"Paranormal Activity 2" review

“Paranormal Activity 2”. For those who have seen the first film, saying that name out loud sounds almost laughable. While the original Paranormal Activity really pushed the boundaries of what an independent film could accomplish, it was an entirely self-contained film, so the fact that a sequel was actually made just screams “Hollywood cash in!” With a much bigger budget, a more seasoned director, as well as the inevitable stigma that comes with sequels, could Paranormal Activity 2 possibly live up to the incredibly high-grossing, low budget, R-rated film that terrorized worldwide audiences last year?

Paranormal Activity 2 shouldn’t really be considered a “sequel”, because its story does not actually take place after the story of the first film; it runs parallel to it (though you would never guess that from the misleading title). The story begins several months before the events of the first film, where Kristi Rey (Grayden), the sister of Katie from the first film, is bringing her newborn son Hunter home from the hospital. Through segments of home-movie footage and security camera tape (through which this entire story is told, just like in the first film), we meet Kristi’s husband, Dan (Bolland), her stepdaughter, Ali (Ephraim), the family’s superstitious nanny, Martine (Vivis), and their German Shepherd, Abby. The actors do a very good job across the board convincing you that they could very well be the family that lives next door to you. Everything in their lives seems perfectly average until (you guessed it) strange, unexplainable things begin to occur around their house. And while Kristi and Ali are quick to jump to a supernatural explanation, Dan has a much harder time believing that his house is really haunted by otherworldly spirits.

The true genius of Paranormal Activity 2 is how it seems to effortlessly fit like a glove into the plot of the first movie. Featherstone and Sloat reprise their rolls from the first movie as Katie and Micah, who frequently visit Kristi’s house to see their newborn nephew Hunter. Without spoiling too much, the events of Paranormal Activity 2 greatly expand upon the events from the first film, with many scenes adding as much insight into the plot of the first film as it does this one. We learn not just what Katie and Micah were doing during the large time gaps in the original Paranormal Activity, but we also dig a lot further into Katie and Kristi’s history, which gives much more context to the hauntings. Seeing these events unfold from a different angle gives the story a much bigger scope than anyone who has seen the first movie could have predicted. After seeing this sequel, you’ll never be able to look at the first movie the same way again, which is a huge testament to the writers who clearly put a lot of effort into creating a plot that so effortlessly supplements the first film’s.

Unfortunately, the very existence of a Paranormal Activity 2 is very obviously the result of the success of the first one, and this very blatantly comes through in the film’s structure. Paranormal Activity 2 will not scare you nearly as much as the first one did, but this isn’t because it’s a hacked-together sequel that isn’t as well-structured as the first film. The genius of the original Paranormal Activity was in its agonizingly slow increase in perceived spiritual activity, which left viewers always on edge. It would cleverly heighten tension at times without a payoff only to hit you with a heart stopping “BANG!” when you least expected it. Combine this with a “this could happen to ordinary people like you” atmosphere, and it’s no wonder why this film left some viewers with sleepless nights. The biggest problem with Paranormal Activity 2 is that it sticks to the original’s formula to a T. You realize very quickly that this sequel follows the pacing of the first movie almost beat-for-beat, so those who have seen the first movie will be able to predict exactly when the “scares” are coming, diminishing their effect almost entirely. It’s almost all déjà-vu: the characters talk, they go to bed, something mysteriously moves, the characters wake up and freak out about it, they talk, they go to bed, a door mysteriously slams, they freak out about it, etc. It can definitely leave you bored, wishing you had a remote control so you can just fast-forward to the interesting stuff at the end. The last twenty minutes or so is definitely the highlight of this movie, but even its “Blair Witch”-style action doesn’t make it much less predictable. The film does have its fair share of jump-out-of-your-seat moments, but you just never get that bone-chilling feeling you got when you saw a possessed Katie standing over Micah watching him sleep for hours on end in the first movie.

As far as sequels go, Paranormal Activity 2 could have been a lot worse. Creating a good sequel to Paranormal Activity is nearly impossible task, but you can definitely tell that the creators of this film at least had their hearts in the right place. They definitely nailed the spirit of the first film; the biggest problem is that they actually did it TOO well. Still, Paranormal Activity 2 does offer some very interesting insight into the first movie, and it is for this reason that I can definitely recommend this to fans of the original. Just don’t go into it expecting the same level of fear and suspense the first one gave you.

Who's going to be the villain in Batman 3? Ra's Al Ghul of course, because there really is no other way.

Recently, me and my friends re-watched both "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight", and there was some talk about the next "Batman" film. Now all we know about the third "Batman"film at this point is that it's rumored to be in the early writing stages; no official announcements have been made by anyone at Warner Brothers or Legendary Pictures. The most talked about thing by far for the next film is "Who's the villain gonna be?!?" It's almost the first question you hear whenever the third Batman movie comes up. Everyone seems to accept the fact that the writers would be stupid to bring The Joker back in, as no one could possibly match the performance of Heath Ledger, and anyone who tried would look like they're just copying him, kind of like Brandon Routh did for Christopher Reeves in "Superman Returns". Once we accept that fact, the names of all the most popular Batman villains, including the Riddler, the Penguin, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Catwoman, etc etc etc start getting thrown out. But I really think that everyone's missing the big picture of this particular film series. If they are indeed keeping this series to a trilogy, the major villain in Batman 3 will be none other than Ra's Al Ghul (yes Liam Neeson's character from the first movie). It simply wouldn't work any other way.

