Potential Academy Nominations for Best Animated Film: A Review.

It's been a while, hasn't it?

Work has been hectic for the past couple of months, so I haven't had time to make an actual blog post until now. I couldn't even state my shame about Donald Trump being elected, and I apologize about that.

But that's not the point of this post.

This post talks once again about films. No, I won't be doing an entire review this time, but I wanted to address all of the possible films that could be nominated for Best Animated Film at the Oscars.

Overall, this category has had films that I like and dislike. For example, I really liked Inside Out (last years winning film), but I thought Big Hero 6 (the 2014 victor) was only okay. I've also disagreed with films being excluded from the nomination, like the Lego Movie (which, in my opinion, deserved the 2014 victory much more than Big Hero 6).

So, let's briefly review all of the potential nominations that I've seen and will see, shall we?

Who is worthy of the little metal man?

Finding Dory- Disney/Pixar

The film centers around Dory remembering some specific details about her family, and her efforts to find them in a marine institute. Along the way, she reunites and meets interesting characters that help her in her efforts, including an octopus with 7 tentacles. 

I'm not going to discuss more details of the plot (to save those who haven't seen it), but overall, this film was rather good. Sure, only few of the side characters from the first film return, but that's okay; after all, it's nice to see characters be fish out of water... (was that bad? I apologize). 

My main problem with the movie is that one of the more major side characters, the octopus, doesn't reveal that much about himself. All you know is that he had a bad time in the ocean and wants to be in captivity. You don't really know specifically what happened to him, unlike Gil's scar in the previous film.

However, that is being nitpicky. This film is heartwarming, sad, and charming. It deserves the nomination.

Kubo and the Two Strings- Laika/ Focus Features

The film is about, well Kubo. He is a one-eyed boy who lives with his traumatized mother (who escaped from her with him) who travels to the city each day to tell stories with his ability to manipulate paper. During a festival, he stays out too late and that forces him to separate from his mother and go on an adventure to find his deceased father's armor. Along the way, he is accompanied by a snow monkey and an amnesiac former samurai cursed to be a beetle-hybrid.

Beautifully animated and full of action and charm, this film kept me on the edge of my seat for most of the time. Hell, it made me CRY near the end. I rarely cry in the movie theater! My only problem at all with this movie was how the dealt with one major plot revelation (that I won't reveal here); I just thought it could've been executed better.

This film is currently my favorite out of the bunch, and it definitely deserves the nomination.

Storks- Warner Bros.

The film essentially has two plots: A boy wants a little brother after having to deal with workaholic parents his whole life, and writes to the storks to do so. After the baby was created, a stork and a girl named Tulip (who was never claimed as a baby) go on an adventure to deliver the baby. Meanwhile, the kid's parents realize that they've been workaholics and try to connect with the kid.

This film was... okay. Not good, not bad, just okay. It's mostly just a tirade of baby jokes and other gags that are the equivalent of beating a dead horse (like a wolf pack turning into anything possible and the "oh-so-hip" pigeon (?) character who trails the stork). It doesn't help that, in my opinion, the scene that introduces the boy who wants a brother would've been MUCH BETTER put for being the first scene of the movie. However, the animation isn't that bad, and the voice acting is respectable.

And at least the plot was mostly coherent. Overall, though, it doesn't deserve the nomination.

Zootopia- Disney

This film centers around Judy, a bunny who dreams of becoming a cop. Her dream comes true, but the chief of police denies her potential. As some animals in Zootopia go missing, she has to team up with con Fox Nick and prove her potential.

This is currently my favorite Disney film of the decade. It's funny, it's beautifully animated, and it tackles prejudice and stereotypes in a way that kids can understand without toning down how it can hurt others. The only problem I have with it is a problem I have with other Disney films in this decade: the villain reveal. Disney has had a habit of making random people villains at the last minute. I guess that they're trying to not make villains obvious, but that's not being executed well.

Overall, though, this film is really good. it deserves the nomination.

