Happy New Year 2017!

Thinking back on 2016, it's easy to focus on all the negative things first, because it's been one crazy year. In fact, it feels like some great universal funk settled over the world and made everything feel a little more down than usual..

Part of it is the relentless celebrity deaths that have plagued the year from day one. David Bowie's passing probably hit me the hardest in January (just two days after his last album dropped nonetheless). Then Carrie Fischer (and her mother, Debbie Reynolds just a day later) ended the year with a whimper. In between: Lemmy, Prince, Gene Wilder, Alan Rickman, George Kennedy, Mohammad Ali, Anton Yelchin, George Michael, Harper Lee, among dozens of others. Even Fidel Castro's passing was a shocker. So many of these are names I've been familiar with throughout my adult life. Every new celebrity death announcement was another slice of the Grim Raper's sickle, and he seemed to be on the warpath all year long.

Bad news seemed to persist all year. The elections were intense, to the point of causing literal anxiety and heart attacks nationwide. It's still causing stress. International relations seem to be faltering all the time. It seemed like I was always reading or hearing about shootings, stabbings, and murder on the news. Even near my house, there was an incident at the school--a man drove a tuck-load of explosives to the building and made a call warning the faculty to evacuate the building. The fear in the community was denser than any inversion that settled in Utah Valley. This coming just several months after the San Bernardino attack, among so many others. I was personally floored, seeing this kind of violence and fanaticism striking so close to my isolated, unassuming community.

At this point, I can't stand reading the news anymore. Every day is either new bad news about murder or more confusion among political rhetoric. It's especially difficult in an age when it's hard to tell if the media is truly reporting unbiased and factually, or not. Perhaps it's always been this way, but this year all these events feel even more jarring for some reason.

In my day-to-day life, I didn't feel as motivated as usual. Had a few failures at work. Beyond that, every other endeavor merely served to keep the status quo. Some days, I felt cagey or irritable. Other days, tired. A combination of factors made work feel pretty overwhelming on some days, and I never mustered the energy to go above-and-beyond with it. Lots of work remain unfinished or unrefined. Perhaps even undisciplined. At one point, I applied for a management position--even though I was one of the top three picks, I was turned down. Deep down, I felt I wasn't ready, precisely because of these issues that bothered me all year.

It's affected my writing as well. Having attended some conferences and critique sessions, it became clear to me pretty fast that my work needed work. Not just in revising structure or grammar or anything, but in my mind and the way I craft and realize stories. There were so many rules and standards I was oblivious to, because I spent too many years writing without learning. For the past several months, I've now learned without writing. It's probably my most unproductive year. It's also been a time when I doubted myself the most as a writer. I've gone through phases of loathing (both self and otherwise), frustration, and perhaps even fear. I haven't even blogged as much as I wished to. I spent a long time researching, studying, listening, and thinking. I've mulled my work over in my head repeatedly, thinking about what's right and what's wrong. I'm finally grasping what I need to do, but it's been a long mental journey that required me to pick myself apart.

In September, I had a car accident and my car was declared a total loss. Pretty rough time for those few weeks. I'm not fond of driving as it is, and for a while this incident made me wary of the road.

On top of that, movies sucked this year. More on that soon.

Taking a step away from all the negative things, however, there are positive things to 2016 that made it stand out in its own phenomenal way. I'm still alive and reasonably healthy--maybe not as weight-conscious as I could be, but I've been much heavier. Best highlights of the year have been my travels. Early in the year, I visited Park City and saw Thievery Corporation in concert. In May, I took a long drive and saw Bryce Canyon, the Grand Canyon (southern rim), then met my parents in Durango CO. Returning to Utah, we stopped by Moab (including Arches National Park, again). With them, I got to see the air museum near Hill Air Force Base. Later, in July, I took a trip to Mesa Verde National Park in Colorado. In fall, I drove to the mountains and beheld some incredible gold trees and hills. Between all these travels, I've gathered hundreds of great photos, hours of lovely video, and plenty of fond memories, especially with the people who were with me.

Even the car accident yielded something good--I purchased a new car, one that performs better and has more safety features.

As far as my favorite things go, movies have let me down, at least to start with. It seems like I always gripe about this every year, only to discover good films later. This year in particular may be unfair because I decided to change the standards in which I view, grade, and evaluate films--an effort to stop myself from liking every film and stopping myself from succumbing to hype. Regardless, there have only been a few films that have blown me away at any level. Some are good. Many are just okay. Many are pretty bad. Many, I don't even know why they exist. As I continue to catch up on 2016 films, chances are I'll find some redemption (especially among Asian films), but for now, I've found most titles disappointing. Even the latest Star Wars film fell a little short.

Video games have been fun, but not really impressive. Doom was cool. I enjoyed Watch_Dogs 2. X-Com 2 was decent. No Man's Sky enthralled me for a short time. Few smaller games, like Dead Star, were pretty neat. But the only PS4 games that really thrilled me this year were remasters, surprisingly. Duke Nukem 3D was a blast to revisit. Bioshock and Dead Island held up pretty well and I still love playing them. Day of the Tentacle was a nice surprise. Of course, it's the Skyrim remaster that really made my year--I always loved the game, and it's all the more beautiful on the new system.

One good thing about 2016 is that I found plenty of decent new music releases to enjoy. Not much pop--I can't even name one good radio single. Some good rock 'n roll though: new albums by Wolfmother and the Heavy have been decent. And, of course, David Bowie's Blackstar is a must. Some great soundtracks--not only the hit movies, but also games. What's really excited me are the heavy metal releases. New symphonic metal has been much better than last year--Tarja Turunen released not one, but two new albums back-to-back this year, and her voice is as potent as ever. I was especially thrilled to hear an actual Bond theme song covered in her style--I thought it was phenomenal. Nice new albums by Delain, Epica, Lacuna Coil, the Devin Townsend Project, Drowning Pool, Filter, KoRn, Megadeth, Metallica, Opeth, Otep, and more. Short though they are, I welcome the new EPs by two of my favorite bands--Therion and NIN. On top of all that, Klayton has been busy--a huge number of remastered albums (all Circle of Dust and Argyle Park), new Celldweller music, and a retro-80s side project called Scandroid all rolled out throughout the year, and they've all been really awesome releases. And there's cool new Blue Stahli music out there. It seems I'm becoming glued to the FiXT record label--they've stirred my imagination greatly of late.

Looking back on all the events, all the ups and downs, all the media, and everything, this has been one long year. It's easy to gripe about the negatives, but there have been positive experiences worth holding onto. And even the bad things have yielded lessons on occasion that will strengthen me. In fact, this may factor into whatever goals I strive for in 2017 (I decided long ago that I hated the term "New Year's Resolution," and opted for "goals" instead).

Thus, my goals for 2017 will be:

• Maintaining a positive attitude. When I was a kid, I discovered that if I lightened up and took things in better humor, other people did too, and life in general became pleasant. It goes in-hand with my belief that everything that goes around comes around. I felt I've been too unmotivated, grouchy, and irritable throughout the year. In '17, I intend to stop letting things bother me. Stop getting wound up and stressed over work and people and other issues. Just take it in good humor--people respond better, opportunities open up more, and reputation improves.
• Better time management. I want to wake up earlier every day, so I can go to work earlier, leave earlier, accomplish more while the sun is still up. I also need to parse out time for the things that will improve my mind and body--time to exercise, read, write, clean, cook, and more. It can all be accomplished if I prioritize better, do things on time, and not let myself become sidetracked.
• My collection of books and media is quite large. It's time to stop collecting and start enjoying. I want to watch the unwatched movies, play the unplayed games, read the unread books, and listen to the music I'm not familiar with. I want to get my money's worth of my media, and I may discover valuable gems I didn't know I had.

I think those will be my main three focus areas. Fitness is something I may continue to strive for, but finding time and energy for that should go hand-in-hand with better time management. Same with writing. Or reading. Or anything else I want to do more of. I think I've already started on improving my output and activities. I'm already confident that 2017 will be a productive year. Hopefully, there will be far less worry and heartbreak, and much more prosperity.

