Superman Deserves More Respect

 Superman Deserves More Respect

Words by Dirk Calloway

Superman has all the power in the world, but he's rarely done right. Often, in an attempt to test his powers out, he's given outlandish foes to fight. Or, worse, he's pitted against Lex Luthor and a hunk of kryptonite for the millionth time. Last month I read two books that restored my faith in the character though. They were Kingdom Come and Superman: Secret Identity. Both showed totally different sides of the character, but both understood what it is that makes a Superman story great. Here's a brief list:

 

 - - - - - - - - - -

1) If he has to love someone, give him a reason to

Whether it's Lois Lane or Wonder Woman, make Supes truly want companionship. I mean, put it this way, he can go to any galaxy, and can live forever, right? He's also the most powerful man on Earth. So, there better be a damn good reason if he's going to settle down. He has to need and want that woman more than anything else. If he can fly anywhere at a moment's notice, convince us why he should return to one place at the end of every day. In Secret Identity it's suggested that Lois is a confidante, a muse, and a conspirator; she inspires him to do what he loves. In Kingdom Come, Wonder Woman is a revolutionary, an unhinged and furious rebel. She dares to disobey Superman's assumed authority, forcing him to realise he lives in a modern world with new and violent problems. Both women force Superman to think differently about the world, to think in more human terms. Awesome stuff.

2) Give him a problem he can't solve alone

Many of Superman Returns' problems were because he had to do so much himself. He was always zipping around the place, doing stuff as quickly as possible, but the over-riding message was that "one guy can't be everywhere at once." Yawn. Much better to just ask for help, I've found. Especially if your friends are, you know, Batman. Call in the cavalry. Get The Green Arrow to help you out, or The Flash. They're pretty useful pals, so get them to do their thing while Superman handles the diplomacy. He's basically an aristocrat within the comic world, so he might as well be treated like one. Treat him like a nuclear deterrent, instead of a frontline soldier.

3) Threaten the American Way of life

Make Superman feel like his country is under attack from within itself. Nothing makes a God angrier, right? And that's one problem Supes can't solve with his fists, so that brings up all sorts of interesting dilemmas for him. In Secret Identity he's forced to use well-timed pranks to reprimand a malevolent government. Turns out, when you and everyone you know have superpowers, doing the most human of things can still be fascinating.

4) Reward Superman for his Boy Scout mentality, but make him doubt it

 In other words, no-one likes a lecturing superhero. Make him wonder if he really does need to act the way he does, then make him decide "my way or the highway." Way too many Superman comics waste space on the character rescuing cats and crap like that. He needs serious moral questions posed to him, real conundrums, that are scaled-up versions of normal problems. If he's not given issues to grapple with, the character risks becoming a Self Help Guru or some sort of a superhero evangelist. It's much better to see him grapple with issues he doesn't understand. It gives normal folk something to relate to, see.

 - - - - - - - - - -

Simple as that really. I wish more Superman books were as good as Kingdom Come or Secret Identity. My advice will make all the difference, honest!

Sheriff Woody Saves The Day - Again

 Sheriff Woody Saves The Day - Again

Words by Dirk Calloway

$100 Million in one weekend, already one of IMDb's Top #30 films of all time, and in 3 DIMENSIONS no less, Toy Story is going to rule the world for the next few weeks. Deservedly so. At this point, I'm putting all my faith in three gurus to save the American summer. Pixar, Christopher Nolan and Edgar Wright will bring me all sorts of cinematic joy over the next couple of months. If they don't... bad things will happen. I just want it on record that 2010's May and June sucked, movie-wise. Let's pray for July and August. They will bring us Toy Story 3, Inception and Scott Pilgrim Vs The World. And all will be well again. In the meantime, let's celebrate the news that good films are, finally, on the way.

Avatar Lost!

Avatar Lost!

Words by Dirk Calloway

Wow. So, after racking up a box-office tally that would rival the GDP of a few African nations, Avatar lost the two biggest Oscars.

How did things go so wrong?

To answer this question, we have to go back to Titanic. When Cameron won, he crowed "I'm the King of the World!" People hated it. They thought he was smug, arrogant, and it came across like he was saying "I told you so" to the very people who just rewarded him with a big gold statue. Personally, I loved it. But then, I'm a massive Titanic fan. I've yet to meet someone who saw it on Opening Weekend. Only the true Cameron devotees turned out for that. And that's why I thought it was appropriate for him to have a "told you so" grin on his face: everyone expected him to fail, but he didn't. That's awesome. Anyway, I guess that has something to do with the fact he didn't win Best Director. 

