Movie Retrospective - Saw (2004)

Saw is my favorite horror movie franchise of all time, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. It's true that the franchise is not the scariest and maybe focuses too much on the blood and gore. It's true that the acting is not always the best and some parts of the movies are absolutely ridiculous. With all of these things in mind, I still love the franchise. I may do a retrospective on the entire franchise in the future, but for now I want to focus on the film that started it all.

I was too young to see Saw in theaters, and unfortunately I saw Saw II before seeing the first movie. My brother had seen it and had raved about how good it was, saying it was one of the most clever and well made horror movies in a long time. Being the horror fanatic that I am, I knew that I had to see this movie, and when my brother received Saw on DVD one Christmas, I finally got my chance to see it.

The thing that I love the most about the movie, and what keeps drawing me back to it, is the overall tone. This is not the "torture porn" movies that the sequels have unfortunately granted the franchise. It plays out more as a suspenseful mystery thriller, with only one scene of actual torture in the entire movie. Every scene in the movie, whether it be a flashback or another cut to the two main characters, plays a crucial role in building up the tension leading up to the climax. Not one scene in the movie is filler, and watching a second time makes the double meanings clearer. It was clear that the story was planned carefully to the final detail.

Looking into some of the behind-the-scenes work on the movie, I can't help but give the producers immense props. Saw only had a budget of around $1 million, but it grossed more than $103 million worldwide. That's an incredible feet for a movie, let alone an R-rated horror movie, as R-rated movies have much smaller audiences and therefore have more difficulty making money. On top of that, this wasn't a remake, reboot or sequel/prequel. This was an original, fresh story, and I believe the low budget helped it in the long run, especially after seeing how the quality of the franchise changed due to the increase in budget with each film.

To go along with the low budget, there are only two or three scenes of real gore in Saw. The rest of the film relies on the strength of the characters and plot to deliver the thrills and tension. It's a shame that the sequels veered away from this and placed more emphasis on the traps, because the film's best moments are when the characters are simply talking to each other. With a story like this, you need strong actors to play the roles, and Cary Elwes and Leigh Whannell carry their scenes incredibly. I was always so invested in their dialogue between each other and legitimately wondered whether they were going to survive Jigsaw's game. 

On the subject of the characters, every character in Saw was well written. I was easily invested in their stories and whether or not they would live to the end. Also, the characters are intelligent and rarely, if not at all, make any of the typical horror movie victim mistakes tat plagues most horror movies today. Some horror films try to take itself seriously but fail, partially because of the incompetence of the characters, but Saw avoids this problem.

The iconic scene that everybody remembers from Saw is the reverse bear trap, and it remains to this day as one of my favorite scenes in the franchise. The interesting thing is the event was told in a flashback, so you would think the scene would lack tension and suspense. Even with this in mind, when I first saw this scene, I almost forgot that it was a flashback and was instantly terrified for Amanda, whom Shawnee Smith delivered an amazing performance of. There wasn't a lot of gore involved, but the trap still had immense tension, something that future Saw traps would unfortunately lack in favor of extreme gore.

Finally, the twist ending. I won't spoil it, and I've probably already said too much by saying there is a twist ending in the first place, but it is absolutely one of if not the best ending to a film to date. I cannot begin to describe how shocked I was at the ending. Not only did it surprise me, but it tied together everything that had happened in the film. This would become a tradition to have a twist ending in all of the sequels, all with various degrees of shock value, but the ending to Saw will always remain the strongest.

With the recent release of Evil Dead, I started to think back on the quality of horror films in this generation. It's not hard to acknowledge that the Saw franchise has inspired the high amounts of gore in horror films today. Still, I find myself returning back to the first film because of how carefully crafted it was, despite the limited shooting time frame. There are few standouts this generation that do favor the story and atmosphere over the blood and gore, but Saw will always remain my favorite.

Comedy Website to Produce Parody Movie About Late Apple Head

Actor Justin Long, well known for starring in several films as well as "Get a Mac" commercials, will be playing Steve Jobs in an upcoming parody movie from comedy website Funny or Die.

The website is creating a 60 - 75 minute movie named iSteve, which will be released online on April 15. Director Ryan Perez told the New York Times in an interview that the movie will not be based off extensive research and is meant to be very silly while looking at his whole life. Long has had a substantial relationship with Apple as he starred in the Mac-versus-PC TV ads for several years up until the end of the campaign in 2010.

This is not the first film about Jobs and his life. Jobs is an upcomming independent film starring actor Ashton Kutcher, with the release date being delayed, and Sony Pictures is also working on an adaptation of Walter Isaacson's authorized biography on Jobs. Funny or Die has featured several parody movies about Jobs, including one envisioning if Hollywood made a Jason Statham-style action movie about Jobs' life.

'Veronica Mars' Kickstarter Achieves Massive Fundraising

Fans of the TV show Veronica Mars will be happy to know that the Kickstarter project to bring the show to the big screen as a feature film has become the fastest project to reach the $1 million mark.

