Big Eyes (2014)

Kicking off for the 600s of my reviews, the latest Tim Burton movie that I saw yesterday with my friend Blaine, Big Eyes.

Plot: Margaret Keane is a very talented painter who specializes in paintings of children with big, emotional eyes. Her work starts to become popular, but her husband Walter takes the credit for her paintings and uses them to become a national celebrity. So Margaret is conflicted with whether or not to allow Walter to keep lying and still make the painting for him.

I went to see this movie with Blaine with some fairly high expectations with the mere concept of Tim Burton working on a project that is so different from the majority of his work. And ultimately, the movie didn't disappoint me. What Tim Burton had to give with this film was very well acted and pretty colorful story about art, and the need to find your identity. As I said, this is a completely different film from Burton's usual work, and knowing that going into the film helped me appreciate the film not just as a story, but also as an art piece from Burton. That's not to say I dislike Tim Burton's art style as a film maker. Far from it - he's gives us some great films in the past. But I find it very admirable of Burton to go out of his comfort zone to try something so new. And he surprisingly goes all out in doing it: new kind of story, new setting, new genre, and especially a new cast. I thought for sure there would be at least one or two actors who have worked with Burton before but surprisingly - with Blaine to confirm it, being the giant Tim Burton fan that he is - all the actors where new. And what great performances the actors gave. Christoph Waltz was entertaining as usual - heck, what made his performance stronger was knowing that some of the familiar traits to his acting where things that the person his character was based off of did. And Amy Adams did an excellent job in giving us Margret and guiding us through everything that she is going through over the events of the movie. I also liked how the colors sometimes really stood out and made it seem like the background would look like a painting in a way. If I had any problem with the movie, I would say that the climax, while enjoyable, didn't feel very suspenseful. I won't say how, but the all around process of the climax seemed a little to easy. Also, I feel like we didn't get enough of a background of who Margaret was before she met Walter. Granted, maybe there really wasn't much to tell about that time and if it was ever relevant to her paintings like I kinda suspected it would, but it still feels like there's something missing.

And that's my review for Big Eyes. It's a very nice, enjoyable film that I really appreciate Tim Burton making. Heck, I'll add that it's so different that the only thing that it even hints that it's a Tim Burton film, is his name in the beginning credits. That aside, it's an enjoyable movie with a great cast, and a good story that is worth talking a look and admiring both as a film and as a change of pace from one particular artistic film maker.

Rating: 70%

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

We come to it at least people. All the other Lord of the Ring films, live action and animated are seen and reviewed, and many other planned reviews are finished, now let's finish this at long last with my 600th review; The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies.

Plot: After their encounter with Smaug, the Dwarves and Bilbo finally have Erebor in their possession along with all its gold. But then the people of Laketown who have just survived an attack from Smaug become allies with the Elves of Mirkwood and demand that the Dwarves give them the gold that they were promised. But Thorin who becomes infected with Dragon sickness refuses to give up any of his gold. Meanwhile, Gandalf arrives to warn everyone that an army of Orcs have come to claim the mountain. So the fight is one to defend the mountain and to finally stop Azog the Defiler and his forces once and for all.

