Reviews for Normal People

Hi. I review things.

Review: A Very Luc Besson Movie — July 30, 2014

Review: A Very Luc Besson Movie

I consider myself a fan of Luc Besson. He has made a lot of excellent films, especially during the three-year period in which he released Leon, Starship Troopers, and The Fifth Element. The problem is that his more recent films have been kinda… suck. So, when news started surfacing about Lucy, people didn’t know what to expect. I mean, sci-fi! Morgan Freeman! Pretty colors! And then, when it came out, there was one thing that stood out as what people took out of the movie more so than anything else…

Lucy is racist. Wait, seriously? You saw this movie, and the first thing you thought coming out of it was, “that was racist”? No one’s talking about how insane it was or any of the weird shit that goes on in this movie, no one even talks about the huge mountain of bullshit it’s built on. They just say it’s racist. Honestly, I don’t even get it. Yeah, Lucy kills mostly Chinese guys even though she’s in Taiwan, and yeah, she killed a guy in Taiwan for not knowing English, but it never really felt like Besson was trying to be racist. It just kinda felt like he was being Luc Besson.

Now, before we begin, I want to point out that I could and probably will do a full Nostalgia Critic style commentary on this movie, so bear with me. The film starts off with not one but TWO Bessonisms right off the bat: the eccentric independent woman whose weakness becomes her strength, and the weird French guy (turns out he’s Danish whoopsiedaisies) who leaves a lasting impression. They’re arguing over a briefcase, then Lucy goes inside to deliver the briefcase for him, then she gets kidnapped by the guy she was giving the briefcase to (intercut with footage of a cheetah chasing a gazelle, which doesn’t make sense as an analogy and is never brought up again). After that, these Taiwanese (?) guys make her open the package because they don’t trust Mr. Frenchguy. It turns out to be filled with drugs, put then they put the drugs in her stomach so she can transport them, and then the bag ruptures and the drugs enter her nervous system, and then she goes all Limitless because she can use more than 10% of her brain.

But that’s the film’s main problem: it’s utter bullshit. For those who don’t know, humans don’t actually only use ten percent of their brain. Humans only devote up to ten percent of their brain to ONE SUBJECT. Trying to do something with 100% of your brain would be like trying to type each letter with all ten fingers. So, the whole movie just got thrown out the window. However, there was one particularly curious part of the film’s use of this old wives’ tale. Throughout the movie, we see flashes of what percentage of her brain Lucy is using. But towards the beginning of the film, right before the scene where we’re first introduced to Morgan Freeman, the screen flashes “1%.” What?

I want to keep this short so I’ll have some material when I do the video (wink wink), so let’s skip to the big finish, when Lucy starts connecting herself to the computer… which somehow allows her to travel through… time? I don’t know. We see her teleport across the globe to the center of Times Square, where she goes back in time and encounters horses and buggies, Native Americans, and even Lucy, the famous Australopithecus. But hold on, why would the Australopithecus Lucy be in New York? And why did the chair move through space and time with her? From our standpoint, was she just sitting perfectly still in that chair throughout all of human history? Why did no one notice? The American Indians interacted with her, so she was obviously actually there, right?

But by far my favorite part of the movie comes at the very end. And by that I mean the very last line. Here it is: “Life was given to us a billion years ago. Now you know what to do with it.” HOLY SHIT. Let’s see if we can talk about all the problems with this line. First of all, life did NOT start a billion years ago. Second of all, for a movie firmly ground in the principles of evolution, it seems a bit odd for it to say that life was “given to us.” Third, this line straight-up claims that the MEANING OF LIFE is in this movie. THE MEANING OF LIFE. I assume this is supposed to make us think about what we just saw, which would only make sense if the movie had something to say. YOU CAN’T MAKE A DUMB ACTION MOVIE AND THEN CLAIM IT CONTAINS THE MEANING OF LIFE.

Overall, in a Face/Off sort of way, I loved this movie. Luc Besson is someone I’d describe as a great director who is constantly held back by a terrible screenwriter: Luc Besson. Even the bad stuff in it is at the very least enjoyably bad. Overall, I give Lucy an A-. It has potential to be one of the greatest action movies of all time, but it has an added dose of Luc Besson bullshit to make it all the more fun. Coming up: reviews of Guardians of the Galaxy and Get On Up. Like if you like, favorite if you favorite, follow if you follow, don’t forget to follow me on Twitter @BreakingPOORLY, and as always…

Liek dis if u cry evertim.

