JOURNAL: Arigatomina

previous page next page
  • dear god 2007-06-26 11:17:05 People are making music videos out of my scanlations. What a circular world of fangirls. I stop making amvs to scanlate djs instead and an amv maker takes the scanlations and turns them into amvs. I don't even know if I should find that flattering, amusing, irritating, or ebmarrassing. I'm leaning toward the last two.

    I think I'll link to the "musical scanlations" from my site. They're two of my favorite books. And the editor keeps calling them SasuNaru when they're clearly NaruSasu. That's so annoying. There are almost no NaruSasu djs in existence - I find a few and scanlate them and those SasuNaru fanatics grab them and start calling them SasuNaru. They're not. I would never buy a SasuNaru dj, let alone take the time to translate and scanlate one when there are already a million of them on the net. The whole point is that my scanlations are *only* NaruSasu. You'd think the fact that Sasuke is actually prettier than Naruto would clue them in. Hello, all the SasuNaru djs feature a 5yr old girl Naruto. Obviously a dj featuring a boy Naruto is not SasuNaru. >.<

    Whatever. The djs are shonen ai, nothing explicit.

    Over Heat: (part 1 & 2)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwH-nBnH1bs
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF7X2lLlsq8

    Tonari ni Aru Taion: (part 1 & 2)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5n68wcD7cc
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvG-Q3Yt1JI

    The second one was my very first translation, too. My favorite dj, and it looks pretty good with some of the songs used in the video. But the translations are so horrible...it's embarassing. And the editor didn't even credit my for that one. So much for people not redistributing scanlations without permission. ;p 
  • movie review: An American Haunting 2007-06-15 10:18:53 The first question that comes to mind after watching this movie is why my brother insists on purchasing PG-13 "horror" movies when not a single one of them is scary - not to him, not to his easily frightened not-quite-jail bait girlfriend, not to my mother to whom he lends these movies, and not to me who he tricks into watching them with promises of "oh, this one's creepy." The second question is whether or not you can still sue sellers for false advertising. I remember a time when that was possible. Now every single movie I watch seems to center around false advertising. This one has been advertised all over the net as being based on "true events validated by the State of Tennessee as the only case in US history where a spirit has caused the death of a human being." A bold faced lie. It hasn't been "validated", it's not the "only case" and - according to the movie itself - the death was NOT "caused by a spirit."

    This movie starts off creepily enough. There's the "grudge/ring/asian-looking" long-haired girl running from something unseen and then freaking out over the sight of a ghostly long-haired asian-looking girl thing. This is our modern introduction - a girl is being plagued by nightmares of a girl (who might as well have crawled right out of her television). Her mother finds a journal and a broken creepy old doll her daughter got out of the attick. She proceeds to read the journal, which tells the "true story" of the Bell Witch. Then the movie goes to the past to look at what happened to the Bell family. We have the flirtateous 20-something daughter who sleeps with a baby doll, has a 12 year old best friend, a 20yr old classmate with a huge crush on her, and a crush of her own on her young teacher. The haunting starts after her father gets into a land dispute with his skanky female neighbor who is rumored to be a witch. She places a curse on him, and his "pretty daughter, too."

    The haunting is mixture of blankets being pulled off the daughter's bed, her being drug around by her hair and feet, and being pinned to her bed and tortured by an unseen entity. Later the entity speaks to the family, makes the father sick, and shows up in the girl's dreams as a creepy little girl she's not afraid of. There are also cameos by a black cg wolf that immediately reminded me of those out-of-place crows in The Messengers. A ghost isn't enough, we need fake animals, too.

    I think the biggest flaw with this movie is the way it tries to explain away the entire haunting with a "twist ending". Here there be spoilers. I predicted this ending from the beginning, but I've read a lot of reviews of this movie and most people claim it "came out of nowhere". So I'll say again - spoilers, hide your eyes.

