Ruby Sparks

By DionysusPsyche

Calvin is an accomplished writer. Uncomfortable with fame. He feels all of his shortcoming, and has had a few recent let downs in his personal life which have increased his self-doubt. He believes people he meets care only about his notoriety. "They love you and then they throw you away," he is told by another writer. It must be disconcerting to go from being invisible to being in the public eye. "Write what you can and then disappear," the advice continues. Calvin is a hermit (if he wasn't already one), and isn't a man so much as a bundle of nerves. Because of his anxiety and preoccupation with his success, he has hit a roadblock in his writing.

Until Ruby.

Ruby Sparks is reminiscent of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl and introduced in not so many words as a redheaded version of Zoey Deschanel. Calvin instantly knows everything about his character as if he's memorized a fact sheet or an extremely old, well circulated internet survey.

It's hard to separate the idea of the film from the actual actions that are going on. The film can be broken down into two basic themes: falling in love and writing. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

The first concept stems from when you first meet someone, and you think they're perfect—not necessarily perfect for you. Just perfect. You have an image in your head of this person and want that person to continue to be the one in your head. People see people as who they want to see them as. Yet, the longer you're together, you discover things about them that make you incompatible, things that are annoying, things you don't like. Some people try to change each other, but that ultimately makes everyone more unhappy and doesn't work very well.

The other half of this is once a writer starts writing, the story takes on a life of its own. It's always with you, even when you're not writing. It takes over—the story becomes a part of your life. Even if you don't tell people about it, it's next to you when you go to the store or eat a meal. It's next to you until it's over. Until you've taken it as far as it can go. Not every character or plot goes where its author thinks it will, and depending on how one writes a story, sometimes the characters do bad things...but those are actions and thoughts that make them people. That make them real. when writers don't write, something happens to them. It's difficult to explain, but if you're a writer, you can't not write. Even if you're away from anything you'd write or type on, those thoughts are still turning over in your head like a ferris wheel. The fair may change towns, but that ferris wheel keeps going.

At first, I took a liking to Calvin. He definitely describes a certain kind of writer, or maybe someone that the audience could see themselves turning into. To a certain degree, I don't think we're supposed to adore him. We're supposed to understand where he's coming from, get that he's broken, and know that he needs to fix himself.

Notes 

I didn't fall in love with the film like Calvin falls for Ruby. I liked it less the longer it lasted. What I did appreciate was what the film represented. It's similar to Stranger Than Fiction, except I liked Stranger Than Fiction better, in perspective, although that was also a weird film. Ruby rubbed against me like a sandal that doesn't fit your foot and causes a blister. Then the blister pops, and then it hurts. Calvin's obsession with Ruby was both grating and obnoxious, even if it seemed probable. Everybody dates someone or has a friend that dates someone who seems great at first but ends up unbearable. I didn't even really like Calvin's dog...and I like dogs a lot.

Conclusion

Ruby Sparks was great as a trailer. It was good as a sentence. Its actual execution, not so much, even if there were sections of the film I enjoyed. This is a movie that makes a statement, and you either love it or you hate it. Perhaps you'll come to a different opinion than I did, because I see this film as more perspective oriented than many of the films out there.

Skyfall (2012)

by DionysusPsyche

WARNING: SPOILERS EVERYWHERE.

At the beginning of Skyfall, the audience is met with a quandry: is the sacrifice of one life worth more than several to hundreds at the hand of an enemy? Is one extremely intelligent, fast, trained, charismatic agent expendable even without knowing how good the questionable shot to take out the other agent is? Time is a factor, having the enemy in one's hands is a factor, and risk is all wrapped up in it.

This is a similar question to the one we've asked in another blockbuster movie of not-so-distant past which I am reticient to name (yes, I'm willing to spoil Skyfall, but not necessarily a movie my jaw dropped at several times—sorry Double O Seven!). In the unnamed movie, the hero is met with the answer: that the situation can be avoided altogether. There need be no question as to whether this person kills one man or hundreds, there is another way. It may not be a great way, but it's still a possibility.

But this is an action film whose name is a legend. Whose films date back to before your birth (age dependent), whose books date back to possibly before the birth of your parents (and if they're super young, your grandparents). It's James [bleep]ing Bond, so naturally, I said, no, his fictional, impossibly awesome life is not less than for whom we're aiming. Now, we KNOW going in that Bond is not actually going to die within the first ten minutes. Do you know how angered people would be? No one would sign up to write or work that movie. There would be some Occupy Bond signs, although people WOULD be in suits, and the rallies would only take place after the 9-5 workday.

However, from a logistical standpoint, I did not agree. I felt that Eve (Naomie Harris) wasn't calculated enough. That M was not given proper information. It crossed my mind that Eve might be working for the other side (yeah guys, I didn't see the end, get it, moving on). I am not an employee of national security. I am not prepared and taught the math of risk, the number of agents at the company's disposal, nor the degree to which our enemy is wanted—facts of which I am glad. There was a coldness to M, a precision which the shot itself did not contain, where she saw no loss, only gain (this not included in her obituary for Bond which was lackluster at best...no wonder he hated it). At this juncture, I am required to remind you that as a subjective member of the audience who is watching a James Bond film, I am predisposed to root for James Bond. Although his death did lead into the intro, which made his death sweeter and less horrific.

The opening to the each film in the series is so incredible that I'm often left wanting the opening credits instead of enjoying the film itself. Of course, Adele did the song, because the women of the time always sing the song of Bond. Sheryl Crowe did, Carly Simon did. Regardless of appeal, they are popular, accesssible, and are representative of the time in which the singular work was created.

I didn't buy M's speech about how we don't need to fear companies, and the establishment. This is something individuals in power say when they don't want to accept responsibility for their failed given action(s). The movie industry and the culture go through phases, and right now, the phase is the chaotic evil. It would be interesting to watch all the movies that came out a year after the school shootings and see if there is a similar pattern, or if screenwriters just flip a coin every few years. A part of this stems from sarcasm, but I'm also completely serious. It would also be interesting to compare Bond films to historical culture, which I am hoping someone does (hint, hint, nudge, nudge).

