American Horror Story: Freak Show

The fourth season of American Horror Story is not horror. If you want real horror, watch the first two seasons, or a little movie called The Conjuring.

That aside, let me get to the real meat of this review. What separates American Horror Story: Freak Show from some of its previous seasons is that, although it's riddled with gore, the creeping, invasive feeling of something lurking from behind the shadows is just not there. For whatever reason, they try and humanize the villains, giving them some sort of "evolutionary arc".

But if there's one thing we've learned from Star Wars, it's that when you show the origins of a villain, that character easily loses what makes them the most menacing-- their mystery. Darth Vader was goddamn terrifying before we saw his past. All we knew about him up 'til the '90s was his old name, and that his head looked like an egg. The rest was up to our imaginations... then we saw him as a little punk with a bowl cut.

As a kid, I felt like Jar Jar right here.

Another major problem with Freak Show is the musical numbers. I mean, Jesus-- I know it's by the same makers, but if I want to watch Glee, I'll watch Glee. I once had a girl insist on us watching that show together a few years back, and let me describe it for you now-- it's one hour of filler.

You probably know I wasn't a fan of American Horror Story: Coven, so if you're wondering why I'm watching this new season, it's because I've got a heart of gold and I always give people and things chances. Hell, I give too many (people and things) too many chances. That's because deep down, I expect everyone to try their hardest to do their best.

But it's clear by now that American Horror Story is nothing more to its makers than a nine-to-five grind. They under-utilize their cast, ignoring characters for episodes on end. Malcolm-Jamal Warner guest starred in the last episodes for mere seconds!

Aside from all that, the series is becoming way too meta, assimilating into pop-culture as a "must-be-iconic" show for being "edgy", caring less and less about the content they create. The show ignores major plot points for so long, the audience forgets and loses interest by the time they even tease at resolving them. The show is pretentious, predictable, and chickens out of killing characters by bringing them back to life, which Ryan Murphy (one of the producers) specifically said they would stop doing and I quote: "This season, once you die, you're dead. There's no supernatural thing to bring you back like last year."

Of course, being them, they resolved that little issue by bringing characters back as ghosts and even-- I can't believe I'm saying this-- projections from the minds of other characters.

Still, I am curious to know what happens next. I'm weird like that-- I still enjoy watching the show, even if it is mostly filler.

Kinect Star Wars

If you're wondering what kind of blog this is, it was originally supposed to be a place to playfully judge movies. Then I changed that rule by reviewing t.v. shows.

Today we're looking at a video game based on one of my favorite childhood sagas:

Kinect Star Wars.

Why critique that game? Because I finally gave it a go and it's more accidentally hilarious than I could have ever imagined.

Kinect's technology is surprisingly good. It's not perfect, but it works. My biggest concern is the fact that you can't sit down without C-3PO thinking you've abandoned him. There's a Podracing minigame that you control with your arms, which is great, but if you try and sit down (which would be more realistic), the game goes haywire and the controls get all wonky.

The main storyline lets you choose from a list of new Jedi that never say a word. I vowed to not take the game seriously because I wanted to have as much fun as possible, so I chose an alien called "Cho Zeh'Bra" since his face looks like a... well... do I have to say it?

This is Cho Zeh'Bra.

I genuinely can't look at this character without laughing. I never laughed this hard watching the same-looking guys during the cantina scene in "A New Hope", but seeing him as a jedi is so far-fetched, I just can't help it. He apparently has a sense of purpose, and it's so much funnier to think that he has aspirations to help others than to imagine him as a struggling musician.

My favorite part of the game is probably the dance-offs. This consists of you dancing to modern pop as Han Solo, burlesque Leia, etc. I like this minigame because it's ridiculous and would never happen in that universe, but I'm sure it fulfills someone's long-awaited fantasies. Heck, I got a kick out of it.

There's another minigame called "Rancor Rampage" in which you're a giant beast, the one that tried to eat Luke in "Return of the Jedi", terrorizing towns and eating people. I had a blast playing it the first time, but eventually, it just became busy work. That's probably the best way to describe every mode in Kinect Star Wars. It's all fun at first, but when you need to reach a point quota, it's almost torturous.

My advice to you is this: If you can find a way to play Kinect Star Wars, go for it. It's even more fun with friends, if they're open to having their perception of Star Wars further skewed.

