Is it more accurate to say that M. Night Shyamalan is a polarizing cinematic figure, or that he is just widely maligned? The director has gone from rising star to whipping boy to laughing stock in what feels like such a short time span, a popular film career that has gone on for not even 15 years. The promise of his early films such as The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable seems like a distant memory, and today his name evokes—despite rather consistent box office success—almost uniform critical derision.

How did this fall from grace happen? It baffles me. The Sixth Sense is kind of an undeniable classic, so ingrained in the cultural psyche that its famous twist and catchphrase are etched in Hollywood history. Unbreakable, which came out a year after the resounding success on Sixth Sense, may be an even stronger and more resonant film despite its less iconic status. The decline was relatively gradual, I suppose. Signs showed signs of structural weakness. The Village had a decent foundation but was riddled with cracks and flaws. Lady in the Water and The Happening signaled nothing short of an absolute implosion. They were so bad that I haven’t even been able to bring myself to watch The Last Airbender because seriously guys like I just can’t even right now.

After Earth is the latest Shyamalan enterprise. Is there hope for it? Who knows. I don’t like to speculate on such things. What I do know is that if anyone is due for a comeback, it’s our old pal M. Night. Here are 5 glimmers of hope from his previous films to keep us optimistic about the dawn of a new day for M. Night Shyamalan.

Continue reading on the next page…

Thanks for reading We Got This Covered

The increasingly monstrous box office receipts tell a crystal clear story of commercial success, but when it comes to the Fast & Furious movies, the critical community has been slow to recognize something equally certain: That against all odds, this series has stealthily matured into one of the very best action blockbuster franchises out there. No joking. No irony. No exaggeration. When it comes to sheer entertainment – energetic, engaging, and filled with more adrenaline that the human body should be capable of processing – very few ongoing film series, if any, do it better, and the latest installment, Fast & Furious 6 – or just Furious 6, as it is actually written in the film and will henceforth be referred to – is a stunningly crafted, unexpectedly poignant, and above all else, ridiculously fun monument to this truth.

What surprises me most about this sixth entry is how effectively it is able to build upon everything that has come before, remaining perfectly open and welcome to newcomers while offering long-time fans of the franchise plenty of satisfying pay-offs and character resolutions that go well beyond mere ‘callbacks.’ This is not the final Fast & Furious film – a seventh is set to hit screens a little over a year from now – but apart from one intense, gauntlet-throwing mid-credits scene, it very well could be, and would be as grand and emotionally fulfilling a finale as fans could hope for. That speaks not only to everything director Justin Lin and company do right here, but to what a rich and solid foundation the films have built at this point. There have been qualitative ups and downs since the franchise’s inception back in 2001, no doubt about it, yet when I recently re-watched the films to prepare for this latest entry, I was struck not only by how consistently thrilling the action and effects have been, but what sharp and appealing characterization lies at the core of the series’ creative success.

That is the foundation for any great action film, after all, for without a solid story and memorable, developing characters, the set pieces themselves are meaningless. 2011’s Fast Five found the perfect balance between plot, ensemble, and action, and Furious 6 furthers that clear and invigorating grasp of genre fundamentals to tremendous effect. I understand the snobbish critical impulse to dismiss Furious 6 as ‘empty’ entertainment, tacitly acknowledging the film’s technical proficiency while ignoring or belittling its narrative and characters – believe me, there will hear plenty of critics saying just this – but what Furious 6 accomplishes is valuable, and the experience as a whole is anything but soulless. Even ignoring that producing truly satisfying and consistently astonishing cinematic thrills is no easy feat – just look at the number of flaccid Hollywood action films that come out dead on arrival every single year – Furious 6 has a strong beating heart beyond the realm of explosions and car crashes, boasting a clear and earnest love for its characters and a story tailor-made to organically challenge the film’s central figures.

No time is wasted getting the plot underway, as federal agent Luke Hobbes – Dwayne Johnson, a true fan favorite despite being introduced only one film prior – quickly reaches out to fugitive speed-guru Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) after a small terrorist organization of highly skilled drivers, using their talents to steal parts for a device capable of blacking out military intelligence services, pushes him to the point of desperation. The hook? Dom’s seemingly deceased girlfriend, Lettie (Michelle Rodriguez), has miraculously been seen riding with this crew. Now, Dom must call his own crew back together, not only so they may gain federal pardons for their services, but to bring Lettie back and put their eclectic, extended family back together once and for all.

