Movies that I think are Overrated

Time to bring this blog back. As usual I will start by complaining. These are the movies that over time I've actually grown to appreciate less. I don't think that these movies are bad, just that they were alright and nothing else.

Gone Girl

I really don't understand why people are saying this movie is Oscar-worthy. To me, this is the kind of movie you watch for 2.5 hours, have a good time and that's it. The story for me feels like something really trashy, which isn't a bad thing I just don't think it's one of the greatest things to have ever graced a cinema screen.
Also, to the people who keep saying this is a "well made" movie, or that it's "technically perfect", what does that even mean? Well made how? Technically perfect in what way? Does it elevate the story to something greater than what can be read from the script?
I don't think that this movie is particularly important or groundbreaking and the "cool girl" speech is way too overhyped. There was a great ending for the movie before the last fifteen minutes, but then the extra fifteen minutes happened and it just fell flat.

Inception

A lot of people said that they were "mind-fucked" by watching this movie but at the risk of sounding like an asshole, I didn't think this movie was that incredibly hard to follow nor did it make me think a lot. To be honest, that's a testament to how well Christopher Nolan structures the plot because you aren't confused. This is really a good movie, with really interesting visuals.
At the same time I never really cared about Leonardo DiCaprio or his crew because I never knew who they were. You can tell that the story is more interested in telling us how things happen rather than getting us to care about characters. For example, the scene when they are planning the heist, the Japanese guy says instead of booking tickets for a plane he just bought the airline. Sure that's a cool one liner and everything but do we really give a shit about the logistics of airplane travel? Get to the dream stuff already.
And then the parts when they explain how the dream world works just ruins all the surprises that were going to be in the actual heist. Like when they introduce the penrose steps and then show it again. Surprise ruined. I'm pretty sure the audience could've gone without the prior explanation. The most effective sequence was the corridor spinning one because you didn't know that was actually possible and it surprised you.
Christopher Nolan is one of my favourite director's and I'm still pretty psyched for "Interstellar" but I really think he peaked after "The Dark Knight". Which brings me to the next movie....

The Dark Knight Rises

My least favourite Christopher Nolan movie, and I would probably class this as actually bad. There were parts of it that were good such as all the parts with Bane (except for the very end reveal) and it was interesting to see Batman get defeated (even though the healing process was bullshit).
Everyone knows that Batman movies are sort of fantasy and so you should watch them with a suspension of disbelief so I didn't mind too much about the many plot holes. I did however, have a problem with the writing of the script. During the fight scene where Batman and Catwoman fight alongside each other Batman says "No killing, no guns". What the fuck. In Batman Begins there was a great scene where Bruce Wayne throws the gun into the ocean, and then in the Dark Knight Joker references the "one rule" without actually ever saying it and now you throw this shit at me?
Also, I think Nolan went too ambitious with this movie, particularly with the ending where months go by. That seriously could've been another movie but instead it gets squashed into 30 minutes.

The Notebook

Alright, I'll admit that I always thought The Notebook was a really crappy girly movie that I would not want to watch ever. And I've always really disliked it when people judge a movie because of what genre it belonged to or if it was too girly or whatever

So the other day I decided to watch it, because I found out that Ryan Gosling was in it and he seems to make romance movies less cheesy I guess (I saw Blue Valentine which was another really good movie).

The basic outline is that an old man reads to an old woman with Alzheimer's everyday from a notebook in the hopes that she will remember something. The notebook tells the story of how Ryan Gosling meets Rachael McAdams during the 1940s in some shithole town and they fall in love. He is poor and she is rich and her parents are dicks who won't let them be together. Eventually she has to leave for college which is in New York and they have to say goodbye. If you don't know by now the general gist of how this story will go then you're an idiot. The plot is so predictable that within the first fifteen minutes, you already know how it will end.

So logically I should really hate this movie. Like how I really didn't like Avatar. But I do like this movie and it is probably mostly due to Ryan Gosling and Rachael McAdams. Somehow they manage to make this seemingly bs story into something that feels real. I'm gonna sound like a massive pussy for saying this but I really felt bad for Ryan Gosling during some parts of the movie.

