Rise

Before beginning I need to address the fatal shooting that occurred at the midnight screening last night in Colorado - there's no need to rehash the details because I'm fairly certain you've heard about it.  My thoughts are with the victims of the tragedy.  I am disturbed and disgusted to my core about the sort of evil that exists in the world, that something as exciting and honestly trivial as a midnight advance show for a summer blockbuster has turned into bloodshed for those involved.  At the risk of sounding cold, I wonder to myself what affect this will have on the movie's success this weekend, although the gravity of this situation is truly real and I only hope for the best for those who have survived and for those who have been affected.

I wish I could pull off standing on police cars.

The Dark Knight Rises is the most perfect conclusion to a nearly flawless film trilogy and is, frankly, the most intense and the most satisfying movie I've ever experienced.

I can remember being dumbfounded when walking out of the theater seeing Batman Begins way back in 2005 (has it been that long?) because I could have never expected the sort of quality and realism that Christopher Nolan had brought to a franchise that had been tarnished by the ridiculous Batman & Robin and its subsequent nipple-suits and Schwarzenegger madness.  I saw that movie twice.  I can remember waiting outside of the locked theater doors at 10am with my friend in tow waiting for the earliest possible showtime for The Dark Knight - my theater didn't offer a midnight showing for, because trust me, I would've been there - which was at noon.  I remember running in once the doors opened and body checking people to get to the theater, running to watch what would be the greatest comic book movie made.  I cried when Rachel Dawes blew up as a result of the Joker switching addresses; I was in awe at the late Heath Ledger's incredible performance as the deranged sociopathic clown; I hated Chris Nolan with everything I had for leaving me hanging, not knowing if there would even be a sequel.  (I might've been okay without one, actually) And four years later - we waited four years for this - The Dark Knight Rises is finally here, and I would wager that it comes close to entirely surpassing its near-perfect predecessor.

Close.

Scratch that.  Now that I remember the film's final hour, I feel like it's better.

To be honest I was initially wary about the film as it began.  The first forty-five minutes or so started on shaky and slow ground, though now considering the plot as a whole, I can see the need for such time to be devoted to establish what would become integral.  Set eight years after The Dark Knight and after Batman took the fall for Harvey Dent's death, we find Bruce Wayne as a recluse, his body deteriorating and his weight on a cane.  Events are set in motion immediately as he crosses paths with Catwoman, whose seemingly petty theft of his fingerprints begins a spiral of madness, orchestrated by the terrifying Bane, played by an almost unrecognizable and scarily built Tom Hardy.  The movie plays parallel to the one before in the sense that the first hour is devoted to a tangled network of confusion before the main villain rises about and assumes control of their plan: in The Dark Knight we had the business with the Chinese businessman and the emergence of the Joker, and here we find Bane's employer calling the shots with a plan set before Bane hijacks the control with his own agenda.  From thereon out we see absolute pandemonium: Gotham is turned on its head after a series of events triggered by Bane which honestly made my blood run cold - explosions, diversions, entrapments, a clusterfuck.  Wayne is forced to return to his suit, something he had lived without since the failures of the second movie, to combat Bane, a task made all the more difficult by Catwoman's involvement.

My fear before viewing involved the tall order that The Dark Knight entails - I would've admitted defeat and given up on topping it with a sequel considering it is, honestly, perfect.  The natural need to compare comes from the void left by the Joker, and Tom Hardy had huge shoes to fill in wake of the performance which resulted in a posthumous Academy Award for Ledger.  It would be impossible to compare Bane to the Joker simply because you can't; Bane is therefore terrifying and physically formidable - the first fight scene with Batman is brutal to sit through - he proves a worthy match for the Caped Crusader, and I honestly for the life of me couldn't figure out how Batman would even be able to win at the end of it.  Bane's entire plan, as it continues to unravel, gets increasingly horrifying and grand, and the intensity of the film-making put me in a cold sweat throughout the watching the film.  The action keeps going to culminate in a sequence where I literally could not breathe.

The other concern was with Catwoman.  I'm a huge fan of Michelle Pfieffer's Catwoman in Batman Returns and not so much of a fan of the Halle Berry incarnation.  I don't know how I feel about Anne Hathaway; sometimes I like her a lot, sometimes I don't, but I was afraid she wouldn't fit in with the cast and would simply just be Anne Hathaway in a Batman movie instead of the character.  I was wrong.  This movie is Catwoman's movie, and as great as Bane was as a villain, she steals the focus away from him to be the greater of the two additions.  She oozes sexuality without even trying, and her cool voice shooting off sassy one-liners made her memorable; I'm glad they played her off as being morally ambiguous.  Catwoman, the master thief, steals the movie.  (lame)

The most emotional part about this movie, though, is the investment we have in these characters.  I shook with nerves thinking of any of the veterans dying - specifically Alfred, Lucius, and/or Commissioner Gordon - and I won't say who lives and who doesn't, but there are a handful of scenes where I was literally squirming in my seat because I wasn't sure what was going to happen to any of them.  So too was the attachment to Bruce Wayne (obviously), and as the chaos grew darker I feared the Dark Knight might not triumph, let alone live.  (again, I won't say what happens) In addition to the characters we've grown to love came the additions - Catwoman, Bane, Joseph Gordon Levitt as a young and honest cop who becomes Gordon and Batman's ally, and Marion Cotillard as the new CEO of Wayne Enterprises and more eye candy for Bruce - but the movie never seems weighted down by their inclusion.  I was nervous that it might become too much of an Inception reunion, though everyone seemed so natural within Gotham City.

The conclusion to the movie was simply perfect: a perfect end to the events in place of the movie, and a perfect end to the trilogy as a whole.  For the last ten or so minutes, I cried.  CRIED.  I'm upset that the franchise has come to the end, and that we'll never see other characters from the comics come to light, but there's no more satisfaction I want from what we were given.  CRIED.

I'm glad that I saw the movie at midnight.  From the moment that I stepped foot in the theater it immediately felt like an experience.  I stood in my Batman t-shirt and Batman Converse high-tops (so tight that I could barely walk and they became part of my feet) surrounded by others in similar apparel.  A table was set up by a comic book store with a guy dressed as Bane, and we took a picture with him.  The hype kept building as the theater got packed with people who didn't care that they were seeing a three hour movie at midnight.  The trailer for Man of Steel was met with screams of "Batman's better!" and applause from the audience.  The movie received unanimous applause as its title came up on screen at the end, and rightly deserved.

A truly unbelievable viewing experience from start to finish.  Get to the theater now and see it.

Look out, here comes the Spider-Man

Would it be shocking if I were to say that I love movies?  If you answered "yes" then remove yourself from this blog.

I've noted before that I've seen a colossal amount of movies this summer, and when I think about it, my bank account going into this upcoming school year would have been a few hundred dollars more comfortable.  (I try my hardest not to think about the extra cash I might've had if not shoving it at Cineplex for my popcorn and tickets, but it's difficult) I've seen everything from a super-superhero group three times to another horrible Tim Burton movie, from a self-administered alien c-section to Kristen Stewart proving she's the fairest of them all to Tom Cruise being an awkward rock star amidst some of the campiest camp I've seen.  Despite my obvious love for superhero movies I was never actually excited for The Amazing Spider-Man, partially because Spider-Man has never wowed me and partially because I have this fundamental spite for unnecessary remakes/reboots; this post then will first address how absolutely wrong I was about this movie and second the idea of remakes altogether.

