It's been a year... time to look at it

Almost a year ago... the studio that is considered "The best Animation studio in the World" gave us another great film.
Frozen hit the theaters November 27 2013. It was... a HUGE hit.

It made $243,390 on opening weekend and everyone... and I mean EVERYONE was singing the songs and talking about it
Many people considered this "The return of Disney" or Disney's way of telling the world... "I'm bringing animation back".
And with good reason. Dreamworks had just released Despicable Me 2 (And it wasn't a bad film) but a lot of people (including myself) started to get tired of animated movies. We were watching the same thing over and over and over... Cool people doing cool things acting in a cool way.
What do I mean?
Well, that year, we saw the following releases
1)Planes by Pixar...
2) The Croods by Dreamworks Animation
3) Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2
4) Monsters University
5) Despicable Me 2
All of these films had the same idea. Not the same message. I never saw Planes (and I don't plan to), but out of the other 4 films, I see a pattern of pleasing towards the audience by becoming products of their time.
Sure, The Croods was set upon cave-men/women but it still very simple formula. Same with all the other films. They all talk "hip" and try to convey a bridge between the audience and the characters. Most of the time, they fail. Pretty bad. They end up by looking like that one kid who tries too hard to look cool by talking like the others, while everyone knows they are out of their comfort zone

I may be talking just out of personal experience, but I was kind of getting sick these people trying to talk a language that is not theirs. There was no genuineness and no real threat or story. Safe bet after safe bet after safe bet. 

I felt like there was nothing new anymore. Add to the fact that most of the live action movies were taken from books... So, originality was kind of gone.

Then Frozen came out. 

I remember seeing the trailer for this film and I was already like

I was skeptical. I didn't want to watch it, because I thought it was going to be Tangled 2... return of the awful franchise. 

But it wasn't. After seeing it for the first time... everyone was under one voice singing out loud "Let it Go!!!"

I... I... I didn't like this movie.

It was strange... I didn't like a movie I was supposed to like. I saw it time and time again, looking for things to hate, but nothing came. Yet I still wasn't getting the entire hype.  (I did memorize the songs... by accident).

But, enough about the past.

Now to future. 

I recently saw it again, and I don't think it holds up.

GET YOUR FIRE TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS HERE FOR THE PUBLIC ATTACK ON MAU'S OPINION!!!

I mean... it's not horrible. Out of 5, I give it a solid 3.5. I think the movie is a great turn of events. I think that it is actually Disney's way of telling the world "Let ME teach you kids how it's done". But throughout the Frozen craze, people were saying "ooo It's as good as Lion King" or "It's even better than Beauty and the Beast", or (the one that made me take another look at it) "Probably Disney's best work yet".

Well, let me tell you. 

It's not. 

It's a good film, but not a great one. I don't think it belongs in "Disney's top 5 movies". I'm sorry... I just don't see it

Why?

Well, let's look at the story.

Frozen (SPOILER ALERT BTW) is about a princess with the power to turn things to ice. She (out of an incredible pressure of hiding her powers) curses her hometown in infinite weather and her sister, Anna, teams up with a mountain man, his playful reindeer and a snowman to change the weather condition.  (As basic as you are going to get... I know there is more to it... but meh)

The story is based upon the story of the Snow Queen, but because I am not looking at source material, it doesn't really matter.

So, first, let's talk about the good things. 

1) The animation and the setting. HOLY CRAP... Stunning, beautiful setting. Every snowflake was probably designed individually so that the amount of detail going into it would be perfect. It feels big and powerful. There is a real sense of being in another world. The entire idea that it is set in a place we don't know during a time that is "sorta viking-ish" I think plays out great. 

2) The music.... I don't wanna go into too much detail on this one... but it is great

3) The villain is almost perfect... 

Hans is freaking awesome as a villain. Had me guessing the entire time and I did not expect him to become the evil one... The only thing I have a problem with is his motivation. He wants to rule the land.

Come ON!!!! We've seen this already... plain ambition... He is a freaking prince, what more do you want???

You could make the argument that because he is the youngest of a big family, there will be no kingdom for him to rule. I would be lying if I said I didn't understand that. But, he doesn't act like the youngest of a family. He seems like he was in control. 

Let me see him strive for attention, let me see him being actually treated like the youngest. Instead, he is this evil mastermind that just wants to rule the kingdom. A little bit overdone if you ask me. 

(BTW For me, the perfect villain is Gaston).

What are the problems?

1) The characters. There are a lot of characters in this film. And all of them are "safe" archetypes of classic tales. 

We have the hero (or heroine) who wants more out of life than her boring life in the castle... Thats!!--- really boring... we've seen that with...well... most of the other princesses in Disney. 

You have the OTHER Heroine/Villain. A tortured soul, Elsa tries to live a life of peace and quiet where she can enjoy her lifestyle without the pressure of everyone else set on her. 

