Man of Steel did not steal my heart!

I am sorry for my lateness...I guess I have been having a hard time trying to write this current blog post. Mainly because of the fact that this film was nothing like I thought it might be. I am not sure where to start...maybe with the good.

Man of Steel had exceptional special effects. I thought that the picture quality was amazing. However, all movies at this point are able to do this, especially for action films.

And ok.. Henry Cavill did a great job at capturing the look of superman, but maybe not so much the true essence. I am hoping that the second film (if they make one) will capture Superman in a very different light.

....

Now before I begin my rant, I think that it is important to note that I was unaware of the background of Superman. I did not know that he was an 'alien' and that he came from a very different part of the universe. I first learned about Superman watching 'Lois & Clark.' At this point in time Clark was working for the Daily Planet. Therefore, I assumed --much like Batman-- that Clark was born into the role.

Alright.. RANT TIME!

First of all, I did not enjoy Amy Adams as Lois. Unfortunately, she has NO chemistry with Clark. And their relationship was very choppy. They were also very awkward when they were together. Amy Adams, I love you and I think that you are extremely brilliant, however I do not think that this was the role for you. Maybe you might surprise me if this film has a sequel... but I highly doubt it.

Henry Cavill, you were able to capture the look of Superman, but not the personality or essence. I thought that you were very beautiful, but maybe dim. I thought that you would be smart, beautiful and strong.. but the movie only highlighted your strength and beauty. I thought that the actions that Superman took in this film did not correspond with his personality. Like Amy Adams, you were ok.. but not great!

Secondly, it is to my own knowledge that Superman NEVER killed anyone. It was against his beliefs to kill, that is why he left planet earth when he did. In this film, Clark killed off General Zod. I really do not enjoy when writers decide to change the story so drastically. I realize with time there are going to be slight changes. However, the fact that Clark killed was such a dramatic change that it does not go well with his character.

Thirdly, WAY TOO SCI-FI. Having a full understanding of the background of Superman, I realize that it is a bit sci-fi-ish. Unfortunately, this film took it too a whole new level. At one point I wasn't even sure if Superman was going to make it to earth. WAY TOO LONG! Very confusing and very choppy. Let's not do that again.

And lastly, Lois did not know that Clark was Superman in 'Lois and Clark' or the comic books. When he began working for the daily planet, he disguised himself with "glasses" to ensure that nobody knew who he was. At the end of the film, Lois did know. I like the fact that Lois does not seem like an 'air-head,' but at the same time...it kind of takes away from the actual story.

Either way... I give this film a [C-]. It wasn't the worst movie I have ever seen, but it wasn't even close to the best. If you are going to write a Super Hero movie, let's make sure we know the "real" story and tell it right. I hope the next film is better.

See you at the movies.

Safe Haven: The Total Flop

Alright, I am sure that I am not the only one who thought that the new film 'Safe Haven' was a total flop. I mean I guess I should have seen it coming, especially since all Nicholas Sparks film adaptations follow the same narrative structure. Ok... we get it, everyone is going to live happily ever after. That is why I tend not to read Nicholas Sparks. I actually randomly picked up this novel for my plane ride overseas, and to tell you the truth I actually enjoyed it. Why do you ask? Because it was not like the rest.

Although it deals with love and loss, it actually had a thriller aspect attached to it. But unfortunately, no one really would have understood that because the film was soooooo poorly done. Just a tip to those directors that are about to make another film from his novels... DON'T CHANGE THINGS, especially when the audience who hasn't read the book, they won't get it! Just a tip...

Now on to the actual film. Alright, the casting of Josh Duhamel was probably not the best choice. I mean do not get me wrong he is like a Channing Tatum-- really pretty, but maybe not so much a "great actor." But if we are giving points for attractiveness, the director nailed this one on the head. Having read the novel, I wouldn't have casted him. I think that I would have wanted to try someone like Chris Pine or Jensen Ackles. They can actually make the movie look good. Sorry Josh, I guess I just see you as another pretty face, but that does get you somewhere in Hollywood. And now onto Julianne Hough...hmmmm....I mean I get the whole "lets introduce a new up-coming actress to the scene," but really....Hough? Hmm... Ok I get it once again.. she's pretty, but can she actually act? Seriously? Rachel McAdams could play this part better sleeping on the job. It's called TALENT! And she ain't got it. Hopefully she will be able to wow me one day.. unfortunately, I don't see an Oscar Nomination in her future. Thanks for trying. If I was casting for this part, I think that I would want to try someone like Elizabeth Olsen. She wowed me with her performance in 'Silent House.' She is very talented and I feel that she is going to do great things in the acting world. So, I guess my point is... bad choices for the main characters...

Now on to the actual film. There one main reason why I did not like this film and that has to do with the fact that the storyline had changed. And for anyone who actually read the book, you were probably the only ones who actually knew what was going on....

For example,

1. At the beginning of the movie, "Katie" was running to the bus stop. She purchases her ticket and a cop is running after her. She gets away. The audience has NO IDEA what is going on. They don't even know who this guy is. He likes to drink a lot of water.. and he sends out a wanted poster because she is a murderer. And you don't find out much about her background until halfway through the movie. I think you might have lost the audiences attention. This is not a Christopher Nolan film.. where the audience is going to think one thing.. and at the end go "wow, I never saw that coming!" Sooo maybe don't leave the audience in the dark, especially since the novel actually told "Katie's" story at the beginning. As the novel progresses you find out more and more about her background. You know those important details and keep the reader interested.. Yeah, the film sucked at that.

