genstarzz
Lifetime Total
1+
IMDb Member
15 years
Reviews
The Hunger Games (2012)
It may surprise you
I didn't see this movie in theaters because of lack of interest. In all honesty, based on the trailer and hype, it just didn't seem to grab me and none of my friends really seemed interested either. Some of my favorite films in the action/fantasy genre include the original Star Wars films, Many super hero films such as the dark knight and iron man, the first two terminators, etc. so the Hunger Games didn't seem to be up my ally. Since then, I have come to learn that two of my closer friends were actually big fans of the first Hunger Games film. With the release of the second film coming this weekend, and with the convenience of the it's availability on netflix, I decided to watch the 2012 film last night.
I don't regret giving it a shot at all. I was very pleased with what I watched! First, I am going to talk about the negative aspects of the film in my opinion, just to get them out of the way. The pacing of the first hour is just a tad slow. Nothing painful, and it does make the later parts of the film all the more thrilling, but it does move just a teeny bit slower than needed. I wasn't particularly fond of Josh Hutcherson's performance. Also, the cgi within the last 20 minutes looked a little fake. Some of the make up on some of the characters were a little silly. They looked like they came right out of Ron Howard's 2000 film How the Grinch stole Christmas. But these characters don't have massive roles or anything, and it's a very minor complaint. I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel at this point.
Now on to the good stuff. I fell in love with Jennifer Lawrence in this movie. She's a very good actress and is very attractive. She's my new celebrity crush. I really cared about the character she played, Katniss. This had to be at least 60% because of the gorgeous actress and maybe 40% because of the script. The fact that I cared so much about this Katniss was in peril, I very enthusiastically routed for her. The story was also interesting and fairly creative. I haven't read the book it's based on, so I can't say how it works as an adaptation or if it does great justice to the source material. As someone who knew very little about The Hunger Games going in however, I think they did a good job.
I touched on the performances a little bit. I mentioned that I though Jennifer Lawrence was perfect, and how I didn't care for Josh Hutcherson. As for the performances as a whole, I think the movie was pretty solid though. Woody Harrelson was probably the second best actor in the film and played one of the more memorable characters. Everyone else was serviceable for the film. While I said I thought the pacing of the first hour was a little slow (which was very slight), the remainder of the film flew by. I was glued to the screen. There was a surprising amount of violence. I was expecting the film to be on the lighter side of the pg-13 rating, while it was actually quite the opposite.
If the film took the violence any further, it would have easily gotten an R rating. I think this works very well for the film as it makes the world seem all the more realistic and dangerous, and makes the drama more effective. There are actual deaths in the film as well, which I didn't expect, which also added to this. If people die in this world, that also means that the main protagonist can die as well, which raises the stakes. There are also quite a few interesting twists and role reversals in the film that keep you invested.
Overall, if you are skeptical about this movie as I was, I recommend at least giving it a shot. If you get to the 80 minute mark, and are not satisfied, then you can turn it off, but I urge you to get at least that far before forming an opinion. I went into the movie expecting something targeted towards children around the ages 7-12, while in fact it seems to target a bit of an older crowd, probably between 12 and 18. It also managed to please me, a 21 year old. This movie was very entertaining, and I expect great things from the sequel.
I don't regret giving it a shot at all. I was very pleased with what I watched! First, I am going to talk about the negative aspects of the film in my opinion, just to get them out of the way. The pacing of the first hour is just a tad slow. Nothing painful, and it does make the later parts of the film all the more thrilling, but it does move just a teeny bit slower than needed. I wasn't particularly fond of Josh Hutcherson's performance. Also, the cgi within the last 20 minutes looked a little fake. Some of the make up on some of the characters were a little silly. They looked like they came right out of Ron Howard's 2000 film How the Grinch stole Christmas. But these characters don't have massive roles or anything, and it's a very minor complaint. I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel at this point.
Now on to the good stuff. I fell in love with Jennifer Lawrence in this movie. She's a very good actress and is very attractive. She's my new celebrity crush. I really cared about the character she played, Katniss. This had to be at least 60% because of the gorgeous actress and maybe 40% because of the script. The fact that I cared so much about this Katniss was in peril, I very enthusiastically routed for her. The story was also interesting and fairly creative. I haven't read the book it's based on, so I can't say how it works as an adaptation or if it does great justice to the source material. As someone who knew very little about The Hunger Games going in however, I think they did a good job.
