Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)

Rating: 90%
Alright so I finally got my hands on the version of Mutiny on the Bounty that DID win best picture back in the 30's. so here's how that turned out.

Plot: The Bounty is making its way to Tahiti under the command of Captain William Bligh. It's mission is to transport breadfruit to Jamacia. But the journey becomes difficult when Bligh's choice of discipline and lack of care for the lives of his crew disgusts his second-in-command, Fletcher Christian. Eventually this leads to the crew wishing to start a mutiny against Bligh.


Okay, so what makes this version better then the Marlon Brando one? Well firstly, it's shorter which means it doesn't drag so much as the other one did. But it's mainly because the characters are much better in this one. I kind of began to care for the supporting characters a little more then the ones in the Brando version because I thought they were somewhat more developed and more caring that some of them like Thomas would turn out alright. As for Clark Gable and Charles Laughton being Christian and Bligh respectively, they were much better then Brando and Howard. Gable was more of the kind and caring Fletcher Christian that made him appear more of a hero then Brando by comparison. As for Laughton, he had more expression with how evil Bligh is. I mean with Howard, you see Bligh as just the captain during a fair portion of the first half our or so from the Brando film, which means it's not until they're a ways into the sea that you start to get a hint that the guy's evil. But Laughton knows that Captain William Bligh is evil and once he first appears in the film, he doesn't hesitate to practically shove that fact right in your face. In fact the was probably more evil then possibly Howard's Bligh ever could, which is what clearly makes Laughton's worthy of being one of the top villains in the AFI list of heroes and villains.

And that's my review for Mutiny on the Bounty 1935. It's pretty much the same thing as the 1961 version, but it's shorter and the they made the characters much better which makes it a more enjoyable movie then what the Brando film gave us.

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted (2012)

Rating: 80%
Here's the last film that my family and I watched on Black Friday and the one I enjoyed the most. I did say in my review to the first film that I wanted to see this film considering how well it did int he box office.

Plot: The film starts off with the penguins flying off to Europe with the intention of coming back to bring Alex, Marty, Melvin and Gloria back to New York. But after a while, Alex feels that they are getting old, so they decide to head to Europe so they can retrieve the penguins and go home. But things don't go so well as while they find the penguins, they are being chased by Animal Control officer Captain DuBois who has a special desire to have the head of a lion as a trophy. They escape in a circus train claiming to the circus animals that they are also from the circus. When the gang finds out that this circus is trying to impress a promote in London so that the circus can go to America, they try to work together with the circus animals to try to create a completely different circus that would wow the promoter.

This was actually a really enjoyable movie. I mean my main issue is that the story was predictable on some of the main areas. But it easily made up for it. The animation was SO much better particularly in the second half where we see how the circus turns out, the jokes were an awful lot of fun and the characters were very enjoyable. I mean you have Vitaly who is a russian tiger (which is where he automatically gets points since that's my favorite animal) who was the inspiration to the entire circus, and then there's that bear that King Julien has that weird romance for, (though I probably liked her just because she was voice by Frank Welker) but my absolute favorite was Captain DuBois. Holy frick was this woman messed up. Her energy, her movement, her strength, her undying determination to have Alex's head is just one of the craziest things you could see in a film like this. And my family and I (or at least I for sure) enjoyed all of it. But what I also really enjoyed about this movie is how they were trying to take things completely different with the idea of being of a circus. I mean just that main idea of trying to take things differently and just how they did it was just amazing to me.

Altogether, I still have my hopes for Wreck-It Ralph winning best animated feature this year, but this was a hilarious, fun enjoyable movie that certainly wouldn't be the worst thing for Wreck-It Ralph to lost to if it doesn't win.    

21 Jump Street (2012)

Rating: 75%
Okay so here's the second movie I saw with my family on Black Friday, 21 Jump Street.

Plot: Morton and Greg are former classmates from high school who eventually become best friends at their police academy. They have trouble trying to arrest criminals due to Greg not knowing the Miranda rights so their chief transfers them to 21 Jump Street where they are to go undercover as high school students trying to find the person who supplies some new drug that high schoolers are using.

Okay I had zero confidence in this film. I mean I just thought that the whole thing was going to be completely stupid and that were wasn't going to be a darn thing that could change my mind without seeing it no matter what my friends in film school say. I mean it looked stupid and that it would have a lot of cliches. But I turned out to be half right with this particular film. I mean the story isn't structured too creative but they did have some pretty funny and clever jokes...even when some of them were the kinds that I hate thanks to my experience with the second Hangover film. Really it was the second half of the film that really made this film fun with all the action, jokes and some parts of the story that was awesome. The main characters were more fun then I thought they would be even when sometimes the things they did didn't always make a whole lot of sense.

