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.

Revisited: The Dark Knight Rises

Welcome to One Year Later, where I look at movies that came out about a year ago re-review it and see if it still holds up. Today I will be revisiting The Dark Knight Rises given that it's release date was July 16, 2012 and that my first initial review of it was, in my opinion, very shoddily written.

The epic finale that is The Dark Knight Rises is not by any means your run-of-the-mill hollywood blockbuster. But if you've seen either of the other films in the trilogy, then you should know full-well what you're getting into with this film.

This decade has ushered in a new age where superhero and comic-book inspired films are taken very, very seriously. Many of the biggest summer blockbusters coming out these days are about some kind of caped crusader and they're often largely grounded in realism. Sure you have to suspend your disbelief, buying that a radioactive spider bite could make a hormonally stressed-out high-schooler into a crime fighting machine but it's still handled with remarkable realism and I believe this trend can be traced back to Sam Raimi's first three Spiderman movies, which were all pretty well received.
But The Dark Knight trilogy emblematizes the most extreme example and is drenched in it's own gritty recipe of filmmaking style. In a recent review of Man of Steel, I called Christopher Nolan a glimmer of hope in Hollywood and he is just that. He makes his movies real. He doesn't take the easy route and CG everything; matter of fact, that first scene where an airplane is hanging off of a bigger airplane? All real, stuntmen and all, no CG.

But while the special effects are always an important thing in any movie, that's not what makes The Dark Knight Rises a standout film. It's not the kind of movie where you can just sit back and expect everything to make sense, you actually have to think. The movie feels really intelligent and seems like something that could conceivably happen in real life.
Furthermore, all of the characters are great, save for one, Miranda Tate played by Marion Cotillard who just doesn't really interest me much and I feel like she didn't even really need to be in the movie at all. The rest of the cast is magnificent especially that of two film legends, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman who play Alfred and Lucius Fox, respectively. Bane is a great villain. He's big, he's scary and he has a really strong presence in every scene he's in, especially whenever he speaks.
Anne Hathaway, who plays Catwoman was perfectly cast for the role and makes the Halle Berry movie look more embarrassing than it already was. Catwoman is an interesting character and her screen time doesn't feel needless, it's not like they threw her in there just to get another character.

All of this promotional artwork is nice to boot.

As a finale to a trilogy, it works well. The first he begins, the second he falls, the third, rises. I don't think it's quite on par with The Dark Knight which was largely subtle and more of a suspense movie. This one is more of an epic than that one was and the final action scenes are a real edge-of-your-seat kind of thing with a ticking time-bomb countdown.
The Dark Knight Rises is still as good as it was a year ago. Christopher Nolan really had a vision for his Batman trilogy and, in my opinion, it's the best Batman has ever been. The Dark Knight Rises is a great finale to the story. If you haven't seen it by now, see it.

9/10 - Great.

Top 10 Movie Explosions

It's Independence Day and nothing says America like motherfucking explosions. We celebrate this patriotic holiday by trying our darndest to blow up the sky by launching millions of fireworks nationwide. Because of that, and because America fucking rules, I've compiled a list of the best movie explosions ever. These are the most earth-shatteringly incredible acts of cataclysmic destruction ever showcased on the silver-screen. I give you Top 10 Movie Explosions.

10. The Matrix

I remember this scene blowing my fucking mind when I first saw it. The way the whole building ripples is just plain awesome.

9. The Dark Knight

Three things make this explosion worthy of being on this list. One, the Joker is hilarious, especially in a nurse outfit. Two, that part where he turns all confused and mashes the button was actually improvised. Three, they actually blew the living fuck out of a real set. None of that is CG. Originally it was just supposed to go up all at once but something went wrong but Heath Ledger just played it anyway.

8. Alien

Sorry about this one being an utter shit video, it's really the best I could find. Start it at 1:16.

Anyway, as underwhelming as this may seem by today's standards, in 1979, that shit was awesome and there really wasn't much comparison.

7. The Hurt Locker

The explosion that occurs in the opening sequence of The Hurt Locker may not be the most over the top but the movie is so gritty and realistic that it feels much more intense. Not to mention the awesome slow-motion effects.

6. Watchmen

CONTAINS SPOILERS

Who would've thought that the bad guy would win and would succeed in destroying every major city on the planet? No one who hadn't read the book could guess that that would've happened and damn is that explosion really cool. That brieft moment of silence just makes it.

5. Terminator 2

The dream sequence from Terminator 2, while perhaps looking a bit outdated for today, was awesome in 1991 and was enough to scare the shit out of me when I was a kid. That part where her skin burns off ruined my life.

4. Die Hard

This one just had to be on here because it's so iconic. Not to mention, it's a badass fucking explosion.

3. Independence Day

Yeah, yeah, the audio is in spanish, who gives a fuck it's an explosion.

You may be surprised to hear that this scene actually doesn't have that much CG in it. The explosion effect was done by turning miniature of New York on it's side and lighting a fire underneath it. That haunting, sideways moving explosion blows my mind to this day.

