Flight

In no way was I particularly excited to see Flight, starring Denzel Washington - but sometimes there just isn't much selection. In this particular case, I was visiting my family up north, and I had agreed to go to a matinee showing of something. See, on Wednesday's at the Galaxy, they have "Stars and Strollers" which is geared towards going to the movie with your children where the lights are not as dim and nobody is going to get in trouble for having a screaming baby. What ends up happening is all the shows - including the adult rated ones - are empty save for a few people who are not chained to their desks. I imagine the children's movies would be busier, but Flight was empty, save for one other person, myself and parents.

My parents are avid movie goers. They will go see everything, and when the drive in was available they would quite often see the same movies two or three times, just for the sake of going. Going to the movies with my parents brought me back to a rich history of doing just such a thing. There's always a stigma about going with your parents and being embarrassed to be seen; this most often happens when you're a teenager. As a child you don't care, and now, being an adult, you don't care either. I didn't really hit that period during my teenage years where I was afraid to go: I recognized the benefits (they typically pay for the ticket and food) and I love movies. I want to go see these, so when friends are unable or unwilling, the situation becomes ideal.

I must have been seventeen when Lost in Space (1998) came out, and I found myself in the local multiplex with my parents. A couple of years later I would be out to see The Others (2001) and dozens of others throughout my time in high school and university. These two seem prominent in my mind, but not quite as much when I went to see Star Trek Nemesis (2002). Because North Bay had a terrible theatre at the time, the trio of us would often drive out to Sudbury to go to movies. The Silvercity there had stadium seating, big screens and good popcorn, all of which was lacking from the flat theatre in the local mall. I imagine we went at least twice a month, and without incident. But this one particular time, I had to urinate: a lot. I don't know what happened, as I was consuming the regular large soda, but for some reason my bladder decided to go into overdrive and just purge itself of any liquid about halfway through the film. I went for the pee break, rushed back in and was hit with another urge within ten minutes. It was confusing, but I tried to hold it until the end of the film, which was impossible. I ended up going two more times, for a total of three times within the space of thirty minutes (give or take).

This, was embarrassing. My mom whispered to me on my third trip "is everything ok?" Which clearly, it was not. But I know what it looks like: my stomach must have been upset and I was purging number two. I had to assume everyone in the theatre throught I had diarrhea, and I was compelled to announce to them all that it was not the case. It was perhaps the first time I was at the theatre with my parents and I was embarrassed, although not for the typical reasons; certainly, it was nothing they did. But I was affected, as every time I went to the theatre afterward I was paranoid that this urge to pee would hit me again, and I would need to keep getting up. I wanted to sit on the edges so that if I did, I wouldn't have to bother anyone. I didn't buy a drink for ages. After a while, I had anxiety about going to the show, and it began to include things other than bathroom breaks. I can't pinpoint what it was, but can only describe it as a weighty fear that pushed down on my shoulders. It would be present before the movie started, and often midway through. Suffice to say, my enjoyment of movies was being hindered, but I pushed through.

I thought about the anxiety before Flight, as I quite often do. But in the recent months I have let it go, and found peace. If I need to go in the middle of the movie, I would. It's no big deal. If we're five minutes late, that's alright too. Then it happened: about midway through the movie I felt the urge to pee, and recognized that this one was going to hit hard. There was no avoiding it, and I had to go. Instantly I was reminded of the past incident, and I sat back in the theatre worried that I would have to go again. But it didn't matter this time, and it didn't happen. I was able to enjoy the rest of the movie, with an empty bladder and no anxiety.

The movie itself? It was decent, but nothing to get excited about. Denzel does a decent job as he usually does, but I couldn't help but feel like he phoned this performance in a bit. The entire crash sequence is amazing, of course. But I loved the experience; going to the movies with my parents, in the middle of the afternoon, with not a care in the world. Relaxing without feeling like I have something to do at all times has been a struggle, and I think I got a bit of it during Flight.

War of the Worlds

As mentioned a while ago, War of the Worlds (2005) brings me about to face my fears. I casually caught the film just as it started on television the other night and was compelled to continue watching it; as it turns out this stands as one of my favourite films. Perhaps not top ten, but "up there" if you know what I mean - I fully expect that you don't (because I'm not certain myself). Inspired by seeing it on television I quickly switched over the media center so I could watch the movie in Bluray quality high definition, sans commercial breaks. Overall, it makes me appreciate the cinematic quality that Spielberg is so eloquently capable of delivering.

I want to talk about the fear that this movie drives into me though. I've mentioned before that the activities of the alien invaders is exactly what gets my spine tingling when they are able to turn people to dust immediately, and this still holds true. It's the finality, the suddenness of death and the inescapable aspect that really gets me. It's so easy to place myself on the street alongside all the others, watching in horror as those vibrant beams of doom come blasting along the sidewalk, killing indiscriminately. So this brings me to the first fear: immediate, unprepared death.

It's not uncommon for people to console themselves in the death of another when they justify that the person "went quickly" or "without pain." It makes us feel better, knowing that the process of dying - of letting go - will be a peaceful one. And we bring this desire to the most violent of deaths, as we reassure ourselves that the body will shut down the appropriate nerve centers, or will numb us until we simply "fall asleep." The deaths in War of the Worlds are instantaneous and violent: people explode in a flurry of dust. Instant cremation. But upon rewatching, I see that this is not necessarily the case: the most horrific imagery is the initial attack on the street. A woman is running toward us [the camera] when she is hit by the beam. We see her face contort in horror and agony as her cells are de-liquified. For the most brief moment she continues to move when her face is dust, then she explodes. It doesn't look good at all for that painless death, although it does happen relatively quickly. It's the same thing that Star Trek hints at in the episode of The Next Generation when a collector (who has kidnapped Data) is threatening everyone with these rare and in-humane phasers. These phasers function in the same manner as standard-issue ones on the "death" setting, in that they vaporize every molecule, nearly instantly. But they describe that this phaser, in particular, makes that process an agonizing one. The last second of your life will be spent in extreme torture as your body is turned inside out. The standard-issue phasers are somehow more humane in that they make your last second painless (I guess) but still quite final. As I watch people explode into clouds in War of the Worlds, I can't help but think how painful that must be, and I took no solace in how quickly that pain would be over.

This same scene brings me into my second terror: how inescapable death is. We can't outrun it, we can't hide from it: death will catch up with every single one of us, and that scares me. Those kill beams blast apart not only humans, but everything else too: buildings get blasted apart, cars are flipped into the air and generally, chaos ensues with anything the beam touches. Spielberg is quite literally showing us that you can't outrun death. But there are other instances where we see that you can't escape: no matter where Ray (Cruise) brings his family, the pods are there wreaking havoc. Just when you think they catch a bit of a break in the safety of a basement, they are forced to deal with the all-seeing eye, another literal device of the idea that the monster is always watching. They slink from room to room, avoiding the gaze of the eye, but it's practically relentless, and hyper-sensitive to the point where the slightest noise will get their attention. I can't help but think how quickly I would be caught as I'm not positive I could maintain absolute silence for so long. Not to mention that after the eye leaves, the tiny aliens march in out of curiosity, and to add insult to injury, little red veiny alien roots start covering the surface of everything.

When I was younger I would have the odd dream where I couldn't escape. In one instance, it was a giant tyrannosaurus is chasing me, and this rex is unstoppable. I run into a house and he just rips the roof off. In another dream, I'm sitting at my desk when a shadowy figure emerges from the wall and approaches me quickly; backed into the corner with nowhere to go, I await my fate at the hands of a supernatural beast. It's no wonder that War of the Worlds chooses a foe of unknowable strength and ability (as so often science fiction does). It may be weak to simply provide these aliens with the means to do as they please, but it works perfectly in the genre of horror films, which is exactly what Worlds is. Spielberg has returned to his roots of suspense with this adaptation, adding his masterful brush strokes to every frame. Indeed, I once read a critique of this movie years ago stating that Spielberg was a master of the scene, but in this particular case, a failure at bringing a cohesive movie together. I could never see it that way, as I now know that this is actually a horror film. Spielberg is able to bring his expertise in the creation of a scene and deliver to us an entire film that embodies our deepest fears - or at the very least, my own deep fears (aside from spiders and commitment, I suppose). A film could be judged by the emotion it brings out in the viewer, and this is no different here, it's just not the emotion that most people - I think - were expecting. Unlike Independence Day, this movie makes the death ray personal, and relateable. Not one of us is going to hide in Area 51, but we will hide in a basement.  None of us are ever going to fly to the mothership with a computer virus, but we would take a couple of grenades and sacrifice ourselves for our children. And it's these personal, human touches that Spielberg is able to convey perfectly on screen time and again; not just in War of the Worlds, but in all of his masterpieces.

