In total, this is the twelfth Star Trek movie. Films one through six had colons in their titles. Star Trek: The Motion picture, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier... etc. Star Trek 7 didn't. It was just called Star Trek Generations, but 8 had the colon again. Star Trek: First Contact. Star Trek 11, the remake prequel of the original didn't have a colon and now the first sequel in the remake prequel series doesn't either. In the history of the series this is the first time there have been back to back titles without colons. Nerdy much?
Benedict Cumberbatch was the best part of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. The film was like staring at a dry, colourless canvass. Benedict was the only splash of colour. He was good as Sherlock Holmes, too.
When I reviewed Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy I commented about how dry it was and that I felt thirsty watching it... I received a comment from a reader on my review...
"I liked it. I think Benedict Cumberbatch is f**king phenomenal in it. (Then again, when is he ever not.) Your review displeases me. I am now going to glare at my computer and hope you feel my wrath."
Clearly he has a fan base, at least one...
It was cool seeing him in the trailer for this colon-less titled Star Trek movie. He was a badass: cold and ruthless. While Chris Pine is no William Shatner, William Shatner is no Chris Pine. In fairness, Pine's Kirk is the remake prequel Kirk, which means younger and less experienced, but no less cocky. Zachary Quinto plays Spock like Leonard Nimoy played Spock - which is the only way to play Spock. Zoe Saldana. Say no more.
I think I liked the remake prequel, Star Trek. At least I don't remember disliking it. I generally like this type of sci-fi. It's fun, kind of epic and, while the stories are pretty much the same, they are usually entertaining. You know, madman wants to take over or destroy the world because he has a gripe with the establishment, or the government or the USS Enterprise or he hates Captain Kirk or his daddy/uncle/mentor.
And, when all appears lost, the Enterprise and it's crew will rise from the ashes (or the water like in the trailer) and kick ass because as I've said before, the good guys are always supposed to win.
While the trailer had all the big budget epic action I'm not sure if it was good or not. Mainly because I think any trailer for Star Trek, regardless of quality couldn't prevent me from seeing remake prequel sequel Star Trek 2 without the colon.
Yeah, I hope to see this movie soon.
Friday, 31 May 2013
Thursday, 30 May 2013
VIEWED: The Three Stooges
My trailer review for The Three Stooges said...
"I rarely review a trailer that has so much going on and yet leaves me so empty. There must be a reason for it... You know what? I need to see this movie just to see if it's the trailer that sucks or just me..."
The wife and I watched this the other night on Netflix.
You know what? It was the trailer that sucked, not me. Although I do get the odd email that simply says, "you suck."
The Farelly Brothers version of The Three Stooges did try to capture the spirit of the original series and, while it was brilliant watching the people from Jersey Shore get smacked around by Moe, it wasn't real and so, only mildly amusing.
When it ended I felt just as empty as I did after the trailer. The wife just looked at me and said, "let's fold laundry."
"I rarely review a trailer that has so much going on and yet leaves me so empty. There must be a reason for it... You know what? I need to see this movie just to see if it's the trailer that sucks or just me..."
The wife and I watched this the other night on Netflix.
You know what? It was the trailer that sucked, not me. Although I do get the odd email that simply says, "you suck."
The Farelly Brothers version of The Three Stooges did try to capture the spirit of the original series and, while it was brilliant watching the people from Jersey Shore get smacked around by Moe, it wasn't real and so, only mildly amusing.
When it ended I felt just as empty as I did after the trailer. The wife just looked at me and said, "let's fold laundry."
Wednesday, 29 May 2013
Editorial: Movie Trailers too long... says, um... NATO?
Amen... but...
It has come to my attention that NATO (The National Association of Theatre Owners) NATO. That's freaking hilarious... NATO.... I just pissed myself.
NATO has determined that movie trailers, which average 2.5 minutes, are too long and take away from the movie going experience. The studios disagree. One studio executive who chose to remain anonymous, said, "My trailers are 2.5 minutes because that's what we need to send the right message..."
My experience reviewing movie trailers is that more than 2 minutes usually means spoiler. Spoiler usually means that I will refuse to see the film because they've served me the appetizer as the main course. While there are exceptions, the rule is generally that trailers give away too much and the longer they are the more they give away. Except Cloud Atlas. That was 6 minutes of me saying, "huh?" Don't get me started...
