MY BLOG, MY RULES, the mechanical fundamental bare bones structure of what guidelines I choose to follow... and that's just the title.

RULES FOR REVIEWS:

I don’t get paid for jack diddly squattle in typing my rambling thoughts to a blog on the interwebs. Scratch that- I do have an “ad-sense” that was supposed to monetize this thing a little bit and to date I have earned approximately 12 cents in the past five or six years; give or take. They won’t pay until I’ve reached a $10 limit at the very least so I never see a check on it. It just assures me that I have earned it and that it exists in the middle of cyberspace collecting dust. I’ve never received an award, I’ve never been offered a lucrative contract, and other than few random opportunities here and there I’ve never been offered much in the way of my thoughts on the various movies, plays, books, and wrestling shows that I’ve written about here. So when you read my “rules”, be aware that I’m as amateur as it gets and I’m not the guidepost for professionalism in this day and age. What I do know is that I will occasionally read a magazine, a newspaper, or the “official” website of an agency whose job it is to “review” any number of things and I am struck numb by how utterly useless these articles are in doing the job they are supposed to be doing.

So what is the purpose of a “review”? Some reviewers seem to believe that a “review” is simply telling someone the synopsis of the show and then saying whether it was good or not according to their opinion. Let me cut to the quick on that regard: An opinion doesn’t mean anything. Roger Ebert, who may be considered one of the greatest reviewers to ever live, is notoriously vitriolic regarding nearly any and all horror films and has lamented their complete lack of cultural value. He’s peppered all of his reviews of these films with his personal distaste while being completely ignorant to the target demographic of the film or whether the film was a good representation of the genre. In a word: if you read a Roger Ebert review and wondered whether a horror film would be worth your time, you would never ever get a fair review of that film. As far as I am concerned that makes him a bad reviewer. And far too many writers tasked with the subject of “reviewing” a film will take that route in their writing.

So I write my own reviews with my own set of rules. For my faceless readers who tell me that they trust my opinion, that they will see a show based on what I’ve written, or that they wonder why I have the criteria that I have; these are the rules I follow when I write and the things I ask myself in the editing process. I always write from the heart and I always try to be fair according to these rules. Without further ado: THE RULES!

1.      Review the Show you are seeing, not the show you want to see.

-         THIS is my most important rule above all others.

-         I see it all the time. A reviewer goes to see a play or a movie and they don’t like the subject matter. They don’t like the set because they hate the color brown or they think an actor is “too old” to play a role or they find a pet peeve in the show that sticks in their craw- whatever. Or they went to a show and they wanted to see Shakespeare and instead they got Sam Raimi. It is not my job to tell you about the show I wanted to see- it is my job to tell you about the show that I am seeing. If a theater decides to insert post-modern sensibilities into the tale of Romeo + Juliet, then did they do it well or was it a jumbled mess that confused everyone? If I watch “Evil Dead: The Musical”, did the actors pull it off and did the gore get the crowd excited and were the jokes hitting or is the blood not plentiful enough? My “taste” has nothing to do with what is being presented and I may not exactly BE the target audience… but the target audience may read what I am writing and I have to serve as a guidepost for whether they choose to bring their money to this product. It’s not fair of me to impart MY tastes on their decision. Only my interpretation of what is being delivered and what sensibilities I feel are being aimed for. Write about whether the show achieves what it sets out to do, nothing more and nothing less.

-          

2.      Buy something.

-This may seem a little odd, but I honestly don’t believe that anyone has the right to say word one about a show or movie if they don’t put skin in the game. You might get a free offer to see a show, but while you are there you had better buy a concession item or two and you better not act as though you “deserve” a freebie just because you’re writing. Some people have told me that I deserve a free ticket because my writing helps to sell a show, but the truth is that I have nothing to write without the show to begin with. So I often buy my tickets- I support the arts when I can and the only time I even accept a freebie is when I simply can’t afford a ticket because I’m on a low a budget. And, even then, I occasionally scrape some funds together to see a movie or a play because I have a special interest in it. The added bonus is that I can say whatever the hell I want because I laid down some skin to watch it or see it or read it and that makes it, essentially, “mine” to do with as I choose. Buy something, for heaven’s sake.

