Star Wars The Force Awakens

What can one say about a movie that has been in the works for over ten years? Wait no, more... over 32 years. What is there to say to the continuation of The Return of the Jedi, and the Original Trilogy ?

Believe me there is not much good to say.

Let me start by saying that my expectations were pretty low on this, to the point of considering it a success if it was slightly better than TPM (Ep I). Now as I sit and write this, I can say it was a good thing I did, Star-wise speaking. So, here goes my full review of The Force Awakens.

Spoilers alert.

TFA is actually a very good movie, if (and that is a HUGE IF) you  take it out of the Star Wars universe context. The problem is, TFA is INSIDE the Star Wars universe context. Remove it from the context it is set in, and it is actually a very good film with, good plot, good acting, and everything else. So what is the problem with TFA then? I have two major concerns which I believe two of the greatest flaws of the movie, and I have one minor concern, which I would concede given that it is so hard to produce the perfect product everyone was expecting with this film. So let me get into each one of them one at a time:

My first major concern: Why kill off Han Solo ?

This is a complete and utter regrettable piece of #@%$ decision made by whoever came up with this idea. Why kill off not only the best character of the series, the most witty, the clever one, the scroundel, the most likeable, but also the best actor in the series ! It would have been more believable, dramatic and intense to kill off Leia. Why ? Because she's a woman, she's Kylo's mother, she's fragile, she's related to Luke, she's meant to be a Jedi, so it would have had a huge impact on the audience, plus let's face it, Carrie Fischer is not as good an actress as Harrison Ford. The few minutes Fischer was on screen as Leia, it was like "meh"... but Harrison on the other hand, as soon as he showed up on screen he stole the show on every scene he was in. The minute he stepped foot on that platform, you knew what was going to happen with him. Killing Leia instead would have been completely unexpected, out of the line, daring and surprising, maybe leaving the door  open to bring her back on Ep VIII as ghost. But Han ? Snoke already hinted that Kylo had to kill his father for some issues we are never aware of (as it's a norm in all films of the franchise to leave interesting context behind and not to talk about it), so having Leia coming as a mother to try to "bring her son home" would have been more effective as to have Kylo complete his journey towards the dark side to the point of no return, and even to redeem himself for the pathetic excuse of light saber duels that eventually followed, almost defeated by a stormtrooper and defeated by a teenage girl, which brings me to my next point:

My second major concern: Kylo Ren was a MONUMENTAL failure as a villain.

He starts off great, as anyone could picture a sith could be: heartless, capable and ruthless. He's the Anakin fans (at least I) were expecting to see in the PT. I will dare to say he starts off so great he looks more menacing and intimidating than Vader on Ep IV. But then somehow through the movie he was continually forgetting about the powers he had in the first scene where we see him stop laser bullets in mid-air, force-choke people, use mind force, manipulate telekenesis and in essence look so bad-ass. He forgets them to the point where he almost loses a duel against a STORMTROOPER/JANITOR and then right away gets easily defeated by the above-mentioned teenage girl in a way that was actually believable (two kids clumsily waving lightsabers at each-other). Speaking of these duels, I thought lightsabers were only for Jedis. Since when do Stormtroopers/Janitors and Scavengers can hold and use lightsabers, let alone be able to defeat a Sith who has been training for years on the art (apart from being strong with the dark side of the force ? During the process of forgetting about his powers, Kylo also managed to lose his cool looking mask and showcase that we were wrong thinking he is an actual villain as he turned out to be a childish young man with serious anger issues. See the difference: when Darth Vader was unsatisfied with the progress, he killed the soldiers and admirals in a cool and threatening manner. This kid however destroyed his own computer instead. What was the deal with that ? Also... what was the deal with the mask ? Vader HAD to use the mask because of health issues, but Kylo doesn't even have to use the mask AT ALL. He's sort of a "Vader wannabe". So, to sum and screw things completely up, we are introduced to a Sith knight who wears a mask but actually doesn't really need to wear it, then the Sith knight takes off his mask in the middle of the movie, which is WAY TOO SOON. So the mask is only used for intimidaring purposes ? OK, well in that case at least show us someone, who looks really bad and determined. But what the heck have I seen? I have seen a kid who looks like professor Snape in his twenties!!! This weak looking child with shovel face. That act completely removes his aura and I wasn't able to look at him the same way any more.

MONUMENTAL FAILURE.

The minor concern: Do we really need more of this teen female heroes ? 

I mean don't we have enough already ? I'm not anti-feminist or whatever, but the teen female hero thing is getting really old. I guess it's ok... as it's a matter of tastes.

The rest of the movie can be argued about back and forth, including stuff like:

• The beginning was a bit rushed, kind of battling his way into the movie rather than going for slow introductory character development.
• The main weapon is... a death star on steroids ! (which ironically is easier to destroy)
• The jokes were fine, although Finn jokes were a bit too many.
• The supreme leader looked more like Lord Voldermort (which makes sense as Kylo looks like Snape).
• Why why why keep hiding stuff ? Why keep leaving the best parts of the story unexpained and given just a bare mention ? Why not start focusing on the INTERESTING parts of the story that have to be explained, like how Kylo was seduced by the darkside,  what is his issue with Han, why Luke failed as a trainer, how did the orange thing find Luke's / Anakin's original lightsaber, etc... so many things to develop. Hollywood directors NEED lessons from Chris Nolan or at least should be forced to watch Batman Begins before embarking on a project of such magnitude as this one.
• I liked how the old characters were slowly introduced and not thrown in all of a sudden. Maybe Han/Chewie's first appearance is a bit forced, but it didn't bother me. Like I said, Harrison is such a good actor, he eventually took over his part as Solo so well, you just can't dislike him at all.
• Before writting this, I read a couple of reviews to see whether if other people shared my thoughts and I found out a lot has been said about TFA looks more like a remake of Ep IV. The more I think about it, the more I find myself agreeing with the statement.
• ...and last but not least the Stormtroopers blaster aiming hasn't improved in 30 years.

Finally where does it stand vs OT and vs PT

Needless to say that after all this slaughtering, it has no chance against any of OT films. Now against PT:

Time is making TPM be left in oblivion, as it has too much political non-sense and jar-jar binks in it. Plus, add in an annoying Jake Lloyd, and you have the perfect recipe for cinema disaster. TFA is better than TPM by a longshot.

