wolfy19982-blog

[wolfy19982-blog]

Review #8 Dec. 8, 2017 “Jim Carrey!”

Okay I know I have not posted since October nor have I done Cars 3 trust me I’m still editing it. But it’s Christmas time and I will be reviewing the one Christmas movie I have not seen. Yes I’m talking about the 2009 Disney film A Christmas Carol. And it’s technically a horror story!

So a bit of back story on the story. A Christmas Carol was written by Charles Dickens in 1843. Now because of the publication date the story is under the public domain, which explains why there have been multiple plays, musicals, movies, and the annoying Christmas special almost every show has done with the story. Honestly if I were to compare it to anything, I can’t because it has been retold to so many generations that the story is a bit different to everyone. 

I won’t go into how Dickens got the inspiration for the ghost story because the film The Man Who Invented Christmas will. Anyways I never saw it because I grew up with the Mickey Mouse version, the 1984 and 1999 film with because, THEY TERRIFY ME TO THIS DAY. Especially with Goofy being the ghost of Marley, Pete being the ghost of Christmas future, oh and the ghosts of present and future in the 1999 and ‘84 versions for their reasons. Honestly I can’t compare the film to the book it wouldn’t be fair to me.

So without further ado there are SPOILERS. Though the story has been told many times, there might be a few who haven’t heard the story before. Anyways let’s review 2009′s A Christmas Carol!

Now this story can be told in the modern times and in fact the Looney Tunes special did so with Daffy Duck as Scrooge, but know one thing Ebeneezer Scrooge can be anyone.

The film is set in mid 1800′s London. It starts with Ebeneezer Scrooge, voiced by Jim Carey. He being with the undertaker to be the witness on his partner Jacob Marley, voiced by Gary Oldman, who had died on Christmas Eve. Seven years pass and Scrooge has an apprentice of sorts Bob Cratchit, also voiced Gary Oldman. Scrooge well, he’s a cheap hermit. I honestly can’t paraphrase so much, but I’ll try. So he’s a dick to his employees, a dick to his only nephew, played by Colin Firth. Yeah he’s not a people person, so Cratchit begs for Christmas off, caving in from his nephew he allows Cratchit the day off.

When he returns home he is met by the ghost of Jacob Marley warning him that three ghosts will appear to him. And they do as followed:   -  The ghost of Christmas past reminds Scrooge of his more youthful days when he was in love before giving in to money.   - The ghost of Christmas present shows him what goes on during the holiday without him, especially gaining guilt from people badmouthing him before he shows Scrooge Ignorance and Want before his death.   -  And the ghost of Christmas future, which shows him his funeral and how even the undertaker wouldn’t be there.

Soon Ebeneezer wakes and it’s Christmas morning, there he’s decided to change his ways dining with Cratchit and visiting Fred before the famous closing lines, “God bless us everyone”. 

So how do I feel about this interpretation? Well it did what a ghost story should do, it scared me. Marley appearing and the the ghosts all scaring him, it scared me as well. However I have heard the story so many times it felt like I was being told the same story, but different. When I first saw the trailer I grew curious, it was 2009 there were other 3D animated movies out that year, Up, 9, and Planet 51 as example, why did it look so odd? I was thinking that until I saw who the director was, Robert Zemeckis. The same man that directed The Polar Express, and there the animation was extremely creepy, and here it’s kinda the same. There is a difference with the animation though, it looks more like it would be in a video game instead of a film.

There was something odd with some parts of the animation. Though I’m not sure if it was the lighting, when the ghost of Christmas future takes Scrooge to his grave the background was all white with no texture or snowflakes, the other is with the ghost of Christmas past, he would pause and flicker but turn slowly if he were a robot. I might be wrong so don’t take my word for those.

There was something odd. To me at least while with two of the ghosts, it felt rushed. Here’s what I mean:    - Ghost of Christmas Pass: he meets the love of his life then she leaves two seconds later    - Ghost of Christmas Present:  the entire sequence felt rushed to introduce Ignorance and Want   

Many have heard this story time and time again, with only a few iterations with songs added in. The music though it felt too perfect, it wasn’t there when you needed a jump scare and it was when it was needed, but I understand this was for kids but, to me the audience would have felt more into the Scrooge with the third ghost if there was no music at all. Yes music can drive a story, but sometimes it’s not needed. It was even odd hearing Andrea Bocelli at the end credits, I was expecting a Josh Groban song really.

I honestly loved the voice actors. Jim Carrey and Gary Oldman pretty much were most of the cast because of their abilities to change into different personas at will. Colin Firth felt like a cameo for Fred, but honestly it felt right. Bob Hoskins’ felt nice as well they were bringing so many talented people that can bring stories to life in their own way. 

There is one main issue, and it’s the same for The Polar Express. There are so many wonderful scenes in IMAX, but when watching the films at home it’s turned to meh. Doing research this movie is solely for IMAX because it’s the first Disney animated movie for it with The Polar Express also being released in IMAX.

Final notes, I am afraid of the ghost of Christmas past because the face is literally Jim Carrey.  Personally I give the movie a 4/10. The story is wonderful and so is the film, but in my opinion like The Polar Express it should only be seen in an IMAX theater or in a VR set so the viewer would enjoy it more.

