The Exorcist

Every so often you are shamed into watching a movie that has been around for longer than you've lived. The problem with that statement is that nobody shamed me into watching this movie except myself. In fact, Cale recommended it a while ago, and a light (not the light) went off in my mind: I've never seen this classic. Why in the world not? I'll tell you, it's scary.

And here's something that I need to address and admit. This may be more for myself (which is to say, everything in this blog is about myself), after all, acceptance is the first step. I joke around with my friends that certain things are too scary - mainly horror video games - but I've always hyped myself up with anticipation before things. This typically leads me to avoid such "things" such as games, or movies. I'll be sitting down in the theatre and start getting anxious on the level of terror that I'm about to subject myself to, and always in the end, I laugh at my past self for being so naive and weak. The same can't be said entirely for video games: Condemned is a game that I watched my buddy play but could never pick up myself. I tried the sequel on my own but couldn't handle it: bums jumping out of the shadows with lead pipes while I had an inferior weapon was too much. There are other horror games that I just can't do (Doom 3) but others that I've successfully forced my way into, such as the Resident Evil series. Movies on the other hand, are a mixed bag: depending on the subject matter I'll happily watch by myself, and if it gets a little too scary I can pop open my laptop and distract myself.

What am I so afraid of though? Everybody is "afraid" of the shock: that bum jumping out when you least expect it, or a loud noise placed perfectly with perhaps some incredible visual shock to go along with it. Those are givens. It's the psychological scare that is going to really get to you, and keep you up at night. As an example, The Fourth Kind really stuck with me; it's not a movie I could watch alone. I guess it goes along with what you're willing to believe; do I believe in aliens? Yeah. Do I believe in demonic possession? Not really, but I like the idea of believing in that stuff, which is probably why I psych myself out with them so much. The Exorcist deals with possession, AND exorcism, a double whammy of sorts. It seems to me that exorcism is a great subject for people to get themselves worked up about; people want to believe in this stuff. They almost always have "based on true events" attached to the project, this film not excluded (it never says so in the film, but it's based on a book based on true events). I just wondered how much of this film would stay with me as I tried to fall asleep later on. As it turns out - and as it always turns out - I had no problems sleeping afterwards, but that doesn't detract from the quality of the film.

Do I really have to talk about the greatness of the film? You know where it stands, and if you haven't seen it you really should. I feel shamed, as I mentioned earlier, because it's taken me so long to watch it. It was worth every second. As it turns out I watched a fairly recently cut version of the film (around 2000) which restored some elements, including the famous spider-walk scene and some more subliminal demon face pop-ups throughout the film. The slow buildup was really fantastic: you get proper character development and a huge setup. The slow burn is ever present here, and when something happens the significance is that much more profound. As for the scariness of the film: I won't question it. There's a reason my dad didn't let me watch The Exorcist as a child, but let me watch things like The Omen and The Amityville Horror. The latter films are great, mind you, but don't really hold a candle to The Exorcist. Seeing this when I was younger in all likelihood would have stayed with me and given me nightmares. Absolutely fantastic film making here.

Goodbye Michael

Michael Scott, that is. You may recognize the name - as its become oddly household - from the venerable series The Office (US, of course). I wrote a few months back about the series, and may have mentioned how it's gone into a steady decline but the fact of the matter is, I still watch it every week, and it's typically the first of the Thursday night NBC shows I take in. I skip 30 Rock now because it's aging way too fast and doesn't seem to be on track anymore, and I save Parks and Recreation because it is by far my favourite show on television and I want to savor the moment. The Office is pretty dependable in that you can't expect much from it anymore, and it's decent for a laugh or two. Plus, it's almost the end of the seventh season and you can't help but feel attached to these characters, as wretched as they are.

So Steve Carrell decides to leave the show; this is news that is not so much anymore. What is surprising is that his final episode wasn't the last of the season, or even the series. There's three more to go, and presumably an entire season afterwards. This seems hard to believe as the entire premise of the show was built on the boss' ignorance and social awkwardness. But over the years, the shtick can't be maintained and the writers made him into a good guy, albeit pretty clueless. But starting in the second season they drop the first hint that this guy is actually good at what he does. They detonate that bomb in the final episode as he hands over their top ten clients to one of the salesmen (who is the worst salesmen, so the character stays true to his clueless nature). And you have to think for one second: Scott is the best salesman at the company: he's been handling the top accounts all this time; you see glimpses of his brilliance in various episodes and hints dropping here and there - he was top salesman at the company two years in a row - and begin to realize his absence must not be taken lightly. On that topic, they bring in a completely ridiculous manager, played by Will Farrell, to really pound in Michael's "brilliance" and to let you know that yes, it can get worse, much worse.

