My 2013 Movie reviews

My 2013 Movie reviews

Intro: I'm starting to think that Mr. Cruise wishes his parents named him Jack. I mean this is the third time where he plays a character with that name.

Oblivion: This movie takes place in the year 2077 and it follows a man name Jack Harper who repairs drones that help monitor what's left of the earth after the war. His life starts to turn upside down when he meets one of the scavengers and a woman who knows him. After that, he's wondering if he's on the right side, so he has to figure that out before he dooms mankind.  

This movie kind of reminds me of Wall E to a point. The movie also reminds me of other sci-fi films like 2001 A Space Odyssey. The visual effects in this movie are gorgeous! The Earth may look doom and gloom but it's colorful. Also, the action scenes are fine. The movie got me interested in how things played out before and after the war. You can argue that the theme of this movie is never forget your past, but the movie could have done more with that. The movie also deals with what separates humans from machines? Yes! This isn't a new idea for this genre but it's explored in a different way. I mean The machines sees the value in humans. 

Jack Harper is a wide-eyed curious person. He may not remember his past he does have flashes of it. We learn something about him that's ironic. That's what bugs me about this character I mean I'm sick of the main character having no memory because it feels like a cheap way to make that character interesting. Also, Jack’s ship annoys me, because it looks like a body part. 

Vika is Jack's communications officer and she's contempt with her life. She's also kind of a tragic character I can't get into the reasons why without spoiling the movie.  

I don't have much to say about Juile (the woman Jake saved) because she also has no memory. Not only that she wasn't aware of the war at the time. What drives me nuts about this character is that it's no secret who she is, I mean she's one of two people. Plus, she doesn't serve much of a purpose in this movie.  

Beech is the leader of the scavengers. He doesn't think that Titan (The space colony that holds the rest of the human race.) has their best interest in mind. This character should have been written out of the movie because he's barely in the movie.    

The problem I have with this film is the characters because the characters are so bland it's hard to care about the conflict in the movie. The pacing in this movie is kind of slow. Another gripe with this movie is when we learn what happened it opened up a can of worms. Also, the trailers for this movie gave away too much of the movie. There is a quote we keep hearing in the movie, I wouldn't have minded it if it was applied in the story and characters. The climax is lame! 

In closing, this isn't a bad movie, but I find it underwhelming. The movie needed more work in the writing department. If you like sci-fi then I would recommend you check this movie out.

      
Rating = Rental

Intro: You had a chance to make me a Trekkie and you blew it. 

Star Trek Into Darkness: The movie is about Capt. Kirk and his crew going on missions. However, his reign as captain is short-lived due to his actions in his last mission so he has to start from square one. Kirk gets a chance to redeem himself when he's sent to find a man name John Harrison for terrorizing Starfleet. That becomes difficult due to a conspiracy, so Kirk has to figure out how to handle the situation? 

Sadly, this film was a miss-step, that's a shame because the creators withheld this film from being released so they can make this the best movie it can be. What hurts this movie is that it sets up plot points that amount to nothing. After the halfway point the movie has gone downhill. The conflict in this movie wouldn't exist if the characters weren't stupid. This movie has the same issue I had with the last film which is fan service. I mean it's done in a way that alienates the general public. If these movies are for Trekkies, you should have put that in the Ads. Also, this movie borrows elements from two of the Star Trek films to the point where it feels like a bad remake of those films. 

Captain Kirk feels like a captain more than a frat boy like he did in the first film. He's still rebellious but he's like that because he feels like the rules of Starfleet goes against doing the right thing.  

Spock is pretty much the same character as he was in the last movie. I do like his ARC because it parallels with Kirk's. The only complaint I have with him is I didn’t buy what Spock did in the last act.

John Harrison is an enigma. I say that because the movie doesn't know what to do with him. I mean one minute the movie paints him as a villain and the next minute he's a victim. This movie sucks at making him both of these things because he does things without thinking. What makes this worse is learning who he really is. That's what bugs me about this character he revealed himself in a way where everyone should know who he is. This wasn't a good reveal because Trekkie's called it from day one. How this character is portrayed in this movie is a disservice to how he was handled in the past. 

