Jumanji (1995) Fun Movie, the Re-Watch Was Not Bad

Jumanji (1995)

In light of recent events, many people have been re-watching Robin Williams content from over the years. Robin Williams was very talented, but most of the time I did not prefer his comedy style. I decided to watch this film last night because I wanted to see something light hearted. After a long day of work and the stress of life, seeing an easy to watch film helps the night wind down.

The movie itself features the story of a boy who is punished by the decisions he makes as a child. His actions lead to him getting beat up by bullies for his name sake, getting a man fired from the factory, and sent away to boarding school. Now I will agree that not all of these things are in his control and his actions are not different than expected for a child of his age. In fact, I enjoy the beginning of this film because it’s a way to teach people about the gravity of their actions even at a young age.

The premise of this film is very odd because you start out with some dramatic irony. You know that the game is bewitched, but you don’t know anything about the previous players that were determined to get rid of it. You know they lived in the 1860’s and besides the civil war going on, there was not much for a young man to get interested in… Now this is a harsh criticism for a film that was has a target audience of 10 years of age. The important part is that curiosity leads to adventure.

The adventure for the character of Robin Williams seems a bit unfair compared to the rest of the plagues in the game. Helen Hunt had to continue playing the game in order for him to return. My real question is how he survived the jungle for 26 years at such a young age with little to no skills to speak of. Either way Robin Williams portrays a great comedic character that still hasn’t reached manhood and only wants to see his family when he returns. He is able to connect with the children easily because of this fact and it allows them to create several layers to their relationship.

Analytic arguments aside, Jumanji is fun to watch even so long after the years when I saw this in theaters. I have to train myself to not over think these types of movies. I really spend a large amount of time wondering how Robin Williams never noticed that Van Pelt (the hunter) looked exactly like his father or if it was meant to be symbolic of his father slaying his dreams. That would be a hard reality to face for 26 years in the jungle, having the only other human connection being your father and he trying to kill you. 

Sometimes I also wonder about them just simultaneously releasing a movie about a board game in order to make money off of an actual board game. It wouldn't be the first time it has happened. When it first came out I remember it was like $20 and only my rich friends could afford that. Is it a movie about a man and his relationship with his father, or a promotional tool to test the waters with movie products. 

Thor: The Dark World (2013) Loki Was Only Mostly Dead

Thor: The Dark World (2013) Paramount

I feel bad that I watched this movie in the same week I saw Iron Man 3 again because I feel like I was tainted from the non-logical experience of watching that film. Sometimes I feel like I am the only person looking into these films and finding fault with them. Thor 2 introduced something that I have not seen in a superhero movie in some time. It showed us his family. You probably haven’t thought about it but it is difficult to actually see a superhero interact with his own family. Not his real family anyway.

I thought about Odin and Frigga and both characters acted very similarly to earth-like parents. Odin was disappointed that Thor wanted to be with Natalie Portman and really who can blame him. She is a scientific genius that is basically butter anytime she sees muscles (real strength of character). This is a very odd combination and I think most people see the logic in Thor marrying Sif. She is more attractive, warrior minded, deeply caring for Thor, smart, selfless, honorable, fights for Asgard, saved Thors life, do I really need to go on? She is basically the perfect woman for Thor but he would rather stay with butter instead.

Again the best character in the film is Heimdall (played by Idris Elba) who makes a living by kicking ass and staying apart from the Asgardian world. He enjoys the beauty of the universe compared to that of a woman which seems like a trifle to him. He takes down an invisible warship single-handedly and is the most believable alien character.

Tom Hiddleston plays Loki once again and he is always up to his tricks as usual. He is what I would call a conundrum. He leads one of the “Kursed” away from the fighting and towards his mother whom he loves. He then had to deal with the fact that he literally helped kill the only person he cared for. He now has to live in shame because of his actions. He then signs up for the vengeance mission only to fool Thor later on that he was dead at one point and also fooled Odin which repeats the story line from the first film. He also fools the same Odin that shreds matter and is the wisest man in the entire universe. What gave away the fact that it was Loki to me in the ending scene is that he mentioned Loki when Thor brought him up. This is something that Odin would not do because he cares little for Loki after what happened on Earth and previously with the Frost Giants.

One thing I disliked was the Aether and Malekith. After seeing the power of the Aether, Bor (father of Odin) instructs a commander to “bury it deep where no one will find it.” Well they buried it on the same planet they were fighting on which is uninhabited, but within eye shot from the opening of a cave. I feel like there could be several other places better suited for this artifact even if it were in the same hole, just deeper. Thor goes after Malekith in hopes to destroy the Aether which he was told could not be destroyed by Odin. Thor tries to be noble by taking the weapon away from his home planet, but lacks a real understanding of the weapon which makes his endeavors pointless.