    According to the movie, this "haunting" is yet another case of a teenager's pent up emotions coming loose in the form of poltergeist activity. There is no ghost. There is no "entity." It's all the daughter trying to remind herself what happened (she's repressed the memory) and to punish the person who did it to her. In the very beginning we have a party scene where the daughter flirts with her teacher and her father gives her a significant look. That night her mother finds her husband gone from their bed, and she hears her daughter making muffled cries from upstairs. I immediately thought her father was up there molesting her. I was right. But somehow we aren't supposed to figure that out until the "twist ending" an hour later. The daughter eventually remembers, her "ghostly split personality" clues her mother into what happened, and the two of them team up to kill the father by having him drink a spoon full of poison. How is that death due to a ghost? There never was a ghost, according to the movie. The "neat" explanation also leaves far too much unexplained. How did the girl manifest the wolf? Why did she keep seeing her "spiritual self" as a child that just happened to look like the aisian corpse ghosts in Messengers/Grudge/Ring/etc? And why did they feel it necessary to put "modern day" bookends on the movie? The girl's spirit comes back in the modern day to torture the new girl in her dreams becaus she's being molested by her father, too. Was this done just so there would be an actual ghost in at least the very end of the movie? Is it a play on how extremely common incestual rape is between father and daughter? What are the chances that the divorced "single mother and daughter" who happened to be related to the old Bell family would have another incestual rapist going unnoticed - until the Bell girl comes back to point it out in the most violent "torture the victim" manner possible?

    On the whole, if they had cut off the modern day bookends, removed the "twist ending explanation", and stuck with the unexplained violent and often creepy (but very repetitive) haunting material, it would have been a better movie.

    And I must mention how much I miss the days when demons and ghosts were male. All of these asian-inspired female ghosts are fun the first five times, but then they get a little too "feminine-power" for me to enjoy. Seeing a nubile girl get assaulted on her bed by a ghost that speaks in a little girl's voice just doesn't do it for me. 
  • movies 2007-06-10 01:47:54 The Wicker Man (remake)

    Now I admit, I haven't seen the original. I don't remember even hearing about it. So when I watched this movie, I wasn't aware of the fact that it was yet another PG-13 remake of an old classic horror movie. I didn't know that the man behind it had a history of making movies about male/female "death matches". My first impression was that the movie was slow, the cult of females was funny, and the male lead was absurd and undeserving of my sympathy. And his exfiance love interest was annoying - I sort of hoped she'd die five minutes after being introduced to her. Because the movie did move slowly, it took me about twenty minutes to predict the end and start rooting for the...other team. That's about 7 minutes after he meets the clan of evil mother goddess worshipping women. By the climax of the film, I was doing my best to hold a straight face and failing miserably. I watched the cut "theater" version first, so when we were treated to 'flashback screaming' without seeing what was actually happening, my reaction was to burst out laughing and choke on whatever I'd been drinking at the moment. I watched the uncut version afterward and I admit, it's not quite as absurd and comical with the would-be gruesome visuals attached to the screams.

    My question after watching the film was, "This is horror?" The cover of the dvd features a filmy eyed evil little girl. She's not in that movie. There are a few cat scenes in the film - you know the scenes that were rendered classic in the Friday the 13th movies? The person hears a noise, goes to investigate, and the cat jumps out mrowling to make them jump? Yes. Scares of that type. This movie has a few of them. The most notable one is where our hero almost falls through a rotted barn floor. I didn't realize that was intended to be scary at the time, but after listening to the commentary I know it was. My reaction was to snort at the man - he's been a guest on their private island for one night and already he's breaking and entering and destroying their property. And he's a police officer?

    The only thing 'horror' about this movie is a gratuitous shot of a plastic fetus in a jar that the hero notices during one of his breaking and entering excursions. It's so fake it doesn't come off as disturbing, but I know from the commentary that they were worried they'd have to take that "gruesome" clip out to keep their PG-13 rating. There is a shot of a dead body at one point in the movie that would be alarming if it lasted for more than 3 seconds. I think that's what made this film PG-13 instead of G. That, and of course the "implications" at the end. If you watch the uncut version there is an extra clip of violence to go with those otherwise comical screams. I'd rate it as PG-13, so I'm not sure why they had to cut it out. In the end, this isn't anything resembling horror. It's a dramatic comedy with a possibly disturbing ending (if you're really young or really old). Maybe a murder mystery if you're extremely slow at catching very predictable plot "twists."

    My biggest question is why so many movies work so hard to ruin an already boring story by cutting out the gore and disturbing parts so they can sell it to children. Horror was never meant for children. If I want my kids watching something scary and chalked full of adult innuendos (that aren't actually seen since it's not rated R), I'll have them watch the Disney Hunchback of Notredam. At least that's animated. And there's singing to go with the burning and sexual harrassment.

    Old horror movies could get away with minimal gore because they had disturbing stories that hadn't already been remade three times over. And they were aimed at *adults*. Whether they had gore or not, they were given higher ratings because children were not their target audience. The Exorcist had an NC-17 rating when it came out. By today's standards, it's barely rated R. You could cut out one scene (the bloody crucifix meets crotch scene) and it would be rated PG-13. It still shouldn't be viewed by children.

