A Stale Yellow

Here's a brand new trailer for a movie I acted in. Principle photography ended about a week ago, and I'm pumped for the screening. Anyways, enjoy:

One Sentence Review: The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

Despite showing initial promise The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008) gradually devolves into an illogical, unsatisfying diatribe which is neither insightful nor entertaining.

1/3 - Although I'm still curious about the original. But for the remake? Gort! Klaatu Barada Nikto!

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

Seventy-Five years ago this month, the United States ended alcohol prohibition. A bunch of police officers think there's a lesson to be learned from that, in regards to our current global drug policy. I recommend checking it out: www.WeCanDoItAgain.com (the e-mail form doesn't work for Canadians, FYI)

Episode Four

After last week's fiasco, I started uploading the video yesterday at 3pm.  And it's a good thing that I did.  Although I wonder how much skullduggery has been going on, with people watching straight from my Revver page in the wee hours of the morn.  Ah well, I guess I should be flattered.

Anyways, here's your weekly dose of Necrotesque.

And feel free to join the facebook group, if you haven't already.

From the World to America: We care who leads your country

Necrotesque Episode Three

After a slight delay, episode three is live.  Enjoy!

Sometimes the Internet Scares me a Little Bit

So I've been trying to figure out what the hell is up with Revver (the link doesn't work because the site is down).  It's kind of nerve racking since in about twelve hours I'm supposed to be uploading a video to a site that, for all intents and purposes, doesn't exist.

Google is fairly devoid of recent news, except this tidbit gleaned from Wikipedia: "As of November 12, 2008, Revver's site has been down for several days, so it may currently be defunct." Which is hardly encouraging.

But then I read this article, which is slightly older, and discovered something interesting.  My twitter got quoted.  Weird.  Oh, and there was also a plausible explanation for why revver is down ["they are in the middle of major migration from a CDN/provider to a tier 1 & top technology provider which “should make the quality of Revver videos displayed better then ever” (could take a few days)"].

But I was quoted and I could have never known.  Hell, I didn't know for almost two weeks.  And the funny thing is, I wasn't even worried about Revver in that tweet... more so my own inability to get videos online, on time.  But still, regardless of the quote being out of context, it's strange to be surfing the internet and all of a sudden, there's a picture of you, and some words you once typed, and you're all, "What the hell?  What am I doing here?"

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the internet is weird sometimes.  And a little bit scary.

Necrotesque Episode Two

In case you missed it everywhere else: http://www.revver.com/video/1304282/necrotesque-episode-two/

As an aside, I'm mildly pissed at Revver because their tracking stats seem to be broken for my videos (although the pennies keep rolling in, which is good). I know people have watched the videos, but the view count is jammed.

It's not a major problem, just mildly disconcerting is all.

Also have an idea (or two) for another one minute rant. If only I had spare time.

Necrotesque - Episode One

Check it out here or here. This is part one of twelve with a new episode airing every Friday. Enjoy.

Necrotesque Teaser

Teaser for the series formerly known as Ex Mortuis.  Check it out:

Canada votes Obama|Biden

Had something to say, couldn't write it down, so I said it:

Thoughts?  Did you watch the V.P. debate yet decline to vote in the Canadian election?

One Sentence Review: Amores Perros

A Mexican Pulp Fiction set in a grimmer, less fantastic world, which is a good thing. Sort of.

2/3 - It's good, but so was Pulp Fiction.

One Sentence Review: Blindness

An interesting study of the best and worst of humanity in a hypothetical disaster, with an ultimately unsatisfying conclusion.

1/3 - I feel like I should recommend it, but in the end, I can't.

One Sentence Review: Tropic Thunder

An amazing performance by Robert Downey Jr., even (especially?) the parts where he wasn't playing a black man, never distracted from an excellent parody of everything action-movie.

3/3

As an aside, did anyone else feel like whispering "Too soon?" at the Heath Ledger reference(s)?

One Sentence Review: Burn After Reading

It was darkly humourous, and filled with memorably characters, but ultimately left me just a little bit depressed.

2/3 or maybe 3/3, I'm really not sure.

Nuclear

To politicians everywhere,

Nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and nuclear everything are important issues which you should talk about.  However, before you talk about nuclear issues, you should first learn how to pronounce nuclear.  Like this: nü-klē-ər.  If that's too complicated: Here.

So how do you not say nuclear?  You don't say it New, Cue, Lar. I don't know what that is, but it's definitely not what you think it is.

I'm looking at you Palin.

Sincerely,

Ian McEachern

Oh Snap

With the election closing in, I thought this was an interesting quote from the Conservative Party's website (http://www.conservative.ca/EN/4739/78176):

The Bloc talks a lot about crime. But what can they actually do other than talk? With the BLOC, we can’t achieve anything.

I... I really don't know what else to say.  Except, you know, oh snap.

One Sentence Review: Party Monster

An interesting look at the rise and fall of party planner and club kid Michael Alig, with an excellent performance by Seth Green overshadowing Macaulay Culkin's return to film.

2/3

One Sentence Review: Mirrors

Starts with some promise, but simple jump scares and an old woman pretending to be the alien make you walk out of the theatre laughing instead of scared of your own reflection.

1/3 - There are far better horror movies you could watch.

This is a vlog. A what? A video blog.

Ok, so I lied. This is a blog post about a vlog. A vlog I'm thinking of starting. What I want to do is 30 second rants, reviews, or just ramblings about whatever strikes me. I hope to do these 3 days a week. I'm probably being way too ambitious. But this is actually a step down from the initial plan of 1 minute, 5 days a week. But 30 seconds, 3 days a week, starting... soon.

Video Game: Puzzle Pirates

Ok, so it's not Gears of War, but it's a video game. That's enough of a similarity, right?

Puzzle Pirates is like a casual game (you know, Tetris, Peggle, Zuma, anything by Pop Cap Games really) for gamers. It's simple enough to be accessible to everyone, yet has enough depth to keep people playing and maybe even paying to dress up their pirate, or even buy their own ship.

The mini-games at the core of Puzzle Pirates are played in order to complete various tasks onboard ships (either computer controlled "Navy" vessels, or ships owned by other players), ranging from sailing, to repairing the ship, to sword fighting when engaged in combat (the more piratey aspect of the game). The more you play, the better your rank in the specific mini-game, although I'm not sure if this confers any bonus aside from bragging rights. The mini-game styles, while all simple, vary in their specifics while fitting the maxim that casual games should be easy to pick up but difficult to master. So they're fun without being frustrating, or quickly becoming boring.

Anyways, if you have too much time on your hands, Puzzle Pirates is an excellent way to kill it. And if you don't have too much time on your hands, this is yet another excellent way to procrastinate. I know what I'll be doing once the school year starts.

2/3 - Worth checking out, although you can definitely live without it. And if you do go without, your productivity won't suffer so... maybe that's a good idea.

Ex Mortuis

A short film I shot last week:

Plan is to make it into a series, premiering in October.  Check out the production blog here.

Film: The Dark Knight IMAX

Is it worth the price of admission to see The Dark Knight on IMAX?  Yes and No.

Yes because the screen and sound system are incredible.  Yes because the IMAX scenes in The Dark Knight look significantly better on the IMAX screen.  Yes because it's a good movie anyways, and this makes it just that much better.

