It's no secret that Schwarzenegger's been out of the acting game for a while. He's made a few passable entries since his return like "The Last Stand" and "The Expendables 2." Those were merely passable at best. The former didn't quite have the over-the-top violence that action movie lovers like myself crave. So now Arnie's back with "Sabotage," which in the trailers is advertised as an over-the-top Expendables-style flick in which Sam Worthington looks like the lead singer from Five Finger Death Punch and Joe Manganiello looks like ... I don't really know, but he has cornrows. But in reality, the movie's not quite like the trailer, and that's a good thing.
"Sabotage" is an adaptation of the classic Agatha Christie story "And then there were none." It is a story that hasn't really received a proper screen treatment in my opinion, at least until now. Because of this, "Sabotage" is more of a mystery/thriller than a balls out action movie like "Expendables." But that doesn't mean there's no action in it.
The film starts out with Arnie's character watching a snuff film of his wife getting tortured to death by a drug cartel. It then cuts to "8 months later." Some people who saw the trailer might thing WTF since it makes us believe that Arnie's family got kidnapped halfway through. Nope. That little opening, which like the rest of the movie pushes the envelope of good taste in movie violence, sets up the plot perfectly. So then cut to the present, and Arnie's leading a team of elite DEA agents in a safehouse bust. It becomes clear the minute we see them that these guys have more in common with, say, bikers or military spec ops because of the way they dress and act. The point is, these aren't your average pole-up-their-ass Feds. These guys are hardcore badasses and conduct themselves as such.
So during the bust, they find a big pile of money, not unlike the one belonging to Walter White in "Breaking Bad," and decide to steal $10 million (of cartel money) for themselves and split it up. They bury it in a sewage pipe to retrieve it another day, of course until, surprise, it's all gone because someone stole it. Then the killing begins, and these badasses start getting picked off one by one.
The most noteworthy thing that sets "Sabotage" apart from its competitors is the violence. Ho-LEE SHIEETT. While again, this isn't quite the testosterone-fueled ride the trailers seemed to suggest, the ways in which people die here are staggeringly brutal, and I'm a guy who's seen a lot of action movies. They're also actually pretty plausible, especially the guy dying early on after his RV gets hit my a train (spoiler: it's really, really messy). There's also plenty of up-close shots of people getting shot in the head, and again, it all feels very realistic. One of the ones that actually made me go "DAMN" was when a car crashed into one of those wrecker trucks in a manner that the bed basically sliced half the car in half horizontally. This is not a movie you want to take the whole family to see.
Where "Sabotage" really shines is the plot. For an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, it's actually somewhat smart. Up until the very last act, we're led to believe that a group of cartel assassins is picking the DEA team off one by one because some cartel boss got pissed that $10 million, a pretty small amount for cartel standards, got stolen. Now anyone who's read "And then there were none" probably could have seen this coming a mile away, but it's really someone on the team behind it all. And said perpetrator somehow managed to make everyone think it was the cartel assassins. It's all pretty clever, watch the movie.
The acting isn't that special. Arnie's the same as in all his movies. Sam Worthington's not bad, it's just quite like him to look more like a heavy metal frontman. Joe Manganiello does decent as the squad's "big guy," and this is certainly a little different fare for Terrence Howard, who again handles it well. Back to Joe Manganiello, I still can't take seriously a guy who played a character named "Big Dick Richie" in "Magic Mike." The real standout is Mireille Enos, who is absolutely convincing as a federal agent who's not really all there if you get what I mean. She's sexy as hell and absolutely nuts, which I guess is a good fit for an undercover agent. Olivia Williams does ok as the uptight homicide detective I'm sure everyone's seen a hundred times.
To wrap it all up, "Sabotage" is definitely not what the trailers said it would be. That's a good thing. Sometimes trailers inadvertently show the whole movie, so it's good when the actual product is a little different. Like most thrillers, this one may have you on the edge of your seat through most of the film, but that really really gets amplified in the final act. The violence is some of the most brutal I've yet seen in any action movie, and that makes this not at all a family experience.
7.75 out of 10 for being somewhat different than the competitors.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Saturday, March 8, 2014
"300: Rise of an Empire" review
When "300" came out seven years ago, it was a legitimate cultural phenomenon, at least among anyone male aged 16-25, myself included. And I'll have to admit, other than the overdose of testosterone that made everyone in my high school want to become a Spartan warrior, the film's use of CGI and slow motion was somewhat unprecedented. Also somewhat unprecedented was the way the entire main cast got into shape for the movie. Not since the 1980s had anyone seen so many buff bodies in a single movie. And although it was based on a graphic novel, "300" did well enough, and like anything that makes enough money in Hollywood, they made a sequel.
Fortunately, the original graphic novel is based on events set during a particularly turbulent time in Greece's history. So there was absolutely more than enough material to draw from in order to make a coherent follow-up story. And that's the thing. I can only call "Rise of an Empire" a pseudo-sequel because most of the movie isn't set after the events of "300." Instead, it touches on events that occurred before and concurrent to what was going on with Leonidas and company. The finale is set after Leonidas and the 300 got overrun. It's an interesting way to frame a follow-up movie.
"Rise of an Empire" starts out with Leonidas' widow (played by Lena Hedey of "Game of Thrones") recalling the Battle of Marathon, in which a then-nobody Athenian soldier named Themistocles managed to not only help an over matched Greek army drive back the Persian invaders, he also managed to kill the Persian King Darius. I won't really care much about spoilers because this is a fairly straightforward movie, and if you took any history classes, you should be at least somewhat familiar with what's going on here. Anyway, Darius dies as a result of his wounds, and his most loyal servant, Artemesia (Eva Green of "Casino Royale"), swears vengeance on the Greeks. But first, she somehow turns Darius' cowardly son Xerxes into the "god king" we all remember from the original movie. Xerxes (and Artemesia, who is manipulating him) blames all of Persia's previous problems on Greece and declares war again. And that's where our story really begins.