Ask any Bat-geek out there, and they'll tell you that Batman has two great nemeses: The Joker and Ra's Al Ghul. These are the only two villains who have ever even come close to destroying not only Batman himself, but his entire world. In many ways, these villains are total opposites of each other. The Joker is sporadic, insane, and does what he does simply because he loves doing it without any method or thought to his madness. Ra's Al Ghul on the other hand, is maniacal, crafting, and does what he does to serve his extremist idealism. While other villains like Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, The Riddler, Bane, Scarecrow, Two-Face, etc. can be easily sympathized with, and really only do what they do because of greed or revenge, Ra's Al Ghul and The Joker are cold and heartless, and will stop at no end to achieve their goals, which makes them nearly unstoppable. They are in a completely different category from the rest of Batman's villains. You simply can't get any bigger than the villains in these first two Batman movies--any other villain would simply be a joke. And since any Batman writer would be crazy to even touch the Joker again with a ten foot pole after Health Ledger's incredible and nearly irreproducible performance, Ra's Al Ghul is the only villain who could finish the trilogy off with a bang after the huge scale of the previous two movies.

The first thing I get whenever I bring up Ra's al Ghul as the villain is "No way! He's dead!!" If there's one thing that my movie-viewing experience has taught me, it's that you never believe that someone's really dead until you see a corpse, and even after that be skeptical. The last shot we see Ra's al Ghul in "Batman Begins" is as he slowly shuts his eyes as the Wayne monorail that he's on plunges off the tracks and explodes. Does that make him dead? Not in the least. "Always mind your surroundings", he constantly reminded Bruce in "Batman Begins". Do you think he could've been on that train for such a long period of time and not known the quickest way out if his plan had failed? He's one of the smartest men in the world, not to mention a master of almost every martial art known to man. I'm SURE he had a way out before it exploded. Not to mention that he had already faked his death earlier on in the movie: what's to stop him from doing it again?

And if the writers can't get creative with that, there's always one aspect of the character from the comics that wasn't even mentioned in the first movie: the Lazarus pits. Like the Biblical character they take their name from, the Lazarus pits are secret, mystic underground pits that allow Ra's al Ghul to come back to life if he's placed in them within a certain time after he dies. Because of these pits, he's been able to live for thousands of years (something that WAS mentioned in "Batman Begins"). I know the writers are going for more realism with this particular Batman series, but I don't think that this is much more far out as other concepts from the first two movies, such as the Scarecrow's "fear toxin". Either way, there are multiple angles that the writers could take that could easily (but not cheaply) explain how Ra's al Ghul is still alive.

Another crucial element of this series that makes Ra's al Ghul perfect for a return visit is his incredibly close ties to Batman's origins. This is the only Batman series (including the comics, the animated series, the 90s movies, etc) that credits Ra's al Ghul with Batman's origins. Who is a more worthy villain that someone who was responsible for the creation of the hero, and one that taught him everything he knows? Ra's al Ghul is not only physically able to stand up to Batman, but they also connect on a much deeper mental level. Also, I get the feeling that the writer's aren't trying to make these movies separate "adventures" of Batman, like the old movie series and animated series were. These movies seem to be more of a saga--they're THE story of Batman, not separate stories of his adventures. Because of this, you don't need a bajillion new villains in each movie, but Ra's al Ghul could represent the villain of the entire saga, like Emperor Palpatine is to Star Wars and Sauron is to Lord of the Rings. I really think it will be revealed that Ra's al Ghul was not only behind the events of "Batman Begins", but he also played a pivotal role behind the scenes in "The Dark Knight" and even in the early parts of "Batman 3". Ra's al Ghul is a master plotter and manipulator. What he did in Batman Begins was child's play compared to what he has done in other Batman series. I think that once the trilogy is over, you'll be able to step back and realize the big picture that Ra's al Ghul has been behind all along.

Also, getting Liam Neeson back will most likely be not much of a problem. It's more than likely that he won't appear till 2/3 of the way through the movie, as one final "revelation" that Batman needs to defeat. After the success of The Dark Knight, "Batman 3" is going to be a guaranteed multi-million dollar blockbuster, and I'm sure Liam Neeson knows this, even if he doesn't appear on any of the movie posters or teasers to try to keep it a secret as much as possible.

