Dracula (1958)

Well I may not get to do much personally for Halloween this year, but at least when I was last hanging with Blaine, he decided it was high time I take a look at what Christopher is best known for aside from being Count Dooku in the Star Wars prequels, Saruman in The Lord of the Rings, and various stuff from Tim Burton: Dracula. And how did this film itself turn out? Let's find out.

Plot: Johnathan Harker comes to the castle of Count Dracula to become the castle librarian. But secretly, he really is a vampire hunter, attempting to destroy Dracula. He succeeds in impaling the vampire women that Dracula had trapped, but in doing so awakes the count, sealing his doom. So it's up to his friend, Dr. Van Helsing to investigate what happened to his friend and attempt to succeed where Harker did not in destroying Count Dracula.

I honestly am not entirely sure what to especially say about this movie than what is more or less already said. Dracula delivers exactly what you would expect with giving us the story of Dracula with Christopher Lee performing as him, which he does a great job at. He's stern, calm and polite at first, but once its night time, he will be a vicious blood sucking killer...with barely any of the blood. In fact, I think RottenTomatoes says it best in the beginning of their consensus for the film as trading the gore for the grandeur. This is a well slow placed film that has a splendid style to it from the setting, to the events of the film themselves. And it has a very memorable cast. I thought the real interesting focus of this film for me was going to see a young Christopher Lee of all things, but no, I got much more than that; namely an also young Peter Cushing and Michael Gough (Grand Morf Tarkin from Star Wars: A New Hope and Alfred in the original Batman films) as Van Helsing and Arthur. If you consider how both actors look in the films I just listed to how they look in this particular film, You would probably be a little surprised at how young they are too. And when the film is suspenseful, it kept me interested and wanting to know if the protagonists where going to live. Now was it a really scary movie for me? Of coarse not. I mean let's be fair, this was made in 1958, and it's on a concept I know well about as much as the next guy. So naturally, I would not this this a scary as people would back then. But even with that said, I can see why people would be scared, because it is a thrilling movie that times its really dark moments with Lee very well.

And that's my review for Dracula. I honestly feel like I didn't say that much about this film, but at the same time I also feel like I don't really need to. It is simply a well acted movie with a great cast and a well slow paced story of Count Dracula with Christopher Lee as Dracula himself. I honestly think those elements are enough for the film to continue being memorable and classic considering the monster genre. So if you haven't seen this movie yet, definitely give it a shot. 

Rating: 100%

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)

A couple of weeks ago, I got together with Blaine again and he showed me a couple more movies. One of them was Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which we watched in a really small theater a little ways from where he lives. So here's my thoughts on the film.

Plot: Set ten years later after the events of Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the virus Will Rodman worked on has caused the collapse of human civilization. Since then, Caesar has formed an ape civilization in the Muir Woods while a group of humans who have survived the collapse live in San Fransisco. One human named Malcolm convinces Caesar to allow him and some other human to work on a dam in the woods so that they can have electricity in the city, and they begin to form a friendship. But things start to go uneasy between them as both humans and apes create a conflict, and Malcolm and Caesar have to find a way to prevent war between their races.
  
When talking about my thought about watching this movie, it's important to know that I would by little to no means consider myself a fan of this particular franchise. The first movie mainly just showed me what I already knew about the franchise just based on what I heard with things like a few moments from The Simpsons that have done parodies about it. Rise of the Planet of the Apes was not much of an improvement as it was better, but still had a predictable all around story. So it's saying quite a bit when I say that I found myself enjoying this movie to the point that I want to know what they're going to do in the next movie. Whereas the other two movies where really a means to just know what happened and I wouldn't really care, this one kept be interested almost from beginning to end. The apes themselves were interesting with how they have formed as a sentient civilization with Caesar as the wise and highly respected leader that you do not want to mess with. The human characters where likable too. Granted, most of them where characters that you have seen before, but at the same time, similar to the human characters in Rise of Planet of the Apes, the film does a good enough job in developing them to the point that you do root for them. The GCI is also much better. Some shots did come out as obviously fake to me, but even then, it was a nice improvement from the last film, particularly with making it visually helping us tell the ape characters apart. But the real heart of the movie is the conflict. Despite how much I expected it to, the story wasn't as predictable as I thought it would be. And a lot of that comes from how the whole situation isn't very black and white. Even with the antagonists in this movie, you can see their points of view and why they were so driven about what they were doing. The action was also pretty entertaining, which is great because since all I really remembered about the action in the last film was apes jumping off of buildings a few stories high and land on the ground fine. But here, it's bigger, darker, and much, much more entertaining. The only problems I have with this movie was that we didn't get as much time with Gary Oldman, and the first half hour of the movie did feel a little long for me personally.