I don't have much to say about the rest of the characters because the movie has done much with them. I like the first hour of this film. That hour deals with the theme of friendship and figuring out how to stop John Harrison creates conflicts with the characters and character stuff. Overall, this movie was a written mess! The movie didn't have to be like this because it could have been better if the movie had better writers. 

Rating = Rental 

Intro: Mr. Smith you need to do a better job at picking scripts. The only reason I watched this movie is because it looked like you were playing a serious character compared to your other roles, I mean in most of your films you're playing the same character. 

After Earth: This film is about Kitai and his father Cypher going on a father-and-son trip. That goes wrong when they crash land on a planet that's inhabited by creatures. Since Cypher is injured during the crash Kitai has to go out and get help while keeping himself alive. 

Basically, if you have seen 10,000 B.C. then you have seen this movie. This movie is a waste of time, I know what I was walking into however I didn’t expect this movie to be so boring. I didn’t care about the father and son story because the father is so uptight, I understand why he's like this but lighting up a bit lets us know you care about your son. Lost in Space is a better father-and-son story than this. This movie could have been better if this wasn’t a military family because Cypher sees his son Kitai as a soldier first and a son second. Both Cypher and Kitai are stiff and doula characters. There are two plot points that adds nothing to the story. I would recommend this if you like survival movies. I wish I can show this movie to my father so he can understand why we're not close, it’s hard to be close to someone who’s high maintenance 24/7. 

Rating = Trash 

Intro: Am I the only one who thinks it's ridiculous that we have a movie with a character that has claws and we don't see him cut people up? Don't give me that doing that it's too violent for kids this studio let Mr. Lucas cut people's limbs off in his Star Wars films. Not only that someone was set on fire in that franchise and those movies were family-friendly, so what's this movie's excuse?     

The Wolverine: This movie takes place after X-Men the last stand, Logan/Wolverine is living in the woods and he's haunted by what he did in the previous film. Meanwhile, a mysterious woman has come to take him to Japan to see a man that he saved decades ago and he gets caught up in the middle of his problems. On top of that, he's losing his healing abilities, so Logan has to figure out why his healing powers are not working and protect this man's granddaughter.

This movie didn't make up for the last one. I feel bad for saying that because this movie tries to be better than the previous one by being the opposite of that film. This movie took inspiration from the Wolverine comic, but the movie is not as good as that comic. The movie has humor in it, but they are few and far between. Speaking of humor what's the point of putting this character in a different setting if we don't get fish-out-of-water jokes? You might find this movie boring because of the pacing. The theme of this movie is immortality, but the movie is one-sided about that theme. The reveal in this movie didn't surprise me because the movie foreshadows it. Plus, characters don't have a chance to process it. The climax of this movie is silly to the point where you can't take it seriously. The characters are another issue I have with the movie because some of them shouldn't be in this movie. Plus, most of them don't do much. 

I don't like what this movie has done with Logan/Wolverine as far as giving him an internal and external conflict. The internal conflict is him learning how to forgive himself for killing Jean. This doesn't work because they were not a couple. It's bad enough the franchise gave Scott/ Cyclops the shaft do you really have to continue doing it after his death? Also, he could have avoided doing that. As far as the external conflict the writers drop the ball with that. I mean Wolverine can still heal it just that it happens slower. This takes away the stacks of will he survive? Another thing we don't know is how much of his memory he has regained. 

Yukio is a mutant with the ability to see who's going to die. She has a fun personality and she plays off Logan. What bugs me about her is she serves no purpose in the film beyond helping Logan in one scene. It's too bad that she isn't Logan's love interest because their abilities parallel with each other plus she seems to understand him.   

Mariko is a victim in this movie. I'm not just saying that because someone put a target on her back it's because of what happened to her throughout the story. Also, it makes no sense why people are after her. I didn't care about her romance with Wolverine because she's engaged to someone else, the two have no chemistry and she's not interesting.     

