Before I dive into a full weekend of studying for my exams, I might as well get another opinion piece out (long time since I did one). So, recently (past 5 or so years) some individuals have expressed concern that adults are becoming enamored with stuff designed primarily for children. Perhaps the one in most recent memory was Ruth Graham, whose piece in Slate "Against YA" stated, in an example of Slate's very high standard of journalism (okay, to be fair, they have Phil Plait, so that's one thing worth reading on that website), that adults should be "ashamed" if they read YA novels, because of their general lack of sophistication compared to adult literature. Later, New York Times film critic AO Scott used Graham's article, and echoed such sentiments in his article "The Death of Adulthood in American Culture", but extending it to general culture, stating that adults being interested in things meant for younger audiences is an indication of the decline of adulthood in America. Finally, Alan Moore (who, for full disclosure, is one of my all-time favorite writers, and whose influence on the comic medium matches those of Eisner and Kirby) said, as he continues to shun society in general, that the current fixation on superheroes shows that culture has stagnated, and he fears that society will not produce any more culture, because people are more obsessed with recreating their childhoods. Through my readings of these statements, I have ruminated on the subject, and came to a conclusion, that in hindsight, I should've had at the very beginning: You should not judged for your tastes in anything, and the civilization is not going to come to an end just because people happen to enjoy children's stuff.
Now that I've stated my thesis, I want to go into this idea of "intellectually stunting" and why no one should care. To be fair, both Smith and Graham did constantly state that people should be allowed to read what they want. However, Graham went on to say that adults should "know better," and implored adults to read more sophisticated literature. I'm not objecting to her saying adults shouldn't read YA books, because that's not what she's arguing. No, she's arguing that people shouldn't only read YA novels, because that would intellectual stunt their development. I could go on an eloquent rant, filled with multi-syllable words and the like, but I'll just put it bluntly: 1.) Reading or consuming any one genre is stunting growth. Part of the idea of intellectual growth is expanding your horizon. One could argue that reading only high literature is a form of intellectual stunting, because you can't get the perspective of more popular forms of media. The whole point of "intellectualism", however nebulous a term that may be, is going and learning many different disciplines of knowledge. But, and this is my main point. If a person decides to only read YA novel, what business is it of hers? If you only want to read a certain genre (the idea of "young adult" as a genre is up for debate, but that's neither here or now), you should not be judged. You should be allowed to like whatever you want. And that's not to say, at time, I too bemoan the fact that the endless slew of indistinguishable "Hunger Games" rip-offs seem to dominate cinematic trends at the moment. But, I don't actively judge people for not going to see more interesting movie (feel free to point out instances where I do, because my fickle-mindedness goes hand and hand with poor short-term memory.) I am also saying read what you'd like. However, I'm adding the caveat "and you shouldn't be judged." People should generally be allowed to have their own taste, and enjoy their own preferences without being mocked. It is none of my business what you like to read, or watch. Like what you like, I might not like it, but I'm not going to disparage your love of something. I enjoy many childish things, and there is old adage about people in greenhouses and stones.
I'm certainly not going to imply that liking something will lead to Armageddon. Yeah, they don't say, but that's the logical extension of it. Especially Smith's piece. It implies that adulthood as defined.... in some arbitrary way he never bothers to explain, is on the decline, and that people might go into a "perpetual childhood." Moore's statement is also an example, stating that people are no longer interested in making new culture, and cultural decay was a major theme in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen volume III (whose promise was squandered by incomprehensible episodes involving drugs and occultism, by the way). xkcd did a good job with this: https://xkcd.com/603/ . And it's right. This sort of moralizing is similar to people who complain about certain societal attitudes leading to societal decline. Ladies and gentlemen, The Epic of Gilgamesh, the earliest recorded piece of literature, dates back to 2100 BC. The fact that the Avengers is one of the highest grossing films, is not going to cause culture to stagnate or decline or become less sophisticated. Human culture is too fickle for that. We still have original, mature being produced, and still getting some attention, if not most of it. We are not, nor never (unless nuclear war breaks out, or a meteor hits) going to be in societal decline anytime soon.
The best encapsulation of adults liking childhood things is by CS Lewis:
"
Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
Whilst I don't agree with Lewis on a number of issues, I can agree with this sentiment. Adulthood means that you have reached the point in your development, where you are generally rational enough from experience or learning to make your own decisions about what you want out of life and what you enjoy. Yes, you have a number of responsibilities, indisputably, but you are at the point in live where what you like is what you like. And you shouldn't be ashamed of liking stuff meant for kids, if you enjoy it as well.
Live Long, and Prosper. (I know this has nothing to do with Star Trek. I just needed a good closer)
This was originally going to be a review of Fred Hoyle's The Black Cloud, but my workload has prevented me from finishing that work at the moment. When I do finish, I will make sure to post a review of it. For now, here is a review of a book I read in one go a few months ago. When you think of North Korea, you most likely think of the lunacy and caricature of its ruler, Kim Jong Un. However, beyond this, there is still a nation of people suffering under a complete totalitarian regime, which controls every aspect of their lives, with little hope of escape. Beyond the pompous absurdity, there is a real horror that presides over the regime. And much of that is the result of the ruling Kim dynasty. Their grip on the entire country is so absolute, it bends to their will completely. Believe it or not, though, there was a time, when the leadership was interested in creating a good image of itself (As opposed to today, where the Dear Leader does what he wants), and the best way to do that was film. Exporting quality films could show that North Korea wasn't nearly as bad as people assumed. However, the North Korea "film industry" was a mere machine to produce propaganda films venerating the Kims and the whole Jurche ideology, with very little artistic value. Kim Jong-Il, the son of the original Dear Leader, Kim Sung-Il, and a huge movie buff, wanted to change that. He wanted to show that North Korea could make great, popular films, and those would help popularize North Korea among the world community. And he had a plan to do just that. A Kim Jong-Il Production, written by journalist Paul Fischer, details the story of a filmmaker and his actress wife, who are both kidnapped by Kim, and forced to serve as the filmmakers of the Hermit Kingdom. And we will take a look at it now.
