Safe, but Dangerous

"Is he good?" "Of course he's good, but he's not a tame lion."

"Knowledge is Power"

I only speak my opinion in my voice. How you take it, and what you hear is your choice.

Monday, July 6, 2020

A Brief Timeline for 'V for Vendetta'

I came upon a weird obsession that I just had to share. I love the movie 'V for Vendetta', which came out in 2005, and thought it appropriate to watch for July 4th this year. I remembered seeing a post from someone sharing info from Roger Ebert's website and review about the movie being set in 2020, but a google search will tell you 1998. I then saw several dystopian movie timelines showing what year many of them take place, and saw that someone had the movie set in 2038. There's another movie review that claims it's in 2032. No one explains how they came to these conclusions.

I was so confused and didn't know why there were these various years thrown out there. Who is right? I needed to find out and I'm going to share my discoveries, evidence and conclusion of what year I believe the movie actually takes place.

The movie is based on a graphic novel where it is based in the 90s, which s perhaps the reason google comes up with 1998 with a post from someone on IMDb. 

The movie is most definitely NOT set in the 90s. In these screen shots from the script clearly show that Evey (Natalie Portman) was born in 2005. Her parents were black bagged in 2015 when she was 10 years old. Plus they state at the beginning that Guy Fawkes was in 1605 and state "400 years later" several times in the movie, which also places the film, at minimum in 2005.

I was shared the script for the movie and I saw about 200 lines down that Prothero (Roger Allam) says "it's 6am...2019". Evey also said that she was born in 1997. I realized though that the scene and the entire script was completely different than the movie. It was a 1st draft script. So, I couldn't count that.

I found a 2nd draft script and it was very similar to the movie. I went with that and double checked some things. Now, I'm not saying things don't get mixed up here, but we will have a better sense of year by the end of this blog.

When Finch (Stephen Rea) is researching Prothero's background in the film, we see and hear that things were missing between 2014-2016, all it says it "Larkhill" Larkhill is where V (Hugo Weaving) became V and he burned it to the ground.

Here it gets confusing.

Later, when Evey is imprisoned by V she finds the letter from Valerie. In Valerie's letter she mentions meeting her love in 2015 and gets roses, and states that she had roses for 3 years until they were bagged and taken away, That puts Valerie in prison in 2018, so Evey could only be reading it after that year.

The confusing question now is, if V was in the room next to Valerie, them wouldn't the missing years from Prothero's background be more like 2018-2020? I mean, how can they be neighbors and burn the place in 2016 when Valerie isn't there until 2018? Because of this, we're going to have a 2-3 year range of possibilities.

At the end of the film as V is dying in Evey's arms, V says he's been pursuing this night for 20 years. 

Therefore, the movie must take place 20 years after the burning of Larkhill. If we go off Prothero's missing records, then I'd say the movie takes place in 2036 because 2016+20. But if we want to go off Valerie's story, then perhaps the film is more like 2039 because if she gets taken in 2018, let's assume she was there for a little less than a year, bringing it to 2019, then + 20 years. The film takes place over the span of 1 year.

My conclusion is that the film takes place between 2035-2036 or 2038-2039 (give or take a year or two), which would make the person who placed it at 2038 is reasonably correct. I know many won't care much about this, but it bothered me and needed it to be figured out. 

My main goals at the beginning was to 1) prove it's not based in the 90s like the google search says, and 2) see if it was actually 2020 because it'd make it that more interesting right now. Even though there are some conflicts in the timeline/plot, I still love the Wachowskis and the way they present their stories and the stories themselves.

Remember, remember, keep watching movies!

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Fake Check Scam Alert

My name is Aslan Hollier, and I was a victim of a fake check scam. I was on craigslist and found an ad for an personal assistant/office assistant position, then I applied. The man claiming to be John Wilson contacted me back through the email at, and on the phone from 202-506-9389. In one e-mail, he said he would be calling from 747-200-9389, but he never called from that number, and I never called it.

I received a cashiers check from Fifth Third Bank on 2-12-2013. The envelope had no return address, it had an English Postal Stamp, and has an “Air Mail” “Royal Mail” sticker. On the check it said it was not John Wilson , but Clifton Harris in Lexington, KY. The check was in the amount of $2,480, and had a note with it that said this is money that Clifton owed John, and that the money was forwarded to me since I was the new assistant. I spoke with this so called John Wilson back and forth afterward.

