Post Christmas Double Feature Short Reviews: 2014

Well folks, for the third year in a row, me and my co-panelist on ‘The Feature Presentation’, Matthew Goudreau, embarked on a cinematic double-header as we did our third straight post-Christmas double feature, as we went to go see a pair of potential award contenders yesterday, which has basically been the case with every film we’ve seen in this fashion since we started doing this. In 2012, we went to go see the musical epic ‘Les Miserables’ and Quentin Tarantino’s latest film, ‘Django Unchained’. Last year, it was Martin Scorcese’s hilarious, and in some cases rather underrated, black comedy ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ and ‘American Hustle’, the film that unfortunately I wasn’t as big a fan of compared to most critics; I was more in the line with the general reaction from most audiences. Like I did these last two years, I’m not going to do full reviews of these two films, only because I’m currently busy prepping my end-of-the-year ‘Best of’ list. So instead, I’m just doing a pair of quick short reviews for each of the two films that Matt and I watched yesterday. So, without further ado, let’s get started.

INTO THE WOODS

Disney has been known for some truly iconic movie musicals, from animated films like ‘The Lion King’ and ‘Frozen’ to live-action classics like ‘Mary Poppins’. Their latest musical, ‘Into the Woods’, certainly has quite the pedigree in terms of talent both behind and in front of the camera. It’s based off of the multi Tony Award winning musical of the same name by famous composer Stephen Sondheim and writer James Lapine. It’s directed by Rob Marshall, who helmed 2002’s Oscar-winning musical ‘Chicago’, and it’s got an all-star cast from top to bottom… and overall it’s a pretty damn good musical with stunning visuals and a nice light-hearted atmosphere that contrasts solidly with the darker turns of the second act. As some have joked, it’s sort of the fairytale equivalent of something like ‘The Avengers’ as it brings together many famous characters from classic fairytales, from Cinderella (Anna Kendrick) to Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford) to Jack from Jack and the Beanstalk (Daniel Huttlestone). It’s primarily focused around a Baker (James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt) who embark on a journey to lift a curse of infertility that was set upon the Baker’s family years ago by an old witch (Meryl Streep) by bringing her four items; “a cow as white as milk, a cape as red as blood, hair as yellow as corn, and a slipper as pure as gold”. And while they’re on this journey, they come across all of the aforementioned fairy tale characters who just so happen to have the items that they need.

There’s been much talk about whether or not Disney would ‘tone down’ some of the darker parts of the musical, like the sexual undertones of the scenes between Little Red Riding Hood and the Wolf (Johnny Depp, who I kid you not is literally in the film for only about five minutes). And it’s true that certain parts were definitely toned down to maintain a family friendly PG rating. But, for the most part, I think it’s for the better. While the story certainly does get dark near the end, this is, for the most part, a fairly light-hearted story with a lot of humor and some fairly over-the-top moments but it’s ‘over the top’ in a good way as it’s a fairly heightened reality being that it’s a fairy tale. The musical numbers are solid and the cast is spot on from top to bottom. A lot of people have been focusing on Meryl Streep as the Witch and while she is great in the role, I have to say the biggest standout of the cast would actually have to be Emily Blunt as the Baker’s Wife, as she provides a much more ‘down-to-earth’ persona compared to most of the other characters in the story. My only real complaint about the film is that sometimes it feels like the story rushes through some moments, like when Jack climbs the beanstalk. I mean, this was probably the case with the musical as well but I do kind of wish that we could’ve gotten to see some of these moments. Still, ‘Into the Woods’ is a solid musical and while I can’t really say how much it stays true to the original musical due to the fact that I haven’t seen it, I have the feeling that this film at least does it justice.

Rating: 4.5/5

THE IMITATION GAME

Then we have ‘The Imitation Game’, based on the true story of Alan Turing, the famous computer scientist who was one of the key figures in cracking the Enigma Code of Nazi Germany during the Second World War by developing a special deciphering machine known as the ‘bombe’ that could encrypt these secret messages much faster than any human can. This story is truly fascinating and in some cases fairly sad due to some key events that happen near the end. I mean, this was a man whose work saved countless lives during World War II and, as some have predicted, it shortened the length of the war by at least two years. And yet unfortunately, in 1952, he was prosecuted for being a homosexual, a way of life that was outlawed in the UK at the time. He died only two years later in 1954 on account of suicide, and it wasn’t until recently (just a year ago, in fact) when his work was finally given the proper recognition it truly deserves. With that in mind, this is without a doubt a must-see ‘true story’ film as Turing was a man who truly left a major impact on all of our lives. You know those devices that you and I use every day… computers? His work is what laid the groundwork for that technology and the fact that he was prosecuted just for being gay (which is just total BS) makes this film even more important in today’s society, where currently only 35 states in the U.S. (and the District of Columbia) allow same-sex marriage.

The main highlight of this film is easily Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance in the role of Turing. I can definitely see a bit of Cumberbatch’s version of Sherlock Holmes in this performance as both men have this sort of awkwardness to them. But while Sherlock is more confident in what he’s doing despite the fact that he seems awkward and strange to everyone around him, Turing is fairly shy in terms of his awkwardness, which makes sense due to the fact that he’s holding in a big secret from everyone around him. Keira Knightley is also superb here as well as Joan Clarke, a fellow code-breaker who Turing gets into a romantic relationship with before finally revealing his secret to her. Not only are the performances great, but the film is really captivating as we see Turing and his team in a race against time to break the Enigma Code as they only have a set amount of time each day to figure it out before it switches at the end of the day. All in all, ‘The Imitation Game’ is a well-acted and well-directed film that truly shines a light on a man who thankfully has begun to receive the recognition that he truly deserves and the struggles that he went through near the end of his life will certainly resonate for many people today.

Rating: 5/5!

Top 10 WORST Films of 2014: #5-1

Welcome back to Rhode Island Movie Corner’s end-of-the-year Top 10 list of the Worst films of 2014. This is Part 2 and today I’ll be listing my Top 5 least favorite films of 2014. And I tell you, folks, we got some really bad ones here today so let’s get started…

Number 5 takes the cake for what is easily my pick for the most disappointing film of this year, which is really sad given all of the talent that’s involved with it both in front of and behind the camera.

5. TRANSCENDENCE

It really sucks that ‘Transcendence’, well, sucked because it had a lot of things going for it. It was the directorial debut of Wally Pfister, who is mostly known for being director Christopher Nolan’s go-to cinematographer having worked on all of his films save for his directorial debut ‘Following’ and this year’s ‘Interstellar’, in the case of the latter because he was working on this (and quite frankly he should’ve just worked on that film, though his absence isn’t really a total loss). One could hope that Pfister could become the next Nolan due to how much time he had spent working with him and while I do think that Pfister does have potential as a director, he really needed a much better first project. The biggest problem of this film is quite simple… it’s boring. And I mean boring in the sense that nothing at all happens in this film despite the fact that things are technically going on as far as the plot goes (it’s rather hard to explain). And while I’ll admit that I don’t know a lot about the kind of science that is in this movie, I’m guessing that the science in this movie is, to be frank, fairly BS. And finally, the characters in this movie are very flat. You don’t care that much about the main characters and many of the other characters don’t get that much to do, specifically the two FBI agents played by Nolan regulars Cillian Murphy and Morgan Freeman.

To be fair, there are some good things about this movie. For one thing, the cinematography is really nice. Pfister may not have been the cinematographer for the film but his shooting style is very much on display here. Also, despite what I had said earlier about the characters being flat, the cast actually does a decent job with what they had to work with and there are two in particular that really stand out. The first is, believe it or not, Johnny Depp in the lead role of scientist Will Caster. Depp has mainly been known for playing a lot of eccentric roles such as Jack Sparrow, Tonto, and the Mad Hatter, but here he gives a very subdued performance which is actually a pretty nice change of pace from what we usually see from his other film roles. The other major standout of the cast is Paul Bettany, who plays Max, Will’s best friend. He serves as the narrator in the opening of the film so really, the film probably should’ve been about him instead of Will and his wife Evelyn as he’s really the only character in the entire film who gets any major character development. In short, it’s sad that ‘Transcendence’ ended up the way it did, though I don’t blame Pfister for this. I’ve heard that the original screenplay for the film was much stronger but then it got neutered, presumably by the studio. I’m not 100% sure if that’s true but I have the feeling that this is why the film turned out the way it did. I do think Pfister’s direction was solid, but unfortunately this was not a good directorial debut for him at all.

The lead actor of my Number 4 pick tries his best to save this film but ultimately that isn’t enough…

4. I, FRANKENSTEIN

To his credit, Aaron Eckhart is at least trying in the lead role of Frankenstein’s monster in this reimagining of the classic ‘Frankenstein’ story (though this is actually based on a graphic novel of the same name by Kevin Grevoiux). However, the film itself is just a mediocre clone of the ‘Underworld’ movies (which I haven’t seen), which is really no surprise seeing how it was made by the same people and like that franchise it too was released in the dead movie month of January. It’s a lot of monster action (and to the film’s credit, a lot of the action sequences are actually decently shot) but it’s mostly just style over substance as many of the characters are fairly flat. As I just noted, Eckhart is the only one in the cast who’s really trying here while everyone else just seems bored. And really, that’s the best way to describe this whole movie; rather boring. Thankfully, it’s mercifully short as it is only 92 minutes long. Still, I’d stay away from this one if I were you because while Aaron Eckhart tries his best here, it isn’t enough to save this movie.

