Raging Bull

I don't think Raging Bull is a movie I would typically watch. The only reason I think I picked this movie out was for two reasons. My friend recommended it, and it was a Robert De Niro and Martin Scorsese film.

Raging Bull is the biopic film about middleweight boxer Jake LaMotta. I don't know who Jake LaMotta is and frankly I don't think I'll really remember Jake LaMotta after I'm done watching this movie.

I've never really been much of a huge fan of boxing movies. It's not that I don't like them I just don't really go out of my way to find them.

So Raging Bull follows the story of Jake LaMotta, a middleweight boxer who is really good. He's great at just taking a beating but at the same time he can come back and just beat the living shit out of people. The movie starts in 1941 and LaMotta is working towards becoming middleweight champion. In his boxing career he's always worried about meeting the appropriate weight.

In his personal life, he's married but starts fancying a 15 year old girl named Vickie Thailer and is just enamored by her. So they begin a relationship that ends up with them getting married. The rest of the movie really is focused on his relationship with his wife.

Frankly, Jake is a bastard. He beats his wife, he's an asshole to his brother (played by Joe Pesci), he has some serious anger issues, he's just an overall asshole.

Since this is a biographical movie, there really isn't an overall plot except for the life of this character. And in that regard, Robert De Niro brings a really solid performance. He's very good at playing a rage filled Italian American who's just a bastard.

Not only does he give a really great performance but the physical performance he gives is really spectacular. The makeup and stuff De Niro puts on his face are really well done. I've done a couple movies that had actors in prosthetics or heavy makeup and I haven't really been a fan of it. However, this one was done really well. Its kind of reminiscent of the makeup and prosthetics used in Citizen Kane. In fact, a lot of this movie reminded me of Citizen Kane as far as style.

The entire movie is in black and white. I'm not quite sure what the choice for that was but it was a good one and really made the movie stand out. The interesting thing is this movie came out after the first Rocky movie and I wouldn't be surprised if people thought this was a Rocky movie.

IT IS NOT!

While this movie may not be my favorite movie of all time, I recognize the merit in it and why its a good movie.

So to confuse this with a Rocky movie is a sad mistake.

But while I recognize its a well made movie, I will say, its not really my cup of tea. Like I said before, La Motta is an asshole. He's not really a character you want to get behind and (spoilers) when his wife leaves him you just say, its about time!

And while I know that a lot of times with good movies, there are going to be characters that are not going to be likable. Many times that is what makes them a great characters even if its one we don't like. So overall, he's a good character, just not a very likable one.

So overall, Raging Bull is a really well made movie. A great starring character and a great style aging back to a classic era of Citizen Kane. If you like boxing movies you'll like it. If you like dramas, you may like it, you may not.

I'll leave you with this. I can't really find anything funny so here's Robert De Niro winning an Oscar for his role as Jake LaMotta

Batman Begins

Now its been a while since my reviews of the old Batman series. I was planning for a long time to review this film and compare it side by side with the earlier Batman series. Unfortunately, I got a job, I started watching other movies, I kind of needed a break from Batman for a while.

But now its time. Its time to review The Christopher Nolan Batman movies.

I think this review will also give a great culmination of all the adaptations of Batman and give a good clear picture of what Batman should look like in the next adaptation, played by Ben Affleck.

Oh and for those who haven't been in touch with the recent news for Batman Vs. Superman, apparently Warner Brothers is delaying the Man of Steel sequel for another 10 months.

I was going to do a post mentioning this delay and how I feel about it. I'm not quite sure if I will or not but knowing this, we have over a year until this movie comes out, we have a lot of time to tell Zack Snyder and Warner Brothers what they need to do to get this right.

So we begin.

Batman Begins begins focusing on the origins of Bruce Wayne and how he eventually becomes Batman. In contrast with the 1989 Batman where Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne had been Batman for a while, Batman Begins is a full fledged origin story. Bruce Wayne, after drifting through a life trying to understand crime finds his way to an ancient ninja order bent on rooting out injustice in the world.

The childhood of Bruce Wayne is told in flashbacks showing the iconic death of his wealthy parents after they leave an opera, being orphaned.

Right off the bat, this movie gives us a brilliant explanation of how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman. Bruce Wayne is already dead set on fighting crime but its not until he is approached by Liam Neeson's character, a man by the name of Henri Ducard. From that, Bruce begins being trained in stealth training by a secret crime fighting group, the League of Shadows.

After he is trained and has a falling out with the organization, he returns to Gotham to dawn the cape and cowl of Batman in order to strike fear in the hearts of his enemies.

