I can't sit through the Mike Myers Cat in the Hat movie. Just can't, I get to the part when Mike actually shows up, I stop paying attention, I fall asleep, and I don't wake up again until things get really loud and inexplicably colorful. I tried watching it again, same exact thing happened. I can watch the Jim Carrey Grinch film though and I used to think it was weird that I could watch one but not the other until I tried watching an episode of an old kids show I used to love called KaBlam! Same thing, couldn't pay attention, almost fell asleep; but this was a show that I used to watch. Tested Rocko's Modern Life, able to pay attention; that was when I truly learned the difference between kids stuff and family friendly stuff. Thank goodness ParaNorman is "family friendly stuff."
FILM
ParaNorman is about a kid who sees dead people and has to stop them after a witches curse starts bringing them back to life. What's so great about the film is how dark and progressive the humor is, from beginning to end I couldn't stop thinking to myself, "I can't believe they actually said/did that." See, a kids film panders to kids, it'll be filled with humor that only kids will laugh at and plots only a kid would care about. Cat in the Hat is a kids film, KaBlam was a kids show, it's the type of material only a really conservative family would call family friendly. You know the type of family: don't let their kids watch TV and even have parental blocks on their OWN television. Family friendly stuff understands that an adult is watching the film too and so it's structured more around that. Sure, it'll be filled with kids jokes and the likes but it tends to be packed full of more adult related humor. ParaNorman is that kind of film, Rocko's Modern Life is that kind of show. Seriously, I can't watch Rocko's Modern Life the same way I did when I was a kid because I've passed a point of intelligence that allows me to understand adult stuff and let me tell you: Rocko's Modern Life is super perverted and raunchy. ParaNorman isn't along the perverted/raunchy adult humor lines but it is along the dark humor lines as I mentioned, so many jokes are the type of jokes you'd feel bad for saying at a funeral. That's what I love about the film, how awesomely messed up it could be.
VOICE ACTING
It's also a pretty well done stop motion animation film with some pretty good voice acting. In my opinion, good voice acting makes you wonder who voiced the part or makes you think the person chosen to voice the part was perfect for it. Anna Kendrick, Casey Affleck, and even John Goodman fall into that first category. Goodman's character sounded familiar throughout the film but I couldn't quite place who it was until the credits. Jeff Garlin falls into the second category, his voice is fitting as the overweight dad of Norman. Christopher Mintz-Plasse, however, is a terrible voice actor, but that's probably because he has such a recognizable and probably hard to cover up kind of voice.
AUDIENCE
Yup, I've got a comment to say about the audience, it's been a while since I've mentioned them. If you go see the film, be prepared for the possibility of an annoying kid or two. We had one in our audience. Throughout the entire film this little girl with the loudest laugh I've ever heard kept making comments toward the film, the parents shh'ed her though. It also wasn't until everyone was leaving that I noticed it wasn't a little girl at all, it was a boy. Poor kid, voice like that may give him a crappy childhood, although I'd bet money he grows up to have the voice of Morgan Freeman or the movie trailer guy.
FINALLY
I'd say this was a pretty good film. It's good for the whole family. It's also especially good for fans of the horror fiction genre. I didn't mention this in the film paragraph, but the film is packed full of references to classic horror films. I'll give this film a solid B, see it if you get the chance, it's worth the watch.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Spoiled Milk: The Expendables 2
SPOILER ALERT! The Expendables 2 had some things I didn't understand in it. I'm going to try to make this quick and explain what I found wrong with the film.
1) The hell did everyone go? Schwarzenegger appears at the beginning, then goes away for most of the film and doesn't show up until the end. What was he doing all that time? Li appears at the beginning, then goes away for the rest of the film. Where'd he go? Well, he had to drop this guy off at some location that I can't remember for a reason that I don't believe was actually given. My issue is that he never comes back. Why? Someone kills Liam and that's why that guy couldn't come back, but nobody killed Li, so where did he go? He didn't just call up The Expendables and say, "herro guise, mishun acomprished, come get me."? And don't call me racist for that quote, he literally talks like that in the film.
2) The plutonium. Willis needed it, Van Damme needed it. Why? Basic bomb building stuff I guess.
3) Why didn't they give Charisma Carpenter a bigger part?! They replaced Li with some asian chick, why couldn't that be Carpenter? 'Cause the asian lady is trained to be awesome? Who's to say Charisma's character isn't trained (she is the girlfriend of an Expendable after all)? Also, all the asian lady does is act sexy and shoot stuff, Charisma could just as easily do the same. I'm just really bitter 'cause I'm a fan of Charisma Carpenter and have no clue who Nan Yu is.
So there it is. I'm sure I can think of a lot more specific stuff, but I'll let it slide along with the rest of the stuff I didn't like about the movie. Remember, I do these kind of reviews out of respect, this movie is worth me pointing out at least some of it's flaws, maybe not all of them, but some of them. END SPOILER!
