Oculus Review

Good horror movies are hard to find. Very hard to find. Considering the “horror” market is dominated by exorcisms and different spins on zombie/virus outbreaks, even the good ones that come out of those sub-genres are hard to take seriously because there are just so many of them and they each have just a subtly different core mechanic working for them. It’s like if Pitbull made horror movies.

Oculus is not a good horror movie because it isn’t really a horror movie. It certainly provokes a sense of dread and suspense, very efficiently at that, but it’s seldom “scary,” so it’s harder to categorize. I guess the best label I could give it is “supernatural thriller” or “Inception for Beginners (and also it’s scary sometimes).”
Honestly, I didn’t want to give Oculus a chance. It seemed interesting but when I saw a trailer, I felt bored. I only saw it after it came out and awarding reviews came pouring in, and at one point it had 12 articles on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes that were all positive, gaining the film a perfect 100% score. Eventually it went down to 71%, but that’s still impressive, especially for a scary movie in April (or ever).

After watching the trailer and being unimpressed, I was unimpressed for the wrong reasons. I thought to myself “this doesn’t look scary, it looks low-budget and it looks like it’s trying to capture the horror crowd at a time when there are no other scary movies to see.” I could just imagine the TV spots: “Oculus is the #1 Horror Movie in America.” But then again, I thought “actually, I hate when trailers show all the good stuff.” This is especially true for a horror film where the best parts are the parts you don’t know are coming yet. So between that and the reviews, I gave it a chance.

Oculus is, literally, about a haunted mirror. An old, antique mirror is passed down from owner to owner, all of whom suffer gruesome deaths that are explained by “police” and “scientists” with really simple causalities, like starvation and depression over failed gardening projects. Kaylie and Tim are children when they move in to a new house (shocking), and the mom, being the eccentric connoisseur of glassware that she is, purchases the damning gateway to Satan’s vanity. Slowly but surely, the mirror starts complicating everything: makes the dog crazy, convinces the husband to cheat on the wife, convinces the wife that the husband is cheating, but the real crazy part is when the mirror starts whispering things. Whispering things.

Anyway, events unfold and Tim is forced to shoot the dad because he goes on a violent whisper-fueled rampage. The son is whisked away to jail/counseling and his psychiatrist decides “Hey, he’s not as fucked up as you think, let him go.” Tim is released and allowed to feel sunshine on his skin, freedom in his soul, happiness in his mind once again :)

Then Kaylie completely ruins his life.

Kaylie convinces Tim that they have to retrieve the mirror and prove that it was the mirror that made their mom and dad crazy and it’s because of the mirror that Tim had to shoot their dad. She is hell-bent on clearing their family’s name and even Googles an entire history of the mirror’s (called the Lasser Glass) previous ownership. Tim thinks she’s crazy, and plays along with her ruse to prove her wrong. After all, he had spent years being told that his dad was just an abusive, cheating crazy person (as most software programmers tend to be) and that the mirror has nothing to do with anything. He finally feels content with his life and has closure, but Kaylie won’t have any of it.

So, being sane and not obsessed, she sets up a 3-camera reality show to observe the mirror, she installs sensors in the walls that detect when the temperature drops or rises and in the MOST sane and not obsessed display of normalcy, she rigs a Poean “kill-switch” device that is set to smash the mirror every 45 minutes unless someone resets the timer. The caveat here being that it is impossible to harm the mirror intentionally. It has force fields or some shit.

The film is clearly pretty low budget, save for some excellent cinematography, but that’s an admirable aspect of horror movies (if they work). Luckily, Oculus excels at making you say “What the actual fuck” every few minutes. It spirals out of control, on multiple levels, inviting you to question what is real and what is not, what is in the past and what is in the present, what is done on purpose and what is done by demon-mind-control.
It’s the film’s greatest strength but also its greatest weakness, because it essentially creates an all-powerful rule for itself, like that one kid in Kindergarten always did. You’re told “the mirror can make you do and think whatever it wants.” So, there’s never really a sense of hope or victory because any time you think something is going the protagonists’ way, the mirror just does whatever it wants.

BUT, it’s very clever about it. It’s not until about maybe 70% of the way through that you realize how all the different perceptions of reality start melding together. This isn’t a story about two kids who grew up and are challenging their demons, it’s something completely different. If you realize what’s happening before the end, it’s like Oculus is the cool kid filling you in on an inside joke. Although it panders a bit at certain parts, and while most of the focused shots aren’t wasted, there are a few random moments that are elaborated without having any lasting or important effects.

Nothing about the mirror is really even explained (nor is it particularly necessary), but the ending leaves options open for a sequel. The ending also can be the ending, which surprised me. I’d be content with a sequel but I’d be content without one, which is a perfect ending to me.

Oculus is frantic, tragic and purposely energetic. It’s an OCD patient’s nightmare, but it keeps you on the edge of your antique oak wood rocker by altering time, space and reality. It has its spooky moments, and plenty of chilling build-ups (even if some of the scares are accompanied by unnecessary non-diegetic scores), but Oculus is simply a suspense story. The scares are predictable but the twists are not, and I’ll take a magic mirror over zombie vampire priests… for now.