How did things go wrong for the film though? Well, primarily, I guess it comes down to story. Avatar just wasn't fresh enough for the Academy. Comparing Avatar to Hurt Locker: I've never seen a bomb disposal film where the main guy is a maverick go-getter... but I have seen many films where a military man assimilates in with an indigenous culture and then takes on his own culture in a war. 

Should it have won?

I'm always on the wrong side of the Best Picture winner. I think I give people prizes for effort and results, instead of emotional response and a good story. Last year I was rooting for Benjamin Button over Slumdog Millionaire. This year, I think the thousands of man hours that went into Avatar needed acknowledgement. Not just some Visual Effects Oscar, but some massive, unadulterated, thanks for the effort in revitalising, oh, THE ENTIRE MOVIE INDUSTRY. Because of Avatar, dozens of films are now being up-rez'd into 3D. Because of Avatar, Alice in Wonderland just made a bajillion dollars on opening weekend, because it was also in 3D. Because of Avatar, people stopped pirating and actually went to a movie theatre. Because of Avatar, it's now plausible that a Best Picture nominee would have aliens as its main character. Phenomenal achievements. But most importantly, I think it deserved an Oscar because it succeeded on the scale that it has. It wasn't just the top earner of the last year; it is now (not counting inflation) the highest earner of all time. More people went to see it than any film in years.

So, yes, I think it should have won. 

Who can we blame?

No-one. The winner, The Hurt Locker, was a fantastic film. It deserved to be recognised as one of the best films of 2009. 

What does this mean?

It means the pressure's off for James Cameron's next effort. Imagine if he had made the highest grossing film ever, twice, then won back-to-back Oscars for Best Director and Best Film. No-one could handle that sort of pressure. This little dint in his armour will inspire him to greatness. He is one of the most dedicated and passionate people alive on this earth; this upset will encourage him to try harder. It's unfathomable that anyone could try harder, but that's exactly what he'll do. Awesome. Can't wait for Avatar 2.

The Hurt Locker and Kathryn - 2010

The Hurt Locker and Kathryn - 2010

Words by Dirk Calloway

Well, the Oscars happened. A bunch of people were celebrated for having created celebrated films. A bunch of others got to come because they were famous. Though the best moments of many people's lives were shared tonight, I was at work. Forgot all about the Academy and forgot to thank my Mum (for dinner last night. Roast, yum.)

Now that I'm home, I realise that a bunch of history was made. I guess, for one, I have to shout-out for Mrs Bigelow, who was awarded Best Director for a film that has yet to be released in New Zealand - The Hurt Locker. I've seen it, it's good. Very good. Bigelow has had an amazing career, and her Oscar guarantees she'll be in the history books as the first female director to ever take home a Best Director nod. Amazing. For me, dedicated movie buff that I am, this is almost as important as a woman getting elected President of the USA. That day is yet to come, but definitely this is a promising sign of things to come. Go females! You're one of my top two favourite genders.

Bigelow has made brilliant movies since the 80s. Near Dark is the best of the modern vampire films (Twilight be damned, this film is like "Aliens meets Vampires"). K-19: The Widowmaker is the greatest Harrison Ford effort in decades and, if you're curious, it is also my favourite:

• Submarine film
• Liam Neeson character, this side of Schindler's list
• Depiction of radiation sickness
• Russian-US tension film

Then of course, there's Point Break. Given the passing of Patrick Swayze this year, and Hot Fuzz's references to its foot-chases, the film has taken on a timeless quality. It's the film that made Keanu Reeves the actor he is today, and it brought a documentary feel to the modern-day action film many years before the Bourne franchise trademarked the concept.

The Hurt Locker is a different kettle of fish. You feel on-edge the entire time. It's like watching a movie version of an Expert game of Minesweeper. You know, when you get to that last mine, and it's surrounded by 5's and 6's? That intense feeling of adrenalin, pumping, pulsing, telling you that one wrong move results in a big BOOM? That's The Hurt Locker. Relentless tension, followed-through with such a fist-pumping payoff that I rate it right up there with the ending of The Matrix. Just a bad-ass movie. I'm so stoked it won Best Picture and Best Director. Awesome.