Shingen (Mariko's father) is a character that should have been written out of the movie because he doesn't get a lot of screen time. That's too bad because he was a threat in the comic.  

Harada confuses me. I say that because he keeps switching sides I don't know if he should be considered a good guy or a bad guy. What annoys me about this character is the writer's screwed up making him like his comic book counterpart. 

The villain Viper reminds me of Poison Ivy you’ll see what I mean when you watch the movie. beyond that, she has no personality beyond being rude. My gripe with her she went through all this trouble to suppress Wolverine's healing ability for nothing. You see what I mean when you watch the movie. Also, she has no reason to do what she's doing.    

The comic this movie is based on is a love story, so I appreciate that the writers tried to make this movie about immortality. I like that this movie takes place in Japan and there isn't a lot of mutants. Doing that helps ground the film. This movie is more story-driven than the last film. There are moments when this movie can be funny. I enjoy some of the action scenes, especially the speed train scene. 

In closing, I didn't enjoy this movie as much as the last film despite the movie's attempts to make up for that film's shortcomings. I would recommend this if you samurai films because this movie reminds me of those films. 

Rating = Average  

Intro: Is anyone else annoyed that Thanos is not in this movie? Seriously what's the point of showing him in the Avengers if Marvel Studios is not going to follow up on that? 

Thor the Dark World: After the Avengers Thor has been keeping the peace in the other realms. Meanwhile, Jane finds a mcguffin that attracts the attention of Malekith. He wants to use it to regain something that he lost but that involves destroying the nine realms. So, Thor has to protect her and stop Malekith's plan with the help of Loki. 

Phase two is not off to a good start. I don't like the comedy in this because some of it comes at the expense of men being the butt of the joke. The rest makes the movie's tone uneven. The human characters shouldn't be in this movie because they don't do much to push the story. Also, the movie can be boring due to the pacing. The climax in this movie is so ridiculous that you can't take it seriously. The way this movie ended might bother some people. I'm not happy with how this movie wasted the bad guys but I'm getting ahead of myself. 

Thor has matured to the point where he feels like a flat character. He does have an ARC about if he really wants to be king or not? This causes him to butt heads with his father. The only complaint I have with him is that he doesn't do enough to maintain his relationship with Jane and the reason why he doesn't is weak. 

Speaking of Jane, I don't have much to say about her because the movie doesn't do anything new with her. That's a shame because she's important to the story due to her being connected to the mcguffin. 

Odin is a Jerk in this movie because of how he treats Jane and Loki. I understand why he's like that with her however acting like that goes against the lesson Thor learned in the last film. The fact he showed no compassion for Loki bugs me because he played a role in why Loki did the things he did. 

Loki is crafty as usual. I'm fond of what the movie has done with him as far as having him answer for his crimes and dealing with the resentment he has for his family. I wish the movie would give that more focus. 

Malekith (The main villain.) is a dull bad guy. This annoys me because he's Thor's version of the Joker in the comics what gives Marvel Studios? He could have been sympathetic if A his plan made sense and B if he showed some humanity. 

Kurse is Malekith's right-hand man and he's more threatening than him. This is another baddie that was wasted because he was more compelling in the comics. In this movie, he feels like a Power Rangers villain.  

 

What I like about this movie is that we got to see more of Asgard. I enjoy the way Thor and Loki interact with each other because they feel like siblings more than they did in the last movie. Overall, this movie was OK I don't think it's as bad as people make it out to be. 

Rating = Rental 

My rant about Superhero/comic book movies

My rant about Superhero/Comic book movies

                                                                                     

    

This year marks the 35th anniversary of Superhero/Comic book films. I'm surprised that these films don't have their own genre or sub-genre, because most of these films can fit into one genre and that's action/adventure. Despite being around this long they feel like they're in its infancy due to Hollywood not making a lot of these films. Fans of this material are notorious for being critical of these movies. These films restart or start actors and actresses careers and give them roles that they're well known for like Mr. Stallone is known for his roles as Rocky and Rambo. The movies also made comic book characters more popular, especially the ones people don't know that well, OK that only happened with Iron Man as far as I know. 

