Reviews: Jumanji

Hello to the internet and all you people wasting your time on it! My name is Jake, author of Critfilms, and I am feeling extra ballsy today. You know why? Because I am about to proceed with a review that may very well get me killed. That's right, I'm about to review a movie that many people of my generation consider to be a classic of their childhood, saying things like "Who DOESN'T love this movie?" or "This movie MADE my childhood." Yeah, Yeah, I get it, we all have those movies that we loved as kids and possibly even love as adults.

...

And I am here to ruin that for all of you! This is my review of the Robin Williams mess of a film, Jumanji!

Jumanji is a 1995 movie, directed by Joe Johnston, the director of Honey, I shrunk the Kids, the Pagemaster, and Jurassic Park III. It stars famous-ish, tryhard actor, Robin Williams, Kirsten Dunst... before she became Peter Parker's fuckbuddy, Tim Curry-sound-alike, Jonathan Hyde, and other actors. The film centers around a mystical board game that has the spooky power to bring jungle aminals from a pocket-dimension into the real world. Yes..somebody had to write all that..In fact..someone did. The movie is based on the children's picture book of the same name, written by Chris Van Allsburg. And clearly, the studio thought that it had some kind of potential to be turned into a goofy-horror kids movie with Robin Williams.

Now, I liked this movie fine when I was a kid, but, after watching it again fairly recently, I found that it really doesn't hold up...like...at all. In fact, I'd be so inclined to say that this movie was...bad.

I know..I know...but hear me out...

I know that no movie is perfect and that all films have their problems, but this movie seems to have a little bit too much...at least to the amount where I could no longer enjoy it and where I began to ask myself, "Why?" Seriously, when you think about it, why the hell was this movie made? What was the point? None of the characters learn anything. There are no consequences for any of their actions. It's just a series of silly Robin Williams gags, mixed in with some pretty disturbing and horrifying scenes with some of the animals.

I know, I'm being pretty vague right now, but let's get into the real question of what is really wrong with this movie.

1)Dat Acting
Holy hell...I have seen better acting acting from those extras on Sesame Street. Just take a look at this scene:

Good God, it's like none of them fucking care! You can see the expression on all of their faces....it's like, "Yep...I'm in a movie about an evil board game. I already got my paycheck, so it's not like I have to try!" Robin Williams is seriously something special in the movie, I'll tell you. His performance is Hammy-er than a fucking Christmas dinner. Just take a look at this scene:

 

Have you ever seen someone try this hard? Well, not on purpose! A lot of people mistake this scene for being "funny." I find it pretty pathetic. I've never really found Robin Williams to be the best actor . He tries absolutely way too hard to get the audience to like his characters. He never "owns" his roles...he smothers the fuck out of them. In this movie, it's a bit different. I have a strong feeling he just didn't care enough about this movie, so, as a result, I think he tried a little bit too hard not to care. Instead of overacting to the point of it being funny, he overacted to the point of it being..well...kind of sad. Kirsten Dunst is no thespian either. She plays this character who is supposed to be this tomboy-ish, rebel of a teenager, and she just comes off as bland. I can't really tell if this is a result of bad writing or just bad acting. To me, her characters always seem to have this droopy-cheeked, half-eyed look of indifference. Something like this:

2)This movie makes ABSOLUTELY NO EFFING SENSE

I mean it! This movie has no rhyme or reason in it at all! Everything these characters did or what events happened, I was always asking myself, "How?!" or "What?!" or "Why?!" Think I'm being nit-picky? Let's take a look

     -Why the hell do they have to keep playing?

       Seriously? Why? What would happen if they didn't? I mean, Robin Williams is freed, so why is there an absolute necessity to continue the game where they left off? To send all the animals back into the game Bullshit! Think about what they had to deal with up until the point Allen (Robin Williams) was freed: The Bats we never see again, A few big mosquitoes, a gang of CGI monkeys, and a Lion. Buy a can of Raid, put the monkeys and the Lion into the Zoo, and burn the game so it could never be played again. I mean, Allen is free, so why did they need to keep playing?!? You see that, as they continue to play, things get progressively worse! They summon a giant man-eating plant that is totally not a Little Shop of Horrors ripoff. They summon a hunter that kills humans for sport. They unleash a devastating stampede that decimates an entire city. Giant Spiders, CGI quicksand, monsoons in the house..etc..etc. So, I ask again, why do they need to continue to play if all they are doing is making things fucking worse?

     

     -Why do they stop playing so often?

