Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Sausage Party or Sausage Bust


Sausage Party is an animated movie directed by Greg Tiernan and Conrad Vernon. The cast is star studded and highlighted by Seth Rogen, who also co-wrote the movie. The movie follows a sausage named Frank and his lover Brenda Bun. The two characters live in a utopian, grocery store society where every food and grocery item has its own personality and human-like capabilities. The only thing on their minds is to finally be chosen together for the upcoming Fourth of July festivities. Life and joy fill the air but one day a mustard jar is returned and weeps of a hellish reality that awaits them all. Before ultimately shattering his own mustard jar, Frank leaps out of his bag trying to save him but only ends up forcing the cart to crash and all groceries to fall out of the cart. In a war torn scene, Frank and Brenda escape with a few other consumables. Frank then begins his journey to find out the truth about the outside world. His first encounter is with the alcohol aisle, which is a bonanza. He meets an alcoholic drink that resembles a Native American Shaman and he tells Frank the truth about the outside. Frank then asks many questions while taking puffs of marijuana from a kazoo. A large amount of time passes and Frank remembers about his friends, who have left the alcohol aisle for the Hispanic aisle. The Hispanic aisle resembles an old Western movie, mostly taking place in a saloon. Theresa Taco meets the gang, minus Frank, and warns them of a feminine product that is seeking their demise in this area. This product is a Douche. A figurative and literal douche. Theresa smuggles the group out of the back aisle to meet up with Frank. He then explains his findings to them and asks them to come to the cutlery aisle, just passed the ice mountains. Refusing to accept their new reality, they decline and leave Frank to find out the terrible truth of knives and prongs by himself. His final attempt to save the food items before the Fourth of July is received with mixed emotions and only he can convince the others to fight the “humans” known as gods. Sausage Party is a comedic animation that has been in production for over 10 years and it appeals to a wide range of demographics across the globe.

            The genre of Sausage Party should be clear to anyone familiar with Seth Rogen, it is a comedy. First, begin with the title Sausage Party. The title is a sexual innuendo referencing a male dominated social gathering. Also, most of the characters in the movie are male. Next, the intentions of Frank and Brenda are to one day be placed together. Frank desperately wants to be placed inside of Brenda. Throughout the entire movie there is very obvious sexual tension between all characters. A.O. Scott of the New York Times writes, “There are schisms and antagonisms based on territory and belief – most piquantly represented by the enmity between a bagel and a lavash – and a repressive sexual morality underwritten by the fear of the gods” (Scott 3). Scott is saying that every animation is available for sexual interaction and lust. Absolutely any character that has more than two lines reveals deep sexual desire whether it be homosexual or heterosexual. Then, Brenda second guesses her intentions with Frank when she blames all of their misfortunes on the fact that her and Frank reached out of their respective packaging and “touched tips”. “Touching tips” refers to the characters touching hands in the beginning of the movie. Brenda feels dirty about herself and begins to blame Frank. Finally, there are cute character sprites that provide a light hearted adventure for the audience. This sense of reprieve for the audience allows an easier laugh. Seth Rogen and developers did indeed have 10 years to figure out the ins and outs of each joke said in the movie.

            Sausage Party has reportedly been in production since the year 2006. At first thought many will think it should be contain the perfect plot, perfect jokes, and perfect cast. The crew has had so much time to work on it so why shouldn’t it be. The crew had ten years to finish this movie. So much has happened in that allotted time that many new ideas come and go. The developers had to find a way to appeal to every generation in existence at the time and now. First, the crew looks at conflicts that have outlasted the production of this movie. One such example is the Israel-Palestine conflict. Two main characters consist of an Israeli bagel and a Palestinian Lavash. Each character takes their respective jabs at each other, clearly showing hatred, but again, there is a definitive sexual tension between them. Next, there is a small scene in reference to the Holocaust. While travelling aisle to aisle, Frank sees an army of sauerkraut lead by a Hitler outfitted glass jar. The jar is stomping around on a stage and screaming to a crowd of sauerkraut with one arm raised. Seth Rogen is Jewish and is content with the scene. Scenes like these are just bringing up social problems but they have a humorous twist. Many people out there believe we should talk about these problems more and how these scenes appeal to them. Next, there are many marijuana references. Rogen, a renowned stoner (person who indulges in marijuana through smoking) throws in numerous THC jokes. According to Jason Guerrasio of Business Insider, “…some weed smoking with Jonah Hill helped nail down the movie” (Guerrasio 3). Jonah Hill, a character in the movie, is a regular is Seth Rogen’s movies. Smoking marijuana is becoming more prevalent in American kids and young adults. Many will find joy in seeing cute, animated characters also partaking in the festivities.

