2012 (2009) Review in Light of the Events (or lack thereof) of December 21, 2012

2012 (2009)
Director: Roland Emmerich

Writers: Roland Emmerich and Harald Kloser

Producers: Michael Wimer, Roland and Ute Emmerich, Larry Franco, Mark Gordon, and Harald Kloser

Editors: David Brenner and Peter S. Elliot

Cinematography: Dean Seamer

Music: Harald Kloser and Thomas Wanker

Starring: John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thomas McCarthy, Oliver Platt, Liam Hames, and Zlatko Buric

Runtime: 2 hours 37 minutes

Rating: PG-13 (intense disaster, language)

Genre: Action/Adventure, Drama, Comedy (after yesterday)

Release Date: November 13, 2009

Before Watching the Movie: Keep in mind that all the Mayan prophecy crap you've been hearing and everything the movie is based off never happened. December 21, 2012 passed as any other day would, and if you keep this in mind, the movie will get funnier due to its absurdity.

Things people may find “objectionable”: There are some intense destruction and death scenes and a few minor swear words, but otherwise there isn't anything.

Intro: "It's the end of the world as we know it. And I feel fine." -R.E.M. For a couple years, mainly the last few, people, as you probably know, have been kinda freaking out because supposedly the Mayan calendar ended on December 21, 2012. Well, folks, it's December 22, 2012, and I think it's safe to say we all survived. But when people were actually making a kind of big deal about the whole apocalypse thing, ironically back in 2008 and 2009, 2012 was released. Being a fan of the cheesy over-the-topness of director Roland Emmerich's other films such as Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, and 10,000 BC, I decided to see it in theaters when it came out (so technically, I'm breaking my personal rule of only reviewing movies I've seen for the first time). It was kind of like Emmerich's other movies in that it was over the top and unrealistic, but had good effects. Then, yesterday, on December 21s. t, I decided to rent the movie from the library and watch it with some friends, keeping in mind that everything occurring in the movie was supposed to be happening as we watched it. It was about as I remembered. The effects were great, but the writing was stupid, the scientific concepts were absurd, and the movie was way too serious and overlong.

Plot: It turns out the Mayans were right (at least in the movie's world). The world is ending in 2012. Scientists predicted it 3 years before the catastrophe and now everything's going to hell. A writer named Jackson (Cusack) on vacation stumbles across a conspiracy that the world is going to end. As mysterious events happen across the globe, baffling scientists like the U.S. science advisor, Adrian Hemsley (Ejiofor). Jackson must go and save his ex-wife (Peet), her husband (McCarthy), and his untrusting kids from certain death on doomsday.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Cinematography: 5/10. Roland Emmerich actually does know how to direct. The cinematography was good, it was just his decisions that turned the movie to crap. By decisions, I mean to make the damn thing 2 1/2 hours long, make it super serious, and use about every freaking cliché in the book. It's these directing decisions and not the cinematography and the visuals that earn him the low grade on this category.

     -Acting: 4/10. Waaaaaaaaayyyy overacted. By everyone. I think this is mostly the fault of the director, but it got so overacted and over-serious at times, it became incredibly hard to take the movie seriously. A couple of my friends and I broke out laughing during some ultra-serious scenes just because of how over-the-top and overacted it was. Also, the Russian guy, played by Zlatko Buric, had such a heavy accent that I thought he sounded a lot like Jabba the Hutt.

     -Writing: 3/10.

          -Story: 4/10. "Daddy, how do you spell unrealistic?" "T-w-e-n-t-y -T-w-e-l-v-e, dear." Yes, it was that bad. As with other Roland Emmerich films (mainly The Day After Tomorrow and 10,000 BC), it is possible to compare 2012 to the Republican Party in that neither care too much for facts (Sorry, conservative readers. Please still read my blog!). The movie was loaded with absurd scientific inaccuracies and impossibilities. The plot was also very predictable too. It was very easy to tell who was going to live or die and what chain of events was going to take place. The only reason this gets a 4 is because of the pretty good usage of the intertwining stories. While the stories that might intertwine are stupidly written, at least they connect well. There were only one or two concepts in the movie that were actually kind of cool. The rest were lame and unrealistic.