       This always bothered me, even as a kid. You notice that every time someone rolls the dice, they take 5 hours to stop playing and look around for dramatic effect. Okay. Why don't they just play through? For some of the riddles, I can understand stopping to relocate themselves, but they never play through! It always takes them 5 hours to roll the dice again. What. Fucking. Idiots. As the riddles are appearing on the little dome...thing...next player rolls the dice. Like Clockwork, people. Hell, when Allen was being chased by that psycho hunter, why didn't everyone else just take their turn? It's called making progress! DO IT. Even during that stampede scene...they run in the direction that would benefit them the least! Why didn't they run into a side room, put the damn board down, and play through as quickly as they can? If we are supposed to believe that they ABSOLUTELY HAVE to keep playing...they should at least play the game like the filmmakers should've done with this movie...To get it the hell over with as quickly as possible.

    -Psychic WHAAAT?

      So, when Allen, Judy, and Peter go to see Sarah, a girl that Allen played the game with 30 years earler, they see that she is, for some reason, a Psychic. Ooookay? Well, clearly they plan on having her use her abilities to somehow benefit their need to finish the game, right? NOPE! It is never mentioned again! If she was a psychic...then how the hell did she NOT see any of this coming? I know what you guys are thinking, "Well...she was meant to be shown as a fake!" Okay, fine. But, then why was this information given to us in the first place if it has no purpose in the film! They never talk about it again. I'm calling bullshit here. Psychic my ass.

   -Where are the Police?     

     With all of this destruction going on and a man carrying a large rifle with an intent to hunt and kill another human....Where are all the fucking Police Officers. Shouldn't they be out on the streets, trying to work damage control and get people to saftey?! Nope. They are never seen or mentioned either! In this whole movie, there seems to be only 1 cop of duty. His name is Carl (of course it is...). And he is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine! Seriously, Where are the fucking Police during all of this? You might think I'm being picky here, saying "Uh...It's movie logic!" No! There is serious peril going on here! People are getting hurt and dying and serious damage is being done to everything, and you are telling me that no police officers are going to be there! Nope...

  -Where do the animals come from?

     This is probably the biggest nitpick on my list...but yeah...where do they come from? Every time a riddle appears on the domey-thing, the animals always seem to appear in ways that are supposed to make the scene look all dramatic. When Allen was sucked into the game, he was sucked into the Domey-Thing....so why didn't the Animals come through there? The Bats came from the fireplace. The Lion appeared in the shadows. The Monkeys...appeared in the kitchen? The Stampede...came from..outside. Did anyone just see a large group of animals pop out of no where outside the house? I know...its nitpick...but its a question that seriously begged an answer. Where in the hell did the animals come from Not to mention, Van Pelt, the hunter, seemed rather unperturbed by the fact that he was now in a futuristic setting. Nonsense....

 -TIME TRAVEL.....

    SPOILER ALERT (as if you should really care...) When Allen finally beats the game (you all know the scene.."Jumanji..."), all the aminals and the hunter get sucked back into the game back to Jungle Land. You'd think that'd be where we wrap things up, right? Adult Allen and Sarah make the steps to start a new life in the modern world, and they make the steps required to fix everything. NOPE. They go all the way back to when Allen and Sarah first started playing the game...back in 1969...as children.. They beat the game...they go back in time...ARE. YOU. FUCKING. KIDDING. ME. What?! Why?! How?! Why?! When did they EVER say that beating them game would send them back in time? When did they ever acknowledge that this game interfered with the time-space continuum?! What a cop out...What a huge middle finger to the audience...This was when I officially threw up my arms and just gave up on this movie.... I can buy them having to finish the game all the way through...I can buy the police being nonexistent...I can buy them stopping the game for 5 hours after every roll...but TIME TRAVEL. NO. NOPE. NO. I refer you to my previous statement: WHAT? WHY? WHAT?

    ....

    But wait...It gets WORSE. Allen and Sarah, as children, remember everything that happened. They remember Judy and they remember Peter. About 30 years later, we see that Allen and Sarah are married to each other. They are throwing a Christmas party, and one of their guests brings their children, *gasp* surprise! It's Judy and Peter! Yet, yet they have no memories of Allen or Sarah. So, They get their memories back...but Judy and Peter don't? I realize that they weren't born yet...but if I'm supposed to buy every other ridiculous law in this movie, then shouldn't Judy and Peter remember what happened as well?That's not even the worst of it. In the alternate timeline when Allen was in Jungle Land, Judy and Peter's parents were dead. But, after Allen get's freed, the game is won, and Time Travel...they are ALIVE? What the fuck just happened?! So, Allen being gone somehow caused Judy and Peter's parents to die...but him coming back made them live?! But...if what happened didn't happen...then they'd still be dead...but since Allen as an adult did what he did, wouldn't they be alive then? Confused? You should be...

