Meshuggah - "Koloss"

I review a lot of metal albums on this blog, and as an attempt to further educate those few readers who manage to discover it I like to provide a little context on bands and genres as is necessary. If you've read any of the previous album reviews you'll likely have picked up on a recurring theme: metalheads are finicky. Arguably one of the most vitriolic fan bases, metalheads go after one another and one another's favorite bands like it actually matters. I can't tell you how many times I've heard or read someone say "Fill-in-the-blank is amazing, fill-in-this-other-blank is pathetic." The language used is often much more colorful, but the message is always the same: "Because of the bands I listen to, I'm better/more metal/more hardcore/more legit than you because of the bands you listen to." Don't get me wrong, plenty of bands out there claim "metal" as their genre label and are just objectively piss-poor examples. As often as not, these claims are based purely on the tastes of the listener. But if there's one subgenre debate that will stop just short of starting a war, it's djent.

Did you hear that? That was the sound of blood in the water...ok bad analogy. But go to literally any YouTube video from TesseracT, Animals as Leaders, Vildhjartha, Periphery, or any other band that might be called "djent" and you'll find yourself stepping into a war zone. Djent is a word that emerged to describe the metal subgenre almost exclusively pioneered by Meshuggah. "Djent" itself is onomatopoeia, meant to articulate the particular sound of rhythmic palm-muting on an electric guitar that defines a good portion of the music to come out of that tradition. But because everything that is "djent" started with Meshuggah back as early as the 90s, metal kids get all butt-hurt if a band who took cues from Meshuggah is hailed by fans and critics alike.

But independent of all that, Meshuggah is still alive and well - continuing to nuance and explore the genre they defined. And whether you're admittedly a "djentleman" or cringe every time someone uses "djent" for portmanteau and pun - there's no denying that Meshuggah is still at the top of the heap. Their latest, "Koloss", is a perfect example of why.

THE PROS:

Much like the title implies, "Koloss" has an incredibly massive feel to it musically. Every song seems to emanate sonic size and gargantuan imagery. The album explodes onto the listener's ears with the force of a giant's angry fist on the opening track "I Am Colossus." Yes. Yes, you are track #1. Immediately following the opening, "The Demon's Name Is Surveillance" cuts to the quick with a riff that's frenetic and determined, reminiscent of "Bleed" from 2008's ObZen.

The album's first major single, "Break These Bones Whose Sinews Gave it Motion" exists somewhere between a flashback to "Spasm" from 2002's Nothing and something completely new. The guitars lumber along like massive beasts, chugging with a controlled ferocity in the key of (what sounds like) drop Z - all the while a wailing high note underscoring the crushing echo.

There's so much here that's just...classic Meshuggah. And I mean that in the best way imaginable. Elements of their entire discography appear in "Koloss," but each time more refined and matured. It's hard to imagine that a band that has been around as long as Meshuggah could still find room to mature musically, but "Koloss" is testament to the fact that with the right instrumentalists it's not only possible but preferable.


If you're a fan of Meshuggah then you've got to enjoy polyrhythms, because the band barely writes anything but polymetric/polyrhythmic music. Another delight I found in "Koloss" was that the intricacy of the time signatures was still very present, but somehow more accessible. Maybe I've just listened to so much of their stuff my brain is getting used to layering multiple time signatures at once. I doubt it though, because the majority of 2005's "Catch Thirty-Three" still throws me for a loop. But with "Koloss" somehow they've managed to refine and streamline their musical process and the result is both stimulating and profound.

And, to top it all off, the album is almost an hour long! You've heard me bemoan short album lengths ad nauseum, and it thrills me to not revisit that complaint for this review.

THE CONS:

One or two of the songs feel a little lost to me. The closing track, "The Last Vigil" is ominous and soundscape-y but not particularly compelling. Similarly "Behind the Sun" feels like a bit of a filler track. I don't know if Meshuggah is even capable of knowingly writing a "filler" song in the first place, so I'm not accusing them of padding their material. I just didn't find those two tracks to be nearly as great a pleasure as the rest of the album. And fortunately, it's a small complaint such as it is.

THE VERDICT:

Meshuggah isn't a band that has to overdo things. 4 years passed between their previous release and this one, and before that the gap was only slightly smaller. They're a band that takes their work seriously, and have every reason to. "Koloss" is proof that dedication to one's craft can still yield new fruits, even when confined to a limited medium. Meshuggah's definition of djent and progressive metal hasn't changed a great deal in recent memory; albums released over 10 years ago still bear a great deal of similarity to "Koloss." That's part of what makes Meshuggah such an incredible band; they've carved out their musical territory a long time ago, and they've spent most of their life perfecting it and making it their own in a way that few other artists can ever claim to.

It's hard to say this album is heavier or darker than previous releases, but it does pack quite a significant punch. And whether you hate Periphery for being lumped in with a band as seminal as Meshuggah, it's hard to say that any band's existence diminishes Meshuggah's accomplishments.

The band is simply in a league of their own, and "Koloss" is an album in a league of its own as well. Progressive metal, djent, avant-garde metal, polyrhythms; if any of those are things you enjoy, pick up "Koloss" as soon as you can.

It's pure Meshuggah.

The Hunger Games

It's finally here, ladies and gentlemen. All the tweeting and status updates indicating Biblical proportions of excitement and anticipation can finally be replaced by tweets and status updates indicating Biblical proportions of satisfaction and eagerness for the other two films in the trilogy. It's only Friday, but in all likelihood The Hunger Games will top box office records for a brief period - or maybe longer. Its Rotten Tomatoes score is holding steady in the high 80's, and the overwhelming critical reaction has been largely positive - with good reason.

