Another year has passed, and now its time once again to count down my most anticipated movies of 2016.
This list is mostly blockbusters, because that's most of what I hear about. These probably won't all be the movies that I would rank among my favorites at the end of the year, but until I see what the Oscar bait this year will be, this is what I'm most interested in.
The sequel to one of Pixar's best. The trailer was sort of underwhelming, but I was never expecting it to be as good as the original. This could still be a great movie, or at least adequate entertainment. 9. Bourne 5
Matt Damon is back as Jason Bourne in the untitled next chapter in the Bourne saga. This could be a nice return to form for the series. 8. Hail Caesar
The smallest movie on this list, this movie is directed by the Coen brothers. It tells the story of a movie producer who needs to get the lead actor of his movie back from kidnappers. It looks like what we have come to expect from this team, and what we love about them. 7. Captain America: Civil War
The next movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe will pit Captain America against Iron Man. This could be an exciting movie, and I would like to see who will win. 6. Suicide Squad
And now for the other side of the comic book movie spectrum, DC Comics. Very few movie franchises have come across more controversy than their planned cinematic universe. This movie is no exception. While it may not be as controversial as their other movie coming out this year (more on that later), many people hated the look of Jared Leto's Joker. However, the trailer has definitely sold me with its visuals and tone, and I am eager to see this movie. 5. X-men Apocalypse
The next chapter in the X-men franchise is directed once again by Bryan Singer, the director of the first two and Days of Future's Past. I really liked all of these movies, and would like to see him do another X-men movie. 4. Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them
So we actually managed to get another Harry Potter movie. This one is based on a textbook in the Harry Potter universe that JK Rowling got published in real life. Um... okay. The main reason I'm anticipating this movie so much, instead of just passing it off as another cash grab, is that the screenplay is written by Rowling herself. I think that this will mean that it will maintain the magic of the original books and movies. 3. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
This movie had been through a lot. During production, pretty much every casting choice was criticized. The final trailer gave away a lot of the story. Add that to mixed reviews for Man of Steel, and you have got a recipe for disaster. However, as somebody who enjoyed Man of Steel, I am still looking forward to this. I think Ben Affleck has already convinced us he is a believable Batman, and would like to see if Jesse Eisenberg and Gal Gadot can prove themselves as well. I am hoping that this will be an exciting and interesting movie. 2. Deadpool
Everything they have put out to promote this movie has been amazing. I have seen the first trailer so many times I probably know it by heart. I am a fan of good action movies, especially those that have the guts to go for a hard R rating. I also like humor that breaks the fourth wall, which I hear the comics have a lot of. The combination of violent action and witty comic dialog seems to work extremely well in the trailers and I can't wait to see the whole movie. 1. Rouge One: A Star Wars Story
The first Star Wars spin-off movie is directed by Gareth Edwards, best known for directing the 2014 Godzilla reboot, and the independent hit Monsters. The release of The Force Awakens has proven that Star Wars is back, and I'm excited to see the next chapter. So for the second year in a row, the number one spot goes to Star Wars.
I am going to make this review very brief since it has been in the theater for a long time.
Crimson Peak tells the story of a writer in the nineteenth century, who stays in an old house. She finds out that not only is the house haunted, but it is also the house that the ghost of her mother warned her of. She must now find out the mystery of what happened at this house, and why she is in danger.
First of all,this movie is visually stunning, and has a better production value than most other horror movies. It successfully recreates the time period, and the atmosphere is very eerie. However, I personally didn't find it as scary as I was expecting.
The ghosts in this movie are done with CGI. Normally, this doesn't work in horror movies because it doesn't look as real as practical effects, but it works better when it's making ghosts than for something more concrete. The CGI is a good thing in the way that it can make the ghosts more gruesome than practical effects. But the issue I had with this is that the ghosts really didn't have to look very gruesome. I understand that their bodies are decomposing, but I don't think it makes sense that their ghosts need to decompose as well.
In conclusion, Crimson Peak is a visually stunning and moderately scary movie, despite its flaws. Overall, I would recommend it to horror movie fans.
Bridge of Spies is directed by Steven Spielberg, stars Tom Hanks, and (I just found this out while watching the credits) was written by the Coen brothers. So yes, this film has a lot going for it.
