Announcement: Updates

Hey everyone, Tyler, the Movie Maniac here. Given how busy life has been getting for me lately as I have been trying different things, hence why there have been very few reviews this year, I have decided to break most of my traditions altogether. In other words, I won't limit myself as much as I used to. I won't release all my horror reviews in October (unless they are related to Halloween). I will still post Christmas reviews in December due to the holidays. However, I won't review one adaption of "A Christmas Carol" a year and try to post it on Christmas day or eve (though that would also mean I can review more than one version a year). I'm also not going to force myself to review a shark film every summer. And though I tend to stay away from reviewing modern movies just to see how they hold up after a few years have passed without the hype or backlash, if I feel like giving my two cents, I won't hesitate. From this point on, I'm going to hang loose and review films with little to no restrictions. That sadly doesn't mean I will still be posting as much as I used to, but it will hopefully mean there will be more posts next year than this year now that I'm deciding to take all the pressure I've been feeling about this blog off my shoulder. I know this blog has been going through many changes over the years, so I won't keep creating traditions and taking them away. At this point, anything goes. That said, I want to emphasize that I don't want all my reviews to be from my random pickings. I'm 100% open to ideas and suggestions of what I should review. After all, I want to entertain my readers with my critiques on films, lists, or topics that interest them. So, by all means, feel free to leave me requests below, and leave as many suggestions as you'd like. 

Peace and Love

Tyler Michael

And have a safe Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

The Snowman and the Snowdog

During the final chapter in the "Toys R Us" business, before the one right by my house closed down, I was able to buy one item before I would no longer walk inside its doors. The item I bought wasn't a toy but a DVD copy of the timeless animated classic "The Snowman". Interesting enough the copy I bought also contained its 2014 sequel...

 

As soon as I learned that there was a sequel, I was unamused by the idea for how pointless it sounded. There just seemed nowhere else to go with the story, nor should there be a continuation for how big an impact the ending has left on viewers. It just seemed like it was just going to be a nostalgia cash-grab. Nevertheless, since I am always going to find myself seeing the sequel's title on the case for whenever I pop in the film, I figured I might as well give it a chance. Is it a sequel that deserves to exist; ON WITH THE REVIEW!

Taking place 30 years after the events from the previous short. A young boy named Billy moves into the house where the kid James from "The Snowman" once lived. In the wintertime, Billy finds a picture of James and his snowman, as well as the items he used to help build the snowman. Billy decides to build the same snowman that James built. Noticing some snow remaining on the ground after finishing his recreation of the Snowman, Billy decides to build a Snowdog in memory of his pet dog who had recently passed away. On Christmas Eve, Billy discovers that both the Snowman and the Snowdog are alive, and they play, get into mischief, fly, and go to a party in the North Pole with other snowpeople hosted by Father Christmas.

For anyone who has seen the original, you'll know there are no surprises here; it’s exactly identical to the plot in the classic short. The only difference in the plot is that it has a Snowdog in it. Apart from the first few minutes that shows Billy moving in, mourning over his dog, and finding the Snowman's belongings, as soon as he builds the Snowman and Snowdog you know where the story is going beat by beat. There are a few changes here and there, only they are minor and at times pointless. The snowman for instance flies an airplane instead of driving a motorcycle. The idea sounds cool if only not for the fact that he can already fly in midair. How is piloting a plane more exciting than being lifted-up in the air with the world literally dangling at your feet as if you can fly? The Snowdog seems like a welcoming addition to bring something new to this world. It would seem cute and fascinating seeing a kid take care of a dog made of snow. After all it's more original than a Snowman coming to life. But despite that the beginning of the film is focused on Billy wanting a new dog, after the Snowdog comes to life, the character becomes more of a side-character as most of it is just watching Billy and the Snowman interact. We have already seen a kid bonding with a snowman before, why do we need to see this again? There is nothing different that we learn about the Snowman either. The reason why he is included is because of lazy nostalgia writing. I'm not saying that the short shouldn't include the character at all. However, if you're going to give this relationship more focus than what the film was building on from the start, it comes off as random and lazy. It's like the writers weren't sure how to juggle both the Snowman and the Snowdog, so they just played it safe. It's not until the race at the climax when the Snowdog is back to be given some importance to the plot. As for the ending, without giving too much away, let’s just say we get two different fates and neither one of them work as anything emotionally powerful. One is a cop-out, as the other is one that anyone who has seen the original can see coming from a mile away. This is all mainly because the film doesn't care to focus or take its time when establishing an emotional connection between the characters. It's more focused on recreating the original with a few tiny differences hoping that you're wearing the nostalgia goggles when watching it to fill in the gaps that should be given more time. Everything in terms of pacing feels either rushed in scenes that need more time and attention, or dragging on in scenes that could have been trimmed. 

I'll give the short this, it at least looks like we're revisiting the same world. The animation and visuals are identical to its predecessor for looking like we're watching illustrations in a book coming to life for how sketchy it appears. Some scenes I'll admit look nicer than they did in the first film, particularly the North Pole party. In the original, all we saw were snowpeople eating food and dancing around Christmas trees, party lights, and the auroras. The party in the sequel is more of a carnival with food tents, a bandstand, and a giant mountain to go skiing or sleigh riding. The designs for the snowpeople who are attending the party are even a little more creative for half of them having their own distinct look. The music isn't bad either. It still stays true to the relaxed tone that the previous short had. That is with the exception of the song that plays when Billy and the Snowman and Snowdog are flying. "Walking in the Air" was a song that felt that it was part of the entire score for how whimsical and mellow it is. Instead of getting a song that matches the tone of the film, we get a rock song by Andy Burrows entitled "Light the Night". The song alone is fine, it's a pretty soothing tune actually. It just doesn't match the rest of the music that's carries the short's narrative (except when you hear a choir of it prior to the scene), making it out of place. It's an overall forgettable and dated song that doesn't come close to being as breathtakingly haunting and timeless as "Walking in the Air".

                                              Overall Thoughts

Watching the original, you can tell there was passion when bringing this children's book to life in a way that is unique and meaningful. With the sequel, it's easy to tell that this was made to make a quick buck for how uninspiring, safe, and manipulative it is. The film looks and sounds (for the most part) like the original film, and you can tell there was effort when recreating it, but that's all that it is, a recreation just with a Snowdog. There are no surprises, the emotions are lacking, the pacing is uneven, and the Snowdog is only present just so this film can be a sequel and sell merchandise. It's not terrible by any means. It's just a forgettable short that doesn't have a need to exist in the slightest.

Film Essay: A Faulty American Dream (Salesman, 1969)

The American dream is usually seen as achievements in prosperity in a country that embraces consumerism. One of the fields that supports that dream is the path of a traveling salesman. Seeing the world and meeting new people while making a few dollars off the sold items sounds as adventurous and prosperous as the pilgrims' discovering "new worlds" searching for gold and glory. The 1969 documentary film Salesman (1969) by the Maysles brothers captures this perception of the American dream yet doesn't appear as glamorous as one would believe. To persuade people through their argument is achieved through the use of Aristotle's three principles of persuasion ethos, logos, and pathos, from both the makers and the film's subjects.