Hollywood didn't take these movies seriously at first, I mean check out the interviews from the earlier Batman films if you have them on DVD or find them on the Internet. Thanks to Mr. Nolan's Batman films and the MCU that's no longer the case. Mr. Nolan's Batman films have become a bad and good thing for the future of comic book movies. The good thing is that his films changed people's perspective about Superhero/Comic book movies, they can expect more from these kinds of films than just the hero and villain fighting, he added depth to his Batman films. Besides Iron Man, other films have done before Mr. Nolan like the X-Men films, Superman 2, Spider-Man 2, Batman Forever, Ang Lee's Hulk, Unbreakable and The Incredibles. The thing I appreciate about Mr. Nolan's Batman movies is that they don't feel like they're made for Batman fans. that's the problem I have with these movies, in general, they feel like they're made for the demographic that reads comic books. 

The bad thing about Mr. Nolan's Batman films is that for some crazy reason, people expect comic book movies to be more dark and serious why!?! The Avengers proves that lighthearted films can sell so there's no need to do that. Hollywood stop giving Mr. Nolan more credit than he deserves, he's not the only director who has done this and he won't be the last. The thing that bothers me about Mr. Nolan's Batman films is that they're marketed to kids, his Batman films are not for kids. Hollywood didn't do this with Daredevil or Watchman because those are not movies for kids.

Another issue I have with these movies is that they change a character's race or nationality, if a character has a certain look for decades don't mess with it. I have a gripe with these films targeting kids, I'm not saying Superhero/Comic book films shouldn't be for kids it's just that it handicaps these films from telling mature stories. Hollywood did you learn anything from the early Batman films? 

Before I get into what I want to see in these films going forward I want to address the issue of the heroes killing. I have mixed feelings about the heroes having a no-kill rule. On one hand, I understand why they have that rule to separate themselves from the villains and show that they value life. On the other hand, it's not reasonable to restore that fiction or not. Life is not Black and White so why should stories be like that? I'm not saying that I want comic books or movies to be more realistic however having things being Black and White makes the conflict for the heroes too easy. I think it's ridiculous that writers would come up with ways for superheroes to avoid killing because they're putting their moral integrity above saving people. How is that heroic? A hero makes sacrifices for others why should your soul be excluded from that? The question is should the no-kill rule be bent or broken to preserve the integrity of heroism? How you go about killing someone should determine if you're a good guy or not. 

If you kill someone to protect and defend others that should be acceptable. Police and Soldiers do that and we consider them heroes why can't we do the same for comic book characters? What about Captain America I mean he killed people in WW2 does that make him a bad guy? Now it's not OK to kill someone out of anger, revenge, envy, or to get out of trouble. If superheroes have to kill it should be a last resort and there should be consequences for resorting to doing that. That's what Superman did in Man of Steel but people throw a fit over it. A comic called Superman What Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? is a better example.  

I understand why people have a problem with it because he shouldn't be put in a position where he has to kill someone but what else could he have done? I mean he can't imprison him or send him to another plant. Plus, Superman wasn't happy that he had to kill him even if he was so what, Zod kill GOD knows how many people going to miss him? Now If Superman killed an average joe, I would understand people's outrage because that's an abuse of power. You shouldn't have an issue with the Green Lantern killing people because the Green Lantern Corps are space cops. Now if you objected to this idea let me ask you this why are you OK with them operating outside the law? Most of these comic book characters are vigilantes when you really think about it, don't believe me then which branch of Government do they answer to? The only time I saw that was in the Justice League cartoon.

Here are the four things I want to see happen more with these films. 

The first thing is I want to see a good trilogy. None of the third movies are good, I can forgive Superman 3 and Spider-Man 3 for being bad because of the production history. 