There were two films that came out this year that were directed by ‘Training Day’ writer David Ayer. One was really good while the other, to put it bluntly… sucked.

3. SABOTAGE

The David Ayer film this year that I did like was ‘Fury’, a war film that was fairly hard-hitting and grim in terms of its violence and overall tone, which is actually the main reason why it didn’t hit as well with some people, but was also very captivating mainly thanks to the strong camaraderie between the main characters, along with the great performance by the five leads, and the excellent action sequences. Ayer’s other film this year, ‘Sabotage’, doesn’t have those same advantages. Believe it or not this is actually a case where both of these films are actually fairly similar in a lot of ways but while the brutal violence and grim atmosphere of ‘Fury’ actually did work due to the fact that it was a war film, ‘Sabotage’ is just violent for the sake of violence. Because of this, there are a lot of really brutal and harsh scenes of unnecessary violence in the film, like when the main character Breacher watches the snuff film of his wife and son being murdered by the cartel (and we do see the wife’s murder occur on-screen, for the record) or the final chase scene at the end of the movie where two random civilians get brutally and quite pointlessly murdered by the bad guys, one of which gets ‘accidentally’ shot by one of them and the other gets run over by them. Sure, a lot of the action in ‘Fury’ was rather hard to watch at times but the same can be said for a lot of war films, including the most famous war movie in recent years, ‘Saving Private Ryan’. ‘Sabotage’ is not a war movie.

Another thing that both films have in common is that they both have main characters that, for the most part, can be rather unlikable at times. In ‘Fury’, that is shown in scenes where the four pre-existing crewmembers of ‘Fury’ mock the newbie Ellison for his inexperience in tank combat. At the same time, though, there were also scenes that showed that there was still some, even if only a little, humanity left in them and you could see where they were coming from given that they were in the middle of war, where it is clearly shown that sympathy wasn’t going to get you anywhere far. The main characters in ‘Sabotage’ don’t have that same humanity. They’re all pretty unlikable so you don’t care about any of them when they all get killed. This film’s story is a ‘modern update’ on the classic story ‘And Then There Were None’ by Agatha Christie about a group of characters who all get axed off one by one after they commit a crime. I actually do like the idea of them updating that story for modern times, with this film focusing on a team of DEA agents instead of a group of random strangers, but when you have a script co-written by the writer of ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’ and ‘A Good Day to Die Hard’, that gives you an idea of what kind of movie you’re in for. The only real positive thing about this movie is that, believe it or not, this is actually one of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s best performances to date in the lead role of Breacher. It’s too bad though that the rest of the movie is pretty terrible.

Originally taking the top spot on this list, my Number 2 choice ended up getting knocked down a slot after I saw what quickly became my pick for the worst film of the year… but that doesn’t mean this film will be getting a free pass… oh no…

2. THE LEGEND OF HERCULES

There were two films this year about the famous mythical Greek hero Hercules, the other being director Brett Ratner’s ‘Hercules’ starring Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson in the lead role of Hercules. And the fact that, after watching ‘The Legend of Hercules’, I was actually looking forward to a Brett Ratner film (which for the record I still haven’t seen though I hear it isn’t that bad if you go into it with the right expectations) shows how truly bad the first ‘Hercules’ film of this year was. This is what I like to call a ‘D-grade’ action film, a film that is so cheap in regards to pretty much every major element of the film. It tries very hard to be like Zack Snyder’s ‘300’, even copying the visual style of that film for the most part. But in the end it’s not as awesome as ‘300’ mainly due to the fact that it’s PG-13, resulting in a lot of bloodless action. There’s only like one decent action sequence, which occurs at the end of the film, but for the most part the action in this is pretty poor as it over-utilizes the slow-motion that ‘300’ also used. The visuals in this film are god-awful and feel more like visuals from a PlayStation 1 game. Sure, there may be some actual sets and locations used in the film from time to time but a lot of the exterior landscapes were all CG and they just look terrible.

The acting is also pretty poor from all who were involved. No offense to Kellan Lutz, but he is not yet ‘leading man’ material as shown in this movie. His Hercules comes off as being fairly bland and dull and the same can be said for a lot of the other members of the cast in this movie, including Gaia Weiss as Hercules’ love interest Hebe and Roxanne McKee as Hercules’ mother, Queen Alcmene. The only thing that could possibly be considered as a ‘redeeming factor’ in this film is Scott Adkins as the main villain, King Amphitryon, though this is only because Adkins overacts his ass off in this (which mainly consists of him SHOUTING ALL OF HIS LINES) so it’s more a case of unintentional hilarity than being anything that’s really worthwhile. In short, ‘The Legend of Hercules’ is just a mediocre take on the legendary character of Hercules. And while, as I noted earlier, the other major ‘Hercules’ film this year apparently wasn’t that good either, it seems as if it at least wasn’t as bad as this film. This is easily one of the cheapest-looking and poorest made action films that I have ever seen that I swear feels like something from the Asylum, which isn’t too far off considering that this year also saw the release of ‘Sharknado 2’.

So finally we come to my pick for the worst film of 2014 and boy let me tell you, we’ve got one hell of a stinker here. It’s a sequel to a film that also made my ‘Worst of’ list last year and would you believe… that this one is even worse than that one?

1. A HAUNTED HOUSE 2

UGH… I don’t even know why I even watched this film. If you recall, last year I listed the first ‘A Haunted House’ film as one of my picks for the worst films of 2013. It was only Number 5 on that list so it wasn’t the absolute worst movie that I saw from that year and it didn’t really anger me too much compared to some of the other crappy films from last year. Still, it was an unfunny and in a lot of cases really annoying ‘comedy’ (I use that term very, very, VERY loosely) and the sequel’s basically the same thing. But oh god, would you believe that this one is actually much worse than the first film. Now, for the record, I’m not one of those people who likes to use terms like ‘this movie hurt me’ or ‘this movie gave me (insert disease here)’ when it comes to describing bad movies because I think that those are just childish remarks as I have never seen any real proof that a film can actually cause physical harm. But in all seriousness, ‘A Haunted House 2’ actually near make me vomit at certain times. This film goes WAY too overboard in regards to its gross-out humor. There’s an entire sequence where the main character Malcolm has sex with the doll from ‘The Conjuring’ (and that spin-off ‘Annabelle’, which I’ve heard only bad things about so I didn’t even bother seeing that one) and then later the doll starts tormenting him and even sends him racy photos… EWW!! Then there’s another scene where Malcolm’s new stepdaughter is about to vomit as the camera zooms in on her mouth and we see a penis pop up inside her mouth. You see what I mean when I say that this film is just gross?

I don’t even recall there being a lot of gross-out humor like this in the first ‘A Haunted House’. It was just a bunch of unfunny jokes and a lot of racist dialogue, with arguably more uses of the ‘n-word’ than even frigging ‘Django Unchained’. That and something I didn’t mention last time was that I also found the characters to be very annoying. The same things apply to the sequel as well but then you add all of the sick gross-out humor that I will never be able to unsee and you really have one hell of a stinker. Folks, I’ve seen some really bad movies in my time, from ‘Sucker Punch’ to ‘InAPPropriate Comedy’. Last year, I said that ‘InAPPropriate Comedy’ was the worst film that I’ve ever seen but you know what? I think ‘A Haunted House 2’ now takes that spot as the absolute worst film that I’ve ever seen in my life. ‘InAPPropriate Comedy’ may have made me very angry due to it being both unfunny and offensive, but ‘A Haunted House 2’ made me want to frigging hurl. Like I said before, I don’t really use those terms when reviewing movies but in this case it’s actually fairly true. That’s how bad this film was. It’s so bad that the first film is almost a masterpiece by comparison and considering how bad that first film also is, that’s saying a hell of a lot.

And those are my Top 10 worst films of 2014… GOOD RIDDANCE!!! On the bright side, now we can move on to the good stuff. Check back in the next few days for my end of the year best-of list.

Top 10 WORST Films of 2014: #10-6

Another year has come and gone and you know what that means. That’s right, it’s time to look back upon all of the films that have come out in 2014. It’s when we both honor the best films of the year and cleanse ourselves from the worst of the year. Of course, because of the typically cynical nature of the internet (don’t deny it, it’s true), we’ll be starting things off with my picks for the worst films of the year because let’s be honest those lists are far more popular than the ‘best of’ lists. If you remember, my list last year mainly consisted of comedies, showcasing what was easily the worst year ever for the comedy film genre. This year, thankfully, the list is a little more varied in terms of film genres with only one actual ‘comedy’ making the list. But of course, we are still talking about the ‘worst films of the year’ and while many others will no doubt be putting films like ‘Transformers: Age of Extinction’, ‘Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles’, or even ‘The Amazing Spider-Man 2’ on their list, those films won’t be appearing on this list… and don’t try and give me crap for liking these films, either. Instead, I give you what are my personal picks for the Top 10 worst of 2014. Now normally when it comes to these year-end Top 10’s, I usually talk about a lot of key points from all of the films I list but of course because this is the ‘worst of’ list, I’m not even going to bother with a Spoiler Warning. So let’s not waste any time and dive into my picks for the absolute worst films of 2014.