Ageing and its Relevance To Infrastructure

Ageing and its Relevance To Infrastructure

Words by Dirk Calloway

When we're born, we're dependent on assistance from older members of our species. Humans take some 15-20 or so years to fully mature. During this period, parents are meant to look after their young by providing a few basics: shelter, protection, nutrition and nurturing. Combine those four elements and there's a good chance your baby will survive and eventually become a healthy teenager.

Compared to the steady pace of childhood, the teenage years are an altogether different cup of tea. Mostly because, for a distinct and marked period of a few short years, everything changes. The Before and After photos sometimes don't even look like the same person. 

Then there's adulthood itself. Retaining the general ideas presented in the teenage years, but cementing certain key characteristics in place and ditching others. An extended period of pronounced stability is embarked upon. The fully grown person takes on a structure, emotionally and physically, that does not change in a massive way for many decades. During this time, the search for a mate begins and offspring arrive shortly afterwards. The young 'uns are essentially clones of the old 'uns, but new and improved. There's more room for genetic variation and most parents aim for their kids to be better, or at least have a better life, than themselves.

Generation 2.0 is usually better informed, hopefully wiser as a result, and definitely should be better looking than Generation 1.0. In the meantime, Generation 1.0 gets older, less efficient, erratic, and begins to lose its ability to function. Give it a few decades and 1.0 doesn't just need to retire, it needs to be put to rest, permanently.

And now, my point. We need to consider infrastructure - roads, power lines for trains, telephone networks - in the same way that we do ourselves. 

New infrastructure, generally speaking, is similar to a baby because its designers need to coax it through its first few years on this planet. The smallest hiccup can become a massive ordeal, requiring manual assistance. Around the clock support is standard for babies, just as it is for new infrastructure projects. In the country I live, we are witnessing such a period on a high-visibility mobile phone network. It's hard to watch the teething problems, but it's harder to listen to the screams every time something goes wrong. 

Teenage infrastructure is much more interesting. This is where new features get added, sometimes emphasising change over the original priorities. In most cases, this change is well-meaning, but change in and of itself doesn't, erm, keep the trains running on time. A recent, local, example emphasises that point perfectly. The existing railway system carries passengers from Point A to Point B. The system needs expanding, and to do so requires new trains. The old units don't work on the new tracks and the new units don't work on the old tracks. As a result, more tracks are needed, as well as differing power line heights, etc. You get the picture. Everyone agrees that change is needed. Problem is, the change process has been interrupting passengers' commute. Whenever a single passenger is interrupted, the reason for the system's existence is defeated: remember, it merely ensures that passengers move from Point A to Point B. This period of upheaval is a classic example of 'teenage' infrastructure.

Elderly infrastructure though, the sort where car factories begin to let things slip, and where management start valuing sales over safety... well, that's when you cross your fingers and hope Generation 2.0 is able to improve on Generation 1.0's performance.

Hopefully this analogy has been useful. Next time you read something about a massive failure on the half of a large corporate, consider which stage of their lifecycle they're in. Are you watching a company's slow and painful demise? Or are you watching their first few tentative steps into the world? Consider this before slamming them.

Why Chrome is Now My Default Browser

Why Chrome is Now My Default Browser

Words by Dirk Calloway

I'm no "power-user" of Google products. Maybe it's the, perceived, lack of ownership. I grew up using DOS, then Windows 3.1, then every subsequent iteration of Microsoft's products. Simply put, I'm used to the concept of version-controlled software. If you didn't like something in Windows 95, you'd wait for a few years and Windows 98 then fixed it for you. If you didn't like the way they chose to fix it in '98, you wouldn't bother installing it. Some kept '95 on there for as long as they wanted, and they were allowed to, because they owned it. In those days, we all bought software in a box, usually for a large sum of money, so we deserved to be rewarded by having some comfort in the product's stability / longevity.

It's probably unfair to have used Microsoft products as an example though. Don't  worry, I'm not headed towards a "Microsoft vs Google" debate. The example was used because it was so ubiquitous in the mid-90s, and it was made by Bill Gates & Co. Good on them; they changed the world. However, the example could go for anything - that video-game you bought five years ago, a copy of Lotus Notes, or even your average store-front Virus Protection Software. If it came in a box, then you can use that as a substitute example.

