Yearly Archives: 2013

Six Movies You Won’t Want to Miss in December 2013

Image via Business Insider

Well, it’s almost Thanksgiving again. And you know what that means: time to start thinking about Christmas!

December is always an exciting movie month. Its when the less explosion-y blockbusters come out, and the small movies that normally wouldn’t get much publicity finally get the spotlight. This looks like a particularly good December that will hopefully make up for some of the more lackluster months of 2013. Come on Hollywood, this is when you get to show everyone that movies are still relevant!

In order to ensure a great holiday season, here are the December releases that I am most excited to see. Join me in the excitement, people. It’s the least you can do since, you know, I can’t celebrate Christmas:


6. The Secret Life of Walter Mitty

As a director, Ben Stiller has become more and more ambitious. “Walter Mitty” looks more serious than funny, and I know that Stiller is up to the task, both in front of and behind the camera. Mostly, this looks like an exciting adventure story that could appeal to just about anybody. There is something about Sean Penn’s weird finger summoning that makes me crack up every time I watch the trailer. However, I will forget I ever saw this, because “Walter Mitty” also stars Adam Scott, who plays a huge d-bag in it. Adam Scott seems like such a nice guy, but he also plays d-bags better than just about anybody else.

5. Her

I am willing to forgive Spike Jonze for “Where the Wild Things Are,” partly because this is the same guy who also directed “Being John Malkovich” and “Adaptation.” Also, “Her” looks so strange yet so fascinating. Joaquin Phoenix falls in love with a computer voiced by Scarlett Johansson? Relevant social commentary? No further questions.

4. Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

Sure, America didn’t need a sequel to “Anchorman.” But Americans also don’t need most of the things that we have. I would be lying though if I said that I didn’t shriek with excitement the moment I saw the first trailer for “Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues.” To put it simply, “Anchorman” might just be the comedy of my generation; ask just about anybody my age about it and they will immediately start to quote it by heart. “Anchorman” is to the ’00s what “The Jerk” was to the ’70s and “Airplane” was to the ’80s.* Comedy sequels do have a bad habit of getting it wrong. For now, I am confident that “Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues” won’t be anything less than hilarious.

3. The Wolf of Wall Street

Finally, it is safe to say that “The Wolf of Wall Street” will be released in 2013, and will also be eligible for the 2013 Oscars**. More importantly though, I will finally get to see “The Wolf of Wall Street,” which I have been anticipating for months. Here’s a story of Wall Street corruption that will probably be a lot more entertaining (or certainly funnier) than “Wall Street.” I mean, there’s flying midgets and a chimpanzee in roller skates. Reportedly, “The Wolf of Wall Street” is three hours long, which would make it the longest film Martin Scorsese has ever directed. 46 years into his career, and Scorsese still finds ways to top himself.

2. American Hustle

David O. Russell has been on fire lately. His last two films (“The Fighter,” “Silver Linings Playbook”) were wonderful, and it seems like he’s found a batch of performers that just know how to work with him (sorry, Lily Tomlin). The trailer itself, from fat Bradley Cooper to “Good Times Bad Times,” gets me excited enough (even if it’s hidden all evidence that Louis C.K. is also in it). David O. Russell has become one of those directors who is consistently exciting to watch, and his name alone is enough to get me to race over to the nearest theater. Speaking of directors who meet that criteria…

1. Inside Llewyn Davis

Joel and Ethan Coen. That’s about all it takes for me to get excited for a movie. To make it even better, “Inside Llewyn Davis” is about the Greenwich Village folk scene in the 1960s. Then, to make it even even better, this marks yet another collaboration between The Coen Brothers and John Goodman, who haven’t done a movie together in years. If there’s one thing that the Coen Brothers are definitely good at, it’s directing John Goodman in a period piece.

Did everyone in the ’60s have facial hair?
*Maybe those aren’t the right movies for those times. I am just assuming they are. Maybe its actually “Animal House” for the ’70s, and “Ghostbusters” for the ’80s? Somebody please confirm. 
**Good! Getting a gold statue of a bald man handed out by an old bald man is the most important thing in life! But really, I want an Oscar. Where can I buy one?

Movie Review: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Here’s the thing about sequels: they are usually at their best when they are planned and more importantly, when they come at the center of a trilogy.

“The Hunger Games: Catching Fire,” the second installment in “The Hunger Games” series, and the umpteenth edition of Hollywood’s colon obsession, shines as an outstanding blockbuster long after the end of the regular blockbuster season.


A few months have passed since they won the first Hunger Games and Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) find that their lives have completely changed. In addition to celebrity status, they have more money than they can spend. Katniss and Peeta can barely spend anytime in their home of District 12, which looks something like coal mining country in Western Pennsylvania, as they have to go on their victory tour. During this time, the two of them are basically trained to be celebrities and participate in what is essentially an extended press junket campaign. One way that “Catching Fire,” and “The Hunger Games” series in general, justifies its translation into film is that it sometimes seems like a commentary on entertainment and being a celebrity in general.

This is where the “Hunger Games” series separates itself from most of its Young Adult counterparts: it doesn’t pander to its young generation as much as it is inspired by it. Apparently, we are a bunch of brats who love reality TV so much that it can distract us from any of our problems. The Real Housewives are the new opiate of the masses.