3.      Don’t take notes during the show:

I really HATE it when I see people writing in a journal as they’re watching a show. They see something, they jot something, and they’re missing something else that’s happening. You want to keep it fresh, wait for intermission or set change or whatever- but don’t take a note in a book while you’re watching a show. You are MISSING something if you do. If you’re there in a “professional capacity”, then act like a professional and absorb the full experience before you start writing an opinion on something that might become further informed as the show progresses. I’ve read several reviews that have left me completely confused because the plot they describe is NOT the plot taking place on the stage, or  a line of dialogue is taken completely out of context solely because the writer glommed on to something and started to take a note rather than pay attention to the rest of the scene.

4.      Take a Program or Read the Credits:

This shouldn’t even need to be a rule, but here’s the thing: I’ve seen names misspelled, I’ve seen characters misidentified, and it’s annoying as hell. Even with the program, I occasionally make a mistake- but I always try to correct it in the editing. A Program for the play or the Credits of a film will often give you the most basic information you need to have in identifying who is involved with what. With the creation of IMDB, this is even easier for reviewing films because the names are there to do research on and see other projects the people are involved with.

5.      Identify and be specific-

-         I’m going to give an example of what I mean for this- I dislike James Cameron’s film “Avatar”. Not only do I dislike it on a personal level, but on a professional level as well- that doesn’t negate the fact that I realize it is an amazingly beautiful film with fantastic special effects. It doesn’t mean that I don’t acknowledge the action or that certain actors in the film do a good job of presenting the story. What it does mean is that I call out James Cameron for writing a near carbon copy script for “Dances with Wolves” and created such a generic and passé series of driving motivations that he literally chose to use the word “unobtainium” in order to describe his MacGuffin. I’m describing precisely what I did not like about the film, precisely where I found fault, and exactly why it didn’t work for me. But I also praised precisely what I thought was incredible and worthwhile for someone who WOULD like the film and that there is value in it.

-         Too many times these writers simply try to create an art form unto themselves in tearing apart something they don’t like. They offer zero credit to anyone or anything and the review becomes about them or about their cause. I don’t have to love everything, but there was hard work put into a production and the good stuff needs to be pointed out just as much (probably more) as the bad.

-          

6.      DO NOT SPOIL:

-         There are ways to talk about a movie or film synopsis, to talk about specific performances, to talk about specific “moments” without spoiling the rest of the film. I’ve read a number of reviews where the writers just flat out tell you the whole of the story, including the twist ending and then stared at the article wondering if I should bother seeing the movie or show. What’s the point? It’s already been spoiled.

-         First off- these reviewers are occasionally wrong. They totally miss the point or they see something happening that is not happening. It’s confusing and you feel at a loss, but chances are more than likely they had their head down while taking notes and missed something. Don’t spoil the show.

-          

-         Star Wars: A New Hope features the story of a young man who joins an elderly old warrior to help rescue a princess from the Galactic Empire- we need never read about the death of Luke’s Aunt and Uncle because that is a twist in the story, a dramatic moment that loses all impact the moment the audience is informed of it. Don’t talk about the twists in a review, don’t spoil the ending, and don’t spoil the show.

-          

7.      Be fair: “It’s Personal- take responsibility for it.”

-         A review is always a personal interpretation of what the reviewer is watching, reading, or listening to. Not only that, but the art they are reviewing is a personal thing that is being created by someone(s) who is likely going to read those thoughts if they are published in any medium (even a lowly blog on the interwebs). As much as I may wish to say something “isn’t personal”, it is and I’m responsible for what I write. As such, I have a responsibility to the performers, writers, and producers to be fair in what I’m writing. To view their product on a level where, even if I don’t understand it, I’m being fair with it and I’m not letting my personal feelings interfere with an honest review. But that doesn’t mean “lie”- be honest and responsible for that honesty. If I don’t like something, I owe it to myself and my credibility to say that I didn’t like it and to explain why. If I do like something, I owe it to myself, my credibility, and any readers that what I am writing is worth their time.

-          

8.      Keep a ratings scale:

-Thumbs up, thumbs down, that stuff doesn’t fly for me because there are so many levels to regard whether something is good or not. Here is an explanation of my own ratings scale and what each rating means.  I use a five point rating scale based on the Netflix *Star* program, mostly for ease of effort. Much of the scale is subjective and occasionally may seem inconsistent when set against my reviewing history.

