MYST #6 Tusk

  (Sorry for the lack of photos, it's not letting me for some reason)
  A lot of people hate Kevin Smith.  They hate his sense of humor, they hate his podcasts, they hate his movies, they hate everything about him.  I have always been giving him somewhat of a pass, even though his last few movies have been hit or miss.  Clerks, Chasing Amy, and Dogma are awesome. I found some stuff to like in Mallrats, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Clerks 2, and Zack and Miri Make a Porno.  Jersey Girl is pretty mediocre, and Cop Out is abysmal, easily his worst film and maybe one of the worst comedies ever made.  I think he realized that his grasp on comedy is starting to slip and he should move on to something else.  That's why I found Red State so intriguing, and while it has major flaws, I still enjoyed it for what it was.  And it made me genuinely excited to see his newest film Tusk.  I couldn't because it came out just as school was starting, so I had to wait until it was available to rent.  I payed 6 bucks to watch it on demand, prepared for the best, and an hour and forty minutes later I was trying to decide whether or not to smash my head into a brick wal repeatedly.

  When a podcaster named Wallace (Justin Long) travels to Canada to interview somebody, he winds up crossing paths with a strange man named Howard Howe (Michael Parks) who wants to tell stories about his life.  The man proceeds to drug Wallace and begins a torturous procedure on him that will end with Wallace being transformed into a walrus.

  If that sounds stupid to you now, it gets stupider when you watch the actual movie.  If you watch the trailers, there are some things that are left out that you need to know in order to understand how strange this film is.  It is a horror/comedy, and I can think of a number of films that know how to effectively blend the two (Shaun of the Dead, The Evil Dead Trilogy, Cabin in the Woods, Scream) to create a fun experience.  Tusk is a slop of two different genres that could blend together well if it was being handled by someone who actually knew what they were doing.  The movie starts out as a comedy, with Wallace and his fellow podcaster Teddy (Haley Joel Osment) watching a video of a kid that they call the Kill Bill Kid (expect a lawsuit from the Star Wars Kid at some point soon) accidentally cut off his own leg.  I thought the kid did that effect at first because it looked so fake.  But when Wallace goes to interview the kid, it turns out that the kid actually has cut off his own leg and has since committed suicide.  It ends up throwing you for such a loop that it completely takes you out of the movie.  And we're only 10 minutes into the movie!

  After Wallace arrives to Howes' house, that's when the movie becomes interesting.  The cinematography manages to convey a sense of mood without being too stylized, and Parks is simply phenomenal.  He manages to go back and forth between being the charming old man with a number of fascinating stories to tell and the psychopath with a sick obsession with walruses very effectively.  And it actually ends up becoming very horrifying, particularly scenes when Walrus attempts to call for help or when the two of them sit down for dinner together.  But just when it seems like the movie is beginning to be worth it, the third act begins.

*************************************SPOILERS***********************************

  First of all, notice how during that summary of the plot, I forgot to mention that Johnny Depp is in the movie.  And that's because in addition to being completely pointless, he is when the movie begins to spiral downward Hindenberg-style.  His character is a Quebec French detective who has been hunting down Howe for years.  And there are a number of things wrong with this character, but I'll focus on the main three.  1. Depp's accent seems to slip between French, Spanish, Italian, German, and British almost every nanosecond.  2. It's Johnny Depp doing yet another wacky character with a weird accent.  And 3.  He has a flashback scene where he confronts Howe, and Howe seems to be responding to Depp's goofiness in the worst way possible.  The stuff they are saying to each other is not funny, and while I checked the time and saw that the scene lasted somewhere between 5 and 10 minutes, it feels like it's going on for an hour.  It's easily the most cringe-worthy scene I've seen in any film not just this year, but maybe in the past couple.

  And now for the grand finale, the actual walrus.  Howes goes through with the procedure and turns Wallace into a walrus.  At first he is in the dark, so while you can't see him, but you can hear him screaming.  And at first is it genuinely terrifying.  But once the lights come on and you see the walrus, it looks like they just shoved Justin Long into a beanbag that looks like it was stitched together with leftovers from a meat-packing plant.  You can clearly see the seems in the rubber and you are never convinced that he is actually a walrus.

********************************END OF SPOILERS********************************

  So, overall, I'm somewhat conflicted.  As unbelievably god-awful as this film is, I somewhat recommend it.  Mainly because this is such a fascinating failure that I genuinely believe it should be shown in film classes for studying on how not to do a horror movie.  A messy slop of half-thought out ideas,  Tusk is a strong case that maybe Kevin Smith should not be making movies anymore.

I give Tusk 2 out of 10 flippers.