I deposited the check in my bank at IBC on Parmer and IH-35(12625 IH 35 N Austin, TX 78753 #(512) 397-4570) on 2-12-2013, and they said there would be a 2 day hold for the check to clear. I told them to do whatever they had to do to make sure the check was secure because safety is important with things like this, and I'd never dealt with a cashiers check before.

The next day $200 was available to me, then the day after that the full amount was available. John had me do some tasks which consisted of getting a cashiers check from my bank for $50 and make it out to Oxfam America. Others tasks were making craigslist job postings, which is $25 a category, and cost me $75. In this posting process I had to make a new email address to use for the posting and send him the info to log on and receive the responses to the job postings.

Finally, I was asked to take $2,000 cash from the bank and Western Union the money to “the supplier”, for office supplies, to Marilyn Lawson in the Philippines on 2-15-2013. That money was sent and picked up quickly.

$300 of the check was supposed to be an advance payment to me for the work I was doing.

I then began to really feel something was wrong, as if I was doing something illegal like money laundering, so, I sent him a response telling him that I could no longer do tasks for him now that the money was gone. He gave me an appropriate response, and that was the end.

Days later, I tried to use my card and it was not approved. I went to the IBC Bank on Burnet road as part of the Domain Branch(11400 Burnet Rd Bldg 46 Austin, TX 78758 # (512) 397-4595).

I spoke with Stephen Jones, a Sales Associate, and the branch manager, Silvia Lopez. That is when I discovered the check was an “altered or fictitious item” and the money deposited from the check was taken from my account.

I had around $750 in my account, but approximately $320 was left from the faulty check, but $430 of my own hard earned money was in the account, it was all withdrawn, and I was left with a negative balance of around $1,750.

By 2-21-2013 I received a receipt, of sorts, in the mail from the bank notifying my about the faulty check, and that not only am I charged the amount deposited, I was charged a $12 charge back fee by the bank.

The manager told me that I was responsible for all of the money to be returned to the bank, and that these types of scams happen to many people everywhere. I was never once told by my bank, or anyone else informed in this matter, that cashiers checks can be completely fake and used in scams like this. I was also never informed that it is best to wait at least ten days for the check to clear, even though money would be available in two days.

I'm a victim of an elaborate scam and I don't receive help from anyone, not even the bank where my money is supposed to be protected. The only thing they can do for me is turn the negative amount into a “fresh start loan” and pay the money back, at no interest, in the amount of $146.50 for 12 months.

This doesn't help me at all and I feel that the bank is, at least, partially responsible for not issuing me safety warnings. These bank employees are clearly not trained to warn customers about these types of scams, though they obviously know about them. Had just one person warned me that this could happen, it would've never happened, and now I'm the one caught in the middle with the short end of the stick. I work hard to live on my own, and I've gone to college,, and I have those loan payments deferred because my money is so tight. I require a little more help from the bank, or someone in this matter. This is practically impossible for me to do alone. I'll have to work even harder to just get by.

My options are to pay the money back this way, which leads me to feel like I'm pleading guilty in a case where I'm innocent. It just doesn't sit right with me, and it brings me more stress.

My other option is to not sign this loan contract and fight it to the best of my ability. It will most likely go to collections, hurt my credit, keep me from opening an account anywhere, and I'd pay the money back anyway eventually.

No matter what I do, I'm screwed and going to be going through a lot of trouble. So, as I get older I get more fed up with how I'm treated and how many are treated, and I can't help but to fight somehow because clearly all anyone does is complain and then pay the money, as far as my research as shown, so, I'm just going to fight as much as I can until I can come to a mutual agreement with someone that works out in everyone's favor equally.

I lost all my money, and I'm back at the bottom struggling just when I thought I could save money to get myself out of a hole. For me, that's some torture. IBC Bank was named in the top 100 America's Best Banks by Forbes. Not only in top 100, but is listed as #10 with total assets at $11.7 billion ( Their motto is “we do more”, but they don't.

