This is Disney's 50th animated film. And it shows. They have taken what they have learned from years of films and put together a great experience. But it's certainly not without it's flaws.
This film's animation has a fairly unique style. The characters and design don't look like most of the animation we've seen of late. It isn't Pixar quality, but for 3-D animation, it certainly looks spectacular. But the real gem of it is that the animation manages to emote. I was a little taken aback by how well thefilm manged to convince of emotions. They didn't have sudden changes, they had subtle(for a family movie) changes and it worked really well. The characters were fairly nuanced, especially in the writing department. There were characters who until the final 20 minutes felt more like shades of grey than a disney movie would normally give. The only real flaw I had with the animation was the hair. They do really interesting and inventive things with the hair but it is a huge continuity problem. it is never consistent how much hair she has. Sometimes its an infinite length sometimes its a shorter length and by shorter I mean like 50 feet instead of 50+ meters. Lastly most of the costume design works, nothing spectacular but not bad. The only problem I have is the step mother has a very stereotypical gypsy costume. She's not meant to be a gypsy, never has a gypsy voice, shes just an evil mother figure.
We also have the acting. For the most part all of the actors play their parts well and it is pretty clear that some of the facial animation comes from the actors performances. It is quite above par from standard animated films and one of the better works this year. The biggest problem is the star power of three of the actors. Ron Pearlman plays one of the villains and you can hear Ron Pearlman. The next issue is Zach Levi, sorry Zach but every time you speak all I hear is Chuck. Not Flynn. and then there is Mandy Moore who somtimes is pitch perfect and I don't even know shes Mandy. Sometimes though, she is very clearly Mandy Moore and it is a problem. There are some animal side kicks but they don't talk, just emote. It's quite amazing.
The directing works, but there are only a handful of shots where I went, "wow, I want to own that animation cell". The writing is great. Almost too great in my opinion. I was a little distracted by how good it was. Characters are well-developed they are shades of grey, they are conflicted and they grow. They are better than I had expected for a disney movie. Here's the really great part: A lot of humour(and it is a very funny movie) works for both kids and adults. I know a lot of kids movies have some humor for the adults and some for the kids inspiring the "why's that so funny Daddy" question. This really won't. It is good for both kids and adults. I consider it a worthy film of the disney legacy and it is one of my favorites.
I would say that of all the 3-D animated movies put together this is by and far the only one that I could use the Pixar Scale of grading on. So with that note, I am willing to give this movie a strong B+.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Top 11 films of 2010
Update: I've seen more movies! Yes, I am getting around to a handful of the best movies of the year and an internal debate in my head has delayed those reviews but I believe now I can revise my list. A third revision may come later but for now this is the new top 11 list of 2010
11.127 Hours
10.Toy Story 3
9.Flipped
8.Let Me In
7.Kick-Ass
6.Red
5. Inception
4.True Grit
3. Black Swan
2.Buried
1.Scott Pilgrim
These are my top eleven favorite movies of 2010
This list somehow managed to not include the 11th so as of 9:52 i have updated to include number 11.
11. Machete
Love and Other Drugs
127 Hours
Toy Story 3
Flipped
Let Me In
Kick-Ass
Red
Inception
Buried
1.Scott Pilgrim
Honorable mention: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1(THIS WAS ONLY HALF A BLOODY MOVIE). Also A-Team.
There is still some time left in 2010 so there might be some changes come January. in addition, I still need to see Social Network and The Town so we will see where those take us.
11.127 Hours
10.Toy Story 3
9.Flipped
8.Let Me In
7.Kick-Ass
6.Red
5. Inception
4.True Grit
3. Black Swan
2.Buried
1.Scott Pilgrim
These are my top eleven favorite movies of 2010
This list somehow managed to not include the 11th so as of 9:52 i have updated to include number 11.
11. Machete
Love and Other Drugs
127 Hours
Toy Story 3
Flipped
Let Me In
Kick-Ass
Red
Inception
Buried
1.Scott Pilgrim
Honorable mention: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1(THIS WAS ONLY HALF A BLOODY MOVIE). Also A-Team.
There is still some time left in 2010 so there might be some changes come January. in addition, I still need to see Social Network and The Town so we will see where those take us.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
A man, a rock, and a cliche - A review of 127 hours
(this review is two weeks old, it just somehow failed to post!)
It's not as good as Buried, but you should see both. This is Danny Boyle's latest film. A director who continuely proves he's one of the best in the world. Much like several other modern directors, he is the kind of man who will be remembered for putting together movies that are often great, and often overlooked.
This film may end up forgotten in the hubbub of winter holidays. But This is a bigger summer action event than anything we've seen this last summer. And it delivers a lot more. The movie is the story of a brave man who decides to go on a weekend rock traversing trip by himself. Problems incur when tragedy strikes and he's forced between a rock and a hard place(one of which is metaphorical). This stars James Franco and really not much anyone else. This movie while perfectly executes almost everything it does, it was decisions on the writing part that make it feel like a safe story. Frequently you have James Franco talking to a camera. So even though he is alone he has someone to speak to. The camera here functions in the same way that the cell phone functioned in Buried. And yes there are many more parallels but as I am trying to keep from spoiling either film, I won't go into them. but, where I felt Buried was bold by never leaving Ryan in that film, here we frequently leave James physical self for dreams, wide shots, and hallucinations. Overall, this is a less impressive spectacle of substance as Buried. So it's not as good as Buried, but it is very much a good movie. Grade B.
It's not as good as Buried, but you should see both. This is Danny Boyle's latest film. A director who continuely proves he's one of the best in the world. Much like several other modern directors, he is the kind of man who will be remembered for putting together movies that are often great, and often overlooked.
This film may end up forgotten in the hubbub of winter holidays. But This is a bigger summer action event than anything we've seen this last summer. And it delivers a lot more. The movie is the story of a brave man who decides to go on a weekend rock traversing trip by himself. Problems incur when tragedy strikes and he's forced between a rock and a hard place(one of which is metaphorical). This stars James Franco and really not much anyone else. This movie while perfectly executes almost everything it does, it was decisions on the writing part that make it feel like a safe story. Frequently you have James Franco talking to a camera. So even though he is alone he has someone to speak to. The camera here functions in the same way that the cell phone functioned in Buried. And yes there are many more parallels but as I am trying to keep from spoiling either film, I won't go into them. but, where I felt Buried was bold by never leaving Ryan in that film, here we frequently leave James physical self for dreams, wide shots, and hallucinations. Overall, this is a less impressive spectacle of substance as Buried. So it's not as good as Buried, but it is very much a good movie. Grade B.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Its like paying for a hooker and she stops just before you're done - a review of Harry Potter 7 PART ONE
This movie is just that. It is exactly like paying for a handjob and only getting the hand part. Completely, Totally, and Wholly unsatisfying.
Now that isn't to say it's a bad movie. Well. as a single movie it is. But as half a movie it is great. It really and truly is only half the movie and I need to get this out right now, it was a complete and total mistake to split the movie. This will go down in history as the blunder in this series of adaptations. This is where the moviemakers failed. It would be like watching Lord of the Rings(all three of them) and each of the three had been divided in half. Unlike in many other mediums, Film gets a major point called a climax half way through its existence. Of course this isn't in the same sense that others are but it is a big emotional moment. The movie ends on this note. And I applaud that the film got me to care that much about his death. They have over the course of the last six films built a course for Dobby and given him his due including a great moment of triumph before falling. His arc is easily the best in the franchise. However his character is the only death that I felt was earned. First off, they killed Hedwig so unceremoniously that I was asked about five minutes later where the owl went. When I explained it, "Wait, he DIED?" was uttered. After the movie it was discussed that after that same attack, a large chunk of the audience had no idea who had died there. This was Madeye. He too was never properly built up so that we had some kind of investment in him.
I need to applaud Rowling for something I never noticed. She builds strong supporting female characters who are the exact opposite of the stereotype. They are strong, independent and not highly emotional. Unlike Ron and Harry who act like children and fight and make up every film. This is obvious in Hermione but it is also wonderfully subtle in the uses of Umbridge, Bellatrix, and Luna. All of whom are criminally under used in this film. And as a fan of both the character and Actress, Ginny is also under utilized.
The movies continue to have the same scripting problem they have always had. The writers know some of their audience knows the books. The writers know the books. However, the writers don't know what was in the movies and what wasn't. And as such kind of skip of over chunks of movie in a away that makes you feel as though you missed a huge portion of story(or forgot it) when it reality it wasn't there. I imagine this is really disorienting for those who haven't read the books. All in all, its really shoddy script writing.
The direction is on par with the last few films but nothing to write home about.
The acting ranges from okay to awesome to terrible. Bill Nighy is fantastic. Ralph Finnees. Jason Issacs. All of the legacy actors are fantastic. with special Kudos to the actor who plays Dobby. Most the kids acting is all over the board though, but if you've been this far you are likely not going to listen to me on that.
Here's the thing, the movie needed a different title. I feel like the movie really needed its own title because the Deathly Hollows are briefly brought up at the end of th film but won't be a factor until the next film. I'm also curious to see how the last film will handle the fact that there is such a time gap between the two.
I'm not giving this movie a grade. But instead a word of caution, you won't be satisfied. Worse than any other film in history, the movie ends at the half way mark, not at the ending. I went in knowing I should have not watched it, but my own hubris got in my way. This film needs to be seen back to back with its sister or it will do nothing but let you down. So do yourself a a favor, wait and watch it with part two to avoid disappointment.
You may have notice I never mentioned spoilers. That's because at this point, if you are reading a review of the 7th of 8 films in a series based on the books, you either have read the book in question or don't care about being spoiled and as such it was your own fault for walking into spoilers here.
Now that isn't to say it's a bad movie. Well. as a single movie it is. But as half a movie it is great. It really and truly is only half the movie and I need to get this out right now, it was a complete and total mistake to split the movie. This will go down in history as the blunder in this series of adaptations. This is where the moviemakers failed. It would be like watching Lord of the Rings(all three of them) and each of the three had been divided in half. Unlike in many other mediums, Film gets a major point called a climax half way through its existence. Of course this isn't in the same sense that others are but it is a big emotional moment. The movie ends on this note. And I applaud that the film got me to care that much about his death. They have over the course of the last six films built a course for Dobby and given him his due including a great moment of triumph before falling. His arc is easily the best in the franchise. However his character is the only death that I felt was earned. First off, they killed Hedwig so unceremoniously that I was asked about five minutes later where the owl went. When I explained it, "Wait, he DIED?" was uttered. After the movie it was discussed that after that same attack, a large chunk of the audience had no idea who had died there. This was Madeye. He too was never properly built up so that we had some kind of investment in him.
I need to applaud Rowling for something I never noticed. She builds strong supporting female characters who are the exact opposite of the stereotype. They are strong, independent and not highly emotional. Unlike Ron and Harry who act like children and fight and make up every film. This is obvious in Hermione but it is also wonderfully subtle in the uses of Umbridge, Bellatrix, and Luna. All of whom are criminally under used in this film. And as a fan of both the character and Actress, Ginny is also under utilized.
The movies continue to have the same scripting problem they have always had. The writers know some of their audience knows the books. The writers know the books. However, the writers don't know what was in the movies and what wasn't. And as such kind of skip of over chunks of movie in a away that makes you feel as though you missed a huge portion of story(or forgot it) when it reality it wasn't there. I imagine this is really disorienting for those who haven't read the books. All in all, its really shoddy script writing.
The direction is on par with the last few films but nothing to write home about.
The acting ranges from okay to awesome to terrible. Bill Nighy is fantastic. Ralph Finnees. Jason Issacs. All of the legacy actors are fantastic. with special Kudos to the actor who plays Dobby. Most the kids acting is all over the board though, but if you've been this far you are likely not going to listen to me on that.
Here's the thing, the movie needed a different title. I feel like the movie really needed its own title because the Deathly Hollows are briefly brought up at the end of th film but won't be a factor until the next film. I'm also curious to see how the last film will handle the fact that there is such a time gap between the two.
I'm not giving this movie a grade. But instead a word of caution, you won't be satisfied. Worse than any other film in history, the movie ends at the half way mark, not at the ending. I went in knowing I should have not watched it, but my own hubris got in my way. This film needs to be seen back to back with its sister or it will do nothing but let you down. So do yourself a a favor, wait and watch it with part two to avoid disappointment.
You may have notice I never mentioned spoilers. That's because at this point, if you are reading a review of the 7th of 8 films in a series based on the books, you either have read the book in question or don't care about being spoiled and as such it was your own fault for walking into spoilers here.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Scott Pilgrim 100 Percent Complete - A review of Scott Pilgrim stuff
This is several reviews all together.
The Game:
A classic beat-em up in the styling of River City Ransom.
It follows a hybrid of the graphic novels and the movie, but mostly the novels. And as such it works well. The game play is fun, but the real treat is the soundtrack...
The Game Soundtrack:
Amanamgachi does the soundtrack and it is absolutely fantastic.
The Game's DLC:
(Coming soon, around fridayish)
The Blu Ray:
This thing is phenomenal. Hours and hours of bonus features. Scott Pilgrim commentaries. Scott Pilgrim The Animation. And hundreds of awesome throw backs.
