Okay, my title might be a little corny, but if you know me you know I can be a little corny at times. As the title states, this post will be a brief review of the recently released film, "The Man Who Invented Christmas", starring Dan Stevens and Christopher Plummer. I'll start off by saying I'm probably a little biased towards this film; ever since I read "A Christmas Carol" in January 2010, I've been in love with the story itself. The 2009 Jim Carrey version only fueled my newfound love. I grew up watching the George C. Scott version every year (one of my dad's favorites!), and even though it takes some liberties I don't care for, I've come to love it along with the animated version. I read the book each year on Christmas Eve (yes, it CAN be done! There's only 5 chapters!), though sometimes I save chapter 5 for Christmas Day.
So you can imagine that I was rather intrigued when I heard about a biopic about its author Charles Dickens. I didn't hear about it until fairly recently, and while I was home for Thanksgiving this week I showed my parents the trailer. My dad is like me, he enjoys "A Christmas Carol" and was looking forward to seeing the film also. So we came to the conclusion that after our Black Friday shopping we needed to see this film. I'm so glad we did! I only know some about Dickens' life and his inspiration for writing the book. Focus on the Family published a great biography in the front of "A Christmas Carol" that I read in 2010-another great part of this version is it includes footnotes which explain and de-Victorianize some phrases/context mentioned in the text, making it more understandable and relatable. But I digress. My dad, after seeing the trailer, downloaded the book "The Man Who Invented Christmas" which is what this film is based off of. I ordered it from Barnes and Noble just today and I'm looking forward to reading the book!
Back to the film itself: I've been skeptical about Dan Stevens ever since he left Downton Abbey. Okay, I know: he's an actor and felt like he needed to do something else after 3 seasons. I get it. I've gotten over it...I guess. Matthew was and is still one of my favorite characters from the show. I've only seen him in 3 things outside of DA: Night at the Museum 3 (which was awful all around), Beauty and the Beast (um, just no?), and this film. Out of the 3, this has been his best non DA performance so far for me. The comedy, depth of emotion, and light heartedness that he approached this role with is, well...charming! I couldn't help but fall in love with Dickens throughout the film (the fact that Stevens is easy on the eyes probably helped with this). I just thoroughly enjoyed Dan's portrayal of Dickens, whether it was accurate to him or not. Christopher Plummer as Scrooge also did not disappoint-am I the only one who wishes we could get A Christmas Carol movie with him as Scrooge? While I'm fairly certain that they took some license with Dickens' life, and possibly even downplayed some of the hardships he faced personally, I think you walk away from this film with the same feeling after watching A Christmas Carol-your spirits are lifted (no pun intended) and you leave feeling hopeful. The supporting cast for this film were delightful as well. Whether accurate or not, you could see how these different characters and elements inspired Dickens as he wrote "A Christmas Carol" in 6 weeks.
If you're looking to take your young kids to see it: it's not going to pique their interest. There's a lot of talking, story formation, etc. that will likely bore them to tears. This would be great for older kids (12+) who can appreciate the humor and the heart behind the film. Regardless, it's an enjoyable family friendly film that can be enjoyed by young and old alike. According to my dad, he would have been lost without having read the source material first; it would be a good idea to read "The Man Who Invented Christmas" in addition to "A Christmas Carol" (they obviously reference dialogue, scenes, and elements!), but certainly go see it even if you haven't read either.
Rating: 4.5/5 stars (MPAA rating is PG)
Friday, November 24, 2017
Sunday, June 25, 2017
Falls Creek 2017, "Remnant"
Facebook doesn't allow for great blog posts. Or if it does, I haven't found that feature yet. But what do I care? I don't blog enough to notice! However I do feel like I need to spend just one post on something that happened this past week.
It's a little thing called Falls Creek.
Some of you may be completely unaware, but Falls Creek is nestled in the Arbuckle Mountains in Oklahoma, less than 30 miles from Ardmore and 10 miles from Davis. If you've heard of Turner Falls, it's in the same general area. Falls Creek was begun in 1917 by two men who wanted to create a Baptist youth camp for Oklahoma. There were so many little "falls" in the creeks that they named the camp, "Falls Creek" and thus 100 years of incredible, life-changing summers was begun. It's a special and unique place, because every church has to bring their own food and supplies and cook their own meals. Most camps you go to provide your food for you cafeteria style, but not Falls Creek. No, it's very different. You feel very isolated, yet you don't have to go far to reach a busy interstate (I-35). It's THE largest Baptist youth camp in the world and if I'm not mistaken, THE largest Christian youth camp in the world. THE WORLD. How incredible is that? For 8 weeks during the summer (this excludes their children's camps, Indian Falls Creek, and any other camps or gatherings they may have), they see upwards of 6,000 people PER WEEK. It blows my mind every year I go and see how many people flock to the Creek for camp. And the week we go is only a small part of the entire summer.
But why is it so special? It's all of the things above: the atmosphere, the people, the legacy, and the history. But for me, it's special in another couple of ways. First, I literally grew up going to Falls Creek every year, starting when I was about 5. My family and I have been part of Falls Creek for a whopping 1/5 of its existence (20 years for all you math majors out there!). We've been really an insignificant part of its existence if you think about it. But we've been part of it! I remember when I was little, or at least a little younger, going to the old tabernacle every day for worship services. When I say old, I mean: no air conditioning, hard wooden benches, flooding down the aisles any time it rained. These kids think they're roughing it with it being so hot during the day? It's nothing compared to sweating it out during the evening services in the Tabernacle, or having to take a pillow to sit on because the benches were so uncomfortable. I remember the swimming pool that was always ice cold, and not being allowed in the creek(s) because it wasn't safe. I vaguely remember the old horseshoe pits and the old meeting areas where we'd have Bible studies. Just in the last 11 years (2006 was the end of Texas Week at Falls Creek, which was made up of exclusively Texas churches for several years), I've seen a lot of changes. The old tabernacle was torn down to make way for a larger, air-conditioned, modern tabernacle (which by the way, is super nice and I'm not complaining about having AC!), the swimming pool was also removed to make way for the tabernacle's expansion. The BB McKinney chapel no longer exists, as it was torn down to make way for a new Missions Village and Plaza. The volleyball courts and softball field were removed so that a new World Missions Center, Event Center, and amphitheater could be built in its place. And now, just this past year, the old concessions stands were taken out to make way for Centennial Plaza, that has new (and in my eyes improved) icee hut as well as a new 1917 Cafe/Gift Shop. The old gift shop that was one of my favorite places to go in camp has been converted into public restrooms. Even the ice house, where you would buy bags of ice, is no longer there. New cabins are even being built, some as large as a hotel (First Ada, I'm looking at you!). Within the last few years they even built a new lodge for visiting speakers/personnel as well as for any conferences/retreats they may have.
