This is a movie I've been waiting about three years for. Whenever I first found out about it, it was pretty unbelievable. I didn't think Disney would green light a remake of the short film that they once rejected for being too scary. I believe after seeing the continuous popularity of The Nightmare Before Christmas that will never go away, they decided to take a risk. I was getting pretty excited for it as years went on and was glad it got a lot of advertising unlike most stop motion films. Did it dissappoint?
For waiting so long for Frankenweenie, it was satisfying. Was it better than NBC? Course not.Was it better than Corpse Bride and James and the Giant Peach? Yes. Was it better than ParaNorman? Well I think it is fair to say they are both equal, except Frankenweenie had more flaws. It is funny how they are pretty much the same plot wise. Lead boy character with no friends and ridiculed for being different by his parents get in an incident where the dead are reanimated, cause havoc and some other kids get involved and save the day. The only difference is they have different homages, one being 50's horror and sci fi movies and the other 70's and 80's underground zombie movies.
In comparison with the original short, it was pretty respectful. Some parts were pretty exact. Obviously more things were added to make it into an actual full length film and that was completely fine because it wasn't horrible stuff. Comparing the short to the feature is like comparing Tim Burton's career then and now. The short is like something a beginning film maker would create and not much is to be expected. It was good for the concept and what it was. Fast forward about 25 years and of course there's is going to be more things added that turned out for the better. The beauty of this film is the creativity and the homages. There was homages for Frankenstein of course, The Mummy, Gamera, Creature of the Black Lagoon, and a touch of Gremlins. They even show a random clip from one of the Hammer Dracula films. Which was funny because I thought this took place in the 50's but those movies came out around the 60's and 70's. They must of thought not much people recognize Christopher Lee as Dracula.
The flaws I mentioned are very minor, it wasn't anything that ruined the movie. One thing is that it does suffer from "Why? cuz". The animals were brought back to life just because. It sounds random, but I wish a little more effort was made to show how besides being struck my magic lightening do they make the animals alive. It was an instance you have to put yourself in a unrealistic setting to enjoy it, and that I did.
The animation itself was good, but not as great as it could have. There wasn't too much special effects like previous stop motion films that were that grand. Some of the motions of the characters didn't have a flowing movement like in ParaNorman. The most awkward motion was when the characters were running. It felt like a frame or two was missing when that happened. It also was a bit distracting nearly all the characters looked the same. Although that is the style of Burton, the ones in Corpse Bride varied in design. When they stood in a crowd, it was hard to tell who was who. I wish they went for the approach in ParaNorman where the character design reflected on their personalities and looked very much like a caricature. The saving grace for it was the lighting. The shadows off the characters looked amazing and gave a very sinister look to some.
In all, this was a very good movie. It was funny, emotional, creative and a lot of fun. I really hope Burton takes his own characters and stories for more movies, rather than taking others. He is very talented when it comes to creating a new story with a dark twist. I recommend seeing this side by side with ParaNorman when time permits!
see you in 3 years stop motion....i love you.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Saturday, August 25, 2012
ParaNorman
So to tie a nice bow on this Summer, I saw ParaNorman. I was pretty worried how this movie would turn out seeing how there is surprisingly no involvement from Henry Selick or even produced by Tim Burton, something that Nightmare Before Christmas and Coraline had that make them really great (kind of makes you wonder why Burton chose Abe Lincoln:Vampire Hunter instead). The first trailers honestly didn't make it look all that amazing, but looking at it more and more got me excited for it. It is also surprising we are getting two stop motion films that are basically going to compete each other. Frankenweenie looks like it won't be the best, but still looks promising. At least we for sure know it'll be a better homage to classic horror movies than Hotel Transylvania.
