As I've stated before, I'm not the
biggest Seth Rogen fan. Some of his films are ones that didn't seem
to fit in with me, with most of it being either stoner jokes or
anything like that. But some films that have been released since this
decade have been pretty funny, and earlier this year, I loved
“Neighbors,” which was a riot.
This brings us to “The Interview,”
the second film that he and his friend, Evan Goldberg, wrote and
directed. What caught my curiosity the most, was the controversy
surrounding this film. I mean, I expected there to be controversy
since it's a film about two guys killing Kim Jung Un, but this went
WAY beyond what I thought it was going to be. With Sony's recent hackings,
it lead to the pulling of the film's release, especially since most
mainstream theater chains refused to show it. However, it's Christmas
Day as I'm writing this, and the film has been given the theatrical
release...in limited theaters, that is. The film is available online,
with sites like YouTube and Google Play showing them, so you have the
opportunity to see it for yourselves.
So, what DID I think of this film
where Seth Rogen and James Franco attempt to assassinate the leader
of North Korea? Well, I thought it was enjoyable. It's not as good as, say “This is the End” or “Neighbors” though, but I do
enjoy it nonetheless.
In this film, James Franco plays Dave
Skylark, a talk show host who is given the opportunity to interview
Kim Jung Un, who happens to be a fan of his show. He and his
producer/friend, Aaron Rapoport, are then picked up by the CIA to
assassinate him, by giving him a lethal dose of poison, but secretly
enough that no one would notice at all. And if you saw the trailers
for this film, you would know that things don't quite go as planned,
but that's for you guys to see the movie.
What really worked in this film is the
chemistry between Franco and Rogen. You do buy their friendship
together, and they do have some memorable moments between one
another. With Rogen's straight-man character working off of Franco's
idiot persona, which we've seen before when they did “Pineapple
Express.” Just seeing Franco pull some dumbass move and seeing
Rogen's reaction to it, or vice versa, is hilarious almost every
time. I also love how they take more shots at the media than they do
with North Korea. They talk about topics like Eminem being gay, Rob
Lowe being bald, all that stuff that only people at TMZ could give a
shit about...seriously, fuck TMZ.
The only problems I do have with the
film are with the 2nd act in the film. It started to run
off a bit slow, there weren't that many jokes that clicked in with
me, and I felt like somethings could have been cut out. If you
trimmed down the 2nd act a bit, it would have made the
film an easy hour and forty-minutes, which is fine. But, by the time
the 3rd act rolled around, with the said interview, it got
to be funny again. It's just so batshit-insane how much could go
right, and how much could go wrong at the same time, all because
these two incompetent guys who do interviews on bottom of the barrel
topics.
Overall, “The Interview” is a film
that's worth checking out. It's not quite as funny as it could have
gotten, but with what we're given, it's not too bad. If you're
interested, it's just a click away at your computer. But if you're
that eager to find a theater that DOES play the film, then good luck
finding one.
And with that said, Happy Holidays
everybody! But if you've got a problem with “Happy Holidays,”
then Happy Shut-the-fuck-up!
During his years as one of the “Bad
Boys of SNL,” Chris Rock has gained recognition as one of the
funniest comedians of the past twenty years. Granted, he's done some
films that aren't that great, as well as give an offensive comment on
voice acting at the Oscars, but that's beside the point. Within the
past decade, he's had a couple films that he's taken part as writer
and director. “Head of State,” “I Think I Love My Life,” and
his newest film, “Top Five.”
In this film, Rock plays Andre Allen,
a talented comedian and actor, who has recently gone off the deep
edge and trying to revitalize himself. He does this by getting
married on Bravo TV, giving up alcohol all together, and turn towards
drama by starring in a film about the Haitian Revolution. The problem
is, people are more obsessed with him doing comedy than drama, and
with him doing another film in a series, about a cop in a bear suit
called “Hammy,” that he hates doing. And he confesses all of the
troubles to a reporter, Chelsea Brown, and many other things about
his life that he wants to put behind.
This is a film that's put in the
category of “Attack on Hollywood,” where you have a film that
reveals the flaws of Hollywood that people keep talking about, and it
does it well. It brings up how a lot of people don't want actors to
change their direction, always wanting the same crap over and over
again, and that trying to change your image won't automatically sync
in with the public. If anything, this is Chris Rock's best film and
performance, because he's essentially playing a parody of himself and
people who are in that circle like him. While Rock is very funny in
the film, he does show he's got a good dramatic side to him, when he
finds out a secret about Chelsea, which I won't spoil.
Rosario Dawson as Chelsea does a great
job in the film. She manages to pull off the reporter character with
something more to her, very nicely, and she too manages to get some
good laughs here and there. I love the story they have with her
boyfriend in the film, because it's so hilariously off putting, that
it's not worth spoiling. Throughout the film, it focuses on Rock
being interviewed by Dawson, and just seeing him finally lose his
shit is absolutely priceless. We also have appearances from Andre's
friends and family, some consisting of other comedians like Tracy
Morgan, Adam Sandler, Jerry Seinfeld, Jay Pharoah, DMX, and Whoopi
Goldberg, which are funny cameos in that regard.
If I had any complaints, it's that the
film did have a few parts that were a bit vulgar. There were about a
couple sex scenes that went a bit too far, and could have been toned
down a lot or just left to the imagination. Needless to say, this is
a film you do NOT want to watch with your parents or sensitive family members. I also didn't care
that much about the fiancee, played by Gabrielle Union. We don't
really get to know her that much, and she just acts like an annoying
bitch you'd see on any of those “Real Housewives” shows. I know
that's kind of the intention, since the wedding is broadcast on
Bravo, the channel that SHOWS them, but that still doesn't make it
good.
Aside from that, the film is pretty
easy going, and is a good watch. If you're a Chris Rock fan, I highly
recommend it. The writing's good, the direction is good, the acting
is excellent, and it has a lot of funny moments in it. Check it out
and see what you think.
This December, we have two films that
have more connections to one another than you think. Those films are
“Annie” and “Into the Woods.” The connections between these
two films is as follows: they're both films based on Broadway
musicals, they're both coming out December of 2014, they each have a
film adaptation directed by Rob Marshall and Disney, and they both
involved Bernadette Peters at one point or another.
The original musical “Annie,” was
based on the “Little Orphan Annie” comics by Harold Gray. It
tells the story of an orphan girl, living under the care of the mean
and grouchy Miss Hannigan. When she is taking under the care of a
rich wealthy man, Oliver Warbucks, they soon become more fond of one
another, making Mr. Warbucks a more compassionate man than he was
before.
This new film however, I had severe
doubt about, because of three reasons:
#1: The film is a modern day, hip-hop,
auto-tuned revamp of the musical, which is a style of music I'm not
into. Auto-tune, especially, is something that I cannot stand,
because it tries to make something that's already fine on its own
sound less credible. It's just like dub-step, I just don't get the
appeal of it.
#2: Cameron Diaz was in the cast as
Miss Hannigan. As of late, Cameron Diaz has really been losing so
much respect from me. These past years, she's always been doing bad
film after bad film. Hell, this year alone she's had two films
released earlier this year, “The Other Woman” and “Sex Tape,”
and they were both terrible. So the chances of her being good in this
movie were growing slimmer and slimmer.
#3: I never liked “Annie” to begin with. “Annie” has always been one of my least favorite musicals
with unlikable songs, annoying characters, and very slow pacing. The
1982 film adaptation was much like that, only it was done much worse.
In fact, the only good thing about that version were the villains
played by Carol Bernette, Tim Curry, and Bernadette Peters.
Everything else in the film was garbage, and deserves it's Razzie
award and nominations.
Needless to say, I thought the new
film was going to suck, especially since this film was getting some
very harsh reception. So after viewing it, I can definitely see why
it's hated so.