Malekith is an odd villain because he wishes for the world to be in darkness where he can rule and rebuild his people. The reason he wants to rid the universe of the sun is unknown, which makes him a pretty regular villain. I am just waiting for the day that Hollywood decides to write about real evil. It’s not often you see a good villain like Heath Ledgers Joker, but there should be more roles written with real evil intent rather than just universal domination.

How to Train Your Dragon (2010) I Want A Dragon

How To Train Your Dragon (2010) Dreamworks

As soon as this movie became a box office hit, they green-lighted two other sequels practically the same day. I can’t say I blame them because the main character was basically an animal we can all appreciate, a half dog, part cat with the demeanor of a friendly beast for being a dragon. They actually used all sorts of animal noises like elephants, elephant seals, tigers, horses, and domesticated cats to create the sounds Toothless made. The side character was a small kid with the annoying voice of Jay Baruchel who is famous for being a loser in film, but it was fitting nonetheless.

Hiccup was the modern day tale of a kid with daddy issues. He wanted to live up to his father’s expectations and continually fell flat on his face. His dad was relatable because he seems like the everyman who has trouble expressing his feelings to his son. He was a big strong Viking and it was just not in his nature to be emotional or understand the reasoning behind why Hiccup did what he did. He had other stuff to worry about, like feeding the village.

Whenever they talked about Hiccup they told him that he should stop being himself because it wasn’t helping him become a productive member of society. Whenever he was around disaster happened and it was difficult for his father to lead the people with such a misfit son.

When Hiccup meets the dragon, he is put in an interesting conundrum. Slay the dragon and become famous? Or not kill the dragon and eventually find out more about them? If I were Hiccup I probably would’ve killed the dragon and the plot would have ended similarly. Since no one had ever caught a nightfury, it’s safe to assume he would be a big celebrity and that his invention would be used to fend off more dragon attacks. They would eventually force more and more of the dragons away and their village would be safe.

Instead he doesn’t kill the spotted catdog dragon because he sees that it is just another animal and that he was scared of people. Hiccup was being himself and it leads to him finding out all sorts of secrets about dragons. In reality Hiccup just needed to be more of himself and he was going to change everything.

I don’t have a problem with non-conformity to societal and social norms, but I can’t help but feel like Hiccup would’ve had a great run as an inventor. All he really needed was for people to believe in his inventions to prove that they worked and they did work.

The sad part of the movie was the ending when Hiccup loses his left leg, which is a parallel to Toothless losing his left tail fin. It was actually emotional to see Hiccup have to come to grips with losing a limb, which can be a difficult for anyone in the same situation. It was nice to see that Toothless was there to support him the whole time and it reminded me of my awesome dog that would probably do the same. I enjoyed the film and am ready for the other two sequels. A trailer just came out for the second film and it looks good. 

42 (2013) The Shortened Hollywood Version of Jackie's Life (incl several others)

42 (2013) Warner Bros

One of the great disparities of this film are the themes which seem to be conflicting all the time. The story is about Jackie Robinson, but at some points it seems like it's about the reporter telling the story and there are many side plots that have nothing to do with the plot. It is somewhat distracting because you feel like the story is not very fluid. The GM of the dodgers is supposedly doing this because of his convictions about segregation, but tells his employees that it's for the money. If the information was meant to be held back in an effort to make it more dramatic, then it fell flat. All of these things are pertinent but disparities none the less.

The dodgers really did a great thing in choosing Jackie as the person that was going to break the color barrier because he was willing to take one to the face every time he stepped to the plate. It was a burden that no man should've had to bear, but he did it all the same.

I have been a huge baseball fan ever since I was a kid and it is Americans national past time. Every time I go to spring training I think about the fact that there are two locations where baseball is played. Phoenix and Daytona beach. A fact most people forget is that it used to be in Jacksonville and it was moved to accommodate Jackie due to the racial tensions in Jacksonville.

Being white, it's easy for me to feel uncomfortable during these films due to ‘white guilt’. The movie does a good job of making you feel like you’re in a shower and that the dirty water is pooling at your feet due to a clog. I don't feel personally responsible for the actions of others, especially when it comes to slavery. My ancestors went through the Holocaust, genocide, and discrimination in America, but I still feel horrible for their plight. I don't think it is easy for anyone especially if you are ethnic, African American, or Russian Jewish in my case. The great thing about America is that it shows us that many races can live together in harmony and that everyone has something to add to society here.

42 does a great job and explaining the racial tensions of the day and the upbringing most of the player and people were used to. There is a scene with a boy that starts yelling racial obscenities along with his father and seems conflicted about it. It is supposed to point out that racial hatred is learned and not inherent to a child.

