I'm just a guy who loves stories, whether they be past, present, future, movies, TV Shows, video games, whatever. If you came to get an average guys thoughts on film, you've come to the right place.
When I saw that there was a documentary about Mitt Romney and his campaign for President of the United States both in 2008 and in 2012, I just had to ask myself... why?
I'll be honest, I voted for Mitt Romney. I could go into the whole perception I had of the 2012 election and how I really wasn't satisfied with either candidate. There's a lot I could talk about but that's getting a little more political than I want, and really more political than this movie was.
The purpose of this movie was to "pull back the curtain" show Mitt Romney as a human being and give him a real touching image as opposed to the stone cold, Republican, big business, 47% hating, as John Oliver once said, "The man who just fired your dad" image he often had during the campaign.
And I'll give the movie its credit.
The movie does show a side of Mitt Romney I don't think a lot of people got to see or chose not to see.
There is a sense of the importance of family to him and there is a humorous side that Ann Romney insisted that he had during the election but never really came out.
I also think there's a lot of things that portray Romney as an incredibly intelligent, honest, and down to earth guy in this movie. And there's a lot of pressure that gets him down.
But unfortunately, I didn't really feel as though the entire movie was 100% honest about some of the glaring issues with Mitt Romney as a candidate. You can tell the guy, Greg Whiteley really likes the Romney's and decides to put in what makes them look good. Also, I read he only had access to the family, not the campaign meetings or planning. So that's what he put in. And I think for the purposes of this film, the film accomplishes what it was meant to accomplish.
The movie is very one sided and therefore puts Romney in a much better light than any other documentary might. But it does give kind of a personal touch to a guy who actually got a lot of shit during the 2012 election and that's fair.
There's a great documentary that was made by PBS called Taking on the Kennedys. It followed the campaign of a relatively unknown doctor by the name of Kevin Vigilante who ran against Patrick Kennedy in the Congressional election of 1994. That documentary was more focused on the Vigilante's campaign strategy and how name recognition and campaigns fund play an intricate role in the results of an election.
And these documentaries are very similar because they're the story of the losers. You know from the beginning that both these candidates lose.
I think what Taking on the Kennedys did right was that they really didn't portray the Kennedy family in a great light. In that documentary, it was kind of hard to see Kevin Vigilante as anything but the obvious choice for Congress, and yet Patrick Kennedy won.
With Mitt, I feel they were trying to just give Mitt Romney a human side. Give him some kind of relatable situations that more poses it as a pity party. Taking on the Kennedys is pointing at a flaw in our election process and the attention span of voters. Mitt is just giving a look into the failures of a Presidential candidate. And when it comes to a close, you just have to ask yourself, so what?
Why did I just sit there for an hour and a half watching a movie that I know is not a happy ending for the main characters? Am I suppose to say, its sad because he should have won? I would hope Republicans wouldn't even say that. Unless Barrack Obama drops a nuke on Alabama for opposing Health care or something comes up that we can definitely say, that wouldn't have happened if Mitt had been President, I just don't know what I was suppose to get out of this movie.
Like I said before, I voted for Romney. I knew he wasn't just a Republican robot, I knew he probably had a human side to him, I knew he loved his family, I knew he had times where he was vulnerable and I really liked those scenes in this movie.
But again I ask, what's the point?
If you're telling me Romney should have been President because he was a nice guy, you haven't shown me anything saying Barrack Obama isn't a nice guy.
So I'm kind just kind of bummed out by Mitt. They make a bunch of jokes about how the people who lose Presidential races are just mocked as losers for the rest of their lives. And unfortunately, that's kind of the case with Mitt Romney. At least a year later, yeah people just kind of see him as a joke. Its sad.
I think this documentary would have been better had it given the audience a little bit more than and they lived happily ever after even though they lost. If this was to make Romney seem like this great guy, they should have held off, waited until he did something great despite losing the election. That would have been a great story, and it would have given the subject of the documentary a little more dignity.
So Mitt is an interesting watch. Probably not the greatest documentary you've ever seen but if you just wanted to see Mitt Romney interact with his family, and watch a film telling us how great he is, then this is the movie for you. For me, I want the guy I voted for to get a little bit more credit than this mope fest.
So that's my review of Mitt. Have you seen this documentary? If you have comment below and discuss.
I'll leave you with this. I need something to pick me up so here's Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama rapping.
I don't know if I've ever seen a Denzil Washington movie I didn't like.
He's kind of like Tom Hanks in that he has distinguished himself as an actor and he's able to choose the movies he does. Not only that but he's able to do big movies that are really good. It almost seems like his characters are very similar but at the same time incredibly different. And even if he does the same performance for different characters, he just too damn entertaining for me to care.
Denzil Washington plays Whip Whitaker, a commercial jet pilot. As the movie begins, he wakes up with a hooker, takes a snort of coke and then goes to fly a plane.
From the very beginning, Washington just gives off the vibe that he's a great pilot. He doesn't even need to fly the plane but he just has a confidence and an air about him that just bodes confidence. At the same time he gives off the air of cockiness and a devil may care attitude.