Skyfall

With a staggering 91% "Fresh" rating from Rotten Tomatoes, you can quickly understand why I may be hesitant to post a negative review of the latest James Bond movie: Skyfall. The truth though, is that I don't mind running against the crowd (of critics) and that it's the opinion of my peers that is more than likely to prevent me from posting the fact that I was disappointed by Skyfall. Indeed, I spoke with Matt this morning - as we typically do - and he was eager to hear my thoughts on the film, as he had just seen it a few days previous. When the first word on screen is disappointed, the conversation takes a nasty turn into the corn fields where the sun is at high noon: I can't find a direction to make my way out. We got oriented though, and came to the accusation that no new movies can possibly appease me. It's possible that my mind isn't in the right space, or that simply new movies really are not that good. He cites another recent critic and fan favourite Looper, which I found disappointing. Certainly, it was a good movie, but did not meet my expectations. Skyfall is the same way, even though I explicitly went in with no expectations (perhaps it's entirely subconscious).

In fact, my friend (let's call him Art - he's into privacy and paranoia) leans over to me just seconds after the lights dim and asks what expectations are for the film. Art and I have had so many conversations over the years about this problem that we have both come to the unspoken, agreed-upon terms that we don't even venture into that rabbit hole before the film starts. Or at the very least, we wait until the last possible moment. It's very easy for both of us to shake it off and just say I don't know like it doesn't matter: but it does. It brings - for me - the thought that I had stuffed behind some old memories of ALF and Moonraker that I did indeed have many expectations for this film. It's because Quantum of Solace was so terrible, and the time to bring this one to screen was so long, would somehow equal a truly rich, fantastic Bond film. It's not until after the movie is over that I can face myself and realize that nugget of idea was in my head all along and I was just ignoring it. If it tried to surface, my many memories of how much fun I had with the ALF franchise in my childhood. It was also hidden behind Moonraker as a reminder that Bond movies have never been that good and they have a history of being ridiculous.

Unfortunately, Casino Royale came out and completely redefined what Bond was for a new generation, and heavily influenced my own generation, which basically grew up with Brosnan's Bond and the unequivocally great Goldeneye. In 2002 both xXx and The Bourne Identity came out, both of which handled the "new" spy in different ways. Vin Diesel's Xander Cage took a direct stab at Bond in the opening sequence, where a spy in a tuxedo is so flagrantly out of place that he is outed and quickly dispatched of. Xander was the new type of spy, complete with tattoos and street-cred. Art and I laughed at it back then, but we weren't laughing when we watched The Bourne Identity. Bourne managed to not only change the landscape of spy movies, but for action movies in general as well. Damon was an every-man  in real places fighting with real instruments (I never get tired of him fighting somebody off with a book). This made him relate-able  but still perched upon a platform of genetically and tortuously-bred super human abilities. Bond was always a fantasy; equipped with good looks, impossible (and awesome) gadgets and a license to kill, he would be the secret agent we picture when anybody brought up espionage at the dinner table (which, as it turns out, is never).

There is no doubt that the Daniel Craig Bond is influenced by Bourne, taking cues from realistic action scenes and heavily influenced by Hollywood's obsession with making "dark" and "gritty" films - an obsession that is welcomed by critics and theatre-goers alike and will not be met with any criticism from me. I mention this because it seems that I was a bit tired of it the other night. When Art, Chip and myself were leaving the theatre (expression disappointment) I kept referring to an offending lack of space lasers in the film. The point I was trying to make at the time was the lack of a villain that had truly grand take over the world type plans. Perhaps I was just in the mood for it; perhaps it was 50 years of Bond movies that have done that, but I felt it lacking. Upon waking the next morning though, I realize that perhaps it was a bit silly to expect such things from this Bond. I was then allowed to take a closer look at the villain, Javier Bardem's Silva. Of course, we initially lambasted the poor guy immediately after viewing, but I can't help but think that he was a very well cast villain for this film. It is also important to understand that this was more of a personal story that fits in with (at least) Casino Royale in that we're witnessing how Bond becomes Bond. As he is portrayed in other movies as being perfect, we see him suffering and battling his own demons here. We see him lose people he loves, we see him betrayed by people he trusts. All I can say about the end of the movie is how it comes perfectly full-circle as Bond's origin.

Silva is the perfect villain because he represents to Bond what Bond could become. One of the themes throughout this movie is that Bond is too old to be running around anymore (and too injured); his time is over but he refuses to give in. Where Bond stays loyal to his country and M, Silva departs and makes space for himself: making himself the leader. Where Bond can be subtle and simple, Silva makes exaggerated entrances and makes things complicated (for what seems like no reason). We can definitely see an influence from the Joker in The Dark Knight in Silva, which also helps to strike fear into audience members who struggle to put a face on terrorism and random acts of extreme violence. Silva, working in the grounded world of Craig's Bond, can cause more damage by storming a public forum with a few guns than he can inflict with a big laser from space and with that, you can see why the space laser would be completely out of place here.

I spoke quite a bit earlier about disappointment, and in advancing it is evident that I was quite pleased with the film. Sometimes you just need to sleep on it or better yet, see the movie again. I look forward to seeing Skyfall again, but none of that negates my initial disappointment: I wanted bigger stunts and big action sequences. What I got was a bit more of a cerebral Bond, an emotive Bond that we are not used to. And it's because of this that Bond becomes relevant in the landscape of today's spy action movies, and the landscape has changed. It's an interesting hybrid actually: you could argue that old Bond movies were family friendly and almost aimed at children. New action movies (and all movies in general) are trying to balance this line of darkness and family friendliness, quite often producing a misguided and confused film that doesn't satisfy any party. Others, like Nolan's Batman series, take the line and places it in new territory that nobody else knew existed. I think these last three Bond movies do a decent job of presenting mature issues (revenge, death, trust, rage, etc) while still appealing to the PG crowd. The lack of blood and deaths on screen is becoming standard practice and while distracting at times, is practically unavoidable. I don't believe inserting those few frames into the film will make it better, as they won't have any real effect on the themes present throughout.

One last thing I want to add is how beautiful this movie looked: we were taken to some really interesting locales and the lighting throughout was amazing. Bond has always been a world traveler and we got a sense that these locations were just as much of a character as the people on screen. Adele's theme song was perfect. While initially disappointing, I believe Skyfall has legs and will be worth venturing to again.

Mediasonic 4-Bay JBOD Enclosure: HF2-SU2S2

The time finally came that my old Mediasonic enclosure had reached capacity, and it was time to look for either a new solution, or buy another box. In the two years since buying the original enclosure, I have purchased very few hard drives, but my method of consumption and computer use has changed a tiny bit. First, I decided to move away from having drives inside my tower computer. This computer, housed in an Antec P183 chassis, served as both home theatre PC (HTPC) and server. It performed magnificently, but times have changed. In July, I moved in with a friend, which brings us to the second change: multiple servers and HTPC boxes throughout the house. See, my friend had a similar setup, and it seemed senseless to duplicate media and purpose when one server/library could handle all of our needs.

I could go on and on about the new client/server setup but the focus here is on the Mediasonic enclosure. Because we had moved to one central server, it was time for my drives to come out and be easily connected to our new server. My roomate did the same thing, and in the end, we now have three of these devices in use: they really are amazing.