Trolls- Dreamworks/Fox

The film centers on, well, trolls. They are a happy species that is predated upon by the Bergens, who essentially can't feel happiness. After one Bergen manages to capture a whole bunch of trolls, the princess of the Trolls, Poppy, must team up with paranoid troll Branch in order to save them.

By God, this film is a Smurf's LSD trip. It's colorful, characters are either happy or depressed, and the most cliched methods of deceiving enemies work! Also, this film uses a lot of popular music. That wouldn't be much of a problem on the surface, but only one or two songs are executed properly (no matter what you tell me, Hello is NEVER a good song choice for thinking about your crush who has no idea who you are). This film also has other cliches, such as Branch having a traumatic backstory that is the only reason why he's so paranoid.

Yeah... no, this film doesn't deserve the nomination.

Sing- Illumination/Universal

This film's plot is a little hard to explain in "bite-size" format, but here goes: A koala wants to save his theater, so he holds a singing contest. The film centers around him and some animals who hope to win the contest. Did that work? Good.

This film looks like it has potential. Sure, some of the animals who hope to win the contest have cliched backstories (like the "Dad- I don't want to join the family []!" cliche), but I haven't heard of a film that centers around a talent show before (No, Dairy of a Wimpy Kid 2 doesn't count), and it's an idea that I've been thinking about. It has potential.

Moana- Disney

Basically, a girl named Moana goes on a quest to save her people, and does so with a demigod names Maui.

I'm trying not to look too into the film, mostly because I'm going to be seeing it tomorrow, but like Sing, it looks like it has a lot of potential, with beautiful animation and a story surrounding a beautiful culture.

Also, some of the music is done by Lin-Manuel Miranda, whose work I'm a fan of.

In fact, I might work on a review of this film... we'll see.

Re: "I Censor the Books I Read to My Child. I’m Not Ashamed!"

"No, Billy, the last little piggy was able to start a successful career as a manager and is married with 3 kids! He didn't cry 'wee wee wee' and ran all the way home!"

I'm going to start off by saying this: I don't like lying to children.

Children, in my opinion, should be given honest answers in order to develop properly and become good people. It doesn't matter that children need to be placed in a bubble of innocence so their minds won't be "corrupted" or whatever, mostly because you can give children honest answers about some features of life without their innocence being "ruined" (such as why girls or people of color aren't represented very much in the media). I'm not saying that you should discuss topics such as sex and drugs with your 5-year old, but telling them why failing can help them achieve success in the future or why Bobby in the best book ever didn't make the wisest of decisions can help children become better people. (after all, the sex-and-drugs discussions can wait until middle school).

Speaking of Bobby from the best book ever, I was browsing through the internet recently and I found this article. Being a strong opposer of censorship (though the reason why can wait for another post), I was intrigued, and clicked on the link to read it. As I read it, I couldn't help but feel appalled at what the writer of the author believes to be a good method of teaching good morals to her son: censoring the material of books to ensure that he's taught good morals. She described how she was shocked when she read one of her childhood favorites, Pierre, and how she didn't want to teach her son to say "I don't care!". So, what does she do? She changes it so that the main character of the book says "I care!", along with other "wonderful" edits to other classics.

Let me start by addressing the author's edit to Pierre: Not only, in terms of what she reveals in the article, do the edits make absolutely no sense (Like, we know that Pierre cares now; but what the hell does he want for breakfast?), but it warps the moral the book is trying to teach: You should probably care. That, in my opinion, is a good moral for children (and one I probably should've learned during the first half of my sophomore year of high school), and it's horrible that someone would think that it's inadequate for their children or, even worse, that that's not the moral at all (and the author of the article states: "[...]at least another day has passed without my child learning that some people simply do not care." Ma'am, have you ever been to an urban public high school? There are children there that care less than, well, Pierre.).

