Lost in the Fundamentals

I, along with everyone else who lives in the city, just went through a municipal election. As a political junkie I find the strange creatures known as politicians interesting to watch and analyse. My interest in human psychology and behaviour thrives in the political scene, but I admit there are times when I wish I was part of the many potential voters who just don’t give one care about the whole process. I really don’t blame them- the world of politics is a strange fantasy land that has very few tethers anchoring it to our own.

What is really hard for me is that for every election, from federal to municipal, I have had to compromise my own fundamental political ideology and vote for representatives that I hardly saw eye to eye with.

I’m tired of voting for the lesser evil.

That’s what I had to do with this last municipal election. For the mayor I had to hold my nose and vote against the person I didn’t like rather than being an enthusiastic supporter of the one I voted for. In the case of selecting my Ward representative I did something I am just disgusted at myself over: I was down to two choices, so I flipped a coin. I was reduced to voting by chance.

It’s hard for me because, while I am glad to be citizen (not proud, glad) of this country, I disagree with some of the fundamentals of its government. I’m a Libertarian, and it is hard being one in a very socialist and statist country.

I got “crazy” ideas, ideas that I didn’t think of overnight, but ones that came from hard study and genuine inquiry.

Random ideas like:

-Nothing would make me happier than bringing more business to the city in the form of a “digital media centre” (where they can make video games and CGI movies). It’s a great idea, but why does our mayor (soon to be former mayor) feel that we must ALL pay for it? If she thinks it is such a great idea, why doesn’t she put her own money towards it and encourage other private investors to do as well? It’s not the WHAT I have a problem with, it’s the HOW (pretty much how I feel about all government services and businesses).

-Canada does not need a public news agency: sell off the CBC and let it be a private company.

-It is wrong that I, along with other non-Catholics, am forced to pay for Catholic schools.

-The Human Rights Commission is a travesty of justice and serves no genuine purpose. It undermines the real justice system that deals with “hate” crime more efficiently and more maturely than it does.

-I should be allowed to opt out of the public health care system. If it does not work for me, I should be able to take my money elsewhere. Why should I not have the choice? Why does the public health care system fear competing against private medical providers?

-Taxes are a form of mugging. It is money taken from me with the ultimate threat of imprisonment (and even being shot) if I do not comply. Sure it pays for many useful things, but it is also wasted on a lot more and encourages an environment of overhyped entitlement. Do the ends justify the means?

These are just a few of the “crazy” sentiments I have. They are more thought out than this simple list, but what really irks me is how, when I try discussing these ideas or sentiments to a candidate, they will actually nod in agreement, understand my “frustration”, and totally ignore the fact that the policies they stand for completely fly in the face of them.

Am I a nut job? Maybe, but what is really sad is the lack of dialogue, debate and genuine argument in the political arena. Right now all there is empty rhetoric, fake anger and snappy promises.

This interest in politics is feeling too much like a curse these days, and I feel frustrated that, at this point in my life, all I can do is talk and write about it.

Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) review

Fuck you Michael Bay.

Seriously: Fuck you.

Not for making bad movies. Your films are often brainless exercises in flashy explosions and stupid frat jokes that I cannot deny makes money- lots of money. I would be hard pressed to argue against the millions you have made with brain dead hits like Transformers.

So why am I giving you a whole hearted “fuck you” Michael Bay? Because while your remake of Nightmare on Elm Street isn’t bad, it isn’t particularly good as well. It is definitely a waste of time and talent.

It takes a special kind of soul sucking talent to take out everything that made the original Nightmare on Elm Street (made in 1984) and its sequels unique and scary.

Just what makes Freddy Kruger scary?

In the original films, Freddy had an undeniable freak factor. He came at you when you were most vulnerable and in ways they made his victims doubt their own safety. Attacking within a victim’s dreams made the comfortable and resorting act of sleep into a battle to the death and a struggling lost cause to stay awake. He could torture and kill you in ways limited only by his twisted imagination, fueled by the endless possibilities of the world of dreams. What made Freddy such an iconic character was his evil-yet-cheesy wit and numerous “dream kills” full of creepy symbolism and a what-the-hell factor that made them memorable.