May the choice be with you,

-Philip

Arrested Development

Arrested Development is the best t.v. comedy ever made.

Period.

However, I encourage you to avoid season "four" (as it's called on Netflix) at all costs. Let me explain why.

I have a theory that every show should be done by the third season (preferably the second). I stand by this belief because, from what I've seen, shows get watered down in quality by season three, simply for the sake of making new episodes. This leads to great income for the studios making the shows, but often a decline in quality. I love Breaking Bad, but I have never seen more filler than in season four of that show (e.g. the scene where Skyler White parks Walter's car somewhat far from the house and walks toward the camera for what feels like half an hour). Community also suffered from a similar problem during its season four, only that was due to a mix of the show getting too weird in season three, but also the foolish firing of its remarkable showrunner and creator.

Back to Arrested Development.

The first three seasons aired on Fox, and the show was cancelled just as it was starting to get watered down. It was still funny, but it was going to die and everyone knew it. The fans knew it, the makers knew it, it was inevitable.

And so it was cancelled after a three year run. And it was nice. It was (relatively) short and sweet. They even wrapped the main storyline up and put a bow on it. The show was done, and it was done so well, you can watch any episode over and over again and still laugh dozens of times per episode. This is not only because the dialogue is witty, but the actors just work really well off each other. This is something you can't write. Sometimes, that just happens. And that's the mark of a good show.

Arrested Development is about a highly dysfunctional, quirky family who stays together when they shouldn't, but rather than being cringe-worthy, it has a warm, welcoming vibe that makes you want to see every character interact with every other character just to see what they'll do. Really, it's one of the best things ever to have been on t.v.

The wonderfully talented cast of Arrested Development.

Season four on Netflix does not have that same charm. Not even close. And it's a shame because so many people say that it's great, but they either don't understand what made the show so good, or they're kidding themselves because the show on Netflix is entirely different (or maybe they're just wonderful people who find the beauty in all things flawed. In which case, they're way better people than me).

The two biggest problems with Netflix's Arrested Development is that the style of the show does not match the original comedic style (making it a different show), and each episode is about a different character. Too much of the story is guided by narration and there is almost zero interaction between the main characters. What's worse is that the characters are extremely untrue to themselves. It's as though the writers of this season have no knowledge of the prior seasons.

There is supposed to be some sort of grand plot that's shown in different segments of these character's lives and it's supposed to all sync by  the end of the season, but I'm telling you now, it does not come across well. It's repetitively, unnecessarily confusing.

Season four has great guest stars, including comedians Kristen Wiig and Maria Bamford (both of whom I adore for their unique sense of humor), but the show prohibits them from shining with its goal to tie some sort of story together.

The writers tried to reignite old laughs by alluding to old jokes, but the thing they didn't understand is that these jokes were funny because of their subtlety. One example is the running joke of the main character, Michael Bluth, in the old seasons always referring to his son's girlfriend whom he didn't approve of as "...Her?"

That was one of the best running gags. You don't read it and laugh, but when you see it, your face will crack a little smile. Season four imposed a grand joke on the audience by staging some wedding between that girl and Michael's brother, with a giant sculpture next to them that reads "Her?". I know this sounds like a minor complaint, but good comedy works best when it's not forced. It's almost as though the writers are sitting next to you this entire season, poking your shoulder and pointing at the screen every time someone makes a joke.

The cherry on top is the ending, which is simply Michael Bluth's son punching him in the face. I'm not kidding. That's how the series ends.

On the plus side, there are still three hilarious seasons from the mid 2000's for you to watch over and over again. If aliens ever come and invade Earth, I hope they stumble upon those seasons and not the fourth.

'Til next time.

Before Sunrise

Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, and Before Midnight make up a trilogy of the lives of two people over the course of almost 20 real years. Let me say this: They're some of the best movies I have ever seen! The first was released in 1995, in which a young American man (played by Ethan Hawke) meets a young French woman (Julie Delpy) while traveling in Austria. The second movie was released in 2004 and the third in 2013. Each film consists of the same two characters walking and talking, which would be boring in the context of a play, but with the way it's shot, mixed with the dialogue, and their impeccable acting talent, it doesn't feel like you're watching a standard movie. The scenes go minutes without any cuts, allowing the actors to really live in their environment.

Their chemistry is hypnotically realistic.

