Romance

Water for Elephants (2011)

7.0/10 on IMDb
60% on Rotten Tomatoes
This is a great romantic drama focusing on the romance that develops between a low-paid veterinary student of a circus and the star performer of the shows.

I haven't seen Reece Witherspoon in anything like this before, and I certainly haven't seen Robert Pattinson in anything other than Harry Potter, so it was very refreshing to see these two as the lead characters.

Actually, I would argue that the movie isn't so much focused on the relationship developing between these two love interests, but rather it's a movie that focuses on the two opposing and dynamic forces of Pattinson's character and Christoph Waltz' character.

While I was pleasantly surprised with Pattinson's acting, it was really Christoph Waltz that stole the show, as is only natural for him. His character is the husband of Witherspoon's character, and he is the boss of the entire circus so he can be really demanding. But beyond that, he is an incredible, angry and layered character, and Waltz just does an amazing job with him. He is SUCH a great actor.

It was also directed by Francis Lawrence, who did a great job. I normally don't mention directors but because Francis Lawrence also did Catching Fire and the two Mockingjays, I had to give him a mention.

So I reckon this was a great film, but only if you're into that whole artsy, romance type of film.


Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen

4.04/5 on Goodreads
This was Austen's very first novel published in 1811, preceding Pride and Prejudice by two years. The two novels are quite similar in nature as they look at the love interests of sisters in a middle class family. Both are classed in the 'comedy of manners' genre, and both are entertaining, with Jane Austen's classic satire and ridicule of the people of her time making it an amusing read.

The story focuses on two of the three Dashwood sisters, Elinor and Marianne, who each have their own love interests and it mainly follows their love lives. Elinor is the most sensibile of her sisters, while Marianne is the most attractive and extroverted of her sisters. Because of Marianne's nature, she isn't the most sensible when it comes to love, friends and just manners in general, so you can see the stark contrast between these two sisters.

However, the novel provides both sisters with difficulties that challenge their abilities to maintain their own sensibility, and these plot twists are done so amazingly that they honestly turn your head in!

Also, like in how Pride and Prejudice you get to have a good laugh at Mrs Bennet, here in Sense and Sensibility you get to have a good laugh at John and Fanny Dashwood, and particularly Fanny's character.

It definitely was not as amazing as Pride and Prejudice was, but it certainly was still a very good read. I will say though that despite it having less chapters than Pride and Prejudice (this had 50 chapters, Pride and Prejudice had 61), it felt like a longer read because the events at the start weren't very engaging, and it was only in about the third volume when the novel started getting very very good.

Some good quotes of the novel:

"Lady Middleton was equally pleased with Mrs. Dashwood. There was a kind of cold hearted selfishness on both sides, which mutually attracted them; and they sympathised with each other in an insipid propriety of demeanor and a general want of understanding."

(When talking to Robert Ferrars) "Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition."

Sense and Sensibility (1995)

7.7/10 on IMDb
98% on Rotten Tomatoes
And now, the film adaptation.

Let me just say, this is an all-star cast, with Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet, Hugh Grant and even Professor Snape Alan Rickman. Hugh Laurie also makes an appearance and heck, it's even got Professor Umbridge Imelda Staunton!

But the weirdest thing is that these people weren't even stars when they were in this film. This was two years prior to Titanic, so Kate Winslet wasn't even known. It would only have been Thompson and Grant that were stars back then I presume.

Anyway, it was weird seeing Emma Thompson as Elinor because, well, Thompson isn't the prettiest of women. It sounds harsh, but whilst Elinor isn't beautiful like Marianne, she's still very pretty. And, importantly, young. Elinor's character is 19, whilst Thompson would have been around 36 at the time of shooting. Since she naturally doesn't look the best, her age didn't help at all.

Even with Kate Winslet's character, she played the impulsive teenager well, but her character is meant to be amazingly gorgeous. Like, AMAZING. And Kate Winslet, to me, has never been a pretty face.

