Deus EX Machina: The Matrix is really just Tron

One of the films that I've watched lately that's become a real favorite of mine is 1982's TRON, which told what I feel is one of the better stories about artificial intelligence and the future of computers. The movie is a dated one, given how much computers have changed in the past thirty years, but I feel that it holds up extremely well, even in the modern computing age. Given the craze in Hollywood over the past decade for sequels, it comes as no surprise that a sequel for TRON will be released later this year. What is surprising is just how long it's taken (28 years!) to make a sequel. Except for one thing: the film has already been remade with another hit: The Matrix.

I saw The Matrix first, about a year or two after it was first released, and really enjoyed it. The combination of martial arts, cyberpunk and gothic themes blended together into a genuinely smart science fiction thriller worked extremely well, even extending into the sequels, which I thought were decent (although they certainly suffer from the 'More is Better' mentality that sequels are often saddled with), especially with some of the themes that were introduced in Reloaded and Revolutions.

When I watched TRON this past fall, I was astonished at some of the marked similarities between the two films. The Matrix is a film that plays homage to a number of films that influenced the Wachowski Brothers early on, and it's easy to assume that much of what is consistent in The Matrix is influenced from TRON. Some of these similarities are in the form of the visual nature of the film - the opening title sequences are nearly identical, as are some camera angles and scenes. Moreover, the story idea of a person entering a completely digital world is a major similarity between the two, and is certainly not something that's tied only to TRON. (William Gibson's fantastic thriller Neuromancer comes to mind) But in the visual arts, it's clear that there's quite a bit of TRON in The Matrix.

What made Steven Lisberger's film so interesting to me was the real depth to the story, and the religious connections that were placed there between the programs in the computer systems, and the mythical users who created them. Like any good story set in a speculative fiction universe, the story extrapolates from the fantastic and has several themes that are relatable to the audience watching the film. Here, there is a link between the cold and analytical electronics, with an element of the supernatural to the beliefs of the programs. Moreover, it changes the viewpoint of a program to something that's highly relatable, as people with fairly specific purposes within the innards of a computer, while the user, a creator of programs, is akin to a god in the machine.

The Matrix incorporates some of these elements in TRON, where Neo proves to be an exceptional person within the programming of the Matrix, someone who can ultimately conceptualize and realize the full extent of his abilities within the Matrix - he's able to alter the reality around him in order to accomplish extraordinary things. Neo is essentially superman within the computer, with a number of religious connotations surrounding him throughout the story.

With the coming Tron: Legacy film coming in December, the question has to be asked: is it necessary? In the follow-up Matrix films, we see that there's an environment that is very similar to the world that TRON presents, with programs acting on their own in their own little world. This seems to be where the next TRON is exploring, with a new world with better graphics (literally in both cases), but in a way, the Matrix films acted as a reboot to the 1982 film in their own way. The hope with film producers is that this new TRON film will become the start to a new franchise of films, with a trilogy and television series planned (at least that's the rumor). There's a number of ways that this story can go, and it will be very interesting to see just which direction can be taken with the future films and productions.

When it comes down to it, however, The Matrix is really a highly stylized, slightly different version of TRON. The protagonists in each film are largely the same: challenge a malevolent computer program and overlord within ambitions to control humanity. There are some differences here between the two, but for all intents and purposes, the Matrix has a similar enough story and had the same impact as its predecessor.

Hopefully, the upcoming TRON film will fare better than its counterparts in the Matrix trilogy, providing an interesting and thought provoking sequel to a film that really sparked that in the first place. Both the Matrix and TRON were excellent films that arguably changed the genre of science fiction film.

The Apple iPad

On Saturday, I stopped by South Burlington's Small Dog Electronics, an Apple retail store, to check out the recently released iPad. Announced last December, the device has certainly captured the attention of the rest of the world, opening a new product category and selling like crazy. My visit was out of curiosity: I had yet to see one of the devices in person, but a couple of my friends have purchased one, and I was interested in seeing what the hype was all about.

