When considering whether or not you want to watch Journey 2, the only question you have to ask yourself is: “Do I desperately need to see The Rock play a ukulele and bounce berries off his pecs in 3D?” As far as I can tell, those two scenes are the only reason for the film’s existence. The rest is a hodgepodge of half-baked sci-fi ideas, cartoony CGI spectacle and sickly sweet family sentiment that should have even the most forgiving children on a sugar-high rolling their eyes in disbelief. The whole thing smacks of desperation with the filmmakers struggling to stretch a forgettable blockbuster into a franchise and a cast of recognizable actors barely trying to conceal the fact that they signed up for a well-paid tropical vacation that just happened to involve a film shoot. It feels more like a souped-up direct-to-DVD sequel than a marquee studio release.

Now, Journey to the Center of the Earth was never a great movie, but at least it delivered some breezy entertainment. With the new-fangled 3D still in it’s infancy when that flick came out, it played more like a 90-minute theme park attraction than a movie, showing off the fancy pop-out-of-the-screen technology with an seemingly endless series of set pieces that never got bogged down with concerns like telling a story or crafting memorable characters. It wasn’t great, but it was a good showcase for 3D when it was still a novelty and that’s all the movie had to be. But it’s sequel time now, and with audiences already tiring of 3D, that isn’t enough to carry a movie anymore. Nope, 3D flicks have to work on their own merits now and sadly the folks in charge somehow dreamed up an even less compelling story this time.

The movie opens John Hutcherson’s teen protagonist Sean from the last movie escaping from cops on a dirt bike clutching a stolen broadcast that he hopes is from his grandfather. You see, Sean is a Vernian, a special breed of people convinced that everything Jules Verne wrote about was fact. Given his last adventure, he has good reason to feel that way and is convinced his grandfather is stuck on Verne’s Mysterious Island. Thankfully, he’s got a new stepfather played by The Rock whose navy training gives him the necessary skills to decode the message and kick some mythical creature ass. They head off to the coordinates they were sent and meet up with Luis Guzman and teen love interest Vanessa Hudgens as the father/daughter team who takes them there via a rickety helicopter. Shockingly, they end up trapped on the island with Sean’s grandpappy Michael Caine as their guide. Cue a series of CGI set pieces involving volcanoes of gold, riding giant bees, learning lessons about connecting with parents, and for some reason finding the Nautilus from 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea.

Right off the bat, the 3D in this movie is fairly lackluster. While Journey 1 featured scenes with characters spitting into the camera every few minutes to take advantage of the new dimension, in Journey 2 it almost feels like an afterthought. Sure there are plenty of perfunctory action scenes, but they never really take advantage of 3D, which kind of seemed like the whole point of this franchise. The giant lizards and tiny elephants that populate the island are kind of fun, but honestly the trailer gives away every expensive sequence, so you can’t even count of getting some sort of minor joy or surprise there.

The cast is good in theory, they just have nothing to work with. The Rock knows how to charm and beat things up, but he’s grasping at straws with a boring, caring stepfather character. He does get to play the ukulele though, which is weird as hell to see, but it might be best to wait until the inevitable and numerous YouTube videos that will arise from the scene to catch it. Luis Guzman flails around and pulls pratfalls like a silent movie clown, while Hutcherson and Hudgens are stuck with drab pretty teen archetypes with little to no personality. Then there’s Michael Caine. You might be asking yourself, “What the shit is Michael Caine doing in Journey 2?” Well, he claims it’s for his grandkids, but this movie was shot in Hawaii and I’m sure that Caine had a nice relaxing time because he certainly wasn’t burdened with much acting to worry about.

So, as you probably worked out by now, Journey 2: The Mysterious Island is a bad movie. There’s really nothing in here you haven’t seen done better before and even Dwayne Johnson has a healthy list of movies on his resume that are better than this (and yes, that includes The Tooth Fairy). To be fair, this movie is for children and I suppose that if you’re taking along a youngster who hasn’t seen many adventure movies or isn’t exhausted with 3D, the little tike could have a good time. The kid would probably have a better time with 80s family cheese like The Goonies, but that wouldn’t get him out of the house, so I can sympathize. Just bring along a pillow for yourself. You’re going to need it.