Let me be blunt; I enjoy B movies, zombies, horror, bizarre comedy, and thrilling adventures… A family drama surrounding the personal problems of a daughter, son, mother, or father is not necessarily my cup of tea. It’s not something that cries out “Come see me!” and then sends me running to my piggy bank in hopes of cashing out- but they can be really good and really well done. On the other hand, something appeals to all of my senses but maybe came off a little oddly- something wasn’t perfect and it could have been any number of things, including my particular mood.

However much it counts, here is an explanation of my scale:

-5. This is something that moved me, thrilled me, and excited me and was everything I want out of a product on any given level. It’s almost entirely subjective since it does, actually, touch on my own personal interests: IE; “Army of Darkness” is as much a 5 movie as is “Casablanca” because they are both great examples of what they promise to be and want to be. I get just as much from one as I get from the other. To me, this is the best of the best of the best.

-4.5. This is a great product and touched on nearly everything I could want. However, there are a few flaws from a technical level or maybe some pacing moves a bit oddly. It’s not enough to detract from my general enjoyment, but it is worth noting.  *Note* The Star Wars movies are imperfect bits of joy and most of them collectively fall here for me- the writing is cheesy, the dialogue is stilted, and the acting is often mere mahogany, but there’s something special for me here and that’s all there is to it.

4. This is still a great product but may not necessarily be something that gave me everything I could want. Or it gave me everything I want, but isn’t necessarily a great product.

-3.5 This is good. Worth the money, worth the time and worth the bother. It’s not great, but I left with more smiles than frowns.  This is what I refer to as a “decent popcorn muncher”- you can sit back, have a good time, but it’s not really going to stick with me for too long afterward unless it’s something I’m particularly interested in. I might pick it up to own but I’m not going to go out of my way to buy it- in a live show, it means it was a decent few hours spent just lazing about with nothing particularly interesting to note from either a good or bad standpoint. It just sort of exists for me. *Note* While I hate the film Avatar, on a fair scale the film succeeds far more than it fails and it would fall here for my reviews- but a clearer view would be the Phantasm films, for me.

-3. This is the last rating in which something is actually considered “Good” for me and the scale slips down from there. This is the decent popcorn muncher that I’m not going to bother picking up unless it’s in a bargain bin, the matinee show that I’m going to watch in the cheapest way possible, or a performance that just doesn’t strike me as interesting. At the risk of sounding cruelly honest- I’m not seeing anything great enough or awesome enough to really grab my mind and keep me interested beyond a pleasant time-wasting experience. It’s still not bad, it’s just that middle of the road “smiling shrug” that I’m having a decent time. *Note: I’m pretty sure this is where I would have rated the latest Ninja Turtles Movie.

-2.5 Dull, but with a few interesting bits… maybe a half-decent performance, or an interesting couple of effects, or a nice tune- something kept it from totally and utterly sucking and it scraped the bottom of a 3 in regard to grabbing my attention. It’s not a solid recommendation, but if someone finds what I’m writing to be of interest to them then they may get something out of the movie, book, or show that I didn’t. *NOTE: This is where I’ve previously rated the movie PIXELS.

-2. Boring. Not only boring, but predictably boring and uninteresting. The performances might be decent, but the movie or the show is just plain boring. Nothing is happening, nothing ever happens, and nothing is ever going to happen because nothing matters. This is the quirky British snobbery of every Hugh Grant film made after “Lair of the White Wyrm” and often constitutes a 2-hour plus running time where nothing ever happens. It’s not gadawful enough to warrant hateful vitriol because nothing is ever going to happen in this movie. Ever.

1.5 The (.5) is usually because someone figured out how to use the camera appropriately sound was synched, people were acting, and there was a cohesive story to follow along. I’m normally yelling at my television. If I’m in a live theater I will sit there with a stunned, shocked, and horrified look on my face and will shake my head as I walk out. No one is going to be shocked when I write about what I saw and no one is going to be confused. I /will/ be specific and I will start to call people out for wasting my time. I’m cruel like that.

1.      This is the holy grail of awfulness- this is Birdemic, this is Manos, this is the place where bad things will not be allowed to exist in a vacuum unto themselves. I want to hurt these movies when I see them and I want to make fun of them, mock them, and drag them through a thesaurus of bad adverbs in order to make my point. This is the bottom of the barrel.

0: This is rare- but there are those special gems where things are so utterly awful that they don’t even deserve mocking. They deserve nothing. I’m done… just done.

