First, let’s start off with the story. The boys of Bravo Company are back and bad to the bone, although at the start of the game you’re not sure since the game goes back to WWII to setup the plot. As the boys of B you’re off to stop the Scalar Weapon, which threatens national security. Along the way you fight through jungles, deserts and snowy mountains before you can get home and enjoy a little R&R (at least that’s what you think). The story is much better than the first game though it seems to have some pacing issues due to cutscenes constantly pulling you out of the action every few minutes. The story also lacks that epic feel even though the dust and the Indiana Jones type music tries hard to give you that experience; but in the end, it just winds up coming short. The story however is not without merit. It is greatly enhanced by the game designers decision to channel your progression in a more linear fashion while still maintaining that open world scale of allowing freedom of movement.

As far as the single player game itself, there is an abundance to appreciate though the campaign itself is over within 6 to 8 hours depending on your style of play. Bad Company 2 certainly demonstrates how destructible objects can not only change your tactical approach to a mission, but also increase your level of fun as well. Vehicles are also a huge part of the game and are extremely entertaining in every aspect of the single player campaign. The other improvement to this sequel is that missions don’t feel as repetitive. Nevertheless, mission-types did not give me enough incentive to change my two weapons of choice.

The characters in the single player game are well acted and feature humor that doesn’t get on your nerves like the last game did at times.  Your characters will also make cracks that are clearly aimed at Modern Warfare 2 – things like snowmobiles are for sissies and heartbeat sensors on weapons. However, while your in-game squad mates are full of personality, your in-game enemies severely lack it (even the main antagonist). They also lack variation in that they all pretty much look the same throughout the game. Your squad mates aren’t without fault though. In fact, they seem to have some A.I. issues in that, unless they are moving to the next staging area, they will wait on you and you alone to engage the enemy and to trip trigger points, which at times seem too artificial. My squad also appeared like they were occasionally firing rubber bullets at the enemy since their barrage of shots didn’t seem to match my one or two shots that finally brought an enemy down. Speaking of the enemies, as the game progressed, it was like the enemy soldiers were only firing at me. My squad could literally be in front of me and out in the open and I could be behind cover; and yet the enemy’s rounds were only directed at me. It’s like the enemy’s A.I. couldn’t see my team. This doesn’t happen throughout the game just enough to make you feel like you’re being picked on. Another issue I had with enemy A.I. is the fact that they could see you through all the dust and debris but you couldn’t see them. And no, they we’re not using thermal scopes or goggles.

David Copperfield Eat Your Heart Out!

Technically, Bad Company 2 is overall pretty impressive though not perfect. For example, while outdoor environments look amazingly detailed with realistic lighting, indoor environments are bland and boring for the most part. Weapons handle well and appear more responsive than the demo; and also include better hit-detection and feedback. Having said that, I experienced moments where my rounds did not hit my intended targets, but instead bounced off some apparent invisible barrier. The game also suffers from a few other technical issues like bodies floating in midair and parts of characters going through objects in the game like walls. Also, from a technical standpoint, I am not sure why certain objects in the game can’t be destroyed like wooden crates. One last technical thing – frame rate and network connectivity all seem good.

Why Won't You Die?

The best part of Bad Company 2 (BC2) however, has to be the online multiplayer game. Unlike Modern Warfare 2, BC2 not only offers a wide range of driving and flying vehicles, but it’s also a much more tactically shooter requiring strategy and teamwork. The game also offers enough multiplayer modes to fit whatever fancies you have. In addition, maps are well layout as they are large – maybe a little too large at times, especially for deathmatch. But if you love playing sniper, then you’ll love the multiplayer maps of Bad Company 2. Sniper is just one class a player can choose from, ranging from your typical soldier, to combat engineer, to field medic and to scout (sniper). Other than points and rewards, players can also customize their multiplayer character’s load out (field kit) offering over 15,000 possible kit combinations between the various weapons and gadgets.

All in all, Bad Company 2 is a huge success over its predecessor. Though its single player campaign is much better than before, it is still not as epic as Modern Warfare 2. Having said that, BC2’s multiplayer can stand on its own, giving players an incredibly experience only a Battlefield game can offer.  I for one am glad for the changes and additions DICE has made to the game. I am also thankful to have a new multiplayer game to play online, especially since I am getting a little tired of the same old maps in you know what. Now if I can only learn to fly that darn helicopter.

