Harry Potter OOTP...a BIG let down

Whatever happened to the delight and, if you'll excuse the term, the magic in the "Harry Potter" series? As the characters grow up, the stories grow, too, leaving the innocence behind and confusing us with plots so labyrinthine that it takes a Ph.D from Hogwarts to figure them out. "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" still has much of the enchantment of the earlier films, but Harry no longer has as much joy. His face is lacking the gosh-wow-this-is-really-neat grin. He has internalized the secrets and delights of the world of wizards, and is now instinctively using them to save his life.

An early scene illustrates this change. Harry and his cousin Dudley are attacked by Dementors, and in desperation he uses a secret spell to defeat them. But that earns the disapproval of his superiors at Hogwarts, and he is threatened with expulsion, because the spell is not to be used in public around Muggles. What is it, like a secret Masonic grip? When you're about to get your clock stopped by Dementors and you know the spell, what are you expected to do? Fall over passively and get Demented?

There will come a time, I fear, as we approach the end of the series (one book and two films to go), that Harry and his friends will grow up and smell the coffee. They weren't trained as magicians for fun. When they eventually arrive at some apocalyptic crossroads, as I fear they will, can the series continue to live in PG-13 land? The archvillain Voldemort is shaping up as the star of nightmares.

Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) has reason to fear that playtime is long behind. As a wizard chosen in childhood for his special powers, he has reason to believe Voldemort has returned and will have to be dealt with. The Ministry of Magic, like many a government agency, is hidebound in outdated convictions and considers Harry's warning to be heresy; at Hogwarts, a fierce new professor of the dark arts, Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton), has been installed to whip Harry into line.

Her enemies include Harry's protector Dumbledore (Michael Gambon, looking as shabby as a homeless headmaster). Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) join Harry in fomenting resistance to Umbridge (sounds like "umbrage"), and soon they are mapping clandestine schemes to defend Dumbledore. Their plots, alas, seem more serious than the mischief Harry and friends would have thought up in earlier days. Yes, I know time passes, and the actors are eight years older than when they started filming. But if a kid starts watching "Potter" movies with this film, would he guess they used to be a little more whimsical?

By now, if we know anything at all about the "Potter" series, it's that nothing is as it seems, and the most unlikely characters have occult connections. Yes, but so many surprises have popped out of the hat that a veteran "Potter" watcher can almost, by a process of elimination, figure out who will surprise us next. For Harry, like many another leader before him, it is time to leave the nest and begin to work in the world. For the first time since we saw platform 9 3/4 at King's Cross, the city of London has a major role now, as Harry and sidekicks fly down the Thames and swoop past Big Ben.

That causes me to wonder, what is the practical connection between the world of magic and the world of Muggles? Will Harry, or should Harry, become a world leader? Can wands and spells be of use in today's geopolitical turmoil? Or are Hogwarts grads living in a dimension of their own? All will be told, I guess, in the final book in J.K. Rowling's series, and then the retail book industry will be back on its own again.

These things said, there is no denying that "Order of the Phoenix" is a well-crafted entry in the "Potter" series. The British have a way of keeping up production values in a series, even when the stories occasionally stumble. There have been lesser James Bond movies, but never a badly made one. And the necessary use of CGI here is justifiable, because what does magic create, anyway, other than real-life CGI without the computers?

As for the cast, the "Potter" series has turned into a work-release program for great British actors mired in respectable roles. Staunton is perfect here as the Teacher From Hell. Helena Bonham Carter looks like the double for all three of Macbeth's witches. And then take a roll call: Robbie Coltrane, Ralph Fiennes (in the wings as Voldemort), Michael Gambon, Brendan Gleeson, Richard Griffiths, Jason Isaacs, Gary Oldman, Alan Rickman, Fiona Shaw, David Thewlis, Emma Thompson, Warwick Davis, Julie Walters and the incomparable Maggie Smith.

My hope, as we plow onward through "Potters" Nos. 6-7, is that the series will not grow darker still. Yet I suppose even at the beginning, with those cute little mail-owls, we knew the whimsy was too good to last. Now that Harry has experienced his first kiss, with Cho Chang (Katie Leung), we can only imagine what new opportunities lie ahead. Agent 009.75?

