DJJD Movie Review: The Wolverine

What originally attracted to me about Wolverine, in my opinion the best Marvel Comic character (sorry Spider-Man) was the deep character development that occurred within the comic book series.  Wolverine had substance and not a two dimension character.  You can't say much about that with The Hulk, many of the X-Men characters, or even Iron-Man. The DC equivalent would be Batman; however, Batman is still the "king of the mountain" so to say in one large part of having better villians than Wolverine.  

Jim Logan (a.k.a. Wolverine) had to deal with a lot of tragedies, from his childhood up to his Adamantium transformation as Weapon X.  He has always been the anti-hero and had to constantly fight his animal instincts to try and be a civil man.  In my opinion, the best portion of the Wolverine comic series was when went to Japan as a means to get peace with himself or reset himself physically, emotionally, spiritually, or a combination of them. That is where the character development grew the most, instead of the typical "I'm fighting for the X-Men and I'm going to kick ass."

After X-Men Origins:  Wolverine was a stink pile of a movie, it is deserving to get Wolverine back on track, so to say.  What the filmmakers did was extract many story and character developments from his Japanese times into the latest movie "The Wolverine".  And so far, they did a pretty good job.

There might be some weaknesses here or there in this movie (no movie is perfect), but "The Wolverine" has more pros than cons.  It was not a completely mindless action film. Jim Logan, performed awesomely again by Hugh Jackman, is back in isolation, trying to find peace after the events of X-Men 3.  Yet in certain circumstances, he is on a plane to Tokyo and certain things happen - sorry no spoilers.  Yet through these events in Japan, Jim Logan goes through character development - gasp!  The plot made sense - ouch!  The romance was minimized - Wow!   There was not a lot of action for the sake of action.   

Yes I could not believe my eyes and ears.  "The Wolverine" was not a mindless spectacle of 3-D special effects and soundtrack loud enough to blow your eardrums.  There was dialog, and in those dialog scenes it was quiet.  Jim Logan's character changed from the beginning of the film to the end of it.  And you did not need 3-D glasses to entertain and get the point across.  You see J.J. Abrams, it's not that hard to do. 

For all of the summer films I have seen in 2013, this is the best so far.  I did not have to shoot idiot drugs into my system to enjoy this film.  It had a balance of action, plot development, and character development.  It is refreshing.  It is PG-13, mostly to do with some violence but there is swearing in it.

P.S.  Like many Marvel movies, there is a special foreshadowing scene shown during the ending credits.  All I can say is that it ties into the Bryan Singer directed "X-Men:  Days of Future Past" which is coming out next year.

So long BUB!!

DJJD Movie Review: Man of Steel

[06/16/2013]

IMDB Link to Man of Steel

                Being quite disappointment with the bomb fest called “Star Trek Into Darkness (basically a mindless action film with little substance) See"Star Trek Into Darkness" movie review, my expectations of a substantive yet fun action film this year seems nil.  After watching “Man of Steel” twice this weekend, I was not disappointed.  My faith of a descent summer film is still alive.

                Now for those who expect a Superman movie similar in style that to the older Christopher Reeve films, you will be disappointed.  The writers of the Dark Knight trilogy (David Goyer and Christopher Nolan) along with Zack Snyder directing made an excellent reboot of a comic book character that has been on life support for some time.  This Superman story is grittier and more realistic than prior incarnations, but is still not as dark as the recent Batman films. 

                Both Superman and Superman 2 delivered the son of Krypton as a more traditional “boy scout” hero.   Superman 3 is pretty much a Richard Pryor (SNL) comedy film, while Superman 4:  The Quest for Peace can be watched through the eyes of the Mystery Science Theater cast.  Superman Returns emphasized Superman more as a secular Messiah and was too romantic, trying hard to link itself to the original Richard Donner films.  Brandon Routh’s performance as Superman is so wooden, making Al Gore’s personality more like William Shanter. 

                Man of Steel emphasizes Superman as an alien to this world – both as a young Clark in Smallville as well as an adult, trying to find his purpose in life.  How does he fit with humanity?  Will humanity accept and trust him?  Can Superman cope of being a man living in both worlds – Krypton and Earth?  And that to me is refreshing to this character, instead of dragging out the old clichés of traditional Superman incarnations. 

                Another aspect of this film that I really respect is that the story gives reasonable explanations for the motivations of all of the major characters.  You really see Krypton and the Kryptonians a new and refreshing perspective.   Yes the traditional origin story of Superman has been altered, but these alterations have enhanced the Superman, and DC, universe instead of making them cartoon characters of themselves.  Remember that J.J. Abrams!  

                You will understand reasonably why Jor-El (played brilliantly by Russell Crowe) did what he did in transporting his son to Earth.   You will understand reasonably why General Zod (played brilliantly by Michael Shannon) opposes Superman, instead of the cliché motivation “I want to rule Earth!”   There is some substance in this action comic book movie.

                During his Smallville years, you can understand why Clark’s adopted parents (Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent and Diane Lane as Martha Kent) are over protective of him and how their values impact Clark as an adult. 