He fights to root out the heavy presence of organized crime in Gotham City with the help of honest cop, Jim Gordon (played by Gary Oldman) and childhood friend, now lawyer, Rachel Dawes (played by Katie Holmes). His ego of Batman is facilitated by an employee of his father's corporation named Lucius Fox (played by Morgan Freeman) and his longtime Butler, Alfred (played by Michael Caine.)

Batman is pitted against layered villains in this movie. Starting simply with Carmine Falcone (played by Tom Wilkinson) but moving up to the fear inducing Scarecrow (played by Cillian Murphy), and finally the man behind it all Ra's Al Ghoul.

The plot of Batman Begins is a phenomenal origin story and a great way to begin this new revitalized Batman franchise.

I really have to give Christopher Nolan props for this movie. A lot of people claim that The Dark Knight is the crowning jewel of this trilogy and while that's true, this movie was a phenomenal introduction to this new gritty, realistic franchise while still giving a nod or two to the old series. It didn't just throw its audience straight into the realistic setting that was actualized in The Dark Knight, it still made the movie seem like a comic book with a more crime drama feel to it.

The Nolan Batman films are really an interesting set of films especially for me because they were my first exposure to Batman on film. As I've mentioned before, Batman and Robin came out when I was really young and I never really watched it.

Christian Bale is the "original" Batman from my perspective and the very fact he was able to hold onto the role for 3 films, making him the longest running Batman actor, he really gives a precedent for anybody else looking to take on the role (i.e. Ben Affleck)

So what about his performance in Batman Begins was good?

Well I think he did a great job as Batman. He looked good in the batsuit. Not only that but he looked natural in the suit. The only other person I think that pulled off the Batsuit as well was Val Kilmer. Yeah he wasn't a phenomenal Batman but at least he looked alright in it. I always thought Keaton looked really silly in the suit and Clooney... well he was Clooney.

The problem with giving a point of reference as Bale for Affleck is the fact that the times in Batman's careers are very different. Rumors of Man of Steel 2 have stated that Ben Affleck is going to be a more seasoned Batman, one who is getting tired of wearing the cowl and has been at it for a long time. Bale's Batman is actually an origin story, where he starts from. The parts of Batman Begins that really work are just the building up of Batman from "humble" beginnings.

There's a part in this movie where Katie Holmes mentions that Batman isn't the alter ego of Bruce Wayne but almost the other way around. That Bruce Wayne never really came home from his seven years of drifting.

So while Christian Bale gives a convincing and charismatic Bruce Wayne, I feel as though the point of the movie was to make Bruce Wayne more of his facade. Bruce Wayne's activities really aren't towards anything else rather than furthering his activities as Batman so while Christian Bale does a phenomenal Batman, I'm not quite sure his Bruce Wayne is really compelling after he returns to Gotham and starts fighting crime.

Its mainly due to the events of his early life that make his entire life about being Batman and those are some of the greatest parts of the movie, the flashbacks of his relationship with his father. And its those moments and interactions that create Batman.

I may be rambling now, but I think Christian Bale's Batman is a little bit better than his Bruce Wayne. Sure he's charismatic, but he's not really a compelling character.

All of that being said, I love Christian Bale's Batman.

Then there's the supporting cast. Gary Oldman is a brilliant choice for Commissioner Gordon. Morgan Freeman is just having fun and enjoying the hell out of the role.

And of course there's Michael Caine as Alfred.

I'll try to refrain from going on a ramble but Michael Caine as Alfred is just one of the best choices ever made in any comic book movie. Michael Caine is such a brilliant actor and does an amazing job at showing a man who does nothing but care about Bruce Wayne.

If Alfred shows up in the next Batman movies, its going to be really hard to recast him because Michael Caine is just soooo good. The same can be said about Gary Oldman I think.

Nolan did such a good job at making characters that lasted for the entire franchise and just made you care about them and their dreams became your dreams. Its simply true, Michael Caine is going to be very hard to replace... if they decide to replace him... and I would be totally fine if they kept him in the role. Thought they probably won't.

And then there's Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes.

I'm still kind of confused on why Katie Holmes didn't reprise her role as Rachel Dawes in The Dark Knight. I think she did an alright job. I wasn't incredibly heart broken, the change in the role was just odd. The way I understand it is that she had scheduling conflicts with other movies... movies I've never heard of.

I definitely thought she provided a good love interest for Christian Bale while not overly the most essential character in the movie. I don't know, my gut reaction to Batman Begins is that Katie Holmes did a good job. Again, not so great that I was heart broken when she didn't come back, but I thought she did an alright job.

