Opinion column: Are smartphones making us addicts?

I have to admit I'm pretty much at my wits end with this whole smartphone phase of life for society. It took me being out of work for a period of time in order to have the strong need to turn the damn thing off. Now I strictly use what was my iPhone 4s for home usage (with a WiFi connection) and as a music player when jogging outside. And that's it. There's finally an end to having any reason to bring it into a store, a movie, or a restaurant, even if the temptation was there. I can tell you it's a feeling of bliss once you get used to it. No longer do you feel like you're having any sort of technology withdrawal as you walk around reality, soaking up what's in front of you and around you versus what new message or email just came in on your phone. Ya know, acting like REAL people, not zombies!

It really hit me the other day as I was about to go for a run in the park as I spotted someone on their bike, clearly texting away (Yes, I'm that observant to be able to tell a distinction between texting versus simply changing songs) on this BEAUTIFUL sunny day here in Syracuse, NY (Where it's a rarity for the sun to come out at all) just how sad a sight that was. I get that there's some people that feel justified in having these devices around 24/7, almost glued to their face in some cases, but come on people, there really ought to be a happy medium somewhere with these contraptions that keep us plugged into a virtual collective at the touch of a button. Tom Green, the famous Canadian comedian recently lamented "the innocence" is gone in society during a standup routine and that things like smartphones and social media are like a virtual dopamine addiction for humans. I have to agree. It's like that instant gratification one gets the minute they send and then receive a response to a text message. Essentially the same feeling you'd get 15 years ago when you'd get home from a long day and see you received a message left on an answering machine you were hoping to get. Now, people are getting similar bursts of excitement via their smartphones at a relentless rate. How much is too much? When does it end? Or will we all eventually be walking around with microchips inside our brains that are constantly processing data like our phones do now? Some would argue that smartphones allow us to get things done due to our increasingly busy schedules, and that's true on one end of thinking. However, maybe it's just society and employers need to slow things down a pinch and stop treating people like work slaves even after the horses come home. Me thinks so, but I've been wrong before...

I can't help but feel it's eerily similar to that episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation called "The Game", where Commander Riker brings back this device you wear around your head, and every time you sink this odd shaped visual into a hole, your brain gets this instant release, no different than drugs.(oddly enough, Google glass is just around the corner) Since I brought up the Trek reference, let me just say that one thing that seemed to be consistent on the shows or the movies was the characters always tried to get away from technology when they could, i.e. shore leave, doing something that involved nature. So there was this happy medium in play that didn't make everyone so damned dependent upon having the latest and great tech device in their hands. That's a future I'd love to see society of today morph into, and one where people can still stay very connected to nature versus the virtual reality world.

And that's my point, are smartphones making virtual drug addicts out of everyone? It's hard NOT to think this when I see everything from people ignoring a sunny day outside, to frantically texting in a super market while almost ramming a cart into other patrons, to the obvious concerns of those who text while driving. You gotta be on drugs or have a DOPAMINE like effect going on in your brain to feel that incessant need to always have the phone in your hand.

I'm sure any critics of my stance on this will say I'm simply out of touch with the here and now, or I'm just old-school and can't see the fun in this new wave of technology, almost similar to how parents and authority figures back in the late 60s used to fear the effect a band like the Beatles had on their children's minds. Well riddle me this Riddler, since when does listening to music at home or in your car have the same potential cause and effect of my concerns in this column? One can still enjoy a sunny day while listening to tunes, or for that matter you can still be in the company of others say at a concert or where there's live music playing. All things that allow you to stay tapped into the physical reality around you versus the virtual reality of your smartphone device.

This isn't to say smartphones should be abandoned, and we should roll everything back to 1996. That's not my point at all. They do have their benefits, believe me they do! I remember on a few cross-country tips mine saved my ass on more than several occasions where I absolutely had to look key information up (on the side of the road) and didn't have time to go find some random computer lab. I've even found having one around while waiting for your car to be worked on, or in a dentist's office lounge can kill some time nicely. In many ways they can certainly save one's behind on the fly, but my point is they get overused. I think it's tough for some to realize society was alive and well not even ten years ago without these devices. Life went on, work got done, and emails and other messages were left to getting to a little later in the day. I know of the dangers of becoming too reliant on this form of technology because I was as abusive of the tech as anyone before being forced to switch it off. That contrast was needed for me to finally wake up, and I'll do my darnedest to NEVER go back to such a high use and reliance on such a small piece of the puzzle in life.

