Change Your Image
jerrybrsc2
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Kaubôi bibappu: Cowboy Bebop (1998)
Easy come, easy go...see you Space Cowboy, somewhere, someday...
After giving it a considerable amount of thought, I've come to the conclusion that simply telling you how good Cowboy Bebop is a moot point. It's been out for over 10 years, and all you have to do is Google the show and read the literal volumes of positive reviews that it has to its credit. This is a singularly unique show in the sense that I physically cannot deconstruct the elements that make up the show because they're blended together so flawlessly. I have nothing to add, and in fact, the only thing I'll say is that it's not only the greatest Anime Series ever made, but it's one of the best achievements in entertainment. Period. It's up to you whether you decide to watch it or not and ultimately; "Whatever happens, happens".
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
A Solid Reboot? You bet.
OK, so the burning question on everybody's mind is; Is this Spider-Man better than the Sam Raimi directed version starring Toby Maguire? Answer, yes. But in all fairness, that is a loaded question. Is this film a better origin story than the original "Spider-Man"? Yes. Is it better than any other Spider-Man movie that came before? No. It's better than "Spider-Man" and it's a hell of a lot better than "Spider-Man 3", but "Spider-Man 2" is still (in my opinion) the best Spidey movie that's ever happened, and it's gonna take some serious wizardry to top that one in the future. I'm going to try and break down this film as best I can and tell you what's good and bad about it. Here we go: Character wise and story progression, the direction by Marc Webb is fantastic. He did a great job of capturing the character moments that really moved the plot along and kept you invested in the characters. Webb's direction is much better than anything Sam Raimi did in "Spider-Man", because Raimi seemed more concerned with the feel of a live-action comic book. When you look back and watch "Spider-Man" now, it's easy to see just how close to a graphic novel or comic book it really is. When you watch this film, it's almost like you're watching a scene from "The Dark Knight" it's so far removed from the comic books that inspired it. Good job Webb.
As far as the acting and characters go, they were all perfect to me. Andrew Garfield was phenomenal as Peter Parker, and as Spider-Man. His rendition of Peter was a very socially and personally repressed individual, who had numerous personal issues, and he was much more complex character than I was personally expecting. In the Sam Raimi film, he was a pretty straight forward character: he's a nerd, he has a crush, he gets bitten by a spider, he gets his powers, his uncle gets killed, and he sobers up immediately and uses his powers for the best. In this movie, Spider-Man is a cocky, smart ass teenager who, just because of the death of his uncle, isn't just gonna go out and fight for "truth and justice". In fact, the whole character arc of "with great power, comes great responsibility" comes later on at the end of the movie, and is the major driving force of this film, not necessarily one specific "villain". In fact, the villain in this movie is a side effect, of sorts, of this character driven storyline. In the Sam Raimi "Spider-Man", it always seemed like the driving force of the whole plot was the threat of Norman Osborn and by the time he becomes a threat to New York, Spider-Man is already out swinging around kicking ass and has mastered his powers completely. In this film, it really shows the work that goes into understanding his powers, and even shows the limitations of them, which is interesting. On a side note, I loved the concept of him having to construct his web shooters. One, it's more faithful to the comics, and two, it really illustrates the intelligence and skill that Peter Parker possesses.
Emma Stone was excellent. She plays the part of Gwen Stacey as a very smart, cute, and sexy love interest to Peter Parker, and the relationship is believable and sweet. That's the best way I can describe it. And here's a switch; she was actually useful to Peter and the plot line. She wasn't anything like Bryce Dallas-Howard's version of Gwen as this essentially useless damsel in distress, and was definitely a huge improvement over MJ in Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man", because all MJ did was scream and cry for Spidey to save her every 5 seconds. There are 2 action sequences in that film where Spidey fights the Goblin and MJ is just screaming in the background. Thank God for Emma Stone and this reboot.
Rhys Ifans, did the best job he could have done with his character of Dr. Curt Conners aka The Lizard. This is really the weakest part in an otherwise strong film. The story focuses almost too much on Peter and Gwen, and therefore leaves most major character development for anybody else to fall by the wayside. All you know is that this man worked with Peter's father, he has only one arm, and he is desperate to get it back no matter what the cost morally or physically to anyone or anything, up to and including himself. I really think that had the script allowed for more time to focus on Conners, like showcasing his wife and son, etc., then it would have been more emotionally engaging, and as the ending is now, it just feels a little bit hollow. If the film had made it a bit more clear that Peter's ultimate goal was to save Dr. Conners from himself, so to speak, rather than to get to Gwen and save Gwen, Gwen, Gwen, Gwen. Too much on the central characters when secondary elements needed to take over.
There were just a couple other minor problems that I had with the film, one of them being the concept of Peter's Parents. It's very evident that his parents are key to the plot, but after the first, I'd say half hour, it focuses less on them and more about Peter and his powers. I would have liked more back story on Peter's parents and how that relationship impacted Dr. Conners as well. Secondly, after Uncle Ben is killed, Peter searches like a madman for his killer. But unlike the Sam Raimi "Spider-Man", he doesn't ever find the man who did it, and he just kinda stops looking after a while. I mean, you can easily rationalize it in the plot of the story, but it's just a little strange that he just stops, no matter what personal discoveries he makes and what he decides to do as Spider-Man.
8/10 easy.