Straight off the bat, I was very satisfied with this movie. Sure it's still no Lord of the Rings, but it was still a very epic, funny, action packed journey in Middle-Earth that brought the story of Bilbo and the dwarves to a very satisfying conclusion. The acting was great, most notably with Martin Freeman as Bilbo, giving use great reactions while also delivering some really dramatic moments. I really enjoyed how conflicted Thorin was with the dragon sickness while still giving some moments that showed that he still is the person that has been leading this company this whole time. I also liked Billy Connolly as Dáin. If you know a fair about that actor, than you should expect him to be as entertaining as possible with the role. I also liked the realtionship between Kili and Tauriel a lot more than I did in the second movie. While I've come to better terms with their romance even before I went to see this movie, I found their love to be more believable here. True, we don't get moments with them a whole lot either, but for the most part, it still works. But above all, I enjoyed the actual battle of the five armies. Complain all you want about how some things where not in the book like the giant earth worms, bats, and these different kind of trolls, but it made for a very long, yet very entertaining giant battle. It lived up to being a battle with multiple armies... even if there are more than one set of creatures in the case of the Orc armies which sort of makes it confusing with how it's supposed to be five armies. But what drives this movie more are the one on one (or two) duels between Thorin and his Dwarves and Azog and Bolg. They were exciting, thrilling, and one could make the argument that it really helped that there was almost no music during their fighting, they just let the scenes play would on their own. And the Necromancer fight with Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel and Elrond was a ton if fun to watch. And the song at the end credits, "The Last Goodbye" played by Billy Boyd, the guy who played Pippin in The Lord of the Rings, is just a great song to finish the trilogy with. Now with all this praise, there surprisingly are a number of critics who didn't like this movie. Either they disliked it because they kept noticing the CGI, or they just complained that it wasn't Lord of the Rings-like enough. I would agree that the CGI is more noticeable in this film than it was in the other two, but I personally don't mind it. It still was giving me a massive battle with these giant landmarks of Middle-Earth that are great to look at. As for it not being Lord of the Rings-like enough...well...that's just dumb. As many of people have stated before an apparently I should do also if people are still saying that, this shouldn't be something that has to be compared to The Lord of the Rings. It's the same world, it has some of the same action and characters, and in fairness, the Battle of the Five Armies is in some respects the closest thing The Hobbit will have to a big battle like the events of The Lord of the Rings films. But it's still NOT The Lord of the Rings. It's not supposed to be Lord of the Rings, and it shouldn't entirely have to be Lord of the Rings. I understand how it's a bummer that these films aren't giant masterpieces of cinema like the previous trilogy, but that is not a good enough excuse to automatically hate them, especially when, despite their flaws, they're still gives us great action, great characters, and so many different things about the creatures and places of J.R.R. Tolkein's brilliant world of Middle-Earth.

And that's my review for The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies. It may have it's flaws just like the first two films, but in the long run, it was a great final Hobbit film with great use of the characters, great action, new creatures, new parts of the lore of Middle-Earth that give the trilogy a satisfying conclusion. I'm glad with what they gave us for the last film, and I look forward to one day own the whole trilogy. So guys, that's 600 reviews. Thank you for reading, I hope you will continue to enjoy this blog, and here's to hopefully reviewing 100 more movies in the future.  

Rating: 90%

Logan's Run (1976)

Moving on with films from Blaine that I have yet to review, let's take a look at Logan's Run.

Plot: Set in the year 2274, the remnants of human civilization live in a sealed domed city, where a computer is used to take care of all life to the point where once people turn 30, they must undergo a ritual called "Carrousel" where they are to be "renewed. But not everyone is okay with this, and so they try to escape the ritual and are known as Runners and so this computer assigns Sandmen to kill them for defying the computer. One of the Sandmen, Logan 5, discovers a symbol of secret group where Runners find sanctuary. So the computer decides to assign Logan 5 to find the sanctuary and destroy it by adjusting his Lifeclock so that Logan 5 is forced to become a Runner so he can find the sanctuary.

In a way this film appears a little silly considering it's time, but that doesn't stop it from being good. Logan's Run gives us a well paced, dramatic action flick with pretty much everything that comes with it: down time for character development, chase scenes, fights, the whole deal. And it has something of a rather unique ethical moral about the concept of living long enough to grow old. It's better to see for yourself what I mean, but when you really think about it, the films message is something particularly different in comparison to most films. The rest of the elements of the film should either bother you too much, or otherwise be given a pass considering its time. While Logan 5 and Jessica 6 are nothing especially new in terms of main characters in an action film, you can still be invested what is happening to them to a degree. But the real things you can either be too distracted, or just ignore considering the time period are the effects and the costumes in the film. The effects, especially for the guns of the Sandmen where kind of goofy to me to the point where if makes sense that this was made less than a year before Star Wars: A New Hope. And all the colorful costumes that the people in this city wore, while having a little variety to them, where a little distracting in the extent where I couldn't help but think the shirts in Star Trek in a sense.

