Big Fish

I heard about this film for a long time before I finally got down to watching it. From my parents, I got the reaction, Its a very strange movie. From some of my friends they said it was one of the best movies they've ever seen. Others have said the movie is really not that great at all. But who cares about what they said, you're here to know what I think.

Big Fish is mainly focused on a young man named Will Bloom (played by Billy Crudup). Will's father, Edward (played by Albert Finney) is terminally ill with cancer and doesn't have long to live. Will and his wife (played by Marion Cotillard) travel to visit him and be with him near the end. Will and his father have had a bumpy relationship, mainly due to Edward's outlandish stories about his life. Will feels as though his father was never truthful with him and he never really knew his father, all he knew was his bedtime stories that couldn't be true.

Or could they?

The majority of the movie is Edward or someone who knew him, telling the story of Edward Bloom and his adventures growing up.

Young Edward (played by Ewan McGregor) is a confident, talented young man who feels like his ambition is too big for the small town he grew up in. Eventually he leaves with the company of a giant (played by the late Matthew McGrory) to find his destiny.

The great thing about this film is that for the entire film you are wondering what is true and what is fantasy. What actually happened to Edward Bloom, and what are things he's embellishing.

But that was something I was actually afraid of in this film. I was worried that none of it was true, that Edward Bloom's life was actually quite a dull one and this old man just wanted to entertain and make his life more interesting than it actually was.

Fortunately, that's not the case in this film, that would have been a pretty dark and depressing turn to the film.

Which is surprising for someone like Tim Burton.

I've never been a huge fan of Tim Burton. His films have never really gotten my attention or looked incredibly fantastic, probably because I don't shop at Hot Topic.

Furthermore, Burton has just not impressed me. Alice in Wonderland was a visual film sure but it was just a mess. Charlie and The Chocolate Factory was an even sadder mess. Sweeney Todd was just weird, and even his films prior to Big Fish really didn't impress me at all. They all just seem like this strange, emo, unusual style. Which don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that can't be done right and Burton has done some of that right. But when that's all your films Mr Burton, it gets really old.

Big Fish on the other hand, is the exact opposite.

There's nothing incredibly dark about this film, there's nothing overly strange in this film. Sure the visuals are great and I think that's a strength Tim Burton has for his films, the visuals.

And yeah, Big Fish has its unusual elements to it. There is a scene with a circus, or the scene with the twins attached at the hip. Is it weird? Sure. But in this film, its a little more subtle.

There's still a lot of Burtonisms to this film, but if you hadn't told me this film was directed by Tim Burton, I probably wouldn't have known.

And by god, Helena Bonham Carter actually acts in this film. She's not an obnoxious over the top character, she's actually very, very good!

As far as other performances go, its a fun cast. Ewan McGregor plays that animated protagonist that I'm sure I would want to punch if he wasn't developed as well as this movie develops him. The other fun part about this film is the actors they chose and how they work so well with their older counterpart. McGregor to Finney, Alison Lohman to Jessica Lange as Sandra, Edward's wife.

Danny Devito is in this film. Sure his southern accent was awful and I can't get Frank Reynolds out of my head, but he was a small enough and meaningful enough part for me to forgive all that.

And that brings me to the other part of the film, the "problems".

This is not a perfect movie. There are a couple parts that aren't exactly done that well or just could have been done better.

But what I've found by watching a lot of movies is that a movie can be very, very good and still have some problems with it. Its how good the other things are, and how well they can overshadow the bad things that really count and make the things that are bad insignificant.

The biggest problem I had with this film was the relationship between Edward and Sandra, in the past.

I liked Albert Finney and Jessica Lange and their performances together, I have no problem with the older versions of them and their relationship.

But the way these two meet is when Edward sees her at a circus. He sees her once and is determined that that is the woman he's going to marry. Sounds romantic right? Well it would have been if it had been developed a little bit better. Literally the only things he knows about this woman are things that Danny Devito tells him, which are things like, she likes flowers, she's going to college. Very superficial things.

Then when he finally finds her, all he does is do a couple romantic gestures and she loves him immediately.

Now I know this movie is all about embellishment and that's probably not how it happened, but the way it goes down doesn't exactly put either Edward or Sandra in a very great light.

Basically Sandra is engaged to Roy from the Office (played by David Denman). Now we saw Roy from the Office in Edward's home town and he would always be the one who kinda got the shaft in highschool. He was always in Edward's shadow.

You can tell he's not a fan of Edward but I felt bad for him. I didn't see him as an asshole... until he immediately beats the shit out of Edward for no reason.

This character was not developed nearly enough and the development that did happen kind of contradicted the sudden change to bruting bully on the drop of a hat.

But don't worry, he has a heart attack while jerking it... so its okay?

Again, this doesn't exactly paint either Edward or Sandra in a fantastic light. Sandra especially, I mean why'd you get engaged and then drop him the minute a total stranger gives you a bunch of flowers and gets beaten the shit out of him for you? It was just weird.

But again, the atmosphere and pacing of the story kind of makes you forget about the parts that were not really well explained and focuses more on the moral of the story rather than the semantics.

The other thing that bothered me about this film was the development between Will and his father.

Again, don't get me wrong, the problems with these two are very interesting and evolve in a very interesting way. You understand Will's issues with his father and you sympathize with him.

But then at the end, there's a stark change and suddenly Will understands everything and goes along with everything with barely anything happening.

The ending for me was just a little bit confusing and hey, maybe I just didn't get it. But I felt as though the change in Will happened way too quickly and I didn't feel like his character was developing and truly understanding his father until a very convenient turn of events. I don't know, it's not as big of a problem for me as the whole Edward courting Sandra thing, it was just an inconsistency thing and it offset me a little bit...

That is until this scene.

OH THE EMOTIONS!

But beyond the small things I picked out because I was watching this movie as critically as I could, the film was very very good. The visuals were spectacular and it really had a great message. 