          -Script: 2/10. Oh dear God, where to start. The script was extraordinarily cheesy and included the classic disaster line of someone dramatically saying "my god." Keeping in mind I took an AP Physics final just 4 days before, there was one line in particular that stuck out in a bad way. Two characters are talking about a mine shaft and how it is becoming unbearably hot due to the Earth's climate change. One character reports, "Temperatures are rising at an incredible velocity!" Temperatures are not objects, and therefore have no velocity because they cannot move. Their rate can rise incredibly, but their velocity. Anyway, my friends, 4 of which have braved or are braving AP Physics had a lot of fun laughing at that.                                                               

                                                                                                          ^ Some good end of the world-themed music to listen to while 

                                                                                                                                                   reading this review.

     -Special Effects: 10/10. If there was a bright spot in the movie, this was definitely it. The effects and visuals as a whole were very good. The movie looked great. It was just everything else that killed it.

     -Music/Score: 8/10. Pretty good score, but not Oscar-worthy. It wasn't incredible, but it worked nicely.

     -Power/Emotion: 3/10. There wasn't a ton of emotional attachment to any of the characters in the movie. In fact, in one scene, a character dies heroically and like 2 minutes later no one in the movie or the audience really cares about him. The only emotion produced by the movie is due to seeing the world destroyed and people trying to survive. Even so, you know everything is going to be ok because of the cheesiness and predictability of the plot.

     -Adrenaline: 7/10. Despite my panning of the movie in other areas, I must admit that Roland Emmerich does know how to make an exciting movie, even if the movie's writing, acting, and historical/scientific accuracies are not great.

     -Intelligence: 1/10. The movie is really pretty stupid. Though they thrown scientific jargon at you every once in a while, it is pretty easy to understand and is most likely scientifically inaccurate anyway.

     -Stupidity: 10/10. The movie seems extremely stupid, even comedic, after the events (or lack thereof) of yesterday. Even so, the movie was stupid to begin with. I mean, the crust shrinking? Massive floods covering the whole country of India and going over Himalayan peaks? Come on, was this ever going to be remotely realistic whatsoever? It only looks more stupid now that we've all survived the supposed apocalypse.

     -Humor: Intentional: 1/10. Unintentional: 5/10. Parts of the movie, especially the lines and the science, got laughably bad. Also, it was fun laughing at it because the events of the movie were supposed to be happening while we were watching it, so the irony became funny. It really loses most of its shock value (if it had much to begin with) now that the doomsday date it was based off has now passed.

This is an accurate summary of the Humor section of the review

     -Best Credit: John Mee as "Angry billionaire."

     -Final Score: 2012 really wasn't and isn't a great movie. It's way too serious, inaccurate, formulaic, and long to be that enjoyable. You should only really watch 2012 to make fun of it (like I did yesterday). If you're looking for a better disaster movie, check out the original Godzilla or Independence Day, as both are far more enjoyable.

Enjoying my reviews? Like my Facebook page.

Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter (1966) Review

The movie was released as a double feature
with Billy the Kid vs. Dracula. It makes
sense because the movies have the same
director, producer, writer, cinematographer,
and orchestrator.

JESSE JAMES MEETS FRANKENSTEIN'S DAUGHTER (1966)
Director: William Beaudine*

Writer: Carl Hittleman*

Producer: Carroll Case*

Editor: Hahahahaha!!! There's no editor listed!! This should tell you something about this fine film!

Cinematography: Lothrop Worth*

Music: Raoul Kraushaar*

Starring: John Lupton, Narda Onyx, Cal Bolder, Estelita Rodriguez, Jim Davis, and Steven Geray

Runtime: 1 hour 28 minutes

Rating: None (Comparable to PG)

Genre: Western, Horror, Sci-Fi

Release Date: April 10, 1966

*= held the same position for Billy the Kid vs. Dracula

Things people may find “objectionable”: There is one gunfight scene that isn't that bad. There is also a little blood, but barely any. In no way is it dripping or gushing out. It's just a wound or two. Finally, there are a couple scenes involving strangling, but it isn't that violent compared with the kind of stuff you see in movies today. Though it isn't rated, I'd say it's comparable to PG.