Anyway, this movie was probably one of the best this year. Everything about it worked and made for a great FAMILY movie, not a kids movie, though granted it is for older kids. Lettuce order what made it work:
Animation: Stop motion is no doubt extremely difficult. I think this film has put a great standard to how it should be done now. With some stop motion films, the movement seems choppy or the characters don't do much. Here, everything flows nicely and the characters are not just talking heads, they managed to talk with the rest of their body. I also liked how the skin tone on the characters actually looked real. It is a funny thing to mention, but it made them look more human rather than the dolls they actually are. The character design as a whole for everyone in this film was hysterical. I loved how their look reflected their personalities and at the same time created that cartoon feel with all the vibrant colors.
Voice Acting: I think the one flaw with Coraline was that some of the voice acting did come off as whiny and annoying for some characters (Dakota Fanning really shouldn't do it anymore). With ParaNorman, all the actors seemed natural with their characters. When the focus of the film goes to preteens and teenagers, sometimes they are too over the top and become obnoxious. Here they were able to make it fit and it also didn't sound like 20 year olds playing 11.
Being an appropriate modern family film: It seems like nearly all family movies these days have been uncreative and plagued with bad jokes, terrible plots and degrading good actors. Every once in a while there is a special one that comes out such as Brave or as we hope will soon be Wreck-It Ralph.
Now when I say this movie is for older kids, I really mean it. For some little ones it may be too scary but I doubt it. My 3 year old nephew saw this with his parents and he loved it. There were only a few minor words that made might make people go "OH GOD WHY DID THEY SAY THAT IN A KIDS MOVIE BEH BEH BEH!" but who cares. There's been plenty of PG rated family movies that used those kinds of words. The point is that they didn't talk down to the audience. The jokes in this turned out to be hilarious and very clever throughout. It also told a very macabre story by the climax and of course, death was all over. I believe that this really shouldn't be an issue so long as parents are making sure their children are aware that this is all fantasy. In a way this was like a Shaun of the Dead for kids, as it was a very funny zombie movie.
Overall this was a very good movie that paid respectful homage to some cult classic zombie movies. The music to this film was a nice nod to that was well. Nothing was complicated and it was something that grabbed your attention and didn't let go. There was nothing stupid about it, and I'm glad they were able to make a movie like this that has these types of young characters and not make it unbearable. There was a moment I was afraid it would become a sentimental mess but it really didn't, everything had a nice payoff to it. How does it compare to Coraline? It is actually better, but they are both still very good. When I think about it, the climaxes to both Coraline and ParaNorman are almost the same pace wise and mood. Still a very good movie and I wish it would get a lot more attention than other family movies like Ice Age 4 or Madagascar 3.
What makes me mad about this is the average audience that is going to see this movie. I know there are people out there that can really appreciate this movie and the style of the other movies as made by the same people. Then comes the people that "just don't get it." These are the kind of people that react to movies by saying "That movie was really creepy and scary and weird...." after seeing Coraline or got mad at Rango for having gun violence and "bad" words. Trust me I've seen these people. I don't think this movie did well in the box office not only for the little advertising it has had, but the assumption that people have that its going to be "weird and creepy and just for kids." Well no, this is a movie anyone can enjoy. Even without the company of children. I really wish there were more movies like this but there's so many things that draw them back, such as the prejudice against anything that's not CGI or doesn't have a big name actor. It even made me mad just being in the theater. A lot of parents there were just talking to each other and even had some on their phones. I pretty much don't want to go to the movies midday anymore because I've been getting annoyed with the families that go during that time as awful as that sounds.
To conclude, I want people to think outside their idiot bubbles. I really hope there's no one out there saying "DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE ITS GOT BAD STUFF IN IT AND I'M NARROW MINDED SO YOU SHOULD LISTEN TO ME!" ParaNorman is truly a gem this year and I highly recommend it.
If there's a movie to avoid and be mad about, it is Hotel Transylvania. Adam Sandler as Dracula? Thanks for slapping Bela Lugosi and Bram Stoker across the face, dumbasses.