The Trifecta! MI: Rogue Nation, PIXELS (or, does this movie really suck as bad as they say?), and WYRMWOOD, A Mad Max-style zombie mishmash.

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation

Simon Pegg reprises the role of Benny and is out in the field, he’s got some help from stalwart Ving Rhames while some terrorists get ready to take off on a plane fully loaded with nuclear arms. And here comes Tom Cruise in a last ditch effort to foil the scheme- he hangs on to the lifting plane as winds threaten to tear him from the side! Can he do what needs to be done or will the world be threatened with nuclear devastation?!

Start the fuse.

Hit the music.

And we’re on another Mission with the IMF. The Impossible Mission Force is threatened with disbandment after a few spectacular missions that result in massive damage and diplomatic nightmares throughout the world. Tom Cruise is after “The Syndicate”, a secret organization of international spies from around the world who have decided to stop working for their governments and utilize their skills to bring about the change THEY want. It’s a fairly standard gimmick and the plot is fairly standard, but what works is the delivery when Tom Cruise and the team are placed in the “impossible” position of stopping them. And it’s not just hyperbole when I state that this is the best film in a franchise that just keeps getting better with each progressive sequel.

And, it starts off exactly as a Mission Impossible movie SHOULD start off with a rather familiar looking credit sequence that follows the formula of the original television series. That was a huge bump for me, as I do love the original series. There are plenty of nods throughout- with the expected facemask gag, the twists and double-crosses, the edge of your seat suspense sequences that rely just as much on timing as they do on subterfuge and misdirection, and of course the an incredible performance from the films primary villain. In a summer filled with a number of disappointments and tired sequels, this sequel does an unexpectedly fantastic job of upping the ante and delivering all the goods.

5 out of 5.

PIXELS

So.

It’s been hailed as the “worst” Adam Sandler film ever made. There is quite a bit of literal hate-rage regarding this film, the kind of vitriol reserved for some of the most wretched films of all time. It’s a front runner for the Razzies- This movie is supposed to be so awful, so dull, so “un-funny” that there’s talk of burying it deep in a landfill out in some desert. (True nerds will actually get that joke… I’ll let the rest of you normal faceless readers just sit there wondering what I mean.)

Is it that bad?

No. No, it’s really not that bad. It’s lazy, it’s predictable, it’s fairly standard fair that never really goes anywhere too interesting but it’s not really “bad”, per se. It’s not Adam Sandler at his worst, but it’s also not his best. Honestly, this may be one of the most standard films ever made and I’m not really certain that the honest hatred is nearly as severe as it’s been made out to be. Mostly, it just seems that hating this movie seems to be the “cool Hipster” thing to do- and so people are either avoiding the movie or going to see it in droves just to mock how horrible it is. And it’s never really as bad as people seem to want to think.

Adam Sandler’s character is a former video game prodigy who once lost a 1982 championship match to the Peter Dinklage’s character. That loss pretty much knocked him loose from his life goals and he now works as a audio/video technician and installer for a big box store. His best friend is the President of the United States. When an alien intelligence invades earth, they come in the form of pixilated energy that simulates the video games of that 1982 Championship year. (Nerdy Quibble: various game pixels are FAR too advanced to belong in the 1982 time period. But never mind.) The world is given three “lives” in order to defend the Earth in a series of battles. Each battle results in the taking of a trophy for either the humans or the aliens.

Look, the movie is fairly predictable here- a team is gathered from those nerdy kids who grew up to become nerdy adults, there’s a love interest for Sandler’s character, there’s a strange sub-plot involving the President being made to look like a fool by the press, and Peter Dinklage steals the show with his performance. It’s not that the movie is un-funny, because there are pretty standard gags that tend to work pretty well- none of which really involve the conceit of the whole film, but that’s really to be expected here. It’s not the worst film ever made, it’s not the best film- it’s just one of those films that float in the middle and that may be the worst thing to be. Look, for a Saturday Matinee show the movie was worth the price of admission and I was reasonably entertained and there are some good performances from Dinklage and Josh Gad.

2.5 out of 5.

