Black Mass (2015) Review & Recommendation.

Black Mass is another attempt to glorify mafia life and create nostalgia about the "good ol' days."

Let's be honest, if you have seen one mafia movie, then you have seen them all.  Johnny Depp plays the role of a lunatic mob boss, Whitey Bulger, in Boston; specifically South Boston (or to the natives Southie).

The story chronicles Bulger's trials and tribulations as a Boston mafia kingpin.  Now I know technically the term "mafia" is reserved for the Italians; however, I will use mafia, here, to apply to Black Mass because aside from the ethnic differences, there are not many other differences between what Bulger does in this move compared to what the Italians do in every other mafioso film.  The reason I bring this up at all is because in the movie the Irish are at war with the Italians, and I don't want to give off the impression that Bulger is associated with the Italians by labeling him as a member of the 'mafia.'  However, with this distinction noted, Bulger could be said to be a member of the Irish mafia; so, I will stick with this terminology for the remainder of the review.

Speaking of wars between the Irish and Italians, Bulger allies with an FBI agent in order to help defeat an Italian crime family, which poses a threat to criminal activity that Bulger is conducting.  The FBI agent is an old friend of Bulger's and so the movie leads us to believe that because these two have a history that the FBI agent is more likely to side with Bulger rather than the FBI.  Indeed, this is what ends up happening.  The FBI agent gets in "too deep" with Bulger and becomes implicated in Bulger's criminal activity.  You should see where this is going because it's the typical premise of every other mafia movie made; it's all about territory and respect.  However, in this film, the respect factor is mitigated by the fact that Bulger is a sociopath and enjoys being involved with criminal activity for its own sake.

For those who enjoy mafia style movies, then this will definitely scratch that itch.  The story is interesting and engaging.  Depp does a real nice job of portraying a sociopath just like he did in Secret Window (which is a phenomenal movie you should see, if you haven't).  The overall acting is on point for this style of movie and the character develop is decent as well.  Also, there will be some folks out there who remember hearing about Bulger because this movie is based off of "real events" and took place in the late 70's and early 80's.  So, like I said at the beginning, there is going to be a bit of nostalgia to be had from watching this movie.

On the flip side, if you don't like mafia movies or have no interest in watching a movie that walks you through the life of crime boss, then you probably are going to want to stay away from this movie.  I would even venture to say that while there is some okay character development, the characters are not themselves very deep.  There is a bit of shallowness to the characters, but then again we're talking about the career criminals how deep can they get?

 If you do end up deciding to watch this movie, then just realize that it's not going to blow you away or have any fancy twists.  It is what it is.

"The Forest" (2016) Movie Review

This movie didn't get great reviews but I think its still a decent movie to watch. In a previous review, I talked about how you can get the full effect of watching a horror movie, and for this one you need to do that. Whether it be in theaters or at home, you need to watch this movie in the dark. Aside from that the jump scenes are excellent, the story is kind of slow, and the acting is meh. To tell you the truth, I was more interested in the story about the forest that they gave in the movie than the actual plot itself.

The main characters Sara and Jess are twin sisters that are complete opposites. Sara is a well grounded person with a good head on her shoulders and Jess is the artsy, try anything once type of person. Jess teaches English in Japan and has been missing for a couple of days. Sara, who is in America, gets a call from Japanese authorities notifying her sister went into the famous Aokigahara Forest and had been missing for days her missing in the  sister.  After some back and forth with her fiance, she heads off to Japan to find Jess. Throughout her travels from the states to Japan Sara talks about her "magical" twin link with Jess. She gave the example of when Jess had a drug overdose and her heart stopped, they were states apart when this happened but she said she couldn't "feel" her anymore. She uses this logic to justify the search and why she thinks her sister is alive.
She found more evidence of the forest while going through Jess' apartment and where she work. There's a really good scene where Sara goes to Jess' class that she taught and all the students scream and freak out  because they thought she was a ghost.

I'll jump forward a little bit to what I think the most interesting part of the movie is; the story about the forest. The Aokigahara Forest is an actual forest that is at the base of Mt. Fuji. Hundreds of years ago families would take their sick or dying family members there to die. Presently people who are contemplating suicide go to the forest to either go through with it or realize that they don't want to die.

Due to all the deaths that have happened in the forest, they believe that it is haunted. They advise visitors to stay on the path and to focus on what they were there to do. There are so many deaths there that annually the police go through the forest and remove as many bodies as they can find.  There are a couple documentaries out there on YouTube that are really interesting to watch.  These documentaries are arguably better stories than the film portrays.

Ill leave the rest for you to see, there is a really weird twist at the end that I either didn't understand or it was just done poorly.

"The Human Centipede" Gives New Meaning to "Kiss My Ass"

So, I have to admit, yesterday was the first time I have seen "The Human Centipede." 

The plot: An achieved doctor known for his work in separating siamese twins at birth also is a mad scientist.  He is obsessed with conjoining human beings at the anus and the mouth; thus, making a 'human centipede.'  

One cold and raining night two American tourists in Germany (or at least a German speaking country) are driving their rental car.  They become lost on a dark and desolate road at which point their car gets a flat tire.  Neither one of the two girls know how to fix a flat tire.  They try to call the rental car place in order to have someone pick them up or fix the flat tire; however, there is no cell phone signal.  They begin to walk on the dark and desolate road, but somehow end up in the forest.  

They stumble upon a house, it begins to rain, and they bang on the door until you know who answers: the mad scientist.  He invites them in and offers them water.  They accept.  The mad scientist slips the date rape drug into their waters.  The drink the waters and pass out accordingly.  The mad scientist drags them to his "layer" and ties them to hospital gurneys.   

The mad scientist then obtains one more person, a Japanese fellow, and ties him to a hospital gurney in his "layer" next to the two American tourists.

The mad scientist then performs and operation wherein he sews one of the American girls' face, mouth open, to the anus of the Japanese guy.  The mad scientist, then, sews the other girl's face, mouth open, to the anus of the first American girl; thus, creating an ass-to-mouth 'human centipede.' You can infer the consequences of such a configuration; so, I'll let your imagination do that work.

The rest of the movie is about the doctor trying to condition, like one would do with a dog, the 'human centipede.'  

The Recommendation:

Strange movie to say the least.  I do not recommend it for anybody with a weak stomach or anyone who is not experienced in watching horror movies that push the boundaries of what can be done in the name of entertainment.  There really is not too much overt gore; however, there need not be because our imaginations are able to pick up on the pungent horrificness going on within the film.

I do recommend this movie for the experienced horror movie enthusiast.  This movie is especially suited for those who enjoy watching a film that takes you into the deep recesses of what the human psychology can label as 'enjoyable,' 'entertainment,' or even 'art.'  There is definitely some thoughtful debates about what counts as 'art' to be had after one views this film.  Those folks who are interested in that kind of debate are more likely than not going to appreciate this film rather than your average person who likes the occasional 'scary' flick.

"The Human Centipede" as of 2/6/2016 is available on Netflix.

I plan on watching "The Human Centipede 2" within the next couple of days.  So, stay tuned for a run down on that one, and a comparison to the first.

Let us know what you thought about "The Human Centipede" in the comment section.

Who's Worse: Tony Stark or The Winter Soldier

Who's worse: Tony Stark or The Winter Soldier

Comic book movie fans are more anxious than ever to see the new Captain America Civil War movie after watching the new trailer during the Superbowl. There's been a lot of buzz on the internet about people all of a sudden switching sides from Cap to Iron Man. Is it because we see Stark with a cool new gadget that helps him from being killed by the Winter Soldier? Or is it because we see War Machine is fatally wounded or even dead in his cut scene? What ever the reason we won't find out until movie comes out of course, but I recently came across a comment that said that the Winter Soldier had done more wrong than Tony Stark before he stopped making weapons. Lets look at the good and bad of each character and determine who's worse.

Good: Bucky Barnes (before becoming the Winter Soldier)

- was not a bully, he was best friends and defended Steve Rogers long before he became a super soldier
- was drafted into the Army during WWII and became the rank of Sergeant
- was a POW (prisoner of war)
- became part of the Howling Commando's
- was an amputee (wounded warrior)
- was experimented on, mind controlled, lost all memory of his former life, frozen and had his memory erased after each mission as the Soldier
- saved Captain America from drowning after remembering who he was
- takes the place of Captain America in his absence (in the comics)

Bad: Winter Soldier

- was an assassin who killed anyone from scientist to political figures
- killed Tony Starks' parents (maybe Iron Man finds out about this in the movie and goes after him)
- attempted to kill Nick Fury
- shot twice and attempted to kill Black Widow
- shot Captain America and attempted to kill him
- killed and destroyed numerous Shield agents and equipment

I'm sure there's a lot more good or bad that he had done that's not on my list. Although the Winter Soldier committed the crimes, should he really be held responsible? I know I probably sound like a lawyer, but he was not in his right state of mind. This guy is a hero in my eyes, WWII vet, POW, amputee, all in the name of defending his country. His previous life and the good deeds he has done far outweighs the bad things that he did. He was forced and did not choose to do those bad deeds. Now let's look at Iron Man.

