Saw IV

These movies are ridiculous, but the sadist in me seems to enjoy the creative ways in which people get dispatched. After twenty some odd years of watching various genres of movies, you've seen a lot of people die on screen, and in many different ways. In fact there must be some good top ten lists devoted to the subject, and if I was a person who cared, you would get one on this very site: but I'm lazy.

Dave and I went to see the first Saw in theatres, and I'm pretty sure we thought it was terrible. Am I mistaken? Because years later I would re-watch this same film, and decide that it was OK. There must be some scientific name for this effect: the first iteration becomes better as the number of sequels increases, with each one decreasing in quality. Or perhaps the first Saw was actually a decent movie, with an original concept, decent acting and proper execution (haha...sorry).

So I watched this one, expecting nothing really but graphic murders. Perhaps it was because the air conditioning was causing too much noise, but I had no idea what was going on here. It also didn't help that I was falling asleep on and off to varying degrees throughout the movie. What's the worst though is that I don't know who any of these characters are: I get the impression they've been involved in the previous movies but I can't be certain of their significance. I was really thrown off at the end when it seems that two of the characters look almost identical: I thought perhaps Jigsaw finally cloned somebody: your doppelganger murdering you, just because he can. Damn.

I just want to throw one more thing into why I enjoy the Saw movies: they are horror movies I can safely watch and know they are not going to give me nightmares later on. Just safe,good old fashioned family entertainment.

Greenberg

I first saw the trailer for this, and was intrigued. Then I realized that it was the same director who did The Squid and the Whale, and I was sold. I'm a huge fan of the aforementioned movie: great performances, screenplay, directing, story, atmosphere: everything. While Greenberg does not live up to the quality of the Squid it was a fascinating study of a conflicted (and flawed?) character. Also, SPOILER ALERT, because I have to. Just skip the rest of this if you haven't seen the film.

One of the things I always look for in a movie like this, is character change, whether it's for the better or worse. In fact, I think that's one of the things I learned back in grade school regarding good story-telling: your protagonist should improve upon themselves in some way. But, I'm not expert. However, I did see this mechanism at work on Greenberg himself. Early in the film, Greenberg meets Florence and immediately attempts to woo her with (from his perspective) his good taste in music. And this sets the tone as this guy is just a robot right now; you know he does this with every woman he finds attractive. They do not seem to hit it off, but a few scenes later he calls her up, ends up going to her place and he goes down on her. While this is happening her shirt is removed and everything is on display, but Greenberg does not appreciate it. In fact, it's just autonomous like the robot he is, and completely in line with his self-serving behaviour he exhibits throughout the rest of the film.

Later on though, as they "take it slow" and they call the situation into question, it becomes clear that Greenberg has more of an interest in Florence, but even to him, he is unsure what it is. Then the moment: she leans over revealing quite a bit of cleavage, and he finds himself staring down her shirt. The camera focuses on her chest, then goes back to Greenberg. It's quite subtle, but it's there: he's seen "the good" before but is now just seeing her for the first time, and seeing in himself that he has fallen in love.

So there it is. The film also touches on a few other issues and in general, was a satisfying watch.

Lego Rock Band

There are too many Rock Band and Guitar Hero games out there. There are not ENOUGH Rock Band and Guitar Hero games out there. The conflict is strong.

I absolutely love going through these games, and also, enjoying them with friends. I find it quite relaxing to just go through set list after set list, blasting through some quality tunes. It's also a lot of fun playing the hits with your friends. What I do not get a lot of enjoyment from, is trying to improve my skill on these games: I'm a player who is stuck at medium; that extra colour is just asking for a little too much. However, that is not entirely true as I can play quite a few songs on hard mode, with the bass guitar only though: hard guitar is just too much. 

Rock Band came around and it was a bit easier [than the Guitar Hero series], but I don't get a kick out of endlessly practicing, which is why I'm excited when a new iteration comes out, with a selection of good songs. I will not pay full price though: I've waited until now, when the game is under twenty dollars, to pick up Lego Rock Band. I've picked up Guitar Hero Aerosmith months ago for $4.99. At such prices, they are an incredible value of gameplay.