(Note: I do not know Korean or how the Korean name system works, so I might refer to some people incorrectly. My sincerest apologizes if I do.)
Shin Sang-Ok was one of the most acclaimed directors in South Korea during the 50's and 60's. His wife, Choi Eun-hee was one of the biggest stars in the country. The two of them had a whirlwind romance, despite Choi being married, and they were one of the most famous couples in South Korea, being personal friends of the South Korean dictator Park Chung hee, and his wife, Yuk Young-soo, among other. Shin was overly dedicated to the art of filmmaking, and he and Choi had their own studio. Choi also ran her own acting school to teach a new generation of South Korean Thespians. However, this was soon to end, as Shin had an affair with another actress, whom he impregnated. Choi divorced him, and he also ran afoul with government censorship, which ultimately led to a shutdown of his studio in 1978. Meanwhile, Choi struggled to maintain her school, which led to her accepting an offer from Hong Kong, which would have helped her school. And she ends up getting kidnapped. After a long boat ride, she eventually finds herself in North Korea (a country she had fled during the Korean War), and has a face to face encounter with Kim Jong-Il, the son of the founder, Kim Sung-Il, who keeps her as a prisoner. Meanwhile Shin investigates his ex-wife disappearance in Hong Kong, but is himself captured. He is tossed around the infamous North Korean prison system, kept alive for mysterious reasons. Finally, in 1982, he is reunited with his wife, and Kim Jong-Il himself comes to explain their presence. He wants to project the glory of North Korea to the entire world, but he needs some actual good films, not just state propaganda. He hopes to utilize the talents of Shin in order to make those films. Kim makes Shin a cultural official, and he and Choi once again make movies. Of the films made in North Korea, the most notable and well-known is 1985's Pulgasari, a pseudo-Kaiju film, revolving around a mythical creature who is called upon to kill an oppressive warlord by a village under his rule....only to himself oppress the villagers himself. (Subtle....)Despite being directly under the thumb of the son of the Dear Leader, the two still plot their escape. They eventually carry it out while in a film festival in Vienna. They slip past their North Korean detail, and drive to the American embassy, where they ask for asylum. While Jong continued to rise through the ranks to eventually succeed his father following the latter's death in 1994, Shin and Choi spend time in the US, getting reacquainted with some of their South Korean friends and family (including their children). Shin tried to start a career in Hollywood, directing, among other things, the third 3 Ninjas film (remember that franchise? Yeah, me neither), and a Romanian co-produced remake of Pulgasari called The Legend of Galgameth, before finally coming back to South Korea to dispel rumors that they had willingly defected to the North. They remained there, until Shin's death in 2006.Choi Eun-Hee is still alive, and living in Seoul, where the book concludes.
This book was very well researched. The writer derived most of his information from Shin and Choi Korean language memoirs, but, as he details in the afterword, Fischer went out of his way to really verify the story, and make sure that every word is accurate, at least to the extent that he could. And frankly, the story is quite hard to believe at points. The North Korean state really is as absurd and extreme as the news often states. However, there were many horrors that many don't know about. Shin and Choi's kidnapping? That was actually very common, and not just from South Korea. They would kidnap people from Japan, Hong Kong, and even as far away as Jordan. They didn't target them, but just kidnap them at random, and try to train them as spies. They also had this massive drug dealing empire to help fund the government. North Korea also had an extensive prison system, where the tiniest offences could lead to not only you, but your entire extended family. It really does hammer in the horror of the regime. Equally disturbing and absurd is the life of Kim Jong-Il, who would often hold absurd and bizarre parties, but still had enough power to force people to play along. Among the examples of his power was killing an actress whom he had an affair with, after she eloped with someone else and tricking the actor who played Godzilla (the guy in the suit) to star in Pulgasari. An entire mythology has been concocted about the Kims, ensuring that the population is under their complete influence, in an almost religious fashion....
As this is a non-fiction work, I don't really want to criticize the story, as it likely happened as described. It's hard to criticize reality, after all. That said, the writer could have added more detail to actual films that Shin made in North Korea. Pulgasari is covered in some detail, as it was the most well known (and worst) film out of this period, given it was smuggled to Japan shortly after its release. However, more detail on the rest of the films would have given a better impression of Shin's North Korean films. He also never puts up any other accounts beside Shin and Choi's. It would've been nice to see the perspective of the two from others who knew them, even if most of them are deceased at this point, and it's hard to find such perspective.
I suppose this book has some new found relevance in the world, with the whole controversy with The Interview and the Sony Hacking last year. Reading such an account does provide a nice look into the North Korean government's feelings on the film medium itself, and why a harmless James Franco-Seth Rogan comedy could send them in such a frenzied state. They realized that film is a powerful medium, which has the ability to influence the way people view reality. Really, that's something most people realize now. So, if you want to read an extraordinary account of surviving in the Hermit Kingdom, or just want something to past the team, I suggest giving it a read.
