2013 Overview

Here's my list and brief review of some movies I saw that came out this year, preferably the ones I saw in theaters. Honestly, this was a very underwhelming year compared to 2012. We didn't have as many highly rated films and most came out as disappointing. I was not eager to see any movies in particular and nothing really stood out as AMAZING. Unfortunately as well, I haven't been to the movies during this holiday season, so I'll go over films such as Frozen, The Hobbit:The Desolation of Smaug, and Saving Mr. Banks at a later time. I also was not able to see big films such as Iron Man 3, Pacific Rim, or Thor: The Dark World. I was a busy lady this year :(  So lets go over the good, the bad and the ...meh!

The Good

Lee Daniel's The Butler
Lets go over the big criticisms this film had:

• It wasn't based on a true story you filthy liars!

         Unfortunately, this film was heavily fabricated. So much so it probably should not have said "Based on a true story." There were multiple things I have heard through the grape vine of the differences. Honestly, I have not had the time to look up what was true and false in this film. If any of my readers know off hand what was, please tell me in the comments.

• Who the hell casted this movie?!

          The casting of the US presidents in this film was very bizarre. Robin Willams as Eisenhower? John Cusack as Nixon? Alan Rickman as Reagan? All these actors are very good, but they just were not right for the role. They were only on screen for a few minutes and it felt like they spent a few minutes preparing for it. Oprah Winfrey and Forest Whitaker still hit their roles out of the ballpark. I especially liked Oprah's performance as we got to see a side of her that isn't common to her well-known image.

• It is a ripoff of Forrest Gump!

         It is...

• This movie is so Democratic!

        It was strange how this film made it so obvious it was more in favor of Democrats than it did for Republicans. The way they portrayed the Republican presidents was pretty negative. It also had basically a 5 minute commercial supporting Obama. Personally, I didn't have a problem with it. I'm not a political person, so it didn't phase me, I just thought it was humorous.
     
My own criticism of the film was all the strange coincidences. You mean to tell me that this guy served in the White House AND his son was involved in multiple events in the Civil Rights movement (most occurring across the country from one another) AND his other son was killed in Vietnam? What are the odds of that happening?  That was one fact that was strange to me. If this is actually true, someone please let me know.
Despite everything, I still thought it was a good film. I bawled my eyes out. What this film did a great job in was creating heavy emotion for the characters. I really felt for them. I cried when they showed Jackie Kennedy over the death of her husband. Since the Kennedy Assassination was way before I my time, I never really understood what kind of impact it brought to the country until seeing this film. It was very scary and heartbreaking to everyone involved. As strange at it may sound, but that is what I remember most from the film. You'll either like or hate this movie, just white out the part that says "based on a true story" on the DVD cover.

Prisoners
A lot of people haven't seen or even heard of this movie when it came out. The marketing was not very big despite having Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal  in it. This film had me in suspense the entire time. I really did not expect anything that occurred. It went beyond cliches in order to make itself stand out. Jackman was incredible. Going from a humble family man to seeking revenge in the worst way possible was entertaining to watch. At first, Gyllenhaal's performance came off as very boring. I realized towards the end that he was pretty genuine playing an hard-working detective. I really do not want to give out any spoilers for this film as it is something to see for yourself.  A long movie, but worth the watch.

Gravity
I really don't know what to say about this film that people haven't already said. This film was the definition of "the movie going experience." It really felt like the short films you would see at a theme park, but with a bigger budget. This is also one of the few films I would highly recommend seeing it in IMAX 3D, which I normally think is way too expensive for something so mediocre. I have never had so much anxiety while watching a film before. This film almost can be considered a horror movie as it is still taking something most people fear (free falling in space) and visualizing it. It grabbed my attention and did not let go. I really was rooting for the Sandra Bullock's character the entire time, something I haven't done for her in previous films. This was all paired with great editing, "less is more" sound, and of course, great visuals.

The Bad

The Wolverine
  I never thought a movie about Wolverine could be boring. How is that even possible? Wolverine is such an awesome character and you have a great actor portraying him. That was pretty much the only plus of the film, Hugh Jackman playing the infamous role he made his own. This movie felt more like a TV episode rather than a feature film. It was Wolverine in Japan. That's it. Nothing special happens. Logan doesn't develop much as a character, nothing new is revealed about him, the side characters were forgettable and the villain was a joke. Even though X-Men Origins: The Wolverine was heavily criticized for being all over the place, at least it was entertaining! I can still watch it and not be bored.

