MIT professor and psychologist Sherry Turkle’s TED talk has gotten a lot of play in social media circles. That’s not surprising, given the topic. Her main point is that we are using technology to create . . . → Read More: Two TED talks: Turkle and Whitacre – Internet Connections and Isolation]]> I had the opportunity to watch 2 TED talks tonight. Both of them were about the power of technology and its relationship to… well, relationships. The intertwining of connection and isolation as themes across these two videos really struck me tonight.

MIT professor and psychologist Sherry Turkle’s TED talk has gotten a lot of play in social media circles. That’s not surprising, given the topic. Her main point is that we are using technology to create mere connections with others rather than relationships. You could take that sentence and conclude that she wants us to turn off our cell phones and disconnect the internet. You’d be mis-characterizing her point. I think she’s very clear that the technology itself is neutral, and can be used for good or ill. We just need to be more self-aware in its application and how it affects us, psychologically, and how it is changing (and has changed) us societally.

My friend Lee wrote about his reaction to Turkle’s thoughts (from a NYT article that closely follows the text of the video above). He says that he agrees with Turkle, but goes on to state a preference for – and at times reliance on – using technology to create a distance from relationships. He continues:

It does actually make me wonder and consider how much I share online, I’m generally fairly open online but my online personality is vastly different from who I am offline.  We all present different personalities depending on the environment and audience, online is no different. I’m not living a lie I’m just reacting to my environment but then maybe I should keep my private and personal stuff to myself to minimise connectivity and avoid confusion.

By contrast, I consider myself to be fairly conservative in what I share online (though I’m still way more open than some of my family would like me to be). I do completely agree that my online presence is a crafted one. What I give you is really me, but it is carefully selected portions of me designed to engender connections.  Note I used the word “connections.” Some of those connections may become relationships eventually, but the goal of 99% of my online interactions, if I’m honest, is pure connection in the sense used by Turkle. I want someone to acknowledge that they’ve heard me, and I’m completely satisfied in most cases if that acknowledgement comes in the most superficial way. In fact, a lot of times I don’t want it to get any deeper, because that can get messy. On the other hand, I can get very disappointed if the acknowledgement doesn’t come (so you better let me know you read this, you cold-hearted lurkers).

I’m realizing now that I have way too many thoughts on this for a succinct blog post. Heck, even an epically long blog post would only really scratch the surface, and I’m not even sure anyone will finish reading this one. I could go on about the similarities and differences of contrived personalities online vs IRL (“in real life,” for the acronym challenged), the contributions of technology to my own sense of self and the relationships I’ve both cultivated and avoided, the irony of me quoting Lee on this topic as a friend when we’ve never met, the euphoric dopamine drip triggered by Facebook notifications and emails (not to mention comments on here), my handling of technology based on my own awareness of its drug-like effects on me, and my own feelings on isolation amidst connection, just for starters. But for the most part, Turkle hits the highlights. Listen to her talk.

But then consider this other TED video.

Eric Whitacre’s demonstration unintentionally shines a different light on Turkle’s. Turkle presents a warning of the personal and societal consequences of extended reliance on technology, while simultaneously acknowledging the potential benefits it brings. Whitacre’s presentation seems on the surface to be about the benefits of creating something great through that connective technology, but looking at it critically it’s also possible to see that it completely supports Turkle’s argument.

Connection and isolation. Whitacre’s project took isolation and turned it into connection – not to mention something of great beauty. But it doesn’t remove that isolation. There is no true collaboration going on here, except between 2 people: Eric Whitacre and the guy who edited together the video. Everyone else contributed but did not collaborate. To collaborate, the individuals would have to react and adjust to input like the relative volume and pace of the other singers – but that opportunity did not exist. That became the editor’s job. In fact, you could make the argument that there was no collaboration at all. It’s possible that Whitacre left it up to the editor to create the mix, in which case no-one really worked together – it was just a collection of individual contributions, and the final contribution was the editor’s isolated act of integration which created the perception of connection.

Any way you look at it, though, it’s poetic. (I love how the full video for Sleep underscores the isolation and interconnectedness simultaneously in the visual design, not to mention the return to isolation at the end.)