I think they could afford to just delete the negative balance bringing me to $0, and we can call it even. I realize that that is not how things work, but it should, and I'm willing to stand up. I feel I could find a pro-Bono lawyer to send them a message, and maybe scare them to help me more, or I could just do a lot of public posts and get some people behind me to cause a little disturbance to get some sort of help.

I've made a police report, and a fraud report to Western Union and Craigslist, and I'm in the process of filing it with the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the District Attorney/Attorney General, the Better Business Bureau, and FDIC.

I have all the emails saved during the process, pictures, and hard copies of everything I've done so far and dealt with in the process. Including from the point of the original cashiers check.

I'm also planning on posting this issue to Facebook, my blog, and possibly Youtube in order to help inform people about these events that can occur, and get others to stand untied against scams and bad money protection.

If I still go through troubles and end up paying the money, then at least I tried to fight, and I informed people in order to help others for the future. No one really delivers knowledge about this, which only leads me to believe that banks are possibly the ones behind the scams, Western Union could be behind scams, big business owners could be behind the scams, or all of the above. I only think that because no one is suffering as much as the those who get scammed.

On top of everything I feel like a chump, and I'm embarrassed to go through everything in order to let people know “this is how much of an idiot I am”, but I must suck up my pride and deliver the message to all who are willing to hear it.

Schools don't teach you important life lessons, mistakes in life do. Everyone should be knowledgeable of their basic rights with the law, with banks, creditors, security, their car, and all other real things in life that can be used against you. Sadly, we must learn ourselves and people close to us, instead of it being required information to be delivered to everyone. If you're informed about diseases you receive through sex, then you should be informed on all of these other “diseases” that can effect you health and lifestyle.

If there is any help or advice anyone can give me to ease my problems I'm going through, it would be much appreciated. We all need to learn to live and help one another to get through this ridiculous world we live in. Things seem to only be getting worse for everyone, and sooner or later we'll have to make a stand, or fall.

All companies work for us. If we didn't pay taxes or buy things, then no one would know what to do. It's hard for one person to make a difference, but one person can start something to bring many together, which makes all the difference.

***UPDATE April 29,2013***
I just received a message from a  girl in Washington state that has received contact from the same  "person". Using the name John Wilson, using the same e-mail that I listed in the post, and gave her the same cell phone number used with me. She contacted me through Facebook. After talking to John about the "job", he had arranged for her first "package" to be delivered. The package, of course, will be the fake check. It wasn't until her grandmother told her to google him that she searched him, and found this post on my blog. That's when she contacted me seeking help to catch this guy. Great things do happen. We're in the middle of trying to do something about this situation. Stay tuned for more updates!

*** 4-30-2013***
A girl in South Carolina messaged me and is is dealing with the same thing. That makes 2 saved by this post. Kind of makes it worth it.

***UPDATE 7-7-2020***
All these years ago I submitted info about this situation and ended up making a claim in a civil suite Western Union vs The United States. They lost and had to pay people. I received a check from the government's justice system in the amount of $2,000, which is what was taken from me and submitted to credit collection. It came this year, March 2020. Almost exactly 7 years after the original incident. Not only did I get money, but it is no longer on my credit history. Sometimes it takes a long time to get anything, but I'm glad I got it. I have and had patience and it worked out. Couldn't have come at a better time to since the pandemic hit and took my first salaried job away from me. It can't all work out great at the same time. *shrug*

Friday, January 11, 2013

Oscar Talk 2012-2013


   Okay, the Oscar nominations have been released two weeks early, and that concerns me. Did they release them earlier because some of the nominations are still in theaters, and are ready to be pulled, so, they want to bring in their last minute grossing? We can count on it. Just take a look at The Best Picture nominations: 'Argo', 'Beasts of the Southern Wild', 'Django Unchained', 'Les Miserables', 'Life of Pi', 'Lincoln', 'Silver Linings Playbook', and 'Zero Dark Thirty'.

First off, I want to say I still think it's bad to have 10 nominations for Best Picture, we all know that hasn't been around long, right? It started the year 'District 9' was nominated, well, that's when they RESTARTED the 10 nominations. In the 30-40s they nominated 12 or so, then from 1944-2008 it was 5, and in 2009 is when they started 10.