So if any guys out there who aren't afraid of being called a wuss or who are very confident about their sexuality and are not influenced in what your peers may call you, then go ahead and watch this movie. And it goes without saying that every girl on the planet has already watched it also.

The Dark Knight Rises

Recently, I went to watch The Dark Knight Rises at the midnight premier. After being a massive fan of Batman Begins and then going a little bit crazy over the The Dark Knight it's probably an opportunity I wouldn't have missed for anything. 

So the basic outline of the plot is Batman /Bruce Wayne (hope I didn't spoil anything) has been a hermit for around 8 years and then a new bad guy called Bane comes into town to disturb the peace in Gotham city that has lasted due to Batman's actions in the previous film. In a sense this movie is like a sequential sequel to the second film, but a spiritual sequel to Batman Begins. Bruce Wayne has to become Batman again. 

I'll start off with what I liked about the movie. This movie touches on some interesting character aspects of Bruce Wayne. It's hinted that without Batman, Bruce Wayne has lost all his purpose and it explores more of the concept that Bruce Wayne needs Batman rather than Gotham needing him.

Bane was another part of the movie that I really liked. Lots of people have been saying they cant really understand his voice or his voice is weird. I kind of thought that the voice made him unique and actually pretty scary. Some of the lines he has are also pretty epic like "When Gotham is ashes... you have my permission to die". Also, since most of his face was covered by a mask (any fans of Tom Hardy's luscious lips will be disappointed by this movie) I think the acting was pretty effective considering all we had to go on were the eyes. There's a particular scene at the end which really shows the great acting done by Tom Hardy. 

Speaking of the acting, it was really good from all of the actors. A special mention should go to Michael Caine who had to do the half crying voice for most of the movie (watch The Trip) without making it seem cheesy or overdone. 

Now to the things I didn't like. There was a lot of political and social backdrop in this movie. Maybe this is just me but I really hate it when movies do that in a really obvious way (unless its a documentary or a movie that's aiming for that sort of thing). There are a lot of scenes which try to integrate Gotham into the real world, like having a stock exchange and showing the greed of corporate America or something like that. To me, for some reason it makes Gotham seem less real, like it made me realise Gotham is not a real city. In the previous two films, there was just this sense that Gotham was an actual place, something which this movie lacks. This might also have something to do with the fact that it was no longer filmed in Chicago, and instead in other cities like New York and Pittsburgh. Gotham just doesn't feel the same. 

Also different from the other films is the quality of the script writing. There's a sharp increase in cheesy lines ("You've given Gotham everything" "Not everything..not yet) and really big plot holes (which I will not spoil for you). I think this has something to do with the fact that one of the previous writers, David S. Goyer, left to write the new Superman. I think that when Christopher Nolan writes his own stuff, it tends not to be as good (like in Inception). His ideas are good, but the execution of it isn't as great. And the plotholes were really  really annoying. Most of the time when I was going "WTF" in the cinema it wasn't because something epic was happening, it was because I couldn't believe that such a huge plot hole was not obvious to Christopher Nolan. 

Of course there were parts where I went "WTF" because something truly amazing was happening. I really liked the fist fight scenes between Bane and Batman because they were so raw. But the last half hour of The Dark Knight really seemed to be directed by Michael Bay. There was just a series of big explosions with jets flying around and then the Pentagon gets somehow involved. It reminded me of Transformers 3 without robots. 

Lots of people have been saying that this is the perfect conclusion to The Dark Knight trilogy. It's not, otherwise it would have been called The Dark Knight Rises trilogy. Instead what we got was an OK ending to a very good trilogy. And that's better than a crappy one. 

My first week of uni!

I wasn't excited to start university. It's true that during the holidays I started to feel like four months was too long a break for anybody and that my life seemed like one big waste of time. But on the day before my first day of uni, as I set my alarm to go off at 6:40 in the morning, I suddenly appreciated all the good things about sitting at home with nothing to do.