Another paragraph in the article describes how some other parents attempt to censor words such as "stupid" and "fat", which is quite pathetic, in my opinion. Words like those shouldn't be censored just because they are used. Yes, they aren't good words for children to say, but why try and pretend that those words don't even exist? Why not have a discussion with your child as to why you shouldn't say "stupid" or "fat"? Wouldn't that be a more effective way to make sure that children learn better lessons? If you never expose your child to those words, how would they react if they were called "stupid: or "fat"?

Then, another parent's method of censoring gender stereotypes came around, with the mentioning of the book Goodnight, Goodnight Construction Site (which, by the way, was written by a woman) and how the parent in question makes half of the trucks in the book female. Here's the deal: I support more female representation in fiction, but censoring someone's work is not the way to bring about the representation. Remember how I mentioned that this book was written by a woman? How about mentioning that and saying that both boys and girls can be authors? How about saying that girls can be trucks too, but they were all at a different construction site? Just plastering some "she's" around the book will not spread the message in the correct way.

Then comes the part that shocked me the most: Parents editing characters because they believe children will mock their behavior. I'm not saying that this never happened (When I was 4 or 5, I began to admire a female super heroine in the media), but censoring the actions of characters is not necessarily the way to teach children to not act like them. One parent mentioned in the article even censored one of my favorite children's books of all time, Eloise, because the titular character was "rude". I remember reading Eloise when I was very little, and thinking of her as a "funny" character instead of a role model. Did I imitate her behavior? Not according to my parents. Did I start acting like Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes when I started reading that? Hell no! These parents are being quite the hypocrites when they are changing entire characters to share their morals, and once again, they seem to ignore the power of discussing why a character's behavior is inappropriate with their children. 

The author then describes how she can discuss topics such as sexuality and bodily functions with her son, but again, stammers when she has to read her child something she morally objects to. However, despite the fact that I applaud her for discussing those kinds of topics with her child, I can't help but say that the author is still putting her child in a protective "bubble". There are several problems with putting your child in one of those bubbles, regardless of how they're put in them (whether it be censoring their media or not openly discussing topics like sexuality with them). 

Overall, I guess my opinion on this parent's tactic to teach morals is pretty obvious. If you want to tell your kid that Bobby from the best book ever is not doing the correct actions, just discuss it with your child! It doesn't take that long to say "People aren't perfect; Bobby made a poor decision, but he learned this-and-that." or "Don't worry, Sally! Even though all of the characters in this book are boys, girls are just as capable at doing this!". Morals exist for a reason, and the art of conversation can do so much more than just simply censoring books.

Don't lie to your children, people.

SUICIDE SQUAD: A Review

BEWARE!!!! Spoilers from the movie "Suicide Squad" are below. If you haven't seen the movie yet, read at your own risk!!!!

DISCLAIMER: I have very little experience with the source material this film is based off of. Please forgive me if I get some details incorrect.

See how EDGY we're trying to be? We're SOOO not mainstream!!!

I had fun writing the Nerve review, and since I've recently seen Suicide Squad (on August 14, to be specific), I decided to do another review.

I looked at the #suicidesquad part of Twitter, and I actually didn't find as many "100/10" reviews and "OMG this is the best film ever" people as I did with the #nerve area. Don't get me wrong, there were a lot of "this film is so good" kind of people, but there were quite a few "Eh"s. And I myself thought of it as an "eh".

So why is this sequel to Batman vs. Superman (which I haven't seen) an "Eh"? Well, let's see:

The movie starts off at some prison where all of our Suicide Squad members are conveniently at and showing one of the most infamous news stories (at least in this decade): Police brutality! You see hit man Deadshot being given nutraloaf (horrible-tasting punishment food) and Harley Quinn being told that she'll get killed soon. I guess that showing this treatment is supposed to make us sympathize with these villains, but the problem here is that I don't know who these people are and why I should feel bad for them. I mean, no one deserves nutraloaf or untimely death, but... who are these people????

