Blog

  • Youth Lagoon, “Football” (2025)

    The tragic case of the wrong person becoming a generation’s voice.

    Full lyrics

    Make America Great. Again.

    Let’s be clear from the start: this song is about Donald Trump—or at least a powerful, Trump-like executive or political figure. It opens with the line, “Donnie dug a hole,” immediately evoking the phrase “Drill, baby, drill!” from Trump’s rallies. But more broadly, it paints a picture of someone powerful who keeps digging their own grave, constantly making a mess of things.

    Then comes, “Momma turns to dust. She was on the train tracks waitin’ for the blood to rush.” His mother, full of ambition for her son, was waiting for him to become a great man. But she died before seeing how it all played out.

    The perspective then shifts to Donnie himself:
    “And you told me I was stayin’ strong
    When all I’ve done is play along
    And they put it on, they put it on me.”

    This feels like a confession—Mama, I tried to be the man you thought I would be, but I never wanted this.

    Then comes the pivotal line: “Maybe you’re not the person who caught the football.”

    The imagery here is striking: a football player runs into the end zone, convinced he has scored the winning touchdown. He celebrates as if he’s the star of the game—only to look at the scoreboard and realize his team has lost. What happened?

    This perfectly conveys misplaced confidence—someone who believes they’re destined for greatness, only to face the reality that they weren’t the right person for the job. It’s reminiscent of politicians who prematurely celebrate election victories.

    Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign famously planned an election-night celebration at the Javits Center in New York, complete with confetti cannons meant to simulate breaking a glass ceiling. Many Bernie Sanders supporters believed he was the rightful nominee, and when Clinton lost, it only fueled their frustration.

    Trump had his own moment of misplaced victory. On election night in 2020, he declared himself the winner before the results were in. When he ultimately lost, he refused to accept it—leading to the events of January 6th, when a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol, forcing members of Congress to flee.

    Both Hillary’s balloon drop and the chaos of January 6th would pair beautifully with “Football”—a politician at a bar, drink in hand, watching these moments unfold on TV.

    The second verse shifts focus to Mary, seemingly a stand-in for conservative influencers or televangelists:

    “Her faith was wearin’ thin like an old shoe sole.”

    The song describes Mary’s faith exactly the same as Donnie’s old, withered face. It conveys someone who is struggling to seem overwhelmingly confident in their beliefs but ultimately is just putting on a show.
    “She would even f___ the preacher if he paid enough.”

    She is so determined to profit from faith that she’s willing to compromise its core principles.

    Then comes a moment of intimacy, or perhaps an alliance:
    “And his ring is off and his button down
    And he tore it off and she tore around.”

    This isn’t necessarily literal. It suggests a politician forming a mutually beneficial relationship with a powerful religious figure—two people bound together by influence rather than love.

    “Put a bullet in and pull it on three.
    Don’t pull it on me.”

    This line speaks to the ruthless nature of power—finding scapegoats and sacrificial lambs to stay on top. No one wants to be the one taking the fall.

    Despite the weight of the lyrics, the music itself is surprisingly delicate. A Norah Jones-like piano line cascades in gentle triplets over a steady 4/4 drumbeat, creating a sense of fragile beauty. The lead melody—played on a lap steel guitar with heavy reverb and a volume pedal—feels ethereal, each note swelling into existence rather than being plucked outright. It’s the perfect soundtrack for staring out a coffee shop window on a gray, rainy morning.

    It’s a striking contrast—lush, haunting instrumentation paired with biting political commentary. The song’s subtle steel drum accents and whispered vocal overdubs (“leave, don’t leave”) add to its dreamlike, weightless atmosphere. Yet at its core, it remains grounded in its message: arrogance, misplaced faith, and the sobering realization that power isn’t always what it seems.

    If this idea could be distilled into a postcard, it would fly off the shelves. The song lingers, both sonically and thematically, long after it ends.

    Lyrical content: A
    Overall rating: 4.5/5

  • Scream (2022)

    Releasable, but not otherwise a cause for celebration.

    “Oh my God. They’re making a re-quel.”
    “A what?”
    “Or a Legacy-quel. Fans aren’t quite sure on the terminology.”

    That’s not a good sign. If the trend you’re referencing doesn’t even have a proper name, you might not want to hinge your entire script on it.

    So let’s investigate this legacy-quel idea. If I understand it based on Scream (2022), it’s when a movie shares the same name as the original, looks like a remake, but is actually a sequel. It takes place in the same world, continuing the story while trying to pass the torch to new characters. The film presents this as a major trend worth parodying. But… is it?

    At the time of this movie’s production, there was really only one clear case: David Gordon Green’s Halloween (2018). For some reason, they just called it Halloween, instead of adding a number or subtitle, making it confusing for audiences. But even that wasn’t entirely new—Halloween H20 had already tried to ignore past sequels and return to the original’s vibe. The franchise then spiraled into chaos with Halloween: Resurrection (widely considered the worst entry), Rob Zombie’s divisive remakes, and finally, a nine-year dormancy before the 2018 reboot.

    So, was Halloween (2018) really the start of a trend? At the time Scream (2022) was being written, two more so-called “legacy-quels” were in development: Candyman and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. But those movies weren’t even out yet. Scream treats legacy-quels like they’re an established Hollywood phenomenon, but this feels premature—more like the filmmakers heard the term floating around and rushed to cash in.