Anyway, this movie was probably one of the best this year. Everything about it worked and made for a great FAMILY movie, not a kids movie, though granted it is for older kids. Lettuce order what made it work:
Animation: Stop motion is no doubt extremely difficult. I think this film has put a great standard to how it should be done now. With some stop motion films, the movement seems choppy or the characters don't do much. Here, everything flows nicely and the characters are not just talking heads, they managed to talk with the rest of their body. I also liked how the skin tone on the characters actually looked real. It is a funny thing to mention, but it made them look more human rather than the dolls they actually are. The character design as a whole for everyone in this film was hysterical. I loved how their look reflected their personalities and at the same time created that cartoon feel with all the vibrant colors.
Voice Acting: I think the one flaw with Coraline was that some of the voice acting did come off as whiny and annoying for some characters (Dakota Fanning really shouldn't do it anymore). With ParaNorman, all the actors seemed natural with their characters. When the focus of the film goes to preteens and teenagers, sometimes they are too over the top and become obnoxious. Here they were able to make it fit and it also didn't sound like 20 year olds playing 11.
Being an appropriate modern family film: It seems like nearly all family movies these days have been uncreative and plagued with bad jokes, terrible plots and degrading good actors. Every once in a while there is a special one that comes out such as Brave or as we hope will soon be Wreck-It Ralph.
Now when I say this movie is for older kids, I really mean it. For some little ones it may be too scary but I doubt it. My 3 year old nephew saw this with his parents and he loved it. There were only a few minor words that made might make people go "OH GOD WHY DID THEY SAY THAT IN A KIDS MOVIE BEH BEH BEH!" but who cares. There's been plenty of PG rated family movies that used those kinds of words. The point is that they didn't talk down to the audience. The jokes in this turned out to be hilarious and very clever throughout. It also told a very macabre story by the climax and of course, death was all over. I believe that this really shouldn't be an issue so long as parents are making sure their children are aware that this is all fantasy. In a way this was like a Shaun of the Dead for kids, as it was a very funny zombie movie.
Overall this was a very good movie that paid respectful homage to some cult classic zombie movies. The music to this film was a nice nod to that was well. Nothing was complicated and it was something that grabbed your attention and didn't let go. There was nothing stupid about it, and I'm glad they were able to make a movie like this that has these types of young characters and not make it unbearable. There was a moment I was afraid it would become a sentimental mess but it really didn't, everything had a nice payoff to it. How does it compare to Coraline? It is actually better, but they are both still very good. When I think about it, the climaxes to both Coraline and ParaNorman are almost the same pace wise and mood. Still a very good movie and I wish it would get a lot more attention than other family movies like Ice Age 4 or Madagascar 3.
What makes me mad about this is the average audience that is going to see this movie. I know there are people out there that can really appreciate this movie and the style of the other movies as made by the same people. Then comes the people that "just don't get it." These are the kind of people that react to movies by saying "That movie was really creepy and scary and weird...." after seeing Coraline or got mad at Rango for having gun violence and "bad" words. Trust me I've seen these people. I don't think this movie did well in the box office not only for the little advertising it has had, but the assumption that people have that its going to be "weird and creepy and just for kids." Well no, this is a movie anyone can enjoy. Even without the company of children. I really wish there were more movies like this but there's so many things that draw them back, such as the prejudice against anything that's not CGI or doesn't have a big name actor. It even made me mad just being in the theater. A lot of parents there were just talking to each other and even had some on their phones. I pretty much don't want to go to the movies midday anymore because I've been getting annoyed with the families that go during that time as awful as that sounds.
To conclude, I want people to think outside their idiot bubbles. I really hope there's no one out there saying "DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE ITS GOT BAD STUFF IN IT AND I'M NARROW MINDED SO YOU SHOULD LISTEN TO ME!" ParaNorman is truly a gem this year and I highly recommend it.
If there's a movie to avoid and be mad about, it is Hotel Transylvania. Adam Sandler as Dracula? Thanks for slapping Bela Lugosi and Bram Stoker across the face, dumbasses.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
The Expendables 2
This weekend, I had the choice of seeing The Expendables 2 or ParaNorman. On one hand, I knew TE2 would be a funny yet dumb action movie and I would be able to see a lot of stars that have not done too many roles lately. On the other hand, ParaNorman looks like a great stop motion feature. We don't get too many of those and I loved Coraline, so I don't think it would disappoint. For whatever reason, I chose to see TE2. So was it how it was expected to be?
