REVIEW: Source Code It’s refreshing to see a trailer undersell a movie. I doubt it’s good for the movie itself (and it shows since Source Code came in second to Hop at the box office), but I’ve gotten so sick of huge, kick-ass trailers that are clearly overcompensating for something. But Source Code is a movie with actual balls. Too bad I almost didn’t watch it due to its bland and uninspiring trailer. That said, the closest thing I can probably use to describe Source Code is Inception meets Groundhog Day. In theory, it sounds brilliant. In actuality, it’s more intriguing than life altering. The story itself is unique, though it doesn’t quite push the boundaries of sci-fi as either Nolan’s Inception or even director Duncan Jones’ own Moon. But in a hollywood landscape filled with unoriginal drivel, it’s wonderful to watch a straight-forward, clean and exciting Sci-Fi that doesn’t bathe itself in cliches-of-disasters-past. As a film, it won’t win Duncan Jones as much recognition as Moon, nor is it as emotional and human-centric. But it does a terrific job with the characters nonetheless, brought around by commendable performances by the cast. The pacing is good and tight. This makes a world of difference, because while the story is certainly interesting enough to get a hold of attention, it’s nowhere near special enough that a bad slew of editing choices wouldn’t ruin it. That said, if you’re looking for a nice, refreshing blockbuster that challenges your thoughts… watch Inception. But if you’re too ditzed out by too many dream sequences, then Source Code is a good, lighter alternative. We probably won’t be talking about it a year from now, but it proves that director Duncan Jones has some serious talent, with his first two movies being solid outings. Here’s hoping that rumors are true and that he’s taking over Aronofsky’s spot in The Wolverine. 8/10

REVIEW: Source Code

It’s refreshing to see a trailer undersell a movie. I doubt it’s good for the movie itself (and it shows since Source Code came in second to Hop at the box office), but I’ve gotten so sick of huge, kick-ass trailers that are clearly overcompensating for something. But Source Code is a movie with actual balls. Too bad I almost didn’t watch it due to its bland and uninspiring trailer.

That said, the closest thing I can probably use to describe Source Code is Inception meets Groundhog Day. In theory, it sounds brilliant. In actuality, it’s more intriguing than life altering. The story itself is unique, though it doesn’t quite push the boundaries of sci-fi as either Nolan’s Inception or even director Duncan Jones’ own Moon. But in a hollywood landscape filled with unoriginal drivel, it’s wonderful to watch a straight-forward, clean and exciting Sci-Fi that doesn’t bathe itself in cliches-of-disasters-past.

As a film, it won’t win Duncan Jones as much recognition as Moon, nor is it as emotional and human-centric. But it does a terrific job with the characters nonetheless, brought around by commendable performances by the cast. The pacing is good and tight. This makes a world of difference, because while the story is certainly interesting enough to get a hold of attention, it’s nowhere near special enough that a bad slew of editing choices wouldn’t ruin it.

That said, if you’re looking for a nice, refreshing blockbuster that challenges your thoughts… watch Inception. But if you’re too ditzed out by too many dream sequences, then Source Code is a good, lighter alternative. We probably won’t be talking about it a year from now, but it proves that director Duncan Jones has some serious talent, with his first two movies being solid outings. Here’s hoping that rumors are true and that he’s taking over Aronofsky’s spot in The Wolverine.