Like in Pride and Prejudice (sorry, I can't help comparing the two), Rosamund Pike is beautiful, so she was a perfect Jane Bennet, and Keira Knightly was a great choice for the carefree and tomboy Elizabeth, but here the cast just didn't match the characters they were playing, except for Hugh Laurie.

The movie itself was okay though. I suppose for that time it was good but I can't remember too much of my first impressions except being completely weirded out by the cast and knowing that I wouldn't rewatch it anytime soon.


About Time (2013)

7.8/10 on IMDb
69% on Rotten Tomatoes
Time travel is one of my favourite topics to explore, if not the most. So it was with great anticipation and hype that I picked this DVD up from the CIVIC store shelf and rented it.

However, I was quite disappointed with this film.

It tells the story of a man who learns that he can actually time travel to any moment of his past to change events of which he did not like. So, he uses this ability to make him find love.

And he does. About 1/4 of the way in the movie.

And then the rest of the movie is just like... boring.

There's no real complication in this film, as there are in most films. It's mainly just incident after incident after incident, but they're all normal incidents that are just side effects of living in general. So it was boring. Because humans go through those incidents anyway and we don't have the ability to time travel or correct our past mistakes.

It was also really slow-paced, particularly because nothing that interesting was happening in his life.

He also had some cringe-worthy moments because he just rushed into a lot of things. He would do something semi stupid and then just time travel back, even if it wasn't even worthy (to me) to travel back.

And sure it had a good moral to the story, but nothing that disastrous or that exciting even happened with him time-traveling, which you would think would happen, since the general story goes that someone travels back in time and does something that changes everything, and they have to fix it and realise that time traveling is just not worth it.

But in this film, that idea isn't really sold very well.

So in short, I would definitely not watch it again.


Dear John (2010)

6.3/10 on IMDb
28% on Rotten Tomatoes
I don't think you could title a blog post "Romance" without including an adaptation of a Nicholas Sparks movie.

So this stars Channing Tatum and Amanda Seyfried as two lovers under circumstances that make it difficult for their relationship to blossom; notably that Tatum's character is in the military and has to go out to Afghanistan for extended periods of time.

It's the typical star-crossed lovers plot that Nicholas Sparks has.

I loved the way Roger Ebert's review put it:

"Lasse Hallstrom's "Dear John" tells the heartbreaking story of two lovely young people who fail to find happiness together because they're trapped in an adaptation of a Nicholas Sparks novel."
It's an interesting plot but it's kind of slow. I would definitely not call it the best Nicholas Sparks book-to-film adaptation, even if I haven't seen any except The Notebook and A Walk to Remember. The ending especially was not how I would have liked it to be; there was an alternate ending on the DVD which I liked better.

So yeh; overall not a great movie.

Exams are Over!

Yay exams are over!!!

Time to clean up my room, throw out my notes and reorganise my desk...

I'm not travelling anywhere, but I've still got a lot planned for the holidays. I'm starting work at The Body Shop again in December for a Christmas Casual position, then in January and February I got this volunteering position at uni to help post-graduates with their research studies, so it'll still be pretty busy.

I also want to get back into doing some sort of artsy thing, as well as maybe get back into cooking and baking a little. But that can come later.


So yesterday was a pretty fun day. I went out to the city to get a haircut with my mum in the morning. My haircuts are FREE because I get them done at The Australasian College Broadway, and they need people for their students to practice on, so they have lots of services (both hair and beauty) that are either really cheap or even free. It's just that it takes quite a while for them to do the haircuts because they're a lot slower. Like usually my haircuts would take like maybe 30-40 minutes, but with these students it can take around 1.5 to 2 hours.

And then my mum and I went to watch Mockingjay!!!

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 (2014)

7.5/10 on IMDb
68% on Rotten Tomatoes
So the movie kicks off with a fragile and broken Katniss Everdeen suffering from PTSD after heading into two Hunger Games in a row. Following off from the events of Catching Fire, Katniss awaits news about Peeta, who has been captured by the Capitol, in the underground city of District 13.

