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.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Hunger Games: Catching Fire Review: Get Your Game On
I'm so glad I saw this movie. This might be the first movie this year I want to see a second time.
I think the first place I want to start is the scenario as a whole. This movie really had far less to do with the Hunger Games and was more of a political drama. Honestly, I appreciate that more! After the first movie, I thought the political intrigue of it all was far more interesting than the actual Games.
I appreciate it because it breaks the standard action movie mold. If the whole story was The Hunger Games I don't know if it would be enough to capture my interest. The idea of the games is interesting, but if it were in an isolated world where people one day decided they wanted to just send children off to die for the entertainment of the masses, it wouldn't be nearly as interesting as a world where the government re-enacts a cruel crackdown on subversives forcing the descendants of that uprising to put their children on an altar and sacrifice them to the state. All the while the rich live like kings, wallow in their own self-importance, and gleefully cheer the slaughter of fellow human beings.
Now that we've been introduced to this world in the first movie, the veil of this guilded age has come off. This is all about the politics of this world. It's all about how can the state spin Katness' fame away from the rebellion brewing in the districts and use it for their own propaganda.
And boy are we along for the ride. I just love how every act of 'subversion' by Katness is what anyone else would call an act of humanity; and I think that's the point. Right down to the "peacekeepers" dressing like Stormtroopers for the Galactic Empire to the citizens in the capital who are really just as duped as everyone else.
I heard someone say that everybody is the hero in their own story. And I really believe that as well. Unless someone is just categorically insane, nobody sees themselves as the 'bad guy.' I clearly understand the motives of everyone involved in this story. The president is a ruthless dictator, but why does he do it? He does it to save the country from being swallowed up in another civil war. If he has to do it through sacrificing kids for the sake of entertainment, then that's what he is going to do. A few will die so the majority will live. Feel free to disagree with him and his methods, but that is where he is coming from. Katness on the other hand has no interest in being a leader, a martyr, or anything else. She survived the Hunger Games and now she just wants to be left alone. If the crowd wasn't gaga for fame, or If her struggle didn't inspire others, perhaps she would've had her wish. The problem is of course that the districts are unhappy by the inequality of their society. It's hard not to feel their anger and frustration when you see the capital literally making themselves throw up so they can keep stuffing their faces at these over-the-top parties celebrating their obliviousness.
If you have the opportunity, see this movie. By far the best one I've seen all year. But go in informed. If you haven't seen the first Hunger Games, watch that one first. This isn't a movie that will even try to catch you up. But good news! The first movie is awesome too!
I think the first place I want to start is the scenario as a whole. This movie really had far less to do with the Hunger Games and was more of a political drama. Honestly, I appreciate that more! After the first movie, I thought the political intrigue of it all was far more interesting than the actual Games.
I appreciate it because it breaks the standard action movie mold. If the whole story was The Hunger Games I don't know if it would be enough to capture my interest. The idea of the games is interesting, but if it were in an isolated world where people one day decided they wanted to just send children off to die for the entertainment of the masses, it wouldn't be nearly as interesting as a world where the government re-enacts a cruel crackdown on subversives forcing the descendants of that uprising to put their children on an altar and sacrifice them to the state. All the while the rich live like kings, wallow in their own self-importance, and gleefully cheer the slaughter of fellow human beings.
Now that we've been introduced to this world in the first movie, the veil of this guilded age has come off. This is all about the politics of this world. It's all about how can the state spin Katness' fame away from the rebellion brewing in the districts and use it for their own propaganda.
And boy are we along for the ride. I just love how every act of 'subversion' by Katness is what anyone else would call an act of humanity; and I think that's the point. Right down to the "peacekeepers" dressing like Stormtroopers for the Galactic Empire to the citizens in the capital who are really just as duped as everyone else.
I heard someone say that everybody is the hero in their own story. And I really believe that as well. Unless someone is just categorically insane, nobody sees themselves as the 'bad guy.' I clearly understand the motives of everyone involved in this story. The president is a ruthless dictator, but why does he do it? He does it to save the country from being swallowed up in another civil war. If he has to do it through sacrificing kids for the sake of entertainment, then that's what he is going to do. A few will die so the majority will live. Feel free to disagree with him and his methods, but that is where he is coming from. Katness on the other hand has no interest in being a leader, a martyr, or anything else. She survived the Hunger Games and now she just wants to be left alone. If the crowd wasn't gaga for fame, or If her struggle didn't inspire others, perhaps she would've had her wish. The problem is of course that the districts are unhappy by the inequality of their society. It's hard not to feel their anger and frustration when you see the capital literally making themselves throw up so they can keep stuffing their faces at these over-the-top parties celebrating their obliviousness.
If you have the opportunity, see this movie. By far the best one I've seen all year. But go in informed. If you haven't seen the first Hunger Games, watch that one first. This isn't a movie that will even try to catch you up. But good news! The first movie is awesome too!
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Thor The Dark World Review: Dogs and Cats Living Together... Mass Hysteria!
Once again a huge nerd like me saw a comic book movie and now it's my time to talk about it on the internet. If I were to give this an honest opinion, I'd say it's not my favorite of the "Avengers" movies, but I liked it a lot more than I did the first Thor movie.
The plot is interesting enough. Thor has to stop the dark elves from erasing all reality. So far, you have my attention. This mystical energy "Ether" was fun to watch. It's a lot like the Cosmic Cube from the earlier movie and that actually ties into the stinger at the end. So, if you go to see this movie, stay through the credits to see the stinger scene.
Sometimes I wonder if Thor is just not my kind of character. On one hand, it gives us a great chance to see colorful characters in exotic locations that you just can't do with characters like Iron Man or Captain America. Thor is just as heroic as any other Marvel superhero if not more so. But there's just something about how Thor is portrayed that I just don't find intriguing. This movie was intriguing as we see Thor fight across the 9 realms. But at no time did I feel like Thor could lose. Perhaps that is my problem. I never feel like Thor isn't going to pull through.
It's kind of like watching Superman take on someone like Toyman. And that's I guess another problem I had with Malakith: he's not a well-developed character. We have our exposition dump at the beginning of the movie so we know why he wants to erase the universe. He feels the universe is a cancer upon the darkness that existed before the creation of the universe. The darkness was his kingdom and he wants it back. But in terms of characterization, that's all we get. He has no defining characteristics other than his single pursuit. He never interested me as much as Loki. But we do get lots of Loki in this movie.
The one character I thought we saw too much of was Dr. Erik Selvig played by Stellan Skarsgard. And when I say "we see too much of him" I'm not referring to his amount of screen time. Call me a prude all you want, but seeing a 60-year-old man naked as a jaybird wasn't on my bucket list. And we see it more than once.
The music is good, the action is good, the cinematography is good, the acting is good, it looks good... but for a movie dealing with the possible erasing of all existence, it wasn't as interesting as it should've been. Would I recommend it... yes. It's a pretty good movie. And it does what it sets out to do: it's a perfect lead into the next Avengers movie involving the Infinity Gems and the Infinity Gauntlet.
It's a good movie. Just don't have really high expectations.
Why did they make the Collector look like that?
The plot is interesting enough. Thor has to stop the dark elves from erasing all reality. So far, you have my attention. This mystical energy "Ether" was fun to watch. It's a lot like the Cosmic Cube from the earlier movie and that actually ties into the stinger at the end. So, if you go to see this movie, stay through the credits to see the stinger scene.
Sometimes I wonder if Thor is just not my kind of character. On one hand, it gives us a great chance to see colorful characters in exotic locations that you just can't do with characters like Iron Man or Captain America. Thor is just as heroic as any other Marvel superhero if not more so. But there's just something about how Thor is portrayed that I just don't find intriguing. This movie was intriguing as we see Thor fight across the 9 realms. But at no time did I feel like Thor could lose. Perhaps that is my problem. I never feel like Thor isn't going to pull through.
It's kind of like watching Superman take on someone like Toyman. And that's I guess another problem I had with Malakith: he's not a well-developed character. We have our exposition dump at the beginning of the movie so we know why he wants to erase the universe. He feels the universe is a cancer upon the darkness that existed before the creation of the universe. The darkness was his kingdom and he wants it back. But in terms of characterization, that's all we get. He has no defining characteristics other than his single pursuit. He never interested me as much as Loki. But we do get lots of Loki in this movie.
The one character I thought we saw too much of was Dr. Erik Selvig played by Stellan Skarsgard. And when I say "we see too much of him" I'm not referring to his amount of screen time. Call me a prude all you want, but seeing a 60-year-old man naked as a jaybird wasn't on my bucket list. And we see it more than once.
The music is good, the action is good, the cinematography is good, the acting is good, it looks good... but for a movie dealing with the possible erasing of all existence, it wasn't as interesting as it should've been. Would I recommend it... yes. It's a pretty good movie. And it does what it sets out to do: it's a perfect lead into the next Avengers movie involving the Infinity Gems and the Infinity Gauntlet.
It's a good movie. Just don't have really high expectations.
Why did they make the Collector look like that?
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Gravity Review: FOD Kills
I'm just shaking my head right now. I swear that this was done by the same guy that did Buried. But it's not the same guy. This movie is note-for-note exactly like Buried. Gravity is a very standard story about things going bad in space.
I'll get into why I didn't like this movie in a minute but let's start with the positives. The visuals are stunning. Everything in how it looks feels genuine. It really looks like it was filmed in outer space. This is a movie that deserves an award for visuals. Another thing I liked was the realism they tried to have. While I didn't think it worked, I applaud the effort. This was really trying to grasp the horror of being marooned in space. More on this later. The acting was superb. Again, while I thought the writing was subpar, Sandra Bullock and George Clooney made every effort to make it work. More on the story later. The movie was absolutely intended for 3D. I don't know how you can enjoy this movie without the 3D. There's so much flying at the camera I'm sure it would look terrible in 2D. Luckily I saw it in 3D and it looks awesome.
There are some positives to take away.
Now here's why I didn't like it.
Let's start with the most obvious: the musical score. Every single note was loud and filled with tension and it just artificially enhanced the drama of the scene. And after a while it just became too much.
It's a 90 minute movie and nothing ever goes well for our heroes. Because it's a 90 minute movie the pacing is always frantic. Even when she's allowed a few moments of peace, there is no peace. The goal post for safety keeps getting moved back. While that might not sound bad a first, it is when you are a viewer. There was enough material here for a two hour movie and it was all crammed into an hour and a half. There's never enough time to digest what just happened. When that happens, the atmosphere they are trying to go for just becomes a series of "oh s***" moments. That's the movie: Pretty stuff, "oh s***", phew, "oh s***", phew, "oh s***"... lather, rinse, repeat. And those 'phew' moments really are just that. They are not very long pauses.
There's one particular scene I have to talk about just because I felt like the director tried to get too cute for his own good. That would be the starchild scene. Yes you read that part right. They took the starchild from 2001: A Space Odyssey and put it in this movie. The theme of Gravity is heavily on the idea of rebirth after a traumatic incident. How adversity gives us new appreciation for life. It's a nice theme to explore but it has to have the time to develop. I don't feel like this movie was given that proper pacing. And then this scene happened. I won't get too critical about it because it does fit in terms of theme, but invoking a movie like 2001: A Space Odyssey like this doesn't do anyone any favors. The starchild in 2001 was about more than a personal rebirth. It was about a whole new beginning for the human race. It was such a metaphysical concept that (I feel) when invoked detracts from the argument you are trying to make.
While I didn't enjoy the movie I can see that I might be in the minority on this one. There's lots of action, a lot of drama, and it's just a visually pleasing movie. I just became overwhelmed by the kinetic energy of it all. I felt like it needed a break in the action. It needed more time for the symbolic imagery to develop naturally. Instead everything feels forced as it rushes to it's finale.
Perhaps you will enjoy it. There are things to enjoy.
I'll get into why I didn't like this movie in a minute but let's start with the positives. The visuals are stunning. Everything in how it looks feels genuine. It really looks like it was filmed in outer space. This is a movie that deserves an award for visuals. Another thing I liked was the realism they tried to have. While I didn't think it worked, I applaud the effort. This was really trying to grasp the horror of being marooned in space. More on this later. The acting was superb. Again, while I thought the writing was subpar, Sandra Bullock and George Clooney made every effort to make it work. More on the story later. The movie was absolutely intended for 3D. I don't know how you can enjoy this movie without the 3D. There's so much flying at the camera I'm sure it would look terrible in 2D. Luckily I saw it in 3D and it looks awesome.
There are some positives to take away.
Now here's why I didn't like it.
Let's start with the most obvious: the musical score. Every single note was loud and filled with tension and it just artificially enhanced the drama of the scene. And after a while it just became too much.
It's a 90 minute movie and nothing ever goes well for our heroes. Because it's a 90 minute movie the pacing is always frantic. Even when she's allowed a few moments of peace, there is no peace. The goal post for safety keeps getting moved back. While that might not sound bad a first, it is when you are a viewer. There was enough material here for a two hour movie and it was all crammed into an hour and a half. There's never enough time to digest what just happened. When that happens, the atmosphere they are trying to go for just becomes a series of "oh s***" moments. That's the movie: Pretty stuff, "oh s***", phew, "oh s***", phew, "oh s***"... lather, rinse, repeat. And those 'phew' moments really are just that. They are not very long pauses.
There's one particular scene I have to talk about just because I felt like the director tried to get too cute for his own good. That would be the starchild scene. Yes you read that part right. They took the starchild from 2001: A Space Odyssey and put it in this movie. The theme of Gravity is heavily on the idea of rebirth after a traumatic incident. How adversity gives us new appreciation for life. It's a nice theme to explore but it has to have the time to develop. I don't feel like this movie was given that proper pacing. And then this scene happened. I won't get too critical about it because it does fit in terms of theme, but invoking a movie like 2001: A Space Odyssey like this doesn't do anyone any favors. The starchild in 2001 was about more than a personal rebirth. It was about a whole new beginning for the human race. It was such a metaphysical concept that (I feel) when invoked detracts from the argument you are trying to make.
While I didn't enjoy the movie I can see that I might be in the minority on this one. There's lots of action, a lot of drama, and it's just a visually pleasing movie. I just became overwhelmed by the kinetic energy of it all. I felt like it needed a break in the action. It needed more time for the symbolic imagery to develop naturally. Instead everything feels forced as it rushes to it's finale.
Perhaps you will enjoy it. There are things to enjoy.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Runner, Runner Review: It's just shy of greatness.
I went into this movie with a negative attitude. I originally didn't want to see it and I feel a need to explain why. The problem I had with this movie from the beginning was Justin Timberlake. Now, before I get crucified for hating on Justin Timberlake, let me make my case.
Honestly, he's won me over as an actor. I like the guy. I know he got his stardom in a boy band. And then he switched over into acting. I don't begrudge the guy. You can't be a 30 year old man trying to catch the tween demographic. I'm not complaining he branched out. He's a very talented guy and he's not a bad actor. My problem with Justin Timberlake is that, for whatever reason, I think he chooses really bad movies. I wasn't a fan of Friends With Benefits, I HATED In time, and the less I think about Yogi Bear the better. The movies of his I liked were The Social Network and Trouble With the Curve. And both of those movies had Timberlake in a supporting role. And I didn't really like Trouble With the Curve all that much.
So when I saw that Timberlake was the lead actor, I just felt like this movie was going to suck. Not because he's a bad actor, but just because he chooses the worst movies. Seriously, if Justin Timberlake ever reads this, you are better than this.
What did I think of the movie? It's good. It's not bad, it's not great. It's good. It's just a very generic movie. It's a paint by numbers corporate intrigue movie. On the way home I was honestly trying to distinguish this from other movies just like it. In The Devil's Advocate it's about a lawyer who gets in over his head. Except in that movie there is the Devil. This movie doesn't have the Devil.