Google products don't come "in a box" though. In fact, that makes them "out of the box," I guess. If you're using one of their web-based applications, your experience with it can sometimes change daily. By using such an application, you essentially lose your ownership rights over it. They can upgrade your application without consulting or warning you. This isn't just for Google, mind. The same goes for Facebook, Hotmail, or whatever other web-app you log in to every day to be productive. How many times recently have you turned your PC on, signed in to your Facebook, and - "hey!! The homepage looks different! And what's this prompt thing that's asking me to accept their new default Privacy Settings?!"

Whether you like it or not, those sorts of changes are the future. Fast, iterative, development is exciting to watch and participate in. It means that bug-fixes or security vulnerabilities can be doled out quickly and make your user experience better, not to mention cheaper. 

Anyway, the point of this diatribe has been to state that the conceived lack of "ownership" has traditionally led me away from Google-products. This has all changed though, with Google Chrome. Maybe the main reason it's changed is that I have to install it on my PC, as an actual file... not just something that exists "in the cloud." Even though it's not in the box, it is tangible and finite and exists in my house (in the IT sector, we call this client-side ownership, instead of server-side).

Chrome hasn't always been my browser of choice though. In the case of web-browsers, for most of the 2000s I preferred Mozilla's Firefox. Customizable to the nth degree and utterly configurable, for many years it trumped the likes of IE, Safari and Opera. Firefox was extremely fast, conclusively able to run circles around the competition. It crashed less and had Tabs, which changed the way I used the internet.

Fast-forward several years though, and Firefox crashes a lot more than it used to. I don't know if anyone else has noticed this. It may be because I download the latest updates and they're not being tested very rigorously. More likely, Firefox's developers are ahead of many website developers. Each update I get seems to improve some sites, but then implode on others. A few weeks later, the website developers get enough complaints about this that they then hardcode a few changes, which then makes the site work with the latest version of Firefox. Next update though, we have to go through the same rigmarole. Stuff.co.nz, a popular news amalgamation site in New Zealand, is a good example of this behaviour. I don't know why, but ever since Firefox 3.5 was released, it's been that way. Even if Stuff is contained within only one of many open tabs in my browser, it still manages to crash everything. Windows freezes up,  Firefox freezes, and it takes five minutes to unclog the damage. Sometimes the best thing to do is restart. I don't know why... but that's been my experience. Incredibly frustrating.

Google Chrome is not faultless, but at least in those situations, it contains the damage. Like the repair workers who deal with oil slicks, they put a fence around the mess, just to make sure that it doesn't reach out and pollute everything in the nearby area. A crash in Chrome, by and large, is a crash that does not stop me from working.

The same logic applies with resource allocation. Nothing ever gets "too big" by itself. Look at this screenshot and compare the massive amount of memory for one single instance of Firefox (with several tabs open) and the multiple small amounts of memory for Chrome (also with several tabs open). Which one's more likely to crash, do you think? 

The other thing that's really working for me in Chrome, is the way it responds to WiFi glitches. Our internet capacity in New Zealand is often erratic. Users who work late into the evening may have sometimes found that your entire connection drops out at midnight, while some patch somewhere is applied. With Firefox 3.5, a dropped internet connection can ruin everything. With Chrome though... a friendly message displays. 

When I refresh the page, everything works again, like magic. For me, in my WiFi dominated new house at least, this is a deal-breaker. Google Chrome has proven to be a lifesaver and it is now my Default Browser. I'll still rely on some of Firefox's plugins (like WordCount Plus, or IE Tab, or Firebug, or etc etc) from time-to-time, but by and large my web browsing experience will be done in whatever application is fastest and most reliable. Chrome has proven itself to be that browser.

Your thoughts, internets?

Them Crooked Vulture

Words written by Dirk Calloway

I saw Them Crooked Vultures play some rock and roll music recently. The ticket cost me over a hundred dollars. I like to spend excess cash on gigs, but that is still such a large amount that I tend to stress a little about the decision afterwards. I was comforted this time around though, because Them Crooked Vultures ticked all the right boxes.  I mean, as far as new rock groups go, they're pretty impressive. Their debut albums came out months ago, but it's still in heavy rotation at my house.

Anyway, the gig was good and all, but not as great as the experience afterwards. An old timer and I waited "out back" of backstage to try and meet the band. If I could thank three people in rock for their lasting impact on my life, it'd definitely be members of Nirvana, Queens of the Stone Age and Led Zeppelin.

So we waited.

And waited.