What are your thoughts on the 10 nominations? I can see how it's a good thing too, but I just really see it as a financial opportunity, and not really a celebration of many good movies. I mean, they even get to where they are playing people off during their speeches because they need to keep up with time. Why don't they cut 5 movies, and spread the time for speeches? That could even force filmmakers to make better movies if they want a chance at an Oscar.

On another note, I'm disappointed in The Oscars because I don't know about some choices. I have seen only one of these movies, 'Django Unchained', and it was amazing. I'm actually amazed at how many nominations it received, and didn't receive. Samuel L. Jackson and Leonardo DiCaprio were both really good in this movie. Jamie Fox was great too, but if he won for 'Ray', he won't win for this one, but Christoph Waltz once again get a nod for another Tarantino film, and he deserves it. These two are a great pair.

I want to see 'Argo', 'Life of Pi', and 'Lincoln', and I guess 'Silver Linings Playbook' too, but even though I haven't seen it, it doesn't make since to be on the Oscar list. I guess they do always have that movie that throws you off. 'Zero Dark Thirty' isn't my type of film, but this movie could win because we saw what happened with 'The Hurt Locker', and I still haven't seen that film. I know, I'm a bad movie person sometimes. 'Lincoln' is definitely an Oscar contender because the Academy loves awarding these movies with trophies. President Lincoln is getting a lot of hype recently, I wonder why?

I have seen a lot of these movies that are nominated in other areas. Some are hard to choose from, so yes, as of now I have two choices on some. The hardest is the Visual Effects. The visuals on all those nominated were great.

I want 'Django' to sweep, but when it comes down to the sound, 'Skyfall', I feel, surpasses 'Django'. 'Skyfall' had great Cinematography and Sound.

I must say, having Seth MacFarlane being the host was one of the greatest ideas. It makes me very, very excited to watch the award ceremony. This is gonna be great!

All that being said, here is my ballot for the Oscars. It may change, but only when I see a movie, but for right now with my current knowledge, these are who I think will win each award:

Best Picture- 'Django Unchained' 
Best Actor- Daniel Day-Lewis for 'Lincoln'
Best Actress- Jessica Chastain for 'Zero Dark Thirty'
Best Supporting Actor- Christoph Waltz for 'Django Unchained'
Best Supporting Actress- Anne Hathaway for 'Les Miserables'
Best Director- Ang Lee for 'Life of Pi'
Best Original Screenplay- Quentin Tarantino for 'Django Unchained'
Best Adapted Screenplay- Tony Kushner for 'Lincoln'
Best Animated-'Brave'
Best Foreign Film- 'Amour'
Best Cinematography- Roger Deakins for 'Skyfall'
Best Editing- Micheal Khan for 'Lincoln'
Best Production Design- Dan HennahRa VincentSimon Bright for 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey'
Best Costume Design- Colleen Atwood for 'Snow White and the Huntsman'
Best Make-up and Hairstyling- Peter KingRick FindlaterTami Lane for 'The Hobbit'
Best Score- Thomas Newman for 'Skyfall'
Best Song- AdelePaul Epworth for "Skyfall"
Best Sound Mixing- Scott MillanGreg P. RussellStuart Wilson for 'Skyfall'
Best Sound Editing- Per HallbergKaren M. Baker for 'Skyfall' or Wylie Stateman for 'Django Unchained'
Best Visual Effects- Joe LetteriEric SaindonDavid ClaytonR. Christopher White for 'The Hobbit' or Cedric Nicolas-TroyanPhil BrennanNeil CorbouldMichael Dawson for 'Snow White and the Huntsman'
Best Documentary- Emad BurnatGuy Davidi for '5 Broken Cameras'
Best Documentary Short- Kief DavidsonCori Shepherd Stern for 'Open Heart'
Best Animated Short- David Silverman for 'The Simpsons: The Longest Daycare'
Best Live Action Short- Tom Van AvermaetEllen De Waele for 'Death of a Shadow'

You can go to this link and you can see the list yourself to make your choices. As always, feel free to comment below and get a discussion going. Thanks!

Oscars are over. 8 out of 24 isn't bad...How did you do?