No because the vast majority of the film was not shot with the IMAX camera.  So unfortunately, it doesn't make the most of the available technology.

But if you haven't seen the movie, and can get in to an IMAX theatre to watch it, definitely go.  If you've already seen the movie, well, there are worse ways you could spend an evening.  But there are also better ways.

Twitter: A little blog about nothing

You: Why?
Me: Why not?

To the right, one down.

It's official. I'm a twit.

Explanations

So this last Friday I shot a short film over the course of four and a half hours. Most of my spare time has been spent cutting it together, so I haven't found the time to consume any new media to offer opinions about. I'm hoping that within the next week or two tops, I can have the finished video online.

Expect a shortfall in my writing here.

Retrospective: Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

And when I say 'retrospective' what I mean is 'I'm still watching it'. It's just that good. I wish I could send any of you who haven't watched Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog (surely the minority) through a convenient link to a website where you could watch it for free.

Unfortunately, those days are past. Instead, you're going to have to bite the bullet (freeze ray beam?) and head over to iTunes, fork over some hard earned cash, and the bask in the glory which is Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. This is for real people. Go forth.

Oh, and I promise this is the last time I'll mention the good Doctor Horrible. Unless of course, there's some new development on that front (fingers crossed).

Food: Muffins

Muffins are tasty.

3/3 - Go eat a muffin.

Short Film: Run the Streets

Run the Streets is a student film I acted in earlier this year. The crew behind the film did a great job, especially considering this was the first film they had made as a group or as individuals. Of course, I was in the film, in a leading role, so my opinion might be just a little bit biased.

Anyways, the film runs about 22 minutes in all. It's in 3 parts on Youtube; viewable here through the magic of the internet. If you're curious (come on, you're at least a little bit curious) you can check it out below. Or if you hate imbedded video for some reason (really?) you can check it out at the source:

Here (part one).
Here (part two).
And here (part three).

And tonight I'll go watch some television or a movie or something so I can write an entry which isn't shameful, transparent, ego-stroking, self-promotion.

Which reminds me, I break a window in part three and it is totally sweet. Check it out:

Television Series: Burn Notice

Burn Notice is a television series which, until recently, was only remarkable to me in that it was the first television series with Bruce Campbell in it to survive past Season one. Now that I've started to watch the show, I understand why it survived.

The premise is simple: Michael Westen is a spy who just lost his job. He got a burn notice (you know, like in the title) and now all his assets are frozen and no one in the intelligence community will talk to him. So he needs to figure out who's behind it all. In the interim, he's stuck in Miami, working odd jobs to keep himself afloat.

And that last part is what makes it simple. Every episode Michael Westen has a particular job he has to complete, which forms the three act story arc of each episode. We also get to learn tidbits about who burned Michael.

But what makes the show great is its sense of humour. Before watching the show, and based solely on the promotional ads and photos I thought it was a serious show. But it never takes itself completely seriously and that is why this show stands out and rises above.

I'm only three episodes in, but so far, my impressions are good. I would highly recommend seeking Burn Notice out. For fans of Bruce Campbell, this is him in an excellent supporting role. For everyone else, this is just good television.

3/3 - It's good. Go get it.

Film: The Dark Knight

So The Dark Knight is good. I mean, you already knew that, but I'm just going to reinforce it. You also already know that Christian Bale plays Batman well (you did see Batman Begins after all), and that Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker is excellent.

What you may not know, is that Aaron Eckhart is brilliant as Harvey Dent/Two Face. The story arc really belongs to that character, even though he never takes centre stage.

I also feel I should offer up some warnings (perhaps not quite the right word). First of all, the film is long. Epic long. Almost three hours long. It manages to hold you for the duration though, so I guess that's not really a warning, merely an observation.

Lastly, the plot is easy to follow, yet if subjected to any level of scrutiny, it is unbelievably complex. There are layers upon layers of deception and forethought by the characters which frankly are at best highly improbably, but in practice impossible for any non-omnipotent deity to orchestrate. Of course, while you're watching the film you won't notice the improbabilities (well, now you might). You'll be having such a good time they'll fly right by. So again, not really a warning, so much as a "check your logical brain at the door". But this is a movie about a man who jumps from rooftops in a batsuit so...

Oh, and lastly (for real this time), the movie is mentally and emotionally draining. Immediately afterwards you will feel like you need a nap followed by a light comedy. So warm up your dvd player and throw some extra cushions on the couch before you head to the theatre.

3/3 - Because every flaw I can think of isn't really a bad thing. The movie is just good. That's it.

Internet Series: Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog: Act Three

Earlier today, the internet was introduced to the conclusion to Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.  This series is officially awesome.  It manages to run the emotional gauntlet and is just... incredible.

Act One, although clearly meant as part one of three, stood alone quite well.  But when you add on Acts Two and Three the finished product is just jaw dropping incredible.

3/3 - There is nothing left to say.  Why are you still here?  Go and watch it, from the beginning, through 'til the end, and enjoy every precious second.

Internet Series: Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog: Act Two

So Act Two is out now, with Act Three arriving tomorrow.

Act Two is... well, it's the second act in a three act show. Which means it isn't introducing or resolving, just moving us through the motions so we can get from point A to point B (Act One to Act Three). It's still good, just not quite as good as Act One. Which is to be expected from Act Two.

There are still some excellent moments from Act Two though, particularly the opening musical number, and the closing musical number (and the conversation between Captain Hammer and Doctor Horrible just before said closing number). As a percentage of the whole, 5 or 6 really good minutes out of 13 is a better success ratio than most can manage.

I'm waiting for Act Three now, though, more so than basking in Act Two.

3/3 - If only because you've already seen Act One, and "these are not the hammer".

Internet Series: Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog: Act One

Do you remember that superhero spoof movie from this summer? The one that was called, with ridiculous amounts creative flair, Superhero Movie? Well forget about that. A clever superhero parody just arrived, in the form of Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.

Quick background. Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog is the brain-child of Joss Whedon (as well as his two brothers and Maurissa Tancharoen). It's a web-series in three parts, chronicling the criminal exploits and love-life of the titular Doctor Horrible. It was shot over six-days on a tiny budget, and is being released via the internet and later on DVD.

Oh, and in case you hadn't figured it out, it's a musical.

It's also witty, funny, and just all around brilliant. Neil Patrick Harris turns in an amazing performance as Doctor Horrible, with Felicia Day and Nathan Fillion doing excellent work in their supporting roles.

I just, I don't know what to say beyond that. I've watched Act One three times since last night and it's still as funny as the first time through. It is what Joss Whedon has historically done best (touching drama, presented in comedic gift-wrap), boiled down to its purest essence. With superheroes. But you know.

Anyways, if you hate Firefly, Angel, Buffy and everything else Joss Whedon has ever touched, then I'm going to recommend you watch Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog anyways. Seriously, give it a shot. Unless you have a cold, shrivled heart, and absolutely no sense of humour, you're going to like it at least a little bit.

3/3 - You're here, on a computer, surfing the net. I know you are. So get on the iTunes store, pay $1.99 for Act One, download, and enjoy. Or be cheap and go here.

Video Game: Overlord

Realizing this is about as timely and relevant as a rotten pork roast at a PETA rally, I just bought Overlord and thought I would throw some impressions out there for anyone who cares (and anyone who doesn't too... I don't want to leave you out).

