The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Review

When I was very young, I watched the animated 1977 version of The Hobbit, and at the time I thought it was really bad.  I remember it being very long and slow, and pretty dark for a cartoon at the time. Yeah, I was not a fan of that film as a child. Back then, I was not a great film critic, so my opinion is probably wrong as I have not seen that film since. The old Hobbit was my first glimpse into the  fantasy genre, and even though I thought the film was pretty bad, I still liked aspects of it. I enjoyed the lore, new worlds to explore, and adventures in these new worlds. I loved the ideas of dwarves, elves, magic, and evil creatures that heroic adventurers have to do battle with. This love of fantasy, I am sure, had its beginnings with The Hobbit film.

Now an adult, I was very excited to see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Like most of you, I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Peter Jackson is back - and he’s making more Tolkien movies? Count me in. I have heard many people have some worries going into the theater: The Hobbit is only 276 pages turned into three long movies, or Peter Jackson filming the movie in 48 fps and suddenly everyone being really worried about how it will look. If no one had not told you that, would you have even noticed? 

I might as well start by addressing some of these concerns. I do feel like the rest of you, this seems like a small book for three movies. But, I think the first installment had plenty of story, and the “filler” scenes that never happened in the book (but which are largely from other LOTR canon sources) are just extra backstory and more action. I am ok with that. I have heard peoples’ gripes with the film is that there isn’t much plot; I think these people are wrong. I think it has plenty of good development and backstory that this fantasy nut loves.

Now to address the 48 frames per second thing. I can go into a bunch of explanation into what this means, but if you want to know more you should look it up yourself, because honestly, it doesn’t matter at all. It does make for some “shaky-camera stuff” throughout the film. Also, sometimes the things look kind of weird. Its hard to describe, but just a little different than most films we see. In my opinion, the film looks amazing, sharp and clear. The crisp colors and amazing beauty that is captured is in part due to this higher frame rate. 

 There are a few gripes I had here and there. The film score, by Howard Shore, does have a very good theme, but there is a bunch of recycling happening here from the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Many of the same music and themes are heard, and that bugs me. New trilogy, new themes, please at least change them up a bit. This movie is very action packed, and in some ways that can help and hurt the film. It’s very fun to watch, but then there is some lack of plot development (this is to be expected in the first of three parts). There is great character development with Bilbo making tough choices, however.

All in all, I thought this movie was fantastic, and I am looking forward to seeing the next two films. Even if they might be a little long, if you like the fantasy of the Lord of the Rings universe, then it just adds to the history of the world and makes it even more complex. I will say this: compared to the Lord of the Rings, it does have more of a light-hearted spin. Some of the Lord of the Rings can feel a little heavy, with all the doom and gloom. LOTR puts forth a lot of  “end-of-good-in-the-world” stuff, and it can get a little trying. This movie is just about a group of adventurers going on a quest for gold. There is more to it than that, but it’s just makes you want to pump your fist in the air, and enjoy the ride.

The Rating System
Production (Directing, Editing, Music) 4-5
Story (Plot) 4-5
Characters (Likability, Acting) 5-5
Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness) 4-5
Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care) 5-5
Overall Score 22-25

love this theme

Skyfall Review

I would say that I am a fan of James Bond. When asked what actor playing Bond is your favorite would you answer Sean Connery? or Pierce Brosnan? I was waiting to reserve judgement about Daniel Craig, until he had a few Bond films under his belt. Casino Royale was a very good Bond film, and it was directed by Martin Campbell that made my Favorite Bond film as a child, Goldeneye. But Quantum of Solace, was less that stellar and it looked like Daniel Craig might be going the way of the Brosnan. Where his films peaking at first and getting progressively worse. After watching Skyfall its safe to say that will not be the route Mr. Craig will be taking, as Skyfall might be the best Bond film I have ever seen.

    We join Bond in another adventure, to thwart the bad guys for some such scheme, yada, yada. It doesn’t really matter because this movie isn’t about taking over the world or being the guy with all the money, its about revenge, revenge against M. If you are not up on your Bond lore, M is the leader of M16, and Bond’s boss. Since Goldeneye, M has been played by Judi Dench, an actress that has much bigger chops than the Bond films ever really needing her to have. We actually get to see her stretch her skill in this film, and she makes us care about her. The villains got it out for her, and it’s so good.