One of the things that I've enjoyed about the series was it's lack of "event" episodes; that is, until Jim and Pam got married. The entire sixth season was full of hour long specials, making you realize you've lost the series you once loved. Before, episodes really put into the spotlight the mundane aspects of office life and it was funny. You had ongoing romantic tensions, but nothing that stood out: the series was a slow burner. It's a testament that you can put on a random episode and be involved right away. I'm sure there were more problems, and I feel like the seventh season has been bringing the series back to relevancy. There's been a few duds here and there, but for the most part it continues on and like I said, I'm glued to it every week.

I was going to question why the show would go on after Michael's departure but I want to keep it focused on the departure itself. I hope I'm not spoiling anything here (this should go up a full week after airing) for you, but be warned. His leaving scenes couldn't be any more well done, and is perfect. He is leaving to live with Holly as she takes care of her aging parents; he loves the company but knows and doesn't question his love for her. When she was first introduced seasons ago, they immediately had the perfect ending to the series (or his character, as it is). As he constantly tries to find true love in all the wrong places, you can't help but feel bad for him as you imagine a life of loneliness. And he leaves for all the reasons we would leave to, no matter how much you love your job; it's perhaps one of the few times we can relate to this character and specifically feel happy for him.

Others feel the same way, as Jim admits he's the best boss he's ever had. Jim has tried taking on leadership roles a few times throughout the show, only to fail time and again. Michael leaves with Jim's respect and an invite to lunch, something Michael has been after forever as he idolizes Jim; but he doesn't need to idolize him any longer. Throughout all the "horrible" things Michael has done you step back and realize he's what the office actually needed: someone who is there for them (in his own way), dependable yet unpredictable: you never know what you're going to see on your way into work. There were a few other great moments as well, including the removal of the mic. It's one of those rare glimpses into the premise of the show, as Michael asks the cameraman to let him know if it ever goes to air. I got a chill, thinking that we've been watching the past all this long as the show's seven years of filming has been going through editing, marketing and distribution to get it onto our sets. For half a second you can believe that everything you've witnessed has happened.

It will be interesting to see the next few episodes, and the next season. There will be a huge, gaping hole in the show that I'm not sure can be filled. I hope we don't look back in ten years and think about the terrible ending the series had, as we blame season eight for ruining our memory of an otherwise good show.

Movie Update - April 2011

Great month for movies!

• Troll Hunter
• V for Vendetta
• Tron Legacy
• Love and Other Drugs
• Your Highness
• Hannah
• Punisher: War Zone
• The Uninvited
• Dog Soldiers
• Where the Wild Things Are
• Forgetting Sarah Marshall
• Speed Racer
• Star Trek (2009)
• The Exorcist

Speed Racer

This is in regards to the 2008 film, not the original cartoon series. I know absolutely nothing (absolute is perhaps too definitive) of the original source material, and I can only imagine this has prevented complete and utter disappointment with this live action film. As it stands, I was surprised and perhaps taken a little aback at how much I enjoyed the racing here. What do I know about Speed Racer? The catchy theme song; the monkey, the Mach 5. They are culturally saturated concepts strung together by my imagination into plots that only exist in the dark recesses of my mind. One day I watched an episode of the original cartoon and I laughed, because it was so terrible. But I can see the appeal; we all have a special fondness for childhood loves, but for the person viewing these things for the first time as an adult - well - the results are not good.

