Change Your Image
Danielramos16
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
42 (2013)
Not just a baseball movie, but a great human story.
Everyone will remember the name Jackie Robinson. He became more then a baseball player, he became a legend, and a hero. Almost 70 years later his influence is still felt today. You ask anyone who follows baseball they know the name, the number, what it meant to the sport, and this country.
Luckily the film doesn't try to do too much by telling the life story of Jackie Robinson, instead it focuses on Robinson's days in the Negro League in 1945 to his first season with the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947. Even with America coming off its victory against Fascism in World War II, racism was still prominent. This was especially true with the racist attitudes against African-Americans. At a time when the society in America was still segregated based on race, Jackie Robinson became the first African-American Major League Baseball player. He broke through the color barrier that had kept blacks out of the Major League. Despite his amazing skills as a ballplayer, Robinson faces huge adversity dealing with the racist prejudice from the public, the fans, and fellow ballplayers. His greatness on the field had such a huge impact on the game and America's attitude towards African-Americans. Of course talent can only take a player so far, it was Robinson's character & pride that really made him standout. He became an icon in the civil rights movement in America, and ended racial segregation in America's greatest past time. This is why we remember his name, and his number.
Chadwick Boseman has such an uncanny resemblance to Jackie Robinson. He played Robinson beautifully as a man of great talent and character. You can see him boiling inside at moments dealing with the stress and anger Robinson must have felt with the world coming down on him. I love that this film isn't just about Robinson's courage, but that of those who supported him. Jackie's wife Rachel is played wonderfully by Nicole Beharie. She is beautiful, strong, and good natured. She had to be as strong as Jackie was to endure the rough journey ahead. While most love stories come across as corny especially in a sports movie, this works thanks to the chemistry and wonderful acting of Boseman and Beharie. Harrison Ford is unforgettable in his supporting role as Branch Rickey, the legendary General Manger who took great risks in signing Jackie Robinson. This was one of Ford's best performances, bringing charisma, charm, and heart to his role. Branch Rickey was a gutsy and innovative figure in baseball, and Ford did him justice. The acting overall is wonderful, and I give credit to a great supporting cast.
The film is a true inspirational story of how a baseball player helped change a sport, and how sport can change a country. Despite it's cliché moments, this film has a charm to it that makes it so beloved. Its my hope that 42 film will educate and inspire this generation and the next and that 42 won't become lost amongst the Sports film or bio-pic movie genre. Does 42 adequately match the legacy of the man tries it depicts? Is Jackie Robinson's life simply too great for a two hour motion picture? whatever legacy it will create, 42 is still a proud tribute to one of baseballs greatest figures.
Olympus Has Fallen (2013)
Yippee-ki-yay, Mr. President!!!
Watching this film brought back many Die Hard memories, and yes everyone is saying that this is pretty much Die Hard in the White House. I can't argue with that. This film is actually a hell of a lot better then that recent disaster A Good Day to Die Hard. It's like Gerard Butler was getting in touch with his inner John McClane. All said this film is an awesome action flick, despite it's cliché moments, plot holes, and American vomiting patriotism.
Gerad Butler plays Mike Banning, a former U.S. Army Ranger turned Secret Service agent in charge of the Presidential Detail. Banning is close to President Benjamin Asher (Aaron Eckhart), the First Lady (Ashley Judd), and their son Connor. After a tragic car accident that results in the death of the First Lady, Banning is basically demoted to a desk job at the Treasury Department near the White House. One day a group of terrorists launch a coordinated attack on the White House and take the President hostage. During the attack Banning manages to shot his way into the White House. With the White House under terrorist control, the president hostage, and U.S. forces powerless, its up to Mike Banning to take down the Terrorists from the inside, before they succeed in their terrifying plot to destroy the United States.
What I enjoyed most about this film was that It was almost like a nostalgic trip to those awesome action flicks on the 90s like Die Hard, Air Force One, and Under Siege. Its has this old school action style to it which brought back many fond memories of the Die Hard themed action flicks. If you love the adrenaline rush of an action film then you'll love this movie. I suppose Olympus has Fallen doesn't really offer anything original, and one might pick out some obvious flaws. Do the terrorists realize that their actions would result in the total destruction of their own country? How the heck did the terrorists get their hands on an AC-130 Spectre gunship? Where did they get that super advanced anti-aircraft defense system? Would the President and his staff really give up such top secret information to save each other when they are risking the lives of millions of people, and the well being of the whole country!? and how did Morgan Freeman become President of the United States Again?
Despite that this film is still a lot of fun. The action is intense, bloody, and unrelenting. Gerard Butler has this commanding presence that you'd expect from an action star. He plays Mike Banning as a hard working professional rather then falling into that cliché disgraced hero looking for redemption role. He kicks ass, he cracks clever one liners, hes not invincible he bleeds and hurts, and come across as a more believable hero compared to some of the other crap action stars we've seen here and there. We get a great performance from a great supporting cast led by Morgan Freeman, Aaron Eckhart, and Melissa Leo. The main villain played by Rick Yune is ruthless and smart, which makes him a more terrifying character. I could see Rick Yune in the same mold as many of thos epic Die Hard Villains. Every great hero needs a great villain. To its credit you do end up rooting for Gerard Butler, you are kept interested, and you are kept thinking what will happen next. This film is what the recent Die Hard movie should have been, and for that I give this film high marks.
