Late to the Party: Iron Man 3 (2013)

Finally!

Following the events after The Avengers, we return the focus onto America's favorite asshole, Tony Stark! The battle in New York has left Tony emotionally scarred so much that he has panic attacks. Meanwhile, a new terrorist group attacks the country under the surveillance of Iron Man's #1 villain, the Mandarin....OR IS IT?!

I'm going to go right into spoiler territory and dive into the film's biggest problem, the Mandarin. This is the main villain for Iron Man and there was a lot of build up and potential for his appearance in this film. They even chose a great actor to play him. AND THEY COMPLETELY BLEW IT. Why would they go the route of "ah nope he's not the real villain, this guy is!"? Especially when the real villain is boring as all hell? I don't even remember his name and I'm not going to bother looking him up. People have been waiting for the Mandarin just like they did for Loki and Red Skull and just like they are now for Thanos. The plot twist of him being a drunken actor was complete bull. Why couldn't it be the other way around? Have the boring villain be replaced by the Mandarin? This is just like The Dark Knight Rises. It is obvious they only had the Mandarin to draw in the audience and damn did it work out for them. assholes.

Ok rant over. Aside from that, this was still a good movie...when Robert Downey Jr. and Don Cheadle were on screen. The rest of the characters were just there. I mentioned before I like Pepper for being a smart, love interest without being too annoying, but here she just blended in. Even when saving Tony  I couldn't get excited for her. The other side characters, I don't remember them. The bottom line is that Downey and Cheadle did a great job as usual. Their charisma and delivery draws you in and makes you fall in love with the characters.

I feel as if though this is more of a character study film than an action film. Though the action set pieces were good and engaging, most of the focus was still on Tony and the little things he was doing. It was very interesting to see what this character went through after the events of The Avengers. It was smart to show that even a superhero could be traumatized and suffer from anxiety after a near-death experience. Whether or not it was appropriate for a strong, free-willed person like Tony, I'm glad this film took a different approach. Iron Man 3 felt like a better follow up to The Avengers than Thor: The Dark World. In that movie, the characters treated those events like a second thought. I'm glad it didn't rely too much on "you have to see The Avengers in order to understand what is going on." Yes, everyone and their mom saw it and, for the most part, loved it, but how many still remember it?  

How did this compare to the other Iron Man films? The first one will always be on my list of favorite superhero films. I thought it was a great introduction to a classic superhero while being respectful to the source material. The second one, while still good, was a bit under-whelming. The third one is more of the same. There were a few boring parts, but for every mediocre moment, there was a good moment. As always, there was good line delivery and set pieces that really keeps you engaged. Even though the part with the Mandarin a load of crap, they still tried something new and it was definitely worth it for Downey's performance. 

Grade: B

I'm hoping Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy puts a stop to this Avengers Syndrome.

Late to the Party: Saving Mr.Banks (2013)

Saving Mr. Banks is a biopic telling the story of how Walt Disney negotiated the rights for Mary Poppins with the author, P.L. Travers. And that's it! There's your plot summary! There are all these conflicts they had with developing the script, flashbacks to Travers's childhood and awesome 1960's sets in there too.

There are many things I love in this movie. I love the telling of a story about what a studio goes through in order to get the rights from a book to adapt it into a film. That happens to be one of the biggest studios ever for one of the most successful movies of all time. I love all the subtleties in it that only Disney nerds like me would know. I was going totally crazy during the scene where they visited Disneyland just like if I were there in real life! I loved how it soaked in the time period it took place in. The performances were great and you could tell the actors were much invested. 

That is the major draw in this film, the performances; especially the two leads. On one hand, there is a person many people may not know. On the other, you have a character EVERYONE knows. Emma Thompson's performance was great. I really believed her character and her motivations. She wasn't too abundantly rude and obnoxious and you can see where she is coming from with opposing this idea. The rest of the cast did a great job as well as they were all interesting in their own ways.

Then there is Tom Hanks as Disney. Let's start with the role itself. This is a role playing as someone EVERYONE knows so well is insanely difficult. If you mess up, EVERYONE is going to tell. It is similar to playing a US president or biblical figure. Playing such a huge public figure like Walt Disney is not easy and was a huge move for this movie. That being said, Hanks does a good job, but this isn't his best. We've seen Hanks play roles based of real life people and he does great every time. With this, I didn't see Walt Disney, I saw Tom Hanks playing Walt Disney. I felt like some of his mannerisms and the way he talked was not perfected enough. I still heard Captain Phillips with that Mid-Western accent. I can't say it was bad because Hanks has proven himself as an actor and this is a challenging role. 

