Shane's Scariest Movies

I've wanted to write this list for some time now, but it's been fairly difficult to put together. Even though I've seen hundreds of horror films very few actually scare me. I assume it's partly because I've seen so many that I've become desensitized to it.

I approach each new horror movie with the intense desire that it will scare the ever-living shit out of me; to be freaked out, to lose sleep, and to have it linger in my mind for days after. I am often disappointed, but here are the ones that were best at delivering the frights I crave. Of course, what makes something scary is a very subjective thing so I hope this list will stir up some healthy debate and perhaps some counter lists. Get ready for a long one, folks.

5. [REC] - 2007

When a TV reporter and her cameraman are filming a piece on firefighters working the night shift, they follow along to an emergency call at an apartment building, and soon all hell (and zombies) breaks loose. Filmed in first person Blair Witch/ Cloverfield/ Paranormal Activity style, this Spanish film is frantic and claustrophobic as you'd expect, but I think it works very well here.

You might recognize the premise if you've heard of the movie Quarantine, an American remake made a year later. Having watched them both the same day, I can state without hesitation that [REC] is the superior film and that Quarantine is nothing but a scene for scene remake with the occasional cheesy addition. Grow up and read some subtitles, people.

Anyway, this movie holds the distinction of being the only zombie movie that's scared me. There is a great buildup of suspense in the early portion of the film and then it takes off at full speed and you really feel like you're caught up in the panic and desperation of the situation.

The real reason the movie makes the list is because of the last fifteen minutes or so when the reporter and "you" (the cameraman) end up hiding in some forgotten rooms in the upper portion of the apartment building. What plays out in the darkness is so goddamned scary, and so unlike the rest of the film that I was thrown totally off guard. I'd like to say more but I'd rather not ruin it for you. All I know is that it is truly nightmarish, and I haven't been able to watch it again since. I even have goosebumps now just thinking about it. Frig.

4. The Exorcist - 1973

Look, I'm not going to waste time telling you what the story is to one of the most well known horror films of all time. I don't think it's the scariest movie ever made, but I do think that it remains shocking, twisted, and dark, even today.

The film naturally scared me most the first time I saw it. It still freaks me out on repeated viewings, but not like the first time around. I hesitated putting it on the list because of that. I wanted to put together the movies that scare me even now, not just when I was a kid.

Ultimately it deserves to be here because the movie is such a high quality of horror. The vomiting, the head spinning, the twisted voices, the spider walking; it's all scary and unforgettable. And because of the strong performances and the film's pacing, a growing sense of dread is always in the background of the film while all this other horrific shit is occurring. In the final act, I honestly feel afraid for the characters. Lately I've seen other exorcism related films popping up, and all have been weak by comparison. In fact most horror films lack the originality and unsettling goodness that The Exorcist brings to the table.

3. The Ring - 2002

Remember two entries ago when I bitched about Quarantine and that people should just stick with the foreign film? Well, time for a switcheroo! The original Japanese Ringu is scary, creepy, and introduced us to a whole new genre of horror, but I like Gore Verbinski's The Ring more. The killer videotape, the well, and the surprising ending all make this a memorable scary movie.

I went to the theatre alone to watch The Ring, and it was one of the best cinema experiences I've ever had. It was a one-of-a-kind group experience where everyone in the audience is collectively scared together and the air is thick with tension. At one point I screamed in fright and shock, and that has never happened to me before or since. I was not the only one freaking out; I could hear strangers around me shrieking, gasping, and in some cases sobbing. After the film I walked home in the dark, nerves shaken thoroughly, and I'm certain that if my TV had been showing static when I got home my heart would have fucking exploded.

Which brings me to the main reason why The Ring is so good at being scary. Because it develops horror from very innocuous things: TV static, videotapes, phone calls, and girls with long hair. Managed in the right way these things all become terrifying in and outside of the film. Most horror movies are about the fear of something or someone lurking in the shadows waiting to get you, but with The Ring (and much of modern Japanese horror) the thing is an unstoppable Evil. Evil that can't be outrun, fought, appeased, or reasoned with. It will just get you no matter what. Even if you're just hanging out with friends or chilling out in your spacious apartment in the middle of the day. That freaks me out.

2. Pet Sematary - 1989

A family moves into a house in a small rural community, and shortly after a tragedy leads to unexpected horrors when a father makes some terrible decisions in his desperate grief.