Just take a look at THIS dream kill for instance. It is from one of the earlier sequels, and it wasn’t one of the better ones, but this scene definite invokes a surreal freakish feeling of disgust and helplessness. It definitely provokes a “What the Hell?” response.

The kills in the new Nightmare can’t even compare to the twisted death scenes of the original. The new Freddy Kruger seems to have no hint of an imagination. For the first victim, he slashes her with his claws. His second, he slashes with his claws. The third, he punches through the victim’s chest…then slashes him with the claws.

Now it is true that the original Freddy had his trademark clawed glove and used it frequently, but at least he would put the victim through an interesting dream sequence and some witty banter before slashing away.

The new Freddy hardly says anything at all other than generic threats and spooky cliché. There is one point in the film where I had some hope. Freddy kills Jesse (portrayed by Thomas Decker) while in the dream world, making him die in the real world. We are shown Jesse bleeding to death in the jail cell he is in before we are cut back to the dream world where Freddy has hung the still alive Jesse up and taunts him. Freddy explains that the brain has enough oxygen to live for 5 to 6 minutes after death, and Jesse screams in terror as he realizes that Freddy is going to make his last few minutes of life into a torturous hell.

Wow. That is actually kind of scary to think about. I wonder what kind of torture Freddy will come up with before the poor boy finally dies?

Guess what: We never are shown because we are immediately cut to the next scene. Now you might point out that not knowing what kind of torture Freddy puts Jesse through before he dies makes it scarier (because our imagination does the work for the film), but this film is so devoid of detail and soul that I wanted at least something scary shown to me.

The new revamped Nightmare on Elm Street still involves a Freddy Kruger who strikes from the nightmares of teenagers, but any of the creepy and random dream imagery used from the earlier films is abandoned for typical decrepit buildings and a matter of shooting the same setting with a wide or foggy camera lens.

Dreams are weird; anyone who has ever remembered a dream they had would know that. When you’re dreaming the most surreal things make utter sense and go unquestioned. In the original Nightmare on Elm Street, Wes Craven understood this. While the character wondered around the dream world that was a darker version of their real life surroundings they would encounter random things like a goat crossing an alleyway or blood smears bleeding through white wallpapered walls.

Fans of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series will understand when I say, “I wear the cheese, it does not wear me.”

Dream imagery is hardly ever used in the new Nightmare on Elm Street. Characters will be walking along and then FLASH! they are in Freddy’s nightmare world of dirty industrial pipes and ducts. No clever transitions like in the earlier films, just a blatant “Nightmare on, nightmare off” effect that serves mostly as a cheap jump-scare.

Speaking of jump-scares (when something “jumps” on screen quickly and unexpectedly, like a cat jumping out of a cupboard or a balloon popping), the new Nightmare depends heavily on them. Seriously, nothing is truly scary about this film.

Several scenes that play homage to the original are wasted.

In the original Nightmare one of the creepiest scenes is when Nancy (portrayed by Heather Langenkamp) falls asleep during class and “wakes” to find her recently dead friend Tina (portrayed by Amanda Wyss) wrapped in a bloody transparent body bag whispering her name beside her. Nancy follows the transporting Tina into the hallway where she sees her being dragged away by an invisible force, leaving a bloody trail behind. Nancy then wakes up in class screaming her head off.

In the remake the character of Tina is replaced by Kris (portrayed by Katie Cassidy) who, after she is killed, appears in the same manner to Nancy (portrayed by Roony Mara) in the “nightmare on, nightmare off” effect and goes away so quickly it has no time to sink in. Seeing her dead, bloody friend dragged off is just an afterthought to the new Nancy. She shrugs it off with no emotional reaction whatsoever. I guess that’s what the audience should do too.

Another scene is the iconic bedroom shot of Freddy lunging out of the wallpaper above Nancy’s bed as she lies there unaware. It is amazing that in the original, when they had to use a cheap cloth sheet and lighting to achieve the effect is far better than the cheesy, obviously CGI crap used in the new film.

The problem is that they took everything that made Freddy Kruger scary (and unique) and deemphasized it. No witty remarks, no freaky dream sequences, just a guy with a burn victim makeover and a scary claw glove.

