skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The fact that I am writing this review about 3 weeks prior to the official release, is both radical and unfortunate. Radical, because chances are, if you’re reading this, there needs to be no explaining how incredibly amped (understatement) I was for The Expendables 3. So to see it early is incredible to me. On the other hand, it’s really unfortunate that someone essentially sabotaged the film’s opening weekend. Who knows, maybe it won’t affect it too much. Maybe it will. I’m a theatre manager, and I am STILL going to buy a ticket just on principal alone.
Before I delve into the film, I would like to stress that we do not know what the final theatrical version will be. It could be the same exact cut that was leaked online, or it could be a more polished version of the film.
THE EXPENDABLES 3…
FUCK. ME. They finally fucking got it right. And that isn’t to say that I don’t love the first two films. Though, tonally, they were very unbalanced. The first film took itself a bit too seriously. Another issue I have with the film is the way it was shot in certain scenes. A little too frenetic (and I don’t mean in a good way). Then you get to The Expendables 2, and it was a bit too cheesy. One-liners and nudges are fine, but to an extent. Also, the film looked really cheap in select scenes. Digital zooms distorting the film quality, sub-par CGI, etc. The Expendables 3 rectifies almost every issue from the previous films.
Obviously, the cast is the bread and butter of these films. And with each installment, they get exponentially more impressive! But Expendables 3 slays all. I’m still hazy from seeing Sylvester Stallone, Mel Gibson, Dolph Lundgren, Harrison Ford and Arnold Schwarzenegger in a film together. And the additions of Antonio Banderas and Wesley Snipes? All other films being released this year, fuck off.
There are quite a few scene-stealers in the film as well. We’ll bang out the biggest one, and that is Antonio Banderas. I made a prediction based on the trailers that he would in fact, steal the movie, and he did. He’s fucking hilarious in the film. The Expendables films have always struggled with humor. It’s either guilty-pleasure corny or just plain bad. It’s never genuinely FUNNY. Banderas is genuinely fucking hilarious. Not one joke is flat and his delivery and comic timing are spot-on. He’s also fantastic in all of the action sequences as well. They also provide a decent backstory for him as well.
Another casting decision that paid off very well was… Kelsey Grammer. When he was cast, the entire internet scratched their head in unison. As did I. No, he’s not an “action guy” (despite him being in X-Men AND Transformers). But the role that he played didn’t call for him to be an “action guy”. He essentially just recruits grunts for special operations. A grunt manager, if you will. What shines the brightest is the chemistry between him and Stallone. They’re fucking awesome together. It’s strange. About 10-15 minutes of the movie is of them traveling together recruiting new team members. And Im not even kidding, if they did a road trip film together, it would be fucking rad. They play off of each other so well. The two characters obviously have a history together, and it’s conveyed perfectly on screen. So no, Kelsey Grammer was NOT miscast.
Onto Max Drummer. IE: Harrison Ford. Bruce Willis, you are not missed. Harrison Ford owned this role. So much so, that it needed to be addressed in the film. Stallone asks Ford’s character “Where’s Church?” in which Ford replies, “He’s out of the picture.” Another example of them getting the comedy right in this. That line is a perfect double-meaning quip. And to my surprise, they sprinkle Ford throughout the film pretty well. I would say he has about 6 scenes, which is about 4 more than I expected. There is no Harrison Ford Finger of Doom in this, but he does get a juicy F-bomb, which is always welcomed.
Dolph Lundgren, Wesley Snipes and Schwarzenegger were all great in this as well. Dolph, much like the previous two plays a giant lumbering drunk. And much like the last one, he’s hilarious. He could have had more screen time, but with about 16 billing names, I guess he got a decent amount. Snipes is a perfect addition to the franchise. He would have been in this from its inception, I’m sure, but obviously his legal troubles prevented him from doing so. He plays a character named Doc. Before Statham’s character, there was Doc. He also so happens to be good with a Blade. Go figure. So naturally there’s a rivalry between him and Statham. And through that comes some pretty good chemistry between the two. And of course, we have Arnie… Doing what Arnie does. It took a while for him to dust off the rust, but after Escape Plan and Expendables 3, it’s safe to say… (Insert obligatory “HE’S BACK” line here). He too, is hilarious in this. Much like Expendables 2, he gets to play with the boys. And for the Jet Li fans, don’t get too excited, he doesn’t get a whole lot of screen time. Though, he too gets to play with the boys.
And of course… Mel. It should be no surprise to anyone that he completely fucking decimated. His character bared a resemblance to his in Machete Kills (an arms dealer). But obviously this movie was much fucking better. He plays a character named Conrad Stonebanks. He was one of the founding Expendables, but then decided to steer into black market arms dealing territory. I gotta say, my one worry was that they wouldn’t give Mel enough screen time. And that wasn’t the case. Of course any movie can always benefit from more Mel, but I’m content with what I got. Fuck, did he own some scenes. One in particular is a scene where they capture him. The intensity between him and Sly was incredible. Gibson really pries into Stallone. The sure insanity that pours out of Mel’s eyes… It’s unmatchable. Stallone is lucky he got Gibson for the third installment, because if he had been cast as the villain in the first film, it would be a feat topping him.
Let’s get technical. As I mentioned above, there are a lot of improvements over the first two. One, it’s cleaner. I believe they used RED Cameras on this, and the quality (even from the leaked screener) looks great. I cannot wait to watch it in theatres. Second, the director Patrick Hughes did a great job on shooting the action. The action and set pieces were bigger and more elaborate. Another plus? The locations. They go from New Orleans, to Mexico, to Arizona, to Las Vegas, to whatever fictional country that Bulgaria stands in for. It was a visual treat to more than rubble locations.
With all the improvements this film made over the previous two, there is one issue that was not rectified. The CGI. Now like I said, maybe the screener that leaked is a cut from months ago! Who knows? So I won’t make final judgment until I see the theatrical release. Luckily there are a lot of practical FX and practical sets in the film, so there aren’t a whole lot of CG sequences. But when there are, it doesn’t look very good.
To address another issue the film had was the new team. In my mind, they weren’t horrible. They just didn’t do much for me. When they’re integrated with the original team (Statham, Lundgren, Couture) and the other new guys (Snipes & Banderas) they work just fine. But standalone, they’re just… Serviceable. Though, I believe that half of the time it took to introduce the new team, that time could have been spent on Snipes, Lundgren or Gibson.
The music. Brian Tyler always does a fantastic job with the scores he does for Sly. Be it Rambo, The Expendables, The Expendables 2. I was slightly disappointed with his score for this. Only because… It felt that there wasn’t one. All the themes used in this are in the previous two. There didn’t seem to be many new music queues. It literally sounded as if it was copy and pasted into the movie. Granted, they fit with all the scenes, it just wasn’t wholly original. I already pre-ordered the score, so I can again, make final judgment when I listen to it isolated.
And my final and biggest gripe: Sly vs. Mel. The fight scene was WAY too fucking short. I honestly recall it being a minute long. One minute. Rambo vs. Riggs. Rocky vs. Rockantansky. One minute. I would have been FURIOUS if they hadn't given Gibson enough screen time through out the film. But fortunately, they did.
If you want me to sum the film up in a couple simple words: THE EXPENDABLES 3 IS FUCKING GREAT. It doesn’t come without its flaws. But those flaws don’t even come close to ruining the film for me. I really think that if people pay to see it how it’s intended to be seen, on a giant fucking screen, with loud surround sound audio, in a theatre that reeks of stale popcorn and middle-aged men, then they’ll like it. Possibly even love it. Like I said for principal alone, I will be buying a ticket. So there’s no reason why you shouldn’t. Well, unless of course, you lost your job, went through a divorce, your wife took half of what’s left and only have $356 to spend on a used shotgun to blow your head off because you’re dead inside.
Click here to read the full article...
Godzilla is one of those characters that is timeless, yet dated. You look at the majority of the Godzilla films from the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's, and you will see films that may not "hold up" by today's standards, but there is a reason why it has lasted now 7 decades. The character himself. He resonates with most people. Whether it's the serious aspects of the character (commentary on atomic warfare), or whether it's to give you your fix on mayhem, destruction and chaos. Both sides of the spectrum and all in between are what make Godzilla a character like no other. I almost look at Godzilla much like Rambo. The first film in the series dabbles in the serious effects of war and the consequences of creating a killing machine. And then you have the sequels. Cheesy & fun, but losing sight of what it initially intended to be. Obviously, Godzilla lends itself to straight-forward cheese more-so than Rambo.
So here we are, 2014, and Godzilla is still alive and well. Of course us 'Mericans had a slight (major understatement, I know) hiccup in 1998. But this entry in the franchise is more than enough to make up for the abortion of a film released in 1998. So lets delve in, shall we?
First and foremost, the design of 'ole Goji MUST be right. It is not a flawless design, but I would say they got 90% of it right. The way I see Godzilla is almost like a construction cone. The base of his body has to be huge. The less stealthy, the more menacing, in my eyes. Godzilla should be brute power and destruction. He's not a fucking Velociraptor. He needs thighs, and they surely gave 'em to him. But the most important is his head. The one thing that always made Godzilla's look successful were the cat-like features he possessed. Look at Jurassic Park. What made the designs work so well, was the fact they went with bird-like features (which is accurate) as opposed to making them too lizard-esque (hissing tongues, etc.).
THE ROAR. I loved what they did with his roar in this one. Though, I do think it's maybe a TAD too electronic sounding. It's essentially the classic roar, but beefed up with more layers of who knows what. Along with the design, the roar is essential to NOT fucking up. As silly as it sounds, if you're on the fence with the movie at that point, that roar can really make or break the film for you. The film is batting 2 and 0 so far.
The humans. The casting for the film was pretty decent, though it could have been stronger. Getting Bryan Cranston on board was a HUGE plus, considering (much like most of America will agree) that he proved himself as a tremendous actor thanks to Breaking Bad. Though, Aaron Taylor-Johnson was not bad, he could not carry the film on his own when Cranston's character had to take a "coffee break" (spoiler?). Ken Watanabe is someone I like as an actor (fucking Last Samurai), and I did actually like him in this, but he just looked so fucking angrily confused in every shot of the movie. Almost as if someone had hurled an insult at him that he didn't quite understand the meaning of, but had to look pissed and offended anyway. That being said, he was still enjoyable.
