The Ephemeric

Directed by Danny Boyle
Written by Simon Beaufoy, Danny Boyle
Starring James Franco
Release date(s) Out Now
Running time 95 minutes

How do you follow up a universally acclaimed movie like Slumdog Millionaire? Danny Boyle's previous film came out of nowhere on a shoestring budget and ended up sweeping eight Oscars and grossing $400 million, earning the kind of plaudits reserved only for the very finest in cinema history. His latest, 127 Hours, comes amid a fury of hype and faces a seemingly impossible burden of expectation.



More seasoned cinema-goers will remember that Danny Boyle himself did not just come out of nowhere, but is backed up with a history of fine work from Trainspotting to 28 Days Later. Slumdog marked a new apex for him as the most emphatically joyful of his films, a level of enthusiasm that did not go unappreciated by audiences who ensured that it would become the most successful entry on his cv.

On first glance, the concept of 127 hours seemed like a radical departure from his milieu, based on the true story of a mountain-climbing adventure gone awry which culminates in self amputation in order to survive. It's not the most pleasant subject, the sort of dilemma that inspires nightmares in some along the same lines of spiders or being buried alive (both of which, funnily enough, have also been made into movies this year), yet it is compulsive watching and Danny Boyle pulls of something of a miracle here by turning a superficially unworkable project into something of an emotional tour de force.

This is a film which will test you and ultimately break you before the end credits roll. Yet somehow Boyle manages to keep it entertaining and at times even funny, taking such a horrific story and focus on the positive elements; the strength of human spirit, the triumph against overwhelming odds and adversity. Ultimately these trials pay off with what is arguably his finest ending to a film yet. Danny Boyle at his euphoric best.

This is pretty much what I expected of this film, but what I didn't expect was James Franco giving the performance of a lifetime as Aron Ralston. Franco is on screen for what seems like the entire movie, and usually he is by himself carrying the onscreen success on his shoulders. And carry it he does, convincingly portraying the highs and lows of Ralston's cocky thrill seeker. He could well see an Oscar nom this year.

We've all read the stories about people fainting during advance screenings of this film during some of the more intense scenes, and indeed I can't help but wonder how much of that is real and how much is clever marketing. I personally did not find myself wincing too much at the action, but then I saw far worse in med school. Still this is something you'll want to think about before you step into the screening room.

Ultimately Danny Boyle pulls off another treat, an emotional roller coaster with typically infallible production and a memorable performance.

Loves:
Typical Danny Boyle excellence
James Franco and the performance of his life
The ending

Hates:
Not for the faint of heart

song of the week: "All to All" by "Broken Social Scene"


thing that makes me smile today: Tryst in Adam's Morgan.

pic of the day
IN:
127 Hours
FM11
Futurama

OUT:
Skyline
Fifa11
Family Guy

Developed by Obsidian Entertainment
Published by Bethesda Softworks
Genre Action RPG
Platform PC, Xbox 360, PS3

Obsidian, a company featuring many of the original Black Isle Studios employees who created Fallout, are back to give us the latest addition to the Fallout series. Fallout: New Vegas is built off of Bethesda's Fallout 3 engine and available on multiple platforms. Is it good? Read on to find out.



Bethesda's Fallout 3 was one of the best games of recent years. We reviewed it a while back, and frankly that original review doesn't do it justice as it was truly a game that grew on you over time. Now the original developers of the revered Fallout franchise have reclaimed what they created.

Fallout is set in "the atomic age of tomorrow" as imagined in cheesy American propaganda from the mid twentieth century, a world of robot butlers, flying cars and prosperity, all brought about by the wonders of nuclear power. The twist on this vision comes courtesy of the other side of the nuclear equation, atom bombs and war. This series takes place in a comically "American" wasteland following such a nuclear war.

One of the main criticisms you will hear of this game is that it is very similar to Fallout 3, being built on the same engine and using largely the same mechanics as that game. Frankly the fact that this is a criticism says it all. Fallout 3 was an amazing game, and using it as a starting point can't possibly be a bad thing, even if it is slightly dated by this point. But if I were to level any criticism at this game it would be something along those lines. After all Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and Fallout 3 both used the same engine, and the quality of the graphics haven't changed all that much since then. While some tweaks have been made, there is no escaping the fact that it still carries many of the same imperfections of games that are now 4 years old. For this reason, the game does have graphics that look slightly rough around the edges.

In addition, New Vegas shares much of the same basic gameplay mechanics as Fallout 3, with similar conversation and the famous VATs and SPECIAL systems, although the shooting mechanics have been much tweaked for this game to allow a much more competent 1st person shooting experience for those who desire such a thing. Still, the gameplay in general is not without its bugs and technical problems (in fact there are many of these according to general consensus, although I personally have been pretty lucky in this regard). The 3rd person camera view still looks half hearted, and navigating the mountainous terrain is a far more awkward affair than it should be in any modern game.

That being said, Fallout 3 still stands as an example of one of the finest action RPGs in years, and that is a quality which fully carries over into this newest iteration. New Vegas, much like it's predecessor, has an incredible open world full of quests, randomly triggered encounters and environments that really looked "lived in" more so than in any other game.

It would be easy for me to say that if you like Fallout 3 then you will like New Vegas, after all it contains the same morbid sense of humour and a similar style of "choose your own adventure" story telling. Indeed, New Vegas contains the same karma system which offers the choice of becoming a paragon of human decency or a complete self centred jerk, a system that allows you to feel like you're crafting your own character and your own story. But really Fallout: New Vegas manages to improve upon Fallout 3 in many ways.

Fallout 3's promised to involve a number of good old fashioned RPG style factions, but in the end player choice wasn't really a factor. Whatever you did in Fallout 3, you were always going to be an enemy of the Enclave, and the last hope of the Brotherhood of Steel. In New Vegas, however, the player has a real choice over which of the many factions to side with and assist for glory. There are many different endings determined by the various choices you make during the game, including several unique "endgame" quest lines depending on which faction you side with. This time, you really have a sense of control over how events play out, and make decisions that really effect the game world, unlike in Fallout 3 which was a much more linear experience.

New Vegas also includes an awesome all new game mode called "hardcore mode". With this option enabled one has to eat, drink and sleep in order to stay alive, which in the context of a post apocalyptic wasteland is really far more gripping and challenging than one might expect. In addition absolutely everything, including ammo, now has a weight, meaning that planning what to carry on you and when becomes an integral part of the game's strategy. The idea here is not necessarily to make the game harder, but to add realism and place greater emphasis on the scavenging aspect of the game by giving players a reason to explore the world more and route through every box or cupboard they find looking for precious supplies.

On top of all this, New Vegas lives up to the Fallout tradition of offering memorable characters and missions which range from the intriguing to the bizarrely wonderful, from the kitschy to the high octane. There really is something here for any kind of player with any preference of gaming style. It is equally possible for a player to perfect his speech and negotiation skills in order to manipulate, charm and lie his way through every task and lead his enemies to destroy each other, just as it is possible for a player to go in all guns blazing, and anything in between

But in some ways this game disappoints. Fallout 3 originally ended after the final quest, disabling people from pursuing any of the side quests afterwards, something which was so unpopular and universally derided that the developers eventually removed this restriction through DLC. So imagine my bemusement when the developers inexplicably decided to go and do the same thing again by making it so that the game can not be continued after the final mission, it is absolutely mind boggling. And in this instance the developers actually declare, proudly, that there is no way they will circumvent this through DLC since the story they've crafted wouldn't fit (having completed the game I can see that actually it wouldn't make any difference, but never mind). Stupid.

In addition I couldn't help but feel that the various environments, on the whole, seems to lack creativity compared to what we saw in Fallout 3. Where before you had massive cities built in scuttled aircraft carriers and others bizarrely cobbled together out of aircraft wreckage and built around unexploded atom bombs which the town's denizens worship as an idol, this time you have the New Vegas strip which, far from being the awesome centrepiece of this game as it should have been, turns out simply to be a linear series of streets literally laid out in a straight line. It's really quite uninspiring.

Ultimately New Vegas is a bit of a mixed bag, in that it improves greatly on gameplay aspects such as hardcore mode, shooting mechanics and factions. At the same time, it feels a bit lacklustre in terms of creative design of environments and still features a number of technical and design issues that have been problematic with Bethesda games in the past.

Crucially though, New Vegas still has that intangible "Fallout magic" and provides one of the best pieces of gaming you'll find this year.

Loves:
Hardcore mode
Manipulating factions for my own gain
Engrossing open world
Fallout magic

Hates:
That I can't keep playing after the last mission
Vegas Strip is really quite dull

Hello all, it's your friendly neighborhood analyst here and that rarest of all things, a political moderate. And so draws to a close one of the most bizarre election cycles in recent memory. From wildly divergent pre-election polls to comic candidates and even a touch of witchcraft, this election had it all. It's seen a record influx of corporate money and a deluge of dirty campaigning, and for political junkies like myself it has all been fantastically entertaining.



Despite this the election itself turned out being a surprisingly predictable affair, and indeed my own personal projections (particularly in the Senate and Governors races) were almost all called correctly. This article presents my analysis of this election cycle, starting with the expectations, going on to the results, and finally discussing the aftermath and the future.