For these reasons and more, there is really no other choice for a major villain in "Batman 3". Sure we'll probably see one or two more "classic" Batman villains. Now that Rachel's gone, I'm sure we'll probably see Catwoman in the next movie to spark the romantic interest. But Catwoman isn't a master plotter or evil in any sense of the word: she just likes to steal things for fun. There's no way she could hold up a whole movie as the villain. There's simply no other villain that could send the series out with a bang and prove as much as a threat to Batman as either of the villains in the first two movies. Because of this, it's gotta be Ra's al Ghul.

[Update 03/12/10] In a recent interview with Christopher Nolan done in the Los Angeles Times about the new "Superman" project he's starting, he had this to say about the third Batman movie:

“Without getting into specifics, the key thing that makes the third film a great possibility for us is that we want to finish our story,” he said. “And in viewing it as the finishing of a story rather than infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story."

Also:

"Unlike the comics, these things don’t go on forever in film and viewing it as a story with an end is useful. Viewing it as an ending, that sets you very much on the right track about the appropriate conclusion and the essence of what tale we’re telling."

This seems right on target with what I said earlier in this post. The third film WILL be the end of the trilogy, and thus Nolan says that he does not want to "infinitely blow up the balloon" of the story. It's further evidence to suggest that he won't introduce any major new villains, and attempt to tie together what he already has in place. It seems that (like I said earlier) the three films are meant to be viewed as three acts in one larger story. Introducing some other major villain wouldn't serve this purpose, as it would only seek to drive the story forever forward. That's why I really think that Nolan is going to make the best use of the villains he already has, and since the Joker is almost positively out, that leaves us with only one major villain left: Ra's al Ghul.

Political correctness is not the reason for the season

I know this is an ages-old argument, but I really feel like I need to put in my two cents about "political correctness" around the holidays.

I'm back as a cashier at Stop & Shop for Christmas break this year, and as someone who works with customers all day, I'm almost obliged to wish them some sort of goodwill for the holiday season on their way out. And it got me thinking.

As you walk around almost any store, you'll definitely notice that the words "Christmas" "Hanukkah" or "Kwanzaa" appear far less than you would think. That's because the over-indulgent consumerist honchos that own all these major companies seem to be too scared to offend anybody, and instead stick everything that everybody is celebrating at the time under one, totally impersonal umbrella greeting, "Happy Holidays".

But really, how could you get more blatantly impersonal than wishing everyone who walks by you "Happy Holidays"? That's like wishing someone a great "existence". No other phrase could more accurately depict the consumerist focus of our holiday season than "Happy Holidays". It just shows that you obviously don't give a damn what holiday someone celebrates, and you're too impersonal to offer someone any insight as to what exactly you celebrate at this time of the year.

I don't celebrate "Holiday". "Holiday" to me means some sort of time off from work--a break or a vacation. While this may be true, it completely disregards the meaning of the season and why exactly I celebrate Christmas. Christmas to me is not just time off from school--it's a time to see family I don't see very often, a time to give presents to show our appreciation for each other, a time of remembering past traditions, and most importantly, a time to celebrate one of the most important events in human history--the birth of Jesus Christ. Calling all of this just a "holiday" seems a bit unfair right?

I would rather wish someone a "Merry Christmas" and have them correct me, saying for instance that they're Jewish and celebrate Hanukkah. Because at least at that point you've gained some deeper knowledge of the person and had a somewhat meaningful discourse rather than just some words that you throw at them on the way out the door that have little meaning for either you or them.

And most importantly, by saying "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hanukah" or "Happy Kwanzaa" you have revealed something deeper about yourself--that you are a Christian and celebrate Christmas, or you are Jewish and celebrate Hanukah, or you are African and celebrate Kwanzaa. It shows that you understand that there is some deeper meaning of the time of the year other than just buying stuff for people. I believe that Christmas, Hanukah, and Kwanzaa share a similar spirit--that of being personal with those around you. Cheap, meaningless phrases like "Happy Holidays" do not adhere to the deeper meaning of any of these three celebrations, and the umbrella term of "Happy Holidays" just shows that this time of year means nothing more than the commercialism surrounding it.

Been a long time--AVATAR review

Okay guys, I'm super sorry for not updating my blog since September--the school year's been pretty crazy and I just never really got around to it. So I figured that now that Christmas break has started, I can kick things back into gear with a good ole movie review of a movie I saw at midnight last night. Ladies and gentlemen: my review of James Cameron's AVATAR.

First, a clarification: this movie is NOT...I repeat NOT based on the Nickelodeon cartoon of the same name. There is in fact a movie coming next year out based on the Nickelodeon cartoon entitled The Last Airbender. But this is entirely different. The original script for this movie was written all the way back in 1994 by writer/director James Cameron, only a few years after his smash hit and action movie revolution film Terminator 2 and only a few years before he created the current box-office record holder Titanic. However, Cameron decided to wait on actually making Avatar, as the budget would have been more than he could afford at the time and he felt that the CGI technology necessary to do the script justice just wasn't there yet. But a couple of years ago, Cameron felt that the time was finally right to make his masterpiece. Using some of the most advanced CGI and 3-D technology seen yet (more on that later), revolutionary filming techniques, and a budget of over $300 million, Cameron has finally brought his dream project to life. So just how good is it?