I do recomend this, but I recomend the older versions more, not because of the animation, but because you will feel more interested for a more kid friendly version, I would the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic special. The pacing is good for half an hour and the music is awesome. Honestly here’s a clip of the Ghost of Christmas Future’s song, they were able to make the story their own for the show but also simple for the audience to understand. Go to 1:30 if you don’t want to watch the Ghost of Christmas Present. 

This was my review on A Christmas Carol! 

I’m Arry and next week we will be covering Cars 3. Happy holidays and happy movie watching! 

[wolfy19982-blog]

Review #7 Oct. 30, 2017 “Ugly is Our Job Son”

All images are under Public Domain and information comes from Wikipedia and IMDB 

I know the only movie I reviewed from 2017 was IT, but that’s because I haven’t see that many that came out this year. However I only saw a handful of movies and if you want I can do one or the other. Anyways, what can I say about this movie? I guess I’ll do one reboot a month for now on. To me IT is not a reboot or remake, it’s a film adaptation not really using the TV miniseries except for the small Pennywise doll in the haunted house. 

This movie is a bit difficult because I was comparing it to the 1991 film, because well yeah it’s Keanu. So let’s get started on 2015′s Point Break.  Spoilers ahead.

The film starts off with Johnny played by Luke Bracey and his friend Jeff played by Max Thieriot. The two are extreme sports athletes doing the most unthinkable. This is where the two go on a thin ridgeline where Jeff uses too much power in the jump leading to his death. Cut to seven years and Johnny becomes an FBI agent on a case of different robberies, each with a tie to extreme sports. He goes undercover and meets Bodhi the leader of the gang, soon it becomes a sort of cat and mouse chase until Bodhi is caught. For Johnny though, he lets Bodhi go knowing he was going to surf a wave during a storm and he wouldn’t be coming back.

So of course many would probably want a comparing of both, but there is another remake that no one talks about, that’s that’s really my personal opinion, the first Fast and Furious film. It’s the same story though, a police officer goes undercover to see if a group were doing crimes, he falls for one of the girls (the leader’s sister), gets caught as an officer, and in the end he let’s the leader go. That is the same plot, for Point Break the only difference is well in the original the girl was the leader’s former lover, and there weren’t nine sequels after. To my defense on Fast and Furious, it stands alone as a movie even if the stories are similar, it’s still a separate film and deserves it’s own praise, even if it’s scheduled for a tenth film. 

On its own this film was missing something that was there in the middle of each frame. Motive for the criminals. The reasoning behind Edgar Ramirez’s Bodhi to commit all the crimes was a philosophical reasoning, finishing something similar to finding nirvana or enlightenment. In the very beginning the group steals money from a cargo plane and let’s it out to a small village, and they did it other times as well. Using the money as a sort of Robin Hood like motive would actually have made the story more exciting. In fact it would’ve made more sense especially because the film is set in modern day and poverty a BIG issue world wide.

What confused me was the use of “the Ex Presidents”, it was cool that they placed the images on motorcycle helmets, yet those helmets were never used again in the film, and this group didn’t really have a name. To me it felt like the people with the Ex Presidents on the helmets were a group and Bohdi’s was just a copycat. The idea of having them on helmets instead of the actual mask is original and in modern time it would be smart to use a helmet instead of a Halloween mask, not only because it’s easier to hide the identity but also for more protection. 

I can say it was odd how the only reference to the original being a surfing movie was in the beginning and in the end, but they also changed the meaning of the title. In the reboot they speak of it as the breaking point everyone has, which is pretty deep, and in the 1991 film it refers to the surfing term as “ where a wave breaks as it hits a point of land jutting out from the coastline “.

The character development, it needs work, as well as the relationship between the characters. Where Johnny meets Bodhi in the film he tries to surf the same wave Bodhi does, Bodhi even calls him out on it saying it’s disrespectful. Personally I have never surfed but if I’m right stealing a wave from someone who is already surfing on it is like stealing someone’s car, it’s like “dude wtf”. To Bodhi that should have been a red flag to completely ignore him because he was disrespected as an athlete by another athlete. But I digress, this movie has far too many plot holes that even I couldn’t list out. 

This movies, with it’s flaws it only made me want to see the 1991 film when I finished it. The 1991 film casted a shadow, that shadow grew larger because of this movie. In movies with a reboot the saying goes “The original was better” and sometimes it was wrong, but with this movie, it’s right.

Do I recommend? No, just watch the original. 

My rating? 5/10, the bonus points because of Edgar Ramirez, so 6.5/10.

I’m Arry and next week we’ll be covering Cars 3, happy movie watching!

[wolfy19982-blog]

For everyone that’s reading Arry’s Movie Corner I am deleting the blog but putting all my reviews, including all the older reviews I did, here 

https://www.quotev.com/ArrysMovieCorner/published 

[wolfy19982-blog]

Review #6 Oct. 22, 2017 “Actually I’m Just a Friar”

Now this movie, it takes inspiration from the characters in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, as well as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and there classic werewolf story. Everyone knows where Dracula and Frankenstein’s monster originated, but the werewolf dates back to many stories myths and cases from as early as twelfth century AD so it would be hard to really tel when, but the basis is the same. Personally grew up with this movie, and I’ll do my best to not have the nostalgia goggles on, because well it’s meh. Spoilers ahead, let’s just jump into this week’s film 2004′s Van Helsing.