This movie sucks. With Bad acting, Bad casting, and a plot that makes less than a hair of sense, It's absolutely amazing how soooo many people still seem to like it. It kind of makes me feel like an Alien. I feel like I am the only one that sees right through it. It may have worked on children, but It sure as hell doesn't work on adults. Would I recommend it? Do you have to ask? Absolutely not. Do yourself a Favor, spend the night playing Monopoly or Candyland instead of having your kids watch this piece of overrated garbage.

 

Critfilms Reviews: Goon

     Hello to the internet and all you people wasting your time on it! My name is Jake, author of Critfilms.blogspot.com, and I am here today to take you deep into the mind of a punching bag! That's right, I know each and every one of you has thought about what it would be like to have the job of taking punches and beatings for others! Well, if you hadn't... this film just might change your mind.

      I saw this film on Netflix the other day under my recommendations list, and I began to wonder why I had never given this film a watch before. I mean, Netflix gave the film 4.5 stars and said that Jake, that'd be me, would really enjoy it. So, I decided to be considerate to the almighty Netflix and give this film a watch. Let me just start by saying... this film hit me square in the face...pun INTENDED. This is my review of:

     Doug Glatt, played by Seann William Scott, is a down on his luck Security Guard/Bouncer. He's not really the brightest crayon in the box, and his father, played by Eugene Levy, just loves to remind him of that. His smart-ass, vulgar best friend, Pat, played by the lovable Jay Baruchel, is a failing sports talk-show host that is constantly trying to boost his pal's spirits. One day, Pat takes Doug to a local hockey game, where he gets into a fist fight with an outraged player. Doug soon learns that he has a hidden talent for both taking and delivering punches and is quickly recruited by the hockey team to serve as the team's enforcer. Although not particularly prone to the sport, Doug nonetheless carries the local team to great heights with his uncanny punching bag abilities. His talent soon lands him as a primary enforcer for a minor league hockey team, the Highlanders, to play alongside former all-star, Xavier Laflamme, played by Marc-Andre Grondin, who suffered a devastating blow to the head that effectively ruined his career. Meanwhile, Hockey Legend, Ross Rhea, played by Liev Schreiber, has recently been demoted to the minor leagues for causing the same head injury that affected Laflamme. Rhea is known for his harsh behavior and mad fighting skills, and Doug seems to be the only one who can take him on. Can Doug inspire Laflamme back to the top? Can his skills give the Highlanders a winning edge? Can he take on the mad dog, Ross "the Boss" Rhea? All this...and more...in Goon.

     Sound familiar? Well, it should. It's the Rocky story. Guy learns he has a great sports-related talent that sky-rockets him to greatness. He's a tough guy, but he's got a good heart. He's got a smart-alack companion, and an opponent that is essentially his foil, tough but threatening. Only this time, it's not Boxing...it's Hockey. When watching this movie, a few sports-related cliches WILL pop out at you...that is expected. However, does the film do it's job of taking Hockey-Rocky and making it an enjoyable sports comedy? The answer is...well...Yes...In fact it does!

          Now, I won't be the first to say that I absolutely "adore" sports movies. In fact, I find most of them pretty cliche and kind of boring. Actually, my second least favorite movie of all time is a sports movie (We'll get to that review another time...). So, this movie really had to have a lot of things to win me over. Suffice it to say...it totally did! This film had superb acting, three dimensional characters, and a story that focused on heart rather than outright raunchiness.  

     Let's look at the cast line up here...Seann William Scott, Eugene Levy, Jay Baruchel, Marc-Andre Grondin, Liev Schreiber...pretty decent casting, I'd say. Eugene Levy plays the Jewish father that tries really hard to over-jew things and Jay Baruchel plays.....Jay Baruchel...both of those are nothing really new. However, the three that really stole the show for me were Schreiber, Scott, and Grondin. Schreiber straight up has a blast playing the asshole in this movie. His character, Ross Rhea, literally pulls no punches. He's a dirty fighter...he hit poor Laflamme in the back of the head with a hockey-stick. He's a conniving fighter and convincing liar. It was a role that Schreiber truly made his own. Schreiber is the kind of actor that looks like he was built for protagonist roles. When I look at his face...I see a guy who looks like he will eat my face off..and laugh about it later. Surprisingly enough...this is the kind of character he was meant to play. Great casting. Grondin's character was a little more complex, and I'll get into his character later, but he had to pull off a tricky role: a self-righteous douche bag that we are supposed to feel sorry for later. Not easy, I know. Somehow, he manged to do that. I couldn't really tell if it was the way he said his lines or how he handled most of this facial expression and body language, but I was kicking myself when I actually started to feel something for this poor asshole. Give Grondin an award for pulling off a hard role to perform. Lastly, Scott had 2 obstacles to overcome: 1) Break through his Steve Stifler persona...and 2) Make the audience respect the macho-meatbag. In short...he does both. Seann William Scott is a much better actor than I think the public gives him credit for. His role in the American Pie franchise has given him this identity of a loud, obnoxious delinquent, and in truth, I went in thinking his character would be just that. What I saw instead, was a totally different. Scott had to play the usual dimwit macho-man, but his ability to make that character so lovable and relatable was nothing short of fantastic. If you aren't a fan of the movie, you should at least recognize that the acting was downright excellent. Some of the best I've seen in a comedy.

