Words with addiction

 A few words about this piece; this is, without a doubt, my favorite article. I have won several awards for it, and it really reflects my voice and writing skills.

Carlmont is in trouble. There is an invisible menace lurking within our walls. It draws unsuspecting students in with promises of fun and games, and ensnares them in a bottomless pool of addiction.

  It infects anyone and everyone without mercy, and does not discriminate between students or teachers.

  It can hide itself anywhere. In fact, it’s probably lurking in your pocket right now.

  I speak, of course, about the iPhone and Android app, Words With Friends.

  On the surface, Words With Friends seems like just another harmless app. You hear about it from a friend, you download the free version (because who wants to pay 99 cents for virtual Scrabble?), and you don’t give it a second thought. You grow to enjoy playing WWF, and are grateful for buying it.

  But soon, the fun ends. Before you know it, you’re playing countless games at a time. You buy a dictionary, just to check if there are indeed any words consisting of only consonants. Every five minutes, you refresh the page, in the vain hope someone has already played back.

  Your entire life begins to revolve around those little yellow tiles, and any conversation not involving the phrase “triple word score” bores you. Your friends and family soon see the uselessness of trying to converse with you, as you only say things like. “Ooh, ‘weather’. That’s worth like, ten points.” or “Do you think ‘JUXWAZPATION’ is a word?”

  Soon, you are at risk of infecting others. Words With Friends Addiction (WWFA) is an airborne disease, and can be spread by such simple activities as saying to a friend, “Hey, You should play Words With Friends.”

  Thus the cycle continues. An unbroken circle of addiction, that if left untreated, will consume Carlmont in no time at all. Sad as it is, more and more students are falling victim to WWFA every day.

  Sophomore Ryan Yen admitted to be extremely addicted. “I play WWF every day, but I only realized I was addicted when I noticed I had 20 games going at once.” He went on to say, “Everyone I know plays. A friend introduced me to it. I think it’s fun.”

  Even the administration is not safe from this debilitating illness. When asked if he was considering quarantining the school, Vice Principal Robert Fishtrom responded, “I think WWF is a good educational outlet for students. Since some teachers also play, it’s a good way for them to connect with the kids they teach. However, playing it shouldn't interfere with the Electronic Policy. Students are not allowed to use any electronic devices during school hours”

  Fishtrom concluded by insisting, “I don’t have a problem.” He then glanced surreptitiously at the iPhone on his desk.

  Is this the future of Carlmont? Are our hallowed halls destined to be roamed by zombified kids with their noses shoved so far into their phones they can’t see where they’re going?

  No. I hereby implore the remaining addiction-free Carlmont students to do their part in stopping WWF from taking over our school. We must make it our mission to help the poor souls who are having their lives ruined by this malevolent app.

  Addicts, or “scrabblers” as they’ve come to be called, are easy to spot. They spend every free moment they have playing WWF. Their eyes are blurry from staring at a small screen from hours on end, and they often voice the complaint “Man, my letters suck this round!”

  In extreme cases, they may turn in homework assignments with all of the letters boxed, or even intersecting each other.

  Approach scrabblers with caution. Though they may appear harmless, if angered, they’ve been known to hurl iPhones or Droids at people’s heads.

  The only known cure to WWFA is to quit cold-turkey. Convince them to stop using their phone, at least for a day. However, there are techniques that can help with symptoms, such as going on a walk or taking a nap.

  If we work together, we can prevent WWFA from becoming an epidemic. I know we can do it.

 Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go play Words With- I MEAN DO MY HOMEWORK. Yeah. Homework is what I meant.

Open publication - Free publishing - More carlmont

Like Hollywood, movies get stupider

There are good movies. There are bad movies. There are REALLY bad movies. Then, there are those movies that are so bad, the only thing that seems logical while watching them is to asphyxiate yourself with a bucket of popcorn. Unfortunately, it seems that this school year was filled with the latter.

  The year started off with a fizzle, bringing Carlmont something called “Shark Night 3D.” This was the epitome of cheesy horror movies. It had it all: predictable plot (“OMG THERE’S SHARKS EVERYWHERE!”), idiotic characters (“Huh. I think I heard a splash three miles away in the middle of the night. I’ll go by myself to check it out. Good thing I’m wearing my barbecue-scented cologne.”), and copious amounts of fake blood. Oh, and don’t forget an overwhelming amount of cleavage from the eternally-bikini-clad actresses. A better name for this movie would have to be, “Busty Women Running Around and Screaming for Two Hours... Plus Some Sharks... 3D.”

  November ruined any appetite we had for turkey with “Jack and Jill,” the latest vessel for Adam Sandler to reprise his role as “Eternal Man-Child.” However, some demented producer (who undoubtedly enjoyed eating lead paint as a child) felt it was a swell idea to put Sandler in drag and make him play his own twin sister. This brings up a valid point: actors in drag don’t automatically make a movie funny. More often than not, they make the audience want to stab their eyes out with their ICEE straws.   

  The two notable exceptions to this would be “Mrs.Doubtfire” and “The Rocky Horror Picture Show.” However, as “Jack and Jill” doesn’t contain Robin Williams or delightfully campy musical numbers, it turns into a nauseating entry on a long list called, “Reasons Why Adam Sandler Isn’t Funny Anymore.”

  “Contraband” (the first real flop of the new year) deserves a place on the list of bombs because it’s one of those frustrating movies that should be SO much more than what it actually is. It had all the aspects of a great action-thriller: an interesting plot, intriguing stunts/action sequences, and freaking MARK WAHLBERG. However, it suffers from one of the worst faux pas that a movie can commit: under-development.

  None of the main characters receive any sort of exposition, and it’s not even confirmed that they all have first names. Every time the audience figures out what’s going on, a new plot line is introduced or Wahlberg brings in a friend/lover/enemy/dog-walker that they’re instantly supposed to understand and care about. “Contraband” isn’t sure WHAT it wants to be, and the audience ends up unsure why they paid fifteen dollars to get a headache.