Do you like the "Lego" games humour? Perhaps I'm too dense, but I just don't get it. I'm not a fan of it. I've tried playing Lego Batman and it's just too weird. I also don't like how I have no clear idea of what is going on in these games: why are there so many areas that I just can't get to? Perhaps I'm too used to being spoon-fed linear gameplay and I've lost the ability to play games that are geared towards children (but appeal and are enjoyed by adults, calm down)? Turns out they are pulling a Donkey Kong 64 on us all. I won't stand for it. 

The fact is, Lego Rock Band is just a skin: the note highway is the same thing, but instead of shiny bars, you get Lego bricks. You get Lego characters, who I think look terrible and the customization doesn't sit well: the bodies are always a different shade than the faces?! And you get Lego cut-scenes, complete with lack of speech and that Lego humour. I skip them.

But it's all about the music, and this game has a good selection. I'm not going out buying pop albums, but I enjoy playing through these oddly catchy tunes in game. I'm glad they are there as they give you a break from the classic rock and metal that is abundant in the Guitar Hero series. They also further refine the tour mode which is...good.

For me, these games are a reprieve from your "hardcore" titles, such as Assassin's Creed or Mass Effect. I'm actually hoping that after a few hours of this, I will be able to pick up Mass Effect II. Now, if you excuse me, I need to go download all the Franz Ferdinand tracks for Rock Band!

The Road

What a great movie. This post-apocalyptic world was one I could believe in, unlike anther movie I saw recently, The Book of Eli. This movie would actually incite some emotion from me as well, as I felt tension and anxiety as I became afraid that they were going to steal the son. The performances were also top notch, although I should say I am a terrible judge of acting ability. But Viggo, you could tell, had intensity in him.

The colour in the film was great too: without ever explaining what was causing the end of the world, or how things were going down afterwards, you could tell the devastation was rampant and consistent. All the yellows and browns were accented nicely by the colourful flashbacks, as if the world was slowly being consumed of life. You also got the fact that life was very tough in this world. Everybody is paranoid - "I wasn't following you, you were following me!" - and crazy. Cannibalism is rampant and you just want to stay away from everybody; as the man and boy need to investigate buildings for supplies, you are terrified they are going to run into somebody just waiting to munch on a femur.

The suicide/life angle was played out very nicely: when do you call it quits in this situation? Without being given a definite timeline, you are left to extract the age of the apocalypse based on the boy's age (which you are also guessing at). They come across numerous bodies, lives ended by one's own hand, others who have died a violent death, but none that seem to be dead from whatever induced this apocalypse. To me, the movie is sending an obvious message that we - humans - will always be responsible for our own demise.

There was also an excellent play on who is bad, and who is good. Put good and bad in italics, if it helps. As the movie begins, you identify that the man and boy are the good ones, that the people eating each other are bad. And this distinction is black and white; it is never this simple. How good can you be, when you need to be selfish to survive? You, i.e. humanity, can only survive when everyone is in it together. The line gets blurred as the characters progress, which is appreciated.

I was going to point out some comparisons between this and The Book of Eli, but I won't. For me, this was the superior movie in every respect, but I can understand how watching Denzel pull out insane moves on a group of creeps works better for that film (and audience?) and each has their place. As a fan of movie "worlds" I absolutely and thoroughly enjoyed this movie.

Batman: Arkham Asylum

This game came out of nowhere, at least on my radar. How many Batman games have there been, that have just been complete trash? Really, you could say the same thing for any comic-based game. In the early nineties, I was heavily into comics; I was also heavily into video games. So combine the two and you have greatness, right? I must admit that the SNES (and to a lesser degree the Genesis, incompetent as it was) was chock full of side-scrolling super hero romps. Unfortunately I thought they were all mediocre at the time and really didn't get into them.

Indeed, the big X-Men arcade game that supported a plethora of multiplayer goodness was so good that I actually brought $10 worth of quarters from the bank to the mall to play all day. That dream was crushed, but I did have a bucket load of quarters. The same excitement could not be reproduced on the home systems. I tried Spider-Man games, Wolverine, X-Men, etc and they were just a big collective meh.