In Wallstreet it's about an ambitious guy who gets a taste of the high life and gets in over his head when the guy he works for turns out to be dirty. In this movie there's a lot more overt corruption.
So I guess as far as these movies go I liked this one more than Wallstreet but less than The Devil's Advocate.
The other thing I was thinking about on the way home was how I would change it. And I thought about what if Block, Ben Affleck's character, was actually on the level? Think about this: the vehicle of the movie was that Richie (Timberlake) had all his money stolen on an online gambling website that he worked for. He would be like a recruiter where he would find people at Princeton who wanted to gamble. The entire movie was about how everyone feels that gambling is wrong. The opening narration really spells it out: why is it okay to "invest" in the stock market or real estate, but playing poker or going to a casino is somehow immoral?
In a twist of fate that everyone sees coming, Block turns out to be a criminal. But what if he wasn't? What if he was a legitimate businessman who just has to do a lot of shady things because he's in Costa Rica and all the officials in Costa Rica are corrupt. And because all the officials in Costa Rica are corrupt and racist, the FBI is all over him because they think he's doing something illegal. So we really have all that happens in the movie, but we would have to change the ending. And now instead of a generic corporate intrigue movie, we have a movie talking about a topic that is really interesting. Now it's a movie about the cost of business, the double standard between blue collar gambling and white collar gambling. In 2013, where we see the richest people in the world gamble millions every day in the stock market, is it really any different than the working joe having a bit of fun in Las Vegas? But here in this movie we have a guy literally run out of the USA because he's running an online casino. And then we can talk about the excesses of it all. Drugs, women, rival gangs trying to muscle in, politics with corrupt officials, etc. All because this one guy wants to run a business and live the high life in paradise. Not because he wants to rob people blind in some kind of strange ponzi scheme.
I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong and what I'm proposing would be a less interesting movie. But it would be different. And when you stop to think about the laundry list of movies exactly like this one, I don't think different would be a bad thing.
Honestly, he's won me over as an actor. I like the guy. I know he got his stardom in a boy band. And then he switched over into acting. I don't begrudge the guy. You can't be a 30 year old man trying to catch the tween demographic. I'm not complaining he branched out. He's a very talented guy and he's not a bad actor. My problem with Justin Timberlake is that, for whatever reason, I think he chooses really bad movies. I wasn't a fan of Friends With Benefits, I HATED In time, and the less I think about Yogi Bear the better. The movies of his I liked were The Social Network and Trouble With the Curve. And both of those movies had Timberlake in a supporting role. And I didn't really like Trouble With the Curve all that much.
So when I saw that Timberlake was the lead actor, I just felt like this movie was going to suck. Not because he's a bad actor, but just because he chooses the worst movies. Seriously, if Justin Timberlake ever reads this, you are better than this.
What did I think of the movie? It's good. It's not bad, it's not great. It's good. It's just a very generic movie. It's a paint by numbers corporate intrigue movie. On the way home I was honestly trying to distinguish this from other movies just like it. In The Devil's Advocate it's about a lawyer who gets in over his head. Except in that movie there is the Devil. This movie doesn't have the Devil.
In Wallstreet it's about an ambitious guy who gets a taste of the high life and gets in over his head when the guy he works for turns out to be dirty. In this movie there's a lot more overt corruption.
So I guess as far as these movies go I liked this one more than Wallstreet but less than The Devil's Advocate.
The other thing I was thinking about on the way home was how I would change it. And I thought about what if Block, Ben Affleck's character, was actually on the level? Think about this: the vehicle of the movie was that Richie (Timberlake) had all his money stolen on an online gambling website that he worked for. He would be like a recruiter where he would find people at Princeton who wanted to gamble. The entire movie was about how everyone feels that gambling is wrong. The opening narration really spells it out: why is it okay to "invest" in the stock market or real estate, but playing poker or going to a casino is somehow immoral?
In a twist of fate that everyone sees coming, Block turns out to be a criminal. But what if he wasn't? What if he was a legitimate businessman who just has to do a lot of shady things because he's in Costa Rica and all the officials in Costa Rica are corrupt. And because all the officials in Costa Rica are corrupt and racist, the FBI is all over him because they think he's doing something illegal. So we really have all that happens in the movie, but we would have to change the ending. And now instead of a generic corporate intrigue movie, we have a movie talking about a topic that is really interesting. Now it's a movie about the cost of business, the double standard between blue collar gambling and white collar gambling. In 2013, where we see the richest people in the world gamble millions every day in the stock market, is it really any different than the working joe having a bit of fun in Las Vegas? But here in this movie we have a guy literally run out of the USA because he's running an online casino. And then we can talk about the excesses of it all. Drugs, women, rival gangs trying to muscle in, politics with corrupt officials, etc. All because this one guy wants to run a business and live the high life in paradise. Not because he wants to rob people blind in some kind of strange ponzi scheme.
I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong and what I'm proposing would be a less interesting movie. But it would be different. And when you stop to think about the laundry list of movies exactly like this one, I don't think different would be a bad thing.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Late Night Public Domain Double Feature Picture Show: 9/18/13
If you are looking for these movies, go to archive.org
1. Teenagers From Outer Space (1959)
How do you hide really crappy acting? Make them aliens! This movie is incredibly cheap. Even by 1959 standards. So why watch it? Three words: Giant Space Lobsters. It's one thing I can always say about these old school sci-fi movies; they are complete crap, but they are so imaginative that they demand to be watched... and mocked... and oddly enjoyed.
It's not recommended unless you really like crappy sci-fi movies.
2. Flash Gordon (1980)
This movie has everything I enjoy. Campy action, over the top acting, a silly story, awesome visuals, colorful costumes, and Queen doing the music. If this had some kick ass martial arts scenes in it, it would be the perfect movie. The story is simple enough: Flash Gordon must fight Emperor Ming, rescue his girlfriend, and save the world. All before next football season.
Flash! The savior of the universe! He'll save every one of us!
1. Teenagers From Outer Space (1959)
How do you hide really crappy acting? Make them aliens! This movie is incredibly cheap. Even by 1959 standards. So why watch it? Three words: Giant Space Lobsters. It's one thing I can always say about these old school sci-fi movies; they are complete crap, but they are so imaginative that they demand to be watched... and mocked... and oddly enjoyed.
It's not recommended unless you really like crappy sci-fi movies.
2. Flash Gordon (1980)
This movie has everything I enjoy. Campy action, over the top acting, a silly story, awesome visuals, colorful costumes, and Queen doing the music. If this had some kick ass martial arts scenes in it, it would be the perfect movie. The story is simple enough: Flash Gordon must fight Emperor Ming, rescue his girlfriend, and save the world. All before next football season.
Flash! The savior of the universe! He'll save every one of us!
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Jobs Review: History or Biopic?
I should start by saying that this movie is okay. It's not great but it's not bad either. It got me to think about the world I live in and reflect a little on my life.
I'm 32 years old now and I've seen innovations in computers in my lifetime that boggle the mind. When I was a kid, the first computer I ever saw was in school and we were using those giant floppy disks. The ones that really were "floppy" and held about 1.2 megabytes on it. The computer was monochrome and really the only thing we did on it was learn to type and play Oregon Trail. I had better learning sessions playing educational games on the Atari 2600. Next thing I know, I'm in 4th grade and now were using the hard 'floppy' disks and they had even more memory on them. Those we actually used to write documents because we had a full 2 megabytes of space now! Nowadays were talking gigabytes and even terabytes of memory on computers. We walk around with portable computers every day of our lives.
The cellphone was a new invention in my lifetime. The first one I ever saw was bigger than my head and had exactly one function, making phone calls. Now we have smart phones that do everything except cook breakfast in the morning.
That is ultimately what this movie is about. The innovation of the last 30 years. And that's the biggest problem this movie has. The movie really can't decide if this is a biopic about Steve Jobs or a history of Apple Computers. It tries to do both and it becomes unsatisfactory either way. There are plenty of movies dealing with the Apple/Microsoft/IBM wars... this movie glances past it. It never really digged into the life of Steve Jobs enough to say it's a biopic. What did we learn about Steve Jobs after watching this movie? He's brilliant, driven, and a world class jackass. Throughout the movie we see him abandon his first-born child. His daughter Lisa. Then we fast forward to her as a teenager and they are all one big happy family? I felt like I fell asleep during the movie and missed about a half hour. But no the pacing really is that quick. And for a movie that is over 2 hours long, that tells me they had way too much material to be doing this kind of movie. Because there clearly was a lot cut out!
This really should've been more like The Social Network. That movie had a clever vehicle for telling the story. It is interspliced with the lawsuit against Mark Zuckerberg. As the hearing goes on, we learn about the backstory of Facebook. As the characters hear the story, we the audience hear the story. Jobs never goes deep enough and focuses way too much on the Apple products being designed by Steve Jobs to ever tell us about the man. We never really get to know him. We don't understand how or why he's such a womanizer or his relationship with his parents, or why he doesn't believe his daughter really is his, or where all his trust issues come from. I never understood why he couldn't keep his damn shoes on! Quirky I guess but just something would've been nice.
If this was meant to be a history of Apple Computers, it never digs into the drama of the competition it had with IBM and Microsoft. Major events in the history of the company are glanced over. Once Jobs left Apple, the company took a nosedive and quickly. But we never see that. It just fast forwards through about 10 years of history so we can see Steve Jobs become CEO.
The lack of focus leads to bad pacing for the movie. It's guilty of just trying to do too much. It's worth seeing but probably only once.
I'm 32 years old now and I've seen innovations in computers in my lifetime that boggle the mind. When I was a kid, the first computer I ever saw was in school and we were using those giant floppy disks. The ones that really were "floppy" and held about 1.2 megabytes on it. The computer was monochrome and really the only thing we did on it was learn to type and play Oregon Trail. I had better learning sessions playing educational games on the Atari 2600. Next thing I know, I'm in 4th grade and now were using the hard 'floppy' disks and they had even more memory on them. Those we actually used to write documents because we had a full 2 megabytes of space now! Nowadays were talking gigabytes and even terabytes of memory on computers. We walk around with portable computers every day of our lives.
The cellphone was a new invention in my lifetime. The first one I ever saw was bigger than my head and had exactly one function, making phone calls. Now we have smart phones that do everything except cook breakfast in the morning.
That is ultimately what this movie is about. The innovation of the last 30 years. And that's the biggest problem this movie has. The movie really can't decide if this is a biopic about Steve Jobs or a history of Apple Computers. It tries to do both and it becomes unsatisfactory either way. There are plenty of movies dealing with the Apple/Microsoft/IBM wars... this movie glances past it. It never really digged into the life of Steve Jobs enough to say it's a biopic. What did we learn about Steve Jobs after watching this movie? He's brilliant, driven, and a world class jackass. Throughout the movie we see him abandon his first-born child. His daughter Lisa. Then we fast forward to her as a teenager and they are all one big happy family? I felt like I fell asleep during the movie and missed about a half hour. But no the pacing really is that quick. And for a movie that is over 2 hours long, that tells me they had way too much material to be doing this kind of movie. Because there clearly was a lot cut out!
This really should've been more like The Social Network. That movie had a clever vehicle for telling the story. It is interspliced with the lawsuit against Mark Zuckerberg. As the hearing goes on, we learn about the backstory of Facebook. As the characters hear the story, we the audience hear the story. Jobs never goes deep enough and focuses way too much on the Apple products being designed by Steve Jobs to ever tell us about the man. We never really get to know him. We don't understand how or why he's such a womanizer or his relationship with his parents, or why he doesn't believe his daughter really is his, or where all his trust issues come from. I never understood why he couldn't keep his damn shoes on! Quirky I guess but just something would've been nice.
If this was meant to be a history of Apple Computers, it never digs into the drama of the competition it had with IBM and Microsoft. Major events in the history of the company are glanced over. Once Jobs left Apple, the company took a nosedive and quickly. But we never see that. It just fast forwards through about 10 years of history so we can see Steve Jobs become CEO.
The lack of focus leads to bad pacing for the movie. It's guilty of just trying to do too much. It's worth seeing but probably only once.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Elysium Review: You have got to be kidding me.
Oh how this movie sucks. Let me count the ways. Fair warning this article is going to be long. I really don't want to get too much into the story because I have too much to say about the poor way this movie tries to deliver it's message. If you want to know the story, it's District 9 and Johnny Mnemonic thrown into a blender and turned on puree. And it sucks.
It's a weird thing to realize that a writer has no idea what money actually is. I didn't think that was possible until I saw this movie. I wouldn't make such a big deal about this but it's very thesis of the movie.
Here's what the movie is about... Or at least what it thinks it's about... It's about how the rich have everything and the rest of us have nothing. And I know it sounds like I'm joking around when I say this movie doesn't know what money is, but I'm being 100% honest. This movie has no idea what the hell money is for!
Here's what I'm talking about. Money is a sophisticated way to exchange goods and services. Let's say you need something like a can of paint to paint your fence. I give someone money, and they give me the paint I want. I also can give money to someone else in exchange they paint my fence. But what if I don't need my fence painted? Well, then I don't go out any buy paint or pay someone to paint my fence. I keep my money and use it to purchase something else I might need. Or hire someone else to do a job I need done.
Here's where I say this movie doesn't understand money... what if you don't need anything? If I have a dollar, and say I don't have any tasks to be completed or have any need to purchase goods, what good is that dollar to me? In this movie all tasks on this orbiting space station called Elysium are done by robots. The space station is self sufficient so it doesn't need supplies. We're left to assume there's plenty to eat since nobody in the entire movie ever eats, sleeps, or goes to the bathroom. On Elysium there is literally nothing to do but lay by the pool. Robots and machines take care of everything. They want for nothing. So, why do they want to earn money?
I'm being serious here. Why do they need money? Why do they need it so badly that they are willing to treat fellow human beings like disposable diapers? Just give me some kind of justification. Anything! Uhm... they have to pay taxes to stay on Elysium and if they don't they are sent back to Earth. I'd accept that. It's still more or less BS because again robots take care of everything and really there's nothing for the people to do. The government doesn't need money because they along with the other rich people all live on a self-sustaining space station run and maintained by robots.
I have to keep emphasizing this: I'm taking this movie seriously because the movie wants me to take the movie seriously. It's really trying to talk about how people who have everything become jaded to the suffering of others. But when it's taken to this kind of extreme with no explanations at all, it's confusing at best and complete crap at it's worst.
Take for example the magic science health beds. Say for example you fall and break your leg. Well, just lay on the bed and hit the start button and in about a minute that broken leg will be completely healed. The bed does everything from curing the common cold to bringing the dead back to life. Wait what? Okay, in fairness the guy wasn't dead. BUT HE SURE AS HELL SHOULD'VE BEEN DEAD! This guy took a grenade TO THE FACE! He's just about as dead as a person can get because he, you know, had his face ripped off in a violent explosion! But just put in the bed and he gets better. And crazy... for some reason. Not that he was the picture of mental health to begin with, but yeah. He went a little nuts. I guess if I had died and come back to life I'd be a little pissed too.
Wait a minute. What was I talking about? In this movie we have the technology to cure any illness and treat any physical ailment. We literally can have the lame walk and the blind see using this medical technology. So, why doesn't everyone have this? I'm not being funny here. This is what really pissed me off about this movie. This is what had me flipping off the movie for the last hour or so of the movie. REMEMBER: This movie wants to be taken seriously not only as a science fiction movie, but also a high drama movie. On my walk home from the theater I really tried to figure this out:
In this movie, only the rich people have access to these sciency health beds. They are literally in everyone's house on Elysium... probably in case they get stomach cramps in the middle of the night. Meanwhile, down on Earth, hospitals are so overcrowded and under funded that the terminally ill are literally thrown out. They don't have this technology... for some reason. The implication is that because the rich have all the money, they have access to the best of everything. They get the clean air, the fresh water, the best healthcare, yada yada yada.
