Review: Jurassic World

           Again!? Why did they think this was still a good idea? I mean, first, before the park even opens, the whole apparatus of the park was deactivated, and the dinosaurs went berserk. Then, they tried to build one in San Diego, on the  mainland, and a T. Rex ended up rampaging through a major metropolitan area. Then, some people landed on the island, and a spinosaurus almost killed them. (Yeah, I'm really into this franchise.) Anyway, why did they think that building another park was a good idea? You know that something is going to go wrong, based off that track record, and I'm going to let you guess what happens in this film. Yep, everything goes wrong. And they had the audacity to genetically create a new dinosaur, an ultimate predator sort, and they didn't have any contingency plans for it. You know what, it probably doesn't matter. Because this is actually fairly decent a film.
      Fourth in the film franchise based off the 1990 novel by the late Michael Crichton, the film follows "Jurassic World," a fulfillment of John Hammond's original vision for Jurassic Park. It is a major success, with visitors coming to see the varieties of genetically created prehistoric creatures on a daily basis. However, to increase visitors, the manager (I presume so, at least) of the park, Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) was told by InGen, now under the management of Simon Masrani (Irrfan Khan), to create an all new Dinosaur. One which would combine all the ultimate predators (Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, Carnotaurus, Giganotosaurus, Majungasaurus, and Rugops), which also has other traits from DNA placed in it. They called it Indominus Rex (roughly translating to "Untameable king"). However, after Ms. Dearing gives Mr. Masrani a laydown of the creature, he asks that someone be able to control it. Specifically, Owen Grady (Chris Pratt), a former Navy seal, assigned to train the (featherless, because that isn't scary enough, supposedly) velociraptors, who is rightfully suspicious of the prospect. Meanwhile, Zach and Gray Mitchell (Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkins), the nephews of Dearing, come to visit the park, and their aunt. However, given that Dearing is a little too busy at the moment, so they are stuck with her assistant. They promptly ditch the assistant to explore the park a little more. After an establishment scene, showing Grady as the alpha of a pack of Velociraptors, and head of security Vic Hopkins (Vincent D'Onofrio) wanting to use them as weapons (Spoilers: that goes no where, and doesn't matter in the slightest to the precedings), he is brought to the Rex exhibit, where it disappears from its captivity, supposedly by climbing. However, when Grady and two other employees investigate, they find it is very much in its cage. Apparently, the frog DNA caused it to change its temperature enough that the thermal sensors couldn't detect it. It escapes from its confines, kills the two employees, and begins a rampage. All the while, the park is evacuated, but the two nephews, in gyroscope tour, decide to go off trail, and encounter the Rex. They barely escape it. Now, Grady and Dearing must now both find and defeat the Rex, and find the two boys, before more havoc is wrecked.
    First, the dinosaurs were pretty good to look at. Yeah, they weren't scientifically accurate (I'd go back to Alan Grant's statement that the Dinosaurs were more theme park attractions in the third film), but it was fun to see them. Also, the acting is okay. Chris Pratt did pretty well in his role. Some may find him bland, but his serious demeanor was pretty well done, and proves that he could do more than be a snarky badass. He has, at this point, completely excised Andy Dwer from his system.  Bryce Dallas Howard did well. Sure, their characters weren't complex, but the characters were never great in these films, so that gets a pass. The effects were good. One thing I really appreciated was the use of practical effects in some scenes. CGI has become so prevalent, that everything seems false. The use of practical effects is not only a good homage to the original, but makes the reactions of the people around the dinosaurs more believable. There was also the fact that there was a lot of suspense in the plot. The climax, I won't spoil, was very exciting to watch, and has a homage to the original that works. It is easily the best scene in the whole film.
    Are you familiar with the concept of a "Mary Sue"? If not, it basically refers to a character that is very perfect in their abilities and actions. Indominus Rex is a Villain Sue. It literally is a predator so perfect that it has camoflage, ultra-intelligence, and it can even tame other creatures. That really pushed my suspension of disbelief. It really seemed implausible, even with all the genetic talk, that this creature is so perfect at being a villainous creature. I didn't much care for the two kids, and their story. The reason that I cared about the two kids in the original was that they had distinct personalities, and we got to know them well enough that we wanted to see them succeed. In this, yes, we follow the kids from the beginning, but the whole summation of their personalities are 'Gary is pedantic, and Zack is somewhat girl-crazy." I really didn't care about their stories, when they had such bland characterization.  I was worried going in that this would rely heavily on nostalgia for the original. That wasn't greatly true, but the homages that were in the film were irritating. Granted, one or two of them were okay, but it just came off as overbearing. Like the director kept wanting to say "Look, I made a sequel to this influential film, and trying to recapture its glory." You know, Abrams did that with Super 8, and that was less than satisfying. The things I like about the Jurassic Park sequels was that they never tried that. They never pretended that they could easily remaster what the originals had. This one is definitely trying. But, in fairness, it doesn't come up a lot.
       It was okay. To some extend, it meet my expectations. It was never going to be as good as the first and second, but it's good on its own. If you want to see a Jurassic Park sequel, or just interested, I say watch this (I definitely prefered this to the Third Jurassic park.) If you dislike the films, this one isn't going to convince you otherwise. Next week, Pixar!

