Adaptation

Here's another film that came out nearly a decade ago (!), I consumed it and have since forgotten (mostly) about it. The reason you should have an interest in this film - and the reason I took a shine to it as it was coming out - is because of Charlie Kaufman, the writer. I was first exposed to his work in Being John Malkovich, a quirky little comedy that was incredibly irresistible. He would also later go on to write one of my Top Five movies, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. But as I looked back at Adaptation, I was curious if it would hold up to the test of time; was my memory hazy? After all, I (we: my roommates and I) watched a boatload of movies (a large boat, too) in university and the years following. Perhaps Adaptation was lost in the shuffle, as many movies were. Indeed, I can remember watching some of these "classics" and enjoying them, but after ten years, I can't remember if that enjoyment was valid (people change, after all).

Well, it turns out that I can trust my twenty year old self to some degree: this movie is brilliant. Watching it again was a great idea, and long overdue. I had it in my Netflix instant queue, and just recently noticed it's absence. A grey, nameless box took it's place and I question the practice of the streaming giant. It wouldn't stop me from seeing the movie, however.

The movie may be brilliant, but it is weird. It focuses on Kaufman (played by Nicolas Cage) trying to adapt a novel: The Orchid Thief. But the movie itself is an adaptation of The Orchid Thief, a real book. So we have Kaufman writing his screenplay inside the movie that he also wrote. It's a bit of a trip, and if you're up for it, the whole thing works. At one point, the movie makes a remark (from a critique of the novel) that the book is relatively empty, slow moving and without substance. And in that, Kaufman decides to muck around with things to get going, which is clearly what happened with this movie. Kaufman writes himself into the screenplay, and adds more: a fictitious brother who is also writing a screenplay. They play this up by giving the fictitious brother a writing credit on the movie itself. It's kind of crazy and I certainly don't do it justice by trying to explain it. The movie is not long and is worth a watch.

Nic Cage is also pretty good here, playing the part of Kaufman and Kaufman's brother flawlessly. Perhaps it's one of his better turnouts, and the seamless nature of them on screen at once makes me wonder if the technology they used in The Social Network to create the Winklevoss twins existed here too. Another aspect I really enjoy was the criticism of writing techniques. Kaufman is clearly pioneering new ground here and the criticism he received while writing it is evident on screen. His brother attends a script guru's lectures, and points out writing never-do's which Kaufman uses so much in his own. Kaufman sends the criticism back as he dismisses much of his brother's work, thinking it aburd. It's a small wonder that his films get made at all, and it's a great commentary on the Hollywood machine:.

I suppose I do have one unembarrassed passion. I want to know what it feels like to care about something passionately.

The Fly (1958)

It amazes me to no end sometimes that these movies from the '50s were ever considered monster-movies. By today's standards they seem to be lacking, but I would tend to disagree. What they lack in special effects they more than make up for in character. I believe that the reason these classics stand up to the test of time is that they were taken seriously "back then" whereas now, a "monster movie" is treated as a special effects extravaganza, filled with cheap thrills and marketed directly towards opening day box office. That being said, I enjoy these modern day films quite a bit. I'm not trying to say they don't have their place. I love going to the show as much as the next guy - it's the experience. If the film is entertaining then all the better.

These older, original versions really make me appreciate the experimentation and fearlessness that was present in Hollywood. They are shooting beyond the stars, creating special effect techniques to accomplish what they dream of, and those techniques will carry on throughout time. There are classic bits here and there. In the case of The Fly, it must be the "help me! help me!" scene near the end, where we get to see the opposite end of the experiment gone wrong. You've heard it a million times, parodied in films and televisions all over the place. It's cheesy, but I'm glad to have seen the origin at last.