               

                Regarding actor performances, all of the major actors were excellent.  But I believe that Russell Crowe was at his best.   Amy Adams interpretation of Lois Lane I appreciate.   Her character is strong and intelligent yet vulnerable.  She is not portraying Lois as the arrogant, reckless, and somewhat snobby New Yorker type that has been done by Margot Kidder or even the animated series version.   Henry Cavill as Clark Kent is a good performance.  I would still have liked to see more character development as himself, but a significant amount of his character development was done as a young Clark Kent – so I will give Henry a pass.  Michael Shannon as General Zod is an adequate performance, yet he was not hammy as the villain.  He was not the simple minded villain you would see in traditional settings.  And at last, the use of the military was done quite well, especially my main man Christopher Meloni (Law & Order:  Special Victims Unit) as Colonel Nathan Hardy.

                The film can be divided into three sections:  (1) The peril of Krypton (2) The character development of Clark Kent, and (3) The confrontation between Superman and the Kryptonian invaders.       The re-imagining of Krypton in the first section was done quite well, even though I did see some flashback scenes of Star Wars:  Attack of the Clones and Star Wars:  Revenge of the Sith.  I liked the somewhat Ridley Scott’s  Alien and Prometheus look of Krypton and its technology, instead of the Richard Donner “angelic crystal” look.  The Kryptonians are truly alien.    

                The character development of Clark Kent was very reminiscent in style that to Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins, where flashback are utilized a lot.  The editing of those scenes was done nicely.  I like that approach of showing you the origin story instead of the literal boring style.   

                The confrontation was fabulous.  I finally saw Superman be Superman.  We don’t see the slow flying maneuvers done by Christopher Reeve and Brandon Roth.  In defense with the Christopher Reeve films, they were stuck with the limitations of the special effects technology of that time, but there is no defense with Superman Returns.  The fighting scenes with Superman and the Kryptionians are intense and awesome, making even the action scenes from The Avengers look quite tame.  You know from these scenes that Superman is powerful – no doubt about it.  However, you see a limitation of Superman that is greatly needed for the character.  What’s the point of Superman if he can defeat everyone, or whip around the Earth to set things straight?  His limitations are realistic and do not come from green rocks from space.   Plus there was actual suspense in many of these action scenes.  They were not mindless action. 

                There was a big concern about Zack Snyder as the director, but those concerns are minimized.  You will not see the slow motion special effects that you see in 300 or the Watchman.   I will have one complaint in his cinematography.  He had too much shaky camera shots and needed to tone them down.   But overall Snyder’s direction is pretty good.  I think having a great script and leadership by Christopher Nolan really toned him down, so that this movie is not reduced to a video game. 

                Overall this is a great summer blockbuster movie with some measure of substance for a comic book movie.  Yes this is not Citizen Kane but it was not intended to be so.  This comic book movie I believe stands up to the Christopher Nolan Dark Knight trilogy as well as Marvel’s Avengers, X-Men 2, and Iron Man.   This is by far the best of the films so far this year, despite what many critics are saying now.

                It is pretty obvious now the direction of DC Universe – gritty and serious, while the Marvel universe is more comic book and more campy.  Now seeing both “Star Trek Into Darkness” and “Man of Steel”, my faith is a good Justice League film in 2015 is much greater than Abram’s Star Wars film in the same year.   DC rules – sorry Marvel.   Superman is back on track for once.

See this review and other archives in my new blog  DJJD Movie Reviews.

DJJD Movie Review: The Avengers

[05/04/2012]

If you have read any of my previous movie reviews regarding Comic book movies, especially those from Marvel comics, I have ripped them a new one quite frequently.

Except for Iron Man (which still had weaknesses – like the ending of the film), all of the Marvel Comic movies after the release  of X-Men 2 has been disposal garbage that needs to be flushed down the toilet.  

·        The over romanticism in the Spider-Man series

·        The B-movie acting of the two Fantastic Four movies

·        The other ruin of a franchise and Wolverine by X-Men 3

·        The “why am I watching this” of the two Hulk films

To not cut them all down, Thor was an average film.  Iron Man 2 was good (Robert Downey, Jr. all the way), but the villain played by that handsome-yet-went-through-plastic-surgery-hell actor stunk to high heaven.  Plus the Black Widow character, played by Scarlet Johansson, was that typical “I’m woman hear me roar”, which is pretty old and outdated.   The Captain America:  First Avenger movie was an above average movie, and I liked it. 

So what am I going to suspect with “The Avengers”, where Marvel has spent so much time, money, and hype to get to this point?  Another failure?  I can’t believe that I am saying this, but I am going to say it...

Tonight, I just saw the BEST COMIC MOVIE EVER!!!!   Yes, it equals to or even surpasses The Dark Knight!!  

(Oh my!  I just committed blasphemy to my favorite comic book hero from Gotham City.)

I just went through a movie equivalent of the last four innings of the Sixth Game of the 2011 World Series.  This movie had everything that you wanted in a comic book movie, and mostly none of the things that you shiver.  Was there any campiness to it?  I could not find it.  Was the villain a typical two-dimensional character, like Dr. Evil?  No, the villain was much like the Joker in The Dark Knight in terms of fooling his opponents.  Was there the template plot that many comic book films go through, copying the plot from 1978 Superman over and over and over again?  No, the story jumps right in, without so much origin baggage – something that was refreshing with The Dark Knight.   Was there the wooden or thin characters – relationships and just be completely mindless action?  No, there are actual character development for all of the heroes, and conflicts between the heroes.  Was there the dull one-on-one climax between the heroes and villains that is usually copied from Superman II?  No, it was not; I could not actually predict the ending of the film – another refreshing moment.