1) The hell did everyone go? Schwarzenegger appears at the beginning, then goes away for most of the film and doesn't show up until the end. What was he doing all that time? Li appears at the beginning, then goes away for the rest of the film. Where'd he go? Well, he had to drop this guy off at some location that I can't remember for a reason that I don't believe was actually given. My issue is that he never comes back. Why? Someone kills Liam and that's why that guy couldn't come back, but nobody killed Li, so where did he go? He didn't just call up The Expendables and say, "herro guise, mishun acomprished, come get me."? And don't call me racist for that quote, he literally talks like that in the film.
2) The plutonium. Willis needed it, Van Damme needed it. Why? Basic bomb building stuff I guess.
3) Why didn't they give Charisma Carpenter a bigger part?! They replaced Li with some asian chick, why couldn't that be Carpenter? 'Cause the asian lady is trained to be awesome? Who's to say Charisma's character isn't trained (she is the girlfriend of an Expendable after all)? Also, all the asian lady does is act sexy and shoot stuff, Charisma could just as easily do the same. I'm just really bitter 'cause I'm a fan of Charisma Carpenter and have no clue who Nan Yu is.
So there it is. I'm sure I can think of a lot more specific stuff, but I'll let it slide along with the rest of the stuff I didn't like about the movie. Remember, I do these kind of reviews out of respect, this movie is worth me pointing out at least some of it's flaws, maybe not all of them, but some of them. END SPOILER!
Movie Review: The Expendables 2
AHHHHHHH!!!! I'm going to rip my shirt off and run around town doing manly stuff like fighting, pillaging, and bear-baiting! This is what has become of me after watching The Expendables 2!
PLOT
Uhhhhhhhhhhhh... hmmmm, there were some guns... oh, and an explosion... something about plutonium... hey Chuck Norris is in this! Yeah, I'm going to lay it out flat for you, this isn't a movie about plot, it's a movie about getting ALL the action stars together in one movie. The first one already did that though, so the second sort of lost part of it's pizazz as far as the all-star cast was concerned. I really liked the beginning and the end, that's where all the awesome action is, everything in between is boring exposition and Chuck Norris. Sure, action movies need a bit of substance to them lest they be senseless, but it's a movie featuring all the greatest action stars of all time, it gets a free pass on sense in my book.
CAST
Couldn't understand a damn person in this film most of the time except Bruce Willis and Liam Hemsworth (aka, the Hemsworth from Hunger Games and not Thor... disappointing much, film?) Naw, but I wanna talk about Hemsworth and Willis along with Schwarzenegger, Van Damme, Norris, and Li. Why not the rest? 'Cause I don't got anything to say about the rest that the first movie didn't already establish.
Hemsworth is way too talented an actor to be in this film and seems to only get bit parts because his brother Chris is more famous. Like I said, he was the only actor I could understand, also the only character I cared about. The rest could live or die and I'd just enjoy the action, but Liam's character actually had depth to him and I respected that.
Willis and Schwarzenegger get bigger parts and they are awesome! If you come to the movie for references to old action films, these guys deliver on that front in the most satisfying of ways.
Van Damme plays an archetypal kills-everyone-he-sees kind of bad guy, but it wasn't a waste of a part for him. He delivers standard action villain stuff. I did spend half the movie wondering if it actually was Van Damme because I had forgetten he had been cast in it, but that's beside the point.
Norris and Li are the most wasted characters in this film. With Li, expect 5min of screen time, then nothing for the rest of the film. With Norris you'll get your obligatory Chuck Norris joke but no roundhouse kicks, take it or leave it. There's also one member of the cast I forgot to mention.
ODE TO CHARISMA CARPENTER
Oh Charisma Carpenter, it is lovely to see you in this film. You were in the last film and I had wondered if you'd be in this one as well. Since Cordelia Chase on Buffy and Angel you haven't done much relevant work. I respect The Expendable films for keeping your career alive. So say I, Casey, the poet.
DIRECTING
Simon West is known for such things as Con Air, Tomb Raider, The Mechanic, and a bunch of Budweiser commercials.... I never thought I'd say this, but, I miss Stallone's directing. The first film had building action and awesomeness, but no real depth. This one had some action and awesomeness and a sad attempt at depth that really didn't go anywhere. Also, some of the scenes were handled wrong, like the Chuck Norris Stuff. First off, it seemed like his part was written for Clint Eastwood (you'll see what I mean). Second, Norris' first scene (the awesome reveal scene) just kind of happens and doesn't really have much kick to it... y'know, like a roundhouse kick! And third, the joke was misplaced, they put it at the very beginning of his scene, if they had put it at the end it would have ended the scene with a good feeling. Instead we get the reveal and joke up front and then Norris just kind of deflates until he's off screen.
AND FINALLY
As awesome as The Expendables 2 was, I kind of liked the first one more. It's not that I expected the sequel to be any better, it's that I had at least expected it to deliver the same thing the first one did. Instead some of the film falls short. That being said, all the bad stuff is worth sitting through for the awesome stuff as well as the humorous stuff. I give this film somewhere between a B- and a C+. Fans of the actors, the explosions, and the guns should go see it if they get the chance, the rest of you can make it a rental. But don't pirate it, the movie (or was it the theater?) warned us not to!
