Muppets: Most Wanted

I went to see The Grand Budapest Hotel last night, but, for whatever reason, it's not playing. SO, I saw Muppets: Most Wanted instead. It wasn't that bad, although it did have some flaws, and I won't recommend watching it.

The jokes were really funny (despite the humour-dead audience I seemed to be among) and they threw in some inside-jokes from previous Muppet movies, which I rather enjoyed. The music was great, as always, and the plot was interesting. However, there was one major plot-hole that I noticed. There was a this thing about Miss Piggy wanting Kermit to marry her, which eventually became a whole side-story in the film. What confused me was that, to my knowledge, they had already gotten married in Muppets Take Manhattan, so why is Miss Piggy talking about marriage now?? Are they not already married? That was the major plot flaw that I noticed, but there were at least two other small ones. There's a part where they randomly showed that Nadya (Tina Fey) had a massive crush on Kermit, but then they didn't go anywhere with it, nor did they bring it up again! I was left rather confused, although, I don't know if the children in the audience even noticed. The second minor flaw was near the end. The gang had just gotten Kermit back, and foiled Constantine's plan. For some reason, (SPOILER ALERT!!!!) Constantine decided to kidnap Miss Piggy, even though she is in no way needed for any type of plan he had or would have, and once they get her back, Nadya appears with a bunch of guards to arrest Kermit for breaking out of jail. This doesn't make sense because HE WAS NEVER SUPPOSE TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, so to get arrested for getting out does not make any sense!!! 

This film, though funny, frustrated me. I give Muppets: Most Wanted a 3 out of 10. 

Divergent

A friend invited me out to see Divergent yesterday. I hadn't originally planned on seeing this film; it had looked kind of boring to me (I have NOT read the books, so don't judge me). She had free tickets, however, so I wasn't going to pass up an opportunity to see a free movie!

I definitely do not regret watching this. It was a really great movie! Keep in mind that I am not comparing this to the book, as I have not read the book. I am looking at this separate from the book it is based on.

It was very fast-paced, which I liked, but not so fast that too much information was thrown at you; it was just right. I am not going go say much on the film, as I don't want to ruin it for those who have yet to see it, but I will mention a few of my favorite moments/things.

One moment I really enjoyed was the first time Tris (Shailene Woodley) met Four (Theo James). After a shot of the two of them in frame, it goes to a point-of-view close-up shot of Four's face, but only briefly. The way it resulted in was the feeling of attraction to him from Tris' point-of-view. I've never seen that sort of thing portrayed that way before. It was unique.

Basically, this movie, on it's own, was really good. You'll have to ask my friend if it matched up with the book or not, though, since she's read it.

I give Divergent a 7 out of 10.

RoboCop 2014

I went to see RoboCop last tuesday. It wasn't that bad. Since it was a remake of the one made in the 80's, I decided I should watch the original and compare/contrast them.

Both films are fairly decent on their own. RoboCop 2014 is a pretty realistic take on what the future could be like, technology-wise. The graphics were very realistic and detailed, which I liked. RoboCop 1987, however, had a better plot in my opinion. The graphics sucked, though. It was mainly stop-motion animation, which was rather cheesy and lame. But, the plot was well built. For whatever reason, they changed the storyline for the remake. Instead of Alex getting blown to bits by some sort of shotgun (I think), he gets blown up by his own car. In the 1987 version, he is declared dead and is then used for a robot version of law enforcement. In 2014, they tell his wife that his only chance for survival is if he is attached to false robotic ligaments, making him part robot, part man. The remake of RoboCop has all the same key situations, but the circumstances are extremely different from the original. To me, the original storyline makes more sense; they claim him deceased and treat him as property. In the remake, they give him a second chance at life, but then try to turn him into property. Separately, I enjoyed both versions of RoboCop; reared together, I prefer RoboCop 1987 (which is rated R and is rather gorey; just a warning).

Overall, I give RoboCop (2014) 6.5 out of 10.

