Confederate Wing

Relocation

2010-04-25T20:04:00.000-07:00

If you haven't read that note to the left, you should probably have a look at it now. Or better yet, just click here and be magically whisked away to my website.

Yes sir, I've finally got it off the ground. All that remains is the arduous process of reposting dozens of articles, reviews and musings. Feel free to have a look around, but it'll still be a few days before I'm entirely settled and ready to start posting new material regularly.

http://www.confederatewing.com/

The Losers (Not a "Movie Review" by any stretch of the words)

2010-04-23T12:44:00.000-07:00

I just came back from watching The Losers, and I have absolutely nothing to say about it. Seriously. It's one of those rare movies from which you can come away with absolutely nothing. Oh sure, there's nothing particularly wrong with the movie, but then again there's nothing particularly good about it either. It just sort of "is," failing to entertain, engage, challenge, etc. "Bland" would probably be the best word to describe it, although it truly is so inconsequential that if defies definition.

Next week's not looking any better either between Furry Vengeance and A Nightmare on Elm Street. Iron Man 2 can't come soon enough...

Kick-Ass (Movie Review)

2010-04-21T17:53:00.000-07:00

As more and more time passes, I find myself wondering if North American audiences will ever tire of superheroes. Examinations of the subject have come in all manner of flavours in recent years, ranging from the traditional exploits of Batman, Spider-Man, and Superman (with varying degrees of gravitas,) to the infrastructural implications of Hancock, and now to a sort of deconstruction with Watchmen and Defendor. I'm obliged to maintain enthusiasm for these films until Iron Man 2 at the very least, but it's becoming increasingly difficult not to feel mired in the genre's apparent over-saturation, to say nothing of sequel fever. But until May 7th finally rolls around, we have Kick-Ass, a movie that places a trio of unlikely heroic candidates in the sights of ruthless crime lords, delightful gore and all.

In a city that has the profile of New York and the street level of Toronto, a frustrated and hopelessly dim teenager named Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) wonders why nobody has ever attempted to don the guise of a superhero and fight injustice in real life. To learn the answer for himself, he buys a green wet suit, calls himself "Kick-Ass," and promptly begins to agitate local thugs with his asinine shrieks and flails. After a YouTube video of one of his mildly successful exploits attracts the attention of two professional vigilantes, "Big Daddy" (Nicolas Cage) and "Hit Girl" (Chloe Grace Moretz), as well as the mysterious "Red Mist" (Christopher-Mintz Plasse), Kick-Ass finds himself deeply entangled in the affairs of crime boss Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong), and discovers firsthand that the glamourous life of a superhero is not all its cracked up to be.

Even from its very first previews, something felt a bit off about Kick-Ass. While it may just be semantics, the notion of ordinary citizens dressing up in ridiculous costumes and taking it upon themselves to fight crime feels less like a superhero satire and more like a garden variety vigilantism premise. Certainly this is more or less exactly what being a superhero is, especially when there isn't anything particularly "super" about the hero in question, but these thoughts aren't exactly mitigated over the course of the film.

The simple fact is that Kick-Ass has two tightropes to walk: The far more pressing tonal tightrope between Superbad banter, Spider-Manspoofing, and the visceral punch of Sin City, and the subtle somewhat intellectual tightrope that must examine things like character, motivation, ethics, etc. And while I will admit that Kick-Ass for the most part deftly dances along the former, it has virtually nothing to say about the latter. Mind you it's not as if anyone is going to be bothered by this fact. When Kick-Ass isn't wearing its Screwball Comedy hat, it's nimbly eviscerating mobsters with whatever sharp edge is currently within the reach of its 11-year old female protagonist instead. And odds are highly likely that those into the former are as much into the latter as well (or vice versa), especially if you're between the ages of 14 to 25 with that pesky Y chromosome.

Characters like Big Daddy and Hit Girl are prime examples. They're both superbly portrayed and the two behind the costumes are clearly having a blast. But Kick-Ass' fascination with the idea of having an 11-year old girl single-handedly bring down an entire ring of organized crime in the present means that questions of why she was conditioned to do this in the past and the implications of the idea beyond the theatre are avenues left unexplored. To be fair there is a shade of backstory which is presented as panels in Big Daddy's comic book diary that trace the main details of the matter, including the death of a loved one, corruption, and five years of wrongful imprisonment. But inconsistencies peppered throughout the film poke holes in the explanation, such as the revelation that Hit Girl has three million dollars tucked away in a duffle bag somewhere and that Big Daddy somehow found the time between incarceration, training and brainwashing to generate enough to income to buy an arsenal large enough to wage war on Europe (indeed they loot their quarry, but would that really be enough?) Even Big Daddy himself seems willing to accept his daughter as more of a weapon or tool than an actual person, although I suppose a person pressuring their child into living out their failed dreams as a crime fighter is better than pressuring their child into their failed dreams as an actor or athlete, if only because it would at least be altruistic.

My issue with Kick-Ass is that in its haste to appeal to such a narrow demographic with every tool at its disposal, it has absolutely no desire to strike any balance whatsoever with the rest of the movie-going populace. The ingredients for a widely successful movie are all here: humour both sharp and subversive, action both visceral and immaculately captured, characters both charismatic and likable, and a premise both novel and inventive. But the presentation with little to no patience for the details which can really make a production sparkle is so aggressively puerile that those hoping for a bit more will be sorely disappointed. Kick-Asshas so much going for it, yet is content to squander it all trying to impress the people that it has already captured hook, line and sinker.

Yet is Kick-Ass "morally reprehensible?" Much like Léon from 1994, Kick-Ass suffers from its decision to place a prepubescent girl at the centre of a maelstrom of criminal chaos and violence. However unlike Léon, Kick-Ass' characterizations aren't strong enough to merit such a bold move. At least Mathilda (played by the young Natalie Portman) had control over actions whereas Hit Girl is locked into her role, presumably out of fear from being murdered in her sleep by Big Daddy for such a consideration. Mathilda also displayed more depth. The only dimension to Hit Girls' persona is her ability to enjoy murder as much as a normal 11 year old girl would enjoy Hopscotch or a jump rope. Rest assured, then, that Kick-Ass can't possibly be morally reprehensible because that would require a conscious decision on the filmmaker's part to be provocative or challenging, and wanton violence for its own sake just doesn't cut it.

What I can't forgive is the sarcastic voiceovers by Kick-Ass himself that narrate the entire film. There's a particular scene where Kick-Ass appears to be about to meet his demise and the entire film grinds to a halt so that his voiceover can reassure us that because he's currently narrating events, he can't possibly end up dead after the ordeal. This is a baffling decision on the filmmaker's part. Here we have a movie that is rather unique, exploring uncharted territory within a genre that has mostly been worn thin by telling a story that is interesting and largely original, and the film endeavours to spoil itself. To what end? So that it may satirize and dismiss an unsavoury trope by employing and drawing attention to it? Rarely have I ever witnessed a film make use of such a crippling blunder for no other reason than perhaps to reassure itself.

Juggling between several disparate tones and attitudes is a tricky balancing act, and Kick-Ass generally succeeds quite well. Scenes between ultra-violence and exposition tend to gel seamlessly thanks to moments of comedic downtime between Dave Lizewski and his friends, and even the requisite romantic angle between Dave and Katie Demeaux (Lyndsy Fonseca) manages to find a home. Nonetheless, there are still a couple of stumbles. For one,Kick-Ass never manages to mesh its candid demonstration of what it would really be like for superheroes and evildoers to attack each other brutally by keeping all the gore and colourful language in tact within the constraints of the real world. To the film's credit, it ends up jumping the shark more subtly than most by reserving the truly inane shenanigans for the end, but the impact of Kick-Ass getting his ass kicked several times is still lessened when you're constantly getting repulsed by absurdity. However I'm willing to forgive this quibble simply because I was quite fond of a certain scene neatly juxtaposing Kick-Ass sissy fighting his rival while the fierce "real" battle between Hit Girl and her rival raged on in the adjacent room.

Kick-Ass is not perfect, then. There are several flaws which seem to permeate the entire production, many of them seeming to have been glossed over in favour of focusing on a sharp and novel presentation. Yet as flawed and brainless as it is, the discrete and perhaps even insidious manner in which it conceals its imperfections enables a fairly high degree of entertainment to be extracted from the proceedings. If you enjoy ultra-violence for its own sake regardless of whether or not it's depicted in a rational and legitimate context, and if you find an ostentatious, juvenile, and brazen presentation agreeable, then by all means watch Kick-Ass. It certainly succeeds in delivering what it offers. Just don't expect anything more.

_{For further viewing on the subject of vigilante crime fighters dressed in ridiculous costumes, Andrew recommends watching the 2009 independent Canadian film "Defendor," starring Woody Harrelson. It's a far more mature and appealing treatment of roughly the same material. Keep in mind that's mature as in "stronger narrative/theme" and not "more blood, guts, and dismemberment."}

Updates

2010-04-04T19:05:00.000-07:00

Just because I haven't been writing about movies at length recently does not mean that I've stopped watching them altogether. Now that I only have two exams for which to study (on April 8th and April 19th), I have a lot more free time with which to fritter away on useless endeavours. Such endeavours include watching more movies, writing about said movies (hopefully), and generally doing nothing. This will last until the second week of May or so when I begin summer courses until August.

Come to think of it, I'm actually really quite bothered by how lazy I am. Instead of burning through the standard 5.0 credits that most people do in the standard six - seven month university year, I spread that number out over ten months just because I can't be bothered to deal with them all at once. This year would be case in point as I've done 2.0 credits from September to December, 1.5 from January to March, and now 2.5 from May to August. And I'll still be doing an extra year just because I can't be bothered to strike a working balance between Latin and Ancient Greek.

Oh well, that's quite enough bitching for one night. The post beneath this one contains a bunch of brief notes on 18 of the movies I've seen since January. In the coming days, I hope to have a full review of How to Train Your Dragon, since it would be nice to get back into the habit of reviewing regularly. Not only that, it might be a nice challenge to review a movie I thought I would absolutely hate but ended up absolutely adoring. Well maybe "adore" is too strong of a word. Needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised.

And by the way, I'm contemplating using Twitter sometime in the future. I'd rather not defend this decision right now, but I figure there's no harm in embracing micro-blogging (I hate myself for using that phrase) as long as I'm only using it to keep track of all the movies I've been watching and not so I can record asinine blurbs and thoughts regarding my whereabouts/intentions/feelings. Who knows? In the coming weeks I might be using Twitter on my iPad. And should that ever be the case, please put me out of my misery.

18 Capsule Reviews

2010-04-04T18:49:00.001-07:00

Here are 18 capsule reviews of the 19 movies I've seen since January:

Daybreakers

A short, visceral, and somewhat inventive vampire noir picture. The finer points of the story are a bit loopy, but the distinctive and memorable presentation more than compensate.

2.5/4

Sherlock Holmes

Guy Ritchie’s flourishes as a director more often diminish than enhance this movie. Everything that makes it work (Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, a well realized 19th Century London) is counterbalanced by what doesn’t (insipid story, under used Rachel McAdams, tedious plotting).

2/4

The Book of Eli

Aside from looking like a movie made with the scraps of the Terminator Salvation set, the only other noteworthy element of this film are Gary Oldman’s character and a few remarkably well realized action pieces. Shame that Denzel Washington is completely bland and the story makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

1.5/4

An Education

While advertised as a launch pad for Carey Mulligan, an actress who does indeed deserve a great deal of praise for her performance, Alfred Molina nevertheless pulls out the rug from under her whenever given the chance. The fine script of wordsmith Nick Hornby and the exceptional cinematography also help to create an exceptional piece of film.

3.5/4

Legion

The first disaster of 2010, Legion is a dreadfully ugly and terminally boring movie with absolutely no redeeming value. There’s no joy, wit, polish, style, humour, or anything that makes this a movie worth seeking out.

0.5/4

A Single Man

Colin Firth’s performance certainly deserved the Best Actor Oscar as the range and depth of emotions he conveys far outshines Jeff Bridges middle aged wreck in Crazy Heart. The rest of the movie isn’t half bad either, as the delicate story of a homosexual English Professor in the early 1960’s who has lost the love of his life is well handled with art house flourishes that (mostly) enhance rather than impede.

3.5/4

Edge of Darkness

The severely cropped and therefore unfortunately middling material is well met with director Martin Campbell’s thick atmosphere of dread and suspense that permeates the entire production. Mel Gibson’s gruffness can occasionally muddle the dialogue, but the few moments of action are delightfully ruthless and cathartic.

3/4

The Last Station

Crackling dialogue and impeccable performances from Helen Mirren and Christopher Plummer as Leo and Sofya Tolstoy invigorate an otherwise bland and scattershot historical drama. It’s rather uneven and Paul Giamatti as “Paul Giamatti in every other Paul Giamatti movie” mostly detracts from the overall experience, but Mirren herself is an absolute joy to watch.

3/4

From Paris with Love

It may be cheap, clichéd, rough around the edges and devoid of identity, but it’s a rollicking auctioneer in the mould of Taken (from the same creators, in fact) which remains entirely endearing if only for it’s “buddy cop” charms and John Travolta’s impossibly badass turn as Charlie Wax.

3/4

Crazy Heart

Jeff Bridges does indeed give a hell of a performance as Bad Blake, but it’s not particularly memorable or emphatic as it relies far more on the context of his actions rather than in the subtleties and nuances of his disposition and expression. Additionally, the tired “broken middle aged man seeking redemption” angle was better when Aronofsky and Rourke perfected it with The Wrestler from last year.

2.5/4

The Wolfman

Not quite the disaster that was Legion, but it nevertheless follows suit with regard to its inane story and hopelessly dreary presentation. The immersion is also thrown off as Hugo Weaving effortlessly channels his Agent Smith voice from The Matrix, which gives the impression that you’re watching the wrong movie every time you close your eyes when he’s on screen.

1/4

Defendor

Woody Harrelson’s turn as Defendor, a mentally challenged superhero who fights crime with marbles and wasps, somehow manages to imbue an otherwise one dimensional film with a sort of genuinely endearing character. It’s a mix of dark comedy and crime drama with a beating heart well executed.

3/4

Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightening Thief

The core trio of lead characters (including the son of Poseidon, the daughter of Athena, and a Satyr) are remarkably bland and disinteresting, but it’s the supporting cast including Pierce Brosnan, Uma Thurman, Rosario Dawson, Steve Coogan and others that make this movie worth a look. Additionally, the special effects range disjointedly from terrible to terrific.

2.5/4

Green Zone

Paul Greengrass’ singular camerawork and Matt Damon’s rugged, all American war hero don’t exactly mesh well with the core story of political intrigue and deception. When you get right down to it, Green Zone is two halves of a two different movies cut from the same cloth yet not seamlessly reattached.

1.5/4

Alice in Wonderland

Whatever vibrancy and lush quality that existed in the 2D cut of Alice in Wonderland has been utterly destroyed in 3D. This is an ugly, inconsequential and completely tasteless movie that initially seemed to have single-handedly destroyed all optimism for the future of 3D cinema that Avatar managed to create no less than three months earlier.

0.5/4

Repo Men

Forest Whitaker’s ruthless and energetic psychopath is a joy to watch, and the slick presentation and style make Repo Men a very visually appealing time at the theatres. The story is utter rubbish, however, and certain plot details don’t hold up to even the most rudimentary level of scrutiny. The ending is also quite ruinous.

2.5/4

Hot Tub Time Machine

Not quite The Hangover, but far, far away from my fears that it would be this year’s Miss March. By relying more on characterisation for most of the best laughs instead of trite past versus present cultural comparisons, Hot Tub Time Machine creates a sort of wholesome crudeness that becomes immensely enjoyable.

3/4

Clash of the Titans

It’s remarkable how the only praise worth levelling on this myth and monster movie isn’t regarding its creativity, design, or action, but rather regarding its efficiency. The special effects are superb, but the retrofitted 3D is a complete encumbrance. As for the acting and narrative? Let us be generous and not examine them too thoroughly.

1.5/4

In case you're wondering, the 19th movie is How to Train Your Dragon, which I plan to review fully shortly. Until then, you may be surprised to here that it's genuinely quite fantastic.

Civilization V and the Ford Sportka

2010-03-02T18:23:00.000-08:00

I haven't really said, done, thought, or posted anything of note recently, so instead I've decided to resort to that awful habit of spreading crap that interests only myself and myself alone. Clearly I'm no better than the rest of the internet these days.

Really, I'm only posting this to reestablish some sort of vague presence here. Hopefully, I'll return to writing reviews and my class essays soon enough.

Civilization V

Ford Sportka commercial

I was thinking about getting Facebook for the Civilization Network Beta to be launched in June, but since Civilization V turns out to be right around the corner, I once again have no reason to use it. And to think, I was worried that Civilization Network was Civilization V, and that a proper sequel would still be years away.

As for the Ford Sportka commercial, I saw that on an old episode of Top Gear and replayed it four times. James May later went on to race pigeons with it. Interestingly enough, it's the same car responsible for decapitating that cat god-knows-how-many-years-ago (with the sun roof). Yet another reason to buy a Ford, I guess. Shame that we don't get the Focus RS.

PixelJunk: Monsters (PlayStation Store Game Re-Review)

2010-03-01T20:56:00.000-08:00

Note: Way back in the Summer of 2008, I wrote an actually quite dreadful review of this game. It's certainly not something I'm proud of, and, come to think of it, I don't consider anything I've written before the Angels & Demons review in May 2009 as worth half a damn (doubly true of the pre-September 2008 period). I personally feel that that was my turning point from "writing to some arbitrary illusory publication standard" to "writing with the intention of formulating genuinely interesting insights." And this isn't just because that's the occasion when my reviews began to crack the 1,000 word threshold regularly. It's because that's when I felt I began to dig beyond the surface of plot/acting/presentation looking for things to say about cinematography/narrative structure and cohesion/technological refinement, etc. Looking for neat things in the finer details worth talking about, generally.

One of the reasons I rewrote this review was so that I could discover how much better (if any) I've become at writing in the time since Summer 2008. This wasn't the main reason, however. No, the real point of this was so I could enter a criticizing contest on the Escapist's User Review forums with the prize being a published guest review. A pretty good foot in the door by any standard, even if I don't end up pursuing it entirely.

Unfortunately, my entry got nixed in the first round. Not by a land slide, mind (in fact only by one vote), but it's out of the running nevertheless. Either I'll have to wait for the next competition or just deal with the bureaucratic traditional guest submission process for my next shot.

Anyway, here's the rewritten review. It's a shade under 1,000 words, and should easily be a step up from its progenitor by any standard. Also, the contest called for an "indie game" to be reviewed, hence my selection. I personally think it's great, but what the hell do I know? This was the contest's first casualty after all...

PixelJunk: Monsters

I was once a cynical person who looked at downloadable games from the PlayStation Store and the like as tantamount to browser games; cheap trinkets only useful for frittering away empty time. And while I can’t in good conscience say that I’ve been cured of this perspective, I have come to realize, however, that this isn’t entirely the case. PixelJunk, for example, is a series of downloadable PlayStation 3 games created by small teams of developers from Japanese based Q-Games. Their catalogue is four games strong in just two and a half years, and more remarkable than that is how varied their catalogue is. They’ve already got a racer, shooter, platformer, and tower defender under their belt, and I can confidently say that the two lattermost games are exceptional. I will be reviewing their tower defender, PixelJunk Monsters, today.

Tower defence is arguably the simplest statement of real time strategy gameplay. Every game in this genre features a base, a selection of towers for the defence of said base, and an assortment of persistent foes from which said base must be defended. And while the gameplay of PixelJunk Monsters doesn’t deviate terribly far from the well established conventions of the tower defence genre, it nonetheless endeavours to throw a few novel spins on a largely stale idea. Yes, there are towers, and yes, the primary function of those towers is to defend, but there’s a bit more to it than that. The combination of the fully predictable levels and the paper-scissors-rock gameplay manages to create a surprisingly appealing and addictive experience. Each level in Monsters consists of either 10 or 20 waves of baddies (depending on the difficulty setting) and each wave is comprised of a single sort of monster that staunchly marches the exact same path in the exact same formation. One might think that such banality would detract from the spontaneity and excitement of the assaults, but this simply isn’t the case. Seeing swarms of enemies getting decimated by mortars and flamethrowers never gets old, and the panic instilled in the player when the odd monster slips through the cracks and threatens victory is often very real, if occasionally a tad cheap.

Complimenting the very formulaic and very predictable AI is a generally well balanced array of towers, each possessing their own strengths and weaknesses against certain enemy types. The player has 500 gold coins at the start of each level with which to build their initial defences of four or five towers. By default, three towers are available at the beginning of each stage: the arrow tower, which is the standard all-rounder, along with the anti-air gun and cannon tower, which are effective against flying and ground critters respectively. Six other towers, including a laser, tesla, and hive tower, can be unlocked over the course of each level at the expense of blue gems, a rare item collected from fallen foes. Gold coins are also dropped constantly and need to be snatched up so as to increase the defensive lines warding off swathes of baddies.

One of the more interesting features of Monsters is how the player is actually required to run around the battlefield to collect items and build towers in real time. Most of the tower defence games I’m familiar with (Defend Your Castle, Lock’s Quest, etc.) give the player a window of down time between waves of action so that they have a chance to collect and organize themselves. However with Monsters, there is no down time. Everything the player needs to do must be accomplished with the seemingly endless stream of enemies stepping towards your base at a murderous stride. There is no intermission or break that lets you regroup, seize plunder, and tweak your defences. For this reason, there’s a particular fervour that arises when you’re zipping through battle lines picking up coins, building new towers, and powering up existing ones. It’s doubly peculiar considering how it’s some rather rigid and methodical core mechanics that are eliciting genuine intensity.

