I remember when I first heard the news about it my first reaction was if this was someone's idea of a sick prank. I was proven wrong. It's one of those situations where it just shocks you to your core as your mind is trying to comprehend what it just discovered.
I'm not going to BS anyone and say the guy's my favorite actor but I admit that I have been starting to like his work as of late. Paul Walker to me is one of those guys who isn't really a bad actor, see Running Scared, but just doesn't have the right material for him to really showcase his talent, Running Scared again.
My first time viewing him was in a movie called Varsity Blues. He played an all star quarterback who got injured and was replaced by the main character of the film. TBH I found Walker's character in VB more interesting as his character could have been written as a cliched jerk jock but in actuality he's more grounded and a pretty decent guy. That and he wasn't whiny like the main character. I liked him better in the Skulls, he plays the son of the main villain in that movie. His character in the Skulls I'd describe as not a villain but a more grayish type of character who could go either way depending on the situation. His character in the Fast and The Furious films isn't considered an all time favorite but when I looked at the character I see that he's actually the heart of the group. The glue that keeps the crew together. I thought his character arc was improving in the later Fast Films and was interested in seeing where it would go
While he's not considered my all time favorite actor I respect the guy due to his humble nature despite his celebrity status. He's one of those celebrities that you hardly hear a bad thing about, which to me is actually refreshing. Hollywood needs more celebrities like him.
Taking the comic book films out of the equation I'd put this up there with Pacific Rim when it comes to movie of the year for me. I thought the movie was a vast improvement over the first movie. The first things that won me over was how it showed Katniss suffering psychological effects from the events of the previous movie, she'd have panic attacks whenever she finds something that trigger her memories of the event or even have nightmares, even Peeta suffers the same effect. I like how they don't gloss over what the characters went through and go on about their day as if nothing happen.
The more I look at the movie the more I'm starting to see The Capitol as The Empire from Star Wars and President Snow is Palpatine. Some of the armor that his troops have on even resemble Storm Trooper armor. Then you have the ending, which I'll get to in a moment. But yeah I get the feeling that Donald Southerland is having a ball with his portrayal as President Snow. I also like the chemistry between him and Katniss as they both share a combination of hate and fear towards eachother.
What I also love about the movie is it's middle finger to reality tv. Cause really that movie shows how ridiculous reality tv actually is, minus the killing. So I like movies that uses that kind of take that. I also happen to notice a little nudge nudge wink wink towards shippers by the way the media and those watching seem to see Katniss and Peeta, that and celebrity power couples.
There were moments where I did get a little choked up and I like a movie where it can move you to a point that you become emotionally invested to the characters. The one character I had a gripe with was the Liam's portrayal as Gale. I had to roll my eyes at the touchy scenes involving them. Jennifer Lawrence however was trying. I thought the most powerful scenes were Katniss and Peeta's relationship with their respective mentors.
There were a few new side characters I enjoyed. For instance Phillip Seymore Hoffman's character won me over in his first appearance. I liked how, at first, it appeared that his character and President Snow was playing a game of who is the most evil. The three characters that really won me over were Finnick, Johanna, and Mags who were the previous winners of the games.
When Finnick was first introduced he came off as a jerk but I gotta admit he was a likable jerk. Then as the movie went on you start to see the character unravel. I was sitting there thinking why cant hollywood make more jerk character like Finnick? He was exactly what I wanted from a jerk character, sure around others he's obnoxious but he actually has a human side. One of them being was his relationship to Mags. Whom I also liked instantly when first introduced, she was the textbook example of a cool old lady. I liked Johanna due to her first introduction and she has a rather feisty personality, it's not one of those look at how feisty I am kind of personality as there is a reason behind it.
Coming into the second movie I knew it was gonna be a cliffhanger because thanks to Empire Strikes Back there usually is a cliffhanger in the mid portion of the trilogy. Speaking of ESB the twist and the ending actually seem to be influenced off of it. Heck most of the second movie seem to be influenced off of SW. It was a pretty good cliffhanger though.
