Updates and Random Thoughts

A LOT of things to talk about today, so let's get this started.  I've put off this blog post for too long and random movie news, thoughts on those bits of news, and updates for this blog have all kept piling up.




So unless you've been living under a rock you've probably heard by now that most of the main cast for 'Star Wars Episode VII' has been announced.  Allegedly there is still one major female lead role that needs filled, but odds are it has already been filled and they'll just wait until May 4th (Star Wars Day) to announce it.  Anyway, the recently announced cast is as follows: 

• John Boyega ('Attack The Block')
• Daisy Ridley (been in a few short films and a BBC miniseries, all of which I've never heard of)
• Adam Driver ('Inside Llewyn Davis', 'Frances Ha', 'Lincoln', and the HBO show "Girls") 
• Oscaar Isaac ('Inside Llewyn Davis', 'Drive', 'Robin Hood', 'Sucker Punch')
• Andy Serkis (the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy, 'King Kong', 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes')
• Domhnall Gleeson ('About Time', 'True Grit', 'Harry Potter 7' Parts 1 & 2, 'Dredd')
• Max von Sydow ('Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close', 'The Exorcist', 'Flash Gordon')

And they will be joined by 'Star Wars' regulars Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Anthony Daniels, Peter Mayhew and Kenny Baker.  A very diverse cast, but also a pretty good cast overall.  I'm optimistic about 'Episode VII'.  After all, it's been directed by J.J. Abrams who for the most part has made some really good movies including the two recent 'Star Trek' movies, the Spielberg-ian 'Super 8', and 'Mission:  Impossible 3'.  We'll have to wait until December 2015 to see if the force is truly with Abrams & company.

                                                                  ------------

In other major movie news announced this week, it was announced that the long awaited 'Justice League' movie has officially been given the green light, will be directed by Zack Snyder ('Man of Steel', '300', 'Batman VS Superman), and will follow the events of the upcoming 'Batman VS. Superman' (or whatever they decide to call it).  With various members of the Justice League being given roles in 'Batman VS. Superman', this appeared to be a no-brainer as Warner Bros. wants to capitalize on the success that Marvel has had with 'The Avengers' and their cinematic universe. 

Sure, a 'Justice League' movie is all fine and dandy, but I kinda think Warner Bros. is rushing into things a bit.  After all, 'The Avengers' had two Iron Man movies, one 'Hulk' movie, one 'Thor' movie and one 'Captain America' movie to build up to it.  'Justice League' just has 'Man of Steel' and 'Batman VS. Superman', which introduces the new Batman, new Wonder Woman and will have Cyborg for the first time onscreen.  No word yet on whether Green Lantern would be recast or not, and no word yet on Aquaman.  And also:  What if 'Batman VS. Superman' bombs?  Even if it makes a ton of money, what if there is a LOT of fan backlash against the movie?  Then again we could talk about hypothetical things all day long....but I'm just a little bit leery about it.

                                                                  ------------

So with 'Divergent' making a splash at the box office and making more money than 'Vampire Academy', 'Mortal Instruments', 'Beautiful Creatures' and 'Warm Bodies', of course the sequels have been greenlit with 'Insurgent' coming out next year and 'Allegiant' being split in two and being released in 2016 and 2017.  I haven't seen 'Divergent' yet, nor have I read any of the books so I can't comment on whether or not 'Allegiant' really deserves to be split in two.  All right, now time for a rant:   

This whole final book being split in two trend really ticks me off.  When it was announced that 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' would be split in to I wasn't exactly thrilled, but after having finally finished the book shortly before Part 1 was released I can kinda understand why it was split in two.  There are a LOT of things going on in that book, many of which actually are relevant to the main story.  In my opinion both 'Deathly Hallows' Part 1 and Part 2 are really really good movies, but more importantly to the studios they both made a lot of money.  Heck, Part 2 made over a billion dollars worldwide.

With the success of the two parts of 'Deathly Hallows', Summit decided to do the same thing with the fourth Twilight book 'Breaking Dawn'.  I did have friends who were fans of that series and wondered how they were gonna get it all in one movie, so I guess they were pleased when they heard about it being split into two.  I haven't read 'Breaking Dawn' so I can't comment on whether or not (apart from financial reasons) it really needed to be split in two.  When it was announced that it would be split I just kinda rolled my eyes and said "It's only because 'Harry Potter' did it".  I have seen both Part 1 and Part 2 of 'Breaking Dawn' and honestly....it could've easily been trimmed down to one, two and a half hour movie.  Part 1 was so long and so bad that I almost recommend it to people.  Some bad movies just deserve to be seen and mocked, and 'Breaking Dawn - Part 1' is one of those movies.  Part 2 just wasn't very good.  Alas, both made tons of money.