I suppose the only other supporting character I can mention is Bruce Wayne's parents. They're only shown in flash backs but in the short time they are shown, they show the true loss that Bruce feels when they die just because the relationship is so well done.

The villains of Batman Begins really give a great start to the franchise. They're not maniacal villains looking to take over the world, they're thrown into a realistic setting and have realistic motivations.

Sorry to "spoil" the ending but Liam Neeson ends up coming to Gotham in the mission to wipe it off the face of the Earth. The League of Shadows is an ancient organization that wipes out a place that has hit its peak and is nothing but corrupt. The way this is portrayed in the film is less of an evil villain plot and more of an ancient organized ritual.

It has elements of the comic book to it and yet feels tangible and something that, in the right circumstances, could happen. Ras Al Ghul is more of a terrorist rather than a supervillain.

The weapon that drives this entire story is a fear inducing gas that shows people what terrifies them the most. This is the part that really bridges that gap between where Batman has been in the past and where Nolan wants to go.

The nerve toxin while portrayed realistically, still gives off that comic book feel to it and it does it ever so carefully to give a great blend of the realistic Nolan feel and the original source material of Batman.

Scarecrow is just a psychopath but is so cool and calculated that he gets buy under the radar. He's a very good villain.

There's just so many good things about this film that its hard to point out any flaws. Its just a great reintroduction to a beloved character and a great testament to the creative genius that is Christopher Nolan. I can't really think of anything, its just really well put together.

I guess the only problem I see with the movie is with Bruce Wayne.

And its not really a complaint. So the majority of his development is done in the beginning through flashbacks. Showing how he grew up wanting revenge for his parents death. So much that he almost killed the man who killed his parents himself.

For the first forty-five minutes or so of the movie, its just Bruce Wayne really finding himself and leading up to the conclusion of being Batman.

The problem is, the minute he pulls Falcone out of the car and simply says, "I'm Batman" that's really the end of development for Bruce Wayne. Sure there is allusions to problems he'll have down the road with Rachel and the fact she will only be able to truly love him in a world that doesn't need Batman. But that plot line isn't really resolved until The Dark Knight. So really once he becomes Batman, everything is pointed towards creating that superhero, which makes sense for an origin story, the character is developed in the beginning and the hero is developed in the second act. So again, not really a complaint, the tension of Bruce's character just isn't the focus anymore as much, its more on the plot... which is a good thing.

So as you can tell, I really like Batman Begins. Its a great introduction to the character, its got great villains, great supporting characters just waiting to flourish in future movies.

This is how a D/C comic book movie should be made. I love Man of Steel and luckily it has the same writer. I want that series to be as good as this trilogy and I think David S. Goyer is off to a good start with his script writing.

So what lessons can be learned from Batman Begins that can be passed onto the next man to dawn the cowl of the Dark Knight?

Like I've stated before, its a little hard because Affleck's Batman is rumored to be a more seasoned, veteran Batman. One who has had a long career, and has been around the block once or twice when it comes to crime fighting and being a superhero.

I think the important part is to not forget his origins. I think this reboot of the character is close enough that people know his origins story, there's no need to go full Batman Begins in this movie or really any of the new Batman movies to come after.

But don't forget where Batman started. Don't forget the events that brought this seasoned veteran to where he is now. I think knowing exactly where this Batman came from and where he is now is a good way of making this version really good in my opinion. This will be a Batman we've never seen before and he's got a big pair of shoes to fill. But luckily, he's coming at it from a different angle.

Also, an important part about it is developing Bruce Wayne as a character as well as Batman. Man of Steel 2 will have Batman already doing his thing and so the development as Bruce Wayne as Bruce Wayne and his development as Batman don't need to be totally synonymous. They can affect one another but they don't have to be one and the same. MAKE BRUCE WAYNE A CHARACTER. That was something that was really developed well in the first part of Batman Begins and there will be a challenge as Man of Steel 2 is not an origin story. But Batfleck is not the same Batman, he needs to be a character, not an assumed persona that Warner Brothers assumes we know. I want to see this done right, and by that Ben Affleck needs to act and make me care about Bruce Wayne.

So that's my thoughts on Batman Begins. What do you think? Where does it stand in the Christopher Nolan Trilogy? Let me know and comment below.

I'll leave you with this. There's a lot of spoofs of Batman out there, my favorite it probably Pete Holmes' from the College Humor videos. The thing about Batman Begins is that the voice where Christian Bale sounds like he's chewing marbles isn't that prevalent. But still here's a spoof of one of the scenes where Batman chooses his voice. Enjoy.

