"King Kong" 2005 thoughts.

Peter Jackson is one of the most celebrated and well known directors working right now. The average movie going audience knows him for the Lord of the Rings, and the Hobbit franchise. The Lord of the Rings films are widely accepted as great flicks, and are pretty much always considered Jackson's masterpiece. Due to the grand success of the previously mentioned pictures, Jackson's King Kong is often left out of the conversation. In my opinion, King Kong is a gem of a movie, and does not get half of the recognition that it deserves. 

For starters, it has a 50% fresh audience review on Rotten Tomatoes. The critic's score is much higher, currently at almost 85%. It is really fascinating, because the critic's rating is very rarely higher than the audience, is almost never higher by such a wide margin. Secondly, no one seems to talk about it anymore. I remember it being a big deal when it first came out, and I remember seeing a lot of DVD's of it in stores, I even remember buying the DVD, but today, no one seems to remember this blockbuster. It is strange, because The Lord of the Rings is still extremely relevant, and is often discussed by movie fans. So why did the 2005 remake of the classic 1933 film get such mixed reviews? Why is it not as loved as some of Jackson's other movies? And why did people seem to forget about it? For the sake of me, I do not know. In my opinion, King Kong is a great movie. It is perfectly crafted, and it did so many things right. Here are a few reasons, why I strongly believe that King Kong is a true masterpiece. 

The atmosphere. 

The movie has two main settings. 1930's New York, and Skull Island. The film starts off by showing us the life of an acrobat/entertainer called Ann Darrow, played perfectly by Naomi Watts. She makes pennies of her performances, and through a twist of fortune, gets an invitation to star in a film, by an  ambitious director called Carl Denham played by Jack Black. The first act of the movie revolves primarily around these two characters and takes place entirely in NY. The movie is often criticised for a very long beginning, but I think that it is absolutely essential. First of all, 1930's New York is captured beautifully. Often, it feels like you are watching a film from that Era. It manages to nail the atmosphere and suck you in right away. Personally, I loved the beginning of this movie. From the very first shot it tells you what kind of film it's going to be. Second, the long build up, makes the reveal of Skull Island and Kong himself, so much more impactful and effective. The production design is also great, and even got an Oscar nomination for best art direction. The atmosphere of Skull Island, is executed flawlessly. You really feel like you are there. Peter Jackson truly transforms you to this exotic location. It masterfully sucks you in and makes the audience connect to the characters and to the story so much more. The island is really creepy and due to the beautiful design, feels like a place that could actually exist, despite the many fantastical elements. Even though a lot of the film is shot on a green screen, I almost never felt drawn out of the movie, and often gazed at the beauty of the digital matte paintings as if they were real locations. I especially like the pink sunsets you can see on the boat. Overall, the film's visuals as well as atmosphere is done very well, and serves as a great backbone to the picture.

The characters. 

This is another aspect of the film which gets criticised, though I truly believe that the criticism is stupid. It is well known, that Peter Jackson is a mega-fan of the 1933 King Kong. He geeks out about the film, often saying that it is his favourite movie of all time. The characters, are not only an homage to the original, but also an homage to that era of hollywood as a whole. They truly feel like they belong in an old black and white film. People say that Naomi Watts is a classical damsel in distress, and that Jack Black is really unlikable. BUT THAT IS THE POINT! Naomi Watts is supposed to be a damsel in distress, because almost all women of that time were damsels in distress! I think that the choices the creators of the film made about the characters were perfect. Jack Black is a little unlikable, but he plays a totally realistic character. There are filmmakers, and artists in general, who care much more about their work/recognition than about the people around them. Just like some real life directors, Carl Denham puts everyone else's life at risk, just to complete his movie and get famous. Jack Black does a great job at portraying this kind of person. I think he was the perfect casting choice for the part, and not only does he look like a fame obsessed movie director from the 30's, but he can also act like one. This is one of Black's stand out performances, and I really like him in the movie. Adrian Brody plays Ann Darrow's love interest- a playwright called Jack Driscoll. 