Expectations:

So going into this election, the President's Democratic party enjoyed large majorities in both chambers of congress, as well as a majority of state houses and legislatures. However, a high unemployment and malaise amongst traditionally pessimistic liberal voters had resulted in low favorable ratings. But this is more than matched by the Republican party's own even lower favorable ratings, while the Democratic registration advantage has surprisingly actually increased since 2008.

So how did the two parties attempt to succeed in spite of their record low popularity? The Republicans hit upon the clever strategy of running under a different name, the "Tea Party". Mike Steele raised some eyebrows when he announced that the RNC would not be running a get out the vote initiative this year, or giving the Republican candidates the kind of funding that they are used to; but as it turned out this money was all being poured into the Tea Party instead in an attempt to avoid the toxic GOP name. It honestly makes you wonder why no political party has tried this trick before.

The Democrats meanwhile had a very different strategy: to ignore polls, historic midterm trends and instead put all their eggs into turning out the Obama base from 2008 that gave them such a landslide victory (ie. young voters and minorities), as opposed to voters who normally turn out for midterms (ie. everyone other than those demographics). It was a risky strategy that Obama himself insisted upon, drawing criticisms from many congressional Democrats who suspected that Obama was thinking more about maintaining the lines of communication with his likely electorate for 2012 than their prospects in 2010.

Now in terms of real electoral math, it's a fact that the President's party almost always suffers losses at the midterm elections; in fact the average opposition party gains for midterm election since the 1930s is fairly hefty at almost 30 seats in the house and 6 seats in the senate, and in more than half of the last 12 midterms the House has swung by 48+ seats. On top of this you have a Democratic party with an unprecedentedly large majority, and therefore many vulnerable seats in red states/districts and more seats in general to lose in a year in which both parties' popularity is at record lows. Add to this the worst economic conditions since the great depression and that makes for some pretty sobering electoral math for Democrats.

It is no wonder then that many top pollsters went into the election predicting record breaking House losses of 70-80+ seats and 8-9 in the Senate with a chance of taking both chambers of Congress. Our own predictions had the Republicans making gains of about 70 seats in the House, and 4 in the Senate. But as it turns out this is not what happened.


Results:

In the House, Republicans made massive gains of 60 seats. This was largely down to conservatives retaking the midwest, an area where Republicans normally perform well, but prior to the election had become unusually Democratic during the liberal sweeps over the past 6 years. It wasn't quite the historic 80 seat massacre that some had predicted, but it was pretty emphatic nonetheless.

Meanwhile in the Senate it was a slightly more disappointing night for Republicans as Democrats held on to the majority and outperformed polls considerably in a number of races. At the time of writing the Republicans have gained 5 seats in the Senate so far for a total of 46, actually below average, and certainly less than one would have expected from looking at all the electoral factors running against Democrats as described earlier.

In reliably liberal parts of the country Democrats actually performed better than usual at midterms, in particular in California and New York, where I'm sure I'm not the only one disappointed at the gubernatorial loss of Jimmy McMillan from the Rent is 2 Dam High party. Andrew Cuomo of course won that race against the batshit insane Paladino, whose concession speech involved threatening the victor with a baseball bat. Cuomo will go down in history now, whatever happens, as the only Democratic candidate ever endorsed by Rupert Murdoch's conservative rag the New York Post.

Certain races, like Illinois and Pennsylvania, were much closer than polls had predicted, with the Republicans clinging to narrow 2% margins in order to prevent a more comfortable Democratic majority. So while they ended up with an average night in the Senate, it is interesting to see just how close the Republicans came to having a pretty poor night indeed.

For all the attention on the Senate and House, arguably the most important races took place in the state houses, where the GOP won the gubernatorial battles in swing states like Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania by razor thin margins. Again, these races were much closer than they were expected to be, but having won them the Republicans have something of a boost when it comes to redistricting next year, and when rallying local voters in 2012.


Analysis:

It's far too easy it seems for the media to get caught up in asking the wrong questions, describing this year's election as a Government takeover by the GOP, when in reality they now control about 1/6 of the Government. For the most part these results are entirely what one would expect based on historical precedent and the current dynamics of political discourse, perhaps in the case of the Senate and Governors' races even a little kinder than the Democrats had any right to expect. The House, however, was a sweep of titanic proportions. And so the questions that should be asked following this election are why did the Republicans over-perform in the House, and why didn't they do so well elsewhere?

Exit Polls
To get an idea of what went through the minds of the voters on election day we'll look at some of the exit polling:
- Unsurprisingly, the overwhelming message from voters is that they need jobs.
- Two thirds of all voters on Tuesday said that the Economy was the reason for their vote
- Almost 40% said the number 1 priority for the new Congress should be jobs
- A whopping 86% of voters are worried about the economy next year.

A cursory look at the demographics will also tell you that this was not a favorable turnout for Democrats, with only 11% of the voters aged under 30, and 1 in 4 aged over 65. In addition an incredible 78% of voters were white. These demographics are typical of a midterm election, and they're also groups that traditionally vote Republican.

Democratic Strategy
One has to wonder then about the Democratic strategy for this election, the focusing of so much effort on atypical midterm voters that has caused such consternation among congressional Democrats. It is worth noting that in the one race where the Democrat broke with the President and OFA's strategy, Senate majority leader Harry Reid the Democrat ended up winning handsomely, outperforming polls by as much as 10%. Reid's insistence on sending his famous ground operation after more typical midterm voters paid off, and very real questions can be asked of whether the President in effect sold out his own party in order to gee up his youth and minority base.

Money has also played a big part in this year's election following the contentious Citizen's United ruling which stated that corporations can now anonymously donate infinite sums of cash to curry the favor of whichever politician they like. It doesn't take a deep look to see how this undermines the level playing field of Democracy, but that's besides the point here. The story of this election has been the vast, record breaking sums of cash being injected into these races, mostly as it turns out for Republican candidates.

There has also been a lot of talk about the effect of propaganda such as Fox News and the dangers of an uninformed electorate. Without a doubt this has had an effect; for example polls continue to show that only a small number of people actually know what's in the health care reform bill, and that when you tell them what's in the bill the American public supports the reform by about 73%. Similar polls show that most Americans are unaware that Obama has actually lowered taxes (one of the largest tax cuts in history) rather than raised them, that Bush rather than Obama bailed out the banks, and that job creation has actually improved significantly since the stimulus passed.

However irresponsible the right wing news networks have been in propagating these falsehoods, I don't blame them for this. I don't blame the public either for being uniformed. Blame must go to the Democratic party, for the burden of informing the public rests on them and them alone. The White House, as well as the Democratic party at large, is full of dead wood and inept communicators, and it is largely their fault that they have lost control of the political discourse.

That being said, exit polls show that this misinformation did not seem to have a whole lot of effect on the outcome of this election, as I'll demonstrate in the next section of this article where we bust a few popular election 2010 myths which are simply not supported by the voters' own polling responses.

But first let’s attempt to answer the second question: why didn't the Republicans fare so well outside of the House elections? The depressing answer that mainstream Republicans are starting to accept is that the extreme Tea Party candidates most likely cost them the Senate. The Tea Party challenges turned what should have been easy Republican pick ups like Delaware, Nevada and Colorado into Democratic wins, and even deep red states like Alaska and Kentucky were uncharacteristically competitive. As it turned out, Marco Rubio was the only Tea Party candidate who ended up performing well, and he spent most of the general election distancing himself from the movement and benefiting from the two Democratic candidates splitting the majority of the vote between them.

They don't want to admit it in public, but while the Tea Party has proven very effective at rallying the base and winning in more specific local races where the party can send extreme candidates to extreme districts, they seem to have incredible difficulty gaining the support of independents and constituents in an entire state. This bodes very badly for 2012 if the Tea Party remains so prominent in the party, and it is no wonder then that the GOP is preparing a big "stop the Tea Party" campaign now that they're done using them to regain the House. A Civil War in the GOP has been inevitable since 2008, and it's going to be interesting to follow the outcome.


Midterm Mythbusting:

As usual, there is an inordinate amount of crap coming from the talk-holes of both political parties, some of which is so completely disconnected from the reality of what the voters themselves actually said on Tuesday that I think it's only right that I devote a section of this analysis to mythbusting.

Republicans: This election was a vote against Barack Obama
Based on what? The fact that they voted against congressional Democrats? According to exit polls, that is in the words of the voters themselves, only 37% of voters said that their vote was specifically in opposition to the President. An equivalent number said that their vote was intended as a sign of support for Obama, and most people simply said that Obama had absolutely no effect on their vote. In addition, most voters did not blame Obama for the state of the economy, he came third behind Wall Street and Bush. Wishful thinking by Republicans with an eye on 2012 already.

Democrats: voters don't see more tax cuts as essential
Half true, but misleading. Only 18% of Tuesday's voters said they want tax cuts to be a priority, but that does not mean they don't want them. One of the other choices on this exit poll was "jobs" so really, did you expect many people to say something other than jobs is a priority?