Despite the fact that these aren't conventional blockbusters with action sequences with stereotypical film archetypes (aside from "boy meets girl"), they're extremely entertaining. When they laugh, you want to laugh. When they ask each other personal questions, you have no idea what the other might say. And if they argue, it's gut-wrenching.

Richard Linklater, the writer and director, is a master of his craft. He's up there with Wes Anderson, Tarantino, the Coen brothers, etc. I can't wait to see his newest movie, Boyhood (which took literally 12 years to make).

Out of the Furnace

I've been a huge fan of Christian Bale ever since American Psycho. Very few well known actors immerse themselves in their roles like he does. So I was happy to see him playing an all-American in what was advertised as a revenge flick.

But it wasn't a revenge flick. It was falsely advertised as a movie about a man avenging his brother's death by whatever means necessary... and it didn't deliver.

Kiss him?

The main issue I had was that the movie itself is two hours, and he doesn't try and get revenge for his brother until there's 20 minutes left. He doesn't even fight hordes of villains, like I thought he would (even though he successfully meets the gang who kidnapped and murdered his brother). Sure, it was fun to watch Woody Harrelson as the supervillain (whom I've been a huge fan of since watching True Detective), and I really liked the chemistry between Zoe Saldana and Christian Bale, but I got annoyed when I realized the conflict was just Casey Affleck's character wanting fast money. That's almost the entire plot of the movie.

Kiss him?

If I can sum it up in one word, it's "unsatisfying". I kept thinking Christian Bale was going to become some sort of hero, but he just ends up pursuing Woody Harrelson (Harlan DeGroat) with a sniper rifle near the end right after the police told him specifically not to.

On the plus side, there were a lot of funny moments. It's got an all-star cast (including Willem Dafoe, and Forest Whitaker), but ultimately, I wish the actors could have improvised the entire thing. That would have been a treat.

Kiss him?

Conan the Barbarian

"EEEEIIEIEN!!! EEEEEIIIIIIRRRRN! EEEAAAARGH!", says Arnold Schwarzenegger (and a bunch of his impersonators). This is what I thought Conan the Barbarian would be, as a movie.

Surprisingly, it's more than just a googly eyed, romanticized version of what you might think-- a young Schwarzenegger-esque brute who cuts people in half.

I just said it's more than that!

I've always known there was a story to this movie, I just didn't know what to expect. First of all, it doesn't take place in our world. It takes place in a mystical, fictional land known as "Cimmeria". The world is like a melting pot of Medieval Mongolian Vikings. Even more interesting is the fact that it's not an original concept. It's based on the works on a short lived writer named Robert E. Howard, who made the world of Cimmeria in the early 1930s. "Conan" as a character was added a few years later. (I mention this because I'm a firm believer that you should always establish a world for your characters to live in before you make the characters, themselves. That way, you can avoid having to accommodate their environment to their capabilities and in turn, you end up with a richer, more believable world).

The movie itself is just fun. The writing's not phenomenal, but it's full of ridiculous and hilarious performances by Schwarzenegger and the one and only James Earl Jones. Without spoiling anything, I will say I was surprised that Conan doubles as both a barbarian and a thief. I really thought this was a movie about Arnold swinging a sword on the beach for two hours, cutting the occasional head off as passersby try and pass him by. It's more of a bank heist/western film chronicling a buff man's quest for glory and vengeance.

While watching it, I really felt immersed in its bizarre lands. If you like video games where you mercilessly and unrealistically destroy thousands of tyrant-led goons, if you like movies about a group of friends who set out on a seemingly impossible adventure, if you want something as gritty as it is goofy, do yourself a favor and watch the 1982 version of Conan the Barbarian. I'm honestly excited to see its sequel, Conan the Destroyer!

Escape From New York

I've always respected Kurt Russell. I think what's most remarkable about him is his ability to don the eyepatch in so many movies, he turned "Kurt Russell eyepatch movies" into its own genre (Escape From New York, Escape From L.A., Captain Ron).

He's also a hilarious badass (see Big Trouble in Little China)

Escape From New York stars Kurt Russell as Solid Snake-- I'm sorry, inmate and veteran "Snake" Plissken, as he tries to escape from Manhattan island, which is now a giant state penitentiary because the U.S. government isn't smart enough to put all those prisoners ANYWHERE ELSE in America. Seriously, they just gave Manhattan to a bunch of prisoners and put a giant wall around them.