As I watched the new Nightmare on Elm Street I got the distinct feeling that the producers and director (long time friend of Michael Bay, Samuel Bayer) forgot that Freddy Kruger is an iconic character. This film seems to be made for people who have not only never seen one of the original Nightmare on Elm Street films, but also never heard of the Freddy Kruger icon. The creators seemed to think that focusing on his pedophilia would be enough of a revelation to keep things fresh. They were wrong.

In the new Nightmare, Freddy’s pedophilia is the center of his character. Unlike the original where he is killing young men and women to get revenge at the parents who killed him, this new Freddy is hunting down the children who revealed him as the pervert he was (and then their parents burnt him to death, but he seems cool with that). The problem is that the fact that Freddy is a pedophile does not make him scary. It definitely has an icky factor to it, but now he has been reduced to the motivations of the usual homicidal pedophile you see every so often on CSI.

I know that it is a common cliché that the characters in a slasher horror always lack a certain sense of reason. They go down into the dark basement alone where the scary noises are coming from, they walk out into the dead of night without a flashlight, they forget how to open doors, and they choose the banana when offered a knife, a gun, or a grenade to take down the killer. In the Nightmare films the victim’s naiveté was somewhat forgivable because they were not dealing with a typical guy in a mask with a knife. They were dealing with an evil dude who could invade your dreams. In the original Nightmare on Elm Street, Nancy is pretty quick to figure out what is happening and is frustrated when she can’t find the answers she is looking for. The information she needs is being kept away from her from her alcoholic mother and until she can get her mother to talk there is not much she can do.

The characters in the new Nightmare on Elm Street have everything laid out before them- then do nothing about it. There is an emphasis on how Tina and Nancy go out to search for information, but they seem to never act on what they find.

For example, Tina finds out at the funeral of her recently dead boyfriend a picture of him when he was very young. She is also in the picture. This confuses her because she does not remember meeting her boyfriend before high school. When she looks at her family’s photo albums she finds a whole year is missing. Her mother tells her the photos must be in the attic.

So Tina goes in the attic right? That would be the next logical way to go to solve the mystery, right? Well Tina has a dream sequence where she goes to the attic but is attacked by Freddy. Later she decides to brave the real attic, slowly and cautiously moving towards the pull cord to bring down the attic stairs when her mother interrupts her (providing another jump scare). The director makes a point to provide a whole, slow scene afterwards of Tina watching her mother leave the house and drive away, looking on carefully through curtains as she waits until the coast is clear.

So with her mother gone, the next thing Tina should do is go directly to the attic right? After all it has been established that Tina is really interested in what is in that attic, so does she go there? Hell no! She goes to bed! We never find out what is in the attic because Tina is conveniently killed by Freddy. Oh, and by the way, the scene with Tina watching her mother leave was during the day, and the next scene with her in bed is at night, so during all that time in between she didn’t go to the attic?

This may seem to be like nick picking but this whole sequence convinced me that the director didn’t care about the movie. In other horror movies when the stalking and slashing takes a majority of the film and characters find the essential information they need near the end to take down the killer. This way the characters wonder around ignorantly for the killer to pick them off. It’s a simple (and lazy) way to avoid having characters find out too early about the killer and take steps to take them out. It might seem great that the characters in the new Nightmare are smart enough to research and finds things out, but then they are total idiots when they don’t act on the information they found. The new Nightmare goes out of its way to set up a situation, and then lets it hang and rot in front of your face.

This pretty much sums up the whole experience of watching the new Nightmare on Elm Street, a film made with apathetic determination. Michael Bay professes how he loved the original Nightmare so much he bought the rights to make this film. His has focused his production company to remaking these films which he apparently loved so much. If this weak, bland attempt of homage is how Michael Bay treats the things he loves, then I want nothing of it. If he loved these films so much why didn’t he do something truly creative and make something inspired by them, rather than the bland remakes he spews out? Because, most likely, he’s full of crap and just wants to make some big bucks. All the power to him in that respect, but this has nothing to do with respect of the original product.

