REVIEW: King Kong (2005)

God, I love monster movies.  I know that as a critic, that might sound a little silly since a lot of monster movies tend to end up in B-level cheesy movies, but man, when it's done right, it's done right! And lately, I've had giant monsters on my mind because....they're awesome.  I don't know.  All I know is that I've been wanting to review a big monster movie, and I had a lot of votes in a poll for Godzilla, and Jurassic Park.  They're on the way.  I promise.  But I'm kinda unsure how to start those reviews, so for a little inspiration, I went to King Kong.

Everyone knows the name King Kong, he's undoubtedly one of the most famous giant monsters out there in the film world.  He's big, he's strong, and he's one of America's most famous movie characters, his 1933 film rightfully preserved in the AFI's Hall of Fame.  And he was the first giant monster that I was introduced to outside the realms of dinosaurs, and rancors of Star Wars.  He easily became one of my favorite monsters I've ever had the pleasure of watching.  But as I grew up, I began to realize just how weak his franchise was.  I'm not kidding either, for such a strong film to come out of 1933, the other Kong films can be terrible.  The sequel to King Kong fell flat, the 1976 remake failed to capture any of the majesty of the creature, and its sequel was atrocious!  Even Toho didn't fully capture what made King Kong so great, when it pitted the iconic monster up against the legendary Godzilla.  Then Peter Jackson entered the picture.  So what was the result?

His remake of King Kong in 2005 was just...beautiful.  I fully mean that too.  It's about time that we got another quality movie in the Kong franchise.  Now that isn't to say it is without flaws, because there are flaws, but as far as overall quality, it not only matches the legendary status of the 1933 classic, in some ways...it can surpass it.  And I recently saw the original 1933 classic again.  Despite being outdated for the times, it still holds up, it still works, and it still has the ability to make your heart race.  A film from 1933 able to do that has earned it's place among history.  But despite this 2005 remake being just as good, it needs to be said that this remake is a very different movie than the 1933 film.

Where the 1933 film was mainly meant as a fun horror survival story, this movie digs deeper.  We all know that King Kong develops feelings of affection for the pretty Ann Darrow, but in 1933, that's about it.  Ann never looked at Kong as anything more than a monster.  Constantly screaming for her life.  Here, Ann's character is further developed, and the emotional bonds that are shared between both beast and beauty are seen.  Heck, there are times in the movie that you can pretty much understand what Kong is saying, or implying through body language, or the sounds he makes.  But Ann's character isn't the only one who's strengthened.  Nearly every character from the original story has been given a bigger backstory, or changed in some way shape or form.  Jack Driscoll is not longer the first mate as he was in 1933, he's been downplayed to a more normal guy role as a play writer.  Unfortunately, this can lead to some rather dull moments from him, but I see what they were going for. Carl Denham, played strangely, yet near flawlessly by Jack Black, is much more anxious about getting his film done, and has a bit of an extremist personality, wanting to finish his film, no matter the price.  It can be said that this kinda leads his character to have a bit of a Jurassic Park antagonist look (where he believes he's in full control until nature runs out of his control), but it's still very well done.  But the character development ironically leads to the first fault of this film.

The characters are developed wonderfully, but it ultimately leads to many subplots, and many relationships and backgrounds that go nowhere.  There are two characters on the ship, the first mate Benjamin and a younger member of the crew named Jimmy who share a bond, almost like father and son.  Benjamin shows legit concern and care for Jimmy, who is rebellious, and headstrong.  Eager for adventure.  They get into this background for Jimmy but the thing is, the subplot is not really present in the film, and though you can see the pain Jimmy goes through after Benjamin is brutally killed, there's not much that is discovered about Jimmy as a person, yet the film can focus a lot on him.  But once Kong is captured, he and the rest of the surviving crew are never seen or mentioned again.  

This also leads to the second fault of the film, and the biggest complaint the film receives, the length.  At three hours and twenty minutes (extended), King Kong's running time is no joke, and there is a lot of material I feel that could have easily been cut.  Nearly an hour into the film, we are still watching the boat crossing the seas towards Skull Island.  And even after the action has been going or is picking up, there are so many awkward camera shots and whatnot that just didn't need to be there.  Awkward and unnecessary slow motion shots, choppy editing, particularly during the scenes with the Skull Island Natives.  And another scene that was lovely to watch, but just didn't need to be there was a sequence in New York, where Kong and Ann reunite, and share a little moment on a frozen lake.  I'm sure it's very fun for Kong who has never been on ice before, but it was a decently drawn out scene, that could have at the very least been cut down (and I can also say that it is one of the few scenes where the CGI does stand out in the wrong way).

But honestly, these are just minor gripings from me.  Because the film easily makes up for such shortcomings. Despite it being long, we are given a gorgeous, and very well played out visual of Skull Island, which is crawling with life, from the large majesty of Kong himself, to the stunning and well played evolved survivors of the Dinosaur ages, to a breathtaking and well done recreation of the infamous Spider Pit sequence, which was taken from the original film.  Skull Island hasn't looked so great on screen since 1933, and back then it was an impressive place to show.  The stop motion of the dinosaurs by WIlllis O'Brien is flawless, and at times even scary!  Jackson's well executed CGI visuals give the place a new life.  The iconic fight between Kong and the T-Rex has been revamped immensely, now a fight between what is called a Vastatosaurus Rex, which is basically the Tyrannosaurus Rex, after about 65 million years of evolution.  And he doesn't just fight one, he takes on three of them!  But what's awesome about this is the fact that it's not just trying to outdo the original.  In fact, many movements, and lines of dialogue in this movie are mirrored or echoed from the 1933 film.  This fight may add more, but it doesn't take away anything from the original.  It just does its own thing, while paying homage to the original as Kong kills the third V-Rex, snapping the jaw like the original, and letting out that roar of victory, as he did back in 1933.  

