Thor: The Dark World

I always underestimate Thor movies. The first Thor movie I was not excited for mostly because I didn't know who Thor was. I had heard a little bit about the god of thunder and a Marvel superhero who wore a silly looking helmet and wielded a hammer. (I'm personally a sword guy)

However, Thor is actually one of the most entertaining Phase 1 Avenger movies. It established him as the God of Thunder, a powerful being that would add miles to the Avengers. For some reason I didn't learn from my mistakes and went into Thor: The Dark World with the same mentality.

How wrong was I.

The Dark World basically picks up after the Avengers. Loki is returned to Asgard and Thor is cleaning up aftermath of the destruction of the Bifrost. The realms of the universe are in chaos and Thor and his gang of merry men (and Jaime Alexander) are fighting to restore peace.

Meanwhile, Natalie Portman is on Earth checking out unexplained an anomaly. While doing so, she unlocks an ancient power that infects her. This power is coveted by the Dark Elfs, an ancient race thought to be extinct that want to throw the universe back into darkness.

I'm pretty sure the executives over at Marvel looked at the success of the Avengers, the mediocre feeling of the first Thor movie, and the fan love of Loki, and among other notes they had taken, made a movie that was basically a fan service.

Don't get me wrong, I throughly enjoyed this movie.

But it was trying to correct everything "wrong" with the first movie that it went in an interesting direction.

But before I go into the things that stood out as obnoxious or border line bad in this movie (although nothing was incredibly bad) I want to say the thing that they fixed most in this movie and the aspect that basically made the movie phenomenal. You guessed it.

None other than Loki himself

I almost feel like they wanted to make a movie all about Loki but couldn't sell it to Marvel well enough so they called it Thor and instead had Loki steal the show. There is no exaggeration that. I was not among the insane amount of people who thought that Loki was the greatest thing ever to grace Marvel movies after Thor and The Avengers. I thought he was a good villain but I never understood the amount of teenage girls that loved the bad boy in green. But Marvel heard the yelps of fanboys (and girls) everywhere and really upped the awesomeness of Loki in this movie. Tom Hiddleston stole the show and just made the entire movie so much better. Without Loki this movie would lack so much which makes me wonder how they're going to do it if Loki doesn't come back.

In a recent interview, Tom Hiddleston stated he wouldn't be in Avengers 2. Which I am okay with. I think using Loki as the main villain in the Avengers made perfect sense, but to keep going with that wouldn't make sense and you're moving into James Cameron territory... but I digress. I just hope this isn't the last time we see Loki. I don't think it will but I just don't know how that is going to work.

With Loki, the movie had a very humorous element to it. I went to the movie with my girlfriend and we were the only ones laughing for some reason. The movie was hilarious. They put in a lot of humor... almost too much. I don't think they overdid it but there's a couple scenes where the humor was good but not quite the right time for it. It's not a big complaint, its even mostly something I'm praising of the movie, just a little strange at some times.  

Other elements of the movie. The main villain, Malekith, played by the 9th Doctor Christopher Eccelston, was a pretty good villain I guess. Its hard because the Dark Elves weren't that complex of bad guys. There wasn't much of an explanation as to why they're evil, they're just evil. 

Throughout the movie they are searching for the Aether, an ancient power that is just that... an ancient power, not much else to explain about it. And from the beginning when its explained, you know its going to come into play in future movies. 

I could go into spoiler territory but since the movie is only a week old, I'll wait. Without giving anything away, it was set up similar to how the Tesseract was set up in the pre Avengers movies. 

Other parts, Natalie Portman, always hot, still a great actress. The other humans like Kat Dennings, Stellan Skarsgard, and the new guy Jonathan Howard were fun. Now that I think about it, besides the team, there were little to no humans in this movie. It was very much a story that took place mostly in Asgard instead of Earth... I don't know how I feel about that. 

As for the part that does take place on Earth... there is a problem.

These guys weren't there. I'm not saying the Avengers need to assemble every time Earth is in peril, but at least explain why not. Malekith has this evil plot to storm on into Greenwich and plunge the universe into darkness... and SHIELD doesn't give a flying shit. 

Iron Man 3 suffered from this same problem. The President of the United States gets kidnapped, terrorists are blowing up all over Los Angeles and SHIELD doesn't really respond. Isn't this kind of their area?

That's the one problem with this new Agents of Shield TV show. I haven't watched it yet and although I plan to, I'm kind of seeing the Marvel universe through the eyes of people who haven't been watching the show. The movies are the most recognized form of this universe and I just hope they're not doing anything really important in this show that movie goers will be lost next time something happens in one of the movies and unless you've seen the show you're screwed. 

