1. Another Disney princess story? Seems like they care less about originality and more on selling merchandise. 2. On the other hand, Disney's first Polynesian princess. 3. Coconut pirates? Really?? 4. That ocean is way too blue. 5. For a PG rated film, the dialogue was at a preschool level. 6. The coconut crab's song was more of an insult than a tribute to the late David Bowie. 7. The climax scene was dramatically appealing and amazing. 8. The Oscars totally blew it by nominating the song "How Far I'll Go" instead of "We Know the Way." Someone must have mislabeled that mixtape. 9. Retitle this movie to "The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker" and this would have been totally awesome!
Reviews
6 Reviews
Spider-Man 3
(2007)
What Was the Movie Called Again?
28 February 2014
On August 18, 2002, the first Spider-Man movie was shown in theaters. It made $821 million worldwide with two Academy Award nominations: best sound and best visual effects. On June 30, 2004, Spider-Man 2 came out. It made $783 million worldwide with three Academy Awards nominations: best sound, best sound editing and best visual effects, which it won. The studio then released a preview one year before its newest movie, Spider-Man 3, and it became extremely popular on You Tube. I had the enormous privilege of seeing this movie on May 4, 2007, at the midnight showing. When the credits rolled up at the end of the movie, I was dissatisfied, but why? I tried to come up with reasons why I disliked the movie. My answer came after I walked out of the theater and overheard a conversation. One person stated, "The movie was that close to being a chick flick." Well it wasn't "that close". It was that. The creators of the movie completely forgot this film was called "Spider- Man", not "Peter Parker". The filmmakers put too many villains into one movie, which led us out of the main plot. Plus the dull acting from Toby Maguire and others was awful and embarrassing to watch.
The first part of the film shows us that Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) and Peter Parker (Toby Maguire) still love each other, as if that was not obvious in the first two movies. Peter thinks he's now ready to ask Mary Jane to marry him, but like every other romantic film, problems arise and they do not get married. But wait, it gets worse. Peter's ex-friend, Harry (James Franco) still wants revenge for his father's death. So, how does he do it? Torture him? Kill him? No. He attacks his heart. Harry forces Mary Jane to tell Peter she does not love him anymore, and Peter Parker buys it. This is just the beginning of this sweetheart movie. Peter starts hitting on other girls and tries to make Mary Jane jealous. Of course, the movie ends with Spider-Man saving Mary Jane and they finally realize they were meant for each other. So let me ask a question: does it take three movies for us to realize that or did we know it from the first scene of Spider-Man 1?
Now even if the romance part of the movie was likable, the action was not. The movie had too many villains. There was the Sandman (Thomas Haden Church), who turns out to be the real killer of Peter's uncle, Ben. Of course, there was Peter's ex-friend, Harry, and then the late added villain, Venom (Topher Grace). So in total, that's three villains? Sounds like this could be a fun film. It's not. The movie went with four story lines: three villains and the hero. Harry and Peter were explained in the previous paragraph, so now let's talk about the other two villains. The Sandman, whose real name is Marco, has a daughter, named Penny, who's infected with some sort of illness, but we never find out what it is. Then there's Eddie Brock, who half way through the film becomes Venom. According to most polls and surveys, Spider-Man fans love Venom the most, yet we did not see much of Venom in the film. The movie had so much information, we did not know what we should walk away with. It shifted away from the main plot when it needed to focus more on the conflict between Peter and Harry.
The worst part about the entire movie was the acting. Let's start with Toby Maguire. When I was watching this movie in the theater, whenever Maguire would get emotional, everyone laughed at him. Maguire's acting and facial expressions were so lame, it was slightly burdensome to watch. The Sandman, however, had absolutely no facial expressions. Every expression was exactly the same. When he was sad, he frowned. When he was angry, he frowned. Poor Eddie Brock just had dull lines. In one scene, when Eddie had Spider-Man tied up, Peter tells Eddie that he needs to take off the Venom suit because its enormous power is controlling him, to which Eddie replies, "I like being bad. It makes me happy." At that moment, the whole movie turned from a chick flick into a kid's movie.
There are two questions that still hold for this movie: was there anything good in this movie, and could it have been done better. Although I may have criticized Spider-Man 3 throughout this paper, there were some moments in the film that worked out nicely; like the one scene at the French restaurant, where Peter was going to hide his ring for Mary Jane in a glass of wine as a surprise proposal. It was a humorous scene allowing us to laugh for a purposeful reason. The film also had esteeming, valuable life lessons, especially at the end of the film when the Sandman explains to Peter that he only robbed to support his daughter. He also explained how killing Peter's uncle, Ben, was an accident. The Sandman only asked Peter to understand, but instead Peter forgives him. We should always be forgiving instead of seeking revenge. Now, could they have done a better job on the movie? Of course they could have. All they really needed to have done was to get rid of some of the distractions in the film to make room for more Spider-Man action. One of the villains needed to have been let go; either the Sandman or Venom. Some of those scenes with Mary Jane having problems with Peter should have been cut, but most of all, the writers definitely needed to fix those corny lines. The overall summary to this movie: disappointing.