8/10

REVIEW: SUCKER PUNCH Despite it being what was perhaps the biggest mess of a movie so far this year; I find it a bit hard to bash Sucker Punch too much. Partly it’s because I can appreciate how much effort the design and visual effects team put into this. Also, I can’t deny that despite its many, MANY shortcomings- it is an ambitious film in which Zack Snyder pulls out all his hat tricks. I’m almost tempted to give the movie its props and call it decent, if not misguided. Then I remember any one line from the movie’s mindless dialogue and I have to restrain myself from bashing my head into my monitor. I’ve always said Zack Snyder is a visual wizard. So much so that the story really suffers. With 300, it wasn’t so much of a big deal (because let’s face it, the graphic novel wasn’t so heavy on plot either). But once he tackled Watchmen, one of the most complex and brilliant comic ever made, well it really started to strain his credibility as a storyteller. And now that he’s tackling a self-contained story that I can only describe as a fanboy’s guilty pleasure- I’m not even sure if Snyder ever could tell a story in the first place. Where visual effects should always be there to support the plot- Snyder’s films have a way of making the plot support the visual effects. And as a result, a lot of the film feels like an excuse to add in more slop from a fanboy’s brain. I can almost imagine the creative process that went into making this film.  “Hey let’s make a movie with Samurais! and Dragons!” “Yeah that’d be cool!” “Let’s add nazis! Make that zombie nazis! And cyber warriors! And our heroes will be scantily clad babes! One of them could be that High School Musical chick.” “That’s shizz, man! But how do we put them together?” “Ah well, let’s just say it’s all in their head and problem solved.” The film still could have worked, even without the plot- had it not been that they desperately tried to paint the film as a deep, complex metaphor on the human psyche. Because, honestly, if this is as deep a metaphor one can get of the human mind, then the human race is  a lot more shallow than we thought. A lot of the time, the movie takes itself so seriously- armed with an awful script and robotic acting- it’s like it’s trying to lobotomize you first before giving you the sweet-fantasy filling. Had the movie not been trying so hard to be two different things at once, it would have really benefited. A movie that acts just as a love letter to the geek community would have been an enjoyable time, if not all too deep. And a movie that wanted to explore the human psyche did not call for random missions to slay a dragon baby and collect its tonsils. While I was not surprised with the film’s lack of an intelligent plot (or even a coherent one), I had hoped at least to settle in and enjoy the action spectacle. But even that seemed like a mixed bag. Don’t get me wrong, the effects were decently done. They’re not mind-blowing, mind you. A lot of the models and effects are adequately done, but the movie piles them all up on screen to make it look better than it actually is. And after the first couple of explosions, it starts to bog down. Maybe it’s because the story takes itself far to seriously that I just can’t add giant samurais into the equation. Or maybe it’s because the plot is just that dumb, I can’t find myself caring for any of these characters on their acid trips. But a lot of it comes from simple overkill. Because let’s face it. Sure the girls jump in the air in slow motion, evading hundreds of bullets while releasing their own deadly volley. But once you’ve seen it the first couple dozen times in the film, it can get real old, real fast. Remember, a movie in which every shot is a money shot HAS no money shot. Finally, while a bit off topic, there was one scene I really enjoyed. Ironically it was the opening scene, a wordless- visual telling of Babydoll’s troubled past. Played perfectly against beautiful music, the scene played on some great visual tricks to make a very cool and, surprisingly, emphatic opening. I can’t help but remember Snyder’s opening sequence in Watchmen, an also silent montage on the heroes’ past, to be the best part of that film. If only Snyder can keep his visual cravings in his pants and learn to have the shots and music play beautifully to the story like this throughout the whole film; well this would end up being a very different review. 4/10

REVIEW: SUCKER PUNCH

Despite it being what was perhaps the biggest mess of a movie so far this year; I find it a bit hard to bash Sucker Punch too much. Partly it’s because I can appreciate how much effort the design and visual effects team put into this. Also, I can’t deny that despite its many, MANY shortcomings- it is an ambitious film in which Zack Snyder pulls out all his hat tricks. I’m almost tempted to give the movie its props and call it decent, if not misguided. Then I remember any one line from the movie’s mindless dialogue and I have to restrain myself from bashing my head into my monitor.

I’ve always said Zack Snyder is a visual wizard. So much so that the story really suffers. With 300, it wasn’t so much of a big deal (because let’s face it, the graphic novel wasn’t so heavy on plot either). But once he tackled Watchmen, one of the most complex and brilliant comic ever made, well it really started to strain his credibility as a storyteller. And now that he’s tackling a self-contained story that I can only describe as a fanboy’s guilty pleasure- I’m not even sure if Snyder ever could tell a story in the first place.

Where visual effects should always be there to support the plot- Snyder’s films have a way of making the plot support the visual effects. And as a result, a lot of the film feels like an excuse to add in more slop from a fanboy’s brain. I can almost imagine the creative process that went into making this film. 

“Hey let’s make a movie with Samurais! and Dragons!”

“Yeah that’d be cool!”

“Let’s add nazis! Make that zombie nazis! And cyber warriors! And our heroes will be scantily clad babes! One of them could be that High School Musical chick.”

“That’s shizz, man! But how do we put them together?”

“Ah well, let’s just say it’s all in their head and problem solved.”

The film still could have worked, even without the plot- had it not been that they desperately tried to paint the film as a deep, complex metaphor on the human psyche. Because, honestly, if this is as deep a metaphor one can get of the human mind, then the human race is  a lot more shallow than we thought.

A lot of the time, the movie takes itself so seriously- armed with an awful script and robotic acting- it’s like it’s trying to lobotomize you first before giving you the sweet-fantasy filling. Had the movie not been trying so hard to be two different things at once, it would have really benefited. A movie that acts just as a love letter to the geek community would have been an enjoyable time, if not all too deep. And a movie that wanted to explore the human psyche did not call for random missions to slay a dragon baby and collect its tonsils.

While I was not surprised with the film’s lack of an intelligent plot (or even a coherent one), I had hoped at least to settle in and enjoy the action spectacle. But even that seemed like a mixed bag. Don’t get me wrong, the effects were decently done. They’re not mind-blowing, mind you. A lot of the models and effects are adequately done, but the movie piles them all up on screen to make it look better than it actually is. And after the first couple of explosions, it starts to bog down. Maybe it’s because the story takes itself far to seriously that I just can’t add giant samurais into the equation. Or maybe it’s because the plot is just that dumb, I can’t find myself caring for any of these characters on their acid trips.

