Elf

For my first Christmas special review, I thought I would go with the one that has only come out more recently. I know a lot of people really like Elf, and I do too, but I am going to have to put it pretty low on this list. Mostly because since this movie came out, it has become the only thing that my teachers would show to class during Christmas time. I thought that after high school they might show us something else, maybe Nightmare Before Christmas or Die Hard. Seriously guys, are there no other good Christmas specials out there? I know that this one has Will Ferrell and everything, but come on! I will admit that this was only pointed out to me by a friend a few years ago. I don’t know if it’s a coincidence or if Congress decided to pass another useless bill, but it keeps happening, and I find this unacceptable!

Now that being said, I want to clarify that I don’t hate the movie, I actually quite enjoy it. For one thing, this is the one of the few times where Will Ferrell pulls off his whole man-child act and it’s actually quite funny and charming. You have to give credit to the director, Jon Favreau (who would go on to direct Iron Man. Who knew?) for being able to pull it off. Also the way it makes those little references to other Christmas specials that we can all identify is pretty cute (all the stop-motion animals and the elf’s uniforms is clearly a salute to the Rankin-Bass specials that were back from when my parents were growing up). The humor in it is also very innocent as well, but also very enjoyable. You know how there are those specials that were made with ONLY kids in mind? Well this is not one of them. The humor is very kid-friendly but also enjoyable enough for adults that they don’t have to continue to look at their watches praying this will end soon. Okay, I will admit that at times it may have gotten a little corny, but it never really kept me from enjoying it. I was also kind of surprised to see that they got James Caan to be in this movie. Not to say that I thought he would turn it down or anything, it’s just a little unexpected coming from a guy whose resume includes The Godfather, Eraser, and Misery.

Not much else to say about this movie. I’m trying to think, what else did I like about this movie? Ah yes! Probably that it has one of the single cutest, funniest, dorkiest, most likable and all around one of the most angelic women in all of Hollywood: Zooey Deschanel. I don’t care if you were in The Happening, we still love you!

To conclude, I would like to say that while I think it tends to get overplayed a little bit around the holidays, I can’t really knock people for enjoying it. How can I? It was one of the few incidents where a comedy icon who mostly marketed to adults tried to reach out to kids and it actually worked out. I still find it surprising that the director of Iron Man was the one that directed this, but that only shows his true talent since he has shown that he can make both good action movies as well as heart-warming Christmas classics.

Final Grade: B+

Also, before I end this, I should mention that this is in no particular order. Just because this is number 12 does not mean that I like it the least.

Yours truly,

MP

Fright Night (2011)

Before anybody asks, No, I have not seen the original Tom Holland movie, Fright Night from 1985, so from a remake standpoint, I have no idea how it holds up compared to the original. However, what I will say is that I was taken aback by how much I actually found myself enjoying this movie. When I saw it with a buddy of mine at the dollar theater, I was expecting to sit there, laugh at the unintentionally funny moments and make fun of it the entire time. Sort of host my own riff trax session. When I actually saw the movie, I was pleasantly surprised to see that this was actually a good movie. The trailers made it look like it took itself seriously for the most part, when in reality, it did anything but. It was still scary mind you, and the vampire in it was bound by the traditional vampire rules (can't enter a home unless invited by host, can't walk in daylight or he'll burn up), but it also poked fun at itself quite a bit. It was almost Wes Craven-like in how it both satirized and followed your typical cliches. It was like the film makers knew that the premise of the movie alone sounded a little ridiculous, and decided to have fun with it rather than try to get the audience to take it seriously.
What I also liked was the vampire himself, Jerry played by Colin Farrell. I was never a huge fan of Colin Farrell, but I thought he did a great job playing the vampire in this movie. He had that aura of mystery and dark swagger in him that you would think to find in a modern day vampire, while also being very charming. As somebody who is a fan of classical vampires, I can say that this is the first one in a long time to actually get it right when it came to portraying vampires. The other star that was very good was Anton Yelchin, who plays the kid that Jerry is neighbors with. You probably remember him better as Chekov, the teenage russian crew member of the Enterprise from the most recent Star Trek movie. He's your typical protagonist who tries his best despite the fact that he is in WAY over his head, and he knows it too. He isn't your typical stupid horror movie protagonist who you keep yelling at to "Not go in there" and he goes right in there, he's actually pretty smart and keeps his wits about him. This was a movie where you could tell people just had a blast making it. Good characters, good story, good acting. What more can I say? I will definitely buy this movie when it hits stores, I might even say that it's one of my favorite horror films, just based on what I was expecting, and what I ended up getting when I saw this movie.
The 3D was also surprisingly good. I'm not the biggest fan of 3D, but I thought it was well used in this movie. And that is also coming from a guy who saw it in a dollar theater. Think about that.
Now while I have said that I never saw the original Fright Night from '85, I will say that there are those who said they thought that remaking the cult classic was a little unnecessary at first, but then saw it and loved it. What more do you need? It was dark, it was funny, it worked perfectly.
Final Grade: A-
Yours truly,
MP