            While on the subject of appealing to different people, Sausage Party does a great job of touching on many issues that plague our world. First, homosexuality is alive and well in today’s world and especially in this movie. Theresa Taco is homosexual and the Lavash and Sammy Bagel Jr. are also both gay. Theresa Taco is very open with her sexuality. She openly “makes a move” toward Brenda Bun. In today’s world the idea of homosexuality causes tension between people. Many people believe that it is not right for two men or two women to be in love with each other or even have sex. Orthodox Jews, “Devout” Christians, and radical Muslims all seriously look down on the act of homosexuality. In recent news, gay marriage is legal across the United States and it sparked outrage among many communities. It has not left their mind and it is certain many parts of this movie upset a certain crowd of spectators. Sammy Bagel Jr. and Kareem Abdul Lavash are more discrete with their sexuality. Many would not even be able to tell the two were homosexual. It could be an easy mistake to think that their sexual tension is just displaced toward each other by accident. The secrecy of their sexuality engages a whole different audience. There are many people in the world who are scared to express their sexuality. They are scared of how people will think of them or treat them. Many are scared to tell even their parents. This is the case of Kareem and Sammy. Throughout the entire movie there is not one reference to either of them being gay. A triumphant moment occurs when they do express themselves and it shows the audience it is perfectly fine to embrace who you are. Repercussions or not, there are people out there to support any belief. Along with homosexuality, there are many stereotypes that poke fun at racism. There is a black box of grits that resembles a mid ‘70s pimp, a promiscuous Latina taco, and a Caucasian Twinkie. The grits box is a street tough with a moustache and an urban accent. The Taco is a frequent at the bar and for some reason the Douche seems to think he could take advantage of her. Finally, the Caucasian Twinkie has a very creepy, proper voice and a white pompadour-esque haircut.

            Sausage Party may have had a very long production time but the crew embraced it. They fit the ten years into an 88-minute movie so to speak. Twinkies are not in production anymore, homosexuality is becoming an easier topic to speak about, and everyone now knows the typical douche that makes recurring cameos in their lives. The movie does indeed do a good job of being very funny but keeping a hand on the issues that are in our world today.

-Joseph Iacobacci


Watch the Trailer HERE

Ed Snowden, A Whistle Blower to Remember



            Snowden, this movie in particular was about a man named Ed Snowden; and his real life events that happened between 2004 and 2014. The movie starts out in 2004 when Ed is in basic training for the military, you can see his struggle with the obstacles that are set before him, but he doesn’t give up. Ed’s time in basic training is cut short when he falls out of the top bunk of his bead and breaks one of his legs, he later learns that his bones are very fragile and he can no long take part in this type of military activity, and is told to serve his country in other ways. Ed turns to the CIA and the NSA for employment, and they gladly accept him after they see his expert computer skills. He falls in love with a girl named Lyndsey on his travels as a cyber terrorist specialist, but it’s a very rocky relationship. As the movie progresses we see how his relationship progresses and digresses, but we also see Ed’s paranoia soar as he learns that the U.S. government is secretly spying on the entire population of America. Together he and a team of reporters that he personally has put together try and expose the U.S. for what it’s been doing behind the backs of their citizens for several years, and they succeed greatly. To find out what happens next, watch the trailer!

This movie was unique in the way that it was a biography about a little known subject, also known as whistle blowers. Whistle blowers are people who tell the secrets of the government to the public and are immediately exiled from the U.S. for committing the crime of treason. In this case, Ed Snowden was able to escape the U.S. government by going to Russia and getting a full pardon by Vladimir Putin. This allows him to live in Russia without the U.S. interfering in his everyday life. This movie is more of a biography than anything else, a movie that focuses on Ed Snowden’s life as a cyber terrorist specialist in the NSA and the CIA, as well as his love life with Lyndsey, a girl he met on a dating website.

