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.

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).

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.   

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

'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.

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!

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.

Zombeavers: Yea, I watched it.

So, I finally gave in to Netflix's constant pestering recommendation of Zombeaevers.  The best way I can summarize this movie is to ask the question: what would Jason Voorhees do if he were a beaver?  I do not want to give any spoilers in case anybody reading this wants to give the movie a shot.  I will say that if you have an hour and seventeen minutes or so, you might want to think about trying to watch it.  But seriously, the movie does not seem to be meant for academic or professional criticism.  So, any reviews out there that try and turn this in to an academic enterprise, or apply a lot of fancy vocabulary while staring down their noses critiquing this film are going to come off as awfully pedantic and pompous (yea, kind of like that last sentence sounded).

Zombeavers is a comedy/horror movie, but weighing more heavily on comedy rather than horror.  As mentioned above, you could take any movie from the Friday the 13th franchise formula (expect Jason in space or Jason vs. Freddy) and replace Jason with raging beavers.  A group of females go to a cabin deep in the woods to party, drink, and escape their boyfriends.  A water supply is tainted with toxic sludge and beavers ingest the chemicals becoming zombeavers.  The beavers then begin to terrorize the females and everybody in the small surrounding community.  This is a summary of the plot in a nutshell without giving any spoilers to the "twists" within the plot.

The enjoyment one might receive from watching this film is not from the suspense, intensity, or any passionate love story between characters.  Instead, if you are someone who can stomach some gory scenes, laugh at the ridiculous story, and allow yourself to be entertained by crude and sophomoric humor, then you'll be just fine.  You might even recommend it to somebody else.

Oh and if you do watch it, watch the bloopers and cut scenes at the very end.  You can tell that this movie was fun for the cast to make.  

Tell us what you think in the comment section.

Link to imdb for cover photo and trailer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2784512/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

It Follows: A Theory of How to Avoid "It"

It Follows: A Theory on How to Avoid "It"

SPOLILER ALERT: If you have not seen the movie, please read this post at your own discretion.

As you know, there’s not a lot of back story on where ‘It’ came from. But we do know a couple of things. ‘It’ comes after you as soon as you have sex with the person “It” is currently following. ‘It’ moves very slowly (you can outrun it), never stops, and can imitate anyone to it’s liking. ‘It’ will kill the person “It” is after and go after the next person down the line. “It” is kind of like a paranormal STD.

‘It’ will always come after you and the only way to temporarily get ‘It’ to stop is to have sex with someone else. Then, I believe that ‘It’ resets itself and starts after the new person. I say resets because it takes a long time for ‘It’ to come after that new person. I think ‘It’ goes back to its origin from where it came and starts from there. This ties into how I think you can survive ‘It’ following you.

If ‘It’ resets itself after you have sex with someone and then comes after the new person, why don’t you just have sex with the previous person you just had sex with?  The main character sleeps with multiple people throughout the movie to get ‘It’ to stop following her. Of course it worked temporary, but knowing what we know, it’s not a permanent fix. At the very end of the movie she sleeps with her best friend and they walk down the sidewalk together knowing that ‘It’ is following one of them.  Just keep sleeping with each other every day and you should be in the clear due to the time "It" takes to reset.  Of course this is assumes "It" resets and returns to its origins after every sexual encounter.  This is a common theory among the people who have seen this movie.  I think it is basically correct given what we know right now about "It."  More information is needed into the actual origins of "It" in order to flesh out my avoidance theory.  I hope a sequel is made addressing issues such as: where "it" came from, what "it" is, or even why sex is the only way to transmit "it." 

Tell me what you think below.

A Different Theory of Rocky's Admission to Adonis

Rocky vs. Apollo?

Who won?

If you’re a fan of the Rocky movie series, you are more than familiar with Rocky III.  Apollo and Rocky in the same corner working together to defeat Mr. T; how epic was that?  After Rocky beat Mr. T, there was one last fight between Rocky and Apollo behind closed doors. No one knows who won that fight since the movie was released in 1982.  One could speculate either way, but most people had in the back of their minds that Rocky won that fight. With ‘Creed’ being the newest installment in the Rocky franchise (possibly a spin-off in and of itself), that long awaited question has been answered.

This movie is probably the best movie I’ve seen this year and I highly recommend that you see it yourself. That being said, I’m only going to give away one spoiler for the sake of this article.

SPOILER ALERT BELOW:


Rocky confirmed that Apollo won the fight. Even though he confirmed this to Apollo’s son, some theorists believe that he only said this to make Adonis (Apollo’s son) feel better about himself. I have a different theory.

I’ve always believed Apollo won that fight ever since I watched Rocky III and IV. When Rocky and Apollo were sprinting on the beach during the last training session in Rocky III, you could see in Apollo’s face and the way he was running that he was slowing down on purpose so Rocky could pass him. Rocky was training to defeat Mr. T who got in his head, was way stronger than him, and knocked him out in the first round. Now obviously the training paid off and his goal was met. But Apollo wasn’t out of shape, he was there with Rocky every step of the way and more. I believe that because Apollo was in better shape than Rocky, Apollo was better equipped to defeat Rocky at the end of Rocky III and in fact did defeat Rocky.

Rocky IV takes place immediately after Rocky III. No gaps in time at all and this is further evidence why I believe Apollo defeated Rocky. Apollo was so confident he could defeat the Russian because he had just defeated Rocky in their most recent bout. If Apollo had lost, I think he wouldn’t have even thought twice about challenging the Russian. Hell he probably would have told Rocky to go after him. Tell me what you think in the comments.