The first part of the film shows us that Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) and Peter Parker (Toby Maguire) still love each other, as if that was not obvious in the first two movies. Peter thinks he's now ready to ask Mary Jane to marry him, but like every other romantic film, problems arise and they do not get married. But wait, it gets worse. Peter's ex-friend, Harry (James Franco) still wants revenge for his father's death. So, how does he do it? Torture him? Kill him? No. He attacks his heart. Harry forces Mary Jane to tell Peter she does not love him anymore, and Peter Parker buys it. This is just the beginning of this sweetheart movie. Peter starts hitting on other girls and tries to make Mary Jane jealous. Of course, the movie ends with Spider-Man saving Mary Jane and they finally realize they were meant for each other. So let me ask a question: does it take three movies for us to realize that or did we know it from the first scene of Spider-Man 1?
Now even if the romance part of the movie was likable, the action was not. The movie had too many villains. There was the Sandman (Thomas Haden Church), who turns out to be the real killer of Peter's uncle, Ben. Of course, there was Peter's ex-friend, Harry, and then the late added villain, Venom (Topher Grace). So in total, that's three villains? Sounds like this could be a fun film. It's not. The movie went with four story lines: three villains and the hero. Harry and Peter were explained in the previous paragraph, so now let's talk about the other two villains. The Sandman, whose real name is Marco, has a daughter, named Penny, who's infected with some sort of illness, but we never find out what it is. Then there's Eddie Brock, who half way through the film becomes Venom. According to most polls and surveys, Spider-Man fans love Venom the most, yet we did not see much of Venom in the film. The movie had so much information, we did not know what we should walk away with. It shifted away from the main plot when it needed to focus more on the conflict between Peter and Harry.
The worst part about the entire movie was the acting. Let's start with Toby Maguire. When I was watching this movie in the theater, whenever Maguire would get emotional, everyone laughed at him. Maguire's acting and facial expressions were so lame, it was slightly burdensome to watch. The Sandman, however, had absolutely no facial expressions. Every expression was exactly the same. When he was sad, he frowned. When he was angry, he frowned. Poor Eddie Brock just had dull lines. In one scene, when Eddie had Spider-Man tied up, Peter tells Eddie that he needs to take off the Venom suit because its enormous power is controlling him, to which Eddie replies, "I like being bad. It makes me happy." At that moment, the whole movie turned from a chick flick into a kid's movie.
There are two questions that still hold for this movie: was there anything good in this movie, and could it have been done better. Although I may have criticized Spider-Man 3 throughout this paper, there were some moments in the film that worked out nicely; like the one scene at the French restaurant, where Peter was going to hide his ring for Mary Jane in a glass of wine as a surprise proposal. It was a humorous scene allowing us to laugh for a purposeful reason. The film also had esteeming, valuable life lessons, especially at the end of the film when the Sandman explains to Peter that he only robbed to support his daughter. He also explained how killing Peter's uncle, Ben, was an accident. The Sandman only asked Peter to understand, but instead Peter forgives him. We should always be forgiving instead of seeking revenge. Now, could they have done a better job on the movie? Of course they could have. All they really needed to have done was to get rid of some of the distractions in the film to make room for more Spider-Man action. One of the villains needed to have been let go; either the Sandman or Venom. Some of those scenes with Mary Jane having problems with Peter should have been cut, but most of all, the writers definitely needed to fix those corny lines. The overall summary to this movie: disappointing.
The Fifth Estate
(2013)
A Messy Plot with a Decent Cast
2 October 2013
"If you want the truth, you should seek it out for yourself." Well, most of the film does not seem entirely truthful but I guess that's the whole point. Like the Social Network, we know most of the scenes are dramatized, but they do help create a more interesting plot. Most people will compare this to the Social Network I'm sure, but it differs in the motivation behind this website.
The story is about a computer programmer named Julian Assange (Benedict Cumberbatch) who creates the website Wikileaks to allow whistle-blowers to anonymously post confidential reports. After they expose a corrupted billion-dollar bank, secrets turn to lies and confidentiality to these anonymous poster are exposed to the public. This film asks an important question. What are the cost and threats to exposing secrets to the world? Apparently Julian has no limits and makes irrational decisions which could cost the lives of thousands of people.