The director Joss Whedon has experience with having good stories from an ensemble cast – balancing between character development, character interactions, and action.  He did it with  the short lived but much prized Sci-Fi TV show “Firefly” and the subsequent movie “Serenity”.  Joss did an excellent job of doing the same with this movie.  As we all know, Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark (aka Iron Man) is the huge star in the comic book movie world.  He was just as good in this movie as Tony Stark as he was in the two Iron Man films.  Yet he did not overshadow the other characters.  It’s like eating a great pizza.  You love the pepperoni, but the cheese and the crust and the sauce makes it so much better.  There is a lot of humor, mainly coming from Tony Stark, but he was not the only one.  Each character (IRON MAN, CAPTAIN AMERICA, THOR, BLACK WIDOW, HAWKEYE, HULK, NICK FURY, and even Agent Phil Coulson [the S.H.I.E.L.D. agent who brought all of the heroes to Fury]) had their WOW moments.  Each character had moments of character growth.   I have been especially harsh with Scarlett Johansson in the past as Black Widow, but in this movie her character is actually vulnerable at the ultra-feminist hard-on as before.   Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury was not “over the top” acting as would expect.  You root  for Captain America, for Black Widow, for Hawkeye, for Thor – not just Iron Man. 

But the biggest surprise was Bruce Banner as the HULK.  The HULK was my favorite – and you definitely ROOT for him.  This HULK is not like from the bad two movies or the TV series.  HULK is what we really expected from him.   Mark Ruffalo plays Bruce Banner to a tee.  He’s not some self-pitied character hiding away because of his affliction.   He’s an intelligent and confident person who just wants to be left alone.   Where were you Mark for the other two films?  HULK does some comic book scenes equivalent of Scarface’s “say hello to my little friend”.  HULK is the bad-#&$#$.  Here is a little trivia for you.  Who does the voice of the HULK in this movie?  None other than Lou Ferrigno of the Hulk TV series.

The climax action between the heroes and the villains were great.  It is something that we’ve wanted from Superman II and even from the Star Wars prequel films but never really got it.  The action was not mindless.  There was direction.  It was thought out.  Yet the editing did not jump to any boring scene.  It was just intense – and cool.   FINALLY!!  FINALLY!!  A comic book movie that is satisfying for some time.

            If I had four stars, I’d say four stars – or four and a half stars.  It’s worth spending $10.00 plus for this movie and get into the long lines for it, and you don’t need 3-D glasses to enjoy it.   As many of you know, I saw the Star Wars films many times in the theaters.  I rarely do that, because of the lack of quality of many films.  The last movie I saw more than once in a theater was The Dark Knight.   I plan to watch it again very soon.  After writing this review, I’m going to go on Amazon and see if I can pre-Order the Blu-Ray for “The Avengers”. 

I did see the latest trailers for Prometheus and The Dark Knight Rises.  After seeing The Avengers, those films are going to have a tough ride up to knock out what I call the top movie of the year.   Yes, those movies are going to be much darker.  But if you want to see what a good old-fashion hero vs. villain movie, it’s right here with The Avengers.

DJJD Movie Review: The Dark Knight Rises

[07/21/2012]

            Before I start my review, I give my thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families at the Aurora, Colorado shootings.  It is terrible that to have a tragedy like this occur on one of the best times a movie-goer has – and that’s the midnight showing of a new movie.   Besides this obvious pain now inflected on the victims and their families (which I am not putting down the intensity of their pain and suffering), this is now impacting theaters across the nation.  I heard radio news reports that many theaters, including the local AMC theaters, are banning people dressing up in costumes for the showing of “The Dark Knight Rises”.  That is unfortunate.  I’m not sure what they will do when “The Hobbit” is released in December, but hopefully banning is short term.  I don’t personally dress up for a movie, but I have been in many releases when people due dress up (Star Wars prequels, Lord of the Rings, the DC and Marvel comic book movies, etc.).  This tragedy does have a parallel, in my opinion, to the themes of this movie, but I’ll explain that later…

            Eight years on, a new terrorist leader, Bane, overwhelms Gotham’s finest, and the Dark Knight resurfaces to protect a city that has branded him an enemy. (www.imdb.com)

            “The Dark Knight Rises” is a fantastic third installment of the now known Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy.   I remember initially right before “Batman Begins” was released in 2005 that Christopher Nolan would probably do a series of films, similarly that was done by Tim Burton and the forgettable Joel Schumacher.  But that was not the case.  Christopher Nolan has achieved a task that rarely any director has done before – make a high quality trilogy.   Most of the story does tie to both “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight”, and closes the Batman story in as much as any storyteller could – so watching or recalling the stories of the prior two films will enhance your experience on this film greatly.  Please note that this film is as dark if not more than “The Dark Knight”.  Don’t expect a lot of comedy in this. 

            Godfather 3, Superman 3 (Superman 4 does not exist in my mind), Aliens 3, X-Men 3, Spider-Man 3, and Matrix Revolutions, have all failed in one level to another in closing the story in a satisfactory means.  Either the story failed or they threw too much stuff added that made it too heavy to bear. 

            “The Dark Knight Rises” is more epic in scale than the other two films.  Some critics say that it’s too epic.  After sleeping over the story of the movie, I believe that it ties much of the story together pretty well – for all the character.  It deals with themes that are so relevant to our post 9-11 society, especially dealing with terrorists, radical Muslims, and – I’m going to get hit on this – the Occupy movement.  The movie does not directly ram ideologies down your throat (like environmentalism in “Wall-E” and “The Happening”), but like a great story, you see those conflicting ideas between civilization and revolutionary thought.  Also, there is a good and interesting way that Nolan ends the film.