Altogether, 21 Jump Street may have its cliches and stuff that some people like me would be more disgusted then amused with, but they still gave us some smart and well thought of jokes and points of story that actually makes the film an enjoyable time.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012)

Rating: 15%
Alright so this Black Friday, my dad has rented a bunch of recent movies for the family to watch. So here's the first one we saw; Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.

Plot: Back in 1818, Abraham Lincoln was only a boy when his mother was murdered by a man named Jack Barts. He comes back to his old home years later to try to avenger his mother's death but Barts overpowers him and is about to kill him when a man named Henry rescues him. Henry reveals himself to be a vampire hunter and agrees to train Abraham Lincoln to become one himself so he can kills vampires and work his way to get another shot at Barts.

Yeah. It's pretty bad. I mean when we were only about 4 minutes into the film, my mother was already saying "Abraham Lincoln must be in Heaven with his hand on his face." I mean as if the concept wasn't a big enough gamble as a film, then there's the fact that it does bring up dozens of the biggest cliches you can think of, while the action looks cool, it's also very unrealistic and silly in a fair amount of areas, there was a fair share of plot holes and I think what my brother's friends said when they were telling him about it  before we saw this film brought out the best point when they said that it takes itself too seriously. I mean when my friends and I were hearing about this film, I imagined that the whole time, Lincoln would already be an expert vampire hunter in the film and that part of this film is just about a young man who has the hots for some cute brunette is just learning to become one from him and a bunch of other guys. I understand that this is actually how it's written in the book, but I think this would've made it better is with was more silly light-hearted then serious. Because honestly, that's more the kind of film I imagine most people (particularly around my age) would think, when they hear "a movie where Abraham Lincoln is fighting vampires." I mean this take on it is okay, but it destroys whatever suspense or drama they were trying to give when we know that pretty much all of the main characters will live thanks to knowing our history.

And that's my review for Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer. It's a nice time at least if you like mindless entertainment, because that's really what it is: mindless entertainment with cliches and plot holes and a story that wouldn't exactly make our great late President's day, let alone ours.  

Braveheart (1995)

Rating: 90%
Well I've finally come to it at last. Reviewing Braveheart as my 375th review. Nuff said.

Plot: In the 13th century, King Edward I of England (but really known in this film as Longshanks) invades and conquers Scotland. As a result, young William Wallace faces the death of his father and brother who were leading a rebellion and was taken to be educated by his uncle. He comes home years later where he marries his childhood sweetheart Murron. But when he tries to rescue her from a couple of English soldiers that result in her being publicly executed, he kills all of the soldiers in the village and rounds up fellow Scotsmen to start a way for independence against the English.

Straight off the bat, I like this movie. I enjoyed the story, I liked the characters, it was big, dramatic, sometimes funny, sometimes sad, and gave us one of the most epic, realistic, and graphic action scenes ever made. Now I have somewhat heard that this movie isn't getting as much praise as it use to, to the point that it's been viewed as the number 1 worst best picture winner as of 2005 according to Empire magazine. Although personally I don't think they really know what they're talking about considering that this is actually a good movie and that as far as their list goes, they don't even put in some of the actual worst like Cimmaron, Out of Africa and Shakespeare In Love. So in my opinion, their argument is invalid. But this film also has a lot of issues with historical inaccuracies. I mean not having some inaccuracies is something that's going to be hard to do anyway since most of what's really known/possibly known about William Wallace is in legend or from the epic poem from 15th century minstrel, Blind Harry. But even I have to admit that some of the inaccuracies make me think "Okay, this is what was actually going on at the time with this character. This movie is pretty misleading that way." But despite that, it's still an enjoyable movie that is still telling us a good story That was well put together.

And that's my review for Braveheart. So I'm getting close to reaching 400 reviews which is exciting. Till then, watch out for some other reviews over the weekend as my family and I are soon to rent a couple of films and take a look at that. So see you then.

The Life of Emile Zola (1937)

Rating: 90%
Okay so today I finally found myself the time to see The Life of Emile Zola. So here's my review for it. Nuff Said.

Plot: Emile Zola is a french writer who eventually starts to become famous when he writes his first bestseller; Nana, based on the stories told from a street prostitute that he rescued from a police raid. Over the years he writes many bestsellers and as he gets older, he starts to retire and enjoy the comforting life of living in his mansion with his wife. But when a secret french agent steals an important document that is meant for a military officer in the German emissary, the top french army staff decide to accuse an innocent captain as the traitor and imprison him in Devil's Island even when they find the real traitor. So when word gets out to Zola, he eventually tries to make a case to set him free.

