Equilibrium

Continuing down the Netflix list we come to the sci-fi action film, Equilibrium.

Here is the summary to Equilibrium:

In a dystopian future, a totalitarian regime maintains peace by subduing the populace with a drug, and displays of emotion are punishable by death

The summary itself is pretty brief and I appreciate that. I don't want too much to be given away in a summary. But with this summary I assumed this movie would be Christian Bale performing with a blank face the entire movie. Whats the appeal of a movie where no one shows any emotions?

Well its a little bit more complicated then that and its a good thing. 

Here's the background: After a Third World War, reigning governments decide that the cause of all the world's problems and wars come from man's emotions. Purge emotion and you purge conflict. In this dystopian future, they have created a drug that purges that emotion. 

Christian Bale is the top special agent, or Cleric tasked with rooting out the resistance or "sense offenders" (hehe) He is the best and the most pure as it were. He follows the rules to the T, even going as far as to kill his own partner for being a sense offender. (Yup, it sucks to be Sean Bean, even in a dystopian future)

But Bale accidentally misses a dose of the drug meant to suppress emotions. He immediately begins experiencing feelings for the first time.

FEELINGS!

The movie mainly focuses on Bale questioning his morality and the heartless sense lacking world he has always known.

Other cast members include Sean Bean who plays a Cleric who begins feeling himself... and then is killed by Bale. (Big surprise there) Taye Diggs who plays the replacement for Bean's character. As the partner of Bale he needs to monitor Bale and make sure he doesn't fall subject to emotions. There are only a few other characters but I didn't really catch their names so they're not incredibly important to do a review at least.

I mentioned the doubts I had about this movie, about how I didn't want to see a movie filled with emotionless acting. But I'm baffled that I didn't see this coming. Bale starts feeling again and the feelings are totally new to him. To see that development, that discovery, is actually very impressive.

The movie does take some liberties with what is considered emotion because Taye Diggs smiles a couple times and doesn't get arrested.

I suppose I should comment on Digg's performance. It's not bad, but its not good. And that's not really a bad thing. (Do you follow?) Diggs is suppose to be emotionless. That's a hard request. Does he give a performance without emotion? Well that's a subjective question. One I don't really have the answer to. Needless to say, Bale does a better job at showing no emotion and yet showing the reactions to things he finds horrifying. It just speaks to Bale's talent as an actor to show feelings without really showing feelings. Again, its a hard concept to totally grasp, and that's kind of a criticism of the movie. It put itself in a world not possible to portray.

Some other comments about the movie include the costumes and overall feel of the movie. The costumes are ripped right out of The Matrix which don't get me wrong, it works, its just a little too

obvious.

Also, the soldiers in this movie just wear motorcycle helmets. I didn't realize it at first but then I couldn't stop thinking about it. I don't usually criticize too heavily on costumes and I won't here but it does connect with the overall atmosphere of the movie. Emotionless areas are very neutral black and white colors while areas where emotion is shown is more colorful. But there wasn't enough of a contract between the two worlds. Yes the emotion world did have more color, it still looked kind of bland.

The action in the movie is really good. Yes its very close to the Matrix in its style but its entertaining.

The only other complaint I have about the movie is that the perception of the current system of government is always shown so bleak and evil. While in the beginning they explain why emotion was purged, they don't really justify it. The government is just always portrayed as evil. But not only that, the lengths they go to show how heartless these bastards are is just insane.

Take this scene for example. Bale and Diggs go to raid a resistance base. After they find all the members of the resistance and burn all their contraband, they find a pen of dogs. Because they're void of emotions, they cannot comprehend why someone would form an emotional attachment to a dog... so they kill the dogs.

Now at this point, Bale has started feeling and he's faced with the choice on whether or not to save a puppy from being shot. I am dead serious, the way they affirm this government is evil is that they kill puppies. Dead serious. I mean it is the ultimate test of pure evil isn't it?

So the dystopian nature of this government is just overplayed to the max.

But it doesn't make it a bad movie. I won't full endorse this movie because to be honest, despite stellar acting from Bale, the movie is kind of dull. Unless you enjoy Sci-fi dystopian future settings, I can't promise you you'll like this movie. But it is on Netflix instant stream. If you have time to kill and have no other movie to watch, this movie will get you entertained.

I won't say its the same as the Matrix because there are significant differences in the story... but there are a lot of similarities. Just be warned, people may call this the poor man's Matrix.

So that's my thoughts on Equilibrium. What do you think? Have you seen it? Let me know what you think.

I'll leave you with what I'm sure you were expecting. A comparison video between Equilibrium and the Matrix. Enjoy

The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus

I was originally drawn to this movie, like a lot of people because it was Heath Ledger's last film before he died.

And I saw it and I was intrigued so I had to watch it again. And now I am watching again so I can give my honest opinion of the movie.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus follows the story of the title character, Dr. Parnassus (played by Christopher Plummer). He is a man who has lived for centuries and is immortal. Long ago, he made a deal with the devil to not only live for eternity but to have everything he's dream of, including a woman and expanded powers over the imagination. The price of this wish is that any offspring the Doctor has belongs to the Devil when she turns 16.

Sixteen years later he travels in a sideshow with his daughter, Valentina (played by Lily Cole) an orphan stage hand named Anton (played by Andrew Garfield) and his confidant, a dwarf named Percy (played by Verne Troyer). They travel around, performing. Until they find a stranger hanging under a bridge. This stranger they soon figure out is named Tony (played by Heath Ledger).