Republicans: This election was a vote against Health Care Reform
This is another piece of empty campaigning from the Republicans. Only 18% of voters on Tuesday said that the recently passed healthcare reform bill was a factor in their vote, and amazingly, of that 18% more than half voted Democratic. In addition, nothing like a majority favor repeal of the bill, and a convincing majority either want to leave the bill the way it is or expand it further. These numbers echo what most polls on the subject show, that approval and disapproval numbers are about even, and support for full repeal is very low. These numbers certainly are nowhere near enough for Republicans to run on this issue in 2012 unless they are completely deluded, but undoubtedly they recognise the rallying effect it has on a small proportion of their base and will keep pushing it for show (at least until it starts hurting them, according to these exit polls it may have already!). It is also worth noticing that all the Democrats who opposed healthcare reform lost this election, whereas the progressive caucus which survived almost entirely unscathed all supported it.

Democrats: all this election shows us is that voters are unhappy about jobs
Yeah you wish, as already discussed there was a whole lot wrong with the Democrats' approach to this election. The liberal base in particular didn't even bother turning up, so frustrated are they with your incessant concessions to the opposition party.

Republicans: Obama's 2008 voters are switching Republican
A big whopper alright. Of the people who voted on Tuesday having voted for Obama in 2008, only 13% voted Republican. Considering not many of Obama's voters showed up this year, that's a bit of a stretch to say the least. Indeed, 1 in 10 of McCain's 2008 voters switched to the Democrats in this election, essentially the same conversion rate of what was probably a much larger group in this electorate, so absolutely no evidence for this claim.

But we finish with perhaps the biggest load of crap of all:

Republicans: This election was a big victory for the Tea Party.
This seems to be the de facto narrative for this election, at how the Tea Party has taken control of the country and revitalised the Republican party. Well as it turns out, only 32% of Tea Party candidates for Congress actually won, in a year where Republicans won almost every race. In addition, most people seem to agree that the Tea Party cost the GOP the Senate, with most of their candidates losing races that they really should have won. If all that is not enough, exit polls show that only 22% of Tuesday's voters voted in support of the Tea Party, while a similar 17% voted in opposition to the Tea Party. But overwhelmingly a majority of Tuesday's voters said that they simply did not care about the Tea Party one way or the other! It can perhaps be argued that the Tea Party succeeded in bringing down Democrats, but it seems to have done little to actually boost the GOP itself.

And of course, both parties are claiming that exit polls show that the other party is less popular than theirs. Both parties are ridiculously unpopular, but in this case Democrats have the edge, with 2% better favorable ratings... congratulations you horse's asses. As you can see there is more hot air in this spin cycle than Rush Limbaugh's sweat pants.


The future:

So what do the Democrats do to recover from this loss? The first thing that has to happen is a shake up of the DNC and the White House. There has been an abject failure of communication and strategy for the past few years, and the first person who must surely step down from his position is Tim Kaine, the chairman of the DNC. Tim Kaine has shown himself to be an inept and uninspiring character who has as much in the way of tactical nous as he has hair, and even Democrats are left cringing every time he goes on tv and whips out some lame slogan or a special campaign key chain. In just about every way, the party has gone backwards since Kaine took over from Howard Dean. Tim Kaine has to go, either of his own accord or forcibly, and that has to be the first thing to happen.

Second, the White House needs a shake up. The economic team is already undergoing a reshuffling, as well as a new chief of staff coming in to replace the outgoing Rahm Emanuel who has left in order to run for mayor of Chicago. The one person who is still inexplicably hanging around is Robert Gibbs, the hapless and gaffe-prone press secretary who from day one looked completely the wrong choice for the position. From his insulting of the Democratic base to his complete inability to adequately answer even the simplest of press briefing questions, to his sheer lack of charisma and likability, the fact that Gibbs still has his job is simply astounding. No wonder the White House has such trouble communicating with the press.

As for President Obama himself, it's not yet clear just how worried he should be. It's interesting to note that he is still the overwhelming favorite to win the 2012 election among the bookmakers and strangely his odds of winning reelection actually improved following the results of the 2010 election, according to them. Is there any basis for this view?

Well actually when you look back at previous administrations, more often than not the Presidents who suffer big midterm losses go on to win reelection. In fact they seem to do a lot better than Presidents who fare well at the midterms, and this is a strongly statistically significant correlation. Recent Presidents who have suffered big midterm losses include Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, where as the few Presidents who didn't suffer such losses include Carter, Ford and Bush Sr. Do you see the difference between those two lists? The former all won reelection by a landslide, the latter were one term Presidents. The only big exception to this connection is Bush Jr, who managed to ride his presidency saving post 9/11 boost to victory in both the midterms and his reelection campaign.

So why would Presidents who lose big at the midterms do better when it comes to reelection? It's impossible to say, perhaps the loss galvanizes them and gives them a valuable wake up call prior to the campaign. Perhaps it allows the President to split the blame for poor conditions with the opposition party. Or perhaps it's the case that midterm winning parties go on something of a power trip after they win and end up overplaying their hand. The obvious example of this is the Clinton administration, where Republicans won big in 94, spent the next two years focusing entirely on bringing down the President, and then lost big in 96. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

That brings us on to the future for Republicans. They now face a difficult balancing act, because they want to have the power to make life difficult for Obama, but they have to resist going too far and scaring away independents. They also want to avoid being lumped with the responsibility of power, and in this regard the media coverage of their victory this week will probably go against their interests.

The narrative right now seems to be that Republicans have taken control of the government, when in fact they only control a small part of it. This means that voters will be holding them accountable for what happens now, even if they don't really have much say in it. Indeed it's very interesting that since the big victory, Republicans have spent a lot of time trying to play down their role in the current Government; perhaps they regret now some of their own hyperbole.

The other big concern for Republicans is the tea party. As it turned out the Tea Party candidates didn't fare so well on election night, despite the relative ease with which they knocked out more moderate GOP candidates in the primaries. This is a big worry for 2012 where the Tea Party could conceivably force through one of their own candidates, say a Sarah Palin or Christine O'Donnell type, and likely blow any chance the GOP has of winning that election. It is no wonder then that Republican leaders are planning a "stop the tea party" campaign as mentioned earlier.

In addition you have Tea Party Republicans challenging for prominent roles in this new GOP controlled House, including the positively ludicrous Michele Bachmann and Joe Barton who apologised to BP for the oil spill (somehow). The unintended side effect of this big Republican win seems to be that the most frightening and off putting of conservatives are going to be thrusting themselves into the limelight, fresh with the confidence that it is their brand of craziness that has won the day. No doubt there are plenty of Republicans worrying about the effect on the electorate of having people like Bachmann and Joe Barton become the face of their party in the run up to the election. The civil war within the GOP is starting to reach fever pitch and they'll need to have it sorted out before they pick a 2012 candidate to represent the entire party, or they simply won't win.

If the Republicans are smart, they'll spend the next two years toning down the extremist rhetoric and focus on jobs as the voters told them to. Their early press conferences where they imply a primary focus on healthcare repeal suggests that they could well pull a 96 and blow this massive chance that they've fought for.

Developed by Firaxis Games
Published by 2K Games
Genre Turn-based Strategy, 4X
Platform PC

As the newest entry to the famous Civilization series, Civilization V surprises many with drastic changes to core gameplay mechanics. But has it paid off?



Civilization, of course, is the series that defined the genre of turn-based 4X (explore, expand, exploit, exterminate) gameplay, way back in 1991. The basic idea remains the same today, you control a civilization and guide them through the trials of history from cave men to the space age, seizing world dominance by whatever means you deem necessary. To do this, one trains units, builds city improvements, and researches technology.

For the first time in a long while, this entry to the series makes big changes. Civilization has now switched to a hexagon-based map as opposed to square tiles as before. This is actually a much bigger change than it sounds, as it completely changes how units move and explore the map, as well as engage in combat.

The other major change is that only one unit at a time can be in a single map tile, which means that the old tactic of piling units on top of each other in order to overwhelm the enemy no longer works. This forces the player to be much more tactical when thinking about unit placement and movement, as well as when choosing a unit with which to protect a city.

Other less fundamental improvements include the addition of 'city states', which are essentially single-city civilizations with special attributes that the player can either befriend in order to receive resources and military support, or oppose and risk a confrontation with their allies. These add an interesting new strategic element to the game, but one that frankly seems designed to compensate for weak diplomatic elements elsewhere in the game.

In addition, Civilization V has improved support for modification, supposedly even able to plug certain user mods into an existing save-game, hypothetically extending the lifespan of a game indefinitely should you desire. Unfortunately as of yet this feature has not really been used, so I am unable to include it in my review.

These big changes are welcome ones and a definite improvement to the old Civilization formula, but unfortunately beyond that there is not much in the way of progress from Civilization IV, and in fact in many ways this game seems to be a step backwards.

Not many people remember that there was in fact a Civilization game between Civilization IV and this one, it was called Civilization Revolutions and it was released on consoles. The idea behind this game was to 'streamline' Civilization, which Firaxis took to mean 'dumb down' by removing most of the strategic and micromanagement elements. The game was a critical and commercial flop and I think I can safely say that most fans of the series had hoped that Firaxis had gotten this urge out of their system so that they could return to what they do best: rich, deep civilization titles. Sadly they have not.

Religion and corporations have been taken out of the game completely, an element that, while slightly superficial, is undeniably an extra dimension to the politics of the game.

The ability to alter tax rates and funding for scientific and cultural development is also completely gone, the importance of which can not be overstated. This was previously the pivotal choice for players in deciding how to develop your civilization, and removing it takes out most of the non-combat strategy which existed in the series, as well as destroying any semblance of an economy which may have been present before.