MYST #5 Avengers: Age of Ultron

   This is going to be a longer post than usual.  Mainly because I feel that there is so much to talk about with this movie that I don't feel my usual length can do it justice.  I am a comic person.  I grew up reading comics, almost exclusively Marvel.  I know a lot of these characters by heart.  And I was always hoping that the rest of the world could see these characters for how awesome and interesting they are.  Which is why I was so excited when they announced this whole Marvel Cinematic Universe that they were planning.  Despite being excited, I was also concerned about how they would translate to the screen.  Not just could they keep the spirit of the characters and material intact, but could they also do it to where a normal person could understand it and go with it without just laughing at it.  And they have a very strong track record of doing that so far, and Age of Ultron is no exception.

   Now that the Avengers are all teamed up and comfortable with each other to where they know each other's next moves without having to say them out loud, the next logical step is "Can they stick together, or is having all these different personalities together the worst idea imaginable?".  Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.) creates a program meant to be a peace-keeper named Ultron (James Spader).  Ultron instead sees humanity as a threat to the evolution of the planet and begins a plan to wipe out all of mankind.  When he teams up with Eastern European orphans with newfound superpowers, Pietro and Wanda Maximoff/Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch(Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen) to enact his dastardly plans, the Avengers must overcome their differences and reteam to stop the ensuing chaos.

  Before I go further into the characters and performances, I'm going to post a series of GIFs so that you can understand the point I am about to make;         




The thing that all of these images have in common that I love is that they feel like you are watching a moving comic book.  The angles, the composition, even the way it's lit, feels like reading a panel in one of those old Stan Lee/Jack Kirby comics from back in the 1960s.  You can tell writer/director Joss Whedon loves these characters and wants to do right by them the best he can, and it really shows, not just in the direction, but also the writing.  And while it isn't completely slavish to the material that it's drawn from (the aforementioned Lee/Kirby comics, in addition to a lot of material being drawn from Mark Millar's "Ultimates" series), it succeeds by getting the soul and spirit of the characters and the comics pitch perfect.  Iron Man is the egotistical billionare with a drinking problem, Captain America (Chris Evans) is the man from another time who is born to be a strong leader, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is the god whose customs do not fit with Earth's, Hulk(Mark Ruffalo) is the Jeckyll and Hyde archetype where Jeckyll is horrified of what Hyde is capable of, Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) is the mysterious assassin with trust issues, Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner, whose role in this film will prove the naysayers towards him completely wrong) is the sarcastic archer we all know and love and is pretty much the human heart of the team.  Quicksilver is arrogant and over-protective of his sister, Scarlet Witch, whose powers make her more than a little unhinged.  And while Ultron is created Iron Man instead of Hank Pym/Ant-Man (soon to be played by Michael Douglas), and he's much more snarky than in the comics, they get the Frankenstein's monster aspect of him and his hatred for the Avengers PERFECT.  Every actor brings their A-game to this film and are no doubt helped by the strong writing and great characters.  Which leaves us with one more character I have yet to mention...Vision.

  The Vision comes into being as Ultron creates him in attempt to fight back against the Avengers.  Things don't naturally go according to plan, and Vison ends up teaming with the Avengers.  He knows that even though he is not human, the humans have a reason to exist, and he truly cares about them and wants to save them (even to the point of a very strange romance between him and Scarlet Witch, which I'm secretly hoping they actually go through with in future movies).  At first I was confused as to why they would want Paul Bettany to play him.  He's a great actor and he looks the part, but he had already had a role in the Marvel universe as J.A.R.V.I.S., the artificial assistant to Iron Man.  But once you see the movie you'll understand why.

  Every piece of action in this film is mind-blowingly incredible.  Cinematographer Ben Davis (who also shot Marvel's own "Guardians of the Galaxy) frames every sequence as if it's a work of art.  And the editors do a great job of making sure you can see the action.  And the special effects are beautiful, especially on the Hulk and Ultron.  I almost want to see it again in 2D, because in addition to giving me a headache, which doesn't usually happen with me, I feel like the 3D actually prevented me from seeing some small parts of action that I am still dying to see.  I have heard some people criticizing the movie for having the action go on for too long, but I felt that it was the prefect length, and every fight scene is very well choreographed and shot, with the Hulk vs. Hulkbuster sequence being a particular standout.  And in addition to that, they make sure that you see the team evacuating and saving every civilian possible, even when they are in the middle of a life-threatening situation (the movie feels like it's constantly, not-so-subtlely kicking Man of Steel and the Transformers series in the balls).  But despite all that, the story is still intact.  I almost don't want to talk about that aspect anymore because there are so many great, small reveals about certain characters that makes you root for them that much more.


