*THIS ARTICLE MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS (for two mediocre films)*
Hello everyone, and even thought it may not be Monday, please enjoy my Maso Mondays article! I know some of you may have expected a gaming-related story, but I felt like this was just something I had to do. Today I will be talking about a cinematic phenomenon known as Paranormal Activity and its sequel. While this may not be a review, I will be pointing out why I believe these movies are ridiculously overrated and dumb to watch. I saw the first movie in October with a few of my friends, after hearing about how great and terrifying it was. I had never seen a horror movie in a theater before, as I had always watched them at home. Paranormal Activity presents itself as bits and pieces of home movies (which most people fell for during the Blair Witch Project, which is now a bit over a decade old.) The couple installs a video camera into their bedroom, and every few nights something strange happens on the camera. In between, there are daytime scenes where everything is usually normal. Really, that's the entire movie.
“From the Critically acclaimed blah blah blah world of Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry...”
Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry always seem to have their hands in every African American cinematic work and the arts with some sort of sponsorship. However this movie isn’t about them. Originally airing at the Sundance Film Festival and then at limited box offices (approx 18 theaters) as an indie film. Afterward showing great success at the box office, it spread to many more theaters and wound up bringing Lionsgate $1.8 million.
The true star of this film is Sapphire, the Author of the novel Push. Push is a novel about an overweight, African American female teenager living in the projects, about her triumph over extraordinary circumstances.
Having read the novel, I had high expectations for this film and the movie was just what I had expected. Despite how close it was to the novel there were certain scenes (the off key reveries of dancing on BET or her in lavish clothing fantasizing) were purely injected into the film to take away some of the harsh truths. Those injected scenes were indeed to give the audience something to cheer for so that the film was not a complete downer.
Chicago the musical was truly a sight to behold. It's a musical about the female murderers of Chicago and the troubling jazz era. The movie Chicago is just as amazing in told through a unique way in which the story shifts from what is going on reality and large scale musical numbers for characterization and adding a musical effect to the film.
The movie starts out with a classic jazz opening full of liquor, smoke, clubs and scantily clad women. Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones) performs after washing off the blood on her hands (that we later find out is from the murder of her twin sister and husband). In a classic vaudeville setting she performs her song and as Roxanne Hart (Renee Zellweger) and Fred Casely leave the club. Roxy proceeds to have an affair with Mr. Casely when he finally decides to be frank with her and end it. However, Roxy feels betrayed and shoots him twice with her husband’s pistol. From there on the plot follows her, from arriving at jail where she meets Matron “Mama” Morton (Queen Latifah) and the 6 merry murderesses of murder row. Try saying that 6 times fast.
"I have lived through many ages,
through the eyes of salmon, deer, and wolf.
I have seen the north men invading the islands
destroying all in search of gold.
I have seen suffering in the darkness,
yet I have seen beauty thrive in the most fragile of places.
I have seen the book,
the book,
that turns darkness into light."
...And so begins the tale of The Secret of Kells.
5 = Perfection.
4.5 = REALLY good, but lacking that oomph to make it 5.
4 = Great.
3.5 = Above average. Definitely worth a look.
3 = Average.
2.5 = Below average. If you like its genre, you probably would like it.
2 = Not terrible, but not something you would like.
1.5 = Bad, but still worth checking JUST to make fun of how bad it is.
1 = BEWARE! EVIL! NOT EVEN WORTH MAKING FUN OF! WILL LITERALLY MAKE YOU SICK!
It has Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Mickey Rourke, and Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger making cameos. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?! Actually…
The Expendables is about a group of mercenaries that are given a job to take down a South American dictator. And… yeah, that’s about it and all that you’re getting out of me. Besides, the plot isn't the point of this movie.
Like all other film parodies, the premise of Vampire Sucks is simple: Moviegoers are noticing a trend in vampire-related media, and Hollywood is trying to cash in on that fad - by mocking it. It's the same with movies such as Scary Movie, which mocks the typical horror film tropes, or Date Movie, satirizing romantic comedy since the beginning of time. Usually these types of film have a storyline that echoes an example from said subject of mockery (Scream and Shallow Hal respectively), but Vampire Sucks took it one step further. And believe it, it is comedic genius, right down to the execution by the actors.