Monday, December 17, 2012

Best of 2012 Films

I have to say, there were a lot of really good movies this year. To be honest, my "Worst of" list were the only movies that came out this year that I didn't like. There were about 24 movies that I did like, and I narrowed it down to 10. I did, however, pick an "All Star" movie and an "Honorable Mentioned". I will even give a quick list of the others I liked, just to get them out there.

I just watched this recently, and it was hilarious. The story is kind of basic, and much like Seth Mcfarlane to do. Regardless, it was still really funny and a bit heart felt. I like that Seth made fun of himself a few times, and that a Teddy Ruxpin mention led to an all out battle where the bear practically wins. Mark Wahlberg was funny, like in 'I Heart Huckabees'. Mila Kunis is *deep fantastical sigh with a smile*. This movie was just a lot of fun.

I'm still on the fence. There were some really cool aspects that were changed that I like. I like that it was the Lizard for the villain, since he's not that known, but I wish he would've had a snout with the teeth. That would've been cooler, I think. Emma Stone was great, and Andrew Garfield pulled off an awkward geek better than I expected. I think I prefer him over Tobey. I like the darker quality, and I like the Uncle Ben dying scene more, but it could've been a little bit lighter. I always saw Spider-Man as a lighter character, rather than darkness of Batman (Yes, different universe, but go with me). Mix the original and this one together, and we have a winner. I am interested to see what's in store with the next installment.

I really, really enjoyed this movie. Way much better than the original. A lot darker. I like that you never see Dredd's face, love Dredd's humor and badassery. Karl Urban did great, and so did Olivia Thirlby. I enjoyed the action and movement throughout, and staying in one location majority of the film. I saw it in 3D, and it was great that the drug used in the film made the 3D experience worth every moment. Although some "slow mo" scenes where too long, and had a few unnecessary moments for it. This was just so much fun, and I enjoyed it a lot. Lena Headey didn't play her character as scary as she should've, but pulled it off okay. Her make-up was fantastic though. She is gorgeous in real life, but looks messed up in this film. Like Charlize Theron in 'Monster'.

 This movie was visually great. I love the story behind it, and the connection to the 'Alien' universe. I enjoy expansions like that, it keeps you going intellectually. I like that they answer questions, then bring up more. There are some questions that make me angry, but others I understand. They did a great job with having this movie to be discussed so much. Whether you like it or not, everyone can enjoy talking about it. The worst part of the film was the acting, and character motivations. Micheal Fassbender was the best in the film, and Idris Elba is next. There were a lot of things wrong and off with this movie, but I can't help but enjoy it, and I've seen this movie so many times already. It's still really cool. I saw this in Imax it it was awesome. I'm anxious for the sequel.

This movie was great. The visualization was amazing. Some of the shots were just freakin' cool as hell. Daniel Craig is my favorite Bond by far. He is what I've always seen Bond as being like. It was truly great, and Javier Bardem was a perfect bad guy for this bond film. The Adele song fit perfectly for this film. It was great using it for advertisement, and the opening credits were awesome, as usual. I love the action at the beginning, and leading to the credits. Great start to the story. It was a really, really enjoyable bond film.
 Yes, this movie was great. It's a real basic concept with a unique twist. I thought it was a great story and idea. The actors were great, and it was so freaking funny. I really wouldn't consider this a horror movie, but a horror-comedy, yes. I love the dialog. All those crazy scary things getting let loose, was just cool. I love all the comedic set-ups and pay offs. And the stoner wins! How often do you see that? The truth is known, the stoner is the smartest, most intuitive, and is a survivalist. This movie was just great.

Okay, now choices are becoming harder and harder to make. I feel weird and guilty that this movie has made it to this number, but maybe I will explain myself well. This movie was great and very enjoyable. I just think Bane didn't have enough of an arc, or story, to him, and his "death" was kind of quick and lame. The twist with the woman being the old enemies daughter seemed out of place. I don't understand, and I don't like, the fact that Batman survives. I also don't like that John Blake's real name is Robin. That made me groan out loud. The idea behind his character is that anyone can be Batman, right? So why say Robin? People automatically associate Robin to the traditional character, and now you're confusing us. Robin can't be there, or be Robin, without Batman. You could leave out that short dialog exchange about the name, and the ending effect would still stand, so, it's not needed. This movie was definitely not better than 'The Dark Knight'. Still good enough for me to buy the day it came out though. I'm a Batman fan.

