Abandoned

Here's a short piece I put together of this abandoned mansion I've been visiting with G-Breath (a.k.a. Sean, a fellow MLA contributor). Pardon the shaky cam but I didn't have my tripod or stabilizer with me.

Be sure to watch in HD and turn your speakers on/up to enjoy [hear] the atmospheric music I created.

Hmmm...

I couldn't figure out how to delete a post so I decided to turn it into this erotic picture of Pat Burrell:

Inception

For much of Christopher Nolan's career I have been on board with his creative output. The one exception was Insomnia (FILM SNOB ALERT: The original 1997 Norwegian version is superior) and pretty much everyone agrees on that being weak. Nolan has shown a gift for mixing elaborate plots with strong character development, but with Inception it seems as if all concentration went into the elaborate plot side of the equation.

Dominic Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an extractor. He and his crew can infiltrate your dreams and steal information. Wealthy businessman Saito (a mumbling Ken Watanabe) asks for Cobb to perform an inception on that of his rival, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy), so that Fischer breaks up the company. This means implanting a memory, something that might not be possible. Or is it?

Cobb's crew includes Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Eames (Tom Hardy, who is such a chameleon I didn't know it was him at first. Would've been way better if he just played as Bronson again), Yusuf (Dileep Rao), and Juno (Ellen Page). All of them have unique abilities such as shifting into other people, creating sleeping compounds, or being the architect who can create the dream world. None of them have personalities.

Besides Cobb that is, who is haunted by the death of his wife. Maybe I haven't seen enough Leonardo DiCaprio movies, but it always seems as if he plays his characters the same way: serious and intense. Maybe Nolan should do a remake of The Prestige called More Prestigin' 3D where DiCaprio and Christian Bale can battle not with magic, but with their deep, no-nonsense gaze. The whole "I'm anguished over my wife" storyline isn't anywhere near as interesting as Nolan thinks it is. And in fact, Cobb's wife comes across as a nasty asshole that deserved to die.

The only other personality trait that could be traced is that Arthur is meant to be boring. Coming hot off the heels of his stunning performance as Cobra Commander in GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra, I wasn't sure if Joseph Gordon-Levitt would be up to the challenge. You'll be pleased to know that he handles the challenge of being boring like a true master of his craft. I'll give him this, he is in the one good action scene in the entire movie where he fights a guy in a rotating hallway.

What these characters really exist for is to provide exposition. Almost all of the dialogue is dedicated to describing what actions they will be performing next or to explain the rulebook for jumping into dreams. Sure, with a movie as densely layered as this you need to have some exposition otherwise it will become a confusing mess, but after a while I felt like I was being lectured by Professor Nolan. Imagine if in The Dark Knight, The Joker meticulously explained every detail of his plans before executing them. It's to the point where it should just be called Exposition.

I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that with characters these flaccid the dream worlds they create wouldn't be all that creative, but when you have a concept where imagination literally is the limit I was expecting something more than buildings folding and a locomotive going down the street. It's explained at one point that people can train their mind to build a subconscious defense in case anyone tries to extract them, so this manifests itself as a group of guys with machine guns. Why not just imagine Superman or Voltron and destroy your enemy within seconds?

Yeah I know, Nolan sets up the rules and the movie abides by them. That doesn't mean his rules should make dreams as unimaginative as possible. The main characters also carry around small personal objects to make sure of whether they're dreaming or awake (for instance, Cobb spins a top and if it topples he's awake). I wouldn't need such a contraption because it would be obvious when I was dreaming as soon as an impossibly attractive woman sat on my face in the middle of the street as F-15's scream overhead emitting red, white, and blue smoke while Conan the Barbarian rips the most intricate guitar solo in the history of mankind wearing a hat made out of waffles.

The concept is great and I can't deny that Nolan is able to pull off such a layered plot, but I can't get into what's happening on screen when the characters are as flimsy as they are here. Not to mention the two and a half hour runtime that almost had me spinning a top to make sure I wasn't trapped inside the movie forever. Maybe my embarrassingly small pea-brain just isn't enough to understand such an intellectual masterpiece. It definitely isn't enough to penetrate the phalanx quickly erected by its fervent supports who annihilate anyone who dares to not like it.

When it's all said and done I found Inception to be one of the most ambitious mediocre movies ever made.

Alan Wake Has Me Confused

For those who follow videogames, you were probably aware of a game coming out for the Xbox 360 called Alan Wake before the 360 even came out. You were aware because magazines and websites would should glorious pictures of Wake's rendered face that made you salivate with anticipation at the future of high definition graphics. What was the game about? Who fucking knows, but did you see the pictures of his face?!

Five years later the "psychological thriller action-adventure" game finally came out and I had no choice but to pick it up. An exclusive game that took that long to make just had to be awesome; there was really no way around it. Well after getting four episodes into a six episode title, I'm not really sure what I think about it.

The first impression was a good one. Alan Wake is an author who goes on vacation with his wife to the Pacific Northwest in hopes of recovering his creative juices. At first it seems like the developers are going for a Twin Peaks vibe with the location, diner, and odd darkness lurking just beneath the surface. As you walk around you discover pages of manuscript from one of his books that foreshadows events to come. This is a pretty cool narrative device at first, but pretty soon I ignored the manuscripts altogether. Wake is a pretty serious guy who uses inner monologue to state obvious or mundane details. For example, if Wake sat on the toilet he'd probably think something like this, "As I sat on the toilet to begin the bowel movement I've anxiously waited to pass, my wife called me on the cell phone, asking if I could pick up milk on the way to the cabin." Only it would be stated as plainly as possible and be devoid of humor.

