Thinking About Life

I realized a long time ago that my life is something of a mixed bag. 

I didn’t have the best childhood in the world. My father was an alcoholic and had a rather bad temper. I remember when I was about 12 years old my father caught me picking on my sister and decided the best punishment would be to kick me rather hard in the stomach, knocking the wind out of me. Also, I was bullied severely throughout my public school years due to my weight, my hobbies, and just being different. That bullying really did a number on my self-esteem and it still effects my confidence to this day. Finally, bad things seem to constantly happen to me. Whenever something good happens, a paranoid part of me is always waiting for the metaphorical shit to hit the fan sooner or later. 

However, my life wasn’t a complete living hell. Over the years, I have befriended a few people who I see as extended members of my family. These people have been there for me during my highest highs and my lowest lows and continue to stand by me. Without these people in my life, I feel like I would be a very different person. Even though I don’t get to talk or see some of them a lot, I cherish every minute I get to be with them and wouldn’t trade them for anything the world. 

Also, I have always found a way to fight through the crap and come out on the other side. Some people who have been through the stuff I have probably would have given up a long time ago and let those horrible experiences break them. However, I try my hardest to keep going. I’ve been close to the edge before, but I have always stopped myself from taking that final step. I could do it, but that would be a permanent solution for a temporary problem and I would be letting down/hurting the people who care about me. Every time life knocks me off the side of the mountain and sends me falling to the ground, I always manage to stand back up and begin climbing again. 

This post is probably a rambling mess, but that’s fine. Lately, I’ve been suffering some serious bouts of depression and I think I needed to say all of this. While I’ve had a lot of bad things happen to me, there are a lot of good things too.

While my life has been a mixed bag, I wouldn’t change it if I could. 

Netflix Reviews: The ABCs of Death

Directed By: Nacho Vigalondo, Ti West, Adam Wingard, Srdjan Spasojevic, Ben Wheatly, Jon Schnepp, Xavier Gens, Jason Eisener, Yoshihiro Nishimura, etc.

Written By: Nacho Vigalondo, Ti West, Adam Wingard, Srdjan Spasojevic, Ben Wheatly, Jon Schnepp, Xavier Gens, Jason Eisener, Yoshihiro Nishimura, etc.

Main Cast: Dallas Malloy, Peter Pedrero, Fraser Corbett, Kyra Zagorsky, Darenzia, etc.

Summary: The ABCs of Death is an anthology film divided into 26 individual chapters, each handled by a different director assigned a different letter of the alphabet. Each director was given free rein to choose a word to create a story involving death, which range from accidents to murder.

The Good: Its kind of hard to review a film like The ABCs of Death. Not only is it an anthology film, but its an anthology film where each short is made by a different director and creative team and there are 26 of them. So, to make this easier on everyone reading, I'm just going to touch on the shorts I particularly liked and disliked.

G is for Gravity (directed and written by Andrew Traucki): This was the first short in the film that I actually liked. It was rather simple, short, and made good use of the letter G. While I'm not a big fan of the shaky cam, I can forgive it for this short since its supposed to be a first person perspective. I also loved how the short managed to convey its story without a single line of dialogue. The behavior and the heavy breathing of the POV character helped as well.

H is for Hydro-Electric Diffusion (directed and written by Thomas Malling): Malling's short was definitely one of the more comedic ones and one of the few of that variety that I actually felt worked. The short is just so weird, but you can feel the hard work the director and crew put into it and its easily one of the most fun. Also, the costuming, make-up, and set design was fantastic.

Q is for Quack (directed and written by Adam Wingard and Simon Barrett): Q is for Quack is another one of the "comedy" shorts that really works. I love the meta-fictional concept of the directors struggling to find a word and hook for the letter Q. The acting on this one is really solid as well, Wingard and Barret feeling very natural and believable as themselves. To be honest, this was probably my favorite short in the film.

U is for Unearthed (directed and written by Ben Wheatley): Another short shot with a first-person perspective, U is for Unearthed is a very quick and interesting little chapter. The film is shown from the perspective of a recently risen vampire who is chased by an angry mob that is trying to kill him. I think I liked this one mostly because it kept closer to vampiric mythology and kept the vampire as a soulless monster.

The Bad: Now, like most anthology films, The ABCs of Death is very uneven. While some of the shorts are really good and a lot of them are decent, there are some that are just god awful. Here's the ones that I personally found rather dreadful.

