Illustration by Ruth Hwang

After a grueling week of studying, I looked forward to escaping to the theater to sit back, relax, have a few laughs and be entertained. Unfortunately, the only new movie released this week was the sci-fi movie “Oblivion,” starring Tom Cruise. I halfheartedly convinced one of my RA buddies that the movie would be good. Well, the movie stunk, but we had fun exchanging fake looks of disbelief as the “plot twists” kept coming.

“Oblivion” is set in the year 2077, 60 years after an alien invasion has left Earth in ruins. Although the humans won the war, Earth became uninhabitable and the remaining humans escaped to Titan, one of Saturn’s moons. The movie follows Jack Harper (Tom Cruise), a technician still on Earth repairing the drones guarding the massive machines extracting what is left of Earth’s resources to send to the Titan colony. Jack and Victoria (Andrea Riseborough), his communications officer by day and friend with benefits by night, live in a spectacular house thousands of feet in the air.

Jack, a 50-plus-year-old maverick, flies around in an oddly-shaped spacecraft to view what is left of Earth. The only communication Jack and Victoria have with humanity is through the Tet, a gigantic space station orbiting Earth, the stopping point for people on their way to Titan. The plot seems to be a wannabe “Planet of the Apes” and “2001: A Space Odyssey,” and then in a bizarre twist, Morgan Freeman’s character, Malcolm Beech, enters the picture, captures Jack and turns Jack’s world upside down. Really, the plot line is a dud, and never finds its stride.

Visually, the movie was stunning and popped. I felt transported into another world with only snippets remaining of pre-nuclear Earth. The sequences in space, with the currently controversial drones, the ships flying through the air, and the gigantic explosions were absolutely breathtaking! However, “Oblivion” fell into one of the classic pitfalls of sci-fi movies in which the plot is seemingly thrown together last-minute to fit with the mind-blowing visuals and special effects.

The super cool visuals simply could not save the subpar plot line. When the credits started rolling at the end of the movie, many questions were left unanswered—and not in a good way. That being said, the movie does answer the question I’ve been asking for years. If Tom Cruise were to fight Tom Cruise, who would win? You probably shouldn’t bother to find out.

Illustration by Luke Hampton

For almost two years I’ve had the awesome job of writing movie reviews for The Pio—Friday night: the theater with a tub of popcorn; Saturday morning: Zip off a short review. Easy! Never thinking that I would have to work and write a real article, I was shocked to see an email from my editor asking me to look into a movie called “HairBrained” that supposedly had something to do with Whitman. Sounded interesting. So armed with a Web page for the movie, I naively set out on my first attempt at investigative journalism.

The website link I was given only gave the plot synopsis and the cast (most notable of whom is Brendan Fraser).  Supposedly, “HairBrained” follows a kid named Eli Pettifog (Alex Wolff of Nickelodeon fame) who gets rejected from Harvard and, in the words of the synopsis, “ends up at Ivy League wannabe Whitman College. It’s hate at first sight.” At Whitman, Eli becomes friends with a fellow first-year and 41-year-old gambler, Leo Searly (Brendan Fraser).

My first thought after reading the synopsis was, simply put … WOW! Apparently I’m going to an “Ivy League wannabe”? Yeah, right. My interest was piqued, and I started my quest to find out more about this supposed movie.

Having never done investigative work (except in the physics lab), I had no idea where to start, so I requested help from the professor of my Hollywood Stardom and Post-Katrina Media classes, Professor Anne Petersen. On a quick email chat conversation, I asked Professor Petersen if she had heard of “HairBrained,” and if she could point me in the right direction to find out more. Her response was simply that she had “never heard of that movie—sounds crazy.” When I asked if she had any advice about how to find more out the movie, she responded frankly and matter-of-factly: “Google.”

Armed with succinct words of advice, I set off down the Internet path and searched for more information and … found nothing. No clips of the movie, no trailer, not even a release date! I did find a Facebook page for the movie, but the only information given was the same as what was on the original IMDb site my editor gave me. I had nada.

So who next do I turn to? President George Bridges, of course! Having never met President Bridges before, I figured it might be a good idea to send him a very nice email with the information I had about “HairBrained” and then ask if he had heard of it and what his thoughts were on the movie’s premise. Once again, I received a short and to-the-point response: “We are aware of the movie but don’t know much about it. Let us know what you can find out.” When I tried to ask about his thoughts and opinions on just the premise, he declined to respond … twice. I feared my journey would end up fruitless.

Still with nothing to show for my work, I went back and scoured the only website of information I had. Finally I stumbled across something promising, the name of the production company, Love Lane Pictures. After a quick search, I finally made my first step towards progress and found a longer description of the movie on their website.