The tweed jacket is truly horrifying

But who really cares about the story? Yeah it's a nice bonus if it actually manages to be interesting, but you play videogames for the gameplay. And that's where my main problem comes in. What you will find yourself doing in Alan Wake is walking through the woods, encountering "shadow people", shining your flashlight on them until the shadow evaporates, and then shooting them twice. If you love this sequence of events, then you will love this game. I find it to be a little repetitive. Maybe playing Red Dead Redemption beforehand played a part in feeling this way. As a matter of fact, it definitely does. After going through that epic with it's engaging protagonist Alan Wake just comes up small. The concept is great, the atmosphere is great, but the gameplay itself just isn't doing much for me.

I want to like it. I kind of like it. But it mainly feels like a chore that I'm compelled to see through to the end so my efforts can be completely focused on the excellent Mass Effect 2.

Predators

It's been awhile--again--but I wasn't kidding when I said the loft in my house is ridiculously hot. Right now that's where the computer is and until we either move this shit downstairs to where the temperatures are civilized or I get a laptop, the updates won't be happening too often when it means having to become as slippery as an octopus in a Japanese chick's twat just to write some goofy shit.

That being said, I did see Predators about a week ago and have almost forgot about the experience entirely. Fans of beefy 80's Action flicks remember the original Predator for it's unique premise of throwing a bunch of rippling hardbodies up against an alien that was stronger and more powerful than even Apollo Creed. Predator 2 isn't really remembered at all, and after lying dormant for over a decade the Predators were called back into active duty for two awful Aliens Vs. Predators movies that made people pine for the viewing pleasures of Alien 3. Cut to right now where producer Robert Rodriguez and director Nimrod Antal (I don't know, ask his parents) are attempting to restore the shine to a faded franchise with the third stand alone Predator movie.

Since there is no such thing as muscular action stars anymore, the shoes of Arnold Schwarzenegger are filled by the decidedly less-imposing frame of Adrien Brody. Brody actually does a good job, setting his voice to a leathery baritone you could craft a pair of fine Italian loafers out of. Besides him the only other memorable performance is an extended cameo from Laurence Fishburne as a crazy survivor. The rest of the cast ranges from OK to forgettable, lacking much of the machismo that made the original a classic.

Predators wastes exactly zero minutes getting started; Brody and his United Nations gang suddenly find themselves dropping out of the sky into a strange jungle. Later, they discover that they've been picked by the Predators themselves to be the game in their hunting preserve.

That's the entire plot and nothing would be wrong with that if there was enough action to keep you entertained. Instead, you mostly wind up with scenes of the group sitting around talking about what they should do. The few action scenes you do get are nothing special at all. Yeah it's definitely better than the Aliens Vs. Predators turds, but I was really hoping for more with Rodriguez's involvement since he has a talent with R-rated Action movies. And after Rambo, there's really no excuse for resurrecting a violent 80's franchise and making it as tame as what you get here when it should be all about bloodshed.

I wanted nothing more than for Predators to harken back to the glory days of when all you needed were oiled biceps and machine guns, but the 2010 version is pretty much the definition of mediocre.

6.0 out of 10

The House of the Devil

WOW! If only more modern horror film makers could take the direction this guy did for this movie. (I've never seen any of his other movies, but I'm pretty sure they're trash.)

Put this movie on for someone, and skip the text card in the beginning that speaks about the 80's, and they'll never know it was made last year; looks like it's straight out of 1983. It was pretty mind-blowing. I'm not just talking the set design, wardrobe, or make-up; the directing and script writing were spot-on as well.

It had the pacing of a 1960s/1970s horror film. IE: Suspense is built up through the whole film, and it all comes to a climax in the final few minutes of the movie. This won't be for all, obviously. The ADD-riddled people will find this movie slow and boring and will end up watching the remake of The House On Sorority Row .

Final verdict: I give it an 8 out of 10.

(keep in mind, they cleaned up the trailer to pull in more audiences - the film itself is very grainy and dirty which is awesome)

Eclipse: An Angry Review

By Trish Miracle-Botley

So I saw the new Twilight movie. Don't give me crap...I give myself enough crap. I read the books a long time ago. I always see the movies with my best friend. It's like you know your going to dump $10 down the drain but its worth hanging out with your friend. And for some reason I feel like I have to see the movies so that when I tell someone they suck I have valid reasons.

So when I thought this morning of the movie I saw last night...I don't remember anything. That's because nothing happens in the movies. Its just Bella and Edward sitting in a flower field every time. The only improvement in the 3rd movie is that it actually captures a little emotion between characters that the others were never capable of. The story line sucks and the special effects are complete poop. When you get your head ripped off I want to see blood squirt all over the movie theater and into my face....I don't want to see popsicles. Also If I wanted to see a giant cartoon wolf I would play one of my husband's video games. Maybe the makers should watch an episode of True Blood and then they'll see it is possible to use real animals!

And really lets face it, the only reason the books are attractive is because of the relationship between the two main characters. The story line itself is stupid. Everything with the red headed chic is gay. Your telling me you can kill 50 newborns (I guess these movies are pro-choice--Brian), but you can't kill one stupid vampire in a wig. Get the hell out of here. Plus the authors whole theory on vampires sucks and the book is cheesy with religious themes because the author wants God's love. It's okay that she's telling teens across the world that it's okay to get married a week after you graduate high school and get pregnant on your wedding night...just as long as you don't have sex before marriage. I also think a lot of people love the books because they haven't read other (good) books, so they don't know any better. So when you read the book and the emotions are so compelling maybe you should take a step back and actually analyze the story line and plot and realize it sucks. The books are famous because of the emotional build up but everything else about them is lame.

P.S. Jacob sucks monkey balls in the books and I always wanted him to die. He was weak and a pansy. However Jacob is the only decent actor in the movies...odd.