My Top 10 Favorite Movies of 2013!

It is official, 2013 has come to a close and 2014 is here!

And like most movie reviewers, I take the liberty upon myself to make a top 10 list of the "best" movies of the year. But I don't like using the term "best" movies of the year because many of the movies on this list wouldn't be considered "the best" because they aren't Oscar caliber. And that is because even though I would like to see those in the theater, I end up saving my money to see films I want to see like Iron Man 3 or The Hobbit. So without further ado. Here are my favorite movies of 2013!

10. Man of Steel

As far as blockbusters this year, Man of Steel was either your favorite or least favorite movie of the year. For me, I recognize and understand and agree with all of the many issues fans and critics had with it. That being said, I had a blast with Man of Steel! I really regret not seeing this on the big screen because it was one of the most visually astounding movies I've ever seen. I ended up getting it on Blu-Ray for Christmas and it is definitely worth the extra cash. I am both nervous yet excited for what Zach Snyder and Christopher Nolan have in store for what they can do with both the Man of Steel and The Dark Knight on the big screen.

9. Iron Man 3

While Man of Steel was divided by critics and fans, Iron Man 3 was well received by critics but panned by die-hard comic book fanboys. There were times when I too was disappointed but others when I was really having a good time! I ended up putting this above Man of Steel because to me, Iron Man 3 had more of a re-watchability factor to it. Think of it this way, I would rather watch Tony Stark crack sarcastic one-liners than see General Zod scream at Kal in Christopher Nolan's overly depressing universe. Both movies were great but this one has the upper hand for me.



8. World War Z

A movie that was destined to fail from the start ended up earning good reviews and become one of the years top 10 highest grossing films. If only that luck happened to The Lone Ranger or 47 Ronin. This was just a real fun summer movie! I love Brad Pitt and I love zombies. Why wouldn't I like this movie? Sure, the only thing it has in common with the book is the title but oh well! It was fun and I am interested in the sequel.





7. Pacific Rim


Giant robots fought giant aliens. I've made my point.









6. Thor: The Dark World

This was a great superhero sequel. Unlike how Iron Man 2 went bigger but not better, this was bigger but just as good. Thor 2 was a ton of fun. I'm not the biggest fan of the term "escapism" but I think that this was a good example of it. Even if you hated the first Thor but you wanted to go to the movies anyway, you would probably walk out of this knowing that it was a well spent two hours.

5. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

I don't know about you, but I didn't expect this to be on here at all. The biggest surprise of the year without a doubt. Great performances, intensity and a wonderful lack of shaky camera made for a terrific sequel. I can say that Catching Fire is The Empire Strikes Back of Hunger Games movies simply because everyone hates the final book Mockingjay for being the most unsatisfying franchise conclusion since The End from A Series of Unfortunate Events.

4. The Wolverine

Of all the comic book/superhero movies that came out this year, The Wolverine was the only one that surpassed my expectations. I loved how different it was from not just the other X-Men films but comic book movies in general. This was also one of the most mature Marvel movies not just due to the story but because Wolverine actually gets blood on his hands. It's taken us five movies to see that. I plan on getting this on Blu-Ray to add to my X-Men collection.





3. Star Trek Into Darkness

At the beginning of the year, Star Trek Into Darkness was my most anticipated movie of the year and it did not disappoint at all. J.J. Abrams 2009 Star Trek was a tough act to follow, but I think that this was just as good if not better! With spectacular visuals, terrific thrills and Benedict Cumberbatch giving his second best villain performance, it's movies like this that sustains my love for the theater.

2. Gravity

What can I say about Gravity that everyone else hasn't said about it already? It's an unbelievable movie with perhaps the greatest special effects ever put to screen. Not just a technological achievement but also a landmark in acting and storytelling that you don't need a huge plot to make a movie great. It was an incredible visceral experience that is unparalleled. Like no other.

1. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Yes, I called Gravity a masterpiece so shouldn't that be number one? Well tough this is my list and I can do things that might not make sense to most people because I want to. The Hobbit was the summer blockbuster that blew me away and the movie experience that gave me everything I wanted. Cool action, great characters, and a villain that I would put up there with some of the all time greats. I loved every second of it.

Movie Review #75: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

Happy 2014! I would have gotten to see this sooner but when I first tried the theater was completely sold out. I felt so betrayed by the theater that I put off seeing it until all the hype died down. And I must say, it was worth the wait.

Catching Fire picks up where the Hunger Games left off. Katniss and Peeta won the game and they are going on their celebratory victory tour to all the districts. But President Snow is not pleased with this at all. He sees Katniss as a beacon of hope for the districts and believes she could be the spark for a revolution. So he and the new game maker played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman conspire to throw her back into the arena in the next Hunger Games.

I was curious at what they could with the second film because I thought the first film was alright, but it didn't leave me wanting more. That is the exact opposite with this film.

This took me completely by surprise. I never thought I would become so enthralled in the sequel to a film that I thought was pretty overrated. All of the issues I had with the first film were removed and replaced with greatness.

For starters, with Gary Ross out of the directors chair, the shaky cinematography was nowhere to be found! Even if you loved the first film you have to admit that the camerawork was appallingly bad. Luckily with Francis Lawrence at the helm the film looked crystal clear. From the camera work alone it makes sense why they signed him on for Mockingjay.

The first half of the film, like the first one, is all build-up to the games. While the first half of the first film is pre-game events like training and interviews, this time we get insight into The Capital and their politics. That to me, was the most interesting part of the movie. I really liked the addition of Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the new game maker.

Another issue I had with the first film was Peeta. His performance to me felt the weakest and most wooden and I didn't buy his relationship with Katniss. Luckily here their relationship wasn't just believable but I feel as if they actually did like each other even though their relationship is just an act. A new character named Finnick is introduced and with him a love triangle between Katniss, Peeta and Finnick is formed. Actually make it a love quadrangle when you throw Gale into the mix. Ugh, romance gets so confusing.

With this being the second film in the franchise the characters become more developed which allows
the audience to get invested in them. And that is precisely what happened to me. Their acting improved and you could really see the struggles they were facing in their performances. Especially in Haymitch and Effie.

The tributes in this film were past winners and the ones that Katniss, Peeta and Finnick teamed up with were really cool. They had cool personalities and they grew on me after a while. I liked Jeffery Wright as Beetie. But when I saw him on screen I saw Tobias from Arrested Development. The resemblance really was uncanny!

As for the action, aside from the lack of shaky camera, the visual effects are improved upon and the finale just about blew me away. I had only read the first book so I didn't know what was going to happen and it was unbelievable.

Final Report: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire might be targeted to teenagers as an action thriller
romance, when in reality it is a top notch political thriller that is carried by strong performances and an even stronger script.

Movie Review #74: The Polar Express (2004)

With Christmas quite literally just around the corner, I might as well get to review at least one Christmas movie before the big day.

The Polar Express a fully motion capture animated film based on the classic children's book of the same name. A book that I remember having read to me by my parents.

The story goes that a boy who doesn't believe in Santa Claus gets whisked away to the North Pole on a magical train called The Polar Express. Where on this journey he learns to believe again.

I saw this movie in the theater when I was seven years old and I distinctly remember I was confused when I watched it. It wasn't until after it ended when I realized that it was animated. At times I thought it was real but then there were moments when I thought it was animated! It baffled me and looking back on it, I understand why I was so confused by it! And that was my first experience with motion capture animation!

Motion capture animation is, what I think, a filmmaking style that hasn't been perfected yet. When used for elements of a movie like for Gollum in The Lord of the Rings or Caeser in Rise of the Planet of the Apes I think it is when it works. But when the entire film is made using motion capture is where I think needs work. In particular on the human aspect because the characters just don't look real. The biggest problem with motion capture is that the characters' emotions and expressions aren't fully developed. You can never tell if the characters are sad or happy. The eyes of the children look rather dead and lifeless. Gollums' eyes looked more alive than the children did in this movie!

