Songs come Alive

Music Videos are sometimes underrated; they are a method of expression in which the artist can show off who he or she is. Music videos are also the one time the artist has to be able to show their fans how creative they are and find a visual representation behind the words of their song.

I love watching music videos-it is one of my to-go procrastination tools. Usually it’s the artist singing in some location and a bunch of shots of the artist or band looking straight at the camera while singing or playing their instruments. Sometimes the artist has an interesting concept and makes the best out of those 3-minute videos.

I found the concept behind these videos pretty interesting:

Houdini by Foster the People: Actually most of their videos are pretty creative. I just liked this one.

This is Gospel by Panic! at the Disco. It looks pretty simple, but every movement is choreographed and its makes for an interesting video.

Sometimes simplicity is the key: 

Lover of the Light by Mumford & Sons. There is something about Mumford that just makes you think of green pastures and valleys. I don’t know, is it just me?

Lights by Ellie Goulding. Some lights and Ellie Goulding. That’s all you need.

Popular songs: 

Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke. This song has been so overplayed already, but at the beginning of the summer when it was just a “catchy song” and I liked it- I expected a better music video. White background, awkward dancing… I had more fun watching this.

Applause by Lady Gaga. I just had to add this because all of her videos are weird. I don’t even know what she’s on when she thinks of a concept, but its always interesting to watch. I’m still unsure if I even like the song.

Stay Classy, San Diego

I am 9 years late to watching this movie. I have seen shows, shirts, gifs, youtubers, friends, etc at some point reference to it and since I never saw it I obviously didn’t get any of the jokes.

Movie PosterHonestly, Will Ferrell movies fall into the 50/50 chance that I’ll like it or I won’t get why he’s considered hysterical. So, this movie wasn’t exactly on the top of my list of movies “to watch.” But, I do love Paul Rudd, Steve Carrell and Christina Applegate. So I was going to eventually watch it.

Weeks ago, I saw the trailer for part two that will be in theaters in December. I thought it was funny so here I am writing this after I just watched Anchorman.

I’ll admit it was funny. I laughed. The whole concept was something that is not often explored in comedy. Usually we get the present-day type of deal, but setting this movie in the 70’s was the key. The other problem that movies filled with many funny actors is that sometimes they sort of block each other, but this also was not the case. They all brought in laughs and they all were funny at their own time.

I am interested in seeing what happens in the sequel. The cast for the sequel is just an explosion of funny people and that alone is setting the bar high. At the same time, we all know what to expect of sequels and hope that they don’t over-do it.

Trailer 2:

Forever a Kid

Today I went to see Monsters University.  Let me rephrase that, my 23-year-old friend and this 23-year-old person that is currently typing this post went to see a movie for kids…and loved it.

I also have to mention we spotted an elderly couple in the theater, which was adorable.

Why is it that no matter your age you can still go watch a children’s movie and feel like a kid for those 90 minutes? I don’t think there is any other movie genre where you can feel like that.

Monsters University is such a good children’s movie. The first good thing about it is that you don’t have to see the first one to understand the second. I saw the first one (Monsters Inc) years ago, and it was just as good as this one. Also, the humor in the movie is for all ages. Sometimes movies for kids focus on finding ways to charm their young audience that they loose the older audience (aka the parents that have to take their kids).  It is such a wonderful experience when you see a movie and its well made and at the same time so heartwarming.

Alright, I just had to share that I’m old and still enjoy watching kids movies.

Daredevil (2003): From Darkness to Light

I’m going to try this out. I picked this movie to review, because I wanted to try something out. I like this movie, I loved this movie when it came out and I own it. Let me also explain I don’t read comics and since I know “its never accurate!” I never looked up criticism on this movie. I lived in my nice “I like the Daredevil movie” world. Recently, while browsing online I read that this was one of the worst superhero origins movies. I thought that was unfair, Green Lantern is out. Oh wait that had not been made yet.

I went to see this movie when it first came out in theaters and my 13 year old self loved this movie. I obsessed over the soundtrack (it introduced me to Evanescence) and I purchased the movie as soon as it came out. I haven’t watched this movie in a long time (years) and all I remember is how much I loved it.