I won't describe the entire first scene of the movie but in short, the plane begins a nose dive and is crashing. Even in the chaos, when everyone is freaking out, Whip is calm and collected the entire time. He brings the plane down and only 6 people die because of the crash. That is the first fifteen minutes of the movie. The rest of the movie is Whip dealing with the following investigation and it is discovered that not only did he snort cocaine before the flight but he was still drunk with a BAC of .24.
Washington gives just a brilliant performance of a man who is a straight up alcoholic. I cannot believe all the circumstances he's in where he's got a beer, in his hand, where he's drinking alcohol out of a water bottle. There's a scene where he buys a huge bottle of vodka and just chugs it in his car right outside the liquor store.
In the hospital after the crash, Washington meets a woman who is recovering from a heroin overdose. She is played by Kelly Reilly. I liked her character but I don't know if she was completely necessary for the plot. Her main point is to show how Whip will go to great lengths to lie about his alcoholism but so do a lot of characters in this film so I don't really know if she was necessary. She did an alright job in the scenes she was in but for the most part, this was Denzil Washington's movie.
The great part about the movie is that it really makes you feel for an incredibly irresponsible and sometimes just down right stupid character. There are times when all he needs to do to succeed is just not drink. But he'll drink anyway.
Its possibly one of the best films about alcoholism that I've ever seen and its not surprising that Washington was nominated for a Best Actor performance last year for this role.
It also brings up a lot of debate on the responsibility thrown onto Washington's character.
The first ever episode of Law and Order was about a surgeon who often went into surgery drunk. Nobody could tell almost ever but he was and he was prosecuted for the death of a woman on the operating table.
The interesting thing about this movie is that the crash of the plane really isn't Washington's fault. There is evidence to show that there was technical problems with the plane and yet there is an underlying theme that it doesn't matter. It was unethical for Whitaker to be drunk when he was flying that plane. It is kind of a great story about integrity and honor. Qualities I admire and sometimes fall short of in my own life.
I have mixed feelings about the ending. I thought it may have been too simple and a little contrived but it served its purpose. I really enjoyed the movie and I loved Washington's performance.
So have you seen Flight? What did you think? Comment and discuss below!
I'll leave you with this. One of my favorite movies with Denzil Washington is Training Day. Washington just gives a brilliant speech at the end of that movie and it just shows his ability to act. Here it is, Enjoy!
I was having a good day. A very good day. And then this happened.
Now until now I've been really really excited for Man of Steel 2. Sure, I had my doubts about Ben Affleck being Batman but if you've seen my post about that, you'll know I'm cool with it. I'm waiting for it to happen. I'm also warming up to the idea very much so I'm cool with that news now.
And then there was the news about Gal Gadot.
Gal Gadot being Wonder Woman is sort of a situation where I don't know anything about her and I'm putting a lot of faith into the casting decisions of Zack Snyder.
Also the reason I didn't get too mad about Gal Gadot being Wonder Woman is because I hope she's not a huge role in a movie about Batman and Superman.
Go and read my post on Wonder Woman and you'll hear my theories on how they should do this correctly.
In short, its not the decision I would have made but I'll put my faith in Zack Snyder to make us a movie and character worth watching.
And then there was the news that the movie was being pushed back 10 months.
I was going to do a post on this but I delayed it enough to realize that its not that huge of a deal. Am I bummed that the movie isn't coming out till 2016? Yes I am.
They've made several statements about it. The first one was to make sure the vision was done correctly, it depends on if you want to take that on face value but the more likely explanation is that they need to make some changes, rework the script, need more time to make sure everything is in place, and they felt it wasn't fully ready to debut in 2015.
I get that.
I'm not happy about it but I understand it. As long as Man of Steel 2 is a great film it won't matter if it came out of in 2015 or 2016. If it works, it works.
And then Warner Brothers comes out with some new information today.
Jesse Eisenberg is officially confirmed as Lex Luthor in the sequel to Man of Steel.
This is just... strange to me.
It was just out of left field and just down right strange. There were a bunch of rumors about Lex Luthor being played by Bryan Cranston, Mark Strong, even Joaquin Phoenix was in the mix when he was confirmed for a D/C project. I had kind of assumed that he was on board for that role it was just a matter of time till it was announced. I guess looking back it seems silly to think they would announce Phoenix's involvement and not announce that he's Lex Luthor.
So when Eisenberg was announced I just kind of thought. What the fuck?
I would almost say this is worth a "Daa Fuck?" Montage, but not quite.
If you read my "Now You See Me" review, you may remember that I mentioned that Jesse Eisenberg is good at two things. Being awkward and being an awkward asshole. And his character wasn't exactly a good guy in Now You See Me. That movie has shown that Eisenberg can be a diabolical "mastermind" and I suppose he can be charismatic. I just don't want to see Eisenberg's character from Now You See Me as Lex Luthor. I didn't like that character and I see Lex Luthor as a villain you love to hate.
And I think this casting decision is a little bit different from Batfleck and Gal Gadot. Ben Affleck is an established actor and while he wasn't my first choice for the role, I have seen him in enough to know that he's able to do the role and along with the faith I have in Zack Snyder, I think this will be a good choice of a role. Gal Gadot, I don't know anything about so that's totally on my faith in Snyder.