There are many movies out that are based on topics like this, cyber security and terrorism, one such movie being Black Hat, this movie mainly covers foreign terrorism targeting the United States through the cybernetic world. What made Snowden different from Black Hat was the fact that, the movie topics were slightly different. Snowden being about the injustices of the U.S. government against its own citizens, and Black Hat was about foreign terrorism targeting the U.S. Another thing that made Snowden different was that Snowden was a well thought-out and planned movie. Unlike Black Hat, Snowden was able to keep me entertained throughout the movie, whether it be through a brief action scene, or through information that I thought was intriguing. Black Hat struggled in keeping me glued to the screen the entire time, it was a movie about cyber terrorism yes, but mainly the movie was focused on fillers between the two main points in the movie, as well as being way too focused on the love relationship between the two main characters. Yes there is a major love interest in Snowden, but the love interest in Black Hat didn’t really tie in well with the plot, where as in Snowden, the more the love interest continued to grow, the more paranoid Ed felt about the NSA and the CIA watching him and his family. Even Matt Seitz, a writer with RogerEbit.com said, “"Blackhat" is far from a perfect movie, mind you. Its rock-solid confidence in technical details isn't matched by similarly exacting attention to plot mechanics” (Seitz 1).

 I would have given Black Hat a solid 4/10 and I gave Snowden a 7/10. The reason for giving it a 7/10 was that, it was a good movie to sit down and watch, but being the topic that it was, cyber terrorism, you had to sit there and actually focus on the facts that where being presented to help you understand the movie and how everything tied in together.  A. O. Scott, a writer with the New York Times recently wrote a review on the movie, the title of his article/review states his view on the movie, ”Snowden”, Oliver Stone’s restrained portrait of a whistle-blower. In the review A. O. Scott states that, “Oliver Stone’s “Snowden,” a quiet, crisply drawn portrait of the world’s most celebrated whistle-blower, belongs to a curious subgenre of movies about very recent historical events” (Scott 1). I take this as a good take on the movie, he didn’t dislike it, he called it a “crisply drawn portrait of the world’s most celebrated whistle blower” (Scott 1). If that isn’t a good thing then I’m not sure I understand his writing. Now that we’ve discussed my and another view on the movie, lets break it done and look close to identify aspects in the movie that you might not have caught the first time.

The plot of the movie was easily laid out for the viewer; Ed wanted to serve his country in the only way he thought he knew how, through the military. But when that didn’t really work out, he was able to continue to serve his country through the NSA and the CIA as a cyber terrorist specialist. The genius computer specialist also found love in the movie, which only seems to happen in movies. But down the road, we see Ed’s growing concern with the government’s power of being able to spy on any person in the world through their camera. Let’s look at one of the ethos sections in this movie. Towards the end, Ed releases documents and information on the U.S. government exposing them for spying on the entire U.S., this is ethos because he worked for the NSA and the CIA, so he knew firsthand what was going on, making him a very credible source when it came to the topic. There was also a lot of pathos in this movie, mainly with the love interest between Ed, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Lyndsey, played by Shailene Woodley. We start analyzing the pathos sections by looking into their love life, everyone wishes that they could meet the perfect person and just be with them for all eternity; well that’s kind of what happens in this movie. Ed meets Lyndsey on an online dating website and they almost instantly fall in love with the mention of computers and the military. They are clearly in love with each other, but it is a rough relationship with Ed’s job, he can’t tell her anything about what he’s working on, and he’s also never around. At one point in the movie, Lyndsey gets back onto the sight where they originally met and starts talking to other men, but claims that its only for conversation purposes because Ed is never around. Finally, we will evaluate the lovely logos sections of the movie. Logos has everything to with logic, and since this movie was based off real world events, there are a lot of logos sections. We start off with the fact that the U.S. government was indeed spying on its citizens through their personal computers and cameras without actual consent. This is know because in 2014, the real life Edwards Snowden exposed the government for what it was really doing, and then no one felt truly safe. President Obama ordered the shut-down of all illegal surveillance systems in the year of 2014, so that the U.S. might feel safe again. Looking into the logos, pathos and ethos sections of the movie really helped me understand how it connected to the real-life events that happened between 2004 and 2014.

