Movie Review: Bridesmaids

In the newly released comedic movie, "Bridesmaids," our star Kristen Wiig, who plays the maid of honour, Annie, attempts to help her best friend, Lillian (Maya Rudolph) make her wedding a memorable event in spite of the efforts to sabotage her by fellow bridesmaid Helen (played by Rose Byrne). The all-star cast is comprised mainly of Saturday Night Live and The Office stars, and with these talented actors as well as director, Paul Feig, what could go wrong? "Bridesmaids" is a comedic movie with potential that starts off strong but ends up in a rather lack-luster place.

To talk about comedic timing, improvisational skills, or the overall comedy of this production, one would have to call most of it genius. The jokes are audience accessible and natural. The script is well written to allow for comedic play, and one can assume a certain amount of flexibility and improvisation in each scene. Interestingly, what starts out as a side-splitting situational comedy turns slowly into a chick-flick style drama.

This transition isn't a new one- think of any of the movies starring Adam Sandler- most start off very comedic, then slowly transition into a serious sometimes moral theme. That being said, "Bridesmaids," a self-proclaimed "comedy" makes an abrupt u-turn and this leaves the audience wanting.

In the beginning of the movie, the audience is the laughing observer- we're not invested in how she feels per-say, rather we're reveling in her misery and embarassment. Then, when the movie turns to more of a serious (and might I say depressing) theme we're suddenly supposed to feel for her?

When you have a character who is experiencing hardships, the audience can do one of two things- they can laugh, or they can cry. There's no real reason to cry for Annie, and yet half way (or maybe 3/4 of the way) through the movie, the audience can't help but stop laughing at her. She's too depressing to be funny! And as the whole movie actually revolves around the life of one bridesmaid not the bridesmaids, the more appropriate title would be, "Maid of Honour," which probably would have given us all a better sense of what it was about. (Take"The Hangover" which was also billed as a crazy bachelor party... much like Bridesmaids was... if that movie was about one guy and his struggles with being the best man, we'd all be a little confused, right?)

Again, all I can say is:

• The actors: All-star
• The initial comedy: Genius
• The story-arc: Interesting
• How you feel after you've watched it: It was headed in the right direction, but ran out of steam

I'm giving Bridesmaids a:  Brave rating
It had all of the elements of a great comedy, but somewhere along the way someone couldn't decide if they were going for the cheap laughs or some true feeling. Make up your minds guys, and you've either got a fantastic comedy or a pretty heart-felt drama.

"Bridesmaids"

Brave***

Video Game Review: "Deus Ex: Human Revolution"

Let me preface this by saying, I am reviewing this from the point-of-view of someone watching this video game. I have not played the game; I have watched it, so I cannot personally comment on the game controls, the perceived level of difficulty, or the ease of movement/menu selection. I’m going to focus on what it’s like to watch this game like one would a movie. Here goes…

Deus Ex: Human Revolution takes place in a futuristic world where the forced evolution of man through genetic enhancements is the most current issue. The game follows, Adam Jensen, our main character, who begins the story as security for a company bound on changing the world through genetic enhancements (augments). After an attack on the facility leaves our protagonist near death, he is reconstructed using the very enhancements that the company is designing. The rest of the game follows Jensen’s struggle to find a woman with whom he may or may not have a romantic relationship and who was taken from the facility the night of the attack. Along the way, Jensen makes some serious discoveries about the people he’s working for, the people he’s working against, and interestingly enough… himself.

So now that you know the basic plot (without me spoiling it this time), let me say this:

The graphics are good quality, the movement seems fluid, life-like, the world is realisitic and interesting (many different locations around the world!), and the shooting isn’t the point.

For a an adventure game that looks more like a third-person shooter, this game really focuses on getting through the missions with a specific purpose. There’s no random fighting, and our protagonist is (from what we can tell), a level-headed, keeper of the peace. Now the interesting part is that you can choose to make him more of a rebel depending on the choices in your dialogue and your actions (ie: killing someone instead of capturing them). The plot is quite interesting and complex (which is saying a lot for some video games now-a-days), and I love that you have choices as far as dialogue: that you can get more or less information from someone and that you can make choices that change the game. I’ll give it a HUGE A+ for the player being able to SAVE the game whenever they’d like too! And… the characters are pretty relatable- even if the main character is sporting that stupid Keanu Reeves voice impression.

