Upcoming: James Bond 24

Today I bring you yet another 2015 blockbuster. James Bond 24, which is obviously a working title, will soon be starting production and after naming Skyfall the best film of 2012 last year, I'm very excited for the next installment in what I thought was going to be a Craig trilogy.

Sam Mendes, the director of the most recent Bond installment, Skyfall, has officially signed on as the director of Bond 24. There was a lot of talk that Mendes wouldn't be able to direct because he had other theatre responsibilities and the two producers, Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, spent some time looking for alternatives who included David Yates and Christopher Nolan. In the end, rather than opt to replace Mendes, the two Producers simply decided to wait until his schedule cleared up. Other good news? The script writer of Skyfall, John Logan, is returning to write Bond 24.

While there hasn't been any budget talks so far, Skyfall made $1.1 billion worldwide, so you can bet that MGM and Columbia Pictures won't be cheaping out on us. Right now, the producers are trying to get Ralph Fiennes, Ben Wishaw and Naomi Harris back into the film but it's expected that all three actors will return without hesitation.

Those of you living in England are lucky enough to see it on October 23rd, 2015 while us living in America will have to wait a few extra weeks and see it on November 6th. The American date means that it'll be competing with Ant-Man, which will probably end up rescheduling it's release in order to stay away from the same weekend as Bond.

With so much time between then and now, there's a lot that could happen and in my opinion, November of 2015 couldn't come soon enough.

Shark Week 2013

Just can't get enough of those blood-thirsty, fish-freaks with a death fetish? Comforted by the thought of three rows of deadly, razor-sharp teeth? Well, then have you come to the right place. Welcome to the first annual Shark Week brought to you by The Aculeus. Everyone loves Shark Week and so do I. Therefore, to help celebrate the manliest seven days on the calendar, I have composed a series of reviews and articles that will air once a day for seven days straight from August 4th to August 10th. One shark related post per-day.

The first six days are all reviews. Any B-film connoisseur knows that there is no more shameful a movie than a shark flick and I intend to dig up some of the corniest that direct to DVD has to offer. Prepare yourself because this ain't no Discovery Channel and there is no such thing as fact when you're talking about shark movies.

We'll top it off on the last day with a top ten shark countdown. For the hardcore shark fans, I challenge you to dig up each film I name and watch one everyday it's announced. For the casuals, sit back and enjoy some ass-kicking shark madness. Begin the countdown for Shark Week 2013.

Revisited: The Dark Knight Rises

Welcome to One Year Later, where I look at movies that came out about a year ago re-review it and see if it still holds up. Today I will be revisiting The Dark Knight Rises given that it's release date was July 16, 2012 and that my first initial review of it was, in my opinion, very shoddily written.

The epic finale that is The Dark Knight Rises is not by any means your run-of-the-mill hollywood blockbuster. But if you've seen either of the other films in the trilogy, then you should know full-well what you're getting into with this film.

This decade has ushered in a new age where superhero and comic-book inspired films are taken very, very seriously. Many of the biggest summer blockbusters coming out these days are about some kind of caped crusader and they're often largely grounded in realism. Sure you have to suspend your disbelief, buying that a radioactive spider bite could make a hormonally stressed-out high-schooler into a crime fighting machine but it's still handled with remarkable realism and I believe this trend can be traced back to Sam Raimi's first three Spiderman movies, which were all pretty well received.
But The Dark Knight trilogy emblematizes the most extreme example and is drenched in it's own gritty recipe of filmmaking style. In a recent review of Man of Steel, I called Christopher Nolan a glimmer of hope in Hollywood and he is just that. He makes his movies real. He doesn't take the easy route and CG everything; matter of fact, that first scene where an airplane is hanging off of a bigger airplane? All real, stuntmen and all, no CG.

But while the special effects are always an important thing in any movie, that's not what makes The Dark Knight Rises a standout film. It's not the kind of movie where you can just sit back and expect everything to make sense, you actually have to think. The movie feels really intelligent and seems like something that could conceivably happen in real life.
Furthermore, all of the characters are great, save for one, Miranda Tate played by Marion Cotillard who just doesn't really interest me much and I feel like she didn't even really need to be in the movie at all. The rest of the cast is magnificent especially that of two film legends, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman who play Alfred and Lucius Fox, respectively. Bane is a great villain. He's big, he's scary and he has a really strong presence in every scene he's in, especially whenever he speaks.
Anne Hathaway, who plays Catwoman was perfectly cast for the role and makes the Halle Berry movie look more embarrassing than it already was. Catwoman is an interesting character and her screen time doesn't feel needless, it's not like they threw her in there just to get another character.