Film Review: Psycho (1960)

We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?--Anthony Perkins
--------------------
Everybody has the capacity to murder, but some can't help it. Some men, like Ed Gein, committed the most heinous crimes simply because they were sick in the head. Author Robert Bloch took inspiration from Gein's murders and birthed his own unique saga: the novel Psycho, which centered around a mentally-impaired motel manager named Norman Bates. Inevitably, the novel fell into the hands of Alfred Hitchcock, who saw the potential in presenting the story's terror on the screen. He wanted to push the envelope with it, to the point of showing bloody murder in unprecedented detail. Despite opposition from a reluctant studio and conservative censors, Hitchcock crafted this taut, gritty, graphic thriller and changed the standards of horror cinema forever.

After a flashy opening credits sequence that highlights Bernard Hermann's intense score, the film tracks Mary Crane (Janet Leigh) who takes off with a big wad of cash. For the first half, the film focuses on all her fears and worries, until she stops at a certain motel and meets Norman Bates (played with impeccable skill by Anthony Perkins, chosen for the role precisely because of his everyman look and demeanor). We soon learn that Norman is far from normal--alone in the motel with his mother's oppressive voice dominating his life, all he has is the motel and taxidermy to fill his empty life. But his life is turned upside down as his and his mother's impulses clash with bloody results.

Among the film's highlights, there is the famous shower scene--a gruesome murder skillfully and artfully immortalized with sharp photography, then arranged as an evocative montage. It's not just the centerpiece of the film, it's a powerful scene that encapsulates the terror of human life spiraling down the mortal drain. It's a scene everybody has to see once in a lifetime, if for no other reason than its notoriety. Of all the scenes in the film (if not Hitchcock's entire career), this is the one that reaches beyond the frames of the film and stabs the audience deep into the heart and psyche. So brutal, but too compelling to look away.

The film has a smattering of other iconic scenes. Photography overall is superb, and looks all the classier in black-and-white. Sharp editing keeps the film snappy and swift, although the story dips a little in between the most famous scenes (thanks largely to the side characters, whom I've never felt were all that interesting--and I felt the same with the original book). Despite being shot on a budget, the film boasts good and real-looking sets, props, and locales. The script is faithful to the book, but takes enough liberties to differentiate itself and breathe a different kind of life into each character (especially Mary, who feels more real in the film). This film was notorious in its day for being one of the first (at least in the American mainstream) to show blood on screen. In addition to a toilet that actually flushes. And a nude woman in the shower (although nothing explicit is shown). And other nutty things that are revealed meticulously in the twisty plot. There are some pretty impressive plot twists, courtesy of the novel, which carry over very well cinematically, and holds up to repeat viewings. One major flaw in the plotting occurs only at the very end, when an infodump appears to explain exactly what the audience just saw (and this exists in the book too, but is much less pointed--it seems to stick out worse in the film). The last shot with the voice-over, however, is appropriately chilling.

Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho is tutted at one of the greatest films of all time, and it brims with iconic sights and sounds that have held up for over 55 years. It is a very stylish character-driven thriller with a few mind-bending twists, and a lot of grit. It's the film that tore down the pretense of the out-modish production code and presented a more perverse face of terror. Countless other films would follow to do the same, but hardly any would match Psycho's cinematic or narrative prowess. It is a must-see.

4.5/5

Book Review: Psycho (Robert Bloch)

Every good thriller needs a threat, and what could be more threatening than a 40-something-year-old man and his mommy? Turns out this can be scary as hell when you dig into the minds of both and unearth pure psychosis.

Chances are you may already know this story and its characters--this novel was adapted to film faithfully in 1960, becoming one of the most famous horror pictures of all time. In its original incarnation, the Psycho novel hits a lot of the same story beats as the film, but a little differently. The famous shower scene happens much earlier (largely because the book takes much less time tracking Mary Crane's story arc). This story circles around Norman Bates, a lonely, overweight, geeky middle-aged man struggling to keep his unassuming motel in business. And his life seems to be ruled by a domineering mother, who would do anything to keep Norman safe and keep him away from the amoral temptations of women. Including murder. So when Mary Crane runs off with $40K and happens by the motel, things don't go well, and other characters are drawn to the motel to uncover Norman's darkest secrets.

The story is interesting by nature, thanks to its close focus on Norman Bates and all the problems that define him as a literal psychopath. Roughly inspired by the real-life crimes of Ed Gein (a killer so vicious he'd inspire both this story and Texas Chain Saw Massacre), Norman's life is encapsulated by impulses and obsessions, some repressed and others explicit. The book paints this character vividly in his actions--everything from reading gory history books to spying on women in his motel rooms to his arguments with his mother. There is a marvelous twist to this story (chances are you know it already)--much like Fight Club or the film The Sixth Sense, it's something that makes you want to re-read or review past events and see them in a completely different context that somehow works. As additional pieces to Norman's character, those story twists add even more dimension--he was a very well-designed and fascinating character worth reading and studying.

When the prose focuses on Norman, the book is at its best. With other side characters, the voice becomes much more neutral. I found myself less enamored (and perhaps even bored) by Sam, Lila, and Mr. Arbogast. Even though the book does maintain a close-enough distance to them to follow their thoughts and their journey, they come off as shallow and less interesting characters compared to Norman. But their inclusion is necessary to stir up the plot some.

With the plot, it is an intriguing story with an ingenious premise and twist. In text form, it's a little dry to get through, on account that this is one of those books with huge swathes of introspect and inner conflict and less physical action. An awful lot of prose is spent on exploring the character thoughts--when it's Norman, it can be genuinely freakish and thrilling. With other characters, tension and momentum are often lost.

And yet, this is an older novel that abides by older writing rules. I suspect if this was written today, it would be shorter, punchier, would have a lot less explanation on backstories (especially regarding Mary's situation, how Norman's motel business fared), and the exposition at the end would probably be different (a complaint I always hear about the film, but the book has the same scene in different wording--it's still exposition for the readers' benefit and it does stick out). What the book does do well, thankfully, is get nice and deep with Norman's POV, and it's enough to make it a thrilling and worthwhile read.

As a book, it's short but a little dry. There are sporadic bursts of great characterization, and it truly cements Norman Bates as a deep and definitive villain of horror. Personally, I prefer the film by a wider margin--it has the unique strengths of its own, thanks to its expert cinematography, performances (especially by Anthony Perkins, who doesn't resemble the book's description at all, but was picked specifically for the role because of how normal he seemed--thus becoming scarier as a villain who could be anybody anywhere). The film also took a unique liberty with the plot, by stretching out Mary's arc and following her as the POV character as a deliberate attempt to mislead audiences. Even though this may have all started with the book, I give the movie the edge for taking this freaky story and making a heck of a show (and a classic) out of it.

3.5/5

Film Review: Arrival (2016)

If we ever do meet an extraterrestrial race, our first biggest hurdle will be communication. Say the right things, and mankind could make a friend. Say the wrong things, and it could be war. It may not even be war with them, but war among ourselves, as we struggle to comprehend who they would be and what would they want.

These are the things that Isaac Asimov's dreams and HP Lovecraft's nightmares are made of, and it's also the focus of Arrival. In this slow-burning sci-fi drama, big alien discs appear around the Earth, and a language professor joins a government science team attempting first contact. Communication is the basis for all the conflict in this film, to the point where physical action and stakes come up dry. What it does accomplish effectively is building tension on the core dilemma, thanks to the gradual build-up of political pressure.

The story has a lot of merit and is worth seeing, even if it's been done before. Chances are nobody remembers a humble made-for-TV film Epoch, which was also about a strange alien rock that appeared and challenged scientists to decipher its message in the shadow of political stress. Arrival carries over all those same ideas, but with substantially better quality. Cinematography, dark though it is, boasts very solid photography, with shots that are occasionally evocative. Performances are top-notch--I've never seen so much emotional range from Amy Adams before, I continuously forgot it was her acting. Writing is fine. This production has really nice-looking sets, props, costumes, locales, and special effects. The music score has some odd quirks, but marries well with the film.