And that's my review for Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. It was compelling, it's well acted, it has really good CGI, it had likable characters, and it all around succeeded where Planet of the Apes and Rise of the Planet of the Apes genuinely failed in terms of really entertaining me. Did it make me want to see more of the franchise? No. But it got me interested for what they'll do for the next movie, and that's still quite a win for the movie on my account.   

Rating: 90%

The Spongebob Squarepants Movie (2004)

So for a couple of weeks, I went through the earlier seasons of Spongebob Sqaurepants, in hopes of going through the entire show to find out how it went downhill as well as being ready for the upcoming sequel to this film; Sponge Out of Water. So let's take a look at the big movie that came before Spongebob's last, good season, The Spongebob Squarepants Movie.

Plot: Spongebob Sqaurepants becomes heartbroken when his boss, Mr. Krabs doesn't promote him as the manager of the second Krusty Krab restaurant because he is not mature enough. But when Plankton steals King Neptune's crown and sends it to Shell City and frames Mr. Krabs, Spongebob convinces Kind Neptune to give him 6 days to retrieve his crown and prove Krab's innocence. So the race is on for Spongebob and Patrick to retrieve the crown, unaware that Plankton has planned to use this to get the Krabby Patty formula. 

I realize just from writing the plot paragraph, that if you are not familiar with the show, you are not likely going to understand a good portion of what is happening in this film. But with that said, The Spongebob Squarepants Movie is still a fun movie to enjoy. In fact, for those of you who don't recall my review for Hey Arnold! The Movie or haven't read it, I gave examples of how theatrical movies based off animated TV shows work best if they give us a story of their characters going on a grand adventure that comes out as very epic and works unlike Hey Arnold! The Movie itself, which was bland movie and shockingly had little to no energy. And The Spongebob Squarepants Movie was one of those examples I gave. This film does give us a grand adventure that Spongebob hasn't come across before. And it pulls it off very well. We get Spongebob and Patrick going somewhere beyond Bikini Bottom, they comes across all these different obstacles, and Plankton finally gets the Krabby Patty formula. All of this at the time worked in giving us something that the characters haven't come across before. But they still give us the comedy and charm that Spongebob and his friends at Bikini Bottom have, while also expanding the world of Spongebob Squarepants. Including giving us new characters such as King Neptune and his daughter Mindy, voiced by Jeffrey Tambor and Scarlett Johansson (yeah imagine that today, Black Widow in Spongebob Squarepants), and even Alec Baldwin as Dennis, who I personally think did a pretty decent job disguising his voice. All three of these new characters have their likable moments. Although I will say that as a kid and even now that I'm grown up, I can't help but wonder why Neptune and Mindy never made any future appearances in the show. I mean sure, they wouldn't be there all the time, and they probably wouldn't be voiced by Tambor and Johansson again. But at the same time, I always felt we could've gotten more stories with those two. I mean what about Patrick's crush on Mindy? That went pretty much nowhere in this movie, so why not give a little more to that in episodes that take place after the film? But I digress. The music also has its memorable moments too...even if most of them are memorable in a love/hate kind of catchy way. There is no doubt that there are some people who really hate certain songs like Best Day Ever and especially The Goofy Goober song. But the same time, both songs come off as a lot of fun and really catchy to listen and sing to. And then there's the real focus in the film, on Spongebob and Patrick. Like I said before, they both succeed in giving us the comedy and charm that makes them likable...even if some of the jokes they pull come out as a lot more weird now that I'm grown up. Which brings the need to point of that it really depends on your sense of humor on whether or not you would like this film, or even the show for that matter. Now if there's one personal problem I have with the film that I honestly am kind of glad they will be fixing in some degree in the next movie, it would be that we don't exactly get enough of other characters in the show like Squidward, Gary, Mr. Krabs and Sandy. All of these characters are just as likable as Spongebob and Patrick in their own way, and yet neither of them have much to contribute to the film aside from Mr. Krabs' dilemma moving the plot along. 