Since the events in 2014 and the exposing of the governments wrong doing, the citizens have been shaken when it comes to their security, and they have the right to feel shaken and insecure, the U.S. had no right to look into your life without your consent. But since the Obama administration has said to have fixed the problem, some citizens feel better about their security, and the way they live. I have an understanding of computers so I understand how easily it would be to gain access to another person’s computer. In conclusion, Snowden gets a proper grade of 7/10, because I enjoyed the movie and the topics that were discussed but there were things that could have been improved. Also, being a real-life issue that happened in 2014, it was cool to do some research on the topic of that a whistle blower was and to learn more about Edward Snowden and the Obama administration and what they are doing to stop cybercrime.







Bibliography:



Seitz, MAtt Z. "Blackhat." Rogerebert.com. N.p., 1 Feb. 2015. 27 Sept. 2016. Web



Scott, A. O. "Review: ‘Snowden,’ Oliver Stone’s Restrained Portrait of a Whistle-Blower." The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Sept. 2016. 26 Sept. 2016. Web.

.

             




Instead of Blowing Whistles, Snowden Just Blew.
Carlee Kime - UC110
Watch the official trailer:


Snowden is a drawn out and exaggerated version of a story that has been retold by an exponentially increasing number of media outlets. Oliver Stone wrote and directed this particular retelling of the story of the infamous whistleblower, Edward Snowden. He was ultimately a low-level contractor for both the CIA and NSA, getting his hands on extremely sensitive files concerning how far the American government monitors our communications technology. According to a timeline compiled by Al Jazeera America, Snowden released said files to the public in 2013 (Eaton). The overall theme of the movie and the message Edward Snowden himself wanted to send is that the right thing is not always the easy thing to do.


The movie opens with Snowden and his ‘team’ in a hotel in Hong Kong as they start the process of releasing sensitive information on the internet. Then, in a series of flashbacks, the audience is informed (mostly) chronologically of how Snowden’s time in the CIA, his personal life, and him discovering said information he later released to the public. You see Snowden battle an internal conflict of what matters most to him; the woman he loves, his job, or his own personal morals. The film strongly appeals to all three rhetorical devices, however kicks itself when it comes to ethos and logos. By exaggerating Snowden’s role in the CIA and NSA the film stretches the truth, hurting its overall credibility.


Because Snowden marketed itself as a nonfiction reenactment of real events, the film does strongly appeal to logos by presenting information about Edward Snowden’s life. Before I saw Snowden I had a general idea of what he did, but I didn’t really know the whole truth. I thought that this movie would have given me and many others in my situation the truth, but after doing further research I realized that Oliver Stone had severely stretched the truth. I expected there to be less inaccuracies among the plot. While I understand Stone was trying to paint the picture that Snowden is a modern day hero— I don’t believe it was necessary to stretch the truth as far as the film did. This causes the film to hurt both appeals to ethos and logos.


There were many distinct differences between the story that actually happened and the one Oliver Stone told. There are several specific pieces of information laid out in the film that simply aren’t true. In the film, Snowden quits the CIA due to moral reasons. In reality and according to Fred Kaplan of Slate Magazine, officials have gone on record saying that Snowden was actually fired from the CIA because he was caught “prowling around files where he had no business prowling” (Kaplan). The plot of the film, however, makes it seem like Snowden was fully allowed and supposed to look at these files. The CIA did not record what they had found in Snowden’s employment record, so he went to work for the NSA in Hawaii as a contractor hired by Dell. According to Kaplan, he was “basically a Mr. Fix-It for their computer networks.” He could access a vast amount of files, however he “wouldn’t have had any role in developing something like EpicShelter” (Kaplan) unlike what was portrayed in the film. Stone almost made it seem like EpicShelter was Snowden’s idea. Real life Snowden was then hired in the NSA as a “high-level analyst” because Booz Allen Hamilton noticed Dell wasn’t using Snowden to the best of his abilities. The film clams that Snowden was actually sent to this job by the deputy director of the NSA. Kaplan reached out to the real deputy director of the NSA, Chris Inglis, on how the film portrayed Snowden’s role in the NSA. Inglis explained to Kaplan that both assigning a task like that to a low-level contractor and an idea that Snowden had a “special project” was “simply and utterly preposterous.” I feel Inglis explained the truth well by creating an analogy; “If you want to know the ins and outs of a fighter aircraft squadron’s purposes, tactics and SOPs, you don’t get that from a contractor hires to refuel its airplanes.” Snowden was actually hired into the analyst position through a traditional interview (Kaplan). By portraying Snowden as a high level employee of both the NSA and CIA, it gives off the impression that Snowden just released what he had access to— but really Snowden was not authorized to know what he did. Snowden adds to the tarnish on the “based on a true story” genre by stretching the truth just a bit too far, just like many movies of the sort.