The MUTO creatures were a pleasant surprise. Warner Bros. really sold this as a disaster flick, and not a monster-on-monster film. Which is a win/win in my eyes. One, it gives you that element of surprise that almost no fucking films have nowadays. And two, I think that was their counter-response to preventing it from flopping on U.S. soil like Pacific Rim. The creature designs for the MUTO's were rad as hell as well. I mean, not wholly original, but that's okay. If a couple thousand Starship Troopers arachnids had gangbanged the Cloverfield monster: MUTO's. And I love all 3 parties involved.
The score was one of the underwhelming aspects of the film for me. Granted, I did like the score. But nothing REALLY stood out. There was no theme that I attached to. The theme that played during the opening credits worked really well with the eerie bomb footage. But aside from that, I was never anticipating a particular theme aside from the classic Godzilla theme. I knew they weren't going to use that them due to it being too "dated", but I think there is a way you can really make it work in today's day and age. Whether it's slowed down or played at an extremely low bass level. All in all, Alexandre Desplat did a pretty decent job. Come to think of it, his best musical pieces were played during the establishing geography shots. Though, the end theme was a little too "America" for me.
Two major gripes that I know a lot of people have are: Godizilla's screen time and the fights. I'll address how happy I was with the amount of screen time Godzilla had. It all goes back to JAWS-syndrome. You never see the damn shark fully until half-way through. Now granted, you don't have incredible characters like Quint, Hooper and Brody to tide you over. Regardless, it's the "less is more" theory. I do understand a lot of people's issues with the fight itself. It does cut away far too often. But factor in this: Until a couple weeks prior to it's release, most people didn't even know there were other monsters in the film (myself included). So for me, I was delighted to even see a fight. And to top it off, we didn't get ONE radioactive breath, we got TWO radioactive breaths! Two of those motherfuckers.
I am really happy with how this film turned out. And especially being a sophomore directorial effort from Gareth Evans... Kudos. The budget for the film was required, and appeared to be put to use because the majority of the FX looked great. You can't win all the shots, but most of them were pretty well-crafted. A year ago, in my mind, there was no reason why this film should have been good. Turns out, fuck me.
Click here to read the full article...
It's been a rough 2013/2014 for ole' Arnie. Last year's The Last Stand bombed at the box office, then Escape Plan. It's disconcerting to me because he is Arnold fucking Schwarzenegger. Did I like The Last Stand? No. Did I like Escape Plan? No. I LOVED Escape Plan. But both films should have performed well due to it being his first 2 films since 2003. Maybe I was born in the wrong fucking decade, but I just don't find The Rock, Vin Diesel, and Jason Statham all that appealing. Do I have anything against the likes of them? No. The appeal with them is not unfathomable. I get it. I just don't understand how they can perform better at the box office alone than Stallone & Schwarzenegger TOGETHER! I seriously want to smash a fucking light bulb on an infant's head with the thought of it. And I don't want the "they're too old" excuse. First of all, they're NOT too old. Just look at Stallone. CASE. IN. FUCKING. POINT. Secondly, how the fuck does Liam Neeson START his action-career at damn-near 60, yet Stallone & Schwarzenegger fail to CONTINUE theirs at 67 & 66?! I suppose there are some riddles of the universe I will never come to understand. Like the radio, twerking & mayo.
I guess I'll discuss Sabotage since Im already drunk and hateful. How that makes sense, who fucking knows?...
I really didn't get amped for this film up until the week it came out. Every bar I was at, it would be on the TV. Then some reviews came out. And despite the consensus of the film, the words "VIOLENT", "TOTALLY FUCKING VIOLENT", and "BLOODY AS FUCK" would pop up in almost every one (okay, maybe not in that phrasing, but fuck off. How's that?).
The film is directed from the human who wrote Training Day and directed End of Watch. He did some films in between, but to be quite honest, I never even bothered to watch them because I could be on YouTube watching Dave Mustaine insulting fans instead. The other reason: Training Day was okay, and End of Watch was... A movie. But I actually liked Sabotage.
First of all, it's great to see Arnie in a different type of movie, and as a different character. Does he still own the screen? Of fucking course. But this film is based in reality. His character is based in reality. I mean, of course you'll never see a Schwarzenegger character without an Austrian accent. That's almost always a given in everyone of his films. But he is plays a pretty damn serious character in this. Very few "cheese" one-liners. Don't get me wrong, the dialogue isn't very good. It's a lot of corny "grunt talk". But very little comes from Arnie.
I guess I skipped the introductory part. The film is about a DEA task force that is lead by Schwarzenegger, and they're attempting to take down the Mexican drug cartel. One of their missions in the beginning of the film is to seize millions upon millions of dollars. They formulate a plan to make off with $10 million after destroying the countless millions that will be unaccounted for. Double-crosses are made, their agency catches wind, and.... Thus the film unfolds.
In terms of the story, it's pretty basic. A band of brothers (and sister) are tight-knit, money separates them like water and vinegar, blood begins to shed, a reveal is made, and then, resolve. But it's effective enough to want to know the outcome. Though, the end of the film feels like a completely different film. And I don't mean that in a negative way. In fact, the end is quite possibly the best part of the film. It's "horns-in-the-air" good.
But as I mentioned a couple shitty paragraphs previous, the film is bloody. And from the B-roll footage I saw, most of it is practical FX. Sure, there are probably some CG FX, but everything looks pretty good. But then again, I can't see this having a bigger budget than maybe $30 million. And Im sure most of that went to Schwarzenegger's awesome Hitler-youth haircut.
Is the film great? No, but it's damn fucking cool. And especially given the visual fodder being thrown my way this year, it's surely the best of the year so far.
Click here to read the full article...
2013 was a strange year in film. For me, May, June and July usually bring some heavy-hitters. This year? None. And the only reason why Star Trek Into Darkness (May) and Man of Steel (June) are on this list is because... It's a "Top 10", not a "Top 8". Almost everything from #1 to #8 are from September to December. Which is a shame, because in retrospect, it really was like the gold at the end of the rainbow. Except, this rainbow wasn't too lively in color. It mostly consisted of shit.
1. Escape Plan
I was fortunate enough to be satisfied with the final product of this film. First off, on paper, this film is FLAWLESS. Stallone? Schwarzenegger? Breaking out of a prison together? Could you choose a more perfect excuse for these guys to work together? But like I said, ON PAPER it was flawless. But then again, it's all in the execution. Luckily, it not only played as the film I wanted it to be, but it also was smarter than it needed to be. Like I said in my original review, it's not a genius film. But its actually a couple notches above being "dumb fun". You can read my review HERE.
2. The Wolf of Wall Street
The disadvantage with films that I absolutely love coming out at the very end of the year is that I typically don't get to do full-on reviews since I like to recap the year as quick and drunk as possible. So the films that I already have written about get a paragraph and the link to the original review to avoid retreading the same water. I regret not spending the time writing 50 paragraphs about this film. Let me just dive in...
What a fucking movie. We can all collectively agree that Martin Scorsese is the most consistent American director working today. Is he my favorite director? No. A close second or third? Absolutely. Ironically enough, Scorsese's career is like a corpse's flat line. He's consistent, and rarely hits a total rough-patch. And if he does, it's almost so minor that it doesn't even show up on the screen. And most directors are like a living, breathing heart. It's up and it's down, it's up and it's down. Now, of course, consistency isn't always good. Look at Paul W.S. Anderson. He is consistently awful. But anyway, that's besides the point. The Wolf of Wall Street...
This film is so rich (much like any Scorsese film). I look at it as a combination of Goodfellas, Oliver Stone's Wall Street, and Miami Vice. It has the confidence and cuts of Goodfellas, the setting of Stone's Wall Street, and the physical appeal of Miami Vice. And of course the touch of Marty.
The film is 3 hours long, and I felt not a god damn second drag by. Like I said, the film is so sharp and confident that it just grabs you by the collar and takes you to wherever it's going. And it fucking goes to a fuck-ton of places.
Oh yeah, I guess I better give a little insight as to what the film is about. It's based off of the memoirs of the real-life Jordan Belfort who was a stockbroker on Wall Street, who made all of his money by defrauding his clients with fraudulent stocks.
The film is just full of excess. But none of it seems to be over-gratuitous. If this film was 100% fiction. Then this film could go down as possibly the most gratuitous film ever made. But the fact that this was a telling of a true-life story? I don't see how that makes it gratuitous. The film is fucking nuts. If they wanted to go with a title other than "The Wolf of Wall Street", I personally would go with something along the lines of "Stocks, Drugs and Rock N Roll". Unfortunately, that isn't an apt title due to "sex" missing from the title. Because almost half of the fucking film is sex or sex-related. How Scorsese achieved the R-rated is unthinkable. Let's see... The opening consists of cocaine being snorted from a prostitute's rectum/vagina, road head, and office gangbangs/orgies. And that's only the first 15 or 20 minutes. The rest of the film? Let's see... Airplane orgies, public masturbation, hotel orgies, elevator blowjobs, and the list goes on.
The other aspect that makes this film work so well is the humor. But that should come as no surprise to any lover of Marty. He manages to craft some of the funniest scenes without classifying his films as "comedies". And it's not different with "Wolf". This film is literally funnier than any comedy on this list. Almost every situation in this film makes you literally "LOL". As they would say on the internets, it brings the "LULZ".
Do I see why this film has divided critics? Yes. Do I understand why some people are so fucking uptight that they fart through their nose? No. But, fuck 'em, right?
3. Anchorman 2
Whether you like it or not, the first Anchorman is one of the most quoted films ever. Are most of the lines from the first film tired? Yes. But people still quote 'em to hell. So it only made sense to continue on with a sequel. Why it took so long? Who fucking knows. I know Adam McKay (director) and Will Ferrell were adamant about getting one green lit, but for one reason or another, Paramount kept stalling. Finally, they gave the go-ahead. And to be honest? I couldn't be happier.
I am not in love with the original Anchorman. I like it. And it still holds up, but around the time it came out (and years after), I never really cared for Will Ferrell. It wasn't until Step Brothers where his comedic chops really lined up for me (with the help of John C. Reilly, of course!). But I really liked Anchorman 2. Even more so than the first. The film went the typical Hollywood direction and made it bigger. But it actually worked in it's favor. Through all the big set-pieces came a lot of hilarious scenes. For instance, the RV scene. A tumbling RV with scorpions, bowling balls and hot grease flying around? It's just fucking stupid. And it worked.