The answer: simply amazing.

I don't even know where to begin, but I guess I can start talking about the plot. It is certainly a very complex plot that I won't spoil for you, but just to give you the gist of it, Avatar takes place in the year 2154 on the fictional forest planet of Pandora, where an alien race (the Navi) reside. However, humans from the outside world are deeply interested in accessing some sort of extremely valuable mineral located under Pandora's surface, and the Navi living right on top of the largest deposit of the mineral on the entire planet. Using a breakthrough scientific technology, humans have begun creating "Avatars", which are bodies made up of a mix of human and Navi DNA. They have developed a technology that allows humans to actually shift their consciousness into these Avatars, allowing them to live inside these bodies and more easily interact with the natives. The story follows Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), an ex-U.S. Marine, who is assigned to become one of these Avatars and go into the dense forests of Pandora in order to discover what it will take to get the natives to relocate so the humans can access the mineral deposit. However, not everyone agrees with the science community's diplomatic policy: the Military, led by Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), is all in favor of simply wiping out the Navi in order to gain access to the deposit. Without giving too much away, Jake Sully, as an Avatar, is in a race against time to fulfill his mission for the humans, but on the way discovers new things about the Navi, the forests of Pandora, and himself.

It really is an incredible story and is done extremely remarkably. It has close ties to stories we've all heard before, including everything from Pocahontas to the U.S.'s westward expansion to the Iraq War. And it's really one of the only thing that you can fault this movie for: the simple fact that we have heard this story a million times before and it is fairly predictable. But it's really hard to not like the movie because of this fact, as the story is so incredibly timeless and relevant to us today. Though the movie has an obvious bias, it never feels like it gets too preachy, and it really does hold your interest the whole way through, even if you can probably guess what is going to happen.

Now let's talk about visuals. This certainly isn't a movie that you can just brush off the visuals on; the visuals are a MAJOR component of the movie. It's so easy to see why such an incredibly high budget was needed to make this movie. The CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) is easily the most advanced seen in a movie yet. The entirely CGI jungles of Pandora are so incredibly lush and lifelike you'd swear it was a real place (that is, perhaps until you witness the awe that is Pandora's floating mountain range). But where the movie really makes HUGE leaps is with the entirely CGI Navi and Avatar characters. The creatures are so lifelike, their expressions so accurately portraying every last drop of human emotion, that it's hard not to think that these creatures really exist. The way they move and act doesn't look so obviously fake like the billions and billions of other CGI creatures out there. This is the leap that CGI in movies has so desperately needed since it began being used in the mid-90s. We're going to look back and laugh at the so obviously fake CGI that existed prior to this movie. It's really no surprise that such a leap came from James Cameron--after all, the T-1000's morphing ability in Terminator 2 was one of the first major examples of CGI used in movies.

And after seeing Avatar in 3-D, I'm totally convinced that it's the ONLY way to truly experience this film. As one of the first feature films to be fully FILMED in 3-D using special cameras that actually capture depth, it really really delivers. This definitely isn't the gimmicky 3-D where it's blatantly obvious that many shots were catered to making you go "woah!" when you see it in 3-D. Cameron just tells the film the way it should be told, and uses the 3-D effect to greatly enhance it. It really makes it feel more like you're looking out a window into the vast Pandora forest rather than simply viewing it on a flat movie screen. The depth provided by the 3-D is simply stunning. The movie really comes alive in 3-D, and working together with the incredible CGI effects, really transports you into the world of Pandora. I honestly think I would be really disappointed viewing the movie in normal 2-D now that I've seen all three dimensions of it.

The acting is all top notch too. Worthington's character is a really likable guy, and you can really see and entirely understand the conflict he's going through. The villain is also someone that you really really hate by the end of the movie. All of the other actors, including the voice acting and motion capture work done for the Avatars and Navi, is all absolutely top notch.

Overall, Avatar really is a spectacular movie. I really feel like this movie is very comparable to Cameron's original Terminator: a plot that isn't entirely original, yet it just works so well because of the incredible new take on it, combined with some fantastic visual effects. Cameron has already stated that he plans on making sequels if the movie does well in the box office, and it's really one of those movies that I would be totally okay with there being a sequel for. If Cameron DOES make a sequel, I really hopes he does what he did with Terminator 2 and create a sequel that combines an entirely original concept to all of the amazing things done in the first movie to create a movie that will be the standard to which every other movie in the genre is held up to. But for now we have Avatar, which is an absolutely incredible movie in it's own right that may not completely change the way in which movies are written, but will most certainly change the way in which they are presented.

I give it 4.5/5 stars.

Movie Review: Inglorious Bastards

So tonight me and my friends decided to go see a movie.  We were tossed up between two movies:  Inglorious Bastards, which I hadn't seen yet, and District 9, which judging from my review, I really liked.  We decided on Inglorious Bastards.  Let's just say I wish I saw District 9 again.

