My most anticipated movies of 2019

Hello and happy new year, guys! I’m back from my… two day break. Okay, I wasn’t gone for long, but I’m excited to be writing again. New year, new opportunities, new movies! And it’s that last one that we’re talking about today, which shouldn’t come as a surprise to you guys, since this blog is mostly built on movie stuff. So since the year just started, I think it’s only appropriate to talk about some movies that I’m excited for this year. Will all of them be amazing? Probably not. But I’m just looking forward to watching them all, and I thought I’d share some of them here with you today. A few stipulations for both of us here.

Number 1: Please be respectful. I’m asking you to have the exact same opinions as me, I’m fine with disagreement. Just don’t be a dick about it. I’m all for friendly discussion, please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments. Just be nice. This is a friendly space, yo.

Number 2: I’m not gonna talk about movies that had limited releases in 2018 that then get worldwide releases in early 2019. This is for those that have their first release in 2019. Understood? Cool.

Number 3: These are not ranked. These are just a bunch of movies I’m looking forward to a fair bit.

That should be it. Let’s get into the movies.

Glass.

First movie on the list is the first one I’ll probably see in the cinema this year… which would be pretty much unlikely a few years ago. A January movie by M. Night Shyamalan? Ew. But this is something I am genuinely excited about. So spoilers for previous Shyamalan movies, I guess. In 2000, he gave us “Unbreakable”, and it was amazing. In 2017, he gave us “Split”, and it was really good. And at the end of “Split”, it was revealed that it was a secret sequel to “Unbreakable”, which blew my fucking mind. And now we get the culmination of those two movies with “Glass”, and I am really hyped.

Avengers: Endgame

Yes, I talk about a lot of superhero movies. And yes, I am aware that a lot of people are either sick of or just don’t care about them. But you can’t deny that what Marvel has done with their cinematic universe is really impressive. And now we get the ending to it… sort of. It’s the sequel to 2018’s “Infinity War”, and it will be the end for a lot of these actors in this universe. It’s kind of bittersweet. Bring on the endgame.

Captain Marvel

Another superhero origin. This one starring Brie Larson. She’s a good actor. This looks pretty good. Has a stellar cast. It’ll be fun.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters

I am a fan of the 2014 “Godzilla” movie, so I was already excited for a sequel. Then it was revealed that some classic monsters would be involved in it, which got me even more excited. Then this trailer came out and showcased some gorgeous imagery, and it got me even more hyped. So yeah, this is one of the biggest ones for me this year.

Star Wars Episode IX
It’s “Star Wars”. The end of this new trilogy. It’s “Star Wars”. How could I not be excited? “STAR WARS”.

Spider-Man: Far From Home
I am a huge Spidey-fan, been for most of my life. And this is a sequel to “Spider-Man: Homecoming”, which I liked a lot. Tom Holland is a fantastic Spider-Man. So I’m excited. Plus, Jake Gyllenhaal.

John Wick: Chapter 3

“John Wick” was one of the biggest surprises of 2014. “John Wick: Chapter 2” was a great sequel. And in 2019 we’ll get the third part in this series. The hype for this one is real.

Knives Out
No footage. No on-set images. All we have is a good director, a star-studded cast, and the vague premise of a murder mystery. And that is enough to intrigue me. Let’s go.

In the Shadow of the Moon
Like with “Knives Out”, we know practically nothing about this. But at least “Knives Out” has a vague premise of what it could be… this one on the other hand doesn’t even have that. So how could I be excited? Well, it has several good actors involved, and it’s directed by Jim Mickle, who I’m a big fan of. I’ll be supporting him any way I can.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

What do you get if you take one of the most star-studded casts even assembled and combine it with the mind of Quentin Tarantino? You get “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”. Anything that Tarantino makes, I’m already excited for. But add all those cast members and an interesting setting, and you most likely have my money as well.

Lucy in the Sky
*Starts humming The Beatles*. Oh shit, you’re still here. Right, so what’s this? It’s a sci-fi movie, starring the likes of Natalie Portman, Dan Stevens, Jon Hamm, and Zazie Beets, and it’s written/directed by Noah Hawley, who brought us two of my favorite shows; “Fargo” and “Legion”. That’s all I need. Bring on the weirdness.

The Irishman
Martin Scorsese. Robert De Niro. Joe Pesci. Al Pacino. Bobby Cannavale. Harvey Keitel. Jesse Plemons. Excited yet?

Jojo Rabbit

A World War 2 satire from Taika Waititi? With said Kiwi playing Adolf Hitler? And a good cast surrounding him? Yes please, hell yeah, this is interesting.

So those were a bunch of movies I’m looking forward to. I’m sure more will be revealed throughout the year, but these are my current picks. But I also wanna hear from you guys. What movies are you excited for? Leave any and all answers in the comments!
Have a good one!