If I had to sum up what most stories are about in one word, it would be “underdogs.” Ultimately we go to the movies for a chance to see the unlikely succeed, as this is a fantasy rarely realized in real life. As far as real life underdogs go, they don’t get much lower than the Canadian feature film. This is why anytime one manages to get financed, completed and then actually distributed, those of us concerned with this kind of thing watch with trepidation because we know that a Canadian film getting a second week in theatres is like an amateur boxer making it to round two against the champ. This makes Moon Point an underdog story in every sense, and while it struggles in places, it ultimately succeeds, at least on the fluffy entertainment level.

Our protagonist is Darryl, a 23 year-old underachiever with the meanest family on earth. Determined to prove he can get a date for his cousin’s wedding, Darryl sees a call for extras in a B-horror film starring his childhood crush as a chance at redemption. To do this he has to travel several towns over to a place called Moon Point, and with no other mode of transportation, Darryl literally hitches his wagon to his only friend’s electric wheelchair.  Perhaps my favourite aspect of this film is the idea of it being about the world’s slowest road trip, as it takes them days to cover what somebody with a car could have done in a couple hours. They quickly acquire the damsel in distress from the side of the road whom we know will ultimately come between them at some point.

While these three fresh faces do an acceptable job throughout the film, particularly Nick McKinlay in the lead, it’s the crazies they meet along the way that provide most of the laughs. The supporting cast is made up of an ensemble of Canadian talent whose names you likely wouldn’t recognize, (Art Hindle, Jayne Eastwood, Linda Kash, Laurie Elliott, Jessica Holmes, Christian Potenza, James Hartnett, anyone? Bueller?), their faces however have become familiar from dozens of commercials and comedy specials.

The writer commented that he was trying to capture the feeling of some of the John Hughes films he loved as a teenager, but I didn’t really get that vibe from Moon Point. The road trip aspect of it combined with the sometimes-too-broad humour reminded me more of a Farrelly brothers film, while the sugary ‘twee’ touches over-sentimentalized other parts. Needless to say there were several uneven tonal shifts, primarily caused by too much make-up/ break-up drama between the three main characters.

Unfortunately, like most real-life underdogs, this film will not overcome the odds and break into the mainstream, but at least first time distributor IndieCan is giving it a chance to be seen by some, most of whom I’m sure will get a kick out of at least a few parts, and that puts this one in the plus category of Canadian movies. It’s cuteness and romantic elements are well timed for Valentine’s Day and the holiday’s imagery is sprinkled throughout, let’s just hope Moon Point can still be seen by the time February 14^th comes around, otherwise all of the above becomes a moot point.

Back in 2006, musicians Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova starred in a film that shocked both the box office and the Academy Awards. Made for $100,000, the John Carney directed musical romance Once became the little movie that could, sticking around for months in theatres and netting an Oscar for the two singer-songwriters for the song “Falling Slowly.” The duo, known formally as The Swell Season – which also serves as the title of a new documentary about their life on the road and their personal interaction – became a bit of an international sensation that has been selling out shows and playing festival gigs around the world ever since.

It’s a great story, but despite having three directors on the documentary project designed to give fans of both the film and the band a glimpse behind the curtain, the appeal is limited and the scope of everything is distressingly narrow. While watching Once is a prerequisite before going into this film and having a love for the band’s non-film related material will help, the audience for this film really begins and ends with Swell Season fans and the mildly curious.

Between lengthy montages that belie a lack of focus (possibly brought on by too many cooks in the directing department) and some sometimes superfluous asides designed to pad out a 90 minute running time, viewers can easily see why Hansard and Irglova were such magnetic personalities in the first place. In the many performance segments of the film, Hansard’s intensity on stage and Irglova’s down to Earth shyness come through beautifully and do more to illustrate their relationship and seemingly preternatural songwriting chemistry than the film’s countless segments depicting autograph signings and post concert drinking sessions.