The Devil comes to Parnassus right before his daughter's birthday and challenges him to one more wager. Whoever wins 5 souls before his daughters birthday wins. If Parnassus wins, he doesn't have to give the Devil his daughter. If he loses... well he gives the Devil his daughter.

Now when they find Tony, he has a case of amnesia. Part of the movie is the mystery behind this random encounter they come across and how he will affect the wager.

There are a lot of unique things about this movie, first and foremost being the Imaginarium itself. In order for Parnassus to win souls over, he must convince them to make a choice of enlightenment or blissful ignorance in the colorful world of the Imaginarium that Parnassus facilitates.

This had to be one of the draws to the movie apart from Ledger's involvement, the Imaginarium is a colorful whimsical world based on people's imaginations. While the physics of the world make no sense whatsoever, there is enough explanation to suspend disbelief and just enjoy the visuals the movie offers.

Relating to that is the effect the Imaginarium has on Tony. Due to the untimely death of Ledger, there were several scenes of the movie that had not been filmed. In response to this, there was a creative way to continue telling the story while keeping the already filmed scenes.

They got Colin Ferrel, Johnny Depp and Jude Law to step in and play the part of Tony when he is in the Imaginarium. The way this is explained is very creative and fascinating in my opinion. Depending on the imagination being depicted in the Imaginarium, that is how Tony appears. The first time he goes in, the Imaginarium is controlled by the imagination of a woman who imagines Tony with Johnny Depp's face. The second time he goes into his own imagination that portrays him as a successful businessman. And finally, when he's in Valentina's imagination, she imagines him as the perfect man, a depiction she saw in a magazine.

Its fortunate that the movie is such a creative premise that this works perfectly. I think eventually when people watch this movie who do not know about the untimely death of Heath Ledger, may see this as an artistic choice. And if not, it still works.

This was actually a big draw for me to see the movie. I wanted to see how these actors could be incorporated and how well it flows with the scenes already shot. And I thought it worked pretty damn well.

The Overall theme of the movie is one of my favorite elements of it. The costumes are fantastic. The mythology is just color and unique that its just a fun movie to look at.

Now all that aside, what is the story like?

The story for the most part is good. It's very fairytale-like and straight forward... for the most part.

Its actually Ledger's character that somewhat muddles the story a bit which is kind of a shame. It's very straight forward on its own, Parnassus has to save 5 souls before the Devil takes his. The first 2 thirds of the movie, Ledger is helping Parnassus do this but then the last act of the movie suddenly turns and Tony's past is revealed and suddenly things change. I won't spoil the ending but the last act is the more confusing part.

Aside from the wager, there's a love triangle between Tony, Valentina, and Anton. Now its not as weird as you think because Lily Cole is in actuality in her twenties but in this movie she is portrayed as a 16 year old. And Ledger... is much older. Yes they justify it by saying its the age of consent... but its still kind of weird. A little bit of suspension of disbelief needs to be done for the sake of the fairytale feel to it but again... still kinda weird.

The fortunate part about it is that the more you watch it the more you get out of it. Luckily, its the kind of movie that entices you to watch it again.

Put aside the not totally clear guidelines of the wager between the Devil and Parnassus, put aside the statutory rape charges that could possibly be filed, and put aside the convoluted ending, Parnassus is a fun flick.

Its a fun imaginative story with a colorful environment for the characters to play in.

I recommend The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus regardless of whether or not you were a fan of Heath Ledger.

So have you seen Dr. Parnassus? What did you think? What did you think of the way they covered after the death of Ledger? Share your thoughts and recommendations below.

I will leave you with a similar send off when I did Timeline. Although its been 5 years since Ledger dies, its still worth giving him a tribute for a life that was ended too soon. Here's Ledger winning best supporting actor for his role as the Joker in the Dark Knight posthumously.

Ghostbusters

Believe it or not, this is the first time that I have ever seen Ghostbusters. I think I always wanted to see it, I just never got around to it. The theme song was recognizable enough, why see the movie?

Well when I saw it on Netflix, had a lot of free time on my hands, why not watch it?

Ghostbusters is the story of four men who lose their jobs and who pick up a pair of tan jumpsuits, proton packs and start calling themselves the Ghostbusters, exterminators of the paranormal variety.

The team and stars of the movie is made up of four members. Bill Murray as Dr. Peter Venkman, a paranormal psychologist who is a little bit of a ladies man with a very skeptical view of the paranormal.

Then there's Dan Akroyd as Dr. Raymond Stantz. He seems to be most enthusiastic of the group leading his partners to follow his lead to fight ghosts.

Then there's Dr. Egon Spengler, played by Harold Ramis. He's the brainy analytical member of the group.

And then there's Winston Zeddemore, played by Ernie Hudson, who joins the team half way through the movie. He is more of the action man doing whatever the other guys need him to do. I'm guessin Hudson had a bigger part in the sequel which I hope cause he's just an all around badass.

Other cast members include Sigourny Weaver and Rick Moranis. Weaver plays a woman with an ancient spirit in her apartment and Moranis plays her obnoxious neighbor. Eventually they both get possessed by demons. Moranis is definitely one of the funniest parts of the movie creating a very iconic character. It's kind of a bummer that Moranis hasn't been in any live action movie since 1996 cause he's funny as hell.

What I did like about this movie was that the movie doesn't take itself too seriously. They know that the idea a team of scientists with the goal of capturing ghosts needs to be a comedy. It can't take itself too seriously but it can't be a shitty comedy like Scary Movie.

