Bad Teacher Review

Let's be real before we start going into whether this movie is good or bad... it has a lovable cast. Cameron Diaz, Justin Timberlake and Jason Segel are all just so likable, it's almost unfair to put them in the same movie, especially in a love triangle situation where the audience is rooting for all three of them.

That is Bad Teacher's ace in the hole: its charm. Ironically enough, the film is all about immoral decisions and terrible life choices. Elizabeth Halsey (Diaz) pretends to teach elementary school while she dates a rich schmuck who basically acts as her sugar daddy. He soon wises up to her two-faced shallow lifestyle and dumps her, right after she quits her day job to begin her full-time career of living off someone else. After this, she comes back to the school to take her job back while she finds another wealthy man to fool.

As you would expect, she's a terrible teacher. She disrespects everyone from kids to parents to colleagues and hardly does any "work" at the school. She thinks the only way she'll find another man is by increasing her boob size (which was probably Diaz's only real physical fault), so she tries everything she can to raise the $9000+ to afford the procedure.

Hilarity ensues.

One thing that Bad Teacher definitely does right is the pacing and the continuous comedy. One element of many modern comedies that I truly dislike, as I mentioned in my Bridesmaids review, is when the plot turns severely melodramatic just to flesh itself and its characters out a bit. Some people might appreciate it!

But I don't.

If I'm going to see a movie called "Bad Teacher," I'm expecting it to be funny all throughout, and luckily that's exactly what I got. Diaz's character learns the error of her ways, she (somewhat) rectifies them, and everything works out in the end! Nothing sappy, no one cries, there's no slow piano music accompanying a montage of flashbacks of terrible things that have happened; it's all just fun and pretty campy.

But the comedy cuts short most of the time, considering a good chunk of your laughter will come from someone dropping the "F" word in front of middle school children. There's so much material and potential here, but it's all squandered for relatively cheap gags. The whole cast is fantastic, but the moments with Phyllis Smith (of "The Office" fame) and Eric Stonestreet (of "Modern Family" fame) are the best by far. The gimmick is in the title: Cameron Diaz is just a really really bad teacher, not just as profession, but by moral standards as well. She curses every other word, purposely pisses off anyone she can, smokes marijuana at leisure, and resorts to sex and drugs to get her way. It's hard to imagine how or why you would be rooting for her the whole time considering she has no redeeming qualities to begin with, but by the end she has a sudden turnaround.

Note the word "sudden." This is another flaw Bad Teacher faces; there's hardly any lead into Diaz's change of heart toward the end. Throughout 90% of the movie, she is detestable in almost every respect, and then around the end she helps a kid (whom she initially makes fun of) be "cool," albeit not by the most wholesome means but she means well. But why? There's no back story that tells how she was teased in school or anything; in fact, she alludes to how pretty and popular she was. She drugs and swindles the head of the statewide school test to get the answer sheet so her class can perform the best, she keeps trying to win over Timberlake's character solely for the money, keeps putting down Smith for being old and fat, keeps ruining children's hopes and dreams... you get the point. But suddenly she falls for the underdog and becomes a good person.

It's not too big a deal, but this complaint really lies in the shadow of the bigger complaint: Bad Teacher is formulaic and predictable. The audience can call out the ending from the get-go with simple movie-by-numbers logic, and by the halfway mark, jokes start to repeat themselves.

With these negatives in mind, I still have to give Bad Teacher some extra credit for not resorting to the sort of sappiness that plagues other films of its kind. Bad Teacher is funny. With some low expectations, it can actually be pretty good, but it's also forgettable and serves as a Summer comedy to pass the time with.

Bad Teacher gets an average C. A 2.5 GPA. A check minus.

Whatever.
6.0/10
-Kyle Shelton

Bridesmaids Review

Chick flick. Star vehicle. Summer release.


These are three valid reasons why you would expect a film like "Bridesmaids" to be awful. Why shouldn't you? "The Sex and the City" films were under the same labels, only stirred with the adaptation/remake/sequel  titles as well, and look how those turned out? Not to mention it's using a star known primarily for her SNL work, and that tends to receive mixed reactions as well.


But why be so negative and narcissistic when glimmering hope arrives in the form of a movie like this one. "Bridesmaids" is far from perfect, but is aided by your low expectations that are soon trumped. 