As she finds out that Peeta is not only alive but being used by the Capitol as a piece in their propaganda to attempt to subdue the uprising in the districts, Katniss finds herself in a difficult position. On the one hand she knows that Peeta is being tortured and forced into saying the things that he is saying, but on the other hand she knows that she must take a stand herself and refute Peeta's messages of propaganda, and thus his credibility.

Ironically, this results in Katniss being yet another piece in someone else's plan, as we start to see the power and plans of District 13's President Coin.

So firstly I'll address this: I don't like it when books are split into two movies (or three, in the case of The Hobbit). Whilst this DOES give me (and other fans) more opportunity to get hyped about films, watch Jennifer Lawrence interviews and see more of the movie, it's definitely just a way for film companies to earn more cash. It also always makes the first movie of the split couple worse because it seems like it's just a dragged out introduction for the epic finale. Which it is. So I'm just going to review this movie based on how it fared with the book, and how it leads up to the last movie.

So the movie actually did really well if you look at how closely it followed the book. I think it emphasised a lot of the things that it should have emphasised, whilst also keeping those key themes in the movie.

This movie is probably something that you'd either love or really really dislike. Why? Because there's not much action. And there's not meant to be. In the final book of the trilogy, the first half is full of propaganda. In the second half, it still focuses on propaganda but there is more action because it's on the war that's happening. So the second half would be more interesting of course.

But I still really loved this film because it just shows how terrible reality is. In reality, you don't have one hero. In reality, the war isn't won by one person. It takes a team, a group, a nation of people to win a war.

Yes, Katniss has a very passive role in this film. But that's how she is in the books, because it's showing you that this is no longer just about Katniss. In the first two movies/books/games Katniss was central to the events. In this book/film, she's still central but she's no longer as important any more. In the first book/film, Peeta says that he wants to make sure he shows people that he cannot be used as a piece in their games. He does not want to change who he is for other people, regardless of what's happening.

But this film shows you that that is not your choice to make. The circumstances around you start to shape you whether you want them to or not. You're no longer than large predator that you thought you were; instead you're just a small pebble amongst a riverbank of stones, being weathered and eroded down by your environment.

Add to that the stuff that Katniss has been through, and her PTSD, and you realise that she simply just can't do much anyway. But when she decides for herself that she will stand up for herself and help the cause, it's not as amazing as she'd think it'd be.

In this film, Katniss thinks she is doing what she is doing because it is what she wants to do. But she doesn't realise that she's just a piece in the games, be it President Snow's games, President Coin's games, or even Plutarch Heavensbee's games.

This film is the perfect lead up to the last film in the series, because it shows you just how disposable Katniss is. Yes, they need her voice, but even if she didn't cooperate they would have other voices, e.g. Finnick.

I also really loved how they elaborated more on what some of the other districts were doing. The hanging tree scene and the dam was my favourite part of the film, together with the scene from District 7 with the lumberjacks, because it shows you that this film extends beyond Katniss. Katniss is no longer crucial to the plot.

So yeh, I would say that it was actually a really great film, which keeps the major themes intact and has a really good portrayal of the emotional journey that these characters are going through.

Also, I'd like to add that Jennifer Lawrence's acting in this was perfection. Everyone's acting was amazing; especially Josh Hutcherson (and even Jena Malone's very very small bit as Johanna Mason).

And I'd like to further add that the ending is PERFECT. If you've read the books and you think you know where it's going to end, then yes, that is where it is going to end.


Anyway, so yeh that was my review of Mockingjay. Sure, it's a bit biased but those are my thoughts anyway.

****EDIT****
I realised I didn't talk about things I didn't like, so I'll briefly do that:
1. The novel emphasised a lot on Katniss' Mockingjay suit. It was the product of Cinna's soul and it meant a lot to her, and the fact that it looked amazing didn't help either. The previous two films in nature focus a lot on the costumes, so they should have included a bit more emphasis on her suit. In the novels you realise that even though they're fighting against this warped system, they still have to make her look pretty and make her continue her role as a fashion icon. It's ridiculous because she's still just being used like a prop.
2. Finnick's character was so shallow here. In the novel he actually breaks down a lot. When he says the line about how it takes ten times as long to put yourself together than to fall apart, it has so much impact in the book because you really get him. You see him being completely out of it and lost, and you see how he recovers over time. It gives you hope that Katniss can do the same, and it gives you a lot of respect for Finnick because you understand the pain he feels. But in the movie? Almost nothing. The most was him looking sad on a hospital bed. He didn't even break down. At least give us one scene please.