And with the success of the above two books and four films, Summit also had announced that the third 'Hunger Games' book would be split in two.  At less than 400 pages, 'Mockingjay' is less than half the length of both 'Deathly Hallows' and 'Breaking Dawn'.  Why does IT need split in two?? Simple:  $$$$$$$.  Same thing for 'The Hobbit' being split into THREE movies.  Although at least the original plan for 'The Hobbit' was that it was going to be two movies:  One being an adaptation of 'The Hobbit' with the second film being an original movie that would bridge the gap between 'Hobbit' and 'Lord of the Rings'.  But eventually that ballooned into three movies, each with various subplots that would help lead into 'Lord of the Rings'.  You know, subplots that the 'Hobbit' really didn't need to be added but then again, if you're gonna make a billion dollars per movie, why not make three of them? 

Okay, rant over.  Other things to talk about.

                                                                  ------------

In movie news that I'm sure some readers would care about, 'Magic Mike' is actually getting a sequel with most of the original cast set to return.  Tentatively it is scheduled to open July 2015.  So while the ladies are at the 'Magic Mike' sequel, us men will be at 'Terminator:  Genesis' (opening the same weekend) which will see Arnold Schwarzeneggar returning to his iconic role.  So theaters that weekend should be flooded with testosterone and estrogen.

                                                                 ------------

Okay, enough movie news for now.  Time for blog updates and how things will be over the next few months.  First and foremost, I have a little over a month and a week until I am back working at camp.  Last year during camp I managed to write 5 blog posts.  Most of the movies I saw over the summer I ended up reviewing after I was done with camp for the summer.  This year I hope to post a little bit more but we'll see how my schedule is.  I'll be working at a different position this year at camp than I what I have been working the past three years so we'll see how things go.  And also while I am at camp I will be entering the world of hurt known as paying back student loans.  And once camp is over for the summer I will have to find some form of employment FAST or else I will be in a world of financial hurt.  Since I graduated from Ball State in December I have had some temporary employment.  I've gotten back into donating plasma again, and I have applied to a few places to work at but I've never heard back from any of them except for camp.  Just gotta keep on looking I guess.  Some day something will work out.

But in the meantime, let's look at the month of May.  Because of the abundant amount of movies coming out this month that I have at least some interest in seeing combined with an ever increasing amount of unfinished posts in my 'Draft' file, the entire month of May is going to be MAY MOVIE MADNESS!  Here is what will consist of MAY MOVIE MADNESS:

• REVIEWS
  The following are movies being released in the month of May that I have at least some interest in:  'The Amazing Spider-man 2', 'Neighbors', 'Godzilla', 'Maleficent', 'X-Men:  Days of Future Past' and 'A Million Ways To Die In The West'.  Some of them I definitely plan on seeing this month, others might have to wait until later in the summer.  In addition to reviews of at least some of the listed movies, I also will try and catch up with 'Heaven Is For Real' as well as write up some quick reviews for a few other movies I went to go see and one I rented from Redbox. 
  
• "IT'S ALL SUBJECTIVE"
  This is a simple, three part series of lists that will contain my opinions of certain movies that I've liked or disliked. However, Part 1 will consist of some critically despised movies that I've liked.  Part 2 will consist of some critically acclaimed movies that I've disliked.  Part 3 will consist of some movies that I know my friends have liked, but I either disliked or thought was only okay.  These lists show how subjective movies are.  After all, there are some so-called "bad" movies I've liked and some so-called "great" movies that I've disliked.  Everybody has an opinion on a movie they've seen and some people have differences in opinion on those movies. 
  
• UNDERRATED MOVIES
  A list of movies that I think are underrated and not talked about enough.
  
• SPORTS MOVIES
  A simple listing of some good sports movies. 
  
• SERIES/FRANCHISE
  Been meaning to start this for awhile with the James Bond series, but re-watching all of the Bond movies is going to take some time.  Over the past few weeks I've managed to watch all the Hannibal Lector movies that I hadn't seen yet so I'll start with that series.  First I have to re-watch 'Silence of the Lambs' since it's been three and a half years since I've seen it, but once that's done expect to see a post about all of those movies.
  
