A Year in Review: 2013

"And now, the end is near, and so we face the final curtain. My friends, I'll say it clear. I'll state my case of which I'm certain:" it's been an interesting year at the movies. What started out as a marathon of critically poor films has turned into some of the best cinema has to offer. I'd love to reflect on the hundreds of movies that came out this year, but, however, my schedule (and wallet...and age) does not permit such luxuries (at times, it's a blessing). As of such, I only saw 6 of this year's films, either in theaters or on DVD later in the year. So instead of a top 10 list, I'll just rank all the films I saw in my order of preference. I thought about doing something like that last year, but, well, I didn't. So we'll just start here, with my list of the movies that I saw in 2013.

6. Now You See Me
Dir. Louis Letterier; PG-13 

Coming in at the bottom of my list is the surprise summer blockbuster, Now You See Me. It wasn't an awful film; in my review, I called it a fun chase film, awarding it 3 out of 5 stars. However, it's not a film I often think about, and the highlight action sequence pales in comparison to those of other films that came out this year. If you have a free night available on HBO, or you have some friends over with Redbox or Netflix at hand, put in Now You See Me--you'll have fun, even if the film isn't great.

5. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Dir. Francis Lawrence; PG-13

Coming in at number 5 is a film that I did not review. I felt that with the circumstances that led me to see the film, the audience I saw it with, as well as the fact that I had not seen or read the first Hunger Games book/movie, it wouldn't be appropriate to do a full review of it. However, here I can say that if I did review it, I would have given it a score of 3.5 out of 5 stars. The film was thoroughly entertaining, and the energy never let up. I enjoyed the revolutionary themes and the corrupt oppressive government. However, I felt three major things kept the movie from being as good as it could have been: a Twilight-style love triangle, a too-sudden ending (I don't care if it was that way in the book), and monkeys--it will make sense when you see it. But they're just a few things--so go see it! It's by no means the best movie of the year, but it's a darn good one.

4. Warm Bodies
Dir. Jonathan Levine; PG-13 

Coming in at number 4, we have the zom-romcom Warm Bodies, which, in my original review, I gave 4.5 out of 5 stars. In retrospect, I may have been a bit too gracious with my score, but this was a very funny film with original directing. It was thoroughly entertaining, and a fresh take on the supernatural craze these days. One of the few good movies that came out in February, Warm Bodies makes it to the number four slot in this list.

3. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Dir. Peter Jackson; PG-13

I may have focused a bit on the negatives in my original review, but I thoroughly enjoyed The Desolation of Smaug, giving it 4 out of 5 stars. What it lacked in emotion, it made up in nuance and entertaining action sequences. Better than An Unexpected Journey in many ways, this little Hobbit made me a very happy fellow, eager to see how Peter Jackson paints the finale for Smaug, Bilbo, Thorin, and the gang. Now you may be wondering why a 4 is higher up than a 4.5, and that's because I enjoyed The Hobbit a bit more than the technically better Warm Bodies. Regardless, if you haven't seen this yet, see at some point, whether now or during the trilogy marathon at AMC Theaters for There and Back Again (you know it's going to happen).

RUNNER-UP: Zero Dark Thirty
Dir. Kathryn Bigelow; R

With all the Oscar buzz that happened towards the beginning of the year, and watching it around the same time as last year's Argo, I had forgotten that, technically speaking, Zero Dark Thirty was a 2013 film, and it is one of my favorite films, earning a score of 4.5 out of 5 stars in my original review. This Osama bin Laden assassination thriller is gritty and realistic, but it's also, in a way, thought-provoking. I still think about the last shot of Maya on the plane leaving Iran after seeing bin Laden's dead body. This movie explores themes of vengeance and what happens when we let vengeance control us. Many people argue this as a propaganda piece, but I disagree. It's a film that explores important themes and a film that you can think about, even if you can't thoroughly enjoy it because of its subject matter. If you can handle some R-rated language and torture sequences, make sure you check out Zero Dark Thirty--my second favorite film of the year.

BEST FILM: Saving Mr. Banks
Dir. John Lee Hancock; PG-13

This is undoubtedly the best film that I saw this year. I was pumped for Saving Mr. Banks since I reviewed the trailer back in July, and this film did not disappoint at all. Entertaining, funny, heartfelt, and with fantastic performances from everyone involved, especially those of Emma Thompson and Paul Giamatti. Mary Poppins is a revered classic among many, especially Disneyphiles, and this is one of the few films that I've seen in theaters where the audience clapped at the end. That has not happened since I saw Les Miserables last year. Why? Because this film was made, not as Disney propaganda (Walt Disney isn't painted as Mr. Perfect), but as a meaningful picture that was careful in what it did. Were some events altered from real life to film? Likely. But does something like that really matter when this film is put together so well? Butter my butt and call me a biscuit if this film does not at least get nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. I need to see this film again before I can say it's one of the best films I've ever seen, but I can tell you, this rightfully deserves all 5 out of 5 stars.

Well, there you have it! As time goes on, I'll certainly watch the films I've missed, like Gravity and Captain Phillips and Frozen, but I didn't see any of them in time to make them one of the films I would put on this list. When I see them, I'll let you know what I thought about them right here. But before that, I feel that I have some explaining to do. Back in July, shortly after the facelift, I published a post entitled "Changes: A Branch of the Tree of Life," in which I explained that the blog as a whole would dramatically change within weeks of the post. As you can tell, that has not happened, and I fear it may not for some time more. I do plan to move from here eventually, but I don't have the time right now that would justify having a separate website with a new URL. When my time frees up more, then it will be more practical to consider moving away from "The Pianoman's Blog." When I find that opportunity, I will share my plans, and when the move occurs, I will celebrate with an in-depth review of The Tree of Life by Terrence Malick, my favorite film of all time. But until then, check my tribute of this year at my new YouTube channel! Click the YouTube button on the video to subscribe!



But as Michael Buble once sang, "it's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life, and I'm feeling good." What films did you see this year that you enjoyed? That you hated? That you were indifferent about? What film in my list do you find my thoughts absolutely ludicrous for? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below! Happy New Year, y'all!

NEW MOVIE: Saving Mr. Banks Review

"Winds in the east--there's a mist coming in, like something in brewing and 'bout to begin!" These words open one of the newest films out in theaters, which retells the story behind the classic Mary Poppins film. And let me tell you: it's a spoonful of sugar. Here's my review!

Saving Mr. Banks was one of the first films I reviewed for my "Trailer Park" segment back in July. In case you don't remember, I gave that trailer the most positive rating, predicting it to be the best movie of the year. While I don't know if it is the best movie of the year, it is certainly the best film I have seen this year.

Saving Mr. Banks, as I mentioned before, explores the story behind Mary Poppins, following the book's author, P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson, Nanny McPhee, Stranger than Fiction), during the pre-production of the classic Disney film. As she works with Walt Disney (Tom Hanks, Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan), the Sherman Brothers (Jason Schwartzman from I Heart Huckabess and B.J. Novak from The Office), and the rest of the Walt Disney Studios crew, we also get windows to her past and why she's so bloody protective of the material. Like many others have noted, the film relies on the unwavering personalities of both the straitlaced Travers and the happy-go-lucky Walt, who both display their different takes on how the Mary Poppins story should be told and also on professionalism as creative geniuses.