Seriously, take a chunk of your day where you'd normally walk into a store, a movie theater, any public place really, and leave your phone in the car. The more you do it, the more I'm willing to bet you'll feel a sense of liberation that maybe used to be there 5 to ten years ago, but certainly hasn't been in recent memory. Hell, you may even be inclined to look up and acknowledge perfect strangers you'd have never had any reason to say hello to in the past because all you were doing was saying hello to everyone in your PHONE!!! Additionally, to all the brainy people that feel they have to text and talk as they walk their dogs, seriously, have mercy on your furry friends, enjoy the moment with them versus spoiling it ad nauseam. If nothing else it's much safer that way. Soapbox over. Feel free to leave your own insight on this topic below.

The Wolverine: A more than pleasant surprise (Review)

Look, I'm not going to claim to be some comic book aficionado here, and never will. So when I say that The Wolverine was one of the best experiences I've ever had going to see a comic book film, realize I'm not beholden to the comic book lore of this character. The film's setting, the action sequences, and the characters offered enough to win me over from the opening shot of the film until the theater went dark. Specifically, I'm a softy for any film that uses the backdrop of Japan, and namely Tokyo for a primary mise-en-scene. It just never gets old and gives an American made film an aura that's sadly missing from a lot of summer blockbusters. Secondly, Hugh Jackson and the rest of the cast do not disappoint in any way. There's something of a side-kick character Wolverine is forced to deal with early in the film, named Yukio, played by Rila Fukushima, and her introduction won me over from the get go. Another great addition to this cast is Hiroyuki Sanada (Some of you may have remembered him from Danny Boyle's 2007 film Sunshine) playing the son of a very important central character you'll meet in scene one of this film. I could keep gushing about the international cast but I'll leave it up to you to decide for yourself if the credit I'm giving is realistic. 

Without getting into spolier filled territory I'll just underline the central theme of the film's story (at least how I viewed it anyway) deals with the concept of immortality and mortality, along with which is the better side to be on at the end of the day. It can be an obsession for some and the films central character, Yashida, certainly would fall into that obsessive category. Additionally, the opening scene should serve as a reminder about the horrors of nuclear weapons that have indeed been used on humanity in reality. Not something you'd expect to necessarily be reminded of in the context of a Marvel comics film but I took something away from the haunting visuals in the beginning of the film.

What really makes this film flow well and have a good pulse is the action scenes. The fight choreography is top notch as you see Wolverine and his allies fend off the bad guys. I never felt the camera necessarily moved too fast for me too keep up with the action which is something I'm learning to really appreciate in this era of JJ Abram's neck break style for camera movements. Even a high speed train sequence that you'd think may be completely nauseating for the eyes seemed well within acceptable limits for my own. There's also something of a 007/James Bond vibe peppered into this film. Maybe I've just watched too many of those thrillers but between the train sequence I alluded to, some of the specific shots of cars racing through the mountains, the slightly over the top action set piece for the film's climax made me think of some of those movies. And that isn't a bad thing at all here, whether it was intentional or unintentional. Another positive I need to mention is the witty dialogue, mainly being uttered out of Hugh Jackman's mouth. This film has no shortage of humor and well-timed one liners, something that prevents itself from being too serious. I'd honestly say it's the personality of the Wolverine character, brought to life so well by Jackman that may be a reason why audiences have yet to fully embrace a character like Superman. Let's face it, the straight-edged persona doesn't usually translate into witty and well-timed spots for light comedy in a script. I had to see this film to look back on Man of Steel and realize there was a bit of charm that was missing. there. (And I was too kind about it in a past review) This is simply an ass-kicking comic book film for my money and wish the majority of films of this genre could all live up to a similar frenetic energy...