Instead of having an ambiguous title, Vampire Sucks, as can be taken from the title, is all about bashing vampires; more importantly, one particular vampire series: Twilight. Because in Hollywood's eyes, Twilight is the movie that paved the way for the recent spike of vampire in our media outlets. Currently, we have television shows like True Blood or The Vampire Diaries, in which the main focus is on vampires. Well, this movie takes a stand, or rather, points out every little flaw in the Twilight series, and the inconsistencies in logic that Stephanie Meyer, the author of the aforementioned series, glossed over in favor of the riveting tale between Bella and Edward. But mainly in favor of descriptions about Edward.
The movie actually combines Twilight and New Moon into a short eighty minutes. Yet I find this film more fascinating than the originals. Now I will admit I am being biased here, because I hate Twilight, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. The point is that this movie, Vampire Sucks, is more logical at combining these movies than the original series. Ever heard of the phrase "So bad it's good?" Well that's how bad the Twilight series are. Because if the parody movie sucks as a serious piece of work, then the original source must be terrible. In fact, this movie makes a point to nail down all the quirks and mannerisms of its source material; in a way being faithful and yet unbelievably hilarious just by being like the source material.
Case in point? The acting in Vampire Sucks, while abysmal if it were in any other movie, is superb here. Why is that? Because they're mimicking exactly what Robert Pattinson does in acting as Edward Cullen, as well as what Kristin Stewart does for Bella Swan and so on. In this film, Becca Crane has an iPod playlist of "Teen Angst" with "I Wanna Kill Myself" just above it. And a cactus the size of my desk. This film obviously exaggerates whatever is wrong with the films (and don't even get me started on the books themselves) but takes it so seriously you can't help but laugh. I think everyone knows the famous Biology class scene, in which Edward catches a whiff of Bella's scent and had to hold his nose for fear of taking her right there and then? Well Edward has a Hazmat suit in Vampire Sucks, and guess what? It doesn't work. Shame.
Overall, compared to the other parodies, this is a little bit subpar, mostly because the film has dull pacing and really corny jokes. Normally, I would say it's the script, but since they're parodying Twilight, I cannot fault them. To my chagrin, as Meyer would eloquently write, I didn't enjoy it as much as other normal parodies, but I would say it's not the movie's fault. In that department, they nailed it to a T. I had low expectations for this film, but I came out with a few laughs. I say rent it instead of paying money to see it; there's other movies worth spending your money as summer draws to a close. Besides, Ken Jeong was amazing as always, but he only had five minutes tops of screentime. You'd rather see him in Community.
Movie: 2.5 out of 5 stars
Now you may be wondering that if I say it's a decent parody considering its source material, then why the barely passable score? Simply put, it's bad otherwise. And I really can't make the excuse that if they tried to parody Twilight and how the characters are portrayed through the acting, it falls flat by default. Twilight the film is an adaptation of the book series, which, in my most unbiased opinion that I can muster, is a series full of bloat and no substance. In other words, it took over 300 pages in the first book for the plot to finally reveal itself. The previous pages, which Vampires Suck tried putting it on film, yet ultimately can't because there isn't much to go on except for a few "memorable" scenes. Also, the humor is blatant, not very clever nor subtle at the least; something I watched back when I was twelve years old. Now, not so much. Then again, as an Anti-Twilighter, I did appreciate all the jabs at the diehard fans of this series, as I was filled with malicious mirth watching this movie. Other than that, unless you are an Anti-Twilighter like me, you'd probably think of this movie as a boring piece of crap. And I wouldn't blame you.
The Birth of A Cult Classic, Scott Pilgrim VS the World
Written by Squarepheonix
Epic [ep·ik] - Noting or pertaining to a long poetic composition, usually centered upon a hero, in which a series of great achievements or events is narrated in elevated style. That is the accepted definition of the word "epic". History has given us a few epics. There was the Aeneid, Dante's The Divine Comedy, the Mahābhārata and of course Homer's The Odyessy. But it's time to rewrite the history books because this Friday the 13, the definition of epic was revamped. It's now officially Scott Pilgrim VS the World! Break out your Virtual Boys or your SNES controllers, we're about to jump into a modern day classic.