AOTC...has too many Titanic-alike love scenes, and then of course there is Hayden's wooden worst performance of all time. He IS NOT the young Anakin Star Wars fans pictured. And there is still the boring politics and questionable plot decisions. TFA is better than AOTC.

ROTS is a complete disaster with so much going on about everything, but somehow managed to be the best of the PT. Hayden keeps being the problem, as well as the script, and Yoda (along with the entire Jedi Order) turn out to be a major dissappointment. Is TFA better than ROTS ? Because if it is that means TFA is better than the entire PT. At this time I will say yes it is. A straight fact? Kylo Ren to me looks more like the Anakin I would have expected to see in the PT.

TFA is better than the PT because it has a better molding and a better setup. Plus you can't go wrong with Harrison Ford, sorry about being so repetitive about it, but he makes the movie feel right. The first act the movie is really good. Kylo is in full swing and like I said before, he's as menacing as you can get from a Sith. The moment he takes off his mask is when things start going very wrong in the film. The death star on steroids is like meh... it's not an original idea, but I can live with it. But the step of humanizing a Sith as they did with Kylo is unforgivable; at least as early as in this movie. It would have been better if they had Kylo keep his mask and take it off somewhere durnig Episode VIII, but having it done now, it kind of takes something away from his aura. It seems like they're trying to make up for the terrible Anakin we had on the PT. Add to that the fact that he was nearly beaten by a stormtrooper/janitor, he was soundly defeated by the Katniss Everdeen of planet Jakku, and the result bad taste that TFA leaves in your mouth is as sour as the grapes of wrath. To add more, supreme leader Snoke at the end says "bring Kylo Ren, I must complete his training". No @#$% ! He almost got his ass kicked by a stormtrooper/janitor who has had years of training in cleaning toilets (you can buy them on Wal-Mart) and he got his ass handed to him by a girl who just hit puberty a month ago, and had her first contact with the force about eight hours ago. You are damn right Kylo needs more training! Plus he needs a psychologist to fix his anger issues.

The only remarkable thing this film achieved was shatter all the box-office opening weekend records, which makes for a successful ROI on everyone involved in putting money on playing with the high expectations true fans had on getting a great Star Wars movie we have been waiting for 32 years, and are still waiting for.

TFA is a glorious victory for Hollywood and a sad defeat for all true film makers and fans.

There you have it. Star Wars TFA in a nutshell.

6 out of 10.

Mayweather vs Pacquiao review

I could go on lengths of words and paragraphs on a long detailed analysis of the most anticipated fight in the last years, the hype preciding it and the post-effect of Mayweather vs Pacquiao, which ended with a decisive Mayweather 12 round unanimous decision victory.

However I will go as far as saying that there was a time when boxers got into a ring and actually performed a boxing fight against each other, making boxing entertaining and making fights worth the hype, like the one you'll find below, which is the most exciting fight I've ever seen:

Sit back, relax and enjoy a REAL FIGHT

Upcoming movies 2015

Today I'm going to take a break from my business oriented approach and will talk about one of my hobbies.

You're probably wondering "why the hell are you posting a blog of the most anticipated movies of 2015 when we're already in March!?" Well, because with the Oscars gone... now we can focus on the movies we really want to go see ! : )

Coming in 2015

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about the awards season and everything, as you even saw in my previous blog on how the Oscars snubbed Requiem for a Dream -specifically Ellen Burstyn- a few years ago. This year the academy went back to the "Kirk Lazarus" format that was the subject of satire and parody by Robert Downey Jr as Kirk Lazarus in the great Hollywood satire film Tropic Thunder. Again don't get me wrong, I haven't even seen "Theory of everything", but after a few editions it starts to get really old that all the Oscars are awarded to actors playing challenged characters, in one or another level. I mean, some of the greatest acting performances have been on regular people:

1. Marlon Brando's Vito Corleone in The Godfather
2. F. Murray Abraham's Antonio Salieri in Amadeus
3. Al Pacino's Sonny in Dog Day Afternoon
4. Ellen Burstyn in Requiem for a Dream
5. Meryl Streep in that Meryl Streep movie... any Meryl Streep movie

yet the academy feels obligated to reward the "difficult" roles of playing characters with disadvantages.

5-time Academy Award Winner Kirk Lazarus
3 of his 5 Oscars were won in 1994.

Anyway, back to our main topic, I think we should brace ourselves for what should be one of the greatest years in box-office cinema. I'm talking about $$$, which not necessarily means quality. I don't expect anything close to 1994, which in my opinon is the best year I've seen in movies, both quality-wise and box-office-wise speaking:

• Pulp Fiction
• Natural Born Killers
• Shawshank redemption
• The Lion King
• Ace Ventura
• The Mask
• Dumb and Dumber (mmmm did Jim Carrey sold his soul in 1994 or what??)
• Four weddings and a funeral
• Interview with the vampire
• Ed Wood
• Farinelli
• Heavenly creatures
• Bullets over Broadway (yes, a Woody Allen movie that won awards AND even made a profit !!)
• Clerks
• Leon
• Speed
• When a man loves a woman
• Burnt by the Sun
• True lies
• Reality Bites
• Adventures of Priscilla (I know, but you have to give it to it...)
• Naked Gun 33 1/3
• Quiz show (a bit dramatized, but still good)
• Little women
• Strawberry and chocolate
• Forrest Gump (yes I know, I know.... but I had to mention it)
• Maverick
• The Crow (one of my all-time favorites)

unfortunately, it all goes to the toilet because 1994 was also the year when this piece of junk was realeased:

The worst movie that came out in 1994, and the worst movie of all time.

Wow, just writting the names of the movies made me so nostalgic, I have to say it again: I've never seen such a great year for movies since 1994.

So, going to our present time, I did a little research to see what are the films that will be hitting theaters this year, from which I made a selection I'll make a quick comment on what should we expect from them. Of course and as you can imagine, I'm going to double-pass some of the most obvious choices, like you know...

• Rocky 8
• Die Hard 9
• Rambo 6
• Fast and furious 17
• Mission impossible #25
• and of course the new 2015 Sponge Bob movie.

... for obvious reasons. You pretty much get the idea...

Let the countdown begin !

The man from U.N.C.L.E.

Hasn't been the same without Madonna...

Guy Ritche hasn't done anything decent since "Snatch". Well, I stand corrected... apart from "Sherlock Holmes", which was more driven by Robert Downey Jr than Ritchie himself. So in this case, he goes back to his roots of casting less-known actors, and hopefully should deliver another Snatch-esque piece of art.

