Summer 2014, Condensed

 Never, in recent memory, have the spoils of the Summer Cinema been so fruitful. Summer proves a complicated time for cinefiles such as myself. Awards season drew to a close many months ago and the half-rate collection of spring releases finally complete their run. What are we to look forward to? BLOCKBUSTERS. Big-budget, ill constructed, entertainment pieces. I love a quality action film as much as any movie goer, but too often summer releases choose quantity over quality; a decision in my book, which is nothing short of a sin. The question arises how am I, as an advocate for The Art of the Film, suppose to enjoy the summer season when I know deep down I'm watching complete garbage? Says you the reader, "maybe you should stop being such a pretentious movie snob" and I the writer would happily agree; however, that proves difficult when you're drowning in a sea of loud, rude & crude, sloppy messes year after year.

  Fault can be found in any film if the viewer looks hard enough, but it so happens that the series of movies released in the Summer of 2014 were constructed well enough and were entertaining enough to disguise any obvious faults that usually plague similar releases. Despite that fact that I've seen more movies this summer than any other summer, my reviews failed to follow. I'll feed you excuses of work, work, work, tired, work, tired but DON'T accept them for an instant. My lack of in-depth  reviews, especially when I have such substance to delve into, is shameful. So here I sit, middle of August {NOW SEPTEMBER}, up to my eyeballs in un-reviewed films...what will I do? What any other short-on-time, behind-in-work reviewer would do...a list.

  My 2014 Summer Countdown consists of movies that I HAVE SEEN, released from May-August 12th September 7th, in no particular order.

  The Amazing Spider-Man 2

  My full review of the second install of the 2000-teens reboot can be found HERE and while the film suffed from a bloated story, too many villains, and several conveniently coincidental plot devices, I can't deny that I enjoyed Marc Webb's take on Spidey. Was the The Amazing Spider-Man 2 a complete set-up for a Marvel (as owned by Disney) esque attempt at The Sinister Six? Absolutely...Did I enjoy the pretty lights, slightly disturbing dub-step and non-sensical action? Yes. It was pure summer entertainment.

Godzilla

  Sadly my last fully reviewed movie was GODZILLA, all the way back in May. Shame on me. A film that I thought was shoe in for Summer's biggest hit ended up being one of the bigger disappointments. I fully enjoyed Gareth Edward's suspenseful, entertaining...disaster movie. There's the rub, I didn't enter the theater wanting a disaster movie, I wanted GODZILLA! KING OF THE MONSTERS! We the audience instead received roughly 20 minutes of screen time from the big brute and even less of Brian Cranston, another of the film's big draws. "High quality graphics and bone-rattling sound" remain high points as I reflect upon the film, but it's these attributions that may lessen the effect once viewed at home.

Maleficent

  Painful yet not without it's merits...what those merits are I have yet to realize. I found this film thoroughly adequate for the time I was viewing it, a rainy Saturday afternoon. Comical special effects, a predictable plot, and the dullest Disney Princess' to have ever graced the big screen remove Maleficent from possible Alice in Wonderland status, yet I didn't find myself hating it. A plethora of ridiculous design and theatrical elements blend the bad together so successfully I walked away content with my movie-going experience. Perhaps Angelina Jolie's cheekbones possess a seductive magic of their own.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

  Bryan Singer, it's good to have you back.  There's no denying, before First Class and Days of Future Past, the series had seen better days. Despite a disastrous conclusion to the original X-Men trilogy, studios still saw fit to torture audiences with a painful slew of origins stories. My complaints regarding the films before were their claustrophobic scripts, too much in too short of time; too many back stories, too many exceptions, too many mutants. The X-Men universe is vast, I understand this; however, by ascribing to quantity over quality the favorite characters that audiences are treated to are poorly represented. First Class AND Days of Future Past improve, but are not exempt from this problem. 

  Days of Future Past continues to introduce more and more mutants, touching on their skills but never fully showing the audience their extent. I enjoyed many of the these new characters, especially Evan Peter's Quick Silver and wish he would have played a larger role in the film. 

DOFP, like many of it's predecessors, carries an overly complicated story but one can see Bryan Singer truly TRYING, and for the most part succeeding, in simplifying that story. The action, accompanied by the many mutants skills, is thoroughly entertaining and is never the same sequence twice. DOFP best feature, without a doubt, is it's cast. The two sets of Professor Xs & Magnetos are expertly cast and deliver the emotional punch to counter the physical entertainment. 

Side note...Hugh Jackman may finally be growing out of his claws; while his portrayal of Wolverine is consistently spot on and amusing, I'd be fine with him passing the torch. 

Lucy

  You can't beat a bad script...add Scarlett Johansson's lack luster performance and a collection of Special Effects that look like they were generated on a Windows 98 screensaver and what you have was one of the worst films of the year. The half-hearted attempts at creating a unique "art house" action film feel prove futile; Lucy is a non-sensical snooze-fest that had me laughing from beginning to end...and this, ladies and gentlemen, was not a comedy. A barren script turns Johansson's character into an emotionless computer, giving audiences absolutely nothing to feed off of. There was an idea and I'm quite sure that idea was stolen from both Limitless and Transcendence. Johansson, a talented actress, is box-office gold, I highly suggest if you want to see her in a film of interest, giving a quality performance check out Under the Skin.

The Fault in Our Stars

  I do believe my friend and I were the only members of the audience not wearing yoga pants, PINK t-shirts and top knots to The Fault in Our Stars but we enjoyed it just the same. It's one thing for a film to cater to it's audience and another to make a film that can be appreciated by the general audience; I feel The Fault in Our Stars did just that. A story that very easily could have turned into a sappy tween fest stayed quirky, cool, and true enough for audience members of all ages. A considerable amount of cheese was encompassed by a fair amount of heart that anyone could connect to at least once. If you missed it in theaters, The Fault in Our Stars makes a solid at home watch...where no one will judge you for NOT crying.

