Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- The Final Girls

      One of the screenwriters for the film, Joshua John Miller, was the son of Jason Miller, who was Father Karras in The Exorcist. Miller attributes the film's inspiration to watching his father die over and over on film, and the dissonance that invoked when his real father died in 2001. The film was ultimately optioned by Sony (after a brief period at New Line Cinema, who wanted to remove the emotional beats of the film), with screenplay by Miller and MA Fortin with director Todd Strauss-Schulson (whose biggest credit at that point was A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas. and would go on to direct this year's Isn't It Romantic). Originally an R-Rating, the director was forced to cut it down in a PG-13, which he was ultimately satisfied with (I'll get to that). The film was shot in Louisiana in 2014, before it's October 9th, 2015 release to critical success.

       Max Cartwright (Taissa Farmiga, sister of Vera) is the daughter of Amanda (Malin Akerman), who played the role of Nancy in the first of the popular Camp Bloodbath film franchise in the 80's, before becoming typecast. After one failed audition, the two get into a severe car accident, where Amanda is killed. Three years later, Max is still dealing with the aftermath of the incident, when she, as well as friends Gertie (Alia Shawkat) and Chris (Alexander Ludwig), when Gertie's stepbrother Duncan (Thomas Middleditch) invites all of them to a screening of Camp Bloodbath. While obviously reluctant, she and her group acquiesce. At the screening, however, a fire emerges, and the group, now including Vicki (Nina Dobrev), are forced to go through the screen using the fake machete to escape. They find themselves in a forest, when the van from the film, driven by Kurt( Adam DeVine) drives by. When he drives by every 92 minutes, it confirms to Duncan they have, in fact, been teleported to the film Camp Bloodbath.

     I reviewed Scream a while, and it wasn't that positive, but I conceded it was likely because it was a film of its era. The tropes it was mocking have been dissected and reevaluated over the years, and it was a film of that 90's. Given this is closer, (and the director did list Scream as an influence), it understands the audience better to know these slasher tropes, and doesn't just regurgitate them to the audience. It helps that there is the strong emotional core of Max seeing a younger version of her deceased mother and trying to save her life. That is basically the driving force of the film and the main conduit by which the audience can invest in the characters. I do like that they play around with various elements of film, from runtime, to flashbacks to tropes to ADR. It really helps build the world of the movie, while making the process of making films seem surreal when you really consider it. Some cast highlights include Farmiga, Akerman, Middleditch (I haven't seen many Silicon Valley episodes, but he's always good), and especially Kurt Devine, who relishes the role of the prickish, horny slasher victim with zest. There are some good jokes at the expense of slashers and their 80's setting. Finally, the Friday the 13th is very thorough. The filmmakers clearly love that series, and having now seen that series, there's a lot of nods and references, especially to the first two, and the recreation is pretty great (especially an 80's recreation of the 50's)

    Some of the jokes did fall flat, mostly the ones that did deal with the same material Scream did, at least in the morality of slashers (i.e. people who have sex tend to murdered). Again, I think this very much is just that this particular cliche has explored, parodied, and dissected enough that pointing it out seem rote (though they do integrate it into the plot and the ending pretty well). It also kind of dragged towards the middle. I think that the sequel bait, while apt for slasher, left the film with a bit of unsatisfying ending. I do wish there was a sequel.

     So, yeah, this was decently funny, and a good homage to the slasher genre. If you enjoy slashers, than this is definitely worth checking out. Otherwise, I can't say you'll enjoy it, but there are some good jokes here and there.

    Alright, this was an unscheduled change, because I realized there weren't a lot of post-2000's horror in the docket. Anyway, since we're on slashers, next week will be one of the biggest influences on the genre, Mario Bava's Blood and Black Lace.

Current Film Reviews- Pokemon: Detective Pikachu

        Back when I successfully turned my October horror reviews from short reviews done on my Facebook to full reviews here, I experimented with other sorts of review series to do. One of those was "Pokecember", where I did reviews of the Pokemon movies every December. Since they reliably come out each year with the anime, I could hypothetically do it for a while. I successfully finished off the six films before the Advanced Generation, but after Jirachi Wish Maker, it tapered off. I was in Freshman year of college, and a lot of stuff got in the way of doing another. Ultimately, I never picked it back up, but have since started other series to pick up the slack for slow months. However, with this film bringing Pokemon back into the public consciousness, I might bring it back this December, so watch out for that.

