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.
The first thing I would ask if someone asked me whether or not they would like Ted is, "Have you seen Family Guy? Do you like it?" If the answer is "No I hate Family Guy" I would probably say you're going to hate Ted. If you love it, you're probably going to love it. If you haven't seen it, watch a couple episodes and see what you think. Or just give the movie a shot.
Ted is Seth McFarlene's debut feature film. As I've said before in comedy reviews, its hard for me to review comedy films because comedy is very subjective. People think Miranda Sings is hilarious while I want to punch her in the face every time I hear her or someone imitate her.
Seth MacFarlene is the same way I'm sure for a lot of people. People either love his raunchy, sometimes in bad taste humor while others think he's offensive, stupid, or just craving attention.
In short, this review may be a little bit short because I will explain the story, the things I like about it and tell you the same thing I just told you above.
So Ted starts off telling the story of young John Bennett and how he wishes for his teddy bear, properly named Teddy, to come to life so they can be friends forever and ever.
Well its explained in the movie that nothing is more powerful than a young child's wish... except for an apache helicopter.
So the teddy bear comes alive and becomes a bit of a celebrity but always remaining friends with John.
So they grow up. Ted (voiced by Seth MacFarlene) is a washed up celebrity smoking weed and dicking around with John (played by Mark Wahlberg).
But John is dating Lorrie (played by Mila Kunis). Now John and Lorrie have been dating for a while and they live with Ted. Lorrie feels that Ted needs to move out so John can grow up and start committing to Lorrie. That's the main conflict in the film. John choosing between his girlfriend and his talking Teddy Bear. Hilarity ensues.
Comedy aside, I think the relationships between characters work. At first I thought it was a little weird that 42 year old Mark Wahlberg was dating 30 year old Mila Kunis but it works for the film as Wahlberg acts like an immature man in his 30s.
MacFarlene as Ted works well too. The animation is fun. Its not mind blowing animation but its good and funny. There are scenes in the movie where Ted is standing in a really cute pose or position.
When I saw this in theaters, I heard audible "awws" to scenes like this. It makes you forget how much of a raunchy bastard Ted can be in the film.
Again, the animation isn't anything that is going to blow you off your feet but its still good and fun.
And that's the feel I get from this film. This film was just fun.
You can tell this was something Seth MacFarlene wanted to do for a long time and he put his heart and soul into it. Now whether or not you like his heart and soul (if they exist) is a totally different question. And again it will mostly come down to whether or not this humor is for you.
I personally love this film. I think the acting was good, the story progresses very well, and I personally laugh every time I see this movie.
If you're not familiar with Seth Macfarlene's work, watch this movie, this is a good stepping off point to see if you like it or not.
I mainly did this review in preparation for A Million Ways to Die In the West which comes out this Friday.
If you haven't seen my review of the trailer I did back in January, Here's a link to that.
I personally think this movie looks very funny and if its anything like Ted, well made sprinkled with the comedy of Seth MacFarlene, which again is a personal taste. I think I'm going to love this movie. Unfortunately, I may be setting myself up for disappointment, but we'll see.
So that was my teaser for what is to come in my blog, I plan to see this movie either tomorrow or on Saturday so the review will be coming this weekend.
In case you haven't noticed, I have a lot more time but I have a backlog of things I need to review. New movies will always take precedent but I will do my best to get more and more reviews out to you guys.
So what did you think of Ted? Are you looking forward to A Million Ways to Die in The West? Leave a comment below and let me know!
I'll leave you with this. Seth MacFarlane (I've been spelling that wrong apparently) spoke at a commencement speech at Harvard. He brings in some funny voices, its actually really funny. Its long though so dig out some time for it. Enjoy!
I watched a review of Star Trek: Into Darkness that was praising the movie for the first two acts but then just tore it to pieces with the last act calling it the one thing that tore down what could have been a brilliant Star Trek movie. Since it came onto Netflix, I watched the movie with that idea in mind, watching the last act of the movie pretty critically to see what went wrong. I mean if anything is going to give a bad taste to a viewer, especially a bunch of Star Trek fans, its going to be the ending to a movie. And my reaction to watching it this way? Well...
In short, I like Star Trek Into Darkness a lot. I liked it when I watched it in theaters, and I liked it when I watched it on Netflix. But I do understand why some people had a different opinion and thought this movie was not very good and voted it the worst Star Trek movie ever... okay I don't understand that but let's review it and see what works, and what doesn't.
Starting from the top, the movie begins some time after the first movie. Kirk (played by Chris Pine) is Captain of the USS Enterprise and Spock (Zachary Quinto) is still his First Officer. The movie opens with reintroducing the characters and establishing new conflicts of character and opportunities for character development.
After a mission where Kirk breaks the rules to save Spock's life, the Enterprise is taken away from him from his mentor and friend Christopher Pike from the first movie (played by Bruce Greenwood). I thought that this was a great scene because it shows the motives of each character. It shows that Kirk is still young and doesn't really know what it means to be a Captain of a Starship yet.
It also shows the awesome father-son dynamic between Kirk and Pike that was a brilliant choice for this film series. Pike and Kirk aren't that close in the TV series if I recall (from my browsing of wikipedia) and the films delve more into the development of the character of Jim Kirk, and its really good.
Well then a series of attacks happen leading to the death of Christopher Pike perpetrated by a Starfleet officer by the name of John Harrison. Kirk demands he go to arrest Harrison but the problem is that Harrison is in Enemy Klingon space.
He's given permission by Admiral Marcus (played by Peter Weller) to go and fire a series of photon missiles in the location Harrison is at.