****END EDIT****
ALSO I BOUGHT THE MOCKINGJAY CUP FROM HOYTS!

(The photo is really dodgy because the cup is really shiny and it's hard to get a decent picture of it)
HAHAHA it's actually SO LARGE.


Also, if you think that the movie was bad then I have some real shocking news...

They're thinking of doing:

Hunger Games the Stage Show?!?!!?!?!?!

Here's the article about it, as well as the video.

I mean I don't know why people seem really keen about it; it sounds like a horrible idea. Some people are saying it would be great if it was a musical but honestly? That sounds so bad. Even a stage show by itself sounds horrible.

In the video, the stage looks really awesome; a rotating 360 degree stage, but I mean can't they just use that kind of a stage for a completely different production?

It's only going to be in London (I think), but if it gets bigger and gets to Australia, I would definitely watch it out of obligation and curiosity, but I still think it would be horrible. There's just no way you can fit that action, brutal murders and furturistic technology into a stage show. And there are 3 books and 4 films to be fit into one stage show...

Doing Fun Stuff Instead of Studying

If you remember from my whale watching blog post, I stated that when I climbed the Harbour Bridge, I got tickets to go to the Pylon Lookout. Every climber gets a free entry into the lookout, which is only about $13 anyway ($8.50 for concession), but it expires in one month, so my mum and I went on the Saturday before my exams because that was the only time we could.

It's a pretty good view for $14, let alone for free, but obviously it doesn't compare to the bridge climb. It's still good though, because you're at 89 metres above sea level, which is the same height as about 1/4 of the way up the Harbour Bridge's upper arch. Obviously the upside here is that you can spend as long as you want and take your own photos.

There's quite a lot of stairs, I think off memory about 200 of them, but they're interspersed with various mementos and items for you to look at, so it's not that boring or tiring really.

After you get to the reception, once you go up one flight of stairs, they have this little thing set up for you to take a photo on, and it looks like an old-timey photo of you chillin' on the bridge.

Then when you get to the top there are a bunch of facts inside before you actually go to the lookout.

Unfortunately it was super super windy that day (I had to hold down my skirt even on ground level, let alone all the way up there), but it was still very enjoyable.

Some fun facts:
Sixteen men died when building the bridge (I'd imagine this is quite low for the number of deaths, considering men worked without harnesses or safety rails). Eight were iron workers, one was a carpenter, one a painter, two were quarrymen and four were labourers. Only two fell from the arch.

BridgeClimb started on the 1st of October, 1998, and had reached 1 million climbers on the 14th April 2003.

It required 272,000 litres of paint to give the bridge it's initial three coats.

Another fun thing I did was a market research taste test!

I pretty much got paid $50 for tasting 6 different types of dips - 3 guacamole and 3 salsa. It was pretty interesting; it was my first ever taste test. I always do surveys but I could never get through to actually being a participant until now.

It was also super professional, like you sit at a little cubicle so you can't see anything, and there's door/hatch thing in front of you that you slide up/down for them to slide the samples to you.

It was for a brand called Obela, as they're trialling guacamole and salsa products now, and I must say that the classic guacamole (with no spices) was sooo delicious. I ticked all the good options for that one on the survey.

I also checked out their website and I see that they specialise in hummus, so I went and bought some for dips for my brother's birthday party. The smooth classic hummus is quite nice, but the roasted garlic one looks really weird (it's not yet opened).

So anyway that was fun, and not a bad way to earn some cash while you're at it. The leading market research companies (at least I think they're leading? I dunno, they're just the ones I'm registered to) are Farron Research and Realtime Research if you want to sign up.