Tomorrowland Spoiler review

    So, I decided to write this, just to explain my review. Now, normally I wouldn't do this, largely because I feel that a review should just be a recommendation. It's just my thought on whether or not a person or entity would enjoy it or not. Spoiling it means you'd probably not see it, and I feel that I should encourage you to see it. The only exception is if the film is repulsively bad. Then, I could spoil it all I want, because then no one would see it. Tomorrowland is not an incredibly bad film. However, I feel I need to explain the third act of the film, in order for my review to make sense. Again, this is a spoiler review, so if you are interested in seeing Tomorrowland, I suggest you stop reading, and look at my previous review. Reading my previous review would explain some of the context for the scenes.
      So, Frank, Casey and Athena manage to reach a facility, where they are teleported to the Eiffel Tower. There, the Robot agents manage to track our heroes there. However, they manage to escape, using a rocket, which is accessed.... At the bottom of the tower. Yeah. So, if they had intended on going to Tomorrowland discreetly, well, they were witnessed by millions of people, and the electricity went off in a large metropolitan area. Oops. How exactly did the founders of Tomorrowland (established as Gustav Eiffel, Jules Verne, Thomas Edison, Nikola in this scene) exactly intend on getting there secretly, with that mode of transportation. This could have easily been solved by having it be in the French Countryside or something. Anyway, they go above the atmosphere and send their ship back down to reach the necessary velocity to cross the dimensional threshold to get to Tomorrowland. They cross it. However, they find that the city has fallen into destitution. They are promptly capture by Nix and his army of robots. They take the three to a device, which utilizes tachyons to see past and future events. There, we discover the truth: there is going to be an apocalypse. How? The movie doesn't explain. David Nix says that the apocalypse is inevitable, but once again, Casey's optimism shows a more optimistic future. However, they are then put into a cell, where they will be sent back to Earth. In that cell, however, they realize that,,, I'm sorry, this is part that irks me,... that the machine is sending signals to implant images of the apocalypse. Yep, that's the big mystery. Expecting something bigger on top of that. Well, sucks for you! And that's not even the worst part. When they confront Nix about it, he says that he intended to use those signals, in order to warn humanity about the apocalypse, but instead they embraced the idea of the end, and marketed it (at the back of my mind, I was thinking the movie was dissing Mad Max.) What? Really, that is his whole evil scheme. Show people the images of the apocalypse, without context. Um, hey, evil Governor Hugh Laurie, uh, why didn't you send a very clear message saying "Hey, you know this world. If you don't want it to happen, stop doing the stuff you're doing. See this (shows Tomorrowland). Try doing what we do..." and he goes into detail about what they do in Tomorrowland. And again, this is the big twist. This is supposed to be the thing the big mystery was leading up to. It really is disappointing. And once again, I feel I should blame Lindelof for this. Really, those two films (and Prometheus, which I haven't fully seen) suffer from this problem. A big mystery, which gives a insufficient conclusion, and lackluster effects. Really, it's his mark on the film, not Brad Bird's. Anyway, there is a large fight scene, Athena sacrifices herself, Nix is killed, and Casey destroys the tower. Later, Casey and Frank decide to rebuild Tomorrowland, with help from Casey's father, and a new army of Robot kids, like Athena.They go out, and get more innovators and exceptional... Oh my god, I just realized the Objectivist undertones of this (Maybe people were right about Brad Bird). Sorry, they give them pins like the one Casey received, and they go to Tomorrowland.
   Oh, yeah, the absurd scenes. Let's see, the Paris Rocket, I already covered that. The finishing fight with Nix. The CGI made it look very cartoonish. Oh yeah, there are scenes of Athena fighting. Yes, an 11 year old girl is the focus of several fight scenes. I... don't know what to say. What can you say? Oh yeah, I can't take that seriously. Sorry, I just can't. It's too absurd.
      Looking back, my review was a little too positive. That may be because I write them immediately after watching the film, and I haven't had time to fully think about it. Now that I've had time to think, I like this less. Granted, I still like it to some extent, but my opinion is more mixed. I feel this deserves a 48% (its score on Rotten Tomatoes). Well, nothing much else to say.