Like director John Lee Hancock's last film, The Blind Side, Saving Mr. Banks is a character-driven piece. While the behind-the-scenes portions at Disney Studios are plenty entertaining, it's Travers's relationships with Don DaGradi (the co-writer of the Mary Poppins movie, played by Bradley Whitford from Billy Madison), the Shermans, Disney, her chauffeur (played by Paul Giamatti, American Splendor, Saving Private Ryan), and her father (in flashbacks) that provide the heart of this movie, in more ways than one. But a character-driven film cannot have a heart without strong performances to make it grounded and believable...and it has just that. Colin Farrell (The New World, Total Recall) plays Travers's father, an playful father, but we discover that it is only a facade for his young children, including P.L. Travers, that hides his occupational failures and alcoholism. I feel like he'll be the character that many audience members will relate to and have compassion for, and Farrell portrays tragedy and gaiety, a challenging mix, in what may be the best performance of his career thus far. One cannot go without noting Emma Thompson's Oscar-worthy performance of Mrs. Travers. The author was a challenging person to work with, according to Richard Sherman, and Thompson certainly shows it ("I don't want any red in the picture. I've suddenly come with an intense dislike of the color.), but amid her more ridiculous requests (read, demands), both the screenplay of this film, which was made outside of Walt Disney Studios, and Thompson's performance show a more human, sympathetic, and tragic side of her character to the point that you can understand her; in fact, I may have teared up towards the end--I didn't cry, though (tears are reserved for Wilson)! Lastly, I'd be a fool to undermine Giamatti's performance. It's not Oscar-worthy or anything, but he makes who would typically be the most insignificant character into one of the most memorable.

Hancock's direction wisely transitions back and forth from Travers's childhood in Australia to the present-day pre-production stages of the film without making it seem repetitive and trite. The transitions are well-timed, making the film well-paced-- the two hours that you will spend with this film go by rather quickly, but still it feels complete. He also makes some nice nods to the original film (Mary Poppins), and uses them in a way that doesn't just feel like fan-service. Had I seen Mary Poppins more recently, I probably would've picked up on a lot more than I did watching it now, but missing out on these Easter Eggs won't destroy your overall enjoyment of the film. Another thing to note is the colorization of the film. Now hear me out on this: I don't go to a movie and try to pay attention to these kinds of things, but it's near impossible not to notice the bright colors surrounding the film, and, to me, that helps release some of the Disney magic, even in the more unsettling PG-13 sequences halfway through the film.

This isn't my most in-depth review--in fact, it's more like my brief review of Driving Miss Daisy--because while I was watching it, I forgot about seeing it from a critical eye because I enjoyed it so much. There wasn't much to take me out of the film. There were a few things that I noticed that made me think about the movie as a craft more than an experience. For example, during one musical sequence, the writers run through "Fidelity Feduciary Bank," and Mrs. Travers is distracted by a vivid memory of her father speaking the exact same words in a speech. Could that have really happened? I'll think against it, but it was a well-done sequence, so I can't really complain, especially when I gave the film where an old man takes a 45-foot tumble through a tunnel 4 out of 5 stars! But there is one scene that is accidentally hilarious: during the Disneyland sequence, there is a little girl--obviously an extra-- waiting to get on the carousel with Walt Disney and Mrs. Travers, but she overacts her excitement so much--you have to see it to believe it. It's probably the funniest thing I've seen in a while. But hey, the sequence was supposed to be lighthearted, so why be critical?

I beseech you: go see this film whenever you can. This film earns 5 out of 5 stars. It's endearing; it's heartfelt; it's touching; it's joyful and funny; it's Disney at its finest, bringing back some of the simplicity from Disney animations in the 50s and 60s while also putting in the more mature themes that made the Disney Renaissance loved by all. Take your families to go see it--the younger ones may be bored, but there's nothing here that I don't think a 10 year old couldn't see. I'd be highly surprised if this film doesn't at least get nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. In fact, this is one of only two films I've seen in theaters where the audience clapped at the end. The audience loved the film so much that many didn't move once the credits started rolling on opening night--and you won't want to either, as Hancock has inserted a nice, extended bit halfway through the credits.

I'll need to see the movie another time before I can say it's one of the best films of all time, but do know that you are doing yourself a disservice if you miss out on this one before it leaves theaters. Enjoy the Disney magic once again, and leave the theater smiling. So whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

NEW MOVIE: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Review

We began this journey with a fellowship of a ring, then conquered two towers to await the return of the king on an unexpected journey. Now we witness the desolation...made by Smaug-- in the newest movie straight from New Zealand, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. But after five movies, does Peter Jackson still have that "precious" touch? Here's my review!

In case you haven't been around on the Earth lately, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is the sequel to last year's An Unexpected Journey and is the fifth incarnation in Peter Jackson's Middle-Earth series, the Hobbit films serving as prequels to The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit films also serve as a three-part adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's 300-some-page book of the same name. As you can guess, purists are a bit miffed that The Hobbit is being stretched out so wide. But even though The Hobbit is one of my favorite novels, I still enjoy these movies without faithfulness to the novel being a big problem.

The Desolation of Smaug picks up right where An Unexpected Journey left off as the eponymous Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman, Sherlock, The World's End), wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen, The Lord of the Rings, X-Men), and the thirteen dwarves flee from orcs and wolves to reach Erebor and reclaim their treasure. What awaits in Erebor? Why, nothing but the massive fire-breathing dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch, Sherlock, Star Trek Into Darkness)! However, the road to Erebor is not simple, as they run into several more obstacles along the way, opening the way for wood-elves Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly, Lost, The Hurt Locker) and Legolas (Orlando Bloom, The Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean) to begin their adventures.

I had but a few complaints with this film, but first, let's reflect on some of the pros of this film. Desolation of Smaug is much better paced than An Unexpected Journey and is much less boring (a point I did not emphasize in my original review). Since there was no true resolution to An Unexpected Journey, the heat is still on, and Jackson makes that very clear in the enemy orcs' early appearances, and the much-talked about barrel sequence is no exception. A constantly exciting ride, it is rightfully the highlight of the film. Benedict Cumberbatch voices Smaug to sinister perfection and is almost unrecognizable in his voice performance. His verbal showdown with Bilbo, which we got a glimpse of in one of the trailers, had me smiling because it was so good. Even though Smaug's dialogue is digitally altered, you can still pick out the slight emotions and menacing articulation in his words, making the character of Smaug a prominent and fearsome force. And even though Gollum is absent in this film, Martin Freeman's nuances with Bilbo's character, especially when it's concerning his new Ring, is so great to see. This film is very much an action piece, but one of these scenes towards the beginning where we see this side of Freeman's Bilbo grounds the film on an emotional level and a level that works with connecting the mythology.

A lot of people, as I said before, are very unhappy with the many additions that Jackson added in order to tie in with The Lord of the Rings. If I'm being quite honest, it's these additions that I love most. The last Dol Goldur sequence (Dol Goldur is where an ominous Necromancer resides), although lacking slightly in the CG department, was the part of the film that had me smiling them most--it was epic! When I own the film next year, that will still be my favorite part. I can't stop thinking about that sequence; I wish I could nerd out in front of you all, but doing so would ruin much of the fun and potential surprise in the film, and I won't do so here. Also, Jackson's inserted the character of Legolas from The Lord of the Rings films and added the new character (not in any of the books) Tauriel. Their additions will definitely be the deciding factor of whether people liked the movie or hated it. Here's my view: Their characters are welcome additions, as they are the most exciting parts. I like the tie-ins to The Lord of the Rings, so I like how they're handled--if Peter Jackson shoehorned them in there, but no attempt to make it just, I would be like Catching Fire fans when narration wasn't in the movie. The only thing I'm unsure about is an added love triangle, which I believe, at face value, is supposed to mirror the Aragorn-Eowyn-Arwen love triangle from The Lord of the Rings. It's completely original to the films, but I'm not sure if it works--YET! I feel my complaints with it will be addressed in the sequel The Hobbit: There and Back Again, so as for now, I have no opinion. I'll just warn you that if you're a Tolkien purist, you may want to make a bonfire and burn every reel of film that exists of this film...thank God it's digital!

