I'm not going to lie to you people, but I HATE...Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. I just don't seem to find that much appeal in it. I mean, granted it was a Grimm's Fairy Tale, and it was the first film to make Disney as popular as it is today, but there's just something about it that just makes me bored and want to puke. Certain adaptions of it have made it to audiences, one of them coming out at the start of June, starring Kristen Stewart from those horendous Twilight movies, and even parodies of the story have been shown from time to time by most TV shows, like The Simpsons. On another point, I hate generic kids movies. By that, I mean the films that talk down to their audiences and treat them like idiots. Those films, I just hate with a fiery passion. So what happens when you put Snow White and a generic kids movie together? You get one of the two Snow White films of this year, "Mirror Mirror."
It shows itself as the basic tale of Snow White, but obviously different. It's Snow White's 18th birthday, and soon sees what troulbe her step-mother, the queen, has caused to the villagers. Soon, when a prince named Alcott arrives in the kingdom, the queen plans to marry him, but his heart is set upon Snow White. But when the queen sends her off to be killed by her servent, Brighton, and not the Huntsman, Snow White must stop the queen with the help of the seven dwarves. Seems simple enough, with a few minor changes, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's really stupid. Maybe it's my dislike for the whole Snow White thing in general, but I think it's for my hatred for generic kids movies. Was it as bad as I expected it to be? Well, not as much, but that's like saying getting punched in the gut is better than getting stabbed in the eye.
The characters in this movie are either average or below. Snow White played by Lily Collins, daughter of the musician Phil Collins, gave an okay performance. She does try to give a character to Snow White, and even tries her best to get along with the dwarves. But there's only one thing I remember about her...BUSHY EYEBROWS! What is with the bushy eyebrows?! Seriously, you could trim those off and pass them off as cats! Prince Alcott played by Armie Hammer, was a pretty interesting character, but sadly it's ruined for when he's used for comedic value. It not only feels out of place, but it makes the jokes just the more boring. Julia Roberts as the queen, I absolutely HATED in this movie. Not only was she boring, but just SO CLICHED. It's the same performance, for the same character, with nothing new to the table, other than it's Julia Roberts! I don't even think she's that good of an actress to begin with. I mean, she was fine in "My Best Friend's Wedding" and the "Ocean's Eleven Trilogy" with George Clooney, but other than that, she's got nothing else to bring to the table. Also, Sean Bean, who played Boromir in "Lord of the Rings" and Alec Trevelyan in "007 Goldeneye," appears in the movie as the King, was just a throw-away character, and had pretty much nothing to do.
However, I'll admit a few things about some of the characters. Brighton was a pretty funny character, but I guess that's because he's played by Nathan Lane, who's always an enjoyment to watch. He delivered a good performance, despite the lousy script he's working with, and even makes some of his lines pretty funny. But none the less, Nathan Lane was the highlight of the film. I wished the whole movie was just centered around him instead. I'll admit, I enjoyed the seven dwarves too, since they all had pretty good characters. I had expected them to just be rejects of some of the worst comedians out there, but surprisingly I found some likablity in them. Their attempts at stealing are really intersting too, and I did enjoy when they robbed Nathan Lane at one point. What also surprised me about this movie, was that Discord from "My Little Pony Friendship is Magic" makes a cameo in the movie, and that left me with an expression that read "Whaaaaaaaaaaat????"
Now the action scenes in the movie weren't much to expect. I honestly thought the action scenes in the Scooby-Doo movie were better than that, but it at least tried to keep me entertained. One of them involved Snow White getting spanked while she's dualing with the prince. You know, for kids? But what really bugged me was that the film wasn't that funny. I mean, despite a few scenes with either Nathan Lane or the dwarves, it just wasn't that good of a comedy, mostly due to the fact that it's a generic kids film. So what else is there that's fairly decent about this movie? Well, the makeup and most of the costumes were pretty good. Unlike the 2011 abomination that was "Red Riding Hood", "Mirrior Mirror" actually has the villagers look like they're in Medieval times. Even some of the language they speak does fit in with the timeline they live in...well, MOST of the time.
Overall, "Mirror Mirror" is just a generically bad kids film, that's something you're going to forget easily, and just make you want to go see a different movie. If you really want to see it, I'd suggest waiting for Redbox or Netflix. It's not worth it to see in theaters at all.
Rating: 2/5
4/10
Monday, April 23, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Lockout
After the 2000 Christopher Nolan film, "Memento," Guy Pearce has become one of those actors, who seems to be a bit underused from time to time. Granted, it might be due to staying out of the crowd and not being whored out a lot, but he does give good performances, like in "Memento," which lead most people to have him be a pretty good action star.
However, like the yin & yang, for every good movie an actor has, there's always a bad one to counteract it. And that's today's subject, with the film "Lockout."