I think that is something the 80's did a good job at. Making good stories that can also be funny. The plot doesn't have to be totally ridiculous, the movie just doesn't have to take itself too seriously if it doesn't make sense to do so.

What's more is the amount of quotable lines in this movie. Like I said, I've never seen the movie until tonight and if someone quoted a line from it I wouldn't know it. But it was fun hearing lines that perhaps I had heard before but never made the connection. That's more of a personal thing for me, but if you're like me and you haven't seen Ghostbusters yet, chances are there is at least one line from this movie that will make you say, "Oh! so that's where that line is from"

I only have a few "criticisms" of the movie. The truth is, for what it was trying to accomplish: Make a movie about guys who fight ghosts, they did a good job. But there were a few things that were a little off for me.

The first is random romance throughout the film. Halfway through, suddenly Egon and the secretary are a thing. When did that happen? I don't know. And it didn't really seem like the randomness was intentional. It seemed like it was just thrown in there.

Furthermore, the romance between Bill Murray and Sigourney Weaver was incredibly random. On a side note, you can tell this is an 80s movie when Murray goes to Weaver's apartment to check out the paranormal activity she claimed was there. But when its not, Murray immediately tries to make a move on Weaver. In the 80s it was totally fine to hit on a woman you barely knew and still be the protagonist of the movie. These days nobody does that.

But Weaver and Murray's romance never seemed very tangible because they really only share about 3 scenes with each other. They plan to go on a date Weaver is possessed by a demon too quickly for them to actually have a date. But then at the end, they kiss. Why? Cause it was the 80s!

In reality its a very outdated concept. For time's sake, I'll call it the Mario and Peach concept. Think about it, when you play Mario, they never show any type of relationship between Mario and Peach, but when Peach is saved, she either gives Mario a kiss (on the nose but still) or there's a heart above them. Its kind of a reward for rescuing the damsel in distress.

I'm not really criticizing this movie for being sexist because I don't think it was. I think it was just made in a movie where gender roles were different so it was normative for Sigourney Weaver to be a sort of damsel in distress. (Kind of a change of pace from Alien) Its just interesting to see how not just movies but all mediums of entertainment have changed. Lots of Mario games still have you rescue Peach, but even more allow the player to play as Peach as she joins in on the adventure.

Now there are people that would say we still have a ways to go and I won't disagree or agree either way. My point is more to observe things have changed since Ghostbusters. And kind of makes me wonder what it would be like if it was made in our day and age.

Going back to my main point though, the two barely have any screen time together and yet they get together in the end for no apparent reason. It was just a little confusing for me. Not just because of their lack of screen time but also for another reason.

Was Bill Murray ever a ladies man like they portray him in this movie. Again, I may be talking from my comfy 2013 perspective, but its hard for me to imagine Bill Murray playing the ladies man like he does in this movie.

The first scene is him testing a pair of students for ESP. He's intentionally discouraging the male student while trying to impress the female student. I don't know the exact age of these students but if a professor at Colombia did that today I'm pretty sure he'd be fired, at least he would be when he sleeps with that student which I think Murray was trying to do. Which is another testament to how this movie is a testament to norms in the 80s. Again I'm not calling Bill Murray a perv cause in 1984, his charm as a member of SNL and the fact this is a comedy made it not really a controversial issue at all.

The one last thing I was confused about with this movie was, did Dan Akroyd get a blowjob from a ghost or was that a dream?

Anyway, overall, the movie is pretty good. Any criticisms I have of it are more based in my perspective as someone watching in 2013. If you haven't seen Ghostbusters, you probably should. Its a fun movie that is such a social icon.

I won't say this is one of my favorite movies ever, its not. Personally I enjoyed Ghostbusters and I'm glad I have the cultural understanding now but I went a long time without seeing this movie and I survived. I say again, its a fun movie, very quotable, why not see it?

So what do you think of Ghostbusters? Also what is a movie that everybody loves that you haven't seen? Comment below and let me know.

I'll leave you with this. I am convinced Bill Murray is an absolutely solid human being. If you saw Zombieland he makes a cameo in a zombie infested world, its funny, there are Ghostbusters references so it connects.

Platoon

So well before Charlie Sheen went absolutely batshit crazy, when he was just starting as an actor, one of his first big roles was Vietnam War movie, directed by Oliver Stone called Platoon.

I was really surprised how many well known actors are in this movie. And a lot of them had this as one of their first big movies, Sheen, Keith David, Forest Whitaker, Wilem Defoe, John McGinley from Scrubs, hell even Johnny Depp had a small part in this movie.

The story focuses on a platoon in Vietnam. The story is narrated mainly by Sheen's character, Chris Taylor, a new private who dropped out of college and volunteered to go to Vietnam because he believed that it was his duty to serve his country.

The platoon is led by a couple of sergeants (played by McGinley, Defoe, Tony Todd, and Tom Berenger) and a fresh Lieutenant named Wolfe (played by Mark Moses (Duck Phillips from Madmen)).

As the Platoon goes about their patrols and missions, they find themselves faced with the horrors of war and fall under the pressure of being in a war zone like Vietnam.

Now, this is an Oliver Stone movie. While i don't doubt that crazy shit went down in Vietnam, I also have no doubt that Oliver Stone exaggerated the hell out of this movie. A strength of the movie is that it puts the characters in a world that seemed so uncivilized that it pulls the worst out of these men. There are characters who seem like they're good people and then when faced with moral decisions, the worst is just pulled out of them.

The best example of this is when one of the members of the platoon is killed. They go to a village to find the people who killed their man.They try and get information from the civilians of the village but when they are not cooperative shit goes down.

