"Would You Rather" Film Review

   This has been on my Netflix queue forever so since I was getting kind of bored from watching back-to-back hipster indie flicks, I decided to take a break. Initially, it looked like it would be average at best, and a pretentious wannabe Saw flick at the worst. And to be fair, the Saw vibe is definitely felt, but this movie also offers a couple of interesting elements as well. So allow me to break it down: 

   The protagonist is a young woman named Iris (Brittany Snow), who spends most of her time caring for her terminally ill younger brother. After his doctor introduces her to a philantropist named Shepard Lambrick, he informs her that if she wins a game at his upcoming dinner party, he will secure her brother the proper donor to save his life. She accepts, and soon discovers that other individuals at the dinner party also want a piece of the pie. Lambrick introduces the game as being "would you rather", but with a slight catch: each round involves some type of physical and mental torture, with the game becoming more dangerous with each round. As the guests begin to fear for their lives, they realize that something truly sadistic and sinister is lurking behind Lambrick's promise of charity. 

    Now, upon seeing the trailer, I did find this to be an interesting concept for a horror film. A lot of times, certain horror movies fail because they focus way too much on cramming in a bunch of plot points and random scares without actually allowing the story to breathe. Here, the story elements are given enough room so that it all flows at a fairly steady pace and nothing has to stop completely so that the audience members are given a chance to reorient themselves. And I feel like this is one of the film's biggest strengths. I thought that the tension was extremely well-executed, and especially considering the type of story being told, it is very easy to completely fuck this element up if you don't balance it correctly. They expanded on the moments that needed to be built up, and they condensed the moments that would otherwise slow down the film. Even though it only had a runtime of slightly less than 90 minutes, I still felt that it was long enough to be exciting and not horribly drawn-out. 

    With regards to the performances of the actors, I thought that everyone did a fairly decent job even if it was far from being perfect. Like, okay, obviously Iris has the most character because she's the protagonist, so by comparison the rest of the side characters were kind of one-dimensional. But for the sake of this concept, in the end it all kind of worked. I was surprised and delighted to see June Squib, as I loved her in Nebraska, and it was nice to watch her in a performance that was a little different from the one she happened to play in that movie. I will also note that Robb Wells appears in this film, who plays Ricky in Trailer Park Boys, but unfortunately for me it was hard to not see him as Ricky the entire time because his character here was really just a carbon copy of his performance on the show. I'm not saying that his performance was necessarily good or bad, just that it wasn't all that different from what I've seen him do before. 

    I will admit that there were a couple of issues with this film, mainly with the villain(s). I get that the actors were trying to be intentionally over-the-top and gimmicky, but at the same time, it didn't feel that believable in certain places. There were also parts of the villain's story arc that I felt needed a lot more exposition. For instance, the film takes the time to have this whole exchange between him and his son, and their dialogue has a lot of hints to certain backstory and offscreen elements, but it isn't really brought up again. Well, except for this one part where Iris is almost raped by the son, and Shepard Lambrick apologizes to her and mentions the death of his wife, though it ends up going nowhere and doesn't add anything to his character or his son's. But by far the thing that troubled me most was the ending (spoiler alert). I thought that it was building up nicely when Iris came home and showered, but then they decided to have her find her brother's dead body after he committed suicide, and the film just ends. Not to mention the completely inappropriate credits song that began playing as the camera pulled up! Note to other filmmakers: when you want the audience to feel horrified or sad, incorporating an upbeat alternative rock song is going to completely derail the entire tone of your film. And to be fair, it almost ruined the entire film for me. While I did think about the director's possible intention and wondered if it was supposed to symbolize self-sacrifice for the ones you love (thereby bringing the protagonist's central conflict to the forefront and reversing it against her), but if so, it certainly could've been done in a way that didn't feel so damned rushed or half-assed.

    Overall, the film was adept at managing its time and it succeeded in keeping my attention. It had a lot of issues, but since they are relatively minor, they probably won't seriously impede its entertainment value.