Red Dawn (2012)
Another half baked Remake inferior to the original
This is a case were curiosity gets the better of me. I own the original Red Dawn from 1984 on DVD. I was a big fan of that movie which today has become a cult classic. I knew this remake was gonna be bad, yet I went to see it with some friends simply cause its an action flick. My advise, keep you expectations low and understand what this film is. It's a silly film, it was fun, but trust me it's still a bad film. The storyline, the pacing, the acting, Character development an execution is really bad. I think Red Dawn (2012) could have been so much better with the right people involved in the project, instead things just seem half baked or not well thought out. In the end we get a cliché action flick with the feel of a B-Movie.
The Original Red Dawn from 1984 was set during the height of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. So as far fetched as it was it was "small" possibility that the Soviet Union and it's communist allies could invade the United States. I guess many saw it as a worst case scenario. In the remake the invaders were originally suppose to be Chinese, but at the last minute the film makers changed the invaders to North Koreans. Being that China would ban any film that depicts them as in such a hostile manner, the film makers made an attempt to get this film into the lucrative Chinese market. Well i didn't work. Even in the near future how would North Korea Invade the United States? That idea seems so ludicrous seeing how North Korea is a small country that is basically bankrupt, and struggling to feed it's own people In the film its suggested that the North Koreans are part of a multi-national coalition, so their assisted by stronger nations like Russia & China. Still how the hell could they bring their forces across the ocean, and how could the United States with it's capabilities not notice a massive buildup of that magnitude. Based on what I saw in the film the enemy invades within less then a day which is quite impossible. The North Koreans come off more like bond villains then the ruthless professional army they are known to be. They also aren't wearing North Korean Army uniforms. The story line seems half baked, and they throw in this last minute plot near the end with the Marines. The acting is pretty bland and boring. It seemed like a bunch of young model looking brats running around looking cool with guns. The bad guys are over the top and the good guys are underwhelming. We really don't know these people except for the brothers. On the other hand the original is far more developed in it's story, characters, and action scenes. Also the original had a much more darker & serious tone then the over the top cliché style of this remake.
How would I have done this film? Well the North Koreans should be more of a supporting role as auxiliary troops like the Cubans & Nicaraguans were to the Soviets in the original Red Dawn. The Invaders should have been Russians in a large coalition. Even after the end of the Cold War our relations with Russia are fragile even sometimes hostile, and it would keep in style with the original. In respect the invaders should be treated with more humanity so the film doesn't come across as over the top American patriotism and like were demonizing other countries. Instead of being set in Spokane, Washington I would like to see a major city such as New York City or Los Angeles being invaded. I would like to incorporate themes like 9/11, the War on Terror, the Iraq War, the Occupy movement, so as to make this a more meaningful film in todays standards. Yes the original Red Dawn was silly but the characters were well thought out, the action was great, the story was well written. Red Dawn (2012) could have been a much better film, unfortunately we just get another stupid remake of a superior film. Watch this film somewhere for free just for a laugh.
Total Recall (2012)
Total Recall.... Totally unnecessary.
I love the original! I own it on DVD, and to me it's a film the didn't need to be remade. We all know there are certain films that don't need to be remade, I mean what's the point? The Original had the right combination of writing, directing, actors, and imagination that made it a classic. Still I was curious about this new film cause I've heard mixed reactions to it. After Watching Total Recall (2012), I don't think it was a bad movie, not by a long shot. But here's the thing... Change the title, and you have a film completely unrelated from the Original.
In the remake the Character's inherit the same names as the characters from the Original. But change that, and drop any references to Rekall and this film has nothing in common with the Original and can be a completely different movie that could stand on it's own with out trying to compare it to the Original. This really didn't have to be a remake, it could have been it's own film that could have focused on its own unique storyline without any ties to the Original. Both films have only few things in common. Then again if it wasn't a Total Recall Remake it wouldn't get any attention at all. Sadly from what I can see that didn't help at all.
To sum it up, This movie is OK. Just OK. Really nothing that special. The action sequences are cool, the special effects are cool, and the leading ladies are not only kick ass! but so hot!!! However there is nothing memorable about this film cause we've seen it all in so many futuristic action films before (Minority Report, Equilibrium, The Fifth Element, Ultraviolet, Aeon Flux, I Robot, Etc). Actually when you think about it, this film is basically The Bourne Idenity in the future. As far as Im concerned, Total Recall (1990) is the only Total Recall. Colin Farrell just doesn't have the commanding presence & Charisma Arnold Schwarzenegger Had. Kate Beckinsale as kick ass as she was doesn't have intimidation factor to be the main antagonist where as Michael Ironside was far more intimidating & memorable in the Original. Not to mention This film takes itself much more seriously in its tone, where as the Original had this silliness that made it much more fun & memorable. This new film will be quickly forgotten and we will still be talking about The original Total Recall with Arnold Schwarzenegger which is the superior film.
Saw (2004)
A revolution in horror
Every once in a while there is a movie that will change how other films are made, and this is one. Saw is a film that is a revolution of the horror genre. Since this film came out i've seen a lot of other films taking cues from this. There is just something about Saw that sets it apart from other horror films of the past that other films will try and copy.
First off this is just such an intense film In terms of the camera work, it looks so nightmarish like a bad dream but at the same time it feels so real. Also the music is magnificent, it adds to the chaos & fear of what's happening on film. The film makers cleverly use music to intensify the horror of the movie. The settings & scenery are also magnificent done, it's far more gritty then the most recent horror films. A lot of movies in the horror genre during the late 90's & early 00's concentrate more on being hip & stylish, not this movie Saw is dark & gritty it's all about the horror. What also sets Saw apart is that it doesn't focus on the blood & gore like most horror films, it more about the suspense, mystery, and drama of what's happening. Saw is a mystery film that just adds a lot of blood & horror.
