MYST 3: Iron Sky

Nazis.

On the moon.

This is perhaps the most entertaining bad movie I think I've ever seen.

'Iron Sky' is a 2012 black-comedy action film about Nazis on the moon. A B-list movie with B-list actors acting on a B-list story, the movie is horribly overacted, sincerely globalized, has no rationality behind it's backstory, and might hold the new world record for the most scientifically inaccurate movie ever produced and directed, from its biology to its physics to its common sense.

And you really don't care. There are NAZIS. ON THE MOON.

The story goes a little something like this: way back in the 1940s, Nazi scientists discovered how to fly to the moon and continue develop of a collection of super-weapons designed to help them conquer the universe. Run by a tyrannical Aryan dictator, when an American capsule designed to promote an American presidential campaign is captured by the base's 'Fuhrer,' the moon-soldiers reconcile their plans and launch an invasion to take over planet Earth and establish the 'Fourth Reich.'

Basically, Moon-Nazis want to conquer Earth. Now onto the fun stuff.

I'd like to talk about 1 particular scene that captured the essence of the movie more than anything else, and is the movie's strongest piece: the cinematography. The scene in particular is one of the first in the movie, where instead of providing the viewer with a history lesson, it instead follows a panoramic of the entire Earth and then follows an American drone to the moon, where two American astronauts are exploring the surface. It's a very well-done perspective shot of the two astronauts, where instead of trying to focus on their emotional and psychological level, they are instead shown to be minimal in comparison to the size of the surrounding universe. It helps to establish a very sophisticated metaphorical concept in a movie with very little sophistication, if at all.

Another scene that captures the emotion of cinematography better than the rest of the movie is the scene in which the American is surrounded by a horde of Nazi superiors. There is a very well-placed camera with some sort of revolving dolly-shot which makes both the American and the viewer feel as though they're being surrounded by a group of racist, angry Germans. There's a very emotional capturing that doesn't happen in many movies, and for some low-ranked B-movie to capture that sense of scale and size in the realm of the Nazi moon base is very impressive.

The camera and special effects of the film are by-far the movie's most stunning aspects. For the directors to capture the scale and grandeur of things like the Nazi Swastika Fortress, the center of the moon base, and the entirety of the 'Gotterdammerung,' the sense of scale of the entirety of the Nazis and their lunar-based fortress of doom is incredibly portrayed. The CGI is fluid throughout the movie, with very few, if any, breaks in the reality of how the movie looks. As it remains so stunning and cool to watch,

However, these guys are Nazis. And the movie, as spectucalar as a concept as 'Nazis on the Moon' is, is riddled with fault.

The Nazi, or National Socialist German Worker's Party, is a German party. It had it's origins in Germany. I think the one thing that the developers got the most maddeningly incorrect about this politically correct film was the pathetic attempt by the actors to pretend to be German. One of the most interesting thing about movies, especially things about history and alternative history, is the idea of convincing the audience that anyone of any origin, from Austrian to American to Australian, can convince you they belong to another country. Some of the best 'fake accents' in film were Guy Pearce in 'Momento,' Daniel Day-Lewis in 'Lincoln,' and Don Cheadle in 'Hotel Rwanda.' When fake accents are pulled off, they create a whole new atmosphere for the movie and make it feel much more natural.

However, the accents in 'Iron Sky' really, really suck. Let me break it down for you: remember your foreign language class in freshman year of high school? You remember your first ever oral exam, when the teacher made you speak the language WITH the accent? You remember how bad the accent sounded? Now, imagine that same accent, make it German, and put it on every single character in this movie. That's what the accents are.

It's not even that the actors are horrible. Some of the acting isn't terrible, but it becomes so frustrating to critique a movie by saying that the best acting 'isn't horrible.' More often than not, it sounds as though the actors are 'trying too hard' to be German, instead of just letting the natural accent slowly take over and give the movie a more natural feel. While this is a B-movie and should be treated as a B-movie, it's almost pathetic how little some of the actors actually care.