I myself have low hopes on this one, as Ritchie reminds me of his fellow countryman Ridley Scott, who made Alien and Blade Runner, had a third star shot with Thelma and Louise, and kept us forever waiting for his next big thing. Since then, an endless line of pieces of junk have followed, Prometheus being the most recent.



Fast and Furious 17... I mean... 7

Well, I know I said I wasn't going to mention them. But, come on... How many sequels can this franchise produce ? Well, apparently the enough amount that doesn't make people realize they have been watching the same movie seven times.

On green... I'm going for it ! For the seventh time !!

Anyway, with the unfortunate Paul Walker passing away incident, it's fair enough to release it as a tribute. One thing's for sure: by now Vin Diesel should be one step away from being able to pilot an F1 car with no helmet, a stick gear and a can of beer in his right hand.



Jurassic World

This is just wrong. "Jurassic Park" was a fantastic movie. It had all the Spieldberg ingredients of success. How did we get from there to "Jurassic World" is beyond me.

It seems to me that "Naked Gun 33 1/3" hit the nail on the head predicting it 20 years ago:

The cast incorporates Chris Pratt (Guardians of the Galaxy) and Judy Greer (if you haven't heard from her, you're fine... I had to google her to find out she was The Bluth's Company Secretary from Arrested Development). The director however, Colin Trevorrow, well... let's just say I don't have any high hopes for a movie being directed by someone named Colin Trevorrow.



Fantastic Four

Most people (most normal people, and yes, that means non-Marvel comic fan people, and yes that includes me) haven't heard that apparently the Fantastic Four franchise is being killed by Marvel and Fox. Supposedly it's some rights issue which I haven't had the time to get into or understand (and I don't intend to either), that results in neither studio being able to use the characters in their films, which means there is zero hope of seeing the human torch in any Avengers film.

Are these guys the new American Idol contestants?
Nope. They're the cast of FF4.
Although I personally think they would have fared better in American Idol. 

It sucks because I was really looking forward of seeng Franklin Richards with the X-Men or The Avengers (I know I said I'm not a Marvel fan, which I'm not, it's just that Franklin is the only mutant I know from the Marvel Universe). Anyway, rumors circulate that the whole purpose of this film is to tank the franchise and kill the characters off. The cast is unheard of, and the director's name is Josh Trank, who I heard is only known by his family members.



Terminator Genisys

As we should ALL AGREE, the Terminator franchise should have ended with T2: Judgement Day. Anything after that is one the reasons why Skynet is considering erradicating the human race (including the TV series "The Sarah Connor Chronicles"); it may in fact be the only reason !

This poster sums up
 better than words´
 my whole thougts

So: what is wrong with Arnold  Schwarzenegger ? Doesn't he have enough money ? Doesn't he have enough fame ? Doesn't he know that Terminator without him partnering with James Cameron is like an Apple pie with no Apple ? Does he have to buy a new gold WC for his service room ? To make matters worse, Game of Thrones fans will be happy (or thrilled?, or angry) Daenerys Targaeryan (or however it's spelled) will play Sarah Connor. So much for the female hero cliché.

What puzzles me even more, is that the cast will feature a T-800, a T-1000 and Kyle Reese! It's like they took all the Terminator movies and put them inside a blender! Also, the director Alan Taylor, has directed GOT episodes, Sex and the City episodes, Six feet under episodes, Mad Men episodes, and Thor 2, so talk about a blender !!!!!

I have no idea how will this end up !!!!!!!!!!





The Revenant

Alejandro Gonzalez is following his Birdman success with this film, but apparently its release date will be pushed to January, 2016




Mad Max: Fury Road

We spoke above about how unlikely it is that Arnold needs $$$ to buy a new gold WC for his service bathroom. That may not be the case for George Miller.

You're probably wondering "who the hell is George Miller?" Well, he's the director of the original Mad Max (ahhhh... yes MEL GIBSON !!), all three of them. He also made Witches of Eastwick, Lorenzo's Oil, Babe goes to the city and Happy feet. So yes, as I was saying, he's the original director of the original Mad Max thrilogy, meaning, we haven't heard from him since 1985.

Will it be as eclectic, unique and dark as the original one, with characters like Toecutter, Johnny the boy and Bubba Zanetti? I don't think so, but I don't think that means bad news. The good news is that Miller already stated that Fury Road is a reboot. Even better news is the cast that includes Tom Hardy as Max, Charlize Theron, Nicholas Hoult and Zoe Kravitz.

I will say that, it's going to be tough to top this:

but if anyone can, that's George Miller




Straight outta Compton

I'm sorry.

I just had to mention that in 2015, there's a movie coming out called "Straight outta Compton".

Let's move on.




Ant-Man

I have to say it: I have high hopes for this movie.

Director Peyton Reed may direct corny, cheesy movies (The Break-up, Down with love, Yes man), but one thing he does is that he brings the best out of his actors/actresses, and you can't go wrong with Michael Douglas, Paul Rudd, Evangeline Lilly and Corey Stoll.

I have a feeling that this setup may actually work

Poltergeist

How many times can you remake / reboot / redo / resequel "Portergeist" ?




Pan

Same question as above, but for "Peter Pan"





The Hateful Eight

Its tagline is "The 8th film from Quentin Tarantino"

As usual, not much is known on QT film before its release

I like Quentin; too bad he hasn't been able to top Pulp Fiction. In an interesting approach, Quentin goes back to his roots of casting actors whose careers were on a slump or apparently dead, to pull together an interesting cast with new comers too: Kurt Russell, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Michael Madsen, Tim Roth and Samuel L. Jackson (finally, a non-Nick Fury role for Sam) combined with Channing Tatum.

I think this film should be good.




Some random Adam Sandler movie

(Insert your yearly Adam Sandler movie here)





Some random Will Ferrell movie

(Insert your yearly Will Ferrell movie here)





The Avengers: Age of Ultron

Joss Whedon and his whole crew are back to bring us a new episode of the avengers ensemble. Let's emphasize the fact that Joss has NEVER dissappointed anyone. We're talking about the mastermind behind Buffy, Firefly, Angel, Toy Story and... The Avengers itself which was a pretty ambitious project which some deemed impossible to achieve..