The Good:

+ Chilling and dreadful
+ Subverts horror tropes
+ Refreshing and original
+ Frenetic

The Bad:

- Cheats
- Panders slightly
- Some focal points have no real impact

8/10

My demons are better than your demons,
Kyle

The Lego Movie Review

 Much like Her, people gave me weird looks when I said I was interested in seeing The Lego Movie and I'm not sure why. While you're on your 4th viewing of Frozen, I was eagerly anticipating this release for multiple reasons. Firstly, I love Legos. Everyone loves Legos. Legos are awesome. If you never played with Legos, you never had a childhood and therefore are pardoned for being so bitter about this movie.

Secondly, the cast is ridiculous. Chris Pratt (Parks & Recreation), Alison Brie (Community), Charlie Day (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia), Liam Neeson (Taken), Morgan Freeman (March of the Penguins), and even Shaquille O'Neal of Shazam fame head off this ambitiously frenetic movie about the classic toy.

Thirdly, if you watch a trailer for The Lego Movie, you'll notice that the animation is stunning. Stunning. The Lego Movie is a beautiful piece of visual flare that keeps you entertained and enthralled from the first second to the very last.

Fourthly, the characters include Shaquille O'Neal, Abraham Lincoln, Batman, Cleopatra, Medusa and all sorts of characters from your fever dream of historical fiction, giving us well-appreciated cameos in silly Lego form.

But don't be fooled: The Lego Movie isn't just about Legos. It's a fast, smart, witty action-comedy that delivers on so many levels. It's almost the perfect movie, to be quite honest. ANY demographic can watch this and be entertained, from the children who love to see their toys come to life to the adults who remember playing with them when they were younger, but it's not just about the nostalgia, either. The movie deftly blends slapstick and simple humor with edgier, adult-themed comedy to totally be effective in every way imaginable. It's self-aware, parodying and satirizing the most basic of plots while still concocting its own entry into the collection of Hero's Journey storylines.

While movies like Transformers make a killing at the box office, they are stupid. Stupid stupid stupid. They pander to the most basic functionality of our brains and senses to evoke "humor" and "excitement," but to me, they're stale. Too many big-budget action movies are released and immediately forgotten about, and I'm not entirely sure why Transformers is particularly successful. Just like The Lego Movie, the Transformers franchise is a commercial tie-in, using a third-party to drive interest and potential commercialism. Transformers feels like an old man from his death slumber to play catch with the grandkids whereas The Lego Movie is the cool dad, young and in-shape, ready to not just play catch, but to hit the beach and teach everyone how to surf.

This is a movie you can enjoy with your brain off or on; it's funny in all the right ways, from the way the characters move to the throw-away gags that relentlessly attack your funny bone in every scene. What's remarkable is how restricted the filmmakers truly were in their animations; after all, these are Legos, and while the possibilities are limitless for the young Lego construction builders of today, from a filmmaking aspect, Lego people don't move the way normal people move. Their faces are painted on, their legs don't bend, their arms move in a clockwise/counter-clockwise fashion and no other way. Their hands are cups. CUPS. And if these weren't enough to handle, remember that the movie takes place in a world where everything is made of Legos, from the buildings and cars to the clouds and water, and it's hard not to be impressed with how mind-numbingly creative the animators were with all their effects.

The coolest aspect of the film, to me, is the concept of the "master builders," a legion of people who can scope out various parts of the world and immediately recognize what can be constructed with these parts. To see this play out in the movie is electrifying, particularly in the chase sequences when you, as the viewer, are entirely sure that there's no safe way out of the situation only to see a character completely reconstruct a car or helicopter. It plays into the plot AND serves as a creative use for the Lego pieces themselves.

Before you begin to discredit the movie as a giant advertisement for Lego toys, this is a full-blown movie with a stupendous budget and a ridiculous amount of time, effort and perfectionism has been put into this to create something more. It's a movie that plays your heartstrings in varied ways and you can't help but smile throughout the whole experience. Like I said, children and adults alike can enjoy this movie for the same AND different reasons; this is how you make a kids' movie.

It's hard to find any serious faults. If you have any reservations, I promise you will not be disappointed if you finally decide to let out your inner 8-year-old and take a break from being a grown-up for 2 hours. The Lego Movie is beautifully animated, masterfully crafted from every aspect and has a pitch-perfect cast of actors and characters. It reignites my nostalgia and my love of going to the movie theater. It's straight up fun, and you'd be a block-head to sit through it straight-faced.

At the end of the day, I have one thing to say about The Lego Movie:

"Everything is Awesome!"

The Good:
+ Immensely entertaining
+ Stellar cast and characters
+ Energetic and gripping
+ Fun for everyone
+ Hilarious

The Bad:
- You will get one song stuck in your head for at least a week.

10/10

SPACESHIP,
Kyle

Top 10 TV Shows from 2000 - 2014

…that I’ve seen.

I love TV (and lists), so I decided to really get to the nitty and gritty of my favorite series of all time. That is, my favorite TV series that I’ve seen and only from 2000 and onward, because while the original Doctor Who might be a tour-de-force of brilliance and originality, I’ve never seen it and it’s plainly too outdated for me to care at this point. I’ll take your word for it, though.
Anyway, if you’re here you’re probably bored and looking to start a war with me over what constitutes a good show. So, without further adieu:

10. Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood

Best episodes: E04 An Alchemist’s Anguish, E47 Emissary of Darkness, E61 He Who would Swallow God
Best character: King Bradley

It’s rare for me to get into a show from the very first episode, much less the first few minutes or so of watching it. And that’s still the case with Fullmetal Alchemist, a show I reluctantly started because one of my exes couldn’t stop putting it on a pedestal at the summit of Mt. Everest.

