The Human Centipede Review: 3 times the Charm.

Ahh yes, The Human Centipede. No doubt you have at least heard of this disgusting, graphic depiction of an ER patient's worst nightmare, but few have really seen it (or at least been able to stomach all 90 minutes of it). For the few thousand of you that have heard of the film, there's a few hundred that have seen part of it, a few dozen that have seen it all, and about Six of you that have realized that it is, indeed, a film (Six being capitalized as an allusion, by the way). It's not like "Monsturd" or "Ghost in a Teeny Bikini;" The Human Centipede is an actual horror film with very little humor, camp or lack thereof, at any given moment.

Yes, the premise seems silly, and overall the film does feel a bit preposterous. While actually watching, however, you'll tend to forget how funny and joke-worthy the concept is because you'll be drawn in to what is actually a tremendously engaging, psychologically torturing thriller-horror film from director Tom Six. Of course, the film is gross, but graphically gory this film is not! Your imagination is put to great use in scenes where you might think the most horrific spectacles would be occurring.

Yet, despite how strongly I'm trying to convince you that this film should be taken as a serious horror film, the acting is laughably atrocious at most parts. This is, of course, completely foregoing Dieter Laser as the German Dr. Heiter, who steals the show in every scene. Then again, if you know anything about the film, you'll realize that half the main cast will have a hard time getting words out... considering the predicament surrounding their speaking orifices.

What you'll have to grasp before really delving into this film is, beyond its shallow gimmick and over-the-top premise, there lies an above-average horror flick. It has all the regular makings of what most of us would consider a decent "horror" (stupid American girls, machinery nonsensically ceasing to work, creepy antagonist, an Asian), and by typical genre conventions it definitely passes. What it lacks in story (and logically sound mentality) it more than makes up for with a fantastic villain and pure, giddy, suspense-ridden uneasiness. A good chunk of this uneasiness isn't even from the biological terror; it's just plain creepy. Dr. Heiter is, quite frankly, psychotic. Combine this wonderful psychosis with a brilliant ego maniacal "genius" mentality, and you have all the makings of villainy in German form. The extremely dehumanizing acts he forces his victims to perform and his complete lack of sympathy shine him in the perfect horror-villain light.

Unfortunately, he's not utilized to the best of his ability. I was on the fence for a while, debating with myself whether or not he worked better as a short, sweet villain or a crazed but well characterized antagonist who could've been explored much deeper and physically used much more creatively. I ended up landing on the latter, and you'll see what I mean by the end of the film. Aside from Dr. Heiter, however, there's a lot left to be desired when it comes to the other characters. They make ridiculously stupid decisions here and there, especially Katsuro (Akihiro Kitamura) at one pivotal point in the film. There's also a very restricted soundtrack here, so what you hear is all diegetic atmosphere. Mm mmmm.

The film also doesn't have your D-grade "jump out" scare tactics that stupid movies like to use. Its gross-out factor is certainly there, and you wouldn't be watching the film if it weren't for that. But luckily, the disgust level never devolves into stupidity like segments of Hostel or Saw do all too often. The film is just enough raunchy mayhem, and although it's definitely disturbing, that's exactly what it's aiming for. After watching, you can say you dislike the movie because it was "gross" or made you queasy, but that's like saying you disliked The Hangover because it made you laugh. A film like The Human Centipede has clear intentions, and when those intentions succeed, you have to give the film credit. There's nary a moment where you'll say "this is just ridiculous" because it just won't degrade to that level.

So yes, I recommend The Human Centipede if you're looking for a deviant to the monotonous garbage of Hollywood horror flicks being churned out every few weeks. It's fun, it's different, and it's suspenseful. It achieves everything it wants to, and while it's not perfect in any regard and won't win chains of awards for anything in particular, it's not the "stupid torture porn" you may be expecting.

7.5/10

-Kyle Shelton

Paranormal Activity 2 Review: If it's not Broken, don't Fix it... but Feel Free to Tweak It.

Paranormal Activity 2 (PA2) is a tricky film to review accurately; it really blurs too many lines and it a lot of ideas will simply come down to a difference of opinion/preference between people. Much like its predecessor, PA2 will divide a lot of audiences between completely loving it and thinking it's ridiculously scary and intense, hating it and think it was stupid from the start, or just liking it in general without really leaning in a "it's stupid" or "it's genius" way.
_________________________________


This review may contain mild spoilers.
_________________________________


To start off, if you weren't Paranormal Activity 1's biggest fan, you probably won't be transforming your hatred into love any time soon. PA2 builds upon the original premise with, essentially, the exact same formula. Then again, I wouldn't completely advise haters of the original to steer away from the sequel, considering it at least attempts quite a few new ideas and techniques that weren't present in the original.

The biggest addition is the series of surveillance cameras set up around the rather large house instead of just the one handy-camera like the original; however, note that there is also handy-camera footage in this installment just like the last one in addition to the stationary cameras. This idea and these scenes are brilliant and definitely add a new level of depth to the regular sequence; not only are there more scenes to take in, but they're being shot 24/7 and are never tampered with. Therefore, the scenes that are a bit obscured from the handy-camera footage are in full view, sound and all, with the surveillance cameras. Unfortunately, they're not really used to their full capacity; there are scenes where, for some unknown reason, a handy-camera is used to capture footage that is already being recorded, much more reliably, by the surveillance footage. The surveillance cameras were installed after an assumed "burglary" in the home, and are used to review whenever strange events occur, but when said strange events do occur, it takes a bit of time for anyone to realize or be coerced enough to actually look at the footage. Logically, that might be the first place you look when someone gets locked out of a house or, I don't know, hears a thunderous bang or alarmed barking of a watchdog somewhere away from your immediate attention. Also, one of the cameras virtually has no purpose, considering nothing ever happens in its point of view.

The next big additions are the elements of an infant character and an animal. These characters could go so many different ways and add completely new dimensions to the 2-similar-character didactic. This is a full-fledged family: mom, dad, daughter, baby son and dog and even a maid! The baby, Hunter, and dog, Abby, are extremely similar in that they see and experience certain things that no one else does or can (like seeing something otherwise invisible). This seems to be where their roles stop, though. Their only real purpose is to give you the chills when they react to something you nor the other characters can't see. Hunter's role is vital due to his relevance within the film's mythology; that is, PA2 and PA1 are connected in sequence and play into each other's plots. The dog, although lovable, is almost completely useless if she didn't give an excuse for a pivotal plot point to take place later. Both characters could've been utilized to a much greater effect, but were not. Hunter's very existence is for the shock value of having a baby being the main character in a a potentially violent, scary film.

The environments are more varied this time around, with a swimming pool being the most radical change. Again, none of the scenes are used to full potential with what could have been done; this rings especially true for Hunter's nursery, where a giant in-your-face-mirror (which provides opportunities aplenty for a horror film) is hardly utilized other than reflecting some scenery that seems harder to see due to the surveillance camera's placement.

Another important fact to note is that many scenes from the trailer(s), and I do mean many, are not included in the final product, or at least in the final product I viewed. I'm not entirely sure if audiences around the world are seeing the same exact film, so my opinion of the film may be skewed a bit.

The script is weak. Weak weak weak. Far too many scenes exist where certain pieces feel forced and extremely scripted in a context that's meant to feel the exact opposite. Lines feel downright corny and some scenes play out in a generically cliche manner. It's tough to deduce whether the actors are the ones screwing up with, well, bad acting, or if the writing was just pedestrian. Luckily, most of the scenes are actually acted out pretty well; anyone who might think the acting was awful should realize that these actors are most likely using their own personalities as models for their characters. Everything is supposed to be "realistic," more or less, and it tends to feel that way. This is largely due to the "normal" look of the actors; you won't see any caked up models or chiseled chins around here. The characters seem like perfectly normal people that you could/would encounter in every day life, and they react to situations in the same way many of us would. Then again, a good chunk of their reactions are questionable and a bit unrealistic, but unless you have encountered a demon in your home, you can't really pinpoint exactly how you would handle things.