Inglorious Bastards is definitely not a bad movie in the traditional sense of a bad movie.  The characters are interesting, the actors are great, and the idea definitely has solid background.  But the style of the movie and scenes are just so all over the place that what could've been a great idea is just made into a boring mess of a movie.  

By far the biggest problem with this movie is that it has a SEVERE case of identity crisis.  Before I walked into the theater, I was expecting a comedy.  I sat down expecting to laugh, and was completely thrown off by the horribly tragic first scene, in which a tiny little farmhouse in Nazi-occupied France is visited by Nazi officers because of suspicions of a family of Jews hiding out there.  It's not that the scene isn't well done--the dialogue and acting are all spot on, and it's actually builds up quite a lot of tension.  It's just the furthest thing from funny; not in one of those "all the jokes are falling flat" type of way, but because this scene is supposed to be completely serious.  Then the next scene takes us to Brad Pitt making a bunch of dumb jokes as Lt. Aldo Raine, who is leading a group of vigilante American officers in France who are out to kill and scalp the Nazis.  Then it goes back to a more serious drama about one of the girls who escaped the Nazi attack in the first scene and is trying to rebuild her life as a French citizen.  The movie just can't decide what it wants to be.  There are way too many scenes when I was trying to figure out if I should be laughing or not.  Some scenes are dead serious, some are totally comedic, and some are a poor hybrid of both.  I just didn't know what to make of it.

"Inglorious Bastards" is kind of a misleading title, because we only actually see the Inglorious Bastards and their associates for less than half the movie.  There are two major plot lines that run throughout the movie and meet at the end.  The first is about Lt. Raine and his group of Inglorious Bastards bent on the killing and scalping of Nazis.  The other is a drama about the girl who escaped in the first scene, who has just been put in charge of premiering a new Nazi propaganda film at her cinema.  But this isn't one of those movies that cuts back and forth between the two story lines.  Instead, it gives us these two stories in huge chunks.  It'll spend a half hour or so on one story, then a half hour or so on the other, and it goes back and forth until they eventually meet at the end.  However, the movie focuses so much on one story that you almost completely forget that the other even exists until it comes back to it again.  Also, both stories are filled with so many ridiculously boring dialogue scenes that just feel completely unnecessary or dragged out far beyond what they need to be.  And like I said, it's not that the characters aren't interesting, it's just that there are so many scenes that just feel so unneeded.  

However, the final scene (the last 20 or so minutes of the film) is so wonderfully paced and plotted that you almost forget about the messy bore that was the rest of the movie.  ALMOST.  The last scene really leaves you wishing that the entire movie was like this.  Unlike the rest of the movie, the last scene is great at mixing both humor, seriousness, and suspense.  I almost wish that I had just walked into the movie at the beginning of this scene--I would've liked the movie much more.  As it stands though, a great ending cannot make up for the fact that the rest of the movie was so poorly paced and edited.

In the end, Inglorious Bastards is a two and a half hour mishmash of a movie that easily could've been condensed into an hour and a half or shorter movie that was either a comedy or a serious drama loosely based on historical events.  You just can't go from scenes showing Nazis graphically butchering Jews to Brad Pitt acting like an idiot.  It's a shame too, because the very interesting characters and great acting in the movie had so much potential.

I give it 2/5 stars.

And if you want to see a good movie about the events of World War II that can blend humor and seriousness, look no further than the 1997 movie "Life Is Beautiful". 

Movie Review: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Warning: Minor Spoilers

Ok so I saw Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen last night at midnight (at least, it was supposed to be midnight, but after the biggest line I've ever seen at a movie theater flooded in and found seats, it was at least 12:30 when the previews started).  And it was epic.

Transformers is one of those franchises that has such a huge following to begin with that a studio could almost slap any piece of crap together and throw it on the screen and make a killing.  But luckily, they didn't choose that route.  Instead, they manage to craft an incredible action movie with breathtaking special effects that should keep both fans and non-fans of Transformers well entertained.  

I'm sure the first thing you're wondering about with the new Transformers is: "How's the action?"  Well, I have to say, it was PHENOMINAL.  This movie seriously blew my expectations away with its intense action scenes.  Some of the action scenes are so well shot, animated, and completely breathtaking that it really has to be seen to be believed.  I know we've seen CGI creatures beating the crap out of each other in like every action movie for years now, but Transformers manages to take the whole thing a step further with some truly incredible blend of live action and CGI.  The shots are also great at showing off exactly how massive these giant alien robots are.  And I'm pretty sure this movie should hold some kind of record for most explosions in a single movie, because during the action scenes (which was about 90% of the film), the explosion average was about one every two seconds.  

As far as plot goes, it is pretty much what you'd expect from a movie like this.  The Decepticons are back and once again hell bent on taking over the Earth, and the Autobots are ready to try to stop them.  Meanwhile, the government is trying to pass a law that would make Autobot presence on Earth illegal, believing that their very presence is why the Decepticons are attacking.  It's all very standard for an action movie like this, and the whole government-making-autobots-illegal thing feels like a watered-down Watchmen ripoff.  But if you're walking into the movie "Transformers" for an excellently-written plot that will emotionally move you, then I'm not sure what rock you've been under for the past 30 or so years.  This movie understands what it should be--an action movie--and doesn't make any huge attempts to change that, which is perfectly fine with me.

