M A M A

In all honesty, I consider myself a horror movie virgin. I never really considered that genre my bag...baby. I'm a lover of comedy and bad-assery, not movies that make me smell like bad ass (laying on puns thick up in here). So a few weeks ago, my heart was set on seeing Zero Dark Thirty, but for a variety of reasons, my friends and I were unable to sneak in and I was rejected from buying a ticket even though my 17th birthday was a day away. We discussed what we should do and my friend brought up Mama. I wasn't really that thrilled. Its not that I was being a wuss (I kinda was at first), but that I viewed paying to see Mama as a cop out. Eventually, I decided to join in and we got tickets to see the movie. I was wrong about it being a cop out.

Many have criticized Mama  for being a bit too cliche and not that scary, and I agree with them, but that doesn't make the movie bad. It was a stereotypical ghost/ monster story and the monster even hid in the closet and underneath the beds. I think that was more a homage to the typical monster convention than a serious plot move. Though the movie wasn't terribly frightening, the first hour was extremely suspenseful for me because I spun this elaborate illusion in my head in which the monster would indiscriminately attack everyone at almost every time.  That wasn't true, but the ghouls appearances were unexpected and frightening; well, until the last portion of the movie.

Creepy

By the last thirty minutes of the film, Mama's face was already revealed and as everyone knows, seeing the face of the monster almost immediately dissolves the power it once had because the true fear of a movie monster comes from the fear of the unknown. The fact that her face was revealed made the climax less tense and scary as the rest of the movie and diminished its importance. 

The one part of the movie that I thought was very excellent was the use of the two little girls who are essentially Mama's adopted children. Their dynamic was interesting as it led to some tense situations between the girls and other characters and made the audience more emotionally invested in the movies outcome. No one wants to see two little girls die or become perverted by Mama's evil influence, so their presence in the movie made the audience care just a little bit more.

Overall, I found that Mama was a pretty good horror flick and it is awarded a 4 out of 5.

Django Unchained Review

This movie was my second Tarantino Film (preceding Pulp Fiction) and I built up a huge dream of how it would play out and how awesome it would be. I was expecting gruesome violence, some humor, a accurate rendition of the Antebellum South, and a unique, engaging  plot that would be a throwback to the classic Westerns of a bygone era. 

I was not disappointed. My conception of the movie was saturated with awesomeness, but the actual film was even more saturated with awesomeness. Dare I say, it was the most awesome movie I have ever seen. Ever. Straight Up. 

Tarantino's work is most known for treading the line between utterly insulting and sickening for focusing on subject matter that people tend to avoid on a day to day basis. He forces the audience to confront socially unacceptable ideas and tabooed subjects. Not only is the violence visceral, but the script is packed full of taboo words, and in this movie, the N-word is the king of all bad words and it is used in nearly every line of the film. He also shows slavery in its most ugly light, not retracting any horrible detail or commonality of life as a slave.

The plot starts as Django is saved from a chain gang by a German bounty hunter named Dr. Schultz, who poses as a dentist and drives around in a comical buggy. He uses Django to help him bring in his latest bounty, and makes Django his protege. Django wants to use the money he earns from bounty hunting to purchase his wife, who is still in captivity, and Schultz decides to help him. There scheme to retrieve his wife involves infiltrating Calvin Candie's estate and paying to free his wife, but not everything goes as planned.

The heroes of the film, Django and Dr. Schultz

The plot is well paced and the suspense is high throughout the movie, until the end, when it seems like the movie is all wrapped up, but Tarantino drags it on a little longer in order to deliver Django a total happy ending. There was never a truly dull moment, even the more mundane parts were punctuated with humor, or the tension between certain characters was palpable. Additionally, classic westernesque music was broken up by Tu-pac songs or other rap songs, lending the movie a curious modern yet classic effect, which seemed to say "This is a western, but not your typical one".

Overall, Django was extremely satisfying and gets a 5 out of 5

The Dark Knight Rises: Revisited

The other day I decided to watch the Dark Knight Rises for the first time since viewing it in the theatre,which was a life changing experience. I was prompted to watch it again by an article I read about the movie and an accompanying video by Screen Junkies called "Honest Trailers: The Dark Knight Rises. The article and video revealed major plot holes and pitfalls I failed to notice while watching the movie for the first time (I was too awestruck to even think about any of the unlikely happenings in the movie). So I plunged back into the Dark Knight Rises and attempted to find even more plot holes and really evaluate the movies every facet.