High hopes for this one. Perhaps the most anticipated movie along with Ep VII

This one should be a no-brainer, and I'm quite sure it will be either the #1 or #2 at the box-office for 2015, depending on how Episode VII performs.

Regression

I have high hopes for this one. Alejandro Amenabar made "Thesis", "Mar adentro", "The others" and "Open your eyes."

Entourage

After a long almost ten-year wait, the Entourage fans are finally getting a movie of Vince Chase and his crazy friends. Recommendation: watch the TV series first -at least the first two seasons- before watching the movie.

I don't know what it is, but I've always liked the Entourage's intro. I could play it for hours

Vacation

I almost jumped through my window when I found out that Clark W. Griswold's son, Rusty Griswold, is now "gearing up to take his family on a vacation".

Didn't Rusty learn his lesson?

This is TERRIBLE. How can they reboot Vacation !?!?!?!?

This isn't something you do.

These are the kind of decisions that justified the catholic church for creating The Inquisition in the middle age.




Creed AKA Rocky 8 (or is it 7 ? or 9 ?... I lost count...)

Yes, I know I said I wasn't going to mention it, but man... I can't get over the fact that Rocky is going to train Apollo Creed's grandson to become a champion.

Eye of the Tiger, Rock!
Remember to tell that to my grandson !

Why not mentor him to study and help him go to Harvard instead !?!?!?




Joy

I just wanted to bring to your attention that Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper and Robert De Niro are making another film together, which comes out in 2015.




Tomorrowland

Unfortunately, this is not a movie about the famous Belgian concert, but instead, your yearly George Clooney movie.




Little Red Riding Hood

Didn't we just have a Little Red Riding Hood film last year ?

As a matter of fact, we did !

Steve Jobs

Same question as Red Riding Hood.

What is this ? A "how many Steve Jobs + Red Riding Hood movies can we make in less than a decade" contest ?

Great book.
Great read for every manager and businessman.

The good thing is that the cast is superb (Michael Fassbender, Kate Winslet), it's directed by Danny Boyle and it's based on Walter Isaacson's book.

This movie will likely be a nice bio-epic, with heavly dramatized events.




Snowden

Another typical Oliver Stone political film.

Good film.
Too bad 90 % of it is made up.

I don't know how people continue to produce films for this guy, when half of his political films are lies and the other half are a bunch of made up stories.

Pass !!




Macbeth

I don't know what to make out of this, but it stars Michael Fassbender (mmmmmmm, too many biopics / remakes) and Marion Cotillard.

Normally, Shakespeare plays made into film don't always transicion well.




Kickboxer: Vengeance

I just wanted to point out that there's a movie coming out in 2015 called Kickboxer: Vengeance, and yes, it stars "Muscles from Brussels" Jean-Claude "Wham Damn!" Van Damme

This, but like... well, who know what make-up can do for him

Experimenter

This looks like a very interesting movie about the experiments conducted on humans' willingness to obey authority. It stars Taryn Manning and Peter Sarsgaard and Noni !

Ahhhh Noni... the woman I've been in love with since I was 8.

The Lobster

I don't know much about this film, but it got my attention because it's probably the craziest plot I have EVER SEEN:

"A love story set in a dystopian near future where single people are arrested and transferred to a creepy hotel. There they are obliged to find a matching mate in 45 days. If they fail, they are transformed into an animal and released into the woods"

I mean... What !?

It does star Lea Seydoux...





Random John Travolta movie-where-John Travolta-overpowers everyone on-and-off-screen-even-the-movie-theater-ticket-sales-person

(insert your yearly John Travolta-film-for-which-he-charged-$20 million-for-a-movie-no-one-will-go-see-and-is-as-bad-as-its-93-John Travolta-predecessor-films-after-Pulp Fiction)




900.

That is, the third part of 300.

... just kidding...




Scouts vs Zombies

I kid you not when I tell you this:

This the closest and most anticipated match-up I've seen since Ali vs Frazier III

Four years ago, I had this friend, and one day we got together and she and I did this same exercise of listing the upcoming movies for that year. We fell off our chairs when we read there was a movie coming out called "Cowboys vs Aliens", and we said:

well, I guess it's just a matter of time until a movie comes out called "Men vs Zombies", or "Good guys vs Bad guys", or "Cowboys vs Dinosaurs".

How close we got with Scouts vs Zombies !




Cowboys vs Dinousaurs

I can't believe it ! We actually nailed it !

This the closest and most anticipated match-up I've seen since Scouts vs Zombies !!!

We actually predicted a movie coming out called Cowboys vs Dinosaurs, and here we go !!!




2:22

Your typical yearly digit titled non-sense movie.




Some 2015 Woody Allen movie

(insert your typical yearly Woody Allen film)




The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2

Something I would want someone to answer me someday, is what is the deal with trllogies in Hollywood?

Why can't they call it Hunger Games Part 4 ? What is the deal of calling it a trilogy, and having the third film split in two halves?

Getting ready to take on Capitol City

Anyway, it's time for Katniss to put an end to Capitol City and also to redeem herself from that unfortunate internet incident.




Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

Finally, last but not least, the film you have been waiting for to be mentioned.

As you can imagine, I'm going to take my time to talk about this one.

Let's start at the beginning:

A fan made poster

Well... you know what? I'll post my thoughts on this one in my next entry ; )

Stay tuned !!!

Requiem for a Dream

With the Oscars coming up and my inconditional devotion for good films, today I'll be talking about one of my favorite movies, which I also consider one of the best movies ever made.

We had a gathering at my home over the weekend and at one point we began playing the "guess the movie soundtrack" game, going over most of the classic tracks from Disney, to epics, to adventure and so on. At one point the song that was played was Requiem for a Dream by the Chronos Quartet, which was immediately guessed by one of the guests in less than a second. When Another of the my guests asked "how could it be guessed so quickly", I replied "wow, that's just too great of a movie. Have you seen it?", to which she said she hadn't; as it turned out, I lent her the DVD and invited her to enjoy the memorable film. And that's what I'll be talking about today in preparation for torrow's Oscars ceremony. For those of you who haven't seen it, I'll not be spoiling anything. For those who want me to spoil something, I'll talk a bit about it at the end of the entry.

Normally movie posters give you a hunch of what the movie is about before watching it.
I remember seeing this poster and I was never able to make what was Requiem about.
But I did felt it was... interesting...