With Eisenberg it just makes me ask Snyder.
I'm not saying it couldn't work, I think I'm just put off by the performances I've seen Eisenberg in.
I don't want to be the kind of person that says they're not going to see this movie because a casting choice has been made because I'm going to. The point of this is this.
I DON'T WANT TO SEE MARK ZUCKERBERG AS LEX LUTHOR.
Okay that was the only out burst I was planning on having in this post. I'm writing this right after I heard about it so I may be a little bit emotional. Hopefully I warm up to the idea but its making me kind question how this movie is going to turn out. I suppose I'll give the same thing I said about Gal Gadot in response to this.
You're on thin ice Snyder. You are asking me to put a lot of faith into a movie that is already a risk. And it better pay off.
But all my doubts and disapprovals aside, what does this mean for the series if Lex Luthor is played by a young actor. Eisenberg may be 30 but he still looks like he is maybe in his late twenties. He's young, very young.
I can guess that they're going to build him up as a boy genius, someone who graduated school very early and made a living for himself at a very young age. Putting aside the casting, I like this direction. Its very different and I think a great way to reinvent the character.
I suppose there will be questions on whether or not Eisenberg will shave his head. I personally think he should but I won't be heart broken if he doesn't. I think if they're not going to have him shave his head, there should be a pretty damn good reason.
Now does this say anything about Lex Luthor's role in the movie?
When it comes to theories of how Lex Luthor will be involved in the movie, I believe that he should not be the villain in Man of Steel 2. At least not the main villain. I want him to be more of a political villain in the first movie, publicly denouncing Superman and saying he's dangerous to the Earth.
If you didn't catch my earlier posts, my theory was that perhaps Luthor and Bruce Wayne are rebuilding Metropolis after the destruction of the first movie (This needs to be addressed). They create an alliance because they both are millionaires looking to rebuild the city and they both have a distrust of Superman. But while Bruce Wayne's fear comes from actual distrust, Lex Luthor's distrust comes from Superman's possible disruption of his illegal businesses.
That's my old theory. I felt like it worked for a Bryan Cranston Lex Luthor because Luthor and Wayne could be allies at first. This would create a rigid relationship with Batman and Superman from the beginning. While I feel it could maybe work for a young Lex Luther, here is my new theory.
Lex is a symbol of earned wealth, capitalism, and new ways of doing things. He's really into developing new technology, possibly similar to a very young Tony Stark. Bruce Wayne on the other hand represents an old wealth he procured from inheritance. While Wayne has made a name for himself on his own merits, his wealth is something he received from his father. Lex's wealth was built. He has more humble beginnings but is incredibly intelligent that he's able to mass a huge wealth at a very young age. That creates a rivalry between Wayne Enterprises and Lex Corp. These two are going to have to have some close connection with each other in this movie, its just too perfect for both characters to appear here.
I think the distrust between Wayne and Kal-El must still be there but for Luthor it should be different. A part of me thinks he should initially think of Superman as a new toy. Maybe something he can buy and control. Where Bruce Wayne believes Superman should be casted out, Lex Luthor may at first see Superman as a weapon. But when Superman refuses that's when they become enemies, rivals even. Lex deduces that if he can't control Superman, Superman must be eliminated.
And Jesse Eisenberg's Superman can't be a wimp. He has to be charismatic, cunning, and always having plans up his sleeve. I see a way this vision I have of Luthor could be tarnished by him hiding behind his money for his power but he needs to have earned it. This will reinforce his intelligence and make a formidable foe for Superman... in later movies.
Thinking about it now, I actually see a lot of potential for Lex Luthor being younger. I'm still not wild about Jesse Eisenberg getting the part but I guess if there's a deliberate choice in going with a younger actor, he's not the worst choice...
I will now speak directly to Jesse Eisenberg.
Mr. Eisenberg, you are about to embark on playing one of mine and many Superman fan's favorite villain.
I don't really like a lot of what you do. I liked Zombieland, I thought your part made sense. I didn't like you in Now You See Me. For the longest time I got you confused with Michael Cera.
At least he is funny.
But I'm going to go along with this only on the fact that I like where this could potentially go.
But you have to sell it to me.
You have the potential to make me very very wrong about you. I hope that you do. Best of luck. And don't fuck this up. Get rid of your stupid curly hair and don't fuck this up.
That's kind of the end of my rant towards Eisenberg being Lex Luthor.
I will end this post on a happy note. Along with Eisenberg, they announced another casting. A casting I'm really happy about.
Jeremy Irons is going to be Bruce Wayne's butler, Alfred Pennyworth.
I will not go on a huge rant about this mainly because there's not much to rant about. I love the casting choice.
I love Jeremy Irons as an actor. I think he'll be a great Alfred.
I mean this probably was a difficult decision just because he will be following in the footsteps of Michael "freaking" Caine.
Michael Caine was just a brilliant Alfred Pennyworth. He brought a lot of heart to the role and always made me cry.
