If there's one thing I hate, its being wrong.
Not in the sense of being wrong if my data is wrong, I'd much rather be corrected there than to be using and giving out incorrect data. No, I mean being wrong on my critical judgments. I can gauge how good or bad a movie is by the trailer, the cast list, the director, and my own relentless cynicism.....but mostly the trailer. But so far, I have been wrong multiple times this summer about some of the movies released. One of them was X-Men: First Class.
My initial feeling when I saw the first trailer was that this movie was going to be severely disappointing, perhaps as much of a letdown as X-Men 3, which I saw before I became more of a critic. X-Men: First Class surprised me in that it seems as if those making it learned a little from X-Men 3 and Wolverine: Origins on how not to make superhero movies, and made a movie that is on par with X-Men 2.
X-Men: First Class primarily centers around Erik Lensheer and Charles Xavier, who the world better knows in modern times as Professor X and Magneto. Long before they had those "code names", in the 1940s, they were just kids living their respective lives: English Charles with his family in high class and money in northern New York, and Jewish Erik in a Nazi concentration camp. We get to see a remake of the opening scene from the first X-Men movie, where young Erik, being pulled away from his family in the concentration camp, channels his powers and bends a metal gate. This interests a man named Dr. Schmidt, played by.....Kevin Bacon? One of the grand surprises of this film, or more precisely, the trailer, was that it didn't reveal that Kevin Bacon was in this movie. Anyways, Dr. Schmidt conducts experiments on young Erik to trigger his powers of magnetism. Over in New York, young Charles can't sleep one night, wanders in the kitchen, and finds his mother there....but its not his mother. Its a homeless girl, named Raven, who can shape-shift.....the mutant we later know as Mystique. Raven is invited by Charles into his family (which struck me as odd that a child could invite someone into his family and parents wouldn't argue), and they spend the next nearly twenty years together.
Flash forward to 1962, and Charles Xavier (played by James McAvoy) is now a noted graduate of Oxford University in genetics, specifically mutation. Erik Lensheer (played by Michael Fassbender) has spent his life hunting down Dr. Schmidt to get revenge. A CIA agent, played by Rose Byrne, finds Charles in England and asks for him to assist with taking down Schmidt. Both Charles and Erik meet when trying to confront Schmidt, now calling himself Sebastian Shaw. Shaw is the leader of The Hellfire Club, a secret society of the rich and powerful (and many of them mutants) who want to take over the world. Shaw has a dream, and like most villains his dream to truly epic: start World War Three, watch the world mutate (an odd tie-in to something Xavier had sad earlier about how the Nuclear Age had accelerated mutation in humans and how this had caused this generation of mutants to exist), and rule over a planet that was mostly mutants. How was Shaw going to do this? Easy: use the Cuban Missle Crisis as a cover to start the end of humanity. So Erik and Charles team up (with help from the CIA), meet up with the then-much-more-human-looking Dr. Hank McCoy (Beast, played by Nicholoas Hoult), use McCoys invention Cereboro to locate other mutants, recruit the mutants, and work on taking Shaw down. They also manage to tie-in how Charles established his home as a mutant training center, after the CIA facility where Charles and Eriks mutant recruits gets attacked by Shaw and his mutants, and they need to relocate to someplace safer. I'll leave the rest of the plot alone, but it manages to establish how Charles became paraplegic, where the name X-Men came from, and how Erik became Magneto and started his mutant terrorist group The Brotherhood of Mutants.
A little funny thing they did was have two cameos: one of Hugh Jackman as Wolverine (who, when Charles and Erik introduce themselves, tells them both to fuck off), and Rebecca Romjin as Mystique (when she tries to seduce Magneto).
The good aspects can be summed up pretty easily: good script, good flow, good effects, mostly good performances.
There were some let downs in this movie, mostly because of some of the acting choices. While McAvoy, Fassbender, Hoult, and of course Bacon did a fine job, a lot of the actors didn't have much in terms of acting "chops". This was especially felt with the two main female characters, played by Jennifer Lawrence and January Jones as Mystique and Emma Frost, respectively. It felt like they were there to look pretty and little else; their range was severely lacking. This could also be said of Lucas Till (who played Havoc) and Caleb Landry Jones (who played Banshee), both of whom would be fine in a typical teen drama/horror film, but here....it felt like they needed a bit more polish to their work. Another problem I had, or more precisely have, is that in trying to do a movie with so many characters, we really don't see that much of the characters beyond the mains, and very little of The Hellfire Club. Having a movie with many characters requires more time and energy than what you can get out of a normal movie or requires the movie to have be longer to get just some characterization out of all the characters, which doesn't always go over well with movie audiences (see: the 1984 movie of the novel Dune).