     Based on the 2018 video game of the same name (part of the multimillion dollar franchise created by Satoshi Taijiri), the film follows Tim Goodman (Justice Smith), who gave up his dreams of being a Pokemon trainer in favor of being an insurance adjuster. He is forced to go to the non-region specific Ryme City, founded by billionaire Howard Clifford (Bill Nighy) as a place where humans and Pokemon can interact peacefully, without any of that battling nonsense, when his policeman father is reported dead from a severe car accident. However, while searching his father's apartment, he finds a Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds), who talks! And has his father's hat, meaning he was his father's companion. This leads to the conclusion that his father might still alive. This leads Tim and the Pikachu to become an unlikely team to investigate his death, with the help of intrepid reporter Lucy Stevens (Kathryn Newton) and her Psyduck, and eventually unravel a conspiracy involving Clifford's organization and the legendary Pokemon Mewtwo.

     I loved that the Pokemon are the right amount of realistic. They look like they exist in the real world, and their presence against living breathing humans isn't jarring. However, they still look like their game counterparts, and still have the traits of them. (The designs were apparently helped by  This sufficient level of realism really cements the respect the makers of this film have for the material. They take it seriously enough that it never becomes too camp or dumb (like some of the weaker anime movies tend to get), but it still has the right amount of fun, humor, and absurdity that the franchise has always had. The filmmakers were not embarrassed by the source material, and use its creativity and wonderful creatures to build a new story and setting to explore underappreciated parts of the franchise (like how Pokemon are integrated into human society). As a lifelong fan, I really appreciated all the little nods and references they make throughout and all the cameos that I can name, but I feel that it is still accessible to a general audience, especially the target audience of children. All that aside, this was just fun to watch. A real thrill that keeps you interested and intrigued throughout, it manages to use the standard three act hero's journey to great effect. I especially liked the twists (no spoilers), and how they are generally built up as you see the film, and makes you reconsider what you saw before. It also had one hell of an exciting climax.

    I had a massive problem with the pacing of the film. It feels like it goes too fast at parts, especially in establishing the relationship between Pikachu and Tim. They just start investigating the crime almost immediately after meeting. I wish a little bit more time had spent on their relationship, and how it grows throughout the film. Not to say there wasn't any time dedicated to this, but that there needed to be a little more time to allow it to be cemented. There are also parts that are underexplained, and feel like they are shown in cut scenes. It makes for an occasionally confusing viewing experience. I think they were hoping the viewer is intelligent to figure, but a little explanation.

    As I said, I am a big fan of Pokemon, so my opinion of this film is colored by that. Normally, the flaws that are in this would lower its reputation, but I was so enthralled by the world they create and how well they managed to make the Pokemon world feel like a real place, I choose to ignore those and just sit back for the ride. And really, when the good stuff is that good, I can easily forgive the small things. So, yeah, this is a definite recommendation for Pokemon fans. If you aren't (which is likely), I think it works well enough in its own right, but I also largely would recommend it for kids, who'll enjoy it. I should know, if this came out when I was a kid, this would've been my stuff.

  Next on the docket, I explore the reputation of Ishtar in another Dailles and Nightlies  

Current Film Reviews- Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom

         When I was an early adolescent, I picked up a book at an airport called Z-Raptor.  Apparently, a sequel to another book called Z-Rex  (which I hadn't heard of until I read this book), it centered around this kid learning his father's research as a video game designer (somehow) has been used to create dinosaurs. The first book was about them creating an advanced T-Rex, now it was apparently a raptor. I never read this book beyond the first few chapters, but based on my limited experience with it, these two are very similar in terms of plot. Not making accusations or anything, but that was the immediate thing running through my mind as I watched this picture