  Some people are going to complain about the fights going on too long and an overabundance of characters.  I either disagree completely with these points, or I understand where they're coming from, but I'm having so much fun that I just don't care.  This is everything I would want to see not only in an Avengers movie/sequel, but also what I would want to see in a summer blockbuster.  It's funny, it's exciting, it's emotional, it's well-acted, and it pleases the comic fans while keeping casual viewers entertained.  And the ending is pure perfection in my book.  I am not afraid to admit that there some small parts where I felt like I was about to start choking up (in tears of both joy and sadness).  I love this movie, I love where this series is going, and if this really is the last Marvel movie that Joss Whedon directs, he went out on the highest note imaginable.

I give Avengers: Age of Ultron 10 out of 10 vibranium tipped arrows.

MYST #4 Furious 7

  There are a number of film franchises that have reached the point at which they are officially known to be "critic-proof".  This means that no matter what the critics say, good or bad, the die-hard fans of a certain franchise will still see the newest installment no matter what.  And sometimes that is a good thing (such as the Marvel Cinematic Universe), and sometimes that can be a very bad thing (the Transformers series).  But, as much as I feel that I should be as critical as possible to impress all the (possible) snobs in this class, I have to say, as a fan of the series, I think this might be my favorite in the series yet.  So, if you are not a fan of this series and have no interest in seeing this installment (I'm pretty sure that means you, Mr. DeDomenico), now would be a good time to stop reading and get up and walk away.

   After defeating Owen Shaw (Luke Evans) and his crew in London, Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his crew return to their home in Los Angeles, determined to leave their old lives behind and start anew.  But when Owen's older brother Deckard (Jason Statham) kills one of their own, injures their friend Agent Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson), and begins hunting the rest of the team in order to get revenge, Dom and his crew must team up with a mysterious government agent (Kurt Russell) to take down Shaw and reclaim their lives.

   Yes, there are a number of things that do not make any sense whatsoever, those things including:
    -  Owen Shaw somehow surviving getting thrown headfirst out of a moving airplane in the last movie.
    -  Cars being able to parachute out of a plane and landing gently on the ground.
    -  Driving a car out of one building, landing another building, crashing out of that building, and landing in yet another building.
    -  Hobbs being able to survive getting knocked out of the top floor of his office building by an explosion.
    -  Dom managing to hook a bag of grenades onto a helicopter while driving a car in the air.
    -  Dom and Shaw crashing into each other head on and surviving.
    -  Dom driving a car off of a cliff and surviving the fall.
    -  Hobbs being able to rip off the cast on his broken arm and taking down a helicopter with a minigun.
    -  Dom being able to cause a garage roof to crumble apart by stomping on it.
    -  And (no offense to the dead) Paul Walker beating Tony Jaa in a fight.
But despite all of those things, the movie ends up being so much fun and moving so fat that I don't care.  The ensemble cast have a very strong chemistry with each other, and are able to take the most generic jokes and make them enjoyable.  One particularly underrated standout is Kurt Russell, who chews up the scenery like crazy, and you can tell he is having the time of his life doing it.  He has one line of dialogue towards the end of his screen time that had me in stitches and is probably the funniest line in the movie.  And when the action kicks in, it REALLY kicks in.

   Despite having mainly directed horror movies in the past (ex. Saw, Insidious, The Conjuring), James Wan turns out to be a very gifted action director.  Despite this being a studio film, he still mages to add small things that make it feel like something he would have directed.  In addition to flipping the camera during fight scenes (much like in The Conjuring), the opening scene (which is too awesome to describe in words, you have to see it for yourself) has multiple fast forwards that reminded me of the cinematography in Saw.  And as stupid as some of the action sequences look in the trailer, he films them in a way that is exciting when they happen.  The action in this film is Winter Soldier or Kingsman level awesome.

   And now we get to the sad part of the review, where I discuss the untimely passing of Paul Walker and it's effect on the movie as a whole.  As much as I have heard people complaining about how some of the effects used to recreate his face don't really work that well, I honestly didn't notice it.  And, without spoiling any of it, they do find a way to keep him in the action in an interesting way, and the way they wrap up his story is heartfelt and sincere, and leaves you on the most positive note possible.
   As someone who wasn't a fan of the franchise until recently (I rewatched all the others to be ready; the first is O.K., the second is unintentionally funny (but works if you watch it as a gay action movie), the third is nigh unwatchable, the fourth goes back up to O.K., the fifth is the first one i genuinely loved, the sixth is not quite as cool, but it's still highly entertaining), I think this might be my favorite so far.  It's exciting, it's funny, it's sentimental in the right ways, and it leaves you feeling great, which is what I think a good blockbuster should do.