One of the few strong points of the film is how Oliver Stone made us view Snowden as a relatable human being. By focusing on his relationship with his girlfriend, we relate to Snowden on a more personal level. The film also shows us that he is witty, and that quick thinking came to his advantage when literally smuggling the files out of the NSA headquarters in Hawaii. This created a strong appeal to pathos. Because Stone does this so successfully, we imagine ourselves in Snowden’s position.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Shailene Woodley as 
Ed Snowden and Lindsay Mills

Stone also made very skillful casting choices. While he could have attached many huge names in Hollywood to this film— because of his credibility and how controversial this topic is— Stone decided to go with actors who are not very popular right now. Snowden is the first large leading role for Joseph Gordon-Levitt since the 2012 science fiction film Looper. The female protagonist is Snowden’s long term girlfriend, Lindsey, played by Shailene Woodley plays Snowden’s long term girlfriend, Lindsay Mills. In my opinion, this is one of Shailene’s first serious roles. While her previous movies like The Fault In Our Stars and the Divergent series are dramatic roles, those movies are meant for young adults, and lack true substance. Levitt and Woodley had a real chemistry on screen, and played the unlikely couple well. Nick Cage, Zachary Quinto, and Scott Eastwood played strong supporting roles in the film. Another up and coming actor, Ben Schnetzer, made a wonderful impression on me. He portrayed Snowden’s coworker that opened his eyes to the vast power the NSA and CIA held. (IMDb).


Edward Snowden, both in real life and the film, did showcase one theme: that the right thing is not always easy to do. By publishing the information that the American government is spying on everything people do on an international level, we are now less ignorant to the fact we are being watched. The first piece of information that real Snowden released was that Verizon and other huge cell phone carriers were providing the NSA with almost all of its customers’ records. The film explained the bulk of Snowden’s concerns, but mainly how secret court orders allowed the NSA to collect as much information as they did. In order to keep from tipping off potential terror threats that they were being watched, these acts allow the NSA to search through someone’s files without notifying them. Not only is the NSA ‘spying’ on American citizens, but on citizens in other countries and even other world leaders. (Franceschi-Bicchierai).


The Obama administration has taken action against the NSA since Snowden released the documents, and the House of Representatives passed the first law beginning to change what the NSA can and can’t do. (Franceschi-Bicchierai). Snowden was the spark that set off a huge conversation about cyber security in not only America, but all over the globe. The film Snowden calls attention to his struggle in a somewhat easy to digest yet overlong piece.


Personally, I believe that Snowden changed the way we see government surveillance, and opened our eyes to what really happens in the intelligence branch of our government. Many agree with my opinion but there is also a strong dissenting opinion that Edward Snowden is just a traitor, and only a traitor, for revealing these government secrets. I can agree that Snowden broke the law, and should face consequences like every other American citizen would, but I do not think they should be severe. Snowden did this country a service by making its citizens question the government, forcing the government to be more honest in return.


Works Cited

Eaton, Joshua. "Timeline of Edward Snowden's Revelations." Fact-Based, In-Depth News. America Aljazeera, n.d. 27 Sept. 2016. Web.


Franceschi-Bicchierai, Lorenzo. “Edward Snowden: The 10 Most Important Revelations From His Leaks.” Mashable. N.p., 05 June 2014. 26 Sept 2016. Web.


Kaplan, Fred. "The Leaky Myths of Snowden." Slate Magazine. N.p., 16 Sept. 2016. 26 Sept. 2016. Web.


