Short Reviews Double Feature

Mainly because I am in the middle of preparing my 'Best Films of the Year' list, here are a pair of short reviews for two films that I saw back-to-back today. One of which is an adaptation of a famous musical which is in turn based off of a classic novel and the other is the latest from an acclaimed director.

LES MISÉRABLES (2012)

While there have been many film adaptations of Victor Hugo's classic 1862 novel of the same name, director Tom Hooper's take on the story is the first 'Les Misérables' movie to be primarily based off of the highly successful musical that debuted back in 1980 and while I may not have seen any of the other 'Les Misérables' films, this version will probably end up as being one of the best. It certainly is the best film musical in many years and this all comes from the great cast. Hugh Jackman gives a real Oscar-worthy performance as Jean Valjean and Anne Hathaway is also terrific as Fantine, and she's only in the film for about 10 minutes or so. The whole new technique that the filmmakers used to record the music, consisting of having the actors sing live instead of lip-synching to pre-recorded songs, gives the movie a uniqueness, allowing the actors to do something different with this music. All in all, it certainly is one of the year's best films.

Rating: 4.5/5

DJANGO UNCHAINED (2012)

I'm just going to say it straight up; it's a Quentin Tarantino movie. If you're a fan of his work, you are not going to be disappointed with Tarantino's take on the spaghetti western genre set in 1860's America. It's a bold and bloody (emphasis on the latter) movie that shows that Tarantino isn't afraid to do things that most filmmakers wouldn't dare to do. It also has a pretty funny screenplay with some great lines here and there. Like with Les Misérables, the cast is excellent but this time there is one big standout; Leonardo DiCaprio as the main antagonist Calvin Candie, a plantation owner who owns the main character Django's wife, prompting Django (Jamie Foxx) and bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) to go and rescue her. DiCaprio just steals the show, and I'll be shocked if he's not nominated for an Oscar. Tarantino delivers once again.

Rating: 4.5/5

Red Dawn (2012) review

Well, we have another remake to talk about. This one in question is 'Red Dawn', a remake of the 1984 war movie of the same name starring Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen. It was also notably the first film to ever be released in theaters with the PG-13 rating, though it wasn't actually the first to receive the new rating. This new version was originally supposed to be released in 2010, before stars Chris Hemsworth and Josh Hutcherson made it big with 'Thor' and 'The Hunger Games', respectively. However, it was pushed back two years and the main villains, who were originally the Chinese, were changed to North Koreans in order to maintain access to China's box office. However, even that doesn't do much to save this pretty weak remake of a film that may not have been a huge critical hit, but has become a cult hit. This film on the other hand...

The film opens up as U.S. Marine Jed Eckert (Hemsworth) returns home to Spokane, Washington after serving in Iraq, reuniting with his father Tom (Brett Cullen) and his brother Matt (Josh Peck). However, the town is soon hit with a surprise invasion by North Korea, and Jed and Matt flee into the woods with some other teens as their dad stays behind. After the town is overrun and Jed and Matt witness their father being executed by the Koreans, Jed announces his intention to fight back and is joined by the other teenagers, including Matt, their friend Robert (Josh Hutcherson), Matt's girlfriend Erica (Isabel Lucas), her friend Toni (Adrianne Palicki), and the mayor's son Daryl (Connor Cruise) to fight the Koreans as 'the Wolverines'.

When this film was in pre-production, MGM (the original distributors of this film) said that this remake would be done "keeping in mind the post-9/11 world that we're in". Well, if that was the plan, than this remake is very much dated because I did not see how this was supposed to feel like a modern-day take on the original story. I may not know much about politics or warfare, but I seriously doubt that a invading country can just simply fly into America and expect to take over anything. Also, there's not even much of an attempt to make it feel like the country is really at war, something the original did. Instead, it only seems like the Koreans are just invading the town of Spokane and really no other part of the country. If they really wanted to do a 'post-9/11' remake of Red Dawn, they should have done something along the line of 'cyber-terrorists'.

