I've seen several movies semi-recently.
Let's get one thing straight: the book The Hobbit sucks. It's meant for kids. Bilbo and the dwarves go on a hike, face dangers, and keep on getting conveniently rescued by Gandalf, and that's it. There's just nothing more to the plot than that, but Tolkien writes in an enjoyable style of prose, so it's bearable despite the lack of a plot. When they made the movie, and announced that they were dividing it into three parts, I kinda said WTF because I knew that nothing would really happen in the movies. With all that, I still saw it. It WAS kind of boring. Nothing much happened in it. But given that (a) it's an uneventful kids' story anyway, and (b) I already knew that they made the decision to split it into a trilogy, they pretty much made the best movie they could under those conditions. Great visual experience and Freeman is a perfect Bilbo. For a movie in which nothing happens, it was pretty good.
Started out incredibly promising. The actual crash scene was fantastic; could not have been better. Unfortunately, plot-wise, after that it just devolved into every other movie with an alcoholic protagonist ever. Also, one of the central characters turned out to be completely unnecessary at the end. I will compliment the direction, but I think it was a weak script. This movie also had the most well-designed set that I've seen in a while. A lot of it takes place in Denzel's father's old house, where he now lives, and there was incredible attention to detail in that house. I especially loved all of the new electronics piled on top of the old electronics.
It was shit. Matt Damon used to be one of my favorite actors, but he's kind of sucked for a while now. I was slightly hopeful upon seeing that he was doing a movie with Van Sant, writing the script, and getting away from the forgettable action movies he's been doing for way too long. I think he's much better suited to character dramas. But the result was very disappointing. The audience has nothing to root for in this movie. I think we're supposed to root for Damon on an inner, personal level, despite his actions being wrong, but he makes his character into a dick most of the time. His interactions with the people in the town weren't believable in the slightest. Then we have John Krasinski (who also co-wrote the script), who's famous for playing probably the most "likable" TV character ever, playing the cool, charismatic environmentalist. I do think he has a future in film, but this kind of thing ain't it, and judging from the quality of this turkey, writing probably ain't it either. Finally, there's a really bizarre ill-fitting plot twist that makes the movie's situation overspecific, discrediting any kind of commentary it could have made about the real-life environmental practices that it portrays.
Without a doubt the most fun I've had seeing a movie this year. I was just smiling, laughing, or going "OH SHIT" in my mind for every second. Samuel L. Jackson had me almost in tears a few times. I judge movies as much by how I feel about them post-viewing as I do by my viewing experience, though. I still think it was really good and one of the best movies I've seen in a while, but I do think that it might have been better suited by making the character Django a little bit more human. It's necessary for him to be a total over-the-top badass fighter, but a little extra dialogue and some changes to his actions at the end of the movie wouldn't have hurt. Brooding, angry, silent, noir-y protagonists are really getting to be quite a trend lately.
"LIVE OR DIE, MAN??"