My Top Most Anticipated Films of 2012

Now that it is the new year of 2012, my friends, new films we have either anticipated or that interest us will come out. I believe 2012 is going to be mostly "The Year of the 3D Re-Releases" since they are doing so to all Star Wars movies, some Disney films (such as Beauty and the Beast) and most of the old Pixar films, but there are those that we all want to actually GET OUR MONEYS WORTH and SEE A NEW MOVIE. So, here's my list my friends. Enjoy!

The Dark Knight Rises

Though Ledger won't be present as The Joker, I'm sure Nolan will end his Batman trilogy epically, blowing our minds with the presence of Catwoman and a villian no one understands.

The Avengers

I'm not the biggest fan of comic book movies, but one that combines them all with an all-star cast sounds great to me! I hope it's not as big of a letdown as Green Lantern.

The Amazing Spider-Man

A re-vamp of Spider-Man, my third favorite superhero? Why not?

Dr. Suess' The Lorax

I saw a trailer of this a while back and thought it looked hilarious, not to mention a stellar cast including Danny DeVito. I'm actually psyched over Suess!

Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace in 3D

Look, I know I just finished a rant about this year being "The Year of the 3D Re-Releases" but why not just go for the theater experience of one of your favorite movies on the big screen? Forget 3D and admire the film.

The Secret World of Arrietty

I love Miyazaki's animation style and creativity all the way from Tortoro to Ponyo, so I'll definitely be seeing this.

Scary Movie 5

They've bee saying this is going to be released several times over, so I doubt they will do it for real this time, but here's to hoping!

Battleship

I saw the trailer for this and it looks pretty freakin' awesome, so I'll keep hopeful for this one.

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted

Eh...it's worth a shot. I liked the first one a little bit and this looks like a hit-or-miss.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in 3D

My friend said he'd pay my way to see this, so this is just a "I'm bored and it's free" kind of movie.

The Bully Project

This looks interesting considering I'm a victim here.

..and so that does it for my current most anticipated of 2012 list. I hope you all have a great year and enjoy the movies it bears!

A Clockwork Orange (1971) review

 
(9 out of 10)

VIOLENCE-The fifth of the favorite subjects of Stanley Kubrick, as the booklet has said.

PLOT:Alex DeLarge (Malcolm McDowell) is a young man with a passion for violence, rape, classical music, and going out with his fellow "droogs" to the Korova milk bar to get drinks. In this dystopian future, he as the leader of his friends, gallavant spreading trouble everywhere. After he oversteps his role of being leader of his droogs, they turn against him and leave him for the cops to handle. He hears about this new government treatment while in jail called "Ludovico's Treatment" that is supposed to change an evil young mind to do only good. Alex applies for it, and gets it, but will things really change? And will his freedom of choice waver as well? This is a very uniquely thought-out plot about a dystopian future executed very well, but my comparisons to the book may disagree..

ACTING:The acting was above excellent McDowell takes the role of Alex DeLarge and makes it his. I don't believe anybody could've played it like he could. I admire him for doing so.
The rest of the cast was quite great too. The other shiners would include Warren Clarke as Dim and whoever played the old man he brutally beat in the most disturbing scene in the movie.

SCORE:The score is consisting of its own theme in different variations and glorious classical music that plays a great part. I love classical music anyway, and the theme was very harrowing.

CAMERAWORK:This is IMO the Kubrick movie with the best camerawork. Every shot is realistic, harrowing, clever, and creative to the point where you can reach in and pull out emotions accurately by just what you see.


OTHER CONTENT:This film is disturbing, twisted, and brutal without a doubt. Some people disagree with this, and I say to just ignore it if so because that's what the film is for; depiction of pure violence. Even though the movie is like this, you find yourself secretly enjoying it and rooting for the character. I like the mindtrick Kubrick was trying to give the audience here; an overlay of psychology. Now on to my one issue with the film. I read the book shortly after seeing the film the first time two years ago, so I can compare now. In staying true to the wonderful piece of literature, this quite prospered, but I found a few problems. The whole reason for calling it "A Clockwork Orange" was trashed and unmentioned in here along with the crucial parts related to it, not to mention a changed ending. I like the book a bit better because of this, but the film still serves as being a great film.

OVERALL,an awesome Kubrick film with a unique and thought-out plot, excellent acting, classical and harrowing score, epic camerawork, a hint of psychological tinge from our humble director, and a good attempt of staying true to the book, but there were some crucial scenes cut from the film.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) review

 
(10 out of 10)

TECHNOLOGY-The fourth of Kubrick's favorite subjects as the DVD booklet has told me.