This is not groundbreaking narrative territory, of course, but by focusing on issues important to the characters, the story hits all the right notes. ‘Family’ has always been a buzzword in these films, treated earnestly and explored honestly, and six films in, a family is exactly what this ensemble has become. Stars Vin Diesel and Paul Walker especially have their characters down pat, flawlessly embodying not only the physicality of their parts, but projecting a real, honest chemistry and interacting with meaningful pathos. They are giving damn good performances –  and have been for quite some time, whether we care to admit it or not – as is Dwayne Johnson, who simply could not be having more fun as he relishes each opportunity for a brutal beat-down or a cheesy one-liner. The supporting players, too, are tremendous fun to watch; Tyrese Gibson, Chris Bridges, Sung Kang, and all the rest have developed into an unlikely but extremely charming group of rogues, and Furious 6 consistently capitalizes on everything its cast has to offer. Meanwhile, newcomers like Gina Carano or villain Luke Evans – the first effective baddie this series has ever had – fit the franchise like a glove, and it is a real joy to see the cast grow film by film.

Because we like and care for these characters, it is smart to build a narrative where the basics of the story come out of personal stakes for the main ensemble. Lettie has never been a highlight character for the series, and Michelle Rodriguez continues to give one of the weaker performances in the cast (though when opposite Vin Diesel, with whom she shares strong chemistry, she can be quite effective), but since we care about Dom and his crew, we are naturally invested in and understand their need to find and help her, leading to a remarkable number of truly effective emotional beats along the way. The larger threat posed by the villain is not relevant to these characters – apart from Hobbs, they are not counter-terrorist agents, and do not need to be – but in a time when so many blockbusters forget the importance of a personal connection between the characters and the story (and all the action that ensues), it is refreshing to see Furious 6 organically build stakes the way it does.

Only then, after all, can truly great action be created, because if we do not care about the characters or their goals, what reason is there to give a damn about the set pieces? Furious 6, like Fast Five before it, understands how awe-inspiring character-centric action can be, and if anything succeeds even more wildly than its predecessor. I quite frankly thought nothing could ever top Vin Diesel taking out an army of police officers with a massive, multi-ton safe chained to the back of his car, but Furious 6 matches or surpasses the sheer audacity and thrill-factor of that sequence several times over. Director Justin Lin may be better than anyone else right now at building vast, multifaceted set pieces, and with each film, he just grows more and more ambitious in the number of moving pieces and interconnected elements he wishes to string together. Logic dictates he must surely bite off more than he can chew one day, but Furious 6 seems to indicate that there is no action-based feat he cannot conquer, no matter how ridiculous the material becomes.

And make no mistake, Furious 6 is as over-the-top as it gets. The amount of on-screen property damage is a wonder to behold, and the climax, which takes place on the longest runway ever constructed, may break new ground in how much destruction action heroes can dish out without attaining superpowers. Yet it all works beautifully – especially that climax, which immediately enters the pantheon of all-time great set pieces – because Lin’s grasp on the basics of action direction is second to none. His mastery of time and spatial relations is flawless, his cinematography clear and fluid, and his editing, while fast, never comes across as unnecessarily choppy, but directly in tune with whatever speed and rhythm the set piece requires. Lin never loses track of what each character is doing, even when there are many important players doing many important things, and he tackles every fight sequence, car chase, or outbreak of “vehicular warfare” – as Bridges’ character puts it – with a positively blinding amount of energy and enthusiasm.

When a director this skilled crafts action this insane with actors this engaged, the results are simply magical. Every major set piece is bursting with applause-worthy moments of set-up and pay-off (see this film with a big, rowdy audience if you can), and each builds steadily in insanity, always one-upping itself and never coming up short. Most importantly, the action plays heavily off the characters, using them not just as bodies for mayhem, but taking care to build each beat around their unique skills and abilities, and more often than not helping to fulfill the direction of their individual arcs. This is why character matters so much to the series – if we do not care about the characters outside the car chases, we sure as hell cannot invest in them when they get behind the wheel. But if the groundwork has been laid effectively, and the action takes advantage of everything that has been put in place, the results are proportionally invigorating. Furious 6 understands this as well as any modern blockbuster – better, probably, than most – and in its own way, when it is at its most ludicrous and exhilarating, what it offers is nothing short of great filmmaking.

