Movie Review Repost -- Apollo 18 (2011)

All Hallows Eve approaches. I'm sorry I haven't got anything new for you this weekend, so I figured I should look back at one of the few horror movie reviews I did in my early days of reviewing (and it's not the greatest review I've ever written). This is the sci-fi found footage film Apollo 18. It was mediocre and didn't leave much of an impression on me. I've not seen it since and I've barely thought about it since. So I guess my opinions are unchanged...

  The summer is at an end and last weekend I tried to fit in one more movie viewing. I chose Apollo 18, a horror/sci-fi flick set in the early seventies about the supposed last lunar mission.

  This movie is filmed in found-footage style, meaning that the cinematography is similar to grainy, staticy late-sixties video camera footage, so get used to seeing cameras malfunction and flicker around and go offline; it happens every five minutes. I can't help but wonder if that was even necessary. Anyways, don't expect to see a masterpiece of film here. The plot is very cliched and unoriginal and somewhat predictable. The film has a noticeably slow start as well as a few slow moments throughout.

  What did I like about this movie? Well the special effects look great, but with the grainy, low-res footage, making good looking special effects on this film couldn't have been that difficult. The acting is better than average, but the actors' best efforts are inhibited by the underdeveloped characters. By the end of the film you still won't really know that much about the three characters.

  During those slow boring parts, you'll find yourself thinking of plotholes and other weird stuff. Like why did Commander Walker want to be saved even though five minutes earlier he didn't want to go back to Earth fearing he'd infect the whole planet? And how come the aliens attacked on this mission but not the other moon missions? Unless the producers... And then it hits you: you're watching a hippie movie! Think about it, the pieces of the puzzle are all there: faked moon landings, the government being portrayed as evil, indigenous creatures fighting back (AKA environmentalism/anti-racism), technology being portrayed as useless, the USSR being depicted in a sympathetic manner...

  Wow. I've got to go warn people of this. Meanwhile, you should stay away from this crazy movie unless you really want to kill some brain cells. (And to think I chose this instead of My Idiot Brother!)

Rating: Two stars out of five

Movie Review -- Blade Runner 2049

  I've got to admit that I was rather worried when I heard a sequel to the 1982 classic Blade Runner was being made. I thought that Blade Runner 2049 would wind up a cheap cash-in trying to belatedly jump start a whole series of films, like last year's Independence Day: Resurgence. Sometimes it's good to be wrong.

  Blade Runner 2049 takes us back to the future Los Angeles to follow K, a Nexus-9 replicant working as a blade runner for the LAPD. After a routine “retiring” of a rogue Nexus-8 model, K discovers that there may have once been a pregnant replicant and he is tasked with investigating and covering up the potentially volatile revelation. It's a great story that takes you to some interesting locations, has a decent twist, and has a great ending that sort of harkens back to the original's. The film doesn't try too much to copy the plot of the original and tries its own thing. Will you be lost if you haven't seen the original? It's hard to tell. I guess it depends on how good you are at picking stuff up from opening text crawls. As was the case with Blade Runner, 2049's story moves along at a very slow pace. And as good as this two hour and forty-three minute film is, you'll feel every minute of it.

  While this Blade Runner flick doesn't have any unicorns, it does boast a talented cast that gives us some engrossing characters. (You can tell because pretty much every single character in this film cries at some point!) Chief among them is K, portrayed by Ryan Gosling who does an excellent job at bringing to life an artificial human undergoing personal crisis, trying figure out if he has a soul. Harrison Ford also does a fine job at playing Deckard again. It really does feel like the same character has returned, and not just another standard Indiana Jones/Han Solo/who-knows-what's-next “Hey, I'm back” performance.

  Blade Runner is a film that's well-known for its striking visual style and this tradition has been carried over to its sequel. The cinematography of Blade Runner 2049 is gorgeous, putting on a dazzling show with landscape shots, smooth camera pans, and an eye-catching use of colour palette. Future Los Angeles appears less gritty and just a bit more colourful this time around, with less fire and smoke filling up the skies. The city's bright hologram adverts are back and given more life with modern special effects. The visual effects in 2049 are seamless, just as CG effects should be. In short, 2049's visuals have a noticeably more 2010's feel to them than a 1980's feel, which is fine considering that this film takes place 30 years after the original.

  The same goes for the soundtrack. Blade Runner 2049's score is still very synth heavy, but with less keyboard/xylophone/bells/whatever those sounds were. And there's pretty much no saxophone (or synth equivalent of a saxophone). It gives the film less of a noir feel (that the original had) and more of a modern sci-fi feel to it. Again, since this film is of a slightly different flavour than the first I don't consider this to be a bad thing.