The only thing I did not like about this film was the flashback sequences regarding Traver's childhood. At times it slowed the movie down and I wanted to go back to the 1960's and continue with that story. It felt like it was a different movie that got tangled up into the other one. Showing Traver's tough childhood could have just taken a single scene. Instead we are interrupted by multiple scenes of uncomfortable situations and disengaging acting. I felt like these parts were boring and a bit excessive. I appreciated that it brought a more dramatic tone for the film so that it is not too cheesy, but it needed to be tone down just a little. Another tid-bit that threw me off was the ending. In the real story, Travers went up to Disney and said “I like Julie Andrews but I hated Dick Van Dyke, re-do everything.” In this film they didn’t go into full detail about what happened after the screening, but they did show Travers crying during. I think this was a bit out of character. If she was pissed off about the penguins and Dick Van Dyke in the movie, why would she suddenly start crying? That is such a large change in emotion and felt unnatural.

I wish there were more autobiographical stores about Walt Disney. His life was so interesting and so many things happened surrounding the company that it would make for an interesting movie or mini-series. Disney may have not been the perfect person it is difficult getting the green light for anything that tells his story. I feel like a lot could be said about the starting of the company, the building of the theme parks, all the successes and failures they endured and maybe even the struggles they went through after his passing. I felt like Saving Mr. Banks was a good start and could start a foundation for more improvement. This was a very enjoyable film and I liked the mixed tone of dramatic and comedic. Live action movies produced by Disney tend to struggle to get my attention for being too cheesy or bland, but this one definitely changes all of that. 

Grade: A

So maybe I should get around to watching Mary Poppins now....

Late to the Party: Thor: The Dark World (2013)

So much handsome.

I have this thing called The Avengers Syndrome. I came up with it after I saw X-Men: First Class. I didn't see that film until two weeks after I saw The Avengers and I didn't much care for it. I felt very underwhelmed and didn't get the excitement many other people had for it when it first came out. Ever since The Avengers came out, other comic book films have felt obsolete. Everything worked so well in that film that we didn't get from the others. This is going to make it increasingly difficult for future comic book films, whether it be Marvel, DC, Dark Horse, or whatever. I say this because The Avengers Syndrome came into play in several parts of Thor:The Dark World and that isn't really anyone's fault.

Taking place after the events in The Avengers, we return back to Thor and his fight against enemies of the universe. We also return back to his bitchy, bland, stupid girlfriend, Jane and her "sassy" friend, Darcy. After being threatened by the Dark Elves lead by Malekith, Thor must resort to desperate measures in order to save not only Asgard, but Earth as well. That's were LOKI comes in and saves this movie from being really boring and useless.

A quick recap of the first Thor movie, I thought it was good. It could have been A LOT better, but there wasn't really anything to get mad about. Thor definitely felt more like a pilot episode as most of it is establishing the characters and the overall conflict is pretty minor in retrospect. Thor: The Dark World continues that, but still feels episodic. I said the same thing about The Wolverine, but with that movie, there were so many new characters thrown in. I didn't give a damn about any of them much less the bland story. At least with Thor: TDW, I still know these characters and still care about what happens to them. None of this makes either of the films bad, but for a Thor movie, I was really expecting something more. Thor is such a strong character surrounded by a complex environment that could make for an epic movie. I wish they took more time with it and didn't push it out so quickly. The only thing I hated about the last Thor movie was the same thing I hated about this movie, and that's Jane.

Jane is such a terribly written character. There's a difference between a strong-willed, intelligent woman and just a bitchy, arrogant girl. The intention was for Jane to be the first part, but turned out to be the latter. Why does Thor like this girl? She brings nothing to the table. She doesn't care about him. She is only motivated to do things if it benefits herself. When Thor comes back after 2 years, instead of being happy to see him, Jane bitches him out. She slaps him- twice, and starts going off on "Where have you been?! I've been waiting for you! I don't care if you been fighting all these battles and had this huge responsibility brought on you while I've been sitting on my ass doing science that is completely useless!"
Bitch, he's a god. He can't devote all his time for your sorry ass. You knew going into this relationship that would happen. Aside from that tidbit, why is Jane even in this film. She felt very shoe-horned in. I do feel that bringing in a love-interest for Thor is essential not only because she was in the comic, but because it brings another dimension to him. If they're going to have this character they could have done a better job. I don't think it is entirely Natalie Portman's fault, but she is a very mediocre actress. I don't much care for her and she wasn't the best choice.

While on the subject of bad female characters, there's Darcy, played by Kat Dennings. I didn't think Darcy was as annoying as many other people do, but she is really high up there. The good thing is that she isn't in this film a whole lot. I do give credit for their attempt at having a comedic female character, but the execution was terrible. I more so blame poor writing rather than Kat Dennings's acting. I really didn't get as mad as her as I did towards Jane.

Okay, enough negativity. I really do think this sequel is an improvement from the first. There's more focus on the beautiful Asgard rather than a boring, small town in New Mexico. It was random and pointless that they moved to London, but it beats looking at the desert.The special effects for this film is incredible. Asgard feels so real and it is easy to invest into the environment. The same can be said for the character designs. There's is also more focus on the other characters with room to develop. I'm glad we got to know Odin, Frigga and the other side characters more. I am a bit disappointed they killed Frigga. She was a very strong character I wanted to do more. But lets move onto the real star of this film, Loki.