Having seen it now, I completely stand by that claim. In fact, I’d consider selling her now just to see it again.

What Joss Whedon assembled here is phenomenal. Amazing. Incredible. I’m not sure I know enough superlatives to adequately capture how . . . → Read More: Review: The Avengers (2012) (no spoilers)]]> Yesterday (well, technically today) I posted that The Avengers was one of three movies that I would see even if I had to sell my mother to the Russians, with no guilt.

Having seen it now, I completely stand by that claim. In fact, I’d consider selling her now just to see it again.

What Joss Whedon assembled here is phenomenal. Amazing. Incredible. I’m not sure I know enough superlatives to adequately capture how good this film is.

I’ve seen some really good superhero films in the last 5-6 years, but none of them elicited the same level of excited, breathless response I felt when I first saw Spider-man and it’s first sequel. Even Iron Man, which was excellent, came close, but didn’t break the mark. The Avengers did it.

There were multiple times during this movie that I almost bounced out of my seat cheering. I wanted a rewind button so bad I could taste it, just to re-experience the awesomeness I had just seen. There were scenes that surprised me, that made me laugh, and blew my action-loving mind. I haven’t so fully enjoyed a movie this much in a long time.

Now, having said that, it’s not a perfect film. Nothing is. It’s superb, not perfect. There were scenes I would have shortened or altered a bit – though not as many as most films. I do think there are one or two spots where it got slightly bogged down. The biggest problem I have with the film, however, is not really with the film at all, but the trailers. I simply can not believe that they included a completely pivotal scene meant to have one of the biggest emotional impacts so prominently in the trailer. That was the definition of a spoiler – having seen it before-hand completely drained the scene of its intended impact, and it was a really good scene. My wife, who did not remember having seen it, had an audible reaction (unusual for her in an action movie), while I saw it coming from 2 miles away and just had to wait for it to play out. So that really bugged me.

But putting that aside, Joss Whedon was hired for this film because of his facility with character stories. It’s easy to let a movie like this glide through on spectacle and lose the characters. Whedon did not let that happen. He excels at ensemble pieces and this is a big one, with at least 9 main and secondary characters to juggle. All of them got their moments. I didn’t feel like anyone was cheated. That alone is an impressive feat.

Now, I said I would do this without spoilers, and I’ll stand by that. Just let me say this: Hulk vs. Loki. Pure. Unadulterated. Awesome. I have never been so shocked by a battle in my life.

There’s a lot I could talk about in this movie at the character, writing, action, and camera levels, but I would end up getting into spoilers there, so I’ll hold off.

In short, this is, possibly, the best superhero movie ever made. Go see it. Now.

(side note: I put this in a completely different category of movie than Nolan’s Batman trilogy – they don’t compete for the same best superhero prize. I might expand on that in the future, if anyone asks about it.)

Almost.

As usual, but even more so this year, money is tight. Hard choices have to be made. I don’t know if I’m strong enough to make them, but I have to try. Last . . . → Read More: 7 movies my mother has to worry about (and a bunch more)]]> 2012 has an impressive line-up of films. Time travel, mutation, gods, monsters, hobbits, technology, and sheer awesomeness all combine to create an almost inescapable desire to just set up an automatic withdrawal from my checking account to my local movie theater.

Almost.

As usual, but even more so this year, money is tight. Hard choices have to be made. I don’t know if I’m strong enough to make them, but I have to try. Last year I think I came in at around 20 movies I wanted to see in the theater. I didn’t get to all of them (thankfully, in some cases), but that was the goal.

This year I need to be more realistic. But the studios aren’t making it easy. Every time I think I’ve nailed down my list, another trailer comes out, and the list expands.

So this year I’m taking a different approach. I’m going to organize my list by priority. Hopefully this helps when deciding what films must wait until DVD. Wish me luck.

Priority 1 – I will see these even if I have to sell my mother to the Russians.

The Avengers – in fact, I’m seeing it in less than 12 hours.

The Dark Knight Rises – the finale to the most impressive Batman trilogy ever committed to screen? Bring it on.

The Amazing Spider-Man – I was disappointed that they were doing a reboot so soon, and I do have some lingering doubts about this one, but it does look good and it is, after all, Spider-man. I really have no choice.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey – To call this highly anticipated would be monumentally underselling it. I’ve been waiting for it since I was 10, and salivating for it since the second frame of Fellowship of the Ring.