In the film, Guy Pearce plays Snow (yes, that's his name) a man of of the year 2079, who's framed for the murder of a former government expert, Frank, who he was hired to protect. Frank's last breath was for Snow to guard a briefcase and keep a lighter, saying “Don't let them find out,” and keeps the lighter, with the briefcase left in the hands of his friend Mace. Soon, a prison riot happens, in space, and Guy Pearce is ordered to go up there and save the president's daughter, Emile, before the prison crashes into the earth, only on there to save Mace, who was put up there.
Now when you look at the trailers, you think that the film would be pretty straight forward, with being a typical action flick...however, it goes WAY below that. First off, the films first half our is simply a borefest. Even when it's during an action scene it's not that entertaining, and you'll have your soda gulped down before you're even half way through, trying to find something to enjoy. The characters in the film are complete idiots. I mean, what president would send their daughter to interview psychotic prisoners?! Plus, one guy is told not to bring weapons on the prisoner's side of the interview room, and guess what? He sneaks a gun in! Yeah, there's a reason why you don't bring a weapon on that side! And you know what happens next? He has him and Emile locked in a room, shoots the lock code, which results in nitrogen getting into the room slowly. How stupid is this guy?! Mace, was pretty much a useless character, and if you just cut him out of the film, and had Guy Pierce hide the briefcase, you'd have the exact same film. The cops are also boring, and are very bland. Emile was also a very underdeveloped and ANNOYING character. We basically know very little about her, other than the fact that she's the presidents's daughter. Even in some scenes where we're suppose to care about her, it comes off as hilarious instead. In fact, Guy Pearce even makes her look like a boy, and you can't help but laugh at it. By the end of the film, you were hoping she was dead, but life's just not fair.
But despite amount of crap this movie has, there are some things to like about it. Guy Pearce gave a pretty good performance, despite the crappy script he's working with. He's badass, witty, and knows how to handle certain situations. Also, the effects are decent enough and aside from the atrociously shot fight scene in the beginning that's thrown in your face, the action scenes are...okay, to say the least. But even with Guy Pearce and the okay effects and fight scenes it's not enough to save the film. It just makes you wish Emile was developed more, then it would have been a mediocre action flick.
Overall, "Lockout" is just a disappointing film, that didn't have much to disappoint to begin with, and they screw it up anyway. I don't recommend this in anyway possible. Unless you like action films that's complete trash.
Rating: 1/5
2/10
However, like the yin & yang, for every good movie an actor has, there's always a bad one to counteract it. And that's today's subject, with the film "Lockout."
In the film, Guy Pearce plays Snow (yes, that's his name) a man of of the year 2079, who's framed for the murder of a former government expert, Frank, who he was hired to protect. Frank's last breath was for Snow to guard a briefcase and keep a lighter, saying “Don't let them find out,” and keeps the lighter, with the briefcase left in the hands of his friend Mace. Soon, a prison riot happens, in space, and Guy Pearce is ordered to go up there and save the president's daughter, Emile, before the prison crashes into the earth, only on there to save Mace, who was put up there.
Now when you look at the trailers, you think that the film would be pretty straight forward, with being a typical action flick...however, it goes WAY below that. First off, the films first half our is simply a borefest. Even when it's during an action scene it's not that entertaining, and you'll have your soda gulped down before you're even half way through, trying to find something to enjoy. The characters in the film are complete idiots. I mean, what president would send their daughter to interview psychotic prisoners?! Plus, one guy is told not to bring weapons on the prisoner's side of the interview room, and guess what? He sneaks a gun in! Yeah, there's a reason why you don't bring a weapon on that side! And you know what happens next? He has him and Emile locked in a room, shoots the lock code, which results in nitrogen getting into the room slowly. How stupid is this guy?! Mace, was pretty much a useless character, and if you just cut him out of the film, and had Guy Pierce hide the briefcase, you'd have the exact same film. The cops are also boring, and are very bland. Emile was also a very underdeveloped and ANNOYING character. We basically know very little about her, other than the fact that she's the presidents's daughter. Even in some scenes where we're suppose to care about her, it comes off as hilarious instead. In fact, Guy Pearce even makes her look like a boy, and you can't help but laugh at it. By the end of the film, you were hoping she was dead, but life's just not fair.
But despite amount of crap this movie has, there are some things to like about it. Guy Pearce gave a pretty good performance, despite the crappy script he's working with. He's badass, witty, and knows how to handle certain situations. Also, the effects are decent enough and aside from the atrociously shot fight scene in the beginning that's thrown in your face, the action scenes are...okay, to say the least. But even with Guy Pearce and the okay effects and fight scenes it's not enough to save the film. It just makes you wish Emile was developed more, then it would have been a mediocre action flick.