Each civilization only has one leader to choose from, where the previous game had several each with different attributes, and the game hasn't shipped with any of the scenarios that have been so popular in the past. Several important elements of diplomacy are gone as well, including the ability to trade technology.

The result is that while the combat has certainly been improved, there's very little else to do in this game. Beyond choosing which improvement to build there is very little strategy involved in running a civilzation as with previous games, diplomacy is still very shallow and largely irrelevant with poor AI for other nations' leaders. It's nowhere near as addicting or rewarding as before. Unfortunately Civilization V is a game with little of the magic that has so epitomised past games by Firaxis. Why Alpha Centauri, a game that's more than ten years old, still contains deeper and more advanced features than this game is simply hard to understand.

Ultimately Civilization V is a game that has been severely dumbed down into what I suppose Firaxis would describe as a 'streamlined' experience, but the rest of us will likely describe as disappointing.


Loves:
Updated graphics
Combat has greater strategic depth

Hates:
Shallow
Many features removed
Little in the way of real improvement
Very little to do in this game beyond combat

Directed by David Fincher
Written by Aaron Sorkin, Ben Mezrich (novel)
Starring Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake
Release date(s) Out Now
Running time 121 minutes

On the surface this film has everything; massive hype, a great writer/director team, and a subject matter that is both timely and pivotal to the chronicle of the current generation. The Social Network promises many things, but does it achieve the vaunted "classic" status to which it aspires?



The Social Network tells the story of Mark Zuckerberg, socially inept Harvard boy genius who comes up with Facebook, an idea that changes the world and makes him a very wealthy man. But the script focuses less on the achievement and glamour (though there is a fair bit of that at least in the early stages) and more on the infighting and drama behind the scenes which led to a number of court cases and big money settlements.

I was skeptical when the media first announced the existence of a Facebook movie in the pipeline, even though it was an inevitability as arguably the most revolutionary development of the internet age since Google. However when I heard the names being attached to the project, David Fincher as director and Aaron Sorkin scripting, I knew the end result would be worth watching.

Indeed from the opening scene their influence can be seen, as characters launch into lighting fast and impossibly witty exchanges, the likes of which could only be written by Aaron Sorkin, or possibly David Mamet. Fincher meanwhile produces the gutsiest work of his career to date, perfectly maneuvering around the calisthenics of the fine script. This is a film that is at times hilarious, sexy, fun, but throughout it all an aching sadness underpins the whole endeavour.

The central conceit of this film, it turns out, is the irony that someone who struggles so intensely with social issues could have created the greatest revolution in social living in a generation. The Social Network attempts to reconcile this seeming incongruity by shining a spotlight on the underhanded, scheming, and generally unpleasant behind the scenes goings on which took place.

Needless to say Zuckerberg himself doesn't come off in a positive light, driven by his own insecurities and a desire to fit in. Fincher's goal for this film seems to be to make viewers feel sorry for a multibillionaire genius, rather than envious, and he does this pretty well.

This leads on to my biggest problem with this film, the tight focus on the darker, sadder aspects of these events. Now don't get me wrong, this is a great angle for the story and it's pretty much what Fincher does best. My problem is that this really only works when contrasted with the superficial glamour and spectacle of everything that Zuckerberg achieved, all the fun stuff. While this is addressed in the film, I didn't feel it was done particularly successfully. This film seems to take all the success in an almost blasé fashion, and the sheer scale and revolution of what is unfolding on screen never really hits the audience in a satisfying way.

Ultimately I attribute this to one of two things: too much focus on the sadder aspects of the plot as I mentioned, and a simple lack of understanding among the creators of this film. Sorkin and Fincher are great film makers, but how well do they really feel the significance of Facebook? Both have admitted that they really didn't know anything about it before making this film, and the unfortunate result is that you could replace the names and the word "Facebook" in this film with some other endeavour and not a thing would be lost from the story telling. This often doesn't really feel like a Facebook movie, it feels like a standard "brainy whizkids set out on a journey, but fall out along the way" film with the word Facebook thrown in a few times.

But ultimately that doesn't really matter too much, because the film itself is masterfully done. I've already mentioned the excellence of the writing and direction, but praise must also go to the actors. Until now, Jesse Eisenberg was an actor known to me only as "that kid who looks a bit like Michael Cera and plays similar roles", well no more. Eisenberg plays the role perfectly and shows himself to have far greater acting chops than Cera will ever have. Andrew Garfield is fine as really the only likable character in the film, and does himself no harm as he prepares for the super stardom that will come with his upcoming role as Spiderman.

But the real shock of the film is Justin Timberlake who, shockingly, is not half bad. For two hours I actually forgot who I was watching on screen as he drew me into the world of Sean Parker, the (kinda but not really) creator of Napster. In retrospect it shouldn't really come as a surprise as he's hardly a real musician, 75% of what he did as a pop star was acting.

Really this is just as finely created a film as you will ever see in pretty much every aspect. It's well written, directed and acted and relates to so pivotal a topic for our generation as to make this film noteworthy, not just this year but for years to come. At times it can feel a little formulaic without really appreciating the subject matter, but the overall quality of what is on screen overrides any complaint I could have. This is one of those films that you won't want to end.


Loves:
Fantastically honed production
Revelatory performances
General quality

Hates:
Superficial attachment to the subject matter

song of the week: "The Push" by "The Seedy Seeds"


thing that makes me smile today: Fifa 11 demo.

pic of the day
IN:
Fifa 11
127 Hours
Parallels

OUT:
Fifa 10
Slumdog Millionaire
Boot Camp

Genre Indie Psychedelic Pop,
Label Polyvinyl
Producer Kevin Barnes
Release Date September 14th



You never really know what you're going to get with Of Montreal. Their previous albums are laced with genius and catchy hooks, but overwhelmed by zaniness and almost too much creativity, if such a thing is possible. Their newest release False Priest continues in this fashion.

Most tracks on this album contain an element of brilliance, a great chorus or an infectiously catchy verse, but unfortunately it seems that these transient moments are surrounded by a whole lot of "weird for the sake of weird". For long time fans, this craziness might be what attracts you to the band, but for others I can see it being a major put off.

This is probably best exampled by Like a Tourist, a crazy, non sensical glam rock tune with a wonderfully euphoric chorus. Overall I find the song fairly irritating, but the chorus makes it worth listening to. Much of the rest of the album is equally hit or miss, and it often does not work.

When it does work though it's pretty excellent, and in general the production on this album is much tighter than their past work. One thing I would advise to those who listen to this album is do so with a good pair of headphones to take advantage of the full instrumentalisation. Janelle Monae collaboration Enemy Gene in particular is a real pop gem with a dreamy chorus and arguably the most satisfying tune on the album.

This is immediately followed by another good song in Hydra Fancies, an R&B tinged track which combines effectively with elements of classic rock and funk. Like most songs on this album, the lyrics are gloomier than the deliriously happy melodies would suggest.

Beyoncé's sister Solange lends her vocal talents to the infinitely danceable Sex Karma, a song which probably best sums up the band's penchant for the ridiculous. You may not want to, you may end up hating yourself for it, but this is one of those infectiously catchy pop numbers that simply won't leave your head.

These three tracks may be among the most over the top sugary, upbeat things I've heard all year, but they are undeniably some of the most catchy as well. Indeed this is where a band like Of Montreal succeeds, much in the same spirit as British popster Mika or the Scissor Sisters. If you don't mind taking in some innovative pop with a side of manic crazy then you'll probably enjoy some of this album. If grunge like Oasis is more your thing, then steer clear.


Must Listen
Enemy Gene


Hydra Fancies


Sex Karma

Genre Alternative pop-rock
Label Island, Vertigo
Producer Stuart Price, Daniel Lanois, Brendan O'Brien, Brandon Flowers
Release Date September 6th (UK), September 14th (US)



When the Killers announced in 2009 that they were going to take a well earned break after nearly six solid years of touring and recording, there was one person who was not ready to slow down just yet. Making music is what frontman Brandon Flowers lives for, and in the absence of his bandmates he is going solo with his debut LP Flamingo.

I'd like to begin by dispelling a few go-to clichés that lazy journalists are using to describe this album: 1) that this album is basically a new Killers album and sounds exactly the same, and 2) that this album is an "adventurous" and "experimental" body work from the notoriously audacious Flowers, who frequently laments the creative restraints his band places upon him.

Thematically Flamingo harkens back to the days of Sam's Town, The Killers' loving ode to their home town of Las Vegas. The lyrics here are awash with gambling terminology and old fashioned Americana, and musically speaking the Springsteen influences return along with a much more overt country music overtone; honestly there were times when this album sounded more like Conway Twitty than The Killers.

For sure there are one or two songs on this album that sound reminiscent of the Killers, which would be hard to avoid given Flowers' distinctive vocals, but in the end this album is just not as tight as a Killers album, it lacks the disciplined composition and production. It is sometimes suggested that the reason the Killers achieve such success is this dynamic where the band helps to restrain and focus Flowers' creative gifts, and this album is perhaps the ultimate proof of that. In the same way one could argue that this album is much more personal and introspective than anything the Killers have ever produced.