Second, I want the creators to embrace the source material more. Now I'm not one of those people who's mad that these films are not like the comics when really none of these films are completely like the comics, well Watchman came close. I don't mind changes from the source material if it's justified and is an improvement over the original work. Men in Black and The Mask are good examples, the worst example is Iron Man 3. It's safe to say that Hollywood is making a lot of profit off Superhero/Comic book films, if they want these films to last then they need to start doing that. The Avengers movie reminds me of the first issue of the Avengers comic. 

I can understand how adapting a story from the comics can be hard, because of copyrights and sometimes the story is either too long or too short to turn into a movie. I was rolling on the floor laughing when I learned that Hollywood made a movie out of How the Grinch Stole Christmas are you kidding me? How they were able to make an hour-and-a-half movie on a short kid's book is beyond me. I would like to see a trilogy where all three films adapted a story from the comic like the No Man's Land story because the dark knight rises shoehorn that story.

The third thing is I want these films to be more of a period piece, I would like to see a Spider-Man film take place in the 1960s, or a Flash movie take place in the 1950's so far we had that with Captain America the first avenger, X-Men First Class and Batman 1989. By doing that you're giving us something different. 

Now the final thing I want to see happen more with these films is I want the villains to be memorable, I'm not saying that the villains in these films are bad they just don't stand out like the Joker or Loki. This makes me mad because they wasted some good villains like Venom, Bane, and Malekith. I also want to see the villains have more victories over the heroes, it's not exciting to watch these films if you know the hero is going to win where's the fun in that?

Despite all of that the future looks promising for Marvel I can't say the same about DC. That's all I have to say what do you want to see happen more with these films? 

P.S. I also want to see these films be nominated or win Oscars not just for visual effects, despite the directing problems in The Dark Knight I still think it was robbed of best picture.

My rant about spill.com

My rant about Spill.com

Spill.com is a movie review site that features four or five hosts talking about films. They started as the Reel Deal then they became Spill.com. I like listening to them because they did the same thing the late Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert did as far as talking about the movie, joking around, and giving their rating, but expanded on it. Their video reviews are more entertaining than reviewing the movies. What makes these videos work is that they're animated. It's like watching a stand-up comedy for films, even if I don't find all the jokes funny. I like how they are having fun in their videos. Despite their disagreement with the films and ratings, they don't make each other feel stupid about it, it's too bad that certain people online don't know how to do that. I'm fond of their rating system because it's similar to mine. On their website, they have podcasts giving their full review of movies, plus spoilers. They also respond to fan comments and talk about geek culture on their site.      

Now I notice some changes with the reviews and the website; these changes are not for the better. for example, when they're reviewing a movie, they do it in 20 seconds, and they tell us to go on their website to hear their podcast of their movie reviews. Look, I don't have a problem with them promoting their site; however, if doing that comes at the expense of the review, then what's the point in making these videos? Plus, we might not have time to listen to a half-hour podcast of a review, that's why we watch your video reviews. The reason why I prefer the videos over the podcast is because the videos add context to what they say and the jokes they make. What makes these videos worse is that there's a timer on the screen to remind us how much time they have; we're not focusing on what they say about the movie, but on how much time they have. They even waste time in their 20 seconds by making jokes, their videos use to be 5 or 6 minutes long, and the movie reviews doesn't seem to be their main focus. 

                     

This is how they started doing their videos

This is how they use to do their videos

  

This is how they do their videos now 

This is not the best example of art thriving on limitations. If I didn't know better, I would say that they are making these videos bad on purpose so that we can go and listen to their podcast. Also, what's the point of promoting your website if it's not what it use to be? They got rid of some of the content on that site. I understand that was done because of budget reasons; however, that doesn't make it less annoying. Also, one of the hosts left the site to work on a movie called Sinister. Due to how they're doing their videos now, I don't watch them as much as I use to. I don't know what caused this change, but they need to go back to how they use to review films in their videos. Well, they won't have a chance to do that because we learn that this site will shut down later on this month. Yes! hearing this is a letdown, but I don't think this is the end for the people behind this site. They could move on to a different platform if they do well. Spill.com was fun while it lasted.