As a story, Arrival demands attention by toying with audience perception in ways that makes viewers wonder about what's really going on between the lines and what will happen next. There is a long dry spell in the opening quarter or so where tension and stakes are absent--these scenes are probably the weakest, but might hold up better on repeat viewings. The middle, with all its wonder and mystery, is properly captivating. The climax is gripping, but wraps up in a very fast and tidy manner--maybe a little quick for my liking. But this is accomplished by a natural quirk of the story involving the perception of time--it's a major plot point and theme, and it even prompts a more experimental cutting of the film to string the narrative to its natural conclusion. It's a style and twist befitting a Christopher Nolan film, but without killing credulity. If anything, most of Arrival holds up to scrutiny in its tight circle of a plot.

One thing that is hard to swallow is the sudden love story that pops up towards the end. With zero chemistry between the characters in question, this comes off as an abrupt way to tie up one or two loose ends that could have been left alone. At the same time, maybe chemistry isn't needed, given the circumstances of the overall story. Knowing the full circle of what happens, it fits in its own way, even if it feels like it shouldn't.

This is not a film to watch for action--it's a high-brow sci-fi drama with an intimate focus on character, plot, and themes. There is a slight undercurrent that carries the same fears and themes of a movie like The Day the Earth Stood Still, and it's enough to ensnare willing viewers in its delicate loop of a story. For the unwilling viewers who want more zing, I hear there's a cool new Star Wars movie!

4/5

RIP 2005 Ford Focus ZX4 SES

On September 2nd 2016, I had an accident. I was driving on the priority road behind the grocery store, having finished my work day, visited the library, and bought food for the weekend. A Honda Odyssey poked its nose over the threshold from a side road leading to an apartment area. I eyeballed the huge vehicle as it creeped past the stop sign, then made a left turn in front of me. Inevitably, its front end hit my front end. The whole time, I was certain it wouldn't come to this--after all, I had the right-of-way, she had to stop and wait just a few seconds. I let off the brakes suspiciously, but by the time I realized she wasn't stopping, it was too late to honk the horn or slam on the brakes.

It's naturally upsetting when something like this happens. On any other day, I'm not even sure I would have kept my cool. For some reason, I didn't panic or get upset. I didn't burst out of the car yelling or acting out. Similarly, neither did the other party. We just kinda stared at each other, then gestured to pull into the apartment zone where we assessed the damage and exchanged information. It was all a very civil and calm manner--I may have been rather shaken, but I went through the motions of photographing the cars, the street, and the other person's insurance card. The other person was an older lady--she claimed she was frazzled by other matters, and I took it to mean she was distracted mentally. I remained cool, not wanting to assign blame or anything. A relative of hers came out to help figure things out--a police report would have probably been wise, but we opted not to get the law involved and let the insurance companies figure it all out.

Somehow, despite having the entire front-end of my 2005 Ford Focus knocked out of whack, the engine still ran. No leaks, odors, smoke, or obvious damage to raise alarm. I decided to try and drive home, and the lady's relative was kind enough to follow me to make sure I'd make it. It was a disconcerting drive home, with rattling noises and heavy grinding with every turn. What really sealed the car's fate was the hood, which none of us realized was unsecured. Halfway there, the hood slammed up into the windshield, cracking it severely. At that point, I figure the car was too unsafe to drive, and I summoned a tow truck.

Numerous phone calls later, I got the car to a repair shop. I received the estimate over the phone: over $4,500 to repair. 91% of the car's value. By insurance company standards, a total loss.

My knee-jerk reaction was to just suck it up, pay a little more, and go through with the repairs and keep the car going for a while longer. In two years, I don't even know if I'll be here or not--buying a new vehicle seemed risky and expensive at this phase. To give it up, however, meant more money and more time with a rental. Reluctantly, I decided to hand over the title and part with it.

It's just as well--the car's going on 12 years old, and it doesn't run nearly as smoothly or quietly as it used to. Its transmission had to be rebuilt once, its muffler was in danger of coming off, the windshield was replaced once, headlights went out every year, and for a while, it went through brake pads like they were made of water. At some point, I had to draw a line at where repair and maintenance just wasn't worth it anymore. With a new vehicle, none of this would matter, and I'd enjoy a cleaner, quieter, smoother ride.

Why should I be so attached to my crummy old Ford Focus? The funny thing about this unassuming sedan is that it has been with me for so long, and its sheer history is priceless.
--------------------
In 2004, I was in Germany with my parents. I must have been around 20 at the time, with just two and a half years experience of work, but this was my first full-time position. In off hours, I attended distance education classes and eventually earned my college degree in Computer Studies. Moving into the Rhine area, we purchased this car from one of the US installations, and it seemed so new at the time. With the SES model, it had a nice sound system with a six-CD changer and MP3 player. It had enough power to hold its own on a German autobahn, though it is much more modest in speed and acceleration than most speed demons you'd find there. Power windows, heated seats, automatic transmission, and even a spoiler on the back--what's not to love?

I had the pleasure of driving the car once in a while, but it belonged to my parents back then. It served us for about four years, shuttling us to work and back. We did have occasional excursions though, mostly around local areas.

In 2008, I had to move, and my parents offered the car to me for the exceptionally-reasonable price of $7K. For the next eight years, it was all mine with no down-payment. In my next assignment in England, it became my trusty transport between work and home, with a few shopping trips and other destinations here and there. As hilly and curvy as those roads are, the car probably endured the most wear and tear during these years. It braved so much rain, snow, dirt, and close-calls (because British roads sure are narrow).

2013 to now, I took a job in Utah, and had the car shipped to Los Angeles. Since that road trip, the car continued to carry me to work and home again, with even longer excursions in more exciting destinations. By this time, I adorned the car with labels (a Rebel Starbird in the back from a Comic-Con trip, a Batman symbol that came with the movie's soundtrack, a Native American skull from a museum in Seattle, and a NERV sticker in the front from the Neon Genesis Evangelion DVD series--yep, all nerd stuff). After a while, I would also change out the CD player (the six-disc changer never did handle MP3 files that well, and the disc-changing ability diminished over time).

All together, this car would have been at the following places:

• Boppard, Germany 
• Cochern, Germany
• Darmstadt, Germany (to include the Frankenstein 10K marathon) 
• Eltville, Germany
• Koblenz, Germany
• Limburg, Germany
• Mainz, Germany 
• Marksburg, Germany
• Ruedesheim, Germany
• Saint Goar, Germany
• Trier, Germany
• Wiesbaden, Germany

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

• Brimham Rocks, England
• Fountains Abbey, England
• Harrogate, England
• Leeds, England
• Manchester, England (to include a concert by the Gorillaz) 
• Patley Bridge, England
• Ripley, England
• Ripon, England
• York, England

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

• Antelope Island National Park, UT, USA
• Arches National Park, UT, USA
• Bryce Canyon, UT, USA
• Denver, CO, USA
• Durango, CO, USA
• Grand Canyon Southern Rim, AZ, USA
• Los Angeles, CA, USA
• Lehi, UT, USA 
• Logan, UT, USA (to include a writing conference)
• Mesa Verde, CO, USA 
• Midway, UT, USA
• Moab, UT, USA
• Park City, UT, USA (to include a concert by Thievery Corporation)
• Provo, UT, USA (to include a writing conference)
• Salt Lake City, UT, USA (to include Comic-Con a few times)
• Snowbird, UT, USA
• The Wasatch Mountains, UT, USA
• Zion National Park, UT, USA

There are numerous other places I've been--Paris, Rome, Prague, numerous towns and sights in England and Europe--but these and others I went in other cars, buses, planes, and trains. I probably saved the Focus some wear this way. Total mileage in the end: 106,000-ish. For its age, I've always been told this was decent. It probably could have had more.

--------------------
Now that a few weeks have passed, I've invested in a new car. With the help of my parents, I came across a 2016 Ford. It seemed like a low price for such a new car. I doubted I could find a used car with less wear for less, so I went with it. It is a slightly smaller car than my old one, with less trunk space, no cruise control (something I never used anyway), but I was overjoyed to have a car with a backup camera and hands-free Bluetooth feature for my phone. Above all, it drives quieter, smoother, and more comfortably than the old car.

