Jack The Giant Slayer - Written Review

FINALLY!!!  I bitch about how much Hollywood screws up movies based on classic stories like Snow White and Hansel & Gretel.  That writers, producers, and directors are WAY too liberal with creative license and they end up making a movie (in most cases, a steaming pile of crap) that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the story it was based on.  They finally did it right!!  Ladies and gentlemen Bryan Singer has done the impossible and didn't f*ck up the story of Jack & the Beanstalk with, Jack The Giant Slayer.

Not to be confused with Jack the Ripper.

I can't get over this.  They did it.  They finally did it!  This is how you make and adaptation, people!  You don't bastardize the story the movie is based on.  You don't reorganize or kill off characters that aren't killed off in the original story - especially if they're killed off for no reason.  You don't drop or rewrite key elements of the story.  You don't rewrite key phrases that that story is known for.  You just DON'T.  Everything else is more or less up for tweaking.  Did this story have a guy named Jack?  Yes.  Did it have a beanstalk?  Yes.  Giants?  Hells yes.  Did Jack end up killing any giants?  Spoiler: (if the title wasn't a give away) Yes!

Yay, for fanservice!

So far I've just been talking about the fact they did a good job with the adaptation.  Onto talking about the movie.  It's not easy turning a kids movie into an action fantasy aimed at adults.  I have to admit that I was a bit on my guard going into this movie because it was pushed back 9 months.  It was originally supposed to be out in theaters last June, but for some reason got pushed back.  Usually being pushed back is a HUGE red flag for a movie.  I can make a long list of movies that got pushed back and ended up sucking hard when they were finally released.  Pathfinder and Season of the Witch come to mind.  So I was really pleasantly surprised when this one was actually really good.  Byran Singer might not have the strongest movies, but he's never made anything that sucked.

Not sure if giant telekinesis or blowing kiss.

In conclusion, Jack the Giant Slayer was a good movie.  Now, good on what grounds?  For an action fantasy film about giants who leave in a land among the clouds who try to take over the world and are stopped by a farm boy, a princess, and a knight it was freakin great!  This is a much more serious and action-filled story then the one you read as a kid.  Was it a good movie?  Yes, yes it was.  Was it a serious movie?  For the most part.  How serious was the movie?  I answer with a question: how serious are you expecting a movie about giants to be?  Is it worth my time?  If you're looking for a feel good movie where the underdog wins and comes out on top in the end, then this is your movie.  This is a fairytale, plain and simple.  It's a well adapted, well written, well acted, well directed movie.

Film Crazy Adam highly recommends and approves this movie.

Die Hard 5 - Written Review

Question: when do action movies get released?  Answer: during the summer blockbuster season and sometimes around Christmas.  Question: if an action movie gets released during the "movie down season" (the time frame between New Years and late March/early April where Hollywood releases movies they know aren't so hot but they have to put them in theaters to try and recoup the money they put into them) should you be a little suspicious or worried about it?  Answer: yes.  That big red flag went up for me when I went into the theater to see this movie.  Was it justified to be a bit worried about the newest installation to the Die Hard franchise, A Good Day to Die Hard?

Oddly, this title is hard to remember.  It's gotta be the wording.

How the hell did they screw this movie up?  It's a Die Hard movie.  You'd think it's hard to F that up.  I thought it was.  You want to know the biggest problem of this movie?  It was a comedy script trying to be a serious action movie.  Half the lines of dialogue are meant to be jokes.  In the other Die Hards there is an air of seriousness.  There are terrorist that are hell bent on a mission and they don't care who they kill getting what they want.  But Film Crazy Adam, that's what happened in this movie.  Yes, with all the seriousness of a Rush Hour movie.  Die Hard isn't a comedy.  There are a few ha-ha moments, but it's not a comedy.  Again, not saying that this movie was a comedy, but it felt like it was trying to be one.  The writer was trying too hard to be clever and funny with the dialogue.  That being said, it was satisfying on some level being the only person in the theater to get the joke about Newark.

This is why you shouldn't play Van Halen's Eruption with the volume on 11.

Also, the character of John McClain is nothing like how he's ever been played before.  In every other Die Hard John McClain (played by Bruce Willis) is just doing his own thing.  Either he's on vacation minding his own business or he's working.  And in all of those other movies he starts to lose it.  To be fair, wouldn't you if you were put in any of the situations of any of the Die Hard movies?  He's constantly on the run for his life and he doesn't know what's going on.  Bottom line, he's never in control.  This entire movie was weird, BECAUSE John McClain WAS in control the whole time.  It was so weird to see John one or two steps ahead of the game all through this movie.  He constantly knew what was going and even seemed bored with the way things played out, like - "Heh, knew that was going to happy.  And it did."  It was like John McClain read the script.  There wasn't a situation that held dramatic tension because John McClain acted so bored and jaded with everything that was happening around him.  And what's the deal with him just casually beating people up to steal and destroying vehicle after vehicle in this movie?

What're you doin?  That's not how it's done.

In conclusion, Die Hard 5 was a let down.  It's hard to get anxious over a scene when the main character is in a life or death situation and the main character is acting like "yeah, whatever."  Die Hard 5 didn't know what it was doing in terms of what feel it was going for.  The acting was eh, the directing was a bit below eh, and the script was too simple and generic.  Like all Die Hards there was a vehicle chase scene.  This one probably cost about 70% of the budget.  And the chase scene was ridiculously over the top, even for an action movie comedy.  I was thinking of making this a video review, but in the end this movie wasn't worth busting out a camera.  In the end, was it a good action movie.  Sure.  Was it a good Die Hard movie?  I'd have to say no.  Was it a good movie?  It was entertaining and, so, wasn't a complete waste of time.

