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

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

Let me rephrase.

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

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

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

My personal view, you ask? Why thank you!

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

Date Night Review: Perfect for its Title.

Steve Carrell. Tina Fey.

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

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

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

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

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

/10

-Kyle Shelton

Miley Cyrus is a Bird.

First of all, congratulations to me for updating and reworking my entire blog. You’re welcome.
Just. Kidding.

But seriously, you’re welcome. Too much stuff has been occurring recently in our media world for me to just sit here and let it all… well, occur. And so, one of the biggest new things to hit the interwebs is Miley Cyrus’ new video; more importantly, Miley Cyrus’ new look.

The video for “Can’t Be Tamed” premiered about a week ago on E!, demonstrating Cyrus’ new direction in her music career: aka, trying to sound like everyone. else.






Aside from a random little cameo from a Lady Gaga impersonator, Cyrus’ new song sounds like someone took all of Britney Spears songs from both Blackout and Circus, ate them and threw them up all over Ms. Montana’s edgier alter-ego.
Let it be known she’s also extremely sexual in the video. I wanted to make a point of this because, as we all know, Miley Cyrus is a cute little towngirl from Tennessee who sings about living a double life and finding love.

Then she breaks out with a song about how she, more or less, hates that life, and wants to be free and do what she wants. That’s great and everything, but you don’t have to be a slut to do it. Cyrus can be seen sensually touching herself in her 12-year-old nether-regions, and her lyrics come off as quite conceited mixed with a touch of whore. For example:

“Every guy everywhere just gives me mad attention 

Like I'm under inspection, I always get the 10s 

'Cause I'm built like that 

I go through guys like money flyin' out their hands”

With all these boys barking up her tree, you’d think she wouldn’t have time to be writing a song. Then again, we all know the Achey-Breaky one-hit-wonder Billy Ray Cyrus (Miley’s dad for those of you who actually have lives and don’t follow this), primarily wrote all of her old songs. Something tells me he’s evolving from managing, loving, helpful father to pimp-daddy very very fast. Let’s not forget Miley’s magazine cover shoot where she was NAKED, with her father’s graceful and ever-watchful eye simply watching.

Then, of course, it was finally revealed that Miley Cyrus is a bird. So, that’s fun. In the beginning of the video, a nicely dressed banquet host introduced Cyrus as a creature thought to be extinct, “Avis Cyrus.” I’m not kidding. Then all of these rejects from Britney Spears' “Circus” video and Rihanna’s “Disturbia” video appear out of nowhere and start groping Cyrus, cheering her on to be as promiscuous as humanly (or birdly) possible.

Back to the important part though, what do you think? Do you think Miley Cyrus’ ridiculous new direction in her music is good or bad? I can’t help but feel like she wants to ride the Britney/Ke$ha/Cascada/Lady Gaga/Christina Aguilera bandwagon by using some more dancey-clubby synthesized music than her usual pop-rock, mildly country persona she retained before. Then again, you know this song is going to get played at clubs, and the ever popular “I hate the artist but love this song!” quotes will be spewing from everyone’s mouths, including mine.

-Kyle Shelton

Kick-Ass Review: Kicks Ass or has its Ass Kicked?

How was Kick-Ass, you ask? Well I would tell you exactly what I loved and hated about but, oh, I'm sorry, I was too busy shifting towards the edge of my seat being extremely careful that I didn't plunge to the depths of the movie theater floor for the last 30 or so minutes, therefore COMPLETELY blinding me of my likes and gripes. I left the theater wanting to obliterate the ears of nuns by uttering fantastic expletives, followed by slitting their throats and shooting at their beloved sisters.

Sadistic? Get used to it. If you're going to see the latest comic/graphic novel – turned – film, you need to have an open mind and morbid sense of humor to fully appreciate it. As I said, I left the theater feeling like a complete lunatic, and I still feel the same way. Thus, trying to put aside how bad-ass Kick-ass was-ass (lol), I'm going to put into words my humble (but indisputable) opinion about the long-awaited comic book parody.