I found out that Eli tries to lead the Whitman College academic bowl team to the finals to beat/get back at Harvard. How cliché this movie was turning out to be! I also discovered that Billy Kent was the director, Sarah Bird was the producer and writer, Adam Wierzbianski was a writer and David Wieder was a producer. I tried contacting them via their emails and contact information on the company’s website, but they declined to respond to all my messages. It seemed as if no one wanted me to find out about this movie.

Finally, my research became more interesting when I became an Internet creeper. I started out with Bird and found her Facebook, Twitter, Publisher, Wikipedia page, job history, everything! I felt like a stalker, but I was near the end of my rope. I tried contacting her every possible way I could—still no luck. Regarding Kent, the director, I found a few minor things and tried contacting him through his LinkedIn account, but still ended up with no response.

At about this point I was grasping for straws, and was about ready to throw in the towel when I thought of one more thing I could do—tweet. I have never been a Twitter fan and have refused to use or even go on the website. But in the name of journalism, I swallowed my pride, left my integrity at the door and opened a Twitter account. I latched onto (read: began following) Kent and Wieder and sent them both a tweet. I felt my IQ dropping as I tried to fit my message into 140 characters or less! Yet days later, I still did not get a response!

Weeks after I began my search, I was nowhere closer to seeing any results, but I’m still trying. Even now as I write this article, I periodically keep checking my Twitter feed for any responses. However, the only activity I’ve gotten so far has been from two women who began following me about 10 minutes after I opened my account. Apparently they are very good at giving blow jobs… Needless to say, I blocked them.

Leaving Twitter behind, I had several more conversations with real people. I had a brief conversation with ASWC President Kayvon Behroozian and showed him the original IMDb website and asked him if he had ever heard of the film. His response was pretty similar to everyone else’s: “I’ve never heard of this film. It sounds interesting.” In one of my follow-up questions he said he “would definitely be interested to see it.” Unfortunately, I was once again nowhere closer in knowing anything more about the movie.

In one of my final conversations about “HairBrained,” I talked with Dean of Students Chuck Cleveland. More just for my own curiosity, I asked him about his thoughts on the movie with the information I had. He, too, gave a simple response: “I have never heard about the movie or seen it. So I really can’t give you an impression about it. I would be surprised if it was filmed at Whitman, but who knows.”

When I followed up on his opinion on the movie’s synopsis, he pretty much summed up my entire experience on this whole ordeal: “There is not much to react to. It could be interesting, especially if some of the exterior shots are really from Whitman.”

So true. So true.

In the end, after countless hours of research and staring blankly at my computer screen, I am no closer to finding out any more information about the infamous “HairBrained” movie that is scheduled to supposedly come out sometime this year. It seems that I will just have to wait for the movie to come out, and when it does, I look forward to being a sloth with a tub of popcorn at the movie theater.

Illustration by Tyler Schuh

Remember playing with the cool Hasbro G.I. Joe action figures for hours at a time? Of course: great memories! Remember in 2009 when our toy soldiers made their big-screen debut in “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra”? Painfully, yes: bad memories. This week the Joes resurface in their newest installment, “G.I. Joe: Retaliation.” Unfortunately, “Retaliation” barely surpassed the very, VERY low bar set by its predecessor.

“G.I. Joe: Retaliation” follows America’s alpha dog elite fighting force—armed with insane gadgets, guns and swords—around the world as they fight the evil guys and flying ninjas. But wait, enemies are lurking within our homeland. As hinted at the end of “The Rise of Cobra,” Zartan, one of the Joes’ enemies, captures and then impersonates the President of the United States (Jonathan Pryce). The Joes are framed for stealing nuclear weapons from Pakistan, and then suffer huge casualties when they are ambushed.

Channing Tatum briefly reprises his role as Duke, the leader of the Joes. Duke’s number two man, Roadblock (Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson), takes over to lead the remaining Joes in their mission—RETALIATION! The movie has an endless supply of bad guys including the Joes’ worst enemy, Cobra Commander, who escapes from a German prison miles underground. The subplots are so numerous that a flowchart is required to keep track of who’s who as the Joes kick ass and fight to restore world order.

As “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” spins out of control, Bruce Willis, playing General Joe, is inserted to try and save the day and the movie. Willis shows the guns, ammo and grenades that he has hidden in every cushion and crevice in his house and seems to have fun with his small part. Unfortunately it’s too little, too late when he finally gets a piece of the action.