Though there are other moments in the film that do look fantastic. Particularly any moment that had to do with the train. There are a few particularly stunning scenes involving the train that I loved. They were fast paced, exciting and a lot of fun.

Tom Hanks plays the conductor of the train and I liked him in that role. But that is only one of his six other roles in this film. Six roles. I swear am not making that up. I've heard of actors playing more than one role in a film like Peter Sellers did in Dr. Strangelove. But it worked for Sellers because he was able to disguise his voice for each different character. Unlike with Hanks who's voice is so recognizable that even when it is deepened I can still tell it is him. And that really takes me out of the moment because I end up focusing on the actor instead of the character.

As for the kids, I didn't really have a problem with them. None of them really ended up getting much development but I don't think that the purpose of the film was to give you a vivid backstory on each character. For example: We never know why the lonely boy says that "Christmas just does't work out for him." Maybe things like that is supposed to be left up to the imagination. Like how you never get to know their names. I really like that aspect. I think that that is really interesting.

I personally think that the story is the strongest element to the film. I might be digging to deep into the story, but I felt that they weren't just telling a story about a boy who stopped believing in Santa but rather someone who lost his religion and fell away from his faith. Which as a kid, learning that Santa isn't real is kind of like thinking that there isn't a God. That is a very interesting and difficult story to tell and I think it is done pretty well. I also like how he has to believe in Santa to hear the bell ring. Kind of like how you have to believe in God to fully receive his gifts. Again, just another parallel I found.

On a technical level, the best part of the film is without a doubt Alan Silvestri's magical score. I adore this theme. To me, when I hear it, I think of one word: Christmas. He manages to capture all the beauty, majesty and the wonder I felt as a kid at Christmastime. And the Josh Groban song at the end tops it off beautifully

Final Report: While I enjoy some of the visuals, Alan Silvestri's score and the deeper meaning to the story, The Polar Express is just a Christmas movie that is just alright. I think it's worth a watch but it isn't a Christmas movie that I have to watch every December.

Movie Review #73: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug picks up exactly where The Unexpected Journey left off. This time around, Gandalf departs from the group to continue his search for the Necromancer while Bilbo and the dwarves continue their trek to Erebor to find the secret back door into the abandoned dwarf kingdom.

Words can't describe how much I loved this movie. To say that this is an improvement from the first film is a major understatement. This to me is The Empire Strikes Back of The Hobbit films. It's hard for me to say that because not only is there one film left in the franchise, but I also really loved the first film despite its flaws. This sequel fixes all of the problems the first film had and improves upon what was good from the start!

For starters: I was never bored. As much as I did enjoy An Unexpected Journey, some of the scenes in the theatrical release I felt should have been cut out because they felt unneeded or just dragged on for too long. Here is not the case! Not only was I left wanting more (I'll get to that later) but the scenes that were distinctly slower never lost my interest. The film slows down when we arrive at Laketown but what happened was still very interesting.

Secondly: Stuff actually happens! Yeah I know things like the trolls and the riddles in the dark were in the first film but what happens in this film actually felt important. I feel that the first film was made to introduce the characters and their goals. While here, I feel that the characters' journey really began.

Finally: It didn't feel like a kids movie. The Desolation of Smaug got rid of the goofy, kiddish tone from the first film and made it violent, intense and even a bit scary.

One thing I didn't get a chance to talk about in my review of the first film were the characters and the actors performances. Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins really is perfect casting. Not only is Martin Freeman an awesome actor, but he captures all of the emotions, reactions and thoughts running through the head of someone who gets thrust into a situation that is way bigger than he expected. The look on his face when he sees Smaug for the first time is a genuine look of terror.

What I like about Gandalf in The Hobbit is that we actually get to see him use magic. In The Lord of the Rings we didn't really see that very much. And plus, I think that Gandalf the Grey is way cooler than Gandalf the White. As far as the dwarves go, I originally thought that they were pretty goofy as a whole. But I personally like them now. Some more than others obviously.