Kick-Ass (based on the graphic novel of the same name by Mark Millar) tells a tale of an innocent do-gooder named Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson). Dave is your typical misfit teenager who exists unnoticed to everyone around him except his father and his two best friends (of equal merit). He decides to be a superhero named Kick-Ass, perplexed by the idea that no one has tried it quite yet considering the millions of comic book-lovers out there. Witnesses see him saving someone from a group of thugs, and he is recorded on a cell phone camera; from there, he goes viral, sets up a MySpace account for the needy to contact him, and becomes a sensation around the city. Shortly thereafter, a young girl named Mindy (Chloe Grace Moretz) and her father Damon (Nicolas Cage) assume the heroic titles of Hit-Girl and Big Daddy respectively, and somewhat join forces with Kick-Ass to rid the city of crime. Meanwhile, a corrupt mob boss named Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong) is running a city-wide drug running syndicate and becomes the prime enemy of these three heroes. His son, Chris D'Amico (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) simply wants to follow in his father's footsteps and take over the business [off which he has no idea the real business of].

Thus, wheels are set in motion and the train tracks to climactic oblivion run wild. Leave your logic and normalcy at the front door, because once you get passed the "average Joe" introduction we all know and [sometimes] love, your imagination takes over and takes you for a kickass ride (the "Kick-Ass" puns don't stop here).

The real star of the show here is Hit-Girl, despite the title. In fact, the main character shouldn't have been named Kick-Ass because it seems that the only character who really "kicks ass" throughout the whole film is Hit-Girl. She's what you love to see and can't wait to see again. In between the doses of ultra violence and crowd-pleasers, you have subtle jabs at the comic book industry as a whole and plenty of wishy-washy college-grade comedy to go about.

AND OF COURSE THERE'S A ROMANTIC SUB-PLOT. I'm not exactly sure how many times I've mentioned in previous reviews how inane I believe romantic sub-plots to be, but regardless… I think they're pretty inane. They're rarely necessary and, in this case, it just excuses the film for being a frat-boy clap-a-thon whenever someone cops a feel. Fantastic, we have a movie about super awesome ass-kicking super heroes and we get American Pie-esque moments of sexual drive to high five our Tau Delta Phi Zeta Flip Flop Beer Football Chi Omega brothers. Cool.

But, then again, these moments kiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind of fit in only because the whole point of the film is seeing your every day kid in a not-so-every day situation (you know, being a super hero and single-handedly fighting crime and surviving… well you'll see). So these few scenes are okay… I guess… but this brings me to the awkward pacing the film retains. Often. Too many moments exist in the film where just too many emotions are mixed simultaneously: you'll feel enraged, sad, and then want to laugh at some ridiculous moment of comedic relief and you're not quite sure which of these feelings you want to exert the most. Considering the film is a… let's see, Revenge Action Comedy Drama Parody Adaptation, you'll have your Multiple Personality Disorder-inflicted hands tied quite a bit. There's nothing wrong with mixing genres and whatnot, but all in the same moment? No thank you, I want to feel for a character without having to see something dumb to remind us it's not necessarily a "serious" movie, but with a name like "Kick-Ass," I guess it's only appropriate for it to remind us, huh? Might as well call a movie "Shitty Titty Bang Bang" and just spontaneously infuse moments of mixed seriousness and silliness just so we think it's a serious movie, but get the idea that it's not… at the same time.

I digress, by now you've probably stopped reading the last paragraph (since you're reading this one) due to my over-explaining of my feelings. But unfortunately, the pacing and awkward moments were a big part of what dragged down Kick-Ass for me.
Although I said the star of the show is Hit-Girl, actor-wise, Nicolas Cage really steals it. Thank you Nicolas Cage (or your terrible but temporarily forgiven agent) for finally picking a film that people actually want to see AND like. In all seriousness, though, Cage definitely lends a pretty fun and enjoyable character in Big Daddy from start to finish.

The script is great.