  However, the film's effect on the state of Blade Runner's lore might not be so defensible. Don't get me wrong, Blade Runner 2049 doesn't ruin BL's story, not by a long shot. But personally I liked the original's ambiguous ending. 2049 also definitively settles the debate on whether Deckard is a replicant or not. Fortunately there are other possible fan debates that might spark from this new film, such as: Where was Luv taking Deckard near the end? What was up with that dog and what happened to him?

  In conclusion, Blade Runner 2049 is an excellent science fiction movie made by people who truly care about its forerunner and its genre. Easily one of the best films of 2017 so far, it's not an altogether necessary sequel, but it is a worthwhile one. If you're remotely interested – and if you can stomach lengthy films with a relaxed pace – then I think you'll quite like it.

Grade:

Is it time for Splinter Cell to retire Sam Fisher?

  It's been a while since I last wrote about Splinter Cell. Shall we write about Splinter Cell? Let's write about Splinter Cell.

  Since playing 2013's Blacklist one thing that's been on my mind is the future of Sam Fisher's character. I think it may be time to retire him. Don't get me wrong, I love Fisher's character. I think he's one of the coolest and iconic characters in the action genre this century. But it's quite clear that his glory days have passed. Let me tell you why.

  The first reason why Sam isn't as cool as before is, you guessed it, Michael Ironside leaving the series. Ironside contributed so much to Fisher, with performances that gave the character intensity, professionalism, and at times dark humour and sarcasm. Without Ironside, Fisher simply wasn't the same character he was before. Eric Johnson's performance in Blacklist, while it wasn't outright awful, robbed Sam of much of his personality. Gone was his cool professionalism and much of his sarcasm. In fact at times he just came off as a somewhat disinterested ass. Also, he sounded too young to be playing the highly experienced 4^th Echelon agent.

  Which brings me to the other point, Sam Fisher is simply getting too old to do field work. Sure Sam was already in his 40's when he became a splinter cell in the original game in 2002. His experience in his middle age is part of what made him so distinctive from other video game characters. But seeing him able to effortlessly pull off so many acrobatic moves in Blacklist was really starting to test my suspension of disbelief, especially when you consider that Sam was born in 1957! Part of Sam's backstory is that he was involved in past historical events like the Soviet-Afghan War and the US invasion of Panama. So unless the next game is a prequel or reboot, Sam will be at least 60 years old!

  The solution to these problems is simple. I propose that Ubisoft have a different player character for the next game. I'm not saying that Sam has to disappear; he still could be an advisor/mentor/boss within 4^th Echelon – perhaps he could be the new Lambert.

  I think it would be interesting to let Briggs take over the mantle of the trifocal goggles. We already played as him in two levels of Blacklist (if you don't count the sniping sections), which could serve as a “passing of the torch”. The first level you could tell he was learning how stealth espionage tactics worked and by the final level of the game he was so skilled at it that he was almost indistinguishable from Sam.

  It seems unlikely that the Sam Fisher we all know and love (from the first 5 games) will be coming back, but we do have the chance to move on to someone else who could prove to be just as interesting. In just one game we've seen that Briggs is smart, is skilled, can work on his own, shows initiative, has a sense of humour and comradeship, and has learned that 4^th Echelon spy work doesn't have to be done “by the book”. Sounds like a worthwhile player character to me.

  Anyways, those are just my opinions on the matter. This isn't related to any new Splinter Cell news or anything; I just wanted to share my thoughts on something that's been on the brain for a while. What do you think should be done to revitalize Splinter Cell?  

All-Time Team: Vancouver Canucks (1970-present)

  Blast off! It's hockey time! Last week we looked at my picks for an all-time team for Pittsburgh, so now we'll go over the all-time fantasy roster for my favourite NHL team, the Vancouver Canucks. I've been a Canucks fan for much of my life, I own several of their jerseys, I buy a Canucks calendar pretty much every year (you know, those calendars that show players half of whom are no longer with the team by the time their month comes 'round), and I keep my eye on them even though I don't watch their games as frequently as I used to.

  As usual we'll begin with a brief history. The Vancouver Canucks entered the NHL in 1970 along with the Buffalo Sabres. Buffalo ended up winning first draw on both the amateur draft and the expansion draft, taking future Hall of Famer Gilbert Perrault. For some dumb reason Vancouver was lumped in with the East division. The competition here was fierce and the new expansion team didn't stand much of a chance, missing the playoffs in each of its first four seasons. Thankfully the league was reorganized, putting the Canucks in a much fairer position in the Smythe division; the team immediately won its first division title and earned its first playoff berth. By the end of their second playoff run in 1976, the team's original core – Orland Kurtenbach, Andre Boudrias, Jocelyn Guevremont – had left. Though there were good players around, the team was kind of directionless. And yet despite several years of awful regular season efforts the Canucks did make the playoffs six years in a row from 1979-1984. This was mostly due to the fact that there was usually one or two teams in the Smythe division that were even worse than Vancouver, usually Colorado or Winnipeg.

