Saturday, 30 July 2016

Movie Review Repost - The Bourne Legacy (2012)

So a new Bourne movie is out now and I hope to see it very soon. I've seen most of the Bourne movies and I liked most of them. But I didn't quite like the fourth one: The Bourne Legacy. So today I'm gonna take a trip down memory lane and show you the review I wrote for that film four years ago. My thoughts on this film are pretty much the same as they were then... I think. I've only ever seen Legacy once, but I'm starting to think that Renner's character was actually more interesting than Bourne ever was. Enjoy!

   It's time for a new Bourne movie: the Bourne Redundancy... er, I mean Legacy. With a different director and a new lead actor we now have a fresh new take on the Bourne series.
   The one thing that Legacy has going for it is its acting. Jeremy Renner gives a great performance as our new hero Aaron Cross. He comes across as more likeable than Matt Damon's Jason Bourne (who is not present in this outing) ever was, though not nearly as sympathetic and interesting. For most of the movie Cross is accompanied by Dr. Shearing played by Rachel Weisz. Her performance is excellent despite starting out as a tad annoying.
   The plot is kind of hard to explain: it somehow manages to be both too similar and too different to the other movies. Legacy continues the Bourne movie tradition of not having anything to do with the books. Taking place immediately after Ultimatum, this film begins with the FBI investigating the CIA after Jason Bourne has publicly exposed the Treadstone and Blackbriar Operations. Because of this a few high-ranking CIA officers decide to wash their hands clean and liquidate all the assets of their illegal projects. So yeah, this is basically the same plot as the other movies: a shady CIA officer tries to clean up his own mess by killing the main character. It's starting to get old and as always it takes about 15-20 minutes to figure out what's going on.
   Anyways, remember in the other Bourne movies how the final boss (AKA: the last bad guy) was always there trying to get Bourne from the start? This movie quickly and casually introduces the assassin – Larx-03 – within the last half hour. Towards the end, our heroes partake in a motorcycle chase that lasts way too long and becomes kind of boring. This is immediately followed by a very abrupt ending.
   To summarize, this just doesn't feel like a Bourne film. There's no Jason Bourne. There's no Pam Landy. The first half hour of action takes place in the wilderness. There's only one gunfight. The whole film takes place in only two countries. These aren't necessarily bad things, but you can see where I'm going with this. The only things consistent here are the things you already didn't like: overused plot lines, annoyingly fragmented cinematography, and a somewhat misleading title. Bourne Legacy isn't horrible, but fans of the other movies will be disappointed after watching this one.


Final rating: two and a half stars out of five.

Saturday, 23 July 2016

Top 10 Worst Recurring Problems/Trends With Video Games

So last week we looked at some irritating aspects of video games that are overused and stereotypical. But when making that list there were a bunch more problems that I just couldn't let slip. I tried grouping these problems separately in that these are more like stupid directions/tendencies that video games as a whole seem to be heading towards rather than problems with individual games. Whereas cliches will have you simply rolling your eyes, these following problems are the ones that you should be genuinely concerned about in today's gaming industry. Or something like that. Just consider this the second half of last week's list if you want. Let's roll.

10 – Difficulty settings that you have to unlock
I will never understand this design decision, other than the fact that it tries to make you play through the game a second time. Why is a game's highest difficulty something that I have to earn? It should be something that's available right at the start. This is just lazy; unlockables in video games are supposed to be rewarding, not basic necessities. What's worse is when you're playing a sequel of a series that you're already well familiar with – like me when I first played Gears of Wars 3 and Judgment – and you can't have the challenge you want until you've already beaten the game once. C'mon, man! Veteran players already know how this game works. Don't treat the player like a baby.

9 – Unskippable End Credits
Same as last week's #1 worst cliche, but slightly less aggravating. These are just credits and it is the end of the game, so you could just get up and do something else while you're waiting for them to finish. However, the end of the campaign is supposed to feel satisfying and rewarding, not tedious and punishing! Developers, I know a lot of hard work went into your game, but c'mon, we already paid money for the damn thing. Be thankful for that and call it a day.

8 – Clumsy Weapon/Item Switching
Don't you just hate it when you're in a tight jam and you need to use a weapon or item quickly but the controls just won't allow you to do it? Video games – action games, especially – need to have a way to swiftly select things. Otherwise you'll get screwed sooner or later. Even though I consider it a great game, Far Cry 3 has caused me a lot of grief in this category. In this game you switch weapons by holding the left shoulder button and selecting the weapon with the thumbstick, which is OK but it would've been better if this was mapped as a simple press of the D-pad. Instead the D-pad is used for your camera, throwing rocks, and two random syringes – and you'll never remember exactly which syringes they are. To heal you have to press and hold the Y button, which is a pain in the ass. Holding the Y button takes too long and it doesn't even work for about 1/3 of the time. This “hold Y” bullcrap is the cause of probably 80% of my deaths in Far Cry 3. Other than that, if you want to use anything else you have to painstakingly do it from the start menu, bringing the gameplay to a screeching halt. What a load.

