Time and time again Romero has proven himself the king of the zombie film, constantly providing undead lovers like myself with the most entertaining, gory and thought-provoking zombie movies there are. In 2009, he released Diary of the Dead, a film that was definitely my least favorite of Romero’s works. It was a good film, but sadly it strayed too far from what made his earlier works, including 2005′s Land of the Dead, so fantastic. It was like when a band comes out with an “experimental” album. So when I saw early trailers for Survival, boasting a glorious return to form for the visionary director, I got very excited.

Review:

Survival takes place in the same universe as Diary, a truth that is made extremely obvious from the get go. You see, the film opens by introducing us to a small group of soldiers led by Sargent Crocket (Alan Van Sprang), a chain smoking military man who made an appearance in Diary of the Dead as the leader of an outfit of soldiers that raided the protagonists R.V. of all of its valuable supplies, earning him the title of World’s Biggest Dickhead. Here, however, Crocket makes it apparent through the opening monologue that he regrets his actions and did what he did because of pressure from the looming zombie apocalypse. He and his rag tag group of militants are obviously the good guys.

Shortly after, we are taken to a completely different setting to meet two opposing Irish families in the middle of a feud. One side, led by Patrick O’Flynn (Kenneth Welsh), is setting out to put the dead back to sleep and maintain the peace on their island, keeping it a safe place to live. The other side, led by Sheamus Muldoon (Richard Fitzpatrick), is seeking to teach the dead how to reside amongst the living by trying to tame them and teach them to eat something other than humans.

Sargent Crocket and his men find their way right into the middle of this mess, thanks to a YouTube video shown to them by a young man they meet in the woods, and our story begins. Right from the get-go I’ve already got a huge complaint. What in God’s name is wrong with this kid they pick up? He’s supposed to be a technologically savvy youth, but instead he’s just a complete hipster douchebag, dissing anything that isn’t his precious iPhone. At one point he even bags on vinyl records. Douche. Bag.

Other than that, everything goes pretty smoothly throughout the duration of the film. None of the actors are truly spectacular, and none of them are very bad. It’s just all kind of average. Same goes with the plot and execution of the script. Romero is most highly acclaimed for using the undead as a canvas on which to satire very pressing world issues. In Night of the Living Dead it was the Vietnam Conflict. In Dawn of the Dead he brilliantly called out American consumerism, while covering multiple other topics at the same time. Here it’s just a movie that doesn’t touch on anything truly meaningful, nor does it address anything important. It just kind of exists.

Final Words:

George Romero’s newest zombie movie is my second least-favorite of his Dead series of films, sitting right above Diary of the Dead. This is the second film in the past few years the Don of the Dead has released, and it’s far from his best work. 2005′s Land of the Dead was the legendary director’s last great film, and if he keeps this up it is likely to stay that way.

Of course, that’s not to say Survival is a bad movie. It is entertaining, gory, suspenseful, and occasionally funny. It’s just not as good as what he is capable of. If you’re a fan of Romero’s, watch this movie. If you’re a fan of zombies, watch this movie. If you are a fan of oldschool horror flicks, watch this movie. If you are anyone else, you’re probably not going to find much to love.

Score: 7.5/10 (Good)

I enjoy tea, and I enjoy the idea of organic products. It’s weird, because I usually don’t enjoy energy teas (Save for the Slap Energy Drink products and a few others) and I generally don’t like organic energy drinks (except Syzmo’s Prickly Pear flavor and maybe some others). So why am I taking a chance on Guru’s Green Tea Honey-Lemon Iced Tea? Because I want to make sure you don’t have to.

It’s one of the biggest cons of running a review site such as this, and I’ve had to put up with several awful drinks. I mean awful drinks. Like, incomparable to anything else awful. But on the bright side, I’ve also discovered several drinks that I wouldn’t have otherwise known existed. Unfortunately, this isn’t one of those times. Guru’s Iced Tea ranks as one of the worst drinks I’ve ever encountered.

Be sure to read the full review on CaffeineCritic.com!

For the past few weeks I’ve been hard on work on a couple of things. I just started a new semester of school, and I’m enrolled in 16 credit hours. I am running for mayor of my city, Terre Haute, IN. And I have been writing an erotic horror story.