And of course, we gotta talk about the climax.  Kong's final fight atop the Empire State Building is a scene that is legendary all on its own.  And why wouldn't it be?  Back in 33, the Empire State Building had only been open about two years, so with Kong fighting on top of back then, the world's tallest building, the suspense must have been beyond dramatic.  The thing is, I feel that the climax of 1933 was a bit rushed, again probably due to the fact that it was a horror movie in its day.  Here, the climax bides its time, and it's actually quite emotional to watch.  When Kong reaches the top, he has this look of despair, as if he knows what's coming.  You can tell him possibly thinking of home, possibly thinking of how he has no clue where he is, and how Ann is the only one who might understand what he's going through as he watches his final sunrise.  And as all this is going on, it's interrupted by the sound of the engines of war planes...and you just get chills down your spine at the sight of them.

What follows is some of the most well played monster against human combat I've ever seen.  Some might call it a bit over the top, but you can just see it happening in such a way, that it's not at all bothersome.  In fact, you cannot look away. And with the bonds that both Ann and Kong share, you feel a legitimate pain as Kong is killed right before your eyes.  It's not you rooting for the planes to save Ann, you'll find yourself cheering each time Kong is successful in downing a plane.  And it makes the scene all the more sad to watch, because you know how the story ends. Beauty kills the beast.

With all this being said, I'm honestly surprised it gets the dirt that it gets.  Do I wish it were shorter?  In some places...yes.  But there are scenes even in the extended edition that I feel shouldn't have been removed, and as I said...as long as it is, when the action picks up, it really picks up, and has you hooked.  Any frustration that I personally feel when watching this film is just erased.  The casting is great, the environments, from Skull Island to a poverty stricken New York City, are beautiful.  And the story, as good as I remember, and about as good as it gets.  It goes to show that the legacy of King Kong is far from dead, and that good things can still come from this franchise.

All this brings me to my final conclusion.  I am pleased to give Jackson's rendition of King Kong, a full four out of four stars.  Despite a few nitpickings, this film was successful in capturing Kong's former glory, and even adding glory of it's own.  It's not just a rehashing of the same story you know.  It can stand out on it's own at times, and just blow your mind with it's execution.  It's a monster movie I will enjoy time and time again.  But I won't lie, with a prequel now in the works, I am unsure if that glory can be matched, or captured again.  Especially since sequels have failed inthe past.  I won't jump to any conclusions, but until we see what this prequel, which is set on Skull Island (stoked about that) has in store for us, I will continue to watchi this and it's 1933 predecessor with high hopes.

Please feel free to request any movie for me to review down below.  Leave a comment on what your thoughts are of the film.  And as always, thanks for reading.

Final Verdict: 4/4

REVIEW: The Hobbit Trilogy (2012-2014)

2001-2003. Peter Jackson stunned the world with his adaptations of the famous Lord of the Rings trilogy. They took the world by storm. If you hadn’t heard of Tolkien’s Magnum Opus, you certainly were one to find out quickly as these movies came out. They were emotional, touching, thrilling, and just all around epic. A series worthy to have a trilogy. Peter Jackson really did capture a certain magic in these films. A magic that is still present and holds up to this very day.
And now, if you’ll permit me to borrow some dialogue from Jurassic Park.
And you know what, Mr. Jackson, before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you’re selling it, you wanna sell it. The Hobbit trilogy.

Yeah, as you might be able to tell, I’m not the biggest fan of this trilogy. Now before I get all sorta of accusations and hate from the fans who are just accusing me of saying I hate it because it changed so much from the book, let me just say this. “Calm the heck down. There’s more to it than you think.” I have more problems than simple changes from the book, because unlike a lot of people, I understand that an adaptation is what it is. An adaptation. Adaptations make changes. I understand that, and am open to that concept. Even the Lord of the Rings trilogy diverted from certain things the books had. I guess what made that trilogy so strong however, was that the changes didn’t change so much of the original story, and were changes that people could see making sense. The Hobbit trilogy…not so much.

My main problem with the trilogy, is that honestly…I only see Peter Jackson trying to convince us that this was somehow supposed to either surpass, or be just as epic as the Lord of the Rings…and that is just something that isn’t possible. Firstly, the Hobbit when it was originally written by Tolkein was a very simple tale. I’ve read the book before,, and can say that the Hobbit was much simpler than the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and it was very much a story for children. Peter Jackson aimed to give us this…grand adventure. Am I saying the Hobbit isn’t a grand adventure? No. It’s a classic. But Jackson went about it in way too many wrong ways. Ways that backfired.