Which leads me to my next point: the movie cannot decide whether or not it wants to be a cheesy B-movie, or actually lend itself to be an interesting take on alternative reality. Most movies of this genre tend to not care because the movie itself lends itself to not take itself too seriously. Thus, when a movie is advertised as portraying the ridiculous, ludicrous concept of space Nazism, there are a couple of particular scenes that depict a true idea of actual quality. However, this is quickly diminished by the fact that 'Iron Sky' has stolen just about every single cool science-fiction movie scene ever, from the space battles of 'Space Odyssey' to the brooding metropolis of '1984' to the brainwashed youth of 'The Hunger Games.' If you've seen a science-fiction action movie, it's been parodied here.

So, I'll wrap up this review. 'Iron Sky' is fantastic. It's a stupid movie about Nazis in space that want to take over the world. It's horribly acted, the script could have been written by a 6 year old, and the Nazis in the movie are about as German as Chicago hot dogs. And for all of it's miserable faults, this is not a movie to be taken seriously at all, and most of the time, the movie knows this. However, in those few instances where it tries to be serious, it ends up creating a counterbalance between credulity and stupidity, and leaves the viewer, at times, laughing at the movie, and not with it.

So yes. 'Iron Sky' is a bad movie. But it's one of those 'bad movies' that you'll be on the edge of your seat, laughing, and appreciating the sheer.....'bad-ass-ness' of just how entertaining In the end, it's about Nazis on the moon. And that's what's important.

I give 'Iron Sky' a 4/10.

The 'Review' of 'Reviews'

Oh my God. I absolutely love this movie.

Tim Burton's 'Corpse Bride' is a cinematic masterpiece, and in my opinion, one of the greatest and most visually stunning films to ever grace the Earth. The story is engaging, the script is beautifully simple, the music is elegant and playful coming from the genius mind of Danny Elfman, the voice-acting is some of the most well-done of all time, and there is so much more that I could say about this movie that would take much more than 1 paragraph for me to emphasize. Seriously. If you haven't seen this movie, you are missing out on one of the greatest and cutest love stories you will ever see.

There are two reviews here, one from the Washington Post and the other from the London magazine 'Timeout.' Regardless of how I feel about this movie, I will analyze both for the commonality and the differences between them, and see how critics attacked or praised one of my absolute favorite movies of all time.

We'll start with the TimeOut review. It's a very poetic aesthetic, with the author attempting to introduce the film and what it contains with varied syntax and much less sophisticated diction. The author attempts to introduce the film by quoting one of the most memorable lines, and as a result sort of funnels his way into talking about the specifics of the film. The whole tone of the piece doesn't come off as very sophisticated, but instead sounds almost like an angry user trying to write some sort of negative criticism based on personal objection. I don't dislike the review because of my obvious bias towards the film; I happen to be a huge fan of his vocabulary and the way that the review acts almost as a story within itself. While he didn't love the movie, he did a great job of introducing the whimsical and wonderful plot of the movie, and using some of the film's technical grasps to hitch what he felt was not good. Overall, the review is very solid, and very enticing to read.

The second review is a more positive one stemming from the Washington Post. What's more interesting here is the review plays off of the dynamic on who Tim Burton actually is. By establishing that Tim Burton is the one who brought us the Michael Jackson 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' and the gorgeous 'Edward Scissorhands,' the review automatically gives the reader the sense of the film they're talking about. As well, it focuses primarily on what the movie does relative to its animation and story, and compares the beauty of the movie's cinematography to it's maybe 'not-perfect' storyline (which I completely disagree with, for the record). It's actually very nice that the review is structured to give an entrance into who Tim Burton is as a director, and then stylistically braid the plot with the cinematography to give two separate perspectives on what the film contains, making it a very solid review.