I love Loki. I love Tom Hiddleston. He is such a handsome bastard. Some argue that he isn't the best villain in terms of motivations, but he is definitely a great character. Something about his dialogue and the things he does really make him engaging. However, the downside of him being such a good villain is going to make it nearly impossible for anyone to beat him. This is going back to my theory of The Avengers Syndrome. I didn't give a a fuck about Malekith at all. He was pretty boring actually. Apparently Loki may or may not be in any future films and that is really unfortunate as he is a huge draw. Hopefully Thanos or Ultron will be more dominant but we'll see!

The same can be said for Thor and Chris Hemsworth's performance. Thor is not supposed to be this obnoxious character and Hemsworth does a great job keeping him as he should be. Hemsworth isn't the best actor as he is pretty one-note but he fits into this role really well. Some of Thor's actions are questionable but goddamn, he is just so awesome.

Overall, this movie was pretty good. I liked it for what it was and felt like it was more focused than the first. I am hoping in the next Thor movie to stay the hell away from Earth and mortals and keep it on Asgard. The first half was a little boring but things picked up toward the second half. I found myself only interested when Loki, Thor, Heimdall, Frigga and Odin came on screen. Those were the only truly interesting characters with great performances. There was an obnoxious amount of cop-outs that were unnecessary (you can't kill Loki off and chop off Thor's hand, come on). I wish I saw this film in theaters as it was a lot of fun to watch. I am really eager to see these next incarnations leading up to The Avengers sequel and hopefully this syndrome wains.

Grade: B

Getting better, just not quite.

Fashionably Late: Sita Sings the Blues (2008)

I am honestly surprised I did not hear about this movie beforehand. How did my group of friends in high school that wanted to become animators not know about this? Independent animated films are essentially their own genre that happens to be my favorite one. Something about them how they can do whatever story they want, how they want, in whatever medium really makes them amazing. There is almost no rules or audience they have to abide with. Sita Sings the Blues is a good example of that.

Sita Sings the Blues is an adaptation of the Indian epic, The Ramayana. The story of Sita and her husband, Rama, is told through multiple styles of animation and music by Annette Hanshaw. On the side, the animator, Nina Paley, shares her story of her divorce with her husband. The two stories are compared to one another with old and modern elements. This film is also free! That's right, you can go on YouTube and watch it and not get in trouble for it! Isn't that nice?

I was worried I would not be a fan of the animation. Most of it is flash which I am not a huge fan of. Often times it feels cheap and rushed when done incorrectly. However, this films switches between multiple styles in such a creative way that it looks wonderful. This isn't the greatest animation ever put in film, but it is certainly the most inspired. What makes the difference is the overall design. It is pure eye-candy. The characters and environment are so beautiful that it is impossible to become disengaged from what is happening. Nina Paley obviously had a hell of a time making this with such great attention to detail.

With the integration of the 1920's music, I didn't mind so much as others might. The one thing is that there is a lot of songs in this film and honestly there could have been less. Some of the songs were similar to one another and sometimes felt long. However, I have to give credit for combining a Indian folktale with 1920's jazz music. Something about it made the two fit together wonderfully and gave the story a fun twist.

Some parts of the film did seem long or repetitive. After a while, you do get lost into this world the animator created. It is a story I can definitely sympathize with as it hits on a very personal level. On a side note about this movie being free, I think that is a great idea. I don't think that all movies should become public domain, but more should. Though it would be difficult for the artists to gain profits it would definitely help them spread their name around. If you ever have time I would definitely give this a watch and help those that made it.

Grade: A

Late to the Party: Dallas Buyers Club

I went into this film with zero expectations. I didn't hear hardly anything about it until it was nominated for an Oscar. I watched it a couple weeks ago before the ceremony and was blown away.

Based on a true story, Matthew McConaughey plays cowboy, Ron Woodroof. After living life in "I don't give a fuck" mode, Ron is diagnosed with AIDS with 30 days to live. While at first being in denial, Ron decides to turn his life around after discovering the FDA drugs approved in the US are not making him any better. With help from others, such as the transgender Rayon, played by Jared Leto, Ron begins to smuggle drugs from all over the world and sells it to others diagnosed with the virus. Together they fight not only their illness, but against the federal government that are trying to stop the illegal trade.

This isn't the greatest film of all time, but it is still damn good. This takes a subject that is very difficult by a different approach. How is this film different from other ones featuring HIV/AIDS, like Philadelphia or Angels in America? People have been saying there isn't that many films about this subject. Well, there is, they just don't come out too often. HIV/AIDS can happen to anyone and that is what Dallas Buyers Club does a great job of pointing that out. The focus wasn't entirely on the fact these characters were sick, it was about what they did to try to resolve it and how it changed them. It is more of a character study than it is a plot driven movie, much like American Hustle. The only difference being that the characters here are more believable while in American Hustle they were really all-over the place.

My favorite performance in this film has to be Jared Leto. I really have not paid much notice to him in previous films (or his band) before but now he is really standing out. Playing the role of a transvestite challenging since if it is done wrong, then you're just a man in drag playing around. What makes Rayon stand out is that it is easy to forget that it is Leto playing that character and you believe him.