The story is messy for sure. To summarize quickly, every line these characters say have some sort of threat or revolution to it. "This is crazy." "There are people's lives at stake." "This is the biggest leak in history." It makes all these attempts to create threat and drama but I honestly don't see the connections most of the time. Perhaps I'm not the most technical person on the planet, but all the software they were using and the simplicity of their language made them look like amateurs than experts. The cast is alright with a lot of big names (Stanley Tucci, Laura Linney, and David Thewlis), none of whom I see winning any Oscars. Director Bill Condon does better writing the films than making them. It's a nice effort and makes an effective point about the freedom of the press.
The story is about a computer programmer named Julian Assange (Benedict Cumberbatch) who creates the website Wikileaks to allow whistle-blowers to anonymously post confidential reports. After they expose a corrupted billion-dollar bank, secrets turn to lies and confidentiality to these anonymous poster are exposed to the public. This film asks an important question. What are the cost and threats to exposing secrets to the world? Apparently Julian has no limits and makes irrational decisions which could cost the lives of thousands of people.
The story is messy for sure. To summarize quickly, every line these characters say have some sort of threat or revolution to it. "This is crazy." "There are people's lives at stake." "This is the biggest leak in history." It makes all these attempts to create threat and drama but I honestly don't see the connections most of the time. Perhaps I'm not the most technical person on the planet, but all the software they were using and the simplicity of their language made them look like amateurs than experts. The cast is alright with a lot of big names (Stanley Tucci, Laura Linney, and David Thewlis), none of whom I see winning any Oscars. Director Bill Condon does better writing the films than making them. It's a nice effort and makes an effective point about the freedom of the press.
The Square
(2013)
"The Square" Poorly Constructed
1 February 2013
The country of Egypt is a complete mess and so is this documentary. Throughout the whole documentary, I could not tell what was going on. Director Jehane Noujaim takes clips from several video cameras and places them in a confusing order. The film starts with the Egyption's president Hosni Mubarak stepping down from office, to the current results of what is happening now. I confess the shots we see here are horrific and if you are not aware of the situation, perhaps this film will tell you in a nutshell. Some of these shots include a live recording of the soldiers shooting down pedestrians and running them over with trucks. I was hoping for more in depth understanding of the people, the government, or the city itself. It does not even explain why these people are still revolting at the Square. Still, it's not like we haven't seen this on the news or the Internet. The editing is by far the poorest. Even with all this great footage, it was unorganized, confusing, and hard to follow where Noujaim was going. It's like having the recipe for delicious brownies without knowing how to cook. Watch the news more and that will suffice.
Austenland
(2013)
Welcome to Austenland, a Fast but Fantastic Film
1 February 2013
Who would vacation in the Bahamas when you could live the 1800 life of Pride and Predigest characters? Apparently this Jane Austen fan will spend all her money living the experience straight from Austen's most classic books. From Jerusha Hess, the co- writer of Napoleon Dynamite (or should I say the wife of the director), the film begins with Jane (Keri Russell), a Jane Austen book lover, watching classic romance movies and planning her week-long trip adventure somewhere in the United Kingdom to live the Jane Austen life with handsome gentlemen, romance, and engagements. The only problem is when your fantasies become reality, Jane finds love is not always the same way in the books. This movie seems to aim for the book lovers and those of us who are sick of women who dream of finding their Mr Darcy. The film moves fast and the audience does not get to know Russel's character, except for the fact that she loves Jane Austen books. Still, Hess does an excellent job creating a fun and adventurous comedy for us, not to mention the performance of Jennifer Coolidge is fantastic.
Linsanity
(2013)
The title's a word, and it means it's an amazing film
1 February 2013
"Linsanity" is an actual word, except no one has the actual definition. The most common terminology may be "the awesome feeling of Jeremy Lin winning the ultimate basketball game". My father and I loved watching basketball games together. This is the story of Jeremy Lin's love for this sport and the reality of getting into the NBA. Jeremy Lin is a man of faith and expresses it to us in this documentary. Director Evan Leong stated at the Sundance Q&A the film started out only as a web series and turned into something greater. The story starts with his game against the LA Lakers facing off the legendary LeBron James. Those of us who know Jeremy Lin will already predict the end result but even find a deeper understanding of this incredible player. Leong did a fantastic job bringing this player to life. My only complaint would be the large amount of archival footage and him playing basketball and NBA games. We see that on TV all the time when there needed to be more of knowing him as a character. Great job from the entire team and I hope you get this film for the world to see.
Tell Your Friends