This movie was lovely. The story is one I've been interested in for a while. I love how all these different stories and characters intertwine. I also really enjoy seeing actors play like six different characters each. It's great diversity. Tom Hanks is amazing, and Hugo Weaving has the best characters. Hugh Grant did really well too considering he's been gone for a bit, it seems. This is the best I've seen Jim Sturgess, especially his "final" character, I couldn't tell it was him. That's how some are, it isn't until the credits when you realize certain actors were certain characters. It's lot of fun. Oh, and Jim Broadbent is wonderful too. Who can't enjoy character driven stories? Especially with great actors to do them. This is a movie that can, and should be watched several times, and you're always making new discoveries. The music is awesome, and is a drive in the story. This movie made me warm and fuzzy, and sent me on an intellectual and slight spiritual journey. I also thought this long movie had great pacing, I was into it the whole time.

I just saw this for the midnight feature. In one of my latest blogs I give the full review of this film. Check it out if you're interested in the full scoop. In short, the movie was fantastic and everything I could hope for in this movie. My only quarrel maybe be with the high frame rate I saw it in, it just threw me off a bit. Other than that, the movie was on point. I look forward to the next two films, owning them all, and watching them over and over. I always enjoyed this book more than LOTR.

I love this movie so much. I saw it in Imax, and I had so much fun. I'm into every moment of this movie, and I love the humor. The idea of all these great different heroes together is awesome, and seeing it was exciting. I really like the tying in of all the other movies to lead to this movie. That's just a great marketing idea. I still watch this movie all the time. I was nervous about Mark Ruffalo, but he's my favorite in this film, and he's playing my favorite hero. I just think everything is damn near perfect, and I'm already stoked about the next.

Well, there you have it folks, my top ten best movies for 2012. It was hard moving movies around to certain spots. I'm anxious to hear some responses, so let them come. Before I allow that, I need to do my other two.

Honorable Mentioned
I thought it was cute and entertaining. The visual was fun. I like fantastical things. This was right up my alley. It was like 'Star Wars' meets 'Prince of Persia'. I liked the humor in it, and it was a lot of fun.

For the budget and film quality, I thought this was really good. Basic story line, but really good. I liked the acting. If three guys found they had powers, this is what would happen. The villain guy reminds me of someone I know, so, I understand his character. It's a fairly emotional story. I was drawn in, and I thought they did a really great job.

Just a quick list of other movies I like and recommend that came out this year: Bad Ass, American Reunion, Goon, Casa de Mi Padre, Bernie, Pirates!, MIB 3, Wrath of the Titans, and Battleship.

I also have plans to watch Monster's Inc 3D, but it won't count toward this because it just doesn't. I want to see 'Cirque du Soleil' because it eems really cool, but may not make it to the list. However, I have plans to see 'Django Unchained', and that could make it to the list. We'll see. Send me some comments. Until later, have a good life.

Worst of 2012 Films

   Alright folks, here's my list of the worst films I've seen that came out this year. I admit, only one of these movies was actually seen in the theaters. I kind of know my taste, and make it a point to not see an "iffy" movie in the theater. So, majority of these I rented from Redbox. I'm just doing 10, and I will start with the not so bad, then lead to the worst. Just as a note, I'm never ashamed to say that I've watched anything. Watching really bad movies is good, especially as a film maker, because you know what not to do/ know what people don't like. Some bad movies can be enjoyable and entertaining, but never be considered a "good movie". Just like my first film on the list.

It was a decent movie. Jennifer Lawrence is super attractive, and I can't wait to see more of her. Woody Harrelson is awesome as always, Stanley Tucci can never have a bad thing said about him, and Elizabeth Banks did good too; her character was interesting. The story seemed ripped off of other stories I grew up with. It was completely predictable, I don't like that at all. I hear that it doesn't compare to the book, and maybe that's so, but this movie was not worth the hype, and was not one I saw in theaters.

