Don Giovanni - Seattle Opera 2014 Production

Maybe it's high time I break the mold of reviewing movies with a form of entertainment that seems to get less and less respect in this modern age of mass communication. A form of entertainment that, whenever I bring it up in conversations, I'm usually laughed at for it, even when I was younger, I usually was made fun of for saying I enjoyed it.

I'm not sure what else to say but this:

I love opera.

Ever since I saw "The Marriage of Figaro," I've always adored Opera. It's a form of entertainment and music that just doesn't get the same level of respect Broadway musicals do now. The amount of hard work performers put themselves through to project their voices to sing all the words in a language that is not natively spoken (unless you live in Italy and then it's about annunciating the words you sing.) But whether the performer is a tenor, a soprano, a mezzo soprano or even a baritone singer, it takes intense hard work to put that much emotion into your voice as you perform on stage for millions. Just look at the video above of the late Luciana Pavarotti performing the famed Vesti La Giubba from Ruggero Leoncavallo's "Pagliacci," a scene in where the main character must put on his clown costume despite having the knowledge his wife is cheating on him. Just the emotion Pavarotti brings to this is heart-breaking, even if you can't understand what he's saying.

So, as someone who enjoys opera, it's probably why I'm no stranger to the Marion Oliver McCaw Hall's Seattle Opera House and have been going there for opera performances since 2007 where I have seen some of the greatest operas there; "The Barber of Seville," "Carmen," "La Bohéme," "Porgy and Bess," "Madame Butterfly," and my absolute favorite opera of all time, "The Magic Flute" with plans in progress to see "Tosca" this coming January.

But lately, I've been skipping shows for financial reasons, but also, the Seattle Opera House went under new direction and lately, their shows have been trying to blend these old operas with contemporary images, making them lack-luster and unimaginable in contrast to the shows I've seen years before. Unfortunately, this meant I sadly missed out on seeing "Rigoletto" this year. The only show this season had that had my attention was an opera my mom and I had wanted to see for years because of the movie "Amadeus."

That opera?

"Don Giovanni."

Premiered in 1787 and composed by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, "Don Giovanni" is widely regarded as Mozart's darkest opera for it's subject matter on rape, adultery, rampant sin and condemnation.

And yet I'm sorry to say with this production I saw, I have not been as disappointed in the Seattle Opera House' since their last production of Beethoven's "Fidelio."

The story follows playboy debutant Don Giovanni (performed by Nicolas Cavallier) who is in the midst of attempting to seduce Donna Anna (performed by Erin Wall making her Seattle Opera debut) while Giovanni's faithful yet abused servant Leporello (performed by Erik Anstine) stands guard. Donna Anna rebuffs Giovanni's advances, forcing him to flee into her father, the Commendatore (performed by Jordan Bisch), who fights Giovanni only to be killed in the ensuing sword fight. Shocked by her father's death, she makes her fiance Don Ottavio (performed by Lawrence Browniee who also gave a splendid performance in 2011's production of "The Barber of Seville.") swear to find her father's killer and avenge him. As that goes on, Don Giovanni attempts to seduce a random woman when he realizes the woman is Donna Elvira (performed by Elizabeth Caballero, who was the lead in the 2013 performance of "La Bohéme"), hurt and vengeful after Don Giovanni wooed her over and promised to marry her before ditching her for another woman. Scornful of Don Giovanni's ways, she does everything in her power to get in between him and any other woman he sets his eyes on, especially Zerlina (performed by Cecelia Hall), who is recently married to the easily jealous Masetto (performed by Evan Boyer making his Seattle Opera debut). All of this culminating with Don Giovanni's final decision to repent his evil ways or pay the price for his ways.

Story-wise, it's straight-forward enough. It takes place in the course of 24 hours and, because of certain songs that seemed to drag the running time of the show. But those sort of criticisms are just nitpicks and for opera, songs like that are expectant, it'd be no different than if it were a musical sung in English. 

My my criticisms are not relegated to the music or the actors, for they all did fine jobs, especially one moment early in the show where Nicolas dropped his prop dagger when he's supposed to stab Jordan. He quickly put his hand around Jordan's neck to look like he was trying to choke him at the same time he picked up his dagger to put it back into place, which Jordan then reacted as though he had been stabbed again. A mistake quickly fixed through quick-thinking improvisation; in most shows, that would be the end of it since the illusion was ruined, but they kept the illusion going, bravo to them.

My problem, however, is the direction this production took. I had read the Seattle Opera House had taken on a new director, the website names Chris Alexander, whose previous credits included 2011 productions of "Porgy and Bess" and "The Magic Flute," again, both great shows that kept to their respective time periods, another note-worthy name worth mentioning is set designer Robert A. Dahlstrom, who made the admittedly impressive sets for the 2012 production of "Fidelio." I originally thought these two were at fault, but looking back on their track records, I was mistaken in assuming there was a single person responsible. 

Well, whoever was responsible, the staging for this show was a mess.

The stage's backdrop looked like something out of Terry Gilliam's "Brazil," the way doors would open just felt out of place in a story that takes place in the time period the opera was written. I would have been more willing to accept the change in time period if it made sense and, regrettably, these decisions here do NOT make any sense.

Why is there a motorcycle in the opening scene of the opera? Especially since this motorcycle is never seen again for the remainder of the opera. Why do some of the servants have candlesticks when we can see electric lights illuminating during scenes at Don Giovanni's party? Why does Don GIovanni have a remote control to a portrait that shows off paintings of women? And the big question, what time period is this? The costuming suggests a 1920s look yet the majority of the technology implemented during the show is completely anachronistic of it's time period, really taking me out of the story overall.
What comes to mind was this opera being marketed as "Mozart's bad boy." I hold issue with that concept as, typically with a character described as a "bad boy," there is still a layer of heart hiding within that gives them redeeming qualities. If you want examples, take James Dean from "Rebel Without a Cause," Harrison Ford's role as Han Solo or more obviously, Johnny Depp's role from "Cry-Baby."
The character of Don Giovanni has no heart. The character has no redeeming qualities, he's a jerk and he has no true purpose to be labeled "a bad boy" when he is a pure scumbag of a character. Probably why performing as the character is a reward for many performers; everyone wants to play the bad guy, it's why actors are treated with high regard to perform as Richard the III for the Shakespearean play of the same name. No one ever labeled him a "bad boy" and there is a good reason why.
So why Seattle Opera went out of their way to market and label him as such along with the set design, is truly baffling.

The best thing this backdrop did was break open and produce a heavy smoke effect during the famous climax with the ghost of the Commendatore, an outstanding climax that's elevated by the actors' performances, but made nearly under-whelming by the lack-luster set (the ending of the scene just have projector fire on the background and red lights. Even the 1990 TV Movie with Samuel Ramey, which was just a single performance at the Metropolitan Opera House had more imagination and creativity with it's production sets than this particular production did.

I hate harping on this production like it did something wrong, but when you have this fantastic cast of outstandingly talented performers with amazing music from a master; there is this expectation to give the story the respect it deserves to do it justice. The anachronistic decisions done for this production's sets and costumes are baffling to me and they constantly kept pulling me out of the opera, a problem i never have when an opera can keep me engaged in it's illusion.

This production, felt like it didn't want to hide the illusion.

Still, all things considered, it's still a great opera. The music is great and the Commendatore climax is both chilling and empowering, both of which are done great justice by it's great acting troupe, I just wish the people behind the scenes had that much passion going into opera's set design.