PLOT:This is divided into three "segments", if you will.
THE DAWN OF MAN-This tells of how early humans discovered tools, with the presence of a monolith to be explained later in the film.

We then switch to today where we are able to live in space stations and ships. A large crater is found on the moon and a team go to investigate what it is.
JUPITER MISSION I-This introduces our characters Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Poole (Gary Lockwood), who are on a spacecraft bound for Jupiter to find suspected life. The spacecraft is controlled by a model of the new HAL-9000 computer (Douglas Rain). Whem Bowman and Poole think the computer is malfunctioning, they plant to shut it down, but does HAL agree with this?
JUPITER MISSION II-Not to spoil the ending, the mission to Jupiter ends up being successful and this is the trip into the planet's atmosphere and what is found there. This is split into several segments, such as Pulp Fiction is, and each is executed to the essence of perfection.

ACTING:There really weren't that many actors, but of what there was, the acting was really good. Dullea and Lockwood do a great job with their parts as well as Rain, considering he has to act like a lifeless computer.

SCORE:The score is composed of several pieces of classical music along with some chanting tracks. I loved the soundtrack through and through, especially the well-known Also Sprach Zarathustra.

EFFECTS:This is second to what the movie is all about. For the time this was made, the effects are beyond top-notch. Since space travel was fairly new, Kubrick had to imagine what Jupiter and space itself looked like. Do I even have to say it; Kubrick did this like no other man could! The effects I saw done blew my mind even as today's CG standards go.


CAMERAWORK:This is the first to what makes this movie work. The effects may have been mind-blowing, but they wouldn't have worked so well if it wasn't for Kubrick's harrowing camera style; not to mention the rest of the movie.

OTHER CONTENT:This movie purely blew my mind and fueled the cinephile in me. I loved everything about this. It was different, ground-breaking, fascinating, and overall of that beautiful. Most say all it is for most of the movie is objects movie across the screen slowly, but that's for suspense and to depict the wonder of the space Kubrick saw. I felt Kubrick so much in the movie, I'm surprised he wasn't breathing down my neck in spirit. I also got what he was trying to get through with the ape scene at the beginning: the human race always wants more and is always finding new technology and ways to do things whether it be good or bad. This is not for everybody, but it has the beauty, imagination, and it breaks the boundary of filmmaking.

OVERALL,an epic Kubrick film with a perfect segmented plot, really good acting, classical soundtrack, mind-blowing effects, harrowing camerawork, and the true feeling of a beautiful movie.

Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1962) review

 
(8 out of 10)

SATIRE-The third of Stanley Kubrick's favorite subjects, as told by the DVD booklet.

PLOT:This takes its place during the Cold War times when nuclear war was going on. General Ripper (Sterling Hayden) orders his air troops to execute Plan R, which involves all planes attacking Russia and dropping their nukes on it. Now, everyone is against Ripper's orders and is trying to stop it, including a fuming General Turgidson (George C. Scott) and the laid-back German doctor, Dr. Strangelove (Peter Sellers). It is a very unique plot based off the Cold War, but its execution as a comedy is a little flat.

ACTING:The acting is great, brilliant even. Hayden does a great job, but the two stars are definitely Scott and Sellers. These two were both main characters in Kubrick's previous film, Lolita, and they work almost as well in here as they did in there. Sellers did a better job than in Lolita, but Scott doesn't break his acting record.
 
Other shiners in this include Slim Pickens as Captain Kong, Keenan Wyn as Col. Bat Guano (clever word play), and whoever played the phone guy talking to Dimitri.

SCORE:Though most of the score was the, "The Ants Go Marching" played over, what wasn't was pretty good.

CAMERAWORK:This has some of Kubrick's ingenius camerawork, and I admit it was pretty great; maybe even harrowing.


OTHER CONTENT:I find this to be, so far, Kubrick's most overrated flick. I see the satrical parodies in it, but I didn't really find it too funny. I do admit, it had some jokes that left me in stitches, but most jokes I didn't find funny. I find it concentrating more on story than comedy. It's still a great film, nevertheless, but I just believe it isn't as funny as back in '64. Time wasn't the BEST to it. One thing I found particularly brilliant though is the ending. I loved the ending.

OVERALL,a great Kubrick film with a flat but unique plot, great acting, good score, possibly harrowing camerawork, and a brilliant ending, but not all jokes succeeded and time wasn't (IMO) the best to it.

Lolita (1962) review

 
(9 out of 10)

TABOO-The second favorite subject of Stanley Kubrick as foretold by the DVD booklet.

