We've Moved!

We realized recently that we switched over to a new, more open-ended blog, but never put up information here that that happened.  Project Replay (in which we replay all of our games to see if they stand up) has merged into a blog covering a wide array of topics, melding with the Cinemadrone (covering movies) and the Bigg Leagues (covering sports topics). 

You can find replay reviews, as well as ramblings of new games at our new site, Nerd Up Culture. 

http://nerdupculture.blogspot.com/

Stay nerdy, friends. 

MUSIC! A Delving Into Katy Perry (and why that song sounds awfully familiar...)

This post kind of breaks format of many of our Replays, but I was recently going through a YouTube playlist of Katy Perry videos. I know, I know. "You like Katy Perry?" First of all, yeah, so what? Second of all, no one should ever have to explain what they like. (I mean, do you know why you like the things you do?) I'm not saying she's the greatest or anything, but she makes catchy tunes and puts on entertaining videos.

But as I was going through and listening to some of those songs again, I got a little caught up on something. Most of her songs that I know sound awfully familiar. It took a little digging to figure out why that was the case, but here are five Katy Perry songs that I probably like because I liked the song it is essentially ripping off:

KATY PERRY - "Last Friday Night (TGIF)"




Pretty catchy guitar riff there. Pretty dancy and poppy. Kind of a funny video. But ya know, I think I liked the song better when it was:

DAFT PUNK - "Digital Love"






Ok, so maybe that one just has a kind of similar sound to it. They're not identical, after all. So what about this:

KATY PERRY - "Wide Awake"



One of those drama-pop songs where an artist is trying to show s/he's not just all about sexual innuendo built off of your favorite childhood board game. But wasn't this song better when it was:

LENNY KRAVITZ - "Fly Away"





Again, they aren't by any means identical, but it sounds as if whoever wrote "Wide Awake" was literally just writing over Lenny Kravitz's (pre-Hunger Games) hit. I mean, "Wide Awake" even sounds like "Fly Away" as a title! But it's not the only time Katy Perry (or whoever writes her songs) basically just wrote new words over an old song.


KATY PERRY - "Firework"




The build up to the title is pretty much just copied and pasted from:

ERASURE - "Always"




Now, of course, these two songs don't ultimately have that much in common. And as big a fan of Erasure as I am, Katy Perry's anthem is - in my opinion - far superior. There's enough of a difference between the two overall that it's not as obvious, but it's hard not to hear "Always" in the "Firework" build up.


Again, none of these songs are identical, and I'm not (at this point) arguing plagiarism. "Firework" borrows only a little from Erasure. "Last Friday Night (TGIF)" borrows the guitar from Daft Punk. And "Wide Awake" borrows the lyrical meter and scheme from Lenny Kravitz. Where it gets even worse though is with one of her initial breakthrough songs (and one of the most obviously stolen songs in the bunch.)


KATY PERRY - "California Gurls"




Thing is, I actually really like "California Gurls" (pronoun misspelling not withstanding). It's fun, it's light, it's got Snoop Dogg, and it's catchy as hell. And to be fair to Katy Perry (who's song debuted in 2010), it's far superior to its immediate predecessor of a song:

KE$HA - "Tik Tok"




I've got nothing against Ke$ha (apart from that she kind of is a talentless hack - but she does make weirdly catchy and raucous pop music), but Katy Perry had proven her abilities are greater. Of course, "Tik Tok" released in 2009 and essentially rocketed Ke$ha from obscurity to greater pop fame. In this way, even though "California Gurls" is far superior (even using a better rapper in Snoop Dogg where Ke$ha used P. Diddy), it still feels a bit like a cheap ploy to gain further fame. She essentially ripped off Ke$ha.

Now, I don't want to just dump on Katy Perry here as if she were the only one who rips off bits and pieces. Certainly, if she ripped off Ke$ha (which she did), you have to argue that Ke$ha also ripped off Kylie Minogue (which she did):

KYLIE MINOGUE - "Love At First Sight"




Minogue's song (which, frankly, is better than both Ke$ha's and Katy Perry's takes) preceded those later songs by nearly a decade - dropping in 2001. So clearly, if Katy Perry is just ripping off other already-successful pop tunes to build her own successful pop career, she isn't the only one. It's hard to bash Katy Perry for doing it when one of the people she ripped off had also ripped off another pop star.

Even Kylie Minogue can be accused of stealing from another, even earlier pop star, as her song does sound quite a bit like:

the artist formerly known as PRINCE - "I Wanna Be Your Lover"



Prince - I Wanna Be Your Lover (Official Video) by Prince-Official



However, for all of these surprisingly forgivable forays into borderline plagiarism, the one that stands out as the most egregious is a song she put out in 2013 months and months after another song debuted earlier in that same year. Yes, I'm talking about "Roar."

KATY PERRY - "Roar"




A good song, to be sure: catchy and with a memorable and fun video to match it. And it's at least a modest effort to say something substantial. It's always refreshing to hear female pop stars singing about feeling empowered. It's encouraging to have something out there that will communicate with young girls that they should feel strong and empowered themselves, rather than simply trying to get the attention of the cute boy (even if her video kinda goes against that message  with the "sexy female Tarzan" thing going on).