I was surprised by the layout of the film. Honestly, I was expecting a very straightforward, dumb film about a guy who turns himself into a giant fly, but I got much more than that. The movie opens up on what seems like an industrial accident; investigations lead you to believe it to be murder of a renowned scientist. His wife is dealing with the grief, but is overly paranoid about people killing flies in her house. She begins to tell her story, and we're transported back in time just a touch, where actual character building takes place. The relationship with her and her husband is given some context, and we see the drive and passion for the experiments. Andre believes he can change the world with his teleportation, but every time he tries it, something funny happens. He believes he's nailed it, but instead the unthinkable happens: the fly.

As you watch a film like this you know exactly what's happened, and just expect the worse. Andre covers his head and arm with a sheet, as those are the only parts to have turned into a fly. In part, to hide the goofiness, but moreso, to add to the mystery. What does he really look like? The reveal in these old monster films are always great simply because they lead you on for so long. Transplant yourself into a theater showing this and imagine seeing it for the first time: you would be taken aback and amazed. Or perhaps you would be laughing, it's hard to say. We don't get opportunities like that anymore: there is no more mystery in movies anymore. If it hasn't been spoiled for us in a trailer or preview, it's our numbing to special effects and screen wizadry that makes us barely blink when the big reveal is made.

In any event, this movie rocked.

Portal 2

When my friend gave me a copy of Portal 2, did he realize then, that it was like taking away one of my weekends and replacing it with hours upon hours of Portal gaming? Did he realize, when he was receiving the game from the dealer, that I would wake up on Saturday morning, begin playing the game and then awaken from my Portal hibernation late Sunday night? This is indeed what happened, although I'm not convinced of any maliciousness, but instead: the complete opposite.

See, we really enjoy games like these. After you come off a bender of Skyrim, you need a more casual game to become reacquanted with what gaming actually is. I could lose numerous weekends to Skyrim, or any other giant open world game, and come away with practically nothing. With Portal 2, I would spend quite a few hours becoming immersed in the game world, and at the end of the weekend, I had a finished game. I experienced much of what the game had to offer, at least, on the surface. The story is beat, the final boss taken care of and I got to watch the credits go by. There may not be a lot of achievement points handed out, but the biggest achievement was had, and that was the thorough and complete enjoyment of the game. And the icing on the cake [perhaps a pun for those in the know] is that I get to go onto another game.

My friend and I have spoken for quite a while on the subject of how - as gamers - we have evolved our interests. And it all deals with getting older, of course, and having more responsibilities that supercede gaming. Unfortunately, I don't experience many of them, but the pressure is certainly there, and I know the reality of the situation. No longer do we have two hundred spare hours to invest in a game. No, we have to divide that time up, and quite simply, the fewer hours you do have to game are more valuable. That's where titles like Portal come in. These games are short, very short. To me, this means around five to seven hours. Although I dedicated much of my weekend to it, I probably only put in six hours overall, and that's perfect. It's akin to a television series going on for a few seasons past it's prime. Whereas the US version of The Office is going to end on a sour note, the UK version called it quits on the peak, and for that we remember it as being a seriously good show. Portal 2 never had a chance to become "bad" so to speak; it never had a low point and because of that, we'll always remember it as being seriously good.

Perhaps the only negative I can spin onto the title are some of the puzzles, but I have no one to blame but myself. In most cases it's just a matter of not being able to find a surface that I can throw a portal onto, or that I'm blind and have missed a button that has been inset in a wall just a touch. They are minor, and when you finish those tough puzzles, the sense of accomplishment and pride is high. The game thrives on this: each "level" is another test, and when you solve this test you go on. The sequel rewards you with humour, as you're being insulted and forced onto the next test in line. The constant puzzle solving and short duration of those puzzles is a big motivator as you move through the story. There are times when you just sit there and have no clue how to advance, and you begin to experiment. There are other times when you walk into a puzzle and everything just clicks: you go through the motions and feel like a genius.

Everything comes together perfectly, and Valve pulls it off in what seems like effortlessness, but when you being to look closely, you see how polished things really are. The controls are tight, the puzzles are mind-bending, and the story adequate. You don't want the game to end because you're having so much fun with it, but deep down you know it has to. In these cases I can definitely see myself playing through it again.