Before making the film, the Maysles' were originally salesmen themselves, naturally qualifying as the appropriate use of ethos to conduct its outlook on the supposed American dream in consumerism. In the context of the film, however, ethos takes the center of the salesmen featured on-screen. Observing them trying to sell the bible to customers who usually have conflicted reactions paying little to no attention to the camera gives a raw sense that this typically happens in the life of a traveling salesman. Despite the moral debate of selling bibles for profit instead of donating the money for charity or simply giving them away, the salesmen are shown in a few scenes taught by their superiors to not to be ashamed of what they're doing. They are told to consider the job of bible selling as a noble cause since it still inspires Christianity in the lord's name. While under the impression that what they are doing is beneficial to both god and business, none of them appear religious. Barely any of them, when attempting to sell the bible, don't go into too much detail about God. They are seen either guilting people to buying it or playing on their emotions from their friendly attitudes. Sometimes they'll bring up the religious aspect of it in their sales, but they see the bible as nothing more as an object that could make a good present than something holy and sacred. One of the salesmen can be seen coldly turning off a TV set playing the song "Silent Night," expressing how religion means nothing to any of them. For the picture to provide the salesmen with relatability instead of just showing them going to meetings and trying to sell their product, the film has moments of them behaving like the average American citizen when off-duty. Scenes depicting them sitting around casually talking to each other as they partake in typical activities such as swimming, playing poker, or watching TV make them seem like down-to-earth human beings.

By successfully using ethos to establish that these are typical Americans taught to take pride in their job to give audiences a source of credibility that what is happening is (supposedly) authentic; the Maysles' proceed to play on the emotion of the audience through pathos. Out of the four salesmen, most of the attention is given to Paul Brennan. Unlike the other salesmen who are confident in their job and usually shown succeeding when making their sales, Paul though having some successes mostly fails at his attempts to sell the bible, making him appear as a victim. As the other salesmen joke around, smoke, and talk about the business, Paul is isolated from their world, sitting at the other end of the table quietly or standing far away from them with a gloomy look on his face. At one point, as he sits alone on a dimly lit train gazing out the window looking miserable, one of the speeches heard at one of their meetings is heard stating, "If a guy's not a success, he's got no one to blame but himself." This image and use of sound suggest Paul is not successful. He knows it and doesn't keep that negative feeling to himself either. Half of the things Paul talks about when around other people when not trying to sell are his failures. As the others are watching a boxing match on television at the motel, Paul tells them he "hit them with everything he could" yet couldn't make the sale. It's almost as if he's comparing himself to a boxer in the ring, who keeps falling after punching his opponent with everything he has, as he's used by the person who sponsors the athlete.

Providing a valid reason for Paul's struggles is the film's use of logos to support the faulty American dream's argument. There's never a scene where Paul and the others enter an environment that seems luxurious nor exciting. They spend most of their time staying at sleazy motels and eating at smokey diners. The suburban American homes they visit aren't all that riveting either; they appear as shabby as the places they stay. Most of the houses seem to look the same, causing Paul to find himself lost as if he is trapped in a maze. The people the salesmen talk to aren't too different either, as many of them appear to be skeptical housewives who don't have a lot of money. The settings, along with the black-and-white cinematography, paints America as a dreary place. A country where one can succeed, except the grass, will never be greener. And the steps that we see the men take to achieve the American dream are not too satisfying. Just as they manipulate customers to make money, the sellers are portrayed as brainwashed puppets for their bosses to profit off religion. In every meeting the characters go to, they're constantly reminded that their failures to sell are all their fault. Therefore, they must push harder. That's not to say encouragement is not present, but much like how a salesman can make manipulative claims to tempt the customer, their bosses do the same to their employees. In the first of the few scenes of them attending a meeting, the person hosting it tells them that they had to let people go. Not for necessarily failing their job but based on the uncertainty if they are still qualified for their career after occasionally "going off base." He expects his employees to make the sales without fail and focus more on their work than their downtime. Paul later states in the film that a person who loses their push in the business is finished. Paul's statement implicates that he will eventually be terminated due to his constant failures as a salesman now that he is slipping at his job, realizing the industry uses people until they have lost their touch.

By incorporating ethos through the salesmen, pathos from Paul's perspective, and logos in its gritty depiction of life in America as a traveling salesman, the Maysles make it clear that the road to the American Dream is not as promising as it may seem. Getting the opportunity to explore America may sound adventurous, except that many parts look the same as others for how run-down they appear. A job may offer benefits and opportunities compared to others, but at the end of the day, the person working is exploited for their gifts from the higher ups until they have nothing left to offer. And what's worse is in a country that embraces religion, a religious symbol is used as a marketing tool for corrupt greed. Whether the person is the salesman or a customer, if there's one thing they share, they are always manipulated by other people.

Film Essay: The Struggle with the Inner Demons in the Hearts of Men

Last Halloween, I talked about two of cinema's greatest foes with a split personality Norman Bates, and Professor Jarrod. Both were frightening characters that carried out such vicious acts in their place of business, as we found ourselves having a bit of sympathy for them. I'd like to revisit the topic this Halloween, only instead of being characters who completely snapped as villains with no way to return back to sanity, I'm looking at the characters who always struggled. The kind of characters with personalities that are conflicted, or even at times split, like Jekyll and Hyde for instance.

WARNING: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS!

Two of these examples will include the classic Universal Monsters, only I'm going to start out with a character who's not from a horror film which is the man (George O'Brien) from "Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans". The film falls under the category of a romantic melodrama. Nevertheless, some elements in the film would qualify as being part of a thriller or a psychological drama. The atmosphere at times looking dark and dreary. It has nerve-racking suspense. And watching O’Brien performance of a man driven to insanity is highly intense to watch. Plus having F.W. Murnau (the director of "Nosferatu") in the director's chair would indeed help a lot when bringing terror where the film needs it.

To have the audience connect with the characters, Murnau chooses to give them no names to indicate that the events in the film could happen to anybody. The man in the film finds himself torn with the decision to kill his wife (Janet Gaynor). Before the events that currently take place within the film's narrative, he and his wife were once very happy as they lived on their farm without a single worry. As time went by, their love for each other began to fade away. They don't hate each other, but the spark that they once shared together is not as strong as it once was. Adding to his misery is that he is financially struggling to keep his farm, leading him to a loss of hope of rebuilding everything he previously had in his life.

Upon meeting a woman from the city (Margaret Livingston) who is visiting the countryside, he finds a new hope to gain something better than what he currently has. He is resistant at first, until she starts seducing him with a kiss and a promise for a new life of living in the city with her. All this excites him, because he has a chance to live with someone who gave him the same amount of love he used to have with his wife in the glory days. As well as living in a new environment that he's never been to before, but has heard amazing things about. Rather than just running away with her, the woman insists that he must kill his wife in order to sell his farm and live with her. For his envy to live a new life with a different woman, he takes up a more sinister personality to end his relationship with his wife by drowning her.

While looking hostile when trying to carry out his dark deed, he finds himself torn if he should go through with it or not. He wants to leave his old life, but he still feels remorse for her. Right from the start when he's given the idea, he doesn't jump-on it right away, he's very hesitant and fights back against the woman who puts these notions in his head. The primary reason why he finds himself so conflicted is that his wife is not exactly a bad person. She is sweet, humble, cares for him, and tries to help him out in any way she can. Her purity is what keeps him from murdering her, making him realize how blinded he was with excitement to be tempted to kill someone who has done him no harm. Because of his hesitance, he fulfills something better than what he was offered. He gets to rekindle his love with his wife by having a romantic date in the city together. During the trip unfortunately, he still fears giving into temptation when seeing a girl who reminds him of the city girl when given a shave. And when noticing that a rich man is hitting on her, believing that she will leave him or worse he threatens him with a knife. Though he finds himself incredibly happy with her, his fears of abandonment, and the savage side that was released from the woman he met earlier hasn't exactly left him.

Horror is always a great place to look for characters who struggle with their different personalities. Another famous mad scientist who struggles between personalities is the character Dr. Jack Griffin, better known as the Invisible Man (Claude Rains). Griffin was a struggling chemist who is deeply in love with his employer’s daughter Flora (Gloria Stuart). Feeling that he had nothing to offer her to be a worthy husband, he wanted to do something great to assure finical success by making a scientific break-through. He achieves this by finding the means to make himself invisible with the use of an obscure drug called monocane. Until he finds a way back to becoming visible, Griffin covers his face with bandages and dark goggles and runs off to an Inn far from home without anyone knowing his secret. The people at the Inn grow suspicious of him by his odd look and behaviors. When the owners have had enough of his strange habits as he is falling behind with paying rent, they try to evict him only to cause him to assault one of them forcing them to summon a police officer to arrest him for his crime. This action along with the dangerous side effects of the monocane that can cause a person to go insane causes him to snap and take-up his Invisible Man personality.