I touched on the performances a little bit. I mentioned that I though Jennifer Lawrence was perfect, and how I didn't care for Josh Hutcherson. As for the performances as a whole, I think the movie was pretty solid though. Woody Harrelson was probably the second best actor in the film and played one of the more memorable characters. Everyone else was serviceable for the film. While I said I thought the pacing of the first hour was a little slow (which was very slight), the remainder of the film flew by. I was glued to the screen. There was a surprising amount of violence. I was expecting the film to be on the lighter side of the pg-13 rating, while it was actually quite the opposite.
If the film took the violence any further, it would have easily gotten an R rating. I think this works very well for the film as it makes the world seem all the more realistic and dangerous, and makes the drama more effective. There are actual deaths in the film as well, which I didn't expect, which also added to this. If people die in this world, that also means that the main protagonist can die as well, which raises the stakes. There are also quite a few interesting twists and role reversals in the film that keep you invested.
Overall, if you are skeptical about this movie as I was, I recommend at least giving it a shot. If you get to the 80 minute mark, and are not satisfied, then you can turn it off, but I urge you to get at least that far before forming an opinion. I went into the movie expecting something targeted towards children around the ages 7-12, while in fact it seems to target a bit of an older crowd, probably between 12 and 18. It also managed to please me, a 21 year old. This movie was very entertaining, and I expect great things from the sequel.
Star Wars (1977)
Nothing short of a classic
This film is a milestone in cinema. It changed the way movies were made with its ground breaking special effects. It launched the Star Wars saga, one of the most successful film franchises of all time. Along with Jaws, it essentially created the blockbuster genre, and on top of all that, many aspects of this film are now a cultural icons (The John Williams theme, The Millennium Falcon, The Death Star, Darth Vader, Chewbacca, Lightsabers, C-3PO and R2D2 and so much more!)
However, even if you took away this film's impact on both Cinema and the world, you would still have a very enjoyable thrill ride in the science fiction/fantasy genre! A lot of elements of Star Wars are a bit cliché: The orphan protagonist who goes from average Joe to hero, the wise mentor, the non violent duo put in for comic relief, the anti hero, the dark threatening villain and the princess. However, what makes Star Wars so great is how likable it makes it's heroes, how intimidating it makes it's antagonists and the unique spin Star Wars puts on these otherwise cliché factors.
Enter Luke Skywalker! He's a little whiny at first, but you can't help but get behind him. Mark Hamill's performance definitely helps, but it's also the character's sheer compassion and determination to become a part of something bigger that makes him so relatable. You can't help but sympathize with him as his Uncle Owen holds him back from leaving the farm. Luke also has a firm belief in the force and places a lot of faith in it.
Complementing Luke's character is that of Han Solo. Han has far less compassion, and refuses to put any faith in the force. He is certainly more a bad ass in traditional sense and is on the other end of the "hero" spectrum. This is great because it gives the audience options on who they'd like to get behind. If Luke is too much a boy scout, you still have Han to get behind. If Han is too pig headed and selfish, then you have Luke to get behind! Not to mention, Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford have great on screen chemistry.
Darth Vader is done so well as antagonist that he's arguably the most iconic villain of all time, perhaps tied with the Joker. Everything from the unique mask he wears to the size and stature of David Prowse (the actor inside the suit)accompanied by the voice of James Earl Jones gives Darth Vader a highly intimidating presence. However, what makes him interesting and gives him more depth is that he was once good, but was seduced by the dark side of the force and is now evil. He was a victim of his temptations.
Alec Guinness is a brilliant actor and makes Obi-wan Kenobi very likable as well very well spoken and wise. It's very easy to see him as a wise Jedi Master. Princess Leia is a damsel in distress, but she's also tougher than the average one and isn't afraid to take charge.
Aside from the great characters, Star Wars just introduces a very distinct and unique universe. There are so many great vehicle and character designs that are imaginative, interesting and original. All of these things keep Star Wars from being anything from generic. Then there's the pacing of the film. The film starts off with a great attention grabbing introduction, then the film starts to slow down a bit for exposition, but then the film becomes a roller coaster ride throughout the entire second half! The action is very thrilling and leaves a big impression.
Overall, Star Wars still holds up today as a great film. It hasn't aged a bit; non of it's special effects look dated or silly, the characters are still very likable and soundtrack is just epic. Star Wars, in my opinion is the definition of a timeless film. It is now 36 years old and is still better than the vast majority of blockbuster films that have been released within the last year, if not all of them! Star Wars lives up to it's name of simply being a great film.