Surprisingly, I actually liked this movie. I mean I enjoyed it a lot more then what I was hoping I would. The story was very interesting and very well paced particularly with the first half. I mean the first half of the movie is what got me really invested in this main character which made me even more into this film once the main story kicked in. As the movie went on I just became more and more curious as to what was going to happen. And I didn't expect that to happen to me in the slightest. I mean I was hoping for a good film, but I didn't expect for me to practically be on the very edge of my seat (so to speak) before I was probably even 15 minutes into the movie. But the face of the matter is, who can blame me? On top of the story we get some really good acting, - including a really nice monologue from Emile Zola - well written dialogue and really displays the marveling history on how bad things were with the legal system and the view of the main staff of France. And that's what makes Zola a really good character. I mean he was interesting already when we were getting to know the guy, in the beginning of the film, but when he tries to set this captain free that's when you start to root for the guy.

So all around, this best picture winner is easily a really enjoyable movie to watch and one that I would definitely recommend.   

The Legend of the Titanic (1999)

Rating: 0%
*sigh* yes everyone I actually saw this film...well technically. I mean when I say that I saw this film, I mean I really just watched my brother's commentary video on youtube where he plays the entire movie while making fun of it via voiceover. Sadly, however often my brother did commentary throughout the film, i basically saw and heard enough where it basically counts that I actually watched it. And even if watching his commentary doesn't count somehow, it is still more than anyone should ever see of this movie unless you're watching it through Doug Walker's video review for it. Anyway, let's get this over with.

Plot: Conners is an old mouse that lives in New York who is telling his grandchildren the "real" story of the Titanic explaining that no one actually died when it sunk. ( for those of you who don't know about this film at all until now, you have my permission to take as much time as you like to process what I just said...if you can...before reading the rest of the review.) So the rest of the film goes into a flashback were Conners is a young sailor for all of the mice that are sailing the Titanic. Meanwhile, a woman named Elizabeth is sailing on the titanic while her father plans to force her to get married to an evil whaler. But then Elizabeth befriends some dolphins who can talk to her after one of her tears falls on one of them giving her the power to speak to them through moon magic and find out that they are on a crusade against whalers.

Is this completely confusing you everyone who's reading this review and have never heard of this movie? IT SHOULD! I mean the main thing that's wrong with this movie is that in this "version" of the story of the Titanic, the Titanic hits the iceberg because a group of evil sharks who are in league with the evil whaler, trick a giant octopus to throw the iceberg right in front of the ship, and then the octopus realizes what happens and so saves everyone on the ship (yes I mean EVERYONE lives. as in nobody dies. Not even the band or Captain Smith died.) and then it seems that the octopus dies doing this but then he turns out to be alive along with another mouse that was believed to be dead and everybody lives happily ever after with everybody alive. I know! What is wrong with these people!?! And the things is, when you look at this movie as a whole, they didn't even need to say that this is the actual ship or the actual event into this film to begin with. With the kind of stories that they were telling and with the fact that they were trying to tell it as an animated movie with mice that are often talking about protocol, a war against whales, dolphins and moon magic and stuff like that, I think saying that this was on the Titanic was forced. It would've made much more sense if they just made the movie without even really giving the ship the name or say it contains the same event. They could've just made the film more their own thing rather then a loose 'adaption' of the story of the Titanic and just say that they got the concept for the movie from James Cameron's film. I mean if you want to make a movie based on the concept of another film or event, that's fine. But part of the idea to that is that you leave that actual event or film out of your movie. I mean the thing is that nothing really 'says' if you will, that it's the Titanic. I mean at least with the first animated Titanic film they had the animation of the ship and the passengers and stuff like that make it look like it's from that actual era. Here, they don't even really clue in any famous people from the Titanic or make us believe it is. The band is there for three seconds and are playing in a LIFEBOAT when they are shown and Captain Smith just has a mustache instead of a beard. The whole thing is just unnecessary. Of coarse even if they did do that, it's still a horrid movie. The animation is horrible to the point where they don't really even really bother in trying to make anyone's mouths move, the characters are terrible, the whole organization of the way they're telling all these stories is beyond sloppy, the voice acting is bland and out of place, it- it's just a terrible movie to the point that the way they made it was less then amateur.

All around. This is one of the worst 'movies' ever made that was just poorly done whether they brought up the ship or not. But the fact is they did and ended it with such an ending that utterly dishonors and insults not just us, every every single person who died on the Titanic.