Origin stories in movies are something that are necessary to explain certain elements of characters (like their motivations), but it must be used properly, or ends up feeling either like padding, or just a big mistake. The Dark Knight did this well by not having an origin story for The Joker at all, he was just some psycho nutter that managed to go from being a bank robber to a terrorist that threatened a major metropolitan with some very good planning. Origin stories can sometimes be a necessity, and X-Men:First Class is nothing but an origin story, but its presented in such a (mostly) compelling manner that it ties up (almost) any loose ends that non-fans had when they went and saw the other X-Men movies. I really hope they don't make a sequel, because we really don't need anymore origin story. But hey, this movie did well at the box office, so I know better than that.
Pros: Script, effects, most of the main casts acting, story flow, an origin story that worked.
Cons: Too many characters, not all the cast acted at the same level, they're going to make a sequel and they're probably going to fuck it up.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Movie Review: Clerks
There are some movies that are classics amongst nerds. While the usual fare of sci-fi and fantasy swell the ranks, there are some comedies that we geeks love. One of them that I had never seen was Clerks. To me, the plot seemed like a pretty lame idea, and since it was one of the first "major" movies of Kevin Smiths career, I figured it was going to be artsy and boring. I now see why this is a classic, and that I was wrong on my assumption (well, mostly wrong).
Clerks is about the day in the life of a New Jersey convenience store clerk named Dante, played by Brian O' Halloran. Dante is called into work by his boss on his day off, because his boss can't make it in until later. Dante is supposed to be playing a hockey game, and this is very important to him, so Dante agrees to go in for a few hours for his boss under the condition he can get out on time to be able to go to his hockey game. Attached to the convenience store is a video rental outlet, managed by Randal (played by Jeff Anderson). Both Dante and Randall have to deal with moron customers. Dante is typical of most trained and experienced customer service people (kind, understanding, puts up with a lot of bullshit but doesn't lose their temper), while Randal ignores and berates almost all of his customers. Throughout the movie, Dante and Randal have many conversations on topics such as Dantes love-life, movies, and the bullshit one has to deal with in their respective jobs. They also have to deal with a pair of drug dealers that regularly hang out outside of the convenience store/video store establishment, the infamous Jay and Silent Bob (played by Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith, respectively).
One of the things that stood out to me about this movie was the conversations that Dante and Randal had. If you watch a movie, you notice something about conversations between characters: there is no "hi, how are you, bullshit this and that" kind of talk. All conversations have to have a point, to drive the plot along, etc., there's no place for everyday conversations. In Clerks, there are conversations that are both complete bullshit but drive along the plot and contribute to the story. This element is important in a movie like this. I had a job where I regularly worked shifts with a friend of mine, and we'd have conversations not too different from the kinds of conversations Dante and Randal had, so I can relate. That's what a lot of this movie is, relateability. Most of us have had jobs we hated, customers we'd like to kill, and bosses that regularly screw us over. That's probably why many people liked this movie, because the movie felt more like some kind of surreal documentary about the work days we all experience.
Pros: This movie felt strangely realistic, it felt professional and polished (not something you'd expect from someone who produced/directed/wrote/starred in), we get introduced to Jay and Silent Bob.
Cons: The movie was shot in black and white (remember that "artsy" thing I mentioned earlier? This was part of my assumption), the movie was very up and down (the movie went from interesting to boring and back again from scene to scene), this movie felt long.
Clerks is about the day in the life of a New Jersey convenience store clerk named Dante, played by Brian O' Halloran. Dante is called into work by his boss on his day off, because his boss can't make it in until later. Dante is supposed to be playing a hockey game, and this is very important to him, so Dante agrees to go in for a few hours for his boss under the condition he can get out on time to be able to go to his hockey game. Attached to the convenience store is a video rental outlet, managed by Randal (played by Jeff Anderson). Both Dante and Randall have to deal with moron customers. Dante is typical of most trained and experienced customer service people (kind, understanding, puts up with a lot of bullshit but doesn't lose their temper), while Randal ignores and berates almost all of his customers. Throughout the movie, Dante and Randal have many conversations on topics such as Dantes love-life, movies, and the bullshit one has to deal with in their respective jobs. They also have to deal with a pair of drug dealers that regularly hang out outside of the convenience store/video store establishment, the infamous Jay and Silent Bob (played by Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith, respectively).