One of the odd things about the film is that it switches around from character to character in order to involve a great many people in the story of Jackie Robinson. This is very different than what most films do when trying to highlight the life of a famous person. Those films are usually solely focused on the feelings of the one person according to the things around them. I don’t think it’s a bad thing, but sometimes you get the feeling that they are going for a really dramatic happy ending where everything works out for everyone, but you don’t see all of the characters enough to understand their feelings and difficulties. If we weren't on the road to see it then it’s hard to understand how difficult it is. I feel like we could’ve had a movie for Jackie's wife, Branch Rickey, Leo Durocher, Pee Wee Reese, Ed Charles, Wendell Smith, and Ben Chapman.

By the way I thought Alan Tudyk did a great job with his character and was very hate-able for a guy that just starred in two kid’s movie as Duke and King Candy.

Overall 42 was a very well done version of the Jackie story and although the ending was anti-climactic the real story was far different. He was able to end his career in Brooklyn, eventually win an MVP, and win a championship by the end. Although his abilities were on the decline he still managed to hit .256 that season and left on his own terms, which subsequently was the same way he came in.

Kung Fu Panda (2008) There Is No Such Thing As An Accident

Kung Fu Panda (2008) Dreamworks 

There is usually a lot to catch up on when reviewing a movie that has now turned into a franchise. Dreamworks can be proud of this film because it is different than its predecessors in that the characters are relatable and not that childish. Usually these movies are a little too kid-friendly in that they lose a majority of their audience because the themes are too boring and the humor is dumb. There are very few cartoons that really are able to relate with a wider audience like Kung Fu Panda does. An example of this would be the Avatar the Last Airbender series.

Po is a relatable character in that he is not well liked and he has problems fitting into an elite crowd. No one is really happy about him becoming the Dragon warrior and the furious 5 are disappointed that the chosen fighter was not one of them. They mask their disappointment in making jokes about how Po is overweight and never going to accomplish anything. As a person it is easy to relate to feeling like Po because many times you feel like others may be saying the same things. Po teaches us the valuable lesson of never giving up and being resolute about trying your best. He was hungry to learn and just plain hungry most of the film. It is inspiring for most of us to see a character like Po especially in a kid’s movie because usually the characters are likable but only due to their ignorance. Most characters spend the entire film realizing who they are while Po is widely aware that he is fat and disliked which drives him to become even better.

What a great message for kids. Even if they don’t fit in, they can be self-aware of themselves to the point that they can overcome their problems or make their problem apart of the solution. Po chooses the latter and finds out that his ‘fatness’ can be used to his advantage and that it is the one thing that combats strength. He has no chi points that can block his nervous system because of the fat he has and it tires his opponents because he can take a lot of hits where most fighters cant.

Kung Fu Panda was a great way to show companies that they can make a solid film that isn’t just for kids. The kids like the movie and can understand much of the story and the adults can actually enjoy the themes of the film. I think it provided a great balance in-between the two and it was a lot of fun to watch. I will most likely watch the second one at some point in the near future too.

Brave (2012) Merida is the Best “Disney” Princess

Brave (2012) Pixar

It’s not often you get to see a real mother daughter relationship on film. In fact, even in television shows the parents resolve most of their issues with their children in less than 22 minutes and always have some special way of connecting with them so that they understand why. Real life is not like that. Most parents fight with their children about the same issues over long periods of time. Both sides hardly ever come to a conclusion without some shouting match or concessions given by both sides.

I felt like Brave was able to display these relationships accurately and asks children a very difficult question for a younger age group. Is what you want for yourself to become someone very different than your mother?

If you have a mother than you know that this is a difficult question to answer. The two of them do not understand the opinions of the other and do not come to an understanding until they are put in a situation where they need to survive. They are both stubborn and if you come from a Scottish family like me than this is no real surprise.

One of my favorite things about Merida is that she is not your typical princess. Not only is she uninterested in a prince to come save her, but it adamantly opposed to the idea of a man she doesn’t love. It’s like a Bollywood film gone Pixar in Scotland.  I don’t mind that she resembles her father both in attitude and looks because I have met a lot of girls that are like their fathers and they are easily relatable. How can you disagree with a girl that wants to change one of her family members? I think we have all wanted to do that on several occasions. My father always tells me that I need to have good relationships with my family because they are the only people in your life that you can’t get rid of haha.

Merida really is the best “Disney” princess. She’s down to earth, free spirited, independent, rebellious, intelligent, soft of heart, and she flaunts no particular features to make women self-conscious about their looks (as animation is so good at doing for both women and men). She is highly gifted for horse riding, sword fighting, and most of all bow shooting. These are important skills to have because there are always dangers in the land and even those who can’t protect themselves can still fall to the sword.

I am excited for the next Brave movie and hope that Pixar eventually explains “The Pixar Theory” which has grown to be an internet phenomenon. Every Pixar film is practically film gold because they are able to adapt stories that resonate with all age groups. They have a lot more to accomplish in the years to come and it’s worth the wait. 