Now for the not-so-great. Halfway through the film, the traveling gang sans Gandalf make their way to Lake-town where Bard the Bowman resides. I felt that this was the worst part of the film, bar none. In short, most of this section felt very goofy and cartoony, with Stephen Fry, who I very much liked as Mycroft Holmes in Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, playing an over-the-top caricature of Louis XIV of France as the Master of Lake-town, with a lackey to match. I don't remember if a part of this section was in the book, but I just thought it clashed with the more serious tone the rest of the series had brought on. Speaking of clashing, it's around this point where Thorin becomes a really big jerk (to put it lightly), more so than he was in the novel. In the novel, he was arrogant; in here, he coldly drops the expendable few. I found this jarring and that its only usefulness was to tie-in with the added material; I didn't find it necessary. Also, the dialogue in this film just isn't that great--or audible. Somehow when this was being edited, it was decided that the dialogue be very hard to hear, and after 10 or 15 minutes, I just gave up on trying to pay attention to it. That's a technical nitpick, but An Unexpected Journey had a similar problem on repeat viewings. Although it couldn't hurt to make an action movie a tad bit louder, could it? Regardless, the dialogue is mostly there to move the action, rather than the story, along. There's not many memorable lines here, at least that I can recall. In The Lord of the Rings, you have Frodo's monologue about Samwise Gamgee being the most important character should their adventures to Mordor be written in a book, or "My friends, you bow to no one," in The Return of the King, or even Bilbo's monologue to Thorin Oakenshield in An Unexpected Journey about the little hobbit with a home helping the dwarves reclaim the one they no longer have. Desolation has few of these, and it's kind of disappointing. Desolation is a visual adventure, not an emotional one with sentiment. Then again, it's not supposed to be. Desolation's purpose is to prepare for The Lord of the Rings and There and Back Again through plot and visual cues--an action movie to prepare us for the epic scope of the finale. In that, it's job is done well. Another thing to note is that, like it's predecessor, Desolation lacks a definitive resolution--in fact, it's a cliffhanger much in the vein of The Empire Strikes Back. Because I knew from the start that this was going to be three films, I didn't mind it--I walked out eager for the finale. However, every time I see one of these movies, there is a resounding groan amongst audience members who felt cheated because it ends on a cliffhanger where the stakes are highest. If you go into this knowing of the split, you'll probably feel less ticked. Just some helpful advice from your good old friend here.

The barrel sequence is rightfully the highlight of this film.

So in the end, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug does exceed its predecessor in many respects--pacing, score, nuances, and tie-ins-- but a few things keep it from being as great as The Lord of the Rings. Because of that, I'll give The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug the same score I gave its predecessor: 4 out of 5 stars. Don't be mistaken: I enjoyed Desolation more; from a scoring aspect, however, it was about the same. For example: Driving Miss Daisy and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade are two of my favorite films, and I would give them both 5 stars. That said, I like Indy just a little bit more than Daisy, even though it's the same score.

So have you seen Desolation, and what did you think of it? Are you a Middle-Earth kind of guy (or gal)? Do you enjoy these kinds of movies? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

As a side note that doesn't affect the score: due to certain circumstances, I saw this 2.5-hour film as a 3D showing. Is it worth it? A few sequences benefit from the 3D, like the barrel sequence, some of the elf fights, and the Mirkwood scene, but otherwise, you won't get that pop-out effect that you would typically expect in a 3D movie. The 3D also takes a lot of getting used to. During the prologue, I was worried that I would end up with a headache due to the live-action 3D. I got through it, and it didn't particularly bother me, but it was a bit of sensory overload. Personally, I prefer the brighter color scheme in The Hobbit movies, and you won't get much of that if you see it in 3D. Personally, I would see The Hobbit the same way you saw The Lord of the Rings--in 2D, although you may enjoy seeing it in IMAX--a much larger, and louder, screen. That's just my two-cents.

Because I feel I have to elaborate a bit on some of the tie-in features, below is a SPOILER HEAVY section for Desolation of Smaug. Feel free to read and discuss, but know that I warned you ahead of time.

One of my biggest uncertainties with The Hobbit is the addition of the love triangle between Legolas, Tauriel, and the dwarf Kili--this was not in the book. However, I feel that in the end, Jackson will use this love triangle to shape Legolas's character for The Lord of the Rings. How so? In Desolation, Legolas is extremely aggressive towards dwarves, even mocking a picture of his future partner Gimli, but in The Lord of the Rings, he treats Gimli as a blood brother. Why the change? I feel that Jackson is going to use Tauriel as a catalyst to shape Legolas as a compassionate character--it's possible for an elf to even love a dwarf. There are no boundaries that need to be set if united we stand. I trust Jackson, and it's sequences like Gandalf the Grey's light versus Necromancer Sauron's darkness in Dol Goldur that give me faith. It's these uncertainties that many critics and audiences are receiving as negatives, though I think Jackson is confident enough in his work to leave this open ends in a move that requires a lot of cajones--splitting a small book into three parts. When it's all said and done, I feel that we will look back at these movies, though they are not perfect, and recognize the vision, to make us see this trilogy as near-equal to The Lord of the Rings.

Trailer Park 6: Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones

While Trailer Park's changed a bit, click here for the basic rundown and a directory of past installments!

 

In the past week or so, Paramount Pictures released the trailer to the new Paranormal Activity spinoff film, The Marked Ones. And since it's that Halloween season again, I thought I would talk about it rather than, you know, talk about something amazing like The Twilight Zone or The Sixth Sense. Priorities.

Now I will establish this up front: I don't watch horror movies. I enjoy a good thriller, but I'm not a huge fan of gratuitous blood and jump scares. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed The Sixth Sense and The Birds, but I can't tell you the next time I'll watch either of them again. Anyway, jumping off the found footage style of The Blair Witch Project, Oren Peli created a low-budget, very entertaining (according to audiences) horror film. Since then, it's become a widespread thing and now we get a new one for next year...kind of.

The first time I watched this trailer, I didn't feel it. Second time I watched it, still wasn't scared. The trailer starts off in a Latino town, a party, and an old lady dies. And of course, our band of scallywags decide that they should break into her house, because that's the logical thing to do. I mean, it's like you knew her! Note the sarcasm. Anyway, they walk in, find out she was stalking him, and our main amigo wakes up the next morning with a strange mark on his arm. This is where I feel the movie's going to drag.

For the next thirty or forty minutes of the movie, I feel, are just going to be them researching the cause of the markings and finding nothing. None of that will be interesting, I guarantee. People came for a horror movie and be legitimately scared, but instead they see a man go super saiyan on a couple of gang members. That won't be scary at all, and it is likely used only as a special effects distraction from the real scares. What the first films succeeded in was their suspense and not knowing when or how something was going to happen. Director/writer Christopher Landon doesn't seem to understand, substituting suspense and shocking resolution for predictable scares and creepy imagery. Even the lady talking to Jesse (the main amigo)'s amiga knows how everything is going to pan out. Maybe if people stop filming every strange thing that happens to them, the poltergeist will leave-- just a thought. But I guess then Paranormal Activity 5 can't take place across Vine, so I guess we'll have to sit through it. All in all, I'm going to say this trailer FISHTAILED. Paranormal Activity 4 failed to entertain most fans, and I don't see this spinoff bringing them back for more.