I give Furious 7 9 out of 10 tanks of Nitris Oxide or whatever goes into the engines.

 

 

MYST #3 Birdman

  I was somewhat concerned about watching Birdman.  I have this thing where I have heard nothing but praise for a movie for the longest time, and then I finally saw it and was disappointed because it seemed like I was being promised something more.  This is what has kept me from truly loving films that everybody else loved like Moonrise Kingdom.  But I needed a movie to base my third post around and this was the first movie I saw on demand, so I just rented it without really thinking about it.  That was on Friday night, and I've been doing nothing but thinking about it ever since.  I've been thinking about it so much because I've rewatched it so many times over the weekend and it has so many themes and stories and subtexts that I don't really know how to explain what it's really about.  What I can tell you is that ii is one of the most clever movies I've seen in a while, and has everything I would want to see in a movie.

  It's a rise and fall story.  It's about the short attention span of the media.  It's about art vs. commercial trash.  It's about our desire to be loved and respected by everyone.  It's about criticism.  It parodies big-budget blockbuster superhero movies.  It parodies snobbish, pretentious art.  It's about letting go of our past.  It's about becoming old and irrelevant.  It's a father-daughter story.  It's about resurrection.  It has action, it has comedy, it has drama.  LOTS OF DRAMA!!!!  It has yelling and punching and screaming and punching.  It also has punching.  It has drumming.  LOTS OF DRUMMING!!!  It's about Michael Keaton playing a washed up actor who once played a popular superhero named Birdman, much like how Michael Keaton is a washed up actor who once played a popular superhero named Batman.  It has Edward Norton playing someone who is a great actor but is also an a**hole, much like in real life.  It has Emma Stone playing a girl who is a drug/alcohol addict, much like someone who Emma Stone bears a striking resemblance to...Lindsay Lohan.  The whole movie is in one shot (or at least looks like it).  It has a narrator with a badass voice.  It's about love.  It's about loss.  It's about being more focused on your cell phones than your life.  It's about being more focused on your life than your friends and family.  It's about appearance vs. reality.  It's about popularity vs. artistic integrity.  IT'S ABOUT EVERYTHING!

  The basic story is about Riggan Thompson (Michael Keaton) who wants to make a comeback in his career by writing, directing, and starring in a Broadway play.  When he intentionally injures an actor who he thinks is doing poorly, he hires an actor named Mike Shiner (Edward Norton), who quickly begins to interfere with the production and ruin Riggan's plans, even to the point of seducing Riggan's daughter (Emma Stone), attempting to rape the lead actress (Naomi Watts) onstage, and drinking real alcohol on stage.  And that's the least of Riggan's problems.  He also has to deal with the fact that he has a voice in his head continuously taunting and manipulating him.

  Some people have criticised this film for being based around the gimmick of seeming like it's all in one shot, and I have to respectfully disagree.  Director Alejandro G. Inarittu (Amores Perros, 21 Grams, Babel, Biutiful) does this in order to give the illusion that you are watching a stage play, and it actually gives you more connection to the characters and their predicaments as a result.  And while the casting of Keaton and Norton in their roles can be seen as a one-note joke that takes a jab at their real-lives, I find that their characters are so fascinating that even if different actors were given the roles, I wouldn't care, because I would still be so invested.  And while apparantly Inarittu made this movie to comment on the overabundance of superhero movies, despite the fact that I have grown up reading comic books and watching the blockbusters the filmmakers apparantly dislike so much, I understand the point he is trying to make, and it is fun to witness.

  What I also love about this movie is how it manages to tackle all of these subjects, and yet it still manages to be entertaining the entire runtime.  I was never bored or confused, despite this being a very strange film and being about so many different things.  I wish I had enough money to purchase this on blu-ray, just so I could watch it even more times, because I have a feeling that there are still a great many things that I can discover and analyze.

I give Birdman 10 out of 10 prosthetic noses (you'll know what I mean when you see it)

Formal Film Study: Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, The World's End

  I have a confession to make: until recently, I had never seen either of the following films, despite the fact that they are all notable geek favorites and I myself am a geek.  This is particularly shocking because all three of these films are directed by Edgar Wright, who directed the box-office failure that is still beloved by many, myself included; "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World".  He is also apparently the same director who left the Ant-Man film project at Marvel over creative differences, so I am still kicking myself for never having seen these films until recently.  So I decided now would be a perfect time to watch all three of these films back to back and study what makes these films similar and different.