The big boost this film had over the first was the casting. In this day and age of the internet, almost everything is spoiled (cameos, reveals, plot points, etc.). But there were some cameos that managed to steer clear out of my directions. I knew about Jim Carrey and Harrison Ford's cameos, but Will Smith and Liam Neeson? I had no idea. And it really made for a couple "fuck yeah!" moments.
One strange thing (good and bad) was what was sold to you in the trailers and ads. A lot of the jokes weren't in the final film, or were alternate versions of the jokes seen in the ads. Why is it good? Apparently, there are two alternate cuts where NO joke is the same. Literally, every joke and line is different. Why is it bad? A lot of people (myself included) were disappointed that they didn't see or hear the jokes that had been advertised. But I know once the Blu-ray comes out, the cut(s) will be available.
4. The World's End
This is a film I barely remember, but remembered that I loved. I.E.: I was fucking BOMBED. Before the film, I had done a bit of a bar crawl. I can't even tell you how much I drank that night. All I remember was that I laughed my ass off, and it took the next day to recollect what had actually happened in the film.
Edgar Wright is a director that I admire, but don't adore. I really like Shaun of the Dead, I wasn't big on Hot Fuzz (but need to give it a re-watch) and never even bothered with Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World. But The World's End is a homerun for me. He has a very good grasp on the films he makes, and I think that's great. Much like Scorsese and Tarantino, he knows how to cut and cut to music. It's quick, confident and effective as hell.
Moving on to the actual film. Obviously, the subject matter is a no-brainer for me. But it's the character-assignment that I love. It's usually Simon Pegg playing the brains and Nick Frost playing the goof. In The World's End, Frost is the voice of reason, and Pegg is not so much the goof, but the stupid asshole. And I thought that was a good turn-around for them.
5. Pain & Gain
This was one of the few films in the beginning of the year that I actually REALLY liked. Unlike most cinephiles, I love Michael Bay. I always looked at him as a B-movie film maker with a 200+ million dollar budget. And there are plenty of film makers that can spend 200+ million and make a completely forgettable film. For me, Bay doesn't do that. He always manages to entertain me. I've said it a thousand times, but he knows what the hell he is doing in terms of the technical aspect of film making. He may not know story at all, but he'll make those 4 words a page LOOK good. Pain & Gain is a different case, though...
For years, Bay has been trying to get this film off the ground. But robots have been running his life up until a couple years ago. And now, he finally made Pain & Gain. And it's his best movie since Armageddon. Much like The Wolf of Wall Street, this is based on a true story. The film centers around a Miami fitness trainer who wants to get rich quick. So he decides to kidnap and rob one of his undeservingly rich clients (with help from two other juicers). Naturally, all goes to hell, and they're stranded in the wreckage consisting of human limbs, crushed-craniums, women, dirty-money, and a fuck load of jail time. Situational, of course. I don't mean physically.
It's a hell of a ride. It's dark, unpredictable and most of all... Fun. Like I said, it's all based on a true story. And I actually read the original Miami New Times article the film was based off of, and I gotta' say the film may seem to fabricate and elevate situations that you didn't think could happen, but if anything, they watered it down. The shit that went down in Miami in 1995 was fucking insane. And the film did as much justice as possible without having people throwing their arms up in the theatre and leaving. Because what really happened truly was stranger than fiction.
6. Gravity
Maybe the festival circuit got the best of my brain, but I didn't find Gravity to be amazing. Every early review from every renowned festival was raving. And I just don't see how. I liked the film, but aside from the technical aspect, I can't see how it got such praise for it's storytelling. Good story? Yeah, but take away the technical achievements, it's just an okay film. I guess i just got burned by my expectations.
Don't get me wrong, Alfonso Curan is a great film maker, and every interview I've seen with him, he seems so genuine and down-plays his talent. Whereas guys like Tarantino want you to know how good they are. Curan is down to earth (no pun intended) with his discussions of film making. And I absolutely love that. And I almost feel bad for not liking Gravity as much as I wanted to. But then again, I don't. Why? Because the fucking movie made over 200+ million! Which is fucking great. A film as ambitious as it deserves it.
Anyway, I feel as if Im just justifying as to why I didn't like the film as much as I wanted. On to what I really liked about it. Kudos to the marketing department, first and foremost. Reason being, they sold NONE of the second half of the film in any of the trailers or TV spots. That is so incredibly rare nowadays. And it made the experience THAT much better. I forgot what it felt like to be surprised during a film.
Though, my one gripe that had NOTHING to do with expectations was the score. With a film like this, I almost wish there was no score. I think I would have enjoyed it a lot more without a score. I feel it would have been more intense and engaging.
7. Machete Kills
Machete Kills isn't what it should have been. It could been a lot funnier, a lot more fun and a lot more cohesive. Unfortunately, it wasn't what it should have been, but I still did enjoy it. Though, Mel Gibson drives a Star Wars Land speeder. You can read my review HERE.
8. Grudge Match
The Italian Stallion vs. The Raging Bull. It's a shame the film isn't even nearly as good as either of the aforementioned characters' films. Here's a film that I felt could go either way, and couldn't be disappointed either way. From the trailers, I could tell it was going to be what I initially thought. Though, I did have hope that it would surprise me. Sadly, it didn't. But I know who is at fault for that. The Director.
When you get THEE two most iconic film boxing actors of all time in one film, you should probably get a seasoned dramatic director who knows comedy. Not a comedy director who thinks he knows drama. The guy who directed Grudge Match is the same man behind The Nutty Professor II. It's a shame because both talents involved (Stallone & DeNiro) really trained hard for the film, and it's almost all thrown away due to a generic tread-along in direction. And I'm not going to knock the director in a lack of interest. I'm sure he wanted to make a great film, but I don't think he was ever really capable of doing so.
I didn't hate the film, I just wish it was much better. I was entertained, and hell, I even laughed at parts. Alan Arkin and Kevin Hart were funny enough to pair together, and Kim Basinger was a nice addition to the cast. But I gotta' say the best casting that wasn't Stallone or DeNiro was John Bernthal as DeNiro's son. Not only does he look like his son, but he also has that DeNiro attitude.
The fight. Definitely the best part of the movie. But not all that it could be. The whole movie (much like any Rocky film) leads up to the fight. This fight should have been fucking great. But it was just too damn choppy. And that may be to favor DeNiro. Because if you have seen Rocky Balboa, you know that Stallone can give and take a hit in a shot, without a cut to "sell" it. Now, that was Stallone at 59 years old, and this is him at 66. But this is also DeNiro at 70. And I give DeNiro an immense amount of credit for doing all of this at his age. And that is how I know he actually really cared about this project. Because for years, he's been so damn lazy and tired with his roles. I don't think I've seen him physically prepare for a role this much since Cape Fear. And speaking of physicality, Im hearing a lot of people talking about Stallone's size, saying he's smaller than usual. It's intended. He's supposed to match the weight of a light heavyweight boxer, which is 168 pounds. Stallone is on record saying that he hasn't weighed that since 1983. And if you do a comparison of him in Rocky Balboa (2006) and Grudge Match (2013). Holy shit.
9. Star Trek Into Darkness
All my sobriety bled out on both the Stallone movies on this list. You can read my review HERE.
10. Man of Steel
I hate Zack Snyder. I hate Superman. I liked Man of Steel. Figure that one out. Too drunk to do so myself.
Click here to read the full article...
I can't believe Im writing this 3 weeks after it's release. But truth be told, I didn't have enough time to. I flew to California a day after watching the movie. Then again, that's 6 hours to type away. But then again, there were quite a few things I either A) Didn't remember or B) Didnt understand why certain things were done. All in a result to being absolutely inebriated. I have since watched it again (this time, I started drinking at the START of the film as opposed to 5 hours prior). And shit, how fucking good this movie is.
Just to give a little backstory on the production of this film. Originally, this was supposed to be a Bruce Willis vehicle. A plus for him, a minus for the film. Let's face it, Bruce Willie is a tired bald man. You can see it in every action film he has done in recent (and not-so-recent years). Sadly, he's 8 years YOUNGER than Stallone. And Stallone is running circles around this man. But going back to my plus & minus statement. Almost every movie Willis has done recently has been on par with his acting ability. Is Willis particularly bad in any film he's in? No. He's just bored and boring. It's Bruce Willis playing Bruce Willis. All his IMDb credits should read "Bruce Willis as Himself". If he DID do this film, it would benefit him, because this film is damn smarter than it needs to be (more on that later). Fortunately for the film, it lost Willis and gained Stallone, and THEN Schwarzenegger. Holy hell.
Originally titled "The Tomb" (a far more ambitious title) centers around Stallone's character Ray Breslin who is the foremost authority in prison security weaknesses. He is literally hired to break out of prisons to locate and address each and every weakness. His next job? A low-key, privately-funded, maximum-security prison that is off the books. Little does Breslin know, it's not a routine job. Someone wants him in there forever.
The film opens in a way to let you know how smart and clever it really is. Don't kid yourself, this isn't something like The Departed, where it's complexity is so fine-tuned. The phrase I throw around left and right with this film (and as previously mentioned) is "smarter than it needs to be". It is not a dumb film. It is not The Expendables (and fuck, do I LOVE The Expendables). It's clever. It has you guess how, and then gives you the answers. And not only does it give you the answers, but they actually make sense. Now of course there are some concessions made, in terms of accessibility. But they all still work. Going back to the opening of the film (don't worry, no real spoilers), it's more-so an introduction to Ray Breslin's (Stallone) character. He breaks out of just a routine-prison. And within those 10 minutes, you see how anything and everything are essential to escaping a prison. The layout, the routine and any help you can possibly get. From observing when guard smoke breaks occur to utilizing a milk carton to figuring out the exact keypad number combinations to your cell. It lays outs how Breslin thinks and operates.
I don't want to give too much away in terms of the story. So I won't. All that you need to know from here on out is that Stallone arrives to the off-the-books prison and realizes that he was not sent their on business. He was sent there to stay in there forever.
In the prison we meet Schwarzenegger's character Rottmayer. And I am so happy that he finally rediscovered his acting abilities again. Because I was a little nervous due to his performance in The Last Stand (you can read the review: HERE). In that film he was rusty and just awkward. In Escape Plan, Im going to say it, he STEALS the film from Stallone. A VERY fucking hard task to do. It's hard for me to even say it due to me being a "Stallone > Schwarzenegger" kind of person. Schwarzenegger not only dusted the dirt off of his shoulders in this, he is fucking hilarious. And I mean 70% in a Schwarzenegger kind of way and 30% in a genuinely humorous kind of way. He has some new soon-to-be classic lines, some German-speaking lines and one GOD-AWESOME dirty "your mother" insult. It's just really great seeing him at the top of his game again. And obviously him and Stallone together in more than a glorified cameo role. In fact, for the first 20 minutes of the film, it's solely Stallone's movie. But once Schwarzenegger's character is introduced, they split the screen time 50/50.
