Monsters, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.