Shit like killing unarmed civilians, pointing guns at children, and raping women.

The movie gives a fascinating look into the stresses of war and questions whether or not its that stress that makes someone make immoral decisions or if they're just evil to begin with.

Sergeant Barnes (played by Tom Berenger) is a great example of this. He's a sergeant that has been doing this fighting for a long time. He does things his way and will do whatever it takes to make sure he and the platoon survives.

His opposite is Sergeant Elias (played by Willem Defoe) who maintains his humanity pretty much throughout. He's in the moral right and there soon becomes a rivalry between those two, dividing the platoon.

Now obviously Stone was an incredible critic of the Vietnam War being as he made 3 movies about Vietnam. I think making a war drama can be done well if done with care, and while I do think Stone did a good job with Platoon, its just incredibly over the top criticism of Vietnam. Every time the main theme came out showing the atrocities of war I just had to sigh a little bit about the overthetopness of the movie.

You'll know the song when you hear it.

Is it a huge criticism? No. Oliver Stone can do all the criticism of Vietnam he wants, its just a tune I think we've all heard before. And retrospect is 20/20 so saying we shouldn't have gone to Vietnam isn't going to change the fact we did, and neither is exaggerating the demeanor of the troops that fought in that war. I won't go as far as to say its offensive, its just a caricature of how fighting in Vietnam was different than other wars the United States has fought in the past.

So what's my final verdict on Platoon?

It's good.

Is it exaggerated? Yes. Lots of scenes would never happen because the US Army is trained a little bit better than that but for dramatic effect it had to go down that way.

But for an 80's war movie, its pretty darn good. The cast is phenomenal and its fascinating seeing them so young and at the beginning of their careers. Sheen, Defoe, David, Depp, its hilarious seeing them in this movie and seeing them today and where they came from.

It also should be mentioned that the pop culture influence this movie has had since is insane. It makes me want to watch Tropic Thunder just to see the ways in which that movie is satirizing movies like this.

I feel like watching that movie again with this point of reference will add a whole new level to that movie.

If you like war dramas, you'll like Platoon. It's violent, its dramatic, but its a fun ride. Don't expect a happy ending, just expect a lot of the sad drawn out music, they play it a lot in this movie.

But overall, its an interesting flick. Worth checking out if that's your kind of movie.

So have you seen Platoon? What do you think? And what other Vietnam movies should I be checking out and reviewing? Comment below and let me know.

I'll leave you with this. A reminder of a simpler time when Charlie Sheen was our primary source of entertainment. A time when he created a brilliant catchphrase. I miss this time.

Primer

So... this movie was tough to follow.

I'm going with another kind of obscure independent film and this one is a little odd. Maybe not as odd as people in a different reality making sure you have good dreams and fighting the people who give you bad dreams but still its odd.

Primer is the story of two men who accidentally discover time travel. Aaron and Abe work in a 4 man team who work for a large corporation but on their own time do their own research looking for a next big breakthrough to bring them to the top.

When they discover time travel, they are able to begin doing experiments and eventually make money on the stock market.

Eventually things go a little haywire and Abe begins having second thoughts about time travel while Aaron starts manipulating this technology even more.

Eventually Abe starts trying to prevent these trips they're making while Aaron tries to expand his knowledge and use of the time machine.

This movie is fascinating because almost the entire movie is just these two characters talking. And not only are they talking, they're mainly talking in scientific terms that "explain" how they discovered time travel.

I'm not going to lie, I had a really hard time following this movie. After the first half hour I realized they're going to be talking like this for the entire movie. And they do. They just talk and talk and talk. Without any music in the background or dramatic flair to it, it takes a very patient person to watch this movie.

Now of course this was the directors intent, he wanted to put emphasis on the fact that while time travel is very science fiction, the means by which they came across it were very grounded and "realistic".

Another part of this movie that I suppose is meant to be clever but kind of comes off as convoluted to me is the process of time travel and how they interact with their doubles.

There are a lot of graphs and charts trying to explain the process in Primer and this one to the left is the simplest. But while this may seem simple, its not. This doesn't put into account the number of doubles they encounter and it just gets very confusing that you need to pay very close attention when they're explaining it.

I probably will re-watch this movie to try and understand the complexity of it but there's complex and then there's Primer complex. There's The Prestige complex that is incredibly entertaining and after a watch or two makes perfect sense. There's Memento which makes total sense after an hour or so.

And then there's Primer. I think it'll take a few watches for me to totally understand this movie and while that may have been their purpose, to have people want to re-watch their movie over and over until they get it, since the acting in it is really bland and boring, there's not really a draw for me to re-watch this movie.

So that's Primer. Its an interesting look into time travel and I always enjoy different interpretations, but it is overly complex and not appealing enough to make me want to watch it again to understand. There are movies that you have to think when you watch them, and then there is Primer. If you're up for that challenge, well then by all means watch this movie, if you're not, you're not really missing much.

Have you seen Primer? What did you think about it? Comment below and let me know.

I'll leave you with this. Maybe I'm just not a complex mind as some people but I love my simple time travel story in Back to the Future. So here's a messed up version of that.

Ink

I'm going really obscure on you guys with this one. Ink is the epitome of independent film. I would tell you who the director was (Jamin Winans) but you won't know who he is. I could tell you who acted in this film but you won't know who they are. I could tell you the budget for this movie but you wouldn't believe how small their budget was.

This movie was made in 2009 and had a very unique distribution cycle. Basically it was only shown in independent theaters and DVD sales were spread among social networks, and available for download across the internet.