Falls Creek may have changed or be changing, but the purpose has never changed. The purpose has been and always will be the same: giving glory to Christ. The whole purpose of the 8 weeks (and beyond) is to point people to the Savior and to win those people to Jesus. This was never more evident than this past week in our group. We had the privilege and blessing of taking 15 young students, ranging from 7th grade to 12th grade, 10 girls and 5 guys with 6 sponsors. Monday night was Monday night, the Mike Romero band had a hard time getting everyone in the mood to worship because it's the first night of camp; it's hard to focus around the excitement. An invitation is never held on Monday night; I believe Andy Harrison (program director) explained at one time that they feel that an invitation on Monday night has too much emotion attached to it. They want decisions to be genuine, and they feel that a Monday invitation is too emotional what with all the excitement that comes with Day 1 of camp. Anyway. Tuesday-Friday were the invitation nights. I've had the privilege the last few years to serve as an Adult Encourager on the decision team; basically what they do is after a Decision Team member finishes counseling with a student or adult, they bring that person to me. As an Encourager I check the information, including the decision they're making, I literally encourage them, pray for them, then dismiss them and their DT member. Sometimes, in overwhelming response, they call on encouragers to act as those DT members to counsel someone. That was me on Tuesday night; I counseled two girls making rededication decisions. I had no idea how God was working in our own group that night. FOUR of our group made salvation decisions that night; 3 were siblings! Two brothers and one sister gave their lives over to Jesus that night. Another girl in our group also rededicated her life to Jesus. The siblings that followed Jesus, I have to say I don't think I've ever seen teenagers more hungry for the Word of God than they are/were. Their honesty at saying, "I don't understand this, can you help me understand it?" was so refreshing. We as adults need to be more open and honest about things in the Bible we don't understand.
The week went well, everyone pretty much got along with everyone else. We had a lot of first timers going, and they adapted to camp very well. We had primarily middle school students, but I so enjoyed getting to know all of our kids over the week; I didn't know most of them very well and was afraid I wouldn't be able to develop any kind of relationship with them.
We all thought that God had done something amazing in our cabin that week, something we rarely see with 4 salvations in one night. But He wasn't done at all! Friday night, our last night, I went down to the front as usual during the invitation. And I spotted a young girl from our group come down. She wasn't even a camper; her mom was one of our sponsors and this girl's sister was one of our campers. She (the girl making a decision) came with her little brother for the day, and she accepted Jesus as Lord. Needless to say I could NOT hold back my tears of joy! And to top it off, I had the privilege of being her encourager!
Falls Creek 2017 was one of the best years at camp. I can't fully explain why FC is so special to me. You go excited and come back exhausted. But it's a good kind of exhausted, especially when you have this kind of week to reflect back on. When you know that the entire purpose was to bring those 6 people to camp, what else do you need? God works all things in advance, and He's working even when we don't realize it. That was very evident this past week. God put all of us where He wanted us this week.
If you ever have a chance to go to Falls Creek yourself, I highly encourage you to. It will be a place you will not easily forget.
It's a little thing called Falls Creek.
Some of you may be completely unaware, but Falls Creek is nestled in the Arbuckle Mountains in Oklahoma, less than 30 miles from Ardmore and 10 miles from Davis. If you've heard of Turner Falls, it's in the same general area. Falls Creek was begun in 1917 by two men who wanted to create a Baptist youth camp for Oklahoma. There were so many little "falls" in the creeks that they named the camp, "Falls Creek" and thus 100 years of incredible, life-changing summers was begun. It's a special and unique place, because every church has to bring their own food and supplies and cook their own meals. Most camps you go to provide your food for you cafeteria style, but not Falls Creek. No, it's very different. You feel very isolated, yet you don't have to go far to reach a busy interstate (I-35). It's THE largest Baptist youth camp in the world and if I'm not mistaken, THE largest Christian youth camp in the world. THE WORLD. How incredible is that? For 8 weeks during the summer (this excludes their children's camps, Indian Falls Creek, and any other camps or gatherings they may have), they see upwards of 6,000 people PER WEEK. It blows my mind every year I go and see how many people flock to the Creek for camp. And the week we go is only a small part of the entire summer.
But why is it so special? It's all of the things above: the atmosphere, the people, the legacy, and the history. But for me, it's special in another couple of ways. First, I literally grew up going to Falls Creek every year, starting when I was about 5. My family and I have been part of Falls Creek for a whopping 1/5 of its existence (20 years for all you math majors out there!). We've been really an insignificant part of its existence if you think about it. But we've been part of it! I remember when I was little, or at least a little younger, going to the old tabernacle every day for worship services. When I say old, I mean: no air conditioning, hard wooden benches, flooding down the aisles any time it rained. These kids think they're roughing it with it being so hot during the day? It's nothing compared to sweating it out during the evening services in the Tabernacle, or having to take a pillow to sit on because the benches were so uncomfortable. I remember the swimming pool that was always ice cold, and not being allowed in the creek(s) because it wasn't safe. I vaguely remember the old horseshoe pits and the old meeting areas where we'd have Bible studies. Just in the last 11 years (2006 was the end of Texas Week at Falls Creek, which was made up of exclusively Texas churches for several years), I've seen a lot of changes. The old tabernacle was torn down to make way for a larger, air-conditioned, modern tabernacle (which by the way, is super nice and I'm not complaining about having AC!), the swimming pool was also removed to make way for the tabernacle's expansion. The BB McKinney chapel no longer exists, as it was torn down to make way for a new Missions Village and Plaza. The volleyball courts and softball field were removed so that a new World Missions Center, Event Center, and amphitheater could be built in its place. And now, just this past year, the old concessions stands were taken out to make way for Centennial Plaza, that has new (and in my eyes improved) icee hut as well as a new 1917 Cafe/Gift Shop. The old gift shop that was one of my favorite places to go in camp has been converted into public restrooms. Even the ice house, where you would buy bags of ice, is no longer there. New cabins are even being built, some as large as a hotel (First Ada, I'm looking at you!). Within the last few years they even built a new lodge for visiting speakers/personnel as well as for any conferences/retreats they may have.
Falls Creek may have changed or be changing, but the purpose has never changed. The purpose has been and always will be the same: giving glory to Christ. The whole purpose of the 8 weeks (and beyond) is to point people to the Savior and to win those people to Jesus. This was never more evident than this past week in our group. We had the privilege and blessing of taking 15 young students, ranging from 7th grade to 12th grade, 10 girls and 5 guys with 6 sponsors. Monday night was Monday night, the Mike Romero band had a hard time getting everyone in the mood to worship because it's the first night of camp; it's hard to focus around the excitement. An invitation is never held on Monday night; I believe Andy Harrison (program director) explained at one time that they feel that an invitation on Monday night has too much emotion attached to it. They want decisions to be genuine, and they feel that a Monday invitation is too emotional what with all the excitement that comes with Day 1 of camp. Anyway. Tuesday-Friday were the invitation nights. I've had the privilege the last few years to serve as an Adult Encourager on the decision team; basically what they do is after a Decision Team member finishes counseling with a student or adult, they bring that person to me. As an Encourager I check the information, including the decision they're making, I literally encourage them, pray for them, then dismiss them and their DT member. Sometimes, in overwhelming response, they call on encouragers to act as those DT members to counsel someone. That was me on Tuesday night; I counseled two girls making rededication decisions. I had no idea how God was working in our own group that night. FOUR of our group made salvation decisions that night; 3 were siblings! Two brothers and one sister gave their lives over to Jesus that night. Another girl in our group also rededicated her life to Jesus. The siblings that followed Jesus, I have to say I don't think I've ever seen teenagers more hungry for the Word of God than they are/were. Their honesty at saying, "I don't understand this, can you help me understand it?" was so refreshing. We as adults need to be more open and honest about things in the Bible we don't understand.
The week went well, everyone pretty much got along with everyone else. We had a lot of first timers going, and they adapted to camp very well. We had primarily middle school students, but I so enjoyed getting to know all of our kids over the week; I didn't know most of them very well and was afraid I wouldn't be able to develop any kind of relationship with them.
We all thought that God had done something amazing in our cabin that week, something we rarely see with 4 salvations in one night. But He wasn't done at all! Friday night, our last night, I went down to the front as usual during the invitation. And I spotted a young girl from our group come down. She wasn't even a camper; her mom was one of our sponsors and this girl's sister was one of our campers. She (the girl making a decision) came with her little brother for the day, and she accepted Jesus as Lord. Needless to say I could NOT hold back my tears of joy! And to top it off, I had the privilege of being her encourager!