Needless to say, the movie is ridiculous, but I really liked it. It wasn't even a particularly smart movie. It could have done with better acting, more intricate sets, a more fleshed out world, but it did have a fun tone, the always terrifying Ernest Borgnine, and the awesome Lee Van Cleef (the "bad" from The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly). It's post-apocalyptic/dystopian, which I loved since I'm always looking for more movies like The Road Warrior.

This is Snake Plissken, the main character in this video game-ish movie.

I recently had a conversation with my good friend, and we were debating which was the better medium: T.V. or movies. I fought for movies, while he argued that shows are better because they allow for more character development (which, in my opinion, is usually for the worse since most shows just drag on for way too long for ratings, not caring so much about character development, but overly-convoluted and/or uninteresting plots).

Then I thought about what this movie would have been as an hour long show. The first episode would be all about the American president getting his plane hijacked (this happens in the way beginning, I'm not spoiling anything). The second episode would be all about Snake Plissken having flashbacks about in his war days as he's being transported to Manhattan penitentiary. The third episode would be about Snake deciding whether or not to work with the United States Police Force (that's what they're called in this universe) as he remembers the bank heist that got him into prison. To give you an idea of how long this would drag on, this all happens in the first fifteen minutes in the movie, but would have taken three hours if it was a show. Do you really need that in your life?

You tell me.

The point is this: Escape From New York is a fun adventure movie, and although it's not a comedy in the traditional sense, there were moments in the film where I found myself laughing and cheering for certain characters when they did certain things. That's always good.

American Horror Story

I know it's not a movie. But I'm starting to feel like some shows are so powerful, they're like really long movies.

I was originally very skeptical about "American Horror Story" for two reasons:

1) I don't normally watch horror movies. The Conjuring and The Cabin in the Woods piqued my interest.

2) The show is made by Brad Falchuk and Ryan Murphy-- the makers of "Glee". I'm open minded, but an ex-girlfriend tried to get me into "Glee" some years ago and it just wasn't happening.

Still, "Breaking Bad" just ended, and as I was thirsting for another gritty, hypnotic show, I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. So I started watching the first season of AHS and fell for it instantly. The extent to which the show would go in revealing horrifying scenarios was unparalleled. The haunting intro, the twists, even the way the camera spun were all elements that worked toward making arguably the scariest show on television.

Season one was fantastic. It was set in L.A., based on a struggling marriage, mentally shattered youth, conniving neighbors, and a haunted house. There was just enough mystery to keep you wanting more, with an "Oh shit" moment almost every episode. Most shows (in my experience) don't have that effect because they're just not compelling enough. I didn't even know they can show what they showed on t.v.

Uhhhhhhh... hi.

Season two was even better! It was set in a Catholic asylum in the 1960's. They tackled all sorts of serious social issues of the time including homophobia, war, segregation, all of which are oppressive and controversial enough already without characters being held in captivity while having to fight demons. There were so many good twists in this season that I, a guy who gets bored of most "good" media, couldn't wait to see the next episode. There were "Oh shit" moments multiple times per episode. Just to give you an idea of how immersive it was, they play a french song for the asylum inmates. They play that song over, and over, and over again. It's insane.

Then there's James Cromwell-- the freakiest guy in the world.

Unfortunately, they decided to make season three about witches. Here's why that was a bad idea: Seasons one and two were good because they were about ordinary people trying to survive their environments. They were constantly looking for a way out of nightmarish places. That's horror... reminds me of my time in Florida.

Not only is the concept not scary, the execution was lackluster. Here's the premise: Four witches are recruited into a "Coven" (which is really just a big, empty sorority house). They literally have no agenda but to slowly learn more magic (See Harry Potter). They each have a unique power (See X-Men), but often talk about getting all the powers so that one of them can become the next "Supreme" (The leader of their dumb group).

Almost every time a witch dies, she just comes back. Sometimes it's with a spell, but they usually don't even explain it. She'll just show up in the next episode with some throwaway line like "Guess who's back, bitches?" and start eating soup with the girl who just killed her. Is this a contract fulfillment thing? Did the writers have a plan for the season or did they drunkenly write each episode week by week, overlooking contradictions? Who knows?

