Heat...Humidity...Heat...Sun... Heat...

So....hot....must.....stand.....by fan.......

Very....humid....so.....sticky.....showers....do....no....good....

Oh God....please....don't....let....it....rain......*gasp*

Superman...You'd Better Be Worth It!!!!

*** SPOILERS ALERT (THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS SPOILERS ABOUT X-MEN:THE LAST STAND)***


Went to see X-Men: The Last Stand on opening night with Suling. I can't remember the last time I was so disappointed by a sequel. Well actually, I can (yes you, Neo).

So we arrived early so that we'd get good seats, waited for over an hour in line, and when we finally sat down, the woman next to us suffocated both of us with her immensely bad B.O. It was TERRIBLE!!! OH THE HORROR!!! People really need to learn to shower more often.
Anyways, once we became semi-immune to the rancid smell coming from our neighbors, the movie began. As with any highly anticipated cinematic experience, Suling and I were so pumped to see this final installment of X-Men. When I first heard about this movie, I prayed and prayed that Bryan Singer, his writing crew, and all the actors would come back for this last one. Alas, Brett Ratner couldn't fulfill his role as director on the Superman Returns project, so Bryan Singer stepped up to take his place. Unfortunately, the studios didn't want to wait for Bryan so they pushed ahead with the third installment in the series. In light of his separation from the Superman project, the studios put Ratner in charge of the X-Men movie. This was a horrible mistake.

The first of the disappointments was the absence of Nightcrawler. Having been a key player in the second movie, his presence was sorely missed. Furthermore, many fans were looking forward to a) hearing more his hilarious lines and b) seeing his "bamf" moves.

Following this, was the showiness of the new characters, most of whom have been added merely for aesthetic reasons. Angel, announced and marketed as one of the coolest of the new mutants, soon became forgettable and lame. Beast, played by none other than Kelsey Grammar (of Frasier fame) did an excellent job with Hank McCoy's lines, but lacked the physicality of Beast's portrayal. Arclight and Kid Omega (a different version of Spike, Ororo's nephew from X-Men: Evolution) seemed empty and devoid of any real substance.

Next came the deaths of several major characters. Scott Summers is dead within the first 20 minutes. That's right, Cyclops is dead before the movie has even begun. Then Professor Xavier is killed off. Seriously, I'm not kidding! And then at the end Jean Grey is killed (and with her, the Dark Phoenix; more on her later). Now, I know this was supposed to be the last of the X-Men movies (other than the Wolverine and Magneto spinoffs), but to kill the Professor and the team leader?! That just ain't right...or fair. Furthermore, Mystique's shape-shifting abilities, once so craftily infused into the action, are eliminated by the "mutant cure".


Finally, the biggest of all disappointments was the portrayal of the Dark Phoenix. To those, for whom the comics were a big deal, the storyline of the Dark Phoenix was a major one. The original story-arc is as follows: Following a major victory on Asteroid M, the X-Men board the X-Jet and return to Earth. During this flight, they encounter some troubles and Jean Grey attempts to shield the ship from danger. A powerful (and immortal/indestructible) being known only as the Phoenix, possesses Jean and feeds her immense powers. Wielding the cosmic abilities of the Phoenix, Jean is successful in returning the X-Men to Earth, but she goes down with the ship. The Phoenix places the real Jean in a coma and seals her in a coccoon at the bottom of a lake. A clone is created and the Dark Phoenix is born. Reigning destruction all around her, Scott confronts the creature and convinces what's left of Jean in the clone to fly itself into the Sun, destroying the Phoenix creature. The true Jean is brought back to consciousness and life returns to normal.

Many remember the Dark Phoenix as a flaming (and not in the gay sense) bird which surrounded Jean's body. Her powers were tremendous, and exceeded those of even the exalted Professor X. Ratner has instead chosen to do a more catatonic version of the Phoenix, using CGI to alter Jean's face into a more demonic and venomous being. The transition, albeit smooth, is lacking in strength and power. Missing is her scathing, greedy, regal-like persona which entranced many readers. The flames make no appearances, as they did in X2: X-Men United, and the bird is not seen at all (many remember its outline at the bottom of Alkali lake at the end of X2).