Heresy, you say? Maybe, but the value of experience a film provides – whether the ultimate goal is to make us look at the world in new and different ways or to simply have fun – stems directly from the quality of work being done in front of and behind the camera. And when all is said and done, what Furious 6 offers to those desiring a transcendently entertaining slice of blockbuster cinema is absolutely top notch. I remember walking out of Fast Five two years ago feeling utterly weightless, so giddy and drunk off the crazed, manic energy of the film and so utterly in love with every last action and character beat that I thought for sure the franchise had peaked. Yet I walked out of Furious 6 feeling the exact same way, giggling to myself like a lunatic as I processed the sheer insanity of what I just saw.

Cinema can fill us with nearly every emotion under the sun, but in my experience as a film critic, I have found that joy – true, simple, profound, unadulterated pleasure – can come in a variety of packages, but is inevitably one of the hardest to capture, and one of the most rewarding when it hits us at full force. This is what Fast & Furious 6 accomplishes, and this is what makes it and the series it belongs to a valuable part of the modern cinematic landscape. Is it high art? No. Does that make it critically worthless? Absolutely not. What this series offers is special. What this sequel achieves is rather remarkable. It masters the unmistakable speed and ferocity of an endlessly enjoyable action classic, and all the wildly fun and entertaining possibilities contained therein.

Thanks for reading We Got This Covered

Revenge is a dish best served cold – or in this case soggy, in pellet form, and tasting like a combination of fish and synthetic meats. Isn’t that what dog food tastes like? Sorry, I don’t eat the slop myself, and definitely have never eaten a dog treat as the result of losing an ill-advised drunken bet. But why the dog references? As you can guess, Revenge For Jolly! isn’t your normal revenge flick, as the murderous rampage that takes place is brought on by the assassination of a sweet, innocent, little canine named Jolly. We all know a dog is man’s best friend, but would you kill for yours?

Harry (Brian Pestos), the owner of Jolly, is a loser-ish loner who keeps reminding us of the bad choices he’s made in the past. We can tell he’s not the most normal fellow by the way he lives in a dumpy home with a dog he worships, but his unstable nature is confirmed one night when one of his poor decisions catches up with him, as he comes home to find the love of his life, Jolly, hanging from his living room ceiling. Losing his cool, Harry calls up his cousin Cecil (Oscar Isaac) and informs him of the grave injustice just done, convincing him to aid in getting revenge for poor Jolly. What follows is a drunken night of fighting, killing, interrogating, and, of course, Mexican food.

I know what you’re thinking, Revenge For Jolly! sounds like a darkly comedic winner with a pulpy plot and opportunities for brutal violence all in the name of a pup named Jolly, and I wouldn’t argue you from the trailers or description. Hell, even the casting hints at something special, including bit parts from Kristen Wiig, Elijah Wood, Ryan Phillippe, Adam Brody, Gillian Jacobs, Garret Dillahunt, and Kevin Corrigan. Names like those wouldn’t attach themselves to a poorly misguided, tonally inept, humorless dark comedy with little value and even less payoff, right? Of course not! Wait, they did? Yup, Revenge For Jolly! is all those things, and so, so much more.

Revenge For Jolly! wants to be the next Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, The Boondock Saints or Pulp Fiction, all films that are able to use death and killing as a comedic plot device, intertwining these brutal moments with witty banter about seemingly nothing. Unfortunately for Brian Pestos’ script, each moment in Revenge For Jolly! just seems like a hateful killing with no screen value or entertainment factor, coming off as mean-spirited instead of entertaining. Director Chadd Harbold also fails in creating any dark comedy out of Pestos’ chopped up kill sequences, letting things ramble on in the same hate-filled stupor that shows no understanding of what made the previously mentioned hit films so successful – over-the-top depictions of violence which become too absurd to take seriously, an even distribution of comedy and violence, and brilliant performances from numerous actors.

Our main characters also offer no relief in terms of entertainment, as the deadpan nature of each actor gives off a performance equally as drab and lacking vitality. In the films above, each one had equally vibrant characters who worked well within the audacious boundaries of their film’s plot, and yet again Revenge For Jolly! pays no attention to such specific details as both Harry and Cecil seemingly coast through the movie like emotionless, murderous drones on the fritz. Sure, Cecil tries to play the part of moral compass for Harry, but Pestos’ straight-faced, even voiced playing of Harry comes across as horribly boring, scarily out of place, too serious to be humorous, and completely wrong for the violence Pestos’ script details. For the perfect example, just look to Harry and Cecil’s Mexican dinner, where the two attempt to turn public drunkenness and ordering menu items into pure entertainment – failing with every single line. Rinse and repeat this formula for the full effect of Revenge For Jolly!.