Jetpack Joyride

There was a bit of a disaster earlier when Jetpack Joyride on my iPhone crashed. This happens from time to time, and usually I just relaunch the title. This time, when I did that, I noticed some weird things: I received a few achievements (from Game Center) and my level was reset to zero. My missions had changed, so I jumped into the game and played as normal. When I perished at around 1,800m the game was excited to tell me that was my personal best. In fact, my personal best is around 4,800m, but the game seems to have forgotten this. All my achievements and level progress was lost, but none of my purchased items were.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the game. It's an "infinite runner" style of game where the world is being automatically created as you go, and could theoretically last forever. The farther along you go, the harder it becomes, and death is inevitable. You play the character of Barry, who steals a jetpack from a lab and proceeds to make his escape - the actual joyride itself. But escape is impossible in this infinite world, as you bob up and down avoiding missiles, lasers and 'zappers' all the while scaring scientists and taking control of various vehicles. Tilt your iPhone into landscape, and the world zooms by horizontally: there is only one "button" which activates your jetpack. Let go of the screen and you begin descending, tap or hold the screen anywhere and you go back up. Perhaps a video will give you a better idea of the gameplay (not my video).

In your joyride, you collect coins, and use these coins to buy various items. You can get different types of jetpacks (they all handle the same though) and upgrade the different vehicles. You can buy costume changes, and different utilities to help you in your journey and to add to your final distance. All in all it's incredibly addictive. You're given three missions at a time to accomplish, which could include things such as flying past so many blinking lights in one go, collecting a number of coins, high-fiving scientists or more cumulative things, like getting so much distance in a vehicle, or even dying within a certain distance. Games are quick, and when you die, you can throw yourself right back into the mix. It's a time waster, for sure, a distraction from whatever is going on.

Initially, I played the game all the way through twice. That is to say, I hit the maximum level and ran out of missions, so the game lets you start over while giving you a badge whenever you do so. I lost all my badges. I put the game away for a while, but in the past few weeks I got into it again and must have double my hours, at the very least. The terrifying thing is that I put in ten hours of gameplay before my "second run" with the title. I figure at the time of the crash, I invested twenty hours easily, which again, is absolutely terrifying. This is all done in four or five minute chunks of time over the course of a few months. This is indeed a form of gaming that is taking over people's lives without them even knowing, and in some cases can be quite a financial burden. There are not many opportunities to spend real money in this game: I bought the utility that doubles my coins collected every run for 99 cents. The game itself was 99 cents and for a combined investment of less than two dollars, I would say 20 hours of gameplay makes this quite the bargain. A scary, addictive bargain.

The Edge

The Edge has always been one of my favourites, and is indeed a good film that has unfortunately been lost in the crowd and to time. I was surprised to see it's release date from back in1997, making me feel incredibly ancient. But that's the way it's gone, and in the past few months I've had this intense urge to watch the movie again. In fact, I've probably only seen it once or twice so it was time to deliver the ultimate test: is this movie actually good, or has the past fourteen years clouded my memory?

Just like The Shadow, I was hesitant to rewatch, but it also suffers from the same problem: no proper HD release. With The Shadow, there was never a decent DVD release, and understandably there is no proper Bluray release of The Edge (yet...and probably never). In the world of Netflix though, these movies could see high definition (I believe The Shadow was) but for some reason, The Edge never received the treatment. So the first half hour or so was marred by pixelation and artifacting, no doubt a result of a combination of low quality streaming, with a low quality source: I would have been better off buying the DVD, if that's even possible now. I trudged through though, firmly in the belief that video quality doesn't make everything, and I should be able to enjoy the movie's content, regardless.