PLOT
Uhhhhhhhhhhhh... hmmmm, there were some guns... oh, and an explosion... something about plutonium... hey Chuck Norris is in this! Yeah, I'm going to lay it out flat for you, this isn't a movie about plot, it's a movie about getting ALL the action stars together in one movie. The first one already did that though, so the second sort of lost part of it's pizazz as far as the all-star cast was concerned. I really liked the beginning and the end, that's where all the awesome action is, everything in between is boring exposition and Chuck Norris. Sure, action movies need a bit of substance to them lest they be senseless, but it's a movie featuring all the greatest action stars of all time, it gets a free pass on sense in my book.
CAST
Couldn't understand a damn person in this film most of the time except Bruce Willis and Liam Hemsworth (aka, the Hemsworth from Hunger Games and not Thor... disappointing much, film?) Naw, but I wanna talk about Hemsworth and Willis along with Schwarzenegger, Van Damme, Norris, and Li. Why not the rest? 'Cause I don't got anything to say about the rest that the first movie didn't already establish.
Hemsworth is way too talented an actor to be in this film and seems to only get bit parts because his brother Chris is more famous. Like I said, he was the only actor I could understand, also the only character I cared about. The rest could live or die and I'd just enjoy the action, but Liam's character actually had depth to him and I respected that.
Willis and Schwarzenegger get bigger parts and they are awesome! If you come to the movie for references to old action films, these guys deliver on that front in the most satisfying of ways.
Van Damme plays an archetypal kills-everyone-he-sees kind of bad guy, but it wasn't a waste of a part for him. He delivers standard action villain stuff. I did spend half the movie wondering if it actually was Van Damme because I had forgetten he had been cast in it, but that's beside the point.
Norris and Li are the most wasted characters in this film. With Li, expect 5min of screen time, then nothing for the rest of the film. With Norris you'll get your obligatory Chuck Norris joke but no roundhouse kicks, take it or leave it. There's also one member of the cast I forgot to mention.
ODE TO CHARISMA CARPENTER
Oh Charisma Carpenter, it is lovely to see you in this film. You were in the last film and I had wondered if you'd be in this one as well. Since Cordelia Chase on Buffy and Angel you haven't done much relevant work. I respect The Expendable films for keeping your career alive. So say I, Casey, the poet.
DIRECTING
Simon West is known for such things as Con Air, Tomb Raider, The Mechanic, and a bunch of Budweiser commercials.... I never thought I'd say this, but, I miss Stallone's directing. The first film had building action and awesomeness, but no real depth. This one had some action and awesomeness and a sad attempt at depth that really didn't go anywhere. Also, some of the scenes were handled wrong, like the Chuck Norris Stuff. First off, it seemed like his part was written for Clint Eastwood (you'll see what I mean). Second, Norris' first scene (the awesome reveal scene) just kind of happens and doesn't really have much kick to it... y'know, like a roundhouse kick! And third, the joke was misplaced, they put it at the very beginning of his scene, if they had put it at the end it would have ended the scene with a good feeling. Instead we get the reveal and joke up front and then Norris just kind of deflates until he's off screen.
AND FINALLY
As awesome as The Expendables 2 was, I kind of liked the first one more. It's not that I expected the sequel to be any better, it's that I had at least expected it to deliver the same thing the first one did. Instead some of the film falls short. That being said, all the bad stuff is worth sitting through for the awesome stuff as well as the humorous stuff. I give this film somewhere between a B- and a C+. Fans of the actors, the explosions, and the guns should go see it if they get the chance, the rest of you can make it a rental. But don't pirate it, the movie (or was it the theater?) warned us not to!
Monday, July 30, 2012
Movie Review: The Dark Knight Rises
It's finally come to an end, Christopher Nolan put the final touches on the legend of the Dark Knight and boy did he do an excellent job of it. I'm going to assume anyone reading this is already in the loop as to what DKR is about so I'm just going to jump into the review.
CAST
DKR has a pretty well known cast going for it, at least if you're a fan of Nolan's work. Yup, you've seen most of them before and because they all did a great job I'm only going to concentrate on 4, the noobs: Marion Cotillard, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Anne Hathaway, and Tom Hardy. Marion Cotillard is that beutiful number you may remember as Leo's wife from Inception, in DKR she plays a woman with some power or at least some money, or both and I accepted her character every second she was on screen. Not only is she breathtaking she's also a good actress. She starts out as what feels like a throwaway character and builds from there, all the while doing it with grace. How about that handsome mofo Joseph Gordon-Levitt, do I really need to say more? He's JG-L, you either like him or you like him, in this film, I liked him. He played an excellent beat cop and a believably upstanding member of Gotham (we all know those are few and far between.) He ends up playing one of the more interesting roles in the film and I think a lot of that comes from his acting. He seems the most human of all the characters, he's the one guy the audience will definitely identify with, at least as far as his actions are concerned. Then we come to Anne Hathaway as Catwoman, now she knows how to strut her stuff pretty well in the film but her character didn't seem all too fleshed out. For what she was given however, Hathaway did a fair job with it. All of this coming from a guy who was never really an Anne Hathaway fan, I always thought she was just average, now I know she's a little bit above that. Did I want to know more (but not in the "she's a mysterious character" sort of way), sure, but I'm okay with what I got.
BANE!!!