While "300" focused on the land battle in Greece's war against Persia, "Rise of an Empire" has a much more nautical feel to it. It follows the aforementioned Themistocles, who was actually present during events of the original movie (he narrowly missed the famous "THIS IS SPARTA" moment). While Leonidas wants to fight his battle on land, Themistocles challenges the Persians at sea. It's an interesting change of scenery and changes the overall hue from orange/bronze to blue. Either way, it's all still very obvious CGI done in the style that Zack Snyder made all the rage for stylish action movies. Like its predecessor, the battles here are over the top and a lot of fun to watch. The fact that most of "Rise of an Empire" takes place at sea make for a somewhat more tactical feel since it deals with ships and not just people. Leonidas was all about funneling large amounts of men into a tight space so that they could be slaughtered easily. Themistocles is more calculating and strategic, utilizing feigned retreats and deception that lead to some of the movie's best sequences. And for some reason, I found this entry to actually up the gore up from its predecessor. At least in the dismemberment arena. I won't say too much, but the finale is very satisfying to watch. However, the style of the action is not new. But that doesn't mean it's not fun, either.
These are not movies you watch for acting. Sullivan Stapleton, while passable, is no Gerard Butler in terms of stage presence (who wasn't even that good an actor in the first one to begin with considering how one-dimensional these roles are). The clear standout here is Eva Green. Her character of Artemesia is deliciously manipulative and quite frankly, sexy as hell. And that's what makes her such a great villain. She's not afraid to manipulate those around her to get what she wants. She's not afraid to sleep with the enemy. And like Darth Vader, she doesn't smile upon failure. Lena Hedey and David Wenham reprise their roles from the previous film, but they're honestly more like extended cameos.
Overall, "Rise of an Empire" accomplishes exactly the same thing its predecessor did. It introduces a very fantasized portion of Greek history to a new crowd, who might have been too young when "300" was first released. The score will get your adrenaline pumping, and there's a rather awesome use of Black Sabbath's hit "War Pigs" somewhere in there. It's a little less effective and jarring than its predecessor, but it still works. At least for an action-movie lover like me, watching these types of stylish, ultra-violent movies won't get old for a good long while.
7/10
Fortunately, the original graphic novel is based on events set during a particularly turbulent time in Greece's history. So there was absolutely more than enough material to draw from in order to make a coherent follow-up story. And that's the thing. I can only call "Rise of an Empire" a pseudo-sequel because most of the movie isn't set after the events of "300." Instead, it touches on events that occurred before and concurrent to what was going on with Leonidas and company. The finale is set after Leonidas and the 300 got overrun. It's an interesting way to frame a follow-up movie.
"Rise of an Empire" starts out with Leonidas' widow (played by Lena Hedey of "Game of Thrones") recalling the Battle of Marathon, in which a then-nobody Athenian soldier named Themistocles managed to not only help an over matched Greek army drive back the Persian invaders, he also managed to kill the Persian King Darius. I won't really care much about spoilers because this is a fairly straightforward movie, and if you took any history classes, you should be at least somewhat familiar with what's going on here. Anyway, Darius dies as a result of his wounds, and his most loyal servant, Artemesia (Eva Green of "Casino Royale"), swears vengeance on the Greeks. But first, she somehow turns Darius' cowardly son Xerxes into the "god king" we all remember from the original movie. Xerxes (and Artemesia, who is manipulating him) blames all of Persia's previous problems on Greece and declares war again. And that's where our story really begins.
While "300" focused on the land battle in Greece's war against Persia, "Rise of an Empire" has a much more nautical feel to it. It follows the aforementioned Themistocles, who was actually present during events of the original movie (he narrowly missed the famous "THIS IS SPARTA" moment). While Leonidas wants to fight his battle on land, Themistocles challenges the Persians at sea. It's an interesting change of scenery and changes the overall hue from orange/bronze to blue. Either way, it's all still very obvious CGI done in the style that Zack Snyder made all the rage for stylish action movies. Like its predecessor, the battles here are over the top and a lot of fun to watch. The fact that most of "Rise of an Empire" takes place at sea make for a somewhat more tactical feel since it deals with ships and not just people. Leonidas was all about funneling large amounts of men into a tight space so that they could be slaughtered easily. Themistocles is more calculating and strategic, utilizing feigned retreats and deception that lead to some of the movie's best sequences. And for some reason, I found this entry to actually up the gore up from its predecessor. At least in the dismemberment arena. I won't say too much, but the finale is very satisfying to watch. However, the style of the action is not new. But that doesn't mean it's not fun, either.
These are not movies you watch for acting. Sullivan Stapleton, while passable, is no Gerard Butler in terms of stage presence (who wasn't even that good an actor in the first one to begin with considering how one-dimensional these roles are). The clear standout here is Eva Green. Her character of Artemesia is deliciously manipulative and quite frankly, sexy as hell. And that's what makes her such a great villain. She's not afraid to manipulate those around her to get what she wants. She's not afraid to sleep with the enemy. And like Darth Vader, she doesn't smile upon failure. Lena Hedey and David Wenham reprise their roles from the previous film, but they're honestly more like extended cameos.
Overall, "Rise of an Empire" accomplishes exactly the same thing its predecessor did. It introduces a very fantasized portion of Greek history to a new crowd, who might have been too young when "300" was first released. The score will get your adrenaline pumping, and there's a rather awesome use of Black Sabbath's hit "War Pigs" somewhere in there. It's a little less effective and jarring than its predecessor, but it still works. At least for an action-movie lover like me, watching these types of stylish, ultra-violent movies won't get old for a good long while.