This movie isn't so much a film about fairy tales or fantasy as much as it is about tall tales. Its this great evolution of a person's story being told over and over again and the heartfelt emotions and significance we put in those we love. 

My uncle who recommended this movie to me has a bumper sticker on his car that reads, "Don't let the truth get in the way of a great story". Now he's gotten criticized by random people who say that the bumper sticker encourages lying. But its not that at all. It points out that its not just the stories that are important, but the way that they are told and the people who tell it to us. I don't know, its just a message that hit close to home for me and I really really enjoyed this film. I think this was just a perfect match for Tim Burton and I really have to hand it to him. I just wish he would go back to something simple like this. Don't stay away from the weird stuff, just do it a little bit more subtly like this film. 

But those are my thoughts on the film Big Fish. What did you think? What do you think of Tim Burton's films? Are you a fan? Comment and Discuss below!

I'll leave you with this. Instead of a video, I want to leave you with an article I skimmed while writing this review. I may have borrowed somethings from the article but I think speaks well to the reason this is one of Tim Burton's greatest films. Enjoy! 

5 Reasons Big Fish was Tim Burton's Last Great Film

How To Train Your Dragon

I totally understand why people love this movie. Personally, I think its good, not phenomenal, just good. But I understand why people love it.

Its this little bastard right here. I'm sure I could go on a rant about how Dreamworks is exploiting the synapses in your brain that make you go AWWWWWW when you see this guy and I'll get to talking about that a little bit later in the review but I understand why people love this film, you can't watch this film without losing it a little bit when you see the dragon above.

How to Train Your Dragon is an animated film about a young boy living in a village of Vikings. This boy, Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel) is quite small compared to the other vikings and can't quite get anything right. He's usually in the way and is known as the town goof. His father (voiced by Gerard Butler) of course is the leader of the village and is a little embarrassed by son. See Hiccup is not the brute viking that Gerard (real name not important, I like that one more) was when he was a kid. However, Hiccup is very excited to kill a dragon and prove himself to the village and more importantly, his father.

See Hiccup obviously isn't as strong as the other vikings in the village and the fun part about his character is that he wants to fit in and the way he does that instead of brute strength is to use machines that he devises on his own. And they work. The kid is actually very smart and he just doesn't fit it.

The one part about this is that I didn't feel like he brought in these mechanisms enough. He had one in the beginning and one he used on the dragon. I would have liked to see more of these mechanisms but the lack of them doesn't exactly take away from the film.

Well Hiccup uses the mechanism to knock down a very rare dragon. He intends to follow it into the woods and kill it as it is tied up. But when he gets to it, he realizes he can't kill dragons. He says that he sees a bit of himself in this dragon and sees that they were just as scared as he was.

When he releases the dragon, it doesn't kill him and is in fact wounded.

The next portion of the film is really a developing of a relationship between Hiccup and the dragon he nicknames Toothless.

And yes, these two are adorable. And its not an obnoxious relationship, its just a relationship on mutual respect for one another.

It doesn't seem like Toothless is Hiccups pet, and Hiccup doesn't seem like he's totally out of control. Its hard to explain but its a very modern and well done relationship.

Through this time where Hiccup is helping Toothless fly again, he starts learning more about dragons that they don't put in the textbooks and he uses this knowledge to peacefully defeat dragons in the training that him and the other young people in the village are going through under the instruction of Gobber the Belch (voiced by Craig Ferguson)

The movie is both very simple, and very complex. And its a lot of things done very well. Its a great father-son story. Its a great underdog story, its a great story of friendship.

Its really good to see this quality of work coming out of Dreamworks as far as animation goes. I'm not saying that the studio hasn't been doing well for a few years now, but its good to see them going onto bigger and better things than Shrek.

The other great thing about this is that while Toothless is freaking adorable.

I mean look at this bastard

While he's adorable, he's not the one thing that sells this film. 

A new trend in animation films is to make it so there's a cute cuddly element to it. 

The best example of this is the minions from Despicable Me. 

Its this new idea that if the story doesn't sell the movie enough, of course these little bastards will do all the work for the studio and they continue to rake in the profit. 

Now Despicable Me, from what I remember, was a decent film with a heart warming story. But of course that wasn't the main focus of its success. The real focus was these ambiguous little yellow things that just happened to be one of the most adorable things that ever graced the big screen. 

Little kids ate this up, Teenagers ate this up. 

People my age (in their twenties) still eat this shit up. And its mainly from the success of the first movie (due in no little part to the success of the minions) that Universal Pictures green lit a sequel. 

But my point is, while Toothless is a marketable and adorable element to the story of How To Train Your Dragon, the story and other parts about the film really stand out and its not just Toothless selling the film. 

I mean there's no way they could make an entire movie out of these minions right?

...shit

But overall, How to Train Your Dragon is a solid film. Its not usually my style to watch animated films, though I throw some in this blog every once in a while, but the film is good. I think the main hype that came out of this movie was the fact that the story was very good... AND Toothless and the adorable dragons. 

But usually that stuff doesn't get me, I'm tough and cannot be persuaded by...

...God Dammit

But those are my thoughts on How To Train Your Dragon. What did you think? What do you think is cuter, the dragons in this film, or the minions in Despicable Me? Comment and Discuss Below!

I'll leave you with this. I guess since its after Christmas this isn't that relevant anymore but here's a guy who programmed his lights to the music of the film. The music was good. Enjoy!

Legit: Season 1

Over the last fall I had a friend who was really into this comedian named Jim Jefferies. We listened to him multiple times and while I feel as though Jefferies can go too far sometimes to get a laugh and can be down right offensive, he can also go the exact opposite and hit it out of the park and make me laugh very, very hard. So when I saw that he had a TV show on FX I thought, well this should be interesting right?

Legit is just a down right strange show.

The show follows the comedian Jim Jefferies. This seems to be a thing that happens every once in a while, a comedian will do pretty well and get offered a television show. The show will usually be in an episodic format and put the comedian through wacky hijinks with his friends who are more than likely made up.