But this movie is definitely not without its faults.  First off, this movie, like its prequel, suffers from some of the most badly-written, smack your hand into your forehead "love scenes" this side of Star Wars Episode II (and surprisingly, this wasn't the only similarity to Star Wars this movie had).  I have no idea who the person is who keeps approving of the writing on these scenes, but the dialogue between Shia Leboeuf's character and Megan Fox's character is so disgustingly bad written that it really makes you want to throw up.  Its such an obvious tarnish on this otherwise pretty well-written movie that you almost have to wonder why these scenes ever made the final cut.

Secondly, I will not argue with any man, woman, or child on this planet that Megan Fox is absolutely GORGEOUS.  But as absolutely stunning as she is, I can't help but feeling that a lot of her scenes were just way too over the top sexually explicit, especially for a movie rated PG-13.  For example, the first shot of her in the movie really makes you feel like you accidentally just walked in on her having sex with a motorcycle.  There's also a scene not far after in which she literally strips in front of the camera for no real reason at all.  The movie takes it so far that there's actually a tiny Decepticon robot humping her leg for a good minute near the end of the film.  I know sex sells, but I can't help feeling like some of the writers on this movie were a bunch of college frat guys who made every attempt they could to see Megan Fox in less and less clothes in the most sexual positions possible.  If you just took out every shot in the movie that Megan Fox is not in, you would basically have an hour long Megan Fox porno.  While this might be more acceptable in other movies, I felt this was way too over the top for a PG-13 movie based on a cartoon.

This movie was also really, really long.  I thought the movie was almost over at least four times throughout it, only for it to take another turn that felt like it was just to show the robots beating each other up just a bit longer.  Giant alien robots beating the crap out of each other is undeniably cool, but it's like a magic trick--it's really cool the first few times, but every time you see it after that it gets progressively less cool.  There were so many times during the last 45 or so minutes of this movie where I just wanted to shout "END!  PLEASE!!"  Though I have to admit, the final battle was nothing short of spectacular, but I wish that we had just gotten to it a lot sooner.

But in the end, Transformers is, at its heart, an action movie, and a great one at that.  It also managed to be downright hilarious at times.  It's absolutely a movie worth seeing, but I don't think it's one worth seeing again and again and again.  

I give it 3.7/5 stars (yes, I can give it 3.7 stars)

Anyone else who saw it have any comments?  Do you agree/disagree?  Feel free to post your thoughts under the "Comments" section.

Bringing someone from the past...

Ok now we're getting into the meat of my brain.  This is something that just randomly pops up in my head every once in a while when I see something that would be strange to previous generations:  What would someone in the past think of our present time?  And if we could bring someone from the past, who would we bring?  How would we explain our present customs and the way things we take for granted as everyday objects work?  

To begin with, if we could time travel and bring someone from the past to the present, who would we bring?  To me, that would really depend on what time period we are bringing them from.  If we're talking about anytime after the 1920s, I don't think it would be much of a problem to bring anyone we wanted, because they would probably be able to grasp our consumerist society and rapid growth in technology no problem.  However, before that we would have to be much more selective of who we brought.  We would need to bring a very open-minded person, someone who can accept that the world could have advanced far beyond what they're used to.  If we're talking, say 200 years ago or earlier, we would have to bring an intellectual.  An average person from that far in the past witnessing what our world has become today would probably shock them, and they would be unable to adapt to our society because they do not understand the immense progress we've been through.  However, if we brought an intellectual: someone who would sometimes have thought about where society was going in the future, it would be much easier for them to accept our technological changes and learn to adapt to them because they already have accepted that the world won't stay the same forever.

Now the question is, who would we bring?  I don't know why, but the person that almost always popped into my head was Benjamin Franklin.  I have always wondered what he would have to say about our society today.  He is obviously an intellectual--I don't think anyone who's not extremely wise could have written something like Poor Richard's Almanac, which has proverbs in it that not only applied to Franklin's present time, but to all time.  I just wonder what he would have to say about what our society has become.  Would he approve of our consumerist society?  Would he understand why so many people buy so many things they really don't need?

And what about things we take for granted in our everyday lives?  If I walked into a room and turned on a light switch for example, he would probably be scared shitless, and wonder what is going on.  Could we offer him an explanation of what exactly was happening that satisfied him?  Let's take it a step further.  Supposed we turned on a computer and showed him the internet.  I think the simple fact that we have something that could project thousands of tiny pixels of light would completely surprise and confuse him to no end, never mind the fact that a computer consists of tons and tons of chips that store and read information using electricity and convert it into a visual display for us, or even the fact that every computer in the world is connected together by the internet.  I'm sure he wouldn't understand it, but could he grow to accept it?  Would it scare him?  