  Although the Canucks were pretty bad in the 1980's they still fielded some talented forwards who could put out a decent amount of points. By far the most exciting thing to come Vancouver's way in this time was their Cinderella run to the Stanley Cup finals in 1982. Despite never winning a playoff series before and going into the postseason with a losing record, the 'Nucks swiftly defeated the Calgary Flames, the Los Angeles Kings, and the Chicago Blackhawks while losing only two games in the process. This was largely thanks to stellar play from Stan Smyl, Thomas Gradin, and the dependable goaltender Richard Brodeur. Unfortunately they had to face off against the juggernaut New York Islanders in the finals and were swept in four games.

  The late 80's were tough for Canucks fans. The team was about as bad as it was in the early 70's, and it only made the playoffs twice (1986, 1989). After joining Vancouver as its general manager and president in 1987 Pat Quinn set the team on course for a rebuild, trading for players like Greg Adams and goaltender Kirk McLean and drafting players like Trevor Linden and Pavel Bure.

  This was a huge turning point in Canucks history. McLean proved to be a top-tier goalie. Linden was a fine scorer and excellent leader. And Pavel Bure became the team's first bona fide superstar, winning the Calder Trophy as the league's best rookie in 1991-92 and following it up with back-to-back 60-goal seasons. As a result, Vancouver jumped up from a 65 point season in 1990-91 to 96 in 1991-92, earning Quinn an award for coach of the year. The early 90's rocked for Canucks fans; they played an exciting game and easily made the playoffs. In 1994, the team once again struck forth into the Stanley Cup finals. Though they battled hard, defeating the Flames, the Dallas Stars, and the Toronto Maple Leafs, they fell to the New York Rangers by just one goal in the last possible game.

  From this point the Canucks began to decline. Despite some promising acquisitions (and some wasteful ones, i.e. Mark Messier) the team missed the playoffs every year from 1997-2000. The only good news from this period is that the 'Nucks got some good draft picks in 2000: Swedish twins Daniel and Henrik Sedin. At the turn of the century, the team showed signs of improvement. The big name stars had all gone, leaving room for development in the lesser-known players. This included the high-scoring West Coast Express line of Brendan Morrison, Todd Bertuzzi, and Markus Naslund. The early-2000's saw the team return to division-contending, playoff-battling form. Despite impressive individual heroics of various players, the Canucks were unable to advance past the second round of the playoffs, mostly due to stiff competition and just plain bad luck. After the 2004-05 lockout, Vancouver was unable to return to the playoffs for the first time in four years.

  The mid-to-late 2000's were a time of restructuring for the Canucks. Older talents were traded away, the Sedin twins' offensive game had exploded, the defensive corps was rebuilt, and Roberto Luongo – then arguably the best goaltender in the league – was acquired. The team's fortunes increased dramatically (despite faltering out of a playoff spot for a couple seasons). From 2008-2009 to 2012-2013 the Canucks were quite simply one of the best teams in the NHL. They topped the league standings twice and numerous players won individual league awards. The biggest story of this period is the Canucks' third trip to the Stanley Cup finals in 2011. After knocking out the Blackhawks, Nashville Predators, and San Jose Sharks, the 'Nucks ran out of gas, putting up a pathetic (albeit 7-game) effort against the eventual champions, the Boston Bruins.

  The 2010-11 season was the high point of the dominant Vancouver team, and the beginning of a slow decline. Since 2013 the team has made the playoffs only once. Since 2015-16 the Canucks have been firmly committed to rebuilding, so don't expect anything amazing any time soon! Sure they suck now but as I always say, “Canucks will be Canucks”.

  In their 46 seasons in the NHL, the Vancouver Canucks have made the playoffs 27 times and won 10 division titles, 2 President's Trophies, and have made 3 Stanley Cup finals appearances. And while they have yet to capture Lord Stanley's Cup, they do lead the league in uniform changes. That's cool, right? So today I'm here to see what the ideal all-time roster of Canucks players would look like. The rules: only the players performances as members of the Canucks will count, and each player needs to have played at least 200 games with the team. Let's dive in!