All in all, Brett Ratner has done the X-Men franchise a disservice by directing this movie, and should be summarily executed for effectively killing most of the characters. I DO NOT recommend this movie to anyone. Save your cash, rent it if you must, but do not support Ratner in this endeavour or the studios who stupidly decided that patience is no longer a virtue, instead placing value on franchise revenues. Goddammit Singer, Superman had better be worth it if this is the price we had to pay...

From Print to the Big Screen

Adapting written works for the big screen is tricky business. Many considerations must be made, many of which will almost certainly be displeasing to those who read the book first. For instance, how does one cast the protagonist without keeping exclusively to the physical description? Regardless of how it is done, viewers will always make comparisons and not all of them will be positive. So then why do producers insist on making movies based on books? Why else, they're relying on a market already created by the authors.

Some of my first memories of films adapted from books were the Michael Crichton movies. Jurassic Park (and its sequels), Congo, and Sphere. While JP actually remained quite faithful to the novel, Congo and Sphere were horrible adaptations. The problem is the complexity of a book is simply too difficult to put onscreen. All thoughts held by characters must be voiced, making everyone sound like they must always be talking to themselves. Conversations generally fall along these lines:

[To him/herself]: "So this must explain why he said/did that...."
Other character: "What was that? Did you say something?"
First character: "Oh, no nothing. I was just thinking..."

Frank Herbert's Dune actually solved this problem by using voice-overs. And though this might sound like a perfect solution, it takes too much time and slows down dialogue. But to remove those thoughts altogether deprives viewers of the character development achieved through internal conversations.

Last night, I got a chance to see The Da Vinci Code. Based on Dan Brown's best-selling novel of the same name, it tells the story of a symbologist and a cryptologist attempting to uncover the truth about Jesus Christ and his bloodline. The book is a fast-paced action suspense thriller which takes readers from the Louvre Museum in Paris to Westminster Abbey in London, and various locales in between. Adaptation to the big screen seems like a fantastic idea, as it would allow readers to actually see all the beautiful locations described in the book. Unfortunately, the Code lost something in translation. Actors were poorly cast in all roles with the exception of Sir Leigh Teabing and Silas the Monk. Dialogue was stilted and jarring, as evidenced by Tom Hanks' Robert Langdon spouting off random symbological history whenever he felt it necessary (which to our disappointment, was often).

All of this might give the impression that I think all movie adaptations of books are bad, but that is far from true. Several films put out in the recent years have shown that literary works can be properly translated to film. Brokeback Mountain, for example, was an exceptional film. Adapted from Annie Proulx's short story, it made the leap with amazing clarity and poise. Granted, Brokeback Mountain was a short story with little dialogue and so would have been very easy to create for the big screen. Another prime example is the Spider-Man series. Thanks in large part to special effects and computer-generated graphics, Sam Raimi was able to put Spider-Man on the silver screen for all to see and enjoy. Comic books, admittedly are easier to do on screen because they are illustrated, but written originally nonetheless.

I guess the basic idea is that making a movie out of a book is hard to do because everyone has their own idea of how that book should look. The characters have their own voices, their own looks, and their own personalities. To put them onscreen is to take that away from viewers and to have them see what the director saw in his/her vision of the book. I think that's what makes people so angry about books which translate poorly to the screen, is that they've been deprived of the characters crafted so carefully, and intimately in their minds. But as we all know, that's not going to stop movie-makers from continuing to take written work and filming it. So read the books first, then see the movie.

Attack of the Knights Templar

Religion is a scary thing. It has a grip on so many people, and commands such tremendous respect that it could almost be a state of its own. A state that extends across the entire world. 'Tis frightening, no? But its control is limited to the people who ascribe to its cause. There are many who do not believe as the Church believes, and such is the way it should be. A balance of power must always be maintained. However, it has not always been so.