Anybody who got this role was kind of screwed from the beginning. Nobody is going to do a better job at Alfred Pennyworth than Michael Caine. I think Jeremy Irons will do a good job and it opens up opportunities for a new way of looking at the character.
Its definitely not a role that gives me enough confidence to overlook the Eisenberg casting but its a good choice.
So I've talked long enough and I have some other movies to watch and review. Those are my thoughts on the new casting news for Man of Steel 2. I know I'll be doing more in the months to come.
Let me know your thoughts on the casting. Comment and discuss below.
I'll leave you with this. I couldn't really find anything about Lex Luthor worth putting up here so instead I'll mention that DC needs to create a villain in Lex Luthor as one that we love. A good example of a villain we love is Loki from the Marvel universe. But Tom Hiddleston wanted to be Thor initially. Here's a clip of a bonus feature about Loki and how he started up.
If there's anything we can learn from this movie, its that you should not go on double dates. Bad idea.
This movie describes itself as A comedy about knowing when to say when... this movie wasn't funny. I'm just gonna put i out there, if you're looking for a rom com, this one is not it. This movie is just uncomfortable.
So what's it about?
The movie mainly follows Olivia Wilde. She works at a Brewery and is good friends with one of the brewers played by Jake Johnson.
Johnson's character has a girlfriend played by Anna Kendrick. Olivia Wilde has a boyfriend played by Ron Livingston.
The initial set up is alright showing the relationship between Johnson and Wilde. Its the kind of relationship that people always say are like the brother and sister relationship but secretly one of them or both of them really like the other one. And then they show the relationships between Johnson and Kendrick and Wilde and Livingston. While they look like good relationships, they're very similar in the fact that both Livingston and Kendrick don't really feel like their girlfriend or boyfriend are really into them.
Well then all four of them go to Ron Livingston's cabin for a weekend away just the four of them. You can pretty much guess what is going to happen. For those who can't I won't give it away but those who do, it happens.
The rest of the movie is a will they or won't they "romantic" movie. It has its cute moments but for me, it just felt very strange.
Its strange because nobody in this movie is made out to be the bad guy. Anna Kendrick is really sweet in this movie and she's not made out to be the bitch. Ron Livingston, as limited as his role is, is not really an asshole. They're all very well written characters and you don't want to see any of them get hurt.
The problem with that is that the instinct is that they're just going to switch, cheating on the other one. And like I said, you don't really want that to happen.
As much as you want to see Wilde and Johnson get together in the end, you know it will hurt Kendrick. And lets be honest, nobody wants that.
So it creates a lot of tension that is kind of uncomfortable at times because you're saying, "Yes that's cute, but he/she's in a relationship".
And maybe that's how the movie wanted me to feel and maybe they were trying to pull some comedy out of that but it didn't really strike me as a funny movie.
I just learned that all the dialogue in the movie was improvised which makes a lot of sense now for the why the dialogue was so disjointed and strangely delivered by everyone.
The actors were given an outline of the major plot points and what needed to happen in each scene, however beyond that, all the dialogue was improvised.
I suppose knowing that now I have a little bit more respect for the writing of this movie (or lack there of) because thats an incredibly risky and creative move to do for an entire movie.
But despite that knowledge, I still don't think this movie was funny at all, which is okay I wasn't sad that I wasn't laughing during the movie, I just thought it was strange and kind of awkward.
While the movie seems predictable, the way it turns out is a pretty good resolution though not what you expect with a movie with a premise like this.
So while I think the movie was strange, awkward, not funny, and not really a movie I would recommend, I do have to give it credit for the improvised lines, the unexpected ending, and the acting. There are people that will watch this movie and relate to it right away. They will love it. I think the majority of people will relate to some aspects of it but be uncomfortable and probably not laugh. And then there are people that will hate this movie. I fall into the middle category. My girlfriend fell into the hated it category so I don't know what to think about that. She's doesn't sit and analyze movies so maybe that's saying something for the average viewer.
So that's my review of Drinking Buddies. Have you seen it? Did you like it? Comment below and let me know because it just gave me mixed feelings.
I'll leave you with this. Its not totally related... really at all but I think its funny. Frankly, I don't really know a video that would relate to this movie unless I put something from Pitch Perfect with Anna Kendrick... I'm not going to do that. So I'll leave you with a Long Story Short video. Enjoy!
So I wasn't planning on watching this movie for a while. You've probably read my review of the 2012 remake of this film. I didn't want to compare the two because I hadn't seen both. But I wasn't planning on watch this movie because the remake turned out so bad I figured I had had enough of Red Dawn for a while.
But of course, movies expire on Netflix and I knew that if I didn't watch it now, I wouldn't have watched it.
The good thing is that now I can compare the two. I'll still review the film on its own merits but there are elements of the movie that made the remake make a lot more sense and those are worth mentioning.
Well in case you don't know, Red Dawn is the story of the United States being invaded by Russian and Cuban forces. A group of teenagers from a small town retreat into the mountains and make a guerilla group bent on wrecking havoc on the occupying force.