Upside Down

Alright, I am going to do my best to explain this movie because its an interesting one.

Basically, the movie takes place in a different world where there is a such thing as double gravity. This gravity is shown in the existence of two worlds. Each have their own sense of gravity but at some point in the sky, one could go from one field of gravity into the next.

The picture to the left is the best way I can describe it.

There's a lot of physics to go along with that that the movie tries to explain but it is all very confusing.

Its is also explained that one world is the rich world and they extract energy from the poorer world. There's a huge divide between the two worlds, but of course, Jim Sturgess and Kirsten Dunst find love in a hopeless place, Rihanna style.

So Jim Sturgess and Kirsten Dunst meet at a young age and fall in love even though they are on opposite sides of this world. Well something bad happens and it interrupts their love. Sturgess's life is ruined by this corporation working to put the lower world down and Kirsten Dunst is thought to be dead.

Fast forward a couple years and Kirsten Dunst is not dead but instead has a little bit of amnesia. Sturgess is working on a formula he got from his aunt to counteract the laws of dual gravity.

As luck would have it, Sturgess realizes Dunst isn't dead and he figures out a way get a job in the corporation she works for. He then starts a mission to make a potion that balances out the effects of dual gravity and make Dunst remember their love.

What a load of crap.

I will give the movie credit, visually the movie is really really pretty. It has some really great over arching shots and the visuals of creating two worlds basically sandwiched on top of each other, it looks really visually stunning.

But as for a story, its the biggest pile of crap in the world.

Jim Sturgess starts the movie out talking about the physics of the world they live in. All he had to do was explain that there is two fields of gravity in this world. Objects from each field stay in their field regardless of where they are. The only way to counteract is to get reverse matter. But if something stays in contact with that reverse matter for too long, it will burn. Pretty simple.

Instead Sturgess goes on a really douchey explanation about love and how it transcends physical boundaries and some other bullshit.

He may as well should have started the movie off like this.

I mean I'll give the guy some credit.

If I was a girl I would be crushing really hard on Jim Sturgess. He's kind of like a British Ryan Gosling without the body. It kind of reminds me of how Ryan Gosling got his starts from the Notebook. Sturgess has done a lot of romantic movies and getting a fan base of women who think he's cute.

However, its not really Sturgess's acting that is the problem with this movie. Its the script.

Its just horribly done. Not only are the physics of this world confusing as hell, but they're so convoluted with Sturgess giving exposition on love!

Also the whole Kirsten Dunst getting amnesia has really no point in the grand scheme of things and goes away faster than it showed up.

The Corporate development involving Sturgess's aunts formula was a little bit interesting but it was never really clear what Sturgess's end goal was. There gets a point where the corporation wants the formula and can only get it from Sturgess. How do they attempt to get it? Throw Sturgess in a car, threaten him, and then throw him out of the car. Then you never hear from that corporation again.

Finally the whole, the upside is better than the lower side them throughout the movie has the quickest resolution I've ever seen in a movie. One moment you've got a bunch of upper world people beating the crap out of Jim Sturgess and then you have kids from both worlds playing a weird version of basketball and everything is fine.

There was no climax, there was no real development between Sturgess's character and Dunst's character, they're just in love. Its just like another Sturgess movie I've seen.

Two people just meeting and looking at each other (maybe singing a song) does not equate love.

As you can see, the writing for this movie was really shitty.

The one redeeming quality of the movie was the visuals.

The movie was pretty... that's it.

I started this review about a quarter through the movie, eventually took a break and finished the movie. You can probably tell the difference in tones. I think this movie started out alright, if not a little douchy with all of Sturgess's monologues of love.

Overall, Upside Down is a really poorly written movie. Visually its spectacular and that would be alright if there was anything resembling a story. Unfortunately, the story is crap and just not good at all.

I'll leave you with this. I may as well end this review with one more Across the Universe song. Here's All You Need Is Love. Maybe I'll review Across the Universe soon but for now, here's another song from that movie.

Rent

I watched Rent a long time ago with a girlfriend that was just obsessed with the show. She thought it was the best thing ever. So being a high school guy with my first serious girlfriend, I of course thought it was awesome too.

Now I haven't seen for close to 7 years. I've continued to listen to the music but I haven't watched movie since.

The movie came out in 2005 and its almost a decade old. So does it hold up?

Well lets take a look.

Rent originally was a Broadway musical that was first performed in 1996. Now I haven't seen the musical on stage, I don't know what parts were kept and what parts were left out, what I do know is that all but two of the original cast came back for the movie. Don't ask me why they didn't bring back the women who played Mimi and Joanne, but they didn't.