Ah, another year has passed. This year, we saw the first photos of Pluto, found evidence of water on Mars, the Dawn spacecraft orbited Ceres, and also the atmosphere of Mars is slowly being depleted (I'm studying Astronomy in college, can you tell?) We saw same-sex marriage being legalized in the United States and Ireland, the deaths of several longtime actors and singers. and what is sure to be a very interesting US Presidential election. (The common complaint that it isn't 2016 is hence no longer valid). Meanwhile, the world suffered through the Paris attacks, the earthquakes in Nepal and the floods in Chennai, the collapse of martial rule in Burma, and the continuing scourge of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East and North Africa. But that's not what you're here for. No, you're here, (maybe) for the movies. 2015 proved very rewarding in film. Many notable films were released this year, some of which were able to become very large cultural phenomena. Of course, there were duds, but there are a great many good films to balance it out. And we're going to take a look at some of them. Once again, these are restricted to film released between January 1st and December 31st, 2015, that I watched in that particular time period. So, if it's off the list, I didn't see it. The list works, such that the first movie you see is the worst I saw all year, and as you go down, they improve, until the final entry, which is the best film. Now with all that out of the way, let's dive right in, folks:
Yeah, I was way too kind to this film in my initial review. Like I said in the spoiler review, the more I thought about this film, the more I grew to despise it. My distaste was not derived from some narrow-minded irritation at the film's message. I sympathize with its message. However, it ultimately lacked any substance to really back that message well. In the end, it ultimately lacked the narrative substance to really make the message stick, without sounding preachy (which it did, a lot). Speaking of narrative, the story and tone are both messy and cluttered, which makes the message even more apparent to rise above the mess, ruining any subtly. It's a real shame this had to be so bad, because I wanted to like this. I was massively hyped for this film, and it just came up short. So much potential to be a great family film, which promotes science and innovation, with Brad Bird directing. And the product was just... That's why it's my worst. It had all the potential to be great, and it just wasn't.
On the other hand, this film was not disappointing in the slightest. It gave me exactly what I was thought I was going to get. Aside from the gimmick of filming entirely from the perspective of a computer, this is ultimately a typical cliched slasher horror film, where a bunch of annoying teens are offed one by one. The computer screen technique is initially moderately interesting, (and by far the only thing people are talking about), but it ultimately fails to save the lack of real scares this supposed "horror" film actually has, and the sheer annoyance of the characters. The damn name sounds like a hashtag should be put before it. I probably should have stuck with my gut feeling about this.
Aside from some legitimate good moments in the 60's, and Paul Dano's performance as Brian Wilson, and despite the ramblings of the filmmakers, there is nothing distinguishable about this musical biopic. It is pretentious. Very pretentious, and it has John Cusack. As John Cusack trying to play Brian Wilson. (Why do they keep miscasting John Cusack as historical figures). Overall, this film biggest sin is, despite its very impressive cast, being largely unmemorable. It isn't unwatchable, and the story of Brian Wilson making Pet Sounds and later suffering from drug addiction is very fascinating in its own right. It just doesn't come through in this film.
Another film that is greatly pretentious. And also trying way too hard not to be "another teen film." This is an adaptation of a book, and they want you to know that, because it is separated into "parts", which are usually (and should only) be seen on the DVD menu scene selection. I haven't read the book, and after watching the film, nothing in it makes want to go and actually read it. The story is not really that original , despite the at times annoying narration insisting it is. Once again, there are several legitimately good moments that save this film from being totally dull. However, it, to be frank, doesn't warrant much interest. Also, the title. You know, if the title of your work sounds slightly absurd, Cross It Out, and Think of Another One.
I somewhat liked this film the first time I saw it. Now that a few months have passed, I've really thought it through, and realized that this didn't work well. The problem, I think, is the film struggles to really pinpoint its characterization of Christian Longo. I understand they are trying to make his character ambiguous, but the character changes from scene to scene. This makes his characterization inconsistent, and ruins the idea that he is a complex, ambiguous figure. Of course, he is, if you can't keep the character straight. I didn't know the real story that well before watching, and after watching, I know precisely the same amount about it. What keeps this off the bad list is James Franco's and Jonah Hill's performances, and the fact I saw this on a plane, meaning I didn't actively give money to see it.
These two are on the list, because I disliked them for the exact same reason. Technically competent action films, which ultimately failed to be really interesting in their own right. In The Man from UNCLE, while the action and acting were decent, it ultimately underutilized its 60's, Cold War setting, and the fact an American and Soviet agent had to work together. Both would have made the film infinitely more interesting. Instead, it is simply a generic action film, with a somewhat interesting setting. I hadn't seen the original show, but I know it has a reputation for heavy camp, and aside from some silly moments, it fails to really use any campiness, to make the film more enjoyable. It was just a (perfectly fine) generic action film. The same with Avengers: Age of Ultron. Again, perfectly fine movie. It's just.... generic. Yes, all the classic Marvel humor and the epic action was there. However, it simply doesn't have much else. Especially since the original had all this film does, but does it much, much better. The original manages to create a great superhero action film. I like Superhero films, so I'll see Captain America: Civil War, but they do need to space them out more, that way superhero fatigue doesn't start to kick in.
Why was this in two parts? Oh, yeah, that's right. Money. Seriously, this film dragged on and on for what seemed like an eternity. That's what happens when you adapt half of a book. You have to pad it out. That's primarily why this is so low on the list. It's length, and the lack of any real action for most of that length ultimately ruined the whole film for me. While Jennifer Lawrence and the others gave a good performance, it struggled to really maintain interest, until the end, where it finally picked up. At the very least, it was a good conclusion to the franchise.