Some say that his character is boring, but once again, I believe that this is intentional. By the end of the picture, there is a sort of weird love triangle between Kong, Darrow and Driscoll. It is not addressed as a straight up love triangle, but you can really feel it watching the movie. Normally, it would make no sense what so ever, but, because of how "boring" and "typical" the character of Driscoll is (who would be the primary love interest for any other film) the audience unwillingly starts to buy in into the relationship between the beauty and the beast. The stories that do have this type of love triangle would usually make Driscoll and abusive jerk, and make the beast a misunderstood, lovable creature, but this film really breaks this convention. The relationships are completely unique and work very well. The supporting cast is also pretty memorable. In the 1933 version, the crew of the ship is pretty forgettable. In the new film, they actually had personalities. Three crew members stand out in particular: a young sailor played by Jamie Bell, an older guy who takes care of him played by Evan Parke, and the cook played perfectly by Andy Serkis. All three characters were pretty interesting, and brought even higher emotional stakes to the movie. But, in my opinion, the entire crew falls short before the island natives. Oh my, are they scary. There is something really eerie about the village that the movie crew discovers, and as soon as they meet the natives, you understand exactly why the entire place seems so strange. These savage people are extremely creepy. They look and act menacing, and you feel scared for the characters. Props to the designers of the movie, for making these people and their culture believable. If I were to see them in a documentary, I would completely buy into the fact that somewhere out there, these indigenous people still exist. As I said, the characters in King Kong really work, and help you feel the real emotional stakes. 

The creatures. 

Lord of the Rings proved that Jackson can make unforgettable creatures, but this movie just takes everything to the next level. First, I will talk about the beast himself, King Kong. He was played via motion capture by Andy Serkis. There isn't much to be said about the man, because everyone knows how great he is. I thought that the title character was made extremely well, and I did believe that I was looking at a real giant gorilla. The interaction between the ape and Darrow was brilliant. As I mentioned before they had really great chemistry. I love how he has a bunch of scars on his face and body, which tells us straight away that even though he is the king of the island, he did not gain this title easily. The fight between Kong and the t-rexes is just purely awesome. I especially love when it's just Kong and one t-rex left and they start fighting for the girl. The entire sequence is really dynamic and the visuals are jaw dropping. I don't want to sing praises to the design and performance of King Kong much longer, because we all know how unbelievably great it was. I do, however want to talk about some of the other creatures on the island. I will start with the water snake. This scene was not in the theatrical release, but it was in the extended edition. Basically, the ship crew is getting across a lake and gets attacked by a huge snakelike thing. I really liked this scene, I thought that they should have kept it in the theatrical release. The creature is pretty cool, but feels pretty grounded in reality. Just like most of the other fictitious things in the movie, it still feels like it could exist somewhere far away. 

But by far, the most spectacular monsters, are all the insects. Now I do not like bugs at all, and boy did some of these crawling devils freak me out. There were two scenes in particular when I clinched my teeth together and was tempted to look away because of how creepy these bugs were. In the first scene, Naomi Watts's characters crawls into a log, and confronts three oversized centipedes. I get shivers even thinking about those things. They were so disgusting and effective at disturbing the audience. The second scene, is when a couple members of the crew fall into a ditch and get attacked by a bunch of different insects. The two that particularly come to mind are crab like spiders, and these giant worms. Spiders are a Peter Jackson staple by now, and the ones in this movie are some of the best. The worms however, are so horrific. There is some really gross imagery with them. By their design they reminded me of the dirt eater worms in the third Hobbit. I think that's really where Jackson took his inspiration from, and in a way, plagiarised from himself. The main thing about all of these creatures, is how beautifully they were created. Jackson's latest work, the Hobbit trilogy, gets criticised for using CGI too much. In this film however, all the CGI makes sense. It is used a lot, but it is used very tastefully. Even though the film was made 10 years ago, almost all of the CGI truly does stand up today. There is only one scene, when Jack Black and company are running away from a bunch of dinosaurs that looks fake. Everything else, looks almost 100% realistic, and most of the time I truly believed that those things were there. I am really glad that it won an Oscar for best visual effects, because this film truly deserves it. 