“Catching Fire” is about what happens when the opiate starts to fade. Escapism isn’t working in this world anymore, as the divide between the rich and poor is now so big that it is hard to avoid. Rebellion is now impossible to avoid. Katniss has become the face of the uprising. The president (Donald Sutherland) hoped that Katniss would inspire hope in the people of her district; just not in this way.

Now that most of the exposition of the first film is out of the way, “Catching Fire” can move on to more detailed world-building, which it does quite exceptionally. By focusing on class issues, and more importantly the people of each district, “Catching Fire” elevates this futuristic America from bland dystopia to complex society. While the poor suffer, the rich eat until they are full, make themselves throw up, and then do it all over again. The rich people of “Catching Fire” act like a bulimic version of the French nobility.

While “Catching Fire” adds a few new characters to the mix, such as the predictably great Philip Seymour Hoffman (who will hopefully get more screen time in “Mockingjay”), it most notably strengthens its existing characters. Lawrence continues to prove that she can turn anything into an Oscar winning performance. Katniss had to deal with a lot in this installment, including, PTSD, heartbreak, and a love triangle which finally stopped being all “Twilight.” Most things in life are better when they don’t try to be like “Twilight.” Luckily, Lawrence and Hutcherson display much better chemistry in this film than in the last one.

There is also some new blood added to “Catching Fire” behind the camera. Director Francis Lawrence adds a grittier look to the film and smartly does away with most of the shaky cam. Writers Simon Beaufoy (“Slumdog Millionaire”) and Michael Arndt (you might have heard of him as the man who got kicked off of writing the new “Star Wars”) structure the story in such a way that plays off the first film while also being something completely different. Without spoiling too much, the main characters end up in the Hunger Games once again. In movie terms, the way in which they end up in the competition again is surprisingly plausible, so long as you remember that mutant baboons don’t actually exist.

Jennifer Lawrence=Real life Khaleesi. Mother of Mockingjays!

I’d like to focus on the writers once again because usually in a film of this scope, the writers supposedly don’t matter. However, they mean quite a lot when you are adapting a book to the big screen. I have not read any of the original novels, so I cannot speak as to whether or not they got the voice of the original down. However, what I can say is that besides capturing the dark side of this story, “Catching Fire” is funnier than you could ever imagine. It really digs down and finds the humor in most of its characters, and that writing is supported by some great work from the likes of Stanley Tucci and Woody Harrelson.

“Catching Fire” is a strange crossroads in the series, as it is the penultimate story, despite the fact that there are two more films on the way (of course “Mockingjay” is being split into two parts because money). While it is an incredibly solid film on its own, “Catching Fire” ends on a note that suggests that it never wanted to tell a self-contained story, as if it just needed to serve as filler between the original Hunger Games, and what I predict will be an all out war. However, “Catching Fire” deserves to be known as much more than just that. Here’s a movie where you will gasp at a dress that turns on fire, weep over soldiers that abuse people, and then laugh at Woody Harrelson as he attempts to drink rubbing alcohol. There is no new James Bond film this year, so in terms of big Hollywood entertainment, “Catching Fire” will have to do.

Brain Farts From The Edge:

  • With “Catching Fire,” the “Hunger Games” series came of age.
  • I wish I brought a notepad to keep track of how many times Donald Sutherland says “I want them dead.” It’s a lot. If you really wanted to make Donald Sutherland look evil, you should have just had him headbutt a cat
  • Stanley Tucci’s Caesar Flickerman embodies the satirical side of “Catching Fire.” Even his name is ridiculous. In real life, Flickerman would probably be a perfect TMZ host.
  • The competition of the Hunger Games itself is like a movie. All of the contestants are putting on a performance. However, that performance is real and has consequences. It’s actually pretty meta. “The Hunger Games” series is much smarter than anyone gives it credit for.
  • Speaking of which, it is always impossible to tell whether or not Katniss’ affection for Peeta is genuine or not.
  • Amongst other things, “Catching Fire” includes a public flogging. How it got away with a PG-13 rating is beyond me…
  • …but I will try and explain (at least how I see it). There is a lot of violence in “Catching Fire.” However, most of it is not shown in graphic detail. If you avoid blood and realism in your portrayal of violence, then you can avoid an R-rating. Also, the MPAA is a little too close with all of the studios. If you want to make more sense with the horrible absurdity of the ratings system, you must watch “This Film Is Not Yet Rated.”
  • How did this trend of not showing the title until the ending start? We know what your title is, that is why we went to see the movie! You don’t have to treat it like a twist!
  • The elevator scene is by far the film’s funniest. 
  • Speaking of the elevator scene, I may or may not have been distracted for a moment as well. Johanna (Jena Malone) said “something something in our district we have TREES.” 
  • All of Effie’s (Elizabeth Banks) outfits look like costumes that the Dean would wear in “Community.”
Good luck telling Jim Rash and Elizabeth Banks apart now.

Movie Review: 12 Years a Slave

Image via Salon

WARNING: Spoilers for real life. According to the Internet, this is now something I have to say. 

Steve McQueen’s “12 Years a Slave” is about as intense and emotionally devastating as you might expect. Then again, a drama about slavery probably couldn’t go any other way.

“12 Years a Slave” is a great film that I don’t think I can ever watch again. And that’s a compliment. It plays like a series of terrible atrocities that you wish you had never witnessed, but you feel like a different person for having viewed history from a new perspective.