But if "Don Giovanni" happens to come around your town, I say check it out, expand your horizons a bit.

The Brothers Grimm

Released in 2005 under the direction of Terry Gilliam with distribution through Miramax Films and Dimension Films; "The Brothers Grimm" is a strange little fantasy movie coming from the surreal and strange mind of Terry Gilliam. To the animation crowd, he is best remembered for the animated segments for Monty Python's sketches, to the science-fiction crowd, Terry is the brilliant mind behind "Time Bandits," "Brazil" and "12 Monkeys," to the strange and artsy dramas of "The Fisher King," "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" and "Tideland." Since this is the month of October, I decided to go with the first Gilliam film I saw in theaters and hot damn did it scare the sh*t out of me back then.

Sometime set during the early 1800s, brothers Wilhelm and Jakob Grimm (Matt Damon and the late Heath Ledger respectively) are a pair of con "exorcists" that go town-to-town clearing out "ghosts" for money. Found out by Napoleonic General Delatombe (Jonathan Pryce), the duo are forced to solve a mystery of disappearing girls in a small village. Entering this village, the two assume the disappearances are part of an elaborate con, despite the insistence of the village huntress Angelika (Lena Headey) insisting it's the work of an evil Queen (Monica Belluchi) trying to regain her youth.
Well that's the basic gist of the story, sadly once the plot finally gets started, the movie trips and stumbles and gets a little bit lost on the way to it's climax. The characters go into the woods, the leave, they come back again, and leave again, go back to prison, then go back to the woods again and then come out again. If the basic plot structure is described like an upward line of rising action to meet the climax, then this movie is the equivalent of the DOW stock, it goes up and down until it finally reaches it's climax.
As for the characters, the nicest thing I can say about them, you remember the little things more than the major things and the little things about them showcase Terry's twisted sense of humor, such as Jonathan Pryce licking a drop of cat's blood of his cheek and Matt Damon licking a toad for directions (I'm not kidding, that happens). Though watching this with the knowledge of Heath Ledger's passing makes you really appreciate his quiet and sensitive performance and the potential Terry saw in this guy. It's a shame these characters don't have a better flowing narrative to work with but I would be more opt to blame the conflicts that occurred during production from the Weinstein Company and Terry Gilliam over who had final cut of the picture.

So what is good about this movie? Well, typical of Terry Gilliam, the dark twisted humor lightens the dark eerie mood now and then (a kitten being thrown into a giant mechanical blender with a spot of blood that lands on Jonathan Pryce's face who casually licks it off all to a bunch of violinists play Luigi Boccherini's "Minuet String Quintet in E Major," if this was anymore Terry Gilliam, that would be Eric Idle in the role or a CGI Graham Chapman would step in and say "Right, stop that, that's silly and a bit suspect I think."), the sets and locations are wonderfully surreal and dream-like, creating that fairy tale atmosphere of fantasy, the costumes are fantastic, strange, sure, but it's Terry Gilliam, would you expect less than normal? The CGI is…pretty laughable compared to today, but not so much that it's too distracting.



But now you're asking me, what was it about this movie that freaked me out when I first saw it?
It's this one scene where a girl, disguised as a boy, goes out to get water from a well and a crow falls in. She pulls up the dead crow until it begins to flap it's wings and throw mud all over her face. The crow flies off, the girl wipes the mud from her face to reveal her eyes, nose and mouth are gone as a mud creature slowly forms with her eyes, nose and mouth as the poor girl blindly wanders terrified as the mud creature follows close behind. That and the girl that gets swallowed by a horse: 
Thanks Terry, glad to know you're always there in the nightmares of a 12 year old.

Is it a perfect movie? Heavens no, it's not even Terry Gilliam's best fantasy film. You want his best, just watch "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" or "Time Bandits" for his best fantasy work. To me, this is passable, in the hands of a less qualified craftsman, I wouldn't give it a second glance, but the magical thing about Gilliam is a second look always makes you notice something you failed to see the last time.

Final Rating: 2/5

Guardians of the Galaxy

Released in 2014 under the direction of James Gunn ("Tromeo and Juliet," "Slither") on a budget of $170 million with distribution through Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures; "Guardians of the Galaxy" is the recent superhero action movie based on a lesser-known superhero group of the same name. But with the enormous success of Marvel's more well-known comic adaptations such as "Iron Man" and "The Avengers," it would make some sense to branch into unfamiliar territory for the summer season. Although this was quite a risky gamble for Marvel, it would seem Marvel tossed it's dice right, earning them a record-breaking opening weekend of $94 million with rave reviews from critics. Is this the summer blockbuster we've been waiting for or is this lost floating in space?

Abducted in 1988 and living in space for 30 years, Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) recovers a mysterious orb containing an "Ark of the Covenant, Maltese Falcon sort-of vibe" that is pursued by Gamora (Zoe Saladana), a highly-trained assassin defecting against Ronan the Accuser (Lee Pace), bounty hunters gun-toting Rocket Raccoon (v. Bradley Cooper) and simple-minded Groot (v. Vin Diesel). The confrontation causes the four to be arrested and sent to the Klyn prison planet where they meet Drax the Destroyer (Dave Bautista) who swears a blood vengeance against Ronan for the deaths of his family. With his assistance, they escape with the orb in hand and Ronan's other assassin Nebula (Karen Gillan) and the blue-skinned Ravager leader Yondu Udonta (Michael Rooker) chasing after them. If that sounds confusing, don't worry, it's not that hard to follow.

Let me say how much of a relief it is to finally watch a summer movie that knows how to have FUN for a change. This is a movie that does not take itself seriously first and foremost and it greatly benefits for doing this as it allows for the movie to give some of the funniest moments in any comic book movie we've seen in recent years. From references to 80's culture, witty banter between the characters and a mixture with 70's pop hits that saves the universe. 

The title characters are perhaps the most likable jerks ever written for a movie since Steve Martin. There was never one character I preferred over the other, every one of them had fantastic chemistry, smart-ass dialogue and all got their respective chance to kick some ass. 

The story is nothing too original but that is also it's greatest strength. It's a movie that serves to be a love letter to 70's space operas and the movie revels in recapturing this feel with it's choice of 70's pop hits from the Jackson 5 to Redbone to Marvin Gaye peppered across the soundtrack. The only issue I had with the movie are it's stock villains, but with these unheroic characters, I figure a stock villain balances out the smart-ass characters.

I cannot praise this movie enough, if you haven't seen this movie by the time I've posted this review, then why are you still reading?

Final Rating: 4.5/5

- -

Burning Through Celluloid logo - http://jarvisrama99.deviantart.com/  

Lucy

Released in 2014 under the direction of Luc Besson ("Leon the Professional," "The Fifth Element," "Taken") on a budget of $40 million with distribution through Universal Pictures; "Lucy" is Besson's recent sci-fi action thriller that dares to blend fast-paced action and the metaphysical aspect of evolving to the next stage of human evolution: godhood…only minus the Star Child.

Living abroad in Taiwan, Lucy (Scarlett Johansson) is pressured by her boyfriend Richard (Pilou Asbaek) to deliver a suitcase full of synthetic drugs to a drug cartel run by Kang (Choi Min-sik). To deliver the drug, a bag is placed inside her lower stomach and sewn up to transport, but she is intercepted and held prisoner by a rival gang, causing the bag to rupture and leak inside her body, boosting her cerebral capacity past the fictional 10% and allowing her to realize the wonders of the universe around her and allowing her to read minds, move things, collect data at an incredible rate. To help comprehend her growing condition, she calls upon the aid of Professor Samuel Norman (Morgan Freeman) and to help in recovering the other drugs being transported, she acquires the aid of French police officer Pierre Del Rio (Amr Waked).

