Gravity (2013) This May Be The Worst Movie to Ever Win An Oscar

Gravity (2013) Warner

As the Oscars loom, I am trying to update myself with all the nominees which is why I decided to watch Gravity. It was directed by Alfonso Cuaron who subsequently directed the third Harry Potter film so I should’ve known this film was going to be a nightmare. His foreign films like “Y Tu Mama Tambien” was good, but it is also more than a decade old.  

It’s hard for me to describe in words how awful this film truly was from top to bottom. I think the only way to enhance its viewing experience is to do so smoking pot so that the cinematic visuals might actually equate to something existential rather than a waste of film. Some of the Earth shots were nice to look at, but the story is so bland and unappealing that I wanted to detach myself from the film so that I could float off into space in the opposite direction.

When Tina Fey made the joke that “George Clooney would rather float off into space and die rather than spend one more minute with a woman his own age” she wasn’t really joking. Not only is Clooney’s character forgettable, but there is no attachment whatsoever to both of the characters involved. From the beginning I wanted to pay more attention to my dog licking himself then I did caring about either character and the longer the film went on the more boring it became.

I don’t mind dramas, they are usually the best films, but to call this a drama is far from the definition of the word which is defined as “an exciting, emotional, or unexpected series of events or set of circumstances.” Not only was I not entertained by it, emotionally tied to it, I also thought the events were totally predictable. I called the accident before it happed (it was obvious), I called the part about her daughter (easy), I could see through her hallucinations in a heartbeat, and who thought she was going to die? These personal one character stories have been done before, but take into consideration that Cast Away (2000) was done with one character just like 127 Hours (2010) and both had characters you actually cared about.

The movie itself has some great visuals but the zero-gravity made me want to yack. It was the most convincing part of space besides Bullocks’ lack of knowledge about astrophysics. I am not sure how most reviewers considered this to be a masterpiece of film. This movie was not gripping, emotional, inspirational, interesting, or worth watching. Those are usually some of the themes tied to Oscar winning films.

I guess you could say that my opinion is tainted because of the fact that everyone is making a big deal out of this film, but it is not art. It is a worthless story about a woman trying to get home to nothing in particular. You don’t care about her or her journey and it feels like the entire movie is based around the zero-gravity concept they used in the cinematography. I can’t blame them for naming the movie “gravity” because that is all it was about.

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.

Electoral Dysfunction (2012) Voting Is A Privilege Dummies.

Electoral Dysfunction (2012) Independent

I must say that I sometimes feel like I live on another planet when I watch these films.

I have never seen a political documentary by Mo Rocca before so I was not quite sure what to think going into it. I usually stay away from political documentaries like the plague because honestly they are never clear about the actual facts and few sources are mentioned.

I used to debate in high school and I am now highly trained to be skeptical when I hear outrageous numbers without any sort of source. I also need to know the origin of that source and what type of work they are known for in order to validate that information being real. Some sources are about as credible as a guy saying it on Facebook so it’s hard to take a lot of people seriously.   

One thing I dislike about documentaries is it usually shows extreme cases of every problem and it usually talks to a lot of people involved that have a great deal of political involvement. I dislike this because it is hard to expect many of our elected officials to be non-biased especially when it comes to the information they have. Whenever I watch a news network I see a lot of people talking about a lot of different topics and saying some pretty untrue things after I later research the topics. In a world where you cannot take things at face value, it behooves one to do the majority of the research on their own.

The movie focuses on the several nuances of laws in the state of Indiana for voting. They are all very confusing and there is no real consensus from anyone about what we should do as a country when it comes to voting laws by state and the Electoral College. Some want the government to only use the popular vote as a way to elect the president and to streamline the voting process nationally. Others want to keep the Electoral College and force people to pass a civics test in order to vote.

I really wish we were all educated correctly so that a civics test would not be needed in order to vote. Most people I have talked to are unaware that the reason we have public schools is to inform the general public about history and politics so that they can be educated in their voting behaviors. Sadly, school is not taken very seriously in many places and very few grasp the concepts when it comes to the laws of the state.

