Posts Tagged ‘film’

#BatmanvSuperman Scale of Darkness & Devestation Delivers

Posted: April 3, 2016 in Meat Me @ Camera 4
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

mm@C4logo2
ajclogo2

By @anarchyroll

Big and dark. DC Comics is about making their movie adaptations big and dark. Batman vs Superman Dawn of Justice is very big for a variety of reasons. The budget to make it and the budget to advertise it can both be described as very big. The opening weekend box office numbers for the movie can be described as very big. One movie featuring two of the very biggest American pop culture icons in history which had very big expectations.

In 2005 director Christopher Nolan continued a tradition started by Frank Miller in the 1980s of putting forth a darker vision and version of iconic Batman character and franchise. A vision that got even darker with the phenomenally successful and pop culture crossover hit The Dark Knight.

In 2013 the sixth feature film in the historic Superman franchise followed in the footsteps of the darker vision and version of the character that started the golden age of comic books in 1942. Man of Steel took the Frank Miller/ Christopher Nolan archetype and applied to the comic book superhero who is the undisputed champion of squeaky clean, good guy. Change can be painful and is often met with resistance. Many people resisted the new vision/version of Superman that was presented on the big screen in Man of Steel.

After Nolan wrapped up his Dark Knight trilogy director Zack Snyder decided to follow in the footsteps of Frank Miller and Christopher Nolan by presenting a darker, grittier, more violent version of Batman on the big screen. Batman vs Superman Dawn of Justice is both a direct sequel to Man of Steel and a reboot of the Batman film franchise, BOTH in the archetype of Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns character archetype.

batman-v-superman-dawn-justice-post1
Batman vs Superman Dawn of Justice is a very big film and a very dark film. On the big screen it felt like more of a pop art multimedia piece than a summer blockbuster released in early spring. But it had far too many explosions to not be a blockbuster movie. But it still had more than enough metaphoric uses of cultural and religious iconography to make alternative, artsy types happy.

The film has multiple homages paid to The Dark Knight Returns series/ graphic novel. It has many homages to the comic book history of both characters. Something that many people criticize non Marvel Studies comic book films are prone to failing to do. It also officially launched the DC film universe following in the footsteps of Marvel.

I think because DC is following in Marvel’s footsteps, that DC should be making all of their movies using the Marvel model. DC is doing quite the opposite. They are being different. And many people don’t like different.

The DC Universe is more dark, dramatic, and edgy than the Marvel Universe (up to this point). If all Marvel movies were made like the first two Blade movies with Wesley Snipes, both cinematic universes would be more similar than different.
DC is trying to make films, Marvel is making blockbusters. There is a difference.

I would consider Batman/Superman a success. I think it succeeded on many levels. It certainly appealed to me on many levels. Many others would disagree. I found the movie to be a great combination of pop art and popcorn cinema. I thought the cinematography and especially the writing to be exceptional. I find Zack Snyder’s use of mise on scène to be on par with most of the contemporary great filmmakers.

Batman/Superman is NOT made as a product made for mass consumption. It is not trying to compete with Captain America Civil War for box office supremacy, it is trying to compete with Mad Max Fury Road and The Revenant for Oscar consideration(s).

Whether it succeeds at that is another thing. Many who have seen the movie can’t get their own cynicism or entitlement of having their personal imagination manifested on screen, out of the way to try and enjoy Batman Superman Dawn of Justice for what it literally is. Not for what it could have been or should be in the What If Ward of Imagination Land.

#Deadpool Becomes the Rated-R Superstar

Posted: February 21, 2016 in Anarchy Journal Constitutional, Meat Me @ Camera 4
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

mm@C4logo2ajclogo2

431-film-page-large

By @anarchyroll

If you can read this, then you’ve seen Deadpool already. The real question is, have you read reviews of the film in the internet blogsphere?!

Most people dont give a shit about movie reviews from credible sources, let alone from people on WordPress. But hey, the trailer is embedded below this half paragraph, and you know you want to see it again for the first time since you watched it five times in a row two weeks ago.