Here's the problem: The technology exists. I made a joke that it's magic but it's not. It's technology that is readily available to a select few. Why is it only available to a select few? Maybe you're thinking it's a resource thing. There's only so many that were made and it's too expensive to make more. With this argument we go back to the whole money doesn't mean dick if there's nothing to spend it on. People in Elysium do nothing. I keep coming back to this because they literally do nothing. There's like a handful of people that "govern" the place. But that's it. And even they do nothing. Jodie Foster channels her inner Colonel Jessup but that's about the extent of her day. They have one business guy. And he does... business... things... I don't know why... He runs the factory on Earth that builds robots... not sure why he does that. You have robots. You have robots that fix robots. Robots are cheaper labor than humans so why employ humans? They work harder, need less of them, don't sleep, and don't need lunch breaks. I digress... anyway at the end of the movie, medical ships fly down from the Heavens and start healing the sick and the crippled. So right there the argument about limited resources is completely invalidated.
So what other reason could they have for hoarding this miracle technology? It can't be limited number of beds because again the medical ships come flying down and literally treat every single human on the planet. It's not limited supply. It's not limited resources. It's not limited energy or medicine because the beds don't use medicine. It just passes a light over your body and then you're fine... The only answer left is that the people on Elysium just don't want to.
That is a comic book level of evil. Nobody purposefully watches others suffer for no reason except for the mentally deranged or the most depraved of Bond villians. No I take that back. Bond villians always have a plan and a reason for doing it. These people have absolutely no motivation. "They want to keep their way of life." Bulls*** They want for nothing. It costs them nothing to make everyone a citizen and give access to all the privledges of Elysium. They just don't because they are evil. No motivation. They want to live well and for whatever reason they just don't like the people on Earth. They hate them so much that they intentionally inflict remorseless suffering on them just because they are there. Sure you can try and insert some kind of racial or social commentary on this but I go back to the whole notion of Elysium is paradise! They want nothing. They need nothing. They have plenty and keep taking just because they can. They don't even really want it. Because they are too busy wallowing in their own boredom!
Is that what I'm supposed to take away from this movie? The rich make the poor suffer because it's something to do? Suffering amuses them? Just how bleak of a worldview does this writer have?
What really kills me is that this movie had so much potential and it was just all wasted. It's told so poorly it forgets it's own subplots and even manages to make the main story superfluous. If I was writing this movie, I would've scrapped the whole thing and started again. I would've had it be a bit more like Total Recall where there's a resistance movement against the people living on Elysium. Because really the way the people on Earth were treated, there really is no reason to obey the law. Or just scrap the whole "on a space station" thing and have it be more like the movie In Time or The Hunger Games where people are in different economic quadrents. At least then there's a reason to earn money. That way they can pay for defense of their economic quadrent and keep the lower class out. But then you fall into the "why keep anyone out" problem because it went too far. It's not that they have an abundance of resources, it's that they have unlimited resources.
This movie is a socio-political commentary told in the worst kind of way.
It's a weird thing to realize that a writer has no idea what money actually is. I didn't think that was possible until I saw this movie. I wouldn't make such a big deal about this but it's very thesis of the movie.
Here's what the movie is about... Or at least what it thinks it's about... It's about how the rich have everything and the rest of us have nothing. And I know it sounds like I'm joking around when I say this movie doesn't know what money is, but I'm being 100% honest. This movie has no idea what the hell money is for!
Here's what I'm talking about. Money is a sophisticated way to exchange goods and services. Let's say you need something like a can of paint to paint your fence. I give someone money, and they give me the paint I want. I also can give money to someone else in exchange they paint my fence. But what if I don't need my fence painted? Well, then I don't go out any buy paint or pay someone to paint my fence. I keep my money and use it to purchase something else I might need. Or hire someone else to do a job I need done.
Here's where I say this movie doesn't understand money... what if you don't need anything? If I have a dollar, and say I don't have any tasks to be completed or have any need to purchase goods, what good is that dollar to me? In this movie all tasks on this orbiting space station called Elysium are done by robots. The space station is self sufficient so it doesn't need supplies. We're left to assume there's plenty to eat since nobody in the entire movie ever eats, sleeps, or goes to the bathroom. On Elysium there is literally nothing to do but lay by the pool. Robots and machines take care of everything. They want for nothing. So, why do they want to earn money?
I'm being serious here. Why do they need money? Why do they need it so badly that they are willing to treat fellow human beings like disposable diapers? Just give me some kind of justification. Anything! Uhm... they have to pay taxes to stay on Elysium and if they don't they are sent back to Earth. I'd accept that. It's still more or less BS because again robots take care of everything and really there's nothing for the people to do. The government doesn't need money because they along with the other rich people all live on a self-sustaining space station run and maintained by robots.
I have to keep emphasizing this: I'm taking this movie seriously because the movie wants me to take the movie seriously. It's really trying to talk about how people who have everything become jaded to the suffering of others. But when it's taken to this kind of extreme with no explanations at all, it's confusing at best and complete crap at it's worst.
Take for example the magic science health beds. Say for example you fall and break your leg. Well, just lay on the bed and hit the start button and in about a minute that broken leg will be completely healed. The bed does everything from curing the common cold to bringing the dead back to life. Wait what? Okay, in fairness the guy wasn't dead. BUT HE SURE AS HELL SHOULD'VE BEEN DEAD! This guy took a grenade TO THE FACE! He's just about as dead as a person can get because he, you know, had his face ripped off in a violent explosion! But just put in the bed and he gets better. And crazy... for some reason. Not that he was the picture of mental health to begin with, but yeah. He went a little nuts. I guess if I had died and come back to life I'd be a little pissed too.
Wait a minute. What was I talking about? In this movie we have the technology to cure any illness and treat any physical ailment. We literally can have the lame walk and the blind see using this medical technology. So, why doesn't everyone have this? I'm not being funny here. This is what really pissed me off about this movie. This is what had me flipping off the movie for the last hour or so of the movie. REMEMBER: This movie wants to be taken seriously not only as a science fiction movie, but also a high drama movie. On my walk home from the theater I really tried to figure this out:
In this movie, only the rich people have access to these sciency health beds. They are literally in everyone's house on Elysium... probably in case they get stomach cramps in the middle of the night. Meanwhile, down on Earth, hospitals are so overcrowded and under funded that the terminally ill are literally thrown out. They don't have this technology... for some reason. The implication is that because the rich have all the money, they have access to the best of everything. They get the clean air, the fresh water, the best healthcare, yada yada yada.
Here's the problem: The technology exists. I made a joke that it's magic but it's not. It's technology that is readily available to a select few. Why is it only available to a select few? Maybe you're thinking it's a resource thing. There's only so many that were made and it's too expensive to make more. With this argument we go back to the whole money doesn't mean dick if there's nothing to spend it on. People in Elysium do nothing. I keep coming back to this because they literally do nothing. There's like a handful of people that "govern" the place. But that's it. And even they do nothing. Jodie Foster channels her inner Colonel Jessup but that's about the extent of her day. They have one business guy. And he does... business... things... I don't know why... He runs the factory on Earth that builds robots... not sure why he does that. You have robots. You have robots that fix robots. Robots are cheaper labor than humans so why employ humans? They work harder, need less of them, don't sleep, and don't need lunch breaks. I digress... anyway at the end of the movie, medical ships fly down from the Heavens and start healing the sick and the crippled. So right there the argument about limited resources is completely invalidated.
So what other reason could they have for hoarding this miracle technology? It can't be limited number of beds because again the medical ships come flying down and literally treat every single human on the planet. It's not limited supply. It's not limited resources. It's not limited energy or medicine because the beds don't use medicine. It just passes a light over your body and then you're fine... The only answer left is that the people on Elysium just don't want to.
That is a comic book level of evil. Nobody purposefully watches others suffer for no reason except for the mentally deranged or the most depraved of Bond villians. No I take that back. Bond villians always have a plan and a reason for doing it. These people have absolutely no motivation. "They want to keep their way of life." Bulls*** They want for nothing. It costs them nothing to make everyone a citizen and give access to all the privledges of Elysium. They just don't because they are evil. No motivation. They want to live well and for whatever reason they just don't like the people on Earth. They hate them so much that they intentionally inflict remorseless suffering on them just because they are there. Sure you can try and insert some kind of racial or social commentary on this but I go back to the whole notion of Elysium is paradise! They want nothing. They need nothing. They have plenty and keep taking just because they can. They don't even really want it. Because they are too busy wallowing in their own boredom!
Is that what I'm supposed to take away from this movie? The rich make the poor suffer because it's something to do? Suffering amuses them? Just how bleak of a worldview does this writer have?
What really kills me is that this movie had so much potential and it was just all wasted. It's told so poorly it forgets it's own subplots and even manages to make the main story superfluous. If I was writing this movie, I would've scrapped the whole thing and started again. I would've had it be a bit more like Total Recall where there's a resistance movement against the people living on Elysium. Because really the way the people on Earth were treated, there really is no reason to obey the law. Or just scrap the whole "on a space station" thing and have it be more like the movie In Time or The Hunger Games where people are in different economic quadrents. At least then there's a reason to earn money. That way they can pay for defense of their economic quadrent and keep the lower class out. But then you fall into the "why keep anyone out" problem because it went too far. It's not that they have an abundance of resources, it's that they have unlimited resources.
This movie is a socio-political commentary told in the worst kind of way.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
R.I.P.D. review: It's M.I.B. only not as good.
On the surface of it, this movie seems harmless. It's just a silly little comedy with a crazy premise and it's about as unoriginal as it gets. That's not the part that upsets me. I'm not all that angry that it's a complete rip-off of Men In Black. Honestly, I'm not. If you want my quick review, there it is. It's Men In Black but with ghosts instead of aliens. Don't believe me, let's compare:
Men In Black is about a young hot shot cop who is recruited into the MiB because they recognize his skills. R.I.P.D. is about a young hot shot cop who is recruited into the Rest In Peace Devision because they recognize his skills. The twist is that he was (kind of) a dirty cop looking for a little bit of salvation.
Men In Black had a grizzled old veteran named K who was without a partner who tends to play outside the rules but gets the job done. R.I.P.D. has a grizzled old veteran named Roy who was without a partner who tends to play outside the rules but gets the job done. We are first introduced to Agent K with him interrogating an alien he then eventually shoots into blue goo. We meet Roy as he shoots a fleeing monster and turns him into blue smoke.
Men In Black has our protagonist save the world from certain doom on his first day. R.I.P.D. has our protagonist save the world from certain doom on his first day. Men In Black has them searching for something called "the galaxy". R.I.P.D. has the heroes trying to find "the staff of Jericho."
It's the job of the MiB to police and conceal alien activity on planet Earth. It's the job of the R.I.P.D. to police and conceal demonic creatures from Hell. But, while MiB has a memory eraser device made out of science, R.I.P.D. doesn't have even that little fig leaf.
I could go on but why bother. I made my point.
And again, this isn't what upset me about this movie. At least not entirely. This movie is the very definition of couldn't care less. It's a totally phoned-in, cash grab of a movie. Just throw in some A-list celebrities like Kevin Bacon, Jeff Bridges, and Ryan Reynolds and see how many people will go see it.
I have to talk about the internal logic. When you create a fantastical world, you have to put some time and care into it. Believe it or not, MiB did that. They carefully explained the need for secrecy, they introduced a plausible method for why people would be unaware of alien activity, and they had characters that acted in logical ways considering the abnormality of the environment. In other words: the world is strange to us, but not to them. And over the course of the movie the world becomes less strange because time and care is given to ensuring that the world doesn't remain strange.
R.I.P.D. on the other hand couldn't care less. We are introduced to a world where there is a life after death. There's a Heaven and a Hell. In this world, if someone dies and hangs around on Earth too long they become more monster like. But if you are a cop and you die, the R.I.P.D. will recruit you and it'll be your job to arrest the monsters and send them to Hell. That part is easy to understand. The part about secrecy is not.
They try but it could've been done so much easier. They throw out a bunch of junk about how the living have to keep living and move on, but I have to ask why? There is a life after death! You know that one true love you had, and then tragically died? Not to worry because there is a life after death! There's no point in finding someone else. There's no point in grieving. Just keep on and carry on. When you die, you'll see that person again. How weird would that be if you married someone, that person died, you remarry someone else, and then meet your first spouse in Heaven? And then your second spouse died. I know in the Bible it says we would be like the Angels and not given as husband and wife, but we aren't talking about the Bible. We are talking about this movie. In this movie we are still us. Our individuality remains intact. The only difference between being alive and being dead is that it's harder to kill dead people. I don't know if I'd like it if I knew what was waiting for me after I die was an episode of Jerry Springer! Next time on St. Jerry Springer: I Have Two Husbands!
The memory wiping device from MiB. When I first saw MiB, I thought it was just hand-waving a problem away. But then I saw what happens when you don't even have that. R.I.P.D. has absolutely nothing from keeping people from finding out about demons and ghosts. In fact, at one point in the movie it's on the 6 o'clock news. And there is no better way to undermine the message of "I'm dead. Get over me and live your life" quite like emperical evidence that there's an afterlife!
I could go on and on. Major plot elements are just thrown at us. "Hey remember when this happened?" NO!!! I don't because I didn't see it! VISUAL MEDIA!!! SHOW!!!!!
I'm done. Why should I put more effort into saying how much it sucks than the people who made it in the first place?
It sucks. Don't see it.
Men In Black is about a young hot shot cop who is recruited into the MiB because they recognize his skills. R.I.P.D. is about a young hot shot cop who is recruited into the Rest In Peace Devision because they recognize his skills. The twist is that he was (kind of) a dirty cop looking for a little bit of salvation.
Men In Black had a grizzled old veteran named K who was without a partner who tends to play outside the rules but gets the job done. R.I.P.D. has a grizzled old veteran named Roy who was without a partner who tends to play outside the rules but gets the job done. We are first introduced to Agent K with him interrogating an alien he then eventually shoots into blue goo. We meet Roy as he shoots a fleeing monster and turns him into blue smoke.
Men In Black has our protagonist save the world from certain doom on his first day. R.I.P.D. has our protagonist save the world from certain doom on his first day. Men In Black has them searching for something called "the galaxy". R.I.P.D. has the heroes trying to find "the staff of Jericho."
It's the job of the MiB to police and conceal alien activity on planet Earth. It's the job of the R.I.P.D. to police and conceal demonic creatures from Hell. But, while MiB has a memory eraser device made out of science, R.I.P.D. doesn't have even that little fig leaf.
I could go on but why bother. I made my point.
And again, this isn't what upset me about this movie. At least not entirely. This movie is the very definition of couldn't care less. It's a totally phoned-in, cash grab of a movie. Just throw in some A-list celebrities like Kevin Bacon, Jeff Bridges, and Ryan Reynolds and see how many people will go see it.
I have to talk about the internal logic. When you create a fantastical world, you have to put some time and care into it. Believe it or not, MiB did that. They carefully explained the need for secrecy, they introduced a plausible method for why people would be unaware of alien activity, and they had characters that acted in logical ways considering the abnormality of the environment. In other words: the world is strange to us, but not to them. And over the course of the movie the world becomes less strange because time and care is given to ensuring that the world doesn't remain strange.
R.I.P.D. on the other hand couldn't care less. We are introduced to a world where there is a life after death. There's a Heaven and a Hell. In this world, if someone dies and hangs around on Earth too long they become more monster like. But if you are a cop and you die, the R.I.P.D. will recruit you and it'll be your job to arrest the monsters and send them to Hell. That part is easy to understand. The part about secrecy is not.
