Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood

There was some hesitation before playing Brotherhood. One day, I took the plunge. And I'm not sure I came
up for air again until two weeks later.

Hesitation because Assassin's Creed II was one of the best games I've played in quite some time. It improved upon the first in every way imaginable, and surpassed my expectations greatly. So fantastic, in fact, that I was only a few "sequences" into the game when I bought nearly all available downloadable content. Now, my memory is hazy but I think the main DLC was composed of a few sequences between the main game: for instance, the game may have went from 12 to 16, where the DLC was composed of 13, 14 and 15. Those downloaded sequences weren't quite up to par with the rest of the game, but it didn't sully my experience. I played all that I could.

Then, Brotherhood came out and I was unsure: mainly because the game looked like an expansion of II. Some sources were citing that it was more of the same, which in my books has never been a bad thing. Brotherhood also only takes place in one city: Rome, and by that would seem like a shorter title.

I was relatively wrong.

Rome in Brotherhood is filled to the absolute brim with gameplay and exploration. There is no shortage of activity to undertake and people to assassinate. I was looking for a game to play and upon hearing that my friend had taken up the challenge of Assassin's Creed II, I had to jump in. If anything, it would be a short game, but I was dead wrong about that.

The completionist in me came out, and I had to do as much as possible in the game before finishing the next main sequence. This involved rebuilding Rome, discovering ancient shrines and taking on the Borgia on any front that I could. And every bit of it was brilliant.

The gameplay is pretty smooth; there are moments of frustration as you accidentally run up a wall but generally, the fighting is fluid and the acrobatics are good. There are lots of ways to kill, many of which I didn't even bother with throughout most of the game. When it was all over I continued to play in order to score a couple of achievements but mainly because I couldn't let Rome go. During this time I undertook a few of the guild challenges that I didn't pay attention to before, of which many had me performing some interesting tasks. I couldn't help think though that the main game wasn't much of a challenge in regard of variety: for the most part you keep spamming the attack button and you'll breezing through the game in no time.

Only in the end did the game seem to falter. I won't spoil it for you, but I will say that the last portion has you in control of the controller, just as you have in previous games. I've seen comments saying that this unique aspect of the series - the big reveal in the first game - is also the weakest part. There are some relatively straightforward ways of stringing together the characters (they are ancestors of one another, after all). In any event, we have the series and so far, each game is getting better and better, although apparently that's coming to and end (if some sources are correct). The question quickly becomes, do I play Revelations now? I have to, of course. I need to see what happens to Ezio and his crew of assassins. Which makes me wonder why we don't get more Altair. Was his story really complete? Perhaps with some better gameplay we could revisit that period. I want more...I need more.

Brotherhood was brilliant.

Oblivion

Going to see Oblivion the other week was a real treat. In a summer movie season that promises to be sci-fi

heavy, Oblivion acted as the starting point, and if it’s any indication of what’s to come, this is will be a summer of sci-fi to remember.

Initially, I had a glimmer of hope that the title Oblivion was referring to the fourth installment of The Elder Scroll series; a game in which I devoted over a hundred hours and would serve as a proper introduction into the next generation of game consoles (which is now the current, soon to be eclipsed generation) on the Xbox 360. But alas, it was not the same one; however, it was science fiction.

Then another potential issue: Tom Cruise. I don’t hate the guy (I’ll get that out of the way right now) and I don’t really care for his personal life. I can understand how he gets the stink eye but really, the guy can put out a big budget movie and has a pretty solid track record. It also helps that I grew up watching Top Gun and Days of Thunder. This hasn't really prevented Cruise from basically becoming a parody of himself in films though, and I don’t go out of my way to see his movies specifically; I should say, this doesn't happen for any actor anymore. There is a bit of discussion though, and then my mind is blown. My friend says the problem with Tom Cruise is that Cruise can really only act as himself in every film, to which the lights went off and I was in complete agreement. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but you have to recognize that if Cruise is in your film, you’re getting a very specific character.