The project beats out others such as Pebble watch and the OUYA console along with the role-playing game Torment. Veronica Mars only took a little over four hours to reach $1 million, which is quite impressive for a show that never had that good of ratings and is only available to watch on TheWB.com. The show itself fits perfectly as a Kickstarter campaign, as the show has a cult following that was clearly more than willing to donate money and spread the word of this opportunity. This has obviously been made much easier thanks to Twitter and Facebook, where as before fans of the show relied on discussion forums and fan sites to raise money.

It has been confirmed that the project reached the $2 million goal in under ten hours, with fans still donating money by the minute.

Blade Runner Director Teaming Up With Machinima

Director Ridley Scott, known for hit films Blade Runner and Alien, is teaming up with video entertainment network Machinima to produce 12 science fiction short films.

Scott will not direct these shorts himself; instead he and Machinima will choose directors from RSA, Scott's production company, including Martin Scorsese, Sam Mendes, Kathryn Bigelow and Neill Blomkamp. The planned outcome of this collaboration is for some of these short films to eventually lead to a new franchise. Scott believes that Machinima is a great partner to collaborate on this "new model of delivering original content to fans" as well as pushing the creative boundaries for both filmmakers and audiences.

After the success with the webseries Mortal Kombat Legacy, which is spawning a second season as well as a feature film based off of it, it will be interesting to see what these short films will feature and how they will be received by viewers.

Movie Retrospective - Scooby Doo (2002)

If you were to ask me what my favorite cartoon of all time, Scooby Doo would probably be my answer. Growing up on Cartoon Network, I would watch the countless reruns of the talking dog and his adventures in solving mysteries every day. It remains to this day as one of the most popular and successful animated series to date, inspiring multiple spinoff shows and movies, so it only seems logical that a live action feature film be produced. When I first saw this film I absolutely loved it. Ten years later, nostalgia convinced me to watch it again to see how it held up after all this time.

In short: this movie is bad, really bad. I still can't wrap my head around why I liked it so much as a kid. There is so much wrong with this film that I almost feel ashamed that I watched it. Then again, I was naive and thought lots of bad movies were good at the time. Is it as horrible as people say it is? It's pretty close, but surprisingly there are some good aspects about.

For starters, Shaggy and Scooby are very well portrayed. Matt Lillard was the perfect choice for Shaggy and Neil Fanning does a great job of getting the voice down for Scooby. The chemistry between the two of them is also handled very well; it's clear that these two are best friends and the movie does a great job of showing that. Velma is also done very well, maintaining her book smart personality paired with a science geek charm, although Linda Cardellini may have sounded a bit too nasal at times. Unfortunately, Fred and Daphne are not so great as they feel completely out of character in moments. Granted, they didn't have that much personality in the original show, so it's understandable to try and make them more interesting, but they come off as egotistical and full of himself in Fred's case and overly annoying in Daphne's.

Even though Fred and Daphne are not entirely too likable, there are some great moments with them as well as the rest of the main cast where they poke fun at their roles in the original show. Bringing up things such as exactly how they always get lured into a spooky location and how Fred always chooses Daphne first when splitting the group up provide some nice nostalgic context for those who grew up with the show. It's a shame that these are not used more often in place of the humor that is used, but it's still nice to see them when they appear.

Finally, the set pieces and location designs are done very well. When the gang goes to the abandoned dark ride castle, it really gives off an ominous, threatening and creepy vibe. That scene alone is in my personal opinion the best scene in the movie because it is at that moment that the movie feels most like the original cartoon. There's also a lot of creativity throughout the island itself, which is a welcome sight to see.

Unfortunately, that's just about it for the good in this movie, and it's not enough to overshadow what is wrong with the film. The humor contains pop culture references and flatulence jokes used to please today's generation of kids. I have nothing wrong with this convention if used in an original film, but to put in a scene where Shaggy and Scooby have a belching and farting contest, a scene I absolutely detested, just seems wrong. Also, do most kids even know who Pamela Anderson is? I found her cameo in the beginning particularly confusing. Most of the bad humor can be credited to the poor writing. The dialogue is absolutely terrible. I can only imagine how idiotic Freddie Prinze Jr. must have felt when he said "dorky chicks like you turn me on" to Velma. It seems scary, but you could probably find better written dialogue in a Scooby Doo fan fiction.

The plot itself is kind of interesting, but it's not executed well at all. The gang, minus Shaggy and Scooby, doesn't have any many legitimate reasoning for separating, save for Daphne hating the damsel in distress routine, and this even gets pushed aside because they reunite literally ten minutes after. Then they claim they're going to solve the mystery individual only to reunite again ten minutes later to work together. It would have made more sense for them to remain separated for a longer period of time only to then realize how much they need each other and reconcile towards the end. The film tries that but it doesn't come through in the end.

Ultimately, the main thing wrong with the film is that it doesn't really feel like a Scooby Doo film. The tone is all over the place, going for overly comedic with only having few genuinely creepy moments. The original show blended the comedic and spooky aspects perfectly, but the film is so concerned with being "hip and cool" that anything genuinely creepy is lost. The interactions between some of the characters doesn't feel natural and the mystery itself doesn't seem so compelling. The Mystery Machine only appears twice for maybe a total of ten minutes, which is understandable because of where the story takes place but still really disappointing. On top of that, without spoiling anything, the main villain is laughably terrible, as if the writers just got really lazy and decided to throw it in out of nowhere.

