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....

Whose Line Returns!

We're ba-ack!

The one and only, the absolute classic television series Whose Line is it Anyway? returns for a brand new season, although on the unlikeliest of stations. This summer, The CW reintroduces Whose Line is it Anyway? to a new generation of TV viewers, and in all honesty, it's exactly the same as it was before.

Whose Line 2013, along with a new host, is really just a fresh coat of paint. Imagine a red wall. It's a fine red wall, without a doubt, and for some inexplicable reason, someone paints over it with the exact same color. The wall never changed--you just wonder why on Earth the paint was needed! In other words, why did ABC cancel it in 2007? I don't know, but it sure is fun to see the gang back together again!

The original Whose Line? was fun and highly entertaining, and this one brings very little change. Wayne Brady, Ryan Stiles, Colin Mochrie, and even the musicians, Laura Hall and Linda Taylor, are back. And the bald jokes! And the Canadian jokes! It's really no different. In any other show or movie, little change warrants poor reception, but in this case, if the original was so dang good, it's great that nothing has really changed. I'm not saying that things haven't changed. Aisha Tyler (Ghost Whisperer, The Talk) replaces Drew Carey as host, and I'll be honest--she's not as fun as Drew, but she doesn't drag the show down at all. It would've been more fun, though, if she improv'd with the players like Drew did--that said, it's only three episodes, so anything could happen. The points still don't matter, but they've taken the backseat to everything else. In fact, that matter even less, since everybody's the winner on the new incarnation of Whose Line, which is kind of disappointing, especially since the "prize" is a credits read instead of a game with the host. Shame. Although, one thing to point out is the general lack of censorship. Because Whose Line? is no longer owned by Disney, the show's jokes are a bit raunchier and the TV-14 rating for suggestive dialogue and some language is very justified. But hey, it's still fun and Wayne Brady is (somehow) still as flexible as he was in the '90s!

Overall, Whose Line? is as fun, original, and entertaining as ever. If you didn't like it before, you won't like it now, but then again, how could you not like the original? So you will like it now. And you will like it always. 5/5 stars, since I'm obligated to grade. So make sure to catch Whose Line is it Anyway? every Tuesday night at 8PM on The CW Network (because that's the only reason you'll watch The CW)!

Movie Review: Bye Bye Birdie (1995)

I said I would review one of the worst movies I've ever seen: here you go.

Don't be fooled! This is not the classic '60s film that we all know and love. No, no. This is a made-for-TV remake that spits upon that film and the original musical. Oh yeah, I said it. Starring Jason Alexander (Seinfeld) as Albert Peterson and Vanessa Williams (Shaft, Soul Food) as his fiance Rosie, this version follows the 1963 musical very closely, albeit adding its own flavors leading to...a huge, muddled, overlong and boring piece of crap. Yep.

For those of you who don't know a thing about the other versions of this story, Bye Bye Birdie tells the story of Albert and Rosie, who lead record company Almaelou. Rosie wants Albert to become an English teacher like he dreamed about eight years ago when they got engaged, and so they plan to finish the business by writing their client Conrad Birdie, played by stage actor Marc Kudisch (who actually played Birdie on Broadway), his farewell song "One Last Kiss" so he can sing it on The Ed Sullivan Show before he leaves to go into the Army. Shenanigans ensue, crazy fangirls attack, and boyfriends get jealous--it's a perfectly comical premise and the musical and 1963 film are. This is NOT!

But you know, let me discuss the good aspects of this film. First of all, the only redeeming qualities of this film are right on the cover: Jason Alexander, Vanessa Williams, Marc Kudisch. Jason Alexander fits the role of Albert almost perfectly and he has so much fun on screen...when he can. He does the best with the direction he's given. He doesn't get up to the level that the legendary Dick van Dyke set in the original productions, but he is EASILY the most entertaining part of this, especially when he masterfully sings and performs his rendition of "Put on a Happy Face." Unfortunately, that musical number takes place in the first half-hour. More on the other songs later. Vanessa Williams and Kudisch are okay--not as good as Alexander, but they are still enjoyable and passable. That said, Kudisch did play Birdie before, so I guess his experience helped this time around. Williams plays Rosie well, and that's about all I'll say about that.

I would have loved to give this movie props for sticking close to the original stage version for the mainstream audience, but unfortunately, the movie fails at THAT, too! The filmmakers probably pitched the idea of a Bye Bye Birdie movie that would follow the musical, and then after the idea was accepted, they said, "Well, people will wonder where the title song is, so let's put that in somewhere." I can accept that thought. They continued, "Well, you know, we need our own spin on this, so let's add in three new songs that have little to no relevance to the plot whatsoever other than slow down the pacing. Yeah, that sounds PERFECT, right?" No, it does not sound perfect, Mr. Gene Saks, it does not. I will say that the original composers of the musical wrote the three new songs, and by themselves, they sound pretty good. Maybe it's because of how they're performed, but regardless, without a doubt, they slow the pacing of the film dramatically with everything else from every other movie and musical version.