Now we come to the main man (besides the Bat) Bane! I feel I need a different paragraph just for him. Tom Hardy's Bane is easily my favorite villain of the trilogy. Yes, the Joker was the coolest, but Bane was the most dramatic, the most personal. I feel like I'll be crucified for saying I liked Bane more than the Joker, but let me explain myself. I liked Bane for different reasons than the Joker. Ledger was given a character with no real development other than he's a crazy clown and turned in an awesome performance. Hardy was given a character with more depth to him and brought him to life. Again, Ledger had one hell of a performance, but Hardy is arguably at least as good for his character and I just happen to like Bane more. The performance certainly wasn't Bronson either (for any movie buffs reading this), but it wasn't supposed to be, and I still think Hardy did an excellent job in this role as well as Bronson. A lot of the personalization of the character comes from the writing, sure, but acting, it's all in Hardy's eyes. It kind of has to be (what with the mask and all.) There's more to Bane than just the crazy megalomania and you can see that in his eyes, or really, behind his eyes, somewhere inside him. Yes there's a person behind that mask and he feels just like the rest of us. Also, don't worry about his voice too much, they managed to clear it up a lot, just keep your ears open during his scenes.
SCORE
Speaking of keeping your ears open, let's talk about the score of the film. Hans Zimmer dishes out another amazing score. My favorite thing about his scoring of both this film and Dark Knight is what he did with the villains. Everytime I think of the Joker I hear that weird white noise and everytime I think of Bane from hear on out I'll hear the chant (I'm sure you've heard it already.) A good composer can define the sound of a movie a great composer can define the sound of a legend and Zimmer most certainly does that. Another thing I like is when the villain's sound plays, it doesn't just play while we see the character, it plays before. Doing that gives things an ominous feeling, when you hear the chant or the white noise you know something is waiting around the corner about to ruin your day.
DIRECTING
What can I say about Christopher Nolan without sounding biased? He's my favorite director and still is, there's just something about his films that draws me in and I completely get lost in his world. DKR definitely feels like the 3rd film in a trilogy, so it's got that going for it. Only negative thing I can say is that the first half drags a little. Or maybe a lot, but it's all set-up anyways and it does have entertaining moments in it so it's not that big of a problem. Incidentally, once the film picks up good gawd in the heavens above does it pick up. Certainly picking up the slack of the first half and then some, so really, it more than evens things out. I should also note that the 2hr 45min runtime doesn't feel that long, at least it didn't to me.
So there you have it, my review of DKR, everything from cast to directing was put together so well it has easily become my favorite Batman film. Best final note I can give about this film is lose any assumptions. Don't assume Bane's going to sound like shit, don't assume low or high expectations, don't assume any rumors you may have heard about it are true or false. If you can go into it with a clear and open mind and view the film as it's own seperate entity that's part of a bigger picture you will be more than pleasantly surprised. Even if you do assume things you'll still come out of the theater feeling like you saw a good film, I give The Dark Knight Rises an A+!
CAST
DKR has a pretty well known cast going for it, at least if you're a fan of Nolan's work. Yup, you've seen most of them before and because they all did a great job I'm only going to concentrate on 4, the noobs: Marion Cotillard, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Anne Hathaway, and Tom Hardy. Marion Cotillard is that beutiful number you may remember as Leo's wife from Inception, in DKR she plays a woman with some power or at least some money, or both and I accepted her character every second she was on screen. Not only is she breathtaking she's also a good actress. She starts out as what feels like a throwaway character and builds from there, all the while doing it with grace. How about that handsome mofo Joseph Gordon-Levitt, do I really need to say more? He's JG-L, you either like him or you like him, in this film, I liked him. He played an excellent beat cop and a believably upstanding member of Gotham (we all know those are few and far between.) He ends up playing one of the more interesting roles in the film and I think a lot of that comes from his acting. He seems the most human of all the characters, he's the one guy the audience will definitely identify with, at least as far as his actions are concerned. Then we come to Anne Hathaway as Catwoman, now she knows how to strut her stuff pretty well in the film but her character didn't seem all too fleshed out. For what she was given however, Hathaway did a fair job with it. All of this coming from a guy who was never really an Anne Hathaway fan, I always thought she was just average, now I know she's a little bit above that. Did I want to know more (but not in the "she's a mysterious character" sort of way), sure, but I'm okay with what I got.
BANE!!!
Now we come to the main man (besides the Bat) Bane! I feel I need a different paragraph just for him. Tom Hardy's Bane is easily my favorite villain of the trilogy. Yes, the Joker was the coolest, but Bane was the most dramatic, the most personal. I feel like I'll be crucified for saying I liked Bane more than the Joker, but let me explain myself. I liked Bane for different reasons than the Joker. Ledger was given a character with no real development other than he's a crazy clown and turned in an awesome performance. Hardy was given a character with more depth to him and brought him to life. Again, Ledger had one hell of a performance, but Hardy is arguably at least as good for his character and I just happen to like Bane more. The performance certainly wasn't Bronson either (for any movie buffs reading this), but it wasn't supposed to be, and I still think Hardy did an excellent job in this role as well as Bronson. A lot of the personalization of the character comes from the writing, sure, but acting, it's all in Hardy's eyes. It kind of has to be (what with the mask and all.) There's more to Bane than just the crazy megalomania and you can see that in his eyes, or really, behind his eyes, somewhere inside him. Yes there's a person behind that mask and he feels just like the rest of us. Also, don't worry about his voice too much, they managed to clear it up a lot, just keep your ears open during his scenes.