They try but it could've been done so much easier. They throw out a bunch of junk about how the living have to keep living and move on, but I have to ask why? There is a life after death! You know that one true love you had, and then tragically died? Not to worry because there is a life after death! There's no point in finding someone else. There's no point in grieving. Just keep on and carry on. When you die, you'll see that person again. How weird would that be if you married someone, that person died, you remarry someone else, and then meet your first spouse in Heaven? And then your second spouse died. I know in the Bible it says we would be like the Angels and not given as husband and wife, but we aren't talking about the Bible. We are talking about this movie. In this movie we are still us. Our individuality remains intact. The only difference between being alive and being dead is that it's harder to kill dead people. I don't know if I'd like it if I knew what was waiting for me after I die was an episode of Jerry Springer! Next time on St. Jerry Springer: I Have Two Husbands!
The memory wiping device from MiB. When I first saw MiB, I thought it was just hand-waving a problem away. But then I saw what happens when you don't even have that. R.I.P.D. has absolutely nothing from keeping people from finding out about demons and ghosts. In fact, at one point in the movie it's on the 6 o'clock news. And there is no better way to undermine the message of "I'm dead. Get over me and live your life" quite like emperical evidence that there's an afterlife!
I could go on and on. Major plot elements are just thrown at us. "Hey remember when this happened?" NO!!! I don't because I didn't see it! VISUAL MEDIA!!! SHOW!!!!!
I'm done. Why should I put more effort into saying how much it sucks than the people who made it in the first place?
It sucks. Don't see it.
Sunday, August 4, 2013
The Wolverine Review: But he gets better
There's a joke that's been around since I believe the 1970's. I remember first hearing it on an old episode of M.A.S.H. I'll save you the setup, but Hawkeye turns to his friend Trapper and says, "I thought you said he was dead." Trapper responds, "He got better."
I've used that joke to make fun of one of the most over-used clichés in comic books, and that is the hero returning to life. Just about every major superhero in comics has died, and come back to life in one form or another. Captain America dies in one of the biggest/most shocking scenes in comic book history... but he gets better. Superman gives his life in an awesome fight against Doomsday. They have a funeral for him. Everyone says their goodbyes... and he gets better. Basically, any character that has a fan base, they will never really kill that character off. There will always be a way to bring him back. Even if it makes about as much sense as covering yourself in honey and poking sleeping bears.
I bring all this up because in the trailers they talk about "ending Wolverine's life." And you know Wolverine isn't going to die. And even if he did die, he'd just get better. It's so rare to see a the main hero in a movie die. And even if they die, the bad guy never wins.
There really isn't anything new in this movie. But that's not why we go to see it. We go to see Wolverine be awesome. And that's exactly what you get.
There are a few things that annoyed me about the movie and it's mostly because of the comic book geek in me. The one huge complaint later but first this: I didn't like the look of Yukio, they changed who would become Silver Samurai, and I didn't like them turning Viper into a mutant.
Unless you were to do the research yourself, you've probably never heard of Yukio unless you're a huge X-Men fan. But here's what they did to her: 1) They made her look like Lady Deathstryke with that ridiculous red hair, and 2) they made her a clairvoyant mutant. The entire movie I was waiting for her to reveal herself as Deathstryke but she never did. And the stupid "seeing people's death" mutant power! WHY!?!? It literally added nothing to the movie!
The changing of the Silver Samurai... I get it. Really I do. But it still wasn't necessary. I can't really talk about this without getting into spoilers, but for me it's just one of those things where I'm scratching my head wondering why they went this route. I understand why they did it. They wanted to have this big emotional moment at the end of the movie, but it's so telegraphed and lacking any emotion that it really would've been better had they not gone that way in the first place.
And then there's Viper. Oh dear God what did they do to Viper? I'm less upset they made her into a mutant than I am they completely forgot that Viper is a member of HYDRA! If you've seen Captain America: The First Avenger you should be familiar with Hydra. Hydra is the Red Skull's group. A group more ruthless and bloodthirsty than the Nazis. And this element of the story was never explored. Personally I think it would've added a lot. Especially since we start the movie on Nagasaki just before the atomic bomb was dropped in WWII!
And that leads me in to what I found the most annoying about this movie: It's in canon with the three X-Men movies. And I hated those movies. Especially the third one. So even though I was expecting this to be a sequel to X-Men Origins Wolverine, it's instead a sequel to X-Men The Last Stand. The entire movie Wolverine has fantasies about dying and being with Jean Grey in Heaven. The entire point of it was to emphasize how much Wolverine is tired of living forever and watching everyone around him die. If you don't know how it ends, just think about it for a minute.
My problems with this are mostly with the way these characters are treated in the movie and less with the story itself. The action scenes are really good and if you go there just to watch Wolverine be awesome, you're going to get Wolverine being awesome. What upsets me is that this movie could've been so much more than it was. With just a little bit of work it could've been something very special. It could've tied in the events of The Avengers and could've led into Wolverine being a part of the next Avengers movie. It could've been a heart wrenching tale of betrayal and sacrifice, but instead it's a generic action film.
It's an enjoyable popcorn flick. But that's it. Shame.
I've used that joke to make fun of one of the most over-used clichés in comic books, and that is the hero returning to life. Just about every major superhero in comics has died, and come back to life in one form or another. Captain America dies in one of the biggest/most shocking scenes in comic book history... but he gets better. Superman gives his life in an awesome fight against Doomsday. They have a funeral for him. Everyone says their goodbyes... and he gets better. Basically, any character that has a fan base, they will never really kill that character off. There will always be a way to bring him back. Even if it makes about as much sense as covering yourself in honey and poking sleeping bears.
I bring all this up because in the trailers they talk about "ending Wolverine's life." And you know Wolverine isn't going to die. And even if he did die, he'd just get better. It's so rare to see a the main hero in a movie die. And even if they die, the bad guy never wins.
There really isn't anything new in this movie. But that's not why we go to see it. We go to see Wolverine be awesome. And that's exactly what you get.
There are a few things that annoyed me about the movie and it's mostly because of the comic book geek in me. The one huge complaint later but first this: I didn't like the look of Yukio, they changed who would become Silver Samurai, and I didn't like them turning Viper into a mutant.
Unless you were to do the research yourself, you've probably never heard of Yukio unless you're a huge X-Men fan. But here's what they did to her: 1) They made her look like Lady Deathstryke with that ridiculous red hair, and 2) they made her a clairvoyant mutant. The entire movie I was waiting for her to reveal herself as Deathstryke but she never did. And the stupid "seeing people's death" mutant power! WHY!?!? It literally added nothing to the movie!
The changing of the Silver Samurai... I get it. Really I do. But it still wasn't necessary. I can't really talk about this without getting into spoilers, but for me it's just one of those things where I'm scratching my head wondering why they went this route. I understand why they did it. They wanted to have this big emotional moment at the end of the movie, but it's so telegraphed and lacking any emotion that it really would've been better had they not gone that way in the first place.
And then there's Viper. Oh dear God what did they do to Viper? I'm less upset they made her into a mutant than I am they completely forgot that Viper is a member of HYDRA! If you've seen Captain America: The First Avenger you should be familiar with Hydra. Hydra is the Red Skull's group. A group more ruthless and bloodthirsty than the Nazis. And this element of the story was never explored. Personally I think it would've added a lot. Especially since we start the movie on Nagasaki just before the atomic bomb was dropped in WWII!
And that leads me in to what I found the most annoying about this movie: It's in canon with the three X-Men movies. And I hated those movies. Especially the third one. So even though I was expecting this to be a sequel to X-Men Origins Wolverine, it's instead a sequel to X-Men The Last Stand. The entire movie Wolverine has fantasies about dying and being with Jean Grey in Heaven. The entire point of it was to emphasize how much Wolverine is tired of living forever and watching everyone around him die. If you don't know how it ends, just think about it for a minute.
My problems with this are mostly with the way these characters are treated in the movie and less with the story itself. The action scenes are really good and if you go there just to watch Wolverine be awesome, you're going to get Wolverine being awesome. What upsets me is that this movie could've been so much more than it was. With just a little bit of work it could've been something very special. It could've tied in the events of The Avengers and could've led into Wolverine being a part of the next Avengers movie. It could've been a heart wrenching tale of betrayal and sacrifice, but instead it's a generic action film.
It's an enjoyable popcorn flick. But that's it. Shame.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Red 2 Review: Fun Night Out
I know it's been a while since I wrote anything. Honestly, it's because what is out in theaters is so unimpressive it's hard to be motivated to say anything about it. But I did end up seeing Red 2 and not surprisingly, it's a fun movie. It's a lot like the original. In fact maybe a little too much like the original. The first Red movie is mostly remembered for cameos by famous elderly actors. Red notably for Ernest Borgnine shortly before his death. This one has appearances by Catherine Zeta Jones and Anthony Hopkins.
The acting of course is great. There's a lot of chemistry on stage with wonderful actors like John Malkovich and Bruce Willis. Then add in Helen Mirren for a supporting role and the cute as hell Mary-Louise Parker and it all works so well.
The directing in this film is much like other action movies. You have old guys trying to look bad ass so get the camera as close as possible and shake it around. I have said many times how I don't like it but my voice goes unheeded. But what particularly galls me about the close up shaky cam in Red 2 is that it spoils the work of the legitimately bad ass Byung-hun Lee. When you have a guy like Byung-hun Lee, back the camera up and let him be awesome! Even George Lucas knew better than to crowd Ray Park in the Phantom Menace.
While I enjoyed the movie while I was watching it, the problem is that it's also a very forgettable movie. I remember that Bruce Willis was awesome, but I can't remember any one thing that he did that impressed me. I remember John Malkovich was funny, but can't remember a particularly funny moment with him. (other than the funeral scene) Catherine Zeta Jones was sexy, but there wasn't any one "sexy" moment from her. And that's about it. The actors did very well despite a very forgettable script.
I'd say that makes this movie worth seeing. It's an enjoyable movie with some really great acting by some of Hollywood's best. Just don't expect to have a long discussion about it.
The acting of course is great. There's a lot of chemistry on stage with wonderful actors like John Malkovich and Bruce Willis. Then add in Helen Mirren for a supporting role and the cute as hell Mary-Louise Parker and it all works so well.
The directing in this film is much like other action movies. You have old guys trying to look bad ass so get the camera as close as possible and shake it around. I have said many times how I don't like it but my voice goes unheeded. But what particularly galls me about the close up shaky cam in Red 2 is that it spoils the work of the legitimately bad ass Byung-hun Lee. When you have a guy like Byung-hun Lee, back the camera up and let him be awesome! Even George Lucas knew better than to crowd Ray Park in the Phantom Menace.
While I enjoyed the movie while I was watching it, the problem is that it's also a very forgettable movie. I remember that Bruce Willis was awesome, but I can't remember any one thing that he did that impressed me. I remember John Malkovich was funny, but can't remember a particularly funny moment with him. (other than the funeral scene) Catherine Zeta Jones was sexy, but there wasn't any one "sexy" moment from her. And that's about it. The actors did very well despite a very forgettable script.
I'd say that makes this movie worth seeing. It's an enjoyable movie with some really great acting by some of Hollywood's best. Just don't expect to have a long discussion about it.
Friday, July 5, 2013
The Lone Ranger Review: Nature is out of balance and so is this movie.
The initial reviews for this movie aren't very positive. It's an old series being brought back for a modern audience and it's done by the same people that did Pirates of the Caribbean. Truly, there is something to be said for that criticism. If you didn't like Pirates of the Caribbean, you aren't going to like this one. If you aren't a fan of cowboy movies, you aren't going to enjoy this. If you aren't nostalgic for the old Lone Ranger show, you might not know anything about these characters and might not enjoy watching the movie. But for people like me that enjoy the campiness, this is an enjoyable movie.
I'd say the biggest problem I had with the movie was that it swings wildly in tone. In the beginning we are having fun with your standard train robbery on horseback and the William Tell Overture. But then we see our villain killing and then eating the heart of The Lone Ranger's brother right in front of him. But then we are back to a prostitute with an ivory leg/gun, and then we learn she lost her leg to the bad guy who presumably ate it. Swing back to the white horse jumping through fire and riding off into the night, and then it's demonic cannibal rabbits. It never felt like this movie built the foundation to the movie. It wanted to have it's cake and eat it too. It just couldn't decide if it wanted to be a serious action/drama or a campy family fun romp. When it was campy, it was a lot of fun. When it tried to be serious, it was uncomfortable and many times painfully predictable.
For the Lone Ranger fans out there, it does have some quick fan service which I think was appreciated. It had the "High oh Silver! Away!" line. It had the music. It had Tonto calling The Lone Ranger "kemosabe" a lot. It had a running gag about the mask that got old pretty quick.
By far the best part of the movie is the climax. It's a great action scene that I felt embodied The Lone Ranger and what I would expect from an old western TV series from the 1950s and an old radio drama from the 1930s. A lot of crazy stunts, a damsel in distress, and just a lot of fun.
Overall I think the movie works, but it really could've used some re-writes. It hit upon the same problem I had with Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter in that it was destined to be a cheesy fun romp but instead found ways to take itself too seriously and it spoiled the mood for the rest of the film. Now, it feels like a chore going through the unwelcome darkness and drama just to get to the cowboys and Indians fun. I recommend seeing it, but there's no harm waiting for DVD.
I'd say the biggest problem I had with the movie was that it swings wildly in tone. In the beginning we are having fun with your standard train robbery on horseback and the William Tell Overture. But then we see our villain killing and then eating the heart of The Lone Ranger's brother right in front of him. But then we are back to a prostitute with an ivory leg/gun, and then we learn she lost her leg to the bad guy who presumably ate it. Swing back to the white horse jumping through fire and riding off into the night, and then it's demonic cannibal rabbits. It never felt like this movie built the foundation to the movie. It wanted to have it's cake and eat it too. It just couldn't decide if it wanted to be a serious action/drama or a campy family fun romp. When it was campy, it was a lot of fun. When it tried to be serious, it was uncomfortable and many times painfully predictable.
For the Lone Ranger fans out there, it does have some quick fan service which I think was appreciated. It had the "High oh Silver! Away!" line. It had the music. It had Tonto calling The Lone Ranger "kemosabe" a lot. It had a running gag about the mask that got old pretty quick.
By far the best part of the movie is the climax. It's a great action scene that I felt embodied The Lone Ranger and what I would expect from an old western TV series from the 1950s and an old radio drama from the 1930s. A lot of crazy stunts, a damsel in distress, and just a lot of fun.
Overall I think the movie works, but it really could've used some re-writes. It hit upon the same problem I had with Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter in that it was destined to be a cheesy fun romp but instead found ways to take itself too seriously and it spoiled the mood for the rest of the film. Now, it feels like a chore going through the unwelcome darkness and drama just to get to the cowboys and Indians fun. I recommend seeing it, but there's no harm waiting for DVD.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Man of Steel Review: It's a Bird... It's a plane...
Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird... It's a plane... It's... Batman?
And that's my whole review in a nutshell. This isn't a Superman movie. It's a Batman movie with Superman in it.
I can't be the only one that sees this. Between Zod doing the infamous television scene from The Dark Knight, to playing up the more tragic aspects of Clark Kent's life, to Clark becoming a drifter trying to find meaning to his life, to the eventual blunt force trauma of a moral to the story... everything looked and felt like I was watching The Dark Knight. So, was I surprised to learn Christopher Nolan and David Goyer wrote this? Absolutely not.
But let's be fair. How was the movie? It was okay. Nothing great, but not bad either. It had some great ideas and I would say more often than not they worked. The biggest problem I have though is that I'm starting to wonder if Christopher Nolan is a one-trick pony. He did such a masterful job of re-imagining Batman. He took a character that had been raked over the coals and worked magic. He recaptured the gothic feel and grittiness that Batman needs to be a great movie. Batman belongs in the shadows.
However, Superman is the exact opposite. Superman belongs in the limelight. He is a symbol of the best and greatest of humanity. He is the Olympian ideal of what a superhero is supposed to be. How can Clark Kent embrace the best of humanity if all we see of his childhood is persecution? Where are the happy times? Instead we get his best friend being a bully to him, we have the parents of the other children look on him as some kind of demon because he... saved their children's lives? I don't get that.