The Dark Knight Rises Updates Pt. 2

So the other day, I wrote about how Christopher Nolan has just finished filming the third and final installment of his Batman franchise, The Dark Knight Rises. In there, I talked about what we knew so far, and promised that I would talk about what we didn't know. That was supposed to come yesterday, but I got so wrapped up in the Titanic review, that it slipped my mind altogether. My apologies.

So anyway, what we don't know (for sure anyways) is this:

• Ra's Al Ghul (Liam Neeson's character from Batman Begins) is for sure going to be in this movie. At least in a younger form. The leading rumor right now is that Josh Pence (Social Network) will play a younger Ra's in some flashback scenes that explain some of the events of this movie. Some articles have also said that Liam Neeson himself was seen on the set of the movie, possibly having reprised his role as the head of the demon (which is what Ra's al Ghul translates out to in Arabic, I just found that out) and making a return in this movie to finish what he started. That may sound a little fishy considering he supposedly died at the end of Batman Begins. Well if that is the case, and Liam is in fact making a return, then that means that Christopher Nolan has really decided to follow the mythology of the character to a tee. In the Animated Series (I never read any of the comics, just watched the show growing up), it didn't matter how many times you killed or injured Ra's, or how old he got, he was always able to come back by means of a Fountain of Youth-type device.
• Do you want my thoughts on the whole Liam Neeson rumor? Well, you are reading this, which pretty much means "yes". My guess is that Liam Neeson was in the area, maybe filming another movie close by, and decided to drop by so say hi. It would be cool to see Liam Neeson as the resurrected Ra's, but that would also mean a departure from the realistic feel that Nolan was going for when making these movies.
• The other thing that has not yet been confirmed is this: Since the League of Shadows is making their return to Gotham, who will be leading them? I already said some are saying Liam Neeson may be returning, but the other one that makes much more sense (and that I'm more willing to believe) is that they are under new leadership. From who? Why his daughter of course! Talia, who like Catwoman, has gone from villain to love interest quite a bit, she even made an appearance in the newest game, Batman: Arkham City (one of the sickest games of all time). This is the character that Marion Cotillard is supposedly playing, who is merely masquerading as another person.
• I had another theory about the Ra's al Ghul rumors. That the Young Ra's isn't Liam Neeson resurrected, but his heir. Some of you may remember that Liam's character went by a different name for most of the movie, and only revealed who he truly was towards the end. This causes me to think that maybe the name Ra's al Ghul is merely a title passed down to whoever becomes the new leader of this cult of assassins. And the fountain of youth device (known as the Lazurus Pit) is used not as a tool for regeneration, but as a means of initiation. Like the new leader would be baptized in this pool when he was chosen to be the new leader. However, since the Talia rumors began to surface, I've dismissed this theory entirely.

So those are my thoughts on what has yet to be revealed in The Dark Knight Rises. What do you think? Do you think Liam might be returning? If neither of these rumors are true, then who is leading them?
Yours truly,
MP

Titanic

The following review may explain why I am currently single. It is not recommended for total wusses. Viewer discretion advised.