Good: Iron Man (post capture from the Ten Rings)

- undid wrongs against the people who were using his weapons for bad/terrorism
- stopped making weapons for profit (making for self)
- made a eco friendly sustainable energy source
- provided the government with an Iron Man suit (War Machine)
- joined the Avengers and saved New York from aliens and a nuke
- took down Aldrich Killian, Whiplash
- Helped create Vision
- funded the Avengers and built them their buildings, inhanced weapons, and armor

Bad: Tony Stark (pre come to Jesus moment)

- was self centered
- sold weapons for profit and didn't care about the consequences
- was captured and held prisoner to make one his weapons under the order of his business partner  because of the lack of leadership he took in his business
- he rushes into situations without thinking
- he could have prevented Aldrich Killian from being a bad guy if he wasn't drunk and selfish
- he could have easily made Extremis for good use a long time ago (At the end of the third movie he said it was an easy problem to solve)
- responsible for creating Ultron ( although Scarlet Witch pushed him on that direction)

Like I said with the Winter Soldier, I'm sure there last a lot of good and bad that I've missed on the list. My opinion is that Bucky was and has always been a good guy at heart. Whereas Tony chose to be a self centered asshole. Don't get me wrong, I love RDJ and the Iron Man/Tony Stark character. But if you think about it most of the problems that he had faced or even the entirety of Avengers 2 were based on his actions. He has caused so many problems in his life that he wants to try to fix things before they happen. It's a very logical way to think, but I think that we're going to see the results of his actions play out in the new Captain America: Civil War movie. If you didn't know already, I'm team Cap all the way.

Tell me what you think. Are you for team Cap or team Iron Man? Will Tony finally find out that the Winter Soldier killed his parents? Wouldn't it be a great plot twist if Bucky was still under mind control throughout the entire movie and he was the one to kill Captain America?

What The Hell Did I Just Watch? "Stitches" Movie Review

Netflix, you dirty ol' bastard!  Well, I have just been tricked again by Netflix to watch a movie that I have mixed feelings about.  Let me explain.

First, let me just get the plot of this movie called 'Stitches' out into the open so you have an idea from where I am coming.

******Spoiler Altert******

Stitches is, essentially, a movie about a party clown (Stitches), who is killed within the first 10 minutes of movie as a result of receiving a kitchen knife to the face.  The rest of the movie is about Stitches coming back to life, a clown zombie if you will, and exacting his revenge on all those who have wronged him; specifically, the kids who teased him at the birthday party where he died.  

I am going to highlight the plot a bit further now in order to explain my mixed feelings about this film.

The movie begins when Stitches arrives at a kid's birthday party. Stitches, then, attempts to entertain the kids with a variety of clown tricks.  The kids are not thrilled by the clown's antics.  So, they begin to tease the clown and give him a hard time.  Specifically, one kid ties Stitches' shoe strings together (classic prank), while another kid throws a ball at Stitches causing him
to go off-balance and fall directly onto a kitchen knife that was placed, by an adult, in a dishwasher with the blade sticking straight up.

Who puts a kitchen knife in the dishwasher with he blade sticking straight up and then leaves the dishwasher open, especially with kids hyped up on cake running around???

Anyway, as I said before, Stitches falls on the knife and it goes through his left eye and out the top of his skull.  Blood, brains, and gore spray everywhere (I mean everywhere). It's hilarious the amount of blood and brains that spew from this clown's head wound.  But this is only the beginning of the gore that ensues during the rest of the movie.

At this point, Stitches is "dead" and buried in a grave yard.  The kid, who was having the birthday party, goes to the grave yard and witnesses an ancient clown ritual being performed.  Apparently, when clown's receive their official induction into the 'clownship' they are given an egg with their clown faces painted on it.  This egg is symbolic of the eternal life as a clown.  It also is the thing that ends up destroying the zombie version of Stitches at the end of the movie.

We fast forward 6 years later when the kids are adolescences in middle-school.  The former birthday boy has a pretty severe case of PTSD from the incident 6 years before.  He hallucinates frequently of people around him turning into clowns and performing gruesome acts on other people around him.  For example, one hallucination is when he is sitting in a classroom with his classmates, the teacher turns into a murderous clown, walks up to a kid and rips his dick off in the middle of class.  Then, the clown, who now has a kid's dick in his hand, trots around the classroom displaying the dick to everyone.  Oh, and as the viewers to this spectacle, we are graciously awarded the opportunity to watch the clown rip the kid's dick off while the camera is zoomed in on the entire ordeal.  So, not only do we see the dick being ripped off, but we see it up close and personal and there is plenty of flesh ripping imagery to accompany it.

Shortly after that entertaining sequence (can I call it entertaining???), we learn that it is the hallucinating kid's birthday again.  So, the kid wants to have a birthday party.  He invites the entire school over to his house and a ton of people show up.

During the party, Stitches is magically resurrected from the grave and on a mission to kill all of the kids responsible for his death.  The rest of the movie is about Stitches cleverly and creatively killing a bunch of kids.  For example, he kicks a kid's head off, stabs a girl through the eye with an umbrella, uses a ice-cream scooper to scoop a kid's brains out of his head while simultaneously making an ice-cream sunday; only instead of ice-cream, Stitches uses brains, and disembowels a one guy turning the removed bowel in a balloon animal; specifically, a dog.  All of these acts are accompanied by exaggerated gore, blood spewing, raunchy carnage, screaming, and howling cries of pain by Stitches' victims as they are mutilated.

The movie ends with the birthday boy destroying the egg with Stitches' clown face drawn on it.  When the egg is destroyed, Stitches explodes, but get this, he explodes and the resulting carnage is egg yolk.  And once Stitches is dead, everybody lives happily ever after.

Or do they???

Alright, let me return to what I started this post out with; namely, that I have mixed feelings about this movie.  However, I must first make a confession.  While writing this post I realized something -- I love this movie.  The hyperbolic gore, blood, bad acting, and overall raunchiness speaks to me in a way that I want an independent B-horror movie to speak.  I don't expect this kind of movie to have a good plot or character depth.  I watch these movies because I want to be grossed out, but I also want laugh at the grossness.  Let's call Stitches what it is, a low budget gross out film, and, as such, I can assure you that it delivers.

I don't need to bother recommending this movie because if you are a fan of B-horror movies, then you already know what Stitches is all about.  And if you don't like B-horror movies, then there is no need to waste time trying to convince you that you should watch it.  This movie was made for a particular audience and they know who they are.  However, for those of you who are on the fence about it, give it 15 minutes and if after that you don't like it, turn it off because chances are that you won't like the rest.

As of 2/5/2016 'Stitches' is available on Netflix (US).

When Are Sequels And Trilogies Appropriate?

How annoying is it to wait for the third or final installment of a movie and find out that there is going to be a "part 2" you have to wait until the next year to see.  Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.  Let's look at a few examples.

Recently they've done this with The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and Twilight Breaking Dawn.  Is it necessary for them to do this?  What is the motivation for setting up a scenario wherein there is a part two to a sequel or trilogy?

Money and greed seem to be the first two answers coming to mind, especially with The Hunger Games franchise.  Not knowing anything about the story at the time, I was intrigued to read the books after watching the first movie. The final book was about the same length of the other books but not as good.  As a matter of fact, I felt like the author was rushed to finish the book. For how bad the book was, I couldn't believe that they would make the film adaptation a two-parter.  Part one was especially drawn out; one movie would have been better in this case in stead of two.

With a film series like Harry Potter, I'll have to go with the old saying that the books are better than the movie. That being said, there's so much detail in the books that they don't have time for in the movie unless the movie is over three or four hours long.  I think that the Deathly Hallows having two parts was acceptable because it had a good pace, they were hitting on critical points, and they didn't stray from the story.  The films didn't have everything from the book but it was enough to keep the viewer satisfied.

