Change Your Image
bendy392
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Big Hero 6 (2014)
When Disney and Marvel collide.
Well, it was time for Disney to make its own Marvel movie seeing how Disney bought Marvel Entertainment. And we have it—Big Hero 6, which of course is a Marvel comic series. And as everyone expects from Marvel and Disney, it's big, fun, upbeat, action-packed and all sorts of awesome. With this movie, I think it's pretty good. I wouldn't say GREAT, but it's definitely not terrible or awful. I liked it. The characters can be fun to watch and the action is entertaining and can also be pretty deep.
Here's the story. Hiro (get it? Like "hero"? Haha
) is a teenage science geek, who spends his time building fighting robots and uses them in duels on the streets, which are illegal. His older brother, Tadashi, is impressed with his work and takes him to the university he works at, which is full of other students who share Hiro's gift of creativity. Hiro takes the opportunity to apply there to put his skills to the test. Later on, an explosion occurs at the university and kills Tadashi. Hiro decides to investigate the occurrences of his death and teams up with his fellow students as well as a healthcare robot named Baymax, which was built by Tadashi. From there, it's laughs, action and all that great superhero stuff.
Big Hero 6 is a fun movie for kids and adults alike, but of course, it's got some problems. Like, for example, the first five minutes of the film is WAY too rushed. The pacing is so fast, you have to really pay attention otherwise you'll be scratching your head. But after that, it dies down and the pacing's reduced to normal. Also, SOME, not all, of the jokes are pretty lame. But there are some laughing hard moments too, so I think it overshadows that. Another problem is that I think the jokes are maybe a little too distracting. For instance, the jokes are all over the place and while they're funny, they kind of take us away from the drama. Like almost immediately after a dramatic moment, there's a joke and everyone's laughing. If they gave the dramatic moments a little more time to soak up more of the inner conflict of what's going on, as well as their own scene, it would've been more effective that way. However, the dramatic moments are really good. It goes to pretty dark territory later on, when Hiro gets more and more desperate to stop the main villain even to the extent of abandoning his friends.
How are the characters? Well
they're pretty likable, but I wish they got more focus. I mean, yeah, we know who they are, but they're played for laughs most of time, other than seeing them in action. Also, yeah, Baymax is just friggin' adorable. I mean, come on, you just want to give the guy a big hug. And his moments are pretty funny. Hiro's interesting because, like I said, the dramatic moments do give the character moments to dwell on his personal tragedy.
So Big Hero 6 does have its problems, but NEVER to an extent where it's boring or lazy. It's entertaining and kept me intrigued in the plot. It's got good action and a fun story for all ages as Disney provides with the help of Marvel. What will Disney come up with next?
The Boxtrolls (2014)
How can a movie about blue monsters wearing cardboard boxes be good?
From the same brilliant studio who brought you Coraline and ParaNorman and all their stop motion glory, here's The Boxtrolls, which is based on a British novel by Alan Snow. And as far as storytelling in stop motion goes, this film holds up really well. It's strange, dark and goofy as something you'd expect from like a Tim Burton movie.
Here's the story. In 1803, London, everyone's living in fear because in the dead of night, mischievous creatures come out at night, known as the Boxtrolls. People think they're vicious little monsters who kill children, but in reality, they're actually shy creatures who search for junk to build their own inventions with them. It also turns out that they're raising a child, who they name Eggs. A pest exterminator, played by Ben Kingsley, vows to destroy all the Boxtrolls and as each night goes by, more and more Boxtrolls disappear, much to Eggs' dismay. One day, Eggs decides to surface on the streets of London and try to find his lost friends.
The story is very good and the narrative is pretty flowing. The stop motion is VERY good. Have the time I couldn't catch the pauses in between it's that good. The characters are very likable too. Eggs is a very likable character. He's curious, quirky and very delightful about the human world that he tries to interact in. A young girl, played by Elle Fanning is also likable. She can be a bit sassy, but has a good heart and has a fair amount of depth to her. The villain is also a lot of fun. There's just so much energy in him and he can be pretty diabolical, but at the same time, he provides a lot of laughs. One thing I really love about this flick is the first ten minutes. It has little dialog, but the animation tells most of the story while the rest is left up to the characters' expressions like Wall-E did in its first act. There's also several creepy looking imagery, which does balance the edge and lightness in it. One thing I really love about this movie is that I had NO idea where this movie was going to take me. There was one moment I thought it was going to be clichéd, but it didn't. Then I thought it was going to be another, but then it did something else. I really liked how it was unpredictable.
Is there anything I don't like? Well
probably the pacing. The pacing is just a little too fast for me to begin with. But after a while, it calms down and goes normally, so honestly, that's kind of a nitpick.
So, overall, I think this is a wonderfully made movie with lots of visuals, good humor, good story, good characters. See it if you haven't already. You won't regret it.
Final Destination 2 (2003)
Actually a pretty good sequel.