Wow, Holy Plot-holes Batman. I watched the whole movie with undivided attention and scrutinized every detail and guess what I found, a great movie whose greatness is built upon a foundation of plot holes. Almost every awesome happening and even some scenes of important plot development in the film are accompanied by at least one plot hole. Bane's whole master plan that takes 1 hour of the movie to develop is literally based on a single, gigantic, gaping plot hole akin to the Star Wars Sarlacc pit from Return of the Jedi. It gobbled up the whole first hour of the movie and put me in a state of limbo. The plot hole in question: How the hell does Bane know the location of the secret armory if the only two people in the world who do are Mr. Fox and Bruce Wayne and it is literally non existent to everyone else in the universe? Bane doesn't explain it and Batman never questions him about it,he just accepts it as providence or something, which Batman would never do. Ever. Never Ever. So their goes the first third of the movie.

You are the worlds greatest detective, act like it.

Additionally, Catwoman's motivation throughout the movie is to get this computer program called the clean slate, and near the end, Bruce Wayne somehow inexplicably reappears in Gotham and has the Clean Slate on one measly flash drive. He doesn't explain where he got it from and even asks Catwoman for help to get his batman stuff back by taking him to Lucius Fox, so using his batman equipment was not an option. Did he just carry that thing throughout his captivity? Was it in the bat cave  They could at least address the audience honestly on this. Oh, and then the program is never mentioned again in the whole movie, a program that is arguably the most sophisticated and illegal program ever to exist on earth. He gives it to Catwoman and its only use in the movie is to give some shed a small ray of light on why Catwoman wants the stupid program so badly. She wants it because she wants to start over fresh. Who would have been able to figure that out without the stupid clean slate. Everyone but Christopher Nolan really wanted to treat us all like insufferable fools I guess.

That brings me to my next point. This movie literally coddles you. It doesn't make you think and doesn't want you to. I thought the Dark Knight was very thought provoking and a great super hero movie at the same time, but it seemed like Nolan abandoned that for the last installment of his Batman Trilogy.

And what the hell is wrong with Batman's voice  he literally sounds more like a retarded man child dressed in costume than ever before. Its not even gritty any more, he just sounds stupid, like he can't breath or  has a constant sore throat. Fin.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

A journey of a movie, in a good way


My eyes have finally seen my most anticipated movie of the year and though I enjoyed it thoroughly, there were some short pitfalls that made it less memorable or epic as its predecessor.

Just to fill in everyone who was not aware, The Hobbit was filmed in 3D, 48 frames per second, digital format. This radically changed the movie. When the movie first starts in Hobbiton, the 48 fps as an immediately visible effect. Everything looks far more real than in a typical 24 fps movie and it gives the movie a sort of soap-opera-in-high-definition feel. Additionally, it makes the special effects and CGI far easier to pick out. The film is so smooth, that the CGI isn't blurred by the natural constraints of 24 fps film so most of the CGI creatures and action falls into the uncanny valley. However, there are some great benefits to the frame rate boost. First of all, everything looks hyper realistic. The beautiful vistas of New Zealand are rendered in more color and detail than ever before. The amount of detail is so amazing, it almost reaches a saturation point and sometimes you can't process every little bit of it. The 3D was also a plus as it added more realism to the movie but wasn't really necessary.

Now that I got all the juicy tech stuff out of the way, I can dive into the Ya's and Nay's of the movie. The movie was really long, almost too long at some points. The first hour is spent in Hobbiton or filling the viewer in on the lore surrounding the adventure. This really stretches the movie out and makes it feel real slow at the beginning.

Ya! Five minutes of dwarves devouring everything in Biblo's house! Now that's a movie.

After the long and boring exposition in Hobbiton, the real movie begins and its pacing is much better, albeit repetitive. It seems to fall into a rhythm of trekking cross country while simultaneously developing the characters, and then turning into an action packed chase scene. This pattern is continuous throughout the movie and the movie ends just as it began, with all of them together in high hopes of completing their adventure; a plot format that ties the whole thing together into a continuous repetitive circle. In short, the pacing is devoid of surprises.