It seems that Hollywood has finally gotten comfortable telling stories about America’s past with slavery. “12 Years a Slave” is based on a book that is based on a true story of an odd occurrence that was unfortunately not uncommon during one of America’s darkest times. Solomon Northrup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is a free black man from Saratoga. He is a husband, father, and talented violinist. One day, two white men who probably shouldn’t be trusted (re: they have facial hair) trick Solomon and sell him into slavery. If it takes a movie to make you realize how cruel slavery was, then you’re probably an idiot. If it took a movie to make you realize that something this cruel could actually happen to another human, then you’re probably me.

Image via Daily Princetonian. 

When I think of Solomon Northrup, I’m reminded of something Red said about Andy Dufresne in “The Shawshank Redemption”: “Some birds aren’t meant to be caged. Their feathers are just too bright.” During these next 12 years, Solomon deals with a series of cruel masters who beat him, manipulate him, and try to extinguish whatever hope might be left inside of him. But as they say in movies, you can’t lose your hope as long as you’re good at playing a musical instrument.

Under the direction of Steve McQueen, “12 Years a Slave” is one of the darkest period dramas I’ve ever seen. At times, it is less about hope and optimism and more about the pure will to survive. There is little talk of morality, just desperate people who will do literally anything they can to be free. The nicest man to take Solomon in (Benedict Cumberbatch) must let him go, as he feels he cannot keep him safe from those who want to hurt him. While “12 Years a Slave” is an emotional film, it does distance itself as much as possible, so as not to alter history. “12 Years a Slave is about witnessing, not changing, history.

Image via Collider

Despite this, McQueen is neither tasteless nor sadistic: he truly knows how to capture tragedy in unimaginably horrifying ways. One scene which involves an attempted punishment for disobedience (you’ll know which one it is when you see it) seems to go on forever. I wish I brought a stopwatch in to time the length of the shot, which gets more and more unbearable and threatening the longer it goes on. McQueen takes the elements of film (image, sound, time, etc.) and uses them masterfully.

“12 Years a Slave” brings up a lot of obvious points (slavery was bad; slaveowners were assholes), while also shedding new light on a part of history that was thought to be so well documented. “12 Years a Slave” is accurate until whoever the history equivalent of Neil deGrasse Tyson says otherwise. Either way, movies should be primarily about capturing the emotions associated with living during a certain period in history. All it takes is a scene where a mother is separated from her two children for another person’s financial benefit in order to get a sense of the cruelties of slavery.

“12 Years a Slave” also focuses on the slaveowners as well. Michael Fassbender is riveting as Edwin Epps, the man who would own Solomon for most of his time as a slave. He’s unpredictable, and lets his power go to his head just a little too much. Paul Dano, meanwhile, lets his Eli Sunday side come back in full form. The most powerful performance, however, comes from Ejiofor, who does so much acting simply with his eyes, which hide so much pain and longing. It’s truly beautiful and moving, and it works perfectly with McQueen’s directing. I sense many future collaborations between McQueen and a majority of the actors from this film.

It might seem difficult to drag yourself to a theater to watch a movie that is this uncompromisingly brutal. Just know that you will be part of an experience that will be talked about for years to come. McQueen defies the norms to make a movie that shouldn’t be defined as “feel-bad,” but also doesn’t resort to a happy ending that ties everything together too perfectly. In the end, one slave is safe, but that was sadly just one man who was able to walk free at that time. In the end, the hope in “12 Years a Slave” lies in the hindsight.

Brain Farts From The Edge

  • Great to see that Brad Pitt walked right off the set of “Inglourious Basterds” for this role, but replaced the mustache with one of those weird chin beards.
  • Speaking of Pitt, it’s funny that the producer would cast himself as the guy who saves the main character. Just saying.
  • Speaking of funny accents, I don’t know what Benedict Cumberbatch was going for. Sure, he wanted to be Southern, but there was still a little bit of British left in there. My theory is that it was a compromise, as Hollywood believes that anyone born before the year 1950 had a British accent (I’m looking at you, “Hugo”). 
  • I should probably write a second post about this film. Soon.
  • I don’t want to Armond White this here, but there were tiny flaws here and there, but definitely not enough to ruin the experience. Mainly, the villains often bordered on cartoonish, but luckily nobody pushed it too far over the line. However, this is a true story, so maybe their actions speak more to the evils of slavery than to the possible flaws in the script. Just an interesting thought to ponder.
  • I don’t know if I am alone here, but there were several occasions throughout the film where I just wish Django would show up.
  • The South was an unjust place. However, McQueen finds time to focus on the beauty of the region. From fields of cotton to jungles of cane to swamps, “12 Years a Slave” had some of the best cinematography of the year.
  • Taran Killam is in this for some reason. You’re awesome Taran, but this casting decision will forever confuse me. 
  • Paul Giamatti. Man, calm down and drink some wine. 
  • Favorite note I took during the movie: “Slaveowners were weird.”
  • I finally figured out where Salvatore Romano has been hiding all of these years. For those of you who don’t watch “Mad Men,” Salvatore Romano is not Ray Romano’s cousin. 
  • The most important note I have ever taken: When he puts on a bandana, Michael Fassbender looks like Chris Meloni in “Wet Hot American Summer.”

Top 10: Movies That I Shamefully Haven’t Seen Yet

There’s only so many hours in a day, and my potion that can help you survive without sleep has yet to be approved by the FDA.