Then there's McConaughey, whom I have never taken seriously as an actor. I look through his filmography and there is a lot of shit in the mix. However, he has gotten a lot better. He is no longer the laughing stock, hillbilly in Hollywood. Much like Leto's character, McConaughey is very real. I actually feel like I met a Ron in real life. This is probably the greatest character arch I have seen in any film. Ron goes from a total bastard to someone working his ass off to help others, though still focusing on himself.

The rest of the characters somewhat blend into the background, as does the story. I wasn't really wondering how or even if they were going to get the drugs and sell them. I was more concerned with how the characters were going to react to certain things happening around them.

Overall, this really is a strong film. Obviously the message is very important, but I would watch it for the performances most of all.

Grade: A

On a side note about the Oscars, I thought it was very good. I predicted most of the winners ahead of time. The one I was very surprised with was McConaughey for Best Actor. Like Ben Affleck, he has definitely improved. Many people have been asking "How come Gravity won all those awards but didn't get Best Picture?"
First of all, you're an idiot. Second, Gravity was good in the technical features department. Great editing, sound, special effects and just overall a satisfying popcorn-movie experience. As far as a actual movie goes, it is still gimmicky in the end, but not at all in a bad way.There wasn't much of a story, the performances were okay and there wasn't much to take away from it except for the experience to be had. 12 Years a Slave had all that and more. Great performances, hard-hitting story, powerful themes, everything that made it deserve that Oscar.

The ceremony itself was actually pretty fun. Ellen did a great job though it became obvious she was getting stressed when they went into overtime. I really liked how everyone looked like they were having fun and all the stage performances were great.

The Lego Movie

What can I say about this film no one has yet said? The Lego Movie is great. It is funny, it has a good message, it has great voice acting, it is very creative, there's great animation, I could go on and on. It is everything that animated films these days are struggling to balance. For a film that people were not expecting much from, this film goes above and beyond.

The Lego Movie almost reminded me of Toy Story in a way that it would remind the audience of their childhood. The only major difference is that this film has no rules. It does whatever and does not care if it makes sense. It is similar to how we play with toys as children. We make up stories that are totally crazy and bring in all these cool characters and go to all these big places in our minds. I liked that this film did whatever it wanted and almost felt like a group of kids wrote it, in the best possible way.

In all seriousness, this is one of the funniest movies I have seen in a long time. Remind you, I am a 20 year old female. I am not the intended audience for this. But I was cracking up with how funny this was. I was mostly laughing for the sake of listening to Morgan Freeman and Liam Neeson saying ridiculous lines. I just imagine these actors in their recording booth thinking "What the hell am I saying? I was in Schindler's List for god's sake."

The only downside to this film is that some scenes did take a bit too long. Some moments you just wanted to say, "Okay we get it, next scene please." Some of the heavy action moments were also a bit jarring to see. As this film tries to emulate stop-motion and skips the frame rate (or whatever), when there is a fast-paced moment it is hard to follow.  No doubt this is a film you would have to see multiple times in order to grasp everything with so much going on in a single shot. That is pretty damn smart.

Even if you're not a fan of Legos or children's films in general, I still recommend this as a comedy. It is very entertaining and I really hope this becomes a classic. There is certainly something for everyone to enjoy.

Grade: A

Also, this is probably the closest to a Justice League movie we're going to get. So see it.

Late to the Party: Behind the Candelabra (2013)

I was thinking earlier, why didn't I add this to my list good movies from 2013? It is a really good film but I forgot to mention it because I was going based on what movie tickets I kept to remember what I saw. It was a theatrical release everywhere else in the world but was released as an HBO movie in the US because they didn't think it would do well in the box office. I could agree with that, this movie seems smaller than something for a major theatrical release but bigger than a cheap TV movie. I think it works better as an independent film if anything.

Behind the Candelabra looks at the life of Liberace, played by Michael Douglas, and his relationship with his much younger lover, Scott Thorson, played by Matt Damon. The two fall  in love despite their differences in age and wealth. As their relationship grows, other people, and sometimes even themselves, begin to question their love for one another as they have their conflicts. Liberace tries to model Scott after him while others believe Scott is using him for his money. In turn, Scott resorts to drugs to escape from all the stress in the relationship. Although their relationship plummets, the couple still has admiration for one another that is unavoidable until Liberace's untimely death.

Despite it not getting a whole lot of attention, Behind the Candelabra is one of the best biographical films I have seen. The best part about it is that it looks at the other side of Liberace the world didn't see. On the outside, he is a bright, optimistic person. On the inside, he is buried in himself and helping others in order to gain their admiration. This begs the question what kind of person Liberace really was in the end.