One of the things the documentary does not do well is give a consensus about what could be done to better improve the system. Instead of getting more people to talk about specific voting laws in one state, I thought it would be more interesting to see what scholars thought on the matter of the Electoral College. I guess that may not be as entertaining, but it would be fruitful.

One system I am in favor of when it comes to the Electoral College is to use what is known as a “Pro Rata” system. This would allow the states to keep their voting laws while allowing for a system that incorporates everyone non-dependent on what state they lived in. It would matter if you voted democratic in a republican state and it would matter if you voted republican in a democratic state. The election process would involve more people because it would divide the electoral votes of the state’s population based on the voting in the state. So if Colorado (with 9 electoral votes) had 55% of the general populous vote democratic and 45% vote republican, it would give 5 electoral votes to the democratic nominee and 4 electoral votes to the republican nominee. It seems like a fair system based on the fact that every vote counts, unlike how it is represented in the current system. 

Iron Man 3 (2013) Made No Sense

Iron Man 3 (2013) Paramount

An old popular plotline in superhero comics is the ‘demons from the past’ plot which never seems to get old because it allows writers to bring new villains to the forefront that have been lingering around for years. I think it is important to note that the theme of these movies often orbits around things that the protagonist could’ve done better to stop these people from rising to their evil plots. It’s somewhat a joke when you think about it because there were plenty of things that troubled these people before they became evil. It’s not the superheroes fault, but they take the blame for it like in Iron Man 3 where Stark blames himself for starting this mess. 

Aldrich Killian was supposedly thankful for Stark treating him the way he did because it allowed him to become desperate enough to become evil. His whole goal during the film is to create another war on terror where he owned the villain and somehow had the war supplies. Although it is only mentioned briefly, Killian had lots of military contracts but mostly focused on the extremis project. He didn’t really have any weapons other than the people he manipulated. In fact he was so understaffed that some of his security teams literally gave up on the spot and he had to do all the video production of the Mandarin himself as shown in a scene where he was getting different camera angles to publicly kill the President and suggests they do a technical run through first. So you basically want me to believe that not only does Killian basically work alone, but he more resources than S.H.I.E.L.D. and he is able to infiltrate government officials all by himself? He can override all television programming and get to the presidents cell phone and I guess this means I should just assume he has people on the job even though they are never to be seen on camera.

Perhaps Aldrich Killian and AIM are part of something bigger?

I am trying to suspend my disbelief, but wouldn't it be logical for the next guy in command take over after Killian is dead? Since this is such a vast organization should I also assume that other people are still in charge? Wouldn't it be pointless for Iron Man to blow up his specialized suits if there is just another imminent attack or will some other superhero actually show up when there is a terrorist threat?

(Oh btw, Killian is as bad of a name as General Grievous... so dumb) 

Besides all of the tech talk and flimsy side character story lines, the movie in it of itself seems very self-serving to mostly Stark. Sure he was trying to recover from the difficulties of ‘New York’ but I feel like he is a little stronger than that as a character. I feel like this was a character piece made for the sole purpose of making Tony Stark seem like a person, but he already was one. He made mistakes in every film and seemed somewhat believable as a person putting their life back together during the Avengers. He eventually makes the sacrifice to put his life on the line and it now it becomes something that gives him panic attacks. From a guy that once dodged a tank shell, was shot at with missiles, killed his lifelong mentor, killed dozens of other ironman drones on top of an evil villain bent on showing the world Iron Man could be injured, fought off an alien invasion, and has been almost killed by his own blood, it seems like a stretch to say that he is now worried about this one other brush with death.

I don’t mean to marginalize his achievements as a character, but Iron Man 3 was not my favorite movie. It was better than the second film, but it still lacked a decent villain (let’s be honest, it was basically just Guy Pierce we hated as we always do), it lacked believability, and it focused on a guy rebuilding his life for the fourth movie in a row.  

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.

Wimbledon (2004) The Role of the Man

Wimbledon (2004) Universal

Maybe it’s just because I like sports, but I found Wimbledon to be a witty romantic comedy that highlights difficulties in life and in sports careers. Unlike other English based romantic comedies, this one provides a less than admirable male lead. Paul Bettany is usually not considered to be good looking or even in shape but manages to pull off an aging tennis player quite well. Kirsten Dunst is cute, but I don’t consider her to be a knockout by any measure. I know this is an odd metric for Rom-Coms but come on, most of them have the quirky girl type and if they aren’t quirky, they are sexy, or strong. Dunst is none of those and I kind of dig it.