The main characters are Jed and Matt Eckert. Jed is played by Patrick Swayze and Matt is played by Charlie Sheen. They're very much the leaders of the group but there are a couple other kids in the mix.
Like in the remake, a lot of the characters get overshadowed, especially today by the big name actors Swayze and Sheen. Lea Thompson (the mom from Back to the Future) is in it and so is Jennifer Grey (Dirty Dancing and Ferris Bueller's Day Off) but they are incredibly under developed. In fact that's really the case for all of the characters, even Swayze and Sheen.
The original starts out by describing how the world has basically gone to shit. Like EVERYONE is either in revolution or collapsing except for the US. I kind of had to laugh at just the list of countries that just went to shit in this movie. But after that, the invasion happens right away. Really no introduction to the characters, just them retreating to the mountains.
And that doesn't really change throughout the movie.
There is a little bit of development as the characters react to the things happening about them but the truth is, I don't know anything about Patrick Swayze's character. I don't know anything about Charlie Sheen's except that they are brothers. Frankly, I got a lot of the other people mixed up and when they died I didn't really care that much.
Jennifer Grey and Lea Thompson are alright in the movie as there is some development with Lea Thompson and what happened to them before they join up with the Wolverines but again, not really developed. Granted I liked them a lot better than the female characters in the remake, but neither really developed as characters that much so I don't really care.
The movie is stereotypical 80s cheese. The story is very original and evidential of the Cold War era.
It also felt a little bit more glorified which is a good thing and a bad thing. They obviously didn't have the budget or effects of the remake but it felt more triumphant when they won a battle. The Wolverines felt more like an actual resistance as opposed to a symbol of hope.
In the end this is really just an action movie. And while the characters are really under developed, the movie knows what it is and gives us a comprehensive story as well as some really cool looking fight scenes considering the time this movie was made.
So how does the remake compare with the original?
Well, its funny because a lot of the scenes I didn't really understand from the remake were actually scenes taken from the original. I guess thats a good homage to the original but it kind of is evident to the comparison between the two.
Like I said before, it didn't feel like the original was really out to be anything inspiring. Sure it was evident of anti-soviet views at the time but at the end of the day, its really just an action/adventure movie.
I think the remake attempted to take some of the things that were lacking in the original and not only update them but kind of refine it a little bit. The lack of character development is a good example. Unfortunately, it feels like they may have gone a step too far. The relationship with Jed and Matt in the remake, while flushed out a little more just becomes angsty bullshit and not really something you want to see in an action movie.
Also, I mentioned that the original didn't have the budget or effects of the remake, but in actuality, its more bloody. And the good bloody, blood squibs bloody.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, watch a good action movie prior to the 90s. Watch the original Die Hard, watch Robocop, watch the Godfather. (But actually, watch those movie. They're really good, especially the Godfather)
But like I was saying, the movie is bloody. I think the rating system had to have had different guidelines because this movie was hardcore. A school gets shot up, kids die in this movie.
While the remake gave a little bit more realistic view of guerilla warfare and to give credit probably had the better battle sequences, it didn't have the grit that the original had. The remake felt like a bunch of teenagers with guns, the original felt like teenagers who had been through some shit... with guns.
Here's an example.
In both movies, there's a kid in the group who in one way or another gets a tracker put in him. Its a tracker that cannot be removed and puts the group in danger.
In the original, they flat out kill that kid. In the remake they just kind of send him away. It also had to do when this event happened and this is one of the scenes that didn't really make sense to put in the remake but you get my point. The original was a little more gritty and despite awesome effects and better battle sequences, the remake just felt a little underwhelming.
So its a weird comparison. The remake felt a little bit more personal but maybe a little bit too much and the original was the polar opposite making this more on a grander scale.
All of that being said, I did like Chris Hemsworth as Jed Eckert better. I think he's a better actor than Swayze. Give me shit for that statement but I think its true. That doesn't mean I didn't like Swayze's performances, its just for a remake, Chris Hemsworth was a fantastic choice to replace him.
But unfortunately, it puts another point in the box for the original because they kill off Hemsworth in the stupidest way possible in the remake. Not only that but it destroyed the entire movie after it happened. I thought the remake was an alright mediocre action film, until Hemsworth died, then I stopped caring.
In the original its changed up a little bit. Charlie Sheen actually dies in the last attack. And while I was bummed that he died, I thought it was a good way to die and respectful to the character.
And while we're on the subject.
Why the hell would you replace Charlie Sheen with the kid from Drake and Josh? Matt Eckert was a competent kid. Yeah he wasn't the most developed but at least he wasn't a dumbass like Josh Peck.
Again, the rest of the characters are so under developed in the original that its not worth comparing... though I liked them better than the females in the remake.
So overall, I don't really know which one I like better. I think the original is a little more impactful by reinforcing the fact that sometimes less is more. However, I think there are elements of the new movie that are done better but not taken all the way. So yeah, I think the original is probably the better film if not for the fact that it didn't have a shit ending. It was the film I thought the remake was going to be, a mediocre action film that was fun but not great.
So have you seen the original? How does it compare with the remake? Comment and discuss below.