Yes. This was pretty much the best dumb action movie.
For starters, I really don't remember too much about the 1st one despite seeing it about 2 months ago. It was, of course, your typical action movie that has one of the best casts ever. At least with these movies, they are aware of what they are. They weren't made to be these deep stories to win Oscars, they were made for fun. It was very smart to have these action stars in it since it really does pull a nice nostalgic factor. It is almost like a huge crossover as well but makes you wonder about what if it was an actual one. Stallone as Rambo, Norris as Walker, VAN DAAAMMMME as Guile, etc. Regarding the cast, one of the reasons I wanted to see this is to see how AHHHNALD, Chuck Norris and JEAN CLAUDE VAAAN-DAAAAMME would do seeing as they have not done anything in a while. How did they do?
AHHHNALD was very awesome. I'm glad with this film and his next one he's going back to his roots and playing his age. Speaking of his age, damn did he get old. He looks so different compare to his previous performances! At least he is still able to do things and be himself though. VAAAN DAAAMME hasn't aged well face wise. He wears sunglasses the entire time and when he takes them off, its a little dark and you can't see too much of his face. His eyes are a little puffy and wrinkled. The rest of his body looked fine, surprised he could keep up staying buff. Regardless, he played a nice bad guy. He was very menacing and wasn't overly cheesy. Chuck Norris did awesome as usual, and he looked great while doing it. BUT WHY WAS HE BASICALLY A CAMEO? He was just in and out! At least he was awesome the parts he was in. This movie does prove that regardless of age, you can still be bad ass and have a good time doing it.
The movie itself did get boring at some parts. I think those boring parts where a definite contrast to the ones with action. The action itself was pretty good but of course, there were some parts where you don't understand what's happening. It was fast pace and the shaky cam didn't help much. At least the story was easy to fallow, it wasn't really the big focus in this kind of movie. It also felt like a lot of characters where throw away. Like they didn't get as much development as others or they were just there for whatever. Like why is Jet Li only in this for 5 minutes? Where's Mickey Rourke? Who's this lady? Speaking of the lady (yeah she really just is THE LADY) I'm not sure how to feel about her. I liked how she didn't need to be rescued or was screaming her head off the entire time, but they didn't show her do cool things like the other guys and sometimes made her look incompetent. She wasn't annoying, but she was no Ripley or Sara Connor either. Stallone, Statham, Gibson, and Lundgren where very good characters and I liked the way they played off each other. The relationships were very well presented as well as their personalities and made them very fun to watch.
What makes this movie watchable is the one liners. My god, every one liner you can think of managed to be in this. Such as:
Stallone: "Booker, I heard you got bit by a cobra."
Norris: "I did, and after 5 days of agonizing pain...the cobra died."
Statham:"I now pronounce you...husband and KNIFE!"
-head pokes out with a cigar in his mouth- AHHNALD:" I'M BACK"
Stallone: "Rest in pieces!"
AHHNALD:"Who's next? Rambo?!" (what the hell is this universe....)
All of them were very funny. It's very ironic that Chuck Norris told the best Chuck Norris joke of all time!
Overall, it wasn't bad but it was the kind of movie to leave your brain at the door and have fun with it. Like I said, it is aware of what it is.Throughout this movie, I kept sighing and muttering to myself "dammit" and "what the hell?" but was still laughing with all the ridiculous stuff. I still wish I saw ParaNorman instead (and I will this weekend) since this is probably just something to wait to rent or it comes on TV. Still entertaining enough!
Yes. This was pretty much the best dumb action movie.
For starters, I really don't remember too much about the 1st one despite seeing it about 2 months ago. It was, of course, your typical action movie that has one of the best casts ever. At least with these movies, they are aware of what they are. They weren't made to be these deep stories to win Oscars, they were made for fun. It was very smart to have these action stars in it since it really does pull a nice nostalgic factor. It is almost like a huge crossover as well but makes you wonder about what if it was an actual one. Stallone as Rambo, Norris as Walker, VAN DAAAMMMME as Guile, etc. Regarding the cast, one of the reasons I wanted to see this is to see how AHHHNALD, Chuck Norris and JEAN CLAUDE VAAAN-DAAAAMME would do seeing as they have not done anything in a while. How did they do?