As the Invisible Man, he gives up using his discovery to benefit the world by seeking for world domination as his new goal. Knowing how he is the only person to have the power he found, he can use it to spread terror by causing mayhem through vandalism, robberies, and murders. The fact that no one will see him when he commits these crimes leaving people with the uncertainty of when and where he will strike next brings him nothing but joy. He shows no remorse when committing these crimes, he is insanely happy to watch people scream and suffer at his mercy. Having this power makes him feel like a god than just any other ordinary criminal. Though he is powerful, he acknowledges that he's not immortal because Mother Nature can still cause him to be spotted whether its water from the rain being on top of his head and shoulders, or the footprints he leaves in the snow as he freezes in the cold (he has to go about naked to be fully invisible). However, he is confident that he can work against Mother Nature after making such a grand discovery. With his power and fellow Scientist Dr. Kemp (William Harrigan) assisting him (who he forcefully recruited) he feels that nothing should get in his way.

There is one thing that can help Griffin regain sanity, the very person that motivated him to carry on his experiments, Flora. As soon as he hears about Flora's arrival to Kemp's home, his wild and hostile behavior dies down as he's reduced back to his old gentle sentimental self. Flora's presence reminds him of why he began all this in the first place, making him consider giving this power to the world instead of himself. With Flora bringing him back to the kind man he was before his transformation, her Father Dr. Cranley (Henry Travers) can reason with him by informing him about the dangers of the drug he used. Griffin is almost willing to call off his scheme, but due to the drugs still taking a toll on his way of thinking followed by the arrival of the police force, he goes back to his Invisible Man personality, but not before protecting Flora with the promise that he will return to her. He does see her, only it is on his deathbed after being shot in both lungs. Before dying, with the drug wearing off the last thing he tells her is his realization that there are things that man should not meddle with, leaving the viewer with his dead body slowly becoming visible.

Mad scientists are not the only kind of characters in the Universal Monster series that struggles between personalities. Let us not forget about how poor Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) struggles when he became the Wolf Man. Unlike how the previous two characters developed their alternate personality through their desires, Larry was simply a regular man who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Before Larry's incident with the wolf, he already had problems. For being away from home for so long in another country, he feels out of place, having trouble adjusting to his old surroundings as he's about to be given the estate after his brother's passing. The only thing that is keeping his feet on the ground is his love interest in Gwen (Evelyn Ankers). Ever since his encounter with the wolf he killed, he found himself descending into madness. Everybody in the village suspect him of being murderer since he owns the weapon that killed a gypsy (Bela Lugosi). And when he tries to convince others that he killed a werewolf and was bitten by one, people think he's insane since there is no evidence to prove it (down to the point where is bite mark disappears).



While the villagers point fingers at him for going off the deep end, the Mother (Maria Ouspenskaya) of the deceased gypsy tells him that he is becoming a werewolf after being bitten by one who used to be her son before he killed him. Larry would never ever think or believe about the subject of werewolves. Now that he is in an environment where people are making him feel and think that he's a murderer and a werewolf, it brings him to a paranoid state of mind where he becomes nervous around everyone, especially when he hears or sees something that's related to the symbol of his fear. When asking his Father (Claude Rains) about his fear, he tells him that there is good and evil in every man's soul, where in his case his evil has taken the form of a wolf. People tend to simply judge life simply what they see is good or bad. Considering how everybody has a different point of view, the more a person dives deeper into the topic of trying to understand every side the less sure of an answer shall be found. He closes this conversation by informing him that "anything can happen to a man in his own mind".

Larry discovers the truth after waking up from his second transformation, as the Wolf Man. When becoming the Wolf Man, Larry has no control of his actions now that his inner demons have taken control of his alternate personality. Therefore, he will go on attacking anybody he sees, especially those who are marked for death when he sees the pentagram appear in his or her hand. To avoid hurting anyone with his other personality, he tries to run and hide from those who want to help him, going as far to begging his Father to strap him in a chair and lock him up in his room. He knows he can't save himself from this curse, but he can try to save others from him. Never does Larry find any moments of peace from his struggle with his split personality until he suffers from the same fate that the Gypsy did, only this time it is at the hands of his own father instead of a stranger.

Hopefully next year I will find time to write more than one horror related and essay for October. Until then, Happy Halloween!

Deep Blue Sea

Traditionally, I review at least one shark movie or "JAWS" knock-off every summer. This summer I'm deciding to look at a popular shark movie...

 

From website rankings to "JAWS" fans, to even people like Roger Ebert and (at the time wounded) Stephen King, "Deep Blue Sea" is regarded to be one of the better shark movies outside of "JAWS." That's not to say it's hailed to be better or as masterful as "JAWS," nor has it been widely seen as a genuinely good movie. But compared to many other B shark movies that are usually forgotten or overlooked, "Deep Blue Sea" has gained a reputation and legacy overtime that's still present among fans of shark movies. I don't expect it to be an incredible film, but is it as decent of a shark movie as people have built up to be? ON WITH THE REVIEW!

Set at a remote underwater laboratory called Aquatica, scientists lead by Dr. Susan McCallister (Saffron Burrows) are in search of a cure for Alzheimer's disease, using sharks as their test subjects. The results of finding the cure are successful, but Susan has enhanced the sharks' brain size during the experiments, making them intelligent while gaining extraordinary abilities. During a raging storm, the sharks flood the underwater facility as they swim around, preying on the people caught in the disaster. The only chance for the team's survival is by reaching the surface.



The set-up alone isn't half-bad. If anything, it's very intense, providing a claustrophobic environment where the characters face other possible fates than just serving as a tasty meal for the film's predators. This kind of premise isn't the first time a shark movie involved a shark attacking an underwater base. There was already "JAWS 3-D" when the shark trapped a bunch of tourists at a marine aquarium and broke the glass in "Sea World's" underwater control room. Unlike how "JAWS 3-D" did so little with these breathtaking scenarios, this film takes full advantage of it by continually throwing one obstacle after another as the characters try to escape. This film takes a few things from "JAWS" in terms of a few shots, and cues for its opening score. But they're very minimal. The only direct reference the film makes is when a license plate is pulled out of the shark's mouth, looking identical to the one used in the movie that launched this particular sub-horror genre. And I have to admit; it was a funny nod for how out of nowhere it was. The film's plot functions more like a shark version of "Jurassic Park." An accident involving a predator altered by science summons an outsider (played by one of the actors in the dinosaur film Samuel L. Jackson) to investigate, similar to how the characters were brought to the park. And just how these intelligent dinosaurs were able to escape from their cages and eat any human they come across, the sharks who are given knowledge and escape from their cages behave no different. This film is more deserving of the title "Jurassic Shark" than the actual "Jurassic Shark" film. With all joking aside, despite its similarities to "Jurassic Park," it's still original enough to stand on its own, and it's in many ways cool to see a shark version of a classic dinosaur Blockbuster that in some ways improves upon the ideas in "JAWS 3-D."



The film doesn't look cheaply made like other shark movies either. Visually it's fun to watch. The sets for Aquatica give this location enough personality to make it a fascinating facility to explore. The exteriors to the site look as gigantic and spacious as the sets in "WaterWorld." The interiors provide a stunning yet claustrophobic environment that is dangerously ominous as a disaster scene in a James Cameron film or the Nostromo in "Alien." The sharks' effects are indeed some of the best special effects shown in a shark film. The attention to detail to these massive animatronic sharks' appearances and movement look so life-like that it's scary. The film even went as far as to use real-life sharks in some of the scenes, and sometimes, it's hard to tell which is real and which is animatronic. The only time it's easy to see when they're fake is when the film resorts to CGI-ing them. At least in other shark films that use CGI effects, they're at least consistently hideous, making them look boring than offensively dreadful. Combining such bottom of the barrel CGI effects with such realistic looking sharks is just as painfully distracting as watching Godzilla in the "Millennium Era" become computer-generated.