Priority 1.25 – I will see these even if I have to sell my mother to the Russians, but I’ll feel bad about it.

Brave – Going strictly by the trailer, I really think Pixar is back in form for this one. I really hope this is a good movie for my girls.

Taken 2 – Holy Crap! I didn’t even know they were making this movie! If it looks anywhere near as good as the first one, I’m in. Otherwise, it drops to priority 2.

Unfortunately, no trailer yet.

Skyfall – Bond. Enough said.

Again, no trailer yet.

Priority 2 – Grudgingly waiting for DVD – if I can get into the theater, I will.

Snow White and the Huntsman – Looks really good.

Men In Black 3 – I really enjoyed the first two. To be honest, this doesn’t look like it will be quite as good, but it’s still promising. I’m still leaning toward seeing it in the theater if I can, but I think I can let it slip to DVD if necessary.

Prometheus – This looks at least as disturbingly awesome as Alien/Aliens. It hurts me to put this in this category, but something has to give.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation – Yeah, it looks bad, but yet awesome at the same time. Very conflicted about this one.

The Bourne Legacy – Bourne. Enough said.

(There was a problem with US trailer when I grabbed this)

Total Recall – Argh… how can I not get my ass to Mars? Seriously, this looks awesome.

Looper – Time-travelling Bruce Willis fights the mob by not letting a younger version of him kill himself in the past. And Joseph Gordon Levitt is the young Bruce Willis hunting himself down. Exactly my kind of flick.

Priority 3 – Not entirely decided, but probably DVD

Dredd – Judgement withheld.

No trailer available yet.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter - If it wasn’t for Battleship, below, this would be the dumbest idea on this list, but somehow it looks good! (My secret wish for this movie is that at some point Lincoln looks at the camera and says “Be excellent to each other.” Or at least, “Party on!”)

Priority 4 – Happily waiting for DVD

Battleship – It’s just too crazy of an idea with too high of a budget not to watch.

The Expendables 2 – I still need to watch the first one.

So, there you have it. Seven movies my mother has to worry about this year. For her sake, I hope I win some free tickets somewhere.

Which movies will you sell your mother to see this year?

I think the announcer was being a little harsh, myself. It didn’t look like they were “rubbing it in” – though they certainly were oblivious. In fact, they’ve copped to not noticing the crying kid in their excitement. . . . → Read More: “Stolen” baseballs]]> At a recent Rangers game, a couple was caught on film denying a game ball to a crying toddler, and they have been put through the social media ringer over it since then. Here’s the video…

I think the announcer was being a little harsh, myself. It didn’t look like they were “rubbing it in” – though they certainly were oblivious. In fact, they’ve copped to not noticing the crying kid in their excitement. I have no problem believing that in what was a noisy and excited situation.

Here’s the thing, though… the ball was really never anywhere near that kid, and his father never got that close to having it either. The ball was never rightly the kid’s. Yeah, it’s disappointing for him, I’m sure, and they could have given it to him just to be nice. But I have no sympathy. You know why? I had it worse.

Way back in the ’70s – when the Phillies were awesome – I actually went to a few games with my Dad. Only once, to my memory, did we ever sit anywhere in Veteran’s Stadium that it would even be possible for a ball to make it near us. But amazingly, in that one instance, the foul ball was hit right to us. And I mean that literally. Right. To. Us. It was liked they aimed it.

Let’s set some context here. This was Philadelphia in the ’70s. Phillies fans are known for a lot of things, but politeness is not one of them. In that video above, you saw people grabbing for the ball. In Philly, they dive over the seats, not even caring if they spill their beer (which is saying something with that crowd). And the Phillies were doing well back then, so excitement was high and attendance was up (or so I assume… it’s not like I researched it).

Anyway… the ball came straight at us. I didn’t catch it, but it did bounce and land directly in front of my seat, and I did pick it up. Midst the tumult of grasping digits and thrusting arms, it was in my hands, solidly — I had a ball hit by one of the Phillies! — for about 1.47 seconds, before some huge drunk guy shoved his weight into me and grabbed the ball right out of my hands, jumping up with it held high above his head grunting triumphantly. I’m pretty sure he still had his beer in his other hand as he walked back to his seat a few rows back and over.