Oh and I chose Van Helsing because it was announced earlier this year that Universal was going to do a reboot but with Channing Tatum in mind for the role for their Dark Universe.

Plot: Gabriel Van Helsing, played by High Jackman, is a monster hunter working under a secret organization within the Vatican. There he goes to Transylvania on a hunt for Dracula. There he meets Anna played by Kate Beckinsale. She is the last hair to a family sworn never to enter heaven until Dracula’s death. There he encounters vampires, imps, Frankenstein’s monster, and werewolves until Dracula’s demise.

Looking at this film the plot is very interesting using iconic monsters like that but of course I need to say it.

Pros: 

The cast: What can I say? The main two were big stars at the time, Hugh Jackman as Wolverine and Kate Beckinsale as Selene from Underworld, they look like they enjoy the movie putting a lot of effort into their acting.

Werewolf transformations: This was interesting and I loved it, there are better films that show how someone transforms into one, American Werewolf in London usually being most known for using mostly practical effects. Even though it’s CG the way he rips his skin off showing the fur underneath while he grows is one of the only times I’ve seen it in film (beats the Twilight werewolves).

The costumes: I love the costumes in this movie, they’re really simple that the main characters stand out. 

The story: It’s a new twist that really has only happened a few times in media, but even less in film.  

Dracula: I honestly believe the actor was having fun going over the top while portraying Dracula, just by his movements you can tell he put so much into it. I never really cared about Van Helsing or the other characters, I wanted to see Dracula on the screen.

Carl: CARL! He and Dracula are my favorite characters in the movie! It’s not because the running gag is “actually I’m a friar not a monk”, no it’s because he is so nerdy in the film that it’s funny. 

Cons:

The subplot: He is the great Van Helsing! Cool, so why does the audience need to know why or how he lost his memories? To me the idea of having him arrive with amnesia and only seeing snippets through dreams sounds oddly familiar... you know like Wolverine.

The music: Believe me the soundtrack is nice, but the music would actually have worked if it were muted at certain scenes, then again it was the early 2000′s everyone wanted to be as memorable as the Lord of the Rings soundtrack 

Anna: I get it use one of the biggest actresses in Hollywood at the time known for fighting vampires and lycans, but come on! Kate Beckinsale literally played Selene in Underworld the year before this was released, and that says a lot in this film. This girl you don’t really see her progression as a character, more like badass in the beginning, useless damsel in distress in the middle, then a bit useful but still so useless let’s kill her off by the end. For someone who may see it for the first time when she is introduced as pretty cool, hunting the werewolf with her brother, not the bait but still hunting, and when Van Helsing comes in that confidence she carries herself with just vanishes like it was never there to begin with. It would have been better if they portrayed her as someone who feels the burden of her family, but takes pride in helping to accomplish it not force her way into going with Van Helsing. 

Castle Dracula/Frankenstein: Why isn’t Dracula in castle Dracula? “Because he was kicked out and never to be seen again”, really? Here is what would have made this action film into a more suspenseful film, instead of having him in castle Frankenstein, have the hideout of Dracula and his brides inside castle Dracula. O course having it in a hidden room that only he would be able to leave or enter and have be non noticeable to the new inhabitants so it would be easier to hunt. 

The imps: I know they’re supposed to be the “babies”, but they look more like imps than a vampire. Imp. Baby. 

To me, this movie is an action movie that is trying to be a horror movie. There is one main issue that I had with this film that made sure the sequel in Hollywood wasn’t going to happen (as a live action). Too many monsters. In the beginning you have Mr. Hyde, then while Transylvania you have the vampires, the werewolves, and Frankenstein’s monster that makes it out of focus on who the real villain is. 

It is all over the place, and to me I think that’s because Universal owns Dracula, the wolf-man, Frankenstein’s monster, and Mr. Hyde and of course they wanted to use them as much as they wanted. Personally if you want to see it go ahead if you’re interested since it’s a very interesting movie.

I give this movie a 5.2/10 not because all the flaws, but because Stephen Sommers could have done more to make it better than what he did. We can all agree on one thing though. This was a better vampire story than Twilight.

I’m Arry and next week I’ll be writing about 2015′s Point Break. Happy movie watching!

[wolfy19982-blog]

Review#5 Oct. 16, 2017 “Why must Fireflies die so young?”

Now, I know that this a tough topic and I may be put under fire because of my opinion on this film. Even though the only recent film I wrote about was IT, I love Studio Ghibli and I needed to write about at least one film from that company. This film though, it has a very large following worldwide. Don't get me wrong Studio Ghibli is a gem for being one of the big animation companies still creating film with traditional 2D animation to this day, even combining the two to make it beautiful.

This film, I honestly have only seen it once, and it was before I wrote this so it isn't a memory. SPOILER WARNING because I am reviewing, by the quote alone. Grave of the Fireflies.

Plot: The main characters Seita and his little sister Setsuko, surviving the firebombing in their home, the two orphans must live on in their own to survive. Until their death both at separate time. The film being smart and showing how they died as the two are already dead.

There really isn’t much to say because that is the entire film in a sentence or two. I would analyze, but it would take far too long. 