Boyhood

  A fascinating and successful concept derived by director Richard Linklater, Boyhood shows the commitment of a director and his actors in creating a truly unique piece of cinema. 12 consecutive summers of filming with the same cast give the audience an intimate look into the life on an average American boy. The film doesn't preach nor is it particularly exciting, but watching a cast literally grow in front of our eyes keeps audiences interested and engaged.  Perhaps a half-hour too long, Boyhood is relatively a one note, low note, kind of film. That being said, I appreciate Linklater's execution in so fully capturing the life of middle class America. 

Guardians of the Galaxy

  I hesitate in reviewing this film upon fear I may blurt out something along the lies of THE GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY WAS BETTER THAN THE AVENGERS.

All Marvel movies carry their far share of imperfections and Guardians of the Galaxy is no exception, but it's charm, characters, and soundtrack won me over. Chris Pratt and Bradley Cooper's Rocket own this film and make it worth watching. Dave Bastia delivers a devastating performance and was the only questionable casting decision, the remaining supporting cast work their roles well, creating memorable characters. Fun, sexy, and beautifully designed, Guardians of the Galaxy surpasses Marvel's Avengers in more way that one. The movie's cast left me wanting more and it's costume designer, Alexandra Byrne, left me craving a red leather trench coat for fall.

The Dawn of the Planet of The Apes

  They kept it simple, they kept it dramatic, they kept it beautiful. Quality, very often is left by the wayside in Summer movie season however, The Dawn of the Planet of the Apes didn't sacrifice I single ounce and the result is the best movie of the summer. Visually alone, Dawn surpasses Rise of the Planet of the Apes released in 2011 and restores my faith in CGI centered films. The apes, not the humans are the central focus and had they looked anything other than perfect, the film would have failed. Thankfully, a stunning amount of time and effort were put into Dawn, creating over 15,000 jobs in the U.S. & Canada alone. The apes are not only believable, but indistinguishable...I had no idea if I was watching CGI, Make-up, real apes or possibly a combination of all three! Audience members who were impressed by James Cameron's Avatar should find Dawn vastly superior. Majority of the brilliant graphics are enhanced by Andy Serkis' performance as Caesar. Serkis' commitment and accuracy in portraying inhuman characters with such humanity is inspiring.  Visuals aside, screen writers kept the plot simple and director Matt Reeves demonstrated a unique eye for both emotional and action based scenes. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes plays well without relying on audiences knowledge of the previous film. A simple exposition presents the world and it's inhabitants to the audience and doesn't dwell on past events or characters. My expectations for Dawn were high and all were trumped. Seeing this film on the big screen was the cinematic treat of the Summer but because of its emotional nature, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes will play just as nicely on DVD or Blu-Ray.

 

Noah

Make it rain

Directed by: Darren Aronofsky
Rated: PG-13
Staring: Russel Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Watson, Ray Winstone, Logan Lerman, & Douglas Booth
Released: 2014

Reasons I was offended by Noah
-Skinny jeans
-Hooded sweatshirts
-Infinity scarves
-The garish font used in the title card and subsequent credits
-The unnecessary 45 minutes in the 3rd act that completely diverged from the theme and plot set forth  in the first portions of the film.

  Let's get some things out of the way, am I a Christian? Yes. Do I believe the public should avoid and our boycott a film specifically because it "offends" or "alters" Christian beliefs or Biblical events? NO.

  Here is something the Christian viewing public needs to understand, if you're going to tell someone to avoid a film because of its inaccuracies or its misconstruction of Christian beliefs I do hope you go see the film FIRST so you can explain exactly WHY. Enough of these second hand accounts. Just because Master Pastor what's his name with his own website and television show tells you not to see or read The Golden Compass does NOT mean you should avoid it at all cost...to me any controversy of this fashion generated around a film or book series simply makes it more alluring. (Say the conservatives "Oh it's Satan's temptation!") It was the reason I began reading His Dark Materials series and guess what? It's one of the best written pieces of young adult literature and one of my favorite book series.

  If you're going to campaign so heartily against a film, you better have seen it yourself so you can back up your claims of inaccuracy. Seeing a film you don't agree with also aids in explaining any questions non-Christians may ask their known Christian friends...instead of responding with "Well...Master Pastor what's his name with his own website and television show saw it and HE says..." No harm ever came from a bit of research...

Director Darren Aronosky & Russel Crowe

Now, of course if you don't find said film in your interest you have every right NOT to see that film, but please don't deter others from expanding their knowledge. I find the fact that a film can get so many people discussing the topic of religion (specifically Christianity) exciting! In this year alone there have been THREE Christian themed/Biblically rooted films released (so far) Noah, is NOT for everyone; director Darren Aronofsky shot it (as all his films) with a very specific theme in mind.
  This is what get's my goat, many strike out at this film, but it was never marketed as something it was not. Noah was never billed as a Biblically accurate account, it was never marketed specifically towards or for a Christian audience. This, I believe, is most important when considering whether Christians should take up arms and fight the religious injustice that is Noah (*cough* sarcasm *cough*) or keep a rational, open mind. I'm not going to dwell on what Noah is, or is not in accordance to religion. The source material for Noah is not THEE Bible, it's a graphic novel written by the film's director and that graphic novel does not boast a strong religious agenda. Just keep that in mind. This is all I want to say on the controversial subject because I'd love to actually REVEIW the film, and after I'm done you can decide for yourself. Will you see Noah so you have an educated stance in the heated discussion of the film, or will you avoid it out of stubborn second hand he-said, she-said accounts OR (Yes there are more than two options) is it possible the film's intriguing aspects were literally drowned by a dismal 3rd act resulting in a dower end product?

Simply put, this is Noah...