Like I said in the review, I liked this better than Jurassic Park III. Of all four films, the third one is the worst, mostly because it seems like a retread of both the previous films, but with all the tension taken out. This film was at least original. It took this franchise in a new and different direction. Hell, this could have been a sequel Crichton himself could've written. It also had some good acting, and some good practical effects, homaging the first film. But that's the problem. It focuses a lot on homaging the first film, and the film ultimately suffers, because it can't really stand on its own, without being close to the original. That, and a villain Sue are the two biggest problems with this film.
This is the part where I stop complaining. In a half a decade of various interpretations of the Sherlock Holmes character, this is a fresh and interesting look into the character. How his persona had been exaggerated in the Watson stories, much as sometimes real figures are exaggerated. Ian McKellan gives a great performance as the aging Holmes, whose skills have declined with his age. Mr. Holmes is also a nice stand alone story about a detective who is trying to remember his last case, despite early Alzheimers, and also befriends a young boy, and how that boy helps him remember. If you have any interest in the classic Conan Doyle character, I say give this a watch.
Once again, I put these two in the same slot for the same reason. Surprisingly good kids film. I had somewhat low expectations for both of these films, but they honestly surprised me. For Minions, I was not a big fan of the Minions in Despicable Me, and I never though they could hold theirown movie. However, there were some pretty good jokes and gags, utilizing their sixties setting well, It was surprising how subtle some of these gags were. For the Good Dinosuar, I had low expectations based on the trailer, but the actual film, despite having basically the same plot as Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, was actually a decent children's hero's journey, with some fascinating characters along their journey. However, it still wasn't Pixar's best, not even this year....
Once again, not much to say on this. It captures the spirit of the old cartoon shorts, and does justice to the Shulz strip (not surprising, given his son and grandson wrote and produced the film), which is shown in how Charlie Brown is a loveable loser. And there is enough Snoopy in this film to entertain everyone. And there is never too much Snoopy in anything.
I was too harsh on this film in my review. Not even on the whole film, just the third act. It's not bad, in any way. It's good as a conclusion. It's just the third act in the book was less rushed, and took more time. The book had a good ending, and I did want to see that on film. While the film's ending is fine, the book had a sweet ending, which still tied all the loose ends to some extent. You know what, I should probably shut up about the book. This is still a decent teen film, with a decent cast, which would satisfy any John Green fan, or anyone wanting to watch a film on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
The one thing that I was told going into this was that this was a very disappointing film, especially in regards to Skyfall. I agree, but I still felt this held up on its own. All the things that made Skyfall good were in Spectre (except for Spectre's song, which I thought was dull and uninspired). I finally like Daniel Craig in this role, and Christoph Waltz was a good villain (won't spoil who he turns out to be). Overall, I thought this was decent, until the end. The ending sucked. I won't spoil it, but it really doesn't make much sense. Not the villain's scheme, nor Bond's actions. Still, I can't in good conscience call this bad.
Of the two movies that came out this year based of 60's spy shows, this was the better one. Despite not having a tense moment of Tom Cruise moving off the highest tower in the world, it still had some nice tense action scenes, and a gripping plot, which sees the IMF disbanded, and Tom Cruise going rogue to find the Syndicate. Yeah, nothing deep, but it was enjoyable to watch, despite this being the 5th in this franchise. This has proved to be a very durable franchise. Hopefully, this franchise can continue to be good.
A fascinating look into the life of chess champion Bobby Fischer. I knew the real story somewhat well, but this gave more insight into the man. His intense preoccupation with the game of chess, his various difficult relationships, and especially his severe paranoia and antisemitism. Of course, there are intense sequence of chess playing, but it is more unique in that you have Fischer actually contemplating the moves in a heavily schizophrenic manner. It also had some nice scenes with Liev Schreiber as Fischer's rival, Boris Spassky, who shows himself to be very different than Fischer, but has the same fundamental reverence for the game of chess. The final scene was very well done, as one of the most famous chess matches of all time is depicted. I remember after leaving, my mother mentioned that she remembered that particular game from back in 1972, and how it was so stunning, which they portray well in the film.
The one thing that shocked me about this film was its intensity. Not just in the portrayal of slow frostbite deaths, but in the filming of Everest itself. It really emphasizes the height of Everest, and the dangers of climbing it. It was visceral, so much so that I was slightly sick after watching it, because Everest was shown so... realistically. It also didn't pull any punches with its portrayal of a real life incident. Some of the characters that we've followed, including one with a pregnant wife, actually die, as they did in real life. It was the most intense experience I had at the cinemas this entire year.
Now, this was the better Marvel movie this year. I think people gave this movie more crap then it deserved. Is it a generic backstory? Yeah, but this isn't a well known character amongst the Marvel gang, so people may need it. It's still a good story. I think the strongest part of this film were the effects of the small Ant-Man. I have an affinity for this style (I saw Honey, I Shrunk the Kids as a child, after all). and they created a very interesting world, where the very minute things in the environment, become the most useful tools for Ant-Man to utilize. This is a good way to use the environment, and a great introduction into the world the character inhabits. Other than that, it is funny, and the cast is good. The villain having the same power as the hero is starting to get old, but that's only at the very end, and it doesn't really affect anything in the film proper.
The second biopic starring Freaks and Geeks alumni (Really good year for them, by the way). This was the good one. While sometimes all talk, no show, and a bit slow at times, this is a very fascinating look into the nature of writing, friendship, fame, and jealousy. Jason Segel gives an excellent performance as David Wallace, who seems very normal, but is actually very insecure about his newly found fame, and Jesse Eisenberg as David(...) Lipsky portrays someone who wants that fame and respect, but doesn't show it. Their budding friendship and companionship, and the conversations which result, is the absolute highlight of this. Once again, knew little about the real story behind this, but this actually made me interested in that real story (it seems accurate, but Wallace's estate has denounced the film, so who knows), and maybe one day, reading Infinite Jest.