Kristen Wiig stars as a woman chosen to be her best friend's (Maya Rudolph) maid of honor at her wedding. Unfortunately, her life is in shambles, and it only gets progressively worse as the stress of planning the perfect wedding for her BFF combines with the rivalry of a newer, prettier, more perfect best friend (Rose Byrne), threatens to replace her. 


Naturally, this all culminates in hilarity when everything goes awry for Wiig, and quite honestly, she shines. She's great at physical comedy as well as verbal; she also co-wrote the film, and it's not hard to notice. She deviates pretty dramatically from her usual SNL schtick, though, as she plays a relatively normal and relatable character. She isn't really the funny girl, though; it's the situations and the supporting cast that generate all the laughs, particularly the other bridesmaids themselves. Each of them has a great character and persona that are easy to fall in love with, and this is only helped by Wiig's connection to them. Her chemistry with Rudolph is fantastic and it's obvious that they're close friends off-screen as well as on it.


As great as all these things are, however, Bridesmaids still suffers from some clichés. Most notably, the film needlessly meddles with drama and a relatively lengthy "sad" streak of events. Sure, this might help the audience connect with Wiig a little more and give her more dimension, but in a film with mostly gross out, shock and over-the-top humor, it's just a nag to have this sequence right in the middle. It makes sense in context, but thematically, comedies like this don't need these sorts of scenes. Luckily, it never delves into depressing or tissue-clinging sappiness, but I also don't want to be laughing one second and then have to feel upset the next. If a film can achieve that without making the feeling awkward or out of place, great! But most films, including Bridesmaids, don't hit that mark. Compare this to a similar stand-out comedy like The Hangover, which hardly has any dramatic elements to it. Why? Because it doesn't need them. Its whole purpose is to make you laugh from start to finish, and it does so while maintaining fully fleshed-out characters and an engrossing plot. No need to make you sad or feel bad!


I'm also not a fan of unnecessary romantic sub-plots. Read my other reviews... go ahead, I'll give you a second.












Okay, most of them probably have some reference to my hatred of these plot devices (if they can even be called such) because they're not important and their only purpose is to give the character(s) involved some sort of dimension. There is certainly a romantic sub-plot involving Wiig and a substantially less important character here, but it actually plays a part in the theme and directly into Wiig's own plot branch, so I can forgive it. That's another element of Bridesmaids that I love; there are specific things that are referenced in Wiig's life that play a role in how everything else play out: her living conditions, her career and her love life. These are all integral elements of her life that are shown enough times to make them important without being absolutely necessary, and they don't detract from the main story at all. 


So what Bridesmaids ends up being is a much better-than-average chick flick romantic comedy that both men and women can enjoy... although women are probably much better suited to it. Although it suffers from a few clichés and sometimes resorts to low-brow humor, it's still hilarious and proves that chick flicks, star vehicles and summer movies don't have to suck. Prepare for the drunk airplane scene, the dress-fitting scene and the.. well, the scene where Wiig tries to get pulled over. Bridesmaids offers what we love about these  It'll end up being forgettable, but let's be honest... Kristen Wiig is looking at a bright future.


8/10
-Kyle Shelton

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides Review

I finally watched the fourth installment of the preposterously lucrative and popular "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise, entitled, with barely a breath to spare, "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides." They should have divided it up into parts just to be a little extra ridiculous, and acknowledged which installment. Imagine: "Pirates of the Caribbean Four: On Stranger Tides: Part 1: The Fountain of Youth." 


But no, seriously, Pirates 4 (much easier) is not very good. Or "good" for that matter. In a nutshell, Pirates 4 mirrors the last film in many ways: the special effects still dazzle, explosions abound and astound, sword-fights are exquisitely heart-pounding, and there is a lot of water. Unfortunately, most of the cons have carried over as well: needlessly overwrought dialogue, an overly ambitious plot, a weak script with weaker performances, and new characters we could care less about. Perhaps the most glaring failure of this installment as well as its predecessor is how tiresome [Captain] Jack Sparrow has gotten over the years.


As far as I know, most people will concede that the first "Pirates" film is still the best. Of course, when confronted with the ever-astounding "Why is that so?" I'll probably get a blank stare and an explanation not unlike "because it's the original. Duh."