This all being said, the scares are what PA2 will most heavily be judged upon, and thankfully scares abound in this sequel. Although many of the scary moments are simply startles, with some dynamic event taking place on-screen accompanied by some boisterous thud, there exist a few golden moments of sheer suspense. I'm not saying it takes overwhelming amounts of talent to have almost no noise present and then just smack the nearest hard object, but it does take talent to do it repeatedly and keep you drawn in. This is where PA's hate-it-or-love-it formula kicks in: within every static shot of a scene, you're basically playing a miniature game of "Where's Waldo?" except, of course, you're playing "Where's the Creepy Slowly Moving Thing in this Shot?" This will either try your patience or excite you upon seeing the quintessential Day/Date caption on a scene; personally, I enjoyed it. To me, it gives the viewer a bit of interactivity by, in a way, "playing along" with the film's formula. In the original PA, the only place you could really look closely for activity was the doorway, otherwise the action you needed to see would be blatant. In PA2, there are at least a few different pieces of each set to pay attention to, like something swaying from the ceiling, a doorway exposing a shadow or a mysterious light or wind emanating from a window. There's also a ton of foreshadowing and allusion, which is fun to catch when you see certain things later on. One of the biggest gripes I had with the first PA was that, although I loved it, it wasn't a very re-watchable film. It's great once and it's great to watch with the uninitiated, but the scares become contrived and there's only so many times you'll jump at something. With PA2, this is practically the same idea, but at least there's a few things here and there to look out for. Another crucial element of the PA series is a somewhat ironic one in that waiting and closely listening are the most exciting parts of the film. Just because nothing is actually going on on-screen doesn't mean nothing is happening in your mind or within your attention span.

All in all, PA2 isn't any sort of triumphant victory as far as sequels or horror films go, but it's definitely a good sign for the series. It utilizes enough new material, albeit not to its full potential, to at least draw in audiences and get you talking. It's still just as suspenseful and the ending is just as, if not more brutal and poignant than PA's. In order to truly enjoy the film, it's necessary to put yourself in the film's atmosphere and not just anticipate the gimmicks. Believe that the film is recovered footage from a haunted house and believe these characters do exist and, most importantly, don't expect anything specific to happen once the nighttime scenes take place. You must also remember that part of the fear of anything paranormal-related is the whole mystery behind it. Forget how any events occur or even why the phantasm is performing them and be more concerned with the fact that anything "spooky" in the film is even happening at all. Follow all these steps, and you'll most certainly enjoy the film for what it is as it helps usher in a new brand of horror films.

8.0/10
-Kyle Shelton

The Social Network Review: Socially Awkward is the new Cool.

I'm going to be honest: The Social Network was getting rave reviews way before it was even approaching its release date. Buzz about it being this year's Best Picture and all that jazz were already working their way through the media, and no one had even seen the film. Of course, this is largely due to the film's relevance: that is, it's 100% relevant. The film is about Facebook, I mean, who doesn't have a Facebook? Your grandmother probably has a Facebook and doesn't even know about it.

If your grandmother suffers from Alzheimers, and this is why she doesn't know she has Facebook, I deeply apologize for the misunderstanding.

And thus! The Social Network is born from famed director David Fincher and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, starring Jesse Eisenberg of Zombieland fame as the "protagonist," if you will, Mark Zuckerberg. Social Network is a modern story of how that blue thing on our computers that we hate and love came to be, and how much trouble Mr. Zuckerberg got into while producing it. If anything, The Social Network is an allegory for almost any "unknown father" scenario, starring Mark Zuckerberg as the troubled mother and Facebook as the emotionally scared child...

Bad analogies aside, The Social Network is most certainly a work of art. Just because I got hype left and right about it for so long doesn't mean I was immediately going to dismiss it. In any case, Social Network has impeccable pacing, one of the best scripts I've ever experienced, and an extremely talented cast, making it one of this year's best films by far.

The story follows Facebook from its baby steps all the way to when it became the world-wide phenomenon we know today. The path of a Facebook is a trying one, however; the film is framed within two separate lawsuits. One revolves around the idea that Mark completely stole the concept of "Facebook" from two brothers and their friend while seemingly working on that same project for them. Without them knowing, Mark developed his own code and invented what he wanted to, claiming that he didn't steal the idea but simply improved upon it. Of course, he wouldn't dare give any ownership to the other party, considering they had nearly no input on his project.

The other lawsuit is between Zuckerberg and long-time best friend and business partner Eduardo (Andrew Garfield). I don't want to spoil why there's a lawsuit there in case you haven't heard Facebook's history, but this is really the more important of the two framing plots and the more interesting by a long shot.

I have no idea what Mark Zuckerberg is like in real life, but as a cinematic character, I loved him. He's cold, he's witty, he's relentlessly insulting and he plays by his own rules. Eisenberg definitely puts the "cool" in "school" with his portrayal of the antisocial mega nerd, and you may hate him and yet want to be him at the same time. Endearing performances abound from the rest of the cast, however, including Garfield and even Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker, the fictional version of Shawn Fanning, founder of Napster. There exists very little input in the film from female roles, however, which may strike some as strange. The only real female characters are Brenda Song as Eduardo's crazy (but relatively unimportant) girlfriend, Christy and The Office's Rashida Jones as Marylin, a lawyer-to-be who sits in on the lawsuit between Mark and Eduardo and gives some commentary from time to time. Otherwise, this is a boys only movie; the film almost treats women as just objects (if it weren't for a female-empowering scene at the very end of the film).

But I digress, all the quips from Zuckerberg are quick strikes. He insults and defends himself with ease, and makes looking like a nerd who creates a multi-billion dollar empire by the age of 26 a breeze. As alienating as he may be, he's likable and pretty relatable; other than being the bearer of a 298,441 IQ, he's just a regular college kid like many of us are, have been, or will be. He eternally strives to meet girls, and he likes to feel invincible and completely independent. This side of him becomes attached to us, while his Harvard background is the part we get to see unfold on-screen. His best buddy Eduardo is a bit more accessible, being the guy who just wants acceptance in a world where acceptance is hard to come by. The two come together to create "The Facebook" and both of their lives spiral out of control, for better and for worse.

Then Mr. Timberlake chimes in as the founder of Napster, and the plot finally sets in. Sean Parker is your typical slick big-wig formal-casual attire-donning businessman. He edges himself into the Facebook craze and becomes a pretty big stock-owner, becoming Mark's most loyal and trusted business adviser.. a position originally belonging to Eduardo.

The personal connections and interactions between the main characters seem real at times, yet soulless at others. If I had to say this film was missing something (other than dinosaurs and a series of explosions), it's a soul. The cinematography, as a whole, is very Harvard-feeling in that everything looks pristine and as close to perfect as possible. Aside from sets taking place at the actual Harvard campus like dorm rooms, classrooms, libraries and gyms, boardrooms are another recurring set, giving everything a "boring" feeling to them. It's a bit difficult to explain, because the film is by no means "boring" but it has that upper-class snooty feel to it, a feel that it pretty much needs to have. This may be why scenes taking place at a nightclub or a pool feel so much out of place, considering things in these scenes are much more hectic than the normal feeling of Harvard. The film definitely shoots for these feelings directly and never misses a mark, which isn't what makes this film "soulless" at certain points... it's the rare far and few moments of happiness anyone ever feels at any given point. Mark is a pretty stoic character and rarely shows emotion to begin with, and Sean gets relatively animated and excited at every turn, but since you're also following the footsteps of Eduardo, he never seems to be complacent with any event, even ones that should get him extremely excited. It almost seems that for every great thing, there's at least an equally terrible occurrence that keeps every character from achieving their nirvana.

All in all, The Social Network is viewed as defining a generation. This is both true and false; although it accurately depicts a lot of college life and emphasizes the theme of interconnectivity between people, it never really hits the nail on the head. I only wish that The Social Network had a few more emotional feelings and scenes as well as focusing on people as a whole rather than just a few and just Harvard... but this is a small gripe at most. The Social Network is, as I stated, a work of art. Facebook is what has defined a generation, and a film chronicling it from start to its current peak in popularity isn't a film to be missed.

9.0/10
-Kyle E. Shelton

Let Me In Review: Let this One In.

A little, charming Swedish vampire flick called "Let the Right One In" was released about two years ago. You probably haven't heard of it because, you know... it's Swedish. Regardless, "Let the Right One In" was a spellbinding fantasy romance, a version of Twilight done the right way. Scary, chilling yet emotionally wrought, it received critical and mild commercial success as well as a cult following.

"Let Me In," the American remake from Cloverfield director Matt Reeves, was a highly anticipated film among most critics and anyone who has seen the original, but it fell under much speculation. Remakes, especially our fantastically product-placed  money-mongering American ones, tend to do the original film less justice.

Well, my fellow moviegoers, Let Me In matches the superiority of its predecessor to the tee. In fact, I really only liked the American version better simply for the fact that it's in English and I don't have to draw my attention to those pesky subtitles diverting my attention.