In a single academically themed sentence: A for premise, D for implementation.

Now, that's not strictly speaking fair. The game is fun, but it's premise fair outshines the finished product. In fact, after about an hour with the game I had the overwhelming urge to go out and buy Fable and play through it again.

Your minions are cute, fun, but not too bright and, at times, difficult to control. The lack of better camera control is a problem, which although not terrible, was frustrating. It's just hard to get a good view of what's going on. The lack of an in-game map is incredibly annoying, leading to far too much wasted time wandering around wondering where the hell you are, and how to get back to that place you saw 30 minutes ago and need to be now. And when your avatar finishes off a boss with a personal flourish, it never feels satisfying, especially after you've had 30 minions wailing on the guy.

And you can't be evil enough. It's a game about being evil, yet the vast majority of it I seem to be killing people more evil than I am, which apparently makes me evil. Except in every other game it makes you good. So really, I'm just a good guy with Gremlins and spiky armour. Most of the ways you become more evil in the game involve killing innocent bystanders and stealing food. If you ask me, these are petty crimes. I was expecting to be conquering cities, laying waste to nations and corrupting the innocent. But it seems someone else already beat me to it, so I just have to settle for killing the old tyrant and replacing him/her with a new tyrant (namely, me). We're talking evil at a 3rd grade level. This shit is amateur hour.

So when I want to up the evil, I get a desire to play Dungeon Keeper, where you actually killed just upholders of the peace with a wider variety of minions. And it had better strategy elements to boot. And when I want to boil the game down to straight up RPG, instead of RPG/strategy hybrid, I get the desire to play Fable.

So is the game good? Sort of. It's fun, but every time it's fun, I just start to think about how much more fun I could be having playing a game from yesteryear which did everything Overlord does better. Except, maybe, for the humour. Because Overlord does have a twisted sense of humour which, for the most part, works remarkably well.

But is that enough to save it? I don't think so.

3/3 for the premise.

1/3 for the game.

Film: Hellboy 2: The Golden Army

So Hellboy. Let me start off by expressing my undying fanboyishness (what?) for Guillermo Del Toro and, to a much greater extent, Ron Perlman.

With that said, I didn't really like Hellboy 2.

Visually, the film was phenomenal, with excellent performances delivered by the entire cast. But for all that was good about the film I never felt any sort of emotional attachment to the characters or the film as a whole. I got hints of it when Hellboy was faced with moral dilemnas, but never really got drawn in. I also found the fight scenes, with the exception of the battle against the forest giant thingy and moments in the final confrontation, to be fairly flat and unengaging.

It was a really strange experience actually, where I liked everything I saw on an intellectual level but almost never on an emotional level (with the exception of Hellboy's moral dilemna's, as mentioned earlier). There were some good funny moments as well, but as a whole the film was not hilarious.

So I guess I never found the heart of the film. Which isn't to say it's not there. When I walked out of the film, my first reaction was a desire to watch it again; to find a reason to like it. But on a single viewing, I was not fully captivated.

At this point, I'm not sure I can recommend the film Hellboy 2, so much as the idea of Hellboy 2. Because I definitely like the idea of Hellboy 2, but I'm not sure if I like the film. When I figure it out I'll let you know.

1/3 - For now, I can't really recommend it. But I want to. I really want to.

Radio Silence

This is where I rationalize my not doing anything here for 20 odd days. I'm going to rationalize it because I feel somewhat bad for not writing anything here. And although I've been busy, I haven't been so busy that I couldn't have written a note here and a note there had I really wanted to. Frankly, I just didn't feel like writing. So I didn't.

But now I do.

So with renewed vigour I steadfastly vow to review every movie I watch in theatres from this day forth. And not only that, I swear I will review them in a timely fashion.

Simply put, we're back in business.

Film: The Happening

So despite all the warning signs I went to see The Happening last weekend. And now I know why I was warned against it.

The Happening is not all bad. It is shot beautifully, which I assume is thanks in no small part to Tak Fujimoto, the film's Director of Photography. Why do I give him the credit? Because he was also responsible for the cinematography of Silence of the Lambs, as well as M. Night Syamalan's earlier films The Sixth Sense and Signs.

The score is also beautiful. It builds tension and sets the mood for the film.

Unfortunately, all this is undone by the film itself. I was disappointed with the acting, and to a much greater extent the script itself. The premise of the film, a mysterious virus which makes people commit suicide, is brilliant. Unfortunately, a good premise alone can't save this film.

I don't know what happened to M. Night Shyamalan, but the real horror of this film is how bad it is. It's funny for all the wrong reasons (with a few exceptions) and is delivered in a completely unbelievable manner. This may be the acting, the direction or just the dialogue, but 90% of this film just didn't work.

Want an example? People are going batshit in the North Eastern United States. You are in the North Eastern United States. You hear gunshots nearby. What do you do?

Maybe you run away? No. Panic? No. Stand around and discuss whether or not to go back and try and help the people who are killing each other/themselves? Yeah. That sounds about right. And suddenly we realize that the real crazies are our protagonists.

My personal favourite though, was when Marky Mark took a cell phone from a distraught woman, listens to the phone and then states, "I hear wind from outside." Wind from outside? Really? You can tell that from listening to a cell phone? Just intuit it?

The film is ridiculous. The premise is brilliant and chilling. But the delivery is stilted, forced, weird and just... bad. I don't know what else to say about it. It felt like a B movie with an A budget. Except it wasn't so bad it was good. It was just 'so bad'.

1/3 - Don't go. But if you do see it, keep an eye open for Brian O'Halloran of Clerks fame. About a minute after you spot him, you've pretty much seen all that's worth seeing in this film.

It is a good day

So this guy, Jack Thompson, really hates video games. Like, a lot. He has led a years-long crusade against video games. He's a lawyer and he has caused multiple media shit-storms over controversial video games. Like, GTA: San Andreas, Manhunt 2, Bully, and even The Sims 2 (for a short while, until he realized he'd been had). He's even tried to get Hillary Clinton to side against the great scapegoat of the modern age. And now, even though people stopped listening to him about two years ago, his reign of terror has officially come to a close. It is a good day.

Drink Your Drink: Rockstar Coffee

Can I review drinks? I think I can.

So Rockstar, a major producer of energy drinks, has recently come out with cans of coffee. Coffee energy drinks. That you should drink at room temperature.

That's weird right?

Well they're not bad. They're not good. But they're not bad. I've drank maybe 4 or 5 of the things now (for the greater good, of course) and finally feel qualified to weigh in on them. There are two flavours available right now: Light Vanilla and Dark Mocha. At least I think that's what they're called. Why not look it up and check? Because I feel like living life on the edge. Going to print without fact checking. And because one is Vanilla and one is Mocha and let's be honest, that's close enough for anyone who cares (and anyone who doesn't). This is not rocket science.

If you drink them cold they taste like... well... like cold coffee. And they're gross. I made this mistake for the first can.

The second can got to sit on a shelf overnight and warm up a little bit. When I drank it, it was cool, but not cold, and was kind of tasty. But not really. I would have much rather been drinking real coffee. Or a cool coffee beverage courtesy of Starbucks or Second Cup or even Tim Hortons.