But….

They allow you to choose augments (enhancements) that will help you through the game without telling you what you will need when you meet the next boss- which is sometimes very frustrating because without something very specific, you can spend hours trying to get some crazy bitch to electrocute herself. 

The game has some replay value, but if you can’t take the character that you’ve worked so hard to create into your next game, then why play it over? At the same time, I’ll say- you can definitely do the game differently the next time, but you’ll also have the knowledge of what augments you need for the bosses… (does that make it less fun or maybe it’s just kinda cheating?).

Overall, I think the pros definitely out-weigh the cons here, and if I can watch this and be interested in it, I definitely think people will enjoy playing it. 

I’m giving this one a:

Bright ****

"It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from here."

Music Review: Single: "Someone Like You" by: Adele

"Someone Like You"
Artist: Adele
Written by: Adele and Dan Wilson
Album: 21

"Someone Like You" reaches the right audience with soulful, blues sound and words, modern context, and a unique theme. We often here ballads like this about love or lack thereof, but Adele takes a new approach to this common theme. "Someone Like You" is a song to a former lover who has moved on. Instead of the normal angry, punk songs we generally hear concerning a break-up, this beautiful melodious piece has the speaker talking about finding someone else to fill the void left by their lost love. Though the 'loss of love' is not an uncommon theme, this approach- in both style of song and words seems unique. It combines both the fear of never finding anyone else with the sorrow of being left as well as the anger of being picked over for someone else. It is Adele's full alto voice that brings emotional honesty to the piece though. One can tell, upon listening to it, that Adele had a strong hand in crafting the song herself. I find the lyrics incredibly compelling and love the choices made involving the rhyme scheme. Here's the chorus:

"Nevermind, I'll find, someone like you, I wish nothing but the best for you, too."
(this contains a mid-line rhyme of "you" and "too")

"Don't forget me I begged, I remembered you said..."
(this contains a mid-line slant rhyme of  she makes  "bayged and "sayd")

"Sometimes it lasts in love, and sometimes in hurts instead."
(this line contains no mid-line rhyme which emphasizes the word "love" yet the end of the line still rhymes with the previous line so it seems fitting)

Without making this the title of the song, the last line of the chorus has now become the 'theme' through it's placement of course as well as the slight differential in the rhyme scheme.

Adele also does a good job of telling a story of two people who were in love, who have been separated, and are now parted by a new relationship that has formed between the subject (rather than the speaker) and a new person. I would also like to point out that the song never mentions any feelings in regards to the new person in the subject's life (other than to reflect on her own "guess she gave you things, I didn't give to you). This is rare in any genre of art where bitterness and third parties are involved.

So, here are my points:
Adele took a common theme and formed a unique and original song from a unique perspective which included a wide range of emotions though not neccessarily those we would expect
The song is technically strong. Adele's voice is not only lovely, but capable of carrying the message and emotion of the song. The instruments are not overpowering or underwhelming. It is a 'piano ballad.'
The rhyme scheme and lyrics make this a compelling story with a blatant, heartfelt theme: "Sometimes it lasts, in love, and sometimes it hurts instead."

I give "Someone Like You" by: Adele a...
Bright *****

What beautiful art that has surpassed any intentions and grown into an all-around success.

TV Series Review: Love It or List It

The reality television series"Love It or List It," which appears primarily on the W Network (in it's fourth season now), has been a relatively successful show thus far, but will it's formula-driven episodes soon become too monotonous for its viewers?

The premise of "Love It or List It" is fairly simple. Two home owners must decide if renovations to their current house could make them happy enough to stay where they are, or if they are ready to move on to a different house. The show pits designer, Hillary, against real estate agent, David. Both are highly skilled professionals who are engaging hosts. Each episode shows them vying for the homeowners to choose their own vision over their competitor's. At the very end of each episode we witness the homeowners struggle with this question as David shows them a house with real potential within their price range, and Hillary's work on their current house is revealed and accomplished within the home owner's budget. At this point, the home owners are asked,
"Are you going to love it, or are you going to list it?"