Like I said, most of the songs are
either ones that suck, like “It's the Hard Knock Life,” “Maybe,”
and “Easy Street,” or they're done auto-tuned, like “I Don't
Need Anything But You,” and the songs written for the movie like “The
City is Yours” and “Who Am I?” Surprisingly enough, the only
songs that get auto-tuned are the ones that have Jamie Foxx singing. Jamie Foxx is already a great singer, so
what's the point? Not only that, but with the way they incorporated
the songs into the film was really distracting. Every time someone
started to go into song, it's as if the film is reminding you that
it's a musical. It wouldn't be so bad if the film didn't have the
songs spread apart so far, but here it gets annoying.
I also didn't really care about Bobby
Cannavale's character. It's just the stock greedy jerk, who you could
have had anybody play, and it wouldn't have made a difference. What
also bugged me the most were the fake parents, who appear near the
end. Like I said, the only thing I liked about the original was Tim
Curry and Bernadette Peters, who played the fake parents. They also
were Miss Hannigan's brother and sister-in-law, and the reason they
did it was because they were con-artists. Not only that, but it was
Tim Curry and Bernadette Peters, who made it enjoyable, and you
decide to replace them with that chick from “Death Proof” and the
cop from “The Cape?” Really?
Aside from all of that, what was good
about the movie? Well, right off the bat, Quvenzhane Wallis as Annie
was actually pretty good. Unlike Aileen Quinn in the original film,
Wallis actually knows how to act in a movie, and she's actually not
that bad as a singer, when she performs “Tomorrow” and
“Opportunity,” which are two of the only good songs in the movie.
She's positive, she's a smart talker, and you do feel sympathetic for
her in her dire moments. Originally, Will Smith, who produced the
film along with his wife and Jay-Z, wanted his daughter, Willow, to
play the role of Annie. However, after Quvenzhane Wallis was
nominated for the Best Actress Oscar for “Beasts of the
Southern Wild,” Wallis was cast later that June. This was a good
choice, because I'm really starting to get tired of Smith forcing his
kids on us, because it never turns out good.
Jamie Foxx also does a good job in the
film, playing Will Stacks. Despite his songs not turning out so good,
he does give a likable performance, and he has some pretty good
delivery with the jokes they do with him. The one major thing I love
about this film that surpasses any other incarnation of “Annie,”
is the relationship between the two main characters. Wallis and Foxx
have brilliantly chemistry together, working out their negatives and
helping them improve upon it, with Annie helping Stacks work on being
together with other people more often, and Foxx helping Annie with
her reading problem. I'm one of the few people who doesn't mind the
use of cliches and predictability, as long as I'm invested enough in
the characters that it doesn't bother me. This is one of those films
that does it for me.
Rose Byrne plays Grace Farrell,
Stacks' assistant and secretary, and she too gives a good
performance. Her scenes with either of the two are enjoyable, ranging
from funny to very touching, especially when she waits with Annie at
the corner of a shop her parents left her by. Byrne is a great
comedic performer, and the song “I Think I'm Gonna Like It Here”
shows that she too is a good singer. While her romance with Jamie
Foxx was a bit short, I never thought it was underdeveloped. She has
worked under Stacks for quite a while, so you could guess that
they've had affection for one another for a while, but that he's been mostly focusing
on work than anything. But you know what was the most surprising
thing about this film? I LIKED CAMERON DIAZ! Yes, I actually thought
she did a good job in this. Granted, she's no Carol Burnett, but
she's good nonetheless. She has good comedic timing in the film,
more so than what they show us in the trailer. I liked how they joke about her character almost being apart of “Hootie and the
Blowfish,” but that made me laugh at how ridiculous that sounded.
Not to mention, her rendition of “Little Girls” wasn't too bad
actually. While I would have liked to see more done with it, aside
from her going around her apartment, I didn't mind with what they did
in it.
It's really interesting, because this
film feels like a reverse “Annie,” where we originally had a
terrible movie with good villains, and then have a good movie with
mediocre villains. And yes, you heard me right, I do like this movie.
For me, this is one of those cases where Hollywood does a remake
right, turning a terrible film into a good one. Yeah, the villains
weren't as good as before, but it's the main focus with Annie and Stacks
that saves it. I loved seeing these two interact with one another,
and giving themselves something that the other didn't have. I'll
never forget the touching moment they have before they say their
goodbyes, which was the best acted part of the movie. There's no
music, there are no tears, it's just the atmosphere between them.
This film was directed by Will Gluck,
who is best known for directing “Easy A” and “Friends With
Benefits.” He is a good director, and he has proven to have good
comedic work, and it's nice to know that he's flexible of doing any
kind of comedy, whether it'd be raunchy or family oriented. Is it his
best film? No, far from it. Like I said, the parts where the songs
are put in are too separate from each other, some of which I don't
like, and the villains aren't as good as the original. But with
the great chemistry between Wallis, Foxx, Byrne, and the acting from
supporting characters like the orphans, the body guard, the social
security agent, and the corner-store clerk overshadow those moments.
Overall, “Annie” is a film that I
found surprisingly enjoyable. It's charming, it's got some good
moments, and the acting is pretty good. It's not a perfect film, but
it's no where near terrible. And at least it's a better film Broadway
film than shit like “Mamma Mia." If you're
a fan of “Annie,” I don't know if you would like it or not. Go in
open minded, and see what you think.
While 2014 hasn't been the best of
years, that's not to say there hasn't been some pretty damn good films that
came out this year, and a lot of music related films. “Begin
Again,” “Jersey Boys,” “Get On Up,” they were films about
musicians trying to get up on their feet and into the eyes of the
public, and succeeding greatly. However, neither of those films, nor
any other film this entire year was about as good or as intense as the film I'm
talking about today. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...“Whiplash.”
“Whiplash” tells the story of
Andrew Neyman, a college freshman, who wants to be among one of the
next great drummers in history. When he's called to join Terrance
Fletcher's class, which he's heard is where the music talent comes
from at the college, he soon finds out that Fletcher is one of the
most ruthless and hardcore people you could ever meet.
The film is a psychological battle
between Andrew and Fletcher, as you have a student who self-trained
himself to drum, now being taught by a guy who pushes you far past
your limit, to unleash true greatness, but in the harshest way
possible. Everyone has had that boss or teacher that is extremely hard on you, but there is always a
reasoning behind such actions. This film perfectly shows that, and it
is without a doubt the most intense, nail-biting, experience I've had
in a movie theater all year. Not even the big blockbusters that I've
seen this summer had this much tension as “Whiplash” did.
Miles Teller as Andrew Neyman, what
can I say? This guy is such a damn good actor, and this performance
is without a doubt his best. He has
said on occasion that he learned to play the drums long before he
started acting, and boy does he put that to the test. I know that
they say he had doubles for some shots, but with how the film was
constructed, I didn't really care about that. Much like with
“Nightcrawler,” I didn't see Miles Teller; all I saw in the film
was Andrew Neyman, putting his sweat, tears, and blood, literally all
of that, into his drumming performances. If you still have doubt
about Miles Teller playing Reed Richards in the new “Fantastic
Four” or Dan Aykroyd in the upcoming Belushi biopic, just watch
this performance and reconsider that. Those two films have a great
actor in their hands, and anybody who says otherwise can go fuck
themselves. Hell, not even getting hit by a car stops this guy's
determination. It really is a tough competition this year, because if
it wasn't for all of these great performances coming out this year, I
would definitely want Teller to be nominated for Best Actor.
However, if there is one Oscar choice
that I agree with everyone on, it's J.K. Simmons for Best Supporting
Actor as Terrance Fletcher. For those of you who are still wishing
for J.K. Simmons to reprise his role of J. Jonah Jameson in any
future Spiderman films, your wish is partially granted with
“Whiplash.” Fletcher is as if Jameson went full on Gunnery
Sergeant Hartman, dishing out insults that are really funny, but you
feel bad for it because of how hardcore it is. Simmons is already
nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor, so I'm hoping
he's gets that AND the Oscar as well.