So don't drink Rockstar Coffee. If you want an energy drink, drink a Rockstar. If you want coffee? Go to a coffee shop.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

Video Game: On The Rain Slick Precipice of Darkness: Episode One

As a long time fan of Penny Arcade, I couldn't help but snatch up their first video game just days after release. Of course, being the cautious buyer that I am, I tried the demo first.

And really, that demo told me everything I needed to know about the game. Penny Arcade Adventures: On the Rain Slick Precipice of Darkness: Episode One is, as the title should suggest upon close inspection - or any inspection really - something of a literary work. With mini-games. If you're buying this game because you expected huge advances in gameplay and a visceral experience like none before it, then prepare to be disappointed. Not because the gameplay is bad. It's just not groundbreaking. The story, on the other hand, rocks.

But because this is a game, I should probably talk a little more about the gamy parts of it. The vast majority of the game works like the point-and-click adventure games from days of yore. Except 95% of the things you click on do nothing more than pop up a clever little description box. Which is fine by me, because at least half of those were genuinely funny. They seem to be stretching it a little by the time you get to the third and final area of the game, the boardwalk, but no one can be funny all the time. So I'll let it slide.

The combat in the game is simple. Easy to understand. Easy to get in to. Yet difficult to master. Well, aspects of it are anyways. Aside from your basic attack, each character has a special attack which requires you to do something special, usually involving the spacebar. These were beginning to wear thin (both my patience and my spacebar) by the end of the game. However, the rest of the combat (like final fantasy with built in mini-games) was enjoyable throughout. Partially because it was never really challenging. You couldn't nap through it, but I never felt like I was in mortal peril. Of course this isn't really a complaint because, like I said before, I wasn't playing for the gameplay.

What hooked me was the story. I'm not going to give you a play-by-play here, that's what the demo and, you know, the game are for. But I will tell you that it's Lovecraft, with clowns, mimes, hobos and humour. The epic introductory tutorial voice-over was brilliant, and everything after that equally so. Bear in mind, that this is not for everyone. If you're interest is piqued though, read some Penny Arcade and play the demo. By then if you don't know if the game is for you or not then you've got bigger problems than playing games.

It's also probably worth mentioning that I played this on a MacBook Pro, and although the trackpad was less convenient than a mouse, it was only really noticable during the 'Flying Pricks' fair game. And even then, it was no major inconvenience.

Final Verdict? 3/3. It's definitely worth playing if you're a fan of Penny Arcade with an appreciation for Lovecraft. Which actually sounds like a pretty specific demographic now that I write it. But it's a demographic that I'm in, and since I'm reviewing from within that demographic... 3/3.

Film: Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

When I first heard about the new Indiana Jones film, I was cautiously optimistic.  Optimistic because Indiana Jones was a major part of my childhood.  Cautious because Star Wars episodes 4-6 were also a major part of my childhood.  So to say that my expectations were low would be an understatement.  I was prepared for this film to destroy my childhood.  And when you walk into a movie expecting that, it's hard to not be pleasantly surprised.

Unless you're watching The Phantom Menace.

But I digress.  I was pleased with the direction The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull took the series.  The jump from Nazis to Communists was a logical one, and Cate Blanchett did an excellent job as their 'psychic' leader.

More importantly, using elements of current, common cultural mythology - in the form of Area 51 and El Dorado, among others - was a stroke of genius on the part of the writers, easily putting this film above the lackluster Temple of Doom.  To me, these elements are what made Raiders of the Lost Arc and The Last Crusade such excellent films.  The blending of 'fact' and fiction made those two films brilliant because they made it that much easier for us to suspend our disbelief.  And although The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull never quite manages to match its predecessors in plot quality (Temple of Doom excluded) I applaud - and greatly appreciate - the effort.

The film managed to be referential to its source material, without ever trying to distract us from the current film.  This is a fine line, in my opinion, as these tips-of-the-hat can sometimes end up being too much, "Ignore this piece of crap, remember that good movie we made 20 years ago."  And although some may disagree, I never felt The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull crossed this line.

What's more, the character of Indiana Jones still felt genuine.  One of my greatest fears going in to this movie was that Indiana Jones would feel more like a caricature of himself instead of a real person.  Rather than resembling the character from the original trilogy, I was worried that he would instead resemble the legendary figure our common cultural mythology has warped him into.  Again, some may disagree, and my opinion may even change after watching the film again, but on my first viewing, I felt the character remained true.  At least as true as a fictional character can.

My biggest complaint, is that this movie finally kills the mystery.  Doing my best to not spoil the ending, this film once and for all removes any doubt about the cause of the 'supernatural' events it portrays.  Despite everything that happens in the original trilogy, never were we once told, "Oh hey, this was totally an act of God, definitely supernatural, no chance of a rational explanation here."  In The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull though, we are told that.  Plain and clear.  About three times.  And that ruins the mystery for me a bit.  There's no, "Well it seemed like that, but maybe..."  It's just, "This is how it is.  End of story."  So finally, after four films, Indiana Jones will have to stop being a skeptic.  And that makes me a little sad.

But let's face it.  It's still a 3/3.  If you've watched the original trilogy and were a fan, this is a must see.  There's no way around it.  Even if it were garbage, let's be honest with each other, you'd still go.  So just go watch it.  And even if you don't like it, you'll have a hard time convincing me it's worse than Temple of Doom.

And if you haven't watched the original trilogy:

A) What is wrong with you?

B) This one is a 2/3, but you should go watch the original trilogy, at which point see above.

Short Film: Drinks

So about two years ago I wrote and directed a short film called Drinks. This would have been in the spring of 2006, when I was just finishing up my second year of university. At the urging of Samy Osman, one of the leads in the film, I finally finished a cut of the film last week.

Now this is a little too much self-promotion of something not-entirely-relevant for my liking. But, yesterday was my birthday, and I'm looking for some feedback on this sucker. I will be making an extended cut over the next few weeks as well, which I'll post here for comparison's sake, and will try and clean up the audio a little bit.

Comments were locked on the youtube posting of the video, because that community is a little too ruthless for my liking. But they're open here.

So the tables are turned. Now you can review my movie. Let the slaughter commence:

Film: The Last Man on Earth

When Will Smith hit theatres last year in I Am Legend, everyone finally knew the name of the Richard Matheson's brilliant novel. Of course, this wasn't the first time the book had been adapted to the silver screen. That happened way back in 1964 with a budget horror film called The Last Man on Earth.

As a fan of the original novel, it's hard to watch this film without judging it in relation to both the novel and the two later adaptations of said novel (The Omega Man [1971] and I Am Legend [2007]). So this review will end up touching not only on the film itself, but on what it has spawned.

But let's start out small, and focus on the film in isolation.

Time has not been kind to The Last Man on Earth. The film relies heavily on voice-over, and is chock full of less than stellar acting. This is probably at least partially because of the low budget, and because over time acting styles have changed and evolved; gradually moving further and further from their theatrical roots. Certain scenes are still accomplished well, given the budget, but overall the lack of cash and the age of the film seep out of the screen. So as a stand-alone product it is aged, and really not that good. Not really worth watching 40 odd years later.