    I am happy to say that Skyfall has the the return of the Character Q, who was always my favorite part of any Bond films. The guy who gives Bond his gadgets. Desmond Llewelyn, had played Q in 17 Bond films until his death in 1999. We have seen John Cleese play the character once, in the Brosnan days, in Die Another Day, but I feel like this was a mistake. Q should not be a funny character, he was never a funny character, we was just more clever than Bond, and loved to rub Bond’s face in it.  I am happy to say that feeling has return to the Q character in this iteration. Q is played by Ben Whishaw, who played it perfectly. This young actor is one to watch as he is in Cloud Atlas and Skyfall this year. Whishaw is slated to be in Robopocalypse Steven Spielberg's new film for 2014

    Sam Mendes directed Skyfall, who is known for American beauty, and Road to Perdition, neither are really action films, more character studies. I was curious to see his take on the Bond franchise. This is kind of like giving the Batman reins to Christopher Nolan. This is the best shot bond film I have ever seen, Every scene was just beautiful to look at, especially in IMax. The character development is the best I have ever seen in a Bond film, you actually get to know Bond and M. Bond and M actually have a character arc. It’s more than just stop-the-bad-guy, you are actually emotionally invested. This film might not have the never ending action, but it makes up for it with substance. Javier Bardem plays Silva, this film’s villain, and you can’t take your eyes off of him. His presence is just amazing, liking him and being afraid of him all at the same time.

    It hard to shift a favorite movie in your head. Goldeneye and Casino Royale, will always have a special place in my heart, but today my favorite Bond film is Skyfall. It’s not a pure fun as other Bond films. Skyfall is not over the top or silly, but just a good film. Not just a good Bond film, like a really good film. Since seeing this film I have recomended it to everyone I can, if you like Bond you need to see this movie. What is Skyfall you ask? Just wait and keep your eyes open at the end. 

The Rating System
Production (Directing, Editing, Music)5-5
Story (Plot)4-5
Characters (Likability, Acting)5-5
Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness)5-5
Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care)5-5
Over all score 24-25 Near perfect film making here.


   

Wreck-it Ralph Review

When are you too old to like cartoons? When are you supposed to put on the big boy pants, and no longer enjoy watching kids films? With Pixar and Dreamworks making films that appeal to both adults and kids, it’s ok for you to like them. The industry is making them for you also, right? I have noticed in the past few years, the declining quality of work put into the computer animated films produced by Disney. The last Pixar film I liked was Toy Story 3, it was compelling and masterfully done, but it also didn’t get silly by going to “kiddy.” And guess what? everyone enjoyed watching it. Sure, Toy Story 3 got a little dark in the end, but it had a heart-warming story, and you actually felt something for some plastic toys that talk. How amazing is that?

Wreck-it-Ralph is a trick; a gimmick to try and get the adults who love video games to come see their movie. In reality, Wreck-it-Ralph is a Disney princess movie. The film is set in an arcade, and we take a deep look into the lives of the video games characters after the arcade closes and the arcade characters come to life. The characters can use the “surge protector” that all of the games are attached to, and go into other games and interact with other game characters. Ralph is not very happy being the villain in his own arcade game, as he is tired of being thrown off the roof, over and over; no one seems to like him. He’s a villain, so people scorn him.

The film has many quick video game references that only old school gamers will get: “Aeris Lives” painted on the subway wall, or Q-bert being homeless in the surge protector area. This is a ploy to get older gamers to want to go see this film. Too bad you spend 80% of the film in a game called Sugar Rush, a fictional game of sugar-themed cart racing. Disney had so much potential to do so much with other, real-life games and ideas for this new world, yet we spend it in sicky sweet sugar land. I thought it was funny at first, but after about 40 minutes in there, you just want to go to another game, or another movie.

For the next paragraph I will do some SPOILERS, please just skip this one and move onto the next. Ralph no longer wants to be the villain, so he leaves the game, in search of a “medal” the thing that will make him be respected by the other game characters. The plot of the film progresses and in the end, the other characters realize that they need Ralph for the game to work, duh. Ralph comes back, and resumes his duties as a “bad guy” because he is needed for the game to work. Here is my problem with this idea: One, it sounds like Ralph didn’t really learn anything, and that the other characters in the game are the ones that need to wise up, they need him, and Fix-it Felix and the other toons in Ralph's game never say to him, “Ralph we need you and we are sorry for how we treated you.” Because really, he just wants to be liked and not hated for what he does, they are the dicks that don’t realize they need him until he’s gone. Two, his realization is that he needs to do his job, even if its being a bad guy? Maybe I am reading too much into it, but doesn’t that just mean, the world needs bad guys to work. He has a part to play and that is to destroy the building, it’s ok, because someone has to do it. END SPOILERS

I was talking with one of my friends after the movie, and we both love video games, and were excited to see this film. But as we started to talk about our gripes and problems with how it is too “kiddy” or “sweet,” I started to realize: are we just the wrong demographic? Are we the target audience? Because this film sure does take a Disney Princesses turn, and maybe we are not supposed to like it. This film is for kids, not 30-somethings that will get all the video game references. But then this thought made me mad, then why they hell did they put that part into the movie? They had such potential and they ruined it with cute overload. They got the gamers in the theaters, only to shift the movie into a simple minded, poop joke. One more gripe: this film is more or less a rehash of Toy Story, the idea that our “toys” are doing things while we are sleeping, almost the same premise, down to the characters getting back their place before the humans see them. Heres an idea: what do our video game consoles do when you are not playing them? Couldn’t Ralph have gotten out of the arcade and seen the massive online gaming community? What would that mean when they can talk to the world of video game characters, no just the small town ideal, of the arcade world.

