Sadly this video has embedding disabled, but here’s the next best thing:

Alright, say it’s the 1600′s and you live within the British Kingdom. Things are pretty cool; you’re still kicking even though the Black Death (combo x2) is rampaging and you hit mid-life crisis around 20 years of age. Not too shabby; have to say it’s a step up from barbarism. Why, feudalism is the best thing since sliced bread! (or does sliced bread come later?) So what’s music to you? You may hear the occasional lute, lyre or viol pluck a note or maybe a nice clicky harpsichord, but it should be safe to say iPods or personal orchestras aren’t for the common folk. At any rate, your queen dies. Matriarchal leadership can be harsh, yet it was all you had ever known for your whole short lifetime.

In comes Henry Purcell to baroque and roll! Queen Mary II has her funeral all ready and set up while Purcell busts out what he’s been working on for the past few years: A full anthem of processional themes. Dour perhaps, but surprisingly sheds light on the myriad of emotions many may have had back in the day. Listen to this excerpt below and you might sense something more than just the sadness caused by loss of a friend, especially when you hope on that separation to be temporary.

Sure, a casual listener may capture the words as vain repetition, but what the singers might be crying for could sway that presumption. The psalm it is quoting tells of a seeker of God out of necessity, though being in a temporal state; not quite where they will be in the future, striving to keep faith in the present. On a more personal level, they might be shouting thanksgiving to God for allowing them to live in the same world and time as the one they’ve just let go. They could be begging God to give them strength even now in an effort to take full advantage of how their loved one encouraged them to be faithful.

Seems this version has five singing parts, but may have had more on the original performance. If the psalm wasn’t enough, the notes themselves appear to share a certain emotion: a quintessential theme in Christianity. The ebb and flow of major and minor chords shingling one another sparks the dichotomy between sadness and blessing, man’s sin and God’s righteousness, and Jesus’ death and resurrection. Can goodly things be recognized aptly without evil to contrast? Can choosing God be any more sincere when given free will on a sin-cursed Earth? Is God revealing more love when we are humbled so low that He reaches deeper to pull us up?

There isn’t much I can say to put justice to this piece, but I thought it was worth the share even if tastes clash. For the record, I’d take these two minutes and change over anything written in the past seventy-five years. Enjoy. (Thanks, Thomas)
Psalm 102:1

I had a hard time deciding on what to write about, and thought of things from politics to the origins of head cheese. However, I’ve come to find that HT totally rocks at politics and thus my efforts in that area would be futile, and head cheese… While I might have the upper hand in that, I figured the first guest post shouldn’t be so… far fetched, ‘lest the idea of guest writers be shot down as a result. Therefore I decided to take a different approach; I tried to think what OhYo might post about, and then decided that I should write a post that OhYo would NEVER do. And to be quite honest, with all the reviews Stretch does, I’m dissapointed that this genre has not yet been seen on Zomgee! Henceforth, I give you the first. Ever. MUSIC REVIEW. 

Now, I’m sure anyone who’s ever spent even a little bit of time getting to know the Zomgees has probably heard this song by now, and though I won’t deny that it can be a catchy tune, my goal is to bring the ears of the Zomgee followers a little of relief and fast forward the lsitening to the 21st century.

Today’s artist spotlight is: Skillet! (just because I think OhYo would find listening to them to be painful ^_^)

If any band knows how to move the sound ahead, it’s Skillet. I don’t think I’ve ever seen another band change so much with each release. Starting off with a more mild rock/pop sound in their first two albums, that I admit was quite painful to listen to, they progressed into their digitized (techo, synthetic) stage with two more albums. (Yes, I know, that ‘digitized’ link isn’t by Skillet; it’s there for a pun on the actual word) With these first stages out of the way, Skillet finally got it right when they moved into their metal phase. The release of their album “Collide” was released two different times under two different labels, and was really a breakthrough for the band. “Savior” in particular is a favorite among most panheads I know of. Continuing on in this fashion, Skillet released their album “Comatose” a few years later. Featuring more orchestral and acoustic background sounds, this album combined the good points of “Collide” and the earlier acoustic sounds for a more gothic, and in some songs, popish sound. I’ve really enjoyed hearing how far this band has come, though I’ll be the first to tell you that they still need to work on their music videos. xP

