It's in your TV: American Horror Story

##Before I start the reviewing bit I want to give some explanation for the absence since my last post. I have been working on a few side projects, which initially started out great, but that at the moment have been put in “pending” status. I am hopeful that in the near future they will see the light of day and I will be able to share them with you all; I’ll keep you posted on their progress. (I’m also undertaking a Masters at the moment so that has also been keeping me busy, but I’ll try to post more regularly than before, although the 3 per week you are used to may not still apply).

So, I’ll get straight to it. American Horror Story is a show about a spooky house that does bad things to good people, or was it good things to bad people, or random things to anyone in the vicinity? It’s a bit hard to tell at first, but as the story goes on it becomes a bit clearer (but not by much). The main premise involves a family of three who have recently moved in: Dr. Ben Harmon, an adulterous psychiatrist whose best idea of mending the past issues in his life (i.e. cheating on his wife) is to uproot the whole family and move them to the suburbs – clearly he is awesome at his job, Vivien Harmon the wife… and that’s all you can really say about her at the start, no other qualities or defining characteristics (and later on she is characterised is the stereotype of the betrayed house wife, nothing more), and Violet Harmon the standard moody teenager, misunderstood by society (and her psychiatrist dad who seems oblivious to her distress), who finds solace in Tate, an eerie and morbid teenager who is being treated by her dad. There is also a hot/not hot maid and an even creepier next door neighbour with a tendency to pop by and bring poisoned treats for the family while constantly reminding everyone of how knowledgeable she is of how the world truly is and her cursed womb.

The story at first seems very cliché and unimaginative, but over time starts to branch out into multiple mini-stories, each having one of the main characters at the centre, while still managing to intertwine them quite well when the narrative requires it. I did find the first few episodes unnecessarily convoluted, which may put off some viewers, but if you manage to stick with it, it does improve, especially after some depth is given to the characters.

It should be mentioned that this may be the one of the few shows on TV at the moment that actually does suspense-horror properly (the other being the Walking Dead). It is usually a difficult balance that has to be achieved to make a horror show good; the characters must be interesting and well developed, as they are the ones we need to associate with and whose reactions and experiences make the show entertaining, and the shock, supernatural and gore value must not be exaggerated. Shows that fail at horror usually either focus too much on making the monster, poltergeist, whatever, too scary, or too detailed, or in-your-face that the audience habituates to it, and the story loses out. The other pitfall is over-developing characters, something that you can see on Supernatural, where any semblance of horror, suspense, or narrative seems to take a back seat to the drama of the protagonists’ lives. AHS hasn’t (yet at least) failed in this respect, as the show is now the characters are properly defined and given individual views on the event that are occurring around them, adding layers and depth to the story as a whole. That being said, it seems that when it comes to “giving depth to characters” the writers fail to separate “people” from “ghosts”, and if a ghost starts to be overly developed, any effect it will have on the horror aspect disappears. If a ghost talks, walks, eats, has sex and even (spoiler ->) makes babies, then what is the actual difference between people and dead-people?

The thing that annoyed me are the great differences between how the scenes progress, where sometimes the audience is flooded with information and important plot points, while at others there seems to be no relevance to a scene aside from creating a pause between the “good parts”. It could be argued that this is done intentionally, but the lack of fluidity at times severely affects the immersion process, without achieving any long term advantages.

A little tip that I have for fresh viewers of the show is to not imagine it being about the family and the event that occur to them, and view it more as the story of the house and the things that happened and will happen there. Also, try to ignore the ridiculousness of the maid, especially in scenes where she is in a room with both men and women where she gives the impression of being schizophrenic, shifting between lascivious and noble based on who she is facing.

Overall, the cinematography is well made, there is no overuse of special effects or trickery, and the acting in general is very good. The cast itself has great chemistry, having their interactions appear realistic and fluid. One issue is that they show tends to over-develop individuals that are only around for a short time, or that play minor roles. There are also plenty of references to other horror stories, urban legends, and tragic deaths in real life, some of which are subtle, but most are quite obvious. If you are a fan of horror you may appreciate the “classic” quality of the scare tactics, and the fact that the show does not shy away from brutal and extreme setups (e.g. at one point there is a rape scene with a guy dressed up in S&M-style latex suit), and for regular fans of TV you may find it refreshingly different than other current shows on TV.

