Strip Search

Bottom line: Strip Search is a pleasant reality TV/Youtube Show that fits into a smaller chunk of time; the sense of humor, however, isn’t quite my cup of tea so I wouldn’t recommend bingeing.

2.5/4

Penny Arcade, if you are unfamiliar, is a hugely successful webcomic that focuses on videogames and videogame culture that started in 1998. Strip Search is a reality show that aired in 2013. The goal was to search for the next big name in webcomics. The show received thousands of applications which were narrowed to twelve contestants who participate in challenges in the hopes of winning $15k and office space in the Penny Arcade offices for a year.

The roughly twenty minute episodes alternate between challenges and eliminations. The challenges are not solely art based, contrary to what I expected. Though it makes sense. The Penny Arcade people aren’t just looking for an artist, they are looking for someone who has the ability to create a webcomic; which necessitates the ability to understand merchandising and working with clients and customers. So while there are a lot of creative challenges, some test soft skills like handling an interview or a nefarious contract.

The contestants, compared to all my other experiences with Reality TV, are really nice. It makes the challenges a lot more fun because they are all pleasant and excited. There are no alliances or “drama,” it’s just a lot of talented people jumping through hoops for their enjoyment as well as ours. I will say, that towards the end of the series, we already know that they can draw so the challenges get a little too silly for my tastes. I don’t really have an interest in watching them go-kart race or play ping pong; I want to see them do things that I can’t, namely, polished art.

That said, I found the elimination stages to be the most interesting part of the show. Two artists at a time each pick a theme out a waste paper basket, in the words of the one Penny Arcade guy, they each pick an idea that was “perhaps discarded before its time.” The artists then have an hour and a half to draw a comic based on those two themes: cats and cars, candy and religion, for example.

During the elimination stages, the artists are heckled by the two creators of Penny Arcade. They have some funny jabs here and there but, overall, their humor isn’t my cup of tea: lots of profanity and crude jokes. Don’t get me wrong, I can appreciate a good poop joke as much as the next guy but when that’s all I’m hearing, it loses some of the effect.

A fun game to play with the show is to pause when the contestants pick their themes, and try to think of a comic you would draw. Heck, if you are inclined you could always draw it. Once you are done, you can continue playing to see how your idea compares. (I was pretty proud of a couple that I thought of, if I do say so myself.)

Overall, if you are interested in watching a largely pleasant hearted reality show, especially, one that centers around a creative subject, I’d recommend Strip Search. Because it wasn’t quite my sense of humor, I wouldn’t recommend bingeing it but it can be really fun to watch an episode or two here and there. The episodes are all on Youtube so it’s free and easy to watch. Here a link to the playlist with the episode (at least at the time of posting)

While my wife and I were watching Strip Search and were talking about how stressed out we would be if we were in the contestants shoes. I can’t really draw a straight line, let alone a sound character pose. But, we got to thinking, if we were on a reality show for something that we did for a living (or something that we loved) it might not feel as stressful. I wonder what my ideal reality TV show would be...

Thanks for reading! If you were going to be on a Reality TV Show, what do you think you would want it to be centered around?

Alice Through the Looking Glass

Directed by James Bobin. Written by Linda Woolverton (screenplay), Lewis Caroll (books). Starring Johnny Depp (Hatter Tarrant Hightopp), Mia Wasikwoska (Alice Kingsleigh), Helena Bonham Carter (Iracebeth).

Bottom line: The perfectly OK Alice Through the Looking Glass is getting pretty terrible reviews but I don’t really know why; it makes me want to ask, “What were you expecting?”

2.5/4

Alice Through the Looking Glass is the sequel to Tim Burton’s Alice In Wonderland. In this adventure, the Mad Hatter (Depp) is dying of sadness because he believes that his family (long thought to have perished at the hands of the Jabberwocky) is actually alive but just lost. Alice has to, once again, go into Wonderland to save the day even if it means traveling through time.

How’s that for a spoiler free plot teaser? Any-who, the first thing I would like to note about this iteration of the franchise is how it’s not directed by Tim Burton and you can tell because we aren’t being beaten over the head with whimsy. We’ve got Johnny Depp returning as the Mad Hatter but he’s just kind of in the background doing his thing instead of being center stage.