I found the villain from Skyfall to be similar to the Joker from The Dark Knight inasmuch as he promises to kill people if his demands are not met and is viewed as highly unstable. Unlike the Joker, we know this man's past. Information tells us that he's been tortured beyond comprehension, that he's been handed over to the enemy for an exchange of goods and services, and that he's even stooped to the point of biting into a government provided cyanide tablet (capsule? there's a difference) to bring it all to an end. I DO think certain individuals are evil and unpredictable, but I don't think that's cause for letting your good agents go. Even Ralph Fiennes (Gareth Mallory, and M's superior) agrees with me on that level. Or maybe he just doesn't want to be held accountable. I think that the first half promotes the idea that the establishment can't be trusted. M makes multiple mistakes: letting Bond back in the field, surrendering Silva (Javier Bardem), letting Eve take the shot that should have killed Bond, letting Eve stay in the field.

The villain, to some degree, is relatable. He's been captured and suffered at the hands of the Other. Turned over by his own people to die or live a subhuman, abysmal life. M even admits he was one of her best agents. Here is a question: was her best agent corrupted before siding against them, or was he assumed guilty and corrupted through near death, searing pain? M leads us to believe it was the former, but was it? Bond comes across as her personal sidekick and lapdog, a poor title for the kicking ass and taking names agent.

One of my consistent displeasures throughout the last three films is Bond's lack of gadgets. When I was little, he was all about technology. In this film, technology, which is representative of the time (thank you!), is an adherence to completing the task at hand. We are told by elders, businesses, and parents to turn off our cell phones, get off the internet, and accomplish things. So while Bond's lack of gadgetry and willingness to get back to nature seem consistent with a lesson for the times, it still feels anti-Bond.

Despite my displeasure with M, she's been compared to Bond's parents. When Bond takes M to Skyfall, while he is still an international man of mystery. We're aware that Bond could take M off the grid anywhere; he could take her to the middle of nowhere, but he doesn't. He takes her to his origins, maybe because he has connections or because he's thinking on his toes. He finds his car, he goes to his house, and he watches it all burn. Why? To save the woman he sees as a mother and a friend regardless of her shortcomings.

Here's my question: if Bond thinks of M so maternally, given her choices good OR bad, why does he take her to the place of his birth? He says, “I've always hated this place.” Is he lying? Is he being serious? If his parents actually died here, why does he take M here? To reveal a part of himself? Or to watch her perish? Since she dies in his arms, I sincerely hope the latter is not true.

Now we get to my biggest beef of the movie: when Bond returns to Skyfall, it is as if a page of an architectural or interior design magazine is laid out before us. We first see the car, then the stag. As a pessimist, I expect to see a shack, yet Bond surprises us yet again with a fully functional mansion that he turns into a shelter.

This is almost shameful to say, but it needs to be said. If I am the Dark Knight of sentences, I will say it and be willingly shunned by my fans. Why doesn't Bond go more Home Alone on Silva's ass and the hides of his cronies than surrender this Uncrate meets Restoration Hardware of advertising? I fall in love with this place starting with the stag at the entrance. The antler chandeliers, the floor to ceiling wood abience, the smell of old wood and antique furniture in the air, the amazing cellar/hidden basement that Bond hides in as a child for two days. But no, Bond listens to The Bloodhound Gang on his ipod and thinks, “we don't need no water,” let her burn. Somewhat also reminiscient of The Dark Knight, where Albert tells Bruce they burned the forest.

It's rare for me to go to a film in theatres where I am this ridiculously frustrated. Were it not for the destruction that ensued at the hands of Silva, I would completely be on his side. Regardless of “sides” or grudges, who lets older than God mansions burn to the ground? At which point, Bond, despite all the rest of the plot had my okay. I wanted him to end Silva and his henchmen, because damnit, he destroyed the historical and financial value of the estate. Who does that?? Only monsters, obviously. Only Bond would live in a fantastic place, and only in an action film would that place be ultimately destroyed. That speaks not of England but of America, unwilling to reconstruct unless it's for a dizzying price.

The end is pleasurable to Bond fans everywhere, as the story leaves off at the beginning. We learn that Bond is the first of an industry of Bonds, and he will go on until another Bond takes his place. Which finally proves why Daniel Craig looks nothing like any of the other Bonds. Finally, the fans and I have resolution.

Conclusion:

Overall, not my favorite Bond film. Of the newer trilogy, I prefer Casino Royale. Diehard 007 fans may disagree with me. Which is okay. I hope those must-see fans enjoy it. Yet don't let the series override the individual movies. That's my only caution.

The Horror Movie Extravaganza

It's that time of year! Spooky stories, evil children, deranged clowns... Halloween ushers forth scary movies in all of their splendor, keeping kids up at night. Grown men become unwilling to make that 2am trip to the bathroom for fear of being set upon by demons. Yes, I refer to myself there, but in my defense I haven't had to do that since college. Shut up! It's a long trip to the dorm bathrooms at night!

Anyways, to honor the season I decided to take upon myself the exciting and potentially insane task of watching a number of the scariest movies I could lay my hands on. The criteria? I wanted to target movies that I hadn't seen before, and ones that have made top ten or top twenty-five lists of best horror movies out there. My plan? To watch and then review them here. Not a full review, mind you, but enough to get a sense of how good they were, what they were about, if they are worth your time, etc. I speak in the present tense because I write this before watching any of them and, as I watch them, I'll review them one by one so they are fresh in my memory. Also noted at the end of each mini-review will be an account of any disturbed sleep, bizarre dreams, or any freaking out that occurred after watching each respective movie, because I just know everyone will get a kick out of that.