The plot is about high school student Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) who discovers after an attack by his substitute teacher looking for Zeus’ stolen lightning bolt that the gods of Olympus are real and that his dad is Poseidon himself. Percy is then hurried away by Grover (Brandon T. Jackson) his guardian satyr friend in disguise and mother Sally (Catherine Keener) who take him to Camp Half-Blood – a training camp for demigods like Percy. It is here that he learns about his power and is joined by Annabeth Chase (Alexandra Daddario) to rescue his mother from Hades and solve the mystery of the true lightning bolt thief.

While the overall plot is grounded in Rick Riordan’s book, it also takes some huge steps away from it as well in terms of Percy’s age, where they go and why the lightning bolt is stolen in the first place, which only reinforced my feeling that this movie was made to order with tweens in mind. Which is why I am a little bit surprised about some of the sexually suggestive humor. Not to mention the experience these apparent high school students had in Las Vegas, which for me was a real stretch. In addition, some of the settings in the movie made me think that they were also stretched in terms of budget. Settings such as Camp Half-Blood just didn’t seem to convey the type of mythical prowess you’d expect in a film of this nature.

Speaking of the film, there were definitely some fun filled action moments. But I personally found the overall film lacking in substance in regards to its characters. In spite of the actors and actresses good performances, you never really got to know the characters themselves or sense the depth of urgency as to what a war of the gods would really mean for them personally. This is unlike the Sorcerer’s Stone (Philosopher’s Stone), which allowed audiences a chance to understand who Harry Potter is as a person, what his struggles were and what he wanted out of life. I guess I just never felt connected to the characters or cared if they succeeded or not. And that brings up another issue about characters – what about the mythical figures themselves – don’t these classical characters deserve fair treatment? I mean, sure the movie shows us the sibling rivalry and selfish nature of the gods, and treats us to some of the legendary figures such as Medusa, but never do we get a real sense of their power and personality other than, “Oh yeah they’re real.”

If I had to sum up my experience with Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, it would be this: it was like watching a high budget made-for-TV movie from Disney – a fun fantasy film mixed with some special effects – all in the hopes that tweens will beg their parents to let them watch it and buy the DVD.

Magic Jack's FAQ - Notice the Last Time this was Updated - 3/19/09

That’s when I decided to investigate Ooma. I had already heard of them a while back when they first came out, yet at that time, I wasn’t ready to make the switch. But now with my unfulfilled experience with Magic Jack, I feverishly began researching which product offered the best Voice over IP (VoIP) solution. My conclusion after looking at similar products like Vonage was that, Ooma not only offered the best features and quality, but it also came with no monthly bill (unless you wanted their Premier features – more on that later).  Plus, unlike Magic Jack, the Ooma Telo is a standalone unit. Meaning, it doesn’t need to be plugged into a computer to operate.

So I once again headed to my local Best Buy where I returned Magic Jack for store credit, which I then applied to the purchase of my Ooma Telo. The price is the same whether you buy it locally or online, coming in at $249.99.  Once at home, I began to setup my Ooma Telo. The first step, after unpacking the unit, its included Ethernet and phone cable, and ac adapter, is the activation of the unit online, which requires you to enter a code located under the actual device. This basically registers your device, sets up your number and account, and tells 911 your address.  Once this is done, you’re now ready to connect your Ooma to your home network. The instructions for doing this are pretty straightforward and I found the overall setup to be pretty simple. Ooma recommends running your Internet connection from your modem to their Telo device and then to your router to optimize its quality, though some have just run it from their router and saw no apparent affect. The advantage of setting it up this way is that, when your Internet goes down for whatever reason, you’re not waiting for your Ooma Telo to bootup before you can get online again.

Once your Ooma is activated and setup, you can proceed to add the option of porting your existing phone number. The process takes 3-4 weeks and you have the option of being assigned a temporary number in the meantime. However, in my experience, it took only about two and a half weeks. Not to mention, Ooma kept me up-to-date on the whole process via regular emails. It costs a one-time fee of $39.99 unless you chose to opt for Premier upfront (a $9.99 monthly fee), which then gives you the choice of free porting or a free Telo handset (a $49.00 value). Overall, my experience with Ooma has been satisfying. The call quality is excellent (same or better than my former digital service) and the included free features of Call-Waiting and Caller-ID work. I also don’t miss my monthly phone bill, which for me, is a savings of about $600 a year!