So superhero games were ignored, rightfully so, through the 32 and 64-bit years, until Batman: Vengeance came out for the Cube. Why did this game get me excited to the point where I actually paid money? One thing: cape physics. Really. I'm not kidding; perhaps I was a bit dull, or the urge to play as Batman after so many years of pitiful games got a hold of me. We can't be certain except that I only played for a short time: this game was wretched. 

So back into the abyss of superhero games, and I was fine with that. Then people start talking (and by people I guess we refer to the internet) about this new Batman game, but as the internet goes as an often unreliable hype machine, I pay no heed. I don't even understand what type of game it's going to be: I don't care. But then it starts hitting me, and I download the demo. I refuse to play it. It's childish, but I wasn't about to be disappointed.

Then Cale, bless him, starts ranting about this game, describing it in its detail and I must play it. I still don't understand how the game plays: I hear murmurs that you slowly walk through the Asylum and just dispose of guys. What? Arkham is not big enough to do that for an entire games-length. Well, I could describe my confusion on how the game mechanics would be, but then I played the damn thing and I was sold in a heartbeat. We played for hours, and it was so detailed, so in-depth, so gripping, I didn't want to stop.

He let me borrow the game then my life was game over: every night for hours, until I conquered this game. I threw the controller in rage, I sat on the edge of my seat, I cowered during the Scarecrow's mind bending nightmares. After finishing the game, and with exhausted breathing I watched the credits roll, I knew, this was the superhero game I had waited for. 

Youth in Revolt, Last House on the Left (2009)

A couple of movies in the past week, one of which I watched on the spur of the moment and the other one I watched because I finally worked up the nerve to do so. I'll leave it up to you to decide which was which.

I saw a great graphic online that was kind of a build our own Michael Cera movie. You choose a few elements, move down the flowchart and choose some more Cera-cliches and you have yourself a movie. The terrible thing is they would all make decent movies. Youth in Revolt was decent, but nothing more. Perhaps I'm getting too old and can't relate. Sheeni is the object of desire in this movie and quite frankly, she's a bitch. I was almost expecting to find out at the end of the movie that she was the figment of Nick's imagination, as she was his perfect fantasy girl.

Nick's alter-ego was a great way to advance the plot, make the movie interesting and to give Cera a little more to do. Also, did they have to call him Nick? Wasn't he Nick in Infinite Playlist? Some of the other characters were memorable but nothing to write home about; I would give this movie a 5.5 out of 10.

The other is The Last House on the Left, which I honestly thought was a horror film, but was more of a thriller without supernatural elements. Not sure why I would be scared to watch either one: this was a thriller that made you hang on until the end to see some real nasty vengeance take hold. And you have to enjoy it, right? I'm going to have to go ahead and say revenge flicks seem to be picking up more steam in the past few years. And not just simple revenge, but revenge of the nature where Liam Neeson can spend two hours busting up bad guys in the most horrific way possible and we eat it up and want more. We don't even care if his daughter is ok...indeed, we know she is because Liam is in charge here.

So, I spent most of Last House waiting for the revenge to go down but it did take a while and I'm sure it's a better movie for it. Disturbing scenes abound and the bad guys get what they deserve...I think? Spoiler alert, of course, but the last guy's head explodes in a microwave. What? Nothing more to add to this really: it was a disposable film that was entertaining and did what it needed to do. It did not leave a bad taste but will not be very memorable.

Great Lake Swimmers

Well this has certainly been a while in the making, or waiting, but I felt like the movie "reviews" could use a little rest on the site. The idea of sharing thoughts on music albums is great, but I find it incredibly difficult to write about. I'm in awe when I peruse the reviews on sites such as Pitchfork or Stereogum: those writers are talented and I am not. They are passionate about their subjects, and then you realize that it's also a job for them: I'm an amateur who writes without an editor or even a grammar check. Most of the time my brain sloshes onto the keyboard and the end result is what you are reading now.

So going back to the music: it's tough to write about. I can't go into much detail except to say simple things such as "I really love it" or "I really...feel indifferent." If I'm going to make an album recommendation it's going to be a quick shout-out, hardly worth an entire multi-paragraph blog post.