Liberace was a very generous guy. He is also very open about his sexuality. He offers Scott to live with him, buys him is own house, clothes and jewelry and even pays for his plastic surgery to look more like him. He even says he wants not only to be a lover to him, but also a father figure he can look up to. Liberace also presented kindness to others, but mostly in the case of when he wants something. In the end, he was a very good manipulator. He knew how to gain sympathy from others and make them adore him only to probably break their heart in the end.

The whole film essentially questions if Scott is using Liberace in return. Though he makes several claims he is bisexual, there is question as to if he really was in love with Liberace. At first he seems very hesitant about being with him, he still accepts his gifts as he came from a poor background. As their relationship grows, Scott begins to expect these generous gifts from him as well as respect from the people that worked for him. When people outside their relationship try to dispute with them, they are in complete denial that they would hurt each other.

Their relationship does have an unfortunate ending. There is a large amount of distrust in one another that leads to their demise. Scott becomes restless with his life of luxury and resorts to heavy drug use that discomforts Liberace. Liberace's ego becomes so large that he suggests having an open relationship prior to cheating on him knowing that Scott could never leave no matter what he did.

Are either Scott or Liberace bad people? No. Fame and fortune got into their heads that made them believe that nothing bad could happen. Their lack of communication, honesty and commitment eventually lead to their end as it would for any relationship. Towards Liberace's death it does become apparent that they still have love for one another. Scott soon realizes that he has deep respect and admiration for him despite cheating on him. I feel like the initial focus for this film was to show that even though that this couple is a bit odd, they are still like any other couple with their conflicts.

Okay, enough with the analysis, time for an actual review. This movie isn't amazing, but it is pretty good in how thought provoking it is. Whether or not the story was accurate isn't what matters to me. I appreciated this film for their strong characters and story. The sets and costumes are also very much worth seeing in all their pure, rhinestone glitz.

Which brings me to the biggest thing about this film, the casting. Michael. Fucking. Douglas. as Liberace. Just say that out loud, Michael Douglas as Liberace. I remember seeing the cover of Entertainment Weekly with Douglas and Damon on the cover as their characters and I couldn't believe it.  Right away I knew this film was going to push boundaries. I was listening to my local radio station and they had co-star, Tom Papa, as a guest and he said it was pretty surreal seeing these mostly 'action' and 'macho' movie stars as these roles. That being said, Douglas does a great job in his role. There were some parts I forgot it was Douglas and it felt more like the real Liberace. Ranging from charismatic to dramatic made his character seem multidimensional. In comparison, Damon sort of seems bland. It is not entirely his fault, that's just how they were in real life. Liberace is entirely over-the-top while Scott blends into the background a little, at least in the beginning in the film. The supporting cast is just as great. Dan Aykroyd, Debbie Reynolds, and Tom Papa are great, although having smaller roles.

My one big complaint about this film is Rob Lowe. Just...why? I kept laughing at his face the entire time. I get the character had plastic surgery but Lowe was just trying way too damn hard. He looks like he's on a Saturday Night Live sketch instead and making a goofy face for laughs.

Other downsides to this film are pretty minor. The editing could have been done better. I felt like they should have taken more time in some parts. I wish they gone more in detail in Liberace's and Scott's lives as they are very interesting people. It seemed like several scenes were obviously cut from the film to make it more suitable for a television movie, even if it was HBO.

This movie is not for everyone. It does not hold back in telling the very personal and hidden life of Liberace. Therefore, there are some raunchy moments. If you're not easily offended, then I would definitely recommend this film if you ever have the opportunity. I feel it has some very important ideas that not too many films have brought up.  It takes a very enthusiastic person and looks at the other side of him and his very provocative and secret relationship.

Because too much of a good thing is wonderful.

Frozen

Frozen has gone through a theatrical run I have never seen before. The first week it did relatively bad, then it jumps to number one off and on throughout the month. I saw this 2 months after the release and the theater was still pretty crowded. I believe this movie gained more by word of mouth than it did with the actual marketing because it was awful.

Seeing the original concept art a year ago made me fairly confident in this film. It looked beautiful. Then the trailers came out and I had a lot of doubt for it, as did everyone else. It really looked like a kiddy version of Wicked and would go through so many cliches. This was mainly my list of predictions I had:

1.  Olaf would be the next Jar-Jar Binks or Mater
2. Some spur of the moment romance
3. Elsa would be this bitchy, bland villan
4. This would be Disney's attempt at Wicked and that's why they casted the two leads from that show.
5. Sven the reindeer would just be another Maximus from Tangled. 
6. Speaking of Tangled, it was just going to copy and paste a lot of the elements that worked well in that film. 

I really thought this movie would crash and burn. After hearing countless great things about it, I thought I would finally see it.  For the most part I was wrong. Frozen was pretty solid. I wouldn't go as far as to say it is as fantastic as Beauty and the Beast or The Little Mermaid. It was good, but not super amazing. To put it this way, I don't know if I will willingly want to see this again. With most other Disney films, I can watch them a number of times and not get sick of them.

Possible spoilers! 