After that, we cut to government employee Amanda Waller going to dinner with some of her higher-ups to talk about an idea she has: Assemble a group of criminals (including Deadshot and Harley) to use for high-risk missions. I'm going to go ahead and say it: Amanda has some of the most confusing ambitions in this film. In fact, I'm going to start a list right here:

Questions for Amanda, List 1: What if these criminals have enough connections to escape missions without being punished? What can stop these criminals if they decide to go on a killing spree to escape missions? These criminals are humans too, and they will want reparations; will you be willing to deliver?

Trust me, this list will grow.

This movie then does a rookie mistake: telling us about our criminals instead of showing (ESPECIALLY Deadshot and Harley). They did show us clips of their backstories, but backstories aren't necessarily something you'd plaster at the beginning of a movie. I swear they spend 10 minutes trying to show us why we should sympathize with these characters. This is a problem because:

1. They take a break from telling the story to show us why we should care for these characters.

2. It looks like the director changed his mind on how to direct the movie, because the opening scene and these backstories looked like two separate movies.

It doesn't help that Deadshot has one of the most cliche backstories of all time: He is a criminal with one weakness (his daughter). I don't know if this is his actual "canon" backstory-

(I Googled it; I don't think it is)

But they could've at least made the backstory somewhat more creative: like having him fake his death so his daughter could live a life without the burden that her father killed people for money. 

As for Harley, she has quite the original backstory: She fell in love with the Joker while being his psychiatrist and became his accomplice. Batman soon chased them off a bridge and saved Harley from drowning before arresting her (though I have to ask: Why the hell didn't Batman get Joker? Aren't they old enemies or something? The coyote could've finally gotten the roadrunner!). It's actually pretty cool, and my only qualm is that they didn't show this gradually.

Side note: Damn, Harley and Joker look like they're

into some weird kinks

Then they show brief backstories for the less important characters: El Diablo, Boomerang Dude, and Killer Crocodile (aka: Racist Black Stereotype (though this doesn't become apparent until later)).

Then comes the Enchantress story, showing some archaeologist being stupid and opening an artifact making a weird noise (and hence being possessed by some ancient goddess). Apparently, this archaeologist's (aka June) new possession longs for her "heart", which Amanda has control over. June herself is alright, and has (mostly) suppressed her inner (literally inner) demon and found love in a man named Rick (who will become important later). The next scene shows the extent of the power of the Enchantress (who can get secret nuclear codes in an instant) under Amanda's control to prove a point to the Dept. of Security that she can control these criminals. Also, during this scene, the movie turns into a horror film for a second. Just a second.

Apparently controlling demons = Controlling dangerous criminals

This scene, to me, results in...

Questions for Amanda, List 2: How does the ability to control a FUCKING DEMON equate to being able to get felons to obey the US Government? If you can control a demon, can't you just use her for your bidding instead of criminals? After all, demons are essentially invulnerable (It may seem wrong, but since this is Amanda...). Is there seriously no exorcist that can "cure" June? HOW DOES CONTROLLING A DEMON EQUATE TO CONTROLLING CRIMINALS????

I felt like the first question needed to be asked twice, because that was the one racing through my head the most.

So, Amanda, June, and Rick go to the prison where all of these criminals are, and we are introduced to the rest of the team in real life, with the pyromaniac El Diablo refusing to help with the team (claiming that he has changed) and Deadshot showing some of his shooter "skillz".

Actually, let's talk about the Deadshot scene: He is escorted to a tent and given a tale full of weapons to test his ability. By God, this was one of the most poorly laid out scenes of the movie. If Deadshot really couldn't miss a shot, why the flying fuck would you just let him have access to a table of weapons without adding some bulletproof glass on the side opposite the weapons or have them shock him if he attempts to kill a guard. 

Which he does! He attempts to kill a guard, demanding that he sees his daughter if he helps with the squad. He soon drops the threat, but damn... wouldn't the guards know something like that was going to happen???

And then we cut to Joker, who is about to leave to retrieve Harley. This plot point is only important in one scene, which we'll get to later.