And permit me to be a little…hurt in some ways that were different from the book. I can’t say I have no problems with changes from the book, because there are some things that just did not sit well with me. And the very first thing that comes to mind was the constant foreshadowing of Sauron. ESPECIALLY in movie two, Desolation of Smaug. Sauron isn’t even mentioned in the book. If I remember right the “necromancer” is mentioned, which does become Sauron, but there is no corruption of the Ring, and Bilbo uses it rather…freely. In fact, Bilbo treats it like any other person would treat a ring. He finds it, it’s a nice little thing to take home. He puts it on, finds out it can make him invisible, and uses it to his advantage here. He doesn’t feel the presence of Sauron as he seems to in the movies, he doesn’t lose it, find it and call it “mine” like Gollum would, heck it’s just a ring in the book. So why the sudden change? Not only did it ruin one of my favorite moments of the book (the conversation with Bilbo and Smaug), but as a guy who knows who the villain of the Lord of the Rings trilogy is going to be, just saw this as a move that wasn’t necessary and dumb. On the scene I just mentioned, I really enjoyed the talk that Bilbo and Smaug have. Bilbo keeps Smaug on his nerve, and constantly confuses Smaug as Smaug cannot find Bilbo because he is wearing the ring. He is making Smaug somewhat nervous perhaps, on the edge, and angry with the constant riddles that Bilbo rains down from all over the place. Reading it is suspenseful, and thrilling, and rivals some of the most thrilling moments of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Once Bilbo removed the ring in the movie, I just had to shout in my mind “No!” because all the elements of suspense and thrill were effectively killed right then and there. Smaug should have just eaten Bilbo right then and there. Heck…as awesome as Smaug looked, he really didn’t act like the dragon I hoped he would. In fact, once he was killed, I was sort of thankful, because as threatening as he was trying to seem in the movies….he was pathetic. He built himself up both in movie and book (good job on nailing his boasting, I enjoyed that scene), but My god, when he’s chasing the dwarves all around Erabor, when he’s facing Bard the Bowman, and just making simple threats “You cannot save him from the fire, he will burn!” all I’m thinking is…WHY ARE YOU TALKING?! BURN HIM! Smaug is killed by the classic villain movie mistake of talking too much? Come on! I mean I know Smaug has this reputation of thinking he’s above them all, but….I hate to constantly bring up the book, but in the book, he just straight up razed the town, not taking anything from anybody.

I’m going to return to Sauron briefly, because though I will say that Jackson’s inclusion of Gandalf’s “side-quest” in the movies was…an okay move. Again, I don’t think it was necessary, but if Jackson was gonna squeeze a trilogy out of this one book, I guess he had to think of something. But the execution of this side-quest was bad too….because at it’s finale, I was wondering if Jackson even remembered making the Lord of the Rings trilogy. One thing I just don’t get is why Gladriel was so amazingly powerful in this trilogy. In the Lord of the Rings trilogy, she is described as a terror almost. A being of immense power. I am sorry to say I can’t remember the exact words used to describe her in the movies, but she was built up incredibly. And in the movies…as Cinemasins pointed out…all she does is send the Fellowship out with some magic trinkets…after she almost single-handedly banishes Sauron’s form to Mordor…by herself in the Hobbit movies. What the hell? I’ll give credit that Saruman does say that the confrontation has severely weakened her, but still….she’s built up in the next movie trilogy as an elf witch of incredible power. It just doesn’t add up to me. I can’t say I’ve read the short story that talks about this thing with Gandalf discovering Sauron, but….still. I also feel that the banishment of Sauron, and Saruman’s mentioning of the Ring of Power, would have immediately clicked in Gandalf’s mind. Like “Oh wow, I think Bilbo might have something of interest here!” In fact, it’s not until years later in the original trilogy that Gandalf gets suspicions. I mean…once again…as Cinemasins points out, did Jackson even bother watching his Lord of the Rings Trilogy? Heck, wouldn’t they at least INQUIRE about Bilbo’s ring? (Special thanks to CinemaSins. Love your videos.)

Speaking of Bilbo…..in a trilogy that is entitled “The Hobbit”, there is surprisingly very little story about the Hobbit. That’s something the book nailed. It focuses almost entirely on Bilbo. There are scenes with Thorin and the other dwarves, but it mainly focuses on his perspective. Here…it jumps all over the place. From the Gandalf side-quest, to a dwarf and elf love story, to Laketown politics…look, I was open to these things… I was open to the character Tauriel. I was open to the Bard’s lowered rank (in the book if I remember right, he’s already a well respected member of Laketown), but they just didn’t get executed well enough. I thought the unlikely love story between Kili and Tauriel was rushed, and just…silly. I rub my head in annoyance everytime I hear that clichéd line of “If this is love I don’t want it!” Seriously, I haven’t heard such bland dialogue since "Attack of the Clones". It was a clever move to get us to remember one of the dwarven names out of the 13 that travel with Bilbo…I’ll give it that much. Fili, Kili, Thorin…I can name maybe three more before I come to the conclusion that they weren’t meant to be remembered because this is a story about…BILBO. And yet Martin’s talents are wasted with him standing off to the side while Jackson tries to entertain us with over-the-top action sequences and battles that just bored the hell out of me. I mean seriously, I thought that Legolas’ action in the Lord of the Rings trilogy from shield-surfing to taking down an Oliphant with three arrows to the neck was bad enough. His gravity defying jumping of bricks and dwarf heads, to over the top combat near the river, and Legolas isn’t the only one guilty of this. Tauriel shoots an arrow that deflects an already shot arrow in the air?! I understand that Elves are superior fighters in every way to men and orcs, but there are things in these movies that are pulled off that are by all means, near impossible.

If I had to select a movie that I actually enjoyed in this trilogy…strangely, it’s the first movie, Unexpected Journey. Because it was successful in making me want to see more. It was successful in raising my eyebrow. It was slow, and wasn’t perfect, but the changes that were made were fun enough. The clever tie-in of trying to reclaim Moria, and how Thorin earned his title was fun to watch. It made me want to see a sequel. It wasn’t a perfect start, and many critics agree with that, but it made me anxious for the next year. Desolation dragged. And it was where I started to see the major problems with these films. It just wasn’t working. Again, there were things that were great. But by the time Battle of the Five Armies hit, I sat there, just bored out of my mind. The third movie made the second movie’s dragging look like the Kentucky Derby. I mean there was barely a hint of story from what I saw. It was just dragged too much.