The Month of Spooks 2018 Roundup

Hello there, ladies and gentlemen. We have entered November, which means that the fourth annual Month of Spooks has come to an end. It’s been a lot of fun, and we’ve gotten some great posts from my little spookers this year. So, now it is time to just sort of collect every Month of Spooks related post here.

Let’s start with my posts. This might seem vain, starting with my posts rather than the post of my little spookers, but I choose to see it as getting the least interesting posts out of the way first.
Hour of the Wolf Review
We Are Still Here Review
The Stakelander Review
The Devil’s Backbone Review
Constantine Review
Fortitude Season 1 Review
E.T. Review
Eden Lake Review
An American Werewolf in London Review
The Babadook Review
Castlevania Season 2 Review
Night of the Living Dead Review
Hellraiser Review
Halloween Review

And those were my posts. Now we move on to my little spookers and their sexy posts.

First up we have The Craggus on https://thecraggus.com, who is doing his third Month of Spooks in a row. Not sure if friend who appreciates themed blogging, or just foolish enough to follow my example. Either way, here are his posts:
The House with a Clock In It’s Walls Review
The Addams Family Review
Addams Family Values Review
The Witches of Eastwick Review
Goosebumps 2 Review
Double Date Review

Thank you, Craggus, for your loyalty to this silly thing of mine.

Next up we have Gavin, who is on http://minimediarvwr.com, who is doing his sophomore run on the Month of Spooks. So, let’s see what good ol’ Gav has cooked up for us.
The Innocents Review
The Innkeepers Review
Session 9 Review
Hell House LLC Review
Devil’s Pass Review
Our House Review
Halloween (2018) Review
The New French Extreme
Top 5 Things Ruined By Horror Films
The Haunting of Hill House Review

Thank you, Gavin. Your contributions to the cause are appreciated.

And the final one we have, making her Month of Spooks debut is Maddy, who you can find on https://fivethreeninety.wordpress.com. Always fun to get a fresh face in the Month of Spooks. So what did Maddy bring to the table?

The Scariest Non-Horror Films

Thank you for your contribution, Maddy. It was great to have had you on board!

And that’s about it. I only got three little spookers this year, but I don’t mind. They were all great, and it’s about quality over quantity, yo. To my little spookers I once again say THANK YOU, I LOVE YOU FOR DOING THIS. And to everyone that has followed along and read, THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE YOU READING MY STUFF.
Have a good one.

Movie Review: 12 Angry Men (1957)

Yes, this was the first time that I had seen this classic. I know, shame on me for being a bit late to the game with it. Well, I say better late than never. So here we go.

Ladies and gents… “12 Angry Men”.

A young man has been accused of murdering his father. In a locked room we have the twelve jurors that have to determine whether the young man is guilty or not. Most of them are convinced he did it, but one juror (Henry Fonda, R.I.P) isn’t quite convinced. So we follow him as he tries to convince the other jurors of why this kid is innocent. So now we have our courtroom(ish) thriller. And I have to say that from the very first scene I was sucked into the plot. What we have here is a claustrophobic thriller, with men going back and forth for 90 minutes over the kid’s innocence/guilt, and it is riveting. There’s quite a lot of suspense built throughout the runtime, and it’s fairly unpredictable. Really, it’s a great plot.

The characters here are all quite interesting, especially as we get pretty clear looks at their respective personalities, and how they affect their thoughts on the case. I don’t have the time or energy to go into each and every one of them, but trust me when I say that we do get some really great character stuff here. And the performances here are all brilliant. Henry Fonda, Martin Balsam, Lee J. Cobb, John Fiedler, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Jack Warden, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec, and Robert Webber (R.I.P all of them), they’re all fantastic.

The score for the movie was composed by Kenyon Hopkins and what I found interesting about it is that it barely shows up in the movie. One bit at the beginning, one bit at the end… that’s it. But the limited use of music works, as it does bring out a lot of tension, and makes those two moments of music feel a bit more special. But the tracks that we do here in the movie are really good.

“12 Angry Men” was written by Reginald Rose (R.I.P) and directed by Sidney Lumet (R.I.P). And the two combined in this way is simply fantastic. On one hand, with this claustrophobic setting, you’d need Rose’s writing to be great to keep the viewer engaged as it has to do a lot of the heavy lifting. Lucky for us, his writing here is mesmerizing. Nothing about the writing feels dated, as some movies/scripts from the era could unfortunately feel… but Rose’s writing is great. And Lumet’s direction is of course fantastic. There’s a lot of movement here to make it feel exciting, almost like an action movie. And his direction here just adds so much tension to it all.