As far as sound ratings go, I’d give their first two thirds of their work 3 stars at best, since some songs were just plain painful to listen to, but for their last two albums, I’d give them both 5 stars and highly recommend them to anyone who enjoys the more driving sounds of rock/light metal.
Through it all, Skillet has stayed close to their Christian roots, always offering Christian messages to their listeners. The only qwip I have is in their latest album, as these messages are more heavily masked by metaphors in comparisson to earlier albums so that pre-Christians that listen to the album can’t figure out immediately that they’re listening to songs about God. This can be a powerful witnessing tool if they have someone to explain the lyrics to them, but if it’s just a CD they picked up off the sale rack, they’ll be hard pressed to figure it out on their own. Overall, I give the lyrics a 4 star rating.
In terms of live performances… GO TO ONE. You have not lived til you’ve seen a live Skillet show! It really beats me how they can put on such a good live show and then make crappy music videos… but ah well, 5 stars to live performance! =D

So there you have it, the first ever music review on Zomgee, presented by guest ZePuKa! It’s not much, but I figured it’s good to try something new.

You may now commence throwing of rotted tomatoes… AT OHYO, cause it was all his idea in the first place!

God bless,

-ZePuKa

Don’t even start. You can’t have my dog. I know I’m a day late, and I don’t really care. If you had the past two days that I’ve had, you’d probably be in a corner, crying.

However, that’s not what I wanted to write about. I want to write about a movie I saw last Thursday. It’s a story about a man. A man who has a profound affect/effect on people he finds. I want to talk about Seven Pounds.

Be very aware that there are many spoilers, both implied and otherwise, so unless you’ve seen the movie or don’t plan on seeing it (in that case, what is wrong with you?) PLEASE don’t keep reading. Come back and read this after you’ve seen it- and believe me, its well worth seeing in theaters.

Let me start by saying that this movie isn’t for the faint of heart (in all seriousness, the pun was not intended). Here we have a character played by Will Smith who starts out amidst what we, the viewer, would call confusion. We see what look like flashbacks of his wife and then she’s gone… We see him destroy a blind mine’s self image (sorry.. another pun). We see him stalk a woman in a hospital, but none of it really makes much sense. Finally, once the story progresses, we get the idea that Will Smith’s character is just rehashing the almost-decade-old Pay It Forward storyline.

Glimpses of the past are brief, but they let in a little on what occurred to make “Ben Thomas” so broken. In the last few minutes, things begin to fall into place… You see him as a man who is so in love with a woman he’s just met, and yet he has no life to give her. The irony in that is that he gives her his heart- literally.

You see, Ben Thomas is not your ordinary bitter man who just needs his heart softened by a pretty woman. Ben is a man who, through is absolute devotion to work, killed his wife and seven others in a horrific accident. He was texting, maybe writing an email. I have to admit, that kind of stung… hit close to home. If you knew me about a year ago, you know the story…

Ben is so… broken and in hate with himself, he plans to go out with a bang- not for the recognition and fame, but to make up for the lives.. Ben plans on killing himself and giving each one of these people (who “deserve” it) a piece of him- his heart, his eyes, etc.

It may be twisted, but I like stories like this… stories that defy the norm… that leave you feeling very split inside. Was he a hero for sacrificing himself? Was he just selfishly wallowing in his guilt? Was he some sort of degenerate because he killed himself? There are arguments for each of the above viewpoints.

I suppose what sort of background you come from might determine your thoughts on what he did. The religious man might condemn him for taking his own life, but doesn’t the Bible say “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” The moral man might take a utilitarian line and say that him giving up his life, which was seemingly of little value, was the greater good, while the Kantian viewer might say otherwise.

An interesting dilemma.. Unsettling, yet comforting in a way. Will Smith once again does an excellent job, building on pretty good acting in Hancock, Pursuit of Happyness, I Am Legend. I kinda wish I didn’t feel guilty about saying that about a closet Scientologist…

Looking back over this post, the movie seems somewhat unremarkable, but if you’ve seen it, there’s no doubt you went on an emotional roller coaster. Either way, I’m interesting in your thoughts, so let me know what you think.

I’ve always wanted to write something that was unashamedly rife with spoilers… on par with the first person to say “He’s actually dead” or “Snape kills Dumbledore”. You know what I mean.

Hancock. Now this was a movie I’ve been waiting to see. I have to admit that I wanted to see this more than Indiana Jones. More than Hulk and The Happening too.

I figured that I’d be disappointed by this movie, but I could hope for the best, at least. I try not to read too much about movies before they come out (other that the MPAA rating and such) just so when a movie is nothing like the few previews I saw of it, I’ll be surprised.