Having said that, I can’t see every movie ever made. This is a fact that has driven me crazy for my entire life. That might also be because I don’t have many actual problems to deal with. Who knows.

Anyway, I try to watch every movie that I think is important to see, but I also just want to see ones that interest me personally. That means that a lot of classics get missed. The point here is this: I am not perfect. I still have a lot of movie watching to go.

I decided to compile a list of ten movies that I also can’t believe I haven’t seen yet. Many of them are Oscar winners and AFI list toppers. Mainly though, they are movies that people walking down the street yell at me for not seeing.


City Lights (1931)

Silent film is one of the greatest gaps in my cinematic knowledge. I have seen bits and pieces of Chaplin in the past, but never the full thing. Film buffs, feel free to discredit me until I at least watch “City Lights.”

This looks like a poster that a rich family would have framed and put in their basement.

The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)

Does it count that I can whistle the entire famous tune? I guess anyone can. It’s catchy, and definitely much less creepy to whistle than the “Deliverance” banjo song.

HEY THAT’S THE NAME OF THE MOVIE!


West Side Story (1961)

I might be even less knowledgable about musicals than I am about horror movies. I’ve been under the terrible assumption my whole life that every musical is “High School Musical,” in which everyone’s problems are suddenly solved through spontaneous song and dance. But then I saw “The Book of Mormon” this past summer, and I decided to lift the embargo. So I will have to venture over to “West Side Story” soon. For the record, I know that “I Feel Pretty” isn’t originally from “Anger Management.”

I wonder if this is like the basketball scene from “Catwoman.”


Sixteen Candles (1984)

I’ve seen up to the scene involving Molly Ringwald’s underwear, if that counts for anything. For some reason, I just never finished “Sixteen Candles.” However, I will always worship at the feet of John Hughes, as should anybody else who has ever been in high school. Also, if I was alive in the 80s, I totally would have married Molly Ringwald.
SPOILER ALERT!!!1

Top Gun (1986)

There’s a lot of jokes out there about gay volleyball scenes in “Top Gun.” I think. I wouldn’t know, because I still haven’t seen this modern classic. I wish I already had at this point. For some reason, the idea of Tom Cruise playing volleyball just seems so implausible.

I just found out Val Kilmer is in Top Gun.

The Princess Bride (1987)

Recently, I found out that the fact that I haven’t seen “The Princess Bride” is a crime against every twentysomething’s childhood. It is not out of lack of interest, but rather because my years as a kid was spent with too many repeat viewings of “Heavyweights,” “Kindergarten Cop,” and “3 Ninjas.” I look forward to watching “The Princess Bride” to see what I have been missing out on. Mainly though, I just want to see what Jewish Santa looked like when he was younger.

Swords would make “Homeland” much better.
Batman (1989)

I grew up on Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, and for a long time I thought that was all I needed. False. I’ve got to see Jack Nicholson as the joker. Not to mention, “Batman” was Tim Burton in his prime, before Tim Burton became a parody of Tim Burton. 
Eight more years until Clooney’s nipple suit set Batman back about ten years.
Dances with Wolves (1990)

I sincerely have very little desire to see what I perceive to be a four hour epic about white guilt. I just think that I should watch it because I am honestly curious to see what the Academy possibly saw in it when they awarded “Dances with Wolves” Best Picture over “Goodfellas.” “Dances with Wolves” might be a good movie, but it will never be “Goodfellas.” For now, I will just continue to blame its snub on the whore living in 2R.
I’m already bored.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

“Judgment Day” is supposedly one of the best sequels ever made. I guess I wouldn’t know. I liked the first “Terminator” movie as much as anyone is supposed to (even though it does look a little dated today), and it’s probably the best performance that Arnold Schwarzenegger has ever given. I probably should have seen “Judgment Day” a long time ago. Once again, I blame “Kindergarten Cop” always playing on cable.
Okay, this looks awesome.

The Bourne Series (2002/2004/2007)

This is probably completely inexcusable. Quick cuts in action movies bother me, but Paul Greengrass won me over with “Captain Phillips.” Also, any action movie starring Matt Damon has to be better than “Elysium.”
“Look how much they’re gonna pay me for The Adjustment Bureau 2!”

Wes Anderson Releases a New Film (Sort Of)

I’m a day late here, but I figured I’d post it anyway. Yesterday, Wes Anderson released a new short film called “Castello Cavalcanti.” Now, I usually form an emotional response to anything Wes Anderson makes pretty quickly, but I am still trying to figure this one out. As usual, it’s beautiful to look at. But, what is it about?

It looks pretty, but “Castello Cavalcanti” made me realize how Anderson’s characters are even more important than the visuals. I like the pretty visuals and the fact that everything looks like a giant toy, but it could use more dialogue like “that’s the last time you put a knife in me!” and “get your ass the hell off of my boat!” All I’m saying is that I’m still not sure why this ends with Jason Schwartzman ordering a bowl of spaghetti. Because Italy, I guess?