The plot was much better. Peter Jackson took much care in informing the viewer of the circumstances of Bilbo's expedition --  past and present --, added a little off book antagonism to give the movie some greater urgency, and tied in the Lord of the Rings Saga nicely by presenting The Necromancer (Sauron before he regained his strength in Mordor), throwing in Radagast the Brown, and characters from the Lord of the Rings like Lady Galadriel and Saruman (whom didn't appear in The Hobbit). 

The action in this movie was good, but too far fetched. The Lord of the Rings had its ridiculous moments but this movie really made me suspend disbelief in some action sequences. When the company is fleeing the Goblin King, Fili (or is it Kili) wacks arrows away with his sword and uses a ladder as an effective shield against the flurry of arrows. Additionally, some scenes in which the action should have most definitely resulted in the death of all the characters, they all came out without a hair out of place.

Overall, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was a welcome return to Middle Earth, even if it was long winded at some points and the action far to over the top. I give it a 4 out of 5.

The Hobbit; My Most Anticipated Movie of the Year

Its back to Middle Earth and for me, this movie was definitely unexpected; especially a three movie trilogy of one prequel. Who would have thought that Peter Jackson would  return to Middle Earth to film the least famed of the Tolkien stories The Hobbit, and then make it a trilogy. Furthermore, he is filming this series digitally, in 5k resolution, and in 3D. Jackson is simply pulling out all the stops on this one, which is why I want to see the movie so badly.



I had read The Lord of the Rings, and watched the movies, thoroughly enjoying all the time I spent in Tolkien's and Jackson's beautiful Middle Earth, and even though these books and movies reign supreme over the under appreciated prequel that is The Hobbit, I am more enthused about this movie than any of the others. Personally, I fancied The Hobbit over the other stories because I found it more engaging and a little less romanticized. It was more tight and written so the reader wasn't forced to take in too much all at once. I expect the movie to be on an equal level as my favorite Tolkien book and so far, the behind the scenes videos and trailers seem to show the movie living up to my immense expectations.

One great part of the new movie series are the actors. One of my favorite actors, Martin Freeman, who plays Watson in the BBC series Sherlock, taking the role of Bilbo Baggins. In the trailers and other tit bits shown so far, Freeman pulls of Bilbo's homely, curious, and adventurous character perfectly and I honestly couldn't picture anyone else in the role. Additionally, many actors from The Lord of the Rings series are returning to reprise their roles. Sir Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf, the powerful wizard and Bilbo's guide and friend. Kate Blanchett plays Lady Galadriel, the elven queen, and Legolas (played by Orlando Bloom) and Frodo (Elijah Wood) return in some way to Middle Earth. This brings up one interesting choice by Peter Jackson, which is to bring characters that appeared in The Lord of the Rings books, but not in The Hobbit, into the film in order to establish a more clear connection between the stories. I am excited to see how Jackson ties in these additional characters and remain optimistic that it won't tarnish the core story in anyway.

Hopefully, Jackson will make The Hobbit at least as magnificent as his Lord of the Rings films, and better yet, surpass those films and really take The Hobbit above and beyond expectations.

Life of Pi

The Life of Pi delivers a emotionally powerful and amazing visual experience.


When my friend suggested that we watch Life of Pi over Brad Pitt's new movie Killing Them Softly, I was reluctant, as I had planned to spend my time at the theater watching people get blown up and viewing a genocide on the race of bad guys. Additionally, I was skeptical of Life of Pi's ability to deliver a fun and meaningful movie experience and the 3D aspect; which I perceived to be a gimmick to draw in the mindless movie zombies that lack refinement. However, I was pleasantly surprised to watch a movie that was dramatic, thought-provoking, and very beautiful.

Life of Pi follows the story of a young man named Piscene Molitor, a.k.a Pi, who is lost at sea after the large cargo freighter he is traveling on is flooded by water and sinks. He was traveling on the ship with his family and various zoo animals that his father owned, and when the ship sinks, his whole family dies and he is stuck on a life boat with a tiger to keep him company. At this point, when I expected the movie to get stale, it only gets better, as Pi attempts at first to avoid the tiger (named Richard Parker) and then to train it; eventually, his efforts make the tiger a true companion for him on the sea. The movie could have fallen into a rut and gotten very boring, very fast; however, due to great pacing and the engaging relationship between Pi and Richard Parker, the movie never sags and kept me engaged until the very end.