Alien (1979)
Perfectly Pitched Suspense
"A mining ship, investigating a suspected SOS, lands on a distant planet. The crew discovers some strange creatures and investigates." That's the summary of the plot you'll see if you read it on IMDb. But what does that really mean? Well, I could go on and on and on about it, but in short it simply means, one of the best science fiction films of all time. Basically the plot goes as follows; The Commercial Starship Nostromo is en-route back to Earth when the crew is awakened from Hyper-Sleep on orders from the Weyland-Yutani Corporation (who own the ship and employ the crew), to investigate what amounts to be an SOS from a downed Alien Spacecraft. Once the crew touches down on the planet, LV-426, the captain and two supporting crew members venture out into the crashed vessel, and soon a crew member has an alien life form attached to his face, and has to be returned to the ship immediately. After the crew determines that they can do nothing further while on the planet, the ship returns to space and the crew prepare for hyper-sleep again. Also by this time, the crew member with the alien attached to his face has mysteriously recovered and the alien itself seems to have fallen off and died. This proves to be WAY wrong when the true intentions of the creature become clear by way of an Alien bursting out from inside the crewman's chest. In the confusion, the creature gets away into the bowels of the ship, and now let the terror and suspense and the basis for most "Monster Movies" for the next 30 years ensue.
Now, one thing that this film does really well is create a feeling of tension and suspense. In every scene in this movie, even in the beginning before anything happens, you're on the edge of your seat because you already know going in that the title of this film is "Alien", so that can't be good news for the people in it, and the musical score is already ominous to the point of suggesting that at any moment the whole thing could just hit the fan. I honestly attribute this to the direction of Ridley Scott. The man knows, to this day, just how much to show you in a scene, and that's the key to this film. You don't see that much of the Alien. It's all up to you as the audience to make up for yourself what the creature can do and what it fully looks like. This film has some of the most spectacular film imagery in film history, and it's all thanks to Scott and his editor.
The writing (especially now adays) is really something to talk about. In most creature movies that have come out since Alien, you have a bunch of characters that mean less than zero to the ultimate conclusion of the story, and by the endgame, you just don't care about the last character standing because you're not emotionally invested in them. In Alien, you are absolutely invested in these characters. The script really lends itself to some very interesting, and often times humorous dialog between crew members, (more often than not involving Harry Dean-Stanton and Yaphet Kotto who play the ship's pseudo-mechanics Brett and Parker, respectively); and therefore it's monumental then one of them dies. Something you just don't find in sci-fi anymore, and you should.
Something that really goes hand-in-hand with the writing is the Acting. Everybody is at the top of their form in this film. Sigourney Weaver (in her feature film debut no less) embodies the strength, intelligence and subtle sexuality of the character Ripley. She absolutely IS this character. Tom Skerritt, John Hurt, Ian Holm and Veronica Cartwright all hit home runs with their roles as Dallas, Kane, Ash, and Lambert respectively. Again, good acting...something you don't see in sci-fi films like this anymore.
Overall, if you're a fan of sci-fi, suspense thrillers and/or just a fan or Ridley Scott, I highly recommend Alien to you. It's masterfully crafted to be nerve shatteringly suspenseful, and it's one of my favorite films of all time, period. And yes, because it's the inevitable question, I DO love Alien more than Aliens, just so we're clear. In fact, if I had to pick some of the most important films of the past century, the list would include Star Wars, Casablanca, Pulp Fiction and Alien for sure.
10/10 easy.
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
What?
OK, now as I have said in my other Star Wars Prequel Reviews, I will do my utmost to give this film a fair review and point out anything that is good if I find it. OK, let's start with the plot; This film is set 10 years after the events of "Episode I" and Queen turned Senator Amidala of Naboo is returning to Coruscant to vote on the creation of a "Grand Army of the Republic" to counter the uprising Sepratist Movement, when an attempt is made on her life. Fearing that she may be in mortal danger, Chancellor Palpatine asks the Jedi Council to place the senator under their protection. Enter the now adult Anakin Skywalker, and his master Obi-Wan Kenobi. After another attempt is made on the Senator's life, the Jedi Council decide to send Anakin away with her to her home planet of Naboo where they hope she'll be safe, while Obi-Wan goes off to pursue a lead on the planet of Kamino, where he discovers a secretly manufacture Army of Clones. At the same time, Anakin and Padme slowly begin to fall in love. At the same time, Anakin is racked by horrid dreams of his mother being tortured on his home planet of Tatooine, and leaves Naboo with Amidala to find her. Upon arriving, he quickly meets his step father and takes flight after his mother, only to find her as she is dying. As she dies in his arms, he looses all control of himself and slaughters the entire village of the Sand People who kidnapped his mother. While this is happening, Obi-Wan confronts the man responsible for the two failed attempts on Padme's life and, and after a brief confrontation, he pursues the man (Jango Fett) to the Septatist Base World of Geonosis, where he discovers Count Dooku, a former Jedi, now leader of the Sepratist Movement, and Obi-Wan is captured. Answering his distress signal, Anakin comes to his aide, and he and Padme too are captured. As a demonstration of his power, Dooku orders the trio's execution in a giant arena, but as the final blow is about to be struck, Jedi Master Mace Windu and Jedi Master Yoda arrive with a force of Jedi Knights and Clone Troopers to hopefully save Anakin and Obi-Wan and capture Dooku and stop a full scale War. In the ferocity of the battle, Anakin and Ob-Wan face off with Dooku, who easily defeats the two and is about to kill them until Yoda shows up and saves them, but Dooku escapes and the war begins, thus we have a sequel yet again.
So like the last film, we have an incredibly complex plot to follow where we as the audience are expected to accept too many things that we are and are not told, and once again, it's convoluted as hell. Here's what I'm saying; We're expected to buy into the relationship between Anakin and Padme when it's flat and one-dimensional. The way most good movie romances work is the visual representation and the interaction between the two characters and the history between the two, whether it's from a previous film or told in flashbacks; not necessarily the dialog that's exchanged between them. The reason this is one-dimensional is because we see two attractive young people in very romantic settings along scenic vistas. We're supposed to connect the dots in this film and see that their in love when you just don't buy it. And here's the thing, that would actually work if the previous film had established a real connection between the two, but the previous film did not do that, so all we have now is this stale, fake and unbelievable movie puppy-dog romance. At the same time, we're expected to accept something we're not told by the existence of the whole subplot of the Clone Manufacturing Planet. It's only hinted at why this planet has been selected to manufacture Clone Soldiers. Something about a dead Jedi Master placing the order in secret? What? It would be different if this was explained later in the sequel, but it wasn't. The concept is just there, in this movie alone. But yet, we're just expected to go along with it and not ask the big questions. That really shows the limited range of the writing of this film and the prequels in general.