     Something you probably thought you'd never seen in a sports comedy/drama....Interesting characters! We'll start with Doug, because frankly the movie is all about him. Like I said, making the meat-head respectable is not easy. First off, it is jut impossible to not like Doug. He may be a little dumb, but he's just so innocent, awkward, and enthusiastic that you just have to love him. Doug is the kind of character that flat out knows how dumb he really is. He knows he isn't capable of being anything but a glorified thug, but he is happy doing it. Others may not respect him or his job, including his father, but he respects himself enough that it never bothers him. He loves making people happy and fighting for his team. He's almost always walking on sunshine. To me, that makes Doug one of the most three dimensional characters in the movie. If you ask me, it takes a good amount of courage to admit how little you really know. Next, we will talk about Laflamme. Laflamme is the hockey player that fell from grace because of an injury. He was demoted to the minors and eventually just gave up on himself and the sport. He turned to drugs, started sleeping with whores, and began disrespecting himself and his team. The fans started to hate him, so he started to hate himself. Laflamme is the kind of character you'd usually want to see kicked in the balls, but in this movie's case...I really didn't. This is the douche-bag that didn't deserve to be a douche-bag. When Doug finally rolled around, the motivation he needed had arrived. Without spoiling too much...about halfway through the movie, Doug gets praised for his abilities and Laflamme gets chastised for his behavior. Laflamme ends up punching Doug in the face in a fit of anger, and Doug responds by saying this: 

     

     "You know....right now, I should punch your teeth out....but I won't do that. You know why? Because you are my teammate. I got your back, just like you should have mine."

Doug certainly acts as the catalyst and the representation of the motivation Laflamme used to have. They are the Yin to each other's Yang. Yes, it is really easy to hate Laflamme, but when you get to the heart of what makes him what he is...it is much more sympathetic than it is despise. With Ross Rhea...there really isn't much to say. This guy is a fun fun fun fun antagonist. He gives off this Shere Khan kind of attitude. He's just so badass and he knows just how much. He's condescending. He's intimidating. He's the kind of villain that could be threatening without even trying to do it. He really does this job well by enticing the audience to cheer for Doug and Laflamme, hoping that they will win in the end. 

     I said it before, and I'll say it again: If you purposely sit there and count every single sports cliche in this movie, you will not enjoy it. The story has been done before, that much is obvious...but that does not mean the story isn't interesting. This is a story that is completely driven by the hearts and motivation of these characters. I didn't even begin to tell you about some of the side characters that keep this movie hilarious! The story focuses entirely on displaying these characters rising from the ground up. Because these characters are so interesting and vivid, you genuinely want them to succeed as you are immersed into the story. You begin to overlook many of the cliches you'd normally see, and instead, enjoy the ride. The story also includes several slow, deep emotional moments that help build sympathy for the main character. I found this to be very well-played. In most comedies nowadays, many of the emotional scenes of character development are rushed through or even overlooked so that the film can maximize the amount of raunchy humor. This is a film that found a very good balance. There are scenes with good amount of humor, and there are just as many scenes of quality character growth. If you ask me, if we develop and emotional involvement to the story and the characters...the jokes will be three times as funnier. All in all...it was a very well-paced and well-told story. If it's one thing I really enjoy...it's a comedy with heart.