Ending the film in properly detestable fashion, Revenge For Jolly!‘s closing number feels like somebody slammed on the breaks, thrusting your face flat against the windshield as you hit it full force, leaving you dazed, confused, in pain, and angry at the driver for causing such an avoidable conclusion.

I’m now going to say SPOILERS TO FOLLOW as I’m too aggravated not to mention how Revenge For Jolly! forgets the damn title to it’s own movie, as once we finally reach the revenge aspect, BAM – we’re hit with a title card and the film ends on a cliffhanger. What cliffhanger? We watch Harry walk in the killer’s house, following him after being invited in, the door closes, a few seconds pass, and we hear a gunshot. Is Harry dead because of his mysterious past? Did he kill the killer? Did they kill each other in a freak shootout where both guns shot at the exact same time, killing both characters dead? Honestly, who cares – I didn’t, and still don’t. As soon as the title card hit at the end, I was officially done with the braindead chaos created in Jolly’s name. SPOILERS OVER, dammit.

I know everything looks all fine and dandy on the outside of Revenge For Jolly!, I mean just look at that cute little doggy wearing a sombrero, but trust me when I say it’s all just an adorable ruse. If the material had been handled in a way that audiences could view the mindless violence in an entertaining light, say through ridiculousness and exploitation, then we might have had a surprising indie hit on our hands. Instead, we’re left watching a hollow, empty core of a film with no real meaning or driving force which can justify watching two irreprehensible men pump holes into innocent people, playing like an even worse version of the Uwe Boll “masterpiece” Postal - as least that heap of something had a laugh or two.

Thanks for reading We Got This Covered

Phil Harrison, Microsoft’s corporate vice president, revealed in an interview with Eurogamer that the next-generation Xbox One hardware will be merging all games into one convenient location for the new platform.

The Xbox 360’s current dashboard separates the gaming section into three distinct categories, Xbox Live Indie, Xbox Live Arcade, and On Demand titles. This separation of content into discrete channels has made it easy for users to access exactly what they’re looking for. Yet, it seems that Microsoft is hoping to make it even easier to access and find the gaming adventures you’re craving as Harrison stated:

“With Xbox One and the new marketplace, they’re games. Just games. Search, recommendation, what your friends are playing, game DVR – these all go to helping you discover the games you want to play, so I think we solve fantastically some of the challenges that independent developers face, particularly around discovery and connecting their game to an audience, by some of the platform features we have in the machine itself.”

Shuffling all gaming content into a distinct section on the Xbox One dashboard makes sense in terms of the sheer focus on the console as entertainment hub, however, it seems that it could very easily leave indie developers in the shadows.

Luckily, Harrison went on to comment about the continuing functionality of the console to spotlight significant titles on the dashboard homepage.

“[W]e don’t give up the ability to put a spotlight on the products that we think are going to be exciting to our user base, but in addition to that, what your friends are playing, what other people think is hot in your area, your country, your continent, will propagate up the most interesting and exciting games.”

What do you make of Microsoft’s decision to consolidate all gaming content into a distinct channel? Be sure to give us your thoughts and opinions in the comments below.

Thanks for reading We Got This Covered

Robert Kirkman started writing The Walking Dead back in 2003. The comic book series is still ongoing, and the aforementioned writer has stated several times that the story is not even close to coming to an end. Why would it?  TWD is one of Image Comics’ best-selling titles, and it could go on for decades without getting old. Can the same be said about the AMC’s The Walking Dead though? Thus far, the show has shown high, strong numbers in ratings and DVD sales – its third season has proven to be its most successful one.

AMC Networks CEO Josh Kaplan is quite optimistic about the future of the show. At the Barclays Global Technology, Media and Telecommunications Conference, he hinted at his desire for the series to last a generation. The TV executive said:

…we’ll be sitting here at the Barclays conference in 2022 discussing the fact that Walking Dead is not over …

Wait, what? Is he being ironic? In 2022 The Walking Dead would be heading into its 13th season. Those of you who read Kirkman’s comic book series know Rick’s adventures could easily span twenty or thirty seasons, but it’s highly unrealistic. Not all comic books are properly adapted into TV series, and when they are, it’s only for a limited amount of time — audiences are not patient enough to remain loyal to a show when it begins to meander or recycle old plots.