The rest of the cast were either tolerable or above-average. And with a Stallone/Schwarzenegger film that's NOT The Expendables, that's all you can ask for. First, we'll get to the antagonist of the film. Warden Hobbes played by Jim Caviezel (AKA Jesus in Passion of the Christ). He played a pretty good cunt warden. His character had a nice touch of Hannibal Lector, all the while staying grounded with his work. A pleasant surprise was Sam Neill, who played the prison doctor. He wasn't really sold in any of the trailers or TV spots, which rare for films like these. Vincent D'Onofrio was another nice addition to the cast. And oddly enough, 50 Cent wasn't horrible in this either. The fact that they casted him as just a computer specialist was fine for me. They didn't ultra-nerd-up his character, and didn't make him this udo-tough guy. He was just a regular character for the most part, which is the best thing they could have done for an odd casting like that.
The action. I would say that the action in this film is few and far between, but it's not. And IF it is, it's paced really well. Because there is not one second where I felt bored in the non-action sequences. Like I said (AGAIN!) the film is smarter than it needs to be. In all the in-between scenes where Stallone's character has to explain all the technics of how to escape, it's all very interesting. From navigating where they are exactly by deciphering which way the toilet flows, to deciphering how low below sea level they are by the type of metal the prison uses, to figuring out the guards' routines based on their ticks and interactions with other guards, it all works very well. But when the action happens, it's intense. Because you are obviously rooting for these guys to escape. A) Because it's only natural to see one prevail B) Because you want to know why the fuck these guys are in the prison to begin with.
Technically, you can tell some good money went into the film. The sets were realistic and believable. There were only a few noticeable CG shots. And by a few, I mean like 2. Most of the film is set inside the prison. And from what I could see from B-roll footage (raw, on-set footage) almost all the sets were practical sets. It was shot just fine. A few nice crane shots. And I think that was really to put the money on the screen. Because a lot of the sets were pretty damn high.
I am relieved to say that I set the bar high for this film, and it delivered. Do I like it more than The Expendables 2? No. But only because The Expendables 2 is too fucking fun. Too fucking fun. But I assure you, Escape Plan is a much better made film. How The Expendables 2 has a 68% on Rotten Tomatoes and Escape Plan only has a 48%? Maybe it was the Van Dammage...
Click here to read the full article...
Im not sure why, but I loved the first Machete. For me, it succeeded in making me laugh. Is it a real film? No. But I had a hell of a lot of fun with the first one. The odd thing is that I do NOT like Robert Rodriguez. I dont care for his style, and I dont care for his films. But he struck a chord with me with the first Machete. It was over-the-top, had killer stunt-casting, and was just generally hilarious. So with the first film ending with a tease of what's to come, I naturally got excited.
It took 3 years for Machete Kills to happen. And Im not quite sure if ideas were tossed around within those 3 years, or if they were tossed around RIGHT before shooting began, because the film was kinda' sloppy. What the first film achieved was some sense of cohesiveness. Machete Kills isn't really a cohesive film at all. I understand that if the first film was Rodriguez's "Mexican Shaft" that the second film was his "Moonraker". But for me, you can't switch a franchises genre around so abruptly. The whole film just felt off.
Let's get to plot of the film. Machete is hired by the President of the United States to stop a madman from launching nuclear missiles into space. A much larger idea than just border patrol issues like in the first one. And I'll admit, with his mission in "Kills" comes some pretty funny situations, but for the most part, it almost seemed like it was trying to be a homage to something as recent and undeserving like Jason X or something. I know for a fact that wasn't the intention at all. Maybe Leprechaun 4: In Space would be a better comparison. Regardless, they should have kept the character grounded (literally) for maybe another 3 movies.
I guess I'll get to the plus of the film. And that is once again the casting. Machete had Robert DeNiro, Don Johnson, and fucking Steven Seagal. Machete Kills? MEL FUCKING GIBSON. Dont even worry about who else is in the film. Mel steals the show. And I am not saying that biasedly. Everyone else in the film isn't even in the movie long enough to do anything with their characters. Mel plays an arms dealer named Luther Voz, and does it so fucking well. Voz is essentially a classic Bond villain. I would say he hams it up, but he plays it pretty straight, it's his costumes and surroundings that seem to ham up his character (he wears a fucking cape!). If you threw Mel in a Daniel Craig Bond film as the villain, with a serious tone and all, you would have something GREAT.
Now to nit-pick a problem with BOTH films, it's use of blood. There are PLENTY of scenes with clever and grotesque ways of dismembering and killing the baddies. It's just a shame there are no practical FX. It's all digital. And that is one of the many things that Tarantino excels at that Rodriguez does not. If you watch Django Unchained, you can clearly see that ALL of his kills are on-set squibs. Rodriguez loves to digitize everything. He shoots digital and does all of his FX in post. Which just shows a sense of laziness. I dont care if I dont like the film or not, I know Tarantino tries to make everything inside the frame as real as possible (not to mention on actual celluloid). I didn't really notice much (or any) feux-film grain in Machete Kills, but the fact that he used it for the fake trailer and the first film made absolutely no sense. If he wanted to get a sense of "aging" and "distortion", the picture should be pixelated. Putting film grain on digital video is like... Actually, I can't think of anything as stupid.
The one thing I WILL give to Rodriguez is his outsider-esque mentality. What do I mean by that? I'll explain. He works and operates in his hometown of Austin in his own film studio. He chooses less traditional projects (Sin City, Machete, etc.) and out-of-left-field projects (Spy Kids). Is Spy Kids the least bit good? Absolutely not. But I can admire wanting to make a movie his own kids can view. His craft may not be very good, but I can admire the independence he has in creating what he creates.
I know it doesnt sound like I liked the film, but in the end, I actually did. It was fun. Just not nearly as good or humorous as the first film. And that's even with the presence of Mel Gibson. Sheesh.
Click here to read the full article...
1. Escape Plan
This film has been on my radar for quite a while. And after Stallone's Bullet to the Head & Schwarzenegger's The Last Stand being not very good at all, I was a bit worried that I'd have nothing to really look forward to that wasn't The Expendables 3 from these two. Then the trailer hit. Fuck. I was actually uber-impressed as to how good the fucking movie looked. The film cost $70 million to make, which is $30 million less than The Expendables 2, and it looks higher-quality than EX2. And I mean that in terms of production value (it's going to be hard to top EX2... Until Expendables 3).
One other giant plus this film has is Schwarzenegger's screentime. From early reviews that I've read, Arnie is in the film almost as long as Sly. With The Expendables, you almost come to expect short-lived scenes. But this is a duo-film, not an ensemble piece.
Im so fucking amped for this film, that I rearranged a trip that Im taking the same time it comes out. Originally, I was supposed to fly out to California the 15th of October and get back home the 20th. Escape Plans comes out the 19th. There is NO FUCKING WAY I am not having a drunken private screening the second we receive the digital key to unlock the film. So, I will now be headed to the airport minutes after the movie is over. The reason I'm flying to California is because my buddy Ross is getting married. I informed him of this shuffling, in which he replied, "You're a fucking idiot.".
2. Machete Kills
Two words. THE MEL. I liked the first Machete a lot. Probably more than most people. Everyone loved the feux-trailer, but not everyone loved the film itself. I loved it not only because it actually made me laugh (out loud for that matter), but because it was an ensemble film unlike The Expendables. And believe me, The Expendables is my favorite kind of ensemble film, but Machete was just so fucking all over. The fact that Robert DeNiro and Steven Seagal share a film credit together is baffling. I know, I know, DeNiro has chosen some lousy films in recent and not-so-recent years, but Seagal is on a whole other (sub) level.
Machete Kills is following the first film's tradition. Mel Gibson, Charlie Sheen (AKA Carlos Esteves)... Lady Gaga. 'Nuff said. On top of all of that, Mel is the heel (as he is in EX3). Mel has never played a full-on baddie before. An anti-hero? Yeah. It'll be interesting/sexually-inticing to see what he does with it. Is this going to be a "real movie"? Probably not. Do I give a fuck? Absolutely not.
3. Grudge Match
Here is yet another duo-film with Stallone. Except, this time with DeNiro. Which for a few reasons, is pretty damn cool. One, this is a boxing film. Of course it's going to elicit the "Balboa vs. LaMotta" & "Itallian Stallion vs. Raging Bull" response, as it should (and most certainly intended), but for me, it's a Copland reunion. Copland, to me, is criminally underrated. And both are GREAT in it. More so Stallone due to him breaking his mold. Instead of tough, in shape and intimidating, he was a push-over, out of shape, and timid.
Grudge Match has the potential to be a great feel-good comedy. But I don't expect much else. And where is that "feel-good" apsect coming from? It seems to be riding off the success of Rocky Balboa. A lot of the film looks and feels like Balboa. Which is not a bad thing. It's just unoriginal, especially with Stallone involved. Regardless, I think it'll be a lot of fun.
4. Gravity
A lot of the films coming out are either released in IMAX, 3D, or IMAX 3D. And most of them don't warrant either of the three. Because it's either not shot with IMAX film stock, post-converted from 2D to 3D, or both. With Gravity, I hear the conversion process is unnoticeable. Critics are throwing around the words "breathtaking" and "intense". Those words can be used for almost any film, if you wanted to. But after watching the trailers, I feel as if it really has the potential to be so. Obviously, if you're converting 35MM to IMAX, it will not consume the entire screen, but the upper hand that I think Gravity has is that it's outer space. With films that have landscapes that extend past the frame, it's visually evident where the frame ends. With a film that's background is most likely 80% black, it'll be pretty easy to become emmersed. From a story standpoint, who knows?
5. The Wolf of Wall Street
Martin Scorsese.
6. Parkland
I am a sucker for almost anything that has to do with the JFK Assassination. I've spent countless hours on YouTube watching theories, footage, interviews, everything. films like Oliver Stone's JFK are like porn to people like me. It's so incredibly facsinating. And the reason why Im looking forward to Parkland is because it's not so much about the assassination itself as much as it is about the doctors who tried to save him. Should the film be called Parkland: A Lost Cause? Yes. But it should be an interesting watch nonetheless.