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) It Caught Our Attention Again

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)  Lionsgate

Chances are that if you are reading this post, you are already a fan of the book or of the movie series. I have to admit that these movies are done incredibly well and are able to give the books their due justice. I am also a fan (I even named my car Katniss) and have loved the movies so far.

If you read my site (and I am hoping you do) you already know that I am a fan of JLaw and think she’s a great actress. She is fun and down to earth and everything you would hope a celebrity to be.

Catching Fire was my favorite book of the series and I say that because it is the last one that takes place in the arena and it had an ending I wasn’t expecting. I guess I was always hoping/expecting that Katniss would eventually stop being so selfish and do the right thing and try loving Peeta at least to keep up pretenses for the capital in the hopes that war wouldn’t be necessary. Sadly she is so hostile and untrustworthy that Haymitch is forced to continually lie to her in all situations. She fails to do the small task that President Snow gives her and causes the deaths of many people. You can’t blame Haymitch for his actions because who wouldn’t do the same thing? In order to protect her (even from herself) he is forced to leave her out of the big picture which causes unexpected consequences.

During the film you can tell that something is going on behind the scenes because everyone else is privy to knowledge that Katniss doesn’t know about. When I was emotionally involved in the story I always wished that Peeta would tell her something so that she knew that they would somehow live though this, but it would’ve been impossible. At times it is hard for me to watch the film because of the way the characters treat Katniss. I always felt she was much stronger than she was portrayed as, but I was willing to accept this as a movie flaw for exponential character growth through all the films.

One thing I disliked about the film is that Liam Hemsworth is in it. His gloomy faces and poor emotional deliveries make me want to punch him in the face as often as possible. I know he is loved by women for his looks, but he needs to go. Find a real man to play Gale. Seriously almost anyone else will do.

I liked that they spend a large part of the movie before the games to show the relationship between Peeta and Katniss as well as keeping the Gale triangle alive. I thought it would be hard to juggle all of them, but they did a good job making sure both characters are still relevant. I thought that they could’ve explained the feelings that Katniss had better because the book derives the majority of her personality from her thoughts. The only thing the two movies left out was the inner dialogue of Katniss and although it takes away from the general story of the movie, it is relevant and pertinent to the story as a whole.

For some minimal concerns I have, it is a well done movie and pays homage the book series in many ways. I thought that Catching Fire was the better of the two and I am already excited to see the third. 

Man of Steel (2013) Better Than Expected

Man of Steel (2013) Warner Bros

I have heard a lot of mixed reviews about this film. When I first saw it I could tell that there was something I didn't like about it, but couldn't identify what it was. The second go around there was only one thing that bothered me throughout the movie... it was Louis Lane.

Now in the past I have generally disliked the women characters in superhero films because they have the personality of a potato and never add anything good to the film. They are always a side character that is put in an unlikely situation and should end up dying if it weren't for the superhero. They cant save themselves, they usually don't have any business being where they are, and they have off-putting relationships with the superhero because it materializes out of thin air. These types of characters hold back the development of the story and become a nuisance to watch.

Man of Steel is the opposite of what most movies are because the story is better than the characters in the film. Usually stories are character based and show how they develop overtime. Superman changes a little, but its mostly showing why he feels the way he does. For one, he has two great families. Both of them teach him the value of life and show him the impact of his actions. Both fathers are portrayed by great father figures (in the movies) and they did a wonderful job. You would think that the movie was about the character of Superman, but in all honesty his story is not nearly as interesting as the galactic one being told. The race of alien beings on the planet of Krypton have more substantial interests than some red-headed reporter ever did.

The struggle for resources and political power for dominance of the galaxy far outweigh a skirmish on planet Earth. I was more interested about Krypton and their race of people than Earth. I think this is because Superman is one of the only superheros that didn't gain his powers through radioactive experiments. He wasn't a lab rat, he was born with his powers. His alter ego of Clark Kent is really a critique of the human race. Clark Kent is clumsy, mistake prone, and hesitant to accomplish anything. It really makes you feel small as a human if an alien species were to ever come to down to Earth and live among us.

The characters of the film are captivating because they have actual values, while most of the human side-characters have no impact on anything because they are too weak or realize the impact of their own insignificance. Either way, humans were as worthless in this film as Amy Adams.

Writing of Amy Adams and Characters:

I know that Amy Adams is being nominated for an Acadamy Award for her performance in American Hustle, but that being said she is an annoyance in the majority of the films she's starred in. I don't mind the quirky, intelligent, and straight to the point girl but she's just not great at doing it. She's mildly attractive but she doesn't deliver dialogue well. She has a nonsensical relationship with Superman and it was substantiated in over 3 conversations they had together. If that were real life it would only work with someone that looked like Henry Cavill and it would be as meaningless as this relationship was. It made me angry to think that Superman was unsure of himself and what to do when he had been preparing for it his whole life. Some girl comes by and tells him that she believes in him and suddenly hes superman again. No. Superman is already super as I have already mentioned. He was born differently than the rest of us. He was already a great person with a sense of protecting others. Why did he need anyone to tell him that he was just that? It doesn't make any sense. Why trivialize a man who has worked hard to be the man he was supposed to be and who even sacrificed his own father to do so?