Snowden” IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. 26 Sept. 2016. Web.







It's Only a Ghost Story

It’s that time of year again, and everything is starting out on the right path.  The leaves are slowly changing, the pumpkin spice is now available, but most importantly the scary movies are here.  Not all scary movies are made the same however.  Some are chilling to the bone, while others simplly go for the quick jump-scare.  Some keep you on the edge of your seat the entire time, and some hardly keep you in the theater.  And then there is this.  This year produced a new movie called The Blair Witch, which is to be a sequel from the original Blair Witch Project. While being a continuation of the former film, it still does a good job as a stand alone film as well.  
The Blair Witch is a thrilling horror tale centered around a haunted forest.  One man and a group of his friends go out to the site of where his sister had disappeared years ago in hopes of being able to find and rescue her.  So they travel into this state owned forest with a couple locals.  Their first day was uneventful and ineffective at finding his sister.  They stayed the night in the woods only to wake up to strange voodoo style figures surrounding the camp site.  Determined to leave as soon as possible, they pack up and head out.  This is where the pacing speeds up as they circle back to the camp, it becomes exclusively nighttime, and they being to be chased by some strange figure.  Seeking help or shelter they head into an abandoned house, ironically trying to find a safe place to hide.  
But where is the safest place to hide in a scary movie?  Nowhere.  Never has a person been able to stand a door frame away from the immediate threat and been completely safe.  This isn’t a game of tag as a child, it is a good and suspenseful film.  Part of the suspense of this movie comes from the fact that it is tied to its predecessor.  Similarly, it is a found footage movie that seems to be very jostling and almost unprofessional.  However, what is sacrificed in film quality is made up in how realistic it feels.  As if we as viewers are watching a live survivor show.  It follows the younger brother of the girl who went missing years ago in the first film.  Knowing this, the viewer can assume the movie will go one of two ways.  Either in the same direction as the first, or the total opposite.
This sense of predictability in the ending of the film may take away from how it is perceived.  Not everyone feels quite as positively about this movie.  For the scary movie connoisseurs, this may not by your type of movie.  Smith says in his review for the “New York Post”,  “If the Blair Witch wants to take these chumps, no great loss to the rest of us” (“Poor Blair Witch”).  He is implying that the movie is as irrelevant as any other 1 star Netflix horror flick, where the bad guy is predestined to win.  And when it came down to the final chase, these simple minded teenagers stood no chance to the immense supernatural force that was the Blair Witch.  But then again, who would?  Escaping the terrors of the forest would have come only one way, and that for these travelers meant their endeavor was pointless.  But when it comes to pride over self preservation, pride always comes out on top.  Humans are so very strange that way.  To make the choice to stay in the forest was essentially to admit defeat while still holding onto their pride.  This is rather cliche but not necessarily bad if executed properly.  Many top tier critics would have seen coming from a mile away, but only if they are watching with a bias, predisposing them to believe it is a bad film.
Those watching without bias, however, may watch the movie less critically, subsequently enjoying it more.  From the reviews of the first installment we can see that this installment isn’t too far off.  Ty Burr states, “The slow progression of dread as the hapless threesome stumble around the woods, fighting and freaking and hearing shards of children’s laughter through their tent flap at night, is believably unnerving” (“Curse of the Blair Witch”).  This review of on the original Blair Witch Project lets us know what exactly we could expect from the 2016 sequel.  And while some details change- there are more people, and no children laughing- the unnerving nature still holds true.  The evil slowly creeps up on them as the fear and suspense builds up inside the viewers.  And from a movie that could pull it off almost 20 years ago, to today and still instill those same feelings proves this movie is doing at least something right.
When a movie has a positive aspect, it should be noticed and enjoyed, not overshadowed by its faults, as is found in so many reviews.  When I went to see this film, I went in knowing that I already was not a fan of the horror/thriller genre.  Being scared and tense isn’t quite my cup of tea.  But when watching this movie, is was not only captured in the film and invested in the story, but I also set back enough to watch it honestly.  The honest truth of the film is that the first bit is long and tedious.  It isn’t inherantly scary, and the plot is only as thick as it can be for what it is.  Being a sequel, it isn’t allowed to deviate too far and become its own movie.  But, if we are following the plot diagram we all learned in high school english class, once we get beyond the introduction, the rising action rises to a peak I had never seen before in movies.  I had to do all sorts of different tactics to keep myself calm.  Slamming handfuls of popcorn into my face, covering my ears, hiding behind my neighbor.  Whether it was the thrill of the chase, or the intense ominous music over top, or just the deep sense of dread it elicited, it had the audience on edge.  If that isn’t what makes a horror movie a good one, then I’m not sure what does.   
The Blair Witch, is a movie worth seeing if you are a fan of horror, are a fan of the original, or are a fan of spending five dollars and have a good night out with friends.  This movie will keep a captured audience and deliver its message, without holding that crippling sense of fear over you the rest of the night, as is found in truly terrifying movies.  It is one you can walk away from and have a light hearted family discussion afterwards.  The calm discussion, and easy analysis of how it made us feel as watchers.  It was a fun and thrilling movie with a lot of good connections to the original, as well as keeping it distinct.  So to call this a bad movie is in no sense accurate, but to call it the best horror film ever also isn’t the truth.  This is a good afternoon spent with friends or family on those rainy days when you don’t want to stay home.  When you can’t go rake the leaves outside.  When you are on your way out to go get those pumpkin spice lattes from Starbucks, take the time out to stop at a local theater and check out this movie.