The new Hobbit movies royally pissed me off.  After reading the book as a kid and watching the cartoon movie adaptation, for them to make three movies out of this book is just ridiculous and greedy.  It was good going back to Middle-Earth and reliving the memories of our favorite characters from Lord Of The Rings, but there were so many parts in these movies that were long, drawn out, and boring. Boring to the point where I fell asleep multiple times during the second and third films. I could understand having two movies, but definitely not three.

Are there anymore movies out there that hve multiple sequels that are not necessary?

Do you think this trend will grow and be part of movies from now on?

Let us know what you think.

Emotions and Fictions: How Do I Give A Shit?

In an earlier article entitled "Siding With a Murderer: Confessions of An Immoralist, which can be found here: http://cliffsmovietalk.blogspot.com/2016/01/siding-with-murderer-confessions-of.html, I asked a question concerning my tendency to cheer or root for Jason, Freddy, or Michael of Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Halloween, respectively.  The question was: am I immoral, bad, wrong, evil etc. because I cheer for Jason to murder his victims even though Jason and his victims are fictional?  Built into this question, and the article as a whole, is an assumption, namely - that real people are in fact able to have real emotional reactions to fictional characters and fictional happenings.  So, the purpose of this follow-up article is to address that assumption and elaborate on it because it's an important piece of our experience when we watch movies, listen to songs, and/or read novels etc. that goes unnoticed and ignored.

If you have ever read a novel, poem, watched a movie, or heard a song and were moved emotionally

by it, then you have experienced what is commonly referred to as the fictional paradox.  The fictional paradox, to put it simply, is when a real person has a real emotional reaction to something that happens to a character, who is fictional or not real, in a movie, song, poem, novel, or painting etc..  This is called a paradox for one primary reason which can be stated as such: how and why is it possible for real people to have real emotional reactions to non-real characters in a fictional space?

If you have ever experienced this paradox, then you should be bothered by it because it should disturb your rationality a little bit.  Essentially what the paradox is implying is that every time you have an emotional reaction to a fictional movie character in a fictional space, your feelings are irrational.  However, I doubt that you would would accept that your real emotional reaction is irrational (I know I don't accept this).  My emotional reactions are real when I watch any SAW movie and the tortures that the characters endure gets under my skin.  I do not want to deny that those reactions are real.  I want to say that they are real and rational, but the paradox slaps me in the face and screams:

"No, your emotions are irrational, nobody is REALLY being tortured.  Those characters are NOT REAL."  Yet, I still want to argue that my emotional reaction is REAL despite my knowing that the characters are fictional and in a fictional space.  But how and why????

The 'how and why' pieces of puzzle are so crucial because without the 'how and why,' we basically have a huge gap in our understanding of the human condition; our condition.  I don't know about you but I am hostile to the notion that I am unable to explain a part of my own self.  In other words, since I have access to my own thoughts, feelings, emotions, and moods, then I should be able to explain why and how it is that I can have an emotional response to a scary movie, romantic comedy, poem, or novel.  However, this task seems to be endlessly complicated, yet we go on watching movies, reading poems and novels, listening to music without giving the paradox any considerations.  I find this part of the human condition dissatisfying, in that, we can be aware of something that needs explanation but because its hard we just ignore it.

So, the bottom-line is that the paradox lingers in and around us all the time and we ignore it. However, I challenge anybody to attempt to enter the ring and spar with the paradox and explain how and why we are able to have real emotional responses to fictional characters in a fictional space.  I am eager to hear thoughts and opinions on solving this paradoxical puzzle.

What Are Your "go to" Scary Movies?

Late one night, I found myself looking for a movie to watch.  It was between that time where you're sleepy, but not tired enough to go to sleep. I decided that I wanted to watch a good horror movie, which is very hard to find these days.

As I was going through my Netflix and Hulu account, nothing looked enticing. So, I went inside my memory warehouse (I got that from Stephen Kings 'Dreamcatcher', great movie by the way) and looked for my "go to" horror movies that creep me out when I watch them by myself.  You know what I'm talking about, the movies that make you paranoid enough to always look over your shoulder, or run up the steps to your room when you turn off all the lights, or when every little house noise turns into a life and death situation.  If a horror movie can do this to me, then I know it's good. Here are two movies (more to come) that consistently scare and creep me out no matter how many times I watch them.

1.Silent hill

This entire movie had weird all over it from the first time I watched it in theaters. The eerie music, dim environment, and the people that lived in Silent Hill, at least to me, could be based off a real town in backwoods USA somewhere. But the icing on the cake is the little girl who plays 3 different characters in the movie (two if you want to get technical). She was basically an innocent child that was bullied and tortured because her and her mother were the outcasts of the town. When she was burned alive (and lived), a witch or demon came to her and made a deal to make the people and the town itself suffer. Creepy!

2. Rob Zombie's Halloween

Rob Zombie did an excellent job with this movie, taking the Micheal Myers that everyone knows and giving him the perfect origin story. First of all, that kid who played Micheal just had a face that had serial killer written all over it. They showed his crappy home life, being picked on, and seeing him killing animals for the fun of it. Just watching a kid grow up with all those issues gives me some justification for accepting Micheal as a murderer. The adult Micheal was just a huge, strong, violent guy with no remorse. No matter how many times I watch this movie I cringe at the shear brute force of the way he kills someone.

What is your "go to" scary movie? What do you do when you get scared?

Movie Reviewers Need to Worry About Grammar, Here's Why...

My fellow movie reviewists: we are engaged in content warfare.  A battle for views, traffic, and acknowledgement.  Our weaponry consists of words, periods, commas, and the occasional semicolon (not to leave out the 'oh-so-important' parenthetical).  However, our weaponry is dull, gunky, and perpetually jamming because of poor grammar, punctuation, spelling, and other linguistic errors.  It is time to clean and sharpen our weaponry so we can continue fighting the good fight.

After spending about an hour and a half reading through various movie review blogs and comments, I have become skeptical that the individuals writing these blogs and comments are not equipped to do so, at least linguistically speaking.  This skepticism has prompted this post, which is directed at anybody, especially movie reviewists, who attempts to compare two things or rate one thing over another.  Enjoy.

In the movie review business, we are constantly comparing and contrasting two or more things and rating one thing over another.  So, having a strong grasp on the elements of language that allow us to accomplish these goals is crucial.  However, as I scroll through many movie review posts and blogs, both amateur and professional (believe it or not), I am constantly seeing the misuse of 'then' and 'than.'  Thus, I thought a post about the correct uses of both of these terms is warranted and hopefully movie reviewists, who are confused about when to use 'then' or 'than,' will stumble across it and correct their errors.  Obviously, this post is directed at English speaking people; however, I suppose someone who is a non-native English speaker and trying to improve their English could find this helpful as well.

The difference between the two is simply really.  The two most common instances when 'then' is used is when talking about temporal relationships between happenings or in conditional statements.  A couple of examples of the former are as follows:

1) I woke up this morning and then I ate breakfast.
2) Sally told her boss to screw himself and then she walked out.

A couple of the latter instances are as follows:
1) If I woke up this morning, then I ate breakfast.
2) If Sally walked out, then she told her boss to screw himself.

The use of the word 'than' is primarily used, at least in movie reviews, to indicate that the writer is contrasting two things, preferring, or rating, whether actually or hypothetically, one thing over another.  A few examples are as follows:

1) I like this movie better than  that one.
2) I would rather watch this television show or play this game etc. rather than watch any other show or play any other game.
3) Movie (X) has a higher rating on Rotten Tomatoes than on the IMDB; or
4) I would rate movie (X) higher than movie (Y).

If one can master these simple differences, then they are more likely than not to demonstrate to their readers that they have a strong grasp of the English language. This is a good thing because readers who have a keen eye for grammar foul-ups are likely to stumble through posts with multiple inaccuracies.  So, the writer risks that particular reader not returning to his/her website.  If one is okay with the consequences of the risks taken by faulty grammar, then simply disregard this post altogether.  However, my guess is that most writers want their readers to return.

Tucker and Dale vs. Evil - Review

Tucker and Dale vs. Evil is a horror/comedy that lives up to both genre labels, but is more heavy on the comedy than the horror. You're not going to be scared, but you are going to laugh.

The story is as follows: two backwoods country guys (Tucker and Dale) are taking a trip to fix up and renovate a vacation cabin that Tucker has just bought.  While Tucker and Dale are fixing up the cabin, they encounter some stereotypical dimwitted teenagers common to the horror genre.  Quickly, Tucker, Dale, and the teenagers find themselves in a situation wherein the line between who is good and evil is blurry at best.  Tucker and Dale think the teenagers are out to get them and at the same time the teenagers think the same about Tucker and Dale.  There's a kidnapping, people start dying in gruesome, but creative and  hilarious ways.  The movie basically rests on a HUGE misunderstanding due to a lack of communication.  