This is based on the true story of James Donovan. It is the height of the Cold War, and an accused Soviet spy has been captured. Donovan, an insurance lawyer, becomes hated around the country, when he decides to defend him in court. He is later brought in to attempt to negotiate trading the accused spy for an American prisoner of war.
As you would probably expect, this movie has great acting and directing. Tom Hanks gives a convincing performance, and the movie captures the feel of the era.
The high points of this movie consist mainly of negotiations and trials, and does not feature much of the conventional thrills or action of similar thrillers. However, this was far from boring. It had an interesting story line, good direction, and was perfectly paced without much filler.
Even though this might not be one of Spielberg's best dramas, it is still an intriguing drama that will probably get Oscar nods. I would recommend it to people who like international thrillers that focus on the politics of the situation.
Johnny Depp breaks out of the roles he has been typecast into in Black Mass. And he does this very convincingly. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie does not live up to that performance.
Johnny Depp plays James "Whitey" Bulger, one of the most notorious gangsters in US history, in a movie that chronicles his illegal relations with an FBI agent. He disappears into this role, and truly becomes Bulger. He comes across as very intimidating. His performance elevates this otherwise forgettable gangster movie.
The movie does very little to distinguish itself from other gangster movies. There are very few scenes that are truly memorable. There are not many sympathetic characters in this movie, so it is hard to feel for anybody when they are put through generic gangster movie situations. Altogether, while the movie is still reasonably interesting, it never really sucks you in.
However, the amazing performance of Johnny Depp is enough to recommend this movie. The movie itself probably won't last the test of time, but it is an interesting diversion.
This week, I did not see any movie in the theater. So instead, I'm just going to tell you what my favorite movies are.
This is a list of my top ten personal favorite movies. This list will probably change over time, as I see other movies, or someday think of some movie that I regret not putting on this list. But this is the order that I'm leading toward right now.
10. Psycho (1960)
Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece. Though many of the surprises of this movie are common knowledge now, the movie still played with the audience's expectations like few movies do. It deserves to be on this list, because of it's unconventional nature, and influence on the horror genre.
9. Up (2009)
Well, this is...different from the last one.
The plot of this movie is batshit insane, but in a charming way. It's fun and entertaining throughout. It can tug at my heartstrings more in the first three minutes than most movies can do in their entire run-time. This is definitely one of Pixar's best.
And this is what I think is Pixar's best. It has humor, heart, and beautiful animation. I grew up on it, and it still holds up.
7. Jaws (1975)
This movie has great tension. Steven Speilberg's direction, and the decision to not have the audience see the shark, make this a classic horror movie.
6. The Lion King (1994)
An animated Disney classic. It's dark when it needs to be, and fun at most other times. It is a great coming of age tale, and one that every child should see.
5. ET: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Another movie that every child should see. No other movie has more perfectly captured our childlike wonder.
I can't believe I'm putting this above ET either. I guess that while ET was technically better made, I just personally prefer this Spielberg movie. Maybe I'm just more prone to liking the sight of dinosaurs attacking people. But either way, this movie has great visuals, and some pretty intense sequences.
3. Pulp Fiction (1994)
Probably one of the most entertaining gangster movies out there. This film combines dark humor, smart dialog, and a fun seventies atmosphere. This is Quentin Tarantino at his best.
2. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
Not many films have made me laugh as hard as this one did. It is very ridiculous, in the best kind of way. Silly, hilarious, and quotable, this is a comedy for the ages. 1. Forrest Gump (1994)
I think this movie deserves to be at the top of the list. The winner of the 1994 Oscar for Best Picture perfectly balances comedy and tragedy. Both of these elements are done very well, none seem to be overshadowed by the other. Tom Hanks gives a great performance, and Robert Zemekis' direction is brilliant. This is my favorite movie.
And those are my personal favorite movies. I hope this allows you, as a reader, to get to know me better.
As some of you may know there is a supposed curse that anybody who has played Superman in a movie or TV has either died or had his career die. So the question is, can Henry Cavil, the new Superman, break this curse? Well, the low grosses for his latest film, The Man From UNCLE might suggest no. However, his performance in that movie makes me want to hope for the best.
This movie is an adaptation of a 1960s spy TV show, directed by Guy Ritchie, director of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels; Snatch; and the new Sherlock Holmes movies. Ritchie was the main reason I was excited for this movie, because his style is different from most other directors, and is almost always entertaining. Sure enough, his style is prominent in many scenes throughout the movie, and it is very fun to watch. There are plenty of exciting, stylized action sequences, and moments of dark humor.
