Unfriended: Dark Web

As my wife and I get older, our tolerance for certain film tropes is waning.  She has a problem with sex scenes and with realistic gore.  As far as the gore is concerned, I don't think she's really changed, it's just that special effects got so much better, and it grosses her out.  Regarding sex scenes, her morals haven't changed - she still believes in the right of consenting adults to do whatever makes them happy - she just doesn't want to watch it.

As for me, I'm developing more empathy, and it makes it hard to enjoy horror movies the way I once did.  I don't mind if a few characters get killed, but I feel a lot better about it if they've done something to deserve it.  Watching innocent people get killed is starting to feel less and less like entertainment, and more and more like torture porn.

When I watched the first Unfriended in 2016, I was impressed.  It was an original concept, as fresh as Blair Witch felt when the "found footage" genre was new.  I liked how Unfriended was presented as if your TV screen was the protagonist's laptop.  I liked how you could tell what she was thinking by which tabs she opened, and what searches she made.  I liked how sometimes she would start to type something, then erase it, then type something else - giving us more insight into her thought process than you usually get in a movie.

But something else I liked, though it didn't really dawn on me at the time.  (Spoiler alert)  Everyone who got killed was guilty.  All of the characters were complicit in the events that led to the ghost's suicide, at least to some degree.  In a way, the ghost was the protagonist, and the movie was a revenge story, a la Death Wish.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that all the characters in Unfriended deserved the death penalty for their part in the girl's suicide.  But their deaths do sting less knowing that they're bad people, and the world isn't any worse off for their absence.

Which brings us to the sequel, Unfriended: Dark Web.  Warning, spoilers follow.  

First off, U:DW is only a sequel in the sense that it uses the same format.  Once again, the TV screen is the main character's laptop.  Once again, the characters are killed off one by one.  Once again... no wait, that's it.  That's pretty much where the similarities end.

For one thing, it's not a vengeful spirit this time.  It debatable whether there's anything supernatural in U:DW at all, but more on that in a minute.  For another thing, this movie's victims didn't do anything wrong.  Well, okay, the main character stole the laptop from a coffee shop's lost and found, which is what gets the plot going.  But the other characters are innocent and, for the most part, likable.

I don't like that.  The twist at the end (major spoiler) is that the laptop was lost on purpose, by Dark Web hackers, as part of a game.  Apparently they wait until someone takes the laptop, then hunt them down and kill them, along with any potential witnesses.  This is all done for entertainment, with sadistic viewers all over the Dark Web watching this online cat-and-mouse game for fun.

Okay, but what about all this am I supposed to find fun?  If the Dark Webbers are presented as evil for watching this kind of thing, what does that say about me if I find the movie enjoyable?  Granted, to me it's fiction, while to the story's fictional viewers, real people are getting killed.  I get that.  But still, it almost feels like the movie's meta statement is, only evil people enjoy watching this kind of setup.

Another complaint I have has to do with continuity.  It feels like the writers couldn't decide whether the killer was going to be supernatural or not.  For 99% of the movie, I'm confident that the bad guys are just super hackers.  But there's this special effect that happens whenever they're on camera.  Their presence causes the cameras to glitch.  

Okay, so maybe they're carrying some sort of device that plays with camera frequencies.  But there's one scene that challenges that theory.  It's filmed from the ground, when a bad guy pushes someone off a roof.  Even from that distance, the killer glitches and warps in a way that really shouldn't happen if nothing supernatural is involved.

But who knows.  Regardless of whether the killers are using high technology or a pact with demons, this movie just didn't do it for me the way the first one did.  The interface is still cool, but I've already seen it.  There's nothing really innovative here, nothing that improves on the original, and nothing that would make me want to see it a second time.

Bottom line:  It's not terrible, but I'd rather just rewatch the first one.