AHHHNALD was very awesome. I'm glad with this film and his next one he's going back to his roots and playing his age. Speaking of his age, damn did he get old. He looks so different compare to his previous performances! At least he is still able to do things and be himself though. VAAAN DAAAMME hasn't aged well face wise. He wears sunglasses the entire time and when he takes them off, its a little dark and you can't see too much of his face. His eyes are a little puffy and wrinkled. The rest of his body looked fine, surprised he could keep up staying buff. Regardless, he played a nice bad guy. He was very menacing and wasn't overly cheesy. Chuck Norris did awesome as usual, and he looked great while doing it. BUT WHY WAS HE BASICALLY A CAMEO? He was just in and out! At least he was awesome the parts he was in. This movie does prove that regardless of age, you can still be bad ass and have a good time doing it.
The movie itself did get boring at some parts. I think those boring parts where a definite contrast to the ones with action. The action itself was pretty good but of course, there were some parts where you don't understand what's happening. It was fast pace and the shaky cam didn't help much. At least the story was easy to fallow, it wasn't really the big focus in this kind of movie. It also felt like a lot of characters where throw away. Like they didn't get as much development as others or they were just there for whatever. Like why is Jet Li only in this for 5 minutes? Where's Mickey Rourke? Who's this lady? Speaking of the lady (yeah she really just is THE LADY) I'm not sure how to feel about her. I liked how she didn't need to be rescued or was screaming her head off the entire time, but they didn't show her do cool things like the other guys and sometimes made her look incompetent. She wasn't annoying, but she was no Ripley or Sara Connor either. Stallone, Statham, Gibson, and Lundgren where very good characters and I liked the way they played off each other. The relationships were very well presented as well as their personalities and made them very fun to watch.
What makes this movie watchable is the one liners. My god, every one liner you can think of managed to be in this. Such as:
Stallone: "Booker, I heard you got bit by a cobra."
Norris: "I did, and after 5 days of agonizing pain...the cobra died."
Statham:"I now pronounce you...husband and KNIFE!"
-head pokes out with a cigar in his mouth- AHHNALD:" I'M BACK"
Stallone: "Rest in pieces!"
AHHNALD:"Who's next? Rambo?!" (what the hell is this universe....)
All of them were very funny. It's very ironic that Chuck Norris told the best Chuck Norris joke of all time!
Overall, it wasn't bad but it was the kind of movie to leave your brain at the door and have fun with it. Like I said, it is aware of what it is.Throughout this movie, I kept sighing and muttering to myself "dammit" and "what the hell?" but was still laughing with all the ridiculous stuff. I still wish I saw ParaNorman instead (and I will this weekend) since this is probably just something to wait to rent or it comes on TV. Still entertaining enough!
Sunday, July 22, 2012
The Dark Knight Rises
- Batman: This is my favorite. It's not because the fact it's directed by Burton, it just had the right feel to it. Its dark, its got nice colors, good characters and felt like a comic book. Keaton is my favorite Batman and Nicholson is my favorite Joker.
- Batman Returns: I love this as well. Yeah it has exaggerated, goofy moments but that's what made it really grab your attention and not let go. Danny DeVito as the Penguin is one of the few roles that actually works for him. I love how they made him so gross yet believable. Michelle Pfeiffer plays the Cat Woman everyone wanted to see and in my opinion is one of the greatest portrayed female villains in a movie. I'll go into more comparisons with her and Hathaway in a few.
- Batman Forever & Batman & Robin: These movies are stupid and everyone in the world knows that. But you know what? They're still entertaining as hell. Sure they're bad movies, but in my opinion what makes a movie god awful is if it is incredibly boring. These are far from it. These two probably have some of the worst casting in any movie. The only actor that fit was Jim Carrey as the Riddler. Everyone else could have been good if they just took it more seriously and didn't go for all out goofiness.