Works Cited
Burr, Ty.  “Curse of the Blair Witch.” Rev. of The Blair Witch Project, dir. Daniel Myrick. Entertainment Weekly. Entertainment Weekly, 29 Oct. 1999. Web. 24 Sept. 2016
Smith, Kyle. “Poor Blair Witch- She Deserves a Better Movie.”  New York Post. New York Post, 15 Sept. 2016. Web. 21 Sept. 2016.

Wedding Date Flop ?

                                                        Wedding Date Flop ?
     Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates stars Zac Efron and Adam Devine, who play two brothers who need dates to their little sister’s wedding in Hawaii. The parents of the bride insist that Mike and Dave find dates to bring to the wedding to help them stay tame and to not ruin their sister’s wedding with their usual unexpected, and sometime disastrous, tactics. After placing an ad on Craigslist about needing two nice girls to go with them as dates to their sister's wedding, they eventually found two girls who wanted to go. Though the trip starts off as a success, after about a day, the truth about certain raunchy situations, starts to come out and everything starts falling apart. The bride starts having second thoughts, and Mike and Dave start to feel like a disappointment to everyone, especially to their sister, who mean more to them than anything.
      Mike and Dave are two very engaging characters. These engaging characteristics show through in many ways like the aggression they have, towards anything their parents say to them. Even the drastic change from that aggressiveness to a completely calm state, as soon as their sister starts talking. Mike and Dave do outrageous things that typical misbehaved brothers do when they get together, like heavy drinking, dancing on tables etc. Their sister means, as I've mentioned before, so much to them, so when the brothers misbehave on behalf of their sister, it proposes some questions. You may ask the question, “well, why would they ruin their sister’s wedding anyway, if she means so much to them ?” This is exactly what's so interesting because it's almost as if Mike and Dave do these absurd things unconsciously  to how horrible it is and how it might affect their sister.
    For those of us looking for a good laugh, a distraction from the stress of the school year, or a fun date night movie with bae, Mike and Dave is what Rolling Stone would call a movie that “has the jumpy exuberance of a puppy that won't stop humping your leg” (Travers, Peter. Rolling Stone; “Mike and Dave need Wedding Dates” ). The movie displays certain raunchy humor can either make the scene really awkward or give a good laugh to the whole crowd. One thing is for sure, this isn’t a movie for a night out with the kids before hitting Chuck E Cheese for pizza and games. This a movie I would definitely recommend to a group of friends going out for a night of laughs and raunchy jokes.  
    This movie display some aspects of weddings and stereotypical White American culture that may not be so familiar to everyone. For example, when most people think of a white american wedding they think of, expensive traveling and proper well-behaved people as guest. Mike and Dave do not display these qualities as most would believe they should., which makes them as them as the movie suggest, “outrageous”. To some this behavior may be what their family wedding receptions bring to the table.
     One of the ladies that Mike and Dave end up taking with them to Hawaii for their sister’s wedding is Alice, a girl who was also going to be getting married but was sadly left at the altar by her jerk fiance. Her friend Tatiana,the boys’ second date, was a single waitress who takes pride in having sex with any guy she wants to. She wanted to take Alice there to get away from the haunting thoughts that came from being abandoned at the altar. Alices response to heartbreak was as rough as any girls would be, she just handled it in a different way. Alice was doing so bad recovering from the wedding incident that she would even rewatch the video of her fiance walking away from the altar with what seemed, ease, in an attempt to make herself hate him even more so that she would eventually never want to see him again. This type of therapy, obviously wasn’t working because she was constantly watching the video, even weeks after. This was until  she went to Hawaii and clicked with one of the brothers. That being one positive thing that came from this trip which made the movie somewhat meaningful. Meaningfulness in a film is very important, because it makes the audience feel as if, there was some purpose to them paying money to go see it.