Now that I am done with my hype, let me offer some of minor gripes. First off, while Ooma Premier is reasonably priced and comes with a free 60-day trial when you activate your device; at the time I got my Telo, their handsets were not available. So I could not fully experience all the benefits that Premier offers, since you have to have the Telo handset to enjoy things like their Instant Second Line. With that said, I think Ooma should have extended their free trial period until their handset came out. When I asked Ooma to do this for me they said they would. But, since I purchased my Telo from Best Buy, I would have to contact them. Yeah right. Have you ever tried to call Best Buy and ask for something? So in the end, I just used my existing wireless phone system.

My second minor gripe is with the Caller-ID feature. While I can see whose calling on my existing non-Telo handset display, I could not see the name and the number of the person trying to call-in. All I heard was the familiar “beep” indicating that I had another call, but that was it. It seems that if you want Caller-ID for your Call-Waiting calls, you have to have the Ooma Telo handset and be a Premier subscriber. I can’t 100% confirmed this, since I haven’t bought their handset yet, but reading their documentation, this seems right. Once I do purchase a Telo handset, I will try to either update this review or post another article. Perhaps the folks at Ooma can hook me up? I will also update this post to discuss all the cool features of Premier if I ever signup for it. But since my whole point in buying Ooma was to avoid having a monthly phone bill, that’s probably not likely to happen for a while.

My third gripe deals with its construction and design. While aesthetically the Ooma Telo is very easy on the eyes with its sleek and modern design, I personally wonder if they should have included a display for programming and things like Caller-ID. I know their handsets have one (who knows maybe this was their way of coaxing you into buying one), but I am used to a wireless phone system with a display on its central hub. To be fair, not having one has not interfered or impeded my use of the Telo. Though the buttons aren’t raised, they are touch-based and very well lit. The only annoying thing about the Telo is with its AC adapter, which seems to easily become unplugged when you simply move the unit.

My fourth and final gripe is with the limited number of handsets you can have per Telo. Currently you can only have a maximum number of four Telo handsets. While this maybe more than adequate for some, there are those with large homes and detached garages who may need more. I am not sure why there is a limitation, but who knows, perhaps a future software update could allow for the addition of more handsets.

Bottom-line: I realize there are other Internet solutions out there, like Skype for example. But for me, Ooma allowed me to keep my existing phone system, keep my existing home phone number, keep my computer out of it, and keep landline quality – all while dumping my monthly phone bill with no contract to boot. So if you have a high-speed Internet connection and you want a home phone without increasing bills, I highly recommend the Ooma Telo.

Soap Opera on the Big Screen
Okay, I’ll admit it – I’ve never read any of the Twilight books. Why? Is it because I don’t love vampire stories? Wrong O! I’ve been reading stuff about vampires since I first started reading as a kid. On top of which I’ve also seen almost every blood-sucking flick and show as well, including the Twilight films. So why haven’t I read the book? In short, I am really busy and I don’t have a lot of time to read fiction. In honesty, they seem more geared towards the ladies, like some Harlequin romance novel. So now that I have watched the latest Twilight film, I believe my suspicions are correct – the Twilight films are nothing more than “Soap Opera on the Big Screen.” And just as daytime soaps are popular for their steamy romance and lovers’ spats, so are these films. In other words, the movies are more about romance than they are about vampires.

Having said that, I really thought there were a few really cool vampire moments in the film. Yet I still struggled to stay awake during most of the film. Of course, anytime I started to drift asleep, adult women and teen-age girls panting and screaming over some actor taking his shirt off or appearing topless immediately wakened me. Don’t get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with films appealing to a certain gender. I can think of plenty of films I saw in the theater where guys and teen-age boys reacted the same to some sexy actress. However, I guess that’s my real gripe with “Twilight: New Moon.” To be frank, there is nothing of real substance here. The only engaging part of the story is its trite plotline of “Will the boy get the girl?” Hear me out, as a guy who loves a good romantic flick, some of my favorite movies have this plotline (e.g., “Sleepless in Seattle, and “While You Were Sleeping”). Yet, those movies also had other story elements that made the movie great.

I guess another boring bit about the movie is its characters. For example, the character of Bella can be summarized like this: I love you, don’t leave me, and please make me a vampire. The other two lead actors can also be summarized in similar fashion: I love you, I promise not to leave, and maybe I will make you a vampire/werewolf wife.  To that, Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, and Taylor Lautner do an excellent job playing their parts. I don’t think they could have gotten a better cast to match these roles. Yet despite their talents, there is nothing new under the moon here in terms of complex characters.