There is 1 quote from each review that I completely agree with. From 'Timeout,' it's "As in 1993’s ‘Nightmare Before Christmas’ – also executed by another director and accompanied by Danny Elfman’s creepy-swoopy score and wordy songs – animation proves the ideal mode for Burton’s cute-Gothic aesthetic, with its curlicue scenery, dry-twig limbs and macabre flourishes." The diction here is absolutely spectacular; very few reviews take the time to flourish the true value of the Gothic and macabre world of Tim Burton, and word it in a way that sounds poetically pleasing to the common ear. As well, it defines the value of stop-motion animation beautifully in discussing how Burton focuses on the dark and mixed it with the vivacious. From the 'Washington Post,' it's "With Tim Burton, it is understood that you're going to take a walk on the macabre side: a creepy guy with blades for hands; a cross-dressing auteur; a campy chocolate factory owner working out Oedipal issues." What's interesting here is how the author of the review chooses consciously to almost sarcastically attack Tim Burton, almost warning the audience of his profoundly creepy nature. While it's a little personal, it's a fantastic description that describes the true weird factor of what makes Burton movies Burton movies, and gives the reader a good psychological image of the type of film that they'll be dealing with.

Had I never seen this movie before, I'd be much more inclined to follow the Washington Post. The issue with the TimeOut article is that it's one paragraph long, and doesn't do a whole lot of justice to the point it's trying to make. It's obviously a negative review, but leaves so much dead weight in the midst of it's review by making a point and then never expanding on it. As well, it's very short, so the point comes across almost radically and it's hard to latch onto what it's trying to say. The Post review is much better because not only does it acknowledge the flaws and wrongs of the film, but provides a structured analysis that gives insight into two key features and does justice to both descriptions. Because of it's more sophisticated level of style and mannerism, it's a better review than the other.

When I write movie reviews, I try to talk about the film in general. I don't think it's right to specifically focus on one piece of the move that was bad or good, because I feel like that takes away from the sense of what the movie is trying to accomplish. For example, if a movie has a very engaging story, but the author is hell-bent on talking about how poorly the movie was 'casted' or 'scripted,' then the story is lost in the midst of fuddling about how much worse the acting is and the good part of the movie is never brought to light. Thus, I really don't like focusing specifics unless they really played a part in making the movie good or bad, such as the chemistry between Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart in 'American Ultra.' Overall, I think it's better to cover a variety of topics and grant a movie it's true justice than to focus on a single piece that takes away from the entire viewing experience.

So overall, movie reviews are interesting. Some good, some bad, some laughable and some absolutely terrible, some sophisticated and some not, movie reviews are everywhere. Personally, I know what I like and what I don't like, and I think that there are many things that need to be covered in a movie's review than just a simple fact about the movie itself. As a result, even the worst movies have their nuances. So, in looking at Tim Burton's stop-motion masterpiece 'Corpse Bride,' you may read the two reviews and come to your own conclusions on what's good and what's not. Overall, I've said what I need to say, and I think everything has it's place. This was my review of reviews, and I hope it helped.

And by the way, just watch Corpse Bride. I'll guarantee you won't be disappointed.

If you want to view both reviews mentioned in the article, they are hyperlinked below. Thanks so much!

TimeOut - Corpse Bride Review (Negative)

Washington Post - Corpse Bride Review (Positive)

MYST 2: American Ultra

Oh, Kristen Stewart. How I do feel so bad for you. Just because you ended up playing the second shallowest book romantic character in the history of modern literature (Dakota Johnson now officially holds that title with the garbage portrayal of Anastasia Steele in 'Fifty Shades of Grey), now you've been shamed to much of the public icon as only able to play shallow, lovesick, quiet feminine outcasts. However, within this new action-adventure spy spoof 'American Ultra' both Stewart and her partner-in-crime Jesse Eisenberg team up as a couple of stoners battling against the world designed to kill them, and as for the end result, while this is nowhere near the greatest movie for stoners and non-stoners alike, it nevertheless provides a cheap source of heavily-baked entertainment for an hour-and-a-half adventure the viewer won't soon forget.