Visually, Monsters is simple and crisp. There are no ground breaking visuals to be had here. Instead, there’s a very charming and sensible art style, presented in full 1080p HD. The core colour palette makes use of soft and subdued earth tones with the only vibrancy in game coming from the occasional sparkling blue gem and the effects from the stronger towers. Even the character models are dressed in soothing and agreeable bands of colour. Browns and greens dominate, evoking an idyllic sense of nature. In fact the overall aesthetic is so pleasing and refined that almost any in game screenshot feels like it could be framed and mounted.

The music functions on a similar level of tranquility as the graphics, largely consisting of airy and peaceful synthesized sound loops. It’s quite repetitive, especially considering how many times a short track can cycle through a lengthy level, but it’s never obtrusive, which is what matters most. The sound bytes, on the other hand, can occasionally be a bit discordant. Each type of enemy sounds alike, as does each type of tower. When dozens of identical enemies are being attacked by dozens of identical towers, the ensuing dense torrent of noise does occasionally become a tad grating.

Yet despite some minor audio quibbles and gameplay that, for as hectic as it can sometimes be, is nonetheless entirely stiff and routine, PixelJunk Monsters is an excellent title. Tower defence games have seen a bit of a resurgence in recent years owing in no small part to the likes of the PlayStation Store and WiiWare, and Monsters seems to stand at the forefront of this particular renaissance. Its well balanced gameplay and breezy aesthetic makes it an easy buy, either for a $5 pittance on the PlayStation Store or for the $20 PSP Deluxe edition.

Article #13: Contra iPad

2010-02-05T22:25:00.000-08:00

With each new shiny white trinket that Apple releases, I find myself wondering more and more often how their user base of largely unemployed idiots keeps finding the money to keep encouraging the spread of such useless crap. Anyway, here's 400 words that just scratches the surface on everything that's wrong with it.

Contra iPad

For too long, Apple has been using aesthetic appeal to mask the fact its products tend to be lacking in hardware and customisability. The recently unveiled iPad proudly continues in that tradition, using the steamrolled iPod Touch look to compensate for it being underpowered, locked down, and incomplete.

The iPad is poised to tackle the Netbook, a device bridging the smart phone and home computer markets. The majority of Netbooks (over 90%) are Windows based, with the remainder using an open source platform (such as Linux). These days, the standard Netbook operating system is the complete Windows 7 OS which is something the iPad can’t compare to. Keep in mind this isn’t a petty comparison between Mac and PC user preference. The iPad will be running a tweaked iPhone OS. Why an alleged Netbook killer is running a phone’s OS and not a home computer’s OS is quite curious.

In terms of hardware, the iPad is far from impressive. The HP Mini Netbooks, for example, are readily available with a 1.66 GHz processor and a 160GB hard drive standard, while the iPad uses a 1GHz processor and has a 64GB flash hard drive at most. The iPad is also a fully fixed product, meaning that individual components cannot be upgraded. Netbook users are able to upgrade their RAM (if only by a little), and even beef up their hard drive with the proper know-how.

Connectivity is also a troubling issue. There’s no USB, HDMI, or FireWire; the only physical connection to the iPad is through the 30-pin connector (same as the iPod). Avoiding USB is admittedly advantageous as it means Apple avoids driver issues, but it’s a stark inconvenience for the user. For the company, however, being fully committed to the 30-pin connector is profitable, as extraneous docking devices and adaptors will become necessary for optimizing the transfer of media.

And really, this is where my biggest quarrel with the iPad lies: it’s just too expensive. $350 will get you a perfectly capable Netbook, so the $500USD iPad introductory price is far from competitive. And when you consider the cost of peripherals, accessories, applications, and media, you begin to invest a lot of money in something you really can live without. Then again, I guess that’s just the cost of the Apple lifestyle choice.

Other negatives: No Flash media, no 16:9 aspect ratio, no camera, no multitasking, and it seems uncomfortable to use.

Article #12: Contra Hand Sanitizers

2010-01-20T20:53:00.000-08:00

Comments on "An Education"

While I have no problem with disliking High Fidelity to the degree which I do, I’ve decided to give this Nick Hornby fellow another shot. After all, the book (which I’ve never read) and the movie (which I’ve never seen) may well be quite good. He didn’t write the script for the musical version; some prick named David Lindsay-Abaire did. It’s his crap I’ll be avoiding from now on, not Hornby’s.

With that thought in mind, I went to see “An Education” today. Mind you this decision had less to do with Hornby’s involvement and more to do with this Carey Mulligan I’ve been constantly hearing about since TIFF. Allegedly, she turns in this legendary star making performance guaranteed to make her the next (Audrey) Hepburn in a truly just world. In actuality, the supposed big deal eluded me. Yeah, it was a good performance, but really all she had to do was tear up on command and keep eyes as wide as her character is naïve. I thought that Alfred Molina upstaged her, even considering that he was just a secondary character and the unfortunate two minutes of screen time he spent

comforting a closed door.

Alright, alright, the writing was actually quite good. There was occasionally wit and charm deeper than just glib delivery and snarky retorts and the players were well characterized. It’s a hell of a lot better than Juno, that’s for damn sure. Although saying Nick Hornby is better than Diablo Cody isn’t exactly what you would call high praise. You want a real compliment? Excellent staging and cinematography. There, I said it.

So “An Education” is a good movie for Carey Mulligan, a better movie for Nick Hornby, and an excellent movie for the chaps working the camera, planning the sets, and calling the shots. Well done.

Article #11: High Fidelity (Performance Review)

Note: I rewrote this because I wasn’t satisfied with my first effort. The opinion’s the same, just better expressed (hopefully). And by the way, Lisa, "a vindication of music snobbery" is precisely what I would say that High Fidelity is. Have fun.

While mix tapes and vinyls might have gone largely out of style, music elitism and snobbery certainly have not. If nothing else, director Mark Selby’s High Fidelity, the musical stage adaptation of the 1995 Nick Hornby novel, certainly reminds us of that.

Rob (David Light) owns the last “real” record store in town, and has recently broken up with his girlfriend, Laura (Jamie Arfin). In Rob’s quest to win back Laura, he compiles and mulls over lists of songs and break-ups, has a one night stand with songstress Marie LaSalle (Jennifer Walls), and ably demonstrates how not to run a record store.

High Fidelity has many problems, the biggest of which lies in its characterisations. No doubt the core of the performance is built on the tried and true “couple breaks up/couple reunites” method, but while High Fidelity has no shortage of reasons for why Rob and Laura would separate, no good reason for why they would get back together is ever presented. Rob only ever appears more desirable in comparison to those in his immediate company and not in comparison to the average person. We want Laura to get back together with Rob not because he’s a truly special once in a life time catch, but because he’s undoubtedly a step up from her rebound, Ian (Jason Zinger). It actually makes me wonder why they don't just have Laura prowl the bar and clubs scenes, pick up someone better than Rob and Ian combined (it can't be that difficult), and save us all an hour and a half.

However I could easily look beyond the sloppy narrative if the writing and music were more entertaining. Sadly, this isn’t the case. Characters are defined solely by their ability to rattle off bands and songs and not by their actions or aspirations, the belief being that it’s not “who you are” but “what you like” that defines a person. The leads think and speak in top fives and condescend to those who do not, which admittedly presents an easy developmental arc that (likely deliberately) isn’t capitalized upon. The only character that begins a metamorphosis is Rob’s meek lackey, Dick (Carl Swanson), who’s immediately chastised for suggesting there’s more to a person beyond their favourite bands. Rob himself doesn’t change at all by the end, and Laura could be understood to have changed for the worse.

The music is certainly a step up from the writing, but still fairly poor in its own regard. On the execution level, the band does well with the slower pieces and ballads, but begins to fall apart during the up tempo sections. On the composition level, it’s generally serviceable, but lacking any real highlight and not a single melody indelibly kept in mind.

So what’s good about High Fidelity, then? Despite all the nasty things I’ve said about the characters, the actors themselves remain appreciably enthusiastic and energetic throughout. The set design and staging are for the most part exceptional, and there are some entertaining moments in the second half (a lampoon of Neil Young in particular). It’s just a shame that you have to trudge through a swamp of inconsequential blathering to get to it. The material may work well as a novel or film, but on stage, it’s just far too saturated.

High Fidelity is showing at Hart House until January 30th.

Article #12: Contra Hand-Sanitizers

Note: This is my half of a (weekly?) “400 words each” section where two writers debate an issue.

Aside from doctors, nurses, and surgeons, the everyday fellow simply has no use for alcohol based hand sanitization. The full effects of such sterilizing rubs only last for mere moments before open air exposure contaminates the hands once again. While the quick fix may well recreate the end result of soap and water washing in a fraction of the time, it’s still an endeavour that’s nowhere near as robust as a good lather.

Firstly, people need to acknowledge that hand sanitizing is a different kettle of fish from hand washing. Hand sanitizers function on an antimicrobial level, primarily used to eradicate the vast majority of germs and effectively sterilize the hand. Hand washing, however, while not committing germ genocide to such an efficient degree, nevertheless cleanses the hand of soil, stain, and debris.

Using Purell won’t get rid of the filth present on hands due to everything from finger food to dirty jobs. It will sanitize the mess, sure; but the grime will still be there until you’re bothered to break out a bar of soap. Hand sanitizers are meant to eliminate the lingering germs on hands that are free of visible detritus, not take care of both in a single fifteen second rubbing.

Then there’s the fact that hand sanitizers are received differently based on skin type. The high alcohol content dries the skin, which makes it unappealing during colder weather and virtually intolerable for eczema sufferers. If the user is compelled to reach for moisturizer immediately after sterilization, does that not defeat the purpose?

People with weaker skin who use too much alcohol based hand sanitizers at once or too often also run the risk of being more susceptible to germs and viruses. Certain rubs with high alcohol contents are occasionally found to chemically deteriorate the layers of natural oil responsible for keeping bacteria at bay, in turn increasing vulnerability.

And thus is the flaw of alcohol based hand sanitizing revealed: its goal is not so much to cleanse the skin as it is to destroy the nasties present on it, even if it means undermining the integrity of the dermis’ natural defences. Hand sanitizers are a convenient and efficient solution for germaphobes who dread using handrails and doorknobs. But when you get right down to it, a quick fix is really all it is. A dab of antimicrobial magic is perfectly fine as a sterile layer of polish on the palms, but there’s simply no replacing the power of the lather and rinse routine.

Article #11: High Fidelity (Performance Review)

2010-01-15T23:11:00.000-08:00

Note: It's hard to express fully in only 400 how awful High Fidelity is. Perhaps I'll write a longer review of it later, but this one will be going in The Newspaper on Thursday.

While mix tapes and vinyls might have gone largely out of style, music elitism and snobbery certainly have not. Director Mark Selby’s High Fidelity, the musical stage adaptation of the 1995 Nick Hornby novel showing at Hart House till January 30th, returns you to a mysterious world where iTunes and YouTube have yet to destroy the creative industries, and everyone seems to think and speak in top five lists.

Rob (David Light) owns the last “real” record store in town, and has recently broken up with his girlfriend Laura (Jamie Arfin). Laura is a paradoxical professional woman, not fickle enough to be emotionally bargained with through mix tapes but just weak enough to leave one overemotional man-child for the embrace of some oblivious new age idiot named Ian (Jason Zinger).

In Rob’s quest to win back Laura, he compiles and mulls over lists of songs and break-ups, has a one night stand with songstress Marie LaSalle (Jennifer Walls), and ably demonstrates how not to run a record store.

The problem with High Fidelity is that the characters and writing are, quite simply, not very good. Characters are defined solely by their ability to rattle off bands and songs and not by their actions or aspirations. Your affection will largely depend on how many bullets from the incessant barrage of music trivia and references hit their target.

Additionally, the characters don’t develop so much as they realize the obvious. If High Fidelity can condescend to me because I don’t live my life through top fives, then I can condescend to it for having characters thicker than paving stones.

It’s not entirely hopeless, though. The music is quite enjoyable once the band hits its groove, and the lampoons of Neil Young and Bruce Springsteen in the second act are quite fun. It’s just a shame that you have to trudge through a swamp of inconsequential blathering to get to it.

The entire cast is also exuberant and likable across the board, especially actors Carl Swanson and Brian Russell as Rob’s two cohorts. But charisma and energy alone are not enough to build an entertaining production, especially with such atrocious material.

But if you’re edgy and independent enough to wear your musical tastes on your sleeve, you’ll likely have a better time than I did. Frankly, I don’t think I could ever shop at Rob’s record store. He’d probably kick me out for trying to buy a Genesis CD.

Article #10: Bad (Quality) Vibes

2010-01-14T23:40:00.001-08:00

Note: We all know that I could write a weekly column on headphones, so to be limited to a scant 400 word article about my favourite things in the world was quite the chore. Additionally, this article was 100% filler for the issue, so don't expect a revelation or even something worth while in it.

A few issues ago, a colleague of mine wrote a piece for The Science about music-induced hearing loss in relation to the surge of portable media players on the market. Tinnitus (ringing ears) and Hyperacusis (oversensitivity to everyday noise) affecting more and more people with a bad habit of cranking Lil’Wayne and Slipknot, displaying as much disregard for their health as for the considerations of those around them in the process.

While a fine article for the sake of compelling people to keep the volume levels down from the wellness perspective, it never really addressed the reason why people tend to listen to music so loudly in the first place: awful headphones.

Tens of millions of people use portable music players on a daily basis, a sizable portion of which use the cheap earbuds that come with them, mostly for the sake of convenience. If people were more willing to trade up and discover what a good headphone is, cases of music induced hearing loss and irritable commuters would be fewer and further between.

The iPod earbud is the quintessential example of the most widely used bad headphone. Sound quality notwithstanding, the reason why it is so terrible has to do with its complete inability to block out or “attenuate” extraneous sound. Because achieving a proper seal around the ear is virtually impossible, users are more compelled to raise the volume and in doing so raise the likelihood of ear affliction.

Commuters looking for a respite from screeching subway cars and noisy traffic should look into headphones that offer premium isolation. Circumaural (over the ear) headphones are enticing because fully encircle the ear, but keep in mind that the seal is actually quite loose and often times requires a considerable amount of battery power from the device powering it.

IEM’s (In-Ear Monitors), on the other hand, are small and efficient headphones that deeply penetrate the ear canal and provide the tightest seal. Certain IEM’s even allow the user to swap differ types and sizes of sleeves to accommodate for the wide variety of ears out there.

Sennheiser offers headphones of nearly every variety, and are good choices for those making an entry into better sound. The Grado SR60 is also the long favoured budget gold standard. Shure, on the other hand, is best known for premium IEM’s and would be a great long term investment.

For more information, www.headphone.com offers catalogues and articles to make informed upgrades.

* * * * * * *

I've begun to make weekly sudokus to go with the weekly crosswords which I've still been making but just can't be bothered to post anymore. All that's left if for me is to make jumbles and cryptoquips to become an official puzzle master.

Actually, since The Newspaper's website updates regularly now, you could just fiddle with the crosswords and sudokus as they're posted there: http://www.thenewspaper.ca/

Mind the flood...

2010-01-07T19:28:00.000-08:00

Hah! Now you can’t possibly say I haven’t been busy over the break. I wrote a +13,000 word review of 2009 in film and polished it to the best of my ability, which is what currently occupies the eight posts before this one. I sincerely hope you enjoy trudging through that monster.

Start from the bottom when you read it, as posting from beginning to end chronologically means that it appears from end to beginning in the sidebar. The parts are numbered 1 through 8, in case you’re still lost. Also, here’s a quick table of contents:

Part 1: Overview of 2009 and some number crunching.

Part 2: Comments on 3D

Part 3: Comments on the modern blockbuster

Part 4: Comments on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

Part 5: Best of the year

Part 6: Worst of the year

Part 7: The full review of my favourite movie of 2009

Part 8: Some final thoughts and a conclusion

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and all those generic platonic greetings,

- Andrew G.

2009 in Film in Review, Part 8: The Future and a Conclusion

2010-01-07T19:10:00.001-08:00

Additional musings and a glimpse of tomorrow.

2009 wasn't a particularly good year for film, nor was it a particularly bad one. It was just a year. With regards to film, it was no more or less different than any other year since 2002 and the dawn of comic book adaptation superiority with Spider-Man. However, thanks to Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and G. I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, the biggest blockbusters are beginning to drift away from superhero properties, or at the very least are adding a new dimension to what audiences are anxious to see when the summer months come around.

The only traditional superhero property this year (discounting Watchmen) was X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and the future for that particular brand of entertainment appears to be fairly lean. With The Incredible Hulk's inability to establish a viable franchise, plans for another Superman movie unbeknownst to anyone, Christopher Nolan apprehensive about Batman's next adventure or even if he'll be on board for it, and the next Spider-Man outing not due until 2011 at the earliest, only Iron Man 2 rests on the immediate horizon.

Naturally, there's still talk about The Avengers, as well as Kenneth Branagh's crack at Thor (which should be an incredibly interesting interpretation considering his penchant for minute long cuts and Shakespearian inclination), but concrete details are elusive. The same must be said for future X-Men chapters such as the rumoured Deadpool and Magneto films on the docket, and Bryan Singer's alleged return to the X-Men franchise.

Other heavy hitters for the upcoming year include Pixar's Toy Story 3, scheduled for June 2010, which will almost certainly obliterate animated film records, given the studio's quality, the insatiable appetites children have for animation, and fifteen years worth of nostalgia to mine. The next instalment in the Shrek franchise is also scheduled, but considering the two animated titans are over a month apart, there will certainly be enough money for both of them.

Because Friday the 13th's reboot managed to take in triple what was spent on it, the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise is also getting its reboot, with Jackie Earl Haley picking up where Robert Englund as Freddy Kruger left off. The Saw franchise also isn't finished, with the seventh instalment in as many years occupying its traditional Halloween window, though apparently in 3D.

The first half of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is slated for November, which has caused the Twilight franchise to strike earlier in the year (during June) so as not to compete. This essentially qualifies Twilight as a summer blockbuster alongside Iron Man 2. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time appears to be the third big picture of the summer, and if things pan out the way Jerry Bruckheimer predicts and as the trailer appears to evoke, we essentially have a spiritual successor to the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.

July and August, however, appear to be a bit lean. M. Night Shyamalan will likely score a hit with The Last Airbender, and Predators is also predicted to build off Predator in the same way that Aliens built off Alien. Christopher Nolan will also likely do well with Inception. While it's not a sequel to The Dark Knight, his attachment as director alone will guarantee success.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage Down the Treader and Tron Legacy are just under a year away being scheduled for December, and what's left of 2010's autumn months is anyone's guest. Closer to the present day, however, appears to continue the tradition of disposable winter cinema. The only films of note on the horizon being Daybreakers, Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, The Wolfman, Shutter Island, Alice in Wonderland, and Clash of the Titans. I'd also like to mention Edge of Darkness, a film directed by Martin Campbell, the man who single-handedly rebooted the James Bond franchise with GoldenEye in 1995, and again with Casino Royale in 2006. Who knows? Edge of Darkness could very well be this year's Taken.

Conclusion

To end this mammoth reflection of an adequate (albeit quite interesting) year of cinema, I'd like to draw the attention of the forum to The Hangover.

For all the massive, big budget blockbusters that flanked this peculiar movie about an odyssey in Sin City on all sides, The Hangover triumphed over each and every one of them to become the sixth highest grossing film of 2009 in North America, taking in a remarkable $277,322,503. Star Trek, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Angels & Demons, and Terminator Salvation were all financially emasculated by The Hangover, a movie that cost substantially less to produce and made significantly more. Even Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was inevitably beaten by The Hangover. After 13 weeks of release, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen fell behind The Hangover at the box office, despite being three weeks younger. Sure, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ended up making $125 million more due to its initial strength, but The Hangover is only second to Avatar for the title of most powerful movie of 2009. It spent six months from June 5th to December 17th at the box office, becoming one of the rare movies to still appear in theatres despite its release on home media (The DVD/Blu-Ray was released on December 15th).

I tip my hat to The Hangover. Surely, if any film merits Academy commendation, this would be the one. Not only was it hugely successful, it's also a fantastic movie in its own regard. Is it the Best Picture of 2009? I wouldn't say so myself. But I'll be damned it doesn't deserve to run in the same race.

2009 in Film in Review, Part 7: Full Review of the Best Movie of 2009

2010-01-07T19:09:00.001-08:00

#1 Best = Avatar:

*** This review is intended for people who have already seen the movie and are looking for additional insights. There will be spoilers, unlabeled, and it assumes a familiarity with the subject. Read at this discretion. ***

"I'm king of the world!"

James Cameron, upon receiving the Oscar for Best Director at the 70th Academy Awards ceremony in 1997, said these very words in reference to his groundbreaking film Titanic, the film which gave him that honour. In the present day twelve years later, with the 82nd Academy Awards ceremony on the horizon in early March of 2010, one can't help but wonder if we'll hear James Cameron say these words again, albeit slightly tweaked to include the word "still." With Avatar, another stellar worldwide success that also happens to be a technical marvel with a solid narrative, it's certainly possible. The king has returned to reclaim his throne and at the same time show every blockbuster filmmaker from Bay to Zemeckis exactly how to do their job.

On the whole, Avatar is a very neat (in the sense that it is quite orderly and efficient) and very traditional movie. Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is marine corporal who has lost the use of his legs and is admitted into a special program on a distant moon called Pandora, the purpose of which is to create human/Na'vi hybrids for the sake of diplomacy with an obstinate indigenous population that refuse to be evicted by avaricious military men and industrialists. Initially tasked with infiltrating and sabotaging the stubborn tribe by the war hungry Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), Jake defects and leads a revolt with his new Na'vi girlfriend, Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), and her tribesmen at his side.

