Game Review - Alone in the Dark (Atari; Wii)

Well, I got this a while ago from fellow LOTT Der Iloz Zoc over at Zombos' Closet of Horrors, and having played it on and off for a while, I felt like now was a good time to review it.

Let me start off by saying that I did not finish this game, and in a moment, I will explain why. I did not even come close to finishing it, even though I spent a significant amount of time with the game. This is partly why the review has taken so long, because I wanted to hold off on it until I had actually completed Alone in the Dark. But now I fear that that day will just never happen.

Remember, this review is only for the Wii version of the game, so it does not have bearing over any other versions out there. That being said, do not buy this game for your Wii. If you don't have anything besides a Wii, simply skip this game altogether.

From what I gathered of the plot, there is some sort of monster attacking New York City, and the main character wakes up to find that he doesn't know who he is after some sort of scientific experiment. He has to run, gun, drive, and blink his way out of NYC with some rather annoying secondary characters, ambiguous mission objectives, and terribly uninterested and satiated zombies. From there, it's a struggle for the viewer to understand, or even care, about the plot, and everything seems bare bones.

I am stretched thin for words regarding the gameplay itself. Vocabulary such as "terrible," "makes me suicidal," "I want to throw my nunchuck and Wiimote at the TV," or, "I can't see a thing!" come to mind, although that doesn't really do the game any justice. Breaking it down:

The graphics are pretty decent, although much of the in-game detail is difficult to enjoy because of the ever-pervasive darkness throughout the whole game, and while that is the name of the game, YOU CAN'T FUCKING SEE ANYTHING. At one point, I was meandering through a sewer equipped with my gun and my flashlight, and then unknowingly, I fell through a hole in the floor. I landed in a lower level of the sewer, and conveniently, my flashlight went out - which, may I express, doesn't help you see much as it is - and I was stuck using a lighter that allows me to see about 2 feet in front of. Now, I wasn't so much scared of the zombies or monsters that might lurking down there in the darkness. What I was more worried about was wandering around aimlessly in the tunnels, only being able to see the wall in front of me, and realizing that I could not find my way around A VIDEO GAME.

Trailer for the game. Looks so cool, doesn't it?! Lies.

And that's not the only reason why the game is less than scary. First off, most of the monsters are directly in front of you, and they wander around like they're looking for their lost car keys. The AI is terrible; in fact, most of the zombies will barely even look at you unless you walk right in front of them. Then again, this might have been a reasonable addition to the game, since you'll use up most of the sparse ammo you find shooting at nothing, either thinking that you have to SHOOT OPEN DOORS or just because of the lousy control of the Wiimote.

Speaking of lousy controls, I just want to take a look at a few of the CLUSTERFUCKS that the game expects you to overcome. For one thing, getting into your inventory is actually harder than any other gameplay mechanic. I don't know how many times I wanted to open my inventory (which requires the player to take both remotes, put them together, and then rotate them in an "opening-a-bag" motion), only to find that my character puts his gun away, or the flashlight, or both, or just the flashlight, or takes the gun back out again, or puts it away again, or takes the flashlight out again... You get my drift. Too many times, I was stuck with my lighter in my hand, trying to get my gun out and then just saying, "Screw it" to run pell-mell into a horde of zombies. Then, we get to driving. The control setup is simply atrocious, and is probably one of the best examples of, "Just because you have the technology, it does not mean you should actually DO it." I was stuck in the parking garage for an hour just trying to figure out how to actually drive the car around without smashing into barricades.

As for running and jumping, it's a chore just to run straight, and although you can choose between 3rd or 1st person cameras, the game stresses that this "choice" is only limited - at some points, you must be in 1st person. Although the 1st person viewpoint does get the player more "into" the game (if you really can get into this game), looking around is tedious, and I think that the 3rd person is better suited for this game, especially on the Wii. Jumping should just have been totally erased from the game's code, as there's no real easy way to do it. You'll find yourself dying because the character does not grab onto ropes at the right time, or maybe you just overshot the other rope because you can't see anything. Something is not right with a game when basic skills cannot be completed, and jumping requires trial and error. At least the game saves your progress after each mini-sequence; I guess the makers felt it was needed because everything is so hit-or-miss that you'd be starting the whole game over again 5 times.

There are some really cool ideas that the game presents, though, including applying your own medical care. In the beginning, you are hurt in the abdomen and have to find a medical supply in a run-down building. Not really sure how the 911 operator knew that the first aid kit was there, but I went with it. Once you grab the equipment, you have to find the wound on your body and patch it up. I felt like it was a really cool idea, only it's a really small part of the game and doesn't do much to amp up the action.

There's also some bat-like things that come out of the sky and snatch you up in their talons, but it's really annoying when you can't kill them and just have to run for your life, trying to find any buildings to get into that you can't see. There's not much point in exploration, other than finding ammo conveniently placed in sewers and such. Most of the time, you can't see where the items are, so you just have to stumble upon them. Most of the time, I just ran around pressing A all the time, randomly picking things up that I figured I'd need.

It's this willy-nilly gameplay, running around blindly, that makes the game feel unfinished and repetitive. I have to admit that some of the sequences were rather cool, like the bats picking up your car, but then again, the action was implemented so poorly that I had to repeat it a couple of times to even understand what I was supposed to be doing. In the end, after understanding that the game was not going to lighten up and that I could not get used to the shitty control scheme, I cursed and flipped a few birds and put the game back on the shelf. I gave it a lot of tries, I really did, and I'm a completionist and not one to quit on a game, but this... this is a game from Hell. Honestly. If you want a completely frustrating and unrewarding experience, and want a game to make you feel retarded, play this game. Otherwise, stay well, well away from the Wii version, at least.