While I didn’t see the first one, my wife did and she thought this one was better. I suspect that that might be the case because with the first one, the crux of the movie is the spectacle that is Burton’s interpretation of Alice in Wonderland; we have to introduce all of the characters and tie them all together with an adventure. In Through the Looking Glass, we can just have an adventure.

The performances were all perfectly good. In one review, someone said that Sasha Baron Cohen’s performance of Time was just Cohen doing an impression of Werner Herzog. Herzog is the guy who made Grizzly Man. Sure, I can see that in terms of his accent but I don’t think it’s a minus point to the movie. I thought he was a solidly balanced character that I enjoyed watching.

The big thing about this movie were the special effects. I thought there were fine too; not earth shattering nor dull.

Maybe one of the reasons I didn’t mind this movie was because my expectations were appropriately grounded. I was expecting it to be unwatchably bad. Another reason was that I had just finished watching Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory which I loathed, so Through the Looking Glass felt like a Burton-esque film that wasn’t garbage. Overall, I’d recommend Alice Through the Looking Glass if you are looking for a light movie, maybe a weekend matinee.

Thanks for reading! I mentioned that I saw Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I’ll have a review for that out sooner than not. What are your thoughts on Burton’s interpretation of Alice in Wonderland?

Black Swan

Directed by Darren Aronofsky. Written by Mark Heyman, Andres Heinz, and John J. McLaughlin. Starring Natalie Portman (Nina Sayers/The Swan Queen), Mila Kunis (Lily/ The Black Swan), Vincent Cassel (Thomas Leroy/ The Gentleman).

Bottom line: Black Swan is a great psychological thriller/adaptation of Swan Lake; it’s a solid movie.
3.5/4

We follow Nina Sayers (Portman) who is going into her third or fourth year as a New York ballerina. Swan Lake is the ballet of the season and Nina is looking forward to getting a main part; the director promised her something more than a minor part because she’s so talented and dedicated. “Looking forward to,” is something of an understatement though; she is desperate, if for no other reason than to appease her domineering mother. The stress of trying to get the role is overwhelming. It mixes with her fears and anxieties about the competition from the new spunky, sexy dancer, Lily (Kunis). Weird and creepy things start to happen as Nina starts to breakdown.

I’m not going to say really anything else about the story other than that the movie incorporates Swan Lake is a really great way. Sometimes movies that are called “adaptations” are really more attempts to directly translate a story to the silver screen. Black Swan, however, takes source material and changes it to a new situation. Now that’s what I call an adaptation.

The cinematography is great and the music is spectacular. This is a solid movie. It isn’t too scary either. I heard it was creepy but because it’s a psychological thriller, that helps; you know that a lot of the stuff is in her head. It’s not like a monster is going to get her and then you.

I’m not surprised Natalie Portman won the Academy Award for her performance; she did a darn good job. Mila Kunis gave a great performance too. It gave me a newfound respect for her, actually. I’ve always associated her with expensive but lame movies like Friends with Benefits (2011) or Jupiter Ascending (2015) but I’ve been slowly warming up to her.

Although, now that I look at the dates of those movies, it would seem that she is going kinda downhill because Black Swan came out in 2010… but this is to say that she is capable of a solid role. I mean, look at Nicholas Cage. His name on a movie poster is like the red X on the door of a plague victim. But! But, I say, he did win an Academy Award for Leaving Las Vegas so he has (or at least had) the ability to do it.

Any-who, I think this can be a short (largely) spoiler free review (depending on how you define spoilers I suppose). I’d highly recommend Black Swan.

Have you seen Black Swan? What did you think of it? Thanks for reading and I invite you to leave a comment below!

Downtown no Gaki no Tsukai ya Arahende!!

Bottom line: I really don’t understand Japanese culture but Gaki No Tsukai is fun.

3/4

In Japan, for the past ten years on New Years Eve, a program called Gaki No Tsukai Batsu Game has been broadcasted. According to Wikipedia, the full title is Downtown no Gaki no Tsukai ya Arahende!! which translates to “Downtown’s This Is No Task for Kids!” Five comedians take part in a 24-hour challenge where they cannot laugh. If they do, they are punished (usually it’s a spanking at the hands of rod wielding masked men). They are comedians so they have a tendency to make each other laugh, but to ensure punishments the producers introduce humorous situations, gags, and cameos. The program has become so popular that it is around five hours long.