7. Jack Ryan
There is little-to-nothing released about this film. There's a few still images and a cast-listing released. But you know what? I really dig Patriot Games, and think this new incarnation of the Jack Ryan character can work. Twice I've tried to make it through The Hunt for Red October, and couldn't. I LOVE Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger was a step-down, and never bothered with The Sum of All Fears. But something about this reboot has me curiously optimistic. I dig Chris Pine (who is the new Jack Ryan), I've grown a new-found love for Kevin Costner (who is his mentor), and Kenneth Brannagh can direct a film, that's for sure. But can he direct one that actually interests me? We'll see.
8. All Is Lost
I guess this can be dubbed "Life of Robert Redford" considering the entire film is about Robert Redford trying to survive the conditions of the sea. In all honesty, I give the man credit. He's gotta' carry this entire film by himself at what? 77 years old? Redford will always be one of those actors that I respect. But one of those "Shit, I wish..." actors. What is a "Shit, I wish..." actor? For instance, Robert Redford & Paul Newman. The two movies they did together were not only incredibly well-made, but fun as fucking hell. I speak of course of Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid and The Sting. They should have made like 27 more movies together. And everytime I see Robert Redford, I always think, "Shit, I wish he would have made more movies with Paul Newman". If Newman were alive, he could have been the fucking boat.
9. Metallica: Through The Never
I was reluctant to put this on this list due to my allegiance to the almighty Megadeth. But I gotta' admit, this looks like a blast in IMAX 3D. Im not sure how the narrative aspect is going to organically mesh with the concert footage, but it's an interesting concept. I just wish Mustaine were still in the band for one reason, and one reason only... DAVE MUSTAINE'S HAIR IN IMAX 3D.
10. The Art of the Steal
Kurt Russsell.
Click here to read the full article...
When it comes to zombie films, I have a couple rules. And most of those rules apply to actual zombie films. World War Z is NOT a zombie film. It wants to be, and people will classify it as a zombie film, but it most certainly is not. Zombies, in the classic sense, were once humans that are infected with the zombie virus. They then come back to "life" and move eerily slow due to the rigor mortis that has set in. Not fast. I wont even hold that against WWZ because it doesn't even feel like a zombie film. The film should have been called "World War O" (World War Outbreak) or "World War I" (World War Infected). This does not carry the same weight as the Dawn of the Dead remake. The original '78 DOTD is a classic ZOMBIE film. And the remake should have been treated as such. With WWZ, nothing was totally sacred. Yes, I know it's based on a best-selling novel, but the translation from novel to screen is a lot more interpretive than screen to screen.
The film starts off relatively quick. And in most cases with films like these, it can be an added bonus for two reasons. 1) It means you don't have to waste time with underdeveloped characters. 2) It means that you can get straight to the bulk of what peaked your interest in the film to begin with. What is lost in the process is the sense of "Wait, why?...". It only takes minutes until the outbreak erupts. And at first, you experience it with the family. Out of left field and "unexpected". I quote "unexpected" because they don't give you enough time to forget what you came to see. Look at Cloverfield. When I first saw that, I went in wanting a great monster film, and 20 minutes in, it was all about planning a party for a dude who was moving out of the country. Im not saying it was fantastic acting or great character development, but it took your mind off the fact that you were watching a monster film, and BAM! The attack. WWZ lacked that. There was no shock and awe. I was expecting the shock and awe. And when it did happen, nothing new was brought to the table. In fact, I think there were still stale leftovers and dirty napkins left over from years previous.
This film is a boost to the ego for anyone who considers themselves a psychic. You can see any and everything that is headed your way, and even worse... Anything that was a surprise, was a let-down. Also, whoever shot the film must have their own personal earthquake, because the first 25 minutes looked as if it were shot by a 1-day clean meth addict.
The film did have a few shining moments. Most of which were it's intense outbreak scenes. Any scene in which you depict a society being ravaged by a mass of unknown beings, it's hard to act like you're not the least bit interested. But at the same rate, that's like saying, "I heard the new single from that one band, but the rest of the album sucked elephant dicks". You obviously went to the film to see what initially intrigued you, but if there isn't much else, then... Who gives a flaming fuck?
The major issue I have with these films is that there is RARELY any character portrayed by the actors. Brad Pitt plays a father who strives do the right thing and make sure his family is alright. Honorable? Absolutely. Particularly interesting? Absolutely not. Look at John McLane (From 1, 2, & 3). He wasn't a piece of shit. He cared about his family and all, but he also was a smartass asshole. I seriously don't understand why writers and producers even waste their times coming up with character names anymore for characters like this. As far as Im concerned, Brad Pitt played _______ ________.
Onto some things that particularly bothered me... Flashbacks. Listen, I have no problem with flashbacks. A lot of the times, they're essential to a film. But it's HOW you use a flashback, THAT is where you can falter. There is a scene where Pitt's character sees a man turn into a zombie from his perspective. And in that same scene about 25 minutes prior, there is a shot of the camera zooming down to his face. In his flashback, he sees that exact same shot. Unless there was a scene cut out of WWZ that involved Pitt's character as a cinematographer... GET THE FUCK OUT. Lazy. Fucking. Editing. Another scene was where the central task force has to land in Israel. Understand this: Humans have turned into savage beasts. Globally. They're killing everyone. Globally. They act in erratic, spastic & uncontrollable ways. The Israel ground control says, "Identify yourselves!". Seriously? You have millions of "zombies" terrorizing your land and plane identification is the issue? Maybe it's just my feeble brain, but if a plane is soaring perfectly in the air in a time such as that, I would look at that not as a threat, but as a savior.
You know what, Im actually getting bored as fuck thinking about this movie now. The only "fresh" idea brought to the table was the "zombie"/ant-climb idea. I admit, that was a pretty original and creepy idea. Aside from that, World War Z ended up being World War ZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZzZz (as predicted)
P.S. Since the film leaves it open for another one, I declare the cause right here: The largest stash of cocaine known to man. After all, they act nothing like "zombies" and everything like Carrie Fisher.
Click here to read the full article...
I dont think it's any surprise to anybody that Megadeth happens to be my all-time favorite metal band. Everything about Megadeth's first four albums, to me, are near flawless. They definitely hit their peak with "Rust In Peace". And up until about 4 years ago, I was a 90's Megadeth snob ("Rust In Peace" excluded). I wouldn't touch the material with a blind man's cane. But one fateful intoxicated night, I decided to give the albums a shot. Lo and behold, I came to, and realized that there are some gems in said material. I've since come to terms that there are only 2 Megadeth records I DON'T like ("Risk" &"United Abominations"). Are the 90's albums full-fledged Megadeth records? No. But they do have a lot to offer in terms of melody, hooks, and Mustaine-isms. You're probably thinking, "Isn't this a "Super Collider" review?". Fuck you, it is. But with any conversation, you need a little context. Im giving you a lot.
Fast-forward to 2005, Megadeth (or MegaDave) made their return with "The System Has Failed". I loved it, and still do to this day. For me, it was a combination of classic Megadeth (see: "Kick the Chair & "Back In The Day") and 90's Megadeth (see: "Scorpion" & "Of Mice & Men"). Then came along "United Abominations"... A total dud. THEN came "Endgame". Awesome. Then came "Th1rt3en". Weak. I still like "Th1rt3en", but it's very weak in comparison to "Endgame". But there is a trend: Great, lame, Great, weak. "Super Collider" should be great, right? Im still not sure. It's weak now, but when "Endgame" first came out, I wasn't all too big on it. It wasn't until a few spins of the disc later that I realized that it was truly a return to form.
Without further ado... "Super Collider".
The first track is "Kingmaker". This was the second single release, and frankly, it should have been the first. This is typical fast Megadeth-fare. It's a step above being totally mediocre, but a notch below being great. I guess the classification would be "good"? The chorus is the best part of the song (the case with most songs off this album). There is also one guitar part ripped right out of "Sweating Bullets". You'll know it when you hear it.
Second is the title-track "Super Collider". And a VERY weak title-track it is. This was the first single released, and got a massive backlash upon release. And understandably so. I actually do like this song, but this is not the song to sell a Megadeth album to Megadeth fans. It may cause some Foo Fighter fans to open their wallets, though. It also has themes borrowed from "I'll Be There" which is strange to me considering the song is called "Super Collider". The lyrics have almost NOTHING to do with a super collider. With a title like "Super Collider", it should be fast, heavy and aggressive. AND... It's the title-track. When you have a weak title-track, you know have a problem. Having a great title-track that is hard to compete with is a good problem to have. Having a weak one that almost any song can compare to, not so much.
The third track is "Burn!". This track is fun, but nothing special. It opens with a fairly-forced guitar solo intro. The verse riff reminds me a lot of "Burning Bridges" (and no pun is intended). And the chorus may turn some people off due to the cheesy nature, but sometimes Mustaine can pull off cheese (see: Sweating Bullets).
Next up is "Built for War". This song pisses me off a bit. The vocal pattern used by Mustaine just doesn't work. He drags out the verses and injects "Built for War" between each one. The only section that works for me is the choir-like chant Mustaine does about midway into the song.
The fifth track is "Off The Edge". For the most part, the song is pretty generic. But it's the chorus that saves the song for me. The riff almost makes you want to dance, and the vocal pattern used by Mustaine compliments the riff as well.
"Dance In The Rain" is the sixth track, and is composed of classic Megadeth themes (lyrically). It's essentially about big brother, the monitoring of Americans, corporate handouts, etc. Nothing specifically new, but like I said, classic Megadeth themes. Musically it's interesting, but nothimg special. It does however, transition into a shredding-fast riff but doesn't take off from there. There isn't a coherent beat. It's mostly a series of fills. This is also the track that David Draiman from Disturbed does guest vocals on. Because every Megadeth fan was waiting for the day he would appear on a Deth album. All cunting aside, he's not even that noticeable. They have what appears to be a megaphone effect on his vocals that makes him sound distant. The further the better, the further the better.
Next we have "Beginning of Sorrow". Nothing about this song stands out. Like, at all. Maybe the unlikable chorus? I guess.
"The Blackest Crow" is the eighth track, and is an interesting one. Fucking Willie Nelson did guest banjo on this track. If I had to compare, this would be similar to "Have Cool Will Travel", except much darker. Does this achieve being a good Megadeth song? Im not too sure. But I do enjoy it due to the eerie cajun elements injected into the song.
