As stated in previous entries Vampires are the new black. With Twilight and True Blood being such big hits every company out there is trying to get their hands on vampire related projects. Perhaps the most interesting part of the trend for me is that very few people are producing big origional vampire stories, almost all are being based on book series.
Naturally when you make a movie or a tv show based on a book series you automatically have an fan base guaranteed to watch your show. I have talked earlier about the "Anita Blake" series being produced on IFC, I have also learned that the rites to the popular young adult series "House of Night" have been purchased as well; but neither of them are in production just yet.
The newest vampire series is "The Vampire Diaries" being produced by The CW and scheduled to be shown this fall. It is based on a relatively popular series by LJ Smith. When I was younger I was quite a fan of LJ Smith (Specifically the Nightworld and Forbidden Game series) but even at the tender age of 13 I could never could get into Vampire Diaries because I thought they were utter crap.
I know that The Vampire Diaries has an actual fan base, but recently found my old copy of the book and found that it was almost unreadable. I'm being honest here when I say that Twilight and even it's Heroine Bella Swan are both far more likable then what is presented to us in The Vampire Diaries. The TV writers are going to have to change a lot in order for this series to be remotely likable.
The series centers around a giant Mary Sue by the name of Elena. She is the hottest and most popular girl in her high school, she essentially runs the place and has scored of willing minions. She returns home from a summer in Paris and decides to dump her current boyfriend when she sees a super hot guy who just started going to her high school. And OMG the super hot guy turns out to be a vampire, who was in love with a girl who looked just like her many many years ago. And OMG the super hot vampire has a super hot brother who has a grudge against his brother but also desperately wants Mary Sue ... I mean Elena.
Oh did I mention that Elena's best friend and lackey is decedent of Druids and is psychic? Also the boyfriend Elena dumped the minute she saw Mr Sexy fangs has no problems with being dumped, still worships the ground she walks on, and is totally ok in helping her with her plans to seduce Stefan.
I'm not saying the show can't work, because with some rewriting it totally can. If they modernize it a bit (the book came out in 1991 and the fashion descriptions are hilarious), make the characters a bit more likable, and take out some of the more over the top elements it could be good. If they make it a series about a pretty girl who is in a love triangle with vampire brothers it could work out nicely.
Here is the official clips for "The Vampire Diaries"
Already it looks like they are changing a few things. In the book Stefan lived during the Italian Renaissance, but in the trailer he talks about returning home. Elena seems to be less of an annoyingly perfect southern bell, she has no accent and has been changed from blond to brunette. Based on what Elena was writing in her diary I'm bettering the series will focus more on how Elena is dealing with the death of her parents, which is somehow overlooked a bit in the book. Hopefully the series will also get to the dangerous elements faster then the book which spends roughly the first quarter on explaining how Elena is determined to have Stefan.
It looks like it could be a fun series if they do it right, but I'll reserve my judgment till I actually see the first episode.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Angels and Demons Review
There are many things which can cause me to dislike a film. "Angels and Demons" merely happens to hit on one of my pet peves, a film that does not live up to it's full potential.
"Angels and Demons" Tells the story of Robert Langdon (played by Tom Hanks)a symbologist who gets called in by the Vatican after some strange happenings. There is some evidence that the Illuminati a long gone Anti-Catholic group appears to be reemerging and seeking revenge in violent ways. How violent you ask, I'm taking killing Priests in messed up ways and threatening to blow up all of Vatican City with antimatter. Yea, that kind of Violent. Like the Da Vinci Code Robert Langdon must use his superior brain power to follow a set of clues through lots of churches in order to save the day.
We have talented actors like Tom Hanks and Ewan McGregor. We have frickin Ron Howard who has directed some really good films like "A Beautiful Mind", "Apollo 13", and most recently "Frost/Nixon." We even have all the ingredients for an interesting story. The Vatican, conspiracy theories, really twisted murders, and a race against the clock.
"Angels and Demons" has so much going for it, yet none of it comes together in the right way to make a good movie. Is it the worst movie I have ever seen, no, not even close. But all the same it's just an ok movie, when it could be a fantastic movie.