As I said at the beginning, this movie is classified as a horror/comedy.  However, the only thing about this movie that strikes me as being "horror" is that there is a lot blood, guts, gore, and death.  I suppose that could qualify as horror, but the story that is being told throughout the movie quickly dilutes any elements of "fear" or "scary-factor."  If you wanted to count the fear of dying as consistent with the "fear" representative of the horror genre, then this movie is within its classification.

I recommend this movie primarily because of the story and its hilarity, not necessarily because its scary in any meaningful sense.  There isn't great acting either; however, there are enough characters representing enough personalities that you get a little bit of everything in the way of character development, but don't expect anything deep.  So, if you like exaggerated gore and decent effects that are expected from a horror film and idiocy from characters and if you have an hour and a half to kill one day, then give this movie a shot.

It is currently available on Netflix as of 1/25/2016.   

Uncovering Systemic Pedophilia: A movie review of 'Spotlight'

First and foremost, I want to say that this movie and review is not attacking the Catholic Church or any religion in any way, shape, or form. If you know, know of, or even have children yourself, this movie review will hit home and open your eyes. Even if you don’t you’ll be able to understand and relate to the issues they bring up in this movie to your everyday life. These issues include favoritism, entitlement, privilege, buddy-buddy hook-ups, quid pro quo (this for that), the list goes on. Let’s get started and you’ll be able to see what I’m talking about.

Spotlight is a very small team of investigative journalists that are a part of the Boston Globe newspaper. They tackle challenging stories that could take a year or more to investigate so they can report it with as much accuracy as possible. A new editor comes to the paper and starts go through previous articles and investigations that were written. He stumbles across a story about a priest who had molested 80 children and wants to dig deeper.  He assigns Spotlight to the story and they go deep into the community by talking to victims, unsealing court documents, and challenging the Catholic Church as a whole.

They state in the movie that Boston is 60% catholic and almost everybody is involved with the church in one way or another. While the investigation was going on they found out that there was an enormous number of priests and children involved and that almost all the priest involved were still active. Needless to say this movie will keep you interested and have you thinking beyond your viewing of this movie.

  

Resurrecting a comedy classic: Tropic Thunder

Booty sweat, bust-a-nut-bar, Robert Downey Jr. acting in black face, Ben Stiller going full retard, Tom Cruise behaving like a raging hairy (why is he so fucking hairy?) psychopath.  This movie came out in 2008 but, is nonetheless, still hilarious and worth another watch or a first for those who have not seen it.

The plot, without any spoilers, is as follows: five actors, Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Jay Baruchel, and Brandon Jackson play the roles of five melodramatic and abysmal actors making a Vietnam war film based on a Vietnam veteran's war experience.  The five actors, after failing to cooperate with their director on scene, are dropped off in the Vietnam jungle and told to follow a map to a location where they will be evacuated from the jungle.  Along their journey, the five man platoon is supposed to encounter simulated wartime explosions, gunfire, and other battle like activities.  However, they are lead off course and Stiller is captured by a gang of Vietnamese drug lords.  The rest are left to fend for themselves in the jungle dealing with Jack Black's character going through heroin withdraw, and Downey Jr.'s character alienating Jackson's character (a black guy by nature) by staying in character as black face, among other things.

This movie is a comedy through and through and not meant to be any kind accurate telling of the Vietnam War or a depiction of true events.  Although there is some blood, guts, and gore, it is related to the shenanigans that these characters find themselves engaged in due to their own dumb-ass antics, not because of any meaningful battles during the Vietnam War.  This is not a Saving Private Ryan or We Were Soldiers type movie so do not come into it thinking it is.

For those of you who have not seen it, I highly recommend this movie if you are not uber-sensitive to people making fun of mentally retarded folks or have low tolerance for race induced humor.  For those of you who have seen it, then I recommend watching it again because, simply put, it's freaking hilarious.  I would almost go as far to say that Robert Downey Jr. should have won an award for his performance because how many other actors can do black face and get away with it without being chastised and publicly ruined for it?

Anyway, let us know what you thought about this movie in the comment section below.

IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0942385/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Movie Reviews and The Electoral College: An Unlikely Pair

Analogies are fun because sometimes comparing two things that seem, prima facie, utterly dissimilar can actually influence and enhance perspective of those independent things in light of one another. Today's analogy will compare the electoral college and movie reviews.

In the United States system of government, there is something called the electoral college.  In a nutshell, the electoral college is comprised of elected officials in charge of casting a vote for a presidential candidate.  Presidential candidates are often thought to be elected in accordance with the popular vote coming from the general voting population.  However, this is only partly true.  The electoral college has a major influence in deciding who will be president. For example, if a candidate receives 270 electoral college votes but loses the majority vote, then the candidate receiving those 270 votes from the electoral college becomes president in spite of losing the popular vote.  In U.S. history there have been four presidents elected to office despite losing the popular vote, the most recent being George W. Bush in 2000 defeating John Kerry.  This means that a majority of  U.S. voting citizens elected John Kerry, but because George W. Bush accumulated the required 270 votes from the electoral college, George W. Bush won.

Like the U.S. voting system, movie reviews comes in a couple different forms.  There is a popular vote and a critic vote.  The popular vote could be thought of consisting of the average movie enthusiast not really versed in academic theory, is not affiliated with a view consistent with a particular way of viewing movies, and/or has no political filter.  The professional critic can be thought of as being  analogous with members of the electoral college, in that, both are professional voters.

Sometimes a movie is reviewed by professional critics, and their views for why a movie is the way they say it is, is different from the popular vote.  For example, if one looks at websites such Rotten Tomatoes or the IMDB, then one might find that there are separate categories for movie reviews. One category belongs to the professional critics and the other belongs to the general populace.  Often times the professional critics, using different styles of argumentation, will conclude that a film is poor which is the opposite of what the popular vote concludes.  Therefore, we have a similar situation concerning movie reviews as with the governmental system of the U.S.

Now that the analogy has taken form, the question then becomes what exactly is the take-away or what can we learn?  One argument, that applies to both the electoral college and movie reviews, is that both seem to be arbitrary systems of evaluation derived by doing a synthesis of quantifiable data.  Both require leaning heavily on statistical data showing how a majority and minority of professional voters/critics and amateur voters/critics compare and contrast against one another.  Whether a candidate is chosen by the popular vote or by the electoral college or a movie is determined good/bad etc. by professional critics or amateur reviewers, we rely heavily on numbers to tell us what the bottom line is.  If a majority of critics vote a movie to be poor, but the popular vote indicates that the movie is good, then how do we really know if the movie is good or bad?  Is there a separate criteria for evaluating movies other than reducing the value of a film to a dichotomous relationship and applying a percentile rank?

We could consider a qualifiable method of evaluation instead of reducing a film's worth to a quantified snippet.  This is where the electoral college might be able to teach us something about movie reviews.  The U.S. governmental system needs numbers, statistical data, and a synthesis of qualified feelings into quantified entities.  The democratic system arguably depends on having people's views of issues reduced to a 'yes' or 'no' 'this' or 'that' type reduction for the sake of efficiency. Due to this necessity, and a nuanced technicality of the U.S. governmental system, the electoral college teaches us that a few can contradict the views of a majority.  However, is this the same in movie reviews?  If professional critics all vote a film favorably but the popular vote is unfavorable, do the critics triumph?  The 'true' value of a film may not be buried in the synthesized for consumerism statistical data that companies such as IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes provide us.  How could a method incorporating qualified measures assist in bringing together the professional critic view and amateur movie enthusiasts view in order to unify the dichotomy?  If this last question could be answered, it may be possible to arrive at a film's true value.

My hope, in the end, is that the electoral college method does not apply to film, however, I'll save any true conclusory remarks for another time. 

'The Guest' movie review & recommendation

Actor Dan Stevens, most notably from the television show Downton Abbey, plays David in this psychological thriller.  The premise of this movie is as follows: David arrives at the home of a deceased soldier, whom David claims he served with in the military, and is greeted by the deceased soldier's grieving family consisting of a father, mother, brother, and sister .   David explains to the family of the deceased soldier that his dying words were for David to reach out to his family and simply let them know the soldier loved them very much.  The mother initially suggests that David stay in their home while David search for a more permanent situation.  After the father learns of the invitation, there is a scuffle between the mother and father as to the arrangements offered to David.  Eventually, the father concedes and extends the invitation for David to stay; David accepts.