Avatar is divided into three separate acts with distinct transition phases between them that aren't overly protracted and disruptive. The first act establishes the rudiments of Pandora, its current state of affairs, and the influential characters of both the native inhabitants and the human interlopers. The second act is as thorough an examination of a cinematic science fiction world's ecology as has arisen since The Lord of the Rings. The third act is the climactic showdown between the two irreconcilable forces to which the characterization of the first two sections has been leading up. The first transition sequence between acts one and two is the depiction of Jake's first night alone in the dense jungle of Pandora. The second transition sequence is the initial attack by the humans on the Na'vi's colony.

Many of the criticisms Avatar has received appear to be from people who became disconnected from Cameron's universe during the very leisurely pace of the second act, the general attitude being that either you're on board or you're not by the time the Na'vi are revealed to possess fibre optic hair. Immersion can be a fickle thing, and anything from refusal to accept certain truths of Cameron's world to flimsy 3D glasses can shatter the illusion and break the deal for obstinate individuals. I myself was taken in the moment Jake's Avatar massaged the fresh Pandora soil with a new working pair of feet, the audience quantum leaping into Pandora in much the same way.

For some people, however, this is as far as they're willing to get. Floating mountains cascading water from their cores and jungle beds illuminating with every step in the middle of the night effectively alienating such people, causing questions of "why?" instead of exclamations of "wow!" This is a rather petty complaint, in my opinion, especially when such people claim that the movie glosses over necessary details in favour of an ironical expedience in an epic proportion.

Mystery is exciting and explanation is boring. Just because Avatar would rather project unbridled spectacle instead of dwelling on the nuances of bioluminescence doesn't make the film unintelligent and the astute individual demanding reason superior. What is necessary to know is told while what is unnecessary is left to imagination. Correct me if I'm wrong, but District 9 never featured a lecture series on the reverse engineering of hyper advanced alien technology and Star Trek didn't have much patience to explain what Red Matter was all about. For this reason, I think it's perfectly reasonable to excuse Avatar from choosing not to tell us why there's a floating mountain range. "Why do the Na'vi have omniscient hair extensions," you ask? "So that they can commune with nature," replies Avatar. "And don't worry about asking for a demonstration," continues Avatar, "as I've already arranged for this premier expedition through Pandora to pass through an indigenous technicolour dragon's nest near the summit of the floating Mt. Everest." Who says elucidation and excitement can't go hand in hand?

There's more to this extended second act than just a thinly veiled flaunting of technology through a tour of Pandora's wilderness, though. While it would be remiss of me to say that every second spent with Jake, Neytiri, and the Na'vi characterizes, certainly every sequence does. Avatar creates the impression that these creatures that don't exist and never will (at least as far as humanity is concerned) have their own unique language, with the additional suggestion that there are distinct dialects between tribes. There's also a sense of ritual and ceremony, a somewhat chieftain administrative structure within the tribes, and even a mythology regarding the most powerful flying beast in the sky. There's more invention in the Na'vi than champions of the "Dances with Smurfs" argument would have you believe. I would even say that the characterization of the Na'vi as a whole is as rich as a 2h40m film could possibly allow, especially considering how this is a completely unique science fiction universe with no other popular direct sources or exploits on other media from which to draw. Virtually every superhero movie and action/adventure/science fiction blockbuster of the last decade has a rich history from which to establish a film franchise; Cameron's started from scratch.

Because the intent is to rally the audience behind an entire (fictional) culture and not just a motley handful of leading figures, the development of the main characters isn't necessarily a significant demand. Think of it as a deliberate or purposeful thinning. Jake's role as the double agent initially infiltrating the Na'vi before switching teams assures him the most pronounced arc, predictable as it may be thanks to Avatar's heart being a story well told. Neytiri herself is the second deepest, though admittedly not that much deeper than the rest of her peers as her only additional layer stems from the internal miasma resulting from the clash of betrayal and deception with duty (again, predictable).

The remaining players, Augustine, Quaritch, and Parker, are completely immutable, their only real job being to thicken the proceedings with barbed exchanges and a humourous well timed line here and there. They're all rigid archetypes of the egghead, warmonger, and pen-pusher (respectively), but it doesn't make their portrayals any less exceptional and effective. Sigourney Weaver does well as the passionate ecologist with a hard edge and smoking habit, and Stephen Lang's relentless aggressiveness and gargantuan Patton-esque ego strikes that perfect balance of charming ruthlessness. Giovanni Ribisi, however, is too underused for his character's conniving to impart any consequence within the film, let alone any lasting image after the fact. He does nothing beyond occasionally express impatience for diplomatic methods and coin the word "unobtainium."

The final character of note is Michelle Rodriguez as Trudy, a fighter pilot for the marines who feels compelled to defend the Na'vi when certain realities of Quaritch's campaign become more than what she signed up for. She essentially follows the Ellen Ripley/Sarah Connor tradition of strong female leads in science fiction, except that she's not exactly central to the proceedings, nor is she ever a particularly overpowering presence in the face of her male peers. All she ever really does is help the protagonists escape imprisonment and deliver a few pot shots against the big bad in the final battle before being utterly immolated.

Strangely, however, it's because of this relatively minor character that an additional layer of Avatar is revealed to the audience. Certainly the political allegory isn't exactly subtle, the anti-imperialist/pro-ecology streak being omnipresent from beginning to end, yet Trudy's actions make Quaritch's deliberate misrepresentation of the state of affairs on Pandora entirely justifiable. I've spoken with many people who claimed that the "we will fight terror with terror line" delivered by Quaritch in a rousing speech to a new batch of troops struck a false chord, as did many other scenarios where the word "terror" and any of its deviations were used. The fact is that Quaritch needed to spin the truth lest another mutinous action like Trudy's abetment of his opposition occur. Whether or not the Na'vi are the most virtuous and docile alien tribe in existence or a pack of vicious and threatening savages is largely irrelevant, and such evidence to confidently suggest either conclusion is superfluous. Quaritch wasn't convinced of his men's loyalty, so he needed to engineer doubtless truths that commit them behind him. This completes the characterization of Quaritch's brutality and the outpost of apparent human sheep on Pandora. Now all that's left is for the two sides to do battle.

And fight they do. The marines steamroll through the jungle with their full air force in tow and a sweeping net of marines and mech suits on the ground, while the Na'vi patiently wait for the opportunity to make the strongest first strike possible, raining death on vibrant dragon from above supported by a charge on alien horseback. This is the most memorable action sequence of the year, stunningly rendered, visceral, and satisfying. The majority of the action takes place in the air where Pandora dragons pounce on unsuspecting human flyers and violently hurl them into rock faces as their pilots immediately strike down any exposed human soldier. There are so many moments of fantastic action splendour that detractors of the first two thirds should feel compelled to repent for their doubting of Cameron's unparalleled technique. The 3D is so effortless that you could very well catch the teeth forcibly expelled from a soldier's mouth by the nock of a Na'vi bow. Is it even possible to invest $16 better?

Yet for all the love and glowing adoration I have of this movie, I cannot in good conscience posit that it is entirely infallible. I do have complaints, but these may as well just be hairline fractures on the Colossus of Rhodes for how insignificant they are. The first is regarding the initial sketch of Jake Sully and his transformation from generic macho marine to humbled prince of the indigenous population seemingly overnight (well, to be fair it was over the course of three months). The human Jake we're first introduced to appears to have been made modest thanks to the loss of his legs, but such humility evaporates the second after his first test drive in his Avatar. He's once again just a grunt with a gun, overeager to spray bullets shouting "yeah, bitch, who's your daddy now? Oorah!" Certainly it makes the before/after contrast more striking, but it still feels like a slight miscalculation. The second is with regards to the ceremony that occurs when the Na'vi attempt to transfer Augustine's essence from her mortally wounded body to her Avatar. The concept is certainly novel, curious, and interesting, but the rhythmically chanting and waving bodies is something more easily equated with yoga than spirituality in my opinion. And finally, the music is somewhat underwhelming. I didn't find Horner's score to be particularly memorable, and even now I'm struggling to recall a familiar melody from the experience. On a side not, however, the rest of the sound design is superb. The mammoth IMAX sound system that floods the ear with audio from all trajectories creates a thick and deep ambient soundscape, especially during Jake's lonely adventure through the darkened wilderness.

People keen to disparage Avatar at any opportunity will surely realize that I've neglected to write about the core story as a detriment, or even at any notable length up until this point in the review. The simple reason for this is that there's nothing wrong with it. Avatar is far more about visual excitement than narrative, which is something that could be easily said for a lot of the monstrous entertainment hits in recent memory. For this reason, a focused and coherent story is far more useful than one that tries something too ambitious and consequently gets bogged down in its own indulgences and peculiarities. Star Trek, for example, tried to create a fresh narrative and failed as each new plot point seemed to create a brand new set of anomalies and contradictions that pulled some viewers out of the experience instead of further in. Both movies are technically impressive in scope, flair, and special effects, but the difference is that you can enjoy Avatar on a level of pure spectacle thanks to a safe story whereas Star Trek's narrative inconsistencies could keep a person at a distance for the whole duration.

The best action/adventure movies use a simple story well told as a hook to lure people in while the thrilling world does the rest of the work. This doesn't mean that the story is entirely without consequence and that it can be altogether omitted. If nothing else, the Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen debacle at least serves to remind us that stories, at their most basic level of utility, are necessary for framing a movie. Not only is that what Avatar's story needed to do; that's what Star Trek and every other such movie that only got halfway to its goal needed to do. The other narrative quibbles, such as alleged derivativeness at best and flat out plagiarism at worst, do nothing to lessen the experience as far as I'm concerned. I can't think of a better movie released in 2009 that is more thrilling, captivating, exiting, or imaginative, than Avatar. This is the best movie of 2009, one of the best movies of the decade, and one of the best movies I have ever seen.

2009 in Film in Review, Part 6: On the Worst

2010-01-07T19:08:00.004-08:00

#5 Worst = Monsters Vs. Aliens:

Generally speaking, animated films are safe bets. Such films take a lot of time, effort, and expertise to craft, and the end result can typically be immensely entertaining to kids, with enough subversive humour to keep adults occupied. Considering the above, I have an easy appreciation for animated films. They're light, fluffy, joyful to take in, and a harmless way to spend a couple of hours. The fact that Monsters Vs. Aliens somehow managed to betray all the levity not only with squandered voice talent but with garish 3D and creative emptiness is simply offensive.

I suppose the root problem lies in the title. A film called "Monsters Vs. Aliens" causes one to believe that there will be an abundance of fantastic creatures of all shapes, sizes, colours, dimensions, textures, etc. In reality, all Monsters Vs. Aliens has to offer is a 50 foot tall woman, a sentient maverick cockroach, a blue gelatinous blob, the missing evolutionary link between man and monkey, a massive hairy bug, and one boring alien with a fondness for cloning. Is that really the best they could come up with? Sensing the bland design, all the voice actors must have felt compelled to evoke the same empty energy, and every vocal talent is either trying far too hard or completely disinterested. And with folks like Hugh Laurie, Will Arnett, Stephen Colbert, Seth Rogan, Rainn Wilson, and Reese Witherspoon involved, Monsters Vs. Aliens initially sounds, at least on paper, like a sure-fire success for Dreamworks. In reality, however, what you have is just one boring and unattractive disaster.

#4 Worst = Fanboys:

Sense of humour is subjective, loathe as I am to entertain that thought. As a philosophical aside, I'm the sort of person that believes that accepting individual taste in aesthetic discussion is precisely what keeps artists from achieving the highest quality in their craft. Yet when it comes to humour, I'm not entirely certain whether such a thing is an art form, let alone a subjective one. Surely there's such a thing as a comedic craft, yet can it be quantified? But enough of that; I gave up philosophising when Berkeley's plodding dialogues bored me to tears over a year ago.

The point I'm trying to make is that my fourth, third, and second worst films are all comedies, which at first glance seems to say something about my tastes: I don't like comedies very much. Let me assure you that this is not the case. I've seen over a dozen films that most would label as comedies this year, and thoroughly enjoyed quite a few of them. With Fanboys I'm willing to admit that it's just not my cup of tea. With #3 and #2, however, I'll try and make the case that those films are fundamentally broken.

Now, Fanboys isn't an inherently bad movie, nor is it the type of movie I would chastise a friend for enjoying. It's cohesive, generally well produced, has a cameo by William Shatner, and features Kristin Bell in Princess Leia's "metal bikini" outfit from Return of the Jedi. These are all things I can get behind. The problem is that virtually every joke fell flat for me, and thus made the experience quite arduous. ("A comedy that features no humour? How dreadful!") Perhaps it's simply because satirizing nerd culture strikes me as incredibly redundant, or perhaps it's because I've been enjoying the same sort of humour from LoadingReadyRun for years now. Whatever the case may be, Fanboys was less of a movie and more of an endurance test, and for this reason it can't go unmentioned.

#3 Worst = Year One:

Much like Monsters Vs. Aliens, Year One seems to have a lot of potential on paper: Harold Ramis (Ghostbusters) directs Jack Black and Michael Cera through ancient world shenanigans as they do what they do best. What could possibly go wrong? Well, as it would turn out, Year One is also plagued by Monsters Vs. Aliens' crippling bugbear of terrible execution. Yet not only does Year One suffer from a severe lack of enthusiasm, disconnect between production and cast, and a creative absence, but also truly abysmal production. Many bad movies at least have a semblance of polish and mastering to them; Year One looks more like a product of an under-funded high school A/V club than a product of Hollywood glamour.

It's quite strange, really, how the $8 million Fanboys has more polish and craftsmanship than the $60 million Year One. Do Jack Black and Michael Cera really cost that much? Or maybe Olivia Wilde and Paul Rudd demanded outrageous compensation for appearing in such a travesty. Furthermore, what convinced Judd Apatow to chip in for the production budget? How does David Cross keep getting work? Year One at least gives the audience ample time to ponder these questions since the most laugh inducing bits - the ones from the somewhat appealing trailer - are disposed of in the early moments, thus leaving an hour and a half with nothing to do but mentally chastise yourself for spending money on such dross. You certainly won't be laughing, that's for sure.

#2 Worst = Miss March:

Miss March was released on Friday, March 13th, 2009. I'm not superstitious, but surely it can't be a coincidence that the second worst movie of the year was released on a generally ominous day? Cursed or otherwise, Miss March was an early contender for worst movie of the year. In fact, I still debate with myself whether or not it deserves to be named as the worst of 2009. While it could go either way, Miss March at least drifted in and out of public consciousness within a weekend, assuming you call opening at #10 with $2.5 million and climaxing at barely $4.5 million being in the general film-going awareness at all. The same can't be said for #1. While both movies are awful and thoroughly reprehensible, #1 is far more aggressive.

Winter movies are generally disposable, meaning that very rarely will anything significant arise and that standards are universally low. Having said that, I guess you could call Miss March remarkable for failing to meet such abysmal, rock bottom expectations. Here is a movie whose premise revolves around a chaste high school couple that separate when the male goes into a four year coma and the female runs off to pose for Playboy magazine. The pornography obsessed best buddy of the freshly awakened heartbroken notices his friend's former lover in an issue of Playboy, and the two embark on a road trip bound for the legendary Playboy Mansion.

So it's a sex comedy, with both sex and comedy missing in action. There are no gratuitous bare breasts to distract from the dearth of merriment, and there's no uproarious humour to distract from the lack of gratuitous bare breasts. It's a genre comedy that betrays its roots, offers absolutely nothing in compensation, and makes all those who witness it pray for cardiac arrest.

Even bad movies have some redeeming quality, be it a tolerable actor, a memorable line, or a nice pair of tits. Miss March has nothing. Try as I might, I cannot think of a single inspired, noteworthy, or even base quality to commend. Please, do not watch this movie. This isn't the Uwe Boll/Bruno Mattei bad where it's "so bad it's awesome!" This doesn't have any sort of novelty or scandalous quality that makes persevering through the train wreck a personal achievement. This is the type of film that could very well be considered as a crime against humanity, and should be wiped from memory.

Please, do not watch this movie.

#1 Worst = Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen:

A lot of people hate Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen for a lot of reasons. Some people are deeply offended by the inflammatory racial caricatures; some loathe the incomprehensible action and abysmal designs. Some are old enough to believe that these adaptations of a much beloved cartoon and toy line raped their childhoods; some are young enough to feel ashamed that their generation is fully committed to supporting such a cinematic atrocity. These are all valid reasons to hate Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, but my personal reason for calling it the worst film of 2009 is a bit more, how shall I say this... "aloof."

I suppose you could say that most of my hatred towards Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen stems from aesthetics. I hate that the character models, and the renderings are absolutely terrible and indiscernible from one another. I can't tell Starscreams from Megatrons, and when they all look alike and become entangled during incomprehensible shaky cam action sequences, it's impossible for me to be drawn in. There's no context for any of the action, such as when Optimus Prime is being slapped around in an industrial milieu one moment before being magically transported to the middle of a dense forest the next. We're also meant to believe that it can be broad daylight in Virginia and Egypt at the exact same time. Just what the hell is going on?

But really, my biggest quarrel with this film is what it represents. I'd be more than willing to accept Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen as a bad movie, throw it away, and move on with my life, but it's so much worse than that. Insidious, even. So many things are wrong with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, between the disastrous narrative, the cardboard caricatures, the disgusting models and designs, the wrecking ball testicles of the adversary, and Michael Bay's own monstrous ego that compels him to advertise his other god-awful movies within the one we're currently watching. It's not just awful, it's aggressively awful. It's the sort of movie that garners enough attention that there will certainly be future instalments of this garbage, considering how the next Transformers movie has already received the green light.

Transformers: Revenge of the fallen is a $200 million catastrophe. It's a calamity for which the thousands of people involved in its creation should be ashamed, especially considering how not one of them had the foresight to look ahead at the final product and say, "Gee, maybe we should, you know, make it better?" It not only caters to the lowest common denominator, it feeds off their inexperience and uses the funds to perpetuate a cycle of atrocious blockbuster cinema. I felt like I should have been fined by the culture police for buying a ticket, and when the entire audience gives a standing ovation to the film by the time the end credits roll, it evokes a wicked current of misanthropy in my being.

Monsters Vs. Aliens, Year One, and Miss March are awful films for what they are, but Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is the worst film for what it represents, which is a far greater crime as far as I'm concerned.

2009 in Film in Review, Part 5: On the Best

2010-01-07T19:08:00.003-08:00

Top 10 Movies of 2009 (or something like that)

Top 10 lists are the standard, it seems, when it comes to aggregating any form of media for an end of the year review. Yet despite the Academy feeling compelled to expand the Best Picture category from five to ten, I personally believe they picked a rather poor time to do so. I've seen 57 films released in 2009, and I must confess that only eight of them stayed with me in any significant way. Since a Top 8 isn't nearly as appealing as a rounded Top 10, I've decided to cut my list to a Top 5 so that mine will seem a bit more... competitive.

I'll be offering at least of a couple of paragraphs on each of my Top 5 best and worst selections, but before we get into that, I'd just like to offer a few lines on the three honourable mentions:

Up:

This was a good movie, no doubt, but I'm afraid that it stands as a bit of a misstep in Pixar's sterling track record. The movie's touching and thrilling moments lack balance, and this is the third time in a row a Pixar film has stumbled in the third act. It's just not as taut as it could've been, though if ever an animated character deserved a Best Actor nomination, Carl Frederickson would be him.

Watchmen :

I've never read the graphic novel, nor do I intend to. A proper adaptation should exist independently of its exploits on other media, and I don't think it's entirely fair for a film to expect me to be steeped in its history in novels or comics or what have you. Thankfully, Zack Snyder agrees, and Watchmen is a remarkably immersive, deep, and rich movie, even for a person as unconcerned with its mythology as me. What holds this movie back? It's just a tad convoluted and some of the portrayals could've been a bit more lively, but the Comedian is still rather easily one of the most enigmatic characters of the year, and Watchmen was the first truly great movie of 2009.

Moon:

This claustrophobic and haunting movie was 2009's great science fiction film, and the best science fiction film since Sunshine in 2007. Sam Rockwell's brilliant performance as a Lunar Industries technician stationed alone on a remote outpost on the moon and Kevin Spacey's soothingly ominous voice as his only robotic companion are the only characters in this odyssey exploring isolation and genetics. The surreal visuals and the curious mystery unraveling throughout the film's running time captivate from beginning to end. There's no reason not to give mention to this film; it's just a shame that I saw five others which I deemed to be better.

* * * * * * *

#5 Best = Drag Me to Hell:

Like many a film nerd, I love the Evil Dead movies. The gritty low budget shenanigans, the hyperbolic and humourous gore, the unchallenged manliness and charisma of Bruce Campbell, these are all things I simply adore. When I learned that Sam Raimi returned to this similar filmmaking method for Drag Me to Hell, perhaps I was already smitten with the film before I had even seen it. But whatever my predisposition may have been, I absolutely loved every second and bilious discharge this film had to offer.

To be fair, Drag Me to Hell isn't perfect. It's certainly a thrilling ride featuring the most noteworthy supporting character that spends nearly the entire length of the film deceased since... well... ever, I suppose. But the fact that this deceased character displays more charm and charisma than the lead she's supporting is rather unfortunate. While Alison Lohman as Christine Brown certainly demonstrates an eagerness to roll with Raimi's punches, the panache and flair is lacking. Still, I defy you name a better movie featuring a cursed pen-pusher.

And while we didn't get a cameo by Bruce Campbell, at least we got a cameo from the Yellow Delta 88.

#4 Best = Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs:

Considering all my love and adoration of Pixar, it would be terribly easy for me to trumpet Up as their latest masterpiece and throw in glowing comments about their deft animation and narrative mastery. Yet I found Up to be lacking, especially contrasting the absolutely sublime first act with the thoroughly loopy denouement. Its tenderness and zaniness were unbalanced, and this imparted upon me the notion that Pixar had made a slight misstep. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, on the other hand, goes full tilt bonkers. Thanks to an incredibly sharp script and the best use of 3D pre-Avatar, Sony Pictures Animated managed to challenge Pixar for best animated film this year, and in many respects won.