Movies!

The Amazing Spiderman (2012)

7.1/10 on IMDb
73% on Rotten Tomatoes
I remember when the trailer for this first came out and I was just like, "Why are they doing a reboot of this? Spiderman 3 was VERY recent! And why are they getting the guy from The Social Network?"

But despite that, this was actually really good. I can't remember too much because I've been waiting to watch The Amazing Spiderman 2 to do this review, but I remember liking Andrew Garfield and thinking he was a better Spiderman than Tobey Maguire (and let's face it, who wouldn't think that after being traumatised by Tobey's crying face and also his dancing scenes in the third movie?).

I liked how they added in Peter Parker's father's role (although I found it funny how his name was Richard, because of Richard Parker the Bengal Tiger from Life of Pi), as well as Spiderman's character development as a result of this. I also like the web shooter development just as something that's a little different.

Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Spiderman seems really arrogant though; like when he is swinging or even just talking it seems so over-the-top. I know that his character IS meant to be arrogant, but it was a bit off-putting. Although I don't particularly remember if Tobey Maguire's portrayal of him was arrogant too so I can't really compare.

But my favourite part of the movie, and I think many agree, would be the one where Stan Lee makes a cameo in the school library.

So in comparison to the original Spiderman trilogy, it was still very enjoyable.


The Amazing Spiderman 2: Rise of Electro (2014)

7.0/10 on IMDb
53% on Rotten Tomatoes

So if the first Amazing Spiderman was enjoyable, this was only alright.

I did hear some bad reviews on it but I watched it anyway, and whilst I didn't find it that bad, it wasn't that great either.

The whole movie is very emotional and very slow-paced. You get to see a lot more of Peter Parker's emotions and struggles with trying to find out what happened with his parents, as well as trying to protect Gwen and convince her that it would be best to end the relationship. It's all very sad and emotional and you really feel for him and just want to reach out and hug him.

HOWEVER, the plot was not the best. Whoever wrote the section for the villains... like I don't even know.

I really DID NOT like the actor for Harry Osborn. He looks like evil Luke Skywalker and was just super annoying. He also didn't play much of a big role in this so it was just annoying to have to see his annoying acting and then by the end of the movie not have a big justification for why he was in the film.

~SPOILER ON THE ENDING!~

In Jeremy Jahn's Spoiler Talk, he stated how it felt like Harry was just put into the plot JUST so that he could kill off Gwen Stacy. That actually seems about right and if so, that's really annoying.

Also if Peter Parker was arrogant in the first Amazing Spiderman, then he was like super super annoyingly arrogant in this one. I didn't think it was possible to be even more arrogant.

Electro as a villain was alright; Jaime Foxx did a good job of it, but I don't know... I just didn't really like the idea of him.

~SPOILER ON ELECTRO!~

How did he just materialise OUT OF NOWHERE? Like I get that he is literally just electricity at this point, but he still has organs and a brain and all that, and even if he doesn't, then how does he just materialise with the armour on? He's ELECTRICITY. Last time I checked, electricity couldn't be converted into a tangible form, let alone an actual body or a metallic armour.

~ANOTHER SPOILER ON ELECTRO!~

Why is Electro's weakness water? Doesn't water + electricity = electric shock? Isn't water an excellent conductor of electricity? That part didn't make sense to me. His weakness should be some really durable insulator, but obviously that wouldn't translate well across the screen; water looks heaps cooler.

Now with the ending, I think it should have ended a bit sooner, without the last scene. It actually reminded me a lot of The Incredibles' ending, and it also just reinstated Peter Parker's arrogance.

~ANOTHER SPOILER ON THE ENDING!~

I feel like they should have left him really upset about Gwen and then in a sequel make him go through that emotional journey and then meet Mary Jane, or even just condense it so that Gwen dies about halfway through the film so that the rest of it would be his emotional journey, instead of leading up to the death with a semi-unrelated emotional journey on his parents and then cutting out his grief at the end. This was exactly why I hated the HIMYM finale; it was too short. There was no time spent to see the character development over that long period of time.