One of the things that stood out to me about this movie was the conversations that Dante and Randal had. If you watch a movie, you notice something about conversations between characters: there is no "hi, how are you, bullshit this and that" kind of talk. All conversations have to have a point, to drive the plot along, etc., there's no place for everyday conversations. In Clerks, there are conversations that are both complete bullshit but drive along the plot and contribute to the story. This element is important in a movie like this. I had a job where I regularly worked shifts with a friend of mine, and we'd have conversations not too different from the kinds of conversations Dante and Randal had, so I can relate. That's what a lot of this movie is, relateability. Most of us have had jobs we hated, customers we'd like to kill, and bosses that regularly screw us over. That's probably why many people liked this movie, because the movie felt more like some kind of surreal documentary about the work days we all experience.
Pros: This movie felt strangely realistic, it felt professional and polished (not something you'd expect from someone who produced/directed/wrote/starred in), we get introduced to Jay and Silent Bob.
Cons: The movie was shot in black and white (remember that "artsy" thing I mentioned earlier? This was part of my assumption), the movie was very up and down (the movie went from interesting to boring and back again from scene to scene), this movie felt long.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
My take on the new My Little Pony
The internet has been abuzz as of late with the new My Little Pony (MLP) series. Created partially by Lauren Faust, best known for The Powerpuff Girls and Fosters Home for Imaginary Friends, the new MLP seems to have gained a very large fanbase very quickly....even amongst single males my age (I'll be 27 in a few weeks). Its spawned its own meme, and people have posted pictures of MLP all over. Fan made videos of everything from using theme of Guile from Street Fighter (another meme in itself)to using audio from other sources (such as movie and video game trailers) on top of spliced together MLP footage are all over the web. There are apparently jokes that grown-ups would get but kids wouldn't in the new MLP (similar in a way that Shrek or other animations of the past decade have done), as to give an experience that would be enjoyable for both children and adults. I decided to see what all the fuss was about, and watched 5 of the first seasons' episodes.
What the hell internet.
I didn't see any of the adult jokes. That was the first thing that I noticed in watching MLP. Another was that....IT'S JUST ANOTHER KIDS SHOW. Really, thats all it is, another cartoon for children....specifically, young girls. Yet many of the fans of MLP are ADULTS. Really internet, I don't get it.
Granted, this is a good childrens show. The characters aren't too complex, neither is the story; the animation is good, with enough "wow" factor to keep childrens attention; the voice acting is well-characterized (for a childrens cartoon); and the "lessons" or "messages" that are included in the episodes are clear and simple enough that children can understand them.
Now, lets talk about bronies. What's a "brony"? As I mentioned before, there are males, of my age demographic, with no children of their own, that enjoy the new MLP. I didn't get it then, and I sure as hell don't get it now. You see, perhaps my view on this is outdated and sexist, but there are certain things that makes a man "manly" and this sure as hell isn't one of them. While I understand that gender roles have changed quite a bit over the decades, and its acceptable to like "girly" things, like the new MLP is a great way to lose your "man card". This also illustrates another point that I like to bring up constantly: this kind of level of acceptability is what allows emo males to be able to wear womens jeans and guy-liner and society accepts it. Sorry kids, but I'm still under the belief that there are certain things guys SHOULDN'T DO, and wearing lady-like things and liking something as supremely girly as the new MLP are two of them. While you could also argue that liking "girly" things if you're male means that you're assured in your masculinity, there's a big difference between wearing the occasional pink shirt, and watching and obsessing about a show meant for young girls.
Another reason that has been presented to me that I read in the many, many message board threads about the new MLP about bronies is that they're all trolling. If that's the case....then the bronies are just trying too hard. There are better ways to troll than this. I know, I've pretty much done them all.
In closing: the new MLP is a good childrens show, but not something that I, as an adult, like. Liking something child-like, such as cartoons or toys is fine, but really, internet, this has gone too far, you might want to stop while you're behind.
What the hell internet.
I didn't see any of the adult jokes. That was the first thing that I noticed in watching MLP. Another was that....IT'S JUST ANOTHER KIDS SHOW. Really, thats all it is, another cartoon for children....specifically, young girls. Yet many of the fans of MLP are ADULTS. Really internet, I don't get it.
Granted, this is a good childrens show. The characters aren't too complex, neither is the story; the animation is good, with enough "wow" factor to keep childrens attention; the voice acting is well-characterized (for a childrens cartoon); and the "lessons" or "messages" that are included in the episodes are clear and simple enough that children can understand them.