Film Crazy Adam doesn't really recommend this one.  Not when I can just recommend Die Hard 1, 2, & 3.  4 was eh.  Yippee ki yay mother bleeper!

Warm Bodies - Written Review

Zombies.  They're the focus of comics, books, TV shows, video games, and even movies.  The first movie that was technically a zombie film was called White Zombie from 1932.  But zombies as they've been popularized as decrepit reanimated brain-craving ravenous corpses until George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead from 1968.  Since then there have been hundreds of zombie movies.  Zombies became really huge in media and pop culture in the last 10 years, when the majority of the zombie movies were made.  The problem with anything that there are hundreds of is they all kind of blend together...unless you do something that seriously sets yourself away from the crowd.  So they made a zombie love story.  I guess...?  Warm Bodies.

All we want to do is eat your brains.

Now let me be the first to say I was confused all the way through this movie.  I even contemplated just walking out (like a zombie) a couple times just because it's so far off base from any kind of zombie lore.  The main character, a zombie named R played by Nicholas Hoult.  Right off the bat my first question was, WTF?!  Because this guy is thinking.  Why is he thinking?  He's a zombie!  Zombies don't think, they're mindless!  But I figured I was watching a comedy like Zombieland, so I didn't let it bother me...until it became obvious that it wasn't a comedy.  Yeah there were some fun lines or lines that were trying to be funny, but it wasn't a funny movie.  It wasn't a comedy.  So if it's not a comedy and he's supposed to be a real zombie then how does he have an internal monologue?  How is he able to speak words out loud?  Why is he breathing?  Why does he collect things?  Why does he have an "apartment" in an old airliner?  And above all, why is he so dectrous with his hands??  He operates a record player by hand.  That requires finesse by someone who already knows what they're doing.  How the hell is this zombie doing it?  And how is he able to appreciate music?  He's a zombie!!

Zombie movie in a zombie movie.

I don't know if the writer even knew what a zombie was when he was writing this.  But aside from a severe lack of understanding of the source material and getting past the fact that some how this zombie is thinking and has an internal monologue and has feelings and knows how to speak this movie was very mediocre.  The acting, except from Nicholas, was eh.  The directing was eh.  The story was eh.  It seriously isn't something new, other than the zombie aspect.  But even that's not new.  Necrophilia anyone?  You could find plenty of stories about that if you looked online.  This love story is actually kind of creepy when you take that into account.  The girl is crushing on a dead guy.  How is that supposed to work??

That's not how you do Thriller.

In conclusion, this movie was confusing and stupid.  This movie was so unfocused.  The first 10 mins were a comedy, then it goes to troubled daughter fighting for the human race, then we basically watch 4 or 5 music videos (what else do you call it when you listen to entire songs set to video), then drama with the zombie family, then awkward teen drama show, then battle action scene where good guys win.  I felt like I was watching something that was written by a second grader.  Was it a good zombie movie?  NO!  Was it a good romance?  Mediocre at best.  Was it a good movie?  No.  In the end I have no idea what they were going for with this movie.  It pisses me off that they marketed it as a comedy when it's not.  Bait and switches are retarded.

Film Crazy Adam does not recommend this movie.

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters - Written Review

I am slowly coming to a conclusion about certain stories here.  You can argue that almost every story that could be told has been told in movie or TV form.  So what Hollywood has been doing is taking old stories and giving them a new twist.  Usually a more action packed twist.  They should just stop doing this.  And never do it again.  Because they can't seem to get it right.  I think I'm a fair guy when it comes to giving a new idea a chance.  I go into every movie with an open mind and the hope that what I'm seeing is gonna be good.  Unfortunately it falls about 40/60 good to bad.  Usually the idea, whatever it is doesn't work onscreen.  And so was the case with Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters.

Much better than Snow White.

H&G is actually a movie sequel to the classic fairytale story.  Years after they killed the witch when they were children, Hansel and Gretel have grown up to become professional witch hunters in an action/fantasy feature.  Really, it's not a bad concept.  Much better than that stupid Snow White and the Huntsman.  They didn't change the classic story, they just added onto it and made it into an action movie where H&G hunt witches.  And it could've been good, if they hadn't made some stupid mistakes.  First, their speech.  Now I'm not expecting ye olde speak, even though the time frame is 1400-1500.  But the usage of the f word, the way it was used, usage of slang terms, speech patterns, the vocab they were using, even the cadence and the way they spoke was so present day.  I didn't feel that these were fairy tale characters.  Instead I felt like these were two people I'd bump into on the subway.  It felt so weird and out of place.  And every character was like that.  They didn't feel like they were from or were in a Grimm's fairytale.

We haz guns.  Lots of guns.  Most of which aren't realistic.

So the characters felt out of place for this movie.  Second, the plot holes.  I know it's a fool's errand to be bringing up plot holes in an action/fantasy movie.  But even so, there was 1 big thing that didn't make sense.  Despite being professional witch hunters for the last 20-30 years, there were A LOT of things that they didn't know about witches or hunting witches.  Stupid obvious stuff that you'd think they would've just picked up and learned during the course of 2+ decades killing witches.  We, the audience, were learning things about witch hunting as the "professionals" were learning them.  Also, they were just sloppy for witch hunters.  Again, you'd think it would be hard for a witch to get the drop on them after they've been hunting them for more than a quarter century.  But that's as far as I go with the plot holes.  Everything else I rolled with.  The weapons, the physics, everything else was fine with me, primarily because of the type of movie I was watching - action/fantasy.