General Zod is an interesting character. He is unable to take over his own planet with a surprise attack, gets his ass kicked by Supermans father (who was a scientist), and is banished by the people he claimed to be too weak to rule. On his way to banishment (instead of death even though they are low on resources already) he claims that Jor-El (the man he just killed) was right and he agreed that the death of the planet was caused by the council of leaders. He is a loser by definition but it allows him to use his hate and animosity to fuel his mission. Throughout the film you find it to be hard for him to be arrogant but he somehow he manages it. You also wonder about his motives because his devious plot is to destroy earth and to save his people who were far more technologically advanced in and revolutionized in ideals. A plot point some of you may have missed, is that he believes his race to be far superior than that of humans (they were in every way). He says to Jor-El that it would be hard for them to struggle to adapt to the foreign conditions of Earth and claiming that for this reason he needed to change it to be more like Krypton. I know that Zod is supposedly intelligent and also a warrior that can rule over his own senses, but he was able to adapt in less than a few hours on Earth and it made him almost a God among humans comparatively. Hard to see a downside to co-existing at this point. 

Jor-El was one of the most believable characters that Russell Crowe has played in years. The character itself is so noble that he chose his own death because of the failures of his own race. In other words, he fell on his own sword. It was noble even though these characteristics are hard for most to understand because it's a foreign concept. He wasn't going to try and redeem his people because they already failed. Sure he could have tried to reunite with his son but he already gave him everything he could. Jor-El is a great lesson to us all and shows that you can give someone a meaningful existence through your actions even if you are not always there. He tells Zod that he was a better man once and that he would honor that man even though they were fighting to save their own race through different means.

Jonathan Kent was also a good character with high moral standing in his community and the film. He is as much a father to Clark as Jor-El and taught him great understanding of his powers. He was the only human in the film I didn't entirely hate. 

I wont mention any more about the characters, but I will say that most of them made sense and made for a great story. Like I said the whole movie would've been better if it wasn't so focused on the character of Lois Lane. I wish she wasn't in the film or an innocent bystander until introduced properly as a real woman that has a real relationship with Clark Kent. Man of Steel was the best Superman film yet and a solid film. I hope they do more in the future. 

Wreck-It Ralph (2012) How Soon They Forget

Wreck-It Ralph (2012) Disney

Every time I hear about Frozen (2013) being the best movie that Disney’s made since The Lion King (1994), I can’t help but remembering a certain film they made last year. Wreck-It Ralph has been somewhat forgotten. Sure it isn’t the kid’s movies that Disney is famous for, but for the first time in years I have been interested in an animated film that didn’t say Pixar or Madagascar on it. Many of these animated creations can be forgotten (like Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs) and to be fair most of them fall short of a complete film.

For me it can be very difficult to hear opinions on films I haven’t seen yet because I always feel like they are overhyped. To be honest, I didn’t want to see Wreck-It Ralph in theatres. Everyone told me it was good and I was sure that it wasn’t. I was delightfully surprised to witness such a fun film. Even a year later I still think it’s hilarious. Wreck-It Ralph is the first Disney story I could relate to in years and that is saying something. Many people also forget how often Disney actually makes films. To be precise Disney made 13 movies in 2013 alone and 14 in 2012. It is astonishing how many films one company can make that suck. In recent times they basically average that amount of films and practically the majorities that don’t say Pixar on them are forgettable. In fact, I checked and there are 12 Air Bud movies. Is anyone tired of seeing this dog play sports and flying through space?

After all that ranting I guess I didn’t expect Disney to make a movie for my demographic. This arcade based tribute far outdates the majority of the Disney demographic. I thought it was nice to see Disney do more to include more of its fans from an earlier time.

Wreck-It Ralph was fun to watch a features unique dialogue between the two main characters. The plot of the story resonates with many people there are few that haven’t been underappreciated as a human. Bad guys are usually the ones that get forgotten in video games because they are always impeding you from victory.

The story itself was complete and although much of it was a homage to gamers, it could be understood by all. When I write this I hope to interject the feelings that express a joy to see a hate-able character become liked once again as this age old plot from Disney can be reiterated several times in various scenarios. Although the plot wasn’t anything new it did allow for them to create great characters that are sure to be ruined by less qualified actors and script writers in the sequel.

I don’t want to rush through this review because I did generally like the film and think it’s nice for the big guy to get credit once and a while. 

Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs 2 (2013) Google vs. The Hippies

Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs 2 (2013) Sony Pictures Animation

I apologize for not writing this past weekend, but I wasn’t sure if I wanted to post about this one because of its possible political nature. I decided to not worry about it and post it anyway.