It definitely can’t beat “The Midnight Coterie of Sinister Intruders,” but its solid enough to make the wait for “The Grand Budapest Hotel” more bearable. Watch the video below:

My Most Anticipated Releases of November 2013

Nebraska

Alexander Payne has been on a hot streak basically since the beginning of his career. After “Sideways” and “The Descendants,” “Nebraska” brings the director back to his home city of Omaha for what seems like his turn even further into dramatic territory. Plus, Will Forte has a shot to show his dramatic chops (I know that they are there) and generally awesome person Bob Odenkirk gets a big role [Note: Saul Goodman was supposedly relocated to Omaha at the end of “Breaking Bad.” Hmmm…]. For great, little character-driven stories and perfect dark humor, Alexander Payne never disappoints.


The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

I have yet to read any of the novels in the “Hunger Games” series, but I was a big fan of the first movie, which was a thoroughly entertaining dystopian blockbuster. Since I have no background knowledge of the story, I am excited to see where “Catching Fire” brings the story next. Also, this will likely only increase my love for Jennifer Lawrence. Let’s just hope that the baboons that I saw in one of the commercials are less ridiculous than the giant mutated dogs from the first installment.


Oldboy

Ever since the moment I heard that Spike Lee was directing a remake of “Oldboy,” I had no clue what to make of it. Why mess with Korean perfection? Could anybody ever recreate the pure shock of the octopus or hammer scenes? Still, I can’t help but be more curious than angry about this remake. It has a stellar cast (Josh Brolin, Sharlto Copley, Samuel L. Jackson), and its easy to forget that outside of his often annoying media presence, Spike Lee is an incredibly talented director. Let’s just hope this is more “Inside Man” than “Miracle at St. Anna.”

No Country For Oldboy: Josh Brolin, who looks like he’s auditioning to play Bruce Wayne stuck in the pit in “The Dark Knight Rises.”

Analog This: The Pete Holmes Show Is Quietly Reinventing Late Night

Image via PopWatch

Late night isn’t what it used to be. Besides the fact that most people are just watching the highlights online, there’s just way too many hosts and way too many shows to choose from.

During the 11 PM hour, I have to choose between Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Conan O’Brien, who are all personal heroes of mine. Two weeks ago, Comedy Central kicked off “@Midnight,” which proved to be a surprisingly smart and fun way to combine TV and social media into a game show format. There’s a reason that Chris Hardwick now hosts everything ever.

Then one week later, “The Pete Holmes Show” premiered on TBS at the exact same time. After two or three episodes, I was sold. Granted, I was already a huge fan of Pete Holmes through both his standup and his podcast “You Made It Weird.” Holmes’ standup is endearingly goofy and consistently sharp in its observations. “You Made It Weird” focuses on a loose conversation that is funny and enlightening and often pushes the three hour mark. Holmes is both one of the most talented stand-ups working today, and host of a podcast that is often better than some of its more well-known contemporaries.


In his new show, Holmes takes both his skills as a comedian and his skills as a great conversationalist and shoves them into a half hour that is abundant with jokes that never feels rushed or crammed in. Normally, it takes a late night host a while to get settled in. Just ask Conan, who serves as this show’s executive producer. However, Holmes already looks like he has the gist of it after just a little more than a week on the air. That’s probably because this is Pete’s show. He built it from the ground up (with a little help from his friends) and then put his name on it. There is no legacy that he has to preserve. With that pressure off, all he has to worry about is being funny. After all, that is his job.

Because of this sense of freedom, Holmes has quietly been tweaking with the late night format while also showing great respect for it. Unlike most late night shows, “The Pete Holmes Show” always opens with a pre-taped sketch. Lately, he’s had multiple parodies of James Bond and X-Men. Neither of these things are that relevant to pop culture at the moment, but who cares. It seems wrong to make jokes about something over a year old, but the bits are so funny that the time that they air seems irrelevant.

After the opening credits, its naturally time for the monologue. Instead of firing off a bunch of one-liners about the day’s current events, Holmes instead does a few minutes of stand-up. One night, he might tell a long story about going to an Enrique Inglesias concert. Another night, he might go on a rant about farmers and Daylight Savings Time. You never know. What is beautiful about this is that Holmes is bringing unpredictability back to late night.

And of course, the show ends with an interview. Just like the monologue, the interview format can change from episode to episode. One episode last week featured a pre-taped interview with Allison Williams in which they sat in their pajamas and ate ice cream. When guests come on, they rarely discuss the products that they are actually there to promote. Holmes incorporates the laid back and friendly atmosphere on “You Made It Weird” into his TV show and makes his interviews unforced and fun.

Analyzing the reason why a certain joke is funny tends to ruin the joke. However, I will say that “The Pete Holmes Show” fully embraces the philosophy of comedy, especially improvisation. Pete Holmes always has the attitude to just go with it, and when he accidentally goes off script (which he does a lot), or laughs at his own jokes (which he also does a lot), he embraces the “yes, and.” This can sometimes be disastrous, but because Holmes is so naturally funny and quick on his feet, he can always turn an awkward moment into a fun and hilarious one.

“The Pete Holmes Show” clearly comes from somebody who loves both comedy and late night television more than most people. It is with this knowledge that he is able to move the format forward. He can play with conventions without being sarcastic or mean. As Holmes has stated on his podcast, people enjoy a monologue and an interview because the familiarity of it is comforting. “The Pete Holmes Show” is not radically new but rather a much needed breath of fresh air.

You can tell how different “The Pete Holmes Show” is just from the look of it. The set is decorated with paintings that look like they come directly from the walls of NerdMelt, one of America’s best alt-comedy venues which happens to be inside a comic book store*, and perpetuates the “we’re all in this together” comedy mentality.