Katniss kinda reminds me of Han Solo in that she didn't want any part of the war but would rather just survive the empire's tyranny yet something happens makes her want to join the rebel army. Speaking of Katniss the more I look at her the more I see her as a better role model than Bella Swan.
For one she doesn't spend each movie lusting after some guy and she is self efficient enough that she doesn't need to depend on some knight in shining armor to save her as she does a good enough job saving herself. Also the Hunger Games films doesn't revolve around some love triangle as there is a more deeper story.
There is one minor nitpick though. Ok Peeta had announced that him and Katniss not only were married in secret but are expecting child. Granted it was a fib but President Snow still had Katniss compete in the games. Taking it from a Evil Overlord List perspective putting a seemingly pregnant woman in a life or death contest wouldn't make ones image look good, especially one whose trying a villain with good publicity approach. The best option would at least be use means to disprove said claim and discredit the power couple.
Overall I say go see it, it's worth the money and the box office drawings.
One of the most controversial films in superhero movie history. It is one of those movies that has splitted the comic fandom right down the middle. I've talked about the movie itself but right now I'm going to talk about it's more controversial nature from the movie's concept or the ending of the movie.
The Concept
I enjoyed it. I liked how they made Krypton look a little different when compared to the crystal palace version from the Reeves or the Smallville version as I've often wondered what the live action version of Krypton looked like when it's outside of a crystal room.
I thought the new suit looked nice, lets face it there are moments we'd question how one can take Superman seriously when he flies around with underwear outside of his pants. I also liked how the movie gave the suit a bit of a backstory.
The Superman in this one has more layers. Gone are the days of the perfect boyscout hero as this movie shows us a guy and his internal struggle of being the worlds greatest hero. There were moments where Clark angst but it's nowhere near as bad as say his Smallville version.
I feel what they were doing with General Zod, in this one he had a motivation that is beyond taking over the world because I can. I did like the warning.
However I still feel that Stamp's Zod was better though. While Stamp's Zod didn't have motivation he actually made up for it in being one of the most memorable movie villains in history. On a positive note, Faora.
You want to talk about ensemble darkhorse she's so enjoyable that even the haters and trolls like her.
I had no problem with the fights. Lets face it people this is WHAT HAPPENS when flying bricks duke it out. Also we are not dealing with an experienced Superman that take a world of cardboard approach. I also like how the military was involved, a part of me wonders if the events of MOS would result in the creation of Cadmus. I can see Amanda Waller being one of those government agents that isn't 100% on Superman being the savior of the world.
I was never sold on Jonathan Kent, a part of me wonders if he did a good job in raising Clark or if he was holding him back. The only father figure that helped Clark move forward was his own father Jor El. Whom I thought was better than the Smallville version, especially AI Jor El.
The ending
TBH I never had a problem with Superman killing Zod as I understood the message it was trying to make. They took a bold approach in showing a motivation as to why Superman never kills. That and he did show remorse over his actions. Also nobody went apeshit in Superman II and IV and that Superman killed with little remorse. I know some fanboy would try to use the Donner Superman to support their argument but given the official cut made it in theaters that is considered canon. Also there is Superman killing Nuclear Man. He also went and let the villain family in Superman 3 die, where was that uproar?
Overall
MOS isn't a perfect movie but I did like that it was trying a bold and different approach instead of copying off of the Reeves films. The end results might not be favorable to some but to me I'm looking forward to where they will go with this.
I've been a fan of the site ever since the first anniversary movie and have followed just about every reviewer on the site. Throughout the years I have watched just about every video the TGWTG crew have put up there are videos I've enjoyed and there are videos I don't enjoy and recently I find myself not that much of a fan of the site.
Granted there are still reviewers of the site that I do enjoy but I find myself rather distant from it and I'm going to give reasons as to why and also talk about some of the reviewers on the site.
Lately their jokes can range between either funny or juvenile and by juvenile I mean on Family Guy levels, the best example I can give concerning that are Phoelous and Nostalgia Critic, recently.