After the financial success hit of the first Final Destination, a sequel had to be thought up. And seeing how the first movie creates potential for a sequel, it seems fitting that another one had to be made and we get Final Destination 2. Yep. Death is at it again. But the question is did they clean up their mistakes from the first film? Did they decide to make the deaths more serious? Are more things explained in this movie as a sequel should do? The answer to the last question. YES. More things are actually explained! That's right. I really liked this movie. I mean, okay yeah, it's not a masterpiece. Miles from it, in fact. But I think it's a very loyal sequel with more things to offer.
Here's the story. Kimberly, played by AJ Cook, is taking a road trip with her friends on the interstate. But an eighteen wheeler carrying a bunch of logs passes by. The logs fall off and crash into countless cars, causing a massive pileup, killing many innocents. But this turns out to be a vision of Kimberly's and she blocks the ramp to the interstate to stop several motorists from entering the interstate. The pileup ensues and Kimberly, along with those who were meant to die in the pileup survives. Kimberly believes that all of this is the same thing as the events of the first film in which Death is now after the lucky ones. Desperate to find answers, Kimberly goes to the only survivor of the first film, Clear Rivers, played by Ali Larter. Yeah, Alex died in between films due to
offscreen syndrome. Clear Rivers decides to help Kimberly and the others to find a way to stop Death and find more information about why this is all happening.
As you can see, this movie has a very strong connection to the first film—as a sequel should. And more things are explained, like how Death is doing all this. I like how Kimberly goes to Clear Rivers for answers. I like how they demand answers from the mortician, who was very knowledgeable from the first film about how to defeat Death. I like how the survivors become more and more concerned as the deaths excess. Yeah, I think the characters are better in this movie. I mean, yeah, they're stupid in their own way, but I like how involved they get near the end, even the cop. Yeah! A cop actually gets involved in the horror movie and you know what? He believes Kimberly and immediately tries to find answers after the pileup and ends up helping the survivors early on. There's even a deleted scene where the mortician explains how Death works to bring balance in the universe. I just found that really fascinating.
Okay, so what's the not so good stuff? Well...like the first film, the deaths are still stupid. In fact, in retrospect, they're goofier in this one. Yeah, they're Loony Tunes territory and more far-fetched. Also, another big change in this film in contrast to the first one is that this movie seems to be leaning towards a little bit of comedy. I guess you can say that since the deaths were ludicrous in the first film, they decided "why not? Make it somewhat comedic. Taking it too seriously would make it even goofier." And the direction they take with the movie just makes it
well, fun. But they don't make it where it's completely a comedy; there's still some suspense in the mix when they try to find more information. Yeah, it's not scary. Just fun.
I guess I'm a big sucker for this movie, but seeing how they treat this movie, they really did try to make it a true sequel. Is it stupid at times? Oh yeah. Are the deaths any better? No. But as far as story and characters go, I think it's an advance from the first movie. I know this had a mixed reaction from people, so you can say I'm a fan of this movie. I liked it, despite its mistakes. Next time it's on TV, give it a shot and see for yourself. Just
not while driving.
Final Destination (2000)
There is no escaping comedic death.
Final Destination, the first of one of the most popular horror franchises ever. The series of course, is well known for its own sense of how an everyday item or circumstance can kill you at anytime in a freak accident and most of all, it made lots'o money. With such a really creative concept, does this movie work? Well
here's the story.
Alex Browning, played by Devon Sawa, is about to board a plane along with his classmates on a field trip to Paris. Alex then has a vision that the plane is going to explode. He panics and gets off the plane, along with several other people. And as the plane departs, it really does explode. Everyone's traumatized and tries to move on from it, but it appears that they were all meant to die on the plane, so Death itself comes after the survivors one by one.
While it's a first that a slasher like Freddy or Jason is chasing dumb teenagers, I will say it's an interesting concept. The teens, however, fall for the same things as they would in slasher flicks. The two main leads are the only ones who are aware of it while the others are either jerks or just don't care about it. But the fact that a supernatural force after them is interesting enough. Plus, I do like the creepy imagery they use which is to be used to be clues to how they'll die.
So, does the movie entirely work? Ehhhnnnnot really. The biggest problem with the movie is that some of the deaths are too comedic. The more drawn out they are, the less believable it is. The most simplistic one is a bus hitting someone, but even then, that was a little too silly. What makes it funny is that it comes right the hell out of nowhere and just smashes into her like a slapstick Tom & Jerry joke. See, if there was buildup to that, like say she tried to get out of the way or someone yelled at her to get away, but ultimately gets hit, it would've worked better. Not a whole lot better, just less unintentionally funny. Even the first death is too much of a stretch. Water leaks in the bathroom, causing someone to trip and have the clothes wire to be wrapped around his neck and it tightens and tightens until he dies of asphyxiation. See, that's just too hard to believe, but say if the water caused him to trip and hit his head on the bathtub, that'd be more believable; you don't need to have anything to be wrapped around his neck. Also, I'm not an expert at trains at anything but they do have BRAKE SYSTEMS, DON'T THEY?!?