Thus, Let Me In tells the tale of a boy and a girl who fall in love in a small New Mexico town. The boy, Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee), is a troubled and constantly bullied kid who fantasizes about exacting revenge upon those who cross his path. Alas, his fantasies do not come to fruition as he would have hoped, and he is ever-wedgied and emasculated at every turn. One dark, cold, snowy night, he meets a girl his same age named Abby (Kickass star, Chloe Moretz), who immediately informs him that they cannot be friends. However, as nights pass, they increasingly become closer and closer to eachother, until finally Abby confronts Owen about his feelings for her.

Spoiler: Abby is a vampire.

Ok, that wasn't really a spoiler, you're probably aware from trailers and hype that there's a vampiric little girl engaging in vampiric-little-girl shenanigans, and considering she's really the only "little" girl you see, you should have guessed. If you didn't, shame on you.

The original story (adapted from the also Swedish book "Let the Right One In" by John Ajvide Lindqvist) penned by Reeves is where the film shines. Think Twilight, back in time, reversed, and without metrosexual werewolves, and that's the essential plot of Let Me In. However, there's much more to it; visually, the film is equally as striking, presented in an extremely harsh, cold setting with backdrops consisting of bleak and dreary set pieces such as a boarded up apartment, a living room with a drunken sleeping mother lit only by a television and the eerie scene of a forest against a chilling nighttime sky.

What you see on-screen drains your emotion and happiness little by little, with interspersed moments of biting intensity (much like a vampire might do, aye?). The story, though, is where your emotion is brought back. Although neither Owen nor Abby may be instantly relatable characters, you grow to like and eventually love them. Owen, initially, is your typically atypical school outcast. He has no friends, no life and is going nowhere, all while his parents are working through a troubling divorce. This is made apparent immediately, which is why the relationship between him and Abby is so poignant, especially when they first start to hit it off.

Really, I've never seen the genres of romance and horror come together (in general) or so neatly. The love between Owen and Abby is beautifully intertwined with the horror behind Abby's true identity and lifestyle. In fact, you end up becoming more scared of their relationship dwindling or being immediately cut off rather than any sort of grisly scene of violence; however, those grisly scenes of violence are ever so wonderful. The film has all the scares you need: immediate (BOO!), emotional ( aw =[ ) and atmospheric (oooo). The cinematography (Greig Fraser), if nothing else, deserves an Oscar all on its own. Owen himself is actually pretty adorable, and his performance can be appreciated from any angle: because he's cute, because he's creepy, or just because he's heartbreaking. Chloe Moretz of Kickass fame as Hit-Girl reprises another violent, dark role, and she doesn't miss a beat. She's just as endearing as she is standoffish. Both characters have an uncanny sense of fragility absent in many adult-films starring children, and that's where they truly come through.

And so, Let Me In is easily in the running for Best Picture this year, and my personal favorite of 2010 thus far. Charming performances, absolutely beautiful photography, an excellent script and just that hint of originality garner "Let Me In" access to anyone's homes and hearts.

10/10
-Kyle E. Shelton

Resident Evil: Afterlife Review: The Afterlife is going to Suck.

Dear 3D,

Hey. I have a problem with you. You seem to be obnoxiously popping your head in every place you can without any regard for the movies you taint so terribly. Just because Avatar ended up being a great 3D experience doesn't mean every film will be a great 3D experience. Just because things pop out at you and it feels like you can grab them doesn't mean it will enhance the film in any way. Just because movie studios think a bunch of people paying $5-10 extra to look like mental clinic patients all in the same room with gigantic, impractical eye-glasses is hilarious doesn't mean we think it's hilarious.

...yet I will still continue to fall for the cheap gimmick every time.

However, this doesn't mean I won't rant in rage against any 3D film that abuses that extra dimension advantage over other films every chance I get. I'm talking about the new Resident Evil: Afterlife film, also known as The Matrix 4: Zombie Slaying Women in Tight Clothing directed by Zack Snyder.

TM4:ZSWiTC was a bit of a letdown, 3D. Sure, the film itself was pretty bad, but your slow motion and blatantly amateur level of 3D layering was extremely offensive to me. At any point in the film, I could've taken off the dual picture frames hugging my face and visibly noticed exactly where the post-production team cut off 3D effects and started them. Tsk tsk, shame on you.

TM4:ZSWiTC isn't the first film to abuse you, though, but it's only in a long-running list that's starting to undermine what you COULD be. Avatar did you right; hell, even Toy Story 3 used you to great advantage. Even Piranha 3D was praised by critics, specifically for the your inclusion. Perhaps you should start attributing yourself to more meaningful and highly-regarded media... once Pride and Prejudice is remade for a 3D revival, you might get the attention you deserve. Run with it, 3D. Just run with it...

Unfortunately, you're stuck with films like TM4:ZSWiTC. Let me expound on what made this film so bad and perhaps you'll know what not to do from now on.

TM4:ZSWiTC is a cheap, clingy whore. You pay your money to get your thrills, and once you're done, you feel like you need to see a doctor as fast as possible. Also, she's a bit predictable. I'll say I pretty much called 90% of all important... er, "important" plot developments in the film. Too much in TM4:ZSWiTC was just completely unnecessary, like the adorable little Asian intern who literally does NOTHING. No. Thing. His inclusion in the movie is unbeknownst to me to this point in my life. I don't care that I'm spoiling this for you, but he's killed off about halfway through just to let everyone else in the room know that there miiiiiiiiiiiiiight be danger afoot. The plot mirrors the plot of Extinction in terms of characters, considering Alice is by herself being awesome, then encounters a group of survivors whom don't all survive, then she leads them to safety and freedom only to be put in danger once again and leave a ridiculous cliffhanger at the end. Also, if TM4:ZSWiTC was played at a normal rate, the movie would probably be an hour long. So many slow motion sequences end up proving that "too much of a good thing" is a terrible thing. The Matrix did it right; TM4:ZSWiTC is abusive.

So when it comes down to it, Resident Evil: Aft- I mean TM4:ZSWiTC - ends up being typical. Nothing new or inventive, nothing memorable, nothing truly spectacular. This will most likely be known as the Saw IV of the Resident Evil series (and don't tell me you remember anything from Saw IV, because you don't).

Sincerely with a 4/10,
Kyle Shelton

The Last Exorcism Review: There's a Reason it's the LAST.

Let's face it... Eli Roth isn't any sort of mastermind of the movies or cinematic genius. He made Hostel. People like seeing their own kind being ripped apart to pieces. Therefore, people liked Hostel. The general public can't really pin anything else on Eli Roth other than torture porn, and yet he slapped his name on this rather gore-less film entitled "The Last Exorcism." It's still beyond me why he attached his name to it... I would assume just to get some money and publicize it more.

But I digress. The Last Exorcism is a mockumentary-style film about a pastor named Cotton (Patrick Fabian) who tries to prove that exorcisms as a whole are a hoax. So he hires a cameraman and director/producer/boom operator/only-logical-person, Iris (Iris Bahr) to follow him as he attends to a request to exorcise a young girl named Nell (Ashley Bell). He sets up an elaborate and staged exorcism in her room when no one's looking and fakes an exorcism for her, but events take a turn for the worst when everyone figures out... it didn't work. Then the story delves into some sort of conspiracy where the whole demonized girl might be fake, might be real, might be a cover-up, she might have a mental disorder... point is, you have no idea what's going on.

First of all, as I've pointed out in at least one other review (for my loyal following of about 3 people), I hate nondiegetic sound/music in a horror film. To me, the point of being scared is putting yourself in the shoes of the main character or whatever victim is being shown; that person you're trying to live vicariously through is not hearing screeching violins and Jaws-esque suspense music... and the fact that filmmakers throw that in to scare you is cheap. Cheap cheap cheap. Which brings me to my next point:

The Last Exorcism is a mockumentary. Think movies like Cloverfield and Blair Witch Project; it's another entry into the shaky-cam, lost footage genre of filming we're seeing more and more of... but there's post-produced sound effects, music and editing weaved in. I guess whoever found this lost footage decided to try and win an Oscar before submitting it to, I don't know, the police?