Now the bad. And there's a lot. First off, the most infuriating thing about this movie is the MacAfee family. Chynna Phillips as Kim MacAfee, MacAfee being the frontrunner of the 1963 film, does not work... at all. Kim MacAfee in the musical is sixteen. Phillips was 27 at the time of the release, and she looks like she's in her late 30's. LATE 30's! It doesn't work, and I don't know what the heck went through the casting director's head when he said, "She's perfect for Kim MacAfee. Outstanding!" I don't, I don't, I don't. George Wendt as father Harry MacAfee has no idea who his character is, how to correctly interpret it, because all of the funny lines in the script that he has are bogged down with his sympathetic approach to a comically unsympathetic character. Did he not watch the masterful Paul Lynde in the '63 film? I mean, honestly, the role isn't that easy to mess up. You're either passable or masterful. Wendt blows the scale and kills the role. I don't mean he killed it as in a good thing; he butchered everything about the role. And I'm just skimming the surface with these complaints.

Next order of business: The director tries to ground the story into reality. Bye Bye Birdie is a satire, not a story about a fictional American family's trials and tribulations with a rock star, and director Gene Saks (who actually directed the classic The Odd Couple in '68) doesn't see that. "Hymn for a Sunday Evening (Ed Sullivan)" is supposed to be a hilarious number where the MacAfees reverently sing about how they're going to be on the Ed Sullivan Show in the style of a church hymn as the company joins them. How does this version do it? They set it in the MacAfee neighborhood in Ohio. The '60s version did it better. The musical did it better. This did not do it well. You can tell that Mr. Saks is trying to keep it realistic because the film is nowhere near as bright and bubbly with the color palette as the 1963 film was; the film looks grounded and dull. Don't believe me? Here's a shot of the "One Last Kiss" scene from the 1963 film version:

Here's a shot of the same scene from the 1995 version:

 

I think I rest my case on the matter.

As I've said before, the pacing of the film sucks. The film clocks in at 2 hours and 15 minutes. That's long for a film in general, but that's almost overkill for a musical film. Grease, Mamma Mia!, and Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street are all under two hours and are some of the most iconic movie musicals. After a while I got tired fast-forwarding through all of the commercials. That's not the network's fault, though. The length is absurd and I can't think of anyone praising this film under these circumstances. The original film was a little over an hour-forty, and that has a 100% score on Rotten Tomatoes with a positive audience reaction. If there were interesting musical numbers throughout with stunning choreography and great performances, I'd let this point go--I liked Les Miserables, didn't I?-- but those are rarely found. The lip-synching is awful, except for the three leads. Who fails at lip-synching? None other than Chyna Phillips! Give her a prize--thank goodness it's not an Emmy. Do we have any Razzies left?

This version of Bye Bye Birdie gets 1 out of 5 stars, my first overwhelmingly negative review. With terrible acting, poor pacing, and bad execution, I couldn't give it any more stars. Alexander, Williams, and Kudisch, although great, can't save the film. Honestly, if you find it on TV, just watch Sharknado instead. Or, like me, try to pretend it's a good film by watching this clip.

"One Last Kiss?" I'd say "One Last Miss."

Currently, this holds the number 4 spot on the worst movies I've ever seen. If you can avoid it, do. Please for all that's good in the world, spare yourselves. Watch Seinfeld instead if you want to see Jason Alexander funny or watch the clip above. You need nothing else. But I have to ask the question: what's the worst movie you've ever seen? Or the worst musical? Comment below. As a reminder, the transition is coming soon, so be prepared for a new direction!

Changes: A Branch of the Tree of Life

I can't believe it's been over six years since I started on this blog. When I started this adventure, my posts consisted of two or three sentences, and comments were pretty regular, but I guess that comes with being nine or ten and having your own blog. Those blog posts were about the little things in life: vacations, auditions, summer camps, and unfinished stories, and what's new in the life of Adam Johnson. And family was my main support--my audience-- even when the posts...weren't that great or thought out. Heck, most of those posts were only what I was thinking about that day. It was the imaginarium of the young child.

Since then, I began to get a big interest in film and film criticism, and as such, the imaginarium is beginning to become more concrete. As you've noticed, since July of last year, my blog has been consisting of media-centric posts, mostly movies, and that's the route I would like to further endeavor on: a blog devoted to film--reviews, trailers, news, and everything in between. No longer will I focus my primary blog on short story fan-fiction or the first random thing that pops up from my head. Instead of me seeking interaction from you, I'm here to inform and assist you. The imaginarium as it was before shatters.