Before the flood 8 1/2 out of 10 stars; during/after the flood 3 stars

  I have no problem with how the story was handled, it's artistic license, this is NOT Heaven is For Real, it's Aronofsky (the man who gave us Requiem of a Dream, The Black Swan, The Wrestler) I actually ENJOYED many of the unique, compelling ideas Aronofsky has developed; I became emotionally upset with the three hundred and sixty degrees change the film took after the flood occurred. In the beginning (Ha. Ha.) Noah was the definite hero of the film, his passion and commitment to The Creator (God) frames him as a good man, working against those who have sinned and destroyed the beautiful land they were given. You see how revolting and lost the race of Man has become and why the Earth needs to be cleansed...you shutter and gasp at the atrocities of Man's behavior and but as soon as the Ark shuts its door Aronofsky (who penned the film as well as directing) turns Noah into a completely different character. Gone is the father figure who's dedication to God is inspiring; instead we're left with a bloodthirsty, deranged lunatic who never recovers his respected status obtained in the film's first hour and half. What happened to saving the planet and hopping for a better future? What happened to seeing the best in Noah? Themes of responsibility, hope, and trust in God are completely forgotten and abolished, ending the film in bitter contrast. A feeble attempt to recover them is made in Noah's last scene however the previous change of pace was so dramatic it proved difficult to rebound.

The first hour and half of Noah, brilliant. Gorgeously shot, intriguing and unique, I feel it didn't spit on the actual religion of Christianity at all...simply took a well known story and used it very loosely to construct a new tale of epic proportions. Noah is not a film about staying true to the story in Genesis, it's about environmentalism, saving the world from Man's destructive course (and then some garbage at the end) I found myself willing to suspend disbelief to enjoy the original take Aronofsky presents. If one was to "faithfully" adapt the story of Noah, the film would be roughly 30 minutes long. Fantastic cinematography and expert editing make Noah a pleasing film aesthetically. The images created by cinematographer Matthew Libatique varied from haunting to etherial to painfully realistic...that being said Noah does offer it's fair share of CGI.

The Animals {emit heavy sigh} I understand and agree that it was the only way but I honestly think I saw 5 Moose...the same Moose couple...dispersed throughout the massive hear 5 times...and that Armadillo-Dog.
  The Watchers, another highly contested portion of the film, dare I say it, one of the most fascinated ideas as well as top notch production on the design and creation of these creatures.

Got Moose? Deer? Elk?

  Performances are solid despite some questionable character developments. Is Noah a perfect film? No. Will it be one teachers show in the Sunday school class room? Absolutely not. But what Noah does offer is entertainment. I'm not going to lie, several times I found myself shaking my head at the absurdity of the story, it's characters developments, and comparing/contrasting Bible and Film but I thoroughly enjoyed the first part of the film, however outlandish or "inaccurate" some may call it. Ultimately, a good portion of Noah could have hit the cutting room floor. Had several of the major struggles that occurred on the Ark during the flood been cut out, the films integrity wouldn't have suffered; it actually would have improved. The film didn't need the additional conflicts that drastically tarnished the its title character.  Leaving the theater I contemplated my initial retain to the film and found the film dove so so low there was no way the finale could benefit from its rainbow-ed end. I found myself so upset and depressed at how irrational the last 30-45 had been I didn't feel much hope for a better future. It's been quite some time since I've been so emotionally split by a film; therefore, I defer to my original point, if you'd like to make claims and/or have an opinion about Noah, I suggest you see it for yourself.

I snuck into Captain America the Winter Soldier right after Noah...
    -There is a reason people are calling this the best Marvel movie in years and I can tell you why. It's because a Director FINALLY stopped trying imitate Joss Whedon's crackpot style of directing and actually produced a distinct, quality action film...void of constant jokes and absurd plot lines riddled with gaping holes.

A full review, COMING SOON!

The Wolf of Wall Street

It's called GREED Old Sport! 

                Oh wait…

Directed By: Martin Scorsese

Released: 2013

Staring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, & Margot Robbie 

with special appearances by Matthew Mcconaughey, Jean Dujardin and that guy who plays Nucky Thompson's brother Eli on Boardwalk Empire - Shea Whigham.

Rated: R

One hell of a showboat performance from Leonardo Dicaprio

 Aka: The Great Wolf of Gatsby Street

  "I will tell you God's truth, God's truth about myself. I'm the son of some very wealthily people; sadly they're all dead now."

       And I can say after watching this film I cannot help but be baffled by the fact that not only did this main character and his antics exist but he's still alive to write about it. 

The true story of Jordan Belfort, stock broker, drug addict, and womanizer is 100x more unbelievable than the tales one Jay Gatsby strings and weaves for an innocent Nick Caraway. I only draw the comparisons to the two films due to the lavish parties, booze, drugs, women and uninterrupted flow of illegally obtained cash...And the two films star of course, Leonardo DiCaprio.  

  Remember earlier this year when I reviewed  The Great Gatsby and I said something along the lines of his role in that film would not being enough to garnet the talented actor with an Oscar? It was going to take more than the charmingly passionate, love-sick millionaire Gatsby to get the coveted golden statue on his mantle piece. If there was a role DiCaprio could have, would have, SHOULD have won for in the past two years it was Calvin Candie in Tarantino's Django Unchained. Alas, poor Leo was not even graced with a nomination for his exceptional performance. With 7 days until nominations for the 2014 Academy Awards are released, The Wolf of Wall Street is DiCaprio's best shot at Oscar gold. 

His performance isn't just good, it's a nose full of coke, Mia Wallace "I said GOD DAMN, GOD DAMN" good. Sex, drugs and shootin' the authorities a big ol' fashion fuck you, are the precious cargo filling Scorsese's crazed ship and DiCaprio is the captain.

  I'm a fan of actor-director relationships films. Tim Burton has Johnny Depp, Nicholas Winding-Refn has Ryan Gosling and Martin Scorsese has Leonardo DiCaprio; when two artist work together on a regular basis it not only brings a familiar feeling to the film, but both are able to experiment and take risks. This couldn't be more apparent than in The Wolf of Wall Street. The Wolf is the product of an actor-director relationship that has surpassed all levels of comfort and flow into a realm of UNcomforted that only could be explored by very close friends. I've already used up one of my swears and I'll use another now, a shit load of craziness and debauchery, that is what Scorsese and DiCaprio create. The film is jam packed full of unbelievable circumstances that upon hearing, one would think nearly impossible to put on screen; but this dynamic duo does it in high flying, unforgiving fashion.