This isn’t to say that there isn’t a great deal of personal insight, but it’s quite likely that these aren’t the insights that fans are necessarily looking for or that the unfamiliar will be looking for. Much of the film’s personal story surrounds Hansard’s upbringing with his alcoholic father and doting mother in Ireland. The filmmakers go a long way to show how a man who dropped out of school to pursue his rock star dreams taps his own life for inspiration, but on the flip side, Irglova’s downright aversion to being on camera makes her seem a bit more histrionic than she probably is in real life. Uncomfortable with success, fans, and her true devotion to the touring lifestyle, there is precious little known about her past to suggest that she isn’t just coming across as burnt out or unreasonable.

Those looking for some insight into the duo’s former romantic relationship will also be sadly out of luck until the last 10 minutes of the film, and even then it’s all maddeningly dismissive because this is a movie that’s all about the music, man. That music is good and almost enough to warrant a pass for the film, but it’s hard not to shake the feeling that this is all more designed to be a bonus DVD to be packaged with a live album at some point rather than as a serious cinematic effort. Aside from some well shot black and white cinematography, nothing here is particularly cinematic in the way their original big screen outing was. Swell Season is a film that preaches to the already converted and least picky fans of the band, but it might not even be able to properly capture just what the audience gets from their live shows or the music that drove their first big success.

I would best describe the last decade in comics as “aggressively making up for the 90s”. Sure, not everything was gold and a lot of the “major events” featured strong openings with weak conclusions (well, except perhaps 52) but there was undeniably this open window of embrace for comics as a creative means instead of a sales means. The comics I tended to favour most were the ones that really had a knack for embracing story with visuals, treating the two as a pair, not playing favourites to either or. It could be a great story, or, it could have great art, but a great comic book means both will stick with you in the long run. Top choice, of course, goes to Paul Pope’s 100%. The gloomy yet fantastical portrayal of a future-punk NYC, and the dreaming artists, strippers and misfits that crawl around it’s streets. Like a Moulin Rouge that your parents don’t own the soundtrack to, 100% feels alive, the illustrations pulse crowded unheard sounds, and the heroes are so believably lost that you eventually sink into the same romantic hole they dwell in.

Taking a few steps to the side, but not too many steps, is DC’s Solo series. Short, too short in my opinion, but a successful experiment in showing what certain artists will do when you loosen their chain. Some still did superhero stories, some didn’t. Sergio Aragones, Mike Allred and the aforementioned Paul Pope all did personal anecdotes, refocused in the lens of a comic. The series was as creatively pleasing as it was enlightening to see how individual artists view their world and the effects it has on their craft.

Last but not least is a newer entry, and I really hope this won’t come off as superbly pretensions to drop something this obscure but its totally worth a hound down, I’m talking to the culture junkie savages I assume to peruse this site. LOSE #1 by Toronto local Michael Deforge is a stroll down a struggle that I can all too relate with. The constant clash between an artist’s personal creativity and their media, Saturday morning cartoon saturated mind that they sink with.  Deforge in almost an escape from the pop junk world begins to scratch back, mutilating and mutating Rocky and Bullwinkle. It’s a route many online one offs have taken, but this is the first one that feels like it nails it square over the head.

Film

This was the first decade where I became a conscious film viewer. Suddenly the cartoon interludes and one-liners that would carry Adam Sandler movies throughout my childhood simply could not cut it anymore. I wanted story out of these stories. I wanted them to be human. I wanted all walks of life, from reality or the realm of twisted perception. I found myself drawn to the extraordinary unextraordinary. Nicholson had to wipe off that greasy machismo to schlub up himself in About Schmidt. An old man uneasy about starting his new un-life, comes to the realization that even the life he knew and is coming to know were only a veil. In the steps of an old and only getting older senior, Schmidt travels about looking for some gravity in the world, pissed about his dead wife, pissed about his shitty son-in-law, pissed about everything he cherished being a lie. And the graceful descent to one of the most heart-warming endings ever recorded on film feels like the reward for sticking through it.

Of all the fantastic Wes Anderson offerings of the decade, I’m going to dork out and hover about The Life Aquatic as my top choice. Okay, so maybe I’m carried on by an illegal level of quirkiness, but the strong character acting of some, balanced out by the charisma of others blends into a sweet bitter harmony on the whole. Bill Murray has proven himself as this decades’ anti-hero of choice, so smug yet shattered. He has that still beating pride and his cynicism manages to keep everyone afloat. One of the most unexpected favourites of the decade was Michael Clayton. A flick I had put off being so certain that it was a really, really boring thing for really, really boring people turned out to be one of the most captivating cinematic experiences in recent memory. Okay, so maybe the subject matter to some level is really boring, but the story telling and execution is so graceful and subtle that you’ll find yourself re-thinking the humanity in suits.