I still hold to how this intense the
movie is. The ending is one of the most perfect endings to any
movie I've seen in the past decade. It was rising and rising in it's
peak, and it ends at the right point where it needs to. No bullshit,
just perfection. I was in an audience of about four or five people,
and I still stood up and applauded for this movie, because it was
THAT satisfying of an ending. Not only do I wish a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for Simmons, but I also want a Best Editing and Best Picture
nomination.
Overall, “Whiplash” was just fantastic to watch! I loved this movie from start to finish, and I hope to
buy it when it comes out on blu-ray. The acting was great, the direction
was great, the editing was great, it's a great film! If AMC theaters
does a Best Picture marathon, I hope this film will be on the list.
If it does, check it out as soon as you can.
Growing up in the early 2000's, one of
the most exciting things about coming home from school was gearing up
for Toonami on Cartoon Network, back when it had the afternoon block.
It introduced me to popular anime at the time, like “Sailor Moon,”
“Gundam,” “Outlaw Star,” “Yu Yu Hakusho,” and of course,
“Dragon Ball.” I've always loved the “Dragon Ball” franchise,
and it always feels nostalgic whenever I revisit the series from time
to time, even if it does seem a bit long at times but that's mostly
on “DBZ's” part.
With how action packed and popular
“DBZ” had gotten, there have been movies made to appeal to the
fans of the series, some of them ranged from good, to okay, but they
weren't really canon with the main story itself. That however has
changed, as we were given the first “Dragon Ball Z” movie to be
both canon with the series AND have Akira Toriyama involved with it.
And seeing how it's the 30th anniversary of “Dragon
Ball,” I now bring to you, my review of “Dragon Ball Z: Battle of
Gods.”
After waking from his deep slumber,
Beerus the Destroyer, a god of destruction, sets his eyes on
approaching the legendary Super Saiyan God. He believes that Goku is
that legendary one, since he was the first to achieve Super Saiyan
and had defeated Frieza. However, when he finds that Goku isn't the
deity, he goes to Earth to see if Vegeta is the chosen one. Now Goku
has to find out the secrets of the Super Saiyan God, all the while
Vegeta tries to keep Beerus calm and relaxed so he doesn't destory
the Earth.
Just to jump to conclusions, I fucking
loved this movie! Out of all the theater experiences I've had this
year, this and “Guardians of the Galaxy” were the most fun! The
animation is great to look at, the action scenes are some of the best
I've seen animated in the franchise, and...oh my god, it's just a
complete nostalgia trip for me! I can die happy, knowing that I got
to see this epic event in the theater with other fans like me. Thank
you, Fathom Events, for allowing this to happen. It was said that the
reason Akira Toriyama wanted to make this film happen, was to fight
back at the horrendous pile of shit that was “Dragon Ball
Evolution,” which I still hold for being the biggest middle finger
a film could possibly give. Not only that, but since it takes place
after the Majin Buu incident, I can only assume it's a bit of an
attack on “GT,” which...wasn't bad, but not really that great.
And from what I hear, this film's success has allowed for the
approval of new “DBZ” movies to follow this one. All I can say
is...I'M SO HAPPY!
All the characters we've come to love
are in this film. Goku, Vegeta, Piccolo, King Kai, Krillin, Gohan,
everyone's there, so if you know the series, you know how these
characters are. With that said, the only characters I'll be going
into depth with are Beerus and his teacher, Whis. Beerus the
Destroyer is actually a pretty enjoyable villain, and one of the
funnier ones in a while. He doesn't destroy because he wants control
over the universe, he just does it because it's what he does for a
living, hence the name “the Destroyer.” His interactions with all
the characters are enjoyable, and with the kind of attitude he has,
only tactics like Vegeta singing and dancing could distract him from
destroying the Earth over a bullet. And yes, you read that
right...Vegeta does that, in this movie, and it's really funny. Not
to mention, Jason Douglas does a great job voicing the character,
making it fitting for the kind of character in the film.
Whis on the other hand, is more calm
and well focused than Beerus, as he doesn't feel the need to destroy
as much as Beerus does. In fact, most of the time he just feels like
taste testing most of the food on Earth, which also has some good
moments too. And Ian Sinclair, who does the English voice of Brook in
“One Piece,” really lets the tone settle in with him throughout
the film.
While the film was excellent, I do
have one little nitpick that I want to address: How did King Kai get
his planet back? Seriously, it was blown up by Cell, and he's been
living with the other Kais since then. How'd he get it back?
Somebody answer me!
Aside from that, not much else can be
said. If you're a “Dragon Ball” fan, you will have a blast with
this movie. It's action packed, it's gorgeously animated, it's funny,
it's just a fresh and tasty treat to the fan base. Happy 30th
anniversary, to Goku and his friends.
The year 2012 was a surprisingly big
year for movies. We've had the Avengers assemble for the first time,
Ben Affleck gave us his Best Picture winning film “Argo,” Quentin
Tarantino gave us a tribute to spaghetti westerns and
black-sploitation films with “Django Unchained,” and Jennifer
Lawrence rose to the top of the Hollywood ladder. Beforehand,
Lawrence had only been best known for working on films like “Winter's
bone,” but after “X-Men First Class,” she started to gain a bit
more recognition. During that year, she starred in “Silver Lining's
Playbook” which won her the Oscar for Best Actress, and she starred
in the new young adult book adaptation, “The Hunger Games.”
The first film, written and directed
by Gary Ross, was set in the post-apocalyptic world of “Panem,”
each of the 13 districts must offer two tributes for the annual
Hunger Games. When her sister is chosen to participate, Katniss
Everdeen offers herself as tribute in order to save her sister. Now
she, and her friend Peeta, must appeal to the crowds and survive the
games as this year's champions. It has been said countless times that
the film is just an American version of “Battle Royale,” which I
can totally see why. And while I do think “Battle Royale” is a
superior movie, I still like this film just the same, for it's
protagonists and it's satire on reality T.V. and celebrity life. The
shaky cam action scenes do get obnoxious though.
The sequel, “Catching Fire,” was a
big step up from the previous film. The action scenes were done
better, thanks to Frances Lawrence taking over as director, the
stakes were higher, and the acting had gotten better. As the recent
winners of the Hunger Games, Katniss and Peeta now had to appeal to
the City Capitol and President Snow, if they wish to survive and gain
the support they need for the 75th annual games, where
they compete against the survivors of the previous 25 years. Looking
back at “Catching Fire,” I keep loving it more and more, seeing
how much improvement could be done with a film such as this. It
didn't quite fill up the void that “Harry Potter” left when the
series was done, but I'm at least glad that it was able to wash away
the memory of some of the crap that Stephanie Meyer has been putting
out.
Now we move onto the first part of the
final chapter of this series, “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part
1.” After recovering from the trauma she endured from the last
Hunger Games, Katniss has been chosen to represent the rebellion
hiding in District 13. When she agrees to the terms, she requests
that Peeta and the other victors that were left behind be saved and
spared, during the mission to take out City Capitol and influencing
the other districts to fight back with her.
One of the major key factors that I
love about these films is its take on propaganda and the news. They
play with the fact that not every person that appears on T.V. is who
they really are, but just an act to appeal to whomever is watching,
including the people behind the camera. Scenes like when they try to
make Katniss seem like an epic war rebel in front of a green-screen
is both clever and occasionally funny. The film also dives into the question
of who is actually the right side here? Is the rebellion against the
Capitol a good idea, or will it lead to a civil war that no one can
recover from? Questions like that really do get a person invested in
the story, and eager to find out what happens. Needless to say, I'm
looking forward to Part 2.
Much like the previous installments,
Jennifer Lawrence gives a great performance as Katniss. While there
wasn't as much development with her, like in “Catching Fire,” she
makes up for it with her inner struggles about the rebellion, and
with Peeta being within the Capitol and saying all those things about
them. She does have a breaking point, and you do see her care about
those around her, even if it means disobeying orders. Lawrence is a
fantastic actress, and after looking back at who they originally
wanted for Katniss (Hailee Steinfeld, Chloe Moretz, Abigail Breslin,
and Emma Roberts), you can't really picture anyone else for the role
better than her at this point. Liam Hemsworth as Gale manages to get
a bigger part in the series this time around, as one of the people
who partake in the rebellion. While being part of the filming team,
at first, he brings that sense of humanity and urgency to Katniss, as
he and her family are all that she's got left to remember of her
district.