But on another sad note. Where the hell is this guy?

He's alive! We get it! Have him actually doing SHIELD things. Have him explain to Thor why SHIELD isn't responding to the fact that an alien vessel sieged Greenwich. Was that not a big enough blip on their radar?

There was one point where a giant object (trying to stay out of spoilers) is crashing down towards an unconscious Thor. Suddenly it stops and doesn't hit him. We don't know why until its revealed that it was stopped by their PORTAL device (not actually from the game PORTAL but it seemed like it was) I thought for a brief moment that the Hulk had come out of no where and held the object up and saved Thor's life. Unfortunately, no. 

C'mon Marvel, if Coulson can't be the guy explaining why Captain America is too busy to stop the universe from being plunged into darkness, have Robin Sherbatsky do it or have Nick Fury do it. I never get sick of seeing Sam Jackson on screen. Or have the guy who was playing Galaga do it, I don't care. You live in a universe that is connected, you can't just forget that. 

One other problem I had with this movie was Odin. 

In Thor, Odin is set up as a very wise leader and father. He is the voice of reason and analyzes the consequences of his actions before doing anything. 

However in this movie, he kind of turns into an asshole. Something happens half way through the movie that makes him very bitter, I get that, but even before, Odin wasn't that great of a guy in this movie. He made Thor look like the incredibly reasonable one. Thor has done a lot of growing up since the first movie and he makes Odin look like an idiot frankly. 

Which is one downfall of having Thor's arrogant stage go away after Thor 1. Now Thor is so wise, he runs the risk of being a kind of bland character. Think about the Avengers. 

You've got Tony Stark - the billionaire, playboy, philanthropist, who's the arrogant show boating stud of the group. He loves the limelight and is a little arrogant

You've got Captain America - the law abiding, do gooder who leads the group by the book. He is a symbol of good and leads that way. Not bending the rules, the kind of lawful good. 

Bruce Banner/ The Hulk - Who is the Quirky, introverted brilliant scientist. Putting aside the Hulk, he's mostly the analytical one. Doing the behind the scenes work and being the most thought provoking one. 

And then you have Hawkeye and Black Widow... but who cares about them right?

Where does Thor fall in all of this? He can't really be a symbol of purity and justice cause that's what Captain America is. He's not going the arrogant way because he's learned the folly of that path and that's Iron Man's job. He's not the analytical one so where does he fit in? I'm not quite sure.

As you've seen from other blog posts, I love Cracked videos. Especially their After Hours. One of my favorites is when they explain the Four Temperaments. They don't exactly explain it totally correct but they do the best job I've seen. 

If I've used this video before, I apologize but i think its a very interesting take on story telling. The Avengers don't have to fall perfectly into the 4 temperaments, not too many stories do. The point is, I'm worried that Thor will remain a kind of bland character. One that won't really find a place among the other memorable characters of the Avengers... but on the other hand he does kick some major ass in all three movies he's been in... he will probably be okay. 

I hope I didn't forget anything by going off on that 4 temperaments rant. Thor: The Dark World was a really fun movie. Loki stole the show, a show I only had a couple little observations on. Overall, Thor the Dark World is a movie you should see. The post credit scene was odd but with all the research I've done about the path Marvel is going towards the next Avengers movie, it got me excited for future projects. Go see the movie to see what I'm talking about. 

So who's your favorite Avenger? Why? Comment below and let me know what you thought of Thor the Dark World. 

Lastly, I'll leave you with this. 100% relevant. 

I'M THOR!!!

The Dictator

Cause, you know Sacha Baron Cohen of course needs to show his penis or a penis in some capacity.

The Dictator is a similar movie to the kinds of movies Cohen has done in the past like Borat and Bruno where he portrays a character and points out a lot of the things wrong with American culture. However the Dictator is different in that instead of putting a fictional character in a series of situations in the real world and seeing people's reactions, the Dictator is for the most part all part of a fictional world.

Cohen plays the dictator of a fictional Middle Eastern Country called Wadiya. He's suppose to be a satirical version of Muammar Gaddafi as he goes about doing whatever he wants with no regard for his people and the rest of the world. He then goes to America and is thrown into a situation where nobody recognizes him because he loses his beard... and therefore must walk the streets of New York as a normal person.

There were a lot of funny moments in this movie. There's a part where Cohen and his friend are trying to get an overlook of the hotel they're trying to break into. They go into a helicopter with a white couple

and they're trying to act all American. They then start talking in Arabic and say things that definitely make the couple think they're plotting a terrorist attack after mentioning 9/11, explosions and buildings in New York.