However, even if you took away this film's impact on both Cinema and the world, you would still have a very enjoyable thrill ride in the science fiction/fantasy genre! A lot of elements of Star Wars are a bit cliché: The orphan protagonist who goes from average Joe to hero, the wise mentor, the non violent duo put in for comic relief, the anti hero, the dark threatening villain and the princess. However, what makes Star Wars so great is how likable it makes it's heroes, how intimidating it makes it's antagonists and the unique spin Star Wars puts on these otherwise cliché factors.
Enter Luke Skywalker! He's a little whiny at first, but you can't help but get behind him. Mark Hamill's performance definitely helps, but it's also the character's sheer compassion and determination to become a part of something bigger that makes him so relatable. You can't help but sympathize with him as his Uncle Owen holds him back from leaving the farm. Luke also has a firm belief in the force and places a lot of faith in it.
Complementing Luke's character is that of Han Solo. Han has far less compassion, and refuses to put any faith in the force. He is certainly more a bad ass in traditional sense and is on the other end of the "hero" spectrum. This is great because it gives the audience options on who they'd like to get behind. If Luke is too much a boy scout, you still have Han to get behind. If Han is too pig headed and selfish, then you have Luke to get behind! Not to mention, Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford have great on screen chemistry.
Darth Vader is done so well as antagonist that he's arguably the most iconic villain of all time, perhaps tied with the Joker. Everything from the unique mask he wears to the size and stature of David Prowse (the actor inside the suit)accompanied by the voice of James Earl Jones gives Darth Vader a highly intimidating presence. However, what makes him interesting and gives him more depth is that he was once good, but was seduced by the dark side of the force and is now evil. He was a victim of his temptations.
Alec Guinness is a brilliant actor and makes Obi-wan Kenobi very likable as well very well spoken and wise. It's very easy to see him as a wise Jedi Master. Princess Leia is a damsel in distress, but she's also tougher than the average one and isn't afraid to take charge.
Aside from the great characters, Star Wars just introduces a very distinct and unique universe. There are so many great vehicle and character designs that are imaginative, interesting and original. All of these things keep Star Wars from being anything from generic. Then there's the pacing of the film. The film starts off with a great attention grabbing introduction, then the film starts to slow down a bit for exposition, but then the film becomes a roller coaster ride throughout the entire second half! The action is very thrilling and leaves a big impression.
Overall, Star Wars still holds up today as a great film. It hasn't aged a bit; non of it's special effects look dated or silly, the characters are still very likable and soundtrack is just epic. Star Wars, in my opinion is the definition of a timeless film. It is now 36 years old and is still better than the vast majority of blockbuster films that have been released within the last year, if not all of them! Star Wars lives up to it's name of simply being a great film.
Titanic (1997)
Not a masterpiece, but still a very enjoyable film
Titanic was a big departure from the previous films director James Cameron had created. Films like The Terminator, Terminator 2, and Aliens are all sci-fi action CLASSICS and are some of my favorite movies. He had also directed True Lies, a solid action film, but not quite as intriguing, creative or original as the other films I mentioned. He also made The Abyss, which was enjoyable yet forgettable in my opinion. Overall, Cameron really shines and delivers when it comes to making Sci- fi action films that take themselves seriously.
Then Titanic came along. It was his first major film that was not science fiction nor action related. In a sense, Titanic tries to be to Cameron what Schindler's list was to Spielberg. This was Cameron's opportunity to show he had matured and can make a sophisticated film. A film based on a historical event without any elements of fantasy with great performances and emotional depth. Unfortunately, Titanic does not quite reach the levels of greatness that Schindler's list had.
Sad to say, after seeing this movie it is clear that Cameron isn't as versatile as Spielberg and should stick to a specific genre for best results. Not to say Titanic is awful. It is by no means a bad film, however it's not quite a classic because it suffers from being generic at times. Everything relating to the special effects, the sets, the costumes, etc. are not generic. They are all incredibly done and clearly overseen by a great director. What makes the movie generic are the things that separate it from Cameron's previous films: The love story.
If you took away all the thing mentioned above: the great sets, the great visual effects and so on and took everything away from the movie that had to do with the titanic, you would have nothing left but very cliché, by the book characters, plot and dialogue. Jack and Rose's relationship had nothing particularly new or innovative about it at all. Two people in love separated by social class is a story that's been told over and over again ever since Romeo and Juliet.