Josh Hutcherson as Peeta, while he has
a smaller role than before, still makes it as memorable as possible.
The scenes where he's on the news and is spilling out all the talk
about the rebellion to Katniss, is really effective. The look in his
eyes obviously tells you that he doesn't want to say it, but has no
choice if he wants to keep himself alive for both his and Katniss's
sake. Hutcherson, too, has come a long way in his career, and I can
only hope for the best with what comes for him. Other cast members
such as Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, Donald Sutherland as President
Snow, Elizabeth Banks as Trinket, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman (may he
rest in peace) as Plutarch were all fantastic in their returning
roles. I also got to give props to Julianne Moore, as the leader of
District 13, Alma Coin. She has claimed to be a big fan of the books,
so the fact that she was able to get invested in what her character
does and what goes on around her makes it easy to work with.
This time around, the script was
written by Daniel Strong and Peter Craig. Craig is best known for
co-writing “The Town,” and Strong is well known for writing for
“Lee Daniel's The Butler,” as well as playing Jonathan on “Buffy
the Vampire Slayer.” The two manage to make the script work well to
its advantage, and Frances Lawrence still keeps it fresh
and exciting. There isn't much in the way of action, aside from the
district rebellions and a few intense scenes, but I can get past
that. You want there to be a big build up, and this one has a lot.
Overall, “The Hunger Games:
Mockingjay Part 1” was a definite win/win for me. I saw the film
opening day with my buddy Zack, and we enjoyed it a lot. With “Part
2” coming out next year, along with “Jurassic World,”
“Tomorrowland,” and many others, I have a feeling it'll be a good
year...ESPECIALLY with how annoying THIS year was.
The year 1994 was a big, BIG year for
movies. Tom Hanks won his second Oscar for his performance in “Forest
Gump,” Kevin Smith got recognition for “Clerks,” Keanu Reeves
made himself an action star sensation with “Speed,” Disney gave
us the triumphant epic that was “The Lion King,” and Quentin
Tarantino delivered us “Pulp Fiction.” But there was one actor
who managed to define 1994, by being one of the biggest stars to get
so much recognition that year...and that actor is Jim Carrey.
While Carrey may have still been
recognizable with “In Living Color” and a few films here and
there, it wasn't until 1994 that his career really took off into
stardom. “Ace Ventura: Pet Detective” was a goofy and likable
comedy that had Carrey take things up to his highest level, “The
Mask” had him blend both his craziness and dramatic sides together
in one film, and then we have “Dumb and Dumber,” being the
definition of stupid comedy.
To describe the plot of “Dumb and
Dumber” would go like this: two idiots try to bring a woman
back a suitcase that was supposed to go to mobsters. The result is
shenanigans after shenanigans, with stupid moment after stupid
moment...but that's pretty much the point of the film. Saying that
film like this is stupid is pretty much giving it a compliment. It's
a film that's about a couple of man-children, doing what you'd expect
a couple of children to do, and there are some memorable lines and
moments from it. Is it perfect? No, far from it. But for what it is,
it's enjoyable.
Afterwards, the film was subjected to
what I call, the “Carrey-wipe.” What's the “Carrey-wipe” you
ask? Well, it's when a studio decides to make another film to a
popular Jim Carrey movie, only without Jim Carrey involved with it.
The reason for this was because after “Ace Ventura: When Nature
Calls,” Jim wasn't too enthusiastic about doing the same character
again and not trying something new. Because of this, we got shit like
“Son of the Mask,” “Evan Almighty,” “Ace Ventura Jr,” and
“Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd.” They were all awful
films, and they bombed HARD.
So the idea of Jim Carrey ever doing a
sequel to one of his films ever again was just a dream. Then it was
announced that the Farrelly Brothers were working on a TRUE sequel to
“Dumb and Dumber,” and that it WOULD star Jim Carrey and Jeff
Daniels again. There has been a lot of word going around and about on
it, like Carrey dropping out of it, Daniels saying that it wasn't
true, and it wasn't until Carrey tweeted himself with his chipped
tooth that it was completely confirmed.
In this new film, “Dumb and Dumber
To,” Harry and Lloyd go back to their old life after Lloyd ends his
twenty year prank, and it's revealed that Harry has a bad kidney.
When they find a postcard from an old girlfriend who had a kid, they
decide to go meet her to get a new kidney, all the while delivering a
special item she's supposed to give to executives at a convention.
Did I like the film? Surprisingly
enough, I did...sort of. Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels still have good chemistry
together, and they manage to keep their material in the same spirit
as the original. Kathleen Turner as Frida Feltcher, the woman that
had the child, does a good enough job in the film. The only problem I
had with her, was that she wasn't quite as funny as they could have
made her. She is likable, don't get me wrong, but for a comedy like
this I would have liked a bit more jokes with her.
Rob Riggle plays one of the
antagonists of the film, and he's definitely one of the best parts
about the film. His character is like the type Mike Starr played in
the first film, as a guy who's trying to kill our heroes, but
something always gets in the way. He also plays his character's twin
brother, but that's as far as I'll go with him. But with how good
Riggle was in the film, it's the exact opposite with Laurie Holden as
the main villain. She's...just not interesting in the slightest, and I
felt like Holden didn't do much to make her that memorable. Sure, the
villain from the first film was like that, but that's beside the
point. I also didn't care that much for the daughter, played by
Rachel Melvin. She tries her best, bless her heart, but she didn't
seem to take it to her fullest advantage. Not that it was Melvin's
fault, I mean she's a good actress, it's just that the character
wasn't written as good.
Overall, is “Dumb and Dumber To”
worth it? On a certain level, it is. While I do have problems with the
villain, and a few jokes here and there being too juvenile, it's
still a good time because of Daniels and Carrey's comedic timing
together. If you're looking for a film that brings out some nostalgia
in you, I'd recommend seeing it. It's stupid, but in an enjoyable
way.
Back in 2011, we were given the
comedy, “Horrible Bosses,” starring Jason Bateman, Charlie Day,
and Jason Sudeikis. It was about a trio of guys (Nick, Dale, and
Kurt) who really don't like their bosses, whether they were a total
fucking asshole, a dipshit cokehead, or an evil crazy bitch DDS, so
they hire a guy to help them deal with the situation. The results?
They try and kill each of their bosses, so there would be no trace
behind them. It was a clever film that managed to keep itself fresh
with each passing view of it, and was one of my favorite films of
that year. And much like any successful comedy would, it spawned a
sequel.
In this installment, the trio has
started to build up their own product company, for their own line of
showerheads. However, things turn sour when their client, Burt
Hanson, cancels his offer to buy a hundred thousand units so he can
buy their bankrupt company. So in an attempt to pay off their debt,
they kidnap his son, Rex, who in a twist of events decides to be in
on the kidnapping to get even more money.
First off, the chemistry between our
three protagonists is golden. The timing for each joke between the
three is just as funny as the first film, with a few added features
to it. It makes it feel like this is an actual continuation of the
first film. It even has Dale's wife from the first film return, even
for a little bit. Every minute passing always has something new to
share, and it keeps getting funnier and funnier.
The two of the former bosses, played
by Jennifer Aniston and Kevin Spacey, return in smaller roles, but
still manage to leave an impact on the film. We do see what has
happened with them since the events of the first film, and the
interactions between them and our protagonists make for some great
moments. Jamie Foxx returns to reprise his role as Dean
“Motherfucker” Jones, this time in a much more involved role than
before, and needless to say, the ending with his bit is hilarious.
