Live action 'Little Mermaid'... hear me out first...

This is not going to be like the Disney version. Disney wrote a Disney take on the classic story. The story believe it or not was not created by Disney, it was created by Hans Christian Anderson. This version is not going to be as exciting for children, as the story is more serious with sprinkles of darkness. I am excited about the idea, especially being made by director Joe Wright (Atonement). 'Atonement' feels like the perfect qualification for a project like this in the sense of the emotional romance both stories live in. More news to come on this project.

Review: Tony Scott's "Days of Thunder" (1990)

SNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZE. I wish I could end it there and take myself serious. This is what coems to mind when every 'Top Gun' hater starts to tell me why they dislike 'Top Gun'. This is every bad thing 'Top Gun' is, multiplied by 10 in being lame. The story sucks, the acting outside of Cruise sucks, but even Cruise is a snoring performance when surrounded by so much snooze. EVERYTHING sucks about this movie. Just scrap the whole thing for the sake of everyone involved, so nobody else has to endure this pile of feces. This just reminds me Hollywood has been failing beyond my viewing generation... just plain terrible. If I tried to articulate everything individually that went wrong and how, I would need to withdraw from state disability after filing for insanity.

Oh yea, and the crazy uncle from all the 'Vacation' movies debuted for me in his first ever serious role, and it failed. This guy in a serious role is like a giant fat black man playing Kingpin... oh wait... DANG IT!

"Days of Thunder"
2 / 10

Review: "All the President's Men" (1976)

I had been on sort of a drought for good drama when coming across this film, and then it poured. I was fully hydrated by this project in almost all of its aspects. The champion actor was Redford but followed up by Hoffman, both give good performances. I have seen Redford deliver before, but I have also seen far more disappointments and often want to call his success into question. But, in this movie, he elevates himself to a class of actors he is universally being held to, so deserving.

The director, Alan J. Pakula, does have a rapsheet of success, but not in too many films I have seen. In this film however he establishes his goals immediately, then sets out and accomplishes those goals. The creativity in storytelling is great. He creates suspense in places suspense doesn't come natural. The film does however lack real threat in its suspense as we never hear of or see possible threats or harm to our characters. The suspense comes from power, the power in the opposition, not necessarily in the threats or fears created by modern or common drama.

The film does conflict with some preferences I have, but still so good at what its doing it keeps you on the edge of your seat till it ends, abruptly... I am not a fan of how the film comes to a halt. The movies biggest problems are held down because of factual elements of the real events it was based on. It isn't often a movie is done better than decent when it comes to telling real events, but this one gets it good. When a film is so good at telling truth this well, it would be safe to say it couldn't have been better told. I just don't know if I will ever feel too much motivation to see it again.

"All the President's Men"
8.5 / 10

Review: "Despicable Me" (2010)

Anytime I feel like a movie stole something from another movie, even just an idea or style, it aggravates me. What aggravates me even more is when I read reviews from critics who acknowledge that and don't seem to care. If you are thieving to come up with a decent story, I will hate you when I rate you.

Dr. Evil in his own animated series, within a wannabe Pixar world, was revolting. The character had an ounce of my interest in the first half, and none in the second. There were no good characters in the whole movie, the whole time. Of course there were some moments where my cheek may have twitched, but no more. The cleverness felt stolen. The "minions" were a Pixar ripoff of the 'Toy Story' aliens, the main character was the cheesiest and most boring version of villain.
From around the critical community, everyone agree the 'Toy Story' aliens providing the overwhelming majority of the fun, and I am in total agreement. The story concentrates on attempts at comedy in the first half, but loses its identity in the second half when it tries to do what all failed comedies do, change its consistency into subtracting comedy and adding story. Anyone who can seriously walk away, without being a 5 year old, and having more than 2 or 3 memorable moments sitting in your mind, makes the project a fail. If I was watching a stand-up comedian, I think the viewing audience above the age of 6 would have begun to throw stones. I might be able to come up with 2 moments, which I was elevated from boredom to semi-interested.

This movie just proves to me Pixar is the only company worthy of this style animation. Every non-Pixar project projects the whole film into the previews, or at least every moment you would have found funny if you hadn't seen or heard it before. Pixar is flawless in its marketing techniques and yet nobody around seems to be taking notes.

I just saw through the story like I had already seen it before, every scene could be predicted beforehand. It is a miracle critics found more enjoyment out of this than the rest of the mainstream viewers. This movie and its creators are all miracles of life, these people contradict the theory of evolution.