It's in your TV: Teen Wolf

I don’t usually review, or even care about, shows intended for a teen audience; they all are generally horrendous, as if it was central to the genre for them to be cheesy, dull, filled with bad acting (if it can be called acting) and almost unwatchable. But after watching the first two episodes (and losing a significant amount of grey matter in the process) I decided to make an exception for this one as it is so incredibly bad, to the point where you start to ask yourself how this stuff gets greenlit.

As I was watching the show I wonder if the actors were truly self-aware of exactly how bad their acting was while they were filming it. I’m starting to suspect that what happens is that everyone on the set is in a state of denial, acting as a defence mechanisms in response to the level of suckiness seen on camera. The way I see it, the actors hear and see themselves then think “I can’t actually be THAT bad. It must be in my head, otherwise someone would have said something by now”. At the other end the producers are siting there listening and seeing the actors and think “the show can’t really be THIS bad, it must be in my head, I mean the actors or someone would’ve said something if it was as horrible as I think it is”. And so, due to this widespread state of denial, resulting from spectacular artistic failure, we get the new Teen Wolf. I’m starting to wonder if “acting skills” is still a requirement to play a role on a TV show, or if it has been demoted to the “other skills” section of an applicant’s CV.

I’m really not sure where to start with this show. The plot is bad, the acting is bad, even the visuals are dodgy. The only reason why it was on my radar was due to nostalgia, which is probably what the producers were hoping would draw in a crowd, as the show is inspired by the 1985 movie of the same name, starring Michael J. Fox - Because there is nothing that fans like more than someone playing around with a classic.

The plot is formulaic and unimaginative, as would be expected of this sort of show. It focuses on an adolescent boy, struggling through high school, leading an “average” life, bullies pick on him, no girls will give him the time of day, he has a geeky and socially awkward best friend, and then he gets bit by a wolf. Although we all know that the mysterious animal is actually a werewolf, they still decided to have the central actors, the protagonist Scott McCall (Posey) and his buddy Stiles (O'Brien), play the whole “self-aware of the silliness of the idea of a werewolf bite” routine, which was annoying to watch and pretty much destroyed any immersion in the story for the viewer.

Over the course of the episode the effects of the mysterious bite start to emerge, and true to the classics, the previously geeky loser is transformed into an incredible athlete, and gains the popularity he always dreamt. This is where I start to get annoyed. I never understood this conception of success being tied to popularity among people who obviously never liked you for who you are, and only accepted you after you start behaving like them. Not to mention that this dichotomy where the people who are athletically inclined are the group you should strive to emulate while the ones who are academically successful are looked down on and ostracised. It would have been nice if this remake was also a re-envisioning of the show with a shift from the classic and now stereotypical categorization of “jocks vs. nerds” used for the past few decades. So, in terms of plot there are no surprises and for the most part is badly written (even the cliché stuff is poorly executed).

The acting is almost indescribably bad, and it’s not only from the protagonist. No, it’s everywhere! Every line, every interaction is stale, unrealistic and emotionless. I kept getting the feeling they had a guy in the back holding up a card with their line but he forgot to add any punctuation, and it was the first time the actors (and I use the term loosely) were reading them. Special mention must be given to the protagonist, Tyler Posey, as he truly is the worst one of the lot. His reactions on screen where either unconvincing or surprising and they never matched the dialogue, not to mention that he only seems to have two facial expressions: confused and constipated.

            

           In the past the counter argument used to be that child or teen actors had limited experience and training, and should not be judged as harshly as their adult counterparts, but after the performance by Chloe Moretz of Kick-Ass, or even Maisie Williams and Isaac Hempstead-Wright from Game of Thrones, that argument is clearly invalid. There is simply no excuse for the complete lack of conviction and realism portrayed by the majority of the cast in Teen Wolf.

The more I watched the more pissed off I got. This show, and others like it, will end up ruining the entire genre. Coming of age stories, dealing with the turmoil of adolescence are difficult to make appealing to the individuals that would most benefit from watching them, especially if they mainly consist of long and boring monologues or heavy philosophical discussions. But, if properly executed, shows that add an extra element, like making use of a graphic and easily observable metaphor to describe these issue (in this case the werewolf thing), can result in excellent and captivating storytelling, making it appealing and relatable to teens (i.e. the indented audience) and nostalgic adults alike.

I’m hopeful that the viewers of this show will quickly realise how truly horrific it is and refuse to continue watching it, letting it wither away, as it should, making the point that allowing things like this on TV is unacceptable. But alas, we live in the sparkly vampire era of television and film, and I fear my critique/recommendation will fall on deaf ears. Where is Van Helsing when you need him.