What can I say about this movie that the three shit stains who sat behind me in the theater didnt say every god damn time there was a quiet scene?! I’m sorry they CGI shadowed his dick in that naked fight scene Janet, but could you please shut the fuck up and stop crumpling your bag of popcorn every ten fucking seconds?!!

Where was I? Oh yeah, the movie review. Here we go; Maxim effort…

Synopsis; if you don’t have a stick, rod, gerbel, or crucifix up your ass you’re going to love it. Seeing this movie was easily the hardest I laughed since my mom died two months ago. Escapism never felt so sweet or so vulgar.

If you haven’t seen it, and like comic books, comic book movies, action movies, and/or dirty dark humor than this movie is for you.

If it were up to me, all comic book movies would be hard Rs. Why? Because fuck little kids that’s why! Aaannnnnnd that definitely didn’t come out right. But you know what I mean. I’m clearly making an amateur attempt to apply Deadpool’s style of humor and forth wall breaking to this movie review blog.

If I keep this up I’ll be able to afford that premium theme in no time. Then I’ll start raking in that internet cash. Yeah…

What am I writing again? That’s right a movie review. Because their definitely isn’t enough opinion based content about comic book movie quality on the internet.

It was great, not good, great and the sequel with Cable can’t come out soon enough.

Now, to the imortant question, where’s the chimichanga I ordered on GrubHub?!!

The #Spectre of the Past Dictates a Film’s Present & Future

Posted: November 30, 2015 in Anarchy Journal Constitutional, Meat Me @ Camera 4
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

mm@C4logo2

By @anarchyroll
11/29/15

All good things come to an end and nothing lasts forever…except diamonds of course.

Whether or not Spectre is the end of the Daniel Craig era proper, the spirit of change that Craig’s run as 007 has certainly passed. That much is made obvious by even a casual fan of the Bond franchise and/or someone who has seen all four films in Craig’s reign (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Skyfall, Spectre).

The name of the film was in advance, a not so subtle signal to the return of the franchise’s glory days.

From Dave Batista’s character being a nod to Jaws, to the full fledged return of the Spectre organization, and its leader Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Whereas Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace forcefully took the franchise in a bold new direction, Spectre is a return to the classic Bond archetype better and for worse.

The prior Craig films would often give a twist and a tip of the cap to prior Bond iconography. Even at times seeming to poke fun at some of the archetypes the franchise created and leaned heavily upon over the course of the last half century. Spectre at times seemed like a parody of the franchise made by the franchise to set up the future of the franchise.

Both Bond girls become stereotypical Bond girls and do so rather quickly. Bond’s car and gadget(s) are presented in flippant manners. The reveal of Christopher Waltz’s character as Blofeld is done in a setting/location that is a composite of the most stereotypical Bond villain hideouts and locales.

One must wonder why they ever diverted the franchise off course if to only bring it right back on it after less than a handful of films. I liked the new direction the Craig films took. But Skyfall was more of a traditional Bond film, so there were really only two films that upended the franchise to chart a new modern course in the modern era of major motion pictures.

Die Another Day although not as bad as some remember, certainly jumped the shark with virtually every aspect of the Bond franchise. A reboot to some degree was warranted after the invisible car chase. But to come full circle and go right back to tongue and cheeky within ten years and four films of the gritty, edgy, more realistic 007 seems trite at best and lazy at worst.

I’m all about a return to the roots. Bring on the lazers, jetpacks, and sexual innuendo named women. Why not make the next film a tip of the cap to the Austin Powers? At times, that’s what Spectre felt like.

I never cared that the franchise was being upended and made grittier when the Craig era started. I cared that the money making franchise started making quality, stand alone, artistic films again. The previous films (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Skyfall) had cinematography that rivaled any other film that came out that year. The mise en scené of almost every frame was great filmmaking. A quest to make art seemed to replace the thirst to make more money.

Spectre was indeed a return to the classic Bond archetype. For better and for worse.

