The Shit is Dead is back!

Hello everyone, Loz here. 

After a few years of writing reviews for Geek Whale, I have decided to bring back this endeavor I started way back when with my friend Chiko.

I will be doing movie reviews, TV show reviews, book reviews, columns about pop culture and whatever strikes my fancy. I might eventually do a podcast, hopefully, probably... Hope you enjoy. 

Andrei Tarkovsky Spotlight: Ivan's Childhood

Film Review - Ivan's Childhood

Andrei Tarkovsky did one more student film after “There Will Be No Leave Today” called “The Steamroller and the Violin”. I haven’t found it yet, so whenever I can get to it, I will. This next film, his debut film, is probably one of the most important films to be made in the Soviet Union at that time. Released in 1962, Tarkovsky stumbled into this project when the original director, Eduard Abalov, was fired from the film. Thankfully, Vadim Yusov, the cinematographer on “Ivan’s Childhood” had worked previously with Tarkovsky on “The Steamroller and the Violin”.

The film was based on a novella called “Ivan” by Soviet writer Vladimir Bogomolov. The film tells the story of young Ivan Bondarev, a 12 year old that lost his family during World War II and is looking to avenge his family. The fact that he is a kid makes him a good candidate for spy work. There are members of the Russian military who know his identity and care for him when he comes back from his mission. The story is not complex and while at its core it could be said that it is a revenge film, it doesn’t follow the usual tropes of that style of film. This film is so much more.

I am not a connoisseur of Soviet films, but I have seen my fair share of war films and I know there are basically two types: the ones that emphasize the patriotism and victory and the ones that deal with the terrible consequences of war. This film is very much the former. Not so much a criticism of the Soviets or even the Nazis, but a criticism of war in general. The difference between this film and the usual war fare is the way that Tarkovsky chooses to tell us the story through images. Ivan’s backstory is mainly told through surreal dreams and nightmares. The sudden change between the brightness of the dreams and the stark contrast with the reality of Ivan’s world is a nice touch that helps to put into perspective how quickly things change for some people during war.

The real star of the film is without a doubt Andrei Tarkovsky’s direction. There are some scenes that are not that important to the story but are made important simply because Tarkovsky’s ideas are prevalent throughout. The static camera and characters coming in and out of the picture work to make the illusion that what you are witnessing is a dream. And it works. Scenery like the one in the kiss scene, filled with leafless trees make it all seem surreal.

This is a fantastic film and everyone should give it a try. It is nothing like people are used to nowadays, but that shouldn’t detract anyone from enjoying Tarkovsky’s Ivan’s Childhood.

Netflix Reviews - December 14th

After finishing with finals for the semester, the first thing I did was sit down and watch movies. Here are the four movies I watched.

Hyde Park on Hudson (2012)

I remember seeing the trailer at the theater for this movie a while back. I was interested in seeing Bill Murray portray Franklin D. Roosevelt, although at the same time I thought it might take away from the film if it wanted to be serious at some point. I was surprised that the best thing about this film was Murray and especially his relationship with King George VI (portrayed by Samuel West). It felt genuine. The biggest problem with this film I think was that it started to give you an interesting plot, FDR's relationship with his cousin Daisy (played perfectly well by Laura Linney), his relationship with the royal family, etc. and you never really knew what this film wanted to talk about. The director was fine, but the screenplay was lacking. If they had tightened the script a little bit, this film would have been much better.

6 out of 10

Broken City (2013)

I don't really know why I bother sometimes with films like this one. I think the cast is what made me want to spend my time with this movie. Russell Crowe always does interesting movies and Mark Wahlberg can throw down on a nice action movie. That wasn't enough to salvage this film from being completely predictable. If you have seen 20 movies, chances are you have come across the powerful politician using his power to commit a crime plot. I would be surprised if you couldn't figure everything out after watching the first scene. I did. That really takes me out of a film. I like to be surprised and if you are going to do something that has been done to death, at least do it in an incredible way. None of that happens here. It just fails to be interesting in any way. Meh.