This opens up to great moral questions that not only the characters and crew of the Enterprise are asking but also questions the audience and Star Trek fans are asking.
There's a great scene with Kirk and Scotty (played by Simon Pegg) where says that the missiles and the orders to go kill Harrison are clearly military orders but he originally thought that Starfleet was in the business of exploring. That has been the mission of the Star Trek Enterprise since Star Trek first aired. With the new movies, the tone of the series has turned more towards the action and away from the moral questions and the science Star Trek is known for.
A little bit off topic, but Simon Pegg is a great Scotty...
But that's why the first act or so of the movie is really good because it starts asking questions that Star Trek is known to ask.
It also allows for decisions that reflect Kirk's character development. Like firing Scotty. It reflects Kirk's state of mind and his commitment to this mission.
Moving on they get to Klingon and then the character of John Harrison is finally revealed. Get ready cause this may be a long rant.
Its revealed that Harrison is just a name that was created because the identity of this character needed to be hidden and he is in fact Khan.
The funny part is that J.J. Abrams wanted to make it super secret that Benedict Cumberbatch was Khan in this movie and a lot of people didn't believe him. The problem with this is if I wasn't a Star Trek fan and Cumberbatch said he was Khan, I wouldn't know what that means. I'm not even a huge Star Trek fan but I know about Khan and I wasn't even that surprised. So if nobody was surprised, why deny all the rumors?
Now since I've seen this movie, I have seen the Wrath of Khan, the Star Trek movie that is considered to be the best of all the old ones. And Khan is supposed to be the biggest villain of all time.
Now to the people who were disappointed that they used Khan, I would say, why wouldn't they use him? Khan is the biggest villain in Star Trek (don't quote me on that) to be given the opportunity to introduce that character for future film appearances, it would be silly if Abrams didn't do it.
And finally the people that complain that Khan was originally played by Ricardo Montalbân, a Mexican actor and now he's being played by Benedict Cumberbatch, an English actor I would say this. Was Khan so well known because he was a Mexican? Or because he was a compelling character? As long as Cumberbatch is accurately portraying an iconic character and giving the original source material due respect, I don't see the point in getting worked up on the details that he wasn't Mexican. Maybe that's narrow minded of me but I thought Cumberbatch did a great job and the performance added to the character rather than taking away from the original source.
If anything, the writers took away from the original source. And he's why.
Khan explains that he and his people had frozen themselves in a time long past and he had been awakened by Admiral Marcus to be used to strengthen the military of the humans and lend his military intellect and as Khan says, his "savagery" to the weapons and strategy of the military complex Marcus was looking for.
That would suggest that Khan is brilliant and cunning making him a great villain right?
Well unfortunately, the movie really only shows Khan beating the crap out of people, there's not really any moments where he's incredibly cunning or his intellect shines true because the majority of the movie he's either just beating people up, which shows his "savagery" sure but it doesn't really show his intellect, or the other half where he's just sitting in a cell.
Now that being said, I really like Khan, I think he's a great character and that's mainly because Benedict Cumberbatch rocks the role. The first time I saw this movie in theaters, I didn't even notice the lack of Khan in this movie because when Cumberbatch was on screen he stole the show and made me forget how little of the movie shows him as the villain.
Its an example of telling, not showing. The Star Wars prequels did a lot of it and this movie does it too with Khan. I can be told over and over that Khan is a badass mother fucker but if they don't give a chance for him to show it, what's the point?
And that brings me to the real "villain" of this film, Admiral Marcus. Marcus is very a kin to General Shepard in Call of Duty 2. His motivation is that he wants to be at the forefront of a war and the only way he can do that is if he starts the war himself. Its an interesting complex but in the end it just makes some of the decisions very one dimensional and makes him evil... because he's evil. It's selfish and the real great villains are the ones who believe they're doing the right thing. Marcus knows he's doing the wrong thing and he's just... evil. I like Peter Weller. I think he did a good job, similarly to Cumberbatch, because the performance was good I overlooked it at the theaters but again its an example of how the villains in the movie really aren't that good.
And then that brings me to Carol Marcus... or the person who is suppose to be Carol Marcus
Again, I don't know a lot about Carol Marcus. I don't know what he character is like or if she is anything like the way Alice Eve plays her.
What I do know is that there was no point for this character. She was just kind of a waste of space. An incredibly gorgeous waste of space, but a waste of space nonetheless.
She does ABSOLUTELY nothing in this film.
She fakes her credentials to get aboard the Enterprise... so?
She opens up the missile to reveal one of Khan's people in there... so? Anybody could have done that.
She thinks she can stop the Admiral, her father, from blowing up the Enterprise... No that fails immediately.
...she does this....
Yes... Yes she does. And don't get me wrong. Alice Eve... is drop dead gorgeous. Was it on my list to see her in her underwear, sure in my perverted list. Does it contribute ANYTHING to the story? No.
Consensus: Pointless character.
So what is it about the last act that isn't as good as the first two? Well there's a lot of things.
Well I've mentioned the villains. Khan is underutilized and isn't really developed properly, and Admiral Marcus is... well evil.
Khan takes over the giant star ship that defies all laws set down in Star Trek and says, give me my people or I will kill Kirk.
Except the fact that Spock and the Enterprise had all of Khan's people in missiles he could have used on the giant awesome ship. Spock actually has the advantage in this Mexican Standoff but the movie doesn't really do that right.
And then... this happens...
Now I'll give this movie credit, re-watching the interaction between Kirk and Spock before... well that, is actually a really good interaction. It harkens back the pain and emotion that Spock talks about earlier in the film when he's talking about tapping into Christopher Pike's final thoughts and when his planet was destroyed. There is some great interaction between the two and it really cements their relationship.