• "I FINALLY WATCHED..."
  This will finally continue with a Disney movie that I had only recently seen.  I still have to watch the first 15 or so minutes but as soon as that's done expect a blog post about it soon. 

So that's what I have planned for May.  Inspiration might strike and I might post something unannounced, so we'll see how things go.

                                                                    ------------

Well there were a few other things I wanted to talk about concerning statistics and the future of this blog, but I'll save those for another day.  I think I have talked and rambled in this post enough.  

REVIEW - 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier'

'Captain America:  The Winter Soldier' (PG-13) ***
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) struggles to embrace his role in the modern world and battles a new threat from old history: the Soviet agent known as the Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan).  With Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, Anthony Mackie as Falcon, Scarlet Johansson as Black Widow, Robert Redford as the head of S.H.I.E.L.D., Stan Lee making his usual cameo appearance, and a few other familiar faces from not only the previous movie but other movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. 

I'll admit:  I wasn't exactly looking forward to this movie.  I thought the first movie was kinda 'eh' and the previews and commercials for this second movie were also kinda 'eh'.  It didn't look bad, just didn't look all that great.  I was still plan on seeing it regardless, and went in with an open mind hoping that it wouldn't be as 'eh' as the first movie.  And this is required viewing before going to see the next 'Avengers' movie next year, so if you plan on seeing 'Avengers:  Age of Ultron' you might as well see this.

Okay, enough rambling.  What did I think of the latest 'Captain America' movie?  Simply put, for the most part I liked it.  It's a bit different than any of the other movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe in a few ways in that it's more of a political thriller than it is a superhero movie.  Sure there are still action scenes (which are sometimes a bit brutal but still fun to watch and suspenseful), but without giving too much away it goes for more of a reflection on certain real life scandals plaguing a certain real life security agency in Washington.  And in that regard it's handled very well and is actually quite tense.  The special effects as usual are very good.  The acting is also very good, and Stan Lee's cameo is fun as always.  Chris Evans is once again good as the titular superhero, proving once again he's better as Captain America than when he was The Human Torch in the two 'Fantastic Four' movies.  Scarlet Johansson's Black Widow actually gets to do more in this movie than she did in both 'Iron Man 2' and 'The Avengers' combined, so it's nice to actually learn a bit more about her character and her interactions with Captain America are usually fun.  And Robert Redford and Samuel L. Jackson both appear to be having a lot of fun this movie. 

And now for the negatives.  And these are just kinda nitpicks.  Sometimes, the quieter moments in the movie just kinda drag and feel 'eh'.  And the movie itself is way too long, with maybe 15 or 20 minutes that could've been trimmed and still made for a very suspenseful, tense, action-packed superhero thriller.  And you know...for being called 'The Winter Soldier', the Winter Soldier isn't in it all that much.  He is a bit intimidating whenever he is onscreen but he's in it about as much as Batman was in 'The Dark Knight Rises'.  So I would have preferred to have seen a bit more of the Winter Soldier in this, but oh well.   

Once again, much like the other movies in Phase 2 'Captain America:  The Winter Soldier' has a different director, or in this particular case, directors.  Taking over for Joe Johnston ('Jurassic Park III', 'The Rocketeer', the 'Wolfman' remake) is Anthony Russo and Joe Russo, who had previously directed episodes of "Community", "Arrested Development", and the 2006 Owen Wilson "comedy" 'You, Me and Dupree' (anyone remember that movie?).  Even though their background is in comedy, they do perfectly fine with the action scenes in this movie, the overall political thriller tone that this movie has, and they perfectly carry on the overall dark tone that this movie and the other movies in Phase 2 have.  I guess they're already signed on to direct 'Captain America 3' and I'm perfectly fine with that. 

Now, how does it compare to the first movie?  It is definitely an improvement over the 'meh' first movie.  This has a better story, doesn't drag as much (kinda) and there is a lot more action.  And honestly it's probably the most violent movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe since 'The Avengers'.  As far as comparisons to the other movies in Phase 2, I did like this better than 'Thor:  The Dark World' but I didn't like it as much as 'Iron Man 3'.  At least Phase 2 is almost done and over with.  Only have to deal with 'Guardians of the Galaxy' and then we'll finally get 'Avengers:  Age of Ultron'.  I'd rather skip ahead to 'Avengers' but 'Guardians of the Galaxy' looks like it'll be fun.

'Captain America:  The Winter Soldier' is overall a good, dark superhero political thriller with an interesting storyline, good acting and a lot of action but it does drag at times and it feels way too long. 