Those classic Bond movies were made for popcorn entertainment and for making money. Perhaps the gears of the money making machine that is modern motion picture making finally chewed up and spit out the artistic spirit of the franchises’ modern era. Perhaps that has something to do with director Sam Mendes and star Daniel Craig both vehemently stating they don’t want to return to the franchise.

Perhaps what is old is simply new again.

If that is the case, where can I place a substantial monetary bet that the title of the next Bond film will have the word Gold somewhere in it?

#TheEqualizer is to Man on Fire as #Prometheus is to Alien

Posted: October 26, 2014 in Meat Me @ Camera 4
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

mm@C4logo2ajclogo2by @anarchyroll
10/26/2014

Is it a prequel or not? I mean, it’s kinda the same movie. They’re kinda hinting at it. The names are different but it’s the same premise with the same character archetypes.

Wait, isn’t that the…?

Am I writing about Prometheus or The Equalizer?

Exactly

One of my personal favorite action movies is Man on Fire from 2004 also starring Denzel Washington as essentially the same character he plays in The Equalizer. The only difference is the drinking.

Does this sound like a critical review? Well if I liked Man on Fire then I certainly liked The Equalizer. The only reason a person wouldn’t be required to turn their brain off, kick back, and have a good time watching the gory action scenes is to wonder if this movie is in some way connected to Man on Fire.

The ex-CIA expert assassin is a character type that Denzel Washington has come to love playing in the twilight of his career. And he plays them well. Let’s be honest, Denzel Washington plays most if not every type of character well. He is one of the better American actors of the last quarter century.

The Equalizer, like Man on Fire is not rushed, there is an abundance of character development, dialogue, and build up before the explosion of action that comes at the climax. The end of the movie gets wrapped up in such a neat, bow wrapped package, there is no reason that Denzel’s character can’t go into the sunlight, get burned out on some new mission, and end up in Mexico City seeking work as a bodyguard.

The Equalizer is less about explosions and more about gory killings from both the antagonist and protagonist.

The supporting cast is a little weaker in Equalizer compared to Fire but neither movie is about the supporting cast. It is about Denzel’s acting and the innovation of the execution scenes, scenes plural, both films have a lot of gruesome executions.

Check out The Equalizer if you’re a fan of Denzel, films that don’t require thinking, or gory deaths.

#TMNT 2014

Posted: September 4, 2014 in Meat Me @ Camera 4
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
1

mm@C4logo2ajclogo2

by @anarchyroll
9/4/2014

Transformers fans and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles fans now have something in common.

No, a long anti Michael Bay rant is not forthcoming. When a person sees his name attached to a film and Megan Fox as the lead actress, one must know what they are getting before they buy their ticket. I grew up on the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I was completely unaware of their comic book, alien origin story until a year ago. I knew only of the turtles in the cartoons and live action movies 80s/90s.

My favorite Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, is Casey Jones. I was very disappointed to not see him in the movie at all. The camera time and character focus that could have been given to a Casey Jones was instead given to Will Arnett, cast as a comic relief sidekick for April O’Neil. As a fan of Arrested Development, I’m only half complaining. Half complaining is really all I can really do with this movie. There is enough good to at the very least balance out the bad, if not outweigh the bad.

The Good

  • The spirit/personality of all four turtles was unchanged
  • The look of each turtles was modified to make each look unique rather than the same with different colored bandanas
  • The Foot Clan use guns instead of swords which makes more sense in 2014 NYC
  • The jokes are funny
  • The action scenes are good

The Bad

  • The origin of the turtles and overall plot is basically the same as the recent Amazing Spider Man films
  • Too much Megan Fox for the first hour of the film (was to be expected)
  • No Kraang, Bebop, Rocksteady, Rat King, Baxter Stockman, or any other villains/henchmen
  • Tatsu was cast as a woman who did nothing of importance or impact at any point in the movie

Those who saw the movie may be wondering why I’m not complaining about the Iron Man esque Shredder. If I didn’t have a Shredder action figure from the 90s that basically looked just like the movie’s incarnation, it would have been at the top of my list. Also, the case can be made they just skipped right to Super Shredder, also no complaints there. Even the obligatory, unnecessary Michael Bay explosion just before the closing credits made me chuckle rather than shake my head.

