Movie Review: Epic

Epic... Great title for a movie. It's hard to believe that there was never a film called that before. OR if there was no one has ever heard of it.

However, when I saw the trailer one thing came into my mind, and if you have seen the trailer more than likely the same thought ran through yours. If you hadn't seen the trailer, watch it, then maybe you can have the same thought.

Now do you see it? It's a movie you have seen before, many of times. Most notable “Fern Gully”. I went into this film thinking about all the ways I am going to tear into it, because it's the same crap I've seen before.

Except that in ONE area it is NOT like all the other movies where someone gets shrunk down to discover a new world. The big enemy of the forest, the thing is that is hurting the forest, is NOT humans. You heard me correctly,the big bad is not humans. The big bad is just rot, natural decay of a forest. It made me so happy! For once I didn't feel like I had liberal crap being shoved down my throat.

So thank you James Hart and others for not writing the same old shit.

Rating: 7 out of the 10 STARS

Movie Review: Hangover 3

Biases, comparing, judgments it is what we all of us as humans do. We can't stop, it's in our DNA. What we can do is not let judgment ruin things. Today I'm writing about Hangover 3, the last in the Hangover Trilogy. I've had a lot of mix opinions from friends about this film. Some like it, some hate it, but the consistent things I hear are these; from those who like it, “It was better than the 2^nd movie.” From those who hate it, “It just wasn't as good as the 1^st movie.”Which to me means no one is judging this film on it's own merit.

Example: When I was younger I watched The Godfather III. I hadn't watched any of the other films yet, but I thought it was a great movie. I then watched the first 2 films in the trilogy and was completely blown away, I still loved the third film even if it wasn't as good as the first two, but almost everyone told me that hated the third. Was it because people are more judgmental than me? Was it because I saw it first? Was it because I have no taste in films? (don't answer that last one) I think it's because I saw it first. I had no preconception or comparison of the first two films.

Hangover 3 had almost everything I could want to round out this series. Funny new characters, lovable old characters, and some strange unique situations to make a laughable good time. Plus, Galifianakis is always funny. But I am not going to tell you much about this film. I want you guys to go watch it and tell me what you think. Is it funny or bad? Are you make judgments on this movie compared to the first two? Please, leave a comment. Next film is Fast 6 I'll try to have that up by tomorrow.  

Review: Star Trek into Darkness

     When I was a child in the 80's, a new series of movies came out based on a TV show from the 60's. I was instantly captivated. At the time, my youth kept me from understanding the nuances, the drama, and emotions of the films. My childhood delight came from the action, sounds, and shiny blinking lights of space. In 1988 a new TV series based on the 60's show came out. It was amazing! I decided to watch the original series and then the movies all over again. This time I got all the things I missed when I was younger, and I fully embraced my new passion. I was now one of the many that the world loving calls Trekkies. Now, as you all know, there is a reboot of the movie series. The latest movie, "Star Trek: into Darkness," directed by JJ Abrams, is out in theaters, and I want to see how it stacks up.

     First, I want to talk about the visual content of the film. Like any Sci Fi or Fantasy movie, a huge part is the look of the film. It begins on a alien planet which, unlike a lot of other worlds I've seen, this planet truly looked alien. More than that it was a great cross between an alien world and a familiar  one that looks like you would expect humans to live on. Then came the space ships, again a beautiful cross between the old ships and ships with a more modern feel. All in all Abrams created a picturesque universe.

     Next, the acting. Those who watched the first reboot movie know the great work done by the new cast. Chris Pine (Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), Zoe Saldana (Uhura), and Simon Pegg (Scotty) are all incredible. So let's focus on the villain played by Benedict Cumberbatch. I know... the man has the name of a hobbit. Which is funnier when you find out he stars in the new Hobbit films as the voice of The Necromancer & Smaug the dragon. However, he is best known for the BBC show "Sherlock," where he plays a modern incarnation of the legendary detective. In this movie, just like everything else, he is astounding. He reminds me of an actor from some storybook, someone that can read a simple monologue and completely captivate his audience. I truly hope he becomes more popular in the States so he gets more roles here.

     Lastly, I want to talk about the part that is near and dear to my heart, the writing. Stories make our world go around, and this one blows me away. The emotions between the characters are wonderfully dramatic. I felt true passion between the friends. There were two crucial underlying themes. The first is that going outside the lines is more revenge than justice, and the second is how emotions can cloud reasonable thoughts. These themes were well laid out and explored, but I didn't feel like it was thrown in my face. The movie was excellent and I'm going to miss Abrams doing these films. I truly hope the next person to take over can fill his shoes. It is going to take a lot for a movie this year to top Star Trek.

Rating: 8.5 out of 10 stars

As usual let me know what you think, and follow if you like.

Movie Review: The Great Gatsby

     I try my hardest to never prejudge a movie before I watch it. I believe that everyone has played the Expectation Game with movies, where we say, “I expected more from this film,” or “I didn't think I'd like this movie, but it turned out great.” So when I heard that a classic American tale was being filmed by someone who, in my opinion, is one of the worst 3 directors I've ever seen (Baz Luhrmann), well... I told myself  "Watch it before you judge, don't leap to any conclusions." 

     As always, Baz Luhrmann didn't let me down. He took a classic story about how changing your outer appearance does not change who you are, nor does having been born to a higher class family make you a good person, and made it into a pretty and sparkly spectacle that I can only guess was aimed at women & gay men.  He gave it no real substance, just a paint-thin veneer of distraction from the mundane. “He is like the gay/female version of Michael Bay.” said a friend of mine. “If the two ever collaborated it would be a movie with Navy Seals masquerading as Chippendale Dancers, randomly breaking into pop songs and blowing shit up.” I couldn't agree more. Except I think Luhrmann's editing is so ham-handed that it would make Michael Bay blush.

     He also cut some of the most important characters from the film. For instance, the character of Wolfshiem, based on real life criminal & gambler Arnold Rothstien, who presented an ever-present danger felt lying behind everything. Even though he didn't even cause the problems, his character made you feel constantly wary.  Except that he didn't exist in the film, removing with it that ominous presence.

     Still, none of this would have bothered me too much. This is, as I said earlier, something I expected from the director. What truly bothered me, what made me nauseous, what almost made me get up a few times to walk out on the film was the music. The story takes place in the “Roaring Twenties”, also known by some as the Golden Age of Jazz. It was the time of Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Jelly Roll Morton, and not to mention Gershwin. Gershwin, for crying out loud! In all fairness there was like 20 seconds of Gershwin at one point in the film, but you can put the whole movie to Gershwin and it would work. Instead every time there should have been jazz playing there was a hip hop song instead. I have no problem with hip hop music, but when your trying to immerse yourself in the 1920's you don't appreciate Jay Z showing up to distract you from the film.

     However, not everything in this film was bad. The acting was fantastic. DiCaprio gave what I believe was his finest performance as Gatsby. I always thought DiCaprio overacted his parts to a certain extent. Not a lot, just that he had a little difficulty with subtlety. But almost ever movie he has gotten better, and in this one he excelled.

     Much like Gatsby himself I have hope. My hope is that the next classic book made into a film is a classic in its own right.

Rating: 3 stars out of 10

     If you enjoyed this review please follow me for more on movies, music, and books. Next week I'll be reviewing the new Star Trek film.