TRAILERS

• 'The Amazing Spider-man 2' - well....at least this will be coming out next week so I can finally see it and not have to watch this trailer again. 

• 'Godzilla' - Still looks AWESOME.

• 'Maleficent' - Still looks kinda creepy.  As long as it's better than Disney's last live action reinvention of one of their classics ('Alice In Wonderland') than all will be well and I'll live happily ever after.   

• 'Guardians of the Galaxy' - the next movie in Phase 2 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  I had never heard of this comic book series or any of the characters before this movie was announced.  But this trailer makes it look like it'll be a lot of fun and a bit more light hearted than the other movies in Phase 2, which tended to be dark in tone.

• 'Lucy' - Hmm....looks like if 'Limitless' was an action movie and had Scarlet Johansson in the lead.  It's from the people who made 'Taken', so it could be good. 

• 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' - The latest reboot of the titular heroes following 2007's 'TMNT'.  It's been getting a lot of crap from the internet because Michael Bay is involved as a producer, but unlike the internet I don't really have any animosity towards a movie just because he's involved in some capacity.  And honestly, this movie looks like it could go one of two ways:  It could be pretty good and a lot of fun....or it could be extremely dumb. 

• 'The Expendables 3' - This was only a brief, 30-second teaser that showed the main cast and not much else.  The previous two movies were AWESOME so hopefully this one follows suit.  Heck as long as there is gratuitous violence, blood, and plenty of explosions then it'll do just fine.   

Compare and Contrast: 'Son of God' VS 'The Passion of the Christ'

As I mentioned in my last 'Move Nitpicks' post, I had seen 'Son of God' but in lieu of a full review I decided to write a piece comparing it to the most "recent" depiction of Christ's life onscreen, that being Mel Gibson's controversial 2004 film 'The Passion of the Christ'.  I don't plan on making this into a new series on here but we'll see how this goes.  For how this will go I will compare the plots of both movies, how the acting is, comment on technical aspects (cinematography, score, visual effects, etc.), add a few comments on each and then give my final opinion on both movies and which is the better one.  So, without further adieu, let's compare 'Son of God' to 'The Passion of the Christ'.  

'Son of God' (PG-13)

'The Passion of the Christ' (R)

THE PLOT

• 'Son of God':  The life story of Jesus (Diogo Morgado), as told from his humble birth through his teachings, crucifixion and ultimate resurrection.  Told from the perspective of the apostle John (Sebastian Knapp), who begins with scenes from the Old Testament before going into the story proper and concluding with John seeing Jesus again and quoting the final sentences of the Book of Revelation.   

• 'The Passion of the Christ':   A film detailing the final hours and crucifixion of Jesus Christ (Jim Caviezel), interlaced with scenes of Christ's ministry, childhood and days working as a carpenter.  In Aramaic, Latin, and Hebrew with English subtitles.
   

THE ACTING

• 'Son of God':  The acting in 'Son of God' ranges wildly from good to flat to distracting.  On the good side is Sebastian Knapp as John.  As I said in my 'Movie Nitpicks' post, Morgado does get kudos for portraying a kind, gentle, smiling, laughing Jesus, something that isn't depicted often.  But at times the gentle demeanor is a bit inappropriate for the scene and it took me out of the movie.  And I had issues with Joe Wredden as Judas Iscariot and Greg Hicks as Pontius Pilate.  They both just come off as flat and that also took me out of the movie.  Pilate's portrayal is also way different than what I'm used to.  Having listened to the Passion story in the Gospels every year at Mass on Palm Sunday and having seen other depictions, I'm used to seeing Pilate as being extremely conflicted about Jesus.  On the one hand, he really doesn't believe that Jesus did anything wrong and he does not want to condemn him.  But he knows that if he doesn't condemn him, there might be riots in the streets.  Hick's Pilate is just an authoritative statesmen who quickly puts down riots, hates being assigned to Jerusalem, never really seems conflicted about condemning Jesus and thinks that it'll all be forgotten in a week or two.  Distracting is Roma Downey as Mary, who looks like she's had one too may plastic surgeries in 1st century Israel.  And I ultimately just couldn't buy Roma Downey as the mother of Diogo Morgado.       

• 'The Passion of the Christ':  I could praise the acting in this movie all day, but I'll keep it short and not repeat myself over and over.  Notable stand-outs are Jim Caviezel as Jesus (seriously, just a great performance showing the suffering and pain that Jesus went through), Maia Morgenstern as Mary (who actually looks like she could be Jim Caviezel's mother), Francesco DeVito as Peter, Hristo Shopov as Pontius Pilate (extremely conflicted), Luca Lionello as Judas Iscariot (conflicted, remorseful, tortured) and Rosalinda Celentano as Satan (downright creepy). 
  