I blame the writers. Yes I know it's based on a book by Dan Brown, and like any snob I have a certain amount of contempt for such an over rated author. However I have to say that the book (I have read roughly half of it) is far better organized then the movie.
I don't know what Ron Howard was thinking, but the opening could have been sequenced a lot better. It starts out with the death of the Pope and a discussion of the traditions surrounding such an event, then it cuts to bad things happening in a Lab somewhere, then it cuts to Tom Hanks in a speedo. It doesn't give you time to care about any of the characters, and it is somewhat confusing as it is not immediately apparent what the Vatican has to do with something being stolen from a Lab. Say what you will about Dan Brown but the man knows how to create a fast paced and enjoyable novel. The movie would have been a lot better if it had began the movie like the book where Tom Hank's character Robert Langdon is brought in to investigate a murder and theft at a Lab, and then moves on to the Vatican. Or if they had been really smart they would started with Langdon giving a lecture at Harvard about the traditions surrounding the death of a Pope, then have him called to investigate stuff.
Another weird change is the order of the movies. The book Angels and Demons predates The Da Vinci Code, however the order of the movies is revered. This causes a major plot conflict. You see if Robert Langdon does all the controversial Da Vinci Code stuff (aka saying that Jesus had kids with Mary Magdalene) before hand why does the Vatican go to him for help. It would have made more sense had they simply made the movie a prequel, as opposed to giving a lame explanation that the Vatican is so desperate for help that they don't care he has put in a lot of work to undermine their religion.
Ok so we will ignore those strange and easily avoided choices and get down to some of the more offensive things about this movie. For one thing Tom Hanks is a great actor, honestly one of the best of his generation and he is not put to good use in this movie. Robert Langdon is a rather flat character, perhaps we are supposed to love him because of his never ending knowledge of trivia. They attempt to give him some depth by having him be an agnostic in a very religious setting, but in the end they don't give Tom Hanks a hell of a lot to work with. The same goes for his side kick, who stands as little more then arm candy throughout the film. The only person who really gets a character in this is Ewan McGreggor, he does a good job but it's not enough to carry the film.
Everything starts out kinda slow, but then 3/4 though the movie everything turns into a pretty cool fast paced action flick. Yet there are some problems. One of the few things I liked about the "The Da Vinci Code" was the way clues would pop out out at you or be all glowey and highlighted. No clues popped out at you but none had to, instead of following some clues that with some thought could be figured out by the audience clues were limited to obscure facts about Vatican city, or statues pointing at stuff. It didn't have the lovely "Blues Clues" for grown up's edge that "The Da Vinci Code" had.
While some of of the clues that the movie followed around the city were rather obscure, the big one was fricking obvious. I mean seriously they put the antimatter in the most obvious place you could possibly put it, and some idiot would have thought to check there before things got all dramatic.
Another problem that I had was the ending. Here Ron Howard made a particularly bad choice in following the book. The movie could have addressed some really deep philosophical stuff like science vs religion, or what constitutes a miracle, or what is faith, or any number of things more important then the finite ending it gave. Instead it goes for a cheap twist at the end, which really did not add to the movie in any way.
Again the movie isn't terrible but it had the potential to be so much better then what it was. It tries to be an intellectual thriller but fails, if you go in expecting a decent action film you will find it. If you go in expecting to find a movie where you have to think to solve things before the characters can, you won't find it unless you know a lot about the art and churches in Vatican City.
It's entertaining, has fantastic production values, and a soundtrack by the always great Hans Zimmer. I'm serious Hans Zimmer saves so many scenes because he managed to write a score that would make anything seem interesting and exciting. If you take just about any song used in "Angels and Demons" and set it against a clip of an old lady drinking tea, you would think that something sinister or interesting was about to happen.
Bottom line: It's ok, it will entertain you, but it's something that you probably don't want to rush out and spend $10 to see.
"Angels and Demons" Tells the story of Robert Langdon (played by Tom Hanks)a symbologist who gets called in by the Vatican after some strange happenings. There is some evidence that the Illuminati a long gone Anti-Catholic group appears to be reemerging and seeking revenge in violent ways. How violent you ask, I'm taking killing Priests in messed up ways and threatening to blow up all of Vatican City with antimatter. Yea, that kind of Violent. Like the Da Vinci Code Robert Langdon must use his superior brain power to follow a set of clues through lots of churches in order to save the day.