Feast of love:Movie

DRAMA
United States, 2007
U.S. Release Date: 9/28/07 (wide)
Running Length: 1:42
MPAA Classification: R (Profanity, nudity, sexual situations)
Theatrical Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Cast: Morgan Freeman, Greg Kinnear, Selma Blair, Radha Mitchell, Alexa Davalos, Toby Hemingway, Fred Ward, Jane Alexander, Billy Burke, Erika Marozsan
Director: Robert Benton
Screenplay: Allison Burnett, based on the book by Charles Baxter
Cinematography: Kramer Morgenthau
Music: Stephen Trask
U.S. Distributor: MGM



---
It's a little surprising to encounter a film like Feast of Love in multiplexes, because it is made for adults. After a summer of pyrotechnics and incredibly dumb scripts, it's a change of pace to find something that aspires to run for 100 minutes without a gunshot or an explosion. A romantic drama based on Charles Baxter's difficult-to-adapt novel, the film takes us along the rocky journey associated with falling in love. The screenplay combines philosophy, melodrama, and clichés to engaging effect. Feast of Love's greatest strength is that it's about people and involves universal emotions. It's not great art but it is enjoyable soap opera.

When it comes to romance, Portland coffee shop owner Bradley Thomas (Greg Kinnear) is not the luckiest man in the world. He thinks he has found his perfect mate in Kathryn (Selma Blair), but they haven't been married for long before her wandering eye falls on another woman. She departs, leaving Bradley with only a dog for a companion. Because he believes that love is what makes life worth living, he tries again. This time, it's Diana (Radha Mitchell), a realtor. She's smart, pretty, and enjoys spending time with Bradley. But she's having an affair with David (Billy Burke), who can't understand why she's considering marrying this milquetoast. Her evasive answer to his simple question - "Do you love him?" - says all that needs to be said about the long-term prospects of this relationship.

Two couples exist in Bradley's orbit. The first is Harry and Esther Scott (Morgan Freeman and Jane Alexander), an elderly duo whose only son died of a drug overdose less than a year ago. Harry is a college philosophy professor on leave from his job. He stops by the coffee shop every day for a cup of Joe and to dispense advice to anyone who wants it. He also happens to be Bradley's next-door neighbor. The other couple is Oscar (Toby Hemingway) and Chloe (Alexa Davalos), two twenty-somethings who work for Bradley and are madly, passionately in love.

Unpredictability is not one of Feast of Love's traits - it doesn't take a Magic 8 Ball to figure out exactly where these stories are going. After all, it appears that director Robert Benton agrees with Bradley's upbeat philosophy about love. The movie doesn't contain a cynical moment, which can make it appear a little naïve at times. And, even though there are moments of tragedy, the overall arc is ultimately life-affirming. Leaving the theater, I felt like I had spent an hour and a half in the company of people worth spending the time with. The film doesn't come close to the level of Benton's best-known productions - Kramer vs. Kramer, Places in the Heart, Nobody's Fool - but the same view of humanity is in evidence. Benton deals in characters not special effects.

Charles Baxter's novel is difficult to adapt because of its ever-shifting point-of-view. Allison Burnett's version streamlines the narrative, keeping most of the major plot points and character arcs intact. The adaptation is truncated but the voice remains the same. Fans of Baxter's work should be pleased with the result. It's not as rich or deep as the novel but it is cut from the same cloth. And, while none of the actors will receive Oscar nominations for their work here, many of them - including Morgan Freeman, Greg Kinnear, Radha Mitchell, and Alexa Davalos - imbue their on-screen alter egos with vitality and something close to nobility.

As one might expect of a story that is so unapologetically romantic, depictions of the physical act of love are not avoided. There's plenty of sex and nudity, but it's handled naturally and tastefully. There's never the sense that anything is gratuitous and there's no mingling of sex with violence (something that happens frequently in mainstream cinema). If there's a problem with the movie's narrative structure, it's that the leaps ahead in time often skip key aspects of the characters' relationships. For example, Bradley and Diana's courtship takes about three scenes from their first meeting to his proposal. It's difficult to mourn the inevitable disintegration of that marriage when we have so little invested in it.

Feast of Love gains a sheen of erudition via the character of Harry, who often acts as the movie's seer. Like many wise men, however, he is better at advising others than sorting out his own emotional troubles. This movie is for those who believe in the healing, regenerative power of love. The experience of watching it is not unlike that of sipping from an insulated cup at the coffee shop where much of the action takes place: relaxing, familiar, and non-confrontational. Feast of Love may not be memorable but it is pleasant.