Intro: This October was great for bad movies. The sad truth is, I only DVR-ed two, this and Billy the Kid vs. Dracula, but these two were totally worth it. As promised in my review of Billy the Kid vs. Dracula, here is the review of its companion piece Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter. The two movies were released as a double feature and the crew is almost identical for both. You would then assume the two movies would be similar in terms of badness and enjoyability, but this isn't the case. Though both movies are quite bad, Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter is the worse, and yet more enjoyable, of he two just because of how bad it is. The writing, acting, and special effects are crap and it's ridden with historical inaccuracies and stupidity,  which serve as proof that the filmmakers just didn't give a crap. And this makes it enjoyable if you're a bad movie fan like me.

Plot: After a failed stagecoach robbery, Jesse James (Lupton) and his partner Hank Tracy (Bolder) are on the run for the law. Tracy is badly injured by a bullet wound and he needs to get to a doctor, but the two have nowhere to go, since they will be arrested if they go near any town. They soon meet a local named Juanita (Rodriguez) who leads them to a doctor in a castle a few miles out of town. This doctor is Maria Frankenstein (Onyx), the famous Frankenstein's granddaughter (the title is a misnomer) who relocated from Europe to practice more freely. With one experimental brain from her grandfather left, Maria needs new test subjects other than some local boys she has used and killed in the process. When Jesse and Hank come by, Maria sees an opportunity in Hank to help her get power. Jesse must try and save Hank and Juanita from Maria before it's too late and she begins to gain power.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Cinematography: 5/10. Not horrible, but not exceptional. I feel pretty much any guy with a camera and a tripod could've done just as good of a job. It wasn't special in the least.

     -Acting: 3/10. It's kind of interesting since I saw this movie only a few days after seeing Lincoln. The acting in Lincoln was phenomenal and worthy of all kinds of Oscars. Then you get to Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter. The acting was crap. The actors could all read their lines ok, but most of them weren't great at conveying emotions. It became funny sometimes watching the actors try and fail epically at conveying emotion. The best and funniest part about the acting was the actors trying to speak spanish and totally sounding like a bunch of ignorant white guys who didn't even know what they were saying. And that's probably how it was too.

     -Writing: 3/10.

          -Story: 3/10. "Hmm... We want to make a western, but I also kinda want to make a horror film." "I got it! Let's combine them! We'll have Jesse James meet Frankenstein's daughter! That's brilliant!" I have a feeling this is how they writers came up with the idea for the story.

          -Script: 3/10. Extremely uninspiring script. It was written by the same guy who wrote Billy the Kid vs. Dracula, so you can imagine how good it is. 

     -Special Effects: 2/10. Terrible. It's fun to laugh at just how bad some of the sets are. In some shots, it's clear that there's a town for a good 40-50 feet and the rest is pretty obviously a painting. The best moment is when they zoom in on the painting to look at the castle, showing you even more clearly that it's a painting.

     -Music/Score: 3/10. Nothing at all special about the score. It didn't stick out at all. It was just kinda there.

     -Power/Emotion: 1/10. They try to make you care about the characters by putting love stories and emotional backgrounds to the characters, but it really doesn't work. I can't say I really cared that deeply about any of the characters. I think I could care more about the used kleenex I have in my pocket (which I threw out while writing this sentence) than a majority of these characters.

     -Adrenaline: 2/10. Not really exciting at all, but at least after the first 30 minutes the plot actually goes somewhere unlike Billy the Kid vs. Dracula's.

     -Intelligence: 1/10. The movie was created for cheap entertainment and a quick profit, and that's really all it's good for. See stupidity section below.

     -Stupidity: 9/10. Oh this factors in quite a bit. First of all, the name is stupid and the idea is stupid. The point of this and Billy the Kid vs. Dracula was to make a quick profit off the name alone, and their goal was achieved. Also, holy crap, the historical inaccuracies! Here's a list of just a couple below, plus a really stupid shot.
          -Historical Inaccuracies: Part of the stupidity section, but needed another section to cover them all. For this, let's assume the movie takes place in the 1870s or early 1880s, since Jesse James died in 1882. Yes, I really did take the time to look this up and find these shots.