And it’s actually quite brilliant; in an age where people are recognizing and developing their own brands, we don’t have far to look for an example of this done to perfection, than in Cruise. Just like a company, an individual can make a mistake (like jumping on a couch) and keep on trucking, because the brand itself is another entity that has its ups and downs. For Cruise, he’s created his brand – or his character – in such a way that we can lose ourselves in his films. Or at least, in the films that are designed around such a character, which is going to happen more often than not for Tom. This is why he’s the perfect actor for Oblivion: you get the sense that the role was created for him, as it truly represents everything Cruise’s brand has been building up to. You've seen bits of this character before, but now you have the full package here.

That’s not to discount the rest of the film, either. There are a lot of great things happening here, including the music by M83, incredible special effects, beautiful scenery, decent characters, and great concepts. In an effort to not spoil anything, I won’t get specific but I left out “good plot” and replaced it with great concepts simply because this film borrows heavily from other, recent sci-fi films. And those films were great in their own regard; the fact that Oblivion borrows themes from them is flattering, I’m sure, but Oblivion also manages to pull them all together to form an incredibly solid storyline and a compelling movie experience. 

Batman: Arkham City

It looks from my initial write-up of Arkham Asylum that I was quick to get the post out there, without talking about the game that much. And what else is there to say? I've recommended it to friends over the years without much description aside from the simple command: just play it. Because that’s what I did, and fell in love, so I figured others should do the same thing. And it seems they have enjoyed it, although not to the extent that I did (which was perhaps too much), but only in terms of wanting to stay in the Asylum to do as many challenges and to find ALL the Riddler's clues. Sometimes, the gaming stars align in such a way that you can do those things, and others, they simply pass by one another without much notice. Upon completion in Arkham City, I felt absolutely zero need to go around collecting all the Riddler's trophies and puzzles, and even less about doing all the challenges.

Perhaps a reason for the lack of interest in those extras was the other extras throughout the game, specifically: the side missions. There were quite a few of them, and I don’t recall these types of side missions in Asylum.  I didn't complete all of them though, as doing a few made me quickly realize there was a lot of work for not much return – I much preferred to stick to the main storyline. But here, the main storyline felt quite a bit shorter, no doubt pared down a bit in order to make room for all the extra missions found throughout the city. That’s not to say the story wasn't excellent, because it was really, very good. All the voice acting is spot on of course, and the game carries on that feel of the nineties Animated Series with a darker skew. And for a fan of those original cartoons (like myself) these games are the bees knees.

I also wanted to make a comment on the Catwoman content, which is extra from the main game, but is tightly integrated: after certain scenes playing as Batman, you’ll cut over to play as Catwoman on her own little mission against Two-Face and of course, you’ll interact with Batman throughout his story too. It fleshed out the game and added some depth to it, but what I ended up focusing on (aside from the character model herself) was how much differently she played than Batman. She is smaller, faster and not as tough, and it was an absolute dream to take control and beat up some bad guys using the same combat system (minus Batman’s gadgets).

The Catwoman content is actually DLC that comes with the game when you buy it new. This format of
incentive is increasing in popularity; as publishers try to prevent people from buying used games where they see no profit, they offer “incentives” like this. The practice is a turn off for many gamers, but it’s inevitable: if you buy the game used you can always buy the content for the regular DLC price, otherwise, buy the game new and just punch in the code. Personally, I want to wait for the game of the year edition which is going to be discounted and full of all the content. In any event, for Arkham City I would have really liked to see this practice removed and have the Catwoman content present right from the beginning, as I really do feel that it offers valued gameplay and story to the game.

If I had to lodge a complaint against the game it could be tied directly to one of the best aspects of it: the combat. Here it is: they give you a ton of gadgets, and in City you get many more that you can “quickfire” in combat. I want to use them all, all the time: you get more experience and higher scores, and it’s just straight up fun. The problem: I can’t remember all the button combinations. Yeah, most of the time I’m just mashing the attack button and doing counter attacks. Every so often I remember to use a gadget and it throws me completely off to a point in where I lose my combination and I have to see Batman getting punched in the back of the neck. He doesn't like that.