Now that I think about it I should've known I'd like The Amazing Spider-Man.  It has an awesome cast: Andrew Garfield just visually makes a better awkward high school teenager than Tobey Maguire, not to mention he's a great actor (see: The Social Network); I don't even need to touch upon any sort of explanation about Emma Stone because she's talented and pretty and funny and so grounded and, weirdly, intoxicating.  It took a step backwards from the over-packed nonsense that was Spider-Man 3 with, what, seventy-five different villains or something?  It seemed more akin to the comics with the involvement of Gwen Stacy as opposed to MJ who, I think, will be forever tainted by Kirsten Dunst and her snaggleteeth.  (I'm too harsh on her.  I loved Melacholia) All in all, it should've been far up on my must-see list for the summer, but amidst the horrible Tom Cruise and alien c-sections and the upcoming end-of-my-life The Dark Knight Rises, it was swept aside as something I didn't care for.

And then there was the whole remake thing.  As I mentioned earlier, I'm somewhat against the idea of remakes happening in Hollywood.  In theory, I might support it: if taken seriously, I would stand behind a fresh take on a "classic" (depends on the original movie) to update it, to revitalize it, and to broaden its reach to a newer generation of audience.  And yet - do we ever get it?  We're hit with an onslaught of needless horror remakes which do nothing stick within the confines of unimaginative cliches.  Then, of course, we get the good ones: this past year's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo offered a more faithful adaption to the source material with a far more impressive Lisbeth Salander in Rooney Mara (who, coincidentally, failed as the center of the 2010 A Nightmare on Elm Street remake) than the muddled Swedish version.  Or, in terms of series reboots, Batman Begins, which, alongside its sequel The Dark Knight and surely its upcoming conclusion, I'd argue is one of the best franchises and the best superhero movie(s) to date.  Why can't all remakes be handled with the genius that Christopher Nolan has?

Not that I thought that The Amazing Spider-Man was going to be as horrific as something like Prom Night or Friday the 13th; rather: what would be the point of an artistic and cinematic re-imagination of a trilogy that wrapped up only six years ago?  I get that originally it was supposed to be a fourth entry with Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst once again up against Anne Hathaway as Black Cat (irony has her as Catwoman in the Batman Nolan-verse) - but what could be brought to the character that's so new it needs to be revisited only a decade after the first came to theaters?  And therein lay my lack of excitement: the trailers offered me nothing I hadn't already seen in terms of the costume, the web-slinging, the action.

And like I said.. I was completely wrong.

I'll say that I enjoyed TASM (I'm officially lazy) far more than I did any of the original three movies, even though I appreciate Spider-Man 2 as being seriously well-done, albeit a little overrated.  It's true that the movie didn't offer anything groundbreakingly new, considering we were given an origin story (complete with an Uncle Ben tragedy - that shouldn't be a spoiler although to be honest I thought he might die in a sequel) and the often-seen self-discovery jargon that comes with a newbie to a mask.  Perhaps against its favour was the fact that Spider-Man was in 2001 so it's still slightly fresh in our minds - I can even remember seeing it in theaters.  (Batman Begins, conversely, returned to a gritty Batman in 2005 who was [barely] last seen in 1991) And yet, I found myself having fun while watching, and I can say that director Marc Webb (ha) was successful in returning spark to the character and his world.  That was almost entirely in part to a seriously believable and perfectly snarky Peter Parker as well as goddamn Emma Stone who would probably make a mass murderer of children who sets fire to hospitals and dog shelters endearing.  Their chemistry was real, but that could be because they're a real life couple - aw - but the entire time I kept thinking 1. if they're going to follow the comics with Gwen as they should I will cry and 2. I do not want to see that ginger MJ anywhere near this couple and I can do without any love triangles in the sequel(s).

It was nice to see The Lizard onscreen finally, and he proved to be a scary and formidable opponent who hatched a last-ditch kill-the-whole-city plan that all superhero villains do.  Similarly fresh was not using the obvious choice of the Green Goblin, but the set-up for future installments with Oscorp and the spoiler spoiler after the credits was great to see.  Also great to see was the amount of humour coinciding with the grand action, which doesn't come to a shock considering Emma Stone has fantastic comedic timing and Andrew Garfield was similarly talented in that respect.  Perhaps the most visually stunning shots came in the point-of-view swinging we're offered, which was awesome to see in 3D as everything usually is.  (the 3D is worth the price)

Overall, I'd absolutely recommend it if you love comic book movies, action movies, or Emma Stone.  Get thee to the cinema!

The war won't stop for the love of god

My summer has thus far been entirely uneventful.  I've spent more time at work than I have at home, I drink more with my family than I do out at bars, and I've seen eight movies in theaters in the past month - eight, and not unique.  Regardless, I'm thankful I'm not in class for the time being - and yet, my summer already seems as though it's dwindling, mainly because I'm going to Florida for two weeks rolling into August, and I have about a week at home before I move back to commence my don training.  Despite my mundane few months being home and school free, I had a noteworthy weekend, and while it might seem like this post will take a turn for the worse, rest assured that it won't.

On Friday, I saw Prometheus, so allow me to offer a semi-review: whaaaat did I just see?  I initially wasn't looking forward to the movie at all, mainly because I've never considered myself a fan of the sort of science fiction that involves aliens.  I'll hand it to the marking, then, for winning me over and making it one of my must-sees this summer; that alarm noise from the commercials haunts my dreams, and the stellar (pun?) cast didn't hurt.  To prepare, I sped through the entire Alien series in three days, the first two being some of those movies that I always meant to see, the third, just good, and the fourth which I'll pretend doesn't even exist.  I fully understand how iconic the character of Ripley is now, and she's a badass.

Prometheus, I'd heard, is some sort of semi-prequel to the franchise, though now that I've seen it nothing extends past a handful of references here and there and a surprise appearance at the very end.  (was that a spoiler? Meh)  To be honest, I kept expecting the movie to shift into the formula that Alien itself followed, what with the discovery of a planet (check) with strange ruins and weird eggs (check) leading to the second half 'there's an alien on the loose!' horror that never actually happened in Prometheus; and therefore by the time the plot wrapped up I couldn't even believe it was already over.  What happened instead, though, was a sequence of events so bizarre and seemingly farfetched that it would sound even ludicrous to try to explain.  I will say that the movie has one of the most disgusting scenes I've ever witnessed - surgery, technology, aliens within - and I can't strike the images from my mind.  The special effects were astounding - I wish I'd seen it in 3D, so I guess I'll have to go see it again! - and the acting, especially Michael Fassbender, was rather good.  Fassbender was literally incredible as an android, but he's always incredible, so I'm not surprised.  I'd recommend the movie to anyone who's a fan of Alien or aliens or spaceships with chest-bursting aliens and androids and self-surgeries and goddamnit is Charlize Theron a robot or not?, but the gore and heavy-handed mythology might be too much for some.