And that's my review for The Spongebob Sqaurepants Movie. It's a fun, goofy movie with strange with mostly enjoyable humor, likable characters that are either from the show or are made just for the film, and a story that works in giving the characters a big adventure that makes it work as a movie made from an animated TV series. Now am I going to continue going through the whole show? Well...no. I mean I'll watch season 4 and some other episodes here and there that I hear are a little good, but from what I've seen from videos about the show from YouTube video reviewer; TheMysteriousMrEnter, the show really has gone to crap. In fact I think it's safe for me to say just based on what I saw from his videos, that even compared to other shows that I've seen lose its touch in later seasons, what has happened to Spongebob recently is ...atrocious. But I still hope to see Sponge Out of Water when it hits the theaters. I don't expect it to be good but...eh, it could be enjoyable in some way. So stick around to see how that turns out in a few months.

Rating: 70%

Harry and the Hendersons (1987)

Okay, so this is the second movie I borrowed from Blaine before I recently went to his place last Friday before he showed me a couple of other movies and gave me a couple more to borrow and watch, which is where most of my next couple of reviews will revolve around. So let's take a look at Harry and the Hendersons.

Plot: The Henderson family accidentally hit a big furry creature that they begin to think is Bigfoot. So they take it home, trying to think about what to do with it, while the being starts to wreck their house. They eventually begin to grow fond of the creature and being to name it Harry, but things get more complicated when a hunter is trying to hunt the creature down.

Now this was not an easy movie to get to finally watching. Most of it was because of work and school and other things, but also because I was nervous on what I was going to think of it once I did watch it. When Blaine gave this movie to me, he really wanted me to give this movie a genuine try because he really likes it because of the makeup and how he found the movie to be very heart feeling, and he figured that just by looking at the DVD case that I would quickly think that the movie was not going to be anything special for me. And true to his expectations, I thought this movie was going to come out as very cliche, but I was willing to give it my best shot. Eventually I watched the movie and ultimately, I did in fact find moments when it was being heart feeling, as well as being cute and having nice makeup considering it's time...but I also found the cliches that I was expecting. But let's start with the things that's good about the movie. Firstly, the majority of the family are likable enough. The boy had a couple of cute moments, and the parents had some well acted moments. In fact, as heart feeling as the moments were with Harry, I honestly liked the moments with the father much more. I just can't help but like how he was having such a hard time with the whole deal about helping Harry while also trying to please his dad and having his wife be proud of how he was growing as a person during the events of the film. And I'll add that while nothing made me laugh, there are some moments that I did find to be a little funny. Also again, while I am no expert in make up, I can see how what they did for Harry in that department was worthy of an Oscar considering it's time. Now what is the bad stuff with this movie? Well...pretty much everything else from where I'm standing. Granted, the movie still is not without its charm, but it really does have very cliche beats to the story and just as cliche characters that did distract me. In fact, I said the majority of the family are likable, because the daughter was pretty much the least interesting character in the film. She pretty much was the snotty girl that was worried about her social status. And while she does get better as the film went on, I honestly didn't really care. Really, if you've seen this kind of story a lot of times before, you're probably not going to enjoy this movie a whole lot.

And that's my review for Harry and the Hendersons. It's a little hard to think of what to say about it. On one hand, it really is a cliched movie that has characters that are not very interesting. But on the other hand, Blaine was right in saying that there really is a charm to the movie with its decent jokes, good makeup considering its time, and gives heart feeling moments that did work for the most part. So I guess ultimately it's give and take with whether you would like the film or not. I for one liked that I did find some of the nice moments Blaine was talking about. And while I don't praise it as much as he does, I will give it a roughly okay rating for the little things that I liked.

Rating: 60%

American Hustle (2013)

Alright, So I've borrowed a couple other movies from Blaine that I had not had a chance to watch until recently, so here is my review for one of those movies, American Hustle.