That being said, I personally wouldn’t take it beyond ten or eleven seasons. Even though I have no idea what The Walking Dead writers have in store for the fourth season (the show’s plot differs greatly from its source material), I can assure you as a die-hard fan of the comic book that it’s best to wrap it up sooner rather than later. I mean, who could possibly replace Daryl, or Rick?

Thanks for reading We Got This Covered

Comedy is a complex issue to discuss, but a simple one to judge. There are many types of cinematic comedies, with wildly varying levels of ambition, but for the most part, the basic barometer for success is an easy one to gauge: Does the film make one laugh? It is as subjective a critical criterion as exists, personal to the specific tastes of the individual, and when it comes to films like The Hangover and its sequels, it is essentially the only question that matters. These are not satires, intent on examining real-world issues through humor, nor do they strive to make any stylistic or aesthetic innovations. While the films live and die by the strength of the ensemble, often doing surprisingly heartfelt and effective work with the relationships of the core trio, any and all elements of character study are secondary to the humor.

So when I say that I like The Hangover Part III, oftentimes very much, that mostly means that I laughed, consistently and heavily, from start to finish. I felt the same way about the first film, and even about the second, which I recognize is an unpopular opinion to hold. No matter. My own comedic sensibilities just happen to align with those of the filmmakers, and if you find yourself thinking the same way, I am sure you will have fun with the film as well. It is fairly remarkable for a comedy series to continue delivering laughs even one film past the original, but a comedy threequel being legitimately enjoyable? That is a rare beast indeed, and while Part III is not a great or even hugely memorable comedy, it is certainly of a piece with its predecessors, qualitatively, tonally, and, for the most part, narratively.

That may disappoint some of you to hear, as the central problem many had with Part II was its beat-for-beat narrative similarity to the original film. Part III shakes things up to a certain extent, with a story that ditches the drug-fueled memory loss shenanigans of the first two movies in favor of something a tad more straightforward. John Goodman plays a new character, Marshall, a drug lord with connections to the previous adventures of the ‘Wolfpack.’ Marshall was robbed $21 million in gold by Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong), the whirling dervish of cocaine and mayhem who caused so much trouble in the first two films, and kidnaps the perennially off-screen Doug (Justin Bartha) to force Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) to find Chow for him.

Despite the paradigm shift, this is still every inch a Hangover movie, with the main characters going from place to place, investigating, getting in trouble, and encountering increasingly ridiculous obstacles on their journey to set things right. It does not feel substantially different from its predecessors, and I cannot really imagine those who took umbrage with Part II for its lack of narrative originality being satisfied with how Part III tinkers with the formula. But comedy sequels are a lose-lose proposition to begin with, at least when it comes to storytelling, and I enjoyed the solution used to make Part II – the original, only exponentially darker – just as I appreciate how co-writer/director Todd Phillips and company have tackled this one, playing with the notion of consequence – the comic fuel of the entire trilogy – as a full-circle means to both humor and finality.

That is, after all, exactly what I and so many others found funny about this series in the first place. Where many R-rated comedies find fuel in depicting bad or ridiculous behavior, the Hangover films have always been about what follows immature and irresponsible actions. There is a really twisted, practically disturbed sensibility to so much of the humor in these films – Part II, if pitched even slightly differently, would be downright disturbing (and sometimes is anyway) – because consequences are what follow and haunt us throughout life, and being able to touch that nerve comically is a valuable asset. The Hangover films are at their funniest when they are able to impart a total sense of chaos, of the real danger and total confusion that comes from being in a difficult and incomprehensible situation, and while Part III does not revolutionize the formula, it does cleverly reorient the consequential aspect of the humor so that it stems from everything that happened in the prior films.

In short, the film is very, very funny, in exactly the way one would expect from a Hangover film, albeit tweaked and enhanced just enough to feel fresh. Tonally, this is a clear return to the atmosphere of the first film, which will be a relief for those who found Part II too dark to laugh at (a sentiment I understand without necessarily agreeing with). The film certainly feels chaotic in all the right ways though, even if some of the plotting is too clean and some of the challenges too simplistic to feel fully satisfying. But in Hangover tradition, when things get out of control, they get very out of control, and extremely funny to boot. The big third act set piece, set at Caesar’s Palace, is wonderfully demented and screamingly hilarious, and the decision to include Leslie Chow in the majority of the action is an inspired one. Ken Jeong is so brilliant in this part, a live-action Looney Tunes cartoon brought to life (albeit one with a cocaine addiction and an extremely violent streak), and making him omnipresent creates the constant, darkly comic sense that could spiral into an anarchic mess at any given mess – which, of course, they frequently do.