I'll leave you with this. Though I wasn't a huge fan of his work, I think Patrick Swayze left us too early. Here's a funny clip of him dancing as a Chippendale's dancer on SNL.
I don't usually do this but I just saw the trailer to A Million Ways to Die in the West
This isn't going to be that long of a review and I'm not quite sure what it means that this is my 100th review. But it seemed more anticlimactic that I had my 100th review be the original Red Dawn.
So A Million Ways to Die in the West is written, directed, and stars Seth MacFarlane.
Yes Seth MacFarlane, the creator of Family Guy.
Now if you watch Family guy or saw Ted, you probably already know if you're going to like this movie or not. I foresee it being nothing more than a Seth MacFarlane raunchy comedy. And that's okay for me. In fact, that's brilliant for me!
I loved Ted to no end and I loved the trailer for A Million Ways to Die in the West. Its set in a Western but everybody seems like they're pulled out of the present day. Now this could go one of two ways. The first being the main characters act as though they're just present day people planted in the old west reacting to silly customs of the Old West. Or everyones like that.
Frankly, it doesn't matter. If the movie makes me crack up the way Ted did, I won't complain.
The story presented by the trailer shows Seth MacFarlane as a citizen of a town in the old west. Everybody is dying from incredibly silly ways, drunk people, rapid dogs, and of course bandits.
He gets involved with Charlize Theron and eventually challenges an outlaw played by freaking Liam Neeson!
And if that wasn't enough, Neil Patrick Harris is in this movie.
I know there are other well known actors in this movie but the minute I saw Liam Neeson and Neil Patrick Harris, I was like "I may as well put aside this $10 here just to make sure I have it for this summer.
I'm not going to go too in depth with this review because its a trailer. But check it out, let me know your thoughts.
Hopefully you're as excited for A Million Ways to Die in the West as I am. And if you're not... frankly I don't care.
I don't know if I've ever seen a movie so publicized, hyped up so much, that despite all the advertisements, I still had no idea what it was about until I actually saw it.
First impressions of this film kind of made me skeptical. The movie came out in December, just as Oscar choices were beginning to be discussed. To someone who had never seen the movie, I was very hesitant to go see it because the only thing it really screamed out to me was "OSCARS! OSCARS! WE WANT OSCARS!" Looking at the cast, the lack of information I had on it, and the timing, it just seemed like this movie was put together in order to win big at the Oscars.
And it got nominated... big time!
So what's it about?
Christian Bale plays Irving Rosenfeld, a con-man in the business of scamming people into thinking they can get loans for a fee. A fee he keeps while never following through with getting people loans.
He makes a big business for himself with the help of Sydney Prosser (played by Amy Adams) and the two develop a personal relationship as well as a professional one.
Well things go wrong when FBI agent Richard DiMasio (played by Bradley Cooper) busts them and uses them as assets to bust white collar crime, especially public officials taking bribes.
The movie is a twisted game where each player has their own motives and rules in which to come out on top. Their plan is to solicit a bribe to a New Jersey Mayor (played by Jeremy Renner) and it just escalates and escalates with a whole lot of fun in between, including Irving's unstable wife, Rosalyn (played by Jennifer Lawrence).
The interesting thing about this movie is that its not really that unique of a plot. Its a crime film plain and simple. I could imagine this movie being made at a different time, with different actors, different directors and while it would probably still be an interesting movie, it wouldn't come to Oscar nominated status.
The elements that make it a contestant for multiple Oscars is how the plot is executed and the brilliant performances of the characters.
Christian Bale plays a Irving Rosenfeld, a fat con artist who is very good at his job. He's done these scams for years and he has a system. The performance of Bale was just absolutely phenomenal. If this movie was that mediocre film I mentioned before, Bale's character could have really been played by anybody. But Bale owns the role and makes it something unique and really quite spectacular. He put on some extreme weight for the role. This isn't the first time Bale has had incredible weight shifts.
And then there was Amy Adams...
My god, she was gorgeous. I think I could count on one hand the number of scenes she wore shirts with no cleavage. As you can see from the picture, she would wear these shirts that had so much cleavage but I felt bad for looking because she was so stunning in every scene.
Apart from her looks, she gave an absolutely brilliant performance. A part of her schemes with Christian Bale's character is to use a persona of a British accent. You can see her inner conflict mixed with her own scheming and you never know what side she's on. She plays this game between Christian Bale and Bradley Cooper and she's just manipulative and smart as hell. But while she's manipulative, she's a likable character and Adams just brings it.
I have to give Bradley Cooper credit. He is really a credible dramatic actor. I probably should have figured that out last year with Silver Linings Playbook... but I never saw it so I didn't know. I've only seen him in The Hangover and while he's "funny" in that movie I'm not a huge fan of it. But in this he's really great.
He's an arrogant FBI agent. While he wants so badly to get into investigating white collar crime, he doesn't have the understanding Rosenfeld does. But when things go well, thanks to Rosenfeld, he jumps in and takes control.
In the end he's really just a character you love to hate. He soon learns that things aren't black and white and simple but very grey and he gets sucked into that world. And he loves it. He's an incredibly complex character.