There is never anything good inside an anus, no matter what color it is.

In conclusion, there's a reason why this movie came out in January.  January-March is the time of year they put out movies that they're not expecting to do that well.  And H&G isn't so great.  While it's not a terrible movie, it leaves you feeling disappointed because you felt that this movie could've been good.  It could've been.  But they dropped the ball on this one.  They were trying to make the main characters way too cool.  Instead they came off as being jerkish and full of themselves often times.  You didn't really like them because of that.  Which is a huge screw up.  You never want the audience to dislike your main heroes, especially when they're the good guys.  Did I dislike it?  A little.  Did I feel like I wasted my time?  No, I was still entertained.  I just wish they'd done a number of things differently.  I am more disappointed because of wasted potential than anything else.  I was expecting something like Van Hellsing mixed with the TV show Supernatural, which if they had done that this movie would've been so much better.

Film Crazy Adam neither approves nor disapproves of this movie.  He also neither recommends nor discourages the watching of this movie.  Film Crazy Adam isn't angry.  Film Crazy Adam is disappointed.

The Last Stand (2013) - Written Review

Action heroes.  A breed of actors who can act and do all the crazy stunts in action movies.  A breed that was made famous by the crazy and often times cheesy action movies of the 80's.  A genre of actors that has been exclusively male.  Many actors came to fame through this genre.  Arguably the one of, if not the, biggest is Arnold Schwarzenegger.  It was wondered if he was going to make a return to acting after his stint as governor of California, but he did.  He had a cameo in The Expendables and The Expendables 2.  But he's back at it again, staring in the action movie, The Last Stand.

Not to be confused with the X-men movie of the same name.

First off, let me just say that if you've seen the trailer for this and you know who's staring in it and you're expecting something serious and realistic...then you're an idiot.  This movie is silly.  This movie is ridiculous.  This movie is cheese.  This movie is exactly what it set out to be and what it advertised itself to be.  This movie had it all when it comes to a cheesy action movie.  It had guns, it had action, it had guns, it had one-liners, it had guns, it had explosions, it had stunts, it had car carnage, it had guns.  And I'm not exaggerating on the guns thing.

See?  Guns.

It had a basic plot with a few holes in it.  As far as the story went, this was one of the most straight forward stories I've seen in years.  There were no surprises.  Not that I'd expect that in a movie like this.  Everything was predictable, which is what you want in an action movie like this.  So that was good.  I will say though that this movie had some pretty lame dialogue.  I mean, no imagination or cleverness was put into any of the lines.  It was, like I said, very straight forward.  No thinking was required during the watching of this film...what so freaking ever.  And it was good because of that.

And more guns.

In conclusion, this was a good action movie.  It was a good getaway from the lame-ass retail job I have.  It was good to just veg out watching.  I enjoyed it and had a good time watching it.  I wish I could've seen with my friends back East, it would've been much more enjoyable.  If you're from the 80's like me.  And you enjoy 80's action movies for the cheese that they are (most of them anyway), you'll like this movie.  Remember: no thinking is required during this film.  More then The Expendable movies though.

Film Crazy Adam recommends to those looking to enjoy a cheesy action movie with guns, explosions, and Arnold.  Everyone else go watch something more sophisticated.

Gangster Squad - Written Review

"I'll make him and offer he can't refuse."  "Say hello to my little friend."  These are iconic one-liners from iconic gangster movies.  Not to be confused with gangsta (which is stupid and idiotic).  The Godfather is one of the most memorable movies and considered the quintessential gangster movie.  What do you get when you have a bunch of great actors, more one-liners than an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, about as many gun fights as a John Woo movie, and a bunch of explosions?  You get Gangster Squad.

Again, not to be confused with gangsta.  Which is stupid.

 I'll be honest: I'm not quite sure what they were going for with this movie.  It's "based" off true events.  Yes, there was an LA based mobster named Mickey Cohen.  Yes, there was a unit put together to protect LA from Cohen.  And those are the only facts the movie got straight.  But that doesn't matter.  This isn't a documentary, this is a movie.  What about the story?  Well,...it wasn't all that good.  Not to say it was horrible, it just wasn't that good.  The characters are all 1-dimensional, the story is completely predictable at every turn, there is no dramatic tension, in many cases the story felt rushed.  There were tons of times during the film where I felt they could've spent more time elaborating more or explaining more of what they were doing.  It felt very dumbed-down.

Say "what" again!  I dare you!  I double-dare you, mother-f**ker!

 The cast, while the actors and actress themselves are top-notch, aren't really that good in this movie.  They're all completely one-dimensional.  You have the 100% evil mobster, the single-minded never takes no for an answer squad leader, the face man who thinks more about the ladies than the job, the grizzled sharpshooter, the nerdy tech guy, the dame, etc.  The characters never break from their stereo-types.  There also no dramatic tension in the story.  There's never a sense that things will go wrong.  And if they do, so what.  Seriously.  Everyone has a "so what" attitude all through this movie.  Everyone is so wooden.  I blame that on the directing.  It's like the director told the actors don't show emotion through all the scenes.  Be a robot.

I can haz hug?                                            No.                