Falls Creek 2017 was one of the best years at camp. I can't fully explain why FC is so special to me. You go excited and come back exhausted. But it's a good kind of exhausted, especially when you have this kind of week to reflect back on. When you know that the entire purpose was to bring those 6 people to camp, what else do you need? God works all things in advance, and He's working even when we don't realize it. That was very evident this past week. God put all of us where He wanted us this week.
If you ever have a chance to go to Falls Creek yourself, I highly encourage you to. It will be a place you will not easily forget.
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Star Wars: The Force Awakens Review [WARNING: SPOILERS!]
Anyone who knows me knows that I'm a nerd. I get giddy when I see or hear anything Star Wars/Star Trek/Hunger Games/Marvel related. When I pass by Star Wars toys in Wal-mart or other stores, I have a hard time just walking by without at least looking. I own all 6 Star Wars films, all but one season of The Clone Wars, several books and items of clothing, and even some jewelry that reflects my passion for Star Wars. I've been a fan since at least 2004, though I didn't see any of the films until late 2005/early 2006. So to say that I was excited when news of a new trilogy hit the internet is a major understatement. When the first teaser hit YouTube, I watched it 20 times (maybe more). I was a bit skeptical at the thought of J.J. Abrams tinkering with another of my favorite universes, but hearing that he was an avid fan helped allay my fears a little (he's admitted to not even liking Star Trek!).
My birthday was this past Friday, and two good friends of mine wanted to see the film with me. It also worked out since I'm leaving for Amarillo to start a new job soon and who knows when we'll get to visit together again! Anyway, I was VERY excited for Sunday afternoon because it not only marked the first time I ever would see a Star Wars film IN theaters, it was part of a historic film moment (after all, this film shattered records all over the place!).
As the title states, this review will be chock full of spoilers, so if you haven't seen the film yet, stop reading NOW! I also will start with a disclaimer: these are my opinions ONLY. I'm very set in my opinions sometimes, and arguing does nothing. I don't mind differing opinion(s), but arguing doesn't accomplish anything. That said, here we go:
First, there were several things about this movie that I loved. I LOVED BB8. Who wouldn't? How could you not love a droid that gave almost the same quality performance as its human co-stars? I confessed to a friend of mine that I think I love him *almost* more than R2D2. I also have to give kudos to J.J. for being adamant about practical effects (like character suits). It gave the film a more old-trilogy feel, something I think turned people off about the prequel trilogy (incidentally, the overuse of CGI and digital effects is what tainted the Hobbit trilogy, IMO). I also loved Han Solo's return. He's a favorite of mine though, so I could be biased. The return of some characters, however, was more lackluster. C-3PO, for instance. I had hoped (though maybe it'll be explained in Episode 8) that there would be an explanation as to why he has a red arm. I mean, why? That is going to bother me until the question is answered!
I liked/loved Poe, but I really thought he'd get a little more screen time than he did. For the brief time we saw him unmasked, Kylo Ren. I almost refuse to 'love' a villain, but Adam Driver did such a fantastic job it's hard not to notice it or to like it. The 'twist' that he's really Han Solo and Leia's son wasn't much of a shocker to me; as the movie started and we met him for the first time, I had an inkling that he was related to either Luke or Leia (especially emphasized by the fact about his confrontation with the old man he killed in the beginning of the film). Maybe it was just me, but he seemed to be a mixture of Anakin Skywalker (pre-Darth Vader/pre-suit) and Darth Maul (post-Naboo duel); not quite fully evil at times, but also not fully grounded in reality. I liked how the film also touched on the issue of the stormtroopers vs. the clones. Stormtroopers are NOT the same as clone troopers, which is something I only discovered recently. It was slipped in in a way that I think the avid fans would have noticed, and the casual fan might have missed. Kudos to whoever made sure that made it in the film. And Andy Serkis? How does he manage to not sound anything like himself or any character he's played? If I hadn't known he was in the film, I probably would not have pegged him as Supreme Leader Snoke.
As for the other two new characters, Rey and Finn....I liked them. I was surprised that Rey turned out to be Force sensitive. All of the teasers and promos have pointed to Finn as the Jedi protege, not Rey. The twist in that was certainly surprising, and it was honestly refreshing to see a woman front and center wielding a lightsaber in a live-action film. I love Ahsoka Tano, but let's face it: she's a cartoon character and for a lot of fans, she doesn't exist. She's not canonical (even though it's been declared by Lucasfilm that she is). We have rarely seen a woman pick up a lightsaber and flat out kick someone's butt in these films. We've seen Leia and Padme pick up blasters, and in the background we've seen some women wield sabers, but a woman in the limelight? This was a first!
Also, though I missed a great deal of it, I know that Matt Lanter and James Arnold Taylor voiced characters/creatures in the film. Matt and James play the Clone Wars versions of Anakin and Obi-Wan, respectively; I think it was a great gesture to include them in this film (in whatever way they were involved). Also Ewan McGregor was included, but I am sad to say I completely missed hearing his voice, thinking it was Alec Guinness!
And, now....on to the things I disliked/hated (I do realized some of the things I address are now not considered canon by Lucasfilm, but I'll get to that at the end).
Leia is not a Jedi. Ugh. I'm not a big fan of the EU, as I haven't delved too deeply into it, but Leia is a Jedi. It's been an established fact for YEARS. Especially considering the whole, "there is another Skywalker" thing from ROTJ, she should have been made a Jedi, or at least something about her Jedi training mentioned in the film. She is NOT just a princess, or a diplomat, or a general. She. Is. A. Jedi.
Are Leia and Han even married? They married in the books (and had 3 children, btw), but there is no mention of their marriage in the film. It's basically implied that they had a fling, through which was produced Kylo Ren/Ben Solo, and then they went their own way. This lack of mentioning any kind of serious relationship, I think, takes away from what makes Han and Leia special. Yes, they bicker. No, they don't agree on much. But the Han and Leia of ROTJ would have married. Maybe not stayed married as in the books, but they would have gotten married.
Kylo Ren=Ben Solo. I had a discussion about this with a friend the day I saw the film. Ben Solo exists nowhere in the Star Wars universe, EU or otherwise. Ben SKYWALKER exists, but as the son of Luke Skywalker and Mara Jade (who makes no appearance at all in the film). Jacen and Jaina Solo (twins) and Anakin Solo are the only children Han/Leia ever had. Jacen became a dark lord of the Sith, killing Mara, and Jaina became a Jedi (I don't remember about Anakin). Where was Mara? Are we to believe that Luke re-instituted the old-Jedi code of no attachments? This goes way against what was established in the books. Luke abolished that code and the new Jedi order allowed romantic attachments. Granted, Mara dies, so maybe they did marry and we'll hear mention of her in the next film....or even see her in flashbacks. But, doubtful, so I'm going to put it here for good measure.
Han Solo died. Yep. Han Solo died. His son killed him. I fully expected Chewbacca to die, but was not expecting Han until he walked out onto that bridge with Kylo. I mean seriously, could anyone NOT see that one coming at that point? Needless to say, I'm miffed over that. Looks like Harrison finally got his wish of Han getting killed off.
I disliked Jakku. Tattoine is synonymous with Star Wars. Why introduce another desert planet that will only confuse newcomers to the universe? Maybe they were trying to establish that there were multiples of planets with similar environments, but I didn't like the desert aspect. Too similar to previous films, IMO.
How the heck did Maz get Luke's lightsaber from Empire? It fell down a shaft last we knew, along with his hand. I hate ambiguous things like that.