Pros:

The design: I know, it’s Ghibli and it will always be beautiful. It’s true, but remember Studio’s Ghibli’s last film to use hand painted cells instead of on the computer was Princess Mononoke. It’s a beautiful design with the hand painted backgrounds helping to enhance the scenery. How they draw the people, they have the eyes bigger, I guess for me so the emotion of the character is seen more. After all the eyes are the gates to the soul.

 The story: The story about a pair of siblings having to live in a war torn country is very clever, especially with them having to fend for themselves. It’s pretty good concept and the execution for our main characters remembering how they died is very intriguing as well. 

Seita: I kind of understand how this character’s arc is going, he lost his mother in an air raid, his father’s whereabouts are unknown throughout the entire film, on top of that he has to raise his little sister who is only about three to four years old. He had to grow up at an age that many have to, not for him but his little sister.

The narration: The narrator, being the two children on their way home, is extremely well executed. Having no words but only actions as they go to each memory of how the heroes die, it’s something that not many films to this day are able to do.

The enemy: What can I say about it? Well, there is no real enemy regarding this film. Each person is put in a situation that there is no real enemy, just people fighting and trying to survive.

The music: I am a musical person, and  the music is a beautiful addition driving the story even more.

Cons:

Setsuko: I get it she is a little girl and some times they are meant to be annoying; however she is old enough to understand somethings and not be so stubborn.

Seita: HE LIED TO HIS LITTLE SISTER THE ENTIRE TIME. I understand that he needed to grow up so quickly especially after the death of his mother and his father, but there are ways to explain to a small child on the concept of death.

The extended family: The aunt is so rude, believe me I do understand that many people would be the same if there were able people not willing to help in a war, the main issue though, well she scolds them for not reason, even making them stop playing an instrument that was in their room when they moved in. 

The plot: Yes the plot is awesome, the only issue I really have is the very beginning with Seita saying “September 21, 1945. That was the day I died.” in fact it may have had a better if the audience saw Seita die first then show his spirit. 

The timing: It all took place in 1945, but all within the span of three months from June to September. I kind of understand why because medically it does take that much time. 

Now I know that many have compared Grave of the Fireflies to Schindler’s List by being an anti-war film. I did research to find that it’s an autobiographical book by the author Nosaka, where he lost his sister due to malnutrition in 1945. And in the book it’s an apology due to him blaming himself for his sister’s death, not only that but it was also to make amends and help him accept the tragedy.

Personally I thought the movie wasn’t as great as others say, I think of it as a good movie. It is a very emotional piece of art where it doesn’t matter whether in a war or even if it’s just an average day. It is a beautiful piece and yet it as a whole indeed has some things missing.

Personally for me I give the move an 8/10, I know some will give more but this is how I see it. I recommend this movie so much, but for me I guess only as a movie to see one time.

I’m Arry and next time I’ll write about 2004′s Van Helsing. Happy movie watching!

[wolfy19982-blog]

Working on a Ghibli film review right now, film title is a hush

[wolfy19982-blog]

Review #4 Oct. 14, 2017 “Write Your Own Stories”

 So as I started this I'm sure some have asked, why the quotes? Well each quote I have well I have either put on as a summary for this movie or for others my favorite quote from the movie. And the quote for this time is actually the very last thing the audience hears before the credits role. This movie? The Book of Life.

Knowing that this movie is one of the very first animated films produced IN THE US with a majority hispanic/latino background, minus Channing Tatum and Ron Perlman, it's pretty good. And before someone messages me saying they feel triggered because I didn't use "latinx"....

Traditional Spanish has the masculine form say latino, for a group of people as well and as for a male. The reason why is still unknown to me. I grew up using latino, because yes I am Hispanic of Latin and Caribbean descent. Meaning, I understand how some feel on that topic but I feel comfortable using the masculine terms when speaking of a group with or without women.

Now let’s talk about the director, Jorge Gutierrez, a Mexican animator, painter, writer and director. Personally I know him the most for his television show that was on Nickelodeon called El Tigre: The Adventures of Manny Rivera, where the main character was a sort of luchador that was also a crime fighter. Already after doing research and finding out he did a show that at time (to my knowledge) the only other cartoon with an almost all Latin American based characters was ¡Mucha Lucha!. In all honesty I praise his work, yes it is on the Mexican roots because that is his nationality, but yet he opens the doors to people who may have little to no knowledge of the Mexican culture of Dia De Los Muertos.

Anyways, also knowing that Guillermo Del Toro was involved with this made it even more awesome for me, and I paid no attention to this movie at all when it was released. It's Guillermo Del Toro, the guy that came up with the Dark Knight Joker smile before the Dark Knight Joker did it! (I am referring to Pan's Labyrinth, kind of funny how Dark Knight came out in 2008 and Pan’s Labyrinth came out in 2006).

To any reader that is in love with the 50 Shades film series, he's the director Charlie Hunnam stopped filming 50 Shades of Grey for, yes Crimson Peak is on my list to do. And yes Jax from Sons of Anarchy was originally supposed to be Christian Grey.

So onto the film review really! Let's take a look at The Book of Life!

The film starts off with a group of kids going to a museum, there they meet a woman tour guide who shows them to the Mexico section. Explaining everything to them she brings out a set of dolls, and where the story really begins. A trio of little kids on Dia De Los Muertos(Day of the Dead). The trio being our, I don't want to say heroes, love triangle.