The Puzzles & test's Jigsaw puts his "subjects" through are horrific and very graphic, but every test has a deeper meaning. What's so great about this film is that it really does put you in the shoes of the "subjects" would you endure so much pain & suffering in order to survive.? that is what Saw does so well. The main villain Jigsaw is taking people who have committed some morale or legal crime and tests their will to live. From the very 1st scene the suspense and tension builds up to the most horrific and shocking ending ever.
Thoughtful, meaningful, intense, and scary as hell. Saw is a horror classic that will and has revolutionized the horror film genre.
Armageddon (1998)
The most overwhelming movie ever made
Armageddon is pure entertainment, and it's meant to be fun. On the other hand it's a film that tries way too hard. It's an action, adventure, Sci-Fi, Comedy, Drama, Romance, and Disaster movie all mixed into one! Then throw in a gigantic budget, an all-star cast, dazzling special effects, explosions, a cheesy love story, over the top humor, and lots of music. Add that all together and we have the most overwhelming movie ever made. The viewer is just bombarded with this barrage of special effects, music, cheap jokes, and romance, I felt my brain was overloading. If your looking for pure Fun & entertainment then you'll probably love this film. Of course you have to be prepared to suspend disbelief in order to enjoy this movie and ignore the obvious flaws.
1.) First off there is an asteroid the size of Texas hurtling towards Earth. In reality the largest asteroid ever discovered was about the size of a small city, there isn't an asteroid of such freakish size anywhere near our solar system.
2.) NASA only becomes aware of the asteroid after a meteor shower and when they do discover it they only have 18 days before it hits Earth. In reality we would have a few years warning that an asteroid of such size was coming that close to us. NASA telescopes are very powerful and can see beyond our solar system, so they would have to be blind to miss it. We'd have plenty of warning.
3.) being that we'd have plenty of warning we'd also have plenty of time to prepare. So the whole story of Armageddon is now out of the question. NASA would train a rag tag group of undisciplined oil drillers to go into space in a few days on this mission to drill a hole into the asteroid and blow it up with a nuke cause the astronauts know nothing about drilling. In reality they would most likely have the drillers train their astronauts in drilling for months maybe even a year for this kinda mission. The oil drillers would never have been prepared for the rigors of space travel in such a short period of time.
4.) Asteroids are usually more rounded, not funky looking like the asteroid in this film. The Comet in Deep Impact was more accurate to the shape and look of asteroids & comets.
5.) NASA doesn't have cool advanced looking shuttles that fly like fighter aircraft like the ones in this movie. It would take months for them to make such a ship. And they wouldn't be that stupid in installing gatling guns on the armadillos in the event Steve Buschemi goes nuts.
6.) In the movie the team Drill a hole 800 feet deep to plant a nuclear warhead in the center which would split the asteroid in two and divert them in opposite directions, both of which would miss the planet. In reality if the asteroid was that big they would need to drill the hole about a hundred miles into the damn thing, and it would take more than one Nuke to do the job. The asteroid would also not split in half and miss the planet, It would most likely fragment into a few pieces and probably still hit. At 800 feet it would probably just make a big crater.... at best!
7.) The team swing shots around the moon at 11 G's in order to get behind the asteroid. In reality at 11 G's they would either pass out or die.
8.) Asteroids don't have gravitational fields.
9.) biblical inaccuracies: in the bible Armageddon is described as the epic battle on Earth between the forces of good & evil. So is the asteroid embodying evil or something, it's just a freaking rock.
Is it just me or is there is always something going wrong in this film. Atlantis destroyed, Meteor showers, cities destroyed, team members clash & bicker, The Russian space station explodes, they land on the hardest part of the rock, the military panics and tries to blow the nuke up from Earth, then the Nuke won't explode so someone has to stay behind to blow it up. Nobody likes constant drama in their lives why would we want it in this movie. It also tries too many times to be funny at the most unexpected and unnatural times.
How can Liv Tyler's character fall for Ben Affleck's character? Affleck plays someone who's so annoying, so whinny, and immature. No wonder Bruce Willis doesn't want them getting married. That scene where Affleck & Tyler are having a picnic and he plays animal cracker safari on her belly was the most retarded thing I ever saw, in fact it was kinda weird. In fact many of the characters were over the top & dramatic.
For all it's fun Armageddon simply lacks any intelligence. It's all brawn and no brain. Like I said if you looking for just entertainment you'll enjoy this film, if you like your films to be somewhat intelligent then you might want to save your money. Try not to take Armageddon seriously.
Stalingrad (1993)
Truly Haunting
I recently watched this movie in hopes of seeing an accurate portrayal of the bloodiest battle of the twentieth century. I got what I had expected and so much more. It's a German film made in 1993, so it's not surprising that it's mostly unknown to the modern American audience. It's a shame because this really is a remarkable film; I dare say that it's as good if not better than many iconic war movies, namely Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, and All Quiet on the Western Front.