But, wasn't this song kind of better when Sara Bareilles did it earlier?

SARA BAREILLES - "Brave"




And listen, I understand that Sara Bareilles and Katy Perry are friends, so they don't appreciate the controversy that arose when Perry's "Roar" debuted. And of course the dude who wrote "Roar" is going to say his song was written and thrown into production first. The problem here is that given the overall body of work produced for Katy Perry, it's kind of hard to believe. I mean, I've pointed out four songs that are either blatantly taking something from another song or subtly taking from another song.  I just find it a little too convenient that "Roar" would not only sound sooooo similar musically to "Brave;" it also preaches a very similar message of empowerment. It'd be one thing if they both had either similar lyrics or similar melodies, but it's both.

Again, this isn't so much an argument against Katy Perry. As far as I can tell, she doesn't do much of her own writing. She's more of the "sing well and look smokin' hot in your overly sexualized music videos" type of pop star.  In that way, this seems to be more of a problem with mainstream pop music. Is it so painfully and outwardly out of new ideas that they just keep rehashing the same dozen songs and figuring we won't know the difference? (Even worse, why do we never seem to act like we know the difference?)  For example:

TAYLOR SWIFT - "Haunted"





COLDPLAY - "The Scientist"




Pretty much the exact same melody. Only one is a bit more mellow and the other more poppy. Oh, but where have I heard that song before? Oh yeah, in the much superior:


THE CRANBERRIES - "Zombie"




Coldplay also provides us with another classic "barely even trying to come up with something new" example:


COLDPLAY - "Talk"




Pretty good tune, but I liked it better when it was the nerdier:

KRAFTWERK - "Computer Love"

So. What are we to make of all this? We tend to joke a lot about how Hollywood seems out of ideas because it's simply remaking older movies, building sequels and franchises, or adapting every book, comic, show, and even toys into films. But perhaps it's more accurate to say that modern pop music has run dry with new ideas.

Katy Perry is a great pop star, for sure. Her music is catchy and fun and usually very easy to dance to. Still, it's hard to get super stoked about her next single. Odds are, you've already heard it.

MOVIES! Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2010)

It's hard to talk about Scott Pilgrim vs. the World since it was immediately one of my favorite comics and when I saw Edgar Wright's film adaptation of the books, it became an instant favorite by the opening titles. The point basically being: I'm probably not capable of being objective toward it. There are certainly things that I can criticize or critique, but overall, it was a comic and movie that frankly, clicked the moment I started them.

Of course, it is a film that's very particular and will mostly appeal to a very specific group of people. Stylistically, it's a lot like a Zack Snyder film in that it does a lot to make the movie look like the comic. In this case, it sometimes includes text boxes, lines that shoot out from people's heads and mouths, and written sound effects. In this way, it's practically the closest thing to "watching a comic book" in cinema. Wright shows why he's one of the most artistically gifted directors, with a keen visual mind with an interesting visual style. (Granted, much of the style comes straight from Bryan Lee O'Malley's comic.)

It's the story of Canadian hipster Scott Pilgrim as he finds the literal girl of his dreams, Ramona Flowers. In his pursuit of her, he must get his life together, fight off her seven evil exes, and break up with her fake high school girlfriend. The story is basically one giant ode to classic arcade games, with each Evil Ex built up as essentially a boss fight. Thus, if you're not particularly into early video games (or video games in general), the odds are more likely you won't enjoy it so much. 

At its basic description, it sounds like a surface-level film - something you watch for the visual spectacle and video game action - but it is a little bit more than that. It is a look at relationships and the way that most people tend to cope in the aftermath of break-ups and how they pursue them going forward. On one level, it's easy to see Scott Pilgrim as another film that treats women as prizes to be won. After all, Scott is the protagonist who is quite literally fighting enemies for the right to date Ramona.  Even more, Scott's ex, Knives, decides to seek revenge against Ramona for stealing Scott, instead of vowing to get revenge on Scott for hurting her. Certainly, it's not unreasonable to come away from the film with this in mind.

Gotta admit, I had strange feelings about Ramona Flowers. In the comic and in the movie! What can I say? I'm a creep...

However, neither Ramona nor Knives are pushovers themselves. Both have their moments that show they're no mere objects and can indeed hold their own. At one point, Ramona even fights on behalf of Scott. In essence, she fights for the relationship while he won't. Knives, on the other hand, depicts something of an "innocence of youth," in which the way that Scott ultimately uses her kind of messes her up. Scott is her first boyfriend, but she's essentially (and unknowingly) a rebound. He is just attracted to the simplicity of a relationship with a younger girl. There's less "real" drama; fewer things that actually challenge him to change and "grow up." As a result, he winds up using Knives. 

In that aspect, it's actually a fairly realistic view of a variety of outlooks towards relationships and getting hurt. Knives might seem unreasonable going after Ramona for "stealing" Scott, but who doesn't know someone - especially a young person - who has blamed the wrong person? Knives even used the L-word (lesbian?) toward Scott. It's not hard to imagine that she would view Ramona in a competitive perspective - that she couldn't compete with her which is why Scott dumped Knives for her. Meanwhile, Ramona has had terrible luck with her exes (in addition to being young and confused and inflicting damage herself). But at this point, she's the most grown up of anyone, finally attempting to put her past aside and move forward.