Rey and the lightsaber. *sigh* I'm all for suspending disbelief, but am I really to believe that this girl, who had never touched a real weapon before in her life, could suddenly pick up a lightsaber and basically defeat Kylo Ren? I know she's evidently strong in the Force (we're lead to assume anyway), but nobody just knows how to pick a lightsaber up and wield it. For someone who wasn't even sure that the Force/the Jedi existed, she certainly didn't need much training to learn how to wield it.
And the lens flares. Not a single one was in sight. What gives, J.J.?
Oh, wait. I LIKED that there was not a single lens flare in this film. See, it *is* possible to make a movie and not blind your audience at every turn! :)
Rating: 7/10
Bottom line: Worth seeing if you're a Star Wars fan. If you're new to the universe, I'd pass on this and start with the original trilogy first.
My birthday was this past Friday, and two good friends of mine wanted to see the film with me. It also worked out since I'm leaving for Amarillo to start a new job soon and who knows when we'll get to visit together again! Anyway, I was VERY excited for Sunday afternoon because it not only marked the first time I ever would see a Star Wars film IN theaters, it was part of a historic film moment (after all, this film shattered records all over the place!).
As the title states, this review will be chock full of spoilers, so if you haven't seen the film yet, stop reading NOW! I also will start with a disclaimer: these are my opinions ONLY. I'm very set in my opinions sometimes, and arguing does nothing. I don't mind differing opinion(s), but arguing doesn't accomplish anything. That said, here we go:
First, there were several things about this movie that I loved. I LOVED BB8. Who wouldn't? How could you not love a droid that gave almost the same quality performance as its human co-stars? I confessed to a friend of mine that I think I love him *almost* more than R2D2. I also have to give kudos to J.J. for being adamant about practical effects (like character suits). It gave the film a more old-trilogy feel, something I think turned people off about the prequel trilogy (incidentally, the overuse of CGI and digital effects is what tainted the Hobbit trilogy, IMO). I also loved Han Solo's return. He's a favorite of mine though, so I could be biased. The return of some characters, however, was more lackluster. C-3PO, for instance. I had hoped (though maybe it'll be explained in Episode 8) that there would be an explanation as to why he has a red arm. I mean, why? That is going to bother me until the question is answered!
I liked/loved Poe, but I really thought he'd get a little more screen time than he did. For the brief time we saw him unmasked, Kylo Ren. I almost refuse to 'love' a villain, but Adam Driver did such a fantastic job it's hard not to notice it or to like it. The 'twist' that he's really Han Solo and Leia's son wasn't much of a shocker to me; as the movie started and we met him for the first time, I had an inkling that he was related to either Luke or Leia (especially emphasized by the fact about his confrontation with the old man he killed in the beginning of the film). Maybe it was just me, but he seemed to be a mixture of Anakin Skywalker (pre-Darth Vader/pre-suit) and Darth Maul (post-Naboo duel); not quite fully evil at times, but also not fully grounded in reality. I liked how the film also touched on the issue of the stormtroopers vs. the clones. Stormtroopers are NOT the same as clone troopers, which is something I only discovered recently. It was slipped in in a way that I think the avid fans would have noticed, and the casual fan might have missed. Kudos to whoever made sure that made it in the film. And Andy Serkis? How does he manage to not sound anything like himself or any character he's played? If I hadn't known he was in the film, I probably would not have pegged him as Supreme Leader Snoke.
As for the other two new characters, Rey and Finn....I liked them. I was surprised that Rey turned out to be Force sensitive. All of the teasers and promos have pointed to Finn as the Jedi protege, not Rey. The twist in that was certainly surprising, and it was honestly refreshing to see a woman front and center wielding a lightsaber in a live-action film. I love Ahsoka Tano, but let's face it: she's a cartoon character and for a lot of fans, she doesn't exist. She's not canonical (even though it's been declared by Lucasfilm that she is). We have rarely seen a woman pick up a lightsaber and flat out kick someone's butt in these films. We've seen Leia and Padme pick up blasters, and in the background we've seen some women wield sabers, but a woman in the limelight? This was a first!
Also, though I missed a great deal of it, I know that Matt Lanter and James Arnold Taylor voiced characters/creatures in the film. Matt and James play the Clone Wars versions of Anakin and Obi-Wan, respectively; I think it was a great gesture to include them in this film (in whatever way they were involved). Also Ewan McGregor was included, but I am sad to say I completely missed hearing his voice, thinking it was Alec Guinness!
And, now....on to the things I disliked/hated (I do realized some of the things I address are now not considered canon by Lucasfilm, but I'll get to that at the end).
Leia is not a Jedi. Ugh. I'm not a big fan of the EU, as I haven't delved too deeply into it, but Leia is a Jedi. It's been an established fact for YEARS. Especially considering the whole, "there is another Skywalker" thing from ROTJ, she should have been made a Jedi, or at least something about her Jedi training mentioned in the film. She is NOT just a princess, or a diplomat, or a general. She. Is. A. Jedi.
Are Leia and Han even married? They married in the books (and had 3 children, btw), but there is no mention of their marriage in the film. It's basically implied that they had a fling, through which was produced Kylo Ren/Ben Solo, and then they went their own way. This lack of mentioning any kind of serious relationship, I think, takes away from what makes Han and Leia special. Yes, they bicker. No, they don't agree on much. But the Han and Leia of ROTJ would have married. Maybe not stayed married as in the books, but they would have gotten married.
Kylo Ren=Ben Solo. I had a discussion about this with a friend the day I saw the film. Ben Solo exists nowhere in the Star Wars universe, EU or otherwise. Ben SKYWALKER exists, but as the son of Luke Skywalker and Mara Jade (who makes no appearance at all in the film). Jacen and Jaina Solo (twins) and Anakin Solo are the only children Han/Leia ever had. Jacen became a dark lord of the Sith, killing Mara, and Jaina became a Jedi (I don't remember about Anakin). Where was Mara? Are we to believe that Luke re-instituted the old-Jedi code of no attachments? This goes way against what was established in the books. Luke abolished that code and the new Jedi order allowed romantic attachments. Granted, Mara dies, so maybe they did marry and we'll hear mention of her in the next film....or even see her in flashbacks. But, doubtful, so I'm going to put it here for good measure.
Han Solo died. Yep. Han Solo died. His son killed him. I fully expected Chewbacca to die, but was not expecting Han until he walked out onto that bridge with Kylo. I mean seriously, could anyone NOT see that one coming at that point? Needless to say, I'm miffed over that. Looks like Harrison finally got his wish of Han getting killed off.
I disliked Jakku. Tattoine is synonymous with Star Wars. Why introduce another desert planet that will only confuse newcomers to the universe? Maybe they were trying to establish that there were multiples of planets with similar environments, but I didn't like the desert aspect. Too similar to previous films, IMO.
How the heck did Maz get Luke's lightsaber from Empire? It fell down a shaft last we knew, along with his hand. I hate ambiguous things like that.
Rey and the lightsaber. *sigh* I'm all for suspending disbelief, but am I really to believe that this girl, who had never touched a real weapon before in her life, could suddenly pick up a lightsaber and basically defeat Kylo Ren? I know she's evidently strong in the Force (we're lead to assume anyway), but nobody just knows how to pick a lightsaber up and wield it. For someone who wasn't even sure that the Force/the Jedi existed, she certainly didn't need much training to learn how to wield it.
And the lens flares. Not a single one was in sight. What gives, J.J.?
Oh, wait. I LIKED that there was not a single lens flare in this film. See, it *is* possible to make a movie and not blind your audience at every turn! :)
Rating: 7/10
Bottom line: Worth seeing if you're a Star Wars fan. If you're new to the universe, I'd pass on this and start with the original trilogy first.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
Meet Mr. Bilbo!