We start with Joaquin, the son of the town hero, orphaned mind you since his mother is no where to be seen. Manolo his friend, the son of a family of matadors(bull fighters) going back many generations. Finally Maria, the girl and third to the triad, she is a girl ahead of her time. There we meet our other characters La Muerta who is literally a walking and talking sugar skeleton. And Xibalba, to me at least I am reminded of Hades mixed with Thanatos from Greek Mythology (god of underworld and god of death). 

Because of this as years go by the love triangle grows stronger causing Manolo to go to the world of the dead (I forgot what it was called), now because of his death caused by Xibalba he goes through the realm of the forgotten, a place where all souls go if they are forgotten to find La Muerta. There Xibalba is caught cheating and Manolo wages a bet, him winning. Once he’s up there he wins the girl and it’s a happily ever after.

To start it off we’ll go to the cons because I don’t have that many, and I’ll do it in bullets with why.

Cons:

The fanbase: they are a large group of people and in fact without them there wouldn’t be a Book of Life 2 coming out, but some were accusing Pixar for stealing with Coco.

Channing Tatum: I know without him the movie may not have even gone to theaters, his voice as Joaquin just kinda felt off at the beginning, only at the end did it work

Joaquin: I understand, girls love the musician, and I know that he was in in love with Maria too. He was the town hero, he would’ve been more likable if he had a more in depth tale instead of being the son of the original town hero. For me, there’s a scene where he shows Maria something he held from her, it may have been better if he tried as much as Manolo for her to be difficult to choose. To me though the role of Joaquin felt as if instead of someone in love, he felt more like the friend that didn’t want to be left out seeing his best friends falling in love with each other, giving him more depth would’ve helped and hopefully the sequel will give him a character arc.

The relationship between La Muerta and Xibalba: I get that they are lovers, but I don’t know anyone who can get over an argument that quickly. They are gods so I understand.

The narration: I understand that the narrator was put as well as the children to get the audience interested, for me though whenever the film would go back to the students though it took me away from the movie, it would have been better to me at least, if instead of starting the film with the film, having the narrator (SPOILERS is revealed to be La Muerta) to be shown at the end, so the story wouldn’t be cut when there was a interruption from a child.

Pros:

The characters: The chemistry between them all was so great, it feels so natural! Besides Manolo, my favorite character goes to two people the pig, and La Muerta. Yes Chuy is a comedic relief and how he oinks but who can say no this this?

Anyways, La Muerta is literally death emboddied. I honestly love how they show her enjoying the wager, even being interested in the song Manolo sings at Maria’s song. Not only does it add mystery to what kind of guy she wants, it shows that even though she is a goddess she does have emotions, she is usually calm, but she can get mad or even curious and that makes her a more interesting character.

The songs: Yes they have a mix of original and known songs, yet they mix them well. And they sound good both in English and in Spanish which makes it even cooler

The design: The aesthetic for the characters within the tale in a tale reminds me of the director’s previous work being El Tigre: The Adventures of Manny Rivera. The way the characters are presented as dolls makes it even more spectacular; not because it’s easier, no because it makes the viewer believe it is a fantasy like world sending said viewer to a place they may have never been to before. And because they are doll, well they can do things that normal humans can, like be torn apart and be fine with it.

The cast: The cast is awesome! Minus Channing Tatum before the end. Diego Luna, Zoe Saldana, Dany Trejo, Hector Elizondo, Grabriel Iglesias, Cheech Marin, and so many more people with the Latin background. Not to mention Channing Tatum, Ron Perlman (who I’m starting to think has a cameo or a role in ALMOST every recent Guillermo Del Toro production), Christina Applegate, and Ice Cube, by the way those are the only non Hispanic/Latino cast that I know. 

Chuy: I don’t know why I have a separate section for him but I just love him so much! He’s like that pet I never had. Not only was he not you know a pet from the pets of the Disney princesses (Yes Moana has a pet pig but that movie was released after this one), he doesn’t really have that much screen time. And when he did, he was so cute. Even as a grown pig he was cute!

The dialog: What can I say I loved it. The way they spoke, minus Joaquin and Maria’s father, it felt real like you could have an actual conversation with them. 

The Sanchez family: Yes Manolo’s father was a stereotypical father, and well he’s kind of accurate in some Hispanic/Latin families. The father is the stern one trying to raise his children right hoping they would surpass them. Families that I know well most want them to become the successful careers (current times a doctor or lawyer) also while being able to give them grandchildren.His mother though well, she knows her child the most, usually the grandparents but having his grandmother on the side with his father made more interesting. Not to mention the extended family, there well there are some that have dreams in common with us, and some that we have no idea where they came from (the clown cousin). 

My final thoughts? I haven’t been able to find it anywhere in Spanish since I saw it on my phone, but it’s a beautiful story. It’s not a damsel in distress story, its a coming of age story where one must choose between their passion or the traditions their family have. 

Quick research on Xibalba, his name in Mayan means fear, and Xibalba is actually the name of the K’iche/Quiche (Guatemalan) Mayan underworld which actually makes his character even cooler.

Do I recomend it? Yes! Everyone will enjoy it whether you are Hispanic/Latino or not. 

Personally for me I give it a 7/10, it’s great but there is something missing and I’m not sure exactly what.