I enjoy this satirical humor... but I don't quite know where Cohen is trying to do with this. Take the helicopter scene for example. The couple at first is a little nervous because they're talking in arabic or something. Little prejudicial maybe but its something audiences understand. We've probably seen or have had moments where we see something we don't understand and it makes us nervous. But then Cohen's and his friend clearly say Osama Bin Laden, 9/11, make exploding sounds, and mention the Empire States building. Why wouldn't they freak out?

I guess its a satire that over exaggerates but I guess its not the kind of satire I'm totally clear on. There's a part in the end where Cohens asks an audience of people, why doesn't America be a dictatorship? You can keep the majority of the world's wealth with the 1% and all these things that already happen in America. But then he says that democracy isn't perfect but its good... But throughout the entire movie Cohens is trying to get back to his status and keep his country a dictatorship. And even when it becomes a democracy he forces people to vote for him with a tank... so the whole democracy thing was kind of pointless. Putting a mirror up America and pointing out its deficiencies is sometimes a really good message to put across but I just don't feel like The Dictator did it that well.

But forget my ignorance.

Though there were a lot of funny lines and moments in the film, I finished it with a very unsatisfied feeling. I enjoyed the humor but just said at the end, "That was kind of stupid." And past a level of stupidity that I feel like watching the movie was rewarding.

I wish I could say more about the Dictator. If you liked Bruno or Borat, chances are you'll really enjoy this movie. If you like South Park you may like it. However I've always felt that although South Park is vulgar and satirical, it has a message to it that is actually quite intelligent. I didn't feel as though this movie fulfilled the goal it was going towards if it was trying to a smart movie with a dumb premise.

Maybe I'm just being a snob but I'm not really a fan of this movie.

The performances are alright, Sacha Baron Cohen commits to these roles he plays which I have to commend. Ben Kingsley... wasn't really that exciting of a character. I don't know, I just got a feeling of being underwhelmed from this movie. I'm not sure what I was expecting but I won't say I recommend it.

Kind of a short review but there you go. Let me know what you think. If you have a handle on the message this movie was trying to get across, please let me know. Let's discuss it. Otherwise let me now what you thought and whether or not it holds up with the other movies Cohen has made.

Oylmpus Has Fallen

You ever have a moment where you watch a movie and you think... I've seen this exact movie before.

Believe it or not, I'm not talking about White House Down. These two movies came out at pretty much the same time. I don't know how that ended up happening, how two movies that had the same exact plot of a group of terrorists attacking the White House and one man fighting them off.

But no the movie I was thinking of was good old, Yippee Kay Yay motherfucking, Die Hard.

A film critic on youtube I watch often said it perfectly that the main character of this movie a good mix of Jack Bauer and John Mclain.

Oympus Has Fallen is the story of a Secret Service agent who used to be in the President's security detail but after an accident he's taken off the job. But when the White House is attacked by North Koreans and the President is taken hostage then its up to this lone agent to save the President and the entire United States of America.

Doesn't sound at all like Die Hard but these two movies are exactly the same.

There's a great video put on by Cracked comparing Die Hard with White House Down. In the video they say that White House Down did a better job at doing a Die Hard style movie.

That should be the last connection I make to White House Down because I haven't seen it. But here's the link to the video that prompted me to watch Olympus Has Fallen on Netflix.

4 Things 'Die Hard' Movies Need More Than Bruce Willis

Enough about Die Hard, lets talk about Oympus Has Fallen.

The movie follows the character of Mike Banning, a former special forces/Ranger, secret service agent who is the personal bodyguard of the President, played by Aaron Eckhart. While traveling to a Christmas party, the Presidential limo crashes and the first lady is killed. Banning feels to blame because he had the choice of saving the President or his wife and he chose the President.

Months later, North Korea and South Korea are at odds and the United States is worried about it. When a South Korea delegation comes, an attack suddenly breaks out, started by a C130, then an all out assault. All of the Secret Service is wiped out and the terrorist group takes over the White House. This first half hour to hour of the movie was one of the most over the top, ridiculous beginnings in the world. I think if I had watched this in the theaters in the summer I probably would have been more receptive to it but it was just insanely over the top.

And this was a trend pretty much throughout.

I'm not sure if I liked Aaron Eckhart in this movie. He didn't have much of a character at all. The majority of his screen time was at the beginning and when he was held hostage by the terrorists. One thing that bothered me about this movie was a plot involving 3 codes held by the President, the Secretary of Defense and the head of the joint chiefs. These 'Cerberus' codes will detonate any nuclear bombs... wonder if that's going to be used at all...