WYRMWOOD: The Road to Hell

“Mad Max meets The Walking Dead”- that’s the tagline on the Blu-ray box for this 2014 Australian horror flick released through IFC Midnight. That right there is professional attention to detail for you, my Faceless Reader.  But the truth of the matter is that the tagline is really all there is to say about the movie on the whole- this is “Mad Max” post-apocalyptic wasteland stuff with zombies and gore. It sounds like a hodgepodge bit of fan-fiction nonsense, and it largely caters to that whole idea- but that’s not always a bad thing. The movie tells you that it wants to kick ass- not a bad thing at all. The movie knows precisely what it is and that’s also not a bad thing. But I have to admit- part of me really didn’t believe that the movie could really be all that good when it promises oh so much.

The world faces a new zombie menace when people suddenly turn in to flesh eating zombie monsters- there’s something in the air after a comet comes streaking across the sky, turning anyone who doesn’t have an “A” blood-type into one of the beasties. We follow the story of a brother and sister, both of whom are immune to whatever is in the air. The brother is a family man whose wife and daughter do not fair so well in the zombie uprising. He’s trying to find his sister and he comes across a rag-tag group of other survivors when we discover that formerly combustible elements have been altered by the chemical in the air and Zombies produce a combustible element that creates fuel for vehicular use. While we follow the brother, the sister is captured by unsavory “Military Bad Guy Types” who are experimenting on the infected and immune alike while wearing gas masks to protect themselves from the change.

It’s a gory film with some good splatter gags and decent performances all around. The writers wind up building a world that seems far more interesting than a single film could contain and looks ripe for table-top gaming excursions. This movie is basically Redcapjack-bait and it’s everything I look for in a film, everything I dream about, everything I get goosepimples for and want to take long savoring licks of in order to absorb the awesomeness that is a low budget trash cinema piece of art like this. I loved this movie. It wasn’t perfection, but it was damn close enough to be called a “Hit” in my book and one that I’m definitely going to savor again at a later date. This is a “Must have” for zombie fans and a “gotta’ see” for post-apocalyptic wasteland fans.

4.5 out of 5.

2X4 Bash: She Kills Monsters

 

"She Kills Monsters"

 

This is one of those plays that hits all the right notes for a guy like me. I love D&D, I love geek culture, and I absolutely loved reading this play a few years back- so when 2X4 Bash (an offshoot from Hartnell College's "Western Stage" theater) announced this play in their summer line-up I became super excited! I'd previously written my thoughts on the material, so I'm kind of going to cheat here and do a little cut and paste for the summary of the play- but I'll get more in depth on the performances and direction.

 

Tilly is a socially awkward teenage girl who, along with her parents, recently died in a car accident. This leave her schoolteacher sister, Agnes, alone to griev for her losses. While cleaning out her sisters room, the woman comes across a “Dungeons and Dragons” module written by her sister, an adventure written specifically for a very small group of beginners in a world created by Tilly. Agnes recruits help from a local teen gamer (Chuck, played to the hilt by Nico Abiera) to explore her sisters’ story in an attempt to connect with the geeky teen she barely knew.  She gets more than she bargained for as she fights with wise-cracking slacker demons, evil cheerleader succubi, doppelgangers, and a five headed dragon in her quest to free her sisters soul. 

 

Let me get to the good stuff: Emerson Flynn tackles the role of Tilly and grinds out a stellar performance with emotional depth, comic timing, and full on energy that simply fucking blew me away! She brought me to tears, she cut to the core, and she got me to laugh like a hyena throughout the show. Fucking awesome damn job!  Actress Kristina Bruno is equally devastating as Agnes, acting as both audience surrogate to the adventures and as a character coming to terms with the loss of family. They are both joined in their mutual quest by Kaliope (Natalie Van Heukelem, pulling double duty but equally as enchanting as the story's Narrator), t he dangerously demonic Lilly (played balls to the wall by Niki Moon, who delivers a shocking twist to her performance that literally started the waterworks from my leaking eyes), and the above-mentioned slacker demon Orcus (Anthony Barrera, whose comic timing and ability to work the audience is the definition of "nailed it"). 

Director Mark Englehorn makes good use of the space available and knows the material. I had a chance to catch a previous play he helmed, "Of Dice and Men", that dealt with similar geekology and gaming culture and was equally impressed at the time. As the play takes place in the nineties, he utilizes music from the time to build the appropriate mood between set changes.