I will take the side of some when I say this. This trilogy should not have been a trilogy. If Jackson wanted to make The Hobbit, fine. Why stretch it into a trilogy (other than a cash grab)? Why add in so much and try to convince us that this adventure is supposed to rival the adventures of the Lord of the Rings trilogy? There were three books, which made sense that it would garner a trilogy (My God can you imagine if each individual book of the trilogy garnered their own trilogy of films? Shoot me). All of them were long, but they were far from boring. Even the extended editions of the Lord of the Rings movie, while adding more to already long films, keep your interest! The Hobbit should not have gone any longer than two movies. If Jackson wanted to add more, fine…but why drag? This trilogy didn’t even come close to matching the trilogy that follows. It may have hit home in a few places, again, I think that Martin was a perfect actor for Bilbo, Smaug looked fantastic, and despite what I’ve said, there was some very fun action in these movies. And despite the fact that the obvious green-screening effect can be noticeable…there were times that these movies were just gorgeous to look at. But they fail to hold up the trilogy on their own, which brings me to my final verdict.

The Hobbit Trilogy all in all, is a two out of four stars. These movies are painfully average. Maybe even below average. I would score it even lower, but there is enough to warrant a score of at least one viewing. But as far as these being considered a classic prequel trilogy…I have to say these movies are very forgettable. It’s a shame I have to call it that, because honestly, I love the story of the Hobbit. But we just have a classic case of Jackson trying to do what Lucas did with Star Wars, by trying to convince us that these would be just as fun and just as greatly executed as the trilogies that would follow them chronologically. And they ultimately failed to do that. What will come up next? I don’t know, but after this, I think Jackson should venture out of Middle-Earth permanently. I don’t think Tolkien’s followers want him to take a chance with anything else. And I can’t say I blame them.

Feel free to suggest movies for me to look at.  Leave a comment down below telling me your thoughts on the movie,  and as always, thanks for reading.

Unexpected Journey: 2.5 / 4
The Desolation of Smaug: 2 / 4
Battle of the Five Armies: 1.5 / 4
Overall Final Verdict: 2 / 4

REVIEW: Chappie (2015)

How do I describe Chappie?  Picture a scientist, who develops a program capable of thinking for itself, learning faster than a human can,and the story of how he bonds with a robot he tests this program on....then throw in a crap ton of gangsta rap, ridiculous gangsta dialogue, gangsta crime sprees, gangsta gun poses, gangsta walking, gangsta bling bling, gangsta gangsta gangsta and even more gangsta!  Yeah if you can't already tell this is a pretty silly film.  It has some fun concepts, and a lovable robot, I can't lie there, but Chappie does have a lot of shortcomings, and the resulting creation, is a film that has much more forgettable elements than memorable ones.  Side characters that contribute little to nothing in the story, actors that cannot act, story elements that are poorly explained, and music that is out of place here.  And the fact that this has come from a director, who has given us two films that I very much enjoy, I gotta say I was slightly disappointed by this film.

It's 2016, and we're in an South Africa, which I personally found odd as Africa was where "District 9" took place, but I won't nitpick too much.  One year into the future and all law enforcement has been replaced by these humanoid robots, with hack-proof systems and titanium bodies that make them very hard to penetrate.  Crime rates go down, and all human officers are relieved.  We are introduced to the mastermind behind these robots, an inventor named Deon Wilson, who is developing a program to run artificial intelligence that will think for itself, learn for itself, develop emotions, opinions, a personality.  Thing is when his boss refuses to let him test it on a robot set to be destroyed (which I will call BS, the guy behind his robots isn't allowed to perhaps further his research?), he jacks the robot to do the test anyway.  We are also introduced to these absolutely laughable gang members who run into a financial crisis.  They are planning a heist, and decide to kidnap Deon to see if he can deactivate the robot law enforcement.  A thing he cannot do, claiming it not to be possible.  Instead they decide to build the robot with that AI program he developed, in hopes that he can be taught to perhaps help them in their big heist.

And Chappie is born...or created, which I will say is a lovable robot almost immediately from the start. He's curious, nervous, and acts very much like a child, as we are told he would start out as.  And he quickly learns how to do impressive things such as painting, and whatnot (even though I will say they took the painting style from "I, Robot").  He's told by Deon that he shouldn't let others tell him what to do or decide what he can do, that he has a free mind and that he should use it.  Thing is, and this is a thing I really like about this film, he's around bad influences.  He is almost forced how to shoot a gun (in a ridiculous scene, I must say [there was NO WAY that gangster would have as much accuracy as he did with that ridiculous pose]), he's around people counting drugs, and talking in nonstop profanity...which itself can get ridiculous, and you can tell how it affects him.  This is the thing that holds this movie together.  Chappie is lovable, and wonderfully developed...even if it can be a bit over the top.  I never thought I'd see a robot wearing gangsta bling bling outside the cartoon Futurama.