And then there's Jennifer Lawrence.
And my god, is she fun in this movie. She's basically kind of a white trash housewife but at the same time she's incredibly charming. She's not very bright considering the stuff she does in the movie but she plays this incredibly important role.
She plays the wife of Christian Bale's character. She's unstable, she's incredibly ego centric, and by god is she beautiful.
At first I wasn't sure if I'd be able to discern her from her Jennifer Lawrence self. But damn she is a good actress. If I didn't know that already, she really is.
The last character worth talking about is Jeremy Renner. He's great in this movie. Nothing Oscar worth but its about time Jeremy Renner did another critically acclaimed movie. He can act he just hasn't done a lot of critically acclaimed movies recently.
I won't dwell too much longer on this film just because I've said a lot about it. Its really a fun movie and the acting is phenomenal.
I don't think it will win Best Picture but I'd be bummed if it didn't win one of the best performance Oscars. Based off the movies I've seen (and there aren't many) I could see Jennifer Lawrence, Amy Adams or possibly Christian Bale winning an award for it.
This movie was a lot more fun than 12 Years a Slave. I don't know if that makes it better I definitely understand why the movie was nominated.
So have you seen American Hustle? What did you think? Comment and discuss below!
I'll leave you with this. I don't know if this will stay up but there's a part where Jennifer Lawrence sings Live and Let Die. It shows Lawrence's acting, it also shows how fun this movie is and, its Jennifer Lawrence singing Live and Let Die, why wouldn't you want to see that?
So the list of nominees have come out for the Oscars. Since I have till March, I thought I'd finally get to some currently nominated movies, hopefully as many as I can get to and make my picks for at least Best Picture and maybe a couple others.
And for some ungodly reason, I decided to start this series (I use the word series lightly, you've seen my Batman "series" lately) out with 12 Years a Slave.
Now unfortunately, I think I came into this movie with a bad attitude.
Hopefully you grew up in school learning about slavery and you saw movies about it. Well I feel like I saw A LOT of those movies. I wish I could say all of the movies I watched growing up about slavery and I think I just got numb to it. A black slave being whipped, while I still think its horrible, isn't really something new for me to see in a movie. I know a lot about how slavery was in the South prior to the Civil War.
Well... I was wrong.
12 Years a Slave is the horrifyingly true story about Solomon Northup, a black man living in New York in 1841. He's free. He has the papers and everything, he isn't a slave... until he's kidnapped and sold into slavery. And the movie spans over 12 years where he's in slavery.
This movie is not going to be easy to watch if you decide to.
Like I said, I consider myself a little bit numb to this history lesson and I had moments where I just sat there with my mouth open just saying "....shit". Again, its a hard movie to watch.
But I think the great part about this movie is so many things that are not blatantly explained but instead alluded to. I think the people making this movie knew that the plot would lend itself to the blunt horrors and not everything was that obvious.
That being said, there are a lot of things that are very, VERY blunt and really uncomfortable to watch.
There's a part where the plantation owners wife is angry, she grabs a heavy glass bottom of whiskey and just throws it square in the face of one of their slaves.
The movie really gives tangibility to the mindset in the South, that plantation owners believed that these people were their property. Its just an insane mindset that is hard to grasp.
There's so many elements of this movie, the subtleties, the scenes that are just horrifying, the interaction between characters are just phenomenal. Its interesting watching it now knowing that this movie is nominated because you begin looking for signs that would merit that nomination. And I think the actors themselves knew this was an award winning script and overall film.
And that really brings me into the characters themselves. They're just fantastic.
Chiwetel Ejiofor plays Solomon Northup. And this movie is just about him and he owns it. He absolutely owns it. You can see the pain, you can see the very same thoughts that you're having watching these things happen in his eyes. At first he tries to fight this wrongful enslavement but you can tell eventually, it just overtakes him. He just succumbs to it and his performance evolves just beautifully.
There's a lot of big name actors in this movie. Benedict Cumberbatch is in this movie and you can tell he's not entirely comfortable with the idea of slavery but its the circumstances he finds himself in that force him to buy into it. They even explain in the movie, he's not as bad as other slaver owners... and then they just analyze that statement. Cumberbatch gives a great performance despite only being in the movie for a short time.
Oh... and Paul Giamatti is a douchebag in this... but he's sooooo good at it. He's the guy that sells blacks as though they are livestock and he's just an asshole. He also has a really small part but again, its potent.
Its funny because the last thing I saw Giamatti in was Saving Mr. Banks where he was this friendly 50s life loving limo driver and its just an incredible change in character to this piece of shit guy selling people. Props to Giamatti.
I think the best performance (save Ejiofor) was definitely Michael Fassbender.
Yes, Giamatti was a total piece of shit in this movie but he was barely in the movie. Michael Fassbender is known in this movie to "break niggers" and break them hard.
He just has this incredibly ignorant and close minded view of slaves that you just sit there and wonder how a piece of shit like this could ever have existed but he does it in such a way that you realize, this guy existed, and not only that but there were a lot of assholes like this guy.