Licking an envelope

               -Licking an envelope: The glued envelopes you lick, or "gummed envelopes" were invented around the 1890s. The invention of envelopes you lick came at least 5 years after the movie is supposed to take place.

Plastic Helmet

Backwards desk. Notice the drawers

      -Plastic Helmets: It's pretty clear that the mind-helmet thing Maria uses to kickstart Igor/Hank has at least some plastic in it. The plastic we know today wasn't invented until 1907, at least 25 years after the movie is supposed to take place.
          -This Shot--------->: Notice how Maria Frankenstein is sitting at a desk. Also notice how all the drawers and place where she puts her chair are facing the audience. In other words, she's sitting on the wrong side of the desk. Yes, the desk is backwards, Ladies and Gentlemen.

     -Humor: Intentional: 1/10; Unintentional: 5/10. Laughing at the stupidity and historical inaccuracies was fun. The acting was also hilariously bad at times. Definitely an entertaining bad movie when you pay attention to some of the details. Much funnier than its counterpart, Billy the Kid vs. Dracula.

     -Best Credit: None. They had a pretty minuscule cast and crew.

     -Final Score: Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter was both worse and better than Billy the Kid vs. Dracula. While it was a worse movie, this made it watchable and entertaining, unlike its counterpart. If you're looking for a stupid movie and/or cheap entertainment, watch Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter instead of Billy the Kid vs. Dracula. If nothing else, make sure you count the historical inaccuracies. And you think I trashed it? This article argues that it's the worst Western ever made.

Liking my reviews? Like my Facebook page.

Wreck-It Ralph (2012) Review

WRECK-IT RALPH (2012)
Director: Rich Moore

Writers: Phil Johnston, Jennifer Lee, Rich Moore, and Jim Reardon.

Producers: John Lasseter, Clark Spencer, and Monica Lago-Kaytis

Editor: Tim Mertins

Cinematography: See the animation department list from IMDb.

Music: Henry Jackman

Voices: John C. Reilly, Sarah Silverman, Jack McBrayer, Jane Lynch, and Alan Tudyk

Runtime: 1 hour 41 minutes

Rating: PG (rude humor and mild violence)

Genre: Comedy, Family, Animation

Release Date: November 2, 2012

Before Watching the Movie: It would be nice to have an at least basic knowledge of older videogames before watching the movie, since they make so many references to them, and you'll miss some of the jokes.

Intro: I first heard about this movie over the summer at some point, I think when I saw Brave. The concept intrigued me, but I didn't have a lot of interest in seeing it. While animated movies can be good, they are not my favorite, and it seemed like the movie wouldn't be anything special. I also didn't have the gamer motivation to see it that a lot of my friends do. I like playing videogames, but I never get around to playing them and I definitely don't obsess over them. Anyway, a few of my friends invited me to go, so I went and saw it, with average expectations since it had good reviews. It turned out that the movie exceeded my expectations. Wreck-It Ralph, though it may not appeal to everyone, is very entertaining, completely original, funny, and a very cute movie that pays great attention to detail and is probably the best animated movie this year (I really can't say though. Brave is the only other one I've seen).

Plot: Sorry this may get a little lengthy, but it's a complex plot. Ralph is the villain in a retro arcade game called Fix-It Felix, where he wrecks a building and Felix fixes it again. Felix (McBrayer) gets all the awards and love, and after a while, Ralph (Reilly) feels rejected and wants some recognition. Unable to get any from his own game mates, he decides to leave his game in the arcade and try to he a hero in others to show them he, the bad guy, can be a good guy. He goes into a first-person shooter called "Hero's Duty" to get a medal. After getting it, he gets into trouble by piloting a spaceship out of the game and crashing---with the alien from the other game---in a candy-related racing game called Sugar Rush. He loses his medal and it gets taken by a character in Sugar Rush named Vanellope (Silverman), who uses it as a coin to enter the race she had previously been prevented from racing in, since she glitches. Ralph soon realizes he and Vanellope both want some recognition in their respective games, so he teams up with her so he can get his medal back, since the winner of the race gets all the coins, including Ralph's medal, in winnings. Soon, Ralph begins to endanger his game along with Sugar Rush, so he, along with Felix and the commander, Calhoun (Lynch) from the first-person shooter, need to save both games from ultimate destruction, which is being unplugged.