Perhaps if the film had thrilling direction, maybe overlooking the film's ugly CGI would be somewhat forgivable. After all, the shark in "JAWS" wasn't technically advanced either, and people still praise the movie as a masterpiece in horror. And sure the film has its moments of genuine suspense. The opening scene involving the shark attacking a bunch of teenagers on a boat in the middle of the sea is well-paced, builds anticipation by keeping the shark hidden, and has a surprise ending that doesn't often happen at the beginning of shark films. And the scene when Susan finds herself trapped in a room with one of the sharks is pretty terrifying, given there's no place to get around it. Easily the most chilling death in the film is watching one of the team members disappear underwater after having trouble reaching the ladder as Aquatica floods. And when you think she's done for, she pops right up a few seconds later in the jaws of the shark's mouth, screaming to then disappearing again underwater filled with blood. It's a well-orchestrated demise that's as spine-tingling as watching the man on the rowboat in "JAWS" vanish underwater. And the gore effects (that isn't animated) are a gruesome sight to watch (when judging the standards of the genre). But as a whole, the suspense isn't that strong.



The film creates such great set-ups worthy of both action and suspense, only to rush through them, focusing more on action than with terror. One example involves a chef played by LL Cool J getting trapped inside an oven underwater with the shark trying to break it open as he's slowly getting roasted. The thought of this idea alone makes my heart-pond for how horrific it is. But the scene doesn't create much of an impact of what's at stake. Cool J doesn't look like he's boiling, nor acts like he's in pain or in parallel (more laughing at the irony of his supposed fate if he doesn't escape), while the shots of the shark ramming the oven are edited so fast that there's no time to feel the weight of each time it crashes. It comes off as Cool J performing an escape act that Houdini would do for how comical and in control he is, rather than afraid of facing two possible deaths with little chance of survival. There's a scene when a shark drags a guy strapped onto a stretcher underwater and flings him to break the glass where the lab's located. Again, another frightening idea that's also used as a surprise attack. But seeing a victim attached to the mouth of the CG shark is still laughable, and witnessing the characters watch the fake CG glass break so calmly makes this scene almost as silly as "JAWS 3-D".



And yes, the film does have more than enough over the top deaths that are funny than they are scary, sometimes offering big fake explosions and over-dramatic use of slow-mo. The funniest ones usually happen when people are happy or relieved until a fake CG shark comes out of nowhere to attack them. The most ridiculous scene that gets mentioned a lot when regarding this film is Samuel L Jackson's death. It's mainly remembered for how this big named star gets eaten by one fake shark followed by another after he makes a very corny motivational speech supported by uplifting music. For me, what makes it funny is that he's making a speech about survival as he stands right in front of the pool where a shark just destroyed their submarine. We know people make stupid decisions in horror films all the time. But there's a difference between paranoia stupidity, and stupidly walking into danger when the signs are right in front of you. Even with a "don't stand there" sign in big letters with neon lights and an arrow, I think Jackson's character still would've ignored it as if a damaged vehicle as their only way out right next to the spot isn't clear enough. It's a real pity that Jackson wasn't one of the survivors in this ordeal. Towards the end of the film, one of the survivors who gets horrifically bitten leaving a bloody trail behind somehow survives not looking as bad as he did when the shark bit him. If the film is going to use the same nonsensical logic of surviving and looking okay after being bitten by a shark from "JAWS: The Revenge," can it be given to Jackson?



Part of what makes many shark movies a bore is by focusing too much on the bland characters and their relationships, which are typically performed by terrible actors or big-named stars who don't try. This film spares that pain by having the plot focus more on the sharks and escaping from Aquatica than the characters. I'm all up in arms for having good characters in shark movies, except these films do it so rarely. This film creates characters who are easy to identify, provide a little bit of background history, focus purely on science and survival, and that's it. There's no romance, no constant rivalry towards each other, and very few drawn-out scenes that stop the film for them talking about their past or expressing emotion. It's just creating science and figuring out ways to get out and defeat the sharks, no filler.



Now just because the characters are simplistic, they could still be irritating or downright dull to get through if they're not acted well. While I can't say the acting in this film is anything special because it can be too over the top, nonchalant, and annoying at times, it's not bad. If anything, the acting is pretty decent, and at times believable. The pain and paranoia that the actors show is always constant where the struggles they go through (most of the time) feel real if not intense. Part of that is because the actors look uncomfortable. Getting drenched by water while standing in it for hours doesn't sound like a fun experience. Samuel L. Jackson claimed that working in the water wasn't just unpleasant, but it led to the actors accidentally getting poured with three tons of water that swept them across the set without a safety harness. And as disastrous as it was, the actors stayed in character as this accident was kept in the final movie when they tried to reach the elevator during the storm.



As the actors appear to look like their struggling, only a few of them stand-out as the rest are disposable for how little of an impression they leave. Dr. Susan would be the female equivalent of Dr. Frankenstein if she were under the direction of James Cameron. She's a stubborn, headstrong woman who breaks the rules of science for the best interest of humanity only to have it back-fire and put her and others in danger yet still pushes through to survive. She's not the best-written complex character or one of the strongest female characters in cinema; nevertheless, Saffron Burrows' performance still provides an excellent performance. Thomas Jane fits as the film's macho hero Carter, who's as vulnerable as the rest of the characters, yet have a strict and controlling presence when things seem impossible. Although he is portrayed as the film's hero and has plenty of interactions with the sharks, the film surprisingly doesn't have him kill any sharks. And unfortunately, neither does Samuel L. Jackson. It's LL Cool J as the film's comic relief who gets most of the shark action. It's a great twist to have your comic relief act more as the hero than the supposed hero if only the character were funny. LL Cool J may be good at rapping, but comedy is not one of his talents. His delivery and the jokes he has to work with can be so annoyingly awkward for how unnaturally forced and odd they are that I was anxiously waiting for a shark to devour him as quickly as possible. Originally Samuel L Jackson was going to play the character until his management rejected him playing a chef, thus creating a different role for him. I'm not saying the humor would be funny. Still, knowing Jackson's aggressively loud exaggerated personality in most of his work, he would most likely be more enjoyably entertaining compared to Cool J. Instead, we see a great actor who is perfect for a film of this kind get killed off way too soon, as Cool J's unfunny performance takes his place. The very least couldn't Carter be the character you'd think would lead the film be the one to die early since the film doesn't allow him to kill one of the sharks.

Overall Thoughts

"Deep Blue Sea" is full of flaws that can get quite degrading many times. But for the things it does right, it delivers more than enough good to warrant a view. If you can get past its eye-bleeding CGI, visually, it's one of the best-looking shark films out there for its innovative sets and outstanding practical shark effects. Aside from Cool J, the performances don't bore or annoy as each actor can turn in a good, if not a fantastic performance. And seeing that the film treats itself as a straightforward action film makes it an entertaining experience than sitting through the typical problems that most shark films have in their narrative. I was surprised by how the picture was able to deliver some legit terror and some genuinely funny moments, as most of these films usually fail at both. If you're not looking for big thrills and character depth and just want to be entertained by watching characters fight and escape from sharks with some cool effects, you'll be glad you watched it. It's the perfect mindless action-packed pop-corn B shark movie to view outside of "JAWS" that I'm satisfied I saw.

