House at the End of the Street

During the fallout of The Hunger Games, Jennifer Lawrence starred in this flick that managed to pretty much slip under the radar and out of sight. That being said, I'd heard of it before I watched it, mainly because I keep seeing it on shelves at movie stores. With a name like House at the End of the Street, I was expecting another one of those infernal Last House on the Left knockoffs but that's actually not really what this movie is about. So if you were thinking that Jennifer Lawrence was going to be naked in this one, you'd have to take your boners elsewhere.

This is probably going to end up being a pretty short review, mainly because there's simply not a lot to say about this movie. It's alright for what it is.

The plot goes that Jennifer Lawrence, who's plays a girl named Elissa, and her mother move into a spacious new house out in the middle of somewhere, undeterred by the plethora of urban myths that sprout from their new neighbor's residence. See, about four years ago, there was a case of double-homicide that took place within that very house and now the souls of the dead are said to often be seen lurking about the surrounding woodlands. But don't worry, this movie would have you believe it's a psychological thriller and there's nothing of the supernatural to be found over it's hour and forty minute run time.

One night, Elissa gets caught in some of the fakest looking rain I've seen in the past decade of mainstream movies and this charming young fellow pictured above offers to give her a ride. In the movie his name is Ryan Jacobson and I'm too lazy to look up his filmography. He lives alone in the "haunted" house and is the son of the very two people who were killed, who were offed by none other than his younger sister. Rather than seek out the medical attention she clearly deserves, he keeps her locked away in his basement in secret. Despite how simple that sounds, she manages to escape several times and every time she does so, she tries to kill the nearest living thing she can get her fingers around because, as we all know, mentally unstable people just like to fuck shit up.

But as any relationship between a pair of opposite-sexed teenagers will ultimately become, Elissa and the mild-mannered (aka beta) Ryan start getting kinky before long, much to the disapproval of Elissa's overprotective/historically neglecting mother. Eventually Elissa ends up in Ryan's house alone and, like any classic horror protagonist, has no respect for anyone else's privacy and starts rummaging through all of Ryan's shit. This eventually leads her to the basement where the feral sibling is being kept and Ryan has no choice but to come clean.

Despite her being sworn to secrecy, Ryan quickly jumps Elissa and ties her up in his sister's bedroom. Ryan then explains that the girl who he's been keeping isn't his sister at all but rather a new girl he replaced her with because his real sister died in an accident that was largely his fault and that he wants to upgrade his prisoner to Jennifer Lawrence instead of the terribly average female he's already got.
So from then on it's just a fight in the house. A few other people get embroiled in the midst of the sequence and the gripping battle has an immaculate body count of 1. Overall, it's just not a very thrilling few scenes. After that, the movie pretty much just ends.

I've always had to force myself to not let the PG-13 rating be a turn off when it comes to horror because movies like The Grudge (and I mean the foreign one) have been PG-13 and were certainly pretty scary. As I discussed  in my past article, Less is More, I actually much prefer movies to try and be more reserved and hold the special effects and violence to make way for a more thrilling plot but here it just feels like violence is missing. There's a scene where someone gets hit in the face with the business end of a hammer and there's nary a drop of blood to be seen. It almost felt like a TV version where they censor out all of the good stuff and moreover horror movies that don't have gore out the wazoo are able to keep your attention by way of suspense, which this film largely lacked.  

Rather, their main source of attention-grabbing are Jennifer Lawrence's boobs.

My main problem with House at the End of the Street is that not a lot really happens. I just summarized pretty much every major event and it probably only took you about a minute to read whereas the whole movie is close to two hours long. Furthermore, not only is it largely unexciting, it doesn't contain anything I haven't already seen a hundred times before. In fact, it kind of reminds me of The People Under the Stairs but at least that was really different and bizarre so it's kind of hard to forget. With the case of this movie, all I can really give is a resounding "meh".

It seems to me that the filmmakers were banking largely on the name Jennifer Lawrence and I'll admit, that is what made this movie stand out to me. Testament to this is the fact that 95% of the images I can pull up on this flick are screenshots of her. Other than the fact that she's in it and that she's a star (and don't get me wrong, she is good in the movie), there's nothing remarkable about this movie at all and it'll will soon slip out of memory and never be seen again.

5.5/10 - Boring and unremarkable

Grown Ups 2

I did not have high expectations for Grown Ups 2. It seemed puerile, dumb, and critics hated it but it actually exceeded my expectations in some ways although while being much worse in many others.