The bottom line is: I want one. I want one, despite the cost, and the fact that I already have an iPhone, because it seems to be the type of computer that I would be using constantly, far more than my aging desktop computer, sitting in my den, and more than my iPhone. It seems to fit nicely between the two of them, filling in a new product category that moves to fit with changes in how people interface with the internet, and ultimately, each other.

My dad and I have been watching the various updates online and in print concerning the device. He seems to think that something along the lines of the iPad will spell the end of the desktop, and ultimately represent the future of computers, and while I agree in part, I don't think that's necessarily the case. Apple's latest creation certainly fits with changes in how people use the internet: typically on the go, for consumption and interaction, but that's largely where it will stand: for now. My impression is that the desktop computer or laptop will remain, abit in a more highly specialized role.

Playing with the device the other day, I was intrigued by what this thing could do, and realized that it would be something that I would use often. Typically, I use computers for writing - e-mail, blog posts and commissioned work, among other things, and that's largely done on my work laptop in the evening, on the couch, where I have a good workplace with my coffee table. But, I'll shift around to the kitchen, outside, at my parent's home or elsewhere. My desktop, affectionately nicknamed 'Hal', sits at home, where it's hooked up to an external hard drive and speakers, and largely holds onto my music collection, and serves as a sort of home entertainment and filing system for written works.

What I can easily envision the iPad doing was clinched when I checked out the Pages app - a viable word processing program that has a way to save files, properly format documents and with a large on-screen keyboard that would take a little getting used to, but something that is much, much better than doing something similar on my phone. To date, I've written two posts on my iPhone, and they were pretty short ones: the combined nature of a small screen and small keyboard doesn't lend itself well to writing long pieces, and with the notepad app that each phone comes with, there's no easy way to save or view other files.

As news poured out from everywhere about the device, it's clear that this is something that's largely aimed at a pre-existing audience that surfs the web and interacts with people. Despite what critics such as Cory Doctorow say, I have a feeling that people largely don't need to open source their own iPad, and would largely be happy with the existing applications on Apple's store. I'm not a programmer, and I can't say that I really care if Apple has a somewhat draconian hold on what apps will work on it. So long as it works, I'm fine with that - Apple's products seem to be pretty balanced, and if they want to hold to a somewhat higher moral standard and keep their own hardware in mind when it comes to a device, that’s fine by me. It's their device, and I'm happy with consumers voting with their dollars: if they don't like it, there'll be a bunch of competitors out in the next year or two.

I'm okay without one of these things: this isn't a device that I feel compelled to buy just for the sake of buying it: my laptop and home computer fit the roles that they fill right now nicely, and I have few complaints about that situation, save for one: the iPad, unlike my laptop, or my house, has connectivity options that would be the clincher for me. I use my phone for a large part of my own internet browsing, and my biggest complaint is that the screen is really just too small to browse the web. The iPad solves that problem nicely. Hopefully, at some point, I'll get one of my own. The iPad itself is a very good, futuristically looking device, one that I would be able to put to effective use, over just having an expensive toy.

Fighting in the Future

Earlier this week, the Russian metro system was hit with two suicide bombers, who detonated their explosives in the midst of rush hour, killing 39 people. It is a tragedy, and a reminder that it is not just the United States that is under threat from fundamental forces, but any large organization that has displeased factions around them. It also helps to underscore the ridiculous nature of any sort of 'War on Terror', the American brand or otherwise, because this is a type of warfare that will remain with people for a long time to come. In the future, there will be war, conflict and any number of atrocities committed against people.

Terrorism is an act of warfare, and as such, is a calculated political statement that is designed to attract the maximum amount of attention as a way to promote their cause, and to show that they feel that they have had no other way to legitimately protest their actions against whomever they are fighting against. I was surprised when the Chechen rebel leader Doku Umarov took over a day to announce his participation in the bombings, to either preempt any sort of group attempting to take advantage of the atrocity, and to establish their anger against the Russian government.