Advertisements
Late Entry: Yeah, Tammy Kinda Sucks — July 22, 2014

Late Entry: Yeah, Tammy Kinda Sucks

Alright, Melissa McCarthy. There’s someone I’ve never talked about before. Oh wait, yes I did. Um… hey, this movie’s produced by Will Ferrell! Let’s talk about him! Now, I love Will Ferrell to death, but he’s the kind of guy that’s really up for anything, which is why some of his movies are… shit. And his track record for producing movies that he isn’t in is pretty bad: Hansel and Gretel (which I guess was a comedy?), Bachelorette, The Virginity Hit, Hot Rod, etc. (By the way, I have no idea how Hot Rod turned out so bad). And now there’s Tammy, which stars one of the biggest names in comedy {sigh}, Melissa McCarthy.

Now, I don’t hate Melissa McCarthy. OK, yeah I do, but I don’t necessarily hate her movies. Identity Thief was fine, The Heat was fine, and Bridesmaids was excellent. So, what’s the difference between those movies and this one? Well, this one’s written by Melissa McCarthy. I think that really proves that Melissa McCarthy is not funny.

“But J-Rome,” you may be asking, “what’s so bad about Tammy?” Why do you have to interrupt me every fuckin’ time? I was just getting to that! Anyway, first thing’s first, it’s not funny. I don’t think I laughed more than ten times throughout the movie. Also, even though it portrays itself as a heist film of sorts, you realize quickly that it’s actually a road movie. Yeah, kinda pulling a fast one there, eh? I don’t think it would have mattered if you just called it a road movie. Especially since it’s NOT A ROAD MOVIE. In the end, it turns out that it’s a ROM-COM. Seriously.

As such, all the comedic bits are at the very beginning and the very end. Most of it is just scenes of “character development” that are really just Melissa McCarthy and Susan Sarandon discussing their sexual exploits. Finally. After all this time, I’m so glad we finally got to hear about all the guys Susan Sarandon and Melissa McCarthy tried to fuck ten years ago. Now I can die in peace knowing that the whole world has easy access to Susan Sarandon and Melissa McCarthy talking about fucking the same ice cream vendor.

I spent most of the movie thinking, “Why did they make this? Why did Melissa McCarthy and Ben Falcone put effort into this?” I’m fairly certain that they thought of the robbery scene from the trailer first and just decided to build a movie around it. By the way, that robbery scene wasn’t all that funny either.

There’s a mini-North reunion with Kathy Bates and Dan Aykroyd both making appearances. Kathy Bates plays a folksy lesbian millionaire, and no, there is no reason for her character to exist, or for her to be a folksy lesbian millionaire. Aykroyd plays McCarthy’s father, and while he does serve a purpose (SIKE he bails her out of prison in one scene and then never appears again), he was doing the Blues Brothers voice for some reason. Yeah, Aykroyd found it appropriate to do his intentionally over-the-top Chicago accent, even though the film takes place more than five hours away from Chicago and the audience has no reason to believe he’d be from Chicago.

So let’s see: boring, pointless, and unfunny. Yeah, this is probably the worst movie I’ve seen all year. D+. I’ll have reviews of Guardians of the Galaxy, Lucy, and Get On Up pretty soon. Don’t forget to follow me on Twitter @BreakingPOORLY, like if you like, favorite if you favorite, follow if you follow, and as always…

Liek dis if u cry everitme.

BREAK IT DOWN: Pixar Has Never Made an Original Movie — July 16, 2014

BREAK IT DOWN: Pixar Has Never Made an Original Movie

Now, “original” can mean a lot of things. Technically, Pixar could call any of their movies a “Pixar original,” even if it was a sequel. What I really mean is that they’ve all been accused of ripping off a lesser-known book, movie, or TV show. And sometimes, these works aren’t even all that lesser-known. I’m not saying the folks at Pixar are hacks by any means. They’re still phenomenal animators, and usually make enhancements to the story and characters that make Pixar movies so memorable while the originals just fade away. It is a bit odd though, that every single Pixar movie has been accused of being a rip-off. So, let’s look at all the Pixar movies in order and see how these rumors hold up.