Albeit, most franchises tend to hold the first installment most prominently - the shiny trophy that everyone still holds the standard to. Yet there are plenty of trilogies and what-have-you that improved with time, and even if this weren't true, this doesn't mean that just because something came first, it is automatically better. How many parents consider their oldest child their most sacred? Practically none. And don't even get me started on middle-children.


It's usually the "only" children who get the best treatment. They don't have to comprise quantity for quality or vice-versa because they get A LOT of AWESOME things. Thus, while I certainly have enjoyed all the Pirates films up to this point, even "On Stranger Tides," not only do I vastly prefer the original but I think it should have been left alone.


Leave it to our industry to milk one good thing for all its worth, though. I'm looking at "The Hangover 2" or "Part 2" or "The Same Movie You Saw 2 Years Ago but in Asia." Okay, I haven't seen it, but that's what I'm expecting and that's probably what I (i.e. we) will get.


But you're not reading this because you want to hear me moan about a movie that hasn't come out yet! No! You're probably here because I guilt tripped you into reading and "liking" this because I fear no one cares about my opinion! And also to (maybe) hear more about Pirates 4.


Everything I've just said applies to the new "Pirates" so far, though. It's giving us more of what we want... it's not giving us pirates and the open sea and the hilarious antics of a monkey; it's giving us Captain Jack Sparrow. Realistically, the film might as well be called "Pirate of the Caribbean." Throughout the years, I've still held Captain Hector Barbossa as the best character and the scene-stealer, from the beginning up to now. In the first film, Sparrow and Barbossa were about on equal footing, but due to my instinctive need to be "different," I gave Barbossa the upper-hand. And I've proudly stood my ground. Jack Sparrow (oh, sorry, Captain Jack Sparrow, because that joke hasn't gotten old) has just lost his touch. He chimes in with a witty one-liner here and there, and Depp's acting is impeccable, but those are his best characteristics. In the original Pirates, top billing went to Bloom and Knightley before Depp. Of course, Sparrow is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than "Will Turner" and "Elizabeth Swan" in almost every respect, but using him as a secondary character worked tremendously better than putting his face on EVERYTHING and up-selling it. 


But that's Disney, isn't it? They've become so successful because they know how to milk. If the Disney corporation was a farmer's company, we would be drinking milk out of our faucets. And speaking of milk, that's what I'm comparing Jack Sparrow to. A lot of people love him! Some think he's gross. Others just don't care or can't really get into him (probably due to a medical condition). But he's only great for so long and in spurts; you leave him around for a whopping EIGHT years, he's going to grow gross and he'll need to be thrown away. At that point, the only people that will like him are the same who prefer chunky moldy milk.. you know, the weird people.


Alright, no offense to the Jack Sparrow devotees. I still like him and, as stated before, Depp's performance is brilliant. There's only so many times he can stumble around in an effeminate matter, get a close up on his gold teeth, and make fun of anyone and everyone he can. That got pretty old in the second film, let alone the third and fourth. But nothing "piratey" is going to sell unless Depp's mug is all over it, so what else can you expect?


Also stated above, all the effects and blockbuster elements are there and just as good as ever, despite lacking a whirlpool vortex of doom. The action sequences are all directed superbly, though the film delved into camp territory with the whole mermaid sequence. Also, I'm sure plenty of people were excited for the idea of "zombies" in Pirates 4, but they're not there. I mean, they are, but nary a zombie-related concept is referenced. They serve as loyal, super-strong subordinates of Captain Blackbeard, and that's it. I think there is a scene where someone stabs one of the zombies through the heart, and then the zombie doesn't die. Awesome.


Speaking of Captain Blackbeard, what the f***? Here's a list of what Captain Blackbeard can, allegedly, do with his mystical sword of God:

-Shrink objects
-Create weather
-Telekinetically control inanimate objects
-Raise people from the dead (and then give them the power of super strength and receive eternal loyalty)
-Voodoo
-Probably something else that I forgot