Filmus Criticus: X-Men: First Class

This was not the soaring success I had hoped it would be. Although, in comparison to previous X-films this does rank at the top, but it is far from the way an X-men movie could be. The movie seems to be divided into three parts which appear to be separate movies entirely, with "part three" being by far the best one (and probably the reason you went to see the movie).

The plot itself was not terrible, although the trailer pretty much gives everything away. It does offer a completely different feel than any of the previous X-men movies, and after the Wolverine fiasco this is a refreshing reboot. The costume designs were the best I have see so far, they were colourfull, matched the more vibrant tone of the visuals and were more faithful to the ones in the comics, (I loved the fact that they used an almost identical helmet to the one Magneto uses in the comic books). The visuals were acceptable but at times did not fit the theme of the movie, either being underwhelming or Michael Bay-esc. The fight scenes were highly entertaining, especially Azazel’s cover strike scene, and every scene where Magneto was doing something. I would have liked it if the roster had a few more flashy, heavy hitters, or at least have Darwin do more impressive transformations than what he got to do.

A strong criticism that I have for the movie is that a significant proportion of the cast did not reproduce the personalities of the characters they were meant to portray in a very successful manner, nor did they offer an alternative interpretation better suited for the movie. Some of the issues could have been avoided by trying less to physically match the characters, like Emma Frost/January Jones, to their X-men Universe counterparts and attempt to find someone that is better suited to play the part. 

January Jones simply did not have that femme fatale air about her or the sophistication that some might have expected from her character, and it was difficult to take her role seriously as it was reduced to a blonde playboy bunny used solely for exposition and eye candy; they should have went for a more Basic Instinct Sharon Stone than the bitchy Elvira they ended up with. (I had a similar issue with Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow).

Bacon’s portrayal of Sebastian Shaw while highly entertaining, and at times quite brilliant, was not as dramatic and grandiose as he should have been. If they decided to use him as the main villain they should have at least given him a few decent monologues typical of a megalomaniacal super-villain; instead we pretty much uncovered the motivation for his plans from a few scattered and vaguely connected scenes.

Fassbender did a splendid job portraying both the troubled yet focused and opinionated Erik Lehnsherr, as well as a rising Magneto. The dynamic between him and Xavier was well constructed, but at times lacked the gravitas that one would have expected from two of the most important (future) leaders of mutant kind. I get that the movie wanted to keep the focus on who they were before they became Prof.X and Magneto, but this resulted in the in-movie transitions being to sudden and feeling rushed. McAvoy was a very convincing Xavier (although at times a bit over the top) and cannot be criticised for his acting, especially since he seemed to be the glue that held the plot together, so he had his work cut out for him from the start.

While I may sound highly critical of this movie it should not be interpreted as me giving it a bad review. I am as opinionated with respect to this movie as I have a lot (and I mean a lot!) of background knowledge of the X-men universe so I am fully aware of the potential it has, but also in light of the new standard that comicbook based movie have received due to films like Dark Knight and Thor. Overall I found the movie enjoyable, and a good combination of dialog driven and action based plot; maybe if they had made it a two-parter it would have had more fluidity (as paradoxical as that may sound), but I have serious doubts that even this one will make enough money for a sequel.

How far will this reboot go remains to be seen, at the moment it looks quite promising, especially if they continue on this path of making movies that more closely resemble the core concepts of their sources. So, my vote is to go see it. Oh and at a certain point there is a well-placed cameo that I think deserves some attention mainly because it adds some entertainment value to people who are fans of the series, while not taking away from the movie, which is, as past experience has shown us, not an easy thing to accomplish (although there are easter eggs galore throughout the whole movie).

It's in your TV: Outsourced

There is very little that can really be said about Outsourced, either good or bad. In terms of plot and comedy style it’s formulaic and unimaginative. The premise of the show involves an American sales manager, Todd Dempsy (Rappaport), who due to (vague and irrelevant) situational factors is forced to move to India to work at a call centre in the business of selling American novelties. Why he does this and how come uprooting overnight and leaving his current life behind was so easy will remain a mystery to the audience. 

I considered the lack of characterisation of the protagonist to be a major flaw of the show. If the writers can’t be bothered to give the main character a backstory, or at least explain the motivations behind his actions, how (or why) is the audience supposed to understand (care) about what he does or doesn’t do? I get that this is a light comedy show but the reductive characterization is evidence of poor and lazy writing.