Within a short period of time I filled my existing enclosure and needed another; living in a town with a decent computer store has been a blessing, and I found myself wandering downtown to take a look at what they had. And it's all relatively the same: the lowest end model (which I believe I purchased before) was there for less money than what I had paid years ago, and as a bonus, it comes with an eSATA port. The extra speed would be a blessing for file copies, and it's something that I've wanted out of my previous enclosure - but a lack of funds and availability of ports on my server were preventing me from doing so. In this new setup, I would be using my roommate's computer, which had eSATA ports to spare. But we ran into an issue which I had ready briefly about when I was reading a review of Mediasonic's 8-bay enclosure: eSATA drive replication.

The problem with eSATA on these enclosures is that only the first drive (or in the case of the 8-bay model, first two drives) are recognized. The other are missing in the operating system, which is upsetting when you spend hours of troubleshooting, only to learn that you need to buy another eSATA expansion card for your computer - and make sure that it supports port replication. We went back to the store and my friend bought one; it was inexpensive, but the cost was still there, and it only supports two connections. This is fine in our setup: we have two eSATA boxes then my older, USB only box. The most offensive part was putting this card in, then troubleshooting why no drives were recognized: apparently there are actual jumpers that need to be modified, and even though we are dealing with old tech, we are apparently stuck in the '90s and can't get over the use of jumpers. Connect the right pins, and we are flying: all the drives are recognized on both enclosures, and speeds are incredible.

There isn't much more to say that I haven't said in the original review from two years back. The quality is solid on these boxes: they do not feel flimsy. The method for inserting the drives has not changed. The power adapter is still awkwardly located on the side of the box, but it matters little. And the new boxes support 3TB drives; I bought one recently to amalgamate a few of my standalone external drives into one, and after formatting in a Windows PC, it worked without problem in the enclosure. For the older enclosure, we are confined to 2TB drives. Not a big deal by any means, but there will be a time in the future (a long ways away) where we're going to want 3TB across the board. Imagine this: 36TB of space within three enclosures. Excessive? Yes. Geeky and exciting? Definitely.

Mediasonic 4 Bay JBOD Enclosure (Original Post)

Looper

I guess it was back in June, a night like any other except Nathan was in town and we were doing what we do best: watching downloaded trailers for upcoming movies. We don't discriminate (most of the time) but sometimes foreign subtitles pop up on screen and we elect not to "waste" two minutes of our time. We realize that most movie previews are terrible, but sometimes one grabs you by the scruff of the neck and forces you forward. Looper did just that: combining indie-movie icon Joseph Gordon-Levitt and a conceptually interesting sci-fi premise, and you get yourself two excited fanboys. I may have watched the preview a couple of times, but as time is wont to do, over the months I slowly let the memory of this movie slip away.

Then it really hit the fan: the movie was in all-out marketing mode and people were getting pumped. Levitt is on fire, with titles like Inception pushing him into the mainstream and the minds of everyone who has shelled out money to go to a theatre in the past few years. Then you add in Bruce Willis - playing a 30-year older version of Levitt - and you have yourself a film worth going to see on opening day. Levitt plays Joe, a looper in a future where time travel has not been invented yet. Some time in Joe's more advanced future time travel is a thing (outlawed) where criminal organizations send back people they hate (I guess) back to people like Joe, who kill them with a blast of blunderbuss. The reveal is that Joe's older self has been sent back in time to be killed...by young Joe. He has to take himself out. It's an original (well, original to me at least) idea that science fiction loves. So I was pretty jazzed to go see the film.

On a Monday, I send out an e-mail to a half dozen friends, inviting them to go the following day. Many decline, but one stands out and says he'll be there. We make a meeting time and I go, and I wait. And wait. I got a feeling twenty minutes before the show starts that I'll be going home without seeing Looper, and I was right. He never showed up, and I confirm that he believed it was for Wednesday night. A bit of miscommunication from both of us I guess, and two weeks later I found myself doing the same invite, but this time, with more notice and bolded dates and times. It works, and a group of us are going out to see Looper. This in itself is a big deal: it could have been high school where more than four or five of us had gone to a movie together at one time. In an effort to recreate those adolescent "good time" memories, we had inadvertently done just that, although perhaps without as much good times, as we are all being crushed under the load of adult-hood and all the responsibilities that being in your early thirties bring.

This may be significant for a couple of reasons, the first of which is to attest at the level of awareness that Looper is indeed a good movie and that you should go see it. Word of mouth is strong with this one, and reviews are incredibly positive. I spend entirely way too much time on Reddit, and the community there seemed to have exploded in unison over how fantastic the film is. Having a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 93% certainly speaks volumes about the film as well, and everyone in our group was jazzed about seeing it. I don't feel like that happens: we know the movie involves time travel and by definition, those movies require a suspension of disbelief and acceptance of time-travel related plot holes. It's standard for all movies (except perhaps something like Star Trek where any time travel creates multiple realities, or such great films as Primer, where time travel is realistic and nobody can wrap their mind around the film to see if a hole exists or not anyway).

The second significance is how the plot parallels our own thirty year old lives and our attempt to relive the past. While Old Joe is not trying to relive the past, he is trying to correct the future, and aren't those the same thing? Young Joe is living the life free of any real responsibility, and in general, is a terrible person. He's a drug addict, he frequents hookers and drives under the influence. Of course, he also kills people for a living. But those people don't exist - yet. Just as we were teenagers and generally terrible - although we did none of the above, we were simply jerks. And we did stupid things, and we live with regrets. Who wouldn't want to go back and just tell yourself to act in a different way? The lesson of both the movie, and our lives, is the answer to that question: perhaps you should rethink your ways, and you should rethink those regrets. My friend asked me - earlier this year actually - if I live with any regrets. Of course, I do: I could probably give you an itemized spreadsheet of them all. She said that she used to as well, until she received some advice/words of wisdom herself: all the decisions and actions you've made have brought you to where you are now. If you really regret those things, what kind of life would you have then? Would you be happy, or happier? The grass is not always greener on the other side, and when you look at things relatively, you have things pretty good. If you change things, you will lose out on all the good memories, and the bad ones that have made you a better person (which literally happens in Looper). The conversation and expanded thoughts on it have stayed and grown with me ever since.

I've tried to avoid spoilers but the next paragraph may contain some. Be warned!

What's interesting is that Looper embodies the greener grass. Sure, Old Joe was kind of being forced to go back in time, but he's a guy who likes to make lemonade out of lemons. What he discovers is that he should have let the lemons be. In many movies about time travel, this is often the case: the future is practically written in stone and refuses to be changed. In Stephen King's 11/23/63, the past tries its damnedest to stop you from preventing the assassination of political figures, and barely lifts a finger when you change little things. The bigger the change, the stronger the resistance. Perhaps the same past (perhaps The Past should have an entry on the IMDB) is acting in Looper, except instead of destroying the world in the future, it continuously loops thirty years of the same time period until somebody does something about it. That is, until The Past is satisfied that an action will safely protect its future that it allows said action to be carried out. Perhaps we are just witness to the last loop.

Regardless, all six of us walked away from Looper disappointed. Granted, the film crawled to a near stand still, following an explosive first act. It's your standard first act that afflicts all these types of movies: you quickly learn about the world, the characters, what they do and the life they lead. You get a glimpse into the future, which looks realistic and believable here, and is fascinating. Then you have to settle down with the plot, which leaves a bit to be desired. Is it confusing? I don't find that it is, but I don't put a ton of effort into it: I accept that time travel is going to create those plot holes, and I don't care: it's fine. The effects are low key and good; I'm distracted by Levitt's makeup to make him look like a younger Bruce Willis. I wonder why Joe is addicted to this drug, has one night of recovery and is apparently well and fine afterward. I enjoyed the action, the concept, and really enjoyed the humour throughout. I did have a problem with Bruce Willis though: I didn't find he added anything to the film, he only took away. He plays himself (practically) by being a bad-ass dual-wielding automatic guns. He's invincible, and the entire "future montage" is downright comedic.

Most importantly, I wonder if I enjoyed this movie as a whole. I did, but it has to grow on me. It needs a second viewing, a viewing without the crushing expectations put unfairly onto it. I must have seen a hundred Looper posts in Reddit before seeing the movie, but I didn't look at a single one. I wanted to experience the movie without any influence: that in itself, is impossible. I feel responsible for creating hype for this movie in the simple act of trying to organize a group outing to go see it and thereby leading to disappointment in the film for others. And perhaps in doing this, you will go see the film without heavy expectation and be blown away, although if you saw my spoiler warning above, you may not be reading this at all.