Oh yeah.

Regardless, I just finished that off today and submitted it to the publishers, so hopefully it makes the cut in the upcoming anthology entitled “Nocturnal Emissions: Things That go Hump in the Night.”

I know, right?

Anyway, things should be getting better and more frequent here soon. This goes for all sites across the Everyview Network.

Here’s a portion of a Does It Hit The Spot review:

Taco Bell doesn’t have authentic Mexican food. One look at menu items like the Tortada or the Enchirito should tell you that. People don’t eat Taco Bell because they want authentic Mexican cuisine, they eat it because it is dirt cheap and delicious.

Obviously someone in the executive office doesn’t realize that. Taco Bell recently released three “Cantina” tacos, chicken, steak, and carnitas, in an attempt to provide a more “authentic” Mexican style taco. Are these really authentic? I couldn’t tell you. Should I research it and find out to better serve you, the reader? Yes. Am I going to? No. But I will tell you whether or not these new tacos hit the spot.

Be sure to check out the full review on DIHTS.com!

This is the movie Kick-Ass wanted to be.

While that film occasionally sought too hard at times to blend action and comedy in a stylistically violent environment, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World does it so effortlessly that the entire film ends up playing like an erratic sugar high of pure, raw adrenaline.

Scott Pilgrim is played by Michael Cera, who once again shows little range but does his schtick better than anyone else. Scott’s in a band, has a young girlfriend, but becomes infatuated with a girl he keeps seeing in his dreams. When she happens to drop by to deliver him a package, Scott can no longer contain himself. The two end up having quite the spark, but there is one catch: Scott must square off with her seven evil exes.

The film is actually quite simple on the surface, and follows a very simple track to get us from beginning to end. But the whole package is anything but simple, as its visual flair and overall A.D.D. style creates one of the most unique and entertaining films I have seen in a very long time.

The performances are really good all the way around the board. Cera, as I already mentioned, plays Scott the exact way he played Paulie Bleeker (Juno), George Michael Bluth (Arrested Development), Evan (Superbad) and even himself (Paper Heart). You won’t get many surprises when you see a Michael Cera movie, but he’s at least enjoyable. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is Ramona, the girl with the evil exes. She’s at times aloof, but she’s still cute and mysterious in all the right ways. Supporting cast members Anna Kendrick, Brandon Routh, Jason Schwartzman, Allison Pill, and Ellen Wong are all fantastic in their smaller roles. The only character in the movie that didn’t really seem to click on all levels was Wallace Wells, played by Kieran Culkin. It was through no fault of Culkin, the script just decides to revisit his sexuality and promiscuity a couple times too often for it to continue being worth a laugh.

Edgar Wright (Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead) shows off a refreshing directorial style in the film. The video game and pop culture influences are all over the place, and it’s fun to see old school game screens and face offs between characters. Wright shows a great, balanced touch. There are tons of effects, but the movie isn’t defined by them. You don’t get overwhelmed or tired out by any particular element, but you also aren’t left wishing or wondering why some things didn’t appear more.

This is one of those films that, and this might sound like wicked hyperbole, defines an entire generation. Not only does the visual style placate our intense desires to have every synapse in our brain firing all over the place, but the story is incredibly real. The story, despite the over the top action scenes and sleek stylistic graphics, engages you right from the start. This film is for those of us raised by movies, television, music, video games, comic books, and lots and lots of junk food.

But it doesn’t patronize those who aren’t gamers or hipster douches. Again, the script allows for a natural ebb and flow to the events that there are no dull moments. But if you are super old and don’t “get” some jokes/references, then you aren’t left out in the Toronto snow shivering and wondering what the hell is going on. There is a fun romance (or two), evil villains, great action, chippy dialogue, enjoyable characters, and amazing visuals. If you can’t find something in that list that suits your tastes, then I wouldn’t recommend going to any movie, ever.

Final Words:

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a fantastically innovative film that provides so many unique elements that it is actually better than the sum of its individual parts. Director Edgar Wright shows an amazing eye for putting together a one of a kind movie that, while it contains numerous effects, never feels reliant on those effects. It’s a character driven film, and Scott’s pursuit of defeating the seven evil ex’s is a raucous journey that somehow progresses logically. The film never loses its focus or tries to be too funny or too violent or too hip, and it’s this film’s balance and overall enjoyment factor that make it one of the best films of the year.