Thanks go out to Iloz Zoc for sending me this for review - I hope you had a better experience playing than I did.

Movie Review - My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009; in glorious 2-D!)

My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)


Alright, so, as explained in my last post, my theater was not offering My Bloody Valentine 3-D in 3-D; now, if you read that statement, it kind of sounds hypocritical, right? Right. The theater's website had said that My Bloody Valentine was, in fact, in 3-D, and I trusted it. As I got there, I ordered the tickets, waiting to receive my 3-D glasses; when the girl behind the glass only handed me two tickets, I smiled and said to myself, "Well, it might be too hard to handle the glasses up front - I bet they give them to you in the theater."

I gave my tickets to the ticket-ripper guy - which is kind of pointless as it is two feet from the ticket stand - and made my way through the popcorn-littered hallway. The theater for MBV was all the way in the back of the building, in the smallest theater that they had. I had to contend with a grumpy old man with a walker who was looking for theater 2 snarl at me, but finally reached the film. This was only to find that there were no glasses in the theater, either. I sat down, totally pissed, and I heard everyone else filing in saying that they thought the movie was supposed to be in 3-D as well. I went out and asked the dude taking tickets and he assured me the movie WAS NOT in 3-D, even though THAT IS THE NAME OF THE MOVIE. Oh, and the movie theater has a glamorous rule about no refunds. Yay for me, I was stuck watching a 3-D movie in 2-D like every other film.

It just so happens that I missed this little tidbit from the MBV website -


Well now... marketing a 3-D movie in 2-D? That sounds less than fair. I understand that not all theaters can afford to have the film in 3-D, but the theater should have the responsibility of telling the public that they will not be offering it in this format.

---

Okay. Explanation done, and on to the movie review.

My Bloody Valentine 3D is, as most know, a remake of the 1981 slasher flick of the same name. Of course, as the name suggests, the setting for the film is supposed to take place around Valentine's Day, but as we'll see later, the film in question has little to do with the holiday itself. In this re-imagining, a crazed miner, Henry Warden (Rich Walters), goes on a killing spree when a bunch of teens gather together at the mine where he worked. Those in attendence include Tom Hanniger (Jensen Ackles) and his girlfriend at the time, Sarah (Jaime King), and Axel Palmer (Kerr Smith) and his girl, Irene (Betsy Rue). These protagonists make it out alive, although leaving Tom for the killer's wrath. The police intervene just in time, stopping Harry from busting Tom's head in with a pickaxe, and then we're relocated ten years later in the same town. It's the anniversary of the vicious murders, and Tom is back in town to sell the mine that he owns. Instead of ending the memory of the murders, though, Tom seems to bring them back, as another killer is running amok and imitating Harry Warden. Axel is out to stop whoever is doing it, systematically running a generic search for the killer, all the while cheating on his wife. People are killed, and towards the end of the film, Axel's wife, Sarah (who used to be Tom's girlfriend), has to choose between who the real killer is - Axel or Tom.

What choice does she make? Better yet - who cares?

Jensen Ackles looks just as confused as I was.

First, let's get right down to business, shall we? Before we even meet our protagonists, they are already under attack by psycho killer Harry Warden. The movie gives us no basis as to why Harry Warden has gone on his teen-murdering rampage and barely even clearing up why he's in the movie to begin with. Harry kills his victims as generically as possible, and the only thing that is a surprise to the audience is the fact that people are already dying. There is no lead-up, hardly an introduction to the protagonists who we're supposed to be "rooting" for, and everyone that dies is a stock character that was placed in the film for just that killing stroke. At this point (and that's like ten minutes into the movie), the violence felt much like exploitative shock value and not anything meaningful to the plot.

As we begin to meet the characters ten years later, it's hard to recognize that these are actually the same people as the opening sequence. I was under the impression that Axel was just some small-town cop. This is partially the fault of the harried introductions, and Axel's goofy moustache is also partly to blame. Tom is from the beginning the most likable character of the group, but this may only be because we are with him the most. The rest of the characters seem either stupid, or, in the case of Axel, gigantic douchebags, and the only character that really matters is Tom, anyway.

"Little Jimmy did an EXTRA good job on his haunted house this year!"

So it goes on in this way from 15 minutes in until around the hour and thirty minute mark, where people die that we barely know in humorous ways that are supposed to be seen as grotesque. There are very vague reference's to the actual holiday of Valentine's Day, but in all honesty, these murders could have happened on any day of the year. It's true that Axel's affair does play into the story somewhat, but only as a way to get the viewer and Sarah to distrust Axel at the very end.

The killing is monotonous, stroke after stroke from the killer's pickaxe driving me more and more into a drooling fatigue. The chase scenes are not tense, practically asking for someone in the theater to yell at the screen, "You moron!" Most scenes feel ripped out of other slasher films, especially a shovel beheading that had serious tones of Wrong Turn, only it looked like it had been done by a high school tech crew. If it weren't for some of the (totally unnecessary) full-frontal nudity, sex, and over-the-top bloodshed, this could have easily been a sister to the equally-horrible Prom Night remake from 2008. Instead, the producers thought to give this film an R-rating to try and rope in some more suckers who thought the film would be more fun than it actually is.

"Is that you Red Ranger? You know we're supposed to be in the Megazord!"
Ahem, couldn't help giving a Power Rangers reference.