            To expand a bit on my previous point, the main annoyance of this show that never goes away is the main character, not the actor, but the role itself. I don’t know if Todd’s lack of personality was intentional, to be a blank slate on whom the viewer can superimpose themselves, or it was simply bad writing (I’m inclined to believe the latter), but the results is the same. The nondescript, naïve but ever-learning protagonist adds a very obnoxious element of the show; they even gave the tall, silent guy more character.

That could be overlooked if it was the show’s only shortcoming, but it isn’t. The main (only) source of comedy for the show is the constant culture clash between Todd’s American way of life and Indian culture. A basic episode can be summed up as follows: Todd does/says something ignorant and insensitive (i.e. he sees his co-workers doing something different than what he is used to, therefore it is wrong and must be corrected), everyone is outraged, Todd tries to fix things only to make matters worse, after a two minute conversation at the end of an episode years of closed minded and prejudicial upbringing is undone, Todd learns something new and everyone is happy. Then they break into song! (kidding) 

The ever-present culture difference is also emphasized by Bader’s character Charlie Davies who serves as the in-house outspoken, ignorant, and occasionally racist best friend and Tonya [no last name] the overtly sexual and uninhibited aussie who serves to illustrate the difference in female attitude and culture (I also think she serves to fill a quota on sexual innuendos and mini-skirts; not that I’m complaining). 

Despite some bad press, I do not find the show to be overly offensive or blatantly racist with respect to the humour and stereotypes it portrays (although there have been some exceptions). My opinion is that this interpretation comes from the bland, boring, and basic plots which make it appear that way. The cast in general is made up of colourful, diverse and likeable individuals, who on occasion end up making a pleasurable and fun viewing experience. I’m inclined to believe that the sheer number of characters was done to balance out their vague and severely underwritten roles, but hopefully that will result in some on-screen flexibility regarding storylines.

Although the main theme has been the same throughout the show thus far, it does give clear indication that it is making changes based on the criticisms it has received, which it should be commended for as very few shows ever do this (successfully).

            This is the type of show that at the moment is right on the edge. It’s not terrible enough that I can make a firm assertion supporting not watching it, especially since there seem to be very few watchable shows at the moment, but it’s also not polished enough that is can give it a positive recommendation. My final pronouncement: it’s not bad, but it’s also not memorable.

SMBC - Spermy life

All the questions of the universe have been answered.


[link] http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2216#comic

Filmus Criticus: Tucker & Dale vs Evil

Best to think of it as Deliverance combined with The Man with One Red Shoe

  This movie should be considered a rarity in modern cinema. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen a horror comedy that I not only enjoyed, but can actually praise. “Tucker and Dale vs. Evil” is what I can only describe as comedic genius. It manages to accomplish what very few movies of this genre have: to successfully combine horror movie cliche with witty satire.

The story follows two hillbillies, Tucker (Tudyk) and Dale (Labine), on vacation to their recently purchased vacation home in the woods who, through no real fault of their own, get taken for psychopathic killers by a group of (entitled and judgemental) teenagers.

The main story starts after, while out fishing, Tucker and Dale stumble upon Allison (the female lead played by Katrina Bowden) while she is undressing to take a night swim in the lake. She gets startled by the two, slips, falls, bangs her head and ends up unconscious in the water only to be rescued by the heroic and kind-hearted Dale. The boys proceed to call out to her friends in the hopes they will come to her aid, but Dale’s call for assistance, “We have yer friend!”, is misconstrued as a warning that the psychopaths have captured Allison and that they are next. What follows is entertainment gold, and I recommend you go watch it to see what happens next.

“Misunderstandings” basically sum up everything that happens from the point the two protagonists first cross paths with the group of teenagers, to all the accidental, but hilarious tragedies that follow.

Overall, the story is well constructed and the characters are very well crafted. On one side we have the clumsy, socially awkward, and shy Dale and his best friend the pessimistic, and slightly arrogant Tucker (who is arguably just as dumb), on the other we have the douchebagiest, dial-turned-to-11, Chad (Moss), who due to a personal vendetta against all things hillbilly, decides that he must wage a one-man war against them; mind you he doesn’t do it to “rescue” the girl, he does it because he’s a self-deluded sociopath. This role reversal is more than just amusing to watch, its use of exaggerating the reflex reactions people generally have towards individuals that they find abnormal makes the story that much more compelling. It’s also really fun to watch the story unfold from both perspectives. The teenagers misconstrue every encounter with Tucker and Dale as confirmation of just how sick and disturbed the two are and of the danger they are in. While the boys are scared and confused at seeing, what they interpret as, “a bunch of college kids runnin’ around killin’ themselves”. It should be mentioned that Bowden does a decent portrayal of a misunderstood intellectual trapped in the body of a cheerleader, although some of her dialogue is as emotive as Hannibal Lecter.