The plot revolves around Cavil, a professional thief turned CIA agent, who is forced to team up with a KGB agent (Armie Hammer) to take down a group of Nazi sympathizers who are trying to get a nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, the plot of this movie is pretty generic, and adds little to the formula of other spy movies.
However, what this movie may lack in originality story-wise, it makes up for in directing, as mentioned above, but also from the charisma of its lead actors. Henry Cavil gives an interesting performance, which I personally think is more memorable than his portrayal of Superman. Armie Hammer also gives a good performance, though at times his Russian accent sounds a little fake.
So, in conclusion, The Man From UNCLE is a highly entertaining movie, that makes up for its plots shortcomings with an interesting style and good performances from its main characters. This may not be as good as Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels; or Snatch, but it is a very fun time at the movies.
Straight Outta Compton effectively tells the story of one of the greatest and most influential rap groups of all time: NWA. It chronicles the rise and fall of the group, as well as the controversy surrounding them.
While I am not the closest follower of the group, I do enjoy their work a lot, as well as the other rappers of the late eighties and nineties. So I greatly enjoyed the feel of the movie, and it's soundtrack very much. But I think that there are plenty of things in here for people who don't like their music as well.
The movie's cast of mostly unknown actors are great at portraying the members of NWA. They all look like their respective characters (Ice Cube is played by the son of the real Ice Cube), and for the most part act like them very well. Paul Giamati also gives a good performance as their manager. Throughout the movie, he rips off the members of the group, but at the same time you get an idea that he still cares for them.
This movie never feels boring at any point in its lengthy two and a half hour run-time. It has a driving plot, which shows their fast-paced lives, and has a thriving energy throughout. There are a few sequences of the racial profiling that their songs have spoken out against, which are upsetting, and do a good job of justifying the controversial nature of their music. There are also a few emotional sequences that contrast with the group's violent persona, and are interesting to watch.
I went to see this movie with my roommate. He is a foreign exchange student from Norway, and says that he had never heard of NWA. However, when we got back, he told me to turn on some of their music. I think that it is great how a very well-done movie like this can have such an impact on people.
Selling a movie to audiences can be difficult. It isn't always easy to grab somebody's attention with an ad. So, many movie studios have done some pretty ambitious things to get their movie in the spotlight. But it doesn't always work, and some of them actually backfire on the advertiser. This post will focus on those rare instances.
I have decided to research the worst instances of movie marketing backfiring, and rank them based on how bad the backlash was. Though it is rare for an ad campaign to get a response as bad as these, I did manage to find five of them that were about movies.
So remember, while not every marketing campaign is successful, at least most are not as bad as...
5. Spider-Man 2 - MLB Advertising
Anybody who has ever been to a professional sports game knows that stadiums and advertisements go hand in hand. It is almost impossible to go to a professional stadium and not have some brand name shoved in your face. However, in 2004, Sony Pictures decided to take it one step further, and actually put their name on the baseball diamond. They signed a deal to place the logo for Spider-Man 2 on the bases and on-deck circles of fifteen stadiums. However, this did not blow over well with many baseball fans who saw it as overly commercializing the game. There was a huge outcry from baseball fans around the country, including the film's director, Sam Raimi. The plan was cancelled at the last second.
4. Captivity - Billboards
Captivity was a torture porn horror film from 2007, which is really only remembered for it's controversial ad campaign. Back then, the advertisements for any horror film needed to say only one thing: "This film is violent and messed up." And they succeeded in getting that message across with it's billboard, which showed four images of a young women going through four stages of the movie's plot: "abduction, confinement, torture, termination." However, most people weren't amused when they went up around Los Angeles and New York. Several people called it graphic and indecent, and some people, including Joss Whedon, campaigned for the movie to have the movies rating removed. The billboards were taken down, costing the studio that released the film a lot of money. The controversy did not even help the movie's sales, as it was a box office bomb.
3. Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) - You Suck Sarah Marshall
Judd Apatow's hit romantic comedy Forgetting Sarah Marshall had a creative way to get people interested in the movie before they even knew much about it. They put up several teaser posters around the country, that consisted of phrases like "You suck, Sarah Marshall" and "My mom always hated you, Sarah Marshall." The only issue was... well, people who actually were named Sarah Marshall. Yeah, people don't take well to seeing billboards that blatantly insult them to their face. This led to complaints, and some retaliation pictures featuring similar posters directed toward Judd Apatow. While there wasn't as much outcry as the last two, I'm giving this the higher spot because of how unforeseen it must have been.