Recently The Battle of the Five Armies came out in theaters. It's the finale to a franchise millions of people love and some love to hate. The key character in this last trilogy is a Hobbit named Bilbo Baggins. So as you might guess, Hobbits, Elves, and Dwarves were all kind of on my mind when I was introduced to this stray kitten outside church. Being the vet tech that I am, I decided to try and give him a home. So I took him to the clinic since I didn't have anything at home to take care of him with. I got him fixed, vaccinated, tested, dewormed, all that good stuff. He checked out and came to live with me right after Christmas. He's been an absolute sweetheart, with the exceptions of the times he gets a little wild and likes to play attack everything in sight. He likes to snuggle with me sometimes but only on his terms.
Bilbo was the name suggested by my boss, though I was torn between two names for him: Obi-Wan and Boba (not ashamed of this nerdy fact!). Bilbo seemed to fit him, though he still doesn't really respond when I call his name. Here's a photo of him the weekend I brought him home. He's grown just a little since then. :)
Bilbo was the name suggested by my boss, though I was torn between two names for him: Obi-Wan and Boba (not ashamed of this nerdy fact!). Bilbo seemed to fit him, though he still doesn't really respond when I call his name. Here's a photo of him the weekend I brought him home. He's grown just a little since then. :)
He's also not too fond of his collar, so his nice little blue collar has stayed off. He somehow keeps figuring out how to remove it. But I love him and he has a good personality, even though he's still learning what's right and what's wrong! As I type this he's lying in my lap in the middle of it all.
And yes, I liked Battle of the Five Armies. It may have lacked some of the character development of Lord of the Rings (an unfortunate characteristic of the entire trilogy), but it was a good film. Worth seeing if you are familiar with LotR or you have seen all the others.
Saturday, November 29, 2014
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1 (2014)
Wow. It's been a little while since I last posted a blog entry, but a lot has been going on. Since January I've been continually working at the job I started in Oct. 2013, and in March of this year I got to add "aunt to a nephew" to my list of titles. yes, my nephew Carter was born in March and is the sweetest thing ever! At the end of the summer I moved into my own house and have been faced with the ugly reality of paying more bills than I ever had in Mississippi (apartment living was actually a breeze compared to renting a house!). :) Nobody ever told me this was part of being an adult. Haha. Oh well.
Today I saw The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1 in theaters, and though yes, I did actually wait a week *gasp* to see the film, I think it was actually well worth it; I didn't have to deal with those annoying seat kickers, annoying people that will NOT shut up, or the like. It was a great theater experience. I think I'll do that more often. Be assured, this review will have plenty of spoilers, so if you haven't seen the film and would like to save yourself the trouble, I wouldn't read any further. Although, I would like to make a teensy comment unrelated to the actual film itself: is the MPAA made up of morons? Why would you rate a movie PG-13 for 'a suggestive comment'? For real? [I think the film in question was the Age of Adaline]. However it was AWESOME seeing The Hobbit trailer on the big screen in huge, beautiful digital HD. But I digress. On to the review!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What a film. My expectations were high considering the quality of an adaptation that Catching Fire proved to be. Granted that it has been at least a year since I've read the trilogy, so I may be stretching some of my praise of the film. But first, I felt like the first half of the book was captured in the movie. Mockingjay is a very dark book, and as such has a lot of depressing moments in it. I liked that it opened with Katniss playing her 'real' game: "I'll start with what's real: my name is Katniss Everdeen. I'm from District 12. I survived the Games. Peeta was left behind/is in the Capitol", etc. This isn't how the book began, but it gave us a pretty good starting point at where Katniss is emotionally and psychologically. She's a completely shattered heroine, the tolls of being strong for those around her showing through her cracked facade. And it was a good way film-wise to include a great many pieces of the book in just one 2 minute scene [the book has a lot of little moments where Katniss completely loses her mind and has to be sedated]. So on this note, can we please just discuss Jennifer Lawrence and why she's a several times Oscar winning/nominated actress?! We've seen a steady progression of Katniss: in movie 1, she was a reluctant hero for her sister. In movie 2, she's a broken but ready to fight individual who wants to ensure Peeta survives. In Mockingjay, she's a combination of the two, more broken than willing. her accumulated personal losses have caused her a great deal of emotional damage, as evidenced in the book. In many ways, she's only a puppet for the rebellion, her strings pulled by various parties in District 13 [a fact emphasized by the numerous 3rd person mentions of Katniss while she's in the room; they talk about her as if she's not there in person]. But she has the mental faculties to make several personal demands to President Coin if she becomes the Mockingjay. She wants Peeta and the other victors freed (funny how Enobaria wasn't mentioned in that demand; wonder where she ended up), as well as wanting them to let Prim keep her cat. Jennifer does an excellent job playing this side of Katniss: at times strong, but most of the time completely lost and in pain.
Peeta. Oh Peeta. you were one reason I was dreading this movie so much! The progression of Peeta's torture was one of the things I didn't want to see, but see it we did. he starts out relatively unchanged and by the end of the film, I don't even know the character anymore. Hutcherson did a terrific job conveying all of Peeta's nuances in this film; I won't even talk about how the hate in Peeta's eyes at the end was completely believable. It'll be interesting to see how he brings Peeta to life in the next film.
Gale. I still hate the character, even though he's really not all that unlikable in the film(s). I just don't like Gale, and I still feel like he's a bit of a pansy in this installment; they should have made him tougher or something. I don't know. I didn't like his portrayal all that much. But President Coin. I know what happens to her at the end of the story but she is the one new person I dislike the most. Maybe it's BECAUSE I know what happens to her in the end, but she's just...ick. Like a two-faced snake. And in passing I'll mention some of the newcomers, Cressida, Boggs. I had my reservations about Boggs at first, but I actually really liked him. And Cressida. And the film crew (though we don't see them much at all). Part 2 will be difficult. Really difficult.
Can we also just talk about The Hanging Tree? When I first heard it, I thought, "eh". It wasn't what I pictured. But as I've listened to it, and after having seen the film, it's grown on me. It was an important song from the book, and I feel as if the filmmakers captured it in the right way. Though I would have preferred a little more build up to the song [I think I remember Katniss telling a story about it in the book], but overall it was satisfying. And while at first I disliked Lorde's "Yellow Flicker Beat", it's grown on me as well.
Music was much the same as previous films, I wasn't overwhelmed by anything.
Okay so if you've gotten this far and you STILL haven't seen the movie, I want to warn you about the ending. It's ridiculously INTENSE. I knew more or less what it would be from comments I'd read about the movie, but I didn't realize how intense it would turn out. And for all those crying about how it ended, let me remind you: the book splits pretty evenly at chapters 13 and 14. Chapter 13 ends very similarly, and since there are 27 chapters in the book (minus the epilogue), then this was an adequate place to stop. Part 2 will be hard enough with the attack on the Capitol (and everything that comes with).
Rating: 4.5/5. It's the best of the 3 so far. Go see it!