The attention to detail and in-setting comedy is what gives this movie its edge, as it creates a nuanced comedic landscape. I found it quite amusing how the vacation house that Tucker bought seems to have been previously inhabited by an actual serial killer. That combined with the use of references and homages paid to the horror movies that were the source of its inspiration, which are made tastefully and do not overwhelm the audience, only serve to add to the overall plot.

 To make a movie like this work you need more than an interesting premise or large amounts of flimsy dressed co-eds, you need quality acting. (That’s not to say that there aren’t any flimsy dressed co-eds running around). What I consider to be the crucial element that made this movie so fun to watch was the spot-on comedic deliveries by Tucker and Dale. Their pseudo-philosophical back-and-forths about society and the current generation added a dimension to the characters that is rarely seen in horror-comedy movies. (But the creative and hilarious death scenes didn’t hurt either.)

The only criticism that I have for this movie is the overextended third act involving the heroic rescue of Allison. The movie should have ended after the cabin fire scene, continuing from that point wasn’t fatale to the movie’s plot but it did nothing to add to the overall story or the characters. It’s not a huge drawback, as it manages to keep a consistent tone throughout the whole movie, but I felt I had to criticise something.

Not to be questioned for its lack of educational worth, the movie also teaches us the valuable lesson of not judging other people based on appearance, preconceived notions and stereotypes. (It also confirms a long standing theory of mine that popped-collar, teenage douchbags are usually sociopaths.)

 [pro] highly entertaining; great acting; funny and smart.

 [con] a bit long; and some of the scenes are poorly edited.

I read it, should you?- Daken: Dark Wolverine #07

Daken’s plans have finally come to fruition. For the past few issues Daken has conspired against the (now former) ruler of Madripoor, Tyger Tiger, and with a few well-placed moves he has managed to take full control, and placed Tiger as his figurehead so that he may continue to play puppet master from the shadows. All while conducting secretive experiments involving a healing factor, and a yet unrevealed chess piece. This issue also starts off the Daken/X-23 crossover that “we have all been waiting for” (nb. sarcasm). Lots of good stuff, full of suspense, now lets hope they don’t screw it up.

It is refreshing to see that the writers at Marvel have decided to keep the characterization of Daken that had made him so popular during Dark Reign, because to be honest I wouldn’t have been able to stand another Wolverine wanabe running around the 616 (*cough* X-23). I was, as I think most people were, sceptical of the practicality of extending the Wolverine family to include a rebellious, and psychopathic, son, but I grew to enjoy the personality traits that separate Daken from the rest of his “family”. He embodies all the traits we know Wolverine has, but rarely get to see, like intellectual prowess, tactical skills, and the ability to manipulate anyone to his advantage. The fact that we see Daken being more calculative and cerebral in his actions makes for a more enjoyable read, than simply assuming that he gets the upper hand on his adversaries because he is “the best there is at what he does”.

The issue itself wasn’t all that impressive, compared to what we have come to expect from Dark Wolverine. It lacked the subtext filled sharp dialogue, which is characteristic of Daken, and it did not have as much excitement or suspense as the last few issues. Granted, that this was an end to a story-arc (Empire), and may not have allowed for the story to grow as such, but it did make for a good read, as well as providing an adequate conclusion to Daken’s plans of controlling Madripoor. (I also quite enjoyed the scene where Tiger pronounce her full control of Madripoor, and we see Daken walk away with a great big smirk, providing a little dramatic irony for the reader.)

My primary reason for reviewing this X-book is that I consider there is great potential for this character, and I wanted to provide future readers with a good issue to start with if they are interested in the exploits of Wolverine’s, more accomplished progeny (although I highly suggest reading Dark Reign and Seige to get a proper feel for the character). 