7 – Sequels that change up the controls
You've just bought the latest game in one of your favourite video game series. You pop the disc in. You start the game aaaaaaaaand... the controls are totally different from before. Dangit! Most of the time it isn't a huge big deal, but every once in a while they change up something critical to your survival/success. Like in Gears of War: Judgment, where I wasted a ton of grenades all because the objective/squad status button has been replaced with the grenade throw button. What's worse is when in one game the controls are really awkward and different and then in the next game they go back to being fairly straightforward. For instance, playing Splinter Cell: Blacklist right after playing SC: Conviction is a complete mess. I end up crouching when I'm trying to reload. I've aimed when all I wanted was to get into cover. I've leaped into cover when I wanted to perform a melee takedown. I've been spotted a lot because I pressed the “attract” button, expecting to see what the objective is. And worst of all, I've wasted so many gadgets just trying to crouch! Thanks, Conviction. You completely screwed up the following (and, might I add, much better) game.

6 – Short Single-player Campaigns
I know I'm definitely in the minority here, but I spend a lot of time playing the single player mode of video games. In fact, I don't think I've ever gamed online (with consoles anyways, I've done it before with PC games). To me at least, the meat of a game should be its single-player campaign; the multiplayer is the icing on the cake... of meat. (And if we're talking about a game that's multiplayer-only, then forget it.) That's why it really bothers me that a lot of games nowadays seem to be geared much more towards multiplayer with ever-shortening campaign modes of less and less creativity. It breaks my heart to see such games as the newest Star Wars: Battlefront have a campaign that's less than a couple hours long, especially when the original Battlefront games actually tried to do a fun single-player story mode. And that was over a decade ago! You'd think that games without a campaign mode would instead have a mind-blowing, revolutionary multiplayer mode where all their effort was directed, but for the most part multiplayer games haven't changed all that much in the past few years. And then there's the games that are single-player-only but they still have very short campaigns, like The Order: 1886. What's their excuse? Out of respect they'd better not be full price, because there really is something to be said of games with which you'll be completely finished in just one or two sittings.

5 – Difficulty Spikes
In video games, difficulty should be increased gradually in increments. But sometimes a game will unexpectedly crank up the hardness, which isn't very fair to the player especially when it's for no apparent reason. For example, about 2/3 of the way through Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 – a squad-based tactical shooter – you're sent on a mission to clear out an oil refinery. Not only are there snipers everywhere, dozens of bad guys waiting around every corner, and exploding hazards all over the place, but also your squad has been taken away and you have to do this all by yourself. Oh come on! This is supposed to be a tactical shooter, so why don't I have my squad with me? I tried playing this game through on the highest difficulty setting, but this is where I got stonewalled and gave up. There are other times when the developers can't think of a decent challenge for the last level so they instead just throw everything and the kitchen sink at you. This rarely goes over well, as was the case in such games as Battleship (2012), Rambo (2014), and Deadpool (2013). Way to go, guys.

4 – Unclear objectives
I know I complained about hand-holding and intelligence-insulting tutorials last week, but sometimes the exact opposite problem can bug the crap out of you. Designing video games requires a delicate balance between directly stringing the player along and just dropping him in the middle of nowhere with no clues at all of what to do. Everyone has at some point played a where-the-frick-do-I-go type of game. Every time that happens to me – like in Half-Life 2 or Tomb Raider: Legend – I find myself thinking of the Coldplay lyrics: “Where to, where do I go?” That's right, you can tell that even Chris Martin has gotten stuck in video games with unclear objectives. This issue is why I've come to hate Red Dead Revolver so much. Right now I'm about halfway through that game and there's hardly been a single level where I didn't have to look up what to do. Would it have been too much for them to just drop a hint every now and then? If this ever happens to you, here's what to do: keep your phone handy, then when you get stuck speak the words that I've repeated countless times over the years: “Almighty YouTube, show me the way!” The sad part is that if this happened to you in the age before YouTube and the internet then you were screwed, sometimes permanently.

3 – Not Enough Checkpoints
This one's self explanatory. Video game levels that have only a couple save points are never an easy affair, and it's the kind of problem that you only notice when you're doing a hard level. I'm the kind of guy who doesn't like having to redo things over and over. It's incredibly frustrating, another reason why I don't like Red Dead Revolver very much. That's why games with quicksaves are da bomb. That way if you screw up/die you can pick up at that challenging spot right away (if you saved) instead of having to go through hell and back just to try it again. Be careful though, because games that have quicksaves like Doom 3 and Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory sometimes have no checkpoints at all. And of course you'll never find out until you die for the first time and are forced to restart the entire level all over again.