So, yeah. The deaths are mediocre for the most part. How are the characters? As I mentioned before, they're your two-bit slasher teens. They're not that interesting because we've seen them before many times. The jock jerk that refuses to listen, the comic relief who cracks jokes just to create his own "identity", the adults won't catch on. The main character is pretty likable though. I do like how desperate he is in trying to figure out the whole thing before it's too late. I think the only interesting character was the mortician, played by Tony Todd. He's just so mysterious and dark; you can pretty much imply that he is either Death or an associate of Death.
So with all this, I don't think it's a terrible flick. I just think it could've been done a lot better. Like I said, it's a very well done concept. It's just too silly at times. It's sort of like watching a montage of Mortal Kombat Fatalities, just with an actual story. So if you're a fan of that sort of thing, than I say give it a view and you'll love it. I'll see you soon
The Notebook (2004)
If you're a bird, I'll give you the bird.
You know that movie that everyone swoons over and you're like the only person who can't stand it and can't understand why so many like it? *sighs* Yeah, this is it. The Notebook—Nicholas Sparks' most notorious story, which reached out to many people and couples. This movie is talked about by almost every single couple I know. And honestly
I don't get why so many people like this movie. I thought this was HORRIBLE!
Alright, here's the story. In the 1940's, Noah, played by Ryan Gosling and Allie, played by Rachel McAdams fall in love over the summer, but there's one little problem: The guy's poor and the girl is rich. Yeah, sound familiar (Titanic, Dirty Dancing)? Oh, don't worry; there'll be other clichés along the way. The girl's parents aren't okay with this and the two are separated. World War II happens and the two eventually reconcile after seven years, but things have changed. Allie is now engaged to another guy, who is actually really supportive. So now that Allie has found Noah again, she is now torn between her old flame and her fiancé.
So what's the problem? The romance is SO manipulative. For example, how does Noah get Allie's attention at the beginning? He hangs off a Ferris wheel and asks her to date him or he'll let go. Yeah! Suicide! That was the answer to everything! That's right, men! If you want to get the girl of your dreams to go out with you, just threaten to kill yourself in front of her! Yeah, you might die, but hey! Doesn't backfire! And the dialogue between them is SO damn corny and SO cheesy and SO clichéd, it makes me wonder, why should I care about these two after seeing a setup that has been overdone countless other times? And even after he threatens to commit suicide in front of her, they see each other again and they strike up a conversation. Cos that's how women would react, right? She's not at all freaked out by this?! And another thing about it is that they talk and—I'm not kidding here—They're together in literally the next scene as a couple. Just like that. Yeah, it's that rushed.
And wouldn't you know it? The fights between these are so forced and half the time, they don't even make sense! After the fight from her parents, he breaks up with her and she's like "get out of here! I don't want to see you again! I hate you!"
no, wait come back!". What?!? Does she have multiple personality disorder?! And the second fight near the end is forced. It's written in just to make the movie seem more "dramatic" or a way of saying "ooh, they're so hurt". And the line "I'm not afraid to hurt your feelings". Did a guy who says that he loves her so much really just say that? "Oh, well he's just saying that because he's not afraid to tell her when she's being unfair". Okay, fine. But can you word that a little better?! To me, it sounds like he doesn't care about how she feels! And keep in mind; this is when she is forced to decide who she'll stay with. The fiancée is at least calm towards this and states that he'll never force her into this! The rich guy, who the movie wants you to be against, is the more believable choice!
Ugh. I'm sorry, but this movie really ticked me off to see how forced and manipulative the romance is and yet it surprises me to see that so many people really love this movie and how emotionally invested they are in it. Never once did this grip me. I couldn't care less about these people except for the rich guy Allie's engaged to. I couldn't care about the couple, I couldn't care about her problems, I couldn't care about anything!
Romance is written in a way for us to relate and hope that the main characters should come out okay in the end after so many hardships. It should be about a real couple, who go through relatable and realistic problems, which act as obstacles. Just show a couple trying to fight their way through hard times and not use these clichés over and over again. Either way, I know a lot of people like this, but as for me, this was god-awful and I will try to stay away from it as much as Allie should have stayed away from Noah to begin with.
The Purge: Anarchy (2014)
Blessed be a better plot, a movie reborn.
After the success of the cult following hit The Purge, you bet there was a sequel in the works. Honestly, I wasn't enthusiastic about it, seeing how the idea was pretty stupid. But as I saw the trailer, it depicted and promised that the plot would focus in the heart of the purge itself, rather than the outskirts or suburbs of it. And as I anticipated, it was exactly what I had hoped for. All the mindless entertaining violence you expected in the first film made it into this sequel.
The plot? It's the night of the purge and three different sets of characters get caught in it. One set is a mother and a daughter, who both live in poverty and are hunted by government agents. Another set is a young couple who are hunted by motorcyclists, who work for upper class purgers who bet on murdering the homeless and lower class groups. And finally, one cop who is using the purge to his advantage to hunt down the man responsible for the death of his son. Eventually, all characters run into each other and try to stay alive from gunmen, rich and wealthy psychos and blood thirsty government agents.