7/10
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Expectations for "Godzilla"
I'm a bit of a fanboy of Godzilla. Even though he's technically little more than a rampaging monster, he's arguably my favorite movie character of all time. And now he's getting the big screen treatment again for the first time in 10 years ("Final Wars" came out in 2004). As of a few minutes ago of the time of writing, they dropped the second trailer for the upcoming movie. They dropped the first one back in December. Even compared to the first trailer, this one really ups the stakes. Trailer #1 was more of a teaser. This one gave us more glimpses of the titular monster and even more scenes of destruction without giving away too much. Thus far I am very very impressed. The fact that this and "X-Men: Days of Future Past" drop within a week of each other really is making me a happy camper.
Enough of the digression. Here's what it looks like this movie is going to bring to the table.
First of all, it's dark. I mean, during the 1998 movie it was raining the whole time. But that one was somewhat more lighthearted and more of a "summer blockbuster" because it was from the same guys that brought us "Independence Day." The new movie definitely wins in the scenery department because it has more varied locales, but that doesn't mean it's going to be lighthearted. The trailers have shown us that the mood for this movie is very, very dark. As in, the world is actually coming to an end, and there's nothing we can do about it kind of dark. If the opening narrative by Bryan Cranston in the new trailer is any indication, "Godzilla" will have a very lingering sense of helplessness and dread.
Like I said before, this time, the humans don't have the situation under control. In the 1998 film, the monster was killed with a few missiles launched from fighter jets. That in itself is an insult to Godzilla, seeing as the true King of the Monsters would look at fighter jets the same way we look at mosquitoes. The new trailer had shots of fighter jets actually falling from the sky and a monologue by Ken Watanabe talking about how man always feels like it's in charge of nature and not the other way around. Then there's the scenes of destruction that are clearly not limited to one city. Godzilla is a monster who destroys whatever he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants this time. That kind of sets the tone.
The acting should also be top notch. It's got Bryan Cranston ("Breaking Bad") and Ken Watanabe ("The Last Samurai," "Inception") in it. That should say enough.
The story also seems to have some kind of continuity with previous films. In the new trailer, Ken Watanabe's character mentioned that a creature was awoken in 1954 with nuclear bomb testing. Reference to the original movie? You don't say!
Finally, Godzilla is returning to his former glory. This will wipe out the bad taste that the 1998 movie brought. It's even a far cry from the campy Showa-era films that made him a protector who was willing to do battle with other monsters. In other words, the spirit of the original film is back. And that's how it should be. Godzilla is an unstoppable force of nature who treats the combined military might of the world with the contempt that humans show to insects. He's angry with us, he wants to destroy us, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.
May 16 can't come fast enough.
Enough of the digression. Here's what it looks like this movie is going to bring to the table.
First of all, it's dark. I mean, during the 1998 movie it was raining the whole time. But that one was somewhat more lighthearted and more of a "summer blockbuster" because it was from the same guys that brought us "Independence Day." The new movie definitely wins in the scenery department because it has more varied locales, but that doesn't mean it's going to be lighthearted. The trailers have shown us that the mood for this movie is very, very dark. As in, the world is actually coming to an end, and there's nothing we can do about it kind of dark. If the opening narrative by Bryan Cranston in the new trailer is any indication, "Godzilla" will have a very lingering sense of helplessness and dread.
Like I said before, this time, the humans don't have the situation under control. In the 1998 film, the monster was killed with a few missiles launched from fighter jets. That in itself is an insult to Godzilla, seeing as the true King of the Monsters would look at fighter jets the same way we look at mosquitoes. The new trailer had shots of fighter jets actually falling from the sky and a monologue by Ken Watanabe talking about how man always feels like it's in charge of nature and not the other way around. Then there's the scenes of destruction that are clearly not limited to one city. Godzilla is a monster who destroys whatever he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants this time. That kind of sets the tone.
The acting should also be top notch. It's got Bryan Cranston ("Breaking Bad") and Ken Watanabe ("The Last Samurai," "Inception") in it. That should say enough.
The story also seems to have some kind of continuity with previous films. In the new trailer, Ken Watanabe's character mentioned that a creature was awoken in 1954 with nuclear bomb testing. Reference to the original movie? You don't say!
Finally, Godzilla is returning to his former glory. This will wipe out the bad taste that the 1998 movie brought. It's even a far cry from the campy Showa-era films that made him a protector who was willing to do battle with other monsters. In other words, the spirit of the original film is back. And that's how it should be. Godzilla is an unstoppable force of nature who treats the combined military might of the world with the contempt that humans show to insects. He's angry with us, he wants to destroy us, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.
May 16 can't come fast enough.
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Far Cry 3 review
I'm aware that this game came out in late 2012, so I'm extremely late in playing it. Well what can I say? I just get whatever Steam sales can get me at a super low price. I heard good things about "Far Cry 3" back when it came out, but at $60 a pop, games are a bit pricey. Of course, that's where Steam sales come into play. If you happen to be a PC gamer, all you have to do is wait a couple months, even weeks, then you might get a game for sometimes around 90% off its original MSRP. And oftentimes, those games will be a hell of a steal. So yeah, that's how I felt when I purchased "Far Cry 3" a year after release but for a mere $7.
It has been one of the best gaming experiences I've ever had thanks to the open world. The only other comparable free-roam games I've played that can come close are "Sleeping Dogs" and "Batman: Arkham City." The fact that I got it for the incredibly jacked up price of $7 made it even sweeter. And now I get to explain why.
Storywise, "Far Cry 3" is actually pretty original. Well, as far as gaming goes. It starts out when a group of roughly college-age kids go somewhere in the South Pacific for a vacation. And then it all goes to hell. Ok, so maybe it's not all that original after all since that sounds exactly like the kind of B-movie cliche-ridden rubbish that you'd expect in an MTV movie or reality show. That's where I'm partly wrong. Yes, it starts out that way, but then the main character, someone who in my opinion is not all that hard to relate to, out of necessity becomes ... something else. He gets forced to become a killer to save his friends from being sold off as sex slaves or die. In that sense, he's kind of like Oliver Queen from "Arrow." Well, maybe it's not that original, anyway. It's entertaining, though. And unlike Oliver Queen, it becomes clear that although he may embrace his dark side, Jason Brody is never 100% comfortable with it. The villains he goes up against are fairly memorable, too. Especially the batshit-insane first villain Vaas, who may just go down as one of the top villains from the past console generation. Hoyt is a little more one-dimensional, but that doesn't make him any less awful of a person. As for Buck, well ... just play the game. It's definitely a hard R-rated story, without saying too much.
