CURRENTLY PLAYING IN THEATERS:
Man of Steel
You have probably already seen this movie if you are planning on seeing it at all, unless you are Trevor, who cancelled last minute, despite being a self-proclaimed super Superman fan. (sheesh) In any case, the reviews have been middling and this one isn't going to be any different. My lasting memory of watching this movie is that a hologram had more lines than any of the main characters. My friend said it was really heavy handed on the Christ-imagery, and I can't argue that point. Basically, the film is a mess, but an entertaining mess non-the-less.
Here's the thing that really gets my goat with this movie - they did such a good job casting Zod with Michael Shannon, and they wrote a big part for Zod's cohort - the lieutenant, whatever her name was, but they really dropped the ball on the 3 guy in this trio of destruction - remember the 3 from Superman 2? There was Zod, the baddass chick, and the big growly guy...where is the big growly guy in this movie? Sure they was a masked big guy in one of the town fight scenes, clearly meant to be this character, but show his face, give us some of that comic action, give us some of this:
This brings me to my final point. Sure make new Superman all dark and serious if you want, but Superman is a fun story, it's a fun hero, the damn movie should have been more FUN. Batman is serious, he's all dark and effed up by his very nature, that plays well with dark movies, the Tim Burton ones and the Christopher Nolan films too. Superman, though...fun, should have been fun.
Oh well, we still have Pacific Rim to look forward to.
Directed/produced by Zach Snyder and Christopher Nolan. Starring a cheesy Amy Adams looking all deer-eyed, Henry Cavill's pecs, hologram Russell Crowe (so life-like!), Michael Shannon, and Lawrence Fishburne...oh they gave Kevin Costner and Diana some work too. 2013
featuring a "chilling Rutger Hauer"
This was the only SIFF film I saw this year. It was long, way too long, and weirdly paced. The first half, I enjoyed, almost like you are watching a cool travel expose show. Many beautiful locations...but overall, very heavy handed, messy, confusing - kind of half-assed David Lynchian at times. I think the whole thing just got confused as it was originally conceived as a 2 part film for TV. I can't recommend it, but it wasn't terrible either. Almost worth it for Rutger, but when he shows up 2.5 hours into the film, I just wanted it to be over. In English, mostly. Dir Jan Kounen Starring a bunch of UK actors and folks you won't know, and a would-be chilling Rutger Hauer. 2012
The cast was right, the look was right, the story seemed lively, everything about this movie should have made it a lot of fun and a huge success, but it was pushed back and eventually flopped in theaters? Why? Oh the usual, writing, direction, editing...I don't know what really made it so...flat....maybe it's just that we've see this story before a zillion times. Crooked cops, gangsters, one guy standing up to the evil empire, a hot dame...it's just a tired period piece about a story we've all know.
So not even heavy hitters like Gosling, Nolte, Penn, Josh Brolin can save this one. Directed by Ruben Fleischer (who made Zombieland, go figure) Starring the above mentioned and Giovanni Ribisi and the yummy Emma Stone as the broad.. 2013
Ah, the old "book vs movie" debate. This film is one of the more challenging books-to-movies anyone could have attempted. Ambitions is not a big enough word. Do the Wachowski's and Tyker (yes 3 directors) pull it off? Not really. Do they make a different, interesting film? Sure.
But what could have been....
I was mostly unsettled by 2 things with this film, okay...3 things. One - they really played up the whole shared/past lives thing in the movie, like really really really rubbed it in, including using the same actors - it was distracting and not in tone with the book, which had a more ambiguous and mysterious tone to it. Two - on a similar note - in the book there are the same 6 different stories, just like the movie, but the film jumps around between the stories constantly, while the book gives you a lot of time to sink into each one - thus allowing you to give a shit about the characters. The movie fails drastically at that. I don't get it, why do it that way? And my final complaint - I'm tired of seeing Agent Smith in movies other than the Matrix. He is so distinctive, sounds so distinctive, even in the picture above, you can see Agent Smith right there. I'm always expecting Neo to show up when I watch the Lord of the Rings and movies like this.
But it's still a kind of fun ride, in a way. Messy, disjointed, long and confusing, but still kind of fun. Kind of. Directed by Tom Tykwer, Andy and Lana Wachowski. Starting Tom Hankx x 6, Agent Smith x 6, Halle Berry x 6, Susan Sarandon x 6 and a bunch of other people x . 2012
I'm just going to plow through the rest of the films I've watched since my last post - no time for comments now, might edit later:
Robot and Frank
Take This Waltz
Silver Linings Playbook
2013's Top 10 (that I've seen so far):
#1 The Place Beyond the Pines
#2 Star Trek Into Darkness
#3 Iron Man 3
#4 Man of Steel
#5 Evil Dead
#6 Gangster Squad
#7 Jack Reacher (this is really just a placeholder, this movie was terrible!)
The 2013 Molo List:
Hunger 4 Molos
Perks of Being a Wallflower 3.5 Molos
Magic Mike 3.5 Molos
End of Watch 3.5 Molos
Dredd 3.5 Molos
The Sessions 3.5 Molos
Flight 3 Molos
Man of Steel 3 Molos (2013)
Evil Dead 3 Molos (2013)
Life of Pi 3 Molos
Searching for Sugarman 3 Molos
Mission Impossible-Ghost Protocol 3 Molos
Flight of the Storks 2.5 Molos
Cosmopolis 2.5 Molos
Ted 2.5 Molos
Seven Psychopaths 2.5 Molos
Lawless 2 Molos
The Hobbit 2 Molos
Little Birds 2 Molos
Arbitrage 2 Molos
Jack Reacher 1 Molo (2013)
Taken 2 1 Molo