Now, lets talk about bronies. What's a "brony"? As I mentioned before, there are males, of my age demographic, with no children of their own, that enjoy the new MLP. I didn't get it then, and I sure as hell don't get it now. You see, perhaps my view on this is outdated and sexist, but there are certain things that makes a man "manly" and this sure as hell isn't one of them. While I understand that gender roles have changed quite a bit over the decades, and its acceptable to like "girly" things, like the new MLP is a great way to lose your "man card". This also illustrates another point that I like to bring up constantly: this kind of level of acceptability is what allows emo males to be able to wear womens jeans and guy-liner and society accepts it. Sorry kids, but I'm still under the belief that there are certain things guys SHOULDN'T DO, and wearing lady-like things and liking something as supremely girly as the new MLP are two of them. While you could also argue that liking "girly" things if you're male means that you're assured in your masculinity, there's a big difference between wearing the occasional pink shirt, and watching and obsessing about a show meant for young girls.
Another reason that has been presented to me that I read in the many, many message board threads about the new MLP about bronies is that they're all trolling. If that's the case....then the bronies are just trying too hard. There are better ways to troll than this. I know, I've pretty much done them all.
In closing: the new MLP is a good childrens show, but not something that I, as an adult, like. Liking something child-like, such as cartoons or toys is fine, but really, internet, this has gone too far, you might want to stop while you're behind.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Movie Review: Thor
I am a huge nerd, there is no doubting that. But of all the different kinds of nerdy hobbies I have, reading and collecting comic books is not one of them. Well, at least not in the same scale as other comic book hobbyists. I have a few comic books....two from Star Wars Expanded Universe, one Alien vs Predator, and one of the new Hellraiser comic. I've never read any of the Spiderman, Superman, Captain America, or any other superhero comic series. So, much like going into see Your Highness, I didn't have to worry about making any comparisons to the source material. I did however have high expectations of director Kenneth Branagh, who is better known as an actor. Branagh has done a range of things, from Shakespeare to playing a teacher in one of the Harry Potter films. I wondered how someone who is best known for doing Shakespeare would handle making a movie about a comic book series. I can honestly say.....it turned out very, very good.
The basic premise is partially ripped from the mythology of the Norse, who worshiped a pantheon of gods known collectively as the Asgard. The Asgard were ruled by Odin (played in the movie by Anthony Hopkins), the god of war and death. Odin had many sons, though in the Marvel Universe Thor movie, he only has two: Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki (Tom Hiddleton), both slightly based off of their Norse mythology counterparts. While humanity has mostly forgotten about the Asgardians, at one time, Earth was saved by the Odin and his army. The frost trolls of Jotunheim had a magic maguffin that could freeze everything, and invaded Earth to start a campaign to conquer the Nine Realms, the worlds of Norse mythology. The Asgardians stopped them, invaded Jotunheim, the maguffin was captured and locked away, and Odin forged a truce with the frost troll king Laufey ( Colm Feore). On the day of Thors induction into kinghood of the Asgard, three frost trolls break in and try and take the maguffin. The trolls are stopped, and Thor takes it upon himself to go to Jotunheim, and confront Laufey. A battle ensures, and Thor and his party are rescued by Odin. Odin then strips Thor of his powers, and sends him to Earth to prove he is worthy of being an Asgardian. Thor is dropped in New Mexico, where he encounters scientist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). I'll leave the rest of the plot alone, so I don't spoil it for those that actually want to go see it.
Thor is overall a good movie. The pacing and flow is wonderful, the acting isn't hammy or half-hearted, the dialogue isn't too stupid (with one exception, see below), and the effects were pretty good (some of it didn't look entirely natural even though it looked like they were trying to make it seem that way). Kenneth Branagh did a really good job, and this made me want to check out his other directing work. I was initially very doubtful about Chris Hemsworth, since I had never heard of him as an actor. He really shined in Thor, and hopefully, he will be making more movies in the future that aren't Avengers related.
One of my major complaints was the character of Darcy Lewis, played by Kat Dennings. She existed as comic relief, and she failed miserably at it; the character was just a pure annoyance and added nothing to the movie.
Thor was on par with the first Iron Man movie, and even if you don't know any Norse mythology (I know some) or anything about the comics (like me), still go see it, it's worth watching.
Make sure to stay after the credits!
The basic premise is partially ripped from the mythology of the Norse, who worshiped a pantheon of gods known collectively as the Asgard. The Asgard were ruled by Odin (played in the movie by Anthony Hopkins), the god of war and death. Odin had many sons, though in the Marvel Universe Thor movie, he only has two: Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki (Tom Hiddleton), both slightly based off of their Norse mythology counterparts. While humanity has mostly forgotten about the Asgardians, at one time, Earth was saved by the Odin and his army. The frost trolls of Jotunheim had a magic maguffin that could freeze everything, and invaded Earth to start a campaign to conquer the Nine Realms, the worlds of Norse mythology. The Asgardians stopped them, invaded Jotunheim, the maguffin was captured and locked away, and Odin forged a truce with the frost troll king Laufey ( Colm Feore). On the day of Thors induction into kinghood of the Asgard, three frost trolls break in and try and take the maguffin. The trolls are stopped, and Thor takes it upon himself to go to Jotunheim, and confront Laufey. A battle ensures, and Thor and his party are rescued by Odin. Odin then strips Thor of his powers, and sends him to Earth to prove he is worthy of being an Asgardian. Thor is dropped in New Mexico, where he encounters scientist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). I'll leave the rest of the plot alone, so I don't spoil it for those that actually want to go see it.