Plot: In 1978, con artists Irving Rosenfeld and Sydney Prosser have start a relationship and develop a partnership in conning people. But eventually they are busted by an FBI agent named Richard "Richie" DiMaso, but he also offers to let them go in exchange for using their conning skills for other arrests that eventually include taking down some political people. This causes drama to Irvin and Sydney's relationship with them having trouble trusting each other, on top of Irving dealing with his wife, Roslyn and caring for his son, Danny.

Now I've heard kind of positive but generally mixed things about this movie. My dad and two of my siblings went to see it in theaters and thought it went way too long to the point where they eventually left the theater, and I saw Nostalgia Chick show a parody picture of the poster where the headline more or less says "It's a good movie...we think." Now is it actually a good movie? Yes. But do I also see where people seem to be coming from in terms of not entirely praising it at the same time? Uh...more or less, yes. But let's talk about what's good first. What really makes this a good movie is the performances. This film right off the bat gives us a great cast; Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper, Jeremy Renner, even an uncredited appearance from Robert De Niro, and all of them give out terrific, energetic performances. They establish who these people are, what their goals are, what they're experiencing through this whole series of events, and they all do a fantastic job. Christian Bale does a great job with giving us a new character that you may notice at the beginning of the film, that he once again changes his body to get into the role. Amy Adams and Bradely Cooper do a great job in showing how their characters are having a deep conflict about their selves through the events of the film, and Jenifer Lawrence seem to get the most hype with her energetic performance as Roslyn. (By the way, am I the only one who finds it a little weird that this movie has Christian Bale and Jenifer Lawrence as a married couple? Especially considering how Bale is 40 and Lawrence is basically my age?) But even with the performances on top of the story itself being interesting, the movie does have some flaws. As I said, my dad and two of my siblings eventually left the movie being much to long. And while I personally never quite got that when I saw the movie, I will say that looking back, I will agree with them, as well as Jeremy Jahns that the film had too many things happening. In fact, it's possible that more stuff happened than I remembered happening (though I could be wrong). Granted, none of those moments for me felt like they were really dragging, because they still were giving us this great cast that was giving us all of these great performances the entire time. But I will say that some scenes where probably not needed because they seemed to have distracted me from what is happening to the main characters. Now the second problem, at least from my perspective is from a point Jeremy Jahns makes about this movie as a comedy. He says in his review for the film " If I didn't know that it was a comedy because it was nominated for a Golden Globe for a comedy, I would just think it was a hustle movie that has really awkward moments in it." And I pretty much agree with him because I had no idea that this was a comedy until I heard him say that in his review. Just from seeing trailers, pictures and the poster for the movie, it did not strike me as a comedy at all. So when I watched those moments where it was suppose to be funny, I may not have found them awkward per say, but as far as I was concerned, the movie was giving me moments like Bradely Cooper beating up his boss with a telephone that was just there to roughly move a part of the story along.

And that's my review for American Hustle. It somewhat has too many things going on in it, and the comedy doesn't work at all unless you watch it knowing it is a comedy, but aside from that, it still is an entertaining film with an interesting story, and great performances from a terrific cast. I can see why this movie did not really stand a chance against 12 Years A Slave for best picture, but it still is a nice energetic film that is entertaining enough film to see.

Rating: 80%     

Capote (2005)

Okay, I know I didn't really do anything in honor of Philip Seymour Hoffman after his death earlier this year (my apologies to all Philip Seymour Hoffman fans everywhere), so I hope I more or less make up for that by reviewing the one movie where he won Best Actor in a Leading Role that I just watched recently, Capote.

Plot: At a farm in Kansas, a family friend discovers the Clutter family to have been murdered in their homes. This interests writer, Truman Capote to write a document about what happened, ao he travels to Kansas, taking his childhood friend Nelle Harper Lee with him and interviewing the people who were involved with the victims. But eventually, the murder suspects, Perry Smith and Richard "Dick" Hickock, are caught, and once Capote begins to interview Smith in particular, be begins to grow an attachment to him and starts to turn his document into a book and tries to use it to try to defend the suspects.