As I see it, this is a make-or-break moment for this particular character. The writers have two options available for Daken’s future in the 616. Option one: they isolate the character, keeping him out of the main storylines that Marvel is working on, and allow him to grow as an individual, unrestrained by all the politics that would be involved about who he could beat-up, outsmart, or kill if he went mainstream (a good example of this is Daredevil; well, that is until the Shadowland arc). Option two: Daken slowly becomes a prominent figure in the Marvel bad guy roster, edging his way up to the ranks of Norman Osborn, or maybe more appropriately, Wilson Fisk.  At the moment I just hope that the writers don’t plan on doing a 180 and having Daken sacrifice himself in the future in a cliche, heroic redemption plot. Either way, the character has great potential, Daken: Dark Wolverine is turning out to be a good addition to the X-books family (although not yet at the level of X-factor or Uncanny X-men), and he seems to be collecting a nice and ever-growing fanbase.

Calamities of Nature - Unsolved Mysteries

Critical thinking for the win

[link]
Calamities of Nature - Unsolved Mysteries

It's in your TV: Mad Love

   The show is so cheesy you would think they had Larry Lackapants writes the jokes (obscure Cow and Chicken reference, ignore my geekiness).

   Yet another devastatingly bad relationship based sitcom, like there weren’t enough of those (>1 is already too many).

   So, where to start? Well the acting is dreadful. Biggs seems to have given up on being an actor on the big screen (not that I’m complaining, but this isn’t an improvement) and decided to stick to what he knows best – which apparently isn’t acting. Watching introverted, confidence-lacking, awkward guys as the leading role is NOT ENJOYABLE. Seriously, this is something that I may address in depth on one of my “Off on a Tangent” segments, but in short: shows using this personality type for their protagonist are painful to watch. In writing a leading character you should (only) have two options:  1.The overconfident, macho, ladykiller, like Sterling Archer or, 2. A pseudo-realistic portrayal of the average guy, like Jason Segel’s role in forgetting Sarah Marshall, anything else just turns out really bad.

   Labine seems to have kept the same character he is best known for, the overly confident and obnoxious best friend, which he does very well, but this draw-by-numbers type show isn’t a good fit for him (he was much better on “Reaper”). Judy Greer is too good of an actress to be in this show, and it will definitely be a setback in her career, not to mention that it’s an insult to her acting ability. Also somebody should really let her be the star of a show and stop casting her as a supporting role, especially since no amount of support can save the embarrassingly awful acting of the so called main female character, played by Sarah Chalke. I’m still uncertain if the audience is supposed to pity her character, find her likeable or attempt to relate to her, because really all she’s accomplishing is giving me a migraine. 

   Although not central to the main story it should still be mentioned that the character played by Sarah Wright is just uncomfortable to watch, not to mention insulting and condescending that the producers would think this would be funny or appealing in any way! Making fun of dumb people is not comedy, no matter what Desperate Housewives would like you to think.

  It should be said that whatever the actors could do with their roles was limited from the start, primarily due to the unimaginative, immature and overused comedy that the show is constructed on. Saying that it has absolutely no originality is a serious understatement. The jokes are painfully unfunny, and overall the show is simply a poor man’s HIMYM (and that should tell you something).

   Usually I watch more than a couple of episodes before I cast judgement on a show, but in this case I see no point in subjecting myself to more torture in hope that maybe they will change the monkey on the typewriter and some dramatic improvement will occur.

   I am sometimes inclined to give a show what I call the “neutral vote”, simply saying the show is a good example of its genre (e.g. Southland) and is watchable, but in this case I can’t even do that. The show is poorly written, the acting is subpar, and it becomes painful to watch after the first couple of jokes (and I use the term loosely). I have to award it a verso police and hope you never have to see it again.

Amazing Super Powers - Wasted my life

Funny and true

[link]
Wasted my life

Extra Credits : An Open Letter to EA Marketing

Another excellent video by the Extra Credits team. Worth viewing when you have the time.

[link]
Extra Credits : An Open Letter to EA Marketing

Filmus Criticus: Next Three Days

The movie that didn’t know what it wanted to be.
 

   The only commendable thing about this movie is the way it manages to completely mislead the audience into thinking they are about to watch an action packed and emotionally charged drama (at least that’s the feel you get from any trailer or poster you’ve seen) involving a daring prison escape orchestrated by John Brennan (Russell Crowe) as a testament to the undying love he shares for his (potentially, *no spoilers) innocent wife, Lara (Elizabeth Banks) and keep his family together, only to discover that they are watching an hour and a half uneventful and disappointing drama about a guy who doesn’t know where to leave his kid while he goes out doing his “errands “ (*cough* planning the escape).
 