Legit does just that. It follows the sort of fictional, sort of real life of Jim Jefferies the comedian as he goes through wacky hijinks with his friends, living out funny stories, many of them are stories that Jefferies has told on stage.

The main story the show derives from is the story of Jim going to visit the brother of a friend who has muscular dystrophy. (In this case the friend is Steve played by Dan Bakkendahl, and his brother Billy, played by DJ Qualls.) The story goes that Jim goes to visit this kid and the kid makes a request of Jim. Billy has never gotten laid and wants to hire a prostitute.

Jim of course, thinks this is a brilliant idea and gets Steve to go along with it.

Now Jim in this show is portrayed as an outspoken asshole who actually has a heart of gold. So despite the fact that he brings Billy to a brothel, does weed and cocaine, gets Billy high and drunk, for some reason, after the first episode, him and Steve are allowed to bring Billy back to their house and take care of him. And that's the set up for the entire season. A comedian, his doofy friend, and the kid with muscular dystrophy living in a really shitty apartment in LA.

If this sounds horrible (not bad, just horrible) than you are right. The show is a very raunchy comedy that focuses on a lot of drugs, prostitutes, a lot of jokes about disabled people, and a pluthera of jokes that makes me say you probably shouldn't watch this show with your parents. (I mean unless your parents are into that stuff, its really up to you) And a lot like Jim Jefferies stand up, a lot of the time, it goes a little bit too far.

Now what you would think I would say is that that, like his stand up, the show can hit it out of the park as well as take it too far.

This isn't exactly the case. Its funny, don't get me wrong. But sometimes, the acting out of these funny scenarios, especially if you've heard them be described in his standup, are just not as funny.

Bringing Billy to the brothel was funny enough, but I really didn't laugh as hard as I did when I heard the story. A lot of the times, its not even a story of a bit, its just one joke from one things that I almost feel like Jefferies just wanted to shoe horn in there. A lot of the times, these jokes fall flat and just seem forced.

And that's the main problem I have with the show. Everyone has different levels of being offended, I usually think my levels are pretty low and I don't get offended by much, this show crossed that thresh hold a few times but other people may not get offended by this at all. Its more the forced jokes and odd feeling of the show that I have to criticize. Now, I'm coming from a different perspective in that I have heard these jokes before so maybe they're not as funny. They could be very funny for people who have never heard the stand up before. The problem is, it feels forced. That's it.

The show is about a guy taking care of a disabled person. This can either go one of two ways, it can go down the path of being incredibly offensive and hoping that poking fun at the issue, it makes it better, OR you could make it kind of a heart felt thing, as if there's an actual connection between Jim and Billy. And the show does a little bit of both. Again, sometimes its works, sometimes it really doesn't.

Which really makes me uneasy about this show. Not that I'm offended by it, or that I think its humor is tasteless, which it can be. Its more the style.

FX is starting to have that reputation of creating shows about absolutely horrible people and their day to day lives. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Anger Management, Archer, Louie, Sons of Anarchy (?) I've never actually watched the show. So I was just expecting something like Its Always Sunny, where Jim is just a horrible person all the time, there is no redeeming qualities about most of the characters in Its Always Sunny, they're just assholes, and that's the joke.

And what's weird, is I think I would have preferred that for this show. The last episode of the first season focuses on the prostitute that Billy had sex with at the brothel in the first episode. She comes along saying that she's pregnant with Billy's kid. The entire cast is in chaos. Billy wants to get married, his mother is angry, all of this stuff. Then her water breaks, she goes to the hospital and they all figure out its not his kid.

Now this has some funny moments attached onto the reveal, but mainly the ending of this episode is actually really sad. Billy is very sad about this. His mother is surprisingly very sad about this. Its just kind of a melancholy ending to a really melancholy season. Because Billy is disabled, the show has a heartfelt edge to it. Jim can be an asshole, but he wants the best for the people he cares about, Billy, Steve, the large black nurse who ends up living with them Ramona.

Its just kind of strange.

Jim Jefferies as an actor... well... he's not horrible. Honestly, the guy probably isn't an actor.

I think he's very good, on stage. And honestly its kind of hard to like him as a character, especially when his moments where he's suppose to be the good person turn on very conveniently when the plot needs him to.

The rest of the cast is decent enough. Steve is kind of funny cause he's the character everyone shits on. Billy is decent enough and has that look about him that will allow for a heartfelt moment here and there. The rest of the cast is a pluthera of characters that come in and out. The majority of them are very good like John Ratzenberger as Billy and Steve's father who lives outside because their mother (played by Mindy Sterling) is a horder, who is also very good.

Overall, there are some good parts about the show. It did make me laugh a couple times and it was entertaining enough to get through the entire season. If the second season comes on Netflix, I'll probably watch it. But I'm not surprised that the show was cancelled on FX. I like Jim Jefferies but I don't think a show about him was gonna last very long.

But what do you think? Do you watch Jim Jefferies? Do you think he's funny? Comment and Discuss below!

I'll leave you with this. This isn't my favorite bit by Jefferies but it is a funny bit. Enjoy!

Thanos

This past summer I really wanted to do a post on Thanos. It was mainly in response to his appearance in Guardians of the Galaxy and news that Thanos wasn't going to be the main villain in Age of Ultron.

Now this was before I knew about the confirmation the storyline of the Infinity Wars and the pretty much confirmation that the Avengers were going to face off with Thanos in Infinity Wars.

I personally think this is a fantastic idea. It builds up Thanos, and while I think Marvel is still suffering from horrible villains, I think they can make Thanos a formidable villain for the Avengers by the time Infinity Wars comes around.

The Infinity Wars is suppose to be a culmination of all the phases and the collection of all the Infinity Stones into the mess of the Infinity Wars.

But my question is, what does Marvel do with their cinematic universe after Thanos is defeated and this culmination is wrapped up?