On Sunday I went to Canada's Wonderland for the first time in a long time but the way in which things transpired was less than favourable: I've discovered that I'm not as used to rides as I used to be, and that, combined with sweltering heat and a neglecting of hydration, leads to one vomiting in one's mouth while on The Bat.  (too much information?) The obvious first stop of the day was the new roller coaster, Leviathan, which, after an hour and a half wait, was a blast, but it was hardly nice to my hair.  I felt it then, the light-headedness, but I'd remembered that almost all rides now make me dizzy once coming off of them and the long line-ups would provide enough time for me to recuperate before doing it all again.  And yet, apparently, riding Leviathan twice in a row wasn't beneficial to my dizziness, and as the day carried on the sun beat hotter and my shirt got progressively wetter from sweat.  When we got to The Bat, I knew something was off - it's worth mentioning that The Bat and rides like it usually get me queasy as it is, but I'm usually able to ride it anyways - and by the time the car climbed up the inversions backwards, whatever was in my stomach (nothing, as I stupidly didn't eat before I left) came up.  I blame The Bat and the sun for then ruining the rest of my day because I couldn't bring myself to ride many other rides; things like Top Gun (what the hell is it called now anyways) or Behemoth had to be skipped because I knew they'd do me in, and with every ride came about a half an hour's down time between them while chugging water to compensate for the dehydration I know I had.  I don't know if I'm really unable to ride amusement park rides anymore or if it's just because the day was so hot and I was mindless about drinking water, but you could imagine how much of a task riding something as tame as Windseeker would be.  Nevertheless I still had a good time.

On Monday I accompanied a friend to a free Metric concert in Toronto.  I guess I've always been a casual fan of Metric - I know their songs, I have a fair amount of them on my iTunes, but I've never been a die-hard, so I was initially resistant to going.  I've never actually gone to a legitimate outdoor concert before - truthfully, I actually haven't been to a concert aside from the three Lady Gaga outings I've gone to - so I was excited to an extent.  We got there around three, five hours before the concert was to start, and we were the third and fourth people there.  The sun was as hot as it was when I was in Wonderland but it didn't seem it considering I spent the entire day sitting down against the front barricades to ensure standing at the front of the crowd, but I came away from this weekend with a nice tan.  The rain came with the slow crowd of people forming around us, and come eight o'clock we were pressed against the very front of the stage by the hoard behind us.  I'd vowed to never do another general admission concert again after my horror story that was the first Gaga concert I went to - sweating and Latey Gaga (by three hours) and fistfights! - but, even in the sheets of rain and the water pouring down my back because of the umbrella held directly behind me, everything was worth it to be at the very front.  And Metric, they were fantastic.  The only played seven songs - I didn't expect much, as it was a free concert on a fairly small scale stage - but they're phenomenal live and the lead singer Emily Haines looking directly at me with crazy eyes while singing Monster Hospital has sent me into this crazy rabid fandom in the past few days where I'm now confident enough to say yeah, I'm a pretty big fan of them.  They played six songs from their new album Synthetica (which I 'studied' before going) as well as the aforementioned closing song, and I know now I crave a full length concert where I'd hear Stadium Love played live.

To be honest my proofread of this post completely bored me; either way I haven't posted in a short while and I'm not about to delete the past hour's worth of writing and, well, should you come to this sentence, bravo.  I should hope the past few days of excitement might be a precursor to more fun I'm to have this summer!

Grunt, mumble, bite lip, repeat

I like Kristen Stewart.

There's something, simply, bizarre about her: apathetic more often than not, this girl is simply weird.  She grumbles, she seldom forms complete sentences, she cracks a smile less frequently than a corpse.  I would wager that she isn't used to the sort of fame and rabid fandom that came from and is the Twilight saga, but I could never blame her, because my impression too is that she was never overly invested in it to begin with and I can't imagine what it would be like to build your life up around something that you don't wholeheartedly love yourself.  Then again, I could be completely off base - for all we know she could be the biggest Twilight fan there is and she fangirls when she's by herself because she gets to play opposite (and date in real life!) Rob Pattinson - but I just don't see that.  All that being said, though, I've noticed recently that she's been more expressive and, really, funny, but she's still fundamentally just bizarre.

To say that I like Kristen Stewart then seems like a left field claim to make considering I've likened her habits and personality to something of an oaf, but I truly do like her for some reason; back when the first Twilight came out - I loathed it like any other sensible human being - I remember saying I loved her as a sort of mockery, though I can remember then look back to her filmography with a sense of being somewhat impressed as easily as I would now.  It certainly helps her case that the last Twilight movie is to be released in November (thank god), and that she's been popping up in other movies, much easier even, I would argue, than any of the Harry Potter kids.  Something still just doesn't sit right about seeing Daniel Radcliffe as a widower with a four year old child in The Woman in Black - he's still Harry Potter and sadly might always be (I can foresee a great career regardless), but I digress.  Also in her favour is that brightness that is slowly emerging about her as I've already mentioned, and I mean that in the sense that she doesn't crumple into a jagged ball of skeleton when on a red carpet or at an award show like she used to, or that she seems a lot more comfortable in interviews or whatnot (see: her and her Snow White castmates reading raunchy exerpts from Fifty Shades of Grey), or that she's able to smile and, dare I even say with absolute conviction, look attractive.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, is Kristen Stewart the fairest of them all?  The funny thing about when Snow White and the Huntsman was announced with her in the titular, fairest role, I disagreed.  I know for a fact this movie might suffer because of some peoples' absolute disdain for the girl, or that envisioning her as this fabled beauty is hard for some, but I find that unfortunate considering this thing looks visually beautiful - if nothing else, as reviews might indicate.  Yes, when in contrast to Charlize Theron, she might pail in comparison, but even the biggest hater needs to look directly at her face and agree: she is attractive.  She might not be classically beautiful and her persona or characteristics might be off putting to some, but she is a good looking girl.  That is to say, when she isn't hunched over, trapped in the disgusting blue filter that is Twilight.

That's it: Twilight.  That is the only reason she has a bad reputation.  I hate that franchise as much as everyone else, and I hate that someone as talentless as Stephenie Meyer has constricted a staple in horror mythology with one tightening of her fist, but to needlessly bash something with any merit as many people do would be doing so for the sake of doing so - and therefore it isn't my target.  As I mentioned before, I would say that Kristen Stewart's career has at least been above average - she has done much better than, say, Megan Fox (although she was just fine in Friends with Kids), but she comes nowhere close to Meryl Streep or Kate Winslet - and that her work in this past movies is actually good.  Her Bella Swan-awkward carries over into Adventureland, a movie which benefits from the comedy of a fellow Kristen, Wiig, and Bill Hader, but she doesn't destroy the movie at all; if you feel like ripping on her, I'd ask you to watch Panic Room, or Into the Wild; maybe not The Runaways only because it was bad (she wasn't that bad, though), and I've heard very good things about Welcome to the Rileys where we find her as a prostitute.  Point is: she is a talented young actress, but I'm afraid that Twilight will always leave a dark stain on her career, a stain she'll never beat.

Twilight is the easiest vehicle to hate on her.  (I need to step aside to say that this really seems like a defense of her; I'm not that crazy about her, I just feel like the hate she gets is unwarranted) Yes, the movies are absolute abominations, and she simply is awful in them - but everyone in that movie is bloody awful.  You can't look at any of the films and pinpoint a strong acting performance - that's how inherently bad being a part of something like them would be on your reputation.  Had she never been Bella Swan, I don't believe looking at her in Snow White as 'the fairest of them all' would be an issue; instead, we see Bella Swan in a medieval dress, we see Bella Swan riding a horse in armor, and we see Bella Swan attempting to usurp this mad queen.  We've seen Bella Swan be an amusement park worker, the object of Jesse Eisenberg's affections; as Joan Jett, or as a prostitute.  That is how poignant the character is on her - much like how I referenced Dan Rad as forever being the wizard under the stairs - but what works as a detriment to her favour is that Bella Swan and Twilight are embarrassments.  Not to mention I don't think something like a movie centered around sparkling vampires would be a good showcase of talent.