Now, without further ado, the first on the list!

.

Insidious

Picked from a list of the top horror movies on Netflix, Insidious is about a family who are perpetually haunted. They keep moving from house to house, keep seeing creepy shit, and can't seem to catch a break. We then figure out that it isn't the houses that are haunted, it's their eldest son who has mysteriously fallen into a coma. Yes, that might be a spoiler and its a pretty major plot point, but if the movie poster thinks its unimportant enough to say exactly that in the movie description, then I think it's fair to ruin it here too. OWNED. Anyways, Insidious then takes a very interesting path involving dreams, demonic possession, psychics, ghosts, and more!

My thoughts? This movie was awesome and well worth seeing. Did it scare me? Not really. I think the problem was the subject material: I am simply not scared of exorcism/possession type movies because I find the concept completely ridiculous. I will say that the subject is intellectually interesting (the different demons, the specifics of how one exorcises, the fighting of the subject to mentally overcome the spiritual obstacle), but frightening? Nah. But Insidious definitely kept me hooked, and its dwelling on how the family could overcome the evil was quite engrossing.

Also worth noting is that this movie has quite an undercurrent of humor throughout. At one point, a hapless comic duo of psychic investigators shows up to help out, and they are such a bunch of nerds that its hard not to laugh at what they do. They help prevent the movie from being a total Debbie downer, which is nice. In addition, there were a number of moments which were so surreal as to be more unintentionally hilarious than disturbing. Case in point, what the hell was up with the demon's house? Hell, anything to do with “The Further” reeked of funkiness. Good funkiness, mind you. Is there such a thing as 'good funkiness'?

Creepiest moment in the movie: Why won't anyone shut the curtains over the fucking windows?!

How Disturbed was the Loon: I'll admit, there was a moment when making lunch where my back was to a window and I checked a couple times to see if there was anyone watching me through it. There wasn't. Regardless, I moved to a position where I could face it. This movie and windows... *shudder*

.

Poltergeist

This movie was actually mildly disappointing. It wasn't that it was bad, by any means, it was more that I was expecting to be completely freaked out after watching it. In all of the 'Top Horror Movie' lists that I'd read through, Poltergeist was supposedly so scary that the people writing these lists wouldn't even describe any of the scenes that were in it; apparently, they were that disturbing. I expected this to be the crown jewel of all the horror movies I would watch. … But then I saw that it was written by Steven Spielberg.

I'm sorry, but Steven Spielberg's brand of horror utterly fails. This is a movie where a tree attacks a kid and then gets inexplicably sucked into a tornado; the events are so far-fetched and the 'CGI' so kiddie that it's hard not to laugh at it all. So I did. From the squeaky-voiced psychic to the demon head in the closet, it was just impossible to take seriously. It wasn't a bad movie, by any means. It just inserted that Spielberg-ian sense of wonderment and magic that clashes too hard with a horror film. There was one moment where I felt a bit disturbed at what was happening on screen, but that was a moment where you could only hear a character panic but not actually see what was happening to them. The best horror movies have more of that: scenes where you don't entirely know precisely what form the horror is taking and thus have to have the imagination take over.

Creepiest thing in the movie: What the hell is happening to that dude's face?!

How Disturbed was the Loon: I didn't think this movie would affect me at all but then, when visiting a bathroom in a school building, I nearly jumped thirty feet in the air when the plumbing made a slamming sound after I turned on the sink. I won't lie; I half speed-walked half-sprinted from that little encounter.

.

[Rec]

Now the Loon starts getting into some really creepy shit. [Rec] is a Spanish-made found footage type film about a reporter, her cameraman, and a crew of firefighters investigating a mysterious late night call in a tall apartment building. After they show up, increasingly weird things start happening, the tenants seem a bit off, and then they start attacking the firefighters. For reasons unknown to us, the Spanish police decide to cordon off the apartment, locking the firefighters and the reporter and her group inside. They then have to do their best to survive with the few remaining normal tenants within a warped hellhole of an apartment where everything just starts going very wrong.

Now, zombies don't really tend to scare me in horror movies, but whatever the fuck those things were in [Rec] were a whole 'nother level of disturbing. In fact, it wasn't even that the 'zombies' were bad, it was that found footage feeling that you were there and going through the same trauma as the characters you were watching. This movie is full of nasty, nasty moments. What's fun (and also disturbing) is that I learned that there is enforced method acting going on. The actors didn't even know in many of the scenes what exactly would happen, often making their terrified reactions very real. Possessed children coming out of nowhere, corpses falling down stairs, characters unexpectedly turning hostile... These are things that the actors had to deal with out of nowhere!

Creepiest thing in the movie: The Madeiros Girl. What. The. Fuck.

How Disturbed was the Loon: The weird nightmares began. I don't remember exactly what happened in them, but I remember fighting zombie dogs in one. Which is odd, as they aren't even zombie dogs in [Rec]. I also walked home reallllly fast after watching it. Screw it. You would too.

.

The Others

Oh, man... This movie...

The Others is about a mother living in a mansion in the middle of nowhere with her son and daughter. A small family of caretakers move in with them. Then things start going strange.

The Others is sadistically designed to fuck with you. The kids have a disease that makes it so that light is harmful to them. Thus the light and the dark become scary. In addition, this movie really likes to mess with the viewer. Usually in a horror movie you expect that something bad is about to happen when the scary music in the background reaches a crescendo, but there are multiple times in The Others where it has that music pop up, only for nothing to happen. Its jump moments come when you least expect them, and the combination of the music's tricks, the uneasiness of everything going on, and the great acting of Nicole Kidman make it so that you are in constant tension. What's more, it is never exactly clear what is happening or why, which contributes the fear of the unknown on top of everything else.