This movie has been very well received. On Rotten Tomatoes it has a 100% positive rating and a “Fresh” certification. On Metacritic it has a score of 96/100. Roger Ebert gave it 4/4 stars and put it on his “Great movies” list. And on imdb.com it has a score of 8,9/10 and is ranked #5 on the “Top 250” list. The movie was also nominated for three Oscars in the categories of Best picture, Best director, and Best adapted screenplay. 

“12 Angry Men” is an absolute classic and deserves all the praise given to it. It has a great plot, really good characters, fantastic performances, good use of music, and great writing/directing. Time for my final score. *Ahem*. My final score for “12 Angry Men” is a 9,88/10. So it gets the “SEAL OF APPROVAL!”.

My review of “12 Angry Men” is now completed.

Review is adjourned.

“Hellboy” reboot announced

Hello there, ladies and gentlemen of the internet, I hope you’re all having a good day. As you read in the title of this post, a reboot of the “Hellboy” movie franchise has been announced. Now, this was announced earlier this week, but I had to take a few days to really think about this. For those who have lived under a rock for the past 15 years, “Hellboy” is a movie directed by Guillermo Del Toro, based on the comic book series of the same name written by Mike Mignola. The movie starred Ron Perlman as the titular hero. It also got a sequel in 2008 called “Hellboy II: The Golden Army”. Both of these movies were critically acclaimed, being loved by both critics and general audiences. For the longest time there were rumors and speculation regarding a third movie in the series, something both the fans, the star, and the director wanted. So Del Toro had a meeting earlier this year with Perlman (Or Da Perl, as he lovingly called him) and Mignola regarding the possibility of “Hellboy 3” happening. It was then announced that it wouldn’t happen, which made a lot of fans (including myself) really fucking sad.

Sad Hellboy representing us fans.

Skip ahead a few months to earlier this week and we get an announcement that a new “Hellboy” movie is being made. Then it turns out it’s a reboot that doesn’t include Del Toro, Da Perl, Doug Jones, Selma Blair, or any of the people from the first two movies. Instead it would be directed by Neil Marshall, the director behind the very popular horror film “The Descent”, as well as directing episodes of “Game of Thrones”, “Constantine”, “Hannibal”, and “Westworld” (among a bunch of other things). And the titular red one would be played by David Harbour, the man who most people probably know as Sheriff Jim Hopper from Netflix’s “Stranger Things”. And this is why I needed to take a few days before I actually talked about this rebootification. Because I’m a huge fan of the two “Hellboy” movies, so if I had written anything right as it was announced, I would probably have nothing but negative things to say, and I’m only human so change is obviously not something I’m happy with. But now that I’ve taken a few days to think about it and I’m ready to say something.

Lower the gun, Red. We have to be calm and reasonable.

While I’m not the most thrilled to be getting a reboot of this series, I am not 100% against it. The director has made some good stuff, and while I haven’t seen “The Descent”, people seems to love that movie. Plus, the shows I mentioned before are good, so I know that the man has serious talent. And while I would have loved to see Da Perl don the Red makeup and prosthetics again, David Harbour is a good choice for the role. The man is big, and his performance in “Stranger Things” has me convinced that he can do the gruff but still good-hearted style very well. My biggest problem here is how the effects will be handled. The original movies had amazing creature effects, both practical and CGI. So this rebootification has some big fuckin’ shoes to fill. I forgot to mention, this reboot will apparently be rated R. I haven’t read the comics, so I don’t know if the age rating can serve the story in any way. If someone out there has read the comics, please tell me if the R-rating can be justified for the movie.

So in conclusion. I’m not too excited for this reboot, but I’m not gonna hate on it too much either, because there are some genuinely talented people behind it. I just needed to get this out there because I love the movies so much. Feel free to share your thoughts on all of this in the comments.
Have a good one.

HB: Is this asshole for real? AS: It seems like it. HB: Damn.

Movie Discussion: Jango’s head

jangohead

Hello there, ladies and gentlemen! And welcome back to Movie Discussions, the series where I discuss things in movies… mostly pretty minor things that no one really cares about, but whatever. So yeah… let’s talk “Star Wars”. Spoilers coming up for “Episode II”, but you have all seen it even though it’s shit.

Ever since “Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones” got released, people have been asking “What the fuck, George Lucas?”. But they’ve also been asking “Why doesn’t Jango’s head fall out of the helmet?”. To recap, there’s a huge and messy battle involving droids, Jedi, weird alien creatures, and Jango Fett (Temuera Morrison). He starts shooting at Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson) who of course blocks every blaster shot. And then *WHAM!*, Jango gets his head cut off. And a while later when the battle is over, the young boy version of Boba Fett (Daniel Logan) walks over to the helmet of his bounty hunter father, picks it up, and holds it to his own head in sorrow. And this is where people wonder why the hell Jango’s head doesn’t drop out of the helmet. Firstly, it would really ruin the intended mood of the scene. And secondly, I think I might have figured out why it doesn’t just plop out.