Halo 3!!The ultimate Gamester!!

From a certain point of view, Halo 3 is without a doubt the biggest game of the year. The combination of fan anticipation, marketing, and the skill of Bungie's design combine to create a game that's larger than life; if gaming has a blockbuster franchise to match the movie industry's punch, it's the tale of Master Chief. The importance of the Halo franchise to gaming is a very big issue, though, and one worth it's own article. Having played through the game, there's really only one question I'm here to answer today. Does it meet expectations? In a word: yes. It's not the best game ever made, and it may not even be the best game this year. Will it make the fans happy, and deservedly sell thousands of Xbox 360s? Very much yes. Read on for my impressions of Bungie's years-in-the-making epic, Halo 3.
Title: Halo 3
Developer/Publisher: Bungie / Microsoft Game Studios
System: Xbox 360
Genre: First Person Shooter
Score: 4/5 - This game is above average, and excels in the genre it supports. A classic for the genre and well worth a look for every gamer.
The Tale

I hope you were paying attention at the end of Halo 2, because the folks at Bungie don't waste any time getting new players up to speed. The action picks up right after the Gravemind's infestation of High Charity at the end of the previous game, and the Master Chief's escape from that doomed city in the Prophet of Truth's stolen Forerunner vessel. If that makes no sense to you, I refer you to Wikipedia for a brush-up on Halo's lore. That said, once you're in the thick of things you don't need to know a lot about the past two games to enjoy 3's story. There are a bunch of references back, and continued threads, but really ... it's a first-person shooter. There are aliens on Earth, trying to dig up an alien artifact. You have to stop them. Go to it.

If you are a fan of the previous games, the story of Halo 3 is going to satisfy your need to see things wrapped up. What it's not going to do is surprise you. The plot plays out pretty much the way you'd expect, though the writers do make some very mature choices towards the end of the tale that distinguish it a bit from every other hero's journey. I'm reluctant to say more, as I'm not sure what's common knowledge at this point, but there is one storytelling choice I wanted to point out as being particularly effective. Cortana, Master Chief's AI companion, was left behind with the Flood's master at the end of the previous game. Despite this, she connects regularly with the Chief in a form of psychic connection. This allows a sense of desperation to build throughout the title, and has a satisfying payoff late in the game.

Story is a really important component of the gameplay experience for me. Though I'm no expert, I do actually like the Halo metaplot quite a bit, and I was left well pleased by Bungie's conclusion. Suffice it to say that while you're not going to be blown away by any revelations, there are no cop-outs, no cheap tricks and (best of all) no meaningless cliffhanger endings. Just make sure you watch to the end of the credits.

Beware the Scarabs

In Halo 2 there's a sequence where you attack a building-sized walking tank in the shape of a multi-legged bug, with a giant laser on its front. It's an elaborate experience: rushing alongside it on rooftops, jumping aboard, taking out its crew, and finally destroying its core. It was, for me, one of the highlights of the game. In Halo 3 you take on these tanks at least three times, and at one point you're fighting two at once. That pretty much sums up the experience of gameplay in this title: it's like the other two, only a lot moreso. Everything is bigger, better, and very, very polished.

That polish is something that exists across the title, from moment-to-moment combat through to 'set piece' battles like the Scarab tanks. There are several set pieces like that spread throughout the game, areas that are more than just the movement from point A to point B with enemies in between. None of them are any more particularly challenging than the rest of the game, but provide exclamation points on areas of hard work and forward progress. There are also several vehicle sequences, more (it seemed) that even in Halo 2. Fast action in the Scorpion tank and Warthog return, but there are also sequences designed specifically to show off some of the new vehicles in this title. I felt these were much more seamless experiences than in the last game; jumping in a vehicle seems like the natural thing to do, not a decision forced upon you by game design.

The vehicle sequences - and the whole game, for that matter - would have benefited from some extra time in NPC boot camp. Once again, your AI assistants prove to be poorly equipped at driving, shooting, or doing pretty much anything other than getting in the way. This, frustratingly, is a step up from Halo 2, where they were incapable of driving without continuously flipping your vehicle. The AI is at least smart enough to get from point A to B now, but you're not going to enjoy the journey. The continued incompetence of the AI in moment-to-moment fighting is particularly frustrating because the Elite known as the Arbiter is your constant companion through most of the game. This is a shadow of the co-op play component, a reminder that it's always possible. All the Arbiter was good for in my experience, though, was waving around his energy sword ineffectually. The AI here wasn't as dumb as the grunts in Gears of War (who enjoyed mantling onto the side of cover the enemies were firing at), but they weren't much better.