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is a simple tale about a boy who wants nothing more in life than the admiration of his father, and to achieve this he invents crazy contraptions for better living. Unfortunately, one of his devices is a machine that causes food to rain from the sky, which is all well and good until the proportions become super-sized and the world is endangered from precipitating food stuffs. The visual gags, witty one-liners, and self-awareness entertain throughout, and the initially unappealing character design becomes quite charming over the film's duration. The only issues are in some peculiar voice talent selections, but the end result and terrific 3D make these trivial annoyances.

#3 Best = The Hurt Locker:

The Hurt Locker was the ultimate film of the summer, pure and simple. Yet while critically appreciated, almost nobody went to see it. You could chalk this up to its limited release, poor marketing, or public exhaustion from the Iraq war, but the fact that The Hurt Locker went largely unnoticed this summer is quite disheartening. Beneath the tired contemporary war drama veneer lays a brilliant character study and some of the most startlingly beautiful and intense cinematic sequences of year.

This movie follows the exploits of Sergeant William James, an arrogant and notorious bomb diffuser stationed in Iraq. During his tour of duty, he's constantly challenged by terrifying new explosive contraptions from the local insurgents, as well as his squad mates who'd much rather see him do his job conventionally instead of risking all their lives with bravado and reckless abandon.

The Hurt Locker clearly establishes a finely tuned intensity not 10 minutes into the movie, and sustains it effortlessly throughout. The characters are superbly portrayed, especially Jeremy Renner as Sergeant William James, and a majestic desert sniper sequence is just one of the many memorable moments in an exceptionally captured movie. This is exactly what a summer blockbuster should be.

#2 Best = Up in the Air:

Jason Reitman has been enjoying popularity in recent years for his satirizing Thank You for Smoking and the far less impressive Juno. Up in the Air is only his third feature film, and this is the one almost certainly bound to ensure his longevity as one of the premier North American filmmakers. With each passing feature, Reitman's success has allowed him to earn not only the confidence of studios, but the confidence of some of the biggest actors working today, having upgraded from Aaron Eckhart to Michael Cera, and now to George Clooney in just three short years. Trust me; Reitman is a name to watch out for.

Like many high profile films in the twilight months of the year, Up in the Air is largely character driven, and as such it requires a character that is immensely charismatic and singular. I can think of no better actor for Ryan Bingham, the insular airborne lead role, than George Clooney, a man whose confidence and charm consistently makes even his worst movies at least tolerable. Bingham is an executive hired by North American companies looking to fire redundant staff, but lack the competent managers necessary to pull the trigger. Bingham lives in the air, so when a new hire threatens to modernize his industry, he's immediately threatened and faces what is certainly one of the more peculiar cinematic midlife crises.

Up in the Air is, at its heart, a romantic comedy. Those two words alone could deter many of the folks in my demographic, and certainly a sizable portion of my readership. Yet the script is so sharp, the portrayals so pitch perfect, and the direction so smooth as to safely curtail the bland and tired tropes of the genre, that such an insidious label never crosses the mind during the experience. Without question, Up in the Air is one of the best films of the year, and a strong contender for a few shiny golden men come the Academy Awards.

2009 in Film in Review, Part 4: On the Academy

2010-01-07T19:08:00.001-08:00

10 Best Pictures?

When the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences doubled the number of nominees for Best Picture from five to ten back in June, quite a few heads were turned. The logic behind this move was that there are many great films that go uncelebrated by the Academy, and it's necessary to give many of these films their due. Is this a response to the backlash from The Dark Knight's unsurprising snub when the announcements of the nominees for the 81st celebration were made? Or does the AMPAS truly feel that Hollywood has entered another golden age not seen for decades, and that there really are so many good films out there that need to be celebrated?

Whatever the case may be, the decision to expand certainly seemed like a good idea at the time. 2008 was quite a good year for movies, with or without The Dark Knight. While The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Milk, Slumdog Millionaire, The Reader, and Frost/Nixon were the five competing in that particular race, there was actually quite a bit of competition for Best Picture. Doubt initially seemed to like a front runner, as did Aronofsky's sublime The Wrestler. Even Clint Eastwood's acting swan song, Gran Torino, seemed poised for more than a few nominations, yet ended up completely empty handed. And of course, there's The Dark Knight, which many felt was deliberately snubbed. While I personally disagree, it's still a film I'd much rather see up for Best Picture than Milk or The Reader.

Given the heat and contention in 2008, delirium from the success and hope for the future is entirely reasonable, if a bit optimistic. 2009 was quite young when the announcement was made, nipping at the heels of the first batch of summer blockbusters gone by and The Hangover shattering all expectations. The future seemed bright indeed. Naturally, people speculated as to what films we'd see in the AMPAS' freshly expanded Best Picture category come February 2010. People tossed around The Hangover, in equal part jest and seriousness. Rolling Stone was quick to bless Apatow's Funny People with Oscar buzz, while others trumpeted the documentary's resurgence with Food Inc., The Cove, and yet another Michael Moore piece, Capitalism: A Love Story. Even science fiction may yet rise again with Moon and District 9 over the summer, and Avatar concluding the year.

Not only that, but the Academy itself is taking measures to diversify themselves. Those snobbish old fogies responsible for the notorious bland and overlong ceremonies are opening up their ranks to likes of Anne Hathaway and Mickey Rourke. Younger, more relevant, and more audacious individuals in the industry are becoming responsible for selecting the movies that receive the highest honours. The AMPAS has been resuscitated with a breath of fresh air and enthusiasm for the incoming generations of film. It's just a shame that instead of the Academy letting down 2009, 2009 has let down the Academy.

As I reflect upon the year, I can't help but feel slightly disappointed. There were a plethora of "good" movies, to be sure, but the "great" and "excellent" movies are notably absent. Giants like Pixar and Tarantino made good movies with errors in narrative judgement. Eastwood's Invictus seems to be underperforming (though I can't in good conscience say that definitely since I've yet to see it for myself), as does Gilliam's Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. Even the low-key dramatic pieces that the Academy typically adores appear to be quieter than usual. Not very much has been said about A Single Man, Crazy Heart, and Me and Orson Welles, and many people don't seem to realize that a Coen Brother's picture has come and gone without much word of mouth (A Serious Man).

On the bright side, however, this should hopefully make for a very interesting Oscar season as nobody really knows for sure what to expect. Up in the Air seems to be the surest bet so far, as does Avatar. The other eight films are anybody's guess. Up could very well graduate from the amateur Best Animated Film race, as could The Princess and the Frog due to its traditional animated appeal. Tarantino's alternate history of WWII may very well get a few glances too, even if it is just because of Christopher Waltz. There's even plenty of room for either District 9, Moon, or Star Trek.

Really though, the underwhelming display of traditional Oscar bait, coupled with the expanded Best Picture race, equates to one very interesting truth: your favourite film of 2009, be it Watchmen, Star Trek, The Hangover, District 9, etc., could very well be the Best Picture of 2009. When Sid Ganis, president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences says that he can't wait for that list of nominees to be released in February, it's hard not to get the same feeling. The 82nd Academy Awards are going to be interesting.

Hopefully.

2009 in Film in Review, Part 3: On Blockbusters

2010-01-07T19:07:00.003-08:00

The (sorry) state of the modern blockbuster.

Blockbusters, when it comes to movies, are the types of films that shatter expectations. In the traditional sense, blockbusters are usually associated with explosive testosterone action flicks, Die Hard perhaps standing as the ultimate example. These are the sorts of movies that are roller coaster thrill rides; movies to be experienced, not merely witnessed. The typical blockbuster is the sort of kinetic monster that bombards the viewers with action and excitement; the sign that lets filmmakers know they've done their job well being when the audience walks out with an exhausted sigh of satisfaction, followed by the words, "Now that's entertainment!" (preferably with the scent of buttered popcorn lingering in their breath).

Yet wall-to-wall action isn't the only qualifier for blockbuster status. The block often being busted, in this case, is the block of financial expectation. When a film over performs by leaps and bounds, either by fully recouping a multi-hundred million dollar budget (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, The Dark Knight, Avatar, Titanic, Harry Potter), or by constantly multiplying a modest cost of production (Paranormal Activity, Blair Witch Project, Mad Max, The Hangover), such films earn the blockbuster label. These aren't necessarily films designed thrill so much as they're films which earn the title through success instead of receiving it by default due to its membership in the action adventure genre.

Considering the latter definition (the financial qualification), 2009's top blockbusters were Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Avatar, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Up, New Moon, The Hangover, Star Trek, The Blind Side, Monsters Vs. Aliens, and Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs.

Thinning the above ten movies by considering the former definition (the action qualification) as well as the latter, only Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Avatar, and Star Trek seem to qualify. X-Men Origins: Wolverine, 2012, G. I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, Taken, Terminator Salvation, Inglourious Basterds, and Sherlock Holmes, would be next in line to fill out the remaining seven positions, assuming we're skimming down the top grossing movies of 2009. The idea present being that not only were these the year's big action/adventure movies, but also that these are the big movies that everybody seems to have seen. New Moon, The Hangover, and The Blind Side must be omitted from the list for being of the wrong genre. Up, Monsters Vs. Aliens, and Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs are films largely considered to be animated first, and action/adventure second. The case could certainly be made for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince to remain on the list as a "true blockbuster," but wands and wizards are something I consider to be a different kettle of chips from guns and explosions.

If it isn't already clear from my unabashed eagerness to bend the traditional definitions of genre and success, I think it's certainly worth pointing out now that this particular segment of my "Year in Review" is less fact based and more opinion based. That having been said, isn't it peculiar how the movie most closely resembling a "true blockbuster" by fulfilling both financial and genre expectations is Taken, the 18th highest grossing film of 2009 made with only $25 dollars? To put that into perspective further, Taken had the lowest production cost of every aforementioned movie in this article. How much did it cost for an angst ridden teenage girl to swoon over a sparkly vampire for over two hours? $50 million. How much did it cost for four guys to get lost in Vegas for a weekend? $35 million. And what about the price of Sandra Bullock's preachy feature pining for Academy recognition? $29 million. Yet Liam Neeson's rollicking ninety minute international adrenaline rush, chock full of gunfire and car chase, cost less than the drama and comedy smashes that, while admittedly reasonably priced, shouldn't necessarily cost that much in the first place.

Taken was far more of a blockbuster than most of the inflated monsters that swamped the box office in a mire of mediocrity in the summer months after its January release, which is why the modern blockbuster - the "true" modern blockbuster - feels like it's currently in decline. Movies like Taken, and to a certain extent the Crank movies, are a dying breed. The straight forward actioners of yore which thrived on their protagonist's sixth sense for witty one-liners and feature the simple pleasures of a thrilling car chase and a heroic dive for cover after the mother of all explosions are being replaced with cinematic naval gazing, cynicism, and titanic egos. Levity is being replaced with pathos, as people are beginning to favour the brooding enigma to the charming everyman. The delivery of "more of what you want in a movie" is done with extreme contempt as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen aptly demonstrated by abandoning the fundamentals of basic moviemaking so that it could flaunt the depth of its pockets. A film's director is no longer an omnipotence restricted to being revered by colleagues and staff as the word "visionary" is becoming an increasingly common prefix for the job; celebrity Twitter updates deluding people into believing they've established a covenant with God.

It's not entirely hopeless, though. While the conflicted and complex childhood superheroes now thrust into the position of leading Hollywood for the foreseeable future are largely responsible for the recent demand for more blockbusters with humble and modest protagonists, perhaps it's somewhat ironic that one of their own is now standing as a hotrod red beacon of hope. Iron Man represents the best elements of John McClane and Bruce Wayne, fused into my personal vision of the ideal superhero. The affluent billionaire who's not above getting down and dirty, has no regrets or patience for trite sentiment and nostalgia, and can instantly charm the pants off any woman he chooses with or without the money, fame, and glory, is the subject of not only one of the best movies of the decade, but one of the premier summer blockbusters of all time. Is it so wrong to believe that the most impressive movies of the year should be as fun as they are successful?

Joy, spectacle, and wonderment should be products of an adroit and skilled filmmaker and not of coincidence from a pyromaniac fart boy told to run wild with $200 million. Here's hoping that Iron Man 2 is no less than equal to its predecessor, and that more traditional blockbuster experiences begin their return to screens, with or without a superhero at the wheel.

2009 in Film in Review, Part 2: On 3D

2010-01-07T19:07:00.001-08:00

Does 3D have a place in modern cinema?

Several films were released in 3D this year, six of which I have seen (My Bloody Valentine, Coraline, Monsters Vs. Aliens, The Final Destination, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, Avatar). While Up was released in 3D, I instead opted for the traditional two dimensional route. Speaking of Pixar, Toy Story and Toy Story 2 also had a brief theatrical re-release in October with additional 3D, although the precise contribution of the synthetic addition to any film developed without the intent to use 3D in the first place is ultimately negligible, and the Toy Stories are no exception.

Coming into 2009, much discussion was built around whether or not 3D would ever be taken seriously with regards to its replacing of the traditional 2D filmmaking method. With the exception of schlock horror, kiddie fare, and Robert Zemeckis, 3D simply doesn't seem to have a place in modern cinema, and 2009, for the most part, wasn't any different. My Bloody Valentine and The Final Destination continue to prove that there will always be a demand for filmmakers who make their livings throwing objects very suddenly at the screen, while Dreamworks, Pixar, and Sony Pictures Animated Division all used 3D for their animated features (Monsters Vs. Aliens, Up, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs respectively) further validating the continued use of 3D in those markets. And yes, even A Christmas Carol reminds us that Zemeckis' obsession with the dimension is still alive and well, for better or for worse.

Really though, when people disputed the validity of 3D in the future of filmmaking earlier this year, what they actually meant was whether or not James Cameron's Avatar would be able to settle this particular debate once and for all. The other handful of 3D movies released throughout 2009 did nothing for anybody's argument with regards to that debate, beyond prove the obvious point that those snobbish and discerning teenagers and toddlers will continue to watch whatever makes the best use of blood and primary colours respectively. And did Avatar settle the debate? Eh... yes and no.

Avatar is a truly fantastic movie, there's no two ways about it. And yes, Avatar's 3D was nothing short of the superlatives of the words "breathtaking", "phenomenal", "octopimp", etc., and it certainly validates the use of the dimension in science fiction/fantasy as well as in horror and animated. The only problem is in the logistics of it. Avatar is the most advanced, high-tech, and futuristic movie lying and the bloodiest part of the bleeding edge, and it'll likely take anywhere from another couple of years to a decade for the technology Cameron was allowed to get away with using to become cost effective for the average filmmaker. Cameron single-handedly gave the crazy 3D concept some serious legs, but we're still years away from seeing it deployed in average, run of the mill films. So while it's nice to have folks like Cameron and Spielberg come out and fully commit themselves to the use of 3D in their future feature films, as well as animated studios placing their full support behind it, the future is logistically still quite far away.

But what about the average movie? Dramas, comedies, romances, satires, and everything that could reasonably be made on a budget under $40 million? Is there a future in 3D for them? To film a movie in 3D, or to master a finished movie so that 3D can be applied, typically seems to cost around an additional $10 - $15 million. What this means is that adding 3D actually has meaningful financial consequence for studios that choose to go that particular route. It's terribly easy for a cynical audience to look at a movie title, notice the 3D suffixed to it, and dismiss it as a terrible gimmick. While it indeed grabs the audience in the same way that a tourist trap grabs gullible out-of-towners, it isn't necessarily such a thoughtless addition. Studios need to feel confident that the movie their funding has a chance to recover its production and marketing finances. More thought goes into applying 3D than audiences give studios credit for. As 3D becomes polished and perfected over the years, costs for its application will drop and we'll probably start to see its use in a more diverse spectrum of genres. There certainly seems to be a future in 3D, providing issues surrounding comfort and visibility are soon dealt with. Many antagonists of the 3D debate point to cheap, tacky glasses that become an encumbrance almost immediately after the film begins. It's a petty quarrel that clever filmmakers possess the power to alleviate, and once again let us look to James Cameron to lead the way.

The inherent problem with many 3D movies is that the picture's contrast moves beyond high into extremes; the blacks are too dark, the whites are too bright, and there's often a dim, fuzzy rim around the edges of the screen. 3D scenes with a lot of activity also tend to track poorly, and the optimal viewing angle is quite narrow. Cameron actually did quite a lot with Avatar to address these problems. By beefing up the brightness to an almost blinding degree when the glasses are removed during 3D viewing, the visuals are far more consistent, lush, and clear with the glasses on. Flawless image tracking is still a technology that requires perfecting, however, and until the time comes when garish 3D spectacles are abandoned altogether, there's only going to be so many seats in a theatre that enable the person in them to receive the images the way they were meant to be.

And in the end, that's what it comes down to: when are those god-awful glasses going to become a relic of film history? With Cameron, Spielberg, Sony, and many other companies pouring tonnes of money into that particular R&D for solutions, it really can't be very far off. If Avatar is any indication, there's certainly a demand for the next evolution of 3D beyond it. All that's left is to wait for the eggheads to deliver.

2009 in Film in Review, Part 1: Financial Overview

2010-01-07T19:06:00.001-08:00

An overview of 2009.

2009 was a good year for Hollywood. While the overall calibre of the year's films on the whole is largely debateable, as per usual, there being nothing particularly good to watch at the local Cineplex is no longer quite the deterrent for movie-going it once was. In fact, there's nothing quite as recession proof as movies and video games, it seems. Well that's not entirely true; I suppose the most recession proof activity would be reading and philosophizing as long as you return your library books on time, but vegetating in a cushy chair while admiring the superstars whose lifestyles you wish you possessed amuse you for two hours by means of celluloid is still the predominant form of passive entertainment, especially when one stops and ponders the logistics of it all.

Analysing the box office is a fickle business that I personally have been trying to wrap my head around for as long as I've frequented RottenTomatoes and IMDB. It's relatively easy to understand how films will perform individually on opening weekends, and then extrapolate how much they'll gross by the time they've completed their theatrical run. However comparing multiple sets of data against one another, placing it in a 365 day context, and then comparing those years, is less of a skill and more of an art. Perhaps we'll start from the end, then work our way down.

$10,531,100,000 (over $10 billion) was accumulated between January 1st, 2009 and December 31st, 2009. This is the gross from holdovers from 2008 still in theatres up until the year's final night at the theatres, meaning that some of this $10 billion is Slumdog Millionaire/The Curious Case of Benjamin Button money, and a large portion of what Avatar has left to rake in will be counted towards 2010's total. This is the largest total in recent memory: 2009 took in 9.8% more than the year of The Dark Knight, 9.4% more than the year of Spider-Man 3, 14.9% more than the year of Dead Man's Chest, and 19.7% more than the year of Revenge of the Sith. This is the first year where over $10 Billion was accumulated and, save for the 0.4% decline between 2007 and 2008, continues a healthy upward trend.

This year in North America, 29 films earned more than $100 million, 7 films more than $200 million, 2 films more than $300 million, and 1 film more than $400 million. These figures are more or less identical to 2007 and 2008's, except the former year only had 28 films make over $100 million. In 2005 and 2006, only 19 films cracked the $100 million threshold, yet in considering these five years, between 6 and 11 films pushed well into $200 million.

In terms of opening weekends, the weakest of the top 10 openers (Sherlock Holmes) made over $62 million, while the highest (New Moon) made over $142 million. The spread for 2008 was between $57 million and $158 million. Between $58 million and $151 million, $40 million and $135 million, and $47 million and $108 million, were the spreads for 2007 down to 2005 respectively. Keep in mind these are three day Friday to Sunday openings, so Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen's over $200 million from Wednesday to Sunday in June is adjusted to reflect only the weekend numbers. Many movies since 2005's Revenge of the Sith, in fact, have been released on Wednesdays and Thursdays to help swell the numbers, so such statistics for high profile movies tend to be nuanced reflecting midnight screenings and early openings, or have those nuances removed, thus further amplifying contention between the numbers.

There's a definite spike from 2006 onward, especially since that was the first year to crack the $9 billion threshold, making 4.2% more than 2005. The reasons for this shouldn't be all too surprising. The remarkably well received Pirates of the Caribbean sequel, Dead Man's Chest, seemingly over-compensated for the lack of a Harry Potter Sequel, while X-Men: The Last Stand was the year's flashy superhero movie. The Da Vinci Code stirred up a whole whack of attention and Pixar movies have generally been cash cows since Finding Nemo in 2003. The fascination with comic properties, Pixar's continued utter dominance of the animation realm, and the promise of sequels enabled box office longevity, even if certain properties, such as Casino Royale, initially slouched out of the gate.

2007 had three third instalments, Spider-Man, Shrek, and Pirates of the Caribbean, round out the top openings, and The Bourne Ultimatum wasn't far behind at #8. Transformers also struck gold, while Harry Potter's fifth adventure struck gold again. The Dark Knight made a killing last summer becoming responsible for nearly 5% of the entire year's total on its own, and the only other immediate smashing sequels of the year were Quantum of Solace and Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa. Iron Man and Twilight also made stellar transitions to the big screen opening at #3 and #4, and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull made for the year's second best opening.

This year's top opening weekend spread, not surprisingly, treads safely and is dominated by usual batch of instalments on well established properties. Twilight, Transformers, Harry Potter, and X-Men rank #1 to #4 in terms of best openings respectively. Pixar asserts itself once again with Up at #8, people were willing to give a sleek and shiny new Star Trek a shot at #6, and apparently quite a few people out there still have a fondness for Vin Diesel since Fast and Furious opened rather well with $70 million coming in at #7, before promptly sliding down to #15 at the end of the year. Sherlock Holmes is all but guaranteed a lucrative franchise thanks to its 10th best $62 million opening, and 2012 managed to do $3 million better. Avatar sits pretty at #5 with a $77 million opening, followed promptly by a jaw-dropping #75 million second weekend; a scant 3% dip where most blockbusters tend to plummet after everyone's already been exhausted the first time around. Now all that's left to do is predict on which weekend Avatar hits $1 billion, and celebrate by watching it again.