Although Wreck-it-Ralph has some clever ideas, and some fun parts, the overall movie is kind of a let down. Being a film and video game fan, I am very disappointed with how this turned out.

The Rating System
Production (Directing, Editing, Music) 3-5
Story (Plot)2-5
Characters (Likability, Acting) 3-5
Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness) 3-5
Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care) 2-5
Over all score 13-25

Cloud Atlas Review

             
    How much impact does a film have on your life? Do you leave the theater thinking you are going to change your life, or that you are going to see the world in a new way? Probably not, but you may have that feeling as well as the knowledge of the story forever. You might forget exactly what they said or who was in it, but in some part you will remember the feeling that film gave you. Some films resonate a particular kind of thought or feeling, causing you to see deeper in your own life.

    I had to think about Cloud Atlas for a few days after seeing the it. This is the kind of movie that you need to let stew in your brain for a while. There is all measure of themes and feelings that this story portrays; its hard to get a firm grip on how you feel about the movie as a whole. Cloud Atlas, if anything, provokes thought. You are given so much information - I would image it would take a few viewings to get all out of this film. Luckily, it's a great film so you should be like me, and not 

mind watching again and again. I saw it the weekend of its release and I already want to see it again.
    The description of the plot is something I am having trouble putting into words, only because I am worried about giving away the mystery of the film and ruining the “holy crap moment” that this movie makes you feel. So I will be subtle and broad, but if you are really worried about things being “spoiled” just don't read the rest of this paragraph. The basic idea is that you have six story lines, all from different time frames, all with different characters, performed by the same actors, in every timeline. Its about as confusing as that sentence. Tom Hanks, Halley Barry, Hugh Grant, Hugo Weaving, Jim Broadbent, Jim Sturgess, Doona Bae, all play all the characters in all the timelines, each of them big and small. Each main character has their own devoted story and time. Each actor can be seen throughout each timeline, some looking very different, under pounds of makeup and prosthetics. It was always kind of interesting to find each character throughout, not knowing where they might show up. Who will they be in this timeline? End of small spoilers.
    
The editing is very interesting, and lends itself well to following the six simultaneous storylines. You could be very easy for you to get lost in this film, but I feel they did a fantastic job of making it work. With so much information, the movie washes over you so fast - it keeps going and going, not stopping to let things sink in. When you think you can see where a story is going, it cuts to another time line. The transitions seem like it would be a mess, jumping from 1849 to 2143 but they work, and they all seem to work together. Directed by three different directors, Tom Tvkwer, Andy and Lana Wachowski. Each having a different time lines and different feels. Its amazing how they all work together, and make one large movie experience.
    This movie will stay in my memory for a long time, as it is beautiful and pretty amazing. It is rated R but I would recommend this film to anyone. Only having a little bit of nudity and violence.  It is a pretty weird film, and not all the answers are figured out easily or even given to you, and that might irritate the people who don’t want to think when they go to the movies.  This is not a film you want to go in and not pay attention, you will be lost. I hope you will enjoy it as much as I did.
The Rating System
Production (Directing, Editing, Music) 5-5 (yep)
Story (Plot) 4-5
Characters (Likability, Acting) 4-5
Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness)4-5
Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care)5-5
Over all score 22-25

   

Looper review

Since 2005, I have said “have you seen Brick?” Everyone on planet earth answers, “No.” It is a source of depression and frustration to me that they have not seen one of my favorite films of all time. The dialogue in this film is the fastest, most intriguing, and brilliant dialogue in any film I have seen. If you blink, you’ll miss half the nuance. It is a film noir detective story, full of drugs and prostitutes, mob bosses and addicts, with a murder-mystery enigma, all set in a high school, with teenagers. Why am I mentioning this film? Maybe because like any good hipster, I am going to say, I liked Rian Johnson and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (before they were mainstream).