1. TOY STORY (1995) = THE CHRISTMAS TOY (1986)

Toy Story is considered by many to be not only one of the greatest animated movies of all time, but one of the greatest films, period. But many don’t know that it bears a striking resemblance to a 1986 TV movie called The Christmas Toy, which initially featured a cameo from Kermit the Frog, but it was later edited out due to legal issues. For starters, both films are about a group of toys that come to life when nobody’s around, but that wasn’t exactly a novel idea when Jim Henson did it, either. The real similarities come from the characters. For example, the main toys (Woody/Rugby) both become worried that a shiny new toy may become the center of attention. In both cases, the new toy (Buzz/Meteora) is an egotistical outer space character that doesn’t quite understand that they’re a toy. Another character in The Christmas Toy is a Barbie doll who at one point dresses up as Little Bo Peep. The fellas at Pixar initially wanted Barbie to play a major part in Toy Story, but couldn’t secure the rights, so they went with the next best thing: Little Bo Peep. Of course, they eventually got the rights after Pixar kept making all the money, and when Barbie entered the Toy Story universe, guess who was out? Little. Bo. FUCKING Peep. There’s also a character who “bears” a striking resemblance to Lotso from Toy Story 3, but we’ll get to that later. Interestingly, there was actually a Disney Channel show based on The Christmas Toy, titled The Secret Life of Toys. It  only lasted thirteen episodes, but it was around just about a year before the release of a certain other story of toys. (It’s Toy Story, in case you didn’t pick up on that)

2. A BUG’S LIFE (1998) = SEVEN SAMURAI (1954) + ANTZ? (1998)

The Seven Samurai connection is an obvious and admitted one, but the whole Antz thing is complicated enough to fill an entire book. You see, we know that Jeffrey Katzenberg started DreamWorks because of his personal vendetta against Disney, and we know that Katzenberg was involved in the early planning of A Bug’s Life, and we know that by the time Antz was officially announced, A Bug’s Life was well-known in the world of animation, but Antz did come out first, and both sides of the argument are somewhat convincing. All I can say is that Antz is MUCH better than A Bug’s Life, so if DreamWorks ripped them off, they should really be ripping more people off. Plus, Disney eventually got them back with The Wild, if Antz was the rip-off.

3. TOY STORY 2 (1999) = FOLLOW THAT BIRD (1985)

Now, this might seem a little odd because Toy Story 2 has a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes and Follow That Bird was reviewed by the Nostalgia Critic, but it all starts to add up when you think about it. They both follow a character (Big Bird/Woody) leaving home and discovering his roots and friends who are also birds/cowboys. Things go sour when the lead is put on display against his will, but his friends eventually help him out and get him back home. Like with many of these movies, Toy Story 2 improves upon the story by removing the less entertaining (read: extremely annoying) bits and replacing them with new, less annoying ones.

4. MONSTERS, INC. (2001) = LITTLE MONSTERS (1989)

Get this: there’s a 1989 live-action movie starring Fred Savage and Howie Mandel that is essentially Monsters, Inc. Sounds too ridiculous to be true, right? Oh, I wish it were. You’ll notice from the photo that Mandel has sharp teeth, blue fur, purple spots, and horns, just like Sully. That may be enough, but Boo bears a quite frankly frightening resemblance to Fred Savage if you take a good look at it. In the movies, every kids’ bedroom contains a gateway to the monster world, which has a seemingly infinite supply of doors/staircases to take them to any child in the world and scare the Beyoncè out of them. The sharp-dressed villain kidnaps human children, while the sharp-toothed squinty purple villain does most of the work. At one point, Sully Mandel scares the kid, and has a crisis about whether or not scaring kids is a good career choice. Once again, why Pixar would rip off a film whose most glowing review called it a “passable kiddie flick” is anyone’s guess, but they did a good job of it.