What made this movie especially enthralling for me to watch was the fact that Nicole Kidman's character behaves precisely as she should in such a situation. I don't recall a single moment where she does something that I would not do if I were in her shoes. This is SO RARE in a horror movie. Because she's responding to the situation as rationally as she can, this makes what happens to her and the children all the more disturbing. Similarly, her daughter is absolutely fearless, which makes for an interesting situation when there are things happening that she should be frightened of, but isn't. This is a movie where the characters and their stories really got me into it.

Creepiest thing in the movie: The goddamn doors.

How Disturbed was the Loon: Things got worse. I watched this in my home alone and then went to go take a shower after. When I got in and turned on the light, the bulb flickered. I shut the door and almost thought to lock it (despite there being nobody else in the apartment), but then decided against it because I didn't want to lock myself inside. During the shower, I admit to opening the curtain from time to time to peer at the door. This movie and its fucking doors. Afterward, I left home as soon as possible and went to work early so I didn't have to sit around the quiet, empty apartment by myself.

.

The Descent

And then shit got even worse...

Being a fan of hiking and reasonably well-learned when it comes to movie know-how, I knew ahead of time that The Descent was probably going to freak me out. However, because I knew before watching that it involved monsters in a cave, I figured that that knowledge might sap any suspense from the movie. I also hardened myself against the idea of being so disturbed that I wouldn't want to go hiking afterward.

It didn't help. Not one fucking bit. The Descent was far more scary than I thought it would be. The freaky goblin creatures were one thing, but it was really the concept of being stuck in an unexplored cave that really got to me. Even with friends, that would be incredibly harrowing, and watching the bonds of trust between the girls crumble was awful to watch. This was so emotionally draining that throwing the creatures into the mix just made my brain go into OVERDRIVE. Some nasty, nasty shit goes down in this movie. Simultaneously, the girls kick a surprising amount of ass, making you root for them to get out alive. But, instead, they fall further and further down a slippery slope to madness and carnage.

So do I want to go hiking now? Fuck no! Thankfully, it's cold in Portland now, so that wasn't an attractive prospect to begin with. Still, the mischievous side of me likes the idea of watching this with a group of friends and then going to explore Ape Caves. Perhaps that will be a fun and potentially traumatizing idea for next summer!

Creepiest thing in the movie: Any scene with falling into a hole. Having nearly done that myself, seeing what happens to the characters that do is horrific.

How Disturbed was the Loon: As this is the last movie for this little blog event, it's the last thing I'm writing. I haven't had time for it to sink in and disturb me. Given how it involved a cave, I sort of doubt that I'll be particularly frightened by everyday life and all. But who knows? Perhaps the accumulated terror of having watched five horror movies in a short period of time will snap my brain into crazed overload. Time will tell...

.

Conclusion

I wanted to watch more, but given that today is Halloween and I really won't have time to see more movies over the next few weeks, I figured I'd let it go for now. Others that I wanted to watch but will have to wait for a future list: The Grudge, The Omen, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween.

Which of these movies was the scariest? It depends on what you're looking for. I found The Others to have the most unsettling atmosphere and scares brought about by getting freaked out by the atmosphere. By contrast, [Rec] and The Descent tied for the most intense and gory affairs. Insidious was probably the most conceptually interesting. Poltergeist was a mix of the most disappointing and the most entertaining. Thus I feel like every movie here had an excellent part to play, and succeeded in freaking the Loon out quite a bit over the past week!

Any recommendations for next Halloween are always welcome. I think I might watch some Disney movies now to regain my sanity.

8 Halloween Movies for the Easily Scared

by DionysusPsyche

Only one of these makes the list

When celebrated properly, Halloween is a great holiday. This means candy, costumes, parties (if you're social), haunted houses, pumpkin patches, corn mazes (okay, where I'm from, this is a thing), and scary movies. Any combination of these in some form of participation means that you're doing something right. Combine all of these for a potentially awesome holiday.

Beyond the holiday itself (which doesn't appeal to everyone as per the conversation I had about two weeks ago), let's get down to the real deal. Scary movie marathons. Now, some people don't like scary movies, and some people love them. There are people who would watch fright flicks every night of the week. Living for the thrill. Going to bed scared. Or just getting a rush or laughing and sleeping it off. Other people hate these films. They feel squeamish or adamant about not watching them. The aura of evil soaks up everything in the room, and it's downright terrible experience which will result in sleeping with the light on for days and weeks and jumping at nothing. They've also no doubt had someone grab them while watching one, and subsequently this ass hat got added to the List of People Who Suck.

I fall in the middle. I don't love scary movies, but I think that Halloween has some pretty essential films that make the holiday great. So when I watch movies on Halloween, I pick them pretty carefully, and make sure the people I'm with make me feel safe.

Warning! The below mentioned films are not all for kids. When I say “Easily Scared” that does not imply children as I know kids that are braver than many adults. However, kids can watch about half the movies I mention. Seeing rating scale for particular film to judge.

Scream

Scream was the first scary movie that my friends convinced me wasn't scary that lived up to their claim (I was twelve). They were always egging me on (and I was scared of freaking Hocus Pocus, mind you!), and even fell asleep while I watched Tommyknockers alone at 3am. But I digress.

Sidney, played by the super foxy Party of Five, Neve Campbell is still getting over the murder of her mom. They live in a small town, so everyone knows about it, and the media is still covering it. It's coming up on the anniversary of her death. But is the killer really put away? The town issues a curfew when two people from the high school end up dead.

This means all the popular kids have a party at a huge house with underage drinking to celebrate the shut down of school for the investigation.

Why This Film Applies

Sidney defies early fright film main characters (which is explained by one of guys in the movie in case those at home are not familiar with the classics). She's tough, kick ass, and can take care of herself. She's also smart and sassy. Plus, it includes some awesome actors such as Matthew Lillard, Courtney Cox, David Arquette, Drew Barrymore, Henry Winklet, and Rose McGowen.