 

Also, it doesn't help when you don't care about any of the characters, especially when some of them make really stupid decisions, primarily the character of Matt. When the Koreans first invade, his girlfriend Erica is captured and that compels him to try and rescue her. But by doing so, he gets one of his friends killed in the process, and by the end the film tries to establish him as the one who becomes the leader of the Wolverines. I don't know about you, but I would not want to serve under this guy. His brother Jed is the more suitable leader and speaking of Jed, that brings me to the only good thing in this movie; Chris Hemsworth. Even though this was made before he wielded the mighty Mjolnir as the Asgardian God of Thunder, Hemsworth still gives a rock-solid performance here with what he's given, and he truly does get into a role once occupied by Patrick Swayze. The rest of the cast is rather forgettable at best.

When looking at this remake, I'm reminded of the other major remake of the year, Total Recall, which also got a rather mixed reception. But if there's one thing that I give that film credit for, it is that at least director Len Wiseman did do something different with his version of Total Recall. The remake of Red Dawn, on the other hand, feels like the 1984 version all over again except this time the Koreans are the bad guys. Aside from Chris Hemsworth in the leading role, there is nothing memorable at all about this remake. It is just a unnecessary remake that didn't need to be made in the first place but still, I believe that it could have been done if just a little bit more effort was made but obviously, that is not the case with this film.

 

Rating: 1/5

Top 10 Most Anticipated Films of 2013

As 2012 comes to a close, it's time to look ahead to next year's batch of movies. 2012 was easily one of the best years for movies ever, so it will be interesting to see what's to come next for 2013. So, here are my Top 10 Most Anticipated films of 2013.

10. MONSTERS' UNIVERSITY:



I'm starting this list off with the sole animated feature on this list, the latest from Pixar and the prequel to 2001's 'Monsters' Inc'. Now of course, Pixar hasn't really been on that good of a run lately after their first non-Toy Story sequel 'Cars 2' was a critical flop and their most recent film 'Brave' received a similar mixed reception. Who knows? This might end up the same way too. But, I feel like it could still work. John Goodman and Billy Crystal are back as Sulley and Mike, and I'm interested to see how they are going to handle the whole 'college' situation through the eyes of monsters.

9. THE WORLD'S END



One of two comedies on this list, 'The World's End' is the third in a trilogy of films from director Edgar Wright starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost known as 'the Three Flavours Cornetto Trilogy'. Of course, this is following in the footsteps of two of the best comedies in recent years, 2004's 'Shaun of the Dead' and 2007's 'Hot Fuzz'. What made both of those comedies work so well is that they were more than just comedies. 'Shaun of the Dead' was also a zombie film and a romance, while 'Hot Fuzz' was also an action movie. Who wouldn't be looking forward to this trio's latest film?

8. THE GREAT GATSBY





Now this film was originally supposed to be released this year (today, in fact, December 25th), but was moved to 2013 because it conflicted with star Leonardo DiCaprio's other film, 'Django Unchained'. For me, this new adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic novel of the same comes out after I recently read the book at school and I do remember I did like it. Before any trailers even came out for this film, I was a little worried when considering director Baz Luhrmann's other adaptation of a classic story, 'Romeo and Juliet'. The end result was a modern adaptation of the story that still retained the original Shakespearean dialogue, basically an uneven mix. Thankfully, that doesn't seem to be the case here and with a cast that includes DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, and Joel Edgerton, I'm certainly sold.

7. ANCHORMAN: THE LEGEND CONTINUES



The other comedy on this list is the long-awaited sequel to 2004's 'Anchorman', one of the funniest comedies ever made largely due in part to the performances of Will Ferrell as anchorman Ron Burgundy of Channel 4 News in San Diego along with the fellow members of the Channel 4 News Team. While there hasn't been much revealed about the plot yet, this is a comedy that I will not be missing. 'Great Odin's Raven!'

6. THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG



So with one Hobbit film out of the way, it's time to look ahead to the second, 'The Desolation of Smaug'. This was originally supposed to be titled 'There and Back Again' when this was supposed to be the final Hobbit film, but of course this is now the second and 'There and Back Again' will hit theaters in 2014. I am a little worried that there might not be enough material that would warrant a sequel because of how small Tolkien's original novel was compared to 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy. Really though, I am just hoping that this one fixes the pacing issue from the first one and that it won't feel like the 'Extended Version' like 'An Unexpected Journey' felt like.

5. THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE



With Harry Potter and Twilight out of the way now, 'The Hunger Games' has the 'book series adapted to movie' market all to itself with the release of 'Catching Fire'. Like those other franchises, this new film will also see a change in director from Gary Ross to Francis Lawrence ('I Am Legend'), who will also be directing the two part adaptation of 'Mockingjay' (therefore Lawrence becomes the 'David Yates' of the Hunger Games franchise). I'm just hoping that Lawrence will fix the editing and camerawork problems from the last movie. But still, with a cast of newcomers that include Phillip Seymour Hoffman, I can't wait for this new film.

4. MAN OF STEEL



This has been a project that I have been rather worried about, and not because it's DC's second attempt at rebooting the Superman franchise following 'Superman Returns' in 2006. For me, it was more because of who is directing it; Zack Synder. While '300' was a terrific movie and 'Watchmen' was mildly entertaining, nothing can excuse Synder's 2011 'Sucker Punch', which was my pick for the worst film of 2011. The only saving grace for me was that Christopher Nolan was producing it and that Synder wasn't part of the writing team behind it (that honor belonged to Nolan and David S. Goyer, a much better choice). But I have to say, the trailers for this film (and that does include the Comic-Con footage, which I did manage to find a good version of here on the Internet) have blown me away. Why? Well, because it doesn't even look like a Synder movie. It feels more like Nolan's 'Batman' movies. I don't know if that will necessarily work for the Man of Steel, but it has certainly doesn't have me worried as much as I was after seeing Sucker Punch.

3. THOR: THE DARK WORLD



And now we get to the first Marvel movies that come out in the wake of 'The Avengers'. While it may not be the first one out of the gate, I am very much looking forward to 'Thor: The Dark World', the sequel to one of my personal favorite 'Pre-Avenger' movies, 2011's 'Thor'. I really loved that movie, not just because it was the first great movie in a rather weak year for movies, but because of how director Kenneth Branagh brought a character like Thor to the big screen with such class so that the end result would not be too cheesy. Not only that, but lead Chris Hemsworth proved his star/charm power as Thor. Branagh isn't back for the sequel, but a director who had previously helmed episodes of HBO's 'Game of Thrones' is a pretty good trade.

2. IRON MAN 3



But of course, who isn't excited about Marvel's first 'Post-Avenger' movie, Iron Man 3, especially considering that the Iron Man movies have pretty much become the key jewel of Marvel Studios if you think about it. I'm intrigued to see what new director Shane Black, famous for writing 'Lethal Weapon' and directing the cult hit 'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang' (also starring Robert Downey Jr.), will bring to this new Iron Man film. From what has been shown so far from the trailers, it looks like Black is taking the franchise in a new darker direction. Let's just hope he doesn't get rid of the humor, a key aspect of both Robert Downey Jr.'s portrayal of Stark and the character itself.

So what film am I looking forward to more than 'Iron Man 3' and 'Thor 2'? That movie, my friends, is...

1. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS



It's all thanks to director J.J. Abrams' 2009 reboot, which got me hooked on the Star Trek franchise. What made the 2009 film so great is that it appealed to both newcomers to the franchise (like I was at the time) and the already established fans of the franchise. Not only that, but the cast did a phenomenal job and filled the shoes of legends like William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy (the latter making a well-handled cameo appearance in the film). I couldn't be anymore psyched for this new film, once again helmed by Abrams (who is quickly becoming one of my favorite directors following 2011's 'Super 8'). The big selling point this time would have to be Benedict Cumberbatch as the main villain, who I'm already betting will give Ricardo Montalbán's Khan a run for his money as one of the best villains in franchise history. Heck, who knows, maybe he actually is playing Khan. I can't say I totally buy this 'John Harrison' name they recently gave him. But then again, the movie doesn't come out for five more months so we'll just have to wait and see.

And those are my ten most anticipated films of 2013. I know I'm leaving out some other big name films so what are some of your most anticipated films for the coming year?