The gameplay is like any first-person shooter, but it feels more realistic than say "Call of Duty." While "Far Cry 3" follows a narrative structure, it's an open-world game. And boy is the world big. Imagine if "Skyrim" was set in a tropical paradise. Well, maybe it's not that big, but still. Both islands in the Rook Island chain easily feel like they're about the size of Boracay (a popular tourist destination in the Philippines that is comparable to the tropical setting of this game). Oh and even when you're not playing any of the story missions, everything on Rook Island wants to kill you. Even the animals. I remember fairly early on in the game, I was still reeling from the shock of being captured by pirates. I decided to take one of the available cars randomly parked on the island for a drive when a jeep full of pirates drove past me. They then started cursing at me and although it took a few seconds to register, my next thought went something like this: "Holy f**k they're actually shooting at me!" That's what "Far Cry 3" is like. You don't start off as a hardened killer, and the game makes that very apparent. Of course, by the end of the game, I was able to take out entire strongholds of enemies with relative ease thanks to the abilities (which you unlock through the campaign and manifest themselves physically in the form of a sick tattoo) and the weapons (unlocked by activating radio towers a la "Batman: Arkham Origins"). If that's not character development, I don't know what is. Those pirates and privateers you face are also genuinely bad people, so there's something of a sick satisfaction when you pick off a lone group just for being there.
That last paragraph was getting too long. There's also the hunting and gathering aspect. As I previously said, even the animals want to kill you. And Rook Island is home to a wide variety of nasty predators ranging from bears to packs of rabid dogs. And the cassowaries. Those things are just evil. Fortunately, you can hunt them and skin them, as you'd be able to in real life. The skins can then be used to craft objects like holsters, bigger rucksacks, ammo pouches, etc. Plants can also be harvested for medicinal purposes. This sort of interaction with the world is what puts "Far Cry 3" heads and shoulders above its competitors.
Graphically, "Far Cry 3" is spectacular. Maybe not getting it on PS3 was a blessing in disguise because I've heard it's far superior on PC if you have a machine advanced enough to run it at max settings (I clearly do). Rook Island is the gorgeous landscape you'd expect it to be, and it would be paradise if it weren't for the drug organization that took over. In a blog post, I noted that it reminded me of a few islands in the Philippines I've been to, namely Boracay and Palawan. Although anyone should be able to appreciate the scenery. The character models are top notch as well, with some of the best textures I've seen yet. Of course, the magic of PC gaming enables us to squeeze that extra little bit that the Xbox 360 and PS3 weren't able to quite produce.
And there we have it. One of the best gaming experiences I've ever had.
10/10
It has been one of the best gaming experiences I've ever had thanks to the open world. The only other comparable free-roam games I've played that can come close are "Sleeping Dogs" and "Batman: Arkham City." The fact that I got it for the incredibly jacked up price of $7 made it even sweeter. And now I get to explain why.
Storywise, "Far Cry 3" is actually pretty original. Well, as far as gaming goes. It starts out when a group of roughly college-age kids go somewhere in the South Pacific for a vacation. And then it all goes to hell. Ok, so maybe it's not all that original after all since that sounds exactly like the kind of B-movie cliche-ridden rubbish that you'd expect in an MTV movie or reality show. That's where I'm partly wrong. Yes, it starts out that way, but then the main character, someone who in my opinion is not all that hard to relate to, out of necessity becomes ... something else. He gets forced to become a killer to save his friends from being sold off as sex slaves or die. In that sense, he's kind of like Oliver Queen from "Arrow." Well, maybe it's not that original, anyway. It's entertaining, though. And unlike Oliver Queen, it becomes clear that although he may embrace his dark side, Jason Brody is never 100% comfortable with it. The villains he goes up against are fairly memorable, too. Especially the batshit-insane first villain Vaas, who may just go down as one of the top villains from the past console generation. Hoyt is a little more one-dimensional, but that doesn't make him any less awful of a person. As for Buck, well ... just play the game. It's definitely a hard R-rated story, without saying too much.
The gameplay is like any first-person shooter, but it feels more realistic than say "Call of Duty." While "Far Cry 3" follows a narrative structure, it's an open-world game. And boy is the world big. Imagine if "Skyrim" was set in a tropical paradise. Well, maybe it's not that big, but still. Both islands in the Rook Island chain easily feel like they're about the size of Boracay (a popular tourist destination in the Philippines that is comparable to the tropical setting of this game). Oh and even when you're not playing any of the story missions, everything on Rook Island wants to kill you. Even the animals. I remember fairly early on in the game, I was still reeling from the shock of being captured by pirates. I decided to take one of the available cars randomly parked on the island for a drive when a jeep full of pirates drove past me. They then started cursing at me and although it took a few seconds to register, my next thought went something like this: "Holy f**k they're actually shooting at me!" That's what "Far Cry 3" is like. You don't start off as a hardened killer, and the game makes that very apparent. Of course, by the end of the game, I was able to take out entire strongholds of enemies with relative ease thanks to the abilities (which you unlock through the campaign and manifest themselves physically in the form of a sick tattoo) and the weapons (unlocked by activating radio towers a la "Batman: Arkham Origins"). If that's not character development, I don't know what is. Those pirates and privateers you face are also genuinely bad people, so there's something of a sick satisfaction when you pick off a lone group just for being there.