Even though they weren't in the book, Legolas returns with a lovely She-Elf played by Evangeline Lilly named Tauriel that Peter jackson completely made up. I found it odd to bring back Legolas but then I remembered that his father Thranduil, played by Lee Pace, was in it so it does make sense. I'm just very glad that those two characters actually served a purpose to the film. They were fun to watch and pretty cool additions to the cast. A pretty obvious love triangle does form and while I usually can't stand it when that happens, I didn't mind it because I like the characters.

I also liked how the film portrayed Wood Elves. That Wood Elves are very different from the elves of Rivendell. The Wood Elves were very aggressive with a very short temper compared to Rivendell's calm and reasonable personality.

Bard the Bowman was introduced and he was a really cool character too. He had this vibe to him that reminded me of Aragorn. Which does make sense because their character backstories are kind of similar. I am excited for what he's going to do in the final film.

The action is far more abundant in this film than the first. There is a sequence with the dwarves in barrels that had me and my viewing audience rolling with laughter! It was fast, intense and just a whole lot of fun! At times it felt a bit Disney-ish but never too much where it took me out of the moment.

As for Smaug the Dragon, he has got to be without a doubt one of the coolest villains I've ever seen on the big screen. Everything about him was intimidating. Like his eyes, voice, design and his very size. You really felt the massiveness of Smaug when he was conversing with Bilbo. The scene took place in Erebor which is an enormous city and they put a huge dragon in the heart of it with a Hobbit that looks absolutely minuscule compared to the things around him. The scope and grandness was definitely evident. I feel that Peter Jackson did with Smaug what he did with Gollum in The Two Towers, which was have someone give a great performance with the assistance of some brilliant special effects. Benedict Cumberbatch voices the dragon and he delivers the lines with such sarcasm and spite. I just love how he taunts Bilbo by calling him "Barrel Rider".

The only problem I had with the film is how it ends. It really ended on the cliffhanger of all cliffhangers and will definitely leave countless viewers unsatisfied. When the credits began rolling I was able to distinguish a resounding grumble of disapproval for my fellow viewing audience. Which is completely understandable. But even with the ending, I was never left unsatisfied! I actually appreciated the ending because it reminded me of The Empire Strikes Back. Only we only have to wait one year for the final film instead of three.

Final Report: I adored every second this two and a half hour, Middle Earth epic took me on. It was fun, fast-paced, action-packed, exciting and never boring. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is one of the best movies I've seen all year. If not the best!

Movie Review #72: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

With The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug now in theaters (look forward to that this week), it only makes sense to review the first film of the trilogy that had both critics and die-hard Tolkien fans split right down the Middle Earth.

A film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy masterpiece had been floating around ever since Peter Jackson finished filming The Lord of the Rings trilogy. But the idea of a Hobbit movie was seeming more and more unlikely. Rumors were floating around and it essentially became one of the most notorious film teases for nearly 10 years! At one time the film was said to be directed by Guillermo Del Toro. But after years of deliberation, Jackson finally said that The Hobbit would finally make its way to the big screen!

But there was a catch or two. It was announced that Tolkien's prequel to The Lord of the Rings that was half the size of The Fellowship of the Ring would be turned into three separate films. This launched an uproar on internet message boards all around the globe. "How could they turn one tiny book into three separate films rounding out to roughly a total of nine hours altogether?!?" Fanboys were both baffled and unnerved by this.

But there was another catch! Jackson also said that the trilogy would be filmed in 48 frames per second. The filming style would "make the viewing experience like you were actually there." Oh, and it would also be in 3-D because for some odd reason 3-D became popular again. I blame Spy Kids 3.

So with all the hype, anticipation, and nervousness surrounding the film, did it end up being any good? That is a grey area for some people.

Before the film premiered, a poster was released of all 13 dwarves huddled together. From that photo alone you could predict the films' distinctly different tone from the Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit was going to be more "kid-friendly". And that was a problem for many fans, but I understood the tonal change because since The Hobbit book is more kid friendly than the Rings trilogy. Being a prequel, the book was supposed to serve as a means to ease children into The Lord of the Rings.