I can think of several reasons why this definitely outdoes the first film in every angle. One, the characters are better. Two, the setting, being in the middle of the violence instead of glances. Three, more things are explained. For instance, it's then revealed that the purge is actually the government's way of social cleansing by exterminating the lower class and low income groups. While it's still stupid as the premise is on its own, hey, it's explaining more. The action scenes can be pretty tense and it also introduces a resistance group against the purge. The main character of this film is the basic action hero, who is like an unstoppable badass as the purgers try to take him down.
So with all this, you can definitely say that this movie is MUCH more improved from the first film. The first film was a dull family home invasion thriller and having the purge as an excuse to not have the police involved. Here, it's people trying to survive twelve hours of gunfire and machete wielding monsters. If you're a big fan of mindless violence for an hour and a half, then this is for you. If not, I suggest you get off the street before commencement.
Batman Forever (1995)
Riddle me this, riddle me that. Was it really that bad?
After the success of Batman Returns, there were repercussions for it. BIG repercussions. Batman Returns was criticized for being overly dark and depressing, which upset many parents, in contrast to the first '89 film. Warner Bros. wasn't satisfied with having Batman being in a mature rated atmosphere and wanted a much lighter film. So, they kicked Tim Burton out and had another director to hold the reins for the next film, Joel Schumacher. Schumacher was set to direct Batman Forever, while Burton was demoted as just a producer. So, with the changes, how did the movie hold up? Audiences saw that it was a big step backwards from the dark and complex Batman that Burton captured and reduced to a more kid friendly version. As for me
eeeyeah, it's corny and cheesy, but
on the other hand, there's some REALLY good things about it.
So, what's the story? Batman, played by Val Kilmer, returns to fight crime in Gotham City once again. The mastermind this time is Two- Face, played by Tommy Lee Jones. Eventually, a man named Edward Nigma becomes the The Riddler, who teams up Two-Face to bring down the dark knight. Meanwhile, a young man's parents are murdered by Two-Face and seeks help from Batman to hunt down and kill Two-Face for retribution and he eventually becomes Robin. Meanwhile, there's a female criminal psychologist who wants to get in Bruce's head as well as his pants.
Yeah, sounds like a lot going on, doesn't it? Well, on the other hand, I do give credit that this film really dives into the psychology of Batman and how much effect it's had on our tortured hero. I like the talk that Bruce gives to Dick about revenge being the wrong path and how messed up he'll be if he kills Two-Face. That's another fascinating thing about this movie. The psychology is more drawn out. The other two films left it to mystery, but this one makes it fully realized. That and it shows more about Bruce's past as if our hero's journey comes full circle of why who he is today. Also, Batman actually comes closer to defeat than the other previous movies! So yeah, I think that was really interesting.
Buuut, yeah it does have the problems everyone's talking about. Like, yeah Two-Face being a Joker wannabe is stupid. The Riddler being played by Jim Carrey is exactly what you would expect. Batman having rubber nipples on the suit, yeah that was odd. The fact that there's no connection to the first two movies is REALLY distracting and the fact that Catwoman makes NO appearance, despite that "sequel friendly" ending from Returns. I also miss the Danny Elfman theme. And I think the biggest change overall is the atmosphere of Gotham City. In the first two movies, the setting was perfect. Gotham City was dark, gloomy and depressing like. Tim Burton was excellent at making settings like that. That's why it was perfect because Gotham is meant to be like that! Here, it's like Las Vegas, having neon lights everywhere and being colorful instead of being all 1940's style getup. Hell, even the gangsters are wearing glow in the dark war paint!
kay?
So yeah, this review is kind of all over the place, but that's what I really thought of it. I guess you could say I have a soft spot for it. Yeah, it's unbelievably stupid at times, but the good stuff is REALLY good. The dark and slow moments kept me interested and I wanted to know more about it. While it's not as good as the previous two, I'd say give it a viewing and judge it for yourself.
Annabelle (2014)
Before The Conjuring, there was laziness.
*sighs* Just when you thought they were going in a positive direction in horror movies after The Conjuring. This. Is a biiiiiiiig step backwards. James Wan and Leigh Whannel's involvement in this flick was limited to only as producers rather than screenwriters and directors as they did The Conjuring. Yeah, you can see the problem can you?
So, the story. A wife and husband are living in a house and the wife is pregnant and is only days away from giving birth. Suddenly, the wife is attacked by crazy people who are part of a cult that are influenced by an evil force. An evil force that seems to be coming from—you guessed it, Annabelle the doll. The mother then gives birth to their baby and as the doll stays with the family, more and more supernatural incidents occur.