As far as the Acting goes in this film, Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman are both still fine, but the new addition of Hayden Christensen is...well, a kiss of death. He's just so pitiful and whiny in every scene that it's just disgusting. He's one of the worst parts of this movie, aside from the special effects. Speaking of which, they're terrible. This really was one of the first films made almost completely using CGI. And as a result, it all looks plastic, manufactured, and fake, and it completely ruins the concept of "a lived in space" that the Original Trilogy were all about. But speaking from the heart though, I still love the imagery of Star Wars (Lightsabers, Spaceships, and CGI), no matter how bad. Sue me.
I can keep going on and on about why I hate this movie, and why it's bad, but I won't, for two reasons. One, I have a word limit, and two, because I've already covered the broad strokes of why it's bad and I don't like it. Overall, this film is a lazily assembled, shallowly constructed excuse of a Star Wars film, and is without a doubt the worst one of the series.
3/10. Bad.
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
Why?
Alright, it's all too easy to just rip the ass out of a movie like this, so I'm going to go ahead and let you know up front that I'll do my best to give this a fair review and point out anything that's good. Now then, let's discuss the plot; The film opens with two Jedi being send to "mediate a trade dispute" in the Outer Rim of the Galaxy. In the process, the Trade Federation (the party that they were supposed to be meeting with), attempt to kill them, and as a result, the Jedi flee to the Planet Naboo below in time for the Trade Federation to launch an invasion of the Planet. In desperation, the Jedi unite with the Queen of Naboo, and flee the planet, bound initially for the Galactic Capital of Coruscant. In their escape attempt however, their spacecraft becomes damaged and they are forced to make an emergency landing on the remote Planet of Tatooine where they meet a young boy named Anakin Skywalker, who eventually helps them get off world and back to Coruscant. Once there, the Galactic Senate proves unable to help with the brewing crisis on Naboo from the Trade Federation Invasion and the Queen decides to return to Naboo herself to deal with the problem. The Jedi decide to return with her to get to the bottom of the situation and inform the Senate of the real motivations behind the Trade Federation invasion. In the process the Jedi become embroiled in a fierce Lightsaber duel with a supposedly extinct Sith Lord, Darth Maul. At the same time, the Queen leads the Royal Palace Guards to retake the palace and capture the leader of the Trade Federation. Also at the same time, the natives of the planet, the Gungans fight to try and eliminate the Trade Federation Army and little Anakin Skywalker leads the attack on the orbiting Trade Federation ships. In the end, one of the Jedi are killed in the fight with the Sith, the Queen retakes the palace, the Trade Federation ships are destroyed, and the Gungans triumph over the Army, and we're set up for the next one. OK, now if you're confused by that summary, then you are not alone. Never mind that that plot is incredibly complex, which wouldn't be a problem if the situations were better set up and the character motivations better explained, but it's just so convoluted.
Here's what I mean; In the film, Anakin Skywalker is supposed to be an incredibly smart kid, who builds robots and podracers, and has these superhuman qualities. Under normal circumstances, that could be really interesting and could set up a really great character arc from Episode I to Episode VI. But in this film, you just don't buy it. The child actor (Jake Lloyd) is simply horrible. The delivery of every line of duologue is clunky and goofy and just unconvincing and it sucks you even further out of the movie (if that was possible). It's pitiful, simply put. On top of that, this character who is so uninteresting and fake, (and who is supposedly only 9 years old), is a pivotal point in the plot because he miraculously wins the money that the Jedi use to repair their ship and return to Coruscant. It's like a completely incompetent person wrote the screenplay to this film.
Specifically speaking though, what's bad about this film? Well there's a lot, so let's just dive right in: The Writing (as I said) is boring. This is supposed to be a sprawling space saga and it's written in the same way as a Soap Opera and is about as interesting. It's like this movie was written by two different people. One person wrote this silly goofy script involving some stupid, lame, slap stick character called Jar Jar Binks, who is a Gungan that the Jedi run into on their way to find the Queen. He's supposed to be a point of interest for children and it just comes off as unnecessary and unfunny to adults. On the other end of the spectrum, once the Jedi arrive on Coruscant, we get introduced to this incredibly boring pseudo-political duologue. It's clearly not for children because they'll just check out and not pay attention to the film, but at the same time, it's clearly not for adults either because it's uninteresting and doesn't make much sense. So the conclusion can only be that the film has no specific audience, but that it tries (and fails) to be applicable for all ages. That can work in a film, but you have to keep the elements subdued for it to work right. If you don't it can turn out really horrible.
The acting (for what it is) is actually passable for the most part. As I said, Jake Lloyd was horrible as Anakin Skywalker, but Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman all did the best job they could have done with the material given to them. As for the Special Effects and the visuals, the Special Effects are actually pretty good, and so are the visual imagery of the film. That's why I gave it 4 stars and not 1.
The simple fact of the matter is that Writer/Director George Lucas wanted to tell the story of the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker, and that's fine, and that's interesting, but he wanted to do it in a way that would make him as much money as possible, (i.e. 3 films instead of just 1). There just was not enough story for 3 solid films. Citizen Kane anyone? Overall, Episode I is a shallow, uninteresting and pathetic attempt at recapturing lightening in a bottle, (at which it failed). The only thing that this film succeeded at was reducing Star Wars to a cheaply made cash grab. Thanks George.