That being said, there are some scenes that were a bit too goofy and kiddish even for me. For example: The scene in the mountain when the Goblin King is singing and dancing I felt was a bit too much. I even felt that the scene with the trolls, which in the book was very comical, pandered a bit too much to juvenile, middle-school humor.

Aside from the tonal difference, the visual effects were the second major difference from The Lord of the Rings. While the Rings trilogy went the Men In Black route, perfectly blending an even amount of practical effects and CGI, The Hobbit relies heavily on CGI. Which does make sense considering technology has advanced 10+ years since Return of the King and CGI has become more and more relied upon in major motion pictures. But I feel that there were some sequences that could have been done practically over the use of computers.

Even though I sound like I didn't like the effects, I really did enjoy them! The people over at WETA are the kings of CGI and everything looks very grand and impressive. For the first time in 10 years, Gollum returned to the big screen and he has never looked better! The "Riddles in the Dark" scene was my favorite part in the book and I adored every single second Bilbo and Gollum conversed with each other.

But perhaps the biggest issue the film suffers from is the pacing. Which is and issue that The Lord of the Rings films never suffered from because I have and will never complain about their total nine hour run time. With The Hobbit, there were many sequences that I felt could have been cut out of the theatrical cut. Like the meeting at Rivendell I felt was completely unnecessary. To me, that scene was about as boring as Corusant was in The Phantom Menace.

The film also takes almost 45 minutes for the actual journey to head on the road. All that time was either spent with the prologue or in Bilbo's house. While many hated that aspect, I loved all the time that took place in Bilbo's house! Not only did it introduce us to all the dwarves, but it was just so great to see The Shire again! That is probably the biggest reason I enjoyed this film so much despite its evident flaws. It was just so wonderful going back to Middle Earth. And the action scenes, while they do take a while to get to, are fantastic! The chase scene in the mountain was one of the most well directed action scenes in all of last year! It was fun, entertaining, intense, super fast and it was awesome! It could have used at least two more scenes like that scattered throughout though.

As for the 3-D and 48fps, I can't say anything about it because I am silently boycotting 3-D because I am getting really sick of it. But maybe I will end up seeing the final Hobbit film in 3-D. But that is a year away so anything could happen.

Final Report: While it takes some time to fully get moving and it does encounter a few bumps in the road, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is still a grand, masterful epic and welcome return to Middle Earth. Even if it doesn't obtain the level of greatness that The Lord of the Rings reached, I still love it.

News: Disney owns Indiana Jones now?

I was going to talk about Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman but I really don't care as much about that as I do for this story making headlines.

According to Entertainment Weekly, Disney has now acquired the rights to any future Indiana Jones films through some business gobbledygoop with Paramount. Disney said not reveal anything any news about a future installment in the much loved franchise.

This might sound like blasphemy to some people and if you ardently disagree, I completely understand. But I would much rather see Indiana Jones 5 than Star Wars Episode VII.

Go ahead. Post your hateful comments below ranting about how "the franchise should just stay dead after Kingdom of the Crystal Skull because it died then and there."

In all fairness, I like Crystal Skull! I think it is unfairly bashed upon. While the first three films were made in the style of 1940's action serials, Crystal Skull was made in the style of a 1950's B-movie. And when you look at it in that light, I think it succeeds. It's flawed but still fun.

But I would only be okay with a fifth Indiana Jones if Harrison Ford returned to don the whip and fedora. If it was a film that revolved around Shia Labeouf taking over the role of Indy, then I would be whole-heartedly against it.

I would also like it if Steven Spielberg returned to direct. Or at the very least, have him on set as a producer.

Since Disney said that this shouldn't be happening for a while, I guess only time will tell.

Let's hope for the best!