The problem I have with those codes was that if that was the end game, the terrorists took a long time extracting those codes from them. Once they start the hostage situation, there's a good half hour (in movie time) till they try and extract the code from the head of the joint chiefs. The President keeps pleading with them to tell them their code, he promises that it doesn't matter if they get the codes of others, they won't get his. But then in the end, they decrypt his code... throwing away a perfect scene to test the character and will of the President. Instead they crack the code, kind of making his character a little bit pointless in the end.

And then there's Morgan Freeman.

Morgan Freeman plays the Speaker of the House. While the President and the Vice President are in disposed, Morgan Freeman takes over and is the acting President.

Now usually, a character like this is one of two things, (typically in movies like this) a complete asshole, or not sure of himself that he doesn't quite know what to do as President. Morgan Freeman is neither. There's a speech he makes halfway through the movie to assure the American people that America will be okay and they'll get through. The thing is, if Morgan Freeman came on the television and said, "Don't worry America, everything is going to be alright" I would believe him. I didn't want the President to die but with Morgan Freeman as the President, I was kind of thinking, if the President dies, I don't think America will be that bad off.

And that was another thing, the big threat was the death of the President. If the United States doesn't remove troops from the 38 parallel in Korea then the President and his staff will be killed. I think a good angle this movie could have taken was question the value of the President and how much America is willing to sacrifice in order to keep him alive. I think in this circumstance, the threat of terrorists getting a hold of codes like the 'Cerberus' codes would be too big of a risk for the United States government and they would storm the White House in order to save the country regardless of the outcome of the life of the President.. but hey... that wouldn't allow for a hardcore action movie.

Unfortunately this movie suffers from a horrible sense of predictability. Too many things are alluded to and too many things happen that simply just tell what is going to happen. Very predictable and just over the top. There are a lot of scenes from this movie that I liked. In fact, there's a scene where Gerard Butler is sitting in the Oval Office with a number of weapons laid out in front of him on the President's desk. I had to pause the movie and just marvel at that scene. There were several times where I did this. I'm just wondering if I had had the same reaction if I had gone to the theater.

So is Olympus Has Fallen a good movie? Kinda? It's a fun movie for sure, realistic, by no means. Predictable, very. It was a very "Die Hard" like movie but it suffered from the over the toppness that

Die Hard 4 suffered from being so over the top that it wasn't fun anymore. The original Die Hard was simple, one guy against a group of terrorists in a building. Die Hard 4 was John McLain... and the FBI... and Justin Long... fighting the internet... and some terrorists? It wasn't simple enough. I think Olympus Has Fallen did a little bit of a better job of keeping it in an enclosed place but overdid it with the firepower and massacre.

Think about Die Hard. Hans Gruber and about 12 terrorists armed with machine guns take over the Nakatomi tower. Olympus has fallen was Gerard Butler versus a small army armed with RPGs, anti-air missiles, and nuclear launch codes.

Which movie is going to live in history forever? Die Hard.

But Olympus Has Fallen is a good time. Its a great movie for an action packed... action movie... An over-the-top action movie I'll admit. But its fun. Get some buddies together, get some alcohol and it should be an awesome time. Enjoy!

Is Law and Order going out of style?

I think there are very few people that recognize these four characters. Unless you are a fan of Firefly in which case you recognize Richard Brooks as the Bounty Hunter in the final episode of that season, or Chris Noth from Criminal Intent... or Sex and The City.

But these guys are what began Law and Order. Before Sam Waterson, there was Michael Moriarty as Ben Stone. Before Lennie Brisco there was Max Greevey.

I'll tell you. Law And Order was a very different show back in the 90s.

This is to be expected, crime had a different face in the 90s. This was prior to Rudy Guliani cleaning up the streets of New York. Things look really shitty in New York City in these episodes.

Aside from the environment and the 90's clothes throughout, the topics in which these Law and Order episodes cover are pretty diverse.

There are a couple episodes on the Mob, public corruption. But the episodes that were the most interesting were the ones on hot topic issues that are still controversial today. Like racial divides and violence, rape, and abortion. There is actually an episode where a woman bombs an abortion clinic.

What's even more interesting is the way they handle race. This was prior to 9/11 so the biggest threat to national security was actually the IRA. They actually have an episode on the IRA which was pretty cool itself. But there was one episode where there was a quick and subtle reference to people from the Middle East. It's not overly politically incorrect, just an interesting comment about a middle eastern man who died and is "going up to Allah" As far as racial tensions go, its very prevalent in the show. There's an entire episode about a girl who pretends to be raped by a white police man and the black community goes nuts about it. I personally think that was one of the better episodes of the season.