Skip to 0:39 for decapitation.

Crazy fight, blaster shots being blocked, *WHAM!*. In the video we immediately see how the helmeted head flies off of Jango’s shoulders. Then we have the shot of the helmet crashing onto the ground. Now, if you look closely during that shot (pause if you have to, or simply slow down the speed of it) you will be able to notice two shadows, both about the same size. My theory is that one of the shadows is the helmet, and the other is the head getting flung even further. This would explain why there is no head dropping out of the helmet when Boba picks it up. *WHAM!*, helmeted head flies off, head flies out of helmet, helmet lands, head flies further… that actually kind of makes sense. Yay?

So while everyone else theorizes about who Rey’s parents are, I sit here and analyze a minor moment from the worst “Star Wars” movie… I only thought of it because I watched the Cinemawins video on this and noticed the tiny detail, okay!

So what do you think? Am I making sense or is this total bullshit? Leave any and all thoughts in the comments.

Movie discussion: When is “X-Men: Apocalypse” set?

345806c2ded3ff772516f28f9890970a-18769600795716d132602b26-43284584

Hello there ladies and gents, and welcome to Movie Discussions, a series I have on this blog that’s been kind of dead since… April 2015, holy shit. But this is where I ramble about theories and such I have regarding movies. And today we will be taking a look at this year’s “X-Men: Apocalypse”. So with that said, if you have not seen the movie then I recommend that you do first, because there will be some spoilers throughout. There, with that cleared up… let’s get into it!

So in this post we will be taking a look at the question… When is “X-Men: Apocalypse” set? Now, I don’t mean what year, because we do get told that it is 1983. What I mean is that I want to be more specific as to when in 1983 it is set… and I think I have managed to get a pretty good idea as to when, since it doesn’t say any specific dates in the movie, only the year. But with help from certain clues I found in the movie, I have narrowed it down a bit. So let’s talk about it.

The first clue as to figuring it out comes in the form of the scene when Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac) together with Psylocke (Olivia Munn) and Storm (Alexandra Shipp) goes to recruit Angel (Ben Hardy). In the scene we have a miserable and most likely drunk Angel, moping while listening to Metallica’s “The Four Horsemen”, which in itself is a fun nod toward Apocalypse and his four horsemen. But this actually realle helps narrow down the time quite a bit. You see, “The Four Horsemen” is a part of Metallica’s debut album “Kill ’em All”, which came out in 1983. To be more specific, it was released on July 25th of that year. So this basically eliminiates the entire first half of 1983. And logically speaking, Angel is probably not listening to that on the day the album came out, so we can most definitely eliminate July as well. And for those who are wondering, “Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)”, which was featured in the amazing Quicksliver (Evan Peters) rescue scene, was released in ’83, but before “Kill ’em All”.

My next piece of evidence leans a bit more on speculation, but if you think about it I am making some sense. This isn’t necessarily from a specific scene, it’s more a general thing that could be gathered every now and then. In the scenes where we are at the X-mansion we are given a good look at the outside surrounding it. Based on information given to us from the writers of the comics and such, the X-mansion is supposedly located in the very northeast corner of Westchester county, which is part of the state of New York (because Marvel loves New York apparently). And in my research I quickly found out that Westchester county and the state of New York in general have really snowy winters. And looking at the area surrounding the mansion, we can see that there’s no snow, in fact it is quite green in the area. So that immediately eliminates December. And going back to it being green and even sunny, I’d argue tht November and October are out of the question too since that’s when shit starts decaying and becoming grey, AKA not green, AKA not this movie.

So after eliminating the first half of the year and the last three months of the year, we have managed to narrow down that movie is set around August or September of 1983. Would it be possible to narrow it down even more? Probably. At this point I can only really guess. The closest thing we have to a piece of evidence is Cyclops (Tye Sheridan) being in a High School classroom when we first meet him. And I’m pretty sure High School doesn’t begin until late August/early September in the states, but I could be wrong on that, especially since this movie is set in 1983 and not 2016. But if I’m right with that, the movie is most likely set in September of 1983. Again, this is mainly speculation. I won’t really lose any sleep if Bryan Singer or Simon Kinberg refuse to confirm if I’m correct or not with this. I just did this because I started thinking about it this morning and felt like I needed to write about it. And it’s fun to do another Movie Discussion again. But to conclude this: Based on evidence found throughout the movie, I have (probably) come to the conclusion that “X-Men: Apocalypse” is set in August/September of 1983!

What do you guys think? Am I making sense? Am I conjuring up total bullshit? Do you have any other theories? Leave any and all answers in the comments!
Have a good one!