Overall, "Lockout" is just a disappointing film, that didn't have much to disappoint to begin with, and they screw it up anyway. I don't recommend this in anyway possible. Unless you like action films that's complete trash.
Rating: 1/5
2/10
Monday, April 16, 2012
The Cabin in the Woods
Joss Whedon is one of the big names in the Hollywood industry, that still has a fan base to this day. Being the creator of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Angel," and the short lived show "Firefly." He's also worked on certain films in the past too. He's directed and written for his movie "Serinity," written for the film "Speed," and he also wrote for the first "Toy Story." Not to mention, he's co-writing and directing "The Avengers," so that's a big one to look forward to. However, sometimes the films he writes for can also be re-written by talentless hacks, and turned into piles of unappealing trash. "Alien Resurrection," "Titan A.E." and "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" were bad, because the studios didn't want to go with what Whedon originally had intended, and decided to make it something that doesn't qualify to be worth it's budget.
Today, we now look at another film, co-written and produced by Joss Whedon, simply known as "The Cabin in the Woods."
The film's plot is about these five teenagers named Dana, Curt, Jules, Marty, and Holden, who head out of town to spend the weekend in a cabin, formerly owned by Curt's cousin. Little do they know, that the perimiter they've entered is under the complete control of a industrial facility, that has certain people murdered. Soon enough, they find the cellar of the cabin, and find very interesting items there. Whichever item is activated first, will unleash whatever certain creature(s) it responds to. Soon, it's all about survival, and what's expected to come of these teens. The trailers depicted it to be like the basic slasher film, only this time it's the corporate media or something like that with the five cliched characters, and I quote, the jock, the fool, the scholar, the whore, and the virgin. However, this film is a very unique puzzle, and really does lead one to know what's the reasoning behind this facility and why they do this. And it isn't just this one area, it's done all around the world. This film also had elements to Joss Whedon's tv series, "Angel," and it does it's job well. It does feel like a slasher movie like "Friday the 13th" and "Halloween," but since it's a Joss Whedon production, it's done in a different way.
The cast did a very good job in the film, I'll give it that. The main five are what you expect, but a few have some quality to it. Dana, played by Kristen Connolly, was done pretty straight forward, like most female leads in a slasher film, so it's nothing too special. Anna Hutchison as Jules was pretty much the one who is one you care about the least, so nothing to it. Same can be said for Holden, played by Jesse Williams. I didn't really care much for him or Hutchison, and that's what you get in most horror movies. You get at least one or two characters who you just don't give a damn about. Sigourney Weaver has an appearance in the movie, as the director of this whole thing. When she appears in the movie, she explains everything, but it does make you wonder how it's all possible. Now I'm not going to say what it is, because I want you to see the movie. The facility men, played by Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford, gave pretty good performances. Whenever the film would cut to these guys, it cut the tension down, bringing you back to that the woods are controlled by these guys. It does make for some funny scenes and it was clearly the part of the movie you wanted to see the most. I would prefer that, if it wasn't for two characters that stole the movie. One of them, being Marty, the fool who's a complete pot-head. You think he'd be the first to die, with him being a complete imbecile...but how he's done is just great! He's funny and, unlike other characters like this, he's actually USEFUL! For once, a complete stoner is useful in a horror film. The other character I enjoyed, was Chris Hemsworth as Curt. You know that the jock is another character that dies, but Hemsworth took this character and made him really fun to watch. He may be a stereotypical character, with a few minor changes, but it's fun for the view to watch.
The film was directed and co-written by Drew Goddard, who has worked with Joss Whedon in the past before, being a writer for "Angel" and "Buffy", but also being a writer for J.J. Abrams popular show, "Lost." What he did with this film was simply brilliant and it really does take certain talent like this to make a good movie. And a good horror film at that.
Overall, "The Cabin in the Woods" is one film that I'll certainly not be forgetting for a while. It's dark, it's creative, and does things you wouldn't expect in a horror film. It definitley has that Joss Whedon vibe that most have known over the years. If you're a fan of Whedon's work, I don't see any reason not to see this.
Rating: 4.5/5
9/10
Today, we now look at another film, co-written and produced by Joss Whedon, simply known as "The Cabin in the Woods."
The film's plot is about these five teenagers named Dana, Curt, Jules, Marty, and Holden, who head out of town to spend the weekend in a cabin, formerly owned by Curt's cousin. Little do they know, that the perimiter they've entered is under the complete control of a industrial facility, that has certain people murdered. Soon enough, they find the cellar of the cabin, and find very interesting items there. Whichever item is activated first, will unleash whatever certain creature(s) it responds to. Soon, it's all about survival, and what's expected to come of these teens. The trailers depicted it to be like the basic slasher film, only this time it's the corporate media or something like that with the five cliched characters, and I quote, the jock, the fool, the scholar, the whore, and the virgin. However, this film is a very unique puzzle, and really does lead one to know what's the reasoning behind this facility and why they do this. And it isn't just this one area, it's done all around the world. This film also had elements to Joss Whedon's tv series, "Angel," and it does it's job well. It does feel like a slasher movie like "Friday the 13th" and "Halloween," but since it's a Joss Whedon production, it's done in a different way.