The sentiment of my friend, and honestly me initially, says that that's where Marvel should call it a day.

Marvel is in a position that has never been done before, a position of a muti character franchise that is only picking up steam with every movie. With the exception of Iron Man 2, Marvel has not come out with a bad film.

From a financial position, there's no reason for Marvel to stop after Thanos. If the Avengers are still making record breaking numbers by the time Infinity Wars comes out, there is no reason Marvel shouldn't continue to make more movies. Its obvious people will go to those movie until they are not worth seeing anymore. Its a case of supply and demand. People are demanding more Avengers movies, make more. Financially, it makes sense.

But a part of me that wonders about storyline makes me initially think that they should call it a day after Thanos is defeated.

From what I understand, Thanos is a Titan of incredibly evil proportions and he is the Avengers ultimate foe. He's the top of the food chain, the main baddy, and again, it makes total sense for them to squeeze in three (Actually four) Avengers movie in order to defeat him.

Now its another thing if they don't actually kill or defeat him in Infinity Wars, but c'mon, are they really going to drag this guy out that long.

The point is, Thanos is going to be defeated by the time Infinity Wars is over.

Maybe you have the Infinity Wars, defeat Thanos and that's the end of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, at least for a little bit. Give us a phenomenal ending, then give us a little bit of a break. Enough time for us to sit with what we just watched, and wet our appetites for more... if that's actually what we want. Again, Marvel finds itself in a position its never been in before. Its going to get to Infinity Wars. There's no question about it. All the movies in Phase Three would have to make absolutely zero dollars in order for Infinity Wars to not happen.

The most likely scenario is that fans will stick around for all the movies, up to Infinity Wars.

After that, I'm not sure.

A sad prediction I might have is that after Infinity Wars, a large portion of the people who love these comic book movies will not watch anymore, partly because there's a very good chance the quality of films may drop (I'm not saying its going to be there's a chance Phase 3 films may not be as appealing to the general movie going audience) and futhermore, there might just be a fatigue of Marvel Superheroes. Comic book fans, and hardcore fans of the movie will go to the films no matter what, but unfortunately, the rest of movie going audiences might be sick of the Avengers for a couple years and may need that break I was talking about.

My prediction, they won't move straight into Phase 4 after Infinity Wars. There will be people that will say they should, and they might, I don't think they should.

But what would Phase Four look like?

Here's a modest guess. I'm guessing Iron Man doesn't make it past Infinity Wars. Maybe he dies, maybe he retires, maybe he gets lost in another dimension. My guess is that they'll keep him alive and have him make a cameo in a future film, but I think RDJ and Disney both want to find a way to get Iron Man out. RDJ had other goals, Disney needs to spend money elsewhere.

What's more, I don't think Captain America is going to make it out. Now this, I could be wrong. It could be Thor who doesn't make it out of Infinity Wars, but with the reports that say Chris Evans wants to possibly find a way out of the role, I think there's a possibility he doesn't make it out of Infinity Wars as well. This leaves one of the top three, Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America, still alive with the Hulk. Bruce Banner needs to live. I'll explain why in a little bit.

Then you have the secondary characters in Nick Fury, Black Widow and Hawk Eye. By the time Infinity Wars is over, I'm guessing one of them will be dead, if we're being modest. Not retired, not gone, Dead. Dammit Joss Whedon, kill someone off already. Which also makes me think that Hawk Eye is going to die in Age of Ultron. If another one dies in Infinity Wars, my money is on Black Widow only because Sam Jackson is one hard actor to get rid of.

So in my theoretical world, all that's left of the original phase one Avengers is Thor/or Cap, Bruce Banner, and Nick Fury/ or Black Widow.

Then you have the characters introduced in Phase three and Age of Ultron, and there are a lot of them. Very few of them will remain as the main ensemble of the Avengers. Lots of them will be one off films like Guardians of the Galaxy. I'm after all is said and done, my guess is that the main Avengers will be the ones I've mentioned before, Black Panther, Captain Marvel and Doctor Strange will be floating around but he won't be apart of the team. Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are a little more tricky as I don't see them having a huge role in the future of the universe but you never know. Chances are at least one of them won't make it past the Infinity War and I don't think they'll be apart of the main group. Unless they're smash hits in Age of Ultron but we'll see I guess.

But the important part is the loss of the main members. Especially Iron Man and the other top three person who is eliminated.

They won the Infinity War, but at what cost?

Then there's the question of the Hulk.

You could tell in the first movie, you can kind of tell (all based on conjecture that is) that Bruce Banner is not trusted with his Hulk abilities. At the very least, there is conflict a brewin with the Hulk. I think by the time Infinity Wars wraps up, Bruce Banner will turn into somewhat of a villain. Not a full fledged villain, but a conflict that the Avengers need to take care of.

Maybe leading into Planet Hulk down the road?

I wrote in my rant on the new Marvel line up that I thought Bruce Banner was going to die. Well the more I'm hearing about Age of Ultron and Phase 3, makes me back away from that idea. Apparently the Hulk is going to be important in Infinity Wars...

That doesn't mean he can't be thrown up into space at the end of Age of Ultron. He could always come back for a temporary alliance and then fuck everything up in Phase 4. If you can't tell, I want World War Hulk to be a thing. I think I want more for Mark Ruffalo to come back from space and desire revenge more than I want to see him make a tribe of Hulk people in Space but you get what I mean.

Whether it be the Hulk, or a new threat to humanity, the team will need to reassemble again, but with a totally new line up. A line up under the guidance of the surviving members sure, but the focus will mainly be on the new members.

The Phase Four movies will be picking up the pieces left by the defeat of Thanos. It will be dealing with loss, accepting new roles, and eventually forming a new team to defeat the forces coming to take up the mantle that Thanos left empty when he was defeated.