Uni is not so bad. I've made this joke so many times that doing UNSW medicine is like going back to Ruse and it's quite true because I spend all day hanging out with Ruse people. That might seem a bit antisocial but my reasoning is why make new friends when you have so many perfectly good ones already? I admit that this isn't a great attitude though because everyone else tries to make new friends so I probably don't come across as a nice person.

The first two days were boring as hell because it was all introductions outlining the course. Some days we get four hour breaks and we hang out in one of the study rooms in the library. These ridiculously long breaks can get as boring as class which is why Luan screwed up my Facebook and made the last post. Things got better when we actually started learning things. In the first week we started learning anatomy, histology and cell biology, most of which were interesting enough. 

We had a practical where we got to see the cadavers for the first time. Someone told me that every year, someone faints on seeing the cadavers and I didn't believe him until we did the practical and someone actually fainted. The cadavers were chemically preserved so the body parts didn't look very human at first. But then we saw the head which was split vertically with an eye and ear still intact and also the arms and legs which had the skin removed except for at the fingertips which still had fingernails attached. I didn't actually feel hungry from the smells (apparently formaldehyde stimulates appetite) though that might have been because I ate beforehand.

I watched Love Never Dies with Wilson and a whole bunch of other people (Wilson organised it). Being the eager person I am, I was the first one there so I went to Galaxy World with Wilson and kicked his ass at everything we played. The musical was pretty cool at first because I've never watched a professional musical before and seen such spectacular sets and stage effects. In the end though, I didn't like it as much as I had hoped.

Ive changed my gender

As you guys can recently see from my new facebook profile picture, i have changed my gender and became a woman.  I feel that in this world, the subject of homosexuality is frowned upon in a very negative light.  I for one am against this, because I understand the trauma and prejudice modern society homosexuals are subjected to on a daily basis, mainly due to my new found sexuality in that I too am a gay.  Due to the stereotypes and image projected by society, I find it hard to truly express my deep feelings towards my male associates, and as a result have fallen into a deep depression.  My friends are no longer close to me, and are wary around my presence, scared that I would touch them.  Yet this is what I lust for, a man to touch, a man to lean on, a man to hold.

This life is too hard for me to live, thus i have taken some appropriate steps towards changing my position. I underwent gender surgery to get my penis removed, and some boobs modelled out of silicon, which fit nicely on my well proportioned body.  I have also long since felt an affection towards more bigger frames in both men and women, thus i have adopted a bigger sized body.  I hope this will help me find love.

Every movie I've seen since the HSC

A list of movies I've seen through these holidays, with a brief comment on what I thought about it. Underlined ones are movies I would highly recommend other people to see.

Midnight in Paris: Owen Wilson plays a charming protagonist as he is treated to a parade of artistic legends. Chortles to be had.

Kung Fu Panda 2: Slickly animated action and an efficiently presented plot which culminates to scenes that are visually and emotionally brilliant. This really exceeded expectations.

Laputa, Castle in the Sky: (below) As expected of a Miyazaki film, it creates a rich, fully-formed fantasy world in which protagonists who are pure of heart experience magic and romance. Greatly enjoyable.

The General: Silent comedy star Buster Keaton gets into wild shenanigans with plenty of slapstick humour. If you like funny silent films, this is considered one of the best.

Bicycle Thieves: (below)A father and son search for their stolen bicycle, which the father needs to do his poster-sticking job to make ends meet for his family. This film is heartbreaking.

Metropolis: An old German silent movie containing many great iconic images of cinema. It builds up to a thrilling finale which may be the most exciting thing I've witnessed on silent film.

Goodfellas: A movie which follows the life of a kid who grows up to become a successful gangster. Kinda like Raging Bull though, I didn't really connect to this one. I'm too busy trying to keep up with the plot to feel much for the characters.

The Godfather: (below)I rewatched this because I barely understood what was happening when I saw it in Year 9. I suppose now I have a slightly better attention span because this truly is a great film.

Bridesmaids: A chick-flick directed by a director who usually makes films like. This was funnier than I thought it'd be and was a pretty good movie.

Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides: Given all the bad reviews, I was pleased to find that I enjoyed this movie. It's all more of the same action-adventure fluff but Jack Sparrow remains entertaining even at his fourth movie.