That’s exactly the case in this movie. I went in thinking it’d be a comedy where Will Smith starts out a super hero bum and turns into a Men In Black agent-esque crime fighting champion. A black comedy meets Spiderman perhaps. Of course, when you think about it that way, it doesn’t sound like a great movie.

I don’t want to give anything away about the storyline, but if you’re looking for the Will Smith comedy routine, you’ll get a bit of it, but so much more.

Will Smith, once again, does a great job. In the past 3 movies I’ve seen of him (Pursuit of Happyness (woah, the spell-checker didn’t squawk at that), I Am Legend, and this), I’ve noticed his new signature facial expression- mouth slightly agape, teary eyes, with a seriously ticked off look on his face. Anyways, the rest of the actors are great (Jason Bateman, Charlize Theron).

I was disappointed that the movie was something like 87 minutes long, but once you actually start watching it, it seems so much longer (which, in this case, is a good thing).

One of the particularly good things was the music score. There is one song, specifically, that really just become the #1 song on my playlists: Death and Transfiguration.

[youtube:http://youtube.com/watch?v=uOa719oT4uQ]

The effects really aren’t all that special. I mean, there are certain points where they come into play, but for the most part the effects in this movie merely supplement reality instead of create a new one.

In all, it was a great movie, but there was one catch: language. There is quite a bit of it. Really, if they had backed off on that, I think they might have gotten a lot more acclaim.

Using HT’s method of rating (5-Great; 4-Good; 3-Average; 2-Bad; 1-Horrible; 0-Putrid)

4/5

Last weekend, I had the chance to go see The Happening. My thought was that it would be a typical, suspenseful, yet profound movie from M. Night; however, it was hardly those things.

Ever since Signs, I’ve loved the simpleness of M. Night’s plots and the profound message they convey (Signs: seemingly coincidental events really being the workings of a higher power, The Village: the notion that love can overcome any obstacle, etc).

Unfortunately, I went into the theater with the idea that people just disappeared in this movie (Someone had said “rapture-esque” a while back). That is NOT what happens. They commit suicide- and when I mean “they”, I mean just about everyone.

Strange as it may seem, this is a movie about love. The two main characters are somewhat remorsefully married and spend much of the movie distant from each other. The plot is fairly predictable from start to end, so don’t expect surprises like the end of The Village. The movie seems to rely almost solely on its shock factor, as neither the acting (except, perhaps, Mark Wahlberg), the effects, nor the plot really do it justice. It really feels like an independant-type film where everything is just B-grade. Granted, that worked for both Juno and Napoleon Dynamite, but those were comedies.

More shocking that this blatant failure at a movie was my response. I know the … suicides weren’t real, but shouldn’t I have been a bit more bothered by them? Granted, I was very unsettled, but to me, they were almost … interesting. I walked out of the theater thinking about the movie and a little in shock. I didn’t know then how to quantify what I had just seen. The ending was amazing- I’ll give it that, but have we devolved so far as a society to find depicted, graphic suicide entertainment?

There are two things I can distinctly remember from cinema as a child: Star Wars and Indiana Jones. These two trilogies quickly became my most beloved films and it wasn’t until Lord of the Rings poked its head out of a hole in the ground were the two even remotely challenged for first place. Then along came the Star Wars Prequels where George Lucas screwed with everything that was good and right about Star Wars and while he didn’t entirely ruin the originals he did put a bad sort of taste my mouth. Understandably when news that a fourth Indiana Jones movie was finally to be made I couldn’t help but have a bad feeling about it. I’m not sure if I could handle Lucas messing up the greatest action movie series of all time. I have returned from the theater and I have to concur with Roger Ebert when he said, “if you liked the other Indiana Jones movies, you will like this one, and that if you did not, there is no talking to you.”

I can’t say that this is the greatest movie of all time, nor is it greater than Raiders of the Lost Ark or the Last Crusade. There was something about the originals that can’t be equaled anywhere. It does come in quite close to Temple of Doom, however, and I might even make the claim that it is better. The point is, it’s Indiana Jones and its fun, that’s all Indiana Jones ever is. All he happens to be is a professor and an archaeologist, for everything else he’s just along for the ride by the seat of his pants as much as you are.

One thing I did feel like this movie was missing was tension and suspense, perhaps that was because every time something tense happened the annoying women sitting next to me would make all kinds of vocal noises. They also managed to talk quite a bit more often than I would like, but I did try my best to ignore them…mostly it failed. As for everything else, it felt like Indiana Jones should feel – albeit much older. Nostalgia was a driving factor in the creation of this and it was nostalgia that in some ways makes it work. There’s familiar characters, familiar actions, and familiar jokes, but there’s also plenty of new to go around.