TECHINCAL ASPECTS

• 'Son of God':  For the most part the cinematography is very good.  The score for the movie (done by Lorne Balfe and Hans Zimmer) is also for the most part good but then it becomes a train wreck as the ending credits abandon this score and instead play a cover of "Mary Did You Know?" by Cee Lo Green.  The song itself wasn't bad per say, but it felt completely out of place.  At times the visual effects are good (the beginning scenes showing Creation), but other times they are shockingly bad (blatantly CGI exterior shots of the city of Jerusalem) and immediately take you out the movie, making you realize that this was cut down from an 8 hour miniseries.  The scourging scene and the crucifixion scene are a little graphic, but nowhere near as graphic as in 'Passion'.

• 'The Passion of the Christ':  I can't praise the technical aspects in this movie enough.  Breathtaking cinematography, a haunting score, good visual effects, and just overall a great attention to detail.  The sets and costumes all truly look like they are from that time period.  And while the scourging scene and the crucifixion scenes are quite graphic and indeed earn this movie's R rating, those are probably realistic in how those events actually happened.  Let's face it people:  Jesus being scourged repeatedly by the Roman soldiers, and then being crucified with a crown of thorns placed on his head was indeed probably a very bloody sight to behold. 

OTHER COMMENTS

• 'Son of God':  Despite the rather negative reviews that it had been getting, I still went and saw this movie.  I was the only one in the theater.  Yes I knew that it was a trimmed down version of the miniseries "The Bible", but I still went into it with an open mind and let it speak for itself.  And indeed, it did speak for itself.
  Before I say a few words on 'The Passion of the Christ', I have a few other nitpicks for 'Son of God'
  
  1. Very early on in Jesus' earthly ministry, the apostles were talking about how they were going around "changing the world".  If you are a theologian please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the apostles weren't really aware that they were becoming a part of something new, at least at that point.
     
  2. Jesus and the apostles just arrived by boat to a mountain where thousands of people are gathered to hear him speak.  In the movie, as soon as they get off the boat the apostles are talking about how hungry the crowd is and how all they have is five loaves of bread and two fish.  My main nitpick:  They JUST got there, how do they know that the crowd is hungry and how did they know about the bread and fish?  Last I checked in the Bible, Jesus had been preaching for awhile and the crowd was tired and hungry, and a boy offered his bread and fish.
     
     

• 'The Passion of the Christ':  I was 13 when I saw this for the first time.  Back then I thought it was a really good movie, but it didn't have much impact on me.  As an adult I've started watching it at least once a year on Good Friday, so I will probably watch it later today at some point.  But anyway as I got older and watched it more, I started becoming more and more emotionally invested in the story.  The scene where Caiaphas (Mattia Sbragia) tosses the bag of silver coins to Judas, Judas' betrayal in the Garden, Jesus' trial where the crowds are shouting crucify him, when Mary sees him along his journey to Calvary, the crucifixion itself...all hard scenes to watch.
           And lastly, this movie was very controversial as it was accused of being anti-Semitic.  Having seen the movie, do I feel that it's anti-Semitic in any way, shape or form?  Honestly...no.  Yes, the people who were leading the charge to see Jesus be crucified happened to be Jewish, but I don't feel that the movie discriminates against Jews.  Heck, in 'Son of God' a Jewish rabbi is constantly deriding Jesus and wants to see him punished from the very start of Jesus' earthly ministry.  Why are there no cries of antisemitism for 'Son of God'? 
  
  

FINAL VERDICTS

• 'Son of God':  Despite an overall good score and good cinematography, it's performances and special effects take you out of the movie and is distracting to the point that it makes you realize that yes, essentially you are watching a made for TV movie on a big screen.  Because of the distractions I really couldn't get invested in the movie.  But to each their own.    

• 'The Passion of the Christ':  Sure it is very bloody and violent, but it also is extremely well made with great acting, cinematography and score.  Unlike 'Son of God' I was able to be emotionally invested in this movie.  And while I do recommend this movie, I will admit that it's probably not for everyone.  Some will say that the violence obscures the message, something I disagree with but to each their own.      
  