An hilarious look into a group of men who predicted the financial crisis of 2008, and decided to profit off it. While some of the jargon they used in the film was indecipherable to someone of little financial training such as myself, it manages to explain most of it very well (through the use of funny celebrity cameos). It really does illustrate the enormity of the mortgage crisis, and its mishandling by the big banks, and the ultimate consequences of it. It's a no-win situation. If our protagonists are wrong, they lose their reputation and their money. If they're right, the world economy collaspes. Actually, now that I write that down, the former actually doesn't seem that bad.
Yep, you probably expected this one up here, given the glowing recommendation I gave it early in the year. An enjoyable rump, which, rather than use brutally realistic fighting, instead uses fantastic and absurd violence to make this an excellent homage to the early Bond films. Colin Firth and Samuel L. Jackson both give great, memorable performances, and it is just damn exciting. The success of this film shows that a little absurdity in your action film could go a long way. Not much else I could say, that I already haven't. Just a fun, really good film. I hear they're making a sequel to this, and you can guarentee that I will be first in line to watch it.
I told most people I was going to see this in January. Because I thought that all the tickets were unavailable. Well, I actually looked, and found them, so....yeah, I was able to watch it shortly after its premiere. A worthy addition to the franchise, and a good starting point for non-fans, this proved that sometimes hype is justified. It was able to respect the original trilogy, while also trying to be original and fresh. Abrams captures what made Star Wars great, and managed to replicate, without feeling overly derivative or straying too far from that original premise (something Lucas himself failed to understand a decade ago.) With this film as the staring point of a new trilogy and franchise, I feel that Disney is making the right decisions in this case, and that the franchise will be "reawakened" (har har). But, you probably already knew that (and probably have tickets to see it again).
While this may not be del Toro's best work, it still very much still has his touch on it. Good characters, good story, great atmosphere. His presence and direction makes most of his films intensely watchable. While not big and epic like Pacific Rim, it still has that touch of passion. And it shows. Usually, I don't go for gothic period pieces, but this drew me in with an excellent mystery, which revealed more and more creepy and disgusting layers. This is a good ghost story, for people (like me) who aren't overly fond of ghost stories. However, it doesn't have many scares. Because it's not a horror film. It is a classic paranormal romantic drama, and it does that beautifully.
Now this is a horror film. A great horror film. One I watched purely on a whim. And it scared the hell out of me. Seriously, it is very creepy, very skin crawling. It doesn't use cheap jumpscares or excessive gore. No, the monster in this just takes the form of a human and walks very slowly towards its victim. It sounds somewhat dumb on paper, but the film is very well paced, and shot, which allows the tension to build appropriately as "It" approaches our heroine. It is so chillingly effective. It reminds of John Carpenter horror films, which are always very good. I was nervous the whole film, because the way "It" slowly approaches. It's the same thing that makes a Romero zombie work. They aren't monsters that lie in closets, waiting to jump out. They just walk slowly towards their victims, which actually makes them scarier, because they are single-minded, and seemingly inescapable. Some people said this was a metaphor for STDs or fear of sex. I disagree: This film is not about sex. Okay, it kind of is, but it is more about adulthood, and the fears that go along with that transition. It is very scary to become an adult, and that slowly creeping fear is very much represented, in a very scary matter. Months after I had watched this film, I still had trouble sleeping because I keep expecting "It" to come out. That is how much this film stuck with me. Like I said, it is bound to become a modern classic.
This was amazing. I don't know what else to say. This was a great adaptation of a great book. Drew Goddard managed to faithfully adapt the source material without being too dogmatic or too liberal. Just the right amount for a filmed adaptation to work. Matt Damon is incredible, funny, but still fearful and scientific. The rest of the cast is great too. Mars looks incredible. Almost like it came directly from the Curiosity or Pathfinder feed. The direction of Ridley Scott is fantastic, showing he can still direct. While it did have a lot of jokes, it still emphasized the enormity of Mark Watney's situation. This struck a perfect balance, With overly serious dramas flooding the market, a little humor is needed from time to time, and this movie knew how to adapt the irreverent tone of the book well. It also makes a great promotion of science, with the situation largely resolved through Mark Watney's ingenuity, and the ingenuity of Earth scientists to get him back. It also used very good scientific accuracy, as per the help NASA gave it. This film was so good, I watched it twice, and even though the second time I needed to go to the bathroom, I still sat, and watched the conclusion, that's how good it was. I can't recommend this film enough. Go, find a DVD or Blu-Ray copy, and watch it now.
I don't know how exactly to convey how well this film works. It just works, so unbelievably well. Sure, the concept isn't exactly original, but it's approach is very original and very intelligent. In years to come, this will probably be taught in psychology classes, because it illustrates the concepts of emotions and their effects very creatively. It really is one of Pixar's more cerebral, high concept films. It has all the Pixar hallmarks, great animation, memorable characters, and very striking emotional moments. (the marketing probably gave the latter away to you.) The casting was nothing short of perfect, including enthusiastic Amy Poehler as Joy, somewhat morose Phyllis Smith as Sadness (both from NBC comedies, by the way), and especially, Lewis Black as Anger. It had great jokes, great writing, and a fantastic message. One that isn't seen much not just in kids films, but really in some adult films. What really stood out is the sheer intelligence of the script, one which wasn't afraid to take certain risks, and treat its audience with a certain degree of intelligence. This very much shows that, despite recent duds from studio, Pixar can still make great films. And this will certainly be remembered as one of their classics.