Like I said in my post on Spider-man coming to the Marvel Universe, this would be a perfect time to bring in Spider-man into the Avengers. Peter Parker becomes the unlikely poster boy for the Avengers, especially if Iron Man and Cap are lost in the Infinity Wars. Spider-man can be the human symbol for hope in this very bleak world that was left weak and beaten even though Thanos was defeated.

The Avengers brand can just keep being reinvented, ESPECIALLY if the movies in phase 3 are done well. ESPECIALLY if Black Panther, Captain Marvel, Ant-man are all done well.

I'm thinking about going back and watching Phase one of the Marvel movies and seeing how many of them are actually good. Not good in the sense that they create something good for the universe, just good movies in general. I remember enjoying all of them, with the exception of Iron Man 2, but in comparison with movies like The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy, does Phase one really hold up?

Random thoughts aside, I'd be one hundred percent down with Marvel recreating itself in Phase 4. Yes maybe having a wise mentor from Asgard or Captain America coming in here and there to check in, maybe becoming the new Nick Fury. Imagine it, new Spider-man leading the helm, Chadwick Boseman playing Black Panther, maybe butting heads, Captain Marvel kicking ass above them, maybe even Paul Rudd will stick around be the wise cracking jokester of the group. Can you imagine that Avengers film? But if Marvel decides to continue after Thanos is defeated, Give us something different. Shake things up, start over!

That is actually an outcome of Phase four that gets me very excited. It allows for new heroes to shine, its a logical step once Thanos is defeated.

This is all conjecture of course. I'm not a story exec at Marvel. I'm not Kevin Feige. I don't know if Spider-man is actually coming to Marvel, I don't know if they're going to continue after Infinity Wars and even then, I don't know if anybody is going to die between now and then. (not literally die, in the universe). Looking at how Marvel has done things so far, there's a very good chance all the current Avengers might live. I was thinking I was being modest with my predictions of the fates of the original team but thats a lot of people dying, and a lot of really good actors out of a job.

I'm not so worried about that as much as I am worried about Marvel going on well past the time that they should have stopped. I don't think that was any time in the past and I don't think its coming any time soon, but I think one day it will happen. Marvel just needs to recognize when that day comes. I don't know when it is, but I can keep theorizing until then.

But what do you think? Where do you think the Marvel Universe is headed? What do you think is going to happen after Thanos? Comment and Discuss below!

I'll leave you with this. Marvel gave us a teaser for Ant man today... but its ant size... Enjoy!

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

Anchorman 2... might be the worst film I have seen... in a long... long time.

I really have no idea what I just watched.

Now the promotion of this film was beyond belief. There were so many commercials, so many bits done in preparation for this film. Will Ferrell seemed to be hamming this part up to the max. He went on local news stations to read the new in promotion of this film. He seemed legitimately excited about this film, and I was too!

For the longest time, this movie was hyped up to the nth degree. 

Now I didn't actually go to this movie in theaters. It wasn't that I didn't want to. It wasn't that I didn't want to see a sequel to a comedy that made me laugh so hard my sides hurt. I just didn't get to it. This happens to a guy like me who doesn't spend every waking moment at the movie theater. So I skipped this one in theaters. 

But I did get reactions from friends, saying there was just something off about this film. It was good... just not as good as the first one. I also heard a lot of people say that it was bad, but I think I wanted to believe this movie would be worth it. Even if it was only nostalgia, why couldn't this movie be good?

Anchorman too begins a few years after the events of the first film. Ron Burgundy (played by Will

Ferrel) is living with this now wife Veronica (played by Christina Applegate) in New York and the two are anchoring network news. When the legendary Mack Tannen (played by Harrison Ford) steps down, he offers his position to Veronica and fires Ron.

Ron's life goes into a spiral. He leaves Veronica and his son Walter Jr. and gets a job at Seaworld.

Years later, he is approached by Freddie Shapp (played by Dylan Baker) who gives him the offer to be an anchor on a new news cable network where the news will be airing 24 hours a day. Of course in the 80s, these seems very silly. But Ron gets his news team back together and agrees to read the news once again. His goal is too get his old life back and be famous again.

His news team again consists of the old gang from the first movie. The suave and smooth Brian Fantana (played by Paul Rudd), the obnoxious and I guess now gay and racist,  Champ Kind (played by David Koechner) and of course, simplier than ever, Brick Tamland (played by Steve Carrell)

Now back in the first film, it was these four that made the movie. They had their great elements that made them a team. Furthermore, you liked everyone of them!

I don't like Champ Kind! Sure there were racist overtones in the last film but they were at least subtle.

I don't like Brick Tamland! Especially with his weird relationship with Kristen Wiig. And they're trying to make Wiig the perfect match for Brick, the female version of Brick. But they just say random things to each other. It has no reason, it has no comedic timing, its just stupid.

So to answer your question that I'm sure you asked, No I did not like Kristen Wiig in this movie. Which is surprising because I am usually a fan of her work.

And Brian was... eh. He was kind of boring in the first film as well so I can't really say anything about him. I like Paul Rudd, I like him in both movies, there's just not much to say.

The team is brought back together but is put on the graveyard shift of the network. Ron and his team are basically bullied. Ron is basically at his lowest before the first broadcast and then he figures out that Veronica has moved on to have a new lover (played by Greg Kinnear). And I'll give the movie credit, Ron Burgundy thinking that Greg Kinnear is a psychic because he's a psychologist was pretty funny and did pay off in the end... Believe me, I'll get to the end.

Before the first broadcast, their rival Jack Lemon (played by James Marsden) challenges them to a ratings competition.

In order to get their ratings higher, Ron and the team decides to distort the news being broadcast and basically create the news we get today on networks like Fox News, CNN, and others. Saturated with animation, topics that aren't really news, and making the entire thing entertainment instead of informative.

This of course is at first does not bode well with their new boss Linda Jackson (played by Meagan Goode) but when the ratings sky rocket, the network is happy and suddenly she's really turned on by Ron.

The two start a relationship and of course its a big deal for Ron because its an interracial relationship.