 

Movie Discussion: The Point of “Elephant”

wcvg2Zj3Y4NmP6ZTFsLeSWXWKjF

Hello fellow people on the internet, I’m back! Sorry for the lack of posts lately, my laziness caught up to me. But now I am here and I am ready to get another post out there! So what are we doing today? Well we are here to have a little movie discussion about one of the (in my opinion) most underrated movies ever. A movie that has gotten a lot of mixed reception and has split audiences worldwide… even though it isn’t that well-known. But we are here to discuss it today. Soooo… HERE WE GO!

Just a fair warning; If you have not seen “Elephant” from 2003 directed by Gus Van Sant, I suggest you should leave now as there will be spoilers. Now that I have gotten that out of the way, let’s move on.

Let’s start of with the simple question “Why make a discussion about such an obscure movie?”. Well it all started with me going on to youtube the other day because of me wanting to watch the final scene of the movie after not having seen it in a long time. If you have seen the movie then you know which one I am talking about. If you have not seen the movie then you obviously didn’t read that previous paragraph, spoilers. But if you simply don’t give a shit and don’t want to see a really good movie then here we go. In the final scene of the movie we have the characters of Eric (Eric Duelen) and Alex (Alex Frost) coming to school with a bunch of big duffel bags filled with guns. When they then are inside of the school they pull out all the guns and start shooting up the place. Killing students, teachers and even the principal. Now the reason my watch of that scene led to this post doesn’t come from me simply watching the scene itself. It came from going on to read the comments on the video. And from what I gathered… people don’t seem to get the point of the movie. They only focus on things you focus on in a big budget Hollywood movie. And I will address those points here. Their points are what inspired me to do this. Time to pick up the shit from the street and throw it in the trash.

First up we take the one that the people focused on too much… more than most other points in fact. What I am talking about is the acting. Now to be fair, the acting in the movie isn’t particularly good. I would even say that it is below average, but I got some things to say about that. I did some research about the movie and found out that a lot, if not most of the cast comes from director Gus Van Sant’s hometown of Portland, Oregon where the movie was shot. What he did was pick out some random youths from there to really show off that these people pretty much were students in that school. Hell, they all were pretty much within the right age range to actually be in high school. Unlike 100% of big budget Hollywood movies which use people in their 20’s and 30’s who happen to look kinda young. The point of the movie wasn’t to have Oscar-worthy performances but to give us genuine people. Acting isn’t everything, guys.

Next up we have something that I can agree is a tad bit strange; When Alex and Eric are going around shooting people, and gunshots can be heard by those who haven’t been killed yet, they don’t know how to react. And that is the key phrase in all of this, “They don’t know how to react”. This is a school filled with students and teachers who have never experienced something like this before. They have never had their school shot up, by two of their own students none the less. Put yourself in their shoes for a second, you’re sitting in class, boring as usual and then suddenly hear some weird noise, kind of like a small bang. You hear it come closer and closer through the hall outside of the classroom. What do you do? Youy probably don’t know what you should do, am I right? Should you sit calmly and hope for the best, go check what it is or get the hell outta dodge? You’d probably sit calmly and hope for the best, but still worry for a bit. And then someone would come into the classroom and you would all be dead within a matter of seconds. So complaining that people didn’t panic like a bunch of paranoid conspiracy theorists on Halloween is kind of bullshit.

Now to something that is understandable on a surface level, but still baffles me is that people find this scene boring. And what I mean by “understandable on a surface level” is that when people want a shooting in a movie they expect tons of shooting, explosions, CGI and orchestral music blasting your eardrums. And while those things can be cool in some ways, they wouldn’t fit here. What Van Sant wanted was a more realistic, grounded and horrifying way of looking at it. What we see is these two simply walking around, occasionally firing off a shot. This scene is very quiet and doesn’t use the unnecessary Hollywood checklist. To be completely honest, the scene is one of my favorite scenes/third acts in any movie ever. One of the reasons for this is the fact that they use no music at all throughout the scene. Sure you could add some dramatic and bombastic song or sad piano song, but that wouldn’t have had the same effect. At that point the music would have told us what we should have felt “Sad Piano tells you to feel sad, so feel sad you fucker”. But “Elephant” chose the ballsy and in my opinion more powerful movie by not having any music at all throughout the scene. It makes the scene more real and more horrifying. Sometimes the best of something is nothing of something (If that makes any sense).