As I gradually become accustomed to the new ride, I can leave my old car behind knowing it served me well. Not only was it my sole means of commuting, it also let me see so many wonderful sights around the world, from the castles of England to the canyons of the American southwest.

In a way, the old Focus became a reliable traveling companion more than a car. It was always there to carry me and my stuff for miles on end. It listened impartially to all my rants and raves about traffic. It's probably the only witness in the world to whenever I would jam to a favorite song.

And yet, it is just a car in the end. Now I have a better one that will undoubtedly serve me better (hopefully in the snow too). There's no telling how far and how many places this new car will take me.

Film Review: A Bittersweet Life (Dalkomhan Insaeng)

"You can do a hundred things right, but it takes only one mistake to destroy everything."—Yeong-cheol Kim
--------------------
Life just isn't fair. Some people have it all, others have nothing. It's always disappointing when you don't get what you want, but nobody can have everything. It's more depressing when somebody wants something so pure and beautiful, but by nature and circumstances he simply can't. It's pure tragedy when a man's punished for doing one good thing.

A Bittersweet Life is such a tragedy that hinges entirely on that simple premise: a man secretly yearns for something he can't have, and pays the price for disobedience. The man in question is Sun-woo Kim, a mob enforcer who's loyal, professional, gentlemanly, and can still kick some serious butt when needed. He's tasked with checking up on his boss' mistress, who's suspected of having an affair. And she is. Problem is, Sun-woo has feelings for her too, and faces the terrible decision to "deal" with her and her lover, or spare them.

As you may surmise, he picks the latter decision, and it costs him. The last half of the film dives into the same dark, violent revenge-thriller territory that Korean cinema is known for. Sun-woo endures incredible pain and torment, before rising back up and getting payback one body at a time. It all culminates in a pretty major shootout, although the greatest joy of watching this film is less in the climax as it is the build-up to get there.

It surprises me how many reviewers complain about the "weak" story. I think it's one of the strongest, mostly because it's all focused on the character. Nearly half of the movie is devoted to following the main character and the twisty events that lead to the big rampage, and nearly every scene shows you who he is and elicits the necessary sympathy for the tough decisions he makes. Sun-woo is a strong character because he exudes so many heroic traits (including a sense of chivalry), but he wins sympathy because he suffers through no fault of his own (other than denying the truth, perhaps). With so much pathos set up, the film becomes filled with a soul and spirit of its own, giving it the poetic tone and weight it needs to make the action punchy and the drama significant. In essence, a perfect marriage of substance and style. Best of all, just about all of these strengths are achieved through visuals (via performances, cinematography, editing, plot) than through exposition. Yes, this is a film that shows more than it tells, and it's phenomenally captivating that way.

Through this story, the film offers some very subtle themes concerning karma. The whole thing is about a man suffering because he made one bad move (or rather, he wanted one beautiful thing but mucked it up so bad). This is a movie built on solid action and reaction, and all subplots come in full circle. It's a hellish journey that brings a seemingly-perfect and invincible hero to his knees. As the title promises, the film juxtaposes beauty with brutality, offering a tale as bittersweet as life itself.

This story is captured with exquisite photography--camera framing and movement is often superb and paints very strong images. Editing is perfect--every shot is carefully trimmed and connected to carry the story through its visual prowess. Acting is top-notch: Byung-hun Lee is perfectly nuanced and sympathetic as Sun-woo, and every other player is no less effective. Writing is good, especially since the film keeps the dialogue minimal and lets the story and visuals speak for itself. This production uses very real-looking locales, sets, props, and costumes. Music is pretty nice.

To me, this is one of the prime examples of how strong character-building can elicit just the right sympathy for a more effective payoff. It's not as batty as OldBoy, not as action-packed as Kill Bill, not as intense as I Saw the Devil, but I believe A Bittersweet Life achieves the best balance of storytelling and action, thanks to its focus on character. For that reason, and because it is such a bittersweet experience, I can't recommend this film enough.

5/5

Film Review: Star Trek: Beyond

"This is where it begins, Captain. This is where the frontier pushes back!"—Idris Elba
--------------------
After two successful entries of the rebooted Star Trek series, it's finally time to bring the adventures of the Enterprise to the final frontier. What will they find on the edge of space? The latest film finds the Enterprise crew in the middle of their five-year assignment—in the heart of a wicked-looking nebula, they'll come face-to-face with a menace that could wipe out the Federation for good.

Surprisingly, the film kicks off on a rather dour note—after an amusing opening scene, Kirk reflects on three years of mundane exploration. Once the set-up is out of the way, the film delivers ample amounts of action that just gets bigger and bigger. Grand space battles. Phaser-beam fights. Lots of running and gunning. In one epic finale, Kirk and the gang has to save a thriving space colony from certain destruction, overcoming swarms of ships before duking it out with the bad guy.

There are cool scenes in Star Trek: Beyond, but it's far from the end-all-be-all Trek adventure. Despite the action, the film drags between the major action swells. Part of the issue is that outside of JJ Abrams' hands, a certain something is missing. Color, spirit, and energy are dampened—Beyond is surprisingly dark in its lighting and mood, and slightly bland in its style and writing. Fortunately, the experience is funner in its second half than the first—some light comedy (thanks to McCoy, Scotty, and a lovable alien named Jaylah) and absurdity (a few unlikely stunts, and a certain scene with Beastie Boys music) makes this a fair (but not exceptional) blockbuster experience.

The story this film tells is an interesting one for the Enterprise records (and it's most welcome after the uninspired events of Into Darkness). By nature, it's a story that challenges the series' classic themes of exploration and utopic peace. In turn, these themes carry over to the character arcs, as Kirk finds his mojo again in the face of death. Characters are as strong as ever—they are familiar and mature at this point, and they feel more at home as the Enterprise crew than they did in the previous films. The villain adds an interesting dimension to things as well—I found the big twist predictable, but it is an interesting turn that keeps the action going and keeps enough brain cells firing. The film offers a few sentiments concerning certain characters and events before its closing, keeping it from being a total throwaway.

The film boasts plain photography and editing. Most scenes in the first half seem really dark and drab. However, there are some impressive standouts (including a great time-lapse shot of a spaceship being built). Acting is great: Chris Pine seems most mature as Captain Kirk, but still kicks plenty of butt and shows all the right attitude we know and love. Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, and Anton Yelchin still deliver great performances. Idris Elba is a decently-menacing villain, and I was fairly smitten by Sofia Boutellas' character. Writing is not bad--it's nowhere near as low-key as the last two movies, which I think makes the film more creditable as a Trek movie, but it also comes off as a little dry (even with the humor). This production uses decent-looking sets, props, and costumes—a lot of things match up with the Trek universe well, and Yorktown might be the most imaginative space station I've seen. Most special effects are great. The music score is lovely.

Star Trek: Beyond doesn't have the same punch as its predecessors, but it is an enjoyable film with an original, fairly thoughtful story. While the film won't leave as big of an impact, it has its fair share of fun.

3.5/5

Film Review: Star Trek: Into Darkness (Revisited)

"There will always be those who mean to do us harm. To stop them, we risk awakening the same evil within ourselves."—Chris Pine
--------------------
In 2009, Star Trek was "rebooted", successfully remixing aspects of the classic Trek universe and making it all fresh, new, and exciting again. At the same time, it remained true to the classic characters and the spirit of the franchise. In the film's first sequel, Into Darkness sets forth to do the same thing most other sequels do: introduce more characters, raise the stakes, and take the audience on a (hopefully bigger and "better") thrill ride.

This film definitely retains the thrill ride aspects—like its predecessor, it still has some great action scenes, some jaw-dropping special effects, and the occasional pieces of humor. The film definitely goes big--with chases and battles across space, on alien planets, and ultimately on Earth, there are plenty of huge action scenes. The film also tries its best to blow up the emotional stakes.

