Well, I said my next blog would be about the Halloween Party, but that will be my next entry. I actually got to go out with friends and watch a movie (for a change...), and it's been awhile since I've written a movie review on this blog. I went to see Crimson Peak, and let me tell you, it scratched every itch in my brain.
I love Gothic horror as a genre, and even though there are other themes, overall the movie is definitely Gothic horror. The mansion in the movie is perfect, complete with walls that ooze blood red clay. It's also set in the Victorian era, which for some reason is my favorite time period. There are elements of romance and mystery intermixed with ghostly thrills. Also, among other good actors/actresses there is Tom Hiddleston. (I'm quite a fan of Tom Hiddleston, and there are a few love scenes including one where he is almost nude. I was told later by my husband and my friends that I was wearing a stupid grin through most of the romance scenes and most of the movie in general. My husband would occasionally glance at me and laugh...)
I'm not saying this movie changed my life, or that it was high art, but it was a good movie if you like Gothic Horror. If you don't like that genre, you won't like the movie, but it's worth seeing if nothing more than for the elaborate sets, nice costumes, and the occasional jump scare. Also, the main character is a female writer struggling to get noticed in a time period where no one takes her seriously. For those of us who are female writers trying to be taken seriously, this is definitely something we can relate to. I like Guillermo del Toro, and once again he didn't disappoint me. Go see it on the big screen, because I'm not sure if you'll get the overall effect on a normal sized TV. Either way, I'll definitely be getting it on Bluray when it comes out. Beware though, this movie gets pretty gory.
I thought it would be nice to write up another movie review this week while the movie is fresh in my mind. For my birthday party, I went with my friends to Arizona steak house for a meal and then afterward went to see the movie "Rango." I didn't know what to expect from the film since I had only really seen one or two previews, but the reviews for it were good, and I like Johnny Depp. I must say, I was really impressed with this movie.
The general story is that of a captive lizard that has spent his life pretending to be other people and thinks of himself as an actor. He plays as many different personas, but all of them seem shallow. He realizes that it's because there are no conflicts in his narratives--and upon coming to this realization, his aquarium falls out of the back window of the car when the car swerves to try not to hit an armadillo. He's a chameleon that now has to survive the heat of the desert. Eventually, he does make it to a small town that is undergoing a water shortage. He decides to pretend to be a tough gunslinger and is appointed sheriff of the town. He soon realizes that there's more to the water shortage than it originally seemed, and he eventually has to quit pretending, and either leave the town to it's own devises, or try to become a true hero.
I was surprised at the dark overtones of this movie. Death seems to be a recurring theme throughout the narrative. The band keeps telling the audience that Rango is going to die. The armadillo from the beginning is actually flattened by the car, but somehow pulls itself together and moves on, and yet it becomes a spiritual guide. Rango becomes sheriff by accidentally killing a hawk. And, there's even a scene towards the end where Rango passes out from exhaustion and ends up going on a sort of spiritual journey. The movie definitely has the feel of a Western with those sort of dark overtones, and it's easy to lose yourself in the feel of it and to sort of forget that you're looking at a cast of animals.
The animation of this movie is also very good. It seems computer animated films are becoming better and better as the years go by. I think what impressed me most about this particular film was the textures of the animals used. The fur looked like fur, the dry scales of the rattlesnake looked like scales, and yet there were subtle things about each of the characters that gave them personality, like the line on the scales of the rattlesnake's mouth that looked almost like a thin mustache.
All of the acting was very good in this movie. Once again, Johnny Depp also proves himself to be a versatile actor. All of the voices seemed to fit the characters perfectly. There was lots of humor throughout the film that was delivered well by the actors, and subtle humor that a child definitely wouldn't pick up on. (I must say, it's hilarious to hear "Flight of the Valkyries" played on a banjo.)
My only real complaint about this movie is it is a little slow to start. The first quarter or so of the movie leaves you wondering, "What am I watching," and it does come across as a little boring. This is mostly due to the strange nature of the film. Still, the pace picks up quickly. I think I decided this film was excellent when Rango meets "The Spirit of the West." (Watch the movie, you'll love the reference.) My only other complaint is that the female lizard for some reason has hair. I know that's a small complaint, but it bugged me for some reason. I just kind of wanted to have her hat knocked off at some point so that we could see the hair was attached to the hat, but that's okay.