Yeah, that's about it. It's great. It's not terribly, well, terrible but it's not the most fantastic possible piece of work ever conceived either. I would've liked to see a few more Easter eggs and jabs at comic books, adaptations, etc. but for what I got, it wasn't bad. Unfortunately, a big chunk of the film was a bit predictable, but it also had its fun twists. So really, when it comes to the writing, for every bad thing there was an equally good thing to coincide.

The direction was great, though, especially some scenes that you can just tell were incredibly tricky to film and film well. Throughout the course of the movie, there are a few blatant comic book-inspired parts (like titles in classic comic book form) and even a whole back-story told through a cool (but cheap) comic run-through. You know you have a problem when you have to flat-out tell the audience something and use some glitter and glam to make said audience forget how cheap you're being. I'm sure any die-hard Kick-Ass graphic novel fan will knock me for this (all 3 of you), but I apologize for reviewing the film [moving picture] version of a book.

Anyway, the film is extremely enjoyable especially if watched with friends. I haven't read the graphic novel, but the story was actually pretty good and posed some interesting questions to its viewers. Sure, it was predictable and a bit cliché at times (and involves AN UNNECESSARY ROMANTIC SUB-PLOT), but had enough turns around the plot to redeem itself. But any critic will also have to realize that Kick-Ass is a film that does its own thing. It's not trying to be a big (daddy) cult hit (girl), win any Oscars or really gain any super-prestigious prize… it's just trying to be Kick-Ass, and it succeeds. The moments of visceral violent glory are worth the wait, especially the extremely climactic ending. Nothing in the film, in spurts, is particularly perfect, but overall it's a fun popcorn flick that certainly sits above the rest as an action film with focus and boldness. Sure, the gimmick here is the 11-year old schoolgirl blurting the F-bomb all over the place as she eviscerates thugs with various death-dealing weapons, but the gimmick works. Chris' character (eventually becoming Red Mist) could've used a little more work and development, but they all could have in the end. Dave is just like any other movie you've ever seen, practically, Chris isn't focused on enough, and although a lot of time was spent showing the dichotomy between Hit-Girl and Big Daddy, they kind of just abruptly end their depth after a certain point and each of them leaves you wanting more. However, as I stated in the beginning of my review, you're going to want to scour eBay for some cool-looking attire and pick up a few weapons from the local pawn shop and… well… Kick Ass.

7.5/10
-Kyle Shelton

Fun Fact: Brad Pitt produced the film. Neato.

The Crazies Review: Pretty Sane, Actually.

I had no idea there was an older film called “The Crazies” off of which this new “The Crazies” is based, so I’m not going to make any comparisons or allusions. With that said, “The Crazies” angered men quite a bit, making me want to walk all the way to Hollywood and smash the heads of anyone who write screenplays for horror films. Why?

Everything in The Crazies has, and I CANNOT emphasize this enough, BEEN DONE BEFORE. Okay, we get it, there’s an evil government conspiracy running amuck in a remote farming town in WhoTheF***CaresVille and a very close-knit community slowly has to cope with the concept that not everything in the world is honky-dory all the time. Except that the pace suddenly shifts from slow-building tension to absolute anarchy anti-Christ decimation in a matter of minutes. Why? I don’t know, ask the producers OH WAIT don’t because they don’t have brains and have probably produced the same movie 20 times. In fact, I’m pretty sure the producers, writers, director and everyone else involved with The Crazies secretly hide in movie theaters when this kind of film comes out to laugh and blow their noses with cash every time some half-retarded half-horny sorority whore clinches her macho boyfriend when so much as a mouse with a smirk squeaks off-screen.

I’m sorry, was I ranting? Because if you don’t think I was, I’m about to be.

Non-diegetic noises as a means of scaring audiences NEED TO STOP. I’m all for some classic horror, but if someone is slowly peering around a corner and all of a sudden a fly buzzes in front of you to the tune of a 2-second violin screech, I’m not going to be scared but apparently everyone will think a ghost had just licked their shoulder. Honestly, WHAT’S THE DEAL WITH AIRLINE FOOD CHEAP SCARES?! This is primarily why I love films like Blair Witch, The Strangers or Paranormal Activity: because they don’t resort to the cheap and mundane forms of scaring you. God forbid someone is in the medicine cabinet mirror only after you close it and a loud musical piece is played just as the character discovers it. It’s not effective any more, people are just suspending their disbelief so much these days that anything will scare them and THAT is why horror movies are getting any credit… that and also because they’re all terrible remakes featuring little girls with long black hair.