During the course of watching this movie I noticed that the themes of the film had a great deal of social commentary, which is odd for a children’s movie. You can tell that this sequel was even made for a younger audience than its predecessor.

Unlike Pixar movies that usually have great themes this movie really falls short when it comes to the plot line. I know it’s just a kid’s movie, but it asks questions that many adults have not been able to answer for themselves.

Here is the problem:

If you created a machine that made food out of water, wouldn’t you use it to solve the problem of world hunger? Well at the end of the first film they had to destroy the FLDSMDFR machine because it was making sentient food. In this film the machine miraculously stays on and continues its work of creating sentient food with no power source and uses vines for cables.

Later on you find out that there is a company known for its scientific achievements (Google) that comes to the aid of the town. It offers to relocate everyone to San Fran Jose (might as well be google headquarters) in order to clean up the town for free so that people can rebuild their homes (evil right?). They also were able to create a zero emission car that runs on “cute.”

(The reason I call the company Google is because they are based in the same area as google, they have a similar looking facility, they give out free beverages just like google does, and they bring in the best talent all over the world.)

The people willingly leave their home on the island, but the cache is that the leader of the company (looks like Steve Jobs and steals inventions too) just wants to use the machine to make a better food bar product they sale. The food bar contains all the nutrition you would need for one meal and could potentially feed the world if they could bring the cost down. Now that they can make food out of water, that would be a real possibility.

The hippies are the only ones that can see the food as wildlife and is a group made up of a fisherman, police officer, Spanish camera man, meteorologist, chicken salesmen/bully, and a scientist. The main inventor decides to turn off the machine to make sure that it doesn’t create any harmful food that would be dangerous to humans. The meteorologist points out that the machine has created life and that we shouldn’t use its creations as food because they have feelings and conscience. The underlying theme becomes a vegetarian argument for not eating animals even if they are in a farm system.

I don’t mind vegetarians or their arguments about animal cruelty, but I disagree with the notion that animals are more important than people. If it comes down to it I would rather feed people than keep an overpopulated amount of sentient fruit and taco monsters. Just like real wildlife they can be dangerous depending on the situation, but can also be docile as well.

It’s important to note that these creatures can be dangerous for humans and that there is not much known about the creatures. Their ecosystem is not really explained either. Their population also grows at a rate that would render humans extinct if they reached mainland. The hippies want to ignore all the dangers of these unknown species and have no vision to the future about what their existence could mean.  

The evil company wants to use the new food source to feed the world with better tasting food bars that are also more nutritional. I don’t think they should’ve killed the sentient food. I wish they would’ve just reprogrammed the machine to make regular food and keep it more under control. This way they would eventually be able to harness a new food source for the entire planet.

Obviously the point of this film is not about the issues I have mentioned, but it is fun to think about the logistics of this new race of food. 

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) Science!

When you first start thinking about this movie, your thoughts may be reminiscent of the good experience you had at the movie theater or the fun you had when watching it at home, but the longer you think about the film the more you realize about it. I am not trying to say that it wasn't a fun thrill ride that accurately possessed moments of greatness because it did. The problem (beyond several plot discrepancies) is that it is great at first, but then the magic fades.

Many people that have seen the Honest Trailers or How it Should Have Ended videos on YouTube and have already realized that there are several invalid plot points that counteract each other in this film, but to find even more problems all you have to do is go further down the rabbit hole.

For instance, if you are willing to forget about the “super blood” and the personal trans-warp device rendering Star Fleet obsolete then you may already have some other questions pending.

(To preface this part you should know that I am not an astrophysicist)

For instance, when they are shot out of warp they were (according to the dialogue) 237,000 Km away from earth, which is at the Earth-Moon L1 liberation point (which is between the moon and the earth) you may wonder if they would be able to actually fall into earth’s gravitational pull. According to the European Space Agency we know that there is a balance point of gravity between these two masses at 326,000 Km away from earth. At this point you would technically be perfectly balanced between the Earth and Moon. Since they are not far enough away to be at that point, we know they would actually be in the Earth’s gravitational pull where they would be in fact be plummeting toward the earth. Although they would be freefalling toward the earth they would be traveling at a speed which is approximated around tens of Km an hour. .. an hour, so it’s safe to assume they would’ve all been floating there for quite some time. This is math that is technically leaving out the fact that they were thrown out of warp parallel to the earth which means they could have ended up anywhere in the world, but all in all the film has the space mathematics comparable to a Britney Spears music video if even I can disprove them.

Now that you are finished watching the Britney Spears video I think it’s safe to assume we can move on to the actual movie review.