Pete doesn’t even need to wear a suit to show you that he knows what he’s doing. Ladies and gentlemen: the new future king of late night wears Converse.

*NerdMelt is located inside Meltdown Comics on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles. If you live in LA and have never been to a show there, go as soon as humanly possible.

Here are some of Pete’s funniest stand-up bits:

Movie Review: Evil Dead (2013)

Image via YouTube

Well, if you’re going to remake a classic that didn’t need to be remade, then you might as well remake it like this.

“Evil Dead” pulls a Sean Parker and removes the “The.” While it would be funny if this was the only change made in this remake, “Evil Dead” defies a lot of expectations by actually being its own movie. Unlike the recent “Carrie” remake, “Evil Dead” knows exactly what kind of movie it wants to be: a spectacularly gory horror movie. At that, it definitely succeeds.

Once again, “Evil Dead” begins with a group of young adults heading up for a pleasant weekend in a cabin in the woods. At this point, you’d think that people would watch enough horror movies to know that you’re probably screwed if you go to stay in a cabin in the woods.* Even if reminders of “The Evil Dead” past abound, including the car, a deck of cards, and that ticking clock, this new group has no clue what they’re in for.

You could sit there and try and figure out which character is supposed to be in the place of which character from the original, or you could look at them as separate people. The characters in “Evil Dead” are definitely more fully fleshed out than in the original, even though their paper-thin nature is what made the characters originally so funny. The most important characters here are David (Shiloh Fernandez) and his sister Mia (Jane Levy). Their mother had died, David wasn’t there for them, and Mia tries to get off drugs once and for all.

While the original almost immediately jumps into demon play, “Evil Dead” takes its sweet time, which allows for some solid buildup. During this time, we learn that Olivia (Jessica Lucas) is a nurse who is somewhat helpful to Mia, even though she doesn’t realize that her possession isn’t actually withdrawl. Meanwhile, Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) finds the infamous Sumerian text and begins to piece together what is really going on. You see, Eric is smart, and we know this because he has long hair, a beard, and glasses. Meanwhile, we learn that Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore) is an attractive blonde who is in this movie because she is an attractive blonde. At least Fede Alvarez gives his caricatures decent backstories.

These cabin dwellers are certainly a little less oblivious than the first bunch, or at least they are the victims of some plausible misdirection. Also, the demons themselves are a little different this time around. It seems to be more clear where they come from, and they are also much more personal in their taunting. This comes back to how well developed the characters are at the beginning. Yet David, like Ash, doesn’t have much more of a comeback beyond “Shut up!”

Once everyone figures out what exactly is going on, “Evil Dead” is relentless. It relishes it buckets of blood and shocking violence. I don’t use the word “shocking” lightly because that is something that is nearly impossible to do nowadays. “Evil Dead” shows everything from discarded flesh to mutilated arms. Normally, this would be just too much and if this already sounds like too much for you, then you definitely should not watch “Evil Dead.” Yet, “Evil Dead” earns the right to show too much, as the film tries to replicate the experience of hell literally breaking loose on earth.

“Evil Dead” also highlights how well the original film holds up today, despite many sequels, knockoffs, and raised stakes in gore and torture porn. There’s still nothing as perplexing and weird as a tree coming to life and committing rape. That scene is handled quite differently in the remake, as if here it is actually trying to give itself a purpose for existing. Maybe it just really felt the need to be in the remake, given how infamous that scene is. The great thing about “Evil Dead” is that you don’t need to be a fan of the original trilogy in order to enjoy it. Yet, those who are will find themselves rewarded. “Evil Dead” was produced by Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell, who clearly knew which scenes fans were dying to get recreated.

“Evil Dead” might be even more bloody disgusting than the original, but its also surprisingly more hopeful. “Evil Dead” is as much a redemption story as it is a horror film. Independent from the original, it is a high quality horror film, mining screams from the utmost depths of unimaginable fright. It is just as scary to see an arm pop out of the ground and scare someone as it is to see someone saw off their own arm in order to save themselves. These are two things that happen in “Evil Dead,” many times over.

Unfortunately, “Evil Dead” loses a few valuable traits in its translation from 1981 to 2013. It lacks the visceral sense of humor of “The Evil Dead” as well as its audacity and simplicity. The original felt like commentary on all of horror in general. Through a bleeding projector and some off-putting point of view shots, the film transported the viewer right into it and then asked if they still enjoyed watching a horror film as it tore itself apart from the inside. The new one is a bit more of a back-to-basics horror film, often asking the audience to just sit back and be scared. That is not necessarily a bad thing, because “Evil Dead” delivers damn well on that promise. Still, it sometimes feels like “Evil Dead” homogenizes a revolutionary cult classic.

Nonetheless, “Evil Dead” is a fine practice in plausible insanity. Despite a lack in laughs, it never takes itself too seriously. “Evil Dead” is a sometimes fun, sometimes scary, practice in developing a bunch of characters, and then trying to find ways to kill them all off.

*Come on, guys. This is why Cancun was invented!

IT’S JUST LIKE “THE HAPPENING” LULZ. Image via Bitch Magazine

A Beginners’ Guide to Horror as Written by a Beginner

Image via Villains Wiki

Well, it’s Halloween. You know what that means: time for people to pretend they care about horror movies for one month!

