I DARE you to Read This: NERVE (2016)

I'M A WATCHER...
And who wouldn't be in a world where the public might force you to shoot your partner to win a stupid game? Spoiler alert, I don't think so!

TITLE: NERVE


SUMMARY:

A high school senior finds herself immersed in an online game of truth or dare, where her every move starts to become manipulated by an anonymous community of "watchers."

PERSONAL CRITIQUE:

Okay, for starters I have a serious problem with the way trailers work. I kind of thought it only applied to horror films, but apparently not, because there was not a single core scene in this movie that the trailer did not show off. When I say core scene I'm referring to the sort of thematic scenes of the movie. For instance, what's NERVE about? A game of dares. What's did the trailer consist of? Literally every dare in the movie except the ones not performed by the main characters. I mean, literally every dare right down to the "big finale" we knew about just from the trailers.

Secondly, there's a degree of predictability in the movie, like the ending, but we'll get around to that. Partially because every good suspenseful scene has already been ruined for us by the trailers, seriously, maybe we should just get brief synopses of movies with a few pictures of the cast instead of trailers. But if no one has pointed a gun at anyone yet, and I know that the characters with guns in their hands are in good health during that scene, then I know that nothing terrible is going to happen! Still, there were a few good shock scenes in the movie that I enjoyed, so kudos.

Another thing about trailers (yes, I'm stuck on trailers) is when they include scenes or dialogue that don't come up in the movie. I may be mistaken, but I watched the movie last night, and I watched the trailer like ten seconds ago, and I'm pretty certain the cop in the movie doesn't say "Vee, don't do this," but in the trailer he most certainly does. So there's that. I asked myself, for just a moment, should I slap this all in underlined italics, then I was like, no, I'm no worse than the advertising crew!

On the other hand, even with the trailer spoiling the entire movie, I did feel slightly on edge during the blindfolded motorcycle scene, and during the finale, and yes, that one moment in the finale did have me questioning, but only for a split-second, then a chain of events took place that simply proved how pointless stressing was. 

For all my negative feedback, I can't really sleight the movie. It's well constructed, I enjoyed basically every scene, it had good tension and some drama but not so much that I couldn't tolerate it. There was a nerdy sidekick character who got some love by the end of the movie. All in all, pretty darn good. Let's see...

RATING:

Nine out of ten prisoners would give this movie 4.5k watchers out of 5. 

Thanks for playing!

Something's Wrong With: THE VOICES (2014)

OR WHATEVER FOLLOWED IT...
So, while visiting a friend recently I had the pleasure of viewing "The Voices," in glorious high definition, I point this out because we still watch TV on a dinosaur in my home. Something struck me as odd while I watched this movie, something about the actor and a movie he performed in only two years later...Deadpool doesn't have multiple internal voices, but this no-name did!

 (Gifs borrowed from Giphy.com, your welcome.)

THAT'S DARN RIGHT YOU APOLOGIZE RYAN REYNOLDS! TITLE CARD!

TITLE: The Voices


SUMMARY: 

A likable guy pursues his office crush with the help of his evil talking pets, but things turn sinister when she stands him up for a date.

PERSONAL CRITIQUE:

This was a pretty great movie. So you've got this generic seeming character, Jerry, in this lame job that is equivalent to that one job that everybody worked that nobody wanted to work, and everything is normal. Then you're introduced to his talking cat and dog. Okay, everything's not entirely all right. Then we get to meet his psychiatrist (I might have those two events backwards) and now we know what's going on. Jerry's completely loopy.

Unfortunately, movies nowadays don't leave a lot to the imagination, I mean, just look at that box art, you know right off the bat where this movie is going. Need more assistance? You can read that summary up there? Want even more though, how about "Hey man, this is a great movie, but the guy goes A Little Piece of Heaven on his lady."

Well thanks for that. Aha! Not actually in spoiler territory yet! With that being said though, there's not really a necessity for spoiler warnings, I can just say that we get this gradual introduction to everything around Jerry, and deep in the movie we finally learn what really cracked the kid. You know, what really made Jerry, Jerry.

So yeah, if you have the stomach for a decent amount of blood and gore (I mean, nothing compared to Saw!) and aren't offended by cats who curse like sailors, this is a great watch.

RATING: 

Nine out of Ten paranoid schizophrenics would give this movie Four Scottish evil cats, out of Five.

Hardly anything's perfect, but everything's worth watching it seems.

And What I Saw There: ALICE-THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS (2016)

CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER
I've been away for a moment, not written since my rant about Spider-Kid, and I have somehow managed to watch two films over the weekend, the first of which we speak of now.

TITLE: Alice: Through the Looking Glass


SUMMARY: 

Alice returns to the whimsical world of Wonderland and travels back in time to save the Mad Hatter.

PERSONAL CRITIQUE:

There now, that doesn't sound so bad does it? Alice returns to Wonderland and must travel back in time to save the Hatter...see, makes perfect sense. Wait- no, it doesn't really. For starters, for a movie that proclaims nothing is impossible, Ms. Kingsleigh is certainly faced with several impossible features of Underland. Why saving the Hatter from madness? It is the very essence of his being, the whole plot of the movie is that the Hatter is becoming...sane...due to depression, or something, over the supposed loss of his dead of family...or their survival...whatever! So Alice must travel back in time to save the Hatter's family, despite constant assurances by Time himself that you cannot change the past (though you might learn something from it).

There was something off, disappointingly, about our center-piece, the good Hatter, Depp's character. It was...odd, his voice seemed force and the character shifts that should have been rampant seemed almost methodical. Alice is still Alice though, and for that matter most of the characters seem their natural selves, except Hatter, which I suppose is fitting as he is the key character who is changing.

There are also questions about scripting of the two movies that are called out, such as the idea in the first movie that Alice had been to Underland before, yet in Through the Looking Glass everyone proclaims that Alice had not been in Wonderland's past, so there was no danger of her running into herself...yes, I suppose that theoretically there was no reason for her to encounter herself at those specific points, but to say that she had not been there in the past was just plain wrong! 

Still, the movie ignites a certain childish delight, while illustrating its points with Burton's dark handiwork, so I'd have to find it at least somewhat agreeable in it's art style and overarching "She's gone mad!" feeling.

RATING:

Nine out of Ten mad hatters would give this movie Two Paper Hats, out of Five.

Spider-Kid: CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR (2016)

NEW MOVIE!!!
Is it time to talk about a new movie again? Not really, just a new character.

TITLE: Captain America: Civil War


SUMMARY:

Political interference in the Avengers' activities causes a rift between former allies Captain America and Iron Man.

PERSONAL CRITIQUE:

Who cares?! This one isn't a review of the movie, I just saw a character that I did not care for, and everyone else seems to love him! Who was it? Spider-Kid.

So, no, not Spider-Kid, that might be an entity somewhere in the Marvel-verse, Spider-Man, the Marvel Cinematic Universe character. This character:

 Thanks geek.com

So I guess I should start with saying what I envision Peter Parker as, right? So, in his humble beginnings Peter Parker, the Spider-Man, is a nerdy science club attending high schooler struggling to make ends meet for his elderly Aunt May after the murder of his Uncle Ben. Peter builds his own gadgets relying on a mixture of his own genius and the science club's equipment (which is sometimes replaced and sometimes...less so). How does he make ends meet? Selling photos of himself being a superhero to the Daily Bugle.

Great, so that's what Parker starts out as. So, let's jump right to our "new Parker." Peter Parker as introduced by Marvel in the Civil War movies is a kid (he's probably supposed to be 16, but shall we compare him to the comic book?)

Good ol' classic comic books, with their high-quality, life-like artwork. I don't know what it is about him, he's no taller than Maguire, but he just seems too young. 

Speaking of comparing to the comic book/every source used so far, why is Aunt May:

Portrayed by Marisa Tomei like this:

All of that's beside the point right? I ought to focus on characterization instead of casting (never mind the fact that these actors are paid tons of money to act and look like the characters they're portraying). 

So, Spider-Kid is pretty jovial, makes a few jokes throughout the movie, even giving a shout-out to Empire Strikes Back as he goes all Snowspeeder on Ant-Man. But, he doesn't just quip, he legit fanboys throughout the entire fight, obsessing over every little detail thrown his way, the character claims he wears goggles with his old suit in order to maintain his focus, because the heightened spider senses are distracting, and he's very narrow-minded.

For starters, the guy freaks out when he meets every single character, and everything he sees throughout the only fight he's featured in cranks his chatterbox up to 11. Occasionally quipping to throw his enemies off is great, freaking out because someone has a mechanical arm when you rode into battle with two men in battle suits...stupid. 

Second point, doesn't need a lot of explaining, Parker doesn't have ADD, and the Spider-Sense/enhanced spider senses do not slow down his processing or distract him, the whole point in these enhanced senses is that the body adapts to allow for them and take advantage of them. Also, the Spider-Sense is weird, and happily they weren't referring directly to that. Then there's the whole argument with Captain America. 

Peter fancies himself a champion of the little man, a superhero, and a good guy. So...why is it that when Captain America says Peter doesn't understand, Peter says "Stark said you would say that." Come on, Peter Parker of all people doesn't look up to Tony Stark as such a perfect being that he would just brush off everything anyone else tells him. 

Remember that whole struggling to make ends meet thing? Well he seems to live in a pretty nice apartment, with a flat screen TV, a super-model aunt and...a computer he salvaged from dumpster-diving...wait what? Okay, setting aside the fact that he should not have to scrounge up equipment with the way his house is arranged, Peter Parker's not a dumpster diver, he borrows equipment from school. 

Finally, last but not least, without further ado, I present the origin argument. Captain America: Civil War draws it's name and premise from a series of comic books tied together with the neat little title/subtitle "Civil War," in this series of comics Peter Parker is not a twelve year old who was recently bit by a spider, no...he's like 22 or older, and he's working for Tony Stark. That's where the new suit comes from. That's why Peter initially takes Tony's side. Oh, speaking of new suit...not this:

But this:

Even if this is a different universe in which Spider-Man is 16 and Stark is only just now meeting him, does it not seem in Stark's nature to build a suit with his preferred color scheme, and to trick it out as much as possible?

Anyway, that's my rant. I don't like the new Spider-Kid and I'm hoping the Homecoming movie somehow changes that opinion, but I'm doubting it.

May the Fourth Be With You: STAR WARS

GENERIC POST
Today's International Star Wars Day (and the paper's running that across the top of the front page) so we're doing a little generic post today! Not even entirely themed around cinema, because anyone who knows me knows that since Disney bought LucasArts I've been looking for one particular movie trilogy, and it was not a sequel to the original.



Because COME ON! He's like the granddaddy of all Sith Lords (screw you Revan, you don't count.)

 Actually, this trailer...

Y'know what? Instead of some generic story about how great one of the greatest film franchises of all time is, I think I will make this one about a single cinematic idea. That one!

That's the trilogy we deserve, and the one we need. A story that's not rife with overdone with characters, extrapolated nonsense and derivative useless villains. I'm not one to say a Star Wars movie sucks, I'll generally admit that I like all seven, I'll pick favorites and choose sides just like most anyone else, but generally they're all pretty good movies. At the same time, why not take a new approach, from an old legend, and give a true Sith the lime light.



As simply fantastic as a continuing existence of the Sith is, as they are the Tails of the Force coin, the inevitable Yin to the Jedi's Yang, it's kind of a given, we don't need another movie to say "Oh, by the way, Luke failed." Although, realistically, he didn't. If the entire purpose of the Skywalker line was bring to balance to the force, and Ben Solo turned all evil and became a Sith lord, and left the light side with one master, who would seek out an apprentice, and the dark side with one master and apprentice, their goal is achieved. Balance would exist in the force. If anything, when Anakin went all monster-baby-killer in Episode III he was fulfilling the prophecy.

But, all of that aside, Kylo Ren is just a terrible Sith. Sure, he has the "being emotional" thing down, but...if being emotional was what it took to be a good Sith, he wouldn't lose so terribly. He's a child, he fights like a child, he thinks like a child and he throws tantrums like a child. As much as we want Kylo Ren to be this epitome of evil, he's only a toddler with a lightsaber. The Sith can't just be emotional, otherwise they lose almost everything they have. Sidious succeeded in all of the Sith's goals (except eliminating the Jedi, but if Vader weren't so useless that wouldn't have been a problem, just KILL PADME!) not by being an emotional little brat, but by being cunning, calm and in control. That didn't prevent him from having anger or expressing hatred, but he knew how and when to do it, and he harnessed that preparedness for the future. Sounds like someone else...

 Didn't watch this video...just liked the image.

Darth Bane, the originator of the modern Rule of Two (if I recall Revan first thought up the idea, but hey, he couldn't choose between the Jedi and the Sith, so whatever,) is perhaps the epitome of the Sith (until his final days, where he kind of screws things up due to the very basis of his ideology,) introducing the system of power purification that would eventually lead to the (near) destruction of the Jedi, the fall of the Galactic Republic, and the establishment of a new Galactic Empire (for a couple decades.)

Bane represents all that the Dark Side ought to: cunning, power and treachery. With a will and desire to grow, no matter the cost, and a vision that spans centuries (see: Sidious' Galactic Empire.)

 Zannah and the Sith Code

So yeah, that first video I linked to, that Darth Bane Trilogy Movie Trailer. Why is Disney not doing this?! Sure, that trailer wasn't the most enthusing thing on youtube, amateur trailers seldom are, but it was darn decent for an amateur trailer, and the very idea of a Darth Bane movie makes my hair stand on end!

  Come on Disney...Do it!

That's it really, I guess, I just really like the Star Wars franchise and REALLY REALLY hope we get this movie some day. Although apparently that won't happen for at least another four years or something. Money grubbing Disney...refusing to do new things just because "Han Solo" and "Rogue Squadron" are so friggin' popular...

Thanks for joining me on this ranting dribble! Peace out!

Not Talking About a Movie: DEADPOOL (2016)

Watch Yourself
Yes technically I'm talking about a recent cinematic release, and no this has nothing to do with gaming, so we can't do what we did with Gods of Egypt and throw it into My Arcade. So...what are we talking about? This:

 What do you mean you can't tell what that is? I'll edit it a bit later...

Today's Leap Day, and Jessi wants to watch Leap Year, so I guess I'm going to instead just sort of piece this together, back on my birthday (Feb. 6) a friend ordered the Collector Corps Deadpool box. Now, I'm not the biggest fan of Deadpool, but I do definitely enjoy him, and I'm appreciative of the box. Why? Because it dropped some awesome loot, so let's get started.

 First of all, we have this sweet patch, which is not attached to anything except the box, and may not ever be attached to anything, don't know anyone who can sew, and don't know what I would sew it to anyway.

 Second is this pretty cool pin. It should be noted that these two are side by side when you first open the box.

 After that comes the thematic shirt, a pretty tight little Deadpool, I think he's reverse colored. Speaking of tight, he's also an extra-small with a female body-type cut, so I guess he's Jessi's now.

 Under the shirt we have this little variant cover Deadpool comic, courtesy of Collector Corps, like everything else. Pretty sweet, in mint condition, and in it's own sleeve of course.

 Next is a Dorbz limited edition "cowboy" vinyl, with the little hat and a horsey!

 Beside our Dorbz vinyl is a Pop! Vinyl, admittedly I'm more familiar with these little guys (I have a handful of Star Wars Pop!s lying around.

 Finally this little plush dudey is left inside the box all alone, don't worry buddy, we'll get you out and put you alongside my Robin plush, you can kick the crap out of him while everyone else sleeps!

Anyway...yeah, that's about it, glad to have the box of course, a little upset about the shirt...of course. But, Deadpool makes a nice addition to my vinyls, and the box is pretty nice itself:



Remind me later and we'll get a post about the actual movie! We'll also hopefully do a bit of editing on these photos! (Taken with a wide lens camera intended for action shots...so yeah these closeups are bad)

Gods Among Us: GODS OF EGYPT (2016)

TO TRUST OR NOT TO TRUST
I face a confusing situation, in my pre-movie observations, on the one-hand, many movies receive reviews that mislead me, for instance, The Witch, receiving mostly positive reviews and praise. On the other hand, we have Gods of Egypt, which did not disappoint quite as much as reviews suggested, but still was not a terrific cinematic experience. Anyway:

TITLE: Gods of Egypt

SUMMARY:
Mortal hero Bek teams with the god Horus in an alliance against Set, the merciless god of darkness who has usurped Egypt's throne, plunging the once peaceful and prosperous empire into chaos and conflict.

PERSONAL CRITIQUE:
I am no professional critic, we have reviewed this often, I am merely a man with an opinion. In my opinion, this was not a fantastic movie, on the other hand, I do think this could have made an amazing game. Could have being the keyword. Let's just start with the first major problem I spot, the entirety of the movie is CGI, the characters are of varying proportions, I understand, the gods needed to seem like gods, but this doesn't necessarily require that you make them bigger than the mortals. Just make them a little flashier, heck, keep them in their Animorph form and let them be 100% CGI, instead of the bungled mess that is extra large normal humans next to shrunken normal humans. 