Throughout, I kept asking myself, "How old are these people?" The characters seem like they're still teenagers, even if they are married, and they definitely still act like it. And most of the people in the movie are stupid beyond belief. They can and will fall for anything, given the right circumstances, and paint their own demise all over the wall. There's no subtlety here; it's generic scriptwriting and execution from square one.

The story has no definite tone - when it's trying to be serious, it's hilarious, and when it's trying to be comical satire, it fails because of the blatant copyright infringement the screenwriters have to be dealing with in court. If MBV had just gone the straight satire route, pointing out all of the humorous slasher cliches, it would have fared better, but the plot tries to move the viewer emotionally, and all it got from me was a fart and a "Pah!"

Hmm, that's weird. I don't recall her wearing underwear in this scene...
But the trailer thinks so.

Even then, I could accept the fact that this was just another slasher with a tedious, albeit coherent, script. And then I got to the ending, where everything was "wrapped" up. Just so you know, SPOILER ALERT. If you care.

Tom is schizophrenic, okay, got that. You made it all too clear in the beginning of the film when Tom and the killer eyed each other for a minute straight and then stood up at the same time. Makes sense. But then, when the killer goes and kills a miner deep down in the mine, and comes and locks Tom in a cage, where the lock is bent from the outside, I'm just wondering WHERE TOM'S PICKAXE WENT. Or the fact that TOM HAD TO HIDE HIS COSTUME. So where was all that stuff if the cops checked out the are? Scenes like this just don't add up. It doesn't make sense. END SPOILER.

Where have I seen this scene before? Oh yeah, that's right...
EVERY SLASHER MOVIE EVER.

There's another instance where Tom asks a cop, "Why were you in the mine?" All fine and good, except I don't remember seeing this happen when we were with Tom in the mine, and so a lot of the scenes feel like there's just something missing. It's almost as if we're missing puzzle pieces, that the movie got too long and some scenes needed to be deleted.

The tension is thrown way off as well. The killer is not menacing, almost funny actually, and at the end when there is supposed to be an "intense" chase/face-off sequence, the only thing I was anxious about was the fact that my gum had lost all of its flavor. I can relate this to the film as well, because by about the half hour mark, it too had lost its flavor.

Little Harry found out the hard way that
a pickaxe boomerang is not a good idea.

In the end, it didn't really matter who the killer was, and the classic "shoot-him-not-me" sequence fell flat on its face. The movie offered enough evidence for both Tom and Axel to be the killer, and my bets were on Tom just because the audience would like him more. Either way, I couldn't have cared less; I was just hoping that she'd shoot one of them and get it over again.

Would this film have been more fun in 3-D? Yes, definitely. I could see the instances where there would have been a 3-D moment, and while there weren't really that many (most of them being flashlights glaring out of the screen), it would have made the film a tad more interesting. Could it have saved the film from its uninspired script, stale and stupid characters, or the monotonous killing spree? Absolutely not. Nothing could have saved that film, and I can now see why it was stuck in the back of the theater, and why they didn't want to spend money on getting it in 3-D. I think everyone walked out thinking how ridiculous the film was and what a waste of money it was to see it. Now I know why the tagline was so bad. No one wants this valentine...

My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009) on Rotten Tomatoes

What a BLOODYmess.

Welp, I ventured out to see My Bloody Valentine 3-D last night at my local theater, bought my tickets, then found out the theater only had it in fucking 2-D!

So, my friends, a review is coming of the atrocious (and I can't emphasize that enough) film that is My Bloody Valentine, one where I will rape and pillage its people.

Okay, let's not go that far...
But it's bad. Review coming when I get back to college.

Special Movie Review - The Kite Runner

The Kite Runner


I've never read the book, but I have been intrigued about Khaled Hosseini's novel for some time now. I've heard much good praise, and thought the film would be a good place to go to get the gist of what the fuss was about.

Marc Forster, also known for his recent film Quantum of Solace, directed this saddening movie, about a boy named Amir (Zekeria Ebrahimi) living in Afghanistan in the 1970s, enjoying his boyhood with his Baba's (Homayoun Ershadi) servant and friend's son, Hassan (Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada). Hassan is known around town as a lower class than Amir, making him the subject of much ridicule, but Hassan is a faithful friend and a good person. One day, Amir and Hassan win a kite competition, where they cut everyone else's kite strings, and Hassan goes to get the kite for Amir - where "the kite runner" phrase comes in. Alone, however, Hassan is ambushed by three kids - one of which is the leader Assef (Elham Ehsas) - who were once threatened by Hassan's self-confidence and strength. As Amir goes to find him, he witnesses the kids rape and beat Hassan, and does not have the courage to interfere. Instead he runs off, tries to forget what he saw, and eventually ends up excluding Hassan from his life. Hassan and his father leave after they see how Amir treats their family, and, after the Russians invade Afghanistan, Amir and Baba end up leaving for California.


Amir grows up (played by Khalid Abdalla), gets a college degree, and helps his father at his work selling things at a bazaar. Amir hopes to be a writer, while Baba wants him to become a doctor. Over time, Amir meets his future wife, Soraya (Atossa Leoni), and they get a house and Amir has his book published. However, Amir is called to the home of his old dying friend Rahim Khan (Shaun Toub), who expresses his wish for Amir to go back to Afghanistan - now occupied by the Taliban - to rescue a boy that is Hassan's son, Sohrab (Ali Danish Bakhtyari). Amir finds that Hassan was killed by the Taliban and something else really important to the story that I won't disclose here. Other stuff happens that would pretty much spoil the movie, and Amir runs kites at the end.

Kind of had to cut that summary short, huh? Well, there's no fun in giving the whole movie away.