Nonetheless, for as many good things The Wolverine has going for it I need to be fair and mention some of the drawbacks as well. There's some dream sequences that have Wolverine wishing there was some way he could still be with Jean Grey. (And before I go on, I must say that Famke Janssen should get an award for getting better with age, or at least maintaining because she looks wonderful in this movie) I felt like there was one or two too many of these dream moments and it bogged things down a bit for me. I understand the need for this to serve a purpose in the character arc for Wolverine but maybe not to the degree it was used here. Also, as larger than life as the film's final action sequence was, I found myself preferring the action scenes that came before it. I'm not saying it was bad or served to leave a bad taste in my mouth before the credits rolled, I just preferred act 1 and act 2's action sequences better. That's about all I can hurl at this film for negativity though, and that should say a great deal considering they're really just minor quips at best in my book.

The bottom line is this movie should satisfy the young and old. The opening scenes should draw you in enough to care about what's building plot wise until the very end. I found it to be the most satisfying comic book film I've seen since the first Iron Man (Yes, I know that will stir the pot as far as Batman enthusiasts go) Lastly, yes, stay behind for the credits because I think that will really serve to make you leave the theater with a smile. A job well done to director James Mangold and all involved! Nuff said.

How will Breaking Bad end?

Starting next month one of the greatest television shows I've personally (and I'm sure many would agree) have watched over the past 5 seasons will come to a close. The rise and fall of Bryan Cranston's iconic character of Walter White will be concluded, and with that it has me guessing how this show can end? Will it be a satisfying ending? (unlike the divisive ending of another famed TV show, The Sopranos) Will Walter White get taken out by his brother in-law Hank? Or will Jessie handle it himself? Or will Walter live? I can't even begin to pinpoint the infinite possibilities for the conclusion to some of the best writing TV has ever seen.

Another facet to all of this is just how lucky the show's creator, Vince Gilligan, admitted he was on an episode of the Nerdist Writers Panel podcast back in February, that it was the writers strike of 2008 that prevented him from essentially blowing the story arc of the show into the season finale of season 1. He said he'd originally had this epic ending that basically threw everything and the kitchen sink at the storyline of Walter White's character that would have prevented him from expanding on in later seasons had the strike not occurred when it did. Just hearing that blew my mind at how close this show was to never being able to evolve the way it has since season 1. Thankfully dumb luck intervened and Gilligan was unable to execute that plan.

So now the 2nd part of season 5 is set to air next month on AMC and on top of trying to guess how the ending will play out I'm extremely bummed that such an excellent show will no longer be on the airwaves. Let's face it, has there ever been a TV series that depicts such a miserable, deceitful main character you may find yourself at times rooting for? I realize that up until a certain point in the show that may be impossible, but the sheer brilliance of Bryan Cranston's acting ability provides the layers needed for one to not completely detest the character of Walter White. Even amidst some of his characters most evil moments he's able to project even just a microscopic sense of humility and innocence (at least that's how I've disgusted the character) And let's not forget the great supporting cast, with Aaron Paul's character of Jessie, and Dean Norris's portrayal of Hank. Add to it some of the reoccurring characters of Saul, Mike, and Gustavo up until this point and it has made for the perfect balance of drama and humor throughout the series. My only regret is Mike and Gustavo were killed off, that's the only criticism the show warrants in my eyes and it really isn't much of one all things considered.

Having said all that, what could possibly make this show's ending a memorable and satisfying one? Or is it impossible at this point, given just how GREAT the series has been that there simply is no perfect ending? Even if you're not a die-hard fan of this program, there's no freaking way you can ever say you've seen a TV series commence with a character driving a Winnebago, partially on fire, blazing through the New Mexico desert, while just in his underwear and wearing an oxygen mask in scene 1 of a new show. It had to mark the biggest WTF moment in the history of TV in my opinion. How do you top that kind of a series opening scene? I think in some ways I'd prefer the show to not have every loose end tied up. Maybe allow the viewer to create their own idea of how Walter, Hank, Jessie, and Saul carry on after all is said and done. Maybe it would be too predictable that Walt is ultimately caught and/or killed for all his wrongdoing in the end? Time will tell.