SCORE
Speaking of keeping your ears open, let's talk about the score of the film. Hans Zimmer dishes out another amazing score. My favorite thing about his scoring of both this film and Dark Knight is what he did with the villains. Everytime I think of the Joker I hear that weird white noise and everytime I think of Bane from hear on out I'll hear the chant (I'm sure you've heard it already.) A good composer can define the sound of a movie a great composer can define the sound of a legend and Zimmer most certainly does that. Another thing I like is when the villain's sound plays, it doesn't just play while we see the character, it plays before. Doing that gives things an ominous feeling, when you hear the chant or the white noise you know something is waiting around the corner about to ruin your day.
DIRECTING
What can I say about Christopher Nolan without sounding biased? He's my favorite director and still is, there's just something about his films that draws me in and I completely get lost in his world. DKR definitely feels like the 3rd film in a trilogy, so it's got that going for it. Only negative thing I can say is that the first half drags a little. Or maybe a lot, but it's all set-up anyways and it does have entertaining moments in it so it's not that big of a problem. Incidentally, once the film picks up good gawd in the heavens above does it pick up. Certainly picking up the slack of the first half and then some, so really, it more than evens things out. I should also note that the 2hr 45min runtime doesn't feel that long, at least it didn't to me.
So there you have it, my review of DKR, everything from cast to directing was put together so well it has easily become my favorite Batman film. Best final note I can give about this film is lose any assumptions. Don't assume Bane's going to sound like shit, don't assume low or high expectations, don't assume any rumors you may have heard about it are true or false. If you can go into it with a clear and open mind and view the film as it's own seperate entity that's part of a bigger picture you will be more than pleasantly surprised. Even if you do assume things you'll still come out of the theater feeling like you saw a good film, I give The Dark Knight Rises an A+!
Friday, July 6, 2012
Spoiled Milk: The Amazing Spider-Man
Welcome loyal reader to a new blog post I like to call, "Spoiled Milk." Why call it that? 'Cause I'm going to take the movies I see and talk about the nitty gritty plot detail that didn't sit well with me. Spoiled Milk has two meanings essentially: 1) I'm going to spoil plot points, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! So yeah, spoiler alert and stuff, 2) movies are like milk, good for your bones, but if they spoil, things can go bad. Don't get me wrong, I love movies and let's be clear, I loved Amazing Spider-Man, but every movie has mistakes. I don't think mistakes bring a movie down, they're only natural. In fact, I think some mistakes, especially ones that can be cleared up can sometimes make a movie stronger. It's when everything goes wrong that a movie sucks. So please, don't let what I'm about to bring up make you think the movie is bad. I challenge you to think about the plot and come up with your own answers. Let's begin.
1) The Lab Tour Scene. Alright, I'm assuming anyone reading this has seen the movie, again, I warned you this whole post has spoilers. Something didn't sit right with me in this scene. Peter sneaks into a "Future Intern Tour" thing at Oscorp and is told by Gwen not to sneak off. So what does Peter do? He sneaks off. The issue that I have is that in a lab filled with dozens of white coated scientists NOBODY saw this hipster kid sneaking off into restricted areas and decided to say, "Hey kid, you can't be back here!" Sure, he was wearing a badge, but anyone with a brain, lets say a room full of smart scientist, could tell that he doesn't belong. Hell, I'm sure they knew a group of future interns where coming in today, any scientist could easily assume he's part of that group. Either way, it would have been smart to check his badge to confirm this rather than letting him walk away unnoticed. In fact, he does get noticed, by Gwen. An actual intern notices him but nobody else does? Bullshit. So that's my first issue, I can let it slide if you just consider that maybe Peter got lucky. Fine, moving on.
2) The Random Warehouse Scene. So Parker gets bit, then asks Gwen out and then goes skateboarding with hipster music to celebrate. But he celebrates in some random warehouse somewhere. Why? Does he skate there often? If so, why hasn't anybody caught him. Sure, he's alone, but the place doesn't look abandoned, it looks like people still use it. Maybe I just missed something with this one so I guess I can let it slide.
3) Unmasked by George Stacy Scene. So the vigilante that the cops are after gets unmasked by a cop and Peter spends a good couple of seconds showing his face to New Yorks Finest. I don't have a problem with why he showed it, I have a problem with why Peter Parkers face wasn't plastered all over the news the next day. Sure the public had been evacuated, so they wouldn't be there to take pictures. But police helicopters have cameras and they where right on him after his unmasking, spot light and all. George Stacy even warns Parker to leave at the end 'cause the cops will have to arrest him. So it's not like the NYPD will stop their man hunt. Spider-Man could convince George Stacy that vigilantes are sometime necessary, but ALL of "New York's Finest"? It's not like Stacy's going to be around to tell them to get rid of that helicopter footage that must have been taken. So what's stoping them? Here's what would happen the next day: the media plays helicopter footage of a tall gangly brunette teenager in a spider suit beating up a bunch of cops with the headline, "Can anyone identify this kid?" "Yeah, that's Peter Parker," says the guy who goes to school with Spider-Man. Andrew Garfield has a pretty recognizable face. Anyways, maybe George told them to scrap the footage before he died or something.
