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

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.

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

Add, Adapt, Repeat: Holistic Hollywood's Never-Fail Formula

On this day of Thanksgiving, I chose to reflect on a few things: my career and future, my family and friends, and the quality of the cinema today. Perhaps not all directly related to each other, that last section is what struck me the most: the quality of cinema today. Most of today's movies range from perfect to downright awful, but they all have one thing in common: lack of originality. An easy comparison would be Slumdog Millionaire, winner of the Academy Award for Best Motion Picture vs. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, a despicable escapade of special effects and product placement. Both are adaptations of other works of art, Slumdog being a direct adaptation of the book "Q & A" by Vikus Swarup, Transformers being both an adaptation of the original "Transformers" tv show and line of toys as well as a sequel to the simply-titled "Transformers" back in 2007.

Problems lie within these kinds of titles. Yes, there exist plenty of films that may be adaptations, remakes or sequels and are commercially and critically successful, but personally, I sense a strong inclination of overseeing the huge, overlying predicament Hollywood faces: ideas. There's a fine line between originality and creativity: originality is being able to derive source material from one's own mind and creativity is the ability to make anything, published or not, into your own work. Directors, actors and writers are constantly churning out creativity in the movie market today, but who sees a truly original, truly individual, truly stand-out work of art? Nearly no one. The foreign markets seem to be gleaming in the lime light of originality (namely the Swedish made "Home" or the Japanese "Big Man Japan" or even the disturbing Hungarian "Taxidermia"), but not much more than the U.S. agenda's spotlight of commercial cash-in. This year alone, it wouldn't be difficult to name 50 films off the top of your mind that are, in some way, adapted, remade, or added from/to another work. The most global and historically recognized and successful films all fall prey to this legitimate truth: Gone with the Wind was a book, Titanic was a historical event and countlessly adapted into novels and other films, the Spider-Man series is adapted from the famous comic books by Marvel, The Dark Knight is simply a different take on the already-popularized Batman culture from DC Comics, the Twilight series is based on the famous series of tween novels, and Pirates of the Caribbean was originally based on a Disney ride in California (only to spawn sequels that build off initial premises). These allegations, in themselves, serve as an homage to our money-hungry leaders, particularly the producers in movie studios who jump at any opportunity to seduce the feeble minded and mass market into throwing money into a trivial trap that is "the movies."

In fact, you could see any given film and it's about 85% likely to be a sequel, adaptation or remake.

Maybe I am being a little too harsh in this observation, though. Personally, the cinema is a grandiose gift to humanity, a way of producing any given work into its own separate entity, injecting excitement and posing new ideas, concepts and ventures from already-made books, plays and stories. Movies are a glorification of practically any work, being able to turn even the most mundane and melancholy novel into an energetic or emotional thrill of a story. Sticking to source material or not, movies just have that special something that make us pay attention and believe what is on screen is real. They pull you in and never let go.

And therein lies the base for the creativity conundrum. The strength of films are their ultimate demise; the fact that a movie can be so irresistible and fantastic (to each their own) completely deludes the human mind. Sure, Academy Award-winning pictures could be great, but the trend we see today is rarely touched upon: they're all unoriginal. Luckily, studios like Disney and Pixar produce original works; that is to say, many animated features that are released are original for the most part. Take the film "Up" for example, by Pixar Studios. Up is the kind of film that you couldn't dream up in your wildest imaginations, and on top of its originality and creativity, it became both commercially and critically successful, earning rave reviews from critics and the general public alike. Its cute, its witty and clever, but most importantly, its not a copy.

Now if only we could adapt the ideology of originality that some studios put forth rather than adapt more New York Times Bestselling Novels, the people's minds wouldn't be so convoluted. We've come to a point where people mostly say "I can't wait til they make that [book, play, musical, ride, tv show, event, etc.] into a movie!" Remember a time when kids and grown-ups alike would come up with a preposterous yet infinitely intriguing concept and say "Yeah...they should make that into a movie!" ? Those were the days.

Now, I hope no one believes that I'm personally chewing up the film industry and spitting them on the street simply because they are making tons of unoriginal works...well, maybe I am; however, I do enjoy plenty of films that are taken from other publications like Slumdog Millionaire and even my most prized choice film of all time, The Lion King. The Dark Knight makes my top list as well as A Clockwork Orange, but the films that truly inspire me and send me into a state of awe are the films that don't have concrete source material. Tarantino's films come to mind, as they're all incredibly original as well as creative. Sure, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds are examples of films that have roots in other ideas, genres and publications, but they're not entirely cookie-cutter carbon copies of them. Pulp Fiction is a tongue-in-cheek satire of the noir style of film, Kill Bill builds on several different anime/manga/Japanese filmmaking concepts but mixes them perfectly into a masterpiece milkshake, and Inglourious Basterds takes elements from war films, particularly WWII films, and satirizes them while giving it that pulpy B-Movie flare that he's known for. Or many of the indie films that most of us never hear about: those tend to win over the audiences that actually do see them and the critics that they tend to. Tarsem Singh's "The Fall," Marc Webb's "500 Days of Summer," or Darren Aronofsky's "The Wrestler" and "Requiem for a Dream" are all independent films that the masses perhaps weren't keen to, and they got it right. Even Paranormal Activity, seemingly taking a candle to Cloverfield and The Blair Witch Project, was wholely creative and fantastic in execution. It seems that the biggest offenders here are main-market, audience pleasing big-budget blowouts. What am I bashing? Let's review:


Transformers (Adaptation)
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Adaptation, Sequel)
My Sister's Keeper (Adaptation)
Disney's A Christmas Carol (Adaptation, Remake)
Twilight (Adaptation)
Twilight: New Moon (Adaptation, Sequel)
Harry Potter (All of them) (Adaptations, Sequels)
The Road (Adaptation)
Amelia (Historical)
Astro Boy (Adaptation)
The Lord of the Rings (Adaptation)
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (Adaptation, Sequel)
The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (Adaptation, Sequel)
Pirates of the Caribbean (Adaptation)
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (Sequel)
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (Sequel)
The Boondock Saints: All Saint's Day (Sequel)
Halloween (Remake)
Halloween II (Sequel)
Friday the 13th (Remake)
A Nightmare on Elm Street (Remake)
The Ring (Remake)
The Grudge (Remake)
When a Stranger Calls (Remake)
Mirrors (Remake)
One Missed Call (Remake)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Remake)
Ice Age: The Meltdown (Sequel)
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (Sequel)
Julie and Julia (Adaptation)
The Men who Stare at Goats (Historical)
Pirate Radio (Historical)
The Stepfather (Remake)
Saw II - VI (Sequels)
Surrogates (Adaptation)
Watchmen (Adaptation)
The Time Traveler's Wife (Adaptation)
Whip It (Adaptation)
Where the Wild Things Are (Adaptation)
Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (Remake)
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (Remake)
2012 (Historical)
The Da Vinci Code (Adaptation)
Angels & Demons (Adaptation)
My Bloody Valentine 3D (Remake)
The Pink Panther (Remake, Adaptation)
The Pink Panther 2 (Sequel)
Street Figher: The Legend of Chun-Li (Adaptation)
Alone in the Dark (Adaptation)
Crank 2 (Sequel)
Transporter 2 and 3 (Sequels)
Race to Witch Mountain (Remake)
12 (Remake)
Funny Games (Remake)
The Haunting in Connecticut ("Historical")
The Fast and The Furious 2, The Fast and The Furious: Tokyo Drift, Fast and Furious (Sequels)
Poseidon (Remake)
Fame (Remake)
Terminator: Rise of the machines (Sequel)
Terminator: Salvation (Sequel)
Max Payne (Adaptation)
The Punisher (Adaptation)
The Punisher: War Zone (Adaptation)
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Adaptation, Prequel)
Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (Prequel)
Underworld: Evolution (Sequel)
The Kite Runner (Adaptation)


And these are only more recent films. Tons of films from beyond the current generation retain the same sequel/remake/adaptation style that we see today, as well as plenty of confirmed future projects; unfortunately, its the rate at which these copies simply churn out of the producers' factories that plague our industry. And just to reiterate, I'm not saying any given film that happens to be a sequel, remake or adaptation is bad or not enjoyable, but its simply a sad situation to be in when all anyone hears about are films based on numerous other sources and publications. I do appreciate the volumes of books that have been adapted onto the screen; there are plenty of titles out there today that I would love to see turned cinematic. However, the majority of films today fall into that specific "recycled" idea, and I'd rather see a year full of completely original, non-cliche films than even my most anticipated adaptation.

An entirely separate encyclopedia could be written based solely on movies that may not be carbon copies of a specific work, but are simply rehashes of every other movie. You may go through a list and see plenty of films that fit my accusations, but also many that may not. Lest we forget that Romantic Comedies, J-Horror, Torture Porn, Noir/Pulp, Masculinity and Disaster sub-genres all tend to blend within their groups as extremely identical, and each contain glaringly blatant similarities among themselves that catch the attention of the average movie-goer. I guess you could say a film like "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past" or "Fighting" aren't remakes...but they aren't exactly original either. My focus in this article is concentrated on sequels, adaptations and remakes but isn't limited to these only. There exist too many films that, although not specifically copying another work, are far too familiar and use themes and ideas from too many other works to really be considered "original" or "creative." For example, most romantic comedies take one or two celebrities, force them with an unyielding, cliche-ridden script, then market the film NOT as a great film, but simply as a star-vehicle for the main protagonists (or antagonists). That's simply an example, and as time goes on, I'm sure I'll write another speculative observation on the redundancy and laziness of Hollywood on the gimmicky front, but for now, similar problems lie within the realm of remakes, adaptations and sequels as well as the rehashes among genres.

This is where I'm going to disagree with all the PSA's and educational groups: Kids, don't read a book. Write one.



-Kyle Shelton