The 31 Films of 2012

In the beginning of the year, I set certain goals for myself instead of resolutions. Those goals are usually designed to broaden my horizons, see films I've never watched before, read new books, etc etc. The goal I set for movies was to watch at least 30 films I'd never seen before. I managed to accomplish that and even surpass it by a little. So here are the thirty movies I watched over the course of the year, all with snippets of what I thought. These films include everything from big blockbusters to animated films to documentaries.

1. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo - Amazing film, easily one of the best I saw all year. Rooney Mara was mesmerizing and the film itself was extremely well done. The soundtrack itself is worth a purchase even if you didn't like the film overall.
2. Dracula (1992) - Do yourself a favor and stay away. Sure, Gary Oldman is decent as Dracula but the plot drags and the whole movie feels fake.
3. Limitless - Interesting concept, but the movie feels rushed and I wasn't that big of a fan of Bradley Cooper in this movie.
4. Moneyball - A superb film, definitely worth a watch.
5. The Man From Nowhere - A great Korean action film with fantastic music. The plot is simple, but it isn't extremely long and has some really fun knife fights. The film is available on NetFlix.
6. Goodfellas - You know, I thought I'd like this movie more than I did. In the end though it came down to Ray Liotta, who I just don't like.
7. Source Code - Great concept, weird ending. It's short though, so it's worth checking out on NetFlix at least.
8. The Great Gatsby - Sure, perhaps it's a fantastic book but as a movie it's easily one of the most boring films I've ever seen.
9. Gacy - I'm not even sure if this counts as a real movie, but it was something my Criminology teacher made us watch. The movie defines the term "budget film" as I'm pretty sure this was made by a bunch of film students who had no idea what they were doing.
10. Justice League: Doom - Too short, but a great look at an excellent Justice League storyline.
11. Taxi Driver - Another film I thought I would like more than I did. I didn't dislike it as much as Goodfellas, but it didn't blow me away like I expected it to.
12. Apocalypse Now - This movie... I'm honestly not sure what I thought of it. I enjoyed parts of it well enough, but in other areas I wanted to kill myself with a brick. It's all over the place and to be honest I'm not really sure I understood everything that happened in it.
13. Hearts of Darkness - This was the documentary of the making of Apocalypse Now. If you're ever curious to see a man go insane and lose all signs of intelligence over making a movie, this is the film for you.
14. The Avengers - I admit, the concept was amazing, but I was afraid of how it would be pulled off. I never should have doubted Whedon though and he brought together a great set of characters with fantastic dialogue. The plot was okay, but that was never meant to be the focus of the film. I just wish it were a little longer.
15. Chronicle - A "found footage" movie about a group of kids who get super powers. Interesting concept, not entirely well executed. I felt like they were trying to make the audience sympathetic towards the kid in the broken home, but he was such a jerk all I wanted him to do was die. It kind of took the emotion out of things.
16. Live Free and Die Hard - Not bad, not amazing. Watch on NetFlix if you're bored.
17. Die Another Day - Just... stay away. This film's teaser is easily one of the best in Bond history. Everything after that though is a plain garbage. No wonder they rebooted Bond after this movie.
18. The World is Not Enough - This movie is only slightly better than Die Another Day because we learn a few bits more about Bond. Alas, Denise Richards playing a nuclear scientist is hilarious, especially when she acts and sounds like a five year old girl. Robert Carlyle also plays one of the most forgettable villains I've ever watched on screen.
19. Superman vs. The Elite - Based one on single issue of Superman, this animated movie explores the idea of someone like Superman taking lives in to his own hand and what might happen if Superman himself were ever pushed over the edge. I would definitely recommend it. It also has one of the coolest fights I've seen in an animated movie.
20. Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance - I never saw the original Ghost Rider, but from reviews and friends' opinions I wasn't exactly inspired to check it out. My brother is a big fan of the character though so we watched the sequel and it wasn't entirely awful. The movie is more or less Terminator 2 though in plot. Take that as you will.
21. Brave - Not one of Pixar's best efforts, but easily better than something like Cars.
22. The Amazing Spiderman - Probably the biggest disappointment I saw this year. The movie is more or less a carbon copy of the first film and that made it boring to watch. I also felt like Spiderman was missing that "superhuman" quality during his action scenes that make them so fun to watch.
23. The Dark Knight Rises - Apparently you either hate or love this film. I loved it. I really enjoyed Tom Hardy as Bane, I enjoyed the idea of bringing everything full circle for Batman, and I enjoyed the ending. Most times superhero films end with the character just going off and doing more crime-fighting. Here we have the hero passing the baton and retiring. I thought that was a brave choice.
24. The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 - Another DC animated film (the third on this list I believe). It's a fun look at Frank Miller's award winning story The Dark Knight Returns. The voice actors are great and the story itself is really interesting. I'd recommend this one as well. Keep an eye out for Part 2 later next year.
25. Looper - I'm torn on Looper. I honestly feel like it was two movies mashed together. The first half feels like a great sci-fi thriller with a fantastic time travel concept. The second half is very plodding and dumps almost everything sci-fi related in exchange for a kid with awful dialogue that makes you laugh more than anything else. The ending of the film is interesting though.
26. Hotel Transylvania - Definitely more for young kids. There's very little there for adults to enjoy.
27. Indie Game: The Movie - An interesting look at indie game development, though it's hard not to roll your eyes at some of these people and the hipster attitude they have towards the larger industry.
28. Margin Call - A great film about the beginning of the econimic downfall in 2008. It stars Zachary Quinto, Simon Baker, and Kevin Spacey in some great roles. Check it out on NetFlix.
29. Silent Hill: Revelation - Review
30. Wreck-It Ralph - I adore this movie. I'm not sure exactly what it was, but I fell in love with this movie. It's very charming and easily a must see for anyone who loves video games.
31. Skyfall - In my opinion, this is Craig's best Bond film yet. It dumps all the emotional baggage of the last film and delivers you a film of Bond as Bond. Javier Bardem shines as the Joker-like Silva.