Rian Johnson wrote and directed Brick and Looper. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Joe, a looper. Looper is another mixed genre film, part mob movie, part science-fiction/time travel flick. Looper takes place in 2044, where Levitt plays a hitman, who kills people sent back from 30 years in their future. In this future, time travel has been invented and is used by the mob to dispose of unwanted people. Hey, if they send back your older self, you end up killing yourself. Is your brain humming yet? Just wait! That’s only the first five minutes. This movie has a lot more left to bake your noodle with.

I have to say, this film paints a bleak future - there are no ivory towers of wonderful technology - everything looks messed up and run down. You see homelessness everywhere, and the people are despicable for most part. This scenery has really nothing to do with the plot, it just sets the tone for film. Graphic deaths and gunshots with jarring sound effects; this is a “real” future.    

    This is one of the more interesting science fiction films in the past years. Very interesting twists and turns, compelling ideas on time travel and how you can change the past. My brain will be swimming in a pool of science fiction “what ifs” for days. The plot is the best part of this film, and holy crap its dark. Brace yourself - its going to get get bloody, violent, and twisted, but man it’s good.
    Where the film lacks, in my view, is that I never really root for any character. Who is the protagonist? Joe (Levitt) and Old Joe (Willis) both have their own plot and motivation for doing things. This is good and bad, as you don’t really know how to feel about them. Should Joe kill himself from the future? Told you it would get dark.

Both Joes’ are just kind of terrible people, so it’s really hard to like present and future Joe. There are some slow parts here and there that could have been shorn up, but for the most part very entertaining and good pacing. (Small Spoiler Alert) Bruce Willis must have it in his contract that he must be a badass, because future Joe kicks everyone’s asses, just so you know. It could have been so simple to forget Old Joe’s story, but I am very happy with how that was portrayed. 

I hope Rian Johnson keeps making bigger and better films, and I’ll keep watching them. This film doesn’t quite measure up to Brick in my book, just a different film, and it will be hard to top. It’s a solid film but from what I can tell in seven years, future Patrick will be asking people if they have every seen Looper, and I will probably get “No”, but who really knows the future.

The Rating System
Production (Directing, Editing, Music) 4-5
Story (Plot) 5-5
Characters (Likability, Acting) 3-5
Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness) 4-5
Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care) 4-5
Overall Score: 20-25

Total Recall Review

  
  My favorite thing about the 1990 version of Total Recall is that you never really know if the film is actually happening or if it is all in Douglas Quaid’s mind. Is it all a memory implant, and none of what we are watching is “real?” This is Inception’s spinning top, twenty years earlier. Warning [1990’s Total Recall SPOILERS] Evidence that makes you question whether all you just watched is inside Arnold Schwarzenegger’s mind, is as follows: He dreams about Melina in the beginning. The Rekall salesman sells him the package. Outlining what actually happens in the film, he talks about Mars and aliens and playing both sides; and they ask him about what kind of girl he likes, a picture of Melina appears on the screen; After a subtle cut away, Rekall staff get upset, saying someone has already messed with his mind,(or Quaid falling asleep being implanted with the memory) setting up the question of the film The doctor and Quaid’s wife come to him in the middle of the film, trying to convince him it’s all a dream and he is still in Rekall, and they are there to guide him out. Arnold shoots him in the head because the Doctor was sweating (good enough evidence for me); The end of the film, the dust settles, Quaid turns to Melina and says “I just had a horrible thought, what if this is all a dream? Melina then says “Then kiss me quick before you wake up” (followed by white light, presumably Quaid waking up, or was it?) All things things gave the feeling of uneasiness to the film, and added a deeper element to and otherwise gory science fiction action film. [End 1990 spoilers]

The 2012 Total Recall is almost the exact same story, with some minor tweaks here and there. I won’t ruin them for you because those are the only fresh plot points if you have seen the original. What really bothered me about this film is the lack of the feeling I talked about in the above paragraph. Regarding the feeling that this could all be a dream - this film decided for you. It seems that Len WIseman, director of Underworld and Live Free or Die Hard, has made a decision that it is not a dream. There is no flash of light, no feeling that the salesman outlines the plot. They try a little here and there, but the overwhelming feeling is that Len’s heart is not in the dream part of the story.
    The things I like about this film are the fresh look at the future, and the creativity in making the world. Little details, that just make the future seem cool and interesting, like glowing tattoo ink, hand mobile phone implants, magnetic cars that go above and below the metal streets, and robot police force that pulls from I, Robot style choices. All of which have nothing to do with the plot, just makes it fun science fiction.

I was surprised to see that even though this this film is PG-13 (1990 is rated R). They still included the three breasted prostitute that flashes Quaid in a homage to the original. I know they are not real, but we can show breast and nipple, as long as there are three of them, rubber, and still get PG-13? I am not offended, just surprised.