Set in a dystopian world, The Hunger Games follows 16 year old Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers to take her sister's place in an annual competition. Well, *competition* might be putting it lightly. Each year, the 12 districts of Panem (the post-apocalyptic North American nation in which the film is set) each send one male and one female between the ages of 12 - 18 to compete in a nationally televised battle to the death. It's like a dystopian Superbowl...except everyone has to watch it and there are no viral commercials. Katniss goes to The Capitol - the technologically advanced seat of power in Panem - and is put through 2 weeks of training and advertisement in an attempt to gain sponsors to help her odds in the Games. Meanwhile, the other 23 contestants are all doing the same thing; including Peeta, (Josh Hutcherson) the other contestant chosen from Katniss' district. What follows is a game of wits, survivalism, shaky camera work, and social commentary.

Here's my two-bits worth on the whole affair.

THE PROS:

The first major point this film scores for me is on some of the casting. There are a myriad of familiar faces from Woody Harrelson (who plays the two protagonists' mentor, Haymitch) to Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci, and Lenny Kravitz. I'm personally a huge fan of Harrelson and Tucci, but even they are outshined by the stellar performance at the core of this film, courtesy of Jennifer Lawrence. She's proven she's got the chops for confident performances in Winter's Bone and The Beaver, and here she adds another notch in her belt. She exudes the kind of steely reserve that forms the foundation of her character, but she also manages to work in moments of vulnerability that I found truly moving. This movie could have completely faltered had her performance been even a little hesitant, but she jumps right in with everything she's got and the film is all the stronger for it.

As much can be said of Hutcherson, her co-star, who proves he's got what it takes to make it in the Hollywood big leagues...ya know, once he's outgrown the teen heartthrob phase. He and Lawrence both have some pretty solid onscreen chemistry and as much it broke my heart to admit it, I found myself enjoying their screen time more than the Oscar-winning/nominated performers around them.

The art direction of the film is also magnificent, particularly the costume design. The Panem districts largely wallow in a kind of pre-1900s limbo when it comes to housing and clothing design - almost like something out of a western film. The Capitol on the other hand is filled to the brim with a very retro-futurism; people wearing bright colors with extravagant hair, head-dress, and makeup.

Having not read the books, I can't really comment on how well the film stacks up. What I've been told by those who've read the book is that while invariably "the book is better," The Hunger Games does a good job of staying largely true to the source material. And speaking as someone who hadn't read the books, I can attest to the fact that the film does a great job of "filling in" those unknowing members of the audience. And it does so without dragging in exposition, as well.

THE CONS:

Remember the Bourne movies? Well, more specifically, remember how dizzy you felt coming out of those movies? All the shaky camerawork made for some frenetic action scenes and high-adrenaline cinematography, but it definitely took its toll. The first thing you'll likely notice about The Hunger Games is that apparently no one on set believed in dollies, cranes, jibs or steadicams. Almost every minute of the movie is shot with a handheld camera - or made to look so. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. But couple that with a LOT of extreme closeups and it makes for a difficult viewing experience. To top it off, there are times when it looks as though the camera is *deliberately* being shaken to "emphasize" the action. But instead of drawing the audience in further, the effect alienates because it's damn near impossible to even see what's going on amidst the motion blurs. I felt as though I only saw about half of the actual movie because so much of it was made so deliberately shaky. Perhaps that was intentional - to convey the chaos to the audience in a palpable way. If that was the aim, the film *still* misses the mark because it's too disheveled to even experience the violence and chaos viscerally; it's just annoying.

I've got nothing against Lenny Kravitz as a musician - but he's not cut out for acting, not yet anyway. His role is fortunately rather small, but the guy needs some pretty serious acting lessons. Similarly Woody Harrelson - whom I normally find to be almost always on the money - turns in one of the lesser performances of his career. It's not abysmal, but to watch him you'd never know the man had been nominated for multiple Oscars.

THE VERDICT:

Maybe this is a sign that I'm beginning to reach an age where there's a distinct gap between me and the next generation, but I'm a little puzzled as to what all the fuss is about here - ignoring the fact that the first book/movie in this trilogy is essentially Battle Royale. It's not a bad movie, by any stretch of the imagination, but the entire time watching it I was struck by a general lack of gripping enjoyment. I did enjoy myself, and maybe I just allowed myself to get caught up in all the hype because - let's face it - if you know what the internet is, you've probably seen more references to The Hunger Games than food, sleep, or even friend-drama.

Maybe I just heard "It's so good." too many times and as a result nothing could have possibly met the expectations that were arbitrarily set for this film by those around me. I can see its merits, I can see why the young adult crowd really ate up the books and are eating up this film. But I think that's part of why I'm unable to really connect with the material: because it's geared to teens and pre-teens there's a lot of "sanitation" the story has to undergo. The almost unbearable sexual tension between the two leads never really gets resolved, the violence has to be cleaned up and made less "in-your-face," and they'll be damned if the film doesn't unnecessarily cut back to Gale (the third point of an emerging love triangle amongst Katniss, Peeta, and the aforementioned) every few minutes to remind the high school girls in the audience that we're barreling towards another "Team Jacob/Team Edward" clash for the sake of merchandising.