But I digress, The Crazies isn’t a complete failure; there are a few scenes that may stick in your mind, and one such scene takes place in a car wash. This brings me to my next point: practically every scene in The Crazies is either professionally handled and greatly directed ORRRR looks like a 4-year-old on a sugar rush just had an epileptic seizure while holding a camera. Also, although I said that most of the film has all been done before, there are a few moments of pure surprise when a plot takes an interesting turn in a completely different direction, although I’d hardly call any of these moment real game changers. Of course the last 4 attractive people in this god forsaken county just so happen to be the only survivors of what I can only call a pseudo-zombie outbreak (considering George A. Romero produced it, that’s probably what he was going for) but as it stands, these people who turn from normal to bat sh** crazy aren’t your typical zombies because they still have brains and can somehow manage to drive and utilize guns. Therefore, I guess they’re just…really mad lepers?

Whatever you want to call them, there’s very little to redeem “The Crazies” from its overly familiar setting, characters and story. Sure, take your loved one to see this film to give you an excuse to hold them tightly, but if you want to save $10, turn all the lights off and yell “Ooga booga booga.”

5.0/10

-Kyle Shelton

Alice in Wonderland Review: Lands without Wonder.

The original “Alice in Wonderland” film, although panned by Walt Disney himself, was and is a staple in cinematic animation and in the memory banks of people fortunate enough to have experienced the high. The new “Alice in Wonderland” is a staple in… a piece of black paper that Tim Burton vomited all over.

What do you need to know? The new Alice is still wacky and weird in lovable ways, but it’s actually a sequel to the original film and the books “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking Glass.” If you’re expecting the original tale told all over again…well, watch the original all over again. Otherwise, we now have an extension of what happened, but what may perplex the audience is that Tim Burton considers his version neither a sequel nor a reimagining. In essence, that’s probably what ultimately brings the film down: Alice in Wonderland has no idea what it wants to be.

While the original stories were completely absurd and nonsensical [ON PURPOSE], Tim Burton decided it would be a fantastical idea to make this version linear and very finely plotted [ON PURPOSE]. Well, in essence, he f***ed up [ON ACCIDENT]. To be completely honest, had this film come out almost identical to what it is now and another version of Alice had never come out before, this might just be a pretty great film. The truth of the matter is that there was already a version of Alice out: the original books. These original books had a point and are respectable works of literature. This Alice just seems to be a cash-in on the success of the famous cartoon that came out in 1951 and it worked. This isn’t exactly surprising, as most people who watched the cartoon loved it and to know that none other than Tim “Johnny Depp’s Secret Male Lover” Burton is helming it only adds a bar of Xanax to the cocaine-infused acid trip it already was. It works, for the most part. The characters are all still quirky and the best part of the story, the landscapes and CGI work are all beautifully rendered and top-notch and the story is fun enough [although cliché too often]. Unfortunately, much of Alice’s “wonder” is gone, and interchanged for bravery and boldness as she stands up to the Mad Hatter and takes on the role of a dragon-slayer. She’s also a bit more cunning and clever, which might make sense because this is a… well, certainly not a sequel since Burton doesn’t think so, but a continuation.

The plot is unbalanced at first: Alice tumbles down the rabbit hole and treats everything like she did before with the same bewilderment and curiosity. However, it is made clear that these events are taking place much later in her life, after they already happened, so the question arises whether the first time it happened was just a weird dream or just as real as this time? That’s a bit confusing, but then she acts like she’s the hottest thing to ever walk Underland [aka Wonderland]. So what, exactly is she?