However, as any connoisseur of the zombie genre could tell you, this film, at times, bears a striking resemblance to George A. Romero's classic, Night of the Living Dead. The influence is clear from the first time you see the vampire creatures in The Last Man on Earth, who stumble around with stiff-limbs and try desperately to break into the titular character's barricaded home. What's sad though, is that while both Night of the Living Dead and the novel I am Legend are phenomenal, The Last Man on Earth fails to live up to either its source material, or its spiritual successor.

Additionally, the film makes certain changes from the original novel. A prime example is changing the titular character from an everyman with little to no knowledge of the cause of or possible cure for vampirism, into a scientist who works on curing the infection. This is a change which has been carried over into later adaptations of the novel, making me wonder whether they're true adaptations of the novel, or just adaptations of this film.

A big change from the original novel was the ending, and although this is the closest yet to the original ending it is, in my opinion, still not nearly as effective. The later adaptations have endings which deviate further and further from the original, growing less effective with each step. And that is so very unfortunate. I still get chills thinking about the ending in the novel. And not once has a film adaptation used that ending, or elicited the same reaction from me.

So what are my feelings on the film? In a vacuum, I'd say it's not worth watching. In relation to the other film adaptations of I am Legend, I dislike the changes it made to the original work. Yet I am grateful for the influence The Last Man on Earth had on Night of the Living Dead; a film which is often credited with the creation of the zombie genre.

The final verdict? 1/3 - Don't watch it. But I'll give it a conditional 2/3 for people interested in the zombie genre, or fans of the original novel. For you, this film won't be good, but it will be interesting.

Addendum to The Andromeda Strain (2008)

Also a note to self: Go watch the movie instead.

A Word on Ratings

I decided, just a moment ago, that I'm going to start including ratings in my reviews. Originally, I didn't want to do this because I feel that assigning a numerical value to show how good something is is arbitrary and generally innacurate. Especially when a perfect score can be given to a game which is not perfect. Good, but not perfect. There are two things listed under "The Bad", and neither of those things is "So bad, it's good". So it's not perfect. But 10/10 is. And that's just damn confusing.

But I digress.

The rating system I'm going to include will be as follows:

1/3 - Don't watch it.
2/3 - Watch it... eventually. Don't go out of your way, but if you've got nothing better to do or it's on television, go for it.
3/3 - Watch it. Watch it now. Drop what you're doing and go. Seriously.

I'm going to go back and tack one of these on to the end of my earlier reviews. Basically, this is just to clarify my final word at the end of the reviews. A simple number to tell you whether you should watch it or not.

Also, it makes it seem more like a real review when you assign an arbitrary number to it.

Mini-series: The Andromeda Strain

Having never read the book upon which The Andromeda Strain (2008) is based, I feel somewhat unqualified to review it. And a cursory examination of the relevant wikipedia articles shows that the mini-series was unfaithful to the source material. To some, that's more than enough reason to not watch. Other people might need more reason. That's why I'm here.

The Andromeda Strain (2008) wasn't bad. The concept of the virus was frightening, both in how it killed and in its lethal efficiency. The cast was able and communicated the terror of the situation well. The special effects were not amazing, but they were still good. High production values all around. But it was never spectacular. There's nothing here to complain about, but nothing that I felt really deserved special mention; except, as I said above, the cast's communication of fear.

So what does that leave us with? The series was fairly slow paced, although I never felt bored. I thought there was enough action throughout to keep things interesting. Then again, I really enjoyed The Thin Red Line, which is commonly thought to be too long, and too boring. I also genuinely enjoy Scrabble. So maybe I'm the freak, and everyone else was snoring by Act Two.

What I really had a problem with though was the message. Now this may have been present in the original novel (although I doubt it, based on the plot summary), but if it is, it would annoy me there as much as it does here. As far as I could tell, the message of the film was:

A) Technology and science are good, but not that good.

In response, technology and science were the only reason anyone survived this series. So although they are bashed for causing damage, the fact that they saved the day is completely ignored. Instead the filmmakers wanted us to know:

B) The environment is really important.

Which it is, except they took it a step further and said:

C) We should never drive anything to extinction in the pursuit of the advancement of technology and our own well being because it might randomly become useful sometime down the line and we must be prepared for literally everything.

Which is just crazy. Insane, bouncing-off-the-walls-of-your-rubber-room crazy. I don't know when or how that point of view started to make sense, but it's just crazy. Should we clear-cut rainforests? No, because we need trees so we can breath. Should we preserve every type of tree in every type of forest because maybe the foliage of one of those trees is magical, and would be the prefect fallout shelter from a new type of bomb, which hasn't been discovered yet, but if it is discovered and then used to attack us we would be without protection if this one type of magical tree is lost forever?

Whatever happened to survival of the fittest? We can't preserve every part of every environment because that's just not the way the world works. I know PETA and animal rights activists everywhere disagree, but if you're an animal which only eats one thing, which grows in only one place in the world, and doesn't even really grow there, I'm not going to feel too sorry for you when you go extinct. No, I don't care if you're cute. Sink or swim. Adapt to new situations, or get left behind. We can't pamper and protect everything, and it's crazy and narcisistic to think that we can.

Of course, you may disagree, and in that case, the message of the mini-series wouldn't bother you at all. I disagree with it though, and it bothered me. It's not necessarily a problem with the show, and I'm not going to go any further into why I disagree with it (I've already gone too far into it for this review), but it stiffled my enjoyment.

Oh and we can't forget:

D) Oh and the government is really clever and good at conspiracies and also incredibly evil (but it's not the president's fault).

Which is kind of old-hat these days. Also not in the original novel. I understand it's inclusion as a sub-plot, and it was kind of bad-ass to watch, except I felt it was unnecessary. Or rather, that it would have been much more at home in The X-Files.

So ultimately, what would I say? Watch it if it's on and you've got nothing better to do. But I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it.

2/3

Buy Stars, Sell Movies

I was just recently directed to the Hollywood Stock Exchange, which is pretty much what it sounds like. No real money trades hands, but you get to buy up stars and movies and earn or lose play money depending on the success or failure of your properties.

For example, yesterday I made just over $8,000 on Terminator 4, and lost $2,500 on Aaron Eckhart. It's an interesting premise, and has been well executed by the people in charge of the site.

As a liberal arts student with next to no understanding of the real stock market, I can't really compare the fiction to the fact, but that doesn't make the Hollywood Stock Exchange any less fun. And that's really what matters with a time waster like this one. You get to predict whether a movie will be successful or not and place play money bets on it.

You think the new Indiana Jones is over-rated? Short it, and earn money when it bombs. Think Brad Pitt sucks? Bet against him. Waiting for Tom Cruise's career to make a come back? Buy him up. You can finally put (play)money where your mouth is, and see how right (or wrong) you really are when it comes to movies.

I feel like there's more to say, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is. It's a simple premise and it's a fun way to kill time. That's it. That's all.

Oh, and if you do decide to sign up, tell them imceachern sent you.

A Series of Identical Cubes

So just over a decade late I finally sat down and watched Cube. As someone who has always had an interest in horror films, Cube has spent a long time on my list of movies to watch, as the supposed pinnacle of Canadian Horror film-making. Was it worth the decade long wait? No. But it was still a pretty good movie.

Now I have a long list of gripes with this movie, but before I start going through those it's important that I make something clear. I enjoyed this movie. It's good. I would recommend you see it. However, it's not perfect. And, in my opinion, it could have been a lot better.

