Episode III
Couple thoughts. Nothing big.
Star Wars: Episode III is pretty much what everybody thought it would be like. The effects were good. The story was interesting. Light sabers clashed. Darth Vader was knighted. Most importantly, it was better than the first two, which sucked ass. Pretty cool stuff.
Though, I guess, it was still just a movie. The insignificance and limitations of movies has become pretty apparent to me as of late. As good as any movie is, they still can't quite reach the maximum pleasure threshold that humans are able to reach. They're never as good as you really want, or imagined they could be. Yet, movies are probably one of the most significant sources of entertainment in modern America.
I think the future of entertainment will be in gaming. I've watched a thousand movies, and none of them has been able to give me as much an emotional range as a game could. Games have a unique ability to cause the player to become the character, make decisions, reap the benefits, or suffer the consequences. A good game can cause an incredible spectrum of emotion, from fear, fright, satisfaction, sadness, anticipation, confusion, frustration, or just plain happiness. The technology has grown in such a way to give us as realistic environment as possible, and will continue to grow.
But movies will always be movies, conforming to a particular formula, with the same actors, same jokes, same endings, and the same autopilot reaction from the viewer. Their possibilities have been exhausted. Did the technical CGI excellence of Star Wars III make it more effective as a film? I'd say no. But the evolution of gaming, which has grown as quickly as the technological advances that support it, has immeasurably improved with each year, while films have remained the same. Perhaps this correlates with the incremental decrease in movie attendance, leaving Hollywood execs panicked, though not necessarily proactive.
And yet, game makers continue to be competitive in their approach, unwavering in their goal to create wholly entertaining, challenging, realistic environments that immerses the player in an experience like no other. Coupled with interactivity, Resident Evil the movie is a disaster compared to Resident Evil the game.
Kingdom of Heaven
I couldn't wait to see this movie. I'd been waiting since last August for it to come out, and I finally got my chance on Friday. I think it's safe to say that it would have been virtually impossible for it to have lived up to my expectations, but it was still an enjoyable film.
That said, I am getting a little tired of the "formula". When Liam Neeson shows up at Orlando Bloom's blacksmith shop in the opening scene, and Bloom turns down the opportunity to join him on crusade, we all know he's going to end up going. We also already know that he's going do be a "diamond in the rough", a kid who's been training on his sword in his spare time since age 3 and just needs an expert swordmaster (hey! how about Liam Neeson?) to show him how to do it just right.
Given that this movie is based on an actual Crusade, if any of you ever took Southward's class, you'll know the outcome of the battle for Jerusalem before it occurs. But that does not make the battle scene itself less enjoyable. I guess that is probably why I went to see the movie. I can't help but enjoy massive CGI armies attacking fortified cities and using all of that cool old war stuff, like trebuchets and ballistas. This movie does not disappoint in that department.
Another thing that I thought the film did well was not portray one side (Christian vs. Muslim) as better or worse than the other. A case could be made for both sides as to which was the wrong one, and the movie stays true to that, not taking a side.
Overall, it was an enjoyable experience, although not without its drawbacks. It is what it is, a summer blockbuster, directed by the guy who brings you summer blockbusters.
Meet the Fockers and other Trash
Contrary to popular belief, I'd much rather enjoy a movie than dislike a movie. I get really excited about movies I like, and I preach their gospel. Often times, however, a bad movie comes along that everyone is supposed to like, and it is my duty to express my dislike, or otherwise utter contempt, for Hollywood trash.
Meet the Fockers is Hollywood trash.
There comes times when a movie comes out, and everyone in America thinks it's their short term job to watch it. I, too, fell under the spell, and watched this movie, even though my girlfriend desperately advised me to avoid it...actually, pleaded that I do not watch it. Yet, naive me, felt that while it probably wasn't great...it could probably be at least mildly entertaining.
But, I was wrong. It wasn't entertaining. It wasn't funny. It was really, really stupid.
I mean, really stupid. Every ounce of it was predictable, formulaic filler. Poop jokes, sex jokes, and yes...little animals doing zany things...like humping legs. If there's one thing that Americans can't get enough of, it's little dogs humping legs. Hardee har har.
Watching it reminded me of such films as
Anger Management, where the movie is sold on star power, but delivers absolutely nothing. It doesn't have to, really. Marketing is Hollywood's best and most loyal friend. Besides, it's not like mainstream America knows any better. They have no point of reference because they don't watch good films. Their standards for film is so low that I am only led to believe that Americans simply do not like movies. How could they when they line up like zombies every Friday for the same movie with the same actors and the same rap-up lesson-learned slow-clap kiss pie-in-the-face dog-humping trash they see every week.
I show a person what is considered a "good" film, and it is shrugged off as "weird." What's weird to me is why people will pay to eat the regurgitated digestion that is the modern Hollywood blockbuster, every week. And usually, their comments tell me less about the movie, and more about them.
I say these things, as we are on the verge of the release of
House of Wax, starring Paris Hilton and other no-namer teeny boppers. I'll make two predictions. 1.) I'm guessing it will hit a good 30 million box office, and 2.) It will really suck.
But people won't know it sucks. Because they suck.
A Hitchhiker's Guide to Crap
A few guys at work have raved about the book in the past, so when the time came to figure out what to do last night with some friends, I suggested checking the movie out. (We also refused to go to the expensive theaters, so our options were pretty limited in the first place.) Here then, are my random (and I mean very random) thoughts on this film...
I can't say the movie was flat-out bad. There were lots of fantastical images and the dialogue was occasionally interesting. Heck, I even laughed out loud a number of times.
The biggest problem I had was that the story was both pointless and hard to follow at the same time. If you have one or the other, I think a movie can still (perhaps) succeed, but when you have both of those factors combined, once the credits finally start to roll, all you're left with is a feeling of emptiness, as though you just filled a void of time in your life with absolutely nothing.
The one thing that could have also perhaps saved the film was its humor, but it honestly just wasn't that funny. I don't think it helped that they tried so hard to be provocative and wondrous at the same time. This always left you expecting something deep in the midst of all the "laughter," but to no avail.
Looking into the popularity of the book a bit more, it appears there's such a cult following in Britain that the BBC actually has a "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxies" series. Poor Brits!
I also read somewhere that the movie ending is different from the book. On Monday, I'll ask the guys at work what's up with the book's freakish popularity, see if they saw the movie, and ask about the alternate ending. Perhaps that'll bring some further insight into an otherwise mindless and boring story. I'm pretty skeptical though...