I know this is an animated film, but I couldn't get over questioning some of it. If Elsa and Anna pretty much lived in isolation their entire lives, wouldn't that have some negative effect on their social behavior? How would they be able to learn to interact with the public of they would eventually have to rule the kingdom? Why did they have to keep Elsa locked up for her powers and how did she even get them in the first place? When their parents died, it made Elsa very upset, so why didn't she start a eternal winter then? Why couldn't they let Anna go outside the castle if nothing is wrong with her? I guess they show the aftermath of their isolation  in some way. Anna becomes quickly attached to others after being departed from them for so long while Elsa pushes them away and gets anxious around them. I know, random conspiracy theories, I'm crazy.

In terms of the movie itself there were few things I disliked about it. First, the musical numbers were pretty corny. For being made by such a talented team, they didn't feel as creative. I miss the Alan Menken full orchestra numbers that you could play over and over again. These pop songs blasting the electric guitar in this movie and Tangled are not for me. All of the praise has mostly been going to "Let it go" and while I think it is a good song, I'm not totally in love with it. Mostly because it is very similar to "Defying Gravity" and some of the wording is a bit weird. Elsa, herself, is a good character but I don't think she got as much screen time as her sister to fully branch out. Idina Menzel still did a great job with the acting and her design was flawless. Anna could have been a little better. Most of the movie she was pretty annoying. Nothing about her really stood out that would make me like her compared to other princesses. The whole twist about Hans I somewhat expected. I wouldn't consider Hans a villain, just a douche bag. A very bland one at that.

On Facebook, I have been seeing the countless images and statuses saying that "Frozen is the first Disney movie to show that you don't need a man." I disagree with this completely. First of all, Merida in Brave didn't even have a love interest. Mulan didn't do anything just for Shang's attention, she did it for her country. Even though most of Pocahontas's motivation was to be with John Smith, she didn't end up with him in the end even after saving him. I could go on, but this isn't new. We have been seeing the anti-love at first sight relationship for a while now. Kristoff and Anna end up together by the end of the movie. She relied on his help for the most part. Even after Hans betrayed her, she still went to him almost immediately. I do like the one of the messages they had in this film. Some men are out there to hurt girls, like Hans did, and there's some you have to get to know better to admire their qualities, like Kristoff.

I also like the other message in this film that love does not always have to be romantic. There is love you would feel between a family member and sometimes that is a lot stronger. I would never think that Olaf the fucking talking snowman would say the best quote in this movie, "love is putting other's needs before yours." That and "Oh, look! I've been impaled." :)

I wasn't expecting to laugh this much with this movie. It wasn't even funny because it was so stupid and corny. It legitimately had good one-liners and slapstick. The animation could have been a little better. As mentioned before I liked Elsa's design but I'm not sure if I like these characters looking like Precious Moments dolls. Some of the background didn't look all the way finished and appeared flat. As many have said before, they nailed down the movement of the snow animation and it looked real.

Overall, this was definitely "don't judge a book by its cover" movie. The marketing almost killed this and Disney needs to go back to how they used to do their trailers and aiming at kids and adults. I was definitely surprised by the balance of drama and comedy and creating a innovative fairy tale.

Lone Survivor

I really wasn't expecting ANYTHING from this movie. I didn't even want to go to the movies during January and February, there's nothing but crap out. Everyone and their mom knows that all the shelved movies come out around this time because no one is going to the theater anyhow. I really thought Lone Survivor would be the war movie we have seen a million times and would be swept under the rug quickly.

You know what, the first half was exactly that. I kept rolling my eyes at how bad it was. Let's start with the beginning credits showing real footage of Navy SEALs training. Why did they have this? If you want to make a documentary, make documentary. Don't show real footage of these men working really hard during training and then cut to actors playing pretend. It seemed very pretentious and ill-fitting. This time could have been made for the actual first 10 minutes of the movie when it sets were it takes place and the characters. The rest of it goes through many cliches. Product placement, guys hanging around making bad jokes, saying swear words were they don't belong, going through the "all Arabs are terrorists" stereotype. On top of that it went through a slow pace without any good character development. I don't feel like we really got to know the characters before they went on the mission. I wanted this movie to be over with.

By the time we get to the middle it really overcomes all of that. Things get really damn good. Things take a dramatic, action-packed turn really hard. These guys are getting shot at, falling down mountains (a lot), hitting their heads on rocks and plenty of emotional turmoil. Rather than afterward showing them still able to walk, kick ass with only a scratch on their head, they are covered in blood, barely able to move and still pressing on. I really liked the relationship between the villager and Marky Mark's character and got a little teary at the ending. I don't want to spoil it but it is pretty powerful.

I sort of still didn't like that this was pretty much a "fishing for an Oscar" project for Marky Mark and it was exploiting a true story. It was still a good one regardless with a nice theme. There's plenty of cringe moments but could have used more character and  a new first act.

2014 Expectations

2012 was a great year in movies, 2013 was underwhelming in comparison. 2014 looks like it will be the year of the sequels and adaptations! Here's my list of movies I want to see!

300: Rise of an Empire

The first movie I want to see isn't until March, great.