Early in the film we see the family's infant son nearly get hit by a car, and we get continuous warnings from their neighbour, Mr. Crandall, about the dangers of the road they live on, and how it's killed many a pet. Despite the foreshadowing, when the family's cat and son are killed, you still feel surprised. Partly because the foreshadowing seemed so ridiculously obvious, and partly because it's frustrating to see the family doing nothing to avoid it. Even though I know from the word go that it's going to happen, it's so goddamn painful to watch the son heading out onto the road with the father frantically chasing after him. It's the fear of being helpless.

In his grief and madness the father buries his son in a mysterious burial ground that has the power to reanimate the dead. But the dead don't come back the same. So you've got sort of a zombie movie, but not really. I have to tip my hat to this movie for having the balls to kill an infant. You rarely see that sort of thing even in horror films. And you certainly never see infants getting killed, having their graves defiled, coming back to life as a murderous baby, and being killed again by a loved one. That's messed up on several levels.

However, Pet Sematary is not about blood and gore, but about feelings of helplessness, grief, and guilt. The film is frightening because it plays on our fears of death, and losing loved ones. In many ways the movie reminds me of the short story "The Monkey's Paw", where a loved one is wished back from the dead and the choice is immediately regretted. We can relate to this yearning to undo the past, and the film scares us with a nightmarish "what if" scenario.

And if that's not enough, the film also throws in a terrifying cat, the ghost of a mangled teenager, an unsettling funeral scene, and some freaky flashbacks of the mother looking after her grotesquely emaciated dying sister. If this film doesn't scare you on some level, I am shocked.

1. Pulse (Kairo) - 2001

If you haven't noticed, all the films in my list have had American remakes, sequels, or both, and my number one is no different. I want to make a careful distinction here that I'm talking about the original Japanese film and not the godawful American remake of the same name.

The film is about a group of students who are investigating a paranormal website and its related suicides. If the movie Feardotcom popped into your head please push that right the fuck out. Feardotcom was an unwatchable piece of garbage. Kairo is a masterpiece of horror.

The movie is not about violence, gore, and all the other usual horror staples. It's all about mood and atmosphere. It creates an amazing sense of loneliness and hopelessness while still remaining terrifying, and I don't know how the director pulled that off.

I watched the movie alone in the dark and it was nearly my undoing. I think the movie is called Pulse because I reached levels of stress and fear where I could feel my heartbeat in my head. Jesus Christ, this movie is tense. You know that feeling in a movie where the suspense keeps building and building until finally something jumps out and you scream? Well this film lives on that razor edge of tension and nothing ever jumps out. No killer doll, no psychopath with a knife, no monster with claws. It just keeps edging closer and closer and the anxiety keeps growing and growing.

I not going to pretend that everyone will like this, because the movie is long, slowly paced, and confusing. In some ways the movie has an apocalyptic feel to it, where it seems like the characters are the last people on earth, wandering around in the forgotten corners of an urban wasteland. Combined with the score and cinematography, it's beautifully haunting.

For me it's the scariest movie I've ever seen because it gives me such a chilling sense of dread, isolation, and a terror of the unknown. When you watch it, you get that sinister feeling that something is watching you; that death and despair is looming over you. Images and ideas from the movie lingered with me for weeks after. Pulse is terrifying, dark, and an exceptionally strong psychological horror film and I really want to watch it again...I just haven't worked up the nerve.

Cole's Most Hated Movies of 1998

I figured I should try a movie list to pull myself out of my recent funk since I pretty much always have some sort of idea in mind when it comes to listing films. The first thing that sprang to mind: abject hatred.

Last year I joined Shane in the tradition of listing my top five favourite films of the past year and plan to continue that. But Shane also follows up his favourite list with a most hated. I've shied away from that so far because since I started doing this, I've felt I hadn't seen enough movies from the year in question to do a truly worthwhile list. At best I would probably just be repeating what Shane had already said. But awhile ago it occurred to me that if I wanted to do a most hated movie list, there was no reason to just stick to the past year.

1998 was the year which brought us such cinematic excrement as Soldier,  Species II, Snake Eyes, and Legionnaire - none of which made my list (be afraid, be very afraid). So with that in mind, I present to you my most hated movies of 1998.

5. Lost In Space
I saw this one in theatres under sort of weird circumstances. Several of my friends and I had gone without having any plan in mind and when it seemed we decided on what movie to see (I can't remember what it was) my friend Ryan (not affiliated with Five-O-Rama) suddenly said he didn't want to see that. He said he'd rather see Lost In Space. Before everyone started arguing, I volunteered to go with him. It was a decision I would come to regret. Whatever the movie our other friends went to had to have been better than this piece of junk.