While no singular movie this year initially soared to the heights to which Batman and Spider Man are quite accustomed, the average between the top 10 is the highest it's yet been. The reason for this is that high profile movies were quite evenly spread over the course of the year instead of clamouring for the narrow May through July typical blockbuster frame (although it should be said that there's plenty of that too). November is increasingly becoming a hot month for box office spectaculars (New Moon and 2012), and Fast and Furious, if nothing else, demonstrates that big releases can score big even as early as the first week of April. Two of the year's biggest releases, Avatar and Sherlock Holmes, are just a couple of weeks young and doing remarkably well at a time when families should be coming together instead of going their own separate ways at the local multiplex. Even Taken and Paul Blart: Mall Cop managed to outperform both Angels & Demons and Terminator Salvation, blockbuster budgets and prime release windows seemingly doing nothing to help their theatrical runs.

May was a particularly congested time of year for blockbusters, which perhaps explains why two of them, Angels & Demons and Terminator Salvation, fell by the wayside. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (May 1st), Star Trek (May 8th), Angels & Demons (May 15th), Terminator Salvation (May 22nd) and Up (May 29th) were all released in the same crowded period. Marvel properties have virtually claimed the first Friday of May for their blockbusters since Spider-Man 3 in 2007 and Iron Man followed suit in 2008 (and will again in 2010), so there's no shock at Wolverine's success despite its almost offensively poor quality, while Star Trek's glowing reception made for strong competition throughout the rest of the month. But with these two giants going head to head, Angels & Demons and Terminator Salvation had nowhere to fit in. In North America, they both soon fell off the radar underperforming, managing only slightly to edge out Star Trek's North American total combined. At least they did well internationally though, which is great news for the immaculately realized Angels & Demons, but terrible for the thoughts of yet another Terminator travesty.

Where would Angels & Demons and Terminator fit in, then? Surely one of them could've claimed the first weekend of June to take advantage of the three weeks until Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and there was really only G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra with which to compete in August. Admittedly, I would have to agree that Terminator Salvation is resigned to functioning chiefly as a summer event, but surely Angels & Demons could succeed at any time of year. Whatever the case, poor timing seems to have kept these two titles from reaching the success their mammoth budget would typically entitle them to, and a year less congested with high profile titles would have certainly seen them place better domestically with overseas success being a nice addition.

Films on less impressive scales, scopes, and budgets also did very well, cleverly created to highlight strengths of actors and production teams rather than flaunting how much cash was involved. Stephen Soderbergh, typically associated with Ocean's 11 through 13, brought us The Girlfriend Experience at the beginning of summer and The Informant! at the end of it, these being rather experimental films deliberately created on bizarre schedules under bizarre circumstances regardless of financial consequence or public reception. Moon was as much a science fiction landmark as Avatar is a technological one, a comparison made to highlight that such influence can as easily be done with $500 million in production and marketing as can be done with only $5 million. There's also The Hurt Locker, a movie chock full of such intensity and grace that it's saddening to know it just barely recouped its $11 million budget. And of course, Paranormal Activity became the most profitable movie ever made, created on a mere $15,000 and accumulating over $100 million.

While I'm hesitant to say that it's $10 billion well earned, there's no doubt that 2009 had $10 billion curiously earned. Most of the blockbusters did their part, while the smaller films scattered throughout the year generally did quite well. New Moon is certainly a land mark, if only for the simple fact that a chick flick managed to open better than any amount of mechanical testosterone and warp speed nonsense in the world, while the other 28 films managing over $100 million certainly did their fair share. Who knows? Perhaps if Avatar opened in the summer and certain key blockbusters were better advertised and released, Hollywood would've made an extra billion dollars this year. Yet whatever the cause for such stellar earnings, one thing's for sure: 2010 certainly has its work cut out for it.

Ninja Assassin (Movie Review)

2009-12-16T18:17:00.000-08:00

Well this sucks. Seeing as how I can't go two pages without finding a spoiler, opinion, or score for "Avatar" online, I guess I'll have to withdraw from the internet until I'm finally able to see it sometime next week. Unfortunately I've already read a few reviews (both positive and negative), and sadly I can't change that. "Avatar" has, by no means, been ruined for me, but I really don't want to chance some other jerk spoiling any surprises more thoroughly.

Hopefully I'll have something for Tuesday. In the mean time, here's a review of a god awful movie...

... Oh, and the Iron Man 2 trailer: http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/ironman/

Ninja Assassin

Every now and then, action movies like Crank and Shoot 'Em Up come along with the audacity to ignore all established genre conventions and attempt to blaze their own trail in the mainstream. Such movies seek to reinvent the genre, or at the very least leave a mark on its hallowed pantheon. Ninja Assassin, with its frenetic action and over-the-top violence and gore, may on the surface appear to be another such film, yet its lack of charm causes it to be immediately forgettable, while the absence of any filmmaking ability makes it nearly incomprehensible.

The plot of Ninja Assassin is your standard betrayal and revenge affair, the only unique aspect of which is that it's our hero, Raizo (Korean Pop-star "Rain"), who does the betraying while his former allies are the ones on revenge. A thousand year old clan responsible for the training of ninjas hits a bit of a rough patch when they decide to go co-ed and admit orphaned girls into the program, and romance flourishes between Raizo and a female character so clichéd and generic that I couldn't be bothered to remember her name. The father of the clan is a man who's as sagely and revered as he is aggressive and extreme, and his policy of ritually murdering those who try and escape the way of the ninja doesn't sit all too well with Raizo. After being forced to wield the ceremonial sword against one of his fleeing brethren, Raizo himself defects from the clan, and goes into hiding from his former allies, as well as international police agencies clamouring to eliminate the threat of the ninja from the world entirely.

Revenge plots aren't the most sophisticated fables in the world, and Ninja Assassin's hyperbolic tale of vengeance is no more complicated than that of any other film. Yet Ninja Assassin, for whatever reason, seems to feel ashamed of its own simplicity. There's a remarkable amount of needless exposition that causes the film to become irrevocably tedious, and it bludgeons the mind so much that the audience can no longer be receptive to even the most visually interesting bits, unintelligibility notwithstanding. There's no rhythm to the sequences, be them action of expository, and Ninja Assassin takes so long to check off the routine plot points that boredom or frustration (or both) becomes inevitable.

I suppose that the chief reason for the arduous pacing is that Ninja Assassin aspires to tell two different stories and have them intersect along the way. Raizo's mission is only one half of the overarching story and, being the most violent and climactic, is largely resigned to the second half of the film. Until then, we're forced to tag along with Mika and Ryan (Naomie Harris and Ben Miles), two Europol agents who are investigating high profile assassinations believed to be executed by ninjas. If I were naïve, I'd say that this half of the story exists to add additional context. But, in all seriousness, involving police agencies is probably the only way they could reasonably add guns, explosions, and car chases, and still maintain the façade of a sober film.

In building up to that, Ninja Assassin decides to break flow further by liberally using flashbacks to demonstrate how ninjas are trained to become that peculiar paradox of a merciless and honourable killing machine from a very young age. These are the points at which I often had to remove my glasses and massage the inside corners of my eyes. I can tolerate bad acting and bad dialogue up to a certain point, but these occasions are so extensive and pervasive that my patience snaps and I seriously contemplate walking out of the theatre. These moments aren't deliberately awful lampoons, nor are they overly necessary for the proceedings. These are examples of helplessly inept filmmaking that takes the good elements of other films of the genre and, largely through botched interpretation, misuses them entirely. It's as if the filmmakers understood the value of such sequences in other films, and dutifully shoehorned them in despite the fact it contributes absolutely nothing to theirs.

I'm not above a good and irreverent action film, and I don't need excessive wit, confidence, and panache, to have a decent experience with something as rudimentary and base as Ninja Assassin. What I do need is competence, and preferably colours other than black punctuated with some sort of gelatinous neon red. There are noble ideas in here, and a more competent filmmaking team probably would've been able to pull off a perfectly serviceable, if a bit bland, eastern action flick adjusted for western attitudes. But everything it attempts to do is immediately undercut either by filmmaking ineptitude or by a complete misunderstanding of what makes these sorts of films appealing. Sadly, Ninja Assassin is resigned to rest in that deep nadir between hyperbole and camp.

* * * * * * *

Note: If you think that this is one of my poorer reviews, I can't say that I don't agree with you. Ninja Assassin is so bad that I wouldn't have even reviewed it if I weren't immensely bored. Truth be told, I'm surprised that I wrote this review at all.

Up in the Air (Movie Review)

2009-12-13T22:17:00.000-08:00

Note: Last I checked, Up in the Air is still only playing at the Varsity/Varsity VIP, so your options are pretty limited for watching this film in Toronto.

And why yes, I do intend to review Avatar, though it'll probably take a bit longer than expected. I'm going for the full blown IMAX 3-D experience which is very exciting, but this means that there's only a handful of theaters in which I can enjoy Avatar in this manner. I'll hopefully be seeing it sometime during the week of the 21st to the 25th, since I work all opening weekend and I can only imagine that Friday's completely sold out everywhere.

Up in the Air

Having only directed three feature films so far in his career, Jason Reitman is a relatively new name in Hollywood. Most people likely know him as the director of Juno from 2007, and even still may not be all too aware of him since most of the accolades for that particular film went towards Diablo Cody's barbed hipster garbage writing. Rewind your memory by one year farther, and you may perhaps recognize him as both the camera and scribe behind the underappreciated Thank You For Smoking in 2006, in which he was able to make the world sympathize with a man whose company is responsible for deaths of tens of millions of people by cigarettes. If both of those movies are beyond you, though, then it's very likely that his third feature, Up in the Air, will be too. Only being released in limited theatres last Friday (December 4th), the public reception thus far has been quite small and it's difficult to say exactly what will happen with this film come the Oscar race. However given the calibre of the writing and acting, it's hard not to imagine this film receiving multiple Academy Awards nominations, perhaps even in the newly expanded Best Picture category.

To be unjustly brief, Up in the Air is a film about the peculiar job of Ryan Bingham (George Clooney). Bingham is a man with no traditional home, although he does own a largely unfurnished and nondescript studio apartment for the rare days when he isn't travelling around America on business. He is a man whose job requires him to be in the air perpetually, flying to companies that are in need of downsizing, but which lack managers with the confidence needed to terminate redundant employees. So Bingham is dispatched to offer severance packages and booklets full of career changing advice to the people he fires (though he often stresses that the gentler term is "let go"). While it might seem like it's the glamorous jet-setting lifestyle being weighed against a job which many might find ethically reprehensible, the dilemma here is not the work but whether a person can truly live lacking genuine human connections.

In many ways, one could see Up in the Air as the evolution of Thank You For Smoking (if one were familiar with it). There's the satiric edge of Bingham's character thriving off the destruction of other people's lives, much in the same way as how Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) made his living as a spin doctor. The only real difference here is that Bingham's charisma isn't terribly necessary for his profession. Naylor's job wasn't only charming the fictional public, but also charming the audience so that they could root for a character who built his career on the pain that families suffer from cigarettes and tobacco. Bingham is much more aloof and disaffected, fully aware that he will never see or hear from those he crushes (unless in the most extreme of circumstances). His job doesn't need any measure of persuasive prowess, and quite frankly he isn't even required to sell the manufactured opportunities of forceful termination. No matter what he says, no matter how the terminated contest, and no matter how eloquent either party is, the unlucky chap gets fired and Ryan hops on another plane to another city to do it all again. He is a trigger man, put into action to do what the people who summon him can't.

Drama comes into play when Bingham's superior, Craig Gregory (Jason Bateman), takes on an ambitious Cornell grad student with designs to revolutionise his industry. The young Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) has been working on developing a program that dramatically cuts company expenditure by grounding Bingham and his 22 peers and having them perform their jobs through webcams. Without the financial burden of keeping two dozen men in the air hopping around North America, Gregory eagerly moves forward with accepting the plan. While it can be safely assumed that Bingham's 22 contemporaries would be eager to stay on the ground with their lives and families, Bingham himself is immediately shaken: his life is in the air, and his family are the thousands of anonymous airport patrons around him.

In a meeting with Gregory, Bingham stresses that personality and immediacy are what allows him to be as successful at his job as he is, and that no colloquial flow chart and list of responses will be able to supplant the face to face meeting. Personally demonstrating Keener's inexperience to undermine Gregory's confidence in the plan, Gregory puts them both in the air so that Keener can better understand what exactly it is she's trying to revolutionise, and Bingham can stay at home for a little while longer.

The forced companionship of Bingham and Keener would at first seem like a logical setup for a typical romantic comedy, especially since the insertion of Keener into his peculiar no-strings attached affair with fellow jetsetter Alex (Vera Farmiga) would be exploited to no worthwhile merit by a lesser writer/director (the young ingénue falls for her sagely mentor who himself is hung up with his globetrotting call girl). Thankfully, the satire and romance never mix and become a muddy diluted mess. Reitman devotes equal time to each element, first satire and then romance, and ensures that the loose ends are tied off neatly before moving on. When Bingham and Keener are flying around the country performing their duties, we're only occasionally reminded that Alex still exists living her life more or less the same way that Bingham does. When Keener is dismissed, Bingham becomes free to pursue Alex and reconnect with the family from which he has been essentially estranged in time for his sister's wedding. The only instance where the three leads are together is during a stint in Miami. A recently devastated Keener is largely preoccupied with her own taste of Bingham's lifestyle, while Bingham and Alex continue their affair.

Eventually, however, that pesky predominant romantic comedy cliché of the male lead risking it all does rear its ugly head as Bingham decides to ruin a good thing with Alex by yearning for something more. Such a manoeuvre would typically be a deathblow severely undermining all the meticulous characterization that had come before it, but in one of the most inspired moments of writing/directing that I've witnessed, Reitman manages to have it work in the film's favour. "Why does Bingham suddenly long for Alex so strongly when he's been perfectly content to be in that strange limbo of living completely isolated yet surrounded on all sides?" is the question that needs to be asked. It's easy to forget that as Bingham and Keener trot around America jovially terminating 1/10th of its white collar workforce, Bingham himself is facing extinction. He knows that his livelihood is in danger and he dreads having to spend more than "43 miserable days a year at home" in his dreary and bland studio apartment. Should that come to pass, as seems inevitable thanks to Keener's meddling, what better person to fix such a predicament than a woman who describes herself as "[just think of me as] you, but with a vagina." And thus Up in the Air is, at its heart, the simple story of Bingham's own unique midlife crisis. Challenged by the sharp yet ineloquent Keener and Alex's own secrets, Bingham is potentially forced to adjust to life down on the ground.

Being a character driven drama, Up in the Air's success has very little that relies on it's technical merits. As long as the shots are competently framed and the dialogue is audible, not much else needs to be demanded. When Reitman opts to pace the movie with a sense of symmetry, however, he certainly is going above and beyond the call of duty. The opening and closing shots from the sky combined with testimonies from the soon-to-be and recently unemployed bit players create a comfortable balance between the film's introduction and conclusion, and the slick camera pans during movement coupled with the quick-cut condensation of trivial acts such as packing luggage add flourish without becoming distracting. Brief moments like a darkened room of worn office chairs and wide open floors dotted with boxes of trinkets and the occasional cubicle also remind the audience of the impact and destruction Bingham's job can create.

No, sharp writing and strong performances are what lets Up in the Air succeed. While for a normal film, the strength of either the writing or the acting would compensate for the deficiency of the other, Up in the Air needed Reitman to nail both elements for the sake of the satiric edge, lest a pretentious failure result. Make no mistake; the writing is nothing short of stellar. A well paced plot and deftly delivered natural dialogue define the three leads so well that their interplay never feels arbitrary and forced. Keener's naivety despite the Ivy League education isn't contradicted because she needs to keep up with Bingham; that's what Alex is for. Alex, meanwhile, has enough confidence and conviction to mirror Bingham, while Bingham's own philosophy never suffers even when he appears to be acting against it.

Up in the Air is a fantastic film, and I'm not using that phrase lightly. All of 2009 has been largely underwhelming so far, thanks to the inability of any blockbuster to measure up to either the hype surrounding it or my personal expectations. Most of the surprises came from the lower budget films which were able to wring higher production values from such modest means, notably The Hurt Locker and Moon, offering tense and memorable experiences that films with ten times their budget failed miserably to achieve. Up in the Air continues in that same vein, offering far superior experiences at a meagre fraction of traditionally expected production costs. Everything about Up in the Air is fresh, airplane sealed or otherwise.

Article #9: "Bench dedication marks 20 years since Montreal Massacre" + Previous two crosswords

2009-12-03T23:08:00.000-08:00

Note: I asked my editor if I could just use this article to talk about the benches exclusively and say absolutely nothing about the Montreal Massacre. Sadly, no. While we all agree that benches are far more important than violence against women, we weren't entirely sure that everyone else would too.

Additionally, "The National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women" is the worst title for anything ever. I cannot believe that when they established this thing on a national level, no one thought that the title was a bit on the lengthy side and in fact quite dreadful.

On Friday December 4^th, 2009, U of T will be holding ceremonies across all three campuses to commemorate the 20^th anniversary of the Montreal Massacre. The National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women was established to mark the tragedy, when Marc Lepine slaughtered 14 women at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal on December 6^th, 1989.

While U of T holds ceremonies every year to mark the incident, this year the university will dedicate two benches adorned with commemorative plaques at Hart House. One bench will display a plaque about remembrance, while the other will feature a plaque about the importance of action in making change.

“Hart House is proud to support the U of T Status of Women Office in leading the December 6^th memorial and bench dedication ceremony in the Great Hall,” says Tara Bassett, Senior Communications Officer at Hart House. “This commemorative service is in line with Hart House’s dedication to educating and empowering the community to overcome issues related to diversity and social justice.”

The significance of the plaques lies in the importance of establishing a continuing context and dialogue about what can be done to make a difference.

"In the coming years, the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre in Montreal will be older than many undergraduate students at U of T,” says Connie Guberman, Officer from the Status of Women Office. “For this reason, the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women is becoming less about merely remembering the incident and more about illustrating how issues of violence against women are still relevant, both locally and internationally. It’s about how each and every one of us, both individually and collectively, can work towards change.”

Unfortunately, this year’s events fall on a difficult day. Academic pressure due to the exams and final classes of the semester may lead many people who are passionate about the cause to overlook the ceremony. Being aware of this, the Status of Women Office has placed brief tips and suggestions for those interested in the events and raising awareness about violence against women on their website at www.status-women.utoronto.ca.

The ceremonies commence on Friday, December 4^that 12:15 p.m. in the Great Hall at Hart House, and at 12:00 p.m. in AA303 at UTSC and the Student Centre Presentation Room at UTM.

--- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Crossword #9

Crossword #10

(The site I use to host images is down at the moment, so I'll throw up the links sometime tomorrow. As for answer keys, I just can't be bothered anymore.)

--- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Today was the last day of classes for the term, which means I can now get back to my vegetative lifestyle of doing bugger all for about a month. Although I do have four exams, unfortunately spread rather evenly throughout the exam period, for which I’ll still have to study. Thankfully, at least, I no longer have to leave the house to do so.

Two of my courses were really quite awful this term, so I reckon I’ll be writing a bit about them shortly to let off some steam. Come to think of it, the two excellent courses when weighed with the two terrible courses balance out to be yet another session of bland adequacy. Next term should most definitely be better, however, what with the continuation of intermediate Latin and Greek and a Roman Republic course I’m eagerly anticipating. The only potential poor decision would be Classical Literature in Translation since it’s not a subject I’m terribly crazy about. But it is a 300-level course which goes towards a Classical Civilizations Major and I do know the guy who’s doing it, so it should be alright.

I’ll only be getting four credits over the course of the fall/winter session, which is one less than I had planned. This is because I’ve regressed to my belief that it’s better to do four credits well than five credits poorly. But since I still want to be done with my undergrad in four years, I’ve already planned ahead for an additional two credits over the summer to put me back on track. Furthermore, it looks as if I’ll be doing four credits over the fall/winter and one credit over the summer for the last two years as well.

Why do I bring this up? Because at this rate I’ll have been at summer school every single year from 2004 to 2012. This is not a reality with which I’m particularly comfortable, and is in fact quite indicative of my inaptitude to actually get things done.

Crosswords #8; Answer Key for Crossword #7

2009-11-18T21:54:00.000-08:00

Once again, I have nothing for this week. Partly because of my utter indifference towards The Newspaper as of late, partly because I've actually been fairly busy getting myself in order for the last weeks of class and the upcoming exams.

I don't think I'll be doing anything for next week's issue either. I really just want to finish off the last batch of classes and assignments, and be done with the fall term.

Crossword #8

Crossword #7 Answer Key

Crosswords #7; Answer Key for Crossword #6

2009-11-11T21:17:00.000-08:00

Despite the rare occurrence of a 12 page issue being printed (the norm is 8 pages), I have nothing to contribute except the crossword. There was nothing available, which is in itself another rare occurrence. I'm not complaining, though. I won't be going to the writer's meeting tomorrow, so I have a four day weekend with nothing to spoil the fun.

Perhaps I'll busy myself by taking in a movie on Friday, since I haven't seen anything since the Toy Story 1 and 2 Double Feature in 3D. Hopefully either 2012 or Fantastic Mr. Fox will showing at the Coliseum Scarborough, otherwise I'll just watch the Office (UK) for the third time (again, I'm not complaining).

Crossword #7

Crossword #6 Answer Key

Note: They neither print the answer key, nor post it online. If they are not going to bother doing either, then I am not going to bother spending an hour tiring my wrist making it. A list of answers will suffice.