The problem with this entire scene is that its all pointless. We know that Khan's blood is magic, we know they're going to get it to Kirk one way or another, there's no suspense.
And that brings me back to Zachary Quinto yelling Khan!
This is an iconic scene from the Wrath of Khan. Its iconic because its funny. Its a meme, its over acted and its just funny. But the scene where Kirk and Spock are talking to each other through a glass window where on one side one of the characters is dying is also an iconic scene.
Its when Spock just dies. And he didn't come back to life in this film. At the time, Spock was dead. They have a funeral for him and everything.
They're iconic for two different reasons. One is iconic because it was an internet meme, and the other is iconic because it was a legitimate moment between two iconic characters. And for some reason they decided to put those two scenes together... why? The minute Zachary Quinto yells Khan, everyone in the audience was laughing. If you were touched by the moment between Spock and Kirk and wasn't distracted by the fact that it didn't mean anything because of magic blood, that feeling was just ruined by the fact that not only was the film harkening back to something funny, Zachary Quinto just doesn't do a great job recreating that scene.
But they save Kirk, capture Khan and put in him a cryo tube... foreshadowing much? and the Enterprise goes on its five year journey, to explore new worlds, etc, etc.
The review I drew from a lot in this post was, to me, too critical but had some valid points. The review was done by Confused Matthew, check it out. You may see some similarities.
But here's my wrap up thoughts on the film. I would agree with Matthew that the first two acts of the film are really really good. The last act is where things go a little bit awry. However, the performances of the characters really save the ending. Its sloppy, yes. Does it open up for a sequel? God I hope so. Like I said before, Khan really doesn't get an opportunity to be the villain in this film, at least not for very long and we need him to return. Do it better. There's a lot more I can say but in short, the movie isn't perfect. However it does have its strengths and when it comes down to it, its an entertaining film. Chances are if you check out this movie, you will not be disappointed.
So those are my thoughts on Star Trek: Into Darkness. Have you seen this movie? How does it compare with the first rebooted Star Trek film? What did you think? Put your comments below!
I'll leave you with this. I wanted to do a How it Should have Ended video for this but then I realized that Honest Trailers did one for this movie and added How it Should have ended in it... so two birds one stone am I right? Enjoy!
Or as I like to call it, X-Men: The Giant Reset Button.
But I'll get to that.
X-Men: Days of Future Past takes place in a desolate and just overall dark future. It is a time when mutants are hunted down by giant robots called Sentinels and many mutants have been killed.
Except for the main cast of the past few X-Men films.
They've developed a way to teleport the consciousness of someone back in time to warn their past selves on the dangers and how to escape from the Sentinels. Charles Xavier (played once again by Patrick Stewart) and Eric Lehnsher, or Magneto (played once again by Ian Mckellan) formulate a plan to stop the war from ever happening. They want to send the consciousness of someone back far enough to where it all began so they can stop a sequence of events that led to the creation of the Sentinels and the start of the conflict between mutants and humans.
However, they discover that Wolverine is the only one who can make the trip. (How convenient the most popular X-men character is the only one)
The plan is to send Wolverine's consciousness back in time to prevent the assassination of Boliver Trask (played by Peter Dinklage) by Mystique (played by Jennifer Lawrence) and the only way this can be done is if Wolverine recruits the help of young Professor X and young Magneto. (Played by James McEvoy, and Michael Fassbender respectively.
What really surprised me was how much this movie was actually about Mystique.
Thinking about it, its really not surprising. Jennifer Lawrence is the biggest name since sliced bread today and it would only make sense to have a large part of the story about her.
The cool part about this movie, and an element I didn't think of, was how much of a sequel this is to X-Men: First Class. Almost every character in that movie is accounted for in this movie one way or another and its actually really well done.
And Mystique is not quite the Mystique we know her as yet.
Her mission in this movie is to assassinate Boliver Trask, the creator of the Sentinels. Now at this time, Trask has not created his machines yet but he has utilized the DNA of different mutants to help his research. In Mystique's mind, this man must die. And yet she hasn't killed anyone yet. She's not the coldblooded killer we know her as in later movies. Again its a sequel because it continues the story of the Mystique we met in First Class.
Oh and Peter Dinklage, phenomenal.
The best part about him as the villain of this film, which as far as actions go in 1973, he is the main villain, his motives are actually reasonable motives. Sure they're clouded by fear and prejudice but that's the amazing part about his role is that he thinks what he's doing is the right thing to do. He's not doing it for wealth, he's not doing it, necessarily for fame, and he's not doing it because he's evil, on the contrary, Bolivar Trask is actually a normal man that is just scared. He's just scared of something he doesn't understand. Does that make what he does right? No. Does it make him an intriguing character? Incredibly.
Before going on in the story that takes place in 1973, which the majority of the film does, I'll talk about the whole concept of how Wolverine is able to be in that time. Like I've said before, his consciousness is projected back to his former self. The thing that makes the stakes higher is that Sentinels are on the way and Wolverine must maintain a calm mind while being projected by Kitty Pryde.
All in this time we're able to "meet" other mutants, some we've met before, like Colossus, and other mutants we haven't met, like Blink, who now takes on the mantle of coolest, most unique power.
It also shows the brilliant and just deadly power of the Sentinels, and by jove, those guys are just power houses. There is almost nothing even the most powerful mutants can do to stop them and it makes the mission of Wolverine even more important.
And that brings me to the final important part of the story, the further sequelness of the film when Wolverine goes and meets Charles Xavier.