Maybe if I had read the books when they came out, or if I were a few years younger (or both), I might have had a higher opinion of The Hunger Games. The movie is undeniably entertaining for the most part, and I think Jennifer Lawrence is definitely well on her way to becoming a familiar face in the nominee pool during awards season. That aside, I can't say I'm in any rush to see the next two movies - though I'm sure I will when they come out. If you loved the books, are looking forward to the movie, or what have you - don't let this review sour your expectations because you're probably among the majority who are making this movie the blockbuster it apparently is. And more power to you; this one just wasn't my cup of tea.

Apparently, the odds were never in my favor.

Impending Doom - "Baptized in Filth"

First came hardcore. Then came metalcore. Then came deathcore.

Whether you like it or not, a good deal of American metal traces its roots to the hardcore punk movement and the music that evolved from that scene. So as a new subgenre tends to emerge every decade or so, they're usually some derivative of hardcore meets fill-in-the-blank meets fill-in-the-blank ad infinitum. The result is that most purely American subgenres of heavy metal have that "-core" tagged on somewhere. Plenty of metalheads feel it necessary to eschew anything-core, but I've never personally had much issue with it or what it entails. I like a good breakdown. Sue me.

Impending Doom is a band with a unique journey. They're one of the few outspokenly Christian deathcore bands, and one of the few that makes deathcore still worth listening to. Their 4th full length release: "Baptized in Filth" is no exception.

THE PROS:

Longtime fans of Impending Doom know that they didn't exactly start out as a strictly deathcore band. Their debut "Nailed. Dead. Risen." was definitely a lot more "gore" than "core." That album featured a good deal of grind elements and just straight-laced death metal, but the beginnings of their "core" tendencies were still vaguely discernible. As they've progressed, they've become a more "core" type of band; more breakdowns, more lyrical enunciation, more machismo. Plenty of listeners resent this trend but I'm personally a big fan of how deftly the band has handled the transition. What was a bit more amorphous on previous releases "There Will Be Violence" and "The Serpent Servant" is now matured and confident.

The opening track "Murderer" is a prime example. There's some marvelous interplay between low-end growls and high-pitched screaming, and the band nuances tremolo picking and a little groove metal to masterful effect. "Chaos: Reborn" thunders along with a relentless aggression, more dependent on the combination of double-bass and downtuned chugging guitars than blast beats and intricate leads. "Absolute Horror" follows the same logic...opening with some ominous soundscapes before a controlled but heavy handed musical assault. It's nothing groundbreaking, but it's the-bread-and-butter of deathcore in the best way possible.

THE CONS:

I've said it before, I'll say it again - this one is too short. At just over 34 minutes this album barely exceeds the space of your average sitcom, and consequently just feels too short. Is it just me or is the average CD-length getting shorter???

Demon Hunter vocalist and frontman Ryan Clark hops in for a guest spot on "My Light Unseen," providing the most clean vocals on any Impending Doom song to date...that I can think of. It's not a terrible track, but it feels very much like a Demon Hunter track (and one of *their* comparatively laid back tracks to boot) stuck in the midst of an Impending Doom album. In my estimation, "Baptized in Filth" feels all the shorter for it. I don't mind clean vocals and singing at all...but on this track specifically it feels like the band is the "guest" and Ryan Clark is the lead, which I wasn't thrilled about. No offense, Ryan.

THE VERDICT:

It may be too short to just go nuts over, but "Baptized in Filth" is still a solid score for Impending Doom. Their evolutionary process has been largely rewarding for me as a listener, slowly but surely going "less gore, more core" over the course of their 4-title discography.

Not every song on this album is a home run, but there's more than enough to keep the average headbanger happily occupied for half an hour. I greatly enjoyed "The Serpent Servant" and "There Will Be Violence," but of Impending Doom's releases, this album is definitely my favorite.

If you like deathcore, but maybe aren't in love with the more anti-social imagery of bands like Suicide Silence or Whitechapel, then "Baptized in Filth" is right up your alley.

Lacuna Coil - "Dark Adrenaline"

Metalheads are picky. They can also be unbearable purists when it comes to their definition of what constitutes "real metal" and I'm certainly no exception. But I've noticed a rule by which a band that's not all that heavy can still be spoken with the same breath as a band whose name is completely illegible and/or involves references to death, blood, murder, firearms, torture, or internal organs. The first thing, and most obvious, is to be one of the founders of the genre. Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Megadeth; no screaming or breakdowns or severe down-tuning, but as the grandfathers of heavy metal you could listen to these bands all day long and maintain your "metal-cred." The other thing a band can do to still be "metal" without exactly sounding so "metal," is feature an insanely hot female member, preferably as a vocalist.

Hence, Lacuna Coil can be accurately called a metal band. "Metal" or not, they're still one of my favorites - and not just because vocalist Cristina Scabbia ranks as one of the planet's hottest women. Formed in the mid 90s and hailing from Italy, Lacuna Coil's sound began in a decidedly gothic vein. But over the course of several years it evolved into the music they're most known for now, which blends gothic harmonies with harmonic/melodic minor chord structure to evoke a vaguely Middle Eastern sound. 2006's Karmacode marked the solidification of that sound and the band's stand-out status. 6 years and two albums later, what is Lacuna Coil up to with Dark Adrenaline?

THE PROS:

The lead single from this album ("Trip the Darkness") was released last October and is without a doubt the lead song from this album, kicking the 13-track CD off with that signature Lacuna Coil sound. Andrea Ferro, the male-half of Lacuna's male/female vocal duo, continues to hone his vocal abilities - which have seen increased polishing over the course of their discography. As a result, the fact that his vocals are more present on this album than previous outings adds a plus for this release.