And it’s really a shame that this obsession will go on for only a month: Horror movies do not get all of the respect they deserve (I blame found footage). Sure, horror is starting to get attention on TV (“The Walking Dead,” “Hannibal,” “Bates Motel,” fifty new witch shows all premiering on Lifetime), but cinema is really where the genre began, and where it is at its best.

Unfortunately, horror has been one of my pop culture blind spots for years. I have been lucky enough to take a class about the genre and explore it more on my own and have a newfound appreciation for it. Maybe it’s my fault for thinking that “Saw V” represented every horror movie ever.

What I am trying to say is that I am a relatively new horror fan. Unfortunately, I cannot dig up any obscure examples to show how savvy I am, as I’ve only seen one movie made by George A. Romero. However, I can be your Introductory Horror Spirit Guide, and lay out the basics. In my opinion, these are ten essential horror movies to kick off your love of horror movies with. Let me remind you that you can watch horror movies after Halloween ends:

NOTE: This list is not in order from best to worst, or vice versa. It is also not in chronological order. Rather, I put them in the order I think you should watch them in. So watch the first one on the list first and continue down to the bottom. Or don’t, if that’s not what you’re into. And according to most horror movies (especially “The Silence of the Lambs”), people can be into some really weird stuff.

Psycho (1960)

Horror didn’t start with “Psycho,” but this is the point where the genre completely changed. Hitchcock’s masterful directing is years ahead of its time. He shows just the right amount of strength. 50 years later and that shower scene is still terrifying. “Psycho” inspired a new generation of filmmakers and audiences obsessed with slashers who could probably use a few therapy sessions with Freud.

Scariest Moment: The shower scene. No question.


Night of the Living Dead (1968)

I have never been a huge fan of zombie stories (sorry, “Walking Dead” fans, I’ll watch it one day), but “Night of the Living Dead” is more than just that. For starters, the word “zombie” is never said once, making this the only zombie movie where its plausible that the characters have never heard of zombies before. It came out in 1968, so you can bet that its full of references to Civil Rights and the Cold War. “Night of the Living Dead” is a fine example of how to make a convincing scary movie on a microbudget.

Scariest Moment: An infected young girl stabs her mother to death with a trowel.


Halloween (1978)


Sometimes, it seems like the power of “Halloween” has diminished, thanks to many sequels, a remake, and a vast amount of copycats. Yet, John Carpenter’s classic still holds up as a near-perfect (there’s a bit too many palm trees for Illinois) slasher film about terror in suburbia. While a majority of the tropes that make up most modern horror movies can be traced back to “Halloween,” Michael Myers is still one of horror’s most unique villains. He wears a plain white mask, and most of the killings are seen through his eyes. Sometimes, it feels the viewer is the slasher, and whether you enjoy it or not is up to you.

Scariest Moment: One prominent chase would have been scarier had Jamie Lee Curtis not been screaming about her stupid keys. So I’m going to go with the moment where it SEEMS like Michael Myers is dead…


Jaws (1975)

At age 12, I made the mistake of watching “Jaws” just a few days before getting on a cruise ship. It amazes me how much terror Spielberg was able to pull off with just a PG rating, but “Jaws” elevated Hitchcockian horror to blockbuster status. To this day, it is still the scariest and most entertaining horror movie involving a giant sea creature. Everything from the music to the shark itself are frightening as ever. Like Hitchcock before him, Spielberg shows great restraint in showing the shark sparingly (even if it was partially because of a technical issue).
Scariest Moment: Tough call, but I’m going to go with the opening shark attack. Basically, if you’re a girl in a horror movie and you take your clothes off, then you’re probably about to die.


Carrie (1976)

Like Spielberg, Brian De Palma worships at the feet of Hitchcock. That is one of the reasons why the recent remake of “Carrie” has nothing on the original. “Carrie” is a masterpiece of slow-building horror capped off by two amazing performances by Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie. De Palma makes you wait a long time to get to the much anticipated moment when the bucket of pig guts falls. Yet, the wait is never boring; it is agonizing and suspenseful as hell because we’ve been waiting the whole entire movie to witness this tragic moment, and we just didn’t know it.

Scariest Moment: While the prom scene seems like a given, I am going to go with the second to last shot, which I will not spoil for you.


Rosemary’s Baby (1968)

A very famous movie came out in 1973 that is about demonic possession. While that one seems like the common sense example for this list, parts of it come off as kind of silly today. Meanwhile, “Rosemary’s Baby,” which contains very few scenes with the actual devil, is just as good today as it was in 1968. Roman Polanski might fool you a few times, as “Rosemary’s Baby” often doesn’t even feel like a horror movie. Like “Carrie,” “Rosemary’s Baby” is all about slow-building dread. And oh what an ever watchable display of dread this is.

Scariest Moment: In a hazy dream/nightmare sequence, Rosemary is impregnated by the devil. Brought to you by the sick mind of Roman Polanski.


The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

“The Silence of the Lambs” remains the only horror movie to win Best Picture, and for good reason. This is the first horror movie that must have really connected with voters: there are no vampires or zombies to be found here, just some psychotic humans. Anthony Hopkins and Ted Levine do amazing work creating two of the most haunting villains in cinematic history. The scariest part about “The Silence of the Lambs” is that these monsters could actually exist. Sometimes, they are just lurking in the basement next door to your house.