2 – No Couch Coop/Local Multiplayer
WHY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Yeah I know that online gaming has revolutionized the video game industry and all that bullcrap, but come on! Video games are most fun when you're playing with a friend; you know, a friend who's in the same room as you. Same-screen gaming has been a part of video games for as long as anyone can remember, even in the days of Pong and Magnavox Odyssey. Since when did the idea of two or more people playing together on the same screen become obsolete? Why take it away? I'll tell you why: it's a blatant attempt to force people into buying more consoles and copies of games. I think my heart skipped a beat when I learned that Halo 5 was not going to have splitscreen. That's right, the thing that Halo did best, the thing that made that franchise what it is today is now lost and gone forever. To me that's as crazy as a sports game not having local multiplayer. According to Angry Joe, it's all because of a new prevailing doctrine amongst developers/publishers known as “F--- you! Give me money!”

1 – Preorder/DLC/Microtransaction culture
This may not come as a shock since I just mentioned that I'm not much of an online type of gamer, but I do think that this problem is a huge waste of time and money for lots of people. Let's face it: video games aren't cheap, so when I buy a new game for full price I expect a full game. I don't want to install anything. I don't want to have to wait for things to update. I don't want to have to download a bunch of extra content to wind up having a complete gaming experience. I understand that not all DLC is bad. Patches that fix coding problems are OK. Paying a few extra bucks for additional maps and campaign levels is OK, but when it gets to the point where the release-state of the game is really only half a game – Star Wars: Battlefront (2015), anyone? – something has gone horribly wrong. A lot of downloadable content is just stuff that should've been included in the game already. What's worse, when it gets to the point that you have to pay additional money just to unlock/activate items or characters that are already clearly on the disc (i.e. you've already paid for them) it's obvious that the developers/publishers have lost their way and only care about the money. Capcom and Ubisoft should be ashamed of themselves. In the more complete games of the past, the player would unlock these things by completing some challenge or using good old-fashioned cheats. Nowadays it's all microtransaction this and preorder that.

In conclusion, when I play a video game all I want is the console, the controller, and the disc/cart that the game comes on. That's probably why I like old school gaming so much. I guess I'm a man of simple tastes. Thanks for reading.

Wednesday, 20 July 2016

RMS Republic drawing: 1000 Pageview Special

Guess what, guys! Today Anachronarchy received its 1000th page view! Thank you readers so much for all the support. I hope you've had half as much fun reading this blog as I've had writing it for the past 9 months.
As an expression of gratitude I'm posting a drawing I did a few weeks ago of the RMS Republic, a White Star Liner that sank after a collision in 1909 just off of Nantucket. It marked the first time a wireless distress signal had been used, and even though there wasn't enough space for everyone on the lifeboats there were enough nearby ships to assist. Nobody died as a result of the actual sinking (the collision did kill a few). Unfortunately this incident only bolstered shipmakers' faith in their own imperfect safety procedures, culminating in the massive loss of life from the Titanic's sinking three years later.
Anyways, this drawing was done entirely with pencils and took 7 hours to complete.

Saturday, 16 July 2016

Top 10 Worst Video Game Cliches

Back in February I wrote a list of what I think are the top 10 worst movie cliches. This week I've decided to list the most annoying cliches found in video games. Video games are lots of fun, but all it takes is one little thing to totally spoil each one. For this list I've included aspects of games that I feel are unoriginal and overused. If a common gaming problem you hate didn't appear here, then check out next week's list of top 10 video game trends.

10 – Your Helicopter is Shot Down
Just a minor complaint here, but you ever notice that helicopters in action games crash/get shot down a lot? And by a lot, I mean all the time. And with each instance, it becomes more and more predictable. It happened in Halo: Reach. It happened in Splinter Cells Conviction and Blacklist. The Call of Duty series especially abuses this stereotype. Your helicopter gets shot down in Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare, at least twice in CoD 4: Modern Warfare, and no less than three times in Black Ops. And your character always walks away without any bone fractures as if it was nothing. It's a miracle to survive one helicopter crash, let alone three! Bottom line: helicopters in action games are death traps. Don't enter one!