Cristina also harmonizes with herself a lot more on this album than previous outings, making Dark Adrenaline the most vocally-focused Lacuna Coil album to date, in my estimation. A good part of this may also be due to the fact that Dark Adrenaline was produced by Don Gilmore; the sound engineer behind Linkin Park and Bullet For My Valentine. The album is about as lean and musically polished as one would expect from an industry heavy-weight, and recording rules of thumb being what they are, (for better or worse) this leads to the vocal tracks being the most prominent. I'll come back to this in the next section.

Apart from the lead single, a few stand out tracks are "I Don't Believe In Tomorrow," which calls to mind a somewhat darker and heavier version of Karmacode's "In Visible Light." I'm not a huge R.E.M. fan, but Lacuna Coil covers "Losing My Religion" adequately, putting their own spin on a song I wouldn't have naturally associated with their sound. "My Spirit" wanders casually through minor-to-major chord progressions delightfully and true to Lacuna Coil form. It's a bit more subdued than the rest of the album, vaguely trippy, but an enjoyable track nonetheless. Also on the less aggressive side of things is "End of Time," which acts like this album's power ballad.

Musically speaking - without regard to the sound engineering of the album - Dark Adrenaline is on the more aggressive end of the musical spectrum. Their lyrics skew a bit more to the in-your-face and edgy than, say, 2009's Shallow Life - and the album is stronger for it.

But....

THE CONS:

While the music itself may be more aggressive, the mixing and mastering employed has robbed it of most of its power. Again, while making sure vocal tracks are the strongest and most clear during recording is technically the correct thing to do, it's not my personal preference. I like my metal albums - both the extremely heavy and the less so - to be a bit more guitar oriented, and Dark Adrenaline can't really be described that way as a whole. "Trip the Darkness" is about as heavy as the album ever gets, which isn't to disparage that track; it's one of my all-time favorite Lacuna Coil moments thus far. But as the lead single, I expected the rest of the album to reflect that song's approach and it just doesn't. I kept feeling like each subsequent song needed to be turned up to get a better grip on what the guitars were doing.

There's something very very traditional about this album. And by that I mean that rhythmic structure is as predictable as they come. Almost the entire album features that radio-rock stop/start rhythmic riffing, and drummer Cristiano Mozzati rarely bothers do much more than keep syncopated time with the occasional back beat. This wouldn't have been such a drawback for me in and of itself, but just by way of example the percussive experimentation on Karmacode actually help me personally in my growing understanding of rhythmic structure. So to have an album six years later that doesn't really showcase any progression or evolution was a bit underwhelming.

THE VERDICT:

Much like Shallow Life, I have to call this one a hit-and-miss. There are some songs on here that are new all-time favorites from the band; and there are songs on here that I probably won't bother to listen to again.

Lacuna Coil hasn't "sold out" by any means; the fundamentals of their music are still very much in place. But on Dark Adrenaline it felt as though those fundamentals took a back seat to a more "professional" overall production.

Karmacode is the definitive Lacuna Coil album, for me. It's riff-heavy, somewhat dark and atmospheric, and features the harmonic/melodic minor chord interplay throughout. Those elements still appear on Dark Adrenaline, but they're much less the rule.

The band's musical talent is still undeniable, and I'd be willing to bet that every one of these songs sounds amazing live - with everything turned up to 11. But after being run through the mixing and mastering process that favors a less aggressive approach, Dark Adrenaline doesn't feel quite as dark or amped-up as the title might imply.

I'm still a huge Lacuna Coil fan, I'll still wear my Lacuna Coil shirt with pride, and I'll still rush to see them live at the next opportunity I get. But Dark Adrenaline just isn't the album it could have been, and it's certainly not the album I was hoping it would be.

Star Wars: The Old Republic

It's been years in development. The hype surrounding this game has been swarming to a crescendo since the get-go. It's billed as the most expensive video game ever made at a production cost of just over 135 million dollars. And it's finally here.

Star Wars: The Old Republic launched on December 20th, a mere five days before Christmas. Having been priming their fan base with early game access and beta testing weekends for months leading up to the official launch, Bioware and Electronic Arts (and Lucasarts, sorta) have finally unleashed this colossal achievement to the general public and the fans have been going wild, with good reason.

The events of the game take place shortly after the events of the first two Knights of the Old Republic games and thousands of years before the events of the films. There's a lot of new Star Wars territory to be explored, and unfortunately this review will only cover a small fraction of the game as I've only rolled two characters so far. But my hope is that the immense achievement that this game already is, and will likely continue to become, will be evident in this critical evaluation of such a small portion.

THE PROS:

This game is huge. I can't emphasize that enough. And in an MMO, bigger is definitely better. Part of the big hoopla made over this game during its pre-release buzz was due to its being the first fully-voiced MMO. Both player characters and non-player characters have full conversation cut-scenes and that, at the very least, is an innovation in and of itself within the genre. Beyond that, the voice-acting displayed here is top-notch - true to Bioware's form. But having already encountered several characters and side missions (in addition to the main quests) in my intergalactic travels, I'm continually confronted by how much sheer content this game possesses. Side quests abound on map after map, and I've yet to recognize overlap in voice-actors.