            Now to the actors…

            Christian Bale hit a homerun again in his performance as Bruce Wayne / Batman.  Even though “The Dark Knight” centered more on the performances of the late Heath Ledger as the Joker and Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent / Two-Face., “The Dark Knight Rises” re-centers the main character of Bruce Wayne again, as it did in “Batman Begins”.  In “Batman Begins”, Bruce deals with his fears and the loss of his parents.  In “The Dark Knight”, Bruce / Batman deal with the Joker with his morality as well as the morality of Gotham as a whole.  How he deals with the ramifications of “The Dark Knight” as well as dealing with new revelations in this new movie is central to the core.  

            There was an initial concern about Anne Hathaway as playing Selina Kyle / Catwoman.  She played a realistic version of Selina Kyle and not pushing the comic-booky portion of Catwoman, like the other two actresses have did.   In fact Catwoman is never mentioned in the film.  She is good as playing Selina Kyle in a realistic version, better than all of the other non-animated versions on film, but she is not play like the idealistic comic book version.  I give her a B, but not an A.

            Tom Hardy is the most controversial in the fan boy universe – not due to his performance but to hearing his dialogue.  He wears that mask that muffles his sound a bit.   When the IMAX prologue was released a couple months ago, many people complained about not hearing him well.   Nolan did get the response and made his voice clear and louder than before.  However, there were some scenes that it was still hard to hear his dialogue, but I understood the context of what he was saying.   Besides that little issue, Tom Hardy played Bane to a tee.  He is quite intimating physically and emotionally.  You can see that in his performance in his eyes.   When Batman and Bane first meet, it reminded me of the first encounter of Rocky Balboa and Clubber Lang (Mr. T) in Rocky 3.  I got that “all crap” feeling in that scene.  So, great performance by Tom Hardy as Bane.  He did well, especially having to follow up to the post humorous Oscar winning performance of the Joker by Heath Ledger.

            Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon, Morgan Freeman as Fox, and Michael Caine as Alfred, were still 5-star veteran performances as before.  However, Gary Oldman gets more screen time than the other two, and he really does a great job.  I wish there was more of Michael Caine, a big fan of his, but the story must go on.

            The other new actors – Marion Cotillard as Miranda and Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Blake – played well.  However as with Aaron Eckhart in “The Dark Knight”, Joseph Gordon-Levitt was the surprise performance of this film.  There is a lot of sympathy and humanity that Joseph betrayed, and he is definitely breaking out as one of the great actors in current time.   Please note that these new characters are not side line characters.  They are crucial to the story line.

            Also note that there are cameo appearances of other actors the other two movies.

            In conclusion…

            There is a lot of stuff that I would like to say, but if I say too much, then spoiler will arise too much.  So, I can do a summary of what I think of this movie.  This is definitely the best movie of the year.  In my opinion, it did surpass “The Avengers” as a movie in both story-telling, character development, and story themes – even though “The Avengers” is a great movie. 

           

            Christopher Nolan method in making Batman (and a comic book fantasy world) as realistic and close to the source material has been surpassed by no other director.   He Batman trilogy is the gold standard of comic book movies in terms of storytelling, character development / depth, and shirr thrill.  It’s the original Star Wars trilogy of the comic book genre. 

I don’t think he would be able to do a comic book movie of any other superhero – basically due to the lack of reality they have (i.e. superpowers, future technology, space flight, and magic).  Batman is the superior superhero character and that only Christopher Nolan – the modern day Alfred Hitchcock of our time – could have directed him as well.  There are rumors that another Batman reboot will occur – who would of think Warner Brothers would stop the money train of Batman.  But in my opinion, it will not be as good. 

            Sure “The Avengers” and other Marvel comic movies will be more popular, less dark, and make more money, but they will always have the little sense of campiness in them that the Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy does not have. 

            In the future …

            There was a teaser trailer for “The Man of Steel”.  They did not show much as they did at Comic Con 2012, but that looks like the only other comic book movie I’m looking forward to.  There might be other films I watch this year – the only other anticipated film in the first half of “The Hobbit”.  But besides that, “The Dark Knight Rises” rises to the top as best film of the year.

            “The Dark Knight Rises” is a definite watch and a definite buy as a Blu-Ray.  I’m pre-ordering it now. 

DJJD Movie Review: Total Recall

[08/05/2012]

While I was driving to the theaters – actually the drive in since it was cheaper to go to, I was “recalling” watching the 1990 version with Arnold right after my high school graduation party with the family.  I remember going to Showplace 8 with Charles and Uncle Jim (and possibly Byron) – I forget – after having the party at the lounge at the Jefferson apartments that Charles and Aunt Nancy lived.  That was a big “impression” in my mind, especially knowing that this was a very violent film and it starred the biggest actor of that time – Arnold Schwarzenegger.

What should have happened was I need to go to a “Total Recall” facility and erase those memories from my mind.   I would probably have enjoyed this film better if I never "recalled” the 1990 version.