As original as this is, well, it's not the greatest idea for kids. What are you saying? That if I feel pressured into being a responsible young man... I should run away because I really feel comfortable being a lazy person? In the end, Elsa learns that "Love" is the best way to live her life with her powers and be accepted by everyone. That is really just, boring. 

I did like the idea that it wasn't a kiss that thawed out the Anna's frozeness, but rather an act of pure love out of the sister... that was genius, I actually like that. Fraternal love. I can get behind that. 

You have the dude with his reindeer. O, I hate this guy, Kristoff. 

He is to men, what (many people say) Ariel is to women. Simplifying them to a level of almost insulting. He is played as a dumb guy obsessed with his reindeer and his sleigh, he is cold and doesn't care about feelings. He is basically the stereotype of a stereotype. I really don't like him, because he is just a DUDE... 

And of course.... Olaf.

Oh, Olaf... I know you mean well. I know that you are meant to be innocent and cute and pretty. I can't stand you. 

I really cannot stand you. Everything you say is covered with rainbows and butterflies and cutesy wittle bwaby twalk. It gets sick after a while. I wanted to see something funny, but at the same time, take a serious tone to it. That scene where he is melting for Anna, was MEANT to be serious... but THOSE EYES... I cannot take him seriously. He is too cute for everyone to go "AWWWWW" that it drives me sick.

The last problem I have with this movie is the after effect. 

What is it questioning? 

What kind of impact is it leaving on me as a viewer?

Well, just songs. Songs that are great, don't get me wrong. But the songs are the only thing that it is left for this thing. People sing the songs to this day. And that is the only thing that it has going for it. It is so good that it becomes it's downfall. Because of the goodness of the songs, the rest of the movie becomes forgettable. Now, in other cases, the fact that the movie is forgettable means that the movie didn't try hard enough.... not with Frozen. They tried their best, but their trump card was the songs, and with comparison, the rest of the movie didn't stand a chance. 

But, all of this is just on a PERSONAL opinion. I'm not saying that I am right, or that you are wrong if you love it. I am just saying what I think of the film. I saw some flaws... that in other movies, I don't see.

I personally think that even though it is a good film, I wouldn't say that it is Disney's best. Overall, I still think Disney still has to show us what they can really do with 3D animation.

CGI and Ben Hur

Did you hear?
They are making a Ben Hur remake.

Why... yes... They are making a Ben Hur Remake...

I've seen the Ben Hur film, total of 4 or 5 times. I wouldn't say that it is my favorite film... but it is a good one to enjoy....
IF YOU WANT TO SPEND 3 HOURS SITTING ON A COUCH DOING NOTHING BUT WATCHING TV....


Anyway. As I was reading the info of this new remake (link here) I couldn't help but see that the director of the movie "Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer" is the one that will take such a project.
Now, I didn't HATE ALVS... I was amused at it several times... but the one thing that was very present in it was the CGI. (Computer Generated Image). So much CGI was in this film, that one could call it a CGLAM (Computer Generated Live Action Movie)...

Anyway...
My big question for this would be....
Should this new Ben Hur movie have CGI?

Let's look at some history of this.
Well, Ben Hur was one of the few films that can be considered an "Epic Film". The story is nothing special... but what made it epic was the size of production that went to it. Millions of dollars went into building sets, training animals, making props and hiring people to do even the most useless things. Just look at this shot from the movie

Doesn't that just look grand? Magnificent? Splendorous? and (Let me check the thesaurus real quick here) Monumental?
There is a greater scheme in all of this that sets the audience in a place bigger than themselves.
All of this is possible to be made again, many people would argue then, that the movie should not include CGI. It should be another grand movie of epic proportions.
But then again... there is CGI... UNLIMITED POSSIBILITIES...
CGI brought to reality so many things in the last few years... It gave us the idea that a man could actually crawl up walls.

Or this 

That also looks so grand and magnificent... 

Well, I think it depends on the use of the CGI... If the CGI helps the illusion of reality being made... then I would say "GO FOR IT"... but, if the CGI is used as a cheap way to film the entire thing, and the illusion of reality is broken by making EVERYTHING CGI (Looking at you Lucas), then I would say no to it.

I guess it depends on what CGI can do.... 

We know that it will continue to bring new ideas and new concepts to the big screen, but overall, I think that it shouldn't be used for everything that is done now-a-days. Some movies still require the touch of real life. Other movies deserve CGI because reality is limited. Aliens in the sky? I would say CGI instead of really bad puppets... (Looking at you Power Rangers Turbo)... 

What do you all think?

Where does CGI stand in the world of today's cinema?

The expendables vs Transformers

Well, it has finally come to this.
I am back to school, and I have been busy. I now have to write a thesis on something to do with English Lit and I have just been reading a lot.
But, that hasn't stopped me from watching awesome films and thinking about the bad ones.
I recently finished rewatching the Expendables 2 (I missed the third one and I am very sad at that). But as the credits were rolling, I was with a smile on my face. I liked this movie... alot!