It really starts to speak to what kind of person Christopher Nolan is. Here is my question: Does he like humanity? Everyone in the Batman movies and in Man of Steel are so quick to anger. They are so quick to respond out of fear. Is this Nolan's critique of humanity? Are we all knee-jerk, primitive, child-like cowards in his eyes?
It's why I say he doesn't understand Superman. Superman is a symbol of hope. He is supposed to see the beauty of humanity and fights to save it. He is a boy scout and proud of it. He wasn't sheltered from humanity, he grew up in it. Superman isn't a tragic figure. He's an orphan from a dead planet who was raised with love all around him, not just from his parents. He dated, he played football, he had childhood friends... Superman is NOT Batman.
Let's talk about the movie a little. The movie itself is exhausting. It's about 2 1/2 hours long and it feels that long. The climax is just like in The Dark Knight Rises in that it just keeps going. It goes on forever. The shaky camera mixed with the animated fight scenes is just so tiresome. Everything moves too fast, it's almost impossible to take anything in. If the directors were going for that war-like atmosphere, they nailed it. But the problem is that the scene is so long that at least for me, it became a chore to watch. The camera never stood still and I can't begin to tell you how much I hated that. I've said it in so many reviews now. It's time to fire the epileptic holding the camera.
As for the story, it's fairly solid. Other than the things I mentioned already about how the writers don't understand Superman, the idea of including Zod into the movie was pretty good. And never let it be said I don't give a movie props when they deserve it. The way they wrote Zod was masterful. I understood his motivations and he actually becomes a very interesting character. He's not just some megalomaniac like he is in Superman II, but actually has a tragic story. He's a lot like Magneto from X-Men: First Class. You don't agree with the things he does or the way he does them, but at the very least you can understand why. The character is identifiable and not just some villain for the sake of being a villain.
In the end I just can't recommend this movie. I felt like I needed a nap after watching it. I couldn't enjoy it because the second half of the movie is just relentless. Some might enjoy that, I didn't.
And that's my whole review in a nutshell. This isn't a Superman movie. It's a Batman movie with Superman in it.
I can't be the only one that sees this. Between Zod doing the infamous television scene from The Dark Knight, to playing up the more tragic aspects of Clark Kent's life, to Clark becoming a drifter trying to find meaning to his life, to the eventual blunt force trauma of a moral to the story... everything looked and felt like I was watching The Dark Knight. So, was I surprised to learn Christopher Nolan and David Goyer wrote this? Absolutely not.
But let's be fair. How was the movie? It was okay. Nothing great, but not bad either. It had some great ideas and I would say more often than not they worked. The biggest problem I have though is that I'm starting to wonder if Christopher Nolan is a one-trick pony. He did such a masterful job of re-imagining Batman. He took a character that had been raked over the coals and worked magic. He recaptured the gothic feel and grittiness that Batman needs to be a great movie. Batman belongs in the shadows.
However, Superman is the exact opposite. Superman belongs in the limelight. He is a symbol of the best and greatest of humanity. He is the Olympian ideal of what a superhero is supposed to be. How can Clark Kent embrace the best of humanity if all we see of his childhood is persecution? Where are the happy times? Instead we get his best friend being a bully to him, we have the parents of the other children look on him as some kind of demon because he... saved their children's lives? I don't get that.
It really starts to speak to what kind of person Christopher Nolan is. Here is my question: Does he like humanity? Everyone in the Batman movies and in Man of Steel are so quick to anger. They are so quick to respond out of fear. Is this Nolan's critique of humanity? Are we all knee-jerk, primitive, child-like cowards in his eyes?
It's why I say he doesn't understand Superman. Superman is a symbol of hope. He is supposed to see the beauty of humanity and fights to save it. He is a boy scout and proud of it. He wasn't sheltered from humanity, he grew up in it. Superman isn't a tragic figure. He's an orphan from a dead planet who was raised with love all around him, not just from his parents. He dated, he played football, he had childhood friends... Superman is NOT Batman.
Let's talk about the movie a little. The movie itself is exhausting. It's about 2 1/2 hours long and it feels that long. The climax is just like in The Dark Knight Rises in that it just keeps going. It goes on forever. The shaky camera mixed with the animated fight scenes is just so tiresome. Everything moves too fast, it's almost impossible to take anything in. If the directors were going for that war-like atmosphere, they nailed it. But the problem is that the scene is so long that at least for me, it became a chore to watch. The camera never stood still and I can't begin to tell you how much I hated that. I've said it in so many reviews now. It's time to fire the epileptic holding the camera.
As for the story, it's fairly solid. Other than the things I mentioned already about how the writers don't understand Superman, the idea of including Zod into the movie was pretty good. And never let it be said I don't give a movie props when they deserve it. The way they wrote Zod was masterful. I understood his motivations and he actually becomes a very interesting character. He's not just some megalomaniac like he is in Superman II, but actually has a tragic story. He's a lot like Magneto from X-Men: First Class. You don't agree with the things he does or the way he does them, but at the very least you can understand why. The character is identifiable and not just some villain for the sake of being a villain.
In the end I just can't recommend this movie. I felt like I needed a nap after watching it. I couldn't enjoy it because the second half of the movie is just relentless. Some might enjoy that, I didn't.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Star Trek - Into Darkness Review: There's Klingons surrounding Uranus
I hated this movie. There were times I got visibly angry. There was more than one time I wanted to stand up and let off more than a few colorful remarks about what I just saw. Oh yeah. This is going to be a spoiler-filled, foaming at the mouth angry review. Here's the takeaway: if you liked Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Into Darkness is the same movie only done far worse and stripped of any kind of story or meaning. It's non-stop pretty looking action scenes devoid of creativity or attention to detail.
And before anyone starts with me, yes it's an "alternate timeline" movie. So, things are going to be different from established from all the previous movies and TV shows. And to that I say, "so what?" If in the TV shows Kirk had never in his life seen a Tribble before he started his '5 year mission', but all of a sudden Bones is doing experiments on a Tribble before they ever go on said mission, I have a problem with it. Because what you are saying to me is because a guy from the future killed Kirk's father and blew up Vulcan, Tribbles are more prevalent. That's a minor continuity error and yes there's a Tribble on the Enterprise done purely for fan service, but just know there's far more to come.
Here's the spoilers......Here's the spoilers..... If you haven't seen the movie yet and don't want spoilers...... don't read further.....
Right from the beginning of the movie, nothing makes any sense. The movie starts on this alien planet where Kirk and Bones are being chased by spear-chucking albinos. I have no idea why. Why are they there? Next thing I see is Spock inside an active volcano trying to blow it up. Because a cold fusion device will stop a volcano from exploding. Okay. We need to explain to the writer what 'cold fusion' means. Cold fusion doesn't mean it's an ice bomb. Cold fusion refers to a process where there is a fusion reaction of molecules without having to be millions of degrees in temperature. Basically it would be room temperature. Spock threw the equivalent of a gigaton nuclear bomb into a volcano and hoped that it would stop an active volcano from destroying a planet. Why would a planet be in jeopardy because one volcano was blowing up? I don't know.
Anyway, Spock was stranded in the volcano and it looks like he is going to die.... and then he had to give the "needs of the many..." speech. And now I'm really annoyed. What are the "needs of the many" he is referring to? You know. The ones that out weigh the needs of the few? Or the one? Namely him? I can tell you what it is from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan! The good movie they stole the line from. Spock used it at the time of his death after he valiantly sacrificed his life to save everyone on the Enterprise. All his friends and comrades he knew and loved over decades. He literally laid down his life for his oldest and dearest friends. Here he is laying doing his life to protect a bunch of primitive people who have barely discovered the wheel from learning that there are such things as star ships and magic volcano stopping bombs. The "prime directive" was violated by even going on to that planet in the first place! And don't give me that "Kirk and Bones" were in disguise nonsense. They had a gray coat on! They didn't look anything like the spear chucking white albinos. That's not a disguise. That's a coat. Just because I put on a leather jacket doesn't make me Neo.
So yes Kirk once again comes to the rescue and Spock is fine. Even when they killed off the crew in Star Trek II, it was a computer simulation. Look up Kobayashi Maru. The infamous "no-win" scenario. They did it in the first movie. (That's a whole different rant I will bypass)
So what happens next? Kirk falsifies his report to Starfleet! Where do I begin? There's a difference between being an arrogant, pig-headed, cock-sure jackass and being someone who avoids responsibility, lies, and shows a complete lack of respect for others. Kirk was a lot of things, but when he felt he was right he didn't run from responsibility. This is completely contrary to the character they even developed in the last Star Trek movie! Kirk welcomed the fight! He wanted to get in trouble! He wanted to do things his way because it was following his own moral compass! He'd tell Starfleet exactly what he did and carry it as a badge of honor! But no. We need something completely forced for no reason. You see, Spock filed a report on what happened and he told the truth. So, Kirk was stripped of his command.
That is until a few minutes and an action scene later. He gets his command back. I remember a time when actions had consequences. Okay. You can make an argument that it's a special circumstance because a lot of captains just got killed and ships need new captains. To that I ask, why the Enterprise? The Enterprise is the FLAGSHIP!!!! As in the best ship in the fleet. And Starfleet just gave command of the best ship in the fleet to someone who watched his captain and friend murdered by an unknown terrorist, someone who you believed to be mentally unbalanced before he was given a personal agenda, and even in terrible times like this you give him command of the Enterprise again? Someone you wanted back in the academy not five minutes earlier? Oh but this is possibly explained because of Admiral Marcus' actions later. Oh I'm getting to that guy. Just you wait.
Do you see what I have already written? All of this is just the first act of the movie. And what exactly happened here? Why did they include that opening scene? What purpose did it have? To show us that Kirk is needlessly reckless and doesn't follow orders? Here's an idea: if a major sub-plot of this movie involves the Klingons, how about having Kirk in a space battle with a Klingon ship? More on the Klingons. I have a lot to say about that. Was this scene included just to have Spock in danger so we can start two other sub-plots? Basically because Spock almost died and then 'stabbed Kirk in the back' with his truthful report to his superiors (*ugh*) this puts a strain on Spock and Kirk's friendship. Also, because Spock is a Vulcan and doesn't feel emotion (or shouldn't. Another rant coming it's way) this strains his romance with Uhura. Again, if that was the goal, put it in a space battle with the Klingons and you can do the exact same thing. And you don't need to include the magic ice bomb nuclear device. Was the purpose to get Kirk out of his captain's chair? If it was, that sub-plot was settled really quickly and totally unnecessary. He was still in the room when "Harrison" (*ugh*) flew his runabout up to the window of Starfleet and shot it all to hell! Does it make a difference if Kirk is a captain or a first officer if he's still in the room?
And that gets me to another sub-plot. The sick little girl. See. John Harrison is a bad guy. But he helped a desperate father save the life of his sick daughter. In exchange he agrees to help Harrison by going on a suicide bombing. No I didn't make this up. There's love of one's daughter and then there's agreeing to high treason. But this magic health cure is a major factor in the movie. And we might as well address it now. If for no other reason I'm sick of calling this guy John Harrison. It's Khan Singh. And because Khan is a super human, his blood has healing properties. Uhm... no. It doesn't. At no time does Khan have Wolverine's mutant healing factor. Khan is super strong and super intelligent. He doesn't have a healing factor! And don't give me that alternate timeline excuse. At this time Khan is 300 years old. He was frozen. The events of the first movie would have no effect on Khan. Khan should be the same as he was. If you really want to argue with me that blowing up Vulcan would give someone completely unrelated to the incident superpowers, I'd love to hear it.
THIS IS ALL JUST THE FIRST HALF HOUR OF THE MOVIE!!!!!
Oh God the Klingons. Khan escaped his attack on Starfleet headquarters by transporting himself to Qo'noS. (That they spelled Kronos!!!) And that's just a whole different continuity error. I lost track of how many times the transporters didn't work. Either they were too close to a photon torpedo, or they were moving too fast, or some other excuse as to why they weren't working just so they could extend the action scene just a little bit longer. But this one Khan had can not only do site to site transports, something that hadn't been invented yet, (site to site transports were never used until Scotty dreamed it up in Star Trek IV) site to site transports take more energy because there's no transporter pad, and Khan is able to transport MILLIONS OF MILES AWAY!!! That is just IMPOSSIBLE!!! So Kirk convinces Admiral Marcus to let him take the Enterprise on a mission of revenge. No I didn't make this up. Nor am I embellishing. This is what Kirk flat out tells his superior as a rational reason to not only give him back his command, but let him go on a mission that would most likely start a shooting war with a volatile enemy. So naturally he agrees! He not only agrees, but he gives the Enterprise 72 special photon torpedoes to use to kill Khan from orbit. And nobody finds this suspicious.
We might as well fast forward... The movie did. Because it only took a day for the Enterprise to travel from Earth all the way to Qo'noS. Did I say that was impossible. BECAUSE THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!! Oh yeah Admiral Marcus' daughter is on board. Just felt like throwing that in there. I only mention it because Carol Marcus and James Kirk in the original storyline had A CHILD TOGETHER!!! But that's not important. It was only the basis of Kirk's undying hatred of Klingons because a Klingon murdered his son in Star Trek III. This is an alternate timeline. (*ugh*) And on the way the warp drive crashes under mysterious circumstances. Do we ever learn why? No. Not really. Kirk, Spock and Uhura travel together to Qo'noS and on the way settle their sub-plot with a nice warm-hearted talk... by Spock... the Vulcan... the species that suppresses emotion as their main character trait. (my head hurts) Once the talk is over, it's action time. Time to run away from the Imperial Shuttle Ship... I mean Klingon ship with flapping wings. Eventually they get caught and Uhura goes out to talk to the Klingons. The Klingons are wearing helmets. Something Klingons have never worn before. And then one of them takes his helmet off. And it's hilarious! This Klingon has piercings in his ridges! He looks like he belongs at a Motorhead concert! I'll save the rant on the fact that these Klingons have ridges in the first place. They should look more human at this point. And no you can't argue alternate timeline because what made them look more human took place long before the timeline skewed into this tangent. They shouldn't have ridges. This scene quickly goes nowhere as Khan jumps out and ninjafies all the Klingons and then surrenders when Kirk tells him there are 72 photon torpedoes when Khan cryptically asked how many there were. Again nobody finds this suspicious.
Long, boring, and confusing story short... Khan's crew are all in the torpedoes. Khan put them in there and no I don't know why. But Admiral Marcus shows up because he is going to destroy the Enterprise in his super ship, The Dreadnaught. Just because he wanted Khan dead and Kirk didn't kill him and start the war with the Klingons he wanted. So, he was going to blame everything on Kirk going rogue with the Enterprise. He's evil. I guess I have to explain this. The problem is I don't know why Marcus did it. Oh yeah more inconsistent transporter usage here when he beams his daughter on board his ship through heavy shielding. (*ugh*) Here it is: Marcus believes the Federation is already at war with the Klingons. And after the incident with the destruction of Vulcan he wanted a whole new fleet of ships and weapons ready to go. To get them, he finds Khan and unthaws him even though he's well aware they were in stasis because they were war criminals guilty of many acts of genocide. But *shock* *gasp* he can't control Khan! So, let's summarize this: Marcus believed the genetic superhuman could make better weapons so he unthaws him and now Khan is free and murdering hundreds of people trying to get his crew back. And Marcus is trying to cover it all up. Let me just throw out a suggestion. Sure it doesn't include trusting genocidal madmen, but I think the margin for success is slightly higher... PUT SOME RESOURCES INTO WEAPONS RESEARCH!!!!! STAR FLEET HAS SOME OF THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST MINDS IN THE GALAXY AND MANY OF THEM DO NOTHING EXCEPT DEVELOP BIGGER, STRONGER, FASTER, AND TOUGHER SHIPS AND WEAPONS!!!!! There's no need to be a damn Bond villain about this! You're an ADMIRAL! The highest ranking Admiral in Starfleet! Just make weapons a priority and tell Starfleet scientists to make weapons stronger! Then you have Khan going off of how Marcus wanted Khan's aggressiveness. Are you telling me in the twenty-third century humans have forgotten how to kill people? We need Khan to teach Starfleet officers how to kill people? I find this hard to swallow.