Centuries ago, the Church had a larger role in the governing of states. In the name of religion, the Church's ranking members could blacklist non-believers as heretics and blasphemers. Those heretics were scientists, men and women who believed differently than the Church. Their reward for thinking beyond the Book was quite often death. Over the years, this has changed to the point where religion is kept separate from the state; a judicial branch has been created in its place to deal out punishment as it sees fit.

As any governing body knows, there are forces that will constantly strive to bring it down. The Church feared men of science because the theories they announced threatened to turn people from the Way of God. Such is the case now, with the eminent release of The Da Vinci Code in theaters across North America. We are two days from opening night, and as the marketing machine winds up, the Church has created its own counter-measures.

Churches across the U.S. and Canada have prepared their men for an onslaught of questions raised by Dan Brown's novel. Ministers are being educated in the "approved" history of the Knights Templar and Opus Dei. Counter-documentaries, pamphlets, and information packages have been assembled to dispel notions that Jesus might have married and had a child. Why the fervor over such non-sense as a novel? A fictional novel at that. The Church is merely doing what it has been doing for years: protecting its followers from the heretical and paganistic views of outsiders.

It seems sad though, in this day and age, that a fictional novel could create such a maelstrom of activity over an idea which is really nothing more than the result of one man's over-active imagination. Does the Church really believe that a novel will alter the foundations upon which its followers' beliefs are based? That people are stupid enough to take what has been clearly declared as fiction for truth? If anything, this is a message about the Church's views on mankind.

However, blame cannot be placed solely upon the shoulders of the Church. Its members have also perpetuated the idea that this story will only lead to confusion and disbelief. Boycotts and hunger strikes are being planned around the world in protest of the film's release. The film's director, Ron Howard, recently addressed the controversy at the Cannes Film Festival in France, by saying, "This is supposed to be entertainment, not theology." His opinion of this fiasco is that if you think you might be offended by the material, then don't see it. It's as simple as that.

The controversy surrounding The Da Vinci Code is unfounded. What we seem to have forgotten is that, even though some truths lie within its pages (and even they have been molded to fit the plot), this is supposed to be fun. Reading for pleasure, being swept up in the rush of escapism. Once the film has run its course, this will all seem like a distant memory. So go grab a book, sit in your favourite chair, and just relax. Stop trying to turn fiction into fact.

McGill Administration...Need I Say More?

So we're three weeks away from convocation. Three weeks! I'll walk across the stage, shake hands with all the so-called important people, get that little piece of paper (which might as well be toilet paper for all it matters) and then step off the stage. Or at least that was how it was supposed to go....

Today, I received an e-mail from the Graduation Approval Office which said that I'm missing two credits. Ergo, no graduation. Ain't that a peach. Three weeks to convocation and I get notification of this NOW. I doubt much of this makes much sense out of context, so allow me to explain.

Near the middle of my Fall 2005 semester, I went to see my advisor in the Biology department to verify a few things. Most important among those items were these questions: Do I have enough credits to graduate? And if not, how many credits will I need to get next semester? Her answers were not yet, and four. So I registered for my four credits and proceeded to wade through my final semester at McGill. I scored A's in all my classes this semester, no problem. Alright, I'd finished my final credits and would now have enough credits to graduate.

Now when you go see someone like an advisor, you expect that they know what they're doing, right? Advising is what they do for a living. They ought to know what they're talkin' about. I've known my advisor since I got here and she has been exceptionally helpful through the years. I have never had a complaint about her before now. So when she told me I would only need four credits to graduate, I never doubted her for a second. Nor should I have had any reason to. Four credits it was, done deal.

I don't entirely blame her for this mess. After all, the Student Affairs Office has been sending out e-mails that warned us to verify ourselves that we had all our affairs in order for graduation. Although, in my defense, these e-mails presented two options: verify my records myself (with the possibility of incorrectly interpreting the complicated and overly difficult transcripts), OR go see my advisor and have her look it over without worrying about mistakes. Which option would you choose??

The next step of course is to speak with my advisor and hopefully one of the Deans so that I can get this whole mess straightened out. If she can explain to the Dean that this was all one big misunderstanding then perhaps I stand a chance of being able to graduate this summer instead of in the fall. Ideally I would be able to graduate with my friends, take a course in June, ace it, and then receive my degree. No big deal.