Please post any ideas or comments below! Nuff said.

Rocky Balboa spin-off "Creed": Thoughtful idea or just a cash grab?

I'm going to make it crystal clear before I get into my opinions on this that I've adored the Rocky films since I was about seven years old. I would even go as far as saying I was a bigger fan of the Apollo Creed character than I was Rocky himself. I remember being vehemently pissed as a ten year old when I first watched Rocky IV and Drago killed one of my idols. That being said, I would love to know what Hollywood is smoking with the idea to green light a spin-off project entitled "Creed."

The basic premise (per a yahoo article earlier today) is that Rocky gets lured out of his retirement to become Apollo Creed's grandsons trainer. Ah, yeah, do I need to repeat this? Does this mean we'll eventually get a flashback spin-off with Mickey and Paulie taking a summer road trip together as well??! It's bad enough we're getting so many remakes shoved down our throats like Total Recall, the soon to be released Robocop, Poltergeist, and many others, but now something like this is going to get funded! So I guess what's debatable here is will there be some original source material to make this spin-off film into something special, or will it just feel like a formulaic retread?

  Hasn't this film already been made?

It's really too bad the Carl Weather's Apollo Creed character was killed off because ideally HE would be the proper actor needed to give a film like this some real sincerity. Right away I'm questioning why would Rocky train his grandson? Why can't Apollo's family set him up with a contemporary trainer, why Rocky? Another issue I have is didn't we already get a film like this with Rocky V, when Rocky reluctantly trains Tommy Gun? Seems like this will be a slippery slope in terms of avoiding territory Sly Stallone has already taken this series. Will there be a Don King like character to lure Creed's grandson into a life of being tormented by money, and unethical behavior? Will we see him fight Ivan Drago's butt-baby? Just kidding, but these are the kinds of absurd questions swirling in my brain after reading this announcement from earlier today.

Sometimes I think it's good to let a good thing go out on top. Stallone more than accomplished this with Rocky Balboa and I'm not sure why he'd want to be apart of something that could potentially undo what he fixed between Rocky 5 and the last entry. However, maybe I'm way off the mark here and if anyone has any bright ideas as to why this could make for a great film, by all means, leave some comments below. Let the debate begin... Nuff said.

Upon further Review: Alien 3

I remember being as excited as ever to see this film as a 12 year old. Oops, did I just reveal I saw this film that young and in theaters? Sure did, but thankfully it never enticed me to want to grow up and be some prisoner on an off-planet penal colony. Phew! The lights dimmed, and within the first 4 minutes of the follow up to the well received ALIENS, three really important characters were killed off (one even impaled). In my mind I kept thinking "WTF", even as a pre-teen I just felt like I was cheated and this ruined the rest of the film for me back then. How could the characters of Hicks, Newt, and Bishop be eliminated in the 3rd Alien film so swiftly? Regardless of this downer, and the fact the film was set in the depths of hell, AND the fact there were no fun action sequences with the classic guns a blazing Mise-en-scène , I've grown to really appreciate this film some 21 years later. Add to it, a very lengthy extended cut was released on Blu-ray, adding in an entire action sequence we never got to see back in 1992, and the story now makes a hell of a lot more sense.

So what's to like about this very dark entry for an Alien film? For starters, Charles S. Dutton, who plays a very convincing prisoner named Dillon. He's like the prison's vocal cheerleader, he keeps the morale up as much as humanly possible for being stuck in such an incredible shit-hole. His acting in this film is above and beyond any performance for a supporting actor we'd seen in the previous two films of the series. He owns this role and by the end of the film, as he's stuck inside that dead-end corridor with the beast, there's a good chance you're rooting for his character to survive in some regard. Anytime an actor can elevate the material he's given, along with being able to make you see past that in his case, he was a prior murderer and rapist of women (to which he exclaims to Ripley upon their first encounter in the mess hall), show's you the actor embodying the role is kicking major ass in the part. Secondly, Charles Dance, who plays the prison's medical doctor named Clemons, delivers an outstanding performance given the more limited screen time his character has, and is another tragic sort of character that the main character of Ellen Ripley can relate to, along with the audience. I guess what I'm getting at is if there's one thing that really soars in this movie it's the performances of the cast. Many of the cast members were from England, i.e. classically trained, and just seemed a cut above the supporting cast from Aliens in my opinion. And this is a facet that you're less likely to notice and appreciate as a 12 year old who just wants to see a rehash of its predecessor. It's not something you'll miss as an adult viewer.