In the Comic Con press release, all of the cast was presenting to the audience that this 2012 version will be more like the Philip K. Dick point of view, than the somewhat campy 1990.  Yes, I would agree with that notion that the 1990 is campy and filled with Arnold’s one liners – “consider this a divorce”.   I would have liked a more philosophical minded film – which is Philip K. Dick is known for.  Philip’s main obsession in his sci-fi writings was the issue of distinguishing between what’s normal (reality) and what’s fantasy – and how to distinguish this from the main character.   “Blade Runner”, “A Scanner Darkly”, and a little bit of “Minority Report” did well in presenting Philip’s theme in one shape or another.   Even the 1990 version had those aspects in there.  However many of the lesser known Philip K. Dick adaptation’s to movies did not emphasize that as much, but did too much “chase action scenes” that took too much away from the substance of Philip’s themes:  Paycheck, Next, and Imposter to name a few.   My expectation was that they would separate from the 1990 version by emphasizing those themes as much.

Unfortunately, this “Total Recall” version is more like Paycheck, Next, and Imposter.  It’s more “chase action scenes” than philosophical themes.

The only point I saw that they took from Philip K. Dick is the settings of Blade Runner.  In fact, the original Philip K. Dick short story “We Can Remember It for You Wholesale” does include Mars.  This version does not.   I felt that the screenwriters just took a copy of the 1990 version and just rearranged some of the story and characters and they left that actual storyline pretty much the same as before.   There were actual lines that were rehashed from the 1990 version and used verbatim in this version.  They actually had the three breasted prostitute scene in this version.  Since there are no mutants in this version, why the three breasted prostitute? 

They should have learned from the Coen brothers how to make a better remake of a classic – “True Grit”.  It felt like they wanted you to rehash the Arnold version while watching this deliberately.   It was like a producer saying:  “Hey, why don’t we remake Blade Runner starring Sam Worthington as the Harrison Ford character and replace Sean Bean’s character with a red headed actress.  Instead of being in Los Angeles, we settle the story in London.  Change some of the script lines and have the replicants be actual robots instead.”

The special effects were superb, but I hardly judge a film anymore on special effects.  Anybody can make good special effects movies.  It’s a dime a dozen.

I did like the Blade Runner / Minority Report feel of the settings, but there was one technological achievement (clue – a transport) that seemed too farfetched to be realistic.  This technology was critical to the storyline and messed up the climax for me.  The performances of Colin Ferrell, Kate Beckinsale, Jessica Biel and (Walter White himself – i.e. “Breaking Bad) Bryan Cranston, were actually pretty good.  It’s the story that failed. 

To me, this is an average film.   For you to enjoy it, I have to take this line of reasoning.  This movie “recalls” to me the differences in the “The Christmas Carol” movies.  Which version do you like the best – the George C. Scott version, the Patrick Stewart version, or the original 1951 version played by Alastair Sim.  Despite Arnold Schwarzenegger’s version being a bit campy, I still like the 1990 version.  They did not meet my expectations on the Philip K. Dick philosophical mode of the film, and the story line was rehashed and flat.   It’s a movie to rent, but not enough to pay a full ticket to go to.

Too bad!

2012 Status

List of movies rankings by DJJD:

The Dark Knight Rises  (A)

The Avengers (A)

Dark Shadows (B-)

Prometheus (C)

Total Recall (C-)

Anticipated films of 2012:

            Skyfall [James Bond]         High

            The Hobbit: Unexpected Journey:         Above-Average

{Knocked down from High due to news about Hobbit being a trilogy now}

FrankenWeenie:                 Above-Average

Cloud Atlas:                          Average {from the directors of The Matrix}

Lincoln:                                 Average

The Expendables 2:            Average

Looper:                                 Average

ParaNorman:                      Average

G.I. Joe:  Retaliation:         Below-Average

Dredd:                                   Low

The Bourne Legacy:           Low

Hotel Transylvania:            None

Rise of the Guardians:       None

Django Unchained:            Low

{I can’t believe I am saying about this for a Tarantino film. 

Can he actually make a non-violent film – just to do something different for a change?}

Not going to touch with a ten foot pole (notice unfortunately that this list is usually very long):

            The Amazing Spider-Man

            Abraham Lincoln:  Vampire Hunter

            The Watch

            Step Up Revolution

            Ted

            Brave

            Battleship

            Madagascar 3:  Europe’s Most Wanted

            Katy Perry

            Ice Age:  Continental Drift 3D

            Men in Black 3

            Rock of Ages

            The Three Stooges

            21 Jump Street

            American Reunion

            John Carter

            Red Tails

            Wrath of the Titans

            The Dictator

            The Raven

            Contraband

            This Means War

            Diary of a Wimpy Kid

            Five-Year Engagement

            That’s My Boy [in fact any Adam Sandler film – Sir, you’re not funny anymore]

Movies I might watch later on Netflix:

            Magic Mike

            The Intouchables

            Moonrise Kingdom

            The Hunger Games

            Snow White and the Huntsman

            The Grey

DJJD Movie Review: Skyfall

[11/11/2012]

WOW!!  I just finished watching this film.  I can daresay that this is the best film I have seen this year, surpassing “The Avengers” and “The Dark Knight Rises”.   The Hobbit film next month will have to be pretty good to challenge Skyfall, in my opinion. 

I cannot say a lot of the story.  Any mentioning of the plot could spoil it for you guys – a “Luke, I am your Father” type spoiler.