     I will not pretend that this movie is perfect...because it is not. There are maybe two things in this movie that I wish would've been done differently. First off, Doug does go through a romantic relationship in this movie. I can honestly say I gave two shits about it. The girl he falls for, Eva, played by Alison Pill, is a self-admitted train-wreck when it comes to relationships. She gets drunk one night and effectively takes advantage of Doug. Doug, being the lovable innocent person he is, falls for her and asks her out. She meets with him only to tell him that she has a boyfriend. She cheated on her boyfriend to take advantage of such a sweet guy like Doug. I think I speak for everyone in the audience when I say....what a bIOOOTCH. Throughout the course of the movie, Doug and Eva's relationship does progress towards an ultimate conclusion that I honestly did not care about. If you ask me...they could've left that entire arc out of the movie, and I still would've enjoyed it. To put it simply, you are definitely going to like Doug more than you will ever like Eva. Lastly, there isn't as much focus on the drama Doug faces with his parents, who are disappointed in his choices. There is a scene or two where it is developed, but I would've liked to see done further. In fact, why the hell didn't they cut the whole relationship arc out and just focus on a drama that people actually care about?! Oh well, I know I'm seeing it how I wanted it, rather than for what it is. Still, I would've liked to see that done. 

     Would I recommend Goon? Well...the answer is...absolutely I would. This film was not mass-released in theaters, so not many people know about it, which I think is very unfortunate. This film deserves the right to be known about. It is truly one of the best sports movies I have seen in a long time. It's standard, but different at the same time. Hilariously raunchy...but heartfelt as well. It's a sports movie for those that don't really like sports movies! It is currently on Netflix, and definitely worth 2 hours of your time. If you haven't seen it yet...give it a watch. You'll be glad you did! 

Are the Oscars Biased?

       Hey there, internet and all the people wasting their time on it! My name is Jake Mendenhall, author of Critfilms!

     The Academy Awards: Certainly one of the most prestigious and lively events in the film community! Several directors, actors, actresses, and producers gather together into a grand theater to bare witness to the largest gathering of every Jew in Hollywood! They try their best to tolerate whatever B-List or Television actor the Academy chose to host, while eagerly awaiting the nominations for the true prize of the evening: the Golden naked Statue of the later Actor, Emilio Fernandez; better known as, the Oscar. The Oscar awards are given to a number of different categories, such as Best picture, Best actor, Best Actress, Best Director, Best Visual Effects, just to name a few. An Oscar award, to many, is considered the highest badge of Honor any person in the business can ever hope to achieve. It's renowned, it's special, it's unique, it's naked, and it symbolizes that person or film's mark in the history of film!

     Over the past decade or so, the Oscars have come under some heavy criticism themselves. Many chastise the Oscars, calling them "biased," or "closed-minded." They claim that the Academy only seems to pick tear-jerking mellow-dramas, biopics about someone rising from the ashes to become a superstar, films that show the horrors of war, or just any movie that features Meryl Streep. The focus of these arguments center around the belief that the Oscars don't give a fair chance to genre films, such as Science Fiction, Fantasy, Comedy, or Horror. When we take a look at the last twenty or so years of Academy award-winning films, we clearly see that the overwhelming majority of them fit into the categories listed above. So, this leads to a very big question; a question that severely needs to be answered and addressed. Are the Oscars biased?

     The answer is, well...No.

     I know we'd all like to place the blame on the Academy for a movie we cherish or adore not winning an Oscar. In fact, this is the underlining cause as to this ultimate misconception that the Oscars are biased. From my perspective, one of the biggest reasons people seem to think the Oscars are biased is because the general-movie-going audience doesn't really know how the Academy works or what really constitutes an Oscar worthy film. To most people, their thoughts are "Oh man! That movie was great! It should win an Oscar!" or "Hey, (insert actor name here) did a great job as the (insert role here) in that movie! I'll be pissed if (insert gender-specific pronoun here) doesn't get an Oscar for it!" Not to sound too condescending...but that's why I'm here, my darlings! I'm here to clean things up!

     The first REAL question we need to ask is, how does the Academy work exactly? When most people think of the people that keep the Academy running, they probably think of this....

Don't lie...we all know you do...

     When, in actuality, it looks more like this...

Surprised?

     The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, or AMPAS, is made up of over 6,000 actors, directors, film critics, producers, and others that have made significant strides in the film community. It isn't just made up of Angry Old men; in fact, I think Spielberg would be miffed if it was... The Academy is truly made up of literally thousands of contributors that are a part of several diverse categories, that includes Sound Directors, composers, Visual Editors, screenwriters, and so on. It isn't just exclusive to directors and actors. Members are selected by the Academy's board of Governors that act as an executive committee for the entire organization. Membership is very exclusive. Now before we move on, many might be saying to yourself, "OOH! It's Exclusive, and Exclusive = Biased; therfore, the Oscars are Biased!!!!" Not so fast there, skippy. Just because an Organization is exclusive, doesn't necessarily mean it's biased. Think about this: the Academy is responsible for deciding what films, actors, etc will be marked forever in film history. Do you really want some joe-schmoe director or amateur film maker involved in such a big decision? Personally, I would like to see that decision made by those who have the utmost experience and knowledge in the field. Fits better that way.