The movie has an interesting cast that consists of some very talented actors and comedians, combined with some actors and comedians who are a little past their prime, some relatively unknown people and Shaquille O'Neal.

Yes, that Shaquille O'Neal.

For the most part the cast had some potential, and some of the characters were pretty good, but ultimately, the talent that this movie has amassed was wasted by the bad writing... and boy was that writing bad.

Normally in movie reviews people will summarize the plot, but in this case there isn't a lot of plot to summarize. It centers around the first day of summer, a gigantic 80's themed party that the four main characters decide on throwing and a rivalry with douchey college fraternity led by Taylor Lautner of the Twilight infamy.

However, the plot is mostly irrelevant and seems to just serve as a vehicle for more poop jokes and kitschy gags. Perhaps the worst offense of the plot isn't that it's so dull but that at times it's boring. There were periods, especially towards the end, that were just mind-numbing and actually made me wish for the return of the dumb gags.

The movie isn't entirely unfunny, I certainly laughed at times, much to my surprise, but I was always kind of ashamed because of how stupid it was. I am definitely not the target audience of Grown Ups 2, so I'll give it some leeway, but the humor is still too dumb to excuse.

In some ways Grown Ups 2 seems kind of confused to me. It's not really sure if it wants to be a raunchy, toilet humor comedy, or a cheesy family comedy with a happy ending and an "aw-shucks" demeanor. It tries to do both, and because of that doesn't really succeed either. If I was a child watching this with my parents I would be embarrassed, if I was an adult watching this with my family I would be offended, and if I'm anyone in between then it's just an almost unbearable combination of stupidity and corniness.

I watched this with an audience that  consisted mostly of tweens and their parents, and much to my surprise they seemed to enjoy it. This movie may have been torn apart by critics, but it's got a lot more popular appeal, especially among it's target audience. So if you're between the ages of 10 and 14, love poop jokes and cliche, happy endings, then this movie is for you, but if you're anyone else, don't put yourself through this.

4/10 - Don't even consider it.

Then and Now: Three Bands That Became Sellouts and Three That Didn't

Twenty years is a long time and there's a lot that can happen to a person within two decades. That being said, we often hold musicians to a higher standard and for some reason expect them to be eternal, unwavering monuments. That's really not that fair, all things considered but it's something we come to expect from the artists we've known and loved year after year. So, when they start going through changes, altering their music style or trying to appeal to a different audience; that tends to piss off the fanbase.

Often times the case is that originally the band started out doing their own thing before they became widely popular and their evil record companies stepped in and tried to get them to sensationalize in order to sell more records! So here, I'll give a few examples of some bands that admirably stuck it out all these years and a few who gave in to the money.

First, the failures.

In Flames

This is In Flames in 1994:

And this is them in now:

This one is a bit upsetting to me because I love In Flames. While some people would say that Lunar Strain, the '94 album, was when they were at their best, while others, like me, would say that Clayman and Come Clarity was the high point. Whichever you think, the band has been going downhill ever since and I'm getting more and more sure that they're not going to return.

Katatonia

Here we have Katatonia in 1993:

And here they are now:

Now don't get me wrong, I do like the song My Twin but it's a hell of a drastic change no matter how you slice it. I think the strangest part of this case is that for Katatonia, much unlike In Flames, it wasn't a gradual change that happened over the course of twenty years, it was all at once. Seriously, in 1997 they put out an EP called Sounds of Decay and then in '98 they give us Saw You Drown. If you're curious enough, you can look those songs up.

Skillet

I had to pick at least one non-metal band. They've been around since 1996 and they've made a name for switching their style constantly. For awhile, they were in a hard rock phase and sounded like this:

And this is them now:

I'm not really sure what happened.

And now...

Just in case you were thinking that I'm holding these artists to an unfair standard, check out these artists who have remained strong for a long time.

Opeth

Here they are in 1995:

And this is them now:

Darkthrone

Darkthrone in 1991:

Darkthrone now:

Tool

Tool as they were on their first EP in 1992:

Them now:

So there it is. Three bands that succumbed and three that didn't.

The Lone Ranger

The Lone Ranger has been playing for a few weeks now. Unfortunately, it's on it's way to becoming a box office disaster and, at this point, I think they'd be lucky to break even. Normally, I wouldn't give half a shit; when John Carter became the year's biggest blowout, I kinda rejoiced because Disney makes so much money that it's disgusting and they were well deserving of a failure (plus, fuck that movie).