Again, this is more of a sequel to First Class than you know. Charles Xavier is still feeling the effects of the end of First Class. He's tried to open up the school "for Gifted Youngsters". And this was actually one of the best parts of the movie. The fact that while this is a universe where mutants exist and crazy ass shit goes down involving them, changing the course of human history, the parts of human history that remain, affect the mutants. They're not exclusive to each other.
For example, Vietnam happens, a lot of teachers and students are sent to war and suddenly Charles starts feeling all the pain and suffering. That's all I'll go into because we're breaching on spoiler territory, but Charles Xavier is at his lowest moment and its brilliantly done.
James McEvoy gives a phenomenal performance as someone who has just hit rock bottom. There's more I can say but the short of it is, McEvoy was brilliant in it.
The one problem I had with the film was the distinct lack of Magneto.
In First Class, the movie was focused on the relationship between Eric and Charles and it was just brilliant seeing those two react to one another.
Unfortunately with all the focus this movie has on Mystique, it doesn't necessarily feel as though Magneto totally fits in the story.
For some reason they think its so necessary that Wolverine gets Charles and Eric to stop Mystique from pulling through the assassination but in the end, Magneto just becomes an obstacle. I don't feel like he was totally needed for the film and there isn't much resolution between him and any of the characters.
That being said, I love Fassbender as Magneto. It would have been a stupid choice not for them to put him in the film and I am in no way saying he was bad. He was phenomenal. The conversation he has with Charles on plane about their different philosophies was really great, I just think there was a little bit more he could have done. The majority of the film is just him doing his own thing, he doesn't really contribute to the retrieval of Mystique. I felt the drama that worked so well between Charles and Mystique kind of left Magneto in the background and many times made me feel as though he wasn't really needed.
Speaking of not totally necessary but good characters. Let's talk about Quicksilver.
I'll be honest, I had my doubts about Evan Peters as Quicksilver. Even looking at the picture to the left right now, I still think he looks kind of stupid.
However, this Quicksilver was just a really, really fun character. Not only is he physically fast but his mental capacities are also incredibly fast. There's a scene where the main characters are about to be killed and QuickSilver fixes the entire situation in a matter of miliseconds. However, the way its shot is if he stops time in order to show how fast he is able to create so much mayhem.
It was a really, really cool scene. However...
There's not really much learned about Quicksilver as a character. He's snarky, he's a klepto, and he may or may not be the son of Magneto. Beyond that, he's in the movie for 20 minutes tops and then is only seen one more time in the film.
Quicksilver was the Gambit of this film.
In case you don't know what I'm talking about, Gambit had a similar type of role in X-Men: Origins Wolverine. He showed up for 20 minutes, helped the story along but didn't really contribute. This character really could have been anybody, it didn't have to be Gambit. It could have been anybody and the story could have been progressed. The problem people had with this interpretation of Gambit was that he was in the film for 20 minutes and there was no character. He was just a plot device.
Quicksilver is the plot device of Days of Future Past. Sure he's got some cool action scenes, but again, it could have been anybody. They could have thrown Gambit in again and the story would have still been able to survive. Its really a device these X-men movies need to learn to not do. Seeing different powers is cool but they don't mean anything if the characters are pointless.
And speaking of X-Men: Origins Wolverine, I'm going to start talking about the ending. So SPOILERS!
There is a lot that happens in the end, a lot that would ruin the experience of watching it, but in short, they succeed in preventing Mystique from assassinating Bolivar Trask, the Sentinels are never created and history is changed.
Quite literally.
Wolverine awakens in the new future and suddenly everyone is alive. And when I say everyone, I mean EVERYONE.
Remember how Jean Grey died? Nope, she's alive. Remember how Cyclops died? Nope, he's alive too.
Some important events are changed and therefore makes it so multiple movies never happened. On first glance, X-Men 3: The Last Stand and Wolverine: Origins, never happened. The Wolverine, never happened. X-Men 1 and 2? Probably never happened and if it did, it happened differently.
Like I said, a giant reset button.
On one hand, its a good thing because it gives Fox a chance to rewrite the timeline in a way they want to. They basically pull exactly what the 2009 Star Trek did and can do with the timeline what they like.
However, on the other hand, it makes my entire experience watching The Wolverine, pointless. The only reason I thought that movie was worth watching was because it bridged the gaps between The Last Stand and led into Days of Future Past. But now it really seems pointless.
Also I don't know what that means for the cast of the First Class movies. Its not that I'm worried about how their continuity works because that movie is prior to 1973 when history was changed.
The problem I have is that there's a good chance those characters won't be used substantially again, at least not as substantial as the old cast. To me that doesn't make that much sense.
To me, changing history seemed to give the the series the opportunity to start over with new characters, or at least new versions of the characters in a new timeline.
Wolverine could still be in those movies and remain as the last connection to the old movies but it would be a new opportunity to do something new with the series. Instead it provides a future for those versions of the characters that is set. None of them that showed up in the end of the film, which is basically all of them, can die in any future movies featuring that cast so the suspense is gone. It worked for First Class because that was an origin story. However, I wanted to see new adventures with James McEvoy and Michael Fassbender helming it.
Now I don't know what they're going to do for the next film, X-Men: Apocalypse. Apparently its been said that it'll focus on the First Class cast so maybe it'll all work out. I think with the result of Days of Future Past, I'm pretty optimistic.
Overall, Days of Future Past is a really great Super Hero film. Its got great characters, a great story, and really opens up questions for what is going to happen in the future of the franchise.
I've heard things about an X-Men Fanastic Four team up and I'm wondering when they're going to make that happen. I think Fox has just proven they're in league with Marvel/Disney and there's still a lot they can do with the franchise, a franchise that's been around for almost fifteen years.
