The Critical Frog: Norm of The North

It's a well-known fact that with every good film in recent years, there's always a bad one to balance it out. The same year my favorite film of all time came out (V for Vendetta), we were treated to the bombs of Pixar's Cars and the wonderfully disastrous reboot of The Wicker Man. It's a cycle that has stood the test of time, allowing the less talented directors to avoid being weeded out of the proverbial gene pool of film. And how do you prove the exact nature of this theory? By taking a look at the films we have to look forward to this year. We've got Batman Vs. Sumperman, Deadpool, and Kung Fu Panda 3, among others- and unless a few of them are bombs, we have Norm Of The North to balance out these anticipated pictures. After all, what could be more irritating than taking the most overused story in the history of film (Fish Out of Water) and adding a much-disliked actor to go along with it in the starring role?

Mr. Schneider, how good to see you on the blog again. It's been a while (thankfully), hasn't it?

Yes, the male gigolo himself takes the voice of the lead character Norm in this story- but this film does have a small advantage against his live-action atrocities in the Schneider filmography with the fact that we don't have to see his face. Coming from a child's standpoint there wouldn't be a difference, but as a young adult who's seen some of his work, it's a seriously derailing little tidbit. I half expect the polar bear to start talking about his "South Pole" any second now.

Norm Bigalow, Male Polar Bear is the titular character in our film this evening, who leads a comfortable life in the Arctic until an evil luxury housing tycoon unveils his plans to destroy the ecosystem in the north to build more houses. While Norm doesn't know how to hunt like a normal bear, he does have the power to talk to humans (this is balanced out by the fact that he has the voice of Rob Schneider), which makes him a prime candidate to venture to New York and attempt diplomatic talks with the baron. Along for the ride are a human girl and three lemmings that are definitely not Minions at all. Eventually, Norm decides he needs to use the talents he does have to make the baron listen to reason, and busts out his ultimate weapon.....dancing. Can his fame as a backup dancer help propel his cause?

Dancing bears can be funny at times, as the dancing bears of Mumbo Jumbo and Simon Smith have proven (although technically Mumbo's was Cyborg in a tutu), but I draw the line at an animated polar bear presenting the audience with his rear end and proceeding to twerk in front of small children. That was annoying enough with humans, and a bear voiced by Rob Schneider is certainly no improvement.

I could make hundreds of jokes about so much here. I could take more shots at Schneider, I don't think I've done enough of that yet. I could discuss the fact that the lemmings are literally the same things as minions, and that's really getting irritating after the fiftieth time. I could throw a few more insults at the annoying side characters or the twerking bear. But, I had an idea. When it comes to animated films, you can only get as much as you give. This film didn't give much to me, so what else do I have to give to it?

OVERALL RATING: 3/10
------------------------------------------
It's another kid's film that tries to be modern but lands dead in the water. The one thing that could have saved this film would be a sumo wrestling match to the death with Nanook of the North, but it's too bland to even think about including such a thing. For once, I'm not blaming Schneider though- the script and comedy are poor, and I don't exactly think he had a hand in it this time around. At least, not until the inevitable mention of it in Deuce Bigalow 3: Deuce Does Dallas.

Frog's Movie Dictionary: Lost Episode Syndrome

Out of all of the realistic experiences one can have in a theater, possibly the most dreaded situation when sitting down to enjoy a film- or anything, for that matter- is being stuck in an enclosed space with numerous small children. There’s something about kids shrieking their heads off and rapidly running around the room or interrupting dialogue that can really kill the atmosphere exerted by a particularly strong film. This is why I usually tend to get my children’s films online or through rental services instead of visiting the theater myself (though I could change my tune if someone were to hire me full-time…wink wink). And for those who don’t have streaming services or the ability to not attempt to pummel the stupid kids throwing gummy bears down the aisles, DVD Collections are a wonderful thing. Sometimes.

Sure, it’s always great to have a few DVDs lying around in case you feel like a certain film, but with these, you run the risk of your collection developing what I like to refer to as “Lost Episode Syndrome”.

Named after the infamous Lost Episode genre of Creepypastas (internet horror stories), Lost Episode Syndrome occurs when, while sorting through your DVD collection, you come across a DVD you never remember owning, or even seeing. And when you play these DVDs, not only are they something you never remember buying, but they seem unusual somehow. Maybe it’s a children’s cartoon that’s darker than you remember, maybe it’s an alternate cut of a film, but it’s certainly not something you remember owning. It’s something that seems to spontaneously appear in your media collection, usually without you noticing something is amiss. And that makes it all the more surprising when you do find it.