D is for Dogfight (directed and written by Marcel Sarmiento): While the cinematography is amazing and the use of slow-motion throughout the short is very effective, the are some big problems with the plot that when you start to think about them, make the story kind of fall apart.

F is for Fart (directed and written by Noboru Iguchi): This one was by far the dumbest short of the bunch. The story revolves around a Japanese school girl who decided she'd rather be killed by the teacher who she has a crush on's farts instead of a poisonous gas released by an earthquake. The special effects are horrible, the story is mind-numbingly dumb, and just had me shaking my head by the end of it.

M is for Miscarriage (directed and written by Ti West): This one was really disappointing because I usually like West's work. I loved House of the Devil and I thought The Innkeepers was fantastic. However, M is for Miscarriage is just really lazily done and rather mean-spirited. The only good thing about this chapter is that it is incredibly short.

O is for Orgasm (directed and written by Bruno Forzani & Helene Cattet): While I hate to use this word because it is incredibly overused, but its best word to use when critiquing this chapter. O is for Orgasm is just a collection of "artsy", pretentious images strung together. Luckily, like M is for Miscarriage, this one goes by rather quickly.

W is for WTF! (directed and written by Jon Schnepp): Like M is for Miscarriage, W is for WTF! is incredibly lazy and tries to steal the basic concept behind Q is for Quack. While the random nature of the short does match the chosen word pretty well, the random scenes aren't particularly good and are downright annoying at times.

Conclusion: As with most anthology films, The ABCs of Death is very uneven. Some of the shorts really work and are interesting, some are decent but kind of forgettable or don't really stand out all that much, and some are just terrible and bring the film down. Basically, the film is a very mixed bag.

Recommended?: Yes and no. While I wouldn't recommend it to a general audience, I would say check it out if you like to watch strange movies, are a fan of some of the directors, and have a few friends over who you can laugh at it with and see how they react. Otherwise, you can skip The ABCs of Death.

Movie Review: The Conjuring

Directed By: James Wan

Written By: Chad Hayes, Carey Hayes

Main Cast: Vera Farmiga, Patrick Wilson, Lili Taylor, Ron Livingston, Shanley Caswell, Hayley McFarland, Joey King, Mackenzie Foy, Kyla Deaver, & Sterling Jerins

Summary: The Conjuring tells the supposedly true store of legendary paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren who were called to help the Perron Family who are being terrorized by a dark presence that haunts the secluded farmhouse they just moved into. With the family's safety on the line, the Warrens are forced to confront the powerful entity and experience what might be the most horrifying case of their lives.

The Good: This movie is easily one of the best horror films that I've seen in awhile. Like any good horror film, The Conjuring builds a wonderful sense of foreboding and dread and waits for the perfect moment to bring out its scares instead of throwing them haphazardly at the audience like most modern films of the genre do. After the rather chilling Insidious, James Wan has proven that he knows how to build a truly effective horror movie and the scrip by Chad and Carey Hayes is wonderful as well. Unlike most modern horror films, The Conjuring also gives the audience enough time to form connections with the main characters so we will actually feel something when terrible things happen to them.

The acting from the majority of the cast is excellent as well. Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson are perfect as the Warrens, making us believe in what they are doing and the chemistry between the two is astounding. The same goes for Lili Taylor and Ron Livingston as Carolyn and Roger Perron. The Perron children also do a fantastic job, with Joey King and Mackenzie Foy having the most notable performances in my humble opinion.

Finally, The Conjuring feels like a haunted house film that would have been made in the late 60's/early 70's. It relies heavily on atmosphere and building tension before finally releasing it at the last moment instead of cheap jump scares and loud sounds. The amount of practical effects littered throughout the movie was a nice touch as well. I could easily see this film standing side-by-side with other horror classics like The Changeling and The Haunting.

The Bad: While the majority of the performances and characters were very good, there were some that were admittedly weaker than others. Kyla Deaver, while giving a decent performances as April Perron, seemed to downplay some of her reactions at times, which caused her to come off a little bit wooden at times. Also, I found the character of Officer Brad to be somewhat annoying. While John Brotherton gave a fine performance, the character represents an archetype that I really dislike in horror stories ("The Skeptic Cop") and his presence in the film was a tad irritating at times.