1942: World War II is in full swing. Nazi Germany has overrun mainland Europe and parts of North Africa. Adolf Hitler orders the full-scale invasion of the Soviet Union, a fateful move that ultimately dooms Nazi Germany to defeat. In the early stages, the invasion goes well and the German armies conquer large sections of Soviet territory. But a critical battle ensues at Stalingrad, a city that holds great symbolic and strategic value. The battle soon turns into a bloodbath of epic proportions, a nightmare for both the German and Russian soldiers. On the verge of taking the city, the Germans are suddenly counterattacked by the Russians who end up cutting off the entire German 6th Army inside Stalingrad. To make matters worse, the Russian winter arrives causing incredible suffering for the Germans. This entire battle is seen through the eyes of a few young German soldiers fighting for survival not only against the Russians and the harsh winter conditions but also against their own sadistic officers who care only about medals and glory and the generals who have little regard for the average foot soldier.
This film is going to haunt me for a while. The German soldiers that the film focuses on are so young and naive. Their humanity and sanity are stripped from them and you feel for them when you realize that they're not the demonic Nazis often portrayed in film. Everything they were fighting for became unimportant and everything they believed in was shattered. After fighting a gruesome battle against the Russians inside Stalingrad, we see them further deteriorate with the onset of winter, causing many to freeze to death. The battle and winter scenes were like a horrible nightmare but it also felt very real. In the beginning we see strapping young men in the prime of their lives and by the end they are shells of their former selves stripped of everything. After witnessing so much carnage these men just lose their will to live. When there is finally a moment of hope, they are betrayed by Hitler, who ultimately abandons these men to a horrible death.
A good anti-war film depicts the horrors of war and that's what this movie does. The battle for the tractor factory sequence Is the closest thing that comes to hell on earth. The German and Russian soldiers were depicted with humanity with the exception of a few bad apples on the German side who doomed the men. Bottom line is this film is amazing because we see how men break down physically and emotionally during war. We all have our limits and these men were pushed far beyond their limits in the most deadly battle of our time. What the average foot soldier endured at Stalingrad was beyond imagination. Even if they had survived, everything they had seen and done would have scarred them for life.
Stalingrad shows us why War is Hell, and what exactly hell looks like.
The Happening (2008)
A fall from grace
There was real genius in M Night Shyamalan's first films Unbreakable & The Sixth Sense & Signs. These were all good films. They were entertaining, meaningful, and sometimes scary as hell, most importantly they explored the emotions & psyche of the characters. Then there came The Village which was a such disappointment to me, and Lady in the water which continued the downward fall. Those two films is where we see the chinks in the armor. Now we have The Happening, which looks like Shyamalan's biggest dud yet.
I at least understand what Shyamalan was getting at here. Like all his films there is a great Twilight Zone feel & tone which is both mysterious & eerie. He's also trying to make a meaningful statement about Global warming, Pollution, the green house effect, and society's overwhelming anxiety mass fear & paranoia in a post 9/11 world. Then the shock effect of seeing mass suicides, people seem to degrade mentally into mindless zombies then killing themselves. He does try to explain the phenomena, he does have a few points that this is an act of nature and science can only give theories about THE HAPPENING, there for the event may never truly be explained.
But really the film's attempts to be scary and comical are just so vain, and for a few stretches of the movie we borderline boredom. Problem was that the film started out with a bang and the suspense wasn't built up like in many of Shyamalan's films. The suspense wasn't there, when the Happening arrives we feel nothing, we aren't even sure what the hell's going on. The film was more confusing then it was scary. There isn't any reasonable nor scientific logic to why these people would kill themselves in such elaborate ways, as shocking as they are they don't make sense, why are they finding such clever ways of killing themselves? The suicides range from chilling to just over the top & funny. I mean some of the suicides were just comical. I think the idea he tried to put out was clever and somewhat original, but the execution is terrible. Don't get me started with the acting. Mark Wahlberg for most of the film has this "Deer caught in the headlights" look in his eyes, and his delivery of some of his lines made you wanna sigh. Zooey Daschel was equally misguided, there wasn't much chemistry between her & Whalberg in fact she was kinda annoying. When ever they say something meant to be funny we laugh at them not with them, just because of how stupid an awkward their lines were. Everyone in this film just seemed awkward, misguided and really just over the top.
In conclusion this wasn't entirely a bad idea but really the execution is the main problem. Bad acting, Poor dialouge, poorly developed story, lack of suspense, this movie was plain boring. I don't think this is the end for Mr. Shyamalan, but he really needs to get his head together, and remember what he did that originally got him where he is.
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)
Too many flaws
I Love The Terminator films! they are truly unique & revolutionary, why? They were a perfect mix of Sci-Fi and action that had a dark & chilling tone to it. It was almost a warning to humanity about our over reliance on technology. Now we have this new chapter in the saga, Terminator 3. After leaving the theater I left feeling man that was awesome, but afterward I really started to think about the movie and how it compares to the first two films. For all it's great action & adventure it just isn't on the same level as The first two. Many fans will be upset cause it doesn't offer what we loved about the other films.
1.) It took too long to make Terminator 3: Arnold is the only actor who can be The Terminator, but now he's getting too old and can't be expected to continue being the terrifying cyborg much longer, not to mention he has become involved in politics so his dedication to making good Terminator films is gone. Also James Cameron wasn't back to direct, Big Problem! James Cameron was a man with vision, he knew exactly how to make The Terminator movies. I'm not sure why he didn't come back to do T3 but he hasn't done much directing in a while. Had T3 been made earlier not only do I think Cameron would have had the energy to direct, but he and Arnold could have come back with time do do a fourth.
2.) Bad tone: This film almost seems like a parody of the Terminator Films. It's far more comical and less serious in tone. Like I said before The Terminator films are darker, more grim, and have a clear morale message.