The science fiction world pushes into the future, often using warfare as a backdrop for a number of different stories. Very rarely, however, is the nature of warfare really discussed within these definitions, where war is a political entity. Terrorist-centric warfare, with attacks against civilians (who in turn, represent a larger organization or government), is something that has not really taken to the speculative fiction genre, but it will undoubtedly influence future works, as World War II influenced classic books during the Golden Age of Science Fiction. The major battles fought in the Pacific Ocean, mainland Europe or in the sands of the Sahara Desert provided fantastical and dramatic backdrops in which larger stories could be told or adapted for what might come for the future. Certainly the Second World War provided a number of elements that were almost unthought-of of by the average person on the streets. Massive bombing forces to lay waste to a country, soldiers dropped in by aircraft, submarines that could paralyze an entire navy, unstoppable bombs that could reach countries in a very short amount of time and the splitting of the atom. Still, with all technology aside, World War II proved to be an advanced war in how these technologies were implemented into the major strategy and tactics of the day, a departure from the prior major war.

Reading over the first couple of chapters in Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars recently, I was struck at how similar the opening was to some elements of real life, where one of the main characters, astronaut and colonist John Boone was assassinated by fundamentalist agents under another character, Frank Chalmers. In a way, this is an exceptionally similar event, with a number of parallels to the modern day: a political entity, frustrated by the actions of a legitimate government, acted out using violence as a way to demonstrate a political point. The innocence of those targeted does not matter, in events like this: they become an object, and that's what has happened in this regard.

Frank Herbert's Dune is another book in which militant fighting is demonstrated as a way for groups to illustrate their issues with a larger established authority. Following the Arakis takeover by House Harkonnen, the survivors of the family ally themselves with the Fremen, a nomadic group in the desert. As they regard him as a prophesied messiah, he uses their power as a fighting force to take on the Harkonnens. This aspect of the Dune story has a number of other connections to modern day events, where religious extremism and political philosophy blend together to the point where they are inseparable. In this modern day, the global Jihadist movement isn't so much of a religious statement; it's a political statement on the part of a radical/religious government, which uses the beliefs of its followers to enact terrible acts. The suicide bombings in Moscow or Iraq aren't religiously motivated: they are conducted on the behalf of people seeking to institute some sort of political change, using religious rhetoric to get their base fired up. In a way, these are the tactics of any major political party, even here in the United States, especially during campaign season, when there is a lot of misinformation and statements. Fortunately, people don't go and blow themselves up in support of any candidates.

Fundamentalist warfare is not at the heart of military thought and theory, but the tactics and motivations are generally the same as any larger authority going to war with another nation, and in rare occasions, this sort of mentality and plotting is really looked at and used by a speculative fiction novel or other project. Red Mars and Dune exemplify the issues surrounding war-like conflicts and actions, where a number of other books really look at other, elements of warfare - the effects of combat on soldiers, morals, and so on, as well as the technology that is used as the main point of these sorts of novels.

The clear lesson of military science fiction of this sort shouldn't be what types of technology we should be looking for. There are no good inherent lessons in that realm of thinking. Technology and tactics are dependent upon the environment in which they are created and subsequently used against an enemy. The tactics of airborne soldiers during the Second World War would have been elements of science fiction to ancient Roman generals, but it represents not only the technology but the tactical and strategic thinking behind it. No, the lessons that should be learned (if one is looking for lessons) are the fundamental underpinnings of what brings two political entities against one another in violence. It's not the technology; it's the people behind it.

Changes to Facebook

A couple weeks ago, Facebook changed its overall website appearance and layout once again, prompting user outcry and complaints about how the site had changed once again, and that they were going to leave the site. However, the frequent changes to the site's appearance are the reasons why Facebook is going to be around for a while.