Sure, there are a lot of characters that needed more development or could have been cut out of the movie completely but overall, the story is fantastic. Unsurprisingly, Bryan Singer delivers.
But have you seen Days of Future Past? What do you think they'll do with the future of the franchise? Who is your favorite X-man (or woman?) Comment and discuss below.
I'll leave you with this. When there's a movie this big, they'll usually do an Honest Trailer. So here's the honest Trailers on the movies that this movie really kind of made irrelevant. Enjoy!
Well I am currently done with all papers, finals and necessary functions of my school year. While there is still stuff to do in my normal day to day business, I am currently much more available and ready to write more blog posts. While I know this wasn't on my list of things I promised was going to write, I thought this was a good way to start up. Without further adieu...
It took me A LONG time to watch this movie. I went through two relationships where the girl I was dating was appalled that I hadn't seen this movie. Now that I have, I am convinced that I am now ready for actual commitment and maybe... just maybe... I'll find someone will to commit to me now. And its all because of Fight Club.
On face value, Fight Club is a really boring movie. If all you knew about Fight Club was that Edward Norton and Brad Pitt start a Fight Club, (This was all I knew before I saw it) You would probably think this movie was really boring.
But if you've seen the movie, you know, it is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much more than that!
There's no good way to explain how this movie begins. The movie itself has a hard time fully figuring out when is the right time to begin.
The short synopsis of the film is that the narrator and unnamed main character suffering from insomnia, played by Edward Norton, meets the mysterious character of Tyler Durden (played by Brad Pitt). Through a series of circumstances, Norton's character ends up living with Tyler Durden and begins an underground fight club.
Unfortunately, that's really all I can say without giving too much away. All I can say is the relationship between the two main characters, Norton's character and Helena Bohnam Carter. There's just so much to say and unfortunately it gives too much awaySo in that case, I will give my quite No Spoilers review. If you haven't seen this movie, here's my review.
Go see this movie! Even if you think you know everything about this movie and feel like you don't need to see it, you need to see it!
If cinematography is your thing, this is your movie. If twists are your thing, this is your movie. If character development is your thing, this is your movie. Even if somehow none of those things appeal to you, see this movie.
There's so much that can be taken out of this script and analyzed that its just fun. The very fact the main character is unnamed means so much and its just a name.
I don't agree with all the messages this movie carries and I still love it a lot.
Overall, just go see this movie. Come back and hear everything I have to say about it.
End of spoiler-free review. Let's talk Fight Club.
SPOILERS AHEAD
The movie doesn't even begin where I said it does. It begins in the life of this unnamed character. The circumstances in which he meets Tyler Durden are just so unique and fascinating. He goes to support group meetings for things that don't apply to him. And somehow he gets feelings of belonging and fulfillment through those groups. And then that is disrupted by Marla (Helena Bohnam Carter) who goes for different reasons. Norton's character is so distraught from her presence because she's there for the very same reasons he is. And yet he criticizes her for being a faker and going to the meetings when she doesn't really need to. That's a whole story right there!
If they wanted to they could have named this movie Support Club and had it just be about the drama and psychology of a man finding solace in support groups he has no connection to.
In a way, after the first 20 minutes, you forget about the opening sequence but without it there's an essential character trait there. There's a longing or need in Norton's character that Fight Club fulfills.
Its an edge of psychology that I'm sure is full of scientific terms but in shortest explanation, its fascinating. I used to think the first 20 minutes were pointless but the more times I watch it and the more I think about it, it really is necessary.
Then enters Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt). If there was ever an epitome of chaos and anarchy, its Tyler Durden. But there's a method to the chaos he ensures. Sure, Fight Club begins when Tyler tells Norton's character to hit him as hard as he can. But it becomes more than that.
Its hard to believe that out of guys beating the shit out of each other, there's a lifestyle, a philosophy of sorts but it really begins this new way of looking at things for Norton's character.
And the more you watch the movie, the more you see how essential and brilliantly done the character of Tyler Durden is integrated into the story of Fight Club.
And that brings us to the ending.
Now if you've seen the ending you know how mind blowing it can be. And that sounds really cliche to call this movie mind blowing but its really the truth. I'm actually surprised this movie isn't more popular than other movies.
In a way the movie reminds me of Memento, or the Prestige, or even Inception. It has the feeling of a Christopher Nolan story
If you've seen these movies you know they all have that certain element about them that make them fascinating. Its not just the ending but its just the way the movie is structured. Its not just the twist at the end. You may think its the ending that blew your mind, but the more you watch it, the more you realize that it was the journey that made the ending so mind blowing.
Fight Club is one of those movies.
If you're still reading this and haven't seen the movie
GO WATCH THE MOVIE
If you're still here that was my last warning.
So the ending reveals that Norton's character and Tyler Durden are the same person. Whether its a psychotic figment of his imagination or a dual personality brought on by insomnia, Tyler Durden represents everything that Norton's character wants to be but can't because he's being held back by something, whether it be society, or personal demons or whatever. Its all up for interpretation what exactly makes Tyler Durden manifest but you see him manifest. You see him manifest in the story, the character development, even the cinematography shows Tyler Durden manifesting before he ever shows up.
And I think the thing thats pretty great about this movie is the value that comes from watching the movie again. You see how Tyler Durden is integrated in the film, how Norton's character is reacting without Durden, and finally you see how the two are two sides of the same coin.
You can see the character development and how it is an intricate part of the story. Its just very well done and deeper and I haven't even mentioned all the intricacies of the film.
Individual performances, obviously I've raved about the epicness of Brad Pitt playing Tyler Durden. For some reason I've seen things online that have likened this performance to that of Heath Ledger and the Joker. To me they're two very different performances. I mean if you think they're two very creepy psychotic roles played by an actor pretty early in their career, sure. Anyway, Brad Pitt is awesome.