     This kind of leads me into my next topic: How are the Oscars nominations selected and won? It would be very easy to say that the Oscars only watch a select group of movies every year, while ignoring fantasy and science fiction, but we'll get to that later. Actually, those in the Academy watch EVERY SINGLE film released from January 1st to December 31st of the previous year. They don't just watch the big name studio releases, they also take a look at some of the lesser known titles that are released as well. Ever wonder why you never heard of "the Artist" before it won best picture? Now you do... So, yes, the Academy saw "The Dark Knight," they saw "Kick Ass," and "Perks of Being a Wallflower." Every single movie of the previous year is considered. So, how are the nominees selected? Like I said earlier, the diversity of occupations present in the Academy would be obvious to a blind man. Directors, Actors, Screenwriters, Visual Effects editors, you get it. Nominees in each category are selected and nominated by members in that specific category. Other directors nominate best director, screenwriters nominate Best Adapted Screenplay, and so forth. Best Picture nominees are selected and voted on by the collective group as a whole. The nominees are truly picked by their own peers. One this is done, we have our nominees. These are the lists of movies, actors, directors, etc, that we, the public, are shown sometime in late January/early February. The categories each do a second round of voting to pick the winner, and the members do a collective vote to pick best picture. These are the winners we see walk across the stage on Oscar night. Starting to see my point here?

     Another question arises: What makes a movie "Oscar Worthy?" Many would say that is has to be a good movie...Well derpity derp. Hundreds of "good movies are released every year, but how is it that the Academy only selects 5 to 10 of those every year? Some would argue that they base it entirely on critical opinion. While that is important, that is not always the case. The Academy decides on best picture by seeing what the overwhelming emotions and feels are toward a film. The Academy looks for a few things: an engaging story that is both intellectually and emotionally involving to the audience (sound like something you might look for?), believable and outstanding performances from its cast, relevant and excellent cinematography, superb direction, and an appropriate, moving soundtrack or sound editing. The films that accomplish the most or all of these standards are usually nominated  and voted on by the entire Academy. There's a little more to it than it being just a "good movie." Also, The movies that are selected do not necessarily have to be absolutely timeless, but they have to have something remarkable about them that can possibly stand the test of time. This is why we won't see movies like "the Avengers," or "Grown Ups," or "World War Z," or "The Dark Knight" *gasp* win best picture. Let's be real here...do you really think people are going to remember "the Avengers" once the comic-book movie craze dies out? I don't think so. Films like "the Hurt Locker," or "Argo," or "the Departed" will better stand the test of time, because their entire structure as films will as well. 

     The Academy, I've read, has gotten some requests over the years. People send letters/emails demanding that the Oscars be decided by the public. No. No. No. No. No. A thousand times, No. I direct you to my earlier argument. Do you really want the general audiences, people who probably see 10 movies a year (at the most) to decide what films get placed into film history? Or, would you rather that decision be decided by those who have dedicated their lives and careers to appreciating film? This is why the Academy and I give zero legitimacy towards award shows like the MTV Movie Awards and the Teen's Choice Awards. I tell you, if the public had their way, "the Avengers" and "the Dark Knight Rises" would've taken home every single Oscar at the last show.  I ask again...is that something you really want? I don't.

    I've repeated myself quite a bit in this extensive review, and I fear I'm going to again. At this point, some might still hold their belief that the Academy discriminates against genre films. Well, allow me to pose this point of consideration to you:

          At the 76th Annual Academy awards, "The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King" took home a grand total of 11 Oscars. It literally won every single Oscar it was nominated for. That is a feat that very few movies have ever accomplished in the history of film. Oh guess what? It's a Fantasy film..Still want to play the biased card. Okay...Heath Ledger winning Best supporting Actor in 2009 postmortem for his role as the Joker in "the Dark Knight."

     

     As I have stared before, the Academy watches every single movie that is released before deciding what films should be considered. They don't purposely exclude genre films; "Lord of the Rings" is proof of that. Let me pose this question to you all right now...When you begin to suspect bias of the Academy because the film you really enjoyed wasn't nominated, are you really sure the film you watched was "that" good? 

     Okay, film is subjective, and no opinion of a movie is ever the same, but maybe you need to consider that a lot of people probably didn't feel the same way you did. People seem to think that because they like a film, and their friends like a film, that suddenly, EVERYONE likes that film. It really doesn't work that way. Take a look at a number of film rating/review websites and articles, like Rottentomatoes. Take a look at the diverse reviews people are giving this film, and you'll see what I mean. You might just be surprised to learn why your film wasn't nominated.