That last paragraph was getting too long. There's also the hunting and gathering aspect. As I previously said, even the animals want to kill you. And Rook Island is home to a wide variety of nasty predators ranging from bears to packs of rabid dogs. And the cassowaries. Those things are just evil. Fortunately, you can hunt them and skin them, as you'd be able to in real life. The skins can then be used to craft objects like holsters, bigger rucksacks, ammo pouches, etc. Plants can also be harvested for medicinal purposes. This sort of interaction with the world is what puts "Far Cry 3" heads and shoulders above its competitors.
Graphically, "Far Cry 3" is spectacular. Maybe not getting it on PS3 was a blessing in disguise because I've heard it's far superior on PC if you have a machine advanced enough to run it at max settings (I clearly do). Rook Island is the gorgeous landscape you'd expect it to be, and it would be paradise if it weren't for the drug organization that took over. In a blog post, I noted that it reminded me of a few islands in the Philippines I've been to, namely Boracay and Palawan. Although anyone should be able to appreciate the scenery. The character models are top notch as well, with some of the best textures I've seen yet. Of course, the magic of PC gaming enables us to squeeze that extra little bit that the Xbox 360 and PS3 weren't able to quite produce.
And there we have it. One of the best gaming experiences I've ever had.
10/10
Thursday, February 20, 2014
"Fantastic Four" reboot has been cast. Now what?
We have our official cast for the "Fantastic Four" reboot due out next year. It is supposedly set in the same cinematic universe as "X-Men" as Fox is trying to do the same thing that Disney/Marvel is doing. Normally, I agree with the casting choices. Normally. This time, I'm not sure I do. At least not 100%.
The confirmed casting is Miles Teller as Reed Richards/Mr. Fantastic, Kate Mara as Susan Storm/Invisible Woman, Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm/Human Torch and Jamie Bell as Ben Grimm/The Thing. I'll just have to see the movie before I really judge, but here's what I think so far.
Miles Teller: I haven't really seen him in anything. The only thing I know that he was in was "21 and over." My brother noted that he's a fine actor but probably not mature enough as an actor to play Reed Richards. At least not the way Ioan Gruffudd (another actor I've met at a convention) was. Then again, it's based off the Ultimate imprint of the comic, so they're all probably going to have to be younger. We'll see.
Kate Mara: This is probably the only confirmed casting choice I'm supportive of. I haven't seen anything she's in, either, but I've heard she's really good in "House of Cards." She's also quite good looking, and that's a must for anyone playing Invisible Woman.
Michael B. Jordan: This one's been rumored as far back as I can remember. He's also been incredibly controversial because the fans cannot fathom a black Human Torch. I'm not racist. That would be hypocritical of me because I'm an Asian American. I enjoyed Michael B. Jordan's performance in "Chronicle," which was ironically directed by the same dude who's directing this reboot, Josh Trank. He's a good actor, and maybe this will work. They better find a way to make it work. Artistic license is one thing. Changing a 50-year-old, established character's race for the sake of progressiveness is another. The only reason black Nick Fury worked was because when they wrote him in the Ultimate Marvel universe, the creative teams wanted to use Samuel L. Jackson's likeness, which he agreed to on the condition that he star in a Marvel movie. Unfortunately, Human Torch is white in both the Ultimate and Mainstream universes, so it might be a little awkward and unfitting. Of course, we'll all get to have final say when they actually film then release a trailer.
Jamie Bell: I truly don't know how I feel about this one. I remember seeing him as a whiny young member of the ship in "King Kong" back when I was in high school. I also kinda remember him in "Flags of our Fathers" and "Defiance." Bell has been typecast in the past as somewhat more youthful characters. Of course, the most recent of those movies came out 6 years ago, and I'm sure Mr. Bell's matured as an actor. But he's also not Michael Chiklis, arguably the bright spot of the original "Fantastic Four" movies. Again, I'll have to actually see what happens when they film it, but I'll just say this. Jamie Bell doesn't strike me as ... masculine enough to play Ben Grimm. Michael Chiklis was spot on. Of course, if Jamie packs on more muscle and works on a rough-sounding and convincing Brooklyn accent that enables him to say "It's clobberin' time" effectively, I will eat my words.
So yeah, we'll see.
The confirmed casting is Miles Teller as Reed Richards/Mr. Fantastic, Kate Mara as Susan Storm/Invisible Woman, Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm/Human Torch and Jamie Bell as Ben Grimm/The Thing. I'll just have to see the movie before I really judge, but here's what I think so far.
Miles Teller: I haven't really seen him in anything. The only thing I know that he was in was "21 and over." My brother noted that he's a fine actor but probably not mature enough as an actor to play Reed Richards. At least not the way Ioan Gruffudd (another actor I've met at a convention) was. Then again, it's based off the Ultimate imprint of the comic, so they're all probably going to have to be younger. We'll see.
Kate Mara: This is probably the only confirmed casting choice I'm supportive of. I haven't seen anything she's in, either, but I've heard she's really good in "House of Cards." She's also quite good looking, and that's a must for anyone playing Invisible Woman.
Michael B. Jordan: This one's been rumored as far back as I can remember. He's also been incredibly controversial because the fans cannot fathom a black Human Torch. I'm not racist. That would be hypocritical of me because I'm an Asian American. I enjoyed Michael B. Jordan's performance in "Chronicle," which was ironically directed by the same dude who's directing this reboot, Josh Trank. He's a good actor, and maybe this will work. They better find a way to make it work. Artistic license is one thing. Changing a 50-year-old, established character's race for the sake of progressiveness is another. The only reason black Nick Fury worked was because when they wrote him in the Ultimate Marvel universe, the creative teams wanted to use Samuel L. Jackson's likeness, which he agreed to on the condition that he star in a Marvel movie. Unfortunately, Human Torch is white in both the Ultimate and Mainstream universes, so it might be a little awkward and unfitting. Of course, we'll all get to have final say when they actually film then release a trailer.