Jurassic World

It's July 4th, and it's time for me to review another sequel from Spielberg's unofficial Monster trilogy. I have completed all the infamous "JAWS" sequels, but I still have to finish reviewing the "Jurassic Park" sequels. I've covered all the sequels when they had "Park" in the title, now it's time to review the film that brought back the franchise since the damage of the third installment...



I have yet to re-watch the film since the last time I saw it in the cinemas when it first came out. My first impression was finding the film fun and nothing else. I thought it was the best of the sequels; I just didn't find myself loving it compared to the first film. Re-watching it now, did the film get any better, worse, or is it still okay? ON WITH THE REVIEW!



Ignoring how the film completely abandons the lessons learned about the park in the first movie. Hammond's wishes of leaving the dinosaurs alone in the second film. And that the film is going to reteach the same lesson about tampering with nature as we've seen in the first two films, the set-up is excellent. Part of the wonder of "Jurassic Park" is the imagination of how the concept of a dinosaur amusement park would function. We saw and heard about some attractions, but the film made it clear that there is more than meets the eye since the park is still in development. It felt like taking a stroll through the "imagineering department" and "Disneyland" under construction before opening with Walt Disney as a guide. We have an idea, but we're excited to see and learn more based on the previews and John Hammond's enthusiasm. I was hyped yet fearful that the film was going to shatter that part of the imagination from the first film, only to be surprised by how well the film magnificently executes the idea.



If "Jurassic Park" reflects "Disneyland" in the making, then "Jurassic World" resembles "Disney World" functioning as a theme park, zoo, and resort, with a little bit of "Sea World." Before the film reveals the attractions, to build-up to the wonders of the park, it shows audiences around the resort part of the Island to an updated version of Visitor's Center filled with high tech computers and holograms. The attractions themselves are as enchanting as any person who loves Dinosaurs would imagine, where kids can feed, pet, and ride on some of the dinosaurs like ponies. Spectacular shows (one mainly mimicking the Shamu show at "Sea World") and exhibits showing dangerous dinosaurs eating and doing cool tricks act as the park's source of entertainment. And of course, there are numerous rides to give guests a thrill while interacting with dinosaurs, including a tour inside a sphere (that has so many safety hazards that it's outstanding that it's been operating for so long). It goes right to the detail of giving the guests special wristbands (that are similar "Disney Magic Bands"), an attraction with a sponsor, and those silly safety videos with a celebrity. It looks and feels like an actual theme park. Yet as grand as it is, there is a depressing undertone that keeps it from enchanting. Unlike how the dinosaurs in the original park had wide open landscapes to live without too much human interference, this place is consumed by corporations dominating this land. The guests themselves are always seen occupying the dinosaur's space. The park was still in development in the first film; however, from John Hammond's love for the dinosaurs, he provided them more than enough space to live in his park (becoming one of his setbacks to why the dinosaurs didn't show up on the tour). The people who run the park don't care about the dinosaurs the same way Hammond did. They just see them as profit that they want to create and aggressively control to please crowds. It's a beautifully perfect set-up for a story of playing God with nature, creating an environment that looks stunning yet lacks enchantment for having people's heart entirely in the wrong place.



The beauty of the film's premise is it doesn't just decide to have dinosaurs run amuck in an operational theme park; it goes out of its way to create a brand new dinosaur called the Indominus Rex. I've always considered "Jurassic Park" to be a dinosaur version of "Frankenstein" for its themes on life told through Sci-Fi and horror with the dinosaurs in the place of the monster who are scary and sympathetic. This film takes the extra step of combining different types of dinosaurs into one, similar to how Dr. Frankenstein stitched different body parts together to create a man. And the reason why they chose to develop it is a clever idea. It's not just for the sake of raising profits. It's because people have become so used to dinosaurs that they no longer are interested in them and are more fascinated with technology and social media. The film doesn't clearly state how many years the park has been running, making this disinterest confusing since it doesn't feel that too much time has passed.



Nonetheless, it's still an ingenious idea because dinosaurs are animals, and therefore will eventually be looked at as regular animals all the time no matter how long they've been extinct. There are practically a million creative ways to combine different dinosaurs into one. Also, given that this new breed has spent its whole life in captivity away from other dinosaurs and is a mixture of different dinosaurs, this could be a story as tragic the Frankenstein monster. Imagine the dinosaur confused about who it is and where it is, angry for humans showing no mercy, and frightened of not just the human's hunting it down but also with the other dinosaurs. All these reasons give the Indominus Rex a perfect motivation to violently destroy everything in its path as its only means to deal with its emotions. The idea and its possibilities can easily be the plot for the movie for how intriguing and innovative it is.



The only tragedy related to the dinosaur in the finished film is how the film decides to waste all this potential just to have the Indominus Rex be nothing more than a monster. There are talks in the movie of how keeping the dinosaur isolated will cause it to go insane and cause mayhem, but when it does, it never feels like it's doing it out of emotion. It's destroying and eating people because that's what wild monsters do. When interacting with other dinosaurs, it kills them just for sport or quickly gets them to team up with it. Sympathy is non-existent. But hey, if it looks cool and scary, that should make up for it? The film has been building it up to be as frightening as the Velociraptors were, as well as different. No, it looks very bland and uninspiring. It seems like a gray T-rex with bumps. I'm not expecting something as over the top as a monster from a movie from the Syfy Channel, but I anticipate seeing something scary, cool, and original. And it has neither. It has a unique ability to camouflage like the Predator, which is neat, but as soon as that is revealed, it never does it again. That ability's only used as a tool for it to escape when having a faulty system controlled by workers who are lazy and overconfident is more than enough.



The effects don't do the creature many favors either. After Spielberg stopped directing the films, the special effects in the third film took the series a step backward for relying too much on CGI and having animatronics that looks suitable for a ride at "Universal Studios." The effects in "Jurassic World" only get worse by having the CGI pretty much dominate the film. Practicals have been used on the set, probably originally intending to use animatronics unaltered. Little good that did since it's clear that CGI was used over them to give them more life. To be fair, most of the scenes that choose to combine both special effects do appear to be living and breathing animals that you can touch, particularly the raptors with the squeeze cages, and the Apatosaurus. Everything else looks as phony as the dinosaurs in the last film for how animated they appear. Some may argue that the CGI in the original movie may seem dated, and while I can see their points, the dinosaurs still look like they're present most of the time. I will say this in defense to the dinosaurs in this film; they don't look as bad as the CGI for the bird, goat, and helicopter. Then again, the Pteranodons in "Jurassic Park 3" look more realistic than the pterosaurs'.



For the dinosaurs looking like they belong in a video game, naturally, that would mean the scares that the film attempts will suffer. Sure, but it's more than just the effects looking too computerized. Going back to the original classic, the scenes involving horror would take their time to build-up tension before the dinosaurs attacked as many of the scenes took place in a dark environment. "Jurassic World" has minimal patients with creating terror, as the scenes that are supposed to be slow-moving move at a rapidly fast pace to get to the action. Making things worse is that half of the scenes with the dinosaurs killing people occur during the day, making the scenes look less menacing and more like a summer B movie. The death scenes themselves go by just as quickly as the suspense that there's no time to feel the impact of it. The only death scene that looks and feels brutal is when a woman gets attacked by pterosaurs and devoured by a Mosasaurus. It's a great death scene that's dreadfully wasted on the wrong character. Some characters are deserving a fate as horrible as this, yet the film decides to take its sweet time, showing every graphic detail of a character getting munched who has a minor role.