  

  The Wolf of Wall Street works because it's biggest star holds nothing back and it's director captures it all. DiCaprio is a powerhouse in the film; a larger than life personality and presence that, on more than one occasion had members of the audience clapping and cheering. DiCaprio shows not only how completely selfish and crazed Belfort was but also exudes the persuasive force that inspired his employees and later lead him to be a motivational speaker. Jordan Belfort is a disgusting character; an asshole, yet all you can do is shake your head and laugh when he gets in deep. You want to see just how far down this man can go before he's buried in his own filth and mistakes. DiCaprio brings the charm and sleaze to this corrupt animal all at once, making him nearly impossible to dislike. 

   Members of the supporting cast are individually strong, discovering their own characters and holding fast to them throughout the entire film. Actors who have been duds or type casts in years past dish up some hilarious and pinnacle performances. Matthew McConaughey's appearance is brief but a real highlight of the first half of the film. Jonah Hill provides the audience with a bundle of squeamishly laughable moments and commits to offering more than enough of his physical self to the camera. 

 

As I defended Baz Luhrman's over the top production of The Great Gatsby, I must also defend Martin Scorsese's choices; it's his personal directorial style. Something it seems many reviewers and audiences just don't get it. Have you seen Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Casino? Are you really surprised by profanity? This is a serious question and something that truly irks me. ARE YOU REALLY SURPRISED? I shake my head when I read reviews condemning Scorsese, for the vulgarity of his films, especially The Wolf of Wall Street. In this case it's not only the directorial style but also the subject matter that must be taken into account. The Wolf of Wall Street is based off of Jordan Belfort's autobiography, and having read excerpts from the book, I can tell you the film is pretty spot on with Belford's description his over the top lifestyle. Upon entering a Scorsese film, one must be prepared for a heavy helping of F-bombs, accents, and boobs. After seeing The Wolf, I'm quite sure I'm immune to all. 

  As a movie fan, I tend to stay away from comedies, not because I don't enjoy a good laugh, but because let's be honest, most "comedies" produced now a days are rubbish…I'm not even sure comedy is a genre anymore…that's the odd thing about The Wolf, it has more than it's fair share of laughs, but should I be pegging it as a Ha-Ha funny COMEDY? I don't know. It's laughs come from it's absurdity…like The Hangover (which I thought was funny the first time around then hated the next 3 times I was forced to watch it) but real. 

  Clocking in at a solid 180 minutes, The Wolf of Wall Street proves to be the longest running comedy on the market today. I say comedy because there really is no other genre in to which to place this film. All of Scorsese's works have their far share of laughs, mostly delivered by unique and outlandish characters. It's the people and the situations they get into that produce the biggest laughs. A drooling DiCaprio, resorting to rolling himself down a flight of brick stair because he's lost almost all of his motor skills due to a drug overdoes is ridiculous…and funny as hell. Jonah Hill's disturbingly white, propionate teeth are funny. Matthew McConaughey rhythmically pounding his chest and emitting primal, cave man-like beats is funny. A looping plane full of hookers, coke, and naked men is, dare I say it, FUNNY. What I'm trying to get at is this, The Wolf of Wall Street is brash, disturbing, and often cringe-worthy (definitely not for everyone) but it is a comedy. A comedy that may just deliver Leonardo DiCaprio that Best Actor Oscar that has eluded him for too long.  Do I think it's the perfect holiday film for audiences to see with Mom and Pop? Absolutely not. Is it a seamlessly crafted performance piece for DiCaprio full of raunchy laughs and depravity? Absolutely yes. 

  Now all I can do is sit back and have a mental battle with myself as to whether Oscar Isaac or Leo is more deserving of the Academy's honor...

If DiCaprio wins and I don't see this exact dance, I'll be very disappointed.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Directed by: Peter Jackson
Released: 2013
Staring: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, Lee Pace, Benedict Cumberbatch and Luke Evens.
Rated: PG-13

  At this point introducing any film from J.RR Tolkien's Middle Earth brought to you by Peter Jackson is nearly impossible. The films speak for themselves and The Desolation of Smaug is no exception.

  Rewind to 2001, a series almost forgotten by many mainstream book enthusiast regained a new life in the hands of one unknown New Zealand director. The Lord of the Rings series had been adapted from its book format before, but never in such an appropriate, epic style. Seemingly overnight names like Frodo, Gandalf, and Gollum became household names, and 'Hobbit' may be used as an endearing term to describe your hairy footed uncle who can't recall if this is his first or second breakfast. With multiple Oscars under his belt including one for Best Picture in 2003 and more than a fist full of dollars (highest grossing film of 2003), it was only a matter of time before Peter Jackson returned to Tolkien's material.  

  

  We, the anxiously awaiting (fans) public, knew we'd get the The Hobbit sooner or later, what we did not except was 3 Hobbit films, all filmed in sequence at 48 frames per second with extra material, not published in the original book, but Tolkien's none the less. There was much debate over which portions were Tolkien and which were Jackson's; an uproar sounded in the Middle Earth community, whether it was one of joy or outrage was hard to tell but in the end audiences got much more Hobbit than was expected. 

 I've spent many hours reading, watching, and rewatching the original Lord of the Rings series, and as an avid fan it is my humblest opinion that the more the better! Jackson is a director who, when it comes to STORY, does not sacrifice quality for quantity. Was/is there a whole hell of a lot going on in The Hobbit films? Yes. Does any of it take away for the driving plot line? Debatable, but when you get down to it, the answer is no. Is Peter Jackson a greedy little Dragon who is possibly suffering from James Cameron-Ka-Ching-Ka-Ching syndrome? Possibly. As an avid fan, if you present me with a Jackson quality product that remains almost unwaveringly faithful to it's source material while ADDING even more, I'm going to lap it up. The fact that Jackson can do so much while staying true to the book overshadows any doubts I had about the added material. 

  As a reviewer I see faults in The Hobbit series, An Unexpected Journey more than The Desolation of Smaug, yet as a fan I'm completely enraptured by them both. I tell you this, my dear readers, so you will know, there may be nit picking points accompanied by minor annoyances but in the end The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit has been and will remain my favorite series of all time.