9 – Quicktime Events
I'm sure you've heard people complain about this one a lot, but it really is that big of a problem. It isn't so much irritating as it is disappointing. There's three reasons why. First, the demanded button presses are often counter-intuitive as to the action you're supposedly performing. For example, twirling the thumbsticks around would work if the player's character was spinning or rotating something, like the lock-picks in Splinter Cell or Skyrim. But how does alternately mashing the triggers simulate pushing things away, Ultimate Spider-Man? How is pressing three random buttons anything like using a rolling pin, Fable 3? The second problem is that the button prompts that you're supposed to be keeping an eye on usually force the player to look away from where the action is. You'll end up not even seeing the result of your button presses because you're too busy keeping alert for the next button prompt! And third, quicktime events are just boring and not fun. How many times have you made it to a final boss, excited to kick his butt, only to find out that you need only press a few buttons to win. QTE sequences take control away from the player, leaving him/her only with the ability to choose how long the sequence continues. For this reason, a failed QTE attempt feels all the more frustrating and cheap. In short, quicktime events should be relied upon far less because they take away the player's agency and reduce him/her to a passive observer of the action.

8 – Sequel-baiting
We truly live in the age of video game franchises. Hardly a any successful game goes by without being granted some sort of sequel. This isn't a bad thing, if the game has earned it. Unfortunately some games think that if they leave the game on a cliffhanger it'll have to warrant a sequel. They're wrong! Gamers want self-contained stories. It's OK to leave the door open for a followup – maybe one or two seemingly minor loose threads to be resolved later. But games like Half-Life 2, Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days, Halo 2, The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct, The Order: 1886, and Homefront end so clumsily that they really do spoil the feeling of accomplishment you should feel upon completing a game. The proper way to secure a sequel is to do the game right the first time so that we want to play more of it; not by leaving out the game's ending, that's sloppy. What a shame.

7 – Regenerating Health
It seems that nowadays it's not often that you play a game that has a health bar which does not regenerate on its own. I play a lot of shooter games and in this genre regenerating health has pretty much become commonplace – even in tactical shooters which are supposed to be rooted in reality! I mean, having your wounds fully healed by touching a first aid kit wasn't all that realistic in the first place but it made a lot more sense than simply sitting still behind a wall for a few seconds. Not only that, but a non-regenerating health system encourages the player to explore the level, thus making exploration more rewarding: I'm looking at you, Halo 2. Also, multiplayer games that use regenerating health are typically littered with useless weapons that aren't powerful enough to kill enemies quickly – i.e. pistols have gotten the shaft lately. In my opinion, regenerating health is only useful if you're playing on an extreme difficulty or if the game you're playing has a really poor checkpoint/save system.

6 – You're the only competent one around
Don't you just love games in which your AI allies are completely useless? The games that constantly and thanklessly bark orders at you to do other peoples' jobs? (Come to think of it, this is starting to sound like my job.) I know video games are supposed to make the player feel empowered, but could the NPCs please stop being so lazy? When it comes to the point where one man single-handedly turns the tide of a major battle, it gets kind of ridiculous. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 unintentionally created an internet meme with its constant “Ramirez, do this!” and “Ramirez, do that!”, expecting the poor private to do everything.

5 – Intelligence-insulting Tutorials
Tutorials seem so lazy and boring nowadays. All they are are just uninteresting mini-levels that waste your time explaining how to do the most basic things. “Use right thumbstick to look. Pull right trigger to shoot. Press start to pause.” No, really!? I never would've figured that out on my own. Game developers need to realize that gamers aren't idiots and are capable of recognizing basic patterns that are found in performing actions in video games. When was the last time you played a video game that had an interesting tutorial? Most of the time games just plainly flash the instructions on screen with no creativity, not even trying to mesh the tutorial within the context of the level. More games need tutorials like Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare or the original Splinter Cell, whose tutorials took place at obstacle courses on military training grounds. Those were cool. Or better yet, design the tutorial in a way that subtly guides the player through the basic moves without overt instructions, making the gamers feel as if they discovered it on their own. Wouldn't that feel more satisfying? Empower the players, man!

4 – Telling You To Hurry Up
Sections that have arbitrary time limits are bad enough, but how annoying is it when you're playing a level that is not time sensitive and yet the NPCs still have the gall to tell you to hurry up. This can often happen when you're trying to explore a level – the NPCs reminding the player of the level's/game's ultimate objective – in which case the gamer's typical response is “Screw you. I'll do what I want!” But other times it can be during just one part of a level in which the game is trying to instill a sense of urgency; if that's the case, then just put a time limit on that one small part. I won't mind. I especially hate it when the game tells you over and over that you need to do something and then doesn't bother to tell you how you're supposed to do it. Do you think I'm a retard?! Do you think I'm not trying?! Just shut up already!