2. Mission: Impossible 3 - Musical News Racks
Paramount Pictures had a seemingly safe and inoffensive way to promotetheir new movie Mission Impossible 3. They fitted musical equipment into over 4,000 Los Angeles Times news racks, which would play the Mission: Impossible theme song when opened. Sounds innocent, right? What could possibly go wrong? Well, many people saw wires from the player, and mistook it for an explosive device. As a result one of the news racks was destroyed by the Bomb Squad, and the rest were dismantled soon afterwards.
1. Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters - 2007 Boston Bomb Scare
You may be seeing a theme in the two highest entries.
Cartoon Network's Adult Swim decided to promote their hit series Aqua Teen Hunger Force, as well as the show's movie, using a guerrilla style marketing. Several LED signs were put up around Boston, which featured one of the shows characters giving the finger. However, like in the Mission Impossible 3 stunt, the creators of the sign did not do a good job of concealing the wires, so it had the same outcome. They also failed to notify the police of the purpose of these signs, even after learning they were mistaken for bombs. The signs caused a citywide panic, and led to the arrest of the people who put it up. Though no charges were pressed, Turner Broadcasting, Cartoon Network's parent company, needed to pay two million dollars to the Boston police and Homeland security to settle the matter. It also forced Cartoon Network vice president, Jim Samples, to quit. Well, at least you got the movie in the public's attention.
And those are the worst cases of movie marketing gone wrong. I guess the message to be taken from this is that not all publicity is good publicity.
After a six week hiatus, I am finally back to reviewing movies again. So now, I bring you my thoughts on Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation.
This is the fifth movie in the Mission Impossible franchise, and it proves that even twenty years after the first, this franchise is still going strong.
The movie takes place after the events of the fourth film. It follows Tom Cruise's character as he fights and tries to prove the existence of the terrorist organization known as the Syndicate.
Tom Cruise gives this movie his best in terms of stunt-work. This movie has plenty of action sequences that are done excellently by Tom Cruise. Even if you don't care for him as an actor, you have to give him credit for doing his own stunts. And he does a lot of dangerous things in this movie, including the scene where he hangs from a plane during takeoff (as seen in pretty much every single comercial, trailer, or poster for this movie).
It also has a pretty interesting story. It isn't overly simplistic, but it also isn't as confusing as some of the other entries in the franchise. It has intriguing elements, and is sure to keep the audience's attention throughout. It also has some good acting, with a cast that also includes Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, and Alec Baldwin. There are several moments of comic relief, mostly delivered by Pegg, which hit most of the time. But there are also many moments of tension, which were pulled off very well.
Overall, this was a pretty good movie. I don't really have much else to say about it, so this may be a little bit shorter than my other reviews. However, I'll just say that this is a tense action-thriller with great stunt-work by Tom Cruise.
I am here on what will probably be my last post for the summer. I just got a job at a summer camp, with little wi-fi, so I won't be able to continue this blog until the fall. So without further ado, here's my review of Ted 2.
This is the third movie from director Seth McFarlane, the creator of Family Guy. While I feel like Family Guy isn't as funny as it was in it's early seasons, Ted was actually a pretty funny movie. And I think that this sequel is also a good film for people looking for a fun time.
Ted, the talking teddy bear, (Seth McFarlane) finds that his life is turned upside down after the government decides that he is not a person. This causes him to lose his bank account and his credit card, makes his marriage invalid, and causes him to lose many other rights as well. He sues the government, hiring Amanda Seyfried as his lawyer.
Ted 2 has many funny moment in it. It feels like a live-action episode of Family Guy, even more so than the first one. Like the first one, there is a lot of sexual content, drug use, and offensive humor. But these don't feel like they're just in for shock value.
However, there are also a lot of jokes that don't work. Like some of McFarlane's other work, it features a few pop culture references that don't go anywhere.
Another minor thing that bothered me is how they handled Mila Kunis' character from the last movie. She did not return for this movie, and they explained her away by saying that she divorced Mark Whalberg, and never mentioning her again. This made the happy ending of the last movie seem pointless. Although then again, that's probably just me nitpicking.