Oh man, where do I begin with this? First of all, that's not even what the doll looks like in real life. Google it and see what how inaccurate it is. And the biggest problem of all? These jump scares are SO clichéd and so predictable, it is nowhere near entertaining in the least. The characters aren't even that interesting or not event that intelligent. I know people have to be stupid in horror flicks, but they are so dim-witted, you can't get behind them. ESPECIALLY the husband. Oh GOD, he is so absent minded, you just want to smack the hell out of him and yell "GET A CLUE!". And the design of the doll is so over exaggerated, it comes off as corny. And that's another problem: They place the doll next to the crib of the baby and seeing how (unnecessarily, mind you) creepy enough as it looks, why would they place it next to their child?! No normal functioning person would find this doll charming or cute! That thing is nightmare fuel! And on another note, the writing is awful. REALLY awful. There's one scene where the wife just randomly says out loud what's going on. Like, "oh no! There's got to be another way! I have to find another way!". What, is she narrating a comic book?!
The film falls really hard because unlike The Conjuring, where they heavily relied on atmosphere to build up the suspense until the scare itself in a clever way, they just throw in jump scares in your face over and over. And they're SO repetitive. It's one of those scares when it's a fake-out and then five seconds later, BAM it happens. Tired of it? Don't worry, there's like 50 others to sit through.
Ugh. So yeah, this is just another horror movie with nothing to offer, nothing to be entertained by and nothing to remember. The characters are idiots, the script is clumsily written, the scares are mundane, and the plot is clichéd to the bone. You want a good scare? Read the actual stories behind Annabelle. They are actually really eerie. So, if you're looking for creativity and scary fun, skip it and be more afraid of Barbie dolls.
Tangled (2010)
Never wanted to see this when it came out...and I feel bad.
Disney's 50th full length animated feature. And with it, they decided to head back to what Disney did best: a fairy tale. This one being based off of the story of Rapunzel. You know, the girl with the God knows how much feet of hair? Yeah, that's the one. Also, this is Disney's first time of putting 2D animation to 3D. If you can tell, the designs of the characters look like they're from 2D. I mean, Rapunzel DOES look a bit like Ariel, doesn't she? Anyway, let's jump into the story.
Once upon a time, there was magic flower that a witch, named Mother Gothel, has been using for centuries to keep herself youthful. Eventually, a kingdom grew and the queen falls ill one day while pregnant. The King's men then find the flower and use it to heal the queen, who then gives birth to a girl, named Rapunzel, who possesses the magic within her golden hair. Gothel realizes that Rapunzel is now her only way to stay young forever and breaks into the castle, kidnaps her and takes her to a tower in the middle of a wilderness, where nobody will find them. Gothel convinces Rapunzel to continue to grow her hair otherwise it'll lose its power. Rapunzel then notices that every year on her birthday, she sees lanterns flying in the sky, which are actually launched by the kingdom so that one day, the lost princess will find her way home. Rapunzel wants to leave the tower and see them, but Mother Gothel constantly forbids her from leaving—that is, until a thief named Flynn Rider, breaks in and Rapunzel convinces him to take her to see the lanterns. From there, it's a grand adventure with colorful characters, comedy and of course—romance.
This story is GENIUS and the characters are so memorable. Rapunzel is very likable. She's smart, funny, adventurous and has a real kind heart. Everyone she meets likes her, including a bunch of ruffians and a mad horse. Also, I think she is one of the best female characters ever created. I mean, yeah, she has her insecure Disney Princess moments, but later near the climax, she stands up to Mother Gothel, who emotionally abused her for so many years, and she SCOLDS her when she learns who she really is. So yeah, I think she's a well written character. Flynn Rider is also likable. Most of the time, he's played for laughs, but aside from being a snarky ladies' man, he has his development. Throughout their adventure, he starts to have feelings for Rapunzel and hell, he ends up saving the day at the end. Also the romance is good. Yeah, it's a typical Disney-not-even-a-week-later-romance, but in the end, you don't really care. In fact, they don't even get married. At the end, he PROPOSES to her. Even the comedy is hilarious. There's a horse named Max, who comically plays the "Captain Ahab" character, who is obsessed with hunting Flynn. Whenever you see him and Flynn together, it's just hilarious.
How's the music? While I DON'T think it's the best soundtrack from Disney, it has a beautiful score "I See the Light" and I think it's one of Alan Menken's finest work. Even when its playing, the animation is glorious when you see the floating lanterns. And speaking of the animation, another brilliant moment is when you see Rapunzel's parents, who never say a word in this movie, but when they're crying, it's REALLY powerful. You can see the pain in their eyes like they're about to give up on the search for their daughter.
The villain, Mother Gothel, is also a great character. She's cunning and manipulative like pretending to be Rapunzel's mother, but she can also snap at anytime, asserting her psychological abusive relationship with Rapunzel. And at times, she can actually be pretty funny. But aside from that, she can get pretty dark, like when she straight up STABS SOMEONE IN THE BACK. Yeah, blood and everything. How often do Disney villains stab someone in the back?!