Follow this up with what may very well be simply atrocious casting, or at the very least, generally terrible acting, and we're faced with a computer generated monster. Not the one that is apparently threatening the entire existence of the universe either. This one is worse than Aphophis. By the way, Apophis, ever heard of him? No? Put your hand down Egyptologist, no? Good, no one else has, and no one would blame you if you thought he was stolen straight out of Norse mythology. Come to think of it, what are the odds that almost every religion makes reference to a serpentine creature that will potentially bring about the downfall of all creation?

Right, the casting, I don't know if it's the actors' fault, or just really poor direction, but the characters in this movie do not reach their audience. For the most part they're just sort of there, and they only seem to portray any real connectivity to the situation itself when it's absolutely essential. "Oh, you're the Goddess of Love," yet you don't have the necessary concern about you to- do humane things. Add to this all around horrible character decisions, like letting a mad man take the throne with a dozen gods present who could very easily tag team him, or, I don't know, letting that same mad man run rampant with power immediately after instead of striking out with your godly powers, and you have some outstandingly poor characters. This is ALMOST redeemed with Horus and Bek's characterizations, except that Horus, with his all-seeing eyes, is basically ignorant of everything around him, and Bek, who is clearly very agile and skilled, pulls off everything through sheer good luck. "Roll the bones," as he says.

All of this is tied together with one thing that is absolutely amazing, they cast the Scottish raised Irishman as an Egyptian god. Don't get me wrong, Butler is a very convincing psychopath (because that is literally all the thought that went into Set's character "What if he's just crazy?" "I love it! Do it!") but in a cast of characters who do a pretty good job of not sounding out of place, all of them generally speaking what might be considered unaccented English, Butler can't help but drop a few accents into the movie. Maybe that's just more what made Seth a complete loon? What do you mean his name's Set, his lover called him Seth, I'm pretty sure she would know. Oh, did I not mention that? Look, guys, if you're going to do it wrong, just do it wrong and get it over with, call the bad guys one name, and call them the right name, or the wrong name (which they nailed on Apep, a.k.a. Apophis.)

Did I mention the entire movie is Computer Generated? Seriously, and I don't really have a problem with that. I mean, I really enjoy animated stuff. The thing is, it's trying to be realistic CGI, I guess? Plus, it's super flashy, like more so than the last three J.J. Abrams movies of note (in case you're wondering, that's Star Trek, Star Trek, and Star Wars.) 

SPOILER TIME!!!
Now, real quick, I just want to touch on the plot a minute. Set steals Horus' eyes, presumably so that he can't be opposed by the most powerful of his rivals (because Gods know no one else could touch him apparently.) Nope, he's actually on this mad killing quest so that he can collect the essence of each God, in order to become the ultimate life form. But even then he won't be satisfied. It's rather obvious looking back on it, but in the heat of the movie you don't catch it, and I suppose that's good. Stealing Horus' eyes, again, easy enough to explain. Then he cuts off his ex-ladies wings (I called her Neith, I think they called her Neithis, I'm pretty certain she's "the weaver.") This is your first hint, the next? A little bit of dialogue from Horus to Bek "(Osiris) was cut into 14 pieces...they never found his heart." I don't quite remember what daddy's heart did, but uncle wanted it, so he took it, just like any crazy uncle. Then comes the last piece of the puzzle, Thoth's mind. Which conveniently gets drawn out by our heroes, of course.

But that's not all, he becomes this all powerful creature, goes to see his daddy (that'd be Ra) and kills him, or it looks like he does anyway, and steals his spear. But not to take up daddy's position as guardian of all of existence, no, in order to wipe all of existence from...existence...by calling Apophis forth to devour the Nile...apparently the source of all life. Seriously? Your plan is to kill EVERYTHING, turning the world back into Chaos? When was the last time that worked? Oh yeah, never.

But yeah, that's the movie in a nutshell. It's not quite as bad as all of that negativity sounds, it's still a reasonably interesting story, set against some relatively untouched mythology, with a decent cast backing it up. Still would have made a better game. Hmmm....

RATING:
Nine out of Ten Transformer Gods would give this movie Three All Seeing Eyes, out of Five.

Not the best, but definitely not the worst, check it out when the opportunity presents itself, but don't go out of your way and spend a lot on it.