Dredd

If you are like most people, you probably groaned and laughed a bit when you first saw the teaser for the (now released) Dredd 3D movie. As if they were remaking the atrocious Stallone film, you may think to yourself. Has Hollywood run out of ideas, you ask? Unlike most people though, I got excited. I'm not sure if it's because I have a genuine interest in "remakes" or that I actually enjoyed Judge Dredd back in the day and I would revisit the film a couple of years ago to confirm that it's still decent and worth a watch. I believe it's moreso the fact that I enjoy the character and mythos has to contribute to a modern day sci-fi action movie: a post-apocalyptic world where only one city exists, where crime is completely out of hand and the justice system has allowed Judge-class officers to act as judge, jury and executioner. All that being said, I've never read one of the comics, but I have a general sense of the series, the character of Judge Dredd and the tone, to a degree that I see how a proper movie could be good, if not great.

So like most people, you may still be bitter on the Stallone driven feature from 1995. Certainly, Hollywood was. So what we end up with is a non-Hollywood, independent film made by people who are passionate about the character and the lore, who want to make a great film. This is the type of thing that gets me excited for a remake. And you can't really call this a remake either, as in no way does it follow the same plot of the movie before. No, this movie is like a snapshot of the comic book. It picks up on just another day for Dredd - in this story he is training a rookie (who happens to have somewhat psychic abilities) on her first day, and things just go to hell. You always get the sense though that this sort of insanity happens on a day to day basis for judges like Dredd and for the people of Mega City One. He keeps his cool, uses his own training and just deals with the situation. The absurdity of the city, of the violence, of the over the top villains and thugs is lost on the inhabitants of the movie. As a watcher of this, you are shocked, almost amused at the ultra-violence dispatched upon criminals. There are no pretenses here and I love the film for that. I will only comment lightly on the plot: it's simple, effective and practically non-existent. The beauty of the movie is that the plot doesn't need to be anything more than what it is, which I believe is like a snapshot of a day in the life of Judge Dredd.

In an era where action movies are watered down for maximum box office dollars, it's nice to see a film that is not afraid to be what it is. Judge Dredd is a Hard R, for incredible amounts of gory violence, drug abuse and whatnot. It's practically refreshing to see something like this in the theatres, and it's another reminder that Dredd is an independent film, devoid of Hollywood influence. After the credits roll (and we did stay to see if anything was there: there is not) I feel a general angst against Hollywood. It's denied me great films through it's denial of genuine talent and passion for projects that could be great. The 1995 Judge Dredd ruined things for any type of franchise, although in a twist of irony it allowed this film to happen: apparently the rights to Dredd were going for cheap - nobody would touch it - and it was snapped up by those talented people who were passionate about the film. But the poor box office it has done means it will never likely see the sequel it deserves (somebody, even in independent films, has to turn a buck). Which is a real shame because there is a lot of potential here. There was no origin for Dredd presented here, and no real representation of the mythos of the world in the comics (I'm sure there were many bits lost on me, but would be picked up by fans of the series). But after reading numerous posts from fans, there are a lot of stories worth telling.

So I highly recommend going to see this film. Put the memory of the original film aside, and you will be pleasantly surprised. The effects are quite good, the action is enthralling and there is a perfect mix of humour thrown in. I've said it before and I'll always say it again: this movie is focused and engaging.

Piranha 3DD

My friend was home already when I arrived - a rare occurrence with his new job - and I could see the grin on his face from outside. We were going through some movies the night before and stumbled upon the new Piranha movie, and knew then that it was available for viewing. Immediately I supposed that his mind was going through how he was going to see this movie. Two years previous he brought his wife to the theatre for the first one (in 3D) and she was horrified. Not by the "horror" aspect of it, I'm sure, but more of the extreme gratuitous shots of naked women and the shameless level of tongue-in-cheek vulgarity present throughout the running time. But mainly the women: it was pretty ridiculous. So there was no chance of him being able to see the second one when she was around (they watch everything together).

It was as if the stars aligned though, not twenty four hours later. His wife was staying with her mother, and he was not obligated to be with her. My other friend's girlfriend was also away, out of town, leaving the house void of women. He knew this, and anticipated it throughout the day. The first thing he asks is: do we watch it now, or later (that evening)? Regardless of when, it happened and yes, it was incredibly terrible (yet incredibly funny).

I wrote about the predecessor a while back, and the way I read it is in a fairly negative tone. I mean, it is a bad movie, but I did watch again with Nathan a few weeks after the first time and must say, enjoyed it more. Perhaps this happens because it has my full, undivided attention. When you're watching a movie with a friend, that is what you are doing. You are not watching the movie and browsing your phone at the same time. You are not watching and making dinner in another room. Together, you can laugh about the shenanigans onscreen; it's social, and the movie is better for it. It also helps that the original was firmly tongue-in-cheek, the sequel has even less shame and is may be trying to be something it's not, which is to say it's trying to be like the original but falls flat on its face.

So it's quite terrible (in a way) that Piranha 3D looks like a cinematic masterpiece complete with acting, plot, suspense and humour compared to Piranha 3DD, which lacks all of the above. The effects are worse, the thrills are cheap (and predictable) and the movie in general lacks any kind of coherency. You wouldn't think it needs to, but apparently Piranha 3D set the bar (relatively) high for a sequel. All that being said, the movie provided some good, cheap laughs, a sense of disbelief and satisfaction that we could go on with our lives.

IMDB Ratings

Just wanted to bring to your attention a new link on the upper right side of the page (underneath Home). It's "IMDB Movie Ratings" and will take you to my ratings list on - you guessed it - IMDB.

I've neglected creating an account there for years, for no good reason. But a few months ago I registered and started adding movies to my watchlist (something I will make public and add soon as well). You may recall that I was trying to keep track of all the movies I've seen, with varying levels of success. The problem with the old manual system I was using (a spreadsheet) was that it was indeed, manual. I would forget to do it, I would neglect it often and I just lost interest. Enter the IMDB app on the iPhone and updating that list is incredibly simple. I realized this after noticing that I check out the trivia and IMDB page for every movie I see shortly after seeing it: one more click and it's there.

So you will see my ratings, and it's nice format: searchable, sortable and full of data. There are not many right now, but I will add them as I see movies: I'm not too keen on going back to rate the thousands of movies I've seen over the past thirty years, but I may get bored.

Also, don't read too much into the numerical ratings. I've stayed away from them on The Chronicles and will continue to do so. If you want the scoop read my take on it, because a 7/10 for one movie could be entirely different than a 7/10 for another. Enjoy!

Fan Expo 2012

A fear washed over me. My forehead broke into a cold sweat. I checked blind spots repeatedly, made verbalization that made no sense that would confuse linguists. Indeed, I had made a left turn into a streetcar lane, which quickly became elevated. The street below felt like miles. Partially, I was in awe: I was driving where no man had gone before, where only streetcars had traversed before. Then reality hit as I checked my rear view mirror and saw a car directly behind me. Probably another tourist, who had followed me onto this railed path of madness. I wasn't entirely sure what to do, although there were very few options. The car following took the lead and leaped off the track onto the civilian road below. The only option had presented itself. I yelled for Cale to hold on, that this was going to happen and it played out just as expected. We hit the road below, bottoming out the car and hearing awful noises from below. But we were safe now. I can only imagine what the locals were thinking, and the only thing to do now was to drive past the shame.

Cale has done a good job of writing up the car incident, as well as the day we attended Fan Expo in 2011. He's right - although he throws in some fiction (I'll leave the what up to you to decide) - that I was flustered throughout the day. Something was off, but I couldn't quite pin what it was. Perhaps it was the crowds. 2012's Fan Expo this past weekend was no different. You have to fight your way through aisles of people to get anywhere; if you stand still for any period of time you were going to be knocked about and lost. And perhaps it was the mass consumerism that was taking place. In years gone by the crowds were less and the items more unique. Now, in today's market, you can find anything online and cheaper than anywhere on the show floor. All the colourful and unique merchandise fails to impress as its mass-produced and high availability reminds me of being in a supersized warehouse store of geek items that flashed the horror of going to Wal-Mart during the weekend across my face. The smell of many of the patrons certainly doesn't help the nauseating experience.