So…um…this movie has had quite a lot of high expectation lately. From all the twerps on Tumblr calling this movie "the only action movie with a woman without a love interest" to even the middle-age women on my Facebook contacts, this seemed to be one of the most anticipated movies of the summer…
Boy does it break my heart to say it's a let-down.
Not to say that it completely falls together, but it is a movie that will leave you feeling either disappointed, unsatisfied or angered by it's ending.

The cast is decent, though their characters range from one-dimensional to half-hearted performances. The action scenes grab your interest and when Lucy demonstrates her evolving powers, they are genuinely fascinating to watch. Such as locking onto cell phone signals from a car, hacking a television, radio, cell phone and computer to flash her image to talk to Morgan Freeman and calling someone over the phone and sending them pictures of drug mules without a computer is cool.

But the character arcs are unfulfilling, the story takes a downward spiral to pretension-ville by the end and it's explanation of science is pure nonsense. This movie expects you to believe that humans use 10% of their brain's capacity and by achieving 100%, we become omnipotent like God. Thing is, we DO use 100% of our brain, 55% is what we use to process thoughts and ideas, 45% of your brian controls the parts of your body you don't consciously think about, such as your heartbeat, digestive system, hair growth or breathing.

With that information, one has to wonder how much of Luc Besson's brain capacity went into writing this deeply flawed screenplay. The action scenes were impressive and so were Lucy's powers, but nothing else really warrants running out to see this brainfart.

Final Rating: 2/5

- -

Burning Through Celluloid logo - http://jarvisrama99.deviantart.com/

Chef review

Released in 2014 under the direction of Jon Faverau ("Swingers," "Iron Man") with distribution through Open Road Films; "Chef" is Faverau's return to small budget movies after the string of big budget action movies. But after all the flying suits and aliens, can Faverau return to the basics and create a satisfying entree or is this an appetizer full of twinkle filling?

Chef Carl Casper (Jon Faverau) is an unhappy chef in a respected LA restaurant, dealing with estranged ex-wife Inez (Sofia Vergara) and son Percy (Emjay Anthony). When renowned food critic Ramsey Michel (Oliver Platt) comes to eat, Casper is denied his chance to shine and display his creative cooking, earning the restaurant a poor review. Angry, Carl calls Ramsey out on Twitter and verbally assaults him, resulting in negative publicity that causes Carl to get fired. With no one else willing to hire him, Carl accepts the help of Inez's possibly insane ex-husband (Robert Downey Jr.) and receives a food truck that he restores and, teamed up with Percy and his sous chef friend Martin (John Leguizamo), they begin a cross-country journey from Miami to Los Angeles serving Cubanos to long lines, earning his reputation back as well as fulfilling his culinary passion.

I'm not gonna lie, this movie is schmaltzy and predictable. The narrative exists to get the protagonist where he needs to be for him to overcome his obstacles, the minor characters are only there to push the protagonist towards achieving his goal and everything ends on a happy note. In terms of story-telling, it's so basic that it's like olive oil in your pan and pulling out a pre-made tortilla shell to make a burrito.

But where the movie's true flavor comes from it's likable cast and subject matter: Culinary arts.

Every major film critic who reviewed this movie stated that this was a movie you do not enter on a light stomach. I saw this movie at Cinebarre where they serve you food and even though I already had my fill from their menu, all the food seen in this movie made me even hungrier. The detail Faverau shows for how he prepares these meals, under the guidance of gourmet chef Roy Choi, made me wish to try them out for myself (which is what I did afterwards with a stir-fry pan and some chicken). As for the cast, they did what was asked of them and I cannot muster one criticism against them as they played off one another swimmingly.

At the end of the day though, "Chef" is a movie worth seeing for a matinee price. It's cast is likable enough and the food is mouth-watering to look at as it sizzles in close-ups. While it has a few too many schmaltzy scenes that are hard to swallow, it's a meal I was very pleased to sink my teeth into. Mr Faverau, I don't know if you happen across this review, but know that you have my regards to the cook.

Final Rating: 3/5

- -

Burning Through Celluloid Logo (C) Kane Fletcher - http://jarvisrama99.deviantart.com/

Maleficent Review

Released in 2014 under the direction of Robert Stromberg in his directorial debut, on a budget of $200 million with distribution from Walt Disney Studios Motion Picture; "Maleficent" is another live action adaptation of a beloved film from our childhoods with large expansive CGI worlds, bright colors and generally pissing off fans of the original. You've probably seen these movies; Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" and Sam Raimi's "Oz: The Great and Powerful" (both of which, Robert Stromberg did visual effects for) and in the past, I've been rather kind to these movies when everyone else has torn them like a pack of wild wolves. But with the release of "Maleficent," a re-imagined adaptation of the beloved 1959 Disney film "Sleeping Beauty" has received mixed reviews. Does it deserve the consensus or are audiences not willing to remove the nostalgia goggles for this one?

In this storyline, Maleficent (Angelina Jolie, who also produces) is betrayed by her teenage sweetheart Stefan (Sharlto Copley) for his position to be king. Heartbroken by his betrayal, she crashes the christening of Stefan's daughter Aurora and curses her to go into a death-like sleep upon her sixteen birthday, only to be woken by true love's first kiss. The child is taken and raised by three incompetent fairies (Lesley Manville, Imelda Staunton and Juno Temple) as Maleficent secretly watches over the child with her transforming crow/manservant Diaval (Sam Riley) as she grows up into Elle Fanning. By this time, Maleficent begins to care for the child and strives to find a way to reverse the curse she placed on Aurora.

The story doesn't sound too bad and it's really not if you're willing to accept that this movie is not the original movie and it has no business to be compared to as such. Is it fair to compare a movie from 55 years ago that, even on it's release also received mixed reviews? For me, it's like trying to compare it to the original German fairy tale by the Brothers Grimm. It's a matter of interpretation and who your audience is. The audience to who you sell a story to constantly changes and, in order to sell your story, you have to make changes and it's a roll of the dice whether or not the audience accepts those changes or spits in your face (unless it's "Man of Steel," then everyone goes after each others' throats).

For this movie, I hold no ill qualms about the film's interpretation of the old Disney film to sell it to a new audience. However, that will not stop me from criticizing the movie on it's own merits, not the merits of the original film. With that out of the way, let's proceed with the things that bugged me.

-The three fairies. I understand that they're supposed to be comic relief, but their incompetence really begs the question who thought choosing them to be Aurora's guardians was a wise idea in the first place? Oh right, the guy who played "Howling Mad" Murdock in "The A-Team," how silly of me.

These three are so thick-headed, they fail to understand how to feed a crying baby, they fail to recognize when the child they were asked to protect is in risk of falling off a cliff or showing no concern whenever Aurora runs off into the woods every day. Their purpose is to give Maleficent a reason to be more of a guardian to the child than the people assigned to be the child's guardian, at the expense of making the three characters look mean-spirited and stupid.

-The Moors. It's a vast and colorful world, I can praise it for that much, but with all these other recent 3D movies with huge colorful lush worlds taking after the immense financial success of "Avatar." The problem I have with it is because of movies like "Alice in Wonderland" and "Oz: Great and Powerful,"  the effects don't dazzle me anymore, they are all starting to look the same. I can praise the creativity that went into designing the creatures, as I should expect from a director who did visual effects for 20 years.