As far as the film's pacing, and action, well, there are no guns in this iteration of an Alien film, and quite frankly that pissed a lot of people off, myself included (until now), but what it does is opens up the film for a couple of very original action sequences you never would have seen if not for leaving guns out of the equation. For example, towards the middle of the film, Ripley and the bulk of the prisoners come up with this crazy plan to lure the Alien into this completely sealed room, used to normally store toxic chemicals, but to do it one prisoner in particular has to literally trick the beast into the room. There's explosions going on, mass chaos, prisoners getting doused in flames, and overall director David Fincher does a nice job making the facility they're in feel as cluster-phobic as humanly possible. The film's conclusion, uses the camera to make the viewer feel like they're looking through the eyes of the Alien as it chases down prisoners who are running for their lives, one by one, to try luring it into chamber they'll drop scorching hot cement onto. Either way, this is material the viewer had never seen in an Alien movie up until this point. So bravo for taking an original approach and not just doing some formulaic rehash of the previous two films.

The visuals, the soundtrack, both set the mood of this picture perfectly. I think of David Fincher's original vision, which falls in line with the now available extended cut, had been released back in 1992, it may not taken another 20 something years for fans like myself to embrace this film. Sigourney Weaver also does some of her best work as the character of Ripley here, portraying a woman who is on the verge of finally caving in from her past encounters with these creatures but ultimately won't cave and allow this kind of bio-weapon fall into "company" hands by the end of the movie. All the little intimate details made possible by this extended cut should really drive home the point that a true effort was made to make a solid third entry into this series of films.

So really, give this film a whirl in adulthood, but make sure it's the extended version, not the theatrical cut. You still may find it to be too dark and brooding as compared to the first two entries, but how in the hell were the first two films not entirely dark and disturbing?? Nuff said. 

Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek Insurrection: Strong allegories for Trek and the real world...

I just want to get this out of the way: Star Trek Into Darkness couldn't have been more of an allegorical storyline, mirroring some of the present day events in society than it was. And with that, it remained true to Gene Roddenberry's vision as best as it possibly could. I'm saying this because I happened to see a Next Generation cast member get taped by TMZ one night, stating that the film and Star Trek was missing Gene's aura, or something to that effect. Maybe it was just one of those bad times where one of those foolish tabloid magazines catches someone at the wrong time of the night, who really knows, but I respectfully disagree with that assessment. This write up is for those who have seen the two films I'm going to discuss, and if you haven't seen them yet I apologize in advance for skimming some plot details. The bottom line is I feel out of all the Star Trek feature films, Into Darkness and Insurrection have the strongest message about what society has mucked up in recent memory, as well as concepts about forced relocation that have been a stain on humanity for centuries.

For starters, for many who think that Into Darkness had a weak message to the behavior of society in the past 50-60 years, I offer a quote, care of a Vulture.com article, from the actor who played Admiral Marcus in the film, Peter Weller, " Curtis LeMay had eighteen nukes stored on his own that he didn’t tell the NSC or President Kennedy about — because he didn’t deem them knowledgeable enough about war. That is unbelievable arrogance! So, Admiral Marcus is basically like LeMay. I’m looking at this touchy-feely egalitarian nice guy in Kirk: Is this really the guy that’s gonna buckle up, saddle up, put on the guns and fight the Klingons, who are encroaching on our airspace, in our territorial infinity? No! There are military leaders now in the United States who feel that, for instance, Obama’s a wimp. So it’s very simple to step inside that skin. Could this all go wrong? Yeah, but on the other hand, he’s trying to protect his country, his nation, his universe, his infinity. He’s a patriot," said Weller. So right there I could probably end this article now without any of my own talking points on why I think Into Darkness hits a strong allegorical note. If the theme of war in this film wasn't enough to underline the allegorical nature, just look at the opening scenes of the film, with Kirk and co. attempting to do everything in their power to save a planet from dying. Granted, he (Kirk) got his ass chewed from Pike later on, for violating the Prime Directive, but the fact the opening scenes of the film dived right into such a debate is as on the nose about staying true to Gene Roddenberry's vision as apple pie is to Americana (or what's left of it). I just think that it may have been the brake neck pace of this movie and the intensity of the action, that made a lot of people forget to notice what was really taking place in the context of the story. But really, look harder, there's some more than solid themes at work in this movie that don't give a disservice to Gene Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek.