So the Great Lake Swimmers? They are really great: mellow and warm. There is depth in the lead's voice, and some really fantastic instrumental work.

See?

Alright, this post is more about going to see this group in concert a few months ago. My friend Jay introduced me to the band and it did not take long to get into all of their albums. When the opportunity to see them in concert came up, it was a quick decision of executive-level execution. Buying the tickets was a different experience as I've had in the past: no specific seating, and they were playing in a church. I'm trying to find the name of the place but it's eluding me on their page right now, and I just noticed that they played in Wolfe Island, and for any of you familiar with the region, you know how small that place is, and isolated. This group rocks. I see now the place is Trinity St. Paul, in Toronto.

So, we try to get to the show a bit early, but of course, being a small venue, we were forced to stand outside for about an hour in the freezing cold. It was February and we were not fully prepared for this. We were also not prepared to be sitting in the pews for the concert: this was a real church, and not a big hall or anything; the acoustics were great. I'm glad we got there early as we got some great seats in the lower level. But you couldn't go wrong: this was an intimate setting and really, a treasure. We also could not take off our coats for the entire show: it was cold.

The Swimmers did a really fantastic job, of course. At the end Dekker went solo and acoustic. He managed to fill the entire venue...it was truly something else.

I'll leave it up to you now to go listen to some of their music, if you haven't already. This was definitely one of the best "concerts" I've been to. www.greatlakeswimmers.com

9

It's not often that I get an urge to watch a movie randomly and then follow through with those actions. Typically I get an urge to watch a movie, in general, and find nothing in my 400+ collection. How many times I skipped over 9, I can't be certain of. What I could be certain of last night, though, was that this movie needed to be seen, and seen it was.

And it was great. This movie probably popped onto my radar because Tim Burton's name was attached to it (he produced it). How much fanfare or reception it had I couldn't tell you; but I'm glad this movie exists and was wonderful. The first thing to come to mind is to say this movie does not screw around, and it is so concise I think other movies need to take a clue from this. A part of that is because it's animated: they probably don't waste a lot of CPU cycles processing film that ends up on the floor. With a traditional, live action movie I would imagine you would end up with a lot of extra footage and that somehow makes its way into the movie, as evidenced by some comedies that are about an hour too long (re: Knocked Up). It could be that, but right now I'm more inclined to say it's the screenplay that deserves kudos.

So continuing with the concise angle, this movie gets right to the point and does not inundate you with character setup, information and back stories. No, it lets all that flow out naturally over the course of the movie. You aren't given a flashback on why the title character is so important or is a proven leader. No, they don't shove all that down your throat: they put him in situations where he develops (important) and proves his character through his actions. These little characters have some big character.

The world that they are in is fantastic too: the war-torn post-WWII European city and time gets even better as they mix in these little technical marvels. The Matrix-esque robotic domination of humans is given a brief history, but gets more depth added is later in the story.

One more thing to add is that this movie was shockingly dark.While it was not really scary, exactly, I was surprised by some of the imagery. Definitely not for kids; this movie got darker and the characters more hopeless before seeing the light, and even when that does happen, it leaves things open (for slight interpretation).

I'll close by starting where I left off: considering most movies are too lengthy these days, this is one where I would be happy to see more of. But, I hope that a sequel is not in the works, as sequels do, it could tarnish this little gem.

Iron Man 2

Wow, I'm actually impressed with myself that this blog has been up, and (somewhat) maintained with posts between Iron Man and its sequel being released in theaters. Reading that "review" from years back, and not a lot stands out. Good for fans and everybody else? Sure, the sequel is like that too. But I'm really not sure what fans would think of this second romp into Tony Stark's world. Being a fan of comics and movies, I can say that I left a little disappointed.

Not enough action? I don't know. Not enough plot? Sure...good acting? Yeah, that was there. There were good moments but nothing really popped for me. I'm happy that this is a super-hero movie that is not in your face with cheesy super-her movie cliches. It really does appeal to everyone.