And there you have it! All thirty-one films I saw this year. Chances are I'll see the Hobbit at some point, but I'll write up separate impressions of that if the need arises. Next topic? VIDEO GAMES!

Joseph Gordon-Levitt As Batman In "Justice League"? No Thank You!

Yesterday a quote from HitFix hit the web talking about the possibility of JGL being cast as Batman in the forthcoming Justice League movie. According to HitFix, talks with Levitt are to the point where they think he'll "absolutely will be appearing in Justice League as the new Batman."

This is a mistake. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a fantastic actor. He was spectacular 500 Days of Summer and he was amazing in Inception. His role in Batman was okay - nothing too special - but he's still a fine actor. At the same time though, casting JGL in this role leads to several problems.

Can He Look the Role?

Levitt, is seven years younger than Bale. The guy is only thirty-one, but he looks like he's in his early twenties. Of course actors can bulk up and make up can do a lot to make a person look a certain age, but in the end he still looks rather "babyfaced". Like a young boy trying to dress up as his father. They need someone with a bit more age and "hardened" look to them.

Awhile ago someone made the suggestion that Clive Owen would be an ideal Bruce Wayne. While he might be a bit too old at this point in the game, he's probably a better overall choice than Levitt would be. Of course whether he's actually playing Bruce Wayne or not has yet to be answered, and then brings up yet another concern...

An Unintended Combination of Universes

Casting Levitt as Blake in the Justice League movie implies that Nolan's trilogy is somehow a precursor to the events in the Justice League movie. This something Nolan never intended, as he was rather against including any mentions of other DC super heroes. Also Warner Bros. is planning to do a reverse-Avengers plan here and spin off the character into their own movies after Justice League (instead of having everyone come together from separate movies like Marvel did). You can bet that they'll be using villains already seen in Nolan's films. Suddenly we have a mish-mash of universes that was never intended in the first place.

Confusing the Audience

Casting Levitt as Wayne comes with its own set of unique challenges as well. First off, this movie is on track to be released in 2015, that's only three years after The Dark Knight Rises. That movie made a lot of money, which means that tons of people went to see it. These people already have Levitt in their heads as Blake. Sure they may be able to buy him as Batman, but as Wayne? Now you're just asking for people to be confused.