The show is changing; Cale and I have been going for quite a while now and quite frankly, it's becoming a big deal. They didn't used to have a lot of support from major companies, but now it's not uncommon to see a massive, official, DC Comics footprint and media extravaganzas for movies, television shows and video games. At this year's Expo, there was a gigantic Halo 4 area and major representation from Ubisoft. We saw the Wii U in play (and was floored by how big that controller was). The artist alley has shrunk, as has the celebrity signing area. All your favourite vendors are there peddling their goods, and even that becomes tired. Year after year they bring the same things, and the discounts do not run nearly as deep. Indeed, most can only offer "US cover price" which is not a deal at all. I can imagine the cost for them to be there is increasing, and less people would be buying as they spend more time at celebrity Q&A sessions, movie premieres and costume parties. Physically, space wise, the Fan Expo needs more. That could help the experience of browsing the floor that much better, I think.

Last year I bought a few comics (the Knightfall series) and practically had to force myself to make it happen. 2011 was the year that Fan Expo broke me, but 2012 I was better prepared. Actually I wasn't, in some respect. I wanted to go in with a list of comics to get - because there are still deals for comics - but just couldn't get around to it. I wanted to work towards a collection (for instance Amazing Spider-Man #300 to #400) but just didn't prepare myself beforehand. Having the list in the cloud on my Google Drive didn't help as we could barely get a cell signal - too many in a small area, I suppose. So it's my own fault, really. But this year I was mentally prepared for that, although the crowds still wore me down very quickly. I wanted more comic book vendors, but instead we got bombarded with large, corporate driven displays. I imagine "the" Comic-Con is very similar to this, where major things are being announced for Hollywood, and the day of the individual comic book draws near.

So I bought one thing: V for Vendetta (collected trade paperback of course) for less than anywhere I've seen before. I got excited, and am excited to read it, as it's been on "the list" for quite some time. But that's it, and I'm completely satisfied. Next year, perhaps, I will be better prepared and be able to pick up some comics to flesh out my collection. I'm sure you're thinking that I'm insane, as I've pretty much been slamming this event and just doing an about-face now to say I enjoyed it, but it's true. Last year I was caught off guard and was flustered, but this year I enjoyed taking in the madness. There was lots to see and experience, and the event has transcended the actual Expo itself. It's about the time before and after, the drive, the conversation and the time spent with a good friend. Where once it was just a day trip, it has turned into a weekend event (Cale and I no longer live in the same city).

This is annual pilgrimage that I've always been after; the tradition was not forced, it just happened. And I look forward to it every time.

The Great Music Collection, part four: The Aftermath

It's now been months since I first imported my collection into iTunes and really embraced the ecosystem. After months of use, the import has proven successful: the data is clean, the albums are organized and it is an actually joy to work with. Never did I believe you would hear that from me in regards to iTunes. That's not to say the software isn't without it's problems, as the software can be slow, sluggish and a pest with it's need to update all the time. But the initial setup and planning has paid off: I have the Core playlist which syncs with my iPod, and podcast episodes are individually chosen. Subscriptions to podcasts are all setup and download automatically all the time (although iTunes seems to forget the odd one).

One of the goals I had was to have the entire music library available through Subsonic, which runs off my server/HTPC that is always powered on (the desktop housing iTunes is not always on). The previous folder structure I had was good for Subsonic, but iTunes' structure is even better. Folders for artists, then folders for each album inside. I simply copied the entire iTunes music folder onto the server and pointed Subsonic at it: everything worked as expected, and as a bonus I get a simple mirror backup of my music. Now, that was good for a while, but I rarely use Subsonic anymore, as work and life don't really permit me to do so. I don't have a big need for it, so the service has been turned off (as has the server most days).

The other program that requires access to music is XBMC, which I do use regularly. The good news is that XBMC is pretty flexible but benefits greatly from the Artist - Album folder structure that iTunes utilizes. Once the collection was copied over it was very easy to start listening to music, but I noticed something: album art. iTunes stores the album art in it's database, and XBMC (as well as Subsonic) look for local images. The classic "folder.jpg" is widely accepted and used by those these two programs. Previously, I had this setup and all my albums had nice cover art displayed, so it meant that I had to re-insert those files into the appropriate iTunes folder. The major danger here being that iTunes could do anything to that folder and erase any files its not responsible for. But I figure that won't happen often enough to worry about, as each album is imported and tagged with care: further modifications should not be necessary.

I actually found a script somebody wrote that did exactly what I needed automatically. The script would go through the iTunes database and extract the album art and place it in the right folder with the proper naming. This worked for the most part, but I wanted to ensure every album was done properly, so I double-checked and downloaded new art as appropriate. Anytime a new album has been imported, I just download the art (Google Image search of course) and place in the folder. Importing an album or two at a time is a painless operation now.

What happens now though in XBMC is the absence of thumbnails while you are browsing artists. This is harder to resolve than the album art although it's tackled in much the same way, by placing a folder.jpg of the artist in the folder. Album art is fairly standardized: they're squares. Photos of artists are not, and when you search for one you will get a variety of results in different resolutions and dimensions. The secret may be to actually modify images and make them as square as possible. XBMC does like portrait style though, although Subsonic does not. I probably got through 20% of my collection before giving up on this little project; I've just simply neglected it in the past few months but keep meaning to return to it.

The other issue centers on new albums to the collection. While my iTunes workflow is solid, and process of getting that new album onto the server for XBMC is lacking. At first, I thought I would simply just copy the new folder over, but I keep forgetting. What results is fragmentation and just simply a lack of music. Every few months I could copy the entire folder over but that's inefficient. I know where the problem is, and it's me. The only solution is to make copying that folder over a part of the iTunes process. The other solution (and really the better one) would be to keep the iTunes library on the server itself. I'm not sure if I went into any detail before regarding my computer setup, but it has proven to be less than ideal for this.

It is weird to think - for me - that this solution is still working. It's working nearly exactly as planned, and I'll say it again: proper planning pays off in the long run. The next step will be to import the rest of the collection: many of the albums from "Albums B" that I rarely, if ever, listen to. With proper tagging, and use of playlists, they can sit in the main library and simply be accessible. I've already setup smart playlists to make music from different years and genre's readily available, as well as newly imported music. I may dabble in ratings again, and see what else is available for me to further organize this "great" music collection.

Total Recall (2012)

Never did I think that we would have to slap a tacky looking (year) onto one of the greatest sci-fi/action movies of all time. But a couple of years ago the announcement was made; fast forward to now and here we are, with a brand new shiny remake of Arnold's romp through his mind and Mars. After the announcement, would come a trailer, and this is where the true resistence was felt. For hours (or perhaps just minutes) my friends and I spoke about the merits of a remake, and about how old we were getting (that Total Recall really is that old). My friends were dubious about a remake: the film would be sacrilegious and an atrocity affronted to all humankind, but I took a slightly different approach. Perhaps it's fueled by indifference, but I can appreciate re imaginings, reinterpretations and modern updates. I appreciate that what I have loved is loved enough that they want to modernize it for today's youth, and I'm fascinated to see the results. The existence of a remake - good or bad - doesn't sully the original for me; if anything, it will just enhance it further.

As I said before, I'm typically indifferent. While I watched the trailer for the new Total Recall I felt a twinge of excitement, and I can tell you the exact scene: it's when he (Quaid) steps out on the balcony and the camera pans around to show the city around him in all its sci-fi glory. It was a thing of beauty, as you could tell (from these few short seconds) that some time and effort went into its creation. I was excited for modern special effects to deliver me a stunning view of the future, something which I feel has been lacking in other science fiction movies. Indeed, most other sci-fi films are sent on other worlds, in space or otherwise unrecognizable areas. The original Total Recall used the concrete backdrop of Mexico City to give us a glimpse into a "modern" and futuristic version of America. Move forward to this remake, and the cityscape is (completely rendered and) very detailed, but strikes more than a passing similarity to the world of Blade Runner. Indeed, I felt like we could see Deckard running after some replicants in the background. When the film moves into the second act we're transported to The Fifth Element, complete with flying cars and vertically staggering cities.