The final battle was good, and I didn't feel as frustrated there or anywhere else in the game like I did in Asylum. A bit of the magic that was present was lost here, probably because of the novelty of your first play through on becoming The Batman himself. I was scared initially when I read about City: thinking the play area was just going to be too big. It’s the opposite problem I anticipated with Asylum, but fear not: the city is an appropriate size as the core game remains essentially the same as you travel from one building to another, wherein all the main action takes place.  

So just in time as I write this little review, I see news of the next game in the series being announced. It’s a prequel that takes place when Batman was just getting started, which is always a classic time frame for him. It won’t be developed by Rocksteady, who helmed both of these games. It also won’t feature the writing talents of Paul Dini, and presumably none of the voice talent. It kind of spells doom and gloom, but we can remain hopeful: it will run the same “engine” so to speak, which means identical combat with new and different gadgets as well as fairly similar graphics. It’s going to hit this fall, which means I’ll probably end up playing it by the end of 2014. I look forward to it! 

A Collection of The Collector

First, let’s get this out of the way and just say that the first movie in this two-part series is absolutely terrible. I hated it. Yet, I continued to watching it; chalk that up to its short run time I guess, and the mood being where it was at. The second film – The Collection – was much better (although still bad, I suppose).

What happened? Well, it was a Sunday afternoon and I was hunting for something to watch, so I had a look at recent movies I've acquired and there sat The Collector. Now, normally I would browse right past this movie but recently the sequel had come out and I had a brief discussion with my friend about it, and how it could be a good horror b-movie to watch one night. Then he said it was the sequel to a film: The Collector. Makes sense, but in my mind: my friend knew about this film series and hence, it may be worth watching. I do enjoy these short thrillers from time to time.

Well, the first act of The Collector was insensible and seemingly pointless. I had difficulty following along, as I was drawn to my tablet for some casual Reddit browsing. The main character had a lurid past (maybe) as he was mixed up with the wrong people; the same people who were now forcing him to crack a safe in somebody’s house to get something, or else his family was in “trouble” which I took to mean, they would be tortured and murdered brutally. So our protagonist goes into this house (which he is somewhat familiar with already because he’s a handyman of sorts who was working there earlier) and discovers that somebody else is also in the house (who does not belong) and all of a sudden, the entire house is full of traps and deadly obstacles!  Our friend here had managed to get all the way into the master bedroom but was now trapped inside the house, unable to leave.

My first thought was how long it would take our killer to setup all of this in the house. In movie time, it must have taken a short while but the traps are elaborate enough that I could foresee a team of contractors taking days to get this stuff done. In any case, we find out the family is in trouble (the parents trapped in the basement, being tortured) and the young daughter is hiding somewhere – apparently for hours as the collector setup the house. The movie turns into a claustrophobic, fairly generic thriller from here on out, with predictable results and a cliché ending. Here’s my malfunction with this (because otherwise it would be merely decent): the Collector does not collecting in the movie, or at least, doesn't make it clear why the movie is called The Collector. He’s just trapping, and killing people in horrific ways. I got a heavy Saw sense from this, and lo-and-behold, it turns out this was written as a Saw sequel but was rejected; presumably it was retooled a bit to get its own franchise going. The second item was how the protagonist’s family issue was completely unresolved: midnight came and went, with not a mention of them. The credits rolled and I was left to wonder.

Fear not though, because the family is back in the second one, just to confirm that they were OK, I guess.

The second movie was much, much better. There was very little setup as we get into the traps and horrific deaths very quickly. This is kind of what you came for, and it delivered: a movie-standard team of heavily armed “professionals” enter the Collector’s warehouse of terror with the goal of saving a girl and proceed to die one by one. But here’s the key: they add a little backdrop by throwing in media reports: the Collector is a serial killer who traps people in their own house – killing them of course – but taking one person home. They indicate that there are about fifty missing people so presumably, his home base is going to be full of these people and they are also going to die horrifically. Our protagonist from the first film comes back to guide the goon squad and what we’re left with is a fairly tight, short film that doesn't linger long before showering us with blood and gore. Predictable? Of course, but that’s beside the point when taking in a film that knows exactly what it is, which the filmmakers seemed to have missed on the first go around.

In the end, neither one makes a compelling reason to spend time with: skip the first and see the second, or skip them both.