The best part is that this fairly faithful adaptation was actually more faithful when you look at the deleted scenes. This movie could have been about half an hour longer, and I'd love to see that cut of this movie. I'm still awaiting the day when we get the option to watcha movie with deleted scenes reinserted. But whatever, that's down the line at some point. However, this blu ray is incredibly strong. The picture is pretty good. Its not nearly as poppy as the original film, but it's still good. The sound is out of the ball park. And in this film, it needed to be.
I'm going to give this release an A. You should own this movie. It even comes with a dvd of the movie too.
The Digital copy:
Good sized file, good quality. Not HD but still, nice.
All in all, Scott Pilgrim kicks ass. Anything not graded, it just felt redundant to grade A. The game, the movie, the books. They are worth your time, here's some links so you can buy them!
The Game:
A classic beat-em up in the styling of River City Ransom.
It follows a hybrid of the graphic novels and the movie, but mostly the novels. And as such it works well. The game play is fun, but the real treat is the soundtrack...
The Game Soundtrack:
Amanamgachi does the soundtrack and it is absolutely fantastic.
The Game's DLC:
(Coming soon, around fridayish)
The Blu Ray:
This thing is phenomenal. Hours and hours of bonus features. Scott Pilgrim commentaries. Scott Pilgrim The Animation. And hundreds of awesome throw backs.
The best part is that this fairly faithful adaptation was actually more faithful when you look at the deleted scenes. This movie could have been about half an hour longer, and I'd love to see that cut of this movie. I'm still awaiting the day when we get the option to watcha movie with deleted scenes reinserted. But whatever, that's down the line at some point. However, this blu ray is incredibly strong. The picture is pretty good. Its not nearly as poppy as the original film, but it's still good. The sound is out of the ball park. And in this film, it needed to be.
I'm going to give this release an A. You should own this movie. It even comes with a dvd of the movie too.
The Digital copy:
Good sized file, good quality. Not HD but still, nice.
All in all, Scott Pilgrim kicks ass. Anything not graded, it just felt redundant to grade A. The game, the movie, the books. They are worth your time, here's some links so you can buy them!
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Feedbacked: How to take and give criticsm/feedback
To preface this, I should be working right now since I have 4 hours of work to do today and only 5 hours till I leave...Damn it thoughts that I need to get down, GET OUT.
So I wanted to talk about something different than I normally do. Today I'm talking about a aspect of writing. I get asked a lot of questions about writing because of certain qualifications I have involving them but I seem to notice a key issue writers that talk to me commonly have. Most writers are unsure how to give/receive feedback and criticism. And That actually expands to everyone in the known universe. A fair majority of people don't quite understand it. So some basic ground rules:
1. It isn't personal.
2. What you wrote isn't perfect. most likely isn't great. Probably isn't good. Might be okay. And it needs hundreds of hours of work.
3. Just because you like it doesn't make it good.
4. It's okay to like something that's bad.*
5. There are basic standards to judge things on.
6. (Goes hand and hand with 5) Art ISN'T as subjective as one is lead to believe.
7.A new draft doesn't count as changing twelve words and rearranging some paragraphs. This is the kill your babies suggestion.
8. It's not about plot.
So the first thing I notice is that most writers seem to think their first draft is going to be brilliant. So brilliant that only minor cosmetic changes are all they are going to need. Or in the case of the inexperienced writer: huge major gigantic changes!
When it comes to editing, most writers want to just change some words here and there, change a scene maybe and leave everything else the same. Well chances are, what needs to be change is right now you have Characters A,B and C. And C has a great story, A and B don't really do anything. So there are two possible edits here, you give A and B a good story(if you have one for them and this isn't a short story) or if it is a short story, you most likely cut them and see what of the story remains.
Edits should be big sweeping changes. Not small cosmetic ones. For me, the general rule of thumb is I should almost be able to call draft two an entirely different story than draft one. Why? Because the plot, typically, doesn't matter. It isn't what people care about, really. So yes its what gets people in the door, but that's in the same way that a trailer for a movie gets you into the theater. But the things that keep you talking and thinking about it afterward are the result of new ground being covered, characters that are intriguing, likable, well-written, and possibly relate-able. It is about what the characters experienced, what they felt. That is, when these are done well. When they aren't done well they are still pointed out, but instead they are mocked and ridiculed. It should be about polishing the language so that I can go through and pull single sentences and go "Wow, that is one beautifully crafted sentence".
In the drafting/editing process it is important to note that you will receive a lot of feedback. Most of it is conflicting. As to how to use the feedback, its up to you. You can take all of it in, you can take none of it in. The way I do it is I take all of the negative feedback and I do what I can to alleviate the issues present in the negative feedback. I also look at the areas that are most loved and I try to improve those as well.** But that's me, how to use feedback is really up to you.
The best way to write a second draft for smaller length stories for sure, and if you have the dedication in longer ones as well, is to write the story again. Look at the natural changes you make just by writing it again. Certain sections get forgotten about, certain sections get added. It is a really interesting alternative that gives you variant passages to try out between the two pieces. And for my money, if by the third draft at least 50 percent of the material hasn't changed from the first draft, you likely aren't being harsh enough against yourself.
The hard part for most people is not taking it personally. I called your story a piece of crap and thought you should take the main character and put him in a different plot. That isn't an attack on you. It is an attack, and isn't well written feedback, but that happens, but it might still be valuable feedback. You need to be prepared that every line of feedback won't be nice. And that is okay. Every great piece of writing you've ever read was heavily criticized and scrutinized. So to think that your piece that you wrote in 5 hours won't be is a bit pretentious of you isn't it? The fact that you think what you wrote is really good isn't a barometer. Also your close friends, your grandparents, girlfriend/wife/boyfriend/husband/dog/robot lover,your padre, your priest, your rabbi, your mother are for my intents and purposes you.There is quite a few people you know that aren't close friends that write. Find them. Seek them out. Talk to them. Get their opinions.
So some last things. When judging any given media that is to say, written word, motion picture, still photo. We have standards to judge what is good, what isn't. I can't tell you what these are. I mean, I could but I'm not going to. The way it comes about is that you read. You watch. You look. Don't fight your judgments. But have them. When you embrace the piece of media and you think "that sucked" or "That was awesome" try and figure out why. If you do this every time than slowly over time certain things you liked, you will come to see are only okay. And over more time the number of things you like will shrink and you will have developed your own tastes. But as you read you will see that certain things are common and those things that are common that you like are the same things that others with a critical opinion like. Sure there is a certain margin or error for tastes, but for the most part you will be able to critically analyze and deconstruct why something works.
Things to take away from this:
Don't take it personally. As much as you like the piece you are writing it can ALWAYS be improved. Read a lot. It not only improves your critical skills, it helps you see what has already been done a million times and forces you to, if you still want to write about it, to come out with a new angle so you aren't mimicking what has come before.
We learn best from our failures, not our successes, so wouldn't it make sense that we would learn more from where our pieces need work, not where we were successful?
*Otherwise I'd get to put to death Twilight fans in the MILLIONS
** Always save copies of every draft. That way you can delete portions of the story for the new draft and if you don't like the new draft you can go back to the old one.
So I wanted to talk about something different than I normally do. Today I'm talking about a aspect of writing. I get asked a lot of questions about writing because of certain qualifications I have involving them but I seem to notice a key issue writers that talk to me commonly have. Most writers are unsure how to give/receive feedback and criticism. And That actually expands to everyone in the known universe. A fair majority of people don't quite understand it. So some basic ground rules:
1. It isn't personal.
2. What you wrote isn't perfect. most likely isn't great. Probably isn't good. Might be okay. And it needs hundreds of hours of work.
3. Just because you like it doesn't make it good.
4. It's okay to like something that's bad.*
5. There are basic standards to judge things on.
6. (Goes hand and hand with 5) Art ISN'T as subjective as one is lead to believe.
7.A new draft doesn't count as changing twelve words and rearranging some paragraphs. This is the kill your babies suggestion.
8. It's not about plot.
So the first thing I notice is that most writers seem to think their first draft is going to be brilliant. So brilliant that only minor cosmetic changes are all they are going to need. Or in the case of the inexperienced writer: huge major gigantic changes!
When it comes to editing, most writers want to just change some words here and there, change a scene maybe and leave everything else the same. Well chances are, what needs to be change is right now you have Characters A,B and C. And C has a great story, A and B don't really do anything. So there are two possible edits here, you give A and B a good story(if you have one for them and this isn't a short story) or if it is a short story, you most likely cut them and see what of the story remains.
Edits should be big sweeping changes. Not small cosmetic ones. For me, the general rule of thumb is I should almost be able to call draft two an entirely different story than draft one. Why? Because the plot, typically, doesn't matter. It isn't what people care about, really. So yes its what gets people in the door, but that's in the same way that a trailer for a movie gets you into the theater. But the things that keep you talking and thinking about it afterward are the result of new ground being covered, characters that are intriguing, likable, well-written, and possibly relate-able. It is about what the characters experienced, what they felt. That is, when these are done well. When they aren't done well they are still pointed out, but instead they are mocked and ridiculed. It should be about polishing the language so that I can go through and pull single sentences and go "Wow, that is one beautifully crafted sentence".
In the drafting/editing process it is important to note that you will receive a lot of feedback. Most of it is conflicting. As to how to use the feedback, its up to you. You can take all of it in, you can take none of it in. The way I do it is I take all of the negative feedback and I do what I can to alleviate the issues present in the negative feedback. I also look at the areas that are most loved and I try to improve those as well.** But that's me, how to use feedback is really up to you.
The best way to write a second draft for smaller length stories for sure, and if you have the dedication in longer ones as well, is to write the story again. Look at the natural changes you make just by writing it again. Certain sections get forgotten about, certain sections get added. It is a really interesting alternative that gives you variant passages to try out between the two pieces. And for my money, if by the third draft at least 50 percent of the material hasn't changed from the first draft, you likely aren't being harsh enough against yourself.
The hard part for most people is not taking it personally. I called your story a piece of crap and thought you should take the main character and put him in a different plot. That isn't an attack on you. It is an attack, and isn't well written feedback, but that happens, but it might still be valuable feedback. You need to be prepared that every line of feedback won't be nice. And that is okay. Every great piece of writing you've ever read was heavily criticized and scrutinized. So to think that your piece that you wrote in 5 hours won't be is a bit pretentious of you isn't it? The fact that you think what you wrote is really good isn't a barometer. Also your close friends, your grandparents, girlfriend/wife/boyfriend/husband/dog/robot lover,your padre, your priest, your rabbi, your mother are for my intents and purposes you.There is quite a few people you know that aren't close friends that write. Find them. Seek them out. Talk to them. Get their opinions.
So some last things. When judging any given media that is to say, written word, motion picture, still photo. We have standards to judge what is good, what isn't. I can't tell you what these are. I mean, I could but I'm not going to. The way it comes about is that you read. You watch. You look. Don't fight your judgments. But have them. When you embrace the piece of media and you think "that sucked" or "That was awesome" try and figure out why. If you do this every time than slowly over time certain things you liked, you will come to see are only okay. And over more time the number of things you like will shrink and you will have developed your own tastes. But as you read you will see that certain things are common and those things that are common that you like are the same things that others with a critical opinion like. Sure there is a certain margin or error for tastes, but for the most part you will be able to critically analyze and deconstruct why something works.
Things to take away from this:
Don't take it personally. As much as you like the piece you are writing it can ALWAYS be improved. Read a lot. It not only improves your critical skills, it helps you see what has already been done a million times and forces you to, if you still want to write about it, to come out with a new angle so you aren't mimicking what has come before.
We learn best from our failures, not our successes, so wouldn't it make sense that we would learn more from where our pieces need work, not where we were successful?
*Otherwise I'd get to put to death Twilight fans in the MILLIONS
** Always save copies of every draft. That way you can delete portions of the story for the new draft and if you don't like the new draft you can go back to the old one.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
kinda creepy, kinda funny yeah its glee - a review of the rocky horror glee show
The episode opens with just the glee actors doing Rocky horror picture show(cutting certain opening scenes like Damn it Janet). But even just a couple minutes in and you can tell this feels like a souless adaptation of Rocky Horror Picture Show. Luckily the episode quickly realizes this and goes back to being glee. Surprisingly they start addressing issues of a glee nature and also address the obvious problems inherent in doing Rocky Horror. In high school. Awkward.
The things this episode is doing best is that it utilizes the entire cast of the show. Including guest actor John Stamos. Amazing guest appearances. which lead to my favorite line "Mexican Terrorist Ants."
So the real reason this falls short? It skips over the part of Rocky Horror that is why it is a good time. The audience participation. It kind of loses the heart and soul of the show. On its own Rocky Horror is kind of meh. But it is the audience participation that brings into an entirely different type of experience. It's also borderline creepy. For example the closest glee will ever get get to a sex scene, only using Touch Me as a thinly veiled metaphor. And there are random shots of Santana and Britney dancing alone in the hall way during it. The implications the show makes are really creepy.