      Based on the film franchise in turn based on the novel by Michael Crichton, the film is set three years after the original (apparently, since it says that the first Jurassic World was set in 2015), and it turns out that Isla Nublar, the island that Jurassic Park and later Jurassic World is situated on, is on a hitherto unmentioned dormant volcano, which has become active, and threatens the remaining dinosaurs (the fact that there is another island of dinosaurs, Isla Sorna from the other sequels, seems not to factor in at any point). Claire Dearings (Bryce Dallas Howard), the executive in the first one (note: the first one in this case will refer to the first Jurassic World in all other mentions), is now an activist trying to evacuate Dinosaurs from the volcanic eruption. After government intervention is prohibited thanks to the testimony of Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum, on screen for about the amount of time you can read this entire paragraph), she is approached by Eli Mills (Rafe Spalls, doing his best Charlie Day impression) , who works for Sir Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell), John Hammond's hitherto unmentioned business associate, who hopes to evacuate the dinosaurs using his own resources. She is brought in to recruit Owen Grady (Chris Pratt, looking incredibly bored and disinterested throughout the film), who is reluctant, until Claire reveals that Blue, the velociraptor that he had a strong connection to in the first film, is still alive on the island. They set out with Dr. Zia Rodriguez (Danielle Pineda) and Franklin Webb (Justice Smith), to retrieve the Dinosaurs. However, as they proceed with the mission, they find that there is a far more sinister agenda at play here, as found by Lockwood's granddaughter Isabella Sermon.

      I'll give the film this: this is actually a good idea for a sequel. Especially since it has gotten into a formula, and it does shake things up. Honestly, this could've worked as a sequel to the original Jurassic Park. I do appreciate that they commit to continuing the combination of real effects and CGI, and it doesn't look that bad honestly. Michael Giacchino's score is also entertaining, and fitting any scenario. Some of the actors are trying. There are couple good scenes towards the third act, which utilize great set piece, and have a bit of a horror edge to them.

       I hated the nostalgia pandering the first one did, and this ramps it up. From the inclusion of Jeff Goldblum, to Cromwell's inclusion as a fake John Hammond to the constant evocation of the original. It gets tedious, and makes me really want to see the original. Whilst it has a good idea, it squanders it by basically rehashing both The Lost World and the first Jurassic World. As a result of that, and scenes that feel less enticing and more boredom inducing, I just wasn't that interested, especially with it being as long as it is at 2 hours. I found myself confused as to what was happening, since stuff is barely explained or so heavily drenched in foreshadowing for future films, it forgets to forshadow for this one, (with twists that either are obvious or barely register as such) and staring in bafflement at the more absurd stuff. Oh, trust me, there is insane moments, especially from Chris Pratt, who has apparently gotten superpowers, and while they do show him compromised, manages to survive any ordeal given to him. It also botches its moral quandaries, when, instead of focusing on the endangered species angle, instead continues with the "dinosaurs as weapons" idea from the first. Apparently, guns and bombs don't exist in this world, and if they did, dinosaurs are completely impervious to them (except when they aren't). Oh, yeah, and the big bad at the end (I won't spoil it), was a complete let-down and boring as hell.

     It is somewhat refreshing to know that something seemed bad, turned out to be bad. A nice little bit of consistency in a very chaotic universe. Anyway, if you liked the first Jurassic World, I'm not sure you'll even like this, since it basically does the same thing. Hell, I was basically fine with the first one, and I disliked this one. If you liked the Jurassic Park movies, and want to see this for completion sake, fine, but, as someone who has seen all the films, it is the worst entry of this series. If you've never seen a Jurassic Park film, don't bother.  

Current Film Review- Ready Player One

      In a sense, I've been preparing for this very review for over a year. I read the book in order to fully immerse myself into this particular mythos, and to adequately critique this particular work on the basis of adaptation. Now, I wasn't really a fan of the book (and about a year after reading, I've forgotten large swathes of it), but even after finishing it, I did see the potential for a decent film adaptation. Yeah, the book was pretty mediocre, but Steven Spielberg has taken mediocre books, (like, say, an airport novel about a shark attacking a beach town or a technothriller about an amusement park filled with genetically engineered dinosaurs), and turned them into some of the greatest thrillers ever made. So, despite my own misgivings on the source material, I did see the potential in this particular film. Now having seen it, it definitely is not among Spielberg's best, but it is still overall fun and enjoyable on itself, and despite myself, I had a good time watching it.