I’ve never been a huge fan of anime in general either, except for when I was younger and watching muscle-y alien men charge up their powers for 27 episodes (Dragon Ball Z, looking at you) seemed to really get me worked up. Of course, when you grow older, shows like Dragon Ball Z and Rugrats are only enjoyable for their nostalgia once you realize how stupid you were when you were too high on Surge to pay any real attention.

Fullmetal Alchemist is the sole reason that I started giving anime another shot. I’ve Netflix’d quite a few since my re-entry into the vast genre, but even since I was a child, I’ve never see an animated show so wildly original and captivating without pandering to the ADD in me. The story starts off (somewhat) simply enough, with two brothers who engage in “alchemy” attempt to bring back their dead mother, resulting in one brother’s soul being trapped in a suit of armor for eternity and the other losing an arm and a leg in the process. The plot revolves around them trying to restore their bodies and unlocking the true potential of alchemy by chasing a macguffin, a “philosopher’s stone.”
That’s the breakdown, but when you get multiple episodes in and start meeting other characters, the show truly starts to shine. Every single character (and there’s plenty) is multidimensional, their goals and ambitions explained, none of whom are traditionally “evil” or “good.” My reason for loving the show is because it doesn’t fall to some more conventional anime gimmicks that would turn most people off, but instead gives us an original setting and storyline with incredibly layered characters with suspense at every turn and absolutely STUNNING animation. Fullmetal Alchemist is great for the anime-lovers and just plain tv-lovers in general, providing the thrills and laughs of any outstanding tv show.

You should watch if: you like anime, OR if you don’t. If you like a great plot with multiple characters, solid themes and beautiful animation, definitely watch Fullmetal Alchemist (both versions).

9. The Walking Dead

Best episodes: S2E11 Judge, Jury, Executioner, S3E3 Walk with Me, S3E13 Arrow on the Doorpost
Best character: Hershel Greene

The Walking Dead is a show that has polarized its audience. It’s half soap-opera, half zombie massacre. People expecting more of one over the other seemed to be turned off; however, it has certainly picked up steam over the years as can be observed by the 16.1 million viewers for the premiere of season 4. I like to describe the show as an intense character drama where zombies just so happen to be co-existing.

I’ll be honest, the first season took a long time to hook me in. So long, in fact, that it didn’t hook me at all. I fell into that group that expected more zombie madness than “RICK CAN NEVER KNOW,” followed by crying. I watched two episodes, thought it was neat, then read the synopsis of the season on Wikipedia. Then I heard people talking about how incredible it had gotten and I was floored; I kept saying “really? That show?” How shallow of me, I guess. I started Season 2 being a little lost, but slowly started to understand why The Walking Dead was so great: its characters. Yes, the show had great pacing, build-up and tongue-in-cheek humor here and there, but I started to really hate a lot of people. The Walking Dead, much like Game of Thrones, leaves no character safe from very abrupt murder. The end of season 2 gave me a very satisfying death in one of my most hated characters, but that was the whole point.

It’s very good at keeping you torn on people; one second, you’ll eat cereal out of their bath water knowing they are pure and perfect, the next… well, you’ll want to drown them because oh my god what the fuck are you thinking? While you may not agree with things, The Walking Dead puts this alternate future-reality in a grim-yet-realistic scope, and you find yourself pulling your hair out disagreeing yet understanding a lot of the characters’ decisions. It’s one of the few things on TV you’ll find yourself having a one-sided conversation with, other than a sports game… I guess. I don’t know, I don’t keep up with sports.

You should watch if: you’re looking for a deep drama that poses challenging scenarios in an alternate modern-day reality.

8. Modern Family

Best episodes: S1E16 Fears, S2E7 Chirp, S4E11 New Year’s Eve, S5E12 Under Pressure
Best character: Claire Dunphy

Ah yes, a comedy about the trials and tribulations of every day family life in three different-yet-connected households. What a gold mine of societal commentary!

And indeed it is; Modern Family has one of the most boring show titles in the history of anything, and while the seemingly normal premise might seem cute for a few episodes, you’ll get hooked on the inner workings of the Pritchett family. Three different sub-groups of the American family are shown: the traditional family (2 parents, 3 children of differing ages), the non-traditional family (woman and man both divorced then re-married, step-son, ethnic, old man with young woman), and the very non-traditional family (gay male couple, adopted Vietnamese child).

The show certainly took some risks with the gay-centric family, but it also pulls it off fantastically, pulling humor from easier, typical gay jokes AND ALSO from the sarcastic indifference towards them. Every actor gives outstanding performances, with characters like Claire, Jay and Mitchell showing their affinity for perfect comedic timing. Each one is so varied and different, and considering the show is an ensemble piece about 10 main characters each getting significant screen time, that’s no easy feat. They somehow made a middle-child character archetype just as interesting as everyone else. The show draws most of its humor from simple, every day nuisances and how the quirky personalities of each family member responds to them; each episode also has three separate plots that each tie into eachother and have a common theme among them, usually with some sort of heart-warming message accompanied by guitar. What’s not to love?