I’ve found a few cases of this in my parent’s DVD collection as well. Tapes of series that have yet to appear anywhere else. Video collections of The Muppet Show that don’t correlate to any episode or season (and even worse, have Manha Manha).  It’s a strange phenomenon to witness.. where do these tapes and discs come from? Nobody knows…..

The Critical Frog: The Hateful Eight

Whatever your feelings are about a topic, you do need to give credit where credit is due. It's quite easy to identify why people enjoy some things that you may not. I was never into the Saw films, but I do see why the creativity and brutality of the series appeals to others. And for those of you who dislike directors like Quentin Tarantino, I would like to take the opportunity to not only hate the opinion in secret, but to realize that my taste in film can be different than yours. Tarantino is a master of hard-hitting and fast-paced action, not the suspenseful and slow film that so many others enjoy. I assume the reason Quentin Tarantino directed this film is to show that he could do slow drama as well. Oh, don't get me wrong- there's action in spades. Just not how much you'd expect. The Hateful Eight really seems more like a Beat Takeshi film- but this is certainly not a bad thing.

The Hateful Eight is the eighth film by acclaimed director Tarantino, who's past work you may identify as Pulp Fiction and the Kill Bill films, among others. In typical Tarantino style, there's quite a fair share of blood and guts on display here- it is a murder mystery and all- but when it happens, it's short and sweet. The fact that it stars talented actors (including the legendarily foul-mouthed Samuel L. Jackson) is also a nice bonus.

Unlike many of the mysteries in modern media, this one takes a small, one-roomed store in the middle of a blizzard and sets it in the wild, wild west. Samuel L. Jackson plays Marshall Marquis Warren, an old bounty hunter preparing to drop off some bodies in the town of Red Rocks. He hitches a ride with fellow bounty hunter John Ruth (known to stay to watch the hangings of his victims) and his latest bounty- Domergue, an outlaw with a 10,000 dollar bounty on her head. They also meet Chris Mannix, a black-hating sherrif-to-be, who quickly (but dismayingly) becomes an addition to the party. Stopped by a blizzard, the four and their coach driver OB decide to hold out in Minnie's Haberdashery, which is home to another group stopped by the blizzard. These unusual suspects are an old general, a Mexican worker, a polite Englishman and a quiet cowboy, who appear to hit it off with the cast- until weather causes them to shack together and tensions rise, eventually leading to Domergue letting it slip that one of the people in the shack is working with her in an effort to set her free. It's a slow-paced race to discover the traitor before they kill everyone in the room and set the prisoner free. But when everyone seems to have their own motives, who's the dead man? But more importantly, will anyone survive to figure out?

There's a lot of tension in this post-Civil War inn- while putting two Confederate supporters in the room with an African-American Union Marshall is never a good idea, bringing up their past misdeeds can't help matters. The film has it's fair share of cursing and crudeness (leave it to Samuel L. Jackson to make the word 'Dingus' sound threatening), but handles it with a historic, and sometimes appropriate, response.

I've always been a fan of mysteries, and indeed this one delivers- clues are all over the place, and if you've got a good eye and a sharp mind, there's a chance you can figure it out before the narrator (Tarantino himself) begins to piece it together for you. I actually found myself guessing and coming up with theories and motives for the characters, then having to cross them out as a result of plot twists. And that's what a mystery is supposed to do, isn't it? Keeping you on the edge of your seat and guessing is the sign of any good film, but it's what a mystery needs to survive. And here, not only does it survive, it thrives. Quentin Tarantino keeps us curious with high tensions, high spirits, and above all, lots and lots of blood. Grab a band of your friends and hitch a coach to the next premiere.

OVERALL RATING: 9/10
-------------------------------------------
Should we ask why the film is called "The Hateful Eight" when there's actually nine characters? Given, there are only eight suspects (as one is already the outlaw), but is seems a little odd. What about "The Nefarious Nine"? I guess that's a film for another era, presumably starring Robo-Samuel L. Jackson and robo-friends.

The Critical Frog: Mr.Payback

The idea of choice in an interactive media is quite high-hanging fruit. Giving a person complete freedom to choose the fates of others, and though you will have a chance of seeing the best in people, there's also the chance of seeing their worst. Any form of media that can show the effects of personal choice, especially when it's the viewer making the choices. But, to the credit of those few that attempt it, they manage to do it well. Good choices can be rewarded, and bad choices can be punished- leading to consequences no matter what the case. And sometimes, those choices can stick in your head and affect you later- whether good or bad. The first 'Interactive Movie', Mr. Payback, was not an example of this. I don't know what I did to make things different, I don't remember my decisions, and most of all, I don't care how they affected the story. It felt like less of a choice-based film with optional alternate takes. Like one of those interactive DVD menus you skim through before you decide to check out the real entertainment.