        Based on Ernest Cline's novel of the same name( which is the "Holy Grail of Pop Culture", whatever that means), the book is set 37 years in the future. The world is in shambles after a series of named (though unspecified) incidents, and most people decide to retreat into a large video game system called "OASIS", where people, in their avatar forms, live their lives effectively online, using some sort of VR system mixed with motion sensors, it seems. However, most people spend their time in one particular pursuit. The architect of this system, James Halliday (Mark Rylance), has strategically placed three easter eggs (in the form of keys), throughout the OASIS, and whoever can locate and use these three keys can gain his fortune of 500 billion dollars and control over the OASIS itself. Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan), aka Parzival (after the knight who discovered the Holy Grail) is one of those so-called "Gunters", who hunt down clues, using Hallidays disturbingly large collection of 80's trivia and memorabilia to help find these clues. He is joined by his friends Aech (I'd give the name of the person who plays Aech here, but it's kind of a spoiler, so I won't), Daito (Win Morisaki), and Sho (Phillip Zhao). During the race challenge for the first key, he also meets Artemis (Olivia Cooke), who he begins to have affection for. Parzival's luck changes when he looks closer at the original clue for the first key, and manages to win his way into becoming the first person to win the key. This prompts a frenzy as the search restarts after being moribund for so long. However, Parzival's success also attracts the attention of IOI, a large tech corporation of some kind, led by Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn), who keeps a series of indentured servants called "Sixers" around to help find the keys, to give IOI control over the OASIS, whereupon they'll turn it into a massive ad space. Now, as Parzival, Artemis, and co. try to find the other keys, they also must prevent IOI from gaining them first, thus attaining complete control over OASIS.

       First and foremost, this film looks gorgeous. For a fully CGI world, it just pops out, especially in terms of color. It is very bright and distinct, managing to pump a lot of detail into various shots. It is incredibly pleasant to look at, and manages to invokes the feel of what the OASIS is meant to be. In effect, a large scale CGI MMORPG.  Even during the various action scenes, the film largely remains coherent in terms of visuals. Speaking of action, it is a lot of fun to watch, and sometimes very creative, especially during the climax. I was honestly enthralled and absorbed by a lot of these action scenes. I also thought the film managed to fix some of the issues I had with the book (some, I used there, as I'll explain later.) The plot feels a lot less flabby and directionless, and the characters are much more fleshed out, or at the very least, somewhat compelling or interesting in some way. The story also does actually use its setting to deploy some commentary.  It's not particularly deep or revelatory, but its presence is an immediate upgrade from the book, where the implications of its various parts isn't really considered to any significant degree. I also got a better sense of the dystopia that was there, even if, like in the book, it isn't explained very well. It also removes a lot of the more problematic elements of the book, and makes the main character a lot less of an unsufferable know-it-all(probably my biggest problems with the book)

     Like I said, the film fixes several of the books problem, but a couple remain. The exposition at beginning was very reminiscent of the exposition, and much like that, it doesn't work. It feels like a case of  "tell, not show". The dialogue also got a little cringy at times, especially during Parzival's and Arthemis' relationship, or some of Sorrento's interactions. The interworkings of this future, the OASIS, and IOI aren't explained very well, and I got confused sometimes trying to figure it out. The references, like in the book, got a little bit on my nerves. Some works, like Kim Newman's Anno Dracula series or Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen , manage to integrate references in such a way that either drives the plot, or is just interesting salad dressing. The references in this and its source material just feel gratuitous and even a tad absurd. I'll give the film version, Spielberg changes a lot of them, and some of them are decent enough tributes to friends of his (Robert Zemeckis and Stanley Kubrick among them). Overall, though, it still feels a bit pander-ish, and it weakens the film's ability to stand on its merits.