The being said, the cast is really good. They're all very talented singers and dancers, there's not really anybody in the cast I didn't really like.

The story of Rent follows a group of Bohemians in 1989 New York. While they all have their own aspirations, the majority of the movie, they're just holding themselves up from things like poverty, AIDS, and paying their rent. In the meantime they're finding love and friendship and fighting social norms that are expected of them.

The show deals with issues like AIDS, homelessness, LGBT issues, and other controversial issues in the 90s.

I guess that's the fun part about the movie, the fact that a lot of the issues shown in the movie are not as controversial as they used to be. They still are and definitely still worth talking about but its interesting seeing the rhetoric used to talk about these issues from the 90s as opposed to how its talked about now.

Now its kind of hard to explain the plot of Rent because its mainly focused on the lives of these people. There isn't really anything over arching that connects the plot, its just kind of about their lives.

The entire plot takes place over the course of a year. The first act of the show is really how this group of friends comes together and really become a family.

I really enjoyed the first act of this show.

I think they really front loaded the really great songs into the first act of the show and in that, it kind of takes away from the second act. There are a couple good songs and with a second watch I realize the second half isn't quite as bad as I remember. That being said, it kind of gets convoluted.

The second act is really about how life gets in the way of their friendships. Relationships end whether they're from death or just differences in personalities. The realities of life force them to maybe move away from their dreams and everything isn't what they expected. This sounds really profound but it doesn't really get actualized by the really quick and frankly rushed second act.

A good example of this is Joanne and Maureen. Now I like Idina Menzel and its probably no wonder she became the most famous from this movie, but she's kind of a whore in this movie. She flirts with other men and women even though Joanne is totally faithful. They even sing a song in the first act about how she sleeps around but I guess we'll just have to accept it.

Well the two get in a fight in the first act and give us probably the best song in the second act. They break up, and then maybe ten minutes later, they're back together. I know some time passes but its still really rushed and in the end kind of pointless.

And in the second act, like EVERYONE dies. That's not really an exaggeration. The entirety of the second act is really focused around the death of one of the characters, and then you start seeing supporting characters die off from AIDS and just everybody is really angst. The second act is just that... angsty. The movie a lot of fun when they give a dire situation and yet they still manage to give exciting music. Perhaps not happy music but entertaining.

As for performances, of course Idina Menzel is awesome although believe it or not, she's not really in the movie that much. She doesn't show up until a little farther than halfway through the first act and she's just kind of whore like I said before. Jesse L. Martin (the guy from Law and Order) does a really great job in the film playing a gay man who falls in love with Angel (played by Wilson Heredia) a drag queen. The movie may not focus on Angel but she's really the thing that kind of brings everyone together. Rosario Dawson and Tracie Thoms were the two that were brought in, I can't really say if they're better than the original Broadway actresses... but they were alright in the movie.

The one problem I have with the movie is how hipster is trying to be. Granted this movie came out before being hipster was cool so its probably more hipster than most hipsters, but its just fuck authority, fight the good fight and don't let the man get you down.

The problem with that is that at one point, one of the characters is forced to "sell out" he takes a job with a news organization. They don't really show how that goes for him... but he seems better off because of it. He has one moment where he's in the news van and looking all angsty (in the second act of course) but its more because all his friends left him, not because he doesn't like the job. He seems to like the job just fine and he profits from it.

The entire movie just give off this vibe that if you do something in order to better your circumstances in life, you're a sell out.

The best example they give for this is in the character Taye Diggs plays. He is the former roommate of the main guys and he married into a wealthy family. He's still trying to promote music and art, he's just doing it with money backing him. But of course, he's not real enough and therefore really painted as the bad guy in the movie even though he really doesn't do anything wrong. In fact Taye Diggs is actually probably the most decent character in the entire movie but he's ostracized because he gave into the man!

Maybe I just related with his character but people just slumming about trying to write a new song, or film a documentary and not doing anything else to help survive and pay bills isn't true artist in my opinion, they're just stupid.

All that aside, Rent is really good. The first act, with the exception of being front loaded and bloated is really really good. The second act is alright with some convoluted story lines and not as good songs. Overall, Rent is a fun show that just points at a lot of problems in society. Maybe in an overthetop hippie douchebag way but its still a fun musical if you like those.

So have you seen Rent? Have you seen it on Broadway? Let me know what you think of the two and compare them if you've seen both. What's better?

