Movie Review: Thor Ragnorak

Title: Thor Ragnorak/ Thor 3
Rating: PG-13
Genre: Action/Adventure, Comedy, Superhero
Release Date: November 3, 2017
Director: Taika Waititi
Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Tessa Thompson, Idris Elba, Karl Urban, Mark Ruffalo, Jeff Goldblum,

Once again I’m here reviewing a Marvel film.   Thor Ragnorak was available through Netflix so I happily choose to watch it.  I love the Thor series of films.  For those of you who follow my twitter account or know me outside of WordPress, you’ll know that Loki is one of my favorite Marvel characters.  Jeff Goldblum is also a draw for this movie because he’s from my hometown and is awesome in his own right. Continue reading

Advertisements

Movie Review: Deadpool 2

Title: Deadpool 2
Rating: R
Genre: Action/Adventure, Superhero, Comedy
Release Date: May 18, 2018
Director: David Leitch
Cast: Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin, Julian Dennison, Zazie Beetz, TJ Miller, Stefan Kapicic, Brianna Hildebrand, Morena Baccarin

I was able to see Deadpool 2 in theaters a week or so ago,  My friends and I try to see the Marvel movies in the theater, although I can’t say I’m up to date on them.  However, I did manage Deadpool 2, so I’m able to review it for the blog this week.

Deadpool 2, as you probably know, is not for kids.  Lots of violence, langauge and sexual humor.  This movie also has an undercurrent of suicide and depression.  That being said, it also was very funny.  Lots of outside references, and you can tell the cast had a blast putting this film together.  The references to the comics are good, although I admit I had to look to my comic-fan friends to explain a few.

The music editing in the film is excellent.  I loved the ode to James Bond in the opening credits to Celine Dion’s song Ashes which also happens to be an awesome song.  The rest of the movie also has really good music-to-film sequences.

My grade for this movie is a B,   The cast did a great job, and it was hilarious.  I felt there were some points of the plot that didn’t quite fit, and I felt I was missing something for not being a comic book fan.  I do not recommend this as a family movie.  You have to be okay with a certian level of violence and humor, and like the first movie, you can probably watch the trailer and already see that its not for kids.  Some adults as well.

This movie also has some awesome cameos.  I won’t mention who as that would spoil the surprise.

Remakes & Reboots and Film Fatigue

Yesterday I stumbled upon the reality that the movie Overboard is being remade.  Now, I was never a huge fan of the film, it was okay and I’d watch it if it happened to be on.  I have friends who are much bigger fans.  But I always figured it was one of those movies that had been left alone.  Till Yesterday.

It made me wonder at what point does a movie get to ‘remakable’ status?  Is there a time limit?  A quality level?  Perhaps nothing at all (and I’m starting to think this is the reality.)

They made the first Spiderman movie with Toby McGuire in it in 2002.  Since then, they have made 2 sequels, rebooted it, made a sequel to that one and rebooted it again.  All in 16 years.  At least with the latest guy, its because the ownership changed hands therefore contracts were different.

But seriously.  16 years, 6 movies (8 if you include Captian America: Civil War and the upcoming Avengers movie), 3 actors.  That is roughly a new Spiderman movie every 2-3 years and only a few are actually connected to each other.  Toby McQuire came out with one in 2002. 2004, and 2007.  Andrew Garfield got 2012 and 2014.  Tom Holland got 2017 (with 2016 (CA:CW) and 2018 (Avengers: Infinty Wars) as honorable mentions).

Seems a lot.  (Although I wish Tom Holland luck with the role.  He seems like a sweetheart.)

It makes the Star Trek reboot look like they took way too long (almost 50 years).

Of course there is Star Wars, creatively sourced as a continuation rather than a reboot.  They are using the same basic plots so I find the last series to be generally less impressive than the other two (yes, I’m a freak who loves the Prequels.  Not as much as the original trilogy, but I do love them).  I don’t want to watch The Original Trilogy with Anakin 2.0

The Mummy was recently remade, though I did not see this version due to an aversion of all things Tom Cruise.  Plus the Brendan Fraser Trio was a big part of my middle school years.  I don’t want to ruin them with whatever this new one is.  Which doesn’t appear to be anything like the 1932 original, or the Fraser 1999 remake.  So I’m not sure if it’s so much a remake as its “Hey, we got the rights to this film franchise and a budget, want to film?” type deal.