So what say you? Are you going to see this when it comes to town in January? Or are you going to stick with some older favorites? Which Paranormal Activity is your favorite? Comment below, and let me know!

Quick Reviews

Since my schedule has kept me from posting more on here, I want to make up for that with a few brief reviews on certain films I've seen recently. I do hope to write some more on here, including some critic spotlights and a new Trailer Park on the new Paranormal Activity trailer, but until that time comes, hopefully these are enough to hold us over. Enjoy!
 
Super 8: Clearly a tribute to the great director Steven Spielberg, Super 8 exceeds in its nostalgic feel and an inspiration for young filmmakers. The tone is easily the strongest part, blending Jurassic Park with E.T, but the performances by the young actors are phenomenal. The finale, however, is not as stirring as the rest of the film, but Michael Giacchino's beautiful score still makes it an amazing moment in the film. All in all, if Star Wars Episode VII is anything like this, Star Wars fans have absolutely nothing to fear. 3.5/5 Stars

The Letter Writer: Written and directed by Christian Vuissa, The Letter Writer means well in its message that every word should be something to build people up, but severe character inconsistensies, unresolved plotlines, and a generally weak screenplay overshadow mostly beautiful cinematography (especially for a TV movie) and flawless performances by Bernie Diamond (in his final film appearance before his death) and Stella McCormas. One particular sequence that stood out as poorly done is where lead character Maggy (played by Aley Underwood) faces unfortunate events that come out of the blue which are resolved in about ten minutes. People have come out saying they cried and were emotionally affected, so either I have no heart or the movie was too obvious in what it was trying to do to affect me. Hopefully, it's the latter. 2.5/5 Stars

The Encounter: Directed by David A. R. White, the film means well, but shoddy filmmaking-- overuse of unnecessary shaky cam, poor screenwriting, awkward camera angles, and hit-or-miss acting--make a film that could have been used to easily reach non-Christians an embarrassment. The only thing saving this film from itself is an extremely dedicated performance from Bruce Marchiano, once again playing Jesus in a string of PureFlix Entertainment films, and his chemistry with former WCW champ "Sting" Borden, but not even that is given enough screen time. Parts are really good, like the verbal showdown between Marchiano and Sting, but White's inability to accentuate these sequences leave the film as, overall, extremely lackluster. 1.5/5 Stars

Peter Pan: One of Disney's classics, it's surprising that today's animators don't look back at the simplicity of these older cartoons. Peter Pan is a short, 70-minute adventure of Wendy, her brothers, and Peter Pan and the Lost Boys, as they explore the world of Neverland, running into mermaids, Indians, and Captain Hook and his pirate crew. Full of slapstick humor and an equal amount of heart, Peter Pan is apt to please everybody. Another thing to note is that sequence of the film ("What Makes the Red Man Red?") that, although fun, may offend some viewers for its stereotypical portrayal of Native Americans. All that aside, this film is beautifully animated with some great musical numbers, and, considering that the film is 60 years old, the film still holds up as well as Snow White, and entertains as much as the films in the Disney Renaissance. 4/5 Stars

MOVIE REVIEW: Driving Miss Daisy

Like Argo that came after it, Driving Miss Daisy won the Academy Award for Best Picture without winning, or being nominated for, Best Director. The Film School Rejects call it "the impossible Oscar," and I certainly agree; when the chances are against you, it's hard to win. In the end, though, could this be one of the best films ever made?

I had planned to review this earlier, but technical difficulties ensued. Now that I've seen it, I have to say it's a really great film. Directed by Bruce Beresford (Double Jeopardy, Black Robe), Driving Miss Daisy tells the story of a stubborn Jewish lady, Miss Daisy (Jessica Tandy from The Birds and Fried Green Tomatoes) and the relationship between her and her chauffeur Hoke, played by Morgan Freeman (The Shawshank Redemption, Now You See Me). And that's simply it. One could easily fail to make such a film good; it could have become a long and boring affair of a woman being stubborn and it could have gone nowhere. Luckily, playwright/screenwriter Alfred Uhry transfers his play into a cinematic masterpiece with themes of civil rights and friendship.

The film is complete with great performances and magnificent writing, but the area where this film shines is definitely make-up. The aging of the characters over a 25-year period is extremely remarkable in its realism and subtlety. Jessica Tandy as Miss Daisy isn't young by any means, but they make her look 97 by the end of the film, and it's hard to tell where the makeup begins and when it ends. Same with Dan Akyroyd (Ghostbusters, Blues Brothers); he's not an old feller today and he certainly wasn't back in 1989, but he looks very aged by the end of the film. The film is worth watching solely for a study on film/stage makeup design. It's magnificent and it definitely deserved that Oscar.

Hans Zimmer also provides a very uncharacteristic (for him, at least) score for the film. He's typically known for his epic-sounding scores with hints of electric instruments such as in the Pirates of the Carribean films or in any of his Christopher Nolan film scores (The Dark Knight Rises, Inception), but this score is more like his work on Sherlock Holmes--quirky and bouncy--but with the personal feeling of The Lion King score. I enjoyed the score, and it was nice to hear something different from Hans Zimmer. Now whether he's better than John Williams, that's debatable, and another story for another time (John Williams is better).

The film does bring up some interesting themes. Prejudice is heavily featured on both sides of the spectrum. Throughout the film, the audience, and Miss Daisy, come to realize the people like Hoke aren't being treated as equal, as Hoke brings up in a very notable scene, saying that "If he needs to make water, he'll make water...without asking [her] like a little child." Same happens with Miss Daisy later in the film when her Jewish beliefs are attacked. As I also said before, the film shows how the relationship between Daisy and Hoke becomes a friendship. In the same scene Hoke needs to make water, Hoke leaves Daisy alone, in which Daisy realizes she needs Hoke; Hoke is her protection. When Daisy starts to mentally suffer, she remembers Hoke--a timeless friend beyond any disease or ailment. Even in the final shots, Daisy brushes aside her own son so she and Hoke can share a friendly moment together as Hoke helps Daisy in her frail, old age. It's because of these themes that I would show this film to my kids in the future--show them a wholesome film where friendships last forever and that even the oddest couple can create something timeless and fantastic. I especially love the last shot where Hoke feeds Daisy a pumpkin pie on Thanksgiving as you faintly see one of the many cars Hoke drove Miss Daisy in (I want to go back and watch the film again so I can see whether it was the first or the last--I can't remember). In other words, Daisy, although she may never say it, is thankful for her time with Hoke and the friendship they have made. It's storytelling at its best!

The film definitely deserved the awards it got, Best Picture especially, but I can see why there wasn't a Best Director nomination for it. The direction isn't very significant--unlike Argo, where the direction played a big role in the film's success, Beresford doesn't bring anything significantly interesting to the table. What was smart of him, though, was to make the writing, performances, and other little things--such as makeup and art design--stand out in front, making Driving Miss Daisy one of the best Best Pictures ever made. A normal moviegoer doesn't often see a film dependent on its screenplay--others use special effects or unique cinematography to put butts in seats--but Driving Miss Daisy has an exquisite screenplay, similar to A Few Good Men (which was also a film dependent on the screenplay). Everything in this film is rather great, and there's certainly enough to digest and dissect, so I don't feel bad about giving Driving Miss Daisy 5 out of 5 stars. There's really nothing to complain about at all. The film takes its time and it's timeless!

These two give some of their best performances in Driving Miss Daisy.

So I'll leave the rest to you. Share your thoughts on Driving Miss Daisy below! And what current release--or classic/atrocity-- should I take a look at next? So until then....