Luckily, every character you meet is immediately memorable and lovable, especially (as you’d assume) The Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) and the Red Queen {Helena Bonham-Carter). Both of these characters are incredibly quirky and you await every scene containing them. The Mad Hatter is just as crazy as before, but with the Jack Sparrow-esque feel to him that makes him completely huggable yet devastatingly badass at the same time. Then of course there’s the Red Queen, who’s just deliciously evil, mixing some light-hearted self-loving troublemaking with some truly villainous traits [specifically her love of decapitation]. The minor characters are all great too, though, from the bloodhound who wants his family back to the cracked out Hare to Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. That’s what works, and Tim Burton isn’t exactly a stranger to quirky characters.

All in all, the film suffers because of its overdone yet classic “hero’s journey” style of story-telling. There’s nothing inherently wrong with it, but it becomes predictable, which completely undermines the otherwise otherworldly feel the film retains. Burton missed the mark on what could have been a much better and memorable take on the whole series, but at least he created great atmosphere and truly original art direction that alludes to his usual family-friendly morbid oddball direction. Cheers to what you see and hear, negative cheers to what you experience overall.

6.0/10

-Kyle Shelton

World's Greatest Dad Review: Morbid but Masterful.

World's Greatest Dad is the not the film you're thinking it is. Considering the dreadful "Old Dogs" was just released, you may see a poster for this and think "Hmm, a [most likely] romantic comedy featuring Robin Williams. Pass."

Well luckily for you, fellow moviegoer, this is not a romantic comedy by any stretch of the genre busting phrase. Sure...there's some romance and it's dubbed a "comedy," but certainly nowhere near your preloaded thoughts of mildly famous attractive younguns being mean to eachother for 90 minutes then having make-up sex in a hotel room. Nope, this is the darkest that dark humor can possibly get, and I loved every minute of it.

Robin Williams stars as Lance Clayton, a man whose life hasn't exactly gone as planned. He lives with his only son, Kyle (Daryl Sabara) who treats him like a piece of excrement mixed with vomit. So far, Clayton serves as a second-rate poetry teacher at a local high school, his dreams of becoming a wildly successful writer not come into fruition quite yet. Dating the art teacher, Claire (Alexie Gilmore), his life is barely above par for what anyone would consider just plain dreadful. Then, one night, a terrible tragedy strikes his life, leaving him with less than he had before...OR IS IT? Yes, of course, I had to throw in that inevitable twist line, but I digress. Clayton makes a choice he thinks is completely moral and plausible, only to lead to a chain reaction of events that turn his life into the gold mine he wished it was.

Now, I can't tell you what event sparks all of this because it's extremely key that you say "Wtf?" when it happens. However, I can tell you that it's a fun little twist that'll leave you dazed and bewildered, squandering awkwardly with your eyes around the room wondering if it's okay to laugh or not. In all seriousness, the film just has an incredibly bleak overtone, and it's sole purpose is to give you that "is it okay to laugh?" feeling all the way through. Think of the film as a funeral where the eulogist trips horrendously into the chocolate icing-covered cake next to the coffin. Yes, you want to laugh, and so does every single person there, but no one will because they're taking the event as serious.

But now on to the meat and bones of the film. The skin is all well and good, but overall the direction is quite taut and the writing is supreme. In fact, this is an incredibly well-written film, from the themes to the punch lines. It's also incredibly relatable, giving you, the awkward teenager, mid-life crisis parent or single and fun woman a chance to examine what could be. Also, you get to see Robin Williams full on naked. I'm not kidding.

Aside from seeing the main star completely nude, the film is practically sweating "artsy" droplets of indie filmmaking. You can immediately tell the movie didn't exactly retain a high budget: 1. because there aren't God-awful product-licensed transforming robots puking all over it and 2. because you probably never even heard of the film. I have yet to see so much as an article in a widely-distributed news source or a 4 am commercial hinting at the project, but then again, those are the best films around, aren't they? Seeing as I'm not on the board for the Academy, I'm not exactly sure what the rules are for nominating something (nor do I really care to Google it right this moment), but I would definitely suggest this film for a Best Original Screenplay and Best Comedy [or Musical or whatever] categories. Williams is also in top shape here, making you completely forget you're watching Robin Williams but rather an unfortunate and lonely soul whom you wish to reach through your television screen and hug. Sabara gives an equally striking performance as the douchebag twattish kid you just want to reach through your television screen to slug [repeatedly]. And then there's the fine but uninspired Gilmore who does an adequate job of lending her "talent" as the inevitable lead female character.