In conclusion, what was Gangster Squad?  I think it was an attempt at turning a Dirty Harry movie into a mobster movie.  Did it do it?  ...maybe...?  There was definitely a lot of shooting.  Very little of this movie even focused on the gangster in question.  The character of Mickey Cohen wasn't a character so much as he was a plot device.  There were many moments in this movie that I would've cut or rewritten because they didn't matter and had no place in the movie.  Or it wouldn't have affected the movie.  For those of you that have seen the version of the trailer where there's a scene where mobsters shoot up a movie theater?  They cut that, because of the Colorado theater shooting.  I couldn't figure out where in the whole movie it could have gone.  It was that irrelevant that it didn't matter they cut it.  That was most of the movie.  Was it a gangster movie?  Sort of?  Was it a good movie?  Not really.  Was it a good gangster movie?  No.  Was it worth my time?  Not really.

Film Crazy Adam doesn't really recommend this movie.  Not because it was a bad movie.  Because it just wasn't that good.

Django Unchained - Written Review

Quentin Tarantino throws his name on a lot of movies to help promote them.  I'll be the first to say that most of those movies are pretty lame.  Dare I mention that pile of random horse crap - The Man with the Iron Fists.  Quentin does, of course, have his own movies which always have a star-studded cast.  He's well known for his uniqueness in his films and has garner quite a fanbase.  Most of his movies are considered cult classics.  And it looks like that may be what lies in store for his most recent film - Django Unchained.

The D is silent

What is Django Unchained?  It's the story about how a black slave in 1858 is given his freedom and becomes a bounty hunter.  He quests to find and rescue his wife who was sold to a separate owner than him.  Not a bad premise really.  I'll be honest: I'm not a huge Tarantino fan.  That's not to say I don't like Quentin's work.  I'm really neither here nor there.  I find his movies are very gratuitous when it comes to violence and gore.  But in some cases it makes sense and is appropriate to the situation.  Sometimes.  As for Django, it takes place in the 1850's old west and deep south.  Guns and violence were a way of life.  So in this particular movie Quentin's signature violence wasn't remotely out of place.  Although the violence is so over the top violence to the point it's like watching a Looney Tunes cartoon. 

Apparently humans are filled with jelly under high pressure and pop easily

Aside from that, this movie was actually quite enjoyable as a comedy/drama/satire period piece.  The funny parts were funny, the dramatic parts were dramatic.  Very well directed by Quentin.  The directing, the editing, the timing, the pacing, the acting...overall this movie was very good.  I've heard some complaints that this movie uses the N word far too much.  I respect that Quentin didn't puss out on that actually.  Why?  Because if you're going to make an actual period piece you have to be true to that period.  People referred to African-Americans as the N word back then.  Everyone did.  It was the socially accepted norm.  So props to Quentin for being authentic.

Do you know...what time it is?

In conclusion, this movie was very a good movie.  It's well directed, the story is interesting, the characters are fun, and it was well written.  The casting for this movie was perfect as well.  Leonardo DiCaprio is incredible.  Christoph Waltz is awesome.  It's hard to tell who is the best actor in this movie.  As a dramatic comedy set in the Antebellum era of the deep south it's good fun.  The most important part of this movie is that it doesn't take itself too seriously.  It knows it's a satire and plays itself as such.  In my opinion it's Quentin's best movie so far.  And that's coming from a guy who's a big anime fan who's seen Kill Bill 1 and 2 (I was an even bigger anime fan when those movies came out).

Film Crazy Adam approves and recommends this movie.

Looper - Written Review

Time travel is always an interesting subject to theorize about.  Being able to go back and fix a stupid decision you once made.  We'd all love the chance to fix those mistakes.  So far the closest we've come to something like that is visualizing the possibilities in film.  The problem with these movies is since there are no clearly defined laws that govern time travel the screenwriter can make up anything he wants.  This often times leads to audience yelling "oh, come on!" when things don't work as expected.  Is that how it worked in Looper?

How does it feel to be inside you?

First off this movie didn't have a lot setting it up.  The trailer only spoke of a future where people are sent back in time to be executed by people in the present.  And our main character encounters his older self when he is sent back in time to be killed by himself.  That's an idea.  An interesting idea, but it's not a story.  So right off the bat I'm going into this movie pretty much blind.  The reason why he encounters himself: Loopers, as they're called, are contracted by the future mob to be at a place and time to receive and execute these people for money.  Part of the contract entails that their last "job" is to execute their future selves.  Right away I ask: why?  I can think of a dozen ways to "end" a contract that doesn't entail you killing yourself.  Because with foreknowledge that you're going to eventually be caught and sent back in time to be killed, you'd think people would try to change history to avoid this.  And that's what some people do, which causes problems in the present.

La, la, la.  I hear nothing.

In terms of story, Looper has quite a few plot holes, like the one pointed out above.  Most of the plot holes are time paradoxes...which Film Crazy Adam does not approve of.  This movie runs on the "changes don't happen in the future until the second it happens in the present."  It's very...well, bull sh*t.  Example: a guy from the future loses both his feet and forearms when they are removed from the same person in the present.  Right there he shouldn't've been able to run away from himself when he was sent back in time because technically he hasn't had the necessary appendages to escape himself in the first place for the past 30 years.  But instead of that, he's on the run and only looses one body part at a time as his present self looses them.  It doesn't make any sense.  In fact, the whole movie culminates in a deus ex machina paradox.  It's really convoluted and contrived.  Also for the first half of this movie I have no idea what the point is.  Where is the goal?  The quest?  What is the main character working towards?  Where are we going in this story?