      Despite the flaws of the film (which are more apparent once you've seen it), I enjoyed this picture. Unlike the slog of a book it came from, this managed to invoke a sense of fun and excitement, and I was invested. It was (ironically) a fun retreat, where I could just sit and enjoy what's happenng on the screen. It certainly did make a better film than it did a book. If you like the book, you may enjoy this, though bear in mind, a lot has been changed, especially in terms of plot. If you hated the book, you might either appreciate the changes, or still dislike it, because the basic structure is still present. If you've never read it, I think it will make enough sense for you to follow it, though even I, someone who has read the book, got lost at times, so don't feel bad if you do. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Creepshow

      From 1944 to 1955, EC was the biggest name in comics. Founded as an educational comic company by comic book pioneer and DC co-founder Maxwell Gaines, the company found its calling when Gaines' son Bill turned it into a genre powerhouse The biggest of its titles were his horror and crime comics, most famously Tales from the Crypt, The Vault of Horror, The Haunt of Fear, and CrimeSuspence Stories. Despite the overwhelming popularity of these books (and others like Weird Science), their brutal depiction of crime and violence caused controversy, and eventually, activists like Dr. Fredric Wertham even got the Senate Subcommittee on Crime involved. The Comics Code Authority was formed in the aftermath, with rules cartered specifically to prevent EC from publishing their most famous books. They were left with their humor comic, Tales to Drive You MAD, which is still around today, though you may know it by the name it took after becoming a magazine in 1955: Mad Magazine.  Despite being so short-lived, EC proved to have staying power in popular culture. You may have recognized some of the titles I mentioned earlier from movies and TV shows, and those were adapted from or influenced by EC. Similarly, an entire generation of children grew up with the books, including artists inspired by their style. Two of those were George Romero and Stephen King. Friends for a while (King making a cameo in Romero's 1981 film Knightriders), they decided to use their shared affection for old EC horror books to make a film. King  already had two major film adaptations of his wrk at that point (Brian De Palma's Carrie and Stanley Kubrick's The Shining), but this was the first screenplay he wrote, adapting two of his stories ("Weeds" and "The Crate"), and wrote original material for the film. Veteran EC artist Jack Kamen did the in-film comic artwork (which delighted me when I found out, because I noted that inbetween scenes with the comic and some filmed scenes resembled his art style most of the EC artists I have knowledge of), as well as the cover of the Creepshow tie-in comic (though Swamp Thing co-creator Bernie Wrightson did the art for the book itself). The film was shot in an empty all-girls school near Pittsburgh. It made $21 million on a $8 million, and has a cult following to this, spawning two sequels.

      The film is an anthology, exploring different stories with different casts. The framing device has Billy (Joe King, son of Stephen and later known as author Joe Hill) being chastised by his father Stan (Tom Adkins, playing every father from every 80's metal video) for reading the horror comic Creepshow. After Stan throws the book away, Billy fantasizes of the undead host of the book (apparently named "The Creep") coming to his window, and he starts the film off by retrieving the comic from the trash, and giving us the tales within it. The first story, "Father's Day", sees a wealthy Grantham family, including Sylvia (Carrie Nye), Richard (Warner Shook), Cass (Elizabeth Regan), and Cass' husband Hank Blaine (Ed Harris) waiting for their aunt Bedelia (Viveca Lindfors) to arrive. Several years earlier, Bedelia killed her father Nathan (Jon Lormer) on Father's Day in the culmination of years of anger at him for his demanding and demeaning nature. Thus, every Father's day, Bedelia stops at his grave to continue her anger. However, this Father's Day, Nathan might have his cake (and eat it too. I made that joke a lot during this segment.). The next segment is "The Lonesome Death of Jody Verrill", which sees the title character (Stephen King. Yep, that one), an incompetent farmer, discovering a meteor. While trying to keep it to make money, it breaks, and starts to spread plant-like aliens around. Including on Verill himself. "Something to Tide You Over" sees wealthy Richard (Leslie Nielsen) take vengeance on his cheating wife Becky (Gaylen Ross) and her lover Harry (Ted Danson), by burying them on the beach, and having the high tide drown them. However, he finds that some people are just durable. "The Crate" has a college custodian (Don Keefer) find a crate with the label "Arctic Expedition, 1834". He calls upon Professor Stanley (Fritz Weaver) to see and open the crate. What they find is quite hungry. Finally, in "They're Creeping Up on You," which sees ruthless businessman Upson Pratt (EG Marshall) trying to maintain a sterile apartment, whilst cockroaches seem to keep popping. As he makes cutthroat deals, the cockroaches keep coming. And coming. And Coming.