Prometheus (2012)
Not a Prequel, but a Damn Good Sci-Fi.
I really have to suggest for anyone who has not see this movie, PLEASE do not read this review yet. Now then, as the title may suggest, I loved this movie. Now on to what I think has caused some distancing amongst sci-fi fans; the concept of prequel or spin off? In the traditional sense of the word, this is in no way an "Alien Prequel". Is it set in the same universe as "Alien", yes. Does it "share some of Alien's DNA", yes. But does it take place directly before the Alien and/or does it ruin some very important back story like certain other films (the Star Wars Prequels) have done, no. Calling this film a prequel just severely undercuts the film as a whole, and I think that's a chief reason why some people were a little disappointed with what they saw at the theater, but I'll get more into that later. For right now, I'm gonna talk about the film in it's entirety. The film takes place at the end of the 21st century, in the year 2093, I think. The scientific vessel Prometheus has been sent on a sanctioned journey by the Weyland-Yutani Corporation, to a distant solar system to discover the origins of the Human Race. The exploration team is led by Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Repace) and her boyfriend Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), and a host of other characters including Janek, played by Idris Elba, the android David played by Michael Fassbender, Peter Weyland played by Guy Pierce and Meredeth Vickers played by Charlize Theron among others. Once the crew arrive on the planet, LV-223 (Note: This is not the same as LV-426, the planet on which Alien and the sequel Aliens take place on.), needless to say things don't exactly go as planned with the scientific expedition turned survival mission and let the horror and the intensity ensue. Alright, let's talk what really worked for me; The direction by Ridley Scott is fantastic here. He really lets all of the important characters breath and flourish in a film that's really not necessarily about the characters, and each and every shot in the film is just so crisp and beautiful it's breathtaking, something that I think would have been sorely lacking if the film was directed by anybody else. The acting is mostly top notch; Noomi Repace, formerly of the "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" fame, delivers whole heartedly in this movie, and continues the long line of strong female characters created by Ridley Scott. There's one scene in particular where she has to manually program and operate a machine to remove a parasitic life form in her body. That scene alone is more than enough to win you over to her side. Michael Fassbender is fantastic as the Android "David". He actually reminded me of Peter O'Tool in "Lawrence of Arabia" in his demeanor and diction. Idris Elba was excellent as Janek, the Captain of the Prometheus, was spot on. He offered some much needed comic relief in the film, and actually reminded me of Harry Dean-Stanton and Yaffit Koto in the original "Alien". There was really only one glaring problem for me in the acting department, and that was Logan Marshall-Green. He's more or less a 10 cent version of Tom Hardy. I hated him in this movie as a matter of fact. His delivery of every line was painful to watch. A lot of movie goers seem to really detest the writing of this movie and I really don't know why. The writing (in my opinion) was very good. It proposed questions that even it didn't have answers for. It keeps you very much interested and guessing the whole time, which is fitting since the writer of LOST, Damon Lindeloff, wrote the script. Now, back to what has divided a lot of people on this movie: The concept of it being a prequel or not. Here's my theory on how all of this ties into the "Alien Univeerse" and/or the Alien Films: I think that a Chest Burster in "Alien" could have mistakenly gotten onto the face of one of the "Engineers" on LV-426, (aka the Original "Space Jockey" on LV-426) centuries ago and once hatched; the Xenomorph killed the entire crew on that one ship and just died in a corner somewhere when its life cycle ran out. Then after centuries had gone by, the Company (having lost contact with Prometheus) tricks the crew of the Nostromo into showing up to find the Space Jockey "fossilized" as Tom Skeritt says, and well, we know the rest. I'm just thinking that the "Engineers" were using that whole solar system as a weapons manufacturing facility, with each planet manufacturing its own biological weapon. The Prometheus and its crew just happened to stumble onto this one planet at this point in time, totally independent of "Alien" or "Aliens". As for the creature at the end of Prometheus being a Xenomorph or not, I think it might be a version of a Xenomorph, but it's not a pure (what we would call) "Alien". Assuming my theory is correct, and that all of these planets in this solar system are manufacturing different biological weapons, it would make sense that all of these weapons would share the same basic biological material. Think of it like this: You have a Lego Kit. This Lego Kit can be used to make 3 different robots, all of which look different, and have their own specific defining physical traits and features. But even though they don't look similar, they all still have the same basic building blocks.
Overall though, I truly loved this movie. Just the bad acting by Logan Marshall-Green and some early pacing problems are what keep it from being a 10/10 for me. A good Sci-Fi movie hasn't come along like this since "Blade Runner", which Scott also directed, and I loved it. I'd even like to see a sequel.
9/10 easy.
The Legend of Korra (2012)
I hope it gets better...
Like many people out there, I am a massive fan of the original series, "Avatar: The Last Airbender"; and was awaiting the release of this series with baited breath. After all, how can you top the original? How can you take the established lore and the incredible universe in which "Avatar" was set and make it better? Well, I'll tell you...not like this. The series centers on the Avatar that comes after Avatar Aang; (who was the main protagonist in "The Last Airbender") a 17 year-old girl named Korra and her coming to terms with her duties and as the Avatar. It takes place in Republic City, founded at the end of the 100 Year War by Avatar Aang and Firelord Zuko where Benders and Non-benders may live together in peace and tranquility; however, since Aang's death the city has fallen into disarray despite the best efforts by Aang's son Tenzin and the Chief of Police.
This series takes the established lore from the original universe and flips it on its head in a good way. Here's what I mean; in the "Avatar Universe", you can only Blood-Bend during a full moon...or can you? Only the Avatar can Bend Energy...or maybe not? These all serve to ensure that the audience tunes in the next week, which is fine, but it seems that the creators were more concerned with showing off the aesthetics and new technology, rather than exploring these new and exciting characters. When the audience is more interested in the origin of Pro- Bending than the main protagonist, then, well, something's gone amiss.