Newspaper concerns

2009-11-05T21:48:00.000-08:00

Now that The Newspaper has a more functional website that actually updates and kind of looks nice, you should probably start visiting it regularly and have a look at all the content.

Or at least my content.

We really appreciate it.

Perhaps I've finally gone crazy, but I'm starting to think that the changes that my editors make in my articles aren't exactly for the better. I can understand the need to tweak bits and pieces for the sake of efficiency, layout, word counts, etc., but in comparing what they publish to what I put up here... I think my versions are better.

Alright, alright, so my Antichrist review was admittedly 100 words over limit, but was it really a justifiable sacrifice to butcher the piece for the sake of including a picture?*

But with the Disability Studies bit… some of the gentler nuances were really thrown off. For example…

Extract from the printed version:

Michalko, affably referred to as “Rod” by colleagues and students alike, has chosen not to directly address the issue of his contract.

“What people want is a continued presence of Disability Studies at U of T,” he said. While he wholeheartedly encourages the Save Disability Studies campaign at U of T, he said he is hesitant to say too much lest the attention be focused squarely on his contract, and not on the larger issue.

Extract from the Confederate Wing version:

Dr. Rod Michalko himself, affably referred to as simply ‘Rod’ by colleagues and students alike, has chosen to remain silent about the situation. “What people want is a continued presence of disability studies at U of T,” is all that Rod wishes to say. While he wholeheartedly encourages the ‘Save Disability Studies at U of T’ campaign, he is hesitant to say too much lest the attention be focused squarely on his contract and not on the larger issue.

Both versions contradict themselves by having a direct quote right after a line explaining that there would be no direct quotes. But at least mine immediately explains that the quote given is all that possibly could be wringed from him. The printed version strikes me as being an obvious contradiction, while mine softens the anomaly.

Also, the printed version splits the infinitive (chosen not to directly address the issue of his contract should be chose not to address the issue of his contract directly).

To me, it’s almost as if the new editors are trying to assert the lofty position they in all honesty just stumbled into over the summer by fixing what isn’t necessarily broken. I’m all for making changes for the better, but I’m not entirely convinced that what they do to my articles are such changes.

Or maybe I’m just picking harmless nits. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a job well done as long as no one complains. So far, that hasn’t happened (yet).

*Actually, I’d probably go with the picture too. People will be more likely to read something that’s close to a suggestive image. I think more people would read a butchered review next to a photo of a woman in ecstasy than a proper review with nothing to lead the eye to it. Hardly anyone would notice it. If I were the editor, I’d go for the picture too.

Articles #7 and #8: "Save Disability Studies campaign fights back" and "Anti-like Antichrist" (plus crossword #6 and the answers to #5)

2009-11-04T20:15:00.000-08:00

On October 16^th, Dr. Rod Michalko, renowned disability studies scholar and educator, was informed by New College’s Acting Principal, Shahrzad Mojab, that his three year teaching contract would not be renewed. In the days following New College’s decision, significant student outcry in the form of online petitions and the ‘Save Disability Studies at U of T’ campaign, led by Isabel Lay, Chair of the Equity Studies Student Union, has caused the University to reconsider. On October 29^th, the announcement that Dr. Rod Michalko’s contract would be renewed was made, yet this victory has not convinced supporters of the disability studies movement that the problem has been solved.

“Education should reflect the needs and wants of the students,” said Isabel Lay in her speech to supporters outside Sidney Smith Hall on Tuesday November 3^rd. “Disability studies students are aware of the deliberate cuts. It’s time for the administration to react to the disability studies movement; time to allow the students to participate in disability studies streams.”

Disability studies, a stream of the equity studies program at New College, is an astonishingly fragile area. Dr. Rod Michalko is the only instructor at the undergraduate level, which renders the field of study nonexistent at U of T should his contract not be renewed.

However the excuse that the University is trimming dead weight is inapplicable. If not as evidenced from the overwhelming support from students and colleagues, then from the soaring demand for Dr. Michalko’s courses that he alone cannot meet. His waitlists overflow with students eager to learn from him, and even the University recognized his excellence and achievements by awarding him the Dean’s Special Merit award.

“Stabilizing the disability studies stream is top priority for equity studies and New College,” writes June Larkin, Director of Equity Studies and VP of New College, in our email correspondence. “Students have made their voices heard and have strengthened our hand as we work towards a permanent disability studies presence of U of T.”

What the ‘Save Disability Studies at U of T’ campaign desires most is permanency. Indeed the aim of just one tenured position for disability studies remains to be achieved, but considering the demand for Dr. Rod Michalko’s skills and the support of Isabel Lay’s campaign, it’s an entirely reasonable request.

Isabel, on the other hand, is more than willing to speak on behalf of all the supporters of disability studies at U of T. “We want to see the University make an ongoing commitment to disability studies, not half-assed extensions year after year,” she shouts in her speech outside Sidney Smith Hall before Rod’s scheduled lecture. “We will continue campaigning until Disability Studies has a permanent home at U of T.”

--- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Antichrist is a film by Danish director Lars von Trier, perhaps most well known for directing Dogville in 2003.

When Antichrist premiered at Cannes, four people are known to have fainted as a result of some of the graphic imagery on display, and such occurrences are said to have plagued the film even up to its debut in Toronto.

Such questionable content includes multiple aggressive sexual sequences, a man having his genitals crushed by a hefty block of wood, and a woman slicing off her own clitoris with a pair of rusty scissors.

However despite what the above scenes may lead you to believe, Antichrist is far from being as horrendous as any given Saw or Hostel film. Shots depicting bloody carnage don’t linger for very long and indeed they are few and far between, largely occurring only during the third act.

The film’s story concerns a couple (Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg) grieving after the death of their son. The two retreat to their cabin in the woods in order to repair their relationship, where the woman descends into madness and begins to torture her husband (both characters are nameless).

While Antichrist is being sold on its controversy, the incendiary scenes in question occur only in the admittedly stirring introductory sequence and during the final sequences. This leaves an hour long nadir of psychobabble connecting the bits for which those curious enough have paid money.

Yet even with such tedium, Antichrist isn’t entirely without merit. The introduction and epilogue, filmed in monochrome and set to Handel, display Anthony Don Mantle’s excellent cinematography, and Willem and Charlotte’s talents occasionally make von Trier’s drab dialogue crackle.

But it must be said that common audience will only see Antichrist for its controversy and not for its intermittent artistic merits. With that expectation in mind, Antichrist is not worth the time.

--- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Crossword #6

Crossword #5 Answers

Article #6: U of T students Trick or Eat (plus crossword #5 and the answers to #4)

2009-10-28T21:06:00.000-07:00

Note (10/29/09): The article as posted here was actually quite dramatically rearranged for the printed issue. Not that I mind at all, but geez... I didn't think it was that great either, but you didn't have to use it for the main story. Surely something more newsworthy happened?

--- --- --- --- --- --- ---

For many university students, Halloween is now more about dressing up in sexy iterations of iconic horror staples than anything else. The time when we could innocently suit up in ghastly attire and go door to door pestering the neighbours for sweets has long passed, and a god-awful Saw sequel has since become more synonymous with the holiday than disappointed dentists.

This isn’t to say that the annual romp through the neighbourhood as Count Orlok (or Edward Cullen) is now beneath us. You simply have to supplant your former childlike glee with world weary awareness and join similar like minded individuals on a quest to make the world a better a place. If that sounds appealing to you, then consider joining “Trick or Eat,” a program created by the student-run, student-driven charity Meal Exchange.

“Meal Exchange is a national registered charity with chapters across over 35 Canadian campuses,” says Tala Khoury, coordinator of the U of T St. George campus chapter of Meal Exchange. “We aim to alleviate local hunger by raising awareness about the 2.7 million Canadians who are hungry, and run programs/fundraisers, whose proceeds are donated to a local food bank. We want to empower students to give back to their communities, and solve the issues that plague their cities.”

Rahul Raj, a student at the Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo Ontario, created Meal Exchange in 1993. As the scholastic year came to an end, he found himself faced with a large number of meals and wondered what to do with them. Such a quandary inspired him to create “Skip a Meal," a program which allows students to donate their unused meals to their local food banks, and consequently inspired other similar initiatives.

As time marched on, Meal Exchange has come to grow and run more programs centred on fighting local poverty. Chief among them is “Trick or Eat,” which just last year saw 5,991 participants raise nearly $23,000 and accumulate enough food for 149,112 meals.

“Trick or Eat happens on Halloween, and gives university students the excuse to go trick-or-treating again, but with a twist,” continues Tala Khoury. “Instead of collecting candy, we will be collecting canned food and other non-perishables by going door to door in the residential areas around the St. George Campus. All the proceeds this year will be donated to the Fort York Food Bank.”

Meal Exchange has rolled candy, costumes and charity into one annual event. It’s about time that such a cause was created to cater to the magnanimous university student with a fondness for Halloween and a sweet tooth. If you’d like to spend this Halloween touring the neighbourhood with a pillowcase full of non-perishables in one hand (and perhaps another for the treats you’d so richly deserve this year in the second), head to www.mealexchange.com for more details.

--- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Crossword #5

Crossword #4 Answers

Crosswords!

2009-10-21T19:51:00.000-07:00

The thought occurs that while I've been making crosswords for a month now, I haven't been uploading them here like I tend to do with most things in which I have a modicum of pride. Not only that, but my primary reader is someone who's bored in an office all day long, which means that I'm actively depriving time killing fodder from someone who genuinely needs it. Seeing as I've been feeling rather charitable as of late (raucous laughter), I've decided to throw up the crosswords I've done thus far.

Here are the four crosswords I've made so far this year, as well as the answer keys to the first three.

Just as a warning, the first crossword is a bit wonky. The words intersect with each other several times and it's quite difficult to think of words that work when it starts to get filled up. Case and point: think of a word that works in the following: _ M _ L _ T _ E _. Yeah, That's what I thought. Luckily, I've learned my lesson and try to keep most words from intersecting with each other more than a couple of times. Not only does it make my job easier, but it makes for more interesting grids. The fourth grid in particular turned out surprisingly well, despite my strange desire to keep with the odd theme I decided upon.

Anyway, the plan is to make a crossword for the paper every week, so this will actually be quite a regular thing for the next little while. Crossword #4 will be published tomorrow, Thursday October 22nd, with the answers for last week's crossword, #3. Starting now, I'll try to make a point of posting here everything that goes into the Thursday paper the Wednesday night before.

Having said that, I have no article for this week, so just try and enjoy the four crosswords if you feel so inclined. #5 and the answers for #4 will be up next Wednesday.

Crosswords

Answers

End Note: If, for whatever reason, the links aren't working out, let me know and I'll spend another half hour fiddling with the bloody things to make them work. They should be perfectly fine, though.

Article #5: U of T makes THE grade: Times Higher Education report card is something to write home about

2009-10-15T21:31:00.000-07:00

(Note: Okay, so maybe I did write this headline. But the line below it [err... 'next to it'] is someone else's invention. This article made the front page and is the week's main story, so I suppose I take a bit of pride in that. There's also a little graph beneath the article comparing the ranks of U of T, McGill, University College London, and University of California Berkeley, but I'm too tired to fiddle with it right now.)

--- --- --- --- --- --- ---

U of T is now the 29^th best university in the world, according to the Times Higher Education – QS World University Rankings for 2009. The list, published on October 8^th at www.topuniversities.com, sifts through the over 9000 worldwide institutions recognized as universities to rank the 621 best. According to QS World University Rankings, Harvard is still the top university in the world with Cambridge and Yale at #2 and #3 respectively. McGill continues to outrank U of T as the top Canadian university overall. Still, all this may very well be besides the point as U of T finds pride in the hidden details of the list.

Times Higher Education (THE) compiles each top university list by considering a variety of factors and weighing the overall scores against other institutions. The three critical points of interest that together account for 80% of the overall grade are academic peer review, student faculty ratio, and citations per faculty. The remaining 20% is split between employer review and international faculty and student consideration.

“We feel that too much emphasis has been placed on statistics that can be skewed and manipulated,” says Robert Steiner, Assistant VP of Strategic Communications. “Relying on ratios does not always reflect the best.”

The rating system certainly isn’t infallible. There are indeed oddities to the list, and one needs only to gingerly scratch the surface to expose a few. The most peculiar aspect of the list, and certainly the aspect worthy of the most attention, is how the overall rank of the universities does not necessarily offer an honest reflection of the individual broad faculties that comprise them.

U of T offers a great example of this anomaly; we’re ranked #11 in Arts and Humanities, #8 in Engineering and Technology, #11 in Life Sciences and Biomedicine, #14 in Natural Sciences, and #15 in Social Sciences, yet the whole is apparently worth considerably less than the sum of its parts considering U of T’s placement overall.

Another startling example is found in the University of California Berkeley, ranked ten spots below U of T at #39, but comfortably sitting in the top five of each broad faculty. On the other end of the spectrum is University College London, ranked #4 overall regardless of being well below both U of T and Berkeley in each broad faculty.

“U of T’s global strength is the breadth of our leadership,” says U of T President David Naylor. “Many research universities build their reputation on one or two areas of strength. That’s why it’s gratifying that academic peers rank us in the top 15 across all major fields surveyed.”

U of T takes far more pride in its individual faculty rankings than its overall position, and its students should too. Such high, balanced scores across the broad faculties are worth more than any overall position. “When a student looks at international institutions for graduate school, it is important that their U of T degree measures up,” says Steiner. “Only five of six universities in the world consistently rank in the top 16 in every field. We’re proud to be one of them.”

--- --- --- --- --- --- ---

I finally received the mark for my Architecture paper, although I sort of wish I didn't. Apparently my TA can't tell stellar writing from mushy Alpha-Bits, and I only got a 50% (that's the mark on the portal, anyway). Depending on what the comments on the paper itself actually are, I may end up disputing this. I mean Christ, I wrote a polished essay a bit beyond the word count and included lots of pictures. I'm not at all keen to enter the architecture program, but I at least expect the mark received to reflect the work put into it, which at the very least I had hoped to be a 65% (I was never aiming particularly high in this course).

So here I am once again, using Confederate Wing to think out loud. I need the credits to finish my undergrad in four years, but I'm not happy about adding anything less than a 2.3 (C+) to my already less than impressive GPA thank-you-very-much-shitty-linguistics-course. If I can't change my essay mark and the midterm turns out to be not much better, it looks as if I'll be dropping Architecture. At this point, it won't be missed.

In all honesty, I'll probably never care much for any course that starts at 9AM.

Article #4: The 6th Annual Disability Pride Celebration in Toronto

2009-10-07T21:40:00.000-07:00

A blustery Monday afternoon saw dozens of Toronto’s most remarkable unsung citizens attend the Annual Disability Pride Day festival at Nathan Phillips Square. This event, now six years old and eagerly looking forward to future anniversaries, is designed not only to celebrate the lives and identities of disabled citizens, but also to remind the province of its commitments to increasing accessibility for all.

Created by Simply People, this festival first began five years ago as a humble downtown march, an inaugural event that saw 20 people trek from Yonge and Dundas Square to Nathan Phillips Square. At the end of the hike, five sponsors and an estimated 50 attendees participated in a public event to make known the accessibility challenges that continue to face the special needs citizens of Toronto.

Uzma Kahn, one of the founders of the festival, joked in her opening speech that the very first march might have been a tad ambitious given the initial turnout, but notes that the continued growth of the event makes event organizers hopeful that the festival’s 10^th anniversary might see the return of a similar trek.

A common criticism of such pride events is often directed at how groups seeking special recognition for their right to be treated equally might be construed as somewhat paradoxical. David Lepofsky, Chair of the AODA Alliance (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Acts) and one of the distinguished speakers for the event, however, places the event’s significance on the fundamental rights of human beings instead of flimsy social and media recognition. While Ontario leads the rest of the provinces with regard to accessibility standards and legislative efforts, full accessibility to everyone remains an ideal to be reached. The honourable David C. Onley, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, emphasized in his speech his commitment to creating full accessibility for all people regardless of capability, as did the dozens of sponsors encircling the festival and all attendees within.

The 6^th Annual Disability Pride Day festival does have an agenda to advance, and they aim to see that agenda through to its completion. Ontario has pledged full accessibility province-wide by 2025, and according to Simply People, we’re not on par to make that deadline. The Disability Pride Day exists to remind the city of its commitment, and to make all its residents aware of the needs of those who face unique challenges and the changes that need to be made to accommodate them. “We want strong access standards,” bellows David Lepofsky during his speech. This event will be held year after year to keep that demand in mind.

--- --- --- --- --- --- ---

The Invention of Lying isn't worth watching. If there's no decent releases coming out on Friday, I'll expand on that statement then.

Zombieland (Movie Review)

2009-10-04T19:06:00.000-07:00

Zombieland

Is there really any point in summarizing the plot of a zombie movie anymore, or even bothering with a vague introduction to the genre and what to expect? To be entirely blunt, chances are that if you know what a zombie is, you know what Zombieland is about; some unlucky chap gets infected with an incurable virus that spreads like the bubonic plague, turning boring and uninteresting people into boring and uninteresting people that have suddenly abandoned the sedentary North American lifestyle and are now craving brains instead of Starbucks. Only the sly, crafty and resourceful have survived, roaming the wastelands independently for salvation. Oh, and the Halo playing console junkies have also survived (or at least one of them has). Who would've guessed that the double tap is not only a valuable life saving skill, but rule #2 of zombie pandemic survival?

Like any good disaster/apocalypse/survival movie, the cause of the current state of emergency is resigned to being a mere footnote, casually dropped once early on for speculation before being glossed over as if doesn't matter at all. But for what it's worth, zombies in this universe originated from an undercooked meal consumed by patient zero, and it's quite refreshing to see that a zombie movie is so sarcastically glib about what many would hold up as being a primary detail. Truthfully, exposition should hardly be on anyone's mind when watching this type of movie, so perhaps Zombieland will be remarkable for moving the genre away from trite bio-weaponry science-fiction nonsense and societal tirades into the fluffy gore the topic should always have been about. It certainly doesn't have that much else to offer, that's for sure.

You see, for as far as sheer creativity and fun is concerned, Zombieland leaves a bit to be desired. The movie is more of a celebration or amalgamation of zombie culture in general (for better or worse), and in this way the movie relies more on the ideas of other such genre examples instead of bringing new ones to the table. We have Shaun of the Dead's "zombies leave other zombies alone," the impact and ferocity of the cannon fodder from 28 Days Later, two variations on a Resident Evil mansion, and a leading cast resembling something you might discover in "Left 4 Shaun of the Dead" (if it were real). Since Zombieland itself is presented as a zombie apocalypse survival after school special, complete with the odd rule reminder, the whole movie feels a bit dull and lifeless before it even gets off the ground. The leading character, Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), even offers narration periodically, and unfortunately this places the events in a distant, completed context lessening the immediacy and impact of the surprises.

In general, Zombieland lacks the whimsy and energy that made the previews so enticing. The best thing it offers, the theme park zombie massacre extravaganza, is a relatively small part of the package resigned to the third act. The road getting there is a somewhat bland road of little consequence, occasionally peppered with the odd witticism, insight or encounter. Sure, there's the occasional clever joke and intermittent interesting kill, but by resting too much on its fascination with its material, Zombieland fails to carve out an identity of its own.

[There would've been a picture here, but Chrome is quite finicky about image scaling. Just pretend that there's a picture of the main characters (Columbus, Wichita, Little Rock, and Tallahassee) standing in front of the camera holding shotguns and looking all badass like, and you'll get the gist of it.]

Woody Harrelson (far right) has the most fun in this movie, and Emma Stone (third from right) also has her occasional moments, but I find it quite odd that these characters bond reluctantly and not because their relationships were forged in the fires of badassery.

Additionally, Zombieland is filled with bizarre little anomalies that leave hairline fractures all over the premise, the biggest discrepancy for me is lying in the capabilities of leading man Columbus. Perhaps it's just me, but I personally find it strange that a person living on pizza, Mountain Dew, and World of Warcraft for weeks at a time would enjoy the benefits of impressive cardio during the zombie apocalypse. There's also banter in the script that leaves a few questions lingering in my mind. When the four heroes hold up in a Beverly Hills mansion for the second act, Columbus and Wichita (Emma Stone) have the requisite romantic interest scene, in which we're treated to fond memories of their eighth grade selves in 1997. The superfluous character building pause on its own is enough to break momentum, but pay attention to the details and certain truths don't connect as seamlessly as they should. Thirteen year olds in 1997 create twenty-five year olds in 2009. The way Columbus and Wichita look and are written is more indicative of people who just got out of high school and would be preparing for college if, you know, the world hadn't gone to hell. Couple that with the twelve year old Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) and the fact that we have a pair of sisters separated by over a decade, and the narrative starts becoming a bit askew. Thankfully, Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) is completely separated by the messy chronology. He is the man on whom the success of the film relies, and, quite frankly, he is a perfect fit for the simple man cum redneck renegade zombie slaying virtuoso who'd risk life and limb for a mere twinkie.

I'd be lying if I said that Zombieland weren't a difficult movie on which to form an opinion. There is indeed the subversive ironic tone that permeates the film, some interesting scenarios, and some astute critiques of the genre, but there's also the fact that the best moments of the film were not entirely of invention, occasionally appearing to echo other such films. I enjoyed Zombieland quite a bit, but I doubt that the average person would enjoy it to the same degree as I did. Without its peers to support it, Zombieland is neither funny, nor scary, nor gory enough to stand independently. Regardless there will always be a special place for it in the genre's pantheon.