Therein lies the film's most interesting and redeeming values: where the characters stand at this point. The first film introduced the Enterprise crew in a fresh new light, using Kirk's flirtation with death as a thematic pillar. In this film, the theme is expanded tremendously, pitting Kirk against death in a twisting series of events that constantly calls for him to make the hard choices. At multiple moments, everybody is called upon to question the value of human life, the value of the mission, and the morality of self-sacrifice. Oh yes, fans of the classic films will recognize these same aspects from The Wrath of Khan and The Search for Spock, because Into Darkness takes the same aspects and remixes them.

Unfortunately, this becomes the film's biggest problem. After going through all the trouble to reset the Trek universe, filmmakers placed their bets on the safest of creative choices: they created a story where history repeats itself. The matter is made worse in the bizarre way they wrapped this rehashed story around a Federation conspiracy (which in itself seems to be inspired by the writers' own 9/11 conspiracy theories, which I always found hard to swallow, and it's equally hard as a Trek story). Juggling so many aspects and agendas, plot holes are patched in flimsy ways. Some scenes (and characters) pass without leaving any impact. It all adds up to a brisk climax that brings the action back to Earth (thus limiting the scope of the movie to disappointing levels), and fixing things up tidily so the Enterprise crew can sail once more. The only thing that holds this story up are the character arcs (and they're good enough, thankfully).

The film continues to exhibit some jittery camerawork and plenty of lens flares, which will irk many viewers. Some of the camera movements are pretty brilliant though. Acting is the same as before: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Anton Yelchin, John Cho, and Simon Pegg all inhabit their characters comfortably, and are a joy to watch. Bruce Greenwood is still good, Alice Eve is quite appealing, and I felt that Peter Weller's role is appropriate. The biggest draw to this film will be Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain--the man definitely establishes the proper screen presence and gives his character plenty of nuance. Writing for this film could have been better. As before, the film uses some clever camera trickery and unique settings to give the film a unique and authentic-looking edge. All the sets, props, costumes, and special effects are good. The music score offers much of the same as from the first film, but with unique new variations.

It is disappointing that Star Trek: Into Darkness doesn't boldly go where no film has gone before. What the film lacks in good plotting, it makes up for in its energy, spirit, characterization, and quality, all of which carries over from the last film superbly. It's still an enjoyable thrill ride, but far from perfect.

4/5

Film Review: Star Trek (2009) (Revisited)

"Whatever our lives might have been, if the time continuum was disrupted, our destinies have changed."—Zachary Quinto
--------------------
You’d have to be living under a rock on Delta Vega to have never heard of the Star Trek franchise. Ever since its (tragically-cancelled) run in the 60s, this quaint sci-fi show spawned a dozen films, half-a-dozen spinoff TV shows, and a massive fan base that could constitute its own nation (complete with its own language, customs, and dress code). Slight problem with some of the original films is that they cater specifically to the Trekkies—most casual audiences might find some amusement among the even-numbered films, but the entire saga is a nerd haven more than anything.

So, in 2009, this reboot was released with the casual audience in mind. Even if you’ve never liked or heard of Star Trek before, this film will blow you away! From start to finish, there’s loads of spectacular space battles, shootouts, fistfights, and occasional bursts of witty (and rather silly) humor. The pacing is tight, and the movie overall carries an adventurous spirit that hasn’t really been invoked since Star Wars. At the same time, die-hard Trekkies should be relieved to see some familiar faces, hear some familiar lines, and witness the occasional homage to the classics.

This new saga begins on an emotionally gut-wrenching note: Jim Kirk's birth, in the middle of a starship disaster. This scene alone elicits enough awe and tears to give the film dramatic weight. The rest of Kirk's journey doesn't strive for the same level of emotion, but the character arcs are strong. Part of the film tracks Kirk's maturity from a reckless lost soul to a capable starship captain. Spock gets his own story arc, crammed full of emotional turmoil and identity conflict. Their union underscores key themes concerning destiny (which, is partly about aligning the Trek crew in all the right places, but is also relevant to Kirk and his challenge to make something of himself--it's an inspiring change). On top of that, there are subtle themes of death that emerge. Some of it is passing scenes and dialogue that illustrate the perils of space travel. Other parts analyze the way characters handle life and death situations. These ideas not only give the action weight, but also gives leverage to the sequels.

Unfortunately, the story is not without its contrivances. It does use some clever science to reset the Trek universe and open up possibilities for the new series. In doing so, the film had to link up a few key scenes with some shortcuts (such as the idea of "transwarp beaming," which in turn becomes a sudden possibility because of an unlikely ally). Though I found these shortcuts minor, they do little to mask the film's agenda of tying together nostalgia in a blockbuster package for mass consumption. Some viewers will find this distasteful. Personally, I felt the experience of the film, the strength of the characters, and the overall color and spirit made up for the shortcomings.

Coming from JJ Abrams, you can expect some jittery camerawork and lens flares--some people find these effects annoying, but I think they add realism and intensity to the film. Otherwise, much of the film sports very unusual camera movements and angles, which gives the film a lot of movement and perspective. It's more than style—it's a highly successful way of immersing the audience in outer space. Editing is snappy. Acting is superb—I initially found Chris Pine a little off as Kirk, but the man does emphasize the arrogance and impulsiveness of Kirk with some degree of accuracy. As Spock, Zachary Quinto balances nuance and emotion in a very endearing performance—he has a few moments of angst, but it befits the story. Karl Urban isperfect as McCoy. I enjoy the performances of Zoe Saldana, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood, Simon Pegg, John Cho, and Anton Yelchin. Winona Ryder is in the mix too, and I didn't even know it was her playing Spock's mom until later. Writing is good overall—much of the dialogue is rather low-key, but the film does expertly balance signature Trek aspects, character-building, and action. Production value is decent—it’s pretty obvious that they filmed many scenes at a beer factory, but most camera tricks are incredibly convincing, and it shows magnificent prowess at using less to make more. A lot of it also serves to make things look creditable—transporter beams, warp drive, red matter, etc all appear scientifically plausible. A lot of costumes and props look sleek and futuristic, but are still classy throwbacks to the original saga. Special effects are spectacular. Music is surprisingly catchy.

The new Star Trek universe is an awesome-looking, epic-scale blockbuster adventure brimming with color and spirit. Its story twists things around in a few contrived ways, but the characters are spot-on, and the experience overall has never failed to elicit feelings of awe and adoration. For those feelings and the adventurous spirit the film embodies, this remains my favorite Trek movie of them all.

5/5

Film Review: Jason Bourne

"You're never going to find any peace. Not till you admit to yourself who you really are."—Tommy Lee Jones
--------------------
We know his name. Jason Bourne has a whole book and movie series to his name, cementing Matt Damon's performance as an iconic character on par with Daniel Craig's Bond or Kiefer Sutherland's Jack Bauer. From The Bourne Identity to The Bourne Ultimatum, Jason Bourne went through a complete story arc that focused on his struggle to understand who he is, as a lost ex-spy and as a human being.

Now, we have a fourth film in the arc (fifth if you count the stand-alone Bourne Legacy, which I barely remember and has no bearing on this film). Jason Bourne finds the man off the grid again, drifting place to place as if in a trance, making ends meet through the exquisite art of bare-knuckle boxing. Of course, something happens that pulls him back into the CIA's crosshairs. He's forced to run from Greece to London to Vegas, outrunning and outsmarting spies and assassins as he searches for the truth. Again.

There's absolutely nothing new to Jason Bourne. For a movie that bears the man's full name, as if to suggest this will be a definitive character-defining adventure, it's rather disappointing. There's only one relevant point to the movie that makes it relevant: another piece to Bourne's past. This revelation serves solely to villainize the villains and give Bourne a reason to kill them. It doesn't change anything before or after: Bourne is nothing more than a golem in this movie who smashes his enemies and comes out totally unscathed and unchanged. There is no real danger or peril to be felt, and there's little-to-no reason to cling to Bourne as a character (other than sheer badassery). He's a total rock, who confronts equally-flat characters.