Jamie Bell: I truly don't know how I feel about this one. I remember seeing him as a whiny young member of the ship in "King Kong" back when I was in high school. I also kinda remember him in "Flags of our Fathers" and "Defiance." Bell has been typecast in the past as somewhat more youthful characters. Of course, the most recent of those movies came out 6 years ago, and I'm sure Mr. Bell's matured as an actor. But he's also not Michael Chiklis, arguably the bright spot of the original "Fantastic Four" movies. Again, I'll have to actually see what happens when they film it, but I'll just say this. Jamie Bell doesn't strike me as ... masculine enough to play Ben Grimm. Michael Chiklis was spot on. Of course, if Jamie packs on more muscle and works on a rough-sounding and convincing Brooklyn accent that enables him to say "It's clobberin' time" effectively, I will eat my words.
So yeah, we'll see.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
"Guardians of the Galaxy" first impressions
This movie based on one of Marvel's most obscure properties is coming out later this year. And it made my Top 5 most anticipated movies of 2014 list. I may be looking more forward to "X-Men: Days of Future Past," but "Guardians" is not too bar behind as far as my rabid geek anticipation goes. So the trailer dropped last night. Here are my immediate first impressions:
1. It's different, and that's good: The Marvel Cinematic Universe is doing extremely well, but thus far we have not had a Phase 2 movie that's blown everyone out of the water the way "Avengers" and even "Iron Man" did back when it was first released in 2008. The reason? They're not bad, but they're all the same. They all follow the same formula with the heroes picking up the pieces after the Battle of New York. "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" looks a little better than its two predecessors, but otherwise, the formula is the same. They're all extremely predictable. "Guardians of the Galaxy" on the other hand is something entirely new. The trailer was extremely action-heavy, but the song it played said a lot about the movie's sarcastic and smart-assed tone. We could use a little light-hearted humor in the months leading up to "Age of Ultron."
2. It's a love-child of Stan Lee and George Lucas, essentially: From what I saw last night, "Guardians" looks to combine the best aspects of Marvel Comics and "Star Wars," which I did a lengthy post about earlier this week. It has the interstellar villains and smart-assed anti-authority protagonist types that made George Lucas' original works so endearing. The smart-ass tone of the Guardians themselves looks to be very reminiscent of the dry, witty humor that Han Solo and Chewbacca provided in the original trilogy, especially with Chris Pratt's Han Solo-esque portrayal of Star-Lord. But then we have characters like Drax, Rocket Raccoon and Groot who are all very much Marvel creations. It has the potential to be a literal match made in nerd heaven.
3. The ragtag band of misfits: We have a smart-assed pilot who's essentially the second coming of Han Solo, Batista as a green alien assassin, Zoe Saldana as a green alien assassin, and a talking tree and raccoon. You can't really ask for a more mismatching group of unlikely heroes. It's even more mismatching than the Avengers before they became the Avengers. And you know what? That's great, because those are the kinds of teams that audiences tend to root for. I know I do.
I couldn't really come up with more, and after that TL;DR post I just made, I thought I'd keep this fairly short and sweet. Only time will tell how "Guardians" will fare at the box office, but like "X-Men," I think it has the chance to utterly dominate and rise to the top of its genre.
1. It's different, and that's good: The Marvel Cinematic Universe is doing extremely well, but thus far we have not had a Phase 2 movie that's blown everyone out of the water the way "Avengers" and even "Iron Man" did back when it was first released in 2008. The reason? They're not bad, but they're all the same. They all follow the same formula with the heroes picking up the pieces after the Battle of New York. "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" looks a little better than its two predecessors, but otherwise, the formula is the same. They're all extremely predictable. "Guardians of the Galaxy" on the other hand is something entirely new. The trailer was extremely action-heavy, but the song it played said a lot about the movie's sarcastic and smart-assed tone. We could use a little light-hearted humor in the months leading up to "Age of Ultron."
2. It's a love-child of Stan Lee and George Lucas, essentially: From what I saw last night, "Guardians" looks to combine the best aspects of Marvel Comics and "Star Wars," which I did a lengthy post about earlier this week. It has the interstellar villains and smart-assed anti-authority protagonist types that made George Lucas' original works so endearing. The smart-ass tone of the Guardians themselves looks to be very reminiscent of the dry, witty humor that Han Solo and Chewbacca provided in the original trilogy, especially with Chris Pratt's Han Solo-esque portrayal of Star-Lord. But then we have characters like Drax, Rocket Raccoon and Groot who are all very much Marvel creations. It has the potential to be a literal match made in nerd heaven.
3. The ragtag band of misfits: We have a smart-assed pilot who's essentially the second coming of Han Solo, Batista as a green alien assassin, Zoe Saldana as a green alien assassin, and a talking tree and raccoon. You can't really ask for a more mismatching group of unlikely heroes. It's even more mismatching than the Avengers before they became the Avengers. And you know what? That's great, because those are the kinds of teams that audiences tend to root for. I know I do.
I couldn't really come up with more, and after that TL;DR post I just made, I thought I'd keep this fairly short and sweet. Only time will tell how "Guardians" will fare at the box office, but like "X-Men," I think it has the chance to utterly dominate and rise to the top of its genre.
Sunday, February 16, 2014
The Star Wars viewing experience 2.0
With the exception of the piss-awful prequel trilogy and George Lucas constantly micromanaging and changing things in re-releases, "Star Wars" is a franchise that I have nothing but the highest praise for. It's one of those things that can be considered nearly universal for anyone my age; ask almost anyone, I guarantee you they grew up watching the original movies in some way, shape or form. If I had to pick another national anthem for the USA, I might actually pick the theme music of "Star Wars," the one that blares over the opening title crawls that are unique to the series. But why did I revisit this classic series despite having watched the original movies multiple times in my childhood? Well now that I'm older and properly able to critique a movie, I thought it would be nice to watch the entire series back to back. Then there's this other one I call "the viewing experience 2.0," which I actually did not come up with. I came up with the name, not the watching order.
