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.