Edward Norton is good. I've decided I really like Edward Norton as an actor even though I haven't seen him in much. This and The Hulk, which I actually really liked. I like Mark Ruffalo and I think he's a great choice for the Hulk but for some reason Edward Norton worked in a way you wouldn't expect for the Hulk... but I digress.
Norton's character is a conflicted crazy developed character and you see his transformation but you don't see him turn into Tyler Durden and I like that. They're still very different people who just happen to be the same person and it works really well.
Helena Bohnam Carter works in the role. That's not to say she's spectacular in it. It just means she works in it. Marla is suppose to be this wacked out women living in almost poverty with a suicidal streak in her. I guess Carter looks the part and while this movie did show she can act, I'm still not that wild about her. Maybe I'm too critical but to me, Helena Bohnam Carter seemed to be brought it because this is probably what she looked like in the 90s. I don't even think they got her in costume I think she just showed up in normal clothes and said, "Wow, Okay, we had something for you but that works much better". Marla plays a great role because the entire movie you think she's sleeping with Tyler Durden but when you realize she's been sleeping with... Tyler Durden or Norton's character's other side, she actually becomes one of the best ways to see the twist before it even comes.
Overall, the movie is great. The performances are epic, the different messages and themes within the movie are fantastic and the way the movie is shot is great. You should know this already since the movie has been out for almost fifteen years, but they impose shots of Brad Pitt in the film before he shows up. Its the figment of Tyler Durden trying to get out and it also makes use of the film technique they mention in the film when film strips used to have to be put together by a film operator. Its intricacies that make this movie so interesting.
Is there anything bad about this movie? Probably. This is one of the hardest things to do as a "film critic" because when I really like a movie, its really hard to point out the things that didn't work or could have been better. Really, I can't think of anything. This movie is just so original and so iconic that even if there was something wrong with it, it would be very miniscule. Its definitely one of my favorite movies now and again, if you haven't GO SEE THIS MOVIE.
So I'm done overhyping this movie for you. Have you seen Fight Club? What do you think about it? Did I miss anything? By me raving about it did I miss anything that was very wrong with the movie? Otherwise tell me your thoughts on the movie good or bad. Comment below and let me know.
I'll leave you with this. I was originally going to put up this video. Its Robot Chicken, its funny, I thought it was a shoe in for the final video. But instead I found this one and it needed to be put up. This is a trailer for Ferris Bueller's Day Off put Fight Club style. Enjoy!
Getting some things off my promised list is my goal for the next month and seven days. And since I did not only promise a review of this movie but its two sequels, I thought I should get going on this right away.
Let's do a flash back here.
Its 2006, I'm fourteen years old and the only James Bond I know is this suave gentleman...
Here
And suddenly I start seeing trailers for a new James Bond but with a totally new face doing the role. Now if you know me, I personally love when they switch up the actors in a role. But who the hell is Daniel Craig?
Casino Royale came out in a very different age than any of the Pierce Brosnan or any other James Bond before him film. While it wasn't the first Post-9/11 Bond film, it was the first to actually give the feeling of putting Bond in a Post-9/11 world.
The movie opens up to James Bond gaining his 00 status within MI6. This is a very young James Bond just starting his career. He is callous and only cares about the completion of his mission.
There's a great line that Eva Green's character says to describe Bond as the perfect candidate that MI6 looks for. "Maladjusted young men who give little thought to sacrificing others in order to protect Queen and Country."
This Bond knows his lifespan is short so he takes full advantage of the perks and does his job.
This is a brilliant way to open up the character. It also brings a personal touch to a character that has just become an archetype for an action hero instead of an actual character. It sets up for great development and an overall great character.
As the plot continues, Bond prevents a terrorist attack meant to sink stocks and make a fortune betting against the market.
All of this orchestrated by a terrorist financier by the name of Le Chiffre (played by Mads Mikkelsen). By preventing the terrorist attack, Le Chiffre loses a boat load of money by betting against the market. In order to regain his money and pay back his debtors, Le Chiffre joins a high stakes poker game in Montenegro. MI6's plan to capitalize on his information is to beat Le Chiffre in the poker game so he goes completely broke. Therefore, when he loses, he has no place else to go and will have no other choice but to be brought into MI6 and give up the names and information on the terrorist cells he finances.
Now there's a little bit of a hole there as Le Chiffre is already pretty screwed financially so why didn't MI6 just bring him in so they don't run the risk of his doubling down actually working. But looking beyond that, they put James Bond into the game and pit the two against each other.
Enter Vesper Lynd.
Now similarly to Daniel Craig, I had never heard about Eva Green prior to Casino Royale. And by God, is she not absolutely gorgeous?
Vesper Lynd is a representative from the bank that is funding the operation and she is the one overseeing the use of funds.
From the very beginning, Green distinguishes herself as a formidable equal to Bond. Her opening scene presents the two sparring with dialogue, both having their own armor to protect themselves but both can see through each other's armor.
Its a great relationship that is cultivated very naturally throughout the entire film.
The second act of the movie is mainly events that occur in the Casino and a mental game between Bond and Le Chiffre in the Poker game. And it really brings out the best of this film. The movie consists of several interactions and intellectual and physical battles between James Bond and others. Le Chiffre, Vesper, M, and lots of others.
And that just builds up James Bond as an awesome character. In its simplest form, its pitting two characters against each other. Its not enough to just have the protagonist win but its must show the audience something new about our hero and how he (or she) compares with their opponent. This is done perfectly in Casino Royale.
