongue-in-cheek joke! OK?). Upon my first viewing, I was also unimpressed. But after repeated viewings, TWiNE has really grown on me. It has a little bit of everything good about the Bond films in it: a unforgettable theme song, a gripping opening scene, a good performance by Pierce Brosnan, a memorable henchman, exciting (albeit over-the-top) action, and fun side characters. Could it have been better? Yes. Is it worth a second chance? Yes!

That's it for now. Stay tuned (in a week or two) for the second half, where I'll cover the rest - from #12 to #1.

Retrospective Movie Review – Meet the Fockers (2004)

   The poster featuring Ben Stiller holding his face in anguish sums up, better than words, my feelings on this film. (Just for the record, I did see Meet the Parents and it was very average.)

   So the plot of this movie involves the engaged Greg and Pam taking Jack and Dina (Pam's parents) to Florida to meet Bernie and Roz (Greg's parents). Oh yeah, they're also taking their baby nephew for some reason (so we can have dumb baby jokes); it's only explained with, like, one throw-away line that I can't remember. So the parents – in particular the Jack and Bernie – don't get along too well mostly because the Byrnes's are patriotic conservatives and the Fockers are careless sex-crazed hippies. It turns out that Pam is pregnant, but everyone tries keeping it a secret from Jack who made Greg promise not to have sex with her until after the wedding (which directly contradicts a conversation Greg and Jack had in the first movie!). Jack suspects that Greg may have had an affair at the age of 15 with his parents' housekeeper, especially since the housekeeper's 15 year-old son, Jorge, bears an uncanny resemblance to him. Ew. At one point Greg is left to babysit his nephew and low-brow humour ensues: the baby watches Scarface, plays around with rum, and learns how to say the word “asshole”. I don't know if it was just special effects or they really got a baby to say that word, but either way it just wasn't worth it.

   In fact that's one of the main problems with this film; the jokes are often immature and sophomoric. Here's some examples. Two men using the same bathroom at once. Roz teaching sex therapy to old people. Trying to hide statues of naked people from Jack. Dogs getting flushed down a toilet. Greg's 30 year-old foreskin being saved in a baby scrapbook. You see what I'm getting at here? Also, it's never a good sign when movie characters are having an overly drawn-out, supposedly “hilarious” conversation and one of the characters (usually embarrassed) suggests hurrying it up and I find myself agreeing, “Yes! Just get to the point! This isn't funny at all!”

   Even the characters are boring. Simply put, every character in this movie is either an idiot or just an incompetent jerk. Bernie is the former (he ignores/forgets his son's requests to not disturb the Byrnes's with his overly-loud sex upstairs), Jack is the latter (he's made a hobby out of trying to break up his daughter's engagement as well as being a terrible grandparent), and Greg is a bit of both.    Before seeing this movie I always thought Meet the Fockers was a chick flick, but as it turns out it isn't. All of the female characters in this movie are one-dimensional and have been reduced to secondary character status, which is kinda dumb; I mean Pam is basically in the same boat as Greg here! As for the acting, this movie sure does have some big name stars but their talent is mostly wasted. As I said before, the female characters blend into the background. Ben Stiller's performance is pretty standard. Nevertheless, the best performances are easily Robert DeNiro (Jack) and Dustin Hoffman (Bernie). There's noticeable chemistry going on between these two. Hoffman looks like he's having a lot of fun with his role. DeNiro isn't as good, but you can tell he's trying.

   Anyways, back to the plot. After the disastrous babysitting scene, Jack loses all trust in Greg and resumes spying on him just like in the last movie. So much for character development. He sets up cameras around the house and steals samples of both Greg's and Jorge's DNA for parentage testing. (Is it worth questioning why the CIA keeps sending Jack high-tech spy gadgets even though he's retired? Tax dollars at work...) Jack then forcibly injects Greg with truth serum which causes him to run his mouth in front of everyone at his engagement party, embarrass his family, and ruin the whole party much to Jack's amusement (told you he's a jerk). When everyone finds out what Jack did, Dina admits that everyone deliberately kept Pam's pregnancy a secret from him. (This guy is supposedly an expert in telling when people are lying to him, yet he couldn't even figure that out? Worst CIAgent ever!) Betrayed, Jack takes the baby and starts driving home to go mope by himself like a baby. Long story short, Bernie and Greg catch up with him and they all make amends since it turns out that Greg isn't really Jorge's father. And so our movie ends with Pam and Greg being married by Owen Wilson, Pam's ex-fiancee. Oh yeah, and the Byrnes's learn a few moves from Roz. Thank you for that.