Where this game shines brightest is in its commitment to quality story-telling. That's manifested on a surface level of course in the superb cutscenes and monumental voice-work. But at the heart of this game is every ultimate Star Wars fantasy. Characters are divided first by political allegiance - Empire or Republic. Within each side are 4 classes: Empire has Sith Inquisitor, Sith Warrior, Bounty Hunter, and Imperial Agent. On the Republic side: Jedi Knight, Jedi Consular, Smuggler, and Trooper. Along with these, players can choose from a variety of species from humans to Chiss to Zabrak to Twi'lek...the list goes on. Each class generally adheres to one mode of play (Bounty Hunter/Smuggler are ranged...Sith Warrior and Trooper are ideal for tanking, etc.) and with it comes a tailor-made storyline that puts the player at a level of control and immersion in the Star Wars universe we've yet to see. What Bioware has done with each character class is carve out the classic Star Wars fantasies for that character, while still leaving the player free to adhere or eschew said fantasy as they see fit. I'll use my two existing characters as examples:

Finch - my Smuggler - has a story right out of Han Solo's "early days." The story opens on the daring captain making a gun-run for some resistance fighters, only to be betrayed and have his ship hijacked by the people he was allegedly working for. From there, the main quest pertains to how he'll get back at the no-good slime-ball that double crossed him, while fitting into an over-arching story of political upheaval in the galaxy. The "ideal" path Bioware has laid out for this character involves playing things fast and loose - being that cool, swaggering gunslinger who plays by his own rules and answers to no one...but perhaps still has a soft spot somewhere under that rough exterior. That's how I play that character. When some side-mission involves retrieving medicine for some refugee children, I prefer to do "the right thing" and risk my neck for the kids and up my light-side points. But if I see some thugs roughing up a girl, I shoot first and negotiate later - dark side points be damned. With the Smuggler, it's the opportunity to live the Han Solo fantasy complete with cocky one-liners like "I wasn't planning to live forever anyway."

Skawnra, my Sith Inquisitor, is exactly the opposite. The fantasy carved out for the Inquisitor is that of a conduit of pure dark side power. Brought to the Sith homeworld of Korriban at the game's outset, the Inquisitor rises up from slavery to claim a place at Lord Zash's side as her dark apprentice. While playing this class, I get the most out of the existing content by engaging that fantasy as Bioware has it laid out: to be the imposing figure that others immediately fear because they know lightning could erupt from his fingertips at any moment. When given the opportunity to interrogate a prisoner I was presented with attempting to reason with him and play "good cop" or wring the answers from him through force of painful torture. Needless to say this minor character suffered some great pain at the hands of Skawnra's force lightning, and my dark side points piled on. Had I been playing as Finch or maybe another Republic class, I would have preferred to be more diplomatic or empathetic. But fulfilling the role of the dark side in the flesh, challenging anyone who dares to obstruct my path and never taking prisoners, is the real fun of playing the Inquisitor.

I've yet to sample the other classes just yet because I've been so caught up thoroughly enjoying the characters I currently have. I fully intend to play through every class eventually, but there's SO much content with a given class and all of it (thus far) has just been so much darn fun I'm getting my money's worth out of this game already. But even while I'm playing within the "default" fantasies the game provides, I'm aware of how many divergent ways there are to play this game. One has the opportunity to play an Imperial Agent who, instead of pulling the strings for the Empire, subverts the Empires intentions and sabotages their operations from within. Or perhaps act as a Jedi Knight who's swayed by the dark side of the Force. The combinations and permutations aren't endless, but the opportunities to nuance those choices are; layered over and over again with conversation choices and actions that determine a character's ultimate path, and all of it under the complete control of the player.

A handful of moments during the story really stand out as well. As a Jedi or Sith, the moment you receive your lightsaber isn't necessarily filled with pomp and circumstance. But it just feels SO COOL to get your own lightsaber. The same is true of receiving your starship (yeah, you get your own STARSHIP) - it's a brief cutscene that doesn't necessarily come with a parade - metaphorical or otherwise. But its such an integral detail to fulfilling that dream of truly being in the Star Wars universe, and Bioware hasn't overlooked anything in making sure The Old Republic is the ultimate in Star Wars wish-fulfillment.

THE CONS:

As I've said before, I'm only reviewing a very small portion of this game and unfortunately that portion does not cover Flashpoints (dungeons/raids) or PvP. I'm not a huge fan of the MMO as a genre, so this title was already a bit of a gamble for me. From what I've heard and seen, PvP and Flashpoints should be just as rewarding as the rest of the game has been, but I can't say anything about them from my own experience.

The main drawback of this game is intrinsically tied to its own genre: it's an MMO. I'm not a huge fan of MMO's personally, mainly because I'm kind of a solo gamer and so much of the MMO is based around coordinating play. I'm sure I'll eventually work my way up into more cooperative gaming in the near future, but for the time being I enjoy playing The Old Republic for the stories I'm forging on my own. Take that as you will.

As an MMO, of course there are occasional frame rate/lag issues. I've found lag is *almost* unbearable in certain indoor vignettes. If you peruse The Old Republic's user forums you'll find this is a topic of much heated discussion. MMO lag and/or frame rate issues can be tricky, because sometimes the computer itself and not the game (or the server) is to blame. In my case at least, most of my lag issues seem related to server trouble. But, I'm withholding real condemnation on these grounds given that Bioware might beef up their servers in the coming months to deal with the traffic that's causing said lag. But it is pretty annoying to be almost completely unable to play through certain side quests because of something as arbitrary as network latency.

Also, occasionally character textures don't load correctly. So your character or companion suddenly becomes a wire-frame for the duration of a quick cutscene. It doesn't affect gameplay so much as just the aesthetics of the game, but it's worth noting. So fair word of warning, The Old Republic is not without its share of bugs.

THE VERDICT:

I've been pumped about this release for a couple of years now. The prospect of a fully-voiced MMO seemed really cool. The fact that it was set in the Star Wars universe sounded awesome. And given that it was produced by Bioware, arguably the most story-driven developer in the market today, seemed like it could only be a good thing. Add those three elements together and the combined result is a game that's been every bit worth the wait, despite its occasional technical flaws.