Overall, I highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes a good Western. It's funny, fun, and is definitely worth the money to see in the theater.
This is the HISHE rap from the makers of "How it Should Have Ended." This is about the original Tron movie and is also awesome.
Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some quarters in it...
Where to start? First of all, let me say that I owned Tron on the Beta machine. Yep, I was born in 1982 when the original Tron was made. So, the thought of a new Tron movie was nostalgic for me as I'm sure it was for a lot of people. Still, I never expected what we got...
The film was absolutely awesome. The storyline was interesting. The characters were good. (Though, some of my friends felt that the characters needed to be more developed. Still, I felt like they did a good enough job. The focus of the movie was action, and the characters were still very likable.) The effects were very cool, and above all, it had the feel of the original movie, only somehow even more awesome.
First off, let me say that I think critics judged this movie a bit too harshly. People who wanted to see this movie got exactly what they wanted. It was a continuation of the original Tron movie. It's assumed that people going to see this movie know about the original characters involved and know the general plot of the first movie. For those who don't, I suggest you get the movie "Tron" from Netflix and check it out before watching this film. Tron is also basically an action film for nerds, and critics tend to dislike action films and judge them harshly, the same way that they do horror films. Now, that being said, there are some very interesting things they did with this movie that separate it from the original.
I guess I should start with the new storyline. The basic storyline is that Flynn disappears unexpectedly one day while his child, Sam, is seven. Sam, is left behind, wondering what happened to his Father. He grows up as a bit of a rebel. While he owns most of the company that Flynn left behind, the board of directors really run the company and want to sell their software to make more of a profit. The movie starts with Sam sabotaging the company so that their new software is free to download, something his Father would have wanted. He never has gotten over the loss of his Father, and it shows in the fact he doesn't have many friends and is very reclusive, spending most of his efforts counteracting the board from his Father's company, yet not caring enough to take it over. When Alan gives him the message that his Father paged him, he goes to Flynn's old arcade, only to find a computer running. He accidentally activates the laser behind him, and is transported into the digital universe. He's rounded up as a rogue program and forced to participate in the games. When he's wounded by the program "Rinzler" he bleeds in the game world, proving him to be a "user." He's then taken to Clu, Flynn's program, and sentenced to death via the game grid. However, he is rescued by a program named "Quorra" and taken to his Father. He finds out he only has eight hours to escape from the game universe or he'll be stuck there forever like his Father.
The game grid is much more interesting than in the original movie. They added ramps to the light cycle game, and the ability to mess with gravity to the disk game. The sequences in the game grid seemed a lot more exciting. My only criticism is that I wish one of the other players had survived the light cycle game, but that was just because of nostalgia reasons regarding the first movie.
The concepts in this movie were a lot more abstract. There's mention of new life springing up from within the digital world, a sort of artificial intelligence that contained more wisdom than mankind could comprehend. There are also many allegories for religion which surprised me. Flynn was more like a God figure, and his program Clu was more of a Satan figure. Clu was trying to create a world of perfection, which became a world of tyranny as he started realizing that he and the real Flynn differed on ideas of the perfect utopia. Clu actually is a digital representation of Jeff Bridges (the actor playing Flynn), making him look young (it was a very impressive effect), while Flynn looks the age he's supposed to be in the movie, but he somehow seems more spiritual, sitting back and watching things unfold.
My one complaint with this movie was that I wanted more. I was disappointed with the ending because it is kind of open ended and there are a lot of unanswered questions. For one thing, though this is a small detail, I wanted to find out how Quorra met Zuse. I also am not sure what happened to Zuse. Though I think we're supposed to assume he is dead, but he seemed a bit too smart to have fallen for that trap. Also, what happens to Tron? What happened to the rest of the game world? And, though this is a bit of a philosoraptor question (if you don't know what philosoraptor is, google it), if a digital program goes into the real world, when it bleeds does it bleed pixels? What are the repercussions of something like that being in the real world? And, finally, what happened to Lora and her program Yori? They just kind of cut them out of the movie and she was an important character in the first film. I have to assume that Lora died in the real world and Yori was derezzed in the game world since neither of them are ever mentioned, but it would've been nice if they mentioned what happened to her so you don't have to just guess.