The ending. 

This movie has so much heart. Even though it is a big budget blockbuster, it has a great message and a really strong story. All of this culminates in the ending, which is perfect. Everyone knows how King Kong ends, but the 2005 remake just takes it to a new level. I thought that the ending was beautiful, touching and very memorable. There isn't a lot I can say without spoiling the picture, but I liked the ending just as much, if not even more than the stuff on the Island. There is a particular scene that I do have to talk about though. MINOR SPOILERS. When King Kong is being presented to a live audience in a giant theatre, and the curtains open, we see the beast sitting in chains. He looks so sad and tortured. Then, the chains around his arms get pulled forcing his arms to be raised above his head. There is just something about this image that gets me every time. It is extremely sad and heartbreaking. 

In conclusion, I think that King Kong is a great movie. It is one of the best monster films ever, and definitely one of the best remakes of a classical movie. I think this picture deserves much more attention, and I highly recommend it to everybody. It has interesting characters, great design, tons of heart, and really captures the essence of the 1930's lifestyles and cinema. Just like the beast himself, King Kong is truly a magnificent film.

"Kong: Skull Island" expectations.

The prequel to the 1933 "King Kong" is on the way, and has been making headlines recently due to the star cast it has attracted. This includes Tom Hiddleston, Michael Keaton and J.K. Simmons. All three are currently at the height of their careers, with Tom Hiddleston playing Loki in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and both Keaton and Simmons being frontrunners for a best actor and best supporting actor at the academy awards this year. The attached director is Jordan Vogt-Roberts who has done a couple indy films, most notably 2013's "Kings of Summer" and the screenwriter is academy award nominee John Gatnis. The first draft of the script was written by Max Borenstain, who most notably wrote the screenplay for 2014's Godzilla. It seems like the team behind this prequel is not very experienced with big films, and this will be completely new ground for everyone except Borenstain. It should be interesting to see what they do with the biggest project of their careers, and if the movie is going to turn out any good. The cast however, is awesome. I am really excited to see Hiddleston in another big franchise, since he never really got the chance to brake away from the MCU. Keaton has had a real career revitalisation with "Birdman" and I can not wait to see him in anything he does. Simmons has always been great and I especially loved him in the original Spiderman trilogy, and in "Thank You For Smoking". He is a great character actor, and his recent Oscar nomination for "Whiplash" only solidifies him as an acting giant. Overall, I am really excited to see this film, because of the cast, and the concept itself. I always wanted to know how Kong originated and how he ended up on Skull Island. I am not sure about the director and the writers, but I hope that this is going to be the breakthrough film for all three. I have a couple questions however, which I am really curious about. First of all, is King Kong going to be motion captured? I think that he really should be, because it gives the character a lot of dimension and personality. If he is, then obviously the man to go to is Andy Serkis, who is the best "ape" actor working today. He already played Kong in 2005, and even though it seems like this is a completely different franchise, I really want him to return. Serkis is involved in pretty much all motion capture performances today, even coaching Mark Ruffalo, and co playing the Hulk with him in the upcoming "Avengers: Age of Ultron". He really knows what he is doing, and there is no one who knows as much, or can bring the same level of realism to an ape character. Another question that I have is whether Peter Jackson is at all involved with this film. He is a huge King Kong fan, and the 1933 version is one of his favourite films of all time. He is known to have a big collection of props from the classic monster film, and payed tons of homages to it in his 2005 remake. So far, it doesn't seem like he has anything to do with the prequel, but I think that he could be a really great addition to the pretty young, inexperienced team working on the film right now. I think he would be very beneficial as a producer/advisor. Also, his VFX company Weta Digital is one of the best in the world, and it would be awesome if they worked on this film.