Even with the cool explosions, nonstop violence, the added female Joes and the occasional humorous banter, “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” was a dud and fell flat. Supposedly, the release of “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” was delayed almost a year to add 3D effects. Do we really need to see The Rock’s pecs burst out of the screen? I think not. G.I. Joes should bid adieu to the big screen and return to the playroom and sandbox.

This week, my marching orders from the A&E chief were to check out the movies premiering during spring break and see if any of them were a “must-see.” A great task because there’s nothing I like more than watching a new movie into the wee hours and then sleeping the rest of the day. Sadly, not a single movie opening in the next two weeks jumps out as a “must-see.” Two movies, however, make the “probably will see” list; but honestly, it looks like most of my viewing time will be spent with Netflix.

The first movie of possible interest coming out the beginning of break (March 9) is the “The Wizard of Oz” prequel, “Oz the Great and Powerful,” starring James Franco. “Oz the Great and Powerful” follows the journey of a small-time magician who is transported to the magical land of Oz. I’m a huge fan of the original “The Wizard of Oz” complete with the Lollipop Guild, flying monkeys and timeless characters, so the thought of a movie screwing with the Oz magic causes me pause. Regardless, the seemingly dark reboot of the Oz world in the 1939 classic could be a potential see for spring break.

The second movie I am looking forward to seeing over break is “The Incredible Burt Wonderstone” (March 15), about two magicians played by Steve Carell and Steve Buscemi. The duo has been performing in Las Vegas for years but recently has experienced declining admission. A new street performer (Jim Carrey) comes along and begins to attract huge audiences away from the dynamic duo. These actors seem like an odd mix, but the previews of them sporting shoulder-length hair shows some potential to be quite funny … or possibly a huge flop.

Sadly, the choices for movies coming out during spring break don’t excite me, and I’m glad that I’ll be backpacking for the majority of the time. However, this absence gives me the perfect opportunity to start knocking things off my Netflix queue!

After watching the first episode, I’ve been dying to finish the new series with Kevin Spacey called “House of Cards.” I’ve also been craving some good old-fashioned drama, leading me to become addicted to “Friday Night Lights.” Once I make it through television, I’m planning to move back in time to some of the classics like “The Grapes of Wrath” and the original “Cleopatra.” Just by going onto Netflix for this article, I already added 10 movies to my queue that I can’t wait to sit back, relax and enjoy.

Illustration by Emily Jones

Disclaimer: I am a HUGE “Die Hard” fan, and in my book, Bruce Willis is THE MAN.  Needless to say, for months I’ve been anticipating Valentine’s Day, not for the sugar high or the “love is in the air” feeling, but for the premier of “A Good Day to Die Hard,” the fifth installment of one of my favorite franchises.

After a marathon viewing of Bruce Willis aging during the previous 25-year span of the “Die Hard” movies, I was primed and ready. I drove a carload of my buddies to Pasco for opening night. Sadly, my main man Bruce let me down.

The central figure in all the “Die Hard” movies is John McClane (Bruce Willis), a smart-ass New York cop who always finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time and needs to save the world from the bad guys. In “A Good Day to Die Hard,” McClane, our foul-mouthed reluctant hero, leaves the comforts of the US of A and heads to Russia. In the past “episodes,” the bad guys come to our shores from distant lands, but in this new twist, McClane heads to the land of the Russkis to try and reconnect with his son, Jack (Jai Courtney).

Jack, however, is on an undercover mission for the CIA, and dear old dad coming to town blows the mission. The plot is not worthy of description; suffice it to say that destruction and mayhem ensue as John and Jack are forced to team up to fight and kill the bad guys to save the mission and prevent a nuclear war.

Unfortunately, “A Good Day to Die Hard” is the weakest movie of the five. What made the first four movies great was the trifecta of action, sinister villains (Alan Rickman was my fav!) and witty dialogue. Unfortunately, “A Good Day to Die Hard” sheds the latter two elements and leaves us with an hour and a half of pretty cool bullets and explosions, but that’s it. As a straight-up action flick, the movie was enjoyable, but a movie with the “Die Hard” stamp and Bruce Willis needs not only action but badass villains and smart-ass dialogue.

“A Good Day to Die Hard” attempts to introduce feelings and emotions into the “Die Hard” shtick, but Bruce Willis smirking and having heart-to-heart chats with his son falls flat and was a huge disappointment. “Die Hard” movies are about testosterone, not estrogen. Maybe it’s time for Officer McClane to retire … all I do know is, “yippee-ki-yay, mother f@#ker” morphed into “yippee-ki-yay, mamma mia!” Bummer. 2.5/5 stars