WORST FILM OF THE YEAR

(WARNING: There will be spoilers because, well, I don't really recommend that you see the following film in the first place)

 

As I mentioned in my Top 5 Disappointing Films of the Year post, 2012 was such a great year for movies that there was only one film that I saw all year that I really hated, which meant that I can't really do a Top 5 worst films of the year list. But, I will still talk about this one movie and explain why it is my pick for the worst film of 2012. Well, the movie in question today is a romantic comedy, a genre that usually does result in some rather bad and unfunny films. But this one in particular actually has a really good cast backing it up and yet nothing good comes out of it. I am course referring to...

THIS MEANS WAR

This film is one of those comedies that revolves around two characters who are long-time friends but then they become rivals and try to sabotage each other in order to get something that they both want but can't have at the same time. In the case of this film, we have two CIA agents who are vying for the affections of the same woman. I'll get to the 'humor' of this movie in a bit, but first I'm going to talk about the really big problem of the movie and that is the whole romance aspect of it all. Now, I am not referring to the chemistry between the film's leads as Tom Hardy and Chris Pine do both have really good chemistry with Reese Witherspoon. It's another thing entirely that ruins the whole movie. To explain this in full detail, I'm going to have to go into the film's plot first.

Pine and Hardy play FDR Foster (yes, that is really Pine's character's name) and Tuck, two CIA agents who would take a bullet for each other, as Tuck points out in one scene. Tuck has just gone through a divorce and decides to get back on the market. He soon meets Lauren (Witherspoon), a product testing executive who is also dealing with relationship issues after her ex-boyfriend get engaged. The two hit it off, but then FDR strolls in and ends up dating her as well, at first not knowing that she's also dating his best friend. Eventually, the two guys do find out they're dating the same woman and originally agree not to tell her that they're friends, or even try to sabotage each other. But, they eventually do start sabotaging each other (using CIA equipment) while on dates with Lauren.


Now, the thing that really bugs me about this romance is how Witherspoon's character doesn't even try to tell each of her 'boyfriends' that she's dating someone else. She just lets it slide and even worse, I feel that she picked the wrong guy at the end. Now you see, Tuck is portrayed as the nice guy of the two friends (yes, Tom Hardy, the same guy who broke Batman's back) while FDR is the womanizer of the two. The movie does try to have FDR change his ways while he is dating Lauren, but that still doesn't really change much. So, in the end, she ends up going with FDR. Sure, Tuck does get back with his ex-wife at the end of the film, but I just feel that he should have ended up with Lauren.

Really, the implausibility of this movie frequently hits record highs. Not only do FDR and Tuck use the CIA's equipment without their permission, but they don't even get in trouble for doing so. Their only excuse is really 'The Patriot Act' and also, for the record, they use the equipment to stalk Lauren, which is just plain creepy and makes both of these characters pretty unlikable in that sense. The romance plays such an important part in this movie that the film just straight up ignores the other subplot of the film that has FDR and Tuck going after a criminal named Heinrich, played by Til Schweiger, who is very underused in this film except for at the end when he kidnaps Lauren just so that Tuck and FDR can resolve their differences and rescue her.

And then we get to the humor, which as you may have guessed is very much lacking, particularly during the first half which is not just unfunny but kind of painful actually to watch. The only real funny moment I remember from this half of the movie wasn't even a joke. It revolved around this scene where Tuck is confronted by a larger man. The reason why I bring this up is because Tom Hardy is noticeably smaller in this film than he has been in some of his other movies. I just find it funny that this other guy is confronting him because I just imagine how the scene would turn out if Hardy was Bane or his character from 'Warrior'. To put it simply, I wouldn't mess with Hardy, even if he's rather small like he is in this film.

However, once FDR and Tuck do start to sabotage each other, the humor does actually pick up the pace which is why I don't think this is a total waste of time. It also does help that both Pine and Hardy do have really good chemistry with Witherspoon and heck, even the two of them work off each other well. But really, this is one film that I really, really, really don't recommend. It's a film that Tom Hardy and Chris Pine won't be thinking fondly of in the future, and unfortunately this is the kind of movie that poor Reese Witherspoon is probably going to be connected to from now on. In my original review for the film, I stated that this film is only worth renting but even still, I'd recommend you look elsewhere first.