  "Shaun of the Dead" is the story of Shaun (Simon Pegg), a slacker living in London who works a mediocre job at an electronics shop where his younger colleagues hate him, lives at home with his housemates, the very uptight Pete (Peter Serafinowicz) and fellow slacker/drug dealer Ed (Nick Frost), has an overprotective mother, Barbara (Penelope Wilton) and troubled relationship with his step-father Phillip (Bill Nighy), and is struggling to keep his relationship with his girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield).  One day, a zombie apocalypse breaks out, and Shaun and his friends must stick together to try and survive.

  "Hot Fuzz" is the story of British police officer Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg), who despite being the best performing officer on thee force, is forced to relocate due to just that, because therefore the rest of the police look incompetent by comparison.  He moves to the small, boring town of Sanford, Gloucestershire, where he joins the police force run by Inspector Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent) and is ridiculed by all of the other officers except Frank's son, Danny (Nick Frost), with whom he strikes up a friendship.  Then all of a sudden, people start turning up murdered, but are being reported as nothing more than accidents.  Sensing that things are not as they seem, Angel decides he needs to take charge and determine who is commiting these murders and why.

  "The World's End" is the story of five childhood friends, Gary King (Simon Pegg), Andy Knightley (Nick Frost), Steven Prince (Paddy Considine), Oliver Chamberlain (Martin Freeman), and Peter Page (Eddie Marsan).  They had attempted a pub crawl at the point of graduating high school, but failed.  Years later, while everyone else has moved on with their lives, Gary wants to try the crawl again, and convinces all of his friends to come back with him to their hometown of Newton Haven.  Just as they are getting started with their pub crawl, the inhabitants of the town start acting suspiciously, and soon they start attempting to fight for their lives in addition to finishing the pub crawl.

  What these films do that I love is that they feature much of the same cast, but never as the same characters.  They each tell their own separate story with their own separate themes, while also satirizing different genres.  Shaun of the Dead is meant to be a parody of zombie films, with plenty of clever references to classic zombie films, particularly the classic George A. Romero films like "Night of the Living Dead", "Dawn of the Dead", and "Day of the Dead".  Hot Fuzz is meant to be a spoof of classic cop films like "48 Hrs." and "Lethal Weapon", most evident in a scene where two characters sit down to watch "Point Break" and  "Bad Boys II" (I knew I couldn't be the only one who loves that movie.... DON'T JUDGE ME!).  The World's End is meant to be a satire of body invasion science fiction films such as "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".  And while I mentioned in my Kingsman review that parody films have kind of left me behind, much like Kingsman (also directed by a British man, maybe that's why), these films manage to do it in a way that is consistently funny, and you can tell that Wright has actually seen these films and loved them.

  Something particularly interesting about these films is the way Wright shoots and edits.  He manages to get laughs from the way he edits a scene together and the sound effects he uses, because the cuts are so jarring and they cut to such funny situations, and the sound effects are timed perfectly to match the feeling of a scene.  He also finds humor in camera movements from pans, to things entering/exiting the frame, to zooms.  There is also an amusing running gag in each film involving a character attempting to climb over a fence that somehow never gates old, and an actor who has played James Bond appears in the latter two films.  These techniques are also evident in Scott Pilgrim.

  So, overall, while these films may be different in genre and story, they are very much the same in terms of style and sense of humor.  They also contain fascinating themes including the idea of growing up, the dullness of suburban life, and the incompetence of the police force.  And that is why both of these films are so appealing even to people who have not seen the films they are making fun of, and why Edgar Wright has officially become one of my favorite directors.

MYST #2 Inherent Vice

  Well... it looks like I am going to have to be that guy.  I'm going to be the crazy guy with long beard wearing a cardboard sign saying everything from "Doom is coming" to "It's all been for nothing", and I'll be wondering why nobody else is as crazy as me.  Did I say looks?  I meant looked, because apparently more people are on my side than I had initially thought as I was watching this film.  Paul Thomas Anderson's newest film has polarized a lot of people, and after seeing it for myself, it is not that difficult to understand why.


  In the year 1970, pothead private detective Larry "Doc" Sportello (Joaquin Phoenix) is minding his own business when his old girlfriend Shasta (Katherine Waterston) returns to ask for his help in solving the mystery of what is going on with her billionare boyfriend, his wife, and her boyfriend.  Kidnapping is involved in some way, and during this journey he comes across such eccentric characters as Detective Christian "Bigfoot" Bjornsen (Josh Brolin), the husband of a local former drug addict Coy Harlingen (Owen Wilson), and Doc's lawyer Sauncho Smilax (Benicio del Toro).