When it comes to the films that I see every year, I tend to stay away from the so-called ‘worst’ of the year, only watching them after they left theaters so that I don’t have to pay a full-price ticket to watch them. Admittedly, I also don’t see a lot of ‘bad’ movies so the Number 10 spot on my ‘Worst of’ list is usually reserved for a film that, while not very good, isn’t really as bad as the other films that will come later on the list. That is the case with my Number 10 worst of 2014, a film that tries to be the equivalent of another popular film franchise but doesn’t quite live up to the reputation.

10. NEED FOR SPEED

Okay first let’s get the obvious thing out of the way; who decided that it was a good idea to adapt the ‘Need for Speed’ video games into a film? I’ll admit that I haven’t played a lot of the ‘Need for Speed’ games (save for ‘Underground’, an IPhone port of the recent ‘Hot Pursuit’, and one of the arcade games) but even then I can tell that there really isn’t much of a plot to these games other than street racing and avoiding the cops. So again, how do you make a frigging movie about that? Well just try and be the ‘Fast and the Furious’ movies, of course. But you see the main problem with this film is how it tries to do just that. One of the great things about the recent ‘Fast and the Furious’ movies is that they have become very much self-aware of how silly they are so they just roll with the punches. ‘Need for Speed’, on the other hand, tries to go for a much more serious tone and as shown from the reaction towards 2009’s ‘Fast and Furious’ (which for the record I did like), that’s not really the best option. I mean, considering that this a film about racing and crazy stunts, you’d think that the writers would go for a more light-hearted story but instead they go with a story that’s all about revenge, brotherhood, etc. And really, considering that this is a video-game adaptation, it’s really hard to take a lot of this seriously.

To the film’s credit, there are some genuinely good things about it. For one thing, the actual driving sequences in the movie are really, really good. And there’s a very good reason for that as they were actually done with practical effects, which is really cool given the fact that they could’ve just easily been done with CGI. But thankfully the filmmakers didn’t go that route, resulting in some very visually impressive stunts. Also, the cast is pretty solid as well. Aaron Paul, in his first major leading role since the end of ‘Breaking Bad’, proves that he definitely can be a solid leading man. Dominic Cooper plays a really fun despicable bad guy and Imogen Poots is incredibly charming as the female lead. There’s also Michael Keaton in quite a scene-stealing role as the head organizer of the big race that Paul and Cooper’s characters partake in at the end of the film. Ultimately though, ‘Need for Speed’ tried way too hard to be something that it wasn’t. It tried to be serious when in reality it’s fairly hard to take a film based off of a series of racing video games with minimal plot that seriously. The film does have it moments, mainly thanks to the practical stunt-work during the racing sequences, but ultimately you’re much better off with the recent ‘Fast and Furious’ movies. They too can be quite silly but unlike this movie, they know that. And while I am a fan of 2009’s ‘Fast and Furious’, this is basically the exact same thing for anyone who wasn’t.

I’m certain that I’ll be pissing off a lot of people who were fans of this movie and the book series that it was based on. But I’m sorry folks, this film really didn’t do much for me, especially when compared to the other big ‘Young Adult’ book-to-film adaptations that came out this year.

9. DIVERGENT

Yeah… I’m sorry to anyone who was a fan of this movie. I know that a lot of audiences really liked this movie and to be honest I’m not exactly the target audience for this series in the first place. However, I do have to disagree with popular opinion on this one. And while I’m not one to compare films, I do have to compare this to another adaptation of a young adult book. For the record, I’m not comparing it to ‘Hunger Games’ because, well, there’s no contest there. Instead, I’m going to focus on the other major young-adult book-to-film adaptation of this year; ‘The Maze Runner’, which if you recall I really liked. That film had a very engaging premise that kept you invested the whole way through. This film, however, doesn’t have that same benefit. I swear I was kind of bored throughout the majority of this movie. I never really cared about any of the characters and I felt that the movie dragged at certain points and considering that this is nearly two and a half hours long, that’s really not a good thing. For the record, I haven’t read the book that this was based on so I don’t know if it’s the same way, but this was just a fairly bland film that I think tries just a bit too hard to be ‘The Hunger Games’. And while I hate to use the word ‘rip-off’ because let’s be honest nothing’s really original these days anyway, this film has quite a lot in common with ‘The Hunger Games’ in terms of certain plot elements (for the record this book was first published in 2011, three years after the first ‘Hunger Games’… just saying…).

But like with ‘Need for Speed’, there are some good things about it. For one thing, director Neil Burger (who I feel rather sorry for having to be stuck doing this film, having directed some really solid (and in some cases underrated) films in the past like ‘The Illusionist’ and ‘Limitless’) does create some really eye-catching visuals from time to time in this, which can mainly be attributed to the fact that in the story, the characters occasionally get put into simulations that are part of a series of tests. While certainly not the best lead from a young adult series, the main character Tris is actually a pretty likable protagonist and Shailene Woodley does do a pretty decent job in the lead role, proving that she definitely is one of the best actresses of her generation. But ultimately, like I said, this film really didn’t do much for me and I don’t really have much interest in seeing the other films in this series. Of course like with almost every major young adult book-to-film franchise out there, the final book in this series, ‘Allegiant’, is being split into two films. Given the fact that I wasn’t that invested in this first film, I can already tell that this wasn’t a good idea (on a side note, thank you Fox for not doing the same thing to ‘The Maze Runner’). In the end, though, I don’t think this was as bad as something like ‘Twilight’. ‘Twilight’ was god-awful, this is just… meh…

You’ve got a director regarded as one of the worst working today in Hollywood helming a film that had a lot of potential given what it’s about. Well, you can kind of tell where this is going.

8. POMPEII

A film like this, about the infamous eruption of Mount Vesuvius and how the ancient titular city of Pompeii got absolutely decimated as a result of the eruption, does have some potential to be a fun little disaster film. But in the hands of director Paul W.S. Anderson, this ends up being a big case of ‘style over substance’. For the record, this is only the second film of Anderson’s that I’ve seen, the other being ‘Mortal Kombat’ which, while not exactly a great movie, wasn’t that bad. But the rest of his filmography isn’t exactly well-liked by a lot of people, especially his ‘Resident Evil’ films in which he continues to over-glorify his wife, Milla Jovovich. As for this film, it feels rather uneven at times as it starts off as a gladiator movie (in other words, it’s a cheap version of 2000’s Oscar-winning ‘Gladiator’) and it stays in that genre up until it actually gets to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. I mean sure, I guess the whole ‘Vesuvius’ thing probably isn’t enough for a whole film but it feels like this is two films in one and that the film started off forgetting what it was all about. Sure, the visuals in ‘Pompeii’ are nice, especially after Vesuvius does erupt, but you don’t give a crap about any of the characters in the film, especially given the fact that because this is based on a real-life event, you can already tell how this is all going to end. And yet they try to hammer in a love story trying to be like ‘Titanic’. But again, why should we care about these two lovers when we know that they’re just going to die anyway like everyone else in this movie?

Now because I don’t have HBO, I haven’t been watching ‘Game of Thrones’ so this is basically the first major thing I’ve seen Kit Harrington in. Overall, I don’t really think he’s that bad in this but he just doesn’t have anything to work with so his character comes off as being really bland. The same can be said for his love interest, played by Emily Browning, who really, really needs a new agent after starring in a bunch of crappy films like this, ‘The Host’, and of course, ‘Sucker Punch’. Then you have Kiefer Sutherland, who overacts his ass off to rather embarrassing results as the main bad guy, a general who is looking to marry Browning’s character. The only real major highlight in the cast is Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as a gladiator who Harrington’s character Milo befriends while they are both slaves, who manages to actually give a good performance here despite the crappy screenplay, so much so in fact that you actually wish that the film focused on him instead of the incredibly bland love story. That’s ‘Pompeii’ for you, a film that actually had some potential but was ultimately wasted mainly due to the fact that it was a case of ‘style over substance’. It may have had some nice visuals but given what we know about this real-life event, it’s hard to care about a group of characters that are all going to be dead by the end of the film.

I listed this film’s predecessor on my ‘Worst of’ list last year and surprise, surprise, guess what film lands the Number 7 spot on my 2014 list? That’s right, it’s that first film’s sequel.