Requiem is not just a good movie, or a great movie. It's a powerful movie. It starts out very simply and it even looks cheap at the beginning. It's obviously an independent film, but just a couple of minutes into the movie, you are treated to something quite rare, which is the split screen experience, that lasts only a few seconds but strikes a very solid and crude point right from the start, backed up by the perpetual soundtrack of the Kronos Quartet that last for the rest of the movie as no more tracks are in the film -except for the refrigerator dancing scene-, which is why the tunes of the movie stick in anyone's mind so easily.

The first thing I'll mention about Requiem is the acting.

Jared Leto deploys his massive talent in this film, which in time will be recognized as worthy as he deserves

A young Jared Leto, who had just came from finishing "Fight Club" shines as Harry the troubled son of Sara, who wishes for a better life and works hard -perhaps not in the most legal of ways- to achieve it and bring happyness for himself as well as his girlfriend Marion, played by Jennifer Connelly. Most people believe Jen's peak was her portrayal of John Nash's wife in "A beautiful mind", but I troughfully disagree; I've always believed that you are witnessing an Oscar worthy performance, when an actor becomes THE character, and that's whan Jen does becoming Marion: my jaw-dropping moment is the bath-tub scene.

Marion in her most human and intimate moment: the bath tub scene

Then you have Marlon Wayans, fresh from the teen comical "Scary Movie" series, where he plays a one-sided dimensional character; in Requiem, Marlon plays Harry's best friend Tyrone, who has sort of a similar background as Harry's but less dramatic and more tragic. By the time the film had ended I had to double check it was Marlon Wayans the guy playing Tyrone, because I just simply couldn't put together that it was the same guy who got stoned with the killer in Scary movie. Marlon has a nude scene, with a profound impact because it humanizes the character in a way the viewer simply doesn't expect it.

It's a pity how other directors haven't capitalized on the talent Marlon showed in Requiem

The show however belongs to Ellen Burstyn.

And trust me, it's not that Jen, Jared and Marlon do an average job, or an above average job. Their performances alone are Oscar nomination worthy... any of them by equal strength. But Ellen... she just takes the entire film to a whole new level. Her performance is right there with Marlon Brando's Vito Corleone, or F.Murray Abraham's Antonio Salieri. Her character Sara Goldfarb, Harry's mother, starts quite pathetically, even comical if you want, but after say 15 minutes, begins gaining strength and like a huge snowball falling from top of Mount Everest, she soon becomes a huge avalanche. Like I said before, the dancing refrigerator scene becomes the "before and after" moment of the film. After that scene, Ellen reaches acting levels never seen in cinema on a lead female performance. The monologue scene left me breathless: according to IMDb:

"During Ellen Burstyn's impassioned monologue about how it feels to be old, cinematographer Matthew Libatique accidentally let the camera drift off-target. When director Darren Aronofsky called "cut" and confronted him about it, he realized the reason Libatique had let the camera drift was because he had been crying during the take and fogged up the camera's eyepiece. This was the take used in the final print."

... and just when you think nothing can top that scene, she just keep raising the bar. I don't want to give any specifics cause I don't want to spoil anything, but there are so many details on the character that everytime I watch the film, I am able to discover something new I hadn't seen before.

Sara Goldfarb: one of the greatest characters in the history of cinema

Ellen was indeed nominated for the Oscars that year 2001, but she lost to the more Hollywood-esque oriented film and better marketed as well as campaigned, Julia Robert's Erin Brockovich. But believe me: there is a HUGE, MONUMENTAL difference of acting between Julia's Erin and Ellen's Sara. And not that Julia didn't do a good job. In fact, to make things easy to understand and bring an interesting performance I can compare Julia's Erin performance to Jennifer's Marion, with the slight difference that perhaps you can say Julia's Erin was more of a "lead character" than Jen's Marion. Still, I rank both performances quite even.

How Ellen was snubbed by the Academy that year is beyond me. I guess Hollywood has always had a thing against independent films, and while Julia's Erin was a good choice, it was also a better fit to the cliché of award winning performances based on real life stories (IE: Colin Firth's King Speech, Geoffrey Rush's Shine, Martin Landau's Ed Wood, and so on). In fact, now that I think about it, I think I can dare to say that Ellen being snubbed that year is the greatest blunder in the history of Oscars. Anyway, let's move on...

That's just brilliant directing right there

Darren Aronofsky's direction is exactly what is expected from a director. He brings the film together and produces a massive piece of art. Kind of like how Apocalypse does in the post-credits scene of X-Men Days of future past, it gives the impression that Darren simply raised his hands and brought the pieces together perfectly. IMDb summarizes the plof of Requiem as:

The drug-induced utopias of four Coney Island people are shattered when their addicitons become stronger.

Which I could hardly summarize in a better way. My point is, not any director is able to make a film that narrates the story of four separate people, with such a unique balance, allowing them to interact with each other equally and go uphill and downhill, such synchonization and degree of precision.

Then you have details like the supporting/minor characters. Like I said before, this in an independent film, shot on a $ 4 million budget. It seems to me that Darren squeezed the best out of every penny to deliver the result he produced. The minor characters, who in any other film seem (or are) unimportant, in Requiem are as crucial and as important as the major characters. Well, obviously not THAT much, but my point is that they leave a strong impression in your mind, just as the lead characters do, and that is not something that happens on other films. Like for instance, how much do you remember of the guy who introduced Strider/Aragorn to Frodo in "Lord of the Rings"? Or how much do you remember the door bell in "There's something about Mary", or "the guys playing cards in Titanic". You pretty much get the point.

He only has like ten lines and five minutes of on-screen time, but man each word and each second is gold

Keith David, who has been known for providing memorable minor supporting appearances in films (General Kinsey in "Armageddon", Childs in "The Thing", King in "Platoon", Louis Fedders in "Men at Work"), delivers what I think is his best memorable minor appearance. Well, it's kind of hard to top Childs and Louis Fedders, but by playing Big Tim and "Requiem", he brings his a whole new meaning to the word "chauvinist". The scene in which Marion calls him and he answers the phone just by laughing "Heh-heh-heh"... is the epytome of Big Tim. Trust me, when you watch that scene you will either burst to death from laughing or throw a hammer at your TV set. Sara's friends are equally powerful, although in their own particular way inside the story and plot that has to do with Sara. I love the "if this is red, then what's orange" exchange.