Perhaps my friends were fans of Speed Racer, as that may be the only explanation on why I was the only one in my group who was even remotely interested in this film. Alright, there are probably others, as I do enjoy some terrible movies (no really, they are good!) from time to time. But what really set this movie apart, years ago, was the colour. I can only imagine a special effects guy manipulating a dozen sliders on a computer screen, just raping the image by sliding every single one to the right as far as they can, without regard for the end result. What we end up with is something that really makes your HDTV shine in a way conventional film can't, and makes you realize you are watching something with extreme style. For that, I give Speed Racer some points. It's consistent and hyper all the time; the visuals never cease to impress me. Speed Racer is almost prophetic back in 2008 as we are now inundated with films such as Sucker Punch, which focus more on atmosphere, style and imagery than anything else (although we truly have Sin City to blame). The difference between this and Snyder's digital landscapes is the infusion of colour and speed; whereas Zack loves slow motion, bringing out the minute details and movements of his puppets, and the Wachowski's speed things up, blurring objects to overwhelm you with urgency, wonderment and chaos.

Those racing scenes really are quite wild; as a long time fan of the F-Zero series of games, you won't have any problems seeing the inspiration here. The similarities are numerous; cars spin around into one another to knock opponents off track; cars explode (pilots safely escape here, of course) in a blaze; tracks make impossible shapes and defy gravity. It's really quite surreal if you've played the Gamecube version. The only thing differentiating them are the weapons: you don't have any in F-Zero and you sort of do in Speed Racer. In the upper classes of racing, they are quite illegal but in some leagues the vehicles are outfitted with them and you must be prepared to defend oneself. But the main mode of attack - which seems OK everywhere - is jumping. And spinning. Watching Speed bounce around the track in his car - off obstacles, other vehicles - was like watching some martial artist. It was elegant, awe-inspiring and scary. Anakin wouldn't stand a chance against Speed.

And the racing, described above, is about the only redeeming thing going on here, aside from Christina Ricci's deliciously cute close-ups and outfits. The plot is routine but there and quite acceptable. The acting is nonexistant, but that's not to say it was terrible: there are some big names here: John Goodman, Matthew Fox, Susan Sarandon, to name a few. What really gets me is Speed's little brother and the injection of juvenile humour into it; obviously this was a movie for kids but there were elements that were just so asinine it bothered me. I watch a lot of kids movies with my niece and I don't think she would appreciate what was happening here. And perhaps some of that humour is from the absurdity of an old cartoon series, and that's fine, but you're making a different beast here.

In the end, I feel like this would be a movie that I defend on my own, and to chalk it up to my odd likes. I'll give that to you for sure, as I'm surprising myself here. I step back and have to say, I enjoyed it.

Shift 2: Unleased

In a word: disappointed. I loved the first Shift tremendously; it's style of racing fit my preference perfectly and it's still a game I can put in the drive and continue playing. Racing games have always been a part of my life, and with Gran Turismo I was at a crossroads. In those games, you are encouraged to tune, simulate, advance through your "career" and earn money, all for what? You would spend quite a bit of time outside the track, and would find yourself grinding more than anything else. I remember playing the same race over and over just to get some money to buy a new car in order to have a slight chance of competing. After a few hours I would become discouraged and give up. And then Project Gotham Racing came about, and my interest in racing games was renewed. The physics and handling were more arcade-style, yet you were racing real vehicles and awarded for doing neat things on the track. You didn't have to technically master anything, and the result - for me - was a ton of fun. So you could imagine my sadness when the series ended, but then Shift came out and I was overwhelmed with joy.

Shift 2 was released recently, and the fact that I actually pre-ordered the title should indicate how excited I was for it. I picked it up, put it in and started playing. And for a time, it was good. Like, really good. The graphics are amazing; the cars are incredible. The sound is loud and immersive. The new helmet cam is innovative but not up my alley; the game's default view is from within the rider's helmet and I found myself switching out to the classic chase cam. I've tried that helmet cam since and it's weird. The drive looks into turns as you approach them and you get a real sense that the car is a separate entity than the driver. You can look around in the cockpit and truly appreciate the developer's love for cars: the detail is amazing.

So what happened? The difficulty has been spiked, is what, and it's been spiked in terms of driver AI and technical racing. In the first Shift was a bit of a postive/negative karma system, in that you could get points for clean overtake (in which you do not touch your opponent as you pass him) or a dirty overtake (in which you do make contact in order to pass). Dirty overtakes were common and fun: you could run someone off the road and keep on going; in Shift 2 if you dare touch another car you are spinning wildly out of control and your race is over. Indeed, the pack is so hard to catch up to that if you fail and run off the course at any moment it's time to restart the race. The driver AI has been ramped up and they are more aggressive; this is advertised as a feature of the game but I don't like it. I need to be battling morons. If I wanted harder opponents I would take it online. The AI will drive out of its way to block you, and in most cases making contact, which as mentioned will quickly take you off the track.