Movie Review #71: Red 2 (2013)

I'm back! Contrary to what you might think I am still alive. I just haven't found the time to post anything due to family being up for Thanksgiving and school and all that other fun stuff. But now that Christmas is around the corner, a ton of new films I am excited for are hitting the theaters like The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug, 47 Ronin, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty and Saving Mr. Banks. So look forward to that and my thoughts on the Wonder Woman casting.

In Red 2, Bruce Willis and the entire gang from the first film (except for Morgan Freeman and Karl Urban) reunite to stop the detonation of a lost nuclear weapon.

The first Red film was a complete surprise to both critics and audiences. It was a real sleeper hit because many dismissed it to be either another generic Bruce Willis movie or too goofy to be good. But it ended up being a lot better than anyone every expected. Talk about a real "Don't judge a book by its cover" scenario. Or in this case, "Don't judge a film by its trailer."

When you think about it, Red sounds like a comedic parody of The Expendables. Both films have all-star casts. The Expendables had an all star cast of legendary action stars while Red featured legends of acting in the supporting cast. But both films follow a similar plot. It is fascinating how much the two films parallel each other. You can't really say one copied the other because both came out the same year within a matter of two months of each other. But enough film facts, comparisons and other assorted movie jargon. On with the review.

What made the first film so much fun is found in its sequel. John Malkovich is still hysterical. His character is so fascinating and the backstory they gave him is just as funny as the actions he does in the film. Every time he's on screen he steals the show. He's like Kramer from Seinfeld. On Kramer isn't nearly as unpredictable as Malkovich. The script is infinitely superior to The Expendables because the banter the characters share isn't just a bunch of cliched action one-liners, plot exposition and Sylvester Stallone dialogue. While there is exposition, the characters actually get developed and the comedic dialogue is actually funny and not unintentionally funny like in The Expendables.

Joining the cast are Catharine Zeta-Jones, Byung Hun Lee and Sir Anthony Hopkins. Catharine Zeta Jones plays an old ex girlfriend of Bruce Willis's and she and Mary Louise Parker have some very amusing scenes trying to outdo the other to win over Willis's affection. Byung Hun Lee basically takes over Karl Urban's role from the first film as the guy who is sent to take out Bruce Willis. And while it is a ton of fun seeing him take out 10 fully armed cops with only his fists and a glass door he is handcuffed to, but it makes me wonder why they just didn't bring back Karl Urban? He was a pretty cool character and Karl Urban has been gaining more and more recognition lately. The only thing I have seen Hun Lee in was G.I. Joe: Retaliation and I personally wouldn't want to be remembered for that dreck. But regardless, he ended up growing on me by the end and was a ton of fun to watch. Anthony Hopkins played the main villain and he was a much needed improvement over Richard Dreyfuss from the first film. Hopkins is able to balance likable and sinister very well. I guess that happens when you played the world's most famous cannibal for three different films.

The only problem I had with the film was that it wasn't as surprising as the first one. When I saw the first Red, I was surprised at how different of an action comedy it was. When watching Red 2, it didn't really "shock" me as much because I kind of knew what to expect and what steps the story would follow. Yet I can't really fault the film for that.

Final Report: Even though it didn't feel as fresh and surprising as the first, Red 2 still has enough slick dialogue, cool car chases and enough John Malkovich to satisfy any action comedy fan. It is definitely worth renting.

Rant: A sequel to It's A Wonderful Life. It's happening. I'M DEAD SERIOUS.

When I came home from school today I did what I always do: Make a snack and check the new stories one the front page of IMDb. When I read this headline, a part of me died inside.

'It's A Wonderful Life' Sequel in the Works

It is official. The time has come. Hollywood really has run out of ideas.

I mean really, why? Just... WHY?

First off: Why on earth would you make a sequel to a movie that will be nearly 70 years old by the time of the sequel's release? What is the point?

If the article said that a remake of It's A Wonderful Life was in the works, I wouldn't be so angry. I could understand a remake over a sequel because It's A Wonderful Life is a great movie with a wonderful story that should be told to newer, younger generations. That would make some legitimate sense. But instead, a sequel that NOBODY ASKED FOR is being made.