But this is another story. The Lone Ranger was made by the same studio that did the the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy and that other unrelated fourth one that I still refuse to acknowledge. The films are pretty indistinguishable. Even if you didn't know that it was the same studio, you would no doubt sense the similarities and Johnny Depp being a lead role doesn't help disguise that.

The movie starts on a boardwalk carnival in the 1930's which is appropriate because that's when the radio show first got started. We see a young boy who's dressed up as the Lone Ranger. He's quickly enticed into a Wild West exhibit where he sees a wax mannequin of a very elderly Johnny Depp in a display titled Savage Native in his Natural Habitat. It isn't long before Depp springs to life and starts telling the boy the story of the Lone Ranger. Whether the exhibit is really coming to life or if it's just in the boy's imagination is left for the audience to speculate but the movie will occasionally return to this setting whenever the boy interrupts the story and it reminds me of movies like Princess Bride; it's not really needed but it's a charming touch.

The story begins with an action sequence which flows much like the action did in the Pirates movies; goofy and humorous but in such a way that everything times and flows perfectly. The fight ends in a train wreck that allegedly was not done with CGI. Whether that's true or not, I don't know for sure, but if it is then it's a damn impressive sequence.

The cast is pretty strong in this movie. The two leads Depp and Arnie Hammer in his first major role, are both very good and they're funny together. Depp,who's character's name is Tonto, in this movie is nearly identical to Captain Jack Sparrow except with an Native American accent. That's none too surprising to me but it only makes this film seem even more like Pirates of the Caribbean.

The rest of the cast is pretty good too. The love interest, Ruth Wilson is another strong part but the villains in this movie are a bit bland. Not to the point where I don't like them but they simply failed to interest me much and I grew bored of them. I feel like Helena Bonham Carter, who plays a strumpet and is simply named Red, is in this movie for no other reason than that she's a star and she could probably be completely cut out.

But overall I think this movie was pretty alright. I'm not really sure what it was that everyone seemed to hate so much. It had good action and was funny. At a running time of something like 150 minutes, it may have been a little long and I'll admit I was getting somewhat bored in the latter parts but at the time that I saw it, I had been awake for 30 hours straight and it kept me from falling asleep so that should count for something.

The cinematography is gorgeous and just about every shot in the film has amazing backgrounds. That's quite important for this movie because setting plays such a big part in Westerns and in this case, they really nailed it.

If you compare it to other modern Westerns such as True Grit or HBO's Deadwood, it's doomed, but overall, I think this movie is pretty worth it especially if for nothing else but the last action scene which involved two trains, a lot of jumping and was absolutely great. I don't think the Lone Ranger really deserves to be a disaster when bullshit like Despicable Me 2 is seeing enormous success. Sure, they may have been trying to capitalize on the name, The Lone Ranger, but at least it's a somewhat original film. It's chock-full of classic cliches that were clearly lifted directly from the serials that inspired it and, like those, it thrives on the kind of situations that make you think, "so how are they getting out of this one?" which is great because that was such a huge basis of the original show. It reminds me of the Indiana Jones films in that sense; making what's old seem new again. So yeah, you might want to see this one at some point.

7/10 - Pretty good.

Upcoming: Fallout 4

2008 saw the release of the long awaited Fallout 3. After the franchise had been recently purchased by Bethesda, they wasted no time in starting on production of the next installment and gave the world one of the best games to have been released in the past decade. Role Playing Games (RPGs) are often among the most detailed and finely crafted gaming experiences a person can buy and offer hundreds of hours of content. I've played through Fallout 3 multiple times and I refuse to add up all of my play-time hours because that'd probably be a really depressing number.

But it's been five uneventful years since Fallout 3 and Bethesda continues to tease us. They recently announced that they have officially closed the doors on Skyrim and will be moving on to their next project. Anyone with a brain should be hoping that that next project is Fallout 4.

Between Jason Bergman, developer and senior producer at Bethesda Softworks and Erik Todd Dellums, voice actor of Three-Dog, both teasing at it's eventual existence (among a few other teasers Bethesda has released), I'm just going to act like Fallout 4 has already been announced and it's production is underway. Please keep in mind that all of these predictions are simply my own thoughts so you can take them with a grain of salt.