The story itself seems to prove that all the Bourne movies now have a formula: movie starts with Bourne off the grid, something happens, he gets chased, he chases and outsmarts people, then repeat five times in five different countries until he confronts the guy in charge. The end. Guess what? That's pretty much all that happens here: the movie goes through three or four different repetitions of the exact same spy game with big setpieces in exotic locales, but it amounts to a predictable outcome. The only stakes at hand is the threadbare piece of personal history. The movie crams in some current issues ripped from yesterday's headlines (such as mass surveillance conspiracies, finding back doors in communication technology, name-dropping Snowden ad nauseam), which gives some fairly interesting social stakes, but it comes off as stuffy and droll. It's a thrilling experience in the moment, but when I take a step back, I have to ask, this is it? Didn't we see this stuff already with Supremacy and Ultimatum?

Fans may be pleased to know that with Paul Greengrass back in the director's chair, the film is on-par with previous Bourne entries. That means, for better or for worse, an onslaught of hyperkenetic action scenes with horrendous camera shake and rapid-fire editing. When the camera isn't shaking, the film is as dark and drab as they come, and most shots are quite pedestrian. Fortunately, performances are decent. Matt Damon still embodies Jason Bourne with impressive physical and emotional intensity. Tommy Lee Jones is fitting as the stiff CIA director. Alicia Vikander can't seem to hold an American accent, but it hardly bothered me—I enjoyed her performance just as well as the rest of the cast. Vincent Cassel is just as menacing here as he was staring in Mesrine. Writing is fairly understated—dialogue is scant, but does its job aptly of giving information and letting the story and characters fill in the blanks. This production is one of the most creditable-looking spy movies around: all the locales, sets, props, and costumes look gritty, realistic, and palpable. Music is okay (although, despite my adoration of Moby's work, "Extreme Ways" continues to grate on me personally, even with a new remix).

In fact, the end-credits song may as well embody what this movie is all about: the same old thing with heavier beats. But while the original three movies had a character arc worth exploring, this movie draws out a rather thin thread to string the formulaic plot along. And in the end, I realize there's little reason for me to care about Bourne or what happens to him in this pointless entry in the series.

If you're a fan, see it, by all means, you might love it. But unless filmmakers break out of the standard Bourne mold, the original three movies will remain where the series begins and ends for me.

2.5/5

Video Game Review: Doom (2016)

"Weaponizing demons for a better tomorrow."—UAC slogan.
---------------------
Video games have come a long ways in 23 years. In the 90s, Doom was one of the biggest game-changers of the industry. It was a smooth, rip-roaring demon-slaying experience, with its own unique texture and style. It paved the way for hundreds more FPS games to follow in its wake. Isn't it strange that after all this time, there's only been two official sequels? Since the release of Doom 3, shooting games fell into a pretty generic niche, thanks to a plethora of military-themed titles. We've seen more innovation out of Bioshock, Tomb Raider, The Last Of Us, Heavy Rain, and other odd places. Where has Doom been all this time?

As it turns out, Doom 4 was in development for a while, but had to be scrapped because it just wasn't cutting it. Developed from the ground-up, 2016's Doom is made as a return to form. It's not the harrowing horror/survival ordeal that game #3 was, this was designed to tap into the energy and spirit of the original saga. So the question now is, did id and Bethesda succeed?

I was honestly afraid to play this game, remembering how unsettling Doom 3 was. I wasn't sure I could handle the new Doom, especially after hearing that many levels would force you to clear out hoards of demons in large arena-style levels before being able to move on. It sounded punishing.

It's not. Like all great games, 2016's Doom is empowering—the game offers you immense firepower, speed, and abilities to turn you into a fast and vicious demon-slayer. It's challenging, but hardly impossible—the game is smooth and fast, and you have to stay fast to make it past each area. You get a pretty nice arsenal of guns (everything from a puny pistol to a chainsaw to the Super Shotgun to the BFG and everything). You get upgrades that can make you a faster and better marine. You get powerups at key spots. One really wicked feature that makes this game even more empowering is "glory kills," which allow you to rip demons apart with your bare hands. The game might seem imposing when you start, but once you unlock weapons and upgrades, it's a breeze (unless, if you're a real hardcore gamer who craves a challenge, you can always play the campaign on nightmare mode). Each level is immaculately detailed and well-designed, with secrets in many interesting corners, and a lot of awesome scenery to behold. Populated by so many recognizable creatures (everything from imps to the Spider Mastermind), the game is a massive throwback, but its experience is genuinely fresh and awesome.

The games wastes little time in developing its story. From the opening onwards, you snap into action, finding yourself in the middle of a ruined Martian base overrun by demons. As you progress, you'll catch on to what happened. There are just a few characters to the game—there's not much development to them. I wish there could be more substance to the story, but for Doom, it's fine for what it is. Just like the original two games, story is not the main draw, its just a way to string levels together. In this case, the story's a little better than the original game, but not quite as complete as Doom 3.

On top of that, the game offers a few solid multiplayer options. The classic game modes—deathmatches and such—are available and are fine for what they are. It's pretty standard: you join a match, you shoot people, you level up and keep going. You can choose some loadouts, but it's far simpler (and less refined) than a Call of Duty game. A far more interesting feature is the Snapmap mode, which allows you to construct levels with modular tools. The array of rooms and objects available is limited, but logic tools let you design games with countless possibilities. It can be quite adventurous and intriguing to see what inventive levels users have published using these simple features.

The game itself looks pretty sharp and polished. It sports decent textures, lighting, rendering, and very smooth animation. Sounds and voices are good—music is smashing. This game is well-written, more in the sense that the game shows you its ideas through the gaming experience rather than dialogue.

Just when I thought Doom wasn't for me, this game comes along and reminds me of what it is that made the originals so appealing. Far less clunky and more polished than its predecessors, I'd say this is the best one of the lot. It successfully empowers and immerses you in the hellish fantasy of a demon-stomping marine. It can't get much more awesome than that.

4.5/5

33rd Birthday Reflections

Last Friday, my 33rd Birthday came and went. This year, I was fortunate to have the day to myself—I was the only person at work all week for our department, but my supervisor made arrangements to make sure I could take the day off. If I had to work, it certainly wouldn't have been the end of the world or anything. There's nothing particularly special about this Birthday. However, everybody deserves a day now and then to themselves, to splurge and treat oneself a little. After nearly several months of consistent stress, I was grateful for the opportunity.

What did I do that day? Wasn't really anything spectacular, but after touring numerous places over the past couple of months, I was in no mood to travel anywhere exotic. I merely slept in a little, then jumped in the car and started driving.

My first goal was breakfast, of course. Though I make my own nearly every day, I had a free reward to claim at Starbucks, so I resolved to visit the closest one to me and claim it. It was a small place located in the middle of a grocery store. When I got there, I was a little dismayed to find that specific one didn't allow me to claim rewards (and strangely, this is the second time I've run across a Starbucks place that doesn't take the reward card—the second being the lobby of the Marriott in Provo. It seems that these smaller places connected to other establishments don't cut it—I needed to find a real, dedicated Starbucks shop). It was a minor inconvenience, but I still needed food—I ordered coffee and a sandwich regardless. Starbucks breakfast is not exactly the greatest in the world, but it was warm and tasty enough for me.

Next, I drove to the library—I had been visiting libraries more often to check out more movies and music, and I needed to return a number of items. This library I went to was larger and always had a shelf of things for sale. This time, I was amazed to find a deal going on: ten items for $1. I decided to grab four CDs (mostly soundtrack music), five novels (stuff that caught my eye: Shane, Grunts, Touched by an Alien, Saltation, and The Ophelia Prophecy), and one Amy Winehouse documentary on DVD (why not?). These ten items may be the cheapest things I ever bought. On top of that, I perused the library's catalogue and checked out more music.

For lunch, I stopped at a place called Pirate-O's, which specializes in selling imported foods. I had a turkey sandwich there for lunch (which was great), before looking at their selection. I pretty much always walk away with British candy—having spent 14 years in England, I found it gratifying to find English-brand sweets and other goodies in the middle of America. The place has a fine selection of the usual Cadbury chocolates, but on this day I opted for Digestive-brand cookies and an Aero bar. Fentimans drinks are available there—I couldn't leave without their fermented lemonade. I stopped short in the drinks aisle when I saw something I hadn't even seen or thought of in years: Lilt soda. I typically avoid soda, but I was compelled to treat myself—I remember Lilt being quite refreshing, and it brought back memories of English commercials and English groceries stores, which in turn correlated to the overall England experience I treasured so much.