  If you're wondering why I am not offering a more in-depth explanation of what the plot of this movie is, it's because it has only been a couple of hours since I have seen it, and I still can not tell you what it is really about.  I've only explained as much as I have because I had to look it up online to make sure.  Now, if the movie had actually moved at any form of a pace, I would be perfectly able to forgive it and just go along for the ride.  I can accept a movie being confusing or convoluted.  What I cannot accept is a movie being confusing or convoluted, and also boring.  I kept nodding off throughout this entire film, and the only reason I didn't flat out fall asleep is because my dad was sitting next to me and kept shaking me awake.  When I am on the verge of falling asleep during a nude scene, you know your movie has problems.


  Paul Thomas Anderson is a filmmaker whose work I always appreciated, but occasionally had trouble grasping the concepts he was going for.  In a film like "Boogie Nights", I managed to avoid this problem.  But sometimes there is a film like "The Master", which while boasting great performances and moments, still left me somewhat cold and confused.  But now it is suddenly much easier to understand when compared to this sloppy, meandering mess.  Some critics may say that he is attempting to give the audience the feeling of actually being high, and I actually agree with that assessment, because you are seeing a number of insane things and colors and whatnot, and you have absolutely no idea what is going on.

  That doesn't mean there aren't some things to enjoy about this film.  It has a very colorful and vibrant look to it, and I quite enjoyed the music.  And the cast does the best they can with weak characters.  Josh Brolin and Benicio del Toro actually managed to get some chuckles out of me every once in a while, and I will watch Joaquin Phoenix in absolutely anything.  But ultimately I can't help but admit that I was very much underwhelmed by this film.  And that's too bad because I wanted to love this, especially after watching the trailer.  But ultimately, I simply cannot recommend this.

I give Inherent Vice 2 out of 5 joints

Movie Idea From The 30's

Genre: Horror
Studio: Universal Studios
Director: James Whale
Actor: Boris Karloff, Henry Travers and Diana Durbin
Made in Color: No
Make Up Artist: Jack Pierce

The Bat

The setting begins in a widowed, failed science professors basement as he searches for the cure for Polio and good fortune. (Boris Karloff) Robert Carmicheal begins his research on bats injecting each with mild doses of polio. Meanwhile the experimental vaccine is being combined with the bats DNA to make a deadly combination. Out of carelessness Robert leaves one of the bat's cages unlocked one night. The very next morning Robert enters his layer one of the bats bites Robert and he begins to pass out. After hours of being out cold Robert wakes up to find the bat lying dead next to him and his daughter (Diana Durbin) Marylin concerned and afraid. Although Robert appears the same he most surely is not. A day passes and Robert is sitting beside Marylin smoking a cigar and watching the local news. On the news is a report of a gruesome murder of the Jeffersons, a family that lives down the block. Sickened by what has happened Robert rushes out the door to see the crime scene and what has happened in their quiet suburban town. At the scene the whole family is being carried out in body bags while the Jefferson's dog (who is still alive) begins barking rapidly at Robert, but is restrained by local law enforcement. After coming home Robert begins his work again in the lab and injects his last bat subject with his blood. That night Marylin hears foot steps in the house, curiously she walks over to Robert's room to check up on him, however, his bed is empty. Marylin reaches for the phone to alert the police when a hand comes and grabs her wrist. Flinching Marylin looks up to find Robert covered in blood with  a knife in the other hand. Fearing for her life she begins to run. After running away Robert begins to chase her into the street it is there Robert is hit by a car and killed. The next morning Marylin is in the police station with (Henry Travers) Police Chief Officer Brady, when asked what research her dad had been doing she mentioned how he was trying to cure polio. Officer Brady then mentions how all the other bats had died except for the one with Roberts blood and had been cured of it's disease.

 Does this fit the Hays Code?
No, because of violence and blood it would have to be censored.

Why did you choose this staff/production company?
We chose Universal because it was the number one horror movie producer of its time. We chose director James Whale because he is best know for his four horror films, Frankenstein, The Old Dark House, The invisible man and Bride of Frankenstein. Boris Carloff is a pioneer in horror acting, we chose Deana Durbin because she often played young roles for Universal and Henry Travers because he played many supporting roles for Universal.