     Now, I am not saying that everyone everywhere should agree with what the Academy says blindly. Of course, people should always form their own opinions on movies. That being said, calling the Oscars "biased" because you didn't agree with them or because a movie you liked wasn't nominated is just absolute nonsense. We have to understand that the Academy and the Oscars are made up of people whose job involves film. They appreciate film in ways that the general audience probably can't understand. These prestigious awards stand as representations of what films/performers/filmmakers these acclaimed film appreciators deem worthy enough to be placed in film History. These winners are revered by their own peers as major contributors to cinema, and they should be respected. In conclusion, the same argument stands for the Academy as it stands for all of us: Just because they hold a different opinion than you, does not mean they are wrong. 

     

WTF Trailers: Insidious Chapter 2

     Hello to the internet and all you people wasting your time on it! My name is Jake Mendenhall, author of critfilms.blogspot.com! 

     Now if you are like me then you have an unhealthy fascination with horror movies. Unhealthy being one of the biggest understatements of my life. I can't get enough of them! And if you have been paying attention to the streak of horror movies released in the last 10 years...you'd know that there's really nothing to be proud of....

I mean...just to name a few...

     So, yeah, the 21st century has not been graced with such classic horror films that the 20th century was just so lucky to have. That being said, the 21st century has not been without it's few gems. See...I'm not THAT pessimistic... Back in 2011, audiences and horror fans alike were graced with a surprisingly thrilling horror movie, cleverly titled "Insidious." 

Song was creepy as fuck, right?

     Insidious stars Nightowl from "Watchmen"..I mean Patrick Wilson, and his in-film wife, Rose Byrne, the lady with the name you don't know, but the face you recognize because she's been in quite a few movies that you just barely remember. The film centers around their son, Dalton, who goes into comatose after an "insidious" encounter with an evil, flesh-eating demon...just kidding..he fell off a ladder. The family soon becomes overwhelmed with the ghost of Tiny Tim and his merry band of spooky spirits, including an evil, totally-not-a-Darth Maul-ripoff demon. 

     This sounds like the stereotypical haunted house story that has jump scares and all that noise, doesn't it? Well, yeah, that's because it is. That being said, I still could not bring myself to hate this movie. In fact, I loved everything about it. Like this film followed the haunted house story equation to a tee, but it really worked to its advantage. It set itself up in this world with a creepy, almost nightmarish atmosphere. The pacing of this movie tied in so well with the overall delivery of the terror this movie had in store for us! From the get-go..this film get's your heart pounding with tension. Even the jump scares were well-placed and work for the tone of the scene it was in. You knew the jump scares were coming...but you still jumped anyway! Admit it...you did...we all saw it... I will say that the first two acts ran together very smoothly and were very intellectually and emotionally engaging. The third act is a kind of a cheap and strange payoff, but you'll still accept it and have fun. All in all, it is one of the best horror films I have seen in the last ten years, and it still gives me hope that horror films of this century can be saved...In fact..this film was so much fun...that I believe that they couldn't possibly find a way to continue this story and/or bleed it dry....

Oh wait...

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/insidiouschapter2/
 
(Yeah...YouTube hasn't uploaded it yet...give me a break...)

     So, if you just got through watching it, you are probably overcome with joy that such a good movie could develop a thorough and delightfully scary film with...or you could be filled with worry and skepticism and filled with questions that will most likely ruin your excitement for this film....

    The first thing I noticed when I heard about this movie, was the title itself. "Insidious: Chapter 2" No...they aren't Insidious 2...they aren't Insidious Part II...they aren't even Insidious: it's the second one...They are...Insidious: CHAPTER 2. I think the inclusion of the word, Chapter, just makes the film stand out a bit more. It's small...but I like it...

     Now, I have to say...while I'm still very excited for this movie...the trailer isn't really doing it for me. The first thing I noticed in it was the campy, happy-family dialogue. You know the type: 
     "Oh look how playfully we play with each other as a family. We are such a happy family! I'm sure nothing could stop this happy family from being so happy. Oh, look at mom, happily watching her happy husband happily play with their happy children."
     I'm not going to pretend that the dialogue from the first film was perfect or anything, but this is bordering on nauseating...Then the tone takes a pretty big shift..and I was all like.."Okay...time for the good stuff! Time to see a new ghost with new terrifying features and a more "Insidious agenda! Oh...it's the smiling ghost bitch from the last one...oh...." So, yeah..the trailer shows that the film is reusing a few things from the last one: Rocking Horses rocking by themselves...ghosts talking into the baby monitor...Ghosts rudely slamming doors into people's faces. Now, I know a sequel should try its best to demonstrate some connection to the previous movie, but from this trailer, only one word comes to mind..and that word is "Rehash." Hell, even Patrick Wilson goes back into that Nightmarish, black world from the first one; the "Further," they called it! What the hell are you doing, dude? That place had scary ghosts...and you want to go back!? 