The interesting line that this season and the earlier seasons of Law and Order slightly cross are ones regarding rape. Now this was before SVU, there were only a couple episodes surrounding rape. But I was surprised to see a couple of episodes that slightly talk about victim blaming. The detectives have a couple of back and forth conversations about whether a victim is making up the fact that she got raped. Now there's only one episode where that is actually the case. The show is actually giving me a lot of material to add to a Criminology class I'm taking.

As far as characters go, its a solid start to a show that went 20 years.

I understand now why Chris Noth was on the show for so long. And why they brought him back in Criminal Intent. He's a really good actor. He's a young detective from an Irish Catholic background. I'm starting to realize that they don't make characters like Mike Logan anymore. Partly because it was used too much but Chris Noth's character is the stereotypical good looking, male caucasian protagonist in the role of a detective. And its done really well. I'm not saying that all main characters need to be caucasian and male but when they are, they should be like Mike Logan.

The cool thing about this show is that it often pits characters against each other when it comes to political and ethical views. Noth with his partner played by George Dzundza often are at odds in opinions due to their age difference and their background growing up.

I'm bummed those two weren't in much more than this show. They're solid actors and they bring a lot to giving this show an awesome beginning.

On the DA side, you have Michael Moriarty and Richard Brooks. I was hesitant at first, especially

because the DA was a balding white guy who looked very boring. I know now that that surface view works perfectly with Moriarty's character. The two play off each other, not as much as the detectives but still pretty well.

Ben Stone is a seasoned District Attorney while Richard Brooks is a little bit more green. But he sees things in a totally different light mainly because of his upbringing and the fact he's black. That actually becomes a part of the story in a couple episodes. Today it would look forced but in the 90's it made perfect sense. It was right about the time when white privilege and discussions of race were beginning to actually happen as opposed to being put aside for another time.

With these characters and the execution done in each episode, no wonder this show made Dick Wolf famous. The funny thing is, most people only know Dick Wolf by name. Do you know what he looks like?

Now you do.

The amazing thing is this guy has been doing this for over 20 years and he's still doing it. SVU is still very very popular. However, is this style of television going out of style? 20 years of Law and Order and they decided to end the show. I don't know the real reasons, but 20 years is a long time, maybe it was just time to end it. 

But then I look at Law and Order: LA. 

Law and Order LA had a solid cast, with big names like Terrance Howard, Alfred Molina, and Corey Stoll (he wasn't as known back then but since House Of Card, I put his name on there).

Everything seemed to be in place and it just didn't work. Granted I only watched one episode of it. I don't know exactly how things played out for the show but perhaps we're in a time where Law and Order is no longer relevant. 

With shows like Breaking Bad, Dexter, and Board Walk Empire, maybe American TV viewers aren't interested in the Law and Order side of things, maybe we're more interested in the criminals themselves. 

This isn't the first time something like this has happened. 

Look at the era of Noir films. 

Many Noir films had protagonists that weren't protagonists at all. A lot of them were morally gray characters wandering in a world where good and evil isn't always prevalent. 

I think we may be slipping into a similar period around this time. In the 90s, it seemed like the only thing that could save us from a world of crime was the law and order in it all. The judiciary system, although they mention it is flawed, is there to protect us and prosecute those who would do evil in the world. 

The detectives and district attorneys are the clear good guys and the criminals are the clear bad guys. Now of course in Law and Order there were times when you sympathized with the criminal, maybe a guy put in a bad place and commits a crime. But those guys are usually given the deals and plea bargains. Its the clearly bad guys that Michael Moriarty makes sure he sends to jail for life. Its the rapists that Benson and Stabler put away that are the clear bad guys. 

I said before the New York looks shitty in the early seasons of Law and Order. Maybe that was the world view we had in the 90s. Things were so dark from the Cold War and pre 90s world that we needed a knight in shining armor like the detectives and District attorneys of Law and Order. 

I think there's a reason Captain America movies didn't do as well as the other Avengers movies. Thats because Captain America represents that knight in shining armor, the do gooder. The symbol of the

America, we just don't often see anymore.

Look at our current events today. NSA wire tapping, Congress shutting down the government, and unpopular threats of going to war. People don't like the establishment these days. The picture to your right is Captain America in the Winter Soldier. He's not the bright symbol of America that he used to be when he first appeared in comics, he's dirty, in a gray world, because that symbol of America is not clean right now.

Maybe there's a belief that the clean, straight arrows like Captain America, or Ben Stone don't exist anymore. Or if they exist. They're not as exciting as the Walter Whites (Breaking Bad), Frank Underwood (House of Cards) or Dexters (Dexter... duh) of the world.