This movie is both hilarious and spooky with some of the best scary movie lines. It's the “where's the killer?” movie, but you can still go to bed in relatively okay fashion. It also has some sexy and romantic moments. Now divorced, Courtney Cox and David Arquette who were together for quite some time, met on the set, so while their romance feels real, it actually is real. Plus, David Arquette with a 'stache playing a country cop is just fun.

Why it Shouldn't Scare You

Kick ass characters. Weapons. Brains. There's a cop handy. Your mom's not a whore.

Nightmare Before Christmas

This is a children's movie, but it has good lessons. Jack Skellington, the Pumpkin King lives in a world of Halloween. His fellow town folk spend 364 days a year prepping for Halloween to make it the most EPIC holiday ever. Yet, Jack has done this too long. He's growing tired of his job. He longs for adventure and newness.

That's when he falls into Christmas Town and decides that he and Santa should switch shoes and try out each other's lives.

Why This Film Applies

Although creepy at times, this cartoon is not as scary as some of the childhood movies I watched that weren't intended to frighten kids (Fern Gully and Secret of Nimh anyone?). There's romance, humor, and Jack is a great protagonist. He's lost that loving feeling, and Christmas brings him back to life taking the rest of his cronies along with him. It was inventive back when it was released, and I still love it today.

Why it Shouldn't Scare You

Singing and dancing. Cute little goblins. Also, it's a cartoon about a made up world.

Shaun of the Dead

They made it as a parody romance film, but this is a film about zombies. While all zombie movies are about the conformity of society, consumerism at its worst, and being a herd of sheep, this humorous romp takes it to the next level.

Shaun (Simon Pegg), dumped by his girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield), lives with his best friend, Ed (Nick Frost), and is stuck. He goes to the same pub, drinks the same beer, and hangs out with the same friends. He is more or less a zombie, as are the other characters. Yet, Liz wants Shaun to get off his duff, get serious, meet his mum, and move forward. Shaun and Ed's other roommate wants Ed to move out. And Shaun...can't do anything. Not until there's a zombie apocalypse.

Why it Applies

The first zombie they assume is “drunk.” Shaun and Ed are the ultimate duo. They make the end of the world so funny that the first time I saw the film, my best friend and I were doubled over with laughter during some of their back and forth wit. If I don't watch at least part of this movie every Halloween...well, I don't know what would happen, but I can't NOT watch it. Killing zombies becomes a skill and a sport, and Shaun the “do nothing,” becomes the unlikely, fearless leader of a band of friends. There is even a cameo by his old shared television series (Spaced) actress, Jessica Hynes.

Shaun of the Dead gives you hope that when the zombie apocalypse comes, you, the blob, directionless goon will fly into action and start throwing your bad records (No! “that's the first one I ever bought!”) at zombies' heads, save your mum, your best friend, your significant other, and outwit the brain-hunting fluff monsters.

Why it Shouldn't Scare You

We just went over that. You're the unlikely hero. Now there is some gore, but it's not that bad. It's okay enough for Ed to take pictures, so I think you're safe.

The Thing

Not sure why Kurt Russell looks like a depiction of Jesus, but he wants you to "stop, collaborate, and listen"

Kurt Russell and his team of crack scientists are stuck in the arctic doing research when a...a...thing takes over the unit. It slowly infiltrates, but the gang is basically ready. In fact, they can study it while they kill it! Double bonus for the smarties out there!

Why it Applies

Kurt Russell uses a blow torch a LOT. This is awesome. I distinctly remember a rollerskating dude. It's psychological, because you're not sure who to trust, but do you ever know who to trust in a scary movie? In addition to being a good Halloween classic, this film is prepping you for all the winter parkas you'll need to wear and the snow that's coming (unless you live in the South or a Southern Hemisphere continent).

Why it Shouldn't Scare You

It's eerie, and there is one part that's really intense, but other than that, it's a good movie. Kurt Russell totally has your back. Just don't go to the arctic, and if you do, always bring a blow torch.

Arachnophobia

More lessons in weapon use

Unless you have a really bad case of the above mentioned, you can watch this film. If you are deathly afraid of spiders, then move to my other suggestions.

A wild spider sneaks its way into the U.S. and mates with regular barn spider to create...super babies! Jeff Daniels, who hates spiders has to face his fear of them when his house (farm?) is overtaken with them.

Why it Applies

Again, you're on the edge of your seat and creeped out, but unless you're really afraid of spiders, it's just a thriller. Jeff Daniels has to overcome his fear, and that's all of us. If I remember correctly, I think 8-Legged Freaks scared me more than this did (and that's the parody), but it's been awhile.

Why it Shouldn't Scare You

You can kill a spider. If you watch the making of this movie, it makes the movie itself less frightening. The main spider is basically one of those grabber/reacher puppets. Spoiler alert...the spider DOES jump out of the fire. Just be prepared for that.

Jurassic Park

The outstanding graphics of the '90's still hold up over time

In case you hate spiders (and because Jurassic Park is a must-see), let's exchange them for a currency of dinosaurs! Billionaire philanthropist creates a park on an island with dinosaurs which have been made from the juices of a frozen, Mesozoic (era?) mosquito. A bunch of people, including Jeff Goldblum, fly to the island to experience and judge the park to help with logistics before it's opened to the general public.

Why it Applies

Jeff Goldblum is a big-headed actor. Sam Neill and Laura Dern and a couple of kids try to survive the dinosaurs when they get trapped in the park. But Neill and Dern's characters are the Indiana Jones of dinosaurs. So they can totally do this! I just wish Jeff Goldblum was in this movie more. Although, his character is annoying, so maybe not.

Why it Shouldn't Scare You

They can't actually bring dinosaurs to life. Newman is in it (he's more likely to sit on you than you are to come in contact with prehistoric creatures). If you get scared, you can watch the Rifftracks version with Weird Al.