  So, was there anything that this film did right? Well, the part towards the end with the high-strung highway patrolman who tasers everybody was kind of funny. Also the part where it shows Roz's and Bernie's display of Greg's unimpressive childhood awards was a curious idea; it's both funny and touching at the same time. And again Hoffman and DeNiro do a decent job at their roles. On the whole, this movie takes way more risks than its prequel; it's definitely not as forgettable as the first,

but it is way more low-brow and a little too outrageous. There are scenes that go on for way too long in the hopes of getting out a cheap laugh and it's otherwise impressive cast is wasted portraying thoroughly unlikeable characters. In short: it's focking lame.

Final rating: one star out of five.

Top 10 G Major/Scary Music Videos on Youtube

There is nothing wrong with your Youtube. Do not attempt to adjust the video settings. Supernatural forces are controlling your bandwidth. If they wish to make it sound sillier, they will reverse the sonic pitch. If they wish to make it more evil-sounding, they will speak in a sinister double-voice. They control the horizontal, they control the vertical... whatever that means. They can roll the image, make it flutter. They can invert the colours, making light dark and darkness bright. For the next few minutes or so – or until you get bored and watch something different – sit quietly and they will control all that you see and hear. I repeat: there is nothing wrong with your Youtube, internet connection, or flash player. You are about to participate in a messed-up adventure. You are about to experience the terror and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to – scary/G major song videos.

Just for the record, I'm no musical expert, but I'm pretty sure that these types of videos aren't really in G major. It's just what some of them are called. Apparently the way they're made is by duplicating the tracks a whole lot and altering the pitch on each of them which changes the key and voices. I've spent way too much time watching all sorts of these videos and I've made my own personal list here of what I think are the ten best. So if you've got time to waste and if you didn't want to sleep tonight anyways, then go check out some of these.

10. Shia LaBeouf Motivational Speech (G Major)

I know, I kind of cheated here since this isn't really a music video (hence its low ranking on my list). But how can anyone not love the sight of a bearded, deranged Mr. Clean yelling at people to “just do it”? The messed-up voice(s) have the effect of making Shia appear to be less a motivational speaker and more like the devil on your shoulder tempting you to commit some kind of horrible sin. Is this what Jimmy Jones sounded like when he began passing out the Kool-Aid? To relive the nightmare, come hither: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9513E0ZKAs

9. Scary Rain

The original “Chocolate Rain” video is weird and unorthodox enough. But applying the “scary” treatment to it makes it downright hideous. Tay Zonday's voice truly becomes demonic and the piano riff sounds completely messed up, like something Willy Wonka's factory would play if it was flipped upside down and taken over by poltergeists. The note at the bottom of the screen should have said “**I move away from the mic to devour yet another child's soul.” However, Scary Rain is – unsurprisingly – just as repetitive and droning as the original version, thus ensuring that full viewings will cause viewers to gradually slip into insanity over the course of 4 minutes and 52 seconds. Not recommended for the weak-willed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shuIMPo5UzY

8. Universal Intro in G Major

We all know the Universal Studios theme/intro/logo thingee, you've probably seen it dozens of times throughout your movie-going life. This is the weird version. Space is now white. OK, whatever. We see the earth. Earth's water is now oil. You still following me? We hear the familiar music begin. It sounds a little high-pitched, but still recognizable. Earth's land now appears to be either one contiguous desert or a snow-covered tundra. The areas where there's supposed to be large cities are now black voids to another dimension. The music now takes a turn for the worse; the triumphant part (after the second set of drum beats) now sounds like a horrifying wailing of organs signalling that this is a post-apocalyptic world that you're looking at. I love the dark turn the theme song makes at the halfway point. It's as if the orchestra is seeing the horror before them and the music itself is now exclaiming “OH NOOOO!” Visions of the future here at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jesWfn3B9Hw

7. Scary Roll

This “scary” version of Rick Astley's “Never Gonna Give You Up” (AKA the rickroll) was actually the first scary/G major video I ever saw. And it sounds just as weird as ever. The impossibly twisted vocals give the lyrics a much more sinister meaning to it. You'll wish that bizarro-Rick was willing to give you up and desert you. The inverted colours common to these types of videos don't often add much, but I'd be lying if I said the white dancing shadows didn't make me chuckle a bit. Partake in the madness here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKY5vvDC7Bc

6. Coldplay – Viva La Vida in G Major

It's often the case that the more melodic the song, the better (or at least, the sillier) the g major video will be. Such is the case with Coldplay's “Viva La Vida”, a song that's driven by an orchestral string section. Everything about this song sounds so wrong, yet so...wrong. It's as if the song's narrator sold his soul in order to keep his kingdom, but he still lost it anyways. In this case, I think we're grateful that this guy isn't king anymore. Also, remember how the end “ooooo” part was the best part of the original song (and, of course, it was never played on the radios)? Well here it almost sounds kind of sad. Those poor unfortunate souls. Pay respects to them here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u6BZDVN13w

