faqsofcraiger
 
  Well, several of you out there that visit my site obviously know me very well.  However, I would like to think that there is a bunch of you out there that know nothing of me.  I have received some emails asking me questions of both a cinematic and personal nature, so I felt the time was right for a little Q & A.  So, here are the answers to some of your burning questions.  
 
How old are you? Younger than 39 and older than 38...if that helps.
You're from where???!!  Saskatchewan?  Where the flip is that? Okay gang, it's time to play CANADIAN GEOGRAPHY, for the not-so-wise (you know who you are, Yankees!).  Let's pull out our trusted map of our favorite Northern country:

I know what your thinking: Big country, eh?  As you can see, I live in the large rectangular slab province in the lower middle that looks like a somewhat truncated monolith from 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY.  Basically, Saskatchewan is directly above the border of NORTH DAKOTA and MONTANA, and we have a name so friggin' big that we can't even fit it on the map of the province itself!  Saskatchewan is large and vast, and our provincial tagline is "land of the living skies", which is a socio-geological euphemism for "our province has no other discernable features outside of the flat prairies and wheat fields."  Oh well, I love it all the same! 

How long have you been running this site? Since July of 2004...my gosh...has it been so long?
Are you a professional critic? That is a label that I would like to achieve and hope to in the near or distant future.  In short...no. 
Do you really see all of the films that have been posted on this site? But of course!
Do you get paid to see movies and write about them? Sadly...no.  I am an amateur critic and go to see and write about all the movies that have been discussed on this site so far...on my own LOONIE, thank-you very much.  (That's "dollar" to all you Yanks out there)
So, how many movies do you see a week? Completely depends on my cash flow and time.  Usually about two to three theatrically (if I am lucky) and a few on DVD or the splendid new kid on the block, Blu-Ray.  It just all depends.
How to you find the time? Being single helps, and not having much of a life.  Hey...all you single ladies, my number is...
What is your personal record for most films seen in the shortest period of time? Yikes.  Lemmie think.  If we are talking viewing at home on DVD, then I would probably say 6 in one day.  I went through the entire STAR WARS SEXTET in one 12 hour plus marathon.  In terms of seeing films theatrically, I saw 5 films in a span of 2 days.  Needless to say, that was a tiring 2 days.
How long does it take you to write your individual reviews? That really depends.  Most normal reviews of recent releases - from the point of writing, editing, and publishing them - takes about 90 minutes or so.  My RETRO reviews take a bit longer due to research and the fact that they are longer.
Why does it take you so long to publish your reviews?  Why are they  oftentimes published later than other sites? Again, since I am not a professional I don't have the privilege of seeing advance screenings.  Thus, this is the main reason why reviews of new films (that are usually released on Fridays) don't see the light of day on my site in review form until usually Saturday or Sunday.  Lately, some of the reviews don't hit until well after the weekend.  Sorry, folks.
Why do you chose to review some films over others?  I notice that there are many films that are AWOL on your site? Well, a lot of that has to do with money and time.  I work  full time at a day job beyond my gig here so that preoccupies much of my time.  Plus, with films costing anywhere between $9.00-11.00 to screen, I have to be somewhat selective in what I see.  I try my hardest to see as many films as I possibly can.  Another reason has to do with availability in my home town.  Many films (like 2005's MATCH POINT and GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK) did not have theatrical showings here until several months after their initial release. 
So, if you are not a professional film critic, what do you really do? By day I am a mild mannered commission sales associate at a major metropolitan retail company, and by night I am CrAiGeR, film critic extraordinaire.  I do not wear tights and a cape for the latter occupation.
What's your educational background?  I both graduated from high school and attended University here in Saskatoon.  I graduated with Great Distinction (shameless plug) in History and Fine Art.  I was halfway towards finishing a Bachelor's of Education until I realized that teaching little hellions was not what I wanted to do with the rest of my life.
Where do you like to sit in a theater? Sweet spot for me would definitely be about nine or ten rows back, in the middle.
What kind of home theater system do you have? I take this very seriously.  Trying to re-create a theatre environment at home is crucial to watching movies as they were meant to be seen.  I have a 48" widescreen CRT RPTV with an upconverting DVD player (this is a must until HD-DVD or BLU-RAY DVD's become the standard) as well as a full Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround System.  On top of that, I have a few relics (like my VCR and Laser Disc Player), some new toys (my HDTV PVR cable box is my favorite new addition) and I also have an X-BOX 360 to toy around with on those lonely nights.

[UPDATE] I have just recently added a HD-DVD and a BLU-RAY player to my home theatre arsenal.  HD is via the X-BOX 360 external drive and BLU-RAY is via PLAYSTATION 3, the latter which I use just as a dedicated BLU-RAY player.  I HIGHLY recommend the PS3 as a BLU-RAY player; the next cheapest option is over $1000, and the PQ quality is identical between the P3 and the higher priced models.  The 360 add-on drive also works sensationally.

[UPDATE 2] I now have updated my system to include a 46" Sharp 1080p LCD flat screen and have replaced my old 5.1 receiver with a new 7.1 receiver capable of reproducing just about every sound format.

[UPDATE 3] I now have updated my system to a 52" Samsung LCD flat screen, which was Consumer Report rated #1 in its class when I purchased it.  I have also improved my Blu-Ray player to a Panasonic model which also provides streaming You Tube content.  Quite nifty!

[UPDATE 4] Just added a new home theater receiver, which is capable of producing every HD sound field, like DTS-HD Master Audio, Dolby Digital True HD, and so forth.  