So is this movie ENTIRELY flawless? Well
I only have two problems with this movie. Flynn Rider's real name is revealed to be Eugene Fitzherbert. Honestly, I don't see a point in him having an alias. When we were introduced to this character, we fell in love with Flynn Rider, not Eugene. In popular media, he's known as Flynn Rider. Hell, people remember him as Flynn Rider. I guess you could argue that him confessing his real name was a sign that he's growing more feelings for Rapunzel, but then again, that's kinda a nitpick. My other problem is the marketing. For example, look at the trailer. The one where it ONLY showed the comedy. That didn't look like a Disney film, it looked like a crappy romantic comedy made from Dreamworks. I'm sad to say I fell for this at first and I didn't bother seeing Tangled until years later and— heh, wasn't that a mistake. Plus, this movie didn't become number 1 at the box office until its SECOND WEEK. The marketing also didn't really say much about the return to the classic Princess fairy tale, they only showed the comedy relief and Flynn Rider being a smartass and that was about it. If the marketing for it was to say that it's one of Disney's finest since "The Lion King" or "Beauty & the Beast", people would be more willing to see it.
I wish that this movie got more attention than most others, but it does have quite an audience. Most say that this movie is far from the films that were made in the Renaissance era, which really shocks me because this one is SO good. The characters are great, the story is great, the villain is great, it's really a gem. I've sat down and watched it numerous times and when it comes again, I will gladly watch it from beginning to end.
Frozen (2013)
Is it as good as people say it is?
And now, Disney's highest grossing animated film to date since The Lion King, Frozen. Disney decided to go back to the princess fairy tale formula with musical numbers. When it came out, people went NUTS. It was a huge hit. Critics loved it, audiences loved it and it crossed over $1,000,000,000 worldwide. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand I think it's kinda overrated. But that doesn't mean it's a bad movie; I just don't think I'd say this is one of Disney's greatest projects ever made. Ironically, Frozen has been in the works since Walt Disney himself was alive and the project was canceled numerous times, with scripts being rewritten, film crew shifting around, it just couldn't get out to the public until now. And now here it is. Here's the story.
Sisters Anna and Elsa are the children of the king and queen of Arendelle. But it turns out, Elsa has cryokinesis—the ability to create snow and ice at her will. One day while playing, Elsa accidentally injures Anna with her powers and the king and queen decide that in order to save her, they need to erase Anna's memories of Elsa's power with the help from some trolls, who then tell Elsa that if her cryokinesis gets out of hand, it could mean disaster for all. The king and queen lock the gates to the castle so no one would know about this and try their best to teach Elsa to control her powers. Anna tries to connect with Elsa, who constantly blows her off to keep her safe. A decade later, the king and queen die due to Disney Parent Syndrome, leaving Elsa to rule as queen. At Elsa's coronation, her cryokinesis is discovered and everyone thinks she's a freak. Elsa runs away and decides to start a new life. So now, it's up to Anna to reconcile with her sister and save Arendelle from being eternally frozen while coming across colorful characters along the way.
So yeah, pretty big story, huh? Yeah, everyone was totally digging this story and so was I. Okay where exactly does it fall flat? I can tell you in one word and this going to be a shock for some of you
Elsa. I found Elsa to be selfish. I mean, yeah, I get it. She's tortured by the fact that her powers are getting unstable and she's worried about killing Anna. Fair enough, but when she runs away and builds her fortress of solitude, she's also saying goodbye to Anna, her only FAMILY LEFT. FOREVER. And does she ever mention her? Nope. She's so absorbed in her own troubles, she doesn't care about anything. And when Elsa sees her own sister again after so many years of shutting her out, what does she say? A casual "hi". And when Anna finds her to tell her to take responsibility and face her fears, not only does she refuse, not only does she freeze her heart, she builds a giant snow monster to that NEARLY KILLS HER! Yeah, sister of the year, everyone! What also bothers me is that a lot of people say that Elsa is so inspirational and a great model. I think people got that mixed up with Anna. Yeah, ANNA is the great model. Anna is a very likable character. She's clumsy, but she admits it. She makes mistakes, but is willing to take responsibility for them. She cares for her sister so much and was willing to put her life on the line just for her. Hell, SHE was the one who saved all of Arendelle, when we should want Elsa to overcome her hardships, but she never did until she saw her sister sacrificed herself. Wouldn't it have been SO much more interesting if Elsa said "you know what? Screw this. Anna's my sister and I'm going back?" I'm sorry, but this is a HUGE flaw.
Alright, so Elsa's character is a mess. How are the others? I think Kristoff is bland. The minute we see him, we know who he's going to be. He's going to be the love interest for Anna and that's it. He doesn't advance the story, so what's the point of him? Cut him out and you won't miss anything.
What about the songs? They're
okay. Frozen Heart, Do You Wanna Build a Snowman? and For the First Time in Forever are good, but the others don't do much for me. Love is an Open Door? Hated. Fixer-Upper? Hated. Let it Go? It's
nice to listen to. Not a huge fan, but I'd give it a pass.