The new horrible boss, Burt Hanson, is
delightfully enjoyable, and Christoph Waltz does a fantastic job at
playing such a scumbag. I'm glad that this film, unlike “The Green
Hornet,” was able to showcase what Waltz can do as a comedic
villain. However, the one who steals the show is Rex Hanson, played
by Chris Pine. To put it simply, Pine is a fucking maniacal genius in
this film. Every scene with him has the film take a new turn with
him, even when you least expect it. Just from the trailers alone, you
can tell Pine is having so much fun with this character. I would have
easily recommended this movie for him alone, showing you just how
good he was in this film.
Overall, “Horrible Bosses 2” was a
hilarious trip all the way through. When it comes out next week to
theaters, I highly recommend checking it out. It's funny, it's timed
well, and it's just as good, if not better than the first film.
In the past, I've brought up that we
have entered into a new Renaissance Era for Disney. “Wreck-It
Ralph” and “Frozen” were both films that I really did enjoy
with every fiber of my being, despite my doubt and low expectations.
And yet, both times Disney has proven me wrong, and the films were
extremely good. Now that Disney owns a mass majority of Marvel, you
think they would take advantage of that opportunity and make their
own Marvel film with their name attached to it. Well, look no
further, for we have “Big Hero 6.”
Loosely based on the comic of the same
name, “Big Hero 6” tells the story of Hiro Hamada, a teenage
genius who lives in the futuristic city of San Fransokyo. When his
brother, Tadashi, is killed in a fiery explosion, Hiro decides to
team up with Tadashi's friends and his robot, Baymax, to apprehend
the perpetrator and save the city.
It does sound like the typical
superhero film, and in a way it is. But the way that its handled
makes it a thrilling experience from start to finish. It's funny,
it's dark, it's action packed, and it has so much life to it. Now,
when I say this film is “loosely based,” I do mean that. A lot of
people I follow say that this film took a lot of liberties with the
comic, in order to make the film more relatable.
If you watch The Blockbuster Buster,
then you'll know he said this film was like Disney's take on “The
Iron Giant” and the “Teen Titans” tv show, and he is right in
that regard. The characters are made of different races and
nationalities, to make it seem more welcoming, and the main focus is
the relationship between Hiro and Baymax. But from what I've heard
from them, they say that the film is still really good, despite not
being entirely accurate.
Like you'd expect, the animation is
beyond phenomenal, and the action scenes are really damn good. I'd
dare even say it's Disney's best animated action film since “The
Incredibles.” Yeah, I know it's technically Pixar, but Disney owns
them so it counts. Not only that but the 3D was done excellently, and
with it being CGI, it really captures the atmosphere perfectly.
One of the major key factors that I
love about the film is the brotherly bond between Hiro and Tadashi in
the first act. You do feel the connection these two share, and it
does get emotional when that bond is torn apart. However, it is still
kept alive when Baymax starts to help out Hiro, as if Tadashi really
is still there. Disney has a knack for making the goofy sidekick very
lovable, and that's what Baymax is. He's funny, he's caring, and you
do get teary eyed when he's reasoning with Hiro in his time of
desperation and near the end. Like Genie, Olaf, and others like them,
Baymax should feel welcome to the club.
As for the voice acting, it's actually
pretty good. Ryan Potter as Hiro does add in the emotion, Scott Adsit
was a perfect choice for Baymax, and the rest of the Big Hero 6
played by T.J. Miller, Jamie Chung, Genesis Rodriguez, and Damon
Wayans Jr. are also really good. Stan Lee also manages to voice a
cameo in the film, since it is a Marvel film and we should expect a
cameo from him. Alan Tudyk also gets a role in the film,
playing a business tycoon who's eager about the future. I think since
this is the third Disney film in a row that Alan Tudyk has voiced
for, we should just make him the new John Ratzenberger.
Overall, “Big Hero 6” was a
fantastic film, and is definitely one of my favorite films of the
year. It's action packed, it's beautifully colorful, its characters
are likable, and it's rich with emotion. I'll be looking forward to
the day it is released on Blu-Ray, because it is definitely worth the
money.
Christopher Nolan is regarded by many
as one of the most acclaimed directors of our generation. Films like “Insomnia,” “The Prestige,” “Inception,” and “Memento”
are all among my favorite films, because of the dark and eerie
atmosphere that they give off. While I do like “The Dark Knight Trilogy,” they don't seem to have the same kind of kick that the other
films have. Now with “The Dark Knight Trilogy” wrapped up, Nolan
finally returns to doing newer work with his science fiction epic,
“Interstellar.”
The film tells the story of Cooper, a
farming engineer who wants to do whatever it takes to protect his
family. When his daughter, Murphy, discovers the coordinates for
NASA's surviving base, Cooper now has to lead a team of scientists
through a wormhole, in order to find a better planet for the human
race to live on. To be perfectly honest, this is Christopher Nolan's
BEST film. His directing and writing skills are put
to the test in this picture, and not for a moment do I feel like a
scene or performance was done badly. And for a film that's almost three
hours long, I was NOT bored by it.
Matthew McConaughey as Cooper is
fantastic, and he really shows us that he can act, instead of
being that charming southern guy from “How to Lose a Guy In 10
Days.” Even before he heads off into space, the interactions he has
with everyone he shares the screen with are great, like he does know
how to work through a situation. McConaughey is one of my favorite
actors, and after winning the Oscar for “Dallas Buyers Club” and
starring in “True Detective,” it's very likely he won't lose his
mojo anytime soon. I also find it funny how this is the second
character named “Cooper” he's played, with the previous one being
in “Killer Joe.” Seriously guys, if you haven't seen “Killer
Joe” yet, go check it out, it is awesome! You'll never think of chicken wings the same way.
Mackenzie Foy plays Murphy, Cooper's
daughter, and she manages to give a fantastic performance as well.
It's really nice to see that after playing the bastard child of
Edward and Bella in “Breaking Dawn,” she can finally show us that
she can act. The scenes with her and McConaughey are probably my
favorite part of the movie, because they have such good chemistry
together. You do believe their relationship together as father and
daughter, like any good actor or actress should. I also enjoyed
Jessica Chastain's portrayal of the grown-up Murphy, which has just
as much emotion as Foy does. And, much like any performance from
Jessica Chastain, she a strong and determined protagonist, going with
her instincts instead of what others suggest. Chastain has really
started to become one of my favorite actresses, ever since her
flawless Oscar nominated role in “The Help.” And to see her work
with one of my favorite directors is a treat in itself.
Anne Hathaway returns from “The Dark
Knight Rises” to play Amelia Brand, one of the fellow astronauts
that Cooper has to travel with. At first, we don't know much about
her character, aside from being the daughter of the head programmer,
but we still get that emotional feel with her throughout the film,
with every passing moment. It's good to see Hathaway go from being
that chick from “The Princess Diaries,” to becoming an Oscar
winning actress, and in one of the greatest science fiction epics in
the longest time. Michael Caine, another Nolan collaborator, also
gives a great performance as Amelia's father. I mean, it's Michael
Caine, why wouldn't he?
Other supporting roles such as John
Lithgow as Cooper's father, Topher Grace as Murphy's partner, Casey
Affleck as Cooper's son, and even Wes Bently and David Gyasi as the
other two astronauts give off very good performances. We even get a
surprise cameo from Matt Damon and Ellen Burstyn, so that was pretty
cool.
Now let me just talk about the
effects, because...holy shit, this is a gorgeous looking movie. For a
science fiction movie filmed and directed in such majesty and
magnitude, I did not think this film was using CGI, much like
“Gravity.” I felt like I was watching these people actually go up
into space and go through a worm hole. There have been some people
who complained about how the science was wrong in this film...but I
don't really care. I only looked at this film thinking, “this is
amazing,” and it was.
Overall, “Interstellar” is my new
favorite film from Christopher Nolan, and is definitely a contender
for my favorite movie of the year. If this film does get Oscar
attention, they had better give Nolan a Best Director nomination.
Hell, he deserves one after being snubbed for “Inception.” But
then again, he was nominated for Best Picture and Best Screenplay, so I can't complain
too much.