You should watch if: you love a good comedy that tries to progress society’s standards and if you can relate to bad relationships with in-laws and annoying smoke detectors.

7. Community

Best episodes: S1E23 Modern Warfare, S2E19 Critical Film Studies, S3E6 Advanced Gay, S3E20 Digital Estate Planning
Best character: The Greendale Human Being
 
You would think a show about a bunch of school rejects at community college would be funny. And you would be right.

But you wouldn’t expect how deep and detailed such a show could be, and that’s where you’d need to hop off that high horse and start riding the humble donkey because Community is a show that demands you take it at more than face value. At its core, it’s a comedy, a sitcom without a laugh track where its characters get into ludicrous and hilarious predicaments, but the first season makes you think it’s all about Greendale Community College and its hijinks; it’s not, and once you see the secret garden episode or the paintball episodes, you’ll discover that Community makes a name for itself and differentiates itself from other network comedies by being weird, original and critical of other genres.

It parodies action movies, old-school sitcoms, horror films, documentaries, B-movies and everything else you can imagine. While its being funny, it’s providing smart commentary on a range of subjects and the entertainment industry as a whole, and you won’t even realize you’re forming an opinion while watching “Trey and Abed in the Morning!”

Community was such a delightful surprise of a show and continues to be suspenseful, hilarious and heartfelt all at the same time. For a TV show, that’s hard, especially for one that shamefully lost its showrunner for a whole season before bringing him back. Its characters are so diverse and retain their own brand of comedy and the storylines are always so much more intricate than what you first expect. Also, Joel McHale’s body…

You should watch if: You’re sick of typical sitcoms and you’re ready for something to turn your view of TV and film on its head.

6. Parks & Recreation

Best episodes: S2E24 Freddy Spaghetti, S3E11 Jerry’s Painting, S4E6 End of the World
Best character: Ron Swanson

If you’ve seen The Office, chances are you’ve at least heard of Parks & Recreation, a show that exists in its spirit and soul. Similarly, the show retains a lot of what made The Office great: handy-cam, cinema verite cinematic approach, varied characters, juxtaposition of the mundane worklife against zany antics, etc. But Parks learned from any of the mistakes The Office made, which is why it replaces it on my list of the best shows because it’s essentially The Office 2.0.

It follows the story of Leslie Knope, head of the Parks & Recreation department at her local government office of Pawnee, Indiana. The show starts by following her lead a rag-tag group of ill-informed government employees from the pop culture-obsessed, materialistic Tom to the apathetic, lazy intern April. Although one of the real stars here is Ron, Leslie’s boss, a man who prides himself on being riggedly conservative in social values and a man who doesn’t take shit from anybody. But like many of my favorite shows, each character isn’t just a two-sided coin, but rather they evolved into Rubik’s cubes, each having multiple values and reasons for those values. They each also add their own flavor of humor to the show, and I’m honestly beyond impressed with how varied each character is. Other than focusing primarily on Leslie, you could argue that Parks & Recreation is a pseudo-ensemble with the other characters getting their fair share of attention and screen time.

You should watch if: you enjoyed The Office, love Amy Poehler and love making fun of the government.

5. Lost

Best episodes: S1E1 Pilot, S3E22 Through the Looking Glass, S5E3 Jughead, S5E12 Dead is Dead
Best character: John Locke

Other than reigniting my passionate love for peanut butter, Lost is probably the show that got me hooked onto the ‘serialized drama.’ Lost was ambitious from the very beginning, setting up LOTS of questions that people still make fun of to this day, almost 4 years after it ended (seriously, polar bears, am I right?). At its core, the show is about a group of people who crash land onto an island and have to survive. It’s like that Tom Hanks movie but there’s no volleyballs. Oh, but you’d be a fool to think the show was JUST about being stranded on a desert island, wouldn’t you?

You would, because the show tackles more thematic elements that I could shake a hatch door at: religion, time travel, physics, cults, medicine, societal hierarchy, life and death and existence itself. There’s plenty more, but each of those could be made into their own 9-season show BY THEMSELVES. Many people criticized the show for spreading itself too thin with all these different angles, and I can’t entirely disagree with them. After the 2nd season, the show started playing with more advanced ideas (like time travel and teleportation) and it all started to feel more and more gimmicky. Perhaps it was; but I admire the show for pulling in all these different ideas and evolving the base concept into far, far more; something that people still argue and debate over today (again, 4 years after its end).

The show kept you guessing in every single episode, and you started to have things like movie tie-in conspiracies. People (including myself) would stay up all night rattling my brain, and my thoughts usually went something like "Wait, if he made the plane crash, then how did she- oh right, isn’t on the island. But that guy’s dad is, or is he an illusion? Or is he alive? And if he is, what does he want with the peanut butter chick? OMG SHE SPEAKS ENGLISH?!"

You should watch if: you don’t already know major spoilers and love being a detective for 6 seasons and, also, you love deep conversations about existence and God.