Much of the humor continues to be character-centric, and the cast is still perfectly up to the task. Especially after Silver Linings Playbook, it is readily apparent that Bradley Cooper could be playing this part in his sleep, but he still comes across as fully engaged, the straight man with the wild edge whose forward-thinking drive is both an asset and a hindrance. Ed Helms loses the core tenant of his shtick this time around – Stu being tormented to ludicrous degrees – but it allows him to play calmer, more human sides of the character. He gets the fewest laughs, but is an important part of the overall chemistry nevertheless.

And Zach Galifianakis is, as always, the beating heart and soul of these films, both comically and dramatically. He approaches this part as if it is the role of a lifetime, and earns huge humorous and emotional dividends as a result. Impressively, The Hangover Part III really does feel like a valuable, satisfying conclusion to this series, primarily by honing in on the Galifianakis character and giving him a tight, touching arc that informs where he has been, where he is now, and where he might go in the future. Galifianakis and his rampant insanity are as funny as ever, but there are also so many truly moving moments this time around as Alan faces the challenges of adulthood. As noted before, I do not think Part III innovates narratively in any significant ways, but the new plot structure does allow these characters, and Alan in particular, to be affected by the events of these films, and the finale follows through with a conclusion that, while hardly revelatory, feels entirely fitting for the franchise.

A conclusion that is, of course, entirely undercut by a screamingly funny, totally bonkers mid-credits sequence, one that is cynical in the extreme but feels like the proper, sardonic note on which to close the series. Ultimately, The Hangover Part III really does allow audiences to view this unlikely franchise as a trilogy, which is only one of the movie’s unexpected accomplishments. I still would not call any of these films ‘great,’ nor do I necessarily imagine myself revisiting them frequently in the future, but I do find it rather remarkable that one comedy series managed to deliver three solid, often hilarious and clever installments. That’s normally against the rules for this genre, it seems, but absolutely welcome nevertheless. Good laughs can be hard to come by these days, and I appreciate the large dose of fun this final film provides.

Thanks for reading We Got This Covered

There is a very strange phenomenon that occasionally happens to the market leaders in the video game industry just around the time that they are announcing their next-gen console. For whatever reason, they seem to get extremely full of themselves and their executives start saying the dumbest things to their prospective consumers. With Microsoft’s extremely lacking Xbox One debut behind them, this phenomenon has now apparently taken hold in the halls of Microsoft’s executive offices.

Now, it is important to note that Microsoft was not the overall market leader this generation — like it or not, that would be the Wii — but their recent stranglehold in the North American market over the last couple of years has clearly clouded the good judgement of Don Mattrick, Microsoft’s Head of Interactive Entertainment Business. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Mattrick had this to say about the Xbox One’s lack of backwards compatibility with Xbox 360 and XBLA games:

“If you’re backwards compatible, you’re really backwards.”

To back up his statement Mattrick pointed out that “only 5% of customers play older games on a new video game system,” so Microsoft does not consider it worth the time and money to develop the technology to make that happen. Citing the social media firm Fizziology, WSJ believes the numbers are a bit higher at 12%.

While Mattrick is speaking about completely different issues, his statement brings to mind Sony’s infamous PlayStation 3 launch claims that rumble was a “last-gen” feature, and that people would want to “work more hours” to afford the $600 console. It wasn’t long before Sony was choking on those claims, and if things keep going the way they are, it might not be too much longer before Microsoft does the same.

Xbox 360 consumers have been buying retail and XBLA games for the last eight years, and I’d be willing to bet that a decent number of them would prefer those collections move over to the Xbox One. We will see how much this statement hurts Microsoft in the long run, but I think we can all agree that it is something that should not have been said in the first place.

Thanks for reading We Got This Covered

It’s time for another episode of WGTC Radio, the official podcast of We Got This Covered! Remember to subscribe for free in iTunes by following this link!