And it was such an expensive piece of junk! It had an eighty-million dollar budget and used the best special effects of the day. I don't know if the original 60's tv series was ever particularly popular but it seemed the movie's producers were definitely committed to making the film a success. Except that throwing a bunch of money into special effects isn't the recipe for a good movie. You need other things like well-defined, well-acted characters, good direction and editing and that little thing called a good STORY. Lost In Space failed spectacularly in all those areas casting bland actors (Matt Leblanc, anyone?) to play bland characters trudging through a boring and ridiculous series of events. Even the great Gary Oldman is horrible in this disaster.

While it was universally panned it still made a profit at the box office and was actually the movie to knock the mighty Titanic out of number one in North America. But I guess something eventually had to. Previews for the movie actually made it look half-decent with all its flashy effects. But years later I remember it sourly as one of the worst movies of 1998.


4. The Avengers
Believe it or not, I saw this travesty in theatres too. 1998 was certainly a banner year for me wasting money on cinematic trash.

I can't recall having any sort of expectations for The Avengers going in. I was only mildly aware of the show on which it was based (another series from the 60's) and I don't remember ever being impressed by its previews. It's most likely that we just chose to see it for the sake of seeing something at the theatre. It had Sean Connery as the villain - it couldn't be that bad, right?

Wrong. What a mess this movie was. I mean, I usually have excellent recall when it comes to film but I can't remember anything substantial about The Avengers except that it was goddamned terrible. I understand that the original series had certain elements that made it very hip and stylish especially to a North American audience because it was so inherently British. Well, this film was made principally by Americans and it sure showed. It was clumsy, over the top and anything but cool. The plot was like something out of the most forgettable of Saturday morning cartoons - an evil mastermind betrays his government and schemes to TAKE OVER THE WORLD using a ridiculous weather-controlling machine.

Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman played agents Steed and Peel and both managed to leave absolutely no impression whatsoever. I mean it. I can't remember a single line of dialogue from either of them. Connery must have been drunk or high on his medication or something when he took the role of Sir August de Wynter and it definitely carries over into his performance. Seriously, check this shit out:




This one was a huge box office failure, grossing only $43 million against its $60 million budget. And it cleaned up at the Golden Raspberrys too, earning nine nominations (including worst actor, actress and supporting actor for the three leads and worst director) and taking home the award for Worst Remake or Sequel.

The whole movie is mercifully only 89 minutes long, as a substantial amount of stuff was cut out in editing which helped render it even more choppy and confusing. Maybe someday they'll have another go at an Avengers movie - it couldn't possibly be worse than this one.


3. A Night at the Roxbury
I saw this one when my poor ignorant parents rented it. I have no idea what drew them to it since they were in no way aware of the vapid SNL sketch on which it is based. At the time, I wasn't either actually. I hadn't watched the show for over two years and I wasn't familiar with most of the cast members. The names Will Ferrell and Chris Kattan meant absolutely nothing to me.

And if first impressions truly were everything, I probably would believe there's a special place in hell for those two because of that movie. Thankfully the two, particularly Ferrell, would go on to show they actually had some talent and could put it towards worthwhile things. But after seeing A Night at the Roxbury I could only conclude that I was absolutely right in my abandonment of SNL. This was a movie only in the loosest sense of the word.

Question: How can you possibly make a decent movie that's based  entirely around an inane sketch featuring two losers dancing in a night club?


Answer: You can't. But you can make A Night at the Roxbury and give millions of people simultaneous headaches and bouts of indigestion leading to outbursts of profanity and violence.

The film features crappy acting, ridiculous dialogue and a slapped together series of events trying to pass for a story all accompanied by one of the most aggravating soundtracks of all time. Luckily, SNL selected John Fortenberry, director of the cinematic masterpiece known as Jury Duty to take the helm. Somehow, all these elements combined to make a movie that totally sucked. The world's leading movie scientists still toil even today to determine what could have gone wrong.

2. The Patriot
You know, I thought the 2000 Mel Gibson movie The Patriot was pretty lame. It came across as yet another movie that takes American history and tries to turn it into the greatest story ever told filled with amazing heroic Americans fighting against vile, despicable forces. But compared to this Steven Seagal direct to video (his first) diarrhea , it's Citizen fucking Kane.