--------------------
Well, that's my list for the year. Thanks you all for reading, and I hope to keep entertaining you into this new year, and many more to come. Happy New Year, folks. Here's a little familiar song:
It's time once again to take a look at Pokemon movies through the years. This year, we deal with the Advanced Generation, the generation of Ruby and Sapphire. This was after the spike in popularity Pokemon had in the late 90's. This was also the time, when the mythology of Pokemon was retooled to extend the world beyond the borders of "two creatures fighting each other." And this involved the soft reboot. New region away from Kanto-Johto, new weird Pokemon, new mechanics. But, the business of making the anime, and the Pokemon movies continued, with intrepid Ash Ketchum as the protagonist. So, let's take a look.
While travelling in the Hoenn region, Ash and his friends, Brock, May, and Max come across a carnival celebrating the arrival of the Millenium Comet, which, as the name implies, comes every one thousand years, . They enjoy the sites and sounds of the carnival, but find particular enjoyment in the magic act of a magician named Butler, and his lovely assistant, Diane. They hold a mysterious crystal, whose voice cries out to Max to come to him. This prompts Max to come on stage, and meet Butler, who incorporates Ash and Max into his act. After a disguised Team Rocket tries to kidnap Pikachu, and Butler is able to subdue them, Max asks about the crystal. We learn the crystal is actually the legendary Pokemon Jirachi, who can only be awakened every millennium, in the presence of a best friend chosen by destiny (and I realize how odd that just sounded.) Anyway, sure enough, Jirachi hatches from the crystal, and Max bonds with it. However, then, an Absol ( a Pokemon well known for coming before disasters, which the anime exploited extensively) comes, and attacks the group. Shortly after, May find Butler secretly bringing Jirachi to a strange device. We flash back to Butler presenting that same device to the nefarious Team Magma, in hopes of resurrecting Groudon, who will extend the land. However, the device fails, and Butler is humiliated. Back in the present, the device explodes again, and Max saves Jirachi. However, Butler then sends his Pokemon to attack Max and the group. However, Diane is able to save them. She reveals that Butler wants revenge on Team Magma for denying his genius. They intend to go to Jirachi's home in Fiorna, while Butler continues his pursuit. Can they get Jirachi to his homeland, before Butler is able to harness his power.
I'm just going to spoil the ending a little just to describe the best thing about this film. The fake Groudon at the very end looks incredible. The design looks great, a blobish sort of entity which vaguely resembles a Groudon, but also the fact that it literally feed off the energy of life and the Earth. That was a great concept for a villain. It is easily the highlight of the film. Also, the fact that normal, non-Legendary Pokemon actually help the protagonists was also a nice touch. The occasional use of 3-D was seamless.
The relationship between Max and Jirachi, while occasionally heartwarming, is not very well developed. It's fine, but it really doesn't hit the emotional nerve that the film wants it to. So, it really isn't effective. Also, the Team Magma connection with Butler really doesn't make sense. If he believed in their message, why does he want revenge for them scorning him. Perhaps it was just a hurt ego, but it doesn't make much sense in the context of the film.
I can't say much about this. It is very much a meh film. Not very bad, but not incredibly good. It's worth seeing if only for the fake Groudon, for it really is the most interesting part of the film. Otherwise, unless you want a complete run of all the Pokemon films, skip this.
You know what, I don't need to write an introduction. You all know about this, or have at least heard of it. So, yeah, let's jump right in.
7th in the film series created by George Lucas, The Force Awakens is set long ago in a galaxy far, far away.( To be exact, 30 years following the end of Return of the Jedi). However, things are far from great. After the fall of the Empire, a new government, the First Order, has essentially taken its place. It is lead by Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis), who uses Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) and General Hux (Domhnall Gleeson ) as enforcers. Princess (or General) Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) now leads the resistance against the First Order, backed by the now restored Republic. However, they are losing. Not helping is the absence of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), the last Jedi, who has now disappeared, and no one knows where he is. However, a daring pilot named Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) is able to gain a map to his location through a village elder (Max von Syndow) on the planet Jakku, which he entrusts to his loyal robot BB-8. When Dameron is captured, BB-8 rolls around the desert, until he encounters a scavanger named Rey (Daisy Ridley), who takes it under her care. Meanwhile, after Ren interrogates Dameron, the latter is rescued by Stormtrooper FN8.... You know what, I can't remember the exact numbering, so I'll just call him what the film calls him, Fin ( John Boyega), who has decided to escape the First Order. Together, Poe and Fin escape using a TIE fighter, but crash land on Jakku. There, Poe is presumably killed, and Fin is forced to look for BB-8, who has the map with him. He eventually finds the Droid he was looking for, along with Rey. However, the First Order seizes upon the Jakku junk yard, and they are forced to flee into space on an oddly familiar craft, where they plan to meet up with the resistence to get the map to find Luke Skywalker. Along the way, they meet old friends, new enemies, and a new look into the mysterious energy called "The Force"....
This struck a perfect balance, between being a homage to the original trilogy and being its own original product. While it derives most of its tone spirit from the original, it still has an original story, and it does not rely heavily on the continuity of the previous films, nor is it a rehash of A New Hope. Okay, Rey's story is somewhat reminiscent of Luke's, but she has a different personality and backstory, and her journey is far different in terms of obstacles and what she learns about the Force. The idea of a nameless Stormtrooper going rogue and becoming a hero was especially well done, and is by far the most interesting part of the film. The classic hero journey narrative that made the original such a classic is very much present, but it is very distinct. You don't have to watch the original 6 films to appreciate this. JJ Abrams also knows how to emulate Lucas' directing style, while still having a little bit of his own in the film, which illustrates the balance this film achieves, and mitigates the worst qualities of boths directing. The acting is also well done, especially from the returning cast of Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford (Spoiler: Mark Hamill, despite starring credit, is barely in the movie itself.) The special effects were good. As with Jurassic World, I did appreciate the use of animatronics and puppetry, as a nod to the original. In a world, where overuse of CGI is prevalent in action-adventure films, old fashioned effects always get a plus from me. The wide backgrounds constrasting with the smallness of the protagonists is a nice metaphor for the small people in big galaxy, that Star Wars was always about.