I am happy that the movie made enough money to already warrant a sequel getting an immediate green light. Hopefully we’ll get to see some of the characters listed above who were missing in action this time around. 

The bottom line is this; if you didn’t grow up watching the cartoons and/or playing the video games in the 90s or 00s, there is absolutely no point in seeing this movie.

#GuardiansoftheGalaxy Keeps #Marvel Moving Forward

Posted: August 11, 2014 in Meat Me @ Camera 4
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

mm@C4logo2ajclogo2

by @anarchyroll
8/11/2014

Holy Howard the Duck was Guardians of Galaxy a good comic book movie!

The first time I heard of Guardians of the Galaxy was when the trailer debuted online earlier this year.

 

 

This film is yet another example that Marvel Studios does way more right than wrong and that all Marvel intellectual properties should be developed for the silver screen by Marvel and NOT third-party like Sony (Spiderman) or 2oth Century Fox (X-Men).

I saw the movie with a friend who owns all but two issues of Guardians ever printed. He informed me that the film was as true to the source material as any comic book movie that has come before it. That is another reason why Marvel Studios needs to make all Marvel movies. It is important that comic book movies be very close to their source material, more so than novels. Why?

My friend @TheFantom says it all the time and it’s truer each time I hear it; comic books are colorized, fully fleshed out, movie storyboards.

That doesn’t mean each comic book movie needs to be a shot for shot live action version of a comic. Hollywood needs to be able to do its thing and take creative license with the source material. But maybe let’s have one comic book movie that is a live action storyboard and see how it does in the theaters. It can’t do any worse than Ryan Reynolds’ Green Lantern disaster.

Guardians of the Galaxy is the opposite of disappointing. It was everything I want out of a summer blockbuster movie in general, and out of a comic book movie specifically. It had awesome action, great comedy, and intense drama all in the right places of a film that was neither too short or too long.

The opening scene of the movie is intense human drama, the very next scene is a comedic, musical, action scene. That sentence basically sums up Guardians of the Galaxy. The film does a good job at touching upon the full range of human emotions. I think that many women who don’t like comic book movies or big budget action movies would like this film for that very reason; the full range of emotions get their buttons pressed.

So whether you’re a casual movie fan or the human version of Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons, Guardians of the Galaxy will find a way to suck you into the screen and entertain you, regardless of whether you paid the extra fee for 3D. And these days, at these prices, that is all I ask of a movie.

Formally Studying the #Art of #Film & #Video Made me Less of a Cynical Critic

Posted: July 6, 2014 in Meat Me @ Camera 4
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1

mm@C4logo2ajclogo2

by @anarchyroll
7/5/2014

While getting my BA I took a decent amount of film classes. Between film, television, and video studies I took eight classes that focused on the history of or making of the electronic visual medium(s).

I used to be quite the amateur, wannabe, cynical critic of movies. I assumed that knowing the history, terminology, etc would make me an even sharper critic since I would have actual knowledge to go with my sarcasm and self-proclaimed high level of taste. Instead the opposite happened.

Learning about the visual art of film making from misé en scene, cinematography, editing, set design, rule of thirds, set design, and the history of film from Edison and the Lumiere Brothers to the first talkies to the second golden age of American film in the 1970s gave me a true appreciation for almost all films and major motion pictures, even the bad ones. I really grew to appreciate the effort that goes into making a movie/television show.

That doesn’t mean that I confuse shit for steak, but I often see the good in the bad films, and rather than spend time, effort, energy, and emotion throwing shade at a lackluster film, I just follow the “if you don’t have anything nice to say don’t say anything at all” paradigm.

I was and still am completely blown away by how much goes into making a movie. Even bad movies, even Michael Bay movies.

I thought studying film would turn me into a film snob who only liked avant-garde, black and white, indie flicks.