A definite weakness that the franchise has failed to recapture from the first movie are likable characters who leave an impression. The sequels' characters were either bland, forgettable, irritating, or downright insulting (considering what the sequels did to the characters from the original). The characters in this film aren't that different either. I can't say they're as dull as the characters in "The Lost World," or as insufferable as most of the characters in "Jurassic Park 3". They're bearable at best, which I suppose is a slight improvement but not by much. The film has a few characters who are altered versions of the characters in the original. Some who have potential, like the park owner played by Irrfan Khan, who's a younger version of John Hammond, who's carefree like him except he leans more towards the business side and plans to take action when the systems are down. Others who just exist to be exactly like a character with only one significant difference, such as the nerdy comic relief (Jake Johnson) working in a control room similar to Wayne Knight's role, except he is a good guy than the antagonist. And some are just bland copies, like the kid Gray (Ty Simpkins) who's just a modern version of Tim, as he accompanied by an older brother (Nick Robinson) (instead of an older sister) who (unlike Lex) has no personality during their trip through the park.



The kids are at the park for the very same reason that Lex and Tim are. They're sent to spend time with their Aunt Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) who helps run the park due to their parents getting a divorce. Claire herself is given a similar arc that Alan Grant had with the kids, by having her slowly build a bond with them as they adventure through the park. Nothing about Claire herself before she gets in on the adventure is anything special; she's just the typical stock workaholic guardian. Once Claire sets her high-heels out into the jungle to rescue her nephews (it's ridiculous that she wears them all this time, but isn't as distracting as people make it out to be), by the end of the film her relationship with the kids don't seem to change. The kids for the first two halves of the film have been outrunning the dinosaurs on their own, leaving no bonding time between them and their aunt where the focus should be. And after they meet-up at the end of the second half, there's still little to no time for the film to be building a connection because they're focused on stopping the new dinosaur than just getting the kids to safety. Alan Grant spent the entire second half of the film protecting and interacting with the kids. Claire spends most of her time with the Velociraptor whisperer Owen (Chris Pratt) trying to find them as the movie forces an afterthought romantic subplot between them.



I have to give the sequels credit for this because as they continued, the human villains started feeling less like villains and more like humans. As forgettable as the poachers were in "The Lost World" they still were willing to lend a helping hand to the "heroes." And the antagonist in "Jurassic Park 3" wasn't a villain in the first place, just a kid with good intentions who didn't think of the consequences of his actions. Regarding earlier about how the park is so corporate that the love for dinosaurs doesn't feel existent, seeing how most of the characters we spend time with are people running the park, this film would take the extra step by giving most of the cast antagonistic traits. Characters who are doing wrong without realizing it as they are consumed by profits only to learn their lesson when they watch the park fall. After all, they are the ones who created the Indominus Rex, therefore responsible for the problems that happened, making this more of a cautionary tale compared to any of the previous films (including the first film) for how there is no real villain this time. Blind greed and wanting to control nature is more than enough to put people's lives at stake, and it can happen to people who mean no harm.



The message is there, but the film decides to shoehorn in an obvious villain with no redeemable qualities played by Vincent D'Onofrio. No, he isn't a cold-hearted businessman who has nothing but money signs in his eyes, not to say he isn't greedy. He's the cliched military warmonger who you'd swear came out of a Saturday Morning Cartoon for how stupid his goal is. He's not the gung-ho military archetype who wants to kill the dinosaurs without preserving them or is doing something foolishly extreme that could endanger the people at the park. He's on the dinosaur's side for a different reason. He plans to weaponize the trained Raptors and sell them so they can eat the enemies on the battlefields. This plan is so ridiculous for how illogical it sounds that Chris Pratt points out how implausible it is, only making this guy's idea sound sillier than a severe threat to humanity. It's a plan that's going to backfire as soon as someone officially more idiotic than D'Onofrio's character approves it. And out of nowhere, the film makes Dr. Henry Wu (the only character from the first film making an appearance, played again by BD Wong) a twist villain, that doesn't go anywhere after the reveal. The strange part is, he already looks and acts like an obvious villain before the twist by always resembling a bond villain. It's odd to see a pleasant character who only has one scene in the first movie, now suddenly looking menacing from start to finish. What exactly is it with the "Jurassic Park" sequels changing their original characters for the worst (except for John Hammond, at least he was spared)?



The only character in the film who's both fascinating and memorable is Chris Pratt's character Owen. Not so much his personality, more because of what he does. Going into this film, I was sure that I would be let down by this character's relationship with the Velociraptors. The Velociraptors have been through plenty of ups and downs in the franchise. They were frightening in the first film; lost everything that made them scary as they were dumbed down in the second film; and were given the silliest moment in the franchise only to regain some dignity when they took action in the third film. To now have Star-Lord from "Guardians of the Galaxy" team-up with some of the scariest dinosaurs in film history sounded as goofy as the villain's master plan. Little did I know that his relationship with them would be the best interaction in the entire movie. Just because Owen imprinted on them since they were born as he trains and feeds them doesn't mean they love him like a father. They're still wild animals that can turn on him at any moment if he or others makes a single wrong move or so much as turns his back. Their relationship is built on trust, then it is love, making the connection believable. Pratt's acting furthers the believe-ability of this relationship for how frustrated and nervous he always looks when he's around them while still trying to maintain his cool. It takes a lot of guts, patients, and discipline to train a raptor, and Pratt successfully displays all those qualifications on-screen. Forgetting how fake the raptors look most of the time, the only real downside to this relationship is that the film backfires its message of not controlling nature when in the finale, it proves that they can. And the raptors don't just randomly fight like the T-Rex did at the end of the first film, they do it for their master.



Owen is the most intriguing character in the entire franchise because there are so many things that can be explored about him compared to other characters in the franchise. To be perfectly honest about the characters in "Jurassic Park," they're boringly simplistic on paper. On-screen however, they feel like people that you'd like to sit down and have a conversation. In this film, most of the characters are disposable, yet aren't as bad as the characters in the sequels. So, what is it that the characters in the first film have that this one is lacking? One word, charisma. It's easy to tell where the arcs in the original are going to go, who's going to die, and which one is going to be the brute, the comic relief, and the villain. What saves them from coming off as bland character archetypes is through the performances that the characters give.



As over the top they can be at times, they give their characters plenty of personality than what's written. Ian Malcolm can joke around and still prove his points with his excessive nature. Alan Grant can be a buzzkill; only he doesn't feel like he has just one face the entire time until rescuing the kids. He does smile, chuckle, and look genuinely excited like a kid when he sees the dinosaurs. Nedry is an incompetent baddie we feel no sympathy for, but we love to laugh with and at him from Wayne Knight's energy and timing in his deliveries. Donald Gennaro and Mr. Arnold are undoubtedly going to be on the menu. But they still stand-out for how happily anxious Gennaro wishes to profit from the park, and Arnold's cool and laid-back personality, feeling less like dull characters who just exist to die. The characters personalities weren't just enjoyable; their chemistry felt legit. Grant and Sattler were a cute couple. The bond that Grant has with the kids was adorable without feeling forced. The reactions that people have from Malcolm when he interacts with them are funny because they seem genuinely annoyed. There are subplots in the first film that are pointless too but are often overlooked for how charming and entertaining they all are.



The acting in "Jurassic World" doesn't allow the actors to have fun with their characters. Colin Trevorrow's direction tries so hard to make these lighthearted characters serious that their reaction comes off as artificial as the dinosaurs' effects for how pretentious it is. Not to say they don't have moments where they turn in an excellent performance, such as Chris Pratt's determination to take care of the raptors, and Dr. Wu's conversation with the park's owner, they're just so rare. Everything about the performances feels unnatural. They sound way too rehearsed, and appear to all have the same blank expression. In some ways, they act like the kid working the Gyropshere who hates his job and doesn't care for how lacking they are of emotion. It's sadder when the character they act like is the only actor who has a consistently good performance out all of them for how he seems genuinely unhappy with his job and confused when things get out of control. I praised Chris Pratt, but even he has plenty of moments where he lacks emotions, including in some scenes when he's angry. There's a sense that the actors are forced to restrain their acting abilities than going all out. Simpkins, Khan, Johnson, and D'Onofrio always feel like they are held on a leash for wanting to give more personality and expression to the characters than the performances shown in the finished film. When the actors do go for big emotions when they're not trying to look serious while speaking in a nonchalant monotone voice, their performances are only sillier for how overdone they are as their eyes are covered in fake tears.