In conclusion, I am pretty excited about this film, and want to see how exactly they execute it. I love the 2005 version, and this being the next film about the 8th wonder of the world, it will be interesting to observe whether it stands up to the original, as well as to the Peter Jackson remake.

2014 Oscar surprises and snubs.

The Oscar nominations are finally out, which means that its officially Oscar season. The best time to celebrate cinematic achievements of the previous year and have a lot of fun doing it. I was really surprised by some of the nominations, and here are a couple of things that I didn't expect.

"The Grand Budapest Hotel" getting 9 nominations.
I loved the latest Wes Anderson movie, however I did not expect it to get nominated for so many oscars. Yes, it was pretty obvious that it would get production and costume design, but who knew that it would actually get a best picture and best director? I am not complaining, because I absolutely think that it deserves to be nominated. I do not think that it will win, but I am very happy and pleasantly surprised that it is getting so much love. Taking into consideration that it was released pretty early in the year, and not in the fall like most Oscar Movies, and the fact that there were so many great movies this year, it is really impressive that "The Grand Budapest Hotel" leads the way with 9 nominations. As to what film I think will win best picture, I think it comes down to "Boyhood" and "Birdman". In my opinion "Birdman" should win, but both pictures deserve it.

Robert Duvall getting a nomination for "The Judge". 
"The Juge" was a decent movie, but I do not think the Duvall deserves a best supporting actor nomination. Yes, he is really good in the movie, but not Oscar worthy. I think he got nominated as a sing of appreciation from the academy, as a sort of "thank's for playing".

Emma Stone getting a nomination for "Birdman". 
I think Birdman is one of the best, if not the best acted movie of the year, and Emma Stone was no exemption. However, I did not think that she would get a nomination. I really like her as an actress, and I believe that she really deserves it, and I am glad that she is getting recognition. It seems that she was slightly overlooked in most reviews of "Birdman" and it's awesome that she is getting recognised for her great performance. Plus, an Oscar nomination really solidifies an actor, and if there were people who doubted Stone, they shall now shut up for ever.

Meryl Streep getting a best Supporting actress for "Into the Woods".

This marks Meryl Streep's 19th Oscar nomination. At this point, I feel like she will get a nomination no matter what she is in. Yes, she is a great actress, but come on! Into the Woods!!! Seriously? She was good in it, but she wasn't BRILLIANT, she was just Meryl Streep. I really like her, but I think it's sort of becoming a tradition to nominate her every year, and it's getting a little ridiculous. Can she do a movie that will get her no Oscar nominations? I doubt it.

Mackenzie Foy not getting a best supporting actress for "Interstellar".
Interstellar has received 5 nominations, yet none of them are for the "big" categories. However, I feel like Froy really deserved and oscar for her portrayal of 10 year old Murph. Her relationship with Mathew McConaughey held the entire film together, and I feel like she did a great job. Unfortunately, she didn't get any serious nominations, and I feel like she really deserves it. Maybe the academy could have not nominated Streep, and for once give it to someone else.

"The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" only getting one nomination. 
Surprisingly, the last instalment of the middle Earth Saga, known for Oscar records, got the least nomination out of all six films (only one). The film's sound editing was nominated and nothing else. I feel like it at least should have gotten a nomination for best costume design and best makeup. You know who did get a nomination for costume design though? Maleficent. How are the costumes in Maleficent superior to the ones in The Hobbit? HOW?

"The Boxtrolls" getting a best animated feature film nomination. 
This shows perfectly what is wrong with this category. A good film is good, and it doesn't matter if it's animated or live action. Why is there a special separate category for best animated films? They got to nominate something, and that's how films like "The Boxtrolls" get nominated. Its a decent film, but its not good enough to get an OSCAR NOMINATION! I am totally against this entire category, and once again, the academy has proven it by nominating a so-so movie, just because there are no more films to nominate.