The cast did a very good job in the film, I'll give it that. The main five are what you expect, but a few have some quality to it. Dana, played by Kristen Connolly, was done pretty straight forward, like most female leads in a slasher film, so it's nothing too special. Anna Hutchison as Jules was pretty much the one who is one you care about the least, so nothing to it. Same can be said for Holden, played by Jesse Williams. I didn't really care much for him or Hutchison, and that's what you get in most horror movies. You get at least one or two characters who you just don't give a damn about. Sigourney Weaver has an appearance in the movie, as the director of this whole thing. When she appears in the movie, she explains everything, but it does make you wonder how it's all possible. Now I'm not going to say what it is, because I want you to see the movie. The facility men, played by Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford, gave pretty good performances. Whenever the film would cut to these guys, it cut the tension down, bringing you back to that the woods are controlled by these guys. It does make for some funny scenes and it was clearly the part of the movie you wanted to see the most. I would prefer that, if it wasn't for two characters that stole the movie. One of them, being Marty, the fool who's a complete pot-head. You think he'd be the first to die, with him being a complete imbecile...but how he's done is just great! He's funny and, unlike other characters like this, he's actually USEFUL! For once, a complete stoner is useful in a horror film. The other character I enjoyed, was Chris Hemsworth as Curt. You know that the jock is another character that dies, but Hemsworth took this character and made him really fun to watch. He may be a stereotypical character, with a few minor changes, but it's fun for the view to watch.
The film was directed and co-written by Drew Goddard, who has worked with Joss Whedon in the past before, being a writer for "Angel" and "Buffy", but also being a writer for J.J. Abrams popular show, "Lost." What he did with this film was simply brilliant and it really does take certain talent like this to make a good movie. And a good horror film at that.
Overall, "The Cabin in the Woods" is one film that I'll certainly not be forgetting for a while. It's dark, it's creative, and does things you wouldn't expect in a horror film. It definitley has that Joss Whedon vibe that most have known over the years. If you're a fan of Whedon's work, I don't see any reason not to see this.
Rating: 4.5/5
9/10
Friday, April 6, 2012
Wrath of the Titans
Greek Mythology is something that has been around as old as time itself. The legends and stories we've been told over the milleniums have been inspiration for many of our greatest minds of story telling. One of them, being "Clash of the Titans."
"Clash of the Titans" tells the story of young Perseus, the mortal son of Zeus, who is destined to stop the titans of the Underworld from conquering the Earth and heavens above. That's the IMDB description given for the remake from 2010, and not the good original film from 1981. My quick synopsis on the remake, is that it was okay. I enjoyed the performances by Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, and RaIph Finnes, as well as some of the action scenes. Overall, it was an okay movie. Compared to the original film, it's very inferior.
Now recently, we've been given a sequel to the remake, under the title of "Wrath of the Titans." So how was it?...Pretty bad.
Ten years after defeating the Kraken, Perseus is now living his life as a man, raising his son after his wife died. Soon, Zeus comes to him, saying that the gods are losing their powers, and that he needs him to come deal with it. But soon, Poseidon and Zeus are double-crossed by Ares, and Hades captures Zeus to free Kronos, leaving Poseidon to die in Perseus' arms. Soon, Perseus, along with his cousin Agenor, and Queen Andromeda, go to find a way into the Underworld to rescue Zeus before Kronos is freed. For what short a plot it has, it really PADS on and on...The first half of the movie might be interesting, but it's just so boring, that I almost walked out on this film. The second half was at least mildly entertaining, since it actually showed, oh I don't know, THE FRIGGIN WRATH OF THE TITANS! Yeah, the titans are barely in this movie, and they only show up until the end when Kronos is free. If it's not going to live up to the title of the damn movie, then what the hell was the point of calling it "Wrath of the Titans"?
Sam Worthington reprises his role as Perseus, and still does try his best with the lousy script he has in this film. Same goes for Liam Neeson and RaIph Finnes, but even their good performances and decent action scenes couldn't save the movie. I do give credit where credit's due, but as Yoda says "Do or do not, there is no try." Oh, and speaking of "Star Wars," this film actually had the guts to use lines from the original "Star Wars" trilogy. That's just shameful. Edgar Ramirez as Ares, was pretty cliche character. From the start, you know he's going to be the main villain. Hell, the kid who played Worthington's son was a better character than him, and he's barely in it!