    I loved the style of this film. The animated scene transitions  make you feel like you're reading an old Comic book, ads and all, and give you a sense on how the film feels. The film is also shot to emulate a comic book panel. Not just shots that show comic panels directly, but the way the film is lit and shot resembles the way old comic books would emphasize actions where reality couldn't. I think my complete enjoyment of this film can from that style, how it so captured the feeling of reading old EC books (I myself own a collection of EC Weird Science issues), and how much fun it could inspire. I love superheroes movies, but very rarely do they invoke the spirit of the comics they originated from the way this film does for horror comics. Similarity, it is legitimately terrifying. Each segment has a terrifying moment, one which jumped me out of my seat. The more comic book inspired look of the film actually made some scenes scarier than they would've been. The last segment, especially if you hate cockroaches, like I do, will haunt you. The effects helps, with surprisingly realistic resurrected dead (which still look very much like ones from old horror comics), and some good creature designs. The acting all around is good, with Stephen King of all people giving a strong comic performance. Each segment works as it's own story, and each hold up.

     I felt the segments should've been of roughly same length. Like I said, none of them are bad, but some feel longer than they should be. Those segments did have a payoff, but it took a while, and some scenes could've been cut. Also, to keep with the atmosphere, I felt the horror host ought to have been narrating film, instead of a background figure flipping the pages, using some sort of snearky dialogue. It's fine as is, but having an active horror host would've helped.

    I honestly loved this film. It is a joyride of fear and euphoria, simultaneously fun and terrifying. This is a great homage to EC Comics and their output, but holds up on its own as an individual horror film. I highly recommend this for horror fans as a fun nighttime romp, or for a brief Halloween scare.

Next film is Monkey Shine.  

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Invaders from Mars

      Invaders from Mars was an independent colored (as in, not black and white) science-fiction film released in 1953. It was inspired by a dream recounted to writer John Tucker Battle, by his wife. Directed by William Cameron Menzies (who coined the term "production designer", while working on the film Gone With the Wind), the film fits neatly into 50's science fiction filmmaking, an exploration of Martians invading the Earth using proxies and internal subversion, and one boy seeing it unfold before him. That sort of commentary on the 50's Red Scare would be explored further in films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The film today is largely regarded an underrated classic in the genre, with some filmmakers citing it as a childhood favorite. In 1978, the rights for the film were purchased by Wade Williams, millionaire science fiction fan. Eventually, he decided to commission a remake, with Cannon buying the rights for 50x the price that he had bought the rights for. Tobe Hopper, in the middle of his three picture deal with Cannon, signed on to direct, having been one of those influenced by the film in his youth. Dan O'Bannon and Don Jakoby once again wrote the screenplay. The effects for the film were done by special effects legends Stan Winston and John Dykstra. When producers Menachem Golan and Yoram Globus saw the finished product, they (after confusing it with their adaptation of King Solomon's Mines) hated the picture. Critics and audiences sympathized. It received overall negative reviews and $4.9 million on a $7 million budget. I did watch the 1953 film in preparation for this film, so I could how this version compares.

       One night, David Gardner (Hunter Carson) sees a UFO land in the small hill outside his house. His parents Ellen and George (Laraine Newman, Timothy Bottoms) are too late to it, but George promises to search the Hill when he wakes up. The next morning, David notices George acting strangely, and having a strange scar on the back of his neck. He also fails to come home the next night from his job as a military scientist. Ellen calls the Police Chief (Jimmy Hunt, who played the David role in the 1953 original) to investigate. When the Chief and another Policemen head over the hill, George suddenly reappears with neighbor Ed (William Frankfather). The policemen return, reporting nothing wrong, but acting strangely. Sure enough, the next day at school, he finds teacher Mrs. McKeltch (Louise Fletcher), with a bandage on her neck, eating a frog. Classmate Heather (Virginya Keehne) seems non-plussed at this. David confides in the school nurse, Linda (Karen Black, Carson's real-life mother). While initially not believing him, Linda becomes suspicious, and sees the bandage on McKeltch's back. She helps David escape. He accidentally sneaks into McKeltch's van, and she drives to an isolated location. David follows her into a cave, where he sees the truth: the UFO was indeed real, and the aliens are now kidnapping people and implanting them with strange devices to control them. While initially skeptical, Linda and David witness two investigators fall into the pit. Now, the two must find General Wilson (James Karen) at the base George worked at, and convince him to "send in the Marines", and stop this invasion from expanding.