The enemy AI, at least, isn't entirely ineffective. They seemed particularly adept at using some of the new toys added in since the last game. Brute chieftains regularly came outfitted with the pleasant addition of a ripped-off turret. These mounted weapons, a frequent sight in past titles, can now be removed from their housings and carried around to provide some heavy firepower. A chieftain with one of these in a secured location can mean regular trips through respawning. The ability to dig in and hold a position was greatly enhanced by this game's addition of 'equipment'. The new use for the X button (reloading is now down with the LB and RB bumpers), most equipment allows NPCs and PCs alike to better hold an area. The 'force shield' is shown off in the E3 2006 trailer but deployable cover (a tall shield), a regeneration aura (which keeps your shields charged), and even deployable turrets all allow for positions to be maintained more effectively than in the past. Other equipment is intended to bypass such advantages, like the power-draining opposite of the regenerator, a portable hover-lift device that can allow you a quick hop over enemy fortifications, and a placeable mine great for taking out drawn-in Grunts. I'll admit it: I didn't use the equipment as effectively as I could have, but it was always enjoyable to play against. Particularly the energy shield; Brutes always seemed somehow vaguely surprised when I popped through the translucent wall.

I regularly got unpleasant surprises throughout the game, and I feel like I need to point out a frustration Bungie has managed to preserve intact from Halo 2: checkpoints. Halo 3 features an autosave system that updates your progress every time you complete a specific objective; passing a point on the map, or activating a certain control panel. Most checkpoints, though, are reached by killing enemies, and you very specifically have to kill every enemy in a group. At several points I found myself frustrated by my inability to find hiding bad guys - I'd complete a long stretch of the game and die, only to find myself further back in the game than I had anticipated. On my way back to where I'd died, I would regularly encounter a checkpoint I hadn't used before. These additional checkpoints were there because I'd missed a single hiding Grunt, or one of those stealthy sniper enemies the first time through. It's always frustrating to lose progress, and even more so when you find you lost that progress because you didn't see the point in finding a single cowering trooper.

That frustration with checkpoints, though, is really my only complaint about level design and the actual experience of play. There is a lot less back tracking here than in either of the last two games, and levels themselves feature a great deal of variation. There's a far wider palette used to put together levels, and the greens and brilliant whites used in Halo 3 stand in stark contrast to the greys and browns that have dominated other next-gen shooters. Combat itself is just as much fun as ever, and it's unflinchingly fair. You never feel cheated by gameplay in Halo 3. If you screw up and die, you usually spend the few moments after your death and before you respawn going, "Yeah, fair enough." Pro tip: The loud beeping of your lowered shields should have told you to get behind cover. While everything is polished to a glistening shine, it's great to be able to say they really haven't changed the feel of gameplay that much. Nine million people didn't buy Halo 2 because of a marketing campaign: ultimately they bought it because Bungie puts together one of the best console shooter experiences, hands down.

One Fine Looking Suit of Armor

Halo 3 looks really good, especially in motion. That said, compared with a game like Gears of War or Lair, it doesn't particularly scream 'next-gen'. The water is pretty good, the explosions are works of art, and reflections off of the Chief's visor are satisfyingly accurate ... but for the most part the game looks a lot like Master Chief's previous adventure. That's fine, though, because (unlike in that title) the framerate is pegged at 60fps and never wavers. There was never once a stutter or slowdown, even with dozens of fastmoving objects on screen, swarms of enemies, or a speedy vehicle sequence. I also saw none of the 'texture popping' that I annoyingly associate with last-gen titles. There are also almost no loading times in the game. The only time you'll see a (brief) loading screen is when you start the game or load a new chapter. Otherwise from start to finish your gaming experience is essentially unbroken. Bungie obviously spent time working on the visual elements of the game, but not to the exclusion of equally important components like story and gameplay. The look of the game is conveyed more by the art style used in the varied environments that through sheer power; the graphics here get the job done, and look great doing it.