I'm happy to report that the movie is just as good as I had remembered it, perhaps even better. Throughout my life I've had a certain love affair with the the outdoors. As I grew up, I had a few friends with access to the great outdoors: we would go to their trailer (which moved from camp to camp every summer) and go swimming, boating, some light hiking and of course video games. Indeed, one of my main memories was playing Super Mario Bros 3 on a very small screen in my friend's trailer. It seems backward but such as it were; we certainly got enough outdoors time. There was a certain amount of adventuring in exploring the different camps, and occasionally hiking trails (we were young).

The Edge follows Alec Baldwin and Anthony Hopkins (and Michael from Lost, for a time) lost in the woods, surviving and trying to find rescue. Charles (Hopkins) is loaded to the brim with cash, and has a beautiful young wife. Robert (Baldwin) is a photographer who doesn't know the first thing about the wilderness, so it's up to Charles to lead them out. Of course, there is tension: Robert and Charles' wife seem to have something going on. Charles picks up on this and is understandably suspicious. He assumes everyone is after his wife and his money, and just before their plane crashes he jokes to Robert by asking him how he is going to murder him. The idea is in Robert's head now, of course, and being the entreprenuer decides it would be an opportune time to try it out. What better environment to kill someone and leave their body than the vast open wilderness.

But Robert needs Charles to survive, and he makes this clear. Add to that tension, the fact that a giant bear is hunting them the entire time and you have a decent little outdoors film. Everything wreaks of the nineties here, and it's surreal seeing a young(er) Baldwin and Hopkins running through the woods. I found it interesting that there were two climaxes throughout the film, sort of. The first being the final confrontation with the man-eating bear (played by Bart the Bear, who ruled bear-movie roles for nearly two decades) then shortly after the duel between Robert and Charles. They are resourceful and Charles is full of outdoors knowledge, but it's good to see that not all his tricks work. Survival is no easy feat and this being a movie, is not the most realistic depiction, nor would I expect it to be. It's all about these two characters, needing one another but wary of each other at all times. Like a more complicated version of chess being played in the wild, this movie truly did entertain, and has held the test of time.

Sonic CD

A short while ago (we're talking weeks here, perhaps) Sonic CD was released all over the place. Often touted as one of the best Sonic games, it also seems be one of the more rare titles. You have to understand that any Sonic game on the Genesis has been released on every conceivable platform numerous times, while Sonic CD, for the Sega CD system, has not seen release very often. The only time I can think of off-hand is in the Sonic Gems Collection for the Gamecube and PS2. The previous Mega Collection Plus consisted of about a dozen games but was sorely lacking CD, while the Gems Collection included the fabled game and a few more.  Earlier this year I stumbled across the Gems version, so I had to buy it immediately. The purchase was fueled entirely by nostalgia, as are any other Sonic purchases, for that matter.

Back in 1992 or so, I was getting a Genesis for Christmas, with Sonic packed in. I played it like crazy: who didn't? I never did go on to own any other Sonic Genesis title, but I rented fairly often (my primary way of playing games in the early nineties). I must have rented Sonic CD at one point, as I did make that purchase. The memory is clear though: my friend Paul and I were scouting about town in the middle of summer, with not much to do. We walked downtown Belleville and went into a used CD shop - which also dealt in games - and we saw Sonic CD standing there on the shelf. In those days, the jewel cases were large: thick and tall, and about twice the depth of a standard CD case. The price tag read $40. I must have had around $30 or $35, as we walked out of the store and to Paul's bank. For some reason he remembered one of his bank accounts has being somewhat defunct. I can't make this stuff up: he closed his account that day, extracting seven dollars and change. I never did ask what happened there, because there was one thing on our mind that day: acquiring Sonic CD. And we did; walking back to the store and plunking down our cash.