All I can say is that this has to be in the top 5 – or dare I say – in the top 3 Bond films of all time.  Yes, Sean Connery is THE Bond of all time, since he started it.  After watching Daniel Craig’s performance, if you don’t think that Daniel is not at least very close second “greatest Bond”, then I think your head needs to be examined.  You really see a very realistic portrayal of Bond from Daniel in this film than any other – even Casino Royale.  There is hardly any cliché in his performance anywhere.

If you expect to see is “cookie cutter” Bond film with Skyfall, you will be disappointed.  This is a very atypical Bond film to observe.  However the film does not alienate you from the other Bond film greats.  There are many references to the older installments of Bond it this film, so you know that Daniel Craig is James Bond.  What I mean is that the story itself is atypical.  You can’t read it like any other film – Bond does this, M does that, villain plans this, and so on.  Let’s just say that it would be very hard to spoof this like an Austin Powers film.  There are scenes in this film where I see references that to “The French Connection”, “The Dark Knight” and possibly any Alfred Hitchcock film. 

Judi Dench as M is as good as ever and has a major part of the story.   

Javier Bardem as the villain Silva is at least the top 3 best Bond villains of all time.  I did watch “No Country for Old Men” and I can see why he is perfect as the villain.  He has a Joker-like feel to his method.  You can find some vulnerability and some sympathy for him in his character.  He is not the typical Austin Powers type villain.  There are other characters which I will not mention (don’t want to give away the plot) which are a great piece of casting.

This film is balanced quite nicely in terms of tone.  Yes, the Daniel Craig film version of Bond is much realistic and darker.  But this film has a lot of humor – similar that to Goldfinger, but the humor is not forced.  The story does it dark, it gets tense, but it is also fun – a nice balance for a film.

What really blows me away is the sheer beauty of the film.  The film is very beautiful.   It reminds me of the great directors like Stanley Kubrick, Orson Welles, and Alfred Hitchcock on how the film was shot.  Action scenes in “Quantum of Solace” was edited like an MTV “Fast and Furious” that it made my head spin.  This did not occur on Skyfall.   There are many shots in this film where you can take a snapshot, blow it up, and frame it in your home.  The use of color is wonderfully done.  This movie should at least win an Oscar for cinematography.   Director Sam Mendes (“American Beauty”, “Road to Perdition”, “Jarhead”)  should at least get a nomination for best Director for this film.  He shot one heck of a film.

The soundtrack is awesome.  Like I mentioned in previous e-mails, Adele’s theme song of “Skyfall” brings the soundtrack back to the John Barry – Sean Connery years of a grand and operatic sound.   Plus the soundtrack within the movie does hearken back to the great Dr. No days.  When you hear it, you will know and grin for those hardcore Bond fans.

My only complaint of the film would have to be title sequence special effects.  The graphics was not as good as before.  But Adele’s song carries the title sequence, instead the other way around in many other Bond films.

I will give you only one hint on the film.   The film tries to answer the question:  Is James Bond relevant in a post 9-11, technocrat society that we live now?

This is a must see film and a must buy for all those Bond fans out there.  I want to see this film again and again and again.

BA BA BOOM   BA BA BOOM   BA BA DA DA

DJJD: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

[1/1/2013]

I apologize for the delay on this review.  There were a lot of circumstances for me and my mother, who wanted to see this movie with me, during its release.   Both my mother and I were not in the mood to watch this film right after the Connecticut tragedy, plus all of the holiday stuff going on.  That and other factors.  I am still recovering from a cold that has been lingering for two plus weeks.  Also, I was and still am on the James Bond buzz.  I’m starting to collect the original Ian Fleming novels (Casino Royale, Dr. No, Goldfinger, and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service) and just finished reading Dr. No.  James Bond has replaced Star Wars as my fad so far.

My mother and I finally had an opportunity to watch “The Hobbit:  An Unexpected Journey” in theaters last Sunday.  After going through a half an hour of trailers and through 2:45 minutes of this film, we both came out with the same feeling – Eh?! 

We were talking about our views of this at dinner and came to a similar conclusion.  That it was an alright movie.  She was disappointed due to the great expectations of the film for herself.  This seems quite similar to what I went through with the Star Wars Prequels (which took many years of denial to face up) and recently Prometheus – the prequel / not prequel, question filled adventure that makes 2001:  A Space Odyssey a walk in the park. 

The performances were great, especially from Martin Freeman as Bilbo.  He is perfect in this role and he is born to play the “what situation did not get me in now” character role.  He did that in my first exposure to him in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”, the original British TV show version of “The Office”, and in the highly received new twist of Sherlock as Dr. Watson.   Even Ian McKellen as Gandalf the Grey was superb as before.  And at last Andy Serkis reprising his role as Gollum was the best of the lot, showing more intensity and emotions than I saw in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  The dwarfs were fine, especially the leader Thorin, played by Richard Armitage.  Even the environmental Wizard with the bird dung on his face was not that bad, as many movie reviewers has mentioned.  He’s not the Jar Jar Binks of Middle-Earth.

The Hobbit suffered the same issues that occurred with the Star Wars Prequels – expectations (both from fanboys as well as the director).  Actually, I don’t think The Hobbit was as bad as The Phantom Menace.  George Lucas messed that up pretty good in his own right.

The issue was twofold.  The Hobbit, as I read most of the novel, is not as intense and well of depth as the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  If you recall your J.R.R. Tolkien biographical history, Tolkien wrote The Hobbit as a child story.   It was not with the assistance of C.S. Lewis and Tolkien’s passion of ancient languages and cultures that Tolkien decided to write an fully ambitious Middle Earth universe tale that took most of his live to write.  Each character in The Lord of the Rings was full of depth of character, even the lesser known characters of Pippin. 