The Addams Family

They're creepy and spooky, but they don't keep you awake after you see them. In fact, they're touching, especially Thing, their pet hand. This is a kids film, but Gomez and Morticia Addams (Angelica Huston) are romantic, their kids (Christina Ricci could not be more perfect as a creepy little girl) are charming, and Gomez's brother (Christopher Lloyd!) has returned to the family.

Why it Applies

A happy romp that goes hand in hand with Nightmare Before Christmas, this is Jack and Sally's future.

Why it Shouldn't Scare You

This is one film that hits the nail on the head. Every family is different, and they may be odd-looking, but they're wonderful at parties.

Alien

Classic film about space aliens starring Sigourney Weaver, the mother of all alien movies. Investigating a nearby planet, a team of space researchers uncover a signal that's meant as a warning.

Why it Applies

Okay, okay, it does get a little bit scary at parts, but again, that's mostly just gore. It's more psychological than anything. Weaver rocks in her role, and you're on her side. Close the mother [bleep]ing doors! You've been exposed. No need to risk the lives of others. Which brings us to a quandry: when do we help our teammates and when do we let them die in space? (Also a question for watchers of The Thing.)

Why it Shouldn't Scare You

Why are you going into space to find aliens if you're afraid of this movie? Answer: if this movie does frighten you, just don't take the job. Problem solved.

Ironclad

The Magna Carta is an important document. This is pretty much all that we learn and retain from our middle and high school years. But why was it important? This is something that movies, books, and TV shows rarely go into. Ironclad is one of the exceptions to this rule.

In Ironclad, we learn that the Magna Carta was a document signed by the dastardly King John of England, of Robin Hood fame. In it, he made official the rule that kings, while still retaining immense power, could not exercise arbitrary power over their subjects. You couldn't get taxed for shits and giggles. You couldn't be ordered to run a lap around Great Britain just because the king woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Instead, it was made clear that the king's duty was to uphold the law of the land; you could be punished or controlled only insofar as you broke the rules. Granted, this still allowed a great deal of leeway, but it reduced the legitimacy and likelihood of petulant rulers exerting dictator-like power without justification.

.

Ironclad begins by showing us King John signing the Magna Carta under duress. King John's a rotten bastard, so the only way the barons of England can get him to sign the document is by holding him at swordpoint. After this, the barons renew their oaths of fealty and loyalty to the crown. Being a freaking nutcase, King John waits until everyone leaves him alone and goes back to their castles. Then he brings in an army of Danish mercenaries, tells everyone that the Magna Carta was a meaningless paper only good for wiping his ass with, and then goes positively berserk all over the countryside.

.

Pictured: King John losing his shit

Specifically, Ironclad shows us the siege of the castle Rochester, a strategic lynchpin that commands the southwest part of England. We follow a member of the Knights Templar, Thomas Marshall, basically a supremely badass knight of the cross who fights against King John in order to secure the rights granted to men through God. Swiftly realizing that castle Rochester must be held from King John at all costs until French reinforcements arrive, Marshall gathers a highly bizarre and eclectic mix of crazy medieval bastards who gleefully spend the entire movie killing hundreds of King's John army as they slowly seize the fortress. Think Kingdom of Heaven meets The Alamo meets Seven Samurai, and you'll have a pretty good idea of what this movie has to offer.

.

Dramatis Personae

For a movie I randomly discovered on Netflix, Ironclad has a LOT of recognizable actors in it. James Purefoy (the Knight Templar) was Mark Antony in HBO's Rome. Paul Giamatti is King John. Brian Cox is the head baron. Charles Dance (Game of Thrones' Tywin Lannister) is a sympathetic archbishop. Derek Jacobi (Gladiator, Underworld: Evolution) is lord of castle Rochester. And more! It made me quite surprised that I'd never heard of this movie prior, and that I'd never seen a trailer of it before.

An amusing, and perhaps disappointing, facet of the film, though, is that the cast doesn't really need to act that much. This is an action movie first and foremost; most of Ironclad is essentially a drawn out siege battle that serves to show off a gigantic and realistic medieval warfare reenactment. But, in a sense, it works out perfectly. The incredible choreography and authenticity of the gritty combat takes up half the film, allowing the quieter moments to be dominated by the talented actors everywhere. But, really, we know the truth. You just know that they all accepted the roles so that they could dress up in chainmail and whack at each other with stunt swords.

.

Knight, Outlaws, and Monarch

What about the characters? Thomas Marshall, Knight Templar, is convincingly aggressive and withdrawn. This is not somebody you want to run into in some alleyway. His devotion to the philosophy of the Knight Templar is clearly defined and is shown to give him immense drive. This is part of what makes one of his character developments so funny. See, the lady of the castle is married to a man who is far older than her; she hasn't gotten laid for quite some time. Thus, the moment the Knight Templar arrives, she is constantly after him, despite clear indications from Marshall that it would interfere with his focus if he forswore his vows. Nonetheless, she just does not lay off. Consequently, a good part of the movie is this sideplot that involves her trying really hard to get in his pants. There's even a scene where he lets her touch his sword despite his obvious reluctance. Freudian subtext much? Needless to say, this is one part of the movie which kind of failed to engage me seriously. It was just too hilarious to watch and, after a while, you actually start feeling sorry for the Knight Templar. It was that bad!

Aside from that, the rest of Marshall's merry band of killers is such a silly mix of nutjobs that they're always entertaining to watch. You've got the horny stealthy psycho guy. You've got the fat guy who apparently spends all of his time laughing madly while he kills people. You've got the Legolas stand-in. A couple others. Then there's the squire kid. Seriously, where'd they get this guy? He looks like Elijah Wood's clone. Anyways, he spends most of the movie as the intellectual college guy out of his depth; he quotes Latin and provides a firm defense of why they should be fighting for the Magna Carta and what it is while simultaneously being the combat newbie and nearly getting himself killed a lot. But, in his defense, he never comes off as annoying. And he undeniably serves as the heart of the team. Go Frodo.