If I can sum up how this movie turned out in one word, I would more or less go with saying that it was riveting. Because while the matter of what Capote is apparently trying to do from the beginning is interesting enough, it's Hoffman's central performance that, over time, makes the journey in the film very compelling. The real heart and focus of the film is of coarse on Capote and how this entire thing is a very significant period in the writer's life. Which is not to say that there is no significance to everything else in the film, because there is. Clifton Collins Jr. also gives us a great performance as Phillip Smith. And just having someone like Catherine Keener give us Nelle Harper Lee, the writer of To Kill A Mockingbird mine you, on top of bringing up both her book and the film was a nice little addition of the movie. But at the end of the day, what leaves the biggest impact is Hoffman's performance. Because what debatably makes this film the most compelling is how Hoffman gives us all these different layers to Capote. We see him be the center of attention at a fancy party, we see him hanging out with his partner or Nelle Harper Lee, we see him try to write, we see him try to be a friend for Smith, we see all these different elements of him, and it's basically left unclear as to whether or not any of it is real. Hoffman created this character to become so complex, that it's really left to interpretation as to whether Capote is wearing a make while he's in public while showing his real self when talking to Smith, or vice versa. Heck, one can make the argument that not even Capote himself knows. And I think that especially is what made this performance debatably Hoffman's best to the point where he definitely deserved to win Best Actor, as well as being what really made this film really special.

And that's my review for Capote. It has an interesting story and some other great performances besides Hoffman, but it was Hoffman himself that made the film work by giving us a character that has so many different elements to him that makes the entire story compelling and so gives us the real heart of the film. If you have not seen this movie and maybe don't even know that much about Philip Seymour Hoffman, I think this is a great movie for you to take a look at.
Rating: 100%

Looper (2012)

Okay so I've been busy with work and school recently, and Blaine just recently showed me a few films, so I'm trying to catch up before I get even busier in October. With that said, let's take a look at a movie that has been getting a lot of praise but I had yet to actually see until recently, Looper.

Plot: Set in 2044, Joe is working for crime syndicate as a Looper. Basically, time travel is made in 2074, and a man from that time named Abe hires Loopers to kill victims from the future that are set back in time. But when the next victim Joe is hired to kill turns out to be older him from the future and escapes, it's up to him to hunt him down and finish his job and find out what future him is after.

This was a much smarter film than what I expected. Looper is a very clever film with the futuristic world they created, it's story, and especially with it's characters . They didn't make it so that every single thing has been made to look futuristic, and even with the stuff that is made futuristic, they don't go full CGI with it. They make the futuristic world look like it's still our world, but with just a couple more features, and a lot of it is relevant to the story, which makes it even better. And a lot of the stuff they explain about time travel makes sense. I do say only a lot, because there is one scene that has something to do with time travel that even my brother Johnathan, who has this movie tied as his fifth favorite film of all time, has no idea how that particular moment makes sense, especially since they don't explain that moment at all. But then again, it's possible that they might've wanted to leave that moment for interpretation for the audience, so I'll let that part slide. The story is also far more layered that I made it appear to be on the plot paragraph. If I said anything else, I probably would be giving too much away for those of you who have not seen this movie. Finally, there's the acting. Joseph Gordon-Lovett and Bruce Willis both give fantastic performances. The film does a great job in making them visually look more or less like they are the same person while also making it clear how these are also characteristically living different points of Joe's life. But by far the most memorable performance in the entire film is from the kid actor, Pierce Gagnon as Cid. Good golly was this kid a remarkable actor in this movie. And at roughly 7 years old to boot. I would argue that he's almost a little too good because, while not giving anything away for those who haven't seen this movie, this kid more or less does a fantastic job...of creeping me out. Yeah, laugh all you'd like, but really, there are moments where this kid really comes out as honest-to-my-autism scary. You can keep the kid from The Omen (original, not the remake), this is the kid that gives the creepiest kid performance I've ever seen.

And that's my review for Looper. It was very smart with its futuristic world, it gave us a much more layered movie than you probably would've expected, and it gives us great performances from Joseph Gordon-Lovett, Bruce Willis, and, most notably for me, Pierce Gagnon. If you have not seen this movie, I definitely recommend that you take a look at it.
Rating: 95%