As for the experience, it was interesting. I picked up the tickets about an hour and fifteen minutes early (this was Tuesday) thinking it was going to be jammed busy. Nobody in sight. I remember lining up for Daredevil an hour early and we weren't nearly the first in line. Granted, this wasn't the first day of release, but it was the first cheap-Tuesday of release. Typically they are packed. Now, getting there a half hour early we were able to find a good seat, and I did discover the show was sold out. It just seems like things have come a long way: when a terrible super-hero movie like Daredevil can command large lines in North Bay, of all places, and nobody cares to show up to see Iron Man even a half hour early, it either indicates that movie-goers are burned by those old hero movies, or the recession has really hurt the industry. Or something else happened: I'm not an expert by any means.

Another thing I made mention of on the first show was the movie being out of focus. This was still a problem, but not to a degree that made me notice more than a few times. Perhaps I'm too keen on what out of focus is, but it was definitely there. In this day of age, where we are getting digital, 3-D projectors and seeing razor-sharp images from Avatar, people are going to start noticing the poor quality they've been subjected to on everything else.

Then of course there was the bit at the end: Thor's hammer. Again, I'm looking forward to seeing it but by no means getting excited to see it. Honestly, I never really followed these characters in the comics; it was all about X-Men, Spider-Man and some others when I was a kid. What was really amusing, are some people's comments when the bonus footage started rolling: "this better be worth it." Really? Sitting for that extra five minutes through the credits after a two hour movie is really a drain on your time? Shouldn't you be more upset  about the fifteen minutes of ads and commercials before the movie? I don't know, people are crazy. I used to sit through all the credits of all the movies I would see in the theatre. Now, if you do that the usher will come and tell you there is nothing to see. Nothing to see, but it was paying appreciation to everybody involved.

That's it!

The Omega Man

It was a double feature on Sunday, as I got my movie collection in order and figured out that there are many hours in the day. Let me attack that point first: when you go to watch a movie, immediately the word "movie" brings to mind multiple hours of commitment. But friends, it does not have to be that way. Where did this come from? Is it because, if you planned on going to a movie, you would be going to the theatre: driving there, picking up friends (or waiting for them), standing in line, buying the ticket, waiting in line for food, finding a seat, then waiting for the movie to start, because you arrived a bit early. When the film squeals by you sit through another ten minutes plus of previews and (television) commercials. By god, when you are done with the hour and forty five minute movie, you've just invested three hours of your life.

But it's not the case at home: you're already on the couch, load up your movie, skip the BS and start viewing. The movie is not THAT long. In fact, you could see two for the time cost of one. So that's what I did.

First up was Away We Go, who stars The Office guy, Jim plus beard, and the adorable Maya Rudolph from SNL fame. Decent movie, that doesn't get too involved in itself. But it's the second movie I want to focus on: The Omega Man.

This one has been sitting in the collection for a while, and gained interest as I Am Legend released. Man was released in 1971 and that perhaps contributes to the hesitation of watching it. But it's watch well worth it: you're never entirely sure what the creatures are that are tormenting Neville, but you are damn happy they talk and have character, which is leagues beyond the CGI vampire/weirdo's polluting Will Smith's vehicle. Heston is interesting as Neville, as he sports some real gnarly smile when he shows teeth, and a knack for killing these damned creatures. His relationship with them is fantastic, as he shoots first and thinks later in the earlier part of the film, plot advances and character development show that these are/were people, and calls into question his relentless pursuit of murdering them all. But also, on the flip side, you have the leader who is bent on killing Heston simply because the guy won't leave. By the end of the film I really have to step back and admire how they conveyed this on screen: for any modern movie it would be enough that Neville is human, creatures are not and that means they must all die. Here, I got the feeling that, in this post-apocalyptic world, these two factions could in fact live together in some form of "peace."

I really wish modern movies would take the time and devote the subtlety of plot, social commentary and conflicted characters that these classics have. It can be done: you don't have to look far for a movie like The Omega Man.

One bit of interesting trivia from IMDB was that the author didn't care about this movie as an adaptation of his novel, as the movie was so far removed from his original vision. Time to read that book. And isn't it great that they could make a movie, so far removed, and still be relevant and good? When a movie is made now, and is so far removed, it's considered trash, or built for movie-audiences. That concept is insulting: we, the people, can handle an intellectual "action" movie.

Anyway. Check it out. I really loved it.