  However, the pinnacle of the bad movies, the worst of the worst, had to have been “Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance.” Watching it is the equivalent of bashing one's head into a flaming brick for ninety minutes, and is considerably more painful. The plot is impossible to follow, the acting is a disgrace (why is Nicolas Cage still being hired for movies? The man looks and acts  like a senile gorilla. Does Hollywood simply feel bad for him?), and even the editing is awful. The camera swings around like it’s attached to a drunken pigeon, and after a fight scene a collective gasp is heard as the audience attempts not to vomit from motion sickness.

 No aspect of “Ghost Rider” was enjoyable, no breath of air taken by any of the actors was believable. This was the kind of movie that turns into a legend; the kind of movie some weird, foreign cult will end up worshipping because they’re convinced it’s the root of all evil.

  Fingers are crossed tightly in hopes that next year will produce more quality films, but in light of the swill seen over the past year, Hollywood has a high mountain to climb.

 

Open publication - Free publishing - More carlmont

'Inheritance' cycle comes to a close

It’s not often that the denouement of a series answers the important questions, ties up all plotlines, and leaves the audience with a feeling of both joy, and profound loss. With the final installment of the “Inheritance Cycle”, Christopher Paolini has managed all of this, and then some.

  Dedicating twelve years (“nearly half of my life,” he writes in the author’s note) to spinning the story of Eragon, a mythical Dragon Rider, Paolini has spun a fantastical tale of warriors, elves, dragons, and evil kings. While those less fond of the fantasy genre would likely shy away from prevalent mentionings of magic and dwarves, the series has grown a large fanbase.

  The past three novels, “Eragon,” “Eldest,” and “Brisingr”, have paved the way for the climactic ending, detailing Eragon’s life in the magical kingdom of Alagaesia. The final installment finishes the journey to defeat the greatest enemy of the kingdom: the ruthless King Galbatorix.

  The plot meanders in needless side-plots at some points, but manages to keep itself suspenseful. Despite a length of over 800 pages, readers will be ensnared enough to finish the book within a week. The writing is beautifully descriptive and utilizes imagery, to the point where reading about someone taking an arrow through the back elicits a wince or two.

  The greatest feature of the book is also its downfall; it perfectly continues from where the last three books left off. While this does a wonderful job of tying up all loose ends (even some that didn’t make themselves known until during the story itself), it’s almost impossible to read “Inheritance” without having read its three predecessors yet. And, as all three are particularly weighty reads, a long weekend of page-turning is necessary for the full experience.

  There are a few instances where a subplot or a certain character is given more exposition and focus than really necessary, but it never detracts from the impact of the book.

  Overall, “Inheritance” is a mind-blowing work of fantasy, and should not be missed by anyone.

 

Open publication - Free publishing - More carlmont

The unwanted return of the sequel

What Hollywood needs is a cold dose of the truth: too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. I speak, of course, about movie sequels.

  Now, this is not to say that all movie sequels should be ripped from the reels they were shot on and decimated in a fiery inferno. Oh, no. Not at all. Some sequels have gone on to be huge successes, both commercially and critically.

  Take, for example, the recent “Sherlock Holmes” series. After the great acclaim of the first movie, the studio (and thankfully, the actors) decided to invest in a sequel: “A Game of Shadows”. It has since received a general seal of approval, praised for exceeding the bar previously set by its predecessor. A high bar, for there really is nothing better than a shirtless Robert Downey, Jr.- unless it’s a shirtless Robert Downey, Jr. speaking in a British accent.

  The sequel “Batman: The Dark Knight” had an added advantage of already having the whole “origin story” aspect out of the way, giving its writers room to explore new plotlines and characters. This led to the brilliance of Heath Ledger in the face-paint of the Joker, and quite possibly, one of the best superhero movies of the past decade.

  In short: sequels sometimes work, and work well. That being said, the deciding factor for what constitutes the making of a sequel has been increasingly blurry in the past few years. Compiled here is a list of guidelines for when a movie deserves a sequel, and when it should be left alone.

  One: The movie has to set itself up for a sequel. This may very well be the most important rule of all, as it effectively determines whether the sequel will succeed. Series like “Harry Potter” or “The Hunger Games” are obviously predetermined to have at least one sequel, but stories like the “Bourne” trilogy have still managed to succeed in stretching a storyline across a few movies.

  Basically, if a movie can stand alone as its own story, it should ostensibly stay that way. Conversely, if a movie ends in a dramatic cliffhanger, leaving vital questions unanswered, a sequel should be made before the rabid fans begin breaking down the doors of the studio.

  Two: PAY ATTENTION TO THE SUBJECT MATTER. No matter how much a movie makes in the box-office, or how many questions were left unanswered, the critical approval the movie receives should be a large factor in deciding whether a “Part 2” is in our future. A movie that is universally approved should have higher priority than one that is universally panned.

  Three: The sequel should be noticeably different than its predecessor. An audience comes back to see a sequel because they enjoyed the characters and the premise. They don’t come back for the same movie over again.

  Consider “The Hangover.” The first was an achievement in comedy- situational humor at its best. The second was a carbon copy of the first, to the point where it literally feels like the entire movie was simply picked up and dropped in the middle of Thailand. There is a certain virtue in giving people what they want, but not in ignoring any and all aspect of creativity.

  Four: not all movies need sequels. Remember “Bridesmaids”? That hysterical R-rated comedy that showed the world that Kristen Wiig is a comedic goddess, and that Melissa McCarthy can play more than just the sweet, heavy girl? Writer and main actress Wiig has put her foot down, and refused to write a sequel.

  Will this decision ruin the popularity of the movie? Will it destroy the careers of the main actors? Was it made to spite the directors, the producers, and the fans themselves? No, no, and no again. The reason Wiig has refused a sequel is that the movie is done. There is no need for a follow-up, no need for further adventures of the Bridesmaids.

  Sequels can be fun, but it’s important to decide if one is necessary before signing a contract for “Part 2.”

Open publication - Free publishing - More april 2012

What is Carlmont?

From performing arts to school sports, the definition of Carlmont continues to be shaped by its students, which in turn shapes student lives along the way.