Now Nightmare on Elm Street is not the only slasher remake Michael Bay has produced recently. He also made a remake of Friday the 13th in 2009.

What did I think of that film?

Refer back to the first sentence.

A Better Source of Morality

This is a true story.

I was walking back to my apartment building from getting groceries when I was stopped by two Mormons. I don’t know what it is about my neighbourhood, but apparently Mormons think it is ripe for the pickings: I’ve been approached by pairs of Mormons several times in the past four months. Now, I’m a guy that loves a good argument, but most of the time I can’t be bothered and usually politely end their spiel with “Sorry, not interested.” Until that day the only other memorable encounter I had is when a pair tried to talk to me in the middle of a cross walk during heavy traffic.

This day was different. Until that day my feelings towards Mormons were that, even though I completely disagreed with their beliefs and reasons for believing in the words of a known recorded con man who obviously made up crazy stories about how he was visited by a Caucasian Native American angel (because, of course, the tan skinned Natives were descendants of those cursed by God for killing the good white-skinned Natives) who told him Jesus was coming to Utah for the apocalypse, Mormons always conducted themselves in a polite, nonabrasive, and friendly manner (part of the attraction, no doubt). Until that day I had never met a Mormon who was insulting or even angered when I would argue with them.

Well that day I met the exception to the rule. The particular young Elder who did most of the talking began with the usual spiel: if I accepted Jesus Christ into my heart, if I ever read the bible or the Book of Mormon, etc. Sounding perfectly like the smart ass that I am, I informed him that, yes I had read both books along with many others. During my ultimately useless university career I studied English and Philosophy, focusing on theology and ethics. The young Elder was surprised and assumed that I was a fully fledged follower of God because I was so learned in His works. Without regret I informed him it was not so: for when I made a genuine inquiry into the religious texts deemed so important by major societies, I found them lacking in reason, morality, and lacking any real application to the modern world. Ultimately, reading the Bible in its entirety set me on the path to Atheism.

The young Elder was appalled, and in a hot-headed display that shattered the image of the politely-nodding Mormon follower, told me “Sir, you are dead wrong!” (his silent companion actually winced at the volume of the young Elder’s voice- I did too- we were standing in a courtyard outside an apartment building in broad daylight). He continued, “Without the Lord’s guidance we would not know right from wrong, how do I know if I could trust you when you refuse to recognize the Lord’s authority?”

I should have just left the hot head. He was, after all, just spewing out practiced phrases that he was told to say when a subject was brought up. I doubt very much he even understood much of what he was saying, he was just told to say it (probably in a nicer tone though). But, hey, I saw an opportunity to use my otherwise useless university degree, and goading a hothead is fun.
I told the hot head that there are many sources where one can learn morality: from family, experiences, school, etc, and that the Bible was not unique source of moral wisdom. He challenged me to tell him of something that was “better than the Bible” for teaching, or imparting, morality. At this point I thought I would inject some humour into the situation because the hot head was taking it all too seriously.

With a smile I said, “Sesame Street.”

I explained how Sesame Street was far superior to the Bible in both its moral code and presenting that moral code in a consistent manner. On the spot I came up with a few of Sesame Street’s moral lessons:

• Be nice to everyone no matter what they look like (humans, freakishly tall birds, rainbow colored fuzzy monsters, sentient typewriters and sandwiches), where they live (bird nests, garbage cans), and non-threatening mental disorders they have (freakishly tall birds insisting on having a talking mammoth friend who no one else ever sees).
• Treat others how you would want to be treated (The ultimate Moral Golden Rule)
• Reading, writing, math, and learning other languages (including sign language) is important.
• Devote each day to the letter of the alphabet.
• The best way to cheer up, learn or count is with a song.
• And lo, when thou spot the cookie, thou shall grasp the cookie, and announce the cookie’s presence unto the world, and yea, thou shall eat the cookie with great exuberance.

At least the one not saying anything cracked a smile.

I would of went on if the hot-head did not dismiss me with a shake of his head and a angry-but-polite “Good day to you sir” (the emphasis on the you was his, not mine).