We've seen this story many times. This would be forgivable, if it wasn't for the fact that it's the core of the movie! Star Wars, in a way does something similar: it takes a story that everybody is familiar with and puts it in a bigger, larger than life setting. However, what gave Star Wars more of a punch than Titanic was that the characters were far more unique and memorable. Take Darth Vader for example and compare him to Caledon Hockley from Titanic. Cal is a character that we've seen in many silly high school comedies: the douche bag with a broom up his ass that we all want to see get his comeuppance at the end.
Darth Vader on the other hand, was nothing like any villain we've seen before and became a cultural icon. I'm not saying every character has to become a part of pop culture for the movie to be good, I'm just saying that that's what's keeping Titanic from being a masterpiece in my opinion. I will say, however, that the film is still really shines during certain parts. The sinking of the Titanic was emotional, yet jaw dropping to watch. The sets were also great, and although I think Jack and Rose might be a bit generic and even a little boring, they are still likable overall and it's sad when Jack dies at the end.
Overall, the movie is over rated, however I still consider it worth watching and entertaining. It's just destined to be compared with other films that reach a higher level of originality and storytelling because well, it's the second highest grossing film of all time. As far as Avatar is concerned, that film even suffers from generic storytelling even more than this one, and I feel that it's a bit of a shame that Cameron had clung to closely to cliché characters and plot lines
Then Titanic came along. It was his first major film that was not science fiction nor action related. In a sense, Titanic tries to be to Cameron what Schindler's list was to Spielberg. This was Cameron's opportunity to show he had matured and can make a sophisticated film. A film based on a historical event without any elements of fantasy with great performances and emotional depth. Unfortunately, Titanic does not quite reach the levels of greatness that Schindler's list had.
Sad to say, after seeing this movie it is clear that Cameron isn't as versatile as Spielberg and should stick to a specific genre for best results. Not to say Titanic is awful. It is by no means a bad film, however it's not quite a classic because it suffers from being generic at times. Everything relating to the special effects, the sets, the costumes, etc. are not generic. They are all incredibly done and clearly overseen by a great director. What makes the movie generic are the things that separate it from Cameron's previous films: The love story.
If you took away all the thing mentioned above: the great sets, the great visual effects and so on and took everything away from the movie that had to do with the titanic, you would have nothing left but very cliché, by the book characters, plot and dialogue. Jack and Rose's relationship had nothing particularly new or innovative about it at all. Two people in love separated by social class is a story that's been told over and over again ever since Romeo and Juliet.
We've seen this story many times. This would be forgivable, if it wasn't for the fact that it's the core of the movie! Star Wars, in a way does something similar: it takes a story that everybody is familiar with and puts it in a bigger, larger than life setting. However, what gave Star Wars more of a punch than Titanic was that the characters were far more unique and memorable. Take Darth Vader for example and compare him to Caledon Hockley from Titanic. Cal is a character that we've seen in many silly high school comedies: the douche bag with a broom up his ass that we all want to see get his comeuppance at the end.
Darth Vader on the other hand, was nothing like any villain we've seen before and became a cultural icon. I'm not saying every character has to become a part of pop culture for the movie to be good, I'm just saying that that's what's keeping Titanic from being a masterpiece in my opinion. I will say, however, that the film is still really shines during certain parts. The sinking of the Titanic was emotional, yet jaw dropping to watch. The sets were also great, and although I think Jack and Rose might be a bit generic and even a little boring, they are still likable overall and it's sad when Jack dies at the end.
Overall, the movie is over rated, however I still consider it worth watching and entertaining. It's just destined to be compared with other films that reach a higher level of originality and storytelling because well, it's the second highest grossing film of all time. As far as Avatar is concerned, that film even suffers from generic storytelling even more than this one, and I feel that it's a bit of a shame that Cameron had clung to closely to cliché characters and plot lines
Dragonball Evolution (2009)
Speed Racer (2008) ain't looking too bad right about now....
This movie is an abomination and a disgrace to the great anime and manga. The acting is crap and the whole thing is really cheesy, but the worst thing above all are the creative differences made. I am a big fan of the original dragon ball and dragon ball z anime and it is pretty clear what the main flaws are. First, the completely left out Krillin, a central character of the manga and anime. Second, none of the characters look ANYTHING like the did in the source material. They also changed MAJOR parts of the storyline, etc. It's just BAD.
I'm pleased to know that the advertising of the movie is pretty damn bad. The less non-dragon ball fans who know about it, the better. I don't want this film to taint dragon ball's reputation.
I'm pleased to know that the advertising of the movie is pretty damn bad. The less non-dragon ball fans who know about it, the better. I don't want this film to taint dragon ball's reputation.