Moving on from there, I drove west a little ways to hit Gamestop: I had a fistfull of PS3 games to trade in, and I wanted to browse their used games aisle. The combination of trade-ins, cards I had from before, and their rewards point card netted me about $25 worth of savings. I picked up the Assassin's Creed Chronicles collection (because I'm a franchise fan), and The Talos Principle (because I yearned for a good puzzle game).

In the same vicinity was Best Buy, so I swung through there to browse a while. I had a $10 coupon from their rewards program. I happened across the Collector's Edition of Manhunter on Blu-Ray, and a Rhianna album from their bargain bin (in retrospect, the two things couldn't be more different). Thanks to the coupon, I only blew $15 on these.

I checked my phone and wondered what was playing at the Cinemark, which would have been on the way home. I went through the motions of driving up the road, walking to the kiosk, and selecting the showtimes for the Ghostbusters remake. Why not? Reviews from average moviegoers claimed it was funny. But I had to stop and ask myself if it was worth $11 for a 3D XD matinee showing. I decided to walk away—in a few more days, I could see it for more than half the price. If I want to see it at all. My enthusiasm for Ghostbusters remains lacking—it's Star Trek: Beyond I want to see the most right now.

Turning around, I went north and finally claimed that free Starbucks reward at an actual Starbucks joint. As hot as it was outside, I opted for a vanilla cream iced coffee. The girl behind the counter said it was good. It was, and it was especially refreshing in the July heat. It lasted all the way home, where I unloaded my various purchases. I ate dinner, had a piece of cake (on clearance from the grocery store—is it me, or am I starting to sound like a cheapskate mentioning all these sales and coupons and things?). To psyche myself for the next Trek movie, I watched the 2009 Star Trek film in the evening. Then, I popped in that Talos Principle game and just couldn't stop playing it for a long while.

So, it was nothing but some shopping and eating and TV and gaming this year. Nothing particularly special, and not a whole lot of human interaction involved. I imagine some people crave attention and can't stand to be alone for an occasion like a Birthday. I personally found it laid back and gratifying in its own right. I value my time alone and am grateful for all I have and have experienced. In 33 years, I've worked for my entire adult life and visited several countries along the way—there are people who have seen and done less in the same amount of time. 

In the 30s, some people might look back and wish they were young again. In my youth, I was always looking ahead and wishing I would grow up already, to move on from school and become a responsible working adult with free agency. At this point, I feel I've achieved that, and I'm right where I want to be. I don't want to relive any part of my life, I'm happy to simply live. And there's still plenty to look forward to—especially with all the Birthday goodies I got for myself (in addition to what's above, I also had a number of novels on order that I really wanted to read—Ready Player One, Fight Club, Solaris, Roadside Picnic—plus Papillon on Blu-Ray).

In between living year to year, everybody needs time to themselves to stop and eat some cake.

Film Review: The Neon Demon

"She's a diamond among a sea of glass."—Alessandro Nivola
--------------------
There is an industry for beauty, and people are commodities. Many films have explored the exploitation of young people by businesses, and they are often bleak, compelling tales. The Neon Demon goes through the same motions as Black Swan and Mulholland Drive, but it reaches a far more unpredictable conclusion.

True to the standard of other films by Nicholas Winding Refn, the film drips in exquisite style. This is one of those odd films where there's a lot of white space in between the scant pieces of dialogue. Very little is expressed or told to the audience. Instead, the whole story is shown through the meticulous unraveling of expressionistic imagery. Some scenes go by without explanation and don't really fit in the scant plotline. The film merely paints its picture and lets the audience determine what's going in in the characters' heads and what's really going on with the story.

I went into this film expecting a pretty standard tale of a young girl breaking into the fashion biz and becoming corrupted, and perhaps even broken, from it. I believe most of that still applies—the bulk of the film's conflict is an extremely subtle rivalry between Jessie and all the other established models, who recognize her potential through her beauty and see it as a threat. Just when you think you have the movie figured out, everything suddenly changes in the last act. It hits with all the subtlety of a knife thrust, before the final scenes reveal that this isn't your typical diva drama—it's a horror movie in disguise, and its has its own set of unspoken rules. Thus, the film overall is a slow-burning build to a massive sucker-punch. The ultimate point of it all is not so much the corruption or pretension of the business, as I initially predicted—this is more of a modern-day fable warning us of all the viciousness and bloodthirst that could exist in any industry. For the world of fashion, it goes hand-in-hand with the exploration of what beauty means and how far people will go to achieve its optimum peak.

The funny thing about a film harping on the threat of beauty is that the film itself is as beautiful as they come. Photography is top-notch, with purposeful staging and composition resembling a Kubrick movie. Editing is very solid, juxtaposing images in a way that allows viewers to connect the thought process without exposition. Acting is great: Elle Fanning is lovely and nuanced in her role. Most of the other characters are menacing to some degree (including Keanu Reeves, who seems to be playing the biggest jerk in the world). Writing is interesting—it offers enough so that the plot can be followed (much easier than Refn's previous film, Only God Forvies), but still leaves so much mystery open. It's a tough balance that will entice some viewers and leave others confused. This production uses fabulous sets, props, and costumes—they all give the film visually-punchy textures and patterns. Lighting is often very vivid (especially during a few scenes illuminated by strobe lighting). Music by Cliff Martinez is very evocative—modern and electronic, but with a kind of new-wave class, just like the movie itself.

I went into this film expecting a pretty standard tale of a model's rise and fall—I came out realizing it's more of a puzzle with more aspects of a monster movie than a mere drama. I knew going in that this would be a strange, glacial experience that requires more focus than usual. I personally found the film as thought-provoking as it is visually stunning. I expect most other viewers may be confused, upset, or unimpressed. Caution is recommended.

4/5

Film Review: Mother (Madeo)

How far can a mother go to protect her son? In the Korean film Mother, we are shown the full extent of a mother's unconditional love, which dives into a dark world of sleaze, secrets, and perhaps murder.

The film presents a sobering and fascinating case: a mother's mentally-impaired son gets drunk one night and follows a girl to a dark alley. The next morning, she's found dead on the rooftop, and the son is charged with murder. What's a mother to do, especially when lawyers and police won't help?

What makes this film so rich and compelling are its characters. From the opening scene onward, the film is packed with nuances that bring each character to life, and each detail contributes to the overall story in very subtle ways. A lot of it are clues that tie together into a complete picture in the end. But it's the motivations and impulses of the characters that drive the story through all its twists. The climax is a series of revelations and resolutions that tie everything up sublimely, but will haunt you with its simple, underlying premise: there is no limit to how far a mother will go.

This film strikes a pretty even pace for its entire two-hour runtime. Some subplots linger, but most of the picture remains engrossing thanks to its style, editing, and story. With the way it packs in so much, the film feels longer than it is. It's hardly a bad thing: it is a sublime picture with superb photography (save for a few very shaky scenes), snappy editing, and plenty of very real-looking settings, props, and costumes. The music score is decent too.

All the characters are brought to life perfectly by their respective actors, but Kim Hye-ja dominates the spotlight as the title character. She not only looks motherly (to the point where she could represent anybody's mom), she also brims with emotion and vitality. In the end, it's her character that gives the film its bittersweet heart: whether it's the opening image of her dancing in the field or lashing out violently at someone, it's always evocative, knowing that everything she does is out of unconditional love for her son.

This is one of the finest examples of a character-driven mystery thriller. It's bleak, often disturbing, but also poetic and dense. If you can handle the tone, this film is highly recommended!

5/5

Film Review: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

That's how it starts. The fever, the rage, the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men...cruel. — Jeremy Irons
--------------------
Batman. Superman. They are two of the most recognized superheroes of all time. Both have been in the pop culture psyche as far back as the late 1930s, and have remained at the top of the DC Comics food chain ever since. With regards to this film, two questions immediately come to mind: why are they fighting, and how can Batman possibly stand a chance against the Man of Steel?