But in the long run,Ted 2 is a very funny movie. It has enough big laughs to make people forgive the jokes that fall flat. It probably won't win over people who don't like Seth McFarlane's brand of humor, but it is a fun time for his fans. I would actually go as far as to say that it is almost as good as the first one.
The first Terminator was a monumental success when it came out. It had an original concept, good writing, and plenty of action. It is actually one of the few films to hold a unanimous rating on Rotten Tomatoes. So it was pretty much impossible to make a worthy sequel. Or so it seemed.
The sequel revolves around a mission similar to that of the first movie. The machines set to destroy humanity send another cyborg back in time to kill John Conner, the leader of the human resistance. This time, they send a more advanced model to kill him as a child. However, the humans are once again, one step ahead of them. This time, they send a reprogrammed terminator, played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, back to protect him.
Schwarzenegger once again makes this role his own. The fact that this time he is playing the good guy allows for him to play a character who is more than just intimidating. It was also in this movie where he says some of the character's most iconic lines. All in all, it would be very difficult to imagine anybody else playing this role.
The movie itself has plenty of action, and there is some tension since it is uncertain how the good terminator will kill the seemingly indestructible bad one. James Cameron's directing takes The characters are also handled very well. One of the standouts is Sarah Conner, John's mother. In the first movie, she was mostly helpless, but now the events of the last movie have made her a complete bad-ass and a more interesting character.
The movies story also makes good use of its intriguing premise. There are plenty of plot points that are able to elevate the movie beyond formulaic. The movie is sometimes exciting and sometimes interesting, but never boring, and never loses the audiences attention. There are even a few emotional scenes; the movie pulls off the difficult task of making the audience feel for an emotionless robot.
This is the ideal action movie. It is one of the best sequels of all time, and probably the best for the action genre.
It has been almost two weeks since I wrote my review of Jurassic Park in preparation for the release of Jurassic World. Well now I've finally seen it, so now I can finally give my thoughts on it.
In this movie, the idea of a theme park full of dinosaurs becomes a reality, which draws many tourists. However, the people running the park decide to further increase attendance by genetically engineering a new type of hybrid dinosaur. The creature gets out, and everyone on the island is in danger.
The thing that I should probably lead this review with is that the CGI is as great as ever. The dinosaurs look great, simple as that.
The rest of the movie itself is pure entertainment. You can probably find a few plot holes, but it would be difficult to deny that it is entertaining. Visually, it has everything you probably wanted in a Jurassic Park movie. People getting eaten, dinosaurs fighting in a theme park setting, Chris Pratt riding a motorcycle with velociraptors running with him. The fact that the park is open to the public while all this is happening, raises the stakes and makes it more exciting.
While the movie wasn't directed by Steven Spielberg, it does have some elements of a Speilberg film. For example, there is a subplot of two children at the park who are going through parental issues, and similar young characters have been in many of Speilberg's work. So it still feels like a Speilberg film.
In conclusion, Jurassic World has plenty of action to please fans of the franchise. However, like I said before, there are a few major plot holes that may irritate people. Which is a shame, because of how intense and thrilling the rest of it is. But if you're like me, and just want to see some dino action, this is the ticket for you.
With Inside Out, Pixar's next animated movie, coming out this Friday, I've decided to review one of their other movies this week. So here are my thoughts on one of their most well known movies, 2003's Finding Nemo.
Ah yes, Pixar. There was nothing like Pixar in their glory days, when they were responsible for some of the greatest animated films of all time. So many of these movies, like Toy Story, Up, and Monsters Inc, could have easily gotten the five star rating from me. And in the middle of that heyday, there was this gem.
The movie centers around a clownfish named Marlin, who is an overprotective father to his son Nemo. His world is changed when Nemo is taken from the ocean and placed in an fishtank in a dentist office in Sydney, Austrailia. Marlin has to team up with another fish named Dory, played by Ellen Degeneres, to get over there find a way to retrieve him.
One of the many things I have to say about this movie is that it is beautifully animated. This film takes place in a gorgeous underwater habitat. Everything is colorful, and beautifully rendered.
But this movie is far from style over substance. It is a great example of Pixar being able to entertain children and adults alike. It balances witty comedy with moments of emotional depth. The characters feel real, and the audience is always interested in what happens next. The adventures that the fish encounter on their journey are exciting, funny, and look great.