Let me bread down the characters for you: Korra, is about as far from Aang as you can get. While Aang was usually characterized as a calm, peaceful, and good natured person; Korra is crass, abrasive, and tough as nails. You can tell by the way that she acts that she'll obviously grow and change over time, but after re-watching several times now, I have to say; Korra doesn't have much of a character arc. Please understand that I do realize there are only 12 episodes thus far, and that this series is just one excerpt from this particular Avatar's lifetime worth of adventures, but the fact that there are no real changes to her character's traits or actions/reactions in certain situations by the end doesn't speak very well of the writing. Let me clarify; this show isn't like James Cameron's Avatar in the sense that you can accurately predict what the ending will be and how it will happen within the first 15 minutes, and I give the writers due credit for it, but when you boil it down to its elements (no pun intended), the show just isn't balanced like its predecessor. All this being said, I do actually think that a character like Korra a great choice as the next Avatar. Because Aang was so reserved and mentally focused, a more spontaneous and openly passionate character is the only real choice for the new Avatar; otherwise you run the risk of repeating yourself from a creative standpoint.
Mako (named in memory of the actor Mako, who voiced Uncle Iroh in the original series) and his brother Bolin are homeless teenagers turned professional athletes in the city's favorite sport, Pro-Bending, which is essentially the Avatar Version of MMA. Initially, Mako is the more serious/closed-off character, very reminiscent to Prince Zuko in the original series, while Bolin is the goofy character that hearkens back to Sokka. Both do work perfectly in conjunction with Korra, and Mako even plays off as a love interest for Korra. This is where my biggest problems with the show arise: WAY too much teen romance and drama and too much time is spent on the subject of Pro-Bending. I really don't mind romance in cartoons when it's done right, but when one whole episode out of the 12 can be phantom-edited out because it has nothing to do with the rest of the series what so ever, that's not good. There are literally half a dozen other things going on in Republic City, all of which deal with Korra directly or indirectly, that could have been covered rather than a forced love triangle with Mako and Bolin. We get it. Can we please show something besides this blasted sports arena?
Lastly, Tenzin is the only Airbending Master in the world and his children are the only other Airbenders. Tenzin has a stern, no nonsense personality and is very comfortable in his skin. This is disrupted however when Korra arrives and essentially reminds him that he has just as much to learn from her as she does from him. Predictable but effective.
One thing that is great to see is the respect that the series creators have for their source material. The creators are such fans of Chinese and Japanise Manga and Anime that they manage to infuse every square inch of the TV screen with beautiful architecture and designs that hearken back to the designs of Hayao Miyazaki, and Hajime Yatate. One thing to be aware of is the jump in technology from the original series to this one. In the original, the architecture and landscaping of each location was reminiscent of the ancient Chinese Dynasties: the times of Emperors, the Great Wall, and Attila the Hun. In this series, it's more like 1920's Shanghai. That's actually not a gripe, and it works perfectly for the story, but at first it's just hard to wrap your head around it when you go from carts pulled by animals to cameras (yes, I said cameras), cars and glass store fronts with clay tile roofs. That's all I'm saying.
Overall, the series is a good continuation to the Avatar Story, but not a great one. I hope that in the upcoming seasons of The Legend of Korra there's a greater focus on characters and story rather than just the scenery.
8/10 Stars
The Poker House (2008)
A Powerhouse of Excellent Performances
OK, so I just saw The Poker House yesterday and I had to wait almost a full day before I could successfully review it just to let it all sink in. I'm gonna go ahead and let you know how I feel right up front (if on the off chance you can't read the title of this review or see the stars); I loved this movie! Where to begin? OK, let's talk about what I liked. First of all, the performances were all just entrancing, most specifically Jennifer Lawrence. She plays a very vulnerable, yet rugged and emotionally confused 14 year old girl, named Agnes. Her delivery of each line of dialogue is just masterful in every sense of the word, and she infuses each sentence and every nuance of her character with such realistic flare that it's almost to the point of method. Also, Selma Blair who plays the character of Sarah, Agnes' mother, does an excellent job of playing the coked-up prostitute who is so out of touch with reality that it's almost unbelievable. For those of you who don't know, this film is based on the real life experiences of it's director, Lori Petty, thus ensuring some very powerfully and well written material as well as some top shelf direction, which it absolutely delivers in every aspect. The only real problem that I can think this film had was some of the characters are a little over-the-top, but honestly, I accredit this to Petty's writing and direction, which is not necessarily a bad thing. This is her life story and I'm sure that those characters were really as insane and over-the-top as they are portrayed in this movie. Really the biggest problem for me personally was that, at times, the pacing was a little off. It would slow down and speed back up again without much reasoning as to why it was doing it. This is just a minor point because at no point do you find yourself scratching your head and saying, "What?" or "How?". Overall guys, The Poker House is a very very well acted movie, a pretty well executed movie, and a very underrated movie. I really don't know why this film has only 6.1 Stars. But anyway, I hope you liked this review and take it into consideration if you consider seeing this film. Thanks.
Winter's Bone (2010)
What did I just watch?