So basically, I wouldn't re-watch this movie any time soon.

Patiently Waiting for Exams to Come and Go

My goodness, this last week or so has been droning on so terribly slowly. It's so hard to concentrate and try to study, especially when all the content I'm learning is so terribly boring.

I'm trying to keep myself busy and studying, but it's just sooo hard. I haven't been able to watch many movies lately, so here are some that I watched a few weeks ago. I've got Edge of Tomorrow and Godzilla.

But BEFORE that, I also went to Sculpture(s) by the Sea last week with Diwan as a little sort of break from studying (but also because it finished on Sunday, so we wanted to get in there).

Firstly, as I think pretty much every visitor has duly noted, the title of the open exhibition is called SCULPTURE by the sea. One sculpture. And, as everyone has noted, there is more than one sculpture. There are 109.

So secondly, quantity does not mean quality. Just because there is a great multitude of art does not mean that many of them are great at all. Factor in the walking and it's really not a terrific experience. I mean sure, some of the sculptures were good, but some were just... terrible. Like number 49, 'A spacious affair, from the outside to the inside' by Mikala Valeur is a closet that people line up for and what do you see when you are in the closet? Mirrors. The interior of the closet is just mirrors. Then the light at the top goes off so that "the darkness switches your attention to your inner consciousness and thoughts", except it's not even dark because the daylight from outside is flooding in from the gap underneath the door. And I lined up for that.

Thirdly, they're very abstract. Of course, this is most of the reason that you get so many sculptures and so many that are bad. Plus, a lot of them look kinda cool but then their descriptions are just sooo weird. Like number 63, 'Nevermore' by Jonathan Leahey is like some steel origami bird thing, and the description says: "Inspired by 'The Raven' by Edgar Allen Poe". Uhm, I'm pretty sure it was more inspired by origami than The Raven.

Fourthly, the Sculptures Inside is more enjoyable than the outdoor sculptures. Maybe because everything is in the one place and you don't have to trek all the way to see the next disappointing sculpture, but it's still better nonetheless. A lot of them are mini sculptures of the outdoor ones, and they look really cool.

Fifthly, it's very difficult to enjoy this without purchasing the booklet at the information center, and the booklet costs $10. Luckily my mum bought it when she went so I just took hers when I went. The money goes towards next year's exhibition, and there are also $20 calendars for sale. But as I was saying, it's very difficult to enjoy this without a guide telling you where each sculpture is (especially in that middle grassy section near Bondi since it's like a chaotic free-for-all that's totally not even ordered). It's also fun reading the descriptions of them and (at least attempting an) understanding of what the artist desired.

Sixthly, schoolchildren make it very hard to enjoy. There were so many on excursions, and they were sitting around on the grass eating their lunch, climbing on things, being really loud and even writing on some of the sculptures! I was so terrified of them.

My mum's favourite was number 33, 'Breaching' by Michael Greve.

I liked it too and it was one of my favourites as well. My mum had a chance to talk to the sculptor, since he stands there under the trees every single day making sure no one ruins his sculpture. He didn't do anything to the wood he used besides sculpt thoses lines through it, but the shape is natural and that's how he found it. He also bolted the flippers to it as well. I think it's pretty cool.

One of my favourites, if not my all-time favourite, was number 55, 'Resignation' by Michael Purdy.

The description reads, "The artist's father, a twice Australian chess champion, died in 2011. This chess piece, slumping in resignation, is in part a memorial to him while exploring the broader theme of mortality."

That's deep.


Anyway, time for movies!

Edge of Tomorrow

8/10 on IMDb
90% on Rotten Tomatoes

Tom Cruise, it's been a while since I've seen you in something decent. But obviously my bias against you as an actor and a person may play a part in that...

But even my strong dislike for Tom Cruise's voice couldn't prevent me from loving this film.