This is a movie that is worthy of the Pixar name.
I am going to give this five stars. I realize that my last review of Jurassic Park also had a five star rating, and that was the only review so far that had the name Older Movie Reviews. I promise you that not all of my older review would kiss the movie's ass so much, but this movie does deserve this rating.
With the new movie Jurassic World coming out this Friday, I've decided that this week I will review the original Jurassic Park. Enjoy.
Jurassic Park is one of Spielberg's best films, and one of the best sci-fi disaster films of all time. It takes a concept that could have been a simple B-movie, and brings it to life as something more.
The plot revolves around a man who brings scientists to endorse his new and creation -- a theme park where the attractions are cloned dinosaurs. However, an attempt to smuggle dinosaur DNA, leads to a power outage. The dinosaurs break free, and everybody's lives are in danger.
The film was revolutionary at the time for it's special effects. This movie popularized the use of CGI by showing dinosaurs that looked very realistic. And more than twenty years later, amazingly, the effects still hold up today.
Now if there's one thing that director Steven Spielberg is good at, it's putting a sense of childlike wonder in his films, and this is prevalent in the first half hour of this film. This shows the park in all of it's majesty, before things went horribly wrong. The dinosaurs all look amazing, and it keeps you dazzled and entertained even before anything bad happens. You'll probably want to actually go to the park... I mean besides the whole getting killed by dinosaurs thing.
When the shit does hit the fan, it is very intense. These scenes done in a very different manner than what he had done with his breakout film, Jaws. In Jaws, the shark was rarely shown, and this made the sequences it was in more tense. In this movie, he shows the dinosaurs in all of their glory. This method usually doesn't work in movies, but this is one of the few exceptions. The direction of these sequences keep tensions high as the people try to escape.
In conclusion, Jurassic Park is a classic, that stays intense and spectacular throughout. The visuals are amazing, the action is thrilling, and the direction is great. In short, yes, it's as good as you probably remember.
Tomorrowland is a movie based on a section of Disneyland. What's next? The Section of Universal Studios Between the Jurassic Park Ride and the Building Across From It: The Movie?
To be fair, I do think that this film could work as an adaptation of that section. That section was supposed to be about the future, and it would have been easy to take the Battleship approach to this movie, and just make anything about the future and slap the Tomorrowland name on it. However, director Brad Bird (The Incredibles, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol) develops a movie with the positive spirit of a Disneyland attraction, even if the rest of the movie isn't as great.
The story revolves around a teenage girl who finds a pin that takes her to an technologically advanced utopia for a moment. She then sets out to find out more about it, and encounters danger along the way. Without spoiling anything, I'll just say that she eventually teams up with George Clooney to take down some bad guys.
Like I said before, this movie has a positive attitude that fits into Disney's traditional style. It has a very strong message of optimism and progress. However, I feel it got preachy at times. There were several moments where they shoved the "think positive" message down the audience's throats.
But in spite of this positivity, there are a few moments where it actually got dark or otherwise questionable for a family movie. In one scene, a group of police officers get vaporized. In another, the main character steals a car from a man who pulled over, believing he ran over a little kid. And probably the worst offenders are the scenes that try to convince you that the world is actually going to end. (Minor spoilers for the rest of the paragraph) Near the end, it is explained that the world is going to end in about a month, due to all of our real life problems, like war, famine, and global warming. This makes it a little to real for a family movie based on Disneyland.
However, this film is still ambitious. It has an original story, and stays entertaining throughout. Also, the few scenes that we see that take place in Tomorrowland look good. It's just a shame that the movie couldn't overcome it's preachiness.
2015 is turning out to be a great year for the R-rated action flick. Normally, this genre is an endangered species in a market full of semi-kid-friendly superhero movies, and other action movies which get toned down to a PG-13 rating. However, this year we have gotten two success stories. First, the excellent Kingsmen: The Secret Service became a surprise hit. Then, Mad Max: Fury Road, one of the most anticipated films of the summer, decided to stay true to its gritty, R-rated roots, and delivered a good movie in the process.
The movie sees Max, now played by Tom Hardy, as he escapes imprisonment from a tyrannical leader. He then joins a party led by rogue worker, played by Charlise Theron, on a journey to Theron's homeland, while being chased by an army of evil soldiers.