So there you have it, all the spoiled rotten parts of The Amazing Spider-Man. If you saw it, maybe you agree with me, if not, I would like your answers to these issues. If you have issues of your own, I'd like to hear them, maybe I missed one. Hope you enjoyed the read!
1) The Lab Tour Scene. Alright, I'm assuming anyone reading this has seen the movie, again, I warned you this whole post has spoilers. Something didn't sit right with me in this scene. Peter sneaks into a "Future Intern Tour" thing at Oscorp and is told by Gwen not to sneak off. So what does Peter do? He sneaks off. The issue that I have is that in a lab filled with dozens of white coated scientists NOBODY saw this hipster kid sneaking off into restricted areas and decided to say, "Hey kid, you can't be back here!" Sure, he was wearing a badge, but anyone with a brain, lets say a room full of smart scientist, could tell that he doesn't belong. Hell, I'm sure they knew a group of future interns where coming in today, any scientist could easily assume he's part of that group. Either way, it would have been smart to check his badge to confirm this rather than letting him walk away unnoticed. In fact, he does get noticed, by Gwen. An actual intern notices him but nobody else does? Bullshit. So that's my first issue, I can let it slide if you just consider that maybe Peter got lucky. Fine, moving on.
2) The Random Warehouse Scene. So Parker gets bit, then asks Gwen out and then goes skateboarding with hipster music to celebrate. But he celebrates in some random warehouse somewhere. Why? Does he skate there often? If so, why hasn't anybody caught him. Sure, he's alone, but the place doesn't look abandoned, it looks like people still use it. Maybe I just missed something with this one so I guess I can let it slide.
3) Unmasked by George Stacy Scene. So the vigilante that the cops are after gets unmasked by a cop and Peter spends a good couple of seconds showing his face to New Yorks Finest. I don't have a problem with why he showed it, I have a problem with why Peter Parkers face wasn't plastered all over the news the next day. Sure the public had been evacuated, so they wouldn't be there to take pictures. But police helicopters have cameras and they where right on him after his unmasking, spot light and all. George Stacy even warns Parker to leave at the end 'cause the cops will have to arrest him. So it's not like the NYPD will stop their man hunt. Spider-Man could convince George Stacy that vigilantes are sometime necessary, but ALL of "New York's Finest"? It's not like Stacy's going to be around to tell them to get rid of that helicopter footage that must have been taken. So what's stoping them? Here's what would happen the next day: the media plays helicopter footage of a tall gangly brunette teenager in a spider suit beating up a bunch of cops with the headline, "Can anyone identify this kid?" "Yeah, that's Peter Parker," says the guy who goes to school with Spider-Man. Andrew Garfield has a pretty recognizable face. Anyways, maybe George told them to scrap the footage before he died or something.
So there you have it, all the spoiled rotten parts of The Amazing Spider-Man. If you saw it, maybe you agree with me, if not, I would like your answers to these issues. If you have issues of your own, I'd like to hear them, maybe I missed one. Hope you enjoyed the read!
Movie Review: Amazing Spider-Man
Who would have guessed Nick Fury appears at the end of The Amazing Spider-Man? Just kidding! Although that would have been cool. Anyways, for this review I'm going to do things a tad differently, I'm going to take the Amazing Spider-Man and compare it to Sam Raimi's Spider-Man to see how they hold up. I know it probably won't be fair for one of the movies, but hey, this is the era of The Gritty Reboot, the Amazing Spider-Man wouldn't have gotten made if Raimi's 3rd movie didn't bomb and need a reboot. Let's get started.
So the Amazing Spider-Man was about a kid who gets bitten by a poisonous spider and gets super sick, he spends most of the movie in the hospital being kind to all the other sick folk which earns him the name, the Amazing Spider-Man. He dies at the end, it's tragic. Naw, that didn't happen, but do I really need to say what does? It's Spider-Man, kid gets bit, kid is now superhero, fights a giant lizard. It's pretty standard, but then, so was Raimi's, they're both superhero films, pretty standard stuff. This one, though, does something these new reboots are doing, revealing an origin that not many people are aware of. This provides a moderately new and fresh take on the hero, they don't expand on the origin plot too much in Amazing, but it's still there. Points to them.
Now we get to the cast and let me tell you, they're the most amazing part of the film. Sure Tobey was nerdy, but Andrew felt real, he wasn't just some nerdy kid with glasses, he was a nerdy kid with glasses who also wears contact lenses. Seriously though, his interaction with Emma (the love interest) felt a thousand times more realistic and awkward than anything Tobey and Kirsten could dish out. Flash Thompson also had a slightly bigger part, wasn't just some jack-ass bully. The bad guy Rhys Ifans (the lizard) wasn't my favorite though, his acting was good as Curt Connors but his Lizard dipped into Raimi's Schizo-Villain territory. Martin Sheen's Uncle Ben on the other hand, loved him. Sure he didn't feel as warm-hearted as Cliff Robertson's Ben, but Sheen felt like a mofugen parent and that counts for something. Overall, I'd have to give the point to Amazing for accomplishing the "gritty realism" aspect quite nicely with the characters.