As a slight aside, there is a group called Team Gaki who write English translation-subtitles for the show. They not only translate the dialog, the signs, the text, but they include helpful culture cues. At one point, for example, one of the comedians is forced to dress up in a costume. When he walks into the room, all of the other comedians burst into laughter. It isn’t just a silly costume; it’s a character from a manga published in the early ‘70’s. Team Gaki puts a special explanatory note on the screen. It’s wicked awesome. Even better, they offer download links to the previous Batsu games (in high definition too).

Even with the translator notes, Gaki No Tsukai is a potpourri of culture that is lost on me. Occasionally, a junior member of the crew speaks casually to a senior member. The insolence of using a casual tone becomes a humorous point of contention. One, there is a language difference. In English, as you probably know, we don’t have a clear distinction between casual and formal speaking. Two, it’s interesting that even in these absurd situations, those cultural tenets hold strong.

I’d love to know more about the role of violence or physical comedy in Japanese culture and television. There’s a scene where two forty-year-old men dress in Sumo wrestler garb (so they’re nearly naked). The one tickles the other and if the other makes a noise, he loses. This tickle fight is performed in front of the five comedians who, again, will be spanked by masked men if they laugh. I don’t think you could get more homoerotic which, of course, is fine. I just don’t understand it, culturally.

Would I recommend Gaki No Tsukai? Well, it’s bizarre and funny at times. If you are down for watching something different and you’re into slapstick or physical humor, then definitely check it out. Thanks for reading!

Spectre

Directed by Sam Mendes. Written by John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Jez Butterworth, and Ian Fleming (characters). Starring Daniel Craig (James Bond), Christoph Waltz (Blofeld), and Léa Seydoux (Madeliene).

Bottom line: Spectre is one of the most generic and bland Bond films I’ve seen; there’s really no reason to see it.