I mean, c'mon! Is there anything more attractive than a woman with a giant digital hammer who can kick your ass?

Scott, meanwhile, is oddly unlikable, which is actually one of the big differences in the film from the comics. He's always a tad too self-involved and self-absorbed (perhaps a reflection of modern young adults who, let's face it, are kind of self-involved and self-absorbed). In the film though, he's presented as a likably quasi-douche bag. Upon the replay of the film, I was a bit struck with how actually unlikable Michael Cera's Scott Pilgrim actually is. To an extent, he is in the comics as well, but he usually has enough redeeming qualities that he comes off more as an oblivious, but realistically decent dude. However, even with the idea that the film-Scott isn't as likable as in the comics, everything does feel fairly realistic. Everyone has a relatively reasonable reaction to their situations. Knives is more jealous of Ramona than she is pissed at Scott. Scott doesn't really understand why his behavior is bad for everyone. Ramona hasn't had a decent boyfriend and is also an adult and is willing to work through problems. 

Centered around Scott, we get a somewhat insightful view of the modern young person. When he sees Ramona in his dream (unexplained, really, in the film and weirdly explained, really, in the comics), Scott realizes that is his future. As he fights ex after ex, he begins to grow understandably frustrated with the situation. He didn't realize dating Ramona would be so much work, but then, isn't that what dating kind of is? 

Each fight is in a different style. We go all over the spectrum of arcade and original Nintendo style of fighting. The fights are all unique and keep things fresh, which is good because once Matthew Pattel shows up to start the system of fights for Scott, the film really moves forward with great pace. It is one action sequence after another with an occasional scene to humanize the characters who are otherwise not particularly human.

It's such a stylized scene - it pretty much is Sin City for nerdier hipsters more into fun than violence against women.

Of all the characters, only Ramona and Scott are the most complete characters. Everyone else serves as one dimensional, quasi-caricatures. Aubrey Plaza is just there to yell at Scott. Anna Kendrick is just there to judge Scott. Kieran Culkin is pretty much summed up in his introduction as Scott's awesome gay room mate Wallace, who's actually one of the funnier characters in the film. All of the exes are also pretty shallow. Chris Evans excels at the overly douchy hot shot skater-turned-hot shot actor. Brandon Routh is arguably the best in his rule as pretentious and judgmental super powered vegan. Satya Bhabha is excellent as the mystical Bollywood-esque pirate fighter to kick things off. Jason Schwartzman is an excellent, sleazy music producer in one of the few films in which he's actually unlikable!

The lack of multi-dimensional characters is intentional though. It's meant to feel like a retro video game or comic book. And if Scott and Ramona are the only two slightly fleshed out characters, Scott is easy to dislike. Conversely, Ramona is easy to love. It's all ultimately about the baggage you carry and how you go about carrying it, and arguably, how love can make us crazy. One of the most interesting elements is how Ramona's involvement with Scott mirrors his involvement with Knives earlier. When his sister asks why he's dating a high schooler (he's 22), he says that it's nice and simple. Later, Ramona says something similar of her relationship with Scott, that it was nice and simple and (seemingly) without much complication.

The film often riffs on nerdy video game tropes.

It's filled with nerdy humor - the best joke being when Scott is complaining about what sucks and he says that everything sucks, then takes an eight magnet and turns it over so it resembles the infinity symbol. It's also filled with references to classic Nintendo and arcade games. The opposing bands often sport names directly lifted from Nintendo's repertoire like Crash and the Boys and The Clash at Demonhead. The battles include references to Street Fighter, Dance Dance Revolution, and Guitar Hero. There's a fair bit of anime reference as well.

And, of course, it's also got an amazing soundtrack with an original score from Radiohead's Nigel Godrich and Beck. The extended soundtrack includes T. Rex, Metric, The Rolling Stones, and Broken Social Scene. The opening title sequence perfectly encompasses the style of the film and its music. (Total credit goes to Wright and Beck for capturing the sound I always assumed fictional band Sex Bob-Omb had in the comics - as seen below.)




It's such a peculiar and specific film though that as much as I love it, I can't necessarily recommend it to everyone. The hyper-stylistic approach Edgar Wright takes is impressive and interesting. Wright said that he was attempting to create a film adaptation that most closely felt the way reading a comic did. In many ways, it's the best and most accurate adaptation of a comic in a long time. It's got an awesome cast with an awesome soundtrack. And it's got an awesome, nerdy sense of humor.