We have talented actors like Tom Hanks and Ewan McGregor. We have frickin Ron Howard who has directed some really good films like "A Beautiful Mind", "Apollo 13", and most recently "Frost/Nixon." We even have all the ingredients for an interesting story. The Vatican, conspiracy theories, really twisted murders, and a race against the clock.
"Angels and Demons" has so much going for it, yet none of it comes together in the right way to make a good movie. Is it the worst movie I have ever seen, no, not even close. But all the same it's just an ok movie, when it could be a fantastic movie.
I blame the writers. Yes I know it's based on a book by Dan Brown, and like any snob I have a certain amount of contempt for such an over rated author. However I have to say that the book (I have read roughly half of it) is far better organized then the movie.
I don't know what Ron Howard was thinking, but the opening could have been sequenced a lot better. It starts out with the death of the Pope and a discussion of the traditions surrounding such an event, then it cuts to bad things happening in a Lab somewhere, then it cuts to Tom Hanks in a speedo. It doesn't give you time to care about any of the characters, and it is somewhat confusing as it is not immediately apparent what the Vatican has to do with something being stolen from a Lab. Say what you will about Dan Brown but the man knows how to create a fast paced and enjoyable novel. The movie would have been a lot better if it had began the movie like the book where Tom Hank's character Robert Langdon is brought in to investigate a murder and theft at a Lab, and then moves on to the Vatican. Or if they had been really smart they would started with Langdon giving a lecture at Harvard about the traditions surrounding the death of a Pope, then have him called to investigate stuff.
Another weird change is the order of the movies. The book Angels and Demons predates The Da Vinci Code, however the order of the movies is revered. This causes a major plot conflict. You see if Robert Langdon does all the controversial Da Vinci Code stuff (aka saying that Jesus had kids with Mary Magdalene) before hand why does the Vatican go to him for help. It would have made more sense had they simply made the movie a prequel, as opposed to giving a lame explanation that the Vatican is so desperate for help that they don't care he has put in a lot of work to undermine their religion.
Ok so we will ignore those strange and easily avoided choices and get down to some of the more offensive things about this movie. For one thing Tom Hanks is a great actor, honestly one of the best of his generation and he is not put to good use in this movie. Robert Langdon is a rather flat character, perhaps we are supposed to love him because of his never ending knowledge of trivia. They attempt to give him some depth by having him be an agnostic in a very religious setting, but in the end they don't give Tom Hanks a hell of a lot to work with. The same goes for his side kick, who stands as little more then arm candy throughout the film. The only person who really gets a character in this is Ewan McGreggor, he does a good job but it's not enough to carry the film.
Everything starts out kinda slow, but then 3/4 though the movie everything turns into a pretty cool fast paced action flick. Yet there are some problems. One of the few things I liked about the "The Da Vinci Code" was the way clues would pop out out at you or be all glowey and highlighted. No clues popped out at you but none had to, instead of following some clues that with some thought could be figured out by the audience clues were limited to obscure facts about Vatican city, or statues pointing at stuff. It didn't have the lovely "Blues Clues" for grown up's edge that "The Da Vinci Code" had.
While some of of the clues that the movie followed around the city were rather obscure, the big one was fricking obvious. I mean seriously they put the antimatter in the most obvious place you could possibly put it, and some idiot would have thought to check there before things got all dramatic.
Another problem that I had was the ending. Here Ron Howard made a particularly bad choice in following the book. The movie could have addressed some really deep philosophical stuff like science vs religion, or what constitutes a miracle, or what is faith, or any number of things more important then the finite ending it gave. Instead it goes for a cheap twist at the end, which really did not add to the movie in any way.
Again the movie isn't terrible but it had the potential to be so much better then what it was. It tries to be an intellectual thriller but fails, if you go in expecting a decent action film you will find it. If you go in expecting to find a movie where you have to think to solve things before the characters can, you won't find it unless you know a lot about the art and churches in Vatican City.