I was going to save this review for later on, but screw it, Cameron insists on exploiting the hell out of it, so I can’t wait any longer. This is my review of Titanic. I normally don’t cry during movies, but this is one of those incidents where I came darn close. And no, it was not because I found Jack’s death so emotional, it was because I was laughing at James Cameron’s childish efforts to force an emotional response out of me. There was even a scene where I actually laughed and felt like I was supposed to laugh, but I’ll save that for later. Heck, you might even know the scene that I am talking about.

Unlike my Boondock Saints review where I listed what I liked, I’m not going to waste time trying to give this movie credit. We’re going right on to what I didn’t like. For one thing, the love-triangle plot was about as clichéd as you can get in a movie. We all know how it goes: We have a woman who is a free spirit and much more bright than people give her credit who is engaged to a wealthy douche bag with no redeeming value, other than the fact that he is handsome and… that’s about it, we pretty much hate this guy. He is only marrying her so he can have a trophy wife, and the girl’s mother is pressuring her to go through with the marriage because they are suffering from a crippling financial crisis and this marriage will save them. Enter generic romantic hero, who typically has a face that was carved by angels, is skint broke, but is up beat and has a very positive out look on life despite his staggering misfortune. I’ll admit that this kind of character is a cliché that I don’t really mind, it’s just that it has been done to death, and… there is another thing that really bothers me about this movie, but I’ll get to it later. 

The other thing that bothers me about this are all of the British people that are in this. Virtually every British person that appears in this movie has a comically over-the-top accent and an unbelievably snooty personality. They’re the kind of person that you would expect to be in a Saturday Night Live skit or a Monty Python episode. In fact, I think the Monty Python troupe actually acted like that in some of their skits. And just like this movie, it would involve them belittling somebody from a lower social class. It’s one thing when your characters are hilariously over the top, but when somebody can make a case that you copy and pasted your character (who was meant to be in an awe-inspiring drama) from a comedy skit written by a group of guys renowned for being as silly as possible, that’s pretty bad.

Now onto those emotions that I was supposed to be feeling. I don’t want you to think that I think the real life tragedy of the Titanic is something to be laughed at, because I don’t. But when somebody tries to exploit it for money, fame, money, Oscars and well, money, you are walking around with a BIG target on your back. A target that I will be more than happy to shoot at with a .50 cal. It’s easy to get your audience all teary-eyed when you combine a love story with a historical tragedy. But dude, you are taking the easiest route when you go that way. You could have written this movie about the holocaust and it would have been the same movie. In fact, I'm betting that’s how it went down. This was supposed to be a Holocaust drama but then decided to put it on the Titanic.  In fact, here is a recording from James Cameron’s office the day he decided to write this masterpiece (and I’m using that term VERY loosely)

Random friend of James Cameron: Wow! Good work on True Lies Jim! That movie is a big hit

James Cameron: Ah thanks buddy! It really helps when you’re the greatest director on earth

RF: Uh… yeah. So what’s your next movie going to be? Another Terminator?

JC: No… This time, I’m going for the Oscar. I’m thinking about writing an emotional drama set during a well-known historical tragedy. Something where we can write in one of the main character’s deaths and have it tie-in with this event.

RF: Oh yeah? What were you thinking?

JC: Maybe a drama set during the Holocaust

RF: But… didn’t Stephen Spielberg already do that with Schindler’s List?

JC: Did he? I don’t know, I don’t pay attention to other people’s achievements

RF: Yeah, I think he did, got a lot of Oscars too. Best picture, best director, all of them.

JC: Well what about a ROMANCE set during the Holocaust? Maybe a jewish guy falls in love with a girl who isn’t jewish, they have a son together, and both the son and father get shipped off to a camp? The first half could be about the two of them falling in love, the second half could be about him trying to protect his son while also trying to find a way to get back to his wife. We’ll have it take place in Italy, just to shake things up.

RF: Um… I actually heard about some Italian guy that is making a movie just like that. Almost word for word.