All of these possible futures are easily avoidable by not casting Levitt. He's a wonderful actor, but you're just asking for trouble by attempting to transplant an actor or character from one set of movies to another.

What do you guys think? Are these issues simple overreactions? Sure, nothing is official at the moment but it does look like things are heating up. Would you prefer they cast someone else over Levitt? If so, who? Please share below!

Silent Hill: Revelation Review

Let me just start by saying that while I am a huge fan of the Silent Hill series, I understand that there is always room for adaptation and changes that could potentially make a movie version easier to understand or more fun to watch. Silent Hill: Revelation has none of these though. As a horror movie that's an adaptation of a horror game, it fails even on the most fundamental level of being scary. You can see everything before it happens and it doesn't even try all that often. 

Silent Hill: Revelation takes places roughly ten years after the first movie. After coming up with some nonsensical explanation for how Sharon (now Heather, played by Adelaide Clemens) escaped from the Otherworld in the first movie, the plot centers around her father's (Sean Bean) efforts to protect her from the crazy cultists of Silent Hill. The plot of the film isn't terrible. The actual idea is sound and makes sense even if you haven't played the games. The issues come from nearly everything else. The dialogue is awful, the acting is even worse, and certain events that take place within the film quite literally have no other purpose than to explain things to you.

Our lead, Adelaide Clemens does a serviceable job as Heather, easily portraying the stress and horror of the things going on around her. Problems quickly arise when she tries to act "tough". Her acting devolves and her dialogue becomes insane one-liners that would have fit better in an 80's action film.

Kit Harrington, God bless him, is probably wondering why his agent gave him this film. Looking at the role he plays, I don't understand what made him want to do this movie. He stars as Vincent, who shares only the name with his video game counterpart. A fascinating character in the game, here Vincent has been reduced to a teenager who fills every cliche in the book. Harrington's acting is -  like his leading lady - serviceable at best and cringe inducing at worst. Harrington falls a bit shorter though because for some reason he isn't able to keep his accent in check as he speaks, so the longer his lines, the less American he sounds. 

These two are the only characters you'll see for ninety percent of the movie, but the movie is filled with other actors with screen time long enough to qualify for a glorified cameo. Sean Bean is probably the best in the bunch, but I fear that if he had any more screen time he would have fallen to the awful dialogue. Other actors such as Malcolm McDowell as Leonard Wolf and Carrie-Anne Moss as Claudia Wolf give some of the worst performances of their lives. Whether they can be blamed though is hard to say as they have the worst of the dialogue. Their appearances are more of a waste of space as they only service to move the plot forward, before being cast aside permanently. The same goes for Martin Donovan, who plays the private detective Douglas. For a character who lasts throughout the entire game, Douglas serves only to explain things to the audience before he his disposed of and never seen again. Choices like this plague the entire movie. 

Despite being a chore to watch, the film suffers from being too short. If perhaps some of these characters were given more time (namely Claudia, who as the villain of the movie has about five minutes of screen time), their parts wouldn't feel so worthless. It all culminates in an ending worthy of the worst fanfiction you've ever read. 

It's not all bad though. The set design is as amazing, if not better than it was in the first film. Everything looks completely life-like, even if the monsters aren't really up to snuff. The music, a blend between remixes from the games and some original stuff, is amazing. There's even a new song from Mary Elizabeth McGlynn in the end credits. The film also has a lot of random references to the other games that fans may enjoy. Unfortunately they're so randomly placed (some even out of chronological order) that they may drive fans up the wall instead of pleasing them.

I will also briefly mention that I did wind up seeing the film in 3D and aside from a few cliched 3D moments (fingers flying at the screen for instance), it's actually very well done. The 3D add some great depth to the the outdoor scenes with the ash snowing around the town and other scenes such as the carousel fire. 

All in all, my experience with in the movie can be summed by a friend's remark to someone who was interested in seeing the film: "If you were planning on seeing the new Silent Hill movie, might I suggest stabbing your eyes out. It will be both scarier and more enjoyable."

Yep. 

It's Time to Talk About... Borderlands 2!