All of this promotional artwork is nice to boot.

As a finale to a trilogy, it works well. The first he begins, the second he falls, the third, rises. I don't think it's quite on par with The Dark Knight which was largely subtle and more of a suspense movie. This one is more of an epic than that one was and the final action scenes are a real edge-of-your-seat kind of thing with a ticking time-bomb countdown.
The Dark Knight Rises is still as good as it was a year ago. Christopher Nolan really had a vision for his Batman trilogy and, in my opinion, it's the best Batman has ever been. The Dark Knight Rises is a great finale to the story. If you haven't seen it by now, see it.

9/10 - Great.

Top 10 Movie Explosions

It's Independence Day and nothing says America like motherfucking explosions. We celebrate this patriotic holiday by trying our darndest to blow up the sky by launching millions of fireworks nationwide. Because of that, and because America fucking rules, I've compiled a list of the best movie explosions ever. These are the most earth-shatteringly incredible acts of cataclysmic destruction ever showcased on the silver-screen. I give you Top 10 Movie Explosions.

10. The Matrix

I remember this scene blowing my fucking mind when I first saw it. The way the whole building ripples is just plain awesome.

9. The Dark Knight

Three things make this explosion worthy of being on this list. One, the Joker is hilarious, especially in a nurse outfit. Two, that part where he turns all confused and mashes the button was actually improvised. Three, they actually blew the living fuck out of a real set. None of that is CG. Originally it was just supposed to go up all at once but something went wrong but Heath Ledger just played it anyway.

8. Alien

Sorry about this one being an utter shit video, it's really the best I could find. Start it at 1:16.

Anyway, as underwhelming as this may seem by today's standards, in 1979, that shit was awesome and there really wasn't much comparison.

7. The Hurt Locker

The explosion that occurs in the opening sequence of The Hurt Locker may not be the most over the top but the movie is so gritty and realistic that it feels much more intense. Not to mention the awesome slow-motion effects.

6. Watchmen

CONTAINS SPOILERS

Who would've thought that the bad guy would win and would succeed in destroying every major city on the planet? No one who hadn't read the book could guess that that would've happened and damn is that explosion really cool. That brieft moment of silence just makes it.

5. Terminator 2

The dream sequence from Terminator 2, while perhaps looking a bit outdated for today, was awesome in 1991 and was enough to scare the shit out of me when I was a kid. That part where her skin burns off ruined my life.

4. Die Hard

This one just had to be on here because it's so iconic. Not to mention, it's a badass fucking explosion.

3. Independence Day

Yeah, yeah, the audio is in spanish, who gives a fuck it's an explosion.

You may be surprised to hear that this scene actually doesn't have that much CG in it. The explosion effect was done by turning miniature of New York on it's side and lighting a fire underneath it. That haunting, sideways moving explosion blows my mind to this day.

2. Star Wars

There was nothing like the tension of that climatic scene. Vader is closing in and that awesome DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN music was going. Luke makes the shot and BOOM. I love the way there's like sparkles that float out towards you.

It was all fun and games until Lucas had to go back years later and change it. Oh well, at least the above video is the original.

1. Angles and Demons

CONTAINS SPOILERS

I've truly never seen anything quite like the anti-matter explosion at the end of Angels and Demons. While most movie explosions are just some variation of a fireball, this one looks like heaven has just opened up and it's fucking rapture or some shit. When it comes to badass movie explosions, this one takes the cake.

Fourth State of the Union Address

Readers, it is my honor to welcome you for the fourth time to yet another State of the Union Address (SUA). This is the one time in a great while that I take some time off of writing the articles you all love so much and speak to the readers themselves. Here I celebrate new milestones this website has made and talk about some changes I will be implementing.
So, what's the occasion? Well besides the fact that I'm now at a regular 500+ readers per month, this month marks the one year anniversary of this blog's existence!

And damn has this blog come a long way since then (I don't recommend reading anything before January 2013). Thank you all for helping me get this far. The faithful 500 of you that actually take time out of your lives to read this shit is a big motivation for me. It's exhilarating to think that my monthly readers outnumber the entire Roman Spartan army (yes, I know there were more than 300 of them).