The Golden Age by Woodkid

First, I have to tell you that Rdio is one of the greatest services that I have ever used, and has completely changed the way that I listen to and discover music. I’ll probably write more about that another time, because the focus here is on one artist I found through Rdio that reaffirms the model and reinvigorates my love for music. It also helps to remind me that there is new, good music out there, and that I’m not crazy in looking for that “click.” See, when I first listened to The National, something just clicked, and I was hooked immediately. I sought out and bought all their music almost immediately. Ever since, I’ve loaded up new albums, had a listen and moved on, never to experience that click in quite the same way. Now, that’s not to say there aren’t degrees of clicking and trying to list those degrees is akin to basically ranking your favourite albums and artists (which is fundamentally unfair, I know). It’s safe to say The National (and specifically Boxer and Alligator) are amongst the top; I could easily just list the most recent additions to my music library as other good contenders. One album though has stood out, which is The Golden Age by Woodkid.

One of the features in Rdio is the “Recent Activity” in where you can see what your friends have added to their own collections. I saw one day that Art added an album called Iron by Woodkid; with interesting album art (it’s amazing that album art is often a determining factor in trying out music) and no indication of what I’m getting into (aside that Art enjoyed it enough to add to his library) I clicked play. I was fairly impressed, and got through the six tracks in no time, but I didn’t feel that instant click. The vibe was strong enough though, that I added it to my collection. I can’t say I listened to the EP again.

Another great feature on Rdio is notifications on new content and specifically, notifications for new content from artists in your collection. Sometimes I receive an e-mail, other times just an in-software alert. I received an alert that new content from Woodkid has been added, and I quickly discovered that it was his debut album coming out. Within seconds, I’ve hit play and I’m feeling that click take hold. I’m always bedazzled when an album comes out and I’m listening to it instantly: no purchases, no downloading, and no music store involved. Everything is at your fingertips and delivered to your speakers/headphones immediately: this is truly the way to listen to music.

 What I noticed first about The Golden Age (and Woodkid in general) is the voice; it’s rough, grumbly and pretty unique. To that end, it reminds me of the lead singer in The National, except with more grittiness here. The second thing I noticed was the grand, almost operatic scale to the music itself. There is lots of brass, string and percussion represented throughout the album, and I got a very distinct movie score feel from it. The second track, Run Boy Run, is screaming spaghetti western music from all corners: this track is lifting from Ennio Morricone’s score. The third track, The Great Escape, makes me wonder if he had a classic movie on in the background and was composing the instrumentation directly to it. Other tracks can simply be described as epic, with big moving sounds that are easy to get lost in.

The album slows down and speeds up at just the right moments and mix: I’ve always been a fan of the album experience and The Golden Age definitely delivers here. It’s also easy to just throw on a track; I don’t think having a single from the album show up in a randomized playlist will feel out of place. If anything, it’s going to make me stop the playlist and put the album on from the beginning.

Woodkid on Allmusic

Run Boy Run video on Vimeo

Spring Breakers

Deciding on going to see Spring Breakers was a relatively easy process, especially with our current mindset something there. Now, I’m not one to put too much credence into a critic rating, as I have thoroughly enjoyed low rated films and disliked high rated ones. In any event, we had gone to see Warm Bodies a while back in the theatre and we both enjoyed it: it is not typically a film we go to see in the theatre, so it was easy to reason going to see Spring Breakers the other night.

of wanting to find “hidden gems.” Of course, there is the obvious T&A factor going on in this film, which is why movies like Piranha 3D are seen, but there was something more to this film. My friend pointed out that the film had a 62% Tomato rating, which is not insignificant; combined with an audience rating of nearly 50%, you have a fairly conflicted film that has

We were not expecting what we saw. From the outset – indeed, the first few minutes of the movie – is pure party madness. In what sounds like a heavy Skrillex beat, we are introduced to slow motion nakedness and party madness, immediately justifying the films 18A (in Canada)rating and setting the town for a depraved, sex induced 90 minutes of depravity. What we get instead, is a cut from that scene into the college life of our four female protagonists in their classes and dorm rooms – a stark contrast to the litany of colours we were just blasted with. The girls are obsessed with going on spring break but lack the funds to do so; we’re warned that a couple of them are bad news but the “good girl” Faith (played by Selena Gomez) decides to go along anyway. They are all looking for escape from the terrible-ness of their college life.