Larry Crowne: I watched this on the cruise planning to sleep but instead kept watching this movie on the little television in the cabin until it was over. It's a story with quirky characters but no real drama, tension or even purpose. I wouldn't recommend seeing this on purpose.
Captain America: The First Avenger: A solid superhero action movie worth watching, if only to get ready for the upcoming 'The Avengers', which I am really looking forward to.

Fitzcarraldo:  (below) In this film, an enterprising businessman with an obsession for opera pulls a steamship over a steep hill in order to reach unclaimed rubber trees and make his fortune. What's amazing is that this was filmed on location and to make this film they actually did pull a steamship over a mountain using nothing but logs and ropes.

The Bourne Trilogy: I may well be the last guy to watch this series. Matt Damon plays a quietly intense hero who blazes his way through series of cleverly constructed action scenes to find his identity and purpose.

War Horse: As he did with Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg explores a large historical tragedy through the journey of his small cast of characters. This is quite a sentimental film but is done well enough to be satisfying rather than cloying.

The Third Man: Watching this the second time, I once again failed to get drawn into it. Give it a try if you like old movies.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol: A well made action movie with generous helpings of humour that let's it all go down nicely. 

Winter's Bone: (below) A seventeen year old girl with a missing father and a catatonic mother struggles to support her two siblings while facing the hostility of the local drug business. Not the most exciting movie but it has a very admirable protagonist and provides a look into the isolated community of the Ozarks, which before this I had not even known existed.

Melancholia: (trailer below) This movie features Earth being destroyed after colliding with the fictional planet 'Melancholia'. This is not a spoiler because the movie depicts this spectacle right in the beginning and instead focuses on the story of two sisters in the weeks preceding the collision. This is a powerfully executed movie and I shall write more about it later so as to convince more people to see it.

Hugo: I expected this to be another very well-made children's movie but I think that it speaks more to older audiences who are interested in film. In Hugo, director Scorsese breathes new life into films from the beginning of cinema.

Battle Royale: I watched this because I had just finished reading The Hunger Games trilogy which I thought was great. I found this movie disappointing though. The characters are crudely formed and unconvincing and the violence is more gratuitous than unsettling. I suspect the success of this film lay in the novelty of its idea.

Some stuff I wrote but never bothered posting before...

Consider the following situation:

One hundred random innocent people are selected and imprisoned. You are provided with two choices. The first is to personally execute fifty of the prisoners, allowing the remaining fifty to walk free. The second is to walk away, resulting in the execution of all the prisoners at the hands of someone else.

I think most people would agree that the first choice is the right thing to do. It causes the least total amount of suffering and since the only disadvantage of the first choice is that you may bring mental distress and social condemnation to yourself by becoming a murderer, then you could even consider it as a selfless choice. However, does doing the right thing necessarily make you a good person?

Let's say a homicidal maniac (a bad person) and Mahatma Gandhi (a good person) are both faced with this situation. Homicidal maniac picks choice one (the right choice) because he wants to kill fifty people, being a bad guy and all. Gandhi picks choice two (logically now, the 'wrong' choice) because he is opposed to killing, being a good guy and all.

So in this case it seems that doing something that is wrong can indicate that you are a good person while doing something that is good can indicate that you are a bad person. Something's obviously wrong here since by definition, doing something right should indicate that you are a good person and vice versa.

The problem here is that we've defined good and bad in a different way to how we've defined right and wrong. We've defined a righteous decision as one which causes the minimum amount of harm to human beings and therefore a wrong decision as one that causes a greater amount of harm. We've defined a good person as someone holding benevolent values and intentions (e.g. Do not murder) and a bad person as someone with malevolent values and intentions (e.g. Murder is fun). The allocation of these definitions to each word pair doesn't really matter since we could've switched 'right' with 'good' and 'wrong' with 'bad' for this entire post and nothing would change. What's actually important is that we now have to wonder what's more important when it comes to one's behaviour: consequences or intention?

I planned to expand on this topic more but it now seems more complicated and less interesting than before. I may try this again when I think of an interesting real life example to apply it to.