Sometimes the acting from minor cast members seems stale. The dialogue can be clunky at times as well. But otherwise, the cast does an excellent job at selling the "overacting" required. The ending is a bit strange and feels a bit off as well. The final battle basically builds up the idea of Scott getting back together with Knives. I can't remember if it were in one of the several commentaries, but Edgar Wright talked about how that was the original plan, but it didn't play well with test audiences so they changed it. What's funny is that at the time the film was being made, writer/artist Bryan Lee O'Malley was still working on the final book. They talked a bit about how the book was going to end, but more or less, Wright had to make up his own ending (there are some similarities, which shows how well Wright learned the material, but they're not totally the same, of course). Re-watching the film, it seems like maybe Scott should have ended up with Knives - that that would have been the more meaningful scenario. He realizes how he damaged her and that they were indeed good together while Ramona - finally free from her past - is free to move forward as well. She's alone, but she finally has a chance. Instead, Knives tells Scott that Ramona is who he was fighting for the entire time and he should go after her. Scott awkwardly says, "What about you?" (because he's still flawed and doesn't quite realize that he shouldn't really be with her out of a sense of obligation). Knives responds, "Besides, I'm too cool for you." She may not be "too cool" for Scott Pilgrim, but she's clearly too good for him at that point.

It's a great, fun film, but it is one of those things that either clicks with you or it doesn't. It seems like there isn't a lot of room for middle ground. Many people will probably feel like Anna Kendrick's character after Matthew Pattel breaks out into song - looking confused and wondering, "What??" Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a ride though, and you have to let it just take you along for it. Many people will have a hard time with it, and there's a crowing anti-Michael Cera crowd too. Cera as the titular character is still a bit of a miscast, but he isn't that bad in it.

Besides, it's just another film that will make you fall in love with Mary Elizabeth Winstead (admittedly, my celebrity crush).

FRESH TAKE: The Amazing Spider-man 2

AS ALWAYS WITH FRESH TAKES:


SPOILERS ARE PRESENT!

I have to admit, these new Spider-man movies don't really appeal to me. It might seem strange, given that they've finally made Spider-man funny and Peter Parker is the Marvel hipster right now, but they just don't do it for me. They've managed to mix one of my favorite Spidey stories (that of the early days with Gwen Stacey) with one of my most hated Spidey stories (that of his parents and this "everything is connected" conspiracy). The first Amazing Spider-man was ok, but I didn't really feel the need to rush out and see that. Same was true here.

Going into it, the previews made it appears as though it would suffer the same fate as Spider-man 3 in that they would try to cram so much stuff into a two hour movie that it would chop up the flow of the story to the point where the story becomes incredibly weak. The trailer includes footage of Electro and Rhino and implies Harry Osborn would take up the glider - either in this film or in the next one. Word then started streaming in that Rhino was only in the movie for about five minutes. So then it seemed like it would be ok: Rhino would just be an intro villain to re-establish Spider-man. Electro would be the main villain.  And in the background, they would likely build Harry as the main antagonist of the next film.

Well, the good news is that they didn't try to cram so much stuff into a two hour movie. The bad news is, they did try to cram too much stuff into a two and a half hour movie. It drags in almost every way imaginable. The Amazing Spider-man 2 is a great example of how the building of an arc comes at the detriment of the individual films. Here, the basic story of Electro vs. Spider-man and Peter Parker's creepy stalking of Gwen often gets chopped up by flashbacks of Peter's parents and back story that literally has no bearing on this particular film. Then we also get these stories broken up by the sudden inclusion of Harry Osborn and his sick not-Green Goblin father (who looks like a green goblin, but isn't the Green Goblin). It's not to say that the Osborn drama isn't interesting, but it's completely unnecessary to the basic overall plot. As such, it feels crammed in there. Even worse, it's not enough that the Harry/Norman and Harry/Peter story is jammed in there; they also have to then connect the Norman Osborn thing in with Peter's parents. So once again, this film's plot gets broken up by an overarching plot that has no bearing to this film.

One of the improvements of the Amazing Spider-man series from the Sam Raimi films is that Spider-man behaves a lot more like the character from the comics. We get to see Spider-man making quips and being funny. Amazing Spider-man 2 does an even better job than the first one at making him legitimately funny. There are several moments that feel straight up from a comic - the best being Spider-man putting Electro out with a fire hose while wearing a firefighter helmet. At the same time though, they made Peter Parker less Peter Parker-like. (It's almost like directors and writers have no idea how to do Peter and Spider-man!) Apart from being the resident hipster of the Marvel movies, this Peter Parker is confident and cocky. He's self-assured, despite all of the guilt he harbors toward the death of Captain Stacey and subsequently the danger he puts everyone he loves in.

In Raimi's films, Peter overdoes it with the guilt and is often far too serious. As a result, Spider-man isn't funny. Instead, he spends most of the film screaming as he desperately tries to save Mary-Jane. In Marc Webb does the opposite. Spider-man is extremely confident and funny, but that's because Peter is confident and funny. It's almost as if they've never bothered to actually read Spider-man comics. It makes sense that there would be crossover personality between Spider-man and Peter Parker, but what makes Spider-man more interesting than your Iron Man and Captain America fare is that the character isn't the same in the suit as he is out of it. When he's Peter Parker, he's supposed to be this nerdy, kind of shy person. He's representative of the "little guy." But when he puts on the Spider-man suit, he's suddenly confident and heroic. It's a great representation of what everyone has inside of themselves, even the wallflowers! In many ways, Webb's Spider-man films serve to undermine the interesting element of Spider-man as a character. In this way, the very first Spider-man actually gets closest to the character of the comics.