I just recently saw Winter's Bone, so I already knew about the hype and and Oscar buzz surrounding it from 2010, so I had some pretty high expectations for the film to live up to, and HOLY CRAP. This movie is fantastic. From the acting, to the direction, to the storytelling, all are fantastic and have this visceral feel to every scene. If you don't know the story of Winter's Bone, which would be a little strange since you're reading a review on it, it centers around Jennifer Lawrence's character, Ree Dolly, and it's fallen to her to try and support and defend her family while her drug-dealing father has skipped out on her family, leaving the world that Ree has built for her family to come crashing down. First of all, let's talk about what really worked for me. First of all, Jennifer "Freakin'" Lawrence. Her performance is absolutely captivating and purely entrancing. She infuses her character with such strength and a vulnerability that's rare to come by in films today. In addition to Jennifer Lawrence, John Hawks gives a wrenching and heart-felt performance that's undeniably one of the best I've seen in years, and the local actors enlisted to fill out the universe in which Winter's Bone takes place are all perfect for their roles too. The direction by Debra Granik is superb. She has such respect for the source material and is clearly interested in telling the story, and doing it well. The story is, of course, based on a novel and the translation is excellent. As for what I didn't like, there isn't much of anything, there are a couple parts where it slowed down and where the pacing was just a little off, but honestly, I just attribute this as a necessary part of the story. There wasn't any one part where I thought to myself, "Oh, that part needed to be cut out". So overall, Winter's Bone was an exceptional film filled to the brim with incredible performances and excellent story telling. 8/10 Stars. I really hope you like this review and hope you take it into consideration if you consider seeing the film or not. Thanks.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
The Best of the Prequels DOES NOT Equal a "Good Movie"
Let me just say straight off that I'm a huge Star Wars Fan and in my eyes, the Original Trilogy are some of the greatest films ever made. Now that that's out of the way let's review this: There are some positives about this movie - not many - but there are positives. First off, let me list the positives. Thankfully, this movie is a massive departure from the previous two in terms of the tone. Gone are the days of JarJar Binks' idiotic slapstick and cringe-inducing child actors in pivotal roles, (Jake Lloyd anyone?). Also, in spite of the bad acting running rampant through this, and all other prequels, Ian McDiarmid does do a pretty admirable job in the role of Palpatine. He's the best actor and (coincidentally) does the best job with the material given to him in the film. Lastly, let's recognize some pretty damn good special effects. The special effects were outstanding, despite being the only real backbone to the film and not an interesting story of any kind. This brings me into the negatives of the film, and there's A LOT, so let's dive right in. First of all, as I just said, there isn't much of a story left. What I mean by that is that after the horrid debacle of the previous two films, the only thing that's really left to happen in this movie is the actual transition of Anakin Skywalker over to the Dark Side of the Force. Now, I'm sure that you (like I did when I was a kid) thought that would be a really cool concept: The movie could take it's time to develop the one defining catalyst that pushed Anakin over the edge after years spent in war and strife. You finally get to see the one singular second that forces Anakin to become Darth Vader and live a life of servitude and misery. And we as an audience could finally be redeemed from two films of crap...But no, we get the most stale, manufactured, insincere, boring and unbelievable character arcs in film history. I mean come on, I could buy the whole thing where Anakin reacts on impulse and severs Mace Windu's hand at the chance to save his wife from imminent death, but when it actually happened, it just seemed to me like that if Yoda had been there and run into the room at that very second and handed Anakin a MilkyWay, he wouldn't have turned to the Darkside. Basically, the entire Star Wars Prequel Saga tried (and failed I might add) to tell a similar story to Citizen Kane. Is that a common comparison? Yes. Is it inaccurate? No. Let me compare the two side-by-side and you decide for yourself if the characters and story are similar: CITIZEN KANE - A young boy is taken from his home at a young age and separated from his beloved mother. Flash forward to his young adult hood and we see that he is a brazen, idealistic person with a code that he lives by called the Declaration of Principles. Finally we see him mature into a very powerful and successful business man who has everything he wants, but eventually his power corrupt him and he becomes an arrogant and belligerent jerk who forces everyone he loves away from him. He eventually dies a very miserable and lonely man. OK, now there are obviously big differences in locations, events and people outside of Kane/Skywalker, but the basic character motivations that affect them are the same. Why were the Star Wars Prequels not just one movie, very similar in structure to Citizen Kane? I can tell you it's not because it couldn't have been done. In fact, George Lucas did base the original Star Wars movie off of an Akira Kurisawa film entitled "The Hidden Fortress". The Hidden Fortress is essentially the same story as Star Wars, but it's told in a way with Robots and not Japanese Peasants. Same rule applies to The Prequels and Citizen Kane. The reason why the prequels became three movies and not just "The Star Wars Prequel" is because Star Wars and its accompanying sequels are titled "Episode IV, V, & VI", respectfully. I'm sorry to break it to all you fan boys out there, but that's why we have 3 crappy movie and 3 great movies in this franchise, and not 4 great movies in this franchise. Now, moving away from the story and how it relates to other things, let's discuss the acting further. Ewan McGregor is pretty good in the role of Obi-Wan and Natalie Portman does a very good job with her crappy role. That's it. Now, moving onto the CGI in the movie. It is very good, but it's only good in its own right. What I mean by that is that though it's technologically impressive, it's wrong in the context of the story. There's no reason why there needs to be CGI everywhere in a scene that just involves two characters talking. It could (and should) just be a practically built set with CGI out a window or something. This is especially true considering that every single scene in this movie that is not intensive in CGI is shot like a soap opera in shot-reverse shot. Not only is this a sign of lazy filmmaking, but it's also a constant reminder of the lost potential that this and the other prequels had. While I'm on the subject of storytelling, the tone of this movie is A LOT darker than the other two prequels. That's good in the sense that we don't have to sit through anymore horribly idiotic scenes that leave us adults rolling our eyes. That being said, why was this movie SO DARK? I understand that Darth Vader was a bad guy, but did he have to be a homicidal maniac that killed small children? NO. Not needed. I'm going to stop before this gets ridiculous. Thanks.