Mr. Payback toted itself as the first 'interactive movie' to hit specially-designed theaters, and as far as I know it's still the only one of it's kind. Due to not being near a specially-made theater, I was able to recreate the experience with the use of a handy-dandy remote control. The experience is similar to that of a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book for those who don't feel up to skimming pages but want their fill of main character torture.

From what I've heard, the decisions of the entire crowd motivated the choices of the film. I'm not sure that would be the best idea to put a film in the hands of people who all have their own freedom of decision. People who will get mad when their decision isn't chosen. This means that through the power of math, we can estimate that 2/3 of the population will be disappointed with the choices at any given moment- which definitely isn't something you want in your theater. It's especially worrying when said people are irritated that a man was not hit with a paddle. (Personally, in that choice, I went with the cattle prod- if a person has to suffer in your comedy film, at least make it entertaining.)

The choices offered by Mr. Payback seem to have no guaranteed effect on the film as a whole- characters don't have differing ideals and plans, and the choices only add up to the same thing in different ways. I don't quite see the point of open decision if it ends up closed anyways. Call me crazy, but I want my choices to have meaning. I never thought I'd say it, but give me some sort of punishment for being cruel. My advice to you, Mr. Payback, or anyone involved with interactive films? Don't keep this trend going. Otherwise, you're going to have a bad time.

Overall Rating: 3/10

-----------------------------

 

The Critical Frog: War Room

It may just be me, but I'll never quite understand why false advertising is so big in modern media. What's the point of promising something if you're not going to show it? It only leaves audiences disappointed and directors criticized. In an age where we have the internet to tell us what we need to know before heading to the theater, the only reason for false marketing seems to be to trick people who are unfamiliar with the concept of looking before leaping. If we wanted to see a deep political film about personal decision and family over personal power, we would go check the web to see if the film we were planning to view delivers what it promises. Then we would go see The Hulk, because we wouldn't feel up to a deep, philosophical exploration after all that web-searching which would inevitably spoil the film for you. This brings me to the amount of war in the film titled War Room- or, more specifically, it's lack of it. Expecting this film to be about the power of prayer is like walking into the latest showing of Star Wars and expecting a long discussion on galaxy trade precautions and ethics (assuming the film in question isn't The Phantom Menace).

As it turns out, the 'War Room' mentioned in the title has nothing to do with war- and for that matter, is barely even a room. It turns out that the title location is actually a closet used for praying by our main character- a wife constantly tormented by her husband's emotional abuse and cheating habits, as her only escape. With the help of her friend's family, she braves the relationship while finding solace in god. What is curious about this is not why she chooses to stay in this relationship, or why she can't get a bigger room to pray in (or at least a larger closet), but what exactly War has to do with it. And, to be honest, I don't know. If I wanted to see abusive relationships, I wouldn't dash towards something called 'War Room'. As much as you all know I hate artspolitation (people coming up with 'artistic' excuses for shows or films being bad), I have to give those credit for actually showing what they implied on the poster.

For a film attempting to portray judgement as a negative thing, it certainly does it's share of playing holier-than-thou. There's quite a lot about prayer being the ultimate answer above all else (even typical law and reason), and how the general public should respond to situations. Being born-again will never truly be a perfect concept, and it certainly doesn't help that the so-called christian reformed man continues his emotional abuse after his 'reformation', Toss in the addition of his corrupt business practices and you've got quite a religious mess on your hands. 

Overall Rating: 3/10

-------------------------------------

The problem with prayer films like this isn't the prayer itself- religion can be a powerful tool in film (Hunchback of Notre Dame), but without much else to offer, you're stuck in the mud without a genuine plot and idea behind your film (even if you took out the church aspect of Hunchback and made it simply a clocktower and a mayor instead of a corrupt Minister, it'd still hold up, though admittedly not as much). Take away the prayer here and you have literally no reason for this relationship to continue. 

I've picked on religion quite a bit lately, but give bad church films some credit- there's something you can laugh about in those. Without the intensity and power that good religion in film can provide, and absent of the unintentional comedy in bad religious film, there's nothing holding this up- and as such, nothing to see it for.