Another thing that put me off was the fact that there wasn’t enough action in this movie. Who knows, maybe it’s because I am a guy who likes red meat. I thought the werewolf action-scenes were well done, but there could have been more moments that moved us beyond just sappy romance and depression. Let’s face it – there was a huge amount of the movie dedicated to showing us scenes with Bella basically pouting in pain. I understand the director needed to make the audience feel her loneliness and isolation, but I think that could have been accomplished in a shorter time span, thereby allowing more action on the screen. Heck, I would have settled for just some more blood and gore. I know that may sound like typical vampire stuff, but who cares; it would have at least kept my eyelids from drooping repeatedly.

All in all, those who have read the Twilight books have described “New Moon” as the worse in the series – a worse yet necessary step in moving the story forward. Since I have not read any of the books, I am going to have to assume that’s true based on my boring experience with this film. Here’s hoping the third Twilight movie is more than just some soap opera and that it will finally offer us vampire fans something to thirst after.

What makes this movie so amazing is not just the well-written screenplay, but also the acting accompanying it, which is not only superb but also heartfelt. I have seen Sandra Bullock in many roles but this has to be one of her finest performances. She truly convinces you that she’s a tough opinionated southern bell. Having spent some time with people from Tennessee, I found her accent authentic and her mannerisms genuine. I am not sure I like her as a blonde, but she looked gorgeous in this role as a mother, wife and businesswoman. Playing Michael Oher is Quinton Aaron, an actor I am not too familiar with until now. Though his character in the movie spoke very little, his performance masterfully embraced the nuance and spirit of Michael Oher. There were many other outstanding performances. But the one that constantly made me smile was the performance of Jae Head who played S.J. – Michael’s adopted brother, friend, and coach. Seeing his character on the screen made me wish there were more kids out there like S.J.

As far as the overall story goes, I am not sure if writer/director John Lee Hancock was trying to imply multiple meanings within the story through the use of its title, but here’s what I see. First, there is the blind side of a quarterback in which a left tackle, like Michael Oher, would guard. Second, “The Blind Side” could also mean how Michael Oher was blind-sided by the overwhelming generosity and love the Tuohy’s gave him. And lastly, “The Blind Side” could also imply how Michael Oher blinded his eyes by covering them as a child growing up, to protect himself from seeing his mother do some horrible things. So he protects the quarterback, he protects his new family, and ultimately he protects himself from allowing the evils of the world from robbing him of his dream.

Bottom-line, there are many other merits this movie has, but for me, it ultimately was about the story. If you’re looking for a potentially life-changing movie – look no further. “The Blind Side” will not only challenge your complacency in helping others less fortunate, it will also challenge your complacency in reaching your full potential both personally and professionally. I highly recommend this movie to all who breathe.

Uh Oh, It’s Magic, You Know?
When Apple first showed off their Magic Mouse to the world on October 20, 2009, I like most geeks who love Apple products, couldn’t wait to get my techie hands on it. In fact, as soon as I was able to, I preordered one from Amazon.com since they promised I’d get it day one. As I eagerly waited, I got more and more excited to start using this mouse. So excited that I took my wireless Mighty Mouse and began pretending it had all the cool new multi-touch features: I two-fingered swiped left and right and even imagined what scrolling would be like on a smooth flat surface versus my little trackball that usually chocked on dust.

Then the day came. UPS knocked on my front door and handed me a very small box. Opening the box I expected to find the same sleek packaging most Apple products come in; yet instead, I was met with a clear plastic case that held the Magic Mouse in so tightly – I had to pretty much pry it out of its container. Feeling somewhat cheated out my normal Apple unpacking, I went ahead and placed the mouse on my desk and immediately rested my right hand on it. And that’s when it happened. That’s when I suddenly realized that something was very wrong because I didn’t feel the magic. Why? Because ergonomically, it seemed more designed for a flat-handed robot, rather than a human hand that naturally rest in a palm-like position. That’s when I started thinking that Apple should have called their new mouse: “Mech-Mouse!”

The Positives

Now before I continue my rant, let me just offer some positive comments in this review. First off, as far as the Magic Mouse being a multi-touch mouse – it succeeds. Two-finger swiping works like a charm with a very similar experience as swiping on my MacBook Pro’s trackpad. My favorite though has to be the scrolling, especially scrolling with momentum. Of all the new features, this one alone, felt magical in my hands. It should also be noted that the standard single click functioned as normal. And the two-button click worked even better than it does on the Mighty Mouse, which sometimes seems finicky as to where your second finger has to be placed.