I should stop talking to myself.  People will think I'm crazy.

In conclusion, while Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt are ALWAYS awesome, this movie really suffered from ginormous plot holes.  Things don't make sense in this movie and, I don't know about most of you, but it bugged the sh*t out of me.  Screw creative license when you're just going to pull bullsh*t out of your ass.  There actually is a plot in here.  But ultimately it makes about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine.

Film Crazy Adam doesn't recommend this movie...unless you just want to see the same person argue with himself for a couple short scenes.  It is humorous.  But hardly worth watching a whole movie for.

End of Watch - Written Review

Let it not be said that Film Crazy Adam doesn't step outside his preference zone for his viewers.  "Found-footage" movies are not my thing for a number of reasons.  For the record, this movie was able to screw-up the concept of found-footage.  And not for nothing, the shaky cam was distracting as hell and annoyed me to no end.  I'm going on about the technical aspect of the film and haven't focused on the story itself.  But such is the nature of all found-footage movies.  It's not what they're filming, but the way it's filmed.  In this case it's the film End of Watch.

No actual watches were harmed in the filming of this movie.

The film focuses on 2 LAPD police officers who, through excellent intuition and detective skills, end up getting in too deep and get into some serious trouble.  Now I am not an LA police officer, so I don't know how they act.  But I'm curious if they act like they're in high school in real life.  There's no better analogy for how these cops behave around each other in this movie.  They act like juvenile high school students.  They do, however, become completely serious when it comes to their work.  They don't fool around on the job...just every other time we see them...like a bunch of high schoolers...really.  In addition to that, the story is kind of boring.  How so?  There's no direction, there's no goal or quest that these guys are on.  While it's interesting to see them do all these highly dangerous traffic stops and these intense raids it's not leading up to anything.  It's just kind of aimless and boring, because I don't know where we're going with any of this.

Dude...we are so high right now.

The technical aspect of this movie irritated and confused me too.  We're first led to believe we're watching a movie edited together by Jake's character for a film class.  We think this because he's constantly walking around with a video-camera.  But then we're suddenly hit with all these angles that, while they're obviously being filmed on a $200 point-and-shoot from Best Buy by an amateur without a tripod, can't possibly be filmed by Jake or anyone else.  It's like there's a news cameraman, but there's no one there physically...so how are we seeing these shots and angles?  And why does EVERYONE in this movie walk around with cameras and film EVERY second of their lives.  Even the drug dealers and gang members carry video-cameras and document everything...for...some reason...(I don't know why).  And how did Jake get the footage from their cameras and edit it into his little project...if that's what we're watching?  What are we watching anyway?

Dance like nobody is watching.

In conclusion, while Jake and Michael have great chemistry this movie is hard to watch.  The editing is the worst part about this movie.  The weird passing of time and jumping around to angles that couldn't possibly be filmed from really confused and irritated me while watching this.  And just the over-usage of the F word.  It starts to lose it's weight when you literally use it every other word.  It becomes so you sound like a 3rd grader that just discovered that word and I can't take you seriously.  This movie was...interesting...I think?  But I definitely wouldn't call it a good movie.

Film Crazy Adam...thought some aspects were interesting, but overall does not recommend this movie.  He feels a little like his time was kind of wasted.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Written Review

Okay, let me say right up front that I liked this movie.  And that this review isn't going to be very unbiased.  Unlike my last written review where I explained that drama movies aren't my cup of tea, well this movie is.  I am this movie's target audience.  I am an easy mark for this movie.  This is a movie that I can watch over and over again and I won't get tired of it.  That being said I do understand the aspects of the movie that people had problems with who didn't like it.  The movie being, the prequel to Lord of the Rings trilogy - The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.

A.K.A.: The Hobbit Pt1

For those of you who are fans of the LotR movies, but haven't read the books you probably have complaints.  For those of you who haven't seen LotR I honestly don't even know why you're watching this movie.  For avid fans and nerds, this movie is awesome and a must see.  Those out there know what I'm talking about.  There are so many nods to the LotR trilogy and Sauron and the ring and the importance of certain objects and events.  This movie is fantastic.  The biggest complaint from people who saw this movie this: it's too damn long and it didn't feel like LotR.  Well, you're right about the second part.  This movie is not like LotR.  JRR Tolkien wrote The Hobbit to be more of a children's story.  Dark at some points, but a children's story none the less.

"...will be expected to make all coffee runs for the group"?  What?

This isn't a story against a magical dark lord, or the destruction of an ultimate weapon, sneaking behind enemy lines, where the fate of the who world hangs in the balance.  It's not.  So many people have been disappointed going into this movie because they didn't get that.This movie isn't the epic of LotR, so don't expect it.  Yes there are chase scenes and some great battle scenes, which are even cartoonish at times.  But no armies fighting each other.  That being said, this movie still delivers a great story and a good show.  The graphics, the costumes, the art design, the directing, the editing are still everything that you'd expect from Peter Jackson.  And while it's not the epic of LotR it's still fells very much like a story from Middle Earth.

Get in my belly!!!

In conclusion, I can't point out enough how I believe that this movie was made for the fans of the book and the LotR trilogy.  This movie is not for your casual movie goer or none fan of the fantasy genre or LotR.  This movie is for us fans.  Again, this review isn't really a fair one, because I just eat this sh*t up.  I love this stuff.  This isn't right down my alley, it IS the alley.  So, again, speaking from a big fan of LotR and fantasy - GO SEE THIS MOVIE!