[wolfy19982-blog]

Review #3 Oct. 11, 2017 “I Put A Spell On You”

October! The month of Halloween, pumpkins, black cats. Of course that means one thing for me and my family; we watch “Hocus Pocus”. Instead of doing an analysis like how I did for the 2017 IT movie, I’ll use the pros and the cons.

Now around this time black cats were big for toys due to the movie and Sabrina the Teenage Witch. So I’ll be reviewing the 1993 movie “Hocus Pocus”.

Plot:

So the movie is well, very 90′s cliche. It’s so cliche it’s stupid. The movie starts with the history of the Sanderson sisters. They gave a curse of some sort where a virgin must light the candle, the watcher of the candle being a boy turned into a cat to warn them, and he talks. Then of course it goes to the present where the main character is the kid in Salem. Of course he lights the candle and the sisters return. But before he could, he meets two bullies that call him “Hollywood”. Then they try returning the sisters, a colonial zombie wakes, the witches entice their parents and the witches try getting all the children. Until the end when the sun hits them do they have only things that the 90′s would fine fun.

Pros:

Well, the comedy was funny when I was little was fun. Now it’s alright. The movie isn’t bad, yet it’s not good. The good things I liked were the practical effects with the zombie. The cat was my favorite as well, he’s so sarcastic and it makes him the best part of the movie. The songs are catchy too but not enough.

Cons:

WHY IS THERE A GROWN MAN IMPERSONATING A POLICE OFFICER??? Come on Disney that’s illegal! The parents are very bad parents, like really why don’t you listen to your kids? 

The witches were really... not terrifying. When someone would think of a witch who do you picture? The wicked witch of the west, Kiki’s delivery service, Maleficent, even the Evil Queen from Snow white. Those are the first that come to my mind. There are so much more that it honestly now feels like a parody of a Halloween film for the 90′s SNL would do.

I grew up watching Hocus Pocus and it did honestly. Then I turned 10, it wasn’t scary nor was it even funny. It was just stupid. A tradition in my family is to watch the movie at least every October and count how many 90′s cliches there are. To be honest, in the first half hour I got this:

Exposition leading to a curse

A curse 

Someone turning into an item or animal

Said item or animal talking

300~ years later

New kid in town     - Said new kid being a virgin (it’s 2017, that’s an accomplishment if you’re a virgin after high school graduation)     - New kid hates it at new home     - Said new kid gets a crush on the only girl that talks to him (dude you’re like 13-15 worry about making friends not a girl)     - “You embarrassed me in front of half the guys at school!” Dude that was like five guys you aren’t home schooled

Weird bullies picking on new kid that are really just stupid   - “Hollywood” nickname, that’s not demeaning it’s odd   - Getting mad when he said no to drugs. I mean really...?

The location being Salem (most likely Massachusetts, just because the trials are mostly known in Salem doesn’t mean it should be in Salem)

Weird cameos of people you never knew of (the devil directed “Pretty Woman” and the “Princess Diaries” series btw)

Annoying parents that won’t listen

Virgin jokes, again why?

Annoying little sibling that is really unnecessary

Deus ex machina (this case the sun, yeah this entire movie was all in 1 night)

This movie is okay for a good laugh. With my nostalgia goggles off I can see why people watch it now. It’s so stupid it’s comical. Heck you can even tell that the actors are trying too hard. I give it a 4.5/10. Do I recommend it? No. 

If you want to see a good witch movie about a curse that takes place in roughly a few days, I recommend ParaNorman, because well simple. It’s good, and the witch is very good too.

[wolfy19982-blog]

Review #2 Oct. 9, 2017 “You’ll Float Too”

So in the spirit of Halloween and the fact that my birthday was recently, I decided to go see a movie. No it wasn’t “Blade Runner 2049″ I wish. I saw instead “IT”, or for the title at the end “IT: Chapter One”. Yes I know it has been out for a month and I know that many have reviewed it, but I want to take it differently. For those who haven’t read my reviews (there’s only like two of them) usually I divide it by the Pros and Cons; sadly I have seen the movie reviewed by multiple YouTube channels my most recent viewing of the review being Channel Awesome. 

To admit, I have not read the book by Stephen King, and I did grow up watching the miniseries starring Tim Curry. Like many I want to compare them but I can only say one thing:

     THE MINISERIES WAS MADE FOR TELEVISION.

I understand how some will always say the original was better, but please try to understand this, ABC (which wasn’t owned by Disney until 1995) took the book and tried to simplify it in a way that only could be done in the 80′s and 90′s. I was born in ‘98 so I fully don’t understand the “#90skidsremember with the exception of stealing them from my older siblings. The 1990 IT miniseries did scare me, well only the cover because the miniseries is hilarious. 

Anyways, I will try to refrain from comparing the two because it is over done. Big spoiler warning for those who haven’t seen the movie and are interested, or if you aren’t and just want to not deal with the fear. So here is my review/analysis for the 2017 IT move.

How do I start with this review. Simple. It scared me at times, but made me laugh the rest. I know the trailer was perfect, but when I watch a scary movie I expect not to sleep at night, and to be honest, I’ll be getting a full night’s rest. I have read Stephen King books, my favorite being Green Mile, and I want to do something I’m sure many have done. just a quick analysis on Pennywise, because he didn’t scare me. 