The other thing the reader should keep in mind is that I was not paying close attention to the math. A quick search of the internet reveals that there are numerous mistakes in the math presented in the film, which strikes me as incredibly sloppy; especially considering the importance of the math in the context of the film. Doubly so when some of the mistakes would have been life-threatening (if my understanding is correct). Of course, at the time this didn't bother me, because I was paying attention to the math in Cube in much the same way one pays attention to the science in Star Trek; as long as the actors make it sound plausible, you suspend your disbelief.

My other major complaint with Cube was with the way it was shot. Instantly recognizable as a Canadian film from the '90s, I found the film lacked visual flair. Not in the contents of the shots, but in the way those shots were... well... shot. Although uniquely Canadian, I never felt a sense of claustrophobia from the framing of the action. And perhaps that was intentional. Perhaps the director wanted to convey the hugeness of the overall structure, instead of the confinement of the individual rooms. If that was the case, mission accomplished. Regardless, I was disappointed by this, not so much while watching the film, but afterwards. I feel that a heightened sense of claustrophobia would have really increased the tension of the film.

I was also somewhat disappointed with the performances, specifically that of Maurice Dean Wint who played Quentin. Disappointed isn't quite the right word. I thought the performances were solid, but a little too close to over-the-top for comfort. Which is to say, they worked, but just barely. I found my suspension of belief faded every now and then, but given how far fetched the movie is to begin with, it wasn't stretched to the breaking point.

But enough nit-picking. The movie is good. It's tense, it's tightly scripted (ignoring the math stuff mentioned above), and most of all it's original. It's also a good Canadian film, which I can't help but feel a little pride over. The special effects are obvious, but work (especially considering the film's age). And the most important thing of all, the film comments on humanity and society. This, to me, is a cornerstone of good horror. Bad horror is hollow gore. Good horror has a message. And Cube is pleasantly pessimistic about human nature in its message. Perhaps a little heavy handed at times, but as I've said time and again, it worked.

And I guess, for all my complaining, the thing about Cube is that it does work. Every problem I've stated above is overshadowed by the fact that the movie as a whole successfully brought me in and kept me interested and entertained for the duration. And that, I would argue, is the most important part of any film.

So the final verdict? Watch it. Don't drop everything you're doing to watch it now. But put it on your list. And when you're in the mood for a tight, dark, suspense film, pick Cube up and enjoy.

2/3

The Quality-Quantity Content Divide

Although this blog was originally supposed to update five days a week, monday to friday, anyone who has been paying any attention (or anyone who glances at the archive) could tell you that it has not. Which is ok, because I never officially said it anywhere, so it's not like I was missing official deadlines, just personal goals. Which may be as bad, or worse, but that's another issue entirely. Thing is, after missing about a weeks worth of updates, I updated twice in one day. Which seemed a little like a system overload.

Anyways, this whole fiasco got me thinking about how people consume media online; how people watch serialized videos, read comics, or read blogs. My first impression is that people tend to have short attention spans online. I know I'll rapidly flip through Penny Arcade, Sam and Fuzzy and Zero Punctuation on you average wednesday, consuming the media morsels on offer, then moving on, spending maybe 5-10 minutes per site (Tycho's news post requiring a more than average amount of attention).

So if I run with the short attention span assumption how am I, as a blogger, supposed to keep you, my loyal reader(s), interested. I'm beginning to think there's a sort of fine line between too much content and not enough content. One update a day lets you know I'm still here, gives you something to do instead of actually accomplishing something, but isn't going to leave you feeling left behind.

I wonder though, if someone were to stumble across this website, would they look at the overwhelming volume of text and decide that there was too much content, not enough of it good? My intention here is not to make you feel like you're working. I want you to think - maybe engage in a little meaningful dialogue when you feel like you've got something to say - but I don't want this to be work. This is supposed to be what you do to avoid doing work. I know that's why I'm here.

Then again, does any of that really matter? A lot of this is just an excercise in writing for myself, and although I, like everyone with a website, derive some measure of self-worth (self-importance?) from the number of hits my blog gets, it's not for you. It's for me.

So here's to me hoping I'm not giving you too much crap to wade through, but telling you that for all my wonderings, I'm not going to change a damn thing.

Although sometimes I really do wish I could pick the brains of my visitors.

Pertinent Review, Six Days Late: Iron Man

The first of the summer blockbusters has arrived. Iron Man kicks the summer off with a light superhero film. From the trailers some might think that the film has a more serious moral story - perhaps slightly controversial - dealing with the current conflicts in the middle east and the opposing viewpoints on those conflicts. If you thought that, you'd be wrong. This is your classic superhero flick, where the bad guys are bad, and the good guys (although flawed, as is typical of Marvel heroes), are good.

Part of the beauty of this film is that it skirts the controversy of current wars so delicately. It never takes shots at the Iraq War, and although it's message couldn't quit be called anti-war, it is decidedly pro-peace. It walks a fine line and it walks it well.

And aside from not offending anyone (if anyone was offended... I'm curious to hear how) the film also happens to be light, fun, funny fare. Robert Downey Jr. is spot on as Stark/the titular character, hitting the emotional notes, but never dragging us too far from the humourous heart of the film. Jon Favreau's direction was excellent as well, as is his bit-part as Hogan, one of Stark's assistants. Really, the cast as a whole was superb.

My only complaint was with some of Gwyneth Paltrow's scenes. Although 90% of the time I thought she did an excellent job, there were a few times when she seemed, well, like a bit of a cartoon character (irony noted). Every now and then, especially towards the end of the film, I felt she came off as a little too cheesy, damsel in distress, far less competent than a long time employee of a genius would be. Perhaps that's what the character was like in the source material. But based on her earlier actions (buying herself gifts from Stark for her birthday) it seemed a little too... well, like a little too much.

That minor complaint aside, Iron Man was good. It won't win any oscars, but it's fun, and it's the first decent movie to hit theatres in a month or two. If you're in the mood for a good, light, funny, action film, then you're in luck. The season of the summer blockbuster is now officially open. And I'm glad it's here.

In short: Go see it. It's worth the price of admission.

3/3

Wiki this, Wiki that

Wikipedia is a wonderful tool. It's also a great time-waster. And it may also be full of crap.

A recent discussion with a former book seller got me thinking about wikipedia. It's not perfect, but I think the sheer volume of users tends to keep it fairly honest. Maybe not Encaeclopedia Brittanica quality. But on a par with some print Encaeclopedias to be sure.

But is it enough? Right now, I can hop on Wikipedia and read a quick synopsis of pretty much whatever I want, from Penny Arcade to 1951-52 in English Football. I can even have a random article displayed and start learning a little bit about whatever I want. I'll never become the world's leading expert on the subject, but I'll learn a little bit. After enough time, I'll know a little bit about a lot.

The closest equivalent in books (excluding print encaeclopedias) is reading the back cover. But that's more of a teaser than a brief overview. And few will argue that flipping through the pages of a book is faster than Wikipedia's search function.

Of course, you're never going to flip to a random page in a print book and find it vandalized. Or if it is vandalized, you should be able to discern that in no time at all, unlike the sometimes cunning, often crude Wikipedia vandalizations. Maybe the article will only be incorrect for a few minutes, but the chance remains.