3.) Poor Casting: I hated Nick Stahl as John Conner! he came across as whinny, immature, cocky, and self-absorbed. I mean come on he's suppose to be the leader of the Human Resistance that saves humanity! grow up already! He seemed nothing like Edward Furlongs's John Conner in T2. Claire Danes seemed miscast, this isn't her kind of work and she too came off as whinny & immature. Kristanna Loken is Hot as hell, but she's no Terminator. Having a female as an evil Terminator just seems too awkward, she just wasn't intimidating like the original Terminator or the T-1000 (T2). It was wonderful to See Arnold as the Terminator, he was great as usual.
4.) Bad Dialogue: Too comical, and stupid. Couldn't take seriously.
5.) A crap Story Line: Too many plot holes. I mean the time line didn't add up, when compared to events of Terminator and Terminator 2. Ultimately the writers wrote a script and came up with a story that underachieved. The Terminator films tapped into societies deepest fears about Nuclear War & artificial Intelligence, the film makers were more concentrated in action, entertainment, and awesome special effects. It also failed to deliver what we really wanted out of T3. I wanted to see the chilling & terrifying recreation of Skynet in the aftermath of T2. Not to mention the other movies were kinda scary with the take over over the machines, T3 failed to capture the true horror and the terrifying possibility of a machine take over, I Robot was better doing that!
So what was so great about T3? well the action sequences were fantastic, better then that of the first Terminator but not as good as Terminator 2. Personally I'm glad that Judgement day happened, humanity just had to push it didn't they? After the event's of T2 when Skynet was destroyed it should have ended there, but mankind rebuilt skynet so there for humanity deserved to be pushed to extinction for it's ignorance & stupidity in redeveloping the computer that would destroy them. T3 did deal with our anxiety of future events, cause let's face it we are fearful of what the future holds for us. No matter how hard we try, we cannot avoid our destiny and that has been the one constant about the Terminator movies. And then of Course there's Arnold, without him this movie would have really sucked. T3 was missing many of the people & elements that made Terminator & Terminator 2 so legendary, but Arnold has always been the key piece of all three films. Terminator 3: Rise of the machines was a great action adventure film, it was fun & entertaining, but unfortunately it's just not on the same level as the other two.
Now with Terminator 4 coming out sometime in 2009, Arnold as I thought will not be reprising his role. I now fear the Terminator series will take a further nose dive.
V for Vendetta (2005)
One of the greatest graphic novel based films to come out!!!
I remember all the hype about this film, and for me this is one of the few films that lived up to the hype. Lets face it this film deals with some very controversial subjects in a very troubled time period; War, Terrorism, Totalitarianism, Racism, Liberalism, and what ever other ism that's getting out of control. This film is a Action, Superhero, mystery, and comic book movie rolled up into one. Unlike so many other films put out today, this is a very intelligent & thoughtful action movie. I also noticed that it's very controversial, the vast majority love this film, but others seem to radically hate this movie with a passion.
V for Vendetta is based off a British graphic novel by Alan Moore that was published in the early 80's. Now there are differences between the Novel and the film but it's the same story. In a future Great Britain a masked vigilante known only as V, fights to bring down the Fascist Government (Norsefire) that rules Britain with an Iron Fist. I know the film makers altered the story from the novel, but only to become more relevant & meaningful in our times. For example; Norsefire came to power during a Nuclear War between Cold War enemies (likely the U.S. & U.S.S.R) which caused famine & economic collapse world wide, in the movie they came to power in the aftermath of a deadly Terrorist attack by Islamic Extremists. Just think; The Roman Republic turned into an Empire with the rise of Julius Caesar because of instability & corruption, Adolf Hitler & the Nazis came to power in Germany after the Reichstag was burnt down by Communists (as they claimed), The Taliban came to power in Afghanistan because the people were desperate for peace & security after years of Civil War, and the Terrorist attacks on America led George W. Bush's controversial conduct in fighting terrorism. When people are scared and insecure they will turn to anyone who can promise to change things, even turn a blind eye to their own governments crimes. The movie goes off the scenario that Americas War on Terror has gotten completely out of control, and seemingly has only embolden terrorism against America and it's Ally Great Britain. A terrifying irony is that this films release was delayed because of Terrorist attacks on London by Al Queda. So imagine if a party like Norsefire came to power because of people's fears of of the time, this film suddenly seemed more realistic. The portrayal of this Future Britain is smart, relevant, and terrifying. Drawing resemblance to Nazi Germany and that of the current political landscape. The Government targets Homosexuals, Political opponents, and non-British minorities for extermination or deportation. Many are sent to detention facilities which draw resemblance to Guantanimo Bay & Abu Ghraib. Now in the film V is portrayed more of a Freedom fighter then an crazed Anarchist in the novel, but few notice he does still remain true to his roots. His actions are meant to cause chaos & disillusionment, we even hear it said as his Revolution gains steam. The anarchy he stirs up is meant so that the government would show it's true colors, exposing their violent & ruthless tactics so that the people will not only question the Norsefire but turn against it. V is the most Intelligent & sophisticated hero ever then again, but like the novel it's questionable whether he is a heroic freedom fighter or a borderline psychotic. He has so much charisma & intelligence yet there are times we really have to ask ourselves "Is this dude crazy" Like the novel his past is a mystery, we only know he was a victim of the Governments atrocities, and like the novel his tactics are questioned by Natalie Portman's character. V is like many famous Revolutionaries of our time, but it's questioned whether their all motivated by a morale creed or their own personal desires.