Secondly: Who actually wants to see what happens next in the story? More importantly, what else is there to tell? The original film ended on such a satisfying and heartwarming note that every single subplot was wrapped up nicely by the time the credits rolled. There is nothing left to go off of!

Thirdly: I heard a rumor that a sequel to It's A Wonderful Life was an idea floating around during the 1980's. The sequel would have brought back the cast of the original, including Jimmy Stewart, Donna Reed and Frank Capra would have returned as director. That would have been interesting. It might a stunk, but we would have been more positive about it because the cast and crew of the original would have returned to put some effort into it. But here, they are pulling an Amazing Spiderman on us:
Making the exact same movie with a completely different cast and crew that won't be as good as the original. No matter how hard they try. And for only one reason and one reason alone: Money.

According to the article the sequel will be called, It's A Wonderful Life: The Rest of the Story. The plot is said to revolve around Karolyn Grimes who played George Bailey’s daughter “Zuzu” in the original.  She is set to return for the sequel as an angel who shows Bailey’s unlikeable grandson (also named George Bailey) how much better off the world would have been had he never been born.

That is the exact plot of the original!!! If they are honestly going off of the exact plot of the original only with different characters, WHY DON'T THEY JUST REMAKE IT?!?!?!?!?!?! That would at least make more sense! People would still be angry that Hollywood would be tampering with one of the best movies of all time but it wouldn't be as brainless of a move than this!

I can already see it now:
It's A Wonderful Life 2: Life is No Longer Wonderful.
Starring Channing Tatum and Kristen Stewart
Directed by M. Night Shyamalan

The more I talk about it the higher my blood pressure gets. Hopefully the project will get scrapped and the film will get a direct to DVD release. Let's hope for the best.

Movie Review #70: Man of Steel (2013)

I have to say, this is the only movie I know of that has a fight take place inside of an Ihop. What other movie can hold the title of "Coolest Fight in an Ihop." I would like to see a Teen Choice Award for that!

I am finally reviewing Man of Steel, the one summer blockbuster I was excited to see but didn't end up seeing on the big screen. I decided to put of seeing this because I was dismayed by the critics (for a first) and decided to wait and rent it. And now that it has made itself available to the screens of the general public, I finally got to see the blockbuster with the most mixed reviews.

And how was it? For once the critics were right. This really is a mixed bag. Don't get me wrong, I ended up really liking the movie, but as a movie reviewer, there are problems with it and a few personal issues I had with it that I couldn't ignore.

When the trailer was first released it showed a quieter, more emotional side to our protagonist with flashbacks to him as a child.
That would have been a very interesting take on Superman because the previous films didn't really focus on his life trying to fit in. It also would have been a different direction for Zack Snyder, who's filmography consists of only films that are style-over-substance. But the later trailers ended up being more accurate to the end product : A special effects heavy, relentless disaster movie. And I am fine with that to an extent. The entire second half of the movie is full-on armageddon. There is so much belligerent carnage, mayhem and destruction in this movie that the finales to The Avengers and Transformers: Dark of the Moon combined look like mere child's play compared to this! And while it could have been 10-15 minutes shorter, it was so cool! The visual effects were unlike anything I had ever seen in a comic book movie before. The sheer grandness of the action felt larger than life. It really was super.

Some of the biggest complaints with Superman Returns is that there was too much emotion and not enough action and the biggest complaints with Man of Steel is that there wasn't enough emotion and too much action. Is there no middle ground with Superman movies?
But I do have to agree with those statements. The movie did lack the emotion and drama that made Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy so memorable. The only scene that I honestly felt a bit of emotion in was when Pa Kent died. But even that wasn't much.

The movie also lacked the lighthearted, hopeful tone and humor of the lore and the five previous films. Even Superman Returns, which for the most part is a very somber movie, had more lighthearted, uplifting, feel-good moments than Man of Steel. There are very few jokes in the film and when a moment of humor appears, it takes you out of the moment for a second.