- Batman Begins: I don't think there's a whole lot of people that fell in love with this movie. For me, it just wasn't memorable and nothing grabbed me. Of course the whole thing with it being more realistic is a good idea, but it lost that comic book feel. Sometimes I really look forward to that and then it just turned into a movie that's not my cup of tea. I'm really not a fan of most action movies in this style to be honest, not really sure how to explain it. I'm part of the minority that doesn't think Chris Nolan is the best director ever; even Inception was just decent to me. I think the difference between this and the other movies is just a really disappointing villain. Batman has probably the best villains out of any and there's a lot you can do with them. I felt like not much was done here was Scarecrow.
- Dark Knight: Once again, I'm part of the minority that didn't think this movie was a godsend. Sure it was good and I liked how the Joker and Harvey Dent was portrayed, but it just wasn't for me. I remember wondering if they would throw Harley Quinn into these movies (as it turns out, Hathaway thought she was auditioning for her) but I had to remind myself she is more of a character in the animated series.
Anyways, I suffer from Avengers-Syndrome. I've found it very hard to look at movies the same way ever since seeing it twice. It was a ballsy move for DKR to open the same summer as The Avengers but it was a good thing it came out a couple months later. As I mentioned before, I think it was The Amazing Spider-Man that came out during the most awkward time. I wanted to see DKR for the sake that it is a huge deal and I wanted to see how Bane and Cat Woman would be portrayed. I think I am part of the many that did not like Hathaway being casted for that role. I really love looking at female villains and seeing how they act and I really didn't see her playing the Cat Woman I wanted to see. I imagine her as just ruthless, sinister, and above all, crazy as hell. Pfeiffer did a great job at all that an made people really engaged in her character even if she would be over the top. In my opinion, if it can be done right, go all out. So what did I think of the movie? BULLET POINT TIME *spoilers*:
Characters:
- First and foremost, Hathaway was the biggest throw away character in this series. After watching, it was obvious she was thrown in for the appeal. I felt like she didn't do a damn thing. They didn't even refer to her as Cat Woman, it was always Selina Kyle, it takes the fun out of it. There was only a few parts that were cool, but they were no big deal when you compare them to other villains we saw. There was so much potential with her and they could have made her as crazy as the Joker possibly. For this, an older actress should have been picked. Females in comic book movies are either hit or miss and there's been a lot of misses. It's the reason companies are practically afraid of making a Wonder Woman movie and didn't do a whole lot with Black Widow. Also, I know Cat Woman isn't totally a villain, she did kill Bane and hooks up with Bruce. The way I look at it, she is. She's still a thief and very deceitful. I really didn't get why she was at the table with Bruce at the end, and I was kind of hoping they really weren't married (we'll never know! yay for open interpretation!). Anyway, bottom line is that it just wasn't a good payoff.
- Bane was good. Just good. Nothing perfect. He truly was badass and brought fear into the film. The best parts of the movie were the ones with him in it, with or without Batman. The main issue everyone has been having with him is that voice. My god, was was the thought process in that? I was expecting something scarier, not goofy. Yet again, I think they made it so it wouldn't be so raspy and go against Bale's stupid voice (more on that soon). Having some sort of accent did help make him stand out more. When he first starts talking it did throw me off. Was there a microphone in there or what? I bet if you and him were on opposite ends of a mega-store you could hear him. I must have not been listening very well either because they didn't explain how he got his face stuff (no better way of calling it). If you were to ask me how he got it and what exactly it was I couldn't tell you. Still, decent villain, but not my favorite.
- I don't like Christian Bale's Batman/Wayne. He isn't a likable character that exactly leave you rooting for him. Batman is one of the most complex characters out there and it is extremely hard to decide how he should be presented. I just really don't like how he was in any of these movies. And yes, I hate the voice. You can't understand him sometimes and there's so many times were I laugh at parts that are unintentionally funny ("SOMEONE KNOWS WHERE HE IS!" "I'M NOT WEARING HOCKEY PANTS!" "SWEAR TO MEEEE!"). Bale does play crazy quite well-as seen in The Fighter as well. Keaton is still in my heart as the best Batman.