The Witches

This week we watched both versions of The Witches.  I had only seen bits and pieces of the 1990 version, so this was a great opportunity to catch up on a missed gem.  Long story short, I like the 2020 version much better than the 1990 version.

I'm already seeing reviewers tear into the 2020 version, calling it a bland remake of a classic, and comparing it to the 2005 Willy Wonka remake.  To such reviewers - 1990 was only 30 years ago, you freaking fetus.  The original movie isn't some timeless classic, it came out when I was in high school.  And it's dull.

The 1990 version has one thing going for it:  Jim Henson's puppetry.  The mice in that version are delightful, and much more charming than the CGI in the 2020 version.  I probably just have a soft spot for puppetry, though.  

The witches, though...  

To me, the 1990 version of the Grand High Witch just looked goofy.  Yes, it was great makeup at the time, and it still holds up.  But I don't find it scary, with the long rubbery nose and all.  Meanwhile, the Baraka-esque 2020 version is wonderfully nightmarish.  I'll admit the CGI looks a little cartoonish, but cartoony fits the tone of the film.  Both actresses do a great job hamming up the role, and while some viewers will find them annoying, that is the way the character was written in the original book.

Both movies have the same basic plot, and in both cases the thin plot feels stretched to fill a full-length movie.  Honestly, not a lot happens in the story.  The first act sets up the universe, then the movie really gets rolling when the witches have their meeting and turn the protagonist into a mouse, then it wraps up with the mouse-child using the witches' own potion against them.  The 1990 version had a Hollywoodized megahappy ending that pissed off author Roald Dahl, while the 2020's bittersweet ending is closer to that in the book.

But the main difference, the make-or-break difference between the two movies is the pacing.  I just find the 1990 version slow and boring.  The 2020 version, while pretty much showing the same events in the same order, manages to do so in a way that made me excited to see what happened next.

The only thing I didn't like about the 2020 version is the narration.  Chris Rock voices an older version of the main character, telling the story in retrospect.  While this narration sped up the movie's intro, beyond that the voiceovers felt like an unnecessary intrusion.  

Overall, I have to say that the 2020 version is a lot more fun.  But the younger set considers the 1990 version to be a cult classic, and I doubt the newer version is going to replace it any time soon.

Nickelodeon Kart Racers 2: Grand Prix

I like to think I'm an RPG enthusiast, but I haven't played one in a very long time.  I just can't bring myself to start a 50+ hour game when I know I won't find time to finish it.  These days I'm more into games that don't require a commitment.  I'm a sucker for two things:  Button masher fighting games, and halfway decent kart racers.  

Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of the latter.  Of course the best kart racer starts with an "M", and requires a Nintendo system to play.  For those of us who don't keep up with the latest Nintendo systems, it's hard to find a kart racer of similar quality.  Impossible, actually.  But until I break down and buy a Switch, I'm making do with what's out there.

You wouldn't think my needs are hard to meet.  All I want is to race vehicles while throwing objects at each other, and the physics need to "feel right".  But that's the hard part, apparently.  The people who design budget kart racers just don't put the same effort into the physics as the people who design NASCAR/Formula-1 racing simulators.  You end up with a lot of games where driving doesn't feel much different than walking in an action game.

But it gets worse.  For a kart racer to really stick with us, my wife and I have to agree on the feel.  We've been playing Beach Buggy Racing for a couple of years now, and we're really itching for something new.  (Shameless plug:  Subscribe to KJ's Twitch Channel where we play at least a couple of times a week.)  We tried Crash Team Racing a while back, but it didn't click for us.

Most recently we tried Nickelodeon Kart Racers 2: Grand Prix.  It's not bad, but it's probably not going to replace Beach Buggy Racing in our household.  At least not yet.  

I never played the first Nickelodeon Kart Racers game, but all the reviews say it was terrible.  The recently-released sequel is considered a vast improvement, but it's still not getting stellar reviews.  