-The Prince. As in, he's barely in the movie, doesn't do anything worth mentioning and it left out of the movie until the ending. But hey, at least these film-makers got it right in giving the two no chemistry as the prince and Aurora practically had none to speak of in the '59 film, so give them points for that.

But for where this movie falls under the weaker elements, it more than makes up with Angelina Jolie in the title role. Jolie is superb, the best moments of the film are the moments when Jolie never needs to say anything. The way her eyes flash different colors, the way she stares ominously over Aurora as an infant, the way she moves from behind a tree, fog sifting behind her, as he waves her hands and performs her spell on hapless soldiers. Jolie's presence alone bleeds menace, angst, scorn and, in certain times done most effectively during the second act of the film, compassion. She's not deliciously evil as Eleanor Audley did for Maleficent, but I'd like to think that even Miss Audley would give her approval of Mrs. Jolie's fleshed-out performance. I can not honestly think of anyone else who could have played this role than Mrs. Jolie.

Oh and the rest of the cast did all right, I suppose. Though when you have a star-power performance from Angelina Jolie that dominates the movie, it makes the supporting cast feel like they are part of the background and the special effects are brought to the foreground with Angelina Jolie when, usually, that should be the opposite. Bring the supporting cast to the front and leave the background in the back, especially when they're not that impressive anyway.

For the flaws this movie had, it makes up for with ambition, compassion, and an resolution to the iconic conflict that raises LGBT discussion that I hadn't seen since "Frozen" (well some people will reach that conclusion, others like myself will assume a more mother/daughter theme. But it's still worth discussing). Does the movie have problems? Absolutely, the supporting cast could have been written stronger, but that would probably sacrifice a majority of scenes with Jolie giving her characteristic mannerism. It's not a perfect movie, but it's an entertaining one. Just skip the 3D and get to a Matinee showing, bring your own snacks and just seep up Jolie's compelling performance leaking from the screen.

Just make sure you don't slip in it on the way out.

Final Rating: 3/5

And before you ask, no, Angelina Jolie doesn't turn into a dragon and not once during the film did I hear Tchaikovsky's iconic ballet score. But it does have a cover of "Once Upon a Dream" sung by Lana Del Rey, it's not bad, it's a little too slow and ominous for me. But that's just me. Take a listen and make your own decision on the songs.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Review

Released in 2014 under the direction of Marc Webb ("(500) Days of Summer") on a budget of $200 million with distribution from Sony Pictures; "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" is the sequel to the rebooted 2012 release "The Amazing Spider-Man" based off of the popular comic book character by Marvel Comics from 1962. Since then, the character has become an iconic staplemark of American pop culture to rival the likes of Superman. But Spider-Man's greatest foe is not Doctor Octopus, Venom or The Sandman, but Hollywood studios. Since 1979, Spider-Man struggled to make his way onto the big screen from Hollywood studios fighting back and forth between each other for ownership of the Spider-Man license, directors like Roger Corman, Tobe Hooper, and James Cameron all at one point during the 20 year ownership battle set direct the project, with Cameron being the closest to having a completed screenplay. The license was eventually laid claim to by Columbia Pictures, who immediately got to work to produce what would later be 2002's 3rd biggest hit, "Spider-Man," with "Evil Dead" director Sam Raimi behind the camera. Raimi followed up the 2002 hit with two sequels before arguments with Columbia led to Raimi abandoning "Spider-Man 4," forcing Sony Pictures, the company that owned Columbia Pictures, to reboot the franchise to avoid losing the license, resulting in the 2012 reboot to keep the license fresh. So, with a new franchise available to them, Sony produced the sequel. How does it hold up compared to Sam Raimi's 2004 sequel?

Plot: 

Taking place after the events of the previous movie, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) graduates from High School while balancing his life as the super-hero Spider-Man. But Peter finds a lot on his plate lately, from making discoveries about his father Richard Parker (Campbell Scott) and his involvement with the evil company Oscorp, run by the dying Norman Osborn (Chris Cooper) whose death leaves his son Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan) the CEO position of the company while he tries to find a cure for his condition from Spider-Man's blood. To add to that, a lowly Oscorp technician with an obsession over Spider-Man named Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx) suffers an accident that turns his body into electrical humanized form he calls "Electro" that can generate electricity as well as absorb it. With all the villains plaguing him, Peter worries about the safety of his on-again, off-again girlfriend Gwen Stacy (Ellen Page) while he still suffers from Dennis Leary popping up to just stand around and stare at Peter at the worst moments.

What's that you say? That sounds really confusing and muddled? Why yes, yes it is and if you figured that out even before I mentioned it then congratulations, you figured out what the biggest problem with the movie is: it's narrative. The story itself isn't very well composed, in fact, it suffers from the same issues that plagued "Spider-Man 3," introducing new characters all while trying to keep old characters in the narrative and give them something to do. This wouldn't be a problem if the characters were better written, but the movie can only introduce so many subplots to try and keep the audience interesting. Probably the worst subplot being the Richard Parker subplot, why? Because It can be summed up like this: "Why did my dad leave me?" "Your dad was a traitor Peter!" "What?! No way!" "Hey Peter, I'm a recording of your dad, I'm not a traitor, Oscorp, the big obviously evil company is evil!" "No way! I totally didn't see that coming!" Conflict resolved and has no meaningful impact to the ultimate conclusion of the plot. I also thought the whole "break-up just to get back together" conflict with Peter and Gwen could have been omitted as well, it's just a pointless conflict that wastes our time because, unless you read the comics, you KNOW what'll happen to Gwen Stacy. I'd say spoiler alert, but frankly, you'd already figured it out by now.

Why am I bringing these criticism to the forefront? Because the movie should have spent more of it's time giving the villains more time to establish what is going on in their heads. Electro is given some scenes to establish he wants to be noticed….and that's it. We don't see how he adapts or figures out his powers, we don't see the thought process he's going through, it's just "I hate you now Spider-Man because you forgot my name!" Harry Osborn was the closest to being a fleshed-out  character and yet his big transformation from nice guy to Flying Werewolf Dude is rushed just to get all the characters where they need to be. You want to talk about lazy writing? The ending of the movie is Spider-man battling the Rhino, the character who has appeared in all the trailers and was bragged to being in the movie and the movie cuts to the end credits before we get to see anything happen. I know they want to set up for the next sequel, but come on, that's just lazy writing there.

Characters:

To be honest, nobody gives a bad performance here. Andrew Garfield is fine, he and Ellen Page have amazing chemistry, chemistry so good, you want to see the both of them team up again for a more character-driven romantic comedy. Sally Field steals the show with her "weepy mother figure" scenes and as much as I hold a grudge against Dane DeHaan (I can never forgive that punk for "Metallica Through the Never") he is a more sympathetic Harry Osborn than James Franco. As for Jamie Foxx, I'm sorry to say, but he's seriously miscast here and I say that not against the man as an actor but the fact that he doesn't really do anything that allows him to put his Oscar-Winning talents to it's fullest. When he's the dweeby weird max Dillon, he sells it, but when he's Electro, it's really awkward to watch because he looks like a pale blue Michael Jackson. Not helping is Electro is not a compelling villain. His motivation is to kill Spider-Man by shutting off the power to the entire city and then destroy the energy core he designed? Um….glad to see you have long-term plans for that. Paul Giamatti is forgettable, hell, even when I first saw him, my brain didn't make the connection that it was him, goes to show how memorable a villain he was right? Also, for some reason that still baffles me, the screenwriters decided to include the character Felicia Hardy (Felicity Jones) when the only purpose she serves is to play the exposition buddy for one scene and….that's it. A love Interest for Peter in the future or just there to make the comic book fans squee, I dunno, I really don't and say, Stan Lee was in this wasn't he? 