Today I saw The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1 in theaters, and though yes, I did actually wait a week *gasp* to see the film, I think it was actually well worth it; I didn't have to deal with those annoying seat kickers, annoying people that will NOT shut up, or the like. It was a great theater experience. I think I'll do that more often. Be assured, this review will have plenty of spoilers, so if you haven't seen the film and would like to save yourself the trouble, I wouldn't read any further. Although, I would like to make a teensy comment unrelated to the actual film itself: is the MPAA made up of morons? Why would you rate a movie PG-13 for 'a suggestive comment'? For real? [I think the film in question was the Age of Adaline]. However it was AWESOME seeing The Hobbit trailer on the big screen in huge, beautiful digital HD. But I digress. On to the review!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What a film. My expectations were high considering the quality of an adaptation that Catching Fire proved to be. Granted that it has been at least a year since I've read the trilogy, so I may be stretching some of my praise of the film. But first, I felt like the first half of the book was captured in the movie. Mockingjay is a very dark book, and as such has a lot of depressing moments in it. I liked that it opened with Katniss playing her 'real' game: "I'll start with what's real: my name is Katniss Everdeen. I'm from District 12. I survived the Games. Peeta was left behind/is in the Capitol", etc. This isn't how the book began, but it gave us a pretty good starting point at where Katniss is emotionally and psychologically. She's a completely shattered heroine, the tolls of being strong for those around her showing through her cracked facade. And it was a good way film-wise to include a great many pieces of the book in just one 2 minute scene [the book has a lot of little moments where Katniss completely loses her mind and has to be sedated]. So on this note, can we please just discuss Jennifer Lawrence and why she's a several times Oscar winning/nominated actress?! We've seen a steady progression of Katniss: in movie 1, she was a reluctant hero for her sister. In movie 2, she's a broken but ready to fight individual who wants to ensure Peeta survives. In Mockingjay, she's a combination of the two, more broken than willing. her accumulated personal losses have caused her a great deal of emotional damage, as evidenced in the book. In many ways, she's only a puppet for the rebellion, her strings pulled by various parties in District 13 [a fact emphasized by the numerous 3rd person mentions of Katniss while she's in the room; they talk about her as if she's not there in person]. But she has the mental faculties to make several personal demands to President Coin if she becomes the Mockingjay. She wants Peeta and the other victors freed (funny how Enobaria wasn't mentioned in that demand; wonder where she ended up), as well as wanting them to let Prim keep her cat. Jennifer does an excellent job playing this side of Katniss: at times strong, but most of the time completely lost and in pain.
Peeta. Oh Peeta. you were one reason I was dreading this movie so much! The progression of Peeta's torture was one of the things I didn't want to see, but see it we did. he starts out relatively unchanged and by the end of the film, I don't even know the character anymore. Hutcherson did a terrific job conveying all of Peeta's nuances in this film; I won't even talk about how the hate in Peeta's eyes at the end was completely believable. It'll be interesting to see how he brings Peeta to life in the next film.
Gale. I still hate the character, even though he's really not all that unlikable in the film(s). I just don't like Gale, and I still feel like he's a bit of a pansy in this installment; they should have made him tougher or something. I don't know. I didn't like his portrayal all that much. But President Coin. I know what happens to her at the end of the story but she is the one new person I dislike the most. Maybe it's BECAUSE I know what happens to her in the end, but she's just...ick. Like a two-faced snake. And in passing I'll mention some of the newcomers, Cressida, Boggs. I had my reservations about Boggs at first, but I actually really liked him. And Cressida. And the film crew (though we don't see them much at all). Part 2 will be difficult. Really difficult.
Can we also just talk about The Hanging Tree? When I first heard it, I thought, "eh". It wasn't what I pictured. But as I've listened to it, and after having seen the film, it's grown on me. It was an important song from the book, and I feel as if the filmmakers captured it in the right way. Though I would have preferred a little more build up to the song [I think I remember Katniss telling a story about it in the book], but overall it was satisfying. And while at first I disliked Lorde's "Yellow Flicker Beat", it's grown on me as well.
Music was much the same as previous films, I wasn't overwhelmed by anything.
Okay so if you've gotten this far and you STILL haven't seen the movie, I want to warn you about the ending. It's ridiculously INTENSE. I knew more or less what it would be from comments I'd read about the movie, but I didn't realize how intense it would turn out. And for all those crying about how it ended, let me remind you: the book splits pretty evenly at chapters 13 and 14. Chapter 13 ends very similarly, and since there are 27 chapters in the book (minus the epilogue), then this was an adequate place to stop. Part 2 will be hard enough with the attack on the Capitol (and everything that comes with).
Rating: 4.5/5. It's the best of the 3 so far. Go see it!
Saturday, January 18, 2014
The Lone Ranger (2013) Review: Not Quite Like The Original...
I finally got around to watching The Lone Ranger (2013) with Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer today. I didn't see it in theaters, mostly because everyone was saying how much of a flop it was, how bad of a film it was, etc. I had some motivation to see this movie; after all, there aren't a lot of films with Gil Birmingham in them that I can watch without feeling awful after (most of his films tend to have a lot of language in them, I've learned). I can honestly say I'm glad I didn't waste the money on a theater ticket, and I'm only out $1.30 (Redbox cost). Let me start this short review by stating several things: first, I am NOT a purist Lone Ranger fan. While I'm somewhat familiar with the original story, I am not a big fan of the original (though there's no Ranger like Clayton Moore and no Tonto like Jay Silverheels), and so what I say may or may not hold much water for you. Second, I am also NOT a Native American/Comanche expert, and I don't claim to be; I only know a little about some cultures, so I go off that.
The one thing that has irked me about this movie from the very beginning was the casting of Johnny Depp as Tonto. I mean really. The man isn't native (he claims to have some ancestry through his 'grandmother', but hasn't produced any proof of this claim), though he is extremely talented. Depp is, for lack of a better term, a character actor. Just look at his career to know that: Jack Sparrow, Willy Wonka, Rango, Edward Scissorhands, etc. I will be the last person on earth to say that Depp isn't talented. On the contrary, I think he's incredibly talented and he is able to pull of comedic parts with success. But this...this just wasn't it for me. While Depp's Tonto had some comic moments, I felt overall that it was all, I dunno. Fake? Forced? Now I don't know how a Comanche, who had spent his entire life speaking his native language and then learning English later, would really speak. But a consensus among most, if not all, Natives and native tribes is that Tonto's way of speaking is demeaning. It fits into the stereotype Hollywood has produced ever since the beginning of film in the 1890s. Also regarding Tonto, there are so many talented (and available!) Native actors out there now. Michael Spears, Eddie Spears, Zahn McClarnon, Gil Birmingham, Adam Beach, Chaske Spencer, Wes Studi. Just to name a handful! And that's not even the extent of the list, to be quite honest. Those are the actors whose work I'm most familiar with. But they are proven actors, who are not only talented and who not only have impressive credits to their names, but they are also the culture (give or take) that Tonto represents. Granted, the only real native in this list who is actually of Comanche heritage is Birmingham. But, I digress. You get my drift anyway. It's ironic that Birmingham and other Native actors were included IN the film, but not in very main roles! What is up with this? Is Hollywood so set in its racial bias towards Natives in film that it can't even fathom the idea of putting a Native actor in a main role that is also iconic? For however stereotypical Tonto may be, at least Silverheels was a Native actor. And I personally feel as if Verbinski and Bruckheimer missed a rare opportunity to kind of erase that Indian stereotype by not only casting a true Native in the role, but also making Tonto a more believable, more realistically speaking and acting person. But, Hollywood is all about money, and films are all about getting the actors who will make your film sell. Guess that didn't work out so well. Just look at the box office numbers for it and all the critical reviews!
[Side note for this section: Tonto's entire look was based on a painting of a Crow warrior. I'm pretty sure that the Crow and Comanche are about as related as a dog and a cat. No Comanche actually looked like Tonto, and I find his costume design rather insulting and demeaning; they could've jazzed up a traditional Comanche warrior outfit for goodness' sake!]
