Worst movie I've ever seen???

     The other day I was feeling it, nice day, nice evening, wanting to do something nice for my girlfriend.  So I decided to take her out to go see a movie.  Right now, nothing too great is out in theaters, so we lowered our standards just a bit.  I had heard, from many credible sources, that Mortal Instruments: City of Bones was not too shabby.  Several critics that I actively follow gave it an okay rating, leading me to believe, that I could enjoy this teen romance/action movie.

Then we saw it...

     This had to have been one of, if not, the worst movies I have ever seen.  Now, I understand this is a teenage romance, but heck...that doesn't mean it has to be bad!  Compared to some other of it's counter parts, Mortal Instruments was just pure crap.  With horrible dialogue, a convoluted story line and acting that was more stale than my morning bagel, Mortal Instruments failed on every level.  I was infuriated as we walked out of the theater, absolutely infuriated.  I was angry because we paid for a terrible movie like that, as well as the fact that that movie had a budget of $60 million!!!  It angers me that that amount of money is wasted on movies such as these.  I kept thinking, "If I had 60 million bucks, I would give you the best movie in the world."  It doesn't need to cost that much to make a great movie!  District 9, one of my favorite movies, only cost $30 million dollars, and was a fantastic piece of filmmaking.
     It breaks my heart when a movie is bad.  It's the art form I love, and the career I love.  My girlfriend says it's the same when she hears a bad piece of music (she works in the recording industry).  There's so much potential, and so much money thrown at this potential, to have it fail, is just heartbreaking.  That time, money and effort all could have been thrown to a better place.  I've been talking about an implosion in the film industry, and how imminent it has become.  It's not only imminent, but just around the corner...there is going to be a pretty big change in the way things are done.

Elysium

     It's very rare that a movie comes out that's not only visually entertaining and stunning, as well as thought provoking.  Neil Blomkamp's Elysium is definitely one of those greats.  I recently watched the scifi action thriller about a damned man, set in the future, and was absolutely blown away by the film.  Matt Damon's character, Max, accidentally gets irradiated at his job and must get to Elysium, the space habitat orbiting earth where the privileged live.  On Elysium, his radiation poisoning and all injuries can be cured, however, getting to Elysium is not so simple.
     As mentioned before, I loved the film.  It had great action, an intense storyline, and social commentary to make your brain think for days.  Blomkamp's film is a commentary on the socio-economic inequality the world (especially America) is suffering from.  In an interview, Blomkamp describes an incident he had in Mexico, where he spent the night in a jail.  He stated how odd it was that he could literally see America, but could not touch it.  He was in an essentially third world country, and just over the fence was his "Elysium."  I loved the social commentary in the film, as I love to be mentally intrigued and challenged.  The last film to really do this was District 9, again directed by Blomkamp.
     The main thing that I really admired about the film was it's budget.  It's no secret that movies these days have outlandishly bloated budgets.  Disney spent upwards of 400 million dollars on The Lone Ranger, alone this year.  Elysium has the blockbuster look and feel, with great actors and great special effete...and the budget was only 90 million dollars.  Now, yes, that's a lot of money, but for a hollywood studio movie, that's quite humble of a budget.  Blomkamp's last film, District 9, only cost 30 million dollars, and made upwards of 210 million in the box office.  I quite admire this, as I don't believe a movie should cost an outrageous amount.  Studios these days are burning through cash with these giant budgeted movies that don't make back what they cost.

Not so Man of Steel

     So Warner Bros' new movie, "Man of Steel" came out the other week.  Who saw that one?  What'd you think?  MoS was supposed to be the king of the summer blockbusters this year...however, it's not.  Warner Bros has a lot riding on MoS's back, including future Superman movies, the Justice League Movie, and all other DC superhero movies.  Man of Steel needed to be perfect, it had to be the movie that would re-solidify our faith in DC heroes.  And unfortunately, it's not perfect...it has audiences divided.
     Some love it, some hate it...and like me, a lot are kind of just in the middle.  I enjoyed the movie, it had great action, some great emotional beats, and looked great.  However, there were a lot of issues, I felt. The pacing in MoS was completely off.  Goyer's script was one of the biggest problems for the film.  I also felt that certain emotional beats were missing, and if they'd been hit, the movie would have connected way more with audiences.  The main thing that kept my head shaking though, was the massive amount of collateral damage caused by Superman and Zod in the film.  I couldn't get over how the devastated the entire city of Metropolis.
     I'm sure Warner Bros wasn't expecting the film to get smashed, critically.  There's no doubt that the film will make it's money back, but like I said, this movie will be an indication on how well the rest of the DC universe does, cinematically.  The main crush to DC's campaign, happened this weekend.  Man of Steel was knocked out of the number 1 spot in the box office, by World War Z and Monster's University.
     This is a huge hit for WB, as they were expecting Man of Steel to be number 1 for quite a while.  In just one week, it was knocked down.  It's doing pretty well for itself, but compared to other big franchise movies like Iron Man, Spiderman and Star Trek, it's not holding up.  This is very unfortunate for Superman and DC, alike.  I would love for DC to buck up and make a decent film (that's not Batman).  I'm an avid movie and comic fan, so I love when a movie is based off a famous comic.  It's just so unfortunate that Hollywood can't seem to get it right, even when it's put in very capable hands.