The First Order is so similar to the Empire, when I was writing the synopsis, I accidentally put "Empire" sometimes. It is basically the Empire with a new name. It even uses the same techniques! I understand that the previous Empire was destroyed in Jedi, but this skewers way too close to the original for comfort. I heard that Abrams was going for a "Nazis in Argentina" feel, but those were refugees. It would have been more interesting had they been a small remnant of the Empire, which was still taunting the Republic. Also, the fanservice moments could get a bit cringeworthy sometimes. They don't happen very often to become a major problem, but it really took me out of the film going experience sometimes. Once again, not a major problem.
You probably saw this film already, or had plans to see it. Just know that, like I said before, you don't really need to watch the original films to appreciate this film. It stands up on its own merits, and is an worthy addition to the long running franchise. Whether you like or dislike Star Wars, you should definitely check this out, if only to see what the hype is all about.
So, in my very ill-spent youth, I surfed the web extensively. I also had an obsession with dinosaurs. Both of those collided when I found out about the "Speculative Dinosaur Project." Basically, it was a collaborative online project which describes a world where the Dinosaurs never went extinct, and evolved into present time. It was very creative, as far as I could tell, given most of the site was blocked off (in German.) It is virtually gone now, though the Wayback Machine could access those old pages, and there are places where the ideas live on. I start my review with this, because since discovering it, I have been fascinated with the idea of a world where the dinosaurs never went extinct, and they continued to reign. If you want to go earlier, The New Dinosaurs by Scottish naturalist Douglas Dixon is also a good spin on the idea. Still, even with the my longtime fascination with the premise, I was skeptical of The Good Dinosaur. Primarily because the way it was described by the people who made it was... eh. I was not interested in watching farmer dinosaurs. The trailers didn't really help with that. Maybe because I had seen Inside Out, which was a great film by all measures, but I felt, in the end, The Good Dinosaur would not measure up. Now that I've watched the film, it doesn't measure up. But, it's still good. A lot better than I thought.
Before I get into the film, I just briefly want to discuss the opening short, Sanjay's Super Team. It revolves around Sanjay, who was forced to do the traditional Hindu prayers with his father, rather than watch his beloved superhero cartoons. He then fantasizes about the Hindu gods (Vishnu, Hanuman, and Durga) fighting a demon (presumably Ravana) in the style of those cartoons he watched. As someone who grew up watching a lot of Cartoon Network, and was also raised in a Hindu household, it appealed to the child inside me, and I am likely more inclined to enjoy it than others, who don't share that background. Still, it was enjoyable, fun, and cute. I just wanted to bring that up.
The actual film, as I said, is set in a world where the Dinosaurs never went extinct. Millions of years after the asteroid missed, they have some form of early agriculture. The film focuses around Arlo (Raymond Ochoa), the youngest (and smallest) of a family of sauropod farmers.(All of whom remind me of the Sinclair Oil logo) They farm corn, primarily, and raise these odd chicken like dinosaur. (This bothered me throughout the film. Sauropods have long necks, so they could feed in trees. Why would they grow corn, which is very low to the ground? And if they were herbivores, why are they raising chickens. The only reason to raise chickens is to eat them. Am I overthinking this?) Anyway, Arlo's family includes his parents, Henry (Jeffrey Wright) and Ida (Frances McDormand), his brother Buck (Marcus Scribner), and his sister Libby (Maleah Padilla). Arlo's main problem on the farm is his cowardice, which makes his main responsibility as chicken feeder difficult. While his siblings gain the respect of their parents (symbolized by a muddy print on the food storage building), Arlo struggles with his intense fear. To soothe this, Henry decides to give Arlo the responsibility of preventing a pest from feeding on their food storage, by trapping and killing it. Arlo manages to catch the little culprit, a little humanoid creature later dubbed "Spot" (Jack Bright) (He's not named Spot until later, but for convenience, I'll call him Spot), but does not have the heart to kill it. Arlo lets it go. However, Henry then scolds Arlo for letting it go, and forces him to join him in capturing Spot in a storm ridden mountains. However, Arlo is injured, and Henry is forced to turn back, right as a major flood occurs. Arlo watches as his father drowns. Arlo then encounters Spot again, and furious from his father's death, he chases him, but both are caught in the river, and Arlo is knocked out. He wakes up to find himself miles from home, along with Spot. While initially hostile to poor Spot, Arlo grows to like him, particularly after Spot leds him to some berries, and saves him from a snake with legs. Arlo, remembering his father's advice that the river will led him home, resolves to go back, with Spot by his side. All the while, he encounters colorful characters, like an eccentric Styracosaurus named Forrest (Peter Sohn, who directed the film. It is also his debut as a director), a band of pterosaurs, led by Thunderclap (Steve Zahn), who are viciously fanatical carnivores (and my sister pointed out to me later that they were meant to parody apocalyptic religious fanatics, so thanks to her), and a group of Tyrannosaur ranchers, father Butch (Sam Elliot) and siblings Nash (A.J. Buckley) and Ramsey (Anna Paquin). Can Arlo and Spot return home to their families.