Because Admiral Marcus is a douchebag, Kirk teams up with Khan to fight him. I hate this movie so much. I've been stalling a bit. Because you know this movie isn't done ripping off Star Trek II. Yes. They did the death scene. But they did it with a little twist. It isn't Spock that dies. It's Kirk! But then he gets better. That sound you might be hearing right now is me hitting my head on my desk.
This is where I just couldn't stand anymore. This really just ruined the whole movie for me. They did the death scene almost word for word. And then Spock did the epic "Khan!!!" scream. And that just summed up everything I came to fear about these alternate reality movies. Abrams just doesn't get it. He took something so memorable from Star Trek II, not because it was loud or sounds fun for a meme. But because it was impactful. The death of Spock had emotion behind it because Spock and Kirk had been friends for many decades. That was the entire point of Star Trek II! The progression of time and finding a way to age gracefully. Kirk trying to adjust to the reality that he is no longer captain of the Enterprise. He's an old man now. Maybe his best years were behind him and in all his years, he had always cheated death. He never had to face it on it's own terms. But that's something we are all going to do. He had a son he never knew. Star Trek II was all about life and death. The "Khan!!!" scream followed one of the most chilling moments I have ever seen. In just a short speech we feel all the hatred Khan has for Kirk. It's no coincidence that Khan spent years only with books like Moby Dick. Khan had bested Kirk in that moment. Khan had his revenge and Kirk knew it. All he could do is scream out his name. In this movie it's so much different. These guys were friends, sure. But they weren't lifelong friends. They are at the beginning of their friendship. I doubt they've known each other a year yet. It makes a difference. When Spock yelled out "Khan!!!" he didn't even know if Khan was alive or not! Even if you think I'm being unfair. Here's something to consider: if he didn't know Khan was alive and he just saw his best friend die in front of him, wouldn't it make more sense to yell out "No!!!"? Or if you don't want to go the cliché route and want something more personal in such a personal moment, how about screaming "Jim!!!" instead?
They use Khan's blood to bring back Kirk from the dead. I will repeat that. They use Khan's blood to bring Kirk back from the dead. They've brought characters back from the dead before. It was the whole purpose of Star Trek III. The way they did it was Spock's soul was transferred into Bones and his body was accidentally revived because of the Genesis device. If you don't know what the Genesis device is, it's a terraforming device that creates life on a planet in a matter of hours. It was a major plot element from Star Trek II and III. They did a mind meld between the resurrected Spock body and Bones and put Spock's soul in the new body. The way they did it was cheesy yes. But it adds an element to Star Trek that hasn't really been there before. The idea of a soul and a life beyond death. Star Trek had never gone there before. Sometimes it's obvious why. The point I'm trying to make here is that when they brought Spock back from the dead, they did something special to justify it. When Kirk died, they just threw a phoenix down on him!
That's how the movie ends. Kirk died, he got better. Khan was defeated. He is put back in stasis. He and all his buddies we never saw are kept in stasis and locked in the same unmarked warehouse right next to the Arc of the Covenant. Then Kirk and crew begin their five year mission in deep space. Roll credits.
It's clear J.J. Abrams researched but he didn't understand. This movie looked more like a re-write of Star Trek II more than anything new and fresh. I found a lot of elements of Star Wars that I took as a subtle hint that Abrams had his foot out the door and looking to do something else. There were aliens on the Enterprise and just hanging around that had no discernible identity. They looked like the scenery aliens from Star Wars.
Even if you liked this movie, you have to agree that at best this is a generic action film. The action was pretty good and the secondary characters had some good one-liners, but I'm of the opinion that Star Trek should be more than a generic action movie. It never felt like a Star Trek movie to me. This felt like a soulless rehashing of Star Trek II. And I hate it.
And before anyone starts with me, yes it's an "alternate timeline" movie. So, things are going to be different from established from all the previous movies and TV shows. And to that I say, "so what?" If in the TV shows Kirk had never in his life seen a Tribble before he started his '5 year mission', but all of a sudden Bones is doing experiments on a Tribble before they ever go on said mission, I have a problem with it. Because what you are saying to me is because a guy from the future killed Kirk's father and blew up Vulcan, Tribbles are more prevalent. That's a minor continuity error and yes there's a Tribble on the Enterprise done purely for fan service, but just know there's far more to come.
Here's the spoilers......Here's the spoilers..... If you haven't seen the movie yet and don't want spoilers...... don't read further.....
Right from the beginning of the movie, nothing makes any sense. The movie starts on this alien planet where Kirk and Bones are being chased by spear-chucking albinos. I have no idea why. Why are they there? Next thing I see is Spock inside an active volcano trying to blow it up. Because a cold fusion device will stop a volcano from exploding. Okay. We need to explain to the writer what 'cold fusion' means. Cold fusion doesn't mean it's an ice bomb. Cold fusion refers to a process where there is a fusion reaction of molecules without having to be millions of degrees in temperature. Basically it would be room temperature. Spock threw the equivalent of a gigaton nuclear bomb into a volcano and hoped that it would stop an active volcano from destroying a planet. Why would a planet be in jeopardy because one volcano was blowing up? I don't know.
Anyway, Spock was stranded in the volcano and it looks like he is going to die.... and then he had to give the "needs of the many..." speech. And now I'm really annoyed. What are the "needs of the many" he is referring to? You know. The ones that out weigh the needs of the few? Or the one? Namely him? I can tell you what it is from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan! The good movie they stole the line from. Spock used it at the time of his death after he valiantly sacrificed his life to save everyone on the Enterprise. All his friends and comrades he knew and loved over decades. He literally laid down his life for his oldest and dearest friends. Here he is laying doing his life to protect a bunch of primitive people who have barely discovered the wheel from learning that there are such things as star ships and magic volcano stopping bombs. The "prime directive" was violated by even going on to that planet in the first place! And don't give me that "Kirk and Bones" were in disguise nonsense. They had a gray coat on! They didn't look anything like the spear chucking white albinos. That's not a disguise. That's a coat. Just because I put on a leather jacket doesn't make me Neo.
So yes Kirk once again comes to the rescue and Spock is fine. Even when they killed off the crew in Star Trek II, it was a computer simulation. Look up Kobayashi Maru. The infamous "no-win" scenario. They did it in the first movie. (That's a whole different rant I will bypass)
So what happens next? Kirk falsifies his report to Starfleet! Where do I begin? There's a difference between being an arrogant, pig-headed, cock-sure jackass and being someone who avoids responsibility, lies, and shows a complete lack of respect for others. Kirk was a lot of things, but when he felt he was right he didn't run from responsibility. This is completely contrary to the character they even developed in the last Star Trek movie! Kirk welcomed the fight! He wanted to get in trouble! He wanted to do things his way because it was following his own moral compass! He'd tell Starfleet exactly what he did and carry it as a badge of honor! But no. We need something completely forced for no reason. You see, Spock filed a report on what happened and he told the truth. So, Kirk was stripped of his command.
That is until a few minutes and an action scene later. He gets his command back. I remember a time when actions had consequences. Okay. You can make an argument that it's a special circumstance because a lot of captains just got killed and ships need new captains. To that I ask, why the Enterprise? The Enterprise is the FLAGSHIP!!!! As in the best ship in the fleet. And Starfleet just gave command of the best ship in the fleet to someone who watched his captain and friend murdered by an unknown terrorist, someone who you believed to be mentally unbalanced before he was given a personal agenda, and even in terrible times like this you give him command of the Enterprise again? Someone you wanted back in the academy not five minutes earlier? Oh but this is possibly explained because of Admiral Marcus' actions later. Oh I'm getting to that guy. Just you wait.
Do you see what I have already written? All of this is just the first act of the movie. And what exactly happened here? Why did they include that opening scene? What purpose did it have? To show us that Kirk is needlessly reckless and doesn't follow orders? Here's an idea: if a major sub-plot of this movie involves the Klingons, how about having Kirk in a space battle with a Klingon ship? More on the Klingons. I have a lot to say about that. Was this scene included just to have Spock in danger so we can start two other sub-plots? Basically because Spock almost died and then 'stabbed Kirk in the back' with his truthful report to his superiors (*ugh*) this puts a strain on Spock and Kirk's friendship. Also, because Spock is a Vulcan and doesn't feel emotion (or shouldn't. Another rant coming it's way) this strains his romance with Uhura. Again, if that was the goal, put it in a space battle with the Klingons and you can do the exact same thing. And you don't need to include the magic ice bomb nuclear device. Was the purpose to get Kirk out of his captain's chair? If it was, that sub-plot was settled really quickly and totally unnecessary. He was still in the room when "Harrison" (*ugh*) flew his runabout up to the window of Starfleet and shot it all to hell! Does it make a difference if Kirk is a captain or a first officer if he's still in the room?
And that gets me to another sub-plot. The sick little girl. See. John Harrison is a bad guy. But he helped a desperate father save the life of his sick daughter. In exchange he agrees to help Harrison by going on a suicide bombing. No I didn't make this up. There's love of one's daughter and then there's agreeing to high treason. But this magic health cure is a major factor in the movie. And we might as well address it now. If for no other reason I'm sick of calling this guy John Harrison. It's Khan Singh. And because Khan is a super human, his blood has healing properties. Uhm... no. It doesn't. At no time does Khan have Wolverine's mutant healing factor. Khan is super strong and super intelligent. He doesn't have a healing factor! And don't give me that alternate timeline excuse. At this time Khan is 300 years old. He was frozen. The events of the first movie would have no effect on Khan. Khan should be the same as he was. If you really want to argue with me that blowing up Vulcan would give someone completely unrelated to the incident superpowers, I'd love to hear it.
THIS IS ALL JUST THE FIRST HALF HOUR OF THE MOVIE!!!!!
Oh God the Klingons. Khan escaped his attack on Starfleet headquarters by transporting himself to Qo'noS. (That they spelled Kronos!!!) And that's just a whole different continuity error. I lost track of how many times the transporters didn't work. Either they were too close to a photon torpedo, or they were moving too fast, or some other excuse as to why they weren't working just so they could extend the action scene just a little bit longer. But this one Khan had can not only do site to site transports, something that hadn't been invented yet, (site to site transports were never used until Scotty dreamed it up in Star Trek IV) site to site transports take more energy because there's no transporter pad, and Khan is able to transport MILLIONS OF MILES AWAY!!! That is just IMPOSSIBLE!!! So Kirk convinces Admiral Marcus to let him take the Enterprise on a mission of revenge. No I didn't make this up. Nor am I embellishing. This is what Kirk flat out tells his superior as a rational reason to not only give him back his command, but let him go on a mission that would most likely start a shooting war with a volatile enemy. So naturally he agrees! He not only agrees, but he gives the Enterprise 72 special photon torpedoes to use to kill Khan from orbit. And nobody finds this suspicious.
We might as well fast forward... The movie did. Because it only took a day for the Enterprise to travel from Earth all the way to Qo'noS. Did I say that was impossible. BECAUSE THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!! Oh yeah Admiral Marcus' daughter is on board. Just felt like throwing that in there. I only mention it because Carol Marcus and James Kirk in the original storyline had A CHILD TOGETHER!!! But that's not important. It was only the basis of Kirk's undying hatred of Klingons because a Klingon murdered his son in Star Trek III. This is an alternate timeline. (*ugh*) And on the way the warp drive crashes under mysterious circumstances. Do we ever learn why? No. Not really. Kirk, Spock and Uhura travel together to Qo'noS and on the way settle their sub-plot with a nice warm-hearted talk... by Spock... the Vulcan... the species that suppresses emotion as their main character trait. (my head hurts) Once the talk is over, it's action time. Time to run away from the Imperial Shuttle Ship... I mean Klingon ship with flapping wings. Eventually they get caught and Uhura goes out to talk to the Klingons. The Klingons are wearing helmets. Something Klingons have never worn before. And then one of them takes his helmet off. And it's hilarious! This Klingon has piercings in his ridges! He looks like he belongs at a Motorhead concert! I'll save the rant on the fact that these Klingons have ridges in the first place. They should look more human at this point. And no you can't argue alternate timeline because what made them look more human took place long before the timeline skewed into this tangent. They shouldn't have ridges. This scene quickly goes nowhere as Khan jumps out and ninjafies all the Klingons and then surrenders when Kirk tells him there are 72 photon torpedoes when Khan cryptically asked how many there were. Again nobody finds this suspicious.
Long, boring, and confusing story short... Khan's crew are all in the torpedoes. Khan put them in there and no I don't know why. But Admiral Marcus shows up because he is going to destroy the Enterprise in his super ship, The Dreadnaught. Just because he wanted Khan dead and Kirk didn't kill him and start the war with the Klingons he wanted. So, he was going to blame everything on Kirk going rogue with the Enterprise. He's evil. I guess I have to explain this. The problem is I don't know why Marcus did it. Oh yeah more inconsistent transporter usage here when he beams his daughter on board his ship through heavy shielding. (*ugh*) Here it is: Marcus believes the Federation is already at war with the Klingons. And after the incident with the destruction of Vulcan he wanted a whole new fleet of ships and weapons ready to go. To get them, he finds Khan and unthaws him even though he's well aware they were in stasis because they were war criminals guilty of many acts of genocide. But *shock* *gasp* he can't control Khan! So, let's summarize this: Marcus believed the genetic superhuman could make better weapons so he unthaws him and now Khan is free and murdering hundreds of people trying to get his crew back. And Marcus is trying to cover it all up. Let me just throw out a suggestion. Sure it doesn't include trusting genocidal madmen, but I think the margin for success is slightly higher... PUT SOME RESOURCES INTO WEAPONS RESEARCH!!!!! STAR FLEET HAS SOME OF THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST MINDS IN THE GALAXY AND MANY OF THEM DO NOTHING EXCEPT DEVELOP BIGGER, STRONGER, FASTER, AND TOUGHER SHIPS AND WEAPONS!!!!! There's no need to be a damn Bond villain about this! You're an ADMIRAL! The highest ranking Admiral in Starfleet! Just make weapons a priority and tell Starfleet scientists to make weapons stronger! Then you have Khan going off of how Marcus wanted Khan's aggressiveness. Are you telling me in the twenty-third century humans have forgotten how to kill people? We need Khan to teach Starfleet officers how to kill people? I find this hard to swallow.
Because Admiral Marcus is a douchebag, Kirk teams up with Khan to fight him. I hate this movie so much. I've been stalling a bit. Because you know this movie isn't done ripping off Star Trek II. Yes. They did the death scene. But they did it with a little twist. It isn't Spock that dies. It's Kirk! But then he gets better. That sound you might be hearing right now is me hitting my head on my desk.
This is where I just couldn't stand anymore. This really just ruined the whole movie for me. They did the death scene almost word for word. And then Spock did the epic "Khan!!!" scream. And that just summed up everything I came to fear about these alternate reality movies. Abrams just doesn't get it. He took something so memorable from Star Trek II, not because it was loud or sounds fun for a meme. But because it was impactful. The death of Spock had emotion behind it because Spock and Kirk had been friends for many decades. That was the entire point of Star Trek II! The progression of time and finding a way to age gracefully. Kirk trying to adjust to the reality that he is no longer captain of the Enterprise. He's an old man now. Maybe his best years were behind him and in all his years, he had always cheated death. He never had to face it on it's own terms. But that's something we are all going to do. He had a son he never knew. Star Trek II was all about life and death. The "Khan!!!" scream followed one of the most chilling moments I have ever seen. In just a short speech we feel all the hatred Khan has for Kirk. It's no coincidence that Khan spent years only with books like Moby Dick. Khan had bested Kirk in that moment. Khan had his revenge and Kirk knew it. All he could do is scream out his name. In this movie it's so much different. These guys were friends, sure. But they weren't lifelong friends. They are at the beginning of their friendship. I doubt they've known each other a year yet. It makes a difference. When Spock yelled out "Khan!!!" he didn't even know if Khan was alive or not! Even if you think I'm being unfair. Here's something to consider: if he didn't know Khan was alive and he just saw his best friend die in front of him, wouldn't it make more sense to yell out "No!!!"? Or if you don't want to go the cliché route and want something more personal in such a personal moment, how about screaming "Jim!!!" instead?