The show's success is apparent in its continuation into its fourth season, its expansion from a half an hour time slot to hour long episodes, the addition of extra characters, increased frequency of occurence, and a better time slot. But, is the show entertaining? Here are my points:

• The professionals seem professional enough; they do a great job and for the most part, they are very successful at both finding a possible alternative house and making good renovations to the current home. They are also pretty entertaining to watch- though we see very little of the actual work. 
• Hillary and David may not be seen doing any of this work, but this can be over-looked because of their skills as hosts. They do have good on-screen chemistry, but the producers or director of this show must have instructed them to take it up a notch... 
• If you watch the first season of this show, you will see the focus placed on the homes and the decision being made by the couple. If you watch the third or fourth seasons of this show, you will notice an extreme shift in focus. The focus is now placed on the drama between the two hosts, the drama between the two homeowners (who are now forced to take two opposite positions), and the drama between the homeowners and the hosts. The show goes as far as to set up fake shots in each episode where the couple goes outside and somehow "forget" that their mics are still on and they are in perfect range of that camera that's shooting them through the window while they complain about Hillary or David. 
• I like to talk about movie formula, but this show is the perfect example of a tv series that is definitely following a devised formula far too strictly. Watch an episode and see for yourself- Here's the formula:

1. The Homeowners are introduced along with their current living problems (then the show title rolls)
2. They meet with Hillary and David and discuss their problems
3. Hillary and David walk through the current house while exchanging playful banter about who can come up with the best solution
4. Hillary and David meet back up with the homeowners to discuss the budget (which is ALWAYS deemed too low to accommodate their requests)
5. Hillary and David set to work on their tasks 
(Here's where it gets really convoluted- how is it that the homeowners ALWAYS react the same?)
6. The first house David shows them is ALWAYS a flop
7. Hillary ALWAYS runs into a major problem that means one of their wishes may not be fulfilled
8. David shows them a better house, but it still does not meet the homeowner's needs
9. The homeowners argue about David's ideas and whether or not he's getting anywhere
10. Hillary has better news, but not the best (she can do something instead, but not what they wanted)
11. The homeowners get very upset with Hillary and discuss (outside) whether or not she's getting anywhere
12. David shows the home owners the perfect house for them (and suddenly neither of the homeowners has a single complaint about this house!)
13. The homeowners come back for the reveal with Hillary and are stunned (and now they love what Hillary has done regardless of what she couldn't do)
14. The homeowners mull over their decision (pointing out positives of both.... and maaaaybe a negative or two)
15. Hillary and David ask the question (Hillary asking the first part, David asking the second part) "Are you going to love it?" "OR are you going to list it?"
16. The homeowners say what they would like to do: "I think we're going to (LONG PAUSE).... List it/Love it!"
17. David and Hillary sneer at each other and the loser buys the martinis (and they always finish at a bar...)

If you can pinpoint not only the steps in a formula, but also the emotions and reactions of the people involved, then why watch it? The answer is: only to find out what they choose! This was the focus of the show in the beginning, but now it's about creating as much drama as they possibly can.

For the first season, I would have rated this show a lack-luster Bright, because it did need a little kick, but it was an innovative, creative idea with entertainment potential.
Now, I think I'll demote it to Brave verging on Bold. The show had a unique concept, but now it is forced and contrived. Sure, it's making money, but pretty soon its audience is just going to label it 'fake.'

Let's get back to the premise and leave the drama to the hoarders and pregnant teens of this world!