It was okay. The movie was visually stunning, and I loved the twist to the old fairy tale. I hear though it's a rip off of another foreign film. The CinemaChick knows. I loved the dwarfs, they were the saving grace of the film. There was great costume, make-up, and cinematography to show their smallness very well, not like LOTR. I also liked that I couldn't tell which actors some of the dwarfs were, overall, they were the highlight. Chris Hemsworth was enjoyable, and fits in this type of role. Kristen Stewart sucked, straight up. I got no emotion from her, and after hearing her "battle speech", I wanted to leave. I would never follow her into battle. That whole scene was jacked up. No one even wonders how the hell she woke up? Charlize Theron was off her game too, just like 'Prometheus'. She must've filmed them in the same year because I got the same person in both movies, and they both sucked. So, this movie is worth seeing for the dwarfs, and the visualization. This is the movie I saw in theaters.

Yeah, the movie was exactly what I thought it was. "Oh, these people want to see a movie with all the action heroes. Let's put them in, and not have a plot." I couldn't pay attention to this movie. I was anxious because I miss Jean Claude (for some reason), and it's got the other cool guys in it more, but there's no pay off. I loved the first one, it was a lot of fun. But this was like some kind of cry for help, and it seemed like they all were stooping low to do this movie. I respect wanting to get them all together for 1 movie, but make sure your priorities are in order, meaning have a good story first.

Now, this is a documentary movie. I had to watch it because certain family members were mentioning it, and some people are using it against Obama. I enjoy the fact that I'm knowing more about Obama's life that leads too this point, it's kind of interesting. What doesn't make sense is the cover, and end of the film, puts you in a place where you can make your own decision to"love" Obama or "hate him" after knowing the "truth" about his life, but throughout the film the host seems to persuade you against Obama, but then will show something good. He also pointed out "bad elements" about Obama's tactics, but once you really think about it, it's not near as bad as it is made out to be. I think the film was a tactic to keep people from voting for him, but, obviously, they did a horrible job. I encourage people to watch it who are into politics and seeing different sides, but for me this film didn't sway me any way. I feel the same about him, but more knowledgeable.

Not a whole lot to say about this one. It was funny in some parts, but a bad idea to make the film. I didn't get anything out of it. I enjoyed the first one (remake), but this was just a regular B-movie...or maybe C-movie. If you feel so inclined, please watch it.

Not much to say here either. It was really freakin' funny in some parts, but that's about it. It was entertaining, especially at this point in time with the presidential race. I never saw 'Bruno', but I'm sure this is better than that, but I still prefer 'Borat'. Watch it if you like his humor, and have a slight interest in politics.

Just bad. Johnny Depp's make-up was bad, all the make-up looked bad. I didn't like the color choices either. The story was hard to follow. It was slow, and it was hard to pay attention. I really can't think of anything good to say, except that Eva Green looks good.

Seriously, just stop making these. The first one was good, and that's about it. The story seems to be somewhat interesting, but you guys went about it the wrong way. This just isn't any good, or fun anymore. Stop. Please.

I've already been criticized about my opinion of this movie, but it still stands. I like Liam Neeson, but I don't know what's going on. Between this and Taken 2, it looks bad. Nothing against him as an actor, just his choices in films to do, lately. Maybe it's just because I expected something different, but I didn't enjoy this movie at all. I fell asleep twice, and tried to re-watch it, but I couldn't do it. If you like survival movies, then maybe you'll like it.

This was a let down. The scene with the lady on the exam table scared the hell out of me (haha), but overall the movie was lame. Enough exorcism movies for a while, please. Unless you have something truly unique, scary, and original to bring with it.

Well, that concludes my "Worst of" list. Please feel free to comment on my decisions. I'm always up for a banter, and I have been swayed in the past for some things. I will do my "Best of" soon. I will enjoy that a lot more.