Let's have the directors battle it out now. In one corner: Sam Raimi of Spider-Man. In the other: Marc Webb of The Amazing Spider-Man. Raimi had experience and plenty of movies under his belt and it showed in his movie with pomp and circumstance. Webb is fairly new, only doing 500 Days of Summer before this and a ton of music video directing. From a directorial stand point, Raimi did a far better job. A friend of mine mentioned that Amazing was paced wrong at points and I'd have to agree. Granted, most of it was stuff from Raimi's Spider-Man that they had to get out of the way quickly to move on, but other parts had it too. That being said, Webb did a decent job for being new to the major motion picture. However, I've got to give the point to Raimi on this one.
I'm going to talk about something now I've never mentioned before in my reviews: the score of the film. I'm only doing this because the Amazing Spider-Man had an interesting score. James Horner did the score for Amazing while THE Danny Elfman did the score for Spider-Man, yup, THE Danny Elfman. Both composers have given the sound to many a movie, Elfman however, is more recognized if you've watched any Tim Burton movie recently. I have to say, Elfman's work on Spider-Man was fantastic, it kept things fast paced and yet blended seamlessly into the movie, which is what a good score should be. Horner's work though, didn't. Most of the film had what I think was an indie rock soundtrack and even good moments like one with the lizard resorted to cliche monster movie piano strikes. Don't get me wrong, it's cool, just not fitting. So ultimately I'm giving the point to Raimi's Spider-Man.
Well that leaves them tied, how are we going to break this. I know, I know, which one stayed closest to the source material. I'm just going to say this now, the Amazing Spider-Man did. Raimi's Spider-Man had the Goblin in the movie and no Gwen Stacy. Instead we got the classic bridge scene but this time Mary Jane was the one being tossed off it and naturally she had to be saved. The Amazing Spider-Man takes Parker back to highschool with his first love, still has the bully Flash Thompson, but also gives us NYPD's George Stacy as a character. So I'm going to have to say, The Amazing Spider-Man wins.
It was a close call and the Raimi films are still really good and changed the way people think about superhero movies, but the Amazing Spider-Man is the result of that. It was allowed to be taken more seriously and had great effort put into it, yeah it had it's problems, but I feel it's the superior film. I give it an A+, see it for yourself, who knows, maybe you'll like the Raimi one better or something.
So the Amazing Spider-Man was about a kid who gets bitten by a poisonous spider and gets super sick, he spends most of the movie in the hospital being kind to all the other sick folk which earns him the name, the Amazing Spider-Man. He dies at the end, it's tragic. Naw, that didn't happen, but do I really need to say what does? It's Spider-Man, kid gets bit, kid is now superhero, fights a giant lizard. It's pretty standard, but then, so was Raimi's, they're both superhero films, pretty standard stuff. This one, though, does something these new reboots are doing, revealing an origin that not many people are aware of. This provides a moderately new and fresh take on the hero, they don't expand on the origin plot too much in Amazing, but it's still there. Points to them.
Now we get to the cast and let me tell you, they're the most amazing part of the film. Sure Tobey was nerdy, but Andrew felt real, he wasn't just some nerdy kid with glasses, he was a nerdy kid with glasses who also wears contact lenses. Seriously though, his interaction with Emma (the love interest) felt a thousand times more realistic and awkward than anything Tobey and Kirsten could dish out. Flash Thompson also had a slightly bigger part, wasn't just some jack-ass bully. The bad guy Rhys Ifans (the lizard) wasn't my favorite though, his acting was good as Curt Connors but his Lizard dipped into Raimi's Schizo-Villain territory. Martin Sheen's Uncle Ben on the other hand, loved him. Sure he didn't feel as warm-hearted as Cliff Robertson's Ben, but Sheen felt like a mofugen parent and that counts for something. Overall, I'd have to give the point to Amazing for accomplishing the "gritty realism" aspect quite nicely with the characters.
Let's have the directors battle it out now. In one corner: Sam Raimi of Spider-Man. In the other: Marc Webb of The Amazing Spider-Man. Raimi had experience and plenty of movies under his belt and it showed in his movie with pomp and circumstance. Webb is fairly new, only doing 500 Days of Summer before this and a ton of music video directing. From a directorial stand point, Raimi did a far better job. A friend of mine mentioned that Amazing was paced wrong at points and I'd have to agree. Granted, most of it was stuff from Raimi's Spider-Man that they had to get out of the way quickly to move on, but other parts had it too. That being said, Webb did a decent job for being new to the major motion picture. However, I've got to give the point to Raimi on this one.
I'm going to talk about something now I've never mentioned before in my reviews: the score of the film. I'm only doing this because the Amazing Spider-Man had an interesting score. James Horner did the score for Amazing while THE Danny Elfman did the score for Spider-Man, yup, THE Danny Elfman. Both composers have given the sound to many a movie, Elfman however, is more recognized if you've watched any Tim Burton movie recently. I have to say, Elfman's work on Spider-Man was fantastic, it kept things fast paced and yet blended seamlessly into the movie, which is what a good score should be. Horner's work though, didn't. Most of the film had what I think was an indie rock soundtrack and even good moments like one with the lizard resorted to cliche monster movie piano strikes. Don't get me wrong, it's cool, just not fitting. So ultimately I'm giving the point to Raimi's Spider-Man.