Acting is fine, it's how the characters are written that bugs me. The actors are clearly trying their best, but they just don't have a strong cohesive story for them to work with, the narrative just juggles them all around, occasionally pulling them back in whenever the writers think they're needed to elicit an emotional response.

Production:

I saw this in 3D and while some shots looked really nice like the First-Person perspective of Spider-Man swinging through New York and the sparks flying from Electro's energy blasts, the effect just wasn't that impressive to me…and that's probably the nicest thing I can say about he movie production-wise, cause oh man do I have issues with this movie's production. Problems that just take me out of the movie and force me to look at it and ask "dude, was anyone actually looking at this and thought it was okay?"

First problem is the editing. It's fast paced enough for the action scenes, but there are certain instances where, if you pay attention, the backgrounds seem to be slanted sideways. There are two scenes in particular where I noticed this: the first is where Harry and Peter are on a beach throwing stones and as Peter talks to Harry, the New York skyline behind him is slanted, did the director intentionally suggest a Dutch angle or did the camera guy not lock the camera properly? Another example of this problem happens in Peter's bedroom where Aunt May tells Peter about his parents, when Peter bends down to face his Aunt, the background slants again, only to suddenly be set properly in the next edit. I still don't get this, even the director on the set of a high-budget film ought to notice these sort of things.

Second Problem is the makeup. I already explained that I found it strange to paint a black actor all pale blue only to use computer effects to make him glowy, you might as well could have just motion capture dots on Jamie Foxx and used his movements from on the set to create a CGI being over him. But perhaps the worst choice of make-up is Harry Osborn at the end when he takes on the suit and glider. It's one of the most laughable make-up jobs I have ever seen in my life. Harry looks like Teen Wolf was doused with Radiation, but instead of turning into the Toxic Avenger, he got bit by a werewolf and found a spare batman suit lying around so he painted it green and decided to act like he snorted PCP. Yeah that's a little too descriptive but seriously, look at this make-up work! Somebody actually looked at this and said "yeah, let's go for it." Was designing a mask just not possible with a $200 million budget?

Third Problem, the music. I'm usually the nice guy for the music, but the music for this movie sucks. Apart from playing whatever crap adults think young people listen to, the movie has this strange habit of mixing dubstep into the orchestrated score. The dustup score usually plays during the scenes with Electro, but the orchestra sometimes pulls through along with it. Don't understand what I mean? Let me try to explain: there's a scene where Electro is being experimented on by this crazy doctor named "Dr. Ashley Kafka" who plays "The Blue Danube" while he works, then the score is undermined with the dustup score and then it goes back to the Blue Danube. It's incredibly jarring and it bugs me. If you wanted some dustup in the soundtrack. I could honestly suggest a better selection of bands and artists who could have written a better soundtrack than Hans Zimmer and Pharrell Williams created and the first few bands that comes to mind are Muse, Imagine Dragons, Arcade Fire, Jack White, and the Foo Fighters.

Bottom Line:

I don't like being the bad guy here when there were things about this movie that I did enjoy watching on a big screen. But this movie just stinks of Studio Dominated Release, a movie where the director and writers were not in charge, but the studios were the ones calling the shots. Why else would this movie have so many ill-advised choices to tell a narrative story or make the movie the way it is? The story is a confused mishmash of subplots strewn together to elicit an emotional response, the characters are not terribly well-written even when the actors are trying their best to make it work, the special effects look good, but my issues with the technical elements of the film just keep this film from being less enjoyable as it ought to be. But the movie at least didn't make me angry, the worst a movie can do is make me angry (ex. "Stay Alive," "The Matrix Reloaded" and "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug"), all this movie did was just leave me wishing for more. There are many words I would use to describe this movie and sadly, "Amazing" is not one of them. Now "Spider-Man 2" from 2004? That was pretty amazing.

Final Rating: 2/5

Also, I forgot to mention, at the end during the credits, the movie forces in a teaser for "X-Men Days of Future Past," it has no context, no purpose and has nothing to do with Spider-Man. The only conclusion I can reach with why this was included was the people at Sony had no confidence in the Spider-Man license that they had to force in a teaser of another upcoming Marvel movie just try and get you'll excited. That's pathetic.

The Worst Movies of 2013 Part 4

Here we are folks, we're nearing the end of this list of the year's worst movies. I've covered boring thrillers, comedies that aren't funny, big-budget fare that feels bloated and franchise-ruining sequels with Bruce Willis. But we're near the final five of movies I NEVER EVER EVER want to even think about again, or will even acknowledge exist.

But before I do, I want you all to know why I get angry at movies.

I get angry because when I see a movie in the theater, I want to know that my money is going to something worthwhile. The price of tickets these days are outrageous. I mean, when I went to go see "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" I was forced to pay an entry fee with a free ticket I had to go see the movie in an RPX theater (the only showing that was available that day I might add before they opened up more screens) and, even though I had a reward card to get a free small drink, I found myself convinced to get an extra dollar off if I got a small bag of popcorn, which cost me $5, in total, forcing me to pay $10 for the entire set up, basically, the price I would have paid if i saw a different movie at that theater.

And what do you know? I was left feeling like all the money I spent to that movie was a waste of my wallet as I felt that I could have waited until the movie was available to rent, which would have cost me $3.29 at my workplace and I have my own popcorn maker so I could have made my own bowl of popcorn without having to use artificial butter-flavored grease and use actual ingredients like shredded mozzarella cheese, garlic powder and real melted butter.

Plus, I at least have a remote control to stop the movie at any time, use the bathroom and then come back and not miss anything important.

THAT to me is what I deem important to a movie-going experience. To know that the money I spent was worth it. That I can go to a movie theater, see a movie and feel that the money I spent was rewarding to have spent it. Take a movie like "The Lone Ranger" where everyone seemed to hate on it to the point I flopped at the box office, yet when I saw it with my sister, we both had a blast even though I had expected a bad movie from what everyone was writing about.

And apparently, I wasn't alone in thinking the movie wasn't that bad:

"The first 45 minutes are excellent," enthused the director of Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. "The next 45 minutes are a little soporific. It was a bad idea to split the bad guys in two groups; it takes hours to explain and nobody cares," he admitted. "[But] then comes the train scene—incredible! When I saw it, I kept thinking, 'What, that's the film that everybody says is crap? Seriously?'"

-Quentin Tarantino, Les Inrockuptibles Interview, October 2013

But I think I've delayed the inevitable far enough, let's finish this list so I can move on with my life after a rough month I've been subjected to…

- -

5. Grown-Ups 2

Good Job America, you managed to pay for this man to go on vacation with his friends and family under the pretense that they were "filming a comedy."

Give some credit to Rob Schnieder, he was smart enough to not get involved with this one.