5 out of 10

Red Dawn (2012)

If the last film was a meh, this one is an ugh. First time director Dan Bradley tackles on a remake of the 1980s campy as fuck but still entertaining because its so ridiculous and it knows it film about a Russian invasion of the US and a group of teenagers who fight back. Why someone felt this needed a remake is beyond me. The original was a child of the times. Last years of the Cold War mixed with some 80s teenager action and sprinkled with a dose of patriotism. Here we have the North Koreans being the invaders and apparently being helped by the Russians... even though we only ever really see one Russian. Anyway, pretty boy Chris Hemsworth takes a break from ruling Asgard to ham it up something heavy in this flick. Sadly, everyone seems to be hamming it up. Josh Peck, who plays Hemsworth's brother (yeah, right), seems to be bored to tears by everything that is happening. Its a run of the mill actioner where you really root for the Koreans to stick it to these ingrate kids. And it doesn't even have the courtesy to show some tits or something... Also, by the way... fuck shaky cam.

3 out of 10

Killing Season (2013)

 After watching this film, I decided to check out the director. He wasn't terrible, but he wasn't great. There were some really interesting shots in the flick and I wanted to see what else he had made. Turns out Mark Steven Johnson has done crap filled with crap. Daredevil, Ghost Rider, and When in Rome... yeesh. Talk about a terrible track record. The movie deals with a Serbian soldier who searches for a US military man who served in Bosnia. Forget about the questionable history behind the conflict after Yugoslavia was torn to different countries and the involvement of US troops, forget the questionable serbian accent that Travolta tries on (and he talks a LOT), it all overshadows and makes seem worse a movie that is mediocre but has some interesting things. Especially the ending. It caught me by surprise and I thought it was a nice touch. I also have no problem with the torture scenes. People get all riled up whenever there are torture scenes in movies and video games and they need to chill out. Torture is supposed to make you feel queasy, that's the whole point. In the end, this is not an entirely terrible movie, but this one at least had some beautiful shots of the wilderness.

6 out of 10

Man of Steel - The Superman movie we've all been waiting for?

The hype. Oh, the hype. I think there was too much. For a character with a track record like Superman, I have no clue how people expected so much from this movie. And that's exactly what happened. As we left the theater, nobody seemed to love Man of Steel. They liked it, but this crowd expected to be blown away. They were expecting the perfect superhero movie, and unfortunately this isn't it.

The fact that Christopher Nolan's name is somewhere in the credits made people's expectations skyrocket. And now that the Batman series is "done" DC needs to figure out where they go from here. I will say this though, if this movie was trying to be the first step into a Justice League movie, I didn't spot it. But enough banter, lets get to the actual movie.. (slight spoilers ahead)

The movie opens on Krypton where Jor-El is trying to convince the kryptonian leaders that the planet has no hope. General Zod walks in and attempts a coup, which leads to our first action scenes. The problem is that this is an obvious alien world, with alien terms for things, and absolutely nothing is explained to us. They reference something called 'the codex' and how it's the key to their salvation. Of course, we need to take this for certain even though we have no idea what this thing is... You know, it's totally alien to us. But no one explains anything here, so we just have to take their word that this codex thing is important.

For the most part the portion of the movie that takes place on Krypton is pretty, but quite forgettable. Obvious exposition, it's the type of exposition that gets regurgitated over and over again. Why do we need to hear Jor-El's consciousness explain to Clark step by step what happened when we just saw it happen ten minutes before? It feels like significant chunks of movie time are wasted recapping what happened earlier on. The plot isn't elaborate enough to merit this much explanation.

Being an "origin story" I'm surprised by how well the childhood/growth was handled. Through flashbacks they successfully stray away from having the first half of the movie being superkid doing mundane miracles. Unfortunately they flash back a bit too often, and it really breaks the tension at moments where you just want to see what happens next. Just when a huge confrontation is about to happen we hop back to a touching father/son moment that comes off cheesy because you're more interested in what's happening in the present.

And about those father/son moments... There are way too many of them. I get that you've got Crowe and Costner as the father figures and each of them deserves proper screen time, but it really starts weighing the movie down at a certain point. Due to all the flashing back, there's a real lack of action here. He's not in the costume enough. He's not fighting enough. There's just way too much exposition.

Zod who?

The action scenes are brilliant though. While the camera gets a bit shaky for my taste, everything looks awesome. Destruction has rarely looked this impressive. The breakthrough character in these scenes is definitely Faora-Ul who kicks all sorts of ass. Seeing her zip around at super speed annihilating just about everyone and everything in sight is one of the coolest visuals I've seen in a while.