  
  
  

So that's my post comparing and contrasting 'Son of God' and 'The Passion of the Christ'.  If you liked this piece and would like this series to continue, leave a comment here or on Facebook.  If you disliked it, also let me know.  If you have other thoughts about 'Son of God' or 'The Passion of the Christ' which differ from mine or you have some other thoughts on them, then please leave a comment on here or on Facebook.  I always welcome feedback. 

 

 

 

12 Months

12 months.  365 days.  1 year.  However you put it, today I celebrate the one year anniversary of starting this blog.  I remember starting this as if it were only yesterday.  After seeing the 'Evil Dead' remake in theaters, I had gotten a spark to finally start up my own blog to post movie reviews.  Sure I had thought about doing it several times beforehand but I was never really all that serious about it.  So I had decided that since I had a busy week of school ahead of me that I would start it up the following Saturday.

But a few days after I had decided all that my personal life threw a wrench into things as my relationship came to a sudden end.  Nothing ever really went wrong in it's duration and we never really fought.  We just had a discussion and towards the tail end of the discussion she made the decision to end things.  Her reasons for ending it were indeed legitimate reasons for why things probably weren't going to work out.  Even with legitimate reasons it was still heart breaking and devastating.  With this happening, it was hard to focus on anything.  I had a short story to write for one class, an essay exam to write up for another class, a huge semester paper to write up for another class (and read a book to write this paper), work my usual shifts at the dining hall, and still go to class.  It was an incredibly tough week emotionally and mentally.  But I decided to still go ahead with my plans to start up my blog, and I decided to start things off with a review of the Jackie Robinson biopic '42'. 

Now I hadn't planned originally planned on seeing it.  I had only seen a few commercials for it and it looked okay, just nothing too special.  Before our breakup, my ex girlfriend had asked if I was planning on seeing '42' and said that it looked like something that I would go see.  Like I said, I hadn't originally planned on seeing it, but after hearing that the movie received relatively good reviews I decided to go see it.  I was also in need to escape for a few hours just to clear my head and take my mind off of things.  So I saw the movie, came back to my dorm room, and starting typing away at what would be the blog known as "Jake says stuff!!". 

One year later I've written 82 movie reviews and typed up picks for each week of the NFL season.  I've talked about food and even published the poem I wrote for my Creative Writing class.  I've talked about holiday movies for Halloween, Christmas, and even Valentine's Day.  I've talked about sequels that I thought absolutely sucked.  I answered 20 random questions and wrote an editorial on my thoughts about the Boston bombings.  I wrote an open letter to everyone I knew who was graduating college, something I myself would eventually do in December.  I wrote about various books I planned on reading.  I've talked about various nitpicks I've had with certain movies.  I talked a little about what I was doing for summer break last year and a little bit about my job as a camp counselor.  I even posted a whole bunch of one liner jokes and puns, many of which I had written on my dorm room door for the past several years.  I posted about movies that I had finally watched, some of which people have been surprised to hear that I hadn't seen before.  I'd usually keep you guys updated with what posts were coming up when and if I was going to change or add things.  Sometimes I've even thrown in a little bit of movie news in their.  As you can tell, I primarily write about movies but I'll post just about anything that comes to mind that I feel should be shared with you, the readers.

And my thoughts on movies and those various other subjects have churned out 115 blog posts.  An average of about 9.6 per month.  Seems a bit much, but I've never felt burnt out by it.  I've enjoyed every minute of it.  Sometimes I do get writer's block (delayed reviews for 'Noah', 'Epic', 'The Wolverine'), sometimes I just get really busy (no blog posts for the month of July last year, and only writing mini capsule reviews for the summer movies I saw...at the end of summer), but this is still something I enjoy doing.  It would be great if I actually got paid to do this, but I have nowhere near the readership that would be required for such a thing.  Who knows, maybe I could actually do this as a job one day.  Or I could just settle on a job that will at least pay the bills, especially with the first payments on student loans coming up this summer.   

Well I'm just rambling at this point.  Overall this has been a very fun creative outlet for me and I hope you have gotten at least some enjoyment reading this blog in it's first year.  I have many ideas for this second year that I would like to try.  I'll keep you posted.

-Jake

REVIEW - 'Noah'

'Noah' (PG-13) **1/2

Noah (Russell Crowe) is chosen by his world's creator to undertake a momentous mission to rescue the innocent and his own family (Including Jennifer Connelly, Logan Lerman, Douglas Booth, Emma Watson, Leo McHugh Carroll) before an apocalyptic flood cleanses the wicked, led by Tubal-Cain (Ray Winstone) from the world.  Also featuring Anthony Hopkins as Noah's grandfather Methuselah. 