Something must be said about the cast. They have a great lineup with Jaime Lannister, Captain Vasili Borodin, Mr. Tumnis, and Iron Mans Bodyguard which ignores the main casting completely.

Playing tennis is rough due to the fact that all the best players are ranked at the top and very few times in its history has an outlier ever won a major tournament. If you are not in the top 10 your chances for winning a major tournament are practically zero.

It has to be mentioned that I am usually not a fan of your typical Rom-Com and I was not excited to see this movie when it first came out. I was pleasantly surprised that the film was able to show the inner doubt of an aging tennis player and some of the inner dialogue was very humorous. I thought that his thoughts were probably accurate and his relationship with Dunst genuine. It’s a circumstance that had a large probability and did not seem far fetch unlike other films of the genre. You are rooting for their relationship but it’s obviously going to have problems because of her father and due to the fact that she starts to have feelings for him.

All this mushy stuff aside I think it is off-putting that this film could not be made if the roles were reversed. If Paul was the strong athlete that gained feelings for the girl and decided to focus on his game rather than get involved he would just come off like a jerk. If the woman does it, Paul’s character spends the rest of the day pining over her. It’s not a weak plot point, but it is something to mention. I don’t see why films have to be so gender oriented. Granted this movie avoids the stereotype with women, but it does convert the male lead into a very weak spirited love junkie. I do not construe this as a bad thing, but it’s one thing to be a man and play the character of the girl and it is completely different to be a man and play the role of a man who just happens to be in love. He doesn’t break out in song, but at some points he just seems so wussy that it makes him an unbelievable character. I guess if I were in his role I would just go for the grand romantic gesture and if it didn’t work then I would let it go. If talking to a sports analyst and pouring your heart out (in hopes that she would see) consist of this moment then it kind of fell short for me, but I am a man and I have been known to lack certain empathies. 

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.

Hot Fuzz (2007) It May Be THE Funniest Movie of All Time

Hot Fuzz (2007) Universal

After reading the title you may be skeptical, but if you have seen the movie there may have been a few things you missed. To be honest, the first time I saw the film I thought it wasn’t that funny. I thought it was an average cop comedy that would easily be forgotten, but the more I thought about it the better it got.

A friend of mine (known as Graham) happens to know even more about movies then I do, which I have to say is pretty impressive. I feel like I don’t miss a lot, but whenever we talk about movies this guy drops mind bombs on me. To say the least he has better taste in movies. When I first saw this I told him that I didn’t think it was great and he told me to watch it again this time, but gave me the key to the movie. He said “Watch it this time, but know that every scene is a different genre.” I thought to myself that there was no way that I missed that, but after the second watch I realized how wrong I truly was.

Every scene is a different genre.

You go from buddy cop movie to murder mystery, from mystery to horror, from horror to slasher, and back to gay cop drama. HOW DID I MISS IT! I realized that throughout the film they talk about what seems like arbitrary things, but ends up being a main plot point. Every time someone talks it is foreshadowing something else. Big cop in a small town F-off to the model village à Last scene ends in the model village where he is seemingly larger. Ever shoot two guns whilst jumping through the air at the same time? à Pub scene.

To say the least the film is brilliantly written and directed. You don’t even realize its genius until the second and third watches. Every time you see the film it gets even better. After I watched it this last time I was on the floor even though I knew what was going to happen. I was ashamed of myself when Graham pointed out the best part because I had unknowingly be unaware of brilliance. I will never doubt Graham ever again.

Although many people may not understand British humor, you can’t help but see the irony is most of the things that happen in the film. The spaghetti western part at the end was the perfect way to end the film. There were so many other movies references that led to him making the decision to go back and arrest the whole village.

I can’t help but try to put this film in perspective when comparing it to other great comedies, but it really is in a league of its own. I challenge you to watch this film more than once and ignore how clever it really is.

Definitely on my list for top 5 comedies of all time.