  Students spend most of their lives here at Carlmont. For a total of six hours a day, five days a week, students can be found in these classrooms and hallways. They have the same teachers, take the same classes and they even eat the same hot lunch. Yet when asked to answer the question, “What is Carlmont?”, students came up with very different answers.

  For some, the academic programs are the most notable aspect of Carlmont. Junior Andrew Cardozo talked about the expansive math and science programs. “We have so many high-level math classes,” he said, “like multi-variable and AP statistics. They’re really hard classes, and they show the high academic level of the kids at this school.”

  Sophomore Ryan Dimick believes that the wide variety of classes is an important feature of the school. “We don’t really focus on one subject,” he said. “We’re more of an all-around school. We have a lot of programs other schools don’t have, like biotech. They even put in an entire new building for that, and not many other schools can say they have a whole building just for biotech.”

  Regardless of what courses or programs they’re involved in, it’s clear that academics plays a large role in the lives of Carlmont students and it shows through their dedication.

  “Students really have to put in a lot of effort at Carlmont,” Cardozo said, “We take really hard classes with a lot of homework, and on top of that people are involved in sports, which can be really demanding too. I think that the amount of dedication Carlmont students have is a big part of what makes our school what it is.”

  On the other end of the spectrum, the social aspect of Carlmont is the most important for some students. Junior Gillian Spring cited school friends as the reason most kids come to Carlmont in the first place.

  “Socializing is a big part of Carlmont,” she said, “A lot of kids here don’t show up because they like going to class. They show up because they want to see their friends.”

  Beyond small groups of friends, some students, like junior Emma Smith, mentioned school-wide activities and spirit as an outstanding feature of Carlmont.

  “I feel like school spirit is a big thing here,” Smith said, “We have ASB who does things in the Quad during lunch every day, and they put together assemblies like Homecoming and the Heritage Fair. The Screamin’ Scots go crazy at the football games, and the rest of the sports also have a lot of school pride. Whenever the school comes together for something...that’s what I think represents Carlmont the best.”

  All of the students interviewed could point out different things that made Carlmont what it was, whether it is a certain class, a club, or a sports team. However, there was a common thread connected the answers. They all showed that in some way or another, Carlmont shapes the lives of its students just as much as they shape their school.

  Student Body President Kelly Robinson thinks that how Carlmont changes the lives of its students is the most important feature of the school. “Carlmont is a different school depending on what you’re into,” she said, “but everybody has something here for them. People are always starting new clubs, joining new teams, and those are places that shape how those kids go through their lives. They’re changed by what they do here.”

 Robinson went on to say that going to Carlmont has changed who she is as a person. “It’s where I made my friends that I spend every minute with,” she said. “It’s shaped my views, my opinions about everything. I’m so much more outgoing now than I was before coming here. Carlmont has changed me for the better.”

Smith agreed, and said that Carlmont is a “comfortable” place for its students. “The teachers here have helped me so much,” she remembered, “and they’ve opened my mind to new possibilities that I would never have gotten had I not gone here.”

  So, what is the right answer to, “What is Carlmont?” An intellectual environment? An opportunity to socialize and make new friends? A place that grows along with the students, and that helps them grow along the way?

  Robinson put it best when she simply said, “Carlmont is my home away from home.”

Open publication - Free publishing - More high school

Kick off your Sunday shoes

For this year’s Spring musical, Carlmont is in for a treat. “Footloose,” an 80’s era rock musical, will soon be dancing into the Performing Arts Center.

 “Footloose” is a classic story of teenagers trying to find their way in the world, despite prejudice and discouragement. The plot is riddled with fast paced music and energetic country-style and modern dance that represents the era it was made.

  “I love the songs in the musical,” said junior Cierra Reimche. “They are based off of 80’s songs, but they’ve been modernized. They’re really fun and upbeat.”

   Sophomore William Lash echoed, “My favorite part of the musical are the dances, and the music.”

  The musical tells the story of Ren, an independent teenager with two passions in his life: dancing and fighting authority. He and his mother move to the tiny town of Bomont, a city in the middle of nowhere with strict rules and an even stricter devotion to the church.

  The town is still under the shadow of a brutal car accident that had taken place years before, where four teenagers died on their way home from a dance. Due to the suffering of the townspeople and their fervent desire for restitution, a new law has been established in Bomont. To his horror, Ren learns that any and all public dancing has been declared illegal.

  Sick of the stuffy, strict atmosphere and the amount of pressure the teens of Bomont are under, Ren decides that someone has to stand up for what’s right: he decides to take the law into his own hands, to fight for “the right to dance.”

  Facing persecution and anger from all sides, Ren enlists his friends to help him: Willard, a country bumpkin with a soft spot for his mother; Rusty, a chipper girl with a motormouth; and Ariel, the fiery daughter of the town’s preacher.

  “I play Ariel,” laughed Reimche.“She’s the daughter of the Reverend, but she doesn’t act like it. She’s always getting in trouble!”

  While Ren and Ariel realize their growing feelings for one another, her father Reverend Shaw plans to overthrow Ren’s dance revolution once and for all. Shaw enlists the adults of the town to set up a united front against the teens, and the town is immediately divided over the issue.

  The message of the musical is a classic one: sometimes, you have to stand up for what you know is right, even when the odds are against you.

  “Ren has a line in the play,” Reimche added, “that goes something like, ‘This is our time.’ I think that’s a really good message for teens to remember. This is the time we need to live it up, and really live our lives, even when people say we shouldn’t. That’s what the play is all about: getting people together and taking a stand for what’s right.”

  For all those curious about whether the teens of Bomont ever get to dance again, “Footloose” will be performed from March 8 to the 11.

Open publication - Free publishing - More carlmont

Starving for entertainment

The popular series The Hunger Games is being adapted into a movie that will hit theaters  Mach 23, 2012, and fans of the series are anxious to see if their beloved books will be honored sufficiently, or turned to slander.