MOVIE REVIEW: X2: X-Men United

Fox's 2000 hit, X-Men, gave birth to one of the highest-grossing film franchises ever, and spawned what many consider one of the best superhero movies ever made. Does X2 live up to the hype?

X2 is a 2003 film directed by Bryan Singer and loosely based off of the popular X-Men graphic novel God Loves, Man Kills. In this film, the staff and a handful of students from Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters--otherwise known as the mutant team X-Men--are confronted with a rescue mission after anti-mutant leader William Stryker kidnaps Professor Xavier, assistant Cyclops, and some of the mutant students. In order to succeed against a common threat, however, the X-Men find it necessary to team up with the deeply religious Nightcrawler and the antagonistic Magneto and Mystique. Such a team-up is conceptually interesting and, as an audience member, I found it engaging.

Unlike 2008's The Dark Knight, which benefited greatly from its top-notch performances (which I failed to recognize in my original review in July 2011--several performances, including Aaron Eckhart's and Heath Ledger's, are indeed Oscar-worthy, and I was foolish for thinking otherwise then), X2 doesn't run on performances, but rather its concept and action sequences. X2 does not contain many supporting plotlines, being mostly two hours of a single linear story, so certain characters don't get much spotlight until their necessary, such as X-Men's lead Rogue or character Jean Grey. That said, the primary storyline is, as I said before, engaging. I had fun during the film and in no small part due to the plot. Of the few side-stories are Logan/Wolverine (Hugh Jackman of Les Miserables and The Prestige fame)'s struggle to remember his past and connections with William Stryker, and teen ensemble Rogue, Iceman, and Pyro fighting against mutant oppression from home. Out of the two, the Wolverine plotline was the more interesting one, mostly because the teens were sidelined for a majority of the film's final act.

While the plot is interesting, there are flaws with it. Storm (Halle Berry of Monster Ball and Catwoman fame) is one of the more recognizable X-Men, yet her character is sorely underdeveloped. Perhaps it's because the overall arc of the series is about Xavier and Magneto's relationship since 2011's X-Men First Class, but I was a bit disappointed that she was simply a fretful deus ex machina. Also, Jean Grey (Famke Janssen of Taken and GoldenEye fame), who serves as a major part of the finale, isn't developed enough to the point that we are affected by her actions, and that's a big fault on the filmmakers' part. However, Hugh Jackman and James Marsden display brilliant acting in the final sequence involving her, making the audience know that what she does was impactful--but the screenplay and Janssen's acting should have already done that and the reactions should've been the icing on the cake. For the majority of the film, Professor Xavier is confronted by a shadow of the past--Mutant 143--but Xavier's failures with 143 prior to the film are mostly implied, with not much backstory behind the encounters. The film is two hours, but methinks adding a bit more in order to flesh that part out would have benefited the film greatly. What I'm trying to say is that X2's biggest flaw is that it is sorely underdeveloped.

What I love most about the X-Men film franchise is the theme of intolerance, echoing racism and sexism greatly. If a superhero action film is brave enough to bring these issues forward ahead of the action, I have to give the film big kudos for that. I just find the whole thing fascinating, yet it's also interesting to see how far an opposer to civil rights will go to exterminate a movement. The theme is still relevant today no matter what way one sees things, and it's thought-provoking to an extent. Without a doubt, though, it is the strongest part of the film, leading in perfectly for an epic sequel, a last stand.

While there aren't as many action sequences as one would think, there are some very notable ones. Towards the beginning of the film, Stryker and his army invade Xavier's School, leaving Wolverine and a handful of students to stop them. While a few students are tranquilized and taken away, Wolverine manages to fend off the goons in a truly marvelous fashion. If you like your Wolverine and his claws, you'll definitely enjoy him slicing through each soldier with ease. In fact, this sequence almost guaranteed the film an R-rating--only a few cuts were needed to regain a PG-13--but the way the sequence stands, it's truly a great kickstarter for the film. One of the most famous sequences in the film is Wolverine's encounter with the similarly-adamantium-enhanced Lady Deathstrike. Seeing the two equally matched opponents go at it together--one a man trying to fight the monstrosity he's become and the other a soulless weapon--is truly exciting, and what's even better is Wolverine's expression of sorrow for gruesomely defeating one he relates to--one he is. The sequence is, in fact, so great that it made WatchMojo.com's Top 10 list of best superhero duels.

It's difficult to juggle all of them, but when they're together, the scene's terrific.

So despite some underdevelopment in the character department, X2's relevant themes, strong concept, and action-packed sequences keep it as one of the most enjoyable superhero films to date. Overall, I'd say that X2: X-Men United deserves 3.75 out of 5 stars, or 3 out of 4 (they're the same). I enjoyed it, but it's not quite at the level of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight trilogy. My advice is to watch X-Men First Class and the original X-Men film from 2000 beforehand in order to enjoy the film best, so you can better understand the tension between Xavier, Magneto, and Mystique. I felt while watching it that that knowledge made it several times better.

If you've seen X2, what'd you think compared to the others? Are you excited for Days of Future Past next summer? Comment below and let me know, and make sure to check every day for the latest film and trailer reviews.

Trailer Park 5: Thor: The Dark World Trailer Review

Trailer Park will not be following its usual pattern this weekend. To see how the segment usually works, and to visit a directory of the previous four installments, click here.

That is one heck of a poster.

It's been a very long week for sure, so since my energy is drained, I'll only be reviewing one trailer this weekend, one that's been having fans go crazy since it's been released, and that's the trailer for Thor: The Dark World. The trailer has our son of Odin, Thor, teaming up with his evil brother Loki in order to stop the coming purge of darkness that was left behind in the creation of the universe.



I never did see the original movie Thor, but I've heard mostly great things about it. I did, however, see last year's The Avengers, and this looks like a direct tie-in to that film. Iron Man 3, while getting mostly positive reviews, failed to meet audience expectations of tying-in to The Avengers, especially since Tony Stark's world was essentially crushed by The Mandarin. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) made a great villain in The Avengers, and he looks equally great, if not greater, than he was before. He gives that vibe of disinterest, yet still wanting to participate in the fun of what may come. I have a feeling that he and Hemsworth and Natalie Portman are going to have very nice chemistry, especially after all the conflict involving Loki in the past two films.

It looks like the stakes are higher for everyone, even Asgard-- the world of the gods--and it's going to be a great, action-packed ride. The villains look menacing, although bearing much resemblance to The Lord of the Rings movie creatures, and I feel that I will be excited when I enter the theater in November (so many good movies coming at the end of the year....how will I ever see them all?). One thing I want to really point out is the writing as it looks. Although some lines may not pull off quite as well in the final product ("This is for New York."), I do like how they're going to incorporate humor into it as well, taking a page from the Joss Whedon collection (Whedon was the writer/director of The Avengers). The end of the trailer reminds me of a sequence in The Avengers in which the Hulk comically punches Thor several yards after a tag-team battle. And I guess that's why I'm most excited for this movie: it's connections to Joss Whedon's The Avengers.

My writing's not up to par today as I would like it to be, but I will say that this trailer is. Without a doubt, Thor: The Dark World's official trailer is STURDY; in other words, it is an top-grade trailer. So until it's released, I need to educate myself in the way of the Marvel.

What's your reaction to this trailer? Are you excited for it? Which Marvel movie is your favorite? I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments below!

MOVIE REVIEW: The Lost World: Jurassic Park

Jurassic Park is easily one of the best and one of the most stunning movies ever made. In fact, it was so good that Steven Spielberg convinced the author of the book to write a sequel, The Lost World. But is this a Spielberg movie that's better if it stayed lost?