     The trailer does do a few good things for me. The first one being the connection with the twist at the end. It seems as if this movie will explain how a certain someone is still here with us. That got my approval. The next thing being that it did have SOME...not many... but some creepy original imagery that I hope will take precedence in this film. 

     The two Insidious films are directed by Asian filmmaker, James Wan, director of the first few "Saw" films, or as I call them.."the Over-hyped movie of over-hyped over-hypedness." They are produced by the same guys who brought you "Paranormal Activity," which are pretty much on the same boat as Saw, but that's a review for another time.. Why am I telling you this? Well, within the last 2 years since Insidious was loved by audiences and critics alike...many horror movies that have come out by these guys have had the phrase, "From the people who brought you INSIDIOUS." shoehorned into their trailers. The name of this movie obviously carries a load of credit with it, so the filmmakers clearly know how to draw in an audience. So my question to them is...Why the hell would you prepare a trailer like this? I mean, his intentions are to clearly build up some sort of hype for this movie before September, so why load up the trailer with the stuff we've already seen from the first one? As a first trailer, you should want to load up as much new material, so that the audiences will start building hype for it, and be disappointed by the rehashed material after they paid for their ticket. It's called marketing, James...learn it! 

    Now, Trailers are deceptive..I know that. A movie can have a piece of shit trailer, but still turn out to be a good film. Vice Versa. Don't believe me. Go and watch the Phantom Menace theatrical trailer and tell me that it didn't look kick ass! Point is...trailers are deceptive. This film could very well be just as good, if not better than the first one, but in all honesty...the trailer isn't doing much for it. I really want to like this film, so I guess I'll have to wait until September 13th....That's a bad omen isn't it? To actually want to wait for Friday the 13th...

     In closing...James Wan, you better not reuse that same demon from the last one. I don't think George Lucas will hold his patience and his lawyers back this time....just saying....

I rant about movies. You will read it and like it!

     Hello to the internet and all you people wasting your time on it! My name is Jake Mendenhall, author of this newly establish and spiffy blog that Google helped me to create! Google is magical, isn't it?

     Anyway! If the title wasn't a dead giveaway, this nice blog is titled, "Critfilms: Movie Rants for people like you." It took me a good five minutes to think of that name... *wipes dust off shoulder* Ever since I was a small child, I've always been fascinated by movies...and sharks... and dinosaurs...Don't judge me. As I have grown over the years, films have become a special part of my life. I've almost gone out of my way to watch as many of them as I can. You call it an obsession...I call it a disorder; a disorder that I have grown attached to. I can't get enough of them.

     I don't consider myself to be one of those snooty film snobs that disregards a movie because it was filmed within a mile of Hollywood. Instead, I consider myself to be a snooty film snob that loves all movies! I'll watch anything...seriously..any movie. I think Titanic is an underrated film...yeah, you heard me right. I still get teary-eyed whenever I see E.T. nearly as dead as roadkill. Jim Carrey still makes me laugh. I hate M. Night Shyamalan for the crimes he's committed against cinema, just like every other warm-blooded human being. And I think Andy Sorkin is pretentious...just like you all do...even if you aren't ready to admit it yet...you will...in time...


     In my spare time I like to watch movies, read about movies, catch up on the latest news...about movies...check the financial market....about movies...find out what's going down on Friday nights....about movies... I think about movies...I dream about movies...I sleep with movies...okay, maybe that's a little far...who the hell dreams about movies? In short, I'm pretty informed when it comes to movies in general. If I don't know about a movie, I'll usually make it my mission for the next 2 to 5 minutes to find out. I'm only human...I haven't seen every movie...yet. We all have our bucket lists..leave me alone!

     Anyway, like the title says, I rant about movies. This could be anything from a review of a movie I just saw, old or new. A rant about some movie rumor. A discussion on a piece of factual movie news or issues. Or even just a shoot-the-shit style rant about how awesome movies are in general. Oh yeah...I cuss...a lot...get used to it. This is the kind of stuff to expect from me!

     If I didn't scare you off already, I really hope that I can entertain you with my "wonderful insight" in the world of movies. I hope you all stick around because I got so many thoughts about movies jammed in my head...might as well let them explode on here! See you guys very soon!











For you lazy lazy people....
TL;DR: I rant about everything movies. I like movies a lot. Please read me.
You should be ashamed of yourself...