I wish I could have come out saying that this was as great of an experience as it must have been to see the originals but in truth it wasn’t. I can say, however, that it was a fun movie to watch and that it was better than most of the cookie cutter action movies that come out these days. If not for the Bourne series and Batman Begins I think I might give up action altogether. Thankfully though Indiana Jones delivers in all that it needs to and may have earned itself a second viewing from me in theaters.

4/5 Stars

Anticipation is what killed the last Narnia movie for me. I prepared myself for its much hailed arrival by reading the books for the first time and even by going back to the original British version and watching what were some of my favorite movies as a child. When all was said and done I was left disappointed. Sure they didn’t destroy the books or anything they just got me to expect one thing and gave me something entirely different. I have since seen The ‘Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe’ a few times more and I have a few better things to say about it, however, it still not the masterpiece that I was hoping for. I have just returned from ‘Prince Caspian’ and it is without a doubt a better movie than the first in almost every way.

Andrew Adamson seems to be coming into his own when it comes to directing live action movies. One thing that worried me early on when I learned of his direction is that his only other movies were Shrek and Shrek 2 and that didn’t seem to be the resume I would have liked coming into one of the most beloved fantasy franchises of all time, however, it looks like he’s learning from his mistakes and improving. He seems to have a much better vision for what’s going on and is getting much more out of his actors.

As for the acting, the children have improved quite a bit. One thing I have always had a hard time with when watching children’s movies is how horrible children are at it. With one movie and a few years under their belt they’re starting to grow up and act like their characters. Peter is more believable, Susan is less annoying, Edmond is growing up, and Lucy…well Lucy is no longer the joyful innocent girl she was in the first movie, however, after all they’ve been through in Narnia – she shouldn’t be.

The music was brilliant as I would expect from Harry Gregson-Williams who did a fantastic job the first time around and once again WETA Digital did a great job with the special effects. That coupled with some well done cinematography and editing has led to a much better flowing picture. The battle scenes feel like battles and the sweeping landscapes are used correctly in a much more “epic” (if I dare use the word) fashion than in the first. Sure there wasn’t a lot to the story which boiled down to save Narnia once again, but there were times when you felt like they might not win, and that is what a film of this type needs. If there is no sense of urgency and no sense of the possibility of failure then there is no point to watch it.

All in all the movie was an enjoyable couple of hours and worth seeing on the big screen. If you liked the first one you’ll most definitely like this one, but even if you didn’t, I would give it a try anyway.

4/5 stars
[edit] I decided to rethink my rating system. While on one end this is less exact and does not distinguish between movies quite as well I think it will do a better job indicating the range of quality that a movie falls into. With 5-Great; 4-Good; 3-Average; 2-Bad; 1-Horrible; 0-Putrid.

There have been three men in and around Hollywood the last century (1900s of course) that have defined masculinity. These three were manly men- not the wife-beating, lyric-spitting, gun-toting (for less-than-good purposes) facade the term “man” usually gets nowadays. These three were law-following, law-making, and law-enforcing men. The majority of the time, not only were they on the right side of the law, they were the law. It just so happens that all these men were very Republican, loved guns, championed the causes of the United States forefathers, sought to end discrimination and segregation, and just plain-old kicked butt.

We start first with John Wayne (born Marion Robert Morrison) who ruled this turf of masculinity from about 1930 to 1960. Charlton Heston (born John Charles Carter) took over around 1959 with Ben-Hur and carried the torch until the 70s. Chuck Norris took over in the 80s with Delta Force, followed by Walker, Texas Ranger, and now pretty much does whatever he wants (like anyone is going to stop him?)

Yesterday, Charlton Heston passed away.

What do you say about a man who played Ben-Hur, Colonel George Taylor, Mark Antony, Mark Antony (again, 20 years later), and Moses? What do you say about a man who, when finished with films for the most part, took up the lead role as president of the National Rifle Association? Charlton pushed for social reforms and called for an end to discrimination against Blacks in the 60s. He promoted a real form of environmentalism- not the one where we save any animal we can at the expense of others lives.

One of my favorite quotes from him (ripped straight from wikipedia, of course) is, as follows:

“…the God fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle- class Protestant-or even worse, evangelical Christian, Midwestern or Southern- or even worse, rural, apparently straight-or even worse, admitted heterosexuals, gun-owning-or even worse, NRA-card-carrying, average working stiff-or even worse, male working stiff-because, not only don’t you count, you are a down-right obstacle to social progress. Your voice deserves a lower decibel level, your opinion is less enlightened, your media access is insignificant, and frankly, mister, you need to wake up, wise up, and learn a little something from your new-America and until you do, would you mind shutting up?”