Things people may find “objectionable”: There's a little violence, especially in the scenes involving the first-person shooter game, but there's no blood or gore at all. The violence is all pretty mild. There's also some toilet humor, which shouldn't offend anyone. You really shouldn't worry about any of this unless you have a kid under like 6 years old.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Animation: 9/10. While it isn't as visually gorgeous as Brave and went for the more unrealistic look, Wreck-It Ralph featured some pretty good animation. It was more subtle, but you could tell especially with the scenes with the first-person shooter that the animators knew what they were doing. It was also cool that at times the filmmakers transitioned between classic videogame 8-bit graphics to the computer-animated graphics. What was also neat is having some characters move exactly like they would in their game, like they did with the residents of the building Ralph always destroys. The way they made characters glitch was also really cool.

     -Acting (Voices): 9/10. Good voice acting. They definitely chose good voices for each character. Vanellope's voice got a little annoying at times, but otherwise I had no complaints, and I think that's not even the voice actor's fault. I think the editors heightened the pitch a little. There's no way Sarah Silverman talks that high in real life.

     -Writing: 9/10.

Ralph at a Bad Guy-Anonymous meeting. It's subtle jokes and references
like this that make the movie so enjoyable.

          -Story: 10/10. A reason I liked Wreck-It Ralph is its originality. I'd have to say that this is one of the most original plots I've seen in a new movie for a while, when every Hollywood story is an adaptation of something else or slave to some formula. It's really refreshing to see new ideas in Hollywood. It was also nice to see how unpredictable the story was. As I've probably mentioned many times in reviews, I think this is one of the most important qualities a movie should have.

          -Script: 8/10. Not a half bad script. Wasn't the best ever written, but it was decent. They wrote in some funny lines too. for example, one character says, "Ralph can't be serious," which is followed by a cut to Ralph saying, "I've never been more serious about anything in my life."

     -Music/Score: 7/10. Pretty good, but didn't stick out to me, probably because it was often overpowered by dialogue and/or sound effects.

     -Power/Emotion: 8/10. You do feel for Ralph and the other characters, especially at the beginning. The characters are pretty relatable and likable, since the goal of both Vanellope and Ralph is just to be recognized and liked, which are things nearly everybody wants. You also feel for ralph when he has to make decisions

     -Adrenaline: 7/10. Animated movies tend not to thrill me as much as live-action ones, but Wreck-It Ralph does a pretty good job with this.

     -Intelligence: 10/10. Probably my favorite thing about Wreck-It Ralph is all the references it makes to videogames or other things. It adds a nice layer of deeper humor intended to entertain the parents as well as the kids. For example, one character has a glitch and she explains this to another character by saying she has, "Pixlexia." It's offhand comments and references like this that make the movie as enjoyable as it is. I think I laughed at as many if not more of these jokes than I did the main humor.

     -Humor: 8/10. The movie wasn't strictly a comedy like Airplane, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and Blazing Saddles are, but it had some pretty funny moments. Like I said earlier, the funniest moments come from all the subtle jokes and references written into the script to entertain the older audience. This is probably the second-funniest movie I've seen all year only to Ted. It's sad that there aren't that many new, great comedies coming out any more. It seems new comedies go for dumbed down bedroom or gross-out humor and/or make fun of pop culture. While these things can be funny in the short term, the great comedies in movie history all have smart, universal humor. I'm glad to see Wreck-It Ralph try for this type of humor. If only all comedies would. Anyway, that's my two cents on comedies. Moving on...

     -Best Credit: None. All of the minor characters in Wreck-It Ralph are cameos by famous videogame characters, so none of them have original names. 

     -Final Score: Wreck-It Ralph is a very cute and enjoyable movie. It's one of those great movies that is pretty universal, as it can entertain both kids and adults, providing smart humor for both audiences. While Wreck-It Ralph isn't the best movie of the year (See Avengers, Argo, Lincoln, and Skyfall), it's definitely worth viewing. I'd recommend this to anyone who remotely considers themselves a gamer or wants an animated and/or family movie that is universally appealing. This is definitely one of, if not the best animated movie of the year.

Enjoying my Reviews? Like my Facebook Page.