Let me give you a bit of backstory of why I was surprised that I liked this movie.

The year was 2010. I was just starting to like movies in a different way. It was no longer about the cool explosions and the way a certain man killed another dude. It was about the quality of the film. It was a year of discovery for me. And with great help from the theatrical releases of that year. I mean, the film standard was raised. We had How to Train your Dragon, Inception, Toy Story 3, The first part of the Seventh HP movie. All of these and more were coming out and were making a big impact on me.
Then I watched the Expendables.
I hated the film. It was cheap, cheesy and was filled with cliches to the brim. I came out of the film, feeling rather disgusted at the fact that Silverster Stallone was Rocky at some point, and now he is this botox filled man.
I was turned off by the film.
Cut to 2 years later, where the Expendables 2 came out. I saw the trailer for it, and I said "Nope". I shut down the TV that was playing the trailer, and I left wherever I was. I ignored it. Until Christmas of that year, when my mom bought it on DVD.
We put it in the Blu Ray player and let the movie begin. It was the same. Cliches, cheesy dialogue and big explosions. But I liked it! Why?! It was a cliche after cliche. Cheesy line after cheesy line. The action was amazing, but it was the only thing. The actors were famous old superstars that did things where I was confused. But I still liked it!
This is where I came to a discovery.  Sometimes, movies need to be for the sake of turning off your brain and watching a bunch of explosions.
There are movies out there, that are meant to create zero impact on you. They are just there to entertain. There is no message to them, no rhyme, no reason. Just pure testosterone filled entertainment. This allowed me to forgive many movies that were coming out. I started to see films differently. Which ones have a message? Which ones are meant to just watch and not think for 2 hours as things are happening around you?
It was an awesome discovery.
But then, I saw this

O this. This movie is plain old despicable. I saw this with my older brother and our reactions were practically the same.

I had wasted three hours of  my life watching this piece of crap. I was very disappointed at the fact that this

Did not entertain me. Why? Why is this movie so terrible? How come it can be filled with the same things that The expendables had, but leave me hollow and empty.  I mean, THAT IS FREAKING OPTIMUS PRIME, RIDING A METAL DINOSAUR (wh I know has a name...but the movie didn't say it, so I won't)
What is the difference between these two films?

Both of them are senseless, both of them are filled with cliches, both of them have big names, and both of them have a sense of action that no other films can create.
Yet, what is the difference?

Well, I think that it is the fact that the Expendables movies, know that they are not serious movies. The entire film has an aim towards goofiness and a sillyness. Not having to deal with heavy material and knowing that the characters are already set in their places. They are not going anywhere, so you don't feel the responsibility of watching them grow. You feel connected with them, yes, but you know that the characters will not really change. Hence, you shouldn't change with them. This is not always a good thing. There a characters that need change, but they don't. You feel them getting stuck on the same trait that aids to their fall, but in this movie, the case is special.
Throughout the first scene, the first thing you see is just action. Explosions and gunfire. No explanation. Usually, people would would be reacting like

But not in this movie. The action is enough to draw us in and get us invested in characters we don't even know. The movie knows that there doesn't have to be a reason. It is not a movie that needs to be taken seriously. And does it work? YES!
The movie is not meant to be analyzed and be taken seriously. People will not be coming out of the movie saying "I really think that Stallone was making me doubt whether or not the ethical choices of our society". They will be saying "Holy Crap, do you remember that part where Chuck Norris appeared!!!"

On the other hand, you have Michael Bay.
A movie that takes itself too seriously, but fails to be serious. They try to put in comedy, but the ambiance doesn't allow it. They try to set in a sombre tone, but the failed comedy and jokes keep it grounded on goofyness. So it cannot be seen as more than just plain silly.

I love the part in the beginning of the film where the daughter of Mark Whalberg says to her girlfriends "We are going to get WASTED!!!" but then a few minutes later, she is telling Mark "I sometimes wonder who the real adult is in this house".
It is just contradictory, and it doesn't make sense.
Michael Bay was trying to convey a plot that would create a franchise, but it failed. It cannot be taken seriously because the characters are not real. They try to be, but they fail, that is why you end with characters so annoying, that one ends up applauding when they die (it actually happened in my case).
It is like being at a family reunion, and one kid comes up and starts playing the recorder bad... like this

And everyone laughs, because it is not meant to be taken seriously. But then another kid comes up and starts playing the recorder with it's pants down, but playing perfectly the tune of The Lord of the Rings.
You end up by being confused. You don't laugh, and you don't recognize his talent. He is trying to be funny, on purpose, but trying to be serious at the same time. And fails!

My brother says this about the Transformers franchise
Whereas transformers wishes to be taken seriously. ..they want to make a franchise based on a plot that nobody understands

Well put.
It's too complicated that it falls flat.

In my opinion, Michael Bay should stay away from movies for a while and not try to bring anything that is nostalgic back.
Or else we end up with things like this!