To the film's credit, it's certainly at least a little fresh, inventive and creative. There's a scene involving Cotton trying to make a room seem possessed which is priceless because it essentially mocks the very genre it's trying to be. This also isn't your typical "there's something behind you" horror film either; in fact, it doesn't have many scares at all. It's more of a suspense-driven film for about 99% of it. All in all, it would be a love-it-or-hate-it kind of situation, if it weren't for the worst movie ending/twist of all time. I won't spoil it for the sake of anyone who still wants to see it, but the ending is just plain awful. It's contrived and almost offensive to the viewer, leaving you brain-f***ed with so much as a "You're an idiot" sign off line. Seriously.

Through its few fun moments and intriguing ideas, The Last Exorcism fails miserably within the last few minutes. I didn't like it overall, but I would've have at least respected its existence were it not for the ending. Ashley Bell is instantly likable, though, and I wouldn't be surprised to see her floating around a few future projects here and there, but she's the only savior for this satanic suck-fest.

3/10
-Kyle Shelton

Salt Review: Left me Dry.

Who is Salt?

That’s a mighty fine question to pose, movie poster. I’m still not entirely sure who Salt is, except that I know she just wants to be the “good guy.”
Thus, Hollywood has churned out yet another relatively shallow “blockbuster” star vehicle by the name of “Salt.”

The story, to the best of my ability to comprehend, is about a woman named Evelyn Salt (Angelina Jolie, as if you didn’t know) who’s accused of being a Russian sleeper agent in the U.S. She leads a normal life as a good ol’ American citizen working for the C.I.A. when a Russian man named Orlov (a man whose name I’m just too lazy to look up) is captured and interrogated. Upon this interrogation, he spills the beans that Salt is a Russian spy and that she’s going to kill the Russian President when he comes to visit America on behalf of the American Vice President’s death. Oh, and she has a husband who is really into spiders, whose existence in the film is almost completely useless save for one pivotal point about halfway through. That's just shoddy writing, and is about as close to a deus ex machina as you can get without literally being called a deus ex machina.

Anyway, as you can guess, she runs away and everyone in America is out to get her. Her bff Ted (Liev Schrieber) plays dumb throughout the entire chase and truly believes that Salt is innocent.

Of course, until she tries to assassinate the President of Russia. AT A CHURCH of all places. She really knows how to put the "fun" in "funeral."

But I digress, scenes like that are what make Salt a deliciously fun film. Campy at times, Salt is enthralling, and with a tagline like "Who is Salt?" you'd have to be a complete idiot not to realize that there's going to be at least one huge twist in the film. Then you discover that there's about 4. Then you come to terms with the fact that Salt goes from being really cool and slick to just ridiculous.

SPOILER:
Why is it ridiculous? Just like the "SPOILER" in all caps reads, you may not want to read this paragraph. If you're still reading, you've been warned. The point where boy-next-door Ted decides to go Postal and SMG the bejesus out of EVERYONE in the President's war room is when I just felt violated and confused. The twist was interesting (if not foreseeable), but it went way too over the top. I'm a fan of over the top. In fact, my favorite action movie of all time is Grindhouse and it really doesn't get more over the top than that. But you're telling me than a man who's entrusted with sitting next to the President of the United States in a confined and highly isolated room while launching nuclear warheads at any country he so chooses can just waltz around and shoot every single person in there without so much as a scratch on his knee?
:END OF SPOILER

Anyway, Salt has its moments of boldness when it comes to how far it is willing to push you until you finally say "Okay, really?" That has nothing to do with how she defies physics as she seamlessly jumps from car to car on a busy highway... it's all in terms of story. A man whom the Central INTELLIGENCE Agency is believed to be a foreign terrorist cannot just walk into their headquarters armed with a knife, kill two of their finest employees, then just walk out never to be heard from again. That just doesn't happen.

Jolie does a fine job with the script she's given, and she should be commended. She still stands as one of our favorite Femme Fatales in the movie biz, and she's not losing that status any time soon. Then again, it's hard for anyone to remember a tried and true "good" movie she's been in that wasn't all hyped up just because she was the star. Salt is yet another cinematic endeavor that comes out during Summer, people will most likely love for a week, and then be forgotten in the disarray of past Summer action blockbusters we all dearly knew. That's pretty much all there is to it. Salt is great the day you see it, pretty good the following week, then it's easily replaced by another film of the exact same quality.

Salt is a gimmick. It's not necessarily bad by any means of the word, but it just won't transcend any standards or become the new "Die Hard" franchise we should be so ready for. It hardly does anything new, its main driving force is Jolie and the only reason anyone will "like" the film enough to refer it to friends is because it presents several twists that some of us will see coming a mile away and some of us will suspend our disbelief long enough to pretend we didn't see it coming a mile away. From an action standpoint, Salt was frenetic and fun in all the right places. From any other standpoint, Salt falls flat.

-Kyle Shelton
5.0/10

More New Pokemon Revealed and Confirmed for “Black and White.”

Gochiruzeru – Psychic type

This seems to be the new generation “Jynx” –esque Pokemon for us to look forward to. So far, the only real humanoid monsters we’ve been introduced to are Mr. Mime, Jynx, and their baby counterparts, but aside from looking pretty human-ish, it’s even a Psychic type. I’m not sure why all the human-looking Pokemon have to be Psychic types… but regardless, she looks cool enough and is apparently based off of a crazy Gothic trend sweeping Japanese teenagers, according to Pokecharms.com.

Kibago – Dragon type

Kibago seems to be the new Dratini or Gible of this next generation. Being a Dragon type, you can already bet that its evolutions are going to be monstrous and pretty badass, especially from the tusks and shark fin it retains on its head. You can also bet it’ll be a complete pain to raise, if experience with other 3-stage Dragon type Pokemon serves as any evidence.

Koromori – Psychic/Flying type

Some think that this peculiar creature, Koromori, will be the new Zubat. I think this can’t possibly be true because Zubat was a Flying/Poison type, and it was extremely lame. I’m not going to say Koromori looks like an awesome end-all laser-firing tank Pokemon or anything, but the simple fact that it’s a Psychic type serves as good debate against the “Zubat” idea. However, it very well could be the next lame cave-Pidgey… but I wouldn’t think it just because it has a bat demeanor.

Minezumi – Normal type

Might this be our new Rattata or Poochyena or Sentret? It’s a possibility, but I’ve gotta say that Minezumi looks a heck of a lot cooler than those 3 Pokemon combined. It’s beady and furious looking red eyes combined with its militant stance demonstrate that this might be more than your average 2-stage field prowler… albeit just might be your average 2-stage field prowler, but it draws me in way more than say lame Rattata ever did.

Musharna – Psychic type

Out of all the new Pokemon on this list to be revealed, Musharna seems to be the most innovative in terms of new features. Being based on the tapir, Musharna has an ability known as “Dream Smoke” which somehow connects with the global Pokemon community and will allegedly allow players to upload their saved games to the network, allowing for multiple, simultaneous games to be played and saved. If this is true, then all hail Nintendo for FINALLY letting you save more than one Pokemon game. I know the games are pretty massive and all, but it sucks that you get so invested in one sit-through, just to start the thing over and lost everything you’ve acquire unless you buy another Pokemon game or, gasp, have friends.

Ranculus – Psychic type

There’s not too much to speculate here; Ranculus seems to be a tiny Psychic type Pokemon who will, no doubt, evolve into something much bigger and badder. Its design is surely creative, though, being based on our single-celled organism companions that lurk pretty much everywhere.

Wargle – Flying type

Now Wargle is who I’m really excited for (and conveniently is last in this alphabetical list I made). There’s speculation that Wargle might be in Spearow’s family tree; in other words, this might be an alternate evolution of Spearow (I don’t know why anyone would prefer Fearow over this awesome and patriotic Pokemon, though), or a 3rd stage evolution past Fearow. Nothing is really known yet, though. My bet is that it’s most likely like Skarmory, just a cool Flying-type that stands on its own with no evolutionary track. I’m okay with either way, though. It’s rare to see a Pokemon that looks like it could’ve come from 1st Generation in terms of design, but Wargle looks like it certainly could’ve and it looks like a Pokemon I probably would’ve had in my favorites.

Always Say Always: Another Child Actor Enters the Music Scene: Jaden Smith

Justin Bieber is quite the polarizing artists. Some hate him. Some (aka every 14 year old girl) love him. Some hate him and love his music (me).

Well his most recent collaboration is karate chopping its way to the airwaves. "Never Say Never" is a song produced by The Messengers and performed by Justin Bieber and The Karate Kid star, Jaden Smith. It serves as a "theme song" for the film, but most never really heard it till recently when it started charting on the Billboard top 100. Debuting at number 96 this past week, "Never Say Never" is a surefire hit, featuring the automatic chart-topper Mr. Bieber as well as the unorthodox but surely welcome guest rapper, Jaden Smith.