Now I know that Seagal isn't exactly known for fine cinema. I also know that direct to video very rarely equals anything close to good. So it may seem like I'm picking on a movie that doesn't really deserve it. Well, to that I say this: in even the worst crap that Seagal has made, it's reasonable to expect some decent action. Even in his prime, his fighting style is pretty slow and mechanical but it could still be made to look somewhat cool. And it's not like he was completely over the hill in 1998. But none of that actually matters because there is about as much action in this movie as there is lesbian sex in E.T..

But the movie does feature Seagal killing plenty of soldiers. Confused? Allow me to explain. He plays a doctor (who of course is also a weapons and self-defence specialist) trying to combat a  deadly virus released by a rogue militia. These geniuses realize that the vaccine they have for the virus doesn't actually work and now they're at risk too. Seagal is kidnapped and forced to come up with a working vaccine. But he can't seem to figure it out. Thus we get scene after scene of Seagal frowning over some beakers and shit then injecting sick soldiers, frowning some more as time passes, then REALLY frowning as he covers the now dead soldier with a sheet.

Eventually he discovers that some Native American herbal remedy is the answer. Some more junk happens, roll credits.

If you're wondering why I ever sat through this entire snoozefest it's because I kept telling myself that the action was going to start any minute now. And yes, before the end, he does kick and throw a few people but it's barely anything. It's easy to see why this didn't get a theatrical release considering Seagal was indulging his stupid desire to show how awesome and wise Native Americans are rather than just giving us what we want; that is, him killing lots of people. Although I have to say that watching him kill soldier after soldier by ineffectually trying to cure them is pretty amusing.


1. Pi
Unlike the rest of the movies on this list, this is one that actually has a good reputation. It holds down solid ratings on imdb and Rotten Tomatoes and has received some critical acclaim. It's Darren Aronofsky's directorial debut (he also wrote it) and of course he has gone on to be a very accomplished and respected director.

But....I....HATE Pi. I hate it. It doesn't just bore me, it unsettles me. It somehow makes me uncomfortable. Really, I hate to disappoint you and not really deliver with my number one but I just don't know what to say about this movie. I can't offer any valid arguments for why you should think it's a bad movie. I can't elucidate my thoughts into anything that would make a compelling case. I just know that I truly hate this movie. I hate everything about it: its concept, its look, its flow, its conclusion. Everything. I know it's regarded as an intelligent film but I remember actually feeling dumber after seeing it. I guess i just didn't "get it".

And you know what? I'm comfortable with that. Pi sucks. It sucks like a fucking vacuum cleaner in a black hole and it's the worst movie of 1998, period.

Looking Forward to E3 2011

I’m looking to start a tradition here at Five-O-Rama. Last year this time I wrote a list of what I was looking forward to at E3 2010. Well, here’s my list for E3 2011! I hope you enjoy.

5. Square Enix News

If you’re not aware, ol’ Squeenix has been seeing some hard times as of late. Yes, you read me right. The megalith company that could do no wrong, which fathered such classics as Final Fantasy VI, VII, Secret of Mana, Einhander - the list goes on – is in financial trouble.

In recent years the company that was Squaresoft did some amazing things. They published games that their fans wanted to play, and wouldn’t shy away from a title that might not fit the mould, like The Bouncer for instance. Their successes allowed them to join forces with the company that rivaled them in the RPG market, Enix – the creators of Dragon Quest - and most recently they acquired Eidos Interactive, the company that brought us Tomb Raider, Legacy of Kain and Deus Ex.

They may, however, have stretched themselves a little thin. The video game market isn’t what it used to be in Japan and even a massive company like Square Enix has had to change their methods. With the catastrophic failure of Final Fantasy XIV Online (you’ll have to look that one up, too much to go into here) and the strife that has recently struck Japan things aren’t looking great for the dynasty.

This year at E3 could be an opportunity to fix all of that.

What do I hope to see from them? Well, they’ve claimed that they’ve gone back to the drawing board with Final Fantasy XIV Online, and I think now would be a great time to show what they’ve reworked with that title. They shouldn’t rush it, however. That’s what got them into this mess in the first place.

Not so long ago some Internet-savvy individuals noticed that Squeenix had procured the domain name for Final Fantasy XIII-2 and since then the company has teased that they do plan a sequel to the love-it-or-hate-it title. I’m interested to see where they plan to go with it. Possibly something more traditional? That’s what I’m hoping.