   From the title to the premise one would infer that the movie should be a fast paced action-drama. “Next Three Days” suggests urgency and time pressure, where the protagonist must get everything right or else there will be severe consequences and catastrophic failure; but is this reflected in the actual movie? Not so much. I mean sure, there are points within the movie where you may get a (false) sense that some fast paced montage is coming up and will continue throughout the movie, but those few and far between, and usually disappointing.  
 

   Regardless of the lack of action scenes, the chemistry between Crowe and Banks’ characters was inexistent (which is a really bad thing since it’s supposed to be a main part of the story), but that was mostly due to strange plot jumps not allowing the audience to get fully immersed in their relationship, and not due to the actual acting, which was ok. In the end, the movie feels more like a B-rate drama about the struggles of a man to reunite his family and refusing to let go of the devotion he has to his wife (the original plot of Pour Elle, the movie this is based on), and less about a cleverly planned prison break; so if you watch it with that in mind it may seem a bit more interesting and less disappointing.
 

   All things considered, as critical as I may be (hey, it’s kinda my thing) it’s still a pretty decent movie, even if it won’t blow your mind. If you have the opportunity, see it, but don’t go out of your way to get it.
 

[pro] Solid acting by the main cast; the movie tends to get a bit jumpy with the narrative but it is still very watchable.
 

[con] Horrible child acting; a constant sensation that they skipped through the third act; and it only gets really good in the last 15-20min; you’re better off just watching Pour Elle.
 

I read it, should you?- Amazing Spider-Man #648

   As much as I enjoy providing paragraphs upon paragraphs of backstory when I usually write about comics book, for this site I will try to stick to the important points of the comic book issue that I am reviewing at that specific point in time, and only if truly necessary go into the dreaded CONTINUITY-Y-Y-Y problem that plagues discussions regarding long running, ongoing comics.

  
   Fortunately for this issue I don’t have to! The reason being that issue #648 is the start of a new story arc in the spidey universe, aimed mostly towards reaching a new fan base while at the same time resolving and streamlining some of the remaining issues from the “Brand New Day” arc for the existing true believers.

   In this issue we are introduced to a world where Peter Parker is finally getting his act together; he has a good job, a girlfriend who fits his unique personality (but doesn’t know he is you-know-who), Harry Osborn is nowhere in sight (always a good thing), his rogues gallery seems to be getting a nice tune-up, we finally get so see how his Avengers life spills over into his solo adventures, and there is the ever-present ominous tingle that this is just the calm before the storm (see what I did there, I’m clever that way). 

   The new direction that the comic seems to be taking isn’t that bad, and unlike other comic books that have recently undergone new jump-on points (ref. Batman and Robin) it starts off with a moderately captivating story, although it will require a few issues to really get into it, mainly the issues following #651 (currently up to #654.1). The downside being that this issue (#648) feels too much like those never ending recaps/’where are they now’ things at the start of some shows, and at the end you are left a multitude of unanswered questions that may deter some of the more green readers from following the story. Hopefully you manage to stick with it, because all things considered  Spider-man is still one of the best characters to come out of Marvel, and one of the few that has maintained the same level of quality and consistency in its narrative (minus the Clone Saga). 

   Even with this quasi tabula rasa issue the story and general feel remains true to the spider-man theme that has made the character so popular (which is slightly ironic since it was his nerdy, unlucky, and poverty-ridden life style contrasted with the incredible abilities he possessed that made the character stand out, and attracted readers in the first place), hopefully that Parker-charm we all know and love will be enough for many current readers to embrace the new changes.

   Overall, the story will be less appealing to devoted readers as it comes off more like an introduction or a catch-up to the character than anything else, and it may be a bit overwhelming for new comer due to the sheer number of info and characters it crams in; but at least it offers a good read until we see any spider-reality altering events (hint- read issue 654). As an added bonus to current fans and another reason to get into this comic if you haven’t already is that starting with this issue it has become a twice-monthly release, giving you the chance to see a full story unfold in a shorter amount of time reducing the frustration brought on by the always present cliff-hangers. It will be interesting to see the effect on your friendly neighbourhood spider-man and his supporting cast after these changes start to influence his life, as well as what other plans the writers have for the much beloved character. GO WEB GO!

It's in your TV: Archer

              “Television!  Teacher, mother, secret lover.” - Homer Simpson, The Simpsons

    I consider myself a connoisseur of the ’moving pictures box’. If somebody actually awarded people for the amount of TV they watch then the award would have my name. The issue in this day-and-age is that there is no shortage of things to watch and kill time with, and it seems that TV is the only medium that is not affected by the fundamental capitalist concept that competition and variety should produce quality products. 