7. SHARKNADO 2

Yes, because last year’s ‘Sharknado’ became such a big sensation ever since it first aired on the Syfy channel, mainly due to social media and the title of the film above anything else, it has led to a sequel getting made. And, like last year, this film does count on this list because it did get released in theaters, if only for one day. With the first film, I noted that though it was a bad movie, it was one of those cases like ‘Batman and Robin’ or ‘The Room’ where it’s ‘so bad, it’s good’ because of its cheesier elements. However, the more that I think about it, I might have over-exaggerated that a little bit. Sure, this film does have some genuinely ridiculous moments that result in unintentional hilarity, like the many scenes where the main character Finn is apparently Superman due to some of the crazy things he does in the film (like shooting a shark that’s high up in the air with just one shot from a pistol or diving headfirst into a shark’s mouth and managing to cut his way out of it with a chainsaw). But for the most part, it was an incredibly dumb b-grade film with lame effects and bad acting and at times it tried to take things way too seriously when in reality we’re talking about a film that is about a tornado of sharks that wreaks havoc upon the city of Los Angeles with a tagline that says it all; ‘Enough Said’.

‘Sharknado 2: The Second One’ is pretty much exactly the same thing, except this time it is in New York, resulting in quite a lot (and I mean a lot) of product placement, including an entire sequence taking place in the New York Mets’ ballpark Citi Field, multiple shots of Subway (including a cameo from the ‘Subway’ guy himself, Jared Fogle), and multiple scenes of television broadcasts featuring cameos from Al Roker and Matt Lauer from ‘The Today Show’ and Kelly Ripa and Michael Strahan from ‘Live with Kelly and Michael’. In contrast, the first film did not have any product placement of any kind, which I guess shows how popular that first film was if this film is full of cameos and product placement. Like the first film, ‘Sharknado 2’ does have its ridiculous moments, like when Finn surfs on a shark inside the ‘sharknado’, but it also has the exact same problems of the first film. Laughable special effects, poor acting, and while this one isn’t necessarily taking things as serious as the first film did, they still try to add in some emotional drama, which is really unnecessary seeing how this film is called ‘Sharknado’! I mean, in a sense, it’s rather pointless to critique this movie as we all know that it’s bad. It’s just that quite frankly I’m a little disturbed that these two lousy B-movies became such a cult sensation. But hey, if you’re a fan of these two films, that’s fine. I’m just not one of those people who got caught up in all of the hype, probably because I already knew they were going to be bad going in.

Oh yeah, and this film also has the most pointless post-credits scene of all time, which I think is trying to parody ‘Avengers’ as this one also features the main character going somewhere to get a bite to eat but really it’s just a waste of time.

This year’s been pretty solid as far as animated films go. I didn’t see ‘How to Train Your Dragon 2’, but I heard very good things about it and I did see two superb animated films in ‘Big Hero 6’ and ‘The LEGO Movie’. But then you’ve got this film…

6. THE NUT JOB

Boy, talk about a bad start to the year as far as animated films are concerned (thank god ‘The LEGO Movie’ came out just a month later). Now usually when it comes to family films, especially animated films, I’m not as critical towards them if I find that they are at least good for kids. Films like ‘Cars 2’ and the recent remake of ‘Annie’ are prime examples of this. But as for ‘The Nut Job’, I doubt that there’s even much here for kids. I mean, I’ve read a review online in which the author had taken his kid to see the film and the kid wanted to leave early, which kind of shows how weak the material in this movie is. As the title suggests, there’s a lot of nut jokes in it (including some that I think are a little too risqué for a kids film) and it gets old pretty quick. It may be a heist film, about a bunch of squirrels trying to rob a nut store that at the same time is a front for a bunch of criminals who are planning to rob a bank, but as far as the genre is concerned the writing and the film’s characters are pretty sub-standard. The animation is decent enough but nowhere as good as something from Pixar or DreamWorks. So with all of that in mind, some of you might think that this really isn’t that bad; just a rather mediocre animated film that is light on the jokes.

Well, as many critics have already pointed out, the biggest problem with the film is with its main character, Surly. Though voiced by the incredibly talented and funny Will Arnett, who thankfully had a much better turn as LEGO Batman in ‘The LEGO Movie’, Surly is just an incredibly unlikable character. He’s very self-centered and egotistical, putting himself before others and as a result, he ends up destroying the other animals’ food for the winter as a result of him trying to get food for himself. He doesn’t work well with others and constantly bullies his partner in crime, a mute rat by the name of Buddy, around. While he does ‘redeem himself’ at the end of the movie, it doesn’t really feel that genuine because of how big of an a-hole that he was before. In short, it’s because of this incredibly unlikable character, the lead character in the film, that ‘The Nut Job’ ends up being a fairly poor animated film. Like I said before, while I’m usually one to forgive an animated film if I find that it’s harmless enough for kids, I don’t even think that kids will like this one too much. They might end up being rather bored by it, which is not a good thing when it comes to animated films. But it seems like a lot of kids did like this film as it was commercially successful enough for a sequel, which is planned for a January 2016 release. Oh well…

And that’s the end of Part 1 of this list. Check back tomorrow for Part 2 in which I list my Top 5 worst of the year.

Top 10 Favorite Christmas Movies (Christmas Post Part 2)

Welcome back to Rhode Island Movie Corner’s Christmas Celebration. Previously, I listed my Top 10 personal favorite Christmas Specials of all time, from many of the Rankin-Bass produced specials like ‘Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer’ and ‘Santa Claus is Coming to Town’ to holiday classics like ‘How the Grinch Stole Christmas!’ and ‘A Charlie Brown Christmas’. Today, we’ll be moving on up to the ‘big boys’ as I’ll be listing my Top 10 personal favorite Christmas movies. Like the Christmas specials, I’ve found myself watching these movies annually around this time of the year, and these movies have spanned quite a long period of time with some all-time classics from before I was even born to some that came out in more recent years that are now viewed by many as ‘modern holiday classics’. Now I’m not saying that these movies are absolutely 100% perfect but at the end of the day, I can actually forgive them for that because it’s Christmas time and I’m certain that each of these movies will put at least one person in the holiday spirit, meaning that I can overlook a lot of their flaws. And of course like last time, if a certain film that you like isn’t on this list, it’s because either I haven’t seen it or I just ended up liking these 10 better which of course is no problem at all giving that film is so subjective. So let’s not waste any more time… here are my Top 10 favorite Christmas movies.

HONORABLE MENTIONS

 

For Christmas movies, I have four honorable mentions. First, there’s 1996’s ‘Jingle All the Way’, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger as a workaholic father who desperately searches for a special Christmas present for his son while in conflict with another father (played by comedian Sinbad), which is even more tough considering that the present they’re looking for, a popular action-figure, is almost entirely sold out (I’m aware that this was inspired by real-life instances of Christmas toys selling out). I know that this one isn’t that well-liked by a lot of people namely for how chaotic it is as well as its more ‘commercialistic’ message but I still like it as I do feel that it does have its moments, primarily thanks to everyone’s favorite catch-phrase spewing Austrian man (‘Put that Cookie Down! NOW!’). Then there’s ‘Fred Claus’, in which Vince Vaughn stars as the titular Fred, the brother of Santa Claus (Paul Giamatti), who ends up working with Santa up at the North Pole when he runs into some trouble with the law. Like ‘Jingle All the Way’, this one has also gotten some fairly negative reviews but I do think that it’s actually a pretty good Christmas film, a charming little tale of these two brothers who have been distant for years as they try and mend their rather tumultuous relationship. Also, Paul Giamatti, as he usually is, is really superb in the role of Santa.

Moving on to some more critically successful movies, there’s the one film that a lot of people like to refer to as a ‘Christmas movie’ even if it’s not really 100% a Christmas film. That’s right, it’s the classic 80’s action flick starring Bruce Willis, ‘Die Hard’. Yeah, it’s not really a Christmas movie per se but it is set at Christmas, the film ends with ‘Let it Snow’ as the end credits music, and it’s also one of the best action movies of all time. But because it’s not really a ‘Christmas’ movie, I’m only listing it here as an Honorable Mention. Finally, there’s ‘Arthur Christmas’, probably the most recent Christmas movie on this entire list which was made by Aardman Studios, the studio behind many stop-motion animated films including the ‘Wallace and Gromit’ series and ‘Chicken Run’. ‘Arthur Christmas’, on the other hand, wasn’t that big of a commercial success when it was released in theaters as it just barely earned its budget back at the box office. Thankfully, though, it’s gotten much greater attention recently as it truly is another modern Christmas classic.