The reason why is because when I saw him taking the shape of their fear, in the movie theater I literally said to my brother next to me “he’s a boggart from Harry Potter”.  Quick Harry Potter information, a boggart is like a gremlin or imp that takes the form of what you fear the most. For Stan in the current film it was the painting. Now because there is no wizarding world they can’t say Riddikulus! 

Bill Skarsgard did a wonderful job as the dancing clown, and the fact that his siblings are also actors makes it better. Gustaf mostly known as Floki in History Channel’s Vikings; Alexander known as Meekus in Zoolander, the boyfriend in Lady Gaga’s music video for Papazzi, but he is mostly known as Tarzan in “The Legend of Tarzan” and as Eric in “True Blood”, also their father Stellan who is mostly known to Marvel fans as Dr. Selvig, to “Pirates of the Caribbean” fans as Bootstrap Bill Turner, and to the musical fans he is Bill in the film adaption of “Mamma Mia!”. His family is huge, however there was something missing going through the film with him. 

Though he was always there watching everything; it was as if his shadow on Derry seemed too great. It was cool how there were snippets on everything that he was somehow there and he had a presence, and yet it felt too overbearing. The biggest example to me could be the television show Eddie’s mom and Henry Bowers’ father watched, he was there watching them the whole time. 

I understand that was a means for dramatic effect for only the audience to know instead of the characters, it felt to me off, or really just awkward. The clown is a threat and is taking children, and yet he never took any adults. 

It is easier to scare a kid, but the fears that adults have are different, and it might happen in the sequel too. 

The plot overall with a group of kids looking a killer kind of reminds me of “Stand By Me” another film inspired by a Stephen King novella. The difference though is in IT the kids are looking for a clown that killed others, in Stand By Me the kids are looking for a dead body.

I know I’m comparing too much than I should, especially when I said I would try not to. The main problem with the movie is the easiest. It’s not scary.

Pennywise lives off of fear, that’s actually cool but he has weaknesses for whatever form he takes. The losers club are all outcasts that band together, that sounds like a lot of other groups I know (Breakfast Club, Power Rangers 2017, Outsiders, etc). The extremely well depth and three dimensional bullies in almost every Stephen King story where a child is the protagonist. These things have become a trope especially for Stephen King. 

Does it impact the story? Sometimes when it’s needed. Is it in anyway needed to continue the plot? Only when the story needs it. 

The story follows a group of kids who are outcasts. Bill the leader who has a speech impediment being his stutter, Eddie a kid who lives on medication (later revealed to be placebos), Stan the kid who was born Jewish that later SPOILERS is the first to die, Richie the voices kid and one that will not stop talking about how big his dick is (he seriously doesn’t stop. And it’s probably small), Ben the new kid that just happens to be chubby, Beverly the supposed slut of the town that lives in a very abusive home, and Mike the only black kid in town (no seriously he’s the only black person cast besides his grandpa). 

So it’s summer break and during the school year Bill’s little brother Georgie goes missing. We as the audience, and the cat on the porch, know that he died; after his arm was bitten off. Later on all of the kids are seen on the last day of school, Bill Richie Eddie and Stan going together, Beverly appearing to be smoking in the stall, Ben trying to escape, and Mike trying not to kill a sheep.       

Of course when Bill gets home he shows his dad where his brother’s body may have ended up, his father becoming furious. 

Now here is something that made me begin to think even more. Bill has not gone through all the stages of grieving. In fact he is still at the beginning, denial. Only until the end when he kills “Georgie” does he actually accept that his little brother died.

Now for the rest of the losers club, it’s a bit hard. So I will do my best.

Ben it’s a bit easy, for the 2017 remake they show that he’s interested in the history since he had just moved in, it makes him curious. He is of course different because really the only chubby kid I saw in the movie besides him was Belch, the bully that spoke out when Henry was starting to carve into him. Though he is new, he wants to know about the history usually going to the library, meaning one thing, he’s a bookworm with a heart of gold. The proof is in the library (my favorite scene) where he’s being chased by a headless kid and in the sewers when Pennywise’s head takes the form of a mummy.

Eddie suffers from a small case of mysophobia (germaphobia) that is mostly because of how “protective” his mother is, really he’s just a healthy boy that doesn’t know he’s healthy.

Richie is just a chatterbox that well, he doesn’t really grow except for becoming more quiet. 

Stan is a bit difficult, he grew up Jewish. That’s really the only thing I can remember of him. His character wasn’t that interesting to me really. 

Beverly is the only girl, and her relationship at home is her father sexually abusing her. What she does over time is face her fear against her father ultimately murdering him. Yes these kids kill people and aren’t sent to prison what so ever.

Finally Mike, being the only African American kid in  town, meaning of course he would be bullied, especially for that. The race card will always somehow be pulled whether it was wanted or not. Even though I consider him the Token Black Kid, he still left a great impression. He had morals pushing his pacifist nature when he finally beat the bully near the end of the film, he really is one of my favorite characters.

To me the film is good, but not great. Do I recommend it? Yes. Is it scary? No. 

Personally I give it a 6/10 and well it was weird to watch. So go ahead and watch it if you want. 

[wolfy19982-blog]

Review #1 Jul. 19, 2017 “I Am Gandalf, And Gandalf Means Me”

So first time doing a review on something, and what I chose was The Hobbit trilogies Peter Jackson did recently. I understand that the movies released between 3-5 years ago, and that there are many people, that I know at least,  that dislike them. For what reasons? It’s nothing to get all riled up and triggered about, they’re movies right?