And that's my review for Logan's Run. It's really up to you as to whether or not you can look past the stuff where the film is sort of dated considering its time, but for me, I can look past those things enough to enjoy the film. It's a nice, action film that, despite whatever issues it has, has a nice story with a somewhat unique message to it that it's not a big action film, but it's still worth taking a look at and have a nice time watching.

Rating: 70%

Quest for Fire (1981)

Let's go back to reviewing movies that Blaine has shown me but I have not come across in reviewing, this is Quest for Fire.

Plot: The film centers around the people of the caveman tribe of Ulam who have this small fire that is used to create other fires. But after a bloody battle with an apelike tribe, they are driven from their caves and in the process of escaping, their fire tender unwittingly douses their small fire and so they are left defenseless because none of them know how to even create fire. So their elder send three men, Noah, Amoukar and Gaw on a quest to find fire and to bring it to their people before it's too late.

In many respects, this still a relatively simple story about the early human beings, but they deliver it pretty well. Quest for Fire gives us a very realistic looking yet somewhat fantasized look at this specific era. The characters do nothing but grunt, which can make it hard to understand what they're doing on occasion, but they still succeed in giving them their own personalities, goals and all around identities to the story. The costumes are also very realistic...thought with that being said, be prepared to see some human parts. I mean that kind of goes without saying considering the time period, but just know that you've been warned. And the action, for what it is with it mostly being just spears and such is done very well. If I had any problems with the movie, it would mostly be on how some scenes are harder to understand than others considering how things are done more in action rather than dialogue.

And that's my review for Quest for Fire. I know this is a short review, but that's mostly because what its delivering is very straight forward. It's a simple story about a quest for fire during the age of cavemen with a very realistic looking world and costume with good acting that give their characters their own identities despite the complete lack of dialogue. If you haven't seen it, give it a try... just, again, watch out for the revealing moments with their costumes.

Rating: 80% 

The Grinch (2000)

Well I said that I was going to review this movie, so now that the animated classic has been reviewed, here's my take on the live-action movie, The Grinch.

Plot: As you already know, The Grinch hates the whole Christmas season. So Little Cindy Lou, who believes everyone in Whoville is missing the point of the holiday, wants to find out why. She finds out through a few interviews with Whos who knew The Grinch growing up, that his hate for Christmas mainly comes a bad memory of Christmas from back when he was a kid. So Cindy Lou arranges for The Grinch to be the main participant of the Whobilation in order to try to get him into the Chirstmas spirit. Things go sour for The Grinch at the Whobilation, and so decides to find a way to stop Christmas from coming altogether.