Final Rating: 1/5

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) review

Almost a decade after the release of 'Return of the King', the final film of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, director Peter Jackson returns to the land of Middle-Earth with 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey', the first in a new trilogy of films based off of author J.R.R. Tolkien's legendary novel, 'The Hobbit', the prequel to 'Lord of the Rings'. It will be followed by 'The Desolation of Smaug' in 2013 and will conclude with 'There and Back Again' in 2014. The question is whether or not Jackson can deliver on a grand fantasy epic the same way he did years ago with 'The Lord of the Rings'. The answer to that is a resounding yes as this new film continues many of the grand traditions that made the original trilogy so great in the first place.

Taking place 60 years before the events of 'The Lord of the Rings', the film follows Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman, with Ian Holm reprising his role from the previous trilogy in a brief cameo), a Hobbit from the Shire who is approached by the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen), who offers him a chance to go on an adventure. Bilbo learns that he has been recruited into a company of dwarves, led by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), the grandson of a Dwarf King, who look to reclaim their Kingdom of Erebor, which was overtaken by the dragon Smaug (who will be portrayed through motion capture by Benedict Cumberbatch). Bilbo joins the company on the quest, which takes them through the Mountains, while on the run from a pack of Orcs. Meanwhile, Bilbo comes across a mysterious ring that will change the world of Middle-Earth forever.

The first thing to note about this film is its obvious change in tone from the previous trilogy. While there are some very intense moments throughout the film (decapitations, epic warfare, etc...), 'The Hobbit' is actually a children's novel and as such, the movie is mostly a lighthearted adventure with a lot more humorous moments than before, mostly coming from the Dwarves. Still, Jackson delivers in bringing us an fun and epic adventure. Really, the only one problem I have with this first entry is that, in regards to pacing, the movie is rather slow in some parts and it feels just a bit too long, even by franchise standards. There were just some scenes that felt like they should have just been on the Extended Edition. In this case, I'm not even sure if a Extended Edition is even a good idea.

So next let's delve into the other big part of this film; the dwarves. Unlike the first trilogy which only focused around one dwarf, this film follows thirteen dwarves. Sure, some dwarves are more focused on than others, and really it's a challenge just to remember all of their names, but if there's one thing I can take out of this movie, it is how fun they made the adventure as a whole. You get a clear sense of their dedication and loyalty to each other and you feel like part of the group just like Bilbo. The same could be said for the original trilogy with the Fellowship, and Jackson keeps that idea with this new trilogy of films.

 

Like the previous trilogy, the acting is phenomenal all-around, and there are three notable standouts here. Martin Freeman is spot-on as the young Bilbo Baggins, very much channeling Ian Holm. Ian McKellen is once again terrific as Gandalf, who of course is still a bad-ass. Finally, Richard Armitage does a fantastic job as the stern but dedicated leader Thorin. Of course, I can't go through with this review without mentioning the return of Gollum, who is once again played brilliantly by Andy Serkis. His scene with Bilbo around the middle of the film is easily the best moment of the film. Seriously, somebody give this guy an Oscar, because this is one of the standout performances of the year. So what if he's hidden under CGI?

So, is this first entry in 'The Hobbit' trilogy as good as 'The Lord of the Rings' films? Maybe, maybe not. The sole problem I have with this first film is how it is rather slow in some areas and also because it felt a bit too long. To be blunt, I was rather nervous about Jackson splitting what was once only two films into a full trilogy. Sure, the appendices that J.RR. Tolkien wrote do create vast potential for Jackson to explore Middle-Earth, but to me it seems like 'The Desolation of Smaug' seems like it will revolve around Bilbo, Gandalf, and the Dwarves fighting Smaug the Dragon, and therefore resulting in the dwarves taking back Erebor and completing the dwarves' story. So where will 'There and Back Again' go after that? But you know what, I'll be there eagerly awaiting those next two films because as this film shows, no one knows Middle-Earth better than Peter Jackson.