4. Archer

Best episodes: S1 E5 Honeypot,S1E10 Dial M for Mother, S2E10 El Secuestro, S3E8 El Scandolo
Best character: Mallory Archer

Anything that strikes me as inappropriate and non-water-cooler-friendly immediately grabs my attention because I like to make sure I alienate as many co-workers as possible. Archer is the kind of show that has that kind of humor. Lampooning James Bond and Mission: Impossible-style thriller movies and shows, Archer retains silly cartoon banter and slapstick while still sticking to its roots. Sterling Archer works for his mother, Mallory at a CIA-style super-intelligence facility called ISIS. Sterling, along with his on-again off-again love interest Lana and a team of scientists, accountants and receptionists are tasked with assassinating political leaders, busting drug networks and taking care of an ocelot.

The show works primarily well because of all the long-running jokes. While certain plot points carry over episode-to-episode, it wouldn’t be necessary to follow the show in chronological order except for how most of the humor works. One-liners are funny on their own, but the real gut-busting comes from referencing a joke from season 1 in season 3. Many of the jokes are inside jokes, with no set-up or real way to explain it to a friend (should you have any) without having them see the episode for themselves. Yes, you’ll be “that person” that tries to explain a “had-to-be-there” moment if no one else has experienced Archer, and it’s incredibly difficult to pinpoint what works so well about this style of comedy. The animation is also usually very static, so combine the minimal movement of someone like Sterling with his over-the-top delivery and you’ve got a winning combination of originality. It’s as if the show includes you in its circle of friends and only then will you begin to understand why everyone should be its friend.

You should watch if: you love big action set-pieces, sexy characters, ocelots, androids, nudity and perfectly timed banter among selfish people who don’t know how to do their jobs.

3. Arrested Development

Best episodes: S1E2 Top Banana, S1E13 Beef Consomme, S2E16 Meet the Veals
Best characters: Lucille Bluth

A more perfectly-crafted comedy never existed. Arrested Development revolves around a family who owns a real estate company known as the Bluth Company and how absolutely crazily and idiotically each member treats the multi-million dollar establishment. Save for Michael Bluth, the show’s primary protagonist, each character seems to suffer from some sort of social deficiency that results in each of them leading their lives astray from logic. Michael is tasked with keeping the company, and the family, together, but is tested to his absolute limits in nearly every episode. Much like Archer, the shows truly shines when it references things from other episodes, future episodes and even things in the same episode that may or may not have happened yet. There exists a ridiculous amount of foreshadowing, allusion and puns/word play that it would be easy to completely miss over half the jokes throughout your first viewing.

Yes, first. Arrested Development warrants at least 2 or 3 views of its 4-season run because, after having watched it 3 times or so now, I STILL find references and jokes that I never caught before. Once you start blue-ing your mind with all the foreshadowed events, you’ll see why the show is so masterfully created and written. The humor often informs the plot rather than just being funny asides, such as the mistaken Spanish for “Hermano” or the way the devilish matriarch treats her children. Things evolve out of the jokes, and too many comedies don’t understand how difficult and appreciated that can be.

You should watch if: you love dysfunctional families and playing with the English language (and appreciate a show you can re-watch unabashedly).

2. Breaking Bad

Best episodes: Every
Best character: Walter White

I hate to build upon the hype because that often ruins things for people, but Breaking Bad is one of the very few things in the world that simply cannot be over-hyped. Okay, maybe it DOESN’T have fire-breathing tigers and machine-gun-laden dinosaurs, but it falls just short of those things in the “awesome” factor. In case you were recently born within the past day, Breaking Bad is a story about a high school chemistry teacher-turned meth badass who starts dealing so he can make money for his family once he dies of cancer and finishes dealing because, well, he is the one who knocks.

This is the ultimate anti-hero/redemption story, though. Writing a good character is hard; writing characters this good is near-impossible, but here you have a set of characters who shock you with every move but aren’t unbelievable. The story is always so tightly told, with every loose end tied up in a perfect drug-laced bow, characters who act within their own parameters and pacing that never feels too fast or too slow. The writers seemed to have worked so methodically, even the tiniest details you never thought would be important turned out to be REALLY FUCKING IMPORTANT.

Breaking Bad pushed the boundaries of cable television and introduced a character we needed to hate, but couldn’t. Throughout the shows 5-season run, we grew up with Walter White, seeing him evolve (or, devolve, rather) and we can’t entirely blame him for how many events play out. Characters carry true weight, and when one dies, it strikes a powerful chord. And let’s not forget the dark, dark, dark humor the show uses as both very slight dramatic relief but also as points of “..can I laugh at that?”

You should watch if: you like TV. At all. If you’re a fan of good writing and an exceptional dual-life redemption story, Breaking Bad is for you.

1. Futurama

Best episodes: S3E4 The Luck of the Fryrish, S5E18 The Devil’s Hands are Idle Playthings, S6E7 The Late Philip J. Fry, S7E10 The Prisoner of Benda, S10E10 Game of Tones, S10E12 Meanwhile
Best character: Professor Farnsworth

You’ve made it to my #1 TV show of all time. Congratulations! You do care! …Or you skipped just to see the list instead of reading my reasons, which is fine, whatever, you’re a cunt.
If the tragedy and comedy masks had a child, Futurama would be that mask. The show is hilarious and smart, albeit pandering to the 5-year-old in our hearts at times. And I don’t just mean smart like “what a great twist that was,” I mean this is the show that made up and proved its own mathematical theorem. Yeah, it’s that kind of smart.