Review: Tomorrowland

      Animation is a difficult process. One must constantly draw each frame of the shot, and make sure that each picture is perfect, hence making the animation flow. So, animation and live action are two very different processes. And often the transition between one and the other can be very unstable. (I mean, take a look at any film based off a Hanna-Barbera property). One prominent example of this was Andrew Stanton. Stanton directed Finding Nemo and WALL-E, two films that I really love, and have a special place in my heart. However, he then went on to direct a live action adaptation of Edgar Rice Burrough's character John Carter, and the results were less than satisfying. (That film was actually the subject of my first film review, if anyone has a copy of Indus Interational School, Bangalore yearbook of 2011-2012.) How does one go from such classics to a mediocre offering. Well, the standards of animation are different than live-action, and sometimes, like I said, the transition is very difficult from one to the other. I mention this, because the director of today's subject Tomorrowland is Stanton's colleague in Pixar, Brad Bird. He was the director of The Iron Giant. You probably know him better as the director of the Incredibles, and Ratatouille. He also had significant involvement with the early seasons of the Simpsons. (He directed the two early Krusty the Clown centered episodes). I would like to say that I adore his work. I love The Iron Giant and The Incredibles, and Ratatouille is my favorite Pixar film (and one of my favorite films, period). However, I had trepidation when I heard he was directing this film, largely because he had a larger background in animation ( I had forgtten  he directed the fairly decent Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol). So, does Brad Bird bring the same passion to this live action offering that he does to his animated picture. Uh,.... Let's jump right in.
         Our film opens with a recording of Frank Walker (George Clooney) describing the situation. In 1964, Frank is a young kid (Thomas Robinson), who invented a jetpack, and goes to display it at the World's Fair that year. There, he places it before David Nix (Hugh Laurie), who dismisses it after Walker is forced to admit it can't fly. However, Nix's, uh, little girl, Athena (Raffey Cassidy) has a soft spot for young Frank, so she gives him a pin and a set of directions. He follows those directions in the "It's a Small World" display at the World's Fair, and finds himself in a mysterious, futuristic city. After he has a mishap, he actually manages to get his jetpack to fly. He manages to meet up with Athena. From there, the narrative shifts to the present day, and we meet prodigy Casey Newton (Britt Robertson). She is the daughter of a NASA engineer (Tim McGraw, for some reason), and she is trying to delay the closing of the NASA launch platform her father works at. However, she is caught during one of her outings, and after being released, she finds a pin with a large 'T' on it with her possessions. When she touches it, she transported to a field, where she catches a glimpse of a future city. She then runs from home to see the full extent of the pin. Within the pin, she finds herself in a strange future city, where the fantastic reigns supreme. However, the pin eventually runs out of juice, and Casey goes to find its origin. In Houston, she finds a retro sci-fi antiques shop, where she finds two odd clerks (Kathryn Hahn and Keegan-Michael Key), who explain the pin as an ad for a futuristic city called Tomorrowland. However, when she fails to disclose the origin of the pin (she merely found it in her possessions), the shop keepers become violent. However, a mysterious little girl comes to save her (in what has to be the most absurd action scenes I've ever witnessed.), revealing the store clerks to be robots. The little girl than drives with Casey. She is revealed to be Athena, and she is also