As of such, I plan to begin a new blog separate from Pianoman's Blog. I realize that if I want my blog to act as a resume of some sort, I should create an entirely new focus, away from the archives of the years past. So in the coming weeks, I plan to create an entirely separate blog under the name "Adam's Final Cut" with a new URL and revert this current blog to its former name (or something close to it). For a time, I will simultaneously publish posts on both blogs, but after a time, I will leave this blog behind to focus almost entirely on "Final Cut." Almost every post from July 25, 2012 onward will be republished on the new "Final Cut" site. That said, I'll post back on this blog every now and then after the transition, but the blogs will be independent of each other, and this current blog will not be posted on as frequently, and be a bit more sporadic than "Final Cut." By sporadic, I mean if I want to post something different from the three primary means of entertainment--film, television, and literature--such as theme park or video game reviews or whatever, it would be on here, just not published regularly. The reason I'm not deleting Pianoman's Blog entirely is due to the fact that after over 150 posts, you just don't want to throw away over 150 posts. Pianoman's Blog will be mostly archival, and "Final Cut" will be my primary blog-- a new beginning.

But enough with the solemn stuff. I do have some exciting new ideas for the future of "Adam's Final Cut." Recently, I wrote a short-form screenplay called Untitled Project, and right now I'm in the middle of the production of a short film called The Struggle, both of which will be premiering at the Studio@620 this Friday and will be screened at the Sunscreen Film Festival in April 2014. I do want to write about my experiences with each and, especially with Untitled Project, thank my inspirations towards the end of production.

Secondly, I plan to introduce a new segment to the blog called Critic Spotlight, where I pay homage to some of who I think are the best and most influential film critics of our time. I hope to premiere this segment sometime this weekend or the next. It won't be as regular as my film reviews or Trailer Park, but I think it will be a nice little something for the blog.

Thirdly and lastly, I've been entertaining the idea of expanding on social media. For the most part, I've been doing advertising on my personal Facebook page where only those I friend are able to see it. I think it would be beneficial to the updated blog's attention to make a Facebook page for the new blog and a Twitter so feed and updates get out faster and broader. I also toy around with the idea of creating a YouTube channel called FinalCut+ in order to go beyond the blog. On that channel, I'd publish video tributes and short films I make, along with extended reviews and specialty reviews (review every Disney movie, every Best Picture winner, film analysis videos, etc.). Just ideas.

So there you have it. An era ends as a new one begins. I hope that this transition goes by smoothly and without problems. And for those of you who have noticed what film I've been referencing through images this whole time: Yes, I will review The Tree of Life, just after I see it again, and I will review The Shawshank Redemption and Driving Miss Daisy VERY soon. Also, I've got a bunch of stinkbombs I'm just waiting to tear apart. Trust me: it won't be pretty. But what do you think about the future of the blogs? Do have any good segment ideas? If so, let me know in the comments below! I really want your feedback on the exciting new developments that are taking place. Until next time, "thank you for helping me make this blog."

Trailer Park #2: Only God Forgives, Ender's Game, The Wolverine

If you haven't seen how this segment works yet, click here. If you wish to read the previous edition of Trailer Park, click here. Now that we're caught up...

Let's do the best at what we do.

On the second edition of Trailer Park, we'll be reviewing the final trailer for art house film Only God Forgives, the only trailer for science fiction film adaptation Ender's Game, and one of the last trailers for comic book movie The Wolverine.

Only God Forgives is probably a film you've never heard of. It's probably a film that you wouldn't have heard of for the rest of your life (unless it was nominated for an Oscar, but even then). But that's what we do here: let the underdogs sing a little, get their voice out. Anyways, Only God Forgives is the latest collaboration between Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn and American heartthrob Ryan Gosling after 2011's sleeper hit Drive. If there's one thing I can say about this trailer, it would be that it makes the film look stunningly beautiful--by look, I mean cinematography-wise. I don't even need to explain how I think that-- just look at it. That's what I thought. The trailer is also very effective in how it plays a soft lullaby during some of the more graphically violent portions, such as the shootout scene. Part of me thinks, "Wow, that's really cool," but when the sequence begins, I'm a little disturbed, but yet, I think that's what Refn is trying to do. Although the film isn't getting the best reviews from critics or audiences, I must say that the trailer has a phenomenal score, great visuals, and a great portrayal of the necessary gritty, seductive, dark, and violent world of Bangkok that this film takes place in. I likely won't see this film any time soon due to its intense nature, but if you are a fan of films that rely more on implication and metaphors, this film looks like a must for you. Only God Forgives Trailer 3 is, without a doubt, very STURDY!



