Now that I've ripped this crop of movies a new one, how about I check out some of the movies that didn't want me to run screaming into the night. Seriously, when a movie like Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters is in serious contention for my top five, that is saying something.
5) The Wolverine: Honestly, I didn't like it all that much, but it did have some elements in it that worked. The action was well paced and Hugh Jackman as always is good as Wolverine. It's scary how long he's played that one character. The parts I didn't like were mostly the rushed elements and the not so subtle foreshadowing. Overall, a good popcorn movie and sets us up for the next X-Men movie.
4) Red 2: Just a fun time. Really, what else can I say about it? If you liked the first one, you'll probably like this one. Bruce Willis is funny and can still kick a little ass when he needs to. For me, Helen Miren is the show stealer. There's something about a grannie assassin that gives me a chuckle. Plus she's a really good actress.
3) Iron Man 3: Again just a fun comic book movie. I'd say they put a little too much into it. Some of the story elements should've been saved for future sequels. And what are you doing with the Mandarin? My only saving thought was that they actually use the real Mandarin at some point. If not, then this movie would drop on my list significantly.
2) 42: It's the Jackie Robinson story. I love Jackie. I love baseball. I love history. It's a totally biased opinion but hey, that's why you read. But if I were to be honest, I'd say it's a poor imitation of The Jackie Robinson Story because if for no other reason it stars the real Jackie Robinson! Both movies are pretty good and this one didn't hurt my feelings. It's worth checking out.
1) The Hunger Games: Catching Fire: I loved this movie. The ending was a bit abrupt but it is such a great ride and I am happy to be on board. It really touches on some very interesting ideas and never seems to overstay it's welcome. It goes deeper into the political intrigue of the story as a whole and in doing so gives this whole world some life. I said it before, if these movies were purely about 'the games' I don't think I would be a fan. The Hunger Games gives the audience so much more if only we take the time to reflect upon it. I can't wait for the conclusion.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Top Five Worst Movies I saw: 2013
I know for the last few months I haven't exactly done a lot of reviews for this site. Part of it is because I moved back to Korea and watching movies in English is a bit limited. The other reason is that movies this year have been so bad that it's just so hard to justify the expense. I've gone back and started watching the old Mystery Science Theater 3000 videos and found those far more interesting than paying the eight dollars to go to the theater and watch a lot of what we were given this year. I went to so few movies this year I can't even do a proper Top Ten. Instead it's going to be a Top Five. I apologize for that, but five is as good as I can do. Please understand. Without further delay, here are the five movies this year that had me pulling my hair out.
5) The Lone Ranger: If ever there was a movie that didn't need to be a Pirates of the Caribbean clone, it's The Lone Ranger. This movie was terrible. Really the only fun part of the movie was towards the end when we did away with all the BS and it started to feel more like the old TV show. Once the William Tell Overture starts playing, it's beautiful cowboys and indians fun. Everything before that is either bewildering, ill-conceived, or just plain disgusting. Keep the last 15 minutes or so and re-write the rest.
4) Elysium: Talk about a misstep in logic. None of this movie's story worked. It's so dead set on pushing it's ideological agenda it never stopped to think if the setting and story supported it. Characters need to have a motivation. If your villain is just evil for the sake of being evil, it undermines any kind of point you might be trying to make. What puts this over The Lone Ranger is that this one had such a higher potential and instead it wasted it. A real shame.
3) Man of Steel: More like SuperBatman. This wasn't a Superman movie. There isn't any joy in it. It's just Superman exposed to the worst side of humanity. I ask you: How can the paragon of hope, righteousness, and justice be that if all he ever sees is fear? All we ever see is humans being horrible to Clark, reacting to him out of fear, and the fear of his adopted parents if the world ever learned about him. And yet it's something that they repeat over and over that Clark belongs to the world. I can appreciate that they tried to make a more "gritty" Superman but ripping off The Dark Knight isn't how you do it. And that woefully horrendous ending! Just... NO!!!! You don't do that with Superman!
2) G.I. Joe Retaliation: This was both a sequel and yet not. Not only were all the heroes from the last movie killed unceremoniously, but so were all but two of the villains! And yet it's supposed to be a direct sequel? While I can understand hitting the reset button after that atrocious first movie, this one isn't any better. It tried to correct the mistakes the first movie made, but in doing so only made whole new mistakes. It's a terrible watch.
1) Star Trek- Into Darkness: This is where it went from bad to obscene. While from a cinematic point of view this is better than the last Star Trek movie, but this movie only confirmed for me that J.J. Abrams has no idea what Star Trek is. It was clear to me that Abrams wrote this movie with one foot out the door. He's going to go on and do Star Wars and really this movie felt like a Star Wars script. And it wasn't a very good Star Wars script. If you want more details as to why it pissed me off so much, please read my review as I am trying to keep these recaps short. The less I think about how Star Trek II was butchered in this polished up turd of a movie, the happier I'll be.
There's the movies on my naughty list. If there was a movie you thought was worse, chances are I didn't see it. There were a lot more bad movies showing in theaters this year so your list might be different. These were the movies I saw that I just hated.