"Star Wars" is an episodic series with six wait for it, wait for it ... episodes. So generally speaking, we're supposed to watch them in order from 1-6. Well, according to a close family friend, who I will identify as "M" for anonymity purposes, that's only one way to do it. See, M actually made me aware of an alternative viewing order while were both at the Dallas Sci Fi Expo last week. He asked me what the proper watching order was. Logically, I just said "1-6." M then suggested starting off with Episode IV and V as George Lucas intended. It's only after we find out that Darth Vader is, in fact, Luke's father that we take a brief flashback to Episodes II and III before concluding with VI. What about I? Well, other than showing how Anakin and Obi-Wan ended up as master and teacher at the very end, "The Phantom Menace" contributed hardly anything of substance to the core storyline as we know it. Of course, this is just one opinion. After all, the only thing we care about is how Anakin became Darth Vader, not Anakin as a little kid who also happened to play Arnold Schwarzenegger's son in "Jingle all the Way" (fun fact there). And for all its wooden, emotionless acting, the events of "Attack of the Clones" got the Darth Vader ball rolling. So essentially, the watching order goes like this: IV --> V --> II --> III --> VI. For the reasons I mentioned above, you can omit I.
And now it's time for a recap. Like I said, this the first time I've ever watched the movies back to back in a fairly short time frame. First time in almost 10 years that I've watched the prequel movies. So let's see what adult me thinks of "Star Wars" now.
A New Hope: Everyone's seen this one more times than they can count. It's arguably the most enduring, beloved tale of this generation. And the most imitated, with varying degrees of success. It still is. The story of Luke Skywalker coming from literally bumf**k nowhere to end up becoming the galaxy's savior is one that has this certain kind of magic, even though the thing that got this ball rolling was the execution of Luke's aunt and uncle at the hands of the empire, which in turn was caused by the not-so-accidental release of two certain droids. Whether you watch it one or 100 times, it won't lose any of that charm. Plus, the performances were all quite solid. And although it wasn't the only time in the series, that first time the Death Star got destroyed is just ... wow.
The Empire Strikes Back: This episode has a reputation as being one of the darkest movies of all time, which incidentally makes it one of the best. When the original trilogy was re-released in the late 90s, I found "Empire" to be quite upsetting to watch. To sum it up, the bad guys won, and all my heroes lost big. Luke lost his hand, Han got frozen in carbonite, and the future wasn't really certain for the rebellion at that point. It's so dark that Joss Whedon is actually using it has an inspiration for the second "Avengers" movie due out in 2015. Revisiting it as a (semi) grown man, that darkness is what arguably makes "Empire" the best movie in the series. All the heroes, especially Luke (after the reveal that turned out to be the greatest plot twist in history), hit their absolute rock bottom and realize that it can't get THAT much worse than how they have it. It's kind of like losing a pivotal sports game. It enabled our heroes to grow as characters and absolutely upped the stakes, which in turn would end up making the conclusion all that more satisfying.
Attack of the Clones: This is where the prequel has its use, as a flashback. We start here after the big "I am your father" reveal because it shows Darth Vader in his youth at roughly Luke's age. First of all, the acting in this movie is just the worst. Although Natalie Portman has gotten better, Hayden Christensen has no emotion or sense of delivery. I've seen more emotion in most action figures, and that ought to say something! The action here is pretty decent, with the big standout being the battles of Geonosis, especially the fight in the arena. Jango Fett is also worthy of honorable mention. The one thing story wise I liked was how the path to the dark side got started. Anakin and Obi-Wan are investigating an assassination attempt on then-Senator Padme Amidala. Obi-Wan ends up playing detective in an attempt to find out who ordered the assassination while Anakin gets left as a bodyguard for Jane Foster/that one chick from "Black Swan." Five guesses as to what happens when a horny 20-year-old who is getting that universe's equivalent to monk training gets left alone with a very attractive and wealthy young lady. Spoiler: it doesn't end well for anyone involved, and you bet he doesn't keep his vows.
Revenge of the Sith: The acting isn't a whole lot better than in its predecessor, but the story and fight scenes more than make up for that. In my opinion, "Sith" might actually be the most action-packed movie in the entire saga. I remember watching it as an eighth-grader and having my entire opinion of Master Yoda change in a millisecond. I mean, I thought the guy was cool before, but he was always this sort of Buddha-like figure. Then we really got to see him kick ass. And if anything, the ending almost makes up the general lackluster quality of the prequel trilogy. Call me corny, but the amount of feels that ending brought, wow. For all his flaws, George Lucas is a hell of a storyteller, and the way he tied "Revenge of the Sith" to "A New Hope" was just perfect.
Return of the Jedi: With our digression/flashback over, we switch back to the present day. The storyline in "Jedi" is a lot more straightforward than the one in "Empire," but I think that may be because of how dark and depressing "Empire" was. By the events of the present, Luke has become a full-fledged Jedi Knight and ass kicker. That in itself is more satisfying and relieving to see after the condition Darth Vader left him in last we saw him. But the thing that makes the last movie in the saga so satisfying is the ultimate triumph of good over evil. The events of "Empire" upped the stakes, and the Rebels definitely fought the good fight here. Only this time they won. Big. As in, the Emperor Palpatine was killed, and the Death Star II was destroyed. And although he spent most of the trilogy as the ultimate embodiment of evil, it was a nice touch to see Vader fulfilling that prophecy they kept talking about in the prequel movies, especially after we saw his origin story. Wow, talk about full circle. Then the final battles on and over Endor and the final duel between Luke and Vader comprised some of my favorite cinematic moments in my childhood. And they still are. Nothing has changed. Nothing at all.