The episode is full of quotable lines from our one liner queens, Sue and Britney.
Overall the episode was an interesting expirement in doing a production of something, a line the glee club hadn't tried to cross in the past. If we ignore the ongoing problems of the show(references to going to Nationals without talking about trying to win Sectionals or Regionals) this was one of the better episodes the show has had since the back 9 of season 1 started.
And since I don't intend to review Glee of a regular basis unless I get bored I just want to bring up that this show is in the same problem Heroes had. If you look at Heroes, its original season order(the first 22 episodes) are good. After that? The show falls apart until its final season. Glee hasn't been good beyond that first 13 episode order. It has been repeating the same storylines over and over again.
Kudos though for actually using Sweet Transvestite.
Boo for forcing Time Warp to the end.
The things this episode is doing best is that it utilizes the entire cast of the show. Including guest actor John Stamos. Amazing guest appearances. which lead to my favorite line "Mexican Terrorist Ants."
So the real reason this falls short? It skips over the part of Rocky Horror that is why it is a good time. The audience participation. It kind of loses the heart and soul of the show. On its own Rocky Horror is kind of meh. But it is the audience participation that brings into an entirely different type of experience. It's also borderline creepy. For example the closest glee will ever get get to a sex scene, only using Touch Me as a thinly veiled metaphor. And there are random shots of Santana and Britney dancing alone in the hall way during it. The implications the show makes are really creepy.
The episode is full of quotable lines from our one liner queens, Sue and Britney.
Overall the episode was an interesting expirement in doing a production of something, a line the glee club hadn't tried to cross in the past. If we ignore the ongoing problems of the show(references to going to Nationals without talking about trying to win Sectionals or Regionals) this was one of the better episodes the show has had since the back 9 of season 1 started.
And since I don't intend to review Glee of a regular basis unless I get bored I just want to bring up that this show is in the same problem Heroes had. If you look at Heroes, its original season order(the first 22 episodes) are good. After that? The show falls apart until its final season. Glee hasn't been good beyond that first 13 episode order. It has been repeating the same storylines over and over again.
Kudos though for actually using Sweet Transvestite.
Boo for forcing Time Warp to the end.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Naked People, Pills, and Great Characterization - a review of Love and Other Drugs
love and other drugs(A note: the version of this review is incomplete, the full version should be updated sometime Thursday, sorry)
it should be noted i am a recorded cynic. i tend to hate movies more often than i love them. and as such i don't discuss the movies i hate as much unless i really passionately hate them. so it ends up looking like i am giving high marks to lots of things when in reality i try to avoid wasting my time with bad things. i devote a large amount of times to seeing films early and by that i mean i give up about 8 hours including travel and waiting for and watching said movies. so a movie needs to catch my interest before i even want to devote that much time to so a film. most often this is in the form of it looks good, it looks bad, i have hope, i want to see it, or because of an actor, director, producer, writer i want to hear from. so i walked into this thinking, okay there aren't enough r rated romantic comedies so it deserves attention for that. most of them are a lot like the recent string of r rated comedies, cruder because they can. not because the story demands it. here the story demands it. it truly needs to be an r rated romantic dramadey. and it absolutely is a dramdey. for the scenes of high drama are balenced off by the scenes full of laughs. there is a really truly touching story here and it all works because our main character Jamie Randal is played by Jake ghylanhal to perfection. both he and Anne hathaway bring real emotion to these characters. it is rare that a character flat out cries. it happens twice. instead you get scenes of just on the verge of break down when they come up in the last act as they often do in these movies. but it works because you aren't handed these teen actors that don't know what they are doing or these older actors who are tired or bored. instead you get the middle of the road actors who are on top of their game and are ready to act. and they act very well. you believe the emotions here. it doesn't seem forced or placed or set up by a movie. they feel like they legitimately build a relationship. they unfortunately follow standard formula in this film. and the characters make mistakes but the best thing is these are characters who handle these things with grace ad humility. realistically. they are developed. this is the part that is without a doubt why this movie succeeds. it spends 30 minutes developing the character of Randal before introducing the girl. in then develops her by showing him learning about her. it works better than most. then there are the supporting characters who are done justice by hank azaria, oliver platt, and . they aren't as developed but they have their own stories going on and the movie only hints at the under the surface stories these characters are on.
this movie isn't perfect. the directing is rather meh and there is some really awkward music placement that ruins some of the pathos. these are the beats that drag a bit but these blemishes are like a spider bite in the movie. it really is just a cosmetic distraction. the movie also features a lot of Jake and Anne being naked. but while not tasteful it is at least equally objectifying. this isn't for everyone but for a few like myself you will love it. guys, I'm a guy who hasn't really enjoyed a romantic comedy since 1988's say anything. this wasn't as good. but it is on that level. the thing this film will grip you with is characterization. id give it a solid B+.
it should be noted i am a recorded cynic. i tend to hate movies more often than i love them. and as such i don't discuss the movies i hate as much unless i really passionately hate them. so it ends up looking like i am giving high marks to lots of things when in reality i try to avoid wasting my time with bad things. i devote a large amount of times to seeing films early and by that i mean i give up about 8 hours including travel and waiting for and watching said movies. so a movie needs to catch my interest before i even want to devote that much time to so a film. most often this is in the form of it looks good, it looks bad, i have hope, i want to see it, or because of an actor, director, producer, writer i want to hear from. so i walked into this thinking, okay there aren't enough r rated romantic comedies so it deserves attention for that. most of them are a lot like the recent string of r rated comedies, cruder because they can. not because the story demands it. here the story demands it. it truly needs to be an r rated romantic dramadey. and it absolutely is a dramdey. for the scenes of high drama are balenced off by the scenes full of laughs. there is a really truly touching story here and it all works because our main character Jamie Randal is played by Jake ghylanhal to perfection. both he and Anne hathaway bring real emotion to these characters. it is rare that a character flat out cries. it happens twice. instead you get scenes of just on the verge of break down when they come up in the last act as they often do in these movies. but it works because you aren't handed these teen actors that don't know what they are doing or these older actors who are tired or bored. instead you get the middle of the road actors who are on top of their game and are ready to act. and they act very well. you believe the emotions here. it doesn't seem forced or placed or set up by a movie. they feel like they legitimately build a relationship. they unfortunately follow standard formula in this film. and the characters make mistakes but the best thing is these are characters who handle these things with grace ad humility. realistically. they are developed. this is the part that is without a doubt why this movie succeeds. it spends 30 minutes developing the character of Randal before introducing the girl. in then develops her by showing him learning about her. it works better than most. then there are the supporting characters who are done justice by hank azaria, oliver platt, and . they aren't as developed but they have their own stories going on and the movie only hints at the under the surface stories these characters are on.
this movie isn't perfect. the directing is rather meh and there is some really awkward music placement that ruins some of the pathos. these are the beats that drag a bit but these blemishes are like a spider bite in the movie. it really is just a cosmetic distraction. the movie also features a lot of Jake and Anne being naked. but while not tasteful it is at least equally objectifying. this isn't for everyone but for a few like myself you will love it. guys, I'm a guy who hasn't really enjoyed a romantic comedy since 1988's say anything. this wasn't as good. but it is on that level. the thing this film will grip you with is characterization. id give it a solid B+.
Friday, October 22, 2010
It's Rocky but with Donkey Kong - a review of The King Of Kong: a fistful of Quarters
So in general this is a film bashing Twin Galaxies and Billy Mitchel and anyone who associates with them.
Spoilers within.
The story follows typical Hollywood formula. A villain is established, a hero is given a task. The hero seemingly beats the task but due to a technicalities doesn't win. And he never gives up.
This is the story of two men competing for the high score, world record of Donkey Kong. And you know, it is a damn good movie too.
This is an enjoyable story because it is a documentary. As a film of fiction it might be a little overdone but here because they are real people in real situations, you get to see the truth in the lies. It takes a single sided look at a situation where every card in the deck is stacked against our Hero. And he keeps winning despite being stopped at every turn. What it is is the triumph of the human spirit. It's a man who refuses to give up and keeps on trying to get the recognition he deserves. More than that, we see he is a good man. Sure he makes some decisions that aren't exactly heroic, like ignoring his kid during his record-breaking run, but he also does a tremendous amount of things to prove his worth. There are certain things you, the viewer, should keep an eye out for. Pay attention to Billy Mitchel. Every single thing he does is calculate asshole. No joke. Consider a scene where we just discussing what he does for a living, it is inter cut with footage of him talking about it at a store, but the key of what he's doing is taking jars of his hot sauce, and moving them to the front of the shelf and moving competitors behind it. He's being hyper competitive to a fault here. In another scene he is talking about what he puts his initials as in the games top score section. And he keeps saying if you are paying attention you'll know and as he does this he's stroking his tie. The camera man asks, is "TIE" and he responds that of course not, but instead you should think about what tie he was wearing the day before. He then reveals that it is "USA". And these are just the small moments there are bigger overtures of how villainous this man is, especially late in the film. Now when you have a character like that, which is to say a real live person who is actually like this, and then consider that during these events that Twin Galaxies, the group that is the video game equivalent of Guinness World Records, is supporting him without question to the point of holding a double standard for Billy as they do for our Hero, Steve. The film points some of this out, obviously, by including it, but does a decent job wanting the viewer to make leaps by showing footage rather than just flat out saying oh he's a terrible person.
I can't do anything BUT recommend this movie. It is absolutely an A-. Worth every second to watch it. And in general it has a better hold of character development, plot, and storytelling than most hollywood movies.
Spoilers within.
The story follows typical Hollywood formula. A villain is established, a hero is given a task. The hero seemingly beats the task but due to a technicalities doesn't win. And he never gives up.
This is the story of two men competing for the high score, world record of Donkey Kong. And you know, it is a damn good movie too.
This is an enjoyable story because it is a documentary. As a film of fiction it might be a little overdone but here because they are real people in real situations, you get to see the truth in the lies. It takes a single sided look at a situation where every card in the deck is stacked against our Hero. And he keeps winning despite being stopped at every turn. What it is is the triumph of the human spirit. It's a man who refuses to give up and keeps on trying to get the recognition he deserves. More than that, we see he is a good man. Sure he makes some decisions that aren't exactly heroic, like ignoring his kid during his record-breaking run, but he also does a tremendous amount of things to prove his worth. There are certain things you, the viewer, should keep an eye out for. Pay attention to Billy Mitchel. Every single thing he does is calculate asshole. No joke. Consider a scene where we just discussing what he does for a living, it is inter cut with footage of him talking about it at a store, but the key of what he's doing is taking jars of his hot sauce, and moving them to the front of the shelf and moving competitors behind it. He's being hyper competitive to a fault here. In another scene he is talking about what he puts his initials as in the games top score section. And he keeps saying if you are paying attention you'll know and as he does this he's stroking his tie. The camera man asks, is "TIE" and he responds that of course not, but instead you should think about what tie he was wearing the day before. He then reveals that it is "USA". And these are just the small moments there are bigger overtures of how villainous this man is, especially late in the film. Now when you have a character like that, which is to say a real live person who is actually like this, and then consider that during these events that Twin Galaxies, the group that is the video game equivalent of Guinness World Records, is supporting him without question to the point of holding a double standard for Billy as they do for our Hero, Steve. The film points some of this out, obviously, by including it, but does a decent job wanting the viewer to make leaps by showing footage rather than just flat out saying oh he's a terrible person.
I can't do anything BUT recommend this movie. It is absolutely an A-. Worth every second to watch it. And in general it has a better hold of character development, plot, and storytelling than most hollywood movies.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Cleaning house aka lining up some ducks
So. I am doing some quick little agendaing here and setting up some awareness for whats to come that might actually come.
First off you are likely to see LESS early reviews of movies. In fact, I'll be doing some reviews of some back stuff that I have on my shelf and in my netflix queue likely more than you'll see early reviews. I'm going to try to see them still, but work will likely interfere.
Next I have two major projects related to the All-Star Superman Project. One you won't see until 2011 when I have a chance to fill in the holes of teh write up of a project I already started but haven't been written on. In other words, I've been doing reading projects and somewhere between a third and half way done and didn't write anything on the earlier material. So it'll be whenever I have a chance to revisit and write in that first third that you will see this Bendisy event.
But you will soon, as in before 2011, a write up that covers Grant Morrison and his Opus. It'll actually be two separate reviews that refer to each other at certain junctures.
Halloween? I have a grave intention to get a write up up.
Between now and then? Not much. Maybe as something pops up I might add something in, but other than that...Expect quiet as the days come. Until I've had a better chance to see how much of my energy work drains from me.
First off you are likely to see LESS early reviews of movies. In fact, I'll be doing some reviews of some back stuff that I have on my shelf and in my netflix queue likely more than you'll see early reviews. I'm going to try to see them still, but work will likely interfere.
Next I have two major projects related to the All-Star Superman Project. One you won't see until 2011 when I have a chance to fill in the holes of teh write up of a project I already started but haven't been written on. In other words, I've been doing reading projects and somewhere between a third and half way done and didn't write anything on the earlier material. So it'll be whenever I have a chance to revisit and write in that first third that you will see this Bendisy event.