Score: 9.0/10 (Great)

Drinking Lo-Ball was a bit of a roller coaster experience. I went into it expecting very little, my expecations were risen by the delicious aroma and then beaten down by the gross taste. In the end I just sort of quit caring, as I’m sure you can tell by the brevity of this review. The bottom line is this: Lo-Ball is a below average energy coffee, but if you’re a calorie counting maniac who needs energy coffee, this might be your only choice.

Read the full review on CaffeineCritic.com!

Platform:

Jewels is, as I’m sure you’ve guessed if you have a functioning brain, a derivative of the phenomenally popular Bejeweled. Of course, match-three puzzle games have become more common than AIDS in Africa (was that in bad taste?) since the original Bejeweled launched in 2000, and for good reason. It’s simple, it’s addictive, and it’s fun.

Why am I reviewing a free Bejeweled rip off? Because Android users can’t currently get the real thing on their mobile phones, and everyone loves match-three puzzle games. There are countless variations of the genre on the app store, so I want to make sure you readers are able to find the best one. It’s not like I’m saving your money so much as I’m saving your time since this is a completely free app, but surely that’s good enough right? And I’m also really bored.

Review:

You’re still reading? Why? I don’t understand. This app is a free ripoff of Bejeweled for the Android Phone platform. That should really be enough information. But since it’s obviously not, let’s get into a few more details.

The game offers three modes of play: Normal, Timed and Infinite. In Normal mode, you are tasked with getting the highest score possible before running out of turns on the board. In order to score, you must match at least three of the same symbols on the playing field, with bonuses for combos and such. It’s simple fun, but the game’s engine isn’t very good about consistently offering available moves. One game could last two minutes, another could last a hundred and two. Having available moves is all about luck, and that can get annoying.

Timed mode is the same concept, only you are tasked with getting as far as you can without running out of time. This option is much more competitive and score-driven than the last, making it much more fun and challenging, giving the game a bit more gravity. You slowly build up a meter at the bottom of the screen with your combos, and the meter is constantly draining itself forcing you to find moves as quickly as possible. This is definitely the most fun of the available modes. Infinite mode is exactly what you think. Just keep playing. If you run out of moves, the board is emptied and refilled.

The game looks pretty enough, with bright colors and acceptably pretty backgrounds that change depending on which stage you are able to advance to. The overall simple and colorful graphics paint a minimalistic visual style that well suits this genre and will appeal to casual gamers looking for something fun to do on the bus or while waiting to get their oil fixed. Audio is thankfully just as simple, with beeps and boops here and there instead of an obnoxious list of sound effects or terrible background music.

Jewels also offers up local and worldwide scoreboards, a nice plus for people who are really competitive with their casual gaming.

Final Words:

Scan this with your Android phone’s barcode scanner to download Jewels

Jewels is a fun little game which is easy to get addicted to. It is great for short bursts of gaming, and since it is a rip off of Bejeweled it is pretty much guaranteed everyone is going to like it. I’ve been through a few similar games from the market, and I can safely say Jewels is the best match-three puzzle game on the Android platform at this time. For free, at least. Does that make it a great game? Not really, but it does do enough things right to warrant space on your phone.

Score: 7.75/10 (Very Good)

Overview:

They say you never forget your first car. Of course, if you end up totaling said car by rolling it in a ditch just 26 days after acquiring your license, forever proving that the D- pass system is a foolish one to implement in Driver’s Ed, it doesn’t leave much time for it to make an impression. When this happens, it’s the second car that becomes memorable.

And I can say with great confidence that car no. 2 (and boy, was it ever), my grey 1994 Nissan Sentra “Limited Edition” was a memory for the ages.

Review:

When I first acquired the car from a used lot in the spring of 2001, it wasn’t necessarily a crowning achievement in automotive crappiness. However, it wasn’t without its shortcomings.