As a personal snicker, I think it's pretty safe to say that not only will The Old Republic be able to compete with the only other major MMO on the market - World of Warcraft - but will likely be its death knell. While playing earlier this week a good deal of the chatter between players had to do with how many of them plan to take a break from WoW to play The Old Republic, or cancel their subscriptions altogether. Much of this shift is likely due to Bioware's timing; WoW has already lost a good deal of its steam and has been trying desperately to hook new users with "Free to play" campaigns for a while now. The other factor in solidifying The Old Republic as a worthy contender is just the sheer volume of content. It will be years before another game will even have a chance at being as big as The Old Republic, let alone any good. And with The Old Republic not only a monumental achievement in terms of just sheer content but also a damn fine game in its own right, I think it's safe to say that this game is very much here to stay.

The game already boasts almost 2 million users and counting, and this particular user has only begun to scratch the surface of what this game has to offer. Star Wars fans, THIS is the game we've been waiting for. When those commercials close with that "Your Saga Begins" title, it's not a hook - it's a promise.

George Lucas isn't the real Force behind Star Wars any more - Bioware is. The Force is most definitely strong with them, and with this game. I'm not a fan of MMO's, but I love this game and I've only been playing about a week now. So regardless of your taste in video games, I defy you to give this title a shot and not be happily humming your way through a galaxy far, far away. And, as always:

May the Force Be With You.

Dexter - Season 6

We've come to the end of another harrowing season of one of TV's finest programs: Dexter. I've been hooked on the show since I first clicked "Play" on Episode 1 - back when the first two seasons were available through Netflix Instant Watch. I haven't been on the Dexter bandwagon since its beginning, but I've been a huge fan since the moment I started. It's a show that's without peer when it comes to engaging characters, consistently well-written scripts, and white-knuckle suspense. And for old fans of the show and new, the latest season is rock solid. It's not without it's shortcomings of course, but that's what this blog is here for.

WARNING: SPOILERS

THE PROS:

Dexter's journey as a character has been an incredibly colorful one. The first few seasons of the show spent a good deal of time with Dexter trying to figure out how to "be human." Much of his character's inner struggle came from a growing desire to resist his sociopathic tendencies; but invariably such pursuit was waylaid by circumstance. The most disastrous of which was, of course, the death of his wife Rita in the last moments of Season 4. Season 5 saw Dexter making one last bid to "be human," embodied in the person of Lumen. But once Lumen's revenge-streak was over Dexter was left once again with only his Dark Passenger. It's been a troublesome back and forth that verged on growing tiresome, but thankfully the writers decided to open on a much more self-confident Dexter in this past season. Some time has passed since the events of Season 5 and Dexter has moved on to completely embrace his role as both father and serial killer. It's something of a return to the characterization in Season 1, and it's very welcome.

In place of Dexter's struggle for identity, we're treated to Dexter's struggle to determine his religious beliefs - if he has any at all. On the one hand, Dexter (along with the entire city of Miami) is presented with another incredibly disturbed and creative serial killer (played by Edward James Olmos and Colin Hanks) who's obsessed with bringing about Armageddon through re-enacting several tableau's in the Book of Revelation. It's a puzzling query: can one balance devotion and faith with the pursuit of a savage instinct?

It's the first place Season 6 scores major points in my book. At first, I feared the show had finally lost its glimmer by taking one of the most overused stock characters, the religious nut-job, and hoisting it up as Dexter's latest arch-nemesis. Had this been the case, I would likely have dismissed most of the rest of the season. But the writers wisely (and brilliantly, I might add) do a compare-and-contrast between the Doomsday Killer and the character of Brother Sam (Mos Def). Sam is something of a blast from Dexter's past; one of his targets that managed to slip through his fingers. Originally suspecting that no man can truly change and become born again into a new life, Dexter plans to put Sam "on his table." But as Dexter gets to know Sam, he realizes that Sam's journey of faith has genuinely changed him into a better man. It's one of the most favorable treatments of a Christian character I've ever seen on a show this dark, and works as a much needed refresher from the tiresome cliche of the Bible-thumping wacko. Not every Christian is a nut-job, just like not every Muslim is a terrorist and it's high time this kind of honest characterization was employed.

Presented with two sides of the same coin (Sam's genuine transformation through faith, and the Doomsday Killer's perversion of Scripture to murderous end) Dexter wrestles with where he fits on that spectrum. Ultimately, he decides that the pursuit of faith in God is just not for him, which makes perfect sense for his character. But again I was very impressed with how the writers still allowed room for those who do claim faith to not be completely marginalized. In the end, when Dexter finally has Doomsday on his table he says "I know people who believe in God; they would never use their faith as an excuse to murder innocent people. You used God, not the other way around."

The show also explores some fresh territory with Deb, Dexter's foul-mouthed adoptive sister. Promoted to lieutenant early on in the season, Deb's character is very much thrown to the wolves as she becomes the new face of Miami Metro Homicide. But during this turbulent time, Debra comes to realize - through speaking with a therapist - that she's developed feelings for her adoptive brother, Dexter. It's a tough sell, because we as an audience have been used to Dex and Deb as brother and sister - despite having no blood relation. I'm not sure audiences will really go with where the writers are taking it because it might just be *too* big a stretch. But one thing this show has proven is that the writers have done their homework on their characters' psychological profiles. So while it's maybe a little unsettling that Deb is coming to terms with romantic feelings for Dexter, it does make perfect sense. As a child, Deb yearned for her father's attention - but Harry was quite occupied with trying to focus Dexter's homicidal tendencies in a less destructive direction. So dealing with the psychological pain of a father that she felt didn't give her enough attention, it naturally follows that she would develop complicated emotions toward the object of Harry's attention: Dexter. Those complicated emotions have matured, and they're generally romantic in nature. I'm interested to see exactly how the writers are going to tackle this obstacle in the next season, because it could very well cause the show to jump the shark. But for now, I'm quite pleased with the writers' continued commitment to making artistic risks and shaking up the formula of the show. It hasn't served them wrong yet, so I'm still largely optimistic.