In this film, the whole process of Santa delivering presents on Christmas Eve has become much more technologically advanced as Santa’s elves are the ones who do most of the work for him. But one Christmas Eve, when one present is forgotten by accident, Santa’s rather clumsy son Arthur (voiced by James McAvoy) heads off on a mission with his grandfather, another former Santa Claus (voiced by Bill Nighy), to deliver that one present before it’s Christmas Day. That’s another unique thing about this story in that the position of Santa Claus is mainly a title that has been held by numerous people over many periods of time. In this film, we see the current Santa (voiced by Jim Broadbent) struggle to come to terms with the fact that it’s about time he retires from the position as he’s grown a bit too old to the point where his role in the whole ‘delivering gifts’ process is mostly just symbolic. This movie has quite a lot of the charm and heart that one can expect from a great Christmas movie, with a timeless message highlighting both the old and new when it comes to Christmas traditions, while also featuring excellent animation and eye-popping visuals. For the record, this is not Aardman’s usual stop-motion animation but it’s just as good as their usual animation. Hopefully this film will continue to receive the attention that it certainly deserves. Why is it only an Honorable Mention, you ask? Well, that’s simply because this was the first time that I’ve seen this film but I guarantee that this is another one that I I’ll certainly be watching every year during the Christmas season from now on. So now… onto the real list…

At Number 10 we have a film that isn’t necessarily a well-loved entry in the genre of Holiday movies. However, this one does hold a special place in my heart for one very important reason and that is why it starts off this list.

10. JACK FROST (1998- JUST TO BE SPECIFIC)

Like I said, this one didn’t exactly get great reviews from critics and it was also a flop at the box office. Still, this film does mean a lot to me as it was one of my dad’s favorites, and I don’t mean just favorite Christmas movies, I mean that this is one of his absolute favorite films period. And I’m not going to lie, I really like this film too. For anyone who hasn’t heard about it, this ‘Jack Frost’, not to be confused with either the other ‘Jack Frost’ movie about a serial killer that is turned into a snowman or the Rankin-Bass special that I’ve covered previously, stars Michael Keaton as the titular Jack Frost, who in this film is the lead singer in a band who is on the verge of signing a record deal. However, because of his commitment to the band, Jack has been unable to spend a lot of time with his family; his wife Gabby (Kelly Preston) and their son Charlie (Joseph Cross). On the day that he is about to take them on a Christmas trip, he is called in on an important gig with the record company looking to sign him. But he ultimately decides to skip out on it so that he can be with his family. However, due to a bad storm, Jack unfortunately ends up dying in a car accident. One year later, Charlie, still struggling to deal with his father’s death, builds a snowman in his father’s image and after playing a harmonica that Jack had given to him before his death, Jack actually comes back to life through the snowman.

So okay, the premise here is admittedly a little ridiculous given that it’s implied that Jack came back to life as a result of Charlie playing the harmonica, which Jack jokingly referred to as being ‘magical’ (though later they say in the film that this happened because Charlie wished that Jack could be there for Christmas). That and the effects for when Jack is a snowman can be a little creepy at times, mainly due to the fact that sometimes Jack, when he’s a snowman, is CG while other times he’s actually an animatronic effect. Still, I really like this movie’s laid-back tone and I do really like the ‘father-son’ relationship between Jack and Charlie, which I feel is really touching in how Jack, even though it is after he died, finally gets the chance to really connect with Charlie having been unable to do so before his death due to the fact that he was away a lot of times. In short, I know that this isn’t really one of the absolute best Christmas movies of all time but it is one that me and my dad both really liked and I do enjoy watching it every year. It’s a simple little film that I do feel deserves more attention than what it’s gotten.

My Number 9 choice was the first in a series of films from its director that utilized the fairly polarizing motion-capture animation style. While this style of animation does have its critics, I do feel that this film is one of the more recent great Holiday classics.

9. THE POLAR EXPRESS

‘The Polar Express’, based on the iconic children’s story by Chris Van Allsburg, was the first film directed by Robert Zemeckis (‘Back to the Future’, ‘Cast Away’, and ‘Forrest Gump’) to utilize a style of animation known as ‘motion-capture animation’. In other words, the main cast of characters were filmed via motion capture (similar to the many performance-capture roles played by Andy Serkis) and that served as the basis for the animators to make the film. This practice has been rather polarizing amongst both critics and audiences, mostly in regards to when it comes to animating characters because they tend to fall into the territory of the uncanny valley, with some even saying that they look like zombies. Now for the record, I do see what they’re talking about as sometimes the animation on the characters can be a little creepy but quite frankly everything else in the film is actually animated really well. This film’s greatest strength in my opinion is its visuals, which really make you feel that you too are on this journey to the North Pole. I’ve heard that the visuals are even better if you see the film in IMAX 3-D, which unfortunately I have not yet been able to experience as I didn’t see this film in theaters. I first saw it at school one day before winter break back when I was in elementary school, though I do hope that I do get the chance to see this film in IMAX 3-D one day because from what I’ve heard, that’s the best way to see this film.

Now of course, because this film is adapting a fairly short children’s book, obviously there were certain things that the filmmakers had to add in order to satisfy a feature-length runtime. And overall I’m fine with all of these additions as I do think they help expand the story in certain parts. That’s another great thing about the story as I feel that this film does a great job of capturing the overall theme/message of the original story. It’s all really a ‘test of faith’ as the main character is shown to be having doubts about whether or not Santa Claus is real. So because of this, he takes a trip on the titular ‘Polar Express’, which travels to the North Pole to see Santa head off on his world-wide journey, although he’s rather hesitant about everything as he’s unsure if this is all real or not. It isn’t until he and the other passengers finally reach the North Pole when he finally starts believing, shown in a pretty unique way as, unlike the other kids, he can’t hear the bells of Santa’s sleigh at first until, like in the book, he comes across one single bell that Santa eventually gives to him as the first ‘gift of Christmas’. It’s a beautiful story with equally beautiful animation (though more in the visuals than the characters, but that’s beside the point), a great sense of adventure, and a solid turn by Tom Hanks in not one, but six different roles. He does the motion-capture for the main boy (while also serving as the narrator; the boy as a grown-up) but also plays the boy’s father, the Conductor of the Polar Express (arguably his biggest role in the film), the mysterious Hobo that the main boy meets while on the journey, and finally Santa Claus himself. All in all, it’s a great modern holiday classic that really did blow me away the first time I saw it.

I got two films at the Number 8 spot due to the fact that they’re not only two films in the same series but also because they’re fairly similar in many ways. Still, I guarantee that these are two films that many watch around this time of year.

8. HOME ALONE/HOME ALONE 2: LOST IN NEW YORK

What better way to celebrate the holidays than with a pair of Christmas movies revolving around slapstick violence where the main character, who was left ‘home alone’ by accident when his family left for vacation, sets up booby traps to stop robbers who would pretty much be dead if this was real life. But these two movies are much more than that; they have the usual Christmas wonder that a lot of Christmas specials/movies, made even more memorable as it comes through the eyes of a young boy, Kevin McCallister. Say what you will about Macaulay Culkin’s career as an actor that mostly consisted of films that studios did to capitalize on the success of this movie but here is where he gives what is easily the best performance of his career. He has an incredibly likable persona and, well, considering how douchey his family acts towards him in the openings of both movies, also very sympathetic. Then you have a whole variety of other characters, like Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern as the bumbling crooks Harry and Marv who are continually stopped by Kevin’s traps, Catherine O’Hara as Kevin’s mother who goes to quite some lengths to get back home to her son, Old Man Marley (Roberts Blossom), who is said to have killed his entire family but in reality is a nice guy who’s just not on very good terms with his son, and much more.

The original ‘Home Alone’ is not only one of the most memorable Christmas films of all time, but also one of the most iconic and highest-grossing comedy films period. Two years after its release, it got a sequel in ‘Home Alone 2: Lost in New York’, though this is one of the most infamous cases of a sequel that just rehashed the same plot of the first film with the only major differences being cosmetic changes, namely in this film Kevin ends up in New York when he ends up on the wrong flight. Still, despite the fact that this is basically just the same as the first film, it’s still really entertaining. It still has as much Christmas spirit and funny slapstick humor as the first film and as many memorable characters, including the always entertaining Tim Curry as the concierge at the Plaza Hotel, where Kevin stays when he first arrives in New York, and Brenda Flicker as the ‘Pigeon Lady’ who Kevin befriends after initially being afraid of her. In short, both of these ‘Home Alone’ movies are incredibly entertaining films that both kids and adults can enjoy and even if the sequel doesn’t do much different than the first film, I’d argue it’s still just as good. I mean, it’s better than the following ‘Home Alone’ sequels, am I right?

Another more recent Christmas movie takes the Number 7 spot; one starring one of my favorite actors, no less… Tim Allen.

7. THE SANTA CLAUSE

Here’s a Christmas film that’s actually a little dark in the sense that it’s about a man by the name of Scott Calvin (played by Tim Allen) who becomes the new Santa after he accidentally causes the previous Santa to fall off of his roof, which results in his death. Sure, ‘The Santa Clause’ is a fairly simple film but it’s full of good old-fashioned holiday spirit that one can expect from a Christmas film. It’s one that I think can appeal to both kids and adults thanks to the colorful visuals and Tim Allen’s excellent performance in the role of the new Santa, who at first is rather against being in the job but soon ends up getting into the spirit to become the next Santa Claus. The film ended up getting two sequels in 2002 (‘The Santa Clause 2’) and 2006 (‘The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause’) and while the first film can appeal to both kids and adults, the sequels are clearly geared towards kids. That’s not exactly a bad thing, though, as both films are generally harmless for kids and they both have their own moments at times, like how in the second film Santa ends up getting ‘cloned’ but then the fake Santa starts to take over the North Pole. Still, adults probably won’t find too much for them in these two sequels so they’re better off with the original. Sure, it’s nothing too ground-breaking but it’s still a pleasant little holiday film.