The final confrontation between Zod and Superman is as massive a battle as you'll ever see on the big screen. A fight scene that really delivers. The type of fight scene that makes me hopeful for a decent DBZ movie at some point. And yes, I did have to reference Goku in this article at leas once.

Performance wise there isn't really anything for me to gripe about. Henry Cavill wore the cape well; charming yet intimidating, it works. Kevin Costner may seem overly cheesy at times, but he's by no means unbearable. Zod was a fun villain for a first movie, and Michael Shannon did a good job being the villain who believes he's doing the right thing. Lois Lane wasn't as tough as she should have been, but they got the nosy intrepid reporter part right; and I love Amy Adams. But, as I said earlier, the breakout star of here is without a doubt Antje Traue as Faora-Ul; a real badass second villain was the spark those initial action scenes needed.

All in all, it's an enjoyable movie. It's just one of those movies where you just want to fast forward to the fight scenes, and unfortunately there aren't that many... The initial action sequence on Krypton is pretty, but it's really just filler. I've only seen it once, and I really get the feeling that my complaints would only intensify on a second viewing. While definitely better than Superman Returns and much more enjoyable than Smallville there is still plenty of room for improvement.


7/10

The Roots’ extraordinary career

When some people hear the words “rap” or “hip hop”, they might conjure images of young blacks and Latinos with expensive cars and extravagant jewelry, dressed in sports attire, and surrounded by a bevy of scantily-clad women. Perhaps, others might visualize parties in which only one man behind a pair of turntables is responsible for the event’s success. The fact of the matter is that few, if any, would think of a band of up to eight different musicians that play their own instruments. 

The Roots, a legendary alternative rap group from Philadelphia, have established an amazing career marked by a willingness to shatter the stereotypes that sadly characterize hip hop culture in the eyes of many badly informed observers. Led by drummer ?uestlove and MC Black Thought, the collective’s discography totals eleven group album and three collaborations (with rapper Jay-Z and singers John Legend and Betty Wright) throughout twenty years. The hallmarks of their distinctive style are their use of acoustic instruments, the way that they mix different musical genres, and their poetic lyrics with existential themes. 

Despite having never sold a platinum album, their single “You got me” was awarded a Grammy in 1999, and since 2009, they have been the house band of the NBC talk show “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon”. Although it is a shame that some people know them from their role on the show and not from their prolific recording output, the media exposure that they have achieved as a result of supporting a popular comedian has considerably expanded their audience. 

The albums they released in the nineties create a relaxing ambience, something that many thought hip hop music could never do. However, this does not mean that the band limited itself to soft songs during this period. “Respond/React”, “Distortion to Static”, and “Adrenaline!” go back to hip hop’s essence with their abundance of complex rhymes and pulsating beats. “What they do” criticizes rappers that compromise their integrity in an attempt to get rich and please the masses. Musically, the track combines hip hop with melodic jazz guitar lines and smooth neo-soul hooks. Its accompanying music video, a satirical look at hip hop clichés, is one of the best of the decade. 

Even after twenty years in the business, the group keeps finding ways to innovate within its unique mix of rap, jazz, soul, and rock. Their last album, Undun, was released on December, 2011, and immediately hailed as a classic by many critics. A concept album that narrates the final 24 hours in the life of a young thug (in reverse chronological order), it just might be their most profound and elaborate creation. Every song is a story within itself, but listening to them in succession gives the listener a complete perspective on a troubled and complex character. The music, which tends to be somber and dark, creates a contemplative and melancholic atmosphere that provides the ideal background for Black Thought’s introspective rhymes. 

Each one of the Roots’ albums displays the qualities that make their music so special, but their tendency to experiment assures that they all have their own personality. As a result, their legacy is not only centered on their abundant creativity, but in the fact that they have never exploited trends to try and increase their appeal. This disposition to set their own path and establish new musical tendencies has brought them a lasting and successful career in a field where one can be forgotten a year after selling millions of records.

In January, ?uestlove announced that the band is recording its twelfth album, as well as a collaboration with famed English rocker Elvis Costello. Also, last week Black Thought revealed that he is currently recording a blues album - his first solo record, and another chapter in the impressive trajectory of the Philadelphia collective.

Alexis Herrera