5. FINDING NEMO (2003) = PIERROT LE POISSON CLOWN (1995)

Chances are, if you saw Pierrot Le Poisson Clown in stores, you’d probably think, “Damn, those Frenchmen sure are desperate.” But believe it or not, this children’s book actually came before the universally beloved classic. Despite the obvious similarities between the fish on the cover and Nemo, there are actually a few similarities in the plot, too. Pierrot is raised by a single mother, Nemo by a single father. After being separated from their parents, the two of them must go on an epic journey across the ocean and eventually be reunited with their parents because OBVIOUSLY IT’S CALLED FINDING FUCKING NEMO WHY WOULDN’T THEY FIND HIM.

6. THE INCREDIBLES (2004) = FANTASTIC FOUR (1961)

Let’s run down the list, shall we? We have the super-strong guy (Thing/Mr. Incredible), we have the stretchy one (Mr. Fantastic/Elastigirl), we have the invisible woman (The Invisible Woman/Violet), and we have the younger brother of the invisible woman who can set himself ablaze (Human Torch/Jack-Jack). Dash isn’t reminiscent of any Fantastic Four member, but he is an obvious nod to Flash. Oh, and by the way, you know Helen Parr a.k.a. Elastigirl, the one that can stretch willy-nilly? There’s actually a DC Comics character who’s very similar to that as well. Of course, she’s a member of the Doom Patrol, who have also been accused of ripping off the Fantastic Four, but the similarities are even more striking when you realize her secret identity: Rita Farr. What’s her superhero name, you ask? ELASTIGIRL. SMOOTH MOVE, PIXAR. REAL SMOOTH.

7. CARS (2006) = DOC HOLLYWOOD (1991)

This is the most blatant and infuriating of Pixar’s rip-offs, and the main reason I prefer Cars 2 over the original. But I feel it need re-emphasizing: THESE MOVIES ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. The rest of them just have some similar characters or plotlines, but not these two. The courtroom scene, for example, plays out exactly the same in both movies. It just pisses me off that they got away with this. They managed to not only make a remake of Doc Hollywood disguised as a talking car movie, but they also managed to slip it by everyone for several years. EVEN THOUGH A CHARACTER IS REPEATEDLY CALLED “HOLLYWOOD” BY A CHARACTER NAMED DOC HUDSON. I don’t intend to every watch either of these again, but it frustrates me just to think about them.

8. RATATOUILLE (2007) = MOUSEHUNT (1997) + STUART LITTLE (1999)

It could be argued that the whole “lovable mouse bonds with human over shared interest and eliminates species gap” thing was popularized by M. Night Shyamalan’s magnum opus, Stuart Little, and you’d be right. But what about that whole chef thing? Oh yeah, MouseHunt, the 1997 Nathan Lane slapstick comedy directed by… GORE VERBINSKI? Yeah, that’s right. Gore Verbinski directed this. It seems like movies about mice tend to be made by surprising people. Other than the mere fact of the rat having a passion for cooking, the two films have little in common, apart from the exterminator who is hilariously outsmarted by a rat. Of course, the health inspector in Ratatouille is played by Tony Fucile, and the health inspector in MouseHunt is played by Christopher Walken, so point MouseHunt. But if you were to combine Stuart Little and MouseHunt, you’d get something pretty close to Ratatouille.

9. WALL-E (2008) = SHORT CIRCUIT (1986) + IDIOCRACY (2006)

Once again, the Short Circuit connection should be obvious. I mean, just look at them. They’re the same bot. No question about it. If you’ve seen Idiocracy, you can probably see the connection there, but very few people have seen Idiocracy. The films both feature dystopian futures in which mankind has become obese, illiterate, TV-obsessed, and controlled behind the scenes by a superstore. Seems like a fairly specific, though accurate, depiction of our future. One more thing about WALL-E. Ever notice how the people in the flashbacks are live-action? That really baffled me at first, but if you connect the dots far enough, you realize that WALL-E actually takes place in the same universe as Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, which ties it into my massive ACME conspiracy theory, but more on that later.

10. UP (2009) = ABOVE THEN BEYOND (2005)

First of all, “above then beyond” is basically the definition of “up.” But that’s not all! Above Then Beyond is a French student film about an old widow who is constantly harassed by developers trying to kick her out of her tiny old-fashioned house, so she turns her house into a giant balloon and flies away. Sound like anything you’ve seen? Of course, in Up, the old man has high-flying adventures in South America and learns important lessons about friendship and heartbreak and shit but it’s also hilarious so don’t worry. In Above Then Beyond, the widow dies.