    First, the aliens and their ship are incredibly well-done in terms of design and effects. Like I said in the introduction, the effects were done by two legends in the field (Stan Winston worked on works like Terminator, Jurassic Park, and Iron Man, John Dystra on Star Wars and Spider-Man), so the Martians are very distinct and memorable, as is their ship. The Master Intelligence in particular looks and moves very realistically (even if it looks like Krang). It's certainly a step up from the somewhat mundane Martians and the incredibly silly looking Intelligence from the original (the latter makes a brief cameo). The acting is good, if a bit over-the-top. Hunter Carson is good for what he has to do. Karen Black does well, if somewhat straining for horror (I get the feeling she was meant to be the mother, but, given that her son might be disturbed by the practical special effects, she decided to take the Nurse role, as she spends more of the film with him). The film improves some of the narrative from the original, which helps raise the tension and suspicion that David and the audience experiences. David also sees the Aliens earlier, which helps cement the conflict. Spoiler for both films, but when the Marines come in in this version, it feels less incongruous with the rest of the film. Finally, Hopper directs with a sort of innocent gloss that, even though it feels like a discount Spielberg riff, sort of feels appropriate for the film, capturing the terror this invokes for a child like David.

   Like Lifeforce, it definitely feels heavily edited. Certain scenes are definitely missing. While this works in some cases, like not seeing George investigate and fall into the pit, sometimes, it leaves out important details. The scene with the Marines is less incongruous than the 1953 film, but it still feels like a different film. There is also some scenes that feel entirely there for the weirdness factor than actually serve any purpose, like the frog-eating scene. A reviewer also pointed out to me that there seemed to be only two aliens made, so each shot only has one or two aliens.

   I  sort of see what Hopper was trying to do. He wanted to recreate in this remake, the feelings of terror he had watching the original. He wanted the children of that era to have that same experience watching this new version. He even said as much in an interview. It very much is a children's horror film, and I mean that in the best way. It is a movie that invokes the fear and powerlessness one feels as a child, much in the way the original did. It's a film that deserves at least one viewing. I think it deserves a little more attention than it gets. So, I'd recommend it. It wasn't particularly scary, but it definitely has some technical skill behind it.

    Next time, I end the Tobe Hopper retrospective full circle, with Texas Chainsaw Massacre II. 