They use Khan's blood to bring back Kirk from the dead. I will repeat that. They use Khan's blood to bring Kirk back from the dead. They've brought characters back from the dead before. It was the whole purpose of Star Trek III. The way they did it was Spock's soul was transferred into Bones and his body was accidentally revived because of the Genesis device. If you don't know what the Genesis device is, it's a terraforming device that creates life on a planet in a matter of hours. It was a major plot element from Star Trek II and III. They did a mind meld between the resurrected Spock body and Bones and put Spock's soul in the new body. The way they did it was cheesy yes. But it adds an element to Star Trek that hasn't really been there before. The idea of a soul and a life beyond death. Star Trek had never gone there before. Sometimes it's obvious why. The point I'm trying to make here is that when they brought Spock back from the dead, they did something special to justify it. When Kirk died, they just threw a phoenix down on him!
That's how the movie ends. Kirk died, he got better. Khan was defeated. He is put back in stasis. He and all his buddies we never saw are kept in stasis and locked in the same unmarked warehouse right next to the Arc of the Covenant. Then Kirk and crew begin their five year mission in deep space. Roll credits.
It's clear J.J. Abrams researched but he didn't understand. This movie looked more like a re-write of Star Trek II more than anything new and fresh. I found a lot of elements of Star Wars that I took as a subtle hint that Abrams had his foot out the door and looking to do something else. There were aliens on the Enterprise and just hanging around that had no discernible identity. They looked like the scenery aliens from Star Wars.
Even if you liked this movie, you have to agree that at best this is a generic action film. The action was pretty good and the secondary characters had some good one-liners, but I'm of the opinion that Star Trek should be more than a generic action movie. It never felt like a Star Trek movie to me. This felt like a soulless rehashing of Star Trek II. And I hate it.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Coming Soon: 5/17/13
I didn't go to the theater last week. Instead I stayed home and watched some awesome movies. I also bought Fists of Fury and Gojira at my local discount book store. Now that's what I call a good weekend. So what's coming out this week?
1) STAR TREK - INTO DARKNESS: The crew of the Enterprise must face an internal threat to the Federation.
The Good: Watch the trailer. Action. Glorious action.
The Bad: It's still this "alternate reality" Star Trek.
Final Thoughts: I could go on forever about why I think this "alternate reality" is a bad idea. I know why they did it; to attract a new base of fans. Generally speaking, I want to see the Star Trek universe expand and grow; not necessarily start from the beginning except radically different. I think this is going to be a very good movie. But I'm afraid I'm just going to be one of those guys that just can't enjoy it as much as I would like; not because of anything particularly wrong with the movie itself, but just what it isn't the Star Trek I grew up watching. It's completely unfair. I acknowledge that. It's just how I feel.
2) ERASED: An ex-CIA agent and his daughter are targeted for termination and they must fight to stay alive.
The Good: I don't know. How much did you like Taken?
The Bad: It's about as formulaic a story as it gets.
Final Thoughts: It's not worth your time.
See you at the movies
1) STAR TREK - INTO DARKNESS: The crew of the Enterprise must face an internal threat to the Federation.
The Good: Watch the trailer. Action. Glorious action.
The Bad: It's still this "alternate reality" Star Trek.
Final Thoughts: I could go on forever about why I think this "alternate reality" is a bad idea. I know why they did it; to attract a new base of fans. Generally speaking, I want to see the Star Trek universe expand and grow; not necessarily start from the beginning except radically different. I think this is going to be a very good movie. But I'm afraid I'm just going to be one of those guys that just can't enjoy it as much as I would like; not because of anything particularly wrong with the movie itself, but just what it isn't the Star Trek I grew up watching. It's completely unfair. I acknowledge that. It's just how I feel.
2) ERASED: An ex-CIA agent and his daughter are targeted for termination and they must fight to stay alive.
The Good: I don't know. How much did you like Taken?
The Bad: It's about as formulaic a story as it gets.
Final Thoughts: It's not worth your time.
See you at the movies
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Coming Soon: 5/10/13
Last week was the debut of Iron Man 3. I actually saw it. I really liked it. I've heard a lot of negatives about it as well, but it's always qualified by "but it's fun." And yes some of the stuff Tony Stark does isn't what I would call intelligent. And I heard someone say that if they were writing this movie, the villain would be the old girlfriend. I don't want to go too deep into it here but it's something I'm thinking of tackling in one of my way past due editorials. In the meantime, here's what is coming out this week.
1) THE GREAT GATSBY: The classic story of the lives of the super rich and high tragedy.
The Good: Leo DiCaprio is the kind of actor who can make any movie better.
The Bad: Baz Luhrmann. Nothing else needs to be said.
Final Thoughts: Baz Luhrmann is the kind of director that is the epitome of style over substance. If you don't believe me, watch Moulin Rouge. I can only imagine how he screws up a classic story like this. Oh wait. I don't have to. I just have to remember how big an egg he laid with Romeo + Juliet.
2) PEEPLES: A "regular guy" asks the patriarch of a preppy east coast family for his daughter's hand in marriage. And hilarity ensues.
The Good: Craig Robinson is a hilarious guy.
The Bad: Every thing else.
Final Thoughts: The story is cliché, the actors are B list at best, and... screw it with being nice... it's Meet The Parents. This is just Meet The Parents but without Ben Stiller and Bobby De Niro or any of the charm. And that movie SUCKED!
See you at the movies
1) THE GREAT GATSBY: The classic story of the lives of the super rich and high tragedy.
The Good: Leo DiCaprio is the kind of actor who can make any movie better.
The Bad: Baz Luhrmann. Nothing else needs to be said.
Final Thoughts: Baz Luhrmann is the kind of director that is the epitome of style over substance. If you don't believe me, watch Moulin Rouge. I can only imagine how he screws up a classic story like this. Oh wait. I don't have to. I just have to remember how big an egg he laid with Romeo + Juliet.
2) PEEPLES: A "regular guy" asks the patriarch of a preppy east coast family for his daughter's hand in marriage. And hilarity ensues.
The Good: Craig Robinson is a hilarious guy.
The Bad: Every thing else.
Final Thoughts: The story is cliché, the actors are B list at best, and... screw it with being nice... it's Meet The Parents. This is just Meet The Parents but without Ben Stiller and Bobby De Niro or any of the charm. And that movie SUCKED!
See you at the movies
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Iron Man 3 Review: To The Extremis!
Great movie. Awesome movie. Add your own superlative here. I really liked it. My biggest fear going in to this movie was that they were going to try to do too much at once. Luckily the writing was wonderful and they managed to make it all fit in a satisfying way. I can't go too in depth with this review because, believe it or not, there are things to spoil. With a movie including AIM, The Mandarin, The Iron Legion, Extremis, and a hint of Rescue; it's a testament to great writing that there are surprises.
For the comic fans out there like me, yes they do change things from the comic books. Extremis isn't exactly like it is in the comics. The Mandarin isn't exactly like in the comics. Iron Patriot isn't like he is in the comic. But to that I ask that you give it a chance. There are some wonderful fight scenes that are well worth the price of admission. There are some touching scenes, betrayals, revelations, comedy... it's a very enjoyable experience.
As far as things I didn't like, there weren't very many. At least nothing I can talk about without getting into spoilers. I will say this... from the summary I read online, it talked about the idea of "does the suit make the man, or does the man make the suit." That isn't an idea that factored into this movie too much. It never really was about the inner workings of Tony Stark's mind. Instead it's about Stark's past coming back to haunt him. That isn't much of a spoiler since they say that is what the movie is about at the very beginning of the movie.
Iron Man 3 is a great way to kick off the blockbuster movie season. Go see it.
For the comic fans out there like me, yes they do change things from the comic books. Extremis isn't exactly like it is in the comics. The Mandarin isn't exactly like in the comics. Iron Patriot isn't like he is in the comic. But to that I ask that you give it a chance. There are some wonderful fight scenes that are well worth the price of admission. There are some touching scenes, betrayals, revelations, comedy... it's a very enjoyable experience.
As far as things I didn't like, there weren't very many. At least nothing I can talk about without getting into spoilers. I will say this... from the summary I read online, it talked about the idea of "does the suit make the man, or does the man make the suit." That isn't an idea that factored into this movie too much. It never really was about the inner workings of Tony Stark's mind. Instead it's about Stark's past coming back to haunt him. That isn't much of a spoiler since they say that is what the movie is about at the very beginning of the movie.
Iron Man 3 is a great way to kick off the blockbuster movie season. Go see it.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Coming Soon: 5/3/13
Hey there friends. It's been a busy week. Lots happening. And now to take a look at movies coming out this week.
1) IRON MAN 3: Iron Man faces his greatest villain: The Mandarin.
The Good: This movie is so full of surprises I don't know how it can be contained in 2 hours.
The Bad: I can definitely see how they packed too much into this one movie.
Final Thoughts: I can't wait. I'm really psyched to see it.
2) THE ICEMAN: Based on the true story of a contract killer.
The Good: Richard Kuklinski is a very interesting and complex person.
The Bad: It's a bit cliché to have a story about a loving family man/contract killer these days. Even if it is "based on a true story".
Final Thoughts: It might be a good watch. Give it a try.
See you at the movies.
1) IRON MAN 3: Iron Man faces his greatest villain: The Mandarin.
The Good: This movie is so full of surprises I don't know how it can be contained in 2 hours.
The Bad: I can definitely see how they packed too much into this one movie.
Final Thoughts: I can't wait. I'm really psyched to see it.
2) THE ICEMAN: Based on the true story of a contract killer.
The Good: Richard Kuklinski is a very interesting and complex person.
The Bad: It's a bit cliché to have a story about a loving family man/contract killer these days. Even if it is "based on a true story".
Final Thoughts: It might be a good watch. Give it a try.
See you at the movies.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Coming Soon: 4/26/13
Last weekend was a good one. I went to two different movies, 42 and Evil Dead. 42 was good, and Evil Dead wasn't. You can read my reviews for yourself but for now it's time to look forward to what is coming out this week.
1) PAIN AND GAIN: Based on a true story about two personal trainers who get caught up in a criminal enterprise gone wrong.
The Good: Mark Wahlberg is always good for a few laughs.
The Bad: Mark Wahlberg + Dwayne Johnson + Ken Jeong + Michael Bay = Disaster of the highest order.
Final Thoughts: The best actor in this whole movie is Ed Harris and he hasn't been in a good movie in about 10 years. My boycott of Ken Jeong continues. Nor will I waste my money to see a Michael Bay movie in the theaters.
2) THE BIG WEDDING: In order to please the mother of the bride, the groom's parents have to pretend to like each other.
The Good: It's an all-star cast of comedians.
The Bad: It's an all-star cast of comedians with no direction and nothing to do except act zainy.
Final Thoughts: How is it Pain and Gain isn't the worst movie coming out this week?
Everyone, save your money and go see Iron Man 3 next week.
See you at the movies.
1) PAIN AND GAIN: Based on a true story about two personal trainers who get caught up in a criminal enterprise gone wrong.
The Good: Mark Wahlberg is always good for a few laughs.
The Bad: Mark Wahlberg + Dwayne Johnson + Ken Jeong + Michael Bay = Disaster of the highest order.
Final Thoughts: The best actor in this whole movie is Ed Harris and he hasn't been in a good movie in about 10 years. My boycott of Ken Jeong continues. Nor will I waste my money to see a Michael Bay movie in the theaters.
2) THE BIG WEDDING: In order to please the mother of the bride, the groom's parents have to pretend to like each other.
The Good: It's an all-star cast of comedians.
The Bad: It's an all-star cast of comedians with no direction and nothing to do except act zainy.
Final Thoughts: How is it Pain and Gain isn't the worst movie coming out this week?
Everyone, save your money and go see Iron Man 3 next week.
See you at the movies.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Evil Dead (2013) Review: Pass the barf bag
This movie is disgusting. I know from the trailers it was going to be more horror than comedy compared to the original Evil Dead movie, but this movie upped the gore factor to eleven and broke the knob.
I'm not going to complain too much about the visuals of the movie. It is actually the kind of stuff I like. Practical effects done with surprisingly high levels of competence. Very little CGI effects were used in this movie. The problem was that it was just too much. At one point it literally rained blood. And that was one of the more tame visuals.
I'd say the part that really bothered me was that this movie said it was a re-make of the original Evil Dead and it just wasn't. The characters are different, the tone is different, and the ending is different. While I don't want to complain that it's different, I think it would've benefitted from a different title. Instead of being a "re-make" have it be a sequel. Nobody calls Army of Darkness "Evil Dead 3", but it's still part of the franchise.
There are other times in the movie where it tried to have "a moment". It tries to get us to care about the characters but by the time they get to them it's just too late. It's a little hard to go from zombies vomiting concentrated evil to a 'good-bye my love' scene.
If you are going to see this movie, bring a barf bag. I'm not kidding. Blood flows like water all over the place. It's just non-stop. It really takes away from the pace of the movie because we as the audience are constantly trying to digest the latest blood soaked scene. The movie will never let you breathe and honestly it takes away from the fun of horror movies. It doesn't take the time to set up the scenes. Just as soon as one bloody scene is finished, it will flip to the next page of the Necronomicon and now we are doing that bloody scene. By the time it got to the climax, I was spent. I wasn't interested anymore. Just a little note to the director of Evil Dead: The audience can become desensitized. Pace yourself.
Bottom line: if you are an Evil Dead fan, this isn't for you.
I'm not going to complain too much about the visuals of the movie. It is actually the kind of stuff I like. Practical effects done with surprisingly high levels of competence. Very little CGI effects were used in this movie. The problem was that it was just too much. At one point it literally rained blood. And that was one of the more tame visuals.
I'd say the part that really bothered me was that this movie said it was a re-make of the original Evil Dead and it just wasn't. The characters are different, the tone is different, and the ending is different. While I don't want to complain that it's different, I think it would've benefitted from a different title. Instead of being a "re-make" have it be a sequel. Nobody calls Army of Darkness "Evil Dead 3", but it's still part of the franchise.
There are other times in the movie where it tried to have "a moment". It tries to get us to care about the characters but by the time they get to them it's just too late. It's a little hard to go from zombies vomiting concentrated evil to a 'good-bye my love' scene.
If you are going to see this movie, bring a barf bag. I'm not kidding. Blood flows like water all over the place. It's just non-stop. It really takes away from the pace of the movie because we as the audience are constantly trying to digest the latest blood soaked scene. The movie will never let you breathe and honestly it takes away from the fun of horror movies. It doesn't take the time to set up the scenes. Just as soon as one bloody scene is finished, it will flip to the next page of the Necronomicon and now we are doing that bloody scene. By the time it got to the climax, I was spent. I wasn't interested anymore. Just a little note to the director of Evil Dead: The audience can become desensitized. Pace yourself.
Bottom line: if you are an Evil Dead fan, this isn't for you.
Friday, April 19, 2013
42 Review: The Times They Are A Changin'
When writing a review, one of the worst things is trying to think about what to say. I really don't have much to say about this movie. Perhaps I should first talk about the man this movie is trying to tell us about, Jackie Robinson.