Now the whole deal about black people in this movie starts off pretty funny at the beginning. The team is uncomfortable working for a black woman. Ron is out of his element, this was funny enough.

But the more Ron and Linda spend time with each other, and the more they date, the more this movie is hammering in the race jokes and eventually they're just not funny anymore.

Now I'm man of simple humor. I enjoy shows like Family Guy, South Park, anything making social commentary or making fun of taboo topics or short minded thoughts. I also love a good fart joke here and there. I like low brow humor. I laughed my ass off at this.

I have my moments where I really like a joke being repeated over and over again...

But it has to be funny. It has to be done well and I'm sorry, sometimes Will Ferrell cannot do the same joke over and over again and make it funny. The fact that Meagan Goode's character was black in this film and the interaction Burgundy has with her and her family goes on for WAY too long.

Eventually, Ron becomes so famous it goes to his head and he reached the very top. So much so that he says good bye to his friends... until a ice skating accident leaves him blind...

Eventually Veronica goes to him and rehabilitates him while they rehabilitate... a shark?

Eventually there's a procedure that Veronica hides from Ron that could bring back his sight... and you know... I'm done. He goes back but realizes he should actually be taking care of his family, yada, yada, yada ya.

As you can tell, there's not much of a plot structure to the second Anchorman. I'm not saying the first one was incredibly fluid itself but when it went away from the main plot at least it was funny. It was funny when the plot stopped for a little bit in the first film for the different news teams of San Diego to get into a battle... not Kristen Wiig getting pinned up against a wall and her grannie panties being shown... that's not funny that's weird!

Furthermore, the more you look and think about this film, the more you realize its the exact same film. Ron Burgundy and his buddies do their shenanigans on the news, they have to deal with a woman that they at first done like but then Ron sleeps with her. There's a song in between, and Ron falls from grace only to get back up again.

And that's the worst crime of this movie.

Its always a challenge with comedy sequels to create something new from the first movie that in many cases was comic gold. This was the case with The Hangover. While I would never call that movie comedic gold, it was incredibly successful, so what do they do? Create the exact same movie and put it in a different location and slap a two on it. That's not creative work, that's ripping off your own work.

21 and 22 Jump Street did this and I would say that that is a case of a comedic sequel actually doing it correctly.

But you know if the sequel isn't that great, you can always go back to what you enjoyed most, the original right? That will always be something you can go back to. Right?

The worst crime of Anchorman 2 is that it kind of makes me question if the first movie was actually any good? Was it just me in my highschool years succumbing to dumb jokes? Am I getting old?

See Anchorman 2! YOU'RE MAKING ME QUESTION MY MATURITY!

Now... all of that said. With all the complaints and stupidity that goes on in this movie, I must say...

The end fight scene was gold.

Oh sure, it was dumb, it was just as mindless and just down right weird as the rest of this piece of garbage of a film.

But its the kind of weird and mindless humor that I actually liked about the first Anchorman just sent to a whole new level.

Ron is trying to get to his son's piano recital blah di blah di blah nobody cares. Suddenly James Marsden comes out and challenges him to a fight. Then Sacha Baron Cohen comes out from the BBC news network, then Kanye West comes from MTV, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler come from Entertainment news, Jim Carrey and Marion Cotillard come from the Canadian News, then Will Smith comes from the sport channel, then Liam Neeson comes from the History channel with the ghost of Stonewall Jackson (played by John C Riley) and a minotaur. Then Harrison Ford shows up again and turns into a werewolf. All of this sanctioned by El Trouisa Maiden of the Clouds (played by Kirsten Dunst).

Did it make a lick of sense? No. Does it make the movie better? Not at all. Is it even filmed very well? No.

But just the surprise of the entire thing had incredibly funny moments. I was laughing during this scene, something that was noticeably absent throughout the entire film. The fight was obviously trying to one up the last fight which I guess it did, but the first fight will always be the more memorable and naturally funny instead of just funny because you've got all these ridiculous things happening in it, like a minotaur, or Harrison Ford turning into a werewolf, or Kanye West.

And that's just what I hope I can pull from the first movie again, that while the jokes are still the same type of stupid mindless humor, at least the first film is not trying so damn hard. This movie just felt like an annoying kid making faces at me. Maybe once in the entire hour and a half this kid is making these faces, maybe one is kind of funny and impressive but the majority of it is just the same thing over and over again and really not funny.

And whatever you do, do not watch the Super-sized version with 763 new "jokes".

That movie is instead 2 hours of incoherent crap.

I tried watching that version a few times and I could never get through it because there was just way too many dumb jokes and it made me question everything I ever felt about not only Anchorman, but about Will Ferrell, Steve Carrell and especially made me question comedy in general.

The unrated cut of Anchorman 2 is probably one of the worst films I have ever seen ever and it should be burned. It even ruins the fight scene. Why did they think it was funny for Ron to stop fighting in the middle of this funny scene and ask Stonewall Jackson what kind of Japanese car he would buy. What the fuck?

I'm going to give my obligatory disclaimer on this. I can't sit here and say that this movie was garbage just on the fact that I didn't find it funny. You may have busted a side watching this movie while I didn't. I want it to be very clear that the problems with this movie are not totally with the humor, (though flawed as it is) but just structurally and how overall its just nonsense. Anchorman 1 was nonsense but at least it was coherent nonsense. Anchorman 2 is a horrible ploy to try and do the same exact shit but put a 2 on it and claim its different.

I might be doing a review soon on the first Anchorman to see if the movie still holds up, but for now I can truly say that Anchorman 2 was one of the biggest piles of garbage I have seen in a long time. Enough said.

What did you think of Anchorman 2. Does it hold up to the original? Do you feel like you're possibly growing up too quick by this movie like I do? Comment and Discuss below!

I'll leave you with this. Here's a slice of the genius that I still believe Anchorman was. Here's the Afternoon Delight Music Video. Enjoy!