a robot. After explaining that she was the one who gave Casey the pin, she drops her off at the home of the now aged and cynical Frank Walker. Walker at first is apprehensive about Casey, and her desire to go to Tomorrowland, primarily because he is bitter about his exile and the impending doom of the world, which he measures on a monitor with a clock. However, after Casey's optimism causes the probability of disaster to reduce, he agrees to help her get to Tomorrowland. However, robots disguised as Secret Service Men invade Walkers house. Luckily, they escape, and they meet up with Athena. We learn that Casey was chosen for the pin, and that she has the potential to save Tomorrowland, especially against the now Governor David Nix, who has machinations of his own.
    Good things: the mystery for the first two acts is compelling. I was invested in what was going to happen in this situation, and why it was happening. It also had a large level of intrigue, as we follow our heroes through the mysteries of Tomorrowland. The acting is very good. Britt Robertson does exude a very powerful optimism, which makes her characters importance believable. George Clooney also does well as a cranky, cynical former inventor, who still has some wonder in him. Hugh Laurie makes a very interesting villain (though his clean shaveness and British accent keep reminding me of one of his comedy characters from back when he was on the BBC). The 1964 Tomorrowland (there is a distinction) also feels very alive, and very vibrant. Finally, I felt it did a better job of promoting optimism than Interstellar did. For one thing, optimistic attitudes literally play a large role in the plot, and also plays a large role in the conflict of the story.
         Remember that mystery I described earlier? It actually builds up to a fairly mundane conclusion. Seriously, I was thinking "That's it? That's the whole mystery they were building up to?" It wasn't bad, per se. It just isn't particularly spectacular. It feels like that twist was supposed to build on a larger conclusion. I might do a spoiler review, because I feel that I would need to examine the ending to be more specific on that point. After watching what the mystery really amounted to, the film just feels a little empty, after that. I don't think this was Brad Bird's fault. I lay the blame on co-writer Damon Lindelof. I haven't seen Lost, (though I hear that it suffered from the same problem) but I have seen Cowboys & Aliens and Star Trek: Into Darkness. Thinking about it now, both of those suffered the same problem: an apparently large mystery, which gets a very disappointing solution. It's a lot of empty spectacle, which I suppose is the problem of his work. I think Brad Bird's considerable talents allow the story not be nearly as disappointing, but it still feels empty, when you get down to it. The effects don't help. Tomorrowland looks very nice, but it feels fake looking, unlike some very good CGI backgrounds. Especially modern Tomorrowland, which seems abandoned completely, safe Nix and his army. That adds to the film's hollowness. Also, there are moments of sheer absurdity, which are hard to take seriously. Once again, if I write a spoiler review, I'll go into detail.
   So, was this or the similarly themed Interstellar better? Eh, I'll go with Interstellar. Whilst Interstellar suffered from various flaws, it at least kept its large scale up consistently. The conflict seemed more urgent, and more interesting. Though, I will say that this is more optimisitc, which I personally enjoyed. So, would I recommend it? Um, personally, I liked it enough. However, I feel that some people will be disappointed. If you want to just see a movie this weekend, this will probably be good. If you want to see a science adventure, this would be good. If you want to see something of substance, than you probably won't find it with this film. It's not a must-watch, but if you're interested, I say go ahead. Thanks for reading