I think the idea of witches would have worked if the show wasn't centered on the witches, but regular people in the town being terrorized by the coven. It could have been about one family, or separate stories that eventually led to an epic finale in which the townsfolk either vanquished or got vanquished by the witches. Instead, it ended with some stupid Goblet of Fire tournament where they all were "tested" to see who has all the powers... yeah.

That's how I felt by the end.

Were there still some freaky moments in season three? Sure. There was an emotional scene near the end of episode nine. There were some decent WTF moments throughout the show, but none of it compared to the fright and taboo of the first two seasons. Fingers crossed that season four will be bold and compelling like the first two. We're all rooting for you, FX.

Don Jon

He cares about a few things: his bwody, his pyad, his riiide, his fyamily, his choich, his boyees, his goiyuls, and his pwohn. This movie had a surprising amount of substance considering the way it was advertised.

I ended up seeing this movie in my human sexuality class, which has nothing to do with my review. I just wanted you to know where your community college funds are going.

It starts off with Joseph Gordon also Levitt as the Incredible Hulk. Seriously. He looks like an adult this time.

See? Look at that shit.

It doesn't take long for the movie to get to the point-- he has a porn addiction and he always goes out with his friends to have as much sex as possible. Then he meets Scarlett Jo and Hansson. He falls for her and the rest is a development of their relationship and his struggles as he accepts this girl as his one and only. I won't spoil the ending, but it's not your average chick flick.

What makes this movie stand out from a lot of others from 2013 is the boss, Tony Danza.

He's the boss.

Everything Tony Danza ever says is hilarious. Seriously, I couldn't watch his reality show "Teach" without laughing. He's just got a positive vibe.

I recommend this movie to anyone with an open mind. It's funny, fast-paced, and the characters each have a good reason to be on screen.

Never Forget.

The Lone Ranger

People warned me at work. They said, "Philip... don't watch The Lone Ranger. It's two and a half hours of nothing."

Maybe I'm paraphrasing and maybe that's not a direct quote. But I've been warned nonetheless.

What makes The Lone Ranger so hard to watch is what makes every recent Disney live-action movie so bad-- it's contrived.

I've noticed ever since the Pirates sequels that Walt Disney Studios is trying to go for a more "gritty, edgy" feel with their movies. Pirates of the Caribbean 3, for example, starts off with a boy getting hanged, immediately followed by a hooker getting shot in the face.

The Lone Ranger contains scenes of murder, cannibalism, even several allusions to rape. But they market these films for all ages... so who are they for, really?

My problem with these movies is that they're clearly Frankenstein monsters. Too much of the studio gets involved and the movies end up having no real sense of direction or even target audience. There's no unique style to The Lone Ranger, John Carter, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Oz the Great and Powerful. They just write the most generalized dialogue so as to attract the widest possible audience. They drag on, delivering one liners that the writers or producers think would be funny for a trailer. There's no substance, no empathy for the characters on screen because they're clearly just vessels for the writers to fill in screen time. Which brings me to my next point.

This.

Since when was the old Lone Ranger t.v. series supposed to be "badass"? For some reason (which it turns out is the massive audience turnout), Hollywood is obsessed with making every possible character in literature and vintage t.v. more "epic" and "hardcore". In Disney's revamped version of "The Lone Ranger" (I'm just going to spoil it), Jack Sparrow and Armie Hammer fight the tyrannical William Fichtner and Tom Wilkinson over silver and the transcontinental railroad, or something. I don't know. Disney movies always have too many subplots and flashbacks-- The point is it's unnecessarily convoluted to the point where I wanted to stop half-way through but forced myself to finish it so I can preach to the world and help you. Save yourself, child! Watch a real western like:

For A Few Dollars More

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Django Unchained

3:10 to Yuma (the original)

True Grit (the remake)

No Country for Old Men (a modern western)

Or how about Tombstone?

I've just listed seven fantastic westerns that are so entrancing and so proper in their genre, they don't need hours of circular dialogue and feral CGI bunnies (which The Lone Ranger has plenty of).

Oh, also, Hans Zimmer plays the Pirates of the Caribbean theme throughout the entire movie until the final boss battle where they play the William Tell Overture finale for almost fifteen minutes straight. Yes, really.

You've been a good sport for reading this blog. I think I'll write about a good movie next time.

Au revoir,

-Philip