There are so many other things that are wrong with this film, in which case I might make a video to better portray my opinion of it, but overall the film just doesn't work. There are so many good ideas here that are just executed poorly, and the film suffers for the need to modernize a timeless character. If you are looking to feed your nostalgia for Scooby Doo, just watch the cartoon and avoid this film at all costs.

Video Game Classics to be Honored at MoMA Exhibit

New York's Museum of Modern Art is opening a new exhibit, starting this Friday, honoring video game classics, tailoring to the growing nostalgia for these classic games and the arcades gamers used to spend countless quarters playing at. The following fourteen games will be installed in the museum's Philip Johnson Galleries: Pac-Man (1980), Tetris (1984), Another World (1991), Myst (1993), SimCity 2000 (1994), vib-ribbon (1999), The Sims (2000), Katamari Damacy (2004), EVE Online (2003), Dwarf Fortress (2006), Portal (2007), flOw (2006), Passage (2008) and Canabalt (2009).

These games were chosen based off a variety of criteria including visual quality, elegance of the code and design of playing behavior. Paola Antonelli, the senior curator of the MoMA's department of architecture and design, explains that the games will be displayed on screens fixed to the gallery walls, with most of them being playable on the spot. There is the concern that traffic flow will cause some problems, in particular with games such as Pac-Man, but Antonelli has addressed those concerns and is confident that the exhibit will run smoothly as planned.

The MoMA intends to acquire more games for the exhibit in the future, bringing the total number planned to 40, and the exhibit will run until January of next year.

Movie Review - Die Hard 5

"Die Hard" remains to this day as one of my top ten favorite action films, and it's no surprise why. The story is compelling, the characters are memorable and the action and suspense are top notch. The franchise has solidified Bruce Willis as one of cinema's best action stars along with creating the iconic character John McClane, the New York City cop that always seems to find trouble in the wrong places.  After twenty five years, a fifth entry in the franchise titled "A Good Day to Die Hard," or "Die Hard 5" as many refer it as, has been released in a time where previous action stars such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone are looking to make a comeback. Does this film deliver the high-octane action and suspense the franchise is well known for, or does it reek of age and beg for the franchise to end.

After viewing the film, I can say that while "Die Hard 5" is a great action film, it is unfortunately a very underwhelming "Die Hard" film. What do I mean by this? The film is a great action film without a doubt, but it lacks the charm that is present in the previous films.

One factor that contributes to this charm is the villains. All of the villains in the franchise have so far been memorable in both their ultimate goals and their personalities. In every film, I could pick them out as individuals rather than another nameless enemy. Unfortunately, the villains in "Die Hard 5" are not that memorable. Their end goals are not entirely original and they have no personality to them at all. Now some will argue that Thomas Gabriel had this problem in the previous film, but I argue that he had the most original end goal. He wasn't trying to destroy the world or steal money or anything. He was simply trying to make a point, his point, and he would stop at nothing to see it done. I just didn't get that from this film.

Another problem I had with the film is, sadly, McClane doesn't feel like McClane. That's not to say that Willis pulls a poor performance, as he easily shines in his iconic role, I almost didn't recognize him as the "policeman hero who saved the Nakatomi hostages." This McClane seems more focused on mending his broken relationship with his son, which takes up the majority of the film and even hurts scenes that were otherwise intense action moments. Even more disappointing, McClane doesn't try to foil the villain's plans by calling them and cursing them out, a scene I always loved in the previous films, especially in the first film. This could be because for the first time, he doesn't have as much information about this villain or a means to communicate with them, where in the past films he always had radio communication with them.

Finally, there is the iconic catchphrase, "Yippe-ki-yay, mother******." Thankfully, the line is not edited out like in the previous film (although the full line is present in the unrated version of the film). The problem though is the delivery felt really off. In the past movies, the line is spoken directly before McClane dramatically kills the villain, or in the case of "Die Hard with a Vengeance directly after. However, in "Die Hard 5," McClane says the line in the middle of the last fight rather than before the final kill. This may be more of a nitpick, but it didn't have the same badass feel that it had in the previous films, and in the end it only felt mildly satisfying to hear it.

All of that aside, there are still things to like about the film. As said before, Willis proves he is still worthy of his action icon status. The film delivers enough eye popping explosions, shootouts and car chases to please any action fan, although there is a surprising lack of hand-to-hand combat. There are also some welcome nods to the first film, and newcomers don't have to have seen all of the previous films to follow the plot. While the writing is very cheesy, there are moments in the dialogue that do bring out the McClane fans have grown to know and love, despite there being so few.

In the end, while this is not a great entry in the "Die Hard" franchise, I was still satisfied when I left the theater. Fans of the previous films may be disappointed with this latest installment, but there is enough for any fan of action films or Bruce Willis to warrant a theatrical viewing. Also, it was a great way for a single guy to spend Valentine's Day.