The brief summary of the happenings in the very first moments of the film seem quite mundane and undramatic.  However, I must say that the acting by Stevens playing the character of David is, from the very outset of the movie, in a word: creepy.  Not overtly creepy like Jack Nicholas in The Shinning , but much more subtle like when the high E string is plucked on a guitar that is slightly out of tune; it's disturbing to the ear but not enough to make one cringe.  David's stature, square jaw, piercing blue-eyes, calming voice, and aloof personality in conjunction with his polite demeanor and overall charisma make David a complex character.  When David's character is viewed in the context of the scene describe above, one can easily infer that there is more to the story than David is letting on.   David's persona, throughout the entire film, has calming yet unnerving effect in every situation, which makes earns the film its 'psychological' piece of psychological thriller.  I would venture to say that if Stevens' acting was not on point for this film, then I would not have bothered to watch it or recommend anybody else watch it.

So, in order to not give any spoilers, I shall simply summarize the rest of the story just enough to where you can make an informed decision about whether to give it chance or not.  David infiltrates the deceased soldier's household and begins develop relationship with the members of the soldier's family.  David, furthermore, becomes the healing presence for the family's grief, but simultaneously being an object of skepticism.  The plot is ingrained in David's ability to befriend the members of the deceased soldiers family: the brother, who has a tendency to be the object of others' ridicule and aggression, ally with the daughter, who is still in adolescent stage of life wherein the consequences of life have not set in, the mother, who has just lost a son and is ignored by the father, and the father, who is an alcoholic drinking to suppress whatever pity he may have for himself.  These relationships are crucial to David's intentions and thus have significant importance in how the story-line plays itself out.

There are, of course, twists and turns within the plot.  Some of which will be anticipated by the viewer who is a frequent watcher of this genre of film.  However, there is one plot twist that is especially noteworthy (I will not detail it any further) and almost changes the direction of the entire film.  I caution the viewer of this not to spoil anything, but to exploit a potential hiccup in the film's plot that may leave the viewer with a bad taste in their mouth.  There is some gore involved but nothing over the top.  The film proceeds at a steady pace most of the time; however, there are scenes that seem to drag on longer than necessary where a shorter scene could be just as effective.  Overall, it's a decent film for those who like character development depth (nothing too deep though)  and appreciate a manipulative plot with some action scenes thrown in for good measure.

I am interested in reading future comments about what everybody thinks who has either seen this movie or sees it in the future with regards to their reaction toward the ending.  Particularly, I am interested in reading thoughts on the response to this question: Did the ending make or break the movie?

This movie as of 1/17/2016 is still available on Netflix for those of you who hold a subscription.

Siding With a Murderer: Confessions of an Immoralist.

Superficially, what do Jason Vorhees, Freddy Kruger, and Michael Myers all have in common.  Among other things, they all kill a lot of people indiscriminately.  Arguably, the films are challenging to watch because, if you are like me, I am not sure for whom I should be cheering.  For example, do I root for the ignorant and stumbling teenager who Jason is chasing and is more than likely going to annihilate the face of with his machete?  Or do I root for Jason to slice that kid up into a thousand pieces and continue the rampage and impose his wrath onto his next victim?  The same questions can be applied to Freddy and/or Michael; who's corner am I in?  Let us take this in stride starting from the top.

Jason and Freddy share another crucial factor, namely - they were wronged and are out seeking revenge.  Jason was brutally teased as a child, Freddy was lured by the parents of his victims to a building, where he was set on fire and burned to "death."  Michael, on the other hand, from the beginning of his life was just a sociopath with a murderous personality.  In the case of Freddy or Jason, I can sympathize with their intentional positions in that if I were treated the way they were, I may consider externalizing my rage on the world in a similar fashion.  However, in the case of Michael, it is a little bit harder to sympathize with him because I do not know what it's like to see the human as something to be killed for pleasure.  Though it is harder to sympathize with Michael and easier with Freddy and/or Jason, I still have found myself siding or cheering for any one of the three as they slice, chop, hack, and claw their ways through victim after victim.

If your like me and have ever cheered for Michael, Freddy, or Jason, then we must admit that we have cheered for a murderer.  Regardless of what Jason or Michael's intentions are for why they kill, the fact is that they are murderers.  I have actually watched one of the Friday the 13th films and picked out one of the characters I hated and hoped Jason killed them.  Then when Jason actually did kill that character, I would be excited and thankful as if the character deserved it.  Moreover, if the killing was especially brutal, namely if the character received a machete through the face, this would enhance my excitement.

If you have made it this far, then we probably have similar experiences.  Here is where things get a little complicated, though.  We cheer for Freddy, Jason, or even Michael to slaughter their targets, but would you cheer for the 9/11 terrorists, James Holmes (guy who shot up the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado) Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City bombing), Ted Bundy (serial killer), Jeffrey Dahmer (serial killer), Osama Bin Laden (suspected mastermind behind 9/11), I could go on but you get the point.  Did we cheer as the people, who were stuck in the Twin Towers, jumped out of the windows to avoid being burned to death or die of asphyxiation?  Would we cheer if we were to watch a replay of the Aurora shooting while people were shot in their faces or delight as a pregnant woman has her stomach ripped open by a bullet causing the fetus to ooze out of the wound?  Do you think the juries, who watched the multiple bodies Dahmer chopped up to consume carried out of his apartment, were eating popcorn and relishing in the film?  My guess is that the answer to all of the above is "No" we would not cheer, delight, or relish in any of this.  So why do we do it in the cases of Freddy, Jason, and Michael?

There are going to be some who are chomping at the bit to make this argument, which is as follows: Jason, Freddy, and Michael are fictitious characters in fictitious movies not grounded in reality whatsoever.  The movies do not even pretend to depict real life events.  In other words, Freddy, Jason, and Michael are just simply not real and neither are the characters they kill or the plots they carry out.  However, those people who jumped out of the Twin Towers, the victims in the Oklahoma City bombing, Holmes' gunshot victims were real.  Those events actually happened and those victims actually died.  Cities, communities, and families were ripped apart, destroyed, and annihilated due to the acts of a few or single actors.  There is a difference between real life events and consequences and fictitious events and consequences.  One should not conflate the two or argue that the two are similar.

While I am sympathetic to this argument, there is a nagging itch I have to make another argument which is as follows: Jason, Freddy, and Michael are murderers.  When I cheer them for their accomplishments, I am cheering murder.  Yes, the murder is pretend; however, the object of my delight is murder nonetheless.  Murder, I argue, is a concept which transcends the realm of fiction.   Murder is supposed to be bad, wrong, evil, immoral etc. regardless of where, when, how, or to whom it happens.  A note must be made here that justified homicide i.e. self-defense or defense of others is not murder, it is justifiable homicide; there is an argument that they are different both morally and legally.  When I cheer Jason, Freddy, or Michael I am blurring my normal moral evaluations and engaging in behavior that would otherwise illicit condemnation from others and from myself as well.  Yet, when my friends and I watch Jason, Michael, and/or Freddy dice someone up with a cleaver, machete, or in Freddy's case that wicked claw he has for a hand, and cheer we feel neither guilt nor shame or condemn each other or ourselves for this behavior.  Are we immoralists?

If you accept the premise that the concept of murder is a transcendental one and is bad, wrong, evil, immoral at anytime in anyplace, as I have been taught through my experience living in the world, then I need to justify my tendency to side with Jason, Freddy, or Michael when they murder their victims.  Perhaps, I side with them because I do not wholeheartedly believe that murder bad, wrong, immoral evil etc.?  Do these kinds of movies speak to a deeper level of consciousness, or perhaps the unconscious, within us?  They may allow us to indulge in our more animalistic tendencies for violence, destruction, and carnage.  Siding with Jason, Freddy, and/or Michael could be a way of appreciating the suppressed inner killer that is shadowed by prohibitive moral judgments.  How many times have you been cut off in traffic and wanted to unleash a furry of anger toward the person guilty of the infraction, but didn't?  Watching Jason, Freddy, and/or Michael murder at will may allow us to vicariously appreciate real unadulterated violence without real consequences.

Creed II: Discussing Potential Plot Points.

Potential Plot for Creed II

With the success of Creed and Sylvester Stallone receiving a Golden Globe, we can almost guarantee that there will be a sequel.  If there is (and I hope there will be), what’s going to happen? Have no fear because I have formulated a series of scenarios that ultimately will make Creed 2 a cinematic triumph.