Okay, I'm done bashing on it. What DO I like? The animation. Praising animation by Disney is typical, but really the animation is GREAT. Look at the ice, that really does look like ice. And the entire Let it Go sequence is GLORIOUS. Watching the ice forming the castle is just breathtaking. Also, the snowman, Olaf, is a likable character. He's lighthearted, he's optimistic and he's actually funny at times. And he's willing to die for the main characters That's awesome. Go snowman.
So in conclusion, Frozen can be a bit of a mess, but I do have a soft spot for it. I think the strong moments are really good. The first ten minutes of the movie are really solid. Like when Elsa yells for her parents for help at the beginning; that was really good. I do like this movie, I just have my own personal problems with it. I don't hate it, but it does pretty damaging flaws. When it comes on again, I'll check it out again. If you see it on DVD and Blu-Ray, give it a viewing and see for yourself.
The Dark Knight (2008)
Na-na na-na na-na na-na na-na na-na na-na na! Dark Kniiiiiiight!
The Dark Knight, the second installment of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. Box office skyrocketed, audiences worshiped it and critics gave it countless gold stars; it was easily considered the best of the Batman films.
Bruce Wayne/Batman, played by Christian Bale, is a superhero who joins forces with Gotham City Officer Jim Gordon, played Gary Oldman, and District Attorney Harvey Dent, played by Aaron Eckhart, to fight the underworld mob leaders, who are under control of the maniacal terrorist, The Joker-- played by the late Heath Ledger.
The plot seems simple, no? The Dark Knight is basically a series of events. While it's mostly events after events, they do flow nicely and fall into place for the next action for the characters to partake in. And most of all, you do want to know the outcome of the entire experience. It's also a tragedy story at best, especially for the character of Harvey Dent. After the entire left side of his face his burnt, the part where he screams in agony of his transformation after losing everything he loved, but all you hear is one musical note that gets uncomfortably louder.
The Joker is cool, but at times, I think he was too serious. I know that "well, that's how The Joker is". But, The Joker is supposed to be funny at times too. I only giggled a few times, but to be fair, he was terrifying. As The Joker should be anyway. I just thought they went a little too overboard of him being just a mass murderer.
My biggest problem with the movie? The dialogue. It's nice and stuff, but it sounds like something you'd hear in speeches. They don't sound like realistic words, they sound like speeches. "Batman stands for something more important"/"You either die a hero or you live long to see yourself become the villain"/"Your stand against organized crime is the first legitimate ray of light in Gotham in decades"/"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now."
I know they sound like adult choices of words, but there's a difference between realistic words and speeches. And whenever there's a "speechy moment" it's usually how Batman is noble or the importance of the characters and it's like every five minutes. The thing is, we already KNOW the importance of the characters, their needs and motivations. You don't need to give speeches about them, just let their actions speak for themselves and have them talk like normal people instead of talking about the situation.
Aside from that, the movie is just great. The action is great too. There's no crazy jump cuts and the shaky cam is used to a minimum, which is pretty rare you see in movies today. When you get past the preachy-ness, The Dark Knight is a great Batman film to watch and such a good action flick to entertain yourself with. See it and you won't be disappointed.
Carrie (2013)
Good to know that I'm still not going to prom.
I read Rotten Tomatoes and when I saw the score, I thought "ah, this is going to be one of those horror remakes that aren't nowhere near as good as the original, but it could've been worse" because I'm a fan of the original...................I was wrong.
The plot is-- oh, what? You've never heard of the legendary Carrie? Okay, okay. I'll be nice to you. Carrie is about a young timid high school girl outcast, who is constantly bullied at school and abused by her religious mother. After an incident in the school showers, Carrie discovers that she possesses telekinesis. Later, she is pranked on once again. Having enough, she snaps and uses her telekinesis to unleash hell on her tormentors.
So, what's so good about this retelling of a classic that everyone remembers so well? Well, as every remake should be, it has different angles, different looks on the characters and just a different taste of the story. It is closer to the book, but that doesn't necessarily make it good. I will go as far to say that there are elements from this version I like better than the original 1976 version. For example, I think this Carrie, played by Chloë Grace Moretz, is more eloquent. She has more backbone while still being her timid character, like standing up to her mother, played by Julianne Moore, who portrayed the mother very well. We also see a closer connection to Carrie's acceptance from her classmates as time goes on in the film until the climax. Also the movie made a dark move right before Carrie snaps. Watch it and see what I mean. Like, I can't BELIEVE they did that but to be honest, I think that makes it even more dramatic and harshly tragic.
This is no way of saying that the original sucked or anything. FAR from sucked. The remake surprisingly blew me away with its take on the tragic story. But of course, it is not without problems. I think the buildup to her telekinesis is WAAAAY too rushed. But the buildup to her breakdown at the prom is excellent. There are awkward moments though to be fair, the original had awkward moments too, so I guess it's a fair trade.