     The directors of this film do a spectacular job of showing the true meaning of learning from hard situations, in the making of this film. While Mike and Dave are grown adults and probably should've learned this lesson years ago, at the end of the day they used this situation to not point the finger or deny being at fault but instead understand their fault and fix the situation as best as possible. At the end of the movie when Mike, Dave, Alice, and Tatiana realize how huge of an impact their outrageous behavior has on others they all joined together to make sure that they fix the issue as best as possible.
  This movie is definitely in the blockbuster comedy categories. To some it was “aggressively stupid” as stated by New York Times (Dargus, Manohla. New York Times Review: ‘Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates,’ Antics to Not Love nor Cherish) but to others, it wasn’t quite that horrible, because of their love for the four young actors. Though Adam Devine has always been known for playing roles in blockbuster comedies, Zac on the other hand is known for playing more serious roles and every now and then adding a comedy to his long list of jobs. Movies like these with such raunchy are good for actors like Zac who’ve played in Disney films, like High School Musical, because it gives them a sense of “Grown Up” look. Which makes certain raunchy plot points are predictable, because you know that they are going to try and keep Zac as a “bad ass” and not the Disney guy.
    There were a few scenes that made the movie sort of predictable. For example, there was a scene towards the end of the movie where the boys were back stage and their mics were on and everyone could hear them talking about some private things that happened while they were in Hawaii. I don’t know about everyone else but I completely saw that coming when the the scene started.
   There are just a few components of this movie missing. It's almost as if it just doesn't feel complete. Like there's an empty space. I think that seeing the parents, would fill that gap. It's almost like we see them pretty much twice, and then “POOF” they're gone and then appear later out of nowhere. Seeing them would connect us to more characters. Giving the audience more characters to connect to helps them stay engaged. Seeing the parents of the bride and brothers more often would allow us to see even clearer the way that Mike and Dave’s behavior affects the people around them.
   The movie entails a lot of comedy on drugs, which kind of eventually gets old. In today’s society the usage of drugs like alcohol and marijuana is so common, that almost all mainstream media outlets use it as apart of their storyline. Sometimes in movies when something is referenced for laughter so much it starts to sort of feel like it's being used as a clutch. The drug reference kind of gets renewed, per say, when the bride and Alice take a little trip to the middle of the woods and find themselves a little over done. The movie didn't in general have many flaws, but the constant reference to marijuana for a laugh definitely was one.
   The chemistry between the two actors was insanely great. In all honesty, it kind of seemed as if the chemistry between all of the actors is what saved the movie from being even too repetitive to watch all the way through. As I mentioned previously, the constant reference to marijuana, at times can add a sluggish feeling to the film, after repeated so many times. This goes to show how important it can be for your cast to have a awesome chemistry as they did. Chemistry between your cast can make or break your movie. If you have certain faults in your film the chemistry can make up for that. Zac Efron and Adam Devine, have an unapologetic chemistry, that gives the film a sense of flow when needed. Overall, this film had decent enough flow to get a C+.


Watch the trailer for this raunchy comedy here!










Work Cited

Travers, Peter. “Mike and Dave…” Rolling Stone Magazine. 8 July 2016.

Dargis, Mahnola. Review: ‘Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates,’ Antics to Not Love nor Cherish”  New York Times. 7 July 2016.