So, now we are introduced to all of the Suicide Squad. They get to fight, but what do they fight? The mafia? North Korea? Injustice?

How about demons? Real, supernatural demons?

Yes, The Enchantress is accidentally summoned in June's sleep (by her mumbling it.), and she releases another demon: her brother. She puts his soul into a random passerby and tells him to wait for her, as she needed to grab her heart.

Actually, I have another question right now: How the fuck has the Enchantress not have her heart? If she can instantly get nuclear codes, shouldn't she have the ability to teleport next to Amanda and steal it? Also, why does she need a heart but her brother doesn't? How did Amanda even extract her heart?

Alas, those questions cannot be answered.

(To be continued).

Tumblr

To try and reach out to more people, I have decided to create a tumblr:

http://jemononokay.tumblr.com/

Don't worry- I will continue to blog here as well!

- J.E. Kay

NERVE: A Review (Part 2)

BEWARE!!!!! Spoilers from the movie "Nerve" are below! Read at your own risk if you're planning to see the movie!!!

Now I have the NERVE to Continue this

Sorry for not continuing my review sooner; I've had to travel recently and that put a blunder on my schedule.

Anyway... back to the review.

If you don't remember my prediction for this movie's ending, it was this: Vee and Ian will be the last two players standing, having played the game together, and will have to fight to the death. Magically, the two will make it out alive and Vee will accept her invitation from California school. 

And how right has this been? Well, Vee and Ian are now the last two players of Nerve standing, and Vee has a plan to escape the game, involving Tommy meeting with Dudette and trying to take down the Nerve servers (yeah, apparently the Nerve coordinators overlooked that tiny mishap). Also, Vee's mom is with Tommy because she has lost ALL of her money from her bank account and wants to know what the flying fuck Vee is doing (again, another blunder the Nerve crew overlooked: Wouldn't SOME person of authority find out about the game at this point?). 

But for now, that detail isn't too important.

Instead, we need to focus on our young, hip crowd!

So Vee and Ian make it to this coliseum, being viewed by thousands of watchers (the ones near them in Anonymous-esque costumes). The final dare is revealed: One of the players must shoot the other (proving my "they will fight to the death" theory). This brings up the plot hole I revealed in the first part of my review: Couldn't Ian just forfeit the game here? If he did, they wouldn't have to die and Vee would technically win. However, instead, the movie just throws some cheap tension at us (beaming with Will Ian shoot Vee? Will Vee shoot Ian?) until Ty shows up out of nowhere, claiming that he will complete the dare. Vee dares Ty to shoot her, and he does so.

Yep, everyone witnessed the murder of a girl and the movie ends on that note. The end.

Oh, if only filmmaking could be that creative...

Instead, Tommy and Dudette manage to hack the Nerve servers and make everyone feel guilty about being involved with the murder of a high schooler. And then guess what? Vee turns out to be alive, and Ty and Sydney knew about the situation the whole time!

Which is another problem with this film: They fucking literally pulled that twist out of their asses. I'm not upset that the protagonist turned out to be alive (Okay, I kind of am. That is one of the most cliche twists in the history of history), but having an antagonist turn out to be good in the end? Hot damn, that was a sudden twist NO ONE was prepared for. You may think that't the point, but I at least want SOME REASON why Ty would leave the dark side, which this movie FAILS to do! To quote a typical teen, WTF?!

So I guess you can know the rest of the ending: Vee accepts her invitation from California school and she and Ian (whose real name is revealed: Sam) become a couple, calling the game their "first date". The end.

Overall, this is a pretty stereotyped film. The characters are rehashes from other media, the twist is cliche, the graphics and concept are cool (as well as the acting), but none of those features excuse the lackluster delivery, cliche "suspense", and plot holes this film has. I'm still not sure why young people like it so much, but I guess I'm just not "in the vibe" or whatever.