  In my end of the year review for 2012 I named The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey my favorite film of the year on the basis that I had been waiting for it for almost ten years...While this is true, the film was not without it's faults; primarily it's silly, prepubescent humor. The burp, butt and snot jokes were not only disgusting but completely misplaced in Jackson's directorial world. The Lord of the Rings films never lacked jokes and wisecracks, but it's humor never dealt on such a low, bodily level. The Desolation of Smaug regains any traction that might have been lost due to the low blows of An Unexpected Journey by keeping it's humor referential rather than immature, gross out stints. Martin Freeman is a funny actor and very funny in the role of Bilbo Baggins. His physicality and facial expressions lend themselves to the character brilliantly. The script is often quite humorous and I think produces may have read many of audiences reactions to the overall tone of An Unexpected Journey and for that reason darkened the mood of it's sequel.

  The Desolation of Smaug is considerably darker than it's predecessor and rightly so. The first act is over, introductions are finished we know our main characters; we've seen them laugh now we want to see them fight! And fight they do. The Desolation is action packed from start to finish. The fast paced action scenes are engaging and exciting, verging on ridiculous but unimaginable fight scenes are a driving force behind the success of these films. I'm not paying to watch Tom Cruise shoot a gun at a criminal mastermind, I picked this film to see 12 Dwarves and a Hobbit race down a river in wine barrels while pursed by Orcs and high-flying Elves. It's fantasy and fantasy will lend itself to fanciful chases! 

Lee Pace, Director Peter Jackson & Evangeline Lilly

  Speaking of Elves, new comer Lee Pace, beloved from Bryan Fuller's short run and under-appreciated TV series Pushing Daisies, melds perfectly into the world of Elven royalty. He's come a long was from loveably awkward pie-maker. Devilishly wicked and totally unexpected, Pace plays the role of King Thrunduil with operatic bearing. Evangeline Lilly, also new to Middle Earth, was a missed opportunity. A fine actress, Lilly's character whom adds would have audiences believe is the strong, feisty, warrior woman of the series is reduced to an object of affection in possibly the oddest love triangle ever put on screen. I supported bringing in the new, original character of Tauriel thinking she'd be portrayed as a warrior like all the rest; instead she succumbs to the emotional advances of two men...brilliant. This from the director who gave us "I am no MAN", witch king-killing Éowyn. I don't get it. 

  Odd Elven relationships aside, the remaining story line in The Desolation of Smaug stays true to the book as well as any side stories begun in An Unexpected Journey. Audiences weren't left with so much a cliff hanging in the first of the series as something to look forward to, as all good films should. We knew we'd be seeing the great dragon in this installment and the tension leading to the final revel makes it all the more scintillating.   

 

No words review can accurately describe the detail and deadly beauty in the animation of Smaug. It's brilliant, flawless, and any other adjective associated with top notch animation. Every scale and claw was considered...the lighting and coloring are pure perfection...the way he moves and please let's talk about the cutting voice behind though razor sharp teeth. Benedict Cumberbatch with the best and only choice. His voice is pure dangerous allure. Cumberbatch, with the help of visual animation studio WETA, truly became this dragon through motion capture technology. That means voice, movement, and facial expression were all generated by Caumberbatch...and quite perfectly, he gives this inhuman  creature a personality and purpose. A huge hand must be given to the animators behind Smaug, he is a sight to behold on the big screen. No images found online can do him justice.

Benedict Cumberbatch gets in touch with his scaly, fire breathing side

  Smaug's animation soars, leaving many of the other animated characters with a rushed, sloppy, even cheap feel to them. One thing The Lord of the Rings series did so well was create real, disturbing characters through the use of great prosthetics. This is a technique not used as appropriately in The Hobbit series, especially where Orcs, Goblins and other nasty folk are concerned...yes animation is cheaper but nothing draws an audience from the moment like recognizing "oh that's definitely CGI" This is a huge attributing fact as to why Smaug's animation is so incredibly impressive. Comparing the detail in his design to that of others is somewhat disappointing.  

  With a darker atmosphere, Jackson really plays up Biblo's developing obsession with his newly acquired ring and creating a strong tie between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. The Desolation of Smaug is great fun with a couple of nice references for die hard fans and spectacular animation (for the most part) Fans will not be disappointed and new comers to the series should find it just as enjoyable. Don't expect Smaug to be popping up in any category except effects, during awards season like The Lord of the Rings films did, but the heart of this film is in the same place; as is its epic scope and action packed adventure. If there was ever a time to jump into one of the most celebrated fantasy series of all time, now would be it! 

Dracula (1992)

Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola
Released: 1992
Staring: Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves, Anthony Hopkins, Clary Ewles
Rated: R
Times Viewed 5+

 There is a moment in film making when the artistic choices go beyond  filling a lot, clothing an actor, and underscoring a scene; the artistic team behind Bram Stoker's Dracula immortalized not only a literary character but multiple periods of art and history, all on screen.

   Nothing dates a film more than bad special effects, whether they be shoddy stop motion or CGI. Francis Ford Coppela's adaption of the iconic novel by Bram Stoker will forever stand the test of time due to his traditional method of special effects and camera technique. When one says "traditional"the usual connotation is old, boring, out of day; however, by using practical effects and no CGI, Dracula is  a back of all treats and no tricks. Coppela's collaboration with costume designer Eiko Ishioka, scenic designer Joseph Hodges, special effects artist Roman Coppola, and composer Wojciech Kilar resulted in a true work of classic, cinematic art. 

  The only thing more engrossing than watching Coppola's adaption is watching the production documentaries and videos following the development of the film. I own a copy of the 15th anniversary edition DVD which is packed with hours of such footage. Absolutely no green screen's were used all sets were built on screen and effects only produced as they would have been in the early 1900's. Magic tricks, reverse photography, and double exposure were all used to create the unique and often haunting effects that give Dracula it's classic flair. In this Coppola really must be applauded, his passion and unrelenting dedication to the classic art of film is something sorely missed in today's Hollywood. There are some truly BRILLIANT effects and sequences created in this film...all of which are addressed in this fantastic short The Naive Visual Effects of Bram Stoker's Dracula. I highly suggest checking it out, it's a great look at the technical craft and ingenuity that goes into practical classic film making. 