Then you have a guy like Stanley B. Herman, who plays Uncle Hank, AKA the "Ass-to-Ass Guy". You probably haven't heard of Stanley B. Herman before, and trust me you'll probably never hear from him ever again. He's just in the film for what ... I think five seconds maybe ? Ten secs top ? However, his appearence is so memorable, that his character has even created a cult-following trend. There is a blog that became a trend (which I'll post at the end with all the rest of the spoiling parts) dedicated just to him, in which the author ponders "I'm not sure how he got cast to be the Ass-to-Ass Guy, but from what I can tell it was the role he was born to play". The author goes on to state "Not since Boba Fett in the original Star Wars trilogy has a character so intrigued the masses with a bare minimum of screen time". I myself could have not said it better.

Stanley B. Herman, in the role he was born to play: Uncle Hank

And of course everyone else in the film is as close as memorable: the deaf mob-boss, the police officer at the coffee shop, Arnold, the cops at the prison... even Dylan Baker makes a five second memorable appearance as well.

Combine all of this with the looping and haunting Kronos Quartet score, and the result is that Requiem for a dream leaves a mark in your brain so strong, it would take two ammesia attacks for it to start dissappearing.

Imagine if you will a mental beating the kind of ancient Roman's did on their slaves, relentlessly and endlessly until forcing their submission. That is exactly what this movie does to you. I have yet to meet someone who has been able to stand Requem without giving a minimal sign of grief. Requiem is the epitome of independent filmmaking: daring, crude, merciless, realistic and just when you think it will cut you a break, it keeps on pounding your mind non-stop. If you expect this film to take a pause and go easy on you for a minute or two, then you guessed wrong because it simply won't. It will go hard and harder and harder and just when you thought it cannot go any further, it will... until it breaks you down.

Part of the 15-round heavyweight fight with no stops between each round.

Watching Requiem is like being repeatedly punched in the back of the head by Mike Tyson. It's difficult to know what to say about Requiem. I first saw it in the cinema when it was released and I have never seen an audience react to a film like this one. The climactic sequence, where the protagonists are effectively destroyed by their addictions, seemed to trigger a bout of heavy breathing in the audience. As it was ending I heard a few people crying. My friend and I didn't say a single word to each other on the way home.

In sum, regardless of whether or not the subject matter itself shocks you, this movie will put the viewer through the proverbial wringer. Give it a chance, and you will connect with the characters and then witness their destruction (spiritual and otherwise). It is a punishing but unforgettable experience. I'm not sure whether I'd necessarily recommend it or not; it all depends on your personal tolerance level with regard to an unflinching portrayal of human nature and behavior at their most extreme and, ultimately, tragic. For my part, while I think it's very hard to watch this film very often, I'm sure glad I have it on my shelf.

and now... if you read from this point and on... I will share some of the most key insights of the film.

If you haven't seen it, please stop reading, go watch it and come back after you have finished.

In the end, Requiem is not just a movie about drug addiction.
It's a movie about emotions, about hope, about looking up and forward, about dreams, about struggle, about a reason to wake up every day in the morning.

SPOILERS BEGIN HERE - Stop reading if you haven't watch the film.

Ellen Burstyn's monologue:

Blog about Uncle Hank:

http://thebeerbarrel.net/threads/stanley-herman-the-ass-to-ass-guy.2640/

Samsung-vs-Apple

Is this going to be another Samsung S5 vs iPhone 6 thread ? Yes and I'll do my best !

Is Samsung Galaxy becoming the new iPhone, or is iPhone becoming a new Samsung Galaxy?

Yesterday I was having dinner with a few friends, one of them works at Samsung, and after a few hours of discussion over sports, world news and old-fashion TV shows, the unavoidable topic of which phone is better came up. I particularly enjoy these discussions because it helps me to glance marketing in its full extent, from consumer behavior, to branding loyalty, to satisfaction, and so on. It also takes me back to the time when we were kids and compared our toys, only that now we're grown ups and have, well, let's just say that our toys have grown with us ; )


So what I'm going to do next is bring back some of the most heated showdowns I recall, and yes, at the end I'll give you my opinion on the current subject of Samsung vs Apple

Sega Genesis vs SNES

Man those were the days....

If you are a Gen X or a Millenial, you're probably showing a smile on your face, just as your blood pressure starts to rise, as your memory sends you back 20 years ago to the time you could kill, just for the sake of being loyal to either Nintendo or Sega, in one of the most fierce and greatest console wars of all time. You should also like (or hate with your guts), what I'll be stating in the upcoming lines : )

As always, the first thing I'll do is put everything into perspective here and that includes mentioning something that 90 % of the people who get (or got) into this debate, normally forget, which is the following: before all the Super Nintendo vs Genesis hype and eventual war, there was in fact another previous console wars held on the 8-bit real, between the Nintendo (NES) and the Sega Master System. The thing is that it was a one-sided war, as the NES sold more than 110 million units, compared to 14.8 million Master Systems sold. I was lucky enough to actually play on a Master System. I remember the game was Double Dragon (which had already been released on the NES), and I remember thinking something along the lines of "this isn't so bad... it's just that the NES is better. Way better". So how did the console wars exploded between the Genesis and the SNES ?

Being oversold by Nintendo, Sega decided to release a leaping-new-technology console which was the Genesis, which offered 16-bit technology... double to the NES's 8-bit. There is no question the Genesis was a superior console than the NES, graphically, on audio, and even on technical CPU details. Nintendo's market share however was so big, they could afford to take more than two years to launch a console to rival the Genesis. So when the new 16-bit Super Nintendo came out, the Genesis had already a lot of miles on the market and a decent market share, as well as the percepcion of being "more powerful" in the gamer's mind. Don't quote me on this, but I'm willing to say that the phrase "console wars" was born at this time.

You see, when Super Nintendo came out, Genesis had already sold over 20 million units, so it was up to the SNES to either catch-up or surpass the sucess seen by Sega taking advantage of the less capable NES. That's when the daily fights at recess time in schools escalated:

-Why would you buy a Super Nintendo? Genesis is faster
-Why would you buy a Genesis? Super Nintendo es newer
-Why don't you sell your Genesis and buy a new Super Nintendo?
-Why don't you go @#~€!!!! ??