   Overall Rating: 6.5/10

1 item, 20 Shorts: Plastic Prize Capsule

    So I wanted to start a series of blog posts that relate to filmmaking, and this seemed to be a creative way to go about it. For each post, I will pick a single object and present a list of twenty different ideas for a short film based on said object. Today's object is a plastic prize capsule, so here we go. Here are twenty films to make with a plastic prize capsule: 

1. Similar to "Rubber", a sentient prize capsule that kills people. 
2. A prize capsule moving from place to place, being used by different people for all things, from drugs to playtime to a soup bowl for a mouse. 
3. A crazy person with an unnatural attachment to his prize capsule. 
4. A pscientist who shrunk himself in lab experiment and can now only move around in a round prize capsule. 
5. An alternate universe where people are put in vending machines via prize capsules and dispensed to plastic toys that populate the larger world. 
6. A prize capsule that curses anyone who owns it.  
7. A prize capsule that acts as Pandora's Box and threatens to unleash evil unto anyone who dares to open it.  
8. A prize capsule that is sentient and only wants to return to his home vending machine.  
9. A prize capsule that acts as a magic mirror and traps your deepest desires.  
10. A prize capsule that has a face drawn on it and acts as a "Castaway" parody.  
11. A prize capsule that is the only friend to a very lonely man. 
12. A prize capsule that is the only clue to solving a kidnapping case.  
13. A man who has an unbearable addiction to prize-capsule vending machines.  
14. "The prize-capsule killer": A man who kills using only a prize capsule.  
15.  Prize capsules having a secret undergound society apart from the real world. 
16.  A man is buried alive in prize capsules and rises up for revenge. 
17.  A horrible factory accident transforms a man to become "The Encapsulator", a superhero/villain with an army of prize capsules filled with weapons. 
18. Bored by reality, a woman constructs glasses out of two prize capsules and discovers that they reveal unseen aspects of the real world.  
19. An epic war between the Red and the White capsules.  
20. A woman locked in an empty room has only a single prize capsule as a window to the outside world. 

"Daddy's Home" Movie Review

      Hello, all! I am back for winter break with more time to write posts. So of course I'm going to give my first winter post the honor of being the review of probably the worst movie I have seen in weeks. (Yes, I am calling it a movie because it in no way deserves to be called a film).

     I did have the intention of seeing Tarantino's The Hateful Eight this week, but considering that it actually comes out in a few days, and it was also Bargain Tuesday at the movie theater, my family chose to see this instead. And let me just say that upon walking into the theater, I saw a large amount of small children in the seats and knew exactly what type of comedy this was going to be. 

    Before I start tearing it apart, let me give a basic synopsis: Will Ferrell is married to a woman with two young kids, and their biological father, Mark Wahlberg, decides to drop by one day (no concrete reason as to why; we just know that he's the dad and he has come to see the kids right the fuck out of nowhere). Hijinks ensue as the dads "compete" for the attention and adoration of the wife and kids. 