For starters it had zero pickup. The fastest time I ever clocked it in a 0-60 test was approximately 12.5 seconds. Not that I was ever a speed demon (except for my first 26 days as a licensed driver, which as I stated above, yielded disastrous results), but there is always going to be an unnerving feeling when your car feels as if it’s ready to explode at 70.

Another glitch was that the air conditioner never really worked, which was no problem as I could always just roll the windows down. And when I say “no problem” I mean it was fine so long as you had “no problem” finding someone to assist you in getting them back up by placing their hands on each side of the window, pulling upward while you pushed the “window up” button.

Side note: this is a more socially acceptable request to make of your friends than it is the boss of a company whose employed you for less than a week.

But all this was fairly standard bad teenager car stuff. For the most part in high school, the Sentra treated me alright. Though I’ve always hated driving, it was nice to occasionally have transportation. That way, when I received one of those oh, so rare party invites, I could leave whenever I wanted instead of having to wait on my prom king best friend to stop circulating the room and give me a ride.

Having a car also prevented me from having to endure his “fundamentals of popularity” lecture on the way home, which was a fantastic bonus.

And, as surprising as it is even to me, I was able to secure a little action in the car. I’ll always have a soft-spot for the Sentra, as it was the place where I got under a girl’s shirt for the first time; an occurrence which took place mere seconds after I got on top of a girl’s shirt from under the passenger side seat belt for the first time.

Damn, I’m smooth.

However, things took a bad turn for the car when I went to college, when I decided to take the option of no longer driving, thus handing the car over to my dad.

One day I got a phone call saying Papa Cunningham ran the Sentra into the side of another woman’s car at an intersection. A nice kicker to this story was him answering “I don’t know” when I asked him which person ran a red light. Perhaps they fell asleep simultaneously.

As a result, the front end became so damaged that the hood didn’t close on its own anymore, and had to be tied down with a chain, thus making the simple procedure of checking your oil a wonderfully drawn out 15 minute expenditure.

After college, during my first stint of living back home, the Sentra became mine again. For a few months, I had a job about 15 minutes from the house and got to take this chestnut on the road with me everyday.

Things were fine until one July morning, I drove past a semi on my way to work. A simple enough occurrence normally, but not this day.

Because of the accident mentioned above, some metal on the front of the hood had become separated, leaving a small gap on the hood. Well, when this truck whizzed by, that small gap instantly became a three foot wedge which nested directly in my line-of-sight.

I’m too crappy a photographer to accurately simulate the experience, but this what my view at 65 mph should have looked like…

And this is what my view at 65 MPH did look like…

And, the icing on the cake was that this is now what my car looked like from the outside…

In addition to the chain, the hood now had to be held down with a C-clamp with a board of wood stuffed into the aforementioned wedge.

Though it never broke off, the car banged loudly and violently every time I drove it, which was nice because it helped bring back my repressed memories of the night my psychopathic neighbor stole a baseball bat from my shed and beat on the door of his cheating wife.

Then there were the taunts. On multiple days when I got home from work there were two young boys waiting across the street to yell “nice car, faggot,” at me as I returned home. Now I am aware of a teenage oddity where the phrase “you wanna bang?” means “do you wish to fight?” so perhaps in their backwards way of speaking “faggot” means something like ”modern day Fonzie.” However, if their town was any indication, there is reason to believe they weren’t being complimentary.

Final Words:

Though my “Limited Edition” Sentra no longer runs, it still sits in the driveway of my childhood (and current) home. And while many of us have our shitty car stories, I’m arrogant enough to believe mine is of real significance.

While my current car is only marginally safer (I once blew three tires in the span of a week-and-a-half) it’s never packed the same visceral charm of the Nissan. If it weren’t for the fact I feared death every time I stepped behind the wheel, I’m sure I’d miss it.

Auto Score: 1.0/10

Nostalgia: 5.0/10

Final Score: 3.0/10

Last night my family and I went out for dinner to Logan’s Rib-Eye, one of the many steakhouses in the Terre Haute area. You see, here in Terre Haute, people don’t take kindly to many types of restaurants. It seems the only ones the majority of the the population will give their business to are steakhouses, Mexican, BBQ, Chinese buffets and any type of fast food. Except Hardee’s. Hauters don’t like Hardee’s. There’s also an Indian place, but the only people who eat there are other Indian people.