EPCOT: The Experimental Prototype Community Of Tomorrow

     When one thinks Disney, one thinks of fantasy, princesses, wizards, dragons, and magic. However, one word you probably don't think of is futurism. However, Disney has had a long history futuristic thinking. From Tomorrowland in Disneyland, to the "Man in Space" specials he made in the 50's, Walt Disney had a certain interest in the future, and the possibilities it brought forth.(And before you comment, no, his head is not cryogenically frozen. He was cremated, and his ashes are at  the Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Glendale, California.)   And towards the end of his life, he conceived of a city of the future, which he would build in Florida. While there isn't a city, you know this concept better as "EPCOT.
     By the 1960's, Walt Disney had already established his monumental family-friendly image, and his even larger animation company. From his humble roots as the son of a farmer, through establishing his own animation company with his brother in 1923, his struggles as an cartoonist in the 1920's and 30's, to finally getting success with Snow White and the Seven Dwarves in 1937, he had finally succeeded in the American Dream. However, he had many grandkids, and he was concerned about what kind of world they would inhabit. At the time, the inner city had undergone urban decay, and were not particularly nice places to live. Disney contrasted this with the controlled environment he had at California's Disneyland. So, he thought, what if he and his Imagineers could build not just a theme park, but an entire community, which would be a safe haven, with a controlled environment the same as Disneyland. So, he delved into the topic of city-planning, and drew up plans for a city of his own. At the same time, he had made several pavilions for the 1964 World's Fair, and he began to make plans from that for a Disneyland on the East Coast. However, he decided to build something more impressive. He determined Florida to be the best location for his project, and promptly purchased 27,800 acres of Florida Swampland, and convinced the Florida State Legislature to give his company full control of this land. At said company, the board wasn't entirely convinced that an entire city was feasible from an entertainment company. They wanted a Disneyland on the East Coast. Disney relented, and placed the theme park on the northmost portion of the city, so they could experience the whole thing. In October of 1966, he produced a small film about his EPCOT project( which one can see here). He had hoped to use the film as a way of convincing industry to support his project by contributing technology to it. However, whilst Disney was plotting the future, his future was sadly ending. On December 15th, 1966, Walt Disney died of lung cancer in Burbank, California. After his death, his brother, whilst weary of EPCOT, still carried on the project. However, the Disney board formally nixed any plan. However, they went ahead with the theme park idea. Walt Disney World Resort opened on October 1st, 1971, with the Magic Kingdom, and a few hotels around it. However, that was not the end of the EPCOT idea. The concept morphed from a full on city, to more of a permanent World's fair, where technological innovations would be on display, as well as world cultures.In the late 70's, Roy Walker, CEO of Walt Disney (the company) wanted to re-explore EPCOT. However, the board ultimately decided it wasn't feasible. However, an Epcot center was added to Disney World as a compromise, which opened in 1982. The center would be more of an area to communicate ideas than an actual living place. It still resides in Walt Disney World today. They also built the community of Celebration, Florida in 1996, though that is based more off new urbanism than futurism.
     So, what was this city going to be, exactly? Well, first, and foremost, the city would be build in a radial pattern. It generally rotates out of a single core area. The urban density lowers as you ,move away from the center. A monorail, like the one in Disneyland, would be the main source of transportation, connecting the Northern and Southern portions of the Disney World property. Inside EPCOT, the WEDway PeopleMover would be the main source of transportation. It would be a train that ran on motors in the rails, rather than the vehicle itself. It would transport residents from the city center to the other residential areas. ( A "PeopleMover" can be found in Disney World today.) Cars would only be needed for ""only for weekend pleasure trips." Most of the supplies would be transported through underground tunnels within the city.(Apparently, Ol'Walt didn't want the residents to see the supplies for the city get transported into the city.) These two lines would converge at a Transporation Lobby, which would allow for transfers between the local PeopleMover, and the Monorail to the park. At the city center, there would be the 30-story Cosmopolitan Hotel, where guests could engage in leisurely activities. Outside of the hotel would be the shopping district, called "The International Shopping Center," where various cultures across the worlds were represented. (This evolved into the World Pavilions at the Epcot theme park.) Outside the Shopping Center, there would be the high density residential areas, where the 20k residents of the city would live in apartment. They would be no retirement. Rather, everyone who lived there would be a worker in the city center. Also, the people wouldn't actually own the apartments, but are actually renters. The apartments were actually build to allow for the newest technology to be integrated easily. Residents could come home to find their appliances changed. (That actually scares me.) Finally, there is the Green Belt, and the low Density areas, where the services, like schools, community centers, and churches, would be provided. As for visitors, after they arrive in the Disney World Airport or by car (going through the underground tunnels, like they're going from Britain to France), they will go to the Disney World Welcome Center, where they meet guides who speak in their home languages. After all aspects of their trip are planned, They then move through the EPCOT industrial park, where major American corporations would work to make new technologies for the city. After they had seen the whole area, than they get to the theme park area last.
       So, will it work? Honestly, I don't know. Though, I would note that the scale is too grandiose for a single company who made cartoons. Similarly, the fact that no one owns property would not go over well, with potential buyers. It's clear that it wouldn't work as a city. As a permanent World's fair, it has worked for 30 years. So, why am I talking about this? I mean, there's not like there's a film that describes a future society. And is produced by Disney. And will debut next week....
See you next week.

Sources:

The Original E.P.C.O.T Project:
https://sites.google.com/site/theoriginalepcot/

Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Prototype_Community_of_Tomorrow_(concept)

Walt Disney's Vision of an EPCOT- JustDisney.com
http://www.justdisney.com/Features/walts_epcot/  

