Yes Man

Just finished watching Yes Man & I pretty enjoyed it. I've always been a fan of most of Jim Carey's movies & this is no exception. The acting was as good as anything else; I actually laughed out loud a few times, & the movie also had nice romantic side to it.

Long story short: Jim Carey plays Carl Allen, who for the last 5 years has been working in the loan department of a bank. He's got 2 friends, but doesn't like going out with them. His wife's left him, & he's just got a pretty dull life - most nights are spent sat in, alone, watching movies he's rented from the local Blockbuster. He then bumps into an old friend who has got a new lease on life - he must say "Yes" to everything. Carl reluctantly goes to the seminar, & during it he himself becomes a "yes man". From that night on, his life changes forever. 

He says yes to everything & anything (Korean language lessons, flying lessons, helping the homeless, etc), & over a number of circumstances gets together with this this chick called Alison (Zooey Deschanel - who, for the whole entire movie, I actually thought was Katy Perry. Well, I realized it wasn't her, but she looked ALOT like her). They fall in love, until they get stopped in an airport & Carl is questioned about all of the random things he's done (they beleive he's a terrorist). Alison finds out about the "yes man" way of life & beleives that the only reason he got with her was because he had to say "yes" to everything. The movie then goes on, with Carl trying to get back with Alison, & with Carl learning the true "way of life" of a 'yes man'.

As I said, the acting was as good as anything else. Though 'Norman', or "Norm", (Rhys Darby) was kinda annoying but I feel as though he character was meant to put that across to the audience, as you saw the life through Carl, & at the beginning of the movie he hated Norman but over time built a friendship because of the 'yes man' belief though it was still portrayed in a way that you could tell Carl still found him annoying. 

Yes it was a Rom-Com, but it wasn't that funny for the most part. Though, I did laugh a good number of times. But don't get me wrong, just because it wasn't all that funny doesn't (or, didn't) ruin the enjoyment of the movie. I still enjoyed it overall; though it wasn't as much of a classic as some other Jim Carey films (eg 'The Truman show') it was still a much enjoyable film. 

All in all, I'd probably give it a B rating.

Oh, & if you're thinking "well this is just basically Liar Liar", in my opinion, it's not. If anything, it's moreso the opposite. In that movie, he has to learn not to lie. In this movie, he has to say "yes" to everything that comes his way. Now I can't remember Liar Liar all that well, as it's been a few years since I last saw it, but don't go into this movie expecting Liar Liar, because from as much as I can remember from that film, this is not it at all.

The Godfather: Part II

So, after being a HUGE fan of the the first Godfather movie I just finally got round to watching Part II for the first time & I hate to say it, but after all of the "The Godfather Part II is one of the, if not the best movie/s of all time. And if not, it is without a doubt the best sequel of all time." I was pretty let down. Now, like I said, I really do LOVE the first movie; it's one of my all-time favorite movies but The Godfather Part II imo, after watching this one time, is no-where near the top of that "Favorite Moives" list. 

Now I understand that there's a full 3h 22m version, but I was just watching the 3h 2m version, so I I must've missed out on about 20 minutes worth of stuff. But I really don't think that would've helped, much. I just, I felt confused ALOt throughout the film. I, personally, for much of the film, didn't understand what was going on OR why it happened. It seemed, at times, as though Michael Corleone was almost [& I hate to say this, but] psychic because it seemed as though he knew everything that was going on but I didn't understand how he found out what was going on. Maybe I missed it all in the speech, infact after reading some of the plot summary on Wiki I probably did miss a bunch of stuff (eg Tom Hagen apparantly told Frank Pentangeli to commit suicide, which he did & was found in the bathtub with his wrists slit - but I don't recall hearing anything like that). Though, the confusion was really only with the stuff that was set in "the present" (ie 1958-1959); I pretty much fully understand what was going on in the "prequel" part of the film in which you see Don Vito's life chronicle from a young, small boy to moving to New York, to starting a family, to start his own Mafia family, to killing the Don, to going back to Corleone, Sicily to kill the Don that ordered his (Don Vito's) mom to be shot dead, & everything that happened. 