Why Ender's Game? Why would I choose to review this? The trailer was released back in May and the film doesn't come out for another three or four months. Well, at the San Diego Comic-Con, Summit Entertainment released "new" footage, but I just wasn't a fan of it and there wasn't enough substance for me to review. But I still wanted to honor Ender's Game, a film based off of the great sci-fi novel by Orson Scott Card. As a pretty big fan of the book, I have to say that I'm a little disappointed by the trailer thus far. I'm trying to remain optimistic here, but I just feel like the film's going to be a complete letdown. The CGI looks iffy for one. The film was made on $110 million, so I'm guessing that most of the budget didn't go to the animated work, instead to hiring the all-star Oscar-nominated cast. I feel that the actors will do fine, but I unfortunately don't think it will live up to the high standard set to the original novel. That said, I'm very interested to see Harrison Ford's performance as Col. Graff; get to see him as a sci-fi character other than Han Solo. But, overall, there's just not enough zing in the trailer for me to give it anything better than this advice: IN NEED OF REPAIR. It's a shame; hopefully the movie's better.



To close off today's edition, let's talk about the second trailer for the new film The Wolverine, coming to theaters this Friday. In this film, Wolverine is still coping with the loss of his romantic interest Jean Grey to the Dark Phoenix, leading him to Japan and reuniting with an old colleague who grants him mortality. And that's the biggest hook of the film: Wolverine, the tough, gritty guy and everyone's favorite X-Man, is vincible. So what does that mean? He's going to be fiercer, making a great action picture for this summer. I'm not as in the loop about X-Men lore as I am Spider-Man or Batman, so I can't say how loyal the filmmakers are being towards the original material. That said, it looks like a great action picture and a great superhero movie about the invincible in a vulnerable position. Will the Hercules submit to death to end his suffering, or will he accept the gift and take the curse along with it? I'm excited for it, the trailer, though unclear at portions, is engaging, and I'm sure the film will capture the energy of X-Men (2000). I mean, that was a film that mostly followed Wolverine and that was entertaining. I'm not going to go into The Wolverine thinking it's the next Oscar contender, but my goodness, I know I'll have a good time at the movies, especially with lines like the voiceover dialogue towards the end of the trailer. I say The Wolverine is a STURDY trailer, and of these three, I'm looking forward to this most. Make sure to check it out next weekend!!

That's it for this weekend. It's a bit short now, but, you know, so are the trailers. Comment below on what you think is the best-looking trailer, your thoughts on my scores, and what my third trailer should be next week!

MOVIE REVIEW: CIA Double Feature-- Argo and Zero Dark Thirty

Over the last two weeks, I've seen two of last year's biggest Oscar contenders, Argo and Zero Dark Thirty. Ironically enough, they're both based off true stories, they briefly feature the USA's worst presidents, and they both have to do with the CIA. Since they have such a similar theme, I figured, "Why not do two-for-one?" So without further ado, I present my reviews to you.

The first film in our double feature is Argo, starring and directed by Ben Affleck, the guy from Daredevil (sigh...) and co-writer of Good Will Hunting (that's better). In Affleck's third directorial job, he portrays Tony Mendez, a CIA agent who comes up with "the best bad idea there is" to rescue six escapees of the 1979 U.S. Embassy takeover in Iran. What is this bad idea? Fake a film scout. At least it beats riding out on bicycles.

This is one of those films where you look at it and you can't believe it actually happened. Granted, Affleck and screenwriter Chris Terrio make several minor creative liberties in the material, but it doesn't disqualify it from being a great film. Affleck certainly presents a creative, though subtle, eye behind the camera, which is ironic-- you can tell he's the guy behind the camera, yet at the same time, he's right in front of you onscreen. One aspect I really liked was the film's prologue. The film is about the making of a fake B-movie, and the prologue is told in part with storyboards. Another great directorial shot is at the very end (no spoilers). The last shots show Mendez's son's room, decorated with figurines and other paraphernalia from Star Wars, Star Trek, Planet of the Apes, and other science-fiction films and among it all is a sole storyboard from the Star Wars rip-off, Argo. Affleck may not have as profound a director's eye like Shyamalan or Spielberg, but by Jove is it still a good one.

Easily the strongest aspect of this film are the characters. In a film full of suspense, we need to be worried about these characters and most, if not all, stick out. Affleck does a worthy job of portraying Terrio, who is something like an underdog among his peers, at times acting a bit unorthodox (that said, he came up with the Argo plan in the first place). It's a good thing, too. Daredevil may be one of the worst movies I've seen, and Affleck, in this film (and in his two others, so I've heard), has severed that umbilical cord and has separated himself completely from some of the stinkers he's been in, and you have to commend him for that. If you don't believe me, watch Daredevil, then come back and watch this. Yeah, that's what I thought. The hostages aren't as distinct as they should be, but they've got their standout characteristics and are unpredictable; unlike the Iranians hunting after them, they are independent people with individual problems and anchors. Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad, Drive) also masterfully blends the seriousness and the comedic aspects of his character and the situation at hand. The two standouts, however, are John Goodman and Alan Arkin as John Chambers (legendary makeup designer for Planet of the Apes) and a film producer, respectively. Their lines are some of the best in the film, including "If this is going to be a fake movie, it's going to be a fake hit," and "You want to come to Hollywood and act like a big shot without actually doing anything? You'll fit right in." Their chemistry with the cast and their comedic timing are perfect in this film, and I wish there was more of them. Going back to the lines, this is probably one of the most quotable scripts I've seen, and that's due to Terrio. Props to you; you won an Oscar.