It also seems only fitting that The Amazing Spider-man 2 shows up shortly before the #YesAllWomen trend on Twitter in which women everywhere explain how a lot of every-day things make them feel. You know, "no means no," and "stop gawking at me!" kind of stuff. The hashtag activism comes in the wake of tragedy in which a crazy person shot and killed several people simply because women rejected him. Well, evidently, superhero films are chalk full of creepy stalker superheroes. We saw Superman creepily spy on his ex-girlfriend and her new family using his x-ray vision in Superman Returns. We saw Tony Stark basically act like women were inherently his for the taking - and that Pepper was always his to begin with - in Iron Man. We even saw Spider-man creepily stalk MJ in the dark alleyways in the first Spider-man! There, it was a good thing he was stalking her because it saved her life! And, of course, that heroic deed was rewarded with a kiss... Here, we see more super hero stalking as Peter uses his powers to "keep an eye" on her. And, of course, Gwen finds that appealing. #YesAllWomen, indeed...

Oh. You're a geeky loner who is mentally unstable? Couldn't tell..

Another problem with The Amazing Spider-man 2 is in its oversimplified villains. Where Raimi actually did much to get us to sympathize to some extent with the villains, Webb gives us a simple, "I'll get you and your little dog to!" type villain. Jamie Foxx and Dane DeHaan do what they can with their one dimensional characters (DeHaan is actually surprisingly good in his role, even though it comes out of nowhere and only serves to force the shocking moment at the end of the film), but their motivation for going after Spider-man is razor thin, if not outright nonsensical.

Foxx plays cartoonishly nerdy scientist Max Dillon (who works at Oscorps because, you know, everything is connected now). Max is unrealistically and stereotypically dorky, almost something you'd expect to see on some teen-oriented sitcom in the '90s. His first appearance has him rushing around New York City carrying too many blueprints. His hair is parted in an awkward way and he has a giant gap in his front teeth. He also wears enough pens in his pocket to supply an entire bank. When Spider-man saves him, he reads his name tag to which Max freaks out thinking they're now friends because Spider-man knows his name! The frustrating thing here is that with enough time to focus on Max, we could have had an interesting and vaguely realistic or relatable development occur. There might be some message here about how we should not "pick on nerds" (or that you should be wary of nerds, because they're crazy!) However, it's hard to take it seriously when the movie doesn't. Through and through, they try far too hard to make Max unreasonably geeky. It's even complete with a scene in which BJ Novak shows up and makes fun of him for no real reason.

After his accident, there is another missed opportunity to develop the character in an interesting way. He stumbles through New York, full blown Electro at this point. He's confused and scared. When he accidentally destroys some stuff, NYPD shows up (in record time) and they all aim at him. Frightened even more, Max pleads for mercy. "It's not my fault!" he says. It's not entirely true, of course, but we understand that he isn't trying to hurt anyone. He has no idea what's going on either! It might still be his fault, but his intentions are not malicious at this point. When he looks up at all of the television monitors, he sees footage of him from all the television cameras. Max then has a moment where he's suddenly excited that people now see him and notice him. (This might have been a powerful moment if he had any vaguely realistic characterization in the first place.)

Enter Spider-man who forgot Max's name. This, of course, enrages him. Things go from bad to worse when the news cameras stop focusing on Max and instead focus on Spidey. And that's all Max needs to go from cartoonish crazy to full blown villain crazy. After he's captured and interrogated, he threatens his captors by saying he will show them what it's like to live in his world. It's a world without power. It's a world without being seen. These are powerful sentiments! But he doesn't stop there. "A world without Spider-man," he says. Max has every reason to hate the world, but the thing he latches onto the most is Spider-man? One of two people to show him any kindness in the entire film? What? It's such a forced moment that one almost expects him to follow that up by saying, "I'll get you, my pretty!"

Harry Osborn fares a little better, but not by much. His sudden appearance in the film creates a new plot thread in a movie already well stocked on plot threads. We see Harry and Peter reconnect (even though we never really saw them be super buddies in the first place, really), but this only serves to set up the melodramatic conflict between them not more than fifteen minutes later! DeHaan is a much better villain than James "No Face" Franco, but it doesn't change the fact that the character and that story is packed in there. He too takes an immediate grudge against Spider-man, although his makes a tad more sense than Electro's, given that he believes he needs Spidey-blood to save himself from the genetic disease turning him into a goblin. (And, ya know, in his defense, Spider-man could have maybe done a li'l more to actually explain why it was dangerous. Maybe he could have promised to run some tests and keep him posted? Harry would have still been pissed, but maybe if he saw that Spider-man was going to actively try to help him in some capacity?) There's also the theme introduced that Spider-man gives people hope, of which Harry rightfully calls bull on. I mean, Spider-man didn't even try to help him. It was all just this vague, "I'm trying to protect you" argument that the hero kept making without any more detail or explanation. Spider-man essentially just makes a "trust me" argument, and that never goes down well with anyone!

Three villains? Yeah! That's worked well before in the past! Fortunately, Rhino just bookend the film. 