Overall, "Wrath of the Titans" is just a laughably bad sequel, to a mediocre remake. It's not worth seeing in theaters, let along in 3D. But if you want to watch a bad film, just to know what the director of the upcoming "Ninjas Turtles" movie is like, then wait until it's on Redbox or Netflix.
Rating: 2/5
4/10
"Clash of the Titans" tells the story of young Perseus, the mortal son of Zeus, who is destined to stop the titans of the Underworld from conquering the Earth and heavens above. That's the IMDB description given for the remake from 2010, and not the good original film from 1981. My quick synopsis on the remake, is that it was okay. I enjoyed the performances by Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, and RaIph Finnes, as well as some of the action scenes. Overall, it was an okay movie. Compared to the original film, it's very inferior.
Now recently, we've been given a sequel to the remake, under the title of "Wrath of the Titans." So how was it?...Pretty bad.
Ten years after defeating the Kraken, Perseus is now living his life as a man, raising his son after his wife died. Soon, Zeus comes to him, saying that the gods are losing their powers, and that he needs him to come deal with it. But soon, Poseidon and Zeus are double-crossed by Ares, and Hades captures Zeus to free Kronos, leaving Poseidon to die in Perseus' arms. Soon, Perseus, along with his cousin Agenor, and Queen Andromeda, go to find a way into the Underworld to rescue Zeus before Kronos is freed. For what short a plot it has, it really PADS on and on...The first half of the movie might be interesting, but it's just so boring, that I almost walked out on this film. The second half was at least mildly entertaining, since it actually showed, oh I don't know, THE FRIGGIN WRATH OF THE TITANS! Yeah, the titans are barely in this movie, and they only show up until the end when Kronos is free. If it's not going to live up to the title of the damn movie, then what the hell was the point of calling it "Wrath of the Titans"?
Sam Worthington reprises his role as Perseus, and still does try his best with the lousy script he has in this film. Same goes for Liam Neeson and RaIph Finnes, but even their good performances and decent action scenes couldn't save the movie. I do give credit where credit's due, but as Yoda says "Do or do not, there is no try." Oh, and speaking of "Star Wars," this film actually had the guts to use lines from the original "Star Wars" trilogy. That's just shameful. Edgar Ramirez as Ares, was pretty cliche character. From the start, you know he's going to be the main villain. Hell, the kid who played Worthington's son was a better character than him, and he's barely in it!
Overall, "Wrath of the Titans" is just a laughably bad sequel, to a mediocre remake. It's not worth seeing in theaters, let along in 3D. But if you want to watch a bad film, just to know what the director of the upcoming "Ninjas Turtles" movie is like, then wait until it's on Redbox or Netflix.
Rating: 2/5
4/10
Casa de mi Padre
With me living in the US all my life, I haven't seen any movies that have come from other countries. Granted, I have witnessed much of Japan's work for a long time now, but not much from the others. Sure, some films will get an opportunity to get into theaters, but not that much range on it. So today, we take a look at the newest Spanish comedy, "Casa de mi Padre".
The film is about a rancher named Armando, played by Will Ferrell, who's mother had died and he never gotten the respect his father owes him. While getting cattle, he and his friends witnesses a murder from a drug dealer named Onza, and tells his brother, Raul, about it. After talking to Raul's fiance, Sonia, Armando finds out his brother's a drug dealer to Americans, and is told by the police to deal with Onza. While this is going on, Armando starts to realize his true feelings for Sonia. Now, never seeing a Spanish film before, some of the jokes in it, I didn't catch on very well. I kind of felt like I was watching a Spanish SNL sketch, just without most of the cast. But still, was it a good movie?...I guess, but like "Chronicle," I have very mixed feelings about that movie, leaving my choice about it in the very middle. It also felt like this movie was done in a 70's style, just done in today's timeline.
The cast did a good job though. I liked Will Ferrell's performance as Armando, and it was really interesting to see him do a performance that's not like most of his work before. It felt a little like "Stranger Than Fiction," where he doesn't try to be funny, but does his work pretty seriously. Granted, this performance isn't AS good as "Stranger Than Fiction," but you know what I mean. Pedro Armendáriz, Jr, who you may remember as Don Pedro from "The Mask of Zorro" delivered a pretty good performance as the father, and showed a lot of energy as he did in that film. Sonia, played by Genesis Rodriguez, was...okay at best. She's said to have recently been in "Man on a Ledge," but I didn't see that. I also heard she will also be in "What to Expect When You're Expecting" and Schwarzenegger's next staring role film, "The Last Stand," so maybe she'll be better in that. I also enjoyed the guy who played Raul, and he really did give a few laughs. The two friends of Armando, Esteban and Manuel, were also enjoyable, and when they do their little band scene, it's pretty funny.