  Special Effects included, Bram Stoker's Dracula is wickedly theatrical and full of art history and this is most apparent than in it's costume designs. Eiko Ishioka one of Hollywood's most creative and dramatic costume designer's created looks that not only elude to famous works of art , but become art themselves; Dracula's garments specifically span generations and cultures. Coppola refers to images as "swatches" during the visual production period and the these "swatches" from Klimt to numerous other's are...There are just too many brilliant pieces to choose from, each gorgeous in it's own individual fashion...

 The quality of the production design is beyond words, and let's not forget that the film one best Oscar for Costume Design, Make-up, and Sound Effects/Editing...The old age make-up on Gary Oldman is truly THEE best over put on screen, I've yet to see it's rival...Benjamin Button, eat your heart out. Besides age make-up, the creature prosthetics are incredibly detailed and quite honestly perfection; every line was considered, every hair in place. The costumes are pure theater, and the make-up pure magic.

Wojciech Kilar's melodies are equally haunting as the tale they underscore. A multiple repetition of chords that build and build, creating tension; Kilar compliments these heavy tracks with a light as air romanic theme that twists itself and soon becomes a hair raising refrain.This soundtrack is the perfect mix of horror, danger, and romance.

  Now let's address the one conflicting factor that takes this Art History masterpiece of Romanic Horror and turns it from Oscar gold, to B-film camp. The acting...Specifically Keanu Reeves acting.

  Poor, poor Keanu Reeves...he tried, He really, REALLY tired. While he's one of those actors who's been consistently bad in almost every movie he's in I, due to some unknown force, like his movies. {The Matrix, Constantine, & of course Dracula} Some roles are juste cursed and the role of Jonathan Harker is on of them...first of all, he's like Raoul in The Phantom of the Opera...the writer's try SO desperately to turn him into the romantic lead when it's obviously the opposer. Second, he's a bit of a pussy...he goes to the castle, get's imprisoned, get's out then whines the entire rest of the story...I don't think anyone has every felt badly for Jonathan Harker in Dracula's history. THAT, however, does not excuse the exceptionally painful job that Reeves did in this role. His acting befits that of a high school freshman...who doesn't enjoy theater.

  Keanu Reeves is not the only one having a hard time in their roles...Sadie Frost who plays the part of Lucy Winestra struggles through her character by series of sexual moans and screeches. Winona Ryder as a whole makes a mostly successful transition from child star to leading lady with this role, however she does have a couple awkward moments herself. And if I must be totally honest I have to confess that, while he's brilliant, this is not Sir Anthony Hopkin's best role. He was and is perfect for the part, it's simply falls upon some rather odd physical choices he makes that bring the performance down to a satire level.

  Check out this clip below, it shows not only the faltering attempts of Reeves, but also the levels that Gary Oldman brings to his performance of Dracula as well as the rich costume, set, and sound designs...it's definitely a defining scene of the film.

  The shining star in this sometimes fading constellation without a doubt is Gary Oldman. Oldman's versatility and complete commitment never fails to blow me away, Dracula is no exception. In a performance that could have been weighed down by make-up and costume, Oldman uses them to his advantage and brings a timeless, yet fresh take to the most iconic of Monsters. The performance plays on the subtleties and theatricality of the character of Dracula creating a new character who you are both revolted and attracted to. My personal favorite, of all Gary Oldman's performances.

  So if you haven't see it yet, Bram Stoker's Dracula is the one to watch this Halloween evening. With his stunning costumes, intriguing set and special effects designs and above all Gary Oldman's performance it's not only my pick of  Halloween movie, but also happens to be my FAVORITE movie.

The Phantom of the Opera (1989)

You all think I'm going to talk about the 2004 Gerard Butler, Joel Schumaker adaption of Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical don't you? That's adorable.

Directed by: Dwight H. Little
Released: 1989
Staring: Robert Englund, Jill Schoelen, Bill Nye,
Rated: R
Times Viewed: 4

  There are certain movies you watching thinking...I'm really enjoying this, I know I shouldn't because it's probably a ridiculously cheesy horrible movie, but I really am enjoying this. You watch it about three or four times, making jokes in your head but it doesn't matter because it's still a good movie. Then you watch that movie with other people and you realize all those jokes you made to yourself were totally justified and you should probably hide the fact that you bought this movie off of Amazon and you really love it from the general public....Anyone else have that movie?
        Anyone?
                 No?
  Well the 1989 adaption of The Phantom of the Opera staring Robert Englund and Bill Nye is mine. It's 80's, it's gore, it's ridiculous, it's not an accurate adaption of the book, and it is AWESOME. This being said, I have to let you all know....

  The bane of my existence presents itself in two forms. Bad Dracula adaptions {we'll get to this in a review later this month} and bad Phantom of the Opera adaptions. Is it really so impossible to produce a faithful adaption to the book??? The book has all the elements of an awesome horror/romance/mystery movie because it's an awesome horror/romance/mystery novel!
As of 2007 there were over 40 adaptions of Gaston Leroux's book. 
  I really love Phantom of the Opera. I got hooked thanks to a cassette of the Andrew Lloyd Webber Musical my parents bought after seeing the production in the early 90's. I forgot about the show for a while until 2004 when Joel Schumaker made it into a colorless, sub-par, yet enjoyable adaption. After being reunited with the story I hunted down the book and basically every other adaption I could get my hands on...let me tell you, there are A LOT of adaptions of The Phantom of the Opera. Most bad, all cheesy, but all (save the Dario Argento adaption) have their redeeming qualities.

  The 1989 adaptions' is it's 80's thrill and gore and Robert Englund....Poor, poor Freddy Kru... I mean ROBERT ENGLUND. The poor guy signed his action soul to the Devil the day he decided to do Nightmare on Elm Street. I'm sure he's made quite the pretty penny on the series, which boast 7 sequels to the first as well as the 2010 remake, but they've limited him creatively. ROBERT ENGLUND IS A GOOD ACTOR, I truly believe he is. Sadly, like make villains of 80's horror, he's been typecast to no end. Whenever he DOES land a role that is not Kruger, the character still haunts him. Marking people are mainly to blame for this and I have to say whoever was captain for this ship should have been fired because this is not acceptable...He's basically a marketing strategy

Seriously, I don't mean to be rude, but what assholes. From what I've read on the web Englund wasn't too happy about this either, and for good reason! I would not want people to go to a film because they expected to see Freddy, I would want them to go to see what else Freddy can do!
.