It's entertaining, has fantastic production values, and a soundtrack by the always great Hans Zimmer. I'm serious Hans Zimmer saves so many scenes because he managed to write a score that would make anything seem interesting and exciting. If you take just about any song used in "Angels and Demons" and set it against a clip of an old lady drinking tea, you would think that something sinister or interesting was about to happen.
Bottom line: It's ok, it will entertain you, but it's something that you probably don't want to rush out and spend $10 to see.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
New Moon Poster
Ok, Ok, Ok, maybe I will suffer through another installment of the Twilight Saga. Last time I was a member of Team James, I was rooting for the bad guy to kill off Bella and Edward just so I wouldn't have to deal with their one dimensionality. This picture may have converted me to be on the side of the wolf pack.
If nothing else it will be interesting to observe fan girls in their natural habitat. I may even attempt to provoke a defensive response from them by yelling "Edward is a pillow Biter!" It should be fun.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Star Trek Review
This weekend I saw "Star Trek" the way God intended on the big screen. And by big screen I mean a really big screen, as in the IMAX experience.
Normally I end with a bottom line statement about the movie in question. But at this moment at time I feel like it deserves to be at the beginning of the post.
Bottom Line: Go see this movie while it's still out at theaters. It is Star Trek at it's best.
This my friends is how you do a prequel. Normally prequels are more boring and predictable then whatever story comes after them. For goodness sakes just look at the monstrosity that was Star Wars Episodes 1-3. You knew what was going to happen, you know who was going to live and die, so there was never any real anxiety. Not to mention you also had worse acting and dialogue. All the flashy new effects just weren't enough to make you ok with Hayden Christensen's unforgivable lack of acting skills, and a whole lot of other problems.
"Star Trek" is the anti-Phantom Menace. It takes place in an alternate reality where someone traveled back in time and has changed the course of events for characters, so you don't know who how things are going to turn out. The acting is infinitely superior to that or the origional Star Trek, and the writing is also very good.
Allow me to nerd out for a minute here. For Star Trek fans there has always been one crucial question: Who is better Kirk or Picard. Many fans side with Picard simply because Patrick Stewart is a much better actor then William Shatner. Now I know that the following statement will probably piss off a lot of Star Trek fans, but in my own humble opinion Chris Pine finally played Kirk the way he was meant to be played. He played a real character that was in many ways larger then life, but he never went too over the top with it. I had always leaned more to the side of being a Picard fan, but this movie made me love Kirk from the moment he stole his step dads car and started blaring the Beastie Boys. While Picards wisdom is something I have a lot of reverence for, I think this new movie converted me to liking Kirk's wild and unconventional style was more badass.
Overall the casting in this movie was fantastic. Literally the casting agent deserves a hug because there was not a single character that I thought could have been cast better. The actors managed to breathe new life into old characters and even managed to keep up accents like the origional cast. I have to say Carl Urban did a great job, I am so happy that after being in so many crappy movies after his success in Lord of The Rings (Pathfinder, Chronicles of Riddick) he finally gets to show that he can in fact act. I also want to say that Zachary Quinto did a great job. As a huge Heroes fan I was a bit concerned that Mr Quinto would be creepy, but have no fear there is not a single hint of Syler in this performance.
The special effects were great, and for once I was actually excited to see the battles in space. In most sci-fi films a scene with space ships fighting is just an excuse to have a pretty light show with lots of special effects. In "Star Trek" these space battles had actual strategy behind them and made sense within the plot.
A big part of my philosophy for writing reviews is that you have to judge a movie for what it is and for what it is trying to be. For a big budget sci-fi prequel this movie literally could not have been any better. I'm not comparing this to "Citizen Cane" or anything, but this movie delivers everything that you want from this type of genre. The alternate reality setting allows for some changes and updates to be done in ways that won't piss of fans from the origional.
All and all I loved it and had no complaints. And for the record that doesn't happen too often with me.
Again I say go see this movie, it is one of those things that was made to be seen on the big screen.
Normally I end with a bottom line statement about the movie in question. But at this moment at time I feel like it deserves to be at the beginning of the post.
Bottom Line: Go see this movie while it's still out at theaters. It is Star Trek at it's best.