Also, There seems to be a never-ending supply of masked bad guys in this film. Do they pay these actors less if they don’t show their face, or is it so they can just reuse the same four guys all throughout the film, to die over and over? The thing about films these days is that all the henchmen seem to be masked, making you not care when they die - just one more faceless nothing. There was a distinct lack of blood in this film, adding, I’m sure, to their PG-13 rating. This stands in stark contrast to the 1990 Paul Verhoeven blood bath.

    What this film lacks in the illusion of the real/dream distinction, it makes up for in fun action and creative elements. Although it is almost a complete retelling, I was never bored or waiting for things to happen. The setting and the writing were good enough that you don’t care that they lifted so much from the original script.

I am so opposed to Hollywood’s remake-athon that has been going on in the past few years. Where are all the new ideas? Are they really afraid to take chances on new scripts, in that they can just reboot an established franchise with a fan base. I can hear the studio executives: “Hey, people will go see this film, because of the name alone, and it’s not as a big of a risk.” People are not going to see movies as much because you keep making bad films and it costs, $12.00. Make a good film and the people will come. On a side note, please stop showing the ad before the film starts, telling me not to download a film illegally and watch it at home. I just paid to see this film in your theater, I am not the person you should be lecturing.

The Rating System
Production (Directing, Editing, Music) 3-5
Story (Plot) 2-5 (This is what any remake gets from me, take a chance people)
Characters (Likability, Acting) 4-5
Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness) 3-5
Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care) 5-5
Overall Score 17-25

After: The Dark Knight Rises Review

There are many trilogies that are groundbreaking, amazing, and will stand the test of time. These films are incredible, in that during a time when people struggle to make one good film, they make three good films. It’s very easy to lose your way after making one good film, and make the next two suck really bad. Example: The Matrix trilogy. It’s even rarer that the second film is better than or at least equal to the first. Examples: Alien and Aliens; The Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgement Day. But to make three completely awesome films that can all stand on their own, and can stand the test of time, is a feat. Examples: Original Star Wars; The Back to the Future trilogy; the Indiana Jones movies (Crystal Skull has been erased from my mind); LOTR; The Man with No Name trilogy; The Godfather trilogy; The Romero of the Dead trilogy; The Alien trilogy and now, The Dark knight trilogy.

    I love to compare the Dark Knight films to the original Star Wars trilogy. The first was just setting up the universe; introducing us to the tone and the characters. (Batman Begins and A New Hope) The second film is amazingly dark, perfectly written and directed. (Dark Knight and Empire Strikes Back) The third (albeit not perfect) had big shoes to fill (and you could gripe about “Ewoks” all day), but it’s still a great end to a great series (The Dark Knight Rises and Return of the Jedi).
    The Ewoks in this film are little nitpicky crap that fans will argue about for years. Bane’s voice sounds strange and dubbed-over the entire film, and I found it to be distracting. We live in a wonderful age of digital surround sound, and yet his voice sounded too perfect compared to everyone else’s. You know that time in the movie, when someone does a post-filming over-dubbing, that sounds a little off? Usually it’s just something tacked on the end of a line, and no one notices it. Maybe their mouth doesn’t quite match up, or they cut to another actor, but it just sounds a little off? That is Bane’s voice this entire film. It only works because he wears a mask the whole movie.
    I am taking the time to point out my gripes, because on the whole, this a great film. Everyone loves it and it’s making tons of money as it should, but I would like to say that I enjoy the Dark Knight better. Tom Hardy as Bane is a very good villain, and his character is more flushed out than The Joker. But heath Ledger’s performance was amazing, and would have been hard to top. As compared to the Star Wars trilogy, Empire strikes back was my favorite of those films, and The Dark Knight is my favorite of these Batman films. Anne Hathaway as Catwoman really stole the show for me. Her intensity was amazing; it really gets your heart pumping.  Without spoiling any part of the film, people can ask, “why this?” and “why that?” about several parts of the film. But that is just more nitpicking. Ok, shut up, Patrick, it’s a good film.

    I felt the same way after I finished watching Return of the Jedi as a child: sad that it’s over. No more Christian Bale as Batman, no more Hans Zimmer film score, no more Christopher Nolan. No spoilers, I promise, but they set it up for sequels in the end. But will there actually be more films? I think Christopher Nolan really knows how to end a film. All of his films end on such an awesome note, that it makes you want more so badly. Will Nolan “pull a Lucas” and come back in 30 years to make sequels/prequels? I don’t really think this story has more to it, and from how the Star Wars prequels turned out, I hope Nolan does not. I am very impressed with the final result and will be seeing this film again soon. How can Batman live up to this? You know in five years they are going to make more, as the franchise has too much money in it. I just hope they are anywhere close to this good. Great job all, thank you for entertaining me, you will be missed.