So it is not really a good thing to compare The Hobbit that to Lord of the Rings, because The Hobbit was an appetizer and the Lord of the Rings was the main course (in terms of story and character development).  If you compare The Hobbit that to the Lord of the Rings, you are going to be disappointed at the lack of character development, because there was not that much there to begin with.  

That is why I was so surprised by the reason of Peter Jackson expanding The Hobbit to three movies.  I had a bad feeling that this was going to happen.   He expanded the simple story of King Kong to a very boring length with unnecessary scenes in that film, whereby I will stick with the original King Kong as the authoritative version.   According to internet information, Peter Jackson was incorporating a lot of story line from Tolkien’s unfinished work The Silmarillion, which was suppose to expand and “fill in” the story line within The Hobbit as well as events before, during and after the Lord of the Rings.  This “filler” threw both me and my mother off.   Having her reference to The Hobbit from the 1970s cartoon version, she got disturbed when the story “got off subject” unto something else.  It did not affect me as much, but it still did.  What did affected me was all of the cameos that were occurring:  Elijah Wood as Frodo, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, and Christopher Lee as Saruman are not needed.   The other two were in there to either fill in The Silmarillion stuff, or do a George Lucas-ish style tie in to the Lord of the Rings.

Bottom line, The Hobbit should be one long 3 hour movie or just breaking up to 2 2 hour film.  The whole means of having three films shows me either Peter Jackson wanted to pad as much Silmarillion stuff into The Hobbit or (here is my cynical side kicking up) the movie studio suits wanted to make another Trilogy to rake in the money.  The crew of Mystery Science Theater were ripping on a bad film “Fire Maidens of Outer Space” where the director intentionally filled the movie of a lot of “padding” (unnecessary scenes) that took away from the so-called story, where a much of astronauts find a bunch of hot Greek women on the thirteenth moon of Jupiter – one of my favorite MST3K episodes.  Joel would say to the actors on the screen, “hey – more padding! Stretch it out!  Stretch it out!”.   The Hobbit reminded me of that.  If they were have gotten to the point of the film, and taken the rest of the filler out, this would have been a much better film.

Overall this is not a bad film.  Like what I had to do with the Ewok scenes in Return of the Jedi, I am going to have to fast forward many scenes of The Hobbit to get to the “meat” of the film.  So this is an OK film, and not excited to see the next one as I was with “The Two Towers”.  Mom even said at the end of the film, “What, that’s all of the film?”.  “Yes”, I said, “We will have to wait for Part 2 next December and Part 3 the winter after that”.  She says, “Forget it!  I’m not going to wait for the next film.  Not worth it.  Just get me the DVD of “Skyfall” and I will be satisfied.”   I have a funny feeling that she is not alone in that feeling.

THE HOBBIT IN 3-D

I did not watch the film in 3-D or dealt with the whole 42 frames per second controversy that many movie reviewers had watching The Hobbit in 3-D.  So it would be hard for me to honestly criticize the film in that context without dealing with it, but I’m not going to fork up $14.00 to see the same movie in 3-D.   I’m a devoted 2-D man and will stick to it.   “HD not 3D” is my motto.  For us who are against 3-D movie viewing should set up a Tea Party like organization and go against this whole progressive filmmakers, thinking that 3-D is the future.  Boloney to that!  Microsoft, politicians, and technology driven filmmakers should learn that progressing does not really mean improving.  

I have a link of Red Letter Media below, who are more technical about the 42 frames per second controversy and experienced it.  

Half in The Bag:  The Hobbit review

{CAUTION:  ADULT LANGUAGE}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFh6c_CwdBg

MOVIE YEAR IN REVIEW (2012)

I looked through my log of what movies I saw in theater and on Netflix.  This was obviously the lowest amount of movies that I watched in theater in 2012.  Many of that is financial ($10.00 a ticket, $14.00 for 3-D).  Mom was going to treat me to The Hobbit, so she paid also for the bottled water for us.  $4.00 each per bottle.  She got angry in her own loveable means.  “Four bucks for water.  That’s outrageous”.   For me, going to the theater is like going to a baseball game.   I’m only going to go there for the big film releases.  I get a month’s worth of Instant streaming movies and to check out 2 Blu-Rays or DVDs at a time for $12.00 a month on NetFlix.  Yes, the latest TV shows and movie releases have a longer lead time than other rental places, but it’s worth waiting to watch the film when it is finally released.  If it is a great film that many people think it is, it is worth the wait.  Plus, if a movie reviewer that I trust says that the film stinks to high heaven, then I will not even try and watch it on theater.

That is why my listing of my best films will be short to many others out there.  And there are many other films that I did not watch but plan to watch when released on Netflix. 

Let me know what’s yours.   I know that it will be totally different from mine.  This is just an exercise of showing my personal listing.  Everyone’s different.