This my friends is how you do a prequel. Normally prequels are more boring and predictable then whatever story comes after them. For goodness sakes just look at the monstrosity that was Star Wars Episodes 1-3. You knew what was going to happen, you know who was going to live and die, so there was never any real anxiety. Not to mention you also had worse acting and dialogue. All the flashy new effects just weren't enough to make you ok with Hayden Christensen's unforgivable lack of acting skills, and a whole lot of other problems.
"Star Trek" is the anti-Phantom Menace. It takes place in an alternate reality where someone traveled back in time and has changed the course of events for characters, so you don't know who how things are going to turn out. The acting is infinitely superior to that or the origional Star Trek, and the writing is also very good.
Allow me to nerd out for a minute here. For Star Trek fans there has always been one crucial question: Who is better Kirk or Picard. Many fans side with Picard simply because Patrick Stewart is a much better actor then William Shatner. Now I know that the following statement will probably piss off a lot of Star Trek fans, but in my own humble opinion Chris Pine finally played Kirk the way he was meant to be played. He played a real character that was in many ways larger then life, but he never went too over the top with it. I had always leaned more to the side of being a Picard fan, but this movie made me love Kirk from the moment he stole his step dads car and started blaring the Beastie Boys. While Picards wisdom is something I have a lot of reverence for, I think this new movie converted me to liking Kirk's wild and unconventional style was more badass.
Overall the casting in this movie was fantastic. Literally the casting agent deserves a hug because there was not a single character that I thought could have been cast better. The actors managed to breathe new life into old characters and even managed to keep up accents like the origional cast. I have to say Carl Urban did a great job, I am so happy that after being in so many crappy movies after his success in Lord of The Rings (Pathfinder, Chronicles of Riddick) he finally gets to show that he can in fact act. I also want to say that Zachary Quinto did a great job. As a huge Heroes fan I was a bit concerned that Mr Quinto would be creepy, but have no fear there is not a single hint of Syler in this performance.
The special effects were great, and for once I was actually excited to see the battles in space. In most sci-fi films a scene with space ships fighting is just an excuse to have a pretty light show with lots of special effects. In "Star Trek" these space battles had actual strategy behind them and made sense within the plot.
A big part of my philosophy for writing reviews is that you have to judge a movie for what it is and for what it is trying to be. For a big budget sci-fi prequel this movie literally could not have been any better. I'm not comparing this to "Citizen Cane" or anything, but this movie delivers everything that you want from this type of genre. The alternate reality setting allows for some changes and updates to be done in ways that won't piss of fans from the origional.
All and all I loved it and had no complaints. And for the record that doesn't happen too often with me.
Again I say go see this movie, it is one of those things that was made to be seen on the big screen.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Inglorious Bastards Poster Analysis
Ok, I have said it once and I will say it again, I am a shameless Quentin Tarentino fangirl.
Like all other fans of Mr. Tarentino I am super excited to see Inglorious Bastards when it comes out in theaters in August. Not too long ago he released the Trailer for the film, and now he has begun releasing posers for the movie.
A good movie poster not only tells a story, it becomes more interesting the longer you look at it. Although several movie posters have been released I chose my two favorites for a deeper analysis of what to expect in Inglorious Bastards.
Now I show you exibit A
Once Upon a Time in Nazi occupied France...
Isn't that just a beautiful phrase. That automatically tells you that this movie is a piece of fantasy. A gritty, bloody, and undoubtedly sometimes disturbing fantasy but a fantasy none the less. Because lets face it, most of us would love to kick a bit of Nazi ass.
On the other end of things the poster tells you that it will not be a complete fantasy. Notice the weapon of choice, a knife. In most World War II movies the main focus is on guns and bombs, things that allow you to kill from a distance. There is one Inglorious Bastards poster that features a rifle. As you can see above this poster shows a knife and another one shows a blood soaked baseball bat. These are weapons that you have to get up close and personal to use. On the poster the mans arm is covered in blood, showing that the people in this movie are not afraid to get their hands dirty.
Put those two things together, in a genre already known for favoring gritty realism, with a director that is not afraid to show some violence and we are gearing up for one bloodbath of a film. But remember there is still the promise of "Once upon a time".