As for Armie Hammer as the Lone Ranger/John Reid. Ouch. What a hapless nit-wit! Watching the Lone Ranger series, I never get the feeling that Reid is stupid. Or that he's hapless. Or that he's essentially so helpless that it's luck which gets him through situations. Clayton Moore's Lone Ranger, while it may be cheesy (it was the 1950s after all), is a guy who understands the value of life and of justice. The right kind of justice. That's kind of thrown in there in this film, but I honestly feel as if Hammer's Lone Ranger's sense of morality and soul is undermined by his pure lack of competence as a crime fighter. This is not Clayton Moore. This is not the Lone Ranger you're probably familiar with.
The gratuitous violence by the film's villains is unnecessary. The constant weirdness perpetrated by Tonto is tiresome and laughable [maybe on purpose]. Overall? This movie is NOT worth your time or money. Sure, you'll have some laughs along the way. And if you like Johnny Depp, then you'll probably like his Tonto (to me a mix of Jack Sparrow and something original). However if you are looking for a fun modern return to The Lone Ranger of Clayton Moore's and Jay Silverheels' era, then you are looking in the wrong place.
Rating: 1.5/5. Though the movie did have decent music to it. It should; the score was composed by Hans Zimmer, and pieces of the score were composed/arranged by Geoff Zanelli (responsible for the beautiful scores of Into the West (2005); at least that's what I know him from). But that's about the only good thing in this film.
The one thing that has irked me about this movie from the very beginning was the casting of Johnny Depp as Tonto. I mean really. The man isn't native (he claims to have some ancestry through his 'grandmother', but hasn't produced any proof of this claim), though he is extremely talented. Depp is, for lack of a better term, a character actor. Just look at his career to know that: Jack Sparrow, Willy Wonka, Rango, Edward Scissorhands, etc. I will be the last person on earth to say that Depp isn't talented. On the contrary, I think he's incredibly talented and he is able to pull of comedic parts with success. But this...this just wasn't it for me. While Depp's Tonto had some comic moments, I felt overall that it was all, I dunno. Fake? Forced? Now I don't know how a Comanche, who had spent his entire life speaking his native language and then learning English later, would really speak. But a consensus among most, if not all, Natives and native tribes is that Tonto's way of speaking is demeaning. It fits into the stereotype Hollywood has produced ever since the beginning of film in the 1890s. Also regarding Tonto, there are so many talented (and available!) Native actors out there now. Michael Spears, Eddie Spears, Zahn McClarnon, Gil Birmingham, Adam Beach, Chaske Spencer, Wes Studi. Just to name a handful! And that's not even the extent of the list, to be quite honest. Those are the actors whose work I'm most familiar with. But they are proven actors, who are not only talented and who not only have impressive credits to their names, but they are also the culture (give or take) that Tonto represents. Granted, the only real native in this list who is actually of Comanche heritage is Birmingham. But, I digress. You get my drift anyway. It's ironic that Birmingham and other Native actors were included IN the film, but not in very main roles! What is up with this? Is Hollywood so set in its racial bias towards Natives in film that it can't even fathom the idea of putting a Native actor in a main role that is also iconic? For however stereotypical Tonto may be, at least Silverheels was a Native actor. And I personally feel as if Verbinski and Bruckheimer missed a rare opportunity to kind of erase that Indian stereotype by not only casting a true Native in the role, but also making Tonto a more believable, more realistically speaking and acting person. But, Hollywood is all about money, and films are all about getting the actors who will make your film sell. Guess that didn't work out so well. Just look at the box office numbers for it and all the critical reviews!
[Side note for this section: Tonto's entire look was based on a painting of a Crow warrior. I'm pretty sure that the Crow and Comanche are about as related as a dog and a cat. No Comanche actually looked like Tonto, and I find his costume design rather insulting and demeaning; they could've jazzed up a traditional Comanche warrior outfit for goodness' sake!]
As for Armie Hammer as the Lone Ranger/John Reid. Ouch. What a hapless nit-wit! Watching the Lone Ranger series, I never get the feeling that Reid is stupid. Or that he's hapless. Or that he's essentially so helpless that it's luck which gets him through situations. Clayton Moore's Lone Ranger, while it may be cheesy (it was the 1950s after all), is a guy who understands the value of life and of justice. The right kind of justice. That's kind of thrown in there in this film, but I honestly feel as if Hammer's Lone Ranger's sense of morality and soul is undermined by his pure lack of competence as a crime fighter. This is not Clayton Moore. This is not the Lone Ranger you're probably familiar with.
The gratuitous violence by the film's villains is unnecessary. The constant weirdness perpetrated by Tonto is tiresome and laughable [maybe on purpose]. Overall? This movie is NOT worth your time or money. Sure, you'll have some laughs along the way. And if you like Johnny Depp, then you'll probably like his Tonto (to me a mix of Jack Sparrow and something original). However if you are looking for a fun modern return to The Lone Ranger of Clayton Moore's and Jay Silverheels' era, then you are looking in the wrong place.
Rating: 1.5/5. Though the movie did have decent music to it. It should; the score was composed by Hans Zimmer, and pieces of the score were composed/arranged by Geoff Zanelli (responsible for the beautiful scores of Into the West (2005); at least that's what I know him from). But that's about the only good thing in this film.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
The Desolation of Smaug-Are the Critics Right? (Review: Warning, spoilers ahead!)
As many of you are I'm sure aware, last night was opening night for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug in the U.S. I have to confess, because of the year long wait, I had kind of lost my excitement over the film, especially in light of Catching Fire coming out a mere three weeks before DoS. But, I was determined to see it in theaters anyway, especially since I didn't get the chance to see LotR in theaters. And since it's a love of the films my dad and I share, it made seeing the film in theaters worth it. So, what follows is my review. Take it with a grain of salt, as I am NOT a Tolkien purist (though I did think the book was rather good as it is written). And, there are lots of spoilers ahead, so if you haven't seen it yet and you want to go into it cold, better click on something else to read. :)
Here goes.
Let me just begin this by saying that the last hour of the film was so far off of the book, it surprises me that more people aren't upset by it. However, before I go into the negative aspects of the movie, I'll talk about the things I really liked in it (in no particular order, just as it comes to mind). I might be a little biased, but I LOVED the appearance of Legolas in this movie. It was the same character, but also so different. His introduction in the film was genius and so well done. Who didn't love that little nod to Gimli when Legolas saw the picture of a young Gimli and his mother? I giggled over that scene if only because of its irony! I also couldn't help but like how very agile Legolas was in the movie. The sequence of Legolas literally tiptoeing on the dwarves' heads as he shot orcs was nothing short of hysterical. No wonder Leggy was a little snobby in Fellowship; he could do that and not lose his balance OR his aim! Lee Pace was phenomenal as Thranduil. I always disliked Thranduil in the book, if only because he came across as very arrogant and self righteous; Pace delivered on that very well. And while we're discussing Elves, what about Tauriel? I was kind of expecting to hate her, but I really liked her. I know she wasn't in the books, and like Evangeline Lilly, I agree that there should not have been any sort of romantic angle in the film. It's sad that the studio was pushing for that, even after Lilly signed the contract on the condition that she NOT get into a love triangle! She did a great job of delivering her Elvish lines, as did Orlando. I might even go so far as to say that Orlando's Elvish was better in this film than in LotR; maybe he was studying in the 10 years since?