I finished the game about a week ago - and by finished I mean everything except the last side quest - and now I feel like I've had enough time to process everything I think about the game. The really short version? Borderlands 2 is amazing, easily one of the best games of the year, but it's not without flaws.

Ready for the long version? Okay, here we go! SPOILERS AHEAD!

Borderlands 2 is, at its core, better than the original Borderlands in every conceivable way. The game is longer, there are more skills, more monsters, more areas, more jokes, more story, more guns. The list goes on and on but if you wanted more out of the original Borderlands, you get it here.

For my playthrough I had originally started out as Zero, the Assassin. Unforuntately my save corrupted due to a bug with Steam's cloud saving and I lost all my progress the first day. Attempt number two was with Maya, the Siren, so that the first four hours of the game I was replaying could feel somewhat fresh. I think ultimately, that I enjoyed my time with the Siren class way more than I would have with the Assassin. The phaselock ability was magical, especially when fully upgraded.

The gameplay feels better than ever, even with the noticeable lack of medpacks in the game. Turns out you can only heal yourself at the shop now. Does this make the game harder? Yes. Does it make the game worse? Nope. A challenge is nice every once in awhile and at times Borderlands 2 was full of challenges.

The writing is - for the most part - better than ever. This is no small part thanks to Gearbox's new writer, Anthony Burch (of "Hey Ash, Watcha Playin'? fame). The little side quips of characters you pass by, to bandits who are conversing to each other, to the psychos who say the most random shit, Borderlands 2 is full of character. It's a lot of fun to listen to what everyone has to say, especially in the side quests, nearly all of which are amazing to play through. All the returning characters feel more complete than they did in the last game, making it fun to revisit these guys. The new characters thankfully, are just as fun (if not more so).

None more so than Tiny Tina. It's interesting how this character has become so divisive. You really like Tiny Tina, or can't stand her. There's no middle ground to be had. Personally, I believe that Tiny Tina is Borderlands personified. She's insane, completely out there in terms of humor, and about as spastic as the game itself.

The main story (yes, Borderlands 2 has one this time!) is... interesting. By the end of the story, I felt very confused. There are some amazing moments in the game, like when you visit the Wildlife Preservation Center to rescue Bloodwing, or when Jack is bombing Sanctuary and Overlook. Jack himself was a pretty good villain for most of the story. The trouble comes in the game's third act, when suddenly I realized that I have no idea why Jack is doing what he's doing.

This gets even more complicated when Angel's true nature comes to light. Why does he want the Warrior? Does he want to rule the planet? Does he see himself as some kind of savior? Did he want to become a god? Does he actually care about Angel or was he faking it the entire time?

By the end of the game, none of these questions are answered and it's... weird. For a game so complete it seems strange that there were all these questions remaining, especially about the game's villain. Also, why didn't we get to see Jack without his mask on!? Not a problem, but they harped on it enough to make me think there was going to be some kind "true colors" reveal towards the end of the game. Nope.

Aside from these issues though, Borderlands 2 is a fantastic experience that I would highly recommend. I never played co-op and had an absolute blast so don't worry if you don't have any friends to play online with. Now it's time to wait no so patiently for the DLC coming down the line.

What did you guys think about Borderlands 2?

Why the Model of Network TV is Failing

Earlier today I was thinking about the show Heroes, the NBC superhero drama. The show was hailed as amazing in the first season and subsequently went down the drain over the course of three more years. I was wondering what contributed to the show's downfall and while there is a lot (terrible writers, stingy creator, network's creative influence) one of the big things that contributed to the show's downfall was the model of network television. Though not to the extent of Firefly, Heroes moved time slots a few times and had several randomly placed hiatuses that most definitely hurt the show. This is of course done to help spread out the season of twenty-two episodes over the course of eight months. All it winds up doing though is allowing people to forget their show exists. This leads to bad ratings, which leads to cancellation. 