Secondly, another positive aspect of the Magic Mouse comes in both its aesthetics and its overall feel. Looking at this thing, you’d think you were either looking at a piece of art or something from the future. Of course, this is not the first Apple product that carries this type of aura, nor will it be the last. The folks in Cupertino appear to have a knack for making the beautiful. But not only does the Magic Mouse look good, it feels good. Other than my iPhone, this is the first time I held the surface of a mouse against my face and actually enjoyed it. Don’t get any ideas here – I am not a freak. I am only trying to make the point that this thing is really smooth to the touch. So much so, you just want to rub it.

Last positive comment (if you’re still with me and not with your mind in the gutter) has to do with its tracking and movement. The Magic Mouse is very fluid and moves across the screen like it’s gliding on air. So when Apple boasts that the “Magic Mouse uses powerful laser tracking that’s far more sensitive and responsive on more surfaces than traditional optical tracking” – man, they are not lying because it’s so true. To get the same responsiveness, you’d have to buy a Razer gaming mouse.

The Negatives

Okay, now that I’ve gotten the nice comments out of the way, let me move on to the not-so-nice ones, which in my opinion, out weigh what works with the Magic Mouse. I’ve already been candid about the ergonomics of the mouse, but I need to expound on this some more, because it’s like the design-engineers at Apple put priority on form versus function. Frankly, this blows my mind because no matter how many features a mouse has and no matter how well those features work – if the mouse does not feel comfortable to hold and move in your hand – you’ve failed at the most important aspect of any good mouse!

I mean, who knows, perhaps the design-engineers at Apple have iPhone fever – where they are so emblazoned with all the accolades they’ve gotten over its multi-touch features – they forgot they were actually designing a mouse. Come to think about it, just because the iPhone and iTouch are flat, does that mean every new Apple handheld device needs to be? In fact, the Magic Mouse is so flat, it’s painfully uncomfortable to use for long periods of time. For one thing, you can’t just rest your hand on it. The only way you can sort of rest your hand on it, is to unnaturally flatten your hand out with your fingers spread apart. On top of which, as fluid as the tracking is with the Magic Mouse, you have to actually grip the mouse tightly with your thumb and ring-finger to just move it around. To make matters worse, because the Magic Mouse is so light, it feels like it’s going to fly right out of your hand when your moving it on your desk.

Poor Ergonomic Design - Notice the Huge Gap

Better Ergonomics with the Mighty Mouse

To add insult to injury, although swiping and clicking on the Magic Mouse works well, the overall shape and design of the mouse (in effect) work against these features. Let me explain. I’ll start with the simple task of clicking. Because the mouse is shaped more like a rectangle than an oval, your pointer-finger is positioned at the middle of the mouse.

This maybe okay if you don’t typically enable Secondary Click in the System Preferences. However, for those of us who do have this enabled, when it comes time to use the Magic Mouse as a two-click mouse, you have to awkwardly shift your pointer-finger and your middle finger together, just to get your fingers in position to make the right-click. This not only feels weird, it also becomes tedious and physically unpleasant over time.  As far as swiping goes, while it works great, the problem comes when you want to actually move your mouse and swipe at the same time. Again, because of its rectangular shape and flat design, you pretty much have to keep the Magic Mouse in a stationary position to swipe left and right. This in my opinion renders this feature useless. I’d rather swipe on my trackpad since I can easily move the cursor around as well. In fact, it’s when I swipe on my Magic Mouse that I feel as if Apple was trying too hard to give users an iPhone/iTouch experience on a mouse.

The only other criticism I can level at the Magic Mouse is the fact that it lacks two other buttons that its predecessor had, that being, the scroll ball button and the side buttons. I can understand not being able to have something like the scroll ball button, but Apple could have easily added side buttons. Of course, since you have to pretty much apply pressure to the sides to even hold onto this mouse, I guess side buttons wouldn’t work here either.

Bottom-line, after using the Magic Mouse and wanting to love it, I went back to my wireless Mighty Mouse and thought very seriously about getting a Logitech mouse for my Mac. The sad thing is, I think Apple could have easily kept a similar design/shape of the Mighty Mouse (minus the trackball), while adding these multi-touch features to where they could have quite possibly ended up with a great, if not, pretty innovative mouse.