If there is one thing that I will hold
deeply to my grave, it's that Michael Keaton gave the best live
action performance as Batman, better than everyone else. Christian
Bale may have done his fair share, but it's still no where near as
good as what Keaton gave back in the late 80's and early 90's. As
someone who enjoys the original Burton Batman films, it would make
sense that I would enjoy Michael Keaton's newest film, “Birdman or
The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance.”
In this film, Michael Keaton plays
Riggin Thompson, an actor who was best known for playing a big shot
superhero, but is now trying to make a better name for himself, by
directing and starring in a Broadway play. However, he comes across
many complications that come with doing a stage show, as well as
fighting a little voice in his head that's trying to pull him back
into that shell of his former self.
Not only does this stand as one of the
best films of this year, this is one of the greatest films I
have ever seen in my life. The acting is phenomenal, especially on
Michael Keaton's part. It's as if he's playing a fictionalized
version of himself, and it does feel like that the whole way through.
He has his inner struggles, but we also feel sympathy for him as a
guy who just wants to be respected. Edward Norton, who plays his
co-star in the play, is equally as good as Keaton in this film,
playing a big shot who thinks he's better than everyone and trying to
make the play his own, overshadowing Keaton. Norton's character is
believable, because I have known PLENTY of people who are like that,
when it comes to the stage. The chemistry that these two share and
seeing them work off each other is just fascinating to watch, it was
hard to pick who NOT to keep your eyes on. I mean, where else do you
get a scene where Batman smacks the Incredible Hulk in his underwear,
with a newspaper, then wrestle him? You just can't, and that's why
it's awesome.
The supporting cast featuring Emma
Stone, Zach Galifinakis, Andrea Riseborough, and Naomi Watts, are
also entertaining to watch as well. Stone plays Riggin's pot addict
daughter, and she plays it off so well. She tries to remind him that
he's in a fantasy and that all he thinks about is himself being
successful with the play, instead of her. Galifinakis plays the stage
manager, and he also has some great lines and chemistry with Keaton,
as someone who wants everything to go right and have no screw ups.
Interesting enough, Galifinakis actually asked Edward Norton if this
is what it's like to be in a good movie, because he hadn't really
done a film quite like this before. I would have to say yes to that,
Mr. G. Watts and Riseborough, as the two main actresses of the play,
give excellent performances as well, especially Watts. If you've seen
the movie, you'll know what I mean.
Aside from the acting, there are two
main elements that are what keep this film going strong. One is
obviously the direction, which is helped by the cinematography and
editing. Throughout the entire film, you feel as if it's all one
continuous shot the whole way through, with some very clever editing
effects. There are moments where you can tell when they did cut, but
like I said, the editing is so good that it doesn't even phase me.
Not only that, but the film adds in the potential hazards that could
go wrong with a play, that only stage actors could know how bad it
is. Getting locked out and having to go around, improvising without
the needed prop, adding in moments that aren't in the script, and
other stuff like that.
The other element is the dialogue,
which is really clever and neatly written, as the entire script pokes
fun at the superheroes of today, and how they all feel like a trend
that's way past its due. The film even pokes fun at most critic's
thinking process, when Riggen gives this huge monologue towards the
theatre critic, played by Lindsay Duncan. Every single word of
dialogue that is said out of Keaton's mouth about critics is ENTIRELY
true. I've known and even LIVED with people who are those cynical
assholes who will go and see something, and say it sucks without
giving it a chance in the slightest, whether it'd be just for one
person or maybe even reminding them of something else. Yeah, I have had
moments like that in the past beforehand, but I've learned to grow
past that long ago. I may go into films some films with low
expectations, but that doesn't automatically mean I will hate it.
Films like “Snow White & The Huntsman,” “Magic Mike,”
“The Help,” “Wreck-It Ralph,” and even “The Amazing
Spiderman 1&2” are films I had low hopes for, but ended up
loving them. I'm an example of someone who has a little thing called
“an open mind.”
Overall, “Birdman” is a film that
defines amazement. This film has been getting a lot of Oscar buzz,
mostly on Michael Keaton for “Best Actor.” If that happens, I
hope the Academy will be smart and at least nominate him. And if he's
the one I love over the other nods, then he might as well be given
the trophy right then and there.
Jake Gyllenhaal is one of the finest
actors of our generation. After his debut work on “City Slickers,”
he has since then worked on other acclaimed projects such as “Donnie
Darko,” “October Sky,” “Brokeback Mountain,” “Zodiac,”
and “Prisoners.” He knows how to give his all, and films like
these have proven that greatly. Now we take a look at a film that
might be his next chance at an Oscar nod, “Nightcrawler.”
The film is about an unemployed
perfectionist, Louis Bloom, desperate for work and money. After
passing a crime scene and seeing a camera crew record the event for
their news station, he decides to film local crime scenes
independently. He's able to get some good detail both on and off
screen, but soon becomes overly obsessed with the job to disturbing
lengths.
Right off the bat, this is
Gyllenhaal's best performance without a doubt. Hell, it's not even
Gyllenhaal in this film, all I saw was Louis Bloom. As the film goes
on, we learn this guy is not a society man, and seeing those buggy
eyes during some scenes make you wonder what's going on in that head
of his. We want to root for this guy, but at the same time you feel
like we shouldn't because he's doing things that no one would EVER
do. Not only that, but the scenes where he fails and loses his shit,
sent chills down my spine, like he was about to murder a person. I'm
guaranteeing Gyllenhaal will get an Oscar nod for this film, because
he deserves it after he and Hugh Jackman got snubbed for “Prisoners.”
Rene Russo plays the head of the news
station that Louis goes to, and she does a great job too. She has
that presence that she's someone in power, and the scenes that she
has with Gyllenhaal are fantastic. I love seeing these two work off
each other, and how she's trying to let him down easy, but he's just
got her wrapped around his finger with a quick response on how to
turn things around. Riz Ahmed plays Rick, Bloom's intern, and the
scenes with him are also investing. As time goes on, we see this
character go from being someone trying to get used to the job, to a
guy who is learning fast and adapting to Bloom's style of thinking. I
love characters who can use another's techniques against them, making
conflicts really investing.
The film was directed and written by
Rene Russo's husband, Dan Gilroy, who is best known for screenplays for “Real Steel,” “Chasers,” “Freejack,” and “The
Bourne Legacy.” For his directing debut, it's an impressive feat.
If I didn't know who was directing this film, I honestly would have
sworn it was a David Fincher or early Christopher Nolan film. I have
a feeling he'll be up there for Best Screenplay and Best Director,
because this was an amazing film to look at. The shots of L.A. are
glorious to watch, and the crime scenes filmed are pretty
brutal...but in a good way.
Overall, “Nightcrawler” is one I
highly recommend. Dark, slick, thrilling, and all around exciting,
it's one of the best of the year.
David Fincher is regarded as one of
the finest directors since the mid-90's. After his debut disaster that was
“Alien 3,” he's delivered some of the finest works that have come
out of Hollywood: “Zodiac,” “Fight Club,” “The Game,”
“Seven,” and “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” are all
examples of his capabilities. Hell, within the past couple of years,
I've started to appreciate “The Social Network” a bit more.
Fincher is an excellent director, as he and Tarantino have both
proved to make actors that I dislike into giving out great
performances. Which brings us to his newest film, starring Ben
Affleck and Rosamund Pike, “Gone Girl.”
Based on the novel by Gillian Flynn,
“Gone Girl” tells of Nick Dunne, a college professor whose wife,
Amy, goes missing. After witnessing a bizarre crime scene, he tries
to search for her, with the town thinking that maybe he killed her,
leaving us to something we don't know about Nick.
The film is a mystery thriller, and it
never lets up on that. The marketing team that advertised this film
did a fantastic job of how set the tone for what this movie would be.