But to reference my allusion to the masks earlier, Futurama is like The Simpsons or Family Guy if those shows could make you cry. Episodes like the infamous, heart-wrenching, SERIOUSLY HAVE TISSUES READY “Jurassic Bark” all deftly mix humor with serious heart, and it’s when you watch these episodes that you realize that Futurama is something special. It’s far more than butt jokes and slapstick; it has pitch-perfect commentary on everything from politics and technology to big business and religion. It’s the rare show that you can enjoy with your brain at low power or maximum power, being able to grab your attention with its bright colors and special effect and then hold it with it big, scientific words and explanations. While the setting has plenty of holes in logic, the year 3000 still feels real and tangible. The show is phenomenal at butchering other shows and genres and despite how far out it is, still remains relatable. Fry’s undying love for Leela never gets old, and by the end of season 9, you’re going to realize why.

You should watch if: you have a heart and a sense of humor.

TV-obsessed,
Kyle

Her Review

We live in a time when people would prefer to text each other instead of meet up for coffee and catch up, and that might be due to our growing dependence on mobile technology, lack of free time to actually accomplish such a meeting or our searing disdain for human interaction… or all three.

Probably all three.

But at what point will cell phones and tablets become more than just tools for communicating with friends? Like, let’s say, at what point will they actual become our friends? This is the kind of question Her poses to the world (and the answer is the not-too-distant future). In fact, I wouldn’t be shocked if the movie is re-titled “The Life and Times of Siri: A Remembrance” in about 20 years, when this concept becomes all too real.

Her started making its rounds around festivals and limited-release showings in early 2013, and when I first heard about it, I was immediately intrigued. “This sounds interesting!” I would say to myself, a gleam in my eyes and a skip in my step.

"That looks fucking weird," everyone else would say, fire in their hearts and a sealed metal vault around their minds. This post is about Her and my thoughts specifically on it, but it truly irritates me that someone will completely ignore a potentially eye-opening, exciting and/or emotional experience because of some contrived rationale, like “that looks weird” or “it’s a children’s movie” or “it has Nicolas Cage in it.” I can understand your initial hesitance, but some of my favorite movies are ones that I thought I wouldn’t have any interest in, like The Wicker Man.

Just kidding, that’s a terrible movie, but did I let the fact that it’s weird or that it has Nicolas Cage keep me from seeing it? For a while yes, but the point is that I watched it and it was the best unintentional comedy I’ve ever seen.

So, yes, Her is an unsettling concept because, let’s be real, who wants to date their computer? That’s messed up and sad and pathetic and, oh, wait…

One sec…

Mmhmmm…

Okay, done.

Sorry, I had a new message on Plenty-of-Fish, where was I? Oh, YEAH, we’ll NEVER be that dependent on our technology for things like love, right?

But we already are, and it’s only getting worse; aside from the mind-poking fabrication/realization of our future, Her is, very possibly, my favorite film of 2013 (barring the fact that I haven’t seen as many as I wanted to). Her deftly, creatively infuses comedy and drama together, hand-in-phone, that the film never becomes more of one than the other; Her becomes almost a standard romantic comedy without you even realizing it; Theodore Twombly and Samantha, the main character and his operating system (OS), go through all the motions of a typical budding romance: interested friends, sexual tension, awkward day-after scenario, honeymoon phase, bored-of-eachother era, try-new-things-in-bed-to-shake-things-up mode, etc. They become jealous of each other and you start to realize that this is a real romance and that you want both …”people” to be happy with each other. It’s beautiful tragedy, because you know that Samantha is completely artificial but Theodore is just a lonely man who has finally looked to his last resort and given into it. We can sit here and say “that would never be me, I’d never stoop that low,” and guess who else said that? All of us, 15 years ago, when online dating starting getting big.

So yeah, this is an almost logical step forward in the creepy digital romance spectrum, but it’s handled with such care and meticulously written dialogue. Samantha is never physically present, but she feels tangible. You’re constantly reminded that you can’t touch her, but you want to give her a hug anyway. Her knows how to play to some of the most basic temptations of romance and it makes you evaluate what you consider important in sharing your life with someone else. Sure, looks and personality and humor are all important but at the end of the day, just like long distance relationships, if you can’t actually hold them in your arms, it feels like it means almost nothing.

Such beautiful cinematography and an amazingly gripping musical score, guide you go through all kinds of emotions, usually right along with Theodore. You feel sad, you feel happy, you feel anxious, you feel confused, etc. To me, any film that can make you feel any one of these feelings dominantly rates highly in my book because it’s very difficult to truly evoke such human pathos in an artificial medium, but when a film can successfully tackle multiple ranges of emotion, it’s a particularly outstanding feat. What you see and what you hear harmoniously fuse to bring out your most basic human characteristics, and we’re talking about a movie starring a talking phone. Scarlett Johansson and Joaquin Phoenix are captivating, Johansson being particularly brilliant considering you never see her. The subtleties in her voice are just as convincing as slight facial reactions and, again, she feels wholly real even though you never see her.