But you will soon, as in before 2011, a write up that covers Grant Morrison and his Opus. It'll actually be two separate reviews that refer to each other at certain junctures.
Halloween? I have a grave intention to get a write up up.
Between now and then? Not much. Maybe as something pops up I might add something in, but other than that...Expect quiet as the days come. Until I've had a better chance to see how much of my energy work drains from me.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Clint's back in form - a review of Hereafter
Hereafter is not Clint's regular subject material. Not to say he has specific subject matter, but in general he has amount of subject matter he likes to explore. This feels like Clint Eastwood discussing spirituality. Not everyone is going to agree with his opinions, but he does a fairly good job at not forcing an opinion on you.
For those unaware, the plot is A french woman has an experience that shifts her entire life. A pair of young, british boys have their lives changed forever by a moment of pure, random, Chaos. And lastly Matt Damon plays an American who is a legitimate psychic. The three stories remain separate. Each exploring what a connection to death means to them. As different as their stories are, they reflect each other as well. Each has a supporting character in their story that represents a darker element of their life, a reason that they might look into this story of spirituality. And in each of these suporting characters we get a strong, well acted performance. In addition, we get very strong characterization from our leads, and whether this is from good acting, or great directing, it works really well. Now if I need to explain that this is all directed by a capable, proven, and expert director then I am sad and shall cry forever. But yes, Clint is superb here. The music is solid, again Clint is in fine form. The plot, the writing is all well done, with Matt Damon's scenes connecting to his psychicness are what really sell this movie. Those scenes each provide the best scripting in the entire show. Now where the movie falters is some of it's effect. The connecting with the otherside stuff and the effects in general look poor. You will often go, hey that looks fake. But the emotions, the reactions? Those all look real, some of the best I've seen in response to CGI.
Overall? I'm a big fan of this movie. I liked it, and I thought it was strong piece of film making. Overall, I give it a B. It isn't perfect, it isn't the best thing to come out this year, but it is certainly top ten. Give it a try.
For those unaware, the plot is A french woman has an experience that shifts her entire life. A pair of young, british boys have their lives changed forever by a moment of pure, random, Chaos. And lastly Matt Damon plays an American who is a legitimate psychic. The three stories remain separate. Each exploring what a connection to death means to them. As different as their stories are, they reflect each other as well. Each has a supporting character in their story that represents a darker element of their life, a reason that they might look into this story of spirituality. And in each of these suporting characters we get a strong, well acted performance. In addition, we get very strong characterization from our leads, and whether this is from good acting, or great directing, it works really well. Now if I need to explain that this is all directed by a capable, proven, and expert director then I am sad and shall cry forever. But yes, Clint is superb here. The music is solid, again Clint is in fine form. The plot, the writing is all well done, with Matt Damon's scenes connecting to his psychicness are what really sell this movie. Those scenes each provide the best scripting in the entire show. Now where the movie falters is some of it's effect. The connecting with the otherside stuff and the effects in general look poor. You will often go, hey that looks fake. But the emotions, the reactions? Those all look real, some of the best I've seen in response to CGI.
Overall? I'm a big fan of this movie. I liked it, and I thought it was strong piece of film making. Overall, I give it a B. It isn't perfect, it isn't the best thing to come out this year, but it is certainly top ten. Give it a try.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
A book that lives up to its name -- a review of All-Star Superman
A delicate throw back to the history of Superman but without having the burden of continuity, Grant Morrison and frequent Morrison collaborator Frank Quietly build a story that examines who Superman is and why he is The Superman.
I will be delving into spoilers but the point of the matter is that All-Star Superman is worth your time to look at, and if you are reading in the 2 volume format, read both as it is a 12 issue story.
The basic, running arc is a simple one. Superman, after performing an act set up by Lex Luthor, is dying. And as such he goes about checking things off his bucket list which include a list of 12 herculean style feats and the first thing he sets out to do is tell Lois and everything spins out from there.
The important thing to note is that this is a story where Clark has been granted near unbeatable status because he traveled through a sun for too long. This increased exposure of sunlight overclocked Superman. So overclocked that he is dying. It has also granted him powers that are back to his pre-crisis status. but much like Lois in chapter 3(during which a much forgotten ability to gift his own powers temporarily is revived, and thus as a birthday gift, Lois is granted the powers of Superman for 24 hours) these newfound super-super powers are temporary. What is really interesting is that Morrison uses this chapter explore a story that is a mirror to Clark's new ongoing plight. Repeatedly during this struggle he is reminded that sometimes he is powerless and that no matter what he does at the end of the day(or in his case the series) he too is limited.
Now it is during the third chapter that the trials are declared by Sampson as being 12 super challenges that Superman accomplishes right before he dies. It implies heavily that he has already completed one of them by granting Lois his powers. Now the question has been posed to me that if Clark could hand out his powers at anytime, why didn't he. I'd like to say the answer is fairly obvious but I'll spell it out anyways. Firstly, it was a recent decision that made it a goal for him to even be able to do such a thing. It had never been necessary for Superman to perform such feat. As to why he would do it here and for Lois seemed rather clear as well, that Superman wanted her to understand how he felt, and that he knew she too would like to feel that as well. In short, until he was dying, he never thought it necessary to even try and duplicate his own powers. And as the series progresses we see both the good and bad ramifications of such an action. It would later be confirmed by Grant Morrison to be the second of the 12 superman labors, Alchemizing the Super Elixir. See the second entry of the article I link to at the end for a complete span of the labors.
I would like to take this time now, since I devoted so many words to a argue against an opinion of an element that was considered to be not truthful to the mythos of Superman and point out a small moment(well sort of small) that shows just how perfectly Grant Morrison handles Superman. In issue 3, Clark continues a trend from the previous issue where for the first time in their relationship Clark gets to be Clark. Not the Clark persona, not The Superman persona, but Clark Kent, man who is also Superman. He gets to be truly honest with Lois. He doesn't have to fake anything, and yet that's all he's trying to do. He's a hybrid of the two characters, he's both the savior of mankind and a bumbling love-sick puppy. In truly human moments hes trying to muster up all of the courage in him and try and win Lois' heart as himself, not as Clark, not as The Superman, the symbol Lois worships, but as himself. And in doing so he has to compete for her love but this leads him to a confrontation with The Ultra Sphinx. And suddenly these two unbeatable foes come to a head and they must fight for Lois's life. But it isn't a physical battle it is a match of wits. The US asks Clark a simple question "What happens when the unstoppable force meets the unmovable object" Clark takes a moment to figure it out but in a very thoughtful moment he figures it out and he understands why the question is so relevant that he answers as he would in that situation, as he does in that situation. He answers simply that "They Surrender".
Clark knew that the Sphinx wasn't asking a riddle but a practical question regarding himself and Clark. It is a moment that shows just how smart and strong of character Clark is. It's also a reminder that the best times that the character is used is when he isn't smashing something, its when he's being clever.
There are also little details that bring the ending into question, whether or not Superman will really die. For starters he's Superman. Superman doesn't die(except that time he did...) but the most interesting red herring is a newspaper clipping from the future that says SUPERMAN DEAD. Of course, you are meant to look at the fact that Superman is dead, but if you carefully you'll notice the newspaper says that the article was written by none other than Clark Kent...
As the all-star adventure continues we get a further examination of who Superman is. We get a black kryptonite Superman(that's an evil Superman) and a Jimmy Olsen transformed into a Jimmy/doomsday creature. But really it is an examination of who Superman ISN'T. It is a fantastic deconstruction of just who Superman IS. This is continued in the plot with a visit to Lex Luthor. From the very first moment of the interaction between Lex Luthor and the Clark Kent persona we see Clark both being bumbling but at the same time still doing the right thing, even if it looks like it was purely by accident. Their discussion is both homoerotic and also the true epic conflict between Superman and Lex boiled down to a conversation. It is the real power of wit to demonstrate what could have been a simple conflict and give it meaning and depth by being about substance, not spectacle. There is also some fun moments of Clark who is Superman, trying to hide his identity as superman from Lex and Parasite. The whole ordeal is a reminder that no matter how smart Lex Luthor may be, he's never been smart enough to figure out that Clark Kent is Superman.
And to close out the first volume we get the meeting of the supermen. This is a reminder of The Death and Life of Superman story where 4 supermen arrived to take Clark's place after he died, though they weren't Superman. One came from another dimension, one came from a robot, one was a robot, and one was just a man who believed he had been possessed by the soul of superman. Here we have the Superman Squad, a team of supermen who are descendants of Superman from throughout time. Well and one very important fellow in Bandages. What this chapter really is, is an exploration of Superman's legacy as a character and to show that he has gone through a very specific and definite change over the course of his life. That Clark as a youngster isn't the same as Clark as an adult. Nor that Clark as a dying man is the same as the others.
As the second volume opens we get a look a Bizzaro Superman story. Now I want to say, knowing Grant Morrison, I was expecting something truly mind-blowing, but I wasn't ready for what I read. I feel like this is the real place where Morrison puts his touch of taste on the Superman mythos by crafting his very own take on Bizzaro. It is here we get a new process from which he is created. But this is just a small touch on what he introduces as the cliffhanger of the adventure, Zibarro. 1 in every 5 billion copies is said to be flawed, and that is Zibarro. The Bizzaro who isn't backwards. It is in Zibarro that we see just how Superman sees the world. Zibbaro wants to leave his planet but Superman is adamant on him staying. It is ultimately because Zibarro is hope for the Bizzaro home to be something more than it is. This all leads into the third story in this volume. Which is the Curse of the Replacement supermen. It is during this chapter we get one of my favorite lines of all time That I think sums up how to truly write what defines Superman the most "What right do I have to impose my values on anyone?" It so acutely defines why Superman is a universal hero. Its at this juncture that the subject of All-Star Superman, by merit of it's own writing, becomes clear: to clearly define Superman as the hero he truly is.
In chapter 10, we get Clark writing his last Will and Testament but he's doing it as Superman for the world. We are also given a look into all of what Superman can do in just a single day. It's quite remarkable especially considering how much we AREN'T seeing. This is a Superman. He slows himself down so that he can enjoy life with everyone else. It is at this juncture that Superman's mortality seems to be weighing down on him, we are seeing him fall to mortality and know that it is happening, and because he knows it is happening he is working harder than ever to accomplish everything he can. And it is in the last few pages of this chapter that we see what Clark came up with for his own legacy. He leaves Lois the future as he says, which when you read it you'll understand. But more importantly he leaves Clark Kent something. "The Headline of the Century" remember how I mentioned that there was doubt about Superman's fate because Clark Kent wrote the article? This is why. He did it so that Clark Kent would remain separate from Superman. So that the Legacy of Superman would remain for all of the world to see. For all of time to see.
As we hurdle towards our conclusion, we get chapter 11, Red Sun Day. It is here a villain of the silver age is brought out to play, the Red Sun Tyrant. Superman is forced to combat the challenges of fighting a literal Red Sun and to do so he brings on an ally that Grant Morrison has been building up since Issue 2. The Sun Eater. I don't want to spoil the fight because it isn't necessary to, but I will say it is a satisfactory conclusion.
I like to lump half of issue 11 and all of 12 together. This is major spoilers territory if anything would be here so I'm warning you now.
Lex proves his intellect and builds himself Superman's elixir. And with it survives his scheduled execution and instead has given himself the temporary powers of Superman. And he attacks the daily planet just as Clark Kent keels over dead. Same deal as above with this fight but I do want to say it defines why Lex is Lex and why Clark is Clark and how the two are forever different from each other. But Clark does get in his one final feat Super-Heroism. And in the closing pages we see that this has all been building towards a single future.
All-Star Superman is expertly written. Grant Morrison has the skill and knowledge on how to plan and plot an entire 12 issue maxi-series down to the smallest details before he writes the first script. How do I know this? I just reread in a 3 hour long session, both volumes of All-Star Superman. He does things with purpose. They appear to be fairly silly things, out there things, things not meant for more than just a laugh. But as I've done above, his work is meant to be taken as more than is overt. Grant Morrison assumes his readers are Smarter than most give them credit for. He assumes we are smart people who can dissect this on our own without acting like he doesn't know what he's doing. It isn't to say that he can't write a bad story, simply that when you call into question something he writes it is better to look at it with a deeper introspection than you would something else. He writes Graphic-Novels. Key word is Novels because this is as literary as they come. A high concept piece designed to examine every inch of who Superman is. And I agree with Mark Waid(writer of Kingdom Come)'s introduction to the series, this is the definitive Superman story. And I mean that as exactly what those words are, they define who this character is. I'm not an art critic, and some might find Frank Quietly's art a little off putting, but his ability to craft a page and convey emotion is masterful here.
I'd highly suggestion checking out the links I provide below. They offer some background info on the series in a ten part discussion of All-Star. I should also say that most Grant Morrison stories have bonus material on the internet like All-Star here that you can really dig deep into seeing, yeah Grant is a genius level writer. Reading his material will cost you a lot of sanity, but you'll more than make up for it in the knowledge points you'll gain.