I'll leave you with this. Matt Stone and Trey Parker do a really good job in Team America World Police kind of pointing out the obnoxiousness of the themes of Rent with the musical in the movie, Lease. Here is there song, Everyone has AIDS

Update: I haven't rewatched Rent but I found this video on YouTube and it's a 45 minute video essay just talking about the real problems with this movie. I really enjoyed it and if you have the time you should definitely check it out. It points out the problems with the movie thematically, something I couldn't really pinpoint when I did this review back in 2014.

Pilot: Dexter

My friend has been pushing me very hard to get into Dexter. At first the reason I didn't was just because I had things to do. It looked interesting but I just didn't have time to get invested in another show like Dexter.

And then it came onto Netflix the first time. And I said, alright, no more excuses, I gotta check out Dexter.

That was about a year and a half ago. It didn't really stick. It didn't really make that much of an impression on me so I stopped watching. I also had an excuse because it was taken off Netflix for a while.

But now its back on.

Since then I have tried again, got to about the second episode and just couldn't keep going.

Well now its back on Netflix, I have a lot of free time, so I thought I'd try it again...

And I get the same feeling.

Now to be fair, a lot of shows aren't at their prime on the premiere. The Doctor Who series premiere, while I've come to really like it was incredibly boring the first time I watched it. It took me multiple times to keep going to the next episode.

The main reason I opened up Dexter again was my review of American Psycho. I mentioned Dexter and kind of did a comparison between the two given what I know about Dexter and given what I know about Patrick Bateman.

So if you haven't guess, Dexter is about a serial killer who works in the day time as a blood spatter analyst for the Miami Police department. I guess the thing that sets Dexter apart is that he only kills people who have committed crimes and works as somewhat of a vigilante in that sense, using his urge to kill for "good" as he was taught by his father who happened to be a cop himself.

He has a sister (played by Jennifer Carpenter) who is a cop with the police department. In the first episode she's an officer working with Vice but she really wants to move from vice to homicide.

Overall for Dexter, I just have an ehhh feeling. Watching the pilot again I realize that that the show is actually written pretty well. Its a creative concept and I might understand why people are really into it. Me however, I'm just not.

Its confusing because there are a lot of elements of the show that I really do enjoy. I love a good murder mystery, I like crime shows. But why not Dexter?

Well let's look at the pilot.

The main focus is on Dexter Morgan, a blood spatter analyst who by day analyzes blood at crime scenes for the Miami Police department and by night is a serial killer/vigilante, killing criminals who slip through the justice system's fingers.

Like I said before, his sister is a cop who is really itching to become a homicide detective. She's working on a case involving a serial killer who drains the blood from his victims. Dexter also gets involved and has a sense of jealousy.

This starts a storyline for a rivalry between Dexter and this unnamed serial killer. This seems interesting enough, pitting one serial killer up against another. Dexter actually sees some of the creepy actions of the serial killer as a personal invitation.

He actually says, I could see this more as "Hey wanna play? And yes, yes I do want to play"

The other part about the pilot that is a little bit interesting is his relationship with a victim of abuse. The relationship works for him because he doesn't really see the need for sex due to his look on life and how he's wired as a person. This is developed a little bit more in flashbacks and that continues to be a motiff in later episodes.

So I'll give credit where credit is due, the pilot really does set up for a good series and an interesting concept. Though it may not be your run of this mill story of a serial killer; the kind you would see on criminal minds, it takes elements from that and almost takes it from the serial killers point of view.

So why was the pilot ehhh for me?

For me, its the main character. Dexter to me is boring.

Everything comes from his point of view description and he narrates things as they come along. He makes it clear to the viewer that he doesn't feel emotions, so every real emotion we see is fake. He's had his entire life to learn how to mimic emotions but he still has those moments where he's not quite socially there.

But overall, Michael C. Hall's performance is just bland. You can see that Dexter has antisocial personality disorder and really doesn't care for human emotions. Now that's a hard character for an audience to get behind in the first place. If you're going to do that, you have to make Dexter an interesting character... to me, he's not.

If you read my American Psycho review, you'll remember that while I wasn't the huge fan of the movie, I did enjoy Patrick Bateman. While he felt no real human emotions, he portrayed them in a really funny way.

It was exaggerated but it was funny. The style of American Psycho is very different from Dexter and I kind of like it better.

Now for the character of Dexter, the personality of Patrick Bateman would not make sense but even though Dexter says he's had his entire life to perfect human emotions, I wish there was a little bit more of a personality as opposed to just a mimic of generic emotions.

The only other complaint I have of the pilot (and other episodes I have seen) is just the pace of the entire show. Its just slow. This is forgivable because its a drama. Just a warning.