Firefly Stars and Heavy Guitar Riffs

One game element that needs no qualifiers is the title's sound presentation. Just as in the previous two games, no expense was spared to bring the world to life through sound effects, voice acting, and music. The sound effects are essentially identical to the experience a player may have had in Halo 2, with a few subtle improvements. The voice acting is extremely well done, with the likes of Keith David, Jen Taylor, Steve Downes, and David Scully reprising their roles. Jen Taylor's Cortana has some especially challenging scenes in this game, and I thought she did a great job with them. New (but familiar) voices also add their talents to the cast. Red vs. Blue viewers will recognize the name Burnie Burns, who is one of the voices of the generic soldiery, but fans of Joss Whedon's Firefly will have just as much to enjoy. Alan Tudyk and Adam Baldwin are also soldiers, and Nathan Fillion takes on the role of an NPC sergeant. I noted this during gameplay, actually, as Alan Tudyk's voice is ... distinct.

Martin O'Donnell composed the game's score, reprising his role from the two previous titles. If you've heard the moving music in the E3 2006 trailer you're already well aware of what that implies. Most of his compositions are much more low key, of course, but they nonetheless provide a welcome backdrop for the game's graphics, gameplay and story. The later levels especially benefit from this subtle but important reminder of what's at stake. The music serves as an obvious but not over-the-top pacing element. Ultimately Martin O'Donnell's compositions are the kind of music you'd be more than happy to listen to outside of the game; it's hard to see how you can pay a soundtrack a higher compliment.

Playback and Multiplay

The clearest sign that Halo 3 is a 'next generation' title is its online and playback components. Most startling are the game's video editing and level creation tools. The first time you'll play through the campaign, you'll find that you can relive the whole thing by reviewing the videos stored on your 360's hard drive. There's no need to set a special setting, it just does it automatically. From there, you can enter the recording and rewatch the whole thing, stopping to take screenshots or snip video clips. These clips and pictures are then viewable from your Bungie.net profile, proving your game mastery to awed onlookers. The real awe, for me, was stepping outside of the Chief to fly around the map as action progresses. If you recall a particularly cool moment - a really good grenade stick, for example - you can see what that looked like on the outside ... and take a picture of it. I haven't had much time or inclination to play around with the level creation tool (called the Forge), but it's incredibly robust. Think something along the lines of Gary's Mod for Half-Life 2, and you'll understand the possibilities in Bungie's generous tool offering.

I've talked extensively about the game's campaign mode, but for many gamers online multiplayer is the real reason to buy this game. And understandably so: if you participated in the Halo 3 multiplayer Beta a few months ago you're already well aware of that game element's polish level. The real draw for me, though, is the campaign co-op play. I played entirely through Gears of War three times because the co-op experience was so well done. Here Bungie has provided the opportunity for up to four players to participate in the entire campaign experience. Just as with the 'single player' campaign mode (which is really just co-op with bots), the entire experience will be recorded to your hard drive for later public mockery. Unlike in single-player, by doing a co-op session you and your team-mates participate in what the game's achievements call 'the metagame'. Players are scored on their play throughout the game, and netting a certain total score during a co-op session can earn you some gamerscore points.

As much time as the team has obviously taken on the game itself, it's great to see that they've fleshed out the experience with elements like this. Graphics aside, these playback and co-op components are truly what makes Halo 3 'next generation'.

Consider the Fight Finished

Halo 3, then, is just about everything a player of the previous games in the series could hope for. It looks good, it plays smoothly, and backstory fans are going to finally have some closure. There are obviously flaws, but none are so glaring or frustrating as to be worth more than a passing mention. Even the checkpoint thing, which I'm sure I have run into far more often than the average player, never stopped me from grinning at the chance to melee some more Brutes into submission.


In essence: Bungie has succeeded marvelously at bringing this trilogy to a close. The game's tight story is complete-able in Normal mode in about ten hours, and that feels just about right. At the end of the game you're left wanting more, but not feeling gypped. Folks who have been holding their breath for this since 2004 can relax; the only thing left to do now is play and have a good time. Halo 3 is fun. Any game - regardless of platform, generation, or genre - where you can finish up and immediately want to start playing again ... it's hard to call that anything but a success.

The Ipod Touch!!!Bling!!