Have Adonis fight the #1 contender (Danny "Stuntman" Wheeler") that knocked him out earlier in the movie

We all know that Adonis only got that title shot fight because the current champ broke the jaw of the #1 contender.  Who’s to say that if the two fought, Danny would beat the champ and take the title. With the intimidation factor of being knocked out and possibly being the better fighter, Adonis would be in for the fight of his life.

Bring in some drama from Apollo’s biological children with his wife Mary Ann

In the entire series of the Rocky franchise the only time Apollo’s children have been referenced was in Rocky II. In the meeting where Apollo said he won the fight against Rocky but didn’t beat him, he said that his kids were being teased at school. There’s a scene before that that shows his children (a boy and girl) running through his house. They looked about 7 or 8 and that was back in 1979, so they would be significantly older than Adonis.  Have them be the bad guys, where they only care about money and didn’t care at all about their father or mother.  Perhaps they were disowned by Mary Ann and the rest of the Creed family for getting into drugs because they couldn’t handle the death of Apollo. Either way, bringing them into Creed II would be very interesting.

Have Ivan Drago’s son fight in the contest for the title

Wouldn’t you want to see Adonis fight the son of the man who killed his father in the ring. That would make out to be an epic fight full of blood, sweat, tears, and emotion. Have Drago’s son grow up with the roughest life possible.  Have his story start off right after the loss to Rocky in Russia. During the fight with Rocky, Drago not only lost but he also disrespected his superiors by talking back to them during the fight. This would cause him to be kicked out of the Russian military, disowned by the entire country of Russia, and become addicted to drugs (steroids). Drago, not able to find work, becomes homeless and abusive to his family. This would fuel Drago’s son to bring back honor to his family’s name and get revenge on the protégé of the man who ruined his father’s life. Now this could be saved for Creed III when Adonis would be training for the World Heavy Weight title instead of the Light Heavy Weight.

Bianca goes full blown deaf

Another obstacle that Adonis will have to conquer is dealing with and supporting his girlfriend through loss of her hearing. As stated by Bianca herself, she has progressive hearing loss that will inevitably result in her being deaf. We see this because she starts wearing hearing aids and learning sign language. This could play out well in the sequels. During the training montage for his next big fight, show Adonis learning sign language or helping Bianca get adjusted to her new deaf life.

What do you think? Do you have any other ideas for Creed II? Comment below

The Revenant: Review and Recommendation

DiCaprio plays a man named Hugh Glass who is on an Alaskan expedition in the 1800's.  The movie begins with a battle scene between White people and a group of Native Americans, who the White people call tree niggers.  The battle forces DiCaprio and those in his group, who are still alive, to retreat from the area and move to another.  During the move, DiCaprio is viciously attacked by a Grizzly Bear impaling him to the point of near death.  DiCaprio is then lugged around by his fellow frontiersmen until the group must climb a mountain and carrying DiCaprio becomes unfeasible.  Three of DiCaprio's fellow frontiersmen, one being his son, volunteer to carry DiCaprio to a separate location until reinforcements arrive with suitable resources for dealing with the injured man.  During the time in which Dicaprio's character is under the watch of his son and the other two frontiersmen, some events unfold (I will not say what for spoilers sake) and DiCaprio is left for dead.

Since I do not want to provide any spoilers, I will merely provide a general summation of what happens next.  DiCaprio's character, after regaining his physical strength from the bear attack and being left for dead, sets out on what can only be described as a willful mission to find one person.  Along the way, DiCaprio faces what seems at times to be insurmountable obstacles such as: surviving the bitter cold Alaskan tundra, starvation, dehydration, attacks by Native Americans, and much more.   The audience is treated to a detailed viewing of one man's ability to survive and persevere with no means of support other than what is provided by the natural environment.  DiCaprio's character must resort to near primitive acts of survival such as eating bone marrow from a rotting carcass, gutting a horse and sleeping in it's body cavity for warmth, and eating live fish and raw buffalo meat.  The struggle for survival from DiCaprio's character is enough to keep anyone on the edge of their seat.

This film is full of action and suspense.  The suspense is mostly derived from not knowing whether DiCaprio's character is going to live from one moment to the next because he has so many harrowing events happen to him.  Moreover, there is quite a bit of gore in this movie which intensifies the elements of suspense.  Although there are plenty of action scenes, the film does have a few scenes that are slow and seemingly drag on longer than they needed to.  However, if you appreciate the scenery and aesthetics of the Alaskan wilderness, then you might not mind the scenes that allow the viewer to take it all in.

I recommend this movie to anyone who has the patience to sit through a detailed telling of one man's struggle and will to survive in the hostile Alaskan wilderness.  It helps if one continuously asked themselves throughout the film what he/she would do in DiCaprio's situation?  While the motivation behind DiCaprio's will to survive is nothing new to storytelling, it does provide the viewer an opportunity to empathize with the main character and know the lengths one will go to in order to achieve goal.  I do not recommend this movie for people who are turned off by intense situations as this film is very detailed and spares the viewer no time to collect themselves emotionally from one scene to the next.  Also, if one is turned off by gore and other violent antics, I do not recommend this movie for that individual.

Let us know what you thought about the movie in the comment section!

Queer Cinema: Coming to a Theater Near You?

Imagine Brad Pitt and Channing Tatum or Jennifer Lawerence and Salma Hayek acting out the plot of "When Harry Met Sally" or "You've Got Mail" or "Sleepless in Seattle" or even "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" as queer versions.  Is American society, or the world at large, ready for mainstream films casting big named stars in homosexual roles and acting in romantic comedies or any other genre? "When Harry Met Sally" all of the sudden becomes "When Brad Met Channing" or "When Jennifer Met Salma."    The sex scenes from "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" would have a very different imagery (I am specifically thinking of the scene where Steve Carell's character (Andy) and Catherine Keener's character (Trish) are about to have their first sexual encounter and Andy spends at least five minutes fumbling and struggling to get a condom on.)  Are we ready to see a queer version of the 40-Year-Old Virgin?  Of course, this all assumes that the aforementioned actors and actresses would participate in such an endeavor, but suppose they agreed -- are we ready?

There currently exists a queer cinema genre of film; however, it mostly exists outside of the mainstream media and scope of the general population.  We rarely see movie trailers for these kind of films or other kinds of promotional activity.  With the growing cultural support that homosexuals are gaining, not only in the U.S. but abroad as well, it is very likely that in the next five years or so we will see queer cinema come into the mainstream.  As a movie reviewist, interested in the impact that film has on culture and culture's impact on film, I will be paying close attention as this genre is rolled out to the public.

There is an important note that must be made here.  There have been films in the past that have brought the queer lifestyle into the mainstream.  For example, Brokeback Mountain released in 2005 spotlighted two homosexual cowboys.  This film, and many others like it, portray homosexuality as something shameful and/or an activity that is frowned upon.  However, in You've Got Mail, Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan are not ashamed of their heterosexuality.  The characters are not compelled to justify their sexuality to anyone at any time during the movie.  The heterosexual nature of Hanks' and Ryan's relationship is presupposed to fit a noncontroversial status quo.  My question, then, should be understood in this context.  Are we ready for queer films to go mainstream wherein the plot is not concerned with justifying the homosexual relationship, but instead homosexuality is presupposed to fit the cultural status quo, like in You've Got Mail?

So, what do you think, are you ready for queer cinema to go mainstream?  Let us know in the comment section.

The Perfect Host (A Hidden Gem)

For those of us who use Netflix or any other kind of streaming service, we are all too familiar with taking a chance on a movie and it turning out to be awful.  Sometimes if I start a movie on Netflix and I get 20 or 30 minutes in and I'm uninterested, I'll just turn it off and do something else or find another movie.  Searching for quality movies worth investing two or even two and a half hours of our time can almost be as painful as trying to by a car (notice I said almost, buying a car is still more of a pain in the ass).  However, sometimes randomly taking a chance on a movie pays off and you actually find a good one.

In the case of The Perfect Host, the chance I took payed off big time.  This movie is by far one of the best movies I have ever seen.  The genre of movie that The Perfect Host falls under is psychological thriller mixed with elements of horror.  The twists and turns within the plot of this movie are more than likely enough to keep anyone entertained (who is interested in these genres of course).  The plot in a nutshell is difficult to put into words because I do not want to give the wrong impression about the movie or mislead anyone.  I, first and foremost, absolutely do not want to provide any spoilers because the twists built into the plot are what push this movie from good to great.  I could just be a simpleton, but the ending caught me completely off guard.