For my favourite “weird ass thing” for the decade I choose My Winnipeg by Guy Maddin. Just barely beating out also Canadian post-modern zombie flick Pontypool, My Winnipeg is a surreal yet familiar dream down a sugar coated road of nostalgia that ends up in a terrible car crash with current reality. It starts off slowly, so hard to grasp at first that I initially wanted to turn away, but stay on for the ride, the crazy train hits heaven soon enough. More of a journal than a documentary, Winnipeg has a home for anyone, Canadian or not. We’ve all “been” to this town before and we all know the lore and locals. It is the story of the city and the people, the lies and tale tales and the truth that doesn’t matter.

Games

Games in the past decade may be the most interesting evolution of all, because unlike the other mediums it was one that matured alongside my own maturing. The beefed up gore-machismo that carried games through the 90′s slowly faded into different things in the same headspace. Turoks and Nukems — hyper-violence and hyper-sex in a gesture of fate’s irony became just as taboo as they always aspired to be, though in this sense only dated them — instead ushered in the new low-culture nesting in the Halos and Modern Warfares, though while those titles are the junk food of video games, they are regardless guilty pleasures. Unlike previous offenders, blockbusters of new hold greater qualities than the hype-men of old. “The Next Generation” was not so much a grand advancement in home entertainment technology, but almost a levelling of the playing field. Graphics, now sharper, crisper, and openly accessible were reprioritized. We came to realize sweet graphics and smooth engines only held so much promise. Immersion, identity and fun would now become the standards, and the trophies of these standards came from both the most and least expected places. I’ll mention the few that still get the most play of my collection.

In what had to be scripted, the following title released the very same week my universities’ strike began. I picked up Fallout 3, and for several days dropped completely off the map.  I had become so infused with my game controller that the few outings I juggled that week, such as chores and food shopping, sizzled in a green font like a quest somewhere in the frames of my thinking. Fallout 3 not only honoured the high held franchise it promised to carry, in my opinion it exceeded them. We the player were given this massive, open world, this wasteland, to carry about in our own designated adventures. There aren’t many other games that I would find myself chattering to my peers and sibling about at the end of days, rambling about each of our completely individual adventures and discoveries.

Back when Grand Theft Auto 3 came out, it opened a can of game mentality that since has yet to be closed. While they call it “sandbox”, for the most part it seems to instead be “try to play like GTA”. Spider-Man 2 was one of the first memorable exceptions to the rule. While it also rolled around in the sandbox, it didn’t have you shamelessly stealing cars and harassing pedestrians. Spider-Man 2 had you play as Spider-Man; Fluidly swooping around the city, stopping crimes both major and minor, and getting so many adrenaline rushes so often it would make an EpiPen seem like a horse drawn carriage in comparison.

I’d hate to mention another movie game but I’d like to think this one lives in a different sect. The Warriors, much like Spider-Man 2, totally nailed the desired experience, but unlike the latter, the task of nailing that aesthetic is far more specific and peculiar. Taking a now thirty year old cult classic, heralded for its balletic cinematography and style thicker than blood was never the obvious choice. Rockstar clearly sat long and hard, studying the hour and a half film, plucking details, sounds and images that most struck a chord with them, then directly paper mache’d them into virtual reality. And like them meditating in the film, the game let you meditate in the world, breathing it in and controlling it all. The execution is so delicious, everything you enjoyed about the movie translated and flowed into the virtual version. It makes me confident that if they were tasked to make a kart racer out of Cinema Paradiso, Rockstar could make it a player’s choice.

Up, the new animated feature from Disney/Pixar, is buoyant, but gets heavy. It’s a cartoon adventure that doesn’t talk down to its audience, child or adult.

The film begins with a young child, Carl, enthralled by newsreels of Charles Muntz, famous adventurer. Carl meets another Muntz fan, Ellie. Carl is silent and reserved, Ellie is active and excited. The two become friends and eventually marry. Their joy comes across clearly, as does Carl’s earnestness as he promises Ellie a trip to South America, just like Muntz.