JC: Damnit! What about a romance on… The Titanic?

And the rest is history!

-You just brought up Stephen Spielberg and Roberto Benigni. Weren’t they technically exploiting The Holocaust for personal gain?

I guess you could make that argument, but in Spielberg’s case, that argument would be kind of flimsy. Whenever he does something World War 2 related, he always goes all out when making the movie or miniseries. Even in the case of Saving Private Ryan, which wasn’t entirely based on a true story like Schindler or Band of Brothers, it was made because somebody had a story to tell, and a great one at that. The characters in them were all believable and likable and asked questions that we would have asked ourselves if we were put in there shoes. The characters in Titanic weren’t that believable at all. I already talked about the brits in the movie, as well as all of the other cliché’s that got shoved in here. I guess you could like Kathy Bates since she is the one rich person who is actually nice. But even then, when you have a movie like this, there is always a character that reaches across the table when no one else will. Again, it’s something that I don’t mind, but it’s also another part of this repeat storyline that has been done to death.

Also, I’m just going to say it, because we all know it’s true. Ladies, you only cried because it was Leo Di Caprio that died. Would you have acted that way if it was Danny Devito that drowned? Food for thought.

-So what was that scene that made you laugh so hard?

Ah yes, thank you for reminding me about that. You can call me soulless for laughing at the rest of the movie, but there is no excuse for this scene. This was at the part when the ship has been torn in half; Jack, Rose and a number of other aristocrats are hanging on for dear life. When suddenly, one poor soul looses his grip, falls to his death… only to hit one of the propellers of the boat and spin like a top the rest of the way down! What the hell was Cameron thinking when he put that in there? You could have just had him fall and it wouldn’t have made any difference! I may have had one less thing to laugh at, but that’s about it.

There is one more scene that bugs me. There was room for two people on that door! Why couldn’t they both fit on it? If only Jack had said “Hey, move over!” then they would have been fine. It’s one thing when a character’s death is necessary, like if there was nothing left for them, but nope. Not in this case. This death scene was a total waste of time and resources.

And finally, this is what really bothers me about this movie: The fact that it won Oscars. Not just one, but multiple, including Director and Picture, which I imagine only fed the director’s vast ego (I’m not making that up, he really does have a huge ego). This movie won Oscars when there were three other movies who were far more deserving of that award: LA Confidential, Good Will Hunting and As Good As it Gets. The fact that a movie with a story this simple and clichéd won so many awards and made so much money at the box office really baffles me. It’s almost like audiences are asking for more of the same. So when people continue to complain about how Hollywood is running out of ideas, all you can really say is “Hey, you’re the one that keeps paying to see it”

-So why did you decide to write this review now?

There is a bit of a story behind how I decided to write this review: I was on the Internet today, studying hard… not looking at porn or stupid videos or anything.

-Yeah… right

Hey shut up! And get out of my house! I had taken a break to visit facebook, when I saw that a friend of mine had posted a link to a video, saying it gave her goosebumps. Curious, I took a look at what it was. And lo and behold, it was a trailer for a theatrical re-release of Titanic… In 3D no less. I’m going to repeat that. A drama about a love triangle, with no action scenes, car chases or explosions, is being released in 3D. What a splendid idea! Why stop there? I also hear they plan on releasing Casablanca, Gone With The Wind, Sound of Music, Fiddler on the Roof and The Shawshank Redemption. All in 3D! I’m so glad this is the route movies are going! 3D for everyone! Yay!

So yeah, that’s all I have to say about this movie. If you think this is bad, wait til I review Avatar.

Yours truly,

MP

The Dark Knight Rises Updates

So most of you know that I am a HUGE Batman fan and a huge Christopher Nolan fan at that. So naturally I am more than pumped to see The Dark Knight Rises, Mr. Nolan's third and final installment in his Batman franchise. I received word through my network of cinematic spies (also called IMDB) that The Dark Knight Rises just finished filming in New York. Apparently, there was some talk of including footage of the "Occupy Wall Street" protests, since there might be some rioting scenes in the movie. Ultimately, the idea was scrapped and they went with the footage they had already planned to make.