In this future, there are only two countries left, one of which is the United Federation of Britain. What I love about this one (and this is the one that looks like The Fifth Element) is that it builds upon the original city. They've effectively built a floating city on top of the old one, where cars still drive with rubber tires to the road. The other country is The Colony - in Australia - and effectively takes the place of Mars from the original movie. I guess they just didn't have time to fit a planet into the plot here, and I must say it's not necessarily for the worst action-wise. It is kind of confusing for the motivations of the characters though.

And that's where things fall apart - if you let it get to you. I just don't know why Cohaagen is allowed to be so evil here: when he was out to screw Mars it made sense: it's another planet akin to the wild west, where corporations do as they please. On Earth, things are just a bit too close to home. But that's where the complaints (generally) end: the rest of the movie was fun, full of action and attractive women, and even a third breast for all us fans of the original.

I walked out of the theatre asking myself why they just don't make a shot for shot remake like they did for Psycho. Why bother messing with things that were fine to begin with? And this is really a remake more than anything else - you can't get away with calling it a reboot (like The Amazing Spider-Man). This is all perfectly good; the movie surpassed expectations. Admittedly they weren't that high to begin with, and I'm certainly aware that I'll never see this version ever again. I'll always go back to Arnold for my Total Recall fix and I hope that people who are being introduced to the world now can look back and see that version - and appreciate it. And oddly enough, the older version was the more cerebral of the two, who knew?

Tiny Tower: Completed

In no way could I tell you when I actually started playing this game: my first post is dated September 14, 2011, so I'll just say it's been a year. It's been an addicting run, and where my friends "failed" I built on, surpassing 100 floors in a relative short period of time. The floors just kept piling up, and the time it took to build them increased exponentially. Earlier this year my playtime would decrease, stall to a near halt. I don't know how the citizens of my tower put up with me, but they were glad they did, as I attacked the game aggressively and built into the heavens as no man should.

When you are building so high, so many floors it takes millions of dollars per floor and days to create it. What really frustrated me was building a retail store - for instance - then not being able to staff it because the apartment floor would take me days to build (days to collect the money then days to wait for it to build). So I took out a new approach: save up enough money to build all eight floors at once. The idea was so sound and innovative that architects around the world gasped with joy. So I begin saving money, and it took weeks to get enough for eight floors. But boy, when I did build them all, it was heaven.

I also became loose with bux (in game super-money) to fill slots in the apartments, so that I could place people in the new stores immediately. I would evaluate citizens and freely eject them from the tower if they did not perform well. It took quite a bit of time but it was very fulfilling: spending the effort to do things properly. I chose eight because it works perfectly: three apartments give you fifteen people. Each store staffs three people, so five stores requires fifteen employees. So eight floors is perfect. I did this for a short time (ie months) until I hit the limit.

Not my mental limit, but the height limit on the tower. I didn't think it was possible. But let me explain: you can continue to build floors, but they will remain empty. There are only so many apartments you can build, or so many retail stores available. Once they are all gone, your tower is as good as done - but you can keep going skyward all you like (as far as I know).

And the game was over. With no reason to play anymore, I went looking for others to fill the void, but I know now that will never come to pass. It's been a solid year with this Tiny Tower that has become oh-so-big. There was a blip of hope as well in the form of a software update advertising more floors. But they only added eight: one for each type. I built those quickly and easily, then let the game die again.

Sure, there are other goals that I could come back for, like making sure every person is in their dream job, or completing the missions, but those tasks feel somewhat empty. This game, this way of life as it were - will be fondly remembered.

Here are a few stats on my tower at time of completion.

• 169 floors: 106 retail and 63 residential
• 315 bitizens
• 271 dream jobs (that's 86% dream job rate)
• 46 missions completed
• Retail floors are in descending alphabetical order (as are apartments, which are all on the upper floors)
• 419 tower bux
• 4,267 unread Bitbook messages

The Avengers

Well look at this, a few weeks go by and I totally forgot about seeing The Avengers in theatres. That is not to mean though, that the movie was bad. It was actually quite good. If anything, it shows that Marvel has really hit the perfect formula that was shown earlier with Iron Man. They've had a good run since, as well, with decent turnouts for Thor and Captain America, each of which has been hinting and leading up to the inevitable Avengers film, which landed just a month or so ago. And it landed huge. This movie is blowing apart box office records and just bringing in tons of cash - Avatar style. All of this, plus the incredible ratings - 93% on Rotten Tomatoes at the moment - confirm that the formula is sound and worth repeating. I expect that all characters in the film have their respective sequels in the works, along with new franchises starting for Hawkeye and Black Widow, among others.

So in the same way that I enjoyed Iron Man, I enjoyed The Avengers and then some. It strikes a good balance of action, story, humour and whatever else is necessary for saying the movie is good. It doesn't matter: the movie is fun. While I struck out against the movie earlier, my predictions weren't entirely inaccurate: the movie is somewhat predictable, but that's not a problem. We get quick back stories for some of the heroes, with the Hulk getting by far the most - it's been noted he's the real star of the film and yeah, he's definitely a fan favourite for good reason. We don't get much on the others simply because we've just been inundated with their movies recently. It's alright though: the previous movies met their goal of bringing these characters (arguably back) into the public consciousnesses admirably.

Poor Captain America wanders around lost most of the movie, and it becomes quite clear he's the "weakest" of the bunch. This has always been a problem though; it's like Batman when he's with the Justice League. If you can't fly you're kind of a hindrance, and ol' Cap shows his leadership on the streets and his hard ethics when he spars with the like of man-boys Tony Stark and Bruce Banner. Everybody else gets equal screen time, an admiral feat upon itself for so many stars. Then we get in the villains, which serve their purpose, although those giant flying worm things were entirely way too close to Transformers. 


So really, I can't say much else about the movie. It's not for lack of disliking it. I just can't quite put my finger on it: the movie runs the line perfectly, not really standing out in either direction. Like I said before, they really hit the formula here and put the right people on the job. There is nothing about this movie that is offensive, or even worth complaining about. On the other end, there is nothing that really made me sit forward in my seat and shake my legs with excitement. Just an all round, really solid film that was a lot of fun. I would say you should go see it, but judging by the box office, you've already done it a couple of times already. 

Television Shows of Late

I figured I would mix things up a bit and let you know what I've been watching lately. And provide some short, uninsightful thoughts on them.

Fringe

Every time a season of Fringe airs, I don't watch it. I have them all queued up and about halfway through the airing, I'll begin watching. I'm not sure where the hesitation stems from, because the show is fantastic. I'm really digging the current season (or the last, I guess), where [spoilers] Peter is vanquished from reality (and everyone's memories) and comes back mysteriously. Lots of guest spots from Observers, cool monsters and sci-fi mysteries. There was concern the show was being cancelled, but we have another (final) season in the pipe. Plenty of time for the writers to wrap things up.

Breaking Bad

I should watch season four before the new season starts, so I'm a few episodes in now. Really brilliant stuff, although again, I'm hesitant to start watching. This show stresses me out a bit, and I think that's the goal. They've done a really great job here, and I'm eager to see what mess Walter and Jesse can get themselves into by the end of the season.

The Office

After the last season ended (and it was not a good season) I was in the mood for a short, light comedy. I burned through some other shows and came back to The Office again, and yeah, it was really great back then. The Jim and Pam dynamic is fantastic, ending the second season. I'm sure it will get bad and I'll lose interest, but for now it's a great show to just pop on.

Happy Endings

This is a really great show; I just started the second season. The characters are well acted and sharply written, and I haven't come across an episode that is unbearable. Plus, Elisha Cuthbert.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

You would think that with so much free time, I would really tackle this show in the same way I went through The Next Generation. Evidently, this is not the case. I watch perhaps one, two episodes per week now. Each episode is worse than the previous, and I can't pay attention to save my life. Just...terrible. I'm halfway through the second season. I'm told it gets better, but I'm not sure I can make it that far.