I'm not going to sit here and bombard you with how perfect I think the film is, because it's not. In fact, one of the main complaints I had with the film were the actual "awkward" moments where you weren't sure if you were supposed to laugh or not. That just messes up the pacing, in my view, and you may feel the exact same way once you view the main event which strings together the "before and after" plotline. It's not so much that I was confused as to what breathing pattern I was supposed to utilize when it happened, but moreso that it was all funny, then all [presumably] serious all of a sudden. Then again, I realize the whole point was for certain parts to be exceptionally shocking, which they were, but they were abrupt to the point where it felt like I just stopped way too late at a stop sign, got hit by a semi truck driver who was a clown, and lost my insurance card. Just. Plain. Awkward.

But do what you will, you may actually love that sort of thing. I do, that's for sure, but the pacing was thrown off (as I stated) and that's the only thing I really disliked (other than the rather boring character of Claire). Also, the events the success the main event seem a bit rushed and overdone, but I guess that was the whole point. I can't really explore the thematic elements of the film (which I really want to right now) without giving anything away. Watch it, it's worth it. We'll talk after. Did I mention you see Robin Williams' baby maker?

8.5/10

-Kyle Shelton

Daybreakers Review: Isn't Breaking any New Ground...or Old Ground.

Alright, yes, Daybreakers is a new take on the ridiculous Vampire sub-genre craze of the past 2 years; however it is, in no way, "fresh."

Daybreakers arrives to us by way for the Spierig Brothers. It's a simple reversal tale of the United States being primarily inhabited by vampires instead of humans. The poor human race is hunted out and forced into disgusting farm camps where their blood is harvested for consumers. But then there's a twist (that somehow isn't foreseen by the majority of the country): humans are becoming harder and harder to find and, even when they are found, there's only so much blood that can be taken before the Vampires have nothing else to feast on. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) sees this problem coming a mile away, but is also traumatized by the hellish and demonized nature of "farming" humans. His pharmaceutical research company, Bromley Marks, is the number one processor of human blood yet is trying to divulge a blood substitute that could be manufactured (think True Blood meets big business). The duality of Dalton's predicament leads him to frustration with his lifestyle, especially after encountering a Subsider, a genetically inferior devolution of a Vampire after they've been neglected blood for too long, in his own apartment. One night, he encounters a group of humans driving down a road who crash into his car and threaten him; however, he decides to help them by discovering a cure instead of a blood substitute. Once his military brother Frankie (Michael Dorman) finds out this plot, he becomes infuriated and stops at nothing to find these humans and bring them in for harvest.

The story seems like a good one, and it is nice to see someone trying to slap the Vampire genre in the face, but that is its only purpose. It's as if the film came out solely because it wanted to be a Vampire movie but better, capitalizing on the love/hate relationship we have with the genre. Ultimately, Daybreakers doesn't do anything new enough or creative enough to stand the test of time, and you're going to forget about it soon enough. Sure, it's pretty bloody and gory and the Subsider idea was actually pretty interesting, but that wasn't even explored enough. They were awkwardly played as villainous monstrosities only to try and ascertain your sympathy later on.

The characters themselves are just too boring to care about, specifically the Dalton brothers and also the human girl Audrey (Claudia Karvan) who has some awkward moments with Edward. Don't get me started on "Elvis" (Willem Dafoe); a cheesy rip-off of someone like Tallahassee from Zombieland with horribly blatant sarcasm, unfunny one-liners and that "badass" attitude that you really could care less about. And by the way, who the f*** named these characters? "Edward" and "Elvis?" Really?

Then there's the cinematography and general look of the film, which retained this very mellow, blue, tungsten filter feel to it...which I despise in most films. I just don't understand why the film looks so cold, other than the depressing demise of the human and/or vampire race, but it looks boring and mundane. In other parts, though, the cinematography and special effects mesh very well together, particularly in the much lower lighted areas. Overall, though, it's just plain lame.