Now I'm going to start by basically confirming that this film is nowhere near as good as the animated short. But at the same time, there is a part of me, even though I'm grown up and know better, that kind of respects this film for how it was giving us a longer and more detailed version of the story. I like the idea that we have more of a background story of The Grinch, even to the point where he did once have people who cared for him such as the old women who raised him and the girl Martha who has this lifelong crush on him. There was no doubt that it wouldn't be as good as the first film, but seeing it for the first time as a kid, I was all for it, and even now that I'm grown up, I still enjoy it...even if the flaws of the film are much more noticeable. I also liked that Cindy Lou has a bigger part in the story, to the point where she and The Grinch form some sort of relationship even before he tries to steal Christmas. With that said, this film definitely has some flaws. Some of them are self explanatory such as Jim Carry's performance as The Grinch. Now I will grant that I can see why people will find him amusing with all his over-the-top acting, some well delivered facial expressions, and admittingly, a couple of jokes here and there that I did chuckle a little at. But there were a few moments where he gets a little too carried away and delivers some of the jokes that are not only not funny, but pretty inappropriate for kids. And watching this film again, there are some of the well intended additions that weren't delivered all that well. Like Cindy Lou singing the song Where Are You Christmas, which the Faith Hill version is actually what got me interested in watching it again. The song has a nice, emotional concept to it, but when the girl that plays Cindy Lou sings it, it's a little distracting. But at the same time you simply have to give it a pass anyway because deep down, she really is trying her best considering her age and everything, and you can't really fault her for that. Plus, not even that is as much of an issue as the character of Martha as a whole. Now again, I really like the idea of a love interest for The Grinch, and in some respects, they deliver it pretty well... but watching it again, I noticed that Martha, especially as an adult, was...weird to say the least. I mean I like her as a kid where it's clear that she really cares for The Grinch, but when she's an adult... it was kind of messed up with how flirtatious she was over him. Like when Cindy Lou interviews her, she just doesn't hide at all how infatuated she was with him. Other Whos state how horrifying it was when The Grinch snaps when he was a kid during Christmas, and yet she comments about his muscles in the most seductive tone. Ultimately, it seems like both the young and old versions of Martha are completely different characters: one who really deeply cares for him and his truly hurt about what happened to him, and the one who still does, but mostly seems really eager to get to bed with him. And there where some aspects of the film that even as a kid I had problems with. One was the costume for The Grinch, which on one hand is very well done, and Jim Carry uses it very well...but at the same time, the 10-year-old me sometimes felt uncomfortable because there where moments when I couldn't tell if it was a costume, or a really naked person who is almost showing his junk. Also, the part where The Grinch goes on a rampage during the Whobilation was and overkill. Like it was alright at first (again, this is a kid watching the film not realizing some of the adult jokes), but then there's some big explosion that I thought just really killed the mood of where I thought the scene was going.

And that's my review for The Grinch. If you enjoy Jim Carry and really like getting the same story but with a few additions to it, I can understand why. But aside from that, it has too many adult jokes, has a weird character to be The Grinch's love interest, and several other aspects of the film that make it very easily inferior to the animated short. If you're curious about what this film adds, I think the additions to the story are worth seeing and admire to some extent, but otherwise, it's not worth it.

Rating: 45%

Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas (1966)

So Christmas is only a week away, and so I started to think about reviewing the live-action Grinch movie. But then I thought "why not the animated movie first since I likely would be comparing it to the live-action one?" So without further ado, this is the animated tv special of How the Grinch Stole Christmas.

Plot: The Grinch lives in a cave atop Mt. Crumpit, located above the village of Whoville. For 53 years, he's hated Christmas and wants to find a way to stop Christmas from coming. So he comes up with the idea to dress up as Santa Claus and sleighs down to Whoville to steal all the decorations and presents of Christmas in attempt to stop it from happening.

Guys...you know how how this review is gonna go down; it's a classic through and through. You all know the story, you all know the music, and it's just a fun piece of animation. I remember before my family owned the movie I would look forward to watch this special whenever I got the chance. It takes so many advantages with its animation from the interactions with The Grinch and Max to giving us all the wacky stuff that they have in Whoville. They really where creative with all the toys and games that the Who children would play from all of those musical instruments to that rollar blade game, Zoo Zieen Ka Zay. (Which truth be told, as a kid, I use to question how often they would actually play that game after Christmas. I mean after a while you'd think they would run out of material for stuff like the cloth for the entrance of those giant yellow pipes. But I digress)  And the voice acting, of coarse, is perfect for the narrator and the Grinch...and in some moments, Max. If I had a scene that was my favorite growing up, that would probably be when The Grinch and Max slide down their sleigh to Whoville. It's just a fun little piece of animation that helps make Max such a likable character. And then there's the song everyone knows: You're a Mean One Mr. Grinch. Who doesn't like this song? I think Doug Walker has a good point when he said that this is probably one of the first villain songs that have ever been made. It's a fun song that really goes deep into...well...the Grinch being so mean, for lack of a slightly stronger term.