Also, while the film is an excellently made haunted house movie, it's not the most ground-breaking entry into the genre. Instead of subverting some of the expectations tied to the haunted house subgenre, The Conjuring chooses to remain within those boundaries and just tries to be the best horror film it can be (which I believe it easily succeeded at).

Conclusion: The Conjuring is an extremely well-crafted horror movie that relies more on atmosphere, creepiness, dread, and tension than jump scares and loud noises. James Wan has delivered another great horror film that I could easily see becoming a modern classic of the genre.

Recommended?: A wholehearted yes. If you are looking for a well-made horror film that knows what it takes to be truly scary, you should give The Conjuring a chance. You won't be disappointed.

R.I.P. Richard Matheson

On June 23, American author and screenwriter Richard Burton Matheson died at the age of 87. He was the author of I Am Legend, What Dreams May Come, and a number of episodes for The Twilight Zone (such as "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" and "Nick of Time"). He was an inspiration to many authors, such as Ann Rice and Stephen King, and has left a legacy that will keep his memory alive for many years to come.

We will miss you Mr. Matheson. I hope you find peace in your own, personal Summerland.

Random Musing: Do We Take Our Opinions Too Seriously?

((Have you ever had a question or idea pop into your mind that you'd love to write about, but feel like it might not be strong enough to base an essay/editorial on it? Same here! To deal with that, I'm starting a new series of random posts appropriately called Random Musings. Whenever I think of a question or idea that would be perfect for this series, I'll make a quick post introducing the topic and throwing out an answer/idea or two I head about it. At the end, I'll ask a question for you to answer in the comments. I hope you enjoy and please, keep the discussions in the comments civil.)) 

Last Thursday, I managed to catch an early screening of Man of Steel with a group of friends. While the film had a good cast and decent music, it was brought down by some serious pacing issues, story-structure problems, and a sheer lack of character development.

Since it currently holds a 56% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, I knew I was going to eventually run into people who enjoyed the film and I would have to explain myself when they asked the inevitable question: "Why didn't you like it?"

A few days ago, I had a few people ask me what I thought and asked me the above question when I told them I disliked Man of Steel. After presenting my points, I expected to hear the usual response of, "I can understand where you're coming from, but I still enjoyed the film. To each their own." Sadly, that's not what I received. Instead, I had people telling me that I was A) a cynical asshole who hates everything, B) an idiot who wouldn't know a good movie if it slapped him in the face, C) a nostalgic idiot who hated the movie because it wasn't the original 1978 film or its sequel, D) had no taste, and E) blind and couldn't see how great the film really was.

When did it become okay to verbally attack someone for having a different opinion than you? I'm perfectly fine with other people having an opinion that is different than mine. If we all had the same opinions about the same things, life would be rather dull and boring. While I might ask why you like something, I'm going to do it as politely as possible and try my hardest to see your side of the argument.

With that being said, I'm going to expect the same respect from you when I disagree with you. I'm not going to call you an idiot for liking a piece of entertainment that I don't and I'm going to expect that you do the same. Why do some people see the need to do this? Is insulting a person based on their taste in entertainment really worth it?

If I had to take a guess as to why some people act like this, I would probably say its because they take their opinions on something too seriously. Because of this, they see someone expressing an opinion that doesn't mirror their own as a personal attack on them. Since they see it as a personal attack, they feel the need to attack the supposed "aggressor" and defend themselves. However, this is still just a theory and it could be something else entirely.

So, what do you think is the cause of this problem? Do you think it might be people taking their opinions about media and entertainment too seriously and personally, or is it something else?

Movie Review: Man of Steel

Man of Steel is Warner Bros.' most recent attempt to reboot the Superman movie franchise after 2006's rather disappointing Superman Returns. The film, which is directed by Zack Snyder and written by David S. Goyer, retells the tale of how Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) becomes the titular Man of Steel and saves the world from a genocidal General Zod (Michael Shannon) and his band of equally evil Kryptonians.

To be perfectly honest, my expectations for Man of Steel have been rather mixed from the very beginning. When I saw the first few trailers, my expectations were rather low based on the director's previous works and I felt the "dark and gritty" tone they seemed to be going for wasn't a good fit for the character. However, as more extensive trailers were released, my hopes slowly began to rise and hoped this film might breathe some new life back into the Superman franchise like Batman Begins did for the Dark Knight.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

Man of Steel, like its predecessor Superman Returns, had an incredible amount of potential to be the definitive Superman film for the current generation of movie-goers. However, it squanders this potential by letting it be consumed by a laundry list of problems.