Instead my taste in film didn’t really change at all. In fact, the blockbuster movies I tend to see in movie theaters, I came to enjoy even more. Why? Because film is a visual medium. Big budget blockbusters are basically 100% tailored to be visual stimulation. Heaven knows most of them aren’t going to pull on the emotional strings based on their script(s). When I learned that nothing that appears on-screen of a film’s final cut is an accident, my appreciation and fandom grew.

My educated eyes allowed me to be more easily sucked into James Bond and comic book blockbuster movies, rather than more skeptical of them.

What I really learned in studying the history and processes of film, television, video production, directing, editing, cinematography, script writing and acting besides the terminology is an appreciation of each. That is why when I read cynical reviews online and in print all I see is bitter, childish, ego centered pouting by a failed artist/creator who now judges others. It’s why all of the film reviews I’ve posted on this blog have been pretty positive even though I have seen and written about some pretty underwhelming films.

I encourage anyone reading this to take a film history or art of film and video class. It will literally change the way you see what you see when you look at a screen, and that is a good thing.

#XMEN Days of Future Past is The First #Movie of its Kind

Posted: June 5, 2014 in Meat Me @ Camera 4
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1

mm@C4logo2ajclogo2

by @anarchyroll
6/4/2014

A sequel, a prequel, and a reboot all in one movie. Regardless of personal taste or opinion, X-Men Days of
Future Past deserves respect for being the first of it’s kind.

Those of us who have fond memories of the 1990s X-Men cartoon that aired on Saturday mornings finally got
the movie we have been waiting almost two decades for since the first film hit theaters. By that, I of course
mean sentinels, sentinels, sentinels.

I’m not fluent in the comics, the X-Men I know are from arcade games, video games, and animated tv shows. I
am still confused why it took fifteen years to get a sentinel movie. I’m sure it’s in the same line of thinking that
thought it a good idea to kill off Cyclops, not have Gambit, have Phoenix with no fire bird, and nothing but
Magneto for a villiain over the course of the first four films.

All is not forgiven or forgotten, but for my money all is made better in X-Men Days of Future Past.

I mean that literally and metaphorically. The details I won’t get too much into to avoid major spoilers.

Bryan Singer (the director) did his best work out of all the comic book movies he has made. The writing was as
good as comic book movies get. My two favorite scenes in the movie do not involve action or explosions.

The merging of the two eras of the movie franchise showed that the acting chops of the bunch goes to the
prequel group. Jennifer Lawerence, Michael Fassbender, and James McAvoy really shine as actors while
everyone else not named Hugh Jackman looked as they did in the original trilogy, like they were phoning it in
and didn’t respect the franchise they were representing.

I was happy to see Bishop and Quicksilver and was still left to wonder where the hell Gambit has been.
Apparently Gambit will be getting his own movie starring Channing Tatum. At this point, that character that is so
popular and has been that ignored, has probably earned his own trilogy.

I suppose there has been a fair amount of negativity in this review considering it’s my favorite X-Men movie by
far and is easily in my top ten comic book movies of all time list. For me thisine is right up there with Dark
Knight, Avengers, Spider-Man 2, Man of Steel, and the like. Certainly a cut above films likes of Green Lantern,
Fantastic Four (both), Amazing Spider-Man (both), and all the X-Men movies that came before it.

A great summer blockbuster that is the first of it’s kind in terms of franchise films. Good acting, good action, a
good tease for what is to come. X-Men Days of Future Past gets my endorsement and my excitement for where
the scene after the credits is taking the franchise. Fingers crossed for my main man Cable!

#Godzilla 2014 is Better than Just Better than the ’98 Version

Posted: May 21, 2014 in Meat Me @ Camera 4
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

MM@C4Logo1ajclogo2by @anarchyroll
5/20/2014

I was sold on the new Godzilla before I saw it. The trailer below absolutely blew me away and took away my fear of getting something on the silver screen worse than what we got from Matthew Broderick and company in 1998.

I still get goosebumps watching that trailer, and I have seen the movie.

The 1998 version set a very low bar for this movie to jump over, or just limp over. This movie took a giant leap over the bar set by any other monster movie before it.