It’s not that simple. To put it as straight forward as I can (and as my 18 year old vocabulary can help). The universe that goes around Middle Earth with the hobbits of the shire have been around since the late 1930′s. Generations have heard of Bilbo Baggins and the 13 dwarves since it’s first publication in 1937. The fanbase itself is so diverse. There are sub divisions including the fans that only like the LOTR and not Tolkien's other works, and the fans that even take the time to study elvish. So doing the movies that bring more light to Middle Earth is the tricky part, so I will do my best and divide it into two parts:

the pros

the cons

those reasons alone, to me at least, will help see how they played. Instead of dividing it by each movie it would be better to cover the entire thing at once. There will be spoilers to the films and book so SPOILER ALERT.

The Pros

When thinking of the movies, I genuinely love them. The casting was great, Smaug was great. The music was wonderful with Howard Shore returning for the score. I even liked the set designs in the Desolation of Smaug the most. Yes the Shire and Rivendell are beautiful and will always be extravagant. Not to mention had they made Goblin-Town looking so good,  but when the characters wake up in Beorn Beorn’s cabin. You can start to see all the detail on the walls if you look close enough. Each of them hinting that he is very dangerous, but also gentle. That’s one example, I could go on with Lake Town and Mirkwood, or the rest of the locations for the films. They all speak Middle Earth and Tolkien. To the point that when one reads the book; the locations in the book come to life. 

I enjoyed everything the movies gave, but I know the movies wouldn’t be as good without out one thing, the cast. Martin Freeman does wonders with the young Bilbo Baggins; from in the beginning where he hesitated about going on the adventure, all the way to the very end where many of them claimed him dead and not Bilbo Baggins from all the change he had. Of course older characters return, including Ian Holm reprising his role as the older Baggins. Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf, and Orlando Bloom being Legolas. Cameos from Hugo Weaving as Elrond, Cate Blanchett with Galadriel, the late Sir Christopher Lee as Saruman, and lets not forget the two other hobbits people love, Elijah Wood with a Frodo cameo and Andy Serkis as Gollum.

The new cast though, is stunning. It’s not the fellowship of the ring, but it is something. Thirteen new actors for each dwarf, each with their own personalities. A new female elf played by Evangeline Lily. The much too underestimated and despised master of Lake Town with the talents of Stephen Fry. Our first and last glimpse in the life of this man, giving the term “werebear” to light with Mikael Persbrandt as Beorn. The Mirkwood elf king by Lee Pace, and of course the deadly dragon Smaug himself Benedict Cumberbatch and the one to slay him Bard played by action star, now turned Disney villain Luke Evans.

I know I missed more actors and characters, but to me these are the ones that had the most impact on the audience. For most of the films, you are with the dwarf and hobbit party to Erebor, it is only then when the paths are crossed where the party meets that the characters selves are shown in ways, that people see either themselves or others. 

Yes, Smaug is technically a wyvern because his two legs. A dragon, to most, is a large or small reptilian creature with the ability to roam the skies and land. Wyvern is a subclass of dragon, meaning Smaug is a dragon. 

Cons

This is the section that I hesitate to write.How can I show to people what I think they did wrong in the movies? I’ll try I say. 

One interesting thing I have an argument with myself on is the most simplistic, why do a trilogy of only one book? This argument could go either or. On one side, one standalone movie would’ve sufficed. The other, that standalone movie would have felt rushed and out of place. This argument could go on forever with details from both book and film, after all it’s just a children’s book. 

The other thing I didn’t really like about the movies, the pacing was slow. For a majority of An Unexpected Journey is solely exposition. For the Desolation of Smaug, the pacing rose a bit, but it isn’t until Bilbo enters the room where the dragon is that it isn’t exposition. In Battle of the Five Armies, the exposition is gone, it’s mostly action with fighting to the point where it turns into a season of Game of Thrones. Why? The ones you like die. Fili Kili and Thorin die, funny how they were all heirs to the lonely mountain. Tauriel mourns and even Thandruil acknowledged their love. What I did like though was when Legolas told Thranduil he was leaving, he mentions a ranger by the name of “Strider” A.K.A. the big guy himself Aragorn so nice reference. 

Of course I know I will hear arguments about this next item. Eagles. The eagles to me are deus ex machina. Cornered on a cliff hanging on trees, surrounded by flames and enemies with death approaching? Eagles. Got your legitimate heirs to the kingdom dying or dead? No hope as the orcs get closer on Erebor? Eagles. With a Radagast and Beorn with them. It’s super effective! 

All in all I would give the Hobbit trilogy about a 7.5/10. It’s good, but it isn’t perfect of course it will have it’s flaws like every film adaptation of a book. Those are really the only things I didn’t like in the films, but I still like them. The fight sequnces are okay. The characters are good, even the deus ex machina works sometimes. If you liked the films, nice, if not it’s not the end of the world. Not only is there the book itself to read, also the Rankin Bass film from the 70′s animated film with more songs and cute animation if you’re looking for a quick watch. Do I recommend them? Yes! Tolkien’s books are what started the modern fantasy that everyone knows, if they weren’t made we wouldn’t have the Chronicles of Narnia, A Song of Ice and Fire, and many more.