Back in the 1940s, black people were not allowed to play baseball with white people. The mantra of the time was 'separate but equal' but the reality of it all was that blacks were given none of the advantages of life in the United States. It was a shameful time. Minorities played a huge role in helping to fight Hitler in World War II, but still any non-white people were looked down upon and were the subject of great hostility.
Much of the movie credits Brooklyn Dodgers' owner Branch Rickey for taking up the cause of integration in baseball. He wanted a black player to play for the Dodgers and he was fully aware the hostility and criticism he was going to get. He knew he was putting whatever player he found in personal danger and putting the hopes and dreams of an entire people upon his shoulders. It couldn't just be any player. It had to be someone of exceptional character.
That's when he found Jackie Robinson. To say Jackie Robinson was the best black baseball player in the Negro Leagues is an overstatement. There were several great players to choose from; not the least of them were Satchel Paige, Cool Papa Bell, Josh Gibson, and Roy Campanella. Robinson wasn't chosen because he was the best. He was chosen because he was a lieutenant in the army during World War II and served alongside white soldiers. He went to UCLA and went to school with white people. Most importantly, he had the fortitude and intelligence to know he can never fight back against all the hate being flung his way.
The movie focuses a lot on how Jackie Robinson through being an almost Christ-like human being was able to win over his teammates, the way he played won over the fans, and how inspirational his struggle was to other people of color.
Baseball is America. It is America's game not because it's the most popular sport, but because it reflects the best and the worst of what we are as a people. No matter the struggles America goes through, baseball has always gone on. When World War II took many of the best ballplayers in the Major Leagues to Japan and Germany, up popped the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League and helped significantly in the fight for equality for women. It was people like Roberto Clemente who proved having fame and fortune can be used to better the lives of others. And of course Jackie Robinson exposed the underlying racial inequality of segregation and by bringing it all to light, helped start the healing process that continues today.
I totally recommend this movie, as well as the 1950 movie "The Jackie Robinson Story" starring the real Jackie Robinson.
May there always be baseball.
Back in the 1940s, black people were not allowed to play baseball with white people. The mantra of the time was 'separate but equal' but the reality of it all was that blacks were given none of the advantages of life in the United States. It was a shameful time. Minorities played a huge role in helping to fight Hitler in World War II, but still any non-white people were looked down upon and were the subject of great hostility.
Much of the movie credits Brooklyn Dodgers' owner Branch Rickey for taking up the cause of integration in baseball. He wanted a black player to play for the Dodgers and he was fully aware the hostility and criticism he was going to get. He knew he was putting whatever player he found in personal danger and putting the hopes and dreams of an entire people upon his shoulders. It couldn't just be any player. It had to be someone of exceptional character.
That's when he found Jackie Robinson. To say Jackie Robinson was the best black baseball player in the Negro Leagues is an overstatement. There were several great players to choose from; not the least of them were Satchel Paige, Cool Papa Bell, Josh Gibson, and Roy Campanella. Robinson wasn't chosen because he was the best. He was chosen because he was a lieutenant in the army during World War II and served alongside white soldiers. He went to UCLA and went to school with white people. Most importantly, he had the fortitude and intelligence to know he can never fight back against all the hate being flung his way.
The movie focuses a lot on how Jackie Robinson through being an almost Christ-like human being was able to win over his teammates, the way he played won over the fans, and how inspirational his struggle was to other people of color.
Baseball is America. It is America's game not because it's the most popular sport, but because it reflects the best and the worst of what we are as a people. No matter the struggles America goes through, baseball has always gone on. When World War II took many of the best ballplayers in the Major Leagues to Japan and Germany, up popped the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League and helped significantly in the fight for equality for women. It was people like Roberto Clemente who proved having fame and fortune can be used to better the lives of others. And of course Jackie Robinson exposed the underlying racial inequality of segregation and by bringing it all to light, helped start the healing process that continues today.
I totally recommend this movie, as well as the 1950 movie "The Jackie Robinson Story" starring the real Jackie Robinson.
May there always be baseball.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Coming Soon: 4/10/13
I hope everyone's week is going well. My week so far has been fairly interesting. I've been hitting it hard at the gym and in karate class. Mostly waiting for any interesting movie to hit theaters. Will there be anything worth seeing this week?
1) 42: The story of Jackie Robinson's iconic life and his breaking of the color barrier in professional sports.
The Good: It's a biopic about one of the most influential people in American history. And it's baseball!
The Bad: I can very easily see how this movie can get too preachy and not let accomplishments speak for themselves.
Final Thoughts: I'd recommend seeing it. Especially for sports fans looking to learn about Jackie Robinson.
2) SCARY MOVIE 5: Yet another lampoon of horror movies
The Good: What the hell is wrong with you? Why would you even consider watching this?
The Bad: Were the other 4 not bad enough? They had to make another? Good luck figuring out a plot based on the trailers!
Final Thoughts: I'd rather have my nose hairs burned out of my head than be anywhere near this movie. And by the way, is anyone ever going to call out how racist these movies are?
See you at the movies
1) 42: The story of Jackie Robinson's iconic life and his breaking of the color barrier in professional sports.
The Good: It's a biopic about one of the most influential people in American history. And it's baseball!
The Bad: I can very easily see how this movie can get too preachy and not let accomplishments speak for themselves.
Final Thoughts: I'd recommend seeing it. Especially for sports fans looking to learn about Jackie Robinson.
2) SCARY MOVIE 5: Yet another lampoon of horror movies
The Good: What the hell is wrong with you? Why would you even consider watching this?
The Bad: Were the other 4 not bad enough? They had to make another? Good luck figuring out a plot based on the trailers!
Final Thoughts: I'd rather have my nose hairs burned out of my head than be anywhere near this movie. And by the way, is anyone ever going to call out how racist these movies are?
See you at the movies
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Coming Soon: 4/5/13
Surprisingly, there isn't a whole lot making it out to theaters this week. Well, here's what we can look forward to seeing:
1) JURASSIC PARK 3D: The Stephen Spielberg classic sci-fi movie about a dinosaur zoo gone horribly wrong is back in theaters.
The Good: The visuals are amazing and seeing it in IMAX and 3D will be awesome.
The Bad: The acting leaves something to be desired.
Final Thoughts: It's a great movie and everyone should see the T-Rex in 3D.
2) EVIL DEAD: The remake of the classic cult movie about a couple in the woods finding a book of pure evil.
The Good: It looks like a very scary movie.
The Bad: It doesn't seem to have the humor of the original movie.
Final Thoughts: I'd rather watch the original. If for no other reason than to watch Bruce Campbell.
See you at the movies
1) JURASSIC PARK 3D: The Stephen Spielberg classic sci-fi movie about a dinosaur zoo gone horribly wrong is back in theaters.
The Good: The visuals are amazing and seeing it in IMAX and 3D will be awesome.
The Bad: The acting leaves something to be desired.
Final Thoughts: It's a great movie and everyone should see the T-Rex in 3D.
2) EVIL DEAD: The remake of the classic cult movie about a couple in the woods finding a book of pure evil.
The Good: It looks like a very scary movie.
The Bad: It doesn't seem to have the humor of the original movie.
Final Thoughts: I'd rather watch the original. If for no other reason than to watch Bruce Campbell.
See you at the movies
Sunday, March 31, 2013
My Five Favorite Baseball Movies
Take me out to the ball game... take me out with the crowd...
I love baseball. It's the grand old game. It's America's game. So much of American history is reflected in baseball. What better metaphor for the struggle of equality than Jackie Robinson? The sacrifices of war with Ted Williams walking away from millions of dollars to go fight in WWII. The excesses of the American lifestyle shown with the likes of Babe Ruth. The racial tensions of America in people like Ty Cobb. The enduring American spirit of competition when the 1951 Giants overcame great odds to win the pennant over the Dodgers led by a young man named Willie Mays.
And because it's America's game, there are no shortage of movies featuring baseball. So in honor of baseball season officially starting today, I want to share my five favorite baseball movies.
Again these movies are in no particular order:
1) FOR THE LOVE OF THE GAME: It's a story about a pitcher right at the end of his career. And while he knows it's his last game, he makes it one to remember. And while pitching, he reflects upon his career and on his life. It's a very interesting story about the sacrifices of following one's dream. Billy Chapel is left with a tough decision: his girlfriend is moving to London, he's going to be traded to the Giants after 19 years with the Tigers, he's 40 years old and just doesn't have it anymore, he is injured and every throw seems to hurt like crazy, his team sucks and they were in no danger of going to the playoffs, so how does he want to be remembered? What does he want to do now that his playing days are over? The guy is completely unaware he's pitching a perfect game until the 8th inning. The entire team has rallied around him. It's their one shot at greatness this season. And they all want it. For a guy who sacrificed so much for the game he loves, was it all worth it? Is there any happiness the baseball gods can grant him?
2) THE SANDLOT: Is there any other movie that so encapsulates what it means growing up? Playing a game in the warm sun, making lifetime friends, bonding over the crack of the bat... and of course sharing in an adventure that just might be bigger in their mind than in real life. It's all about a kid who moves to a new neighborhood during the summer. He has no friends, his mom is divorced and re-married to a huge baseball fan, and he has no place he feels he belongs. Not at home or in this new town. Then he learned to play baseball with some local kids in an old dirt baseball diamond... along with a very scary dog. It has all the making of childhood legends; very much in the same vein as movies like A Christmas Story. It's even told in the same kind of narration style. It's a movie truly told from the point of view from a very imaginative child and enjoyed far more if you are able to tap into those old childhood memories.
3) FIELD OF DREAMS: This is the kind of movie that takes the great American pastime and turns it into a religious experience. Not bad from an atheist writer. The story is about a guy who is full of regrets. Then he gets a message from the great beyond to build a baseball park in his corn field. Despite the craziness of it all, he much like Abraham, did what he felt compelled to do by voices in his head. And by doing it he met Shoeless Joe Jackson. It's such a beautiful story. I can't help but get swallowed up in the emotion of it all. It's a must watch.
4) EIGHT MEN OUT: This is a biopic about the "Black Sox". Back in the 1919 World Series, eight players for the Chicago White Sox took bribes from gamblers to throw the games. For doing so they were banned for life from baseball. Much of the movie involves "Shoeless" Joe Jackson as the pressure he felt from the other dirty players to also go along with the fix. They all felt cheated by the White Sox owner, Charles Comiskey. The true tragedy comes from the story of Buck Weaver. He didn't take any money from gamblers, he played to win the World Series, but because he had knowledge of what was happening, he also was banned from baseball. I love this movie because it shows a darker side to a hallowed pastime. The Black Sox Scandal was instrumental to baseball as a whole with the creation of a baseball commissioner. The allegations from the White Sox players about Comiskey purposefully cheating players out of bonuses and even refusing to pay for cleaning of the team's uniforms eventually led to institutions in baseball we now see as commonplace; like free agency and collective bargaining. Many sports fans still debate Shoeless Joe Jackson's involvement and Buck Weaver tried many times to be reinstated.
5) PRIDE OF THE YANKEES: It's another biopic but this time it's about one of the greatest players to ever wear the Yankee pinstripes, Lou Gehrig. Nicknamed the "Iron Horse" for playing in 2,130 consecutive games, his career is cut short after developing a new disease that is later named after him. If ever there was a better performance by Gary Cooper, I haven't seen it. Lou Gehrig's final words on Lou Gehrig day stick with me to this day.
Those are some of my favorite baseball movies. There are a lot more out there as well. Here are a few honorable mentions: Major League, Cobb, 61, Bang the Drum Slowly, A League of Their Own, and The Bad News Bears.
Now... PLAYBALL!!!
I love baseball. It's the grand old game. It's America's game. So much of American history is reflected in baseball. What better metaphor for the struggle of equality than Jackie Robinson? The sacrifices of war with Ted Williams walking away from millions of dollars to go fight in WWII. The excesses of the American lifestyle shown with the likes of Babe Ruth. The racial tensions of America in people like Ty Cobb. The enduring American spirit of competition when the 1951 Giants overcame great odds to win the pennant over the Dodgers led by a young man named Willie Mays.
And because it's America's game, there are no shortage of movies featuring baseball. So in honor of baseball season officially starting today, I want to share my five favorite baseball movies.
Again these movies are in no particular order:
1) FOR THE LOVE OF THE GAME: It's a story about a pitcher right at the end of his career. And while he knows it's his last game, he makes it one to remember. And while pitching, he reflects upon his career and on his life. It's a very interesting story about the sacrifices of following one's dream. Billy Chapel is left with a tough decision: his girlfriend is moving to London, he's going to be traded to the Giants after 19 years with the Tigers, he's 40 years old and just doesn't have it anymore, he is injured and every throw seems to hurt like crazy, his team sucks and they were in no danger of going to the playoffs, so how does he want to be remembered? What does he want to do now that his playing days are over? The guy is completely unaware he's pitching a perfect game until the 8th inning. The entire team has rallied around him. It's their one shot at greatness this season. And they all want it. For a guy who sacrificed so much for the game he loves, was it all worth it? Is there any happiness the baseball gods can grant him?
2) THE SANDLOT: Is there any other movie that so encapsulates what it means growing up? Playing a game in the warm sun, making lifetime friends, bonding over the crack of the bat... and of course sharing in an adventure that just might be bigger in their mind than in real life. It's all about a kid who moves to a new neighborhood during the summer. He has no friends, his mom is divorced and re-married to a huge baseball fan, and he has no place he feels he belongs. Not at home or in this new town. Then he learned to play baseball with some local kids in an old dirt baseball diamond... along with a very scary dog. It has all the making of childhood legends; very much in the same vein as movies like A Christmas Story. It's even told in the same kind of narration style. It's a movie truly told from the point of view from a very imaginative child and enjoyed far more if you are able to tap into those old childhood memories.
3) FIELD OF DREAMS: This is the kind of movie that takes the great American pastime and turns it into a religious experience. Not bad from an atheist writer. The story is about a guy who is full of regrets. Then he gets a message from the great beyond to build a baseball park in his corn field. Despite the craziness of it all, he much like Abraham, did what he felt compelled to do by voices in his head. And by doing it he met Shoeless Joe Jackson. It's such a beautiful story. I can't help but get swallowed up in the emotion of it all. It's a must watch.
4) EIGHT MEN OUT: This is a biopic about the "Black Sox". Back in the 1919 World Series, eight players for the Chicago White Sox took bribes from gamblers to throw the games. For doing so they were banned for life from baseball. Much of the movie involves "Shoeless" Joe Jackson as the pressure he felt from the other dirty players to also go along with the fix. They all felt cheated by the White Sox owner, Charles Comiskey. The true tragedy comes from the story of Buck Weaver. He didn't take any money from gamblers, he played to win the World Series, but because he had knowledge of what was happening, he also was banned from baseball. I love this movie because it shows a darker side to a hallowed pastime. The Black Sox Scandal was instrumental to baseball as a whole with the creation of a baseball commissioner. The allegations from the White Sox players about Comiskey purposefully cheating players out of bonuses and even refusing to pay for cleaning of the team's uniforms eventually led to institutions in baseball we now see as commonplace; like free agency and collective bargaining. Many sports fans still debate Shoeless Joe Jackson's involvement and Buck Weaver tried many times to be reinstated.
5) PRIDE OF THE YANKEES: It's another biopic but this time it's about one of the greatest players to ever wear the Yankee pinstripes, Lou Gehrig. Nicknamed the "Iron Horse" for playing in 2,130 consecutive games, his career is cut short after developing a new disease that is later named after him. If ever there was a better performance by Gary Cooper, I haven't seen it. Lou Gehrig's final words on Lou Gehrig day stick with me to this day.
Those are some of my favorite baseball movies. There are a lot more out there as well. Here are a few honorable mentions: Major League, Cobb, 61, Bang the Drum Slowly, A League of Their Own, and The Bad News Bears.
Now... PLAYBALL!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)