"The Lego Movie" snub. 
Speaking of animated films, you know what didn't get nominated? "The Lego Movie".
How does this happen? If you're going to have a stupid, special category for animated films, at least nominate the best animated films of the year! Why does "The Lego Movie" not have an Oscar
nomination? Why? This is just wrong on so many levels and there is nothing more I can say about this.

Five things I want the Harry Potter spinoff to do

“Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” directed by Davit Yates is on the way, and loving the 7 “Harry Potter” movies, I really have some high hopes for the spinoff. 

1)Standing by itself. 

I really hope that it does not do that annoying thing, when it tries to tie in and reference the original material as much as possible. Almost all spinoffs are guilty of it, and the best ones (which there aren’t many) rise above all others, because they are self contained stories, and don’t need to rely on the success of the original. I certainly hope that there are no references to Harry himself, or any of his friends. The only character that would make sense to mention/ bring back is Dumbledore or someone else really old.

2) Show other cultures and countries. 

We did get a slight glimpse at wizards from other countries in “Harry Potter”, but we really primarily stayed in Britain. I would like to find out how the magical societies work in other places. Is there a ministry of magic in each country? Are there countries with no wizards whatsoever? I find all this really interesting, and I think that “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them” is the perfect movie to expand the universe. Plus, with Rowling writing the screenplay herself, she could really fit in all the numerous ideas that she probably came up with, but didn’t have space for. 

3)Show the fantastic beasts.                                                                                                       The IMDb synopsis for the upcoming film reads: “The adventures of writer Newt Scamander in New York's secret community of witches and wizards seventy years before Harry Potter reads his book in school.” I really hope that his adventures include a lot of weird, magical animals and that they are shown to us in their entirety. The books are rich with different creatures, and the films only showed us a small percentage of that.  Once again, this is the perfect film to show us beasts we haven’t even dreamed about.  

4)Spawn other spinoffs.

As of right now, there are three “fantastic beast” movies that are planned to come out in 2016, 2018 and 2020. I think that because the Harry Potter world is so rich, it would be great to see some different spinoffs. Maybe something after the events “Harry Potter.” Point is, I hope this opens up opportunity for other movies to take place in this universe. Multiple movies also means multiple directors. I would really want to see Alfonso Cuaron to come back to this world, since his “Prisoner of Azkaban” is my favorite Harry Potter movie, and I was bummed out to find out that he turned down the offer to direct these films. According to the director, coming off of “Gravity” he wanted to do a smaller film with less CGI. That is understandable, and I just wish that in a couple years he will be willing to come back.

5) Inspire new books. 

Recently, J.K Rowling has been very active in the “Harry Potter” universe. She wrote a couple short stories about Harry and his friends after the events of the seventh book and posted them on her website. I read some of the stories, and really liked them. It seems like the author really wants to return to this universe, and I hope that she will come around to writing new books. I truly think that if the movie is successful, and people really like it, we will see some books come out in the pretty near future. Fingers crossed. 

5 movies that made me mad in 2014.

I didn't want to call this list "5 worst movies of 2014" because some of the films presented here are not bad, rather, they are movies that I had hope for, but fell flat for one reason or another and really disappointed me.

5) Let's Be Cops
This looked like it could have been a hilarious film. I really liked the premise, and the trailers were fun, and I was excited going into this low budget comedy.  I struggled to find the comedy bit. The movie is 1 hour and 40 minutes, but it honestly seemed like 2:30. I was really bored through this movie, especially during the predictable third act. "Let's Be Cops" is a lazy film. It dared not try something original or new, and stuck to the classic formula. This has all the clichés you want. It starts of with the "misunderstanding", it has the classical "hey, we are pretty good at this" realisation, then the unforgettable "we have to stop the bad guys, because no one else knows that they are the bad guys" followed by the "liar revealed"seen in about a million other movies, and to finish it of, a good mix and mash of all the possible cop movie stereotypes in the last 20 minutes. After about 2 minutes I had a prediction of how this movie is going to roll out. The most interesting part of seeing the film, wasn't the picture it self, but watching as my simple, obvious prediction was unfolding before me step by step.