Dark Shadows

Listen, I'm a fan of Tim Burton. There was a time when I would gobble up any movie he brought out. That's perhaps a lie: I didn't eagerly go see his remake of Planet of the Apes. In fact, I'm not sure how many I've gone to see in the theatre: they seem to be consumed at home more often than not. Alright, that being said, I'm still a big fan of his movies, or at least, the older ones: 1988 through 1999 were very good years for him.

Tim Burton and Johnny Depp teaming up is not exactly news, as they've done quite a few films together, so I'm not entirely sure why I was excited for Dark Shadows. It's based on an old soap opera - seriously? - from the '70's that I've never heard of and have no interest in. The previews looked decent enough though, and Burton does gothic pretty well. Perhaps I was excited as well because there wasn't much else in theatres - this was a week or so before The Avengers came out and the torrent of summer movies were being released. The preview showed some promise though, which made watching the movie so unbearable.

The core of the issue with Dark Shadows is that it's disjointed, and perhaps for the first time I've used that word, it couldn't be any more true. This film doesn't know what it wants to be. It starts out really well, as the movie is giving us some background information on Barnabas and how he becomes a vampire, back in the 1700's. This is where Burton is at his finest: the mood, atmosphere, acting and all that are great. It reminds me of Sleepy Hollow (one of my favourites). Then we fast forward to the 1970s where the film "begins" so to speak. We're introduced to some people who don't get fully developed, and multiple story lines and themes that jump jarringly from one to another.

For instance, Barnabas comes back, and he's a fish out of water: you get the standard jokes as we experience Barnabas dealing with technology and culture. He comes out of the woods and onto a paved road, and mistakes a car's headlights for a demon or something, and it's funny. I get it. Then things get serious as the witch (Eva Green - beautiful as always) who turned Barnabas into a vampire, turns out to be running a competing fishing company - the business that gave Barnabas his fortune and whatnot. So he wants to fight back and regain the town, so to speak. And we're treating to this montage of him fixing up the old family business, and all of a sudden I have no idea what I'm watching. What about his reincarnated love from hundreds of years ago? No, she takes a backseat and barely makes an appearance again, even though she was based prominently before.

I read a review after seeing the movie that had an excellent point: for most viewers, the '70s were long ago: for me, they didn't even exist. The 1700's are also long ago. So you have Barnabas, who travels forward in time, and the audience, who is travelling back in time. It's jarring for both parties. You - the viewer - are being forced to see through Barnabas' point of view: it's fine to adjust with one time warp, but to have two is too much, and nobody else except the audience is being forced to travel twice. It takes you out of the movie at all times, and even that much harder to relate to Barnabas.

It's a comedy, then it's a horror. Then it's something else that doesn't make any sense. We get romantic story lines that are confusing, backwards characters and a finale so full of action and nonsense that it just doesn't fit with the rest of the film. It was quite bad - and disappointing.

Men in Black 3

In a daring double feature, we walked briskly into the theatre and took our seats. My friend was telling me how he had rewatched the first two films. I think this act was to help refresh his memory, and to introduce the series to his wife. And it hits me that you need to be refreshed on the series since the sequel came out ten years ago, and the first MIB was five years before that. You would think that with the coin these movies bring in, we would have five or six MIB movies by now. But, Will Smith seems to have veered off course from his July blockbuster routine and has in fact taken a few years off from film - something I didn't notice until everyone kept mentioning how MIB3 was his return. Regardless, I didn't want to refresh myself, and the reasoning is still not clear. Perhaps I wanted to leave those memories alone, perhaps the movies had not stood the test of time.

It turns out that I just didn't want to sit through MIB2 again: the movie is completely lost in the open sewer system of my brain. That's not to say it's bad, but it's just the way things have to be. The first movie remains classic, and if memory serves properly it was a very enjoyable theatre experience (I believe I went on a date to see the movie, where I ran into a couple of friends who were also going - we all sat together and the awkwardness was not lost on me). In any event, the first MIB was fun and light, with the emphasis on fun - again. The score was memorable (Danny Elfman had a distinctive, fresh sound back then), the effects were top notch and most importantly, the characters were interesting and had a great dynamic.

Tommy Lee Jones is old. Although he's been in movies recently (including Captain America and The Company Men), it looks like he's struggling to be on screen. I feel as though he's been trying to get out of the MIB series since the sequel, and he definitely takes a back seat in this film, only appearing at the beginning and end. Perhaps he's doing this as a favour, or a quick fat paycheck. But the story is developed and works perfectly: Jay has to go back in time to save his partner, Kay (Jones), where he works with a younger Kay (played by Brolin). In fact, the movie is practically an homage to Jones, as Brolin looks the part and plays the part fantastic: the mannerisms and speech are spot-on. And in the end, Jones is the hero, and you realize you just watched a tribute to the guy.

All that being said, MIB3 was lacking in the fun category that we enjoyed in the first one. That's not to say it's bad: quite the opposite in fact. But this movie was more serious, and my friend summed it up perfectly in one word: somber. I mean, the movie circles around death as a central theme, so it's inevitable. But I feel like since the fifteen years that passed since, movies have changed. We get dark everything, and MIB3 is an attempt at breaking out from that, back into the light. And does so as best it can, and had me leaving the theatre happy with what I just watched. There wasn't much time to screw around - you almost get the impression there's a slightly longer cut in here somewhere - and is quite driven from scene to scene. The effects were there but took a far backseat to everything else: I didn't see it in 3D for better or worse, and I think it's a statement that the effects were just like everything else. They were more impressive back in1997 but just standard now for movies these days. Again, not really a complaint but an observation. If anything, the effects don't detract and let you (and the artists creating the movie) to focus on the film itself.

Definitely worth checking out, and no previous MIB experience required.

Chernobyl Diaries

We drove up the winding path towards a twenty foot tall, secure fence. Within the boundaries of the fence stood three large structures, clad in red brick. We equipped flash lights - even though it was daylight - and began circling the property. We had been told that there were openings; small cutaways big enough to crawl through, and what we got were even larger. It was trespassing, to a degree: there were no signs. The legality is grey, but we needed to explore. Hearts were pounding, as we looked in all directions for anyone who may be watching. We entered the grounds, and found another entrance into the first building. It was full of machinery, tools, parts and debris. Birds made nests in the larger areas, and it was evident that nature had been slowly reclaiming this abandoned facility for nearly ten years. This was urban exploration.

It could be considered one of the holy grails of urban exploration: Prypyiat. An entire city that once housed fifty thousand people, evacuated within a day or two. Entire apartment buildings abandoned and family possessions left behind. There is one catch: there is radiation. And there could be even more for those brave enough to adventure in. That's the premise of Chernobyl Diaries, at least. A group of young adults are looking for adventure in their European trip, and are convinced to take a tour of Prypiat, with the cooling towards of Chernobyl in the distance. Like anyone, they're hesitant, but like anyone, they find it extremely interesting. The history of it is fascinating and well worth investigating. The movie is interesting too, although it stops being so near the end.

It's a short movie and it doesn't waste much time in getting going. We're treated to a standard montage of our characters, then their decision to make the journey. Our group is led to checkpoints, where they are denied access - a strange occurence, but our tour guide knows another way in. Aside from the impending radiation, it's out first sign of danger. We're treated to glory shots of Prypiat and it's abandoned treasures, including the famous ferris wheel. We're also treated to a high level of tension as you, the audience, knows that something is not right. After all, it's why you're watching this movie. Although honestly, I would sit through a multiple hour documentary about the city and the Chernobyl disaster itself. The previews led me to believe that there was something supernatural happening, and I wasn't eager to try and presume what the horror would be.

You may be under the impression that this is a "lost footage" film, but it's not, much to my pleasure. The camera is a character, certainly, but is not at the same time. It's hand held footage the entire time, following and running with the others, but it's never addressed directly. I'm glad they went this route: it would feel tired and clichéd if they didn't. 

The end result was a bit disappointing though. The movie closes in a way that I don't approve of, and I look forward to alternate endings (this is coming from the director of Paranormal Activity, after all, so it should be inevitable). We never really get a solid glimpse at the creatures, which is great, but we do get an explanation, in what feels like a tacked on and half-hearted attempt at putting an end on a movie that doesn't really need one. I very much got a sense of I Am Legend here (the latest Will Smith version). I half expected the monsters to be radioactive vampires.But they aren't. In fact, it's inconsistent: these monsters are able to flip a care and are intelligent enough to cut appropriate cabling, but exist in such numbers that what we're told doesn't entirely line up with what we've just seen.