In reality, you paid $10 to see this movie, you just paid Happy Madison Production for the creation of a movie that relies on bodily function jokes, racism jokes ("I think your mother is here from Mexico"), tired and yawn-worthy slapstick humor, unfunny stereotypes (one such example involves The Lonely Island giving a career worst by playing flamboyant male car wash cheer-leaders), jokes that are dated even for Adam Sandler (seriously, go into the street and ask any kid, without looking at their phone, who Flava Flav is. I guarantee, they'll think you're talking about a kind of juice) and the only thing that is guaranteed to make kids laugh: screaming…lots and lots of screaming, something I get on YouTube for free since people let Smosh and PewDiePie have careers online. Oh Adam Sandler stroking his fat ego while creating conflicts that could be easily solved by just, oh, I dunno, calling the police? Why should a bunch of frat boys be a problem that dictates a subplot of the movie when you could just call the police and charge them for disturbing the peace, harassment and intent. You have it in your legal rights, dumbass.

Every second of the movie is just one big "what the flying f**k" moment after another, asking yourself why you paid money for this, I still question how I talked myself into seeing this f*cking movie with the neighbor's kids when I should have been more adamant about seeing "Pacific Rim," as dull as it was, at least Guillermo del Toro doesn't try to insult your intelligence. Adam Sandler doesn't remotely give a sh*t and he counted on you to not care in the slightest about leaving your kids to go and see a movie that only juveniles would laugh at.

But you know what's the most insulting thing about this movie is? The piss-poor excuse it gives to try and make "characters" to try and keep you involved when even a casual movie goer would tell that there is so little effort or heart put into the scenes of "character development." There's a subplot of David Spade learning he has a son, played by Alexander Ludwig, that kid we thought would have a career after "The Seeker: The Dark is Rising" but turns out didn't cause he wisely decided to go back to school and get a theatre major (trust me bud, I don't blame you) and yet, here he is, clearly not giving a crap about his career playing the typical rebellious disconnected teenager who reconnects with his illegitimate father for the sake of forcing the audience to give an emotional reaction as though that's suppose to juxtapose all the lame and unfunny jokes we were forced to sit through.

Hell, that sums up literally everyone who was in this piece of sh*t.

"Stone Cold" Steve Austin? He clearly is only here for an easy paycheck and to play a character that could easily kick Sandler's ass, but doesn't cause "he wants him to look good."

Shaquille O'Neal?….well he stopped caring a long time ago, but hey, easy money.

Jon Lovitz? It's not like "The Critic" is back in production so what else is there for him to do but take an easy paycheck?

Patrick Schwarzenegger?  That just goes to show his father was too smart for Sandler.

All the behind the scenes clips I would see promoting this movie had the cast force smiles for the camera and say that "they were having fun," yes, having fun demeaning themselves by being in an unfunny Adam Sandler movie, you can just tell these people want to be here.

But hey, I think everyone in Hollywood has realized that they really have to try when it comes to Adam Sandler movies. They just have to appear long enough to get a paycheck and America will inexplicably make said movie a big hit.

Now I hear Adam Sandler is making another vacation video disguised as a movie called "Blended," how do I know it's a vacation video? Because the movie is set in Africa and, from what I'm gathering from the trailer, it'll have people calling each other names as though they're 5 year-olds, African stereotypes, and some of Adam Sandler's Happy Madison buddies coming in to collect on the paycheck and enjoy the hotel suites that America will be more than happy to pay for.

Why?

Because Adam Sandler treats you like idiots and somehow, you keep proving him right every time.

4. After Earth

You know something, I finally figured out why Will Smith chose M. Night Shyamalan to direct this movie.

And it had nothing to do with M. Night's abilities as a director or his last few movies.

He was chosen to be the movie's scapegoat.

Think about it, why would ANYONE choose M. Night Shyamalan when his name sends chills down any casual movie-goer's spine? Will Smith himself knew that and he intentionally called him so Shyamalan could take the fall while Will Smith would play the victim card.

But you don't fool me Will, you didn't cover your money trail which leads to your production house Overbrook Entertainment, the same company responsible for "Wild Wild West," "Seven Pounds" and "This Means War."

Also, Will Smith is credited for writing the story. A story that probably could have cost less money to make had it taken a more realistic setting and removed any of the science-fiction elements and gone with the idea Will originally intended of a man who sends his son out into the dangerous wilderness to go get help. But he figured he might be able to make more money if he made it a sci-fi film than a drama. I blame Will Smith for this because it's his money that went into making this movie and forcing his son to be into this movie and as this movie has demonstrated: Jaden Smith cannot act.

"But Alec!" you all say, "Jaden was actually pretty good in the Karate Kid remake!" Yes, he did all right in that movie, but that's because Jaden had an in competent director who could work with young people (as demonstrated with "Agent Cody Banks" (a movie that I am REALLY not looking forward to reviewing in the future) and his most recent failure, "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones") and writers who at least took advantage of the material given to them and managed to combine elements of Chinese culture with the basic idea of the original film. But the fact that Jaden Smith got the part obviously had NOTHING to do with his parents being the producers of the movie who, in no way WHATSOEVER pulled any strings.

The major problem with this movie, more than anything, is that Jaden Smith lacks the experience to carry a movie like this. Whenever he's trying to be emotional, he comes off as whiney, whenever he tries to act tough, he looks like a kid who calls you names at school. 

His father is pushing him into becoming a leading actor, but unlike Will, Jaden didn't have a television show that ran for six seasons, allowing him to further his experience as an actor and explore the acting spectrum.

Jaden's only talent, or so it seems, is making lousy music that nobody cares to listen to, unless you count his sister who is only popular because she made a notoriously bad song.

But enough bashing on the Smith family.

Apart from incompetent acting, this movie is really stupid.

How can there be low oxygen on Earth when the planet is covered in plants, shouldn't that generate MORE oxygen?

How does a giant bird mistake a sky-diving kid for a baby chick when it's baby chicks can't even fly yet?

Why the hell were the humans carrying something that looks like lung cancer in their ship when it's so dangerous?

If this movie is set years after humanity left it, where are all the ruined buildings? 

Why would Jaden be stupid enough to climb on top of an active volcano to send out a beacon?

Why does giving a blank stare confuse the lung cancer monster?

UGH!

I forgot to mention, this movie was co-written by Gary Whitta, the guy who wrote "Duke Nukem Forever." I'd make a joke on expecting disappointment, but honestly, now I'm imagining if M. Night Shyamalan replaced Jaden Smith with Duke Nukem, it probably might have made the movie slightly cooler.

Slightly Cooler. He'd at least drop more one-liners than Jaden Smith.

3. The Purge

As someone who has had experience in the television and movie industry and their concept of marketing, it should be noted that calling a movie "original" is a fallacy since there hasn't been an original idea for over 300 years. The term "originality" is really just a way of repackaging the idea and selling it off as something different. If you look at any movie that has been hailed as "original" you can trace it's inspiration and origins all the way back to the early years of cinema and go back even further to literary inspirations.

Need an example? All right.

Take the movie "Inception," a movie people have claimed to be original when the director admitted to being inspired from "The Matrix," a movie that took numerous ideas from other movies, the most notable being the 1995 Japanese movie "Ghost in the Shell," a movie based off a manga which took inspiration from 1982's "Blade Runner," which was a movie that was based off a novel by Phillip K. Dick who wrote the novel based on his paranoia with the government.

What's the point I'm trying to make here?

The point I'm trying to make is that even a movie/novel/television show has had some inspiration from another source where that source took inspiration from something else, but it's about the presentation and the repackaging of that idea that can inspire people to want to do something just as good or annoy and anger people who see through the glitter and bows to see that the gift is nothing special.

But is that a bad thing?

Not always.

But for me, it is about how you repackage the idea and the people who repackaged the idea of a home invasion film did have a creative existing idea and combined it with the existing theme of the home invasion film. So for that, I do have to at least give them some credit for coming up with an interesting idea to sell.