The bigger issue of the network TV model, is the number of episodes. Twenty-two episodes per season is insane for a serialized drama such as Heroes. You ever wonder why shows like Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, and True Blood (to name a few) are always talked shows? It's because they air on cable channels, whose seasons run a small number episodes (ranging from six to twelve usually) and all air at once. These small amount of episodes allow writers and showrunners to write compelling stories that people continue to talk about long after the season is over. Short cable seasons also allow better control of the story. Because a show only takes place over ten or twelve episodes, the writers can make sure that something major and exciting is happening in every episode.

Breaking Bad is lauded over for it's storytelling quality, no doubt due to the shorter amount of episodes it has to work with.

By comparison writers and showrunners who work on network shows have to somehow stretch their story over twenty-two episodes and accommodate  for these "seasonal" breaks that networks have. This creates filler episodes, or one-offs that have no overall meaning to the show or its characters. Lost fans should be familiar with these episodes (they were usually given to Kate, poor girl). This went on for three seasons before both the writers and ABC realized it wasn't working and made the switch to having smaller seasons. Season four was sixteen episodes, while seasons five and six were seventeen. The show's premiere was also moved to January (February for season six). This allowed the writers to tell the story they wanted without having to shove in useless "story" or interrupt the pace of the story for random hiatuses.

Now this obviously only applies serialized shows. CBS for example has lead the networks in ratings for several years doing everything I think a network shouldn't be doing. Why? Because they're shows are built for it. CBS has had very few serialized shows and they've all failed (like Jericho). Instead CBS' line up includes shows like NCIS, CSI, and How I Met Your Mother. These are all shows that never require you to tune in every week. You can catch an episode whenever you like and realize that almost nothing has changed from the last episode you watched, whenever that was. The trade off here is in quality. While How I Met Your Mother is critically acclaimed, CBS' detective shows are usually paint by numbers in how they work and are thereby predictable and boring.

Slowly but surely networks are starting to see the light. Whether they want to or not they're beginning to realize that shows are better watched all the way through. This is why you see shows that only run during the winter season (September-December) and shows that premiere in the spring and run until May. The only time you'd see a break at this point are major holidays like Thanksgiving (in which case no one is watching TV anyways). My hope is that as time goes on, network execs will realize the power that cable has over them in the case of word of mouth and overall quality and do something about it. I've enjoyed too many shows that fall victim to awful ratings due to too many breaks or quality issues.

Haven't you?

Thoughts on "Asylum of the Daleks"

*SPOILERS ABOUND!*

*******************************************************

I thought about doing a more formal review, but I don't think I have enough to say to constitute a full review. Instead I'm just going to jot down some thoughts I had about the episode. 

Overall I really enjoyed the episode, it was definitely... unique, I think. I liked how Amy and Rory got pulled back into helping the Doctor, though I'm not sure how they wind up back with him the next episode. My hope is that after that episode they decide to stay with him so we don't have to waste time getting them to the TARDIS in later episodes. And while it was nice to see Amy again, I think her and Rory got back together way too quickly. I thought that the failure of their marriage (so to speak) was going to last several episodes, possibly the entire season. Granted it could be that things aren't as fixed as well as we're led to believe, but everything looked fine and dandy by the end of the episode.

The Daleks are an interesting beast. They're one of the Doctor's oldest foes, meaning he's fought them for centuries. Yet after all this time he gets caught rather easily by them. I figured there'd be a more elaborate plot in place for them to snatch the Doctor, but perhaps time constraints got in the way and the writers simply wanted to get to the meat of things. If that's the case then fair enough, I can certainly understand not wanting to waste time. 

The concept of the episode was pretty interesting. The Daleks are scary creatures when they're "normal" but the lost causes or the insane by even Dalek standards are even more interesting. This made the Daleks scary for a change, something I never really saw them as before. I rather enjoyed the scene where the Doctor comes across the worst, or most "mentally damaged" Daleks only to find out that he's the one who made them like this. 

Of course one of the most fascinating aspects of this episode was Oswin Oswald, the Dalek who thought she was human. I'm extremely impressed with Moffat's ability to keep this fun twist a secret because of course Oswin Oswald is none other than the Doctor's next companion. My assumption is that she will join the Doctor before she even boards the Alaska. All the mentions of wanting to see the stars and remembering her, that's the only way I can see it happening. What's nice is she's different from all the other companions (of the 2005 series) in that she's not from our time. She's from the future (I don't really count Jack as a companion), and the Doctor has a reason to bring her aboard the TARDIS. 