4) The Amazing Spider-man 2 
I saw this movie in Europe, which means that for some reason I had the "pleasure" of seeing it two weeks earlier than the rest of the world. Walking out of the theatre, I wasn't sure what I thought of the movie. On one side, I thought it did some great things with the relationship of Peter and Gwen, the two lead characters, but on the other I thought that other aspects of the film were executed horribly. I remember thinking that this movie should have been 15 minutes longer in order to develop some of the characters and plot lines better, or 15 minutes shorter by cutting out some characters or small plot lines. The Amazing Spider-man 2 tried to cram in as many characters and as many plot details as possible in order to set up the future films of Sony's cinematic universe; something that all the big studios are trying to do, because the coolest kid on the block, "Marvel" set a trend. Unfortunately all this "future investment" brought the movie down. The biggest problem that aroused were the villains. Electro seemed like a villain fitting for Joel Schumacher's Batman, Green Goblin was extremely underdeveloped, and Rhino played by acting giant Paul Giamatti was straight up goofy and stupid. Overall, I still enjoyed the movie, but it had way to many flaws to make me love it, and I was really disappointed, especially since I liked the first one so much.

3) 300: Rise of an Empire
I am a big fan of the original 300 movie, and I watch it from time to time, just because of how fun it is. It's not the best movie, but it's very intertwining and visually stunning. I never understood how a sequel is possible, simply due to the fact that the first movie has a very definitive ending, and there is no continuation to be told. It was announced that Zack Snyder would not direct the sequel, but would be coming back as a producer. This happens often with sequels, and often doesn't work out to well. When I saw the film, I understood straight away that this is no 300. First of, it has nothing to do with the 300 spartans at all. Yes, it ties in with the story, kind of, but its about completely different people. The story centres around Athenians, and their pretty forgettable leader. Part of the reason why 300 was so great, was because of how charismatic Gerard Butler was as king Leonidas, and how badass the spartans were. They fought as one unit, and looked really cool doing it. I just don't think that a movie about a bunch of non warriors going to battle can be very interesting. Unfortunately, Rise of an Empire, was exactly that. It didn't have the charm of the original, and was plain out boring. It seemed to drag on an awful lot, and there is one big reason for that. Slow motion. The first film used Slow motion really masterfully, and now a bunch of films rip off that distinct, 300 slo-mo. The second movie, used it completely unnecessarily. I remember watching the movie, and being amazed at the fact that I have been looking at a shot of a row entering the water for about 10 seconds, because the shot was slowed down by like 400 percent. I have no idea why though! It added nothing! If you were to take all the slow motion parts and play them at normal speed the movie would be about half an hour long. I was so disappointed by Rise of an Empire, because I loved the first 300 movie so much, and because I was bored out of my mind throughout most of the picture.

2) Sex Tape
Many of the movies on this list are here because they were boring, however, not only is film boring, it is also stupid. I liked "Bad Teacher" more than most people, and I really liked Cameron Diaz in it. I thought that this movie looked really funny, and I hoped it would be as good as Diaz's last comedy. I could not believe how stupid, and unfunny, and boring this movie was. I can't remember a single moment that made me laugh. Not one! Perhaps I chuckled a couple times, but a comedy is supposed to make you laugh, and in that it failed. The characters were really dumb, and so was the plot. It would seem like the whole movie is an ad for iPads which play a big part in the film, but honestly, the 2 minute iPhone ads tell more interesting stories. I was very disappointed, very bored and even a little mad. However, this doesn't even come close to the abomination which is number 1.