Film Crazy Adam strongly STRONGLY approves and recommends this movie.

Argo - Written Review

There's been a lot of talk about this movie in terms of great directing and oscar nomination...ness, but how was this movie really?  So what you will about Daredevil and Armageddon, but Ben Affleck seems to have come into his own with directing.  The Town was done well and he's continuing to deliver with Argo.

No relation to Jason and the Argonauts.

I'll be the first to say that this movie generally my cup of tea.  I'm more of an action or sci-fi man, not a drama fan.  So it's saying something when this movie intrigues enough by the trailer alone to make me want to go see it.  Not gonna lie, knowing that Ben Affleck was directing also gave me some hope that it would be good.  And whoever was hired as the art director should get an Oscar too.  Everything was so spot on in this movie from the hair styles to the clothes to the cars to the style of facial hair to the style of the freaking glasses people wore.  This movie was crazy when it came to the detail, which was a BIG part of making this movie feel like it was accurately portraying a story that happened in the 1970's.  That is actually my biggest complaint about period pieces - they don't feel like those periods.  Argo did all that right.

We are them.  We are they.  We are the men in 3-peice suits.

Now the problem with making a movie based on real life events is that you already know how the story ends.  It's history.  It's already happened.  You can wiki this sh*t.  Which is another reason why I'm not a huge fan of movies based on historical events.  Because, again, you already know what happens - you know how the story ended.  So how can this movie be any good, be any interesting when there's no suspense, there's no surprises?  By telling a story about an impossible to escape from scenario and combining it with one of the most hair-brained ideas ever conceived and have it all be true.  If you don't know, the movie is about a small group of Americans hiding in the Canadian ambassador's home after the US embassy was taken in Iran.  The plan to get those people home safely was to make the world believe that a movie was being made in Iran, that these people were the film crew scouting locations in Iran, and having completed their scouting were returning home.  Crazy.  Just insane.  But it happened and it worked.

He wants to know if our refrigerator is running.  What should I say?

It's one of those stories that is so insane that it has to be true.  In conclusion, Argo was one of the best movies I've seen this year.  One of those movies where everything across the board was good or great.  The directing, the editing, the pacing, the script, the acting, the art direction, the costumes; just everything was done well.  Even knowing how it ends, Ben Affleck is able to create very tense moments where you're not sure if they're going to make it.

Film Crazy Adam strongly approves and recommends this movie.

Wreck-it Ralph - Written Review

There are 3 types of movie trailers.  1) those that paint a clear picture of the story you're about to see.  2) those that are just random images and make no sense whatsoever and you don't know what it is you just watched.  3) those that tell you more about the characters than the movie plot but give you just enough taste of the plot to intrigue you.  It's not very often, but occasionally that third one surfaces.  I get intrigued by those types of trailers because of the potential the story may have.  Wreck-it Ralph falls into that third category.

I wonder what it cost to use all those licensed characters.

Tell me I'm wrong.  The trailer tells you way more about the characters than the story itself.  It tells how Ralph is a video game "bad guy" but that he wants to change that point of view, because he's not a bad guy.  The trailer than shows Ralph going into different video games and interacting with different characters from those games.  What does that tell us about the plot?  Very little.  But you given the audience a lot of ingredients.  There is now a lot of potential for this movie.  A LOT of potential.  And suffice to say Disney didn't dissappoint.  Say what you will about that company, whether you have a postive or a negative opinion about them, they know how to tell good stories.  This movie was great.

Weekly meeting of Sore Thumbs Anonymous.

This movie really appeals to me as a child of the 80's.  Arcades, video games, quests, recognizable video game icons.  I love it.  This movie, as I said, started off with a lot of potential.  It had the potential to be both good and bad.  Thankfully it was just really really good.  The pacing is great, the acting is great, the story is great, the music is great, the characters are great.  It really was a great movie with a happy ending for everyone.  At the same time this was a quintessential Disney movie.  A big loner who isn't like by anyone is befriended by a small semi-annoying character until she melts his hard exterior and everyone becomes friends.  And he does something to alienate her but fixes it later when he has an epiphany about something.  Quintessential Disney.

You watch your language, bub.

In conclusion, this is a 100% character driven story and because of that the characters are the best thing about this movie.  You can clearly understand every character and where they're coming from.  That being said the character of Vanellope begins as the annoying character, but grows on you when you learn more about her.  She's played by Sarah Silverman, whom I'm not that big a fan of, but absolutely love her in this role.  All the actors are phenomenal in this movie.  If you're a child, a kid from the 80's/early 90's, or looking for a good character piece with a happy ending check out this movie.

Film Crazy Adam strongly approves and strongly recommends this movie.  Can't wait for this to come out on DVD.

Skyfall - Written Review

Bond.  James Bond has been played by 9 different men in 23 films.  The latest of which has been generating some real noise to different extents for varying reasons.  The overall consensus is that this film is mindblowingly fantastic.  It is said to be incredible, awesome beyond belief.  Rumored to be the best bond movie ever, that no Bond movie will ever be as good as this ever again.  That doesn't really tell you about the movie does it?  How was the plot, the acting, the directing, was it easy to follow, how was the pacing, did it feel like a Bond movie?  How was the new Bond movie?

Brought to you by MGM, despite them filing for bankruptcy.