Finally there's the big players. Brian Cox's Baron Albany is great, though holy shit; I've never seen a more gruesome death in any movie ever. Derek Jacobi is suitably lordly. Paul Giamatti's King John, however... He's in a league of his own. Paul Giamatti manages to make us feel for the King while simultaneously loathing him. His outburst of a monologue on the absolute power of kings was epic. Loving the role, Paul Giamatti decides to play King John as if he must have a CRAZY temper tantrum every ten minutes or else someone has to die (and does!). It's priceless, stunning to watch, and worth the price of admission alone.

.

Conclusion

All in all, Ironclad was awesome. But let me clarify something: my tone throughout this review, while humorous, should not be taken to mean that this movie is some comedic medieval satire. By contrast, this movie is gory as all hell, ridiculously dark at times, and is one of those war films where just about everyone is dead by the end of it. You can guess that by watching a trailer and reading a plot summary, so that's no huge spoiler. They hold castle Rochester at all costs, creating a Dark Ages bloodbath worthy of Kill Bill.

This is a guy movie through and through. If any of this appeals to you, go for it. And, though the Magna Carta is a highly important plot point within Ironclad, don't expect this to be an effective history lesson on it. It just isn't that kind of movie. What it is is an old-fashioned brutal fight with a purpose, reminiscent of Braveheart, Gladiator, and more.

Rock of Ages

Rock of Ages is a movie that takes all those songs you heard in the 80's and makes a musical out of them.

That's pretty much it.

.

.

.

Oh, you're still here? Okay!

.

Criticism

Rock of Ages was alright. Theoretically, one could get excited about the prospect of a variety of famed movie actors taking the stage and bellowing forth golden oldies. Awesome actors plus awesome songs? What can go wrong! The problem is that this sounds better on paper than it does in reality. Just like communism.

In Rock of Ages, the plot is loosely tied around an ensemble cast of characters. Primary among these are two young lovebirds with utterly forgettable names played by Julianna Hough and Diego Boneta. And then there's Tom Cruise's rock legend, Stacee Jax. Aside from these main three, we have the two owners of a nightclub (played by Alec Baldwin and Russell Brand) going through trouble keeping it open. We have Malin Akerman's Rolling Stone reporter who interviews Jax. We've Catherine Zeta-Jones' religious conservative protesting the rock prevalent throughout the movie. And some other people who I really don't care to talk about.

The fact of the matter is that the story is almost completely irrelevant and nobody cares. Part of this is that this is intended as a loosely wrapped cinematic spectacle and homage to 80's brilliance. That goal is fine. The other part of this is that, by and large, the acting and how the songs are presented are just not as epic or interesting as one would hope for.

.

They Didn't Hit Us With Their Best Shot

Overall, this is a case of young actors being completely overshadowed by the older. Diego Boneta is completely uninteresting; his singing just isn't memorable. Julianne Hough is certainly attractive, but I just couldn't get over her voice. Imagine a kitten on helium being forced to sing. It's impossible, but it effectively portrays how aggravating her singing can get. Further adding to the flames of indifference is the fact that their story arc is almost completely bland. Young girl moves to the city, falls in love, they briefly separate due to some incredibly stupid misunderstanding, then fall in love again. Augh! It isn't well written, it's cheesy, and it is beyond rescue. Most of the songs I didn't like fall into their hands and made it even more difficult for me to appreciate the film as a whole.

By contrast, the older actors are far more entertaining. We don't really care about their respective stories, but they're a riot. Although I had immense foreboding over Tom Cruise portraying a rock star, his scenes tend to be the most amusing to watch. This is a level of deranged ridiculousness that made me think of Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean. All of the other older actors get really into it as well. But the problem is that, with rare exceptions, these people just aren't singers. We look to musicals to provide interesting and new twists and takes on songs, or to create entirely ones. I came out of this with zero desire to buy the soundtrack.

It doesn't help that the direction of the film just isn't there. I say that because surely there was some better way to make these classic oldies more exciting to watch. Instead, it seems we're barraged with one after another, as if they believed that causing some sort of 80's mental meltdown would translate into greatness. On the contrary, there were only two songs that I liked the delivery of (“Harden My Heart” and “I Want to Know What Love Is”). Everything else was simply okay. What was it? The choreography? The singers? The threadbare plot? IT JUST ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

.

Conclusion

Now, I won't say that this was an awful movie. I watched it to the end and thought it was alright. But it isn't what you are expecting and what you want. The magic just isn't quite there. The older actors give it their best and are pretty entertaining. But not enough to make this anything more than a passable and forgettable dip into the sea of what makes 80's songs so damn fun to sing at karaoke.

The Best and Worst Break up Films

by DionysusPsyche

The Best

1. 500 Days of Summer
   This is one of the films where having an anonymous voiceover doesn't feel out of place. Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Summer (Zoey Deschanel) have different ideas about love and dating, but when Summer breaks Tom's heart, he relives the past year in an attempt and find out what went wrong.
   
   Why it's Great
   The film does an excellent job of not making either character "the bad guy." It shows you that both these people are awesome, and their chemistry is just alive. The film is fun, and even when it's sad, it's still really good.
2. Forgetting Sarah Marshall
   Peter (Jason Segel) tries to put his past girlfriend (whom he works with) behind him by going on vacation. Unfortunately, Sarah (Kristin Bell) has picked the same location.
   
   Why it's Great
   Everyone sooner or later has to deal with seeing their ex with someone else, but sometimes it feels like when we try to escape them the most is when we're forced to resolve the person we thought was The One. The often vulgar humor clashing with Pete's morose mood and frequent crying is amusing, but Jason Segel's character being a composer makes it even better, because it makes us remember how awesome we are. Pete gets to put his dream at the forefront, which helps us say goodbye to all the Sarah Marshalls that don't deserve us.
3. High Fidelity
   Based on the book by Nick Hornby, this is John Cusack as his best as Rob Gordon who goes back through all the lists of women (like he would any album) that he's loved and how they've broken his heart.
   