Well that leaves them tied, how are we going to break this. I know, I know, which one stayed closest to the source material. I'm just going to say this now, the Amazing Spider-Man did. Raimi's Spider-Man had the Goblin in the movie and no Gwen Stacy. Instead we got the classic bridge scene but this time Mary Jane was the one being tossed off it and naturally she had to be saved. The Amazing Spider-Man takes Parker back to highschool with his first love, still has the bully Flash Thompson, but also gives us NYPD's George Stacy as a character. So I'm going to have to say, The Amazing Spider-Man wins.
It was a close call and the Raimi films are still really good and changed the way people think about superhero movies, but the Amazing Spider-Man is the result of that. It was allowed to be taken more seriously and had great effort put into it, yeah it had it's problems, but I feel it's the superior film. I give it an A+, see it for yourself, who knows, maybe you'll like the Raimi one better or something.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Movie Review: The Hunger Games
Here are a 1,001 things I liked about this film in natural succession.
1,001: Just kidding, although if you gave me enough time I could name at least a couple of hundred things I liked about The Hunger Games. The first thing I've got to say is that it was intense. I don't sit on the edge of my seat for most movies and when I do it's usually because I have to go to the bathroom. But my goodness this movie just pulls you in and keeps you going throughout. All of the acting was exquisite. This is the part where I usually talk about each actor I liked, but if I did that you'd die of starvation before you finished reading. I'm only going to mention the lead actress and that's only because I liked her character more in the movie than I have from the parts that I've read in book. (I've only actually read up to the part where Katniss trains for the games.)
Second thing I can mention is the directing. I have to mention the directing here because it was some of the finest directing I've seen in a movie. Granted, the movie had odd directing at one or two moments, but when it was good it was great and it was 98% good directing. *SPOILER* The scene where Rue dies, it made me question life and death, it was all sorts of powerful and moving. *END SPOILER*
The final thing I feel I should bring up in this review is the weird controversy surrounding the casting of this film. Apparently people got really racist over the casting of the characters Rue and Cinna as black people, because they didn't view the characters to be dark skinned. I think this is some weird marketing strategy and the whole thing is set up. One of the things you'll hear is that they're pretty much described as African American in the book. Rue has "satiny brown skin," that's a direct quote, google search that for second and laugh at the stupidity of people who apparently don't know what satiny brown looks like. Either way, both actors did extremely well, freaken Lenny Kravitz played Cinna. Yes, THE Lenny "I'll make you wet with my words when I sing to you" Kravitz.
Anyways, that's all I've really got say. I give this movie an A++, see it, even if you haven't read the book. Or at least read up to Chapter 5 to get the gist of what you need to know about weird things like what the hell a Mockingjay is. In fact, I'm afraid to read the sequels because I don't want them to spoil the movies! It may just be my opinion, but I think the movie may just be better than the book, I'll let you know when I finish reading it. Thank you for reading this, enjoy your day, and may the odds be ever in your favor.
1,001: Just kidding, although if you gave me enough time I could name at least a couple of hundred things I liked about The Hunger Games. The first thing I've got to say is that it was intense. I don't sit on the edge of my seat for most movies and when I do it's usually because I have to go to the bathroom. But my goodness this movie just pulls you in and keeps you going throughout. All of the acting was exquisite. This is the part where I usually talk about each actor I liked, but if I did that you'd die of starvation before you finished reading. I'm only going to mention the lead actress and that's only because I liked her character more in the movie than I have from the parts that I've read in book. (I've only actually read up to the part where Katniss trains for the games.)
Second thing I can mention is the directing. I have to mention the directing here because it was some of the finest directing I've seen in a movie. Granted, the movie had odd directing at one or two moments, but when it was good it was great and it was 98% good directing. *SPOILER* The scene where Rue dies, it made me question life and death, it was all sorts of powerful and moving. *END SPOILER*
The final thing I feel I should bring up in this review is the weird controversy surrounding the casting of this film. Apparently people got really racist over the casting of the characters Rue and Cinna as black people, because they didn't view the characters to be dark skinned. I think this is some weird marketing strategy and the whole thing is set up. One of the things you'll hear is that they're pretty much described as African American in the book. Rue has "satiny brown skin," that's a direct quote, google search that for second and laugh at the stupidity of people who apparently don't know what satiny brown looks like. Either way, both actors did extremely well, freaken Lenny Kravitz played Cinna. Yes, THE Lenny "I'll make you wet with my words when I sing to you" Kravitz.
Anyways, that's all I've really got say. I give this movie an A++, see it, even if you haven't read the book. Or at least read up to Chapter 5 to get the gist of what you need to know about weird things like what the hell a Mockingjay is. In fact, I'm afraid to read the sequels because I don't want them to spoil the movies! It may just be my opinion, but I think the movie may just be better than the book, I'll let you know when I finish reading it. Thank you for reading this, enjoy your day, and may the odds be ever in your favor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)