Also, what was up with the cheap and extremely shallow "scares" this thing tried to pull? Honestly, just because a bat flies the screen and inexplicably screams doesn't mean it's scary, it just looks like someone thought they would try to make the audience jump for absolutely no reason. Honestly, it makes me upset when legitimate horror films try to use cheap scares like that, but Daybreakers is more of a thriller/suspense/drama/sci-fi kind of film, not a horror one. In no way is it scary in any other area of the film other than things randomly screaming and appearing (only 2 or 3 times).

So, all in all, Daybreakers is kind of original in its premise but not at all original in its approach. It falls prey, as most movies do, to typical dramatic narrative that becomes all too predictable. The characters are flat, the story overall is extremely shallow, the cinematography feels bland, the acting is sub-par, but most unfortunately, Willem Dafoe is extremely disappointing in his role. It's not really worth going out of your way to watch, but if you must catch a new vampire flick...or whatever...just wait till this is on DVD.

5.5/10
-Kyle Shelton

Ink Review: A Dream Come True.

Personally, I love watching films that hardly anyone has ever heard of; Ink is no exception. It's be hailed as the new (albeit much less budgeted) "Matrix" film with its immersive back story and quirky and creative new plot. Then again, being creative and immersive doesn't necessarily mean good, and Ink misses a few spots where it really could've been a major success. Sure, the idea may turn off the wide majority of audiences, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be a critical or even a minor commercial success.

Ink tells the story of an important businessman named John (Christopher Kelly) whose wife passed away recently. With her, he had a daughter named Emma (Quinn Hunchar) who is primarily taken care of by her grandparents. In the reality of each of these characters, the world seems normal and inhabited by everyone they see, but this isn't the case as, when people fall asleep, otherworldly people called Storytellers traverse the world to imbue dreams upon the slumbering populace. However, in opposition to these people, there are the Incubi, a race of digitally projected faces with uniform bodies seemingly wearing butcher outfits who imbue nightmares. Between these two sides are Drifters, people who haven't chosen a side in the ongoing struggle just yet. All three of these races are composed of people who have recently died, and this is seen as the afterlife.

One night, during their routine dream-blessings, the Storytellers encounter a Drifter named Ink, dressed in raggy bandages with a hideous nose and balding hair. Ink is enticed and bewildered by Emma and decides to kidnap her. Despite several Storytellers' best efforts to stop him, he steals her and runs through an interdimensional portal, a portal not accessible to the Storytellers. Knowing they've failed, the Storytellers try to find a way to get Emma back and restore everything when they come across a blind and sarcastic man whom they discover to be a legendary Pathfinder, who has the power to travel across dimensions and set balance or chaos in the universe. The Pathfinder joins the Storytellers in their quest and so begins the rigorous adventure.

While this story may seem a bit daunting (which it is), it's actually very original and enjoyable creative in its approach. Where most audiences may split, though, lies within the actual direction and editing style of the film. The majority of the film seems to have been shot with a sort of bloom filter, giving everything (most notably bright colors and lights) a very fuzzy and loose look. Bloom effects look great when done right and in strides, but it may have been overdone in Ink. You can tell the filmmakers (the Winans Brothers) were trying something different, and it may not deter you away completely, but it hurts. The editing is extremely fast paced and plays off almost like a Guy Ritchie film if he ever went into the Sci-Fi fantasy drama (with less British accents). Personally, I liked the quick cuts during the action sequences for the most part, but motion sickness may settle in rather quickly for a lot of people, especially those who aren't expecting Ink to be an action film of any sort.