"Forget to Remember" is track 9, and may quite possibly be my favorite track on the album. There are a lot of songs I can compare this to. Two of which are Megadeth's "Black Swan" and Sodom's "Buried In The Justice Ground". This isn't a particularly heavy or fast Megadeth song, but could easily be on "Youthanasia" or "Cryptic Writings". The chorus (again) is the most outstanding part of the song. Personally, I love it. It's almost uplifting an sad at the same time. Kudos.
And the last original song on the album is "Don't Turn Your Back". Not a strong song, but enjoyable. And yet, ANOTHER song in which the chorus is the outlier.
Lastly, we have a cover of Thin Lizzy's "Cold Sweat". And sadly, it's the second-best song on the album. Aside from it being a killer cover, Mustaine's vocals are what shine here. The chorus calls for a grunt-like vocal chant. And not only does Mustaine do it flawlessly, it's something you've never heard him do before either.
At this point, I wish I could say I loved "Super Collider", but I'd be lying. There aren't enough moments to warrant it being "really good". I kinda' like it, but that's about it. It has the same problem "Th1rt3en" did. Though, the one improvement over "Th1rt3en" was the production. Which is odd, because they went with the same producer this time around. It's also unfortunate about Dave Mustaine's vocals. On "Th1rt3en" and now "Super Collider", he growls more so than sings. And I am not going to fault him for it. Reason being, it's all due to the neck surgery he had done years back. They told him he would lose some singing ability, and that's evident. But what I WILL fault him with, is his lyric-writing. The previous two record's lyrics were so simple, predictable and cheesy. I know he still has it. Just look at "Endgame".
Click here to read the full article...
I would be lying if I said I was a gigantic Star Trek fan. After 2009, I noticed a slew of people who have supposedly always loved Star Trek. Quite frankly, I think that's a heaping pile of shit. After franchise reinvigorations like this, there always seems to be people who claim they've always been fans. I assure you, I am not one of them. Did I always appreciate the show for what it was? Of course. But I could just never fully become enthralled with the show. And that is part of the reason why I believe I enjoy Abrams' Star Trek films. He grew up a non-fan of Trek as well. And it wasn't until he was brought on board to tackle the first film that he became a Trekkie. The approach he took with the first film was interesting. It felt fresh without feeling as if it had to fit inside a specific mold. To sum up the first film, he reinvented iconic characters, injected a new visual style and ran with the rest.
With Star Trek Into Darkness, Abrams managed to delve into classic dark second-installment territory, but without losing the popcorn fun that the first film had achieved. With Into Darkness, there are stakes involved that feel not only high but very real. With the first film, you almost knew no one significant was going to die due to being the kick starter to a newly-restored franchise. But with Into Darkness, I had myself thinking, "Shit, maybe he IS gonna' bite the dust...". The casting with these films are near-perfect. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, Karl Urban, and the rest of the cast do a solid job. But there are two particular actors that were added to the cast that COMPLETELY owned the film. And I speak of Peter Weller and Benedict Cumberbatch. First and foremost, let me just say that it is FUCKING AWESOME to see Peter Weller in a major role again. He's not just a footnote in this film as you may expect. He's got some pretty decent screen time in this. And his character is not a simple character. He's complex as you may or may not expect. But I am sure all eyes will be on Benedict Cumberbatch. And any attention he does get after this is well-deserved.
When actors play villains, I always feel that if they do it well, they have hit their peak at an acting standpoint. When playing a villain, I believe it can become an outlet for most. From numerous interviews that I have seen and read, most actors tend to lean towards the "everyone has a dark side to them" remark. And by channeling that side, you create a character so unrecognizable and memorable that (again, if done well), it's hard to top. Look at DeNiro in Cape Fear, Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, etc. Those characters work because it's rare for those actors to play characters, let alone, villains like that. But then you look at Jack Nicholson. You associate the word "villain" or "crazy" with him. And because of that, it has very little punch. Reason being, it's Jack Nicholson playing... Jack Nicholson. What Benedict Cumberbatch does with this character is incredible. I've only seen the actor in one role, but his talent is sure as hell displayed in this film. And much like Peter Weller's character, he's complex as well. He's not The Joker. There's a dynamic. Is what he is telling you really his motive? Or is there an alternative one? His "John Harrison" character is a very effective one. Far better than Eric Bana's Nero in the first film. He is unexpectedly brutal as well. Unexpectedly, because the guy is about 5' 11" and slender, but he has a very tactical combat style. It almost hurts to watch him assault the enemy. The violence in this borders PG-13 and R. Do you see anything? Not really, but there are some damn effective shooting and editing tricks pulled in this film. For instance, Harrison crushes a man's skull. You don't see any of it, but you HEAR all of it. And I've got to be honest, it's pretty damn brutal.
The first film successfully re-invented the iconic Trek characters, and this film only develops them more. Some characters are tested, and react in a way you wouldn't expect them to, and some do what may come to expect in a science fiction film. There are a few convenient devices used in the film to propel the dramatics, but nothing utterly eye-rolling. Amongst the crew, the most impressive character development was Simon Pegg's Scotty. He was the comedic do-what-you-ask figure in the first, and is mostly that in this film. But there is a pivotal scene where Kirk is instructed by Star Fleet to bring aboard torpedoes onto the USS Enterprise. Scotty strongly suggests that Kirk does not bring them on board. Kirk refuses to listen to Scotty, and Scotty resigns (temporarily, of course). To me, that defiance was necessary and much-needed. It makes you wonder who else may defy Kirk's orders, and what may come of the situation due to it.
Now to the more technical of things. First and foremost, the FX. The FX work in this is GREAT. I cant recall a scene with sketchy CG. Almost every scene had a fantastic marriage of practical sets and CG. And the 100% CG shots looked fantastic as well. Depending on what the rest of the year brings, Into Darkness should win the best Visual FX Oscar. This film is MASSIVE. That's partly due also to IMAX. The film has been released in IMAX 3D and is very impressive. Unfortunately it was not shot in native 3D, and was post-converted, but select scenes were shot in the native IMAX format. If you haven't already seen it, see it in IMAX 3D. And if you already have seen it, see it again in IMAX 3D. I can't say the 3D is phenomenal, but it IS good. The only option you have to see it in IMAX is IMAX 3D. And a little tidbit for you: If you're turned off by 3D due to the brightness levels, IMAX 3D films run off of 2 projectors with 2 bulbs as opposed to a regular 3D theatre that runs 3D films with only 1 projector and 1 bulb. With 2 projectors and 2 bulbs, you don't lose any brightness (the glasses are the only element that diminish the brightness).
Michael Giacchino is a composer who absolutely knows what he's doing with the films he scores. Star Trek Into Darkness is no different. He did a damn good job with the first film, and excels with this one. He has a very genuine traditional style. Nothing feels nudge-nudge about his work. Of course he plays around with some classic Star Trek themes (which is mandatory), but he blends his original material with the classic material seamlessly.
The only gripe I held onto walking out? The humor. The humor doesn't fail miserably, it just fell flat most of the time. Which is a bummer, considering that the humor was a very strong point in the first film. Dont get me wrong, there was nothing embarrassing, the humor was just generic.
JJ Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness? Easily the best movie of the year so far. The only question now is... What will JJ Abrams' Star Wars Episode VII bring?
Click here to read the full article...
To be fair, I actually expected The Last Stand to be better. But it wasn't. With Bullet to the Head, I expected the generic end result that I got. The various delays the film received did not bode well for the film. The trailers didn't help either. They were poorly edited, they had horrible musical choices, and just didn't sell the film well enough for me to say, "That looks ace!". Look, if Stallone is in it, Im watching it. It does NOT always mean Im going to like it.
Bullet to the Head was directed by Walter Hill (The Warriors, 48 Hours & Red Heat). The man may have directed some great films back in the day, but if this film is any indication, he may have lost any "special sauce" he once had. He hasn't directed a feature film since 2002. In that time, you either get hungry, or you get rusty. I think he got the latter. There are a lot of elements that can make or break a film. Story, casting, acting, editing, musical choices, etc. Aside from story, everything else is wrong with this film. Howabout I go one by one? Yes? Okay.
Let's talk story. I am absolutely okay with the story. Stallone plays a ruthless hit man whose partner is killed, and seeks revenge. Awesome. He partners up with a cop trying to investigate the murder, and naturally, they hate each other. Stuff happens, shit blows up, people get shot... In the face... A lot, and more stuff blows up. Okay, the story is out of the way. Moving on...
Casting. This film suffers the same casting problem The Last Stand did. You have your iconic action hero. In this case, Stallone. And you surround him with sub-par or little-known actors. Who else is in this? That Asian guy from Fast & The Furious 8, the black guy from The Thing remake, the neanderthal from the Conan The Barbarian (2011) atrocity... And Christian Slater. At least The Last Stand had Forest Whitaker, an oscar-winning actor. There really is not much else to be said about the cast. Reason being... Who the fuck are they?!
The editing was a huge issue for me. Walter Hill suffers what I call T.S.E.S. (Tony Scott Editing Syndrome). Both are (were, rather. Scott is dead) 60 year-old film makers trying to make "hip" new films. Tony Scott would throw in a really obnoxious CSI: Miami-esque edit/filter, or include some semi-ambient techno-esque music track. And it's ALWAYS horrible. Which is unfortunate, because I can strip the film of all of that, and see something good. But it IS apart of the film, so I can't classify it as "good". Walter Hill does the same shit with Bullet to the Head. Except the only difference is, it's ABSOLUTELY unnecessary. For instance, the scene would transition, and for no reason, the frame would shake and have a quick overlay of orange. There are a lot of strange and terrible editing choices in this film. A lot of the landscape shots of the city were sped up, again, much like CSI: Miami does. Fuck...
Music is a crucial component in a film for me. Look at Tron: Legacy. That film was pretty lame, in my opinion. But the score was phenomenal. And because the score was so great, every time I listen to the score, I always want to give the film another shot. Had this film had a better score, I may have enjoyed it a lot more. What did we get? A piss-poor, gloomy, and drum-driven rock song. It sounds like they snuck into the editing room of Taxi Cab Confessions, and stole their soundtrack files. I think Stallone may be through with wearing both the actor and director's hat for one production, but when he did, he got some pretty great fucking scores! Rocky Balboa, Rambo, The Expendables 1 & 2. Hill's music direction for this was very poor.