Now, prior to watching this, I have unfortunately only seen the first Mad Max movie, so I probably can't speak for a lot of the die-hard fans. However, I really enjoyed this movie, and from what I've heard, a lot of the fans did as well.
This film is action-packed, with a lot of car chases, and I mean a lot of car chases. These chases are very intense, and they are made even more intense by the fact that some of the good guys actually die in them. This tends to be more tense for me than many movies where I am sure that all of them will survive. It also does a good job of displaying the cynical nature of this world, that was displayed in the first one.
These characters are also very well-acted. Tom Hardy plays Mel Gibson's character of Max pretty well. He convincingly plays a man who is still haunted by the death of his family, which I thought made him a more sympathetic character. Charlise Theron also does a great job of playing a convincing bad-ass soldier.
In conclusion, Mad Max: Fury Road is an intense, well-acted film with plenty of car chases, explosions, and crashes using practical effects. What a lovely day indeed.
Hollywood loves sequels. They make more money, because fans of the original are sure to see them. Most of the time. It makes sense that these would be successful, but every once in a while, there comes a sequel that is such a bad concept that it makes people wonder why anybody thought it would be a good idea. So now I present to you my picks for the top ten worst ideas for a sequel.
To be clear, this is not a list of the worst sequels ever. In fact, I haven't even seen most of these films. Some of them, I haven't even heard of before I did research to jog my memory. Instead, I'm going to talk about what I think is the stupidest concepts for a sequel that were ever actually made.
Also, in order to make this list, the movie need to have a theatrical release. So no straight-to-DVD sequels will be on this list, because I don't know much about straight to DVD movies.
10. Jason X
Jason goes to space! That is the concept of this poorly received tenth entry in the Friday the 13th franchise. Jason Vorhees is cryogenically frozen and thawed out hundreds of years in the future... in space. The franchise has been to some weird places, but this just seems kind of too much.
9. The Taken Sequels
Both of these sequels are going to take this spot, because I can't just single out one of them. The first Taken was a surprise hit which redefined Liam Neeson's career. But did it really need a sequel? How could members of his family get taken more than once? Even though they do give a decent reason (the family of the people Neeson killed in the first one are out for revenge), this just feels kind of forced. Then they made a third movie, in which nobody gets taken. While I guess this would make sense for the story, it raises the question of why they would still call the movie Taken.
8. The Hangover Sequels
This series follows pretty much the same trajectory as the Taken franchise. It puts out a badly received sequel where the same thing somehow happens twice (if this happens twice, you have a problem), and then a third movie that has almost nothing to do with hangovers. I ranked these movies higher because while Taken 2 at least tried to explain how the same thing could happen again to the same people, The Hangover Part 2 makes no such attempt. Lightning just strikes in the same place twice. Also, while the Taken sequels stayed consistent in tone throughout, The Hangover franchise seems to gradually change from a fun, raunchy comedy, to a dark, violent one.
7. The Rage: Carrie 2
This is one of those movies that I haven't heard of until I did research for this list. Carrie was a classic horror movie from the seventies, and in 1999 somebody decided to make a sequel. Apart from being over twenty years too late, this sequel also does not have the title character of Carrie in it. This movie was a bomb that was panned by critics and audiences alike. 6. Blues Brothers 2000
This sequel was released in 1998, almost twenty years after the first one. It was also long after original star John Belushi's death; he was replaced by John Goodman. So in short, this didn't exactly have box office hit written all over it. It was also criticized for not having the same feel as the original. You can't make a sequel without one of its most iconic stars
5. Son of the Mask
Speaking of which...
Son of the Mask was a sequel to the Jim Carey comedy The Mask, shot without Jim Carey. Replacing him was Jamie Kennedy, a man who half of you people reading this probably have no idea who he is and the other half probably dislike him. Anyway, he is not a good replacement for Carey, whose performance pretty much made the movie. He plays alongside a creepy CGI baby and a creepy CGI dog, who are also affected by the mask. When I watched the trailer above, I couldn't help but think of somebody in the theater watching it, thinking "Yes, we're finally getting a sequel to The Mask!", but then slowly finds out how bad it is. Anyway this movie was a critical and financial bomb, with eight Razzie nominations (more than any film that year) including Worst Picture, and won for Worst Remake or Sequel.
4. Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd
Oh look, another sequel to a Jim Carey movie without Jim Carey.