As promised, here is the second podcast of the week for your listening pleasure. On Monday, we talked about Series 7 of Doctor Who, which recently finished its run, and today, we have recorded a nice long discussion of the most recent summer blockbuster, Star Trek Into Darkness. 

If you have listened to one of our movie reviews before, you know the drill. There be spoilers ahead, and lots of them. We go in depth to talk about every major (and many minor) details of the movie, and for the first time in a while, Sean turned out to be more positive on something that me!

This podcast is the second of three this week, as I will be away for Memorial Day weekend, and we will be posting a third episode tomorrow covering the (rather disastrous) Xbox One reveal. If you’re a gamer, you will definitely want to tune in. Remember to follow me on Twitter (@JonathanLack) for all updates on our podcasting schedule.

Enjoy!

Download and Stream WGTC Radio Episode #48 as an MP3

Subscribe for free to WGTC Radio in iTunes!

Follow the WGTC Radio RSS Feed Online!

If you have questions, comments, or concerns about WGTC Radio, or would like to write in to the podcast to have your questions read on the show, please e-mail jonathan@wegotthiscovered.com.

WGTC Radio is a weekly podcast that will post every Monday, and if you subscribe in iTunes, episodes will be delivered automatically and for free as soon as they are released. If you visit We Got This Covered on Mondays, we will also have streaming and downloadable versions of new episodes for your listening pleasure.

Thanks for reading We Got This Covered

If Microsoft has it their way, Xbox One may be their ticket out of the graphics race. A recent statement by a developer indicated that the Xbox One would not be released with the intention of competing with other consoles’ graphics.

Greg Williams, GM of silicon development, went on record with the following statement:

“We purposefully did not target the highest-end graphics. We targeted more as a broad entertainment play and did it in an intelligent way. The people who are here have clearly done them before and we’ve done them within Microsoft before. But this is one of the more strategic plays and in terms of the overall product, that is a clear differentiator, and the [hardware IP] that we’ve developed here is truly unique.”

Williams’ statement seems to contradict the known specifications for Xbox One, which most notably include a custom Microsoft eight-core CPU.  This suggests that either the console is designed to use a limited amount of processing power, or that Microsoft is downplaying the details as part of a larger marketing strategy.

That being said, the company does seem intent on Xbox One being an “all-around entertainment solution,” so perhaps this decision is genuine. Either way, it’s too soon to tell and as we keep hearing, more will be revealed about the console at E3.

Thanks for reading We Got This Covered

Dennis Lehane is a pretty popular name around Hollywood. Films like Mystic River and Shutter Island are based on his novels and it seems that whenever someone attempts to give one of his stories an adaptation, it results in a lot of success. But what about writing films? Is that something that would interest the much loved author? Well, the answer seems to be yes as according to THR, 20th Century Fox has asked him to pen Travis McGee, a crime drama set to star Leonardo DiCaprio.

The film will be an adaptation of John D. MacDonald’s The Deep Blue Good-by. If you’re unfamiliar with the novel, here’s a summary from Amazon:

“Travis McGee is a self-described beach bum who won his houseboat in a card game. He’s also a knight-errant who’s wary of credit cards, retirement benefits, political parties, mortgages, and television. He only works when his cash runs out, and his rule is simple: He’ll help you find whatever was taken from you, as long as he can keep half.

McGee isn’t particularly strapped for cash, but how can anyone say no to Cathy, a sweet backwoods girl who’s been tortured repeatedly by her manipulative ex-boyfriend Junior Allen? What Travis isn’t anticipating is just how many women Junior has torn apart and left in his wake. Enter Junior’s latest victim, Lois Atkinson.

Frail and broken, Lois can barely get out of bed when Travis finds her, let alone keep herself alive. But Travis turns into Mother McGee, giving Lois new life as he looks for the ruthless man who steals women’s spirits and livelihoods. But he can’t guess how violent his quest is soon to become. He’ll learn the hard way that there must be casualties in this game of cat and mouse.”

DiCaprio is hoping to spawn a franchise out of the film and seeing as MacDonald has written 21 novels in the series, there’s certainly more than enough material to do so.

Now, apparently, the books are tough to adapt and other writers have taken a stab at them in the past but have failed to produce something worthy of putting up on the silver screen. Whether Lehane will be successful or not is unknown but if anyone can do it, it’s him.

Tell us, what do you think of Dennis Lehane writing Travis McGee?

Thanks for reading We Got This Covered