Of course, life is not always fun. Carl and Ellie discover they cannot have children. They begin saving for a trip to South America, but day-to-day troubles keep them from ever going. At last, Ellie dies, and Carl is left alone, his neighbourhood demolished to make way for new apartments and sushi restaurants.

In, Up pain, both physical and emotional, is real. When Carl strikes a construction worker during an argument, the worker is knocked back and begins to bleed. When Russell tells Carl about how he misses his father, you pity him. It’s not unusual for Disney to pluck your heartstrings, but Up does it an a genuine way, without it feeling forced or mean.

Up does have ups and they’re elating. Carl escapes the city by tying helium-filled balloons to his house, going to fulfil Ellie’s dream of having a house atop Paradise Falls in Venezuela. His triumph over the city, over those that want to put him in a home, is bright and colourful. His balloons project a mess of colour on buildings as his house soars upward. An eager boy scout, Russell, happens to be in his house at the time and comes along for the ride.

Events in Up do not let up. Things do not slow once they’re floating through the sky. Russell and Carl are soon on the ground in South America, being chased by packs of hounds, saving endangered animals, and battling atop a giant blimp. There’s a lot going on around Paradise Falls, and it gets zany.

Up is Pixar’s tenth feature film, but their charm and attention to detail is as fresh and complete as it has ever been. The film is visually and aurally rich. There is a sense of scale: you can sense how high in the air they fly, the distance and size the cliffs they run along. There are, at the same time, many subtle touches: Carl’s stubble grows as the movie goes on, cords fray realistically, and Russell’s merit badges have individual nylon threads in their designs.

Depth and detail are not limited to places and objects. The film conveys emotion with skill, without hitting you over the head. The care with which Carl tends the mementos of Ellie shows how much he loved her. The way he insists on preserving his house, full of Ellie’s trinkets, tying it to his shoulders and dragging it around with him show what a burden his own sentimentality has become. Carl never breaks down and tells you how much he misses Ellie, but you see and feel it.

Similarly successful restraint is shown in the characters. While most talking animals in animated movies are really just funny-looking humans (e.g. Antz, Chicken Little, and Pixar’s own Finding Nemo), the talking dogs in Up are talking dogs. Their lines aren’t insightful or witty, but exactly what you’d expect from dogs. “I have just met you, and I love you.” There is no sassy dog, no brave leader, no young rebel. (It’s very different from the upcoming G-Force.) There is instead a goofy dog that, like a dog, is lovable and easily distracted by a squirrels.

These are examples of how Up is thrilling and affecting, and trusts its audience to follow along. Though something you could enjoy with kids, it should not be mistaken as a childish movie. Up does not treat its audience as children, not shying away from painful events, while still eliciting wonder and fun. There is more than enough to Up to keep you aloft.

Terminator Salvation wants to be a great film, but it has big shoes to fill.  The first two Terminator films were excellent, while the third was mediocre at best. Terminator Salvation aims to right the wrongs of Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, bringing the franchise back to the darker more serious tone of the first two. The film has a fairly solid concept: a post-apocalyptic war against robots. The movie even has some great actors who turn out solid performances and the special effects are good. How could you go wrong? Based on my description, you would think this movie has all the makings of a great summer blockbuster: unfortunately this is simply not the case.

Full review after the break; spoilers to follow.

I really wanted to like Terminator Salvation. I consider myself a fan of the Terminator series and I was skeptical about the involvement of McG, who directed the Charlie’s Angels movies which I dislike with a passion.

All my skepticism about McG went out the window when I saw the second theatrical trailer, it completely sold me on Terminator Salvation. The trailer made the movie look amazing, which is the point of a well made trailer—it also made me realize that I’m a sucker for a well placed Nine Inch Nails tunes in movie trailers (cf. 300).

If the trailer were the movie, I would have taken back everything bad I’ve ever said about McG. However, as I’ve learned recently the trailer is not the movie, and as a result I still have plenty of bad things to say about McG.

Joseph McGinty Nichol—I mean McG—is a competent enough director, but this movie needed a good director. There are so many little things wrong with Terminator Salvation, things that a good director would have corrected during the production.