  The practice of turning books into movies is one that has been around for ages. Our generation has grown up with them, and learned to love them. Many of us remember watching our VCR tape of Snow White, or Cinderella, then rewinding it and playing it over and over again (much to our own delight, and the chagrin of our poor parents, who have had “Bippity Boppity Boo” stuck in their heads for the past three weeks). We were raised on Disney and the like, learning new lessons through classic old stories.

 Then as we got older, we discovered new movies to satisfy our growing attention spans. The Harry Potter series is one such example. Personally, I was only seven when the movie came out in 2001. I was enthralled by the exciting story and wonderful special effects, quickly becoming enamored with the series.

  Basically, books and movies have been intertwined since as long as any of us can remember. Yet it seems that lately, the quality of book-movies has hit a drastic decline- or at least a plateau with a downward-slope.

  Two of my favorite books as a child, Inkheart and Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief, were both revamped into movies. When I heard that Inkheart would appear on the silver screen, I was understandably excited. The book is filled with wonder, magic, snappy writing and beautiful descriptive language.

  The MOVIE, however, was filled with over-dramatic music, predictable dialogue, bad acting, and was basically an excuse for Brendan Frasier to give angsty-yet-courageous looks to the camera every five seconds.

  Oh, and Percy Jackson? The plot was completely changed, they FORGOT to put in the main antagonist, and most of the cast didn’t even REMOTELY resemble the characters they were supposed to be portraying. If they hadn’t mentioned their names in the movie, I would have thought it was an entirely new story. Which it was, basically.

  So now, as a die-hard fan of The Hunger Games and its two sequels, my stomach curdles at the thought that continues to dance around in my head: “What if they ruin it? What if they take the awesomeness that is Suzanne Collins’ writing and morph it into something new and different? And not different in a good way. Different in a “why-did-I-pay-eleven-dollars-to-see-this” kind of way.”

  But here’s the thing: I don’t think they will. Because I’m not getting any of the warning signs I got from the two movies I previously mentioned.

  First off, you have to consider the cast. Jennifer Lawrence is filling the mud-caked shoes of protagonist Katniss Everdeen, and appears to do so quite nicely. I was initially worried that she was too fancy-shmancy for a “plain-Jane” character like Katniss, but she seems to have de-glammed for the role, going without makeup and dying her normally platinum-blond hair a mousy brown.

  The rest of the cast is more-or-less what I expected, with a few exceptions. But these exceptions (such as Lenny Kravitz in the role of Cinna the stylist) are not so crazy that I couldn't see these actors as the characters. It still works, cast-wise.

  Then, consider the special effects. In Eragon, the fuzzy dragons and super-cheesy bursts of magical light quickly turned me off from the story. But Hunger Games doesn’t require a whole lot of CGI (except buckets of fake blood). In the preview, the androgynous clothing and strict formation of the citizens is all the movie needs to evoke the feeling of a utilitarian, dictator-ruled nation that Collins describes Panem to be. In this case, less is more.

  Finally, just consider the source material. The Hunger Games is an exciting, thoroughly enjoyable book, and its sequels are nothing if not even better. Collins has painstakingly crafted a harsh, unbelievable future and makes us believe in it from the first one hundred words.

  In my opinion, the books are a masterpiece of fiction. And it will be pretty hard to mess them up.

  And even if they do, remember: All is not lost. We’ve still got Harry Potter.

Open publication - Free publishing - More belmont

Students want freedom for lunch

  Many students are fed up with eating PB&J sandwiches every day for lunch and have noticed the dozens of restaurants less than a mile away from Carlmont, often wondering why Carlmont doesn’t have an open campus.

  An open campus during lunch is something that students have been asking for for years.The idea itself is rather simple: during lunch, students would have the chance to leave school grounds to eat. The most likely option would be to visit the Carlmont shopping center, where there are many lunch options. Then, once lunch period ends, the students would need to be back at school in time to get to their next class.

  However, executing this idea may be harder than it seems. “Allowing students to leave campus at lunch creates a liability for the school and district in the event that an injury or other situation ,” said Robert Fishtrom, Vice Principal, “Additionally, when the district did have an open occurscampus policy, attendance in the afternoon was very poor.”

  Open campus lunches could easily turn into a negative situation, where students take advantage of their freedom and treat it as an entitlement, not a privilege. However, rules could be made in order to keep open campus lunches a safe, beneficial aspect of Carlmont.

  For example, a rule could put in place that in order to be able to leave campus during lunch, a student must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher. This way, open campus lunch becomes a reward, not an entitlement. This policy would increase the effort students put into their grades, and would promote better grades at Carlmont.

  Another idea would be to limit the restaurants to where students are allowed to go. For example, students would only be able to go to the Carlmont shopping center or any of the restaurants across the street.

  In order to address the issue of the liability of a student being injured or another situation occurring while out to lunch, students could have to sign a release form before they leave campus. This form would state that the district is not liable for any injury the student sustains, or any other situation that occurs. This way, the student would know the risks before they left.

  Students are more than happy to offer opinions and advice on how to operate open campus lunches. “I think they could have a sign-in and -out sheet in the office,” said senior Monika Skinner, “Before they leave, students could write down where they’re going to lunch. That way, if they don’t come back, security could go find them in whatever location.”

  Sophomore William Lash agrees. “[The faculty] needs to make sure that we would go back to school and not ditch, no matter how tempting it may be.”

  Open campus lunches are possible at Carlmont. It would just take a little cooperation from students and faculty alike to make it happen. “Open campus lunches are a great idea,” said Skinner. “They provide more freedom and more food options to everyone. We are old enough and responsible enough to handle them.”