Yeah, we know we're a little late with this one, but we see the iPod touch as a pretty major turning point for Apple's iPod line; when it was announced, we finally thought we'd found an iPod we could really get behind. For years technology enthusiasts pondered the possibility of an Apple-made widescreen, WiFi-enabled portable media device, and they finally did just that -- even throwing in a few things that, prior to the iPhone, we might not have expected, like a full-fledged web browser, internet video player (YouTube), multi-touch interface, etc. But after playing with the touch for a few days, it's become pretty clear that Steve was right when he declared that the iPhone is still the best iPod. Read on to find out why.

Late last year. iPods had fallen into a rut: the features were stale, the form factor of the flagship device basically stopped progressing, and it started to seem like Apple didn't care or understand where portable media players were headed -- or at least didn't seem to realize what such devices were capable of. So it came as no surprise that as soon as the iPhone was announced, people began demanding that same device, sans phone. And why not? Not everyone hates their cellphone, or wants to switch to AT&T, or lives in America (or select countries in Europe) -- and from a media player standpoint, the iPhone made the iPod technologically respectable again. Only a handful of other devices, like the Archos 604 WiFi, come equipped with that specific bundle of features (web browser, touchscreen, and WiFi).

Fortunately for that rather sizable group of potential buyers waiting for the phoneless iPhone, it was clear that Apple had invested an enormous amount of effort (and money) into creating its mobile OS X platform, and that all those development bucks weren't going to live on in only one product -- especially not a device that is ultimately beholden to deals with cellphone carriers. So the iPhone without the phone -- the WiFi-enabled widescreen iPod -- finally started to seem more like an eventuality than some distant hope. When it was announced a couple of weeks ago, the surprise was less that Apple had been working on this device after all, and more the myriad iPhone features unexpectedly absent. We'll get to that shortly.
Thankfully, as far as media playback goes, all the best stuff from the iPhone made the cut in the touch. It shares the same audio, video, and photo apps as the iPhone, which is a good thing since we still love the new Apple mobile media interface every bit as much as we did when we first reviewed the iPhone. The iTunes WiFi Music Store works exactly as advertised; search is fast, sampling tracks and downloads are easy, and syncing tracks back to your host computer is effortless. Apple really nailed this. To date, most over the air music downloads on a portable media devices have been tedious, if not completely impractical.

Also unchanged are our primary complaints about said media playback, the same complaints we've had about the iPod for years: we don't like managing our media through iTunes, and we don't like being limited only to those few codecs Apple supports (AAC, MP3, H.264, and MPEG-4). In fact, if Apple gave us greater codec support (or even just the option to add additional codecs ourselves) and mass storage support for drag and drop while adding media, we'd probably be able to overlook the other, smaller things that ail us about iPods.

Since the touch is an iPhone at its heart -- really -- comparisons on the software end of business were immediate and inevitable. We're going to assume you're at least casually familiar with the touch's progenitor, but if you didn't read over our iPhone review or haven't much used one yourself, we're happy to say the touch remains a rock solid device on the software end. We experienced far fewer crashes now than we did with the v1.0 iPhone firmware; the rest of the interface is just as responsive and reliable.

Apple has also since made a number of improvements to the touch which have yet to carry over to the iPhone. (We're expecting the iPhone to be brought to parity with the touch in its next firmware update, due in the next week or so.) One major annoyance, about which we took umbrage in our iPhone review, is that periods are unnecessarily difficult to type. No longer: the touch takes the BlackBerry approach, where pressing the space bar twice types a period automatically. This is a godsend.

Also improved: many of the clicks, chirps, and other system sounds have been tweaked, most often with the result of being slightly less grating than the noises of the iPhone. And, of course, the addition of international support in menus and keyboards means you don't have to be a US American to use the thing.

But it isn't what's on the touch that caused us to sit up and take notice so much as what's not on it. The iPhone's suite of apps set certain expectations for what the touch should include. Granted, we understand why the iPhone's mobile email app was omitted from the touch. While we still would have liked to have the option to email over WiFi, its intended purpose is as a portable media player, not a mobile communicator, so we can follow that line of thought. But why leave out its notes, weather, stocks, and Google maps apps? We know the portable doesn't include the same constant connectivity as the iPhone has with EDGE, but it's not like downloading music over the iTunes WiFi Music Store is a practical application in ways that checking for weather, or jotting down a quick note are not. The touch is still a connected portable device, after all, and what we see is Apple mimicking the limited feature set of the old, stale iPod line instead of fully realizing the touch's potential.