Overall, this is a 4/10. If you like thriller films and are REALLY forgiving, I recommend it.

Thank you for reading my first film review. I'm going to see Suicide Squad this weekend, so maybe I'll do another one of these.

NERVE: A Review (Part 1)

BEWARE!!!!! Spoilers from the movie "Nerve" are below! Read at your own risk if you're planning to see the movie!!!

This movie may be loved by teens, but do you have the NERVE to watch it?

Recently, I got the opportunity to see the movie Nerve, which was apparently based off a book with the same name (which I have not read.). The experience in the theatre consisted of me munching down Butterfinger bites while being surrounded with several young people, especially teenagers. I guess that was probably something I should've expected, since tweet after tweet about this movie were tweeted by people who don't look older than 17.

I didn't see how this movie was a "100/10" or worth watching again. I'll get more into as of why... right now! Let's look at this movie together! Doesn't that sound like fun?

The movie starts at a place teens love: A Macbook. Yes, we get to witness a girl log in to her laptop and put on her tunes, and we are introduced to our two main female characters: Venus "Vee" and Sydney. Vee is a hard-working, talented girl who is nervous about taking risks (as shown with her scared about admitting to her grieving mother that she wishes to go out of state for college). Sydney, on the other hand, is a natural risk-taker who plans on playing a game called "Nerve" (which on the outside is truth-or-dare without the truth).

This is Vee, your ordinary shy girl

And this character introduction shows the first problem with the movie. These characters aren't necessarily bad people (okay, Sydney is kind of an asshole, but that's expressed more later), but remember my article about movies last month? Well, people can recycle characters too. Vee is your typical shy good girl, like Bella Swan or Anastasia Steele, and Sydney is your "risk-taking bully with a problem", like Madison Pendleton or bullies from any generic kid show. These are over-done characters that keep getting used over and over and over again, and I really wish for these stereotypes to stop. This character introduction also got me thinking that Vee would accept her invitation from the out-of-state college (which I will refer to as "California School") at the end of the movie. Did that happen? We'll find out

Anyway, Sydney is signing up to play Nerve, and manages to get suspended from school by taking a dare to...moon the audience of a football game (Also, who still plays football in the spring (when colleges send acceptance letters)? I do not live in New York, so correct me if that is the case), I think, and goes to a restaurant with her friends. This scene introduces us to three new characters: Tommy (Vee's tech-savvy friend), Liv (Sydney's friend, who is helping her with Nerve), and JP (Vee's crush). During this scene, Sydney and Liv criticize Vee for not being a risk-taker, and the former takes a risk for Vee and talks to JP. Surprise, surprise, Vee gets rejected, and she runs out of the restaurant in anger after Sydney's actions.

The only photo I could find from that scene.

So, what is Vee to do? Should she cry? Should she scream? No, she signs up for Nerve as a player to prove to the meanie Sydney that she can take risks! She watches a video about the game, which basically explains the rules: You must complete a dare for a specified monetary amount within a certain time span, the final two players have a face-off (Gee, I wonder what it could be), you are eliminated from the game if you "fail" (fail to complete a dare) or "bail" (choose not to complete a dare), you cannot snitch to anyone ("Snitches get stitches", according to the game), and the winner gets glory. And, I have to admit, the game itself is quite a creative concept. I mean, it's not the first game where you have young people facing against each other (like Battle Royale (which is another one of my favorite films, by the way)), but it's a creative way of doing a game like that. I can see how this game could be popular in real life, and I can't think of any book or movie that does the same thing.