Open publication - Free publishing - More carlmont

The evolution of slang

Since the dawn of man, language has played a dominant role in the very fabric of our society. It started with one caveman uttering a fateful “ug.” Whether he was asking for a piece of food, commenting on the weather or simply emitting an extremely irregular belch, that “ug” changed the future of the human race. Soon, all of his caveman buddies began using “ug” to express various needs or concerns. Then, the “ug” evolved into “ooga ug”, which soon evolved into “eega ooga ug”. You get the picture. Eventually, it would occur to a few human beings that language should evolve beyond guttural noises like that of the common gorilla. Thus, the evolution of language advanced once again. Over many years language developed even further. During the height of Ancient Rome, Greek and Latin became the stepping stones for hundreds of different languages, including the one that most of us speak on a daily basis. Klingon. Nah, I’m just kidding. English. Then, during the time of Shakespeare, someone decided all the English words were too short, and decided to add “-eth” and “thy” and “doth” onto them. Like little word tumors. Thankfully, these literary hemorrhoids soon fell to the wayside as English progressed further. In fact, mankind began doing to opposite of their renaissance counterparts; they began shortening words. This practice is one we all know and love: slang. During the roaring twenties, slang really began to take off, and teens began using it full force. No longer did you have to tell your friend that her new glasses are great. Now you can tell her, “Golly-gee, Doreen! Your new cheaters sure are the cat’s pajamas! But you better get a wiggle on, or you’ll miss your date at the sock-hop with Vern! He sure is the bee’s knees!” The sixties was a magical time for slang. When else could teens pay for a new car with “bread”? Hopefully the damage won’t be too bad, or else you won’t be able to go “catch some rays” with the girls, “slug down some antifreeze,” and check out the new guy. I hear he’s got great “buns.” Being physically sick (not as in, “Oh, that’s so sick,” but more like, “Gimme a bucket and hold my hair, I’m gonna be sick”) took on an entire new meaning depending on when you were born. In the forties, you’d chuck up. In the fifties, you’d barf. In the sixties, you’d upchuck. And (my personal favorite) in the seventies, you’d bork up your lunch. Pleasant, no? And where are we now, in regards to slang? At Carlmont, at least, most of our slang consists of two key items: text slang and Bay slang. Text slang is a more recently developed form of slang. Originally becoming popular while texting (in order to save time and space), it is now becoming prevalent in day-to-day life. For example, instead of telling your friends, “Oh my god! You guys have matching sweaters! That’s totally adorable!”, you can now tell them, “OMG! You guys are matchers! Totes adorbs!” By making those changes, you just saved yourself twelve syllables. Just think about how much your BFFs will appreciate it. Finally, we come to Bay slang. This area of slang seems to have no definition except slang that seems to be directly synonymous with the Bay Area. Walking around any area on campus, you are sure to hear any of the following words: “Hella,” “swag,” “swole,” or even “chillax.” These words have gotten so widespread, there’s even a Wikipedia page called “California Slang.” Don’t believe me? Look it up. God only knows where slang will progress to next. Considering the fact that seventies slang like “peace” and “man” is slowly making a comeback, maybe our slang will progress backwards. Imagine: years from now, you’re sitting with your family and in a flash of nostalgia, you describe something as being “hella sick.” Your kids proceed to look at you and say, “Gee wiz! Could you be any more of a square?”

Open publication - Free publishing - More highlander

Distracted- A Satire

Oh my god, did you hear the news?! What do you mean, what news?! Didn’t you hear about that guy in Texas who shot all those kids on the school bus?!
Wait… maybe it was Virginia, not Texas. Which is the big one again? And I think he might have broken into the school, not a school BUS. Uh… geez, I can’t remember. I’ll pull up Google News, it was all over the place an hour ago.
Hang on, Google News is loading. Wait ’till you guys see this, I can’t even believe… Wait. Is that a video of a squirrel on water-skis?! That’s hysterical! Squirrels aren’t supposed to like water! And they’re certainly not supposed to posses the fine motor skills necessary to stand up on those little things! He’s being dragged behind a remote-controlled boat! Cuteness overload!
Wait. Wasn’t I supposed to be doing something…? Oh, that’s right. The shooter in… THERE’S A MAN IN NORTH CAROLINA WHO CAN FIT AN ENTIRE JAR OF PEANUT BUTTER IN HIS MOUTH. How is that possible?! How did the guy even figure that out?! Was he making a sandwich and thought to himself, “If only there was a way to eat all of this at once…”
And look at this! This guy in Tennessee fathered thirty children in fourteen years! They should make a reality show about him; I’d watch it all the time. Would you?
You guys don’t mind if I check my Facebook, do you? Didn’t think so… Ha! My ex-boyfriend just listed himself as “In a Relationship”, and I’m WAY prettier than her! Sucks for you, dude.
Twitter! I have to check what everyone’s up to… check out this tweet from Kim Kardashian: “Team work makes the dream work!!” She’s such an inspiration.
Lemme log onto to Tumblr and… what? What do you mean, I’m getting distracted? I’m not distracted! I know exactly what I was doing! Um… something about Texas! Yeah, I was looking up whether Virginia was bigger than Texas. Hang on, I’ll…
Wait, what school shooter? Was it on the news? I’ll pull up YouTube and check. What should I search? “School shooting Texas”?
Oh! Before I do, wanna see this one quick video? I found it like a month ago, and the quality isn’t that good, but the song is halfway decent. It reminds me of that song we listened to at the one restaurant. You know, the one that gives you your meal for free if you finish it? What was that place called again? Lemme Yelp it…
Oh, “Fast Fried Greasies”! Yeah, that was the bomb! That’s where you met that one cute guy who kinda looked like James Franco if you tilt your head and squint. I friended him on Facebook, you wanna stalk his profile?
Hey! HEY! Where are you going?
I swear, people these days are so easily distract- OH. EM. GEE. Did you know there was a school shooting in Texas?! Here, I’ll Google it…

http://www.scotscoop.com/20348

Audience laughs, gasps, and cheers for 'The Avengers'