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Pulp Fiction: An Exercise in Brilliance
Before I knew what a cultural phenomenon Pulp was, I knew that this film was incredible. Seeing Pulp Fiction for the first time, I was awestruck. After seeing it, I can 100% say that it is deserving of every bit of praise it gets. Lets break this down: The acting is all top notch. Whether it's Samuel L. Jackson, John Travolta, Eric Stoltz, Uma Thurman and even Quentin Tarantino himself, they're all perfect for their roles in every way. Whether the character the actor is portraying is loud and obnoxious or an exaggerated mousy caricature, all are on their A-Game. The story is realistic, but at the same time it's ridiculous and over the top. While this combination of seemingly incompatible story elements could be potentially disastrous in an average film, Pulp is well aware of it's absurdity and makes fun of itself to the nth degree. The fact that the film is so over the top, yet very dark at it's core is completely offset by the hilarity that comes with the situations that the characters find themselves in,(i.e. being caught and rapped by two redneck homosexuals in the Hollywood hills). The writing, in my own humble opinion, is some of the best ever produced. Period. Whether the dialog is an exchange between two characters talking about rats, milk, or a Royale With Cheese, every word spoken is genuine and real and horribly hilarious in it's nature. You, as an audience member know that you shouldn't be laughing at what's happening on screen, but the film's sly whit is infectious and it keeps you smiling and guessing until the end of the film. Some people call Pulp Fiction "a movie about a movie". I can't argue their point; Pulp is a throwback to those crime cereals that were so prolific in newspapers and comic books of the 70's, as well as a throwback to the classic mobster movies many of us grew up with. Some people see this as a weakness to Quentin Tarantino's direction, saying that he's limited to only making homages to other things in popular culture. I don't think that's true, personally, but in my opinion it's one of his strengths. He takes a genera that is well known and popular and gives it a very fresh twist. He did that with Pulp and he continues to do it today, with films like Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds. Boiling Pulp Fiction itself down however, the true lovers of cinema, the people who will know exactly what Tarantino is referencing or paying homage to are the ones who will get the most out of this film. That is however not to say that casual viewers won't like the film. It has a little something for everybody and is, without a doubt one of the best films of the recent generation. I hope you like this review and take it into consideration if you decide to see the film.
The Karate Kid (2010)
Why Do People Hate This Movie?
Here's my thing, and I know I'll probably get hate for it, but I really don't like the original Karate Kid Movie. It;s just one of those cheesy 80's movies that is so cheesy that I just can't get into it. I do realize that in nearly every movie you have to suspend some disbelief, but in the original version, I can't suspend THAT much disbelief. And when you compare the movies side by side, it does make sense. ORIGINAL: A white kid moves out to California with his mom and gets his ass kicked by another white guy who knows Karate really well and learns it himself from a Chinese man, and then comes back at the end to kick the bully's ass and a host of other white kids. REMAKE: Black kid moves to China with his mom and gets his ass beat by several Chinese kids and learns Kung Fu from a maintenance man and comes back to beat a bunch of Cheiese kids asses and win the tournament and their respect. The reason that I bring up the color and race parallels is because the new plot is much more believable. And I know some of you are saying to yourselves, how is a black kid kicking Asian kid's asses believable? Well, it's believable because we actually see him train and get better and better as the movie plays out. He trains hard core and it shows. In the old version, he buffs a deck and paints a house and by the end he's like a black belt. In the new one, you get the sense that he trains for a while and despite the fact that it's hard going at first, he eventually gets the gist of it and starts to get really good. In the old one it just seemed like he just kinda trained for a while and magically he was amazing at Kung Fu. Now that I've established some parallels and comparisons between the new and the old film, let me talk about the acting. Yeah, I agree that Jaden Smith is not a good actor. Everybody else though was very solid and Smith and Jackie Chan even had some very palpable chemistry. The script is nothing to write home to mother about, as it were, but it gets the job done and, and it's job is to be a fun family movie with some very engaging action scenes in it. It goes without saying that this movie's biggest handicap is it's overshadowing by the original. I however don't like the original that much, and was probably able to enjoy this movie more because of that. Best advice to not be comparing film to film when you watch this movie, is to forget that the original even happened. Overall, not a fantastic movie, but definitely better than people give credit for. I hope you take this review into consideration if you consider seeing the movie of not.
The Last Airbender (2010)
Why was this movie made?
(SPOILERS) OK, first let me just say what I did like about this movie. I liked the look of the film; the cinematography looks pretty damn good, and the special effects and production values for this movie look fantastic, and for $150 Million dollars, I would expect no less. Now, on to what i didn't like: The story is so poorly told, which is actually impressive considering that there are 20 episodes of the animation that the creators had at their disposal. Another thing, this movie is so lazily directed that it's laughable. There was one tone in this movie and that was overly dramatic. Everybody in this film is at this really cheesy level of elevated dramatic performance and the movie around them does not match this level of performance. Then again, what can you expect when you cast your main character from an audition tape and not a live interview; casting Dev Patel as Prince Zuko over Dante Basco (the voice of the character himself), for no reason, and casting two people who can't act as Sokka and katara. This movie was wrong. It was a pathetic attempt at a telivison to movie adaptation. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film, and that is the only reason why this film has two stars from me. I hope you enjoyed this review and I hope you take it into consideration if you consider seeing the film or not.
Paul (2011)
Simon & Nick Hit Another Home Run
(SPOILERS) This film is a wonderful homage to some of the most influential films in pop culture. The plot basically follows two "Super Nerds" on vacation from England to ComicCon and the American Midwest in search of E.T. proof and/or nerdgasms, and then quickly turns into one of the most hilarious renditions to pop culture I've ever seen set against the backdrop of a cross country chase. Paul relies heavily on pop culture references for the bulk of it's humor, which could be why I enjoyed it so much. This being said, it still has plenty of jokes that will appeal to the average movie goer and every one of them is laugh out loud funny. This film references E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial, Sugarland Express, Star Wars, Alien, Jaws, Indiana Jones, and a myriad of others that are too numerous to list here. In short, if you like movies that rely on real world pop culture references for a good amount of their humor, then there's a good chance you'll love Paul. If you're not crazy about those type of movies, in my opinion there's still plenty of comedic material and a smart enough script, (written by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost themselves), to keep you entertained throughout. I highly recommend Paul. I hope you enjoyed the review and hope you take it into consideration if you decide to go check it out.