What is NATO really saying? I think NATO wants to have shorter movie trailers - shorter by 30 seconds from what I'm reading - so that they can throw in more paid advertising. While I enjoy watching movie trailers at the cinema, I despise commercials at the cinema. The cinema should be a sacred place.
The studios don't seem to care that their trailers are too long and give away too much. The studios don't care that they continue to treat movie goers more and more like mindless cattle. Both NATO and the studios only want to make more money. Well, that's a given.
The reality is that movie trailers are a marketing tool and are treated by the studios us such. Understandable. From a marketing perspective, it's trying to convey a message in a limited amount of time for the purpose of attracting customers. Simple. Some, like me though, find art in movie trailers. Others find art in television commercials, as there are awards for television commercials. I have the Beerbohm Awards for movie trailers...
NATO, congratulations on saying the right thing, but for the wrong reason.
Here's the story from the Hollywood Reporter...
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/theater-owners-seek-new-rules-559164
It has come to my attention that NATO (The National Association of Theatre Owners) NATO. That's freaking hilarious... NATO.... I just pissed myself.
NATO has determined that movie trailers, which average 2.5 minutes, are too long and take away from the movie going experience. The studios disagree. One studio executive who chose to remain anonymous, said, "My trailers are 2.5 minutes because that's what we need to send the right message..."
My experience reviewing movie trailers is that more than 2 minutes usually means spoiler. Spoiler usually means that I will refuse to see the film because they've served me the appetizer as the main course. While there are exceptions, the rule is generally that trailers give away too much and the longer they are the more they give away. Except Cloud Atlas. That was 6 minutes of me saying, "huh?" Don't get me started...
What is NATO really saying? I think NATO wants to have shorter movie trailers - shorter by 30 seconds from what I'm reading - so that they can throw in more paid advertising. While I enjoy watching movie trailers at the cinema, I despise commercials at the cinema. The cinema should be a sacred place.
The studios don't seem to care that their trailers are too long and give away too much. The studios don't care that they continue to treat movie goers more and more like mindless cattle. Both NATO and the studios only want to make more money. Well, that's a given.
The reality is that movie trailers are a marketing tool and are treated by the studios us such. Understandable. From a marketing perspective, it's trying to convey a message in a limited amount of time for the purpose of attracting customers. Simple. Some, like me though, find art in movie trailers. Others find art in television commercials, as there are awards for television commercials. I have the Beerbohm Awards for movie trailers...
NATO, congratulations on saying the right thing, but for the wrong reason.
Here's the story from the Hollywood Reporter...
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/theater-owners-seek-new-rules-559164
Tuesday, 28 May 2013
VIEWED: Iron Man 3
My trailer review for Iron Man 3 said...
"...it made me think of The Dark Knight Rises.... I know that despite the stories being pretty much the same, I can't get enough. It's the 10 year-old boy in me that absolutely loves every second of every setback and bites his nails during every battle and cheers the loudest when good triumphs over evil. Because good triumphing over evil is what is ALWAYS supposed to happen.... I can't wait to see this movie and, for 2 hours, be a 10 year old boy again. Thank you comic book movies for giving me that joy!"
The argument with the wife continued (see my Parker review). My opinion was based on the trailer and The Mandarin having a logo, where Bane did not have one. So, when the wife told me that her girl friend and daughter were coming over for dinner I quickly checked the movie listings... Hello, Iron Man 3 at the local cinema!
It really was an Iron Man rises type story... you know, just when you think you've lost everything, than you can rise up and do anything... you know... just when things seem darkest, then there is light... you know... it's the man that makes the costume and not the costume that makes the man... you know, we must move forwards, not backwards, upwards, not forwards, and always twirling towards freedom... (thanks Kang and Kodos).
I'm just being a dick.
Iron Man 3 was awesome. I loved it. All of it. The dumb, the fun, the unbelievable... Downey Jr. is so awesome. I loved The Mandarin Ben Kingsley, shithead Guy Pierce, the story, the holes in the story, EVERYTHING!
It was everything that is good about Hollywood. It knew it's place and it made that place entertaining as hell... and I will see it again... and again... and again.
And, yes, it's like the best part of being 10 years old, again.
"...it made me think of The Dark Knight Rises.... I know that despite the stories being pretty much the same, I can't get enough. It's the 10 year-old boy in me that absolutely loves every second of every setback and bites his nails during every battle and cheers the loudest when good triumphs over evil. Because good triumphing over evil is what is ALWAYS supposed to happen.... I can't wait to see this movie and, for 2 hours, be a 10 year old boy again. Thank you comic book movies for giving me that joy!"