So, yeah, I've come to like her a lot.  I don't know what it is; she has something that's likable about her, to me at least.  But that's because I can excuse Twilight as a misstep, and that I can realize that there is a reason why she's booked these huge roles and has become as famous as she is - remember, it wasn't her first movie job, so something had to have been there to establish her name enough to become this 'beloved' character.  Regardless, I know the hatred will never stop; I know that a portion of Snow White and the Huntsman's audience will be affected by this stigma surrounding her.

I don't care.  I'm excited to see the movie in an hour, anyways, and I'm fully invested as her being the fairest of them all - in this universe of fiction, at the very least.

Assemble!

(granted, this is a few days late, but who cares, I do what I want)

Captain America, why so tall?

If you haven't seen The Avengers yet, you're probably living under a rock.  Arguably the biggest superhero movie of all time (a title which may be lost come July 20th, but we'll see), how could you not want to see the movie that just racked in 207 million dollars on its first weekend starring a slew of very famous people playing the most badass superheroes you can think of?  Seriously, this movie targets everyone: if you're into women in tight uniforms kicking ass, you have Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow; if you're into men with bulging muscles, you've got literally everyone else in the cast; and if you have a fetish for big green monster men, you're in luck.

Clearly, I love superhero movies.  I've voiced my love for them before and I'll do it again; stemming from watching the Saturday morning cartoons of X-Men and Batman as a kid, I've always been fascinated with the idea of superpowers and, of course as a result, the battle of the good versus the evil.  The X-Men will always be my favourite, probably because whatever sort of superhuman power you can dream of, there's a mutant in that universe that can do it.  I guess that makes me lean more toward the flashy cartoon-like action that something like X-Men has: loud, extravagant, borderline ridiculous, what with those horrifyingly bright yellow and blue costumes they wore in the 90s cartoon or the fact that a bloody alien god possesses someone, for instance.  It doesn't hurt the movies have been left to very good hands, and I don't even need to get into how excited I am for the First Class sequel.  (worth mentioning: Batman's an obvious love of mine too, Batman is just too cool; Spider-Man is okay, and I hate Superman)

It might be crazy talk for me to say, but I was initially uninterested in The Avengers.  Of the individual hero movies serving as precursors to the kinda-sequel kinda-spinoff, I've only seen half: Thor, most recently, which I started off despising but loved by the end - really smart and funny; aside from that, only the two Iron Man movies, which, again, held none of my interest whatsoever until I was made to see the first in theaters and was blown away by how actually good it was.  And that's it.  I haven't seen any Hulk movies - not that it matters, though; I know the character, and given another change to the titular role, seeing the first two seemed of little importance to me - and I didn't bother to see Captain America because, really, he's never interested me at all.  Maybe it's because, I dunno, I'm Canadian, and I'm not really in the mood for American propaganda.  I've heard good things about it though, but again, being that I'm actually a nerd, I know everything about the character and was not lost for a second when seeing Cap join the Avengers Initiative.

I suppose my interest in The Avengers came from the fact that I couldn't actually get away from it.  Trailers were attached to every movie I've seen in theaters since the summer, and they did a good job with piquing my interest at the spectacle they presented.  Like I started off with saying, you must live under a rock if you haven't seen it or at least have no thoughts to see it, so I guess for me I just didn't want to be under that rock with you after seeing so many commercials and hearing so much of the buzz.

It didn't hurt that that 360 shot of the entire team is incredible.

Awesome.

Not that I didn't think I wouldn't enjoy it: I obviously did.  In fact, it was bloody fantastic.  For a movie packing so many characters and so many famous people into its (seemingly slim) two and a half hour running time, it did a good job with stopping itself from being overcrowded - a feat other superhero movies have failed to do completely.  (see: the horrible X-Men: First Class, or Spider-Man 3, because I guess by the second sequel the obvious route of action is "let's throw every single bloody character we haven't yet seen into this and hope for the best;" if there is a god, please don't like The Dark Knight Rises fall into that trap - I'd be lying if I said I wasn't nervous, because from what I know, there's already two villains plus one character whose morality I don't yet know) Every character had their chance to shine, which was nice; various match-ups of showdowns between heroes and villains were at hand, even some between the team members themselves, which kept things interesting.  Never did any character step onto another - even in scenes where everyone was fighting for an opening to say something, Tony Stark's snark was as unmissable as Thor's and Captain America's fish-out-of-water shtick.  And even if the spotlight was on someone else, you'd never miss Scarlett Johannson.

(disclaimer: she was the weakest performance of the main six, not counting the villain.  Still don't know how she was an asset in the grand battle of the film's climax.  "Massive aliens!  Okay, I have my handgun")

Something The Avengers was able to do that most others didn't - yes, even Nolan's Batman trilogy - was make it seem like what was onscreen was literally a moving comic book.  (and I exclude Nolan's movies because they are the complete adverse: total realism, which is astounding in its own right) Plot withstanding, the sequences of action popped as if cartoons.  In a similar sense the stakes were real - New York gets literally obliterated as the final fight, a good half hour of the film, spans the entire city - and threat after threat seemed endless, culminating to one last element I'll leave out because of spoilers.  Finally do we see a formidable villain, Loki, whose danger factor seemed more hyped up than in Thor as, when I was watching, I didn't know how they'd actually be able to foil him.  Loki is just too good.  Thor sequel, hopefully.

What I wasn't expecting was the movie to be so funny.  I suppose I should have, considering Robert Downey Jr.'s Stark is a smart-ass (nice to see Gwenyth Paltrow, too - did I just type those words?) and what made me love Thor so much was the humour about a demi-god finding himself on Earth.  The audience I was in lapped up the jokes as much as I did, and, again, leaving this out because of spoilers, one 'fight' at the end garnered the biggest laugh and is easily the greatest part of the whole movie.

Unfortunately, my viewing experience was probably one of the worst I've had in a movie theater.  You might expect me to say it was a rude audience or something, but you're wrong - I could tell everyone in that audience was as much of a superhero fan as I was, and if it's any indication, the guy to my left was literally and not figuratively sitting on the edge of his seat leaned forward.  No, it was the heat.  I figured it was just because of the volume of people - they had three separate lines happening for three showings in the narrow hall, and it just ended up being a crowd rather than a line - but we were informed that the air conditioner had broken, so by the end of the movie I was literally dripping with sweat.  Massively uncomfortable, but everyone got complimentary movies from it, so I think I'll see Dark Shadows or something I wouldn't actually spend money on with my free pass.

In short, go see The Avengers, and take me with you, because I want to see it again.

My tear ducts will go on

I first saw Titanic when it first came out in theaters, making me six.  It's odd to say but I was fascinated by the Titanic when I was a kid, though for different reasons than I am now; I made my parents buy me books about the actual boat and its sinking, and though I didn't actually make it past the detailed descriptions, the concept of a ship sinking into the Atlantic was, I suppose, intriguing.  I begged my dad to take me to the theaters, and he did.  I remember little of my theater experience, save for the intermission in the middle of the movie - and if you have the movie on VHS with the two tapes, you'd probably be familiar with the point where the movie splits off ("Well, I believe you may get your headlines, Mr. Ismay") - so I guess 1997 was a time where to sit through a three hour movie uninterrupted was unheard of.  Seeing the spectacle of a ship flooding was exhilarating - my favourite part (for whatever reason) was when the ship splits - and to a six year old kid, the hour and a half beforehand with the entire romance plot was boring.