First and foremost to answer your question, yes there is one scene where he drinks a Heineken, which to so many people was sacrilege and betrayal.  How dare Bond drink ANYTHING that wasn't a martini.  Really?  You're gonna bitch about that?  Because he does drink those later.  But other than that this Bond movie was...well, a Bond movie.  It's exactly what you'd expect from a Bond movie.  Except for the gadgets.  So far the Daniel Craig Bond has used surprisingly few gadgets.  No laser watches, no ejector seats (though he threatens to use one in this movie), no cloaking devices, nothing really more than a gun and a GPS.  This movie didn't break from the Bond of the last two movies.

Yeah, I have a really big.  You know what I mean.

That being said, this movie did ramp up the action from the last one.  But I can't for the life of me see why people are basically worshiping this movie.  Was it good?  Not really.  It had so many absurd aspects that are so alien from the Bond franchise.  Was it a religious experience?  No.  Not for nothing, but this movie has a ton of plot holes.  A TON.  While Javier Bardem is a ridiculously good actor and steals the show after he shows up, his character is literally the Joker from Batman.  He's broken on a mental level and does things just to screw with M and Bond.  He has no overall goal, but to screw with these two people.  Why is he a Bond villain if he's not trying to take over the world on some level?  He really doesn't have any goal other than that.  It's understandable why he hates M.  But why does he hate Bond so much?  There's no reason.  And you have the new Q who starts talking about changing a few numbers here and here on the net and claims he can collapse entire countries before tea time.  Not to say that this is a bad movie and you shouldn't see. 

Being attacked by a giant flying glowing jellyfish.  We should run.

In conclusion, was this movie a good Bond movie?  No.  Was it a good movie overall?  I guess.  It certainly was entertaining.  Was this a great movie?  No.  This was a real departure from the feel of what a Bond movie used to feel like, because I will argue that this wasn't a Bond movie.  Just because it had a guy named James Bond in it doesn't make it a Bond movie.  To be fair, Bond movies were never known for their lack of plot holes.  They were known for James Bond kicking ass and taking names...and then sleeping with those names.  None of which happens in this movie.

Film Crazy Adam does not recommend this movie.

Silent Hill Revelation - Written Review

Now historically speaking video games don't transfer over to movie too well.  One of the more evident examples of this is the attempt at making the horror survivor game Silent Hill into a movie back in 2006.  That movie did as well as the VAST majority of video game movies did and was added to the crappy pile.  Silent Hill was really stupid, many things made no sense, the acting was ish, the directing wasn't good, the cinematography was lame, and was overall a colossal waste of time.  So what did they do 7 years after the fact?  Made a sequel.

The "3D" is silent when you pronounce Revelation3d

That makes sense, right?  Make a sequel to a movie that the audience didn't like.  I mean it worked so well with Ghost Rider.  But they did it anyway.  Now to be fair, if I'm allowed to be with this movie, this one was better than the first one.  That rarely happens, but Silent Hill 2 managed it.  Not to say that this by any means is a good movie, it's not.  It's just better than the first, and if you've seen the first you know that wasn't hard to do.  Not only that, but they were able to sum up the whole 1st movie and made so you didn't need to see it to understand this movie.  No, seriously, Silent Hill 2 did the first movie better than the first movie did.  Again, not a hard task.

Here we come, walkin down the street...

Silent Hill 2 wasn't anymore or less scary than the first movie.  In fact I didn't think either was scary.  However, 2 had a way more coherent story, things made more sense.  Also, it felt like this one was way more loyal to the video game than the first movie.  They did recycle every monster from the first and maybe only added one new one.  I can't remember really, it was dark.  Usually darkness adds to a horror movie, but I think they overused it here.  It's one thing to be dark and hard to see, it's another to annoyingly strobe a light for an entire 5 min scene.

True dat

The best part of this movie was the actors, not that they were able to do anything to save this movie.  Sean Bean and Malcolm McDowell are phenomenal actors, but even they couldn't do enough to save this movie.  Adelaide Clemens wasn't half bad as the lead.  Overall, this movie was indeed much better than the first.  Is it worth watching?  Not really.  Maybe, if you haven't seen the first one.  This movie is by far the best example I have for not needing to watch the first to understand the second.  In fact I'd go so far as to say that it makes more sense if you haven't seen the first one.  Overall, a solid B horror movie.

Film Crazy Adam gives this movie and ish recommendation.  He doesn't really recommend it, but doesn't really think it's a big waste either.  This is a solid B movie.

Taken 2 - Written Review

You can only say a few things about sequels.  1) it was on par with the original, and it's ok-good.  2) it sucked.  3) it surpassed the original by adding onto the story and became even better.  That's really it.  When talking about sequel that fall under the first rating I believe you'll have to categorize this movie.

This time, he's the one that gets taken.  No, seriously.

This movie is an example of an unnecessary sequel.  Completely unnecessary.  If you don't already know, the first movie was about Liam Neeson tracking down his daughter and killing her various kidnappers as he tracked his daughter.  They did a few things wrong when it comes to making a sequel.  First and foremost: they didn't do anything new with the story.  Okay, in this movie it's Liam Neeson that gets taken, not his daughter - though they try to do that.  But that doesn't last very long.  And it's still the story of Liam Neeson killing the various kidnappers of his kidnapped family member as he tracks her down.  Namely his ex-wife.  So it's essentially the same story.  Another thing they failed to do: develop the characters.  We should've learned something new about these characters in this movie.  Instead they haven't changed one bit since the first movie.

Listen, I'm kinda in the middle of something.  I gotta go.  Text you later.  Bye.