The argument with the wife continued (see my Parker review). My opinion was based on the trailer and The Mandarin having a logo, where Bane did not have one. So, when the wife told me that her girl friend and daughter were coming over for dinner I quickly checked the movie listings... Hello, Iron Man 3 at the local cinema!
It really was an Iron Man rises type story... you know, just when you think you've lost everything, than you can rise up and do anything... you know... just when things seem darkest, then there is light... you know... it's the man that makes the costume and not the costume that makes the man... you know, we must move forwards, not backwards, upwards, not forwards, and always twirling towards freedom... (thanks Kang and Kodos).
I'm just being a dick.
Iron Man 3 was awesome. I loved it. All of it. The dumb, the fun, the unbelievable... Downey Jr. is so awesome. I loved The Mandarin Ben Kingsley, shithead Guy Pierce, the story, the holes in the story, EVERYTHING!
It was everything that is good about Hollywood. It knew it's place and it made that place entertaining as hell... and I will see it again... and again... and again.
And, yes, it's like the best part of being 10 years old, again.
Monday, 27 May 2013
VIEWED: Parker
My trailer review for Parker said...
I know I've said this before but...
Jason Statham does not hunt because the word hunting infers the probability of failure. Jason Statham goes killing. And, If you can see Jason Statham, he can see you. If you can't see Jason Statham you may be only seconds away from death.
The trailer for Parker was exactly what it was supposed to be: Statham kicking ass. That's good enough for me.
The wife rented Parker for me this past weekend. Then we had an argument because she thinks The Mandarin is a better arch villain then Bane, I say no because Bane didn't have a logo. So, she went to the other room to watch the chick flick she also rented and I watched Parker.
There was something wrong with how Parker kicks ass in Parker. Well, maybe not wrong but not in the typical Statham is the new Chuck Norris, way. Parker opens with Statham dressed as a priest and, despite committing a crime with his "crew" he shows calm and compassion, like his disguise would suggest. He has flashbacks to his girlfriend and her father... la la la.... happy happy, even though they discuss heists.
As soon as he removes the priest outfit, he's double crossed (not just for that reason) and all that biblical, "judge not lest ye be judged.." "do unto others..." "turn the other cheek..." disappears like so much of the acting.
Then it's just another revenge picture.
You see, when I see a Statham movie all I really want to see is Jason Statham kicking ass in the most creative and acrobatic ways. I don't really care much about the story.
While Parker is okay for what it is, there was just too much story and while seeing J-LO's backside was nice, and Statham's acting isn't bad, the real draw is the ass-kicking. Sadly, there just wasn't enough backside or ass-kicking in-between the story.
Still, Jason Statham is the new Chuck Norris and I repeat this because it does apply to Parker...
"If you can't see Jason Statham you may be only seconds away from death."
So true.
I know I've said this before but...
Jason Statham does not hunt because the word hunting infers the probability of failure. Jason Statham goes killing. And, If you can see Jason Statham, he can see you. If you can't see Jason Statham you may be only seconds away from death.
The trailer for Parker was exactly what it was supposed to be: Statham kicking ass. That's good enough for me.
The wife rented Parker for me this past weekend. Then we had an argument because she thinks The Mandarin is a better arch villain then Bane, I say no because Bane didn't have a logo. So, she went to the other room to watch the chick flick she also rented and I watched Parker.
There was something wrong with how Parker kicks ass in Parker. Well, maybe not wrong but not in the typical Statham is the new Chuck Norris, way. Parker opens with Statham dressed as a priest and, despite committing a crime with his "crew" he shows calm and compassion, like his disguise would suggest. He has flashbacks to his girlfriend and her father... la la la.... happy happy, even though they discuss heists.
As soon as he removes the priest outfit, he's double crossed (not just for that reason) and all that biblical, "judge not lest ye be judged.." "do unto others..." "turn the other cheek..." disappears like so much of the acting.
Then it's just another revenge picture.
You see, when I see a Statham movie all I really want to see is Jason Statham kicking ass in the most creative and acrobatic ways. I don't really care much about the story.
While Parker is okay for what it is, there was just too much story and while seeing J-LO's backside was nice, and Statham's acting isn't bad, the real draw is the ass-kicking. Sadly, there just wasn't enough backside or ass-kicking in-between the story.