There are also people who really seemed to dislike the ending of the movie. Now for you who haven’t seen the movie in a while, and for you assholes who haven’t seen the movie at all and have kept reading despite my warning, I will recount the end. In the end Alex and Eric meet up in the school cafeteria and have a chat about how everything have gone for them… then Alex shoots Eric. Soon after we see Alex cornering two more students in a cold storage and standing there deciding their fate… “Eeny, meeny, miny, moe”. And then it cuts without any real resolution. And I can see why some people would be pissed about it… but I personally like it. I love when a movie can be ambiguous about something. And an ambiguous ending is really something great… unless they plan a sequel and make it painfully obvious. Now I don’t think there have been any plans for “Elephant 2: Electric Boogaloo”, so I am happy with the ambiguity.

The point of “Elephant” isn’t to be the next big thing, it is about the lives of regular high school students and how it all one day changed. That’s it… nothing more to it.

“Elephant” is a tragic and brutal movie that I absolutely love and I do not agree with any of the points mentioned (Except for the acting being bad, but again, that’s not the point of the movie), but if you do, that’s fine as long as you have respect for differing opinions. Now that I am done with all of this, time for a question! What is your opinion of “Elephant”? Leave a comment.

Have a good one.

Movie Discussion: Could something really be called “the best”?

The Best

Hello people. Time for another little discussion (Sidenote: Technically it is more of an opinion piece, but “Discussion” sounds better). The last one I did was on action movies and how they have gotten tame and that there are fewer awesome ones these days. Now we will have a look at something that has been on my mind for quite some time; can you really call a movie “the best”? So let’s stop screwing around, time to discuss!

Let’s first get something straight, by best I mean either “Best of all time” or “Best of that genre” or something in a similar fashion. This is something that has been boggling my mind after seeing a lot of websites and critics call certain movies “The Best of all time” and similar. Now while a lot of cases these things are based on their personal opinions and that’s fine. It’s just really strange to me why they would call their favorite movie “The Best Movie”. I mean, could something really be the best? Or is it something that people came up with to basically flip the bird to everyone and say “Fuck you, my opinion is the only opinion that matters”. And has there ever been anyone who has been right about that?

We of course have several movies that by many have been called “The best movie ever” such as “The Godfather” and “Citizen Kane”. And when you have so many people agreeing about something like that, it has to be correct, right? Not really! What we have are a lot of people who share one opinion about something… but you still have a large group of individuals who don’t agree with them. Considering there are so many different opinions on movies, I don’t think there could ever really be a “BEST MOVIE EVER!!!”. Now I haven’t seen “Citizen Kane”, but I do imagine that it still could be a good movie… but best movie ever? Same with “The Godfather” which I have in fact seen, and I agree that it is a great movie. Problem with calling a movie the “best movie ever” is that there will be more people disagreeing with you than you could imagine.

Now I might have a small idea why people call it “Best Movie Ever” and not “My Favorite Movie”; they are afraid to get personal in all of it. By calling it “best movie ever” they look more professional and that is why people look at critics with a lot more positivity than the regular people who talk about movies… like me. The critics try to sneakily get their opinions in while still sounding somewhat objective. The only people who can properly be credited as critics who dared to get their personal opinions on movies into their reviews are Gene Siskel (R.I.P) and Roger Ebert (R.I.P). On their old show “Siskel & Ebert” they had banter about what they thought about the movies and they really got into it personally and that is why they worked so well and have earned my respect. Unlike most other “critics” who talk like they are a fucking robot who got no opinion about anything.

“Well, you gotta have an opinion” – Vincent Vega, “Pulp Fiction” 1994.
pulp_fiction4340

 

So what the hell am I trying to say? There is no such thing as “Best Ever”. Example: The Oscars every year pick out their choice for “Best Picture”, and while I have agreed with them a few times… they are still wrong. What I mean by that is that there will always be a ton of people disagreeing with that Oscar committee of old, white men. You can never get a perfect choice for “Best Picture” or any other category without pissing some people off. The same goes for those of you who make lists like “Top 10 Best Movies of *Insert year here*”. You call it the wrong fucking thing. Call it “My Top 10 Favorite Movies of *Insert year here*”. Saying “Best” is what makes you look like assholes who give no shit about the opinions of other people. Movies are incredibly subjective… hell, most forms of media (TV, Books, Music, Video Games, etc.) are based all around subjectivity. There can NEVER be any definitive choice for “Best of something”… EVER!

To sum it up quickly. Everything is so subjective, you can never pin any label to anything. “Best of something” “Worst of something”. Since subjectivity is the definitive factor in all of this then there can never a way of knowing what is the best of something or not. But if you’re gonna continue being an asshole about it then I think Wolverine has something to say;
tumblr_mjv10b6kPV1qj00tho2_250

What are your opinions on the subject? Leave a comment and let me know, I love discussions. Aaaaand that’s it for me.

Have a good one!