The action sequences are bloody and amazing, mixing in elements of comics. This is more of a character driven film then action oriented, but it works for the better. We really feel for the characters and it's more about them then it is about action & special effects. Stephen Rea is very soulful & thoughtful, Natalie Portman isn't perfect but there are moments when her performance is actually quite memorable, John Hurt is absolutely chilling as the British Dictator Adam Sutler, but it's Hugo Weaving who gives the performance of his career as V. You never see his true face or learn his identity, its just how he talks & moves which is so brilliant. With the current political landscape of today this film is fun, entertaining, yet thought provoking, and chilling.V For Vendetta is a classic destined to be talked about for years to come.
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
A horror Masterpiece that equals the original
This is the age of the Remake. I don't know exactly when it started but remaking a classic movie seems to be the hip trend in Hollywood these days. Tragically most of the remakes have sucked royally, some even stain the legacy of the originals. Dawn of the dead (2004) is a fine example of how to do a kick ass remake! Not only do we have a good remake of a classic horror film, but we have a horror classic in it's own right.
I saw an interview with the director Zach Snyder who said something I thought was brilliant about doing the Dawn of the dead remake; "The Original is a classic, so I didn't want to do anything to step on the toes of that, so we took the basic premise of a bunch of people holed up in a mall during a zombie apocalypse and wrote a story around that". I thought that was very smart & thoughtful cause what he ended up doing was taking the concepts from the original and making a movie that would stand on it's own feet, and not be seen as something that was trying to imitate the original.
I think this is arguably the best zombie movie ever made, because for once we finally see a zombie movie that shows the horror of a zombie apocalypse from the very beginning. The very first few minutes of the movie are great because it seems like just another day, but you can see the unsettling signs that something bad is about to happen. You really feel like this is the calm before the storm, then suddenly all F*****g hell breaks loose! The little girl walking into the bed room all messed up is so shocking. The action grabs you by the throat, the suspense doesn't let up, there is always a sense of terror around the corner. What also gets me is the humor, there are moments that are really funny. When the characters say something humorous you really do laugh cause it just comes across as so casual and like something that my friends would say. The characters came across as real people, They all gave pretty convincing & genuine performances.
What make this film so bad ass are the zombies. I know purists insist that slow moving zombies are better and more realistic, put that's so traditional & normal from every classic zombie film. This movie has Zombies that are fast! Snyder described it perfectly, when the zombies see food they go after it! their like wild carnivorous animals and that makes this film so scary. Face it, slow zombies are weak and you can get away from them, hell you could take on three of them with no problem. But you couldn't get away or take on the zombies in this film. They also looked very realistic, they looked dead, look at the Dawn of the dead special feature where they explain how they did the zombie make up. The make-up for the zombies was magnificent and intelligently thought out.
As amazing and as hard to believe as it sounds, Dawn of the Dead (2004) stands side by side with Dawn of the dead (1978) as classic horror films. As revolutionary & classic the original was to it's era, this remake does the same with our generation. I left the theater thinking "Now that's how you make a Zombie movie"
I Am Legend (2007)
This was the best they could do???
I've seen a lot better post-Apocalyptic movies in my life. This film for me walks a thin line between Disappointment & Average. I was hoping for something of a mix between Castaway, Dawn of the dead, and 28 Days later. ultimately Im not quite sure what this was. personally I left the movie theater thinking I Am Legend was a little disappointed but also a bit overrated.
I Am Legend is based off a novel of the same title, in fact there have been two previous adaptations that were very successful; The last man on earth (Vincent Price/1964) & The Omega Man (Charlton Heston/1971). Neither weren't to faithful to the novel but they still worked because of the lead actors & the story. I was hopeful this movie would be more faithful to the novel. There were a few alterations from the novel that I didn't like, for example:
1. In the Novel the creatures are Vampires or Vampiric like, Not mutants. The mutants in this film were obviously fake! In an age of masterful CGI special effects, this is what they came up with!? I was not scared, intimidated, nor impressed by the mutants they looked like cartoon animations at times. If they were like the Vampires in 30 Days of night then this film would have been real scary.
2. The main Character Robert Neville is not a scientist in the novel, he's more of an average guy who finds himself the last survivor of a horrifying plague. In the film he spends time trying to find a cure. In the novel he spends most of his time foraging for supplies, hunting the vampires during the day, and fending them off every night when they siege his house. I like the novel version much better!!!
3. This movie take the title completely out of context to the novel. In the movie Neville becomes a legend to the last surviving race of humans for finding a cure to the disease. In the novel Neville hunts & kills so many vampires that he becomes a legend to the Vampires & the Human-Vampire hybrids, like Dracula & vampires were to humans.
In the beginning of this film a scientist states that they have found a cure for Cancer by engineering this super virus, and of course things begin to go terribly wrong. Man those scientists were really reckless in developing this virus because it was killing everyone that it infected and turned others into deformed mutants, I guess we were that desperate to finally cure cancer (how cliché). I liked the Omega Man premise of a disease brought upon by Biological-Warfare. This film I think missed an opportunity to explore our fears of disease & bio-weapons. Also it skimmed over the outbreak of the virus, so we didn't see really get to see much of the world falling apart from the pandemic. This film would have been a lot better if it followed the novel more closely, I loved the novel & this movie took too many liberties.