In the time since Facebook started, it has had an incredible amount of influence on how people begin to interact with one another. Growing up with much larger, completing websites such as Friendster and Myspace, the website has shown that it's able to take on their competition by adapting to major changes in how people utilize the internet. When it started, the website was essentially an online profile, listing someone's name, their favorites, a picture, a way to upload photographs, and a wall. Originally, when I first started with the website in 2005, the wall feature had a disclaimer on it: "We don't know what this is for, but type away", or something along those lines. Initially as a comments field, the Wall has become a central part of the Facebook website, changing how people interact with one another, share information and update their friends on the mundane aspects of their lives.

The wall feature is the most important aspect of the website, and something that other websites have attempted to copy - Myspace now allows for status updates, as does numerous chat clients, such as gchat and AIM, while becoming the literal center of attention for users. The home page, once one's profile, changed to a friends list, to a new feed that gathered everyone's status updates to keep everyone up to date with everything that was going on. The result is an addicting one - hundreds of millions have signed up for the service, and while each new update undoubtedly sees a drop off in people, either out of frustration or security concerns, the site has continued to grow.

Facebook's constant changes to the design are what will be keeping the website from going the way of their now smaller cousins. It's a good business practice, and demonstrates that the site is not only keeping up to date with what their competition is doing, but it shows that the company is innovative and looking to lead the way in just how people use the internet. This, I think, is the most important aspect of the site's longevity thus far.

Since the site began, the ways in which people have utilized the internet has changed a lot, partially at the site's prompting, but also with the introduction of other websites. Looking at the bigger picture, it's unlikely that the website Twitter would have appeared without the introduction of Facebook’s status updates, and in its stripped down form, Twitter has become incredibly popular. With this new competition, the latest versions of Facebook have focused on the updates that people post to their profiles via the news and live feeds that exist in the home page. With it, Facebook is able to offer the exact same thing (although with four times the characters as their competitor), with all of the extras that the site already offers. Its adaptation comes not only in how people use the internet, but how they access the internet. Dedicated Facebook sites for mobile devices have been developed, while some of its competitors, such as myspace, keep the same format, reducing functionality and the overall appearance to the site.

Similarly, the introduction of new features, such as the suggestions to users who they might know, as well as easy ways to import contacts allow the site to keep users invested, talking and continuing to use the site as often as possible. The site’s purpose, in this instance is to become as useful as possible for people to connect to one another, and it’s certainly succeeded in the time that I’ve used it, keeping me in touch with a number of people whom I would have fallen out of touch with years ago.

As the site moved from a social networking site into the greater business world, it's also been clear that the site has had longer term business plans as the site has begun to expand, hinging on the ability of the site to adapt effectively to new online environments. The introduction of small paid applications, targeted ads and other similar practices help with the website when it comes to its finances, helping to generate cash for the site. This, in my mind, is why Facebook will never charge for access, no matter how many of the groups out there claim that that's in the works. It doesn't make sense, because a lot of the site's growth is most likely contingent on signing up as many people as possible, and introducing a fee, no matter how small it is, would impede that greatly, although long-time users would likely cough it up. No, the key to Facebook is the growth of the platform, and clearly, they're doing something right in that regard.

Question for iTunes savy people

For some reason, my computer lost my computer's music library - the music is still there, but the playlists, playcounts and ratings, all gone. I've got around 4000 songs on this computer, and it syncs my iPhone, so I'm rather annoyed about this. Annoyed is a bit of an understatement at this point, because it's a long process to recreate everything the way that I had it. I learned, a little too late, of a way to use the .xml file in the iTunes folder to recreate the library - by the time I'd learned this, I'd already begun to rebuild everything from scratch.

While looking in the iTunes folder, however, I see that there's a ton of .tmp files, and I know that they're there to recreate part of the library. Does anyone know of a way to recreate the library from these files?

Or alternatively, does anyone know of a way to recreate the library from what is still on my iPhone?