For starters, the script for the film is simply awful. The film features many talented actors, including Christian Bale, Sam Worthington, Anton Yelchin, Helena Bonham Carter, and even Michael “God Damn” Ironside, but they are given very little to work with. No matter how talented an actor is they need good material to shine, the screenplay for a film really is half the battle.

The actors try, they really do. Christian Bale is a decent actor, but he’s alternately yelling at anyone and anything in sight or growling Dark Knight-style in every other scene. Anton Yelchin was really good as a young version of Kyle Reese, he makes the role played by Michael Biehn in the original very much his own. Bryce Howard is good in the few scenes she’s in, but has no time to develop her character, she’s a non-presence in the movie. Michael Ironside brings the dour demeanour he’s famous for, but his role as the Resistance leader is shallow and underdeveloped. Helena Bonham Carter is utterly wasted, her character’s entire purpose is to relay exposition to the audience. Common’s laughable delivery of the three lines he has was unfortunate. I think the musician should stick to what he does best.

Often the actors’ experience and competence manages to shine though the terrible script, but this doesn’t happen enough. Speaking of actors and their performances in relation to the script, I must mention Sam Worthington and Moon Bloodgood, who are arguably the main characters of the film.

Sam Worthington is going to be a big star, his performance almost makes Terminator Salvation worth seeing. The fact that he can generate sympathy for his character, that Marcus Wright is a likable character at all is simply amazing. Worthington is good in the film, but he’s given literally some of the worst lines I have ever heard in a major Hollywood picture. Worthington’s character could have been far more nuanced and interesting, but not enough time is spent with him for you to ever really care.

His relationship with Moon Bloodgood’s character is painful to watch.  The dialogue between the two is stifled by one awful line after another. Where Worthington can get away with it, Bloodgood often cannot: she’s simply not as good an actor.

One of the major problems I had with the film is that one of the central plot points of the movie is exposed completely and absolutely by the trailer and all of the associated marketing for the movie. Marcus Wright (Worthington), is a cyborg who doesn’t know he’s a cyborg for most of the movie.

Almost the entire first hour of the movie involves the characters and the audience trying to figure out who Marcus really is and what his motives are. As a result half the movie feels like a waste of time as the story goes through the motions of revealing he’s a cyborg. The big reveal, that holy-shit-he’s-a-robot moment, is utterly ruined for most people because they already knew the guy was a cyborg.

Speaking of cyborgs though, the special effects were great. The movie is dedicated to the memory of the late, great effects genius Stan Winston, and they don’t let him down. There is a nice balance of practical and computer generated effects, and they are blended together very well. The terminators themselves looked amazing and believable, not shiny and fake like some prior iterations. The previous Terminator film relied too heavily on CGI, if there is one good thing I can say about McG, it’s that I’m glad he took the effects back to basics.

The much talked about computer generated cameo by everyone’s favourite Austrian muscle man worked surprisingly well. I’m sure it was a difficult effect to pull off, but using practical and computer effects techniques in conjunction really sold it for me.

Effects-wise I really liked the film, but the action overpowers the movie. Gunfire and explosions drown out the characters and the story. Maybe McG realized that the script was absolute shite, and decided that if he had enough to explosions in the film people wouldn’t notice. Also, it wouldn’t be a McG movie without a character riding a dirt bike and going off a jump at some point… just saying.

Terminator Salvation really is a mess of a movie. Most people are just going to go see for the action and effects, which are in no short supply. If that’s all you want, then I highly recommend the movie.

But there is so much wasted potential, the film just strikes me as one giant lost opportunity. The movie doesn’t have heart, something that made the original Terminator and Terminator 2 so great. Salvation is a pale imitation, when it could have been so much more.

Maybe it will be more, maybe there is a good movie to be salvaged from Terminator Salvation. McG claims to have cut out over 40 minutes of footage. I’m sure those scenes he cut were solely devoted to character development, since this version of Terminator Salvation misses them. With the cut footage in mind I might give Terminator Salvation another chance, I’ll wait for a Director’s Cut on Blu-Ray. For now I’ll just call the movie Terminator Salvagable, in hopes that the film can indeed be salvaged.