Thor is overall a good movie. The pacing and flow is wonderful, the acting isn't hammy or half-hearted, the dialogue isn't too stupid (with one exception, see below), and the effects were pretty good (some of it didn't look entirely natural even though it looked like they were trying to make it seem that way). Kenneth Branagh did a really good job, and this made me want to check out his other directing work. I was initially very doubtful about Chris Hemsworth, since I had never heard of him as an actor. He really shined in Thor, and hopefully, he will be making more movies in the future that aren't Avengers related.
One of my major complaints was the character of Darcy Lewis, played by Kat Dennings. She existed as comic relief, and she failed miserably at it; the character was just a pure annoyance and added nothing to the movie.
Thor was on par with the first Iron Man movie, and even if you don't know any Norse mythology (I know some) or anything about the comics (like me), still go see it, it's worth watching.
Make sure to stay after the credits!
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Movie Review: Red Riding Hood
I was on a date the other night when the women I was with suggested we go see a movie at a local dollar theater. It used to be you could easily find a local dollar theater, go and see the movies you didn't want to pay full price for when it was in full theatrical release. With movies being pushed to DVD so quickly after their theatrical release, dollar theaters are a rarity. After using my phone to find out the movie listings (which was only six theaters, and the other movies available were crap), we decided to go see Red Riding Hood. I had very little interest in seeing this when it was in full release; it screamed "trying to make a teen movie loosely based upon the old folk tale". Further proof that I'm extremely jaded: I was fucking right.
The movie is about Valerie (played by Amanda Seyfried), a young girl living in medieval times, in a remote village someplace in Europe. She has spent her life in love with Peter (Shiloh Fernandez), but is promised to marry Henry (Max Irons), in typical Middle Ages arranged marriage fashion. While this is an important part of the story, it is not the main story. The main story is simple: a remote European village is plagued by a werewolf. They leave offering to it in the forms of livestock, but then Valeries sister is killed by it, and following the death of a real wolf that was thought to be the werewolf and the arrival of a witch hunter named Father Solomon (Gary Oldman), the real hunt starts for the werewolf. The real hunt turns into the typical inquisition procedure: turn everyones life around, accuse the wrong people, go off of hearsay, etc., and it turns out as well as one would suspect when you give the blindly religious too much power. In the end, we find out who the werewolf is, in the kind of ridiculous twist that would make M. Night Shyamalan proud. Of course, its also filled with the "teen movie angst" that, I really wish I could say seemed underlying....but no, the angst is there, in your face, all the time, just like....another teen movie that unfortunately exists.
Thus bringing me to some of my problems with this movie. For one....it feels so like Twilight, its almost kind of hard to not laugh at the whole thing. It also doesn't help that Valeries father is played by Billy Burke, who most of us know better as Charlie Swan, the father of Bella Swan, the "heroine" from the Twilight "saga" movies. In doing research into the acting backgrounds of the two male leads, I found out that Shiloh Fernandez auditioned as possibly playing Edward Cullen in Twilight...and it shows. Which brings me to the acting. One of the minor characters is Henrys father, Adrian, is played by Michael Shanks. Michael Shanks is best known for playing Dr Daniel Jackson, the archaeologist/linguist on the TV show Stargate SG-1. He is killed early on by the werewolf.. He also set the mood for the acting caliber for the majority of this movie: TV drama...AT BEST.While the older, more experienced ensemble cast showed some of their acting chops, because we spend most of the movie seeing Seyfried, Fernandez, and Irons, we're treated to less than skillful actors being angsty teenagers....even though they're all in their twenties. Billy Burke played Billy Burke (I've only seen him in this movie and the Twilights, so I have no idea what his possible range could be, but it's not shown here). Gary Oldman....disappointed me, though not in the same way that the main cast did. It seemed as if Oldman realized that something was missing in the performances of main cast, and decided to compensate by overacting. While not as bad as say, Jeremy Irons in Dungeons and Dragons, Oldman was really overdoing it this time. Final complaint: the werewolf in this movie looked exactly like the "werewolves" from Twilight. This is my way of saying that it was a horrible looking CGI giant dog. While this may seem like a worthless little nit-pick, it highlights a major problem: if you're going to have a CGI animal of any kind in a live-action movie, spend the time and effort to make it look semi-plausible; not something that looks like you spent a day working on it.