2. Star Wars

There was nothing like the tension of that climatic scene. Vader is closing in and that awesome DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN music was going. Luke makes the shot and BOOM. I love the way there's like sparkles that float out towards you.

It was all fun and games until Lucas had to go back years later and change it. Oh well, at least the above video is the original.

1. Angles and Demons

CONTAINS SPOILERS

I've truly never seen anything quite like the anti-matter explosion at the end of Angels and Demons. While most movie explosions are just some variation of a fireball, this one looks like heaven has just opened up and it's fucking rapture or some shit. When it comes to badass movie explosions, this one takes the cake.

Fourth State of the Union Address

Readers, it is my honor to welcome you for the fourth time to yet another State of the Union Address (SUA). This is the one time in a great while that I take some time off of writing the articles you all love so much and speak to the readers themselves. Here I celebrate new milestones this website has made and talk about some changes I will be implementing.
So, what's the occasion? Well besides the fact that I'm now at a regular 500+ readers per month, this month marks the one year anniversary of this blog's existence!

And damn has this blog come a long way since then (I don't recommend reading anything before January 2013). Thank you all for helping me get this far. The faithful 500 of you that actually take time out of your lives to read this shit is a big motivation for me. It's exhilarating to think that my monthly readers outnumber the entire Roman Spartan army (yes, I know there were more than 300 of them).

So then what new things can you expect? Well, actually I'm going to ask something of you. But hey, I think the Joker can explain it better than I can.

If you didn't get all that, I'm in the market for taking on a new writer and have one or two spots open for hire. I've been wanting to change it up a little and get some new talent in the field. I'll lay out the application. If you're interested in applying, email me the prerequisites as outlined here at thesimoncullen@gmail.com

The Application:

1.) I need to have some validation that you're A.) A real person and B.) Not a serial rapist or whatever. Anything like simply linking a facebook page would be enough. I'm not going to use the information we just want to get some idea of what you are. 

2.) [Optional] A list of three movies you like. Doesn't have to be your favorite movies and you don't need to say anything in their defense, just a list.

3.) [Optional] How do you spend your time on the internet? A few sentences on what you enjoy doing.

4.) A formal review of the film Prometheus (preferably Prometheus, but if some other movie absolutely possess you, feel free). Can be as short or as long as you want. Just talk about what you think about the film and express thoughts or ideas it may have conjured. Choose your own tone be it humorous or serious. You don't have to pander to my liking and give a review similar to mine, matter of fact, it'd be silly for me to go hiring writers that are all exactly like me. We just want to see that you have some writing ability.

And that's it. Again, just write all of it out in an email and send it to thesimoncullen@gmail.com.

Thank you for all of the time you all spend reading here. I'd love to see this blog expand further and take on new talent. Here's to a hopeful future and excited to be working with you.

Cheers

Man of Steel

I'll start by saying, I'm not a Superman fan. As a matter of fact, when it comes to comic books, the only real superhero I could say I actually like would be Batman (and I do love Batman). Nothing against the guy, I'm just not much of a comic book fan. I still watched the Superman movies and I liked them, save for Superman IV, hell, I even liked Superman Returns even though most people seemed to have hated it. So, I went into Man of Steel with an open mind.

The movie starts on the futuristic CG planet of Krypton, which is in some sort of turmoil. Russel Crowe is trying to ell the high council that the planet is doomed to collapse, when all of the sudden some angry looking guy named General Zod, who's played by Michael Shannon, comes in and starts shooting up the place in a coup attempt. Over the course of the next fifteen minutes or so, space ships are shot down, lasers are blasted and baby Clark Kent gets shot off into space. It's a good way to start off the movie because it gets some action in right in the beginning but it also manages to not come off as being just a dumb, unnecessary explosion-fest and it explains a lot of much-needed backstory.

A lot of the movie from there on out is about how Superman came to be Superman. It's told mostly non-linearly, which I like because it's stylish and keeps the viewer on their toes. You can't tune out and just expect it all to make perfect sense, you actually have to pay some attention. The main point of this timeline of Clark's life is largely to show why he became such a strongly moraled person and there are a lot of deep meaningful ideas talked about in these scenes. What we were born to accomplish? Are there things that the human race still isn't ready for? Most of these are talked about mostly by Clark's adoptive father who is played very convincingly by Kevin Costner.

I still preferred him in Waterworld.

Assholes may complain, saying that the movie is too slow or long but I say it's all too necessary and helps set the movie apart from the usual Avengers-esque mindless blockbuster shit and gives the movie some emotion and drama. That's the main thing I liked about this film, it felt intelligent. Obviously, Christopher Nolan, the shining beacon of hope ever gleaming over in Tinseltown, left his mark on the film and it feels like The Dark Knight but with Superman instead.
Despite all of the talking, there is a hell of a lot of action. There's enough action here to silence any attention-challenged moviegoer and damn is it cool. My readers may be surprised to hear me say that considering much of it is CG but please, don't misquote me. What I don't like is the use of CG when it's clearly unneeded. Obviously, what's onscreen during the movie would be largely impossible without it's aid and there's no reason anyone should have to deliberately hinder their story, a value I talked about in the article Double Standards. So, to be fair, I'm not going to disparage this movie for that.