You've noticed how much I've used the word "gangsta" in this review?  Well there's a reason for that.  That's because the amount of stereotypical gang culture in this film is ridiculous.  And it doesn't help that the two main gang members are played by two members of a rap group I know nothing about.  In fact, apparently their music is heard throughout the film.  I'm not really one for gangsta rap as a music genre but the acting choice of these two and the inclusion of their music makes this film seem more like a selling point for music than an actual story.  Their roles in this movie are a near complete joke, and they're only surpassed in the roles that are a joke by the people out to get them.  The antagonists in this film are forgettable and contribute nearly nothing to the story other to remind us that they do bad things.  Theres a scene in this movie where a corrupt coworker disables all the police robot units (despite Deon earlier in the film telling us that this wasn't possible, hence the creation of the Chappie robot), to field test this "Robocop" enemy robot ripoff.  But before they field test it, there's endless rioting in the city with zero law enforcement, and the enemy gang members just kinda pull the card that the city is now theirs.  No other gang in town?  No explanation why everyone just goes along with him?  Seriously it makes me think like I'm watching an online session of Grand Theft Auto than an actual movie.  Oh and on that note some of the weapons in this movie look like they came straight out of Call of Duty.  Who fights with a schoolbus yellow machine gun?

But honestly, the biggest thing that gets me wrong about this movie is again..,like Transcendence...the ending.  Now I will give it credit, it's no where near as stupid and annoying as the ending in Transcendence, but it's still very silly.  If you don't want a spoiler, skip this and the next paragraph.  The biggest thing in Chappie is the fact that Chappie is tested on a damaged robot, damaged beyond repair.  They cannot replace his battery and it's near failing.   Chappie goes on this quest to try and find a new body and find a way to transfer his consciousness into that body.  Which is all well and good.  And he apparently finds a way to do that through this neural helmet which was made to help control the robot that was supposed to be tested.  The thing is, it would make sense for him to be able to do that in a sense.  He's a machine.  I copy and paste date in flash drives all the time.  I'm sure AI can find a way to do that.  But they jump the shark and once Deon is fatally injured, Chappie finds a way to transfer his consciousness into a blank body of a robot!  What?  

First of all, human consciousness isn't that simple I'm guessing.  Transferring something from an actual organism to a machine in the way that they do it is just silly.  "Transcendence" at least put some thought into how they did those same ideas.  Secondly, they threw out so much potential with this dumb move.  Chappie in this movie is very much like a learning child.  What could have been a really hard lesson of life for him, was just brushed away. Why not have a dying Deon tearfully explain to his finest creation that there are just some things in life that a machine can't fix?  Why not help make Chappie a stronger character overall with him having to emotionally deal with not one, but two deaths in this movie?  Yeah, one of the gang members he calls his mother and grows really close to dies.  And that would be sad, but the thing is they frigging bring HER consciousness back too!  And the way they did it is even more irritating because when they transferred Dean's consciousness, his body was instantly killed.  Earlier, we see Chappie and "Mommy" playing with the neural helmet, but she is killed onscreen by getting shot repeatedly.  Then the film brings up this "twist" of how Chappie backed her consciousness up on a flash drive.  Yeah.  A flash drive!  Why didn't it kill her when he did the transfer there?  If this movie wanted me to feel bad about this character's death in the first place, why would they bother bringing her consciousness back?  This movie literally killed any sense of remorse you're supposed to feel with the death of a character, when it could have been a much stronger movie if it had left death in as a factor of life.  

When all is said and done, most people can watch this movie and see how silly it is.  Again a lot of the stereotypical gang culture in this movie tends to give that away, and in fact it almost turned me off to this movie at all.  But the movie isn't terrible.  Yeah it suffers from plot problems and again, the ending is one I really don't think I approve of too much, but unlike "Transcendence", this movie did have a bit more to offer.  As much as I didn't like the gang stereotypes, they made me laugh at just how ludicrous it got.  And of course, the robot Chappie is a very lovable character, and executed well.  I just feel like he doesn't belong in this movie.  He seems out of place almost.  There was a lot of potential here and a lot of it was not met.  The film does succeed in hitting some points home that would make this movie fun, but it's far from a masterpiece, and at times, it's just laughable at how bad it can be.  At times, I'm wondering exactly what this movie wants to be.  The poster itself seems a bit misleading to me.  "Humanity's last hope isn't human." That's the tagline for this movie.  But never in this movie is the fate of mankind even played upon.  What the hell?  

Chappie is a two and a half out of four stars for me. It's slightly above average.  Slightly.  Despite some wonderful characters, the story isn't fully told.  I feel like it was thrown at us with no reason to question our believability.  Believe this because it's a movie.  No logic needed.  No rhyme or reason.  And that's just not how it works with me.  I want to know how they could have done some of the many things in this movie as they did.  It could have been something along the lines that "District 9" was, but it's just not.  My friend, who loves this film told me that it's probably meant to be taken as a the cheesy film it is, like "Robocop" was back in the day.  I don't know if that's the case or not.  What I do know is that it is watchable, and can be fun to watch.  But it's one I don't see myself watching again in the very near future.  With all that said though, I am happy to have seen it.  I just hope this little fluke doesn't become a norm for director Neill Blomkamp.

Please feel free to suggest any film I should watch.  Leave a comment down below telling me your thoughts on the film, and as always, thanks for reading.

Final Verdict: 2.5/4

THROWBACK REVIEW: The Great Mouse Detective (1986)

Everyone knows the great detective, Sherlock Holmes.  Whether you were introduced to him in the recent 2009 film, the CBS Series, his book series, or even an awesome episode of Star Trek (I'm not joking there either), chances are, you've at least heard the name, and know that he's regarded as one of the best, if not the absolute best detective in mystery fiction.  My first take on the great detective however came in the form of a Disney cartoon, and when I first watched it, I didn't know the name Sherlock Holmes.  Some of you may be able to share the same experience.  "The Great Mouse Detective" is a very charming take on Sherlock Holmes, and probably one of the most underrated films of the Disney animated movies.  There are many things in this movie that make me smile, and just so many things that are done right in this film.  From the charming adaptions of the Sherlock and Watson roles, to the mystery, to the villain.  It's all done splendidly.  