The whole incident got me thinking about my claim about the moral superiority of Sesame Street over the Judeo-Christian Bible (and if I might add the Quran as well). It is a strong claim, which I admit at the time I made I was really just joking and trying to lighten the mood. The more I thought about it though, the more the claim made sense.

It would be dishonest of me to say the Bible totally lacks any good moral lessons. It does cover the basics: don’t kill, don’t steal, and don’t covet things that are not yours (which is really related to stealing). Jesus is often quoted about loving your fellow man (not woman though…) and the importance of forgiving people who confess their wrongs to you. These are even several versions of the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have done unto you). The text is not without its inspiring stories and scripture.

There are problems though.

The first is the sheer magnitude of the rules put down by the authors of the Bible that make no sense and have no relevance to modern times. The rules for not eating shellfish [Leviticus 11:10], to not boil a calf in its mother’s milk [Exodus 23:19], and “solving” murders by sacrificing a goat (taking it out to the desert and beating it to death no less), totally outdo the common sense rules. The text is plagued by rules that most modern Christians simply ignore. Even most of the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with morality, they concern obligations to the Big Sky Daddy (do this because I said so) rather than moral arguments (don’t do this because this happens). The majority of the rules concern God’s apparent need to be assured that he is the One True God And You Better Not Disrespect Me (and, oh yeah, take Sundays off).

Secondly there are the brutal and violent rules that slap the Golden Rule in the face: according to the Bible, you may stone you child to death if they disrespect you [Deut. 21:18-21], burn people for not believing in your God [Exodus 22:20], and enslave people [Exodus 21:2] (the rules for enslavement are well detailed). Some claim that our laws (both Canadian and American) are based on the Bible seem to be ignorant of these rules that are obviously absent in the legal systems of both countries.

Thirdly is the inconsistently of the moral lessons. A lesson is laid down (like Thou shall not Kill and Respect Your Neighbour) and then in the next book, or even chapter, the lesson is broken when God commands his people to slaughter and pillage villages, sacrifice their sons, and kill a man for gathering wood on Sunday [Numbers 15:32] (which He admits is not the usual punishment, but He felt particularly hard ass that day). There are many rules that contradict each other and anyone trying to follow all of them would be a stressed out schizophrenic.

I know a common apologetic argument for these horrible things in the Bible is that Jesus, the great enlightened guy he was, made it so you don’t have to follow those crazy old rules. I am still waiting for someone to point out the passage that Jesus nullifies the Old Testament in such a manner (Okay, in all honesty, his sacrifice does nullify the need for you to sacrifice animals for your sins, but that’s it, nothing else). In fact, Jesus endorses the Old Testament [Matthew 5:17]- because without it there will be no prophesy for his to fulfill. He might be a little more wholesome compared to the Old Testament, but slavery is a-ok in his book [Colossians 3:22] and he adds the practice of self-mutilation for dealing with pesky sinful desires [Matthew 5:29].

Now Sesame Street does not have any segments which I know of where Grover or Elmo advise kids that it is wrong to kill people, but you could argue that that lesson is kind of inexplicitly covered by the teaching of the Golden Rule, and the Golden Rule is showered all over Sesame Street. Kids are shown how it makes people sad when others steal or say bad things about them. They are taught to emphasize with the ones they hurt by their actions and learn the essential Golden Rule. Children are taught how to deal with emotions such as love, hate, anger, fear, and sadness (Oscar the Grouch was specifically designed to show how to deal with negative emotions). Sesame Street is actually the first show ever to use behavioural science and psychology experiments and implement them in the program. For example, one of their constant concerns was the attention span of young children. To test if a particular show held a young child’s education they would use a test audience for every show by putting the audience in a room with two TV screens. On one screen the episode would play, the other random images that would change every 5 seconds. If the episode cannot hold the young test audiences’ attention for at least 60% of the time, the episode is sent back to conception. The producers of Sesame Street are very committed to educating children and keeping their attention, thus have a huge commitment to keeping their moral messages consistent and clear.