So, on to what we know

• Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman are all returning to their roles, as well as anybody that was in the previous two films, didn't die and I forgot to mention them (even Scarecrow might show up in this one, again).
• Tom Hardy is supposed to play the film's main villain, Bane. You might remember him as the retarded strongman from Batman and Robin. Well add that to the mile long list of what that movie got WRONG! Bane in the Animated Series wasn't just some mentally handicapped bouncer, he was a strategist and a one man army. He was the one who could accomplish what even the Joker couldn't do: Break the Bat. That alone could make for a very interesting story line. There are rumors that he may even do just that in this movie... Yikes
• Joseph Gordon Levitt has also joined the cast. His role is that of John Blake, the new guy in Commissioner Gordon's unit. NOT ROBIN. I don't know why I keep having to say that. People keep insisting that Robin is going to appear in this movie. Actually, I'm going to save this for the next point
• ROBIN WILL NOT BE IN THIS MOVIE. There are a few reasons why. Number one. He's useless. Number two. He's a nuisance. Number three. Both Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale agreed that they would not return to the franchise if they were forced to include Robin. Why did they make this decision? I refer you to reasons one and two. The other reason the Christopher Nolan decided not to include him is that his movies cover Batman's early years (one of them is after all called Batman BEGINS), so if Robin was in it, he would be a little kid. Maybe nine or ten. Also the idea of a sidekick would sort of compromise the dark tone that he was going for when making these movies.
• Anne Hathaway is also in it as the femme fatale Catwoman, who has always been a switch from villain to love-interest. That should make for a very interesting story line. Plus, Anne Hathaway in skin-tight leather? Can life get any better? I submit that it can NOT! (quote courtesy of Brian Regan)
• Marion Cotillard (Inception) will also appear as a love-interest for Bruce Wayne. There has been speculation that she may actually tur out to be... just kidding, I'm not going to tell you. I know who her character might be, but I'm not going to spoil it for you. Because if I'm right, then that would make for a kickass twist.
• There are a few other minor characters that have been added. The only other notable one is Matthew Modine (who played Private Joker in Full Metal Jacket), who is supposed to play a character called Nixon, who will be a minor villain.

These are all the facts that we know. Tomorrow, we'll talk about what is possible, but shrouded in mystery.
Yours Truly,
MP

The Boondock Saints

Well I told you that I had a bad reputation for shitting on movies that people like, so I figured I might as well get started. And what better movie to start this off than The Boondock Saints. Now before everybody grabs their torches and crucifixion kits, I would like to start off by saying that I don’t really hate this movie, I just wasn’t blown away by it the same way everybody else was. But every time I mention that I didn’t think this movie was amazing, I get badgered by fanboys all accusing me of not knowing what a good movie was. I saw it after everybody else, and had heard multiple people go on and on about how freaking awesome it was. My brother even recommended it to me on the basis that I would enjoy this movie because I liked The Departed. In his mind, this wasn’t that big of a stretch. In my mind, there isn’t a rubber band in existence that can stretch more than that claim. Obviously that is a bit of an over exaggeration, but I digress.

Why don’t we start out with what I liked about the movie… Well… Willem Dafoe was pretty cool… I guess. The action was pretty neat… I remember laughing my ass off when the accidentally shot the cat. I do like that they left a little bit of it to audience interpretation (are they crazy or are they on a mission from God?). Other than that, there wasn’t anything all that memorable about it.

Now onto what I didn’t like. Willem Dafoe.

But wait a minute?! Didn’t you list him as one of the things you LIKED about this movie?