Overall, if you're into seeing something different from Will Ferrell, then this could work. If you've also seen other Spanish films before, then maybe you'll find the bad edit jokes to be pretty funny. But, if you're expecting this to be like Will Ferrell's other good stuff, like "Stepbrothers" or "Elf," then I'd suggest waiting for "Dogfight" coming this August.
Rating: 3/5
6/10
The film is about a rancher named Armando, played by Will Ferrell, who's mother had died and he never gotten the respect his father owes him. While getting cattle, he and his friends witnesses a murder from a drug dealer named Onza, and tells his brother, Raul, about it. After talking to Raul's fiance, Sonia, Armando finds out his brother's a drug dealer to Americans, and is told by the police to deal with Onza. While this is going on, Armando starts to realize his true feelings for Sonia. Now, never seeing a Spanish film before, some of the jokes in it, I didn't catch on very well. I kind of felt like I was watching a Spanish SNL sketch, just without most of the cast. But still, was it a good movie?...I guess, but like "Chronicle," I have very mixed feelings about that movie, leaving my choice about it in the very middle. It also felt like this movie was done in a 70's style, just done in today's timeline.
The cast did a good job though. I liked Will Ferrell's performance as Armando, and it was really interesting to see him do a performance that's not like most of his work before. It felt a little like "Stranger Than Fiction," where he doesn't try to be funny, but does his work pretty seriously. Granted, this performance isn't AS good as "Stranger Than Fiction," but you know what I mean. Pedro Armendáriz, Jr, who you may remember as Don Pedro from "The Mask of Zorro" delivered a pretty good performance as the father, and showed a lot of energy as he did in that film. Sonia, played by Genesis Rodriguez, was...okay at best. She's said to have recently been in "Man on a Ledge," but I didn't see that. I also heard she will also be in "What to Expect When You're Expecting" and Schwarzenegger's next staring role film, "The Last Stand," so maybe she'll be better in that. I also enjoyed the guy who played Raul, and he really did give a few laughs. The two friends of Armando, Esteban and Manuel, were also enjoyable, and when they do their little band scene, it's pretty funny.
Overall, if you're into seeing something different from Will Ferrell, then this could work. If you've also seen other Spanish films before, then maybe you'll find the bad edit jokes to be pretty funny. But, if you're expecting this to be like Will Ferrell's other good stuff, like "Stepbrothers" or "Elf," then I'd suggest waiting for "Dogfight" coming this August.
Rating: 3/5
6/10
Sunday, March 25, 2012
The Hunger Games
Jennifer
Lawrence is one of those actresses, that has recently gotten more
work into the mainstream. We all know her portrayl as Mystique from
"X-Men: First Class," and some of us VAGUELY remember
"Winter's Bone," but aside from that, she's shown to be a
pretty interesting actress. Today, we look at the recent film she's
done, "The Hunger Games".
"The Hunger Games," based on the popular book series, tells the story of Katniss Everdeen, a young woman who volunteers in place of her sister in the Hunger Games, which is a reality tv sporting event, that was created as a replacement for wars to happen. Katniss is part of one of twelve districts, where a man and woman are selected from each district to participate in the event. For Katniss, she's part of District 12. As she's there, her friend Peeta is called up to be in the games too, as they are sent to this Utopia, to train for the day to fight. As it goes on, Katniss knows the works that the people give to the game, and uses her survival instincts to get stay alive. Survival films are what really intrigue me the most in films, mostly in terms of pacing, style, and build-up. It really took its time with this film, and being how it's about two and a half hours long, it definietly felt well done. The story structures of the film are well presented, and being how the games are established like reality tv, and does in a way that reality tv SHOULD be! The film was also compared to "Battle Royal", one of the greatest films of the past twenty years. For me, these films are different, in their own way. It does feel like the same film, but there are certain elements to it, that really do stand out from it.
Jennifer Lawrence does a great job as Katniss, and really did make me care about the character she was playing. Her bravery of taking over her sister's part in the Hunger Games, while rushed, was put together well. When she feels certain things happen to her, we feel the same thing with her. In one scene during the third act, when a commrade of hers dies, we feel the pain she's going through, as she sings a tune from the beginning of the film, and it can be heart breaking. Now, it was said that the casting for Katniss went up to about thirty other young actresses, including Hailee Steinfeld, Abigail Breslin, Chloe Moretz, Shailene Woodley, and Emma Roberts. Honestly, I would have prefered Abigail Breslin, but Jennifer Lawrence was still pretty damn good. Josh Hutcherson, who played Sean Anderson, in "Journey to the Center of the Earth," plays Peeta, Katniss' companion. He really did a great job in this film, showing his act of desperation to help her survive as much as he did. Now, one thing that critics hated about this movie, was that they felt the romance between Katniss and Peeta was force. But what they didn't know was that it was supposed to be forced. They're on reality tv, and one of the aspects that they need to survive, was to put on a show, and get certain items to assist them. It's a blatant attack on reality tv, and when I started to realize that, I started to love this movie even more. Woody Harrelson plays Haymitch, a surviving victor from District 12 and mentor to Katniss and Peeta. He did a great job in this movie, but to me, he'll always be Tallahassee from "Zombieland".