So what is this movie about?

It mainly focuses on a little girl who is kidnapped by a hooded man. This man wants to become an Incubi, a group of spectres that give people bad dreams. Their counterparts are the Storytellers who make it there goal to save this young girl from this hooded figure named Ink.

Now that's in the dream reality. In the actual world, this little girl is in a comma that she will only wake up from if the Storytellers save her mind before she is sacrificed. She has a father that is not only focused on work but is haunted by troubles of his past.

The movie is visually phenomenal. Considering the budget at $250,000, its just pretty to look at. But how's the acting. It's... alright.

The script is alright, its not a masterpiece but its alright.

The purpose of this movie is more on the visuals given the small budget. Just how well timed the movie is with its low budget effects make it something really interesting.

The story isn't bad either. Its actually really original and has an interesting twist at the end.

Its just a fascinating story. Not just the actual story but the origins of the movie itself. I saw the trailer for this and I was interested already.

Here's the link to the trailer. Check it out

While you can't say its an incredibly great movie, I have to admit that knowing the development story and just seeing the creative visuals and story telling, it makes me overlook the subpar acting and the kinda kooky looking characters.

Its a dark movie you could probably find pretty easily online. If you enjoy independent films, want to find an obscure movie you can brag about to your friends, Ink is a good place to start.

Are you going to be missing out if you don't see this movie... not really? I mean its an interesting concept, great visuals, mediocre to poor acting. And its relatively short, what do you have to lose?

I want to see the other movies made by this Double Edge films now that I've re-watched Ink.

So what do you think? Have you seen Ink? Kind of obscure and strange but I think worth a watch if not just for the visuals.

This is another one of those times where I have no idea what youtube video to leave you with. Especially with an obscure oddball like this movie. So I'll leave you with something kind of obscure and oddballish.

Hugo

So I thought with the dark themes of Requiem for a Dream, and the violence of Braveheart, it was a better choice do watch something a little more whimsical and different. Therefore the choice was Hugo.

Now I had no idea what Hugo was about when I first saw trailers for it. All I knew was that it was directed by Martin Scorsese and it was in 3D and apparently that was a big deal at the time. Maybe it was the quality of 3D maybe it was the visuals of the movie, I don't know.

Hugo is based off of the novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret and if I recall correctly, it was an incredibly unique book. I have not read the book so there will be no comparison with the book in this review.

The story is focused on a young boy named Hugo. In a series of flashbacks it is shown that his father died in a fire (very abruptly in the film), and he was brought to a train station by his uncle, where he oils and fixes clocks.

Hugo is great with machines and wants to fix things that are broken, especially an automaton (a mechanical man).

After being caught trying to steal things, he begins working with Ben Kingsley's character at a toy shop. He also befriends his goddaughter (played by Chloe Grace Moretz). They have a couple of adventures, finding out they both love film (which was still in its early stages in the 30s, and eventually stumble upon the fact that her godfather was a famous moviemaker when movies were first invented. And Ben Kingsley actually plays a real person, George Melies.

This really took me by surprise because I really had no idea what this movie was about. Once it gets going, which actually takes a while, the movie starts exploring the birth of moving pictures and where movies come from. They actually explain the history of the invention of film and how it was mostly used by magicians and wasn't thought to be something that would be very popular in a few years.

Its fascinating because I took a film class in school, looking very in depth of how film began as a form of entertainment and art. I learned about the Lumiere brothers and I think Melies as well. The most interesting parts of the movie was the parts where it was talking about the history of film and how movies were made for a long time.

This obviously makes Ben Kingsley the best part of this movie, but the rest of the cast wasn't bad. The main character is played by Asa Butterfield (who is now Ender in Ender's Game) and Chloe Grace Moretz did a pretty good job herself.

There were a lot of other actors in this movie, Sacha Baron Cohen, Emily Mortimer, Jude Law, even Christopher Lee makes an appearance or two.

But beyond the children and Ben Kingsley, everyone else really didn't need to be in this movie. Sacha Baron Cohen plays a semi big role but only because he is the inspector chasing after Hugo half the time and he kind of gets his own romance plot, which in the end really was pointless.

Now the question is, is the movie good?

Well... sorta?

Visually, the movie is said to be a masterpiece. Just pretty to look at. I don't really see it. Yes it is pretty but I don't think I'll be bragging about the visual adventure I went on with Hugo.

The exploration into the origins of film was fun to revisit for someone who has studied film before. And I guess it might be a good educational journey for those who don't know those origins.

But story-wise, its just kind of dull. Hugo isn't that interesting of a character, the relationship between him and Chloe Grace Moretz is good but not enough to give real in-depth character development and the story is just not that great.

I think with all the hype about this movie and how stunningly visual its suppose to be, I think I was expecting something a little bit more whimsical and fantasy driven. While its alright that it wasn't that and good that I was surprised, Hugo wasn't really that interesting of a movie. At least not interesting enough for me to rave about it.

I think the only reason someone would need to see this movie is due to the visuals (which I am still not convinced are anything sublime) and the historical background of film. Otherwise, you could probably skip this one.

So those are my thoughts on Hugo. What are yours? Comment below and let me know what you think.

I don't really have a video that connects to this movie... so here's something totally different.

Braveheart

1995 was early enough in Mel Gibson's career that women wanted him and men wanted to be him. His career hadn't been defined by drunken anti semitic comments or incredibly graphic depictions of the death of Christ.

I will give him a lot of credit. Mel Gibson at one point was an incredibly famous and did some really great movies. The Patriot, Lethal Weapon, We Were Soldiers. One of those great movies was Braveheart. At least it was successful, winning Best Picture and more awards.