1/4 Daniel Craig returns to his role as the International Man of Mystery super spy James Bond in Spectre. Spectre is the name of a super secret evil organization. I believe the organization first appeared in Thunderball (1965) but it never became more than an occasional reference. In this iteration of the franchise, however, Bond has to take the villainous conglomerate head on and, let me tell you, he does so with an unbridled lackadaisy. Quite honestly, there isn’t anything noteworthy about Spectre. It’s almost like the filmmakers said, “Alright, well, we don’t have any ideas for James Bond right now so let’s just have him go after that big villain organization. What was the name of it? Octopus? Ghost? Oh yeah, Spectre!” It comes across as a poor attempt to increase the stakes. It seems silly though; after all, a poker game could be made exciting. It’s all about how you do it. But, in any case, artificially making the stakes bigger (or attempting to) happens throughout the movie: Bond gets a fancy new Aston Martin DB10 (made especially for this movie), he uncovers secrets about his upbringing, and in the introduction, he blows up an entire city block. All this and it still falls flat. It seems like everyone involved phoned in for this film. I’m not just talking about the performances. Consider the one of the main subplots for this film. The 00 program is being phased out by a new department of the government that focuses on having a complete digital surveillance network *cough* NSA *cough*. “Is the 00 Program too old fashioned?” Now, wait a sec. The plot for Skyfall (a previous Daniel Craig-Bond movie) focused heavily on the government questioning the relevancy of the 00 program too. One of Spectre’s colorful villains is the assassin Hinx played by Dave Bautista. He’s a giant guy with metal thumbnails. Have the villains always been this silly? Odd Job - a nigh unintelligible bodyguard who throws a metal bowler. Jaws - a giant tough guy who has metal teeth. Pussy Galore - a woman actually named Pussy Galore. Alright, alright. Maybe this villain wasn’t that silly… So, in the interest of our discussion, let me get to some spoilers so we can really talk about this move. In sum, don’t see Spectre. If you’re a Bond fan, I’m sure you’ve already seen this but if you haven’t, don’t worry about it; there are plenty of other, better Bond movies. Maybe it was a shift in tone. Up to this point, Daniel Craig as James Bond was the super serious Bond, but from the cheesy lines, to the weak dialog, Spectre feels like a poorly executed throwback. Now, let’s get to some nitty gritty details (mind yourself of spoilers). Let’s consider Christoph Waltz’s character and his catchphrase. The scene is set for a sinister villain meeting; villainous figures sit in a big room discussing recent successful assassinations. A big door opens and, shrouded in darkness, the ringleader enters. Yadda yadda yadda the villain welcomes the hitherto hidden James Bond (to the shock of no one but James). The villain sits forward into the light, looks menacingly up at James and says “Cuckoo.” Clearly, that’s supposed to be a villainous catch phrase but it isn’t very successful. Now, in much the same way that I looked at other Bond henchmen, the catch phrases from James Bond characters aren’t the best; lot’s of innuendo or little singers. The first example that comes to mind is a fight scene where a thug falls into a bathtub. Acting quickly, Bond throws a lamp into the water and electrocutes the baddy. Bond looks and says, “Shocking.” It’s quick, cheesy, but it does its job. I think one of the more successful lines is from Goldfinger. It’s the famous scene where Bond is tied down to a steel table and he’s about to be sliced by a cutting laser slowly. Goldfinger says, “You’d better choose your next quip wisely, Mr. Bond.” “Do you expect me to talk?” “No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die.” Again, it’s basic and quick and it’s successful because it’s unexpected. I don’t know what I would’ve expected him to say, but I didn’t think he would be so frank. Granted, by this point, this line is a cliché but it’s certainly better than “cuckoo.” To understand what ‘cuckoo’ means, we have to wait the entire movie until the villain gives an extended monologue (according to IMDB): Blofeld: You know what happens when a cuckoo hatches inside another bird's nest? Madeleine Swann: Yes. It forces the other eggs out. Blofeld: Yes. Well, this cuckoo made me realize my father's life had to end. In a way he's responsible for the path I took... [to Bond] Blofeld: So thank you, cuckoo! “Cuckoo”? More like “contrived.” But seriously, it feels like a plot device that the writers thought would be totally cool because it bookends the interactions between the characters. Only the movie goes on for another half hour. Moreover, it’s meaningless without the explanation and, once provided, doesn’t feel satisfying. As guilty as it makes me feel, I’ve gotta say, at the end of the movie, when Bond decides not to kill the Waltz, I was hoping Bond would say ‘cuckoo.’ Gosh that would’ve been cheesy (and maybe that’s why they didn’t do it) but it could’ve been fun. I mean, how can we be all serious when you have a villain with metal thumbnails? One last point that I’d like to bring up is the intro sequence. The Bond franchise is famous (or infamous) for it’s introductions. They are always stylized in a way that fits into the movie. Consider the theme for Casino Royale. The main plot device in the film is a poker game so the intro features bullets in the shapes of spades piercing figures that fall apart into little hearts, etc. They can be enjoyable because sometimes they foreshadow the movie. In line with the rest of the film, Spectre’s intro is lame. I was going to try and find a more sophisticated word but lame works. Instead of being stylized in a neat way, it’s just clear images of Bond, women and nigh literal scenes of the preceding film, with the modification of octopi. Instead of a bikini – an octopus is wrapped around a woman’s body. Instead of a pillar – a tentacle. Instead of shadow cast by a hand - it’s an octopus. I mean, I get it guys, the mascot of the secrete organization is an octopus but sheesh, let’s tone it down a little. So, what do you think? Did you see Spectre? Follow up question if you have, are you a fan of Bond movies? Let me know in the comments below! Thanks for reading!