Check the song out in my sidebar. I've added an auto-play playlist chronicling my ever-changing personal music chart. Never Say Never is in the #2 position, just below Eminem and Rihanna's exceptional "Love the Way you Lie" and just above The White Tie Affair's Summer party anthem "You Look Better when I'm Drunk." Let me know what you think!

Despicable Me Review: More Amicable than Despicable.

We, as a movie-watching community, tend to believe that if an animated film isn’t produced by Pixar or Dreamworks, that it’s bound to be awful. Most times, you’d be correct; anything that isn’t Shrek, How to Train your Dragon, or Toy Story seems to fall ill-fated to both commercial and critical torment.
Then a film like “Despicable Me” arises from the ashes of its fallen brethren and takes everyone aback. Produced by Universal (as you might be able to tell from the NBC logo popping up every few scenes) and NOT Pixar or Dreamworks, Despicable Me ends up being a fresh, funny and creative little title that will surprise most audiences.

Starring Steve Carrell as the “evil” protagonist, Gru, Despicable Me tells the story of the aforementioned hero/villain trying to outdo a competing villain named Vector. After Vector steals one of the Great Pyramids, Gru sets out to steal… well, what else? The moon, of course.

This isn’t enough of a plot, however. Three little girls, Margo, Edith and Agnes are thrown into the foray. Orphaned at a young age, they work for their house mother Ms. Hattie selling cookies door-to-door like girl scouts. Upon discovering that Vector has a extremely valuable and vital shrink ray in his fortress and that he loves “coconutties” cookies, Gru adopts the three little girls and plants tiny robots in Vector’s home as they sell him his favorite treat. Thus, you have two simultaneous, competing storylines contending with eachother for your attention. Do you care more about Gru’s success as the world’s most infamous villain or for the three little girls’ desire to be wanted in the world?

Both. You will care about both. At their centers, each plots revolves around the characters (Gru and the three girls) looking for acceptance in a world that hasn't been so kind to them up till this point. Both of these plots end up skimming each other throughout the film, but never really intertwine till about the third act. They’re well paced for the most part, but the girls enter Gru’s life in a heartbeat, exit in a heartbeat, then come back in… the same heartbeat. That loving relationship between Gru and the girls seems a bit rushed at parts, and this is mainly due to the dual storylines. Both of these plots are fairly linear and predictable for the most part… it’s all mushy cutesy kiddy fodder, but it’s still pretty funny and rarely resorts to the low-brow 5 year old humor that many, even “adult” films, seem to over-utilize.

The one truly redeeming quality of the film, however, is the group of characters, particularly Gru, Margo and Agnes. Gru, in fact, is just a fantastically made character, from his physical appearance to his psychology and mindset. He’s the lovable and equally hate-able(?) character. From the get-go, you’ll be rooting for him… and you won’t know why. An opening scene of his demonstrates his villainy as he shapes a dog out of a balloon and gives it to a child who just dropped his ice cream… then pops it and walks away unapologetically. For some reason, though, you just love him, similar to the way you might love a character like Jack Sparrow who is basically a greedy, selfish antihero who wins over your heart in the end. Then you have Agnes, the youngest of the three girls, who is lovable just for the sake of being lovable. She has big eyes and a silly demeanor, with an obsession with unicorns. If she doesn’t have you sold in the first half of the film, wait for the carnival scene where she eyes a gigantic, “fluffy” unicorn that she desperately wants. Agnes is the oldest (albeit, still relatively young) sister of the three orphans, and while she’s not particularly adorable or exciting, she keeps the other two in check. She’s a safety net for the emotionally unstable and young Agnes, and the calm, mature version of the usually rambunctious middle-child Edith.

Unfortunately, though, Gru is the only character who's given an inkling of a back-story. While there's no concrete reasoning for why he loves being "evil," he has a reason for trying to outdo himself and others repeatedly, and that's the lack of acceptance and pride from his mother; this is the main driving force for most of Gru's actions and his eventual love of the three orphans, other than typical family-movie formula. Nothing is said of the three little girls' past and why/how they're orphaned, Vector has no real motive behind anything he does except to appease daddy, and there's an almost useless twist about 3/4 of the way through that in no way alters the plot. There's also a lack of a father figure in Gru's life which... doesn't account for anything either.

What Despicable Me ultimately ends up lacking is depth. Everything about the movie is adorable, which may win you over in the short-run... but this isn't a film you're ever going to go out of your way to show to someone. No one will ever really say "Oh em gee you have to see Despicable Me, it's soooooo0o0o good!" With good reason, of course; as lovable as it is, it's purely forgettable. I've come across an article online stating that Illumination Entertainment is already working on a sequel. As much as I love Gru, the story doesn't need a sequel; rather, Gru needs his own, independent movie. Despicable Me is all sheen and no shimmer, you fall in love with the looks and not the personality. This isn't to say that it's an awful movie beneath its cuteness by any means, but this really could have been a heavy contender against any of Pixar's works had it developed a more deep back-story, less cosmetic focus and more focus on the smarter comedy than the slapstick. The Minions, Gru's numerous, short yellow henchmen, really steal the show here, for no other reason than their 3 Stooges-esque humor.

Despicable Me is beautifully animated and conceptualized, but the execution beyond that is just a tad bit flawed.

7.5/10
-Kyle Shelton

Toy Story 3 Review: Never Leave this Toy Behind.

Rarely do films get the recognition of being “perfect” in anyway whatsoever. Even more rare does a series of films gain the same accolade. Pixar, however, is the one studio that I would expect to see a perfect film and/or film series emerge. Toy Story is one of those films that you just might have grown up with, whether you were a child, a teenager, or even a parent who watched it with your family. No matter the age when you first saw Toy Story, chances are you instantly fell in love with the concept and all the characters; doesn’t hurt that it was the first computer generated feature film ever.

Up from the first Toy Story came Toy Story 2, equally beloved on almost every possible standpoint. Now, to be honest, I have only seen Toy Story 2 once and that was when it first came out… when I first watched it, I didn’t particularly enjoy it all too much. This may not be fair, though, because I probably didn’t know how to appreciate things as much when I was 10 years old. Still enjoyed it, but not nearly as much as the first.

Fast-forward ELEVEN years (yes, it’s been that long), and the final addition to the Toy Story saga is released to the masses on June 18, 2010.

Ever so rarely, ever so once-in-a-blue-moon does a film come around that garners that “perfect” emblem… and Toy Story 3 is that once-in-a-blue-moon movie.

To nitpick at Toy Story 3 is just like picking off pepperoni from your pizza, even though you love pepperoni pizza. Maybe there was just too much of it at any given point… and that might be the only real drawback of Toy Story 3.

The story deals with a lot of different themes, most notably the leaving of childhood toy connoiseur, Andy, to college. After turning 17, he leaves no room in his life for his toys, and thus has to choose between storing them in his attic, donating them to a day care center, or just throwing them away. Events lead to all of your favorite Toys from the other 2 films being sent to Sunnyside Day Care where they can be played with by infinite generations of children for eternity. However, a certain evil lurks behind Sunnyside as a tyrannical bear named “Lotso” (Ned Beatty) who tricks the Toys into living a miserable life tormented by ultra hyper, messy toddlers. Woody (Tom Hanks) ends up being the only Toy that Andy decided to bring along to college, but when he realizes what is happening to his fellow plastic companions, he risks everything to help them.

So I’m just going to get any negative things I have to say out of the way first (here comes the nitpicking). A lot of sequences in Toy Story 3 are cliché, simple. Too often you’ll be predicting exactly what will happen next and what will happen in the long-run. Plenty of scenes are also “been-there, done-that” scenes like typical cliffhangers and multiple twists occurring within a 5-minute timeframe. It also definitely feels a tad bit formulaic at times, which is mostly due to the predictability of it all.

Now I’m done being a jerk and beating up the kid everyone loves. Toy Story 3, while “formulaic,” is classically told and immensely engaging. From pulse-pounding start to heartwarming finish, you’re not going to want to leave your seat for even a second. All the characters you know and love are back, namely Woody, Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), Rex (Wallace Shawn), Hamm (John Ratzenberger), Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head (Don Rickles and Estelle Harris), Slinky (Blake Clark) Jessie (Joan Cusack) and Bullseye… and, of course, the Pizza Planet martians.