11. TOY STORY 3 (2010) = THE BRAVE LITTLE TOASTER (1987)

EVERYONE was talking about this for a few months. In this day and age, you really need to make sure your movie idea is original. Not sure if Pixar is trying to be original, but whatever. In these movies, a kid goes to college and through a gross misunderstanding, his beloved childhood things are taken away. The gang has to work together to find their way back home, despite immense danger along the way (deadly conveyor belt, garbage dump). This isn’t exactly stealing, since much of the story of Brave Little Toaster was conceived by none other than John Lasseter. So at least now they’re ripping off themselves instead of shitty ’80s and ’90s comedies.

12. CARS 2 (2011) = THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO LITTLE (1997)

Oop, spoke too soon. Now you’re probably shocked, even offended by the notion that a timeless classic like Cars 2 would rip off such a shameless crime against filmanity as The Man Who Knew Too Little, but it’s true. For those of you who don’t know, Man Who Knew Too Little came out during a relative low point in Bill Murray’s career, after Ed Wood but before Rushmore. In it, Bill Murray is mistaken for an American spy and must go on a grand adventure around the world with British spies. For most of it, he’s not even aware it’s a spy thing. I’m sure you see the connection. It’s not as direct a rip-off as Cars, but it’s still there.

13. BRAVE (2012) = BROTHER BEAR (2003)

If you have seen Brave, this might seem obvious to you. If you haven’t, you’re probably sitting there going “What the fuck?” You see, unlike the trailers indicate, Brave is actually mainly about Merida’s mother being turned into a bear. Apart from that, and the fact that both cases were caused by spooky magic and old lady wizards, the films really don’t have that much in common. Sure, there’s the smaller, more annoying bear(s) who plays way too big a part. And there’s the fish scene. But the reason this needs to be stated is because if you take out all that, Brave is really just a typical rebellious princess story, like Aladdin or Spaceballs.

14. MONSTERS UNIVERSITY (2013) = REVENGE OF THE NERDS (1984)

This one could very well be intentional. But it’s still there. Both films center around two… freshmen? Wait, is Sully a freshman? Whatever. So, the two freshmen are just getting to college and already, they’re not having the best of times, what with the bullies and the parties and suchlike. After the jocks take things too far, the nerds decide to start their own fraternity and begin using out-of-the-box techniques to get back at the jocks. Neither is fantastic, but both are pretty good. This is the only Pixar rip-off that’s about on par with the original in terms of quality.

So, it looks like Pixar hasn’t made an original movie. Yet. Maybe someday in the future, Pixar will make a movie with an original plot and characters. But for now, I’m fine with what we have. Maybe The Good Dinosaur will be original. Or Finding Dory. Hey, what about Inside Out? Yeah, Inside Out, the one that features the personifications of the emotions of a little girl whose every decision comes from the adventures of said emotions. Yeah, that should be pretty original.

Unless you’ve seen Herman’s Head. Herman’s Head is a Fox sitcom produced by Disney. It follows a middle-aged man and the personifications of his emotions. The man’s every decision is caused by the adventures of said emotions. Yep. HH stars two Simpsons stars, Bobcat Goldthwait, and Leslie Nielsen as God in a hilarious bit where one of the emotions says, “You’re not God! You’re Leslie Nielsen!” To which he replies, “You, Herman, chose to portray me as Leslie Nielsen.” Of course, a middle-aged man isn’t exactly the same thing as a little girl, right? Surely this plot would be totally different with a prepubescent girl.

Wait, The Simpsons already did that. In an obvious reference to Herman’s Head, we see the struggle between Lisa’s emotions after becoming jealous of Marge publishing a novel. It almost seems too good to be true, to point at a Pixar movie and say, “Simpsons already did that,” but there you go. Goddammit, Pixar.

I’ll have a Dawn of the Planet of the Apes review up later today. Then other stuff I’m not telling you about shhhhhhhhh.