So where does Wikipedia fall in the grand scheme of things? I have no problem with it being used academically, as long as it's only a brief usage, backed up by other sources. A certain amount of caution should be excercised by the reader as well; at the very least making sure that an article has been sourced - but probably checking up on a few sources as well - before taking the article as the gospel truth.

Will Wikipedia ever reach true academic standards? Not while it's an open project. But if it stops being an open project, then it'll be deader than dead. I'd call it an interesting experiment, but at this point, I'm pretty sure it's moved beyond that. Perhaps as the internet and the community built up around it matures vandalism of Wikipedia will start to disappear. Or maybe not.

Regardless, I'm going to keep using Wikipedia if only because it's so damned convenient. And I work in a book store.

Cussing is for [expletive deleted]

As a twenty-something who spends a lot of his time with other twenty-somethings and university students, I hear a lot of swearing. I hear it on television, in movies, and in daily conversation. I hear it so much that I barely even notice it anymore.

There are some contexts where I still notice it. For example, if someone who does not normally swear lets loose an inappropriate utterance, I'll take note. I won't be offended, just a little surprised. Same goes for swearing on television, when it happens in a particularly outlandish or unexpected situation. A weak example is any time Stewie Griffin swears in Family Guy. It stands out, in theory, because he's a baby (for those with the cultural knowledge of your average wood chip).

The only other time I notice swearing is when it pops up too much. We're all familiar with the kids who insist on dropping the f-bomb every other word. But that's not offensive. It's just annoying.

And that's the thing. In all of the above situations, those rare occasions when I will actually pause to take note of swearing, I'm never offended by the curse being uttered. Not in the slightest.

Now maybe that just makes me weird. Some desensitized monstrosity with a heart of stone. But I suspect most of my friends are on the same page. We've heard (and in most cases said) the full spectrum of swear words enough times that they don't even phase us. Not in the slightest.

The one exception is that word which starts with "c" and rhymes with "Look at that guy who just did that awesome, gravity defying stunt!" It is the last bastion of single word swearing. The only hold-out, single-syllable utterance which can still make most people cringe.

But what of the rest? Fuck, shit, and ass are all about as socially acceptable as driving an SUV. Hell, with rising concern about the environment they might even be more socially acceptable. You probably wouldn't break the words out at a business meeting, but if you did, I doubt you'd lose your job over it. Probably wouldn't even get talked to about it.

So why censor these words on television? Am I just out of touch with the rest of the world? Are there a lot of people who still care? Personally, I think swearing is unnecessary, and oftentimes lazy when it comes to writing. There are words which can have the same, or more impact, if you're willing to expand on your vocabulary and actually write. Still, if someone chooses to swear with any single-syllable curse word (except the aforementioned exception), I'm not sure who is going to seriously object to it.

Parents? Your kids already know the words. And it's your job to teach them not to say them.

Anyone else? I... I actually can't think of anyone else who could or should be offended by swearing.

So why are most swear words still taboo? To me, they just seem oh so bland.

In a Frenzy

This is going to be brief for reasons which I hope are obvious. I highly recommend that anyone interested in writing check out Script Frenzy; regardless of whether you like to write poetry, short stories, novels, screenplays or non-fiction.

The Frenzy, in a nutshell, is a challenge wherein you must write 100 pages of screenplay in 30 days. This year, the challenge month is April. Last year it was June. Who knows what next year holds. All I know is that it's fun, hectic, challenging, and forces the creatively inclined to actually sit down and do something.

So if you fancy yourself some sort of writer, check it out. Realize 100 pages in 6 days is too much. Forget about it for 10 months. And finally, join the frenzy next year.

Seriously.

But It's Plain to See That The Radio Still Sucks

I, like thousands of people the world over, walked into work this morning and turned on the radio. Others listened to it in the car on the way to work. Others just have it piped in over their heads; in the stores they visit; in the stores they work in; in their home because their neighbour has no sense of what qualifies as an acceptable volume to play music. Regardless of the how, where and when though, a lot of people listen to the radio.

My question is why?

When I tuned in this morning, I just couldn't take it. I'd heard this song too much, and I could guess what was coming next. So I just tuned back out.

When you first start listening to a radio station, I'll admit that you are exposed to a variety of new music. That lasts about a week, depending on frequency of listening and the particular radio station. After that point you won't just start to notice some overlap in the music played (you can easily find that in 6 hours of straight listening); you'll notice that there are only so many songs a station will play and that sooner or later you're going to hear all of them. Again, and again.

For example, does anyone here remember Gob? Specifically World According to Gob? I do. Brings about flashbacks to the halls of my high school. Well a few months ago I was listening to my radio station of choice (the one I find least offensive) and they played some Gob. It was fun. I enjoyed it. I actually quite like Gob. Thing is, every couple of days they'll play Gob again. So when I tuned to Live 88.5 in the car and Gob was playing, and my girlfriend turned to me and said, "Wow, I haven't heard this song in a while." I had heard it. A lot.

So what's up with the limited roster of repeats on the radio? I understand that it costs money to play songs on the radio, so perhaps it's a purely financial decision. And for a month or two I can understand that. But years? Come on guys. You can't throw ten new songs in with the fifty old ones you've been playing ad infinitum, then play those new songs every 2 hours, and expect me to not still be bored. Sure, the first play of a new song is cool. "Oh hey, I haven't heard this one yet." Then after drudging through the usual suspects it's on a second time, "Cool, this song is alright." By the end of the week I'm ready to print out the new song's lyrics a thousand times (once for every play on the radio) fashion the paper into a noose and hang myself.

And why can't people request new and interesting songs when they call into a station? You want to hear Freebird? Again? Piss off! It was on 20 minutes ago. Do you really have that limited a mental musical library? I do, but I have the courtesy to only listen to my favourites over and over again in private. I don't subject the world to it (with interspersed "witty" DJ banter, and ads). The kicker, of course, is that if you do have the gall to call in requesting something new and interesting (even if it is genre relevant, and probably something listeners would enjoy) you'll be lucky if the station even has the song.

Is there a radio station out there which pushes the boundaries? Which plays new and interesting music all the time? A station with a strict limit on the number of times they will play a song before they assume anyone who likes it has just bought the damn album? What if I want to listen to a radio station which will introduce me to new music instead of just replaying the same stuff I know I like (or at least did, before the 500th play)?

If it's just a matter of economics, someone please tell me so.

But if it's not... is there really no market for a radio station which doesn't just repeat the same songs over and over and over and over and over.....

(Title c.o. The Ataris - The Radio Still Sucks)

Retroactive Continuity

Retroactive continuity, for those who aren't aware, is "the deliberate changing of previously established facts in a work of serial fiction", according to the fine writers at Wikipedia. If we take a slightly broader interpretation of the term and include non-fiction, then this post was retconned. Which is to say, I posted one thing, and have now removed it and replaced it with this post on retconning.

In film, television, writing and any other type of serial fiction, retconning is bad. Plain and simple. Sure, it might open up interesting new paths for plot to develop. But it opens them by cheating. Taking the easy way out.

It is sloppy and it is lazy and if you really really wanted to take your character from his office job to the far flung reaches of space, don't retcon his father into a mad scientist who implanted a tracking device in his son at birth so that when the mad scientist transcended space and time he could transport his son with him. Everyone will wonder about the office worker's old father, the good carpenter who raised his son and forced him to go through university so he could get the rewarding and fulfilling job where he met his beautiful young wife.