Although you get decent performances from Chris Pine (Kirk) and Zachery Quinto (Spock), both of them are overshadowed by one of the best actors of our time. At this point you should know that I can only be referring to Benedict Cumberbatch (although Karl Urban is probably one of the best supporting actors around). I have been “SHER Locked!” for over 3 years now and have been on this guys’ bandwagon since I first witnessed his performance years ago. He is a star now and he is going to be even better in the years to come. Don’t believe me? Check IMDB, because there is an Oscar with his name on it for at least one of his upcoming films and no one has even seen them yet. That's how confident I am.    

As a film you were moved by the relationship between Kirk and Spock and were happy that it did not come to an end (even though it was by means that are pretty ridiculous). I can't say that I disagree with the critical acclaim it received even though the negative assessments are probably more correct than the positive ones. 

I didn't love all the characters as much as I did from the first film, but that was just because they added people to the bridge without much explanation and I still think that more side characters can be added to the core ones which would enhance the story greatly. It is what made the Star Trek series so great in the first place. 

I used to love Uhura, but she was transformed to an emotion filled mess throughout the film only furthering the stereotype that women can’t keep their emotions in check (or their clothes on: see Carol) even in a professional situation.

Carol: As a man I would be lying if I proclaimed to hate seeing Alice Eve in her underwear, but it was an awkward moment for the film because of how unnecessary it was and could’ve been easily avoidable.

Star Trek: Into Darkness is a fun film with good dialogue. At times, you find yourself enjoying many of the supporting characters like Bones, Sulu, and Scotty even more than the main characters. The ending was a similar to the original Wrath of Khan, but I thought it was moving to see the blooming friendship of Kirk and Spock. All in all, Star Trek was absolutely worth seeing and apart from the science it was able to place you into the atmosphere of the movie quite well.

Also I didn't mind the lens flares because I thought they were used well to create a futuristic environment. 

The Count of Monte Cristo (2002) A Fair Assessment

The Count of Monte Cristo (2002) Touchstone Pictures

Last night it was my girlfriends birthday, which means only one thing for the movie we were about to watch. It was going to be The Count of Monte Cristo (2002) because it is her favorite movie. I can’t say it is a poor choice for a favorite movie because it is based on one of the greatest books ever written and captures the book very well although there are some parts which are left out (on purpose which is what I get to later).

Before I get really started I have to mention that I have never seen the 1934 version of the film, so that will not be discussed. Maybe I will review it later this year… if I can find a copy of it.

Although movies never live up to the reputation of the book, it is important to point out that this version of the film was actually meant to be family friendly. It was green lit by Disney, but they realized it was going to be too violent to promote under the Disney banner (I wonder why they would have the impression of it possibly being “family friendly” after reading the book) so they released it under (Disney) Touchtone Pictures.

The sad part about the movie is that it was not received very well by the critics of the time. For instance, take metacritic.com which is considered to be an unbiased compilation from movie critics all over the country. As an amateur movie critic I can safely say that I risk absolutely nothing when I critique someone’s work and it is easy to disregard a film when it is lacking in many ways. This film was almost completely ignored at the time, but with good reason. There were several movies you may recall from 2002 such as: The Pianist, The Hours, Chicago, Gangs of New York, Road to Perdition, LOTR: The Two Towers, Adaptation (A Nicolas Cage film that wasn’t absolutely horrible), About Schmidt, Star Wars Episode II, Catch Me If You Can, and Minority Report just to name a few. I wouldn’t consider all of these films to be gems, but it would be easy to say that it was a great year in film considering some of the years that followed so it may have been easier for critics to write off the Count remake. I think it was pretty much forgotten due to the fact that there were so many other great films at the time. My theory is that it sullied the viewpoints of the critics into making a great film only seem mediocre, but it’s just a theory. Maybe they still hate it.

The saddest part about The Count of Monte Cristo is that this film in particular was not received well by critics and actually is a great film. Years later it is still interesting to watch and features great performances from famous actors you may have heard of such as: Richard Harris (Dumbledore (the good one)), Guy Pierce (historically exceptional bad guy extraordinaire), Jim Caviezel (the guy played Jesus… Jesus), and Henry Cavill (SUPERMAN (the alright one)).

I don’t rank The Count of Monte Cristo as one of the great films of all time, but I have to admit that there are more great lines in this film than the average film I have seen for the past decade (some of it was writer of the screen play and most of it was Dumas). The writing we are getting used to seeing in film has become shockingly worse over time and most of the dialogue in these movies has been replaced with special effects. The Count of Monte Cristo does not need them because it capably tells the tale of Edmond Dantes. There is no doubt by the end of the film that you are rooting for him to give up his lifelong journey of revenge and take back the woman that has never forgotten him. The best part about the character of Edmond is that he can’t stop until he finds out that Mercedes still loves him and Albert Mondego is his son. You have to respect a character bent on gaining the revenge that God never granted him. The guy spent his whole life and newly received fortune on planning a way to take down everyone who ever betrayed him. It’s a plot most of us just dream about doing in our minds when someone is being mean to us. Edmond eventually finds out that he has more than he ever dreamed of having and decides to hang up his revenge coat. This is a lesson for all of us to learn from. When we look around we actually have more than we think we do. It just can be perceived differently depending on time.  