5) The Lone Ranger: If ever there was a movie that didn't need to be a Pirates of the Caribbean clone, it's The Lone Ranger. This movie was terrible. Really the only fun part of the movie was towards the end when we did away with all the BS and it started to feel more like the old TV show. Once the William Tell Overture starts playing, it's beautiful cowboys and indians fun. Everything before that is either bewildering, ill-conceived, or just plain disgusting. Keep the last 15 minutes or so and re-write the rest.
4) Elysium: Talk about a misstep in logic. None of this movie's story worked. It's so dead set on pushing it's ideological agenda it never stopped to think if the setting and story supported it. Characters need to have a motivation. If your villain is just evil for the sake of being evil, it undermines any kind of point you might be trying to make. What puts this over The Lone Ranger is that this one had such a higher potential and instead it wasted it. A real shame.
3) Man of Steel: More like SuperBatman. This wasn't a Superman movie. There isn't any joy in it. It's just Superman exposed to the worst side of humanity. I ask you: How can the paragon of hope, righteousness, and justice be that if all he ever sees is fear? All we ever see is humans being horrible to Clark, reacting to him out of fear, and the fear of his adopted parents if the world ever learned about him. And yet it's something that they repeat over and over that Clark belongs to the world. I can appreciate that they tried to make a more "gritty" Superman but ripping off The Dark Knight isn't how you do it. And that woefully horrendous ending! Just... NO!!!! You don't do that with Superman!
2) G.I. Joe Retaliation: This was both a sequel and yet not. Not only were all the heroes from the last movie killed unceremoniously, but so were all but two of the villains! And yet it's supposed to be a direct sequel? While I can understand hitting the reset button after that atrocious first movie, this one isn't any better. It tried to correct the mistakes the first movie made, but in doing so only made whole new mistakes. It's a terrible watch.
1) Star Trek- Into Darkness: This is where it went from bad to obscene. While from a cinematic point of view this is better than the last Star Trek movie, but this movie only confirmed for me that J.J. Abrams has no idea what Star Trek is. It was clear to me that Abrams wrote this movie with one foot out the door. He's going to go on and do Star Wars and really this movie felt like a Star Wars script. And it wasn't a very good Star Wars script. If you want more details as to why it pissed me off so much, please read my review as I am trying to keep these recaps short. The less I think about how Star Trek II was butchered in this polished up turd of a movie, the happier I'll be.
There's the movies on my naughty list. If there was a movie you thought was worse, chances are I didn't see it. There were a lot more bad movies showing in theaters this year so your list might be different. These were the movies I saw that I just hated.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug Review
Being a fan of the books is crippling. I get it. When something is converted from a novel to a movie, things get changed. Some things need to be added, and some things need to be left out. I totally understand that. My problem with it wasn't so much things were changed, but that so much was needlessly added.
Here is where I go off a bit on the movie but I have to preface it a bit. After re-reading everything I feel it necessary to come back to the beginning state that I thought it was a good movie. But I felt it could've been better. It doesn't need to be all action all the time. There's room for drama and playfulness.
Also, let me say that I also understand the basic movie narrative. You have to go out on a high note. If it's an action movie, you have to have action in it. In a story like this, you need to have action. While I'm being so fair minded, I will concede the fact that The Hobbit novel has a really weak ending. I'm a fan of the books. I loved reading them as a kid. I loved going back to them when the first movie came out. And I have a great time remembering the story with each new movie released. But re-read The Hobbit again. Tell me if you think that ending is anti-climatic.
Fan gushing aside, this movie is draining. It is so long and despite director Peter Jackson and the army of writers involved in this movie's best efforts, it's just a bogged down and padded story with a lot of the elements I found intriguing about the novels ripped out to make room for unneeded cameos and action scenes that took way too long.
Splitting this movie up into three movies I feel was a mistake. On my way home, it was all I could think about. What would I do if I were in charge of this? If I was trying to make The Hobbit into three movies, the first would end with the escape from the Goblin Cave, the second would end with them reaching the base of the mountain, and the third would take us to the end. But even with that breakdown it would require a lot of padding. Instead, what I thought would be better would be to split The Hobbit into two movies, and have a third where we follow Gandalf and his adventures with the Necromancer.
Think about this: This is supposed to be Bilbo's story. What we saw in the beginning of An Unexpected Journey was us the audience being introduced to this story in the form of Frodo Baggins reading Bilbo's diary. That means if we are being faithful to that narrative strategy, we can't have these long set-pieces involving dialogue he doesn't hear or people he doesn't meet. And that happens a lot in The Desolation of Smaug.
Some of them are very cool scenes. Gandalf at Dol Guldur was an awesome scene. I loved it. But I think it would've been better served as an addendum. Make the whole third movie about Gandalf confronting the Necromancer. If it was done that way, you could have a really good scene of Gandalf telling the dwarves on the journey home about the destruction of Moria by the balrog. Who wouldn't want to see the balrog being awesome again?