Anyway, Vee signs up, puts in her personal information (through a fingerprint), and she calls Tommy about it. Tommy takes her to a local diner, confused about why Vee is playing the game, and we see her first dare: Kiss a stranger in public for $100. She goes around the restaurant, glancing around for the perfect stranger until she finds a guy close to her age reading her favorite book (To the Lighthouse),  she approaches him. They talk a bit about the book (and spoil it), and Vee kisses him for five straight seconds. She gets her $100 (though she doesn't know how she'll get it), and she returns to Tommy. A few seconds later, we see the guy she kissed serenading her. Apparently, he (introduced as Ian) is also a player on Nerve! What are the odds? So the two talk again before getting another dare: Drive to the city (New York City, to be specific) together for $500. Vee initially doesn't want to go through with it (she apparently only wanted to do one dare), but quickly changes her mind and rides on Ian's motorcycle on a bridge to the city, leaving Tommy to pay $19.95 to watch the two in the diner. At this point, I predicted the movie's ending: Vee and Ian will be the last two players standing, having played the game together, and will have to fight to the death. Magically, the two will make it out alive and Vee will accept her invitation from California school. We will find out whether or not I'm correct later.

Go with Ian, Vee! You're in the main character chair, after all!

The movie cuts to Sydney, Liv, and a guy who's name I forgot (I'll just call him Dude) in the city already. Liv alerts Sydney about Vee playing and her rising popularity, and Sydney grows upset (because she "didn't intend for [Vee] to start playing"). However, she still has a higher amount of viewers than Vee, so she is pleased about that as the movie shows where other players are in the city (which was a neat effect) and how far they are from Vee and Ian. Speaking of those two, they part ways once they arrive in the city, and Vee gets her next dare: Try on an expensive dress for $1,000. She does so, and she runs into Ian again (who is now wearing some kind of beige suit), they begin chatting again. However, when they return to the dressing room, their belongings are missing and they get a new dare: Leave the Store. They realize that they didn't have to steal the clothes they tried on, and they run out of the store in their underwear.When they leave, they are surrounded by watchers who are fans of them and find a bag with the clothes they tried on. Some watcher paid for them and the two players got to keep them. How convenient! Now they get to be together, which is part of my prediction. 

We also meet Ty during this scene. Ty is another player of Nerve for now, but he'll become more important later. Just keep that name in your mind.

To be honest, that scene was pretty entertaining

We then cut to Tommy, who is still in the diner, calling his friend (who I'll call Dudette). Dudette has an access code for a forum in the deep web (apparently Nerve is from the deep web, which brings up a plot hole: How did they get onto the surface without some police officer finding out about it? Police have internet too!), which Tommy asks for. Reluctantly, she gives her the code, and we find out something about Ian.

Want to know what it is? Guess; guess what the writers do.

The writers pull a Battle Royale. Ian apparently played Nerve a year prior to the movie, stealing a motorcycle and being involved in a crane-hanging dare. I know that Battle Royale is not popular reading material among today's youth, but damn. I swear to God that they literally took Shingo (a character from Battle Royale who won a previous, well, battle royale, but scarred for life) and westernized him and made him less scary for Nerve. I know that we need more interesting characters in movies, but Ian at this point feels more like a rip-off.

Anyway, the movie cuts back to Sydney and her gang, still upset about Vee getting more watchers. Speaking of Vee (really, that was the only thing of substance in Sydney's scene), she and Ian are now at a tattoo parlor. The dare is "Let Ian pick [Vee's] tattoo", and Vee begins to talk about why her mom is grieving: Her risk-taking brother dies two years prior to the movie (I'm sorry, but the brother character is pointless. His only purpose is to make the mom grieving. They could've made the mom overprotective, but no, grieving would make her more sympathetic! Bite me, movie. I don't need to sympathize with everyone.). Ian feels sorry about this, and then she gets her tattoo: a lighthouse (because remember the book they were talking about earlier in the movie? We need to add the fact that they have that book in common). Though, to admit, the tattoo artists are pretty funny.

No fire-breathing dragons for Vee!