The Kite Runner's cast of characters is profound, each with their own strong emotions and personalities. Baba and Hassan are both strong-willed and do not stand for the atrocities of our world, whether it be the mocking of class or the rape of an innocent woman. Hassan always stands up for his beliefs in his young age, making him the more likable of Hassan and Amir. In a way, Amir is the character the audience will like the least, because of his impish nature and shortcomings. This is telling of the film itself, because it is carried by its secondary characters, and even though the main character doesn't have the strength that the audience would like to see through the first half of the movie, the theme comes into play well in the second act.

The transistion from present to past to present really work, as the backstory needs to be seen rather than just heard. Granted, it makes The Kite Runner longer - and, in some parts, scenes could have been cut out that weren't necessary - but the knowledge of Hassan's rape is an emotional scarring for both the viewer and Amir which will force its way back into existence 20 years later. The past has a way of presenting itself again in the film, to repeat itself, and so the backtracking is a way of visually aiding that theme.


The movie does work with some horrific themes, adding to the sad texture of the film. Dealing with class struggle gives the viewer a glimpse at just how selfish and self-confident people can be, not just in Afghanistan but all over the world. The rape of children; the stoning and ridiculous laws of the Taliban; all are put on display here as a cultural view of what is going on in the world, ones that we try to put in the back of our minds. There is also an aspect that looks at strength in an individual, and how hard it is to actually be the witness. In a sense, both Hassan and Amir suffer through their young adulthood - Hassan having, of course, a much greater sense of depression.

By the end of the film, Amir has redeemed himself to a degree. He has made mistakes in the past and tried to make up for them by rescuing Hassan's son, and, for the most part, he is enlightened. But the fact of the matter is that you can never wholly make up for what you didn't do or what mistake you have made, especially in the case of Hassan. Amir, having acted differently in his childhood, might have been able to prevent Hassan's death, had he left with Amir and Baba in the '70s. There is always a pervading sense of dread, that forgiveness can be gained by some degree but never completely. There can not be a sense of closure, only knowledge that one did what they could, and in this regard, The Kite Runner is terrifying. Even the film mentions the fact that saving one child from rape or torture in Afghanistan does not protect the rest, and living with this thought is torturous in itself. The air of futility is always there.


Even then, the movie is still an enjoyable experience, albeit a very melancholy, thought-provoking one. The way the past wraps around itself, like a giant towel, pulls the viewer in close; it's almost closer than you actually want to be, and for that, the film does what it aims to do. Make the viewer uncomfortable, make them angry at the evils of the world - make them DO something. Run after those kites, be faithful, because there's always a possibility that that kite will never come back.

The Kite Runner on Rotten Tomatoes

Special Movie Review - Paul Blart: Mall Cop

Paul Blart: Mall Cop


I love Kevin James. I'm not lying; I have a big man-crush on him. Ever since The King of Queens started up, I have tuned in to see what James has had in store, and when Queens ended, I broke down a little. Well, not really, but I was sad to see it go. Now, I go out of my way to see something new from him, and I jumped at the chance to catch this flick.

It's not hard to imagine Kevin James as a mall cop. When adding that goofy mustache a la Jason Giambi, James personifies the exact stereotype of mall security. And so, as most things go, Paul Blart's outward appearance is a reflection of his personality - a serious worker, loving father, overall nice guy, and a little bit of a geek. But who doesn't love a geek? Over the course of the first half of the film, Blart reveals his dilemma; he's a good guy who doesn't have a good woman, except that one time when he was courted by an immigrant who used him to drop her kid off. Blart lives with his mom, feasting off of her cooking and working hard to become a New Jersey police officer. He keeps failing the test, but he continues his job as mall cop, and one day meets a woman selling wigs at a stand. Her name is Amy (Jayma Mays), and Blart immediately falls for her - literally and metaphorically, of course. Blart also trains a new guy, Veck Sims (Kier O'Donnell), gets pwned by douchebag pen salesman Stuart (Stephen Rannazzisi), and gets drunk at a party, where he embarrasses himself in front of Amy, who becomes disenchanted with his antics.


It's all going downhill for Blart when, while he's off playing Rock Band, robbers take over the mall and take Amy hostage. Led by Veck, the group wants the codes to the money in the mall, and it is up to Blart to save the day as he is put in the situation that he has always wanted - to be the hero, like a real cop. Of course, not everything is what it seems, and there are a few twists and turns to leave the viewer in suspense.

Mall Cop is billed a comedy, but its entertainment value far exceeds its genre tag. While the film is funny, it's not hilarious, and most of the laughs come from either Blart making a fool of himself, people hurting themselves, or both at the same time. In a way, it is basic slapstick, and a scene in which Blart drives himself into a minivan while staring at Amy seems awfully familiar. And yet Mall Cop succeeds in just this way by delving into familiar territory, because another part of the comedy is focused on parody of other films. The beginning reminisces much about romantic comedy, the middle becomes an action film (which tends to get to the core of what made Die Hard so interesting), throws in a little Home Alone feel with Blart's tendency to use his knowledge of the mall to thwart his enemies, and towards the end begins to feel like a murder mystery with its twists of good and bad characters. The film does a damn good job of captivating the audience with its satire, and for the initiated viewer, the subtle parodies will really add to the fun as they point out what movie the scene was taken from.


With that being said, Mall Cop does present some problems. There are some plot points that are brought up but never addressed, like the fact that Veck seems to have some sort of crush on Amy as well. There's also something to be said about the fact that all of the crooks are X-Games dropouts, skateboarding and doing extreme jumps off of escalators - I just wonder what that was all about. Was it just for the humor? Because Blart had little trouble taking them out even with them being able to run twice as fast as him.