    I really think that's one of the biggest problems with recent American "so-called-horror" movies. They're trying to sell to teenagers. But guess what, most teenagers watch rated R horror movies more than they do PG-13 "psuedo-horror" movies. They may have trouble getting into the theaters if there's a really anal person selling the tickets, but I doubt it. The Jason and Freddy flicks always sold to the 15 to 18 crowd and every one of them was R. Now you can't find anything outside of zombie movies that isn't babied down so even the little kids can legally get bored watching the crap.

    The Messengers

    Another PG-13 "horror" movie. Can we guess what that means? That's right, it's not scary. Yes, it has a predictably twist in the last 15 minutes. Yes, they tried to make up for the horrible script by importing asians to direct it. The back of the dvd features a "film strip" rectangle of "scenes from the movie" [remember the evil little girl on the cover of Wicker Man who didn't show in the movie]. There are five "screencaps" on the back of the dvd. None of those scenes are in the movie. The next to last screencap gives away the supposedly "shocking twist" of the climax. Even though that scene isn't in the actual movie. What the hell is with false advertising? I understand getting quotes that make the movie sound better than it is. But if you're going to use screencaps, at least use ones that are in the actual movie.

    I'm going to go through these screencaps. I don't consider it a spoiler because (1) none of these things happen in the movie and (2) it's on the back of the dvd case - you're supposed to see these before you watch the actual movie. Anyone who doesn't want the movie spoiled should avoid looking at the dvd case before watching the movie. And you shouldn't listen to me describe the dvd case. So skip this paragraph. Okay? Good. The first "screencap" is a girl up to her shoulders in dirt, screaming and filthy and reaching out to be saved. This never happens. This is a scene that was cut out of the film during the first month when they were rewriting the plot every other week to fit the PG-13 rating. The second scene is the hired man fighting off crows with a sharp metal scythe like object. This is another scene that was not actually shown in the film because birds getting cut is rated R while birds cutting *people* is PG-13. It's not in the movie. The third clip is a close up of the girl looking evil and skanky in a slip that shows lots of skin around her shoulders and neck. That slip is not in the movie. She never looks that skanky in the movie. And she certainly never gets portrayed as a potential "villain" in the movie (which is the purpose of that screencap - evil women sell on the covers of dvds). The fourth scene shows the hired man attacking the father with a wooden stick or pole, as if he plans to cut the man's head off or break his neck from behind. The hired man is bloody and grinning psychotically, and appears to have had an eye gouged out. This never happens in the movie. There are no scenes of him with that much blood on him (because it's PG-13 and they cut out all the "family fights back" plot ideas). He never gets shown in the same frame attacking anyone "slowly" like this, especially the father. And he doesn't grin psychotically...ever. Clearly they used this screencap so we'd have a scary main villain to make us want to buy the movie. But if he's the villain on the dvd cover, what's the deal with all the ghosts? Oh. Damn. There went our surprise ending. Shucks. The last clip is of the mother looking scared and sweaty with a hand in front of her face. There *are* scenes like this in the end of the movie. But not this clip. I guess they needed another pretty female victim on the back of the dvd for those who were scared of the skany looking 'evil' shot of the main girl.

    Above those spoiler ridden "not in the actual movie" clips is a shot of the main girl being grabbed by pasty blue zombie hands. Four of them. That's two adult zombie-ghost hands. This scene is in the actual movie. It's not exactly a scary scene, but it's one of the few that *could* be scary. And it's featured on the dvd so if we're smart viewers, we'll be waiting for it. That's as bad as the "feet under the blanket" scene. The one scene in the entire movie that was actually creepy as hell and it was shown in so many previews that they ruined it for everyone. When I saw that scene in the movie my only reaction was "Oh, I guess I *did* see previews for this movie, after all." So much for the jump scares.

    Not that it was an entirely bad film. I like crows. There's a lot of pointless crow action in this film. The dad is a sunflower farmer. That's just cute. The girl goes chasing a ghost through the sunflower scenes. I liked Children of the Corn. There's a dead little child crying in the corner and the girl is all sympathetic worried untill it looks at her. I liked Freddy versus Jason, too. We get to see one of the ghosts close up in a very non-scary scuttling along the ceiling scene about ten minutes into the movie while it plays with the little boy. There's nothing wrong with making sure your "monsters" lose all their fear fact by introducing them and showing them clearly as soon as the new family moves into the house. It's playing with a toddler, after all. We already know nothing bad will happen to the cute wittle boy because it's PG-13. There is a very dramatic scene of the girl holding the boy in a hallway while a ghost creeps up on them. It's a very neat scene because we get close ups of the girls forehead so often you can't help but appreciate the lack of dandruff.