Of course, the entire function of this bogged down, drawn out film is to kill off Gwen Stacey and introduce some more tragedy in Peter's life. The death of Gwen was a critical moment in the life of Peter Parker, but it also happens so early on. Here, we've seen a good amount of Spider-man action that it kind of doesn't make sense that he wouldn't have thought about the whiplash from yanking the web. He had enough experience and had shown enough intelligence that it feels forced - like everything else in the film.

The Spider-man suit looks a lot more traditional. Visually, it's the closest to the comics we've seen on screen. It's nice, and it probably appeals to most fans, but I actually kind of liked the redesigned suit in the first film. Electro looks like a character from Star Wars at first, then like an X-Men cast off. The Amazing Spider-man series falls into the same situation as Raimi's films in which the human elements were kind of bland, but they make up for it with awesome Spider-man action. Here is no different. Him zipping through the city looks awesome. The only missteps are the overabundance of Matrix-inspired shots that are unnecessary (and help drag out the film). In many ways, the action looks like a high end video game. One might expect to see a triangle or a circle show up on screen because it appears as if you were watching a quick time event in a video game.

Overall, the film serves as little more than a precursor to both The Amazing Spider-man 3 and its spin-off The Sinister Six. At this point, it just feels like we are sacrificing decent stories and films for the sake of "building to the next one." It works for comic books to an extent, but that's because those come out relatively quickly, and they're short to begin with. It works a bit less effectively for film. At this point, there won't be much of a point to ever really re-watch these first couple of Amazing Spider-man movies once they finish the story. You can't just watch these individually. More and more, they're building these films like long television shows. The least they could do is have it be no more than two hours.



To say that there were no good things about the film would be slightly inaccurate though. It's easy to be negative about this film - it isn't very good - but one of the coolest aspects of it was the score. Hans Zimmer and the Magnificent Six (which features Pharrell Williams and The Smith/Modest Mouse man Johnny Marr) conduct an intriguing score comprised of traditional film score elements, heavy electronica, and even some dubstep. Some of the tracks have lyrics that drop into the scene extremely well. As Electro is first facing off against Spider-man and quickly devolving into an even deeper madness, the score gets to a point where the lyrics include things like, "They laugh at me. They lie to me. They betray me. They ignore me." The lyrics reflect what Electro had been feeling. There was a moment where I couldn't tell if that was internal monologue! It works surprisingly well.

If there's one good thing I can say about The Amazing Spider-man 2, it would definitely be that the score is really interesting and is utilized in a really unique fashion.

But then really, that's pretty much the height of things it does well. That, and Spider-man is funny. Otherwise, the film plays out exactly how you think it will. It's an extremely predictable film - a fate that most of these films suffer, actually. The only "shocking" and "surprising" moment might be the end with Gwen Stacey's death, but if you're familiar with the comics, then even that is extremely predictable.

Let's be honest. This film is really just a commercial for the Sinister Six. 

TELEVISION! Scrubs (2001-2010)

Back when I was in high school, one of the shows to watch was "Scrubs." Before Zach Braff became the subject of hipster ire, he was the indie heart-throb. Both charming and introspective, he had the acting chops to pull off the comedic and serious elements of his role. The thing is, most actors on the show were as well. That is a large part of what made the show great for a long time.

The show is centered around Braff's character John "JD" Dorian, a young intern who works his way to becoming a great doctor, ruining relationships, and trying to fix them. The strange thing about JD is that as a protagonist, he is both very compelling and entirely annoying. Self-absorbed, he's also likeable. It does get frustrating, especially later in the show, how frequently his redeeming moments come after he was a giant jerk, but at least he did figure it out, right?

In many ways, he is a lot like his tough-love mentor, Dr. Perry Cox (the always enjoyable John C. McGinley).  Dr. Cox is every bit as self-absorbed as JD is, but he's less secretive about it. He openly berates his interns, is almost always hostile towards his friends and loved ones, and rarely shows affection. At the same time though, he is watching over these young doctors. He usually does the right thing, but he won't pat anyone on the back.

All of the characters are really like that. Carla is a prideful nurse who evidently gets insulted fairly easily by her superiors just because they claim to know better than she does. Elliot Reid is also easily thrown off, borderline psychotic when thinking of what others think of her. Turk is the hotshot surgeon who thinks he's the best at pretty much everything. Jordan is somehow even more hostile towards people as her husband (Dr. Cox). And the Janitor is literally in his own little world. Every one of the main characters is flawed and has elements that are totally unlikeable. And yet, they are likeable and do have redeeming qualities. In this way, they are surprisingly realistic, despite their goofy names and borderline caricature behaviors.

The strength of "Scrubs" is in how all of these disturbed and messed up individuals cultivate and grow their relationships, beginning as co-workers and eventually growing into a close-knit family. As the show progresses, they eventually work on some of their flaws through the typical aging process. Turk and Carla get married and start a family. Elliot comes into her own in a private practice. Even JD has to grow up as he watches his brother become successful, his father pass away, his friends marry and have kids. He even winds up with a child of his own! It's not just the young people growing up either. Dr. Cox has a family of his own and must struggle to find the balance between the tough-love act he has with his interns and being a relatively supportive father to his own kid. All the way at the top, Chief of Medicine Dr. Bob Kelso eventually has to deal with his forced retirement at the age of 65.

