I'm sorry for the lack of musical reviews but hey will be coming.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Comedy. As you might have noticed I don't have a picture up there because it is hard to find one thing that defines comedy as a whole. In this post I'll be talking about some of my favorite comedians. For one, some comedians who rely on one thing too much isn't a good sign. For example, a comedian who relies completely on vulgar statements isn't very good. I prefer comedy that has thought put into it and is clever. A few examples of this are Demetri Martin, Monty Python and the english double act Mitchell and Webb. Comedy that pokes fun of just plain stupid things is also good, but controversial. Nowadays comedy writers that write TV shows aren't willing to make jokes on subjects they think they'll get a lot of hate for. Movie writers do the same. When you can escape the confines of what other people think you can make something that other people will like. It seems odd but true.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Posted by Ezra at 9:39 AM
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
My two biggest criticisms are one, they writers of the movie added a lot more corny love stuff and two, most of the violence is implied and not shown. The second criticism I can understand. When someone's making a movie based on a brutal, violent book it's going to be rated R. The fact is though that most people reading the Hunger Games books don't go to rated R movies. So, the writers cut out large chunks of violence and replaced it with sappy love bull-crap.
Besides those two things the movie was a pretty good representation of the book. The book is still better, though.
When the first hunger games book came out I was in 3rd grade and most kids weren't into it much. It wasn't until my year of 5th grade that I saw a lot more interest in the series. Most of my friends totally lost interest in the books in 6th grade (that I know of) and when the movie came out more kids started reading the book. So...the movie was a good, three star, representation of the book.
Posted by Ezra at 9:56 AM
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Hello, yesterday I saw The Avengers, the newest of the Marvel action movies. I'd seen previous Marvel movies such as Iron Man, Spiderman, Hulk, etc. and this one was the most thought out of them all. If you have seen the Spiderman movie you know they alter some of the back story to make it more movie-worthy. It is no different in The Avengers either, but sometimes bending the story is required when tackling such a big one, like The Avengers. Robert Downey, Jr. did a superb job playing the role of snooty, kind of dickish, smart Alec Iron Man. They certainly did add an element of humor to his character. In the Iron Man movie he was a little more serious. Also, they didn't address his alcoholism, which I think would of made for a good joke opportunity.
The main premise of the movie is Loki leaves Asgaurd and is goes to earth through a device called the Tesseract. Loki is teleported through the Tesseract into SHIELD's laboratory. He tries to kill Nick Fury and Black Widow–with no luck. He continues his rampage and Nick Fury is forced to assemble a team of Heroes. He calls them The Avengers.
The Villain in an intense action movie like this one is extremely important. If the villain sucks than no one will root for the Heroes. Also, crappy villains often result in crappy movies, take any Disney cartoon for example. The Heroes are also an important ingredient. Every avenger was pretty badass except for...Hawkeye. Hawkeye in my opinion kind of brought the whole crew down. His power is he is really good at shooting a bow. That seems underwhelming compared to the Hulk or Captain America or Thor. I also don't like heroes that rely on machines to be awesome so that rules out Iron Man and Black Widow.
Overall this movie was awesome for a Marvel movie and Great for a movie in general. Probably the best Marvel movie I've seen. Right next to Iron Man...
Posted by Ezra at 9:33 AM