The concept is amazing, where the main character (Cruise) is unfortunately deployed into the army to fight against aliens, except he discovers that every time he dies, he wakes up only to relive the day again. This obviously opens up to a potential of "Groundhog day meets..." proposals, except it's Groundhog day with aliens, so... Groundhog Day meets Matrix?

And because of this, like in Groundhog day, you see him knowing how every single thing will pan out. He knows when to jump, turn, shoot behind him, and even how many steps to take. It gets to the point where everything is choreographed by him, but he still doesn't know how to actually fight, so he needs to train for it.

Enter Emily Blunt's character.

Firstly, Emily Blunt was amazing. I believe this was her first badass role and she was indeed a badass. I love her as an actress, and when her character comes, in the whole movie gets so much more interesting.

The main character then learns to fight and train, day after day after day, death after death after death. But the question remains as to why they still can't defeat the aliens. Then they discover it's much more complex than they imagined.

So the whole film was very intense and thrilling; the sci-fi part of it was done really really well, and it had great moments of humour interspersed throughout.

I must definitely commend Emily Blunt and Tom Cruise on their action scenes, since their suits weighed 85 pounds (38.5 kg) and they did quite a lot of scenes in those suits.

The only thing is that the ending did not make perfect sense to me, and I thought that it was actually going to end in some other similar way that would have made more sense, but then all of a sudden it ended super quickly.

~SPOILER!~

See I didn't understand why he got reset to the day BEFORE the normal time he used to get reset to (i.e. he got reset to that scene where the helicopter is flying him in?). Shouldn't he have gotten reset to just when he woke up in the army? Unless they did that just so that he could this time NOT try to bribe Mad-Eye Moody and instead gain his dignity back? But still that doesn't make sense.

Anyway, so he gets reset. I thought it was actually going to be: he gets reset, goes to the army place, then they win the war because the Alpha and Omega are no longer alive and therefore no longer know what the enemy is going to do. Or something like that. But when he resets, the Alpha and Omega are already dead. And they are dead two days BEFORE his character actually killed them. How does that make sense?

Also I don't understand why he was reset in the first place. I mean I know that the Alpha exploded and therefore its blood went into him to allow him to reset, but I thought that he could only reset if the Alpha and Omega were alive, since resetting uses the Omega's memories?

I dunno, this was a few weeks ago so I can't remember my first impressions/thoughts on how the ending should have been.

But I read something that is quite interesting and makes sense on why he reset. From IMDB: It is ambiguous whether Cage harnessed the Omega's powers without its influences, or if the Omega ingrained itself into Cage in a last-ditch effort to survive and to control/influence Cage.

But anyway; definitely a really great movie, and one of the good ones released this year.


Godzilla

6.7/10 on IMDb
73% on Rotten Tomatoes
Ahhh, Godzilla. Classic. Nobody has not heard of Godzilla; it's a legend that ripples through our hearts and runs in the backgrounds of our minds.

And yet, this film seems to ruin it all.

I mean sure, people praise it for being quite... different I guess to what you would imagine it to be, but that's what I didn't like. It wasn't so much action or thriller as it was just building up to something, and then making you disappointed. I can't really say much without putting a spoiler tag (which I will soon), but it just wasn't very exciting for me. In the trailer you don't really see Godzilla, it just hypes it up for you to see it in the movie, but in the movie you still barely see it at all. You see glimpses of it then at the end you see it, but apart from that it's like "eh".

But maybe it was just too hyped up for me. I don't know, I feel like it was one of the most hyped up movies of the year and it really disappointed me because it just wasn't that great.

I was also a bit disappointed in some specific stuff, for example:

~SPOILER!~

Bryan Cranston is barely in the movie when, come on let's face it, we all expected him to be a major character.

and

~SPOILER!~

The humans don't really do anything, do they? All they do is make you want to slap them because they're so stupid.

"Whatever you do, don't leave the hospital! Even if everyone is evacuating and Godzilla is coming for you. Don't leave the hospital. Feel free to send off our son so he can be safe, but you yourself don't leave it!"

Like, seriously?

It was also very slow paced, so I was completely not entertained throughout.

I wouldn't really recommend it.