5. G Major | Gotye – Somebody That I Used To Know

You ever played with one of those little piano toys from the early 20^th century? They're small, like the one Schroeder would play in Peanuts shows. They're also notoriously badly tuned. This video sounds like it was played on one of those toy pianos if the wires were made of wood and arranged in the wrong order. What else can I say? The formerly harmonized vocals in the last chorus sound downright absurd. Gotye sounds like the troll under the bridge who's sad that the potheads he used to hang out with don't come by anymore. Even for people of such ill repute, I would advise staying away. (But seriously, go watch it.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eakXvgFPN2M

4. Ghostbusters Theme Song in G Major

Remember what I said about the “g major” treatment making things sound like organs? This is the prime example. As soon as the drum beat and the familiar synth melody starts up, you know something's gone horribly wrong – or horribly right! It's almost in the same key as the original song, but it's just slightly off and that's what makes it sound so unsettlingly funny. This is what would have happened if Gozer had won and the ghosts had taken over the world. Who you gonna call? An exorcist, quick! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxuYq2536s

3. scaryqueen

This is where crap gets real. The scary treatment on ABBA's classic hit “Dancing Queen”, seems almost to completely reverse the melody into something that's absolutely ghastly. The piano is now straight up horror music, there's no other way to describe it. And the voices. The voices! A choir of phantoms mourning their own non-existence is putting it lightly. This is the dance of the damned, straight from the Haunted Mansion attraction at Disneyland. This is one dance you do not want to be the queen of (and no, Mel, it's not good to be the king either). Learn the steps here at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPlb6XMHvdo

2. Scary A-ha

You might be thinking “how could one possibly twist around A-ha's magnum opus, 'Take On Me'?” This is how. By slightly altering the pitch on the synths it truly does feel like you've been transported to some unholy place, like things are definitely not right. Just those first few keyboard/synth notes make me crack up every time because they sound so absurd. Then the double-voice enters... This one actually does sound possessed. I'm not kidding! One of the voices is the song's original vocals, but the other one is an unsettlingly deeper one that sings in some reverse harmony that sounds really disturbing and hilarious and disturbing at the same time. It turns out that the comic book world is a very eerie one indeed. Take on part: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcskpB3pafA

1. I Would Scare 500 Miles

First off, just the title alone for this parody of The Proclaimers' “I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)” is classic enough. They're got the desire to do so, it seems. Here's another example of a scary/G major song's first opening chords being sufficiently messed up so as to cause me to giggle. Those desperate-sounding guitar chords, man. The vocals... they sound like five hundred spectres wailing at once... in a Scottish accent. They also make the lyrics sound much more insidious; would you want this thing coming home to you and falling down at your door? I wouldn't. The chords sound like malevolent, broken, inside-out punches to your kidneys. And lastly, there's the video. The video for the original song was silly enough – with the twins' blank, expressionless staring and their synchronized head bouncing – but here it's downright ridiculous. The inverted effects make their eyes look like white voids gazing directly into your very soul. Seeing this expressionless, (probably) sorrowful pair of eyes pan across the screen is just so absurd that I can't watch this video with a straight face. Instead I fall down at my floor in laughter. And that's why it's the best of all G major/scary music videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tna6fAzBddM

Tribute to Brothers In Arms

   Shooter games are everywhere. You've got your run-and-gun Halo clones, your cover-based Gears of War clones, and your endless reskins of Call of Duty. But every once in a while it's nice to see something different that comes along. Enter Brothers in Arms (2005-8), a series of Second World War first-person tactical shooters. Although the series is still alive today with continued releases for mobile devices, there were only three proper games released for consoles, where the game truly shined. They were Road to Hill 30 (2005), Earned in Blood (2005), and Hell's Highway (2008). Each of them ranks among my personal list of favourite shooters. It's just a shame that the fourth console game in the series was never developed; at this point it seems doubtful that it ever will be. You may be thinking, “But Tony, what made them so good? Why are they worth missing?” I'll tell you. This is my tribute to the Brothers in Arms series.