For all its faults, "Jurassic World" still contains some of the best scenes in the entire franchise. The scene involving the dying Apatosaurus is seriously the most depressing scene shown in any "Jurassic Park" film. It's a quiet scene where the visuals do all the telling rather than the dialogue, which is paced slow, contains appropriate soft music, and has the most emotion a dinosaur has ever shown for how detailed its expressions are without going overboard. The pterosaurs' causing havoc in the park offers more than how the third film handled these flying reptiles. It doesn't play out for any kind of suspense (not to say the third film handled it well), and the effects for them are still horrific, but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't an entertaining sequence when looking at it as a giant B monster movie scene. We're not seeing these creatures pray on a few humans in a jungle; we're seeing them at the park destroying buildings, picking up multiple people and killing them in many different ways. The absolute highlight of the movie is the final monster brawl with the Velociraptors and the T-Rex fighting against the Indominus Rex playing off like a climax to a Godzilla movie, filled with the perfect amount of action, excitement, tension, and destruction. It's a pity that the film doesn't contain more scenes of dinosaurs running wild in the actual park itself because those two scenes and its environment make the film a treat to watch.



Part of the fun of watching the movie is catching the many references to the first film. Usually when a sequel keeps calling back to the original, it's done out of laziness and can be quite annoying for how it obviously tries to bank on nostalgia. This film has its moments to wink at the fans of the first film, as well as having a whole scene dedicated to just pure nostalgia. For the most part, it's pretty subtle with its callbacks. In the new Visitor's Center, Mr. DNA and the hologram of the Dilophosaurus are featured clearly on-screen, but for those really paying attention to the Mise-en-scene can find a memorial statue of John Hammond and a television promo for "Jurassic Tennis" (one of the coming attractions featured in Hammond's dining room in the original). Jeff Goldblum makes an appearance as Ian Malcolm, only he appears on the cover of a book, as opposed to visiting at the park, that's a blink and miss catch. Sometimes, a reference can be right in front of a fan the whole time and wouldn't be noticed, like the color of clothing Claire and Owen wear. Some of the dialogue as well contains subtle references, whether it's Owen's comment regarding the difference between drones and dinosaurs, or a particular menu item heard on the loudspeakers.

Overall Thoughts

"Jurassic World" ironically has the appeal of visiting a theme park. There's a lot of waiting to get to the action and imagination that this film offers, but once those scenes happen, they feel worthwhile. The film is heavily flawed by having poorly written characters, performances that don't have charm, overuse of digital effects, great ideas that are wasted, and lack of scares. However, there's enough entertainment value to make it worth seeing. The park is phenomenal, the Easter eggs are everywhere, Chris Pratt's relationship with the Velociraptors is surprisingly intriguing, and some of the dinosaur action is some of the sequels best. "Jurassic World" is the best of the sequels for feeling less insulting than 3 and more entertaining than 2 combined with the scenes mentioned that make it an experience. But looking and thinking back to the previous two sequels, though my opinions haven't changed, I can still see the appeal they have in the same way people see the "Stars Wars Prequels." They're seriously flawed films that don't measure up with their predecessor. But they have a few scenes, ideas, impressive effects, and moments that shouldn't go unnoticed whether they're good movies or not and "Jurassic World" is no exception.

I Have a "YouTube" Channel

Hey everyone, Tyler, the Movie Maniac here. For those following my profile, you may notice that the reviews on my blog have significantly decreased over time. I've stated this a while back because of new responsibilities eating up my time, which remains valid. Though I've been sheltered at home during quarantine, I still have been working on other projects. Over the past few months, I've been experimenting with trying new methods to express my love for film. A week ago, I posted my first ever "YouTube" video regarding the subject of cinema. Only it wasn't a review, more of a memoir of what made me a movie maniac. While I have some extra down-time, I'm going to be creating videos to see how I do as "YouTuber". I'll admit that it's more demanding than running a blog, but it's still fun, rewarding, and in some ways, helping me improve upon the skills I have and finding new ones. Now that doesn't mean I'm done with the blog. I plan to do both. I'm working on a few written reviews at the current time, while I'm brainstorming for the topic for my next video. Since I now have two different sites to review, there will be a shortage of content. I may have to eliminate a few traditions to keep posting new material, but nothing that I intend to change yet. If I do consider these changes, I will announce it.

For those curious to see my first video, and perhaps follow my "YouTube" channel, the link is below.

https://www.youtube.com/user/tylermoviepro

For those who have requests or ideas of what I should review or talk about on either page regarding films made at least 5 years ago, let me know. I love to cater to those who follow my content.

Peace and Love

Film Essay: What Makes Women Characters Special in James Cameron Films?

WARNING: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS!

Director James Cameron has been known for directing blockbuster classics such as the first two "Terminator" films, "Aliens," and "Titanic,". As male audiences cheered , female audiences weren't deprived of female characters to root and relate to. Rather than being likable, innocent, defenseless eye candy trophies for the male protagonists, they are just as daring, heroic, and macho as the males.



Ellen Ripley from "Aliens" and Sarah Connor from "The Terminator" films for example are aggressive, headstrong women fighting against authority to protect people from the near-certain doom that awaits them, whether its an army of aliens or machines. They are knowledgeable about the dangers if this threat is not controlled, serving as a loud voice of reason that gets ignored because of greed or because they are seen as insane. Naturally, both have to break the rules of authority by breaking the law, doing whatever is necessary to keep people safe. They show no mercy when fighting against the monsters, at times fighting through their pain. They're skillful fighters, using whatever tools they find that can be of use when killing the film's primary antagonists. Sarah, for instance, uses a machine to crush the terminator at the end of the first Terminator, just as Ripley uses a forklift and an airlock to destroy the Queen Alien.



Not all the women in Cameron's films had to prove they are were as tough as men. Rose in "Titanic" was just as smart and determined, as the other women.  As Ripley and Sarah physically both fought off a foe; Rose wants to live an adventurous life with Jack. Rose knew that she will be as miserable and bitter as her mother showing female viewers that strength comes from pursuing a dream.



Cameron shows female protagonists having the same abilities of male protagonists without them abandoning their feminine side. Rose, for example, wears elegant clothing, has lovely hair, uses make-up,and poses in the nude. Nevertheless, looks aren't everything to define a woman. Rose, in one scene, joins a party in with the lower class, drinks hard liquor, and grabs a smoke out of a man's mouth. But she gets the men's full approval for being tight from her dancing skills by performing a stand "en pointe" for a few seconds, showing you don't always have to act like a man to impress. Though Rose's desire is freedom, what helps drive her to that freedom is her attraction to Jack. It's as clichéd as a Disney fairy-tale, yet that doesn't mean that strong people aren't incapable of feeling love and emotion either. Sarah Connor fell in love with Kyle, the soldier from the future, Kyle before turning into a commando warrior. After losing him, she keeps his spirit alive by teaching her son all the skills she learned to assure that John will save humanity from the machines during a war in the future. Sarah loves her son; however, the motherly qualities of a female protagonist are better shown with Ripley. When Ripley isn't commanding the troops or killing aliens, she spends her time taking care of an orphan girl named Newt, whose family was killed by the aliens. As Sarah always remains in her war-frame of mind, Ripley puts it aside, understanding that Newt is alone and scared with nowhere to go. She now has a mellow presence to comfort her as she feeds her, cleans her, encourages her, and tucks her in, treating Newt as if she were her daughter, revealing a tender side of herself.