Here's what happens in the movie

Here's what I saw. My dad covered my eyes

I'd revisit the movie after I owned it on DVD, though again, I hated having to sit through the first half.  (or the first VHS tape, that is) I still watched it for the action of the sinking ship, though I know now that there are better movies to watch for action.  I distinctly remember one time I watched it with my sister, and she laughed at the shot of a frozen dead baby in the water, even though it's one of the more disturbing instances in the movie.  That, and Rose's mother's face.  It wasn't until a few years ago that Titanic became my 'thing' again, although this time, I cried harder than an Italian woman at a funeral.  Ever since I need emotional preparation before I decide to watch, but it's gotten to the point where I've seen it so many times that watching it is merely a countdown to significant scenes, and all the rest is filler.

(the only other movie that's turned into a waiting game for 'big' scenes for me is X-Men: The Last Stand, a movie I saw in theaters.. uh, five times, a movie I knew every time was complete and utter shit, and a movie I now absolutely loathe and will not watch unless I am intoxicated, or in the mood for a laugh; regardless, my point is watching that movie is now a task: oh, opening scene.. twenty minutes until Beast, another twenty until Jean flips out and bitch slaps her house..)

As upfront as I can be: I cry every single time I watch this movie.  Every damn time.  And every single time I cry at the exact same spots - and when I saw the movie last night, I counted, and there's five whole 'pressure points' in the movie that sends me over the edge (and many of them have to do with musical cues.. all of them, actually, which I guess speaks to the testament of a soundtrack's power and presence in a film), and they are:

•  "I'm flying, Jack" - that's a given.  I get emotional during the entire scene but I only really shed a tear when the music is all depressing and the ship fades into the wreckage.  Damn beautiful shot.
• Right as the drawing scene comes to a close, the camera zooms into Kate Winslet's eye, and slowly wrinkles appear until the eye becomes that of the old Rose's.  I blame the music.
• "You're so stupid, Rose!"  Dear god.  From the slow motion flare over Leo's head to when Rose jumps from the lifeboat, I'm a mess.  It's all in the music.
• The old couple on the bed.  The single most worst scene in movie history.  WHY DID I HAVE TO WITNESS THIS!?  Again, the music: the violin plays over the scene.
• The ending scene.  As the camera pans over the pictures of Rose on her desk, to the wreckage, then the moment the light floods in and the wreck turns into the untouched boat I am a goddamn mess.  And by mess, I mean that this scene makes me weep every single time.  Then the music amps up and all the people are smiling and clapping and then oh jesus you see Jack at the top of the stairs and I'm just done.

Last night, I had the pleasure of seeing Titanic 3D in a VIP theater.  I'd never been, and it really seems like a whole different world once you climb the stairs up to the 19+ section of the theater.  A bar which gladly served me beer.  Spacious rows and big, comfy leather seats with wide armrests.  In-seat service, which I was too nervous to take heed of.  The experience was really something, though it was essentially ruined by a group of five adults - adults - who didn't bother to whisper or turn off their phones; instead, they had loud conversations in Spanish (that language has been ruined for me, so it just made my blood boil), and until someone said "shut up!" halfway through the movie, they kept on talking and laughing.  Ridiculous, really; I shelled out extra money to experience a movie I care about in a theater without idiot teenagers ruining my experience - and if you're a teenager, then, shut up, because you're the worst and you ruin all movies - and it's rather disrespectful to think that adults who should be as respectful completely disregarded that respect.

Did I cry?  Oh, yes.  By the end I was using every muscle in my body to stop myself from letting out a wail, and I'm not exaggerating when I say I was shaking and almost felt like I was going to throw up because of my effort against outwardly crying.  Regardless, the tears came, at those very five points in the movie as I had listed, but as I said by the end as the light flooded into the ship and the souls of everyone who died started clapping as Rose entered the hall I could hardly even see because my vision was so obscured.  As I said to my two friends - who, I might add, were literally wailing and heaving as the lights came up in the theaters and Celine shrieked through the speakers over the end credits - "I'm keeping my 3D glasses on for a little while."  I don't think I'll ever become desensitized to this movie, even though I've seen it so many times: seeing it on the big screen was enough to make me positively emotionally distraught.  Great movie experience, though.  I can't imagine seeing movies in just regular theaters now - does that make me a snob? - and I can say that I'll gladly spend the extra money if it means I can watch a movie I care to see in comfort.

May the odds be ever in your favour

I read the entire Hunger Games trilogy this past summer in the span of three days.  Before beginning I had this feeling that I'd go absolutely crazy over them, and I was right.  (I'm always right) After a full day of nonstop reading through the first, The Hunger Games, I sped off to Indigo to buy Catching Fire that was to be completed by the following day and Mockingjay, in two days.  Perhaps my only complaint about the book series is that the books feel too short: they are briskly paced, and a lot does happen, but I found that by the end of the trilogy a little too much happened tacked on at the end for the physical length (take Catching Fire, where there's a sizable amount of people left in the arena with only ten or so pages left to go, or perhaps Mockingjay, where I got the impression that Collins worked hard to cram everything into the three-hundred page framework she'd set up with the first two); naturally I would not complain if more books existed, but everything wrapped up nicely.  All in all, fantastic books series, disturbingly dark once you get past the glossy overlay that the theme of romance has over everything (and it even still it's important to the plot), majorly satisfying by the end, and a great source material for what I can anticipate will be a flawless film series.

The direction for this scene was, "Jennifer, imagine the awe you'll feel when you meet Matt"

With that being said, The Hunger Games was one of the best book-to-film adaptions I can think of aside from the Harry Potter franchise which, I think it's worth mentioning, did take quite a few liberties with its translation.  (regardless they were perfect) How The Hunger Games differs, then, is that I cannot think of things left out of the film by the filmmakers, maybe because it's been a while since I've read the book.  The only details of change I can think of might be Madge, the mayor's daughter, but she's relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things and Katniss finding the pin at the black market was just as good as anything; or maybe the fact that we miss out on a lot of internal feeling and struggle we get with Katniss as the first person narrator, but really, the point of a film is to show and not tell.  Point is, to find inconsistencies is to grasp at straws or at insignificances: in fact, I heard today that a criticism of the movie is that Jennifer Lawrence doesn't look hungry enough to come from District 12, but I think I'd only accept such criticism if the critics were prettier than Jennifer Lawrence is.  (fact: ain't nobody is) I see the spine of the book eyeing me from the bookshelf now and given that the Internet has crashed as I'm writing this, I might just have to pluck it and finish it within hours again.

I can start by saying that I am endlessly thankful that we got Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss.  Jennifer Lawrence.  This girl is my age and she's already an Academy Award nominated actress - not to mention she's freaking Mystique in my favourite franchise in the world, X-Men, and while I'm ecstatic about her being in both worlds of fantasy I'm afraid Catching Fire and Mockingjay will take precedence over appearing in the First Class sequel especially since it's a case of stand alone star versus ensemble member.  Choose the blue nudity, Jennifer.  The Hunger Games is no exception to her talent.  Thinking about her acting in the movie is giving me chills, specifically the scenes immediately following [spoiler]'s death - I though I might've lost it at that character dying but what made me legitimately emotional was Lawrence's reaction, and she is bloody fantastic.  What could have been a silly film adaption like, oh, I dunno, Twilight (not that the source is scripture..), THG was driven by a powerful performance from a phenomenal actress and I'm more than happy that the film is getting legitimate recognition as a great film (and not just as an adaption) because of her performance.  You always find that, huh?  Well, I do.  The idea that if it's an adaption of a franchise sort of movie, it becomes less like a 'film:' you'll never see something like The Avengers or even Harry Potter given the label of 'the best film of the year' even if, for all intensive purposes, it really is/was.  I'm not saying that THG will get nominated for any massive awards (though I dare say she should be, but she won't, because again, this is an adaption franchise film), but everything about this movie - the technicalities, the performances, the Jennifer Lawrence - screams cinematic perfection.