I think this is probably one of Fassbender's best performances to date and its comparable to that of Ralph Fiennes in Schindler's List. In fact, there are a lot of similarities.
I heard one person call this movie, the Schindler's List of American slavery, and that's not far off.
The last notable actor in this movie is Brad Pitt. He has a very small part and really only has two scenes. I can't say he did a phenomenal job but you can tell this movie was a big deal if you have Brad Pitt saying, I don't care what part you give me, I want a part in this movie.
Probably the only thing I noticed about the movie is that it wasn't always clear how much time was passing as the movie went along. Obviously the title explains that 12 years are suppose to be happening but if I didn't know that, I maybe would have thought it was a span of a year, maybe two?
Luckily that doesn't take away from how real the movie gets. It touches on a lot of aspects of slavery in America and its not always as clear cut as, white people were cruel to black slaves. It touches on the harsh slave owners, and the "nicer" ones. It touches on slave and master relations and how uncomfortable that can get. There's the consequences of runaway slaves. I don't know how accurate the movie is to the actual story but it is a brilliant and accurate description of slave culture and it hits hard.
There's a lot I can say about this movie but I think I'll leave it with this in that its going to be hard to compete with this movie. I haven't seen many of the Best Supporting Actor nominees but I have my vote for Michael Fassbender already because he gave such a solid performance and as much as I hated his character, I recognize it was a brilliant job well done.
So that's my review of 12 Years a Slave. Its a gritty, very uncomfortable, movie giving you a Schindler's List feeling in your stomach... but its incredibly good.
Have you seen 12 Years a Slave? What did you think? Comment and discuss below.
I don't feel I described this movie well enough but its worth checking out. I may come back and edit this but for not I'll leave it like this. No video this time, doesn't feel appropriate.
So I watched two very different movies tonight. I thought I'd start with the light hearted Disney film first and then get into the heavier stuff after.
(On a side note, if anybody is wondering why I haven't continued my Batman series, I'm trying to push as many movies into the last few days of my J-term so it will be done, I am just watching a lot of movies.)
But here's my review of the Great Mouse Detective.
Growing up with three sisters, I saw all the Disney movies. ALL of them.
But the majority of the frequent ones were Disney princess films. Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, they were all movies my sisters wanted to watch and I was often in the minority.
Until I found The Great Mouse Detective.
This is a Disneyfied version of the story of Sherlock Holmes. It of course is put a little more kid friendly by having the main characters be mice.
Now I know that mice animated movies are a dime a dozen and why should this one be any different. But the truth is, this is really one of the Disney gems that unfortunately gets overlooked sometimes.
Now, I may have a little bit of a bias because I basically just told you this was one of my favorite Disney movies growing up. But I'll try and be objective and look at this, not from a nostalgic point of view but more of looking how it stands up to today's standards.
The movie begins in a similar fashion to how most Sherlock Holmes movies start. Narration from Watson... or Dawson the mouse. Pretty much the same backstory though, a Doctor, former soldier in the Queen's army, just returning from a tour in Afghanistan.
He finds a little girl crying named Olivia. She is looking for Basil of Bakers Street. They go and find the renown detective because Olivia's father has been kidnapped by a peg legged bat.
Basil deduces that Olivia's father was abducted by his arch nemesis, a rat named Professor Ratigan!
The rest of the film is really unraveling the devious plot of Ratigan and Basil doing Sherlock Holmes things in order to save the girl's father and foil Ratigan's plot to be supreme leader of all mousedom.
The great part about this movie is really the contrast between Basil and Ratigan. Basil is arrogant, dismissive, but at the same time he's the good guy. He's analytical and just wants to deduce for good.
Ratigan is elegant, doesn't want to be called a rat and is just diabolical. He's voiced by Vincent Price and its just phenomenal. I wish I could tell you the other voice actors in this movie but I don't think you would know them. Look them up online if you're curious.
But the movie really is a game between Ratigan and Basil and it comes to a brilliant close with a battle on the arms of Big Ben.
The only problem I see with this movie now is the fact that it is a mouse movie. I don't know what Disney and every other animated studios obsession was with mice in the 80's and 90's but there are so many movies staring mice as the main characters. But for a mouse centered movie, its still done pretty well.
Again, I may be a little bias as this was one of my favorite movies growing up, but there are still a lot of moments I enjoy, some jokes I didn't catch as a kid, and as far as straight forward plots go, this is a perfect example. I don't think I ever realized how simple the plot of this movie is until I watched it. There are a couple things I realized as an adult but it still just brings me back to the fun I had with this movie as a kid.
I don't plan on making this a really long review so I'll just give my straight out opinion.
I still love The Great Mouse Detective. Its a kids movie so don't expect something incredibly brilliant out of it but its still a fun time, even watching it and I'm not a kid. I think its worth checking out and make sure you don't forget about it next time you do a Disney movie marathon.
So have you seen The Great Mouse Detective? What do you think of it? What is your favorite Disney movie? Comment below and let me hear your thoughts.
I'll leave you with this. Its probably the best song of the movie, its Vincent Price singing, what can go wrong? Enjoy!
.jpg)