The film succeeds on many levels: the score by Alexandre Desplat (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows--Part 2, Zero Dark Thirty) is great, Affleck and editor William Goldenberg (Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Zero Dark Thirty) seamlessly connect real-life footage with their own, and the pacing and intensity are nice and exciting for this escape thriller. The film at times is unpredictable, and there's plenty of humor to spare. While it doesn't really pertain to the film as a whole, the trailer for this film was excellent. I've included it below for your viewing pleasure. One of the best aspects of the trailer was the inclusion of "Dream On" by Aerosmith, though I was disappointed when it didn't make it into the final cut of the film. Nevertheless, the trailer captures the feel of the film perfectly.



In conclusion, Affleck did get robbed from a Best Director nomination at the Oscars, but should he have won if he was? I still think that Spielberg should have won Best Director for Lincoln, but I'm glad Argo ended up winning Best Picture. From the four out of eight nominees I've seen, this one was the best technically and enjoyably (and it was my prediction at the ceremony based on critical statistics alone!) Because of this, I give Argo 4.5 out of 5 stars. It's nearly perfect, but I don't think it warrants a full five stars. It was a fun ride and a well-done one all the same.

Now things get serious with my review of Zero Dark Thirty. Zero Dark Thirty is the infamous film of the decade-long hunt for Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden after the events of 9/11. Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker, Point Break), this film details how the hunt affects CIA agent Maya, played by award-winning actress Jessica Chastain (The Tree of Life, The Help).

Zero Dark Thirty has become renowned for its depictions of torture. When I saw this film, I thought, "Sucks for him," but I wasn't as revolted as other people were. Sure, it warrants an R-rating, but it's not overly gratuitous. That said, several people will be turned away by it, but if you've seen other violent pictures or can understand the context the actions are in, you probably won't be as turned off to the film. Do keep in mind that the opening torture scenes do set a constant gritty tone throughout the film.

Unlike Argo, where it's a "get in, then get the heck out" kind of situation because the Iranians are t'd off at our meddling, Zero Dark Thirty takes its precious time to depict a pseudo-documentary style approach of these recent events. I don't mean documentary as in full of interviews and Morgan Freeman voiceovers; more as in the episodic sense of documentaries, where we have the landing and then we have the segment of human error. This film depicts a bunch of Americans ticked off at Iran and Al Qaeda for the pain they've put us through and their acts of vengeance by knocking off Public Enemy #1, and it shows the stakes get even higher after Al Qaeda hits too close to home for Maya, hardening her as a person with one goal only: blow the bits out of bin Laden.

Don't think, however, that this film is going to have that "Yeah, 'Murica!" feel. Zero Dark Thirty is very realistic in its portrayals of imperfect people and nations. These folks make bunches of mistakes in the path, and it raises some good points of the necessity of violence in these situations and the morality of vengeance, the latter being a major theme in the great film True Grit (2010). At times, you will think, "We did that??" Though parts of the film are fictionalized due to partial classification of true events, it's an eye-opener to a sleeping America. Even though it may seem too soon for a film like this to come out, America needs to learn from its actions and know what has been going on all these years--bring things in perspective. That's why I have respect for films like these two: it shows the magnitude of human error and the consequences it brings, which you don't get in a film like Die Hard or The Avengers.

At times, the film is a bit hard to follow during some of the dialogue-based scenes, mostly due to the very similar names of the Al Qaeda associates. I guess you can't blame the film too much on that, but the problem still exists. Overall, though, Bigelow did well in portraying a strong female lead (which we need more of these days) and also portraying the question "Is it all worth it?" especially in the final shot of the film. I think I've come to realize that great films are made by their final shots: Batman riding off in the night, a reunion at the beach; birds flying away from an island, free as its inhabitants, a minister fixing his collar after a long absence, but I digress. This is a film with things that I've been taught to look for in Calvary Film Society and these are the things that make films art. Zero Dark Thirty is a film everybody needs to see at least once.

For God and Country

Thrilling, thought-provoking, and gritty, Zero Dark Thirty deserved every nomination it received. I give Zero Dark Thirty a similar score of 4.5 out of 5 stars, and I may rank it slightly higher than Argo on my preference scale, though I still think that Argo deserved to go home with the gold. That said, they are both equally great films and are must-haves in your collection of thrillers.