So then what new things can you expect? Well, actually I'm going to ask something of you. But hey, I think the Joker can explain it better than I can.

If you didn't get all that, I'm in the market for taking on a new writer and have one or two spots open for hire. I've been wanting to change it up a little and get some new talent in the field. I'll lay out the application. If you're interested in applying, email me the prerequisites as outlined here at thesimoncullen@gmail.com

The Application:

1.) I need to have some validation that you're A.) A real person and B.) Not a serial rapist or whatever. Anything like simply linking a facebook page would be enough. I'm not going to use the information we just want to get some idea of what you are. 

2.) [Optional] A list of three movies you like. Doesn't have to be your favorite movies and you don't need to say anything in their defense, just a list.

3.) [Optional] How do you spend your time on the internet? A few sentences on what you enjoy doing.

4.) A formal review of the film Prometheus (preferably Prometheus, but if some other movie absolutely possess you, feel free). Can be as short or as long as you want. Just talk about what you think about the film and express thoughts or ideas it may have conjured. Choose your own tone be it humorous or serious. You don't have to pander to my liking and give a review similar to mine, matter of fact, it'd be silly for me to go hiring writers that are all exactly like me. We just want to see that you have some writing ability.

And that's it. Again, just write all of it out in an email and send it to thesimoncullen@gmail.com.

Thank you for all of the time you all spend reading here. I'd love to see this blog expand further and take on new talent. Here's to a hopeful future and excited to be working with you.

Cheers

Man of Steel

I'll start by saying, I'm not a Superman fan. As a matter of fact, when it comes to comic books, the only real superhero I could say I actually like would be Batman (and I do love Batman). Nothing against the guy, I'm just not much of a comic book fan. I still watched the Superman movies and I liked them, save for Superman IV, hell, I even liked Superman Returns even though most people seemed to have hated it. So, I went into Man of Steel with an open mind.

The movie starts on the futuristic CG planet of Krypton, which is in some sort of turmoil. Russel Crowe is trying to ell the high council that the planet is doomed to collapse, when all of the sudden some angry looking guy named General Zod, who's played by Michael Shannon, comes in and starts shooting up the place in a coup attempt. Over the course of the next fifteen minutes or so, space ships are shot down, lasers are blasted and baby Clark Kent gets shot off into space. It's a good way to start off the movie because it gets some action in right in the beginning but it also manages to not come off as being just a dumb, unnecessary explosion-fest and it explains a lot of much-needed backstory.

A lot of the movie from there on out is about how Superman came to be Superman. It's told mostly non-linearly, which I like because it's stylish and keeps the viewer on their toes. You can't tune out and just expect it all to make perfect sense, you actually have to pay some attention. The main point of this timeline of Clark's life is largely to show why he became such a strongly moraled person and there are a lot of deep meaningful ideas talked about in these scenes. What we were born to accomplish? Are there things that the human race still isn't ready for? Most of these are talked about mostly by Clark's adoptive father who is played very convincingly by Kevin Costner.

I still preferred him in Waterworld.

Assholes may complain, saying that the movie is too slow or long but I say it's all too necessary and helps set the movie apart from the usual Avengers-esque mindless blockbuster shit and gives the movie some emotion and drama. That's the main thing I liked about this film, it felt intelligent. Obviously, Christopher Nolan, the shining beacon of hope ever gleaming over in Tinseltown, left his mark on the film and it feels like The Dark Knight but with Superman instead.
Despite all of the talking, there is a hell of a lot of action. There's enough action here to silence any attention-challenged moviegoer and damn is it cool. My readers may be surprised to hear me say that considering much of it is CG but please, don't misquote me. What I don't like is the use of CG when it's clearly unneeded. Obviously, what's onscreen during the movie would be largely impossible without it's aid and there's no reason anyone should have to deliberately hinder their story, a value I talked about in the article Double Standards. So, to be fair, I'm not going to disparage this movie for that.

I actually saw the movie several days ago now but I've been having an unreasonably hard time writing this review. The problem was that I liked the movie too much. Everyone I've talked to and every review I've read has given me a resounding 'meh', like Man of Steel was some C+ material. To my own surprise, I disagree. The movie really blew me away. I loved it and I thought it was perfect. The acting was great, it was intelligent and dramatic, the action was amazing and is exactly what I'd hope to see in a faithful, live-action Dragonball Z movie (which we will likely never see in our lifetime). What was it about the film that people didn't like? I still don't know how to answer that question and I'm pissed that those naysayers made me second-guess my own opinion.
Man of Steel is an amazing film and really must be seen on the silver screen.