One minute you think it'll go this direction, only to pull you into
another direction you didn't think about. Kudos to the people who
made these trailers, because I really liked the surprises that
happened in this film. Gillian Flynn admitted that the film would
differ from the book, which would piss people off, if not for the
fact that Flynn wrote the screenplay herself. While the film does go
on longer than it felt like it should, it still manages to keep you
interested in what's going on, and the people who rushed to the
bathroom after the film would agree as well.
Ben Affleck delivers the performance
of his career. You might think that the guy was playing just a smug
douche, but as it goes on it all comes together. Nick Dunne is not as
good a person as you would expect, and there are things that would
make you hate this guy. It's almost as if Affleck is playing a parody
of himself from 10 years ago, and he does it great. Affleck still
remains one of the most talented people in Hollywood, and it really
bugs me that people are giving this guy shit, even after he gave us
three great films as a director. People, he was one of the three
people to help give Robin Williams an Oscar, SHOW SOME RESPECT! Plus,
he, Henry Cavill, and Chris Terrio's script are the only things that
I'm looking forward to in “The World's Finest” (I know, it's
called “Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice,” but that's a stupid
fucking title). Rosamund Pike as Amy Elliot Dunne steals the show,
however, because of the secrets that we learn throughout the film. No
spoilers on this one, because I want you to see the movie. After this
film, I guaranteeing the Academy will nominate these two for Best
Actor and Actress, and that's totally fine with me.
The supporting cast also manages to do
excellent as well, but there are two actors that managed to surprise
me greatly. One was Neil Patrick Harris, who plays an supposed
stalker of Rosamund Pike, but does it in a way you wouldn't expect of
him. His character goes into different patterns you think about, which
does come to a point when you fully watch the film. The other was
Tyler Perry, who not only manages to give off the best performance of
his career, but one of the best performances of the year, and that's
saying a lot. I never really liked most of Perry's films. This
really shows that he can act, so much that I wouldn't actually mind
if he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Granted, I would much
prefer NPH, our next Oscar host, to get nominated, but if both do,
I'm okay with that.
Overall, “Gone Girl” is a big
contender into Oscar season people. The script is investing and has
good twists, the acting is solid, and the direction is flawless.
David Fincher has delivered another fantastic film, and I hope it
gets at least nominated for the Big Five.
We have finally arrived at the final
day of these 13 nights, as well as the end of Halloween. So I
figured, what better way to end this month of horror films than a
review of one that's celebrating its 30th anniversary this
year. I am of course talking about Wes Craven's “A Nightmare On Elm
Street.”
In the 80's, horror films were starting
to make a new name for themselves. Not just in terms of ghosts or
haunted houses, but more onto the slasher genre, which technically
started with the Alfred Hitchcock 1960 film, “Psycho.” It was
well known for pushing the boundaries past what the movie code was
known for, allowing other films to follow suite, resulting in the
MPAA's rating system. While “Psycho” may have had partial credit
in getting it out there, it wasn't until the 70's, with film like
“The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and “Halloween” that it started
rolling. Since then, other films like “Friday the 13th”
have attempted to follow in the success as well, getting successful
franchises too.
It wasn't until 1984 that Wes Craven
gave us one of the scariest and most original horror films ever made.
The story tells of four teenagers, who start dreaming about a
murderer. He has a old fedora hat, an ugly Christmas sweater, a burnt
face, and a glove with knives on the fingers. This man is known by
the name, Freddy Krueger, and when the main girl, Nancy, is
the only one left, it's up to her to finally put a stop to Freddy and
his doings.
When it comes to slasher films of this
time, no film manages to get my skin crawling better than this one.
It has the proper amount of haunting imagery and atmosphere to keep
one on the edge of their seat. You're most vulnerable when you're
asleep, so dealing with a villain like this was a creative idea, and
adds to the film's charm of it all. It was even said that Wes Craven
was inspired by tragic events, making the film seem all the more
realistic.
The characters, while the typical
horror type teens, manage to be likable. Heather Langenkamp as Nancy
is regarded as one of the most recognizable horror heroines, much in
the same vein as Laurie Strode in “Halloween.” The big difference
is that Nancy is a bit more calculative and has an understanding of
what she's doing and how to handle situations. Amanda Wyss as Tina
also give out a good performance as well, even when at the brink of
death. That scene where she sees Freddy down the ally, and her
getting sliced at while floating still sends chills down my spin,
going down as one of the most uncomfortable death scenes to watch.
Jsu Garcia as Rod was the typical rebel bad boy, but he does show
that he does have more to him than just that stereotype, but not much
can be said about that.
Then we got to Glen Lantz, played by
Johnny Depp. Yes, the same Johnny Depp, we all know and love, started
his film career with this movie. For a film that was already unique
for it's creative setting, it's made even more of a treat for which
actor they had for it. At the time, Depp was already a high school
dropout trying to get a musician career going, so this film was able
to help him get recognition, especially since he later landed the main role of
Tom Hanson on “21 Jump Street.”
Now for the main event, Freddy
Krueger, played by Robert Englund. What can you say about him? He's
scary, he's funny, he has a great backstory, he has a signature
weapon, and he has a face and voice, unlike most slashers at the
time. That's one major key factor he has, is his backstory and
motivation for why he's doing this. He was a child murderer who
managed to get off not guilty, and so takes his revenge on the
children of those said parents who burned him alive. It's much like
how Mrs. Voorhees in the first “Friday the 13th” wanted to kill
the people at Crystal Lake, because they did nothing to help her
drowning son. Freddy is an icon, and that's how it's going to be.
Another thing that “Nightmare” did that other slasher films
haven't, is they kept Robert Englund as Freddy, even in the TV
spin-off show that it got.
After about 30 years, how does it hold
up? Very well. “A Nightmare on Elm Street” not only remains one
of my favorite horror films, but one of my all time favorite films,
with Wes Craven being one of my favorite directors in the horror
genre. It's a fascinating film that never gets old, no matter how
many times I watch it. So if you're looking for a slasher classic, I
highly recommend it.
Rating: 10/10
While we're on the subject of
“Nightmare,” let's talk briefly about the sequels and its remake.
The sequels are a bit...meh. The only ones I would actually recommend
are “3: Dream Warriors,” “Wes Craven's New Nightmare,” and
“Freddy vs. Jason.” Now for the remake, produced by Michael Bay.
At first, I did hate the film, but as I got older with a more mature
mind and better understanding for film...it's okay. I didn't quite
like the CGI, some of the characters were pretty uninteresting, and the make-up they
use for Freddy was a bit overkill, but it could have been worse. I do think it's a
better remake than “Rob Zombie's Halloween,” but not by much.
Jackie Earl Haley is a good Freddy, and he does try his best, and does have a few funny lines here and
there, but he's no Robert Englund. Is it the worst of the “Nightmare”
franchise? No, that goes to “Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare.”
Is it the worst Platinum Dunes movie? Uh...did you SEE “Ouija?” Compared to that, this film is a miracle.
If you're curious about it, then you might find something to enjoy.
Rating: 5/10
I hope you've all enjoyed my month of reviewing horror films. I might do this again next year, but who knows? I know I certainly wouldn't mind doing it again. Well, now that Halloween's arrived, enjoy the festivities, enjoy the scares, eat candy if you feel like it, and have a wonderful night!
Back in August, we suffered a tragic
loss in the world of comedy and acting in general. Robin Williams,
one of the greatest actors of our time, had passed away from suicide,
after suffering from years of depression. It's was a hard thing to
deal with, and still is, because the thought of someone like Robin
Williams falling to depression was unthinkable. So as a way to honor
the man, I have seen people talk about a lot of his movies like “Dead
Poets Society,” “Good Will Hunting,” and “Aladdin.” Since we're still in the month of Halloween, I figured it would be
fitting to talk about a film that not too many people talk about. And
it happens to be one of Christopher Nolan's earliest pictures,
“Insomnia.”
The film tells of two police
investigators in Alaska, looking for a homicidal murder. When one of
them is killed, the other has to deal with the internal struggle of
losing his partner, and still catch the man who did this, all while
dealing with the lack of sleep due to Alaska being mostly day.