Pros: Decent pacing, easy to understand plot, further proves I can (almost) completely predict a movie based on its trailer.
Cons: Bad acting (of various flavors), "what a twist!" plot point, was too much like Twilight.
The movie is about Valerie (played by Amanda Seyfried), a young girl living in medieval times, in a remote village someplace in Europe. She has spent her life in love with Peter (Shiloh Fernandez), but is promised to marry Henry (Max Irons), in typical Middle Ages arranged marriage fashion. While this is an important part of the story, it is not the main story. The main story is simple: a remote European village is plagued by a werewolf. They leave offering to it in the forms of livestock, but then Valeries sister is killed by it, and following the death of a real wolf that was thought to be the werewolf and the arrival of a witch hunter named Father Solomon (Gary Oldman), the real hunt starts for the werewolf. The real hunt turns into the typical inquisition procedure: turn everyones life around, accuse the wrong people, go off of hearsay, etc., and it turns out as well as one would suspect when you give the blindly religious too much power. In the end, we find out who the werewolf is, in the kind of ridiculous twist that would make M. Night Shyamalan proud. Of course, its also filled with the "teen movie angst" that, I really wish I could say seemed underlying....but no, the angst is there, in your face, all the time, just like....another teen movie that unfortunately exists.
Thus bringing me to some of my problems with this movie. For one....it feels so like Twilight, its almost kind of hard to not laugh at the whole thing. It also doesn't help that Valeries father is played by Billy Burke, who most of us know better as Charlie Swan, the father of Bella Swan, the "heroine" from the Twilight "saga" movies. In doing research into the acting backgrounds of the two male leads, I found out that Shiloh Fernandez auditioned as possibly playing Edward Cullen in Twilight...and it shows. Which brings me to the acting. One of the minor characters is Henrys father, Adrian, is played by Michael Shanks. Michael Shanks is best known for playing Dr Daniel Jackson, the archaeologist/linguist on the TV show Stargate SG-1. He is killed early on by the werewolf.. He also set the mood for the acting caliber for the majority of this movie: TV drama...AT BEST.While the older, more experienced ensemble cast showed some of their acting chops, because we spend most of the movie seeing Seyfried, Fernandez, and Irons, we're treated to less than skillful actors being angsty teenagers....even though they're all in their twenties. Billy Burke played Billy Burke (I've only seen him in this movie and the Twilights, so I have no idea what his possible range could be, but it's not shown here). Gary Oldman....disappointed me, though not in the same way that the main cast did. It seemed as if Oldman realized that something was missing in the performances of main cast, and decided to compensate by overacting. While not as bad as say, Jeremy Irons in Dungeons and Dragons, Oldman was really overdoing it this time. Final complaint: the werewolf in this movie looked exactly like the "werewolves" from Twilight. This is my way of saying that it was a horrible looking CGI giant dog. While this may seem like a worthless little nit-pick, it highlights a major problem: if you're going to have a CGI animal of any kind in a live-action movie, spend the time and effort to make it look semi-plausible; not something that looks like you spent a day working on it.
Pros: Decent pacing, easy to understand plot, further proves I can (almost) completely predict a movie based on its trailer.
Cons: Bad acting (of various flavors), "what a twist!" plot point, was too much like Twilight.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Movie Review: Your Highness
I used to be a bit of stoner. While I have not partaken in years, I had a desire to see the movie Pineapple Express, as it seemed like a comedy that I could relate to. I have yet to see it. But perhaps that was a good thing, since it wouldn't color my judgment of Your Highness. I managed to get a free early screening pass from my new job.
When I got there, I saw "Reserved for Press" seats. I have to say that seeing made me smile; the fact that I was going to be seeing this movie along with the local "real" critics meant a lot to me as an amateur critic.
Pros: Good acting all around (even from the minor characters), the dialogue is hilarious (innuendo-laden as hell too), cinematography was good (with one exception, see below), the setting was fleshed out enough so that the audience could follow but not drowning in background and story, and the soundtrack was very well done (but very typical for a fantasy film).
Cons: Fight cinematography was was very confusing (it seemed if the the cameraman was swaying wildly to get as much possible shown and it was just a mess), and the plot is EXTREMELY cliched (but I did go into this knowing that).
Overall, a wonderful fantasy with comedic elements that can be appreciated by anyone with a perverted mind.
When I got there, I saw "Reserved for Press" seats. I have to say that seeing made me smile; the fact that I was going to be seeing this movie along with the local "real" critics meant a lot to me as an amateur critic.