And quickly, the film shocks you with a supercharged robbery scene that is filmed from the point of view of the getaway driver, who is slowly circling the unfortunate diner. We get to peer through the windows – a true spectator – at the mayhem inside, and are taken aback by the actions of the characters. Now we know their true nature, right? Not quite. The girls get to go to spring break and we are treated again to more colour, more fun and more nudity. Enter Franco, playing a drug dealer named Alien and we get into new levels of depravity that really grabs your attention. At this point, the film could turn into a generic horror film: college students go on vacation, get mixed up with the local scene and end up getting murdered in gruesome ways, but that’s not what you get here. Spring Breakers delivers something much more interesting.

The film has a very dream-like feel to it: full of montages, repeating narration and quick, inserted scenes that flash back to the initial robbery and also flash forward to imagery that can give hints on what is to come. There is a certain level of grittiness that appears throughout – except the party scenes, which are split into colourful acts of indecency and documentary style shots of party goers that makes you believe (and realize) that this stuff is actually happening and does not just exist in the movies.

Franco pulls in a great performance as he truly embodies his character; there is a level of realism and silliness presented to us. In one scene, he is showing off his “stuff” which is his room full of guns and money. But he practically improvises here, showing off that he has shorts in every colour, and draws attention to his nunchuks instead of the wall of automatic guns – arguable more lethal and illegal. He’s charming the girls, without fully knowing himself what they are capable of or have done in the past. It’s fitting that his name is Alien: a true and literal representation of this other world the girls have visited. When one of the girls leaves, they are gone and we, the viewer stay on the alien planet. We can take solace in knowing that she is safe now, but we can’t truly know the damages that have been done because we never leave this planet ourselves and there is no contact with the real world.  I have to wonder how much is dream and how much is reality, but I realize it’s not that type of situation. This is a dark, dark film with a very dark ending. It’s about how far these people are willing to go in order to escape their regular lives and embrace another: they specifically tell themselves to think of it like a video game, and that’s kind of what we get. It’s scary for us to see that transition; it’s scary to see the mayhem and negative morals, and uncomfortable to see them travel down the twisted path, especially since the only somewhat relatable character – the one with common sense – checked out quite some time ago.

While it may not be forever known as a hidden gem, Spring Breakers was a really good watch. Opposed to a generic action movie (looking at you Olympus Has Fallen) this movie was exactly what we were looking for: a thought provoking and more importantly, a discussion provoking film that is open to interpretation. We couldn’t simply walk away and go our separate ways afterward, we had to stay together and talk about what we’ve just seen. And if it’s one thing that will stick with you after this movie, is to never let your daughter go to spring break. Ever.

Artificial Intelligence: AI

What I've noticed recently is the tendency to describe movies as "forgettable" and its opposite, which forces a certain stigma and black and white-ness to the overall quality of a film. This was in evidence a few days ago when my friend made a reference to a movie, which flew over my head with wide-eyed wonder. He started at me blankly, and told me we had just watched such-and-such movie last weekend, which sparked my memory but also provoked a nervous laughter. Either the movie was quite literally forgettable or my mind is getting worse than it should be at thirty one years of age. On the other end of the spectrum, however, exists movies that are impossible to forget, as Artificial Intelligence stands among them.

Granted, the film is a science fiction piece directed by Spielberg, which could make it memorable alone, but it's the circumstances surrounding the film that make it stand out for me. On July 4, 2001 I had laser eye surgery (LASIK) to correct my eyes and remove my need for glasses. On the evening of July 3, I went to the theatre to see AI with my dad. I was living in North Bay at the time, and with the procedure being relatively new, there were no (reputable) places up north to do so, so my optometrist sent me down south to Toronto. My dad and I drove down, went to the centre for a pre-op checkup and to sign my life away in forms. We went back to the hotel, checked in then went to The Keg for dinner, as it was a special kind of outing. Afterward, we decided to hit up the movies and see AI, which was just opening; the film was incredibly busy and we ended up sitting in some of the very front rows, which proved to be uncomfortable at times simply because the seat is located so close to the screen.