However, Blart is a really likable character, and the audience wants to see him be the hero and get the girl. I guess this is an important feature for the film to have, as that is the overall story arc, but it excels because of James' personality and shtick. Think Doug Heffernan of The King of Queens, only with a mustache. Anyway, Blart kicks it into overdrive, dropping his nice-guy attitude for a revenge-driven lust as he kicks butt and snares bad guys with Rainforest Cafe vines.


There's definitely some ACK-SHEE-ON (as Doug Heffernan would say) going on here as well, and James does his stunts well and with flair. Flair I say! He looks good on the Segway, too; he's got the hip swivel down. Most of the action, again, is very reminiscent of Die Hard, and even takes place around Christmastime like the aforementioned movie. The extreme stunts pulled off by the code-stealing baddies are pretty sweet and made me want to vault over stuff.


If you're looking for a no-holds-barred comedy affair, Mall Cop might not be the best bet. But if you like parodies, or Kevin James, the film has its share of exciting and entertaining sequences, and a couple of surprising events that keep the movie rolling. If you can get into it after the opening scenes, which are a tad bit slow, then the movie is a pretty fun experience. Just as an end note, however, I was expecting a little bit more from the film than what I got, if only because I have high expectations for James and Happy Madison productions in general.

Paul Blart: Mall Cop on Rotten Tomatoes

Book Review - Just After Sunset by Stephen King

Just After Sunset


Just After Sunset is Stephen King's way at getting back to basics - short stories. It's been a while since King has released a collection like this, Everything's Eventual: 14 Dark Tales, in 2002, being the most recent. Short stories are a tough thing to write, especially, it seems, for King. There is no room for too much elaboration on characters, and King has always been known for his ability to craft well-defined characters with as much detail as possible. In taking on the short story, King has put himself in the position that requires him to write only the most important facts necessary to the story.

So, is King able to craft interesting short stories? Why, yes, of course he is. One of the things that stands out about these new short stories is the fact that King has gone the route of attempting to use pre-existing stories and then making them his own. Let me explain.

Opener "Willa," about a group of people involved in a train accident waiting for a replacement train to pick them up, reminds of the original ghost tale. It almost has tones of M. Night Shyamalan's The Sixth Sense, mostly because of the fact that the main character, David, and his colleagues do not realize that they are dead until they are made conscious of the fact by Willa. But like I said before, King is not fit to simply reiterate a point someone else has made; instead, he takes the initial generic storyline and bends it to fit his own creative needs. "Willa" is country-tinged, dusty and twangy with a sense of denial that one imagines a victim of a tragic accident may feel towards passing on, but also littered with acceptance - life after death might not be so bad after all, as long as David and Willa have each other, and King's provision of an uplifting end seems to suggest that when faced with death, one need not think of what one is missing, but what one has had and will have in the afterlife.

Death seems to provide a heavy dose of creative appeal for King in this set of stories, and why shouldn't it? What is horror without death of some sort? Most of these stories deal with losing people close to the main character, and as most of the stories were written within the past 5 years or so, it seems that as King progresses in age, one of the things that he fears the most is losing his wife or family. "The Gingerbread Girl," "Harvey's Dream," "N.," "The New York Times at Special Bargain Rates," and "Ayana" all deal with the death of a very close loved one, and even "Stationary Bike," "Mute," and "A Very Tight Place" tend to touch upon a loneliness of some sort. Even King's characters are older than in his other novels, which give his stories a more frightening realness; these are the fears of all individuals as they age, and most are not totally improbable.

Although King's stories here might not be his most creative, they are certainly very inspired. "N." is the standout story here, written as a shrink's notes about a mysterious man called N. who describes a strange force attempting to break into our reality. There is an abundant usage of inventive metaphors, adding to the already surreal atmosphere of the plot. "N." is very reflective of King's love of author H.P. Lovecraft - the story is set up in the form of a diary like that of Lovecraft's The Call of Cthulhu, and also mimics the indescribable forms of the Gods that inhabit Lovecraft's mythos. There is a certain urgency to "N." that makes it very hard to walk away from, and is best read on that stormy, late night, where it is not hard to imagine a rip in the fabric of our reality.

"A Very Tight Place" also stands out, if not for its depth into the human psyche when faced with disease, then because of its sheer gross ambience. King does not need torture a la Saw to make the reader grimace; all he needs is a truly grimy, claustrophobic space to create disgust, and with his wit and sarcasm, easily entertains the reader for the majority of the story. A classic tale of revenge, it also adds a twist, in that the vengeful main character does not take the "eye-for-an-eye" low road and instead puts an intense layer of guilt on the villain that no man can (or should be able to) bear.

King has collected some of his best work, and some of his most hard-hitting. "The Things They Left Behind" deals with post-9/11 dilemmas and loss, and wonders, "What would it have been like if I was there?" This again contains some message of hope - as the main character finds his co-workers' belongings in his house (the ones who perished in the 9/11 tragedy), he understands that he must return them to the ones they are survived by. It is as if King is trying to say that during that blackest of times, our country stuck together. It was unpleasant, but we were all there to help each other in our need, and there's a sense of truth to King's fantasy.

King has put together some of his most impressive works, and has shown himself in almost all of the stories. It is so much greater when the reader can feel the author's own fears in the stories, and King transcribes his dreams and nightmares onto the paper. This is real and so much more frightening than the monsters that we know do not exist. This is life and death, and we always teeter on the brink of both. This is just after sunset, when we never know what to expect, and King surprises every time.

SO COLD

It is soooooooooo cold in my dorm room.
Jeez.
Can't think.