First, the movie suffers from a number of story structure and pacing issues. The first half of the film, with the exception of the opening scenes on Krypton, feel like a collection of little vignettes that have very little connective tissue between them and go by so quickly that we see very little development for our main character. At times, it feels like we've even missed a scene or two (How did Clark know there was an ancient Kryptonian ship in the Arctic buried under the mountains of ice?). The regular flashbacks don't help with this, disrupting the flow even more. Once Zod and the other Kryptonians show up, the movie picks up a little bit before the second half is consumed by supercharged fight scenes that just drag on and on. While they were occasionally nice to look at, I started to grow bored with them and just wanted them to be over so we could get to the end of the film.

Man of Steel also offers very little in the character development department. Most of the scenes taking place in the present focus more on what Clark can do instead of who he is. In theory, the flashbacks are supposed to handle that like they did in Batman Begins. However, the majority of them just have Jonathan Kent repeating the same speech about keeping his powers secret because humanity won't accept him over and over again.

Speaking of Clark's adoptive father, this has to be the single worse interpretation of Jonathan Kent I have ever seen in my life. Jonathan Kent is supposed to be the man who instills a moral compass into Clark, showing him that he has a responsibility to use his powers for the betterment of mankind and to always find a way to save someone. However, this movie turns him into an asshole who actually suggests that Clark should have let an entire bus full of children die and prevents him from saving his life from a tornado to keep his powers a secret. I really wish he would have just been a one-note and bland like the rest of the characters. At least I wouldn't be as pissed off as I am about him.

Now, my next objection is more subjective than the rest and some people will most likely disagree with me on this. However, I can't give my honest opinion of this film without saying this: the protagonist in this movie doesn't feel like Superman to me. While there are spots in the movie where I see the Superman that I know and love shine through, those moments are few and far between. Instead, we have this rather bland character who doesn't care about the thousands of lives that he is putting in danger due to the massive amounts of property damage he is causing. Superman is a character who will go out of his way to save a human life and takes it rather personally when he causes someone to lose their life. I understand its fun to see two godlike entities beating the crap out of each other and seeing the carnage they leave in their wake, but when one of the characters in that fight is supposed to care deeply for humanity and is supposed to be willing to do whatever it takes to protect them, you'd think he'd try his hardest to not level entire blocks of a majority city fighting a single villain.

While Man of Steel does have a large number of faults, there are a few diamonds buried in the ruff. For example, the cast is easily the best part of this movie. While they have very little to work with character and script-wise, the majority of the actors (especially Amy Addams, Henry Cavill, and Michael Shannon) try their hardest to give a good performance and be entertaining.

The music by Hans Zimmer is decent as well. His compositions really do fit the tone and mood of the movie and never overpowered the scenes they accompanied. While I wished they could have brought back John William's score from the original and re-worked it to fit the movie, Zimmer's music still works.

Man of Steel is a movie that had a lot of potential to be something great, but squandered it with a poorly constructed story, bad pacing, and a serious lack of character development. However, if you just want to see a movie where two super-powered titans beat the crap out of each other, then you'll probably find some enjoyment out of Man of Steel.

A Defense for the Man of Steel

Everybody knows the origin story of the Man of Steel. He was born Kal-El on the alien world of Krypton. His father, a scientist known as Jor-El rocketed his only son to Earth moments before his planet's destruction. He crash-landed in rural Kansas and was discovered and adopted by Jonathan and Martha Kent, who raised the child as Clark and imbued him with a strong moral compass. As he grew into adolescence, he started to develop superhuman abilities such as super-strength and the ability to fly. When he reached maturity, he resolved to use his powers for the benefit of mankind. By donning his signature red cape and blue-and-red custom with a stylized red-and-yellow "S" shield on his chest, he become the one and only Superman!

Apearing for the first time in the pages of Action Comics #1 in the summer of 1938, Superman was created by two high school students from Ohio named Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. He is considered by many to be the first superhero (even if that might not be technically true) and is widely considered a national cultural icon. He, along with characters such as Batman and Wonder Woman helped to create the superhero genre and establish its primacy within the American comic book industry.