Additionally, I would argue that the Admiral Marcus character is essentially a Starfleet version of Dick Chaney, someone who is really FORCING the issue of war down Starfleet's throats and creating this sort of paranoia and fear that never existed before in the utopian world of Star Trek. But why must you ask does this sudden fear and insecurity exist in JJ Abram's Star Trek? Ah, did you see the previous film?!? People forget that the chain of events set in motion by Star Trek (2009), with an enemy like Nero and the futuristic Romulans coming back and obliterating Vulcan, along with almost obliterating Earth changed everything for Starfleet and how new threats are viewed. Instead of just carrying along like a peaceful, scientific organization, they became one that had to create a division that could come up with resources to respond to sudden threats like the one that almost wiped them from the map a few years prior. And if anyone thinks old school Trek didn't have some out of control characters like Admiral Marcus, think of Commodore Decker, a character who witnesses a serious threat to the federation, and in the small pocket of time he has a chance to act he's willing to take down not only what's left of his ship, but someone else's as well. Chaos changes everything.

And the ending of Into Darkness as as optimistic as you're going to get, with Captain Kirk reading a passage that dove tails everything Star Trek's emblematic of before he and the crew you know and love warp off on the 5-year mission to seek out new life, etc. Was this film pretty dark? Sure. I mean hell, you have an Admiral getting his skull crushed by a genetically engineered human (at least you heard it versus the horror of seeing it), you have Admiral Pike getting lambasted by all sorts of high-tech weaponry through the windows of Starfleet headquarters, and even Kirk dies at one point. However, like most iterations of Trek, the ending wraps everything up into a nice bow and creates a sense that no matter how dark things become, Gene Roddenberry's vision outshines everything else that gets in the way. For that, I felt this film couldn't have fit better into the world he (Gene) created back in the 60s and later on with Star Trek The Next Generation...Speaking of...

Star Trek Insurrection is a film that was like the girlfriend you maybe once had that did things pretty OK, was never really a true let down, but at the same time you just weren't sure if she had enough to keep you coming back for more. For myself, it has taken me almost 14 years to finally embrace this film, particularly the allegorical nature of the story, to fully appreciate it from beginning to end. However, the story's allegory, about the wrongs of forced relocation of 600 some odd inhabitants, was considered weak by some critics back when the film was released. Namely Roger Ebert (someone I think was fairly on point with a lot of his reviews, but not all), who said " Our own civilization routinely kills legions of people in wars large and small, for reasons of ideology, territory, religion or geography. Would we contemplate removing 600 people from their native environment to grant immortality to everyone alive? In a flash. It would be difficult, indeed, to fashion a philosophical objection to such a move, which would result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people." OK, but would it still be RIGHT to forcibly move people from their native land that they put in the legwork to settle there and live for 300 years? Whether it's right or wrong, the fact that this film stirs a debate over that concept tells me the story succeeded in being true to Star Trek's vision and prime directive of non-interference in other worlds. Is it right any time one country invades another strictly for their "resources"? In the case of this film, the planet's inhabitants, the Baku, just happen to live on a fountain of youth planet, where the planet's rings contain the magic potion needed to keep anyone living on the surface from ever needing botox, or plastic surgery of any kind! What would humanity do if another country had a resource like that, there for the taking? Would the citizens be allowed to stay put or would the invading country also move them as well? Interesting debate and one that Star Trek Insurrection should stoke your brain's furnace so that you even just slightly consider the implications in the real world.