Yeah, that’s right… he jumped a few rows and the stairs to man-handle a ball out of a kid’s hands. And he was proud of himself. I wasn’t as young as the kid in the video, but I couldn’t have been older than 7 or 8.

It’s just wrong, man. Where was my time on the giant screen? What announcer came to my defense? That’s right — nowhere, and nobody. (Dad did give him “the look” though – which was usually reserved for me and my brother after some less-than-well-considered activity, so I’m sure that guy was quaking (assuming he noticed).)

So do I have sympathy for the kid in the video? Well, yeah, okay, a little – come on, he’s just a kid. But I also have a healthy dose of “suck it up, kid” welling up inside of me. Some days you get the bear, and some days the bear takes the baseball right out of your hands and uses it to slap your hapless optimism into the gum-stained stadium floor where it’s stuck for the next 7 years.

On the plus side, though… memorable moment for me, and I still had a good time with my Dad.

Doesn’t sound weird to you? Talk to my doctor. (Actually, if you do talk to my doctor, you probably won’t find out anything. He’s pretty HIPAA compliant. So… just go with it.)

The weather, for those of you who just woke up from a coma, has been unusually warm. We actually got into the 80s a couple of . . . → Read More: March out]]> March was a weird month. I actually got outside and did exercise. That’s how weird it was.

Doesn’t sound weird to you? Talk to my doctor. (Actually, if you do talk to my doctor, you probably won’t find out anything. He’s pretty HIPAA compliant. So… just go with it.)

The weather, for those of you who just woke up from a coma, has been unusually warm. We actually got into the 80s a couple of times. That’s crazy for March around here. We had snow in March last year.

We hiked from the river up to the overlook.

As a result of this incredibly comfortable weather, the girls and I actually got out a couple of times and took a hike on some local trails. I’m not talking about walking paths in a park, I mean actual trails in the woods with hills and stuff. If you fell off the narrow trail, you could actually have been seriously hurt. That kind of trail.

I loved it.

In fact, that’s really the only kind of exercise I enjoy lately. All other exercise seems like work. Hiking is sightseeing. Running (which my wife has picked up lately) is monotony wrapped in pain. Sports (other than tennis) take too many people to organize something worthwhile (and I’m not aware of anyone who plays tennis around here at my erratic, yet low, skill level). Any class or gym based exercise? Nothing but the opportunity to pay people to make you feel physical pain while at the same time creating the mental pain of guilt for failing to uphold the weight of obligation compounded by the waste of cash. Home-based indoor exercise? Please. Keeping my chair from floating away is infinitely more appealing.

But hiking? I’ve enjoyed hiking all my life. I used to do it much better, and much more frequently. In the Boy Scouts we went on at least one hike a month if I remember correctly, and I had the opportunity to backpack multiple segments of the Appalachian Trail and spent a couple of weeks doing that in New Mexico as well. Less formally, a friend and I used to hike random trails where we grew up, enjoying and exploring nature as we walked.

I really haven’t hiked much in the last decade and a half – maybe longer. That’s kind of sad. But my kids are now at the age where they can come with me, they have the stamina for it, and they enjoy it (and we don’t have to make a bathroom break every 10 minutes). They’re also old enough that I can trust them to pay attention when I tell them a particular section is difficult or dangerous and they need to be careful.

So out we went, three weekends in a row, marching down the trails. It was beautiful, at times challenging, and some quality time with my kids (and my wife for two of the trips). Relaxing, educational, rewarding, aerobic, and fun. Just great. I hope we can continue to find time (and have good weather) for lots more hikes this year. The challenge will be to continue finding new trails close enough to get out and back in a reasonable time. I’ve found some good resources recently, though, so hopefully that won’t be a big deal.

So, March may be over, but the marching will (hopefully) continue.

Both the book and the film are . . . → Read More: Review: Hugo (and The Invention of Hugo Cabret)]]> Just prior to its theatrical release, I read the book upon which Martin Scorsese’s Hugo is based, “The Invention of Hugo Cabret.” The book is a beautiful story, told in an inventive combination of text and drawings. The drawings are remarkable, dominate the book, and act very much like storyboards to a film. As such, it’s no surprise that someone would attempt to make it into a movie.