The story revolves around pothead Mike Howell (Eisenberg) and his stoner girlfriend Phoebe (Stewart). Living in a run-down town in West Virginia as a convenience store clerk, Howell is riddled with drug problems, panic attacks, and a love of cheap cartoons he draws on a notepad during his shifts. Probably the most satisfying part of the entire movie is the chemistry between Eisenberg and Stewart. While Stewart is known throughout her film entourage, primarily in the 'Twilight' movies, as being a shallow girlfriend, she takes a step back in this stoner romp to really play off of the idea of deeper connection. There's an obvious spark being lit between the two characters, and as horrible of a human being as Mike Howell can portray, Stewart's performance as the 'car the tree runs into' throughout the movie is refreshing, and gives new light to Kristen Stewart in the world of film.

As well, Jesse Eisenberg, Mr. Facebook, is given a new set of tools to play a titular action hero in the midst of some sort of spy-oriented background. Eisenberg is notable for his portrayals across biographicals and dramas, so to see him outside of his comfort zone for the first time since 'Zombieland' was a breath of fresh air. In accordance, he and Stewart both feel at home playing their characters, as Eisenberg's stuttering speech pattern and Stewart's quiet nature lends itself to a very natural and organic-feeling chemistry that not a lot of modern romantic movies are able to accomplish. And this isn't even a romantic movie.

Now, no movie is without its faults. Unfortunately, American Ultra has quite a few of them. Firstly, the movie is unquestionably stupid. Now, there are a lot of movies that work to achieve a sense of stupidity that makes it ridiculously entertaining for the viewer to watch, such as 'Animal House' or 'Pacific Rim.' However, American Ultra's plot is so ridiculously overdone that seems almost as baked as its characters. The primary issue lies in that American Ultra cannot decide whether it wants to be a farce comedy or a full-blown action movie, or some sort of three-way mix between romantic comedy, action, and adventure. For every beautiful scene of Eisenberg and Stewart laying under the stars, there's a cliched fight between Stewart and a drug dealer in a neon-lit basement of a dealer's mansion. This indecisiveness throughout the movie makes it almost apparent that the movie itself is too confused on what it wants to be.

The other major problem lies in the other characters in the film. Eisenberg and Stewart gave stellar performances in their respective roles. But the other CIA operatives and drug dealers and sideline characters throughout the movie give almost a half-assed performance, almost as though they feel 'unworthy' to be in the light of stars like Stewart and Eisenberg. This is not to say that all of the characters are poorly acted all of the time, but there's a clear difference in how seriously Eisenberg acts as stoner Mike Howell than Connie Britton takes her role as CIA Agent Victoria Lasseter. More often than not, the viewer is waiting and tapping her foot listening to other characters talk before Eisenberg and Stewart are back on screen.

Finally, the movie tries way too hard to be a mix of every cool scene from an action movie ever created. The gimmick of American Ultra is the numerous number of ways that Mike Howell kills his opponents, with everthing from a cup of ramen noodles to bouncing a bullet off of a frying pan. Now, in theory, this should all be cool and exciting and something new that the audience member hasn't seen before. But this is such the problem: there's nothing new here.The bullet-off-of-a-frying-pan is stolen completely from the script of 'Wanted.' Stabbing a guy with a spoon is taken directly from 'Murder in the First.' A car exploding with bomb straps almost completely mirrors a scene from 'Final Destination.' It's not that these scenes aren't entertaining; there's something ridiculously satisfying about bouncing bullets. But the issue here is that everything has been done before. There's no feeling of 'freshness,' no creative over-the-top ideas that completely blow the viewer's mind. Instead of feeling cool, most of the action sequences feel over-the-top and ridiculously out of place.

Now, this is not to say that everything in this film is completely overdone. This isn't 'Pacific Rim.' I know that I keep going back to it, but the chemistry between Eisenberg and Stewarts' characters is nothing short of spectacular. In recent years, especially in the world of romantic comedy, a lot of character interaction feels forced and unoriginal, and a lot of times are barred with the markings of forced appreciation that doesn't really exist. But what exists here are two characters, one a self-diagnosed screw up and the other his loving girlfriend, quote "his girlfriend, his mom, his maid, his maiden," but who loves him unconditionally just for being who he is. Probably the most fantastic scene of this movie is the two sitting and talking underneath a tree and looking at the stars, thinking about the future and how things are going to move forward, which is something that anybody who's been in any sort of relationship can relate to. And especially for a person like Kristen Stewart, that saves so much of the movie from being a cheap stoner knockoff.