Alright before I get to talking about the controversies surrounding this movie let's look at what I liked and disliked in the movie.  The movie is GREAT to look at with breathtaking cinematography and for the most part stunning visual effects (though I'll go more into that later).  The acting is pretty good, with Ray Winstone's villainous Tubal-Cain being the main highlight and Anthony Hopkins stealing his scenes as Methuselah.  And just like in 'Perks of Being A Wallflower', Emma Watson proves that she does have real acting chops outside of the 'Harry Potter' franchise.  I also liked the movie's portrayal of how wicked men (apart from Noah's family) had become since Cain killed Abel.  It is among the many things from the story of Noah that have been fleshed out for the movie, and it's a nightmarish sight as men are fighting each other, killing animals for pleasure and for food, giving away their women for food, and simply leaving others to die alone.  The scenes are brief, but are very well done. 

Now for what I didn't like.  Initially, the movie is very slowly paced and it's quite irritating as I simply just wanted the movie to move along.  While it does get kudos for portraying Noah as someone who was human and struggled at times to interpret what The Creator told him, some of Noah's actions just seem to go completely against character.  Thankfully a scene towards the end of the movie between Noah and Ila (Emma Watson's character) helps get things back on track at least. While some of the visual effects are stunning, others were rather poor (some of the animals as they're going onto the ark) and some were just plain awkwardly placed.  And speaking of awkwardly placed special effects, let's go right into the rock monsters.  Yes, there are rock monsters in this movie.  The Watchers, as they are known in the movie, are angels who took pity on mankind and decided to help advance mankind with technology.  But since this disobeyed the Creator, they were banished to Earth and remain as giant rock monsters.  The Watchers are inspired by the Nephilim from Genesis and also taken from the Book of Enoch and the Dead Sea Scrolls.  While I don't have a problem with the Watchers in the movie as a concept, the fact that they're rock monsters rubs me the wrong way.  Honestly, they just look silly and seem a bit misplaced.  And on the nitpicky side of things I didn't really like the style of the opening texts and the title sequence, but those are minor complaints.  

Now this movie has stirred up quite a bit of controversy.  It has been bashed for allegedly being a God-hating, Bible-bashing, over all anti-Christian movie that completely changes the story of Noah.  Heck, on the official 'Noah' website Paramount lists the following disclaimer:

"The film is inspired by the story of Noah.  While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide.  The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis".

Of course there are also those on the other side of the argument who merely have bashed this movie simply for being a religious movie.  And let's face it:  how can a movie be bashed for being anti-religion and also be bashed because it deals with religion?  Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.  So after having seen the movie, what is my opinion on all of the controversy surrounding the movie?

Yes, this is an interpretation of the story of Noah, not a literal translation.  The actual story of Noah in Genesis is only three chapters long.  It definitely has it's fair share of artistic license and embellishment to flesh out the story into a two hour movie.  Heck, almost every movie that took it's inspiration from the Bible takes some form of artistic license with the source material.  But I don't believe that 'Noah' is anti-Christian or anti-God in any way, shape, or form.  God is mentioned several times in the movie, although He is always referred to as "Creator" or "The Creator".  So to say that the movie never mentions God (which commentator Glenn Beck claimed on his show) or is anti-God (which I've seen a few articles and clips of TV shows on the internet claim) is completely ridiculous.  Did they not watch the same movie I watched? 

Some people I'm friends with on Facebook have posted articles that bash the movie, and others commented how they wouldn't be seeing the movie based on the article or everything they've heard about the movie.  Let's be serious here:  how can you judge a movie and sway others from seeing it if you haven't seen the movie yourself and you are solely relying on the opinions of political pundits and commentators?  In that case are you really stating your opinion of the movie or are you simply regurgitating someone else's thoughts on it?  I saw this movie.  I can fairly state my opinion on it.

Whoops, didn't mean to go into a rant like that.  Anyway, since movies are subjective they can be open to various viewpoints and interpretations.  The way I have interpreted the movie is completely different than what someone else thought of it.  That happens all the time with controversial movies, which I'll talk about more in a future post.    

As far as director Darren Aronofsky's other movies goes, I've seen 'Black Swan' and I've attempted to watch 'Pi'.  'Black Swan' I talked about in my Best Picture showcase for 2010, and it's a very good, well acted psychological thriller.  I don't remember much about 'Pi' except that it was in black and white and it involved some guy spiraling into madness and dealing with numbers.  It just wasn't that interesting.  'Noah' falls into the middle.  I didn't like it as much as 'Black Swan' but it is at least interesting, which is more than I can say about 'Pi'. 