- The other characters are just...whatever. That's all I could think about them. I wish they took out the whole thing with Miranda (Tila Al Gol? Whatever). I really didn't care about her at all and didn't see her purpose even with the twist. From all the villains that are in the Batman universe and the build up of the 2 main ones this is the real villain? At least make her into Poison Ivy to get people to shut up. I heard that she was in some episodes of the animated series and such, but sometimes going for a character only a handful of people know can be a let down for the rest. Perhaps it was for the best they just went with a lesser known character, I don't know. I also don't get why Miranda and Bruce needed to be banging each other. They didn't even talk or do anything. He was crying earlier about how he missed Rachel and now he's doing this? Guess he got over her quick. As for Robin (screw it, I'll just call him ROBIN if they're going to cock-tease the audience like that) he wasn't too bad, he just didn't stand out a whole lot. Everyone else was...dialogue makers...or something.
- Movie Itself:
- Kind of a minor thing, but something was wrong with the editing in this film. Especially during the action, which I suppose is a factor of Nolan's directing. It was like something would happen quickly, a split second would be nothing, and in the end you don't know what just happened. One example is when Kyle is in the prison (why she was in one for men is random) and he breaks that one guy's wrist. It really didn't show a whole lot, it's like either have it or don't. I feel bad for the editors. Working on these movies must be the biggest pain ever.
- What can I say about the plot holes that no one else has? I think this whole trilogy had them. There were a lot of "Why? cuz." moments with a dash of "Disney Magic." Why does Bruce escape from the prison and get to Gotham within a couple of hours? Cuz. How did he make that Bat-Symbol? Cuz. What happens to Bane? Cuz. Why wasn't the Joker, or the 2nd movie in general, ever really mentioned in this? Cuz. How did Bane get that face piece and what is it really? Cuz. What happens to Bruce and Selina and why were they at that restaurant together? Cuz. Why somewhat introduce Robin but not intend on making a spin-off or something? Well we're thinking about it.
- This movie is one of those 2hr 40 min movies that really feel like it. This actually goes for all of Nolan's Batman movies. Why? I think it's all the talking. Sometimes it is hard to fallow and it does get boring. The people don't really talk like those in real life, the serious tone they carry just makes it feel like they don't have a personality and therefore not worth watching, but that's just me. With the movies, I find myself almost falling asleep or my mind goes somewhere else, which then leaves me confused later. There's other movies just as long that doesn't feel like it because it keeps your attention, but this doesn't.
I heard through the grapevine that they plan on rebooting Batman, even though the optimistic side of me doubts it. I have a feeling a lot of people are not going to see this however. I don't see how they're going to top Nolan at all unless they fix all the problems, but it just might end up to what we have seen before. The thing is, Batman makes money and is a big enough universe to keep doing different takes of it. That pretty much goes with any other superhero franchise as well. Who knows what DC/Warner Bros. have up their sleeve at this point. Hopefully they ball up and go forward with their Justice League movie. My hope is that they, and Marvel too, don't overkill these characters. Instead of doing the same ones over and over just go for different ones. I think another Batman should be in about 20-30 years, much like with Superman. People rolled their eyes as is with Spider-Man, so in my perfect world, it'll get to a point when the audience will stop going and ask for original ideas. We'll see what happens, but lets enjoy them now and hate later.
Lettuce also talk about 2 teasers that came out within the past week: Oz: The Great and Powerful and Man of Steel.