In actual fact, I think I would've much preferred the whole movie to be about Don Vito's life, instead of just flashbacks as apart of a sequel to the first Godfather movie. I actually found it quite interesting watching Don Vito's life & how he worked his way up to where he got. But for the actual, main storyline of the movie I just felt it was all so random & just didn't make munch sense. I understand that Michael wanted revenge after his bedroom window being shot through, in an attempt to kill Michael &/or Kay. And I do understand some of the other things that happened (eg Kay breaking up/leaving), but for the large majority of the main storyline I was just confused.

I would like to make a commment of my opinions on the acting, or the directing, or whatever but I feel that with my confusion of the film I don't really think I could make a fail & proper judgement. I mean, for all it's worth, the directing was as good as ever, & the acting seemed to be pretty good, I guess, but yeah.... I was just really confused. Maybe it's because of the missing 20 minutes; Maybe it's because some of the speech just went straight over my head; I don't knoq. But nontheless I was pretty disappointed with this film after the very high expectations I had for it. 

Maybe in time I may understand the film better, like if I watch it again, or by playing the game (though I realize that "The Godfather II" doesn't follow the movie 'The Godfather Part II' as close as the first game did to the first movie), because I've seen the first movie too many times to count & I understand it completely & I love it, but I can't remember what I first thought of it after watching it however-many years ago it was I first saw that movie (Infact, it wasn't even that long ago, I think it was maybe 3 or 4 years ago) - & I played the game to DEATH, literally over 60 hours if not WAY more. 

So yeah, maybe in time it'll grow on me, but after just watching it for the first time I was pretty darn disappointed.

The Man In The Moon

I just watched 'The Man in the Moon' (1991) without really knowing anything about it. Infact, I first heard about it after looking for 'Man On The Moon' just a few days ago. But anyway, I watched the trailer & well, that pretty much gives you a good idea of the whole story. It's basically a love story between 2 cousins (Dani Trant, 14, & Court Foster, 17) set out in the rural country in 1957, which ends up becoming a love triangle with Dani's older sister Marie (17/18, age isn't given in the movie but is suggested) when she too falls for Court. But then just as Dani finds out about the relationship between Marie & Court there's a big plot point. I won't reveal it, but if you watch the trailer (& even if you don't) you can pretty much tell what it's gonna be. Nonetheless, it had a solid story which was somewhat ruined by the too-revealing trailer but was a little predictable anyway. Though, to be fair, there were a few times when I didn't know what was going to happen next.

I'd say the movie definitely had some solid acting. "Dani" is played by a very young Reese Witherspoon; she would have been 14/15 at the time of release & so during recording of the film chances were she was 12-14 I guess. It was actually, according to IMDB, her first movie & for someone's first movie it definitely wasn't a bad movie to be apart of. The movie also starred Sam Waterson (better known to many now as D.A. Jack McCoy in the Law & Order universe) as the father of the Trant household, "Matthew Trant";Tess Harper as "Abigail Trant", the mother; Gail Strickland as "Marie Foster", Dani's older sister; & Jason London as "Court Foster", the love interest of the two sisters. Overall I thought the acting was pretty good, especially from "Dani", "Court" & "Matthew". 

So yeah, overall a pretty decent movie. It's nothing spectacular, or anything I'd say "GO OUT & BUY THIS NOW!!!" but it's an enjoyable film, & one that I definitely wouldn't say to not watch; definitely watch it if you can.

Ratings wise, I'd probably give this a B-, though it probably would've been a B or a B+ had the trailer not revealed so much about the movie because after watching that, you pretty much know what's gonna happen throughout the movie. I mean, don't get me wonrg, there are plenty of other things that happen just that most of them aren't really too signicifant (though, Reese Witherspoon (or "Dani") does go skinny-dipping near to the beginning of the movie. ;) ...but she's underage during this film so :p).

Man On The Moon

I don't normally do this, but after watching this film I just thought I had to do it.