Currently Reading

Now that the New Year has begun once again, it's time to take stock of what's on my reading plate for the coming year. Last week, as my bookstore closed, I bought a pile (literally) of books of all types, which has once again pushed my bookshelves to overflow. This year, one of the things that I'd most like to do is read quite a few of these.

Currently Reading:

The Monuments Men, Robert Edsel Monuments Men is the story of a US Army unit that was put together during the Second World War, where they were tasked with saving and preserving cultural artifacts from what is arguably the most destructive war in history. More than just that, however, is a look at the costs of war beyond just the human lives.

The Last and First Men, Olaf Stapeldon I picked this book up at the fantastic Northfield Bookstore a couple weeks ago, and read a bit of it. I'm still working through this interesting story of the future of man. Despite being written in the 1930s, Stapeldon got a couple details right, and some interesting theories on what would happen to humanity.

Andvari's Ring, Arthur Peterson Another old book that I really, really like. I'm finding that I need to be in the proper mood for this one, as it's an epic poem, but I've really loved what I've read thus far. It's a fantastic story from the Norse, with their crazy gods and heroes.

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, Mark Haddon I started this a while ago, a story of an autistic child who is attempting to solve a crime. It's been a little while since I've picked it up, but I'm going to finish it at some point in the near future.

How Starbucks Saved My Life, Michael Gill I got this book very, very cheaply a while back, and the best way that I can sum it up is: "Old White Guy discovers humility". It's not a book that I'm terribly thrilled with, and just goes to show that anyone can trump up their story a bit and get a successful book out of it. I don't know when I'll get to it again, but it's not really a priority.

Blood and Thunder, Hampton Sides This book I really like, but just haven't gotten around to finishing it. An interesting history between the American expansion into the West, and Kit Carson, it's engrossing and riveting. I need to get back to this one soon.

Next Up:

These books are higher on my priority list - the first tier, so to speak:

The Big Burn, Timothy Egan Race of the Century, Julie Fenster The Dead Hand, David Hoffman

And the rest, in no particular order:

D-Day, Antony Beevor The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Richard Rhodes Hot, Flat and Crowded, Thomas Friedman Manhood for Amateurs, Michael Chabon Andrew Carnige, David Nasaw People's Tycoon, Steven Watts Death Masks, Jim Butcher Blood Rites, Jim Butcher Small Favor, Jim Butcher Dead Until Dark, Charlaine Harris Theodore Rex, Edmund Morris Kindred, Octavia Butler The Forever War, Joe Halderman Echo of Battle, Joseph Linn A Game of Thrones, George R.R. Martin The Warded Man, Peter Brett The Purpose of the Past, Gordon Wood Geek's Guide to World Domination, Garth Sundem Use of Weapons, Iain M Banks Players of Games, Iain M Banks Makers, Cory Doctorow Alas, Babylon, Pat Frank Coraline, Neil Gaiman The Sheriff of Yrnameer, Michael Rubens Snow Crash, Neal Stephenson Anatham, Neal Stephenson, Lovely Bones, Alice Sebold Johannes Cabal, Necromancer, Jonathan Howard Woken Furies, Richard K Morgan

And, a couple others that I just haven't pulled out or remembered. There's a lot there, and undoubtedly, there'll be quite a few others that will be added on to the list as the year progresses.

My Top SF/F Films of the Decade

I did a list for my favorite books of the past decade, along with all the other cool sites around the internet, but not one for films. Thus, here's my list for the absolute best films for the past ten years:

Children of Men

Children of Men is a fantastic example of the genre and storytelling. Based off of a book by P.D. James, director, Alfonso Cuarón took a couple of liberties with the story by conceptualizing what would the world be like if the Iraq War had spread to a global level, while also examining the issue of immigration in the United Kingdom sometime in the future. The result is spectacular: humanity has lost its ability to reproduce, and chaos seems to have set in around the world. There is a measure of hope when a girl is found who is pregnant, and has to be escorted out of England to a scientific body outside of the country. The film is grim, grounded, dark and expertly shot - one of the highlights is a 10 minute, single take running gun battle at the film's climax.