So again, it's down to you. If you've seen these films, which did you prefer and why? What's your favorite thriller or CIA-themed movie? Tell me if you like Double Features or single reviews better. Sound off in the comments section below!

Trailer Park #1: The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones, Saving Mr. Banks, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

If you haven't seen how this segment works yet, click here. Now that you're caught up...

Here we go!

In the first installment of Trailer Park, I'll be reviewing the second trailer for teen supernatural flick The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones, the first trailer for Disney's biopic Saving Mr. Banks, and, lastly, the first official trailer to The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.

I'll be honest; I wasn't a fan of the first trailer. Looking at it, I felt sorry for the fans of the original novels; with such a devoted following to The Mortal Instruments series, this movie would get a lot of hate. Looking at this trailer, I feel more or less the same. For the most part, I will say that the story of demon hunters does look slightly more intriguing, but it feels just like Percy Jackson; the bait is good, but I'm afraid that the catch won't be that great. After Abduction, I've lost all faith in Lily Collins as an actress--she was a terrible love interest in that film, and I highly doubt her abilities as a leading lady, so I'm definitely not excited about that. And the werewolves reference at the end, really? I guess it's part of the books' mythology, but a month before the film even hits theaters, I know that it's going to be a bad idea in the long run. Werewolves are just one step away from being as big a threat as Lucifer & co. I mean, just look at Jacob Black in Breaking Dawn! So while the film may end up getting a Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, I just see this as a cheap cashgrab to reel in teens before school starts with an established franchise (although I don't think that they're trying to hide it), I'm not excited, and I won't be scrambling to see it on August 23rd. I'm saying that this trailer FISHTAILED.



Our next film is Saving Mr. Banks (pictured above), a film about the rough process of making the Disney classic Mary Poppins. I'm not going to sugarcoat anything here, this trailer makes me so happy and giddy inside--literally, my stomach has butterflies. This movie looks amazing, and seeing Walt Disney portrayed to comedic perfection by Tom Hanks is just wonderful. The film looks like it'll be the best movie of the year, in my opinion. I can't wait to see it in theaters. I don't think I've felt this way from a trailer since my first time seeing the Lincoln trailer with the John Williams score playing in the background so reverently. So, yeah, make sure you catch this movie on December 20 because this is as STURDY as trailers get!




Our final film is the next movie in The Hobbit trilogy, The Desolation of Smaug, probably one of the most out-there titles for a book adaptation, but I digress. (If you haven't caught my review for the preceding film An Unexpected Journey, make sure you check it out here.) This trailer's main purpose is to show you the dragon Smaug and it does it well--Benedict Cumberbatch has never looked better. I kid, but Smaug looks pretty cool. Not terrifying, but he serves a dragon's purpose and that is, to look cool. When I initially saw this trailer, I thought there was a bit too much Legolas and elves. Upon another viewing, however, I realize that they're there to fulfill one of the things that I praised about the last film: bridging the gaps! While I doubt Tolkien wrote much about Legolas in his appendices, I am excited to see how Peter Jackson pulls this off. It is disappointing, though, to see that the CGI orc is still here... well, beggars can't be choosers. That said, with Gandalf visiting the lair of the Necromancer, and Howard Shore's score still impressive, this may end up being better than Journey. I'm not making any predictions, but I will say that it will be a battle for the Christmas box office with this coming out on December 13 and Saving Mr Banks on the 20th. After viewing this trailer again, I'd say that The Desolation of Smaug trailer is STURDY.

That's it for today. Which trailer did you like the best out of these three and what trailers should I review next week? Make sure you leave your thoughts on these trailers and this segment in the comments below!

Intro to Trailer Park: A New Review Segment

After thinking about it, I've decided that I want to talk about trailers to films. Trailers are what gets us into the movie-watching experience; every time you put in the new DVD or sit down in the theater chairs, you will be introduced to new films yearning for you to see them. Some of them are great and wonderful and exciting, others are... well, you know.

A great trailer shows us a snippet of an experience we will get, showing us the main story, giving us a feel of it, yet not revealing too much plot details. A terrible trailer would give away almost the whole movie, show a good number of the movie's weaknesses, and doesn't add any drive for a viewer to go see it. And I want to give you my thoughts on them.

Every week, I'll try to review three trailers. But I won't be using my standard five-star rating system; I want to have some fun!  I'll designate a trailer one of three ratings:

• Sturdy (designates a great trailer)
• In Need of Repair (an iffy trailer. While slightly interesting, trailer may have some flaws, or; the movie just doesn't look that appealing.)
• Fishtail (To put it bluntly... it sucks. Either its showcasing a movie that will probably stink to high heaven, or the editor gave too much away or did an icky job of it.)