Stardust

Stardust is a strange movie because it is an incredibly original and yet incredibly cliched.

Stardust is in essence, a fairy tale, pure and simple. Its not making fun of fairytales, its not parodying, satirizing, ripping off, or pointing out the problems with fairytales, its just a totally new and frankly, very original fairy tale.

The story focuses on a young man named Tristian (played by Charlie Cox) from a town in England called Wall. Its called this because this town lies on the border between the real world and the world of magic, a world called Stormhold. Tristian is in love with a woman in his village who is nothing but mean to him but for some reason he loves her none the less.

So Tristian is tasked by this horrible woman to go across the boundaries and retrieve a Star that fell from the sky.

When Tristian reaches the star though he realizes that it is in fact a living woman (played by Claire Danes)

Tristian strikes a deal with this woman that if he can bring her back and present her to his girlfriend, he'll return her to the sky.

What follows is a journey across a magical land that is all together strange and really intriguing at the same time. Its a seemingly very original fairy tale land with air pirates who collect lightning, unicorns that show up out of freaking no where, magic, ghosts, etc, etc.

While Tristian and the Star are traveling on their way back there are two other storylines happening that are related.

Stormhold is governed by a King (played by Peter O'Toole) who is on his deathbed. As per tradition, one of his sons must take over and rule the kingdom. However, the rules of the kingdom say that the Princes must murder one another until there is only one of them left.

There are only three of them left at the start of the movie and the ones that were killed are left as ghosts watching their surviving brothers fight to the death.

In order to decide who will be King, Peter O'Toole tosses a gem into the sky and says whoever can retrieve that gem will be king. This gem soars to collide with the very star Tristian found and that is why the Princes are looking for the Star.

These princes include the always entertaining Mark Strong as Septimus... and a bunch of other guys you probably don't know or care about.

Mark Strong always gives an entertaining performances. He's bruting but at the same time he's not your typical just down right evil Mark Strong role. He's clever, and while he's hilarious with long flowing black hair, you're not quite sure what is going to happen if he gets his hands on the star, and that just makes it even more interesting.

So far we have Tristian bringing the star back, Septimus looking for the Star for the gem she carries, and then, probably the most entertaining of everyone looking for the star is a trio of witches, led by none other than Michelle Pfeiffer.

Michelle Pfeiffer plays a witch who has deadly magic. However this magic ages her and her sisters and in order to maintain their eternal life, they need the heart of a star. They've already lured earlier stars to their lair and cut out their hearts but that was years ago when this movie takes place. They now need another star and they see the very star Tristian finds.

So Michelle Pfeiffer takes the last bit of the last star, turns herself young again, and sets off to lure the Claire Danes star into a trap where the heart of the star will be pulled from her and then Michelle Phiefer and her sisters will enjoy eternal life once more.

Pfeiffer brings the same entertaining performance that she's been giving since Catwoman in Batman Returns. I'm not saying she's a phenomenal actress, but she is down right entertaining. What's more fun about her part is that Pfeiffer starts out young and the more she uses magic, the more her age starts to show again. Its a fun race against time.

So all in all you have a murderous Prince and deadly Witch looking for a star that doofy Tristian from the small town of Wall is bringing back to his land. Its a race against time and it is very intriguing seeing this cast of characters competing against one another.

As far as individual performances go, its a decent cast... sort of.

Charlie Cox is... well doofy.

And that's his character. He's a loser going after the prom queen. And in a sense the story is really a coming of age tale for him. After going on these adventures, he's able to become a man, and there is a transformation, at least a physical transformation... I mean his hair gets longer.

Honestly, the guy just doesn't do a lot for me. He's got this weird forehead and he's not the greatest actor.

Charlie Cox is set to be DareDevil in the new Netflix Marvel series... and based on this movie, I'm not overly excited for it. I'm not saying Cox did a bad job, I just didn't like him that much that's all. He made for a decent hero, just a pretty forgettable one in the end.

And then you have the Star... Now Claire Danes has never really been considered by me to be that brilliant an actress. I saw her in the movie of Les Mis with Liam Neeson and I was just... Eh...

I don't know what else I've seen her in but I think every time I see her in something, I kind of forget that she was in the film.

Is Claire Danes phenomenal in this movie? No. She's kind of like Charlie Cox in that she's not bad, but she's not overly good. I think I liked her more than I've ever really liked Claire Danes in a film before, but again, not the best.

Whats kind of fun is the relationship that builds between Tristian and the Star. Is it the best relationship in the world? No. But in the end, its just kind of eh.

Luckily, those are the only two that really make the movie Eh. And luckily, while they are the main characters, they're more of a vehicle for the audience to experience the fantasy world that they travel through. Again, a world that is incredibly strange, and has a lot of rules and customs that are incredibly original and yet I have no idea why they're in place or almost any background to it.

Now one could say there's a lot of unexplained stuff in this movie, like what is a Babylon Candle, why are you acting like I know what this is? Its like I'm suppose to know that the rope in this world is unbreakable... unless you're a unicorn.

But in the end, its more of a fun ride with twists and turns left and right. I don't feel as lost as I feel intrigued. I want to know more about this fantasy land and that makes me want to watch the movie more and kind of look past the boring leads.

Also Robert De Niro is a trans pirate... that was... interesting. Not great. Interesting. It was sort of subtle at the beginning but then when he's dancing around in women's clothing I was just thinking it wasn't totally necessary. Its nothing that bothered me incredibly, it was just eh.

But again, De Niro was much more interesting than the main characters and brought an interesting element to the world.

And that's the real draw to this film I think. The world and characters it has these two interacting with. Michelle Pfeiffer was incredibly entertaining, Robert De Niro was incredibly entertaining, Mark Strong was incredibly entertaining. The visual were incredibly entertaining. There was just a lot about this movie that was just down right entertaining.

The movie is quite the adventure, as I said before, its not a parody of fairy tales, its has its own lore and brings me to an entirely new world.