    And even among recent sequels that revive old franchises, most don’t just reuse the original title. Ghostbusters: Afterlife, Blade Runner 2049, Star Wars: The Force Awakens—all of these continued the story but at least had unique names. The only recent example I can find of a sequel taking the exact same name as the original is Ted, the TV series. And even that could have just been called Ted: The TV Show—but I guess that sounded too much like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation – The Board Game.

    The worst offender is Scream itself. Naming Scream 5 just Scream is obnoxious. It forces fans to refer to it as Scream (2022)—which I hate typing—just to differentiate it from the 1996 classic. If Hollywood insists on doing this, at least give us a color-coded logo system, like Peter Gabriel and Weezer do with their self-titled albums.

    So how’s the movie?

    It’s fine. It seems aware that modern horror has evolved past the slasher formula, but instead of fully embracing that, it just points it out. The characters openly discuss how “elevated horror” (The Babadook, It Follows, Hereditary) is what people actually watch now. That’s another bad sign. If your own script admits the genre has moved on, why are we here?

    The script overall is hammy and half-baked. The vibe is: “We noticed this trend, so we rushed this out the door. We didn’t put much effort in, because this won’t be relevant anyway.” Reviews have been generous, probably because they brought back as many surviving original characters as possible. Scream (1996) had the benefit of satirizing a slasher trend that was still relevant enough to participate in. Scream (2022) tries to satirize a trend that barely exists.

    As for the returning cast, the energy feels like:
    “I’m too old for this. But what else am I doing? This is the script? Really? I’ll only need to be there for a week? Good enough, let’s go.”

    The movie strains with its meta-humor and callbacks. “Do you know what happens to the expert?” You mean Jamie Kennedy? He survives the first movie. So, “Do you know what happens to you?” “Yeah. I’ll survive… for a while at least.” The self-awareness borders on lazy winking.

    There are a couple of cute modern touches: kids watching YouTube breakdowns of bad sequels, using phone tracking apps to monitor a partner’s location. These ideas feel relevant but barely impact the plot. They were probably brainstormed in the writers’ room and then forgotten.

    The Most Unrealistic Scream Movie Yet?

    For a franchise built on exaggerated horror tropes, this might be the most unrealistic Scream yet. Where are the returning characters’ partners and kids? Wouldn’t they have obligations keeping them from abruptly chasing down a serial killer? Also, how does Scream (2022) manage to reference the exact dialogue from the original’s opening scene? Spoiler: everyone present in that scene was dead. Even if they made a movie (Stab) based on those events, how would they have an exact transcript?

    The ending is… fine. It doesn’t make much sense, but it has the pulpy, page-turning quality of an airport thriller. There are enough twists that I didn’t outright reject the movie.

    But Scream (2022) definitely misjudged the legacy-quel concept, or at least overestimated its importance. It’s trying to make a trend happen that doesn’t really exist.

    Final Verdict

    The sixth installment is supposedly “just as good” as this one. I might watch it.

    Rating: 4.5/10

  • Kinda Pregnant (2025)

    Cringe.


    Has Amy Schumer lost her mind?

    It’s hard to believe she followed up Trainwreck—with its subtle humor and emotional poignancy—with Kinda Pregnant, a film that has more in common with the worst sitcoms of all time.

    The entire plot is based on an absurd premise: Amy Schumer’s character, Rainy, has a pregnant friend, so she wears a fake belly in public for fun. She loves the attention so much that she keeps wearing it… all the time.

    That’s not a terrible idea—it could work in the right hands. But it doesn’t. Nearly every scene has something deeply wrong with it. Rainy is portrayed as a neurotic sociopath, making up outrageous lies and somehow getting away with them despite being terrible at it. She’s also a high school teacher, which is hard to believe. She has an expletive-ridden meltdown in front of her class—how is she not fired? How does she function in life at all?

    Then there’s the yoga class for pregnant women (why is she even there?). It’s so ridiculous that it feels like no one bothered with research:

    “Breathe in through your vagina. Then exhale through your butt hole.”
    (Everyone starts farting.)

    90% of the humor relies on Rainy making incomprehensibly bad decisions. You might laugh, but for the wrong reasons—out of secondhand embarrassment, or disbelief that someone could act so inappropriately. I cringed constantly.

    The worst part? Nothing is followed through. There’s potential for real dramatic moments, but the film never commits. It’s an absurd premise, sure, and Rainy keeps making terrible choices—but if it all built up to something, maybe a big confrontation or a well-choreographed comedic disaster, it might have been worth it. But no. Nothing. Just bad writing.

    The good: Will Forte comes out relatively unscathed. His character, Josh, is likable and charming—you root for him to find the right girl (which is obviously not Rainy, who even uses her fake pregnancy as an excuse to avoid sex with him—except when she doesn’t). She sleeps with him, but does everything she can to keep him from seeing or feeling her body, maintaining the illusion of her fake pregnancy. There’s even some raunchy dialogue that only adds to the absurdity of the situation. The scenes between Rainy and her actually pregnant best friend are solid. Most of the supporting characters are fine—sane, even. I didn’t mind the broader attempts at humor, like a scene at a butterfly tent where Rainy’s friend (NOT Rebel Wilson) yells for bug spray and starts a fight. I didn’t laugh, but I smiled.

    I want to believe Amy Schumer is better than this. Either she’s lost her ability to write, or—more likely—she “reworked” someone else’s D-list script in a week and called it a day. She’s also too old for this role.

    Kinda Pregnant. Only kinda funny.

    3.5/10.