    If you just read that and thought, "That sounds like a basic setup for any bad comedy that could be made in this era", then you'd be correct. This concept has been done to death a thousand times and the movie has nothing original to offer in any way whatsoever. You've got your basic setup of a nice white family with two kids and a big house with a white picket fence who are all exposed to some less-than-normal occurrences which should make for some yuk-yuk moments. Oh, and let's not forget that this Hollywood package comes with the quintessential bland caricatures (and no, I don't mean characters): the overworked corporate dad, the pushover attractive suburban wife, the irresponsible badass who acts juvenile and throws caution to the wind, the painfully unfunny boss who tries to help with problems and only makes them worse, and the annoying children whose love for their parents is based blatantly on materialism. (And to add a small sidenote: there is not one, but two moments in the movie where the characters basically pull a Ford commercial out of their ass by mentioning the model by name and saying things like "it gets me everywhere" and "it's great on gas". I swear by all things holy that I am not joking about this. It was the most obviously desperate product placement I have ever seen in any movie ever. And I watched Man of Steel!) I choose to not call them "characters" because that word implies that some thought was actually put into their construction. And none of these cardboard cutouts exemplified that in any way. I'd have to say that the mom character annoyed me the most: she was such a pushover that every time she was onscreen, I felt like punching her in the face. She was completely insignificant and did nothing at any point in the movie to appropriately react to the conflict or even attempt to resolve it. Yes, I'll point out that towards the end, we get the whole confrontation between her and the dads where she scolds them for not being there for the daughter, but it is delivered so late that it feels completely forced and absurd. I did not have as much of a problem with Wahlberg and Ferrell, even though I thought their chemistry was off in a lot of places, but there was also the issue with their performances feeling completely phoned-in; there was not a single moment in the movie where I felt that they were doing this for something other than a simple paycheck. And this is sad, because I know that both men are capable actors when they are presented with the right environment to showcase their talent, something that was definitely lacking here. The children both sucked in their performances, and yes I know I should lay off of them a bit because they're just kids, but we also have to consider that their characters were incredibly one-dimensional, inconsistent, and downright annoying during every single moment they were on screen. I don't even think they were meant to be characters; they were just props for the adult characters to use in order to move the story along. 

    I found myself having two main thoughts while watching this, the first being, "I should be watching the Tarantino film right now," and "I'd take a root canal over sitting through another five minutes of this shit." I actually tuned out for about twenty minutes and put on my earbuds in an attempt to drown out the cinematic diarrhea that was being splattered all over the screen. Only when I realized that this was futile did I consider strangling myself in an attempt to pass out completely and therefore become oblivious to this eye-rape. Seriously; Lars Von Trier could've shit out a better movie on a sick day. 

   A common criticism people tend to hear when they rip on bad movies is that they need to learn to "enjoy" movies more or be more easily "entertained". Which begs the question: does a movie have to be insultingly absurd and painfully mediocre to be "enjoyed"? Is "enjoyment" or "entertainment" of the movie based on how many pee jokes, slapstick moments, and sexual innuendos a movie can cram into its runtime, rather than calculating enjoyment from well-written characters and plot? So in other words, the reason good movies do well is not due to the fact that they are thought-provoking or that people enjoy them, but because they are just a good way to waste money and look at pretty pictures for two hours. Maybe "good movies" like Schindler's List or The Shawshank Redemption would've done a lot better if they added some fart jokes and crotch hits, right? Who cares about getting immersed in the film through deep characters and emotionally-driven story when you can have quick-and-easy sex jokes and lowbrow humor? The thing is, when you go to a movie, you vote with your wallet; picking this kind of crap over a film that was actually crafted with care insinuates that you believe that the former is preferable to the latter, that the Hollywood cash-grab is worth your hard-earned money. And no, I am also not trying to imply that all comedies with slapstick and humor are to be avoided (hell, Anchorman and Monty Python are great). It's just that when you have so many better candidates to chose from, why "vote" for the one that is the weakest? 

    Don't get me wrong; I can stand to watch bad movies if there is evidence that an iota of effort went into the special effects or production design. I watch Sucker Punch every so often, and I don't mind viewing a Roland Emmerich film if it's on TV and there is literally nothing else to watch. But this is only if they are at least bad dramas. It's like the saying goes: "Bad drama makes for good comedy, but bad comedy is useless." And thus, this movie is definitely useless and ultimately forgettable in every instance of the word. It's a waste of time, a waste of money, and a waste of brain cells. Please do not squander your time or money; take my advice and go see Star Wars or The Hateful Eight instead. 

Overall Rating: 3/10 

     

UPDATE: October 2015

Hey hey hey guys!!!

I know I said I would be on a bit of a hiatus until December, but I got ahead on my work this week so here I am to talk for a bit.


For the most part, the transition into life at Purchase has been crazy. But I do love it; this place is amazing, this program is amazing, and I am happy here. I never thought there would actually be a place where over half of the girls wear piercings, tattoos, brightly colored hair dye, and dresses with their Doc Martens. Plus I see an abundance of DC, Tim Burton, and Invader Zim stuff!!