Many people have been speculating as to where the next game might take place. We can already likely narrow down the country. Every game so far has taken place in America. I could see an add-on being set in a different, equally war-torn nation, but since this game will have a number at the end of it's title, that means it's part of the main series, so it will likely be in the United States.

The most recent installment, Fallout: New Vegas, which was an add-on to Fallout 3 as well as a full game, takes place in Las Vegas, as the title suggests. Because that game was in a location from Wasteland, it might be safe to assume that the next game will also take place in a Wasteland location.

What? Don't know what I'm talking about? Didn't know that Fallout is essentially a remake of the 1988 post-apocalyptic, Apple II game, titled Wasteland? The games are all just littered with references. To name just a few:

• Wasteland features a Brotherhood of Steel lookalike faction, referred to as The Guardians who are based in a fortress dubbed The Citadel.
• Power Armor is originally from Wasteland and was called the same thing.
• Ghouls from Fallout appear in Wasteland but are called a variety of names, including Ghoul.
• Robots appear in Wasteland.
• Deathclaws are essentially just a renamed version of Shadowclaws which are mutated Iguanas from Wasteland.
• In Fallout 3, the Children of Atom are a nuclear bomb worshipping cult. In Wasteland, a cult that worships nuclear bombs call themselves Servants of the Mushroom Cloud.
• The Wasteland Survival Guide is named after Wasteland's game guidebook.
• In the first Fallout game, ZAX are advanced supercomputers. In Wasteland, VAX is a recruitable and highly advanced robot NPC.
• In Fallout 3, the character Brick says she loves turning mutants into a "fine red mist" which was one of the descriptions that Wasteland used to describe it's combat deaths.
• Three-Dog jokes that his toaster needs fixing; a reference to the Toaster Repair ability from Wasteland.
• In Wasteland, the first quest given to the Desert Rangers is to fix a water-pump (sound familiar?).
• A fully sentient AI villain who wants to replace the inhabitants of the world with the genetically superior is the main antagonist of both Fallout 3 and Wasteland.

Sorry if your life is now a lie.

So what does any of that have to do with predicting the setting of Fallout 4? Well, Las Vegas is a location within Wasteland and if that weren't enough in both games it's an area that remained relatively untouched by the apocalypse. Therefore, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that Bethesda may be taking Wasteland locations into consideration. Much of that game takes place in the Southwest and Southern United States. This combined with the fact that Fallout Tactics 2, a game which never saw the light of day, was going to be set in Florida, leads me to believe that a Southern setting could be highly possible.

Besides that, I think another likely location would be in New York City, but for totally different reasons. Sure, us Americans are all familiar with our own country but Fallout is an internationally renowned series and NYC is a place that's recognized by people worldwide. Personally, I hope that this is not the case for the game, mainly because NYC as a setting is so overdone and has been featured in literally hundreds of movies and video games to date.

Besides that, I think a Southern setting would be intriguing because it's not the kind of place that is not often explored in gaming, so it would be a unique idea. The only other thing I can think of that would be like it would be Point Lookout the DLC add-on for Fallout 3, which was similar to a deep-south bayou. If Bethesda could do that on a small scale, then it's totally possible to make a bigger version of it for a full game. Furthermore, people think that NYC would be better because it's so iconic but personally, I think that the game would benefit by being somewhere that is the exact opposite, not iconic. That way the developers would have plenty of space to create their own ideas without being hindered by having to include things like Times Square or the Empire State Building.

However, if Fallout 4 simply must take place in a city, I think a much more interesting location would be Boston. Boston is a lot smaller than NYC and it's size is similar, but somewhat bigger than D.C. so it would be an alluring location for the next Fallout game. As the lore goes, after the war MIT becomes a mysterious faction called The Institute which is eventually what becomes referred to as the Commonwealth, who is responsible for all of those blasted robots we love so much, including androids so that would surely play into the game. I think that this idea is much more interesting than NYC.

As far as the plot goes, it's difficult to make an accurate prediction but we can speculate based on what we already know about the lore. Every Fallout game so far has had some circulation around water. Fallout was about fixing your Vault's water-pump; Fallout 2 the wasteland is suffering from drought so you need to find the G.E.C.K. to return life; Fallout 3 there's Project Purity which is the plan to purify all the water in the Capital Wasteland; and in Fallout: New Vegas there's the fight for the Hoover Dam. Without water there can be no life, so it seems reasonable that it's the main focus of a post apocalypse story. Also the games often follow a similar formula. They start with something simple and eventually develop into a horrific plot that threatens the entire Wasteland, so keep that in mind when you're thinking about the future game.