Both the book and the film are very highly regarded by critics and won (or were nominated for) prestigious awards. In my opinion, those were well deserved in all cases. It is an exceptional story, well told in both mediums, though – as will become obvious – I have a strong preference for one version over the other.

I never got the chance to see the film in theaters, where it was shown in 3D. The buzz is that the 3D is remarkable and used appropriately and expertly. I have no reason to doubt that Scorsese did an outstanding job in that regard, but I can’t comment on it personally. Contrary to most 3D films, I am a little disappointed that I haven’t seen that aspect, but it is what it is. Certainly, the visuals in the film are extremely well executed and appropriate, even in 2D, and I enjoyed the look of the movie immensely. The opening scenes in the film alone are worth the price of entry.

To stick with visual presentation for a moment, let me go back to the book. As I said, the drawings were superb and were, more than mere illustration, integral to the story. They drew me into the story in a different, exciting way than text alone, helping me to feel immersed in the motion and emotion of the story. I don’t know if the copy of the book I had is representative (though I firmly believe it is), but the physical aspects of the book itself added to the experience of the story as well. The paper was a little thicker than normal, and cut slightly unevenly, which added to the classic feeling in which the story was presented – almost as a hand-made journal.  It was a very well integrated experience which I greatly appreciated (and kudos to the printers in Crawfordsville, Indiana for making it thus).

Both the book and the film have a very calm presentation. Personally I think that works better in the book than in the film. In the book it seemed to add to the sense of wonder and mystery, and the immersion into 1930′s Paris. In the movie, it translated to a pace that was too slow for my taste. I once heard an interview with Billy Joel where he said the performance of the single “Stormfront” was an exercise in “how slow can you go” before the groove starts to get slogged down and you lose the energy of the song. There’s a fine line that can’t be crossed. In my opinion, the book pushed the line, but stayed on the right side the majority of the time (there were moments, though). Scorsese stepped just over it, and spent much of the film on that side, and the result was unfortunately a loss of energy.

At this point, I’m going to begin getting into the story a bit, and there will be spoilers, so if you’ve not read the book or seen the movie, you may want to stop here. I’m still going to be kind of vague where possible, but I have to admit the one thing I want to talk about is pretty major, so … keep that in mind. Don’t worry… just bookmark this page in your browser. It’ll be here when you’ve caught up.

There were a few changes made in the story for the sake of the film. This is to be expected when adapting a book, so I really don’t have a problem with many of the alterations, on the surface. The change to the station investigator and the fleshing out of (really just a bit more focus on) characters who barely appear in the book could have worked out fine. Unfortunately, the reason they changed those characters was a slight alteration to the story’s focus – just enough that I think the film was the poorer for it.

Don’t get me wrong, it was a perfectly valid way to go, and as a stand-alone piece it works well enough – possibly better than many films today, if the critics are to be believed. My wife liked it, and she’s never read the book. And intellectually, when I separate the film story from the book story, I can see it as well. In comparison, though, I can say without doubt that the story as presented in the book held more focus and meaning for me than the film.

And it’s not that the focus in the film – that relationships make you whole – wasn’t in the book. It was. In fact you could say that it was the main focus in both mediums. But the addition of the other character arcs into that point weakened, rather than strengthened it in the film. In the book, it was applied almost exclusively to Hugo and Georges, and the end of the book made the point much more strongly than it was made in the film. I don’t think the film handled well at all the final transition of Hugo from broken, lost child to a fully healed person made whole by his journey and new-found relationships. The point was diffused across multiple characters and thus lost much of its potency. In this case the effect was not additive, as I suspect Scorsese intended. The book also accomplished its point without losing the sense of wonder and mystery inherent in the rest of the story. The film was a bit too “on-the-nose” in pushing its point.