I remember very clearly, thinking at the time: this could be the last movie I see. Literally. If they botch the procedure and I lose my vision, AI will be the last thing I remember seeing. Was the film good? I don't even recall if it was or not, as all my thoughts were based in anxiety over the impending operation. While my vision was not optimal for about a week, it improved and I was busy watching movies in no time. It struck me as odd then, over the years, that I haven't bothered to go back to see the movie. I can't quite place my finger on why I wouldn't want to.

Well, that's not entirely true: I remember the film being a bit long, drawn out and perhaps just straight up boring. And my memory may be failing right now, but I feel as though there was general dissatisfaction when the movie came out; it failed at the box office (estimated $90 million budget with just $78 million in domestic take) and has only been mentioned in passing in conversations with friends since. As it is though, I feel as though I can look back at these movies with a different perspective, that being one with more maturity, experience and insight. So, the other week I put it on, and was incredibly impressed. It felt like watching the movie for the very first time with a cheat sheet, which allowed me to draw comparisons and thoughts that went over my head the first time around.

First, was the obvious (to me now) Kubrick influence; it's no secret that he began the project but passed on before he could do this movie. Spielberg picked it up and ran the rest of the way, and provided many nods to the famous director. And since 2001 (the year, not the movie) I have seen more Kubrick and Spielberg films: AI is this incredibly special mesh that combines elements from both their styles, to create a film experience like nothing before.

But, I think I have seen this before. A couple of years ago I watched Pinocchio with my niece; a film I haven't seen since I was her age. The content shocked me: characters, settings, the theme and content that would be hard pressed to get into a children's movie these days. The beauty of AI retelling the story of Pinocchio is not lost on the duo either: in fact it's right there in the movie itself. David, a boy robot is going on a journey to become human, just as Pinocchio did half a century before. In fact, David is inspired by the actual story of Pinocchio: he seeks out the blue fairy who he believes can turn him into a real boy, which in turn should make his mother love him even more.

The core structure of their journey is nearly identical, including the trip into sin city and a final act into a water world. I also found myself looking at the structure of the film compared to other Kubrick films, including Full Metal Jacket. What is off-putting about that film could be the instant change of gear from boot camp life to war; a quick cut and the viewer is jolted into a different film. The same natural progression yet jolting experience happens here as well, when David is abandoned by his mother and finds himself in immediate turmoil by robot torturers. The film does not revisit the human family as it focuses on the journey ahead: it feels like a different movie, charging ahead with different pacing, characters and action.

For all the Kubrick elements in the movie, you can see the Spielberg touches everywhere. The combination of the two is fantastic. The characters are given depth and emotion in true Spielberg fashion; he keeps Kubrick's sexual undertones dialed back (the robot undressing at the beginning of the movie, and of course Rouge City - a literal city of pleasure and sin). The special effects are extraordinary, even by today's standards. My friend walked in on a scene with Teddy and remarked about how good it looks: was it CGI? Animatronic? Both? The character was done with such great effect that you wonder why more modern renditions of teddy bears come to life aren't better. The futuristic world that Kubrick and Spielberg have woven here is majestic, interesting and realistic. I've always noted how important it is for sci-fi movies to get this right, and AI sets the bar here.

The final theme I wanted to touch on was something that blew right past me in that theatre twelve years ago, and it's a theme that is ever present in science fiction: becoming human. Where in many stories, humans want to become robots for the obvious technical advantages, and robots always want to become human. David's creator believes it's love that will make this happen, and sets out to make a child robot that is capable of that feeling. It's a dream of many robots in popular culture to achieve the same thing: becoming as human as possible. We watched for seven seasons as Star Trek's Data pondered humanity, what it means to be human and his hunt for emotion. David is willing to stop at nothing to achieve this. And it never ends, as incredibly advanced robots from the future continue to learn about their creators, hoping to get as close as possible to becoming human as they can.

If this was the last movie I could see more than a decade ago, I would have been a bit disappointed. As it stands now though, I can see how this would be very fitting. It's a mature fairy tale that deserves your full attention. and I think will become a classic for years to come.