ARC 131 Essay

2009-09-30T22:17:00.000-07:00

ARC 131 HIF: Introduction to Architecture

Project No. 1: Experiencing Architecture

Walk Two: The East Campus

20i. John M. Kelly Library

During the 1960s, the St. Michael’s College Library at Carr Hall, the St. Basil’s Seminary Library at 95 St. Joseph’s Street, and the Library of the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies at the Queen’s Park Crescent Building, were all rapidly expanding and quickly nearing a point where their current facilities could no longer meet the demands of their collections and patrons. Together, the three libraries maintained a growing collection of nearly 120,000 volumes, and the university fell under pressure to combine the three separate libraries into one building as a result of the increasing undergraduate population.

In 1966, college librarian Fr. J. Bernard Black met with various people involved in the management of the three libraries, including Margaret McGrath, Fr. Harold Gardner, and Fr. Donald Finley, in order to plan a new facility. These four people submitted their preliminary plans for the new building in August 1966 whereupon Fr. John Kelly, then President of theUniversity of St. Michael’s College, assigned a building committee and authority in December of that same year. One acre of land was purchased at 113 St. Joseph’s Street in January 1967, and Fr. J. Bernard Black’s building program was approved one month later. Construction of the new facility began in 1968 to the designs of the undistinguished architect John J. Farrugia, and the building was completed one year later. The St. Michael’s College Library, now better known as the John. M. Kelly Library, officially opened in July of 1969, and celebrated its 40^th anniversary this past summer.

The John M. Kelly Library is a reinforced concrete building of four stories encompassing a total area 102,500 square feet on one acre of land. The ground level is open for public use, containing a café and lounge on the east end of the floor, computer commons to the south, reference material to the south-east, and the front desk to the west. The library is entered just south of St. Joseph Street via one of four entry points designated by a somewhat impeding turnstile on the eastern front nearest to the café, whereas there are only two exit points convenient to the front desk. There is also one access point specifically dedicated to wheelchair accessibility in addition to the aforementioned portals. The ground level is the most spacious of the library’s four floors, perhaps because it provides a variety of functions and receives the most use. The computer commons are what the patron sees first upon entering the library, as it is situated straight ahead of the entrance and takes up a considerable amount of the floor space. The few shelves housing the reference material are located to the east of the computer commons, flanked on all sides by tables and chairs, which have ample space between each other to allow for accessibility concerns and comfortable manoeuvring between them. Access to the remaining levels of the library is granted by three stairwells, one to the east beyond the reference material and two to the west beyond the front desk. An elevator is also available to patrons requiring such assistance near the western stairwells.

The two floors above the ground level are where the library stacks are located. The stacks are contained within the centre of the floor, surrounded on the north and south sides by smaller common areas with desks and chairs, and accessed from the stairwells situated on the east and west sides. The fourth floor is currently used for storage and can only accessed by the building’s maintenance crew and library staff.

Ceiling height is identical between the second, third, and fourth floors of the building, but the ground level is slightly taller; not tall enough to make a considerable difference, but still tall enough to be noticed. The ground level is 3.3 meters high, yet the remaining three floors are 18% lower being only 2.7 meters high. The additional height on the ground level, coupled with the deep, hollow pockets visible in the reinforced concrete grid ceiling where it is occasionally exposed, do manage to create a more airy space. The openness created by the loftier ceiling on the ground level could perhaps cause the higher levels to feel somewhat cramped in comparison, although the same vaulted grid does occasionally appear in areas originally dedicated for tables and chairs on the remaining floors.

Geometrically, the building in its entirety resembles a cube. Although the height of the building is not equal to its width or length, and the combination of the corrugated panels and angular hoods around the windows destroy much of core perpendicular nature of the exterior, nevertheless the building in its design as a whole is dictated by the prominent stone pillars that run throughout it. 64 square pillars are fully exposed, both outside and inside, and are placed equidistantly apart. Eight pillars each run both the width and length of the building, thus one might divide each floor of the building into 49 compartments as created by the grid the pillars establish. Strengthening this rhythm are the narrow windows, which occur five times between each pillar. Viewing the front of the building from St. Joseph Street, the spectator cannot resist being overwhelmed by the 105 hooded, narrow windows looking down upon them (five windows occur in each of the seven spaces between the eight pillar latitude run on the second, third, and fourth floors, thus creating 105 windows).

The powerful rhythm does not encircle the entire building, however. Only the first two floors obey the eight by eight pillar grid, while the third and fourth floors are collapsed by two pillars longitudinally creating an eight by six pillar grid. Interruptions also occur on the east and west exterior walls. Since there are no windows in the stairwells, those outside sections are comparatively undistinguished, adopting neither the corrugation around the first floor exterior perimeter nor the narrow hoods of the remaining floors’ windows. The motif returns at the south facing exterior wall as seen from the alleyway, in fact somewhat further amplified there by the corrugated sheets that run the entire length as they compete with the introduction of varying window sizes, but it only lasts for two stories before suddenly stopping as the third and fourth floors do not extend as far south. Strangely, the southern exterior of the third and fourth stories is simple bare brick. While I do not know the reason for this, it could perhaps merely be that the high southern wall is not easy to see, only being visible from uncommon vantages points at the southern alleyway and if one is examining the exterior of the building thoroughly.

Yet while the bland stairwell exteriors break the pattern established by the narrow windows, nevertheless they do manage to increase the symmetry between the east and west facing exteriors. The hooded windows stop after two occurrences beyond the stairwell on the third and fourth floor, while the ground level’s exterior corrugation and second floor’s hooded windows continue to wrap around the eastern, southern, and western walls. Thus, when one compares the eastern and western exteriors, they are indeed quite architecturally similar, unified by the second floor motif despite variations in ground level fenestration.

One final unique element of the exterior is its angular nature. Where the corrugated sheets occur, they slant slightly inward towards the building from the base on the first level. Next, they angle more dramatically at the very top where windows allow sunlight to sharply enter the building through a narrow portal. Following that, the walls then flatten briefly before the hoods surrounding the windows occur. Thus, there is an obtuse angle where the first and second floors meet that is thrust against sharper repeated angles above it. These angles create the illusion that the building is pushing outwards above the second floor; an illusion more dramatic considering that there is an exterior void on the front of the building five pillars wide by two pillars deep on the first floor.

The building is filled by both natural sunlight and two types of artificial lighting. Sunlight enters the building through narrow rhythmically spaced windows roughly within two feet of each other. Since the library was built with the concern of harsh sunlight and glare in mind, every narrow window is shielded by an awning on the outside, designed in order to lessen the abrasiveness of overly vibrant sunshine. Additional light control is offered by Venetian blinds that can be easily and accurately controlled via a minute dial in the bottom right hand corner of every window. The blinds, as well as the window frame, are matte black to absorb light and provide as tight a seal as possible. A compromise was made when the designers decided to sandwich the blinds between windows, however. The obvious benefit is that interference with the shades by the patrons is impossible, lessening the likelihood of the blinds being damaged and tampered with and thereby easing their maintenance. Yet when the blinds are completely shut, the matte black behind the reflective window surface creates a mirror that some might see as being distracting. Regardless, the comparatively minor potential inconvenience is a small sacrifice for total control over natural lighting.

Inside the building, the first type of artificial lighting is offered by the fluorescent lights that line the ceiling above the book shelves, and are deliberately spaced to occur in the centre of every pair of stacks. Not only does this create optimum lighting for the browsing patron, it coordinates with the rhythm established by the narrow windows. The fluorescent lights runlongitudinally along the ceilings, meeting in the centre of each window at both ends in a straight line, thus creating a harmonious symmetry. This phenomenon is most evident on the second floor where the stacks alternate with the narrow windows and natural lights for the breadth of the building. The only interruption in this symmetry occurs where common areas, spaces littered with desks and chairs for the patrons, break the lines established by the window/stack rhythm.

The second type of artificial lighting is provided by sky lights located deep in the reinforced concrete checkerboard grid occasionally exposed in some areas in the building. This design is a constant feature of the ceiling on all floors of the building, but was covered by the fluorescent lighting method in all places where the stacks were placed underneath them. The idea presented is that the skylights would not offer adequate illumination for the patron perusing the library shelves. The only areas were the concrete grid is left exposed are where the stacks are not located, either currently or at some point in the past. The grid is still exposed above most common areas, however, the warm incandescent skylights offering a respite from the dominating white glow of the fluorescent lights that surround them. Curiously, there are spots in the building where the concrete is exposed above library stacks, indicating that the floor-plan witnessed today has been changed and tweaked over time. Given that the building was deliberately designed with its function as a library in mind, it is safe to surmise that one might be able to determine the original floor-plan by following the trends set by the lights.

Unfortunately, the same ingenuity applied to addressing lighting and rhythm concerns was not applied to aesthetic and sound detailing. Every wall is coated in the same murky beige that mars the walls of most buildings of this type; an unsightliness softened by neither the grey pillars, nor the dark windows and shelves, nor any other repeated colour throughout the library. Variation occurs in the various vibrant paints used in the stairwells, however, and the books themselves in their sporadically coloured covers ease the garishness of the core décor.

The only precaution taken against anything disrupting traditional library silence, aside from common courtesy, is the carpeting. While it is doubtful that the carpet is of a remarkable sound absorbent cloth, any cushioning at all to absorb the annoying steps of passer-bys is foresight enough. The well worn hardcover books also take in a great deal of the extraneous third party noise, even serving to lessen the sound made when the cold metal shelves occasionally crash together as a result of careless patrons.

Removing the stacks, desks, tables, and chairs that fill the library, each floor is remarkably open. Only the areas on the western sides of the second, third, and fourth floors have any permanent features and compartments that cannot be easily removed, while such features primarily exist in the southern part of the building on the first floor. In fact, the 64 square pillars bear virtually the entire weight of the building, indicating that even the more permanent partitions could be stripped out without affecting the structural integrity. Such versatility means that repurposing the building as an office space or even low-rise apartment complex would not be excessively difficult.

The John M. Kelly is certainly a unique building, the main strength of which lies in the powerful rhythm of the window and pillar motif that commands the northern exterior. The weight felt from such a sight immediately engages the patron, while its many sharp angles created from the cobbled corrugation and hooded windows hold our attention unremittingly. The additional test of the weight bearing pillars by the daring ground level canopy also increases the impressiveness of this peculiar model. Even though the open floors inside the building make it flexible for future use outside its current purpose, the lines created by the stacks in relation to the windows and fluorescent lights clearly indicate that use as a library will always be the ideal function. Some might remark that the exterior is unpleasant and that the interior is drab, and in the latter case they may be right, but examining the relationships between the well-built pillars and the utilitarian window awnings should reveal the ingenuity of the overall design. A powerful building indeed.

Article #3: Toronto's first man-made natural park

2009-09-24T20:23:00.000-07:00

Note: Especially for this article, I'd like to emphasize again that I am NOT responsible for this terrible, terrible title.

--- --- --- --- --- --- ---

It appears as if the pressure to “Go Green” has finally evolved beyond the choice between biodegradable bags and hybrid cars. Now even your toddler has the opportunity to make a sustainable choice about where they play, thanks to the opening of the City of Toronto’s first Natural Playground, a park deliberately designed to reconnect children with experiencing nature during their playtimes. The McCleary park at Queen St. E and McGee St. in Leslieville is home to this first, and is currently in the process of being finalized for public use.

So why was Leslieville chosen? “Several sites were considered, but Leslieville was chose as the playground that was in need of an upgrade. There are a high number of children in the neighbourhood, and the City had slated funds to upgrade the park,” writes Bruce Sudds, Vice-President of development at Bienenstock, the leading North American natural playground company, in our email correspondence.

At Leslieville, 60% of the materials involved in the park’s construction came from natural resources already available in the area. In fact, a colossal tree that once flourished where the playground is now under construction, dying and in danger of falling over, was cut down and repurposed for the commanding upside-down tree structure that dominates the central park. What remains of that tree is currently being used to build tables, chairs, benches, and forts around the playground. The climbing boulders on the other hand, another key element of the park, had to be imported from Perry Sound. Jeff Cowan, Vice-President in charge of operation and health & safety, explored the possibility of using boulders from Toronto, but explained that, due to weathering, they weren’t of ideal quality and had to be found elsewhere.

Jeff and a small team from Gardens for Living, the designers and builders of Bienenstock’s natural playgrounds, are currently in the process of applying final touches and servicing to the park in the hopes of opening it to the public by the weekend. The bulk of the labour was done by 500 volunteers from ING Direct Canada on September 17^th, who were responsible for creating paths, planting shrubbery, and installing musical instruments. At the end of the day, ING Direct was responsible for laying down 300 cubic yards of material; quite the impressive feat for office workers with no proper training in construction.

On October 7^th, formal opening ceremonies with the media invited and the City of Toronto in attendance will be held. The revitalized McCleary Park is the first municipal natural playground in Toronto. Prior to this, natural playgrounds in the city belonged to daycares and other similar facilities only, but now the hope is that more parks similar to the one in Leslieville will being emerging all over the city.

--- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Andrew the awful photo-journalist:

General Updates

2009-09-17T22:20:00.001-07:00

It goes without saying that I haven’t done very much here in the past couple of weeks. The reason for this is that I used to feel resigned to complete my undergraduate in five years, but now I’m determined to make it in four. Not just because I’ve come to understand that a standard undergraduate degree finished in four years is more appealing to graduate schools than the lazy five year (or more) approach, but also because it sort of makes up for the unnecessary fifth year of high school wasted doing nothing. So I’ve been playing it safe, much like I did over the summer, and have taken to getting comfortable with the new year before thinking about slacking off. What exactly this means for new reviews and the like, I do not know. As much as I like sticking to a schedule (even if it doesn’t seem like it) I’m hesitant to write anything in stone. Essentially, whenever I feel that I can dedicate the time to writing a verbose review, I will.

The above doesn’t include class essays and newspaper articles, though. Since those things are going to be done one way or another, I might as well throw ‘em up here, even if it is just for the hell of it.

Below are my first two articles for the new Independent Newspaper publishing year, which ran today (September 17th, 2009, Vol. XXXII, No. 3 [no one sent me an email for the first two issues]). I don't intend to write more than one article per week, but I'm trying to make that an average. As usual, I don't have a particularly strong interest in any of the topics I cover (or any interest to begin with, for that matter). Furthermore, not only did I not write the headlines, but these are the articles as I submitted them for editing and therefore may not necessarily be the exact same as the published version. I don’t normally read my published articles, largely because I read them enough times as I write them.

And finally, the thought occurs (a thought largely resultant from a certain post card) that I never posted the essay I wrote for CLA 368 over the summer. This essay netted an 84%, which easily could've been higher had I mentioned the origin of the concept that I'm dealing with (which would be from Juvenal's Satire X [the Roman numeral 10, not the letter 'x']). Still, I'm reasonably pleased with it. One of the comments on the paper was "generally well written," despite the marking out of a split infinitive and the odd poor subordination. Nonetheless, I think it's quite good if I do say so myself. The main essay is 2000 words. The whole thing, end notes and all, nears 3000 words.

Enjoy.

Articles #1 & #2: UTM Applications and UTSC Leadership Development Program

2009-09-17T21:36:00.000-07:00

UTM introduces web apps (Article #1)

UTM students who don’t quite have the firmest grasp over their campus lives now have a leg up over their St. George and Scarborough campus counterparts. Recently the IT team in the UTM office of the Registrar has released several web based applications for use on most internet-capable smart phones such as the Blackberry or iPhone. These applications allow UTM students to manage their timetables, access campus maps, and be reminded of important dates and contacts.

“These web applications are not what are commonly referred to as ’apps’ which are small, downloadable programs for specific hand-held devices, such as an iPhone or Blackberry,” says Cesar Mejia, the person in charge of the IT team that developed these programs for the UTM Registrar’s office. “Instead, these web applications have been designed to work on the small screens found in most hand-held devices. They draw upon live information in university databases.”

While this batch of web-based applications may well be the first time that such a program has been instigated at our University, this isn’t an entirely new concept as several Ivy League schools in the US boast similar tools for their students. Closer to home, however, there isn’t any definite word on whether or not these tools will be made available for use by all UofT students. “The information is only relevant to UTM students for now,” continues Cesar in our correspondence. “In the future these applications could easily be expanded to all UofT students.”

Since a considerable amount of interaction between students and the university is conducted online, the tools offered by Cesar Mejia and his team appear to be simply an extension to accommodate the needs of the students. I am told that there are plans to expand these cell phone applications as is necessary, but whether that means more tools or service expansion (or both) remains to be seen. Above all else, these applications were developed to help students help themselves.

UTM Students can access these applications from their phones at m.utm.utoronto.ca.

UTSC leads way (Article #2)

Since 2007, UTSC has been offering a variety of lectures and opportunities for students aiming to be inspired by some of Canada’s most influential people, and it appears as if the appropriately titled “Leadership Development Program” is poised to continue growing. More and more students are taking advantage of these opportunities each year, and with that more workshops, lectures, and seminars are being offered in response. “Inside the Leader’s Circle” was designed in 2008 to explore the experiences and insights of notable Canadians through intimate interviews, while “Dialogues” is a brand new addition to the program this year that features presentations and discussions concerning subjects shaping the local community.

The remarkable success of the Leadership Development Program is owed in no small part to the high profile speakers the Department of Student Life is able to procure through its partnerships with affiliates such as Random House of Canada, and indeed it is the long list of notable names that gives the program its appeal. A sort of snowball effect is in play where big crowds draw big names, and it is this reason, coupled with the invaluable efforts of the program’s partners, that allows people like Elizabeth May and Peter Mansbridge to make appearances alongside other professionals.

Engaging and challenging the audience has always been the goal of the Leadership Development Program, and this is a goal consistently well met. According to Drew Dudley, the program’s coordinator, 95% of students walk away eager to recommend it to their friends with 90% using the words either ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ to describe the experience. “Their (the students) support is what keeps us moving forward,” says Drew Dudley in our correspondence, “And as long as they continue to come out to hear the speakers, we will continue working as hard as we can to bring them here.”

Visit http://studentlife.utsc.utoronto.ca/leadership/ for details regarding the Leadership Development Program, including a full list of speakers, workshops, and events.

Bread & Circuses (A Summer Course Essay for CLA368)

2009-09-17T21:24:00.000-07:00

Panem et Circenses (Bread and Circuses) or how to mollify the Roman Crowd

Although the modern popular image of ancient Rome typically involves a metropolis brimming with lavish spectacles and decadent culture, the circumstances leading to this common perception are strangely anomalous. While it is true that gladiatorial combat, animal hunts, and large scale battle re-enactments over time came to be a defining characteristic of the city, such displays did not always exist. In reality, Rome received her first permanent entertainment venue in 27 BC[i] at a time when other cities of lesser importance on the Italian peninsula had already been enjoying such splendid and ornate facilities for centuries. The reasons for this peculiar anachronism are intriguing in their own right, but the sudden rebound from a city starved of spectacle to a city completely defined by it, coupled with the politics involved, is the focus of this paper. I shall deal with the origin of the phrase panem et circenses (bread and circuses) and its significance in administration, but first a context must be established.

Republican Rome had a notable lack of appropriate venues for games, a fact that one might consider unbecoming of such a dominant ancient city. This is especially unusual when compared to other Italian cities during the same era. Whereas building programmes remained stilted in Rome, neighbouring cities such as Pompeii flourished with complex and elaborate bathhouses, estates, and facilities[ii]. Even though Pompeii paled in comparison to Rome with regards to significance, civic development occurred at a much quicker rate. This bizarre discrepancy in construction remained indicative of Republican Rome until the social war from 91-88 BC, after which the infrastructure of the city advanced and expanded greatly. The chief reason for the sudden influx of development largely coincides with the flood of wealth into the city through the spoils and loot of battle, and the rise of several prominent families all vying for social dominance in the uprooted Republic. Indeed a severely undermined Senate was one of the results of the social war, and with that a marker for the beginning of the end of the Republic.

It should be noted that in Rome there was little change under a powerful senate, and great change under a weakened one. One of the reasons for this is that the senate only had interest in funding and sponsoring useful endeavours[iii] (granaries, aqueducts, roads) while lavish expenditures such as entertainment and games were of little interest. This also ties into a sense of Roman patriotism that held duty before pleasure, a stark contrast to the Greek attitude the Romans saw as effeminate since Pompeii’s former lavishness is thought to stem from its Greek influence[iv]. Another reason is that the Circus Maximus, situated between the Aventine and Palatine hills, had served Rome quite admirably with chariot racing since its construction in the late seventh/early sixth century BC under Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, the fifth king of Rome. Any other such projects may have been considered superfluous. However the most likely reason for the Senate’s apprehension towards the establishment of permanent venues for ludi (games) is perhaps the fear that the donation of such facilities would transfer power and authority from the senate as a whole to the individuals responsible for their construction. The man responsible for the benefaction of such a welcome structure in a city deprived of extravagant entertainment would ingratiate only himself to the people, not the body who commissioned him to construct it. The popularity he receives from the people would grant him immense power and thereby threaten the senate. Considering the circumstances that led to the centralization of power within a few rival families a mere century after the height of the senate’s power, these fears were indeed well-founded.

Despite being deprived of a dedicated site established with the sole intention of hosting grand public entertainment, ludi were by no means a rare occasion at any point in Rome’s history. Funeral games, or munera, were popular events given by the heirs to a recently deceased prestigious or otherwise notable person, and serve as a precursor for the modern conception of gladiatorial combat. The fundamentals of munera are embedded in the ideas of sacrifice to the gods in exchange for the protection of the deity and honouring the deceased with spectacle. It is believed that Rome received the tradition of munera either from Etruria to the north of the city, or Campania to the south. Archaeological evidence and secondary historical documentation respectively support each claim. Paintings depicting extensive and elaborate funeral games exist on the walls of select tombs of Etruscan nobility, while Rome’s conflicts against the Samnites in Campania from 343-290 BC perhaps resulted in their munera being received and adapted by the Romans in a cultural exchange[v].