Victor Frankenstein

Directed by Paul McGuigan. Written by Max Landis (screenplay) and Mary Shelley (novel). Starring Daniel Radcliffe (Igor), James McAvoy (Frankenstein), and Andrew Scott (Inspector Turpin). Bottom line: Victor Frankenstein is so bad it makes me wonder if filmmakers (actors or otherwise) regret participating in movies from time to time; it’s not fun bad, just bad bad. .5/4 Daniel Radcliffe provides the voice over introduction to Victor Frankenstein. “You know this story. The crack of lightning. A mad genius. An unholy creation.The world, of course, remembers the monster, not the man. But sometimes, when you look closely, there's more to a tale. Sometimes the monster is the man.” Did that just blow your mind?! But, wait, isn’t that kinda the whole point of the book? Now, I’m not knocking the movie for attempting to do something different but what Victor Frankenstein is doing feels really lazy. It’s not like they are reinterpreting the story or some of the major themes, it’s mostly just a recasting of superficial elements.. Now, the crux of the movie is, well, about Victor Frankenstein (McAvoy) and Igor (Radcliffe) as they struggle with the technical and ethical quandaries of reanimating life. In this iteration of the story, Igor is an abused clown in a steampunk circus. In his free time, he studies medicine. One thing leads to another and the young medical student, Frankenstein, recruits the clown to be a laboratory assistant. The graphics and special effects are perfectly ordinary. Style-wise, we have a steampunk feel. If you aren’t familiar with steampunk, it’s Victorian England with, potentially, futuristic technology; it has a lot of bronze work and pipes and steam. Fine. Whatever. I’m as big a fan of steampunk as the next guy but it feels like a marketing ploy here. I mean, Victor Frankenstein is big budget flick aimed at us millennials. Let me tell you, we love steam-punk. So it just feels like the decision of the marketing department to stylize the movie this way. There are other decisions that make me feel like this was marketed towards millennials but I’ll get more into that later. The dialog is dismal and it doesn’t help that everyone phones in their performance. Well, everyone except for James McAvoy, he’s just overacting the heck out of his role. He was so pleasant in X-Men: First Class why is he doing this? The story itself, at least the direction in this film, was disappointing. I’ll go into detail in a bit but, without spoiling anything here, it will suffice to say that it was a let down. Overall, I would recommend that you actively avoid Victor Frankenstein. It’s bad acting in a bad adaptation with tired art direction. Go and see Van Helsing if you want a supernatural but light and fun movie. Now, let’s discuss this movie in a little more detail -- so mind yourself of spoilers. I mentioned that this movie was geared towards millennials. Let me describe the plot a little more. So we have Igor, the character to whom we are supposed to relate. He’s just a guy who is really interested in medicine. Unfortunately, he’s trapped in an abusive world (the circus). He’s saved by Frankenstein and given the opportunity to do great things. We have Frankenstein whose all for science; he’s the “God is dead because science is awesome!” type of guy. I get the feeling that he’s supposed to be “cool” because he’s an atheist but he gets a little too carried away with his experiments for us to gravitate towards him. Meanwhile, a dogmatic, fundamentalist Christian inspector (Scott) pursues the protagonists. The inspector is definitely bad because he’s like our parents. This leaves us in the middle with Harry Potter (Igor, that is). He wants to study medicine and science because it’s interesting. He’s neither an angry atheist nor a Christian; he’s more of an agnostic. This moderate quality of the main protagonist is something I’ve noticed about other millennial movies. Consider Premium Rush starring Joseph-Gordon Levitt. He’s a Law student who doesn’t really want to be an attorney. He’s doing what he wants; and that means being a bicycle courier. But then the movie ends with the statement, “Maybe someday I’ll have a suit and tie job, but today I am going to ride.” Pick what you want, dude. I don’t want to hear any of this, “I’m young so I’m going to play and then I’ll grow up tomorrow,” nonsense. Victor Frankenstein is a lot like that too, particularly with Igor. This quality of the plot reminds me of what I understand of the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. In his one book, he describes a shift in power dynamics in society. In the medieval period, we had knights and dukes and lords - the “nobility.” The nobility had the power because they took it and fought to keep it; they were like hawks. They were to whom we were to aspire. Hence, being “noble” is a positive trait. But, if they were so great and powerful, why did the system topple? It failed because of what Nietzsche calls “slave morality.” The slaves who opposed this feudal system didn’t actively rebel they just passively shuffled their feet until the system crumbled. In the metaphor where the nobles are the hawks, the slaves are the sheep. It’s a sort of passivity or apathy that characterizes the sheep. Before I get into how this ties into the movie, I feel like should note that one of the things about Nietzsche is that there are problematic ways to interpret his ideas, case and point, the Nazis. For our purposes, I’m pointing out some of the characteristics that he describes with respect to the movie. Igor, for example, wants to do science because it’s cool. He’s ok with reanimating animals but he mildly objects to reanimating a human. He says that he doesn’t want to participate anymore but he doesn’t really give a reason why. His reasons certainly aren’t the same as the fundamentalist inspector. He doesn’t actively support or oppose the experiments either. He just says, ‘I’m going away with my girlfriend.’ After all, it’s a whole lot easier to abstain than to give a definite answer. We have these driven characters but are left with the one standing still. Consider the final lines of the movie. Frankenstein writes Igor saying, “I’m continuing with my experiments… Be ready because I’ll call on you someday…” Frankenstein’s experiments are where it’s at, that’s where I want to be. I don’t want to be with Igor as he just shuffles about. Gah! There’s the rub. Maybe the reason I’m writing and thinking about this so much is because it hits close to home. The reason it’s frustrating though is because the film doesn’t provide anything satisfying. There’s no insight or direction or call to arms. It’s just a character that resonates with a target audience and that’s that. In a way, it reminds me of the phenomenal Italian movie Il Posto. It’s about a kid who gets a job at a big corporation. If you get a job at this corporation, you are pretty set for life; it’s a career that pays well. Sure, you’re stuck doing meaningless, boring work but it’s safe. II Posto is wonderfully thought provoking. Victor Frankenstein, on the other hand, feels like most of the decisions regarding message and plot were created for marketing purposes. It feels cheap and lazy. So, in summary, don’t see Victor Frankenstein. It’s a stupid movie and writing about it has made me mad. Stupid Victor Frankenstein… >:| In any case, thanks for reading! Have you made the mistake of seeing Victor Frankenstein? Please do let me know what you think in the comments!

Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Written and Directed by J.J. Abrams. Written by Lawrence Kasdan, Michael Ardnt, and George Lucas (characters by). Starring Daisy Ridley (Rey), John Boyega (Fin), Oscar Isaac (Poe Dameron).

Bottom line: Star Wars: The Force Awakens was awesome; you don’t have to be a Star Wars fan (you don’t even have to have seen any of the other movies) to enjoy it.

3.5/4

Sometimes, when I write a movie review, I struggle to find a starting point. Some movies require a little background or description to help illustrate my points. It can be a pain if the movie is bad or convoluted. It’s worse in the case of the latter because I risk giving away too much of the plot. Fortunately for me, Star Wars: The Force Awakens does not fall into these categories. I don’t have to say very much at all about the plot to recommend it to you. In fact, I don’t think I’ll even go into the plot at all for my review.

Just about everything in this movie is wonderful. John Williams is back with another solid score (though it struck me again how his scores all sound the same). The dialog was solid. The graphics and special effects were splendid. (I’ve come to associate J.J. Abrams with his sense of moderation and taste). There are little bits of fan service (that is, stuff for returning fans) but it doesn’t get in the way. New characters and worlds were introduced smoothly and blended well with the returning characters.

The weakest part of Star Wars: The Force Awakens was the two-dimensional villains. Now, don’t get me wrong, this is going to be a trilogy but they still could’ve made the villains compelling, rather than hinting at a future back-story. That said, all the other characters were perfectly fine. I especially liked Harrison Ford’s return as the dashing rogue Han Solo. It was his most vitalized performance in quite a while.

I’ve also got to hand it to the merchandising powerhouse that is Disney. Everything in this movie, from the light-sabers and the blasters to the revamped X-Wings, can be turned into something to buy. At one point, a character jumps in a Tie Fighter and says, “I’ve always wanted to fly one of these.”

“Me too,” says I. Thank goodness I can in the new Star Wars: Battlefront III for the PS4!

Han Solo shoots Chewie’s crossbow, looks down at it, turns and says, “I gotta get me one of these.”

 “Can I have one of those too, Dad? And Kylo Ren’s light-saber too!”

Does this diminish the movie? Absolutely not, I just thought it was funny to see.

Now, I was never the biggest fan of Star Wars. It’s not that I dislike them I’ve just never really liked them. That said, I loved Star Wars: The Force Awakens. I’ve seen this twice so far and it got me pumped up each time. It made me want to go on an adventure. I wanted to fly around in space ships. Heck, I wanted to just be a part of the movie making process.

At this point, just about everyone on earth has seen Star Wars: The Force Awakens but if you haven’t, I highly recommend you do. The people I’ve met who haven’t seen it explain that they aren’t Star Wars fans. I assure you, you don’t have to be a Star Wars fan to enjoy it. It’s fun if you are a Star Wars fan so you get some of the references but that’s just icing on the cake.