The deal between us was never discussed: it was my game, but he paid for a percentage of it. Perhaps I paid him back, but that seems unlikely. He came over quite often and we would play it - along with other games - frequently. Perhaps it was bit of a friend tax. Whenever a friend comes over often and drinks a lot of your soda, don't ever feel bad about not returning seven dollars you borrowed from him, as chances are he owes you much more. Regardless of how it went down, it was clearly not the focus. We loved playing Sonic CD. It really is the best 2D Sonic out there; with brilliant music, sharp graphics and tight controls. You could time travel, there was no Tails following you around constantly, and did I mention the music? It was a blast, really.

Years later I would sell all my Sega stuff, and I'm sure Sonic CD was a casualty of a cheap yard sale death.

When I picked up the Gems Collection, I went through the hassle of getting it going. It really was a hassle: get the Wavebird connected to the Wii, find a Gamecube memory card and slap that in. Find out the Wavebird needs batteries, and of course all mine are dead. Sacrifice a remote for it. Get the Wii going because it hasn't been turned on in eight months, and find out it's not even connected to the new television set (which is barely new anymore as half a year has past). It's finally on screen and I'm exhausted; I play for a few minutes and validate the facts of my childhood experience, but I can't relive them. I turn the system off and shelve my collectible.

Fast forward to a few weeks ago, and I find myself spending extra Microsoft Credits on Sonic CD (only 400 points, right?) for the Xbox 360. The actions are practically autonomous, with no memory of my experience just a few months before on the Wii. Do I really need to buy this? No. Why is it happening? To relive that summer memory, laughing to myself as I think about the expression on the teller's face at the bank, the excitement of putting the disc into the system back in ~1994 and watching the animated, FMV intro. I quickly relive those again, but not with the same wonderment that I expect; I'm all alone and too much time has passed. I begin playing the game and immediately dig the music, but now I find myself playing it for the sake of playing it. None of the levels are familiar; the time travelling is loose and happening too often. The game only lasts a half hour before I die, and with that death, goes my interest. Don't get me wrong: the game is still solid, a tightly controlled side scrolling game that deserves the credit. But my time is past; more than 15 years, in fact, and I think that I've emotionally moved on. Those times are behind me now, and I'm a different kind of gamer, for better or worse. I may never play this particular title again, but it's not leaving a bitter taste as it goes. It's amicable; two friends who haven't met in ages passing by one another casually, each understanding the passage of time and how relationships work. We'll continue to miss one another, but not in the same way. This replay of Sonic CD was the exact closure I needed.

The Tree of Life

I was hesitant to watch this movie, but was convinced to by popular media and the constant badgering of a friend who decided to put himself through it. Indeed, thanks to Entertainment Weekly and a whole host of other "top ten of 2011" lists that put this film on the map, I couldn't help but check it out. I'm certainly glad that I did, although you would be hard pressed to call this a movie. It's more a film. You see, this film lacks the traditional narrative a movie has, and this can be quite jarring to the viewer; it's certainly a reason why I was hesitant to check it out in the first place.

Some people are describing it as a presentation of memories, and leaves the viewer to build the narrative themselves. I would tend to agree: the movie starts out in a point of time, with some horrible news (a death) but it's never clear who exactly it is, and throughout the movie you are left to wonder. Then you realize it doesn't overly matter, although it's easy to determine who it is not. After this, the movie goes on a 2001: A Space Odyssey style exploration of imagery. All I could keep thinking was how beautiful everything is, and what a demo for your television set. And again, you seem to be viewing scenes of nature on Earth, then slowly transporting yourself into space, then back to the very beginnings of Earth. We even get some dinosaurs, of all things, then we are brought back to the memories of this family, following their lives as the three boys grow up.

So where do we go from there? The memories start off wonderful, and you get the impression that this is the perfect family. These memories primarily come from the perspective of the eldest boy, Jack. As we progress, things are not as good as we thought they were. He loses innocence, first with the death of a friend, and his world grows darker as we explore the father's relationship with his own family. It's quite gripping, and I won't go into much more detail. We get a weird ending, that I suppose is left up to the viewer to decide what they're watching: I understood acceptance.