There are times I adore remakes.  It just seems that recently the board has been pretty flooded with remakes and reboots and sequels. And some of them run pretty close together.  I can understand a remake/reboot if enough time as passed (King Kong, Godzilla and Star Trek for example).  Book adaptations happen all time (Look up the many many many versions of Pride and Prejudice.  I did once.  I think there were thirty some at the time).  I just don’t get why I’m getting remakes/reboots of films that have been released since I was in high school.  Sure, its been over a decade but barely and still within memory.

At the very least a decade should be the minimum amount of time unless the movie was awful (ex. The Incredible Hulk movies.  We don’t talk about the Incredible Hulk movies).

I remember reading somewhere that someone had boiled down the general narratives of the world to about 6 storylines.  And that everything basically followed one of them.  But there are a million ways to be creative with a prompt.  Just look at any writing group and ask them their responses to a prompt.  You are bound to get a bunch of variety even with the same building blocks.

So I don’t think its a hard task to find something out there that is creative, even if its something old.  At least something not made in the last decade.  At the rate we are going, The day I turn 40, Harry Potter will be releasing its remake of A Deathly Hallows.

That being said…I’m probably going to be watching the new Overboard.  If only because the fact they genderswapped it sounds intriguing.

I believe I wrote about this before, but it was just a recent rant in my mind that needed to come out.  What are your thoughts on the matter?

Scarlet O’Hara (Bubblews Repost)

Vivien Leigh in Gone With the Wind trailer-9

EDIT NOTES:  This post was made several years ago on Bubblews, a site that is no longer online.  I found it while cleaning out some folders on my google drive, and decided to repost it, with some minor grammatical corrections.  According to my file, I wrote this on October 9, 2014, 11:55 AM.  I plan on eventually reading the novel, and rewatching the movie to see if my views still hold true. Also this post doesn’t focus on GWTW portrayal of slavery, which is at times very awkward because of its avoidance of the reality.  This just focuses on their main plot around Scarlet.

On Sunday, I saw Gone With the Wind in Theaters.  It was a great experience, although I hate to tell the movie people that 5 minutes is not enough to allow people to get to the bathroom and/or go to the concession stand to refill their drinks.  Should have been fifteen, but that is not the point of this post. Continue reading

Robin Hood & History

One of my favorite movies growing up was Robin Hood.  It was the Disney version, the one with the Animal kingdom playing out the roles.  According to the story, Robin Hood (a fox) stole from the rich and gave to the poor because Prince John (a Lion, sans mane) was overtaxing the population of Nottinghamshire while ruling for his brother King Richard (a Lion, with a mane).  It’s the basic story behind most Robin Hood movies.

The interesting thing about Robin Hood is it’s both fiction and non-fiction.  It’s a mix of characters who are fictional and characters who were based on real people.  As I grew up, and started to be interested in the back story I found out that some of the stories are more interesting outside the myth.

For example, Prince John.  In Disney’s version of the tale, he’s a laughable villain.  He sucks his thumb and cries for Mommy and is made fun of for that fact.  He’s not even depicted as a fully grown lion, and his crown doesn’t fit his head.  His assistant, Sir HIss, puts up with a lot of abuse in the sake of comedy and somehow remains sane enough to advise his King to make better life decisions.

In reality, Prince John was an actual King, and one fairly important to history.  He was born in 1166, the younger brother of Richard I, or Richard the lion-hearted.  So in that, Robin Hood gets it right.  Richard left for the crusades, and the then Prince John ruled as regent in his stead.  He became King himself in 1199, and ruled for 17 years till his death in 1216.

John was born the sixth son of King Henry II. He was one of 10 children, and a member of the House of Plantagenet.  He is the third of Henry’s sons to be King.  The eldest was Henry, who became co-regent with his father at least in name if not in power. He died in 1183, outlived by his father.  After Henry the II died six years later, RIchard the I became King.  He is known most for being a part of the Crusades, which took up much of his reign.

John himself was regent, although not particularly because RIchard wanted him too.  So in a sense, the movie had that right too.

However, the movie ends with Richard coming back, and reclaiming the throne and punishing his brother.  However, Richard died after only 10 years on the throne, and with no heirs, it left John and his nephew Arthur.