The Rating System
Production (Directing, Editing, Music) 4-5
Story (Plot) 4-5
Characters (Likability, Acting) 4-5
Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness) 4-5
Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care) 5-5
Overall score 21-25
For your Listening enjoyment!

 

BEFORE: The Dark Knight Rises

Listen to this as you read.

When I saw the Dark knight for the first time, Gary Oldman said the title of the film, with Hans Zimmer’s score playing in the background, and with the words “Directed by Christopher Nolan” appearing on the screen. I knew then that I had seen the greatest comic book film ever made. All others before and since have been compared to this film. The words, “It’s good, but not as good as Dark Knight,” have left my mouth after watching every comic-book-rendered film since. As a comic book fan, and declared geek, I take my comic book films pretty seriously. They are idols (the heroes) that make me want to be a greater person. They are selfless characters of peace and justice. These are the greatest themes in literature.

    When I was a child I would pretend to be a superhero, as opposed to being a fireman or policeman. I wanted to be Batman; I wanted to be part of the X-Men, when I grew up. These stories and characters have  deep roots in my childhood and the formation of my adult identity. To see them on screen in brilliant realism fills me with wonder. I become a child again; a time when you could wear a cape in public and not get stared at.
    Why is the Dark Knight so good you ask? Do I have to explain this? For starters, Christopher Nolan made the world of Batman so real. You never are sitting there and doubt anything that anyone does, or doubt that Batman could not do any of it: It’s real. Batman is all of us, he is the hero that is just a man. He has no superpowers, he is more than just a rich guy, who also happens to be really bad ass. He is committed to being more than just himself, for the betterment of society.

Never before has any director understood this until Christopher Nolan. I used to really enjoy the first two Batman films by Tim Burton. Batman and Batman Returns are pretty good comic book films, in that you got to see the superficial aspects of Bruce Wayne. He is the orphaned, rich boy that wants revenge. No one had any idea how deep Batman could go, but Christopher Nolan did. The Joel Schumacher films are pretty much unwatchable. My God, George Clooney’s suit had god damn nipples, for fuck sake! And, Batman had a credit card, a Bat-card, or else it was called some other stupid name. I have tried to block it out.

I have only felt this feeling before in my life two times. The first was when I was seventeen, waiting in line to see Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. The second was waiting in line to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Needless to say, these films were the biggest let-downs of my film watching life. I am just as excited to see the Dark Knight Rises as those two films. They have already made the best Comic book films ever made, how can you follow that? Can DKR live up to my expectations? It will have to do nothing short of face-melting-heart-pumping-goosebump-inducing-amazement to live up to the expectations I have. 

Going into the Dark Knight I knew it would be good, because the Batman Begins is so good, but I had no idea that it would THAT good. Can they repeat what they did last time, without their  missing element, Heath Ledger? He portrayed Batman’s greatest villain, and it was perfect. They got the intensity of the Joker perfectly. So real, that again, you never doubt that he is not crazy, or that he could kill anyone in the room. Such splendid horror and enjoyable insanity, you love to watch him, unable to look away, for he is amazingly evil and charismatic. I have heard some people argue that Two Face was sort of just tacked on in the end, and they feel that he is the worst part of this film, Nay, I say. For Two Face is the Joker’s final corruption, and he shows how twisted the everyman can become, if pushed far enough. Sheer brilliance. 

Can Bane be as interesting and thought-provoking as the Joker? He appears to be more physical, and seems to take over Gotham in the trailers, but will you be spellbound by his performance? Maybe not, seeing as we can only see his eyes, but I am sure excited to find out. And, there are already complaints about not being able to understand him. How many re-cuts did they do of his voice over? The trolls of the internet already make fun of Batman’s scratchy voice, and now it appears that we are in a scratchy voice sandwich. I, for one, will wait and see. Bane’s story line in the comics is a very interesting one. [SPOILER ALERT!!!!] He destroys Arkham Asylum, and frees all of the mad men that Batman had looked up over the years. Not only that, but he fights Batman and breaks his back. Batman escapes, and while he recuperates, someone else takes the Batman mantle. This is one of the best Batman story lines ever. Can they translate it to film? What will they change? I know that this is the end of Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale Batman films, but will this be the end of Batman?

Thank you for reading, I will write a review of the film, once it comes out. I hope this made you as excited as I am for this film.

The Amazing Spiderman Review

Even though the Tobey Maguire/Sami Raimi/Kirsten Dunst-version of Spiderman is loved by millions, and made buckets of money, I never REALLY liked it. For starters, I think the casting is totally wrong; I hated Tobey and Kirsten in these roles. I like them in other films, they just were not what I wanted from a comic-fan’s perspective. Second, I don’t really think Ol’ Sam was a good fit, he was too much a horror-movie-camp-director, and never really captured that tone of Spiderman. Third, James Franco was the best part of these films and they ruined him. They could have made him the best villain ever! Fourth, the third film in its entirety: crap, crap, crap.