To summarize, I love this story. I tend to love Grant Morrison stories once I give them a full on enjoyment like I did here. Morrison is the kind of man who should have his entire library of material collected with companion volumes of his explanations. Sure the text stands on its own, but with everything else it becomes this hyper-real collection of knowledge on a given subject. I for one can't wait for the day when his Batman run is completed so that I can hold the entire story together on my shelf. If it wasn't clear yet, this is an absolute A+ on comics. a 10. a 5/5. a 100. Any way you have to say perfect this is it. Now I get to feel sad as I go back to reading normal world material.
References:
All-Star Superman(printed as 1-12, reprinted as vol 1 and 2, and reprinted again as Absolute All-Star Superman).
And
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100821-All-Star-Morrison-01.html
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100822-Morrison-All-Star2.html
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100823-Morrison-Superman3.html
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100824-Morrison4-Superman.html
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100827-Morrison-Superman-05.html
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100828-Morrison-Superman6.html
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100829-Morrison-Superman7.html
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100830-Morrison-Superman8.html
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100831-Morrison-Superman8.html
*note, yes this is the 9th article. even though it says 8, the date there in the middle confirms its a different page.
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/110803-Grant-Superman-10.html
I will be delving into spoilers but the point of the matter is that All-Star Superman is worth your time to look at, and if you are reading in the 2 volume format, read both as it is a 12 issue story.
The basic, running arc is a simple one. Superman, after performing an act set up by Lex Luthor, is dying. And as such he goes about checking things off his bucket list which include a list of 12 herculean style feats and the first thing he sets out to do is tell Lois and everything spins out from there.
The important thing to note is that this is a story where Clark has been granted near unbeatable status because he traveled through a sun for too long. This increased exposure of sunlight overclocked Superman. So overclocked that he is dying. It has also granted him powers that are back to his pre-crisis status. but much like Lois in chapter 3(during which a much forgotten ability to gift his own powers temporarily is revived, and thus as a birthday gift, Lois is granted the powers of Superman for 24 hours) these newfound super-super powers are temporary. What is really interesting is that Morrison uses this chapter explore a story that is a mirror to Clark's new ongoing plight. Repeatedly during this struggle he is reminded that sometimes he is powerless and that no matter what he does at the end of the day(or in his case the series) he too is limited.
Now it is during the third chapter that the trials are declared by Sampson as being 12 super challenges that Superman accomplishes right before he dies. It implies heavily that he has already completed one of them by granting Lois his powers. Now the question has been posed to me that if Clark could hand out his powers at anytime, why didn't he. I'd like to say the answer is fairly obvious but I'll spell it out anyways. Firstly, it was a recent decision that made it a goal for him to even be able to do such a thing. It had never been necessary for Superman to perform such feat. As to why he would do it here and for Lois seemed rather clear as well, that Superman wanted her to understand how he felt, and that he knew she too would like to feel that as well. In short, until he was dying, he never thought it necessary to even try and duplicate his own powers. And as the series progresses we see both the good and bad ramifications of such an action. It would later be confirmed by Grant Morrison to be the second of the 12 superman labors, Alchemizing the Super Elixir. See the second entry of the article I link to at the end for a complete span of the labors.
I would like to take this time now, since I devoted so many words to a argue against an opinion of an element that was considered to be not truthful to the mythos of Superman and point out a small moment(well sort of small) that shows just how perfectly Grant Morrison handles Superman. In issue 3, Clark continues a trend from the previous issue where for the first time in their relationship Clark gets to be Clark. Not the Clark persona, not The Superman persona, but Clark Kent, man who is also Superman. He gets to be truly honest with Lois. He doesn't have to fake anything, and yet that's all he's trying to do. He's a hybrid of the two characters, he's both the savior of mankind and a bumbling love-sick puppy. In truly human moments hes trying to muster up all of the courage in him and try and win Lois' heart as himself, not as Clark, not as The Superman, the symbol Lois worships, but as himself. And in doing so he has to compete for her love but this leads him to a confrontation with The Ultra Sphinx. And suddenly these two unbeatable foes come to a head and they must fight for Lois's life. But it isn't a physical battle it is a match of wits. The US asks Clark a simple question "What happens when the unstoppable force meets the unmovable object" Clark takes a moment to figure it out but in a very thoughtful moment he figures it out and he understands why the question is so relevant that he answers as he would in that situation, as he does in that situation. He answers simply that "They Surrender".
Clark knew that the Sphinx wasn't asking a riddle but a practical question regarding himself and Clark. It is a moment that shows just how smart and strong of character Clark is. It's also a reminder that the best times that the character is used is when he isn't smashing something, its when he's being clever.
There are also little details that bring the ending into question, whether or not Superman will really die. For starters he's Superman. Superman doesn't die(except that time he did...) but the most interesting red herring is a newspaper clipping from the future that says SUPERMAN DEAD. Of course, you are meant to look at the fact that Superman is dead, but if you carefully you'll notice the newspaper says that the article was written by none other than Clark Kent...
As the all-star adventure continues we get a further examination of who Superman is. We get a black kryptonite Superman(that's an evil Superman) and a Jimmy Olsen transformed into a Jimmy/doomsday creature. But really it is an examination of who Superman ISN'T. It is a fantastic deconstruction of just who Superman IS. This is continued in the plot with a visit to Lex Luthor. From the very first moment of the interaction between Lex Luthor and the Clark Kent persona we see Clark both being bumbling but at the same time still doing the right thing, even if it looks like it was purely by accident. Their discussion is both homoerotic and also the true epic conflict between Superman and Lex boiled down to a conversation. It is the real power of wit to demonstrate what could have been a simple conflict and give it meaning and depth by being about substance, not spectacle. There is also some fun moments of Clark who is Superman, trying to hide his identity as superman from Lex and Parasite. The whole ordeal is a reminder that no matter how smart Lex Luthor may be, he's never been smart enough to figure out that Clark Kent is Superman.
And to close out the first volume we get the meeting of the supermen. This is a reminder of The Death and Life of Superman story where 4 supermen arrived to take Clark's place after he died, though they weren't Superman. One came from another dimension, one came from a robot, one was a robot, and one was just a man who believed he had been possessed by the soul of superman. Here we have the Superman Squad, a team of supermen who are descendants of Superman from throughout time. Well and one very important fellow in Bandages. What this chapter really is, is an exploration of Superman's legacy as a character and to show that he has gone through a very specific and definite change over the course of his life. That Clark as a youngster isn't the same as Clark as an adult. Nor that Clark as a dying man is the same as the others.
As the second volume opens we get a look a Bizzaro Superman story. Now I want to say, knowing Grant Morrison, I was expecting something truly mind-blowing, but I wasn't ready for what I read. I feel like this is the real place where Morrison puts his touch of taste on the Superman mythos by crafting his very own take on Bizzaro. It is here we get a new process from which he is created. But this is just a small touch on what he introduces as the cliffhanger of the adventure, Zibarro. 1 in every 5 billion copies is said to be flawed, and that is Zibarro. The Bizzaro who isn't backwards. It is in Zibarro that we see just how Superman sees the world. Zibbaro wants to leave his planet but Superman is adamant on him staying. It is ultimately because Zibarro is hope for the Bizzaro home to be something more than it is. This all leads into the third story in this volume. Which is the Curse of the Replacement supermen. It is during this chapter we get one of my favorite lines of all time That I think sums up how to truly write what defines Superman the most "What right do I have to impose my values on anyone?" It so acutely defines why Superman is a universal hero. Its at this juncture that the subject of All-Star Superman, by merit of it's own writing, becomes clear: to clearly define Superman as the hero he truly is.
In chapter 10, we get Clark writing his last Will and Testament but he's doing it as Superman for the world. We are also given a look into all of what Superman can do in just a single day. It's quite remarkable especially considering how much we AREN'T seeing. This is a Superman. He slows himself down so that he can enjoy life with everyone else. It is at this juncture that Superman's mortality seems to be weighing down on him, we are seeing him fall to mortality and know that it is happening, and because he knows it is happening he is working harder than ever to accomplish everything he can. And it is in the last few pages of this chapter that we see what Clark came up with for his own legacy. He leaves Lois the future as he says, which when you read it you'll understand. But more importantly he leaves Clark Kent something. "The Headline of the Century" remember how I mentioned that there was doubt about Superman's fate because Clark Kent wrote the article? This is why. He did it so that Clark Kent would remain separate from Superman. So that the Legacy of Superman would remain for all of the world to see. For all of time to see.
As we hurdle towards our conclusion, we get chapter 11, Red Sun Day. It is here a villain of the silver age is brought out to play, the Red Sun Tyrant. Superman is forced to combat the challenges of fighting a literal Red Sun and to do so he brings on an ally that Grant Morrison has been building up since Issue 2. The Sun Eater. I don't want to spoil the fight because it isn't necessary to, but I will say it is a satisfactory conclusion.
I like to lump half of issue 11 and all of 12 together. This is major spoilers territory if anything would be here so I'm warning you now.
Lex proves his intellect and builds himself Superman's elixir. And with it survives his scheduled execution and instead has given himself the temporary powers of Superman. And he attacks the daily planet just as Clark Kent keels over dead. Same deal as above with this fight but I do want to say it defines why Lex is Lex and why Clark is Clark and how the two are forever different from each other. But Clark does get in his one final feat Super-Heroism. And in the closing pages we see that this has all been building towards a single future.
All-Star Superman is expertly written. Grant Morrison has the skill and knowledge on how to plan and plot an entire 12 issue maxi-series down to the smallest details before he writes the first script. How do I know this? I just reread in a 3 hour long session, both volumes of All-Star Superman. He does things with purpose. They appear to be fairly silly things, out there things, things not meant for more than just a laugh. But as I've done above, his work is meant to be taken as more than is overt. Grant Morrison assumes his readers are Smarter than most give them credit for. He assumes we are smart people who can dissect this on our own without acting like he doesn't know what he's doing. It isn't to say that he can't write a bad story, simply that when you call into question something he writes it is better to look at it with a deeper introspection than you would something else. He writes Graphic-Novels. Key word is Novels because this is as literary as they come. A high concept piece designed to examine every inch of who Superman is. And I agree with Mark Waid(writer of Kingdom Come)'s introduction to the series, this is the definitive Superman story. And I mean that as exactly what those words are, they define who this character is. I'm not an art critic, and some might find Frank Quietly's art a little off putting, but his ability to craft a page and convey emotion is masterful here.
I'd highly suggestion checking out the links I provide below. They offer some background info on the series in a ten part discussion of All-Star. I should also say that most Grant Morrison stories have bonus material on the internet like All-Star here that you can really dig deep into seeing, yeah Grant is a genius level writer. Reading his material will cost you a lot of sanity, but you'll more than make up for it in the knowledge points you'll gain.
To summarize, I love this story. I tend to love Grant Morrison stories once I give them a full on enjoyment like I did here. Morrison is the kind of man who should have his entire library of material collected with companion volumes of his explanations. Sure the text stands on its own, but with everything else it becomes this hyper-real collection of knowledge on a given subject. I for one can't wait for the day when his Batman run is completed so that I can hold the entire story together on my shelf. If it wasn't clear yet, this is an absolute A+ on comics. a 10. a 5/5. a 100. Any way you have to say perfect this is it. Now I get to feel sad as I go back to reading normal world material.
References:
All-Star Superman(printed as 1-12, reprinted as vol 1 and 2, and reprinted again as Absolute All-Star Superman).
And
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100821-All-Star-Morrison-01.html
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100822-Morrison-All-Star2.html
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100823-Morrison-Superman3.html
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100824-Morrison4-Superman.html
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100827-Morrison-Superman-05.html
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100828-Morrison-Superman6.html
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100829-Morrison-Superman7.html
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100830-Morrison-Superman8.html
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100831-Morrison-Superman8.html
*note, yes this is the 9th article. even though it says 8, the date there in the middle confirms its a different page.
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/110803-Grant-Superman-10.html
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Its a romantic comedy, no seriously its good. - a review of RED
To start off I'm going to preface this by saying I will be talking about spoilers and also a quick note.
This movie is absolutely a watch, go see it. Worth your time.
spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
Spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
It's a romantic comedy between Mary Louise Parker and John McClain, I mean Bruce Willis. No seriously. It's a really good movie, but this is such a take a date to this movie kind of event. No joke, there are two major couples and the dates will swoon or at least good d'awwww.
So the movie starts with Bruce Willis going about his day. We see he's got some weird eccentricities. Then he calls in to report that his pension check hasn't been received. when he's clearly holding it. Based on him and the operator's familiarity, he's been doing this for a while. We quickly learn its because he likes her, and hey it's Mary Louise Parker, what's not to like?
Bruce says he'll be in her city soon and she tells him to call her when he gets in town, this goes awry when he's attacked and pulled into a cycle of conspiracy that results in him kidnapping her, visiting Morgan Freeman, John Malckovich and Helen Miren. You also get Karl Urban as the man hunting Bruce Willis down with a bit part as Vice President by Doctor Doom, I mean Julian Mcmahom(or however his named is spelled).