Anything else to say? Not really. I think I've written enough, I really do. And if you're frustrated by how long this post was, well, good. Let the hate flow through you.
"Star Wars" is an episodic series with six wait for it, wait for it ... episodes. So generally speaking, we're supposed to watch them in order from 1-6. Well, according to a close family friend, who I will identify as "M" for anonymity purposes, that's only one way to do it. See, M actually made me aware of an alternative viewing order while were both at the Dallas Sci Fi Expo last week. He asked me what the proper watching order was. Logically, I just said "1-6." M then suggested starting off with Episode IV and V as George Lucas intended. It's only after we find out that Darth Vader is, in fact, Luke's father that we take a brief flashback to Episodes II and III before concluding with VI. What about I? Well, other than showing how Anakin and Obi-Wan ended up as master and teacher at the very end, "The Phantom Menace" contributed hardly anything of substance to the core storyline as we know it. Of course, this is just one opinion. After all, the only thing we care about is how Anakin became Darth Vader, not Anakin as a little kid who also happened to play Arnold Schwarzenegger's son in "Jingle all the Way" (fun fact there). And for all its wooden, emotionless acting, the events of "Attack of the Clones" got the Darth Vader ball rolling. So essentially, the watching order goes like this: IV --> V --> II --> III --> VI. For the reasons I mentioned above, you can omit I.
And now it's time for a recap. Like I said, this the first time I've ever watched the movies back to back in a fairly short time frame. First time in almost 10 years that I've watched the prequel movies. So let's see what adult me thinks of "Star Wars" now.
A New Hope: Everyone's seen this one more times than they can count. It's arguably the most enduring, beloved tale of this generation. And the most imitated, with varying degrees of success. It still is. The story of Luke Skywalker coming from literally bumf**k nowhere to end up becoming the galaxy's savior is one that has this certain kind of magic, even though the thing that got this ball rolling was the execution of Luke's aunt and uncle at the hands of the empire, which in turn was caused by the not-so-accidental release of two certain droids. Whether you watch it one or 100 times, it won't lose any of that charm. Plus, the performances were all quite solid. And although it wasn't the only time in the series, that first time the Death Star got destroyed is just ... wow.
The Empire Strikes Back: This episode has a reputation as being one of the darkest movies of all time, which incidentally makes it one of the best. When the original trilogy was re-released in the late 90s, I found "Empire" to be quite upsetting to watch. To sum it up, the bad guys won, and all my heroes lost big. Luke lost his hand, Han got frozen in carbonite, and the future wasn't really certain for the rebellion at that point. It's so dark that Joss Whedon is actually using it has an inspiration for the second "Avengers" movie due out in 2015. Revisiting it as a (semi) grown man, that darkness is what arguably makes "Empire" the best movie in the series. All the heroes, especially Luke (after the reveal that turned out to be the greatest plot twist in history), hit their absolute rock bottom and realize that it can't get THAT much worse than how they have it. It's kind of like losing a pivotal sports game. It enabled our heroes to grow as characters and absolutely upped the stakes, which in turn would end up making the conclusion all that more satisfying.
Attack of the Clones: This is where the prequel has its use, as a flashback. We start here after the big "I am your father" reveal because it shows Darth Vader in his youth at roughly Luke's age. First of all, the acting in this movie is just the worst. Although Natalie Portman has gotten better, Hayden Christensen has no emotion or sense of delivery. I've seen more emotion in most action figures, and that ought to say something! The action here is pretty decent, with the big standout being the battles of Geonosis, especially the fight in the arena. Jango Fett is also worthy of honorable mention. The one thing story wise I liked was how the path to the dark side got started. Anakin and Obi-Wan are investigating an assassination attempt on then-Senator Padme Amidala. Obi-Wan ends up playing detective in an attempt to find out who ordered the assassination while Anakin gets left as a bodyguard for Jane Foster/that one chick from "Black Swan." Five guesses as to what happens when a horny 20-year-old who is getting that universe's equivalent to monk training gets left alone with a very attractive and wealthy young lady. Spoiler: it doesn't end well for anyone involved, and you bet he doesn't keep his vows.
Revenge of the Sith: The acting isn't a whole lot better than in its predecessor, but the story and fight scenes more than make up for that. In my opinion, "Sith" might actually be the most action-packed movie in the entire saga. I remember watching it as an eighth-grader and having my entire opinion of Master Yoda change in a millisecond. I mean, I thought the guy was cool before, but he was always this sort of Buddha-like figure. Then we really got to see him kick ass. And if anything, the ending almost makes up the general lackluster quality of the prequel trilogy. Call me corny, but the amount of feels that ending brought, wow. For all his flaws, George Lucas is a hell of a storyteller, and the way he tied "Revenge of the Sith" to "A New Hope" was just perfect.
Return of the Jedi: With our digression/flashback over, we switch back to the present day. The storyline in "Jedi" is a lot more straightforward than the one in "Empire," but I think that may be because of how dark and depressing "Empire" was. By the events of the present, Luke has become a full-fledged Jedi Knight and ass kicker. That in itself is more satisfying and relieving to see after the condition Darth Vader left him in last we saw him. But the thing that makes the last movie in the saga so satisfying is the ultimate triumph of good over evil. The events of "Empire" upped the stakes, and the Rebels definitely fought the good fight here. Only this time they won. Big. As in, the Emperor Palpatine was killed, and the Death Star II was destroyed. And although he spent most of the trilogy as the ultimate embodiment of evil, it was a nice touch to see Vader fulfilling that prophecy they kept talking about in the prequel movies, especially after we saw his origin story. Wow, talk about full circle. Then the final battles on and over Endor and the final duel between Luke and Vader comprised some of my favorite cinematic moments in my childhood. And they still are. Nothing has changed. Nothing at all.
Anything else to say? Not really. I think I've written enough, I really do. And if you're frustrated by how long this post was, well, good. Let the hate flow through you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)