Phoelous
I've followed his reviews and the one review that I happen to find decent was his A Sirbian Film review. Not because of the humor but because it's one of his few reviews that actually portrays some decent emotion out of it. What I find irritating about his reviews is that he can come off as a douchebag. In his regular reviews outside of A Sirbian Film he comes off as the kind of guy you feel like you just want to punch in the face or tell em to STFU. Especially with the way he makes those faces whenever he says something condescending
Nostalgia Critic
I wouldn't go as far as to call him my all time favorite reviewer, Linkara is first and Nostalgia Chick is second, however I do consider him one of my favorite reviewers at the time. But the more I watch his later videos the more I start to see how stale he has became. Also I tend to get irritated whenever he'd try to force feed his Demo Reel crew into his recent reviews. That and the majority of the reviews now aren't even reviews of old movies. It just takes the nostalgia out of the Nostalgia Critic, if all he's going to do is recent stuff then shouldn't he be called The Critic instead? Also his high pitched screaming can get annoying if done constantly.
I do happen to like his Avatar reviews as it's as close to an honest review I've seen and he isn't doing the typical angry reviewer stick.
I find myself reaching a point where I don't take the guys reviews seriously anymore tbh. Yeah I know they're not supposed to be taken seriously given their style but they still try to come off as legit reviewers and would often credit actual reviewers like Siskel and Ebert as their inspiration. Having seen their material they don't come off like those guys, on their worst day, they come off as the posters one sees in the comic forums. And you know the kind I'm talking about.
For instance when The Dark Knight Rises came out just about the majority of the people on the site seem to hate it. I put it off then I started to notice something in the Man of Steel review and I noticed something thats rather similar to TDKR. When Doug hates something everyone on that site follows. You have a few exceptions but it seems that when the boss hates something they're inclined to hate it too. So lets say if Doug hates Avengers 2 or the Superman/Batman movie then do they have to blindly agree with him? It reminds me of when Alan Moore did a rant against Watchmen and just about every comic fanboy complained about how much the movie sucked, not because they've seen it to give that kind of a fair judgment but just because to kiss Alan Moore's butt. It's that kind of sheep mentality I don't really care for.
Another reviewer I don't care for is Blockbuster Buster. The guy comes off as a fanboy than a legit reviewer. Also the guy's often been accused of not doing his research when reviewing something. Someone had pointed out a few inaccuracies from his Revenge of The Fallen review. One thing I roll my eyes on is his view on how he finds that Dreamworks makes bad movies, the two Kung Fu Panda movies, Rise of The Guardians, and Megamind is among the many movies that proves his theory wrong. I do however like him better when he's reviewing fan films, that really should be his job right there as it's not often you have someone that reviews fan films these days.
There are some reviewers I do happen to like though
Nostalgia Chick, especially when Nella is involved. She's actually informative when she does her reviews.
Cinema Snob: I like his reviews on old exploitation flicks and just about any scene with his cats in em. As far as his non-Cinema Snob stuff goes I like his regular movie reviews but only when he's doing him solo or when it's with Jillian, who should have her own show. Outside of his other crew like Sarah and Jake I don't really are much for the other Snob Crew. Especially Dave.
Dave to me sounds like the equivalent of a bratty child that one sees at a supermarket or any store when reviewing a movie. This is him at his worst.
It didn't make me not want to watch Carrie but it did make me want to press the mute button so I don't really hold his opinion in any high value.
Spoony: I know some people would think typical angry reviewer but to me when looking at Spoony's reviews he comes off more honest than your usual angry reviewer. Also he rarely gets angry in his reviews, he mostly does when it's something thats actually worth it.
Linkara: I AM A MAAN!!! Also I like his arc stuff and when he rants on a comic you know it deserves the rant it gets. That and while he also did say something negative about MOS I at least can buy that what he's saying was honest, not because The Boss, hated it.
Suede: He's one of the few people that comes off as a angry reviewer
Welshy: The guy can be funny at times and my personal favorite was his Braindead and Doctor Who reviews.
So yeah these are my thoughts. If you have any thoughts relating to this drop a comment or if you have a reviewer that you like or don't like then also drop a comment.
Has horror movies in mainstream hollywood declined so badly that they need to depend on remakes of a classic horror movie or a novel to get it out of the hole that its in? Just you know this isn't an attack on the Carrie remake that has already came out but just wanted to point something out. It really didn't need a remake.