I do wonder though why, if the Daleks needed genius, Oswin was in the asylum in the first place? I get not being able to handle the "reality" of being a Dalek, but shouldn't the conversion taken care of that? Other puppets had their memories wiped and stored away. Why was she different? Also what made her so dangerous that she was literally kept in the core of the asylum? Wouldn't the Daleks in the asylum use her as a way to escape? That seems like what they were trying to do, but then why was she locked up? It's weird and confuising. These are questions I wished were answered because I doubt we'll get them as the season continues on. 

That said the emotional implications of Oswin as a Dalek were fascinating. There's this weird disconnect you see when the Doctor realizes the truth about Oswin. He's disgusted at the sight of her. This goes back to something I wish the show would explore more often and it's that the Doctor is not a good person. He's just as insane and potentially evil as the villains he faces. There's a line in beginning of the episode when the Doctor is talking to the Dalek Prime Minister about the beauty of hatred and the PM wonders if that's why they've never been able to kill the Doctor. While they oppose him, he is the embodiment of everything they worship: hatred. How about the fact that all the Daleks in ICU were the ones who fought him in wars? Or when Oswin asks him, "Why do they hate you so much?" 

What a strange and fascinating scene that last one is, no? It's weird to feel almost sympathetic for Oswin (considering what she is). 

Remember me.

What did you guys think about the episode? Maybe YOU have the answers to my questions! 

Musings on Doctor Who

It's official, the new season of Doctor Who returns on September 1st! I'm actually very excited and dreading it at the same time. The reason for that is because this season is officially the Pond's last. Both Amy and Rory Pond will no longer be companions in one form or another by the end of the season. Moffat (the showrunner) keeps hinting at how sad and tragic the end of the Pond's story is for the Doctor. This makes me very, very afraid. It's bad enough Amy is leaving (couldn't care less about Rory), but it makes me think that they're going to kill her off in the end. Nothing would upset me more.

Despite these feelings of dread, the new season looks to be pretty decent across the board. I'm excited for the opener involving the Daleks and some place called the Asylum. It's been awhile since we've had a Dalek episode. The middle episodes look a little weird, involving a space ship with dinosaurs, some rogue robots, and a western town. Hopefully these episodes will be interesting but Doctor Who one-offs have a penchant for being either too silly, or rather boring. Humor has its place in Doctor Who for sure, but they tend to overplay it. The last episode is one for the stone angels. Called "The Angels Take Manhattan" this will be the final episode with the Ponds as well as the end of the season. The Doctor's new companion is set to arrive in the Christmas special a few months from now.

Doctor Who is an interesting beast because to me, the show can be about several different things at once. If you were to ask someone what they thought Dr. Who was about, they might say adventure, character, or anything else. To me though, Doctor Who is about loss. The Doctor lost most of his own people and any others who have survived are too crazy to leave alive. He's lost friends, allies, and companions. He's the loneliest man in the universe who can't see to find someone who doesn't leave him in one form another. It's immensely depressing when looked at like that, but at the same time I enjoy it. The Doctor is an interesting man and seeing how loss affects him is always fascinating.

That said, the Doctor is also insane. It's not touched on much - though more with Smith's Doctor I think - but the Doctor is just as insane as some of the villains he encounters. There are very few moments where you get to see, a concealed threat, blowing up an entire hub of Cybermen, the evil man in the dream world was the Doctor's dark side, and closing Older Amy out of the TARDIS. Hell, even the Minotaur in "The God Complex" sees the Doctor for what he is. This is another reason he keeps a companion. Like Robin does for Batman, they make him think, consider his own life and actions before going forward (most times). Amy even references it in the trailer for the new season when the Doctor considers killing the Gunslinger outright. I would very much like to see what were to happen if the Doctor were "let off his leash" so to speak and had finally had enough.

So I've talked enough and have to go back to work, but I hope what I've said has given you something to think about when watching the show. Do you feel the same way as me? What do you think Doctor Who is about? I'm always up for a discussion/debate!