The problem is that my family has already booked tickets to come out here, arrangements for the sale of my condo are in progress, and this is turning out to be one of the worst months of my entire university career. It's like playing Monopoly. You're almost at Go, ready to receive your free $200 and you get sent to Jail. How shitty is that?!

What bothers me the most is that I applied, like everyone else, for graduation months ago. MONTHS AGO!!! The graduation approval office has had my records since my registration for courses in the Winter 2006 semester. Why didn't a little flag go up that said, "Needs more credits"? Why didn't Minerva do the math and put a hold my graduation approval? It has all the information right there, why the fuck didn't it do its job?! As always, it comes down to the poor organizational skills of McGill Administration. Everyone whines and complains about the Admin, and most of it is just useless and unfounded noise. But this really takes the cake. Fucking over students mere weeks before their convocation. Why do they wait until just a few weeks before convocation to confirm all the details? I understand they need all your grades before you can be approved for convocation, but all the other aspects of the approval process should have been done earlier. MUCH earlier. I just don't understand this could have happened. This ain't shit hittin' any old regular fan, this is explosive diarrhea hittin' the industrial fan.

And so, once again McGill Administration has succeeded in its utter stupidity, incompetence, and disorganization. Goddamn I wish I was done with this Hell-hole already...

*EDIT: No blame can be placed on my advisor, as having spoken to her and having clarified the situation, it was I who made the wrong assumptions and thus this mess is entirely my fault.*

A Life Remembered

Only when it is lost, do we realize how fragile and important life really is. We also tend to forget the little guys: our pets - our companions. They keep us company when we're alone, they cheer us up when we're sad, and best of all, they love us unconditionally. Pets are more than just the little furry things that follow us around, they are friends, and members of our families. We would do well to remember that.

It's been a long time since I've had to deal with mortality and its limits. I'd forgotten how important it is to say "I love you" on a daily basis. I'd forgotten to be making the best of each day. And what bothers me the most is that I promised myself these things would not happen. That it would not take another tragedy to make me honour my promises. We are a generation of apathetic citizens. Reminders do not come in the form of little yellow Post-It notes, but rather as a swift kick to the balls.

We must always cherish the moments we have. I have this book called, "Tuesdays with Morrie." Some of you may have read it, those that have not should. It chronicles the last years of Morrie Schwartz, a professor who is dying of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig's Disease, and who spends these final days with an old student of his; imparting his wisdom and the insights generally brought about by death. When asked how one should be "prepared to die", Morrie has this to say...

"Do what the Buddhists do. Every day, have a little bird on your shoulder that asks, 'Is today the day? Am I ready? Am I doing all I need to do? Am I being the person I want to be?' "

And he proceeds to add this last bit of counsel, "Once you learn how to die, you learn how to live." It seems so logical, so sensical that it blows right past us. We tend to forget that if we were to consider our short time on this planet, we might do things differently. If you were going to die tomorrow, would you spend today worrying about the past? If you were a University student, would you waste time wondering about the futility of exams and papers? No, you wouldn't. You'd be out spending time with your family, you'd be living that last precious drop of life.

How sad it is that we must be reminded of such a simple fact: that we could be gone tomorrow. Our pets know this already. They know that they have a limited time with us and they make the best of it by pawing for our attention. They want us to love them as they love us. Samus has made me realize this. I regret all the times I hushed him while I busied myself with pointless and often idiotic tasks. I regret all the times I didn't hug him, or didn't return the affection that he lavished on me. And most of all, I regret that fateful decision to give him away. I have asked for forgiveness of him, and I pray one day he'll grant it to me.

Until that time comes, I will remember him and what he taught me. I will remember the promises. It humbles me to know that we have so much to learn from our little friends. But now it is time to say goodbye to my beloved Samus. Thank you for showing me what my eyes could not, thank you for allowing me a chance to make things right, and most of all, thank you for loving me. Goodbye Samus, I will miss you, I love you, and you'll be with me always.