Scariest Moment: The showdown between Clarice, Buffalo Bill, and a pair of night vision goggles.


The Shining (1980)

“The Shining” is one of the most baffling and memorable psychological horror films ever made. It is one of Stanley Kubrick’s crowning achievements. “The Shining” has become a part of the pop culture lexicon (“all work and no play make Jack a dull boy”), and its influence on audiences has been so great that there is even a documentary about all of the theories it has espoused (“Room 237″). Jack Torrence could only exist in our worst nightmares, but his world is so vivid that it has become a part of our own.

Scariest Moment: Three-Way Tie: “Heeeeere’s Johnny!”/”Redrum”/”Come play with us forever and ever and ever.”


The Evil Dead (1981)

“The Evil Dead” might leave you breathless the first time you see it. “The Evil Dead” is filled to the brim with ideas and originality. The screams and geysers of blood are so over-the-top that they are frightening and intentionally hilarious at the same time. It’ll make you question your perception of horror in general. If you are a fan of the genre-bending done in “Community” or any Quentin Tarantino movie, then “The Evil Dead” is necessary viewing. It is also a must-see for every other human in general. Watch as Sam Raimi, at just age 22, proved he knew more about making movies than people twice his age. Heck I’m 21, and now I just feel like an underachiever.

Scariest Moment: “We’re gonna get you. We’re gonna get you.” Also, tree rape.

Funniest Moment: “Shut up Linda!”


The Cabin in the Woods (2012)

Playing off the genre-bending done by “The Evil Dead” years earlier, “The Cabin in the Woods” breathed new life into horror movies by deconstructing them. It spoofs the cliche group of college kids who go up to a cabin and get killed off one-by-one. Then, through some genius plot devices, “The Cabin in the Woods” explains exactly why all horror movies go the way they go. While it breaks away from formula, “The Cabin in the Woods” also defends it. But never mind that, it’s also as hilarious as it is insane.

Scariest Moment: The moment it gets bat shit crazy. You’ll see.

Other Contenders: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), Deliverance, The Bride of Frankenstein, Alien, Se7en, The Birds

Still Need To See: Dawn of the Dead (1978), Friday the 13th (1980), The Omen (1976), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), The Hills Have Eyes (1977), Saw, Scream, Nosferatu, Paranormal Activity, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Poltergeist

Overrated: The Blair Witch Project, The Exorcist

Horror pros and all others, what would you add to this list? Did I get it right? How many “Friday the 13th” sequels do I have to watch before I’m considered an expert?

Great Lou Reed Musical Moments in Movies

On Sunday, rock ‘n roll pioneer Lou Reed passed away. It’s a testament to the genius of Lou Reed’s vision that a kid growing up in the 2000s could listen to “The Velvet Underground & Nico” for the first time and feel the same way somebody did when they first heard it in 1967.

I am proud to say that I still have a Velvet Underground poster hanging in my room, and that every time I give any album from either The Velvet Underground or just Lou Reed another listen, I hear something new every single time.

Besides being a multi-talented musician, Reed was an artist in many other forms. He made a few short films himself. He never got into feature acting, which is a shame, because I think he could have played a great, enigmatic villain or basically anybody who transfixes you with so few words.

Yet, one way Reed will live on is through the many movies that used the music that him and the greatest rock band ever created. Here I have just compiled a few of my favorites:

1. Trainspotting: Perfect Day

Mark Renton (Ewan McGregor), the heroin-loving hero of “Trainspotting,” idolizes Iggy Pop, but that doesn’t stop Danny Boyle from getting some Lou Reed in there. Given Reed’s reputation, I wouldn’t be surprised if “Perfect Day” has undertones of drug use. Either way, the misleadingly cheerful song is a perfect backdrop to Renton’s overdose: the exact thing that causes him so much pain also causes him so much joy. And that’s why he keeps coming back to it.


2. The Royal Tenenbaums: Stephanie Says

The word “angelic” has been used to describe The Velvet Underground’s “Sunday Morning,” but it also describes “Stephanie Says.” This beautiful tune comes at a transformative moment in the film, as a man (Luke Wilson) is reunited with the bird he thought had left him as a child. It perfectly highlights this nice little moment of possible closure.

3. Pale Blue Eyes, Adventureland

The characters of “Adventureland” worship at the feet of Lou Reed. I was tempted to go with “Satellite of Love,” mainly to highlight the scene where Ryan Reynolds commits the inexcusable crime of calling the song Shed a Light on Love. “Pale Blue Eyes” is one of The Velvet Underground’s best songs, and it illuminates this scene of quiet, budding love. Even Kristen Stewart’s constant lip biting can’t hurt it.

4. Killing Them Softly, Heroin

Okay, this one is a little too on the nose. “Heroin” didn’t need any visual representation; the drumming which represents the racing of the heart is more than enough. But “Killing Them Softly” did the best they could to visualize Lou Reed’s music. Overall, not bad.

5. Juno, I’m Sticking With You

In this song, Reed duets with Maureen Tucker. The Velvet Underground fits in perfectly with the eclectic “Juno” soundtrack. People liked to criticize “Juno” for being “hip” (because apparently that’s a bad thing). The fact that The Velvet Underground’s music could still be considered hip to today’s teenager shows that yes, Lou Reed is timeless.

Couldn’t find the original clip. Hopefully this’ll do.