And here’s another modern holiday classic at Number 6. It’s one that without a doubt has delighted audiences every year during the holidays ever since it first came out in 2003. Because you see, the best way of spreading Christmas cheer is singing loud for all to hear…

6. ELF

This film has such a great ‘fish out of water’ premise. Will Ferrell stars as Buddy, a human who, when he was a baby, was brought to the North Pole by accident when he snuck into Santa’s bag. Once found, he is then raised by Santa’s elves despite the fact that he isn’t actually one of them. Eventually, he does learn of his origins (he was given up for adoption by his parents and that his mother died soon after he was born) and decides to head to New York to reunite with his father, who’s rather uncaring demeanor has put him on the naughty list. This film has it all; eye-catching visuals, a great amount of heart, and of course plenty of laughs, like when Buddy goes to a Department Store and gets into a fight with a mall Santa (‘You sit on a throne of lies!’). Of course, the biggest strength of the film is Will Ferrell in the lead role of Buddy, this film being the first film that he did after leaving Saturday Night Live. Ferrell’s made a career out of roles where his characters act like a man-child, to varying degrees of success, but this is easily one of his best roles to date. He has great comedic timing and makes this character, who admittedly could have come off as being very annoying, extremely likable. I’ll admit that without Ferrell, I’m not sure if this film would’ve be as good as it is with him. I’m not saying it’s a bad movie but it really is because of Ferrell that this movie is the modern holiday classic it is.

Kicking off the second half of this list at Number 5 is arguably the best film in the series that this comes from. Another modern holiday classic full of holiday hi-jinx.

5. NATIONAL LAMPOON’S CHRISTMAS VACATION

The third film in the ‘National Lampoon’s Vacation’ series behind the original ‘Vacation’ and ‘European Vacation’, ‘Christmas Vacation’ might just be the best in the entire series. It’s a far more traditional Christmas story compared to many other movies and specials but it also gives us a story that features some excellent comedic writing, mostly due to the hi-jinx that occurs as Clark Griswold (Chevy Chase) tries to give his family the best Christmas ever even though everything he does usually ends up going haywire. Clark is an interesting character because on paper, we probably shouldn’t like him that much given that he frequently tries to cheat on his wife and is prone to anger. Still, he is actually sort of likable because of his commitment to trying to give his family a great Christmas and for also being very optimistic even when things go wrong… up until a certain point, of course, but that’s beside the point. Ultimately, this is another one of those ‘old-fashioned’ Christmas stories and I’m certain that many of us can at least relate to something that happens in this movie, from having relatives over to struggling to put up Christmas lights. That and of course it’s hilarious as hell, with quite a lot of classic funny moments, with my personal favorite being Clark’s long rant towards his boss after learning that the bonus he was getting was fairly worthless, which really stresses him out due to the fact that he had planned to use that bonus to buy a pool (‘Hallelujah… Holy S***!! Where’s the Tylenol?). In short, ‘Christmas Vacation’ is yet another phenomenal modern holiday classic that can stand toe to toe with some of the greatest Christmas films of all time.

I tell you, Number 4 will be a controversial one. It’s another more recent entry in the Christmas film genre and if you ask me it is the very definition of a polarizing film. But with this film, not only is it one of my favorite Christmas films, but quite frankly also one of my favorite films of all time… no I’m not kidding about that. I love this next film that much.

4. HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS

Yes, it’s true, I’m a very big fan of director Ron Howard’s 2000 live-action adaptation of the classic Dr. Seuss tale, ‘How the Grinch Stole Christmas’. Like I said earlier, this film has had a very polarizing reaction from both critics and audiences. Lindsay Ellis (AKA the Nostalgia Chick) did bring up a very good point about what the general reaction towards this movie is like in that the people who love it (like me) were very young when this film came out while anyone who was older (like around high school) is less than positive towards this having instead grown up with the Chuck Jones directed animated special. But I’m not going to compare this film to that special or the original book because I think that’s unfair as they’re both very different. But with that said, why do a lot of people dislike this movie? Well, I’ve heard various reasons for this, one being that it has a rather grim look due to the muted color scheme. While I do see where they’re coming from, the production design is still really, really good. Now admittedly this (and the following live-action Dr. Seuss adaptation which we won’t name for obvious reasons) shows that bringing Dr. Seuss’ human-like characters to life maybe isn’t the best idea, but on the flip-side, the makeup for the Grinch (done by legendary make-up artist Rick Baker) is truly superb perfectly matching the original design of the character.

Another possible reason why a lot of people don’t like this film could have something to do with the film’s more ‘commercialistic’ feel, and I’m not talking about the idea of Hollywood adapting the story again, I’m talking about within the film itself. Instead of the Whos of Whoville simply loving Christmas, this one emphasizes the commercial side of the holiday. But even then, I do think this film actually does do a good job when it comes to critiquing this whole thing. Cindy Lou Who recognizes that because everyone is more focused on gifts, they’re missing the whole point of Christmas. The Grinch also points out that this is always what it’s been about later in the film, this being one of the reasons why he hates Christmas. It isn’t until after the Grinch does steal their Christmas when he finally realizes the true meaning of Christmas. After all, that’s the whole point of that moment in the story and the original special. Even though the Grinch stole all of their presents and decorations, he didn’t steal their love for the holiday. Admittedly, it takes a few minutes for the Whos to realize that but they do realize the error of their ways. Say what you will about the more ‘commercialist’ tone or what they added to the story to satisfy a feature-length runtime (the latter of which can apply to pretty much any major book-to-film adaptation) but you at least have to give this film credit for effectively critiquing the commercialism of the holiday.

But easily the best thing about this entire film is Jim Carrey who is just fantastic in this movie as the Grinch. Even with all of that makeup covering his body, he still manages to be very expressive and his comedic timing/ability is still very much spot on. Thanks to him, this movie is also quite frankly one of the most quotable movies of all time, from the Grinch’s ‘back-and-forth’ with his echo (Grinch: “I’m an idiot!”, Echo: “You’re an Idiot!!”) to him trying to find something to wear for Whoville’s annual Christmas party (“Ooh… Aah… Mmm… That’s it, I’m not going!”). Bottom line, I love this version of ‘The Grinch’, though I do want to make it clear that I’m still as big a fan of the original animated version too (which was ironically also ranked at Number 4 on my other Christmas list… go figure). I understand if some of you aren’t as big fans of this movie as I am, but I do feel that it’s better than what some have given it credit for. Some may say it was just a ‘cynical cash grab’ that was unnecessary given the top-notch animated version but I think that it’s much more than that, with its sharp critique of commercialism, its eye-catching production design/makeup for the Grinch, and of course Jim Carrey’s excellent turn in the lead role. Apparently there’s a new ‘Grinch’ film in development to be made by Illumination Studios so I’ll be interested to see how that one turns out, even if the studio’s last Dr. Seuss adaptation, ‘The Lorax’, was rather disappointing.

These next three will no doubt feel rather obvious giving their legacies but there’s no denying that these are classic Christmas movies. At Number 3, we actually have multiple films given that they’re all adaptations of a classic story. Come on, say it with me now…

3. A CHRISTMAS CAROL

This is quite arguably the most famous Christmas story of all time. The original story, written by Charles Dickens in 1843, of the bitter Ebenezer Scrooge and how he reforms after being visited by three spirits in order to prevent himself from the same fate in the afterlife as his deceased partner Jacob Marley, has been adapted multiple times, with 21 films and 28 TV specials that have been made to date since 1901, each of which offering their own unique spin on this timeless story. Of course, like many people, I haven’t seen all of them and I’m guessing that some aren’t as good as others. Regardless, I’m guessing that they all manage to at least capture the spirit and emotions of Dickens’ story. So for now, I’m just going to cover all of the major adaptations of ‘A Christmas Carol’ that I’ve personally seen.

Many actors have taken on the role of Scrooge to varying degrees of success. And easily two of the most famous portrayals of the character were done by Alistair Sim and George C. Scott. Sim starred in 1951’s ‘Scrooge’, a well-shot and well-acted (highlighted by the very dour but also complex performance by Sim in the title role) take on the story, which actually expands on certain parts of the original plot, like how Scrooge was swayed by the offer of a greedy embezzler to join his company. Still, from what I heard, it also did a good job of staying close to the original source material. Sim’s performance was so iconic that he would later reprise the role in a 1971 animated version of ‘A Christmas Carol’ directed by Richard Williams. This fascinatingly animated (though pretty dark and, in some cases for lack of a better term, really frigging creepy; not only that, but it also kind of goes through the story at breakneck story, which, while understandable given that it’s only 25 minutes, was handled better in the Mickey Mouse version) made-for-TV animated film was so popular that it won the Oscar for Best Animated Short Film (though this resulted in some controversy due to it being a made-for-TV film). Scott starred in a 1984 made-for-TV film adaptation of the story and he too is also superb in the role of Scrooge. It’s a chillingly good performance in which Scott delivers both the harsh cynicism and a genuine sense of reclamation as one expect from the character Scrooge. And while I may not have read the original book, this version also seems pretty close to it save for a few changes.