3 – The Silent Protagonist
A fairly common convention in video games is to never have the player's character talk. The reasoning behind this is that it is easier for the player to project their personality onto the character and relate to that him/her. Unfortunately, this pretty much always results in that character having no personality of their own. This is why I don't understand people who think that Master Chief (Halo) or Gordon Freeman (Half-Life) are some of the greatest video game characters ever. How can you call them characters when they hardly say a word? With Halo it's not so bad because at least Master Chief talks during the cutscenes, plus Cortana is there to talk to you during the gameplay. But with Half-Life it is so boring because there are no cutscenes; Gordon Freeman never says a single word. Ever. Whenever people are talking to him, he comes off as some shy, timid dweeb. And yet everyone seems to know what you're thinking and what you need. In short, playable characters who don't talk are awkward, boring, and forgettable.

2 – Hand-Holding
In response to cliche #4, sometimes the complete opposite can pose a huge problem too. Like when the player is supposed to do something and some large, obtrusive instructions flash on screen and don't go away until you finally do that thing. I hate that crap. Most video games don't need those waypoint markers telling you who to follow/where to go. Most of the time, the person/destination is straight forward and the player can easily find it himself (if the game is designed competently, that is). And just like with regenerating health, waypoint markers don't encourage the player to explore the level. It's true that video gaming has become more accessible and casual in the past couple decades, but you don't need to dumb down the way gamers are expected to think. An example of this is the Splinter Cell games. In the earlier games, you were expected to figure out how to navigate and traverse the levels on your own. But with the later Splinter Cell games, tooltip icons pop up whenever you're in a position to do something. What's more, interactable/manipulable objects are often highlighted when you use your (sigh) sonar vision. It's almost as if the games are straight up telling you exactly what to do/where to go. Instead you'll find yourself repeatedly saying, “Yeah, I get it. Thanks.”

1 – Unskippable Cutscenes
I know that the story is an important part of the game that developers work hard on, but can't they just accept that people don't always want to watch them? Moreover, did it not occur to them that people often do multiple playthroughs and have already seen the cutscene? Making cutscenes in video games unskippable is just a dick move. It makes games like Destiny, Call of Duty 3, Max Payne 3, Assassin's Creed 3, and Metal Gear Solid 4 very hard to get into – and even harder to want to make you want to replay. Is this supposed to be fun? The worst offenders are unskippable cutscenes that come directly before a boss fight or other such difficult part where you're likely to die a lot: you're screwed. The Angry Video Game Nerd said it best when he remarked, “Is this what kids do nowadays: sit around and watch video games?!”

Saturday, 9 July 2016

Movie Review Repost - Furious 7 (2015)

In my review of Independence Day 2, I mentioned how the original Independence Day was a big, dumb pile of fun. So I thought now might be a good time to show you a review I did for one of those types of movies, Furious 7. Since April 2015 my feelings on this movie haven't changed; it's a prime example of mindless entertainment.

   It's once again time to return to that inexplicably long-running film series that keeps changing its title with each passing outing. I'd just like to point out that before Furious 7, the only Fn'F films I had previously seen were 2 Fast 2 Furious and The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, the latter of which you may remember (Who am I kidding? No, you don't) being on my list of Top 10 Worst Movies I've Ever Seen... my expectations were not high.
   But this one was alright. Furious 7 follows Dominic Toretto and his team as they take on a vengeful assassin working for a terrorist network. The film even dares to tie itself into the plot of Tokyo Drift, apparently becoming the first movie to take place after that one. Anyways, Furious 7 offers lots of wild, over-the-top action with impressive stunt work and lots of explosions. And to cap it all off, we're given a touching tribute to the late Paul Walker at the end.
   The film boasts an ensemble cast – Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Kurt Russel, Jason Statham, Dwayne Johnson, Ludacris, Tyrese Gibson – and they each do a fine job, even if their comedic banter doesn't always achieve the laughs they're going for. But the one-liners have just the right amount of cheesiness, and Jason Statham is an amazing villain. Paul Walker's passing, which no doubt contributed to this film becoming the fifth-highest grossing movie of all time, necessitated some obvious script rewrites. You can tell that his character was originally meant to have a bigger role.
   Probably this film's biggest problem is its editing. Besides having random fast-forwards and pointless jump cuts (seriously, was this shot in 2002?) Furious 7's fight scenes also suffer from that familiar choppy editing that nearly renders them unwatchable; this probably made it easier to pass off Walker's doubles. The driving scenes look OK though. The cinematography was a little high-strung as well; there's a lot of tracking and rotating camera shots for scenes that only have people talking. It's not necessary.
   Obviously Furious 7 is an over-the-top action flick, but there's just a few things that one's suspension of disbelief can't hold up. Like, why did agent Hobbs have his weapons and gear with him in his hospital room? How was Dominic able to lift up a suped-up million dollar car fitted with armour plating? And how do none of the drivers ever get hurt? Aside from walking away from nightmarish crashes without a scratch, I think every main character jumps out of a speeding car at least once. And not a single bone was broken. Needless to say, don't try this at home.
   I have to admit I was fully prepared to hate this movie, but it's actually not that bad. It's not your thinking man's action movie, but it's entertaining enough. It's the kind of movie Michael Bay wishes he could make; and since it isn't as boring it presents a decent alternative to the Transformers movies.