The film takes place in London, 1897, where we follow the case of a disappearing father.  Though originally just shown to be a classic case of a parent gone missing, the film pulls a classic "it's not as simple as you think" card on the viewer and goes into a case that involves the fate of the entire Kingdom...or "Mousedom" and the Queen herself.  One can look at this and say that it's been done a hundred times before, and that it's probably been done better, but with the fast-paced yet very followable storytelling, and nonstop thrill ride, it is a mystery movie that is very much fun to witness.  Several points attribute to this.  The film knows how to show a scene in which quiet is needed.  The film knows how to pull a surprise that no one expects.  And the film knew how to cast.

The only character that I thought was a bit out of place was the voice of the eight-year-old mouse of the film, Oliia.  She is voiced by Susanne Pollatschek, and I do believe she was a child voice actor.  As such, some of her lines I feel were out of place at times.  They were still believable, and her character was easy to relate to, but you can't help but wonder if maybe she spoke a little too loud into the microphone during some takes or whatnot.  Barrie Ingham does a great job at voicing Basil, really bringing the life out of the character.  His emotions, to despair, to joy, to sheer annoyance are so well done.  And the stuttering personality of Dr. Dawson is portrayed wonderfully by Val Bettin.  But let's be honest here...the real star of the voice acting goes to none other than the late great Vincent Price, who you can tell had a lot of fun voicing the film's antagonist, Professor Ratigan.  

Ratigan deserves a paragraph all on his own.  He is easily one of the best villains I've ever seen out of Disney.  I don't know if that's because of Vincent's phenomenal voice acting in the character, or whatnot, but he's such a unique villain.  He even made the number 3 spot on my all time favorite Disney Villains list (behind Ursula from "The Little Mermaid" and Claude Frollo from "The Hunchback of Notre Dame").  He's always fun when on screen, which is something you can't say about villains a lot of the time.  A lot of Disney movies will portray their villains as devious evil masterminds, who would make your skin crawl.  And though the film does a good job of describing Ratigan as such, on screen, he's always so suave, unafraid to crack a joke, be a gentleman, and then in the blink of an eye, he can transform into a terrifying intimidating character that makes you wanna jump out of your skin.  Vincent Price himself said that playing Ratigan was probably his most favorite role he ever did in his career.  And it really does shine in this.  With not one, but two songs in which he sings, and just amazing tones in his dialogue, it's probably one of the most memorable voice performances in a Disney movie.

Another thing that really keeps this movie rolling is the music.  Now I will say that some of the musical numbers in this film, I feel didn't need to be included, such as a number that is done in a low-life pub, in which a drugged Dr. Dawson accidentally starts off a drunken brawl, but the score in this movie is energetic, and easily fits the film's pacing.  That opening theme after we see the disappearance of Olivia's father, is beyond catchy, and can easily get stuck in your head.  The theme is played in various styles in the movie, quiet in the quiet scenes, and fast during a wonderfully done, even if a little over the top chase scene.  

The final thing I wanna point out about this film is the climax.  This climax I highly believe is probably the absolute best climax scene that a Disney movie has ever done.  I will not spoil too much of it, but even if this movie wasn't as fun to watch, this climax would have made it alone worth watching.  It starts immediately after Ratigan's vessel crashes in to the face of the famous Elizabeth Tower, home of the famous Big Ben clock tower.  You are transported to the inside mechanics and gears of of the second largest four-faced chiming clock in the world, and a conflict between Basil and Ratigan begins, which is wonderfully paced, and very thrilling to watch.  Each blow that is struck sounds like it hurts, it sounds real, and the visualization of the gears and the clock tower just really sets this climax at a higher level than any other climax I've ever seen in a Disney movie.  It is 5 minutes that make up for ANY shortcomings this film has to offer, and there really aren't that many that I can find.  And it leads to an ending that can pull at the heartstrings just a bit.

"The Great Mouse Detective" is a very fun film for both children and adults, and a great way to perhaps get introduced to the Sherlock stories.  I'm not the biggest follower of the great detective himself, but I cannot deny that the writing of his mysteries is very much always a treat to watch, read, or whatnot.  This film is no different.  Is it maybe a bit simpler, with some plot elements we've seen before?  Yeah, but none of that detracts from the quality of this film's writing, and performance.  There is life in this film, beyond the animation drawings and voice talents.  Life that in many other disney movies, just isn't there.  It's a true gem to have come out before the Disney giants that we're all familiar with today.  And many people who worked on this would go on to help make those great movies we all know from Disney.

All of this put together makes this film near legendary in my own personal opinion.  A masterpiece.  An underrated masterpiece.  There is something for everyone to enjoy in this film, and it's not hard to find.  That is why, I am awarding this film, the highest rating I can give, a full on four stars out of four.  Again, there may be some shortcomings in this film but nothing so bad that it would detract the quality of some clever mystery writing, that is easy to follow for all ages, and memorable characters that are brought to life in more ways than one.  Coming from a time when Disney movies were coming out of an era that was not that strong, that really does hammer the point for me.  While many films of the disney era before this or even slightly after this were forgettable, this first step was a great step in the right direction to giving us some of the many films we know and love by Disney today.  And it still holds up today.  A jolly good show indeed.

Feel free to request a movie for me to watch and write my thoughts about.  Leave a comment expressing your own thoughts on the film here, and as always, thanks for reading.