Sometimes, there are adaptations of the story that cast famous characters in the lead roles. I already talked about the Mickey Mouse version of ‘A Christmas Carol’ in my last list but then there’s another Disney-produced take on the story featuring a group of iconic characters in ‘The Muppet Christmas Carol’, which is notably the first Muppets film to be made by Disney though on a more tragic note it was also the first made after the death of series creator Jim Henson. Like the Mickey Mouse version, this take on the story does a great job in casting the Muppet characters in key roles, like Kermit as Bob Cratchit (with Miss Piggy as his wife… obviously), Fozzie Bear as Fezziwig, and Statler and Waldorf both playing the roles of Marley, represented here as two separate men. Michael Caine plays Scrooge and he does a fantastic job in the role, perfectly capturing both Scrooge’s initial surly attitude and his redemptive soul after all that he goes through. The only major complaint I have towards the film is in regards to a major cut made by the studio of a song sequence, ‘When Love is Gone’, sung by Scrooge’s former love Belle when she leaves his life for good. Apparently, this scene was cut because the studio thought it was ‘too sad’, though I’m against this decision as a whole. First of all, the song is actually really good and really if ‘Muppets Take Manhattan’ can have that damn ‘Saying Goodbye’ song, then I’m sure kids can handle this song just fine. Also, because it got cut, it results in a rather obvious and jarring edit that doesn’t match up with the scene before the song began. Still, it’s another excellent take on the story that the whole family can enjoy.

Disney made one more adaptation of the story in 2009, this one starring Jim Carrey in the role of Scrooge (as well as the three ghosts) and is the second major Christmas film directed by Robert Zemeckis that utilizes the motion-capture animation technique like he did with ‘The Polar Express’. So like I said with that time, at times the animation on the characters is a little creepy though actually I think it’s not as bad here and also like I said before, everything else in the film is solidly animated. The one key thing about this version, though, is that it’s actually pretty damn dark at times and that was something I wasn’t really expecting with this film giving that it starred a comedic actor like Jim Carrey in the lead role. Still, the movie has some really superb visuals and even manages to do a good job in handling some of the darker moments as well as some emotionally powerful moments, like when Scrooge witnesses his employee Bob Cratchit dealing with the death of his son Tiny Tim. I can’t really recommend this one to kids due to its much more dark tone but overall it’s a solid take on the story highlighted by Jim Carrey’s solid turn in the lead role of Scrooge. It’s a story that’s been told many times on film and TV and each one has something about it that stands out amongst the rest.

This one needs no introduction…

2. A CHRISTMAS STORY

The tagline for the film says it all. It’s a ‘Tribute to the Original, Traditional, One-Hundred Percent, Red-Blooded, Two-Fisted, All-American Christmas’. While other Christmas specials and movies can have some more fantastical elements in them, ‘A Christmas Story’ doesn’t go that route. It instead goes for the more traditional route and because of this, it’s a film that I feel that many people will relate to in one way or another. And while the film is set in the 50’s, it still manages to be very timeless thanks to the narration from Jean Shepard (author of the book the film is based on, ‘In God we Trust, All Others Pay Cash’), who plays the adult version of the main character Ralphie (played by Peter Billingsley in what is easily one of the best kid performances of all time) who reflects upon the events of the movie. In short, this movie is nostalgia in its purest form and while the story may be fairly simple as it’s mostly just a series of events, there’s no denying that ‘A Christmas Story’ is not only one of the greatest Christmas films of all time, but one of the most classic films period. There’s a very good reason why TBS airs this in a 24-hour marathon on Christmas Day.

And finally we come to Number 1. What, you ask, do I feel is better than ‘A Christmas Story’, the one that is widely regarded as the quintessential Christmas film? Well, that movie is…

1.     IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE

I know what some of you are probably thinking. Why do I think this movie is better than ‘A Christmas Story’, arguably the most famous Christmas film of all time? Well, when I think of Christmas, I think of goodwill towards all people. It’s a time where even in a world that can be harsh and cynical, there are still those who do good things for others no matter what, always thinking of others before themselves. That is the case with the main character of this film, George Bailey (played by James Stewart). He’s a man who constantly finds himself having to put his dreams on hold so that he can help others. For example, when his dad dies of a stroke, he cancels a summer trip in order to take over the family’s Building and Loan. Or on the day George marries the lovely Mary Hatch (Donna Reed), they give away the money for their honeymoon to those in financial need during a big run on the bank. But on one Christmas Eve, George finds himself in a sticky situation when he and his Uncle Billy lose track of $8,000 that could result in both criminal charges and the building and loan declaring bankruptcy. Driven to the point of suicide, George is ‘saved’ by a man named Clarence, who is revealed to be his guardian angel as he shows him what life would be like had he not been born. The town he lives in, Bedford Falls, is run by the greedy and cruel banker Mr. Potter, his brother Harry is dead because George wasn’t there to save him that one time he fell through the ice when they were kids, and Mary is a spinster librarian.

It’s a great and touching story that showcases how even one person can make an impact on people’s lives, even if it’s just from doing a simple act of kindness and this is shown in a great way by having Clarence show George an alternate reality where everything’s gone to s*** just because he wasn’t born. He’s just one person in a big world and yet has left such an impact on those around him. It really goes to show how iconic this story truly is when it’s been parodied numerous times on other shows like ‘The Fairly OddParents’, ‘Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles’, and ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’, sometimes to different results (like in the ‘Fairly OddParents’ episode that parodies this, where Timmy Turner finds that everyone’s actually better off without him). Both James Stewart and Donna Reed are fantastic and both George and Mary are excellent characters in their own right, with George being the kind-hearted but frustrated man that many of us can relate to and Mary being the caring and understanding wife who sticks by her husband no matter what. Say what you will about Christmas and how nowadays it’s all about commercialism but as for me, films like this showcase the best parts of humanity and that is why stories like ‘A Christmas Carol’, and ‘A Christmas Story’, and ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ will always be timeless many years after their initial releases.

So those are my Top 10 favorite Christmas movies. Did I miss any? What are some of your favorite Christmas movies? Be sure to sound off in the comments below and of course, I wish you all a very Happy Holidays! 

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) review

This may be a controversial statement in the minds of some people given the general reaction to this series, but I’ve been a fairly big fan of the ‘Hobbit’ movies. Do I think they’re as good as director Peter Jackson’s previous Middle-Earth trilogy, ‘The Lord of the Rings’? No, not really, but I do think that they’re better than what many people have put them out to be. Of course, the controversy surrounding this adaptation of the classic story of the same name from author J.R.R. Tolkien has mostly stemmed from the decision to split the book into three separate films which many felt was very unnecessary given that the book is only about 300 pages long whereas the ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy was based on three separate 300 page books. And sure, some of the problems that would’ve clearly emerged from padding the story out to three films have been present in the previous two films, such as a rather slow pace to start out the story in ‘An Unexpected Journey’ and sometimes feeling rather stuffed as far as characters and plotlines are concerned like in ‘The Desolation of Smaug’. Still, I do feel that these films have maintained the same great atmosphere and sense of adventure that ‘Lord of the Rings’ had, so much so that I can generally ignore a lot of the ‘downfalls’ of the previous two films. But now, the story of ‘The Hobbit’ finally comes to a close on film with ‘The Battle of the Five Armies’ and after seeing this final film, I can safely say that it is without a doubt the best film in the entire trilogy.

At the end of ‘The Desolation of Smaug’, Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) and his company of Dwarves, with the help of hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), had finally reached their homeland of Erebor within the Lonely Mountain, which had been stolen from them years earlier by the vicious dragon Smaug (portrayed through motion-capture by Benedict Cumberbatch). The group tries to kill Smaug by burying him alive in molten gold but that plan ends up failing and Smaug escapes from the mountain in order to enact his revenge on the people of the nearby Lake-town for assisting the Dwarves in their quest while Bilbo and the Dwarves can only watch from afar. As ‘The Battle of the Five Armies’ begins, Smaug begins his attack on Lake-town and while he is ultimately defeated by bowman Bard (Luke Evans, and for the record don’t worry folks this is not a spoiler as it’s literally the opening sequence of the film), who manages to hit him with a powerful black arrow in the one weak spot in his armor, most of the town is effectively destroyed, leaving the surviving residents of Lake-town homeless.