Overall, 'American Ultra' isn't bad, but it isn't good. There's a lot of bad within the movie. The aciton sequences are horribly overdone, almost no part of said sequences have any sort of originality, and some of the acting is, honestly, atrocious. However, the natural chemistry between Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart, as well as the fact that movie is absolutely entertaining, saves a lot of the fault and actually makes the movie worth watching. Stewart is no longer held down by the burden of Bella Swan, and now has demonstrated that she carries a burning torch of kinship and has a lot more to offer down the road. If this and 'Snow White and the Huntsman' are the starting points, we're in a good place.

I give American Ultra a 5/10.

MYST 1: Snowpiercer

One of the defining genres of the modern film collective is the post-apocalyptic. Quite a long time ago, this was a foreign concept to the realm of cinema, and the whole concept of science fiction focused more on the mystery and the unknown realms of the outer cosmos, instead of what happened after humanity was challenged for extinction. It takes a lot for any movie within that massive subgenre to really stand out, as it appears that half of the modern sci-fi blockbusters are monopolized, cashed-out CGI-ridden garbage with a 'post-apocalyptic' label strapped onto the back. For every Mad Max: Fury Road and Rise/Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, there's the atrocious After Earth, Day After Tomorrow, and 2012. For any movie within this stereotyped grouping to stand out, it requires a complex storyline, a script with beautiful dialogue, and something new and original to capture the imagination of the audience in a way that no film has before.

Thus, I bring you Bong Joon-ho's 'Snowpiercer.'

I won't lie to you. I went into this movie thinking nothing but 'another cash-grab.' This movie was recommended to me by my brother, who called it 'the best movie he'd seen in a while.' However, he's someone whose cinematic tastes tend to revolve around the Saw films, 'Silence of the Lambs,' and 'The Shining.' So, by nature, I didn't have high hopes.

'Snowpiercer' takes place in 2031 AD, 17 years after the world falls victim to Kurt Vonnegut's 'Cat's Cradle' Ice-9 tragedy. In essence, everything's cold. To maintain the preservation of humanity, a character by the name of Wilford constructed a supertrain known as the 'Rattling Ark,' which in a non-stop circuit carries the remaining survivors of the human race in a never-ending loop around the world. Over the course of 17 years, the train has become it's own Victorian system of government, with people in the 'tail end' treated as the peasantry, and those in the 'front' as the wealthy select few. The story follows one man from the tail end, Curtis Everett, and his quest to start a revolution and change the 'Rattling Ark' forever.

Now, this movie is different than many other post-apocalyptic films I've had the pleasure to endure over the last couple of years. What made the story so interesting was a combination of Chris Evans's engaging performance as Curtis Everett, and the complexity of the government system within the train itself. A lot of apocalyptic movies that have some sort of government implementation get lost within the framework of the system that they're trying to build. In short, the government gets lost within it's own design because the directors and writers try too hard to make the system work perfectly.

What kept 'Snowpiercer' so engaging throughout the film was the simplicity in the structure, a lot of which was due to the idea of the train. Metaphorically, the front was the image of freedom and expression and the idea of no longer carrying a burden, while the back was for those unfortunately separated due to their physical and financial incapability. There's a very Victorian vibe within the society itself, and a lot of the same systems could be found throughout different piece of classical literature, such as the relationship between Royalty and Peasantry in Charles Dickens's 'Tale of Two Cities.' While 'Snowpiercer' is not a literary classic, it shares the same complex world that draws the viewer in and is very difficult to let go of.

'Snowpiercer' also worked because of the quality of the acting for such an unknown film. Chris Evans is known across the world as Captain America, so to see his ability to buckle down and be a social revolutionary fighting for the common good on a post-apocalyptic train was a breath of fresh air. As well, Ed Harris, the mastermind of 'Christof' from 'The Truman Show,' portrays a beautifully sinister and warming Wilford, and the interactions between Evans and Wilford flow so naturally that the story melts into the mind of the reader. Paired with intense and driven confrontation throughout the piece, much of the story is retained and the impressions left by the characters are believable throughout.