It's rather fitting then, that I took in an hour or so of 2001: A Spacey Odyssey earlier in the day. Each have sequences (one could argue the The Tree of Life is one giant sequence) where the viewer is left to interpret as they see fit. I can see how this would be unpopular, and why 2001 struggled so much upon release: it's non-traditional. The movie is not throwing it's message in your face, nor even a regular storyline. People are left thinking for themselves, evaluating their own childhood and lives. It's a very powerful film, and definitely one of the best of the year.

3D My TV

I can't really say with any large percentage of accuracy that I watched a lot of 3D material as a child. It was really more of a function of bad 80's horror movies, as they progress into sequels in the double digits - or more likely, the third iteration. Note that this is happening now: Shrek 3D (I know, it's not horror, but the gimmick is sound). The point is, I was too young to be watching that stuff in the theatre, and I don't believe there was a good home alternative to watching 3D. I certainly don't recall there being any 3D VHS or Beta laying around. The only 3D we could get is with the red and blue glasses, typically reserved for picture books and sticker albums.

In any event, about ten years ago my friend and I found ourselves in Toronto, doing our typical proper activities. We were going to take in a movie on the big screen, and by big screen I really mean IMAX big. And to top it all off, the film was in 3D. Certainly a treat. It was Cirque du Soliel. By no means did we have a lot of choice when it comes to material: IMAX was notably geared towards documentaries and visual porn. As a child I remember flying through grand canyons, over epic waterfalls and spanning across vistas, all in five-story screen goodness. Now it was in 3D.

We walked out of the theatre relatively impressed, but we talked mostly about the glasses we wore: it wasn't the simple, flimsy glasses you got with special edition comic books. No, these things were beasts that weighed quite a bit: you were quite aware that they were on your face the entire time, and quite aware that they were tech that you've never experienced before. These glasses were powered, there was no other explanation for their weight. When we were getting them, it was explained to us that the glasses had moving parts in the lenses, that the lenses "shuttered" on and off incredibly quickly. It's what we know now as active 3D, and it didn't clue in until these glasses - significantly decreased in size now - started arriving at home.

Yes, Avatar got the ball rolling, but it's important to note that the tech it brought along is passive: those glasses are flimsy, disposable and effective. When the first 3D televisions began to arrive, people noticed that the glasses were big, and full of batteries. It's quite the difference, and in the couple short years since their release the home glasses have improved a bit, but also that the passive-style has been introduced. Instead of spending in upwards of $125 a pair of glasses, the passive ones come in practically for free: some sets give you ten pairs when you buy it.

When I bought my Panasonic, it game with no glasses: the 3D feature is an afterthought and not very important. Indeed, when you spend enough on a set now, it just has 3D by default. There's no getting away from it, and it's dangerous. I wasn't sold on 3D (and I'm still not) so I didn't mind not having the glasses, but I'm curious. How does it look? Well, I keep waiting for them to go on sale but the cheapest I can see is $100. Then, in Wal-Mart the other day I saw the new Sony Playstation TV. It's a modest 24 inch screen, with 3D and a feature Sony is calling Simulview (or something ridiculous). Basically it allows you to play a local two player game where each player sees a separate screen: it's a nifty trick, but probably not very useful in today's online world. Regardless, they had 3D glasses alongside the display, for $50 each. I take a look, and see that they are "universally compatible" and I immediately wonder what that means.

You see, if you buy a Panasonic 3D set, you have to buy Panasonic glasses. Each brand is unique and requires you to be locked into their glasses. But this Sony box said different. It's universal, as long as you have active 3D and an IR transmitter in your TV. Does mine? Indeed, I know it is active but I wasn't sure on the IR portion. I took a look online and apparently it does have one, located in the lower left. I guess it's used to communicate with the glasses in some fashion. Fifty dollars isn't much of an investment, and with Wal-Mart, you know you're pretty safe on their return policy.