So you've got to be a better racer, but perhaps I don't want to. If I did, I would go play Forza or Gran Turismo. I like the arcade elements in these games; there is a best driving line you can follow to help you master corners but not following it shouldn't mean you lose the race. Perhaps I am incredibly picky: I require that perfect balance between sim and arcade racing. I believe Shift had that, and now Shift 2 is veering ever so softly into an uncomfortable simulation area. Or perhaps I just suck, and need to practice more. I want to race, I want to win (not all the time of course) and continue through the game. Give me credit for finishing third, fine, but make it close and let me advance. I'm at a point in life though where I don't want to grind away at the same track just to win by fractions of a second. I simply do not have the time or patience; there are many other games out there that can grab my attention and entertain me.

Project Cafe aka Wii2

It's been an incredibly long time since a new home console has been released; I guess the last one was the PS3. Microsoft really took the bull by the horns and got everyone into a frenzy with their viral marketing, making the term a household name and setting the precedent for the game industry (see Portal 2, just last week). I remember being very excited for the 360, even though I had no idea what it was or what to expect entirely, but that's part of the fun right there. When the Wii was coming out, I only felt that tingle of joy slightly, as the uncertainty of motion controls had already set in. But I still saw the potential, and innovation. As it turns out the Wii was pretty disappointing, although it has some pretty killer games. So now we're in a situation where rumours for the next Nintendo console has absolutely broken through the brick wall, just like the Kool-Aid man, absolutely devastating the the rumour mill. And I am completely into it.

I'll tell you why: high definition graphics. This has to be a major detractor from the current Wii. Nintendo has foresight, yes, but they didn't have the foresight to see that HD televisions would be so widespread in a relatively short period of time. But perhaps my view is myopic; the target consumer for the Wii is arguably not me, but the more casual gamer who don't have big screen TVs, let alone a television that isn't a tube. The Wii is a massive success, but a bit of a failure for the intermediate to hardcore gamer. So this next Nintendo system will have high definition graphics; of course it's all completely rumour and nothing is fact, but it seems impossible at this point to not include HD. So there's that.

And what else could be lined up for the system? Touchscreens in all the controllers. Nintendo has always shown great innovation in controllers, and by extension, they have guided the gaming industry. All the current gen systems have a form of motion control now. After the N64, everyone put analog sticks in their system. The list goes on, but it's important to note Nintendo would not be the first to put a screen in a controller - see the Dreamcast - but they could be the first to do it successfully. Nintendo has been a pioneer in the touch screen business with their DS, and the train keeps on rolling.

I also think it's important to return to the foresight here, and use Apple as an example. I read an article a while back that described how the iPad was the product of years of live research: the screen being pioneered in the Macbooks until perfected, and the touch screen introduced in the iPhone and iPod devices. Culminating together, you have the iPad, the device they really wanted to release but needed to perfect first. I can believe Nintendo doing the same thing: you have the combination of motion controls and touch screens to bring out the "perfect" controller. Well, I'm not entirely sold on it, but there are possibilities; Nintendo first experimented  with multiple screen gaming with the Game Boy consoles, of course, but later on with Four Sword Adventures. Each player having their GBA connected to the Gamecube; each with their own screen, and each sharing the big screen up front.

There are many more possibilities out there, and they are all rumour right now. I can only hope we'll see an official announcement at E3 this year.

Update: I know, it's weird, I'm updating this before it's even been published, but so is the way of my blog (I typically write things up weeks before they are scheduled for posting). Nintendo has officially announced that it will be revealing their next system at E3, and that it will be released next year. So, I don't have to remain in a state of heightened anticipatory excitement for long, as we'll be getting all the details soon. But it makes you think about all these rumours in the past week eh?

Dog Soldiers

It's about time I saw this movie! And I'm convinced that if it wasn't for Netflix that I would still be missing out on this little gem. This is a film that come out in 2002 and has been sitting on rental store shelves, box seen but film unseen, for so long. There was a time when I would frequent Blockbuster and this movie would stand prominently, begging for attention every time, but every time, I would turn my back and walk away from it, treating it like an abandoned pup in the forest. But this is no pup, this is a werewolf, and I'm surprised I wasn't disemboweled as I walked through the metal detectors of those now-obsolete rental stores.