Her helps transcend the modern tragicomedy by giving you a “weird” premise and running with it. The film is smartly written, sharply directed, beautifully lit and stunningly scored and for such a simple idea, it makes you wonder about some of life’s most complicated daily ideas (and will possibly be the harbinger for bringing back pastel colors and high-waisted pants).

We’ve all fallen in love and we’ve all had that one specific person that made you crazy, confused, nervous, excited, happy, mad, depressed - human. Perhaps that’s Samantha’s purpose, an artificial catalyst for your emotions. She helps Theodore get in touch with himself and how he controls his real-life relationships by putting him through all of those feelings, and in turn, Her does the same thing. Maybe, before we all lose touch (literally and figuratively) with each other, take a chance and show, don’t tell, that crazy person that you love them and maybe you can be clinically insane together.

Rarely can a movie make me feel what this movie could, especially when it’s about an “artificial” relationship.

The Good:
+ Excellent acting from lead actors
+ A simple idea, masterfully analyzed
+ Perfect blend of comedy and drama
+ Original ideas and themes
+ Amazing, gripping soundtrack and visual set-pieces

The Bad:
- High-waisted pants. Oh God.

10/10

Socially, Acceptably Insane,
Kyle

Frozen Review

Don't you hate when people hype things up? It almost always ruins whatever it is they're talking about for you. Like yeah, I know, Avatar wasreally cool in 3-D, and yes, Breaking Bad is the single greatest TV show of all time with impeccably-cast actors, heart-wrenching suspense, masterful pacing and dialogue and the best anti-hero/redemption story you've ever followed... WE GET IT.

Anyway, when I first heard of Frozen, I was extremely disinterested. Just seemed like another Disney movie. Then I saw the trailer, and I think it was the first time in the history of my cinematic endeavors when I was actually dissuaded even more by the trailer to see the movie. Up until its release, I thought the movie was about a mismatched, adventurous cutesy-Disney pair reluctantly working together to bring about the demise of the evil ice queen and save the kingdom while laughing at the hilarious antics of a reindeer and a talking snowman.

And I was right, except for the part about "evil" and "hilarious."

In case you were too busy seeking asylum in South America or fiddling around with the Obamacare website, Frozen is the latest flick from Walt Disney Animation Studios (NOT PIXAR for the billionth time) that favors CGI like Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph in lieu of traditional BORING 2-D animation like those stupid Snow White and Aladdin movies. What were they thinking, am I right?

But because children can't sit still for more than 12 seconds, we are constantly forced to trade in the values of interesting dialogue and diversified characters for 3-D, IMAX, CGI and other very short phrases that we, as adults, have to resort to (because we, as adults, also cannot sit still for more than 12 seconds).

I gave Frozen a chance because it was just a little ridiculous how much publicity it was getting, from being rated a 'Certified Fresh' 89% on Rotten Tomatoes to all of Facebook throwing riots if someone spoke ill of it.

I now understand why it received so much hype, and it upsets me. Because we've come to a point where children and adults have massive ADD/ADHD, most people are starting to catch on to the "save the princess" scenario that so many Disney movies utilize. Frozen's plot is less orthodox because it doesn't have a traditional "villain." The antagonist here is simply Elsa's inability to control her frosty powers.

Here's a basic outline of the plot:

1. Elsa and Anna are sisters who live in a castle.

2. Elsa has the power to control ice and snow, which progressively becomes more and more uncontrollable.

3. Elsa accidentally injures her sister, so her parents exploit the powers of trolls to erase Anna's memories and lock Elsa up in a room because that's what good parents do.

4. PLOT TWIST: The parents die. Very abruptly.

5. Anna and Elsa live on their lives being separated and Anna doesn't know why. Elsa, being the older sister, inherits the kingdom when she becomes an adult but doesn't want her subjects to know she's actually a member of the X-Men for fear of being labeled a monster, but things happen and everyone finds out about it and she runs away because the villagers basically go all Frankenstein on her so she sings a dramatic song and builds herself a pointy igloo to live out the rest of her days. LITTLE DOES SHE KNOW THAT THE KINGDOM IS NOW IN AN ETERNAL BLIZZARD, so even by running away, she's constantly fucking up. Elsa fucks up a lot in Frozen. Anna wants to help her and rekindle their sisterhood, so she chases after her and meets a guy and a reindeer and a talking snowman...

That's basically what you need to know. If it's a Disney movie that doesn't take place in modern times, you can bet it'll have a castle, dead/abandoning parents, talking animals/inanimate objects, and a villain that the heroes constantly run away from... oh wait, THAT'S what's different. No villain. The story revolves around the trek Anna and Kristof (the ice-miner, no, really) have to make to get to Elsa so they can stop the Winter from freezing everyone to death and ruining Kristof's business. Of selling ice.

Not all stories need a villain, and considering Disney is usually infamous for its witches and hunters enslaving humanity and killing things for no particular reason, this is a step in the right direction for their upcoming projects. I'm excited to finally not be able to call every single plot point (except for one big one that I don't want to spoil if you haven't seen it). The animation is also mind-blowing, save for some gimmicky "LOOK AT HOW 3-D THIS IS" moments. Particularly, the scene where Elsa is building her castle and absolutely slaying 90% of female vocalists in the world is such a wondrous and beautifully rendered few minutes that I simply could not look away. Her powers are also significant to the plot, so making them look incredible was a necessity, versus let's say Brave where Merida's hair jiggles more than other characters' hair jiggles.