Another VERY VERY picky component of the film that bothered me, the format. Walter Hill shot this movie in flat. For those of you uneducated in the format options. You have 2 formats. Scope and flat. Scope is usually at the ratio of 16:9, and flat is at a ratio of 4:3. An easier way of putting it is scope is more rectangular, and flat is more square. Scope is wider, therefore you get more picture captured in one frame. Scope is aptly-named. Because when you watch a scope film, for the most part it feels bigger in size. When you watch a flat film, it feels smaller (and less cinematic, in my opinion). The poor editing and editing effects made the film feel straight-to-video enough, but the format REALLY makes it feel cheap. And just because a film is shot in flat, doesn't mean it's always going to feel sized-down (The Avengers was shot in flat, and that film is gigantic). But in Bullet's case, it doesn't help it.
Believe it or not, I do have great things to say about the film. The violence. The film gets pretty fucking brutal. Nothing you haven't seen before, but it feels real. A lot of R-rated action films that come out nowadays just have CG blood-spray/splatter and a couple curse words. Bullet to the Head earns it's title. It's brutally violent. Stallone causes some serious damage. And it's all believable because he is in incredible shape. There is one scene in a bath house that showcases his physical shape and physical ability at age 66. The man is a fucking beast.
Bullet to the Head. Is the film as good as it's title? Sadly, no. Had there been a bigger budget in place here, we could have gotten a better cast, better direction, and a better film. After The Last Stand and this, Im hoping Schwarzenegger & Stallone make it up with their next film together, The Tomb in September. Until then, there's always... Die Hard 5. Just kidding, that's gonna' blow hard... 5.
Click here to read the full article...
There are two very gigantic larger-than-life icons of action. And those two are Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's very hard to top them. Yes, you have Bruce Willis. But he was the counter-part to them. The anti-action hero. But with Stallone and Schwarzenegger, you had films that overcame practically everything. And it's not only fun to watch them do so, it can also being inspiring, no matter how ridiculous the circumstance. THAT is what made these two men action icons.
They ruled the 80's. After that, things started to crumble. But only for one. The 90's for Stallone were only decent. His average total box office gross was between $30-40 million. Which in comparison to Rambo: First Blood Part II's $150 million and Rocky IV's $127 million, it doesn't sound great at all. Schwarzenegger on the other hand, 4 of his films crossed the $100-million mark (one of which crossed $200 million [T2]). Come early 2000, though, Schwarzenegger hit the patch Stallone hit the decade prior. Then he did Terminator 3, it did $150 million (though it cost $200 million to make). Schwarzenegger then ran for governator, got elected, and has been out of the leading-man game until now.
When it was announced that Schwarzenegger was making his return with The Last Stand, I actually thought it was a perfect comeback-vehicle for him. An aging Sheriff taking on a drug dealer fleeing to the Mexican border, but has to pass through his town to do so? Perfect. Only... It wasn't so perfect.
When the films starts, it sets up what Schwarzenegger's character Ray Owens is up against. And for the most part, I was on board. Then it transitions into Owens' introduction. And you would think that after getting Arnold Schwarzenegger (fully) returning to acting, you would have a grander entrance. Unfortunately, it was almost like they were introducing a secondary character. And I understand his character isn't larger-than-life, but he still deserved something more... Powerful. But then again, maybe the problem lied in the writing.
The Schwarzenegger-less lead-up to watching Arnie destroy men with bullets wasn't as painful as I expected. They tried to give the heel of the film a back-story and development, which I appreciated. Did I really just want to get to Schwarzenegger cutting people in half with bullets? Yes. But the time between wasn't painful. 20 minutes later, it got to the action. Therein lies a lot of issues. First and foremost, Schwarzenegger is looking his age when he runs. I fucking HATE to say it, but he is. And to be fair, he always ran kind of awkwardly due to his size. He was mostly a gigantic fighting man in film. Not a running man. Despite the fact that he did indeed star in... The Running Man. In The Last Stand he just moves... Old.
Because he moves more lethargic, it tones down the action. Which is unfortunate because this is not a toned-down action film. It' R-rated. There is blood and violence. And a lot of the violence is brought forth because of Schwarzenegger... With a gun. And to be honest, it doesn't take a lot to fire off a gun. It's not until the very end that he gets really physical. And only for a couple minutes at that.
Im sure this isn't going to be a big issue for most, but it was one for me. The acting. Schwarzenegger isn't renowned for his acting abilities. I understand that. Do I think he's horrendous? No. He isn't fantastic, but in a lot of films, his delivery is pretty decent. It's just like Schwarzenegger talking like Schwarzenegger. The problem with this, his line-delivery is very awkward. And not in an awesomely-awkward way. More-so in a "holy-fuck-youre-rusty-as-fuck" awkward way. And it's a shame, because if this film is any indication of the rest of his career... Sheesh.
To the more technical problems of the film. A lot of the shots were an issue for me. In action films, I feel the shots should just flow. Whether they cut really fast, or cut every 15-20 seconds, they should flow. In this, every other 6 shots would seem "off". And who knows, maybe that is due to editing. But some seemed very amateur-esque. And I understand the director who created this film doesn't speak English and needed a translator on set. But maybe THAT was the reason for most of the flaws with the film (and maybe explains Arnold's awkward line-delivery).
The director of the film was Jee-Woon Kim. He's a South Korean director and was responsible for films such as The Good, The Bad, and The Weird and I Saw The Devil. And I can honestly say I haven't seen any of his films until The Last Stand. And unfortunately, I feel the language barrier may have gotten in the way with an American production like this one.
I also think that if the supporting cast had been a little stronger, it would have helped a great deal. Forest Whitaker was a good casting. As was Peter Stormare (who doesn't love that guy?!). But having Johnny Knoxville and Luis Gusman as your sidekicks? You can do better than that. If Michael Caine can be someone's butler and do not a damn thing in 3 films, Arnold fucking Schwarzenegger can get some radical sidekicks.
Before I go into my rant about how aging actors still "having it", I guess I'll conclude on The Last Stand. As a film, it's fun. Is it terrible. Not quite. Is it close to being incredibly awesome dumb fun? Unfortunately, it doesn't even achieve that. It's just... Fun.
In a couple weeks we have Stallone's Bullet to the Head coming to theatres. Am I sold on the film? Yes. Do the trailers help? No. Personally, I hate the trailers. But Im trying to see past the generic modern-metal soundtrack that raped the 2 minutes and 30 seconds of the trailer. And I see a 66 year-old man beating the shit out of people and believable so. I only bring this up because of The Last Stand. Had Schwarzenegger KILLED it in The Last Stand, this review would have ended with "... And we have Stallone's Bullet to the Head to look forward after this". But due to The Last Stand being an underwhelming effort, I have to resort to displaying a true exibit of how a 60+ year-old man can present himself as relevant.
You look at Stallone and you may think too much facial surgery. That's fine. I agree. Do I think he's grown into it? Sure. It looks a little better now then it did before. But one thing that is almost flawless: His body. The motherfucker is in Rocky III-shape. And if you need to be reminded, that was the peak of Stallone's physical shape. And because of his feats today, I proudly say that I am a Stallone-fanatic. And I totally understand that Schwarzenegger had the biggest state to govern for 8 years, so the shape he's in now is due to that. But to be honest, he started losing it even before he even began to think about running for governor.
Arnie has a slew of films lined up in the next coming years. The Tomb (with Stallone), Ten, Unknown Soldier, The Legend of Conan, Terminator 5 and more. Im hoping that he just needed wipe the dust off his soldiers with The Last Stand. Because the amount of films that he has lined up in the short amount of time they're set to be released, I can only seeing it slowing him down.
Click here to read the full article...
For the most part, I was spot-on with what I thought I was going to enjoy. Yes, there were some duds. But it just wouldnt be Hollywood without 'em! But what may possibly be the best part about a retrospect of film are the surprises. More than half of the films on my top 10 were films I didnt believe were going to be nearly as good as they were.
I only got around to doing a handful of reviews for the films (don't forget, Im a movie theatre manager, so when Im not WATCHING the movies, Im RUNNING them). But any that I have reviewed, the link will be listed.
Enough dicking around. Wolves, tigers and Bane, oh my!
1. The Expendables 2
For most of you reading this, the chance of surprise was probably at -39%. Let's face it, this film improved on almost everything than the first film. On a TECHNICAL level, I think the first is superior. And Im not saying that either are pristine examples of film making, but at least most of the first film's shot weren't blurry. Now that's not to say the shots themselves were poor choices (too much shaky cam), but the actual quality of the film stock was just better. But it improved on character-involvment (WIllis and Schwarzenegger in combat), scope, villians, and of course raised the bar with it's cast. Can The Expendables 3 top #2? Bring me the casting of Kurt Russell, and a discussion will be had.
Read my Expendables 2 review HERE.
2. Get The Gringo
If you haven't seen this yet. Do so. It's available on Netflix Instant. And if you're a fan of Payback, then you definitely need to see this. It is literally like a Mexican-based sequel to Payback. Mel Gibson is batting 3 and 3 since his comeback in 2009. Edge of Darkness, The Beaver and now Get The Gringo.
This was a film that was painful to wait for due to it being shelved since 2009/2010. Originally titled "How I Spent My Summer Vacation", it was stalled soon after Gibson's incredible telephone rant. Which is unfortunate because most critics and audiences loved it. So had it gotten a theatrical release, it would have found it's audience in a wide sense.
The film is a terrific debut from director Adrian Grunberg. He was Mel Gibson's assistant director on Apocalypto, so we can see where he got some of his directing chops from. There is so much to love about the film. The locations, the naturalistic quality of it, the balance of comedy, violence and drama, practically everything.
It was basically filmed in the slums of Mexico. You can practically smell it in the air. It's gritty, sweaty and just raw. The location was a perfect one for a fish-out-of-water film. For those of you unaware as to what the film is about... Mel Gibson plays a con man who stole a giant lump sum of cash from someone inside the US, tries to get away and crashes the car across the Mexican border. He gets arrested by the corrupt Mexican Policia and tries to con his way out of the Mexican prison, certain problems arise and it takes off from there.
The last two films Gibson did didn't give him an opportunity to really show off his action chops again, but this sure does. Everything about him is impressive in this. His acting abilities are brought to the foreground in this as well. Because to be a convincing con man, you have to be a convincing actor. And he showcases that for sure in this.