I may be wrong but I think this started with the Wire. Which makes sense. It started in 2002, a year

after 9/11 and although there was a lot of patriotism back then, The Wire may have been the start to an anti-establishment, noir style message that I have been talking about. I have yet to watch it, I will though and be sure to review it on here.

If you've seen the Wire, don't give anything away. I would just like to know if I'm right about that. From what I have heard about it, it delves into the criminal world and is more focused on the message rather than the characters.

I'm basing this mostly off of a Cracked Video I saw. But that also gives a good look into the kind of shows that are made today. If you're interested I'll put a link on for you to see. Its a comedic view of something similar to what I've been talking about. It doesn't go into Noir or why that started being a thing but it does talk about the kinds of shows being made today. \

The Only 8 Types of TV Shows That Get Made

You can see, that they are much different than the Law and Order that started up in the 90s.

Well this post went in a direction I didn't plan on it going. I started with Law and Order, then went to Noir, then to Breaking Bad, then to Captain America. I did not expect that. Have you guys seen the trailer for Captain America though? It will explain the grayness that Captain America has a hard time being a part of. I'm very excited for this movie.

Watch the trailer, you'll see what I mean about the gray thinking going into our pop culture these days.

Anyway, what do you think? Do you think Law and Order type shows are going out of style? Let me know what you think? Am I crazy? Share your thoughts. Comment below. Have a great day.

The Town

I am actually writing the review to this movie a few weeks after I watched it. I wouldn't usually do this but again, GTA took up a lot of my time the past few weeks.

Before I begin, again, I like this cover to the movie better. It looks like a release cover in France or somewhere else, but I like it better. It actually reminds me of a lot of elements I had forgotten in the past few weeks.

The Town takes place in Charleston, a neighborhood of Boston Massachusetts, where bank robberies is "passed down like a trade" The film begins with a robbery taking place at a bank by Doug McRay (Ben Affleck) and Jem Coughlin (Jeremy Renner). They take the bank manager, played by Rebecca Hall hostage and use her to escape. Unfortunately, Couglin thinks she could identify them because of where she lives so McRay goes to "take care of it". And some how he ends up dating her. All the while Jon Hamm is an FBI agents who is tracking the different jobs that these men do throughout the movie cumulating to one big heist at the end where they try to rob Fenway park.

There's a lot of characters that play larger roles that I didn't mention, like Blake Lively, Chris Cooper, and Pete Postlethwaite.

If you go into this movie with the sole purpose of seeing a lot of heists, you're going to be sadly disappointed. Though there's a few of them and they are good, there are not enough heists in this movie in my opinion. But that's not what this movie is about.

The movie is a lot of this. Ben Affleck and Rebecca Hall talking. And that's to be expected from a drama. I'll say that again, this is not an action movie, this is a drama. I think a lot of people misunderstand that.

This movie is more of a character study of Doug McRay and many criminals who find themselves in the same situation he finds himself in, a guy who choses what was considered the family business because the system wasn't made for him. They say in the movie that Doug wanted to play Hockey and go pro. He instead got injured and lost his chance to play. Surrounded by people like his father, Coughlin and others, he pretty much had no choice but to rob banks. When he meets Rebecca Hall, he sees a way out of it. Not at first, it takes some time but there is actually a moment when he says, I'm out.

The problem is Coughlin, his sister/ Doug's kinda girlfriend?, all say, you can't leave. This is your life people depend on you and you can't leave. It's almost as if this story follows Ben Affleck's character in Good Will Hunting into his 30s. Except for Will's friends telling him he should leave town to pursue his dreams, Affleck's friends are telling him he can't leave.

This of course is another work directed by Ben Affleck. The joke is that everyone says that Affleck is now kind of okay to like because its post director Affleck. I have to give him credit in that he's better in this movie then I've seen him in a lot of movies. However, he's surrounded by people that are really good, Renner, Hamm, Cooper that his acting, whether it is good or not, is covered up by them. That being said, I had no complaints with Affleck in this movie.

Renner was phenomenal, Lively was phenomenal, an hot. (In a prostitute, trashy kind of way) Hamm was awesome although kind of forgettable, especially a few weeks later. I didn't know Jon Hamm was in that movie before I watched it and I'm having a hard time remembering him in it now. But he was awesome, I know that. He needs to do more roles like that. I like him as Don Draper but I also like him as the guy that can get his hands dirty. Chris Cooper was awesome although incredibly underused. He's Affleck's father who is in prison. He maybe has 2 scenes and they're only to help build the case study of Affleck.