Movie Discussion: Action movies

Action-Heroes-Bracket

How are you guys? Finally I am back with another movie discussion. Last time I did one I talked about the “logic” of giving Jamie Foxx a Best Supporting Actor nomination for his role in “Collateral” when clearly he was the main protagonist. But this time we are not really looking at one specific movie but rather a genre of movies. As you can read in the title this is going to be about action movies and what is going on with them. Now let’s quit stalling and get on with it! Time for a movie discussion… about action movies! (Sidenote: I will refer to action heroes as “he” for simplicity in writing).

Action movies as a whole is a genre I gladly watch simply for the expectation and deliverance of high octane entertainment. Seeing a hero (or heroes) solve a problem through any means necessary. But what I have noticed recently is a decline in what makes action movies as awesome as they are not only as simple popcorn entertainment but also as really good movies. Let’s start with one of the main factors of an action movie, the hero. In an action movie you want a hero that is cool, can handle tough situations but yet is vulnerable and relatable in a sense. In most action movie these past 15(ish) years the hero is an invulnerable jacked dude who dodges everything harmful perfectly yet delivers a major smackdown on thebad guys without a single problem. Sure, the scene might be entertaining but since he is so unstoppable it looses its appeal and we will not care for the guy. A few perfect examples of badass action heroes who can take care of trouble yet are vulnerable are John McClane from “Die Hard”, Riggs and Murtaugh from “Lethal Weapon” and more recently John Wick in… “John Wick”.

                    A relatable hero is a requirement for a more engaging action movie.
FGKv0lethal-weapon-2keanu-reeves-john-wick

Another thing to take into account in an action movie is… the action (duh!). For one it has to be intense to really get our blood pumping and show how badass it is. Of course I am not saying the action scenes should be shooty-bang-bang and explosions galore, but they need to have a lot of flair and intensity. We need to feel like the action is awesome and we need to know that it means business. I also feel like the action needs to be memorable. And by that I mean it have to sort of dig itself into out memories by being great. Some of the best examples of action scenes that you’ll remember after seeing them (for me at least) include any action scene from “The Matrix”, the badass action scenes from “The Rock”, the awesome highway action from “Speed” and of course every awesome battle in Ridley Scott’s classic action-epic “Gladiator”.

 Memorable action scenes, they are not always easy to make but damn, are they awesome!
gynBNzwyaHKtXqlEKKLioNkjKgNvalentines-day2Speed_movie_poster93-gladiator

 

Next up that I wanted to discuss was something relating to the previous part and that is visibility of the action. What do I mean by that? Motherfucking shaky-cam. Whoever thought it would make every action scene better if they weren’t visible should get a slap in his face! Sure, sometimes it can be used in a way where it actually works in the movie. A good example of where the shaky-cam works are the “Bourne” trilogy, terrific action movies that still has shaky-cam. A few bad examples of shaky-cam however are movies such as “The Hunger Games”, “Alex Cross” and (unforunately) “The Bourne Legacy”. Shaky-cam… stop it!

Great cases of shaky-cam.
The Bourne Identity 2002el_mito_de_bourne-supremacydj.ykamvrxh.400x400-75

     Fucking awful cases of shaky-cam.
ars21344965852_aleks-krossbournelegacy

Now of course I feel like I need to lay down my two cents on something that a lot of people (including me) have complained about when it comes to modern action movies, editing to achieve a certain rating. And what do I mean with that? Well by that I of course mean that they edit the movie and film it to be PG-13. Now that shouldn’t be such a big deal. But when they do it simply to get the movie more accessible to people because Hollywood likes money it kind of pisses me off. Of course I kind of get it with some movies like “The Hunger Games” where they maybe wanted to keep the movie within the intended demographic brought in by the books and the fact that seeing kids murder each other is kind of terrible. But sometimes you wonder “Why the hell is this movie PG-13?”. That is the reaction I got with movies like “Life Free or Die Hard” when the previous movies were rated R and with even more recently than that, “World War Z”. The final one is a fucking action movie with zombies and in zombie stuff we want our blood and gore! Of course I am not saying an action movie needs tons of blood and gore to be great, but watering an obvious originally R-rated movie down to a PG-13? Fuck you Hollywood! Now of course there can also be action movies that are PG-13 as well. Some good examples are “Inception”, “Taken”, the “Dark Knight” trilogy and of couse “Bourne”. PG-13 isn’t that terrible unless it’s used to only make more money… then it is stupid.