The voice acting by Idina Menzel and Kristen Bell is perfect as are the rest of their songs; they're all very well-written and performed with excellent charisma and chemistry. Which is good, because they're the only two characters you end up caring about. Which, in turn, brings me to Olaf...

I'm all for comedic relief in a movie, but when you have a character that literally adds nothing to the plot and is just there to pander to the 5 year olds high on cotton candy, I have a problem. Yes he's cute and the slapstick is funny when you still think eating boogers is funny, but it dumbs down the rest of the movie to such a pitiful level that his moments were hard to watch. He has his own song, and there are moments where he is given considerable screen-time for very little payoff. I really detest when characters are inserted into a plot for either a deus-ex machina, a MacGuffin or comic relief when they don't offer anything else to the story. Frozen could've stood on its own without Olaf, and it already had the adorable antics of a mute reindeer to hold the kids over on the physical comedy front.

This following paragraphs contains a couple of big spoilers, so if you haven't seen the movie yet, skip it:

Then of course, a villain is revealed about four-fifths of the way through, because we can't have a movie that strays from the conventional AFTER ALL. A minor character introduced at the beginning turns out to have ulterior motives for his actions with Anna and it is revealed that he wants to kill Anna and Elsa and take over the kingdom for himself, lying that he and Anna get married. Despite having a few opportune chances to kill two princesses with one stone, he doesn't. Why? WELL HE HAS TO EXPLAIN HIS MISCHIEVOUS EVIL PLOT FIRST! I don't know if Disney thinks we're all too stupid to put a puzzle together, considering there's only a handful of pieces to it and it's just one solid color, but the hackneyed "explain my plan" thing has been beaten dead for years now, so much so that it's a huge part of Disney's Phineas & Ferb show. Do you understand? Disney makes fun of doing this in virtually every episode of one of its most popular TV series, but does it in the movie anyway. It's revealed when the only way to save Anna's life, after things happen, is for her to experience an act of "true love." Since keeping the PG-rating meant cutting the incestuous, bestial orgy scene originally intended, they had Anna try to kiss her would-be fiancee only for him to pull a slick "JUST KIDDING" and tell her he just wanted to bang her to inherit the royalty. And you thought all Disney princesses were sweet and 1-dimensional, huh?

Also, the villagers turn on Elsa once they discover her mutant powers without even giving her a slight chance to prove herself capable of running the kingdom. Elsa is also the only character seen or mentioned to have any sort of affinity for sorcery, and the origin of her powers is never touched upon at all. All the other characters react negatively without, seemingly, ever having seen or heard about such things before. Once everything is settled, the villagers act like nothing happened and love her again, just be-fucking-cause.

At the end, Anna almost dies trying to save Elsa from being killed as she is frozen solid for eternity. This happens because Anna gets hit by a powerful ice blast earlier in the movie and it slowly freezes her heart. As is heard exactly 2,005,432 times after this, "Only an act of true love can thaw a frozen heart." Elsa has a bitch-fit about her sister being killed (god she's so dramatic) and gives her corpse one last hug, which in turn unfreezes Anna because it's an act of true love. This teaches Elsa that the only way to control her powers, apparently, is to let others in and accept herself and everyone around her for who they are. This makes no sense because if that really were the cure for her uncontrollable powers, she would've never had the issue to begin with because of her closeness with Anna and their parents when she was younger. At that point, the villain (and his fucking ARMY, by the way) has a chance to kill Elsa, but chooses not to because... dramatic pauses are crucial, I guess.

SPOILER over, continue on:

This movie would've gotten a high recommendation from me had it axed Olaf completely, done away with the 'big twist/reveal' towards the end, hadn't felt the need to repeat and explain certain points and cut the gimmicky 3-D portions. Perhaps the hype killed it for me and I felt the need to extract the most negative aspects of it, but I don't think my opinion would have been skewed either way. Frozen is still good and a step in the right direction for where Disney movies should be going, but it's one small step where it could've been a big leap.

The Good:
+Excellent voice acting and singing
+Incredibly animated and rendered
+Likable lead characters
+Unconventional for a Disney film

The Bad:
-Olaf.
-The "villain" and stupid plot twist
-Nonsensical ending
-Too much exposition
-The parents die for seemingly no reason and we are forced to watch the short scene where they die, very abruptly

6.0/10

Heart Not Thawed,
Kyle
PS. As with any opinionated article I post, I'm always open for discussion =)

PPS. If your argument is that “it’s a kid’s movie” and therefore shouldn’t be criticized or observed any deeper than face value, you have a very twisted mentality. There are plenty of “kids’ movies” that are great and don’t need to pander to the ADD in our youth to be so (like most Pixar films, How To Train Your Dragon, Howl’s Moving Castle, etc.). If this movie won an Academy Award, OR had I reviewed it more favorably, you probably wouldn’t have said anything like that, but your argument should still stand because whether I review it positively or negatively, I’m looking deeper into the film and criticizing it. This sort of argument would have to negate practically any film that’s rated under PG-13 for consideration of review in virtually any medium for it to work.

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