    And there's one other semi-scary scene involving a spoon. I won't spoil that for you. It actually struck me as creepy and cool. Very nice work Pang brothers. ^.^

    My favorite part of viewing this dvd was the commentary track. They don't talk about the movie very much, but they do let a few slips about what *didn't* make it into the movie. Violence. Gore. Someone being set on fire. Those scenes that made it to the dvd case but not into the actual move (PG-13). How blood can drip but not splatter. How they rewrote the story so often the actors stopped planning what they'd be doing from one day to the next. You have to appreciate directors who can take a script, start filming, and rewrite it day by day as they go along until they have a good 90 minutes of film to sell to their PG-13 audience. And I used to be impressed by actors who knew how to adlib. Silly me. It's all about making it up as you go along.

    Wicked Little Things

    Now here's a horror movie. Actually, I wouldn't feel guilty for calling it a dark fairy tale movie. It's a zombie flick. Naturally that means it's R. About time. It involves children who don't just *look* creepy and evil, they actually are. They're canibals, too. Hell, yeah. The story is predictable - yet another family moves out into the middle of nowhere to inhabit a nasty old house with a questionable history. What makes it original is that the child doesn't just play with the ghosts (The Messengers), she actually makes friends! Sweet. There's the obligatory teenage slaughter victims, who we know are only being introduced to the film so they can get slaughtered halfway in. There's the token "crazy man who knows what he's talking about but no one listens to him and so they die" character - Friday the 13 classic. Only in this case he does get listened to. A tad too, late, but better late than never. There's the annoying teenage girl, but she's not the heroine this time. Excellent. It's the mommy this time around. That's the way it should be. In the spirit of Romero zombie movies, there's the gratuitous feeding scenes. There's just something about watching 10 yr olds eat freshly slain corpses that makes me have hope for the future of American horror films.

    I won't go into the actual plot very much. Family moves into a house near an abandoned mine where lots of filthy kids got buried years ago (as seen in the introduction - just like The Messengers, we have to be shown where the ghosts came from the second the movie starts), the girl makes some expendable teenage friends, the little girl makes some dead friends, and the mom runs around messing with the local crazy man and the asshole who owns the mountain they've moved onto. If you can't guess where it goes from there, you haven't watched enough zombie movies.

    What's good about this film is that it doesn't promise much, but it delivers on everything it promises. With one exception. The front of the dvd features that longhaired ghost girl from "The Ring." It shows her in a bloody white dress, hair in her face, walking through a misty woods. Obviously that isn't in this movie. The zombies are miners (as in kids who worked in a dark dirty mine with pickaxes and helmets) - they don't wear dresses, especially not white ones. But since asian-looking scraggly-haired female ghosts sell dvds, I can't blame them too much for putting that on the cover. The rest is just what it says it is.

    "...a fun undead romp..." - DreadCentral.com

    I do so appreciate honesty with my horror movies. 
  • @Banner Makers / Re: Minhuit 2007-06-05 19:26:09 "Did I just prove Arigatomina wrong? Because of the flowery logo the banners will be all girly? YES(I proved her wrong at least in this case)! Snakes arent girly, most girls hate snakes. Booyah."

    Yes. I voted for that one. Link here for any who missed the "non-pretty girl" banner:
    http://www.animemusicvideos.org/_media/sitebanners/Oro-Join%20Me.jpg

    I didn't even notice the snakes instead of flower petals. I'm actually surprised they approved it. But I'm glad they did because (1) it's a male anime character, (2) it's pretty but not baby girly, and (3) it's well done.

    If any other gifted banner makers want to prove me wrong, I promise to sit back and look chagrined. Honest. I'll even growl and act annoyed at being proven wrong if you want. ^__^ I can whip up a hissy fit in a matter of seconds for a good cause.

    "Oh, yeah, well one banner doesn't prove anything! Yeah! I dare you to try that again!! Betcha can't do it twice~!"

    Reverse psychology ftw. =^.^= 
  • doh 2007-06-02 22:24:52 I forgot you can't op a video unless you download the local version. Stupid mp4 videos. Yeah, I can watch the xvid version, but I still have to download them both to review. Good thing I'm not on dialup anymore. ;p

    20mbs in 2 minutes? Yeah, I can deal. 
previous page next page
Current server time: Jan 04, 2025 04:50:57