EDIT: Okay, that's a lie. Expect a review of Stephen King's Just After Sunset in a few hours, since I don't have anything to do until 6.

Movie Review - 28 Weeks Later

28 Weeks Later


28 Days Later became a breakout film in the horror genre, using a zombie formula but expanding on it to allow for some creativity to seep in. Technically, the killers were not cannibalistic undead but the living that were infected with a rage virus that pissed them off so badly that they couldn't help but kill anything and everything in sight.


As the title suggests, then, 28 Weeks Later takes place around 6 months after the initial infestation of Great Britain, where the U.S army has infiltrated the area and quarantined it. They are now attempting to rebuild, bringing in citizens that had been evacuated from their homes. There are still sections that have not been stabilizing, although all infected should have died off from starvation with no humans left. Meet Tammy (Imogen Poot) and Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton), two children being reunited with their father, Don (Robert Carlyle), after leaving the country on a school trip and luckily missing the epidemic. As they set up camp in a heavily-protected town, Don tells the story of how the children's mother, Alice (Catherine McCormack), was killed during an infected attack on the cottage they were hiding out in, but when Andy and Tammy decide to take a trip into a quarantined section of town to their old house, they find their mother - alive and well, figuratively speaking. Alice is taken into the military's medical base, where she is examined by Scarlet (Rose Byrne), who concludes that Alice is in fact infected but is only a carrier of the virus.


Oh, but you can bet your bottom BUTTON that Don is both surprised and in a bit of a snare - he just told his kids that their mom was dead and he couldn't help her, and now here she is, alive and holding the secret to his cowardice as he ran away and left her to be eaten. He sneaks into her quarantined cell, hoping for redemption, and instead Alice spreads the disease to Don, where he decimates most of the military base and causes all sorts of havoc around the city. The military immediately calls CODE RED, shutting everything down and trying to take out the infected, but in the end they resort to elimintating everyone, infected or not, to contain the virus. It is up to Scarlet and a fed-up military gunman, Doyle (Jeremy Renner), to get Tammy and Andy to safety, as their blood could contain a cure to the virus.

First off, one must commend director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo for the direction he chose to take with this sequel. Bringing the viewer back to Great Britain, after the initial infection has collapsed, allows for exploration of new territory while sticking to the familiarity of the first film. Instead of a deserted wasteland like the first film, people have once again flocked to their home - seeming to indicate to a certain extent that humans have a hard time leaving their homes, no matter the circumstances - where they try to pick up their old ways of life. Instead, Fresnadillo lets loose a torrent of violence on the already victimized, which pretty much describes the entire movie's unrelenting nature.


Most of the violence packs a wallop, as an entire scene is devoted to popping both infected and innocent heads in a tour de force of the military's overextending power. Without giving too much away... oh what the hell, it's too cool to not mention - there is a scene in which a helicopter decapitates 30 or so infected people. And the blood flies all over the place, with most killings happening brutally and fast. The effects are great, and most of the gore is excruciating to watch. Don is especially scary, as he is fast, sneaky, and extremely pissed off - and he also has a fetish for eye-gouging.

The atmosphere is bleak and misanthropic, especially as the military succumbs to its weakness against containing the infection and instead literally aborts the whole experiment. Not only are the main characters being targeted by the infected, they are also subject to the military's psychotic attempts to purge the city of any life whatsover. The darkness that permeates the whole film is what makes the plot tense and frightening - the actual infected tend to become laughable as they stumble and snarl. It is the theme of human infection that really brings fear to the forefront, because most of the time it is the military that the survivors are running from. I like this theme, and thought that the film pulled it off well when pairing it with infected and uninfected human villains.

Not all of the film's themes are explored as expressively, however. Cowardice is, to an extent, with Don's refusal to risk his life to save his wife and then his subsequent infection received from his carrier wife. There is the dynamic of hero and coward, as the chief infected pursuer is the coward while Doyle becomes the hero to save Tammy and Andy - it is inferred that this is a strike at Don, where he would not save the children but a stranger would. There is also an exploration of the notion of rebuilding and technology, as it seems that it was not meant for the U.S. to dabble in a place where a disaster struck. History repeats itself, as they say...


While some of the themes are really strong, the plot fails to deliver anything of value. It feels mostly cat-and-mouse, almost like video game checkpoints, where the survivors have to be at a certain place at a certain time. The characters drop out one after another, some rarely significant. As far as the progression to the end of the movie goes, from around halfway through on towards the end, the plot does nothing to distinguish itself from, say, a serial killer thriller.

Besides Andy and Tammy, the characters feel very two-dimensional, and the supporting cast besides Don, Scarlet, the kids, and Doyle are unimportant cattle for killing. I would have liked to have seen more from Scarlet and Doyle besides glorified bodyguards, as I thought their roles would have been more important than they were. In fact, I was a bit dissapointed that Scarlet was as weak as she was, because her character seemed strong-willed and smart throughout most of the movie.

And man, does 28 Weeks Later suffer from some fatal plot holes. First off, it is hard to believe that the military would move in civilians with such a lack of control over the surrounding areas, and their lack of information on whether all of the infected had been eliminated is surprising. Also, it is safe to assume that military security should be a bit more... well, secure - a place where two kids can't sneak past all officers on duty. Or where a man cannot allow himself access to a quarantined medical facility that is vital to containing a virus. Or where secured doors don't bust open with bodily contact.