When viewing a trailer, I'll primarily look at:

• Appeal/Excitement Factor
• Editing (i.e. cuts, intertitles, etc.)
• Mood (how is it conveyed?), and
• Story

I hope that this new segment will be entertaining for you and for me. Let me know what you think of this idea in the comments section below.

****UPDATE**** 

Due to a limited time in my schedule, starting with Trailer Park 5, I will only be reviewing one trailer per installment, which will no longer be a weekly thing. Check back monthly to see what's new!!

CLICK HERE for Trailer Park #1

CLICK HERE for Trailer Park #2

CLICK HERE for Trailer Park #3

CLICK HERE for Trailer Park #4

CLICK HERE for Trailer Park #5

CLICK HERE for Trailer Park #6

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Movie Review

I meant to post the review much earlier, back when it was still in theaters, but I never got to completing it until now. So... to celebrate the DVD release(?), here are my thoughts on the first part of Peter Jackson's next epic trilogy.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a stunning return to Peter Jackson's cinematic interpretation of Middle-Earth. After Peter Jackson's last Tolkien adaptation Return of the King won 11 Oscars in 2003, people have had high expectations for The Hobbit. And honestly, I may have liked this new one more.

Now I'm probably not the best person to ask about The Lord of the Rings, simply because it's been a year or so since I've seen the extended versions and I didn't have a critical eye back then. But I can say that The Hobbit is much better than Fellowship of the Ring, which took so long to end after the best character dies.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey tells the story of Bilbo Baggins, Frodo's favorite relative from the last three films, and how he's involved in setting major plot points of The Lord of the Rings into motion, while half-willingly helping brave dwarves take back their homeland. And that's important to realize before seeing this film. Many people will walk in to this thinking they will see an entire story play out before them, when in reality, it's a third of it. When I saw this in the theater, several people around me complained that the movie didn't end with much of a resolution. When I explained to them that it was only the beginning of a trilogy, they were dumb-founded, unconvinced that Jackson can pull it off-- and that may be the weakest point of the film.

There are many great scenes in this film, the prologue, especially. We get the backstory of the dwarves and the Big Bad, Smaug the Dragon, narrated by Bilbo Baggins. But it's not the Bilbo Baggins that you see in the picture above, but the Bilbo from The Lord of the Rings, played by Ian Holm, pictured below. Those who have seen the originals will feel SO nostalgic and happy, like me (regarding the latter), and an unexpected cameo can't not make you smile. The beginning of this film is undeniably Mr. Jackson's way of saying, "This is a prequel. This is where I am having the story told." After the prologue, we go back sixty years to the beginning of the adventure.

"You haven't aged a day!" Perhaps he knows Ripley....

Martin Freeman (Sherlock, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) plays the youthful Bilbo Baggins wonderfully, which is good since I much prefer Bilbo over Frodo, who can't help being killed by the Nazgûl every half-hour. And in this film, it's absolutely shocking how similar Freeman looks to Holm. Ian McKellen is back as Gandalf and better than ever, and the dwarves, though many, each make their characters unique, even though the screenplay doesn't make their identities completely explicit. Regardless, you still are attached to them; for example, the brother dwarves Fili and Kili are seen together in their introduction, but when they are separated at one scene, you are worried about the characters, similar to the misadventures of Merry and Pippin in the original LOTR films. Either way, none of the characters are particularly boring.

Everyone's major criticism of the film is the overlong first hour, which I must agree with since I did start getting a little restless towards the end of the beginning. However, in retrospect, I can't imagine what I would take out of the first hour. Maybe it's because I liked that scene in the book, and Peter Jackson just did a great job presenting it. Others have criticized Radagast the Brown, a character only mentioned once in The Hobbit and hardly seen in the Lord of the Rings book.

Radagast the Brown, the nature wizard. Don't expect a new Gandalf.

It is absolutely safe to say that Peter Jackson is taking creative liberties by making the nature-man Radagast an absolutely quirky hermit. Is he still the nature-loving Istari from Tolkien lore? Yes, but his character is 100% comic relief. Contrary to what some critics are saying, Radagast does serve some purpose, but not one integral to the main plot with the dwarves, but rather serves the purpose of connecting the Hobbit trilogy to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. While some will absolutely love this character, like my viewing party, but others have compared him to Jar Jar Binks from Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace negatively. I guess he's just a matter of taste, but I personally laughed when he was on screen, as was the purpose. Here's this: If you liked Professor Slughorn the tiniest bit in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, you will most likely like Radagast.