Temple Run 2

If you've been curious on what I've been playing (or doing for the majority of spare time) then this is it:

Yeah, I know: it's a basic game but it hits me in all the right places and I just can't stop playing it. The first Temple Run absorbed quite a bit of my time so it's only fitting that the sequel would do the same.

Number two is nearly identical to the first, but improved in every aspect: power ups, graphics, sound and course itself, which is drastically improved. The atmosphere - if this game can even hold one - is much improved. The major downside was performance, which I'm blaming on my now archaic iPhone 4. They released an update for the game earlier this week and performance is markedly increased. Random crashes have just about disappeared completely, although the game still lags every so often. This causes about 30% of my deaths: the game will either stop receiving input for a second (literally, a second) and I fly off an edge, or the game jumps ahead a few frames, and I don't have enough time to respond to an obstacle. In these cases, if I'm far enough along, I'll use a gem to continue the game. For the most part I just start again.

The above image has an impressive score - my highest to date - and I used a few gems to keep the game running. Typically I will continue four times before it becomes too expensive to do so.

Where does 27,713,170 points put somebody on the scoreboard: 30,260. Which apparently as of last night, was in the top 5% of all players (roughly 27 million). I feel good about this, but when I look at the top of the leader board there are impossibly high scores on there. I assume hacking/cheating, but I'm still happy with the top 5% anyway. Another interesting stat it keeps is your high score without using a "Save Me" (re: a continue). My top score puts me at 9,329 out of 10 million users with a score of 8,583,692 - top 5% again. All this, with a few power ups (including double coins, which definitely helps). And that seems to be the aim right now: to maximize all power ups. Once I do, it could be game over as I'll have nothing left to run for, or perhaps another game will come along that will just click.

Six Months of Movies

Starting on July 1, 2012 I began recording all the movies I saw on IMDB; you can create custom lists on the site and add movies as you see fit there, so I created a list called "Watched" and with the mobile app, I would quickly add a movie I just saw to that list. This was a natural evolution of a manual system I did a couple of years ago, where I recorded the film in an online spreadsheet. What I would find, though, is that I would often forget to add the title to the spreadsheet, and it became inaccurate over time to the point that I stopped recording the information.

I started doing this because my friend Art has kept ticket stubs to every single movie he's been to since the mid-90s. I've seen them: ziploc bags stuffed to capacity of receipts. My immediate thought was to digitize the data and have the ability to generate little reports and facts from the stubs. But, I don't think he had much interest in that, so I went ahead and did my own data accumulation. I went with IMDB simply because I myself always opening the app to take a look at the trivia and other details, so why not just add an extra step of adding it to the watched list?

So what are the numbers? From July to December (six months) I watched 61 movies, of which 21 of those were released in 2012. Now, it just so happens that I was recording my movie habits back in 2010 at the same time period, and in that year I took in 64 movies, which I find interesting. This past six months it has felt as though I've watched fewer movies, and I have, but as it turns out it's not nearly as big a drop as I had thought. I also have recorded the first six months of 2011, during time I watched 72 movies. Around mid-point 2011, I stopped recording movie data.

Here is some data:

Fig 1; July to December 2012

As you can see from the chart (fig 1, above), something horrible happened in October, and I'm not sure what it was. Only three movies consumed; August was a small dip as well, but it seems the average is about 12 to 13 movies per month. It will be interesting to see if I can maintain the high numbers of November and December.

Fig 2; 2010 to 2012 Comparison

Now, looking at the next chart (fig 2), we can see how 2010 corresponds to 2012 across the same period. It's interesting to note that a similar thing that happened in October of 2012 happened in August of 2010. In 2010, I would chalk that up to vacation and travel time, but I can't be completely certain. We finish the year off in December with the same number of movies watched, and a similar average of 12 per month (excluding the lowest month).