Some very exciting news:
I finally have a strong idea for my freshman film! It involves a mermaid and will be filmed in Ocean Grove. I may even use this as a spiritual prequel to an idea I have for my senior film, but it all depends where I am in four years (mainly financially).

So yep, everything's pretty good right now. I mean I may not be saying that in a few weeks, but I think I'll handle it. At least I hope I will.


-The Gothic Bohemian

UPDATE (September 2015)

    In case you guys didn't read the other update I posted on my second blog , I am taking this time to announce that the Gothic Bohemian will be on a bit of a hiatus until December. I may post once or twice before then, but the program I am in at Purchase is very rigorous and demands a lot of work, so free time is kind of limited.

   I'm sure I'll be back in the swing of things by December (if I survive finals). 

   

   Hugs and love,

   The Gothic Bohemian

Thoughts On Sexuality (Defined and Undefined)

    (Just as a disclaimer: as someone who identifies as bisexual, you may discover that this article may lean more towards bisexual-related issues. But even so, I will try to discuss sexuality as a whole, and use my personal preferences when necessary.)

    Unless you have been living under a rock, gay marriage was legalized in the U.S. not too long ago. Obviously, this was a huge turning point for the LGBT community. And to be fair, in the last few years, it has achieved some pretty impressive things. With gays, lesbians, and the like becoming more visible, sexuality has diversified and certain orientations have been brought to the public attention. It is no longer an issue of "gay" or "straight", but rather an entire spectrum of sexual orientation. 

    Of course, there is nothing wrong with this at all. I personally don't care how you dress or who you love, it makes absolutely no difference and will most likely have no impact on my life as a whole. But, there are still some individuals who believe that the more visible the LGBT community has become, the more people are "choosing" to further bypass preconceived notions of sexual orientation and "twisting" it to the point where it becomes overblown, ridiculous, and "fashionable". That apparently it will corrupt the mind of innocents and the entire world will descend into a giant sinful orgy of lust before God comes and tears it apart.

   So I want to pose the question: why are fluid/non-heterosexual orientations so taboo?

   I don't want to bring this up as a simple question of whether being gay is okay; that has been discussed so many times I've lost count. Instead, I want to talk about the sexual orientations that are beyond gay and straight: bisexual, asexual, pansexual, etc. Now, these terms have only come to light fairly recently, which means that some people have been quick to dismiss them as being "made up" or just "trendy". So before I get into this a little more, here are their formal definitions. 

  Bisexual: A person who is attracted to both men and women

  Asexual: A person who does not feel sexually attracted to anyone (though they may still be romantically attracted to them). 

  Pansexual: A person who is attracted to another individual regardless of their gender (is not the same as being bisexual because pansexuals tend to be more transgender-inclusive). 

   There we go. Yes, all of these orientations are real, and they do exist. As I said before, I myself am bisexual; I have had far more crushes on girls than on guys, but I still find myself attracted to guys on occassion. For a good amount of time, I'll admit I did try to convince myself that I was "confused", but then I found out that bisexuality was a normal thing, and it was totally okay. Likewise, all of these other orientations are 150% okay. However, I want to discuss the fact that even the LGBT community has been slow to accept this.

   As a bisexual individual, I will say that there are people in the LGBT community who believe that we do not exist. (Yes, this is despite the obvious "B" in the name). I have heard that a big reason why gays and straights do not trust us is because they believe we want attention, but personally, I think they may just get uncomfortable with the fact that we aren't 100% on "their" side. It's also annoying when people assume that we're down for a threesome with two strangers simply because we go both ways. (Please note: "bisexual" does not mean "easy"). It's almost as if, since we have the ability to be attracted to both genders, then that means we'll apparently be more likely to cheat, or something. Or, we're just "confused" and eventually we'll come to identify ourselves as strictly gay or straight.