The story is also very...well, story-driven. To expand, the characters themselves are likable, but not relatable nor really lovable. In essence, you wouldn't really care if any significant character had died; however, the story itself is what keeps your interest. You're constantly asking questions and waiting for something epic to happen at every turn and, towards the end, it does. The pacing is a bit strange though; you'll likely be left extremely satisfied at some parts and horribly underwhelmed at others. Then again, you never feel that the film isn't going anywhere. The makers of Ink knew exactly where they wanted the story to head, and it's clearly evident. Alas, many of the elements of the story aren't made very clear, which is a big problem considering it is introducing a brand new universe to explore. This makes interest in a sequel substantially low, considering you don't even know where the film could go if you don't know half of the background information; then again, the Winans Brothers could have done this on purpose to spur intrigue in a sequel.

As I've stated, this is a film that will divide audiences of all sorts. It's hard to judge this without being impartial, but I loved the film and I feel that it almost impeccably hit its mark. The special effects and character designs are stunning, especially for an independent film with a limited market, and some of the cinematography and lighting is absolutely brilliant. This could have been more consistent had it not been for the weird bloom tone that was ever present, but that's forgivable. The story is immensely interesting (if not immensely informative) and it has a great twist toward the end. All in all, Ink delivers what it wanted, and it's quite the hidden gem of an independent film. If you like Sci-Fi films, Fantasy films or Sci-Fi Fantasy films, definitely check this one out. Ink is extremely underappreciated.

8.0/10
-Kyle Shelton

Up in the Air Review: Flies High, but Maintains the same Altitude.

Director Jason Reitman is back at the helm of another Oscar-reaching feature starring George Clooney called Up in the Air. Personally, I thought he'd be a one-hit wonder with Thank You for Smoking, but Juno proved otherwise, and now Up in the Air is taking the throne. Although it may have Oscar buzz surrounding it, is it really worth the watch? Or are the old Academy members still mesmerized by Clooney and his dramatic roles?

Glad to say, Up in the Air soars sky-high.
In short, it tells the story of a man named Ryan Bingham (Clooney) whose main job in life is traveling the world to different businesses and delivering the worst message an employee can hear: "You're being let go." (aka, "You're fired.") Being single, without children, and without many friends, flying different venues is his escape and also, his life. Along his journeys, he meets a woman in the same field as he named Alex (Vera Farmiga) whom he can empathize with. They both deal with the same business and similar lifestyle. After realizing all the elements they have in common, they begin a somewhat romantic relationship, meeting up during overlaying flights to go out and, well, you can imagine the rest.

After a while, though, a young woman named Natalie (Anna Kendrick) develops a plan to cut spending at Bingham's company by introducing a new, web-based form of consulting employees via webcam. Bingham believes this to be preposterous and nowhere near the same pressure nor effectiveness of performing the consultations face-to-face, so he takes her under his wing and shows her how to fire people the right way.

That's the entire main plot, which spirals different ways throughout the film. It's mastered excellently; the script is tight and witty, the direction is handled skillfully, and even the cinematography looks beautiful in certain scenes. Reitman isn't exactly new to handling a similar genre style (comedrama or dramedy, whatever you want to call it ), and it certainly shows with his latest outing.

Clooney gives a great performance; he gives exactly what you're supposed to feel from his character as a man devoted to his work, reaching a goal he never wants to lose sight of with that held-back hint of regret. The real star, however, is newcomer Anna Kendrick, who gives a powerhouse performance as Natalie, giving the audience a wide array of comedic touches, emotional sways and serious, dramatic pieces. She explores almost the entire emotional spectrum in this one film, and it never feels strange or out of place in any way.

The film is nearly flawless in its narrative form, but it's certainly not without its faults. It's hard to really give any criticism without giving away the ending and all, but I will say that Up in the Air seems to want to convey a sort of moral and/or message, which doesn't feel 100% clear towards the end. Also, some of the plot turns seem a tad bit forced and predictable. I also feel like the relationship between Alex and Ryan isn't explored enough, thus undermining the main concept of the film.

These minor problems aside, though, believe the hype. It's certainly deserving of a Best Picture nomination at the very least, and certainly a Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Director nod. The film is very enjoyable and, most importantly, believable and relatable in today's economic climate. Up in the Air isn't perfect, but it's fantastic and shows Reitman isn't leaving the industry any time soon.

8.5/10
-Kyle Shelton