[UPDATE 5] Just added a new full-array backlight LED HD TV with my 52" Sony XBR and a Panasonic Full HD 3D Blu-Ray player: its Netflix streaming quality is among the best I've seen.
How many films have you seen in your life? That's tough to determine.  I really started to develop an interest in my early to mid-teens and have really increased over the last decade.  If I had to guess...maybe 3 or 4000.
Do you collect DVDs/Blu-rays? Do I ever!  My collection, which I take pride in just how eclectic a mixture I have, has just eclipsed over 1200, including HD-DVDs and BLU-RAYs.  I am slowly starting to have difficulty moving through my living room...and I love it!
What are your favorite films of all-time? If I had to narrow it down to one, I would cheat, to a degree, and say the STAR WARS saga.  I have seen EPISODE IV at least a hundred times and it remains fresh with each viewing.
Who are your favorite actors/actresses? Again, hard to pinpoint down, but I have always greatly admired Jimmy Stewart, Humphrey Bogart, Marlon Brando, Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson, Harrison Ford, and Denzel Washington to name a few.  Vince Vaughn crushes just about everything he's in; he's hilarious even when he's in crap.
Who are your favorite directors? Definitely Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Martin Scorsese, Brian DePalma, David Fincher, Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles, Francis Ford Coppola, Stanley Kubrick,  Ang Lee, Christopher Nolan, Sam Mendes, Ridley Scott, Michael Mann, Quentin Tarantino, PT Anderson, and Alexander Payne.  On the documentary side, Michael Moore's work has always impressed me. 

In terms of newer directors that have impressed me over the last few years: Noah Baumbach is an emerging and strongly assured director, as is Jason Reitman. The team of Ryan Beck and Anna Bodem are also emerging as filmmakers that manage to successfully subvert the genres they tackle.  Craig Brewer is enormously underrated.  Paul Greengrass is also a director that may be one of the best pound-for-pound craftsmen in the industry, as is Alfonso Cuaron.  And, let the hate mail flood in, Zach Snyder has made three films and two of them have garnered four star reviews from me, so I really like what he's doing.
What do you think of director's cuts, as a general rule? I am extremely open-minded to the concept of director's cuts, but have experienced decidedly mixed results over the last few years.  Some films have greatly enhanced themselves from their original theatrical cuts (ie - LEON: THE PROFESSIONAL and DONNIE DARKO) whereas others kind of eluded me (ie - I thought that the original cuts of THE LORD OF THE RING films were fine to begin with).
What do you think of the current state of films? Again...like the previous question, I will answer it with a note of ambiguity.  I think some truly great and some truly awful films have emerged over the last few years, but every decade has had their share of stinkers.  I do think that Hollywood is too busy at times constantly regurgitating the same tired formulas and ideas when fresh and offbeat ones seem to escape them.  I guess its all a matter of how hard the lay film going public looks for the films that matter.
How do you justify or arrive at your individual star ratings for the films you see?  Could you explain, for example, how you could give films like ROBOTS and PULP FICTION four stars.  Do you think that they are aesthetic equals, or what? This is the problem with being a film critic - how to give a film a rating of some kind.  It's not as arbitrary as you think it is.  Keep in mind, I am not saying that ROBOTS is as good as PULP FICTION, or vice-versa.  What I am saying is that my star ratings are relative, not universal, benchmarks of a film's worth.  If you use star ratings universally, then you've got a lot of explaining to do.  So, in essence, what I mean by this is that, relative to the genre of the film, ROBOTS is an exemplary computer animated film.  Just like, say, COLLATERAL is great relative to its genre, that of the crime thriller, or that of THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, which is in the genre of not only the suspense thriller, but also is a remake.  So you see, a four star (or any star rating, for that matter) is a measure of a film's worth relative to the type of film that it is trying to be.  I mean, my God, SCHINDLER'S LIST is not THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, but both are four star films, in my view, for different and more intimate reasons.  Hope that clarifies it.
Who are your favorite film critics? Roger Ebert for sure, and despite the fact that I have strongly disagreed with his views as of late, there's no denying his influence on me, especially with this site.  I also enjoy reading James Berardinelli, a great online critic.  Some of the reviews on Ain't It Cool News are often hilarious.  I also enjoy the work of Michael Phillips and Peter Travers.
Prequel or Sequel trilogy? Both have their strengths...but asking me that is like asking whether I liked the New Coke better than Classic.  No matter what, trying to recreate the magic is impossible!
Boxers of briefs? Okay...that's a bit too personal.
Are you and Dante from CLERKS one in the same? You be the judge...I get this all the time:

   

Mmmmkay....it's a close call...but I'd have to say "no".  Dude on the left is much more appealing.
McDonald's or Burger King? Hmmm...I can answer that.  I try to have broad based tastes when it comes to fast food...but I do like the taste of a good burger...mmmm.  I like them both a bit equally.  Burgers go to KING, fries go to McD's.
Popcorn or candy at the theater? Actually, I never eat anything at the theatre.  Saves me more money to see more films, and believe me, one popcorn and a drink costs as much, if not more, than seeing a film now!  
Is it proper etiquette to talk during the commercials and trailers before the main feature? I would say yes and no.  Yes to commercials (nothing more damning than paying to see ads) and no to trailers...I like to experience my first glimpse of a new film without annoying chatter.  And definitely, DEFINITELY not during the feature.  Cell phone users that text during the feature should be whipped mercilessly afterwards.  Have they no shame?
What is the worst trend in contemporary filmgoing right now? Two easy ones come to mind:  First, 3D surcharge gouging by the film studios, especially for films that have been hastily upconverted and were not shot in 3D.  Second, which relates directly more towards the act of seeing a film in a theatre, is cell phone usage, particularly texting.  All of those bright screens are like dozens of flashlights being turned on, and it's inanely distracting. 
 
 

  H O M E