2. Kevin drinks water? Why is he a bad guy? The audience has NO IDEA that he is an alcoholic... Hmmm.. maybe a good idea to tell them, or were you trying to fool them into thinking that he was "a healthy guy?"

3. Kevin did not find out where "Erin" was because of the neighbours answering machine. They didn't even know that "Erin" stole the identity of "Katie" the neighbours daughter. And we, as an audience never find out that that is the actually story.. we get the "is this your pie receipt?" "I know you know where Erin is" ... and then he sneaks into the house and how convenient it was that she left a message on the answering machine.. wow. I think that if I was running away from an abusive husband.. I might not call a friend from that area...I would disappear! WERID!

4. When did she stab him? That didn't happen! Or at least I don't remember it. And how did she get the money to run away. The novel described that, considering he never gave her money and if he did he would ask for the receipt and the change. Just saying...

5. He slept around. The novel made him out to be really bad.. the film.. not so much.

6. Jo. You know that lady that she would talk to. In the novel she actually talked to her a lot and invited her into her home. And the novel talked about letters that Jo left her husband and the new women that would eventually come into her life. In the novel you never expect Jo to be a figment of Katie's imagination, but the film made her look "CRAZY!" Yah.. bad idea.

7. Erin (Katie) did not talk to her husband outside the boyfriends house in such a great manor.. WHAT WAS THAT! And her boyfriend was never lighting fireworks.. what was that? The house was set ablaze with everyone in it.

I guess my whole point is that if you hadn't read the book, a lot of the plot didn't make sense. 1 because it had changed so drastically... and 2. because they rushed through important parts! BAD IDEA! BAD FILM!

On top of the actually plot.. there was no chemistry. Duhamel and Hough didn't have what Gosling and McAdams did. None of the Nicholas Sparks adaptations do, except for 'The Notebook.' So, I guess this is another poorly done film that just wasted my time.

I give this film an [F]. Although, it follows the same narrative structure of all films before it, it left out important information, and changed parts of the story which only confused the audience and made the main character out to be a "crazy-person." So if you want to see a film that is terrible....watch this one. I think it will be worse the more you watch it. Therefore, I am saying.. read the novel...it is so much better.

See you at the movies!

The Hobbit: A Wonderfully Impressive Adventure

Since I am such a big fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, it had to be expected that I would run out and see The Hobbit. At the beginning I was nervous to see how this film would turn out. Since the last three films were created much has happened in terms of film-making. However, Peter Jackson did remain the director, so that must count for something.

....Were you waiting for me to tell you that I didn't like it? ha.. Well I am sorry to have fooled you, but unfortunately this film was exactly what I thought it would be. By accident I did end up going to see it in 3D, but to be very honest I thought that it was amazing. So this brings me to the good part.

What do I love about this film to do ask? ... Uhm, everything. I would like to point out that I was very skeptical about the "computer-animated" characters, but it turns out that they are great for this type of genre. You do not see it very often in film that the computer animated characters work. For example, Twilight (but then again, those films were of course BRUTAL!). I had to give an example though. I was also very excited to see Gollum again. I think that he is one of my favourite characters from the series, even though he is a little unhinged and creepy. In a weird way I think that he is cute. Don't you? (Gollum )

Other than Gollum, another character that I love is of course Bilbo Baggins. From the very beginning I thought that Ian Holm was the only actor that could take on the character of Bilbo, but unfortunately I was very wrong. Martin Freeman took the role to a whole new level (of course not taking away from Ian's work). He brought forth a Bilbo that I never expected, which of course was witty, smart, and brave. These are the characteristics that we as an audience only hear about through the Lord of the Rings. So great job Martin!

Of course I do need to praise all the previous actors and actresses that were again present in this new film. I love when you see the same people play the same part. So amazing work. But the actors and actresses are not the only thing that make this film really great, therefore I need to move on.

The second reason why I loved this film is the... wait for it..... COMPUTER EFFECTS! Ok. I said it out loud, and I think that you all heard it. So, yes, the computer effects. Like I have previously stated before, not many films can use computer effects the way they do in this film because it looks "cheesy" and "unrealistic." But for The Hobbit, it was brilliant! There are too many "weird" creatures that it would take the film a decade just to do all the make-up on, let alone pay out for all the performances. And because of that fact that Gollum had worked so well in the past, it is easy to assume that the computer effects would continue to work well for this genre of film.

And finally, the last thing that I loved about this film (or these string of films) is that they follow the novels so well. You do not see that in a lot of film adaptions, they tend to mess with the logistics or the storyline to create this "Hollywood Ending" that does not always make sense or work well. And more than half the time the film flops because of it. So thank you for staying true to the books. I mean that is why audiences love these films so much. It is better to go big or go home.

But of course, like every film, we need to talk about what I did not like. This part is always so hard because of that fact that I throughly enjoy these films, but it needs to be done. If I could be objective, I think the film was a bit longer than it needed to me. It was approximately three hours in length and based on the adventure that took place, this film could have been a bit shorter. If you do tend to read J.R.R Tolken's books you will see that he creates the characters wonderfully, as well as the scenes. Unfortunately, the chapters can be rather lengthy; some are more description then plot. Therefore, I can see why Peter Jackson has created such a lengthy film. However, if that is the worst thing about this film I am not mad. Peter continues to create extraordinary films with award-winning actors.

All and all I give this film a [A]. I given this in regards to the acting abilities on screen, the amazing computer effects that re-create the vision of J.R.R. Tolken, and of course last but not least Peter's excellent film adaption of this wonderfully written novel. So for anyone who has not see this film yet, you must must must go see it. I know you will enjoy yourself from the beginning, to the middle, to the end.

See you at the movies!