Nice security guards and smug event organisers played us for hours. The organiser in particular though, he really got my goat. If only because he was dressed so smartly that it looked like he had hired the suit. Or maybe because he seemed to do nothing all night but move cars around, to spite us. In a constant cat and mouse game, he arranged for drivers to go from one gate to another. This was to bait us into thinking Dave Grohl might actually try to leave the venue in our presence.

Of course, 1am rolled around and we still hadn't met anyone from the band. Finally a trustworthy person came
out and said that the group had left. The Old Timer and I weren't too gutted though; we'd had a great yarn together.

Sometime after midnight we began chatting. Firstly about the probability of seeing the group. Then other stories about those we'd seen in similar circumstances. He was pretty impressed I'd met Billy Corgan and said "thank you" to Brian Wilson. I loved his Bob Dylan tale. Hardcore fan stuff.

Eventually the conversation turned to the past, as it does with Old Timers. He made a passing comment, but it was an interesting one. He said he preferred our city 20 years ago, than the way it is today. Old Timers do that, they gloss over things from the time of their youth. I try to respect that though, by wondering why. I suggested it might be because our city has "traded up." He concurred. I elaborated. We used to have a city where people wore $20 clothing and ate lunch at a tea-shop, probably eating a pie and a Danish in the same sitting. Turns out I was dead-on. He got All excited that I remembered those times. I told him I remembered all right; the cultural cringe we suffered, the 25% mortgage rates we paid through the teeth for, or the lack of beer options at your average pub. He was shocked at that, the reality of life in the 80s. Not so rosy tinted after all. Funny how it took a 24 year old to point that out.

Odd Dinner Set Ideas

Odd Dinner Set Ideas

Words by Dirk Calloway

Every time I go to a hotel, I find the plates are either themed around chilli peppers, eggplants, zuccinis or some other ugly plant. What's the deal? Anyone know? It's just plain weird.

Sherlock Holmes - The Best of the Saw Series?

 Sherlock Holmes - The Best of the Saw Series?

Words by Dirk Calloway

I really liked the most recent Saw sequel, called Sherlock Holmes. Until now, the series has been getting worse with every passing year. With Holmes though, the franchise has been rebirthed with a fresh set of actors, writers, location and narrative. Take the villain of the pieces for instance:

Instead of Jigsaw we now have another guy with a hairline problem. His name is fancier: Lord Blackwood. Both of them are meant to be dead, but insist on returning from the grave to lay out a master plan for life. Both have rather grandiose ideas about a world that lacks selfishness or depravity. Both, rather ironically, try to change this wicked world of ours by making sure that humans act as depraved and selfishly as is possible. Both love to do this by using fiendish traps. And what fun these traps are!

The traps often stack the odds against their victim. In all cases, if the victim stays in the trap long enough, they will die. Like, the bathtub scene in Sherlock Holmes, where the guy carks it because he's been naked in the bath too long. Or the freezer scene in Saw III, where the girl carks it because she's been naked in the freezer too long. The specifics are all much of a muchness really, but it's nice to see that Holmes is the seventh film obsessed with fiendish traps.

Doors are always locked in Saw films. They are always locked for good reason. Sometimes there's dead animals on the other side, and sometimes there's explosions. Always, there are bad things lurking. Sherlock Holmes continued this tradition, and the weird fixation on keys that keeps popping up throughout the franchise.

Oh, crap, I almost forgot. A reliance on steam-powered whatsamahoosits is incredibly important to the series. Holmes proudly makes sure this motif is kept alive. Heaps of things are fuelled by fire and make enough sparks that people nearby would be very scared. The photo above doesn't do the machine justice, but rest assured, it's just as impressive as anything in Saw V .

Of course, no Saw movie would be complete without a double-crossing ex-criminal who's in league with the villain. Rules state that she must get detectives to do her bidding. She also has to have a weird love-hate relationship with a detective. She also has to be sort of indebted to the baddie. I know that none of this makes sense, but hey, if you want realism, go watch a Friday the 13th film buddy.

There are many, many more reasons why Sherlock Holmes is the best of the Saw franchise, but I'll leave the rest to the commenting board. I hope Guy Ritchie makes another sequel, because I've a feeling the next one will be in 3D!