PLOT:Humbert Humbert (James Mason) is a professor wating to teach in the United States. He rents out a room at the house of miss Charlotte Haze (Shelley Winters) and her daughter Lolita Haze (Sue Lyon), and instantly falls in love with Lolita.
Though his love is with Lolita, Charlotte seems to fall in love with Humbert and they get married, unhappily. When Charlotte finds Humbert's diary revealing his true emotions toward her and her daugther, she spirals into depression and throws herself in front of a car. Humbert goes to get Lolita at a summer camp her mother forced her into and starts to go on a long trip with her, not telling her that her mother did. All this time, a strange persona is following them and showing up near them (Peter Sellers). Lolita is devastated when she finds out her mother is dead, but after the shock realizes Humbert's love for her and agrees to a small affair with him, but when they try to start life over, Lolita starts falling for boys her age and Humbert grows upset. What will happen of this and who is their strange follower? This is a very unque plot for its time and is executed quite perfectly.

ACTING:The acting is very good. Mason is great as well as Lyon, considering this was her first role. I felt the chemistry between them. Winters was pretty good. Sellers was very good in all of his roles, but his main role in here as Clare Quilty is brilliant.


SCORE:This score was actually pretty unique and pretty good to boot.

OTHER CONTENT:This, sadly didn't have Kubrick's angled camerawork I love so much, but that's not why I counted it off a bit. My counting off is due to a little character development problem. I felt we didn't have enough character development in Humbert to be on his side or against him. I felt we got to know him, yes, but not truly enough to feel for him. This may definitely be disagreeable, but it's all a matter of opinion. I did like the script in this one, but not as much as Spartacus'.

OVERALL,an awesome Kubrick film with a perfectly executed plot, very good acting, unique score, and a great script, but it has some character development problems in my opinion.

Spartacus (1960) review

 

 Hello, my fellow movie reviewers and blog-readers! I came from Rotten Tomatoes as The Creep to bring you movie reviews in other places in case Flixter screws it up anymore to where I lose all my reviews and can't post anymore. I will start with my Stanley Kubrick collection and post my earlier reviews latter. Now, Sparatacus!

(9 out of 10)

REBELLION-The first of the 9 favorite subjects of Stanley Kubrick, as told by the DVD booklet.

PLOT:Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) is a Thracian slave that is bought by Lentulus Batiatus (Peter Ustinov) to teach to be a gladiator, but Spartacus is rebellious, and eventually starts a rebellion against Rome's slave opression with the other gladiators and takes a wife, a Brittanian slave named Varinia (Jean Simmons) and a friend named Antoninus (Tony Curtis). The slaves revolt against the corrupt Russian senator Marcus Licinius Crassus (Laurence Olivier). It is the classic story of Spartacus executed nearly perfect.

ACTING:The acting is truly brilliant. No one did a bad job! Douglas was perfect as Spartacus, Simmons does brilliant as Barinia, and Curtis does wonderful as Antoninus. Olivier and Ustinov also did a great job, considering this was Ustinov's Academy Award-winning role for Best Supporting Actor. 

SCORE:The score here is like a Babylonian John Williams. I loved it. Though I wouldn't call it beautiful or unque, it was still great.

EFFECTS:The blood effects are purely spectacular for the time being. They weren't damn CG and they actually made it look like real blood instead of strawberry cough syrup shit.

CAMERAWORK:Yes, the famous Kubrikian, angled camerawork is here for the best shots ever the grace the screen, as usual.

OTHER CONTENT:Now, this film is purely brilliant, but it has a couple minor flaws that I could find. Firstly, I believe (as well as some other tight-fisted critics) that the plot execution is a bit uneven. It is very well executed, but you can tell that it's a little too freewilling and loose than it needs to be. Secondly, I wouldn't count this one as much of a flaw than a directorial characteristic, but I also believe this doesn't have the 100% true feeling of a Stanley Kubrick film. I mean, I can feel in some scenes more than others Kubrick's presence, but I can't feel it throughout as I could with his other films I've seen. But let's stop with the flaws for a minute and glorify any other good things about this film. The script is very well-written; so much that it is almost poetry than a script. Also, the movie's pretty accurate to the tale of Spartacus if I might say so based on what I learned in 7th grade.

OVERALL,an awesome Kubrick film with a near-perfectly executed plot, brilliant acting, great score, realistic effects, Kubrickian camerawork, well-written script, and "historically" accurate, but the plot's execution, though near-perfect, is uneven and the presence of Kubrick in this film isn't as strong as in some of his other works.

-Creep Out-