This prequel shows the main characters of Dumb and Dumber when they were in high school, and was released almost ten years after the original. Neither Jim Carey nor Jeff Daniels appear in this film. This film ranks higher than Son of the Mask because both Carey and Daniels are even more important to the movie than Carey was to The Mask. Why would they think that people would see a Dumb and Dumber movie without it's stars.
3. Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2
The Blair Witch Project was a major hit, which (unfortunately) popularized the found-footage horror genre. Most of the reason for this was because of the marketing gimmick which made tried to make people believe that the footage shown actually happened. So, of course, by the time this movie was released, people already knew that this was not real. Also, the sequel ditched the then interesting found-footage format, in terms of a bigger, more traditional horror movie style. What could go wrong? The movie was nominated for five Razzies including Worst Picture and Worst On-Screen Pairing for Any Two Actors, and won the award for Worst Sequel or Remake.
2. Birdemic 2: The Resurrection
This is a sequel to the notorious independent film Birdemic: Shock and Terror. For those of you not familiar with that movie, it is a thriller where global warming causes birds to attack people, and it's apparently really bad.It held on to the number one spot on the IMDB Bottom 100, until 2014 when it was beaten by Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas, and (I have just found this out now) again recently by some film called Kod Adi KOZ. So why make a sequel, you may ask. Because in recent years, it has gained a cult following as genuinely so bad it's good. But did they really think that they could capture that same charm on purpose? Well, it didn't work, because many fan said that the directors new self-awareness made it less funny. This movie is also in the top ten of the Bottom 100, although surprisingly it actually has a slightly better rating.
1. Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2
Why was this made? Why? The first Baby Geniuses movie had a 2.5 rating on IMDB, giving it a place on their Bottom 100,and a 2% rating on Rotten Tomatoes with the consensus reading "...worse than the premise suggests." It must be pretty hard for a movie called Baby Geniuses to be worse than its premise would suggest! It was also nominated for five Razzies including Worst Picture and Most Painfully Unfunny Comedy, and won for Worst Director Bob Clark. So why make a sequel? Money?
Did you read what I just wrote? That movie had no fan base!
And this movie was also released too late, five years after the original. This may not seem like a long time, but this movie was aimed only at children, who may not remember the original. If you think what I just said was dumb, and that surely some young children would remember the original, let me tell you that I was ten years old at the time of this movie's release, and I did not remember the first movie's existence at all. And I think I actually might have been too old for this movie even then; I sure as hell didn't know anybody who wanted to see this piece of s**t. Why would their actual target audience remember?
This movie managed to get even worse ratings on both IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. The Rotten Tomatoes score for this movie was finally able to reach the "coveted" 0%, and the site has also called it the worst summer movie of all time every year on its yearly countdown.
So those are my picks for the worst sequel ideas of all time. It was difficult to narrow it down to just ten with all the stupid and/or unnecessary sequels out there. These movies are proof that not all sequels should be greenlit.
And so we kick off the summer movie season with it's most anticipated film: Avengers: Age of Ultron.
In this sequel, Tony Stark has created an artificial intelligence called Ultron, played by James Spader. He created it to maintain peace on earth, but it has a different way of creating this peace. Ultron hatches a plan which could endanger all of humanity (nice one, Mr Stark), and the Avengers need to stop him.
This movie is a good example of a sequel that is not as good as the original, but is still very entertaining. Joss Whedon's writing has not faltered, and we still get the same chemistry between the characters as before. However, the jokes and action don't seem to be as fun, although they are still great. It could just be that it was more fun to watch the Avengers be together for the first time, than it will for any other time, but the formula didn't seem as good as before. But it is better than many great summer films recently.
However, there is one advantage that the movie has over the original, and that is the villain. James Spader plays the role of Ultron to great effect. His personality is like his role on The Blacklist, which makes for entertaining villainry.
Joss Whedon also did a good job of introducing the new characters. There are a few new characters who weren't in the Marvel Cinematic Universe before, like Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. These characters do not seem like the caricatures that they could have been in different hands, or at least not as much as they could have been.
In conclusion, while Avengers: Age of Ultron may not be as good as the first one, it is still fully entertaining. The Marvel Universe has been on a roll with it's movies, (with the exception of Iron Man 3) and it doesn't show any signs of slowing just yet. This movie should please fans of Marvels past work.
Oh yeah, and don't wait until after the credits. For the first time there is no end credit scene. I just saved you the disappointment.