And how about our customs?  Could we get him to understand our concept of sanitation?  Could we explain to him that there are billions of tiny little one celled creatures everywhere called germs that can potentially do us harm if we do not control them by keeping clean?  People back then did not take a bath even close to once a day.  Washing up was to remove visible dirt, not germs, which is something that wouldn't be discovered until more than a hundred years later.  Would he understand our strict concerns for sanitation, or would he just not get it?

And what if we were to get someone from say, a thousand years ago?  Two thousand?  How much different would that be?

But all this is obviously just food for thought right now--just something that takes my attention every once in a while when I see how quickly our society grows and changes.  Let me know what you guys think.

Healthcare in the U.S.

Ok, so I've done music and movies, so what's next for my amazing new blog?  Time for politics!  To begin--my thoughts on healthcare and healthcare reform.  

Ok so close to 50 million Americans have no healthcare and are forced to pay for their healthcare out of pocket (or not pay at all if they cannot afford emergency treatment).  That, ladies and gentlemen, is a sin.  You can't put a price on someone's health.  Yes I know it's a capitalist society, and people should make their own money and spend it on health insurance.  But there are too many people in low income jobs that simply cannot afford the added expense of health care.  And, like I said, you can't put a price, or even a capitalist ideology, over someone's health.  So where do we go from there?

There are many different solutions to this problem, with pretty much all involving government intervention.  The first, and seemingly most popular approach around the country right now, is Social Health care.  In a social health care system, the government would provide basic healthcare for each and every citizen of the United States.  I have discovered that there are two ways to approach this.  The first of these would be for the government to offer the ability for a private healthcare company to sponsor the healthcare program in the entire country.  This private healthcare company would be chosen by whichever one can offer the best deal.  The second way of doing this would be to bypass private health insurance companies altogether, and created a government-funded organization, or even an entirely new branch of government ("Department of Healthcare" anyone?) that would completely organize and provide all of the government-funded healthcare.  In both of these scenarios, there would be an option for anyone with the money to opt out of the government-funded system, choosing instead to purchase their own private healthcare.  

This all sounds great on paper.  It would definitely provide the healthcare services we need, and be able to insure the close to 50 million Americans who are currently uninsured.  It would leave no one without healthcare, and hospitals would no longer be forced to suck up the bills of patients who cannot pay.  But there is one major, major flaw with this system.  If we went with the first option, where the government sponsored health insurance is provided by the private insurance company that can give the best deal, a huge monopoly over the insurance industry would be created.  There's no way that any other healthcare provider could compete with a company that provides all of the government sponsored healthcare, and they would all go bankrupt, leaving one health insurance provider.  However,  the second option poses the exact same problem to all of the private health insurance companies, as a government-funded program that provides health insurance would almost certainly force all of the private insurance companies into bankruptcy, leaving the government in complete control of the industry.  With the way our economy is right now, the last thing we need is for some of the biggest businesses in our nation to go under, leaving thousands more unemployed, and hurting both wall street and our economy in general.

However, I believe that there is an option in which we could avoid this horrible inevitability.  I call it the "John McCain option".  Now I only realized how much sense this plan made after the election, but looking back on it, it really makes a lot of sense.  In this plan, the government would provide money to citizens that would have to be put towards health insurance (there could be a points system or something so that people don't go spending the money on other things).  In this option, people can go out and search for the healthcare plan that best fits their needs, and would be able to choose from a variety of companies with a variety of healthcare plans.  This would spread the money across the different private insurance companies, and would restore competition between the companies, in effect keeping their prices down and preventing a monopoly over the industry.  Different amounts of money (or points) could be given to different families depending on their need and current income level.  This option would provide healthcare to all citizens, while keeping these private healthcare providers (and our economy in general) intact.  

And that's my thoughts on healthcare.  Feel free to post your opinions on it under the "comments" section.

First movie review: "This Is Spinal Tap"

Picture this: a movie about a 1980s hair metal band that never existed.  It hits on every hair metal band stereotype:  the sex, drugs, costumes, ridiculous stage props, the makeup, things they put in their pants to enlarge themselves, out of control guitar solos, etc etc.  Now picture that it's filmed in the style of one of those bad TV rockumentaries, with the camera following the bands every single move both onstage and backstage, and camera angles that always seem to be too zoomed in and really poorly focused.  Now picture that the members of this band and the crew that's with them are completely clueless and constantly high, and everything that could go wrong does.  Sounds like a hilarious idea for a movie, right?  There's only two major problems:

It's already been made, and I wasn't laughing.  

Now before you obsessed Spinal Tap fans spam me with all kinds of hate mail, just listen to what I have to say.  "This Is Spinal Tap" seemed like it cared too much about making and authentic-looking rockumentary that it almost seems to forget why it was made in the first place:  to make FUN of rockumentaries.