I saw this movie twice and I would definitely get it on DVD the moment it is released on the open market. If the original didn't grab your attention, this one probably won't, but if you're a fan of the original, I'd say check this one out. The original is such a landmark in Hollywood, people may overlook this one and just simply say that the original is better. Decide for yourself, but as for me, I think it's a well told, solid remake of the original and not just a recycled formula.
Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013)
Scares over sense.
Insidious: Chapter 2, the sequel to the 2011 hit Insidious and directed by the same guy, James Wan. This is...um...less than the first...but I'm not sure if that makes it good...for me at least.
So, here's the story: Immediately after the events of the first one, the father named Josh, played by Patrick Wilson rescues his son, who possessed a supernatural ability to travel through different worlds. He came across the dark spirit world, inhabited by demons. After Josh gets his son out, it turns out he was possessed by a woman in black. Possessed, Josh kills Elise without anyone noticing. Josh's wife, Renai, played by Rose Byrne, tries to defend her husband that he wasn't responsible. While that's going on, strange activities occurs just like in the first and the scares are placed here and there for the audience to jump.
So what are the problems with this movie? Well first off, Josh being released after being suspected in murder? Shouldn't he be in custody or something? Like being held? If he's a suspect in murder, he shouldn't be around people. I know it's dramatic irony, but this is still weird. Aside from that, there are some things that aren't explained and they make no sense. I won't say anything here, but...needless to say, it's pretty hard to swallow.
The scares...they're a bit step back from the previous film. They're not bad, they're just not as subtle as the first. Also another problem. In the first film, they follow the "rule of Jaws" when they don't show the monster until the last third. Here, they show it no time flat. And they jump scares in this movie can be a little too over the top silly and I daresay-- pretty damn cheesy. In fact, that's what James Wan's biggest weakness. His scares are scary, but they are a bit "in your face". His other film, The Conjuring, worked so well because not only were there jump scares, but there were a lot of moments when you can just take in the unsettling atmosphere. James Wan does do that in his movies and he did in this, but not as much as The Conjuring did.
With all these problems, does that this movie is bad? ...not necessarily. The good stuff are the performances, the twists and how the plot explains more. But to be honest, the twist raises more questions. Never answered, of course, how the twists play out and that it does answer some questions from the first film is pretty interesting.
So, yeah. It's a mixed bag to say the least. It's not good, but it's not terrible. The first beats the sequel by a lengthy distance, but the good stuff is pretty satisfying. If you want to see it and have a jump scare fest, you won't be disappointed. I probably would see it again if I'm bored, but go ahead and see it and give your own take on it.
The Call (2013)
The Call? I'm hanging up.
When I saw the trailer, it reminded me of a "Taken" scenario and I thought, "eh, seems like worth looking into". I sat down, watched it and......I thought it was pretty mediocre.
Well, let's hear the plot first. Halle Berry plays a 911 operator, who takes emergency calls and sends cops to help those in need. The film opens when Halle Berry receives a call from a teenage girl as a man breaks into her house. While he is struggling to get inside, Berry tells her to go upstairs and hide, when she could've gone out the other way, hence he doesn't even know where she was at the moment. The girl hides under the bed, but loses contact with Berry and like a FREAKING MORON, she dials back, giving the girl's hiding place away and gets the girl killed. Six months later, Berry is haunted by this incident and one day receives a call from another teenage girl who winds up getting kidnapped and thrown into the kidnapper's trunk and the race is on to find her before she ends up getting killed.
The setup? Yeah, it's really good. Normally, it would be about a movie focusing on a police officer, but it focuses on a 911 operator, which is interesting because it shows how 911 operators deal with panic from the ones they're trying to save and the fact that Berry has to pull herself together and not get emotional and lose herself to help those in need. I like the conversations between the girl and Berry. The performance from Halle Berry is believable and relatable. I like the chase when she's in the trunk and is desperate to get out. It is tense and well filmed. But the other stuff? Eh... The relationship between Berry and an officer, whose name you'll forget the moment you see him never goes anywhere. And the backstory of the kidnapper is not that interesting. If it took more time, there would've been a greater understanding about him. I think the biggest problem with this movie is...GOD, these people are idiots. As I pointed out, a girl who goes upstairs when someone is breaking into their house is such a cliché that even SCREAM pointed out. Second, there is one scene when Berry goes out to look for the girl...WITHOUT ANY BACKUP. She thinks she has found where the kidnapper is hiding and enters...WITHOUT CALLING THE POLICE! I mean, yeah, she drops her phone on the way down, but the phone wasn't damaged, so she could still call the police, but decides not to due to a faulty script. And the one flaw that kills the movie is the ending. I won't give anything away, but I'll just it's...OH GOD is it stupid! My point is, it's not the EXACT ending you would expect, but...it's stupid.
So yeah, all in all, there are some good stuff, but there's bad stuff and the bad stuff overwhelms the good. The first two acts were okay, but the third act made no sense and it's a jumbled, script confusing mess and the flaws are very serious flaws. If I were to watch this movie again, I'd dial 911 for help before the third act begins.