But here's the thing:  The biggest complaint I keep seeing in the reviews?  It rips off Mario Kart too much.  Seriously, why do reviewers assume that everyone already owns a Nintendo system?  I'm desperate for a Mario Kart rip-off.  For me, the plagiarism a feature, not a bug.  

NKR2 is a solid kart racer, despite what other reviewers are saying.  It has more than enough characters and tracks, it's colorful and fun, and you can tell a lot of love went into it.  It has unlockables galore, and every race gives you coins you can use to buy items, so it always feels like you're making progress.

The customization is pretty insane.  Before you race, you pick a driver, which also determines the shape of the car.  Then you pick three members of your pit crew, tires, engine, tailpipes, and paint job.  The first crew member determines your car's special weapon, and the other two crew members give you passive effects, like automatically getting a second item each time you pick up a power up.  There are a whopping 70 pit crew members to pick from, though most of them have to be unlocked.

It has a decent roster.  Not being ten years old, I was afraid that there wouldn't be enough characters I recognized.  However, its roster of 28 drivers spans several decades, including the Ninja Turtles, Ren & Stimpy, CatDog, Hey Arnold, The Last Airbender, Spongebob, Rugrats, and a few others.  Heck, the Ninja Turtles alone are enough for me.

It also has a decent number of tracks.  Eight cups, four tracks each, making thirty-two tracks total.  It has the standard types of tracks you see in every racing game, along with tracks themed after certain cartoons, and a few slime-filled Double Dare style courses.  It also has an arena mode with two arenas, a time trial mode, and a challenge mode where you complete challenges to unlock more goodies.

Some reviewers complained that the graphics aren't up to current gen, but honestly they're as good as I need a kart racer's graphics to be.  It has better graphics than Beach Buggy Racing, which, as I've mentioned, I've been playing weekly for more than two years.  

So it's better than people are giving it credit for.  Still, all is not perfect.  I have three complaints:

1. Drifting.  I'm not the only reviewer to mention this.  NKR2 tries so hard to copy Mario Kart's controls, but it just doesn't get drifting right.

2. Chaos.  Sometimes there's just too much going on.  Brightly animated courses, dripping slime, constant items flying by...  It's like driving through a neon circus.  Trying to figure out what's going on during the more frenetic races makes me feel old.

3. Physics.  It gets it a lot closer than some kart racers, but it still just doesn't "click" for me the way Mario Kart does.  It took me a few races to really get used to how much pressure I needed to put on the stick, and when I went to play Beach Buggy Racing again, it took a few races to unlearn NKR2 so I could get back in the BBR groove.  Also, even on the fastest setting, NKR2 doesn't feel as fast as I would like.

Despite those drawbacks, I still think NKR2 is a solid kart racer, easily worth $15 to $20.  Unfortunately, it's being sold for $40.  So if you like kart racing, I'd say add it to your wishlist, and hope it goes on sale.

Spider-Fan, Spider-Fan, Does Whatever A Spider-Fan Does...

Just a minor observation.  Back in January rumors started about a live action Spider-Verse movie.  Somebody photoshopped a cool picture of all three Peter Parkers together, and the internet went wild over it.  I saw the pic retweeted all over Twitter, along with enthusiastic tweeters shouting, "Make this happen!"

A couple of days ago they* announced that Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield had been signed on along with Tom Holland for the next Spider-Man movie, and from what I've seen, reaction has been mixed.  Seriously, some of the same goddamn people who said "Make this happen" nine months ago are now grumbling, "This again?  Are they out of ideas?  We've already seen Spider-Verse!"

Why are fans so fickle?

* Edit - "They" meaning internet rumor mills.  Sony has not yet confirmed the news, and is being sort of dodgy about the question.  Personally, if it does happen, I don't think "Spider-Verse" is what they'll be going for.  Garfield and Maguire will probably just be cameos.  I'm picturing something more along the lines of the Arrowverse's Crisis Crossover, with lots of world hopping, but not spending much time in most worlds.