Carrie 
I really don't understand why this film had to be remade. The original is one of my favorite horror films. Seeing the remake made me think that a story like this doesn't work in this time period. I really don't know how to explain it, but the original was so good because it was subtle. It took time with the scenes and didn't feel overdone. This remake felt very rushed and cheesy. I didn't like how it incorporated cell phones and social media into the story, it didn't feel necessary. Sure adding it makes it more realistic for this time period, but it wasn't believable. The media would have gone crazy just with the YouTube video they posted alone. The bullies would have been in bigger trouble and Carrie would have gotten help before any of the other events would occur. In a time were people are paying more attention to helping victims of bullying, I don't understand why Carrie didn't get any of it. The special effects were awful. The actors, excluding Julianne Moore, were pretty forgettable. It was the biggest cash cow of the year.

The Counselor 
I should start off by saying I can't remember a damn thing about this film. I couldn't tell you the plot, the characters, anything. I could only remember the really bizarre moments of the film. Those that have seen it will know what I am talking about. I feel like if I type out what happens I'll have to wash my hands or something.

The Meh

Star Trek: Into Darkness
This movie definitely wasn't as good as the first.  I didn't think it was as bad or rage educing as others thought. Then again, this is coming from someone who isn't entirely into Star Trek. I enjoy the basic premise and the characters of Star Trek but I haven't been into the previous films or TV shows. What made this film for me was the performances. The returning cast, once again, did a great job with their characters. Rather than doing impersonations of them, they instead created their own interpretation of the them while still staying consistent. Benedict Cumberbatch was great as Kahn. I don't think it could be compared to Ricardo Montalban's performance as it was very different. I like how Cumberbatch was very sinister in his performance. It felt very much like Tom Hiddleston's Loki. The story itself, I was pretty confused. Was I mad of the recreating of the infamous "KAAAAHNNNN!!!" scene? No, I instead thought it was pretty humorous. This movie probably should have gone a different direction, but it was still worth it for the performances.
Plus this movie had some ridiculously handsome men. I can't argue with that.

Man of Steel 
Upon first seeing this film, I would never expect it would cause so many people to be outraged over it. I thought it was okay. Off hand, the only things I disliked was the horrible product placement, the boring characters (ALL OF THEM), and how it took itself way too seriously. I don't like Nolan's Batman films for being way too serious (shoot me), but it fits more with that universe than it does with Superman. Superman has always been "the all American boy scout" with some wacky elements in it. Here it felt like it tried very hard to create that gloomy mood. It was almost uncomfortable. After seeing it, thinking about it and hearing countless reviews on it, I did notice more flaws. Many of the decisions made by the characters where irrational. The dialogue was abnormal compared to how people really communicate. The fight scene was all over the place ...but still entertaining. I wish it could have been balanced like Spiderman 2 or The Avengers.  I don't feel like I could flesh out more with this film as I am not a huge fan of Superman, nor am I knowledgeable about the lore. Overall, this film was pretty misguided but I honestly didn't think it was as God awful as others thought. By no means am I defending it, but there has been worse superhero films made.
And I still don't trust Zach Snyder.

Monster's University
Like the rest of the planet, I don't understand why this film had to exist. If anything, I think people wanted a Monster's Inc. sequel rather than a prequel. I would ask why not a sequel to The Incredibles as there is a lot of possibilities that could be done, but Brad Bird has stated no interest in making one. I was curious with how this would turn out seeing as Toy Story 2 & 3 were great but Cars 2 was the worst movie I've ever seen in my life (more on that later). Monster's Inc. is one of my favorite films because it because it is very funny and has a charming story. I really don't care if it is stealing from Little Monsters or AHH! Real Monsters!. It still has a nostalgic value as I remember when it came out when I was younger.
Monster's University wasn't bad, but I don't see it becoming a classic Pixar film. There were a few funny moments, but mostly in a "that was so stupid it was funny" way. It was very predictable and I didn't care what happened to the characters. I KNOW what happens to the characters. Mike doesn't get the job he wanted. We know this during the entire film and have to sit and watch him fail. Sully does everything half-assed and still got what he wanted. It is kind of depressing actually. Monster's Inc. was made when I was a kid and I am in college now. The theory is that this film was targeted towards audiences like me as well as kids, but I didn't feel the same sentimentality as I did in Toy Story 3. I was too distracted with thinking "This is nothing like how college is in real life" much like I did with High School Musical. It is a pretty silly thought to have seeing as it is fiction, but it is something I really notice when I watch films. I saw this in a theater filled with families and they all seemed pretty bored. Since when are children interested in what happens in college? Most kids I know don't even know what college is. To conclude, it was still a funny movie, but nothing special. I wouldn't see it unless you're a huge Pixar fan and you're curious.