(and then the punching and kicking began)

Now that that time has passed, we can be objective and go with the facts:

1. Sega had a terrific marketing campaign

The ads for the Genesis were just plain awesome. Two things stood in the minds of SNES fans forever:

BLAST PROCESSING

and Genesis does what NINTENDON'T

Great marketing campaign.
Eventually it became that "SNES does what Genesiscan't" 

Those are two of the most inventive and brilliant slogans ever created. You see, technically speaking Super Nintendo was superior than the Genesis: it had more RAM memory, a larger color palette, more audio channels, a control pad which was way more comfortable than Genesis's, but... the CPU wasn't as fast as the Genesis. In fact, the SNES CPU was only half speed fast of Genesis's CPU. So I guess Sega marketers instead of telling consumers that Genesis had a faster CPU (which was the only technical advantage it had against the SNS), they went with some resonating commercials that stated GENESIS HAS BLAST PROCESSING ! I remember seeing that on TV and I was like "wow, that's cool. It sucks that SNES doesn't have BLAST PROCESSING". Of course, I didn't know what it was, but the commercial made it clear that the video games on Genesis were faster than those on the SNES.

And then of course, the NINTENDON'T quote... which to this day still cranks me up.

2. The Super Nintendo was superior

I think I've stated this clearly in the previous point, but just to be a bit more specific on what I mean when saying "was superior", the SNES could do things the Genesis simply couldn't (not at least with the help of add-ons). Some of the games have exceptions to the rule, but overall the SNES had better graphics, sound and playability capabilities. It was a smart thing from Nintendo to release an eight-button controller, against Sega's four-button controller. It was simply impossible to play games like Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter on a Genesis controller.

3. The Super Nintendo game library was way WAY superior

Both consoles had their decent and fair amount of games. Some good, some bad. They also had those "VIP games" and those "exclusive games", as well as those "should be tossed in a garbage disposal and burned for eternity games". However, for every GREAT Genesis game, the SNES had three. I believe this was the crucial difference that decided the winner of the console wars.

Even if you call a tie between Mario (Super Mario World) and Sonic (which ever version you want), the SNES had:

-Chrono Trigger
-Final Fantasy III
-Super Metroid
-Super Megaman 7
-Super Castlevania IV
-F-Zero
-Super Mario Kart
-Turtles in Time

and if that's not enough....

Zelda: A link to the past

I could go on, but I have to close this section and move on to the next topic. So I'll state the fact that between these two giants, the better console came out winner, not only because it was better, but also because it had better stakeholders.

SNES eventually outsold the Genesis, selling over 60 million units against Sega's 40 million. Remarkable considering -like I said- it came out two years after the Genesis had already been in the market.

Coca Cola vs Pepsi

You can't write an article about product wars, without mentioning the cola wars. That's like writing a physics history book and not include Newton.

For this case I will take reference on the 1985 infamous "New Coke" event that almost brought down the nearly hundred year established Coca Cola empire. If you haven't heard of "New Coke", chances are you probably missed on of the greatest executive management blunders of all time.

During the early 80s, the Coca Cola Company felt threatened by the so called "Pepsi Challenges" done years earlier by rival company Pepsi, which were a series of trials and blind-tests done that discovered that consumers overall preferred the Pepsi flavor over Coke's. The decision made by the Coca Cola Company was that they had to change their cola formula in order to taste more similar to what the consumer wanted. Hence New Coke was born, an entirely new product to replace the almost 100 year-old formula that had built and developed the business to its monumental shape.

Meet one of the greatest corporate blunders of all time

New Coke was released during mid 1983 and although initial reaction was positive in the first days, the overwhelming amount of hundreds of thousands of calls, letters, threats and other factors denouncing how Coca Cola had sold out its brand and beliefs for another product that wasn't Coca Cola. The pressure became so high, that top executives had to concede and re-launch the original Coca Cola and began recalling and halting production of New Coke. I was a little kid when this came out, but I do remember the flavor of tasting New Coke, and I'll never forget the feeling and thinking after the sip went through my mouth: "wow, this tastest good, but you know what?....it's not Coca Cola"

Coca Cola's top executives admitted to underestimating their marketing, their brand, their consumer's loyalty and in a few words, the name Coca Cola. They learned that sometimes consumers like your brand more than they like your product. As soon as the original Coca Cola was re-launched, sales increased as never seen before and Coca Cola once again, only that this time by accident, landed another blowing punch to Pepsi, in the eternal Cola Wars.

I consider myself a neutal guy when it comes to foods and drinks. I like my products to be good, able to satisfy me and rewarding. I won't say which one I prefer between Coca Cola or Pepsi, but I will say this: while I don't mind trying one or the other, I DO have a defitive preferece of one over the other everytime I am presented with the opportunity of picking just one.

Messi vs Cristiano Ronaldo

You'll probably thinking how dare I, using Messi and CR7 in a blog of product comparison. While I'll say I do have this rivalty reserved for a future sports article I'm planning to post in the upcoming day, I have to take a few key elements of it in order to base my point around the topic my original topic.

The reason I bring them into the discussion is because I like how their different styles which contrast on a weekly basis since 2005, reward us football fans on how effective they can be in their own ways: on one corner we have Ronaldo the CR7 machine and in the other one we have Messi the atomic flea

Messi was brought to the senior Barcelona team by coach Frank Rikjaard in 2005 who made a huge bet on lining a young 16 year old who barely topped 1.70 m (5'5). Messi got the chance, took it, seized it and haven't looked back since. Today he sits with three champions league tournaments and more than 350 goals scored in his career. His dribbing ability as well as being able to keep the ball near his feet while moving pass defenders make him virtually unstoppable on the field.

Cristiano Ronaldo was also a prodigy, acquired by Sir Alex Ferguson in Manchester United in 2004. Contrary to Messi, Cristiano is tall, strong, and a superb athlete with an extraordinary work ethics, including a Ryan Giggs recognition of how able he is of doing over 1,000 abs on regular team training. Cristiano holds two champions league tournaments (one with Manchester United, one with Real Madrid) and more than 350 goals in his career. Cristiano dribbles, powers through and crushes his way through defenses like a hot knife through butter.

Pick whoever you want for now... I'd say it is us fans who have become winners 

So is one better than the other one ? The answer to that question won't come in this entry : ) The point I'll state a point that over the years they have proven to set the bar of comparison in the football world. Every football player wants to be just as good as CR7 or Messi, and if possible, better. The year of their respective teams is measured on how well did they perform. More importantly for us fans: every year, Messi wants to top Cristiano Ronaldo, and Cristiano Ronaldo wants to top Messi. Even though they have never publicly stated this (or even privately), their actions demonstrate that they are under constant competition and working to outdo the other one. If one scores a hat-trick, then the other score a hat-trick. If one scored a curved free-kick, then the other one scores a bullet free-kick. In other words, they push each other to be the best, while being best among the rest.