District 9

District 9 was one of my favorite films of 2009, and as I've noted a couple of times, its story, combined with a reasonably low budget, demonstrates that not all successful movies are blockbusters. Based off of a short film by the same director, Neill Blomkamp, the movie takes an interesting twist on alien visitation on Earth. A massive alien ship appears over the city of Johannesburg, South Africa, and its contingent of worker-insectoids, known as the Prawns, coexist roughly with their surrounding humans nearby. Things get problematic when MNU Bureaucrat Wikkus is infected with a substance that puts him between criminal and corporate factions, and he is forced out on the run. The film is expertly shot with handheld footage, interviews and CCTV footage, and is different enough to really stand out. Like Children of Men, it has an interesting message on immigration and partition within society.

The Fountain

Not a lot of people liked Darren Aronofsky's film The Fountain, when it came out, but I suspect that it will be regarded as a classic in the years to come. Combining three stories of a Conquistador, a neurosurgeon and a space man, this movie explores two main themes: the hubris of mankind by trying to cheat death and love that crosses all manners of time. The film itself is wonderfully shot and utilizes visuals as much as story and characters to tie everything together, with shared elements between the three times represented in the movie.

Minority Report

Steven Spielberg is a master storyteller when it comes to the Science Fiction genre, and Minority Report is possibly one of his finest films to date. Set in 2054, Washington DC is the home to an experiment where murder is stopped before the crime is carried out. Problems occur when the lead detective on the case, John Anderton, is accused of a murder, and is pursued by his own men as he tries to escape and clear his name. What happens next is an interesting exploration of ethics, not to mention an incredible and largely accurate (thus far) view of how the future will run technologically.

Moon

Moon is easily my favorite film of 2009, and is Duncan Jones' first movie out thus far (although he's apparently got two more to come in the same universe). Following Sam Rockwell's character Sam Bell, a miner on the moon, who is involved in an accident, then wakes up to find a clone of himself. The film is perfectly conceived, expertly shot, and like District 9, filmed on a low budget, with models. But what really steals the show is Rockwell and his acting abilities - it's hard for an actor to carry a film, but it's even harder for an actor to carry the film by himself and as two different people. This one's going to be a classic.

Pan's Labyrinth

Guillermo Del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth is brutal, dark and absolutely gorgeous. Set in 1945, under Franco's Spain, a girl and her mother go out to a remote outpost of a ruthless army captain who is intent on destroying a local pocket of resistance. The girl, Ofelia, is preoccupied with her fairy tales, and discovers a lost and fantastic world of creatures, who tell her that she is a lost princess to an underworld realm. To return, she has to complete a set of tasks. You're never really sure if the fantasy world is real or just imagined, which adds to the discussion after the film. The movie is wonderfully shot, acted and conceived, and is one of my all time favorites.

Pitch Black

Vin Diesel is at his best here as the dark anti-hero Riddick in David Twohy's film Pitch Black. Pitch Black is easily the stronger film of the small franchise (Chronicles of Riddick was fun, but not as good) and sees a transport ship between planets crashing on a deserted planet with a ravenous native life form that comes out after dark. The survivors of the wreck are forced to work together to survive, travelling from their crashed ship to an outpost, aided by the criminal Riddick. The film is wonderfully shot, and is another example of low-budget filmmaking being superior to some of the larger blockbusters. Twohy sets up a fantastic universe in which to play, and while Chronicles didn't quite live up to expectations, I do hope that the remaining two films are made.