The play is easily accessible for those who don’t understand Dungeons & Dragons, utilizing the game itself as a mechanic to tell the story on the stage. There is plenty of stage combat, visual gags, and references to the geek culture that Agnes struggles to understand. Not all of her obstacles come in the game, either… her snobbish best friend (Vera, played by Sam Betancourt) doesn’t entirely approve of her new hobby, her long-term boyfriend (Miles, played by Adan Miguel) is confused by the situation (with some very hilarious results), and she starts to come face to face with the real life inspirations to Tilly’s private world. There are definitely a few shocks in store for Agnes, some emotional upheaval, and the whole story comes to an end in an exciting and tearful climax. 

 

Also, worthy of noting, use the bathroom before the show. The play moves quickly, but there was no intermission and my teeth were swimming by the time the show let out. 

 

4.5 out of 5 and a definite MUST SEE for geeks and theater patrons alike. 

 

Ant Man and The Gallows:

Ant-Man

Originally slated to be written and directed by Edgar Wright, Ant-Man spent a couple of years in developmental hell before finally being included in Marvel’s “Phase 2” series of films leading up to the huge Civil War storyline. Wright’s script was taken, altered to include the rest of the Marvel Universe, and placed in the hands of someone else in order to deliver another summer blockbuster for 2015. So what’s the final product like?

Honestly, it’s a fun movie.

Unfortunately, it’s a movie we’ve already seen a few too many times.

Ant-Man stars Paul Rudd as a burglar who has recently been released from prison. The film makes certain to let us know that he wasn’t just any kind of thief, but rather that he was a “Robin Hood”-esque figure, robbing from the corporate fat cats and hitting the “system” where it hurts. He wants to go straight but his messy past is making it hard for the man to find decent employment, so he eventually turns to doing what he knows best. He breaks into the wrong house and what he finds eventually leads him to the former Ant-Man, Hank Pym.

Here is where the movie is a bit more interesting in that they present Pym as the former Ant-Man, a costumed hero during the mid-80’s. Michael Douglas is fantastic as Pym, and his story is the most compelling of the sub-plots introduced to the story. He’s tortured by past mistakes and the very process of becoming Ant-Man has had an effect on his own brain chemistry. His daughter, Hope (Evangeline Lilly), is the most logical choice for his successor to the mantle but the former hero refuses to risk her life.

I really liked the movie. It was fun, it was exciting, and there’s even a really good scene involving Rudd and another member of the Avengers that really showed some strong future chemistry between the two stars. The effects were a little saturated in CGI, but I don’t believe practical effects would have served a film where the hero’s ability is to shrink really fast and communicate with ants. Rudd is a likeable protagonist, but he’s rarely anything more than “Oh, look- it’s Paul Rudd”- it’s a role he’s comfortable in. Michael Douglas steals the film as Hank Pym and Evangeline Lilly’s “Hope” is far more interesting than Rudd’s. But while I “liked” the movie, I didn’t actually “love” the movie.

In total, the movie is a solid addition to Marvel’s line-up but it’s not anywhere near the top of the mountain. Admittedly, the film suffers from the saturation of Super Hero Origin stories that currently flood the market so it’s not the fault of the film itself. The only real problem is that the film has some really interesting concepts that it just seems unwilling to explore; living up to an inherited mantle and the long term consequences of using powers that manipulate the fabric of reality. It has a lot going for it and is a fun ride, but ultimately doesn’t take many chances to break with formula.

3.5 out of 5.

The Gallows

Seventeen years ago, the local High School production of a small play entitled “The Gallows” resulted in the accidental death of its star. The event was caught on tape and the tragedy continues to haunt the school with rumors of strange noises and ghostly spooking. The school is about to produce the play once more and a small group of prototypical jocks find themselves part of the production in order to fulfill a required Elective Course to graduate. When the films chronicler finds an unlocked door to the theater, he convinces his friend and girlfriend to come with him to wreck the set at night as a prank. High jinks ensue.

This one comes on the heels of the “found footage” ghost movie craze but follows more of a “slasher film” formula to deliver the goods. The killer ghost wears a signature mask, carries a signature weapon, and has the intricate back story related to many Slashers over the past several years. It was much more my cup of tea then the other films of its ilk and just hit some real good notes for me. The camera work is far steadier than I’m used to seeing in “found footage” and the scenes use the first person perspective to fairly decent effect. What I did find interesting was that the camera was used more as a flashlight than a recording device and we got to see things move a little more steadily as a result. There are some twists in the story and the acting is fairly decent, even if the actors spend too much time demanding that people “put the damn camera down” and all of that nonsense.