Yesterday, I decided to give it a go again. It’s been about 3 or 4 years since I’ve sat down to watch the entire movie. I didn’t like the movie as much as I liked it years ago. It is a simple plot, the characters aren’t well developed and the ending is awful since the sequel “Elektra” wasn’t really a sequel.  I still love the soundtrack though.

Now for my final thoughts…I’m going to research what was terrible about this movie that people hated it.  I’m sure this is a great idea…

An hour later…

You know how some people have small quirks that they don’t realize they are doing up until someone points it out at them…well it’s the same when you read about movie mistakes. I won’t be able to NOT notice it now.

So Daredevil…

1-    There is a version in the comics where the original outfit was yellow. Of course movie producers would choose not to use this, who wants to see a night hero in yellow tights? The deep red is more appropriate in so many ways.

2-    This is something that personally bothers me…in every origins movie we are shown that moment that made the character decide to turn into a superhero. In this movie, they do show the scenes when he was a kid but then its just assumed that he grows up and decides to wear a costume at night.

3-    The Fixer and The Kingpin. The Fixer orders to kill Matt Murdock’s father, not the Kingpin.  Also, there was a controversy because they picked an actor that did not look like the comic. Well, Michael Clark Duncan did a pretty good job, didn’t he? Also, later on we would see Nick Fury played by Samuel L. Jackson. If the actor can play the role, he should play the role.

4-    I read that there are differences in the ethic of the movie Daredevil and the comic one. Though, by the end of the movie both are the same.

5-    And… Elektra dies. Elektra dies in the movie, in the comic, Elektra dies. The movie decides to put this odd ending where it’s left open ended that SOMEHOW she may still be alive. Then, since Jennifer Garner’s performance was good they miraculously REVIVED her for her spinoff. Just to DIE AGAIN in the box office. Why.

Next time I see this movie again, I don’t know what I’ll think anymore. Wait, I know- hey Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner probably met here. Other than that: it’s probably going to be like the time I read about Deadpool in Wolverine Origins. Once you know, you can’t UNSEE the mistake.

It Must Suck to be an Extra in a Zombie Movie…

I went to see World War Z last night and well, in my opinion it was ok. I saw it in 3D and that made the movie experience better (I may have jumped out of my seat a couple of times). I’m not a major zombie fan. It’s the last type of movie I’ll go see, but when I saw the trailer I thought it looked cool. It was an interesting movie, someone I went with said that its nothing like the book except for some parts.

The movie is Brad Pitt’s first major role movie in a long time. I think the last big movie he did was Moneyball in 2011. I’m not counting the indie movie last year Killing them Softly or him lending his voice of a character in Happy Feet 2. World War Z definitely counts on him being the main attraction. I’m not sure if that’s a good or bad thing, but I’m positive that the magic formula the movie studio thought was: big name star + things that look like zombies= box office success!

Now to the “Things that look like zombies,” I was confused when I saw the trailer because you couldn’t tell if they wanted to make zombies or something else (I’m being vague on purpose, its hard). It was an interesting movie, the effects were good and the storyline probably could have done a little more character development. I didn’t feel bad for any of the characters, I didn’t really care about them. The zombie-like people were the main deal. Maybe this movie wasn’t up to my personal taste… you know you’ve lost a bit of interest midway the movie if you start thinking of production details. I kept thinking about all the extras in this movie, it must suck to be in a movie like this for them. Extras usually just have to fill space, maybe say a line or two and done. In a movie like this, they have to make weird noises, have tons of make-up and pretend they’re double jointed while they move in weird ways. Kudos to all the extras in World War Z!

World War Z had a decent debut in the box office, but this weekend number 1 went to Monsters U. Side note, World War Z- the sequel? (I just read the rumor, click here). I’m not sure World War Z is going to be able to compete with the movies coming up in the next two weeks. Next week is still a toss up: Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy in The Heat and Channing Tatum in White House Down. Both of these targeted to different audiences, but so is Monsters U and it won box office. But then, for July 3rd we have Despicable Me 2 and The Lone Ranger…either of those will take 1 or 2 for that weekend.

What Makes a Comedy Good?

Inspiration for this came because I’m having the hardest time attempting to write a comedy story. This genre is turning out to be difficult. Also, the other night I watched Movie 43 and was wicked upset I spent the money renting it. (Did someone actually like this movie?) These things made me question what makes a comedy good? And how is it that there are some things that make some people laugh and others not?