Finally, the film was missing what I considered to be a very important piece of the book: the story-teller was himself a character and the revelation of his identity was, both in its content and style, very fitting and personalizing – and the answer to a mystery that until that point I didn’t realize I was pursuing. That simple piece added immensely to my enjoyment of the book. In the film, it is not even alluded to. That, in the end, is what makes my preference for the book so decisive. It is what gives the book the focus that I’ve been talking about in the preceding paragraphs. Its absence is a major blow to the emotion of the piece.

There are other things I could quibble, and certainly many things to praise, but in the end, for me, it came down to that.

Have you seen the film? What did you think? If you’ve read the book, how do you think it compares?

View now, the future we must change:

So, what you just watched (you did watch it right? I mean seriously, how hard is it to press a simple play button? That’s all . . . → Read More: The Birth of Gabriel Bright – DC Universe]]> Out of the ashes of our future destruction, a new hero has been born. Gabriel Bright. Beacon of hope. Defender of justice. Burdened, as are we all, with the knowledge of what is to come – and the responsibility to prevent it.

View now, the future we must change:

So, what you just watched (you did watch it right? I mean seriously, how hard is it to press a simple play button? That’s all you have to do; it works all by itself after that) is the opening movie that sets the stage for the DC Universe Online game.

In my humble opinion, that movie rocks. I guarantee you there is stuff in there you didn’t catch. Watch it again, with commentary by the creators to see how much is in there.

That is a bleak future. It sets the stakes pretty high for the game – basically you need to help save the entire planet from enslavement.

So as the movie shows, a somewhat humbled Lex Luthor came back in time and released these things into the atmosphere that can give ordinary people super-powers in an effort to build a critical mass of strength to beat back the Brainiac invasion. As the player, you pick up from there and create your character. There is a surprising amount of customization you can perform, though you’re still doing variations on a theme. To make the game fair, you can’t just load your character up with all sorts of powers like Superman. You choose a base set of powers and grow from there.

Which brings me to Gabriel.

I created a character who could fly and was a straight-forward brawler, but with a skill for gadgets. The plan was to try to mix qualities of the Superman and Batman archetypes. I gave him a coat and vest because in my head he needs someplace to keep his gadgets, but I also wanted something that would flap like a cape when flying, without being as cheesy as an actual cape. I chose yellow and blue as the color scheme because I wanted him to be a “beacon of hope” type of character and yellow seemed to suit that… and also because I suck at color and was getting impatient to start.

Then I had to pick a name. That turned out to be the hardest part of the whole character creation. I wanted it to be a name that sounded like it might have come from a comic book. That turned out to be almost impossible. Every name I came up with was already in use or banned (presumably because it actually was owned by DC). I almost gave up and just used some random letters and numbers – but after about 30 other attempts, “Gabriel Bright” was accepted. It certainly wasn’t the best name on my list, but I actually kind of like it.

Despite the cool movie, my expectation was that the gameplay itself would be interesting at first and then just get repetitive as you bash your way through the bad guys with ever increasing strength. There is some of that, but they’re pretty smart in letting you develop your powers in multiple directions, so if you want to keep it interesting you can certainly do that.

I haven’t played any large-scale action games in years, so this was a welcome find for me over the Christmas break. I played this for hours, day after day of my vacation. I have to admit, I’m not very smart about growing my powers or managing my “hit points”. I try to keep too many options open and never really concentrate in any one area, so it takes me forever to really excel. I really enjoy my time in the game, though, whether I’m just sightseeing around the different cities, engaging the fun mini-challenges like flying through a timed course, or throwing down with Nightwing or Superman taking out some DC criminal – or sometimes a mind-controlled hero (I really enjoyed the battle against the Teen Titans mission).

I like how they’ve integrated the Justice League into the gameplay, as they advise and direct you to different missions. You can even play as some of them in special team missions (by the way, I make a horrible Robin).

Did I mention it’s free? It’s a huge download and install, but for the basic game, it is free. You can pay to get more features or characters, or to gain skills faster, which widens the game play, but I’m perfectly happy with the free version.

If you’re in the game, let me know. Since I came off vacation I haven’t had much time to play, but I’m thinking I need another dose of saving the world.

What powers would you want? What name would you give your hero (or villain… you can go either way in this game, which is another cool point)?