In bridging the films, Peter Jackson made several embellishments in adapting the material, some of which are based off the appendices of Return of the King, but one of the major subplots involving Thorin, the main dwarf, and a heavily-CGI orc is completely unique to the film adaptation. While it may very well tick off many a fan, I think everyone in my theater was thoroughly involved in this plot, and some may say it is "epic," especially come the film's climax. As a major fan of the original novel (it's towards the top of my top 10 list of books), I didn't mind the liberties; in fact, I think it made the film somewhat better. And when I say heavily-CGI, I MEAN heavily-CGI. It's very odd, though, that the Big Bad Orc is CGI when all the orcs from the original films were mostly real actors in extensive makeup and costume.

Lastly, the best sequence in the movie involves the best character in Middle-Earth. The "Riddles in the Dark" sequence with Gollum (who I listed as the best literary character of all time) is tense and entertaining. It shows Gollum slightly more human yet slightly more feral; you can tell he's had the One Ring for a long time, so long it's become a part of him (wink wink) and his daily life, and that's a huge credit to Andy Serkis, who reprises his role once again as the cursed creature. Unlike in The Lord of the Rings, he's not hunting his "precious," but rather living as a scavenger below Goblintown. It's a shame that Gollum won't likely make a reappearance in the next two films (since he doesn't appear again in the novel), so part of me hopes that we'll see Gollum's journey to Moria to set up his cameo in the tomb during Fellowship of the Ring. Regardless, though, Gollum was a welcome addition to the picture, and his role was played enough for the films.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey does suffer from being a tad long and from an overabundance of very apparent CGI, but the rest of the film works so well that I'm going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. I'm sure that I'll revisit this film after the whole trilogy has been released, but for now, I thought the film deserves that score, and I also thought that it was a much better opener than Fellowship of the Ring.

So what about you? Did you like it, and did you prefer The Lord of the Rings over this book/film? Or how about the age-long question: Bilbo vs. Frodo, who do you prefer? Comment below, I'd love to hear your thoughts!

Warm Bodies: Movie Review

Supernatural romance is the latest craze in fiction, spawning Twilight, The Host, Beastly-- books and movies where humankind falls in love with the Nosferatu, the intergalactic, the...tattooed--and now we have Warm Bodies, a zombie romance.

Believe it or not, this is a very good film. Warm Bodies is the latest picture from critically-acclaimed director Jonathan Levine, who is perhaps best known (and critically lauded) for 2011's cancer dramedy 50/50, which several critics placed in their top ten lists for that year. The real issue that this film was facing was to not copy  the Twilight craze, and Levine pulls out another good one.

The film has good performances for sure, with Rob Corddry (Hot Tub Time Machine), Nicholas Hoult (X-Men First Class), and Teresa Palmer, (The Sorcerer's Apprentice)-- who, ironically enough, looks strangely similar to Twilight's Kristen Stewart--leading the movie's cast, but the true masterpiece of this film is the direction. Jonathan Levine takes extraordinary advantage of the cinematic medium in this picture. Throughout the film, Hoult's R--the lead zombie--narrates, showing the inner thoughts of a post-apocalyptic zombie. That way, we get character development from a character whose spoken vocabulary is as complex as that to Tarzan. But I don't praise the narration for the characterization; I praise it because the way it's used can only be done effectively through film--while Warm Bodies is based off a popular book, I can't imagine that a brief segment where a zombie starts tearing his face (non-graphically) could've had the timing like in the film. In the book, it would have been clunky writing rather than the smooth wit and charm that the medium produces. It's a simple technique, but by Jove, this is why we see movies--to experience believable events as if it were real life without having the description read to us like a blind man.

As I said before, the performances are good. Nicholas Hoult pulls off a believable zombie, but also a lovable, if flawed, person, almost like a kid film's Frankenstein's Monster (not the novel one; he's too smart and too scary), that you feel sorry for when he's misunderstood. Palmer acts realistically--in any other zombie movie, you'd be agreeing with some of her early actions, but this film puts things in perspective; following R, her actions seem overdramatic, yet, as I said before, in any other movie, you would have been on her side-- and I liked that. The stand-out star, though, is Corddry as R's friend M, being easily the movie's funniest character.

The only "negatives" that people could find in this film is its plot's familiarity and its cheese factor. But, in my mind at least, the original portions and the thoroughly funny moments and timing, outweigh the all-too-familiar love story present in the film. And as for the cheese, it's delightfully so! We already have zombies falling in love with humans (it's well-explained in the plot), so the cheesier plot points, why complain? Just go with it; it's not as if it weighs the movie down.

A funny still from a funny montage

There's not much to criticize with the movie. It's a great stand-alone film, and a movie well-needed in this nadir of a film year. It's no Oscar material, but there was plenty to love. For me, there's not enough zing in the film to warrant a five-star rating, but I'll go close with 4.5 out of 5 stars.

So what about you? Have you seen this film, and if so, what did you think? What's your favorite zombie movie or TV show? Comment below!