In this movie instead we get a really weird love triangle between Legolas, Kili, and Tauriel. Legolas and Tauriel were never in The Hobbit novel. Their presence is the very definition of fan service padding. And they take up a lot of screen time. Again I know Legolas is the son of the Grey King so his presence their is logical. I would still argue he wasn't in The Hobbit novel so therefore he's superfluous. He's there because the writers wanted extended fight sequences to pad the movie. And since we are talking about superfluous characters, who the f*** is Tauriel?
What finally did it for me was the interaction between Bilbo and Smaug. This was one of the scenes I was looking forward to the most. Because this was a true battle of wits. Except in this movie. Now it's an extended fight scene. I like action movies. Watching guys like Jackie Chan and Jason Statham do what they do is the only reason I ever watch a Jackie Chan or Jason Statham movie. But when we are talking about an epic adventure like The Hobbit, there's more to it than just action. I'm totally willing to take the criticism that it's just me. It's my preference and my opinion and it might be a minority opinion. But for me, all the action added looked and felt like a crutch. As if the movie just couldn't get going unless there's more action. As if the casual fan wouldn't understand the drama of Bilbo having to bluff his way out of being roasted alive by Smaug.
The movie is 2 hours and 40 minutes with tacked on action scenes. In fairness they are great action scenes. If that's what you like, you'll enjoy the movie. I just wanted more story. Because the story is pretty good too. I won't go so far as to say I was disappointed, but I wasn't satisfied either. Perhaps in the third movie.
Here is where I go off a bit on the movie but I have to preface it a bit. After re-reading everything I feel it necessary to come back to the beginning state that I thought it was a good movie. But I felt it could've been better. It doesn't need to be all action all the time. There's room for drama and playfulness.
Also, let me say that I also understand the basic movie narrative. You have to go out on a high note. If it's an action movie, you have to have action in it. In a story like this, you need to have action. While I'm being so fair minded, I will concede the fact that The Hobbit novel has a really weak ending. I'm a fan of the books. I loved reading them as a kid. I loved going back to them when the first movie came out. And I have a great time remembering the story with each new movie released. But re-read The Hobbit again. Tell me if you think that ending is anti-climatic.
Fan gushing aside, this movie is draining. It is so long and despite director Peter Jackson and the army of writers involved in this movie's best efforts, it's just a bogged down and padded story with a lot of the elements I found intriguing about the novels ripped out to make room for unneeded cameos and action scenes that took way too long.
Splitting this movie up into three movies I feel was a mistake. On my way home, it was all I could think about. What would I do if I were in charge of this? If I was trying to make The Hobbit into three movies, the first would end with the escape from the Goblin Cave, the second would end with them reaching the base of the mountain, and the third would take us to the end. But even with that breakdown it would require a lot of padding. Instead, what I thought would be better would be to split The Hobbit into two movies, and have a third where we follow Gandalf and his adventures with the Necromancer.
Think about this: This is supposed to be Bilbo's story. What we saw in the beginning of An Unexpected Journey was us the audience being introduced to this story in the form of Frodo Baggins reading Bilbo's diary. That means if we are being faithful to that narrative strategy, we can't have these long set-pieces involving dialogue he doesn't hear or people he doesn't meet. And that happens a lot in The Desolation of Smaug.
Some of them are very cool scenes. Gandalf at Dol Guldur was an awesome scene. I loved it. But I think it would've been better served as an addendum. Make the whole third movie about Gandalf confronting the Necromancer. If it was done that way, you could have a really good scene of Gandalf telling the dwarves on the journey home about the destruction of Moria by the balrog. Who wouldn't want to see the balrog being awesome again?
In this movie instead we get a really weird love triangle between Legolas, Kili, and Tauriel. Legolas and Tauriel were never in The Hobbit novel. Their presence is the very definition of fan service padding. And they take up a lot of screen time. Again I know Legolas is the son of the Grey King so his presence their is logical. I would still argue he wasn't in The Hobbit novel so therefore he's superfluous. He's there because the writers wanted extended fight sequences to pad the movie. And since we are talking about superfluous characters, who the f*** is Tauriel?
What finally did it for me was the interaction between Bilbo and Smaug. This was one of the scenes I was looking forward to the most. Because this was a true battle of wits. Except in this movie. Now it's an extended fight scene. I like action movies. Watching guys like Jackie Chan and Jason Statham do what they do is the only reason I ever watch a Jackie Chan or Jason Statham movie. But when we are talking about an epic adventure like The Hobbit, there's more to it than just action. I'm totally willing to take the criticism that it's just me. It's my preference and my opinion and it might be a minority opinion. But for me, all the action added looked and felt like a crutch. As if the movie just couldn't get going unless there's more action. As if the casual fan wouldn't understand the drama of Bilbo having to bluff his way out of being roasted alive by Smaug.
The movie is 2 hours and 40 minutes with tacked on action scenes. In fairness they are great action scenes. If that's what you like, you'll enjoy the movie. I just wanted more story. Because the story is pretty good too. I won't go so far as to say I was disappointed, but I wasn't satisfied either. Perhaps in the third movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)