Yet regardless of how munera came to be a core component of Roman identity, over time all such ludi began to suffer from the absence of a designated arena. In the beginning, crude bleachers and makeshift boundaries that were cheap to build and simple to dismantle were the extent of what was demanded by most ludi, and this process remained satisfactory for quite some time. The benefit of being economic compensated for the unappealing design, which meant that ludi could be held more frequently and that munera could be hosted by nearly anyone. However as Roman tastes became more sophisticated as time went on, ludi and munera became more elaborate, intricate, and extensive. The cost of hosting them successfully soared and it soon fell to the elite of society to bestow spectacle upon the city.

This is where the phrase panem et circenses is coined. The combination of a population starved for entertainment and a senate reluctant to deliver it to them made the otherwise mere stepping stone of aedile (a magistrate responsible for public festivals) a very important step on the cursus honorum (course of honours). An aedile dedicated to public service with the funds to sponsor and hold impressive ludi became an instant crowd pleaser and a man well on his way to political success. Conversely however, men elected to this office without either the means to give elaborate spectacle or the desire to grant them could find themselves destroyed. As the cost of holding even the simplest ludi became ever higher during the late Republic, men lacking the funds for such displays often ruined themselves with impossible debt. An aedile should count himself lucky, then, that paying for munera fell beyond their responsibilities. The ludi that were part of the official Roman calendar, such as Saturnalia and Consualia, were the only ludi for which an aedile paid. While other such ludi, including munera, were often held, an aedile was under no obligation to finance them in any capacity. Because munera are theoretically private affairs largely made open at the discretion of the family to the extent that they can be afforded, the cost should fall upon the clan alone without outside influence.

However, even though the payment for munera should never come from the pocket of an aedile, such magistrates were still responsible for the supervision of particularly elaborate funeral games. The proper administration of all festivities was a key responsibility of an aedile, and it fell to them to ensure that all major festivities, be they public events or private munera, were supervised and regulated accordingly. Other services an aedile was accountable for included general civic upkeep, which consisted of the maintenance of temples, roads, and aqueducts, and the regulation of taverns and bathhouses. Aediles also concerned themselves with the promotion of Roman tradition and custom, while at the same time staving off the influence of foreign superstition. A share in the administration of Rome’s corn and grain supply was also a responsibility of an aedile.

Given the exhausting number of tasks an aedile was held accountable for, the optional nature of the office should become clear: the price was simply too high. Between the cost of maintaining the city and the pressure to devote vast quantities of personal wealth to the presentation of shows, many Romans simply could not afford to be in such a position. The senate held that a vacant office was far more preferable than the guilt resultant from condemning a man to financial, and by extension social and political, death. Because of this, the office was typically reserved for only the wealthiest of men who had a vested interest in pursuing a political career or a willingness to part with their riches for the sake of spectacle, entertainment, and popularity above all else.

The fact that an aedileship was optional also coincides with the theory that the senate believed awarding the office to extravagantly wealthy individuals would jeopardize the extent of their power. Affluent men who threw their wealth around, regardless of what their motives for doing so may have been, drew a sharp comparison to the stodgy and frugal senate. As politicians discovered the use of extensive benefaction as a means for achieving a popular image, notable men from prominent families sought to advance their careers in much the same way. At the peak of the viciously competitive social climate in late Republican Rome circa the mid-first century BC, both aediles and elites alike endeavoured to demonstrate their social standing and dominance by the staging of sophisticated and highly stylized ludi.

The splendour of these events, which were still being staged largely in temporary facilities at this time, were well documented by ancient historians. Special interest was often taken in ludi that either backfired or were particularly ambitious in scope. Examples of both can be found in Pliny the Elder’s Natural History. In this work, Pliny recalled the debacle of Pompey the Great’s elephant show[vi] that occurred when Pompey was consul for the second time in 55 BC (The Natural History was first published some 130 years later between 77-79 AD). He described a dreadfully received show where twenty elephants fought Gaetulians armed with spears. The elephants valiantly resisted the slaughter and, thrashing violently, tried to escape with cries and wailing so distressing to the audience that they tearfully cursed Pompey and the vile spectacle he had staged. Pliny also recalled how in 52 BC, three years after Pompey’s embarrassment, Gaius Scribonius Curio had built what was rumoured to have been Rome’s first amphitheatre on a design as ambitious as it was risky[vii]. Two half venues were built on pivots that would be able to rotate and connect forming a single amphitheatre, allegedly strong enough to support the audience even during the transition. Although doubts have been cast as to the possible existence of such a venue, whether or not such a feat of engineering was possible with the technology available at the time is, with regards to this topic, irrelevant. What Pliny attempts to illustrate in both these instances is how recklessly enthusiastic Romans were for the latest outrageous spectacle, and the extent to which they determined the success of a politician who opted to find success through ludi.

This pattern of private wealth generously donated for public benefaction persisted through the decline of the Republic and survived well into the Principate, wherein panem et circenses changed from being a means by which aspiring politicians could carve a path to higher office into a tool to measure the popularity of the emperor. Augustus built the first permanent amphitheatre and imperial ludi were established in Rome, both having been accomplished with the intention of centralizing power under himself. Because the princeps superseded the senate as the foremost administrator in Rome, the fear that ludi could be used by the extraordinarily rich to seize power subsided. In its place, extravagant ludi merely became a tool by which the emperor could hope to retain popular favour. Cynicism abounds with regards to the practice of giving ludi simply for the superficial benefit of fleeting popularity, yet the demands of Romans for ludi were so ubiquitous that denying the masses their panem et circenses was political suicide. For example, while modern historians reflect on Tiberius’ reign far more generously than ancient ones, the greatest reason for his inglorious public image may simply be attributed to his utter disinterest in ludi. Such unconcern may have had catastrophic consequences when, in 27 AD, a poorly constructed amphitheatre built in Fidenae by a man named Atilius collapsed[viii] and was reported to be responsible for the death of 50,000 spectators (a figure likely exaggerated). The lapse in ludi under Tiberius created an opening for opportunistic individuals to host their own, but because the creation of the venue fell to unregulated and amateur architects, the structures regressed to crude designs. This disaster forced the senate to adopt a stricter policy with regards to how ludi should be organized and administered. While Tiberius’ frugality did manage to create a more consolidated empire with a healthy treasury upon his death, the people longing for spectacle loathed Tiberius for hardly ever sharing the wealth of the city, and the tragedies that arose from it, such as the disaster at Fidenae.

Yet perhaps what was worse than denying the people their ludi was the total removal and extermination of the communal joy shared by all of Rome on the occasion. Gaius Caligula, the emperor who succeeded Tiberius in 37 AD, returned the ludi to the people, but severely strained the relationship between himself and his subjects during them. His inability to humour political criticism and engage with the audience during the displays led to unenthusiastic audience participation, which in turn increased his hostilities. When the audience either applauded the performers he disliked, neglected to celebrate his favourites, or otherwise did not appear to appreciate his gift, he attacked the crowd. He was so infuriated on one occasion that he threatened the people by shouting, “Would that you had but a single neck!”[ix] A bad emperor was one who neglected public festivities, but a terrible emperor was one who treated his audience with complete contempt.

Similar to how panem et circenses can be used by an emperor to bolster his current popularity, so too can they be used immediately to ingratiate a brand new family to the city. Such was the method of the Flavians who came to power after the last of the Julio-Claudians. Even though Nero is generally perceived as a dreadful emperor when evaluated by modern classicists, he managed to leave a sufficiently positive impression on enough people (notably the Greek communities to whom he was an excellent patron) that his demise was seen as a great loss. Indeed he had so managed to endear himself that several imitators claiming to be him sprang up for years after his death in 68 AD. The implication of this strange affinity, coupled with the strenuous circumstances surrounding Vespasian and his rise to power in 69 AD after a year that saw four different emperors and civil war, is what gave the Flavian dynasty the unkind perception of being petty usurpers to the throne[x]. That Vespasian was no more than a thief who had seized power after the collapse of the Julio-Claudian dynasty through the dust of civil war was not an uncommon opinion at the time, and this was an image Vespasian sought to reconcile immediately. In order to accomplish this task, he not only made the requisite promises to the army which became indicative of all wise emperors, but he instigated new construction programmes to further rebuild and glorify the city as well. This included the construction of the Flavian Amphitheatre begun in 70 AD meant to celebrate the ascension of his family to power with the greatest displays of spectacle and benefaction Rome had ever seen; perhaps the use of panem et circenses to the greatest possible effect.

While the use of panem et circenses is a fairly reliable way to succeed in both social and political spheres, criticism against such tactics still arises in both ancient and modern examinations. Cicero’s letters[xi] offer a first hand account of the concerns for what he often saw as unabashed bribery, but his insights stemmed from his firm support for the Republic and as such reveal the opinions of rival politicians and not necessarily the people. He despised the unbridled senator who utilized panem et circenses to vault his own career, yet took no issue when a dedicated republican held them for the sake of the senate. However despite this duplicity, he was fully committed to the idea that ludi only displayed wealth, not worth. Still, this was hardly a consideration for the masses. The people loved their panem et circenses regardless of the politics behind them. Hence the most important lesson for an aspiring Roman politician was this: If you please the people, you will succeed.

Works Cited

K. Lomas and T. Cornell (eds.), ‘BREAD and CIRCUSES’ Euergetism and municipal patronage in Roman Italy (London-New York, 2003)
A. Futrell, Historical Sources in Translation: The Roman Games (Malden-Oxford-Victoria, 2006)

Works Consulted

A. Baker, The Gladiator: The Secret History of Rome’s Warrior Slaves (London, 2000)
P. Plass, The Game of Death in Ancient Rome: Arena Sport and Political Suicide (Madison- London, 1995)
R. Dunkle, Gladiators: Violence and Spectacle in Ancient Rome (Harlow, 2008)

Online Resources

A. Pepe and C. McElwee, http://www.the-colosseum.net/, THE COLOSSEVM: a site on the Roman amphitheatre

End Notes:

[i] “The first permanent amphitheatre in Rome was built in 27 BCE by Statilius Taurus, a friend and solid supporter of Augustus in the struggle against Antony.” A. Futrell, Historical Sources in Translation: The Roman Games, pg. 60.

[ii] “A town such as Pompeii had what almost amounts to an entertainment district, and when we consider that Pompeii also had facilities such as monumental bath complexes, we can see that in the early first century BC the town was way ahead of Rome in its urban development.” C. Holleran, The development of public entertainment venues in Rome and Italy. This paper is from K. Lomas and T. Cornell (eds.), ‘BREAD and CIRCUSES’ Euergetism and municipal patronage in Roman Italy, pg. 47.

[iii] “A number of new building types became very prominent in the cities of Italy towards the end of the Republic and under Augustus. Some have a clear connection with systematisation of administrative structures in newly founded colonies or newly enfranchised municipia.” K. Lomas, Public building, urban renewal and euergetism in early Imperial Italy. This paper is from K. Lomas and T. Cornell (eds.), ‘BREAD and CIRCUSES’ Euergetism and municipal patronage in Roman Italy, pg. 33.

[iv] “This opposition was said to be due to a fear of decadent Greek influences and the effect that these might have on the strong moral character of Rome.” C. Holleran, The development of public entertainment venues in Rome and Italy. This paper is from K. Lomas and T. Cornell (eds.), ‘BREAD and CIRCUSES’ Euergetism and municipal patronage in Roman Italy, pg. 48.

[v] “Paintings from the tombs of Etruscan nobility point to their custom of commemorating the dead with extensive funeral games, which seem to incorporate a variety of contests, including combats. Others suspect the Roman munera developed under strong influence from the area of Campania to the south, where from 343 to 290 BCE Rome fought three wars against the Samnite people, expanding Roman influence and being influence by local customs in return.” A. Futrell, Historical Sources in Translation: The Roman Games, pg. 4.

[vi] “In Pompey’s second consulship [in 55 BCE], when the temple of Venus Victrix was dedicated, twenty elephants (some say seventeen) fought in the Circus against Gaetulians armed with throwing-spears… But when Pompey’s elephants had given up hope of escape, they played on the sympathy of the crowd, entreating them with indescribable gestures. They moaned, as if wailing, and caused the spectators such distress that, forgetting Pompey and his lavish display specially devised to honour them, they rose in a body, in tears, and heaped dire curses on Pompey, the effects of which he soon suffered.” Pliny the Elder, Natural History, 8.20-21.

[vii] “Curio, therefore, had to exercise his ingenuity and devise something else… Curio built two wooden theatres side by side, each balanced on a revolving pivot. Before midday, a performance of a play was staged in both; the theatres faced opposite directions so that the actors should not drown each other’s lines. Then suddenly the theatres revolved… and their corners came together to form an amphitheatre.” Pliny the Elder, Natural History, 36.15.117-120.

[viii] “One Atilius, of the freedmen class, having undertaken to build an amphitheatre at Fidenae for the exhibition of a show of gladiators, failed to lay a solid foundation and to frame the wooden superstructure with beams of sufficient strength; for he had neither an abundance of wealth, nor zeal for public popularity, but he had simply sought the work for sordid gain… The building was densely crowded; then came a violent shock, as it fell inwards or spread outwards, precipitating and burying an immense multitude which was intently gazing on the show or standing around.” Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome, 4.62-63. (A. Futrell also comments on this event in Historical Sources in Translation: The Roman Games, pg. 61.)

[ix] “The chief causes of his (Gaius Caligula) anger were, first, that they did not show enthusiasm in attending the spectacles… and again, that they did not always applaud the performers that pleased him and sometimes even showed honour to those whom he disliked… once he said, threatening the whole people: “Would that you had but a single neck.” Dio Cassius, 59.13.

[x] “Nero’s ancestry, his youth, his tastes and his courting of the populace, made him a favourite (Levick 1999:63), yet Vespasian was a usurper, emerging as emperor from the bitter anarchy of AD69. Vespasian, therefore, had to win over the populace and he began by rebuilding the city of Rome” C. Holleran, The development of public entertainment venues in Rome and Italy. This paper is from K. Lomas and T. Cornell (eds.), ‘BREAD and CIRCUSES’ Euergetism and municipal patronage in Roman Italy, pg. 55-56.

[xi] Insights towards Cicero’s impression of panem et circenses are revealed in the following list of works:

On duties, 2.55-58

Letters to His Brother Quintus;3.8.6.

For Milo; 95.

Letters to His Friends; 2.3; 8.2; 8.8; 8.9; 8.11.

These fragments, and other comments, are found in A. Futrell, Historical Sources in Translation: The Roman Games, pg. 14-18.

"Experience Is Everything."

2009-09-02T20:59:00.001-07:00

Since I being class next Wednesday, I've begun to get back into the habit of studying Latin and Greek on a somewhat regular basis. So far, I've merely been re-familiarizing myself with the material and burning through the old Wheelock and Groton to refresh all those strange grammar concepts. Having translated a couple dozen passages of varying difficulty from the likes of Virgil, Horace, and Cicero, I'm getting a tad bored and have taken to doing something a bit more contemporary.

Enjoy this Latin to English translation of what is perhaps my favourite commercial ever.

Sensus omnia est

Si id habes, id non requiris.

Si id requiris, id non habes.

Si id habes, plus eius requiris.

Si plus eius habes, paucum eius non requiris.

Id requriris ut id acquiras.

Et id certe requiris ut plus eius acquiras.

Sed si ullum eius iam non habes incipiere cum,

Ullum eius acquirere non potes incipiere quod opes

Num nullum mentem nam habes quam id acquirere in primo loco?

Id absentem dare potes, certe.

Etiam id recondare potes si mavis.

Sed id dissimulare non potes.

Id volens, id requiriens, ei cupiens.

Factum est:

Si ullum eius numquam habuisti, umquam, populum ut videntur scire.

(PS: I'll be seeing Extract on Friday)

The Final Destination 3-D (Movie Review)

2009-08-30T19:13:00.000-07:00

Note: Upfront, the best part of seeing this movie is the 3-D full length trailer for Avatar that comes before it. It almost reminds me of how people saw Meet Joe Black in 1998 just to watch the trailer for Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, or at least it would have if more people in the audience were as elated for it as I was.

The Final Destination 3-D

While many film franchises are formulaic, few are as cut and dry as the Final Destination movies. After three instalments in a series built around the premise that "you can't cheat death," The Final Destination 3-D (emphasis on the definite article that allegedly indicates either a reboot or conclusion) becomes the fourth entry to follow the formula established in the first film with surgical precision. All four films begin with a vivid precognition of a horrific accident, feature broad sketches of characters from typical horror fare, and predictably hit every major plot point as set by the first movie from 2000. Although the cast and characters always change, continuity and clever scripting has never been the big draw for these films. What anyone in attendance for a Final Destination screening has ever been hoping to see are clever deathtraps dispatching human crash test dummies. Yet while death by twisted happenstance provides a nice change from the typical death by masked neglected golem, even the most creative of wells can run dry. After nine years and four films, the Final Destination franchise has sunk into a nadir that not even the 3-D rebirth can remedy.

Nick and his friends are enjoying an idyllic day at the races when he begins to question the safety of where he is sitting. The benches crack and buckle, the concrete superstructure is beginning to crumble, and the fences protecting the spectators from errant scrap metal are fraught with loose screws. Before he has a chance to rise from his seat and take a breather, a screwdriver finds its way onto the racetrack and causes a catastrophic crash that sends tires, shrapnel, and even whole cars hurdling towards the audience in a firestorm of death and destruction. People are burned alive, sliced in half, crushed, decapitated, and poor Nick winds up impaled on a piece of pipe. Lucky for him, however, the entire ordeal was merely a premonition. When the circumstances leading up to how he imagined the disaster begin to occur, he heeds the warning and ferries his friends to safety. Having cheated death, Nick thinks he's in the clear. But when survivors of the tragedy begin dying in freak accidents in the order Nick foresaw their demise at the race track, Nick worries that he and his friends could wind up dead at any moment and races to stay one step ahead of the deadly unforeseen malevolence.

Believe it or not, what you've just read regarding the plot is far more than what The Final Destination ever cares to reveal. Four films into a franchise should be the milestone that sparks experimentation, whether it's to prevent stagnation or to capture the attention that the previous movies failed to ensnare (more likely the latter reason for this particular franchise). Unfortunately, The Final Destination is more concerned with pursuing a new dimension rather than a new direction. Yes, The Final Destination stands alongside My Bloody Valentine in ushering in the 3-D horror renaissance. Both movies flaunt the sex and gore staples of the typical teen slasher, further amplified by the rendering of every startling jolt in pseudo-tangibility. But while My Bloody Valentine offered 3-D as a compensation for story, plot, and character deficiency, The Final Destination sees the gimmick worthy of a substitution. "We stayed up all night googling premonitions," quips Lori (Nick's girlfriend) as if that's all that needed to be said on the subject. The obligation for all sequels to reference the Flight 180 disaster from the first instalment released in 2000 is loosely established in a later exchange, and that's the extent of this film's exposition.

I'd normally consider such immediacy laudable, but the core theme of the franchise isn't the only thing that's glossed over. Even the characters are reduced to bland stock, a truly detestable decision since its entirely deliberate and not due to ineptitude with characterization. This film's director and screenwriter, David R. Ellis and Jeffery Reddick respectively, also served on the first sequel released in 2003, at the time writing characters that are a cut above what's expected in typical horror fare. In that film, relationships were established and the audience had a vested interest in who they'd like to see survive or die by means of falling construction equipment. With The Final Destination, however, every character is just one flat sour note. Nick is the well-to-do seer, Lori his peppy girlfriend, Janet her shrill best friend, and Hunt is Janet's jock of a boyfriend. Also on the chopping block is the sage-like older black fellow, his racist tow-truck driving adversary, and the MILF (that's exactly what actress Krista Allen's character is referred to when the end credits roll). No character is memorable, well portrayed, rudimentarily fleshed out, or even likeable. There isn't even a cynical undercurrent to writing such loathsome players in order to inspire the audience to cheer for ironic elimination. Just stick the boring lot in harm's way and let the blood flow is the philosophy at play.

It's been remarked that the only character worthy of note in the Final Destination franchise is Death, who's generally manifested as a trickster wind agitating precariously perched objects that turn an otherwise random collection of knickknacks into a Rube Goldberg like deathtrap. Considering this, the real appeal of the Final Destination was never so much the blood and gore as it was the fact that the character onscreen could wind up dead at any moment from anything. A relentless omnipresent malevolence playing the antagonist is far more effective at creating a thick atmosphere of dread than a cookie-cutter psychopath armed with a kitchen knife. And while I can admire the horror movie that is able to create a truly terrifying scenario in broad daylight, The Final Destination resolves to shoot itself in the foot by giving the audience clues as to how the next unlucky sap is going to bite the bullet. Whenever disaster is about to strike, Nick suffers a brief acid trip that lets us know exactly what to be wary of, be it a man with a cigarette or a shiny quarter. Where's the terror in knowing what to expect next? There are times when the movie throws a curveball and tries to lead us astray, but in those instances one must wonder what's being undermined more: the premise, or the terror.

Barring the leading character's dread sabotaging hot flashes, the worst part of The Final Destination is how uninspired the entire movie is. Truth be told, this instalment is more of a greatest hits collection than a brand new entry in a series. All the highest points of the movie are essentially slightly reworked sequences from the second and third instalments with a more loathsome cast in substitution. A couple of characters are cut into large chunks, an immobilized person dies in their hospital room, a nail-gun becomes self-aware, and the silent bus strikes again. The only remarkable thing is how it took only four horror films prominently featuring the "you can't cheat death" motif, all within the same franchise, to wear out an otherwise novel concept. Has the Rube Goldberg deathtrap really been reduced to the careless storage of inflammables and combustibles that can tip and spill at the slightest provocation? Death just doesn't seem into it anymore.

In case you're wondering, no, the 3-D does not add to the movie in any significant way. If all you're going to use the technology for is throwing objects very suddenly at the camera, you might as well not bother.