This is also a darker affair than what we're used to from The Killers and Flowers, and often guilty of taking itself far too seriously. Songs are inundated with religious imagery and overblown talk of redemption, while the music is often overproduced (or sometimes just badly produced) which I suppose is inevitable when you bring in so many different producers to pool their ideas into one album. Arguably, Flowers' best moments tend to come when he's being playful as with Hot Fuzz or Day & Age, and one has to wonder why he chose to go back to the same melodrama that earned Sam's Town such mixed reviews.

It is a testament to Brandon Flowers' considerable musical and vocal talents then that this album is not at all bad. I'll have to be honest and say that the first time I listened to the album I had difficulty picking out anything that was particularly noteworthy, but then I had a similar initial impression of the album's first single Crossfire, which later grew on me. So this time I made sure to listen to the album a few times over before forming a conclusion and it also grew on me a great deal. More so perhaps than with any other album I've listened to, this is a grower.

Once again, Flowers takes us on a tour of his hometown Las Vegas, with each song serving as a standalone memoir of life in and around Sin City.

The album opens in a typically bombastic fashion with Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas. This song wastes no time in getting its American Mythic intentions out the door with swooning country guitars and Mojave-fried lyrics, while building up to the pomp and grandeur of the glittering lights of Las Vegas in increasingly sardonic tones.

The second track Only the Young is perhaps one of the best on the album, and really could have been a classic if not for some niggling annoyances with the production. Flowers piles layer upon layer of unnecessary vocal effects at every opportunity, and frankly the chorus can't help but sound slightly contrived. But beyond these issues lie haunting synths and one of Flowers' best vocal showings yet with some lovingly nuanced verses.

Hard Enough follows, a duet with Rilo Kiley's Jenny Lewis and the most sentimental track on the album. Spirited enough musically, but even longtime fans are likely to find the lyrics a little too saccharine. It's not a bad song, with pleasant verses and Lewis bringing something a little bit different to the mix, but ultimately this is one of the more forgettable songs on the album.

Jilted Lovers and Broken Hearts marks a return to Flowers' Springsteen tinged rock and arguably pulls it off better than any of his attempts on Sam's Town. Catchy verses and energetic chorus surge through dazzling city lights and casinos in the escapist frenzy of a broken hearted man. The drive and energy level marks this as a standout on an album which mostly aims for a less upbeat style.

Next we take things down a notch with Playing with Fire. A down tempo lounge beat and santana-esque guitars bring to mind images of a smokey bar in Vegas whilst religiously infused lyrics grow increasingly contemptuous in the face of sleaze and corruption.

Was it Something I said? Is one of the strangest songs on the album, with Flowers moving into full on Elvis-infused rockabilly. The result is something that sounds like a modern twist on Grease the musical. I suppose it's up to you whether that's a good thing or not.

The album takes a welcome turn into 80s style synth-pop with Magdalena, opening with a lush intro reminiscent of OMD which soon makes way for latin themed journey of redemption complete with castanets. Once again this lyrics of this song appear to be heavy in religion and morality. By this point I'm sure I'm not the only one who wishes Brandon would lay on his beliefs a little less thick and stick to ambiguous classics like "are we human or are we dancer". Can't fault the song musically though, similar in latin style to Happy Birthday Guadaloupe, but much much better.

Crossfire is a song that most people have probably heard by now, the first single released from this album a few months ago. A strange choice for the first single of Flowers' solo career as it's certainly not the strongest song on the album, but it's a fine number nonetheless with epic, ethereal piano and a rare sighting of guitar on this mostly synth album.

The penultimate track On the Floor is something of a misstep, moving into pure country music territory. The lyrics are the most heavily religious on the album, complete with gospel choir. I've seen a few reviewers identify this song as a highlight, but it's certainly not my cup of tea.

The album finishes on it's most playful note with Swallow It and the change in mood is most welcome. A serviceable if not particularly memorable pop song with fairly catchy verses.

Then of course there's the four bonus songs. The Clock Was Tickin' is pure country music once again, not something I really expected or wanted from this album.

Jacksonville is another victim of unfortunate editing, with a melody and vocals that could have made a great song if not for an annoyingly emphasised electronic bass on the chorus that drowns out and distracts from the prettier melody in the background. In general this song just sounds rough around the edges, effectively drowning in all the OTT sound effects that have been piled on. The song strangely morphs at the end of the second chorus, ditching all the droning effects and bringing in acoustic guitar, and frankly it sounds great. Another missed opportunity.

I Came Here to Get Over You is a decent rock song that really could have been included on the album, if only to break up the dreariness of much of what has been left. David Bowie influences aplenty, this song takes a few listens to grow on you, but it's definitely worth a listen.

Strangely, the final bonus song Right Behind You is probably the most interesting song on the album and one of its finest moments. This is more the kind of fresh, original idea we've come to expect from Flowers with a distinct vocoded chorus and another very hummable tune. Really this is a song that sets Flowers apart as a solo artist from the Killers and I find it very odd that it was left off the album.

Without a doubt Flamingo is a fine collection of "good" songs as one would expect, but I can't say there's anything on here that's actually "great". In terms of quality these songs hold their own against your average track from the Killers, but the album is definitely lacking that knockout blow from a Mr. Brightside or a Human. Without that, the album can't help but feel somewhat bland. Once these songs have been given time to sink in you'll fine that there is much to like about this album, but perhaps not much to love.


Must Listen
Only the Young (30 sec preview)


Jilted Lovers and Broken Hearts


Crossfire


Right Behind You

song of the week: "Black Sheep" by "Metric ft. Brie Larson"


thing that makes me smile today: My impending trip to Washington DC.

pic of the day
IN:
Returning to my blog
Washington DC
Scott Pilgrim

OUT:
Neglecting you while in Italy
London
Watchmen

Directed by Edgar Wright
Written by Edgar Wright, Bryan Lee O'Malley (comic)
Starring Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kieran Culkin
Release date(s) Out Now
Running time 112 minutes

Scott Pilgrim, an immature 23 year old slacker going nowhere in life, meets the girl of his dreams, Ramona Flowers. Now he must defeat her seven evil exes in order to be with the woman he loves.



The ambition of the original Scott Pilgrim comics has no lesser goal than to define a generation. This is the ADD generation where twenty-something males grow in a state of perpetual adolescence. Scott is a relatively ordinary youth if a bit sketchy, dating a high school girl named Knives Chau until something better comes along, completely self centred but still oddly lacking in self esteem. It's a mundane life, but through the videogame and pop culture infused mind of Scott Pilgrim it's a cataclysmic battle between good and evil where he sees himself as the white knight on the side of good.

Whether we are supposed to take these events literally as a fusion of the real world and videogame elements, or as the work of a juvenile fantasist is never really confirmed. Ultimately it doesn't matter, this is a commentary on the youth of today and the journey of growing up.

The first thing that most people are going notice when watching this film is the distinctive visual style. Indeed the visuals are dazzling, with comic-like special effects seamlessly integrated into the world. Sound waves pour out of musical instruments, batman like sound effects appear with each punch, videogame-like status indicators display vital statistics, and the effect is really quite unique. I don't think I have ever seen a film which so expertly merges live action with these unreal comic book and videogame elements, it truly does succeed at bringing the comic panels to life in a way that no other film has. I shudder to think about the inevitable imitations we will now see over the coming years.

In addition, the sound work is highly impressive, making use of some nostalgic videogame sound bytes. In a film where musical pop culture is as pervasive as videogame and comic book, it is fitting that the music for each of the three bands we encounter has been composed by big names from the industry. Scott Pilgrim's band Sex Bob-omb has none other than Beck writing their music, whereas Crash and the Boys has Broken Social Scene humorously breaking from their usual style. Meanwhile indie darlings Metric contribute their song Black Sheep to mega superstar band Clash at Demonhead.

The acting also deserves praise for the most part. While some of the minor characters stray unfortunately close to the Napoleon Dynamite school of teenage acting (ie. act badly and blandly because that's how teenagers sound), the casting is generally excellent.

Of course everyone's going to be talking about Michael Cera as Scott Pilgrim. He does ok with the role, although he's a bit weedier than one might expect Scott Pilgrim to be from the comics. In some scenes he is just too effeminately over the top, particularly with the running gag on Scott's hair. Otherwise his comic timing is excellent as usual, while it does falter somewhat due to the film's general pacing problems in some of the more rushed scenes like his first dream sequence, but that's not really his fault. It is also refreshing to see Cera leave his comfort zone with the various action scenes he is involved with, and he definitely kicks a fair amount of ass in these scenes.

Special note needs to be made for some of the evil exes. In particular Brandon Routh as the vegan-powered Todd, who provides some of the film's funnier moments, and above all Chris Evans as brilliantly funny action star Lucas Lee who really does steal the show for his few scenes. It is a testament to the quality of acting among even many of the minor roles that such a sense of character can be conveyed through only the few lines they are afforded.

However, the star performers in this film are Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Kieran Culkin. Winstead as Ramona has an intangible quality about her that seems to simply dominate proceedings when she's on screen, as well as the most bizarrely anime-like eyes I have seen on a live action actor, which helps her match up to how her character is drawn in the comics. Meanwhile Culkin takes the best character from the books, Scott's witty and self assured gay roommate Wallace, and turns him into the best character in the film in what is possibly a breakthrough role for him.