Somebody once told me that werewolf movies were my thing and I took that to fact because I can't stop pimping An American Werewolf in London. Aside from that I'm not entirely sure I've seen too many other 'wolf films, aside from Wolf and the disappointing The Wolfman (2010). The fact is though I like the idea of being a werewolf movie guy, and now feel an urge to live up to the title and get into them more. It's certainly better and more attractive than being a "vampire guy" and trying to justify the bile coming out of Hollywood at the moment in that genre. What better way to get into the werewolf craze than a nine year old movie about a British military squad stumbling onto a group werewolves in the Scottish Highlands?

And that's basically the plot: a small British military squad led by none other than Kevin McKidd - Lucius Vorenus himself - are in the middle of a training exercise when things start going awry. They stumble upon another military bunch (who of course are doing secret things) and things take a turn for the worse. They are hunted by these werewolves, and eventually take refuge in an old home, thanks to a zoologist they find randomly about. What we have here is a Zulu situation, except instead of thousands of Zulu warriors we have a handful of werewolves, who have simpler desires: to devour and satisfy their hunger for human flesh. 

The action is great: you feel like they could be making progress shooting at their enemy, but you can't be certain as the point of view is always from the squad members inside the house. Shoot at a werewolf poking his head into a boarded up window, and he disappears howling into the darkness. Is he dead? Just getting rejuvenated? Perhaps these monsters don't need silver to be killed. We get little tidbits here and there on how these monsters are different and similar to how they've been portrayed before in story and films. The soldiers only care about one thing though, survival, and any myths aside, they know they have to outrun their foe or wait until daylight, as that's one mythos that can never be broken. The full moon grants them their power, and it's disappearance means the same for these damned souls.

Dog Soldiers does not mess around that much: it gets off to a shaky start as it travels back in time a few hours for absolutely no good reason. The opening scene is of course a cliche young couple get ready for action, then promptly attacked. The film takes us back a few hours to set up some characters, then just as quickly, four weeks later. But after this bit of odd pacing is taken care of, it's a smooth ride all the way out. We get to see some good werewolves: there is not a single shot of blatant CGI here. We get werewolf special effects that make me happy, because they are unique to the film. They seem "realistic" if I can even use that word here. We don't see transformations, but you can see the human behind their grotesque form. The camera cuts to them and back again quickly mimicking, I'm sure, the frantic nature you would find yourself drowning in should you come face to face with one. There's the requisite and sufficient amount of gore and horrible things present. It's a good ride, and one that I feel bad for not taking much earlier.

Experiment in PC Gaming

The entire reason I got into computers can be attributed to games. It wasn't easy getting them (or anything on the PC, for that matter) to work, or even work well. You had to educate yourself; familiarize yourself with the various kinds of memory, startup files and disk space usage. Or perhaps you're too young to remember when drives were forty megabytes and you had to compress the space just to install a game - but if you compressed it, you were increasing the volatility of the entire computer, not to mention some things don't work on compressed volumes. I became very aware of disk space when my dad brought home a computer with 200MB, and we compressed the hell out of it. It allowed me to install Mechwarrior 2 instead of running off the CD-ROM, and a few other games. Quickly drive space wasn't a problem yet more came up: video and audio cards. Specifically, video cards that enabled true 3D graphics (polygons and the such) were entering the market, and if you were familiar with the industry at the time, you knew how wild it was.

There were many manufacturers of cards, and the game you were playing had to be built to take advantage of it. I'm happy the industry sorted itself out and we have two main providers now and follow standards. There's a level of comfort that we didn't have before when buying games now, but I'm still irked. This is because the tech advances so quickly, and there's a huge range of cards available with various specs. The latest games are demanding, and the ability to play them can be costly. Some say the PC gaming industry is dying out; I would tend to agree and cite costly upgrades as a major reason for it. I can buy an XBox and be guaranteed that any game released for it will indeed work - no upgrades necessary. Then the 360 and PS3 come out and it's blowing away anything on the PC anyway; my interest in PC gaming died six years ago. I think the last one I installed was SimCity 4 (which I don't believe was very demanding anyway).