"Despicable Me"
4 / 10

Review: All that is PREDATOR

I have been fortunate to have experienced one of the greatest alien creations film has ever known, the Predator. The first film starring Arnold, was supposed to be a film for him to be glorified as a hulk of a man with a pocket full of grenades while one handing one of the heaviest American weapons ever issued. The first Predator film is among the top for most quotable films of all time.

The graphics and all around cinematography combination in 'Predator' is far greater than any of its sequels or spin-offs. The locational shooting of this film is nearly perfect, the actors all minus Carl Weathers deliver exactly what is asked of them. They all know who they are and are all consistent with themselves.

The Predator itself is an interestingly new take on an alien. Completely new appearance, one of the most distinct creatures ever created, also is equipped with brand new ideas for weapons. There isn't anything found in 'Predator' which is found anywhere else.
When the action happens, its good. The action sequences actually happen perfectly in length, any longer or shorter and it loses consistency and interest. The suspense does exist in this film, however the suspense is different than most other alien movies. Most alien movies feature a sneaky, rarely seen creature which jumps out at people at opportune moments. This movie however takes a different approach, it reminds you constantly that the alien is always watching its prey.
How come this remains to be one of the most watched films ever? No matter who I talk to, the overwhelming majority are capable of putting this movie on regularly and enjoying themselves. Yes, there are other films you can do that with as well, but maybe not as easily, and without getting tired of it. I would consider anything that doesn't burn out, a classic. To give a classic example, 'Jaws', this is another film which you could start from any point in the movie and just go with it, without getting tired of it... another classic.

Now there are some apparent flaws in this film however, but most of the problems are due to preference of film. If you love Rambo, Predator probably isn't going to be as high on your list. There are just differences in its take on action and suspense. Or 'Alien', there is just a more serious and realistic take on that feature vs. the 'Predator' film. Both done perfectly well for what was sought in the projects, but this is where the viewer leaves with different feelings and opinions which constitute preference. I prefer realism, but boy was this action packed thrill ride fun. I like Six Flags because all of the rides are so thrilling and just loosens the skin on your face as you wiz by, but Disneyland takes the gold because also while thrilling, it shows me in its detail why it is better. The details of the entire park makes for a more believable fantasy world, where Six flags shows me maximum potential. In this comparison I think of middle-Earth in Lord of the Rings vs. Pandora in Avatar.

Extending this post even longer, I have 4 more Predator starring films to discuss.
I experienced misfortune in the viewing of 'Predators' yesterday morning. Within the first 10 minutes, if it wasn't for the consideration of others around me, would have hit the pause and rewind button a thousand times while gripping my stomach from the pain of laughter.

I entered the film with very low expectations or motivation to see a performance from Adrien Brody, but at the end of the day, he was the film's only real success. It becomes more apparent to me when actors can make it out alive by working on a deadly bad movie. I give him credit, and in this terrible project have great respect and excitement in Adrien Brody's future.

The graphics in the film were bearable, but never making me feel like much was real, especially the Predators themselves. Never did I feel like I was on an alien planet, one that wasn't EARTH. There were limited sequences involving these aliens which I felt convinced they were actually physically present. The cast and characters for this movie as a whole far surpassed the word suck. The beginning of the film has an unforgivable encounter with an unforgivable character in Stans, the convict on a most wanted list. The acting for that character failed, but even more was the person who wrote that character into the movie. Most of the characters, actually all the characters outside of Royce played by Brody, failed. Topher Grace again showed me why he should have stuck it out with cheesy television shows after his performance in Spider-Man 3 and this film. It appears that he knows just as much about himself as an actor as his parents did giving him a half a first name, and a second half at that.

On another note, and a short one, is that Lawrence Fishburne was indeed in the movie, but for a nearly worthless point. His existence would have allowed more flow for the film if it didn't exist. When and IF yous have seen the film, you will know. Till then, it will remain spoiler free.

I wish there were things in this movie I could rave about, but the movie just bottomed out. At its failure I started comparing it to the rest of the sequels, and when when you start to figure out which sequel or spin-off was better, you are in trouble. All the sequels and spin-offs sucked, so when you compare suck with suck, it still ends up suck. I wish there was a secret bottle of white-out you could pour out on the existence of some films, like this one.