So overall, Dexter is just kind of ehh for me. I recognize the merits the show has and I understand why people might enjoy it. To me however, I find it a little dull and slow.

But it did open up for this meme when Justin Bieber was arrested so...

That's good....

So are you a big fan of Dexter, have you seen it? What do you think? Let me know.

I'll leave you with this. No matter what complaints I have with the show, it did produce this... so that's good.

Now You See Me

Its not too often you see a movie about magicians, and when you do, you have a pretty good feeling that you're going to be in for a fun ride.

And that's really what Now You See Me really is. A really fun ride.

Now You See Me is mainly focused on four magicians who call themselves The Four Horsemen. Played by Jesse Eisenberg (that guy from the Social Network, and Zombieland), Isla Fisher, Woody Harrelson, and Lil' Dave Franco.

At the beginning of the movie, all four of them are using magic to become successful, but its very small time. Its not until they are brought together that the movie really starts to pick up.

Fast forward a year, and they are all performing together. They do a large performance that ends with them showering the crowd with 3 million dollars in cash. That 3 million dollars comes from a bank that happens to be missing 3 million dollars.

Enter Mark Ruffalo, an FBI agent dead set on investigating this robbery and figuring out who the group managed to rob a bank in Paris from a stage in Las Vegas.

I really enjoyed Mark Ruffalo's character and his acting in this movie. I watched this movie with my girlfriend and the only thing she knows Ruffalo from is the Hulk. She said she could only see Bruce Banner in his performance, but I'll have to disagree. Ruffalo really does give off a great performance of someone trying their awful best to figure out the schemes of these magicians before they do their next move. He however just can't quite get there first.

And then there's Morgan Freeman. Morgan Freeman plays a former Magician who actually goes debunking the tricks of other magicians. While you want Mark Ruffalo to figure out these things, its really Morgan Freeman figuring things out the entire way.

While the trailers and almost everything makes it seem like the magicians are the main characters, the real main character is Ruffalo on the tail of the magicians.

This was a little bit of a downfall for the movie just because it spent most of the time focusing on Mark Ruffalo, which don't get me wrong, it was a nice angle, it just didn't really focus or develop any of the magicians.

Oh and Michael Caine is in the movie. That guy must really like Magicians. He of course does any awesome job and his part is really interesting in the movie and how it plays out.

As for other performances, it is really a fun cast.

Now I'm not sure if this is a complaint or a praise of the movie but I really didn't like Jesse Eisenberg's character. From his performances in Zombieland and The Social Network I've figured out that he's very good at playing two characters. The socially awkward guy, and the asshole.

In this movie he plays a weird combination of both. He's mostly going for the asshole but his voice makes a weird socially awkward element to it that I just wanted to punch. As much as I felt he was in control, I felt he didn't really have the voice for it. His character was supposed to be arrogant and an asshole. And while he did give off the assholeness and arrogance, he just doesn't really present himself as a person who's not socially awkward. It was a good try, but not quite there.

Isla Fisher... there's nothing bad I can say about Isla Fisher. She was great... just great.

Woody Harrelson was fun too like he always it. I think his character was fun because he's a little bit different. He doesn't do traditional magic. He's a mentalist, he takes little social cues to make big assumptions. He hypnotizes people and that has a great place in the events that happen in this movie. He basically a Sherlock Holmes who hypnotizes people, he was really fun.

And then there's Dave Franco... He was alright.

The good thing about this is while I have a few issues with Jesse Eisenberg and Dave Franco, it doesn't matter because all four of them worked really well together. For as little this movie was actually focused on these four and more on Mark Ruffalo, these four were just so freakin entertaining.

Now the plot of this movie is very complex and its a really fun ride. Is it totally plausible? Absolutely no. These guys are so far ahead of the FBI and Morgan Freeman its just ridiculous. Because the movie is complex, there's a lot of things to throw you off. When you get to the ending you'll think back and be like. "This person was just a big red herring to throw me off what the real plot twist was. Which is really good that a movie can do that.

And that brings me to the ending.

The ending of this movie was... ehhh.

I wasn't a big fan of it. It made sense, it was just a certain level of disbelief that I would have to bring myself to that it was hard. That being said, I didn't see it coming. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing because I didn't like it so much but it had its cleverness and I understand why they went in that direction. I think I would have preferred a different ending that doesn't really undermine a lot of what was set up before it happened. I don't want to spoil it because I really do think this movie is a really fun ride. You should definitely check it out and let me know what you think of the ending.