Some people think that it’s because they are more mature or they are at a intellectual level that some things aren’t funny anymore. I’ve met people who don’t even want to watch a clip of something silly. “It’s going to ruin my brain…” or “God, how can you laugh at that?”

It honestly puzzles me because then what does that say about me? I’m the type of person who will watch the Colbert Report and laugh or some political/social comedy and laugh at that too, but I’m also the type of person that will laugh at Jackass or any silly comedy. I don’t mind if a movie is crass or if it crosses any of those socially accepted lines.  As long as it still has some good qualities into it too. So, I’m stupid and mature or smart and immature- right?

Comedy also puzzles me because there are some instances where they cross every single line that it creates a new level of crass humor that you feel like you don’t know what you just watched. This would be me after watching Movie 43 (Oh Hugh Jackman…if you haven’t seen the movie, look up a picture of him in this movie).  I knew it was a stupid movie to begin with, but there was so much potential for a silly mindless entertaining movie and they ruined it.

Alright- humor. It is hard to write something that may make everyone laugh. Does that mean that we have to criticize what makes some people laugh and others don’t?  How can you find the midway between writing or producing something that is funny and also something that is still good?

Man of Steel: I want to like it, help me?

WARNING: Spoilers. I tried writing it without them but couldn’t get to my point.

I’ve written before about how I appreciate comics and the whole world of superheroes. I’ve also said that I don’t know much about superhero origins just what the movies decide to show as part of their plot.

With that said, I also want to say I watched some of the old Superman movies with Christopher Reeve (long time ago, so I’m fuzzy with the details); the recent version by Bryan Singer; that old show with Dean Cain “Lois and Clark” and a couple of seasons of “Smallville”. So overall, I have a very mixed Superman knowledge but I think its basic enough to get the idea, right?

I went to see Man of Steel on Saturday and well…I wasn’t impressed. Honestly, not even a shirtless Henry Cavill did it for me. I mean it was a good movie, but I usually end up more excited about a superhero movie when I leave the theater.

Now, here’s a question for anyone who may read this, “is there a comic book story of the Man of Steel that shows a different version of Superman that I didn’t know of?” I know that there’s Spiderman and The Amazing Spiderman, I don’t know if that changes the story but I’m guessing they have different names for some reason. For me Superman is the kid that was found in a spacecraft by two farmers who wanted a kid but couldn’t have one and that is why they loved him so much. He grows up and while working in the Daily Planet he meets Lois Lane and likes her. Clark Kent is the geeky guy the audience wants Lois to notice and Superman is the hero Lois loves. For some reason Lois never notices that the only difference between Clark and Superman are some geeky glasses, but we’ll let that be. Superman’s only weakness is Kryptonite and his main arch-nemesis is Lex Luthor. I may be missing huge chunks of storyline here, but this is the basic plot-line of what is repeated in every Superman movie/ TV show.

Back to the Man of Steel…

1)     You know when a girl goes to get tattooed something cute and the artist tells her that the scribble he did on her means love or some other thing. She’s proud of her scribble and will probably be the only one to know it means love. Same situation here: Superman that’s an S on your chest, I don’t care if it means hope in your planet. It’s an S.

2)     There is no way, no possible way to make Henry Cavill a geeky nerd and the director knew this because of what happens in this version and Lois is a little more independent in this version too: feisty.

3)     It was a good and entertaining story. I was surprised to see Christopher Nolan’s name in the credits.

4)     How come everyone in Krypton wears dark and metal colors, but when Jor-El gives Clark his suit its red, blue and yellow? I’m just wondering.

5)     Did someone catch when did the humans find out the planet where he came from was Krypton? Because I didn’t, but during one of the climatic moments one of the Generals says something that he mentions not an ambiguous phrase about an unknown planet, but Krypton.

I know when a movie is good and this movie was well made, the story was entertaining, the actors were good and I’m sure if it does decent in box office it’ll get a sequel somehow. Look at Captain America, out of all The Avengers superheroes he was the least successful and after piggybacking on The Avengers, it sounds like the next Captain America might be an improvement. So, I have no doubt that if they want to make a Justice League or a sequel to Man of Steel it will happen.