As a fan of urban exploration it was impossible to pass a movie like this up. There are real tours that go into the city, and I have an appreciation for how ill-prepared these people were for their journey. When you're familiar with some of the rules and guidelines for exploration, it's no wonder that this group runs into such disaster. Just as you walk away from 127 Hours with the message that you should always tell somebody where you're going, you should walk away from Chernobyl Diaries with the message to do the same thing, and to at least bring flash lights on a tour of dark, abandoned buildings.

John Carter

I'm really not understanding the extreme hatred that this movie pulls out of people. When I visit the odd forum (specifically: IMDB) people are just lit up, spouting off about what a wretched pile this movie is. It's like the gum that you step on and that sticky heap never comes off, picking up further dirt and terribleness with every step. You try and wipe it from your shoe on some soft grass, but you end up with grass stuck to your show. It goes on, as you can imagine. John Carter is nothing like this piece of gum. John Carter is more like a brand new, wrapped piece of gum you find in your drawer after lunch: exactly what the doctor ordered.

While the movie was tanking at the box office there were a few bloggers and movie reviewers of note that disagreed with the masses: they implored people to give Carter a chance, and enjoy the movie for what it is. And what is it? An epic movie of grand proportions, saddling a small frame of a storyline. You get big, exaggerating characters. You get dazzling special effects sequences. You get aliens. Even a bit of cowboy action. Yes, that's right: the movie starts off in the 1800's as Carter - a civil war veteran - is continuously escaping, where he stumbles upon a transport to Mars, where the bulk of the movie and story take place. This simple combination puts the entire Cowboys & Aliens movie to shame.

On Mars, Carter is basically a Superman: enhanced strength, agility and of course, Hulk-like jumping ability. He first comes across a race of green aliens with four arms, who are trying to avoid the war going on between the two human-esque tribes (they are somewhat red, after all). All he wants is to go home, but he gets caught up between the love of a woman and the war raging on the entire planet. I don't need to get into the rest of the film: it's fairly basic, you feel like you've seen some of it before and to that degree, I'm not complaining. I see a lot of comparisons between John Carter and Avatar, and yes, there are similarities. But here's the thing: John Carter pulls it off without the pretentiousness. Carter isn't about the effects and grandeur first, it's about being a movie itself. Whereas with Avatar, you get the distinct impression that it was more of a technical show of 3D and CGI then a forced-fed message of environmentalism.

Thinking that there is life on Mars is exciting; we, as a people have certainly been obsessed with it for quite some time. This movie really transported me back to a time when the book was coming out - A Princess of Mars, by the way - and filled me with the fantasy that science has since disproved. A hundred years ago, it was possible that these beings existed, that they had cities and were looking back at this pale blue dot through their own telescopes. Now we have rovers analyzing samples of dirt, and satellites taking images of every inch of the surface: the possibility of life diminished on Mars, we extend our dreams to faraway systems and planets. It's a dream we won't let go of, and I'm happy to have sparked again while watching this film. I really do hope that they continue them - although that seems unlikely at this point.

House

It's been a long time in the "making" but House is finally over. It's practically a relief, although I did enjoy the series...for the most part.

The year was 2005, I had just recently moved into my friend's basement and I had taken in a couple episodes of the show. Without much interest in any television during this time (except the mandatory, like Lost) it was pretty easy to watch an episode every so often. It didn't even matter if they were in order, they could have been repeats for all I knew. The basis of enjoyment was derived explicitly from the fundamental complaint about the show: how repetitive it was. Indeed, every episode followed the same formula: opening scene someone becomes expectantly sick, House et team spend 37 minutes diagnosing and experimenting, then in the last few minutes House as a eureka moment and the patient is saved.

While many people have the complaint, many people are secure in the formula. Of course, things are changed up occassionally, and the dynamic between House and his cohort becomes the main entertainment. House is a perennial jerk, always acting selfishly with little regard to his coworkers. In the later seasons he would have to pay for his actions, but not really: going to jail was a joke, and pulled out conveniently in the final two episodes of the series as a threat. You knew what you were getting into with every episode, and felt secure in what you were going to watch. A security show, really: the formula made it light and easy to consume. The drama wasn't too heavy and the medical cases were interesting, so it was a perfect show to decompress to. Personally, it was a great show to have on while I was making dinner.

So there it was, and as I started downloading some shows to get "caught up" I proceeded to sit and watch the entire first season in (proper) sequential order. It was grueling, and I would skip the second (and perhaps third) seasons altogether. There were some story arcs I missed out on, but wouldn't say I missed them. When I moved again later in 2006, I would begin watching the show week to week with regularity. For one of the first times I was in a state of mind where I looked forward to it, and the formula. Tuesday's were House, and I eagerly awaited the next episode and having a three minute conversation with coworkers and friends. Nobody really "loved" the show but we all watched anyway, and thinking that all it amounted to was three minutes of conversation seems kind of sad: my friends and I would discuss Lost and other such show for hours.

When House goes off the air - as it has now - it's not that big of a loss. Those three minutes won't be missed; it won't leave a void like Lost did (I bring up Lost often because the shows started about the same time). The final episode was exactly as it needed to be: it wasn't spectacular and it wasn't a letdown. A fitting end to a consistent show.

The King of Kong

A fistful of quarters. I remember the days well: I went to the bank, armed with loonies and a five dollar bill, and requested, literally, a fistful of quarters. Ten dollars worth, in fact. The next step was going to the mall, where a multiplayer X-Men arcade cabinet sat, and by all means, I was going to beat that game. Unfortunately, I don't recall what happened next, aside that the dream never came true. I played the game a few more times, but there was no marathon. This was when I was around twelve or thirteen years old, where the industry was in a state of decline. There were a couple of arcades around, but they weren't proper places for kids - at least, in my town.

One thing that I never tried to do was get high scores, and I think this is in due part to me not being overly competitive (or at least, trying to avoid competition) and that arcade games in the early nineties weren't focused on scores. The majority of titles were fighters, like Virtua Fighter, Mortal Kombat and of course, the Street Fighter II series. Arcade games in the eighties were focused on scores, and difficulties. Donkey Kong is noted as being one of the toughest ever made, and only a few get to see the final screen. The King of Kong documentary focuses on two players who are, arguebly, the best there is at the game. Billy Mitchell would set the record (in the eighties) that would stand for decades, only to be beaten (in a way) by Steve Wiebe. It's a story of these two, locked in eternal competition in a game that's over thirty years old.

The film focuses on the celebrity that these two achieved, which seems crazy and foreign. These days, the only gaming competition you hear about are the big Starcraft tournaments and professional players in Korea. But there does exist competition here, although this film doesn't exactly depict it in a great light. It's very amateur - the world of gaming competition - and somewhat unofficial. But it is, and we move on. The film also focuses on Billy and Steve, and basically paints Billy as an arrogant jerk who is deathly afraid of losing. He doesn't show up to competitions, and controversially mails in his winning videos at convenient times. Steve, on the other hand is the hero, who goes out of his way to play in public, and is generally the all-round nice guy.

It's almost unbelievable how fierce their competition is for one another, and how they basically hate the other. Apparently the movie is skewed, which makes sense, and that they are not entirely on unfriendly terms. Which is nice to hear, because in the end, it's just a game. I wish they had focused on the game itself a bit more; they make comments about the mechanics and certain strategies, but I don't think "Nintendo" is said even once. It's really saying something that these titles are still being played - and I'm not just referring to Donkey Kong either - and that people are improving upon one another's scores still. These games are timeless; they are difficult, and they are purely score driven. This movie acts as a good introduction to the competitive game world, and frankly, I want to see more of it. Billy and Steve are characters upon themselves, as are many of the supporting players - most notably the official referee of competitive games.

The documentary takes some dramatic license, which adds to the story of these two points champions. But I would recommend checking out the trivia section of the IMDB for this movie. They mention another player who set the record, and gives you the most up to date scores and who holds them. Who knew such an old game could be so intriguing.