Still, those are my only complaints. This is an excellent movie and I highly recommend it to anyone who liked "Tron." This is just as good if not better.
Sorry this review is so late. I'm trying to keep up with this blog, but there's a lot to do.
I've got to say this movie took me by surprise. I heard it was good from some of my friends, but the hype made me doubt that it would be good at all. I've noticed a trend with movies lately; usually whenever a movie is the subject of many commercials, McDonald's happy meals, special offers, and Superbowl advertisements, it always leaves something to be desired. I'm pleased to say that this movie breaks that rule.
"How to Train Your Dragon" is about a young Viking named "Hiccup" who has always wanted to slay a dragon. Still, unlike the other Vikings, he's small and scrawny and whenever he tries to fight dragons, he fails miserably and it ends in disaster. His Father, is the leader of the clan and the two of them have very little in common. Then, one day, Hiccup manages to wound the most dangerous of all dragons, a Nightfury, and when he tracks it down, he finds he can't kill it. Instead he forges a strong friendship with the creature, learns to ride it, and it teaches him a great deal about all dragons. Once he realizes he doesn't want to slay dragons, his Father finally grants his original wish and makes him join the other Vikings his age to learn how to slay dragons. He uses what he's learned to "fake" his way through dragon training. Once his Father finds out, he uses the information to track down the dragon's nest. Hiccup and his friends must fight to save the dragons, the other Vikings, and stop the terrible creature that is about to be unleashed.
The humor in this movie is very good and some of it is geared towards gamers (which I liked very much). There were some scenes that actually made me laugh out loud, which was refreshing. The main character is sarcastic and smarmy, but he's also very likable. He's basically the underdog, and you really want him to succeed in what he wants to accomplish. There are many funny jokes that you might miss the first time around, such as the Viking that is missing an arm has a beer mug attachment and an ax attachment as well.
The dragons in the movie are very catlike. This seemed very appropriate because I've always thought if dragons didn't talk they would have more catlike features, being very aloof and a bit snobby. (Perhaps appraising you and finding you wanting, etc...) It's also funny because it makes the dragons slightly unpredictable, giving them attitude and personality, particularly "Toothless," Hiccup's dragon.
The special effects in this movie are very good. I like the textures on the dragons' scales. You can almost imagine what they would feel like. The animation is caricature with enough realism to lose yourself in the movie. Basically the animation was very cool.
I'm trying to think of complaints for this movie, but I really don't have any. I am kind of biased because I've always loved dragons and have always thought Vikings were cool so the thought of Vikings riding dragons warms my heart. It would be a concept worthy of an RPG. Who knows, maybe someone will run a game like that one day. Anyway, I enjoyed the movie and I highly suggest you see it. It may be too late for some theaters, but even if it is, at least rent it. It's definitely worth watching.
I have to start by saying I might be slightly biased in this review, mostly because I absolutely love the story of Alice in Wonderland and Tim Burton is one of my favorite directors. Before even going to the movie I knew the combination of the two was going to be something that was going to please me, or at least be something worth seeing. Since I was so excited about this movie, I was worried that it was going to disappoint me, but I'm glad to say that this movie exceeded my already high expectations. The only disappointment I had came at the end, and it was something I knew was going to happen anyway.
This movie was about Alice as a grown woman living in Victorian England. She doesn't fit in well and is always daydreaming, taking after her Father who took his company to great heights because he believed in the impossible. When she finds out that her life has been planned out in a way that she doesn't desire (she's about to be engaged to a man she doesn't like and is expected to live like a normal Victorian woman), she runs away, following the white rabbit that she's been seeing all day. When she gets back to Wonderland, she can't remember anyone and thinks it's a dream. All of the residents say that she's destined to slay the Jabberwocky, and they despirately need her help because the Red Queen has taken over all of Wonderland and is chopping off heads in her wake. (This story is typical of Tim Burton, showing how a "normal life" can be even worse than the one of extraordinary danger.)