VHS vs Betamax

Some millenials won't have any recollection of putting a huge rectangle black tape inside an even larger cassette player that made like 82 different noises just to load the tape, took like 50 seconds to start playing the movie, took another 50 seconds to stop and rewind, and the another 50 seconds to resume playing. I guess that's why DVD manufacturers make us now sit through all those trailers.

A lot have been said about the so called "videotape format war", held between Sony's Betamax and JVC's VHS:

-The Betamax was superior
-The VHS could record longer
-The Betamax could record with better quality
-The VHS was faster

I (well, my parents) was fortunate enough to own both recorders and I distinctively remember the VHS being annoying. It was just too big of a tape. The tapes couldn't fit anywhere, while the Betamax tapes could easily be stored vertically or horizontally. I will say though that by the time I began toying with both Beta and VHS, the recording time issue had been a thing of the past.

You see, when Sony launched the Betamax, the recording time of the tape was just one hour, which was absurd considering the average movie playtime is two hours. The VHS offered time to spare, giving consumers three hours of recording tape. But like I said, when I was getting around them, this was a thing of the past. My first VHS tape could record up to 6 hours on EP mode, and the Betamax could go up to 4 1/2 hours on Beta III.

Thing is, the VHS's EP mode was just terrible. The video was blurry and the sound unhearable. Just until a couple of years ago I got rid of my last EP VHS tapes, after converting/digitalized them to DVDs, and I remember doing the conversion process while watching the recording and thinking "oh my, I can't believe I used to think this was a state-of-the-art recording". The Beta III 750 tapes offered 4 hours and 30 minutes of good quality; of course, non comparable to DVD, but in essence, way better than the VHS; even better than the 2 hour SP VHS high quality mode.

Pundits still argue today about reasons why did VHS came up as winner when Betamax was the better product. The most accepted answer, like I said before, was the fact that Sony took too long to provide tapes with recording duration longer than an hour, and by the time they did it, VHS had already too much market share.

I do have to say, that I don't remember people disagreeing on the fact that Beta was better, while agreeing that VHS was annoying. I guess it's interesting to see that this war was won because of a "second-best" choice. It's like consumers said "well, it's absurd to buy a Betamax, since it can't do what I want it to do, so I guess I'll have to buy VHS".

time for the showdown... Samsung S vs iPhone

I'll be honest: I consider the iPhone the greatest invention of the 00s.

When Steve gave the conference to announce the so called "phone-internet communicator-music player", I payed little to no attention to it. I could buy into the features of it and its functionality, but it was at the time where Apple was still turning around and wasn't the solid $700 Billion valued company it is today. In essence, I was a bit skeptic and I thought "I have to see it to believe it". A few months later I was able to hold an iPhone.

When Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone, he didn't just launch a product.
He launched a new culture, a new religion, an entire new way of living

To sum up the previous cases I went through we have:

• Super Nintendo beats the Genesis, because it IS a better product
• Coca Cola beats Pepsi, because it IS a better brand, despite consumers preferring Pepsi in blind-tests
• Cristiano Ronaldo or Messi, IS the better player because of how he works within his team.
• VHS beat Betamax, because it was the product that did what consumers NEEDED and WANTED.

If there is one thing that I believe the iPhone has done, hold on to and be true to, is its size. I don't know if it's my hands, my face, or the distance between my ears and my mouth, but somehow I feel the iPhone has the right size for a cell phone. Not long, not short, not wide, not narrow, not thick nor thin, just... perfect. It perfectly fits in your hand, as well as in any of your pants pockets, car door hand held, hiking koala, passport holder... it just fits anywhere perfectly. Clearly, Apple has been playing the Coca Cola card here on the subject of the phone's dimensions. The Samsung S phone series, has been spending a lot of years trying to find its own identity. One phone is small, then the next gen is big, then the next one is smaller and so on. The S3 was particularly huge in my opinion, as well as the S4. Recently, the S5 has nailed the size that adjusts best to what a phone must be.

Samsung has learned by making mistakes, trial and error and by listening to their consumers.
It has been a long way, but they are learning and learning fast.

Regarding the OS Software, one can state preferences of how fast, slick, nice or catchy your phone's OS is. One thing for sure is that they are years ahead anything that came and went before them. Personally, I think it's a matter of preference and to fall under the OS wars stating that one is superior to the other, when in reality, they are both pushing each other to be the best, while being better than the rest.

The one aspect that I think decides the outcome of this battle, is the evolutionary one. Darwin said it best in the late 1800s, when one must develop stronger characteristics in order to survive among the fittest. That's where I think Samsung S has the edge over the iPhone. Over the last seven years, we saw the emergence of the iPhone as a superior unique and outstanding product. As Steve Jobs said it, it's not just a phone, an internet communicator or an mp3 player. It's all of that combined and more. iPhone did a great job differenciating itself from the rest, even when competitors began showing up grabbing some of their market share. This includes Samsung, whose S and S2 phones were clearly one level below the iPhone. Then came in the S3 and things started to change.

While the S3 looked more like a machine rather than a phone, it was the first real threat to the iPhone when we talked about capabilities, features and overall performance. The first thing I thought when I saw it was: "wow, this is awesome but it's like a brick block. It's large, heavy and kind of uncomfortable". Apparently Samsung thought the same thing. More handy products followed like the Mini and the S4, until the present S5 we have today.

This feels like Game of Thrones !
Kind of like trial by combat 

So where are we at?

Like Coca Cola and Pepsi, against Samsung, Apple continues to be the better brand -quite confirmed by their $700 Billion evaluation-. But how can you value the iPhone brand vs the Samsung S brand? Personally I'd say the S brand is on par here.

Like the Cristiano Ronaldo and Messi comparison, each phone with their own style, works within you, responding their features to what is demanded and expected from them.

Like the VHS and Beta, the iPhone may be a slicker product and it may have been living from the glory of its first years, but right now I believe it is Samsung S who does exactly what consumers want and need.

Because of all these factors, I have to conclude that just like the SNES and Genesis, there may not be a perfect product, but the overall combination of brand, features, capabilities, expectation and performance, as well as ability to do what the consumer wants, the Samsung S5 is clearly the better product.

: )