Its too simple to say its a battle pitting good versus evil because it really is more than that. The reason this movie is so good is because so much is shown in a scene where Bond is just sitting across a poker table from Le Chiffre. If I told you the second act is just the poker game between the two, you probably wouldn't think too much happens. But so much does happen. Putting aside the action sequences, the poker scenes are engaging and just add more and more to the film.
The third act to the film is probably the crowning jewel on the journey that has been Casino Royale. Where the first act was a great introduction to the character, the second act was the building of relationships between Bond and his friends and enemies. The third act turns all of that upside down and gives us a brilliant conclusion. Where most Bond films would end with Le Chiffre dying and Bond getting the girl only for the next film for her to either die inexplicably or disappear into vague circumstances, the film continues. Bond basically gives up MI6.
The relationship between Vesper and Bond is only exacerbated all up until the point of betrayal and that only makes it harder on Bond and the audience when she not only betrays him but gives up her life.
Vesper Lynd's story ends with such a bittersweet ending that is not only painful for the audience but is also a strong testament to the relationship that has been built over the last hour.
I don't know. There's a great chemistry between the two and the ending of this movie is such a brilliant developing point for James Bond as a character. He has become vulnerable and the one person he let in past that armor that was mentioned in the beginning betrayed him and broke his heart. Suddenly we have a more well rounded character with even let of a regard for others if it means getting what he wants whether it be personal gain or the protection of Queen and Country. This is a brilliant step.
So if you can't tell, I really like this movie. I won't say its a perfect movie, but its pretty darn close. Visually its just a great looking movie. The action was great. It brought a whole new feeling to the Bond franchise. Instead of being a cheesy action flick, it was an actual serious Bourne like action film with complex and deep characters.
I wasn't planning on giving such a raving review of this film when I started this review but the more I think about it, the more I realize this is just a stellar film.
Its a fun way to start off this little mini segment of Bond films. The Daniel Craig films are one of a kind and it had a stellar beginning with Casino Royale. Stay tuned for the sequel that everyone for some reason tries to forget in Quantum of Solace.
So there are my thoughts on Casino Royale. What do you think of it? Give me your thoughts and comments below!
I'll leave you with this. It may be the typical go to video but if there's a flaw in the movie, chances are How it should have ended always finds it. Here is How Casino Royale should have ended. Enjoy!
This review is going to be a little bit different because its not about a single episode or series as a whole. Instead, its more about a character. And instead of a character, its more about an incarnation of a character.
I think one of the things that make Doctor Who so interesting is the fact that the Doctor is played by multiple actors. Same Doctor, same memories, but a different face and personality. I don't even need to see all the previous Doctors to just think that that is so interesting. And in the Whovian fan community, the fan favorite is David Tennant's incarnation of the Doctor.
And while I include myself in that group, I have to ask myself, why? Why is David Tennant so popular?
While Tennant did star in some great episodes like "Blink", "Silence in the Library" and "The Girl in the Fireplace", there are a lot of Tennant Episodes that are really just okay. While I enjoyed the hell out of them when I first watched them, not a lot of Tennant's first season is that memorable to me. Which is surprising because that's his season with Rose, that's suppose to be the season that everybody fell in love with the idea of the Doctor and Rose being together and yet its a short 14 episode long season with 3 two part episodes and only a few really memorable episodes. And then there's the second season which was kind of the same. Lots of fans were lukewarm about Martha and again, with the exception of a few episodes like Blink and The Family of Blood two parter, its really an alright season. Not phenomenal but not awful, just kind of there.
Now Tennant's run and Smith's Run were very different because the show definitely went through some CGI improvements and just got a facelift overall after Tennant left. You also have to keep in account the fact that Steven Moffat took over the show. I love Russell T Davies, but I'm slowly coming to realization that I like Moffat's writing and style better. And Moffat combined with Tennant is actually really really great.
And it brings me to the reason I decided to write this review. I am going through the new series of Doctor Who with my girlfriend and we just got to The Silence in the Library and the Forest of the Dead. These episodes are by far two of the best episodes in the David Tennant series and possibly in the entire show. This was the beginning of the River Song storyline and brilliantly utilized time travel the way it should be used. Think about it, time travelers meeting in different points in their history? That's amazingly brilliant. Tennant is brilliant in the episode (not saying he isn't regularly) and his character and acting is really pushed in this episode. Also the idea of there actually being something in the dark and counting the shadows is one of those Doctor Who things you just don't forget. Counting the shadows, don't blink, marking your arm when you see the Silence, its just brilliantly done. And it makes me realize that the third season is really where David Tennant, Moffat, and even Davies really hit their stride. The show takes on a more mystical and alien tone. The CGI gets a lot better to make things more believable. And having Donna as the companion gets rid of the sexual attraction between the Doctor and his companions. While I did like Rose and the Doctor, the storyline with Martha got kind of old and whiney eventually. I'm not saying that Donna is the best companion of the Tennant years but she adds a lot that Rose and Martha never really could.
Also, as I stated before, Tennant just works with Moffat's writing really well. Lots of Moffat's writing is about the characters and how they not only survive but strive in the strange world that they exist in with this messiah, The Doctor, they follow. The Doctor becomes almost immortal in Moffat episodes and at the same time becomes even more relatable. And its kind of a shame that Tennant didn't continue for one more season.
Another great part about Doctor Who is how invested the actors become. When a Doctor regenerates, its not just that incarnation leaving, you feel the actor saying goodbye. I feel the goodbye to Matt Smith was really well executed because while I would have loved more seasons with him, it didn't feel strange to see him go. It was sad yes, but it didn't feel it was too soon.