I'll start out by saying that The Lost World: Jurassic Park is not a bad film; It's simply a disappointing film, though not without its high points. This film stars Jeff Goldblum (Independence Day, The Fly), returning from the last film to reprise his role as chaos theorist Ian Malcolm who has now become a laughing stock among scholars for preaching against InGen's Jurassic Park ideas. However, while he is trying to distance himself from the Isla Nublar incident, Malcolm is called back to action by ex-owner John Hammond, who is trying to save the dinosaurs on the lost world, Isla Sorna, from the new owners' attempts to make a new theme park attraction: Jurassic Park San Diego. This public image stunt, however, turns into a rescue/escape mission when dinosaur and man interact. It sounds like an interesting concept, which is probably why it was such a box office success.

Unfortunately, the film is almost entirely forgettable, and the film seems to forget itself at times, as well. First off, there are way too many characters in this film. The first film had a nice, balanced ten-man ensemble, and everyone had their chance in the spotlight, and even the less recognized characters are remembered afterwards--and the star power doesn't hurt either. This film juggles over fifteen, and, unlike in the first film, these characters don't mesh and are not fleshed out; the only purpose half of these characters serve is, like in a horror movie, to die. The rule of thumb for the characters in this movie is: if we didn't give you a backstory or meaning, or you're the main villain, prepare to die a horrible dinosaur death. This film mostly follows Ian Malcolm and his girlfriend, played by Julianne Moore (Boogie Nights, The Big Lebowski), his daughter, and Vince Vaughn's (Dodgeball, Wedding Crashers) character. Thing with Vince Vaughn's character is that after the island escape, which he plays a big part of, he's not mentioned or seen or heard from again, even in the big San Diego climax. He wasn't the most original or interesting of characters, but at least screenwriter David Koepp could have given him some closure. But then I think, maybe it's not entirely Koepp's fault.

The finale--the San Diego sequence--was a last minute idea. Originally, the film was going to end with a big dinosaur attack at the Isla Sorna control center, mirroring the original film, and then go on from there. However, since the development of The Lost World: Jurassic Park, director Steven Spielberg had in mind that the T-Rex gets loose in San Diego when carted over from Isla Sorna, though he was boo-hoo'd by producers early on. That didn't stop Spielberg as executive producer Kathleen Kennedy says that if you say no to one of Spielberg's ideas, he'll think about it even more and flesh it out, making himself more determined to go with it. In the end, that's what happened, and it shows. I understand that Spielberg's trying to elevate Koepp's point about naturalism prevailing over commercialism and "nature will find a way," but he just hit us over the head with it. The point hit home in the already-written scenes, so in the end, I think the movie ended up overspending on itself with a special effects heavy sequence. I want to say I liked the sequence, but I didn't. The Lost World became a monster-disaster movie, which is not what Jurassic Park was; Jurassic Park showed that nature should never be tampered with because, although beautiful, it can also be very dangerous and monstrous. In the end, I didn't get that from this sequel.

Another thing that I didn't like with this movie is that it overplayed the T-Rex and underplayed the rest of the dinos. In the beginning, Hammond says that Isla Sorna is teeming with his recreations, and while we do see the vegetarians for a while, our favorite predator, the velociraptor, isn't seen all that much. In the original film, they were the danger you never talked about, and when you saw them, you thought, "Am I supposed to be scared by these guys or the big T-Rex?" In this one, I didn't see them as a threat, unfortunately; they weren't there, and then they were, and then they weren't again.

Earlier I said that The Lost World isn't without its high points. It is nice to see Hammond and his grandchildren again, if only for a few scenes. Jeff "The Goldblum" Goldblum, returns with as much charisma from the first film as he could muster, and it helps since he's our hero. I wish I could say the same with the rest of the cast, though. The visual effects, though not as fresh as before, are still absolutely remarkable, which is why this film got nominated for that Oscar. Most notably is when Malcolm is facing off against a raptor towards the end of the film. Malcolm tears a door off its hinges and uses it as a shield against the raptor. It's amazing to think that the raptor really isn't there, since Goldblum plays the exchange off so realistically. Seeing the outtakes of the sequence and noticing how Spielberg is nitpicking every slight discrepancy of movement, it's absolutely astounding. While the entire film isn't able to be great and powerful, the scene of the T-Rex emerging from the boat in San Diego and Malcolm whispering to the villain, "Now you're John Hammond," brings back what made the original good. And while the theme is beat over our heads a bit, I like that the filmmakers tried to do it, and for a while, it was what made the movie better. If you are looking to study film and its underlying themes, this would be a good film to look at, even if it's not The Godfather or Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Certainly an interesting blend of characters, but perhaps a bit much.

After thinking hard about it, I'm going to give The Lost World: Jurassic Park 2.5 out of 5 stars. By no means is this at the typical Spielberg caliber, but not all good is completely lost. Despite some preachiness and a muddled execution, The Lost World: Jurassic Park excels in its visual effects, potential, and a worthy performance by Jeff Goldblum.

For many, this is the runt of the litter. Do you think this movie's underrated? What's your favorite Jurassic Park film in the series so far? Are you excited for the fourth one? Myself, I'm somewhere in between. The sequels so far have been less than spectacular, but I'm hoping director Colin Trevorrow (Safety Not Guarenteed) can pull it off. Sound off in the comments below.

Trailer Park 4: Elysium, Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters, Mr. Morgan's Last Love

If you still aren't up to speed on this little shindig I like to call Trailer Park, do click here. You'll also find a directory for every episode so far. Now that we're up to speed...

Let's git 'er done!

On this week's edition of Trailer Park, I'll be reviewing the Sony Pictures official trailer for the Matt Damon-Jodie Foster sci-fi film Elysium, the second trailer for teen favorite sure-to-be box office smash Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters, and the official trailer for German-French-American film Mr Morgan's Last Love.



Our first film is Elysium, the newest film from the director of critically-acclaimed film District 9. In this picture, Matt Damon, after a factory accident must break into the home of the wealthy and healthy--Elysium--and as you may tell, the government's not very happy about that. Now records show that I have not yet given a Sony Pictures film a positive score on Trailer Park yet, Mortal Instruments and The Smurfs 2 receiving the lowest marks. However, things will change with the trailer to Elysium. Armed with a strong and mostly original concept, great camerawork and stunts, and an all-star cast, it looks like a fun, if not great, summer movie. It is getting a somewhat mixed reaction so far, splitting the Schmoes Know Movies duo, but based off what I see, I would go see it. I have not seen District 9, so I can't give my thoughts on the director and use that as bias, but I see very little flaws with this trailer. The world-up-above-is-better concept has been done before, but it looks like writer-director Neill Blomkamp is going to use it to make it his own. My only worry is that, like Pacific Rim, it won't make its money back. However, I'll say that this trailer is STURDY.



With City of Bones, this is the movie that sort of inspired Trailer Park, when I would give a brief tidbit about my thoughts of the trailer on Facebook; now I do it here. This is also the sequel to one of my least favorite films of all time, Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief (who on Earth decided to give it such a long title, my word!), which I briefly touched upon in my recent article "What Makes a Movie Bad?" Am I excited for this movie? Absolutely not. Does the movie look sucky? Surprisingly, not as much I thought. I didn't read the original book, The Sea of Monsters, so I can't say how much that the filmmakers are going to respect the material (although it is written by the guy who wrote the Green Lantern movie). In this adventure, Percy, Annabeth, and Grover have to recover the Golden Fleece in the Bermuda Triangle in order to save every demigod and mythological character that walks the Earth. Hopefully this time they actually bring up Kronos the Titan in this version instead of making Luke, son of Hermes, the villain--seriously, who's idea was it to make the kid the bad guy? Such a stupid move, such a stupid movie. If they continue to have Luke be the big bad, then isn't he, in essence, trying to wipe himself out with everything relative to Greek mythology? Since Logan Lerman is a big star now in Hollywood--and with Perks of Being a Wallflower, a very talented star--hopefully he will carry this movie better than last time, and the cast around him will help carry the weight. Luckily, he has Nathan Fillion to help him out as Hermes. If you don't know who Nathan Fillion is, he is the star of several TV shows such as Castle and cult hit Firefly, but I know him best as Captain Hammer from Joss Whedon's Dr Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. From what I've seen of Fillion, he's a great actor and he's probably the only reason I'd go see this movie. So because of Nathan Fillion and a couple of apparent improvements, I'll say that the Sea of Monsters trailer is IN NEED OF REPAIR. I'm hoping that this one won't make my Top Ten WORST Movies list, but you never know.