 

Rating: 4/5

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-2003) review



As we near the release of 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey', the first in a new trilogy of films based off of J.R.R. Tolkien's famous novel 'The Hobbit', it's the perfect to take a look back on the other trilogy that was based off of Tolkien's other iconic story, the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy. While there were earlier adaptations of the trilogy, including a 1978 animated film by Ralph Bakshi and a 1980 TV special from Rankin-Bass based on the third entry, 'Return of the King', what is certainly the most famous adaptation to date of The Lord of the Rings is the live-action film trilogy directed by Peter Jackson which came out from 2001 to 2003. Now, I was originally planning on reviewing each film one at a time but I realized that I would be just saying the same thing over and over again.



First off, a little run-through of the plot. The series begins with the creation of the One Ring of Power by the Dark Lord Sauron in the land of Mordor. It is a ring so powerful that it corrupts the mind of whoever wears it and it could be used to conquer Middle-Earth. However, in battle against a last alliance of men and elves, Sauron is defeated by Isildur, son of the King of Gondor, and he takes the ring for himself. When he is later ambushed and killed, the Ring is lost for over 2000 years until it is found by the creature known as Gollum (portrayed through motion capture by Andy Serkis). He eventually loses the Ring as well, which he refers to as 'his precious', and it is found by Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm), a Hobbit from the Shire.

 



When he reaches his 111^th birthday, Bilbo leaves the Ring to his nephew Frodo (Elijah Wood). When Bilbo's wizard friend Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) realizes that the Ring once belonged to Sauron, he instructs Frodo to take it away from the Shire, as Sauron's forces are now on their way to retrieve the Ring. Along with his friends Samwise Gamgee (Sean Astin), Meriadoc 'Merry' Brandybuck (Dominic Monaghan), and Peregrin 'Pippin' Took (Billy Boyd), Frodo sets off on a journey to destroy the Ring in the fires of Mount Doom, the very same place where Sauron first crafted the Ring. Along the way, they are joined by the ranger Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), who is also heir to the throne of Gondor, elf archer Legolas (Orlando Bloom), and dwarf warrior Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) who join them on their journey to take down Sauron and his army once and for all.

 

To put it simply, Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of the best film trilogies of all time, as all three films are exceptional fantasy epics. I'll openly admit, as embarrassing as it is, that it was only recently when I finally saw these films for the first time and the reason why that is was that I feared I could never get into them, being that I have always been a Harry Potter fan. But, that's part of the beauty of these films in that they immediately draw you in. You become immersed in this universe and the characters' journey to destroy the Ring. Sure, each movie may be at least three hours long (don't even get me started on the 'Extended Editions') but they are never boring. Even if you never read the books, like me, they are actually really easy to get into.

 

On top of that, the film is perfectly cast with a compelling set of characters to follow, from Ian McKellen as the bad-ass wizard Gandalf the Grey (later Gandalf the White in 'The Two Towers' and 'The Return of the King') to Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn, the Ranger conflicted with his destiny of becoming the future king of Middle-Earth. But the winner for the best character in the series would have to be Gollum, the mysterious creature that offers his help to Frodo and Sam when they first meet him in 'The Two Towers', but is conflicted by his lust for the Ring. The motion capture visuals are so great that sometimes you forget he's mostly just a visual effect and the scene where he is contemplating whether he should kill Frodo and Sam is probably one of the best film moments of the last few years because of how it is shot and edited.

So which one is the best of the three films? Well, to answer that I'll have to go with 'The Two Towers', primarily for the introduction of Gollum and the final battle at Helms' Deep. This gives it a slight edge over 'The Fellowship of the Ring', which is still great for how it sets up the story and characters. As for 'Return of the King', I do have one problem with it in that the ending goes on for a bit too long. I understand that this is the way it is so that everything could be wrapped up, but they could have wrapped it up just a bit faster because when they destroy the Ring for good, there is still about half an hour left in the film. Still, there's no arguing against this grand finale to the trilogy, which has the best fight scenes in the entire trilogy. These three movies are a must-see, not just for fantasy buffs but for any film fan in general. Quite frankly, if you haven't seen them yet, I suggest you do so right away.