   This is also an issue faced by pansexuals, who, since they can be attracted to a wider range of genders, are sometimes assumed to be outrageously confused and insecure, or they don't see genders to the point where they don't inherently value the people that they date. With asexuals, they are seen as sexually repressed, or they may even be accused as having a sexual disorder. (Personally, I think that since our culture is hyper-sexualized, it's very uncommon for people to think that a person would not experience some form of attraction at any point in their lives). So yes, even in the so-called tolerant LGBT community, there are still cliques. It seems that society is still unable to shake off a bunch of preconceived notions about gender identity and sexual orientation, which, of course, is unfortunate. It really just blows my mind why people believe that anything beyond gay or straight is so "odd". Like, they can't put a solid label on you, so they just disregard you as a person. I am bisexual, but that doesn't make me greedy, and it doesn't mean I'm "confused" or more likely to cheat than anyone else simply because I've had crushes on girls and guys. 

   The saddest part about this issue is that bi-invisibility (something that can also be applied to pansexuals, asexuals, and so on) is so rampant in the LGBT community and society in general that people are forming perceptions of these more "fluid" individuals without even getting to know them. For example, a youtube video asked lesbians what they thought of bisexuals (Arielle Scarcella's channel, for those of you who are interested). I'll admit, a lot of their answers kind of offended me. They were calling bisexuals "confused", "odd", and "greedy", which automatically distanced themselves from the people they were describing. (By the way, what is "greedy" even supposed to mean? It's not like we want all the hot people for ourselves; attraction is a basis of personal preference anyway). I want to also point out that I was kind of irritated when I heard that the term "gold star lesbian" was a thing: for those who don't know, it generally means that a lesbian has only been with women, and never slept with a man at any point. Like, as if a person's past sexual history is the only way to gauge what they currently define themselves as. Why is it that a person is only really gay or straight if they've known for a long time already? Why is it so bad to switch between orientations if you want? Do gays and straights believe that we'll be "tainting" or misrepresenting the LGBT community if we cannot come up with a 100% clear-cut definition of who we are? Is it that important that we attach such a gigantic label to everything we like? Why must we be so concerned with who we're attracted to, and at what point we're attracted to them? 

    I get that many gays and straights are sometimes intimidated by "gray-area" orientations like bisexual and pansexual because it's more complicated to define us, especially since some of us tend to lean more in one direction than the other. I understand that many may view us as simply looking for attention because we don't have such a clear-cut answer as to who we may or may not like. 

    But the bottom line is: who fucking cares?

    It shouldn't matter who anyone is attracted to: all that matters is whether or not they treat their partner (or partners) nicely! Like, sure girl, I've been attracted to others in the past, but right now, my main focus is you. As of this moment, I am attracted to and want to be with you. And that is what should matter. Now, obviously, it is a problem if your partner is cheating, but that's NOT a issue regarding sexuality, but morals in general. 

   My sexual orientation is not the sole determining factor of who I am as a person. I just want to ask the general public and LGBT community in general to stop making assumptions at us and look at us as people, not "greedy" or "confused" fetishists who are looking for attention. I mean, honestly: how would you feel if someone said that about you (since gays have been called such things in the past)?

   Let's live and let live. Case closed. 