Forwards

L-R: Bure, Naslund, Williams

Left Wing	Centre	Right Wing
Daniel Sedin (2000-present)	Henrik Sedin (2000-present)	Pavel Bure (1991-98)
Markus Naslund (1996-2008)	Trevor Linden (1988-1997, 2001-08)	Stan Smyl (1978-91)
Tony Tanti (1983-90)	Ryan Kesler (2003-14)	Todd Bertuzzi (1998-2006)
Gino Odjick (1990-98)	Matt Cooke (1998-2008)	Tiger Williams (1980-84)

The first line puts together three 100-point players known for their speed, scoring, and playmaking ability. Sure this line is devoid of physicality, but just the thought of having Bure play with the Sedin twins is enough to make any Canucks fan salivate. The second line puts together three players who were both the longest-serving captains in team history and at one point were the highest scoring players in team history. In addition to scoring ability, Naslund brings powerplay prowess and Smyl adds toughness. On the third line we have power forward Bertuzzi, two-way forward Kesler, and goal-scoring powerplay specialist Tanti. With the fourth line I broke the rules a bit (reassigned positions) and gooned it up with enforcers Odjick and Williams and pest Cooke (featured previously on the all-time Penguins lineup).

Honourable Mentions: Thomas Gradin, Alex Mogilny, Sergio Momesso, Brendan Morrison

Defencemen

L-R: Ohlund, Snepsts

Doug Lidster (1984-93)	Jyrki Lumme (1990-98)
Matthias Ohlund (1997-2009)	Ed Jovanovski (1999-2006)
Kevin Bieksa (2005-15)	Harold Snepsts (1974-84, 1988-90)

The first defensive pairing consists of what I think are the best offensively gifted blueliners the Canucks have had: Lidster and Lumme. From a purely defensive viewpoint, I do think the second pairing, Ohlund and Jovanovski, are the greatest defencemen Vancouver has ever had. Ohlund brought excellent positional play and Jovo was a very good hitter and skater. The third pair benefits from Bieksa's toughness and leadership and Snepsts's intensity and killer moustache.

Honourable Mentions: Garth Butcher, Dennis Kearns, Sami Salo

Goaltenders

Luongo

Roberto Luongo (2006-14)

Kirk McLean (1987-98)

No contest here. While Captain Kirk was a beast in the playoffs, there's no denying the astonishing accomplishments of Lou. A 0.919 save percentage, a 0.56 win percentage, six seasons of 30-plus wins (including a career-high of 47), four seasons of 60-plus games played (including a career-high of 76), and the first goalie to be named an NHL team captain since the late 1940's.

Movie Review -- It

  This weekend I saw It, a creepy clown horror movie based on Stephen King's novel of the same name. I've never read the book – nor any Stephen King book, for that matter – though I am somewhat fond of the 1990 miniseries even if it was kind of silly.

  This rendition of It isn't as funny as the previous one (though it's far from humourless), but it is significantly scarier. I don't watch too many modern horror movies, but it seems to me like most of them suck. But It doesn't, and here's why. For one thing the scares feel warranted. Most horror films today bombard the viewer with cheap and spontaneous jump scares to get some kind of reaction. Instead, It only uses jump scares after the proper tone has been set for the given scene. Not only that, but only a fraction of the scares found in this film are of the jumpy, computer-generated type; there's plenty of horrifying imagery and sounds throughout. In fact, the scene that I thought was scariest didn't even have a “Boo!” moment.

  Another thing that sets It apart from most modern horror is that it doesn't dump a load of unlikable characters whom you want to see dead. These characters are very well-acted and even better-written. I feel as is I knew each of these kids in real life when I was a kid. (At one point in life, I was the kid who constantly made “your mom” jokes.) Each of these kids has something up that you want to see resolved. And of course there's the evil clown himself, Pennywise, played by Bill Skarsgard. Needless to say this rendition of him is much creepier than Tim Curry's from 1990. I think it's in the unsettling way he moves about as well as his CG enhancements. It's a welcome update, even if he does kind of suck at catching the kids.

  And of course, when the audience cares about the characters, they'll care about the story. This one's story is more or less the same as the miniseries'. A group of seven outcast kids in a small town are terrorized not just by bullies but also an evil supernatural clown who exploits each of their greatest fears. With themes that deal with growing up, overcoming fear, and maintaining friendships, it's a horror movie that's got heart. The major difference is that the second timeline with the adults fighting It has been jettisoned and presumably left for the sequel.

  One last thing I'd like to mention is the setting. Instead of 1960, the setting's been updated to 1989. I'm guessing it's so that the sequel can take place roughly in the present day. I'm down with that; the late 80's were cooler than the early 60's! While It doesn't exactly hit you over he head with how 80's it is, it does manage to mix in a sweet cleanup montage! (The one thing that would've made that scene complete is Jules Winnfield and Vincent Vega.)

  So that's It, an engaging update of a classic supernatural horror. It hits all the right notes for this type of horror film. Is it the best Stephen King adaptation out there? I have no clue, but based on the ones I've seen I'd say that's no difficult feat. Can't wait for the sequel!

Grade: