Category: Rotten Bananas

The Incredibles 2, directed by Brad Bird, does the impossible: the film is the perfect sequel to an already incredible starting point. 

A sequel outing featuring the titular super-family, the Parr’s, is led by family man Bob and stay-at-home mom Helen, appearing as the typical American family. The parents have three kids, Dash, Violet, and Jack-Jack, to keep up with. The day-to-day of family life is only complicated by the family’s superhero outings. 

Incredibles 2 picks up immediately where the first film leaves off: the Incredibles springing into action to fight their latest nemesis, the Underminer. After a catastrophic attempt at defending their home city, the Incredibles are forced underground once again, and are sought out by tech developer Winston Deavor and his sister Evelyn for a campaign to bring supers back into the light.  

Whereas the first film centered mainly on the action driven by Mr. Incredible, this film is absolutely Elastigirl’s film. Due to Bob Parr’s destructive track record, the Deavor’s elect to go with the safer Helen for several action-filled missions to improve the super image. The action in this movie is visually stunning, even more so than the first Incredibles. Elastigirl has such a creative powerset that the filmmakers could frame shots for her doing things that Mr. Incredible simply couldn’t do. At one point, she has to slow a bullet train completely by herself and the ingenuity she employs is quite spectacular. 

Ironically, one of the hallmarks of Incredibles 2 is its treatment of pedestrian life as a backdrop for superhero action. Because Helen Parr has to work as a covert operative, Bob has to become a stay-at-home dad to take care of the family in her absence. His struggle in transitioning to the caretaker life is truly compelling. His restlessness combined with his forced optimism for his wife paints a very human tale, despite all his super-strength. The audience also observes his struggles of being a parent, which play out in a very relatable way, even with the family’s superpowered conditions. 

Bob starts off overly confident that his wife’s homely endeavors over the past 16 years are just an easy day job, though soon learns that Helen has been the more super of the two parents all along. These “Mr. Mom” antics are only escalated by the emergence of superpowers in their infant child, Jack-Jack. The baby provides much comic relief for the film with the spontaneous manifestation of his powers. His major scene in the film involves his spat with a trash-digging raccoon. Jack-Jack’s powers develop with complete randomness, quickly cycling through teleportation, self-replication, laser eyes, and many more to take out the ring-tailed caper.  

Incredibles 2 is a foray of superhero action through the aesthetic of the Golden Age of comics, also the writing is spectacular; the film carries the worldbuilding done by the previous film even further. The score by Michael Giacchino perfectly sets the scene for an incredible movie for the whole family. The Incredibles 2 receives a 95% rating. 

“Avengers: Infinity War,” directed by the Russo brothers, is a breathtaking, heart-racing film that will leave you shaken and twisted as if you had succumbed to Thanos’s power yourself. 

Infinity War, while remaining on the moral side of its heroes, is really a movie centered on its villain. Thanos, portrayed by Josh Brolin, is an intergalactic conqueror dedicated to “peace and balance” throughout the universe. Unfortunately, his plans include murdering half of the universe so that the remaining half can live with plentiful resources. To achieve this goal, he requires the Infinity Stones, all-powerful gemstones that have the power to alter aspects of reality.  

With the Power Stone Thanos can shatter planets; with the Space Stone Thanos can move over lightyears in the blink of an eye; with the Reality Stone he could turn the Moon to Swiss cheese. Our heroes, the Avengers, are on a mission to stop Thanos’s quest to acquire all the Infinity Stones and wipe out half of all life with a snap of his fingers. 

Throughout the film, we see snapshots of the action around the vast universe. One moment, we’re in Wakanda, home of the Black Panther, portrayed Chadwick Boseman. The next moment, we’re in the thick of it on an alien spaceship with Spider-Man, Iron Man, and Doctor Strange, portrayed by Tom Holland, Robert Downey Jr, and Benedict Cumberbatch respectively. Many films struggle with these rapid cuts between locations and ensemble casts, but not this movie. Infinity War shows all the moving parts of this cosmic machine, and the audience never feels whiplashed between scenes.  

The editing team, led by Jeffery Ford and Matthew Schmidt, does stellar work in making the moviegoer feel absolutely engaged in both the combat between opposing forces, and the intriguing interplay between allies.  

The movie is the 20th in a long-running series known both to fans and producers alike as the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and Infinity War has no issues reminding the audience of this fact. Every thread and morsel of Marvel mythology laid out in the past nineteen films receive a satisfying payoff in this film. In addition to the ties from movie to movie, the ties between characters are only strengthened and solidified. Developed over worlds and nations, these cinematic connections are much like Spider-Man’s webs: carefully woven and cohesively bonded. The intense back-and-forth between Thanos and Tony Stark draws the audience into the intense, cinematic fights. The heated philosophical debates between Stark and Doctor Strange forces the viewer to combat their own moral principles on what is right and what is wrong.  

Every character is developed, especially Thanos, who previously had only been referenced in allusions and post-credit cameos. Thanos has a truly heart-wrenching journey over the course of this film and stops at nothing to achieve his solution to the universe’s problems, even paying the ultimate price. Thanos states, “The hardest decisions require the strongest wills,” and the film examines this adage from every angle. Every character makes an incredible sacrifice. 

“Avengers: Infinity War” is effectively a metaphor for its titular superweapon: the Infinity Gauntlet. It was crafted carefully over many years and is utilized by an evil force to gain supreme power. (Coincidentally, Disney owns Marvel Studios).  

Much like the Infinity Gauntlet, the movie has its own set of all-powerful Infinity Stones: the counterpoint between characters, the Marvel mythology, the plot sequence, and development. These elements all draw together to make a truly spectacular film. “Avengers: Infinity War” is an incredible feat of visual storytelling, a Marvel Studios homerun, and a prime candidate for several Oscar nominations come year’s end. “Avengers: Infinity War” has earned a perfect six Infinity Stones out of six. 

Deadpool 2, starring Ryan Reynolds, is a raunchy, rambunctious, and raucous rickshaw ride from beginning to end, slaughtering the competition by being a thrilling endeavor, complete with beautifully choreographed fight scenes, comically timed dialogue, and a foray into the world of mutant relations. 

The film focuses on Wade Wilson, our titular hero, who gets thrown into armed conflict with the time-traveling bounty hunter Cable, portrayed by Josh Brolin. Cable is hunting a young pyrokinetic mutant who inadvertently becomes cellmates with Wilson in the mutant prison the Ice Box. To combat Cable, Wilson assembles a team of mutants and names them the X-Force—a derivative jab at the X-Men. These mutants include a human headache played by Terry Crews, an acid-spitting punk played by Bill Skaarsgard, and a very lucky mutant named Domino played by Zazie Beetz. As the film develops, lines are drawn and alliances are formed. In the end, Wade Wilson learns the power of the F-word: family. 

Deadpool 2, at its heart, is a parody film. It takes classic film tropes and turns them on their heads— especially those that relate to the superhero genre. The movie also often plays with the concept of the “fourth wall”; on multiple occasions, Deadpool talks directly to the audience, giving us comical anecdotes or interesting little hints into the ins-and-outs of the plot development. 

Another film trope that gets the parody treatment is the “deus ex machina,” or “God from the machine.” This is when a sudden and often impossibly unlikely scenario happens so that the main character can escape danger. These happen all over Deadpool, from the time travel shenanigans of Cable to the luck manipulation powers of Domino. 

So much of this film is dedicated to making fun of other movies that the action scenes themselves become as humorous as they are beautiful. Throughout Deadpool 2, Deadpool and Domino argue over whether her luck-inducing superpowers actually count as such. These powers are put to the test when Domino is tasked with assaulting an armored prison convoy with nothing but her bare hands. She lands via parachute in the middle of busy rush hour. The various car crashes set off a chain reaction by which the urban environment around her makes it impossible for her not to enter the truck cab unharmed. She ejects the driver and remarks, “I’m in,” much to the surprise of Deadpool. The scenes demonstrating Domino’s abilities are the true hallmarks of the direction by David Leitch. 

Much like the power suppression collars used by Deadpool throughout the movie, this film has one unfortunate suppressor. Deadpool 2 juxtaposes intimate drama laced with black humor and gory killfests accompanied by Dolly Parton and Skrillex alike, and these rapid cuts in the plot sequence can be quite jarring. The screenplay was written by five different people, including Reynolds and long-time Marvel Comic contributor Rob Liefeld, and it shows. These shards of story against one another don’t really do the film any favors and serve to confuse the audience of the film’s tone. In one moment, Wade Wilson and his wife are cuddling on the couch and the next Deadpool is defending against home invaders with kitchen utensils. This alone in the film’s first act sets the stage for these quick changes in sequence to happen again and again. 

Wade Wilson’s latest adventure gives everybody something to enjoy. With that being said, Deadpool 2 is not a family film, and that’s not a bad thing. Deadpool 2 is a great example of how films with black humor toe the line between comedy and tone-deafness. The movie’s one-liner style dialogue is primarily observational comedy rather than more popular forms of black humor, such as jokes based on race or gender. 

Deadpool 2 is a movie that fires joke after joke the same way its title character fires gun after gun. Deadpool 2 earns 4.5 bullet fired out of 5. 

Snapchat is a social media platform focused on sending temporary photos or uploading said photos to a temporary story for all your friends to see. Snapchat has a feature called filters that will modify your face to change it into silly things like giving yourself puppy dog ears or making you look semi-spooky. Someone at Blumhouse, a film company, saw this and apparently thought it would make a great feature length movie and decided to call it “Truth or Dare.” 

In all actuality, “Truth or Dare” is a horror film produced by renowned hit-or-miss studio Blumhouse Productions, who has brought us great films such as “Get Out,” but also brought us… well… “Truth or Dare.” 

The main premise of the film is that a group of friends play a game of truth or dare while on vacation in Mexico, but the game takes a turn for the worse when demonic entities start appearing and forcing the characters to play a game of truth or dare, where the consequence of failure is death.  

This is normally the part of the review where I say things that I like about the movie. The problem is I didn’t like anything. I mean, I guess the film didn’t give me a headache when I looked at it? That’s a plus, I guess, although a very sad one. The film was shot competently, nothing outstanding but nothing terrible either. In other words, the cinematography was entirely adequate, almost painfully so. 

Now the part for the many, many cons. First of all, the stupid faces that are supposed to be the main scare of the movie. They literally look like snapchat filters. The main character even lampshades this by saying “It looked like a (messed up) Snapchat filter.” This line was probably added after the terrible reception of the first trailer because it felt very out of place during the movie. During the movie, almost every time one of these dumb faces was on screen the audience laughed. I’ve never seen an entire theater audience laugh at a horror movie before, so I’ve got to hand it to “Truth or Dare,” it sure did provide me a unique viewing experience. 

Another problem with the film is that the writing was absolutely terrible. One of the main characters is a literal sociopathic drug-dealer, who is also best friends with the group. Why are they friends with him? They don’t even like him. Another example is that a character died, and I realized I didn’t even know their name, I only figured out they were dead whenever they stopped showing up for a few scenes. 

I recall that there was one horror scene that I liked out of the entire movie. Can you guess why I liked it? Because it didn’t have the stupid smiling face in the entire thing, and I thought it was well done. So I enjoyed about five minutes out of the hundred-and-three-minute run-time.  

Then we get to the “twist” ending. It left me flabbergasted, but not in a good way. It left me wondering how in the world did anyone think this was a good ending at all? Again, the entire theater laughed and some people even started heckling the screen. Then, when the credits started rolling everyone shot up in their seats and fled the theater.  

All in all, “Truth or Dare” is one of the worst movies I’ve seen get a theatrical release. That being said, I really enjoyed it. Not because it was good, but because I was laughing so hard at how this dumpster fire got made by a major studio. This film failed at literally everything it set out to do. I don’t recommend seeing this in theater, but if you love bad movies like I do, check it out when it inevitably gets added to Netflix in about three weeks. If you don’t enjoy watching the worst things that film has to offer, stay far, far away.  

 

20/100 

 

 

Directed by “The Office” star John Krasinski, “A Quiet Place” is a horror film that takes place after a species of monsters wipes out the planet. The only way to survive in this post-apocalyptic world is stay completely silent. The film follows Krasinski’s character’s family as they try to survive in this new muted world.  

The main draw of “A Quiet Place” is that the movie has almost no spoken dialogue. I could probably count on two hands how many spoken lines are uttered throughout the entire movie. The way this silent premise was executed is the highlight of the movie. Characters speak almost entirely in sign language and most of the time, the only noise you can hear is the sound of footsteps. The film uses this to its advantage by using sound as a weapon against its audience. You end up being on the edge of your seat for almost the entire movie because you know that at any second a loud noise could happen and spell the end for one of these characters you’ve grown to love.  

Speaking of characters, this film handled its characters exceptionally well. It even manages to do this despite the fact that the characters don’t talk. The standouts were Krasinski, of course, and the young actress who played his daughter in the film, Millicent Simmonds. Krasinski plays the role of a father trying to keep his family alive in this killer-monster ridden world extremely well. Simmonds does an amazing job as well, especially considering she is a child-actor and that this is only her second acting role. She plays a deaf child (and she also happens to be deaf in real life) who is experiencing typical teenage things, rebelling against your parents, etc., but all of this is compounded on the fact that she’s straddled with guilt by things from her past while she also has to survive in a broken world. There’s some scenes in the film that were absolutely gut-wrenching. I can’t remember the last time I experienced feeling that way while watching a film, so I must commend Krasinski.  

Another highlight of the film is Krasinski’s directing. The cinematography elevated the film to new heights. For example, if Krasinski’s character was the focus of the scene, we’d hear the scene normally. However, if Simmond’s character was the focal point, the entire scene would be deaf. I thought this was an amazing touch. It makes it easier to connect to Simmond’s character. It also adds extra tension when we the audience know that something is happening, but Simmond’s character can’t hear it, and neither can we.  

“A Quiet Place” wasn’t perfect, though. The film was around an hour-and-a-half long, and it feels like a lot of scenes were cut. Some things happen during the climax of the film that are never set up and they just leave you scratching your head as to why they’re happening. It was only around two scenes, but these are the only two scenes where I was completely taken out of the movie. I also had a problem with a major plot point, but I can’t go into that without giving spoilers, so that’s all I can say on that. 

Another major problem is of no fault of the film’s, but your enjoyment of this movie will be heavily dependent on how your specific theater audience behaves. Due to the silent nature of the film, if you have an audience that won’t shut up, it will be a huge damper on your enjoyment. In my specific instance, even the sound of people coughing, and ruffling popcorn bags brought me out of the film. I couldn’t even imagine how upset I’d be if someone was talking or being disruptive in some other way. 

Overall, I really enjoyed “A Quiet Place” and it felt like a breath of fresh air. The film had a strong premise, characters that you can empathize with, and standout directing by Krasinski. However, it did have some slight problems with it’s short length and some other plot points. I highly recommend the film if you want to be on the edge of your seat for an entire hour-and-a-half, just pray that you get a theater audience that respects the silent nature of the film.   

 

92/100 

 

 

 

 

Kenton Hilderbrand reporter 

Directed by legendary filmmaker Steven Spielberg, “Ready Player One” is a film adaptation of a book of the same name.  It tells the story of a young, 20-something boy named Wade Watts who is living in some sort of post-apocalyptic or dystopian world—how the world ended up like this is never explained, so just go with it, I guess—where people attempt to get away from how terrible the real world is by entering a program called “The Oasis.” After the creator of the Oasis dies, he leaves behind a series of three puzzles, and whoever solves all three of the puzzles inherits the company behind the Oasis and all the power that comes with it.  

This film seems to be quite controversial, with a lot of people very angry about it. Does “Ready Player One” deserve all that vitriol? Eh, the movies okay. 

I’ll be the first to admit, I went in to this movie with my expectations incredibly low. I’d read some excerpts from the previously mentioned book an, boy, they were rough. The book seemed to just be lists of cool things from the 80s for hundreds and hundreds of pages. So, I went into the theatre expecting the movie to follow suit and I was pleasantly surprised the film wasn’t a complete dumpster fire. There are some moments when the film starts to bash your head in with “Hey, do you remember the 80s? Do you remember Chucky and ‘Back to the Future’???” but most of the references are in the background. Don’t get me wrong, this film isn’t some sort of amazing crossover that’ll be remembered for ages, like “Who Framed Roger Rabbit,” the film doesn’t have nearly enough staying power, but I digress. 

The main draw of the film is the virtual world of the Oasis, where anyone can be anything they want to be. Who would have guessed it, the moments of the film that take part in the Oasis are the best part. Everything looks good and it does look like a world where people would want to spend a lot of time. All the action scenes that take place in the Oasis are cool-looking and fun. I wasn’t actively bored during what are supposed to be exciting moments like when I watched “Pacific Rim Uprising.” However, there’s a downside to the majority of the film taking place in the Oasis. There’s no real threat to these characters. This isn’t a movie where “If you die in the game, you die in real life,” instead the characters just lose any items and gold they’ve acquired. The film sets it up where apparently this is a terrible thing, and it shows a random person attempting to commit suicide after it happens to them. But when a character is getting chased by King Kong during a death race, there’s no urgency or anxiety to this at all, the worst thing that can happen to them is that they get inconvenienced. 

Speaking of characters, these ones are incredibly bland. Our main character, Wade Watts, is just another milquetoast young adult novel character who is supported by similar one-note characters on their quest to save the world. The main villain is the typical evil business man who wants to take over the world just to make more money.  

The story is basically a bunch of clichés shoved into a videogame, which tries to make itself unique by adding recognizable properties to its setting. So, when there are action or drama scenes happening in the real world you find it very hard to care because these scenes have no ground to stand on. The characters are boring, and they can’t be carried by how pretty or cool the scenes can look in the Oasis. The film even tries to shove a romance subplot in your face throughout the movie—the scenes are easily the worst part of “Ready Player One.” If your characters are bland cardboard cutouts, don’t try to make a romance subplot, it won’t work out. The film would have been far more enjoyable if they had just made it an action movie because the setting would allow for some neat things to happen.  

Overall, “Ready Player One” was okay. The set-pieces inside the Oasis looked neat and it didn’t beat you in the face with references as much as I thought it would. The movie had some neat action scenes that took advantage of the set-pieces a setting like the Oasis provided. However, the film was held back by trying to make you care about its dull, one-note characters and shoving in unnecessary character-driven subplots—like it’s romance subplot—that don’t end up working at all. If you wanted to see the film just to try and spot your favorite intellectual-property, or if you wanted to see neat action scenes, you’ll probably enjoy parts of the film. Just be weary that the live-action parts of the movie take up a substantial part of its runtime, and they are incredibly dull. 

 

64/100 

 

“Pacific Rim Uprising” is the next installment of the Pacific Rim franchise. The original “Pacific Rim” was directed by the now Academy recognized director Guillermo del Toro, however, Del Toro chose to pass the directing job to someone else this time around and stepped down to producer and boy does it show. 

“Pacific Rim Uprising” feels like a jumbled mess. The first “Pacific Rim” had amazing action scenes, but these great action scenes came at the cost of a lackluster story and characters. One would think that a sequel would attempt to fix what was wrong with the last film, while trying to retain what fans loved about the first. “Uprising” does neither of those things, it manages to make every aspect of the first film worse.  

Let’s start off with how “Uprising” handled its story. The film takes place 10 years after the war with the giant monsters known as “kaiju.” Humanity is in its recovery phase, but it is still training jaeger, giant robots, capable teenagers for an eventual return of the kaiju. The movie splits its focus between two characters, Jake Pentecost a washed up ex-con who happens to be the son of a famous war-hero from the first film played by John Boyega, and Amara Namani a young girl with tech-smart who was orphaned during a kaiju attack 10 years ago, portrayed by Cailee Spaeny. From Pentecost’s view we get insight on the adult’s perspective and how they’re veterans of the first kaiju war, meanwhile, we get a view into the lives of the teenage cadets training to pilot jaegers from Namani’s perspective. 

The way the film splits its focus is one of my biggest dislikes of the movie. This movie can’t even make me care for one set of characters, why would I care about two. I feel like one of these sets of characters needed to be cut, and focus more on trying to expand the remaining set of characters. All of the supporting characters on Namani’s side of the story were terrible. Each of the eight characters got around two or three lines of dialogue to try and establish their characters and try to make you care for them and it ends up falling flat on its face. The characters on Boyega’s side were bad, too, but at least they did things for the first two acts of the film.  

The story in “Uprising” feels like the writers loaded a bunch of plot points into a shotgun, shot it at the wall, and then just wrote the script based on what got embedded into the wall. There’s a love triangle involving Boyega, his rival, and some random girl, and then the random girl just disappears for half of the movie but shows up at the end to kiss both of them for some reason and then she disappears again…? Namani has a rivalry between another cadet that gets resolved off-screen. It also feels like a lot of key scenes were cut out because the movie was already about two-hours long. 

It also feels like this entire movie, besides the action scenes, was sped up by around 10% like one of those YouTube videos that are very slightly sped up to try and avoid getting taken down for copyright reasons. There was also basically no down time at all between dialogue, and it felt like the actors were just trying to get their lines out as fast as they could so they could get their paycheck. For some unknown reason they also put the “trololo” meme from like five years ago into the movie, I think this was some kind of terrible attempt to try and be “cool, funny, and full of action scenes” like a Marvel film. 

Speaking of action scenes, “Uprising” manages to fall far short of the bar that the first film set five years ago. I enjoyed a few moments of the action in the movie, but most of it was pretty boring, which I am really impressed that they managed to make giant robots fighting giant monsters boring. The jaegers don’t feel as epic as they did in the first film, in fact, they kind of stink and are constantly getting destroyed. Also, the jaeger pilots are letting hundreds, maybe thousands of civilians die in the process of getting beat up by the kaiju to the point that the collateral damage is astounding. There’s one scene in the film where civilians in Tokyo are getting stepped on by kaiju and falling into giant holes in the Earth, which then hard-cuts to a scene where a man says all civilians are safe. That man is a liar. It’s hard to root for the good guys when they are literally pulling down buildings and throwing them while they are probably full of civilians.   

Overall, “Pacific Rim Uprising” simply feels like a jumbled mess, as stated before. It tried to expand its focus from being just an enjoyable action movie like the first, but it ended up spreading itself way too thin. I found myself enjoying a few moments during the action scenes, but those moments were few and far between. If you are a fan of the first film, you probably won’t like this sequel. If you haven’t seen the first film, just go watch it instead of this.  

60/100 

From the director who brought us the darling indie/horror film, “[REC]” back in 2007, Paco Plaza, comes another Spanish horror film, “Verónica.” Departing from the found-footage style of filming for which his original film “[REC]” was known for, Plaza instead chooses a more traditional style (probably because people are tired of found footage after the never-ending spree of “Paranormal Activity” movies that seemed to come out every six months a few years back). “Verónica” takes place in Madrid in 1991 and follows the tale of a young girl who, after a failed Ouija board séance, finds herself haunted by a demonic being.  

If you hadn’t guessed by that brief plot synopsis, “Verónica” falls into the trap of being too cliché. If you’ve seen one demonic possession movie, you’ve seen the vast majority of them and “Verónica” is no different. The plot of the film is painfully slow and rather dull. You follow Verónica around as things slowly start to escalate over the one-hour-and-fifty-minute runtime. Unlike a good movie that keeps the viewer interested throughout the movie, this film definitely feels like it’s two-hours long (I even noticed I had checked my watch multiple times throughout the numerous boring parts of this film). 

With a plot as clichéd as this one was, I didn’t expect the acting to be as good as it was. Sandra Escacena and the child-actors who played her siblings definitely earned their paychecks with this one. Escacena, in particular, was especially convincing in her role as the character the movie takes its name from. During the parts where she needs to be a caring older sister, shackled by having to parent her three younger siblings—because her mother is a workaholic—you find yourself feeling sympathetic toward her just as much as when she is being haunted by a demon. On the topic of the child actors, they were pretty good at their parts for their age. They’re no “Stranger Things” or “IT” kids, but all-in-all these actors do a good job with what they’re given, I just wish they were given a better plot to work with.   

Despite the bland plot, the movie is really carried by its visuals. The horror segments were visually very interesting. Even some of the non-horror elements were visually pleasing, like the character of the blind nun who was a sort of imposing figure throughout the first two-acts of the film.  The standout part of the film was certainly the last act, however. When things start to hit the fan near the end I found myself on the edge of my seat. 

There seemed to be a marketing push for this film as “the scariest film ever on Netflix,” which I found odd. Reading through all these social media posts makes “Verónica” where some users were claiming that they were crying and forced to shut off the movie was strange. For me, the horror elements never really crossed the line into actual scares, the horror was more like a medium to show interesting things.  The one problem I had with the horror elements was the uninspired creature design of the big, bad monster. Instead of creating an interesting design for the main entity, they turned it into a burnt marshmallow-man. I found myself getting taken out of the “scary” segments whenever it was on screen because it just looks really dumb. They could’ve gone with a more cliché shadow being and it would have been more effective.  

Overall, I had a good time watching “Verónica,” as cliché as it was. The horror segments were fascinating and the other parts were decent at worst thanks to the top notch acting. I’d stay away from this film if you don’t feel like reading subtitles for two-hours or if you’re not particularly interested in horror elements. If you just want to look at some neat horror visuals though, it’s definitely not the worst thing on Netflix.  

80/100 

 

(Note for Editor: There are two Spanish films that came out around the same time called “Verónica” , this is the one in the article https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5862312/ ) 

 

Oscar season has come and gone yet again. What started as an industry award show has grown into a global phenomenon. This year’s event had twenty-six million eyes glued to their screens in hopes that their favorite person in the movie industry would get the recognition they believe they deserve. I’m left to ask myself, what is the purpose of this event? What value does this occasion have for an outsider looking into the movie industry? How has Hollywood managed to get twenty-six million people to watch a self-indulgent award show? 

As with every academy award celebration, this one began with the famous red-carpet walk. This aspect of the event is probably the most perplexing part for me. This event lasted from 5:30 to 7: p.m. That’s an hour-and-a-half of celebrities walking down a carpet then being asked “Who are you wearing?” I suppose this event is enjoyable for all those fashionistas out there, but I know for a fact that this was not for me. While I can see that this is a big part of celebrities’ lives and it’s a goal that all actors aspire to, why should I care? This is a running theme of the Oscars for me, why do people outside the movie industry or people who don’t enjoy fashion watch this event? 

After the celebrity catwalk finally ends, the real meat and potatoes begins. The main host of that year’s show will speak, present an award, another speech, then a performance or a skit, and then repeat this cycle for four hours. Why in the world does giving out 24 awards take four hours. The event started around 7:00 and then ended at 11:30 p.m. When the award show is almost twice as long as some of the films receiving the award, that’s when I tune out. At this point, I’d rather watch the Nickelodeon Kid’s Choice Awards. At least that award show is only 90 minutes long, and last year it was hosted by John Cena of whom Jimmy Fallon couldn’t hold a candle to. 