Road to Hill 30 (2005)

   There was a time when WWII shooters were the big thing, and yet there weren't too many WWII tactical shooters out there. This is what made BiA stand out to me. For those of you wondering, a tactical shooter is a squad-based shooter game that attempts to simulate realistic combat by placing an emphasis on patience, coordination, tactics, and cover. This ain't no run-and-gun; you can't just madly dash around alone across a map straight towards your enemies. You'll get pwned and your opponents will walk away without a scratch! This is a thinking man's shooter, son. It's not for babies! It's a different kind of shooter game altogether, and I have to admit it took me a while to really get it. But once you've figured out how the game works, it is extremely satisfying to see your plans executed so well. Basically, you command your AI teammates (or do it yourself) to pin down an enemy with covering fire while you (or the AIs) flank and kill the enemy from his exposed side(s). Your teammates' AI was smart enough to get the job done, and – thanks to the situational awareness mode – you are too, without having to rely (too much) on trial-and-error to progress. A steadily increasing challenge is given as you gradually face stronger enemy types. Later on you'll even get to attack artillery positions and go toe-to-toe against tanks. Now those fights are sure to get your heart racing.

   I guess I should talk about the story. You play as Sergeant Matt Baker, a US paratrooper with the 502^nd Regiment, who becomes a reluctant squad leader. Matt takes it upon himself to keep as many of his men alive while still being able to do his job. He doesn't talk much during the gameplay (aside from barking orders at his comrades), but his character is revealed in the overly-dramatic pre-level voiceovers. But the developers did a great job at giving each and every character his own personality. You'd need play the game several times over in order to catch all of it. They also did an amazing job of recreating the campaign's settings. That's right, the combat depicted in this game is based on actual firefights that happened in real locations that can be viewed in the unlockables menu. The bridges, buildings, and roads that you'll fight for are the exact same ones that the 502^nd Regiment fought for decades earlier. Now that's cool.

   Nevertheless, I'd hesitate to call RtH30 a masterpiece. The enemy AI isn't all that reactive to your manoeuvres, the graphics are average, and there's this weird glitch in which if someone is killed while firing an automatic weapon, the automatic fire sound effect is sustained until you either die and/or reload the last checkpoint. It's pretty irritating, that glitch. Otherwise, the first game in the Brothers in Arms series is a load of fun and a decent challenge.

Earned in Blood (2005)

   This is where crap gets real. In a lot of respects, Earned in Blood is a very similar game to its predecessor, having been released only seven months after RtH30. Both games have the same graphics, the same physics engine, the same sound effects (which are excellent, by the way), the same command system/tactics, and same real life settings. However, seasoned players will appreciate the subtle differences in this gem.

   Let's start with the story. In this game, players take control of Sergeant Joe “Red” Hartsock, a member of Baker's dozen from the first game who eventually gets promoted and leads his own squad. Told in flashbacks, Hartsock's story is one of learning to grow up and accept responsibility. The drama is a bit less cheesy, and it's rendered a bit better thanks to the more dynamic facial animations. Anyways, Earned in Blood's first few levels take place concurrently with those of Road to Hill 30, while the rest take place afterwards. It actually builds upon the universe that was established in the first game.

   The level design has been noticeably improved in the second game. The levels are a bit more open-ended. Don't get me wrong; they're still pretty linear, it's just that the levels here usually contain multiple alternatives to plan your attacks (whereas in RtH30, there's usually just one or two fairly obvious ways that you're supposed to make your approach with). What I'm saying is, you have more options. No two playthroughs will be exactly the same. Also, there are more levels that take place in cities. So if you like the challenge of urban combat – of rooting out the defenders from every nook and cranny – then this game is for you. In EiB, you've got to survey your surroundings better than you did in RtH30. I guess you could say it's the more immersive game of the two.

   But the biggest gameplay difference with Earned in Blood is its difficulty. The first game was hard enough – you have a health bar, but there's no health power-ups available, it only takes a handful of shots to finish you, and mortars can wipe out your whole squad in the blink of an eye – but EiB takes the difficulty to a whole new level. In addition to the aforementioned urban combat, this game also updated the enemy AI. The Germans are way smarter this time around, as they too have now learned how to fire and manoeuvre. In a form of “active defence”, your enemy will withdraw to a new position if he knows that he's being flanked. There's even a few moments when the enemy will charge you if he knows you're outnumbered! As was the case with the previous game, your gunfire is slightly inaccurate and the German tanks are always more powerful than the Americans', both of which is true-to-life to WWII soldiering. As a result, no matter how difficult and frustrating a level can be, it is still a fair fight. You got that? Winning is hard, but oh so satisfying. Besides, it carries over the mercy rule from RtH30 – after dying three or so times on the same checkpoint the player is given the option to have his health restored and his dead comrades revived.

   The challenge in this game feels more complete and engrossing. It's this – combined with the better story-telling and immersion – that leads me to conclude that Earned in Blood is the best Brothers in Arms game yet made.