Of course you are always going to have problems adapting a comic book series to a film. For starters the surreal nature of comics generally doesn't translate well to the big screen and Indeed, some scenes work better than others. For example Matthew Patel's fight with Scott is a bit too over the top, complete with a Bollywood musical number and dancing demon hipster chicks. I didn't need to see that.

More crucially though, you're condensing six decent length books into a film that's under two hours long. Inevitably this means you're going to have pacing problems, as well as story elements and character depth cut out in order to fit. Unfortunately in this case the result is something of a mess.

Now I don't envy the job that director Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) had on his plate; given the running time, it seems likely that studio execs told Wright to keep the film under 2 hours in order to appeal to their target demographic and to maximise potential cinema revenue. This means they need to get through one out of the six comic books in just twenty minutes each. As you would expect then quite a bit of the background story and narrative meat has been removed with the hope that this would allow Wright to flesh out what remains.

The problem is that even this wasn't enough, and the scenes that are left in the film still feel incredibly rushed, condensed and cut into a sequence of quick-fire events that simply don't allow the audience to gain any appreciation of what they're watching. In any good story, you need a certain amount of time to dwell on the key plot points and revelations, and time to get to know the characters and become emotionally invested. This film takes no time to do any of this, and sprints through scenes like there's a time limit (fitting for a videogame movie perhaps), haphazardly introducing new characters and relationships and then moving onto the next bit. It doesn't help that the script itself is not as sharp as the source material, and indeed the best lines are taken straight from the comics.

For what is essentially a love story, there is no great romantic scene between Scott and Ramona. Any time anything even vaguely emotional or profound takes place it's over in about three seconds, notably toward the end where Knives has her moment of enlightenment complete with the sublime Broken Social Scene song Anthems for a Seventeen Year old Girl. This scene lasts four seconds before unceremoniously cutting to the next. Sadly, this almost dizzying manner of storytelling is entirely typical of the film in general, which constantly feels like it's rushing to the finish line.

But in fairness when you consider what Wright had to work with, he has generally done a good job of whittling down the content to the key plot points and streamlining them so that the film as a whole does not suffer from everything else that has been cut. I would even say that there are certain parts of the story where Wright has improved upon the comics, particularly with the ending.

The final book involved a rather confusing and, once again, over the top battle between Scott and various forms of his nemesis Gideon, much of which went over my head. The film makes this a much simpler affair, while still maintaining some of the more humorous, and indeed the more profound moments from this climax. In fact the coming of age moral of the story is actually more focused here than in the comic books, with a very clear resolution. This ends things on a very satisfying note that, for all the frustrations I have with the pacing of this movie, had me leaving the cinema with a positive impression.

Ultimately Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a remarkable technical achievement, visually revolutionary and aurally sublime, and the acting is mostly good with some great laughs. Unfortunately, the pacing and structure of the film is off and the result is a messy affair. This film could have benefitted from an extra half hour with which to take its time over some of the more important scenes, but that doesn't stop it from being an enjoyable 2 hours.


Loves:
Visually stunning
Great audio production

Hates:
Poor pacing and structure
Skims through the books

Developed by Ubisoft Montreal
Published by Ubisoft, Universal Studios
Genre Beat 'em up, RPG
Platform Xbox Live Arcade, Playstation Network
Release date(s) August 25th 2010

One could be forgiven for thinking that Bryan Lee O'Malley has sold out, with his critically acclaimed comic book series Scott Pilgrim being adapted this month into both a big budget Hollywood film and a licensed videogame by Ubisoft, a company with a history of crappy licensed games. Comic book adaptions and licensed videogames are usually terrible, it's one of life's most painfully consistent truths. Fortunately, any fears I may have had were dispelled after roughly five seconds of starting up this game.



For those who don't know, the Scott Pilgrim comics are essentially the I Ching of mid twenties slackers. Scott Pilgrim is a archetypal twenty something male; plays bass in a band, unemployed, never quite grew out of college, skeezy enough to be dating a 17 year old and going nowhere fast.

To most people it's a mundane existence, but in the melodramatic frame of Pilgrim's pop culture and videogame obsessed mind it's a cataclysmic battle between good and evil. Every inch of this world is interpreted for us in this context through his eyes; objects and activities are intermittently given videogame style status indicators, daily life is a collection of statistics and levelling up, and conflict is resolved through over the top anime/street fighter styled combat. Scott Pilgrim meets the girl of his dreams, literally, and in order to be with her he must defeat her seven evil exes.

Videogame culture permeates everything about this series, so it makes perfect sense that the videogame adaption should be a retro throwback celebrating the 8/16-bit era complete with stylized graphics (from legendary pixel artist Paul Robertson), classic gameplay, and above all nostalgic music (from legendary chiptune band Anamanaguchi).

The graphics really are quite fantastic for anyone who is a fan of that old school style, but doesn't feel archaic, with enough flash and style to compare favourably to any game on XBLA. While I adored the style from the first moment I started the game up, I can imagine that this might not be the case for anyone who was not a gamer back in the early 90s, or is not especially enamoured with the old schol style.

The music as well deserves special note for being mind meltingly awesome. Anamanaguchi is known as the biggest name in chiptune music and you can see why from playing this game. Each track of the soundtrack is perfect; nostalgic and fitting for each specific setting. It really is almost worth the price of the game for this reason alone.

The gameplay meanwhile harkens back to classic streets of rage style 2d scrolling beat 'em ups, with stat building RPG elements and stores in which to spend all the coins you pick up from fallen enemies. I've spoken a lot about the style of the game, but Ubisoft have done a very good job at creating some fun gameplay, simple enough to get into but with different moves and plenty to keep you playing for a while.

Unfortunately, the game design itself is somewhat ill considered. Clearly this game is designed to be played with multiplayer, and indeed there is fantastic 4 player co-op in this game. Hoever, playing solo can be a frustrating and repetitive affair due to the difficulty which is balanced towards 4 players, requiring a solo gamer to grind and level up. In addition, there is inexplicably no online mode present, nor is there the option for extra players to drop in and out during gameplay.

In addition, Scott Pilgrim recreates many of the limitations of games from this era. Controls and collision detection feels a bit rough around the edges, while depth perception can be frustrating, particularly on one level which takes place on the roof of a bus where moving too close to the edges results in falling off.

If you have a couple of friends to play with, or the persistence to get through it on your own, then I fully recommend this game. Even if you have neither of those things, it's worth checking out just to play a few levels and absorb the geek chic awesomeness (at 800 microsoft pts, it's not especially pricey).


Loves:
Old school graphics
Old school music
Addictive multiplayer

Hates:
Frustrating solo gameplay
Lack of multiplayer options

It doesn't seem like too long ago that the world was enraptured by the great carnival of football that is the World Cup. As such the new season has somewhat snuck up on us and believe it or not there are just 9 days until everything kicks off again.

Last year Carlo Ancelotti made history by becoming the first manager ever to win the league and FA Cup double in his first season, silencing his many critics in the process. Meanwhile Arsenal surprised many by challenging with the big boys and showing that you don't need a sugar daddy to compete; though if Manchester City have anything to say about it, it will certainly help.

It promises to be an exciting year at the other end of the table too, with new boys Blackpool are still hungover from celebrating their first ever year in the Premier League. Meanwhile, old stalwarts Newcastle are back at the top level after just one year in the wilderness.

At the time of writing, there have been astonishingly few major signings to speak of, and with time running out the pressure is very much on.

In this guide we preview each and every team, run the rule over their key signings and players to watch and then fill you in on our carefully considered predictions for the season ahead.




ARSENAL

Nickname: The Gunners
Ground: Emirates Stadium
Capacity: 60,000
Position last season: 3rd
Manager: Arsene Wenger (September 1996)

Arsenal are always an interesting team to watch; you're never quite sure with them if you're going to get champagne or bucks fizz.

For a number of years now they have not really been competing with the top teams for the title, but last year suddenly they found themselves in with a shout right up until the death. Undoubtedly, much of this has to do with the quite surprisingly poor performance of both Chelsea and Manchester United as well as heavy injuries both sides incurred, but a great deal of credit must go to Arsene Wenger. Wenger continues to impress on a shoestring budget as Arsenal continue to pay off stadium debts, and only a few world class talents to work with.

Have signed the centre forward they so desperately needed, but Arsenal's defence remains a very real concern with the likes of Gallas leaving and only the untested Koscielny brought in as replacement. Considering their defence wasn't much to be proud of before, this is a big concern. The lack of of a quality goalkeeper also led to problems last season, and as of yet nothing has been done to remedy this.

Key Signing: Marouane Chamakh
Key Man: Cesc Fabregas
If they were a Hollywood movie: Red Dawn; a group of ragtag youngsters take the fight to the all powerful Russian(s).

Verdict: Will be relying on poor form and/or injuries from their more illustrious rivals, but if last season is anything to go by and their opposition players' age begins to catch up with them then anything could happen. Their best chance to win the title in years.


ASTON VILLA

Nickname: The Villans
Ground: Villa Park
Capacity: 42,593
Last season: 6th
Manager: Martin O'Neill (August 2006)

One has to give a lot of credit to Aston Villa, who continue to play good football and cause headaches for the big boys (albeit inconsistently). Martin O'Neill has turned them into a really top side, built around one of the league's strongest defences and most experienced goalkeepers. They are additionally blessed with pacey, young attacking talent that can trouble even the biggest names on a good day, as Man United found out last year.