You bring up a fair point, maybe I should explain. Willem Dafoe is a very talented actor and has gotten a reputation for being memorable antagonists. In this one, he sort of plays the antagonist since he is the cop that has been assigned to track down the brothers. I liked the fact that they made him very eccentric and very over the top when it came to how he did his police work. But there was one scene that had me going “Eh?” It was the scene where he is investigating one of the shootouts that happened between the brothers and a stranger (I KNOW WHO IT IS! I’M JUST NOT INCLUDING SPOILERS!!!). At one point, he yells out “THERE WAS A FIREFIGHT!!!” and then pretends to conduct an orchestra whilst picturing how it all went down. And then, for no reason whatsoever, he just pulls out his gun and fires several rounds in the air. I would like to think that there was something that I missed, but the more I think about it… Nope. Didn’t miss anything. That was how it happened. Now I know that he is supposed to be eccentric and everything, but even then, if I had seen him do that, I would seriously have him committed! The other thing that bothers me is the fact that they had to make him gay. I’m not homophobic or anything, but that subplot was just kind of unnecessary. It would be one thing if it added to his character, but it doesn’t. You could have left out that one scene entirely, and it would not have made a bit of difference.

Hold up! Don’t you remember him cross-dressing towards the end of the movie?!

Why yes I do sir, but he cross-dressed because it was a disguise so he could get somewhere. You could just accredit that to his eccentric nature. What would have worked better, at least I think, is if they had a subplot where it was hinted that he MIGHT be homosexual or bisexual. Maybe have a scene or two where he says some flirtatious things to one of the male detectives. And then that way, people could make the argument that either he was homosexual, or he just says stuff like that because he is eccentric and a little socially awkward. But instead, we have a subplot that takes up one scene, goes nowhere, and is never brought up again.

I guess that is the only thing that really bugs me. There are other things that bug me, but I can let it slide, mostly because my fingers are getting tired and because I can already here a mob of people outside that are ready to string me up. Now the main reason that I didn’t enjoy this movie, at least what I think, is that maybe I heard a few too many stories about how awesome this movie supposedly was. It was just way overhyped and therefore my expectations were too high. I even had a friend admit to me that maybe he was part of why I didn’t like this movie. Maybe I’ll watch it in a few years and enjoy it more than when I first saw it. If I make it through tonight, I’ll be sure to let you know, assuming the crowd that just broke down the door to my basement hasn’t killed me first. Until then, I hope you have a good evening, or at least better than the one I’m about to ha

James Bond Updates

I know this is going to sound like old news, but I feel like I have to write about this (and by that, I mean that it makes me so freaking excited and I'm trying to find stuff to write about right now). The new 007 film finally began shooting a couple of weeks ago, and here is what I know:

Daniel Craig and Judi Dench are both returning to their iconic roles as James Bond and M
Javier Bardem (No Country for Old Men) and Ralph Fiennes (Schindler's List, The Harry Potter series) have also joined the cast, Bardem as the movie's main villain and Fiennes as a role that has not yet been disclosed. God, please make Ralph Fiennes a villain for this movie. Amen.
The film is going to shed some light on M's past, as it has apparently come back to haunt her. That is actually kind of cool, I always thought of M as the agent who, back in the day, did one or two things that she isn't so proud of, and tried to bury it in order to save herself from a bad reputation as well as living with crippling guilt for the rest of her life. But, as we all know Karma (is that how you spell that word? I always thought there was an H in there somewhere) is a bitch, and apparently, it is coming for M in the form of Anton from No Country for Old Men.
The events that are brought to light will also cause Bond to question his loyalty to M, which I think is kind of funny, considering in the last movie, she was hounding him and getting on his case about all the crap he's done. Yeah, if I found out my boss did the same shit that she was getting mad at me for, but just wasn't willing to face the music, I would be pretty pissed too. But I digress.
The film is also directed by Sam Mendes, who you might remember as the man who brought us American Beauty and Road to Perdition (which starred Daniel Craig). The only thing that concerns me about this is that while he has proven to be a competent director, I'm not sure he can pull off an action movie. However he did also direct Jarhead, so maybe. I've said it before, and I'll say it again that the ideal person to make a James Bond movie is Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight, Inception, Memento). Not only has he proven to be a competent director, who can direct movies on a huge budget unlike some *cough* Michael Bay, but he has admitted to being a huge fan of the franchise. I don't know who is pulling all the strings in Hollywood, but whoever they are, they need to make that happen and NOW!
So those are my thoughts on the new James Bond movie. Which is your favorite James Bond movie? Who is your favorite actor to play James Bond? How gay is it that George Lazenbi wore puffy shirts in On Her Majesty's Secret Service? Leave a comment below and let me know.
Yours Truly,
MP