I don't want to go into each additional sequel individually as the rest really have the same problems, story. The graphics are sufficient in the rest if they contained any interesting plots. Unfortunately the stories apparently were conjured up while the writer was intoxicated and under the influence of several substances. AvP2 and Predator 2 stand as the worst of the worst with a Predator appearing. Alien vs. Predator however did excite me with some fight scenes which were absent from anything since the first 'Predator'. Fight sequences that actually looked real, good, and fun. Minus the good and fun, the film implodes on itself after the only thing consistent about it, bad ideas, commits suicide. Alien vs. Predator makes bad idea after bad idea, and ends up with the main character being made a spear and shield by a befriended Predator to assist in further combat. Now, I hope no one thinks I ruined their adventure with this film with that spoiler, because that person would need a brain scan to put it in their DVD player expecting more than a couple fight scenes.
At the end of the day, if you want to see a good 'Predator' thing, there is only one option, 'Predator'. Everything else is left in the dust just like the writers and their future.

"Predator"
7.5 / 10

"Predator 2"
3.5 / 10

"Predators"
5 / 10

"Alien vs. Predator"
4.5 / 10

"Alien vs. Predator: Requiem"
2.5 / 10

Review: "The Third Man" (1949)

Sometimes I wonder how old classics like this make it to the top of film lists. There are so many of them which have been made out to be perfect or nearly perfect. I still wonder if the ratings of the films, or the acclaim could possibly change in years to come. Sometimes a film is great, but doesn't age well, that would or should hurt a status.

When I browse the classics, or venture over to check out who the Critereon collection has deemed worthy, I get curious as to what standards are used. Some films that may have been great are invisible to my eyes today. I know the industry has changed over time, where people who weren't educated in film were the ones first declaring great films, where today we have people who make it their profession to make these determinations. These people are educated in film history, and all sorts of variations. Some of these people agree and some disagree with past films. One thing however is different, the criticism given for modern films.

There are many reviews I feel are much harsher on today's film than yesterday's. It is as if the old has paved the way for the new and so any flaws which existed were overlooked because of their power or early strife. I would agree that older films endured much more than today's. But, for example, when Citizen Kane is reviewed, and has an average of 9.9 out of 10, while No Country For Old Men is sitting on an 8.5 out of 10, feels like something is missing, feels like a sort of biased perception is lingering.

I do not want to compare Citizen Kane's greatness to No Country For Old Men's greatness, as I have not yet seen Citizen Kane. I purchased the film, and it has mysteriously gone missing. But, the point I am trying to make it the greatest film of one year, when put up against another, there aren't evenly reviewed films past the 1970's. of course there may be one or two here and there. But overall it seems flawed.

The Third Man, unlike some other classics, held its own. It felt like a legend coming out of retirement to again defend a title against me the viewer. I entered the film critical and skeptical because I don't easy fall victim to black and white greatness. I am a very visual viewer of film, and if you don't tell the story in a unique way, or a way of obvious skill, along with piecing together a crew to include actors, you will not be appreciated by me. Hitchcock is probably the greatest director to have lived and died so far, and is still reigning champion over all the greatest, and I haven't even seen the bulk of his work. His influence on the industry exceeds that of anyone else so far, but I fear that may be why some of his films got such great reviews.

When someone you are familiar with, who is powerful, or influential in some way, enters the room, it no longer matters if you liked the person before that moment. That is what is called star power. Much like the Nintendo classic, Super Mario Bros. when you consume a star, you can run along the map and defeat anything you want, and the only way you die is when either your star power runs out or if you commit suicide. The same applies with people who have a certain level of star power, Hitchcock, had a high level of star power and anything he touched, was defeated. I think some of Hitchcock's work may be worthy, while others not so much, but it didn't matter when you are made up of that much star power. Whether you are a fan of a specific President, lets say you are of the opposite political party even, if that President enters the room, you make it to your knees at his feet. You are in the midst of great star power.

Now, having said that, I do think some older classics deserve the reviews they receive, but not all of them. I do my best to remove star power when I watch a movie. That is how I can be displeased by those who are most pleasing. I even tried to be unfair to 'The Third Man' by trying to hate it before I saw it. I dread black and white films. But, once you watch the story develop, along with the acting, it hooks you. As it hooks you, you begin to sit in awe of all the things the director is doing TO you. Carol Reed, the director of this film, played a lot with shadows and has a unique eye for sets.

You cannot give me a great story and think I will hold you up higher than average as a film, what are needed are a combination. Combination of acting, directing, and story. 'The Third Man' is that combination. The story is good, but the acting is great, and the directing is even better. Carol Reed made this story into something greater, with the suspense captured, the mystery captured, it was absolutely going against the notion that old films are overrated.

It was interesting that Orson Welles could be attached to such a great piece and not be so involved in its greatness.

I am still skeptical, I am still displeased by many black and white films. It does come down to preference, but one thing is for sure, when something is great, it is so hard to miss.

"The Third Man"
8.5 / 10