'Noah' is a well-made, visually interesting but a sometimes slowly paced interpretation of the biblical story of Noah that has some pretty good performances.  If you go in expecting a literal adaptation of the story, you'll be disappointed.  If you go in with an open mind and view it as entertainment, you'll probably like it or you might fall in line with how I thought of it, thinking that it was all right.  It's a different kind of Bible movie, that's for sure.  



TRAILERS

• 'Hercules' - The Rock plays Hercules.  This doesn't look all that good but who knows maybe it could be a lot of cheesy fun.

• 'Transcendence' - looks like it could be pretty good.

• 'The Amazing Spider-man 2' - I can't wait until May 2, when I can finally go see this movie and stop seeing this trailer.

• 'Earth to Echo' - the same trailer I got in front of 'Muppets Most Wanted'. Still looks like a below average found footage version of 'E.T.'.

Reading on the Road

So this weekend I'll be in Wisconsin, next week I'll be in Kentucky for a few days, and then Easter weekend I'll be in Illinois.  On long trips I usually end up sleeping or staring mindlessly out of the window for hours but I also try and do a bit of reading.  Last year I wrote a piece about the books I would try to read during the summer, but I ended up not reading any of them.  Just got a bit busy with camp and a bit lazy relaxing whenever I was home from camp.  Anyway, sometimes I just find it easier to read in the car on a trip as opposed to sitting down somewhere or laying in bed and reading.  Heck, that's how I was finally able to finish the seventh "Harry Potter" book just time time before 'Deathly Hallows - Part 1' came out in theaters. 

So here are some books that I will hopefully get around to reading and possibly finishing on these trips.  Or at least just putting a dent in them and finish them later.  Each does have something to do with a movie so that's how I'll justify another blog post about books.

1. "Let Me Off At The Top!  My Classy Life & Other Musings" - "Ron Burgundy"
   This book is indeed a very big deal as (fictional) legendary news anchor Ron Burgundy gifts us with his life story in his own words.  As the book jacket states, this is his tale starting with his "humble beginnings in a desolate Iowa coal-mining town to his years at Our Lady Queen of Chewbacca High School to his odds-defying climb to the dizzying heights of Anchordom".  Complete with many pages of pictures and a chapter from Ron Burgundy's book on the history of Mexico.  I'm just a little over halfway through it, and as a big fan of the 'Anchorman' movies this book for the most part does not disappoint.  Most of the jokes are chuckle-worthy instead of being laugh out loud, but it's still an interesting read so far. 
   
   
2. "Heaven Is For Real" - Todd Burpo with Lynn Vincent
   I had heard of this book and I've skimmed through the children's edition of it, but that's about it.  After seeing the trailer for the upcoming movie adaptation, it made me want to actually read the book.  As luck would have it my Mom has a copy of it and is letting me borrow it.  I think there will be far less colorful pictures in this edition.  As far as the movie itself, it looks like it could be really good. 
   
   
3. "The Fault In Our Stars" - John Green
   I've heard that this YA novel is actually pretty good, and the movie itself looks like it could have potential.  The same people who adapted this novel for the big screen also wrote '(500) Days of Summer' and 'The Spectacular Now', both of which are very very good movies about relationships.  I also think it's kinda cool that this novel is set in Indianapolis and that John Green also lives in Indianapolis. 
   
   
4. "Divergent" - Veronica Roth
   This is a case where the more I read about the movie version of this, the more I'm confused by it so maybe reading the book will help answer questions that I have from the things that I know about it.  Both this and the movie look like ripoffs of "The Hunger Games"...but that's not necessarily a bad thing.  I'd rather see things ripped off from "The Hunger Games" than from "Twilight".
   
   
5. "Lone Survivor:  The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of Seal Team 10" - Marcus Luttrell with Patrick Robinson
   I saw the 'Lone Survivor' movie a few weeks ago, and it made me want to read the book.  Not really much else to add to this. 
   
   
6. "A Million Ways To Die In The West" - Seth MacFarlane
   Seth MacFarlane wrote this novelization of the screenplay he wrote with his 'Ted' co-writers Alec Sulkin and Wellesley Wild.  The movie itself looks like it could either be really funny, or painfully unfunny.  As a fan of 'Ted' and "Family Guy", I picked up this book from the library and will go see the movie when it finally comes to theaters.