We get this pretty fun journey of Bruce's to find out why he's being hunted and at the same time he unravels a conspiracy. Sounds kind of typical for an action/spy movie huh? well it is. That plot is pretty flimsy and its the other things like the love story angle, and these characters who feel like they were friends getting back together. And you'll feel it too. This movie has so many stars and appearences by actors from the past you will feel like you are seeing some old friends come together for the first time in a while. And I really feel these guys as friends. They do a good job of taking what could have been some unlikable hit-men and women and made them super likable and then they put great actors and actresses in the roles to further that goal. The players here are really strong actually. This is one of those movies where the plot is cliche enough but not too cliche that you'll get some enjoyment out of it even if you don't like the other stuff. It is enough to keep even the fickle and elitist(like myself) at bay for the running time. The acting is filled to the cup's brim that you fall in love with these people. All of the principals are giving great performances, with Mary Louise Parker stealing the show most of the time. There is one point where Karl Urban(who gets a great entrance by the way of talking on the phone to his family, and then killing a man, and then continuing as normal), is fighting Bruce Willis. The fight is roaring. It's a great fight. You even have Back in the Saddle playing at a great moment. And then it cuts away to MLP sitting in a lounge trying to not act suspicious, but she just looks surprised and if you pay close attention you'll notice she's reading Forbes magazine. Upside down. It is this two second shot that fits perfectly but is also acted so well that its comic gold.
This is a movie that is going to be well liked because much like the other great indy comic movies this year, Kick-Ass, Scott Pilgrim, you have great action, great comedy, and a strong love story. If you like action comedies, this was the comic year for you. This movie will fill a different kind of void that the other two didn't fill which is one that appeals to an older generation. It has all of the witty dialogue, the smart action, and the entertaining world of SP and KA, but it also has that old friend feel.
I don't want to rate this movie, because I can't quite settle on a score. But I'd say at the worst, it's a B+ at it's best its an A-. I don't have a middle ground so it's a A-/B+. So if you don't have Buried playing near you this weekend, or if you just aren't in the mood for a dark movie like that and need something fun and light hearted, this is the movie for you.
Also they kill the black guy. I told you there be spoilers in here.
This movie is absolutely a watch, go see it. Worth your time.
spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
Spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
It's a romantic comedy between Mary Louise Parker and John McClain, I mean Bruce Willis. No seriously. It's a really good movie, but this is such a take a date to this movie kind of event. No joke, there are two major couples and the dates will swoon or at least good d'awwww.
So the movie starts with Bruce Willis going about his day. We see he's got some weird eccentricities. Then he calls in to report that his pension check hasn't been received. when he's clearly holding it. Based on him and the operator's familiarity, he's been doing this for a while. We quickly learn its because he likes her, and hey it's Mary Louise Parker, what's not to like?
Bruce says he'll be in her city soon and she tells him to call her when he gets in town, this goes awry when he's attacked and pulled into a cycle of conspiracy that results in him kidnapping her, visiting Morgan Freeman, John Malckovich and Helen Miren. You also get Karl Urban as the man hunting Bruce Willis down with a bit part as Vice President by Doctor Doom, I mean Julian Mcmahom(or however his named is spelled).
We get this pretty fun journey of Bruce's to find out why he's being hunted and at the same time he unravels a conspiracy. Sounds kind of typical for an action/spy movie huh? well it is. That plot is pretty flimsy and its the other things like the love story angle, and these characters who feel like they were friends getting back together. And you'll feel it too. This movie has so many stars and appearences by actors from the past you will feel like you are seeing some old friends come together for the first time in a while. And I really feel these guys as friends. They do a good job of taking what could have been some unlikable hit-men and women and made them super likable and then they put great actors and actresses in the roles to further that goal. The players here are really strong actually. This is one of those movies where the plot is cliche enough but not too cliche that you'll get some enjoyment out of it even if you don't like the other stuff. It is enough to keep even the fickle and elitist(like myself) at bay for the running time. The acting is filled to the cup's brim that you fall in love with these people. All of the principals are giving great performances, with Mary Louise Parker stealing the show most of the time. There is one point where Karl Urban(who gets a great entrance by the way of talking on the phone to his family, and then killing a man, and then continuing as normal), is fighting Bruce Willis. The fight is roaring. It's a great fight. You even have Back in the Saddle playing at a great moment. And then it cuts away to MLP sitting in a lounge trying to not act suspicious, but she just looks surprised and if you pay close attention you'll notice she's reading Forbes magazine. Upside down. It is this two second shot that fits perfectly but is also acted so well that its comic gold.
This is a movie that is going to be well liked because much like the other great indy comic movies this year, Kick-Ass, Scott Pilgrim, you have great action, great comedy, and a strong love story. If you like action comedies, this was the comic year for you. This movie will fill a different kind of void that the other two didn't fill which is one that appeals to an older generation. It has all of the witty dialogue, the smart action, and the entertaining world of SP and KA, but it also has that old friend feel.
I don't want to rate this movie, because I can't quite settle on a score. But I'd say at the worst, it's a B+ at it's best its an A-. I don't have a middle ground so it's a A-/B+. So if you don't have Buried playing near you this weekend, or if you just aren't in the mood for a dark movie like that and need something fun and light hearted, this is the movie for you.
Also they kill the black guy. I told you there be spoilers in here.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
A worthy sucsessor to the Batman Franchise -- a review of Batman:Under the Red Hood
This voice of the Joker is strange but it kind of works. It's a new, third major take on the joker.
The Joker's beating of Jason Todd is really disturbing and it really works.
Ra's Al Ghul's early appearance is really nifty and enjoyable.
"I should teach you some manners...nah I'm just going to keep beating you with this crow bar."
I love it. This is by and far one of the best intros to a DC animated movie ever. and the love and care of this story is brilliant.
The characterization here by the voice actors in conjunction with the animation is really superb.
That intro 5 minute sequence is by and far the king of DC animated work.
It takes all of about 3 minutes to make the red hood appear as both a credible threat nad an interesting villain/
It's called Amaze-o. He looks like Namor. It makes me laugh.
The inclusion of Nightwing is an important one. It's setting up some good parallel's between Jason and Dick.
Unfortunately it is offset by the fact that random thugs know he's the first Robin. What. The Hell. Alright first point down.
The brutality here is impressive. They say he(the robot Amaze-O) has the same weak points as a human, so Nightwing stabs hin in the ears. Hardcorestyle.
Nightwing feels like a Robin here. He has an opinion and acts like a Robin but a little older. His characterization is better than it was in the animated series.
And The Red Hood comes out swinging. Continuing to prove himself a credible threat. The film also keeps mentioning Black Mask but we haven't seen him yet. I'd have liked that established since his presence in the animated series was never known and therefore he isn't quite as big of a villain as others such as Two-Face...I.E. if you don't read comics, you've never heard of him.
And a nifty flashback to the original Red Hood, Joker. That is quite interesting.
This is a great time to mention that I love the character work going on with Jensen Ackles, the Red Hood's voice actor. He hits the beats just right and he makes a fine addition to the DCU voice actors.
I also just realized it's Neil Patrick Harris as Nightwing. Which is a credit to NPH's work here.
This further introduction to Black Mask is a success. Which seems to be a theme for this film.
The mixture of different time period costumes in the flashbacks and the structure of the story is really well done.
Once the Black Mask kicks into gear and attacks the Red Hoods territory, the Red Hood switches into the awesome gear and proves his mantle as a compelling character. Also, a guy is burned alive.
Dare I say it? They made The Red Hood likable. It's insane. I approve. I'd argue it's his humor. He feels more like an evil Dick Grayson, and he actually acts the way Dick would if he had gone through it, still having that spirit there, but ultimately fallen.
And something I really apperciate, that keeps this animated film feeling like a film is establishing shots and just shots of the environments like bats on the ceiling of the bat cave even though Bruce is reading on the computer.
The actors playing the Black Mask's henchmen have no emotion and they fail pretty badly. And then there is Black Mask who is chewing up the scenery.
"I have to deal with a psychotic" "That doesn't sound good sir." On paper this could have sounded really flat but here it works for a chuckle the amount of chuckle that should be in a Batman story.
I feel like the key element to a Batman story is that they are dark, dank, and depressing offset by small moments of levity or a Robin. But that is a discussion for a later day, aka why Batman needs Robin.
A great little use of the Joker is that the villain's here all think of the Joker as a weapon and he is clearly smarter and craftier than any of them. It's very smart on the part of Judd Winnick, the writer.
"I need some guys. [pause]. Not these guys because they are kind of dead."
A) They pronounced Ra's Al Ghul right! B) Great characterization here again.
I really don't want to spoil the third act anymore than I have to but let's just say the movie doesn't let up and might be the best DCU animated movie(I'll amend this later tonight after I finish watching all of them).
Absolutely an A. Not quite perfect, but like Gotham Knight, something I would gladly hold onto in my collection.
And then One with the Crowbar!
Party Pooper, No kick for you.
The Joker's beating of Jason Todd is really disturbing and it really works.
Ra's Al Ghul's early appearance is really nifty and enjoyable.
"I should teach you some manners...nah I'm just going to keep beating you with this crow bar."
I love it. This is by and far one of the best intros to a DC animated movie ever. and the love and care of this story is brilliant.
The characterization here by the voice actors in conjunction with the animation is really superb.
That intro 5 minute sequence is by and far the king of DC animated work.
It takes all of about 3 minutes to make the red hood appear as both a credible threat nad an interesting villain/
It's called Amaze-o. He looks like Namor. It makes me laugh.
The inclusion of Nightwing is an important one. It's setting up some good parallel's between Jason and Dick.
Unfortunately it is offset by the fact that random thugs know he's the first Robin. What. The Hell. Alright first point down.
The brutality here is impressive. They say he(the robot Amaze-O) has the same weak points as a human, so Nightwing stabs hin in the ears. Hardcorestyle.
Nightwing feels like a Robin here. He has an opinion and acts like a Robin but a little older. His characterization is better than it was in the animated series.
And The Red Hood comes out swinging. Continuing to prove himself a credible threat. The film also keeps mentioning Black Mask but we haven't seen him yet. I'd have liked that established since his presence in the animated series was never known and therefore he isn't quite as big of a villain as others such as Two-Face...I.E. if you don't read comics, you've never heard of him.
And a nifty flashback to the original Red Hood, Joker. That is quite interesting.
This is a great time to mention that I love the character work going on with Jensen Ackles, the Red Hood's voice actor. He hits the beats just right and he makes a fine addition to the DCU voice actors.
I also just realized it's Neil Patrick Harris as Nightwing. Which is a credit to NPH's work here.
This further introduction to Black Mask is a success. Which seems to be a theme for this film.
The mixture of different time period costumes in the flashbacks and the structure of the story is really well done.
Once the Black Mask kicks into gear and attacks the Red Hoods territory, the Red Hood switches into the awesome gear and proves his mantle as a compelling character. Also, a guy is burned alive.
Dare I say it? They made The Red Hood likable. It's insane. I approve. I'd argue it's his humor. He feels more like an evil Dick Grayson, and he actually acts the way Dick would if he had gone through it, still having that spirit there, but ultimately fallen.
And something I really apperciate, that keeps this animated film feeling like a film is establishing shots and just shots of the environments like bats on the ceiling of the bat cave even though Bruce is reading on the computer.
The actors playing the Black Mask's henchmen have no emotion and they fail pretty badly. And then there is Black Mask who is chewing up the scenery.
"I have to deal with a psychotic" "That doesn't sound good sir." On paper this could have sounded really flat but here it works for a chuckle the amount of chuckle that should be in a Batman story.
I feel like the key element to a Batman story is that they are dark, dank, and depressing offset by small moments of levity or a Robin. But that is a discussion for a later day, aka why Batman needs Robin.
A great little use of the Joker is that the villain's here all think of the Joker as a weapon and he is clearly smarter and craftier than any of them. It's very smart on the part of Judd Winnick, the writer.
"I need some guys. [pause]. Not these guys because they are kind of dead."
A) They pronounced Ra's Al Ghul right! B) Great characterization here again.
I really don't want to spoil the third act anymore than I have to but let's just say the movie doesn't let up and might be the best DCU animated movie(I'll amend this later tonight after I finish watching all of them).
Absolutely an A. Not quite perfect, but like Gotham Knight, something I would gladly hold onto in my collection.
And then One with the Crowbar!
Party Pooper, No kick for you.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
A loveable Bunch with a forgettable plot - A review of the Losers
This is going to be pretty quick. As a blu ray, the audio and video were high quality but the features were just kind of Meh.
The movie itself however is a lot like Sherlock Holmes. I say this in that I really like the casting and the acting. In this case Jeffery Dean Morgan and Chris Evans shine like the truly under utilized stars they are. The rest of the cast are all very charming and have a great team dynamic. I found most of the humor of this team to be really strong and the villain had some really comedic moments.
The plot leaves something to be desired. It's a variation on the A-Team plot and is overall just bouncing from action set piece to action set piece. The final overall conflict wasn't something to write home about. In fact in general the action won't wow you, but you will be entertained.