RATINGS:

Fellowship of the Ring: 5/5!

The Two Towers: 5/5!

Return of the King: 4.5/5

Box Office Results: 12/7/12-12/9/12

 

After spending the last three weeks finishing in second behind 'The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn', Skyfall took back the top spot at the box office in its fifth week out here in the U.S. Since its stateside debut on November 9th, the film has become the highest grossing Bond film of all time, with a current total of over 918 million dollars. It may even become the first Bond movie to gross a billion worldwide. It has also become the highest grossing film ever in the U.K., a record previously held by James Cameron's Avatar.

 

As for the rest of the box office, Twilight actually slipped to third place behind 'Rise of the Guardians', which rose to second at the box office in its third week out. As for the sole new film out this week, the romantic comedy 'Playing for Keeps', it fizzled at number six. But then again, we are just a week away from the release of the first chapter of the new 'Hobbit' trilogy.

 

1. Skyfall: $11 Million

2. Rise of the Guardians: $10.5 Million

3. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2: $9.2 Million

4. Lincoln: $9.12 Million

5. Life of Pi: $8.3 Million

6. Playing for Keeps: $6 Million

7. Wreck-it Ralph: $4.9 Million

8. Red Dawn: $4.3 Million

9. Flight: $3.1 Million

10. Killing them Softly: $2.8 Million

Top 5 Disappointing Films of 2012

As we near the end of the year, it's time to start looking back on the year in movies. My lists of the worst and best films of the year won't be coming for a few weeks, but today I decided to do a different list. Why? Well, 2012 was actually such a great year for movies that, when looking back on the films I have seen this year (not counting any re-releases), I feel that I have only seen one truly godawful film all year, meaning that I can't really do a 'Top 5 Worst Films of the Year'. Unless I do see some of the 'bad' films that came out this year, most of the films I would have put on that list would have been films that I actually did like. So, here are five films that had a lot of potential but in the end failed to meet expectations. For the record, I didn't necessarily dislike any of the films that are on this list, but in the end, they just didn't work in some way. So, with that in mind, let's get started as I count down the Top 5 most disappointing films of 2012.

 

Starting off this list is a movie that sadly came from one of the most respected film studios working today. Last year, they released what many call their first 'bad' movie and while this film received better reception, it still wasn't up to par with the company's greatest works. I am of course referring to...

5. BRAVE

It truly is sad for me to put this film on this list, because I love Pixar. Their movies are not only great for kids, but some of the routes that they take with their movies also make them highly entertaining even for adults. Just look at the opening sequence from 'Up' or the dark turn taken near the end of 'Toy Story 3' and you'll see what I'm talking about. But their last two movies haven't been on the same level of quality as all of their other works. I'll admit that I did like 'Cars 2', primarily because I was a fan of the first film. So what went wrong with their latest film Brave? Well, the film starts out really well with what is probably the most mature story Pixar has ever done yet and it establishes the lead character of Merida as a strong female character. But then, once the second half of the movie starts, it quickly shifts to a more kid-friendly story. The trailers implied that Merida was going to change her own fate, but really it was her trying to get along with her mother and then accidentally turning her into a bear and trying to change her back before it's too late. To be fair, the animation is still excellent and the film does have a good message of mother-daughter bonding, but this one wasn't as groundbreaking as some of Pixar's best. That is why it takes the number five spot on this list.

Next up is a more recent film that drew you in with its ambition and scope, but in the end I just felt that it didn't really do much for me.

4. CLOUD ATLAS

For the record, I never read the book this film was originally based on, but even with some of the research that I did beforehand (the trailer really didn't even explain what the movie was actually about), I was still lost after watching this near three-hour epic. No, I do not think this is a bad movie, because I do admire the filmmakers' ambition and in terms of adapting a novel that was deemed unfilmable, they actually did make it work on the big screen. Really, the thing that loses me is how the six separated story-lines in the film, set across time, are supposed to be 'connected'. The only way I felt that these stories were even connected at all was because the members of the cast portrayed different characters in each storyline. Again, this may be because I didn't read the book, but to me this film just fell flat. On the other hand, I actually recommend this movie because it is one of those movies that you should see and give your own opinion on.