Review: Avengers: Age of Ultron

(To anyone who gets the joke, Congratulations! You win the No-Prize! (That joke actually makes sense in context. Look it up))
Hey, Wayward Followers,
      This is your radical writer, Rambunctious  RC! And today, we discuss the exhilarating exploits of Earth's Mightiest Heroes! Of course, the good folks at Marvel are doing very fine for themselves. 2012's The Avengers, directed by Jaunty Joss Whedon, was a mega-success, on a scale only Galactus would appreciate! Whilst the Distinguished Competition languishes in a continual spiral of low-quality, "dark" movies, Marvel continues to put out only the highest quality movies that any True Believer would appreciate! Of course, this is thanks to a "Marvel formula" of good characterization, daring plots, and a little sense of humor! However, with a such a high standard to uphold, can the sequel "Age of Ultron," compare to the other Modern Marvels, especially with Jaunty Joss at the helm once again? Well, strap in, Wayward followers, and let's take a look!
     Based of the exciting Marvel comic book team created by Stan "The Man" Lee and Jack "King" Kirby, Age of Ultron follows our intrepid heroes, as they infilitrate the castle of the dreaded Baron Strucker ( Tepid Thomas Kretschmann). However, the Baron has an ace up his nefarious sleeve! Two superpowered twins, Quicksilver (Amazing Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Scarlet Witch (Enigmatic Elizabeth Olsen), who attack our heroes! (Are they mutants, the seed sprung from Magneto? Well,... It's possible. They don't mention it). Eventually, the Invincible Iron Man (Reputable Robert Downey, Jr, ) is able to penetrate the fortress, and after the Scarlet Witch induces a mysterious dream into Iron Man's mind, finds the specter previously wielded by Loki, God of Evil! Back at the Avenger's mansion, after Iron Man examines the mysterious contents of the spector, He and the Incredible Hulk's meek alter ego, Bruce Banner (Miraculous Mark Ruffalo) decide to build Ultron, a robotic peace keeping force. However, little do our Marvelous heroes realize that Ultron (Jumping James Spader), once activated, decides that the plague of mankind should be eradicated. He attacks our heroes, and escapes into the wide range of the World Wide Web. Now, the Avengers, including the Mighty Thor (Captivating Chris Hemsworth), the Gorgeous Black Widow (Snazzy Scarlett Johansson), Captain America (Charming Chris Evans) and The Sensational Hawkeye (Jazzy Jeremy Renner), must stop Ulton's evil scheme, and save the human race! But can the Mighty Avengers stop him in time?
     Well, Wayward Followers... You know, I'll stop that now. Still it was fun to write. So, good things. There are a lot of goods things about this film. The acting, the cinematography, and the writing are all superb, as usual. The action is fantastic, often comprehensible, but still fun to watch. I forgot how funny these films are. There is a running joke revolving around Captain America chastising Iron Man for language, which other character use against Cap. The burgeoning romance between Hulk and Black Widow is also an interesting touch. Two characters that normally aren't romantically attached are shown having a romance.  There are many nods to the comics, which don't feel like fanservice, but actually legitimately serve the plot. Whilst I'm sure people might be upset at the changes, (for instance, Hank Pym is not mentioned at all, despite being Ultron's creator in the comics,) the other references will likely placate them.  The plot isn't particularly complex, with the heroes simply trying to fight Ultron, as he tries to destroy the human race. However, there is also the unstable team dynamic, which Ultron exploits to try to further his plans. The design of Ultron is great, harkening back to the original, but adding a new modern twist. Also, Spader's performance brings more a malicious personality to Ultron, OTHER THAN THE ROBOT SPEAK THE COMICS DO. Also, an Avengers character hitherto unseen (who is sprung from a vision)? Awesome, completely awesome. Watch the film, and you'll see.
   There are a few gripes. The film starts immediately, and moves very fast from there, rather than slowly allow the events to build up, and increase the stakes. I suppose that this is because most are already familiar with the franchise and its characters, but still, had they set it up more, and slowed it down, it would feel more intense. Similarly, the climax feels a little long, with various events impeding our heroes. It isn't a bad climax It just it feels too long. Also, I was slightly bothered by the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. Thinking how the X-Men reboot could possibly tie into the MCU kept bothering me through the film.
       So, as good as the first? Nope. However, the first is a hard act to follow. As a Marvel film on its own, it is still a fantastic picture. To anyone who loves superheroes, you'll probably see it anyway, so yeah, see it. If you don't like Superheroes, don't see it. If you just want to see a film, watch this. It makes me very excited for the next batch of Marvel movies. (Wakanda's mention alone makes me excited for Black Panther) Thanks for reading, Wayward Follower, and I'll see you in three weeks!.
       Extraordinary!