Anyway, I can't believe this is seriously happening. There is no sequel to the fantastic comic books. The first one ended on a fair note with nearly all the characters dying. It was an exaggeration of history made for guys to love and their girlfriends to roll their eyes. Whether or not the sequel actually happened in history is going to be thrown out the window as well. Why is this movie existing and Why do I want to see it?

Xerxes/Sexrex

I love this asshole. His look, his performance, his motivation. It is so over-the-top that I love it. 

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Though I had mixed opinions about the original, the sequel looks like it has more potential just looking at the trailer. It doesn't look like a mopey-dopey comic book movie like the first one, it looks like fun! Just as it should be. The choice for casting the villains sure is a little off. Paul Giamatti as the Rhino? Jamie Foxx as Electro? I'm not seeing it. They are both really good actors but I'm not sure if they fit those roles. Guess we'll see. 

Godzilla

Finally! A cool, modern, Godzilla film to redeem for the awful Matthew Broderick one!Obviously, the Japanese versions cannot be beat. It will still be interesting to see an American version that isn't cheesy with good effects and doesn't make the monster look like an iguana. Plus my favorite actor, Bryan Cranston is in it! 

Maleficent 

Why. WHY. My favorite Disney character is getting her own movie. I should be excited, but I'm really fearful. I really don't want this character's image to be ruined. I could care less about her back story or what happened to Aurora in all those years. I don't need to know! Sleeping Beauty was good as is and didn't leave me with those questions. If Disney wants to make the next big Alice in Wonderland then whatever. I'm not really appreciating their live action remakes/sequels/prequels of their animated features, but I am interested in how they turn out. 

The Fault in Our Stars

I really liked the book. Some parts were pretentious and could have been better, but I liked how it was unlike most of the romantic stories out there. I really don't like romantic films as I think they are unlike any real-life relationships. Something about FIOS felt so real and unique that really touched me rather than having me roll my eyes. I hope the film keeps that and isn't cliched. I really don't want to see it if it is going to be cheesy, aimed at teenagers, and just a sad-sack of a movie. It is a very tragic romance, and I really don't want that to be ruined. 

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. 

For what it was, the first one was pretty good (first as in the prequel, not the original series). I was really intrigued by what was happening and how it all played out. There were a lot of tacky moments, but towards the second half it got pretty serious. This sequel appears that it will go above in beyond in suspense and developing how it got to the rest of the series. I am very eager to learn more about what happened between our time and the original Planet of the Apes. Does this prequel series need to happen? No, but at least they are pretty interesting. The performances and special effects also tie everything together.

The Boxtrolls

Coraline was great. ParaNorman was great. I am really hoping Laika can hit another home run with this one. The teaser itself looks amazing. As usual, the stop motion looks very consistent and detailed. I am glad this company is continuing to use stop motion even if it is not attracting the biggest of audiences. 

Well that's the list SO FAR of films I would like to see this year. Some are not completely set on their release date and others I really don't know what to expect, like Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain America:The Winter Soldier. I would love to know what movies you would like to see this year and why!

 

Holiday Roundup! The Hobbit:The Desolation of Smaug, The Wolf on Wall Street, and American Hustle.

Lucky me! I saw 3 movies this week! So lets compare and contrast!

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Everyone has their all time favorite film series. For some it is the Star Wars series. Others it is Indiana Jones. Some it is Harry Potter.  My pick for a favorite film series would have to be Lord of the Rings trilogy. There is so much to love with them. Great cast, beautiful sets, awesome makeup, engaging story, powerful group dynamic and chemistry between the characters. There are some flaws with them, but they are pretty damn near perfect. I don't think we have got set of films like them and it will be a long time until we get another one similar. Many have attempted to create something similar to capitalize on the epic fantasy genre popularity, but failed tremendously.

To be fair, I could care less about all the controversy going against the Hobbit films. I'm not going to dwell on them since the internet has already done that and has tainted people's opinions of the films. Peter Jackson didn't really want to make these films! Why is it being expanded to 3 films?! Why are they adding characters?! This wasn't in the book! yadda yadda it doesn't matter. I should also forewarn I have not read the books, but this movie made me really want to.

I liked this movie for what it was: a fun fantasy adventure. It is a shame a lot of people are disliking these movies and I don't think it is fair. People are watching this expecting Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit isn't meant to be like Lord of the Rings. Nothing will ever  be like Lord of the Rings. It is a simpler story directed towards younger audiences. I had a lot of fun with this movie and I feel like people are taking it way too seriously. Probably the same people that complained that the climax of The Avengers was too long.

A quick review, I liked part one. I did think it was kind of forced bringing back many of the characters from LOTR, such as Frodo, Gollum, Saruman and so forth. They didn't really feel like they fit into the story. I was still nice to see these characters one last time after many years. The movie definitely had a different tone compared to the rest of the series and it was a bit off-putting. There's a lot more subtle nitpicks, but it is still an enjoyable movie.

