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