I’ll be brief here. This movie made for a great move trailer. It stops there. It’s empty, like my bowels (currently). Its 127 minutes feels like the preview being shown approximately 58 times. I know I’m automatically biased because of my dislike towards
Kristen Stewart’s acting talking in a movie being Kristen Stewart and getting paid to do so, but I remained optimistic in that it had the same producers as Burton’s Alice in Wonderland. Optimism fail! It followed the exact plot formula as Alice in Wonderland. And I was even thinking Kristen was truly doing some impressive acting for the first half of the movie, when I realized she never even talked that whole time; she simply ran. Her interaction with co-star Chris Hemsworth (I like that you’re only 2 years older than me but appear to be my father) was simply awkward. The special effects were hit and miss. Sometimes I enjoyed them (‘sup, mirror on the wall); sometimes I was dry downstairs. The one thing I truly enjoyed was Charlize Theron’s performance as Ravenna. Perfection! The comic relief wasn’t comic relief for me, and I have nothing against midgets. Maybe the sequel will impress me.
There’s more exorcism movies out there than there are
Apple’s reinventions Gosselin children moronic blogs 80s movie remakes…..I’m not sure where to go with this. I’ll keep this short then. Sadly, if you own a tv/internet, you know what scares to expect courtesy of the eye-rape bombardment of previews that came out for this movie about a month before it came to theaters this past January. So, 90% of the scares were anticipated and not fun for me. I did like a touch of originality that The Devil Inside showcased with its “transference” wizardry. But, director William Brent Bell, let the fact that the movie made over 60% of its entire gross in its first 3 days of opening, the fact that sales plummeted 76% in its second week, and the fact that Metacritic rated it 12/100 be a warning to you, sir: don’t ever fucking end a movie like that again. The Sopranos had a more pleasant ending. Dipshit.
The movie was pretty cool, though. Suzan Crowley did an eerily impressive job as the mother.
I’m biased because I read the first book, dragged myself through the second, and am trying to finish the third before I finish myself off. So the good first. The movie itself was nicely styled, putting great detail into the Capitol and the rich folk that inhabit the area. And I will admit the did the book justice for the most part, adhering to a comfortable 85% of the book. Also, there was some great acting by Katniss’ Jennifer Lawrence (who definitely just gave herself a name if she didn’t so before with Mystique in X-Men: First Class). Gary Ross (Seabiscuit, Pleasantville…really?) had some smooth moves in directing this little number. The action was not too often, and when it was, it wasn’t pompous like a blockbuster would be.
This segways to the not-so-good. The shaky-camera does not work for me unless it’s Blair Witch Project. Maybe I’m getting old, but I was seldom able to see what the fuck was going on in the intense scenes because the cameraman was having a seizure. Most importantly, people who watch The Hunger Games who did not read the book will be baffled by the characters and their relationships. The book itself used a shovel to dig into the dynamics between characters, whereas the movie was more concerned with making it look like Katniss was prettier without makeup while wearing makeup. Case in point: Katniss and Rue (in the movie) meant nothing to me. NOTHING! Good movie though.
Taylor Swift acts like a two year old during her performance about people being just so mean and bully-like! And she wins an award and is shocked? “Me?! Oh my gosh. I’ve won, literally, 100 awards (look it up, y’all) and I am simply humbled. Thanks, pre-teens! Unexpected! AAHHHH!”
Adele rapes the show of awards and mistakes her awards as bundles of chocolate coins.
J-Hud kicks ass with a Whitney tribute, sticking it to American Idol season 3 in saying thanks for letting me get 7th place!
Carrie stuns America by walking on carpet.
Nicki Minaj acts like Lady Gaga never had a show-stopper at the VMAs in 2009 and acts like a moron. She was as tasteful at a classy event as I imagined she would be.
Did I watch the Super Bowl this year? God, did I!? No. But I watched the commercials. And Madonna’s
lip-syncing mouthing words live performance walking around on stage really gay-like with gay background dancers and gay lights and gay special effects. I liked it, obviously. Still, let’s window-shop some of the previews during the Super Bowl:
John Carter: I liked you back when you had a full preview back in November. I know you can jump high. And I look forward to you battling larger-than-life aliens. Thanks for showing me how to spell your name though! And as a brief aside: out of all the attractive actors in the world, you pick Snakes on a Plane‘s Taylor Kitsch? Brrr.