Rating: three stars out of five.

Monday, 4 July 2016

Movie Review - Independence Day: Resurgence

   I am a big fan of the original Independence Day from 1996. I saw it as a kid and I loved it. Growing up, I realized how silly and dumb it was, but I loved it just the same. It was a film that never really needed a sequel, but I guess 20 years is a fair time to wait for the nostalgia wave to wash something ashore. Case in point, Independence Day: Resurgence. Does it equal the silly funfest of its predecessor? Let's find out.
   Twenty years after the events of the first movie, humanity has risen from the ashes stronger than ever. I've got to hand it to the filmmakers here, the settings look really imaginative and creative: very different from the Earth we saw in the 1996 film. Alien technology has been used to revolutionize everyday life and world peace is now a reality – even though armed militias and warlords still exist, uh-doy! – probably because everyone in this world seems to know/be related to eachother. And if you didn't get all of this set up right away then don't worry; Resurgence clumsily explains its backstory with clunky exposition. In the first 45 minutes there are tons of lines that go like “I was the youngest valedictorian in the academy's history”, “you gave up flying to take care of me”, and “you've been in a coma for 7300 days now”. In the words of Rush, “Show me, don't tell me.”
   I'm supposed to be talking about the plot, aren't I? Anyways, aliens show up and wreck a bunch of major cities, and what's left of the US government retreats to Area 51 to lead humanity's last stand. It's a plot that's extremely similar to the first film, but with even less emotional weight. What I mean is that with the first Independence Day, the movie took its time to really build things up, to maximize the epicness and awesomeness of what was happening. Resurgence, on the other hand, seems more concerned with getting to the point and throwing some action our way. This is especially evident when characters die. For example, there's a scene in which one character sacrifices himself during a battle (in the same way that Randy Quaid did in the original), but there's hardly any emotional weight to it. What's more, his death is never mentioned again so you're pretty much guaranteed to forget about it after a few minutes. But these shortcomings are (arguably) forgivable thanks to the amazing cliffhanger ending. Don't worry, the film's story is resolved, but the cliffhanger ending outlines what'll happen in the sequel. And it does it in the most goofy, over-the-top, badass way possible. For the Independence Day series, it's perfect! Seriously, if you can find a clip of the last minute of this movie, then go watch it. That part alone is worth the price of admission.
   Now for the characters. Most of the surviving ones from the first movie are back – Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pullman, Judd Hirsch, Brent Spiner, and Jasmine Dubrow – and they're all fun to watch. Too bad Will Smith's character died offscreen between films. Lame. The movie also tries introducing some new characters, but they're mostly colourless and have no charisma which only adds to the “why should I care?” problem. Having said that, General William Fitchner and Deobia Oparei as the badass Congolese warlord are alright.
   As was the case with the first film, this one is written and directed by Roland Emmerich, who is a lousy writer, but a capable director who makes heavy use of impressive special effects (even if it is sometimes hard to tell the good guys' and bad guys' aircraft apart). Perhaps more than the first film, Resurgence has a good amount of humour, which includes nice little references to the original.
   However, there were a few things that didn't quite make sense to me. Like, did the governments of Earth rebuild the cities that were destroyed in 1996 exactly the way they were before? It looks like it, though it's a shame that they got destroyed all over again! Also, the cities' destruction seemed a little inconsistent. For example, how did the Burj Khalifa end up getting flung all the way over to London in one piece? And if there was a hole being drilled through the ocean floor hundreds of kilometres deep, then wouldn't there be water rushing into it?
   As I've said before, the first Independence Day film is a load of mindless fun. If I had to rate it today, I'd probably give it a 3 or something. Resurgence wants to be like its predecessor (maybe a little too much), but it isn't as memorable, epic, or emotionally engrossing. There are moments of fun to be had, but the real concern here is: will you care?

Grade: two stars out of five.

Saturday, 2 July 2016

Top 10 Biggest Military Winners of Modern History

So remember way back in December of last year when I published the “Top 10 Biggest Military Losers of Modern History” list? Well, I figured it'd be fun to write a companion list to that spotlighting the most successful wartime nations. My feelings about war only making losers out of societies (i.e. there are no winners) still stands, so for this list I'm ranking it based less on lives lost/territory won and more on the nation's consistency of strategic/tactical victory. Maybe that's why I've found this list so much harder to compose than the top 10 losers list. As with last time, only conflicts taking place after 1800 will be counted. And as always, this list is simply my take on things: disagree, if you wish.
Honourable Mentions: Vietnam, South Korea, and Russia/USSR even though they were on the top 10 losers list. What can I say? Russians: they win big, they lose big.