The Godzilla movies that came before this one were paid homage to. A new precedent was set. This was not just a monster movie. This was not a campy movie. This was what it needed to be to relaunch the only movie franchise that predates James Bond.

The first monster you see, is not Godzilla. There is a non spoiler spoiler that should make you want to to see this movie more. If you don’t like monster movies or epic disaster movies, you won’t like this movie.  This is also not a campy movie. If you want to see a campy summer action movie, this is not it. Bryan Cranston will insure that you don’t look at this movie as campy. In fact, the first twenty minutes of the movie that is dedicated to his storyline is what I enjoyed as much as the city destroying monster fights.

This movie hits the full range of emotions. It is great summer time movie in every sense of the word.  It has made enough money to warrant a full reboot, but it has the quality of cinema to warrant one as well. I look forward to further installments in the series. In every sense of the term this is a not just good but a great summer time popcorn movie. Buy your ticket and enjoy the ride.

#RoboCop Reboot Review

Posted: February 20, 2014 in Meat Me @ Camera 4
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
0

MM@C4Logo1ajclogo2

by @anarchyroll
2/19/2014

The 2014 reboot of the RoboCop franchise has drawn a lot of ire since it came out. Surprise surprise, science fiction fans taking entertainment more seriously than their own life’s purpose. I read so many negative reviews on Twitter and in various news publications I went to see it expecting the worst. Though it was hard to imagine that a cast of Samuel Jackson, Michael Keaton, and Gary Oldman could be in a steaming pile of shit.

It’s funny, since studying film formally I have come to be less rigid about what I deem a good or bad film as opposed to more snobby or wannabe elitist. RoboCop is not War and Peace on film, it shouldn’t be confused with Gone with the Wind. It’s a fantasy movie about a cop who becomes a half man, half robot law enforcement machine. So check the rigid criteria for modern cinema masterpiece at the door and have some fun.

I have seen the original RoboCop, probably more times than I should have. Both incarnations satirize modern culture, both attempt to have heart, both development characters, both have all you can eat buffets of gunfire. One can dislike both or prefer one over the other, but I have a hard time seeing why a person would like the 80s version and not the 2014 version.

The movie feels slightly rushed as most movies made in the last twenty years do. But there is no shortage of time spent establishing why you as an audience member should care about the plight of Detective Alex Murphy. I could have used less mushy character development, but I appreciated it being there. There was a good balance between series acting time and lets fire off a ton of bullets time. I will say that this version is less bloody/gory than in the 80s version.

There are several obvious and subtle nods to the original film. My personal favorite was one of the villains saying “I wouldn’t buy that for a dollar.” I was surprised to see Murphy’s partner Lewis go from a white woman to a black man but whatever, as a second or third tier character it wasn’t a big deal and didn’t add nor subtract anything of substance to/from the film.

I enjoyed Sam Jackson’s parody of a Fox News anchor and the satire of drone based war drum beating. Abbie Cornish is forgettable as she usually is. Gary Oldman is Gary Oldman. Michael Keaton making a rare appearance this side of 1994 plays a far less menacing villain of Omnicorp than Ronnie Cox.  I can see that being a problem for some folks. Shout out to Jay Baruchel for doing his comedic thing in a supporting role to lighten the mood.

I thought Joel Kinnaman acted his ass off for a action sci-fi film. Peter Weller left big shoes to fill as Alex Murphy. If one sees this film and doesn’t like it, Kinnaman’s acting surely won’ t be a reason why.

RoboCop is worth checking out in the theater as action movies lend themselves better to the theater experience by nature. Check it on Netflix when it makes it there if you like the original and compare the two yourself. The door is left open for sequels, and I would LOVE to see RoboCop 2 get a remake. Taking a serial killer and putting him in a bigger, better machine. I think director José Padilha could do some good work with that idea. Plus it would be hard to do worse than the RoboCop sequels and shitty SyFy channel min series’ that no one who dislikes this movie cares to remember.

Older Entries