First, I really like the production design, particularly the backgrounds. I live in Colorado, and I sometimes drive through the state. It easily replicates the environments I see whenever I head into the mountains. It looks beautiful. The animation is also well done (par for the course regarding Pixar). I liked the way Arlo was animated. Loose and flexible, which allows for a lot of creative gags and fluid motion. Sort of like a classic 2-D cartoon transposed to a 3-D setting. The character designs for most of the character also benefit from this flexibility. It's also has a lot of creative ideas, like, for instance, using a cricket for a harmonica. The plot is not deeply complex, but it does have the appeal of a traditional Campbellian "Hero's Journey," which makes films like Star Wars enjoyable.
A lot of times, Arlo makes very poor decisions, which cause problems later on. I understand this is meant to show that he is making mistakes and growing, but really, there are moments, where Arlo should have made the other choice. There is also not a lot exciting about the plot. Like I said, it's a standard Hero's Journey. Not a lot of intrigue. It's not bad, but it really doesn't hold up compared to other Pixar films. There is also a lot of things that outright don't make sense when you think about them.
This surprised me. It honestly did. It was fairly good. Not just decent. Legitimately good. I really enjoyed it. Not one of the best films of the year, but one I'm glad I watched once. If you want a really good Pixar film, well, Inside Out's on DVD now, so go watch that. If you just want a film to watch for your younger relative, I'd say go and watch it. Thanks for reading.
If you've been cryogenically frozen since 2007, or have been astrally projected to the Kuiper Belt, The Hunger Games is a popular book series, centered around a futuristic gladitorial games held in a nation called Panem, by an oppressive post-apocalyptic government called the Capitol, against 13 districts, who had rebelled in the distant past, and the eventual rebellion against said government. The three books, Hunger Games, Catching Fire, and Mockingjay, have become New York Times best sellers, and have essentially defined a new era of post apocalyptic, young adult novels. The film adaptations have introduced the concepts and characters into a larger pop cultural landscape. Me? I'm ambivalent towards the series. I liked the first book. Detested the second book. Never finished the third one. Conversely, I didn't like the first film. It felt bloated, excessive, somewhat overly serious, and proved to be a difficult adaptation. The second film was an improvement, both on the problems of the first film (much more focused and concise), and the book (marked differences between it and its predecessor). I liked the third film, though I wouldn't exactly call it a great film, by any measure. So, is this a good send-off to the franchise. Well, let's take a look....
An adaptation of the second part to the third book of the franchise created by Suzanne Collins. the film picks up where the last left off. Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is recovering from the beating Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutchenson) gave her. He has been brainwashed by the Capitol, and is suffering from a bout of severe paranoia and delusion. Meanwhile, as the rebels continue to press on, they plan to take a Capitol military base in District 2. Katniss joins in, but sees the rebels committing atrocities against Capitol refugees. She is shot by one of the refugees. She spirals into depression afterwards. During this time, she decides to finally end her, and the district's, suffering, by killing President Coriolanus Snow (Donald Sutherland). However, this is rejected by President Alma Coin (Julianne Moore) and Plutarch Heavensbee (Phillip Seymour Hoffman, sadly in his final role). Instead, she ultimately sneaks on a transport to the rebel held area of the Capitol, where she joins a squad, which serve as more a publicity face for the battle, not actually serving. This group includes Finnick (Sam Claflin), who recently married lover Annie (Stef Dawson), and Boggs (Mahershala Ali), and is led by Commander Paylor (Patina Miller). They are joined by Peeta, who is now functional, although still mentally unstable from the brainwashing (or "hijacking") the Capitol forces gave him. As they trudge on to Snow's mansion, they learn that the battle isn't over yet. Katniss also begins to doubt the intentions of President Coin, wondering what are her plans when they finally rid of Snow, and the oppressive policies of the Capitol....
Technically, the film is decently made. The set design, as always, looks very impressive, very futuristic in the Capitol, very classic in the Districts. The acting, also as always, is very good. Jennifer Lawrence virtually disappears into the role of Katniss, and Josh Hutchenson is very good as the mentally unstable Peeta. The seasoned actors in the cast also give it their all. It has a good plot, and from what my sister told me afterwards, it was largely accurate to the book. It also looks and feels large and epic, which should be required of any conclusion to any long running franchise. It also has a small, very intimate ending to contrast the pomp and circumstance of the rest of the film
This was long. REALLY LONG. Some scenes just drag minutes after it should have ended. Especially the calmer moments, which take nearly forever to conclude. This length is my primary problem with this film. It felt like an eternity for the film to get from one plot point to the next. I suppose it suffers from the same problem that Halloween II did: it essentially amounts to an extended third act. And because of that, it feels extremely padded, and you really just want it to get the interesting part, as in the end. Also, the cinematography during the action scenes made some scenes hard to see. As in, it was hard to tell what was even going on. This is apparent during a scene set in a sewer. Several characters died, yet it was hard for me to tell which had died, because the camera would not focus on the characters long enough for me to actually distinguish them. Speaking of that scene, that scene was odd. It was like the film turned into a found footage horror film for a few minutes. I was told that scene was in the book, but it felt completely incongruous with the rest of the movie.
Honestly, I think my words are irrelevant in this case. If you were going to see it, you were likely to still see it regardless of what I had to say. Needless to say, if you watched and liked the first three movies, you're probably going to, or have already seen it, no matter what I have to say. If you haven't, there really isn't much to offer you. You do need to see the other films just to appreciate it. Me? Decent conclusion, though I would have preferred it not be split into two movies. That's all I have to say, folks. Next month is Pokecember, so join me, as I review the Pokemon films of the Advanced Generation.
_poster.jpg)