Love It or List It: Brave *

Movie Review: Sucker Punch

In the latest movie from one of my favorite directors, Zack Snyder, we meet twenty year old, Baby Doll, who has just been admitted into a mental institution by her deranged step father. The beginning of the movie is all that's straight-forward though- soon after Baby Doll is admitted, the audience experiences two other worlds that Baby Doll is living in. The first 'world' being a sort of fantastical version of the mental facility in which the girls are being used to work as dancers at a night club (and it alludes to much more than just dancing). The second 'world' is that which Baby Doll enters while she's dancing. (So now we have a world within a world) This second world changes to fit the 'mission' that Baby Doll is facing in the first world. For example, she needs to get a map of the facility to be able to escape, so Baby Doll begins to dance and is transported to the second world where she fights in the literal trenches of a war to secure a map. While the concept is very interesting, the ending may leave you feeling empty. SPOILER ALERT! In the end, Baby Doll realizes that this journey has never been hers- it is in fact, a mission to get Sweet Pea (another of the girls) out of the asylum. And though this mission is a success (Sweet Pea escapes), and Baby Doll embraces her fate and accepts this place of 'no fear, no pain, etc...', in the end our main character gets lobotomized! Here are my points:

• Visuals, sound, costuming, set design, affects were all masterful! I feel that they really went out of their way to create very original designs. What stuck out in my mind was the fact that each of the adversaries that the girls faced 'bled' something different. None of them bled blood, which helped to reinforce the fact that this is a fantasy world and that the adversaries were more 'ideas' or 'forces' than they were actual physical beings.
• Dialogue and acting were believable and informative enough to understand, however- three different worlds.... that's a little hard to follow and has you questioning what's real or if any of it is. The girls were believable in each of the different worlds- though some more than others- and did a fantastic job with combat and fight scenes.
• As far as the script, I'll give the writers and director points for producing a product that does not follow formula. That being said, I think they lose points for having the main character get lobotomized in the end. People naturally want to see happy endings, and that does get a bit old, but when the ending is not good, why watch it? There should be a reason why the protagonist fails- in this case I think the point was to see Sweet Pea (and Baby Doll's own acceptance of her fate) as the success. This might have been the case if we had an emotional attachment to Sweet Pea; it is her resolve to stay in the institute in the face of her sister, Rocket's, determination to get out at all costs, that makes her the least likable character in the group!

My opinion:

This film is Brave.

The film wasn't made just to fill someone's pocketbook. It tried very hard to make a statement and affect it's audience. But, by going against the formula, the film alienated an audience that was ready to see it's protagonist succeed in however many worlds she wanted to create for herself. 

Sucker Punch

Brave **

The Bright, the Brave, and the Bold

There is a difference between art for art's sake, art designed for the enjoyment of the public, and art for the purpose of personal gain. This statement is applicable not only to visual art, but performance art, music, dance, design, architecture, etc...

What I label "the Bright" is art which was designed without the intention of delighting its audience or the intention of personal gain, but has attained all of this and more.

What I label "the Brave" is art that was designed specifically with the intention to effect its audience, and though it may not be the most original or make the most money, it makes a significant statement.

What I label "the Bold" is art that was designed specifically for personal gain, that has attained some level of fame, but has little meaning to its audience and is arguably unoriginal.

The easiest example I can think of for what exactly I'm talking about is a sexual reference, so please forgive me, but here goes: "The Bright" would be like sex with a new lover- where you are pleasantly surprised and delighted by your partner's performance and how you were made to feel. "The Brave" would be like sex with a partner that you've had a long commitment to- where you accept your partner's downfalls, but are continuously impressed by the effort they make to please you. "The Bold" is like watching someone else masturbate- where you can see what's happening, but it does little for you.

The reason I used "bright," "brave," and "bold," is because simply labeling them "good," "mediocre," and "bad" would miss identifying the intention as well as the outcome. Just because it wasn't a well written movie, doesn't mean it didn't attain the goal of making money. Just because it made lots of money doesn't mean that it had the affect that was intended. And so on...

It's upon this premise of identifying the intention of art and the negatives and positives of what it actually achieved, that this blog has come to be.

Frankly, I'm not going to tell you it was a 'bad movie' or it was a 'great art exhibit', because those words tell you next to nothing- except my personal opinion. While I can't attempt to take my opinion completely out of what I'm writing (as any judgement of art is an opinion), I can attempt to give you an unbiased look at what a specific piece of art has or has not accomplished.

So now that I've said all that, and you know where I'm coming from. Let's have some fun...