The bad side of the coin we call PG-13.
die-hard-4i_am_legend_ver4_xlg

    But there is still a valuable side to this coin.
159192128_35dfae58282Batman The Dark Knight แบทแมน อัศวินรัตติกาลThe Bourne Identity 2002

Rememebr earlier when I said you’d need a vulnerable action hero? Well that isn’t the only thing that is needed when it comes to the actors. You also need an actor who can sell the role to us. They need to give off the feeling of “Yeah I am just a guy kind of like you, but I can do cool stuff too”. It would also be great if they maybe did some of their own stunts. Some prime examples of actors who can sell action roles perfectly who also do their own stunts (mostly) include Keanu Reeves, Harrison Ford and of course, Tom Cruise! These people have dedicated themselves to the action scenes they’ve done and done a lot of their stunts all by themselves. And when you have actors who can’t really do stunts yet they end up in an action movie, that’s one of the reasons we get the previously mentioned shaky-cam. The best example out of the ones I mentioned of actors doing their own stunts is Tom Cruise. The guy does everything by himself and never use a stunt guy (damn, dude). The best example of how awesome Cruise is like that is to look at his infamous scene from “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol” where he climbs the Burj Khalifa. That is actually him climbing it, without a stunt guy. Also, in some pictures from the set he has been seen climbing the ourside of a plane because… he is a fucking awesome idiot I guess. I am not saying people should risk their fucking lives like that, but it would be fun to see them do the stunts a bit on their own and not just say “NOPE! Stunt guy, get over here!”.

 Doing their own stunts? Hell yeah!
keanu-reeves-001Indiana_Jones_in_Raiders_of_the_Lost_Arktom_cruise_fotos

Where do I want to get with this? I love good action movies and it is sad to see a lot of not so great ones arrive these days. So I wanted to discuss action movies for that. Let me know what your thoughts on action movies in our modern age are. Also, what is your favorite action movie of all time?

To end this off I will share a link with you guys to a video by awesome youtube movie reviewer Chris Stuckmann where he talks about action movies. He is very good at explaining things and I hope you will enjoy his stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eac0lXfMs9c

See ya!

Movie discussion: Jamie Foxx is the main character in Collateral (2004)

How are you guys doing? Today I felt like starting another “series” here on my blog. In this “series” I will choose a movie related topic that I want to discuss. I will do these every now and then, not just to spit my thoughts out but also to here what you guys think about the situation. I will also be getting into a few spoilers in this “series” about the different movies I will be talking about throughout, so if you haven’t seen that specific movie…then go away, please. And today we are starting off with something that has been pinching me in the back of my head for a while now. And that is about one of my favorite movies; “Collateral”. So let’s begin!

tom_cruise_jamie_foxx_collateral_wallpaper_-_1366x768

If you didn’t read the title of this entry, I will be talking about the main character of the fantastic movie “Collateral”. And you might be thinking “But if you say he’s the main character, then he is the main character right?”. Eh, wrong. The story of the movie is about the taxi driver Max (Jamie Foxx) who one night meets the very smart, very smooth hitman Vincent (Tom Cruise). Max is kept at gunpoint by Vincent through the entire movie as he is forced to drive Vincent to all his destinations where he has to kill somebody. Now if you listen to that short (and odd) synopsis of the movie you would automatically assume that Jamie Foxx is the main character, right? But if you go to imdb.com and look at the 2 Oscar nominations this movie got, Foxx was nominated for “Best Supporting Actor”. Do you see now how this is weird to me? Look, I know that Tom Cruise at the time was a slightly more well-known and popular actor…but that doesn’t make him the main guy in this movie. Sure, he is one of the main ones, but if anyone should have gotten the “Best supporting Actor” nod, it should have been Cruise. My guess on this is like I said, Cruise was the more popular actor at the time and therefore he wasn’t the “Supporting actor” in the pair. But I honestly don’t think that is an excuse to put the most prominent actor/character as “Supporting”. Look, I love Tom Cruise as much as the next guy, but I can see who is supporting or not in a movie. In the end, Max is the one still standing out of the two. Let me shortly recap the final(ish) scene of this movie for you. Vincent leaves Max in the street and goes after his final target who is a woman (Jada Pinkett Smith) Max met earlier that very same night. Max goes after him (after Vincent is gone, of course). He goes to the building where she works and Vincent has gone into. Max has gotten hold of a gun, shoots up the glass and gets in. He finds Vincent and Annie in there. Max and Annie escapes and enters the train…Vincent follows. In the end (which is slightly blurry) Vincent dies and Max & Annie lives on. The character you see most in the movie is Max. You see this movie (mostly) from his point of view.  And that makes Max the main character! So why in the hell is Jamie Foxx listed as “Best Supporting Actor”!? If you have a theory, leave it in the comments below and let me know.
Also, since you’ve gotten this far I assume you have seen “Collateral”. And in that case, what did you think of it? Let me know! Like I said, it’s one of my favorite movies of all time.

I hoped you “enjoyed” this little thing. I will be doing more of these later on, so stay tuned!

Now that I think about it, they kind of did the same thing with “Interview With The Vampire”. Ya know, had Tom Cruise being the most prominent actor on the posters/promotional art/DVD covers…odd.