Still, Jason Statham is the new Chuck Norris and I repeat this because it does apply to Parker...
"If you can't see Jason Statham you may be only seconds away from death."
So true.
Friday, 24 May 2013
The Great Gatsby
I studied The Great Gatsby in grades 9, 11, 12, and in a first-year university English course. I feel I know it intimately. Well, I feel I knew it intimately. It was a beautiful examination of, among many things, voids - emotional, physical, spiritual and especially moral. I truly grew to love and appreciate the depth in the shallows of this story.
Yes, I know I always say that it's better to remake a bad movie than it is to remake a good movie, badly. I don't recall the 1974 version being a good movie, but I did see it. Should this apply to books, too? Well, it's not being re-written...
Maybe I should rewrite, The Great Gatsby, and call it, um... The Great Gatsby and then re-sell the film rights. Oh, wait, isn't that copyright infringement? Why isn't it the same for movies... I digress.
I kind of liked the trailer. It showed much of the decadence, tension and conflict contained in the story but it didn't give it all away like many trailers do. I liked the pace the visuals. However, the "mwah mwah" music that is so tediously popular today almost killed it for me, as the trailer opens with the aural assault of tired musical cliche... thankfully it ended and the trailer was able to recover and deliver an entertaining product.
The music bothered me so much that I watched the "international trailer" on IMDB. It was different and the music, while still kind of Jim Steinman Bonnie Tyler epic annoying, was still better than "mwah mwah" music.
The IMDB trailer told the story of a man of many "secrets" trying to recapture a past love, with snippets of jealousy and betrayal. While this is a love story of sorts, I don't see it as a chick flick and thus will be happy to see it with the wife.
My mother was visiting from Toronto a few weeks ago and told me she was bored. I told her to go see a movie. She went to see The Great Gatsby. When she returned I asked her what she thought of it. She told me that she was still bored.
Please note: The views of my mom do not necessarily reflect the views of Beerbohmtastic, especially if I haven't seen the movie, yet.
Sunday, 12 May 2013
Rare Editorial - VIEWED: Shark Night 3D
People often ask me if I have any interest in advertising on my blog. I usually tell them that this blog is a special place for me. I love movies and enjoy movie trailers. If I were to advertise it would make this blog more like a job. I don't ever want to feel obligated to provide content in order to drive traffic. As long as I have the drive and desire to add content, I will.
This is where it ends. Sorry, mom.
Occasionally I do a Google search for "Beerbohmtastic" to see what comes up. I discovered that some site has valued this blog at $264 US. No, mom, I'm not selling it and buying you a new VCR. I don't even think they make VCR's anymore. How many times can you watch Ben Hur?
That said, my blog has a 100% safety rating. I am glad that it is a safe place. It would suck if you the reader were in danger while visiting. This is supposed to be fun. It isn't supposed to hurt your computer or insult your intelligence... at least I hope not on both counts.
There is a world filled with people who love film and whether viewer, film maker/actor/crew etc., critic, lover or hater, we all share a passion for the art.
As I also do once in a while, I look at my blog stats. I was surprised to see that my posting titled, "VIEWED: Shark Night 3D" has 185 more all-time page views than the next most popular post. 185!!!???
Why do people seek out this particular post?
Is the post funny? Is it insulting? Is it way off base? Am I missing something?
I hated the trailer and found the movie to miss the mark on every level, including social commentary and anything remotely tongue-in-cheek. Thus, the trailer seemed insignificant and the movie wasn't clever like it tried so hard to be.
Yes, I am very much aware that I'm not as clever as I try so hard to be, either... point taken.
I'm curious. I'd really appreciate your comments on my "VIEWED: Shark Night 3D" post. Either leave them below, tweet me @beerbohmtastic or email me at beerbohmtastic@gmail.com
Here it is for reference: http://beerbohmtastic.blogspot.ca/2012/10/viewed-shark-night-3d.html
I will post all comments, good, bad insulting or otherwise.
Thanks for reading and commenting and sending me really cool stuff!
Mike
This is where it ends. Sorry, mom.
Occasionally I do a Google search for "Beerbohmtastic" to see what comes up. I discovered that some site has valued this blog at $264 US. No, mom, I'm not selling it and buying you a new VCR. I don't even think they make VCR's anymore. How many times can you watch Ben Hur?