Oz: I think people are asking the same 2 things
1. Oh god, what if it's like Alice in Wonderland and doesn't have that great of a payoff?
2. Why not Wicked?
or maybe it's just me asking, but it does stick out a lot. I think this will be interesting to see just as much as Alice, which was a decent movie but not as big as I was expecting. It is also going to take elements from the book more than the original film. Looking at the teaser there looks like some things to love and some things to look at say "We're being duped again." I like James Franco in it, he is mmm-mmm good, but why Mila Kunis? I'm really starting to hate the "lets get a popular young actress instead of a more deserving one" thing. It is also going to apparent that people are going to compare this with Wicked. It is a very popular book and play that could have attracted a bigger audience if it was a movie, but then again it is one of those plays that are better off where it is. I guess we'll have to see how it goes.
Man of Steel: Like with the title of the Dark Knight, I have to ask, why not just freaking call it Superman? There's no need to get fancy. Everyone is just going to call it Superman just like everyone called DKR Batman. Anyway, my biggest worry about this is Zach Snyder directing. It is mostly due to looking at Watchmen and 300. They are both very good comics but I really didn't like the way he told those stories. I appreciate mimicking some of the frames to that of the comics once in a while, but he goes back to doing his own thing. I don't like it when he adds extra emphasis or scenes to certain parts that most of the time just come out as trying too hard to be edgy. Example is the love scenes in both movies, in the book they were minimalistic but in the movie they just go all out and it isn't very necessary. There other parts he does both right and wrong that end up either working or not. I'm not even going to talk about Sucker-Punch since I haven't seen it and I don't plan to after all I've heard. This all makes me skeptical about how Superman will be told. It will be interesting to see a serious take on it and hopefully they don't totally make them like Batman and too serious. I also wished they waited a bit to reboot this because of Superman Returns coming out only a few years ago, but lets face it, no one remembers that movie, it failed. It will be something I look forward to and hope it has some good effects to go with it.
I apologize once again for any inaccuracies. I was writing this with a cold :( Batman's plot holes got me sick!
Friday, July 13, 2012
The Amazing Spooderman Review
This movie was...just okay. It did a lot of things right and a lot very wrong. The first and foremost problem with this movie is that it is cheesier than the original ones (by the way, I'm not including the 3rd Spiderman just because that was a terrible movie I wish never existed). I don't even know how they managed to accomplish this. They advertised it like it was going to be more serious than the others, but it had a lot of corny moments and awkward dialogue. Most of the laughs that got out of me was because some moments were just so goofy. Its mostly because the special effects are for shit in this movie. Lizard is on the list for Horrible CGI creations now. He looked like the aliens from Signs had an ugly baby with the 1999 Godzilla.
I really do believe in my opinion that Spiderman 1 & 2 had some nice, epic moments- even if there were more tacky ones. Here in this reboot, there are none. Nothing grabbed me and said HELL YEAH THIS IS AWESOME. In this day and age, there has been a lot better. I'm trying really hard not to compare this movie with the previous Spidermans, but its almost impossible. If the filmmakers are going to have this reboot only a couple years after, then it kinda deserves it. Even The Incredible Hulk managed to do better than the previous one, even though it still wasn't a great movie.
As for the characters, once again, some were good, some were bad. Actually, the only one who was bad was Emma Stone. I'm sorry but she does not look 17 and I don't get why she keeps playing it. I really just did not get this character for whatever reason. If they wanted a pretty girl, I'm sure they could have found one that was 17-18. Sally Field and Martian Sheen played a great Aunt May and Uncle Ben. They seemed more real life guardians than just happy-go-lucky relatives. Andrew Garfield wasn't too bad. He didn't mumble like Toby did at times, but he did stutter like Shia Lebouf. I am glad they made Spiderman more of a goofball and had some pretty funny one liners. And I also did notice they had a Transformers moment when Gwen tells her dad she had cramps....um, okay. Thank you comic relief that wasn't funny. Also, Denis Leary was a nice surprise in this movie. BUT THEN THEY KILL HIM. I thought he would stick to the series and be this tough and funny character. BUT NOPE FORGET THAT.
Overall, I would say this movie is just worth a rent. Its also probably just okay for older kids since the worst thing in it was blood. I apologize for any inaccuracies, it was 4:30 am when I first wrote this! I'll be back with Dark Knight Rises...and I have a feeling I wont like it.
Originally published on Thatguywiththeglasses.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)