Change Your Image
hunteracechaney
Reviews
Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind (2020)
Basic Science, Synonyms, and Big Words: How to Con Idiots into Thinking They're Smart
Moral of the story: big words make basic language sounds more believable, no one knows the definition of what 3D actually is, aliens predicted 911, death of Princess Dianna, Blink-182 and Aerosmith are alien scholars, and a montage of American Sci-Fi movies with "Why Can't We Be Friends" is factual evidence of alien life.
No joke, this "documentary" literally uses memes to use as transitions into different subsections and chapters for this film.
I have no doubt in my mind that everyone who is a noted government official giving accounts and interviews were on hardcore drugs in the past and more likely whilst they were filming. Almost every account that is given took place in the 70s when most of everyone is a young adult. Through basic logic, you can piece together that a man who was meditating on a mountain in the 70s/80s, having a vision of a deer-like creature phasing in and out of "3D" feeding them telepathic philosophy, was totally on some sort of hallucinogenic.
Aside from the possible drug use, it is obviously and entire p.r. stunt for Steven Greer's app which was created for everyone to document extra terrestrial encounters which none of which were shown during the film except for about 3 of them. Eighty percent of the footage shown was obviously fabricated and older footage with extremely poor camera quality. It was promised many times before that present footage would be shown. Instead what the viewer gets is countless shoe-horns of the "app" being shoved into so many interviews and conversations.
One big problem that I faced while watching this was during a segment when they do an experiment to prove that life forms affect randomized algorithms in technology. Basically stating that "life finds a way".
The experiment consists of putting a house plant in a small room made of four quadrants: an upper left, lower left, upper right, and lower right quadrant. Then they attach a light to a mechanic that moves by a randomized algorithm which is fed by a computer. Then the plant is moved into one of the four quadrants. They then count how many times that light hits the quadrants to see it it lands in the plant. However, they openly say that the light hit each quadrant an even amount of time but hit the plant more often. This doesn't prove that life forms can affect our technology or any technology at all. If this is randomized and it hits each quadrant evenly this just means that the algorithm is just doing its job by going to each corner. The algorithm and mechanic is also heavily handicapped due to the lack of room/quadrants it is given so of course it's going to hit the same small amount of room it is given at an even pace. Also by basic rules of science, in order to get true results through experimentations, you have to add in all working factors within your experiment. So if you were doing an experiment like this, you have to add in the fact that you will be placing something in a quadrant which effects your algorithms. Your experiment will not be factual if added parts are not added to your already existing experiment and tools i.e. your randomized numeric algorithm. If you were to expand your room by 10 more quadrants, added in your existing factors, and THEN you get the results you wanted, that is how you get true experimental results. Continuing on a different and not unrelated note, it is never stated how many times they did this "experiment" and the results that were concluded. Not that it would matter due to the corner-cutting and restrictions that are happening. I theorize in order to give the "proof" they created and fed us, they did the same experiment only a few times, got the same results, and didn't change any factor whatsoever because it could contradict their theory and prove them wrong. I am not disproving the basic and school-yard idea that life and nature have the will to overcome obstacles but this is not the way to do it. (This literally the most basic definition of the Scientific Method, which is taught on elementary schools)
I am not going to continue on with the many other issues this documentary has. If you decide to watch this, hold everything they say with a grain of salt. This is basically a 2 hour taping of conspiracies and ads for a social media app. I would give it the benefit of the doubt if this was filmed as a parody or satire. In my opinion, this would be a fun watch with a group of friends and copious amounts of booze and pizza.
Cursed Films (2020)
An Interesting Concept That Strays from Its Own Topics
Being a huge horror fan most of my life I have always had a huge fascination with the ideas of cursed films. I remember reading up on the Poltergeist incidents and reading about the tragic helicopter crash from The Twilight Zone: The Movie. I was hooked on finding out more and more about films with curses and thinking that this concept of a cursed movie would make great television, books, and/or movies.
Then the wonderful streaming service Shudder released an episodically released, documentary show about such cursed films. Being more than thoroughly pleased with Horror Noir (a Shudder original documentary discussing the impact of African Americans in the horror genre), I decided to definitely give it a go.
So far there has only been one episode released tackling the classic, controversial, satanic-panic movie: The Exorcist (1974 dir. William Friedkin). I grew up watching The Exorcist on my old VHS player and being instantly infatuated with the crazy and fatal background of the movie. However, when I watched the first episode of Cursed Films, I was disappointed. The beginning of the episode went how I expected, discussing deaths and accidents that happened surrounding and during filming.
But that topic seemed to have only lasted a very short amount of time. Before I knew it, the episode veered off topic from the movie, to in depth discussions of the correlation between horror and religion and then showing us the day and life of a real life Exorcist. As a viewer I understand that in order to drive your point home, you need to give deeper details and background. But they seem to give you an overload on background to the point where it's no longer on topic or The Exorcist. This show has transformed to one thing and then ending up as a totally different new thing that doesn't correlate.
However, I'm not damning the show. I find that the show, in fact, does have great potential to be very fun. I personally feel, in my OPINION, that it was a swing and a miss with this first episode. My advice is just stick with what you are supposed to be tackling.
Daybreak (2019)
Can't Figure Out if I Like it Or Not...
I'm a huge horror nerd and I love all things campy. So when I saw this on my Netflix page I was very intrigued. But I also know Nerflix's reputation when it comes to the quality of their originals, especially shows.
I started the first episode and probably lasted about fifteen minutes into it. I wasn't a fan of the poorly written narration which was obviously written by an adult who has no idea what modern teenage life is like.
Then my roommate started watching more of it and I slowly became intrigued. It is very campy and hoakey but it is definitely entertaining. I really enjoy the Angelica character and the Ms. Crumble character the most. But my interest in characters fades away when it comes to our main character: Josh.
From the first few episodes we are to believe that Josh is a very cool, chill, go with the flow character who is also a good guy. But as the show progresses, he just becomes more and more unlikable. You could argue that his character is written that way for a future redemption. But even during flashback scenes, he is still... uh, how do you say this respectfully? Well, he's still a little bad.
I feel that if you want to have a fun show, make ALL the characters fun. Even the insufferable characters are fun because they are fleshed out that way. But with Josh, it's supposed to be one thing but ends up being another and that's a huge thing when it comes to a structure of a show/film no matter how campy.
Also, on a side note, the music is unbearable. If you like some good, really 90s alt: you're in for a world of pain, they are just really really bad "singers" doing slowed down whiny versions (Especially if you like Smashing Pumpkins).
Hurricane Bianca: From Russia with Hate (2018)
The Rex Character
Never have I wanted a sequel so bad and get so disappointed because of it. The thing is, it's not Bianca's fault, it's not any of the stars faults...except one person. The character of Rex, played by... someone who needed the money, was a stale, unnecessary addition that lacked any sort of comedic flavor to an already b-rated flick. I am usually very open minded about characters but this was UNBEARABLE.