I respect the effort that the two stars of the movie put out and the movie did look like it was trying, which is more than I can say for most remakes, however it still falls under the cash grab remake. A horror movie that mainstream hollywood decides to remake just for the soul purpose of putting butts in seats.
Carrie has been remade so many times that I actually felt that they were beating a dead horse by remaking it again.
There were some satisfying moments, the roaring rampage of revenge. Still doesn't ignore the fact that a remake wasn't needed but I wouldn't go as far as to call it a horrible movie since there was some effort put in but not enough to put this movie in the same category with other gems like John Carpenters The Thing or Dawn of The Dead because of the fact that it was scene for scene. It didn't really do anything innovative. You know, some would find this ridiculous but I don't care. Have Carrie's mom be a psychic and the two have a psychic showdown. Least that would have been a curveball.
I happen to get a hidden message to this. With the string of anti-bullying stuff going on one could confuse the Carrie remake as a anti-bullying propaganda film. Although it makes me a little concern with the message it's giving. Ok replace psychic powers in the movie with someone going on a shooting rampage. Yeah not a message I'd recommend with what has been going on as of late.
Would I recommend this movie to anyone? Only if you have nothing to watch but honestly watch Chronicle instead since thats the closest to a good Carrie remake I've seen.
Still mainstream hollywood, it wouldn't kill you to do something original. Especially since the foreign films are kicking your butts when it comes to horror.
First off this isn't me hating the concept of good guys vs good guys because quite frankly, when done right, it can be a entertaining story. However I just want to talk about this topic because there are certain situations within this topic that I find irritating. So today I'm going to jot down some examples relating on the subject as to how a good vs good story can be really good and sometimes it can be wallbangingly horrible.
Wolverine vs Cyclops
Yes any comic fan are familiar with the story of how these two are at eachother's throats. To be perfectly honest, I find it overrated. The whole Wolverine, Scott, Jean love triangle has been told so many times that it has lost whatever appeal it had since the triangle started. Also it can get irritating when it starts to affect how either side leads the team and even put their own teammates in danger because Wolverine and Cyclops couldn't just stow their crap.
One of the things I liked about X-Men Evolution is that it didn't use the love triangle issue and it didn't have Logan and Scott at eachothers throats. Hell Logan even supported Jean/Scott. That alone in itself was refreshing.
Whats even sadder is that when Jean is dead and out of the picture instead of having Cyclops and Wolverine settle their differences they're still at eachothers throats and you know what that soon resulted in? Avengers vs X-Men.
It's like no matter what they do they always get in a fight over something that eventually ends up putting the whole team in jeopardy.
What I also don't really care for is that whenever Cyclops and Wolverine fight you hardly see Jean step in and put a stop to it. In honesty it just makes her look bad on her part. That and the sneaking behind Scott's back to make out with Logan doesn't do her any favors.
Also, if I'm wrong then pardons because it's been awhile since reading an X-Men comic, nobody has called either side out on their crap and the damage it's doing to the team. If I were one of the X-Men I'd get annoyed whenever Scott and Logan bicker over Jean and even more irritated when Jean just watch.
I'm glad that Marvel is the only company of the big two that has the decency to not do a reboot but if it comes a time that they do then pleeeease don't rehash an old tired story involving the love triangle. Why not try something innovative?
Civil War/Avengers vs X-Men
Ugh where to begin. You have one arc that pretty much was Marvel's equivalent of Identity Crisis but instead of a physical rape it metaphorically raped the characteristics of the Marvel Characters and almost destroyed what made them likable then on the other hand you have an arc that is basically Civil War II with both characters not learning squat from their previous experience.
The way I look at it Civil War was something that could have been settle if things were just talked out instead of one big "Lets all settle our differences by fighting eachother."
The sad thing about this is that despite who is right and who is wrong you have both leaders Steve/Tony and Scott/Logan/Steve again acting pretty childish in the whole conflict. And the storyline on each arc was pretty half assed to begin with. Which says something when Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 did a better version of Civil War than the comic version did, so did a fic called Not A Typical Civil War.