1) Transformers: Age of Extinction
I hate this movie. I absolutely detest this piece of trash. I refuse to call it a movie in fact. From now on I will call it a pile of dump. At first, I gave it a 3/10, but the more I think about it, the more I regret giving it such a high score. 1/10 would be more fitting. I do not hate Michael Bay, I really like some of his movies, and I do not understand how a person who has made decent films could possibly make this pile of dump. Some movies hit you over the head with themes or morality, this pile of crap hits you over the head with product placement. Never have I seen anything advertised more obviously than Bud Light in this pile of crap. There are no words to describe the giant mess that Age of Extinction was, and it truly angered me to find out that it made money. I don't even care how much it made, it should make NO money. I am sorry that I went to the theatre to see this, and that I gave Paramount my money which they will use to create future sequels. Some films should be preserved so they will last throughout ages and act as our legacy. All physical copies of Transformers: Age of Extinction should be collected in one remote region of the earth and nuked until nothing is left. All of the servers that hold digital copies of the pile of crap have to be burned down to the ground. Any person who still owns the movie at this point should be prosecuted. Michael Bay should not be allowed to direct feature films ever again. Michael Bay shouldn't even be allowed to direct sitcoms. He should make "got milk" commercials for the rest of his life. And I wouldn't be surprised if the milk cartons explode in the end of the commercial, just like a concrete wall exploded on contact with a fully metal dinobot at the end of "Transformers: Age of Extinction".

Do The Hobbit Movies stand up to "The Lord of the Rings Trilogy"?

There is a notion that the three "Lord of the Rings" movies are far superior than the Hobbit prequels, and "Unexpected Journey" got a lot of hate when it first came out. People seemed to calm down a little with the next to films, but there are still die hard Lord of the Rings fans out there who will argue day and night that the Hobbit movies suck. Personally I love both trilogies, and here are a few reasons why I think many people are being unfair to the Hobbit movies.

1) The last Middle Earth movie before "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" was "LOTR Return of the King." Not only is that the greatest film of the entire original trilogy, it is also arguably one of the best films of all time. It won a record number of 11 oscars (tying with "Titanic" and "Ben Hur"), it was a huge financial success, and both fans and critics loved it alike. When the first Hobbit film came out, people expected a movie that was even better than "The Return of the King" because the LOTR movies became better and better as they went along. Some fans did not realise that this movie could not be like ROTK, because it is the first film of a much smaller trilogy. Even though I understand where the disappointment is coming from, I do not think it is fair to judge a movie based on the last picture from the same universe or the same director. "IronMan 3" was the first Marvel movie after the "Avengers", and the movie going audience unfairly expected it to be even more epic and spectacular. The same could be said for Christopher Nolan's "Interstellar" which disappointed some viewers, due to the fact that Nolan was coming off from the "Dark Knight Trilogy" which was so globally loved and acclaimed.

2) The Hobbit is a much smaller book targeted for kids, whereas the Lord of the Rings books were much more in depth and appealed to more mature readers. The Hobbit is a lighter, more fun read, but if you are willing to invest the time and decide to read the Lord of the Rings, you are going to get a much deeper emotional ride. The same can be applied to the movies. They are made for completely different purposes, and have different visions behind them. While the "Lord of the Rings" movies did entertain the viewer, they offered a much heavier yet rewarding experience. The Hobbit movies, serve primarily as high quality entertainment. Going back to the previously mentioned super hero movies, comparing the two trilogies is like comparing "The Dark Knight" and "The Avengers." They have very different purposes, and tonalities. That is why most people can not say which super hero movie is the best. They are completely different animals that are not even in the same ballpark, it ain't even the same league, it ain't even the same sport.

3) When the LOTR movies came out, they were viewed as innovative, and nothing quite like that has ever been done before. The cinematic scope of the films was breathtaking, the battle scenes with thousands and thousands of extras (both real and CGI) were never done before, the motion capture on Golum was truly revolutionary and the amount of craftsmanship and direction that went into creating this fantasy epic was unheard of. I believe that is part of the reason why they are so loved. Just like the Matrix, or Avatar they discovered new ground, the LOTR films did something no movie has done before. Unfortunately, you cannot say the same thing about the "Hobbit" films. Yes the CGI looks cleaner and the shots are nicer, but there is nothing truly new in these films. Almost everything that the "Hobbit" films do, LOTR did first. They are like the second astronaut to land on the moon. Even though Buzz Aldrin did the same thing as Neil Armstrong, and almost at the same time, he is not as well remembered or as well known as the latter. The fault of the prequel trilogy, is that it was made after "The Lord of the Rings." If we were to see the Hobbit in early 2000, and the Lord of the Rings trilogy now, people would have a much different opinion on the prequels. They would be much more loved, and recognised as truly GREAT films, and not just good films.
In conclusion, I think that the Hobbit films might not be as good as the original trilogy,  but deserve just as much love, and personally I will watch all six Middle Earth movies as one, many times in the future. They are like the younger sister of a really pretty woman. Nobody talks about her, no matter how good looking she is, because she will always be in the shadow of her older sibling.