It takes considerable skill to deftly blend elements of romance, horror, drama, action, comedy and elements of satire and perfect-pitch tongue-in-cheek parody, but Toy Story 3 managers all of this with near-perfection. It really is astounding in and of itself that Pixar can keep churning out ridiculously successful films, both critically and commercially, without missing a beat. Of course, all this mastery draws from one key sources, and that’s simply the lovability of all the characters. Each one has its own distinct personality and enough nuances to distinguish themselves apart so clearly. It’s hard to just pick one to be your favorite (although with a gun to my head I’d certainly say Rex), and that whole feeling just emanates love for the rest of the film.

Of course, Toy Story 3 introduces a slew of new characters, including a fantastic villainous bear and a metrosexual Barbie (Jodi Benson) matchup named… well, who other than Ken (Michael Keaton)?

Once you get passed how much you love any given character at any point in time, you realize that the story is perfectly paced and really pulls the punches when it comes to emotions. You’ll cry, you’ll gasp, you’ll laugh and you’ll cheer and you’ll have way too much fun doing it. Then again, this is Pixar… this studio just knows people. It knows how to make people exert all these actions at just the right time. Whatever stars aligned to bring together the development team behind Toy Story need to align more often (and fast, considering they’re apparently making a Cars sequel… not that there’s anything wrong with Cars, but it wasn’t my favorite Pixar feature and it boggles my mind that they’re making a sequel to what is probably the least successful Pixar film yet).

I digress. The action sequences in Toy Story 3 are intense, and there’s one point toward the end of the film that almost every single possible emotion to emote will be emoted emotionally. I can’t tell you what it is, of course, but it’s truly a moment of enlightenment. The last 10 minutes or so are really what get to you… for all of us college kids out there, the overall theme rings true and close to the heart, beset only by the fact that we grew up with this fantastic series and we must now see it end. ‘Tis a bittersweet ending, though, considering how extraordinarily beautiful the film is, both to the eyes and to the mind.

Whether you’re 1 year old or aging in a retirement home, whether you loved the first 2 films as a child or never really even got into the series, whether a fan of animated films or more edgy ones… Toy Story 3 has something for everyone. Being able to juggle all its themes, genres, and target demographics into one bombastically brilliant film, Toy Story 3 would be a contender for Best Motion Picture at the Academy Awards, and is thus far my favorite film of 2010. Disney-Pixar is just one grand ol’ studio.

10/10.

-Kyle Shelton

Lady Gaga’s Alejandro Video; AKA Dirty Army Nun.

Alejandro, as a song, wasn’t and isn’t my favorite of her repertoire. In fact, I still love Bad Romance and its… “multifaceted” video the most. Alejandro doesn’t feel like it has a true grasp on what kind of song it wants to be, and this is ever evident in the wishy washy new video.

Let me put out my exact thought: it’s not terrible (a la Telephone video), but it’s just starting to seem like Gaga just wants to push the envelope more and more, both with censors and with people’s liberal agendas. You can watch the video for yourself here and let me know what you think.

…Did you see it? Because I really hope you’re not a devout Christian. In the latest near-9-minute spectacle, Gaga can be seen being raped by several men with bowl haircuts in heels, dancing with 2 M16 machine guns strapped to her brazier, and deep-throating a rosary. Of course, this is all aside from her practically having rodeo sex with a chained up man, and there are a few Nazi references thrown around (most notably, the costumes of some soldiers).

Now I get some of the message about conformity, religion and government (and a possible response to the whole Westboro Baptist Church incident), but where do any of the lyrics play into this? Plenty of artists constantly put out music videos that are either completely unrelated to the accompanying song or are so veiled in “depth” that no one sees it. Alejandro is just another example of this; I thought the song was about Gaga having a lover (or possibly more) who she just wanted to hook up with and nothing more. Then we get homosexual Nazis in fishnet stockings.

But I digress; I’m all for some envelope-pushing censor slapping nonsense. In the context of the song and the video itself, though… it just feels weird. Of course, Gaga is no stranger to the odd, queer or downright mind-boggling, but where some of her videos feel more polished and refined, this one feels like a haphazardly slaphappy cornucopia of spontaneity. It progresses as though each scene was meant to be a “look how crazy this is” scene, topping each of the scenes before it. This might sound like it would be a pretty good pace, but it’s not. And if you’re a fan of Madonna’s at all, you might be offended at how Madonna-esque the video is, with the sexuality, hair, strange alteration to women’s underwear and black and white filters all referencing some of her 80’s work.

So really, Gaga’s most lasting legacy thus far is her disregard for normalcy and her obsession with the socially arcane (or, let’s say, batshit bonkers), which is fine and dandy but I’m afraid by her next single or album, she might just be pushing it too far. Again, like I said, I’m all for crazy and ridiculous, and the more over-the-top something is, the more I love it… however, it literally just feels like she might be trying too hard to be different. We get it Stefanie, you’re a deviant and you play by your own rules. That’s fine… but would it kill you to make a video that made sense for once? AND ONE THAT ISN’T A SHORT FILM DRESSED IN DRAG? I wouldn’t be too surprised if she put on that bird’s nest concoction she wore to the VMA’s and flipped pancakes with an anteater for 14 minutes and called it “Polka Dot Dragon.”

Glee Turning to Gay-lee Very Very Fast.

[SPOILER ALERT: The following paragraph(s) contain spoilers on the storyline of the series up to Season 1, Episode Episode 18, “Laryngitis” of Glee.]

Glee is probably now the most successful new show of the last television season for multiple reasons. First, it’s immensely different than most shows. Second, it’s a genre-blending mix of emotions. Third, everyone loves a good cover track.

Whether you like the show or not, I don’t think you can safely deny the fact that it is certainly starting to become way too preachy. The last episode, “Laryngitis,” was all about being true to you and who you are and all that fun stuff we’ve been told by Nick Jr. for the last 20 years. In addition, this whole “Kurt being a victim” thing has to end, immediately. It’s great that the media as a whole is accepting homosexuality and other used-to-be taboo topics, but Glee is starting to push how much anyone really cares about it. Gay or not, Kurt is a great character with a great voice, and Chris Colfer (the actor who plays him) is excellent; the story about his dad accepting him as being gay is just too much. From the get-go, his dad was very accepting and even moreso than most real-life parents are. So why does Kurt keep playing the victim? If anything, Kurt is a villain. He takes his “straight crush” on Finn to the next level by creepily matchmaking his own father with Finn’s mother (both of which are single due to a dead spouse) so he and Finn can be closer to eachother. Inevitably, this blows up in his face, making him extremely jealous of this new found bond between his father and Finn.

This last episode wasn’t “bad,” per-say, but it definitely isn’t the best choice to show someone who’s never seen the show before. The side-story that quickly started and ended in the most hastily paced side-story of all time about Puck’s using of Mercedes to reclaim his popularity served as merely an excuse for the two to have a duet, fill some Fox time, and place Mercedes back in her lowly Glee Club spot. Cheap. Oh and let’s not forget the quadriplegic who reminds Rachel that there’s more to life than just her singing. Again, this was a side-story that started and ended almost too fast, and you can probably bet you’ll never be seeing the bed-ridden football player again… or at least not any time soon.

So, here’s to tonight’s episode bringing back the Glee in my heart for the series. What do you think about the last “Glee?”

New Pokemon Starters Not So “Black & White”

Nintendo and the Official Pokemon Black & White website have recently announced the 3 new starter Pokemon that will begin the next generation. Just like in every good handheld Pokemon game ever made, you're given the option of 1 of 3 special, exotic Pokemon to start your epic adventure around color-coded towns in a faux Japanese continent.

Have you seen them yet? Here they are:

Now, who’s ready for some speculation? Smiling Emoticon.

Here’s what you can pretty much tell (especially from the thousands of fan sites who already foretold every possibly detail of the new games). The one on the far left is the Grass-type, the middle one is the Fire-type, and the right one is the Water-type. Their Japanese names have been released, as well: (from left to right) Tsutaja,the “grass snake Pokemon,” Pokabu the “fire pig Pokemon,” and Mijumaru, the “sea otter Pokemon.”

Let me start off by saying that Mijumaru looks like an apathetic, lonely terribly diseased fetus. While the evolved forms for each of these haven’t been released yet, I sure hope the water otter gets a little hotter. Personally, I think Tsutaja looks the coolest so far, and is bound to have interesting evolutions; it’s also the more sly-looking one out of the bunch, sacrificing its cuteness for to-come badassness. Then Pokabu is… well, it’s cute I guess. I’m sure its final evolution will be some Mamoswine-sized behemoth with tusks and a volcano spewing out of its nose or something. As of right now, I’m not terribly impressed with the new designs, save for Zorua and Zoroark from a while back who look pretty cool (despite Dark-types being the black sheep of the Pokemon types).