The Prestige

This is absolutely my favorite Christopher Nolan film out thus far, even more so than the The Dark Knight, by a long shot. The first half of the 20th Century isn't necessarily the first place to think about a science fiction film, but The Prestige pulls it off in grant fashion. Set between England and the United States at the time, we see two stage magicians try to out maneuver one another in a rivalry that escalates to bloodshed over the death of Robert Angier's wife during a stage accident. The drive for revenge brings Angier to scientist Nikola Tesla (wonderfully played by David Bowie) and a device that his both disturbing and fantastic. The visuals here are just jaw dropping, with some of the most beautiful scenes that I've ever seen, along with a twisted and interesting plot that really makes this worth watching many times.

Serenity

Serenity was the little film that could, based off of the little TV show, Firefly, that refused to die. Bolstered by a vocal fan base, Joss Whedon's universe was brought back in grant style that helped to tie up some of the remaining loose ends to the show, but was also armed with a fantastic plot that sets the film apart from other continuations and spinoffs. The movie was designed to continue the story, but brings the story back in grant style fit for the big screen, picking up with the Alliance sending an assassin after River, with the crew uncovering a massive plot that undermines the entire basis for the system-wide government of allied planets. Wonderfully shot, excellently acted and a whole lot of fun, Serenity was a great conclusion to the series.

Solaris

Solaris was another film that received lukewarm reviews from critics and viewers, but this film shows some of the most beautiful imagery of any Science Fiction film out there, along with a story that explores the extents of love. Steven Soderbergh is easily one of my favorite directors, and he does an interesting job with the conception and direction of this movie, which follows psychologist Chris Kelvin as he is dispatched to an ailing space station orbiting a distant star, Solaris. When Kelvin's dead wife appears, the story turns to exploring second changes, reconciliation and alien intelligences that are beyond comprehension.

Stranger Than Fiction

Normally, Will Ferrell isn't really an actor that I'd look to for a somewhat serious comedy film, but he pulls off what is probably his best acting in Stranger Than Fiction. This film falls somewhat under the fantasy genre, where Ferrell's character Harold Krick begins to hear a narrator in his head. The film nicely weaves together subtle references to the Beatles throughout, while director Marc Forester utilizes a wonderful minimalist style. Combined with fantastic performances from Maggie Gyllenhaal, Dustin Hoffman, Queen Latifah and Emma Thompson, Ferrell is in good company for a truely brilliant movie.

Sunshine

Danny Boyle's first (and likely last) entry into the genre, Sunshine's plot sounds no better than that of The Core - the sun has begun to go dim, and a crew is dispatched to restart it, using all of the fissionable materials on the Earth and the Moon. What is special about Sunshine, isn't so much the plot, but what the characters go through. The film is heady, trippy and exciting throughout. Boyle has a unique visual style, and Cillian Murphy does an excellent job throughout the movie with its large cast as they go through all sorts of problems on their journey. It's an emotional ride, one that is captivating.

Wall-E

Wall-E is my second favorite film from Pixar, after Toy Story, and is a fantastic and dark vision of the far future, when humanity has abandoned Earth while massive cleanup operations are conducted, then abandoned. All that is left is a small cleanup robot, Wall-E, who's been alone for hundreds of years, and who falls in love with a probe that returns to see if the planet is safe to return to. Despite director Andrew Stanton's protests that there was no environmentalist message, it's hard to ignore that there is one, accidental or otherwise. The film is an interesting look at superficial consumerist culture, but also a cute love story between robots.

The films that have made up this list are all tied together by a couple of common elements: story, characters, conception and excellent direction behind the camera. For me, all of these elements help to tell the element that should be central to all films: the story. As such, while there have been a number of films out there in the genre that I've greatly enjoyed, such as Star Wars or Avatar, they really don't make the list because there, it's the special effects that really take the front stage. This is all well and good as far as technology goes, and I'm sure that once I come across a film that uses these technologies to support a story, I'll be very, very happy. But, a good lesson should be learned, I think, that special effects, while cool, and a good reason to see a film, aren't the only reason to see a film. There's been a bit of a resurgence in the past couple of years towards strong genre films with great acting, visuals and story, and it is a trend that I really hope will continue into the next ten years.