So, in light of not wanting to spoil anything for a future viewer regarding this movie, I will just say a few simple words about the plot.  Actually, using Netflix's description of the movie is sufficient, it says "A fugitive on the lam crashes a dinner party.  But he regrets it when the host has him convinced that he would have been better off hiding elsewhere."  If anyone is really interested in learning more about the plot, then go to IMDB or any other professional or amateur site and look it up.  You can also find other movie reviews sites to satisfy your curiosity.  However, I strongly suggest and recommend that anyone, who takes my recommendation at face value, not do any research on this film before you watch it.   I assure that the plot is excellent, acting is brilliant, and the twists that unfold at the end are well worth giving this film a shot.

Follow my blog with Bloglovin

Film and The Self: Do the films we enjoy reveal our character?

It is not a stretch to suggest that every able-minded person will, at some point in their life, ask the question: Who am I?  Some individuals will settle on answers in the form of a preordained societal list containing various adjectives representing their respective value system for better or worse.  Others may not be inclined to settle on answering the question in such straight forward terms.  Instead, these individuals may wish to use similar adjectives but redefine them to fit their own value system, again for better or worse.  Some may even be hesitant to apply any adjectives to themselves for fear of commitment to any value system.  Some individuals may see the self as a process and not subject to a fixed description.  Others may reject the question entirely and argue the self is an illusion.  This is not an exhaustive list; however, it does reflect some popular ways that individuals handle the question.

When making our determinations about who we are, what evidence or reasons do we appeal to in order to provide an answer?  Some may look at their consumer possessions i.e. car, diamonds, houses, furniture, fashion items etc. Others may consider their relationships with others i.e. mothers to children, wives to husbands, cousins to uncles, grandparent to grandchild.  Yet others might ask whether they live according to a religious belief system i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Muslim, Hindu etc.  We might consider everything together, but still weigh one area more heavily than others  i.e. the billionaire may weigh his material possessions more heavily than his religious belief system.  Again, the list is not exhaustive, but sufficient to make the point that answering the simple question, "Who am I" requires a complex answer.

One area that may reveal a great deal about ourselves to ourselves and help us answer the question "Who am I" is considering the genres of film we enjoy.  What can be inferred by an individual regarding their personality, who prefers slasher horror genre to romantic comedies.  Why would one have that preference?  How does having that preference effect the view of themselves toward themselves?  I cannot provide answers to these questions.  Answers, if there are any, are reserved for the selves that contemplate the question "Who am I" and use the films they enjoy as evidence for who they think they are.

Movie genres are often not exclusive.  Often times a movie that generally fits into a genre will also have elements of another genre.  Likewise, the individual may have personality characteristics fitting a genre; however, the individual may have elements of other genres as well.  However, we are often closed off from discovering what other elements of other genres we possess.  Perhaps this is why film is a superior choice of evidence when considering the question "Who am I," rather than using consumer goods, relationships, or even religious belief systems.  The human personality is a complex enterprise.  Cornering ourselves into one genre does not allow for us to account for our complexity and diversity.  For example, I may only consider myself a Christian, husband, and father according to the value system of my community.  Here, I have closed myself off to considering what other elements from other genres I possess.  Maybe examining the films I enjoy would help unearth my complexity and my diverse elements incorporated from those other genres?

Asking ourselves "Who am I" is a difficult and burdensome question.  Nonetheless, it's a question we are destined to confront at some point in our lives.  We are also destined, for better or worse, to categorize, label, and box ourselves into genres, which is not, in and of itself, a disservice to ourselves.  However, the damage is done when we allow ourselves to know ourselves by only one genre and not consider the elements from other genres.  This is where film can assist us in answering the question "Who am I?"

Let us know how your personality is reflected by the genres of film you enjoy in the comment section.

Timeless Issues of Ethics, Law, and Espionage in The Cold War Era

In the review I did about the Bridge of Spies, which can be found here [http://cliffsmovietalk.blogspot.com/2016/01/review-for-bridges-of-spies-film-about.html], it was mentioned that this film covered timeless topics of legal and ethical importance.  In this post, we will be examining a couple of those elements.

In the film, a Soviet spy is arrested in the United States on charges of espionage.  One of the legal issues is whether or not the Soviet spy is entitled to due process of law provided to American citizens in accordance with the 5th and 14th amendments of the Bill of Rights.  At the time the 5th amendment was ratified, it only entitled American citizens accused of federal crimes due process of law.  It was not until the ratification of the 14th amendment that American citizens accused of crimes by the individual states were entitled to due process of law.  Due process of law is a complicated area of law; however, it essentially means one cannot be deprived of their life, liberty, or property without certain procedures taking place beforehand like a trial, etc.   Since espionage is considered a crime against the entire United States, the Soviet spy's case is being held in federal court.  The question, then, is whether or not the spy should be granted due process of law protections even though he is not an American citizen.

Allow us to consider a couple different ways in which one could answer the question above.  One could answer "Yes," the Soviet spy is entitled to the due process protections granted by the United States constitution.  The obvious response to this is to argue that since the spy is not an American citizen, he should not be awarded any protections that an American citizen would have.  The spy was working with the enemy i.e. the Soviet Union.  So, why should America grant an enemy due process protections?  At this point, the one who answered "Yes" might veer from the legal issue at hand and invoke an quasi legal-ethical question instead.  Doesn't the American Declaration of Independence say in the first sentence of the second paragraph "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  No where in the declaration does it say "only American citizens are entitled to certain unalienable rights." Does the Soviet spy fall under the category of "all men?" If so, then he is entitled the due process protections enumerated in the 5th and 14th amendments.  If not, then one who argues this must provide either why the spy does not fall under "all men" or offer another explanation.  Are we justified to pick and choose which sentences in which documents the American style of government were formed to fit our current needs and agendas ignoring other parts that may contradict us?

Now consider if somebody answered "No," the spy is not entitled to due process of law protections because the harm done to the spy denying him these protections is outweighed by the benefit to the American society and way of life as a whole.  It really comes down, on this account, to a cost/benefit analysis.  The implicit assumption here being that the spy falls under the "all men" clause of the Declaration of Independence.  Thus, perhaps implying he is eligible for due process protection, but does not qualify on other ethical grounds.

One may also invoke the principle of retribution.  The spy, by virtue of him being a spy, is evil unto itself and deserves no protection.  In other words, espionage of this magnitude is in itself reprehensible and deserving of no due process protections regardless of the American values placed on all men being created equal and possessing certain unalienable rights; espionage exempts one from these protections. How far does a civilization, especially one that places a high premium on freedom, equality, individuality, choice, etc like that of the U.S., deviate from its promulgated principles in order to sooth the anxious nerves of its citizens?   Also, where is the line, if there is one, drawn marking a distinction between legal and ethical issues, or are the synonyms for the same concept?

Although the questions and issues discussed here apply to a certain historical period and to a particular incident i.e. the Cold War, they were not shelved along with the history books. These issues are alive today as all societies struggle to figure out how to preserve their ways of life.  This is why Bridge of Spies is such a good movie, it reminds us that these issues are timeless and seemingly infinitely complex.

Do you think the spy should get due process protections or not?  Let us know below.

The Lost Art of Patience and Its Implications on Film

Watching movies is about as relaxing of an activity that one can engage.  Or is it?  This poses an interesting question.  How should one watch a movie?  If  movie watching is an aesthetic experience, then there are underlying rules for watching a movie.  One should focus their attention on elements of a film such as: how the soundtrack blends with whats happening on the screen or how successful different colors in a scene evoke the appropriate emotional reaction.  These are obvious elements of a film that even the most amateur viewer, such as myself, are able to identify.  A viewer is more likely to recognize these elements if that viewer is paying attention to the movie.  A distracted viewing of a film is surely not going to have the impact on a viewer that an active, even semi-active, viewer will have.  

A subtle yet almost imperative faculty one should possess when watching film, especially one like “It Follows,” is that of patience.  Patience is a lost art in the fast paced, sound bite, and twitter induced nausea culture that has unfolded in the last decade or so.  Afraid of the implications of the loss of patience as a virtue, I began to contemplate those implications on film and viewership.  This contemplation manifested itself during my viewing of “It Follows.”  