    Having only been five years since that utter disappointment, I still had a bad taste in my mouth for Spiderman. When I heard about the “cash grab” that is The Amazing Spiderman, I was worried that I would be overly critical, or that it would be yet another disappointment, so I was hesitant to see the film.  I am happy to say these turned out to be non-issues. Maybe my expectations were just set so low, or I just wanted to see a good portrayal of such a beloved character. It made me happy to see such a fresh look.
    Not a perfect film, but a much better film than any of the Raimi ones. I enjoyed watching Andrew Garfield (Spiderman/Peter Parker), and Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy) actually doing some acting. Both got to the heart of the hero and the characters. I even liked Denis Leary (Gwen’s father) who had a small part but really got to me. I am so happy that they are giving films like The Avengers, Iron Man, and Thor to Directors that are focusing on the characters behind the masks instead of ACTION AND EXPLOSION directors. Great job, Marc Webb (500 days of Summer).
    Some gripes I had: More than half the film is a rehash; a re-telling of Spiderman’s origin. They changed a few small things here and there, but (spoiler), Uncle Ben still dies, and Peter Parker still gets bitten by a “science spider.” I found myself just waiting for these things to happen, instead of enjoying the film. I knew they were coming, so it was like knowing the end of a book: “Ok, get to it already!” There are some scenes that I found to be pretty campy. I will not spoil anything, so let me just say, “Cranes.” Come on guys, you had me until then. The lizard looked amazing in all its special-effects glory, but kind of a weak villain. No really epic plan, he just existed to look great and fly around Spiderman, giving us intense fight scenes. We don’t even find out what his motivation is until the last 30 minutes. Doctor Connors seemed very flat to me. He was missing an arm, so he wanted to inject himself with junk to get it back. Meh. Take a cue from The Dark Knight guys: your hero is only as good as your villain.
    Speaking of special effects, it’s no surprise this movie looked fantastic. I have never seen Spiderman look so good. More than just computer animation, but the idea of movement, showing him flip and move so fluidly and perfect as never before. I will be seeing it again in 3D, as I hear it looks even better. Also, love the inclusion that Peter is a scientist, making his own web shooters, and knowing answers to technical questions. Something they never had in the Raimi films that just enriches that character.

    Even though I was a little bored because I already knowing the character so well, I was happy with how this film turned out and would like to see a sequel. Now that they have the origin story out of the way, they can go anywhere. I understand it needed to be told. But they could have always gone the route of The Incredible Hulk, and have no origin story. What if we skipped all the Uncle Ben stuff, the lab full of spiders, and Peter Parker was already Spiderman? I think it would have played out just fine. I mean everyone has seen the first films. They made billions, with a B.

The Rating System
Production (Directing, Editing, Music) 4-5
Story (Plot) 2-5
Characters (Likability, Acting) 5-5
Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness) 4-5
Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care) 4-5
Overall Score: 19-25

Brave review

I have experienced many disappointments in my life. The time I was picked last for kickball, I played my hardest to make sure the other team regretted not picking me. The time I was asked a girl in high school out, who will remain nameless, I knew she was not right for me anyways, and she was just missing out on the awesome, that is me. Waiting in line for Star Wars Episode I The Phantom Menace, do I really need to say it. All of which are huge disappointments, and have shaped my life forever, Brave however is at the smaller end of disappointments.

 
 Brave is the new adventure from Pixar, a company who’s track record is pretty amazing. I have only not really liked 1 film by them, Cars. Cars just had a little too much Chevon commercial, mixed with nascar, mixed with “dadgum”, for me. Cars was the least interesting of  interesting concepts and still looked amazing. The trailer for Brave seemed like it was going to be a fun fantasy adventure. The more I heard about this film the less interested I became. The concept just seemed so plain for Pixar. Young girl, that just wants to rebel against her mother trying to run her life. She just wants to be free and ride through the forest, and shoot arrows, sounds like a “first world problem”. Hey, guess what little red-headed princess: there are people in the world that have to work for their food and don’t live in castles, you have it pretty good, shut up

    The whole plot just seems so over worked. Parent trying to run a child’s life, child not really understanding the parent wants what is best for said child, and shenanigans. The film takes place in an interesting setting, a sort of faux Scotland, but I am sorry, it was done better in How to Train Your Dragon. I would watch that film over Brave any day of the week. The animation looks amazing and I am sure It would look good in 3D( I just saw it in 2D), but we have come to expect more from Pixar than just good animation. They are known for their interesting perspectives, and depth of characters for “kids films”.