Listening to me complain about the monotony that results from eating out in my city, you’d think I’ve eaten at every establishment multiple times and have grown weary of dining at all local restaurants. The truth is I’ve not even tried half the places at my disposal, Logan’s being one of them.

Was it any good? Let’s just say I’ll be going back.

Be sure to read the full review on DIHTS.com!

We’ve come to the end of my four-part At The Movies recap, which tragically marks the end of Everyview editor-in-chief and highly decorated Vietnam Conflict veteran Zac Pritcher’s bitter and sarcasm-laced plugs on Facebook. You’re the one who made me keep going, dickhole!

But anyway, this capper is dedicated to two individuals who are actually very worthy of being written about, as they were responsible for bringing movie criticism into mainstream America, and had a major role in helping expand the reach of art house cinema.

They were Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, perhaps the two most important media critics of all-time.

In a partnership which dates all the way back to 1975, Siskel and Ebert would become an institution over the next 25 years, with their signature “Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down” review system. Though criticized by some as being too simplistic, each verdict was given after rigorous debate, in which the reasoning for their verdict was plainly articulated.

Now, making an interesting show out of this type of format is no easy task (see here and here). But what made Siskel and Ebert such an enjoyable tandem was their burning passion for debate as well as their complete and utter comfort in belittling each other on the air.

One of the greatest elements of the original At The Movies was that it contained an element of combustibility which was very exciting to watch. These guys had no qualms about discrediting each other and wouldn’t hesitate to go after an opinion they perceived as wrong.

Also, thanks to YouTube we have been given footage which shows they weren’t afraid to go after each other behind the scenes either.

But all this stuff has been documented before, and while I won’t deny I took great pleasure in seeing these two men tear into each other in petty ways, it wasn’t my favorite part of the show. As a person who takes great joy in lamenting the things he hates, what I have always enjoyed most about this show was hearing these two go on tangents against movies they despise.

From Siskel saying the movie She’s Out Of Control “made me so depressed I actually thought about quitting my job as a film critic, feeling as though the movies had abandoned me,” to Ebert calling the stunningly awful North “a movie that makes me cringe even as I sit here thinking about it,” were never afraid to mince words in order to keep people from wasting their money on inferior films.

It was even enjoyable to hear them team up, such as when complaining about the ”centuries lost to the human race” created by I Still Know What You Did Last Summer.

While many people have their own favorite Siskel and Ebert moments, for me, the topper was their discussion of the brutally awful 1987 Bill Cosby comedy Leonard Part 6, which I have included below. Pay special attention to the 1:24-1:34 moment, as Ebert’s face towards the end is as funny as funny gets:

The show in its original format ended at the beginning of 1999 when Siskel, who began to look like a tragically lifeless and lobotomized version of his former self, died of a brain tumor, bringing to an end not only the greatest movie review show in history, but marking the end of one of TV’s all-time great duos.

Luckily a few years back, thanks to a major rebooting of atthemoviestv.com, nearly every review the show ever produced became viewable online. For someone like me (pretentious and friendless), it proved to be a fantastic portal into the past, and I will fully admit to having spent countless hours going back and watching hundreds of old shows, even though some of them were dedicated to ripping a lot of my favorite childhood movies (Little Giants is about as “unnecessary” as oxygen).

Final Words:

Though the show would continue on in some form right up until August of 2010, no series of hosts would ever bring the same vigor to the proceedings as Siskel and Ebert. While Ebert has stated he plans to bring the show back in some capacity in the near future, it’s hard to imagine how he could go about doing so in his current condition (for those of you unaware, he has no jaw, and thus, cannot speak).

But regardless of what happens, At The Movies will always remain an important piece of television for many people, and while the on-air product has become inferior in recent years, it will still be an adjustment for many people who made a point of taking time out of their weekend to decipher what under-the-radar movies may be worth checking out.

Well, I’m finally done with this dreadful experiment. Thanks to the (very) few of you who stuck with it to the end and I hope it wasn’t a complete waste of your time.

Similar Reviews:

Lyons and Mankiewicz
Phillips and Scott
Ebert and Roeper