3 out of 5.

Amanda Platsis' "Pan" at the Paper Wing Theatre!

“Pan” –

Firstly, don’t confuse this play with the original production so recently recreated by NBC Studios and most famously adapted by Disney animation. The mythology of Peter Pan has often been explored far beyond the source material by JM Barrie, and local playwright Amanda Platsis’ script develops a follow-up to the original with a focus on Wendy’s daughter, Jane Darling. Her adventure in Neverland is going to be a little different from her mother and it’s an adventure that the boy who could fly may not be entirely prepared for. Actress Maris Welch is perfectly cast as a far different contrast to the maternal Wendy of the original story- she’s sarcastic at times, defensive, infatuated, and fearful of her feelings and responsibilities.

This is where I sort of wish I was a better writer, because I have no segue here to talk about her singing.  Jane isn’t the storyteller her mother was, but she can sing- and she offers a small selection of softly sung lullaby’s in a few key moments. Maris’ voice is amazing.  

Jane is given a guided tour of Neverland. She’s introduced to vivacious mermaids and groovy Hippies (in place of the original story’s Indians) and it’s far out leader, Princess Tiger Lilly. All while Pan ostensibly promises to rescue Damien; Jane’s adopted brother.

Whereas the original material explored themes of childhood, innocence, and responsibility this follow up brings Neverland to a confusing adolescence ripe with the dreaded onslaught of “Puberty” and what it’s like to have those feelings change everything inside and around you. Platsis explores themes of infatuation, love, attraction, flirtation, rejection, confusion and dangerous obsession. The story itself flows easily from one scene to the next with a solid arc for the character of Pan.

Speaking of Pan, Actor Devin Adler has an unbelievable amount of energy throughout the show and is leaping, twirling, and dueling his way throughout the performance with a passion that simply made my old bones weary to watch. I was incredibly impressed with it and even more so when the actor knew just went to pull back into himself in an attempt to protect Pans’ fragile feelings. His Lost Boys are a solid ensemble, playing off one another excellently and continuing to bring that same reflection of energy with Pan.

Pan is opposed, as ever, by Captain James Hook (Patrick Golden). Excellent. Hook is the perfect foil for the openhearted Pan that Platsis develops- an older, embittered, and largely rejected man caught within the circle of his own adolescent obsession and dragging others down with him. We find his ship crewed by others who have fallen to similar heartbreak, each one carrying a deeper scar than is obvious at first sight. While the Lost Boys remain cohesive, the Pirates are divided and contemptuous of one another save for those moments of obsession and sadistic joy in tormenting the people who do not understand their pain.

I know how exciting it is for an actor to read their name in print and in a review, but the cast is exhaustive and long and all are extremely capable at capturing several moments throughout the show. I hate to throw a blanket over them all with a cover term of “excellent” because their performances were more than that- they were distinctive and each brought something different to the table. But I can't sit here and just list a bunch of names and adjectives and for that I apologize. But I do want to call out four of the cast, especially; the dueling faeries of Tinkerbell (Kelsey Posey) and Jessica (Beverly Van Pelt) have great chemistry and draw the eye in several large battle scenes, but not without drawing focus. They’re story is well done and much of what is told is done with a gesture or a stare. Schmee also brings a bizarre humor to the story as a Caliban-esque tortured soul. Topher Sullenger takes a couple of risks with the character that all pay off with some hilarious gestures, line deliveries, and pratfalls. But the person I really want to give a shout out to is Cody Moore- I’d heard a lot about his puppetry and voice work with regards to the Crocodile and it’s as impressive as expected. But hearing so much from others who saw the show before me, I simply wasn’t prepared for the amazingly physical performance he brought as Pan’s “Shadow”. Simply put, it blew me away.

The costumes and set designs are impressive! This viewer couldn’t help but draw a few comparisons to Labyrinth, Fraggle Rock, The Dark Crystal, and other Henson-created imagery from the 80’s. This stuff is beautiful to watch. The lighting and colors pull one another,  setting mood and adjusting focus from one character to the next as they walk from color of light to the next.  

But, while the Set Design is a wonder behold… it’s also a bit of a frustration. While the moving set is beautiful to watch, the scene changes felt a little long and the lack of a significant fade made it confusing when actors would drop character to leave the set. It’s not something I’m used to and pulled me from the moment on occasion.