It made me think back to an earlier work of Affleck's Gone Baby Gone.

I think I went into this movie with the same idea, that it was going to be a lot of action. (I have to stop doing that with Affleck films) I think I enjoyed Gone Baby Gone more but only because it had more tension and was a little bit more gritty. I think there were signs of that grittiness in The Town but it didn't show off as much.

I'm most likely going to do a review on Gone Baby Gone soon. Expect it. I will most likely draw back to The Town for that one and eventually I'll do all of Affleck's work to see if there's something about all of them that makes them good or not.

But that's all I have on The Town. A pretty good drama, a few underused characters but an interesting case study on criminals and their mindset when they are forced into crime via their environment.

So what do you think? Do you like Batfleck as a director? What's your favorite one of his works? Let me know. I'm sorry this review took so long but I'm getting on a roll, hopefully more reviews are to come.

Contraband

I like Mark Wahlberg, I don't care what anybody says.

I like this poster a lot more than the poster that has Markie Mark with the cash strapped to his chest. That was just a bad way to sell the movie in my opinion.

Contraband is a story of Chris Farraday, a smuggler who went straight and now has a family. Until his dumb ass brother in law (played by the dumb ginger from X-men First Class) screws up a smuggling job he's assigned to. The dealer (Played by Giovanni Ribisi) he was suppose to deliver coke to starts threatening him and Mark Wahlberg takes it on himself to pull off one more big job in order to pay off the debts of his brother in law.

This movie has a very predictable story. Was it enjoyable? Sure. Was it necessarily good? No. Does it matter? Not really. The truth is, this is an action movie. Nothing more. I don't think this movie was trying to be anything more than an action movie about an interesting crime topic of smuggling.

Look at this picture. Can you look at this picture and tell me what movie this is from? You'd probably guess Contraband because this is a review of the movie, but you could guess Shooter, Max Payne, 2 Guns, or any other movie where Mark Wahlberg plays the same characters and it wouldn't be a bad guess.

There was no backstory to this character besides the fact he used to be a smuggler. I don't even think they told him a character, they just said, "Mark, go on set and play yourself." This was pretty much the case for every characters with the exception of Ribisi.

Though this guy wasn't given any kind of backstory either, he was a character. If you think about the variety of character Giovanni Ribisi has played from Saving Private Ryan, to Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, to Ted. This guy can act.

But his character was so under developed and underused in this movie that it kind felt like it went to waste.

Ben Foster is in this movie too. And unfortunately I think the director told him the same thing as Wahlberg because his character was quite frankly boring. Sure there were glimpses of a character but it was hard to sympathize with him even though there was room for some real conflict that was never realized. Its a shame, I thought he was phenomenal in 3:10 to Yuma.

Like I said, the movie is predictable. It was a fun action movie I could have on the background while I played GTA 5. I don't hate movies like that, I just don't give them too much credit.

I wish I could leave you with a video of Mark Wahlberg talking to animals... but its not allowed on youtube. Instead I'll leave you with this.

Do you like these actions movies that are just that, actions movies? I personally enjoy them but I want to know what you think? Let me know!

Grand Theft Auto 5

I'll be honest. I was not initially excited for this game.

I loved GTA 4 and loved that storyline. I loved the character of Nikko Bellic and I loved the setting of Liberty City. I had heard about how beautiful the game was and how fun the gameplay was but I hadn't heard anything about the story. As you know, that's the most important part for me.

I also saw 3 characters that didn't look overly exciting. On first look, the three characters aren't that exciting. A middle aged man, a black guy, and a hillbilly.

Now granted on face value, Niko Bellic isn't exciting himself but based off the trailer, he was a mercenary from the East, said he had a history of crime and wanted to make a new life of his own in America, the land of opportunity. He wanted to forget his past and achieve the American dream. But the theme was, the American dream isn't all its cracked up to be. Niko is tossed right back into it and he's forced to do what he is unfortunately very good at.

 The amount of story they put into one character was phenomenal and I was worried that with three characters, they there wouldn't be as careful development with the story.

I was very very wrong.

I'm sad I ever doubted them but the characters of GTA 5 are some of the best characters I've ever seen in a video game.

Michael De Santa is one of the most complex and conflicted characters I've ever seen and his internal conflict is done so well. There are too many video games where the player is able to go on the streets and just shoot people. In Grand Theft Auto, if you do that, Michael feels it. He is still a psychopath in the psychological sense of the word, he has to be, Grand Theft Auto allows you to do whatever you want to, almost literally. But with Michael, you see the desire to live a normal life, you see the conflict he has with killing people and living the criminal lifestyle. You also see the relationship he wants with his family. Now at first I wasn't sure how they were going to pull this off because his family is really really annoying. But it works out in the end and only adds to Michael as a character.  It's all pulled off quite brilliantly.