    The increasing number of shows out there makes the quest of finding a new show that is good, and worth watching very difficult; you can’t watch the pilot of every new thing out there, let alone watch a few episodes to get a feel for something. So what happens is that you stay with the shows you are already watching, even if they start to go downhill (or were never that good to begin with). 

   That’s where I come in. In situations of such life altering dilemmas you can turn to your friendly internet Reviewer for guaranteed* viewing pleasure.

(*guarantee only applies if you possess identical neural pathways as me at the time of viewing.)

   The show that I want to introduce, although based on its ratings will probably be no great unknown, is Archer.

   Archer is a funny, edgy, and extremely entertaining show. The premise of the show, that of the macho, self-centred, superspy that would make James Bond quiver in his well fitted pants, working for the global espionage agency ISIS, which is run by his oversexed, parentally challenged mother, while having to work alongside his insanely violent, emotionally repressed ex-girlfriend, and other colourful colleagues, makes for a highly enjoyable 25 minutes. There are many things that can be pointed out relating to why the show is so popular: the witty, fast paced comedy, the hilarious re-envisioning of cliqued spy situations, to the weird and exaggerated, yet still plausible relationships and dynamic that the characters have with each other, etc. (<- watch the show to find out what they are).

   The show is already in its second season following the great success of the first, and during in this time it has managed to maintain the same level of comedic excellence throughout every episode; humour that is reminiscent of shows like Harvey Birdman: Attorney at Law or Space Ghost Coast-to-Coast (two other great shows that you should see when you have the time if you haven’t already).

   I’m am not in the habit of making exaggerations regarding how good or bad something is for the sake of sensationalising it (calling me cynical by nature is an understatement, I mean my blood type is B-Negative! Get it? Really, no one is laughing?), so a review like this one will probably be very rare on this site. At the moment there are only about two or three other TV shows that I hold in just high regard (and I’ll get to those in upcoming reviews). I simply felt that it was best to start [It’s in your TV] with a ‘[the] Reviewer Seal of Approval’ so that you can start watching something decent while I discuss the plethora of horrendous shows out there that you should avoid or stop watching altogether. Enjoy the show and be careful entering the "Danger Zone!".

Filmus Criticus: The Green Hornet

A potentially great movie that went seriously wrong. The story of the movie, which is (loosely) based on the comic of the same name by George Trendle and Fran Striker, follows the exploits of young bachelor Britt Reid (Rogen) following the bland and emotionally empty, death of his father (as well as the only multi-dimensional character in the movie). In his quest for retribution, Reid decides to become a superhero, pretending to be a criminal, in order to……- ok, enough of that. I’m not going to go through the whole plot, as it is not really worth it, and other sites will provide it for you if you actually care that much. I’m going to give you my critique of the movie (and boy is there stuff to criticise).

The story is bad, seriously, there is no other way to express it. I will preface this by saying that I like the Green Hornet character, the Dynamite re-boot of the story on which this movie seems to draw from, is pretty good and is worth a read if you have the chance. But this movie just doesn’t work; the cast just does not fit with this type of movie. Rogen is still reprising the exact same role he has been doing for the past 5 movies, Chau is impossible to understand so I can’t comment on the dialogue and comes off more as a bratty kid than helpful sidekick/mentor and confidant. I don’t even have time to discuss all the bad things about Waltz’s character Bloodnofsky (not making this up), as I would need something comparable to the works of Balzac to cover all the problems with the character.

Overall, the plot has no fluidity, nor does it offer anything noteworthy that would make it stand out or salvage it from the overwhelming feeling of blandness it conveys. Maybe if they would have used a similar comic book character, like Green Arrow, who actually has some of the personality traits that Rogen was portraying, then it might have worked. But, the laid back attitude of the movie doesn’t  justify the innumerable ADHD moments, where it jumps around from drama, to comedy and hijinks, while occasionally going back to the “love triangle” between Rogen, Chau and Diaz’s characters, which can only be described as a bad sales pitch for There's Something About Mary  2.

[pro] The costumes and gadgets are very well designed; Black Beauty looks awesome; and it may improve sales of the Green Hornet comics.

[con] To many to list, but mainly the convoluted plot; the personality of the characters not fitting the theme of the story; and the constant feeling that I was watching spoof a of Batman Begins or Iron man.