And let's not forget the touch calendar controversy. Why allow users to indulge in some PIM basics, like editing and creating new contacts, while not others, like editing or adding new calendar appointments? When we confirmed that Apple had indeed dropped calendar editing from the touch, we were floored. Not even because it's that essential a function, but because we can't possibly fathom why anyone in Cupertino thought to take something of value, however small, away from for no apparent reason.

For a company that continually emphasizes its software as being the core of what drives great consumer electronics, we just can't understand why Apple chose curb the touch's capabilities right at the outset.

Hardware
With the touch, Apple's hardware is, as usual, striking when compared with many of its competitors. Ever so slightly wider (about 1mm) and significantly thinner (8mm, which is no small feat) than the iPhone, the touch has far harder, sharper edges on its facade, and a sloping, almost difficult to grip rear. It even manages to leverage that space with a large enough battery to put out more than its advertised 5 hours of video playback -- we got about 5.5 - 6+ hours. But despite its impressive thinness, after the last few months of using the far more functional iPhone, the touch left us in want. It may be the ideal size for a device of this kind, but it omits many of the simple hardware niceties we've grown used to in the iPhone.

Hardware volume controls were highest on the list of things we miss. We could just as easily live without a mute switch on a media player, but losing the hard volume buttons is rather disappointing. Granted, Apple has made it easier to get to the media controls and volume when the device is in sleep mode; just press the home button three times (once to wake, two more times to bring up media controls without unlocking it). But what's wrong with a real volume switch, too? With no hardware controls, doing something as frequent and essential as changing the volume necessitates removing the device from your pocket. Furthermore, without hard volume buttons, you can't adjust the volume at all while playing music in landscape (i.e. Cover Flow mode). This is pretty basic stuff that drives us up the wall.
Also missing -- and missed: an external speaker. Yeah, we know not every media player has one, and it probably would have added some bulk to a device so slim as the touch. But sharing samples of songs, a bit of video, or -- duh -- YouTube now instantly necessitates friends adventurous enough to use your funky headphones each taking a turn watching Chocolate Rain or the Hipster Olympics. We know in the long run it's a relatively minor thing, but it's still disappointing.
But that's not all. While we appreciate the aesthetic sacrifice Apple made in in adding a proper WiFi antenna to the touch, the odd, asymmetric black corner on the rear looks off and misplaced. We wish Apple have just placed the antenna behind the touch's face, or possibly along the top or bottom of the unit, where its sleep / wake button or headphone jack is. It's a relatively minor aesthetic nitpick, we know, but Apple obviously holds its hardware design in the highest regard, and to us the antenna seems uncharacteristically out of place for an iPod product too pristine to even have hardware volume controls.

Then there's the matter of the display. Ours happened to be one of the "small number" of touch units with the faulty screens. It's difficult to capture in a photograph or even explain in text (so far the best shots we've seen came from Apple-Touch), but the result is dark shades -- especially black tones -- look almost inverted. At very least it's distracting, and at worst it makes some darker video almost unwatchable. We hope Apple gets these units fixed on the double, because for us this janky screen teeters on the edge of a return-your-unit-forever dealbreaker.

And then, finally, there's the shiny chrome back side, which is just as easy as ever to keep pristine and unmarred, provided you store your iPod in a vacuum or cover it in armor. We still don't get this. Yes, people like shiny gadgets, but the glee of that first five seconds of ooh pretty hardly outweighs the lifetime of fingerprints and scratches that the iPod's rear mirror finish accumulates. We thought Apple had learned its lesson when it gave the iPhone a matte aluminum back side. Guess not. We can't be alone in thinking chrome doesn't patina like an old pair of jeans. To us it just seems to look worse with time.

Wrap-up
It's hard to argue that there isn't beauty in simplicity, especially when it comes to consumer electronics. But there's such thing as too simple -- and sometimes too simple can turn into crippled. Most of our complaints about the touch have to do with what it lacks -- not in general, but when compared its big brother, the iPhone. Had the iPod touch come out first, the lack of a hardware volume switch, integrated speaker, and all those apps might have been perfectly passable, but now the expectations have been set, and we can't see how taking things away from users can possibly add value. Everyone in this industry is trying to give their customers more, but with the iPod touch Apple gave its customers less in what should have been the best iPhone alternative on the market. This time around, in Apple's obsession to edit, they managed to leave some of the best stuff on the cutting room floor.