That's my overview of 2013 in terms of films. Wish I was able to see more! Hopefully I'll catch up on some other releases in the future. What is your Good, Bad and Meh picks of the year? Discuss!

Late to the Party: After Earth (2013)

Get used to this sad face the whole damn movie.

I don't think I'm surprising anyone by saying this film is awful. You can smell it a mile away. Shyamalan as the director should be the first clue. Honestly, I think he is very misguided as a director.  The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Lady in the Water, Signs (yes, TINFOIL HEAD SIGNS) were pretty good. Why did he go off the deep end so hard? He had so much potential by creating (somewhat) original stories but not executing them that well. Decent actors giving terrible convoluted dialogues, bad expositions, confusing resolutions all seem to become a pattern. It is pretty sad that he has become the butt of the joke in the film industry.  Second clue is that it is a vanity project. That's what I called this film when it first came out, VANITY PROJECT. Take one of the most popular actors of all time and add his son into it so he can gain the same attention. Brilliant. I don't see how that could fail. To be fair, Pursuit of Happyness was okay. Jaden Smith was still a kid at the time so he gets a pass and Will Smith was genuine. However, I really do not think Jaden was put on this planet to be an actor. He is AWFUL. I can't say that it is because he is so young because there has been child actors that created great performances at the same age. I really had no respect for him after The Karate Kid remake, but that is a whole other story of awful. 

After Earth takes place 1,000+ years in the future. Kitai Raige is a fucking loser of a kid and his father, Cypher Raige (really?) is trying really hard to be the most stoic man possible. After failing to becoming a  ranger, Cypher takes Kitai along on some space adventure with the rejected extras from Star Trek. Asteroids happen, they crash, leaving them stranded on a planet known as EAAAAARTTHH. Cypher is injured and unable to walk and sends Kitai across the planet to the other remains of the ship. Along the way, Kitai encounters ferocious beasts that look funny from either evolution or just bad CGI. There is also an alien space monster and some philosophical crap about not showing fear.

This is not the worst film of all the time. I don't see it becoming popular with how bad it is either. The biggest flaw is that it is boring. Nothing happened that grabbed my attention or made it memorable. The other flaw is that the characters have no personality at all. Why do the characters have to be so bland to show that they have "no fear"? They can still have a damn personality to make them likable. Having them give their dialogue out in monotone does not set the time period, establish their character, or make them look cool. They just look ridiculous and frankly I don't care if they live or die.

The entire time I'm watching this I could think of all the other films it is similar to. Here's my list

• Avatar
• The Hunger Games
• Predator
• Star Trek
• The Lion King
• Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (Specifically that one)

As you can see, I enjoy playing this game.
The only thing I can say that was good about this film was the ending when they were reunited. I'm not calling spoilers because you know they are going to get back together after being separated. They have to be. Other than that, it wasn't anything special. The costumes didn't wow me. The sets were trying too hard to be futuristic but looked like an Ikea showroom instead. The special effects could have been better. The convoluted Shyamalan dialogue, while not as bad as other films like The Happening, was still present. Will Smith tried too hard to be cool; like Wild Wild West cool. Jaden Smith was just whiny and irrational and therefore made him a very unlikeable character. I really hope he either gets better in acting or just finds something else. Watch it only if you run out of NyQuil.