In the end there is nothing unique about the Judeo-Christian Bible in its moral lessons. Its uniqueness lies in the snapshot of history it provides of several related cultures that existed hundreds of years ago, but it is not the sole shining beacon of morality that its followers claim it is. Many followers cling to Dogma rather than scripture, relying on what a priest told them than what the Bible actually says. There are oodles of Dogma that do not appear in the Bible (The “Jesus is God” concept, transubstantiation, the existence of Limbo, the nature of Heaven and Hell, etc.), representing generations of people figuring out they just didn’t like what they read in the Bible or found it lacking and made some stuff up to add to the demand for explanations (and Church authority).

Morality comes in many forms and from many sources. Some are better than others and the only way to figure out which ones are better is by honestly and truthfully examining them and never assuming that one has the ultimate authority over humanity’s moral soul. Ultimately the source of one’s morality is not as important as how their morality takes form.

For me, the choice of between these two is obvious.

The Last Starfighter (1984) Retro Review

This is one of the movies I grew up on.

I remember a large black VHS tape that had two other movies recorded on it, with the title “The Last Starfighter” written in blue pen on the top of the label. I remember putting it into a large dull metal colored VCR that, when you pressed the huge green Eject button, would release the hydraulic launched tape deck on the top with a futuristic gear grinding sound. When I put the tape in and pressed the tape deck back into the machine, it locked in with a cluck then began a definite whir as I pressed the Play button.

They don’t make VCRs so wondrously clunky-yet-futuristic-at-the-same-time these days. To me The Last Starfighter is just like that old VCR: Aged, but still awesome.

The Last Starfighter is about a teenager named Alex Rogan (portrayed by Lance Guest) who is trying to get a better life than the trailer park he lives in with his mother can offer him. He’s a decent guy who goes out of his way to help out the close-knit trailer community, but the only thing he can have to himself is his hobby of playing the arcade game at the local diner. The arcade game is called Starfighter, and one night Alex breaks the high score. Little does he know that the arcade game is actually a recruiting and training tool used to test potential candidates for a real Starfighter program run by an alien race that needs pilots “with the gift” to pilot the powerful Gunstar fighters. For Alex, the premise of the arcade game he played becomes true as he is “recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier from the Xur and the Ko-Dan Armada.”

The story of The Last Starfighter is not very deep and, except for a few slight turns it’s pretty simple, but it is done so solidly that even today I enjoy watching it. It is sprinkled with genuine moments and weird sights that it keeps you entertained despite the simple story and characters.

What is interesting that despite the movie’s title, Alex does not pilot a starfighter until a little more than the last half of the film. But that’s okay, because the film offers a unique and humorous subplot that involves an android masquerading as Alex on Earth (to hide the fact the Alex is really in space helping out the Star League) and the sheer fish-out-of-water experience that Alex goes through when he is thrust into an alien world is enough to keep you entertained until the big, long starfighter sequence at the end.

The special effects used in the movie would definitely be considered aged, but it was one of the first movies, along with Tron, to use CGI. 3D rendered models were used for the starships and other objects, like the exterior of the Command Center and the outer space environment. Today the effects would be considered cartoony, but it still amazing to me how much detail the models show, and, in their own aged way, still hold up. Also the filmmakers were careful to limit the number of shots that contained real filmed footage and 3D rendered footage (I don’t know if they did this intentionally) so that at least the real footage and 3D footage were consistent (and they avoided fake looking blue-screen effects).

What I find interesting about the movie is that it manages to invoke a variety of emotions. There are triumphant times of glory, humorous moments, and most interesting of all, creepy ass moments that frightened me as a kid and still creep me out today. When Alex is whisked away by his lovable conman recruiter Centauri he is replaced by a Beta Unit, an android that assumes his identify and makes sure no one notices that Alex is really gone. When Alex first meets the Beta Unit it is shrouded in darkness. It shakes Alex’s hand that causes a bright flash and Alex recoils in pain. Before he can complain the Beta Unit leaves without a word. The next we see the Beta Unit it is in Alex’s bed with the covers over its head, emitting odd, sickly groaning and moaning. Alex’s mother and girlfriend assume that he is depressed so they don’t disturb him too much, but as Alex’s girlfriend leaves the room and shuts the door, the Beta Unit pulls the covers off its face, revealing a pulsing, slimy pale skinned skull with lidless eyes and lights blinking underneath the skin. Apparently it was still in the process of transformation into Alex’s likeness. That vision of the Beta Unit in mid-metamorphosis scared the hell of me as a kid- but I kept on watching.