And Smaug. Holy dragons. He was everything I imagined and more. I really did like Benedict Cumberbatch's performance as both the Necromancer and as Smaug. Smaug's design was terrifying, if only because he seemed to me to resemble a snake at times more than a dragon. I can't believe the scale on him either; I thought he was massive when the camera first hinted at his size, but I was way off base! Oh, and by mention of baddies, I would just like to say it was nice to see Lawrence Makoare's name in the credits this time around. He played the Witch King in Return of the King, so it was just really neat to see his name in the credits again! Bard. Oh Bard. I have mixed feelings about you! I liked Bard; he was a likable character, even for his flaws. But, could the filmmakers have made him look anything MORE like Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) from Pirates of the Caribbean? If you don't believe me, look here:
See? What'd I tell you? When I first saw the first trailer, I had to do a double take to be sure that it WASN'T Bloom who was playing Bard. But aside from me having to remind myself it wasn't Will Turner, Bard was a cool character. Can't wait to see him in the next film! I also really liked all the backstory bits. I know some people criticize that, however, as someone who is not into all of the canon of Tolkien's works, I'd rather just see it on screen. Peter Jackson has the opportunity to explore that backstory; he needs to take full advantage of it. I don't berate him for that because I'm sure other fans are curious about some of these things as well (just where did the Ringwraiths come from exactly? is one question I can think of off the top of my head that has always puzzled me).
I might be leaving something out of this section, but I'm writing this review in parts so I can't remember where I wanted to go next. Haha. Moving on.
What I didn't like:
Beorn. Ugh. Just ugh. So underwhelmed by this character. I thought he was kinda cool in the books; and he had a terrible look in the movie. He looked like a cheesy costumed character from the 70s or something. Or, like I originally thought when I saw the first image of him, he looks like a version of the Beast from Beauty and the Beast. Was that the best they could do at Beorn? I mean really? Sad, sad makeup there. And I'm kind of like some others; I wish he'd had more screen time.
The Tauriel/Legolas/Kili triangle was completely unnecessary, and at times, incredibly awkward. I'm mainly talking about that whole hinting-back-at-the-FotR-scene-where-Arwen-appeared-to-Frodo sequence. Seriously. They made a very bad move by making that scene resemble Arwen's first scene from Fellowship of the Ring. I know Elves are ethereal, and they're other-worldly, but seeing as how Tauriel is a tough chick, that didn't match her character. Although I did like the inclusion of athelas. And the fact that Bard referenced it as a weed. Okay, Samwise. ;) I could maybe see Legolas and Tauriel, but the triangle? Not a fan of it, and neither was Lilly, especially when she signed her contract on the condition there wouldn't be a triangle! Which I said before. In which case, I'll move on. I didn't like Smaug getting covered in molten gold. That part of the film was WAY too long, and WAY out of step with the book. Jackson could literally have trimmed off about 20 minutes of footage, and ended it with Bilbo asking, "what have we done?" as Smaug flew towards Laketown...and it would've been perfectly suitable for an ending. Instead, we get an overextended action sequence with Smaug hunting Bilbo and the Dwarves through Erebor. I'd like to know what made Jackson extend that entire sequence with Smaug, because I felt like it was very unnecessary and superfluous.
Overall: this movie was a vast improvement over An Unexpected Journey, if only because it was more interesting. It plodded on, yes, but everything was pretty fast paced and it was nice to the Mirkwood elves kind of fleshed out. I will applaud Jackson yet again for the rendering of Smaug. It was well done and I think Tolkien would have been pleased with how they brought his dragon to life.
My rating: 8.5/10. Now we just have to wait a year to see the conclusion!
Here goes.
Let me just begin this by saying that the last hour of the film was so far off of the book, it surprises me that more people aren't upset by it. However, before I go into the negative aspects of the movie, I'll talk about the things I really liked in it (in no particular order, just as it comes to mind). I might be a little biased, but I LOVED the appearance of Legolas in this movie. It was the same character, but also so different. His introduction in the film was genius and so well done. Who didn't love that little nod to Gimli when Legolas saw the picture of a young Gimli and his mother? I giggled over that scene if only because of its irony! I also couldn't help but like how very agile Legolas was in the movie. The sequence of Legolas literally tiptoeing on the dwarves' heads as he shot orcs was nothing short of hysterical. No wonder Leggy was a little snobby in Fellowship; he could do that and not lose his balance OR his aim! Lee Pace was phenomenal as Thranduil. I always disliked Thranduil in the book, if only because he came across as very arrogant and self righteous; Pace delivered on that very well. And while we're discussing Elves, what about Tauriel? I was kind of expecting to hate her, but I really liked her. I know she wasn't in the books, and like Evangeline Lilly, I agree that there should not have been any sort of romantic angle in the film. It's sad that the studio was pushing for that, even after Lilly signed the contract on the condition that she NOT get into a love triangle! She did a great job of delivering her Elvish lines, as did Orlando. I might even go so far as to say that Orlando's Elvish was better in this film than in LotR; maybe he was studying in the 10 years since?
And Smaug. Holy dragons. He was everything I imagined and more. I really did like Benedict Cumberbatch's performance as both the Necromancer and as Smaug. Smaug's design was terrifying, if only because he seemed to me to resemble a snake at times more than a dragon. I can't believe the scale on him either; I thought he was massive when the camera first hinted at his size, but I was way off base! Oh, and by mention of baddies, I would just like to say it was nice to see Lawrence Makoare's name in the credits this time around. He played the Witch King in Return of the King, so it was just really neat to see his name in the credits again! Bard. Oh Bard. I have mixed feelings about you! I liked Bard; he was a likable character, even for his flaws. But, could the filmmakers have made him look anything MORE like Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) from Pirates of the Caribbean? If you don't believe me, look here:
I might be leaving something out of this section, but I'm writing this review in parts so I can't remember where I wanted to go next. Haha. Moving on.
What I didn't like:
Beorn. Ugh. Just ugh. So underwhelmed by this character. I thought he was kinda cool in the books; and he had a terrible look in the movie. He looked like a cheesy costumed character from the 70s or something. Or, like I originally thought when I saw the first image of him, he looks like a version of the Beast from Beauty and the Beast. Was that the best they could do at Beorn? I mean really? Sad, sad makeup there. And I'm kind of like some others; I wish he'd had more screen time.
The Tauriel/Legolas/Kili triangle was completely unnecessary, and at times, incredibly awkward. I'm mainly talking about that whole hinting-back-at-the-FotR-scene-where-Arwen-appeared-to-Frodo sequence. Seriously. They made a very bad move by making that scene resemble Arwen's first scene from Fellowship of the Ring. I know Elves are ethereal, and they're other-worldly, but seeing as how Tauriel is a tough chick, that didn't match her character. Although I did like the inclusion of athelas. And the fact that Bard referenced it as a weed. Okay, Samwise. ;) I could maybe see Legolas and Tauriel, but the triangle? Not a fan of it, and neither was Lilly, especially when she signed her contract on the condition there wouldn't be a triangle! Which I said before. In which case, I'll move on. I didn't like Smaug getting covered in molten gold. That part of the film was WAY too long, and WAY out of step with the book. Jackson could literally have trimmed off about 20 minutes of footage, and ended it with Bilbo asking, "what have we done?" as Smaug flew towards Laketown...and it would've been perfectly suitable for an ending. Instead, we get an overextended action sequence with Smaug hunting Bilbo and the Dwarves through Erebor. I'd like to know what made Jackson extend that entire sequence with Smaug, because I felt like it was very unnecessary and superfluous.
Overall: this movie was a vast improvement over An Unexpected Journey, if only because it was more interesting. It plodded on, yes, but everything was pretty fast paced and it was nice to the Mirkwood elves kind of fleshed out. I will applaud Jackson yet again for the rendering of Smaug. It was well done and I think Tolkien would have been pleased with how they brought his dragon to life.
My rating: 8.5/10. Now we just have to wait a year to see the conclusion!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)