But is it that great?

In short, yeah it is. It is that great.

Braveheart is the story of William Wallace, one of the leaders of the War for Scottish Independence.

The movie takes place in the late 1200's when England was dominant over Scotland, ordering insane laws to quell Scottish populations. One such law is that with every Scottish marriage, the British Lord of the area has sexual privileges to "bless" the marriage.

I'm not sure if this or anything in this movie is historically accurate, apparently historians look at it now as one of the most historically inaccurate movies ever made, but it does a really good job at making the English just incredible bastards, which I'm sure that they were.

So anyways, William Wallace is the son of a Scot who fought the English and died. He goes off to get an education... somewhere, its not totally clear. So eventually he comes back to Scotland and intends to just start his own farm.

The beginning of the movie really does set up for a great movie because Wallace has no intentions of fighting in this war the Scots have. He just wants to live a normal life.

He finds a childhood friend who he falls in love with. He sees the laws that give English lords sexual privileges and he he refuses to let that happen to his new wife. So they marry in secret... a secret that does not last very long... at all....

As you may have guess, the English figure out this secret marriage and try and get what is "theirs". Wallace fights them off but they eventually capture her and kill her.

So when the English kill off William Wallace's wife, he just comes in and massacres the hell out of all the soldiers. When he finds the guy who killed her, he doesn't say anything, he just gives him a look and all I could think was...

Suddenly Wallace is 100% behind this war and becomes the leader of the Scottish forces with the mission to not only free Scotland but to invade England. I thought this was a very sudden and slightly random change of heart but I'll overlook it because he's so distraught from the death of his wife. 

The rest of the movie is Wallace's campaign against England, the battles he fights, a little bit of the politics that come along with the war he fights, and finally his capture and death at the hands of English torturers. 

Now this movie was really the movie that made Mel Gibson's career, at least as a director. And Gibson does an alright job acting in the movie. I mean you have to overlook his accent, and his 90's flow he's

got going. While I don't think he was the best choice to portray William Wallace, I enjoyed him as the character.

And its Gibson. Even in 95' he was giving little nods to his faith and eccentric ways. Don't get me wrong, I think its totally within Gibson's right as a Director to do whatever he wants to do with his movies, and if that means he puts in some Christ symbology in Braveheart, go right ahead.

But there were times when I felt I wasn't watching William Wallace lead troops into battle, I felt I was watching Mel Gibson with war paint, and a mediocre Scottish accent, leading people into a scripted battle.

It still had the epic feeling to it, it just didn't feel like an accurate depiction of how these battles happened back in 1297.

BUT, it did give Gibson the opportunity to contribute one of the most quoted speeches in movie history.

It's a solid speech. I think a dangerous drinking game to play with this movie is to drink every time Gibson says Freedom!

Other good things about this movie is that it actually goes a little bit into the politics of medieval England and Scotland. Part of the movie focuses on Wallace getting support from different lords of Scotland. It reminded me of Game of Thrones which is always a good thing.

One of the criticisms I have of the movie, besides the mass amounts of liberties, is the role of the Princess of England (played by Sophie Marceau). Since the Prince is kind of a pansy, the Princess does some of the negotiating between the King of England and Wallace. By doing this she develops feelings for Wallace and the two actually have sex at one point. It was incredibly random and really held no purpose in the movie. It also kind of detracts from the final scene when Wallace is about to be beheaded and he sees a vision of his dead wife... just kind of odd.

All of that said with a few criticisms, Braveheart is really a solid movie. If you're a guy and need a testosterone surge, watch this movie. If you're a woman and you like young not so crazy Mel Gibson with 90's flow, watch this movie.

I won't say its a movie you absolutely need to see because some people might walk out of this movie saying, "Eh, it was alright" or not liking it at all. It all depends on if you like violent chest beating war movies.

If that's you, this movie is perfect for you. You'll also get some medieval politics, which isn't a bad thing at all. The only thing you will get that you may not want is historical inaccuracies and pointless romance subplots.

I'll let you decide on that one. I enjoyed Braveheart. Plain and simple. While it may be pretty much the same movie as The Patriot that Gibson also did in 2000, its still a pretty solid movie.

What do you think? Have you seen Braveheart? Did you enjoy it? Let me know by commenting below.

I'll leave you with this. Remember Papa Elf from Elf? Yeah he did a spoof of the famous speech. Check it out. Its pretty good.

Requiem for a Dream

Well... that was just... strange.

The only reason I heard about this movie was because of the main theme of the movie. Its a really great theme.

If you haven't heard it here it is. Here you go

But don't worry, you will hear this song about a billion times throughout the course of this movie. And much like the song, going on and on and not really changing the tone, that's kind of how this movie turned out.

The movie follows the story of 4 characters. There's Harry (played by Jared Leto), his mother Sara (Played by Ellen Burstyn), his friend, Tyrone (played by Marlon Wayans) and his girlfriend, Marion (played by Jennifer Connolly).

All four characters find themselves falling into a world of addiction to something. For Sara its for dieting pills, for Harry, Tyrone, and Marion... well its a lot of hardcore drugs. They do so much shit in this movie its hard to keep track of.

Well Harry and Tyrone find themselves in a scheme to sell drugs and make a lot of money, which they do. The beginning of this movie reminds me of the early seasons of Breaking Bad where Jesse and his friends are dealing drugs. They get a lot of money and a lot of drugs that they all eventually get addicted to.