The Great Gatsby aka The Great Gooby, Da Grea' Gatzbay, Moulin Rouge part 2

J.D. Salinger banned any film adaptations of Catcher in the Rye. Even in his will, he forbids any future adaptations. I say this because Catcher in the Rye and The Great Gatsby are very similar to me. I like them both, but I don't love them. I'm not going to act like Miss Literary Genius here.They were very controversial when they first came out, but now they are kind of dated. I don't say that because its old. Shakespeare's plays isn't dated and Lord of the Rings isn't dated. They both also wouldn't make good movies. Not all books are destined to become movies. Books like Harry Potter, LOTR, comic books and whatever work for their own reasons. This is the fourth time they tried adapting Gatsby. I really wish Fitzgerald did the same thing Salinger did.

So lets list the problems

• The music. Why. THE HELL. did it JUST HAVE TO HAVE rap, techno, dub-step, whatever- in a TIME PERIOD known for great music. THAT MAKES NO SENSE. Did the studio just think this movie needed Jay-Z and Fergie to get a younger audience in? They had the potential to have a great soundtrack and missed it by a mile. Bioshock Infinite (and I have been really obsessing over this game lately) did a great job taking both old and new songs and making it blend seemingly into the background of 1912. NINETEEN TWELVE. They have covers of songs like "Girls just wanna have fun" and "Tainted Love" and you hardly notice. They also include songs from that time period. SO WHY COULD A VIDEO GAME DO THIS SUCCESSFULLY AND NOT A MOVIE. The Gatsby soundtrack is pretty bad and takes you out of the scenes completely. It creates the feeling that it more of a 1920's high school theme party instead of actually being in the 1920's.   

                                --Which cover seems to be more fitting into a certain time period to you? --

 

•  This really does feel like Moulin Rouge part 2. Same cinematography, same editing, same acting, same characters, same theme about how love sucks, same everything. For god's sake, they even had Nick typing out the story and doing closeups on what he was writing just like what Ewan McGregor does. WHY?! "because having him just narrate it is cheesy" THAT'S WHY THIS BOOK IS HARD TO ADAPT AND PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE GOD EHFIUEWGIUYVYWFYEWY-
  Anyway, Baz Luhrmann directed both of these movies and it really does show. As a mini review for Moulin Rouge, I thought the first half of the film was good, then it just drags and drags and drags. Gatsby also drags on random scenes that do not emphasize the story.

•  It exaggerates on some things but not important things. Apparently if you want to learn how to really exploit symbolism in your film you should take lessons from Luhrmann. How many shots were there of Doctor T.J. Eckleberg's eyes? One of the more disappointing scenes was the party at Tom and Myrtle's flat. Ten minutes are spent showing the party. 1 second at the end shows slapping Tom slapping Myrtle. The book, he punches her and breaks her nose, which really sums up their relationship right then and there. BUT NOPE THAT'S TOO HARSH WE GOTTA BE HIP! I'm not going to ramble on and on about what the got right from the book and where they took liberties; there's not enough room on the internet. The problem a lot of people had with the Robert Redford version of Gatsby was that it was way too close to the novel. Here it is just all over the place.

• Gatsby is a tragedy. So what is with all the quirky crap. It just wasn't....funny.

• Carey Mulligan as Daisy is too young. And why do we see her kid once?

• Having this film in 3D seems to be really ironic. I'm sure Fitzgerald would down more gin if he saw this happening. 

• I don't know what the hell they were going for with the green screen in the background, but it looks cheap and terrible. The whole "We're trying to make it look like a 20s movie" isn't cute anymore. 

Gatsby is not all that bad though, it is just okay. There are a lot worse book-to-film adaptations out there (I'm looking at you, Watchmen).  It is a very challenging book to adapt since it is very vague and there is a lot of scenes that just don't work in the movie world. The best part is probably the performances, the whole cast did a good job. Leo and good Spider-man did an awesome job of bringing their real life bromance to the big screen. I was expecting something over the top and lame once I found out they were remaking this and who the director was. I was at least hoping it would be funny with how over the top it was. Instead, it was just awkward. I wish for such an old, classic novel they took the more traditional route of making it instead of making it trendy. It is not like not that many people have read this ya'know.
The Great Gatsby is said to be one of the most grammatically correct novels of all time, and damn did the filmmakers do a good job of dumbing it down.