Clearly, sarcasm is the name of the game in the paragraph above, but isn’t it true? Hasn’t the straight, white, rural, Christian male become somewhat of an oddity? a minority even?

Heston wasn’t loved by everyone, that’s for sure. George Clooney said that Heston deserved the Alzheimer’s that Heston had announced he had in 2002. Alzheimer’s wasn’t his only problem either- at that point he had already beaten prostate cancer.

While the cause of his death is still unreleased, he was a pretty awesome guy. So we remember you, Charlton Heston- as Moses, husband of 64 years, actor, conservative activist, defender of freedom, upholder of the Constitution, and all-around awesome guy. May we never forget your toothy grin.

… a bit sensationalist. (Re: My review of I Am Legend)

In retrospect (or perhaps due to it slowly fading from memory) I Am Legend is not the near-perfect movie I said it was. The action wasn’t that intense and while I say that Will Smith’s acting was so good you almost didn’t think it was acting, you know he’s acting and you analyze him as an actor. I still stand by that it was the best movie I saw in theaters in 2007. Its a good thing that I saw it in December.

Why? Why am I downplaying or seemingly retracting what I said about I Am Legend? Why did I imply that it’s reign ended early in 2008?

Put simply, Cloverfield. I’ll run through my checklist of components to a movie- just so I can start thinking straight about this movie.

Acting (15/15): The prospect of not having any recognizable names in your cast might be a scary thing for a director or producer, but that’s precisely the thing that makes you forget that they are actors entirely. Think back to Flight 93. If you saw it, I’m pretty sure you didn’t even stop to think that those were actors. Precisely the same thing happens here. You can’t really say much about the actors because, well… There’s really not much to say.

Plot (14/15): Yes, this is a monster movie; however, its more of a monster movie than I Am Legend was a zomgee movie. This was not a barren and deserted New York City, this was a destroyed NYC. This wasn’t about finding a cure, this was about surviving and running away in sheer terror. Comparing this movie to any other is just plain hard. I suppose the closest thing might be War of the Worlds, but even that doesn’t come close. There’s no magical bacteria to save the day. There is, in fact, nothing at all.

Directing/Production (15/15): This movie was tagged as a J.J. Abrams project, but he doesn’t direct. Rather, that job is left up to Matt Reeves, a director with seemingly little experience and no major titles behind him. He does not disappoint and adds quite a large notch to his belt. He must have gotten a lot of help from Abrams, who has such notables as Lost (writer, producer), Alias (composer, producer, writer, director, etc), MI:3 (director, writer), Armageddon (writer).

Effects (14/15): At no point did I see anything on screen that I could immediately tell was fake- which was remarkable, considering that the villain of the movie was a mega CG beast (pun intended). There really only is one thing that it reminds me of, and even that is nothing like it. Seemingly 95% of the end credits were for sound or graphics.

Music/Score (15/15): During the credits, I didn’t count how many songs rolled by (20 maybe?) But I don’t remember a single song overlaid on the movie. There was nothing. I Am Legend with its few minutes of Marley and a few suspense-laden notes seems like a 3 hour musical collage comparatively. Given the filming style, I guess this is expected. During the credits, there is a very eerie, dark, yet powerful overture called “ROAR!” No, I’m not kidding, and its a great track.

Cinematography (14/15): No steadicam here. The entire movie is shot from a (suspiciously) good quality camcorder. It apparently has a light, night vision, a battery straight from Yi Cui’s laboratory, and records hi-def. References are made to the tape running out (tape? TAPE?)

Intangibles (10/10): This is a movie that you can’t like. You can’t not like it either. Its not a good movie. Its not a bad movie. It’s a jaw-clenching, muscle-cramping, face-contorting thriller that makes you cry, scream, hide, and feel like you are right there. Watching it in theater 9 at Tinseltown adds a potential point to my score. It left me wanting to say, as the guy a few rows back so eloquently put it, “REWIND!”

While I’ve got your attention, let me announce (if you haven’t heard already) that there’s a new Star Trek movie, the next “J.J. Abrams Project.”