I believed Generation III to be the weakest entry in the Pokemon foray so far, mostly due to poor new design (and a terrible plot). Generation IV, more or less, made up for it, but nostalgia aside, I yearn for the days of Red and Blue or even Gold and Silver. They were simpler times yet infinitely more enjoyable times, and though it may be obvious that Generation V is only going to add and complicate things further, hopefully it begins to get rid of some of the more ridiculous aspects (like Pokemon moods/natures) in favor for some supremely awesome features (like interspecies FUSION… or something).

So let me know what your thoughts are: are the new starters cool? Are they lame? Is one more dopey looking than the others (cough Mijumaru cough)?

New Call of Duty “Reveal” Trailer

SB8T72JNDBP8

You love Call of Duty. Don’t lie. You simply can’t deny you supreme infatuation with headshots, paybacks, and noob-tubing anyone and everyone and getting awarded for it. You also probably love gloating about how much better you are at it than everyone and their mothers.

Well, if you were starting to maybe-kinda-sorta get tired of Modern Warfare 2 (blasphemy), Treyarch has already started development on the new Call of Duty game set in the Vietnam war era. Entitled “Call of Duty: Black Ops,” it’s striving to be different from the past set pieces, considering this is the first in the series to have that specific setting. A teaser trailer has already been released and hints at some sort of possible “rescue” mission-esque story, but it looks just as intense (if not moreso) than Modern Warfare 2 did. Luckily, a new, more detailed trailer will be shown on May 18th during the NBA Eastern Conference Finals exclusively on ESPN.

While Call of Duty’s releases are usually momentous, games like Call of Duty 3 and Call of Duty: World at War were less than a spectacle upon release. The first 2 and their expansions, and of course the Modern Warfare duo were HUMONGOUS deals, especially by comparison… and so, I’m going to call it out and say that Black Ops is not going to be anything spectacular, critically nor commercially.

What do you think?
Comment!

Renewed and Boo’d: Fall 2010’s New Season of TV.

Love Lost? Too bad, it’s going to end on May 25 for good (for now). Love Modern Family, Chuck, Glee, Family Guy or How I Met your Mother? You’re in luck! From TVGuide.com, here’s a list of the shows officially being renewed for the Fall 2010 – Spring 2011 season:

30 Rock (NBC)
90210 (CW)
The Amazing Race (CBS)
American Dad (Fox)
America's Next Top Model (CW)
The Big Bang Theory (CBS)
Bones (Fox)
Brothers & Sisters (ABC)
Castle (ABC)
Chuck (NBC)
The Cleveland Show (Fox)
Community (NBC)
Cougar Town (ABC)
Desperate Housewives (ABC)
Family Guy (Fox)
Friday Night Lights (NBC)
Fringe (Fox)
Glee (Fox)
Gossip Girl (CW)
The Good Wife (CBS)
Grey's Anatomy (ABC)
How I Met Your Mother (CBS)
Law & Order: SVU (NBC)
The Middle (ABC)
Modern Family (ABC)
NCIS: Los Angeles (CBS)
The Office (NBC)
Parks and Recreation (NBC)
Private Practice (ABC)
The Simpsons (Fox)
Smallville (CW)
Supernatural (CW)
Survivor (CBS)
Two and a Half Men (CBS)
V (ABC)
The Vampire Diaries (CW)

How Super will Super 8 Be?

J.J. Abrams, you’ve done it again. In case you’re not entirely aware of who J.J. Abrams is, he’s one of the executive heads behind TV’s power-player Lost and the director of Cloverfield (amongst other works, of course). Just like Cloverfield had a mysterious viral marketing campaign back in 2007, the newly endowed “Super 8” seems to be following in its big brother’s footsteps.







The newly released teaser trailer shows… this:



Let’s recap:
Something about an Area 51 alien or mutated creature seems to be lurking on a train. The train, according to the captions, was supposed to transport extremely vital material to Ohio from Area 51. Obviously, something bad happened as someone yelled out, and the two vehicles collided. Weird, Cloverfield Jr. baby monster then allegedly escapes from its confines, and it was recorded on none other than an old, “Super 8mm” camera. For the uninitiated, we’ll call that an old person camcorder. For the heavily initiated, this may be wrecking your mind, as a catastrophic even such as this being told through the lens of a super 8mm camera can only be described as “ridiculous.”

And, of course, who could miss that great name drop right in the middle of the trailer? Mr. Steven Spielberg is producing the film alongside Abrams’ direction, which tells you that this is going to be one monster of a movie! There’s your pun for the day.

Anyway, speculation from various sources says that this is supposed to be a heavily special effects-laden affair with a 70’s and 80’s feel of filmmaking to it, much like Spielberg achieved in his golden age with films like Indiana Jones. However, special effects doesn’t necessarily mean “computer-generated” special effects…thus, what I’m hoping for is a film that harkens back to a Jurassic age of animatronics, puppetry, and real-life machinations rather than relying on CGI and green screen.

No release date has been set as of yet, but the budget is purportedly in the $50 million range. This is 4th grade lunch money compared to most computer-made films of today, so this will certainly be interesting. Abrams has already gone on record stating that this film “…has nothing whatsoever to do with Cloverfield…” according to an NYMag article.

As an additional little tidbit of Abrams apparent obsession with encryption, he apparently sent out the reel for the trailer in special canisters that required a special code to crack open. I wouldn’t be surprised if his mansion was just one gigantic Rubik’s Cube.

Should Greyson get a Chance?

If you haven’t heard of 12-year-old Greyson Chance yet, you probably don’t get on Facebook or watch Ellen very often. The 6th grader is a piano-playing singer from Oklahoma who rose to interweb fame with his rendition of “Paparazzi” by Lady Gaga at a talent show-esque event. He was recorded, uploaded to the celebrity-spewing machine YouTube, and now he’s gone viral with over 2,000,000 views.
In case you have a life, this is the now famed video:



[Note the incredibly lackluster faces on the girls behind him. These same girls are probably kicking themselves in the face for looking so trollish on a now internationally-spread video. Ha!]

If you are like me and like to lurk on the computer all the time, then forego that video and tell me what you think about Greyson Chance. Why? Well, if you Google his name into… well, Google, you’ll see a cornucopia of websites chanting that Mr. Chance is the new Justin Bieber.

For the record, I’m not sure how famous or how long someone has to be famous in order for them to have a “new” version of themselves. A “new” Michael Jackson or a “new” Madonna would make sense, but Justin Bieber has been renown now for barely a year, and to this day plenty of critics foresee him as a passing fad (cough, Ke$ha, cough). Regardless, I beg to differ that Chance is the “new” Bieber, not because I believe Bieber to be uber talented in any regard, but because I actually don’t think Chance will make it as the new rising young musician. He’s alright, I guess… he’s certainly not terrible. However, people complain about Bieber and the likes of Miley Cyrus as not knowing what “love” is and them not retaining the proper experience or social permission of peoples over the age of 16 to make gazillions of dollars. Why should this kid be any different? If anything, he deserves less of a reason to make it big considering he’s skyrocketed to fame by rendering a cover of someone else’s song.

Luckily, though, he has written, both lyrically and musically, two other songs entitled “Broken Hearts” and “Stars.” This is great, knowing that he doesn’t just have a cover of another song to back up his blossoming career; however, give a listen to the other songs and see whether or not he truly has a commercial future with his music. Personally, I don’t think he’s that great… obviously I’m taking into account that in these videos, it’s just him and his piano with a video camera watching, so he doesn’t have Grade-A producers or (God forbid) an autotuner to make him sound spectacular; and of course the fact that he’s only 12 doesn’t help his cause much. He definitely has potential, but for some reason, people around the world are already calling him a child prodigy and that. just. isn’t. true.

But, again, tell me what you think. Is he really that great? Comment wars, hooo!

Shia LaBeouf Defends 3rd Transformers Installment, Abashes 2nd.

I’ve never been a fan of Shia LaBeouf. I can’t help but feel that he’s overestimated in almost every film he’s appeared in. To this day, even, I think his best film was Holes (which isn’t saying much because I don’t even like Holes that much).
If you know me at all, then you know that I absolutely abolished Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Michael Bay hasn’t exactly been the most prolific director in recent memory or anything, but this was just… awful. You can see what I mean in my review of it by clicking here.