Zeno Clash is a first-person beat ‘em up game from Chilean ACE Team. It’s a wonderful game world and a satisfying simulation of hand-to-hand (foot-to-face, club-to-head) fighting. Though briefer and more challenging than many high-quality first-person games, it’s a lot of fun to play through, and, in my opinion, worth your while.

You play as Ghat, a man that has just murdered his Father-Mother, a chicken-legged androgyne that carries its baby children in its coat pockets. You’re pursued by your siblings, eager to avenge the death of their parent, and are followed by Deadra, your female companion and backup. As you escape Father-Mother’s stronghold, Ghat tells Deadra about how he came to kill his parent. These flashbacks are playable episodes, and alternate with your escape with Deadra.

The full review is available below the break.

The locations you play through are beautiful: the designs, architecture, and textures are excellent and varied. In the course of the game, you’ll hunt rabbits in the desert under building-sized animals, ride a gondola down a moonlit river that’s set in something like a curled spinal cord, and kick venomous crabs under a beached whale in a beach cove. The world, called Zenozoik, is a colourful fantasy land, a cross of Dr. Seuss and Mad Max, full of demented primitive-to-medieval characters and straight-up monsters.

The characters you’ll encounter are unique and bizarre, particularly the Corwids, a group of amoral lunatics that dance around, head butt trees, and sometimes eat each other. The creatures you’ll face in Zenozoik range from your high-kicking, bamboo-hat–wearing sister to a pair of hairless Alf-alikes in bondage gear.

The majority of the game is spent in closed arenas beating up three to four opponents until they’re unable to fight back. What Mirror’s Edge is to platformers (see Mirror’s Edge 2D), Zeno Clash is to beat ‘em ups: a first-person take on a tried game mechanic.

Zeno Clash provides some very convincing first-person fisticuffs. Your punches land on opponents’ faces with meaty thumps, they stagger back cross-eyed with pain, or fall to the ground where you can kick them as they struggle to get back up. The brawling feels weighty and real. It’s satisfying to land a combo in a desperate fight, or to block and dodge an opponent’s attack to then kick them in the stomach.

The game also includes pistol-, crossbow-, and rifle-like weapons. These weapons are a little clumsy and slow to reload. They’re useful when fighting enemies at a distance, but will be knocked from your hands in close combat. Foes will pick them up and fire at you while you’re fighting, so you have to keep moving and shifting your focus to avoid being sniped. As in Mirror’s Edge, you can’t expect to survive by coming in with guns blazing.

Zeno Clash ain’t easy—it doesn’t even have an easy setting. When you first run the game, it’s set to a high difficulty setting; the lowest is “normal,” which provides a decent challenge. Fortunately, I didn’t experience any fight or section that I couldn’t beat after a few tries. It’s not easy, but it’s also not frustrating.

It also doesn’t outlast its welcome. The single-player campaign lasts just about four hours, and it stays fresh throughout. (The game includes a challenge mode which sets you against a long line of enemies.) Though you’ll face certain enemies multiple times, you’ll never have to backtrack or go through any tired corridors or endless woods.

Zeno Clash is a very good looking game, not because of its technology, but because of its creators’ imagination and skill. The setting is anything but the dark, grey and brown sci-fi ruins of Killzone 2, Gears of War, or Dead Space. Not only that, it plays well too, creating a sense not only of place, but of physical sensation. The fighting game is great, the attacks feel solid and real. Zeno Clash is original and enjoyable.

Zeno Clash is available on Steam for 20 USD (approximately 24 CAD).

As a life long Trekkie, I went into the new J.J. Abrams Trek reboot/sequel with my expectations set to stun—fearing that if I set them to kill I would end up vapourizing myself… whatever that means.  Phaser analogy aside, I knew that J.J Abrams’ vision of Star Trek would be different from that of its original creator Gene Roddenberry. This Star Trek isn’t Roddenberry’s Star Trek; it is a familiar and yet altogether different beast. Many of Roddenberry’s hallmarks remain intact and for better or worse Abrams makes Trek his own with this film. Abrams’ Star Trek is cool, it’s sleek and it’s shiny, but I don’t know if that was what Star Trek was ever about.