Wow, I just finished watching 'Man On the Moon' & what a truely great film it was. I should say now that prior to the film I've seen very very little of any of Kaufman's stuff, or even knew very little of him. This film actually taught me quite a bit about him. Now I realize that his life wasn't exactly as the film portrayed (after all, he does warn the audience of that at the beginning of the movie) but from what I've quickly just found out it's meant to be pretty close to his actual life.

The reason I watched this film is actually because I was watching an episode of Legends Of Wrestling onn WWE 24/7 & I can't remember if they were discussing Jerry Lawler's career or if Jerry Lawler was on the panel, but whichever way it was one of the panelists mentioned the film & said how great Carey played the character/role of Andy Kaufman. I don't really know why it made me watch the film, but it did. 

As I said, I didn't really know what Kaufman was like during the time he was alive but you can tell that all of the actor/actresses had done thier research & really nailed each of thier roles. Especially Jim Carey. I actually can't think of anybody else who could've played the role better than him. I gotta say I was pretty surprised by the number of quality-name actors in the movie - "Hilga" from Sabrina The Teenage Witch (I don't know her real name, I just remember that character name from when I used to watch the show years ago), Richard Belzer, Courtney Love (I didn't actually realize it was her until I read the character listings on Wiki), a young "Chloe O'Brian" from 24 (I don't know her real name either), & a bunch of others that popped up. I also gotta admit, I marked out when I saw JR for the first time; I did not expect him to be in there. Heck, I didn't expect Lawler to be either, & I kinda marked for him. Though it surprises me that if Lawler was in the movie, that they didn't use the Memphis Wrestling promotion stuff & instead used a fake "Global Wrestling Federation" promotion. 

One thing I did have to learn to understand was Kaufman's bizarre, or well, different, sense of humor which infact he shared with Bob Zmuda. There was a little bit which I found humorous, but there was also much of it I personally didn't find humrous. Though I don't feel as though the aim of the movie was to try & get gags, it was moreso about informing the audience of the truely intersting life of Andy Kaufman. It's a rollercoaster ride from his childhood, to his struggles trying to make it in showbusiness, to making it, to wrestling, to trying to go back to showbusiness, to get cancer, to unfortunately dieing & everything inbetween. 

I will admit that during that second-to-last scene where it's Kaufman's funeral I did almost shead a tear, & then got even closer during the final performance of Tony Clifton. Which does bring me onto the ambigious ending. After watching the movie I've found that it's beleived by some that he didn't actually, & that Kaufman faked his death. Now while watching the film I was kinda expecting for it to be revealed that he didn't have cancer but for him to then die of something more sudden like a heart attack, but I guess that added to the sadness - the one time he was being completely serious, people didn't want to listen. I guess it comes back to the old story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. But yeah I was expecting it to be Zmuda playing the character of Tony Clifton, but in one of the last shots you see him at the side of the room smiling on. Which leaves the audience pondering the question at the end, as fans have been for 25 years, did Andy Kaufman actually die? As in real life, the movie gave out the message that most people beleive he is deceased but there are those select few who beleive he might still be alive. 

In conclusion, for me, I found it to be a truely great film with great acting, & I want to say 'great story' but it obviously it wasn't a "story", it was biopic of Andy's life. Nonetheless it was still a great film in my estimation, & if y'all have not checked it out I HIGHLY suggest that you do. I don't normally like grading movies, but if I was to do so, I'd probably give it an A or an A+; it really would go up there with some of all-time most enjoyable movies.

Now I know I should've kinda finished this post, but I just wanted to say one more thing... I had NO IDEA that the feud between Andy Kaufman & Jerry Lawler was completely fake. I mean, being the wrestling fan that I am I probably should've figured out that wasn't 100% real, but I dunno, I'd always thought it was. So it kinda blew me away a little when the movie revealed that to me.

Welcome all

Welcome everybody to my new blog.

I don't normally do things like this, but after writing that 'Internet Celebrities: Do They Really Exist?' thing, I thought it'd be a good idea to start one & get things like this out there. I can't say for definite that this will be updated every day, but keep checking back every now & again as whenever I have some argument, or have to get something out there, I'll be sure to do it here. And don't fret, that usually tends to happen to quite a lot.