However, Superman has had a lot of criticism leveled at him the past few decades. Many have called him "bland", "over-powered", and even "unrelatable." In fact, I used to be one of these people. When I was younger, I wasn't too found of Superman. I always saw him as nothing but a "Big Blue Boy Scout" and preferred characters such as Batman and Marvel's Spider-Man.

As I grew older, however, my opinions on Superman started to change. After reading Grant Morrison's series All-Star Superman and Joe Kelly's story "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, & The American Way?", I started to see how cool Superman really was and how interesting a character he could be when paired with the right creative team.

Sadly, there are still a number of people who continue to criticize the character for reasons that when you get down to it, aren't actually true (the majority of the time anyway). So, I thought I'd give my very own rebuttal to some of the major criticisms thrown at the Man of Steel.

The most common argument I hear about why Superman isn't a good character is that he's over-powered. While he might have more or less powers depending on the time period when the story was published, Superman's most famous powers are flight, super-strength, invulnerability to most attacks, super-speed, vision-based powers (including x-ray, heat-emitting, telescopic, infra-red, and microscopic vision), super-hearing, super-intelligence, and super-breath. Now, I know what you're saying, "Cody, that is a lot of powers," and I won't disagree with you. Superman has always had a lot of powers and is one of the most powerful characters in the DC Universe. However, I find the idea that a character can't be good because he has too many powers to be ridiculous. Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen has the ability to virtually do whatever he wants and is still just as interesting as the other, powerless characters in that story.

Also, while he has a large number of powers, he also has a number of weaknesses as well. First, his powers are nullified when he is exposed to green Kryptonite. If he's exposed to this stone for a prolonged period of time, he will eventually die from the radiation. Secondly, he loses all of his powers when exposed to the light of a red sun (For those of you who don't know, Superman derives his powers from the light of our yellow sun). Finally, he is vulnerable to magic-based powers and attacks.

The second major criticism thrown at Superman is that he's too bland and unrelatable. Generally, I've seen this criticism come from people who have very little experience with the actual character and are going off what they've heard from others or have only read stories from writers who didn't know how to properly handle the character.

Superman is a brave and kind-hearted hero with a strong sense of justice, morality, and righteousness. These traits were, as I mentioned before, instilled in him by his adoptive parents. He's a character who believes that since he has been blessed with these great powers, he also has the responsibility for good and the betterment of humanity. In many ways, he represents the philosophy of "With great power must also come great responsibility" a lot better than Spider-Man. That responsibility also extends to the code of honor that he has adopted, hoping to show the people of the world that good still exists and to never give up hope.

However, that sense of responsibility can be a negative thing as well. Since he tries to do whatever he can to save humanity, he has a habit of taking a failure to help someone rather personally. In many ways, he is kind of a perfectionist when it comes to being a hero. He always sees areas where he can do better. He also struggles with his code, knowing that it would be easier to become a super-powered version of Judge Dredd and simply do away with his enemies, but not wanting to resort to that because he has to be better than that because of his status as a symbol of hope and righteousness.

Wanting to do the right thing, struggling with doing the right thing when the wrong thing would be much easier, taking failure rather personally at times and being a perfectionist at what you're good at. I don't know about you, but I believe those seem to be very relatable qualities to me.

Now, I will be honest. Like many comic book character, the quality of Superman greatly depends on the creative team behind him at that moment of time. Sometimes, you will have a Grant Morrison or a Joe Kelly who understands the character and will utilize him properly. Utter times, you will have a character like Frank Miller who misses the point and bring those very things that people hate to light and make him unbearable. I have read a number of stories staring the Man of Steel that just make my head hurt and cast it aside for something better.

However, that fluctuation in quality is true for almost any comic book character. For example, Batman can be awesome when handled by someone like Scott Synder or Dennis O'Neil. However, he can be god awful when he's handled by someone like Doug Moench or Frank Miller after The Dark Knight Returns.  It's all about having the right creative team to use the character properly and understand the fundamental elements of the character.

I know some people will remain firm in their dislike of Superman. That's their opinion and they have a right to that opinion. My view of the character differs from theirs and that's okay as well. My motivation behind this post as to explain why I liked Superman and why I disagree with some of the criticisms. However, if someone does change their mind about Superman and gives him a second chance, I'd be perfectly fine with that as well.