The rest of the cast was extremely well rounded and similarly great.  Shout out to Elizabeth Banks who nearly stole the show as Effie; similar kudos to Stanley Tucci (I don't think I've ever seen him less than great?) as Caesar Flickerman who actually did steal every scene he was in with that idiotic smile.  Hell, I even loved Liam Hemsworth.  Will I burn in hell if I say that, in his scenes with Jennifer.. I actually supported Katniss/Gale?

I can't quite put a finger on it, but I think I enjoyed the second half of the film - the Games itself - a great deal more than I did the first half, and I found myself straining to love the first half as I watched.  Pace?  Couldn't be: the frenzied passing through the grooming to the training to the interviews was as fast as the book.  Perhaps I wasn't crazy about physically seeing the weird people of the Capitol before me, though again, it was a perfect translation as if the words of the pages made themselves solid onscreen.  The closest I can think of as a reason might be that I don't like the shifting in atmospheres - that is, from a pioneer-like District 12 to a futuristic Capitol with Lady Gaga costumes and back to an earthy and primitive setting as in the arena - but again, I think that's the point.  Enough about that.  As for the Games, I cannot say this any other way: FUCKING PERFECTION.  I am in awe thinking about the second half of the film because, seriously, it was exactly like the book.  Exactly.  It was only when I actually saw kids killing each other with knifes or after seeing dead child bodies hacked up everywhere did it hit me that the concept is downright brutal, but the brutality was spot on and effective.  [spoiler]'s death was very hard to watch, but in comparison to seeing, literally, a hulking Tribute snap a child's neck out of nowhere, a spear through the stomach seemed like a walk in the part.  And so I appreciate the film for entirely encapsulating the brutality and the anxiety and frenzy of the book; even though I knew Katniss would survive the encounters with fire or tracker jackers (this is not a spoiler, fool, she is the bloody protagonist), I still felt the sense of urgent danger.  Run, bitch!

If you've read the book or if you haven't, go see this movie.  Buy into the hype, because it's worth it.  I can't wait to see it in IMAX this weekend.

Harriet Fucking Vanger

The inevitable prologue: holy hell it's been a very long time since I've written a blog post - and yeah, I do say that a lot, but lord, it's been a good two weeks since I've published, and it's become an honest void in my life.  It's not entirely been due to my busyness at all; in fact, I feel like I've done a whole ton of nothing in my weeks off from school, yet somehow in my lethargic vegetative state I've managed to waste away an entire month and I'm already facing the start of my second semester of school within days.  (not to mention the surely harrowing move-in - I move back to my residence on New Year's Day - and my mom has looked at me with a straight face and said "Matt, don't drink on New Year's Eve.  You can't be hungover whatsoever on January first."  To that, I looked at her and gave her a very Lisbeth Salander "please" which will become shockingly relevant once I get this directionless tangent out of my system) I've somewhat digressed substantially: point is, I've done nothing over my break, so you might think that I'd have all the time in the world to write limitlessly, but my with my laziness came an absolute draining of creativity.  I feel it noteworthy to even note I haven't touched my NaNoWriMo story, and I regret that my creative drive has disappeared completely.  However!  Here I sit on December 29th at 11:50pm on my gorgeous new Macbook Pro that my dear parents bought me for Christmas this year with a sudden urge to rejuvenate my authoritative flair that I cherish about myself.  I have a slew of potential post ideas swirling around in my mind, but only with a progression of time will you and I both witness that static translated in text.  Likewise, I have countless ideas about future creative writing prospects - in fact, two whole stories altogether - and I'm sure my need to procrastinate over the school year will give me enough of a kick in the ass to get to writing.  (Christmas, by the way, heralded the same sense of deflation that it always has for me, considering the idea that within minutes the entire construct of the holiday - that is, the build up and the holiday cheer and whatever else - collapsed within minutes once the final presents remained unwrapped on the floor and the last family member made their way out of the door.  I'm not ungrateful whatsoever, though, and it was a good holiday.  Also worth mentioning: Christmas 2011's movie with Amy was The Adventures of Tintin which I'm still in disbelief about being an animated movie it looks that real but otherwise the movie was simply good, nothing more, and I'm still upset that my good for nothing local theater didn't get Carnage with Kate Winslet or A Dangerous Method or Shame with my favourite actor Michael Fassbender)

Bless you, reader, for sticking with me throughout that insufferable rambling, but you must understand that for me not writing for weeks, things needed to be said.  We finally come to the topic of the post, which is, if you haven't guessed by the title reference, my pseudo-review of David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, the American adaption of the (fantastic) novel of the same name by Swedish author Steig Larsson.

With ease, I read the book within a two week time period, but given that I read it during the height of my first semester, I'd say my feat was impressive.  It isn't so surprising, then, to hear my report that the book is bloody fantastic.  While I was initially leery because of the prolonged and somewhat slow start - which I realize is a definite necessity to establish the complexity of the upcoming plot - the book quickly switched into a high gear nearly doubling its intensity with every page turn.  Perhaps what made my reading experience more enjoyable was the mystery of the plot itself: I don't mean to sound egotistical, but usually conclusions to books or films are predictable if not logical and predictable to me, but I can honestly that the conclusion to the murder-mystery left me awestruck and I could hardly see it coming.  (I wish I could say the same about its sequel, The Girl who Played with Fire, but I actually correctly guessed a large part of the ending a couple hundred pages in; it was still a fantastic and gripping read, and in addition to my inevitable creative writing derived from procrastination, I'm sure I'll launch into The Girl who Kicked the Hornet's Nest - I've only read the first chapter to make satisfy my aching heart left wounded from the second book's cliffhanger - as an escape from my studies) Within minutes of finishing Dragon Tattoo I sped towards the nearest computer screen and took in the 2009 Swedish film adaption, eager to see the words onscreen.  I also think it's worth noting that I enjoy foreign films, even though the ones I have the opportunity to watch are probably the more "mainstream" ones, but I've never let the idea of subtitles deter me from watching a movie or discrediting its value because I have to actually engage myself at a higher level - goodness, the thought!  That being said, it was not because the film was in Swedish that I disliked it - unfortunately I was accused of that by someone when revealing I disliked the adaption.  I'm not usually a book purist (that is, I don't watch movies and complain about slight deviations from source material; the Harry Potter movies are nearly flawless and they changed the books heavily), but the unnecessary changes to the plot were somewhat jarring and, honestly, uncomfortable.  The logical mystery deduction was removed from the Swedish film - an aspect that largely fascinated me about the book, specifically the work with the photographs - and the film, therefore, somewhat felt more heavy handed in its leading the audience through its overly complex plot.  That being said, the performance of Noomi Rapace as the antihero Lisbeth Salander was still very incredible.

But, damnit, I prefer Rooney Mara.