  This all being said, the character Englund creates is brilliant but he does offer several Freddy-esque characteristics. He has some great, macabre one liners, creepy laugh, and dream-like presence...In reality this has nothing to do with Englund's acting and more about screen writing. This may be a strong statement, but Robert Englund's interpretation of The Phantom is the closes to what I had generated in my mind from the book.
The Phantom is not a nice, cuddly guy chilling in the basement waiting to watch The Notebook with you *cough* Charles Dance *cough* he's a bad ass, crazy stalker. I say this with nothing but love in my heart, but he is out of his mind. He kills people, he LIKES killing people; but he's some how charming and intelligent!

  The rest of the cast is mediocre at best, even Bill Nye is odd in the role of the Opera House manager. Please don't even get me started on Christine...the young Jill Schoelen is not the worst Christine to grace stage or screen but she's not the best either. Her singing voice {which I don't believe is her own, is no where near "angelic"} I don't think I've ever seen a performance of Christine Daae (outside the musical content) that I enjoyed. Always winy, annoying, just uh...Not much praise can be showered upon this cast apart of Englund of course.


Now let's talk about the movie itself. This is NOT accurate adaption of the Leroux novel, it takes many, MANY heavy handed liberties included name, location changes, and TIME TRAVEL. The Paris Opera House becomes the London Opera House, I see no reason for this...it's not like they actually shot in either location...Daae becomes to American DAY a change which I despise and Erik disfigurement comes for the Devil in the form of a midget in a brothel....ya I'm just gonna let that one sink in.  LIKE I SAID, heavy handed liberties...they were taken. I've seen so many adaptions I've learned to take them as they come and all the changes in this adaption, while crazy and outlandish WORK with the film and I *screams quietly* love this movie!

  One of the main reasons, it's gross. Just sick...and so good! While no one has ever gotten anywhere close to showing Erik's true disfigurement on screen, the 1989 adaptions offers a pretty nasty take. Instead of wearing a mask made of any synthetic material or fabric, the Phantom chooses to cover his burned face in HUMAN SKIN...that's right a la Buffalo Bill, this Phantom does some patch work sewing on his own face. This is where that 80's gore and horror come in. We the audience get several scenes of Erik skinning people, sewing the skin to his face, the skin be ripped off...and it's awesomely disgusting. There are some top notch make-up jobs in this film no matter how Nightmare on Elm Street inspired they may appear. Having The Phantom wear a mask of human flesh really bumps up the gross out factor that the original novel held so close {in the scene where Christine takes off Erik's mask he takes her hands, and digs her nails into her skull, pealing off dead skin}

Did I mention, Erik has a really AWESOME Red Death costume in this adaption?

  It's not perfect, it's occasionally ridiculous in it's retro-ness, and it's ghastly gory, but it's for those reasons I enjoy it! I don't take it seriously, and you shouldn't either! So if you've watched your collection of Nightmare on Elm Street so many times you can pin point the second a prosthetic tongue worms it's way out of a cored phone, give The Phantom of the Opera a try. Not as hokey as Nightmare but retaining a similar atmosphere and leading man of course. Robert Englund's performance is reason enough to watch Phantom but the gory 80's style are PERFECT for a Halloween viewing. Someday I hope this film will worm it's way onto the cult classic shelf along Nightmare, Halloween and Friday the 13th.

  I was going to talk about the Charles Dance tv miniseries of Phantom from 1990 but it's quite an extensive review all ready. All you need to know is I like it for unknown Charles Dance-y reasons.

I love Charles Dance...he is my favorite character on GOT and I didn't even know this until I rewatched season 2. Dance is no Lion in this miniseries however...he's almost the opposite.

  Charles Dance is an adorable English man who plays a French man with an American accent while everyone else around him keeps their English accents. I'm sorry but when I hear the voice of an Angel he doesn't sound like he's from Iowa. He is a cute and cuddly phantom who actually sings. Possibly one of the worst Christine's even if she is blond like she is in the book. It's both horribly bad and charming all at the same time. If you're bored you can watch the whole whole mini series on youtube.

 You guys...Tywin Lanister was a total FOX.

NOTE: This is definitely NOT from the 1990 adaption of Phantom.

He's just fun to look at

Mortal Instruments: City of Bones

  Sometimes I wonder what the movie industry would become if it didn't have an endless supply of teen fantasy novels to act as screenplay material...

Directed By: Harald Zwart
Released: 2013
Staring: Lily Collins, Jamie Campbell Bower, Robert Sheehan, Adrian Turner, Kevin Zegers, Jemima West, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, & Lena Headey
Rated: PG-13,

  Vampires, werewolves, and witches; staples in Hollywood cinema are normally figureheads for Halloween themed horror flicks. From Max Sherck to Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney Jr. and even Jack Nicholson, these actors are known for their roles within the supernatural realm. The classic era of Hollywood produced THEE images audiences associate with fantastical and horrific creatures. Looking The Wolfman and Frankenstein in particular, the monster's were terrifying yes, but sympathetic emotions were injected into the story and performances. I myself still want nothing more than to wrap my arms around poor Larry Talbot aka Lon Chaney Jr.and tell him everything will be alright.

Above: The sad and adorable Lon Chaney Jr. & the scary and irresistible Bela Lugosi
Bottom Lon Chaney Jr. & Evelyn Ankers in The Wolfman (1941) 

  March 40 some years in the future and the 80's resurrected horror and it would never be the same. The blood was redder, the girls were hotter, and the villains unforgiving. 80's horror has become it's own genre, generating  countless cult classic that today still have movie goers covering their eyes and jumping out of their seats. The image transformed from sympathetic beast to blood-lusting killer; directors and make-up artists pushed the envelope as well as the fake blood supply. 