In the past year or so I've noticed some more standards being introduced in the PC gaming scene, addressing installation and platforms. As I said before, installing a game could be tough, but it's not just because of the hardware or memory. Getting a game installed and configured to work on your system was a chore, and sometimes you end up reinstalling numerous times. Software standards like DirectX have been around and continue to evolve, but I really took notice of are platforms like Steam and Games for Windows. I can't speak for Steam - as I've never purchased a game through it - but I love the idea; digital distribution can be a wonderful thing, although I prefer collecting physical media. Some of their deals are incredible too, and you can get some great titles very easily and very cheaply. Games for Windows seems similar, but again, I'm not buying; instead, today I downloaded a trial of Resident Evil 5. As well, it's important that these are playable on the big screen and are playable with a wireless controller. Enter the 360 wireless controller adapter for the PC, and you're in business.

I keep seeing things about physics cards adding to games; I saw comparison videos on YouTube about Batman: Arkham Asylum, and for the first time in ages I feel like I'm missing out on experience-adding content. The core game remains the same, but it's the details that get enhanced; we're not just talking improved graphics, we're talking environmental effects, movement and other wonderful things. Plus, I was really curious to see if my PC setup could run a modern game. So RE5 installed, and I ran it. Now, this was misleading as this is a "benchmark" demo: not playable. It's like the game is on autopilot and the frames per second are in bold on the screen for you to see performance. Using mid-quality settings I was getting an average of 32FPS, which seems decent, but I'm not sure I can be the judge of that. I'll be researching: how many FPS does the 360 pull off? These "mid-quality" graphics looked as impressive as the 360, and I was excited knowing the possibility they get even better. And that game is a couple of years old.

But then I step back and think: what is the cost of upgrading to something that can push RE5 and all these other games at the highest quality? And 1080p? I refuse to look as I'll get the itch to tinker, but I imagine we're talking hundreds of dollars, perhaps $300? That seams reasonable to me, but then again, that's the cost of an entire console. And was this experiment in modern PC gaming a success? I'm not going to give up the 360, but I will check out some more demos. I have little interest in investing more money in my computer, but who knows; being into tech it's fun to tinker with one's own computer; it's just a matter of time before the bug takes hold. As they increase integration into the Live service (XBox Live) and grant achievements that are viewable on the XBox, the intrigue will be there.

Punisher: War Zone

Sometimes it's easier to write about things you hate, than those you love. This is a movie that I wanted to love - well, perhaps love is to strong a word. I have yet to see The Punisher from the '80s, but will soon enough I'm sure, and I was disappointed by The Punisher from earlier this decade (starring Thomas Jane). He's an interesting character to bring to the screen: by all accounts he's a ruthless killer, but they just fail to properly adapt him to the big screen. Perhaps there is a problem with the comics: I've never really read them before, and I really have to question how he fits into a world dominated by the Comics Code Authority. So maybe that's why these adaptations fail: they just have poor source material.

This can't be an excuse for what I witnessed recently though. You've got a host of bad acting, and suprisingly comical gore scenes. It's like the previous wasn't violent enough that they had to step it up, but just ended up making it silly. I don't have much of a problem with Ray Stevenson, but something horribly awry happened with Dominic West's Jigsaw character. This guy was great in The Wire but fails here; perhaps he just had no direction. At one point in the film he's walking down the street waving his arms wildly, just as I would do when I was in grade four and trying to embarrass my sister. To quote my friend: it was "zany." The scenes, and how they come together are questionable: we have a shootout in a house that ends awkwardly, incredibly odd characters that don't seem to fit, and very questionable motivations. The Punisher himself is clear cut: he's out for revenge and is actually nearly done, but he doesn't express any kind of satisfaction; this guy is severely disgruntled and I'm removed from the immersion of the film as I wonder how he passes slow days by himself in his Ninja Turtles-style lair.

I guess, to some degree this movie was becoming so terrible it was funny. When The Punisher punches a thug in the face, he not only knocks him out, he caves in his entire skull. Come on. I laughed a bit when that happened, but I think half the laugh was devoted to sadness. And I really question Julie Benz: you grew to hate her in Dexter (perhaps annoyed is the better term), and this film didn't help her case. Let's not get started on Martin Soap! Was this guy in the comics? Was he so terribly goofy? It is time to stop bringing The Punisher to the big screen.

Killarney 2009

A handful of images from our camping trip to Killarney a few years back. My personal favourite is on top!