But just as Villa were once considered to be gaining on the big four, the rest of the top eight now seem to be gaining on them. Spurs and City overtook them last year, Liverpool will be keen to bounce back from last year, and Everton are quietly growing in strength under David Moyes.

Have yet to strengthen the side, and with rumours suggesting that star player James Milner is set to leave to Man City there is the feeling that this could be a much tougher season for the plucky side.

Key Signing: None yet.
Key Man: James Milner (if he stays)
If they were a Hollywood movie: You've Got Mail; likable independent gets screwed over by "the man", ends up in bed with the enemy.

Verdict: Could be a step backwards after a number of good years for the club.


BIRMINGHAM

Nickname: Blues
Ground: St. Andrew's
Capacity: 30,009
Last season: 9th
Manager: Alex McLeish (November 2007)

Definitely the surprise package of last season, McLeish's Birmingham achieved a very impressive run of games that took them into the top half of the league in their first season back in the Premier League, just one place behind the so called big eight. Much of this can be attributed to a formidable defence featuring Roger Johnson, Stephen Carr and Joe Hart in goal.

But now Hart has gone back to Man City, and ex Man United goalkeeper Ben Foster has been brought in on a permanent deal to replace him. Foster was once a hotly tipped property before he collapsed at United, and his resurgence in form will be vital for any hopes Birmingham have of repeating their top half success this season.

Elsewhere, Crouch-esque Valencia striker Nikola Zigic has been signed and pundits will be anxious to see if he lives up to billing. If Birmingham have finally found themselves a consistent striker then this will be a marvellous deal for the club.

Key Signing: Nikola Zigic
Key Man: Stephen Carr
If they were a Hollywood movie: Braveheart; the Scotsman leads his hardened warriors with vim and vigour, but it may not be enough.

Verdict: Unlikely to repeat last season's heroics, but should be safely in mid table.


BLACKBURN ROVERS

Nickname: Rovers
Ground: Ewood Park
Capacity: 31,367
Last season: 10th
Manager: Sam Allardyce (December 2008)

Allardyce rarely disappoints, and his tenure at Blackburn is proving to be no exception.

Last season we got the first look at the tough, miserly, and distinctly "Allardyce" team that is being crafted and Blackburn, and Ewood park became one of the most feared grounds in the country to play at towards the end. Might even have done better had David Dunn managed to remain fit for any reasonable period of time.

Rumoured to be looking for another striker, with Dindane, Beattie and Jo the likely targets. As yet no signings though.

Key Signing: None yet.
Key Man: David Dunn
If they were a Hollywood movie: Fight Club; always cruisin' for a bruisin'.

Verdict: A top half finish by no means certain, but unlikely to move much from where they finished last season.


BLACKPOOL

Nickname: Seasiders
Ground: Bloomfield Road
Capacity: 12,555
Last season: Promoted (playoffs)
Manager: Ian Holloway (May 2009)

At long last, Ian Holloway has made it into the Premier League. Consistently one of the most quotable managers in the game, he is sure to liven things up for all of us. Unfortunately his stay in this division may be short lived.

Blackpool finished in the lowest possible position from which one can qualify, 6th, and then won promotion through unlikely circumstances in the playoffs.

In addition to a tough away game filled start to the season as a result of ground work, there is reported disharmony amongst the team. Player antipathy towards the chairman, and a poor financial situation that has seen players stripped of their bonuses leaves the team in some dire straits during a time in which they really have to pull together in order to have any chance of survival.

Key Signing: None yet.
Key Man: Jason Euell
If they were a Hollywood movie: 300; so much heart, but you know they're going to die before the movie even begins.

Verdict: Likely to go back down.


BOLTON WANDERERS

Nickname: Trotters
Ground: Reebok Stadium
Capacity: 27,879
Last season: 14th
Manager: Owen Coyle (January 2010)

Looked to be heading down last season until appointing Burnley's miracle working manager Owen Coyle at the helm, and it's no coincidence that Burnley promptly became the third team to get relegated.

This first full season at the Reebok will be all about getting the team to play his style of football and preparing a base on which to build for the future, but make no mistake, in Coyle they have the right man for the job.

Some decent signings so far, including Robbie Blake, Ivan Klasnic, and most notable Martin Petrov. Must avoid relegation this season, far from certain but should pull it off.

Key Signing: Martin Petrov
Key Man: Kevin Davies
If they were a Hollywood movie: Dirty Dozen; he's the right man for the job, but can he assemble a team to get the job done?

Verdict: Priority will be to stay up, but Coyle should manage.


CHELSEA

Nickname: Blues
Ground: Stamford Bridge
Capacity: 42,449
Last season: Champions
Manager: Carlo Ancelotti (June 2009)

Ancelotti came to the club with a lot of pressure, and a good deal of doubt amongst the fans. Indeed, following the incredible success he saw in his first season (winning the club's first ever league and FA Cup double) it is easy to forget that this was very much a touch and go season characterised by inconsistency. Chelsea may have set goal scoring records and won almost every player award available, but it was hardly them at their best.

In addition the team is now getting older, with key players Drogba, Lampard and Terry moving into their 30s. Ideally the club would be able to rely on younger players like Cech, Essien and Alex, if not for the bizarrely injury prone nature of their squad which saw them play a larger number of different players than any other team last season. A few fairly prominent players have even left the club, with Ballack, Deco both leaving and Carvalho potentially to follow.

As of yet the club has not strengthened the team much at all, with just Benayoun in at the time of writing, and Ramires due to be confirmed any day now. With the weakness of this squad, plus the lack of signings, it is obvious that Chelsea will be relying more and more on their youth players who made a fair few appearances last season and will now be looking to break into the first team.

Key Signing: Ramires
Key Man: Frank Lampard
If they were a Hollywood movie: Titanic; expensive, hyped, depressing.

Verdict: Though most pundits are lazily tipping them for the title, I can't really see it happening unless there are a number of signings between now and September 1st, or if players like Essien, Cech, Ashley Cole and Drogba can stay uncharacteristically injury free. A chance for youth to shine, but unlikely to be ready just yet.


EVERTON

Nickname: Toffees
Ground: Goodison Park
Capacity: 40,170
Last season: 8th
Manager: David Moyes (March 2002)

David Moyes has always impressed at Everton, consistently placing among the fringes of the top tier of the league despite a dearth of quality and resources. However in recent years with all the influx of money into Aston Villa, Man City and Spurs they are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain pace, and this looks unlikely to change this year.

So far have only signed a few young prospects, nothing really to strengthen the squad majorly aside from some extra depth up front. The inability to bring Landon Donovan back in is a blow, but this team still has a highly talented midfield featuring the likes of Tim Cahill, Steven Pienaar, Jack Rodwell and Mikel Arteta which can cause any team problems on their day.

Key Signing: Jermaine Beckford
Key Man: Tim Cahill
If they were a Hollywood movie: Mission Impossible; undeniably talented, well organised, but face a near impossible task.

Verdict: Again, will probably be around the same place as they end up every year, barring a miracle or a disaster.


FULHAM
Latest club news

Nickname: Cottagers
Ground: Craven Cottage
Capacity: 26,000
Last season: 12th
Manager: Mark Hughes (July 2010)

Roy Hodgson has done an amazing job to turn Fulham around into a comfortable Premiership team, a feat which culminated last season in a Europa League final place that they damn near won. But now he's off to Liverpool, and frankly one might expect the worst at Fulham in his absence.

They've found themselves a capable replacement in Mark Hughes, but he will have little time to adapt the team to his style of management in a league like this. Have strengthened reasonable well with Philippe Senderos and Jonathan Greening but could do with more strength up front along with Bobby Zamora.

Key Signing: Philippe Senderos
Key Man: Bobby Zamora
If they were a Hollywood movie: The Fountain; following the loss of central pillar Brad Pitt from the project, a risky replacement must be called in. Let's hope Mark Hughes steps up to the challenge better than Hugh Jackman did.

Verdict: Strong enough to stay up, but unlikely to match up to the accomplishments of Hodgson, right away at least.


LIVERPOOL

Nickname: Reds
Ground: Anfield
Capacity: 45,362
Last season: 7th
Manager: Roy Hodgson (July 2010)

Liverpool are a funny team, and a lot of people took pleasure in their disastrous season last year. But the fact is that Liverpool are better than that. Perhaps they need a fresh take from a new manager (and Hodgson is more than qualified for the challenge), or perhaps they simply need star players who don't get injured as often as Torres. But for whatever reason, they should do better than they did last year.

That being said, their squad still lacks depth. While they have made some 'interesting' additions to the squad, it's nothing that will make up for another major injury to Fernando Torres. On the plus side, they can be thankful that both Torres and Gerrard appear to be resisting overtures to move on to pastures greener.

Key Signing: Joe Cole
Key Man: Fernando Torres
If they were a Hollywood movie: Animal House; languishing in squalor and mediocrity, seeking an infusion of new blood to become relevant

Verdict: Should improve, but unlikely to reach their former heights.