Sunday, December 16, 2012

'The Hobbit' High Frame Rate Review

   I'm back and it's with a movie review. I saw the midnight feature of 'The Hobbit' on Dec. 14, 2012. I watched the movie in 3D and in the 48 frames per second. I have to say I was very excited to see this movie in this new rate. I know this will be a new thing that filmmakers will be experiencing with in the future. James Cameron has shown that he will most likely shoot the next two 'Avatar' movies at the same rate. I figure, if Peter Jackson and James Cameron want to do it, then there has to be something good about it. I've been looking forward to this movie for a while in general, and it's good to watch a ground breaking movie.
I also want to quickly add I saw the movie at the Alamo Drafthouse on Slaughter and Mopac in Austin, TX, and it was a great experience. The set-up they have in the theater was wonderful. It's more intimate and spacious. I had their French Press Coffee, and it was amazing. It's hard to find coffee I enjoy drinking black, and still have the caffeine stimulation.
Now, the frame rate made the film experience different, it's hard to describe. There were some moments at the beginning during the dialog period that I could tell it was sped up. Some things also appeared more realistic, and some parts seemed more computerized, but yet it all seemed to flow together well. Mainly at the dialog portions it seemed like I was watching a children's play. Now, I majored in Theatre, so, I am a little bias, but I do not mean this in a negative way. Some responses I get are negative, but I'm not saying it looks like someone is filming a play, which does not work well most of the time, I mean it just looks like they are performing live. The more realistic factor, I suppose. With the higher frame rate you can see more details in gestures, and facial expressions, which can work well for a children's show. The fact that 'The Hobbit' is supposed to be a children's book makes this element of the film so much better.
There were also moments, due to the frame rate and camera movement, that made it feel like one of those movie rides where your seat moves with the roller coaster on the screen, tough the seats didn't move. So, some motion sickness may be involved. I can understand some having a problem with this factor, but I rather enjoyed it. It brought me into the film more. My movie date said she had to slow her drinking due to this aspect.
The frame rate also keeps your attention a lot better. We all know that the world's, or at least America's, attention span is becoming near nonexistent. On top of that, I felt that the movie got off to a slight slow start, but after Bilbo runs carrying the contract, "I'm going on an adventure!" I feel it picks up and goes nonstop to the end. Just when you think they will have a moments rest or "just walk" like some complain about in LOTR, something else happens, and it's back to thrilling suspense.
The shots, of course, were beautiful. It's more of a beautiful movie than 'Return of the King'. The acting from everyone was on point. There are some really great characters throughout the film. One of my favorite moments was the song the dwarfs sing in Bilbo's house. I even belted my excitement out loud. It kind of sucks that they cut a lot of the singing portions from the book. I know there were some things missing, but to me as long as the really good and important moments get shown, then that's all that really matters. Like, for example, the Gollum scene didn't need the extra riddles that were cut. Although the Gollum scene was one of my favorite and most anticipated scenes.
I'm also glad they showed portions of Smaug, and how they ended the film. I don't remember reading that type of stopping point in the book, but I liked it either way. I'm a huge dragon fan, and someone needs to make a badass dragon film soon. Just sayin'.
Some of my other favorite parts was the rock fighting scene, you know were the big rock guys fight each other and everyone holds on for dear life? Yeah, that one. And the show down scene with the Blue Orc, and those wolves, then they are all on one tree on the edge of a cliff, and start throwing burning pine cones. Only to lead to a big battle with everyone. That was awesome, especially when the Eagles saved them.
So, overall the movie was great, and the high frame rate was the only disturbing portion. I recommend seeing it though, and come to your own conclusions. It will be happening a lot more. I could see someone like the Farrelly Brothers, or Tom Shadyac making a comedic movie with that frame rate, and it being hilarious. They could go back and shoot 'Three Stooges' again at that rate, and it could be better. I will be seeing this movie again in the regular frame rate to truly judge the difference. Who knows, it could end up being a better movie. For now, I give it a 9 out of 10.
Stay tuned, I will be posting my personal "Best of" and "Worst of" movies for 2012.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

It's Been A While

I realize I haven't made a post in a while, though not many would have noticed anyway. I just wanted to make a post to show I am still alive and kicking, and I shall have some stuff come up soon. I will make my comeback by posting a 'Best and Worst Films of 2012'. I enjoy movies a ton, and I'm often told I should write about them. So, I will dive into that a little bit more, and see what happens.

I'm also thinking of doing a vlog. I haven't done one yet, and I want to experience it. I just don't know what I would want to talk about.

Maybe that can be my best and worst film list. What do you think? Any suggestions?

Until then, have a good life.