Pros: Good acting all around (even from the minor characters), the dialogue is hilarious (innuendo-laden as hell too), cinematography was good (with one exception, see below), the setting was fleshed out enough so that the audience could follow but not drowning in background and story, and the soundtrack was very well done (but very typical for a fantasy film).
Cons: Fight cinematography was was very confusing (it seemed if the the cameraman was swaying wildly to get as much possible shown and it was just a mess), and the plot is EXTREMELY cliched (but I did go into this knowing that).
Overall, a wonderful fantasy with comedic elements that can be appreciated by anyone with a perverted mind.
Friday, March 25, 2011
It isn't Rebecca Blacks fault
I figured today would be the best day to make this post.
Before the torrential firestorm starts, let me just say that "Friday" by Rebecca Black is a bad song. It takes and conveniently shows off everything that is bad with the current state of pop music. Horrid lyrics, too much autotune (though I believe that autotune should be used minimalistically as possible, and that if you can't sing, you shouldn't have a career doing so), lazy production techniques, and a ridiculous music video to boot. That being said, let me justify the title of this post.
Rebecca Blacks' "fame" is a result of her parents paying some $2000 to a music production company called Ark Music Factory (AMF). Kids parents pay the fee, the company records the kid singing, does all the necessary production on the song, puts them in the music video, and then sends the whole package out. This way of making "music" is a predatory money-making tactic, it uses the hope that parents are willing enough to spend that money on their kids (which they are), and that the kids have the dream of "pop stardom". The end result is a horrible song and a horrible music video that appeals to kids with no real musical taste, who only listen to pop radio and consider Justin Bieber to be "good music". Most of the "talent" that AMF has barely makes a dent in the realm of pop music, the "talent" barely making any money and AMF barely recouping what was spent on the production and music video.
Now, we could just blame Rebeccas parents and AMF, but the real culprit of the "fame" that Rebecca Black has is....us. We listened to her music, and passed judgment on it. Most of us panned it, seeing it for what it really is, stupid pop drivel. We made fun of it, made funny memes out of it, remixed the song, and did all the things that we do to things that are horrible and/or popular tripe. But there are those that like it....the previously mentioned kids that listen to Justin Bieber. Both sides are guilty, one for keeping her in the public face, even in a negative way, and the other for encouraging Rebecca Black to make more songs by buying her music.
It is not Rebecca Blacks fault that she is famous. Most of the blame lays at our feet. What should've happened, and I'm guilty for not doing this, was to ignore it. We should've seen "Friday" as the garbage that it was, laughed, and continued browsing Youtube. But we did not. We turned it into an internet juggernaut. The video was viral, but we turned it into a plague. We continue to mock it, to remix it, to make sure that the world knows that it exists. The internet is a place of "haters", we enjoy finding things to hate, and Rebecca Black and "Friday" were perfect targets.
Rebecca Black has made some success of "Friday", earning in a week about what a teacher makes in a year. She has reportedly donated all the money she has earned from "Friday" to the relief effort in Japan. I still wonder if that was her idea, her agents, or her parents, as well as how much of that money was her total gain, and not what was left over after spending some money on herself. Which, in a way, one could not blame her....the past week and a half she has had to deal with the scorn of the internet. A little retail therapy wouldn't hurt to mend those wounds.
But then again....perhaps those wounds shouldn't have been made at all, had we, the internet, just ignored Rebecca Black and the song "Friday".
Before the torrential firestorm starts, let me just say that "Friday" by Rebecca Black is a bad song. It takes and conveniently shows off everything that is bad with the current state of pop music. Horrid lyrics, too much autotune (though I believe that autotune should be used minimalistically as possible, and that if you can't sing, you shouldn't have a career doing so), lazy production techniques, and a ridiculous music video to boot. That being said, let me justify the title of this post.
Rebecca Blacks' "fame" is a result of her parents paying some $2000 to a music production company called Ark Music Factory (AMF). Kids parents pay the fee, the company records the kid singing, does all the necessary production on the song, puts them in the music video, and then sends the whole package out. This way of making "music" is a predatory money-making tactic, it uses the hope that parents are willing enough to spend that money on their kids (which they are), and that the kids have the dream of "pop stardom". The end result is a horrible song and a horrible music video that appeals to kids with no real musical taste, who only listen to pop radio and consider Justin Bieber to be "good music". Most of the "talent" that AMF has barely makes a dent in the realm of pop music, the "talent" barely making any money and AMF barely recouping what was spent on the production and music video.