The answer to the latter is painfully obvious, because it's been done before: make Superman weaker. The film's execution of this aspect is fair and makes sense in the film, trust me. It's the former question that begs the most attention, and the film spends most of its time answering it. Part of the answer is personal — during the events of the Man of Steel film, Bruce Wayne lost many employees while Superman and General Zod duked it out across Metropolis. Wayne was there to see the carnage first-hand, and like every other human being caught in the devastation he saw the potential for Superman to become a godlike tyrant with no moral regard for people. Superman, on the other hand, sees Batman's brand of justice and finds it appalling. Both heroes represent two sides of a coin — one comes from a dark world where pain and death has molded him into an uncompromising vigilante, and the other comes from outer space and is still struggling for acceptance. Matters become even more complex when a certain maniacal millionaire — Lex Luthor — purposefully sabotages events to pit the two heroes against each other. The combination of personal and social stakes escalate until an actual fight inevitably happens.

In spite of this, the film's first half is devoted to the storytelling, and the last act is entirely action. Both halves couldn't be more different. Even though there's only sporadic bursts of excitement in the first half, the film's visual style is potent and elegant, in the same way Watchmen was. Some of the most awe-inspiring scenes show dramatic heroics and surreal dreamscapes with a fantasy-painting quality, and it is often as invoking as it is gorgeous. If the film maintained this level of artistry, it could have become one of the best and boldest superhero films of them all.

Unfortunately, the last act becomes a brutal assault on the senses, where the action becomes relentless and hard on the eyes. As epic as it is, it's exhausting. Worse of all, any storytelling nuance is suddenly lost — reasons for the fight suddenly cease to matter, and the entire climax becomes a shallow spectacle. At least with Man of Steel, there was always a focus on characters — here, they merely go through the motions. The ending ultimately left me with mixed feelings — it's obvious that there will be more to come, but on its own the film felt rather bipolar in nature.

Perhaps in spite of this, the film's story feels rather convoluted. The actual sequence of events is quite loose, and the matter is further complicated by the way it shows its broad ideas rather than telling them outright. I personally value and admire the imagery at times, such as the Day of the Dead scene, or Batman's bizarre dream in the desert — images in these key moments say much more than all the words in the film combined. It also makes the film very surreal, and it demands that audiences make connections on their own. Plot issues are further compounded by various holes and stretches that might be too hard to stomach.

It is a dark, no-nonsense film. Batman is as brutal as ever, thanks not only to his merciless fight scenes, but also to Ben Affleck's convincing performance. Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, and Diane Lane reprise their roles quite aptly. I've also warmed up more to Laurence Fishburne's performance as Perry White. The real wild card in this cast is Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor — he channels both Heath Ledger's Joker and his own portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg from The Social Network to provide a twitchy, rambling, maniacal performance. It's nothing like the classic megalomaniacs we're used to seeing out of Gene Hackman or Kevin Spacey, but I found myself enjoying Eisenberg's take on the character a lot. Jeremy Irons might be my new favorite Alfred — he inhabits the character with plenty of dry wit and class. Gal Gaddot definitely looks the part as Diana Prince. The film's writing has plenty of decent lines and ideas, but some of it comes off as blunt. This production utilizes some decent-looking sets, props, and costumes — there are plenty of cool things to behold, but very little that wowed me the same way Man of Steel did. Music score by Hans Zimmer and JXL is noisy, as expected, but the themes are quite distinctive and invigorating.

There's half of a great movie in this. If it was consistent in its style and narrative, it could have been a great film on par with Watchmen. While certain moments in BvS have captivated me, I felt lost and disconnected by the final fight. Regardless, it is a grand vision worth seeing for any superhero fans, which will elicit thought, controversy, and talking points. It might even be the start of a thrilling and bold new cinematic universe that could rival Marvel in the end.

3.5/5

Film Review: Man of Steel (Revisited)

Click on poster to buy / rent.

"You can save her, Kal. You can save all of them." - Russell Crowe
--------------------
Superman has always been one of the most quintessential superheroes of comic-book lore. It's hard to top a man who can fly, zap things with his eyeballs, see through walls, move faster than a speeding bullet, jump over buildings, survive just about everything, and live for centuries. On film, the Man of Steel has been treated with varying degrees of class and cheese — Richard Donner's films are iconic in themselves, and Bryan Singer's film has its moments. Given the success of The Dark Knight trilogy, it was only inevitable that filmmakers would try to put a more earnest, serious, heavy-weight spin on the saga of Superman.

Unfortunately, this is still not a perfect adaptation. Many critics and film-goers have written this film off as stylistically gaudy, crammed-full of gargantuan action scenes with one too many camera zooms and shakes and a wonky narrative. It has become the biggest love-it-or-hate-it film of 2013.

I, for one, love the film, despite all its excesses and problems. The action continuously blows me away — its sheer scope and velocity blows most other superhero films out of the water. It's relentless as superpowered characters slam into each other at rocketing speeds, blasting entire city blocks in their wake. In some of the most gut-wrenching scenes, alien machines pummel huge parts of Metropolis to a flattened ruin. It is rather exhausting, but this is the spectacle I always wanted out of Superman: an epic and highly-destructive clash of menacing, otherworldly forces.

A lot of the film's momentum can be attributed to its narrative, which is purposefully mixed-up so that it doesn't waste that much time covering old ground. The relevant parts of Superman's origins are covered in flashbacks inserted at key moments. This does create a jarring shift that may throw viewers off, but I feel the pacing is perfect — the drama never overstays its welcome. What really matters are the characters, which are at their strongest. The film intimately explores the title character, not only through the snippets of the origin story, but also in exploring him as an outcast full of emotional vulnerabilities. The film shows what he learns from living among humans, the importance of moral strength and moderation, and his struggle to find his place in the world. There are also some deviations that I think benefit the story (Lois Lane is no longer a total ditz, General Zod has phenomenal motivation that makes him a villain to sympathize with, and there are no more silly games being played with secret identities).

There are still a few nitpicks that even I can't shake off, however. I never did get used to the notion that Superman can be seen as a threat to humanity (perhaps because I've been spoiled by the older films, where Superman saves people and is cheered — here, he saves people and gets into trouble). The fate of Jonathan Kent is a rather manipulative scene that I feel is quite daft. The most critical viewers would also make the same complaints as with Zack Snyder's other films: too cold, not enough depth. Although I can understand the same complaints for Sucker Punch and Watchmen, I feel that Man of Steel is the warmest film Zack Snyder has made to date. It does succeed in achieving the right level of pathos to make the audience care for the main character (something that other Snyder films always struggled with).

As mentioned before, the photography can be rather gaudy, with frequent use of zooms, some camera shaking, and some scenes with bright flashing lights. Personally, I never found it all that problematic — most of the film still looks pretty solid, and I think the drama scenes boast some of the best shots, with intimate close-ups of specific characters and objects. Editing is pretty interesting, for better or for worse. Acting is a surprising treat: I think Henry Cavill is superb as the title character, and everybody else is pretty decent. Michael Shannon and Russell Crowe steal the show repeatedly — Shannon is especially menacing and intense, for perfect effect. I appreciate Amy Adams' and Diane Lane's performances. Didn't mind Kevin Costner — I can take or leave Laurence Fishburne playing Perry White. For some reason, I'm enamored by Antje Traue playing Faora — she's wicked and intense enough to put Ursa from Superman II to shame. Writing gets the job done — there are some good lines, but some of it feels rather blunt to me. This production has great-looking sets, props, costumes, and locales — it's especially cool how organic and unique all the Kryptonian technology looks. Special effects are plentiful, some looking phenomenal and others looking a little too glossy or cartoony. Hans Zimmer's score, much like the film itself, has been criticized for being too much shallow noise, but I personally love the music for its simple themes and powerful spirit.

In fact, that pretty much sums up my stance on Man of Steel: it's noisy, but I still find it moving. It may not be a perfect film, but it does pack a heck of a punch in many ways. It has power not only in the action scenes (of which there is plenty), but also in the characters and their struggles to find strength and a place in the world.

5/5