David Naughton in American Werewolf in London (1981) 

Keifer Sutherland in The Lost Boys (1987)

  Horror, one of my favorite genres of film, has transformed medieval monsters of folk lore into house hold, revenue-generating assets. Transformation included the jump from horror to other genres; largely fantasy and even more surprisingly romance. Not to say furry monsters, scaly creatures, and charming blood-suckers haven't been the subject of their fair share of amour, just never to the extent of our modern film and more importantly modern literature. 

  New authors create their own rules within their own worlds, generating an endless flow of fresh material for Hollywood to manipulate and market.  I read both Bram Stoker's iconic vampire novel and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein before I finished 5th grade. I read the Twilight series in middle school and despised the film which lead me to question why and how I had enjoyed the books...final conclusion, I enjoyed them out of secret love I had (and still do) harbor for Bela Lugosi and Lon Chaney Jr. Despite the complete failure that was the entire franchise, I continually read fantasy, teen-romance series. While every other girl buried themselves in Nicholas Sparks, Sarah Dessen I attached myself to authors like Melisa Marr and Holly Black. Lots of fae fantasy...{note: J.K. Rowling & J.R.R Tolkien were my first a favorite as far as fantasy literature goes.} 

  But holy cats I need to get back to the movie in question

  Long story short, being a fan of fantasy/romance a friend suggested I check out The Mortal Instrument  series and I HAVE READ THE FIRST ONE, CITY OF BONES...that took much longer than it should have...apologies. The reason I wrote that 4 paragraph exposé was just to give you a little insight on the genre crossing that is so common in not only writing, but in film making. The majority, if not all of the dark fantasy romances with vampires, werewolves, witches, and now demons have come from the flood of cross genre, young adult novels that have captivated readers all over the world. Tolkien was the first, followed by Rowling to create a HUGELY successful franchise off of a fantasy series. It's only a matter of time until YOUR favorite series gets an adaption and you can love or loath how the film industry interprets it. 

FINALLY TO THE ACTUAL MOVIE REVIEW!

 I read City of Bones my junior year I believe and thought it was a solid enjoyable start to a series; I feel the same way about the film. That being said, had I not read the book (no matter how long ago it was) I think I may have been marginally confused by the film. I love vampires, werewolves, fae, and demon hunters so this series is right up my ally; however, for the average movie goer City of Bones may just be a jumbled piles of monsters, angels, demons, and young, angsty romance. 

  

 From what I remember of the book, all major plot points, action sequences, and back stories are present to provide a fun and thrilling movie going experience for audiences but that comes from someone who has read the books and understands that world in which it takes place. I don't know...I've heard mixed reactions from viewers... it IS easy to understand...it ISN'T easy to understand...As one who has read the book it's difficult to be objective. I'll do my best...

City of Bones flows nicely with well choreographed action sequences and features a relatively solid cast. 

  I say relatively solid because let's be honest, this is a young cast in an action/fantasy/romance film, I'm not expecting any Oscar worthy performances but most, save Godfrey Gao as Magnus Bane, were on character and correctly cast. For this reason I'm not going to dissect any of the main cast, just two of the supporting male characters.

  

  The first is Jared Harris as Hodge. His performance less than what I had expected primarily because there was less of his character than you'd think. Where WAS he? I honestly think the character of Hodge was present on screen for less than 10 minutes, making his character nothing more than a story telling device, leading to minimum to no audience connect and therefore reaction when something actually happens to his character. I felt a bit uncomfortable with his character, at first I attributed it to miscasting but the more I think about it that wasn't the problem. The problem was he was just NEVER in the film and was never give a strong character. Hodge is described as this great leader and he was reduced to a shivering coward...I feel screen writers could have done much more with his character, giving poor Jared Harris more to work with.

He does have a nice face...

  Next I want to discuss Jonathan Rhys Meyers...perpetually confusing as a human being, I've never come to a firm like or dislike of him as an actor. Is he fantastic? Not particularly. Is he dreadful? No. He just IS. Soulless seems the appropriate descriptive...Perhaps this is why I so enjoyed Rhys Meyers as Valentine. Soulless yet filled with emotion, is this too contradictory a statement? Well if it is you understand how I feel about him. He has these empty eyes...empty eyes filled with tears, a man totally consumed with power and passion it has destroyed him. Rhys Meyers will next be appearing as the title character in NBC's adaption of Dracula...So far I'm not necessarily thrilled about this BUT one must remember I felt the same way about Hannibal which has become one of my favorite network television series...only time will tell.

The special effects were nothing special...somewhat generic, but I thought they were used well when it came to the werewolf transformations and some of the fire demons featured near the end of the film.

As I wrote earlier, the action sequences were very well choreographed with various weapons and fighting methods used, it kept the fights interesting. I particularly enjoyed the battle with the Vampires. These are no Twilight, hopeless romantic vegetarians, they're an underground bloodsucking gang; taking prisoners and ensuring fear. In this series, the author has returned to the vampires natural core, evil and hungry. The make-up used made them appear a bit zombie-ish but I'll take ripped clothes and dirty skin over diamond sparkles any day. 

Adrian Turner sports some Sweeney Todd esque hair as alpha werewolf Luke

  The troop of werewolves are a bit generic and stereotypical...a bunch of scruffy, motorcycle driving, car fixing guys...but hey, Adrian Turner looked the part and was a good choice for the part. Also, let us rejoice that the werewolves weren't a click of young, hot, hairless teenage bros but older, rough and tough gents I can picture a hard hearted Lon Chaney Jr. joining...as long as he grew a beard. 

  The movie was not without it's corny bits but it's a teen based film so what can you expect...All in all I enjoyed watching City of Bones. It not exceptional, but I think they did quite well taking the source material and putting it on the big screen. It's no Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings and doesn't have the support like the Twilight fandom, but I feel badly that this film didn't do better. Earlier this summer I watched another fantasy teen romance series turned film franchise Beautiful Creatures. I hadn't read the books but my feeling toward that film were almost equal to City of Bones. Nice. I had a good time, I enjoyed it. Many, many critics say these films are "misfires", I disagree. They're just good enough to possibly make a sequel. I mean you have to consider the MATERIAL you're working with...

My final reaction to City of Bones, surprisingly positive.