Now, we could just blame Rebeccas parents and AMF, but the real culprit of the "fame" that Rebecca Black has is....us. We listened to her music, and passed judgment on it. Most of us panned it, seeing it for what it really is, stupid pop drivel. We made fun of it, made funny memes out of it, remixed the song, and did all the things that we do to things that are horrible and/or popular tripe. But there are those that like it....the previously mentioned kids that listen to Justin Bieber. Both sides are guilty, one for keeping her in the public face, even in a negative way, and the other for encouraging Rebecca Black to make more songs by buying her music.
It is not Rebecca Blacks fault that she is famous. Most of the blame lays at our feet. What should've happened, and I'm guilty for not doing this, was to ignore it. We should've seen "Friday" as the garbage that it was, laughed, and continued browsing Youtube. But we did not. We turned it into an internet juggernaut. The video was viral, but we turned it into a plague. We continue to mock it, to remix it, to make sure that the world knows that it exists. The internet is a place of "haters", we enjoy finding things to hate, and Rebecca Black and "Friday" were perfect targets.
Rebecca Black has made some success of "Friday", earning in a week about what a teacher makes in a year. She has reportedly donated all the money she has earned from "Friday" to the relief effort in Japan. I still wonder if that was her idea, her agents, or her parents, as well as how much of that money was her total gain, and not what was left over after spending some money on herself. Which, in a way, one could not blame her....the past week and a half she has had to deal with the scorn of the internet. A little retail therapy wouldn't hurt to mend those wounds.
But then again....perhaps those wounds shouldn't have been made at all, had we, the internet, just ignored Rebecca Black and the song "Friday".
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Why I'm doing this
Those of you that will be seeing this, will probably know me.
Those that don't, let me explain how I am as a person: I am analytical, arrogant, opinionated, somewhat cantankerous, cynical and an elitist. I have been this way for many years, starting when I realized I was more intelligent than average. This began when I was just hitting the age of ten, and I gradually started using the style of thinking that I use today.
Even though I had my style of thinking cemented within myself, it was not til these recent years that I realized that my thinking meant that I was something....more.
It was in these recent years that I have started to realize I....am a critic. I like to analyze, I like to take apart, I like to judge EVERYTHING. Music, movies, TV, people.....and I don't mind saying so. So much of learning to live in a "polite society" removes our ability to judge things as they are, we are taught to accept things. We are also taught to "fit in", to "conform", and as a direct result we do not critically think about the things that we experience.
We go through life listening to bad music, because its what's "popular", so we think it's good. We go through life watching the same bad movies, but because our friends say its "amazing", we accept that its good. I don't do that. I am the dissenting opinion, I am the one that says "this song is poppy tripe", I am the the one that says "these people can't act", I am the one that says "this TV show has no substance".
My first critical review was on a Facebook and Twitter update. I had just seen Avatar (the movie by James Cameron), and that is a grand example of hype over substance. My review was succinct, simple, and a bit controversial with my friends; I did not care. That began my criticizenship, and this is to further it.
This will also be a blog about other things, though the critic part will be the biggest part. It was also chronicle my journey into vlogging and video criticism, as well as my journey as a dj and a producer of electronic music, and the occasional snippet on the human condition and my views of the world.
Here, is to the beginning.
Those that don't, let me explain how I am as a person: I am analytical, arrogant, opinionated, somewhat cantankerous, cynical and an elitist. I have been this way for many years, starting when I realized I was more intelligent than average. This began when I was just hitting the age of ten, and I gradually started using the style of thinking that I use today.
Even though I had my style of thinking cemented within myself, it was not til these recent years that I realized that my thinking meant that I was something....more.
It was in these recent years that I have started to realize I....am a critic. I like to analyze, I like to take apart, I like to judge EVERYTHING. Music, movies, TV, people.....and I don't mind saying so. So much of learning to live in a "polite society" removes our ability to judge things as they are, we are taught to accept things. We are also taught to "fit in", to "conform", and as a direct result we do not critically think about the things that we experience.
We go through life listening to bad music, because its what's "popular", so we think it's good. We go through life watching the same bad movies, but because our friends say its "amazing", we accept that its good. I don't do that. I am the dissenting opinion, I am the one that says "this song is poppy tripe", I am the the one that says "these people can't act", I am the one that says "this TV show has no substance".
My first critical review was on a Facebook and Twitter update. I had just seen Avatar (the movie by James Cameron), and that is a grand example of hype over substance. My review was succinct, simple, and a bit controversial with my friends; I did not care. That began my criticizenship, and this is to further it.
This will also be a blog about other things, though the critic part will be the biggest part. It was also chronicle my journey into vlogging and video criticism, as well as my journey as a dj and a producer of electronic music, and the occasional snippet on the human condition and my views of the world.
Here, is to the beginning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)