So what makes this movie so great? Will Smith. In a movie that in reality underachieved he was the one bright spot, in fact he carried this film. Smith's performance was magnificent. Smith's talent was on full display though. Imagine if you were the only person in th world isolated for years fighting for survival every single day, Will Smith captured that psyche so well. Also the scenery of an abandoned New York City was really stunning, could have been better but still awesome.
ultimately I have mixed feelings about this movie. It was good and I loved Will Smith's performance. Unfortunately this film just wasn't as good as I thought it would be. I mean really think about it, if you thought about how you could improve this film then it would have been so much more amazing. Was this really the best they could do? please there are far better & relevant Post-Apocalyptic films.
The Hills Have Eyes (2006)
This film has the potential to mess you up
Well first off let me state that any time I watch a remake of a classic horror film I get worried. When a Stranger Calls, The Fog, The Hitcher, Prom Night, And House of Wax sucked!!! Not scary, not original, not smart, and not faithful to the original. Not to mention they all make the mistake of casting good-looking teen actors that are so dumb & unlikeable, luckily this film didn't make that mistake. This remake of Wes Craven classic The Hills Have Eyes (1977) is not only faithful to the original, but it's scary, visceral, and so brutal that it could mess you up for life (if your too simple minded that is).
This story follows the exact same flow as the original,and has the same theme of Good family Vs. Evil Family, but there are a few alterations that just add more suspense & horror. the evil family was horribly disfigured by Radiation Fallout from nuclear testing. They lived in this mining community but the residents were forced out by the military so the government could test nuclear weapons in the area. Tragically the family refused to leave their home. So now not only are they a family of cannibals, but they are angry deformed cannibals Which makes them far more terrifying & disturbing. The Cannibals prey upon unsuspecting travelers not only because they are primary source of food but because they angry at what they perceive society has done to them. The good family (The Carter's) are your typical All-American suburban family, not perfect, and not completely likable but not every family is, so they really seemed like a genuine regular family
I love this film because it's almost identical to the original, but it make some alterations to add suspense, keep a sense of unknown, and adds far more Blood & gore then I even thought possible. Cinematography plays a big role too. The Carter's drive into wasteland of a desert, surrounded by hills. They end up in the middle of nowhere, it creates a sense of helplessness & dread, a great horror film uses the scenery to creep you out. It's everyone's worst nightmare; to be attacked and not a soul on earth can help or even hear you. The music is also very unsettling, and helps build tension.
Then we come to the point were Blood is everywhere and the shear brutality of this film really makes you uncomfortable. The Dad is burnt alive, The Dog is Ripped open, The Daughter is Raped, The mothers are shot to death, and the baby is kidnapped! holy crap! Of course this is all controversial but Sadly these kinda things happen in real life. This movie asks a morale question; if your family or loved ones are brutally murdered or threatened, will you find it in yourself to retaliate, could you be so brutal & ruthless when it comes to survival? All the violence is truly terrifying and throws you into survival mode. The surviving Carter members suddenly pushed into this primitive state of violence, but they know they are doing what they need to do in order to survive. Doug is the geeky salesman of the group, He is a democrat, a liberal, and doesn't believe in guns or violence. But the scene where he sees his Wife mutilated on the floor and his baby abducted, he completely breaks down we see a man loose everything he holds dear. It's interesting to see extreme violence come out of people we never thought could be violent, but if you had to be so violent to save yourself & your child.... Would you? Cause in the end in order to survive and save his baby, Doug becomes a blood soaked, Axe & Shot gun wielding maniac.
This film is filled with blood & gore which is so awesome cause Im into those kind of horror films, but it's better because it has meaning to it (again the concept of violence in people). It's scary like hell, there are so many times when you feel creep out & uncomfortable, and the tension is at a constant high. I know there are many people who are overwhelmed by this film, all I can say is; if you don't have the stomach for it don't watch, this is a film for blood soaked horror nerds like myself :)
Planet of the Apes (2001)
What have you done!?!?!?
Oh god no! why!? Planet of the apes is such a classic ground breaking film. It's a true masterpiece because it said more about ourselves & society then any other movie, so when you try and remake it your really asking for trouble. The expectations would be so high that such a film would be doomed for failure, which is kinda what happened.
I don't care what anyone says, it's always a bad idea to remake a classic like Planet of the apes, hell look what happened to Psycho! it's just better off not to be remade. Heres why this movie ultimately failed: For one thing this really doesn't fit directors Tim Burton's resume. Tim Burton has done masterpieces like Edward Scissor Hands, Sleepy Hollow, Nightmare Before Christmas, Big Fish, etc. So how does a Sci-Fi Action movie fit his bill? I give him credit for having the balls to try but come on! The Lead character (Mark Whalberg) was stupid, Shallow, Arrogant, and bone headed. Whalberg could never fill in the shoes of the late great Charlton Heston. Heston was Larger than Life, Whalberg is kinda annoying in this film. Besides him most of the acting is shallow & over the top. Seriously the dialogue is ridiculous, were the screen writers monkeys or something. The best performances by far were Tim Roth & Michael Clarke Duncan, they were the only bright spots in the film. I thought the Make up was fantastic and worthy of Oscar consideration but that's it for the positive's of this film.
I've heard from many people who like this movie and say don't compare it with the original. Of course were gonna compare it to the freaking original! They both have the same titles and similar story what do you guys expect!? My problem is that there are many references to the original, but this film lacks any soul or message that the original had. The original made a serious political statement on society and where were going in the future. This remake is basically a way to cash in. It lacks any of the magic of the original, It doesn't take itself seriously, there are way too many moments of comic relief, The ending made no F*****g sense, and it's just totally forgettable.
Planet of the apes probably should have never been remade. Perhaps with a different director, and definitely different writers, a Remake could have been meaningful. Unfortunately this film is a major disappointment, and is totally forgettable. 10 years from now we will still be talking about the original, and the remake will be largely forgotten.