I'll also say as a side-note, I find Insurrection to be an overall enjoyable film, something I didn't think years ago. There's a real attempt at some humor here, the cast seems to be having a very good time, the shooting locations are arguably the most gorgeous a Trek film has ever shot in, the battle sequence inside the Briar patch was engaging and well paced,  and I must be the only person who feels F. Murray Abraham's Ru'afo character was a fun villain to watch go mad as the film progressed. I never read or hear many people lauding his performance here, and that's a crime in my eyes. I loved it, and I thought he was a hell of a lot more entertaining to watch than Tom Hardy's Shinzon character in the hit or miss follow-up, Nemesis.  Give this film a whirl if you haven't before or haven't given it another chance in a few years. You may find yourself appreciating it a whole lot more.

In the end, both films respectively carry the torch of Star Trek more than any other Trek film that's been made in my opinion. Feel free to agree or disagree below. Nuff said!

The Conjuring: Good, but is it a classic?

 
I love a good horror film, even some of the more borderline absurd styles like the Evil Dead remake, or a few of the Saw films. However, I have certainly missed the old school feel you could only get from a horror movie made in the 70s or early 80s, a la the Exorcist, The Omen, Poltergeist, etc, and The Conjuring certainly takes you back to that time period in terms of visual style and overall feel. But does this film live up to the current hype machine? Is it a modern day classic for the genre? Those were the main questions I had walking into the theater.

I'll just say it: I don't think this is a classic, at least not yet anyway. I walked out of the theater feeling as if the first hour had my brain over-guessing when the first big scare was going to happen, and truthfully I'm not certain I was ever truly "scared" throughout the course of this film. Disturbed? Absolutely, but not scared in the traditional sense that moviegoers tend to grade the effectiveness of a horror film by. I'll elaborate on that more a little later. Now, for those who don't know what this story is based on, well, it's taken from a true story derived from the experiences of a married couple, Ed and Lorraine Warren, who were paranormal experts in real life. Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga did a very good job convincing me they were in fact emulating a couple who has had numerous experiences dealing with possessed demons and various haunted homes. And this is where I must say it's about damn time a horror film has a cast of actors and actresses who aren't still in their 20s and barely know how to act just yet. What made films like The Exorcist, Alien, The Omen, and Halloween so vivid was each cast having at least one or more respectable actors in roles these films needed to have a certain believability to them. For the most part, the last 15 years of horror films has more or less gone with the youth movement for casts that simply can't elevate the story material to new heights. So in that regard, The Conjuring hits a home run with me. Additionally, I do appreciate the fact the director, and all those involved with the writing and production of the film, chose to do a very slow build up to the action sequences in the film. This really gave it a classic horror film feel, and classic movie aura for that matter, where the audience is FORCED to sit the hell down and wait for the big payoff. In the era of ADD audiences, that's a very ballsy pace to go with for storytelling.

Another facet I must mention that made me smile ear to ear was the opening credits. It reeked of the same eeriness, and subtle intensity the original Exorcist opening titles had with the music truly setting the mood of this film.

Now as far as why this film disturbed me over just scaring me out of my seat, I just think the theme of this movie, dealing with demonic possession and forces you can't truly see can honestly make a person's own belief system become challenged over the course of 2 hours. I'm not a particularly religious person but the fact I walked out of the theater even remotely believing some of the events depicted in this film could have been possible in real life says something to how convincing the picture was. That's why I feel this movie is far more disturbing than it is just a typical scare fest. I'm not quite ready to label this as a classic because let's face it, most films that are considered classics took 20 years or more to be recognized as such. I think that's why I'm beginning to have a problem even giving a final review on a film I've only seen once because the passage of time is the real truth for a film's legs. Having said that, I DO think this film probably will go down as a classic over the next two decades or so. Lots of attention to detail, lots of images that will probably stay with you as you leave the theater and I think that alone says there's some replay value to revisit this picture again and again.

A must see but don't expect to be blown away upon first viewing. Nuff said.