John, being ambitious as history (and Disney) show became King. He became an important part of history because his son Henry III would be the first Plantagenet King and that would lead to the war of the Roses 300 years later.  He also changed English politics forever with the signing of the Magna Carta, which not only started the government transitioning into his modern form, it is also a major influence on the designers of the American Government that would develop 600 years later.  He was also known for taking a more personal involvement in the administration of the country, some positive some negative.  Some of which influenced the portrayal of Prince John the villain.  For example the over taxation occurred during his reign as King.

With the kings of England in the middle ages, its hard to know what was accurate and what was propaganda from a rival.  For example, many people get their idea of these kings from William Shakespeare’s plays (which have inaccuracies and were obviously tailored to suit his Queen) or other items of fiction.  King/Prince John is certainly not the only world leader to have that happen to him.  HIs great-great-grandson (etc)  Richard III was certianly given a reputation by literature and the Tudors.

It just brings me to my younger self who thought the story ended with that “no-good Prince John” being punished for his maltreatment of Nottingham. It was really only half the story and I’m glad I learned to love history and delve deeper into the world Robin Hood is based in.

One day I may go into more research and in-depth about King John.  For now, I’m going to go watch Robin Hood and tell Sir Hiss to get a new job.

Movie Review: Anna Karenina

Title: Anna Karenina
Release Date: 2012
Rating:
Staring:  Keira Knightley, Jude Law, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Kelly MacDonald, Domhall Gleensen, Alicia Vikander, and Matthew Macfadyen

My Rating C.

My Review:

Alright, I knew going in that this was going to be a weird movie.  Its Tolstoy.  The man doesn’t do simple happy ever afters.  I’m not entirely sure he does happily ever afters at all.  Plus I had read a few bits of the book before watching the movie.  I’m determined to go back and actually read the whole thing.  If I can read Game of Thrones, which is 900 pages long, I think I can stretch a little further and read Anna Karenina.

Anyway, why did I give this film a C.  Well, the casting was full of people I like (Matthew MacDadyen, Alicia Vikander, and Kiera Knightly especially), so I can’t complain about the acting.  The costuming was excellant No, I just thought the staging was weird.

And by staging I mean the whole movie is built like its the mutant child of a stage play and a film.  Sometimes you feel like you have the full screen depth of a movie, and sometimes you felt like you were watching a recording of a play.  Which I suppose could be seen as an inventive way of making this all out to be some theme about how society is play on image.

It just threw me off really.  I think if they had started it that way, and perhaps ended it that way it would have been sufficent, but they kept routing it through the whole movie.

Also I found I cared very little for Anna and Vronksky,  Wishing there was more of Stiva and his family, or Levin & Kitty more then there was Anna.  I’m not sure how much of that is because of the source material or the script itself.

Movie Review: Pride & Prejudice & Zombies

Title:  Pride & Prejudice & Zombies (2016)
Rating: PG-13

My Rating:  ….Ambigious.

You see,this movie is both bad, and good.  Its got some great chemistry between actors, and some of the alterations of characters due to the circumstances are really interesting.  It also has the occasionally good line.  I adore Matt Smith’s Collins, and Lena Hedly’s Lady Catherine makes you less likely to dispise the woman.  Charles Dance plays Mr. Bennet.  I knew Lily James as Ella, from the Live-Action Cinderella but didn’t realise she was Elizabeth untill I read the credits.  It also has some faces I’m unfamilar with like Sam Rielly and the rest of the cast I haven’t already mentioned.  I will say while his Darcy isn’t what I usually picture Darcy being, it fits within the scope of this film and he and Lily James work well off of one another.  It also gives some of the characters usually passed over in the original novel (Namely Mary Bennet) a chance to be shown a little more.

On the other hand some of the dialogue is very very cheesey and at times awkward (Example:  When Darcy, watching Elizabeth kick Zombie ass, realises that she’s not that bad looking after all, and starts explaining this to Bingley whose basically “Dude, Zombies.”). It also brings the hard question – If women are being trained for battle, why is it so off set with the sexism of the day?  Shouldn’t it have changed some of it?  Some of the interjection of the original material by Austen is a bit awkward.

So its hard to grade this movie.  I will say I enjoyed it, and I’ll probably purchase it eventually.  It really doesn’t make me want to read the novel (The one the film was based on, not the original P&P, which I have read).However, its the type of Zombie movie I enjoy.  The kind where there is a mix of genre (Action & Adventure, but also comedy and a touch of romance) and there are some surprising twists.