Avatar (2009)
Dances With Wolves in Space...
I really don't understand what people mean when they say this film is "James Cameron's Masterpiece". This film is the same old cliché recycled story that we as movie goers have seen a hundred times over.I can literally think of three other films with this exact same story arc and plot line as I type this review. One, you have Lawrence of Arabia, Academy Award Winning film including Best Pictue. It's based on the true story of T.E. Lawrence, a British officer in World War I, and it's a great movie. Two, you have Dances With Wolves, yet another film that won Best Picture in 1990 and was based in the American West. Three, you have, of all things, Pocahontas. It deals (as all of these movies do), with a man finding his true nature and coming to the aide of an indigenous people in the face of oppression. So let me ask; Why, if there are numerous other films that have the same premise, then why does everybody fixate on Avatar? I don't understand. The thing that makes or breaks a movie in most cases is the film's ability to be relateable and it's ability to connect with the audience, and the relevance of the movie in the real world. While Avatar is visually stunning, I'll completely agree with that, it's not relevant at all. The movie was 99% rendered in a computer, (granted it was based on live performances), but if that's your movie's hook "Look at what I can do with my Camera!!!", then that's not too good, especially when you KNOW that going into the movie. When you watch Dances With Wolves, you're aware that it's taking place in the real world and it's a potentially true story.
Aside from the overall plot and execution of Avatar, the casting really bothered me. Lets look at this: Sam Worthington was hollow as hell and anybody could have played him. And at this point in the game, he's just been forced down our throats to the point where the studios are just saying, "Here's your next big star!". Zoe Saldana didn't really bother me too much except she was a little over the top in places, such as when she first meets Sam Worthington's character. Sigourney Weaver was actually really good in this movie. I had no issue with her what so ever, and she's a Cameron favorite. How could I resist that? Lastly, and this ties in with what I said before about the computer generated aspect of the film; the overall character design was too "perfect" for a primitive alien culture. Picture this: Instead of the Na'Vi being this perfect fantasy creature, they looked like an "alien of the week" from Star Trek: The Original Series? I'm just saying that if the Na'Vi looked less perfect then would Jake Sully have really found himself? Umm...yeah, probably not. All the movie really accomplished was creating a perfect sci-fi creature for Nerds.
Overall, I don't hate Avatar. I actually can see that there are some good elements to it and it was done pretty well. That's something that will always be true of Jim Cameron movies is the quality of them. They'll always be really high quality. That being said, I just have too many other problems with it and I just can't get past them because there are other movies out there that are just executed a lot better and are so much more relevant than Avatar.
5/10 not stupendous.
Avatar: The Last Airbender (2005)
The BEST show Nickelodeon has EVER Produced
In a clever mix of ancient Chinese culture and art, and modern relatable characters, Avatar: The Last Airbender is an absolute joy for all ages. I was very pleasantly surprised when I tuned in for the first episode in 2005 and saw, not the same recycled atypical Nickelodeon story line and boring and/or nonexistent character arcs; but a rich visual pallet and an incredible sprawling epic of a story, coupled with very relatable, likable, and undeniably REAL characters. This show has elements of romance, drama, comedy, action, suspense, heartbreak and downright epicness to it...and it's a show aimed at 12-15 year old kids! I can think of no real problems with the show, except to say that it was a bit rushed in its third and final season, and as a result, there were certain things I would have personally like to have seen more polished. However, the rest of the series is just so well done that it completely immerses you in the story and what's happening on screen - something that Hollywood films rarely do well - that these minor problems don't even matter. The best way to think about Avatar is to think of it in terms of the Original Star Wars films: The first installment was all around great. It set up the characters perfectly, and it eventually ended with a huge bang and hyped the audience for the next installment. The second installment straight up took it to another level all together. The characters all come into their own, showcasing new skills and actively evolving as real people. On top of that, the events and situations of the season only serve to make it much darker and give it a much richer tone and once the endgame eventually came, it left the audience saying, "What the hell are we supposed to think now?" Everybody ends on a low note, nobody ends on a high note, and it hooked the audience flawlessly. The third took the audience visually in a whole new direction, showcasing the talent of the animators and the shear artistic vision of the creators, but toward the end it just got a little sloppy. It seemed like the creators were a little more concerned with showing everybody where they had been rather than the final endgame of the series. There was one loose end in fact, that really annoyed me personally, and that was what happened to Zuko's Mother, Ursa. But in hindsight, if that's really the only gripe that I have with the show, that doesn't really say much. But as I said, in the end, it just amounted to this EPIC story about love, trust, betrayal, family, redemption and a great coming of age story. How many franchises can you honestly say that about? Not many.
In summary, if you like films like Star wars and (yes), even Lord of the Rings, then you will undoubtedly love Avatar: The Last Airbender. It was a culmination of elements, (no pun intended), that came together and made Avatar what it was (and still is) and made it so enjoyable to watch. I'm 19 now and I still love it, and I'm psyched out of my mind for the upcoming spin off series, Avatar: The Legend of Korra, set to air in mid-2012.
All in all, I HIGHLY recommend Avatar, and you can go pick up the series on 3 box sets at any given retail store for little of nothing now that the show has ended. I really hope you liked this review and take in into consideration.
10/10 easy.