So considering this, it's safe to say that the next game will likely have something to do with the never-ending fight over water. I would guess  that the Enclave would return but considering the state they've been left in at the end of Fallout 3, it's probable that they were never able to recover and died out. Perhaps Fallout 4 would feature a different faction of the Enclave that's based in a new region.

What would be more interesting would be if the Brotherhood of Steel were your enemies. They were good guys in Fallout 3, sure, but if you ever spoke with the Outcasts, they'd tell you that the D.C. Brotherhood is acting alone and, in the Outcast's opinion, is too involved in the needs of the people who live here. In other words, they're saying the Brotherhood should pursue it's main objective, that is collecting technology, with little regard for the wellbeing of anyone else. I could certainly see this mentality leading to the Brotherhood being seen as bullies, going around threatening civilians and such.

If the game is set in Boston, it would be very likely that The Commonwealth and the androids would be playing a big part and they would probably be the bad guys.

Date and time have never been important facets in the Fallout lore. The games are all relatively within the same time period but they never interact with each other so as far as the average gamer is concerned, the continuity is not important. That being said, I mentioned before that Dellum gave a tease a year or so ago. It was a tweet that said, "To all Fallout 3 and Three-Dog fans: there may be more Three-Dog coming! Fingers crossed!" That leads me to believe that Three-Dog's voice will again be accompanying us during our travels throughout the wastes which could conceivably mean that Fallout 4 will be taking place within only a few years of Fallout 3, but be that prior or subsequent is still up in the air.

As the months roll on and still no official statements are made, it's seeming more and more likely that Fallout 4 will see a Next-Gen release and, considering that it hasn't even been announced yet, there's certainly a lot of time between that fateful day and now. I'm following Three-Dog's instructions. I'm crossing my fingers in the hopes that Bethesda isn't about to come forward with Rage 2 or some other bullshit and that they get right on it with the next Fallout. It's been five years and the world it ready for another adventure in the post apocalypse.

Upcoming: James Bond 24

Today I bring you yet another 2015 blockbuster. James Bond 24, which is obviously a working title, will soon be starting production and after naming Skyfall the best film of 2012 last year, I'm very excited for the next installment in what I thought was going to be a Craig trilogy.

Sam Mendes, the director of the most recent Bond installment, Skyfall, has officially signed on as the director of Bond 24. There was a lot of talk that Mendes wouldn't be able to direct because he had other theatre responsibilities and the two producers, Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, spent some time looking for alternatives who included David Yates and Christopher Nolan. In the end, rather than opt to replace Mendes, the two Producers simply decided to wait until his schedule cleared up. Other good news? The script writer of Skyfall, John Logan, is returning to write Bond 24.

While there hasn't been any budget talks so far, Skyfall made $1.1 billion worldwide, so you can bet that MGM and Columbia Pictures won't be cheaping out on us. Right now, the producers are trying to get Ralph Fiennes, Ben Wishaw and Naomi Harris back into the film but it's expected that all three actors will return without hesitation.

Those of you living in England are lucky enough to see it on October 23rd, 2015 while us living in America will have to wait a few extra weeks and see it on November 6th. The American date means that it'll be competing with Ant-Man, which will probably end up rescheduling it's release in order to stay away from the same weekend as Bond.

With so much time between then and now, there's a lot that could happen and in my opinion, November of 2015 couldn't come soon enough.

Shark Week 2013

Just can't get enough of those blood-thirsty, fish-freaks with a death fetish? Comforted by the thought of three rows of deadly, razor-sharp teeth? Well, then have you come to the right place. Welcome to the first annual Shark Week brought to you by The Aculeus. Everyone loves Shark Week and so do I. Therefore, to help celebrate the manliest seven days on the calendar, I have composed a series of reviews and articles that will air once a day for seven days straight from August 4th to August 10th. One shark related post per-day.

The first six days are all reviews. Any B-film connoisseur knows that there is no more shameful a movie than a shark flick and I intend to dig up some of the corniest that direct to DVD has to offer. Prepare yourself because this ain't no Discovery Channel and there is no such thing as fact when you're talking about shark movies.

We'll top it off on the last day with a top ten shark countdown. For the hardcore shark fans, I challenge you to dig up each film I name and watch one everyday it's announced. For the casuals, sit back and enjoy some ass-kicking shark madness. Begin the countdown for Shark Week 2013.