Full review after the break. Possible spoilers to follow.

Much of the plot of the new Star Trek film centres around time travel and alternate universes.  Time travel and Star Trek go together like bread and butter. Every Star Trek TV series and three of the previous Trek films featured plots that involved time travel as part of their stories.

Events in the classic Star Trek universe (the universe that every series and film thus far have taken place in) lead to a change in the timeline right before the birth of James T. Kirk. This change in the time-line means that everything in this new Star Trek universe can and will be different. The characters remain the same but the events that shape their lives are much different. This gave the creators of the film carte blanche to play with the characters in the universe, without having to deal with almost 50 years of established Trek canon.

Seeing Leonard Nimoy reprise his role as Spock was a welcome inclusion for me. I felt that Nimoy’s involvement in the film lent it an air of legitimacy that would not otherwise have existed if the film were just a straight reboot of the franchise.

Stepping.  Into the shoes… of.  Acharacterlike, Captain Kirk is no… small task; To follow in the footsteps of William Shatner is an even greater task. Given the expectations piled upon Chris Pine, he really succeeded in capturing the essence of Kirk: the charm, the confidence, and the arrogance. Pine’s performance wasn’t an impersonation of Shatner’s Kirk (or rather Shatner) he really made Kirk his own.

As for Spock, gone is the gravelly detachment of Leonard Nimoy (although his Spock is in the movie), Zachary Quinto‘s take on Spock was an very interesting portrayal. Something was lacking from Quinto’s Spock in the film. He nailed the look of the character, but just didn’t have the same gravitas as Nimoy. This Spock is meant to be a younger more emotionally fragile version of the character, so maybe this was a conscious choice on Quinto’s part.

Karl Urban was spot on as Leonard “Bones” McCoy, but at the same time really made me miss DeForest Kelley. Eric Bana is solid as the Romulan villain Nero, a man with nothing to lose and the tools to exact terrible vengeance.

The rest of the cast is great, but they’re just not given enough time to shine. Undoubtedly, there will be plenty of time for them to develop in the sequels. I should also note that the movie also features one of the most unlikely romantic pairing of classic Star Trek characters… and no it’s not Sulu and Chekov.

From the short skirts and green Orion girls, right down to the way the characters act, it looks like the Trek we know. However, in many ways the film feels more like a caricature of the original 1960′s Star Trek series, a shallow and shiny imitation.

Familiar catch phrases like “Damn it Jim!” and gags like the cannon fodder Red Shirts felt like they were being checked off a Trekkie’s list of must haves for the movie. Star Trek tries to be one part nostalgic fan service and another part slick Hollywood blockbuster.

There is no question that the movie is huge in scope and scale, they spent a lot of money on this movie and you can tell: the film looks amazing. The big budget and effects may be enough to draw people into the theatres to see Star Trek, but I have a feeling it may put off some hardcore Trekkies.

Save for the politicking of the last three seasons of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, it was the first time that the world of Star Trek felt like a living breathing universe to me.  Gone is the ridiculous techno-babble that nearly sank Star Trek: The Next Generation at times, you don’t have to know what an inverse tachyon pulse is to enjoy this movie.

Star Trek has been a part of pop-culture for nearly 50 years, even those people who’ve never seen a single episode of the original series have a vague conception about what Star Trek is. I probably bring too much Trekkie baggage to the film, and as a result I didn’t enjoy it as much as I should have.

If you love Trek, you’ll like something about this movie, but you’ll probably find it lacking in some ways. Make no mistake Star Trek is an entertaining movie; it may even be a good movie, I’m just not sure it was a good Star Trek movie.

Behold the might of Jeff’s Venture Bros. Season 3 DVD review!

Bringing back the Anti-Gravity scale; things will be rated out of 1 to 5 G‘s!

The Good
The Venture Bros. is incredibly well written and layered. It stands up to multiple viewings and every episode has commentary.

The Meh
While we have deleted scenes, they are merely mashed together storyboards.

The Bad
No other features beyond commentary and storyboards. I love this show and its creative team, but damn it, throw me another studio tour or how to draw Rusty Venture video!

Full Video Review after the jump.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Feel free to add your thoughts about Venture Bros. Season 3.