J. Edgar Review

I'm just going to say this right off the bat, I really liked this movie, which is strange considering it has been getting panned by critics (as I'm writing this, it currently holds a rating of 41% on Rotten Tomatoes). It's also kind of weird that I'm writing a review for a movie that I liked that everyone else hated when I said in my first post that I have a reputation for hating movies that everyone else likes, but oh well.

To be completely honest with you, I'm not entirely sure why this movie has been getting such bad reviews, considering everything about it was so well done. The acting was GREAT, I think the three main stars (Leonardo DiCaprio, Naomi Watts and Armie Hammer) all deserve Oscar nods for their performances, especially considering that all three have to play their characters at different stages in their lives (when they are all rising stars in the bureau and years later when they are in the twilight years of their lives). Leonardo especially deserves another nomination for this movie because, unlike in The Aviator, which did get him a nomination, I was more able to believe that he was the person he was playing. Not to say that he was bad in The Aviator or anything, it was just the fact that I was well aware that that was Leo DiCaprio and not Howard Hughes on the screen. In this case, I actually believed that he was J. Edgar Hoover. Another thing that merits Oscar consideration is the make up, because whoever did that did a damn fine job of making all of them look elderly. I could actually buy that these people were the older versions of themselves. The story of the movie isn't half bad either, covering the rise and later years of one of America's most influential men and one of the most powerful men of the 20th century. It also covers some of the rumors that had been made about him (cross-dressing, homosexual relationships and so on) and how the steps he took to achieve greater power also led to the people in his life to mistrust and question him. While I do believe that this is a well-made movie, I would also like to point out that this is NOT Clint Eastwood's best movie as a director. In my opinion, that award goes to Mystic River (which stars Kevin Bacon), which is also one of my favorite movies.

I think that maybe the reason why so many people bashed this movie is that they took too long of a look at Eastwood's past career as a director, and were hoping for much more of the same, and thought that this, while it was good, was a bit of a let down. Keep in mind, this is the same man that made Letters From Iwo Jima, Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino, Unforgiven, Flags of Our Fathers, Invictus, and so on. So to expect another epic masterpiece like the past ones that he has given us would not be too unfair. Clint Eastwood is one of my favorite movie stars and while I do like him for the iconic actor that he is, I like him even more for the gifted director that he is. I wouldn't full-heartedly recommend that everybody go see this movie, considering the bad reviews that it has gotten, but I would appreciate it if at least one person would brave this movie and let me know the reason behind all the bad press. Did they all catch something I didn't? Did I catch something they did? Or is this just another one of those movies where the critics hate it, but the everyday movie goer loves it? SOMEONE TELL ME!!!

But as for me, I will say that I enjoyed this movie, and give it a grade of B+. It was good, but did move a little slow at times, which may bore some people.
Yours Truly,
MP

Official First Post!

Hi there! Yeah you! The one looking at their computer screen. Welcome to The Movie Prick, which is written by me, Hayden Lane. Some of you may be wondering why I call myself the Movie Prick. Well, it's because I have a bad habit of bagging on movies that other people find enjoyable but I find to be overrated and full of holes. Don't worry, I won't be doing this all the time on this blog, but I may do it every now and then. This is primarily for sharing my thoughts on different movies, directors, genres, actors as well as any movie news that I find exciting or noteworthy. I may even do some reviews on movies that I see. That being said, if there is a movie that you wish me to review, feel more than free to shoot me an e-mail!
Another thing that I'll be featuring is "Hero of the Day" which I'll be starting this December, along with "Villain of the Day" (which I did on my Facebook page back in October, but I think I'll transfer it over here once the new year hits).
With all that being said, I hope you enjoy what I have to say, and that you have a good day as well.
Yours Truly
The Movie Prick