The violence in this is radical. It isn't toned down whatsoever. And you know what? Had this gotten a theatrical release, I feel as if it may have been toned down. There are some killer Mexican stand-off sequences in this. Well, actually only really one. But a lot of western-esque battles. The body-count rises, the blood sizzles in the sun, and Mel Gibson... 'Nuff said.
3. Prometheus
This is a film that for the most part, I feel the same about as everyone else. Some people say it was a let-down and a pile of garbage. But most people had a dual-response. They were let-down, but still liked it at the same time. I am the center of the "those people" and "loved it" venn-diagram. I liked it more than most, but was still a tad disappointed. My issue with the film was the issue most people had with it. The stupidity. A lot of the characters do retarded things non-retarded humans shouldn't be doing. I have no problem with the abiguity of the story, and the altering of Alien-mythology. I mean, in a sense, that is kinda' what a prequel fucking is. Otherwise, what's the damn point? And yes, an argument can be made by saying, "Then don't do it". Okay, fine. But if you ARE going to do one, throw a fucking curveball at me, instead of showing me what I already know.
It's a fucking gorgeous film. If you watch the 3 hour+ "making of" documentary, you'll see how much went into building all of the practical sets, and mumbo jumbo that goes into making a truly gorgeous-looking film. Im going as far as to say that it should have an Oscar nomination/win for set design. It's outstanding.
Read my Prometheus review HERE.
4. The Dark Knight Rises
Unlike the previous two films, my stance on this film has changed quite a bit on this film. My initial review kind of scathed it. And for good reason. All the reasons why I initially scathed it, I still have problems with. But the film really did grow on me. And it's not like I tried to convince myself that it was good, because that isn't the case. I like Batman, and like the Nolan films, but I dont obsess over them as much as other people tend to do (in fact, I wonder if they even like Batman or just love to slob Nolan's knob). Anyway...
With TDKR, there really are a lot of things that work in the film. At a film making standpoint, it looks great, has great performances, a great score, and great characters. But a little weak with some of it's pacing and story-points. Though... They could have knocked it off with the 2nd-rate Clint Eastwood-impressionist voice...
Read my Dark Knight Rises review HERE.
5. Life of Pi
This is a film that really cannot be sold in a trailer or a clip. I watched the trailer, I've seen clips, and even walked into 10 minutes of the film when I was working. There was really nothing about it that demanded that I see it. Until one day I woke up and said, "Fuck it, I'll go into work a couple hours early to catch a movie before my shift". The only one that was over before my shift was Life of Pi 3D.
The movie starts off okay. It introduces everything necessary to the story. His family, the origin of his Pi's name, his reason for believing multiple religions, etc. The first half hour is only slow because you've seen the trailers, and you know most of this film takes place on a boat. So you just want the story to acheive getting to the boat. But like I said, it's a necessary slow half-hour.
Without really handing the story to you on a silver platter, I'll give you the gist. The story starts with Pi, a young Indian boy whose family owns a zoo. Years later, they run into some financial issues and have to move their zoo to Canada to stay afloat (no pun intended). Upon their trip across the Mariana Trench, a horric storm practically wipes out the ship. Thus leaving only Pi and a tiger on a life boat. From there on, watch for yourself.
There are so fucking many qualities that I love about this film. I'll start with the most important to the story, it's message. Pi doesn't believe in one religion, he believes in many. And that is what I love about it. The film doesn't preach, it doesn't denounce one religion for another. It simply says, "What you believe in is what is most important". If his faith is what enables him to survive the grueling months out at sea with nothing but a life boat and a tiger, then so be it.
I'll put it out there plain and simple. If there is a film involving animals as the a main character in a movie, chances are... I'll cry. And Im not a shamed one bit. This film is absolutely no exception. There are TWO scenes that completely ruined me. The relationship formed between Pi and the Richard Parker (the tiger [watch the fucking movie, you'll understand]) is frustrating and ultimately heartbreaking. Did I just reveal what happens to the tiger? No, I didn't.
Ang Lee isn't a film maker Im particularly a fan of. But I don't dislike him. He's just a film maker that I don't have a whole lot of interest in. This film changed that. Reports said that a dozen directors passed on this film because the novel it was based on was "unfilmable". I don't understand how it was "unfilmable". That isn't to say that Lee didn't do a phenomenal job with it. I just don't understand why so many directors passed on the film thinking it was unfilmable. But Im glad they did, because I couldn't be happier with the final product that Ang Lee gave to us. The visuals were incredible, the 3D was great, almost everything worked in this film.
6. Jack Reacher
This was another surprise for me. Tom Cruise has picked some pretty decent projects in the past few years, so I was looking forward to this. But I wasn't eager with anticipation. I thought the trailer was decent enough, but hoped it would be better than what the trailer implied. Surely enough, it was.
Eversince last year's Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, I've been on a Tom Cruise kick. Not only does the man know how to choose projects, he knows how to give his all in them. Though, Jack Reacher wasn't his most physically demanding, you can tell he trained quite a bit to excel in other areas that weren't his height. Cruise got a lot of flack for not fitting the 6' 5" build due to him only being 5' 7". But if you've seen the film, you'll realize he owned that character. Tall or not. It's odd, it's a Cruise character you've seen before, but haven't. He's smart, but not always right. He's dominant in almost every way, but has weaknesses.
One of the absolute best things the film has going for itself is the humor. This isn't an Expendables 2 elbow-nudge action film. It has very dry humor, and at times has some very black humor. All of which is the best humor to have in an action film like this. The action in the film is great. It isn't wall-to-wall action, but when there is action, it fucking rules. All that needs to be said is: The car chase. It's so fucking well-done. It obviously harkens back to the car chases of the late 60's & early 70's (especially Bullit).
All in all, Jack Reacher is a damn solid film. A great follow-up to M:I:4.
7. Django Unchained
Tarantino, you redeemed yourself after Intolerable Basterds. I wanted to like that film, but when you threw 20-minute talking table scene after 20-minute talking table scene, I just couldn't take it anymore. Luckily, your follow-up hit the mark.
Django Unchained is Tarantino's first straight western (even though he refers to it as a "Southern"). Kill Bill Vol. 2 was close enough, but not quite. Inglourious Basterds had a lot of elements, but Django Unchained was his first full-on western.
My relationship with Tarantino's films is love/hate. For the most part, I really enjoy his films. But he bothers me because not only does he take someone else's lesser-known material and try to pass it off as his own, but I feel as if he imitates himself in the process. With Django, not much is different. But it's a whole lot more fun.
No matter what movie, rest assured, the cast will rule. In this case, he strayed away from some of his regulars and introduced new actors into the Tarantino filmography. First and foremost for me was... Don Johnson. He was the whole reason I wanted to see the damn film. He was fucking hilarious. In the film, there's a gag that involves a Klan-meeting in which they complain about the hole-sizes in their hoods. Johnson OWNS that scene. My second favorite? Leonardo DiCaprio. He plays a fantastically despicable villian. Something that is hinted about his character that isn't fully expanded upon is incest. How he acts toward his sister is pretty creepy. Though, I do believe it is intentional and provokes your mind to wonder.
One of my favorite things about Tarantino is his use of practicality. Everything from the bloodshed to the landscapes. He doesn't cheat you out of your squibs and scenery. The blood in this is killer. It's almost too red (like Dawn of the Dead). It's ridiculously fun.
8. Cloud Atlas
This was yet another surprise. But unlike some of the films on this list, I didn't expect to even watch the film due to who directed it. I never liked The Wachowski's, and can't really say Im going to be looking forward to their next film. But they did a damn fine job with Cloud Atlas (along with co-director Tom Tykwer). It's odd that the one film I did enjoy from The Wachowski's bombed at the box office, but the ones I despise (The Matrix films) did ridiculously well. I guess there's common ground: Speed Racer.
Read my Cloud Atlas review HERE.
9. The Grey
This was a fucking movie. After the abomination that was The A-Team, I didn't think I would ever associate "Joe Carnahan" and "watchable film" together again. But he shut me up. Very few films acheive what he achieved with The Grey. You have plenty of survival films, but nothing like this. You almost literally feel the frigid air while watching the film.
The whole film is solid, but there is one particular scene that has stuck in my head for a year now, and that's the plane crash scene. When I say this, I am 100% serious. It literally feels like a horror film. It's fucking terrifying. It made me feel so uncomfortable due to the sheer intensity of the scene. And the way Carnahan tinkers with your nerves in that scene, he applies that to all the scenes with the wolves. The Grey could almost be classified as a survival horror film. It becomes such an assault on the senses. Much like what having to survive in below-zero weather would be like.
My hat's off to Joe Carnahan. If he can stick to film making like this, and avoid big blockbuster fare, I may become loyal to the defiler of The A-Team.
10. Dredd
And lastly, we have yet ANOTHER shocker. There was absolutely NO REASON for this film to be as good as it was. That isn't to say it's a fantastic film, but it was really good considering it was on the shelf for 2 years and was yet another crack at a Judge Dredd feature film.
FIrst of all, let's get to the production of the film. Technically, this was an independent film. It was independently financed and produced. And Im sure that was the reason it sat on a shelf for 2 years. It wasn't until Lionsgate picked the film up, that's when we started to get a taste of the film. But sadly, Lionsgate did a piss-poor job marketing it. Did some cool shit at Comic-Con, but that audience is already built-in. They did next to nothing to attract the mainstream audience.
Enough about Lionsgate and their poor marketing strategies. The film itself is reminicent of a Paul Verhoeven film. And that is VERY much a good thing. It's not so much the style and shots themselves that share similarities, it's how the director went about the violence. As any Judge Dredd adaptation SHOULD be, it's ultra-drokking-violent (shame shame, Stallone). Shots through the cheek, head, leg, legs, cheeks, hand, hands, just about anything that can be penetrated with a bullet. And from what I could tell, it was mostly practical squibs.
Another surprisingly effective aspect of the film was the 3D. I say that because for the first time, the 3D was actually integrated into the story. There is a drug in the film called Slo-Mo that slows time down for the consumer. So when Dredd breaks down a door to the apartment of drug addict criminals and shoots 'em up, it looks AWESOME. Reason being, you're seeing what the addicts are seeing. Slo-mo blood flow. You can't beat it.
And there you have it. 2012. Though, there were a few films I didn't get to catch that I wanted to see such as Lawless, ParaNorman, Flight, and Lincoln. But fuck it... Netflix.
Click here to read the full article...