I eagerly tear open the box (carefully though, in case I have to return them) and put the glasses on. They are made of stiff plastic, and I question their quality. I remove the protective film from the lenses, and put them on. Yes, they are not the most comfortable thing in the world, but they seem to be made for a head my size. They sit fine, and don't squeeze. I put Tron Legacy in the PS3, and immediately the television is in 3D mode. All your previews play - all in 3D - then the main feature begins. Fast forward to the part of the movie where they enter the grid (and the movie is in actual 3D) and I'm blown away.

It's true what they say: the image is darker, although the film can accommodate this. The image was also surprisingly sharp, as I was expecting softer edges. The 3D effect is not in your face, and can be quite subtle at times. It's the same thing you see in the theatre, and for that I'm glad. I watched about a half hour of the film and was good with the glasses as they did not become uncomfortable. They have a very small USB port on them for charging, and as long as they can survive a couple of hours they should be alright.

I don't suspect I'll get into it very much. The odd movie, and video game (I see that many are 3D compatible now). I don't expect that 3D at home will be as big as Hollywood wants it to be. Quite simply though, they are pushing it down our throats and as I mentioned, it's getting harder to even buy a television that doesn't have 3D. So for a small investment in glasses, the Sony Playstation 3D pair really hits the mark: effective, inexpensive (and cheap) and satisfies the curious movie watcher.

Bastion

I had a bunch of garbage typed up about this game Bastion, but was never satisfied about it. How do I convey my pure joy and love for this game to you? I tried and failed, and now you won't see the result. What you get is this: Bastion is my pick for game of the year. Lo and behold, just a few days ago I was telling you how I couldn't effectively choose a favourite movie (nay, anything) of the year, but I've since doubled back and taken my mighty hammer to the back of your collective heads. There is no doubt - as I revisit the absurd idea of choosing a winner - that this game deserves it.

The summer was hot, but I didn't mind; the heat didn't last long and I was consuming a steady stream of Iced Cappuccino's. I purchased the game almost on a whim, or as close as a whim as I can do: I read about the game on Joystiq and other gaming sites a couple of times. I couldn't comprehend what made it so special but people were talking about it. Arriving at home, I downloaded the trial on the Xbox, and proceeded to play. It was everything and more. You see, the hook of the game is the narration. A perfect voice, the narrator will chime in with words of wisdom, commenting on your actions and offering anecdotes that progress the story in an entirely unique manner. Yes, the narration was there, implemented perfectly and it was awesome. After playing the first level, I chose to "unlock" the game: just shut up and take my money.

I continued playing, sipping the cool beverage as I lay spread out on the couch, sweating slightly but consistently. Hours would go by and I was still playing; the music kept pulling me in. The next level awaited. New weapons unlocked, new characters to talk to, new challenges. For an inexpensive, online title, this game was deep. The gameplay was right up my alley: isometric view, without any ridiculous camera tricks. You can move with one stick and attack with a few buttons. Keep it simple, they say, and they say it for a reason. Before each level you can select your favourite two weapons, and mix in a special attack. Your combination will bring out a quip from the narrator, making you proud for choosing what you did. A wide variety of weapons makes sure you don't get bored, although that's never a factor.

The story is engrossing, and weighty. There are moments that make you think, near the end of the game. There is certainly commentary to be made, statements about fate, about choosing, sacrifice and everything else. That's practically all besides the point. You see, when I was playing I wasn't considering all that; I was just have an absolute blast. Then the ending came, and I realized how far in I was invested. I stared the screen down, my cool, iced drink melted and forgotten. There is an option to play again, keeping all your progress with weapons intact. The second playthrough, the narration changes slightly, as the narrator comments on deja vu, wondering if we had done this all before. How many times have we gone through it now? At what point do you stop caring about the past and look onward to the future?

This is an experience that must be done; I haven't played in a few months and wanted to write about it but had to wait until the right moment. To let you know that this is the best game of the year was the moment. Months after the game release, the publisher opened an online store and began selling the soundtrack (amazing) but they had other items. I bought them all, in one fanboy-driven package: an art print with signatures from the game developers; a shirt, a cloth flag and the audio CD, which I'm listening to as I write this.