While again, I recognize that receiving an Oscar is a monumental moment in these peoples’ lives and it shows that their hard work wasn’t for naught, I find myself feeling apathetic to it all because it’s just another industry award show.  

Another thing that probably influences my view of the Oscars is all the recent sexual assault and sexual harassment allegations that seems to be exploding out of the film industry. In past years it seemed like movie stars had been placed on some sort of societal pedestal above us “mere commoners” and that they could do no wrong. Well, with all these allegations coming forth over the past year the magic has faded for this reporter. For me, I now see the man behind the curtain and the Great and Powerful Oz is anything but.  

In the end, for me the Oscars has lost all of it’s appeal. If you want to watch the Oscars to wait with bated breath and hope your favorite actor/film gets the recognition you feel it deserves, great! More power to you. The Oscars is important for everyone involved in the film industry, it gives them something to strive for and a sense of accomplishment if they achieve it. Though, for us common folk, I really don’t see the appeal. 

 

 

Ash is back for a third time in the season three premiere of “Ash Vs Evil Dead.” If you’re unfamiliar, Ash Vs Evil Dead is a continuation of the cult classic horror series “Evil Dead” which started in the early 80s. The transition from film to television was a smooth one for the “Evil Dead” franchise. “Ash Vs Evil Dead” gave the fans everything they wanted: horror, jokes, Bruce Campbell, and camp.  

This should be a foregone conclusion by now but it bears repeating. Bruce Campbell was born to play the character of Ash Williams. The man’s been playing the chainsaw wielding, one-liner slinging deadite slayer for over 30 years. His performance hasn’t degraded over the last three decades like some actors have; instead, like a fine wine it has only gotten better. It is safe to say Bruce Campbell brought his A-game.  

Season three brings up a new challenge that not even the fabled Ash Williams knows how to deal with: being a dad. I’m really on the fence about this. This specific premise has been done to death in other stories, although it is too early to tell how it’ll end up. If this season had the same scriptwriter as the first two, I could almost guarantee this plot point would lead nowhere; however, with a new scriptwriter at the helm I could end up being very pleasantly surprised.  

Speaking of the new scriptwriter, he did a bang-up job at writing this first episode. The episode managed to transition between comedy and horror, something Evil Dead is famous for, flawlessly. The cheesy one-liners delivered by the groovy as ever Campbell brought a smile to my face. In stark contrast the episode transitions to buckets of blood, gore, and genuine horror, this episode feels just like the original films. 

One thing I appreciate about the series is its use of practical effects. Unlike most modern TV shows or films, almost everything post-season one of “Ash Vs Evil Dead” is done with practical effects instead of being computer generated. This gives it an 80s horror vibe ala “The Thing” or “Alien” or you know, “Evil Dead.” While there is some CGI here and there, it’s mostly used to enhance the practical effects. The combination of the two really makes all the horror elements stand out against the crowd that is modern TV.   

This season seems like it’s trying to be a “soft reboot” for the series. Due to some troubles amongst showrunners, there were some very questionable things to happen during season two, ending with everything getting erased through time shenanigans causing almost everything to be reset. This season seems like it’s trying to right the path of the series. The season is even going as far as to add new blood to the gang, which had gotten to the point of almost near perfect chemistry. This could go two different ways, the first way we end up with yet another series adding a Scrappy Doo-esque character to try and forcefully shake things up. Or, we end up getting an even better gang. With a brand-new scriptwriter, which path the series will divulge on is unpredictable.  

Overall, I would consider myself hopefully optimistic about the future of “Ash Vs Evil Dead.” The episode had everything I could hope for as someone who loves the original films, but it seems to be trying something bold. If their boldness ends up enhancing an already beloved property or ends up falling flat on its face is yet to be seen. The only thing we can do is wait until next week.  

90/100