   Why it's Great
   This is the mother of all break up films, which dissects each major relationship resolving why Rob shouldn't get back together with any of them, and how it's actually his fault that he screwed up the only one that could have worked. Plus, Rob yells at his ex, "Charlie! You fucking bitch! Let's work out." A sentiment that I'm sure a few of us are familiar with.
4. Better Off Dead
   Lane Myers (yes, Cusack again) decides to kill himself after his girlfriend, Beth (Amanda Wyss), breaks up with him for stereotypical jerky jock.
   
   Why it's Great
   It shows teenagers lamenting their love lives in prototypical dramatic fashion of saying that life just isn't worth it unless you're with the girl you're obsessing about. The under appreciated actor that plays Booger from Revenge of the Nerds is in it. There are competitive racing scenes. Ridiculously awesome and weird one-liners. Take your pick.
5. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
   Joel (Jim Carrey) goes to a specialty brain surgery clinic where he undergoes a procedure to wipe his girlfriend from his mind.
   
   Why it's Great
   My favorite role for Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet, this tells a story in reverse. Erasing the person you love from your mind is a pretty nifty way to get rid of them...until you decide that maybe it was the heat of the anger and you love them, even if you're not together.

The Worst

1. Closer
   Based on a play, this film uncovers the depressing double life of cheating and examining whether or not the person you're with actually loves you.
   
   Why it Sucks
   This film actually might make you feel better about your relationship. It's an interesting story, but it really brings out the worst in human beings which is not what you need right now, especially since you're already probably doubting the past.
2. The Break-Up
   In order to keep their apartment, a couple's (Jennifer Anniston and Vince Vaughn) break up gets worse and worse.
   
   Why it Sucks
   This film pretended to be a comedy so audiences would want to watch us. Yet, it shows us everything we hate about break-ups and then some weird unrealistic terrible additional things this couple does to each other.
3. The Shape of Things
   Quiet, nerdy Adam (Paul Rudd) is entranced by art student with big ideas, Evelyn (Rachel Weisz). Yet their bizarre relationship threatens Adam's friendships with his best friends.
   
   Why it Sucks
   While at times boring and weird, this film actually does not suck. Still, you shouldn't watch it right after a break up. It makes you go back and re-examine your old relationships in a way you should only do long after you've distanced yourself from them.
4. SwingersI have never liked this movie. It magnifies everything I hate about the single life, the single person mentality (especially in the '90's), and the vulnerability that one goes through.
5. Now You Know
   This is about the calling off of an engagement. However, this film is extremely pessimistic about relationships and marriage in general. It was the first film I tried to watch after a break up, and I still can't go back and watch it. It's also not a very good movie.

Hachi: A Dog's Tale (2009)

by DionysusPsyche

Based on a true story, Hachi is a puppy who finds Professor Parker Wilson (Richard Gere) at a train station on his way home. Parker is determined to find the owner, then to find the dog a home, but ends up falling in love with him and forging a bond that can only exist between humans and dogs.

Initially, I had read this book in the children's section of the library, so learning it had been turned into a movie adaptation was a treat. Some of the things that attracted me to this story are that Hachi is played by a real dog, one that doesn't talk animatronically, and isn't surrounded by some ludicrous story about a dog's adventures. The film is primarily seen from Hachi's eyes, and when it does is tells the story of true loyalty, love beyond comprehension, and how we should never, ever forget someone we have lost even as the years go by.

The message is good, although as a pet owner, I have qualms with some of the technicalities of the film. Spoilers beyond this point.

Grievances and Errors: Responsibility
The film was clearly intended for children audiences, and I realize that this is not a tutorial to owning a dog, but the person who wrote the screenplay for this was misinformed.

Although we see Parker working with Hachi and their friendship is strong, people should not have their pets off leash in public places with or without training. It is dangerous to both the dog and other people. What if the dog gets hit by a car? Attacks someone or a cat or child? Gets issued a fine for not showing tags of vaccinations? No one seems overly paranoid that Hachi could meet someone frightened of big dogs or that the Humane Society would see a stray dog and snatch him up or that Hachi would be adopted by someone else. "Oh, it's just Hachi. He knows exactly what he's doing." Um, what?

Hachi is mainly an outside dog in the film, which bothers me on a personal level, but what bothers me more is the fact that they live in the Bay Area in California and seem to get a TON of snow. I kept forgetting they lived there, because of all the snow they got. Now, Hachi is a dog made for cold weather, but if weather is getting that extreme, he should be inside when it gets to be too cold or too hot. Yet, when the dog is skunked he is allowed to be inside, which makes NO sense whatsoever.

I've worked with a lot of people in the animal training and veterinary field, and these are big no-no's. It also gives the wrong message to uneducated pet owners or potential ones that owning a dog is easy. Hachi is a large dog who never pees, gets sick, eats (except for his constant hot dog diet) or requires any maintenance other than being adored by his owners. These all play into my next point.

The original story took place in the 20's and 30's, and I was sad that the adaptation was done in present day. I think it would have had more authenticity, and I wouldn't have had the same complaints.


On the bright side, there is a scene where Parker inquires to the Humane Society only to be told that they are full and cannot accept any new additions. This is completely true, and the movie does serve as a more heartfelt and fuzzy message than the commercials done by Sarah McLaughlin. There are a lot of homeless animals, a lot of unaltered dogs and cats that have more litters every year only to find there are not enough humans to go around for them.


Conclusion
Despite my annoyances about the film, it is a family friendly film, so as long as some of the oversights are pointed out to children and adults alike, I see this as a sweet way to spend time with family. As usual, I get paranoid at the idea that humans view pet ownership as a flippant thing and not a real responsibility, but this is probably true of tons of children's movies, and I just haven't seen enough of them recently.