After the surviving residents of the town elect him as their new leader, Bard travels to the Lonely Mountain to talk with Thorin about him and his company holding up their part of the deal that he had made with the people of Lake-town before they had left for the mountain; that they would give them a part of the Mountain’s vast collection of treasure, which would be really helpful for Bard’s group at the moment given the situation that they’re currently in. But Thorin, who has begun to fall to the same ‘sickness of greed’ that had affected his grandfather in the years before Smaug’s initial attack on the Lonely Mountain as he desperately searches for his family’s heir-loom, the Arkenstone (which unbeknownst to him has already been found by Bilbo, who has been hiding it from him due to his change in attitude), refuses to give up any of the gold. As a result, Bard forges an alliance with the Wood-Elves of Mirkwood, led by their king Thranduil (Lee Pace), who is also looking for a part of the Dwarves’ treasure, as they plan an assault on the Lonely Mountain while Thorin’s group prepares for this impending attack. But little do they all know that some other armies are on their way to the Lonely Mountain to seek control of it for their master, who of course was revealed at the end of ‘Desolation’ to be the Dark Lord himself, Sauron (also portrayed by Cumberbatch through motion-capture).

As many of you may have guessed from the film’s title, this is clearly the entry in the ‘Hobbit’ film series where the most action in the story occurs, which is perfectly summed up by the fact that the titular ‘Battle of the Five Armies’ is a 45-minute long sequence and boy is it quite a sequence (and no, I don’t care if this was just one chapter in the book… I’ll get into the whole ‘three films’ thing later on). As far as scale and scope is concerned this is easily the biggest out of all of Jackson’s Middle-Earth films and it truly delivers on the spectacle with some of the best action sequences of the entire series (even when counting what we saw in ‘Lord of the Rings’). But at the same time, the film still holds your attention from beginning to end thanks to solid pacing, meaning the film never really drags at any point. As the final film in this epic story, you can really see how everything has been building up to what happens in this film and in some cases how this trilogy will ultimately lead into ‘Lord of the Rings’. Having only seen those films once, I can’t really say how effectively ‘Battle of the Five Armies’ leads into the previous trilogy as a whole but from the perspective of a general newcomer to the world of Middle-Earth as it has been portrayed in film, to me it seems that it did do a pretty good job in paving the way to its successor trilogy with key references to ‘Lord of the Rings’ showing how things became the way they were. This is a prequel, after all.

But amidst all of the action, Jackson still manages to find enough time for character development, particularly with Thorin and Bilbo. This film is easily Thorin’s story as we see his descent into madness as he obsesses over finding the Arkenstone, succumbing to the same sickness of the mind that his grandfather was stricken with as we saw from the prologue of ‘An Unexpected Journey’. It’s a fascinating look into the psyche of this character who’ve we been with since the beginning of the trilogy and Richard Armitage is easily the biggest standout of this entry in the trilogy. But of course, as it has always been since the first ‘Lord of the Rings’ film all the way back in 2001, the cast is pitch-perfect from top to bottom. Martin Freeman provides a great amount of wit, charm, and also an everyman-like persona in the role of Bilbo, Ian McKellen is his usual badass self in the role of the equally badass wizard Gandalf the Grey, and while only a few of the members of the company of Dwarves, not counting Thorin (e.g. Fili, Kili, Dwalin, and Balin), get any major material to work with, they have a great sense of camaraderie amongst them. That’s been the case since the first film so in the scene where Thorin asks them if they will follow him ‘one last time’, you too are with them because you really felt that you were along for the ride with them. There may be a few characters from ‘Lord of the Rings’ featured here that may not have been in the original book, like Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) and Legolas (Orlando Bloom), but they are a welcome addition here, helping these films feel even more like a crucial part of Jackson’s Middle-Earth universe.

In 2001, Peter Jackson, who at that point was mostly known for splatter films and horror comedies, began a journey into the fictional land of Middle-Earth with ‘The Lord of the Rings’, a trilogy of films that became some of the most highly regarded films of the last few years. A decade later, he returned to Middle-Earth for another trilogy, this time based on the prequel to ‘Lord of the Rings’, ‘The Hobbit’. Some may argue that this second trip to Middle-Earth wasn’t as good as the first one due to the fact that they expanded a rather small book into three big films and in some cases that may be true. But thanks to great direction, a great cast, great visuals, and overall a great atmosphere, I do feel that the same magic that ‘Lord of the Rings’ had is once again present in ‘The Hobbit’, once again showing why Jackson was the perfect man to helm all of these Middle-Earth movies. That is again shown in the final ‘Hobbit’ film, ‘The Battle of the Five Armies’, which is easily the best film in the entire trilogy. Everything has been building up to this finale and it truly delivers in terms of the payoff and the overall spectacle as it is arguably the biggest Middle-Earth movie to date. At this point, it seems like this is the last film for Jackson and his crew in the world of Middle-Earth. Some may feel that this is a good thing given the more mixed reactions to ‘The Hobbit’ compared to ‘Lord of the Rings’, but me personally I’d like to say this to Mr. Jackson; thank you, thank you, thank you for all of the work that you’ve put into your six Middle-Earth movies. It was truly a once-in-a-lifetime cinematic experience that we may never experience again.

Rating: 5/5!

REVIEW EPILOGUE

(Because hey, if Peter Jackson can have multiple endings in ‘Return of the King’, I can have an extra ending to my review of the final ‘Hobbit’ film).

Now before I go, I’m just going to give my final thoughts on the one crucial point of debate in regards to this series ever since the fateful decision to split the story into three films; at the end of the day, was it a good idea? For some people, it wasn’t and I’ll admit that when it was first announced, I too was rather hesitant about it. But now, after seeing all three ‘Hobbit’ movies, I am now actually in full support of this decision, for a few reasons. The big reason why many felt that doing a trilogy of films was a bad idea was that ‘The Hobbit’ is only a 300-page book. However, ‘The Hobbit’ is not as simple a story as some may claim it to be. A lot of things do happen in the story; the characters are introduced, they go off on their journey, they encounter various obstacles along the way, Bilbo acquires ‘the Ring’, they reach Erebor, they face off with Smaug, Smaug escapes, attacks Lake-town, and is killed by Bard, and then multiple armies duke it out over control of the Lonely Mountain before Bilbo finally returns home to the Shire. And that isn’t even all of what happens in this story. Simply put, it can’t really be done in just one film. I know that some people feel that this should’ve been the case with these films but you know what would happen if we just had one ‘Hobbit’ film? Then we’d all be here complaining about how that one film rushed through the entire story. Sure, maybe it could’ve been done in just two movies (that was the original plan, after all) but as for me I’m glad that they didn’t just cram the ‘Battle of Five Armies’ into the second film like I heard some reports claim that it was going to be.

And besides, if anyone was worried about this story being padded out into three three-hour long movies like the ‘Lord of the Rings’ movies were, that wasn’t the case at all. Because while the ‘Lord of the Rings’ movies got longer with each new film, it was the other way around with ‘The Hobbit’ as the films continued to get shorter and shorter, with ‘Battle of the Five Armies’ being the shortest Middle-Earth movie of them all at only 144 minutes. But if the runtime wasn’t the issue for people, it was probably the fact that these movies were rather overloaded with characters and admittedly that is fairly true. There are a lot of characters in this story and while we are primarily following Bilbo and a company of 13 dwarves, only a few of them (not counting Thorin because he’s clearly the most important out of all of them) get any major bits of character development. But you know something? From what I hear, that was a problem in the book as well. In fact, in some cases the book is even more problematic in how it handles its characters, some of whom are barely in it, like Bard the Bowman. From what I hear, in the book he doesn’t appear until his big moment when he kills Smaug, so kudos to the filmmakers for actually giving him a much more substantial role in the film. And on that note I do like the addition of Tauriel in the movies, even if most of her role in the story revolves around her romance with Kili, mainly because it does add some much needed diversity to a pre-dominantly male cast (something that was the case in both ‘Middle-Earth’ trilogies).

In short, I feel that Peter Jackson and his crew were actually aware of the tricky situation they were in when adapting ‘The Hobbit’ to film. I think they knew that the book had some issues with pacing and character development so, as controversial as it may be for some people, I am in full support of the decision to split it up into three separate films. Because while ‘The Hobbit’ is technically a children’s book, it’s not as simple as people think it is. A lot of things do happen in the story so while many people might complain about these movies being over-long (which isn’t actually that much of a problem because they’ve been getting shorter with every film), I’d much rather spend nine hours in Middle-Earth getting to know these characters than just spending about three hours there not really getting to know them at all because the film would be going at an incredibly fast pace. And sure, not all of the characters get that much to do in these films, like most of the company of Dwarves, but while I haven’t read ‘The Hobbit’, from what I can tell the same problem occurs in the book as well and if anything, I think that Jackson should be applauded for expanding on certain characters’ roles in the story, like Bard the Bowman and Thranduil, and I also don’t mind the additions of Tauriel and other characters from ‘Lord of the Rings’ because in the case of the former, these films gain a solid female character in what is a pre-dominantly male cast and in the case of the latter, the appearances of characters like Legolas, Galadriel, and Saruman help this movie feel even more connected to the ‘Lord of the Rings’ films. I feel that Jackson actually did a really solid job at adapting a story that, like it or not, isn’t exactly perfect.