And that's my review for Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas. What more do I really have to say about this? It's a holiday classic that everyone knows with its fun animation, likable characters, memorable songs and all around charming yet simple story. If you have not seen this film, you're missing out big time.

Rating: 100%

The Return of the King (1980)

So while looking forward to the last Hobbit movie, I eventually began to realize one little detail about the other Lord of the Rings films: I have completely neglected to review the animated Return of the King movie. I had intended to have all of the animated films reviewed in time for The Unexpected Journey, and yet I only have reviewed The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Umm...oops. So with all of that said, why don't I get this review out of the way in time for The Battle of the Five Armies.

Plot: The film begins with the 129th birthday of Bilbo Baggins. During the party, Bilbo discovers Frodo missing a finger, and so with the help of the minstrel of Gondor, Frodo and his friends tell Bilbo about his quest to Mount Doom and needing to be rescued by Sam from Orcs along the journey while everyone else is focused on the battle at Minas Tirith.

Now just like with reviewing the animated Lord of the Rings movie, I'm going to try to be unbiased about this film by comparing it less with its obviously highly superior 2003 counterpart. The problem is, while The Lord of the Rings gave us a nice, animated adaption of both The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, this films version of the final book is nothing short of a complete mess almost from beginning to end. Both times that I've watched this film, I get the feeling that even if the Peter Jackson films never came out, I would figure that people would be really confused with this movie - particularly how it picks up from the events of The Lord of the Rings. When we last see the characters in that film *WARNING, SPOILERS* the Grey Company had just won the battle of Helm's Deep, Merry and Pippin had come across Treebeard, and Frodo and Sam had just convinced Gollum to bring them to Mordor. Now at the beginning of this movie, Frodo is already captured by Orcs, the battle of Minas Tirith has already started, Merry is with Theoden, Aragorn is after the black ships, and Legolas and Gimli have completely disappeared. All of this is where the story starts at right after basically addressing the end of the story at the beginning of the film. So it goes from winning a big battle at the end of the previous movie, and then you have this one that basically begins saying "this is basically how the whole quest ended, and here's some elements here and there of what happened." Granted, I understand that adapting this story is hard to do. You are talking a story that was believed to be unfilmable for a long time, and your concluding it with a film only 98 minutes long. But that doesn't mean it's okay that you tell the story in a really clunky way where you give us just elements of the story rather than actual scenes. Because that's basically the majority of the film: lay out an element of the story, play a song, and then eventually move to the next element. In my review for the animated Hobbit movie, I criticized it for having way to many music numbers after almost anything that ever happens in that film. But I'm going to count my blessings with that film, because at least it had some variety. The majority of the music in this film is either hearing the songs Frodo of the Nine Fingers or The Bearer of the Ring for the 8th time each, or playing some other song while giving us some flashback about past events or a daydream of what would happen if they fail or succeed or something. And then you have the song Where there's a whip, there's a way. This is the most memorable song in the whole film, but it's also the most hated. While I can't say for sure why, it does have this sort of tone to it where I can't completely like it...even if at the same time, the tune is really, really catchy. If there were anything that I admit is good about the film to a certain degree, I would say that I do like how they give us some parts of the story that weren't in the Peter Jackson film. Namely things like the One Ring trying to corrupt Sam, Sam coming across the Watchers, and even seeing the Witch-King with his hood taken off.

And that's my review for The Return of the King. If you grew up with this film or just like to see a different interpretation of the story, maybe you'll like it to some degree. But for me, this movie as a whole is nothing short of a complete mess that brings little of the story justice with its messy structure and almost no genuine focus of characters aside from Frodo and Sam. If you just want to see something different than the Peter Jackson films, then give this a try, but I honestly think this is one movie to definitely skip.

Rating: 10%