With a snappy script, flawless casting, and outstanding special effects, it is no wonder that “The Avengers” has captured the attention of fans and critics alike.
The film follows a team of superheroes, thrown together by a secret organization known as S.H.I.E.L.D. in order to save the world from the wrath of one of the most evil beings in the universe: the God of Mischief, Loki.
Heading the group is Captain America (portrayed by heartthrob Chris Evans), a super-soldier from the forties who was frozen in ice for seventy years. Iron Man (the always-delightful Robert Downey Jr.) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth, whose biceps alone could carry the movie) stand at his side, assisted by Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo)- or, as he’s better known, The Hulk. Black Widow (Scarlet Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) complete the team, two S.H.I.E.L.D. agents with many secrets between them.
The dialogue is quick and witty, with jokes flying right after intense action sequences or deep emotional moments. The entire movie is the best sort of rushed and jumbled, making the action and storyline seem natural rather than forced.
Robert Downey Jr. is by far the most enjoyable to watch, managing to convey deprecation, anger, and vulnerability while still maintaining his signature Tony Stark sarcasm. He bounces off the other cast member like he was born to do so, and no one is safe from his teasing (on more than one occasion, he tells Captain America that he “doesn’t look too bad for an old guy.”) Samuel L. Jackson is also a pleasure to watch, playing the team’s de facto commander Nick Fury. His stolid and stable personality provides a foil for the other cast members, making their jokes all that much more amusing.
All in all, “The Avengers” is one of the best movies of the year, and shouldn’t be missed by anyone. Just make sure to stay after the credits for not one, but TWO extra scenes. It’s worth it.
4.8 out of 5 stars.

http://www.scotscoop.com/19938

'Mirror Mirror' too cheesy to succeed

It’s often that a movie comes along where a bad actor is put into a good role, but can’t carry the movie on their spindly shoulders. It’s even more often that a good actor is put into a bad role, and can’t save the movie from itself.
“Mirror Mirror”, unfortunately commits the second act, and then some. Even with a cast of well-known stars (Julia Roberts! Nathan Lane! Sean Bean!), the cheesy plot and many inconsistencies keep the movie jilted, and the audience bored.
The plot is basically “Snow White”- except that it isn’t. Not at all. There is literally no resemblance to the original work, except the main characters’ names. Snow isn’t a poor servant girl; she’s the heir to a large and formerly-prosperous kingdom. The seven dwarfs (who have been renamed with adorable monikers like “Grub” and “Chuck”) aren’t happy-go-lucky miners; they’re evil little thieves with Napoleon complexes. Perhaps the greatest change made was the Evil Queen, though it’s unlikely she can even be called “evil” anymore. Julia Roberts plays her with such earnestness and good humor that it’s hard not to root for her.
The matter isn’t helped by that fact that Snow herself is about as interesting as a stump. Newcomer Lily Collins (the daughter of Phil Collins, who performed the music for “Tarzan” and, therefore, has my ultimate respect) plays the titular character (Snow White, not the mirror) with the energy of a narcoleptic. Her acting is sweet at its best, and mind-numbingly bland at its worst. Everything she does, from sword fighting to giving impassioned speeches, causes the movie to come to screeching halt from the sheer lack of sympathy she elicits- and you know it’s a bad “Snow White” movie when the only people you really care about are the dwarfs.
This is not to say that “Mirror Mirror” is the worst movie ever made. Some of the dialogue is cheesy enough to elicit laughs, and Armie “The Pecs” Hammer is swoon-worthy enough to make his scenes watchable (it doesn’t hurt that he spends the majority of the movie shirtless).
All in all, however, “Mirror Mirror” is a ninety-minute trudge through a snow-covered magical kingdom. It’s best to just wait for “Snow White and the Huntsman” to arrive in theaters- even if you DO have to sit through Kristen Stewart’s blank face for an hour in order to do so.
2.0 out of 5 stars.

http://www.scotscoop.com/19552

The Return of the Sequel

(On a personal note, this article is special to me; it's the only one I have that has been featured in both the Highlander and on Scot Scoop. Yippee.)

What Hollywood needs is a cold dose of the truth: too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. I speak, of course, about movie sequels.

Now, this is not to say that all movie sequels should be ripped from the reels they were shot on and decimated in a fiery inferno. Oh, no. Not at all. Some sequels have gone on to be huge successes, both commercially and critically.

Take, for example, the recent “Sherlock Holmes” series. After the great acclaim of the first movie, the studio (and thankfully, the actors) decided to invest in a sequel: “A Game of Shadows.”

It has since received a general seal of approval, praised for exceeding the bar previously set by its predecessor. A high bar, for there really is nothing better than a shirtless Robert Downey, Jr.- unless it’s a shirtless Robert Downey, Jr. speaking in a British accent.

The sequel “Batman: The Dark Knight” had an added advantage of already having the whole “origin story” aspect out of the way, giving its writers room to explore new plotlines and characters. This led to the brilliance of Heath Ledger in the face-paint of the Joker, and quite possibly, one of the best superhero movies of the past decade.

In short: sequels sometimes work, and work well. That being said, the deciding factor for what constitutes the making of a sequel has been increasingly blurry in the past few years. Compiled here is a list of guidelines for when a movie deserves a sequel, and when it should be left alone.

One: The movie has to set itself up for a sequel. This may very well be the most important rule of all, as it effectively determines whether the sequel will succeed. Series like “Harry Potter” or “The Hunger Games” are obviously predetermined to have at least one sequel, but stories like the “Bourne” trilogy have still managed to succeed in stretching a storyline across a few movies.

Basically, if a movie can stand alone as its own story, it should ostensibly stay that way. Conversely, if a movie ends in a dramatic cliffhanger, leaving vital questions unanswered, a sequel should be made before the rabid fans begin breaking down the doors of the studio.

Two: PAY ATTENTION TO THE SUBJECT MATTER. No matter how much a movie makes in the box-office, or how many questions were left unanswered, the critical approval the movie receives should be a large factor in deciding whether a “Part 2″ is in our future. A movie that is universally approved should have higher priority than one that is universally panned.

Three: The sequel should be noticeably different than its predecessor. An audience comes back to see a sequel because they enjoyed the characters and the premise. They don’t come back for the same movie over again.

Consider “The Hangover.” The first was an achievement in comedy- situational humor at its best. The second was a carbon copy of the first, to the point where it literally feels like the entire movie was simply picked up and dropped in the middle of Thailand. There is a certain virtue in giving people what they want, but not in ignoring any and all aspect of creativity.