Why don't you instead just make a smack-talking chihuahua from the planet Xorb pick the office worker at random and transport him to an alien world. Still need a mad scientist? Maybe the mad scientist just thinks the office worker is his son. Don't change the past. Come up with creative solutions for the future.

But that's just fiction. What about non-fiction? What about this blog post right here? Should I preserve the content of the original post, no matter how stupid or insipid or trite I think it is?

What if I make a spelling mistake? Should that error be preserved for all time? Or should I correct it? Or does it not matter either way?

I reckon that fixing unintentional errors is ok. Worth doing even. But removing and replacing whole posts? It strikes me as somewhat dishonest. Especially when part of the point of this blog is to let my writing evolve. Once my writing has improved, should I go back and clean out the archive? Wipe the slate clean? Leave behind only the writing which lives up to my personal standard, whatever that may be?

Again, I don't really have an answer, just questions. I'll be thinking about retconning non-fiction over the next little while, and will probably revisit it in another post. Until then, I guess I'll just think.

Social Boon, or Social Bane?

Facebook is a strange creation. It's a website for you, about you, by you. It has also been a gargantuan success. So now, with all this success, and the attention that follows, people have been lining up to analyze, accuse and otherwise question the new online social networking sensation.

A quick look at recent news about the website (c.o. Google News Search for "facebook") reveals a wealth of articles. The content of which ranges from the personal drama of the creators and owners of the site, to theories about the implications of the personal drama between users of the site. Frankly, I don't much care about the legal woes, etc. of the multimillionaire creator of facebook. But as a member of the site, I do care about the effects and implications of this particular type of social networking.

I'm not one to bash online socializing - or social networking - as the end of "natural", "healthy" socializing. Nor am I going to write a long piece yearning for the golden days when people just talked face to face, or just talked on the phone, or just didn't use facebook.

However, watching the first generation of online communicators raises certain questions in my mind. The specific concern (question?) I would like to raise today is about self-perception, and the effects facebook may, or may not have upon that.

Facebook is laid out like a combination between older social networking sites, and CNN. Your home page is a news feed, displaying up to the minute stories about you and your friends. Or should I say "friends"? Regardless, no generation in history has had this much access to this much information about the goings on of their friends and acquaintances so easily. And never before has it been presented in this way. Except, perhaps, in the most eccentric of small towns.

I can't help but wonder what impact this presentation has on people. A recent bout of online drama made me wonder if it doesn't inflate the ego; make everything seem like it has more meaning and more importance than it actually does. We're not used to seeing personal information displayed this way. But we are used to seeing important news in a similar way - on the web and with a similar layout.

I don't think that this changes our conscious perception, but rather I wonder if constantly seeing personal information this way gradually leads you to view yourself as some sort of celebrity. Perhaps that gives it more power than it actually has, but it makes the point. People are constantly managing their image, through the profile picture they choose, the applications they add and the status they display. And all this image managing, showing the world only what you want them to see can (at least in the theory I'm proposing) lead you to believe your own facebook press.

Here I think the celebrity analogy is more fitting. When people make Chuck Norris jokes, making Chuck Norris seem awesome, it's funny. Cute even. Bad ass perhaps. Maybe a bit of all three. But when Chuck Norris does it, everyone looks at him and goes, "Shit, he actually believes his own press." I wonder if facebook does the same thing.

I don't have an answer, because I'm not a psychologist (hell, I didn't even take psych courses in university). But the question remains. Does facebook over-inflate our sense of self-importance?

Or am I just a semi-self-aware narcissist with similarly self-centered friends?

Maybe both. Regardless, it probably won't be an issue in the future for one of two reasons. Either facebook and similar sites are a passing fad. Or the next generation will grow up with them, and their expectations will be adjusted accordingly (instead of seeing what was once reserved for the rich and famous, now applying to you and your pals).

Web Spotlight: Color Wars 2008

I was directed to Color Wars 2008 a few days ago, c.o. the website of troubadour extraordinaire Jonathan Coulton. As a product of the imagination of Ze Frank (the man behind the fantastic, and now defunct The Show), my interest was immediately piqued. Ever since The Show ended in March of last year, I've been eagerly awaiting Ze Frank's next big project. And here it is. And even if, as a Canadian, I'm baffled by the misspelling of the word colour, I'm intrigued.

So what exactly is Color Wars? Basically, it's a competition where a bunch of teams (represented by, gee? I wonder? Colours?) compete in a series of online challenges. This seems a natural evolution of The Show, where Frank would often try to engage viewers, challenging them to compose songs, submit videos of themselves, play a game a chess, and even write a whole episode. Color Wars simply takes Frank off of the digital stage, and places the emphasis solely on the onetime audience.

Whether or not this digital cultural phenomenon of user-created content has any longterm prospects, it remains interesting to watch. Contests so far have included the creation of Nerd Rap, photo duplication (where entrants try and recreate a picture of them as a child, with them at their current age), and, my current favourite, creating videos of people spinning with a broom 30 times, throwing said broom down and then jumping over it.

At just under a month old, Color Wars is still in its infancy, but it's already attracted enough attention - and participants - that I think it's going to be well worth watching to see what comes out of all the fun and games, aside from a good time for all involved.

So check it out, join a team or start your own, and join the world's first (?) online summer camp.

Film Retrospective: The Mist

Upon first watching The Mist, I was blown away. It was definitely one of the better movies I had watched recently. At the time, had I written a review, the film would have been rated a must see. And although the emotional impact of that first viewing lingers on, watching the film a second time lessened it.

A lot of the tension I felt when watching The Mist was a result of not knowing the ultimate fate of the cast of characters. So when watching it again, although it was still enjoyable to watch from a more technical point of view, the film was significantly less emotionally engaging. Which is to say, I still enjoyed watching the action/horror elements, and could better evaluate the varied character interactions (some of which still chill to the bone, notably any time Mrs. Carmody sermonized or even opened her mouth). However, I found the film wasn't schlock full of enough visceral thrills, or deep enough character interactions to really hold my attention. Perhaps the mix of action and dialogue intensive character-driven conflict prevented me from staying engaged, instead forcing me to constantly switch gears. Perhaps it was knowing everyone's fate which made me not care. Whatever happened, I just wasn't as engaged the second time around.

Is it still a good movie? Absolutely. Would I recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it? Without a doubt. Is it worth dropping $20 to own a copy? No. The film is a one trick pony. You watch it once, enjoy it, and then archive it. You can get more out of it from subsequent viewings, but on a much more intellectual, film student level. The emotional ride which made the film worth seeing is all but gone the second time around.

Overall, I was disappointed with the second viewing, except for the gratitude I felt at having only rented it.

Make no mistake though: If you haven't watched The Mist yet, you should. The first viewing will be one you don't regret.

A Statement of Intent

A new day dawns somewhere over Eastern Asia, and so begins a new blog. What follows over the days, weeks, months and maybe even years to come will be a collection of my thoughts. Not thoughts on this morning's breakfast cereal, or what Cindy said at the last kegger, but rather thoughts on media, and, to a lesser extent, various issues facing the world today. So let this be, as the title more than merely implied, a statement of intent. Hold me to it.