Final Verdict: 4/4

 

REVIEW: The Patriot (2000)

Hello, and happy....belated fourth of July to you.  I apologize I couldn't get this out sooner, but life happens.  Let's look at The Patriot".  As a critic, you learn that not everybody will will like or respect your opinion (especially if you're talking about video games), but you gradually just learn to accept that fact.  You also realize that it's okay to have guilty pleasures.  And no director has taught me that more than director, Roland Emmerich.  Just take a look at some of his films, "Stargate", "Independence Day", "The Day After Tomorrow", each are clichéd, predictable, not particularly strong movies, but my God are they fun.  There's a certain magic behind Roland Emmerich's films.  Whenever you sit down to watch them, you know what you're going to get.  You're going to get a silly, over-the-top, special effect filled ride that will leave you begging for more.  These films are not particularly strong, and they are by no means films that are going to win "Best Picture of the Year", but each one has some form of enjoyability, at least the ones I've seen.  Even his films like "2012" (which is my least liked Emmerich film to date) and "Godzilla" of all films have something to enjoy.  Heck, his take on that latter film is actually one of my biggest guilty pleasures as a hardcore Godzilla fan no less...but that's a review for another day.

Let's look at the Patriot.  It's full of everything an Emmerich film has, from impressive special effects, to a predictable, yet fun story, to...glorifying the American Nation in ways Michael Bay will never succeed in, but we'll talk about that later.  The film takes place duing the years of the Revolutionary War, and centers on our main protagonist, Benjamin Martin (played by Mel Gibson), and his family, who live in Colonial America, which is in the midst of fully declaring Independence from Britain.  His sons appear to be fully suppportive of the war with Britain, while Benjamin, haunted by the horrors he witnessed in the French-Indian Wars, not so much. You can already see that Benjamin is going to be the Hero of the movie, the game changer.  The man with the plan.  You can argue this is only predictable because the ovie poster portrays him riding a majestic steed, carrying the flag of our forefathers against a fiery sun, but regardless, the way the dialogue plays out between him and his sons, you know that no matter how many times he implies how he is finished fighting, he's gonna return to the battlefield.

You can also pinpoint out who is gonna die.  This is really easy in this movie.  When I saw the eldest son enlisting, I already knew he was as good as dead.  I will admit, that he survived much longer than I expected, but he died. Sorry for the easy spoiler. But I gotta say that even though he survived longer than I thought he would, he barely contributed to the story in any way.  He's not by any means the worst character in the world, but a good part of the middle of the movie focuses on him and his love interest in a childhood friend.  They of course end up getting married in the film, but honestly, the chemistry I don't think is really there.  We see them reminisce over a childhood memory or two, but aside from that, there is very little development or bonding between these two characters.  So when eventually they kill off the wife in a rather...well...unpleasant way, I didn't find myself caring too much.  THe love came, they tried to enforce it with a marriage, then they killed it off ten minutes later.  And I was there wondering when the next battle was gonna happen.  

However I think the biggest thing that got to me in this film, wasn't the inaccuracies of history (Historical fiction is fiction.  I don't mind small changes they made to the historical figures too much), it was the way the British armies were portrayed.  Most significant British troopers in this film were depicted as either heartless jerks with no sense of honor, or snobbish headstrong soldiers...like Cornwallis.  I'm not gonna pretend to be some expert on history, but there were so many ways I feel that Cornwallis was depicted in this film that felt off to me.  I could be mistaken, but he felt off.  But at least he wasn't like Col. Tavington in this film, who felt no remorse for killing defenseless wounded soldiers, or burning a church filled with civilians.  It was this demonizing of the British Army that just rubbed off on the wrong way to me.  I'm not British, so I wasn't offended, but it felt wrong.  Then again, Roland is one to glorify the American Nation, despite ironically being a German director.

Roland tends to make the Americans always come out on top, but lead the way to victory.  You see it in "Independence Day", "Godzilla", "The Day After Tomorrow", you name it, he does it, and it's no different here.  Thing is a lot of the time, he tends to show everything in his movies as a united society.  Whatever happens brings society together.  Touching.  I like it.  The American colonists in this movie are brought together nder one flag, and they fight against tyranny, while being aided by their French allies.  Roland certainly knows how to show the American nation in pride in his movies.  Michael Bay could take a few lessons from him, you know instead of j ust putting in 200 American flags in one scene, and calling himself a patriot (no pun intended).

And the fight against tyanny brings me to one of the better things this movie does get right, the action. THe battle scenes in this movie are phenominal.  From overlooks of colonists fighting British troops, to Benjamin fighting off a party of troops almost singlehandedly.  The action can get a little over-the-top (American flag impaling a horse anyone?), but it still doesn't at all negate the fun in this film.  The fights can be few, but you just can't seem to leave because you know each fight will be better than the last.

All in all, "TThe Patriot" is likely gonna be added to that ever growing list of guilty pleasures from Roland Emmerich for me.  It's still nothing strong, but when Roland knows he's just in it to entertain, he knows how to do it.  This film is entertaining.  Beyond that at times even.  A fun spectacle, and in a world with not so many films about the Revolutionary War, it was fun to experience something somewhat different.  Sure it wasn't historically accurate by any means, but the few things that this film did that didn't go well with me, I can forgive.  It's Roland Emmerich.

"The Patriot" is a solid three out of four stars for me.  It might have gotten a slightly higher score if the movie was maybe a little shorter, and didn't focus so much on certain forgettable elements in the film, but the main story at least keeps your attention, and of course the action never ceases to amaze.  It was a fun film to watch for Independence Day weekend, and I'm glad I watched it.  And I'm eager to share a few more opinions on some guilty pleasures in film that I have, but for now, I will just say I hope you all had a great Independence Day this year (sorry it's so late from me) and I hope you may consider watching this popcorn film about America's fight for freedom, maybe as a bucket film next year for the holiday.