Review: Snowpiercer’s Aite — July 9, 2014

Review: Snowpiercer’s Aite

I had never heard of the film Snowpiercer until my friend Ethan suggested that we see it. It looked a bit too dark for my tastes (Nolan destroyed my ability to tolerate dark movies), but I agreed because I was pretty pumped to see a movie and he really didn’t want to see Trans4mers. The film is based on the French graphic novel Le Transperceneige, about an environmental disaster causing a new ice age, forcing what’s left of humanity to hop on board a giant train. The story follows a small group of people who revolt, but unlike the films, in the comics everyone dies from a virus. And there’s a second train. And it’s somewhat safe to go outside. Bong Joon-Ho took some creative license, obviously.

That being said, the film is pretty good. The over-the-top violence is a blast, at times it makes you think, and the rest of the time it kinda sucks. The first twenty minutes or so are way too dark, and when there are bits of humor, it feels very out of place. The setup doesn’t make a ton of sense. The length of the train seems to vary wildly throughout the film. The protagonist is bland as fuck. And the ending reaches A.I. levels of ridiculousness.

At the end, the train crashes. Then we fade to black for a few seconds. Now wouldn’t that have been a good ending? Not knowing whether or not anyone survived, left to wonder what happens next? But nope, it turns out that the Asian girl and the black kid make it out OK, and it turns out that the temperature has risen so much in the past ten years, that they can now walk around without hoods! By the way, that guy’s arm at the beginning of the movie got frozen solid in a matter of minutes, so how does that work? Anyway, they see a polar bear, and then the movie ends. But wait, where did the polar bear come from? Polar bears don’t just pop out of nowhere. The answer must be that the polar bears were there all along, which would indicate that it’s not actually that cold.

Now on to the premise. Essentially, the governments of the world send a chemical into the air to prevent global warming, but it winds up freezing the planet, killing everyone. Wait a minute, did they not test this chemical at all? Did they not have any backup plan in case something like this happens? Did everyone agree to send this mysterious chemical into the air all over the world? The only survivors are the ones who boarded a privately-owned, privately-funded, 1001-car train. Whose designer has never been in the back of it. Quickly a caste system develops, and most of the passengers are left to wallow in the filthy back cars and eat weird protein bars made of insects. And when I say “quickly,” I mean “App Development and Condiments” quickly. Seriously, how did they get so many people to agree to this shit? I mean, obviously they didn’t, because there have been more than three revolutions over the course of 17 years. One would think that the powers that be (all two of them) would have made some sort of changes to prevent more revolutions, which waste precious bullets and cause damage to the train.

On to the tone of the film. At the start, the movie is hella dark. It slowly becomes lighter and more over-the-top, but in one particularly gory and dismal scene, the main character (Chris Evans) trips on a fish. They TRIP ON A FISH. I’m not making this sound sillier than it is. HE TRIPS ON A FUCKING FISH IN THE MIDDLE OF A MASSIVE BRAWL. Don’t get me wrong, it’s funny, but it’s so out of place. And then later on, when it seems like the film has made a permanent lighter shift, there’s a scene all of a sudden where Chris Evans and Song Kang-ho just sit down and start talking about their life. It’s not out of nowhere or anything, but we were in the middle of a pretty action-and-humor-heavy portion of the film when they just sat down and started being all emotional and shit all of a sudden.

Chris Evans is the main guy, and he has absolutely no personality, especially compared to the other colorful characters in the film. It really made me wonder, why didn’t they just make one of them the protagonist? Why did this character have to be in the movie at all? A lot of action heroes are bland, going all the way back to Luke Skywalker, but rarely this bland.

In one scene, Chris Evans and a generic bad guy we never learn anything about start shooting each other from opposite sides of the train whilst the train goes up a spiral. So, they must be several dozen cars apart, right? So it’s no wonder that the bad guy CATCHES UP WITH THEM ALMOST IMMEDIATELY. In fact, Evans makes it from the very back to the very front in one day. I mean, the movie never clarifies that the train has 1001 cars, but it clearly has at least a hundred.

But in spite of all that, I give this movie a B. It’s pretty enjoyable, if you can get past a few flaws here and there. And you might as well leave after the train crashes, because the ending won’t be at all satisfying. Coming up: reviews of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Sex Tape, Lucy, and possibly others. Like if you like, favorite if you favorite, follow if you follow, don’t forget to follow me on Twitter @BreakingPOORLY, and as always…

Liek dis if u cry everitime.