On the other side of the story, you have Sara who receives a very generic phone call saying she's going to be on her favorite television show. She gets very excited because he life is very lonely and she wants some excitement. She becomes very preoccupied with fitting into a dress but she is slightly overweight. A doctor prescribes her what Harry finds out are uppers and downers. She gets addicted to them, shit goes down.

Its kind of hard to describe this movie because as simple of a concept it is, its really complex and delves into the life of addicts and drug trafficking and consumption.

But damn this movie takes a really trippy, dark, and uncomfortable turn.

The main focus of the movie is really the cinematography. The most iconic shots are the ones taken when the drugs are being taken. They're quick flashes of a lighter being flicked on, the eyes widening, things like that and then it does a lot of speeding up and slowing down. I wish I could give the technical terms for all the cinematography in this movie but as I have stated before, I'm not that kind of expert.

But I do know how the stunning visual contribute to the story, a story that is not your conventional story. There are basically three acts to the movie: Summer, Fall, and Winter. Summer, everything goes really well, the drugs seem to have good effects on the characters. Fall comes in, things get tough, addictions are forming and they start doing more desperate things to feed the addiction. Then Winter comes and all hell breaks loose. It gets really trippy and just really dark.

There is little to no comic relief in this movie, especially not in the later acts of the movie. The only chuckle I got out of this movie was from two things. Keith David (but only for a minute of recognition... because he's a really dark part of the movie) and the idea that if you take away the dark music and dark lighting, this movie could have turned out a lot differently.

Which really speaks to the purpose behind this movie. Its an art film. I think it sacrifices a really story heavy script more for the visuals and imagery.

Now if that's your thing, you might watch Requiem For a Dream about a billion times and just revel in the cinematography and just how the movie is made. If you're not, chances are you really only need to see this movie once (if that) and you'll be good.

I don't know if I'd recommend this movie to anybody unless I knew they were really into the type of movie it is. If you want to see an incredibly visually striking and kind of hauntingly dark movie, then Requiem for a Dream is your movie. Just know you will come out of that movie in a complete funk from all the depressing shit in this movie.

So have you seen Requiem For a Dream? What did you think? Let me know. Maybe I'm missing something from this movie.

I'll leave you with this, its proof that the theme of this movie makes everything epic.

The Time of the Doctor

Well if The Time of the Doctor has taught me anything, its that I should never watch Doctor Who on live television. I can wait till its online or available on Itunes but I will never sit through an episode with commercials ever again.

Disclaimer: This review is going to have a lot of spoilers from the Christmas special so you've been warned. 

So this is the episode Doctor Who fans have been waiting for. The regeneration episode, the final entry of Matt Smith as the 11th Doctor and how did it fare?

Well... for me it was a little bit of a mediocre feeling. I'm not saying it was bad by any means and there are certainly parts of the episode that are done really really well to give Matt Smith a proper send off as the Doctor.

But the episode did have its... interesting parts.

It took me a second watching for me to really warm up to this episode and see it as a great send off for Matt Smith.

So here we go, here's The Time of the Doctor.

The episode starts off with an introduction explaining a mysterious planet giving off a decoded message. While nobody knows what the message says, they are all scared of it and all go to the planet. Daleks, Cybermen, the whole lot comes. Including the Doctor.

In the mean time, Clara is preparing Christmas dinner for her family and she needs the Doctor to be her date. A charming part of this episode was the back and forth between the events in space and the christmas dinner. Although it did get old after a while and didn't have enough to really give it proper charm, it was still a few fun scenes.

Eventually the Doctor and Clara land on the planet and they find themselves in a town called Christmas... yes... Christmas. I've gone back and forth on whether or not I like that name because really the episode didn't need the town to be called Christmas... but I digress.

The Doctor realizes the message is coming from the crack in the wall from the 5th series, Matt Smith's first series, and its a message from the Timelords who the Doctor had saved in The Day of the Doctor. They're trying to get back into the universe and the only way they will is if the Doctor says his name.

But all the enemies of the Doctor don't want the Timelords to come back so there starts the standoff with the Doctor becoming the "Sheriff" of the town called Christmas. It's also important to note that the planet they are on is Trenzalore, the planet that holds the grave of the Doctor.

The Doctor sends Clara back to her Christmas dinner and sets up shop as a toymaker/defender of Trenzalore and the town called Christmas. He stays there for many centuries growing older because he knows he's out of regenerations and its time for him to die on Trenzalore.

Eventually it comes time for the Doctor to face the Daleks and it seems like he is about to die but then Clara calls for the help of the Timelords, they give the Doctor another regeneration cycle and he defeats the Daleks.

With the enemy defeated, the future changed, it is time for the Doctor to regenerate and there comes Peter Capaldi.

Again, story-wise, its a pretty good narrative and good chance for Steven Moffat to throw in all the enemies of the Doctor into one place.

So there are a couple things I want to talk about with this episode. Things I thought were just okay or things I didn't like at all.

1. Mother Superious: Tasha Lem - Orla Brady did do a very good job as the head of the Church of the Papal Mainframe. I enjoyed her enough and I thought it was fascinating to finally get the origins of the Silence and how they connected to all the Matt Smith seasons.

The criticisms I have of this part of the show are small but I think they're necessary.

Tasha Lem, as much as I enjoyed her, didn't really need to be in this episode.

I saw a review that suggested that her part could have been replaced by River Song. While it would have needed to crafting of the script, it could have been done nicely and given Alex Kingston one last appearance in Doctor Who. Again, not a huge complaint, when you look at the episode, you don't really connect Tasha Lem as a quintessential part.