And as always, thanks for reading.

Final Verdict: 3/4

REVIEW: Transcendence (2014)

Transcendence is one of those films that tries too hard, only to fail by the time it finishes.  That's not to say that it's the worst movie out there or anything, because it is watchable, and it is a very gorgeous film to look at, but the beautiful visuals do not save this film from plot holes, forced morals, or a pitiful clichéd climax and resolve.  

I have been asked the question before on whether or not I would take up an opprotunity to have my conscience uploaded to a computer if I could.  It makes for a fun, yet frustrating debate amongst family friends, and now we got a movie to show for it.  The idea itself is an intriguing idea, and my science-fiction fan inside of me was actually curious to see how they would go about it.  Immediately I was happy believe it or not to see Johnny Depp out of that role he always pays, you know, the role where he's crazy, insane, mad, etc, this is a role that very much downgrades that status, but despite it being refreshing...there are times I gotta wonder if Johnny Depp was bored out of his mind when acting in this film  He has little energy, is very monotone, in fact...I can't recall very much emotion out of his character at all.  You can argue that is mainly because his character is stuck inside a computer screen all film, but you'd think his conscience would recall some form of emotion, especially since he does what he can to make his loved ones around him more comfortable, whether that's talking with them, or recreating the simple sound of a fork and knife scratching against a dinner plate.  So as refreshing as it is to see him play a somewhat normal role, it wasn't at all a strong performance.  But to be fair, he's not the only one to blame there.  There were a lot of recognizable names in this film.  And none of them really outshine themselves here.  Even the beloved Morgan Freeman is forgettable here, though he is one of the few actors here who knows how to depict a proper emotion in character.

One thing I also really knock this film for is the fact that though it starts its story out interesting enough, the story quickly goes all over the place.  This leads to me comparing it to films that I never thought to compare this film to such as "The World's End" (2013) and "WALL-E" (2008).  The ideas and themes of humans rapidly becoming depentant on technology, slowly embracing it as a part of life and society, the fact that so many of us just can't disconnect from the ways of conveniences like social media, or whatever the hottest thing on the internet is.  This film tries to go even further on that and show that humans could take technology perhaps too far, as it shows the conscience of our hero's mind evolving into something that probably wouldn't have come up at all in our lifetime.  He learns how to rapidly heal damaged human tissue, he learns how to purify the world using this nanobot technology, and eventually the movie does its best to portray him as this power-hungry man, and we are given this idea that he might be thinking that it's either his way or the highway.  We get introduced to this insurgent group who is anti-technology, despite the fact that they are using technology (even if it's not connected to the internet), and this battle between normal minds and uploaded minds.  And in the blink of an eye, this whole setup is tossed out the window it seems. 

The fact that this film tries to give this message that we shouldn't get so involved with technology is probably it's biggest fault.  It's just a message that has been done a million times before, and a hundred times better.  I also feel that the film doesn't quite understand it's own message, or care about it, because as I said above, it's thrown to the side almost immediately.  The very end of the film after we get this "climax" if you wanna call it that of our hero, pullling the plug on his giant electronic empire, frying the internet, and plunging humanity almost back into the dark ages...similar to "The Worlds End", it just sets up one of the most pathetic clichéd climaxes I've ever seen.  The film transforms from this 

edgy science fiction tale, that has some general, yet interesting concepts, to a romance in the blink of an eye, similar to a move that the movie "Oblivion" (2013) pulled, only much more...what's the word...regardless of what that word is, I rubbed my face in annoyance.  The romance between our two protagonists is there in the film, but more subtle since one of them is technically dead.  We get to the end, and all of a sudden by some miracle of technology, the two are joined in the upload in a way that though they describe it in the movie...is just stupid.  On the levels of Shyamalan stupid.  Yeah sure, the internet is wiped on a global scale, but one sheet of copper protects this one little garden on the earth...what a twist. I could knock the technological side of this little ending, but I honestly don't think it's worth it. The film obviously wanted a happy ending, and would bend the rules to get that.

The film I will say does a decent job of keeping the viewer questioning who to root for. There were times I honestly hoped that the "insurgents" would succeed in destroying the network, because of how it seemed they were portraying Depp's character, yet at the same time you wonder if there is any human aspect to this digital mind, because as I say up above, it can show concern for those it seems to care about. It is said again and again that he just wants to help the world, and help those who hate him, and all while this is going on, you're hoping that he is stopped because you wonder if he is perhaps mistaken, or even who he says he is. But again, these moments are few and fat between, and all these questions are just killed after we get that ending.

There's not much to enjoy in this film.  As the story drags on, I found myself bored out of my mind at times as the pointless conversations and walks down visually appealing, yet bland hallways just dragged in this fim.  The visual concepts in this film are about the only thing worth noting as impressive.  They remain strong as the fim runs.  The interior architecture, the upload visualization, how the internet is represented in one's consciousness, it's all a wonderful treat to the eye, but it's not enough to hold up the debut film for new director, Wally Pfister.  I'm happy I watched it, but I don't think I will watch it again anytime soon.  The story goes all over the place, the climax and ending again....painfully cliched and dumb, the idea behind this story could have been so much more, and it just didn't meet my expectations.  I hope Mr. Pfister can take the good that he did in this film, and learn from the mistakes. It's a visual treat, and I guess he's shown his visual talent before in other projects, but this first attempt at directing could have been much better.  Time will tell I guess if he can recover from this misfire, and give us a stronger film, with just as much visual impressiveness.

And as always, thanks for reading.

Final Verdict: 2/4