While I can't necessarily draw any conclusions from this, I look forward to doing more data crunching and analysis in the future. And since the movie information is coming from IMDB, there exists a great deal of metadata on the movie itself. For instance, I can rate movies and compare those ratings to the ones that the IMDB community have settled upon. While I do this at a quick glance, I can see that most of my ratings are lined up pretty well on par, with the biggest exception perhaps being Iron Sky, which I attributed a 3 out of 10, while on IMDB it has achieved a 6.1 out of 10. Perhaps I was being too harsh, but generally I don't put much important on my numerical rating as I do it infrequently and without standard.

I've upated my online Movie Log spreadsheet with the IMDB export, and can be found here: Movie Log

Monsters, Inc.

The third dimension seems to have failed at home, but it's still prominent in the theaters where it can truly be experienced. One of the nice bonuses of 3D being in theatres is the re-release of certain older, animated films such as Monsters, Inc. These animated movies benefit by being restructured for 3D without being mutilated in the regular film-based 2D to 3D conversion: since these movies exist digitally, they can be rendered again, with added cameras to form a "real" 3D experience. I can remember A Bug's Life being released on home video ages ago, and hearing about how they were able to render frames with elements being moved around to accommodate the dominant television aspect ratio of the time, 4:3. No cropping, or pan and scan required, and we end up with a better film experience depending on where we watch it. It was interesting to me then, and still is: these animated movies can evolve as time goes on in a way regular film can't.

Earlier last year, I was able to go see The Lion King in 3D, and it was generally a good experience. I had seen the film when I was a child, and hadn't seen it since. I was excited to see Monsters, Inc. in the theatre as I hold it as one of the better Pixar films. It also blew me away that it had originally come out in 2001. In any event, I had the perfect excuse to go see it now: my niece.

A while back I had brought my niece to see Gnomeo & Juliet. It was being played in an old theatre downtown (complete with stage) and was free: anybody could just walk in, and you kind of got what you paid for. My niece, being six years old, was eligible for a children's ticket to go see Monsters, yet the price of two tickets for us was above twenty dollars. 3D definitely charges a premium.

My niece loves going to the movies, and I have a feeling that most of the enjoyment comes from the food, and who can blame her? I've always loved the experience too and the popcorn has been a big part of that. But she wanted something else: pizza, and this still confounds me. So it was time to order food before going in, and I had been prepped. My father told me what they typically order, and I had it all memorized. Ordering all the different items was akin to fitting together Tetris pieces. As I persevered though, the slim, long piece came down and I was able to clear the whole order with ease. Getting it all into the theatre was a different story, as I questioned my nieces ability to not spill a small bucket of popcorn, her drink or what would be the most unfortunate accident: the fall of a slice of pizza. I wanted to carry it all - to be in control - but it was impossible, so she was in charge of her pizza, and I carried the rest in.

We went straight to the top, back row, to the extreme left (or right, depending on which way you are facing). There was a big bar in front of us, mounted on top of ledge - it's difficult to explain, but all you need to know is that it was hard to see over. I asked my niece if she could see the screen, and she shuffled to the front of the seat. She then stretched her neck as high it would go then meekly said "yeah." I wasn't buying it, so I had her move over a couple of seats. This may seem simple but we were already settled: popcorn, pizza, drinks and winter jackets, mitts and accessories were all involved. If you have children you can quickly relate as you become aware of how much stuff is involved with your little one. It's an effort.

Then, came the pizza. I had feared this, because I don't understand it. I worry about peperonis sliding off, or cheese dripping. The potential for a mess is gigantic, and I had forgot napkins. I quickly dashed back to concessions and grabbed a handful, and much to my delight my niece's pizza eating skills were hardened, and not a mess was made (short of some greasy fingers - unavoidable of course). The 3D glasses were on and we were enjoying the movie, and what a good movie it was. I'm not sure how much my niece enjoyed it as she seems rather indifferent to so many, but I got a real kick out of it. I'm not sure the third dimension really helped that much, but it didn't detract from the movie either. I never thought, eleven years ago, I would be rewatching a movie like Monsters, Inc with a niece or nephew, or even my own children. But I look forward to watching more of these "classics" with my niece and hopefully in the future, my own children. The local movie houses are showing more older films every year it seems, which gives us an opportunity to see movies we've never seen before, or share movies we enjoyed when we were younger with the next generation.