It just wasn't as good as the first movie.  Even on a technical level it was lacking.  The cinematography was different, and not in that good way.  The action scenes weren't as good, the chases weren't as good, the fight scenes weren't as good.  There also felt like there was a lot of stuff that happened just because.  You know: hand waving.  Why is his daughter as good a stunt driver as he is?  Why did they have to smash through the entrance to the American embassy compound instead of  just stopping and getting out?  The story wasn't as intricate either.  And never once did you get the feeling that Liam Neeson wasn't going to save his family and kill all the bad guys.  There wasn't any dramatic tension in this movie at all.  You knew how this was going to end.

And now I will show you how to unscrew a head from a body.  1-2-3...

Overall, this movie wasn't that good.  It tells a very VERY similar story to the first one and doesn't add any new elements.  The story is very predictable and doesn't diverege from already established traits, thus losing all dramatic tension.  Stories remain interesting when you don't know what's about to happen.  Here, you knew everything 30 mins before it happened.  This was a movie that the trailer made it look like it had potential to be something interesting.  But in the end it failed to develop the story further and failed to be interesting.

Film Crazy Adam was disappointed and doesn't recommend this movie.  The first was better.  Second one not worth while.

Red Dawn (2012) - Written Review

Remakes are nothing new to audiences today.  In fact it's very much expected.  And no other decade has supplied more fodder for remakes than the 80's.  Many people even dislike remakes with a fervor like you only see during a sports championship.  Many people don't see the point of remakes and believe they're a waste of time.  The original in many cases is good enough and considered by many to be a classic in it's own rite.  So what's the point in making another of the same story just with different actors?  An especially since Hollywood is going to change it and make it stupid?  Well, remakes have been getting better.

Sorry.  No Patrick Swayze in this one.

Obviously you can't get away with talking about this remake without talking about the original.  And this prequel was loyal to its source material, paid it homage, and told it's own story while still remaining similar enough to the original that, yes, you can clearly see the source material in this remake.  Bottom line - this movie is not a lie.  It's called Red Dawn, the original was about a group of kids who group together and wage guerrilla warfare against an invading communist government and use the the name of their high school football team, the wolverines as they're group's name.  This movie does that, it does all of that.  But at the same time it tells a new story, it's own story with new characters, new events, new takes on an old story without changing it so drastically that the original is unrecognizable as the source material.

For Asgard!!  I mean,...Wolverines!!

The acting and story are good.  It may just be me, but I found it a little hard to believe that these untrained high school kids were able to absorb and pick-up new skills that made them killing machines against the invading army in a very short time.  However, I rolled with it, because it was a good story and with all the Gears of War and Black Ops that people play today, I can see kids picking up on this stuff.  That really was my only complaint.  Other than that, the movie proceeded at a good pace.  They don't wait too long, maybe 8 mins before the invasion begins.  And the action goes from there.

Now?  Now she's taking off her top and - whoa.

Overall, this was a good take on an old movie.  This is how remakes should be done.  Take a story, lock in the key elements that made up the original, add a few new things along the same lines as the original, and update it.  Was this movie necessary?  I will honestly say, not really.  The first one was good for what it was and as it was and didn't really need to be remade.  This, however, was a good movie and well done job in remaking none the less.

Film Crazy Adam approves and recommends this movie.

The Man with the Iron Fists - Written Review

What can I say about this next movie?  It's going to be hard since it was hard to stay focused while I was watching.  This movie was silly to say the least.  It was over the top, ridiculous, and just gratuitous.  Now it sounds like I'm saying that like it's a bad thing since I just used three adjectives that I use to describe movies I find entertaining.  However, this time I'm not.  In this instance, this movie suffered because of all 3.  And even that probably sounds counter intuitive based on the movie.  Which movie?

AKA: Iron Fists

Now I'm all for a good fight sequence.  I'm all for a good kung-fu fight sequence.  The problem with this movie is that they're not doing anything new with it.  Everything in and about this movie is based on the fighting, choreography, cinematography, and cheesiness of the really old really REALLY low budget Chinese kung-fu movies.  There was a tease and an implication that because it was "presented by Quentin Tarintino" that it would be along the same lines as Kill Bill, it's not.  Those movies had cheese, but not to the extent of this movie.

That's not a knife.  THIS is a knife.

This movie had everything.  I mean everything.  Warring clans, the emperor being somehow involved, a mysterious white guy, literally metric tons of knives, flying, mystic powers, girls, girls with knives, girls with knives that know kung-fu, a cat house owner that knows magic kung-fu with knives, magic, unstoppable fighters, lovers being killed, forging weapons, zooming in, a son avenging the death of his father, a son taking his father's place coming into his power, sudden betrayals, poison darts, gore, blood, decapitations, crazy music, flashbacks, a healing/training/learning montage, and the list goes on.  Seriously, this movie had it all.  It is the culmination of every kung-fu movie ever made.

I am Colossus of the X-men.  HHHRRAAAAHHHHH!!!

Overall, just too much.  Now if that is what this movie was going for - too much, over the top, and made to look like and old old Chinese kung-fu movie - then it succeeded 100%.  There is an audience for this, but I'm not that audience.  Since I don't know if this is supposed to satirical or serious I have to judge it based on it's merits, which aren't many.  If you're a big fan of old Chinese kung-fu, you'll absolutely love this movie.  For everyone else it'll be a waste of time.  I'm not exagerating or kidding when I say I started nodding off because I was getting bored.  This is all stuff we've seen before and nothing new was added or tried.

Film Crazy Adam does not care for or recommend this movie.  Unless you really REALLY like cheesy kung-fu flicks.