The problem is, when you actually see the movie, the idea has enough holes in it that you do have to question if anyone actually thought this all the way through.

The movie is about a future where the government has managed to lower crime and unemployment in American through an yearly event where people are allowed to kill people in 12 hours…and right away you would be smart in comparing this to "The Hunger Games" meets "Panic Room."

Again, I applaud creative thinking, but this movie's idea of the Purge has so many holes in it. How is this annual event of mass murder supposed to keep order in the United States? If all services are closed off during the event, how would you be able to fence off the things you stole? If you raped someone during the Purge, would that rape still be legal when it's over? Could that person still sue the perpetrator after The Purge is over? The movie does explain that government officials are to be left unharmed, but then that just leaves another question; what if someone broke into your house to take their money and they left them unharmed and if they did murder a state senator or governor, how would anyone know? The police services are suspended during this time so it's not like they can run out and get the body. Also, for that matter, if emergency services are disabled, what if someone, like say the elderly, have a heart attack and yet none of the attackers did anything? What if someone was just sitting comfortably at home with their security systems on and they fell over and dislocated their hip or hit their head? Are you telling me they can't use a Life Alert or some kind of emergency call to help them when it's an action that wasn't caused by The Purge? What if someone killed themselves? It's an act that wasn't caused directly by The Purge, also, what if there's a child in the house? Are you just gonna let them fend for themselves? You can't at least end an armored police car out to go help a poor child whose parents were killed by these murderers of The Purge?Also, what if there's a fire? Are you just gonna let a building burn down? What if the building belonged to a senator and it was on fire and he was stuck inside? Are you saying you can't help the poor guy?

Another thing, how is THIS supposed to keep order? What if someone decided to kill someone even after The Purge was over? Are you really expecting us the audience to believe that this 12 hour period is enough to let everyone get their anger out of their systems and then they'll be fine for the rest of the year until next year?

You see? Questions like this keep from making a movie this illogical from being enjoyable.

I also find it rather depressing that this year had two terrible movies Ethan Hawke was in when the guy is a decent actor, just look at the movie he co-wrote and starred in from this year "Before Midnight." I mean, come on dude, how is it that you managed to get on this list twice?

Speaking of acting, it's terrible. The level of acting seems to go between "Obnoxiously Annoying" and "Sadistically Inhuman," there are no actual likable characters in this frozen turkey of a movie when the requirement for making a home invasion film is to have a likable main character that we, the audience, want to see succeed against their attackers.

These characters are so despicable I found myself calling up a friend if he could suggest a website where I could sign a form to get a new main character for a movie that doesn't use it's intelligent idea to it's full potential.

He suggested Craigslist.

2. 47 Ronin

Regardless of my criticisms for the previous movies on this list, we can take ease knowing the characters these movies came from were not real.

Giant Robots battling monsters may be exciting when it's not focusing on the more dull story-telling elements, but they're not real, so there's no harm done.

Carrie herself is just a fictionalized 

Superman is not exempt from moral punishment, but we can take comfort knowing he's not a real person and each version of superman comes from a particular vision of how someone draws him (which someone decided to make him a guy who really needs a hug). Again, no actual harm done.

A bunch of overly patriotic nutcases manage to take over the White House as the president and some secret service agent manage to evade them all, but they're not real, it's all fictional.

Adam Sandler…well he damages brain cells, but even he never takes himself serious enough to try and pass himself off as "deep" or "meaningful." Sure, there is pain to watching, but he's at least not playing anyone who existed in real life.

Ronin 47 is a different case.

The story of the forty-seven ronin is a tale of leaderless samurai (known as Ronin) who were trained by their master to follow the bushido code of conduct, which included complete loyalty to the feudal lords that owned particular land in Japan, they were also known as Daimyos. If the samurai failed to protect his master or afield to serve him properly, he was expected to kill himself to honor their lords, lest they live their lives in dishonor.

The story itself tells of a shogun official named Kira Yoshinaka who was assigned to train two daimyos in the ways of court etiquette, Asano Naganori and Kamei Sama. Although they offered gifts to Kira, he refused them as he found them inadequate gifts to be given to someone of his status (remember, this is shogun Japan, the class system was very important) so he took out his anger on Asano and tormented him during his lessons. It got to the point where Asano lost his patience and tried to kill Kira, but Kira did not fight back as he was restricted by law to draw a sword inside the wall of the castle. For breaking this law, Asano was forced to commit seppuku. This forced the shogun officials to confiscate all of Asano's belongings, leaving his family out in the streets and all of his warriors reduced to be ronins, which, in layman's terms, marked the samurais as homeless people who didn't even have a steady income to provide for themselves.

Now remember what I said about samurai being expected to kill themselves to follow their master into the afterlife? Well, of Asano's 320 warriors, only 47 refused and, led by Oishi Yoshio, decided to seek revenge on their master and kill Kira. But they decided to take their time until Kira felt safe knowing that nobody would kill him for what he did to Asano, each of them taking odd jobs to learn about the castle and find a way inside. 

After two years, the ronin finally attacked the castle, surprising the guards, all 50 of them, who ran out shoeless in the snow to fight. The ronin fought their way until they found Kira hiding in a storage shed, demanding he kill himself with the same sword used by Asano. When he refused, Oishi beheaded the tyrant. Afterwards, all the samurai returned to the grave of their master, being cheered by crowds who heard of their action, where they were arrested and tried and ordered to commit seppuku. Following the orders of feudal lords, Oishi Yoshio, his teenage son and the other 46 ronin all killed themselves and were buried along with their daimyo, with one anonymous ronin who wasn't there who went on to tell of the tale until he died a very old man.

And you know what's interesting about all this?

This all actually happened.

No bullsh*t.

This was about actual people who had decided to disregard their vows to kill themselves after their masters were killed to go and murder the man responsible for their master's death so that his spirit may rest. This was a story that had been passed down for generations in Japan as a story promoting courage and self-sacrifice to remind the people of Japan that samurai were still honor-bound 

This movie just takes a sh*t on that story and throws it at you, not even caring about the actual people who died.

It has characters named from the story, but it doesn't follow the story correctly, forcing in a white "half-breed" character who never existed, a Japanese witch who never existed, a daughter who was never in the actual story, fantasy elements that was never part of the story, giant monsters who were also not part of the story and a giant fire-breathing dragon that the Ronin never actually fought as well as killing off Ronin during the movie when the Ronin didn't die until they were all arrested and Oishi's son was not spared the fate of seppuku, he killed himself along with his father.

Choosing this movie to be on this spot isn't about over-bloated computer effects, it isn't about bad acting and it isn't even about it's half-assed themes or that, for all it's hot air, it's a really boring movie...

"47 Ronin" makes this list because it clearly does not care about the actual story of the people who literally risked their place in the afterlife just to avenge their master when he was unjustly forced to kill himself. 

It's not only the most boring movie of the year, it's also the most offensive one of the year.

This movie doesn't care to look at those elements, it's more interested with throwing in boring subplots to characters, CGI landscapes, fantasy elements like super fast Tengu monks, CGi witches who can turn into a dragon.

Yet despite all these elements, the movie doesn't dazzle or impress in the slightest and with the mindset that this movie is literally pillaging the graves of the actual people by forcing them into a movie that disregards all the hard work and precise planning they set themselves out to do for a fantasy movie that leaves the audience wishing they saw "The Wolf of Wall Street" or "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" instead.