When he's about to regenerate he talks about how we all change and that's a good thing. He talks about how he'll never forget "one line of this" "I'll always remember when the Doctor was me. This isn't just the 11th Doctor talking, its Smith himself. Its a great scene and a great send off.
So that brings me to the regeneration scene of David Tennant. A little bit of a background, Russell T. Davies decided he was going to leave the show and hand off the position of lead writer to Steven Moffatt. About the same time, Tennant said he was going to leave as well because he felt he'd go off on a high note rather than remain in the role until it got stale and old for him. There also seemed to be a bit of a regime change from the Doctor Who of Russel T. Davies to Steven Moffat. Along with that change, Tennant believed he was more of the Russel T. Davies Doctor and he thought he'd give Moffat range to do more with the character with a new face in the role.
Again, I think Moffat and Tennant would have made a brilliant team but going back to the regeneration scene.
Prior to the Final Tennant Special, there were allusions to the end of the 10th Doctor. Foreshadowing by the Ood saying the Doctor's song was coming to an end, and a psychic woman saying he will knock four times. The special alludes to the knocking coming from the Master who hears the constant knocking in his head as a signal from the Time Lords escape from a time locked Time War.
The two-part special has a few great conversations between the Doctor and Wilfred where he describes what happens when a Timelord regenerates. Thought life continues on, there's still a feeling of loss, a feeling of watching another man walk away with your life, your memories and the old incarnation just watches them as they slowly disappear.
I think the special really creates a sad introduction to the man replacing David Tennant. Now of course, David Tennant didn't write this line or the famous line right before he regenerates that brought all Doctor Who fans to the breaking point of tears.
So not only did Tennant leave Doctor Who too early but he inadvertently made it incredibly difficult for me to love anybody else in that role.
In fact, to be totally honest, I am just now starting to really love Matt Smith as the Doctor after watching and re-watching the 3 year run he had.
Despite the rich stories, the gorgeous and just down right wonderful companion, it took me a helluva long time to finally come to a point where I accepted the departure of David Tennant and accepted the fantastic performance that Matt Smith gave as the Doctor. Luckily, the regeneration scene was done with such grace and humility with Matt Smith that, while I will still miss the quirky incarnation, I am ready for something new, especially the very different direction that has been rumored for Peter Capaldi.
But I think the thing that made me finally accept the departure of David Tennant was the 50th Anniversary Special, The Day of the Doctor. If you'd like to read my review of that special, here's a direct link.
But the long and short of it is, it gave closure and signified exactly why Tennant's departure was so abrupt and emotional.
Tennant's character in the 50th Anniversary is described as the Doctor who regrets. He's portrayed as a vain, pretty boy, not only in the special but in the finale.
Now you'd think that would be insulting to an incarnation people love so much but for me personally, I think its hilarious.
David Tennant has great moments of bravery, of heroics, and overall awesomeness but his run was very different. He had relationships with his companions, he had very stylish hair. He was vain, he was a pretty boy. Especially compared with the incarnation of Matt Smith, who while younger than Tennant, actually portrays a Doctor who is more of a quirky old man. Very youthful in looks but wise beyond his looks. This doesn't make either incarnation better than the other, it just makes for a better evolution of the overall character of the Doctor.
Here's an example. While it doesn't go into incredible depth, this link talks about the different costume choices for each incarnation and how it relates to their character. The most interesting one is Christohpher Eccelston's. The fact he wears the leather jacket like a former WWII U-Boat Captain reflects his relation to the Time War. He's a soldier without a war. He doesn't know exactly what to do so he wanders the universe doing what the Doctor does best.
The Day of the Doctor seemed to give that last cementation of Tennant as his own incarnation of the Doctor.
While I think he would have flourished beyond comprehension in one season totally helmed by Steven Moffat and decorated by updated CGI and visual effects, the three seasons of David Tennant still stand out as some of my favorite episodes of the series.
I think the charm of Tennant was his confidence as the Doctor. As opposed to Eccelston's incarnation who hid more from the limelight, Tennant seemed to flourish in it. He still kept his identity a secret, but with Tennant it became more of a legend rather than a mystery. He rode the line perfectly of being a goofy jokester (Que Pear video) He also had incredibly serious moments and was also a compelling character. You could see the glee that came from discovering something new and the pure commitment to protecting the good and those he cared about.
I think the versatility of Tennant as an actor, with the ability to have such a range of being goofy and funny to being very serious and summon emotions, just makes him such a great Doctor and a great actor.
I'm going to add something to my promised list. I am an incredible fan of Shakespeare's Hamlet. Kenneth Branaugh did a film version that I absolutely love. I also know that David Tennant did a version but I haven't been able to see the entire thing yet. I'm not sure if I will do a comparison between the two or if I will do two reviews but expect them in the next few weeks.
So overall, what can I say about the 10th incarnation of the Doctor. While a part of me wants to say there were some missed opportunities there, I think with the combination of the heart wrenching finale, and the closure of the Day of the Doctor, David Tennant brought a whole new dimension to Doctor Who with his performance. It may have been Eccelston who paved the way for a new generation for the BBC show but Tennant refined it and made it something extraordinary.
Perhaps that didn't totally answer the questions I posed in the beginning but this has been a post I've been struggling with over the last few months. I'm glad I finally got this out to you guys. If there's anything you think I missed or should cover in more depth be sure to let me know in the comments below.
I'll leave you with this. There is almost too many videos I could leave you with that exemplify the brilliance of David Tennant. I'll leave you with this one he did introducing the cutting edge effects that would be used in the 50th Anniversary. Its worth a chuckle and I'll save the other videos for future posts on Doctor Who. Enjoy!