Note: To fans of Maria Hill you might not like this one but keep in mind this was before Maria got developed into a well rounded character and I'd still recommend it to see another example of Civil War done right.
I'd also recommend this.
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/8359430/1/Firebirds
What AvsX should have been.
What makes it worse is that it wasn't a villain pulling the strings. I would have accepted Civil War and AvsX if it had been revealed that a supervillain was manipulating the whole situation. But it didn't turn out that way. Instead we got something that could have been resolved with both representatives talking it out but ended up being the clusterfuck of all clusterfucks.
Amazons Attack
Linkara says it better than I could
http://atopfourthwall.blogspot.com/2009/03/amazons-attack-1-and-2.html
http://atopfourthwall.blogspot.com/2009/03/amazons-attack-3-and-4.html
http://atopfourthwall.blogspot.com/2009/03/amazons-attack-5-and-6.html
What is it with DC's intent on treating the Amazons like a douche treating a homeless guy begging for change?
There have been some good moments from Good vs Good
Superman vs Flash
No actual fighting or someone getting hurt over it just two guys involved in a friendly competition. With Myxy manipulating things.
Grudge Match
1. Mind control was involved
2. Villain manipulating the scenes
3. They kicked villains butt after the mind control is done
4. SUPERPOWERED GIRL FIGHT!!!! SUPERPOWERED GIRL FIGHT!!!!
The Cadmus Arc in Justice League Unlimited
1. Villain manipulating the scenes
2. Heroes actually learning something and working to improve after said arc
3. Speed Force
It's also Civil War but done by a competent storyteller.
The Avengers
1. Villain manipulating the scenes in the first act
2. Heroes banding together after they learned they were manipulated.
3. Puny God
So what I'm saying is Good vs Good can be ok but at least have one villain manipulating the scenes and have the heroes in question learn and mature from that experience. Also you can do it in a friendly competition manner. Take this video for instance
While I still don't consider the movie as a masterpiece like some people made it out to be I tend to notice some hidden storytelling elements in the movie. For instance the love triangle between Scott/Ramona/Knives.
Scott was dating a girl named Knives but at some point Scott was starting to feel dissatisfied with the relationship then wants to have a clean break from it. He then meets a girl named Ramona and this is where the deconstructive side of the love triangle comes in.
Scott Pilgrim isn't exactly the kind of person that any young woman should be involved with. When it comes to relationship issues the dude can be pretty wishy washy. But then again... his two respective love interest are just as messed up. You have Knives who'd go complete Yandere the minute someone breaks up with her and you have Ramona who'd use then toss away her boyfriends/girlfriend at the drop of a hat and has relationship issues that are as messed up as Scott's.
In your usual love triangle in this scenario theres the Archie archtype, Betty archtype, and Veronica archtype. Scott Pilgrim is the subversion of the Archie archtype in that when you look at him there really isn't anything about him thats likable. He has a excuse due to his past girlfriend dumping him and because of that it makes it hard for him to have a meaningful relationship. It still doesn't excuse the fact that he's willing to dump Knives for someone better. Ramona is the subversion of the Betty archtype due to the fact that she isn't some sweet homely girl that any normal person would be lucky to be involved with and she is singlehandedly responsible for the Seven Evil Exes tormenting Scott. Knives is the subversion of the Veronica archtype due to that she doesn't flaunt her family background to others, she comes from a family of ninjas, but when someone does her wrong she'd go Glenn Close on someone.
The message that I got from the love story is that when it all boils down to it that neither individuals are good for eachother since remaining together just hurt them even more. Knives did the right thing by ending things but Ramona and Scott ended up together. Happy ending???? Maybe to some but the way I see it whose to say Scott wouldn't get bored of Ramona or worse....Ramona dumps Scott then she continues the Evil Exes Cycle with Scott being the first of the Exes. Not a happy ending as one would think.
So in a way Scott Pilgrim vs The World actually showcase a more damaging
side of the love triangle cliche. Maybe even the harem cliche when
taking Ramona into consideration.