Speaking of Vee's mother, though, we cut to her at work, getting deposits of money into her account (from Vee's dares). She asks Tommy about this (thinking she's getting hacked), and Tommy claims that Vee got a job (remember: Stitches get snitches). Tommy reassures her that everything is alright, but has to hang up. We need to get back to dares! Ian is dared to get to 60 mph blindfolded with Vee, a stunt that would've probably gotten both of them killed in real life. They accept the dare and Ian is given a bumper sticker to put over his helmet by...someone. Sydney and her friends are now at a party, watching this dare, and are in as much suspense as the movie audience probably was (probably is the key term. I was just thinking that they would be okay and that my prediction would be correct). And guess what? They make it out alive (barely escaping a run-in, though), and Sydney is jealous that they are getting more views and wishes to get "a real dare".

Vee and Ian take a short break from dares, and she talks a bit about Sydney. Remember how I mentioned that Sydney is a "risk-taking bully with a problem"? Well, Vee mentions that Sydney is insecure and projects that on our protagionist, while Sydney and her friends are watching them from a tv at a party. Sydney, hurt, asks for a dare, and she meets Ty. Ty suggests that they pair up, but she declines (and JP shows him our of the apartment). Ian's phone vibrates, and he suggests going to the party where Sydney is, and Vee agrees. Keep in mind that I mentioned that Ian's phone vibrated.

"Anyone listening to me salting my friend?"

"Just the 40,000 people watching you live, Vee."

Speaking of the party, Sydney finally gets a dare: Walk across a ladder from one apartment to another. Being drunk and scared of heights, she fails miserably and drops her phone. She bails, and then we see a montage of other players failing or bailing, with the last clip showing that Ty is still in the game. After that montage, Vee and Ian arrive at Sydney's party, and Sydney calls her out on what she said, initiating a fight that ends in Vee getting Sydney's glory (by completing the dare that Sydney bailes on- with monetary compensation, of course!). Sydney then begins to make out with JP and Vee finds out that Ian was dared to go to the party. Upset at losing her friend and original crush (even though Sydney was a bitch to begin with) for the sake of a dare, she storms out of the party and tries to tell a police officer about Nerve. Though I have to ask- what prompted her to do that? It's not illegal to fight with a friend, and she was okay with taking the deadly risk of riding with a blindfolded motorcycle driver. She really has no point in telling the police anything, but because she did do that, Nancy lost all of the money (not just the monetary compensation from Nerve) from her bank account, and Ty knocks Vee out.

To admit, I didn't see that coming. I mean, Vee had absolutely no purpose in telling the police about Nerve, but I thought if anyone were to snitch, it would've been Sydney (after all, she bailed after doing something that could've killed her). However, on the other hand, my prediction is still correct: Vee and Ian are in the game and have done a lot of it together. 

Anyway, Vee wakes up in a freight container and a computer informs her that the game now controls her life. Is there a way to get out of 4 Chan-style torture? Yes, she has to get on a ferry and win the game. So, she gets out of the container and runs into Ian, who explains that he played Nerve the year before and tried to snitch, but bailed (and his dad lost his job as a result). Ian says that he will do a dare to get into the top 2 and leaves. Vee meets up with Sydney (yeah, Vee surprisingly forgave Sydney for projecting her insecurities onto her) and Tommy, and they begin to scheme up a plan to shut Nerve down (somehow, the people behind Nerve didn't see this conversation on their servers). Ian completes a dare to get into the finals, and he and Vee begin to make their way to some coliseum.

I couldn't find a picture of the freight container, so enjoy this instead

At this point, I found a plot hole in the ending. Remember how if you bailed from the game, you would lose? Well, why couldn't Ian just bail after making it to the finals? If he did that, Vee would've technically won Nerve and therefore would've been saved from having her life ruined. They would also both be alive and well and could date. But alas, I guess the good guys have to win.

(This review is getting long and I feel like I'm getting carpal tunnel. I will write part 2 later).

So Guess Who's Doing Camp NaNoWriMo this year?

You're reading a blog post from her.

Yep. I, J. E. Kay, have created an account on Camp NaNoWriMo (as Jemononokay) to work on another novel idea I have.

I may make my own cabin so y'all can join me; I may not. Stay tuned!