I actually saw the movie several days ago now but I've been having an unreasonably hard time writing this review. The problem was that I liked the movie too much. Everyone I've talked to and every review I've read has given me a resounding 'meh', like Man of Steel was some C+ material. To my own surprise, I disagree. The movie really blew me away. I loved it and I thought it was perfect. The acting was great, it was intelligent and dramatic, the action was amazing and is exactly what I'd hope to see in a faithful, live-action Dragonball Z movie (which we will likely never see in our lifetime). What was it about the film that people didn't like? I still don't know how to answer that question and I'm pissed that those naysayers made me second-guess my own opinion.
Man of Steel is an amazing film and really must be seen on the silver screen.

9.5/10 - Go see it.

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

I recently finished the novel by Steig Larsson, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and wanted to pick up the movie as soon as possible. Unfortunately, watching the movie would require a choice between the Swedish version which released in 2009 or the American version which released in 2011. Now, I hate making decisions, so I opted to simply watch both films and then compare the two.

As far as being a faithful adaptation goes, both movies are pretty true to the source material with only nominally insignificant differences. Ultimately, they follow it pretty accurately. Overall, the Swedish version is somewhat closer to it's source material but regardless, they don't contrast too much. A few things cut out here, a slight change there, typical movie-version stuff. The chapters that were cut out make sense to me, for the most part. They were all either nonessential scenes or they just would've taken up too much time in movies that were already two and a half hours long.
The biggest difference between the films were the actors. The two women who were in the roles of Lisbeth Salander were totally different indeed. The American version had Rooney Mara, who was also in The Social Network and the Nightmare on Elm Street remake as well as a few minor parts. The Swedish version had, to my surprise, Noomi Rapace who you may recognize as the main role in Prometheus, one of two American movies she's been in, the other being Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows. I thought that was pretty cool just because after seeing her in Prometheus, I never would've guessed that English was not her first language. Anyway, as I was saying, it'd be pretty impossible to mix up the two as they play their parts in totally different ways as well as looking totally different.

That's Noomi on the left and Rooney on the right.

If you've seen any red-carpet pictures of Rooney, you know she looks pretty normal in real life. Rooney actually did most of her "makeover" herself and all of the piercings are real, including the ones on her nipples which she proudly displays on the back cover of the movie box. As impressive her devotion to the part is, I think it's a little overboard and the whole no eyebrows thing was kind of distracting.
But eyebrow fashion notwithstanding, her actual acting skill is what's important. I've heard that reviewers often said she did great in the role, but I disagree and I think she did pretty poorly. While it's true that the character Salander is supposed to be somewhat emotionless, I'm not sure Rooney changed her facial expression one single time over the course of the entire movie. She looked dead on screen and managed to suck most of the life out of the scenes she was in with her dull delivery of her dialogue, save for a few exceptions.
Noomi on the other hand was much better. Besides being the spitting image of the character I pictured in my imagination when I read the book, she had much more life and intensity in her acting than Rooney did. Salander was still an uncaring punk of a protagonist but it came off as being much more natural and she seemed more like a human being.

Michael Nyqvist on the left and Daniel Craig on the right.

The two actors who played Mikael Blomkvist were both very good and didn't differ much. Knowing Daniel Craig and having seen his other works, I think he could've done better, but it was still a well-played part. The other guy, Michael Nyqvist, was good but not quite on par with Daniel Craig as he was a little dull in comparison. Still, neither parts distracted from the overall movie, but neither added to it much either.

Pictured: Noomi Rapace showing some kind of emotion.

One place where the two films became more distinct from each other is in the climax scene, which I won't spoil. I will however say that I didn't like the way the American version did it at all. I think it was clear they were going for a stylish kind of approach but it didn't work and it failed miserably in heightening the sequence, during which I should've been on the edge of my seat, eyes wide.

The Swedish adaptation left something to be desired, but I think they still did a much better job on that pivotal scene than the American version did.

There are things that the American film did that was more of an improvement over the Swedish one. For instance, the way they explain the complicated background of the murder mystery was much clearer and easier to understand with the American one due to it's stylish usage of flashbacks while the Swedish one tried to explain it purely with dialogue.

After spending five total hours watching these two movies, what I really wish is that the two could be morphed together into one. There are things that one did that was better than the other and vice versa. At first, I was planning on giving the American version a disparaging review because I abhorred the acting among a few other mishaps, but I remembered that the story is the important thing and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a great story. It's a grim and gritty thriller with an ending that's pretty hard to predict. I forgot that because I was fresh off the book and already knew what was supposed to happen.

Overall I would say that the Swedish version is better, mainly because of it's acting and if you're going to watch just one of them, I'd recommend that one. But that aside, they're both good movies and to a person who cares a little more than the average viewer, I would say, watch both. That way you can get the most complete experience as the movies sort of compliment each other in their differences.

American: 7.5/10

Swedish: 8.5/10