Yet even so, 28 Weeks Later is an entertaining ride, if only for its pacing and violence. While it doesn't hold up to its predecessor, it does a good job of maintaining the ambience of the first - the sheer emptiness of a normally-populated town seems menacing, even with the vast number of people that we know are running for their lives. It's a claustrophobic experience, but it's not without its share of unbelievable moments, and in the end, the only characters we find we cared about were Andy and Tammy. But we do follow them, if only because we like them and want to see them succeed, and so I give that to the film - it held my attention in this regard. Otherwise, Fresnadillo has crafted only average fare, and coming off the original which did much to further the zombie genre, 28 Weeks Later pales in comparison.

28 Weeks Later on Rotten Tomatoes

Special Movie Review - Baby Mama

Baby Mama


As SNL stars' movies go, there have always been hits and misses. The early greats like Chevy Chase, Steve Martin, and Bill Murray have gone on to have pretty illustrious careers in full length films. But others, more from the newer batch of alums - including Tim Meadows and Chris Kattan - have failed to really find a niche; of course, they always succeed in some ways with their films (Meadows with Mean Girls and his latest stint in The Bill Engvall Show), but the films that they have starred in as the lead have mostly tanked. Yet Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, Fey having already left SNL and Poehler still appearing in the line-up, set out to team up and provide another comedic success with their cooperative vehicle. Fey's spirits must have already been rising with her award-winning TV show 30 Rock, but the smart comedy Baby Mama was still a risky move considering the comedy releases of late - would the public stomach another potential flop of stupid humor?


I guess that question is rendered moot, though, because Baby Mama is a smart and topical movie, exploring the horrors (or pleasures, one could argue) of surrogate mothership. Fey plays Kate Holbrook, businesswoman working for a prominent organic food company and woman who is missing that little child in life, but who also has very little chance at getting pregnant. Instead, Kate turns to surrogacy, an expensive operation which promises to give Kate the baby that she always wanted but also has its risks in finding the right mother to birth the child. Kate does interviews and finally settles on Angie (played by Poehler), who has been looking to make a little money by getting preggers for needy mothers. It seems like a charitable business, right? Maybe not, as each donor receives $10,000 from the soon-to-be mother, and Angie is looking to scam off of her customer, pretending to be pregnant and then running off with her boyfriend and the money.


As Kate and Angie progress in the "pregnancy," Kate finds out that Angie isn't the suitor that she thought she was in the first place. Angie eats mostly junk food, smokes, dies her hair, and pretty much everything else that is harmful to a growing child. Kate weens her off of the dangerous chemicals, instead taking matters into her own hands to ensure that the child grows up as healthy as possible. But what Kate doesn't know is that Angie has not actually gotten pregnant with Kate's baby, and has been instead faking it. Although when Kate and Angie bond after all the time spent caring for the baby, Angie begins to feel guilty that she is cheating Kate out of her money and decides to tell her. All hell breaks loose as Kate falls for a guy who works at a smoothie joint, Rob (Greg Kinnear), and he finds out that she is trying for a surrogate baby, which he disagrees with - oh yeah, and then Angie drops a bomb that she's not pregnant with Kate's baby but truly pregnant with her boyfriend's kid. The fit hits the shan, as my history teacher always used to say.


Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are just the team that I thought they would be - from SNL's Weekend Update to their cooperation on the big screen, their personalities and character portrayals just seem to mesh. Poehler steals the show here, with her finnicky attitude and trailer-trash persona. She has the ability to be the villain, as much as her embezzlement can be called a truly villainous scheme, and yet still remain likable to the extent where we can understand her dilemma. Poehler brings out the stereotypical low-income, jobless woman, yet also provides a greater moral side to Angie - almost as if she is a battered woman trying to break free of her abusive boyfriend, struggling with the pros and cons of each choice.

That's not to say that Fey fails by any stretch of the imagination. It is just the nature of her role - the straight, level-headed, more mature woman - that puts her character on the backburner and highlights the quirkiness of Angie. Kate is the more normal person, making her sort of a plain jane. Of course, she's funny, especially with her comments on Angie's health and hygiene, but Angie is the more entertaining of the two.


The humor is not necessarily laugh-out-loud funny, yet some parts do require bits of physical comedy to grab laughs from the audience. What's more funny are the interactions between characters, especially scenes with guest star Steve Martin as a naturalist hippie. Director and writer Michael McCullers has found the point where smart, cultural satire does not need dirty jokes or slapstick humor to succeed, but the mocking of our society works just fine as fuel for comedy.

While some might find the love story between Fey and Kinnear a bit foreseeable, I think it works because of the fact that Kinnear's character seems heartfelt, honest, and real, and not some hunky android-like human replica, as some rom-coms are apt to use. Instead, Fey and Kinnear are two normal - and more importantly, alike - individuals who find each other when they need each other. They both have and want kids, and their attraction works. They feel right for each other.


With a host of guest appearances, a great cast, likable and relatable characters, and successful humor and satire, Baby Mama is a comedy delving into some new territory in a genre ripe with buddy films and slapstick or gross-out humor. The team-up of Poehler and Fey is again successful, hearkening back to their SNL days but remaining distinctly seperate. And the most important part is that the film doesn't feel like an overly long SNL skit, but an entity broken away from that late-night mold and standing on its own two feet.

Baby Mama on Rotten Tomatoes

Town Drowned

Wrote this really quick after a shower. Not the best, but I just wanted to get it down.

I once knew this girl from town who drowned in the sea.

She got in a fight with her mom over dirty dishes in the sink. It was like a spat between high school sweethearts, brought up again at a reunion, that had been over for a long time and they just hadn’t realize it.

So she left, slammed the door, and the panes rattled as if teeth from the shark’s mouth she just climbed out of. And she walked down by the beach, the salt air to settle her mind, the sand to release her energy, the water to lap up her fire.