2. Old man Doctor - The Doctor is very familiar with the fact that he will not be able to regenerate again. So he just resigns himself to this random ass town. This was confusing to me and while it is important to note the presence of the crack that is holding back the Timelords, there is just a sign of resignation in this Doctor. There's no dramatic speech like the one he made on Stonehenge, he basically says to the Daleks when he thinks they're going to kill him, go ahead and shoot me.

I understand that the Doctor is older than he's ever been and he knows he's coming to the end of his life. It gave Matt Smith the opportunity show how mature of an actor he can play, that while he is very young, he can portray someone who is incredibly old.

However, he was able to do that when he looked like he was in his twenties. He doesn't need makeup to make him look older. It didn't look awful but it did kind of have the hints of Cloud Atlas prosthetics.

Cloud Atlas did a lot of manipulating the look of each of the actors in order to make them look younger, a different race or some other kind of adjustments. While this was a unique way to use the same actors in different parts, many times it did look a little silly, especially when they tried to make Jim Sturgess look Asian.

While Matt Smith's prosthetics looked a lot better than Cloud Atlas's, it was still a little weird and kind of took away from the episode for me, at least the first time I watched it.

(I will most likely be reviewing Cloud Atlas soon)

I wanted to see Matt Smith as the Doctor, not Matt Smith with makeup and prosthetics as the Doctor. It didn't ruin the episode but it didn't enhance it.

There is a scene where Clara asks the Doctor why she sent him away and he says, "I would have buried you a long time ago". Which was really touching but it didn't really mend the actions he pulls against Clara in this episode.

3. Clara and the Doctor - The Doctor sends Clara back home, ditching her, not once, but twice. There's a scene where Clara says, promise me you won't send me away again. The Doctor says he won't and then two seconds later he does.

I know the Doctor lies but this to me was just kind of an asshole thing to do.

Clara is really turning out to be a very different companion for the Doctor. With Rose, or Amy, The Doctor is pulling them out of a dull life. In many ways, former companions before Clara were almost dependent on the Doctor.

What I like about Clara is that she doesn't really need the Doctor. She's very clever and good at making her life worthwhile. In many ways the Doctor and her seem to be on an even playing field.

Unfortunately, that doesn't make her a really compelling character... yet. I really enjoy Jenna-Louise Coleman, and my god she is very very attractive. But she's had so little time to develop herself as a character and not so much a plot device that she hasn't been able to form a real bond with the Doctor that the audience can relate to.

And that brings me to my last "complaint"

4. The Regeneration Scene - When I first watched this scene, it was basically cut in half by commercials. The very reason I will never watch Doctor Who live again.

The did a lot of thing right with this scene. After getting his new regeneration from the Timelords, destroying the Daleks, The Doctor returns to the TARDIS and is "old" Matt Smith Doctor again. He looks the same he had looked for his entire time as the Doctor which was a very smart move.

When he's regenerating he gives a speech that really isn't the Doctor saying it, its more Matt Smith's words. He eats some custard and fish fingers, drops the iconic bow tie and says how he'll never forget when he was the Doctor.

But then something a little odd happened in my opinion.

Amy Pond shows up. At first it was just the child version of her running through the TARDIS but then Karen Gillen (Wig and all) shows up and says, "Ragedy Man, Goodnight"

Don't get me wrong, I teared up.

But it just seemed odd to me.

When the scene first starts it is slightly reminiscent of the first time Rose sees Christopher Eccleston turn into David Tennant. Clara is looking upon the Doctor in a similar way and it was very sad, she doesn't want to see him change.

But then the Doctor kind just forgets Clara is in the room and he gets distracted by the ghost of Amy Pond.

I don't deny the fact that Amy Pond was a quintessential part to Matt Smith's career being as she was his companion for 2 and a half seasons.

But I feel as though we had already said goodbye to Amy Pond. And Rory? Where the hell was he? And River Song? She got a good goodbye in The Name of the Doctor, why not bring her back for this episode.

It just seemed really odd to have Amy Pond show up and kind of push Clara to the side.

I predict that Clara will become more of a significant companion to Peter Capaldi's Doctor rather than Matt Smith's but still they had a whole half season together. They were together during the 50th anniversary for godsake and she didn't really have a role of importance near the end.

That's a bit of an exaggeration but it just felt odd.

The only other thing I will say about the regeneration scene was how quickly it ended. While they tried to make it seem like it was drawn out, there's a quick jerk and suddenly Peter Capaldi is there. It was oddly fast.

Furthermore, Capaldi gets a strange looking stare and a quick line and the episode was over.

This isn't a huge complaint as Matt Smith didn't get that much screen time when he took over from David Tennant. It just felt very rushed.

I think I'm just really excited to see Peter Capaldi be the next Doctor.

I feel as though I've given a lot of criticisms of this episode and the truth is, it wasn't my favorite. That does not mean that it wasn't good.

It was a very whimsical adventure and was a good send off for Matt Smith and a little bit of a precursor to Peter Capaldi's time, despite having to wait a long time before we see those episodes.

It was funny, it really did a good job at including all the Doctor's enemies in only an hour's time.

The criticisms aren't really against the story, they are just things I found interesting and not what I expected.

So, did you see the final Doctor Who episode staring Matt Smith? What did you think? Am I totally off on my critics or was there things I'm missing?

I'll leave you with this. A funny introduction to Peter Capaldi. I don't think he'll swear this much but I think we've got a fun Doctor ahead of us. Congrats Matt Smith and Good Luck to you!