Marketing

     So who's excited for the new "Man of Steel" movie?  I know I am.  It looks like they've finally figured out the perfect tone for not only a Superman film, but a comic book movie as well.  One thing I've been incredibly impressed with, is the way Warner Brothers is marketing the film.  They're really taking advantage of the viral online marketing route.  I've always been a fan of this, and thought it to be the most effective.
     When they first set up their website, it was a very simple black site with a logo on the back.  There were secret links you could click to a simple one sentence message.  As time went on they released a viral "message" from the film's villain, Zod.  It was a staticky, scary message to planet earth of his arrival.  I thought this was great.  It was a great way to send a message to audiences as well as immediately set the tone for the film.
     I think films should take more creative routes like this in marketing their films.  I think advertising and marketing should be involving like that, and not come off as annoying.  Audiences enjoy the interaction, it makes it fun.  I think films should try and be secretive about what they're making.  It takes the surprise and the fun out of seeing a movie, if everything has already been spoiled.

Kickstarter

     So we've all heard about the fantastic Veronica Mars movie that was funded on Kickstarter.com.  It did fantastic; they single handedly funded their movie, through crowd funding.  Crowd funding has been around for a while, now, and usually is used for micro-budget independent films, independent projects, or small businesses.  Big budget movies have never tried to use crowd funding, until now.
     And now Zach Braff has used Kickstarter to try and fund his new movie, "Wish I was Here."  Within a few days Zach reached his goal of 2 Million dollars.  His campaign has now reached well over 3 million.  Braff has also gotten a studio backer to fund the rest of the budget for his film.  There's no doubt Braff will also get a wide release with a giant distributor.
     This has brought a lot of attention to Kickstarter and crowd funding.  A lot of people are complaining that celebrities like Zach Braff are diluting crowd funding, and making it harder for independent artists to fund their projects.  I think it's a great way for films to be funded, and find backers.  I even think it's a great way for studios to connect more with their audiences.  Especially if they're trying to fund a fan based film.  For example, if Michael Bay had asked fans and crowd funded the upcoming Ninja Turtles movie, the backlash and turmoil that film has faced would be much smaller.  I think crowd funding is a great way to connect to your fans, and give them a movie they want, as well as making them feel involved.

Quicksilver Problem

     So who's heard of the new X-men movie coming out?  Fox is in production right now of their new film, "X-men: Days of Future Past."  This would be a no news kind of movie, as it's just another addition to a franchise, however, something interesting has occurred in the last several days.  Fox has released that they've added a new character, and actor to the roster or their new film.  The character, "Quicksilver," has been added to the cast of characters.  Now, Quicksilver is the super fast Mutant of the X-men universe.  Fox has also announced that actor Evan Peters will be playing the character.
     This brings up an interesting problem, as Marvel Studios had written the character into their upcoming movie, "The Avengers 2."  Joss Whedon, Director of the Avengers, had stated he had perfect use for the character in the Avengers sequel.
     The problem with this is that Fox owns the movie rights to all "X-men" characters.  However, Quicksilver is still a Marvel character (as Marvel owns the X-men).  The issue, now, is who is allowed to use the character in their movie.  Fox has already begun production on their film, and Marvel is still in early Pre-production.  The obvious choice is that Fox gets to keep doing what they're doing, but now Marvel is going to have to make drastic changes to their story.  This is the first time that a character has been wanted for two separate franchises.
     This comes down to different studios having control over different entities, owned by the same company.  Fox knows they have a cash cow with the X-men films, just as Sony knows they have one with Spiderman.  Marvel has been trying to gain control of their characters back, and is slowly achieving their goal.  However, with Fox and Sony holding their characters hostage, it might be a while until Marvel owns the movie rights back to all their characters.

Will the director please stand up?

     I'm not sure if any of you have heard of this, but just recently, Natalie Portman's new movie (In which she's both acting in and producing), Jane's Got a Gun, lost it's director very suddenly.  Jane's got a gun went all through it's pre-production and started it's first day of principal photography successfully.  However, when day two came around, director Lynne Ramsay, was nowhere to be found.  No word on where she went, or why she left, just gone.   Producer, Scott Steindorff stated, "I have millions of dollars invested, we’re ready to shoot, we have a great script, crew and cast. I’m shocked and so disappointed someone would do this to 150 crew members who devoted so much time, energy, commitment and loyalty to a project, and then have the director not show up. It is insane somebody would do this to other people. I feel more for the crew and their families, but we are keeping the show going on, directors are flying in, and a replacement is imminent… My focus is on making this movie, but I will protect all my rights. This comes down to an irresponsible act by one person."

     With recent updates on the film, it looks as though director, Gavin O'Connor.  O'Connor is best known for recently directing "Warrior," starring Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton (who is also in Jane's Got a Gun).  O'Connor is said to be picking up where Ramsay left off, and Production was only halted a few days.  This is a great example of a studio, not only covering their asses, but covering them well.  This could have been disastrous, however, Steindorff and Portman made a fantastic decision of keeping production going and finding a suitable replacement.  I have no doubt O'Connor will do a fantastic job directing the film, and I'm curious to see why Ramsay left the film (If she ever formally states)