Our last trailer is a lesser-known dramedy starring Sir Michael Caine and directed by Sandra Nettelbeck, who may be better known to American audiences for her 2007 film No Reservations. This film shows an American philosophy professor who is still coping with the death of his wife, until he meets a young dance teacher, who brings happiness back to his life. Now at first glance, it seems like a creepy film about an old man who finds his last love in the French woman; but I think, like UP, the film will deal more with Mr. Morgan's coping through loss. And it looks like a cute little film as well. I will say, though, that it takes some getting used to hearing Sir Michael Caine talk with an American accent, or at least try. Knowing his performances, though, I think that, in the final product, he'll pull it off just fine. I don't think it'll be getting any Oscar nods, but it does look like a promising film and story. I can't say when the film will be released here, but I do hope to see it when it finally arrives. I'm going to say that this trailer is STURDY.

So once again, not a single trailer gets a "Fishtail" rating. Whether any of these will be great movies, I'm not sure, but the trailers look good enough to me. Personally, out of these three, I'm looking most forward to Mr Morgan, but what about you? I know plenty are excited for Percy Jackson because of leading man Logan Lerman. Which movie are you looking forward to most? It's hard to believe that the year is almost over, and there's only four months left! Since I've only seen one new film this year fresh from theaters, which movie should I review in theaters when I get the chance? I'll leave it to you to comment below, so until next time....

Soapbox: What Makes a Movie Bad?

Earlier this week, I was looking at my current top ten worst list of movies (yes, I do have one; no, I won't publish it yet--I haven't seen The Smurfs 2), and I began analyzing why I put them there. On my list, I have the Rotten Tomatoes percentage next to the films; while most of the films on the list are considered "Rotten," a few are borderline "Fresh" or very high on the "Tomatometer." Why did I not like the film while others did? Why do I find one film completely awful while another thinks it is above decent? So today, instead of a review, list, or memoir, I want to do an essay of sorts. "What Makes a Movie Bad?"
Note: This essay will include spoilers on several films, including Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Pirates of the Caribbean, and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. Do proceed with caution.

I'm not feelin' very lucky... but I gots to know!

I hate it when a movie uses a deus ex machina to resurrect, or even save, a character's life through an unbelievable turn of events. A notable example is in Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. In the extremely extended first action sequence, Indiana Jones is caught in the middle of a 1950's-style nuclear test zone. A countdown begins and Indy should be toast when the lady says "zero," yet after the blast, he survives while everything around him melts like Hiroshima. How? Lead-lined refrigerator. And thus the term "nuke the fridge" was born. Now, when I saw the film back in 2008/2009, the sequence confused me, and it still does. Now let it be said: the film isn't on my worst list because of the nuke the fridge sequence (there's lack of appropriate tone, out-of-place/needless CGI sequences, and lack of fun), but it certainly doesn't help matters at all. Indy should have been fried in the first thirty minutes of his movie--the test zone scientists who were almost out of the blast zone were!--yet Indy is the cockroach from WALL-E. It took me out of the film for a while, and nothing made up for it by the end. Another example is The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. I like the series--they're nice, fun adventure films--but this one proved much differently. Why do I dislike it? Besides being unmemorable and bland, they kill Brendan Fraser's character halfway through the movie... only to bring him back again simply to introduce a mystical character. It's not like in Last Crusade, where Indy seemingly gets ran over by a tank, or how Jack Sparrow still survived being eaten by the Kraken in Dead Man's Chest so he could return for the finale At World's End... because there was never a fourth installment--those kinds of things work in the film's universe or for their characters. Dragon Emperor only used it because it could, and that's just lazy writing right there. I'm sure the conversation went like this:

"Man, that was awesome how we had that fight scene with the yetis, man. Oh, ya-no-wha, dude; let's kill the main character... the audience will be like, 'What the $#%^ just happened, man?' Oh wait, we need the main character.... Let's just introduce another one to make him come back to life again so we don't have to rewrite all that. RIGHTEOUS!!" 

Yep. I get why some movies do it and it works for Doctor Who, but other films just use it as a lazy plot device with imaginations that are as dull as the above monologue. Such a thing does not kill a movie, but these kinds of deus ex machinas surely don't help its cause.

Another thing that hurts a movie pretty bad is the lack of passion. People give George Lucas crap for the Star Wars prequels-- and I'll admit: they are crap-- but at least Lucas went through years of development and he put his heart and soul into each of the six films. The worst kinds of movies are the ones where the filmmakers don't care. In cinema, there's the passionate crap and the I-don't-give-a-crap crap. Now don't get me wrong--sometimes the passionate crap doesn't come out quite right-- but if the filmmakers don't care, why should we? Notable examples are the fourth installments in a franchise. To list some of these, they are: Shrek Forever After, a bland attempt to recapture the original's humor... by flipping around everything from the original, for what other reason than kids' money; Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, a boring installment that captures none of the fun or originality of the preceding films that only feels like another Depp vehicle; Paranormal Activity 4... need I go on? It's soulless.

Abduction and Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief aren't exempt. We all know why Abduction was made--to steal the money of little tween girls wanting to see Taylor Lautner. That's a whole new kind of nasty, similar to On Stranger Tides and any PG-13 Johnny Depp movie. And Lightning Thief was just trying to bring a new Harry Potter franchise to the table while paying no respect to the books. Jurassic Park may have gotten away with significant changes, but because Spielberg still captured the beauty and monstrosity of the dinosaurs that Crichton portrayed in the novels, it still had the right heart; only die-hard purists would be ticked. The thing of it is, Spielberg didn't make a cash-grab with Jurassic Park. Even with the highly disappointing sequel The Lost World, he tried to portray thought-provoking themes of hunter vs. naturalist that showed he wasn't trying to simply take money from innocent movie-goers. Then you have films like Sharknado or Movie 43 which don't have any care or passion or any technique involved. Like an orangutan, they throw poop at the screen and expects you to watch it decompose or do something with it. They make their money back and all's fine for them, but instead of watching films for entertainment, we become consumers willing to rigidly drink carbolic oil laced with cyanide. They don't care. It's infuriating and those movies rightfully deserve to be listed on worst lists only to never be heard of again. I just got done working on a short film and, while it still has a lot of work before it can be considered true quality entertainment, the crew and I worked our butts off amongst all the struggles, and we still do as production continues. But these guys are professionals who get paid to do what they do. As popular film fan/critic Chris Stuckmann said in his review/rant of Movie 43,

"There are so many people out there who would love to be making movies--in Hollywood or whatever--who have true ideas about what it's like to make a movie: people who are in film school, people who are learning about the art of filmmaking; and then you see this s***, just like, there! Why?!"

It's not so much the crappy product that they send out; it's the crappy attitude, disposition, and comprehension that's behind the camera that makes the film twice as bad.