In the book there are a lot of differences with the film, but this adaptation spares the desolation he leaves his enemies to in order to provide a more fulfilling ending. In yesterday’s post about the 101 Dalmatians I wrote about how the writing style was dated because it came from a different time. This version of the Count of Monte Cristo is the more updated version of the story stylistically because it leaves out the parts where Mercedes actually never ends up with Edmond at the end and that Albert really isn’t his son. It omits the parts where he leaves Villfort so destitute that by the end he has gone insane and is publicly ridiculed. As a smaller plot point it fails to mention that Dunglar got out of the shipping business and married into nobility.  Edmond and Fernand also never grew up as friends in the book, which would’ve made things a little different.

Now it comes full circle.

These items were left out because audiences are happier to know that everything works out for Edmond and Mercedes when in actuality it would be practically impossible for anyone to take her back under those same circumstances. Audiences love to see the relationships that only celluloid can provide because they show how love can overcome all. In real life that same statement is true, but to love that deeply is a concept that is practically fictional. In older writing styles they don’t put everything in a pretty little bow. In fact, older writing styles fail to even mention what has happened to a character when the book ends. The truth is that there is no resolve in these books. There is no conclusion. There is nothing like what we call an ending. They do it because it used to be more gratifying to guess the end of the situation rather than have it spelled out. It was like the ending to the Sopranos. It just ended. That is obviously not the case anymore. Could you imagine what would’ve happened if J.K. Rowling never provided an ending for what happened to Harry after he destroys Voldemort? There would be riots on the streets (and by streets I mean internet because people don’t riot like that anymore).

I don’t presume to be an expert on writing style, but I felt like it was at least a worthy observation. The Count of Monte Cristo really is a well written movie and deserves more accolades than it received. 

101 Dalmatians (1961) Still a Great Watch

101 Dalmatians (1961) Disney

Last night I did not have a lot of time and decided to watch something that would allow me save some time. Now I know it may be silly to watch a movie like this when you are a male in your mid-twenties, but I happen to love the old Disney movies I grew up watching. There is something about the older ones that makes them unique. They are from another time and are told as stories of old. They don’t intend to make political references or even social inquiries. They just tell thoughtful stories and demonstrate real feelings. Although I don’t mind the way stories are told today, there is always a feeling of nostalgia for the way stories used to be told.

Robin Hood has been my favorite Disney movies since I was a boy and is probably the best version of the Robin Hood story to date. I didn’t mind the Ridley Scott version, but that is not important.

The 101 Dalmatians story actually happens to be one of the only Disney tales that sticks to the actual story version of the book. It is the tale of Pongo and Perdida and their human pets which are named Roger and Anita. They have puppies which are stolen from them by an evil woman named Cruella de Vil who wants to make fur coats out of them. Pongo and Perdida eventually save their 15 puppies and the other 84 as well. This heartwarming film is fun to watch and won’t waste your time. It is good for viewers of all ages.

(As a side note) Cruella de Vil is supposed to translate to “Cruel Woman Devil” and I say woman devil because the ‘a’ at the end of her name denotes that it is a female in Latin based languages. What’s great about her name is that it was obviously used to be deliberately evil as a joke. The sad part is that many movies of our time fail to name the villains of the stories properly. For instance, in the Star Wars series the names of the villains are supposed to make them inherently evil, but they do not disguise them well and they are not joking. One name I hate from the Star Wars series is General Grievous. It is literally the word used for pain and suffering except they didn’t mask it cleverly. It just comes off as being stupid because there was no thought put into it. The same goes for Darth Sidious. His name is just half of the word insidious which means slow harmful effects which is obviously the basis of the character. Cruella de Vil acutally has a name that makes sense in real life because it could be construed as Cruella De Ville which properly states that her family name comes from “the village” and has actual roots in a Latin base.

Sorry for ranting about that, but someone needed to say it.

There are some differences from the book to the movies that I thought I should note such as:

For one, the name of “Perdida” (which means lost is Spanish) is actually referring to another female Dalmatian in the book who is found abandoned in the snow by Mrs. Dearly (Annita).

Mr. Dearly in the book also happens to be an accountant (not a songwriter like in the movie) and lives off of a lifelong tax exemption from the government because he apparently is one of the greatest financial minds in the whole of England. He later purchases the property of Hell Hall from Cruella de Vil when she sells it after the puppy kidnapping goes south.

The car that Cruella drives actually does not exist at the time, but it is basically the same car developed in the seventies and known as the Panther DeVille. The odd part of the car was that it was made in the seventies, but it was made to look like a car from the twenties or thirties.