There are absolutely funny moments in "This Is Spinal Tap".  The discussion about how their amps actually go up to 11 was absolutely priceless.  There's also a really funny scene in which the band can't seem to find the stage their supposed to be performing on.  And you can't forget the discussions about how their drummers keep dying in the most ridiculous ways (most notably spontaneous combustion).  But the biggest problem in this movie is that in between these genuinely funny moments we have to watch scene after scene of stuff that looks like it was literally recorded right off of a VH1 documentary about a real band.  We're forced to watch stage performance after stage performance of rock songs that, with a few exceptions, feel like genuine 1980s hair metal songs.  It's like they geared these sections towards an audience who finds VH1 classic as hilarious and well-written as Monty Python and the Holy Grail.  There's scene after scene of them talking about gigs getting cancelled, scene after scene of them just sitting around their dressing room, and interview after interview with the director in which they just talk about how the band got together and how they're really tight.  While it's all very convincing, its not necessarily funny.

What disappointed me even more is the fact that they saved many pretty funny bits for DURING THE CREDITS.  I think I laughed more in the short interviews during the credits than I did while watching the movie (which really isn't saying much).

Maybe I'm being a bit too hard on Spinal Tap.  After all, it was one of the first ever mock rockumentaries.  Maybe it's just that many more movies and TV shows have improved on this concept of a mockumentary, and watching the first of its kind is like trying to amuse yourself with an hour and a half of Pong in 2009.  Whatever the case, watching "This Is Spinal Tap" today certainly made me question why the film was so raved about upon its initial release in 1984.

I give it 2/5 stars.

And I know people out there will disagree with me.  Feel free to voice your opinions under the "Comments" section.

Nine Reasons Why Classic Rock....ROCKS!

Ok so anyone who knows me knows I LOVE Classic Rock.  Here's my top nine reasons why I think Classic Rock (60s, 70s, and 80s mainstream) is the coolest stuff around:

9) MORE HAIR

Seriously, how can you rock out with short hair?  The Beatles started the long hair rock trend, and rock shouldn't be any other way.  When the hair is flying, you know its rocking.

8) Vocal harmonies

No, I'm not talking about when the Jonas Brothers singing at the same time.  I'm talking about true vocal harmony, when different singers from bands sing very different parts that, put together sounds like angels on Earth.  Bands like The Beatles, Kansas, Boston, and Journey were incredible at this.  When there's more than one great singer in the band, its time to hear em.

7) Choose your rock

It seems today that when we choose what type of rock we listen to, there's only two actual choices:  Alternative or Metal.  So I have to choose between some whiny goth punk and bands that sound like all their instruments (including vocal chords) are made out of dying airplane parts?  Where has pop rock gone?  Where has southern rock gone?  Where has lite rock gone?  Where has our choice in listening style gone?   

6)  Power ballads

There was a time when almost every band had its own power ballad.  REO Speedwagon had "Keep On Loving You", Journey had "Open Arms", Kiss had "Beth", Cheap Trick had "The Flame", Styx had "Babe", Boston had "Amanda", Foreigner had "I Want to Know What Love Is" and the list goes on and on and on.  Sure some were cheesy, but they were all catchy and extremely romantic.  Where have these amazing ballads gone?

5)  Guitar Solos

Rock today is missing out on epic face-melting guitar solos, or solos of any kind for that matter.  Don't worry, the singer won't pass out if he stops singing for more than four measures.  Give that guitarist time to show off his awesome skills!  Cause what rock fan doesn't freak out when they hear the last four minutes of "Free Bird" or Van Halen's "Eruption"?

4) The Beatles

These guys practically invented what we know as rock today.  Its impossible to state the impact that this quartet from Britain has had on rock as we know it today.  They popularized the full length album.  And almost every rock subgenre can trace its roots back to one or more specific Beatles songs.  These guys did it all, and even though they were only together for less than ten years, they made such a big impact on popular music that I don't believe we'll stop feeling their effect any time soon.

3) Not just power chords

Too many punk and alternative bands today make a living off playing simple power chords over and over and over and over and over.  Gee that takes all the talent of a first year guitar student. You know you don't HAVE to bar all six strings for the guitar to make a sound right?  Prove to us that you're as awesome as you say you are and let's work the guitar like you mean it!  

2) Classic songs

Classic rock has songs that everybody knows and everybody will know generations from now because of their incredible impact on our lives.  How many people can you find that can't sing a part of "Don't Stop Believing", or couldn't sing the outro of "Hey Jude"?  Who do you know that can't hum the riff of "Smoke on the Water", or sing the chorus of "Sweet Home Alabama"?  These are songs that will go down as classics, and will probably be more well know by future generations than our own national anthem.

1) Legends

There are way too many classic rock legends who have completely changed the way we think about rock:  Jimi Hendrix, Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger, Ozzy Osbourne, Eric Clapton, Steven Tyler, Jimmy Page, David Bowie, Slash, Eddie Van Halen, and Sting are just scratching the surface of the absolutely legendary list of classic rockers who have become household names.  Their influence on music and on society in general make them much more than passing fads, which is why we're still listening to their music all their years later.

And those are just some of the many reasons why I think Classic Rock is the coolest stuff around.  Feel free to comment!