No truer words have been spoken.

Now that I'm done ranting about that mess, one of the most tragic things that kills a movie is all the potential behind it. Recently, I reviewed Bye Bye Birdie from 1995, and honestly, I thought it would be great; it had everything going for it and it failed. Perhaps it's the expectations that I have with these movies, but I don't think that's the entire reason. Take Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. When I saw it last, I had no expectations, because I hardly remembered the last time I had seen it, and I still was bored and unentertained by it; and I consider that one of the worst movies I've seen. It's a shame, because Lucas put so much work, heart, and soul into developing these movies and his interviews talking about them are terrific, but, unfortunately, his tower of cards was unstable, and too many wrong moves made the whole operation come tumbling down. It is a real shame. I want to give the movie enough pity so that it doesn't end up on the worst list, but in the end, I have to look back on everything and its content, and these films with failed potential really are that bad. An odder example is Sharkboy and Lavagirl. Robert Rodriguez is a work of art. Friends with Quentin Tarantino-- who some consider one of the most influential directors of our time-- Rodriguez is not quite as good. He makes the bizarre films filled with violence and sex like Desperado and the surreal children's films like Spy Kids. Sometimes they combine and make Machete. Sharkboy and Lavagirl is one of his kids films and it is made for kids, strictly for kids, and Rodriguez has fun with it. The thing is, being a one-man show-- being the... everything in the crew--it isn't the best of films. I guess this is the part where I say that, there is passionate crap and the concept is good, but in the end, it's still crap. It is sad for me to say this, because you realize that these guys are trying to make the best film possible, but it just doesn't work out for them in the end. Most of these guys, like Lucas and Rodriguez, can be great visionaries trying to tell great stories, like with Star Wars from 1977 or Sin City, respectively, but the audience is left wanting something better. Unfortunately for them, the potential was missed, and people like myself were left disappointed.

So in a world where we get greats like The Tree of Life or The Shawshank Redemption, we still get our Gigli's and Plan 9's From Outer Space. While some actually try to tell great stories, others just don't care or are too lazy to convey something above average. No one is invincible--even Spielberg and Tarantino had their flops--and bad films are going to happen. But that won't stop us from paying money to see what the greats can do. As for my article, I could have gone more into bad acting and shoddy camerawork (i.e. Daredevil), but those are obvious. I simply talked about some of the unique things that make me consider a movie bad. Certainly, there are others, but I don't want to take the spotlight all by myself. What makes a poor movie-going experience for you? What's some of the worst films you've seen? And, on a side note, should I do more articles like these? Comment below, and tell me about it!

Trailer Park 3: The Smurfs 2, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Jobs

If you have not yet read any episodes of this segment before, click here to learn about it and visit previous episodes. Now that we're caught up...

Let the odds be ever in your favor.

This weekend, on Trailer Park, we'll be discussing the third trailer for the latest family "movie" fiesta The Smurfs 2, the latest trailer for teen favorite The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, and the official trailer for Apple biopic JOBS.


Our first trailer today is for the kids film The Smurfs 2, which is supposed to be the second installment in a Smurfs trilogy. To quote Hugh Jackman in Les Miserables, "What have I done, sweet Jesus, what have I done?" This just shows that movie studios don't really care if the general population enjoyed a movie--it made money so let's do it again! And again! And again...and again and again and again. Now personally I haven't seen the previous Smurfs film, nor have I really seen much of the old 80's TV show, but from what I hear, The Smurfs movie from 2011 is one of the most dreadful things ever put to screen for family audiences, ruining the nostalgia and lowering kids' brain cells: like Disney Channel, only worse. In this new installment, the Smurfs and Neil Patrick Harris have to save Smurfette from becoming one of Gargamel's anti-Smurfs, the Naughties, and somehow she's the only one who can make the Naughties blue... what is this? What am I doing talking about this? It's innocent, but stupid. Stupid stupid stupid. Even the trailer. Don't waste your money watching the movie, just watch the trailer, because the trailer explains everything--the entire movie, or at least the "important" bits. I'll tell you exactly what will happen: Gargamel creates the Naughties, comes up with the evil plan on his iPad Mini to make Smurfette a bad Smurf, and after 75 minutes of painful footage and a terrible script, Gargamel will be stopped, falling from a great height or shot out of something-or-other and the Naughties will be accepted by the Smurfs as Papa Smurf says, "It doesn't matter where you came from. What matters is who you choose to be." And they sing their happy Smurf song. The end. There: you don't have to sit through a poorly edited (honestly, the rough cut of the film I'm working on looks better than this), poorly CGI'd piece of junk, you don't have to sit through 90 minutes of a screenplay that somehow someway took five people to write. FIVE PEOPLE!!! I only took one person to write the screenplay for The Shawshank Redemption and it takes FIVE PEOPLE to write an awful movie. Not to mention that I'm very positive that they use the same CG models from the last movie for Azrael the Cat. This is just a lazy cashgrab, and Raja Gosnell is laughing all the way to the bank as he destroys yet another classic TV show in the eyes of its fanbase. I hope you're smurfing happy, you smurf! This trailer and the entire concept for this movie FISHTAILS beyond control. I may just see it so I can feel better about putting Star Wars Episode II towards the number 1 spot of my top ten worst films ever seen. Did I say that this movie's going to suck? Oh, well, in that case, "this movie's going to suck."



Reportedly, this trailer for Catching Fire brought down the house at Comic-Con this past week, and that's understandably so. While The Hunger Games failed to please everybody, many citing differences from the novel and the heavy use of shaky-cam, I think this one's going to be different, joining the leagues of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows--Part 2 as one of the best book-to-film adaptations in the young adult subcategory. In this movie, Katniss Everdeen, instead of facing off against fellow children, now faces off against select past winners from the last seventy-five years of the Hunger Games, in an effort lead by Philip Seymour Hoffman and Donald Sutherland to "eradicate" her and the other winners after Katniss and Peeta begin a revolution following the 74th Hunger Games. If I botched half of that, it's because that's all I know from the trailer. I haven't read the books (though I own them) nor have I seen the previous movie (which is on Netflix last I checked), but this movie looks really good. I was more excited after seeing the teaser trailer than I was this one, but the second trailer is still STURDY. Hopefully the odds are ever in its favor.



Google gets its own movie (The Internship), now Apple wants in, although less comically. Jobs is a biopic about the legendary Steve Jobs, who not only created one of the most well-loved computer companies and sparked the genesis of computer engineering, but was actually one of Pixar's founding fathers. Starring Ashton Kutcher, this film looks like the next Social Network, detailing the life of a man behind a technological phenomenon. It also reminds me faintly of Argo, but probably because both are set in the '70s and they both have pretty good  trailers. I don't watch Two and a Half Men, so I'm not familiar with Kutcher's acting caliber, but I'm excited to see him portray Steve Jobs, and I hope they delve into the genesis of Pixar as we know it today (that is, if Disney's going to let them). The trailer probably gives away a bit much, but I think that this kind of film can get away with that. As with Zero Dark Thirty, we practically know what major events will happen, but we don't know some of the inside coverage that both films will share. Zero Dark Thirty talked about the tediousness of finding bin Laden; this will talk about the drama of being the father of the technological revolution. While the reviews aren't hot (critics are split dramatically), and the director hasn't had a critical hit yet, I still think that this trailer is STURDY, and looks like "Oscar bait." That said, anything can happen.

What about you? Which trailer did you prefer? Honestly, I thought Catching Fire was the headliner here, but we may share different opinions. It's America; we're about free speech here. Comment below! And if you find a trailer that I should review next week, let me know in the comments. Until then....