I’d also like some more news on the forgotten game, Final Fantasy Type-0 for the PSP. Being a PSP fan, I’m always looking forward to a cool new game to play for it. Originally titled Final Fantasy XIII Agito, the game is part of the Fabula Nova Crystalis series of FF games (the others being FF XIII and FF Versus XIII) and not much else is known, except for some character profiles and screenshots. I’d like to know more!

Lastly there has been talk of a possible remake of Final Fantasy VI for the 3DS. This is in no way confirmed, and may in fact have just been a thought, but with popular remakes of Final Fantasy III and IV on the DS, it would make sense to take a look at FF V and VI for Nintendo’s newest handheld. I won’t hold my breath on this one, though.

4. Sony’s Next Generation Portable (NGP)

Although speculation of what was then called the “PSP2”, the successor to the Sony Playstation Portable, began as far back as 2009, it wasn’t until January of this year that Sony formerly announced the device they’ve codenamed the NGP or “Next Generation Portable”.

Screenshots of the handheld show it to look very much like the PSP, but with a huge (comparatively speaking) 5 inch OLED screen, a touchpad interface on the back, two analog joysticks and a new interface called LiveArea, which will replace the XMB screen used in the PSX DVR, PSP and PS3.

The format for this new device’s software has been changed as well. Nerfing the UMD (Universal Media Disk) format from the PSP, Sony plans to launch NVG cards as this system’s format. These cards are a proprietary size, but looks very much like a memory card format.

Probably the most striking aspect of the NGP is the 5 inch OLED (organic light emitting diode), which shows beautiful high resolution (possibly high definition) graphics. It’s claimed that the graphical output is comparable to that of the PS3, which has been highlighted by showing off Metal Gear Solid 4 running on the NGP hardware. The touchscreen on the back my be a cool new feature, but not much is known about it, so it’s yet to be seen if this is just a gimmick or a really cool innovation.

Sony sort of jumped the gun on releasing information about the NGP, probably because of the launch of the Nintendo 3DS, but still very little is known about the system except some specs and design. Rumoured to be titled the Playstation Vita, more is expected to be seen at E3 2011, including some launch titles and, finally, the system’s real name.

3. Resident Evil: Revelations

In 2005 Capcom released, to critical acclaim, Resident Evil 4 for the Gamecube and Playstation 2. It took the series in a completely new direction, not only in regards to the storyline, which no longer featured zombies as the main enemies, but in gameplay style. The player would now use an over-the-shoulder view when firing their weapon and there was less of a focus on puzzle elements, amongst other changes.

Although this new Resident Evil was welcomed, I – and I don’t think I’m alone on this – craved a “traditional” RE adventure. I know that those games sometimes don’t translate as well with younger generations, because of their hokey voice acting and tank controls, but there was something to using the storage boxes, having just enough ammo and figuring out crazy puzzles that are inexplicably strewn throughout an old mansion in the hillside.

Well, Capcom heard the cries of gamers like myself and have created an all-new original RE title for the Nintendo 3DS. Subtitled “Revelations” the game will take place between Resident Evil 4 and its sequel – the all-too action oriented – Resident Evil 5, in which we see the original protagonists, Chris Redfield and Jill Valentine, in an adventure that spans the gap between those titles.

The game will feature the style of gameplay seen in previous iterations of the series, but with new over-the-shoulder view when using your gun. It will also feature a third person view that allows players to run and shoot at the same time.

Capcom really listens to its fanbase when it comes to matters like this. They are always bringing back classics titles either in total remakes or all-out “retrofests” like Mega Man 9 and 10. I hope that Revelations lives up to the hype and is a great new Resident Evil with an old school feel.

2. Super Mario 3DS

Ah, Super Mario. Nintendo’s flagship franchise of course is returning to boost sales of their newest device, the 3DS. Of course, with the system being called the 3DS, the opportunity was there for Nintendo to return to the greatest Super Mario of them all, Super Mario Bros. 3.

If you’ve played New Super Mario Bros. or New Super Mario Bros. Wii then you know that Nintendo has returned to the SMB3/SMB World style of game a few times now, but Super Mario 3DS appears to be even more of a throwback to the themes of SMB3, most importantly Raccoon Mario.

At Games Developer Conference (GDC) 2011, Satoru Iwata – President of Nintendo – delivered the keynote address, which focused on the future of gaming. Of course, he couldn’t help but tease some future titles for the 3DS and showed the title for the new Super Mario release. On the title card you could clearly see a small tail hanging on the end, which Iwata quickly pointed out.