There are some minor problems with the film. Like the first one, it is character overload. Not only are we getting new characters whose names no one can remember, we are also getting our favorite characters from the original coming back...for whatever reason. It is not really clear why some of them are there. It makes it difficult to get to know the new characters and get attached to them. My other problem was some of the special effects felt rushed. Though I do not like comparing this to LOTR, it felt like less time was taken  with the effects. The production time of The Hobbit did have a smaller production time, but some parts felt as if they could be better. This especially went for some of the gold effects and the orcs. I already miss seeing the guys covered in plastic makeup. I could also complain there is no Gollum in this film seeing as how he one of my favorite characters of all time, but I'm sort of glad he isn't shoehorned in. That little bastard, I love him. Hope I at least get to see a little bit of him in the third one for the last time.

However I loved a lot of things about this film. Like I said before, it is fun! There was a good balance of action sequences and times to develop the story. I was interested in seeing were the characters were going to end up and who they were going to meet. Some of the characters they do come across did feel like they had a short screen time. Once again, the performances are amazing. Martin Freeman is such a great Bilbo and serves as a good character to be put in place of the audience's perspective. Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug, much like he did for Khan, was outstanding. I loved how sinister he was and his interaction with Bilbo. He was a great villain much like the others in the series. The other dwarves were not very interesting. We didn't really learn anything new about them and Thorin just looked like a douche bag. I am really not feeling for this character at all. I am eager to see how part 3 is just for the sake of knowing what happens to him.

Honestly, I want 2014 to be over already so I can see The Hobbit: There and Back Again!

The Wolf on Wall Street

This movie reminded me of the book I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell. I stopped reading that book midway because it was annoying. It was just some guy bragging about these ridiculous stories. It was written by that guy in your community college class that sits in the back in the room and just talks about his Friday night and exaggerates most of it and the only one that cares is his loser friend.

That being said, I couldn't tell if I liked this movie or hated it. Half of the movie is bragging. I hate it when people brag. Especially when it is about stupid shit. 45% of it was padding. 5% was genuinely good moments. I hated the characters because they were horrible people, but yet, they were almost lovable assholes. I knew what would happen in the story, but I was still intrigued on how it would all play out.

This movie is very over-the-top in both good and bad ways. Bad being that the dialogue often had me thinking "no one really talks like that." I couldn't stand the way some of the characters talked. The accents felt very forced. I couldn't understand anything that Belfort's wife, Naomi, was saying. The other being some of the events in the film seem are very exaggerated. Whether or not these things actually happen, I don't know, I will probably read the book in the future. The good was that it was very entertaining to watch. There wasn't a dull moment. Even if I disliked some parts it is a better reaction than having none at all. DiCaprio was great in this. He hams up his performance all the way to 11. This is how he should have been in The Great Gatsby if he didn't blend into the background. It was much like Calvin Candie but with more crazy. I'm also glad Jonah Hill played a different role than he usually does, but I still couldn't get totally behind his character. I liked some of the scenes like Rob Reiner answering the phone, I would relate to that. This movie is, however, ridiculously long. There were a lot of scenes that could have been cut down a little. With the Hobbit, I didn't want it to end because I was having so much fun. With this, I kept looking at my phone. Why did this have to be 3 hours? You can only tell a story about a guy snorting cocaine for so long.

There are two things I heard about this movie before going in that are somewhat true. 1) The only people that dislike this movie is women and conservatives. 2) Don't watch this with someone you wouldn't watch a porn with. There's a lot of poon tang. A LOT.

May I also add the audience I saw this with was so annoying. Bro kids commenting on every little thing that happened and yelling "Aw that's so awesome! Holy shit! What the fuck? Cool!" My heart wept for the annoyed girlfriends with them.

American Hustle 

 SIDE BOOB!    I really didn't have any expectations for this film. I didn't know what it was really about. I didn't hear much about it besides that it was really good. Really, I got what I expected, not much. This movie was good, but nothing to do get excited about. I can't really say a whole lot about it. What bothered me was the performances. I didn't feel like these good actors were 100% there. Their accents were either bad or not clear. Their motivations were always mixed up. Though I like (keyword: like, not love) Jennifer Lawrence, she is way too young for the role. I couldn't believe her as a mother falling apart. It seemed like her and Amy Adams should have traded places. Adams also seemed all over the place. It wasn't really a character I could get behind and support. The best actor in this film was Louis C.K. I couldn't get enough of him. Another thing that bothered me was the writing. Some of the things the characters said just sounded awkward and didn't really fit.

What I did like about this film is the sets and costumes. I was loving their clothes even as ridiculous as they were. Overall, I didn't really take much from the story. I was more interested in the characters and how they played off of one another, even if it was awkward.

This movie will probably win several Oscars and that's fine. Not much to say except SIDE BOOB!!


Of these three, I liked The Hobbit: TDOS the most as nerdy as that is. I just had more fun with it. Fantasy adventure films with little problems don't come around often. The Wolf on Wall Street and American Hustle were fine; by no means were they bad. I still recommend seeing all of these films as there is something to enjoy from all of them.