Henry Cavil was pretty good as Superman. He was pretty likable and definitely has the looks and physique for the role. Amy Adams of course was great as Lois Lane. It will be a rare day when I say that Amy Adams is the weak link in the cast of a movie. I really enjoyed the addition of Russell Crowe as Jor-El. The scenes of him on Krypton were great. He also appears in a spirit form of sorts and gives advice and help to both Lois and Kal. He also had a couple good scenes with Michael Shannon as Zod. Which is one of the parts of the film that I think could have been better.

General Zod is one of the most famous villains in all of comic book lore but Michael Shannon's performance as him wasn't as memorable as it could have been or how I wanted it to be. I'm not saying Michael Shannon is a bad actor. Far from it! It just came off as a bit too cold and stoic for me. Although he does have a couple very entertaining freak out moments. I also enjoyed the scene where his message to the world was broadcasted over every television. It kind of reminded me of the scenes in Iron Man 3 when the Mandarin hijacked the airwaves. The way the message was delivered seemed like something a real terrorist would do. It felt gritty, creepy, invasive, wrong and I loved it.

Without spoiling anything, The way the final battle ended shocked me. Even though it probably infuriated some fans, I appreciated the direction the film went in. It cemented the fact that this version of Superman no longer fights for truth, justice and the American way. Surprising, but very effective.

Final Report:  Man of Steel lacks emotion and humor, but the grand spectacle of the action sequences and visual effects are more than enough eye candy to feast upon. And for me, that is a good enough for me to add it to my movie collection.

Movie Review #69: Thor: The Dark World (2013)

Thor: The Dark World was one of my most anticipated movies of 2013 and I was fortunate enough to catch an advanced screening of the film late last night. And since I had never been to an early showing of a movie before I was even more excited than I normally would have been!

Thor: The Dark World begins with a flashback thousands of years ago when Asgard was at war with a race of dark elves lead by an elf named Malekith. He wants a weapon called the Aether to take over the universe and send it into darkness. He ends up losing the battle and the Aether is hidden away but for reasons I will not say, he finds the location of the Aether and plans his revenge. It is now up to Thor and even some help from Loki to save the universe.

On the drive home from the theater, I was having a very tough time think about if I liked Thor: The Dark World more than Thor. And truth be told, I still don't know which one I liked more!

Both films had their flaws, but they were still very enjoyable and just a ton of fun. Although there are some evident differences in the two films. While the first Thor was more of a story about redemption and honor, Thor: The Dark World didn't have an underlying message like its predecessor. Which might be good news for people who didn't care for the message and wanted more action. But for me, the message was what made Thor stand out among the other Marvel movies. But then again, I think that Thor: The Dark World was a more well made movie on a technological standpoint. The visuals look fantastic. We finally get to see what Asgard looks like which was something we wanted to see in the first film. Malekith's make-up looks great. I definitely see an Oscar nomination for best make-up in the future for this film. The movie is also very well directed to which I have give credit to Alan Taylor. The final battle was a ton of fun. It involved Thor and Malekith popping from dimension to dimension and the best way I can describe it is that it felt like playing Portal! It really did and it was so much fun.

As usual, the actors are all great. The chemistry between Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston really shines here. There is a scene where Thor is telling Loki his plan that had my theater erupting with laughter. In that scene there is a cameo that rivals Hugh Jackman's cameo in X-Men First Class in greatness. It was hilarious. One character I would have liked to have fewer lines was Kat Dennings character. At times she earned a good laugh but quite often her scenes felt rather awkward and out of place. At least she looked cute.

But the villain Malekith,  was pretty weak. It's a shame because the character looks and sounds super cool and he's played by Christopher Eccleston! The Ninth Doctor! How could I not like him? Sadly, he didn't have much to do and I felt he was just there to be the villain and nothing more. He's kind of like Nero from Star Trek. Both were played by good actors I like but they were wasted. Probably for more screen time for Loki.

Final Report: For me, Thor: The Dark World is just as good as its predecessor. Great action, humor, directing and characters make for a time at the movies that is definitely worth the price of admission.