10 – Cuba
After twice failing to expel their Spanish overlords (in 1878 and 1880) the Cuban people finally achieved independence in 1898 with American help. After half a century of several uprisings and US interventions, Cuba's government – then headed by the corrupt Bautista regime – came under the control of Fidel Castro's revolutionaries in 1959, taking much of the world by surprise. In 1961, a combined force of American CIAgents and Cuban exiles invaded at the Bay of Pigs, hoping to initiate an uprising against Castro. This invasion failed and became a major embarrassment to US foreign policy. Since then, the Cuban military has attempted both to export their model of popular uprising and to intervene in revolutionary struggles around the world, sometimes successfully (Nicaragua, Angola, Ogaden War) and sometimes unsuccessfully (Congo, Bolivia, Ethiopia).

9 – Prussia
I guess I'm cheating a little bit here by ignoring Prussia's history after 1871, but the Prussians played a huge role in how modern armies and strategies are formed and maintained. Prussia was on the losing side of the War of the Fourth Coalition against Napoleon, resulting in the loss of one-third of its territory and its subjugation to the French. But after defeating Napoleon's France with the Sixth and Seventh Coalitions by 1815, Prussia was granted a huge amount of territory in Westphalia, Saxony, and the Rhineland (which included the industrial centres of the Ruhr). Over the next half-century, the Kingdom of Prussia's political and economic influence swelled to make it the dominant German state of the 19th century. After losing the First Schleswig War (1848-52) to Denmark, Prussia rallied back with three astounding victories against Denmark (1864), Austria (1866), and finally France (1870-1). It was after the war against France that the German states became united under Prussian leadership to become the German Empire, which lasted until 1918.

8 – India
In the early 19th century, India was more-or-less run by the British East India Company. It was under Company Rule that India scored numerous victories against the Persians, the Sikhs, and the Chinese while suffering few losses. But following the Indian Mutiny of 1857, the British army dissolved the Mughal and Maratha Empires, bringing all of India under the direct governance of the crown. And so for the next 89 years, the rampaging Indians took part in a spectacular stream of conflicts putting down rebellions, expelling raiders, and expanding their territory. India also served in a multitude of colonial wars for their British masters, including both World Wars, the Russian Civil War, and the Turkish War of Independence. Since gaining their own independence in 1947, India has participated in several limited/regional conflicts with mixed success. For example, India lost to China in 1962 but won against Pakistan in 1971.

7 – Australia and New Zealand
Yeah, I know anyone from Australia or New Zealand reading this (like that'll ever happen) is going to be pissed that I've lunked both countries together, but their war records are so similar – and admittedly, I'm not terribly familiar with either nation's history in particular – that I can't separate them. In fact, both countries' troops served together in the combined ANZAC Corps of the First and Second World Wars. Not only that, but most of their wars were victories. Both countries served their British masters in the Second Boer War, the Boxer Rebellion, and both World Wars. After achieving full independence, both nations were involved in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the Afghanistan War. The only major difference I can see between the two is that Australia took part in the Iraq War while New Zealand did not. I guess the Australians are the more bloodthirsty of the two.

6 – The United States
Everyone today knows about the seemingly worldwide US hegemony of the mid/late 20th century, but their international exploits have not always been successful or well-received. Both World Wars were unquestionable wins, and many Americans today dubiously claim that the victories were entirely of their country's doing. The Korean War was technically a stalemate, but I'm willing to count it as a win because the US war aim of preserving the government of the Republic of Korea was achieved. Conversely, the Vietnam War was a loss because the US's goal of preserving the Republic of Vietnam's government was not achieved. The US saw successes against Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice), Somalia, and Yugoslavia. And yet immediately after this time, US forces became bogged down in lengthy wars against insurgents in places like Iraq and Afghanistan (twice). However, I do think the USA's military success in the Americas are exceptionally impressive and deserve much more attention. Through the various Indian Wars (which lasted until 1924), Washington DC extended its sovereignty from sea to sea. American territory was massively expanded with very few setbacks (those being the War of 1812 and Red Cloud's War). Moreover, the defeat of Spain in 1898 not only awarded the US with the Philippines and Guam, but more importantly it gave the United States free reign over the republics of Central America and the Caribbean. It was in these countries between 1898 and 1934, US forces staged no fewer than 29 interventions, coups, and occupations in what are now known as the Banana Wars. Oh yeah, there was also that US Civil War; Americans were on both sides so that means the Americans won! And lost. If nothing else, the United States does deserve credit for maintaining one of the largest, best financed, and most advanced militaries in world history.