However, such in lies the largest problem with 'Snowpiercer:' it's dialogue. Now, most post-apocalyptic storylines aren't known to be the greatest show-stopping pieces of poetry ever recorded in human history. In fact, I'll even argue that the dialogue in 'Cloverfield' could've been babbled by a baby. Now, 'Snowpiercer' carries a deep theme of revolution and representation of the minority throughout it's snow-covered plotline, but it falters during pieces of conversation where the viewer is left wondering 'is that it?' I recall a situation where Everett and Wilford are speaking together over the structure of the train's engine. I understand that a train, especially a global supertrain, is going to have it's share of complexities, but the overbearing reliance on metaphors and direct confrontation leaves the viewer wondering how to build a supertrain instead of how Wilford and Everett are supposed to be involved with one another.

In terms of the CGI, about 90% of 'Snowpiercer' is absolutely gorgeous. The snow-covered wasteland of planet Earth is marveled in spectacular detail, and the tiniest little differences aboard the traincars separating the butchering room from the sushi bar from the boiler room from the 'tail end,' the images and editing run flawlessly and are artistically intrinsic to the eye. However, there are scenes, primarily towards the end, where the CGI loses that little sense of wonder and blares it's muddled visuals onscreen, which, while subtle, are noticeable nonetheless.

For the most part though, the visuals and the script of 'Snowpiecer' work one in the same. Joon-ho's portrayal and metaphor of crossing the train cars was evident throughout the story, and where some action movies, *cough cough* PACIFIC RIM *cough cough* get lost in just how visually stunning they look, 'Snowpiercer' weaves the story and the visual action into the CGI-dominated background, letting the viewer experience the violence and brutality of the world train while still remembering they're in the real world. As a result, it makes the experience more truthful and livable overall.

To summarize, 'Snowpiercer' was a very pleasant surprise. Unlike many of the post-apocalyptic travesties that are being shelled out every two weeks, the film takes a very sophisticated look at the dangers of overpopulation and global warming. While the dialogue isn't perfect and the CGI can be a muddled mess at certain points, the characters are engaging and intellectually diverse and deep, and the Victorian-style message of the film's central system is a refreshing take on a genre that's grown very stale in a very short amount of time. To anyone who's a fan of smart science fiction that isn't trying too hard to be something it isn't, 'Snowpiercer' is a great little flick that will easily keep you on the edge of your seat, all the way from the front-end to the tail end.

I give Bong Joon Ho's 'Snowpiercer' an 8.5/10.

Film Intro Survey

1. Tim Burton's "Nightmare Before Christmas"

2. My favorite genres include animation, thriller, drama, non-slasher horror (Poltergeist, The Shining), and documentary.

3. Some of my least favorite genres include slasher blood-and-guts horror, clichéd romantic comedy, biographies, musicals, and comedy movies in general.

4. Tim Burton's 'The Nightmare Before Christmas,'  Coraline, Corpse Bride, The Wolf of Wall Street, Memento

5. I think that the most successful movies have intelligent writing, actors who are wholeheartedly engaging, and isn't overly simplistic.

6. Some of my least favorite movies are any of the Final Destination movies, Eat-Pray-Love, and Boz Lerman's Romeo and Juliet.

7. A bad movie makes no attempt to be coherent, has actors who are either seriously overacting or seriously underacting, and sounds like it was written by an middle schooler.

8. My favorite directors are Christopher Nolan, Tim Burton, and Rob Reiner.

9. Some of my favorite actors and actresses include Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio, Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence.

10. I think some of the most important films for people to see are The Birth of a Nation, Saving Private Ryan, and The Lion King.

11. My oldest favorite movie is the original Mad Max.

12. The best movie I've seen in the past two years was Mad Max: Fury Road.

13. The next five films on my queue are Titanic, Pan's Labyrinth, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Interstellar, and Snowpiercer.