Late Entry: Earth to Echo Makes No Goddamn Sense — July 7, 2014

Late Entry: Earth to Echo Makes No Goddamn Sense

The found footage genre has worn its welcome. “Started” by The Blair Witch Project and actually started by Man Bites Dog, the genre has become especially popular recently due to the success of 2007’s Paranormal Activity and 2008’s Cloverfield. Since then, we’ve seen such other entries in the genre as The Last Exorcism, Paranormal Activity 2, Apollo 18, Paranormal Activity 3, The Devil Inside, V/H/S, Chronicle, Project X, End of Watch, Paranormal Activity 4, The Bay, A Haunted House, V/H/S 2, Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones, Devil’s Due, and A Haunted House 2. You’ll notice that most of these movies are terrible. And now you see why the genre has overstayed its welcome.

But it doesn’t look like things are stopping any time soon. In addition to the recent Earth to Echo, upcoming entries in the genre include Into the Storm, As Above, So Below, and of course, Paranormal Activity 5, as well as the recently announced Marble Hornets movie. But Earth to Echo is different. There’s something especially… original about Earth to Echo. And by that I mean it’s Super fucking 8.

Basically, Super 8 Earth to Echo is about three kids who notice strange goings-on, discover an alien, name it Echo, find its spaceship, and avoid the government whilst trying to send it home. And film the whole thing, for some reason. That’s a phrase you’re going to be hearing a lot in this article: “for some reason.” And by that I mean this movie MAKES NO GODDAMN SENSE.

Let’s start with Echo. We find out that Echo was shot down by government agents and needs help getting back to his ship. But what was he doing near Earth to begin with? He claims to be lost, so is he a child who took the ol’ ship out for a joyride and wound up in a bad neighborhood? How did the spaceship wind up buried in someone’s backyard? How did Echo wind up so far away from his ship? How did the key to his ship wind up so scattered? Why did the pieces of the key shoot all over the place instead of going straight to Echo? If Echo can dismantle trucks and move them somewhere else and rebuild them and shit, why did he only do that once? How is he going to find his way back home if he’s lost? If he knows the way back, then he’s not lost, is he?

Now, let’s move on to the government agents. I shouldn’t really be calling them that because the movie never clarifies that they work for the government. Seriously. For all we know, they’re just regular construction workers that saw something weird and shot at it (the American way). Of course, that’s an exaggeration. We do know that they’re not actually building a freeway, as they claim. Wait a minute, what? If they’re not building a freeway, what are they doing there? Why would they have needed to bulldoze all those houses for a freeway in the first place? Where does the freeway go? Why is it necessary? What would happen when everyone noticed that there’s no freeway building going on?

Now on to our protagonists. Why didn’t Tuck’s parents find a new place to live yet? They said they had one week left before they had to evacuate. Doesn’t seem like much time, guys. Why did the film set up a romance for Alex and Emma, two characters who we established from the beginning have nothing to do with each other? Why didn’t they ever explain what became of their relationship? Emma isn’t in the resolution scene at all, and Alex moved, but Emma didn’t, so what happened? Did they break up? Were they ever dating? Why did Alex suddenly become the main character halfway through? Why didn’t Alex leave with everyone else at the arcade? Why didn’t everyone else go with Alex into the hole? Why was it a big emotional moment when they did go into the hole? They never said they wouldn’t and there’s no reason they didn’t.

There’s one scene in particular that gets on my nerves. When they first meet Echo, Alex says that he figured out Echo’s code: one beep means yes and two beeps means no. To prove it, he asks Echo if one beep means yes. Echo beeps once. THAT DOESN’T PROVE ANYTHING. If one beep meant no, then Echo would still beep once. For all we know, Echo was actually the opposite of what they thought he was.

Overall, I give this movie a C. It’s not terrible by any means, and the child actors are actually really good. But the movie itself is cliched and nonsensical. I am currently working on a list of the top ten best albums of the decade so far, plus reviews of Trans4mers, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, and Sex Tape. Like if you like, favorite if you favorite, follow if you follow, don’t forget to follow me on Twitter @BreakingPOORLY, and as always…

Leik dis if u cri everitiem.