Every Tuesday and Thursday I have a movie class, and on Tuesdays we watch a film. This past class we were in the middle of watching “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” which while a very good film it is also one that a modern generation could easily get bored through. Which since the class is full of discourteous college students it means that there is often whispering and laughing and other forms of carrying on that can be quite disruptive to someone actually trying to enjoy the movie. Really its quite a bit like a real movie theater.

Something different happened this past class, however. I was sitting behind the delinquents when I noticed that a message was being passed amongst them which was promptly followed by a laptop being produced and a website loaded. Three girls crowded around the screen and as soon as the page loaded the entire group let out a unanimous gasp. What could cause three obnoxious movie buffs to speak out in such a startled manner I wondered. I of course did what any curious person would do, I looked over their shoulder to read the headline on the news story they were reading. “Heath Ledger found Dead in Apartment”

It was somewhat surprising I guess, actors in their 20′s don’t often die, but really all I did was go, “huh,” then sit back and continue to watch Mr. Smith show the Senate that he can filibuster for 24 hours straight. It was by all accounts much more interesting than finding out about a dead actor. On further reflection I’m struck by two thoughts. a) Why should I be surprised? and b) Why should I care? To answer the first, I shouldn’t be surprised at all. With all the sex, drugs, and money that goes on in Hollywood its a wonder more actors and actresses don’t overdose on things or commit suicide or get killed by people that don’t like them. What makes Ledger any different from the rest of them – nothing – so I shouldn’t expect that he would have a different possible outcome. To answer the second question, well I suppose someone might care because they thought he was good looking or they enjoyed his movies or something, but since I’m not a member of his family and since he has really made no lasting good contribution to society I can’t really find a reason to care.

Now don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed “The Patriot” and “A Knight’s Tale” was mildly funny and while we’re on the topic of knights I do very much look forward to seeing him as Joker in “The Dark Knight” but since his only real critical acclaim was for being a gay cowboy, I’m really more inclined to be not interested in his work at all. Frankly, I can’t figure out what the whole fixation about dying celebrities is. There’s plenty of people dying in this world for far worse reasons than being famous and trying to fill a void in ones life with drugs and it seems to me we ought to worry more about those people than some B list actor like Heath Ledger.

Let me first start off by saying: “Wow.” I don’t even know where to begin with this movie.

Will Smith. Who knew he could match or beat his performance in The Pursuit of Happyness. This is by far his best movie to date. He is naturally funny in all his movies and in the movie previously mentioned, he shows a softer, more genuine side. This is … quite departure from, or rather, an extension of those previous roles. He makes you laugh, he makes you cry, he makes you feel like Chuck Norris needs to watch his back.

If you’ve been totally oblivious to the overall plot of this movie, that’s ok. If you’d like to keep it that way, stop reading. I won’t spoil, however.

It’s a few years into the future and a cure-for-cancer-turned-zomgee-creating virus has done its job. Granted, nobody could have foreseen it, but it happened nonetheless. Robert Neville (Smith) spends his time living in a post-apocalyptic New York City, similar to a thawed-out NYC from The Day After Tomorrow; London from Reign of Fire, substituting zomgees for dragons; or a non-raised-eyebrow version of Planet of the Apes. There’s something oddly thrilling about imagining life alone and having free reign of the world’s largest city. The flashbacks you see in the previews are actually spread out through the entire movie. They are quite predictable but provide a … completeness as to why Neville chose to stay behind. Thankfully, the writer’s don’t go overboard with Neville taking on the zomgees or trying to find their source and eliminating them. No, instead he hides away, avoiding contact while trying to find a cure.Technically, it was a good movie. I don’t recommend buying the soundtrack, as you’ll get about 5 minutes of audio and 4 of those minutes are from a Bob Marley record. Some people have criticized the CG effects, but a) compared to even 3 years ago, they are amazing, and b) when almost 100% of your landscape is CG, you sacrifice quality for quantity. The quality, however, was not distracting in any way. The acting was incredible, there’s really nothing more to say about that. I am slow, but willing, to say that he bested Tom Hanks in Cast Away. Besides, dog > volleyball any day.To summarize, it was a uncomplicated movie that was epically thrilling (more thrilling than Signs, less epic than LotR) with an amazing acting job by Will Smith in an environment that’s strangely … cool.

In Top Gear fashion, I present my board of best movies of 2007 so far:

1. I Am Legend (95)
2. Transformers (92*)
3. Live Free or Die Hard (88*)
4. Bourne Ultimatum (86*)
5. Spider-Man 3 (84*)
6. 3:10 to Yuma (80*)
7. Pirates 3 (78*)

* denotes a relatively scaled system since I don’t have a per-item scale for them