The Avengers: As of Saturday February 4, 2012, I hated you. You looked like a two-hour movie filled with bad quotes and a ten minute scene somewhere with cool explosions in a street. Today, you won me over like Susan Boyle when she first opened her mouth on stage but still looked ugly. But I swear on my child that if this is just a boring fest with a bunch of heroes talking and not knocking the shit out of things, I will be irritable.
Battleship: I’m teeter-tottering with you. I’m trying to get excited but the more robot things you show me unleashing havoc on cities with large buildings, the more I think about how I loved Transformers, how I was “meh” about Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and forgot what I even saw in Transformers: Dark of the Moon. And Rihanna…..stop. Just stop.
G.I. Joe: Retaliation: Ultimately I’m sure I will keep you close to my heart when I see you. The original preview from a few months ago was surprisingly lackluster as I felt the preview for G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra was all kinds of kick ass (still hard to top the driving in Paris scene). Wait, the more I think about it, I am really excited now that I saw this preview. I just hope it lives up to its predecessor from 2009.
Star Wars: Episode I- The Phantom Menace 3D: That’s enough.
Briefly: first one was original, second was well-paced, third one was just plain smart. I generally lose interest when a movie is into its third installment (Sorry, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End. Sorry, Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Sorry, Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked; although I will admit you were pretty crafty in changing the “s” in “shipwrecked” into a “c,” because, you know, chipmunks! I got it! LOL!!!!). Back to Paranormal Activity 3. It truly is smart to a degree. At this point in the movie’s career, the producers know what works. Putting the camera on an oscillating fan to play “now you see it, now you don’t” newborn games with the audience works like a charm! The anxiety-provoking silence this movie uses, too, really makes you poot. And since this one is supposed to take place in the late 80s, my top hat goes off to the awesome 80s/early 90s house they use in the movie: perfecto! Still, all things come with a catch/disease, and this one just comes with the former.
Paranormal Activity 3 is evident when trying to not be obvious when stretching the plot. I mean, without giving anything important away, the movie starts by implying that the ghost stole home videos…sincerely? And let’s not forget when the family hears a noise upstairs and instead investigates a lower floor…closet? Just to give us a cheap thrill? I’m offended. In sum, PA3 has enough suspense to make you want sloppy seconds (or, here, fourths.!!!!!Paranormal Activity 4~LoOk oUt hAtAz 10//19/2012!!). By the time the usual 45 minutes of blase occurs just as in the first two movies, you know what formula the producers are going to feed you (ZOMG!!1 how clever: here, I imply that we, the audience, are infants, open to whatever the producers want to feed us. Genius.) with the usual boring first 2/3rds of the movie followed by a lot of suspense and a zany ending. Meh.
DON’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO. I had been peeing giddily a little to see Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark since the summer of 2011. The trailer seemed promising. I viewed it la film, and I’m stuck between liking it enough to buy it one day when it’s in a Wal-mart bin for $10 and disliking to where I might ask for it as a birthday gift (May 28).
Why Brian likey. It has some nice suspense built into it. There are scenes when (if watching alone with no lights or adult supervision) you are kind of concerned for your well-being as well as that of the main character, little girl Sally. Which brings me to my next likey: little girl actress Bailee Madison. Though she tends to act too old for her own good, she can currently milk Hollywood’s teets as a great child actress. I may me biased because I enjoy watching children cry, but her cry-fest scenes are honestly remarkable and believable. Overall, the movie provides a great spooky-haunted-house atmosphere where, when watched in the appropriate setting, can appear kind of haunting.
Why Brian no likey. Maybe I just don’t care for Guillermo del Toro’s production skills (though I haven’t seen The Orphanage yet). Still, I haven’t liked anything he’s directed (not even Pan’s Labyrinth: deal with it), so maybe he’s the issue. He seems to be a fan of showing the audience his “feature’s creature*” a lot, perhaps more than necessary. I’m a fan of movie’s showing little of the monster/creature throughout the whole movie (Cloverfield, fax me). And Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark did a swell job of that up until about 40 minutes in. After that, I can practically draw the creatures from memory because they are in every inch of the rest of the movie. Hell, I even became attached to them because they start to become more cute and crafty towards the end of the movie. In closing: what the f with the R rating: I’ve seen more blood in a European Tampax commercial.
To summarize: what the movie has in chilling atmosphere and good acting from little girl Sally lacks in scares and a plot that is not by the numbers (I am not even sure what that means).
*not his penis