Bros for life- well at least while they are on the boat together

In my opinion, this movie's greatest asset are the special effects.The director saw the ocean as a canvas that he could bring to life and use to peer into Pi's inner state or simply make a beatific scene. The ocean in this movie seemed to be alive, ever changing, filled with life and color. Its conditions also reflected Pi's mood. In the beginning, the ocean was always its cliche blue and sharks constantly circled the boat just as Pi was afraid of the unknown and scared to face his fear, Richard Parker. This is the oceans usual state in the movie, but whenever a important plot or character development scene takes place, the ocean changes into a mystical form. In one scene at sunset as Pi and Richard are at a cross roads of their journey, the water is perfectly reflective and orange, and Pi throws a message in a bottle into the sea, his last attempt scene in the movie to call for help. Additionally, the first moment of profound connection between Pi and Richard Parker occurs in a starry night, and the water reflects the stars, making the boat look like it is floating in space; and Pi notices Richard Parker gazing into the sea, and Pi joins him, and they both share a connecting moment that tethers the two together.

I was skeptical of the 3D mostly because the movie was not animated and I couldn't think about any good opportunities that would really do the filming the movie in 3D justice, so I thought it was a pointless gimmick. Man was I wrong. The most astounding scene of the movie is during a nighttime phosphorescent plankton bloom, which makes the water glow when disturbed and attracts a huge mass of glowing jellyfish to congregate all around the boat. As Pi gazes into the water, he makes out a shape approaching from the depths and it slowly begins to take form, and once Pi realizes its a massive blue whale, the majestic creature bursts from the water, glowing as it is covered with the glowing plankton and jelly fish. This scene really showed the ability of the 3D to deliver and defined its purpose in the film of bringing the great special effects to life.

Overall, I grant Life of Pi a 4.5 out of 5, only because the beginning started off slow and it wasn't abundantly clear on the whole message of the story and the importance of some of the scenes.

Great Debate: The Comedy versus The Action Genre

My most frequented genres of film and television are comedy and action/adventure because each has its own taste that I love. It is comparable to the five food groups or Food Pyramid, with artistic value or merit being comparable to all the healthy parts of the pyramid. The Comedy is at the top of the pyramid; a sugary sweet genre that lacks true artistic merit. The Action Movie a more major "food" group for the avid movie goer as it is meatier and occasionally a good action movie does display a great amount of artistic expression. After placing my favorite movie genres in their respective "food" groups, I can evaluate that I have a very unhealthy movie diet which lacks any of the deep profound movie food groups. Despite this introspection, the focus of this post is to decide, once and for all, which movie food group is better, the meaty and macho action genre or the sweet and sour comedy.

I watch all types of comedies, from witty and highbrow to crude and downright nasty. I recently started watching Arrested Development and its appeal lies mostly within the witty and quirky category as subtle jokes are the constant flow which is occasionally punctuated by a raunchy, laugh out loud joke. Some of the most shamelessly sick humor I have ever seen occurred in one of my favorite shows Blue Mountain State. This show ditches any hope of high brow elitist humor by constantly focusing on the vices of life such as sex, drugs, and partying. In every episode, these three vices get the main characters into some hopeless situations which they always wiggle their way out of, usually by doing something unforgivably nasty or depraved. 

     

Their is truly only one type of action movie or show. Sure their are slight variations like action mystery, action thriller, etc., but when you watch an action film, you know what you are getting. EXPLOSIONS, GUN FIGHTS, PUNCHING, MURDERING MORE BAD GUYS THAN THE POPULATION OF BHUTAN! Action movies stick to their bases and never really vary. Even though there are different types of meats, they are all still meat and fulfill the same nutritional needs, just as different types of action movies feed the same essential movie goer need; the need to witness a spectacle of utter obliteration at the hands of one or a few bad ass men that are seemingly invincible. 

So which one is better. Well after carefully evaluating both I realized that they are dead even, but additionally I realized that I don't even need to be writing a post on this topic because Expendables 2 merged the two genres perfectly and made God's Gift to man. Therefore, If the Dear Lord has already granted me a movie that fulfills both of my movie food group favorites, why am I even trying to discern which genre is better. I will never watch a movie of one or the other genre again, I have Expendables 2 and that is all I need. 

What more do you need?

However, I understand that you, my dear reader, may not see it this way. Well luckily for you, I gave you skinny on both genres in this post so you could make a educated choice on which one is better. Sound off in the comments.