This movie, of which I have posted a brief review with no spoilers, is a slow-paced, slow-developing, suspenseful movie that requires a complete level of patience and focus.  There are no explosions, limited gore, no scream queens, and no dumbass decisions made by characters that do not reflect a shred of rationality -- which we are regularly exposed to by Hollywood films.  With the Hollywood status quo as of late, there is no need for patience because everything is intense all of the time.  “It Follows” deviates from the Hollywood formula and actually spends quite a bit of time building suspense. 

During my viewing of "It Follows," I initially suffered from action withdraw.  However, after some brief introspection, I became aware that I had a problem.  I was not being patient and allowing a sufficient amount of time to pass for the movie to develop meaningful suspense and anticipation.  Time is required to develop suspense within a plot which, hopefully, leads to an eventual climax.  A viewer should have a high level of patience and be actively focused on the film in order to allow the film to work on their consciousness.  “It Follows,” is arguably an example of a film that requires this level of patience and focus in order for the story-line to work on the viewers consciousness so that the viewer feels a sense of climax at the appropriate time.  

There are a lot of reviews suggesting that slower-paced films, such as “It Follows,” are poor films because they are boring or not catchy which implies a fault in the film.  However, I argue that while the film may have its faults, it is strongly correlated with a viewership not mentally equipped to watch it.  A viewer who has their reserves of patience and focus tapped before a film like “It Follows” builds even a ounce of suspense has fallen victim to the nausea.  A culture pregnant with people demanding unlimited attention and patience, ironically, have none to give. Unfortunately, this may be leading to a surplus of passive, distracted, inattentive people, which seemingly has implications on how movies develop the element of suspense.

Let me know what you think in the comment section.

Save Money at the Movies with 6 Simple Steps

No one loves going to the movies more than myself. There’s something about the solitariness of siting down in a big dark room, with a drink on one side, popcorn on the other, and big lit up screen with what you hope to be the best movie you’ve ever watched. For that hour or two or three, you get to temporarily leave your life and submerge yourself into the plot of the movie. The isolation is relaxing enough to lull a person to sleep (and believe me,  I’ve done my fair share of napping through movies). I believe everyone should have the movie theater experience at some point in their life, not just to watch a movie, but to escape from the outside world. That being said, there’s one more reason the big screen calls me to its sanctuary. Movie theater popcorn!

The aroma of popcorn is the very first thing I smell opening the doors to a movie theater.  The only thing that turns me away from purchasing the popcorn is the price. I hate to say this, [but] the quality of the popcorn is worth the price that we pay, which is probably why people still buy it.  I can expect to spend around $20 when I go to the movies; this includes my ticket, popcorn, and soda.  When the number people you have with you increases to 3 or 4, then you can count on spending up to $50. Sounds a little outrageous just for movie tickets and refreshments. But what if I can give you a tip on how you only need to buy 1 large popcorn to feed 5 people or more.  I’m no Harry Potter or Houdini wherein I can make popcorn appear out of nowhere (I sure can make it disappear though), I'm just suggesting you bring something with you that can fit in your pocket.  Gallon size plastic bags with a sealing capability.

Here’s what you do step by step:

1.  Buy a box of gallon size plastic bags with a sealing capability (grocery bags work too, but they make a lot of noise in the theater)

2.       Get to your movie 20-25 minutes early

3.       Buy your large popcorn (for the free refills)

4.       Pour the popcorn in the plastic bags with the sealing capability while in your seats

5.       If you run out of popcorn, then send someone else (sending the same person will throw up red flag) to the counter and get your FREE refill ).  Or if you are alone, try to locate a different counter in the theater and ask for a refill.

6.       Repeat steps 4-5 until everyone has popcorn

The fear of paying for grossly overpriced delicious popcorn should now be significantly decreased. The other upside to using the bags is that you can just seal them up and save your popcorn so it doesn't get stale. Consumer Win.

Share your tips and tricks on how you save money at the movie theater.

Review for Bridges of Spies (a film about The Cold War with Tom Hanks)

I recently watched a movie called Bridge of Spies starring Tom Hanks.  Hanks plays a lawyer who is recruited by the United States government to defend a Soviet Union spy captured within the United States territory.  While Hanks is representing the Soviet spy, an American spy plane flying over the Union is shot down and the pilot taken hostage.  Hanks is then ordered to negotiate a trade between the Soviet Union and the United States.  The deal is easy, the Soviets hand over the American spy plane pilot and the Americans hand over the Soviet spy.

The plot is simple; however, the the process and struggle Hanks' character is forced to experience is what makes this movie a great flashback to a time of critical uncertainty.  A time when school children were taught to duck and cover under their school desks in case a nuclear bomb exploded near by.   Lewis Black, a stand-up comedian, actually has a bit on this which is hilarious.  I highly recommend you watch it.

This film is full of timeless ethical and political quarrels with which Hanks' character is forced to cope.  Questions such as: are foreign spies entitled to American due process of law?  Is an American attorney justified in defending a foreign spy?  To what extent does attorney-client privilege reach when the interests of national security are at stake?  These kinds of questions and more are framed within the Cold War context throughout the film.  However, these questions, and ones of a similar fashion, are not exclusively timestamped for the Cold War era.  These questions continue to plague our society and others as well.  For example, remember the debates swirling around the handling of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay?  Similar issues, different time.

The film's title and plot summary might lead one to infer that there will be a lot of action, thrills, and intense scenes of suspense, because we have been conditioned to associate spy movies with James Bond like acrobatics and unlikely heroics.  Bridge of Spies, instead, has a slow developing story due to the nuance and attention to detail capturing the social, political, legal, and historical elements associated with the Cold War era.

The movie runs about 2 hours and 20 minutes.  So, if you do plan on watching it, then prepare yourself for a lengthy viewing.  I plan on doing a follow up article in the next few days examining a couple of the legal and ethical questions raised by this film, so check back if your interested.

Will The Flash Make An Appearance in Batman vs. Superman?

Batman vs. Superman comes out in theaters March, 25^th 2016, and we’re all waiting in anticipation for DC’s biggest blockbuster ever.  Three trailers have been released regarding characters having major and possibly minor roles in the film.

            Comicbook.com reports that General Zod could be transformed into Doomsday, Darkseid’s minions are shown in Batman’s nightmare sequence, Aquaman swimming as a child, and the list goes on and on.  But what about the Flash?  Is he so fast that the naked eye is incapable of seeing him? Examining the trailers more closely may indicate that he has been there all along.

            If you look at the second trailer that was ever put out for this movie via Youtube at https://youtu.be/0WWzgGyAH6Y  or you can go to the official BatmanvSupermanDawnofJustice.com website and click on Comic Con trailer in the top left hand corner. Go to 2:45 to 2:47, first we see someone speeding on their motorcycle to the presumed attacked Lexcorp location, then  possibly the same person walking across fired rounds. A majority of theorists have speculated that this is Lex Luthor checking on his company. While this is possible,  I believe that person walking is the Flash.       

            Let’s look at the person on the motorcycle. I can’t tell you if it’s the same person walking across the fired rounds; however, this person appears to have an authority for presence at a crime scene.   We all know that Flash’s alter ego, Barry Allen, portrayed as a forensic scientist that is always late, slow, and clumsy.  Barry Allen could be the speeding motorcyclist on an already established crime scene because he was late getting there.  Look at the guard on the right, he’s giving the motorcycle rider a signal to slow down, not stop. So this person could be either the Flash or Lex and I’m leaning in favor of the Flash.

            Now let’s examine the second part of the frame;  the person walking across the fired rounds.  The first time I watched this trailer, I thought this was the Flash.  First of all, who is to say that this scene corresponds with the previous scene mentioned?  This could be in any part of the movie.  This scene obviously has some significance for them to show it in this trailer.

            Let’s break down the scene.  If you look real close you can see two pistols, an empty clip for the pistol, an empty clip for an automatic rifle, the used rounds, and a basketball.   A basketball?  What is so important about the basketball in a facility like this?  Were the guards playing a friendly game of b-ball that turned violent?  Of course not. I think the Flash was playing ball with friends.  He, then, either got called or saw that there was trouble and rushed to the location to stop the bad guys with basketball being the only casualty.  Look at the shoes on the person who is walking, they are high tops that are not laced up and have the pants tucked into the top.  It’s more than a coincidence that there is a person wearing basketball shoes with a flat basketball in the background.  Also, look at how thick the soles are on the shoe.  We all know the Flash needs custom shoes to run at the speeds he does without burning up his shoes. These two scenes taken in context of the entire trailer provides strong evidence that the Flash will make an appearance in the upcoming Batman vs. Superman movie.  Tell me what you think below.