Usually - and I've blogged on this subject once before - I'm against remakes.  They're truly unnecessary.  Truthfully, I like the logic behind it: yes, remakes work toward the broadening of a film's accessibility to a newer audience, whether it to a new generation (with, say, A Nightmare on Elm Street starring, oh, look, Rooney Mara!) or to a present society seemingly against the idea of reading subtitles while watching movies.  However, what is in theory is not always translated: I would be on board with the idea of remaking Hollywood classics or whatever else if the remakes were actually good, but remakes usually exist merely as slaps in the face to its predecessors.  Naturally, then, I was leery of the American Dragon Tattoo on principle, even though I wasn't necessarily a fan of the original to begin with.  The moment I knew it was David Fincher at the helm - the director of Se7en and Fight Club and Zodiac and The Social Network and need I say more? - my faith was restored.  (I'd consider Fincher to be one of my favourite directors, actually, up there with Tarantino and Nolan - his visual style is delicious) The trailer to the remake was, I would honestly say, the best trailer for a movie I've ever seen, trumping even Watchmen's trailer which was miles better than the movie itself.  My anticipation grew like a wild fire, and upon hearing that the release of the film was pushed forward by a day, I became satisfied in knowing I'd get to see the movie one day sooner.

What is The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo about, you might say?  (I've been asked the question a few times, and when faced with offering a synopsis, I struggle) As simply put as possible, it's a graphic mystery.  On more elaborate terms, the movie (now I'm fully speaking of the film at hand) follows two protagonists: the first, a disgraced journalist named Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) is hired by Henrik Vanger, an elderly Swedish businessman, to investigate the disappearance and murder of his niece, Harriet, forty years prior to the action of the narrative; the second, a hard-edged and simply badass researcher Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara, who will be nominated for the Best Actress Oscar - mark me - and she will hopefully win), who the film initially follows through her struggles with an abusive guardian before she is pulled into the Harriet Vanger investigation alongside Blomkvist. (Lisbeth had previously written a report on him, and its in-depth content - suggesting her hacking of his personal files - alerted Blomkvist to her researching [and hacking] abilities) As I quickly mentioned, the film deals with the investigation into the strange disappearance, and as a familiar viewer I was still as pleased with the intricate mode of investigation as ever.  Note, a few sentence ago, that I described the film as a "graphic mystery;" there's a ton of violence and nudity and profanity and, most unfortunately, rape.  The scenes of rape were far less horrific than the ones in the original, but that doesn't mean that they weren't any less horrible to watch - they were.  I wish I could be able to say the rape was necessary, but I wouldn't even convince myself if that were the case.  Instead, I'll state fact: the books were written as a response to violence against women, and by labeling the female protagonist as a rape victim grounds her in a very real-world problem, though it also functions as a device to inspire sympathy for Lisbeth as well as an excuse for her borderline psychotic tendencies.  Still, she's a damn badass.

I thought the film was incredible.  As mentioned, I love David Fincher's visual style, and the film was no exception: it was gorgeously shot, streamlike and glacial, layered with a fantastic score.  Worth mentioning are the opening credits: holy shit.  I can't begin to explain them - set to a cover of "The Immigrant Song" by Yeah Yeah Yeahs frontwoman Karen O - but damn, I would see the movie for a third time on the basis of seeing the credits once again.  (okay, I wouldn't, because I loved the movie so much that I would see it again anyways, and I can't wait to add it to my personal collection) I guess I can attempt a vague description: strange.. strange imagery, people made of a black substance, splashing together and snaking and setting itself ablaze and sprouting wings and okay, see, that sounds absolutely ludicrous, but I'm not kidding when I say they are stunning.  And hell, that's five minutes into the movie: there's still the movie to get to.  Like I've said, the visuals are stunning, and it seems somewhat crude to notice set or composition or lighting while a character is getting beaten up or shot.  Again, as I've shed a glimpse of light onto, I believe that Rooney Mara's Lisbeth is deserving of an Oscar, and I truly wish her all the best not only with this upcoming award season but also with her future career which I'm sure will explode.  The commitment is astounding: gone is a beautiful girl with wide eyes and long brown hair; instead on screen is a hardened young girl with varying stages of mohawk with bleached eyebrows and piercings everywhere (Mara actually pierced her eyebrow and nose and lip and nipple for the role) and tattoos, among them the large spanning dragon on her left shoulder blade giving rise to the title itself.  She, like the rest of the cast, speak in Swedish accents, and Lisbeth's drawl and hint of sarcasm is, for the lack of a better term, pleasurable to hear.  (I do like her voice a lot) Rooney Mara makes the film her own, yet the entire spectrum of the cast offers a solid performance.  Something funny to note is the carelessness of every characters' smoking and drinking: in fact, every scene involves some sort of substance abuse, appearing as careless as the sex between certain characters whose names I will omit (but are probably guessable) for the sake of not spoiling those who have yet to see the film.  And, yes, see the film.  The conclusion of the remake diverges from the close of the book - a commercial just came on TV and I still get chills at the images as well as a sudden shudder of pain as I noticed said advertisement contained a flash of a certain kick from one of the rape scenes - but dare I say it improves upon the novel slightly in its offering of a more logical outcome.

I say to you: go see The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.  I would list it among the top five films of the year, and I would honestly see it for the third time; I would wager that that speaks volumes - I'm so familiar with the outcome of the mystery and yet I'm still so eager to rewitness the film.  Go see it.  And take me with you.

2011 in film

2011 was a pretty big year for movies, too.

(let's see if my shot at reviewing the films I saw over the year fares better than my music list.  A quick disclaimer [unfortunately, a necessity]: I need to reiterate that everything is my opinion, but I think I'm in safer waters with movies because film has a much smaller spectrum than music meaning there's a lot less room for disagreement.  That isn't to say that disagreement isn't possible, oh no.  That's the magic of opinion: as an individual you're able to like or dislike whatever the hell you want, and you'll always find someone who agrees with you just as easily as you might find someone who disagrees with you.  I realize some people did not find Bridesmaids funny; I did.  I realize some people don't like superhero movies and therefore didn't like or even see X-Men: First Class; I did, and I loved it.  With all that in mind, in the opposite sense, I likely will speak poorly of a movie you might've enjoyed.  I say for one final time: this is based entirely on my opinion, and I do not act as if what I have to say or how I view things or what I like to be absolute rule.  It is, after all, my blog, and if you're uninterested in what I have to say, spend your time elsewhere)

What was I saying?  Right.  2011 was a pretty big year for movies, too, and to strike up the spirit of annual tradition, I'll echo what I did at the end of last year and consider the movies released in the year.  Much like last year, I can't see how ranking a list would be productive: of the hundreds of new movies made in 2011, I probably only saw a handful of them - in fact, I don't even know if I've seen more than ten - so it wouldn't be logical to make a ranked list of what I've seen when something like The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 would end up at number 10 because it happened to be one of the few I've actually seen and therefore, by default, it must appear on my list.  (if that were to happen, I would certainly not enjoy being pointed at and deemed "he who listed Breaking Dawn on his list of the best movies of 2011") So, instead, I think it'd be more effective to consider the movies I've seen as 'good' or 'bad' - think of it as a series of mini movie critiques.  Regretfully, I have yet to see a handful of films: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo has yet to be released, and I'm ridiculously excited to see it and judging from the promotional material it looks absolutely fantastic; I've been meaning to see A Dangerous Method and Shame and Melancholia and a whole slew of other Oscar bait movies, and therefore once again it would be incorrect to treat this list as a "best of" if something like Bad Teacher appears just because I've seen it and haven't seen Shame.