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/  

Nostalgia

  Recently, I have gotten back into the animated television show "Ed, Edd, 'n' Eddy." My favorite show as a kid (and one of my  favorite shows of all time). It is better than I remember. I now get the sometimes subtle jokes that the show deploys. I also appreciate the slapstick, and the loose, wild animation.  However, I suppose that part of my newfound enjoyment of the show stems, in part, from an inherent sense of nostalgia. Nostalgia is an emotion many humans have, whether they know it or not. All humans feel an appreciation or a longing for the past. Because they are dissatisfied with the present, or they simply want to reflect on a time that was simpler (in their eyes).Nosalgia is a natural feeling to have. Why point this out? Well, I hope it mitigates the  response that I might get from this article.
      Recently, there has been a boom in 80's-90's nostalgia. There are entire websites and tv shows dedicated to the culture of these two cultures, and appreciation of them. ABC's "The Goldbergs" is a show that completely emmerses itself in 80's nostalgia. Buzzfeed has daily lists dedicated to the topic. Definitely, the internet has given us a whole new culture of old. This is of course nothing new. The 70's and 80's worshiped the 50's and 60's. The 90's had an affinity for the 60's and 70's. Now, it is the 80's and 90's that the disgruntled older masses have decided to latch on. Of course, there is no inherent problem in occasionally indulging your childhood likes and dislikes. However, if I were to leave it at that, there would be no use for this article.
   If internet nerds were merely expressing their love of their childhood, that's one thing. However, constantly proclaiming that your childhood is superior to anyone else's childhood is whole different matter entirely. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the point of this article. The people who will constantly degrade the present, and put divinity towards their childhood. Rational people are irritated by this. However, they infest every part of the internet. They will constantly say "Why, the 90's were BETTER. I mean we had (this) and (that), which is much better than the crap of today." You would see this comment at times on Youtube or Facebook. Now, before you chastise me for trying respond to irrelevant peoples who have no bearing on society whatsoever, I write this as a counterpoint to the mainstream nostalgia obsession, as well as this trolls.
      Were the 90's better? Well, you can't really answer that. Every historical era is flawed in one way or the other. One can find several things that would dampen 50's-60's. The 80's and 90's were no different. Yes, the Eighties had Star Wars, ET, and Back to the Future. It also had Troll 2, Heaven's Gate, Howard the Duck, and Mommie Dearest. You may have great music acts, too numerous to count, I will admit, but you also have equal amount of terrible music. It may not have cell phones, but it did AIDS, and crack, lots of it. The 90's also have flaws. Think of all of the Direct to Video films that Disney and other companies spewed out every year of the decade.  While there were many good video games from, there were also a lot really bad ones, many from the Giants Nintendo and Sega. This one fellow on Youtube said that we had less terror problems. Yeah, so Waco, the WTC bombing, the bombings at the Atlanta Olympics, Osama Bin Laden's 1998 attack on the Tanzanian Embassy all of a sudden don't count. And there were more obscure acts of terrorism that occurred during the decade. (When I confronted the guy, he claimed that "Waco wasn't terrorism (which I suppose is debatable), and that they caught Ramzi Yousef in 5 years (Why this matters, and how this makes the incident not count as terrorism is beyond me). I could go on, but then, I'd go into personal preference, which might compromise the piece.
     If you enjoyed something as a child, and you just like the show just due to that reason, that's fine. For the EE'n'E example above, I know that there might be people who will criticize that show for reasons that I'm sure are valid. However, I would like to challenge the idea that all nostalgic things are "good." I will take the example of Pokemon, particularly the first generation. A lot of people will tell you that they like only the first generations, and the other generations are "inferior." (I loathe such persons passionately, but that is neither here or now). Was the First Generation the best? In my opinion, no. The region is boring, the story is lackluster, the graphics really haven't aged well in 17 years. It was revolutionary in 1996, I am certain, and it was the first, so they had no precedent to work off of. However, that was 1996. In modern times, the games of generation 1 haven't held up. And that's not even going into the Pokemon, which are very childish, and very simple. (And don't tell me that is part of their charm. Yes, I suppose there is an appeal of sorts to simple Pokemon. There are simple Pokemon in every generation, yet people seem to loathe them too. So, why do you excuse the First generation for having a blob, a rock with arms, and a pokeball, but than proceed to heap hate onto Trubbish or Vanilluxe) I only like 5 or 6 pokemon from this particular generation. I freely admit this could be bias. I didn't grow up on Generation 1. I got into Pokemon in generations 2 and 3, and I prefer them, because that's what I grew up on, so perhaps I've fallen into the same mindset as the ones I condemn, but you see my point. (Further, I do understand if many find faults in later generations. I myself wasn't all impressed with Gen VI's lineup, but this isn't out of nostalgia, and more out of critical examination)  Nostalgia is not a marker of quality. Just because you played and/or watched something in the past does not make it the greatest ever. That is simply personal taste, and that is not quantitative.
       Do I get nostalgic? Well, not much. Sometimes, I watch Cartoon Network's current line-up, and I think of the shows that I grew up watching on the network. However, I don't bemoan that the network has somehow declined in recent years. It simply has different shows now, shows that are being watched by a generation not older than when I was watching it. These are their nostalgic shows, and they will forever cherish them, much as I, and the targets of this article, cherish our childhood memories. Nostalgia is not an inherently bad thing. However, when you are obsessed with the past and its supposed perfection, you ignore what was wrong with yesterday, and what is good about today, or what will be good for the future. The past is the past, and continually insisting that it was untarnished is not helpful in securing a good present or future. In the end, you must let go of the past if you want to have a bright future. Nostalgia is something that we will all have. However, if you let your nostalgia consume your being, you'll always be stuck in the past.