Review: Unfriended

      Remember what I said two months ago about not seeing bad movies. Well, I'd like to amend that slightly. I don't see bad movies on purpose. See, it's one thing to look at the trailer for, say. Paul Blart 2  (and seriously, who was asking for a second one of those. Does anyone remember there was a first one), and know that it won't be good. It's an entirely different matter for me to see a trailer, and think that a film will be good, or at least decent. I thought Man of Steel was going to be good. I also thought that Amazing Spider-Man 2 was going to be good, and that the naysayer just hated the film, because they hated the first film. (Now that I have seen that, I'm beginning to wonder whether the first film was actually as good as I remember.) And that's the real shame. Trailers raise our expectations, and so do good reviews. When it doesn't reach expectations, you hate it even more. Where am I going with this? I'll take you back a few months. I was browsing upcoming films, when I came across one called Unfriended. Given that it is a Facebook term, I assumed it was a comedy about Facebook or the like. I found out it was a horror movie. Okay, I was somewhat interested. Then, I learned that it had been getting positive reviews. Okay, expectations were raised. Then the trailer came out. Expectations fell. I had the nagging feeling in the back of my mind that this was going to be terrible. Yet, the good reviews kept coming. I went into it, praying it would surprise. And some films do. Frozen surprised me with how good it was. Guardians of the Galaxy, whilst I knew that would be good, surprised me with just how great and funny it was. This film did not surprise me. It had the exact quality I was... Okay, that's not true. I admit, it was slightly better than I thought it would be. But, not by much.
        The film is almost completely shot through the Mac Book of a young woman named Blair Lily (Shelly Hennig). She starts the film, viewing videos and articles pertaining to the suicide of a classmate named Laura Barns(Heather Sossaman). Barns was the subject of a rather unfortunate video, featuring a rather humiliating incident, and the response ultimately led to her suicide. Blair then has a casual Skype (actually Skype, not a Lawyer-Friendly variation) conversation with a few friends, including her boyfriend Mitch (Moses Storm). However, there is a mysterious person also on the call named billie227. At the same time, Blair is getting a series of mysterious messages from Laura's old Facebook account, which she can't memorialize. (Doesn't Facebook have a policy where a deceased person's account is taken down? She had been dead for a year, yet nobody memorialized her account?)  After a few attempts to dispose of this mysterious user, they trace the messages from billie227 from to Laura. They assume it's a prank from one of their other friends, Val (Courtney Halverson). However, when she's included, crude photos of Val are placed from friend Jess (Renee Olstead) account. When Jess removes them, the photo appears on another friends account. Eventually, the account reveals to herself to be Laura, and she begins to demand who sent the original video. When Val tries to call the police, she is logged off, and when the picture re-emerges, Val is deceased, apparently having drank a bottle of bleach. Laura then warns the others, that if they try to log off, THEY DIE! So, it's becomes a game of, who will die next, and yeah, that's pretty much it. People are killed.

    Good things: For all I am about to say, It kept me interested. Not invested, mind you, but interested. I did want to know what is exactly going on. And the film at least delivers on explanation. I also at least paid attention to what was happening. The actors largely do fine, and heck, I did enjoy going through the screen, trying to look at the various details about Blair. What did I learn? Well, she likes Johnny Cash, and Teen Wolf. That was interesting. She also likes indie rock. I admit, when she occasionally types a message, and alters it before posting, it was mildly interesting.Also, there is a small twist at the end, which works well, even if you see it coming.
       The filming of a single computer screen.This is a gimmick.  An annoying gimmick. I mean, I watched the Modern Family episode that did this, and it was irritating then. I don't know what exactly irritates me about it. Maybe, it's the fact that seems so "trendy." Like, they, in their pretentiousness, decided that they should film a whole movie, and its told through the perspective of a laptop screen. There's  just... Something off about that, for me. Also, it wasn't scary. Let me tell about another movie I saw a few weeks ago: It Follows. Another low budget indie horror film. The horror in that film was based off tension. It built up a lot of tension and menace with its monster, and made you unnerved. It didn't use any jumpscares, it used little gore, and it utilized graphic scenes spaciously. It just had a single figure, walking omniously towards the main character. That is scary, because you a.) don't know when a scare is coming, or b.) know a scare is coming, and is waiting for it to happen. That kind of terror actually, in a way, follows you out of the theater. This film doesn't do that. It relies on graphic violence and jumpscares. And let me tell you about jumpscares. There is a difference between being mildly surprised and actually frightened. This film had me mildly surprised. And after that wears off, you stop feeling scared. There is a very cheap jumpscare at the end, and it wore off very quickly for me. Also, the characters were just horror cliches, most deeply unlikable. You kind of stop becoming interested in this characters. I actually started rooting for Laura towards the middle of the film. That's how unlikable these characters are. Only Blair is somewhat sympathetic. I also thought that maybe there was going to be a twist about supposed account. Maybe it wasn't Laura at all. Maybe it was something else, something more intriguing. Spoiler: that's not true. It is Laura's Ghost doing all this.
        If you could tolerate the gimmick, and enjoy cliched horror films, or if you just want to see a movie, just 'cause, I suppose you might like this. However, if you are looking for a subtle, shocking, and terrifying horror film, go watch It Follows. That is more subtle, more interesting, and much more terrifying. It definitely deserves your ticket, and in my opinion, will be a modern classic. This film will be largely either considered a relic of the times, or forgotten. Unfriended from the general public if you will. Thank you for reading. I will post a brief preview post for Tomorrowland, and will post my review for Age of Ultron (which, given I have exams and graduation that month, will probably be my only post.)
     