So then, what is my pick for worst movie of the year?

Movie 43? Pff, if I was stupid enough to subject myself to this "thing" it would have made the list, but I didn't because I couldn't find anyone to watch this with. If I'm going to suffer through watching a bad movie, I prefer to have a victim suffer with me to prove I'm sane.

The Lone Ranger? I can't really put something on my list if I liked it. Just because everyone else hated it, don't mean I'll follow their example.

The Starving Games? Again, I never saw it and can you blame me? It never came to theaters. It was never advertised anywhere. It just goes to show that people are starting to catch on that these parody movies from these jokers is just a waste of your money, especially when we had to suffer from "Scary Movie 5" earlier in the year, why would anyone suffer through another one? Hell, I didn't even know it existed until December of 2013 when Dim432 wouldn't shut up about it, which only goes to show that hating on something that nobody has heard of, he pretty much did the advertising for Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer for them. Good work Dim, or "the reviewer," you just helped advertise a movie that got practically no major advertising or even made it's way to major multiplexes. Had you not said a word abbot this movie, I would have lived a happier life being ignorant of it's existence and not giving it any thought.

Diana? Again, I never saw this one, I didn't even know it existed until after the year was over, but I hear it's pretty bad.

Jobs? I almost included it on the list for being really dull and saying nothing remotely interesting about the guy.

Well I think I've delayed the inevitable long enough.

My pick for #1

Worst

Movie

Of

2013

IS…

1. Epic

I somehow knew as I walked out of the movie theater, I somehow knew…more than Adam Sandler, more than M. Night Shyamalan, more than Zach Snyder; this movie would be my #1 pick for worst movie of the year.

A Good Day to Die Hard is only insulting to Die Hard fans, but younger people who have never seen an action movie past 1999 would probably think little of it and might like it, but care so little about it's plot and characters.

Man of Steel is a case of beauty in the eye of the beholder (if you get the meaning) and, while it's not offensive on a grand scale, it only insults if you take the source material that seriously and you feel uncomfortable with the presentation.

Grown-Ups 2 was insultingly bad, but it knew that it had no wit to it and it treated you as such.

Ronin 47 was offensively bad to the graves of real people who died to get revenge for their master.

Epic is insulting because it tricks you into seeing a movie that makes no effort whatsoever to try to repackage an all-to-familiar idea that we've seen in movie like "Avatar" and "Ferngully: The Last Rainforest." 

It doesn't care, resorting to having to stoop to the lowest common denominator to entertain it's audience of 5 year-olds through flashy vibrant imagery, recycled character and story threads as well as obnoxious joke-telling Gastopoda who are NEVER funny and only serve to annoy the hell out of logical-minded adults.

The story is unoriginal though it tries to pass itself off like it's hip and cool, but come on, Avatar isn't even that old, I'm sure people remember four years ago the biggest movie rip-off to ever come and steal money from our wallets and convince us that "it had a deep message to make." Only this movie just seems to forget that message in favor of just having a conventional good vs. evil premise, only without making the good characters interesting enough to make me care about their cause or making the evil characters all that threatening. 

Really, if you kinda think about it, so what if they win? The entire location is set in just one forest that's far away from most major cities, so what's really at stake to lose? If the Leaf-Men lose against the Electric Boogaloo and they destroy the forest, so what? Their interests only seem limited to just the forest, I don't hear them planning to rule the world or anything, they just don't like the color green. This is a problem that could be solved through hiring an exterminator to spray the entire forest.

The characters are so stock and recycled that they're not even worth the money the celebrities were paid just to bring in audiences. Especially since none of them are worth the text they're paid to say. Amanda Seyfried doesn't do anything with her character other than make her seem shallow and uncaring towards her father, who also feels like a waste of money to hire the son of a bitch from "We're the Millers"….wait, he was also in Movie 43 wasn't he? Well that's another reason to hate him then. I had never really heard of Aziz Ansari before this movie but I hear he's supposed to be funny, you sure wouldn't get that impression from watching this movie playing a slug who makes some of the most groan-inducing jokes that make me want to find the bastard who wrote those jokes and smack them with a typewriter.

Would you ever look at this kind of movie and say "Yeah! The oh-so "memorable" character of Queen Tara could only be voiced by Beyoncé Knowles! She's perfect!" "What's that? We got Pitbull? Eh, let's have him voice a pointless character who has no real purpose in the overall story, but let's keep him in so we can officially have his name on our posters!" "Steven Tyler wants in on this? Well, he is a judge for American Idol, guess we need all the advertising we can get, let's just give him the character of a glow worm…it's the best we could do…"

It becomes obvious to me months after seeing the movie that the studio behind this movie, Blue Sky Studios, did not genuinely give a sh*t, but considering they made four Ice Age movies, when have they ever given a sh*t? They depended on the audience coming in to not give a sh*t about spending their hard-earned money to let their stupid kids eat a ton of sugar and laugh at all the candy-coated images while their parents would sit nearby, asking themselves why they didn't have a condom on before conceiving the nuisance that dragged them into this annoyance they paid $30 to go see, oh wait, I nearly forgot to add the price of concessions…

But you know what really bugs me about this movie? The inappropriate use of the title.

I was originally going to list off a definition of the word "epic" but it only seemed to counter my point, especially when, if you really think about it; how exactly is this movie epic?

Is it the large scale? Well, it's just a forest from the perspective of someone small, so, no, it doesn't really boast epic in the terms of being spectacular, in fact, it makes this big world feel restricted; kind of like a video game level that has invisible walls to keep you in one place. I had commented before that the animation doesn't feel very life-like as it makes the environment and characters look as though they had been made out of plastic. 

Not very epic, is it?

What is so epic about Beyoncé? Or Pitbull? or Steven Tyler? Or Colin Farrell? Or Josh Hutcherson?

F*cking nothing I'll tell you that, they're just in the movie to deceive people into coming to see it thinking if these big name stars are in it, it has to be ooh enough for my money.

And that's the main word I use to describe this movie.

Deception.

Deception because there is nothing to enjoy from this microwaved movie that has nothing new to offer.

Deception by throwing out big name stars who play characters that you could pretty much take from every other family movie and you would get this cast.

Deception because you could have seen something more worthwhile but instead, you were fooled into seeing this movie.

No, I refuse to accept that.

We deserve better than that.

I deserved better than that.

All these movies/TV shows I review, both good and bad, do I get ANY recognition or appreciation for putting myself on the line to try and inform and educate as well as entertain you all?

No.

I don't.

I get jack sh*t for all the research and time I spend for the content I write up.

You know what I do get for my trouble?

I get people who tell me I'm wrong for speaking my mind and only back up their argument with stealing the words of others to make themselves sound more intelligent

or people who can't stand to see someone else challenge their viewpoints so they passively aggressively try to coerce me to say I'm wrong and if I refuse to back down, I'm treated as the villain

or people who have nothing intelligent to say and they just throw around profanity like "sh*tbird" and "failed abortion" and go so far as to write a critical nitpick against my own outdated nitpicking on their own separate URL blog and literally bully friends and loved ones into agreeing with their opinions as well as sending out fellow fans to bully me because they can't accept differing opinions when they would never behave like this in front of me in real life.

That is what I get from you.

That is what my time is worth to all of you.

That is what 2013 meant for me.

…but I have confidence in the new year…sure, it hasn't exactly gotten off to a fine start, but I truly have confidence for the possibilities this new year will hold and, quite hopefully, we can get some much better movies this time around...