Is it as classic as the world that have been created by stories like Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter? No. But seeing a new fantasy world is actually really fun to see.

Now the movie came out in 2007, I really don't think there's any chance that this movie could get its own sequel. I just don't think there's enough of a demand for a continuation of this world. Which is a shame because it would be fun to see this world develop and maybe explain the elements of the world that really weren't explained in this film.

I'm reading that Neil Gaiman the author of the book does not write sequels and there just isn't any material to do a sequel for.

I don't usually insist that a movie gets sequels, especially since we're already saturated with sequels today. But this film just reminds me of the Princess Bride in its creativity and fun time. If there's not going to be a sequel, there needs to be more movies like it that are original and just fun.

It may not be the best movie ever made, but its fun. Plain and simple. Its the kind of movie that has fun with fairy tales and does something original. Instead of rehashing the same thing over and over again, the film makes its own fun. I'm not saying rehashing and making old fairy tales new isn't done well, (Into The Woods) it can also get dull and not really done well... (Once Upon A Time).

Its good to see something different and something fun.

Overall, Stardust has its own creative fantasy world. Its a fun world with several rules and customs that while not very well explained, create that fun world I was talking about. The visuals, though outdated are fun. The characters are fun, most of them anyway and the movie kind of makes me want more, whether its a sequel or another movie this creative.

But have you seen Stardust? What did you think of it? Do you want a sequel? Or something like it? Comment and Discuss below!

Also, its a new year, I'm a little backlogged with films and things I need to do posts on, but I'm always looking for requests. Leave a comment and let me know what you think I should review.

Bioshock Infinite

For one reason or another, I'm always behind when it comes to Bioshock.

I'm not sure why I haven't played this game already, I loved the first Bioshock so why wouldn't I play this one as fast as I could?

The answer is that Bioshock, any of them, are really games that are an experience. Its like watching a really good show, you have to binge watch it, really only taking breaks to eat and go to the bathroom because the story is so indepth, so complex, and really just a really fun time. There's so many things you have to find, pieces to a puzzle that is revealed in the end but you never really know until the game is over.

Like the first game, its really hard to explain the story of Bioshock without giving the ending away. And like the first game, the ending is so good that I cannot spoil it. Needless to say, you need to see this ending, you need to play this game, it'll blow your mind.

What I can say about the story is that you are a washed up, badass named Booker DeWitt. DeWitt is a war veteran, he's a former Pinkerton, and he's in debt.

So Booker is tasked from a mysterious person to bring the girl back from a city called Colombia and all his debts are paid. Well Colombia is a city in the sky. There's a great backstory to this city, a backstory you don't really figure out unless you explore in the game, unless you pick up on some of the hidden gems and secrets throughout the game that tell the game's story.

Anyway, Booker goes into the sky to the city of Colombia to find the girl locked away in a tower by the name of Elizabeth.

The town is run by a religious man by the name of Zachary Comstock and he will stop at nothing to make sure that Elizabeth is kept in Colombia. And there's your plot. Yes, there is more to the story but its just something you have to experience.

The great part of this game is just the strange dynamic the game's atmosphere has. On one hand, you get a similar adventure, scary, unnatural feeling you get when you play a Bioshock game, a feeling players of the first game will recognize and new players will have fun getting used to. But at the same time, there's this great sci fi feeling to it that. Furthermore its got this amazing feeling of historical commentary.

I've never talked too much about gameplay in video game reviews. For what its worth, the gameplay is a lot of fun. There's a pluthera of weapons you can use, spell like vigors your can use to facilitate combat.

I've heard amazing things about Elizabeth as your companion and she is really one of the best companions you'll ever have in a video game.

The secrets and mystery in this game are really just spectacular.

There's so much to say about this game and yet its incredibly hard to explain. Its even harder to explain this game without spoiling it. I'm wondering if I just need to do a separate post on the ending.

The one thing I will say about the ending of this game is that is kind of makes it hard for me to want to replay the game. I know there are a lot of things I missed and I know there's a lot to do with gameplay that makes this game fun to play through a second time. However, now that I know the secret, its a combination of the mystery being pulled out of it, and it just being tragic.

The selling point for me on this game was when they start playing with time and space, alternate dimensions and a lot of stuff that I've always wanted to see in video games but I've never seen it like this.

This review is turning out to be a lot shorter than I want it to be. All I can really say is that the game looks amazing, it plays amazingly, and the story is just down right amazing. Its a great combination of alternative histories, time travel science fiction, and classic adventure gaming. I think its too early to tell if the game will have a huge impact as one of my favorite games of all time, but I know the story has to be one of my favorite. Replay will come more from me wanting to relive that experience because honestly, Bioshock Infinite's story is just something that takes a lot out of you and its only made better when you look back and see that you experienced it.

The best way I can describe this game is likening it to a Christopher Nolan film. There's so many secrets and hidden puzzles throughout the game and the twist at the end will blow your mind.

The best example of this is like the movie Inception. This is not saying that the ending or anything in Bioshock Infinite was anything like Inception or its ending, but its similar in the fact that Inception was a movie that created its own universe, created its own facts and physics, some of them based in reality, some of them not, but created something just freaking brilliant out of it.

From that, the film, or in this case, the game is just that much more memorable and is very, VERY cerebral, especially with its manipulation of time and space. Even with saying that I feel like I've already revealed too much. Its just an experience that is very hard to explain, and even if I could find a way to explain it, I wouldn't really give it the justice that it deserves.

If you have an Xbox, Playstation, or a computer, buy Bioshock Infinite. Its definitely worth it and you will not regret the purchase.

That's really all I can say for now. I think when I think more about it I'll give my thoughts on the ending. But for now I want to know what you think about the game. Comment and Discuss below!

I'll leave you with this. The game has elements that put me in a sci fi mood like that of Doctor Who. Here's a fun crossover of Bioshock and Doctor Who. Enjoy!