3 Days to Kill

3 Days to Kill. more like 3 days of confusion. I wasn't sure I wanted to see this, but Non-Stop looked unoriginal, and I had already seen everything else that was playing (That's the problem with this movie-viewing challenge I've given myself). I would have been better off seeing Non-Stop.

Unfortunately, I got to the theatre a bit late, so I missed about half of the first scene. By the way,I should warn you; though I recommend you NOT spending money on seeing this movie, I will be giving some spoilers in this review. If you have any interest to see 3 Days to Kill and go against my advice, I suggest you stop reading right now, because I WILL BE SPOILING IT FOR YOU OTHERWISE. That's how bad of an action film this was.

After the credits, the main guy, Ethan (Kevin Costner), finds out he has cancer and has 3 months to live. The CIA knows this and has relieved him of his services. He decides to spend his last few months with his teenage daughter (Hailee Seinfeld), who he hasn't seen in 5 years. For whatever reason, she and her mother (his ex-wife, which isn't made too clear in the movie AT ALL) live in Paris, France. I understood they had lived there her whole live, yet she had no kind of french accent whatsoever. There were also some father-daughter moments that didn't make sense and weren't always necessary. For example, Ethan brings her a bike. She refuses to even look at it because it's purple, implying that she hates that colour. She later admits she doesn't know how to drive a bike. What teenager, IN FRANCE, can't drive a bike?? So, they have a father-daughter bonding moment as he teaches her to drive a bike. I think they could've had them bond in a million different ways than teaching her to ride a bike.

While he is in France, a woman (Amber Heard) finds him and asks him to work for her as a hit-man in exchange for a possible cure for cancer. The job needs to be done in 3 days (hence the title) and afterwards, he's off the hook forever; no more killing. He begrudgingly accepts. Now, this woman, she is suppose to be this black-leather-wearing sexy character, it seems. Because of this, for two thirds of the movie, I thought there would be a twist and she'd end up being the villain. Also, the first scene we see her, she has almost-platinum blonde hair. The next we see her, she has brown hair with blonde ends. Why the sudden hair change? Was it suppose to add to the storyline somehow? All it did was confuse me. Anyway, so he has to kill the guy, gets medication for his illness and then he'll be relieved from his services once and for all. Or so I thought. Near the end of the movie, he finally has the opportunity to shoot the guy he's been tracking down for the last 3 days when he has an episode and passes out momentarily. when he awakens, the guy is still there (he was injured from the previous scene, so he couldn't get far) and was about to grab the gun that had fallen out of Ethan's had when he fell, when out of nowhere his boss, the woman, shows up! She kicks him the gun and he aims it at whatshisface. She says, "Shoot him. Shoot him, ethan!" and he hesitates and then replies, "Actually, my wife wants me to quit." and he drops the gun and rolls over (he's still recovering from collapsing before). His boss then shots the guy, the scene fades out and fades back in to 6 months after the fact. It's christmas, he's with his daughter and ex(?)-wife at a cottage. he is no longer working for the CIA or anything, and he gets the last vaccine shot of cancer medicine mailed there from that leather-wearing woman. None of this makes sense to me. First, how did she know the guy would be where he was? If she had a gun and could shot him herself (which she did), why did she need Ethan? And if Ethan could just quit at any time and still get what was in the original agreement, why did he agree to it in the first place????

I'm trying to think of something I enjoyed from this, and I'm honestly drawing a blank. I hated this movie. The action parts weren't even that action-packed. I was bored within 2 minutes of buildings blowing up and guys getting shot. Oh, there was one thing I kind of enjoyed the use of; there was this guy that Ethan was suppose to kill after he got information from him about the man he was suppose to track down, but he doesn't kill him. He discovers he has twin daughters and decides to keep him alive so he can contact him every now and again to get advice on dealing with his own daughter. That I found quite amusing.

I give 3 Days to Kill 1 out of 10.