Four: not all movies need sequels. Remember “Bridesmaids”? That hysterical R-rated comedy that showed the world that Kristen Wiig is a comedic goddess, and that Melissa McCarthy can play more than just the sweet, heavy girl? Writer and main actress Wiig has put her foot down, and refused to write a sequel.

Will this decision ruin the popularity of the movie? Will it destroy the careers of the main actors? Was it made to spite the directors, the producers, and the fans themselves? No, no, and no again. The reason Wiig has refused a sequel is that the movie is done. There is no need for a follow-up, no need for further adventures of the Bridesmaids.

Sequels can be fun, but it’s important to decide if one is necessary before signing a contract for “Part 2.”

http://www.scotscoop.com/19303

'Titans' provides less wrath than expected

Despite brilliant special effects and the occasional moment of clarity from the supporting cast, “Wrath of the Titans” provided about as much lasting entertainment for the audience as a paddle-ball, yet utilized many more explosions to make its mark.
The story picks up ten years after its 2010 predecessor left off: Perseus (Sam Worthington), legendary son of Zeus, has moved into a quiet fishing village with his son, Helius. The first ten minutes is devoted to quiet scenes of the family fishing, going to school, and sleeping peacefully in a lovely little shack.
The next ten minutes is devoted to Zeus telling Perseus that the Titan lord Kronos is rising from his prison in Tartarus, intent on destroying the world in an explosion of fire, brimstone, and other equally bad things. Then the entire village is burned to the ground by a Chimera, which is killed by Perseus through self-combustion. Quite a jump, no?
This entails the entire problem of the movie: the entire film feels as though it was pulled together at the last minute, and comprised of scenes that didn’t make it into the 2010 film. The pace is jilted, comprising of lengthy, dramatic action sequences so long and drawn out that any scene NOT filled with blood and fire becomes boring in under a minute. The dialogue is wooden, and every so often a phrase is uttered that would never have been said in real ancient Greece. Whether it’s Perseus making a pun about “hanging in there”, or even his son referring to him as “Dad”, the audience is brought out of the scene too often to ever get fully involved in the story.
The cast is bearable (highlights include Toby Kebbell as Agenor, the son of Posideon, and the always-charming Bill Nighy as Hephaestus), but it’s hard to enjoy a movie when the protagonist is about as exciting to watch as a plank of wood with a face painted on it. Sam Worthington makes even the loudest and most manic fight scenes seem like a chore, trudging through the set as though it’s a pain to even ACT in the movie, let alone carry it. Liam Neeson is less enjoyable this go-round as Zeus, but still manages to retain some dignity despite walking around in an armored skirt for ninety minutes- more than you could say for the average actor.
This is not to say that “Wrath” is a TERRIBLE movie- the special effects are mind-blowing, and every so often the audience starts to enjoy itself. It accomplishes what it sets out to accomplish: an ancient Greek epic with more explosions and screaming than a monster-truck rally. The problem is that it aimed so low to begin with that even if it hit the mark, it never goes beyond just a decent movie. Nothing to be gained from seeing it; nothing to be lost from missing it.
2.5 out of 5 stars.

http://www.scotscoop.com/18994

Audience jumps for '21 Jump Street'

Arguably one of the best things to come out of the eighties, the classic buddy-cop show “21 Jump Street” has been adapted into a buddy-cop movie, and despite a few pacing problems and a script that would fill the world’s biggest swear jar, the overall review was a positive one.
The story centers on Officers Schmidt and Jenko, two recent graduates who have been sequestered to a low-end job as park guards. But their mundane existence is thrown for an explosion-ridden 360 as soon as they are reassigned to an undercover program- mainly because they are, as their Captain elegantly puts it, “Justin-Beiber, Miley-Cyrus lookin’ guys.” The boys train to become narcs in a local high school, posing as students in order to bust a growing drug ring. However, a glitch in the computer system forces brainy Shmidt (played by a cheerfuly self-deprecating Jonah Hill) to pose as a popular jock, and meathead Jenko (portrayedwith surprising dexterity and depth by Channing Tatum) to pose as a science geek.
A cliched premise? Of course it is. It’s adapted from an eighties television show, for crying out loud- the era that invented cliches. But the best part of this movie is that at no point does the audience say, “Oh, this is so predictable.” “Jump St.” is a crazy joyride from start to finish.
Improbably, Hil and Tatum are a perfect comedy team. Hill has a sarcastic, almost dark sense of humor that is counteracted beautifully by Tatum’s blank-faced innocence. What’s more, both of the actors manage to make their characters into actual PEOPLE- they grow, they change, and you can actually see them doing so. Schmidt gets to experience the popular road he never had in high school, and Hill retains the aura of wonderment and disbelief almost to the point where you’re cooing over him. Jenko learns science, and indeed one of the best parts of the movie is watching Channing Tatum morph into a geek (light-saber sound-effects and all). Notable in the supporting cast is Dave Franco (yes, James Franco’s little brother), who plays the role of the crunchy-granola hippie drug dealer with just the right balance of cool and weird- maybe leaning a bit to the weird side.
The script is punchy and laugh-out-loud funny in places, though they use jokes about male genitalia so often it gets to be a little mundane. The pacing is also a little off towards the beginning, with the directors trying to establish the relationship between Schmidt and Jenko in as little time as possible. Neither, however, detract from the story.
All in all, from the hilarious cast to a few cameos you’ll never see coming, “21 Jump Street” should not be missed.
4.2 out of 5 stars.