At number three, we have another animated flick. This one in question is based on a famous kid's story by one of the most iconic authors of all time. On the other hand, this is an author whose stories have had a rather rocky run when it comes to attempts to bring them to the big screen.

3. THE LORAX

 



Adapting a Dr. Seuss book to the big screen is a very hard thing to do seeing how the books are very short, meaning that filmmakers have to add more to the plot to satisfy a film's run-time. Now, I loved 'The Grinch', as it was one of those films that I saw at a very young age. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's always great around Christmas. As for the other live-action Dr. Seuss movie, 'The Cat in the Hat'... the less said about that film, the better. Thankfully, Blue Sky Studios finally made a Dr. Seuss story work with 2008's 'Horton Hears a Who', which was strictly an animated film. The way I see it, that's how all Dr. Seuss stories should be... animated. So, what went wrong with Illumination Entertainment's take on Dr. Seuss' economic tale of a creature who 'speaks for the trees'? Well, the problem is the material that the filmmakers added just to make it work on the big screen in the first place. The best part of this whole movie are the scenes that were actually based on the book, and Danny DeVito and Ed Helms do great jobs as the Lorax and the Onceler. But as for the main storyline of a kid named Ted trying to impress an older girl named Audrey by trying to find a real tree, that part of the movie falls flat. Really, this whole movie is just generic. Generic protagonists, generic villain, generic sidekicks, etc. It's a film that is just not worthy of being based on a Dr. Seuss story.

At number two, we have a war film which was produced by a company responsible for two of the most famous movie franchises of all time. What could go wrong? Well...

2. RED TAILS

Red Tails was the first film in years to be made by Lucasfilm that was not associated with the Star Wars or Indiana Jones franchises. With both franchises' recent efforts in mind, I went into this film hoping that this would improve on what George Lucas has made recently. However, in the end, Red Tails fell to the same problems that plagued the Star Wars prequels; a weak script and one-dimensional characters, including a 'villain' fighter pilot who spoke nothing but cliched dialogue. Now, it is clear that Lucas and company do have good intentions with making this movie and have nothing but respect for the Tuskegee Airmen, the World War II fighter pilots for whom this film is based off of. But, if we are talking about the biographical aspect of the film, it didn't even really go into much of the challenges that these men faced on their way to becoming legends. Like the prequels, this movie was entertaining but in the end, Lucas could have done a whole lot better. Not a good way to start off 2012 (this was actually the first movie I saw all year), but thankfully things got better.

And finally, it's time for number one. Here is my pick for the most disappointing film of 2012. The culprit...

1. THE BOURNE LEGACY

I am both depressed and sort of angry over how this movie turned out. I went into it having just watched the entire Bourne trilogy, which is easily one of the best trilogies ever made as all three films are well-written and very thrilling spy movies. With this new film, star Matt Damon and 'Bourne Supremacy/Ultimatum' director Paul Greengrass are both absent. Instead, in the leading role this time is Jeremy Renner, fresh off of this year's 'Avengers', and in the director chair this time around is Tony Gilroy, who previously written all three Bourne films. The trailers promoted this film as revolving around Renner's character Aaron Cross as he goes against his superiors looking to finish what Jason Bourne started. Sounds awesome, right? Well, I must have seen a different movie because the one I saw was a bare-bones thriller. What this movie was really about was that Aaron Cross was looking for his medication which gave him enhanced physical and mental capabilities. As for the whole Bourne thing, Matt Damon's picture is seen throughout the film. That's it. As for action, pretty much every action sequence was in the trailer. It is very clear why Damon and Greengrass left the franchise if this is the route they're taking now. Now, this film isn't all that bad. Jeremy Renner does prove that he can lead a movie on his own, even if the character of Cross is a little flat, and Rachel Weisz also does a great job as Cross' ally Marta. But seriously filmmakers, if you have Edward Norton in your film, actually use him. Don't promote him as the villain and just have him stand over computer monitors and bark orders at people. No, this movie isn't really that bad, but it's a severe letdown after a terrific trilogy of films. That is why it is my pick for the most disappointing film of 2012.