Overall, Now You See Me is a really fun heist movie with magicians. I've heard rumors that there might be a sequel. I don't quite know if this movie really needs a sequel but I would still watch it.

So have you seen Now You See Me? What did you think about it? Discuss and comment below.

I'll leave you with this. This was the first time I had ever seen Isla Fisher... and I have not loved since.

American Psycho

...Cue the video

So as we travel down the Netflix list once again, we get to American Psycho. This movie came out in 2000 but takes place in the 80s. And its a strange one.

American Psycho centers around Patrick Bateman (played by Christian Bale), a man who works on WallStreet and lives a double life as a serial killer.

And that's the entire movie...

Honestly, there isn't much of a story to American Psycho. Its just following Christian Bale around as he acts like a complete weirdo, talking about 80's rock bands, fucking prostitutes, and murdering people really at random.

I guess the lure to this movie is that it is kind of a case study of a person with antisocial personality disorder, which Bateman definitely has. He has no regard for the lives of others, has little to no emotions, and he's incredibly charismatic and very few people suspect he's anything other than an extroverted people person, when really he's the exact opposite.

I think this movie gives a "Antisocial personality disorder for Dummies" presentation with Patrick Bateman and while its incredibly obvious, as he exhibits all the signs to the audience, you understand why he doesn't get caught. He's incredibly charismatic. He's a little on the strange side socially but lots of people just chalk it up to him being an asshole. He lets out frustration in two ways, killing people obviously but also by sexual aggression.

And Christian Bale plays it really, really well. Sure the performance is over the top but I guess that's the fun part about it.

Bale keeps that face of complete and utter disregard for everyone up THE ENTIRE movie. There are emotions but not regular human emotions. And that adds to the humor of the movie. I guess they couldn't make a movie about nothing but a serial killer going about his murdering routine without throwing in some dark humor. And the humor is good. If you're not into really dark humor, you won't like it, but even some people who don't find that their cup of tea might appreciate how the humor is executed very cleverly.

As for the rest of the cast... well they're not really in the film to begin with.

Willem Defoe is in this movie. I don't really know why, he serves almost little to no point in the movie. Which is a shame. He plays a detective who is looking into the disappearance of one of Batman's victims.

Now when Defoe came in, I thought they were going to do something similar to what they did in Boondock Saints. Having the murders go on and enjoying the character of Patrick Bateman while also watching the investigation of Willem Defoe in the crazy psycho performance he always brings.

But Defoe has maybe two scenes and then is never heard from again in the movie. Bateman doesn't kill him, he just never comes back.

Reese Witherspoon is in this movie... so that happened.

The point is, the movie is solely about Patrick Bateman. Everyone else is just bodies that you wonder if he's going to kill or not.

I'm really conflicted with this movie because it really delves into a subject I don't find that interesting. Movies and TV shows about the serial killers themselves, I find really boring and just counter intuitive.

When I was doing reviews of TV pilots, I really wanted to do a review of the Dexter season premiere. Because it doesn't do anything for me.

Patrick Bateman was at least interesting as to how evil he was and how cartoony he was. Dexter is just bland and boring.

That being said, I do like the topic of serial killers. Shows like Criminal Minds, I really do like. But thats more about these detectives getting in figurative chess matches with these serial killers and through that you can see into the mind of these killers. From what I remember of Dexter, it was just put in front of me and when faced with it, it was just boring.

I have the same problem with American Psycho. I don't sympathize with him, I just laugh and am a little interested in the performance of someone so cartoony.

Now since Dexter is on Netflix I do want to try it again, people tell me it takes a couple episodes to really get into it... we'll see.

The last thing I'll say about American Psycho is the ending...

At some point, Bateman just cracks. He starts feeding cats to ATMs and just goes nuts, killing a lot of people. Now there's a side of the film that says he's just not in a right frame of mind and some things get imagined... I don't know and it kind of made me say ehh to the ending. Not cause it was boring, it just wasn't as stellar as I think it was meant to be. I like open ended endings but this one was more confusing than question raising.

Overall the movie is just strange. Little to no plot, just a case study into a serial killer who is actually really funny in a sick disturbed way. Unsympathetic and just down right odd, American Psycho to me is really just okay. Creative, and really good in certain elements of the movie but doesn't quite hit the mark for me.

So have you seen American Psycho? What did you think? Am I missing something? Comment below and lets discuss.

I'll leave you with this. I just want to give an actual example of Bale's performance and maybe you'll actually understand it when I say strange. You may be saying, Connor, isn't a movie about a serial killer going to be strange anyway? Well you definitely haven't seen this movie. Enjoy.