Ford Nucleon: Atomic Car of the Future

    Imagine a car run by nuclear energy. Yes, that was, in fact, an idea. Let me explain.

   The 1950's had a high amount of optimism about nuclear energy. Sure, you had the Cold War, and monster movies about atomic dinosaurs. However, there was also uranium labs given out to children (and yes, that is now considered a bad idea), nuclear pamphlets with comic strip characters explaining fission, and many different world of the futures run by the atom.For instance, in Man Conquers Space (A Collier's series of articles), there are several mentions of nuclear rockets, being used to achieve the level of space colonization displayed The first nuclear submarine was launched in 1954, and the first nuclear plant was being built in Shippington, Pennsylvania. And of course, what about a car run by nuclear power? Well, the good men at Ford decided to examine this.
       In 1958, Ford Motor Company (our dear friends from back in the Fordlandia article) unveiled a scale model of a car with a nuclear reactor strapped to its rear. It was called the Nucleon. Basically, it was as it implied, a small nuclear reactor, similar to any nuclear power plant, would use fission to produce energy and heat, which would heat water. The water would then twist turbines, which would then convert the energy into kinetic energy, and later, mechanical and electric energy, which would ran the car. One could get around 5,000 miles from every reaction. Once that was used up, one could go to a recharging stations, where they could (somehow) refuel or replace the uranium. The reactors were implied to be varied, with some reactors emphasizing power, others range. This concept was largely the brainchild of Ford designer Jim Powers, who had been working there for a year in the Advanced Studio. He would produce a 3/8th model of the car, first in clay, than in fiberglass. It debuted at a Ford "Stylerama" convention. Enough interest was generated to allow its own display.

      So, why did this concept, that actually was quite popular, even having government interest, die off? Do I really have to say? Would you feel safe driving around a highway with a nuclear reactor a feet away from your head? Heck, the entire concept was predicated on the assumption that nuclear reactors would become smaller and more easily transported. As that didn't happen, the actual size and shielding needed for a nuclear reactor small enough to fuel a car could not be commercially produced. There was also what to do with all that radioactive waste product from refueling. And imagine a car crash... As people began to become more and more away of the effects of radiation and anti-nuclear sentiment increased, the concept was never revisited. Note that nothing was ever actually built. There was only the half size model for the convention, which is currently on display in the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. But could it hypothetically work? A nuclear car in general, not the Nucleon. Well, the shielding needed to fully protect a person is still a major problem. Howstuffworks.com suggested that certain specialized reactors used in research and industry could provide a model for a car, and also nuclear based hydrogen fuel. However, even it admitted that it was unlikely. So, what have we learned? Sometimes nice concepts sound a lot less endearing when you really think about them. Thanks for reading.

Sources:
Ford Nucleon- Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon
The Atomic Automobile- Damn Interesting
http://www.damninteresting.com/the-atomic-automobile/
Can a Car Run on Nuclear Power- How Stuff Works: Auto
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/nuclear-powered-car.htm
Cars of Future Past:Ford Nucleon Concept- Hemmings Daily
http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2013/07/18/cars-of-futures-past-ford-nucleon-concept/
The 1958 Ford Nucleon: A Nuclear-Powered Car- Oddly Historical
http://www.oddlyhistorical.com/2014/07/21/1958-ford-nucleon-nuclear-powered-car/