This season also saw the maturation of a few other characters, namely Maria LaGuerta. Why this season couldn't be the one in which *that* poor excuse for a leader wasn't offed is beyond me. I cringe every time she comes on screen and in this season she seems more confidently committed to being one of the show's actual villains - rather than just an occasional obstacle. Her treachery is less veiled here and I prefer it that way; her passive-aggressive and shadowy characterization verged on being just too annoying to abide.

Masuka also proves that he can think with more than just his sexual urges, and I was particularly proud of him when he managed to fire the intern who was insanely hot...but also bad news.

Colin Hanks and Edward James Olmos make magnificent additions to the cast, and jump into their rather unnerving roles whole-heartedly. The same can be said of Mos Def, whose characterization of Brother Sam is as genuine as it is accessible. Though he did look oddly like Dave Chappelle with those glasses and the goatee.

Dexter is a show that manages to kill people off and somehow still get away with either bringing them back or just keeping them around. I'm talking of course about James Remar - who plays Dexter's adoptive father Harry - and the fact that he's been a staple of the show since the beginning...despite having died long before the show officially started. Harry plays something of "an angel on the shoulder" for Dexter, appearing occasionally to give him guidance and act as a manifestation of the code he imparted to his adopted son. For a brief two episode stint, the formula was shaken up a bit, as Christian Camargo (who played Dexter's murderous brother Brian in Season 1) replaced Harry as a manifestation of Dexter's Dark Passenger. It was an interesting arc, and the cinematography of those episodes became a bit unhinged to reflect Dexter's psyche in flux. It was brilliantly handled and continues to prove that Dexter is a show that knows when and how to bend the rules.

THE CONS:

Following up a left hook and right jab (Seasons 4 and 5, respectively) with something equally stunning was quite a task, and Season 6 comes admirably close. The big difference between the ending of this season and every season previous is a profound sense of "unfinished business." Even with Season 4, there was a moderate sense of closure to all the loose ends - despite ending on a shockingly disturbing note. Season 6 instead opts for a true cliff-hanger - closing on the very moment Deb walks in on Dexter killing Travis. It's a great hook, and just what the finale needed after a mildly disappointing build to little payoff. But I was a little miffed to have so many other details in the story left completely un-dealt with yet.

Up to this season, Dexter has been one of the few crime dramas to not out its writers as complete morons when it comes to computers and technology. You don't have to be an IT guru to know that there's no such thing as the "high score" on an MMO (much less the possibility of having achieved it in "almost every MMO"...the offender here is NCIS, I'm sad to say), and there are plenty of other examples of shows that don't know what they're talking about when it comes to "computer stuff." Season 6 marks the end of Dexter's streak as a show without any such missteps, as one moment finds Masuka's new intern saying he "deleted any trace of the transaction from the internet." Ya know...with that big "Delete This" button the internet has. At another point he uses the term "IPA" to reference an IP address. It's not "technically" incorrect, but in my 4+ years in the IT field I've never heard anyone say "IPA" in place of "IP" or "IP address." Part of the character's arc is his making a video game...which he apparently manages to do in the space of a few weeks. That's not entirely impossible, if that's all he did every waking hour for those few weeks. But between being Masuka's intern, stealing from the evidence department, and wooing Batista's little sister there's just no way he could have made a complete video game by himself in that amount of time - at least not the kind he shows to Dexter, complete with fully rendered versions of some of Miami Metro's detectives. Maybe these are minor gripes, but for a show that's been so meticulous in every other detail I was a bit let down by their apparent sloppiness.

THE VERDICT:

Season 6 ain't no Season 5, and it sure as heck ain't no Season 4. But being one of the lesser seasons of one of the greatest shows on television is kind of like graduating in the lower portion of your class...you still graduate.

This season started off decidedly strong and really upped the ante with some of the most gruesome kills we've seen since the Ice Truck Killer's exploits. There was an ominous quality to much of the cinematography, and the entire season was billed as a no-holds-barred type of outing. My expectations were incredibly high, maybe a little too high, because I didn't feel like this season fully lived up to the hype. It just barely misses the mark, just barely. But the white-knuckled dread I'm accustomed to about midway through a given season didn't really take hold until the last two episodes. Moreover the character of Dexter doesn't seem to really evolve as much as in previous seasons. The premise of Dexter getting back to basics was a great hook, but it doesn't feel like the writers totally committed to it.

Season 6 had quite a tall order to fill, following hot on the heels of two knock-out seasons. But it isn't quite the season to end all seasons, despite its "All Hell Breaks Loose" ad campaign.

That's not to say I didn't enjoy it greatly. True to form, every episode of this show is utterly engrossing. And the writers continue to showcase their prowess; that team of scribes is undoubtedly without peer. So I'll take the good with bad this go 'round, especially since what little "bad" there is doesn't truly besmirch this show's sterling reputation.