Quentin Tarentino will most likely mix very gritty violence, with more fantastical aspects. Think of it in terms of Kill Bill, there will be a lot of blood and guts but a lot of it will happen with an edge of humor or irony which will help it to transcend gritty realism into something else completely.
This is going to be an interesting blend of genres
I give to you now exhibit B
First let me acknowledge how cool it is that this poster is being honest. I'm not talking about Brad Pitt being a bastard, I don't know him and guessing from the amount of charity work he does he is most likely a good person. I'm talking about the fact that they use his real name, not the name of his character in this poster.
Let's face it a lot of times the Star sells the movie. Here they make no pretensions that his face and name are on the poster to do anything but that.
His expression and hairstyle give us a hint that he is going to be a real character. He isn't selling the movie by saying "look at me I'm pretty." No they have made some vague attempts at making him less attractive, like having him push his jaw out to the camera making it look larger then it is. He is selling this as a character, and perhaps he will be acting as more of a character actor in this movie as opposed to being a leading man. But that last bit is just my humble guess.
It's a bit hard to see on the small image I have posted above, but Brad Pit is sporting some serious scars around his neck. This tells us that the character has survived (or will survive) having his throat slit.
Meaning, Brad Pitt's character is most likely a Major hard-ass or a major bad-ass, most likely a bit of both.
I know I can't wait to find out if my predictions are right.
Like all other fans of Mr. Tarentino I am super excited to see Inglorious Bastards when it comes out in theaters in August. Not too long ago he released the Trailer for the film, and now he has begun releasing posers for the movie.
A good movie poster not only tells a story, it becomes more interesting the longer you look at it. Although several movie posters have been released I chose my two favorites for a deeper analysis of what to expect in Inglorious Bastards.
Now I show you exibit A
Once Upon a Time in Nazi occupied France...
Isn't that just a beautiful phrase. That automatically tells you that this movie is a piece of fantasy. A gritty, bloody, and undoubtedly sometimes disturbing fantasy but a fantasy none the less. Because lets face it, most of us would love to kick a bit of Nazi ass.
On the other end of things the poster tells you that it will not be a complete fantasy. Notice the weapon of choice, a knife. In most World War II movies the main focus is on guns and bombs, things that allow you to kill from a distance. There is one Inglorious Bastards poster that features a rifle. As you can see above this poster shows a knife and another one shows a blood soaked baseball bat. These are weapons that you have to get up close and personal to use. On the poster the mans arm is covered in blood, showing that the people in this movie are not afraid to get their hands dirty.
Put those two things together, in a genre already known for favoring gritty realism, with a director that is not afraid to show some violence and we are gearing up for one bloodbath of a film. But remember there is still the promise of "Once upon a time".
Quentin Tarentino will most likely mix very gritty violence, with more fantastical aspects. Think of it in terms of Kill Bill, there will be a lot of blood and guts but a lot of it will happen with an edge of humor or irony which will help it to transcend gritty realism into something else completely.
This is going to be an interesting blend of genres
I give to you now exhibit B
First let me acknowledge how cool it is that this poster is being honest. I'm not talking about Brad Pitt being a bastard, I don't know him and guessing from the amount of charity work he does he is most likely a good person. I'm talking about the fact that they use his real name, not the name of his character in this poster.
Let's face it a lot of times the Star sells the movie. Here they make no pretensions that his face and name are on the poster to do anything but that.
His expression and hairstyle give us a hint that he is going to be a real character. He isn't selling the movie by saying "look at me I'm pretty." No they have made some vague attempts at making him less attractive, like having him push his jaw out to the camera making it look larger then it is. He is selling this as a character, and perhaps he will be acting as more of a character actor in this movie as opposed to being a leading man. But that last bit is just my humble guess.
It's a bit hard to see on the small image I have posted above, but Brad Pit is sporting some serious scars around his neck. This tells us that the character has survived (or will survive) having his throat slit.
Meaning, Brad Pitt's character is most likely a Major hard-ass or a major bad-ass, most likely a bit of both.
I know I can't wait to find out if my predictions are right.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
X-Men Origins: Wolverine Review
It's that time of the season. The world is getting greener, the birds are singing a little louder, and the sun is shining a little brighter.