Every Film I Saw Theatrically In 2009, Ranked In Preferential Order

Every Film I Saw Theatrically In 2009, Ranked In Preferential Order
Words Written by Dirk Calloway

1. Avatar (3D)
2. Up (3D)
3. Where the Wild Things Are
   
4. Fantastic Mr. Fox
   
5. Watchmen
   
6. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
7. The Hangover
8. District 9
9. JCVD
10. Ponyo
11. State of Play
12. Synecdoche, New York
13. Defiance
14. An Education
15. Inglourious Basterds
16. Separation City
17. Star Trek
18. The Secret Life of Bees
19. 2012
20. Zombieland
21. (500) Days of Summer
22. Public Enemies
23. Sherlock Holmes
24. Away We Go
25. A Serious Man
26. Duplicity
27. This Is It
28. Hotel for Dogs
29. RiP: A Remix Manifesto
30. Surrogates
31. Taking Woodstock
32. Terminator Salvation
33. The Spirit
34. G.I. JOE: The Rise Of Cobra
35. Confessions of a Shopaholic
36. Fast & Furious
37. Transporter 3
38. Underworld: Rise of the Lycans
39. 12 Rounds
40. Bruno
41. Under the Mountain
42. Big Stan
43. I Love You, Beth Cooper
44. Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience
45. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
46. Seven Pounds

I saw 46 films in a cinema this year. Because I saw a few twice - Watchmen, Star Trek, District 9, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - I came very close to seeing one film per week, throughout 2009. Combine that total with the amount I saw on DVD and it's probable that I spent nearly an extra 300 hours of my life watching films. 

There are a few conspicuous absences: Moon, Let The Right One In and X-Men Origins: Wolverine. I'm fairly certain the latter is pants, so I didn't bother to endorse it with my $16. I'd have watched the other two if they'd been screened in more than one boutique cinema in my home-town. That theatre decided to screen them at either inconveniently late times, or during work-hours. Their decision was no doubt based on the fact that staunch genre fans would make the effort, regardless of timings. Well, I say, screw 'em! If a film's good, promote the hell out of it, and schedule it for a time when the largest possible audience can see it.

We've a real problem on our hands with the silo'd world of boutique theatres. They've misguidedly pigeon-holed their audience as mid-40s women who drag their husbands / friends to anything that has subtitles or a small budget or what I have begun to call a "mid-concept" plot. The same demographic has misguidedly decided that it won't be caught dead at a multiplex in a mall, regardless of the quality of films screening there. The two groups are mutually reinforcing themselves into an endless loop of movies that feature any of the below:

• a bumbling assassin
• women who must band together doing something folksy (cooking and gardening, usually) to shake off their midlife blues
• a Westerner interacting with "world culture" and learning its many pleasured joys
• a soundtrack that regularly lapses into accordion playing, regardless of the film's nationality
• a broken family unit that lives together in a grim decorated apartment block, before an outside arrives and adds colour to their world... then the outside leaves again
• anti-American / anti-globalisation sentiments that uphold the conservative rural way of life as the only virtuous existence
• two or three dancing scenes, no matter how needless their inclusion be
• a running time that is no shorter than 110 minutes
• a period setting of the mid-90s or late-80s, without any real need for it
• a dog that acts as comic relief

Now I don't want you to think that I'm bashing on the "arthouse scene," but I need to remind you that 2009 was an amazing year for multiplex fare. Directors like JJ Abrams, James Cameron and Spike Jonze injected real smarts into their big budget extravaganzas. Directors like Zac Snyder and David Fincher poured their hearts into their projects and somehow made them into works of digital art (even if Watchmen and Benjamin Button were an hour too long for most people's tastes).

This was the year where, hopefully, everyone saw at least one 3D movie. If you haven't yet, book a ticket for Avatar. I hear there might be a session that's not sold out, um, sometime next week.

One small gripe: The Hurt Locker never made it to my town. I've seen a copy, though I won't repeat the methods I employed to do so. Rest assured, I am so fond of that film that if it had been screened nearby, Avatar's position on this list would be threatened.

At the other end of the spectrum, Will Smith might be tempted to go into hiding after the disastrous three-peat of I Am Legend, Hancock and Seven Pounds. Here's hoping that 2010 is a better year for The Fresh Prince.

The First Post

The First Post

Words Written by Dirk Calloway

A new decade, a new website.

"The Try Hard" will be many things, to few people. I, Dirk Calloway, will be your author. You - yeah you, the one with the face - will be my reader. Together, we will be a mighty force.

Comment freely and often.

For Facebook Image

For Facebook Image