However, it’s nice to see Mr. LaBeouf actually saying something worthwhile. He recently told Associated Press these statements concerning the dreadful 2nd installment:

“When I saw the second movie, I wasn't impressed with what we did, there were some really wild stunts in it, but the heart was gone.  

       
…we got lost. We tried to get bigger. It's what happens to sequels. It's like, how do you top the first one? You've got to go bigger. [Michael Bay] went so big that it became too big, and I think you lost the anchor of the movie. ... You lost a bit of the relationships. Unless you have those relationships, then the movie doesn't matter. Then it's just a bunch of robots fighting each other.”

He went on to say that this next movie is either going to be the “craziest action movie ever made” or he and the rest of the Transformers team have failed.

All personal gripes aside, to try and make the “craziest” action film of all time is a pretty wild aspiration, even if you’re working with some tech-junkie like Michael Bay. The word “craziest” is a bit ambiguous, because that could simply entail more explosions in 90 minutes than had ever been accomplished or quite possibly the best, most well-rounded action movie ever. Then again, it seems a bit stupid for LaBeouf to say that he wants to make the next film the “craziest” considering he just bashed the last one for, essentially, being too crazy.
We’ll see what happens with the next, apparently “bloodier” Transformers movie. Kill me in the face for saying this, but I’m probably still going to watch it…

Fun Craigslist Posting: Hip Swinging after having Sex = Problem? (NSFW)

The text reads:

"Why do I swing my hips from side to side when I walk after getting fucked? I don't want to, but I can't help it, I can't control it, the muscles just feel loose, like it’s hanging, and pretty much moving by itself. Guys tell me I have a sexy hip swing in my walk. I don't like when some guys stare at my hips and my ass, it's just annoying. Recently I was fucked by this guy who had an incredibly big and thick cock, and I noticed my hips sway even more. Is it true that if you let bigger cocks fuck you, your hips will swing even more when you walk? Why does this happen? is there any way to walk straight after getting fucked? or do I just to have to get used to walking like a slutty girl? The sad thing is that guys tend to think you're a slut and that you've been fucked by a lot of guys because of the way you walk. They wanna fuck you because they think you're easy, when in reality you're been fucked by only one guy that just happens to be well endowed. Any advice? Thanks. "

Now, I’m not sure how many people typically have this problem, but if you do, seek a Cocktor or Physical Therafist immediately.

Family Guy’s 150th Episode: Good Idea? Or Sh** Idea?

This may be a little late to the party, but did anyone catch Family Guy’s 150th episode spectacular?

Let me rephrase.

Did anyone catch Family Guy’s 150th episode (minus the spectacular)? In case you haven’t nor heard about it, it’s completely different from Family Guy’s usual fun, wacky, random and varied episodes in almost every way imaginable.

The plot revolves around Stewie and Brian being locked in a safety deposit room against their will. Without spoiling anything, a disgusting idea or two is thrown around, possibly executed, and the comedy ends there. Simply entitled “Brian and Stewie,” the two are the only characters seen in the entire episode. No cut-aways and no flashbacks throughout the entire thing.

This is interesting for a few reasons. First off, people often complain that Family Guy’s humor is always deteriorated to simply inserting some inane, irrelevant reference and cutting away to it, thus hindering any actual plot-related comedy. This episode strips that away completely, and people still complain… a lot. Now, I’m not saying the episode should win an Emmy or be considered the hallmark of the Family Guy series by any means… however, you can tell Seth MacFarlane and his crack-team of super manatees (South Park reference; you’re welcome) worked incredibly hard on this episode. No, there was no breakthrough animation as seen in other episodes (particularly this season’s premiere with the dimension-hopping), but its simplicity is its mastery. I know plenty of people turned this episode off not even 5 minutes into it, realizing that it was only going to immerse itself much deeper in the massive pool of boring, which at some points, it certainly did. I watched the entire episode, and found myself immersed deeper in the pool of character within Stewie and Brian. Towards the end of the episode, it’s blatantly obvious that the writers were attempting to reach an emotional depth never-before-seen in Family Guy. Could this be a sign of a more tightly-wound, balanced show? Or was this just an exercise in Press Coverage? Either way, this was a huge risk.

My personal view, you ask? Why thank you!

The episode wasn’t a complete loss for me, nor was it a complete win. The fact is, it’s incredibly difficult to successfully 180 a television show in one episode. This isn’t what anyone was expecting, and that’s part of the downfall. The dramatic pieces within the episode were pretty well handled (again, more towards the end), but much of it just didn’t feel right. Pretend you’re building a puzzle, and you put a piece somewhere that seems to fit, but you keep looking back at it because you’re not quite sure that’s exactly where it goes. “Brian and Stewie” missed its mark, but not by too much. I think MacFarlane can actually evolve the series into a way better show if he only did stuff like this on more subtle terms and eased his audience into it. This season overall hasn’t exactly been spectacular, so perhaps this was what it needed to shoot itself back up into the limelight. Whether that was for the better or worse, we have yet to see, as the season still isn’t quite over.

Date Night Review: Perfect for its Title.

Steve Carrell. Tina Fey.

That’s all you need to know about “Date Night,” in reality. The whole movie and its plot are just excuses to get these two comedy stars together and steal your hard-earned money in this terrible, human-destroying recession.
Alright, let’s not be dramatic. “Date Night” is the latest Hollywood machine-made romantic comedy starring 2 of TV’s biggest stars from 2 of TV’s biggest shows owned by TV’s biggest company (NBC). So what’s there to say?
Date Night, in all actuality, is much better than one might assume. Of course, seeing the names “Carrell” and “Fey” headlining a poster would catch your immediate attention and may persuade you into seeing it just for namesake; however, the movie is actually pretty well-written and witty, with some interesting innovation and well-handled action set pieces to break up the otherwise monotonous tyranny that is the “Romantic Comedy.”

The story revolves around a married couple, Phil and Claire Foster (Carrell and Fey, respectively). Both are extremely aware that their marriage has grown stale and boring, but neither wants to admit it. With some not-so-uplifting commentary from their friends who seem to have gone down the same route before, things eventually lead up to Phil wanting to take Claire out on an expensive but “different” date for once. They head to an upscale, trendy new seafood restaurant named “Claw,” where they are greeted with typical teenage hipster rudeness. Without a reservation, they patiently sit at the bar, hoping a table opens up, when A CALL TO ADVENTURE arises and Phil decides to take the reservation of someone else. Thus, this spins in motion the gears of fate, and Phil and Claire are mistakenly identified as the Tripplehorns (a recurring play on Jeanne Tripplehorn) by a couple of mobsters (Common and Jimmi Simpson) who are entangled in a big conspiracy to… well, watch the film to figure out the rest. The main plot is all standard “conspiracy” and “backstabbing” fare, most of which is fairly expectable. It really boils down to the more subtle nuances in the story, that is, the dialogue that really give this film life.

Fey and Carrell have an almost impeccable chemistry between them, and although they may not be the most believable couple, it's their wit and improvisation in various points in the film that give them such high likability. In fact, if it wasn’t for these two stars, Date Night would ultimately suck. In addition, the fact that they’re the only good thing about the movie won’t bother you until after you already saw it, where you’ll be questioning what the movie was even about. Think of “Date Night” as a television advertisement, wherein the product is the plot of the film and the gimmick is Fey and Carrell. You’re not going to remember what the hell was just advertised or why you should buy it, but you’ll remember to YouTube it later to show how funny it is to friends.

I’ve read many reviews on Date Night, and most seem to point out the awkward pacing between softer, dialogue-propelled moments and the adrenaline-rushing action sequences. Personally, I felt these blended very well, moving from one scene to the next without feeling like there was a humongous cinematic stake separating the various scenes. The best part, by far, involves a chase scene between the mobsters, Phil, a taxi and the police. Not only was this whole extravaganza of a scene exciting, but it was hilarious and actually memorable! Alas, a scene from a “Romantic Comedy” (of sorts) that was actually memorable that didn’t involve nudity!

But again, it is very difficult to truly critique a Romantic Comedy for more than its really worth. “Date Night” scores high points for its two fantastic leads, some memorable moments, fun cameos from Ray Liotta, Mark Wahlberg, James Franco, and Meg Griffin (Mila Kunis), and its ageless appeal. Strip all of that away, though, and “Date Night” is just another movie that you’ll forget even exists.

/10

-Kyle Shelton