King Kong (2005)
As Classic as the original
Remakes, get them wrong and we have crap like Planet of the apes & Psycho. Get them right and you have something that people will remember for decades to come, like this film. Yes i'm sure people worried about this remake of the classic King Kong from the 1930's, Why remake such a classic film! Well I had faith in Peter Jackson director of The Lord of the rings trilogy, he's the right man for the job.
What makes this film so great is that it's not all about the Amazing special effects & CGI, it's also about the acting, the scenery, the music and other aspects of making a great film, King Kong has it all. The performances by the cast was excellent, They such carried emotion & feeling. Naomi Watts gave the performance of her career, I think she really deserved Oscar consideration. Jack Black did an excellent job as the selfish glory-seeking director, many people didn't like his performance but I think he was one of a handful who could pull it off. Adrien Brody was remarkable, he felt so genuine. The rest off the cast did an excellent job in support.
The scenery from 1930's New York to Skull island were magnificent. It looked so real & authentic. Especially Skull Island! that place gave me the creeps, it was a land that was lost in time. You could feel the tension, the dread, danger, and wonder as you entered this forbidden land. Those islanders gave me nightmares, especially the old woman.
Peter Jackson is a man who knows exactly what he's doing. Oh god if it wasn't for him i'm sure this movie would have ended in the trash can of horrible remakes. It Seems he brought some of the magic he used in the Lord of the rings trilogy to this film.
Last but not least what really makes this film so amazing are the special effects. Most notable King Kong! i've never seen a CGI character display so much Emotion, You really found yourself falling for the creature. You could tell if he was Happy, sad, angry, lonely, hopeful; Kong was truly a creature to behold, He acted just like your typical Gorilla, but in the end he seemed so human. It says something how he is originally viewed as a monster, in the end he's really a gentle giant who's terribly misunderstood. When you see him taken from his home and made to be this big attraction, you really feel for him and find yourself rooting for him to lash out at a society that mistreated and misunderstood him. When the end comes you really feel a sense of grief and sadness, my heart broke for the beast in the end.
Overall this film is a true masterpiece, sadly because we live in an age of CGI dominated action films, King Kong might be written off. But this film is so beautiful in so many ways, it has a timeless feeling to it something that the Original gave us. This film has amazing action, drama, love, wonder, charm, and thrills. Yes it is a long movie, but I enjoyed every minute! It deserved the Oscars it won, this is why we go to the movies! Kong is the King!!!
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Epic Failure!!!
OK the action sequences were fantastic, the music was wonderful and gripping, the Pearl Harbor attack was intense. It was, at many points, very emotional and made me a bit teary eyed because I felt for all the brave men and women who died on that fateful day in December 1941. Now let's get down to why this movie failed miserably:
1.) First off, the movie is way too damn long, I mean, Jesus, one would have to spend half a day watching it as the makers failed to edit many scenes that didn't need to be in the film.
2.) Historical inaccuracies are everywhere. Little and small. I read a list of all the inaccuracies in this movie and I couldn't possibly write all of them down in this review. That's how bad this film is. If you'd like to know what these inaccuracies are, check out Wikipedia and search Pearl Harbor (film). Trust me, the list of historical inaccuracies is long.
3.) Waste of talent: Tom Sizemore, Jon Voight, Alec Baldwin, and Jennifer Garner are given relatively minor roles in the film.
4.) This is what really upset me. The movie is called Pearl Harbor, I thought it would be about the events leading up to that fateful day. In fact, it's about a cheesy love triangle. A LOVE TRIANGLE! This entire movie is centered around three shallow characters surrounded by characters just as annoying as they are. The Pearl Harbor attack doesn't come till the middle of the movie. There isn't much attention given to the events that lead to the attack, just these cliché characters. Pearl Harbor just seemed to get in the way. This is like a cheesy soap opera or a World War II version of Titanic. I mean, how much more cliché can it get?
5.) The Pearl Harbor attack was an intense, action-packed sequence, but even that was incredibly flawed. First off, why is there a pee-wee baseball game being played so early in the morning? Second, when Hartnett and Affleck get up in the air, it seems like they shoot down about 20 planes. In reality, the Japanese air losses were at a bare minimum. Third, there is too much emphasis on CGI effects. Fourth, it really made me laugh when a group of about 5 men went up into a tower and shot down an enemy fighter with rifles and automatic rifles ..... right... Damn they must have had good accuracy.
6.) Kenneth M. Taylor is a legendary hero of Pearl Harbor. He was one of two pilots who got into fighter planes and began engaging and shooting down Japanese planes. The other pilot was his friend, George Welch, Affleck and Hartnett depicted the pair. Taylor called this film "A Piece of trash, over-sensationalized & distorted". This was a man who was there and did these heroic feats, so you can't take his opinion lightly. This is proof that this film is a disgrace to our veterans.
Overall, this movie was a huge disappointment. If you are going to do a movie about Pearl Harbor, then do it right! Seriously! Thousands of good men tragically died that day in one of the most defining moments of American History and they make a movie centered around fake characters and a cheesy love story. Michael Bay, whether you realize this or not, I think you disgraced a lot of WWII veterans. This film had so much potential and ultimately failed to deliver something spectacular that could have had a major impact in film. My recommendation: watch Tora! Tora! Tora! A far more faithful retelling of the Pearl Harbor attack. Pearl Harbor had a large budget, but at least Tora! Tora! Tora! Had heart.