She saw her reflection in the waves, and then it became two. It slowly morphed into one again

and quickly she was plunged into them.

They found sand up her nose, snorted like the crack the man was on.

I come across them, tangled together like giant weeds blown in from some lost shore, and after I finish calling the cops, I wake him and I go, I says,“Now what you go and do that for?”

He say, “I ain’t got money. I ain’t got no food left.”

And I tells him, “I ain’t never been that desperate for food.”

He says, “The waves, they told me to do it. They showed me her face.” Well now, I ain’t superstitious, but I ain’t never looked at the sea the same way again.

And I tell him, “Son, now you go down to that water, and you dunk your head and hold it there, and you come up ‘n tell me what it feels like.”

And I says, I go, “That’s how this poor child’s mother gonna feel when she finds out what you done.”

Sometimes I walk down by the sea and wonder for a while how long it would take for me to drown down there. Not because I want to die.

Just wondering – wondering what it might feel like.

Special Movie Review - Marley & Me

Marley & Me


Many times, family-oriented movies tend to cater to just that audience, rather than having some sort of appealing quality to others older than the 12 and under age group. Going into Marley & Me, I felt like the film might have that same goal in mind - to create a movie that would harness a loving and caring, and ultimately lame, atmosphere. Instead, I found Marley & Me appealing to a broader age group than just that tween-and-under minority crowd.


Director David Frankel gives the audience a chance to recall their own past experiences with pets throughout the film, with most of it being the good memories of thrilling or emotional situations. Owen Wilson plays John Grogan, who is celebrating a new marriage to Jennifer (Jennifer Aniston). John and Jennifer move to sunny Florida, where John soon lands a job writing for a local paper. He struggles to find his place at the office while Jennifer succeeds, and after talking with his friend Sebastian (Eric Dane), decides that the next likely life choice that Jennifer would have in mind is having a baby. John's reaction isn't exactly thrilled, and so he decides to get Jennifer a puppy so she can keep her mind off of a child and have something else to take care of instead.

From here, the movie proceeds predictably enough. John changes his job as reporter to an amazing columnist who writes about the worst dog ever, the puppy Marley. Jennifer and John decide it's time to have a baby, even with the antics of the dog, and end up having a couple they didn't exactly plan on. John gets a job that requires him to move, and the family moves into a bigger home. Marley becomes older, and, inevitably, passes away.


What is most surprising about Marley & Me is the fact that the film has the ability to hold the audience's attention - to even be engaging - with a plot that has been done a number of times before and is, in fact, being lived out every day. In essence, the fact that the story in the movie is real, and is quite common in daily life, grabs the attention of the viewer. Owning a pet is a tradition in most family households, whether it be a cat, dog, or snake, and so Marley's presence is familiar territory for the audience, almost a rite of passage from single to married.


Both Wilson and Aniston are believable as lovers and as people in general. Their struggles are real and make sense; Aniston's first failure at pregnancy seems especially touching considering the fact that Marley has the ability to help Aniston's character cope with the loss. Marley & Me showcases a fact that has always been around but not put so poignantly as in the film - dogs, and collectively pets in general, are with us in all of our memories. It is impossible to fully seperate certain parts of our lives from our pets, because they naturally become an important love, a coping strategy for the bad times and a celebration for the happiness that they bring in the good times. The ending of the film accentuates this well, as **SPOILER WARNING** Marley is being put down, by conjoining the sadness of the moment with the happy memories that have come throughout the movie. On the one hand, we are extremely saddened by the fact that Marley is passing on, as we have come to know him so well throughout the movie. Yet the montage of clips that sum up John and Jennifer's lives with Marley are a celebration of the happiness and love that Marley had in his life. The fact that the movie goes into so much detail of Marley being put down is not exploitative or only there for the sake of getting the audience to cry; instead, it would be an insult not to give a moment to pay respects to a dog that we have devoted two hours of our lives to watching. **END SPOILERS**


The moving part of this ending, then, comes from both our involvement in Marley's life, but moreso from our own experiences with pets and death. In the end, we see ourselves in John and Jennifer's shoes, making the experience that much more sad. And yet we celebrate our own pets' lives that we have lost, for Marley & Me brings those memories back.

As for the dogs, they are beautiful and consistent in behavior. Wilson and Aniston do seem to have a sort of connection with the dog, displaying love and frustration during different times. Years pass quickly, although Wilson and Aniston barely seem older than when they first began their family.


At the end of the movie, the audience will be sobbing but still happy that they went through the experience. The film is a touching tale of the melding of lives, both human and dog, and how they soon become inseperable, as if the dog is a human being as well. Marley & Me makes a great point in its concluding monologue - dogs are better than humans, because their love is unconditional. They don't get pissed off if you're pissed off, they don't care if you smell bad or if you've got a giant pimple on your nose. They could care less if you've got foot fungus or a bad cold. All they want is your love, and to love you back - what more could you ask for? Marley & Me is a loving dog, for sure, but a difficult one to come back to. Intensity does play a part in its story, but it is an intensity with which one must handle in life - and it will be hard to hold back the tears.

Marley & Me on Rotten Tomatoes

Happy New Year - need an editor?

Happy New Year everyone! I hope 2009 has gotten off to a good start.

As for me, I have been a little lazy with everything, and I want to blog but just lack the motivation. But I should be getting a couple reviews up soon, not horror movies, but what can you do?

Anyway, I'm actually looking to become an editor of some sort. Anyone know of anyone that needs an editor, mostly blogs, maybe even paying a small sum? Let me know.