What this movie has that puts it in the same category as Sherlock Holmes is that I want sequels. I want these guys to be playing off each other in other categories of action. I want to see bigger movies with these characters in it. I want some of the other guys to get character development and I want future storylines to take from the comics too. Give these guys the Losers 2 and I think they will have a solid movie. You can watch this movie and you'll have a good night.
I'd give this movie a Solid B-. The plot is forgettable but the characters are strong for an action movie. I'd put this film on par with Die Hard 2-4.
The movie itself however is a lot like Sherlock Holmes. I say this in that I really like the casting and the acting. In this case Jeffery Dean Morgan and Chris Evans shine like the truly under utilized stars they are. The rest of the cast are all very charming and have a great team dynamic. I found most of the humor of this team to be really strong and the villain had some really comedic moments.
The plot leaves something to be desired. It's a variation on the A-Team plot and is overall just bouncing from action set piece to action set piece. The final overall conflict wasn't something to write home about. In fact in general the action won't wow you, but you will be entertained.
What this movie has that puts it in the same category as Sherlock Holmes is that I want sequels. I want these guys to be playing off each other in other categories of action. I want to see bigger movies with these characters in it. I want some of the other guys to get character development and I want future storylines to take from the comics too. Give these guys the Losers 2 and I think they will have a solid movie. You can watch this movie and you'll have a good night.
I'd give this movie a Solid B-. The plot is forgettable but the characters are strong for an action movie. I'd put this film on par with Die Hard 2-4.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Innocence Lost - a review of Let Me In
I need to preface this really hardcore style, I am 100 percent biased against this movie, I went in looking for flaws, looking to be disappointed because I love love love the original. It is one of my favorite films of all time(number four actually as I posted recently). I didn't hate this movie.
That doesn't mean I loved this movie, but I didn't hate it. It is a good movie, but it is a remake which inevitability and in this case immediately draws comparison to its original. The additions and subtractions work the same way the movie works. On the surface level this is the same film. Where the two films differ are the themes and I think that makes all the difference. In the original, the film was truly about Innocence. It really was a love developing there was nothing sinister to Eli, she did what she had to.
Now here is where I start spoiling the changes because in order to properly review this film I have to.
spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
In Let Me In however, Abby has a very real possibility of being evil. This film brings up the idea of evil over and over again. It specifically asks that question at one point. The way Abby treats others in this film is really curious. She is manipulative. She is slowly corrupting young Owen and her male protector is long since been there. In the film the nameless male protector has been changed to being what Owen would be become one day. The original presented the role as more of a fatherly role so the change is pretty jarring. It is also based out of the book which had more graphic bits than the original movie. And Overall Owens arc differs from Oskars because here Owens story arc is that of accepting evil into his life and into his heart. In fact, this is one of those movies where I could really see them creating a sequel explaining what they do next and things like the first time Owen kills for Abby and an extension of all of these themes. That could never happen with the original. The theme of innocence preserved in the original is the heart of Oskars story. For despite everything that goes on around Oskar, he is still a good person and he is still full of innocence. Everything he does rings of innocence. Let Me In on the other hand, takes Owen and has him fight that innocence. The first thing we see him do his a creation of his bully's torments(something he doesn't really continue with later, it just sort of drops off) but he also puts on a creepy mask, then with the mask still on he looks in on his neighbors including watching a pair start to have sex. This voyeurism puts Owen as older than Oskar. Oskar hadn't really gone through puberty yet. So his relationship with Eli was one of love and not of (potentially Sexuality, a trait often associated with the loss of innocence). Owens is constantly about the question of which is happening. It is less of a pure and innocent love and much more morally questionable especially with consideration to the new Abby. Abby is very lonely. She seems to have a cycle, she doesn't want to be alone so she finds a mate, that mate grows old and is going to die soon so she pursues a possible suitor that has presented himself as opposed to just ignoring the suitor. It is implied she doesn't really(possibly can't) love these men and is using them because she herself does not want to kill but needs the blood to live. She is overall a much more villainous character here than that of Eli who truly loves Oskar, and truly feels bad about the things she has to do. She is just as innocent as Oskar. But instead Writer/Director Matt Revees chose to change Abby into this other.
Some of the other changes that have been added for American audiences is that A) set in America, and that visual changes pulls away the sense of cold the original delivered. The bullies here are more viscous and frightening. They create a real sense of dread that really makes it understandable when they all die. The pool scene is similar but the extreme changes make it a lesser version of the original films. And lastly the violence and the blood are all exaggerated here because Americans love blood and gore. There are also some conversational additives clarifying some ambiguous things from the original. For the most part that's what this movie is doing. For better or worse, it is taking a stance on the ambiguous questions, it is answering them for you as opposed to letting you answer them. The American Way.
I can't fault him on his choices, just that he took a film and changed it so that it has a different meaning for a different culture. A good way to be a remake. I really want to watch him do some original work because his camera work and his script are both really solid.
You'll notice I didn't mention the acting. That's because it is as good as the original, and in quite a few spots better. The only parts that weren't better than the original was Eli/Abby. Don't get me wrong, Chloe Moretz is one of the greatest actresses of our generation and without question she is amazing. But there is something about the dichotomy of her two performances as both Girl and Vampire that just doesn't work for me. but that might be partially do to the terrible part of this movie...
Oh goddess the CGI in this movie is badly placed. It just looks wrong and like it is in the wrong movie. And it is really disappointing because if they hadn't included it, I could have honestly said there is nothing bad in this movie. There are things I disagree with but nothing bad. But yeah, the cgi doesn't work and is a total failure.
So how do I rate this movie? If I'm giving it a letter grade it is a A+-. It is on two levels both an A+ and an A- so it gets to be both. I don't recommend this movie as hard as I do Buried, but it's worth your time. More importantly if you haven't seen Let The Right One In, go see it. You owe it to yourself.
That doesn't mean I loved this movie, but I didn't hate it. It is a good movie, but it is a remake which inevitability and in this case immediately draws comparison to its original. The additions and subtractions work the same way the movie works. On the surface level this is the same film. Where the two films differ are the themes and I think that makes all the difference. In the original, the film was truly about Innocence. It really was a love developing there was nothing sinister to Eli, she did what she had to.
Now here is where I start spoiling the changes because in order to properly review this film I have to.
spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
spoilers
In Let Me In however, Abby has a very real possibility of being evil. This film brings up the idea of evil over and over again. It specifically asks that question at one point. The way Abby treats others in this film is really curious. She is manipulative. She is slowly corrupting young Owen and her male protector is long since been there. In the film the nameless male protector has been changed to being what Owen would be become one day. The original presented the role as more of a fatherly role so the change is pretty jarring. It is also based out of the book which had more graphic bits than the original movie. And Overall Owens arc differs from Oskars because here Owens story arc is that of accepting evil into his life and into his heart. In fact, this is one of those movies where I could really see them creating a sequel explaining what they do next and things like the first time Owen kills for Abby and an extension of all of these themes. That could never happen with the original. The theme of innocence preserved in the original is the heart of Oskars story. For despite everything that goes on around Oskar, he is still a good person and he is still full of innocence. Everything he does rings of innocence. Let Me In on the other hand, takes Owen and has him fight that innocence. The first thing we see him do his a creation of his bully's torments(something he doesn't really continue with later, it just sort of drops off) but he also puts on a creepy mask, then with the mask still on he looks in on his neighbors including watching a pair start to have sex. This voyeurism puts Owen as older than Oskar. Oskar hadn't really gone through puberty yet. So his relationship with Eli was one of love and not of (potentially Sexuality, a trait often associated with the loss of innocence). Owens is constantly about the question of which is happening. It is less of a pure and innocent love and much more morally questionable especially with consideration to the new Abby. Abby is very lonely. She seems to have a cycle, she doesn't want to be alone so she finds a mate, that mate grows old and is going to die soon so she pursues a possible suitor that has presented himself as opposed to just ignoring the suitor. It is implied she doesn't really(possibly can't) love these men and is using them because she herself does not want to kill but needs the blood to live. She is overall a much more villainous character here than that of Eli who truly loves Oskar, and truly feels bad about the things she has to do. She is just as innocent as Oskar. But instead Writer/Director Matt Revees chose to change Abby into this other.
Some of the other changes that have been added for American audiences is that A) set in America, and that visual changes pulls away the sense of cold the original delivered. The bullies here are more viscous and frightening. They create a real sense of dread that really makes it understandable when they all die. The pool scene is similar but the extreme changes make it a lesser version of the original films. And lastly the violence and the blood are all exaggerated here because Americans love blood and gore. There are also some conversational additives clarifying some ambiguous things from the original. For the most part that's what this movie is doing. For better or worse, it is taking a stance on the ambiguous questions, it is answering them for you as opposed to letting you answer them. The American Way.
I can't fault him on his choices, just that he took a film and changed it so that it has a different meaning for a different culture. A good way to be a remake. I really want to watch him do some original work because his camera work and his script are both really solid.
You'll notice I didn't mention the acting. That's because it is as good as the original, and in quite a few spots better. The only parts that weren't better than the original was Eli/Abby. Don't get me wrong, Chloe Moretz is one of the greatest actresses of our generation and without question she is amazing. But there is something about the dichotomy of her two performances as both Girl and Vampire that just doesn't work for me. but that might be partially do to the terrible part of this movie...
Oh goddess the CGI in this movie is badly placed. It just looks wrong and like it is in the wrong movie. And it is really disappointing because if they hadn't included it, I could have honestly said there is nothing bad in this movie. There are things I disagree with but nothing bad. But yeah, the cgi doesn't work and is a total failure.
So how do I rate this movie? If I'm giving it a letter grade it is a A+-. It is on two levels both an A+ and an A- so it gets to be both. I don't recommend this movie as hard as I do Buried, but it's worth your time. More importantly if you haven't seen Let The Right One In, go see it. You owe it to yourself.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Fall 2010 roundup
Boardwalk Empire
-Perfect. Watch it.
Walking Dead
-Perfect. Watch it.
No Ordinary Family
-great pilot with high chance of being a good ongoing, worth watching.
Hawaii 5-0
-Mediocre pilot. Potentially good series, but as it is, just another run of the mill cop show. But with water. It might as well be called Aqua Cop.
Outlaw
-Lame pilot, but Jimmy Smitts was charming enough to check out the second episode. Which as it turns out is far better than the pilot. This series may have stumbled out the gates but it could easily pick up speed as it makes its way towards the finish line since this show is doomed for failure unfortunately.
Nikita
-Skip it. Run of the mill exploitative porn but without the sex and nudity.
Undercovers
-Way below average considering those involved.
The Event
-Intriguing but ultimately a lost clone.
Outsourced
-Really unfortunate considering the source material. It seriously had a really simple task at what it needed to do and it wasn't successful at all. It drained all of the heart and soul out of the movie and created a series that didn't hold up at all. Skip it.
-Perfect. Watch it.
Walking Dead
-Perfect. Watch it.
No Ordinary Family
-great pilot with high chance of being a good ongoing, worth watching.
Hawaii 5-0
-Mediocre pilot. Potentially good series, but as it is, just another run of the mill cop show. But with water. It might as well be called Aqua Cop.
Outlaw
-Lame pilot, but Jimmy Smitts was charming enough to check out the second episode. Which as it turns out is far better than the pilot. This series may have stumbled out the gates but it could easily pick up speed as it makes its way towards the finish line since this show is doomed for failure unfortunately.
Nikita
-Skip it. Run of the mill exploitative porn but without the sex and nudity.
Undercovers
-Way below average considering those involved.
The Event
-Intriguing but ultimately a lost clone.
Outsourced
-Really unfortunate considering the source material. It seriously had a really simple task at what it needed to do and it wasn't successful at all. It drained all of the heart and soul out of the movie and created a series that didn't hold up at all. Skip it.
Brainsss Brainssss? No, this game has no brains - a review of Dead Rising 2
Dead Rising 2
Crashed twice under no specific circumstances. It really is the weirdest thing, it just sometimes kinda craps out on you. my set up was optimum and I had most of the settings turned down. I've now rearranged it so that I can try it on lowest possible settings. It should be said that on lowest settings the visuals look terrible in the cut scenes, but the game play works fine. The acting in the game is pretty bad, and the story while starting out promising, is ultimately really disappointing. More so that even though this is Dead Rising 2, this is the first one PS3 and PC but it gives no explanation for the zombies. I'm sure that's the story of one, but since DR 1 isn't on PC or Ps3, I question even a data summary of the events.
The rough story is that Chuck is a father whose wife died in the initial outbreak. His daughter was infected but a daily treatment keeps her from changing. Chuck was fighting ina reality tv show that had people fighting zombies, gladiator style, and an accident happens. Chuck then escapes to a shelter and now is out to find medicine for his daughter as he has 3 days left until the military arrives. To make matters worse Chuck is blamed for the accident and he has to clear his name.
There are Zombies, greedy humans, Psycho humans, and all kinds of weapons here. If you are looking for a 3-D beat em up, with zombies, this is it. This is the answer to your question. It is fun, for a spell, but it does get old quick. You can figure out a lot of the story pretty quick and the game is short enough where you'll clear it in a day or two. The important facts are these. There is an rpg style leveling system that slowly makes you a bigger bad ass. You learn new weapon combos as time goes on and you solve new bits. The game is really repetitive, and I can't see this game holding someone who isn't a pure zombie enthusiast entertained for more than 2 weeks. But it isn't a pure loser.