Terminator:Genisys Trailer Review.

I am a big fan of the Terminator franchise, and T2 is one of my favourite action movies. I hated the third and fourth movies, and never saw them as part of the series. Hearing about the development of this project was exciting. I liked the casting of Emilia Clarke (who's awesome on Game of Thrones) as Sarah Connor and fact that Arnold Shwarzenegger was going to be in this movie. I thought it would be cool if Arnold played the guy that they based the original Terminator on, and believed that this would be the most logical way to go about his noticeable increase in age. The guy would help the new cast to take down skynet, because only he has the genes that will disable all the terminators...or something. However, the creators decided to explain this by making the skin of the Terminator organic, which means that overtime it would age just like human skin...yeah. According to reports James Cameron, who is not involved with this project at all, advised the new creators to take the route of organic skin.  That was the first concern I had about the upcoming movie. This idea sounds really rash and weird. It doesn't make sense and doesn't fit in with the other Terminator movies. How come the T-800 could peal the skin off his arm without permanently damaging it in Judgment Day? Besides that I was still excited to see the movie. Then reports about the production of this film started coming out. Apparently, there were a lot of problems. Some pictures were released and those looked really terrible and carelessly slapped together. Seeing this, I still gave the movie the benefit of the doubt. "World War Z" had huge production problems, but it turned out to be pretty good right? And then I saw the trailer.
As of right now, Terminator: Genisys is not a movie that I am planning to see opening night in theatres. The trailer confirmed by biggest fear. The whole marketing campaign is based on nostalgia and familiarity of the first movies. That's why they brought Arnold back for this one in the first place. Seeing him and Sarah Conor deliver iconic lines from the first two movies took me out so much. They might as well just wink at the camera. The trailer also marks the return of the liquid metal transformer, the T-1000. This robot was incredible in Terminator 2:Judgment day. Not only did the practical and visual effects look cool, but he was one of the most menacing villains ever. I was so disappointed by what it looks like they did to him. The actor playing the new T-1000 looks similar to Robert Patrick. I'm not sure if that's just or coincidence, or maybe its supposed to be the same Terminator, just revived somehow. I'm not sure. He was wearing a police uniform as a disguise, just like the one in T2 did, so it underlines my speculation that it's supposed to be the same robot... or maybe not. What I know for sure, is that the effects of the T-1000 in 1991's Terminator look better than they do in this trailer. The liquid metal body looks pretty similar, but the bullet hits look way worse. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that many bullet hits in the older movie were actually practical effects and not just CGI. Overall though, the T-1000 is a character that could benefit from a modern CGI makeover, so why he looks worse now than he did 23 years ago is a mystery to me. The story line seems pretty interesting, a bit like X-men: Days of Future Past, though with it's own flare. The one part of this trailer that I actually really liked was when Sarah Connor says that they dealt with the T-800 and old Arnold is shown confronting his young CGI version (which barely looks better that the one is Terminator: Salvation). I thought that idea was really cool, and actually kind of funny.

Overall, I did not like this trailer at all, since it just rehashed the first two movies, (even the pepsi vending machines) and barely had anything original in it. My interest in this project fell greatly, even though I really want to get excited for this. I truly hope that its just the trailer that is poorly made, and that I will gain my interest back with new trailers.