That said, my blog has a 100% safety rating. I am glad that it is a safe place. It would suck if you the reader were in danger while visiting. This is supposed to be fun. It isn't supposed to hurt your computer or insult your intelligence... at least I hope not on both counts.
There is a world filled with people who love film and whether viewer, film maker/actor/crew etc., critic, lover or hater, we all share a passion for the art.
As I also do once in a while, I look at my blog stats. I was surprised to see that my posting titled, "VIEWED: Shark Night 3D" has 185 more all-time page views than the next most popular post. 185!!!???
Why do people seek out this particular post?
Is the post funny? Is it insulting? Is it way off base? Am I missing something?
I hated the trailer and found the movie to miss the mark on every level, including social commentary and anything remotely tongue-in-cheek. Thus, the trailer seemed insignificant and the movie wasn't clever like it tried so hard to be.
Yes, I am very much aware that I'm not as clever as I try so hard to be, either... point taken.
I'm curious. I'd really appreciate your comments on my "VIEWED: Shark Night 3D" post. Either leave them below, tweet me @beerbohmtastic or email me at beerbohmtastic@gmail.com
Here it is for reference: http://beerbohmtastic.blogspot.ca/2012/10/viewed-shark-night-3d.html
I will post all comments, good, bad insulting or otherwise.
Thanks for reading and commenting and sending me really cool stuff!
Mike
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Way Down in Chinatown
Thank you to Maria Olsen for inviting me to review this film, pre-release.
I've never really reviewed a film on this blog without reviewing the trailer, first. But I've never been asked to review a film prior to its release before.
Cool.
What if you were part of a race or species that were on the verge of an apocalypse and there was nothing you could do? Would you panic? Would you run and hide? Not knowing exactly when the end would come would you spend every unknowing moment with loved ones? Would you do, or continue to do, what you loved?
If you were part of a race or species that were observing another race or species' slow demise, what would you do? Would you stand back and watch them destroy themselves? Would you try to help prevent their demise or destruction? What if you didn't have the power? Would you try to save a few? Who would you save?
Way Down in Chinatown examines both sides.
There is a couple, a play write and his manager/partner/wife who continue to live their lives against the backdrop of an impending apocalypse. So immersed in their work that when we meet them they are in the process of casting for their newest play, Apocalypse Tomorrow (I think). Talk about drawing inspiration from a bleak situation...
There are underground dwellers in Way Down in Chinatown. They are a sort worm people. They are aware of the apocalypse but do not have the power to stop it. So, in order to ensure that they have entertainment before the apocalypse kills everyone on the surface, they select "exceptional" people to lure - with no pretence of saving them - underground.
Way Down in Chinatown was interesting to watch and conceptually pretty cool. When it ended it took me a while to process it. I let it sit and digest for four days before writing this review. I'm glad I did because as I reflect on it, there was a depth to it that I didn't quite grasp when I viewed it and it posed questions that were difficult to answer.
Watch it and see for yourself...
I've never really reviewed a film on this blog without reviewing the trailer, first. But I've never been asked to review a film prior to its release before.
Cool.
What if you were part of a race or species that were on the verge of an apocalypse and there was nothing you could do? Would you panic? Would you run and hide? Not knowing exactly when the end would come would you spend every unknowing moment with loved ones? Would you do, or continue to do, what you loved?
If you were part of a race or species that were observing another race or species' slow demise, what would you do? Would you stand back and watch them destroy themselves? Would you try to help prevent their demise or destruction? What if you didn't have the power? Would you try to save a few? Who would you save?
Way Down in Chinatown examines both sides.
There is a couple, a play write and his manager/partner/wife who continue to live their lives against the backdrop of an impending apocalypse. So immersed in their work that when we meet them they are in the process of casting for their newest play, Apocalypse Tomorrow (I think). Talk about drawing inspiration from a bleak situation...
There are underground dwellers in Way Down in Chinatown. They are a sort worm people. They are aware of the apocalypse but do not have the power to stop it. So, in order to ensure that they have entertainment before the apocalypse kills everyone on the surface, they select "exceptional" people to lure - with no pretence of saving them - underground.
Way Down in Chinatown was interesting to watch and conceptually pretty cool. When it ended it took me a while to process it. I let it sit and digest for four days before writing this review. I'm glad I did because as I reflect on it, there was a depth to it that I didn't quite grasp when I viewed it and it posed questions that were difficult to answer.
Watch it and see for yourself...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)