    So it looked amazing, the main Character Merida’s hair was so amazing you could see each individual strand. The forest and creatures were stylishly crisp. Where this film failed for me was the lack of a interesting plot, and a lack of laughs to hold my attention. The script seemed to surround falling down humor, or the dialogue-less little brothers, who get themselves into mayhem. This filmed seemed like disney in the old days, are you going to start having filler songs in the middle to make up for the lack of plot Pixar? I almost thought this film might have Merida standing in the forest singing about her woes to all the woodland creatures. It would have fit this film’s feel, and just so we are clear- that is a bad thing.  
The Rating System
Production ( Directing, Editing, Music)4-5
Story ( Plot) 2-5
Characters ( Likability, Acting) 2-5
Writing ( Dialogue, Cleverness)3-5
Emotions ( Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care)2-5
Over all score 13-25

Prometheus Review

What the hell happened to Ridley Scott? If you don’t know what Ridley Scott is, He is the director of such films as Blade Runner, Gladiator, Aliens, and Prometheus. He has been one of my favorite director since I was a child, when had no idea what a director was. I even liked Legend, which most people I have talked think it’s terrible, but when you watch something as a child that, “first watching experience” is locked in forever. You will never shake the wonderment and excitement you felt.

    I have found over the years that Ridley Scott likes to Director’s cuts of films. My First thought is, why? Most of the director’s cuts I have seen are better than the theatrical release. A great example of this is Blade Runner, much more depth of character and not-so-in-your face-film-noir stuff. No one saw the film Kingdom of Heaven, this 2005 film’s theatrical release was pretty bad, when I sat down to watch the 3 hours plus director’s cut, I loved it.

So this got me thinking, why does he always release different cuts of the same film? Time problems? All the most epic movies are crazy long, who cares. Lord of the Rings, Avatar, Gone with the Wind. Is the studio pressuring him to make is shorter? or change things, you are Ridley Fucking Scott, do whatever you damn well please! In Legend they changed the music for the theatrical release, is this all money based? The money says jump you say, “ how high”? You make a bad movie in the theatrical release, why should anyone see another cut of this film, if its so bad they don’t want to sit through it again?

Which leads me to Prometheus, I for one was very excited about this film. Ridley Scott making a science fiction film, set in the same universe as Alien, awesome! Unfortunately, it was not awesome, but one huge let down. The movie asks too many questions, and never answers any of them. All of it seems to lead to a sequel to answer questions, but wait, isn’t this a prequel to Aliens, aren’t you supposed to answering questions? This film had no reason to be connected to the Alien films, the ship’s were the same and some of the monsters and H.R. Geiger bullshit was just lazy film making in my mind. The Alien connection was just one big selling point to a crappy film.

When I left the theater I was like, WHO? WHAT? WHEN? HOW? nothing was explained. That is fine if you are making an art film that is supposed to get emotions stirring and provoking thought, like 2001, or The Fountain. This film just left me wanting more and not in a good way. You can leave some things unanswered, but when you don’t give the audience anything to go on why should they care to watch another film. This is not a good stand-alone movie, it feels like the first episode of a show, just getting you thinking about more show. Funny because one of the writers of this film is Damon Lindelof, creator of Lost the television show, Connection, I think so.

What these guys forget is that this isn’t a show, it’s a movie. You don’t have until next week to give me some answers, you have two hours and thirty minutes to have a beginning, middle and end. You are not coming out with a Prometheus 2 in six months, which if you saw the film would makes no sense! I hope I am getting my frustration with this film across to you. So much so I do not think I will spend the time watching a Director’s cut of this film. You lost me Mr. Scott. Someone with movie-chops, will have to come to me and say “ Dude, its so much better! you need to watch it!” Then I might consider it.

This film never got me to excited, the tension was flat and predictable. No sign of the subtle brilliance that is Alien. The characters were uninteresting and borderline pointless. There were whole scenes that had no place in the film and never had a follow through. The scene in the beginning when they talk about the surgery machine, they just happened to bring on board, “HEY, LOOK AT THIS AUDIENCE”, it made me sick.

So Ridley Scott, do you make different cuts because you really can’t decide what movie to make? Are you so unsure of yourself that you can’t make just one cut? Are studios really making you make crapper movies for the masses, or can you just not make up your mind and take a chance? Stop making directors cuts, make one good film, I don’t care how long it is, I am not an everyday moviegoer.

The Rating System

Production ( Directing, Editing, Music)3-5

Story ( Plot)3-5

Characters ( Likability, Acting)2-5

Writing ( Dialogue, Cleverness)3-5

Emotions ( Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care)1-5

Overall score 12-25