MYST #1 Kingsman: The Secret Service

   I am not the kind of person who looks forward to parodies.  As much as I am a fan of films like Airplane, Naked Gun, and even the first two Scary Movie movies (DON'T JUDGE ME!!!), I have been so burned by films like Movie 43, Inappropriate Comedy, and the films of Friedberg and Seltzer, that I have not been interested in seeing a parody in a long time.  But I decided to go see Kingsman, directed by Matthew Vaughn and based on the comic by Mark Millar for two reasons: 1; I grew up on a healthy diet of spy movies ranging from James Bond to Jason Bourne to Mission: Impossible, and as much as I love them, there are a lot of things to make fun of in those movies. 2; I am a fan of comic book writer Mark Millar, known for other books such as The Ultimates, Wanted, Civil War, and Kick-Ass.  I'd go so far as to call him the Quentin Tarantino of comic book writers.  And 3; I love Matthew Vaughn.  You always go into his films expecting one thing, and you always get something so much better than you could have imagined.  His first film, Layer Cake, is fairly straightforward, but it is considered the main reason Daniel Craig was chosen to play James Bond.  I didn't see want to watch Stardust because it seemed like something more fit for my sister, but I found it surprisingly charming and funny.  I talked my older brother into sneaking me into Kick-Ass (also adapted from one of Millar's books), and it was one of the most fun experiences I have ever had in a theater, mainly because I hadn't seen any trailers and figured it would be a standard raunchy comedy, but discovered a satire that poked fun at superhero movies while also sticking with the tropes that make up superhero movies.  X-Men: First Class came at a point where everybody, myself included, was done with the X-Men series, claiming that it had dipped in quality to the point that it could not be saved, but Vaughn found a way, by using 60's James Bond films as inspiration, to breath new life into the franchise.  So I went in expecting a standard spy spoof, but what I found was much more than that.

  Gary "Eggsy" Unwin (Taron Egerton) is a young man living in inner-city london with his mother, sister, and abusive step-father.  He spends most of his time drinking with his friends, stealing other people's cars, and other forms of mayhem.  It appears that his life is going nowhere until a mysterious older gentlemen, Harry Hart (Colin Firth), approaches him and informs him that his father was a gentleman spy who worked for an organization known as the Kingsmen, headed by Arthur (Michael Caine), and that due to the death of another agent, Harry has decided to recruit Eggsy into the Kingsman.  During the course of Eggsy's training, it is revealed that billionare mogul Richmond Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson) is about to initiate a plan that will cause global annihilation, and it is up to the Kingsmen to stop him.

  While the story is more or less a cross between James Bond and Harry Potter, there is more to it than that.  Valentine's plan is meant to be a satire on how far certain political parties are willing to go in order to get what they want.  It can also be seen as a metaphor for the differences between British and American culture, seen in a dinner scene between Hart and Valentine where they consume fine wine and junk food and in the conversations they have whilst eating.  It is also a commentary about how serious spy films have become, and how the elder, more classic spy films have been more or less forgotten about.  There are many subtexts you can discover while watching this film, but it never has to say any of them explicitly.  That is what good satire is supposed to do.

  The cast is all on top form.  Colin Firth is excellent as always, and as it turns out, quite the action star, as seen in one scene in a bar and one scene in a church, both of which are standout sequences.  Michael Caine is enjoyable as ever, Mark Strong, playing Merlin, is hilarious and not quite who you expect him to be baded on his previous roles in films like Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood, Green Lantern, John Carter, and Vaughn's previous Kick-Ass.  Samuel L. Jackson has previously received unfair comparisons to his character in the much maligned The Spirit, but unlike that film, he is hysterical every time he is on screen, and the joke about his lisp never gets old.  Mark "Luke Skywalker" Hamill is not in the movie very much, but makes an impression whenever he is (he still sounds like the Joker with a British accent).  But the real standout here is Egerton, who demonstrates a strong sense of charisma and likability even when he is doing stupid things early on.  And, yes, I also think he would be a great choice for the new Spider-Man.

  However, this movie would not be a true action comedy without good action or good comedy.  The action is incredible, and while the camera shakes and there are multiple cuts, it never gets to the point where it is confusing or frustrating unlike other recent action films... cough *Taken 3* cough.  The comedy is also very well done, coming in at exactly the right moments.  I saw the movie with a packed crowd that could not have been more insane.  They were cheering and laughing at almost everything, and the final scene before the credits (which I'm sure will be met with controversy for some reason) had them screaming at the top of their lungs in joy.  And I will admit, it was very contagious.

  When Vaughn left X-Men: Days of Future Past for this, I said to myself, "This better be worth it".  And it really was.  Hilarious, intense, and overall fun, Kingsman is a spy comedy that knows exactly what it is and does it very well.  Do yourself a favor and skip 50 Shades of Grey and go see this.  Or, if your girlfriend/wife makes you see 50 Shades of Grey, try to talk her into letting you go see Kingsman before or after.

I give Kingsman: The Secret Service 10 out of 10 martinis, (shaken, not stirred).