What people don't know is that this
film is actually a remake of a Norwegian film of the same name,
making it one of the only two films that Nolan has remade (the other
being his Batman films). Not only does Nolan manage to give his own
unique take on the idea, but manages to surpass it by a long shot. As
one of Nolan's earliest films, it ranks among one of the top 10 best
thrillers of the past decade.
The two leads in the film, played by
Al Pacino and Robin Williams, are fantastic to watch. Seeing two of
the most iconic Oscar winning actors work off each other is
hypnotizing to watch, that you couldn't keep your eyes off either of
them. Pacino gives without a doubt one of his best performances,
playing an insomniac cop like you wouldn't believe. I mean, with Al
Pacino, he'll give his damn best no matter what.
Robin Williams on the other
hand...well, have any of you seen the film “One Hour Photo?” It
came out later on that year, but try to imagine that kind of
character from “One Hour Photo”...only 10 times more creepy, and
if he was a serial killer. Williams plays this character really
effectively, especially when he admits to murdering people. I mean,
the guy confesses to it like he just went grocery shopping, it's
really chilling. It's one of Williams' best performances, and one of
his more underrated works.
If you're looking for a real enticing
thriller, definitely check out “Insomnia.” It's not only one of
Williams' best and Pacino's best, it's one of Christopher Nolan's
finest films. The acting is great, the direction is great, the shots
of Alaska are beautiful, and the writing is top-notch.
When it comes to vampires, the one who
comes to mind the most when mentioning the iconic creature is Count Dracula. Bram Stoker's novel
about the creature of Transylvania, much like “Frankenstein,” are
symbols of classic horror and embody the image of Halloween and
horror. Universal's iconic film from 1931 is the most famous
portrayal of the character, and Bela Lugosi's performance made him
the character, through and through. Since then, many adaptations of
the novel and character have been done countless times, even by
“Godfather” director Francis Ford Coppola, with Gary Oldman as
the titular character.
This time around, we'll be talking
about a film that gives us the origin of Count Dracula, from
Universal and Legendary, “Dracula Untold,” starring Luke Evans.
In the times of the dark ages, Dracula
was formally Prince Vlad the Impaler, and was a warrior of great
strength. When his old acquaintance requests his son for his army,
Vlad takes it upon himself to find the strength to defeat him and his
army, by succumbing to vampire blood. Now he has three days to defeat
the army, or give in to temptation and remain a monster.
With the cast that this film has, they all do great jobs. Luke Evans is a really damn good Dracula, and you can get that
emphasis of torment in his eyes as he's trying to fight his urges and
keep his humanity. I would really love to see him play Dracula again
in future films. Dominic Cooper gives a great job at playing the
villain, as anyone else would in this kind of role. Not much to his
character, aside from being a childhood friend of Vlad, but Cooper
manages to take advantage of that nicely. Sarah Gadon as Vlad's wife
is good as well, playing a stern and strong woman, and willing to
take command if needed. Needless to say, what happens at the end is
quite heartbreaking.
As for the action scenes all manage to be exciting, showcasing Dracula's
power with every passing scene. The first action scene however, was a
bit annoying to sit through, due to the shaky cam work not being
creative. Aside from that, the rest of them are pretty entertaining
to watch, especially with the scenes where Dracula attacks his foes and travels by turning into bats. It actually makes me think that a film adaptation of "Legacy of Kain" can be possible, which I DO want.
What I love best about this film is
the concept. The idea of giving Dracula an origin story is a neat
idea, and this actually does work. Not only does it add to the legacy
of the vampire legend, but it also adds a sense of sympathy to the
character, that actually works. We do get to see a sympathetic side
of Dracula, and that he only was ruthless because he was raised that
way, but wants to resist that past. THIS is what “Maleficent”
SHOULD have been! This was what I actually thought Maleficent's back
story to be, instead of what that pathetic excuse of a film from Joe
Roth and Linda Woolverton gave us. Thank you Universal, for using this idea for one of
YOUR villains!
Overall, “Dracula Untold” was
really enjoyable to watch. Universal claims this is the start of
their new Monsters series, with possible reboots of “The Wolfman,”
“Frankenstein,” and others. If they're as good as this film, I
will gladly be there to see them. It's dark, it's foggy, it's grim,
and it's fun. Definitely give it a watch, and see for yourself.
Mary Shelly's “Frankenstein” is
one of the most recognized novels of all time, and remains one of the
iconic horror stories. The tale of a mad scientist who gives life to
a monster of his own creation has influenced the world since its
release. It gained further recognition, curtsy of Universal Studios,
with the 1931 film, starring Boris Karloff as the monster. This
version of “Frankenstein” is the one people think of most, and
has since had a big impact on pop culture and horror history. The
success of this film, along with the 1931 “Dracula” starring Bela
Lugosi, had launched Universal into their Golden Age of horror films,
with one iconic film after the other.
Many other adaptations of
“Frankenstein” have been done afterwards, including one directed
by Kenneth Branaugh and starring Robert deNiro as the monster, and
another one coming out next year featuring Daniel Radcliffe, but none
have quite had the same impact as the original...then we have “I,
Frankenstein,” based on a graphic novel, based on the book...and it
is one of the dumbest films I have ever seen.
In “I, Frankenstein,” the monster,
who is called Adam Frankenstein, is now in modern times, as he teams
up with a tribe of gargoyles, going up against a scientist played by
Bill Nighy and his army of demons which he plans to raise and conquer
the world, or some shit like that. This movie is so stupid that it's
hard to comply what the hell is going on.
That's the main problem I have with
this movie, is the story doesn't seem to work. It is just a messy
story that got lazily directed, which makes sense, since it was
written and directed by Stuart Beattie. For those who don't now,
Beattie is best known for writing for films like “Pirates of the
Caribbean” and “Collateral,” but also wrote shit like
“Punisher: War Zone,” “Australia,” and “Tomorrow When the
War Began,” which he also directed. This film was his second
directed film, and it shows. Not only is the story lame, but the CGI
is just so overdone, and the action scenes are...meh. I will at least
give credit for not being shaky cam action scenes, but that's not
saying much.
Acting wise, it's just as bad. The
only two good performances in the entire film come from Aaron Eckhart
and Bill Nighy. Eckhart as Frankenstein's monster, who is now called
“Adam Frankenstein,” does try to make this work and is clearly
trying his best, especially when he's doing his own stunts. However,
the make up on him is just...lazy. He doesn't look like he was built
from different dead body parts, he just looks like he just got scars
all over him. That's not a monster! I will give credit that he did
try giving SOME reason as to why he's called Frankenstein, making it
his last name like his creator, but that's all I can give. While I
don't quite like Bill Nighy's character, I'll also give him credit
for trying, as opposed to the rest of the cast, ESPECIALLY Jai
Courtney who was AWFUL in this movie.
This film was produced by Tom
Rosenberg and Gary Lucchesi, the same duo that produced the first two
“Underworld” movies, and later produced the sequels solo
(Rosenberg produced “Rise of the Lycans,” and Lucchesi had
produced “Awakenings”). It was said that they were planning to do
a crossover of “Underworld” and this film, but due to this film
barely making its budget back AND it being panned by
critics, I doubt such a thing will ever happen.
With this whole war against gargoyles
and demons, it makes me ask one thing: where the hell is my
“Gargoyles” movie? Seriously, we have the capabilities to make a
film based on the Disney animated show, so where is it? I know
there's a rumor going around that Kevin Fiege may be producing one,
but I won't believe it until I see it!
Overall, “I, Frankenstein” was
just a lousy excuse of a movie. The story is all over the place, the
direction is blah, and the acting is terrible aside from Eckhart and
Nighy.
Rating: 3/10
Well, this is a bummer. Halloween's
almost here, and the recent revival of a classic Universal monster
wasn't that good. Can't I get one film that does an icon justice, at
least in a fun way?