There wasn't much that I hated about the movie, other than it being an American version of Battle Royal. Though, it's not that bad of a remake. The film was commercialed to be 'The best book series since Twilight,' and I couldn't help but feel both lied and cheated at the same time. It's basically insulting this movie, saying it's like "Twilight," when it's anything but, since it has things that "Twilight" doesn't have. STORY AND CHARACTERS. The film was directed and co-written by Gary Ross, who also directed and co-written "Pleasantville" and "Seabiscuit". He was also a writer for films like "Dave", "Lassie", "The Tale of Despereaux", and "Big". It really is interesting for him to do such a great survival film such as this.
Overall, "The Hunger Games" does manage to be an enjoyable movie, and could serve as another book series that is worth adapting.
Rating: 8/10
"The Hunger Games," based on the popular book series, tells the story of Katniss Everdeen, a young woman who volunteers in place of her sister in the Hunger Games, which is a reality tv sporting event, that was created as a replacement for wars to happen. Katniss is part of one of twelve districts, where a man and woman are selected from each district to participate in the event. For Katniss, she's part of District 12. As she's there, her friend Peeta is called up to be in the games too, as they are sent to this Utopia, to train for the day to fight. As it goes on, Katniss knows the works that the people give to the game, and uses her survival instincts to get stay alive. Survival films are what really intrigue me the most in films, mostly in terms of pacing, style, and build-up. It really took its time with this film, and being how it's about two and a half hours long, it definietly felt well done. The story structures of the film are well presented, and being how the games are established like reality tv, and does in a way that reality tv SHOULD be! The film was also compared to "Battle Royal", one of the greatest films of the past twenty years. For me, these films are different, in their own way. It does feel like the same film, but there are certain elements to it, that really do stand out from it.
Jennifer Lawrence does a great job as Katniss, and really did make me care about the character she was playing. Her bravery of taking over her sister's part in the Hunger Games, while rushed, was put together well. When she feels certain things happen to her, we feel the same thing with her. In one scene during the third act, when a commrade of hers dies, we feel the pain she's going through, as she sings a tune from the beginning of the film, and it can be heart breaking. Now, it was said that the casting for Katniss went up to about thirty other young actresses, including Hailee Steinfeld, Abigail Breslin, Chloe Moretz, Shailene Woodley, and Emma Roberts. Honestly, I would have prefered Abigail Breslin, but Jennifer Lawrence was still pretty damn good. Josh Hutcherson, who played Sean Anderson, in "Journey to the Center of the Earth," plays Peeta, Katniss' companion. He really did a great job in this film, showing his act of desperation to help her survive as much as he did. Now, one thing that critics hated about this movie, was that they felt the romance between Katniss and Peeta was force. But what they didn't know was that it was supposed to be forced. They're on reality tv, and one of the aspects that they need to survive, was to put on a show, and get certain items to assist them. It's a blatant attack on reality tv, and when I started to realize that, I started to love this movie even more. Woody Harrelson plays Haymitch, a surviving victor from District 12 and mentor to Katniss and Peeta. He did a great job in this movie, but to me, he'll always be Tallahassee from "Zombieland".
There wasn't much that I hated about the movie, other than it being an American version of Battle Royal. Though, it's not that bad of a remake. The film was commercialed to be 'The best book series since Twilight,' and I couldn't help but feel both lied and cheated at the same time. It's basically insulting this movie, saying it's like "Twilight," when it's anything but, since it has things that "Twilight" doesn't have. STORY AND CHARACTERS. The film was directed and co-written by Gary Ross, who also directed and co-written "Pleasantville" and "Seabiscuit". He was also a writer for films like "Dave", "Lassie", "The Tale of Despereaux", and "Big". It really is interesting for him to do such a great survival film such as this.
Overall, "The Hunger Games" does manage to be an enjoyable movie, and could serve as another book series that is worth adapting.
Rating: 8/10
John Carter
The fabled writer, Edgar Rice Burroghs, has been well known for making such fantastic works of literature. However, he sadly lost his life from a heart attack at the age of 74 in 1950. His most famous works were the Tarzan books and the Barsoom series.
Today, Disney has had the rights to the series, and, like Tarzan, has made it into a movie. But this time, it's live-action.