                                                  "REVIEW OF THE REVIEWS"

The film that the following critics are reviewing is "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" the 2014 superhero sequel starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Dane Dehaan, and Jamie Foxx.  The critics' names are Joe Neumaier and Dana Stevens, both of whom are considered top critics on the website Rotten Tomatoes.  Their reviews of the film can be found here: www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/amazing-spider-man-2-movie-review-article-1.1770206
and here:  www.slate.com/articles/arts/movies/2014/04/the_amazing_spider_man_2_starring_andrew_garfield_and_emma_stone_reviewed.html

Mr. Neumaier's enjoyed the film.  His review is fairly straightforward, careful not to reveal any spoilers, while also revealing enough about the film to understand why he enjoyed it.  He starts off with a short version of his basic thoughts, discusses the basic plot, and then goes more in-depth about what he liked about the film.  The tone of the review is very that of someone who was enjoying what he was typing, and you can tell he was satisfied by the film he had seen.  There are words used like "high-energy", "magnetic", "eye-popping", "gripping", and "epic".  These words are used to explain, in short, how he felt about the film.  The majority of the review was focused on plot and characters.  The only references made to other films are to the previous film, the original Spider-Man trilogy, and and the lead actor's performance in the Broadway play "Death of a Salesman".  These references are made in passing, and don't feel like they are bogging down the point of the review.

Mrs. Stevens, however, disliked the film.  Her review is slightly longer and she spends more time talking negatively about the film before she discusses what the plot is, while still complaining as she explains it.  You can tell from the way she explains the film that she did not enjoy it and is frustrated by it.  Words such as "drearily unnecessary", "drab ", and "disappointing" are used her display her dissatisfaction with the film.  She mostly focuses on characters and only a little bit on plot, and she, like Neumaier, references the previous film and the original trilogy in her review.  She also references the original Superman film for a point in superhero film history, and the lead actor's performance in another film "The Social Network".  These references don't bog down her review either.

If I had to pick a statement from either of these two people's reviews to agree with, it would be in Dana Stevens' review.  "Maybe every generation gets the Spider-Man it deserves, but must every micro-generation?'.  I am one of many people who believe that the franchise was rebooted too soon, and that the new films are just an impatient rush to hold onto the rights to the character.  But that is the least of my problems with this film.  I can explain them to you, but that is a discussion for another day.

If I had not yet seen the film, and I had to decide which of these reviews to trust, I would trust Neumaier's review.  Regardless of how negatively I feel about the film now, if I had read his review before I saw the film, I would trust his opinion, as I almost always pay to see the big summer blockbusters with relatively little convincing.  He is also well-spoken in his review, and you can tell that he is unbiased and that he genuinely enjoyed the film, and I trust critics like that.

If I were to write a one page film review, I would include everything in it from the plot to the directing/screenwriting/acting to the characters.  I may also include how the audience I see the movie with reacted, as it will give whoever reads my review a perspective on how they might feel about the movie before they see it.  I would probably leave out any biases I have against the film, as I don't want the person reading my review to feel that I am being too judgmental and unfair towards the film.  My review would also be fairly straightforward and get right to the point as to whether the film is worth seeing or not.

"Film Intro Survey"

1.    What is the first movie that really made a strong impression on you?
I think the first movie to truly affect me on an emotional level was Jurassic Park.  I used to play with dinosaur toys all the time, but I had never seen a live one until I saw that movie.  And once we had gotten to the scene in the park with the brachiosaurus and the herd of other dinosaurs, I started crying out of pure joy.
2.     What are 3-4 of your favorite genres?
Western, Sci-fi, Fantasy, Horror
3.     What are 3-4 of your least favorite genres?
Romance, Romantic comedy, Musical
4.     What are your five favorite films?
Jaws, The Dark Knight, Pan's Labyrinth, Die Hard, Fight Club
5.     List three characteristics of what you consider to be a good movie.
Strong script, strong directing, strong acting, not boring
6.     What are some (3-5) of your least favorite movies?
Inappropriate Comedy, Movie 43, anything by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer.
7.     List three characteristics of what you consider to be a bad movie.
Bad script, bad directing, bad acting, boring
8.     If you have any favorite directors, list them (3-5)
David Fincher, Martin Scorsese, Alfred Hitchcock, Quentin Tarantino
9.     If you have any favorite actors/actresses, list them (3-5)
Joaquin Phoenix, Kate Winslet, Edward Norton, Charlize Theron
10.   List 3 films that you consider important films for people to see
Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Godfather, District 9
11.   What's your oldest favorite film?
Jaws
12.   What's the best movie you've seen that's been released in the past 2 years?
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
13.   What are the next five films on your "queue"?
Boyhood, Selma, Grand Budapest Hotel, Birdman, Whiplash