BEST FILMS OF 2012 THAT I WATCHED IN THEATER

1.      Skyfall

2.      The Dark Knight Rises

3.      The Avengers

4.      Seven Psychopaths

MOST DISAPPOINTING FILMS OF 2012 THAT I WATCHED IN THEATER

1.      Prometheus

2.      The Hobbit:  An Unexpected Journey

3.      Dark Shadows

4.      Total Recall

TOP 2012 FILMS THAT I AM WAITING TO SEE ON NETFLIX

1.      Looper

2.      Atlas Shrugged:  Part 2

3.      Argo

4.      Ted

5.      Moonrise Kingdom

6.      Django Unchained

7.      Lincoln

TOP TV SHOWS OF 2012

1.      The Walking Dead

2.      Sherlock

3.      Breaking Bad

4.      No Reservations

5.      Restaurant:  Impossible

BEST NETFLIX MOVIES OF 2012

1.      The Girl of the Dragon Tatoo (Original Swedish and UK Version)

2.      The People vs. George Lucas  [Documentary]

3.      The Man Who Would Be King

4.      The Changeling

TOP TV SHOWS OF 2012 FROM NETFLIX VIEWING

1.      Law and Order: SVU

2.      The Office

3.      Archer

4.      Firefly

5.      Mystery Science Theater 3000

TOP BLU-RAY BUYS

1.      Bond 50:  [James Bond Box Set]

2.      Sherlock:  Seasons 1 & 2

3.      The Dark Knight Rises

4.      Loony Tunes Collection:  Volume 2

5.      The Avengers

6.      Outland

7.      Indiana Jones:  The Complete Adventures

8.      The Walking Dead:  Second Season

9.      The French Connection:  Remastered

10.  Ed Wood

ANTICIPATED FILMS IN (2013)

1.      The Man of Steel

2.      Star Trek Into Darkness

3.      The Wolverine

4.      A Good Day to Die Hard

5.      Iron Man 3

6.      Kick-Ass 2

7.      The Hobbit:  The Desolation of Smaug

8.      Oblivion

9.      G.I. Joe:  Retaliation

DJJD Blu-Ray Review: Looper

[02/14/2013]

If you did not know, I did not watch a lot of movies in theaters last year due to budget restrictions.   2012 had a lot of potential good movies, and want to

watch them either rental or through Netflix.  Because of this situation, I thought that I should start reviewing those movies that I have now the opportunity

to watch.  The first one to review is Looper.

IMDB Information

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1276104/?ref_=sr_1

Trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iQuhsmtfHw

Looper:  119 min  -  Action | Crime | Sci-Fi  -  28 September 2012

Rotten Tomatoes Rating:  93%

In 2074, when the mob wants to get rid of someone, the target is sent 30 years into the past, where a hired gun awaits.

Someone like Joe, who one day learns the mob wants to 'close the loop' by transporting back Joe's future self.

Director:  Rian Johnson

Writer:   Rian Johnson

Stars:  Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt 

Unfortunately mainstream trailers are not very innovative.  Most of them are made by a third party or studio department.  The great ones are usually made by the directors themselves, who has some clout and enough Hollywood power to do so.  Rian Johnson is not one of those power directors.   Just going by the trailer of Looper, I got the feeling – “Oh!  Another mindless sci-fi film with a Hollywood hook” (i.e. Battleship or “In Time”).   Boy, was I wrong.

This is a great great great sci-fi film.  It is thought provoking without a lot of bombastic action and complete “video game” CGI.  It reminds me of the old Fashion, striped down, and intellectually interesting sci-fi films of the seventies and early eighties (“A Boy and His Dog”, “The Andromeda Strain”, “Brainstorm”, “Scanners”, etc.).  The only films recently that I can think of with this type of sci-fi would be “Moon” (2009) and District 9 (2009).

It takes one possible concept (i.e. Time Travel) and makes a good and interesting story with it.   It didn’t take 80 + million dollars to make it, and you don’t need a Star Trek writer to get his scientific manual to figure it out.  It makes you think. 

Looper takes this premise.  What if some time in the future, time travel has been discovered.  However, it can only take you back in the past.

The government surmises that this discovery is so wrong that it makes it illegal immediately.  But the only ones you actually utilizes it are organized crime.

Instead of doing the traditional Godfather like hit, where the CSI department is so advanced, they just take their victims back in time and let these hit men called Loopers do the dirty work.  Now, what happens if one of Loopers (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) was just about to knock off his older self (Bruce Willis)?

What would you do?

The story writing, the characters performances, and the plot itself is so good.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt is definitely the growing star.  (“Inception”, “The Dark Knight Rises”)

And, in my opinion, this has been one of Bruce Willis’ better performances in some time.  He has been making a lot of junk films (i.e. “Cop Out” and now his 5^th Die Hard)

That he’s getting back to one genre that he excels at besides action films – thought provoking sci-fi.  (“Twelve Monkeys”, “Unbreakable”, “Surrogates”, and the surreal cult “The Fifth Element”).  In fact – not trying to do too much spoilers here – but Bruce’s character is not really a good guy. 

The movie is set in 2044 (I think).  The futuristic settings is not too dramatic – like this looks like a possible look at our future.  There’s still slums, farms, cafes, etc.  The  changes are subtle, which is great.  And I love the premise - A sci-fi thriller concerning the mob.

The soundtrack is minimalist and not bombastic with a big orchestra.  According to the special features, the composer basically made the score using Ben Burtt techniques by

Recording every day and organic sounds.  None of the soundtrack used a traditional instrument. 

This is a great film.  I wish I saw it in the theater.  If I rank it with the other films, it would be up there with “The Avengers” and “The Dark Knight Rises”.  Sorry, “Skyfall” is the king of the mountain for 2012.

This is a definite one to rent and enjoy, and it would not be a waste of money to buy this on video.