http://www.scotscoop.com/18474

'Ghost Rider' fizzles out

“Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance” provides the audience with about as much enjoyable entertainment as hitting oneself in the face with a brick for ninety minutes, and is considerably more painful to sit through.
Nicolas Cage (unfortunately) reprises his role as antihero Johnny Blaze, a man possessed by a mythical demon called “The Rider.” This demon presents itself whenever evil is around, and is apparently the equivalent of the Devil’s bounty hunter. In any case, someone should sic a bounty hunter on Cage himself, who puts forth probably his worst performance to date. While presumably trying to seem edgy and volatile, he comes off as a manic-depressive who skipped the last few rounds of his medication and lit himself on fire- except a manic-depressive would have put more life and realism into this role than Cage. No line was delivered with even an ounce of believability, and Cage’s facial expressions are less possessed-man-trying-to-get-by and more confused-monkey-armed-with-a-flamethrower.
The film’s plot (if there ever was one to begin with) is overshadowed by an apparent need for CGI-flames and cheesy dialogue, but the basic idea is that Blaze is coerced into escorting a woman and her son across Eastern Europe to get them to a monastery for protection. Why? Well, apparently, the boy is devil spawn- LITERALLY the son of Satan. Why is Blaze going through all of this trouble? According to his friend Moreau the Alcoholic Monk (yes, you read that right), the monks at the monastery know how to get Johnny the one thing he wants more than anything else: they can rid him of his curse. How? Well, the director apparently didn’t feel the need to answer that question, and instead chose to spend time answering more important ones like, “How many awkward camera angles can we put in one scene without making the audience upchuck into their popcorn?” or, “Is five straight minutes too long to show Cage driving a motorcycle whilst laughing maniacally?”
The supporting cast do their best to dance around the fact that the lead actor is a functioning schizophrenic, and do so with varying degrees of success. Johnny Whitworth plays Blaze’s nemesis Ray Carrigan, and seems to relish the fact that he gets to play the heartless bad guy (or maybe it’s just that he knows he’s the most attractive actor in the movie. Seriously. This guy makes Cage look like a senile gorilla. Well, even more than he already does). Idris Elba plays Moreau the Alcoholic Monk, who spends his time drinking, making pithy comments, and providing the copious amounts of religious background that keeps the movie on its non-existent legs. He’s also French… for no conceivable reason, due to the fact that no one else in this movie is.
Fergus Riordan does a decent job at portraying Danny (the above-mentioned devil spawn), though his role consists mainly of running, looking meaningfully at someone, and getting his hair tousled by Cage. Violante Placido fills the gap of Helpless Love Interest, who in this case is named Nadya. She’s Danny’s mother, though she shows about as much maternal instinct as a salmon (Oh, you want to sit my thirteen-year-old son on the handlebars of your motorcycle, drive on the wrong side of the road, and pop a wheelie? Just make sure that neither of you are wearing helmets!). It doesn’t help that the chemistry between her and Cage makes “Twilight” look like the love story of the century.
Overall, “Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance” is good for only one thing: unintentional humor. Whether it’s overly-cheesy dialogue (“Did we win?” “HELL yeah.” Geddit? ‘Cause he’s from hell?) or simply one of the many miscellaneous stupid moments (The Devil’s name is Roarke. ROARKE. Why not a more threatening name, like Jimmy, or Sparkles Fantastic?), the audience spends a majority of the 95 minutes trying to conceal their laughter, just in case someone else in the theater is taking this garbage seriously.
Avoid “Ghost Rider: SoV” at all costs, unless you’re in the mood to laugh at someone else’s expense. And even then, you can always just take a look at the poor people watching the movie itself, because odds are that doing so is more difficult than anything Johnny Blaze is currently dealing with.
1 out of 5 stars.

http://www.scotscoop.com/18062

'Chronicle' a visual and mental delight

It’s not very often that a movie comes along that is just as enjoyable visually as it is psychologically. “Chronicle” exploded into theaters February 3, and manages to strike a perfect balance between being cerebral, violent, and deliciously frightening.
This eye-popper “chronicles” (get it?) the lives of three high school students who are suddenly endowed with telekinetic powers. A tired precept? Perhaps. But this is no cliched “student-to-superhero” story. The three boys use their powers for fun and personal gain, reveling in their newfound abilities to move objects with their minds, share an empathetic bond with each other, and even fly. However, when one member of the group begins using his powers with a darker purpose, the boys’ paradise turns into something closer to hell than the Garden of Eden. “Chronicle” is a disturbing look at the effects of a harmful environment on a person’s psyche, and how quickly limitless power turns into limitless corruption.
The film is displayed with a technique that most have labeled tired and out-of-date: it is seen through the perspective of various hand-held recording devices, from cell phone cameras to security footage. The primary source is the hand-held camera the boys use to document their adventures, making the film appear like a home-movie. This first-person method of filming has been used copiously in the past (see “The Blaire Witch Project” and “Cloverfield”) with varying degrees of success. At its worst, this method is nauseating and confusing, with jerky movements and loud screaming serving as a substitute for plot and dialogue. In this case, however, the method is used to communicate a sense of eerie realism to the story. Paired with amazing special effects and believable dialogue (most of which I could imagine my friends saying), “Chronicle” begins to feel less like a movie and more like a documentary- which only increases the sobering effect it has on the audience.
The movie itself starts out very slowly, and the first ten minutes almost drag. Once the boys develop their powers, the tempo starts to purr, and most of the movie flies by pleasantly. Then, towards the end, the plot begins to tumble out of control- in the best way possible. Everything seems to fall apart at once, and the film becomes a cerebral horror movie that is both visually stunning and profoundly terrifying.
The star of this film is undoubtably Dane DeHaan, who stars as the film’s deeply disturbed focus, Andrew. Having been emotionally and physically abused his entire life, Andrew clings to the newfound freedom his powers give him- and begins to feel as though his gifts make him entitled to take out a little revenge on the people who have been repressing him for so long. DeHaan, an actor fresh to the silver screen, switches disturbingly from placidly unperturbed to demonically insane in a matter of minutes. His facial expressions and actions are extreme, making you sympathetic at one moment and scared for your life at the next. During the climax of the movie, he becomes a terrifying and angry demigod that shocks the audience into a horrifed submission. Alex Russell and Michael B. Jordan shine as his fellow supermen Matt and Steve, who desperately try to keep their downward-spiralling friend under control. All play their roles with an impressive amount of realism.
From start to finish, “Chronicle” is a masterpiece of cinema, though the easily squeamish should probably stay away from the theater.
4.75 out of 5 stars.

http://www.scotscoop.com/17568