5 – Canada
Aw yeah, girl! You knew Canada had to be on this list somewhere. So since confederation, Canada had to defend its own turf from the Fenian Raids (from the US) and the Northwest Rebellion (1885). As a loyal member of the British Empire, the Dominion of Canada participated in the Sudan Campaign, the Second Boer War, and the First World War. After attaining independence in 1934, Canada's armed forces fought in the Second World War, Korean War, Gulf War, Bosnian War, Kosovo War, and the Afghanistan War: all of them victories. In fact, I think the only loss that Canada's army ever suffered was during the Russian Civil War, and that was probably because our troops didn't really get to do anything and were denied the opportunity to wreak the havoc they so dearly craved.

4 – The United Kingdom
No nation in modern history has been involved in more wars than the UK. For the past 200+ years, Britain's armed forces have been one of the most powerful in the world, thanks to its historically outstanding navy and its experienced, professional army. After losing the Wars of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Coalition against Napoleon's France, victory finally came in 1815 with the 6th and 7th. During the 19th century, the British Empire expanded – often by conquest – to become the largest empire in world history. By the early 20th century, the Union Flag was flying over such places as India, Sudan, Egypt, and South Africa: “from Cairo to Cape Town” as was often said. Some wars were fought within the context of colonial competition; i.e. showing off to the other European empires. These sometimes went well (the Crimean War, the Opium Wars), sometimes not so much (First Anglo-Afghan War, the First Boer War). The UK was one the key victors of both World Wars, and despite the Empire reaching its territorial zenith in 1922 the seeds of decline had already been sown. The country was more-or-less bankrupt and the war efforts of the colonies/dominions gave rise to nationalist movements everywhere. British forces notably withdrew from places like Ireland, Palestine, and Egypt just to name a few. Most withdrawals went OK, but the Aden Emergency was a disastrous exception. Other conflicts during the post-war period included the Korean War (a stalemate/win, depending on how you see it), the Suez War (a costly win), the Cyprus Emergency (a costly win), the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War, and the Iraq War. Postwar British forces have had exceptional success in counterinsurgency operations in places like Dhofar, Malaya, and Kenya. During both the Troubles in Northern Ireland (1968-98) and the Falklands War (1982), Britain successfully defended her territories from terrorists and invaders. Despite recent problems with financing and under-staffing, the British armed forces retains its enviable reputation as an impeccably trained and professional fighting machine.

3 – Israel
The day after declaring its independence in May 1948, Israel was forced to defend itself against a huge coalition of Arab nations. But this coalition was poorly coordinated and was defeated easily. The young nation quickly organized itself as a tightly regimented society, ready to respond in the event of a crisis by mobilizing its substantial reserves. The go-to strategy that emerged was one of a quick and devastating attack (led by air power and fast-moving armour) to eliminate any Arab threat. Israel swiftly defeated Egypt in the Suez War of 1956, but was made to give up its gains. Twice more – in 1967 and 1973 – Israel duked it out with Arab coalitions, and twice more Israel won, albeit at a progressively higher cost each successive time. During these wars, Israel's borders had expanded to include all territories of the former (British) Mandatory Palestine, including the land allotted to the Palestinian Arabs under United Nations resolutions. This nearly 50-years-long occupation has been the source of an incredible amount of unrest – with the two Intifadas from the Palestinians and the multiple crackdowns/supressions from the IDF – which Israeli troops typically win. Elsewhere, Israel's forces have been involved in wars in Lebanon (1982, 2006) with mixed success. Still, when it comes to conventional war nobody does it better than Israel.

2 – Ireland
For decades Irishmen had volunteered for the British military in such conflicts as the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War. But the Irish War of Independence in 1919-22 resulted in most of Ireland becoming its own republic. Immediately after this, the new country was engulfed by a brief civil war. The most well-known Irish conflict of the 20th century was the Troubles, in which Irish republican terrorists and Ulster loyalist terrorists slugged it out over the political status of Northern Ireland while security forces from both the UK and Republic of Ireland tried keeping things under control. After nearly 30 years of turmoil, both sides called it a stalemate. In the meantime, Irish forces had participated in UN operations in Somalia and East Timor. The republic has yet to lose its first war.

1 – Brazil
Brazil is one of those countries that, as far as I can tell, has never lost a war. Ever since winning independence from Portugal in 1824 Brazil has put down numerous rebellions, participated in both World Wars, and fought in a multitude of regional wars against countries like Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay: and always on the winning side. No wonder they have such a big country.