"Sinister 2" Film Review

    Before I say anything, I would like to point out that I really enjoyed the first Sinister. Though it was far from perfect, and it did rely on some been-there-done-that horror clichés, it was still subtle enough to moderately scary. So, after hearing that it was getting a sequel, I was psyched.
   And I have to admit I was sorely disappointed.
   There is nothing, I repeat absolutely nothing subtle about this movie at all. The sequence of events was beyond predictable and the jump-scares became so repetitive that you could totally tell when they were going to happen. Even my siblings could point them out, and they don't like horror movies in the first place. This was a major problem for the sequel to a movie that gained its reputation due to subtlety. I was also annoyed by the fact that pretty much every single fucking jumpscare was in the damn trailer. Seriously, you have no idea how much of a pet peeve this is to me. And even when the Super 8 films (AKA the "scariest" parts of the movie) came up, they weren't all that unsettling and didn't come off as any more disturbing than a standard episode of Law and Order.
   In terms of how the characters were constructed, I felt that they weren't so much characters as they were thin cardboard cutouts of tired caricatures. The mother didn't come off as damaged as she should have, the conflict between the brothers was pointless, and even the abusive father didn't come off as believable. It would've been better if they took a more psychological approach to his abuse, but instead they just wrote him as this cocky asshole with no real context to his behavior. When he was shoving mashed potatoes into his son's face, I didn't find myself caring. I could only think, "What does this have to do with anything?" The mom's inner struggle kind of floated on top of the overall conflict and she appeared very much disinterested about everything. The relationships between her sons and the other characters were not very well-developed and little context was presented to back it up to make it in any way believable. The characterization of the two brothers felt extremely half-baked, and the "evil" brother didn't come off as that sadistic in the first place. I mean, he is built up to be stronger and less emotionally damaged than his younger brother, so why is he able to turn against the family so easily? We aren't really given much context to their situation other than the fact that their father abused them, but even so, since it was the younger brother that was abused more severely, wouldn't it have made sense for him to do the killing? It seems kind of unrealistic that a kid would agree to kill his own family "just because".
   Which brings me to the villain: they took what made him scary in the first movie and completely destroyed anything interesting about him. He just kind of stands around in such an obvious manner that his presence is far more annoying than disturbing. His evil "minion" children were the complete opposite of their fresh and subtle counterparts in the previous film, because in this case, their interactions with the two boys made everything far too obvious and boring. They didn't really seem that scary, and as a result the villain didn't seem that scary, either. Now, the movie wastes a lot of time trying to give backstory as to why he exists, but it doesn't really reveal much or establish any kind of motive. I mean, what is his motive? What does he want? Beats me. Children? Even though that would apparently be the case, the way that they execute this in the movie is really vague and confusing. For example (spoiler alert), the older brother eventually gets what's coming to him because the demon gets mad and touches his shoulder, causing him to crumble into gray dust. I believed that this moment demolished a lot of the movie's logic because it implied that he could just do this whenever he felt like it. Therefore, why doesn't he? Why does he need all the freaking Super 8 films when he can simply go around and take the soul of a child if he wants? And before people start arguing that this may only happen if he starts to make a movie but he doesn't finish (exactly what happened in this movie), keep in mind that the story gives the implication that he can only gain the children's soul if they watch the movies and then make one to add to the pile. So if he can only gain possession of their souls upon receiving a completed film reel, then how does it make sense for him to eliminate this rule by just grabbing the soul of the kid anyway? Kind of discredits a lot of what the movie was trying to say.
   Speaking of which, I could not for the life of me try to understand how this movie was trying to set itself apart from the other films. It relied on the exact same scare tactics as the first movie, but other than that, it didn't even feel connected to the first Sinister very much at all. The most "recent" ghost girl from the last movie does not make an appearance, and none of the other dead kids from the previous film show up either. (Do not even attempt to understand why this is, because the movie does not offer any explanation for this nor address at any point.) I understand the point of an "indirect sequel" but this felt so disconnected from the previous movie that nothing was coming off as that interesting, or at least rooted in some type of context. There was nothing to back up anything credible or terrifying about this movie, and as a result it was paper-thin and lukewarm to the maximum. I feel it is also worth mentioning that this movie had the worst fucking cop-out of an ending that I have ever witnessed in a horror film.
   Simply put, this movie was a piece of shit. It was not scary, it was not interesting, and it was completely and utterly half-assed. It should really be called "Sinister Poo" instead of Sinister 2 because it has as much value as the rat shit that makes an appearance about 15 minutes in. Do not waste your time; please find a better movie to watch. I have dozens of other summer movies I could recommend, just look at the list I posted the other day. What's really scary, though, is that it is actually the second worst movie I watched this summer. That is the only thing that puts a chill down my spine. Other than that, nothing else.


Overall rating: 4.5/10