With the Internet abuzz, speculating that this would be a full remake of Super Mario Bros. 3 for the 3DS, Iwata and Shigeru Miyamoto – Game Director and Producer and creator of the Super Mario franchise – released some tidbits about the future game, explaining that it would be a cross of Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario 64. As to the appearance of the tail, Miyamoto-san said, “It’s what you think it is.”

The game is to be a completely new title, which appears to be a 3D platformer that follows the formula of the older Mario titles, that is Mario starts off small and becomes big when he uses a Super Mushroom. Also, with the talk of the “tail” it appears there will be other classic power-ups, such as Raccoon Mario.

Mostly anything else is speculation, although a few screenshots have been released. Iwata has stated, however, that all will be revealed this year at E3 2011!

1. Nintendo Project Café

You might call me biased, but the reality is I like all the video game systems. That said I have been a huge fan of Nintendo since I was a kid, and if they’re going to announce a new system, you better believe I’m going to be excited about it.

Although some people are surprised that a new home console system would be announced in 2011, if you follow Nintendo you’d see that they – since the SNES was released in 1990/91 – have released a new console every five years without failure. The blockbuster Nintendo Wii was released in 2006, so here we go again!

Nintendo does a great job of teasing their new stuff, and so the codename of their new system, Project Café, and some tidbits of info were leaked prior to this year’s E3, just to get everyone hyped about their announcement of the system on June 7th.

Many are calling it the Wii HD, but from all accounts this appears to be a misnomer. The new system from Nintendo isn’t intended to be a “sequel” to their smash hit system, but a completely new hardware giant that will succeed the Wii.

Nintendo has received some flak about the lack of “hard core” content for the Wii and it appears they’ve heard the criticisms. This new system is said to be as powerful or slightly better than the PS3 and Xbox 360, will have online play and a standard style of controller.

Of course that’s where the twist comes in.

As Nintendo has to have some driving innovation with their new console releases, the rumoured new feature for this system will be a small touchscreen on the controller itself. This leads to a lot of speculation as to its use, which I imagine could lead to many possibilities.

Rumoured to be called the Nintendo “Stream” or “Feel”, many expect that the second screen will work much like on a DS or 3DS, and will be a support screen. Also, there is the belief that some downloadable titles will have the option to be streamed to the controller and played on it solely.

I personally see this as an opportunity to support a DS or 3DS player on the new hardware. In the past Nintendo has released adapters that allowed gamers to play their handheld games on their current hardware. First there was the Super Gameboy for the SNES, then the Gameboy Player for the Gamecube. With the unique interface of the DS, this wasn’t possible on the Wii. With this new touchscreen on the controller of the Café it seems to me that Nintendo will be able to have this functionality built into their new home console.

This is also a golden opportunity to completely revamp their online visibility as a company. In the past “friend codes” and the like have kept online play with Nintendo’s systems in a weakened state, with a few titles like Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Mario Kart Wii having a small online following. This new system is a chance to catch up with Microsoft and Sony and release a totally new online capable system. The sky’s the limit really, but I’m envisioning something new, that will involve social networking for gamers, but we’ll just have to wait and see.

What else do I hope to see from Project Café? I’m hoping to see downloadable Gamecube titles to the system. It’s reported it will already have backward compatibility with the Wii, but being able to download some GC titles to the system doesn’t seem out of reach.

Rumours continue to fly about the system having a design to look like the SNES, or at least a retro feel, but there has been some leaked information (sorry about the music on that one) about the system, which may or may not be real, that contradicts this idea.

Usually I don’t lend credence to such speculation, but there have been multiple leaked videos that all show a very similar, if not dead on exact, console and controller of what could be Nintendo’s new system.

It appears to have a similar look to the Wii (as it stands on its side) and the controller mock-ups appear to have a screen, which may or may not be a touchscreen device.

All speculation aside, this system will usher in the eighth generation of home consoles. I can’t wait to see what they have planned for this system and if any of these rumours are true, but more importantly I’m excited to see what games they have in store. A new Mario? Probably. New Zelda? That might not be out of the realm of possibility. Twilight Princess was a launch title for the Wii as well as Gamecube game. Will Skyward Sword appear on both the Wii and Project Café? I guess we’ll just have to wait and see at E3 2011!

Expect to see my list of favourite announcements from the show in the coming weeks!