The music score of The Last Starfighter is awesome. Even today the tune of the main theme gets stuck in my head, and for a while I wonder where the tune is from, until I realize that it’s the ear worm that I have had off and on for over 20 years.

When I watched this movie recently I realized how some…let’s say more politically correct viewers might object to the story elements. The fact that a video game is being used as a training and recruiting tool for a dangerous military operation (and on teenagers no less) by a secret organization that pretty much abducts Alex and shoves a uniform in his arms does not exactly cast the Star League in a good and noble light. This was made in 1984, when video games were pretty much considered a fad for the young. Now a days, after the attempts by both left-wing and right-wing interests to demonize certain video games (if not the whole video game industry itself), this concept would ruffle a few feathers, especially those who follow the anti-military/establishment crowd. Of course, the military organizations in real life have always sought out ways to recruit young people, going beyond a call for patriotic pride and duty by offering perks and entertainment that pander to even the video gaming crowd.

But the focus of the Last Starfighter is not about military recruitment, war, or even video games. It is about a young man finding a purpose in his life and grabbing hold of it when the opportunity presents itself. The “war” in the movie is not much of a war- it is literally one ship versus an armada. The action is a fun ride in space with lots of colorful explosions, not a gritty, sober battlefield filled with death and angst. The issues of war and military service take a backseat to the overall theme of discovering oneself.

For The Last Starfighter war is fun and there is nothing wrong with that.

The Wolfman (2010) movie review

Not only am I a huge horror buff, I have a special love for the werewolf monster. Some of my favorite films include the hairy monsters, but surprisingly the original The Wolf Man made by Universal Pictures in 1941 is not my favorite of the Universal Horror line. I consider Frankenstein (1931) and Dracula (1931) to be better movies.

So when the remake was announced (back in 2006) my werewolf fan boy enthusiasm was dulled by Hollywood’s vapid fascination with making remakes of films that didn’t need to be remade. Remaking The Wolfman, no matter how enthusiastic those in its production were, seemed like a step backwards for me. The film was also delayed several times for almost two years, so when it finally came out in theatres any interest I had in the film was shallow at best (Although, I have to admit, when I learnt Hugo Weaving was in it my interest was piqued a little, but not enough to pay for a theatre ticket).

The remake uses the same character names and basic plot of the original movie (man visits estranged rich father, gets bitten by werewolf, turns into werewolf, kills people, gets killed with silver implement, the end), but it deviates significantly by introducing sub-plots in an attempt to make the story deeper. Some of these sub-plots help the story somewhat, but others are just put in for useless time filler. In the end it seems like the film is trying to be deeper than it really is. I found this disappointing because it definitely had the talent to make it a deeper, more significant film.

The strongest subplot concerns the main character, Lawrence Talbot (portrayed by Benicio del Toro) and his turbulent history concerning the mysterious death of his mother which left him emotionally scared when he was young and made his father, Sir John Talbot (portrayed by Anthony Hopkins), send Lawrence away to an insane asylum. Although this is the strongest plot line in the story, it gets bogged down at times in way too long scenes of moody dialogue and silent breaks.

The subplot concerning Gwen Conliffe (portrayed by Emily Blunt), widow of Lawrence’s murdered brother and love interest, trying to find a cure for lycanthropy is just an excuse to fill time, show a bunch of old pictures of werewolves, and tell us what we (and the character) already knew: the only way to cure the werewolf is to kill him with something silver (oh, and love him when you’re shooting him). Perhaps it would have been more significant if the character discovered a way to save Lawrence, a twist from the original movie, but alas the whole subplot is just a waste of time.