Star Trek The Next Generation: Season 3 on Blu ray (Review)

There seems to be a universal opinion that it wasn't until season 3 of Star Trek The Next Generation that the writing on the show really started to hit a consistent note. New show runner/lead writer at the time, Micheal Piller, made it a point for his new crop of writers to focus on writing character episodes versus what was previously an alien of the week style of story arcs. And I think looking back that it showed in their work for the stories laid out in season 3. I can remember enjoying more episodes in this season in a row than I did the previous 2 that seemed to only have one or two real stand outs.

Anyway, the Blu ray has been out for a couple of months and I'd say overall it's worth the upgrade. The opening episode alone, Evolution, seems to have had some significant work done in terms of new special effects shots, making the show never look better in my opinion. Another standout episode from season 3 was Yesterdays Enterprise, and finally getting to see many of the exterior shots of the Enterprise D and C battle the Klingon ships is really something now that you can decipher the high level of detail that went into the model work. Overall the majority of the shots for each episode on the Blu ray pop like never before, however, I'd say there were a few instances where I wasn't sure if I was still looking at film quality or more of an SD upconverted to HD set of shots. One scene in particular on the episode Offspring, when an Admiral is standing outside of Data's repair center, where he explains to other crew members that Data wasn't able to save his daughter from overload, looked a little bland  to my eyes in terms of picture quality. Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me but I really felt it looked a little flat compared to many of the other shots and scenes you see explode in a beautiful level of detail on the Blu ray. Hell, the picture quality is so pristine in some shots that you can clearly tell Will Wheaton was battling, like many teenagers, the joys of your skin looking a little bumpy. Why anyone would want any show or movie to look clearer than that, is beyond words for me!

One of the major highlights on this set for me is the extra in which Seth MacFarlane sits down with four of the primary writers from season 3-season 7. So many good stories are told about some of the rules they were all confined to staying within in writing the episodes, based on Gene Roddenberry's "box" that didn't allow for typical interpersonal conflict between characters on the ship. Ronald Moore lamented how that proved not only challenging but just downright frustrating at times since he was used to the original series dynamic of Spock and McCoy constantly going at it verbally, along with Kirk having real moments of anger and losing his cool. Other interesting tidbits from this round table discussion was how for about a full year, Moore, and Brannon Braga wrote the first feature film, Star Trek Generations, and how they both recognized that it paled in comparison to the work they did in writing the show's final episode, All Good Things. They both chuckled at how literally writing All Good things was like a side job compared to all the time put into the feature film, and yet realized which one was the more loved over the years. In addition to that, at one point Moore drew on the marker board how strict and thorough Micheal Piller was in making every writer lay out each episode in excruciating detail before they even dared to put it all on paper. It gives you one hell of an appreciation for the time these writers spent delivering us Trekkies one of the best incarnations of Star Trek. (at least that's the effect it had on myself) In the end, it was nice to see that regardless of how boxed in these guys were from really adding true conflict on the show how much they missed writing for it. They all seemed to agree not getting to write for these characters anymore was a real pisser to some degree. I think much has been made on the internet in the past few years about how  a lot of these guys hated having to adhire to the rules Roddenberry enforced from the beginning, before his death, and what Rick Berman and Micheal Piller kept enforcing, but regardless of that, these writers obviously had REALLY fond memories of writing all the various types of stories you saw from week to week on this program. They all viewed their work and the series by in large as an enormous success and felt it was the only show of it's kind where you could write episodes with such variety in genre, i.e. a murder mystery, a science based episode, time-travel, romance, etc. There aren't many shows on TV anymore that offer that degree of choice.

Now from a technical standpoint, the sound on the Blu ray is top notch, and definitely something that will make your home surround sound system boom. And the picture quality, as I mentioned earlier, is quite awesome, with few instances where I may have caught a few not quite HD shots spliced in.

I'd say if you're going to own any of the Next Gen seasons on Blu ray, pick this one up, this is really when the show started firing on all cylinders and now you get to enjoy those memories in glorious HD picture and DTS 7.1 surround sound. Nuff said.