Cameron successfully demonstrates that being feminine doesn't mean being weak. That doesn't mean these characters are superheroes without flaws. Just having a female who's powerful, knowledgeable, and still acting like their gender as they fight isn't always exciting enough. As any good heroic character should have no matter what gender they are, they need to have flaws and weaknesses to make them engaging. Otherwise, they'd be too perfect, resulting in them being boring, and the power and skills they gain would not feel as rewarding. Rose may be glamorous looking, but she's not flawless. Before she meets Jack, she feels doomed in the life she lives with no fun and adventure, feeling more like an object than a person for her fiancé. Her first thought to leave it all behind wasn't to run away; she attempted suicide, feeling there's no other way out.



Sarah Connor in the first Terminator was nowhere close to being the hero people praise her for. She was clumsy, unorganized, a push-over, and very vulnerable. For most of the film, she's always rescued Kyle. It's not until the climax of the movie when Sarah starts to become hardened, rescuing Kyle. Everything that mattered to her is stripped away, including her lover. In the second film, when she fully evolves as high as she is at fighting, she can still be vulnerable by having trouble escaping and getting injured. She's not just weak in battle; she has character flaws when it comes to dealing with emotion. Like Kyle, she kept all of her feelings inside her, treating her son more like a solider than loving him like a son, making John feel unloved and feeling a loss of childhood. John, at one point, thinks he's going to get a hug from her after breaking her out of a mental institution but instead checks to see if he's hurt as Sarah frustratingly says his mission to rescue her was stupid. When she's not awake fighting, and concealing her emotions, she has nightmares of judgment day, only making her feel more unstable.



Ripley suffers from nightmares as well. Ripley's near-death encounter has traumatized her so much that it prevents her from destroying the aliens. She'd preferably work on the loading docks, knowing she will be safe from harm. Of course, she does eventually go out on the battlefield destroying all traces of the aliens, but she's far from fearless. She gets scared, she feels shaky when firing a gun, and she gets injured. Sometimes she can make significant mistakes like dropping Newt by accident where she'll be taken away by an alien. Instead of letting her die, she goes back to rescue her as the station is going to be blown to bits.

Film Essay: The Real Climax in "Shane"

WARNING: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS!

It comes off as to no surprise that when western fans think of the climax in "Shane," they referred to the scene in the saloon when Shane kills the villains. They're not wrong. It is the last action scene in the movie involving Shane taking out the pack of villains who have been threatening him and the people around him for the whole film. It's the scene that all audiences have been waiting for since we met these criminals anxiously hoping for Shane to give them a taste of their own medicine. Though the villains are the foil to the plot, their involvement is not the real focus of the movie. Judging by how the film plays out, it is no surprise that Shane will effortlessly kill the villains since he is built-up to be one of the greatest gunslingers in the west. We haven't seen him duel with criminals until this point, which would be anti-climatic if he didn't succeed. Most of the film focuses on the relationships between Shane and the rancher Joe Starrett along with his family, based on how they perceive him. A little before Shane entertains the saloon, we get a fistfight between Shane and Joe. A scene that's heartbreaking yet exciting, and looks and feels way more dramatic and intense than the actual duel at the end of the film. What I'm about to say may sound strange and unpopular, but the final fight between Joe and Shane acts as the film's real climax than the scene that follows.



Before their fight, Shane is allowed to work on Joe's farm, giving him the chance to hang up his guns for good to start a new after spending so many years killing, shooting, and drifting. Unfortunately, Shane has trouble escaping from his past due to a gang of outlaws including notorious gunslinger Jack Wilson hired by cattle Baron Rufus Ryker, who plans to force people off the land so he can claim what he believes his. Shane has stayed in his farmhand clothes as a means to adapt to his new surroundings and cover up his old identity. When the stakes become higher than they ever were before between Joe and Ryker's posse, Shane approaches Joe wearing the original buck-skinned clothing that he left behind when he started working. This difference in costumes uses Iconography to reinforces the duality of Shane's character. Shane wearing the clothes he wore when he first rode to the farm, expresses that he can't run away from his past. He'll always be a gunslinger at heart, making this sudden change of wardrobe significant to Shane accepting who he is.



Two conflicting themes used in many western are seen before and during the fight. The first being the Effete vs. the Virile. The effete is Joe, who is weak by fighting fair, and the virile is, of course, Shane, who is smarter and more vicious than his rival. Joe feels envious to be as tough as Shane is. He's able to fight and find ways to keep him and the other homesteaders secure during Ryker's raid of terror, but he does not possess the knowledge and skills of the gunslinger working with Ryker. When being invited to have a meeting with Ryker, Joe plans to have him killed, knowing that Ryker will still cause harm. Joe's wife Marion acknowledges that he will die trying, but Joe would rather die a hero as opposed to living his life as a coward. Shane agrees that Joe's mission will be suicidal, acknowledging that the homesteaders' efforts will go in vain without Joe's help. To keep him alive, knowing that words will not change his mind, he challenges him to a fistfight.



Domestic Implements VS. Guns become the second conflicting theme that's visually expressed during the fight. The fight is set within the confines of Joe's farm as Joe fights Shane with the determination to defend his home his way. What Joe is refusing to realize is that the domestic beings on his farm are fearful of the uncertainty of the domestic order. We watch frightened animals trying to flee the scene and watch Marion cry in terror. The fight itself is viewed from a domesticated frame as well, like through a window, or underneath a wagon. The use of animals and objects around the two provide meaning to their relationship and struggle during this scene. The startled animals act just as violently wild as both characters are. The tree stump that they pulled out together subtly reminded us of a time when they were both allies that are now long gone. And the low angle shot of the fight shown through farm carriage, and between horses' hooves show Shane's life transitioning back to the way it used to be. This is where guns come into play because now that Shane has fully evolved back to an outlaw, he does what Ryker would have done to Joe. He uses his dishonest tactics as a gunslinger to win the fight by overpowering Joe's fists with the butt of his pistol.



For the majority of the fight, we're watching it from the perspective of Joe's son, little Joey. If dealing with Ryker and his men isn't enough to pull Shane back to his roots, in comfort among Joe's family, he still can't forget his past for how Joey idolizes him for his outlaw stature, promoting him to partake in violence and gunslinging. This relationship creates a bit of tension between Shane and Joey's parents. As Marion fears how his outlaw nature is influencing her son, Joe feels his son will not look at him as noble when compared to Shane. While Joey witnesses the two duking it out, he finds himself still struggling with which side he's on, unaware of the reasons why they are fighting. Little Joey is at first repulsed by Shane using his gun to win the fight, taking his Father's side. After being told by his mother why he did what he did a few moments after Shane leaves, Joey forgives Shane and chases him as he rides off to kill Ryker's posse in the saloon. Shortly after the battle, Shane says goodbye to little Joey, telling him to protect his family. Like a traditional western involving an outlaw protagonist, Shane rides away since he has no place to settle down in life. No matter how many times little Joey calls for Shane to "come back" he keeps riding on knowing that he has no place living a domestic life.

This scene is more than just Shane getting into a fight with Joe; this is the point where everything tragically changes for the better despite the characters not wanting things to turn out how they are. We are sad to see Shane leave the farm and revert to his old self, but we know he's the only man who can save Joe and society from Ryker. It's unfortunate to see two allies now turn against each other, yet Shane's actions are justified. As we sit there questioning how this fight is going to end (though its clear Shane will kill Ryker and Wilson one way or the other), we wonder what will become of the family's domestic environment. Moreover, we query how this fight will affect their relationship with Little Joey. There's nothing at all wrong with the action taking place after, it's an awesome scene too. Factually, the gunfight does serve as the film's final resolution. But seeing how much time we've spent watching Shane try distancing from his past, as his presence affects the family he's with, this whole scene is the most significant part of the story of how we see these relationships wrap-up for the greater good. Shane may not leave the picture just yet, but it doesn't mean that the character arcs aren't complete, all while containing thrill, excitement, and tragedy, all shown in one scene filmed at a grand-scale level.