My rating system:
5 = Perfection.
4.5 = REALLY good, but lacking that oomph to make it 5.
4 = Great.
3.5 = Above average. Definitely worth a look.
3 = Average.
2.5 = Below average. If you like its genre, you probably would like it.
2 = Not terrible, but not something you would like.
1.5 = Bad, but still worth checking JUST to make fun of how bad it is.
1 = BEWARE! EVIL! NOT EVEN WORTH MAKING FUN OF! WILL LITERALLY MAKE YOU SICK!
Predators is about a group that are made up of seven killers (and a doctor) that is quite literally dropped onto a jungle-covered alien planet. They are forced to work together as they attempt to survive the planet's terrain, wildlife, and the very Predators that have brought them there in the first place to hunt for sport. Things do not look good for this group.
Now for the review:
Predators had everything I did not like in a good movie: A simple plot, unsympathetic characters, and gratuitous violence. And yet, I found it pretty damn sweet! Its simple plot of a group of people being hunted by Predators seemed to actually help its case. This film was very self-aware and knew that it was more-or-less a summer popcorn flick, so it stuck with a straightforward story, but packed in as much awesome as it can into itself. While the characters were "unsympathetic," being badass killers on Earth, they were still likeable and very entertaining to watch; much like the characters from Baccano!. Hell, I actually found Stans, the criminal on the most wanted list, to be highly amusing despite several people feeling he was a complete monster. This goes to show how well a character is written when a guy who generally dislikes characters like those actually doesn't here. As for gratuitous violence… It's a Predator movie. You really can't expect anything less than that.
The acting all around was really standard fare with the exception of Laurence Fishburne. He was chewing through the scenery so much that it was ever so delightfully hilarious. I really wish they gave him more to do. Though I know what you all really want to know: How did Adrian "The Pianist" Brody do? It's a little hard for me to explain properly, but I'll sum it up in a quick sentence: Think what Christian Bale did with his voice in the Batman suit, only more convincing. I was honestly pretty surprised. Yes, he was putting on one of those tough guy gruff voices, but was actually pretty badass in the action scenes. Mind you, he wasn't as good as Arnold Schwarzenegger (honestly, who is?), but still preformed well.
The special effects for the movie aren't anything to comment on. It was pretty standard. However, I thought the Predators' makeup was really good. Instead of the usual CGI monsters we've been seeing as of late, we're actually getting guys dressed as the Predators! Finally, something TANGIABLE that you are willing to believe that are interacting with the actors, props and the set! Hollywood: Please…PLEASE follow this movie's example!
The action in this movie was over-the-top awesome. Honestly, three-quarters this movie is made of badass action sequences that catered to our inner bloodlust and desire for random gunfire. About every classic 80's action film cliché was in this, and it was ever so satisfying. While I'd usually nag my readers' ears off with my "Nothing is cliché; simply tradition" line whenever I'd even utter the word cliché, I don't think it quite fits this time around. They were clichés, yes. But as I said before, the movie was very self-aware. I'm sure it was done intentionally as a throwback to the original. Actually, there were a lot of throwbacks to the original!
However, despite my praise for this movie, I cannot say this movie is "good" in the traditional sense. While the action was very entertaining and satisfying, the movie never seemed to escape the looming shadow of its predecessors. It fell into a rut and didn't really want to take risks in being different from the original Predator. Again, however, this movie was still leaps and bounds better than many of Hollywood's recent remakes or reboots of past movies and television shows. It stayed very true to its source material, almost to a fault, and managed to still be a very entertaining film. You can't really fault a movie for being what it is, though you can seriously appreciate the amount of effort that went into it to be entertaining and even breaking boundaries.
For this revival of the Predator franchise, I give a:
3.5 out of 5
While by no means great, Predators was still a welcome sequel to Predator and a cut above the rest of the revivals Hollywood have been churning out as of late. I look forward to a possible sequel.
I recommend this movie to Predator fans and those wanting an aimless-yet-awesome action film.
Predators was made by Troublemaker Studios and Davis Entertainment; and distributed by 20th Century Fox.