Dexter, however, does have some 'splaining to do. And I hope the show manages to handle the challenges it's made for itself with as much panache is it has in past years. Dexter has its work cut out for it, but I'm confident the wait for Season 7 will be quite worth it. Here's to another half a year of waiting!

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Sherlock Holmes is one of the most iconic characters in Western culture. Despite sporting that super-cool name to begin with, the exploits of Arthur Conan Doyle's inimitable detective have been adapted and retold countless times. He's been played by everyone from Rupert Everett to Wishbone -the latter being the greater, in my opinion (no offense meant to Mr. Everett, in all likelihood he agrees as well). But in the spirit of the first decade of the 21st century, Sherlock Holmes has been among one of many characters and franchises getting the boot; uh, the re-boot that is. 2009 saw the return of the titular character in Guy Ritchie's fast-paced and deliciously entertaining Sherlock Holmes, with Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law playing the detective and his partner-in-not-crime, Dr. Watson. The movie made a big splash for all involved, and deservedly so. But Guy Ritchie had to scratch that sequel itch and released Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows last week. So is the game still afoot?

THE PROS:

Most writer-directors have a decidedly unique directorial style; Quentin Tarantino samples genres to perfection and is known for his love of near-manic homage. Christopher Nolan constructs intricate and gripping narratives underscored by an appropriate amount of violence. The Coen Brothers blend darkly humorous wit and pitch-perfect writing with Roger Deakins masterful cinematography. And Guy Ritchie makes movies that are defined by a sense of kinesis and visual energy. Beginning that tradition with Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Ritchie has refined and experimented his way through several movies. With A Game of Shadows, it seems to me he's reached the critical mass he was working toward. His visual style is fully matured here, and once or twice verges on overdoing things. But true to form, Ritchie manages to balance impulse with temperance for a film that works wonders with motion - from a cinematographic standpoint. You've likely seen snippets in the trailer of the chase scene through the woods, shot at an incredibly high frame rate for maximum effect during slow-motion. The scene is just jaw-dropping and downright fun, despite a generally negative opinion in the critical community (more on that later). Ritchie also employs the Snorricam or body-mount rig in this sequence in a similar manner to the way he did in RockNRolla. It's quite innovative actually, as I don't know that I've seen the rig mounted to an actor's side before. But a few shots employing this method - the actor fixed at one point in the screen while the locale flows by behind him - really up the ante in this sequence and make that much more of a visual treat.

A Game of Shadows also exploits some fantastic additions to an already top-notch cast. In addition to the already proven characterizations of Holmes and Watson, Stephen Fry enjoys a turn as Mycroft Holmes, Sherlock's equally eccentric older brother. The phantasm of Sherlock's archnemesis Professor Moriarty is now replaced by an in-the-flesh villain, played with visible relish by Jared Harris. The tense banter between the two rivals makes for some of the films finest dialogue and works Moriarty in as a much needed counterpoint to Sherlock's near superhuman-level powers of observation. Noomi Rapace, whom viewers will likely recognize as Lisbeth Salander from the original film adaptation of Stieg Larsson's Millenium trilogy, also adds an additional dimension to the cast as a gypsy fortune-teller embroiled in a political conflict.

Without spoiling anything, another point I found particularly enjoyable in this film were a few very recognizable moments from the books. Ritchie has done a magnificent job of weaving in classic Holmes-moments while still telling a stand-alone tale. You don't have to have seen his first Sherlock Holmes adventure or have read the books to enjoy this one - though it certainly doesn't hurt either.

THE CONS:

The movie does drag a bit in the beginning. With our characters already in place and defined, it seemed a bit unnecessary to spend as much time in re-establishing them as the film did. Having said that, the pace of the film picks up marvelously after the first 20-30 minutes, so it's a pretty minor concern.

There are a handful of moments in which characters mumble their dialogue, or so it sounded to me. And invariably it seemed during major plot points. So some of the details in the story were a bit clouded, though it's a visual enough film to keep up with despite this.

THE VERDICT:

Critics and audiences these days are paradoxically both fickle and jaded. On the one hand, a movie like Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon breaks box office records, being the highest grossing of the franchise, the second-highest grossing worldwide of 2011, and the highest grossing film for Paramount/Dreamworks to date. But it, along with the previous films in its franchise, is vilified for being too overburdened with visual effects and bogged down by poor acting and writing. So everyone wants to see these movies - but apparently everyone wants to rip on them, too. I don't think the Transformers movies are anything to write home about, but I don't think their existence somehow besmirches the work of auteurs like Terrence Malick or Darren Aronofsky. So I'll take the good with the bad; a movie isn't inherently flawed if it's a VFX vehicle in my book. But a large amount of the criticism leveled against A Game of Shadows is precisely in that vein - as if critics were expecting a movie that was actually *less* VFX dependent. That's not how sequel-syndrome works in Hollywood, and in the case of the latest Holmes flick it's not a bad thing at all. Moreover, the VFX-laden sequences in A Game of Shadows work with the film rather than against it, and in the end there's plenty of meaty dialogue and crisp acting leftover for the film snob in all of us...er, most of...well, some at least...fine, we few.

Guy Ritchie has managed to truly blaze new territory with his directorial style, and yes it involves lots of ramping, juxtaposition of wide shots with extreme close-ups, and slow-motion explosions. Why the majority of the critical community seems to object to this is beyond me. I wouldn't go so far as to say A Game of Shadows is better than Ritchie's first outing with the iconic character, but it's pretty darn close. And in the end it's just a lot of fun to watch. I sincerely hope this isn't the last entry in Ritchie's take on the Holmes saga, because A Game of Shadows has only left me wanting more.