The strongest element of the film is the cast. The film has some high caliber actors with Benicio del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, and Hugo Weaving. The performances are solid and they would have been better if the actors had more to do with their roles. Benicio del Toro fills the role of Lawrence Talbot to a T, but really his role has two modes: moping depression and frantic alarm, and hardly anything in between. Anthony Hopkins steals the whole freaking show with his portrayal of the insanely distant Sir John Lawrence. Hopkins truly did as much as he could to do with so little he was given. Sadly, Hugo Weaving, who portrays Inspector Francis Aberline, is really just relegated to the role of the persistent-detective-who-must-get-his man. The only time his character really shines is when he is first introduced and has a frank discussion with Lawrence. Aberline shows his intelligence by deducing that Lawrence has something to do with the recent murders because of his turbulent history- of course he is proven wrong, but it was a good guess and it was the only time we are shown the intelligence of the character.

Another strong point of the film is the atmosphere. The story is set in Blackmoor (UK) in 1891; making the film a period piece (the original was not). There is plenty of Gothic imagery, including a wonderful scene in a stone circle (similar to Stone Henge) in the dead of night with thick fog whirling in between the monolithic stones. Talbot Manor is a interesting setting, a large manor that is falling into disrepair. It has the right balance of decay and spender, a place that is on the verge of becoming decrepit but still has some nobility left in it.

In a werewolf movie the obvious strong point of the film should be the werewolf itself, and the intricate transformation scenes which have pretty much become a requirement for any werewolf in any film. I have no complaints about the look of the wolf man in the movie. It is definitely inspired by the original hairy-human-with-fangs-and-black-nose look that Lon Chaney Jr. used. This wolf man has more of a muzzle (as much a latex can give) and fur, as well as digitigrade paw-like feet. (Fun fact: Lon Chaney Jr., in the original Wolf Man, walked on his tippy toes to get a wolf-like gait- in this film they used a simple apparatus and CGI to get the effect). The wolf man is a decent mix of practical makeup and CGI effects- too bad we hardly ever get to look at it. The wolf man only makes three appearances in the 1 hour and 42 minute film, and of those scenes are very fast and rapid compared to the long, almost dredging scenes when Lawrence is human. Apparently the original idea for the remake was to use as much practical effects (make-up, stunt suits, etc.) as possible, but the director (Joe Johnston) felt rushed and used CGI for the transformation scenes, full body shots, and sprinting scenes (which makes little sense to me because he had over a year to tinker with the film). The CGI is decent, but sometimes really obvious, especially with close ups of the Wolf Man while he is sprinting and jumping. The use of CGI is regrettable because del Toro was obviously putting a lot of effort into portraying the monster, only to be replaced by a CGI doppelganger.

Interestingly the film is gory, but not as bloody. There are plenty of guts being ripped out, rib cages torn open, and slashes across the face and belly, but I was surprised by the lack of huge gouts of blood that have become a ridiculous cliché these days in horror and action movies. It deserved its R rating no doubt, and there was a decent amount of blood, just not the huge gouts inspired by Kill Bill.

The story does have somewhat of a twist, but by the last half of the first act you have figured it out. It is not a complete surprise when it is revealed, and (total freaking spoiler alert) does result in a fast paced brawl between two werewolves, which I would have enjoyed more if it was not so one sided and predictable.

This movie had something, but somewhere along the line it lost it. In the end it comes out average, which is really too bad considering the dedication of the talent that went into it. It is a definite rental for a casual night and maybe a cheap purchase for werewolf fanatics like me.

Sometimes werewolves just need a hug from someone they love, not a silver bullet in the gut.

A place where I can talk to myself...(Hopefully not)

I don't know about most people, but my brain is often thinking about several things at once. When I mulling something over in my head, sometimes I can't help but start to have conversations with myself. Some of these ramblings are insightful, some of them really stupid, but I've wasted enough time just thinking about the random things in my head, I might as well write about them and see if anyone listens.

What do I expect from blogging? Nothing really, it's a great way to organize my thoughts and continue my education without costing an arm and a leg. But don't get me wrong, it would be great if I could get some dialog and debate going.

My expertise lies in two useless university degrees in the English language and Theology/Philosophy (with emphasis on ethics and jurisprudence). I am also a colossal nerd with interests in speculative fiction and media.

I am not afraid of debate and/or criticism, in fact I thrive on it. I know that I am just one opinion among many but I strive to at least be honest as possible.

Here's hoping this does something for me...