Again, I'm running on the PC version, and I've had the game crash on me twice.
Some neat little features you might not have heard about:
When you die, you have the option to restart story mode but maintain your current level. This is really useful because you can grind through early parts to improve your skills for the harder bits.
There are boss fights, but they don't flat out call themselves boss fights. Many of them are optional and are otherwise like a super annoying enemies.
I believe(but haven't confirmed) that you can play through the whole game and not kill a single zombie.
The customizable weapons are cool.
The story, cut scenes, and acting are all terrible.
Ultimately my experience has been one that says this is at best a 6.1. Don't get me wrong, I want to own a copy on PS3 so that I don't have to worry about crashes but this game really isn't for everyone and really isn't a winner. It is better than the first one, but only marginally.
Passable, but you won't miss much if you choose to pass on playing it.
Crashed twice under no specific circumstances. It really is the weirdest thing, it just sometimes kinda craps out on you. my set up was optimum and I had most of the settings turned down. I've now rearranged it so that I can try it on lowest possible settings. It should be said that on lowest settings the visuals look terrible in the cut scenes, but the game play works fine. The acting in the game is pretty bad, and the story while starting out promising, is ultimately really disappointing. More so that even though this is Dead Rising 2, this is the first one PS3 and PC but it gives no explanation for the zombies. I'm sure that's the story of one, but since DR 1 isn't on PC or Ps3, I question even a data summary of the events.
The rough story is that Chuck is a father whose wife died in the initial outbreak. His daughter was infected but a daily treatment keeps her from changing. Chuck was fighting ina reality tv show that had people fighting zombies, gladiator style, and an accident happens. Chuck then escapes to a shelter and now is out to find medicine for his daughter as he has 3 days left until the military arrives. To make matters worse Chuck is blamed for the accident and he has to clear his name.
There are Zombies, greedy humans, Psycho humans, and all kinds of weapons here. If you are looking for a 3-D beat em up, with zombies, this is it. This is the answer to your question. It is fun, for a spell, but it does get old quick. You can figure out a lot of the story pretty quick and the game is short enough where you'll clear it in a day or two. The important facts are these. There is an rpg style leveling system that slowly makes you a bigger bad ass. You learn new weapon combos as time goes on and you solve new bits. The game is really repetitive, and I can't see this game holding someone who isn't a pure zombie enthusiast entertained for more than 2 weeks. But it isn't a pure loser.
Again, I'm running on the PC version, and I've had the game crash on me twice.
Some neat little features you might not have heard about:
When you die, you have the option to restart story mode but maintain your current level. This is really useful because you can grind through early parts to improve your skills for the harder bits.
There are boss fights, but they don't flat out call themselves boss fights. Many of them are optional and are otherwise like a super annoying enemies.
I believe(but haven't confirmed) that you can play through the whole game and not kill a single zombie.
The customizable weapons are cool.
The story, cut scenes, and acting are all terrible.
Ultimately my experience has been one that says this is at best a 6.1. Don't get me wrong, I want to own a copy on PS3 so that I don't have to worry about crashes but this game really isn't for everyone and really isn't a winner. It is better than the first one, but only marginally.
Passable, but you won't miss much if you choose to pass on playing it.
The funny kind of Formulaic- a review of Easy A
Review goes here.
in short: This is a formulaic movie, but it's pretty solid and funny and not at all a bad experience. Overall a B-.
in short: This is a formulaic movie, but it's pretty solid and funny and not at all a bad experience. Overall a B-.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Reaciton to Fiction: Why popcorn movies are ruining good movies
I hate the phrase "You are taking it too seriously."
Take it out of your lexicon. Because even if something is not meant to be taken seriously(Read: Shoot Em Up, Snakes on a Plane) they are still good and have tongue planted firmly in cheek.
Popcorn movies are crap like Avatar, The Last Airbender, Transformers 2.
So as of this writing, the top box office for the year were:
1 Toy Story 3
2 Alice in Wonderland (2010)
3 Iron Man 2
4 The Twilight Saga: Eclipse
5 Inception
6 Despicable Me
7 Shrek Forever After
8 How to Train Your Dragon
9 The Karate Kid
10 Clash of the Titans (2010)
11 Grown Ups
12 The Last Airbender
13 Shutter Island
14 Salt
15 The Other Guys
16 Valentine's Day
17 Robin Hood
18 The Expendables
19 Date Night
20 Sex and the City 2
21 The Book of Eli
22 Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
23 Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief
24 Dear John
25 Eat Pray Love
26 The A-Team
27 Knight & Day
28 Dinner for Schmucks
29 The Bounty Hunter
30 Diary of a Wimpy Kid
Now that's the top 30 movies this year so far.
So lets pull out the movies in there that are original and not critically panned.
5 Inception
6 Despicable Me
8 How to Train Your Dragon
13 Shutter Island
14 Salt
18 The Expendables
21 The Book of Eli
Now of those, Salt, Expendables, and book of Eli I thought were crap. But overall critics were divided on them, so I'll give them for this purpose.
That's umm.... well...That's really disappointing. In total, in the top 100 films thus far this year I counted 8 films that were original, I considered good.
In whole, of the top 100 films this year, include ones based on previous work(remake, adaptation, sequel, prequel) I found 20 movies to be good or watchable. 20. 1 in 5 movies that made more than a million dollars are worth watching. Why?
Because studios know you do the same thing they are doing. Your budget is tight, like everyone else, so you only put money into things you think are worth your time. Remakes, Sequels, adaptations. These are the things you want to see, so you see them. You don't risk yourself on original work. And if you do it's because its from someone acclaimed and known to be good.
We cause this to happen.
That's not true.
The economy caused this to happen.
But it's still an issue. We need to not do this. This is a problem.
Movies like Buried, Cyrus, Scott Pilgrim, Kick-Ass. the true gems of the year, get otherwise ignored because they aren't appealing to a wide audience. And this isn't new. Look at 2005. Serenity was easily the best movie that year. It came to much critical acclaim and many who had never seen the work it was based on thought it was great. I've never shown it to someone and NOT had them think it's great, including some very non geeks.But how much did this movie make? 10 million dollars. It crashed, and it crashed hard. I know because I saw it six times. five of those times was opening weekend. I've seen Scott Pilgrim twice. And it wasn't enough, Scott fell to the same problem. Scott Pilgrim is this year's Serenity. But it's falling has already been shown. Now what really hurts is that a great film like Buried will get ignored because people don't think it will be good. We get so much bad to mediocre films 4 out of 5, that we don't want to take a risk against something that doesn't look like it will be good. This isn't the good ol' days where I went to go see a terrible movie called Awake simply because there was nothing else to see that week. We don't live in a time of Seeing things because we can anymore. But back to point, studios see that you only go to 2 out of 5 films, maybe less. you only see on average, 5 films in theaters a year. They want to grab one of those five slots with their big movie. So I urge you that you, before going to the movies, consult either my site or a site like Rotten Tomatoes(better, both). I want you to see what the critics say. I want you to look at critics and find one you keep agreeing with. And then look for when the recommend a movie you thought didn't look like your style or you haven't heard of that they rave about. Like I am with Buried. I want you to do this and use one of your 5 movies on something outside of the box. To be honest, I'd prefer you wait on some of the bigger things like the remake of Nightmare on Elm street for hte home video release. That movie is already going to make money and there is no imperative to see it in theaters. But something like Buried demands to be seen in theaters and could use the support. Go out of your way for the next year, and only pay to see good movies. Help send a message to movie makers that we don't want recycled trash. We want this years District 9. We want this years Buried. We want amazing adaptions like The Dark Knight and Scott Pilgrim. Tell them with your dollar. Don't let the advertising trick you into seeing something. Let the critics, who've seen the film, tell you how it is. I thought Wall Street 2 looked like it could have been good, I was wrong. You need to just let it happen.
So see Buried, see Let Me in, see Red(well those last two after I've reviewed them and can say if they are good). Catch films like Drag Me to Hell and Let the Right One In. Films that do something for their genre. Look at Zombieland, now I am wail on it from time to time, but consider this: The movie was called a success.
So if I leave you with something it's this, just because its popular doesn't make it good. Too often what is considered financially successful is often watered down, lowest common denominator film and isn't worth your time and effort.
Take it out of your lexicon. Because even if something is not meant to be taken seriously(Read: Shoot Em Up, Snakes on a Plane) they are still good and have tongue planted firmly in cheek.
Popcorn movies are crap like Avatar, The Last Airbender, Transformers 2.
So as of this writing, the top box office for the year were:
1 Toy Story 3
2 Alice in Wonderland (2010)
3 Iron Man 2
4 The Twilight Saga: Eclipse
5 Inception
6 Despicable Me
7 Shrek Forever After
8 How to Train Your Dragon
9 The Karate Kid
10 Clash of the Titans (2010)
11 Grown Ups
12 The Last Airbender
13 Shutter Island
14 Salt
15 The Other Guys
16 Valentine's Day
17 Robin Hood
18 The Expendables
19 Date Night
20 Sex and the City 2
21 The Book of Eli
22 Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
23 Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief
24 Dear John
25 Eat Pray Love
26 The A-Team
27 Knight & Day
28 Dinner for Schmucks
29 The Bounty Hunter
30 Diary of a Wimpy Kid
Now that's the top 30 movies this year so far.
So lets pull out the movies in there that are original and not critically panned.
5 Inception
6 Despicable Me
8 How to Train Your Dragon
13 Shutter Island
14 Salt
18 The Expendables
21 The Book of Eli
Now of those, Salt, Expendables, and book of Eli I thought were crap. But overall critics were divided on them, so I'll give them for this purpose.
That's umm.... well...That's really disappointing. In total, in the top 100 films thus far this year I counted 8 films that were original, I considered good.
In whole, of the top 100 films this year, include ones based on previous work(remake, adaptation, sequel, prequel) I found 20 movies to be good or watchable. 20. 1 in 5 movies that made more than a million dollars are worth watching. Why?
Because studios know you do the same thing they are doing. Your budget is tight, like everyone else, so you only put money into things you think are worth your time. Remakes, Sequels, adaptations. These are the things you want to see, so you see them. You don't risk yourself on original work. And if you do it's because its from someone acclaimed and known to be good.
We cause this to happen.
That's not true.
The economy caused this to happen.
But it's still an issue. We need to not do this. This is a problem.
Movies like Buried, Cyrus, Scott Pilgrim, Kick-Ass. the true gems of the year, get otherwise ignored because they aren't appealing to a wide audience. And this isn't new. Look at 2005. Serenity was easily the best movie that year. It came to much critical acclaim and many who had never seen the work it was based on thought it was great. I've never shown it to someone and NOT had them think it's great, including some very non geeks.But how much did this movie make? 10 million dollars. It crashed, and it crashed hard. I know because I saw it six times. five of those times was opening weekend. I've seen Scott Pilgrim twice. And it wasn't enough, Scott fell to the same problem. Scott Pilgrim is this year's Serenity. But it's falling has already been shown. Now what really hurts is that a great film like Buried will get ignored because people don't think it will be good. We get so much bad to mediocre films 4 out of 5, that we don't want to take a risk against something that doesn't look like it will be good. This isn't the good ol' days where I went to go see a terrible movie called Awake simply because there was nothing else to see that week. We don't live in a time of Seeing things because we can anymore. But back to point, studios see that you only go to 2 out of 5 films, maybe less. you only see on average, 5 films in theaters a year. They want to grab one of those five slots with their big movie. So I urge you that you, before going to the movies, consult either my site or a site like Rotten Tomatoes(better, both). I want you to see what the critics say. I want you to look at critics and find one you keep agreeing with. And then look for when the recommend a movie you thought didn't look like your style or you haven't heard of that they rave about. Like I am with Buried. I want you to do this and use one of your 5 movies on something outside of the box. To be honest, I'd prefer you wait on some of the bigger things like the remake of Nightmare on Elm street for hte home video release. That movie is already going to make money and there is no imperative to see it in theaters. But something like Buried demands to be seen in theaters and could use the support. Go out of your way for the next year, and only pay to see good movies. Help send a message to movie makers that we don't want recycled trash. We want this years District 9. We want this years Buried. We want amazing adaptions like The Dark Knight and Scott Pilgrim. Tell them with your dollar. Don't let the advertising trick you into seeing something. Let the critics, who've seen the film, tell you how it is. I thought Wall Street 2 looked like it could have been good, I was wrong. You need to just let it happen.
So see Buried, see Let Me in, see Red(well those last two after I've reviewed them and can say if they are good). Catch films like Drag Me to Hell and Let the Right One In. Films that do something for their genre. Look at Zombieland, now I am wail on it from time to time, but consider this: The movie was called a success.
So if I leave you with something it's this, just because its popular doesn't make it good. Too often what is considered financially successful is often watered down, lowest common denominator film and isn't worth your time and effort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)