The story was even darker than I expected. There's a particularly disturbing scene where Alice has to cross a moat by using severed heads as stepping stones. And apparently the red Queen has chopped off so many heads that the water on the inside is red with blood and heads look lifelessly up from it like hundreds of lily-pads. (I highly don't recommend letting young children see this movie.) Still, the dark storyline was something that I enjoyed because I thought that there was a parallel to Alice's misery and the state that Wonderland was in. There was great symbolism about Alice losing her "muchness" because she was conforming to society's standards and not being herself (everyone is accusing her of not being the "real" Alice), as well as how running from her problems didn't make them go away. By the end of the movie, Alice has learned she needs to face her problems and that she needs to stop trying to please others and live her own life. There was also a slight insinuation that the Hatter was possibly the right "guy" for Alice, someone half-mad like herself, but she needs to solve her problems and not run away from them, so of course, she can't stay. (Like I said, I was disappointed, but I knew it would happen, still I haven't spoiled the ending because there's a lot more to it.)
The casting was excellent. Everyone portrayed their characters well. I thought it was interesting the way that Depp portrayed the Mad Hatter, using a split personality to portray his madness. When the Hatter was discussing something serious or dark he would lapse into a Scottish accent for a moment and take a much darker tone. The voices for the others were also well placed. I can't think of one character that didn't fit the role.
The effects in this movie were very well done. There were enough digital animation and live action shots to make the characters seem realistic and the setting to be absolutely beautiful. I had a little trouble seeing some of the details of the shots though because the 3D made live action shots blurry. I still want to see the scene where she's falling down the rabbit hole without seeing it in 3D so that I can see the interesting objects that seem to be rushing towards her. Also, I must say, the costumes were exquisite. Everything was a feast for the eyes, and even if you don't like the thought of the story, at least see it for the costuming and effects. I liked how everything was bright colored in Wonderland in contrast to the drab whites of Victorian society.
As I said, overall this movie was a treasure worth seeing again and again. The symbolism was good. The story, while dark, was excellent, and even though some liberties were taken with the original work, the story was close enough that it felt like a continuation of the Alice in Wonderland novels. I did wonder what happened to the red queen though. The queen of Hearts isn't the red queen. I think she was made into the red queen for the sake of simplicity, and I can respect that. Anyway, see it and I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
I went to see the movie Daybreakers with my friends tonight. I was interested in this movie because it depicts vampires in a cyberpunk setting, granted not really late future only about ten years from now, but late enough to have corporations holding a great deal of sway and for there to be futuristic cars, etc. Since this is a very similar setting to my novels, I had high hopes for this movie.
The technology and setting was believable, with believable advances in technology for a time period not too distantly away from our own. The premise is that vampires have overpopulated the earth and now are running out of blood. There was a great deal of gratuitous blood and violence (this is a plus, since it is a vampire movie). There was also a good bit of emo subplots, where the main character doesn't drink human blood because of sympathy for the humans. There was also some subtle humor, and interesting topics explored, such as vampire animals, and liberal and conservative vampire parties trying to figure out the fate of the remaining humans. I thought the concept was interesting and it was definitely worth watching, but there were about four major problems I had with the movie.
Problem number one, when the vampire virus began people were changing into vampires because of the desire for immortality, by accident, etc., and anyone could be changed. Yes, many people would desire the change, but not all people. It just seems to me, if the population was becoming more vampire than human, someone would've regulated the spread of the disease by making laws so that people not to spread it anymore, possibly even killing off those that would continue to spread the disease. Vampires at this point are running everything and, knowing that they need a food supply, they would probably stop allowing people to spread the disease to just anyone. (Hence games like "Vampire the Masquerade" and other books that say that vampires that have their own societies are very elitist when it comes to who they change.) Vampires, being human-like, would know better than to hunt their only food source to the point of extinction. This would also be foolish since vampires can't breed.