Hell's Highway (2008)

   With the release of Hell's Highway, the BiA series took a hard turn. Instead of waiting only a few months, Gearbox took their time with the series' third instalment. Released three years and one console generation after EiB, HH tried doing a lot of things differently. I've got a lot to say about this one, so let's get to it.

   HH takes place in September 1944 during the ill-fated Operation Market Garden. The player once again controls Sgt. Matt Baker, who continues to try to balance his responsibilities with his relationships with the men under his command. It's not easy – especially as the operation isn't proceeding as smoothly as hoped – and Baker's capacity for leadership is stressed to the breaking point. That's the basic gist of it. Even more than the earlier games, each character has something going on and there's dozens of subplots. Within longer cutscenes that are no longer confined to a 1^st person point of view, the drama is piled high and carries a lot of emotional weight to it. Needless to say, Hell's Highway has an outstanding story. On this alone I would recommend playing it. It could almost be a Band of Brothers episode! (It already features the voice of Dale Dye as Colonel Sink.) It's just a shame that the graphics suck so much; they're outdated by at least 2 years. Also, the locations are no longer based on real ones.

   Probably the biggest change HH brings to the BiA series is its cover mechanic. Press a button when you're near a large enough object and Matt will snap to it as the camera switches to a 3^rd person viewpoint. The system works OK, but it is kind of silly that the developers couldn't be bothered to put in lip movements whenever Matt shouts an order from cover.

   There's also a lot of other differences that this games makes, for better or worse. For one thing, you can now run, which is awesome. This comes at the expense of being able to jump, which was never all that useful in the first place. Same with the “charge/assault” command; it's also gone, but you rarely had to use it in the previous games anyways. Your situational awareness has been replaced with a simple map that you'll seldom use. Baker's pistol is now always on you. This addition is a bit of a mixed bag; it was pretty much necessary since the gun is now (suddenly) a part of the series' mythos. However, since it's not all that effective you'll hardly ever use it. Plus whenever you're in a tight jam, it's another weapon slot you have to cycle through in order to select the weapon you want. But one of the cooler additions to HH is that there's more of a variety in the weapons teams you command. The classic assault team and fire team is now supplemented with a machine gun team and a bazooka team.

   HH's level design is pretty good. It's almost as good as EiB's except for a few glaring differences. One is that there are some sections (even a whole level) where Baker is separated from his squad and has to fight alone – and most of the time it isn't explained why. These sections are disappointing because squad-based teamwork is what the whole Brothers in Arms series is about. It's as if Gearbox is trying to pander to the Call of Duty crowd with this crap. (They're barking up the wrong tree.) Another big disappointment is the not one, not two, but three levels where you take control of a tank and f*** s*** up (again, all by yourself). These levels are fun at first, but in my opinion it was always more fun to be an infantryman commanding the tank and defending it from enemies with panzerfausts. Commanding – not driving – tanks would have given Hell's Highway a more tactical and challenging feel to it.

   But the the most disappointing aspect of Hell's Highway is its difficulty: it's way too easy! How come? Well first off, the health bar is now gone and replaced with one of those silly regenerating health things that pretty much all shooters have nowadays. If you get shot too much, just hide behind a wall for a few seconds and soon you'll be a-OK. Kind of takes away from the realism, doesn't it? What's more, your comrades don't really die in this game. If they take too much damage, they fall down and just sort of writhe around silently until you kill all the enemies in the area, at which point your teammates will get back up as if nothing happened. So yeah, there's pretty much no tension left with the action sequences in HH. The enemies aren't much better, rarely moving to new positions, usually staying put in just one spot, and almost never throwing grenades of their own. Enemy tanks are a complete joke. Sneaking up on them is easier than ever. Just by running straight towards it and pressing a button, you can plant a C4 charge on it. This kills any tank in just one go, making it a more effective solution than using your bazooka squad (which the game expects you to do). If the goal of the series was to make WWII shooters that were realistic, then fearlessly running around alone in the open blowing up tanks like Superman should not be a part of the program, you know what I mean?

Despite this, I still think Hell's Highway is a good game. I just don't think it measures up to the other games of the series.

   And it is a good series. The Brothers in Arms console games are all fine, accessible examples of tactical first-person shooters and a great source of fond memories for me. Each of them are a must have for shooter fans looking for something different. If you're interested then go check them out; they're really easy to find and they're usually fairly cheap. It's a shame that the fourth game – that was hinted at with the “to be continued” at the end of HH – probably won't see the light of day. But I'm certainly thankful for the three underrated gems that we did get.