4 out of 5 and a definite must-see for the summer.

John Carpenter’s “Prince of Darkness” : Retro Review

John Carpenter’s “Prince of Darkness” : Retro Review

“I have a message for you- and you aren’t going to like it.”

I first saw Prince Of Darkness back when it was released to VHS, way back in the mid-eighties during my most formative years in the horror genre. I was in my pre-teens, I was already in love with Alice Cooper (who plays a small part in this film), I’d seen a couple of gems, and Prince of Darkness was on the New Release wall of a local video store. It left a lasting impression on me that endures to this day, and I nearly leapt for joy when I came across the new Blu-Ray release whilst perusing the video wall of a nearby Frye’s. Slap down some bucks, pop it in the player, and sit back for a fun ride.

The movie starts with the death of an old Priest as he lies with a small box laying across his chest. We come to learn that the Church has been keeping a secret deep within the bowels of a local parish, a room locked and guarded by the dead priest. His death marks the passage of duty to Donald Sutherland who decides to look for scientific help in examining this dark secret. The object beneath the church may just be the concentrated form of the anti-christ, a harbinger to bringing Lucifer out from the darkness and taking over our world. Students and Professors of Theoretical Quantum mechanics are brought in with a couple of experts from other fields to examine the church, the object in the basement, and the accompanying texts in order to unlock the mystery and possibly unravel some of the largest philosophical questions of all time.

Okay, these are some pretty big ideas which may be a little difficult for some horror fans to accept. Carpenter tackles the subject and delivers fantastic pacing for such a difficult subject; the audience is fully aware of the enormity without needing to have a degree in quantum physics. The plot has some great depth, but it’s kept simple and Carpenter builds the tension from one scene to the next as the stakes quickly rise. It’s not just going to pile up the bodies, the gore, and the screams when things eventually go wrong but all of those things come into play at the perfect moments leading up to full blown horror by the films climax.

It should be noted that Prince of Darkness is the second in what many fans refer to as John Carpenter’s “Apocalypse Trilogy” (“The Thing” is the first with “In the Mouth of Madness” being the third.) - a series of films that have no connection to one another regarding the plot, but which thematically explore elements of “Cosmic Horror” along the lines of HP Lovecraft. “Prince” is probably the least recognized of the films as it was released with little studio support and directly on the heels of Carpenter’s box office flop; “Big Trouble in Little China” (now considered a cult classic and a remake was recently announced). It marked Carpenter’s return to independent productions and Carpenter’s disillusionment with the Studio System probably played a part in his choosing such an esoteric project.

I love this movie. There are some truly horrifying sequences that play havoc with the nerves and a couple of memorable deaths, but I wouldn’t put it on the top of my recommendation list. This is the film you see AFTER you’ve already seen Mouth, Thing, and definitely Halloween. It’s a worthy entry and definitely worth watching.

4.5 out of 5.

Mirth-o-matics @ Paper Wing Theatre Fremont

I have been remiss, dear faceless reader. I have been remiss in my duties as a chronicler of all I survey and a commentator in all I watch as well as a rant-machine on all I absorb. And for that, my Dear Faceless Reader, I must apologize.

Who are the Mirth-O-Matics? That’s a little easy and a little hard to explain- because I could tell you that they’re an improve comedy group and leave it at that. But if you don’t know what “Improv Comedy” is you may just scratch your head in confusion and try to smile in feigned understanding. So let me try to school you, faceless reader: Have you ever watched an episode of “Whose Line is it?” with Drew Carey (or the original British Show of the same name)? It’s an improvisational comedy show where the cast go through comedic acting exercises with some help from the audience including suggestions and a little participation. The object of each exercise or “game” is to put the actors on the spot and provide entertainment for the audience.

And that’s what the Mirth-o-matics do. They entertained this viewer for a solid two hours or so with a number of games that saw the actors scrambling to fill a variety of roles, shoe-horn dialogue chosen by the audience, alphabetized stories, and bringing a sense of order to the mayhem of largely unrehearsed suggestions from an unpredictable audience. The Troupes director led many of the games and also participated in a number of the games himself while constantly engaging with, and informing, the audience.

The Mirth-O-Matics perform throughout Monterey County and are likely to return to Paper Wing Theatre before too long, so I highly recommend checking out the show and watching these folk perform. It’s a treat and definitely something different.