(one final time: this is not my list of the best movies of 2011, because trust me, Sucker Punch or Bad Teacher would be nowhere near a list of that nature; instead I'm giving snapshot reviews on a handful of movies I actually saw.  Just to be clear)

Onwards!

Rent or skip: 2010

As I flew through the songs list with ease, I always knew in the back of my mind my next step would be a list of my favourite movies from 2010, being that it'd be logical and given that I'm such a huge fan of movies, it'd be a piece of cake.  It's quite the opposite.

Music is much more accessible; with movies, I had to consider multiple things, and my field of choices is narrow.  I first had to have seen the movie, then I verify that it is indeed a 2010 release and not an older movie that I watched in the year; then I'd have to like it, and then I'd have to pick not one but ten.  I quickly found that that was impossible.  I hardly went to the movies this year, and the times that I did, I came away hating what I had just seen.  As well, I'm in no place ranking the best movies of the year, as I missed out on some - I haven't seen the majority of the Oscar contenders; some haven't even come out - and therefore it'd be improper for me to list a movie like A Nightmare on Elm Street as "my 6th favourite movie of the year" simply because I've SEEN it and haven't seen something like Black Swan or The Kids Are Alright.  (I want to see both)  Maybe in some cases, the movie has yet to be released - well, I guess I'm only thinking of one specifically, and it's Tron Legacy.

Therefore, my alternative is this: I'll pick ten movies that I HAVE seen this year, and rank them from worst to best, using subheadings ranging from The Amazing to The Ugly.

(I also look forward to this list much more than I did to my music list, as I find a person's musical tastes are subject to more scrutiny, probably because there's such a wide range to choose from and I visibly stuck to the mainstream.  Movies are movies - independent movies are just as moving or excellent as blockbusters, and had I seen some lesser known films in 2010, I would've included them.)

ALICE IN WONDERLAND

I hated this movie.  I knew, somehow, that going into the movie I wouldn't like it; I was right.  Not that it wasn't well done; in fact, quite the opposite.  The movie is visually spectacular, and the use of special effects were impressive (at times).  Despite all that, there was just something preventing me from enjoying the movie - the story wasn't really all there (it still felt like a string of encounters with strange characters) and the characters were difficult to relate to.  I was no fan of Johnny Depp in this movie, and had I not seen the exact same character everywhere in every movie she's in, I would've enjoyed Helena Bonham Carter.  I tried my hardest to enjoy the movie, but my attempts came up short; I couldn't deny the fact that despite it all, I hated it.

THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE

I really don't have much to say here, it's a given.  If anything, though, it was a definite improvement over New Moon, but that doesn't say much at all.  I think a movie's fate is instantly sealed when its headlining stars are Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson.  (I must say I need to commend myself from not launching into an I Hate Twilight rant, picking out all the flaws, but it's been so overdone that it's not effective anymore.  It's like making a parody of something that's already a parody itself)

BURLESQUE

Yikes.  Speaking of a movie's doom when considering who starred in it.. when you have Christina Aguilera, a singer turned actress (when has that ever actually worked?) up against Cher, who looks like she needs to get back to her crypt.. there's nothing but horror to come out of it.  I full well knew that going into the movie, I was doing so for a laugh - in addition to seeing two of my favourite actresses, Kristen Bell (who, I would say, stole the movie as a psychotic burlesque dancer in a downward spiral) and Dianna Agron (completely shedding her Glee image in the two minutes she's onscreen by screaming and swearing).  Not even they, or the music, could save this movie.  Far too long, far too laughable.

A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET

As a horror movie by itself, it's certainly better than those made these days; visually disturbing at times, the movie goes beyond the run of the mill horror movies out there, with stupid premises and over-reliance on gimmicks.  However, I think one of the biggest flaws is the fact that the jump scares become so constant that they become uneffective - I'd much prefer more disturbing scenes with the horror upfront (as the movie does) than the expected scares from right around the corner.  Now, as a remake, it too is better than most - but I'd be remiss to not mention that the original is miles better regardless of the time period and budget / technological restrictions.  One thing that was improved upon was the concept of micro-naps, where characters are so tired that they become delirious and start dreaming while conscious.  That element added a level of stress while watching the movie, but the effect soon wore off after the first ten or so jump scares using the tactic.

IRON MAN 2

Back in 2008, I had little to no expectations for the first Iron Man, and even though I'm a pretty huge fan of superheroes, I had never payed attention to Iron Man at all (and I therefore didn't know about the characters or villains - though I had vague ideas).  Needless to say, I was completely surprised, as I enjoyed it immensely and thought it was actually well done.  The sequel is no different, which is commendable in itself, being able to match the success and quality of the first.  Just as funny, just as action packed, and mindful of the addition of so many characters, a feat which many superhero movies before it have failed at (I'm looking at you, Spider-Man 3).

KICK-ASS

I loved this movie.  Completely loved it.  I would consider it as an great, but that's just my inner fanboy, since the movie isn't technically as good as the ones I've listed as "better."  I was like watching the pages of a comic book come to life on screen, as characters and violence are both realistic and cartoonish at the same time.  The movie is a perfect example of pure entertainment, and I'm more than confident in 2011's X-Men: First Class in the hands of this director (Matthew Vaughn).

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PT 1

If you've read this blog at all, I'm sure you're already well aware of my thoughts on the seventh film in the series.  To be honest, my outlook improved on my second viewing, since I knew what to expect.  Still, the movie felt a bit drawn out, forcing the few actual events occurring in the first half of the book over a far too long period of time.  Then, I'm faced with the question: do I prefer this - long, half of the story, but keeping most if not all of the aspects of the book, or the entire book as one movie, risking a rushed pace and the omission of some important facts?  Aside from that, I would have to commend the director's effectiveness in making a Harry Potter film work OUTSIDE of Hogwarts, the staple for the past six movies.

THE SOCIAL NETWORK

This movie was a pleasant surprise for me; I went in hearing good review upon good review, good recommendation after recommendation.  While at times dry or slow, the real strong points are the performances by the cast; I actually came to loathe the character of Mark Zuckerberg, wanting to desperately punch him in the face, so I guess that's completely due to the effective acting onscreen.  Even Justin Timberlake was better than I expected, though it was difficult to get over him as an actor; he was never his character but always Justin Timberlake playing his character.

TOY STORY 3

I cried.  Maybe that's an indication of how effective this movie is.  It was absolutely heartbreaking to witness this movie, especially the end, as I felt like my the ounces of childhood I still was hanging on to were completely vanquished.  Being the English student I am, this movie was like the archetypal loss of innocence, as I practically grew up with the first movies and the characters; now that it's done, I come to realize that so is that part of my life.  Maybe I'm being to sappy, who knows.  I had my reservations going into the movie given that the first two are nearly untouchable in their quality and given that there was such a large space of time between making the second and third, but the third didn't miss a beat and was as good, if not better, than the first two.  I don't even know if I can handle the devastation of watching it again, hah. 

INCEPTION

Hands down, the greatest movie of 2010 - I expected nothing less from Christopher Nolan, and am now eagerly awaiting The Dark Knight Returns.  If you haven't seen this movie, shame on you; if you have, you're already aware of everything amazing about this movie, and I need not even explain it.  The plot is extremely complex and mesmerizing; the characters are diverse and well played; the entire movie is an adrenaline rush, and I was on the edge of my seat both times I saw it.