Problem number two, the human farming in the movie wasn't very believable. The people are comatose in this matrix-like setting and it looks like they're being practically drained dry. This is bad science because the people wouldn't survive having that much blood drained away from them. It also looked like a pretty expensive set up, and if anything, corporations don't waste money. For some reason, they also haven't been able to come up with a blood substitute that they can drink. This makes no sense since we can clone blood now. Cloned blood is no different from regular blood, so by using bone marrow, vampires could technically clone blood to drink (but for whatever reason, in this movie they couldn't.) Also, it doesn't make sense for them to farm blood in this fashion. It doesn't allow the humans to mate and produce more humans for them to feed on. It also makes them into useless lumps of flesh. It seems to me, if humans were second class citizens in a vampire society, they would probably be treated sort of like immigrants to this country in the nineteen twenties (before unions), forced to work for a company as grunts, or literally farm, use a company store, and donate blood once a week. This would be more efficient, more cost effective, and better common sense. (This would also be bad for the humans, but at least they wouldn't be vegetative blood banks...)
Problem number three, in this movie, a group of humans and rogue vampires find a cure for vampirism. Instead of embracing this idea, the company doesn't seem to want it. For a city facing starvation because of a lack of HUMAN blood, it seems to me that it would be a good idea to create more HUMANS by changing vampires who no longer desire the disease back into humans. These new humans, once being vampires, would also probably be more willing to give blood for their starving brethren. Also, there's another problem going on, where starving vampires are turning into strange bat-like creatures. Their brains are basically rotting away. It also seems the company could use the cure on these creatures and use them for food as well, since instead they were destroying them outright. It's just a waste of resources, something a corporation would understand.
Problem number four, this movie did have an agenda. I hate it when a movie is just a mask for a political agenda, and this movie was definitely against big corporations. I think that's one of the reasons why the corporation acted so foolishly and decided to hunt the humans rather than using them, along with the other points I discussed above. The movie was becoming preachy by the end of it, showing how illogical and evil the corporation was, and how it was corrupted by it's own power. ::sigh:: Anyway, it seems to me that the corporation would've used the cure to further it's grip over the vampire society.
Other than these problems, the movie was good. I didn't like the ending because it leaves a lot of unanswered questions along with a few plot holes, but that isn't really a problem in and of itself, just kind of a letdown. The effects were very good, the action was exciting, and you do feel for most of the characters. I'd say, if you like vampire films, go and see Daybreakers, if nothing more for the cheap thrills of seeing it on the big screen. (They also have a couple of scenes where they use bats to scare you, and it won't quite be the same without the large screen and surround sound.)
Sorry this review is a little late, but I've been very busy. Still, since I did review "Where the Wild Things Are," I felt "Zombieland" deserved the same treatment, if not better treatment since I felt it was a better movie.
Zombieland was everything I hoped it would be and a little bit more. When I went to see it, I was suffering from movie letdown from "Where the Wild Things Are" and wanted to see something funny, predictable, and, of course, the gratuitous violence of zombies killed in many amusing ways. I wasn't disappointed.
First of all, the main character of the movie was perfect for me and the audience I was seeing it with. He was a stereotypical geek, uptight, a virgin, etc. He only survived the zombie apocalypse because he could run fast and had devised a set of anal retentive rules that he followed everywhere he went. Most of them were common sense movie logic rules, such as: "Cardio (that's right, do lots of cardiovascular exercise so you can run faster than the zombies, in fact, that was rule number one), "Look in the backseat," "buckle your safety belt", etc. There were thirty two of these rules. Throughout the movie, whenever he would do one of these things, the law would appear written somewhere funny in the background. The introduction of the movie was examples of people forgetting to do these things and hilarity ensued. There was even a cameo with Bill Murray playing himself. (This was golden because they poke fun at the fact Bill Murray Can make people laugh just by being himself.)
Still, there was more to the movie than just comedy. There was a little bit of romance and a lot of character development. The characters actually changed throughout the movie and even the main character broke many of his rules by the end of the movie, creating some plot development. It made you get into the plot of the movie for it's artistic merit instead of just as a funny zombie flick. That was something extra that I didn't realize I was going to get. Also, even though Zombieland was predictable in the Hollywood sort of way, it wasn't predictable entirely. There were some very amusing and enjoyable plot twists that surprised me. (Since I don't like spoilers in reviews, I won't give anything away, but I will say that the first meeting between the main character and the two girls took a very unexpected twist.)