Like all great shows, there is a solid cast of background players as well. Ted is easily one of the most painful and hilarious characters on the show. Similarly, The Todd is every bit as funny as he is stupid. And there's also Doug, the intern who keeps screwing everything up to the point where he works in the morgue due to his ability to determine a patient's cause of death (since he has likely caused it at some point). Frankly, the Janitor and JD could have been its own thing, perhaps as little webisodes, as it was always entertaining to watch and seemed to happen outside of everything else.

It's easy to think of the show as one that jumped the shark after a few seasons. Most shows do (sorry, but "The Office" jumped after season four - how they pulled out another four seasons is beyond me). Indeed, the show does become less entertaining as time goes by. Come season six, you start to get a little bit tired of Turk and JD's immature antics. By season seven, you kind of just want JD to grow up. After all, he's been talking about it for a bunch of episodes already! Still, to say nothing interesting happens in later seasons isn't quite right. It's true, seasons one through three, as well as season five are clearly the best of the bunch, but the final season of Scrubs isn't all that bad itself. Apart from the general fatigue of some of these JD antics, they do some interesting things with Elliot. Additionally, the way that JD and Elliot reconnect after Sam is born is surprisingly organic. You see it coming, but you don't really sit there waiting for the moment, the way you used to wait for their typical moments in earlier seasons. Come the final season of "real Scrubs," you realize they aren't having one of those "moments." They're now older and more mature (in some respects), and as such, they are finally ready to actually form a relationship.

Note that I specific "Real Scrubs" because the actual final season of the show is so strange and different that it's only recognizable by the fact that McGinley and Donald Faison are regularly in it, with Braff making a few appearances. It's not necessarily bad, but it's profoundly less compelling with none of the supporting cast to make up for the main character deficiencies.

"Scrubs" is also a show that shouldn't age well, but it actually does. The format of having JD narrate can be a little tedious at times, and normally I don't much care for narration, but at times, they do use it well. They sometimes are a bit innovative with it as well. And it's always nice to see the occasional episodes where JD takes a back seat to another character. Additionally, a lot of the comedy is silly and almost Family Guy-esque with its use of cut-away fantasy sequences. Those get old, but they never feel quite as random or as stupid as in the aforementioned cartoon show.

The balance between comedy and serious content makes it both a funny and poignant show, with life lessons thrown into each episode. A lot of the jokes can be memorable, but more often than not you wind up remembering the sad ones. (For me, I always remember the episode when Brendan Fraser guest stars and has leukemia, or the one where Dr. Cox is ecstatic to find organs for a number of different patients, only to realize too late that those organs came from a patient infected with rabies.) These moments are usually made more powerful with effective use of music. "Scrubs" - at the same time as the classic "Orange County" - really popularized a lot of those indie acts, but that's also a staple of Braff fare.

I must admit, I didn't remember "Scrubs" being all that great when I went to rewatch it. I'm glad I did though. I do think seasons four, six, and seven are fairly forgettable, the one, two, three, five, and eight are surprisingly good. They definitely stand up better than other Bill Lawrence shows, and it didn't jump the shark nearly as hard. To be fair here though, Lawrence was essentially forced to keep dragging the show out for the final couple of seasons. He had intended to end it earlier, but faced pressure from the networks, especially after it uncharacteristically swapped from NBC to ABC.

MOVIES! The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

It's been a long time since I've seen the 2005 adaptation of the Douglas Adams book. My initial memory of the film was that it was generally enjoyable, but otherwise somewhat forgettable.  What's nice is that Douglas Adams did have something of a role in writing the screenplay though he died several years before production. Though there are a good number of story and plot elements that were not in the book, the tone and sense of humor are fairly consistent.

The film starts with a goofy musical number sung by all of the dolphins in the world. "Thanks for all the Fish" is a good way to begin the film and set the tone. This is going to be a goofy British sci-fi comedy. It generally follows the same story of the book: Ford Prefect rescues his Earth friend Arthur Dent just before the planet is destroyed to make way for an intergalactic bypass (similar to how Arthur's house was unceremoniously destroyed for a bypass). They then find themselves aboard the Heart of Gold spaceship, a state of the art ship powered by an improbability drive, stolen by galactic president Zaphod Beeblebrox. Zaphod and his Earth-fling Trillian. Together with Marvin the depressed robot, Ford, Zaphod, Arthur, and Trillian search for the super computer Deep Thought, which once upon a time was constructed to find the answer for Life, the Universe, and Everything in it. The answer, as is well known, was "42," which annoyed and frustrated everyone in the universe. Another super computer was built to figure out the ultimate question to the ultimate answer. Turns out that Earth was that super computer.

The visual style of the film is a much appreciated change of pace from the typical sci-fi films. Instead of relying so heavily on computer graphics, they utilizes rubber suits and actors inside them. With Henson's Creature Shop, the film has a visual look not unlike The Fifth Element which further solidifies it's humorous tone. There is, of course, a good amount CGI as well, particularly when Slartibartfast shows Arthur around the rebuilt Earth. It's visually refreshing to see so much "analogue" effects.