MANCHESTER CITY

Nickname: Blues
Ground: City of Manchester Stadium
Capacity: 48,000
Last season: 5th
Manager: Roberto Mancini (December 2009)

After coming within a hair of Champions League qualification last season, they begin this year not just with an eye to going one better, but going the whole hog and challenging for the title.

Have strengthened their squad on a scale that exceeds even Chelsea back in their big spending heyday, and certainly eclipses any of the big teams this season. Their shaky defence has been bolstered by Boateng and Kolarov, whilst they have added yet more depth to their attacking talent with David Silva, and the box to box midfielder Yaya Touré.

Still questions remain over the manager Roberto Mancini, and the defensive partnership of Kolo Touré and Joleon Lescott which right now doesn't even come close to justifying the combined price tage in excess of 40 million pounds spent on those two players.

Key Signing: Yaya Touré
Key Man: Carlos Tevez
If they were a Hollywood movie: Ocean's 12; expensively assembled team of big name stars, but lacking in new ideas or a coherent plot

Verdict: If the team can gel quickly, there is no reason they can't challenge for the title, especially considering how weak the other big teams look this year.


MANCHESTER UNITED

Nickname: Red Devils
Ground: Old Trafford
Capacity: 76,000
Last season: 2nd
Manager: Sir Alex Ferguson (November 1986)

Last season was one to forget for Manchester United. Wayne Rooney had a fantastic year, but apare from him their squad looked very mediocre, slow and still far too reliant on ageing stars like Giggs and Scholes.

This season could be Sir Alex's last, and he has sought to address these problems, bringing in the likes of Javier Hernández, who looks a talent. Rio Ferdinand's recent injury problems are also a concern as they head into the new season.

Aside from Rio, however, their squad appears to be more durable and less injury prone than the likes of Chelsea and Arsenal, and over the course of a long season this could be crucial. Expect them to be there or there abouts whatever happens.

Key Signing: Javier Hernández
Key Man: Wayne Rooney
If they were a Hollywood movie: Rocky Balboa; not as fresh or as good as they once were, but can still hold their own against the best. One last big push for glory before retirement.

Verdict: The top few clubs are very hard to separate this season, but the combination of wily management, talented players and luck should see them finish the year as champions.


NEWCASTLE UNITED

Nickname: Magpies
Ground: St. James' Park
Capacity: 52,387
Last season: Promoted (1st)
Manager: Chris Hughton (September 2008)

It didn't take long for Newcastle to bounce back to the Premier League. A team clearly too good for the Championship, now they must contend once again with the challenges of the top flight.

Chris Hughton has done a remarkable job stabilising a club in freefall, something which all the big names and expensive signings who came before him could not do. Now he must take on the next step, which is turning them back into Premier League mainstays.

Won't return to the Newcastle of old overnight, but it's hard to see them going back down.

Key Signing: Dan Gosling
Key Man: Kevin Nolan
If they were a Hollywood movie: The Comeback Kid; self explanatory really.

Verdict: Should have enough about them to stay up fairly comfortably.


STOKE

Nickname: Potters
Ground: Britannia Stadium
Capacity: 28,384
Last season: 11th
Manager: Tony Pulis (June 2006)

Had a very good season last year, collecting a number of big scalps. Much of this success was built on a strong defence featuring the likes of Sorensen in goal and Shawcross at the heart of the back line.

Lack of funds for investment will make their task all the more difficult this season and the club could well slip down from last season.

Still have the throw ins of Rory Delap to rely on.

Key Signing: Carlo Nash
Key Man: Rory Delap
If they were a Hollywood movie: Happy Gilmore; a fairly poor star player with one incredible trick that can often win games

Verdict: Unlikely to live up to the heights of last season.


SUNDERLAND

Nickname: Black Cats
Ground: Stadium of Light
Capacity: 48,300
Last season: 13th
Manager: Steve Bruce (June 2009)

Last year was better from them, Steve Bruce knows how to run a club. I expect them to continue to put in similarly solid performances without really pushing for a top half finish.

You know you have problems when your star signing in the summer is Titus Bramble, an ex player for your biggest rivals no less.

Darren Bent, it seems, keeps getting better and better and his goal haul every season is really something to admire. He will be central to any success they have this season.

Key Signing: Titus Bramble
Key Man: Darren Bent
If they were a Hollywood movie: Bowfinger; fairly irrelevant, making a stab for glory featuring the kid brother of a world beater (Anton Ferdinand).

Verdict: More slow improvement under Bruce.


TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR
Latest club news

Nickname: Spurs
Ground: White Hart Lane
Capacity: 36,236
Last season: 4th
Manager: Harry Redknapp (October 2008)

Harry does it again. Another top year for the man from London saw Spurs finally reach their goal of Champions League qualification, claiming some major scalps along the way with some great performances.

Repeating the feat this season will be tough with Man City breathing down their necks and Liverpool looking to get back into the big leagues, but they've got as good a squad and as good a manager as anyone.

Injury prone key players are a concern, and so far youngster Sandro is the only reinforcement made by the club this season. A deadly group of Gareth Bale, Jermain Defoe, Michael Dawson and Aaron Lennon form the British core of this team.

Key Signing: Sandro
Key Man: Gareth Bale
If they were a Hollywood movie: Love Actually; great British cast, pleasing to watch, ultimately lacking in substance or significance.

Verdict: Key thing is to stay among the top 4 and keep getting into the Champions League, that may prove too much for them.


WEST BROMWICH ALBION
Latest club news

Nickname: Baggies
Ground: The Hawthorns
Capacity: 26,500
Last season: Promoted (2nd)
Manager: Roberto DiMatteo (July 2009)

Promotion at the first attempt is a highly impressive start to Roberto DiMatteo's tenure at West Brom, but will face a far greater challenge to keep them up.

To reach this end, the club has strengthened well, adding Nicky Shorey, Boaz Myhill and Steven Reid to the squad, among others. But otherwise the squad looks pretty think in quality for a Premier League team.

Key Signing: Nicky Shorey
Key Man: Scott Carson
If they were a Hollywood movie: The Road; sometimes survival is the best one can hope for.

Verdict: Will struggle to stay up, likely to be involved in the relegation battle.


WEST HAM UNITED

Nickname: Hammers
Ground: Upton Park
Capacity: 35,056
Last season: 17th
Manager: Avram Grant (June 2010)

Survived last season by the skin of their teeth, largely due to the off the pitch disruptions caused by new owners. Naturally the manager got the blame and Zola was promptly sacked.

Avram Grant's stock has really come up in recent years following his bizarre stint at Chelsea and he is the man to take the reins for this season. He has his work cut out for him and has wasted no time in signing new players, including Hitzlsperger, Piquionne and Tal Ben-Haim, whilst strangely releasing Guillermo Franco for free after a strong World Cup.

Personally I can't wait to see arch rivals Chelsea and West Ham go to head this season, with Avram desperate to attain some victory against his old club who so unceremoniously ditched him.

Key Signing: Thomas Hitzlsperger
Key Man: Scott Parker
If they were a Hollywood movie: Are Wer There Yet?; constantly promising a future of great things, but always slipping back into familiar trappings.

Verdict: Should stay up, possibly pushing higher into midtable.


WIGAN ATHLETIC

Nickname: Latics
Ground: JJB Stadium
Capacity: 25,000
Last season: 16th
Manager: Roberto Martinez (June 2009)

Just about survived last season despite two record breaking defeats, 8-0 to Chelsea and 9-1 to Tottenham. That being said they also beat Chelsea in the reverse fixture along with Arsenal, so clearly this is a club where achieving some consistency will be key this season.

The team has strengthened, but it's also lost a few important players. Alarm bells should be ringing for any team that concedes more than 8 goals twice in one season, and I wonder if they've really been heeded here. Almost certain to be involved in the relegation battle, despite the goals of Hugo Rodallega.

Key Signing: Ronnie Stam
Key Man: Hugo Rodallega
If they were a Hollywood movie: 2012; a disaster waiting to happen in every sense.

Verdict: Will struggle to stay up.


WOLVERHAMPTON WANDERERS

Nickname: Wolves
Ground: Molineux Stadium
Capacity: 28,525
Last season: 15th
Manager: Mick McCarthy (July 2006)

Mick McCarthy, as expected, did a fantastic job with them last season and kept them in the top flight. Now it is time to consolidate the club's position in the first set of consecutive top flight seasons since the 1980s.

Hunt, Fletcher and Van Damme are all very good signings, and every indication is that McCarthy is preparing them well for the year ahead. However, there is always the danger of them suffering from the common affliction of second-season-itis.

Key Signing: Steven Fletcher
Key Man: Kevin Doyle
If they were a Hollywood movie: Dog soldiers; wolves are on the prowl, and just like the werewolf outbreak in the movie only gets minor headlines compared to bigger football news, the club's notoriety is likely to stay similarly shadowed.

Verdict: McCarthy will give it his best, but will it be enough?


Predicted table:
1. Manchester United
2. Chelsea
3. Arsenal
4. Manchester City
5. Liverpool
6. Tottenham
7. Aston Villa
8. Everton
9. Blackburn
10. Bolton
11. Birmingham
12. Sunderland
13. Newcastle United
14. Stoke
15. Fulham
16. West Ham
17. Wolverhampton Wanderers
18. Wigan
19. West Brom
20. Blackpool