The other characters are great, Trevor especially. But Michael is the most relatable, at least for me. Rockstar did a great job at putting these psychopath characters in a psychopath world and still managed to make the player care for them.

So what's the story?

The story begins with Michael and Trevor pulling off a robbery that goes horribly wrong. Their partner is shot, as well as Michael and Trevor runs off into the distance. 9 years later, Michael is living in Los Santos, a GTA version of Los Angeles under Witness protection through a slightly crooked FIB (like

FBI, see what they did there?) agent. He's unhappy with his life, his wife is cheating on him and his kids are dumbasses. He runs into Franklin, a resident of the same neighborhood that was featured in GTA San Andreas. Franklin, wanting to make money and a name of himself pulls Michael out of retirement and into the life of crime and robbery again.

Through a series of events, Trevor Phillips, Michael's old partner, realizes Michael is not dead like he believed he was. Soon he finds Michael and the three begin working together.

Now that's a broad synopsis for a story that has a bunch of twists and turns that make it such a great story.

Another thing to mention among all the great things that happen in this game are the random events. You'll be driving down the street and see someone get robbed. You can go after that robber and return the cash or keep it, its all up to you. There are several other situations that can happen. I once pulled up to a guy who looked like he needed a ride, he then pulls out a gun and he tries to carjack me. I laughed out loud and said, "I'm getting Grand Theft Auto'd in Grand Theft Auto."

The only slight complaint I have with the game is the lack of tension and concern for the characters. This is not I have throughout the game, there are just a few instances where the story could have been shaped better to make the player worry if these characters are going to get out or not.

The biggest example is the ending. Franklin is given a choice, kill Trevor, or kill Michael. Now this

sounds like quite the dilemma, you're basically asked to kill off one of the three characters you've come to love in this game. But no fear, there is another option called the Deathwish option. It essentially is all three of them teaming up to fight the people going after them... and they win.

Sorry to spoil the ending but they win. Their plan goes off without a hitch, nobody the player truly cares about dies. Everybody lives.

Now at first, I said alright, that was a good ending, I didn't want to see one of the three main characters die, it was a good ending. But then I thought about it. There wasn't much of a payoff in the end. There wasn't anything lost in the end. These characters had a lot to lose but they didn't lose any of it.

A similar thing happened in Mass Effect 2.

Now Mass Effect 2 is one of my favorite games on the 360. Fantastic gameplay, story is phenomenal, etc. At the end of the game you and your team goes on a suicide mission. One that has been mentioned throughout the entire game. They keep saying, not all of us may come back from this one. And the first time I played it, not everyone did. I missed some upgrades, I didn't have all the relationships maxed, and I paid the price for it. A lot of my people died. I was devastated. But it was a solid ending in my book. Sad but solid.

But then I played it again. I got all the upgrades, I maxed all my relationships and I got the suicide mission. And nobody died. To this day, I prefer the ending of my first game. Seeing all my people die, and seeing all the coffins on my ship at the end of the game, it really gave the ending some real impact and made what we did on the suicide mission all the more powerful.

Another example is GTA 4.

The truth is, you can't win the end of GTA 4. Either Roman dies or Kate dies. There's no getting around it. Niko is the victor in the end, but its a bittersweet ending.

(I personally always choose the ending where Kate dies. I thought she was a great character but nobody fucking kills Roman, fuck that shit.)

I don't think that GTA 5 necessarily needed to kill off one of the three main characters but I do think they needed to have someone die at the end in order to make it worth wild.


This is a very small complaint. I loved the ending, more so I loved the game. I just think that they gave a powerful swing with not the greatest followthrough. It still hit it out of the park but not as far as I expected.

But again, this is my only complaint. I'm still playing the game even though I've beaten it. I'm just getting into the online, and there are still challenges and side quests I haven't touched yet. One last thing worth mentioning are the movie references that are in this game. Since the game is mainly based on heists and robbery, they took influences from different crime thrillers like Heat and others. (A movie I will be reviewing, hopefully soon.)

So that's my review of GTA 5. Overall I would give it a 99.9 out of a 100 only because of the slightly lack luster ending.

What do you think? Do you think people need to die to make it a good movie or video game? Let me know what you think.

I'm still in my crime segment, one I don't think I started properly, mainly because of GTA 5. If you have any suggestions, I'm open to them. Hope you enjoyed this one.