It can only mean one thing, the season for big budget action films has almost arrived.
Wolverine seems to be the first of the big budget action flicks to arrive and it's a decent movie.
Now, Wolverine has everything you could hope for in terms of action. There are wonderfully redonkulous fight sequences, good special effects, and as you may have noticed in the trailer there is a scene where wolverine jumps at a Helicopter and takes the whole thing down.
If you walk into the theater expecting to see some really cool fights, stunts, and effects then it is a really fun enjoyable movie.
That being said, it kind of failed in it's other obligations as a film.
You see X-Men, even in comic book form was designed to function as an ensemble cast. Sure some characters like Wolverine have some real back story or emotional depth. Yet it doesn't work very well when you have a feature length film about just one character. Sure we get to see a bit about Sabretooth, Cyclops, and Gambit; but there were so many times in the movie when I was more interested in their back stories then I was with Wolverines.
Don't get me wrong Hugh Jackman is a very competent leading man, I blame this on the scrip and how the writer decided to portray Wolverine.
Wolverine is the ultimate anti-hero. He is rough around the edges, doesn't really play by the rules, and often times he can be a real jerk; and that is what makes it so amazing when you see those few moments where he shows a softer side of Wolverine so special.
Naturally in this movie we are seeing Wolverine before a very major event happened to him in his life, so it is understandable that he his personality may be a bit different and perhaps more mild then usual. We get to see an understandably emo lovey-dovey Wolverine, and I just don't like it. I like Wolverine to be mostly grumpy but humorous, and although we did get some good comebacks from Wolverine there could have been more.
I felt like this movie would have been so much better if they occasionally veered away from the whole Wolverine Angst storyline, and took a break to tell us more about some of the other mutants. Some of the scenes felt forced, as if they had been written very quickly and not very well thought out. There were some plot holes, some places where emotions felt very forced, and some places where things just felt over the
The Bottom Line
This is a very fun entertaining movie to watch, but don't expect to be exactly blown away by Wolverines back story. I recommend watching it with your mind turned off, just enjoy the awesome fight scenes and you will will walk out of the theater a happy camper.
It can only mean one thing, the season for big budget action films has almost arrived.
Wolverine seems to be the first of the big budget action flicks to arrive and it's a decent movie.
Now, Wolverine has everything you could hope for in terms of action. There are wonderfully redonkulous fight sequences, good special effects, and as you may have noticed in the trailer there is a scene where wolverine jumps at a Helicopter and takes the whole thing down.
If you walk into the theater expecting to see some really cool fights, stunts, and effects then it is a really fun enjoyable movie.
That being said, it kind of failed in it's other obligations as a film.
You see X-Men, even in comic book form was designed to function as an ensemble cast. Sure some characters like Wolverine have some real back story or emotional depth. Yet it doesn't work very well when you have a feature length film about just one character. Sure we get to see a bit about Sabretooth, Cyclops, and Gambit; but there were so many times in the movie when I was more interested in their back stories then I was with Wolverines.
Don't get me wrong Hugh Jackman is a very competent leading man, I blame this on the scrip and how the writer decided to portray Wolverine.
Wolverine is the ultimate anti-hero. He is rough around the edges, doesn't really play by the rules, and often times he can be a real jerk; and that is what makes it so amazing when you see those few moments where he shows a softer side of Wolverine so special.
Naturally in this movie we are seeing Wolverine before a very major event happened to him in his life, so it is understandable that he his personality may be a bit different and perhaps more mild then usual. We get to see an understandably emo lovey-dovey Wolverine, and I just don't like it. I like Wolverine to be mostly grumpy but humorous, and although we did get some good comebacks from Wolverine there could have been more.
I felt like this movie would have been so much better if they occasionally veered away from the whole Wolverine Angst storyline, and took a break to tell us more about some of the other mutants. Some of the scenes felt forced, as if they had been written very quickly and not very well thought out. There were some plot holes, some places where emotions felt very forced, and some places where things just felt over the
The Bottom Line
This is a very fun entertaining movie to watch, but don't expect to be exactly blown away by Wolverines back story. I recommend watching it with your mind turned off, just enjoy the awesome fight scenes and you will will walk out of the theater a happy camper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