9.5/10 - Go see it.

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

I recently finished the novel by Steig Larsson, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and wanted to pick up the movie as soon as possible. Unfortunately, watching the movie would require a choice between the Swedish version which released in 2009 or the American version which released in 2011. Now, I hate making decisions, so I opted to simply watch both films and then compare the two.

As far as being a faithful adaptation goes, both movies are pretty true to the source material with only nominally insignificant differences. Ultimately, they follow it pretty accurately. Overall, the Swedish version is somewhat closer to it's source material but regardless, they don't contrast too much. A few things cut out here, a slight change there, typical movie-version stuff. The chapters that were cut out make sense to me, for the most part. They were all either nonessential scenes or they just would've taken up too much time in movies that were already two and a half hours long.
The biggest difference between the films were the actors. The two women who were in the roles of Lisbeth Salander were totally different indeed. The American version had Rooney Mara, who was also in The Social Network and the Nightmare on Elm Street remake as well as a few minor parts. The Swedish version had, to my surprise, Noomi Rapace who you may recognize as the main role in Prometheus, one of two American movies she's been in, the other being Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows. I thought that was pretty cool just because after seeing her in Prometheus, I never would've guessed that English was not her first language. Anyway, as I was saying, it'd be pretty impossible to mix up the two as they play their parts in totally different ways as well as looking totally different.

That's Noomi on the left and Rooney on the right.

If you've seen any red-carpet pictures of Rooney, you know she looks pretty normal in real life. Rooney actually did most of her "makeover" herself and all of the piercings are real, including the ones on her nipples which she proudly displays on the back cover of the movie box. As impressive her devotion to the part is, I think it's a little overboard and the whole no eyebrows thing was kind of distracting.
But eyebrow fashion notwithstanding, her actual acting skill is what's important. I've heard that reviewers often said she did great in the role, but I disagree and I think she did pretty poorly. While it's true that the character Salander is supposed to be somewhat emotionless, I'm not sure Rooney changed her facial expression one single time over the course of the entire movie. She looked dead on screen and managed to suck most of the life out of the scenes she was in with her dull delivery of her dialogue, save for a few exceptions.
Noomi on the other hand was much better. Besides being the spitting image of the character I pictured in my imagination when I read the book, she had much more life and intensity in her acting than Rooney did. Salander was still an uncaring punk of a protagonist but it came off as being much more natural and she seemed more like a human being.

Michael Nyqvist on the left and Daniel Craig on the right.

The two actors who played Mikael Blomkvist were both very good and didn't differ much. Knowing Daniel Craig and having seen his other works, I think he could've done better, but it was still a well-played part. The other guy, Michael Nyqvist, was good but not quite on par with Daniel Craig as he was a little dull in comparison. Still, neither parts distracted from the overall movie, but neither added to it much either.

Pictured: Noomi Rapace showing some kind of emotion.

One place where the two films became more distinct from each other is in the climax scene, which I won't spoil. I will however say that I didn't like the way the American version did it at all. I think it was clear they were going for a stylish kind of approach but it didn't work and it failed miserably in heightening the sequence, during which I should've been on the edge of my seat, eyes wide.

The Swedish adaptation left something to be desired, but I think they still did a much better job on that pivotal scene than the American version did.

There are things that the American film did that was more of an improvement over the Swedish one. For instance, the way they explain the complicated background of the murder mystery was much clearer and easier to understand with the American one due to it's stylish usage of flashbacks while the Swedish one tried to explain it purely with dialogue.

After spending five total hours watching these two movies, what I really wish is that the two could be morphed together into one. There are things that one did that was better than the other and vice versa. At first, I was planning on giving the American version a disparaging review because I abhorred the acting among a few other mishaps, but I remembered that the story is the important thing and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a great story. It's a grim and gritty thriller with an ending that's pretty hard to predict. I forgot that because I was fresh off the book and already knew what was supposed to happen.

Overall I would say that the Swedish version is better, mainly because of it's acting and if you're going to watch just one of them, I'd recommend that one. But that aside, they're both good movies and to a person who cares a little more than the average viewer, I would say, watch both. That way you can get the most complete experience as the movies sort of compliment each other in their differences.

American: 7.5/10

Swedish: 8.5/10