Overall, the film isn't all that funny. There are the classic moments from the book, such as the sperm whale randomly being conjured up in the sky, and some of the entries in the Hitchhiker's Guide itself. It's not a hilarious film, but it has its laughs. The scene on the Vogons' homeworld in which a sentient flyswatter slaps them if they get any ideas is silly and simple, but is effectively very funny.

The draw to the film is in the cast. For a film that often gets ignored or forgotten, it has one of the best casts one can imagine. Martin Freeman is the perfect Arthur Dent while Mos Def is awesome as Ford Prefect. (Mos Def is clearly the best actor/rapper out there.)  Adding to it is Sam Rockwell, who is brilliant in the role of galactic president Zaphod Beeblebrox, seemingly mixing the swagger of both Elvis Presley and at the time president George W. Bush. Alan Rickman is perfectly cast as the voice of Marvin the constantly depressed robot, whose body language is well performed by Warwick Davis despite a huge and bulky suit. The weak link of the main cast might be TV sweetheart Zooey Deschanel, who is a bit underwhelming though still solid as Trillian. It doesn't just stop there though. Helen Mirren gives voice to the super computer Deep Thought. Bill Nighy shows up at the end as Slartibartfast. John Malkovich has a memorable scene as former president Humma Kavula. For more keen nerds, the voice of Bill Bailey appears briefly, voicing the internal monologue of the doomed whale. Thomas Lennon (of "Reno 911" fame) also appears as the voice of the Heart of Gold's computer, cheerfully and amusingly announcing things like oncoming missiles. And then of course, in another perfectly cast role, Stephen Fry gives voice to the actual Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which is often accompanied by visually interesting animations. (And to the really keen observer, Edgar Wright and Jason Schwartzman can be found briefly.)

It's not a perfect film, and it fails to capture some of the charm from the book, but it's still largely similar. There's no real reason if one likes the book, one would dislike the film adaptation. Perhaps you might not like the way they dealt with Zaphod's two heads (it's a lot different than I imagined, and different than how the BBC series depicted it), and certainly the unresolved plot lines linger at the end. It does finish feeling like a sequel is in order. Still, it was a lot better than I remembered it being, and I actually feel a little bit bad that I always forget about it. Perhaps it's not worth going out and buying, but it's worth a replay every once in a while.

MOVIES! Ponyo (2008)

Everyone has their favorite Hayao Miyazaki film. Often it's Princess Mononoke or Spirited Away. People particularly nostalgic will often go with My Neighbor Totoro. One of his films though tends to be generally regarded as particularly "meh" and is almost never on anyone's list of favorites. That movie is Ponyo, Miyazaki's colorful and whimsically loose take on The Little Mermaid. 

By no means is Ponyo a bad film, of course. Even the weakest Miyazaki film is a strong film overall. Still, one of the possible reasons it generally gets ignored is that it's targeting a notably younger audience. The story follows five year old Sosuke as he befriends a strange goldfish with a human head who he promptly names Ponyo. The two fast become best friends. Meanwhile, Ponyo's father is trying to keep her from going to land. He is keeper of many magical elixirs and uses them to help protect the oceans, which are heavily polluted by the land-dwellers.

The movie is a story about five year old children and it's aimed at pretty much that demographic. The relationships are relatively simple, with Ponyo and Sosuke being pure and loyal to each other (as only children can be). The film does take a number of usual Miyazaki cues though. For starters, even though Fujimoto seems like the "villain" of the film, he's not really a pure villain. Yes, he harbors a grudge against humanity for polluting the seas, but he's ultimately trying to look after Ponyo. Though many are very simple, there are complex relationships throughout though. Lisa is often angry at her husband Koichi, who is a merchant sailor and often out at sea. This leaves Lisa mostly caring for Sosuke alone.

Ponyo is full of magic and is another strong female character, even if she does happen to be a bit simplistic. She's supremely entertaining. 

Late in Miyazaki's career, he started to delve more into the strange, colorful, and magical worlds. Of course, he's always had a penchant for that stuff (lest we forget the catbus), but it was in smaller doses. From Princess Mononoke to How's Moving Castle, he began taking full advantage of animation. Ponyo is very much the epitome of this style. Everything in the film could only exist in an animated film. Never mind all of the time spent underwater; there's also all of the creatures, the Mother of the Sea, the wave monsters, and all of Ponyo's magic. It is perhaps Miyazaki's most "animated" film of all.

For all of its whimsical and epic visuals, it's essentially more in the same vein as My Neighbor Totoro. Miyazaki himself even stated that he wanted to make something else kind of like Totoro, but for a younger audience. Ponyo is a bit simpler in themes as a result, but retains the strong female characters and complexities that make a typical Miyazaki film great. At times though, it's a bit more intense than Totoro. 

Ponyo takes a bit of flack sometimes from older audiences for being too simple or not compelling enough, but I'm not sure what really makes it different than things like Kiki's Delivery Service. It's not his best film, but it's still a great film. It's probably middle of the pack. Overall, I'd argue it's better than Castle in the Sky and possibly Howl's Moving Castle. But really, it's every bit on the level of all of his other works. It's just targeting a younger audience.

That, and our overly nostalgic generation really loves to hate new things.