Hilarious movie. This movie can only be described as a comedy. It's a comedy of excess. But it's also written as a tragedy. We follow the life, success, and eventual downfall of Wall Street stock broker Jordan Belfort played by Leo DiCaprio.
From the beginning we see this world as being a little off. We see these people with far more money than they know what to do with, and instead of being the "high society" types most professional people like this are portrayed as, instead they are sophomoric, crude, and generally unpleasant. But man do they have a good time. There's sex and drugs everywhere you look. And they revel in it.
The story almost becomes secondary to the debauchery. But the story is specifically about Jordan. His less than humble beginnings, to the far more humble beginnings, to becoming a weird mix of Gordon Gekko and Larry Flynt. So what does a shady salesman do when he is broke, he skirts the law and makes huge amounts of money. And there's your conflict. The FBI and the SCC are out to get him and in the meantime he's doing enough drugs to kill a small city. Like I said, the hilarity of excess.
And yes there are some really hilarious moments in this movie. Most of them have to do with DiCaprio stoned off his butt, but still they were really funny.
The sex scenes in this movie on the other hand I think went too far at times. I mean it got clinical. I think if they added another sex scene or another scene of Jonah Hill jerking off, this could've also qualified as porn. So, allow the youngsters to view at your own risk. LOTS of sex. Full frontal. LOTS!
While on Jordan's journey from titan of Wall Street, we also see him go from that financial titan to Tony Robbins, to one scene he acted like Tiger Woods. I won't spoil any more but yeah, worth seeing.
Honestly, I had a great time watching. It's a long movie. It's 3 hours and there was that one fake out ending that led into the 3rd act, but a marvelous job by a star studded cast and one of the greatest directors alive today, Martin Scorsese.
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Top Five Best Movies I saw: 2013
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)