But first, let me give you a synopsis on the plot of the book. The book, "A Princess of Mars" was the story of John Carter, a captain of the Civil War, who finds himself by some mysterious reason on the planet Mars, or Barsoom as it's called by it's people. He is then taken prisoner by the Tharks, or green Martians, and has to prove himself worthy of being an ally to them. Afterwards, he starts to become more aquainted with the tribe leader Tars Tarkas, his daughter Sola, and a princess of Mars, Dejah Thoris, as he helps them fight for the safety and freedom of the planet. What the book gave, was a feeling of science fiction, acceptance of race, and a strong romance between John and Dejah. It was a compelling book, and as I'm working towards the second, I'm hoping it still holds up.
The movie, however, is a complete disappointment, since it was completely pathetic.
This film was SUCH a waste of my time. It had parts that tried to make it like the book, but I found only about 15% of this film to be faithful to the book. "John Carter" was a REAL disappointment. The action scenes in this film may look impressive, but it does get very boring as time goes on. John Carter's only useful ability on Mars in the film, is jumping really high. In the beginning of the film, which takes about 20 minutes until he's at Mars, shows that he's barely able to keep his balance, since the gravity is less than on Earth. It shows him struggling with the gravity, but then later on in the film, he shows that he can move about fine. In the book, they never established that he had that much struggle with Mars' gravitational pull, so why does he when he first appears on Mars, then later on get used to it?
By the way, what I said about the first 20 minutes of the film, was it really necessary to show how he got on Mars? It wasn't described on how he got on Mars in the first book, so why now? And plus, it shows John Carter as a pretty stubborn person, since in the beginning he's arrested, and tries to escape the authorities TWICE and fails! You think this guy would have learned the first time. Not to mention, the last 10 minutes of the film are also not in the book and are completely pointless. The book also had addressed how Mars was going to have it's atmosphere be unstable, and that it would be to hot and difficult to breath. That wasn't in the movie! Plus, it took time in the book for John to learn the language, than from a Martian drink that was shown in the movie. He actually was taught how the language worked, and how Sola taught it to him.
It also had a wasted cast to it. Taylor Kitsch was really boring as John Carter. I had expected a lot from him as this character, but he just didn't get my attention that well. Ciaren Hinds as the Jeddak of Helium, and father of Dejah, was just useless. He really didn't bring much to the film. Dominic West as Sab Thane was mediocre at best. Not only that, but in the film, he is given some sort of weapon that gives him powers that is given to him by the goddess' messengers, even when it wasn't even in the book. But Lynn Collins as Dejah Thoris, the princess of Helium, was just ATROCIOUS. She was the WORST actress in this movie, and it really did pain me to see her on screen. All she did in this film was exactly what Megan Fox did in the first two "Transformer" movies and "Jonah Hex". Just pose, and look pretty for the camera, with no character whatsoever. But, unlike Megan Fox in those movies, Collins is playing an important character to the story! The only character that I actually found faithful to the book and tolerable, were Willem Dafoe as Tars Tarkas, and Thomas Haden Church as Tal Hajus. Their characters were actually faithful to the book, since it was astablished that they both disliked each other about John Carter's life and death. Another thing that was good, was Samantha Morton as Sola, Tars' daughter. Her relationship with Tars was actually believable in the film, and was more interesting to me, than the relationship that Dejah and John had.
The film was directed by Andrew Stanton, who had directed "A Bug's Life", "Finding Nemo", and "Wall-E". This was his first attempt at making a live-action 3D film, and it failed miserably. The action scenes, like I said, are boring, compared to "Mission Impossible 4," which came out almost 3 months ago. The reason Brad Bird did a good with "MI4GP," was because he was already good with action scenes, even if it was animation. With "John Carter" I felt like I was watching a Star Wars prequel meets the Prince of Persia movie. At least those two films are worth my time, more than this film was.
Going back to the 3D, let me just say that it looked like garbage. I kept taking my glasses off about almost the entire movie, and it didn't make that much of a difference to me. Though, at least it wasn't as bad as the 3D in "Phantom Menace", but it's still bad. It made the 3D in "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" look like "Drive Angry".
The sad part about this film the most, was that I wanted to like this movie. I loved the book, and I was hoping the movie would be good enough for the film for me to enjoy. You could say I would have enjoyed this film if I didn't read the book, but let's just take out the things that I addressed about the story and characters, and look at it on it's own. It's still crap. The acting's terrible (except from Dafoe, Church, and Morton), the action scenes are boring, it's got a flawed story, and pointless 3D. I honestly thought I was watching a Michael Bay film, that's just a two hour beer commercial without a punchline. It's astablished that they've talked about doing a sequel, which will be based on "The Gods of Mars", but at this point, I really don't want a sequel.
Overall, "John Carter" was just a HUGE disappointment, and I'm hoping it's forgotten by the end of the year. It's so far the worst movie I've seen so far this year, and it'll probably be in my top 10 worst by year's end.
Rating: 1/5
2/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)