I definitely recommend this movie to anyone who likes zombie flicks and comedies. If you don't get to see it in the theaters, at least rent it when it comes out. Also, for those of you that avoid zombie movies because of gore, oddly, for a zombie movie it was relatively non-gory. The worst part about it was the introduction where most of the zombies were coughing up black ooze and a woman is thrown from a car windshield. (This scrapes her face across the pavement, and that part actually did make me feel a little ill.) Still, for a zombie movie, it was a surprise. Even "Shaun of the Dead" was gorier.
Anyway, it was a good movie and a good night. I hope you enjoy "Zombieland" when you see it for yourself.
This will be the first of many movie reviews on the blog. After I saw "Where the Wild Things Are" I felt the need to say a little something about it. I'm also going to assume those that read this review have also read the book at some point or know what it's about enough that I don't have to worry about spoilers.
First of all, let me just say that I enjoyed the book. I remember the teacher of my kindergarten class reading this book to us and I really liked the wild things. They were monsters but they weren't scary monsters. The art was great and the story was fun. So, naturally when a movie came out for a book that I enjoyed from my childhood, I had an interest in seeing it. Still, it's a book that's only a few pages long, so I was also skeptical. Still, as I saw more and more previews for it, I decided that I really wanted to see it. It looked like it was going to be very good and I've always thought that real suits combined with digital effects are more convincing than just digital effects alone.
Even though this movie had good qualities, I feel that I wasted my money. The first half of the movie was good. The kid playing Max was perfect, the acting was good, and there was a darker tone to this movie that I really liked. Max is clearly depressed, feeling like his family is falling apart. His sister acts like she doesn't care about him, his Mother doesn't discipline him, and it's implied that she's divorced and dating. Still, the movie took a turn for the worse when, instead of going to bed without supper (like he does when his Mother punishes him in the book), Max decides to run away. He finds a boat and sails off, ending up on the island where the wild things are.
The wild things seem to represent the most dysfunctional family you could possibly have. Every one of them has a serious psychological disorder from anger management issues to schizophrenia. Naturally, their family was falling apart as well, so they make Max their king, hoping he'll bring the family back together again. (They actually take the crown and scepter from a pile of bones in their campsite, implying they've eaten their other kings, another dark twist that I enjoyed.)
Max makes things worse through his rule. He tries to bring them together, but it seems no matter what he does, the issues they have run too deeply to be brought together by something a child would do. So, one night, Carol, Max's best friend out of the wild things, decides he's going to eat Max and tear down everything they've been working on together. Max escapes by hiding (long story short) and the next day decides to sail away from the island. The wild things are sad to see him leave, but they wave goodbye on the shoreline. Still, what bothered me, was nothing was resolved. They were all just the same dysfunctional family but you didn't know if Carol and his girlfriend got back together or decided to split forever. There was such a bad fight the previous night that one of the wild things had lost an arm, and it was clear things were still worse than they were before.
In essence, Max learned nothing. He had problems at home and ran away, then had problems with the wild things and ran away from them as well. It isn't implied that he misses his mother like he does in the book, it's implied he's running for his life so he doesn't get eaten.
Still, the worst part was yet to come. You assume that the entire scenario of the wild things takes place in his mind. However, when he gets home, while he does seem happy to see his Mother he doesn't apologize, and he doesn't get punished. Not only is the soup still hot, but he gets a large slice of chocolate cake and a tall glass of milk. The point behind the original story was that the kid was punished, imagined himself in a different place, and then was grateful for what he had when he "got back." He didn't apologize, but he didn't need to apologize because he had already been punished. In this story, the moral seems to be "run away from your problems and everything will be okay." He didn't learn anything, the Mother didn't learn anything, and all of the conflicts shown in the movie were never confronted. The end.
I would recommend renting this movie from Netflix when it comes out, but don't waste your money, and definitely don't show it to your children. It's worth seeing because of the special effects and the dark atmosphere created by the movie. However, be prepared for a letdown in the end when nothing is resolved. It might just be my opinion, but I believe movies should have a conclusion. Just a thought.
I was so disappointed that I had to see a movie last weekend to make up for it. I saw Zombieland, which I'm pleased to say was everything I hoped it would be and a little bit more. I'll write a review on it in a few days.
Posts