A good argument, one that I uphold, against most of my grievances is the simple "It's a movie, get over it!" Alas, everything in a film has to go together and be consistent. So while the "Kraken" hasn't been proven to exist and Tia Dalma can summon thunderstorms and grow into the 50-foot woman at will, excuse me for being taken aback when Blackbeard can f***ing control things with his mind. If he had a white beard, people would have thought this was a Harry Potter/Lord of the Rings/Pirates crossover, except not knowing who was who. Blackbeard was never referenced before this (much less his superpowers), so yes, it's shoddy writing when that's how they pose him as a threat. These powers don't even help him accomplish anything! Each of these magical abilities are exposed once, then forgotten. So who cares if he's psychic? Barbossa and Davy Jones were way more iconic and they didn't resort to raising the dead to do it. Sure, knock them for being supernatural since one was a REAL zombie and the other was a fishman, but these were both concepts that were referenced and kept consistent throughout the films. The world of Pirates of the Caribbean, despite being far from "realistic," has mostly posed plausible situations (at least within its own territory). I don't think any pirates escaped being hung or shot in the manner (or as many times) as Jack Sparrow has, but at least he didn't just summon a cloud that took him away as it rained fire on his enemies. No, he (more or less) cleverly utilizes his surroundings to his advantage to flee from his pursuers, only using lethal violence as a last resort. He's kind of like Batman. Batman is awesome. So is Jack Sparrow (when he's doing stunts).


His main nemesis in the film? Everyone, I guess, but his main-main nemesis is Blackbeard. It's beyond me why Blackbeard even has a sword when he can control ropes with his mind to hang a dozen people or just shrink them to the size of a shilling and the squash them. Or, better yet, why didn't he just kill everyone and then raise them from the dead? He would have an unbeatable army of pirates who obey ONLY HIM. If Sparrow is like Batman (who is awesome), then Blackbeard is like an evil Superman (who is overpowered and awful).


And just because every movie ever released absolutely has to have a romantic sub-plot (which, if you read any of my other reviews like a real friend, you'd know I hate), you have two to tango with: Jack with Angelica (Penelope Cruz) and some mermaid who was named, like a newly bought puppy, "Syrena" with a crazy religious fellow named Philip (Astrid Frisbey and Sam Claflin, respectively). I find it peculiar and a bit funny that Philip is heavily referenced as being a man of God, always donning a bible and talking about saving one's soul and whatnot, but the guy gets stabbed twice, is tied to the mast of a ship for a veiled amount of time, and is even patronized for his beliefs. Realistically, though, he is the only "good" character with the only "good" morals and objectives. I was always a fan of Sparrow's ever-ambiguous side-taking, but in the end he's just selfish and trusts no one. Despite never really liking Swan or Turner from the older films, their innocence and naiveness were charming and complimented Sparrow's performance and hilarious lines, usually at their expense. If you've seen the last three films, you'll know it's bad when you start to miss Swan and Turner.  Every other character is virtually the same, with the small exception of Angelica, but even she double-crosses a few times. 


And she's a pirate so by default she's going to hell. But back to Syrena and Philip, their ..."relationship" is severely underplayed. Philip apparently loves her, but with no justification. She's a bone-munching version of "The Little Mermaid," and even Ariel was a thief and an idiot. In the end, he falls for her for her looks... which, coming from a morally positive man of the Lord, is a pretty shallow reason to fall in love with someone. And a stupid one, at that, considering that's their feature that kills people. They lure men with their angelic beauty, and then eat them. That's like if you became infatuated with Freddy Kreuger because he's the man of your dreams. So why would you trust her, Philip? I'm still convinced she killed and ate him at the end, for the record. 


You know what, though? None of my words matter. None of the words of any critic or any person in the world will matter. If you've seen the last three films, you will most likely be watching this one for the shameless popcorn-movie that it is. Several instances of the film make absolutely no sense (both physically and psychologically), none of the characters are interesting, certain questionable elements (like a certain accident that has befallen Barbossa) are flat-out explained to the audience like an end-user license agreement, Sparrow's funniest moments aren't in this film, and it just feels rushed and haphazardly thrown together. I totally approve of another installment of the "Pirates" franchise, but I sincerely wish they downplayed Sparrow a bit, had a more interesting and well-developed story, more interesting characters (Blackbeard is hardly a villain, especially compared to Davy Jones) and made it less than two hours. I enjoyed the film, mainly by pretending I was a 5 year old boy who was permitted to watch a "big boy" movie by my mom, but upon realizing I have quadrupled in age since then, I also realized my intelligence and dignity have as well.


...Even if I still threw $8.50 at Disney for this movie. But I did it angrily.


4.0/10
-Kyle Shelton

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