When you think about all the mega-franchises that do nothing to innovate, or when you think about how you tire of gaming in general, you look towards games like these. This is what I'm in it for.

A Year in Review: 2011 Movies

I'm just not the type of person who can put together a top ten list, or choose a favourite. A perennial fence-sitter, where decisions come slowly, diplomatically and if possible, never at all. My friends and I have touched on the subject a few times, where a movie can be classified as a Top Ten or even a Top Five movie, but truth be told your Top Five could contain thirty movies or more. It's more a classification system, to give you a vague idea of how much one enjoyed a movie. Another little rule of mine that was defined mainly for buying movies, was to never buy (or fall in love with) a movie that is less than a year old. You see, sometimes you take a movie in from the theatre, get home and are just pumped about it. Then you promptly forget about it, until the home release and those precious memories of theatre popcorn, two liters of root beer and a hundred people coughing, sneezing, sniffling all come back. You buy the movie, bring it home and with all those elements gone, you discover that the movie wasn't that hot to begin with.

Somehow, in July of 2010 I decided it would be a great idea to keep track of every movie I saw, which would go really well until the following July, where I inexplicably stopped recording this. I thought it would bring about a couple of interesting tidbits, like how many movies I actually watch in a given year, and also an avenue to remind me what movies were my favourites, making the writing of this type of article that much easier. The answer to the first cannot be said with concrete: from July to July I watched about 130 movies. This year from January to July I watched 77 movies, so it's safe to assume I would watch about twice that in one full calendar year. You would think with those numbers, it would be easy to pick out ten of them. But I won't.

Over the past week we went to see The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Not the original, European, but the "remake" directed by David Fincher. All I can say, is that Fincher is a genius behind the camera. Best movie of the year? It's very tempting to label it that, and I can see why "Academy" movies come out in December. It's fresh in your mind, but I don't want that to detract from how much I enjoyed the movie. Not really knowing what to expect from it, I went in fairly blank - only knowing that there is some brutal sexual scenes (and there were) and Daniel Craig's pearly blues (which were muted). What I got was an extremely interesting mystery, evenly paced and beautifully acted by everyone involved. The transformation that Mara went through to play the title character is astonishing, and should live on in the history of notable actors to change themselves for a role (she really did get all those piercings).

Really, aside from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, nothing else is coming to mind. I watched Tron: Legacy four or five times, and got into a few classics. I see in my list that I watched The Royal Tenenbaums and gave it a perfect score of ten. 127 Hours scored highly, although that seems like cheating since it came out in 2010. As it is though.

2011 in terms of movies for me, would mark a deluge of forgettable - yet entertaining - sequels and comic book movies. Thor, Captain America, Transformers, and the Harry Potter movies were all standouts, but none really struck a nerve with me. Going a few years down the road will determine how good those films were.

In other movie terms, I did a lot more home viewing. Theatre visits would decrease in the past few months and Netflix usage would skyrocket. In fact, I thank Netflix (and DNS entries) for really getting their act together and making the service more compelling; I've certainly discovered a few hidden gems in there, and look forward to the service more. This year would also see me finally joining the 1080p bandwagon with the purchase of a new plasma set (well, technically two but I'm not going to get into that - I'm an idiot). Blu-Ray prices continue to come down for older movies, and I've taken joy in buying the odd one here and there, although tougher criteria is in place.

So for 2012? There are more comic book movies: The Dark Knight Rises, a remake (?) of the Spider-Man and The Avengers. Ridley Scott's Prometheus, a new Tarantino film and all the sequels you can handle, including a new Men in Black. Let's hope we get some original, compelling stores in there. In the meantime I'll continue to get caught up on everything I've missed. But as for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? Highly recommended. If you like movies, you owe it to yourself to see it.