You know why it’s successful? Because (despite what you see in the trailer) the movie isn’t really about super-powers. It’s about these kids, their friendship, and . . . → Read More: Review: Chronicle (2012)]]> I don’t know about the girls out there, but I know every teenage boy has wondered what it would be like to have super-powers. What would you really do with them? Lots of movies play with that theme, but I’d argue that none is as successful at it as Chronicle.

You know why it’s successful? Because (despite what you see in the trailer) the movie isn’t really about super-powers. It’s about these kids, their friendship, and their lives. In fact, it’s really just about one kid. The fact that he attains these powers is used to put the focus on his feelings, his hopes, and his dreams of being accepted and having friends. The movie is smart about having a slow ramp-up into the powers. It spends most of its time on the relationship of the 3 main characters.

The movie is another “found footage” film, like Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield. This type of film is supposed to bring you into the story more by giving you a first person view of events and very natural performances. There’s no score, no beautiful cinematography, no voice-overs. Everyone in the film is very aware of the camera and react to its presence. The focus is where it should be: on the story and the characters. This film is very well cast, with mostly unknown, but professional, actors in all the roles. Many of the actors have worked in TV or movie shorts, though the most recognizable is probably Michael Kelly as Andrew’s father, who has been a major character in both the short-lived Criminal Minds: Suspect Behavior and currently Person of Interest (one of my favorite shows).

Let’s talk for a second about Michael Kelly in this role. He does an outstanding job. This is a character whose only function is to be “nasty drunk dad,” and could easily have come across as one-dimensional and nothing more than a motivator for Andrew’s behavior, or played for melodrama. There is absolutely no reason to see any humanity in this guy. From the start of the film I wrote him off as a standard one-note character, and I honestly think that’s how he was written. By the end of the film I actually empathized with the character – I still didn’t like him, but I totally saw his humanity, pain, and desperation underneath the anger. For only having maybe 5 minutes of total screen time, that is an amazing feat as far as I’m concerned. Well done, Mr. Kelly.

(In fact, even though there is no comparison (let me be perfectly clear on that) between his character and me, he actually made me wonder if I appear like that to my kids when I do get angry, even in some very small way. That is a thought that I did not expect to have as a result of this film.)

The other actors all do excellent jobs as well. I don’t mean to short-change them, but I think most of their stuff was on the page waiting for them.

The development of the powers is really tied to the personalities of the characters as well. They all gain the same abilities, but their facility with them and control of them is really tied in to who the characters are. Steve, running for class president, is open to them and uses his for fun and freedom; Matt, the philosopher, recognizes the danger and warily develops them more slowly; and Andrew, the unpopular troubled one, spends focused time learning how to finely control his in an effort to precisely control his world.

Eventually, of course, we do see the super-powers grow tremendously and there is a climactic battle, but this is a battle done right. This is very personal, despite the physical scope to which it grows. By this point in the movie the main character has left his camera behind and we see the battle take place via footage from the cameras that are around us every day: security cameras, dashboard cams on police cars, and personal cameras from tourists, as well as camera phones and tablet computers. But the focus never leaves the characters. One wants to end his own personal pain through violence and be left alone, and one wants to help him overcome his pain, protect him, and protect the people around him. The fight is epic, but never loses that these two characters, flawed though they are, truly care about each other. (To go all nerdy for a second, this is the character development that was missing from Revenge of the Sith… lost opportunities…)

On the downside, though it is a short film, clocking in at 80-some minutes, the beginning is slow and probably should have been edited a bit more. The couple next to me left about 10-15 minutes into the film, though I’m not sure if it’s because they were bored or the hand-held camera work annoyed them.

That’s something else I can praise about this film, actually. I usually hate the hand-held camera stuff, but in this movie, once Andrew learns how to make the camera hover we get a nice steadicam-ish style without losing the “home movie” quality. Very good move.

As far as recommending this movie… in the beginning it’s slow, and in the end it’s kind of depressing. It does an excellent job of appearing natural despite the extraordinary feats being performed. It also captures teen life very realistically (the fun, the stupid, and the dark sides). If that sounds even a little bit interesting to you, see this film. If you don’t like gritty depressing films, it’s probably not your thing. But if you avoid superhero movies because they’re unrealistic and lacking in true character development, do not let that stop you from seeing this. This movie stomps all over that perception.