So yea, hope all of y'all internet folks enjoy this.

Internet Celebrities: Do They Really Exist?

After watching tonight's first ever 'YouTube Live' "thing" & hearing them call themselves/each other 'Internet Celebrities' it made me think: Do they really exist?

At first, I thought "Hell no, they're not celebrities." But then one has to think - What actually is a celebrity?

When one thinks of a celebrity they would usually think of some big actor/actress/musical act/etc from Hollywood, or some other big city, or whatever. People the likes of Beyonce, Marlon Brando, Will Smith, Jim Carey, & Britney Spears are often thought about as some of today's celebrities. All of these so called 'Internet Celebrities' were nothing before YouTube, or whatever other website made them famous. 'Real Celebrities' spent years learning their art, mastering their craft, to become as good as they can be whereas the majority of these Internet Videos/'Internet Celebrities' spend no-where near as long in production/learning their art.

As another point, I know not all celebrities live in the big cities but the majority of them do. Whereas, when was the last time any of these 'Internet Celebrities' were in a big "Celebrity City" like Hollywood, New York, Miami, London, or Paris. Also, celebrities are oftenly featured in tabloids, magazines & other forms of the media, but are these 'Internet Celebrities'? No. Are they anywhere except on the Internet? Not really. But then, does just being well known on the Internet warrant enough to be called a 'Celebrity'?

Princeton defines a celebrity as:

"Noun

S: (n) celebrity, famous person (a widely known person) "he was a baseball celebrity"
S: (n) fame, celebrity, renown (the state or quality of being widely honored and acclaimed)"

Wikipedia defines a celebrity as:

"A celebrity is a widely-recognized or famous person who commands a high degree of public and media attention."

So, according to those definitions it would appear so, that just because their "well known" on the internet means they are 'celebrities'. Granted now, there has been some people who have come from sites such as YouTube & gone on to gain global recognition, eg Solja Boy, but you could count those people on one hand. Which kinda brings me onto a point I've been meaning to make for a while. In this day & age it appears anyone can become a 'Celebrity'. If you have enough money, live in the right places, do the right things, etc anybody can become one - Look at the Kardashians. But should this really be case? I mean, should celebrities really only be the crème de' le' crème of society/media? The actors, actresses, musicians, etc. Or should we allow anybody & everybody to become a celebrity?

An example I want to use is Paris Hilton. She had done virtually nothing, as far as I know, before The Simple Life. But since then she has become a mega-celebrity but still has done virtually nothing. Sure there was that sex tape that just so "happened" to be "coincidentally" leaked around the time of The Simple Life's premiere, & she's gone on to do other TV appearances, start perfume chains or whatever, & all of that stuff. And sure, her dad is one of the richest people in the world, owning the Hilton chain of hotels, but do people like this, people who have done virtually nothing, deserve to be 'celebrities'?

Sure everybody wants their 15 Minutes of Fame, & everybody thinks that they could be next big thing (but really only Brock Lesnar is ;)) hence why there are thousands of auditions each & every year for shows like American Idol, X Factor, & other talent competitions. But everybody does not, atleast in my opinion, deserve to become a 'celebrity'. And heck, if we were all to become a 'celebrity', who would be the real celebrities? What the "elite" be called?

In my opinion there needs to be that huge gap between a 'celebrity' & 'non-celebrity'. Bringing it all back to my original question, in my opinion just because these so called 'Internet Celebrities' have got X Million amount of views on YouTube or some other internet website, they're not celebrities. Nor should they be considered celebrities. With these YouTube Live "things", & probably other ones that're gonna pop up, it probably going to be the case that more & more nobodies are becoming celebrities just because they're video had crap loads of views. But then, thinking about this, this could be considered to just be the same as when there was no internet & thousands, or millions, of people would flock to the theater to go watch the newest movie, except now people can do it in the pleasure of their home, & make their own too. Is this just the way that technology is forcing society to change?