But a lot of it comes from simple overkill. Because let’s face it. Sure the girls jump in the air in slow motion, evading hundreds of bullets while releasing their own deadly volley. But once you’ve seen it the first couple dozen times in the film, it can get real old, real fast. Remember, a movie in which every shot is a money shot HAS no money shot.

Finally, while a bit off topic, there was one scene I really enjoyed. Ironically it was the opening scene, a wordless- visual telling of Babydoll’s troubled past. Played perfectly against beautiful music, the scene played on some great visual tricks to make a very cool and, surprisingly, emphatic opening. I can’t help but remember Snyder’s opening sequence in Watchmen, an also silent montage on the heroes’ past, to be the best part of that film. If only Snyder can keep his visual cravings in his pants and learn to have the shots and music play beautifully to the story like this throughout the whole film; well this would end up being a very different review.

4/10

FILM REVIEW: RANGO Rango is a breath of fresh air. By that I don’t mean it has an amazingly original story- because it doen’t. It’s refreshing because it proves that studios are finally upping the ante when it comes to their art. With the exception of Pixar and a few choice Dreamworks production- a lot of 3D films have remained bland if not downright ugly. Rango thrives in that it combines a unique gorgeous style unlike either of the two big companies. And it combines it with a witty, if completely bizzarre, script and the ambition of director Gore Verbinki’s (Pirates of the Caribbean) virgin voyage into 3D realm. The movie itself is a western. And while this much was evident in the trailers, one thing they didn’t show was how much of a blatant love letter this movie is to Western classics. As a result, it incorporates some of the best things about the genre, and adds a quirky, Depp-infused fun to it- complete with a special cameo from an icon of the genre. The animation here is gorgeous. While nothing Pixar or Dreamworks won’t be able to easily replicate, a focus on creative design shines with the characters, the environment and the whole feel of the movie. The textures, the lighting, everything is completely top-notch. And the end result is one amazing piece of eye-candy It doesn’t hurt that Rango is a fun movie. It’s not so much outrageous entertainment, but it has its moments, and the western aspect really adds to the jokes. Johnny Depp’s voice also happens to be a great asset for the film. Even through voice, a lot of character is easily conveyed through Rango and it’s a good sign that I find myself caring a lot about the character from the very start, even if he is not entirely original. Rango certainly was a blast for me, especially visually. As for a movie standpoint, it doesn’t really break any barriers and sometimes stretches itself a bit thin. But it is still a gorgeous and ambitious 3D film by any means. And I wouldn’t mind seeing more from this world. 8/10

FILM REVIEW: RANGO

Rango is a breath of fresh air. By that I don’t mean it has an amazingly original story- because it doen’t. It’s refreshing because it proves that studios are finally upping the ante when it comes to their art. With the exception of Pixar and a few choice Dreamworks production- a lot of 3D films have remained bland if not downright ugly. Rango thrives in that it combines a unique gorgeous style unlike either of the two big companies. And it combines it with a witty, if completely bizzarre, script and the ambition of director Gore Verbinki’s (Pirates of the Caribbean) virgin voyage into 3D realm.

The movie itself is a western. And while this much was evident in the trailers, one thing they didn’t show was how much of a blatant love letter this movie is to Western classics. As a result, it incorporates some of the best things about the genre, and adds a quirky, Depp-infused fun to it- complete with a special cameo from an icon of the genre.

The animation here is gorgeous. While nothing Pixar or Dreamworks won’t be able to easily replicate, a focus on creative design shines with the characters, the environment and the whole feel of the movie. The textures, the lighting, everything is completely top-notch. And the end result is one amazing piece of eye-candy

It doesn’t hurt that Rango is a fun movie. It’s not so much outrageous entertainment, but it has its moments, and the western aspect really adds to the jokes. Johnny Depp’s voice also happens to be a great asset for the film. Even through voice, a lot of character is easily conveyed through Rango and it’s a good sign that I find myself caring a lot about the character from the very start, even if he is not entirely original.

Rango certainly was a blast for me, especially visually. As for a movie standpoint, it doesn’t really break any barriers and sometimes stretches itself a bit thin. But it is still a gorgeous and ambitious 3D film by any means. And I wouldn’t mind seeing more from this world.

8/10

4 notes

REVIEW: The King’s Speech The King’s Speech is predictable oscar bait. This is an observation, not a complaint. There has never been a lack of inspiring british drama during Oscar seasons, but The King’s Speech delivers one of the more intelligent and inspiring one in recent years. The story itself is very predictable, and not once does it bother to spin you into a I-can’t-wait-to-see-what-happens-next mode. There’s nothing wrong with that. But unlike it’s main Oscar competition, The Social Network, the movie never grabs you by the throat and never lets go. It’s more beautiful than gripping, more inspiring than intriguing. And at the end of the day, The King’s Speech is a beautifully shot, inspiring film that takes liberties of a story that seems ripe for Oscar pickings. The King’s Speech is not all that unique. And the screenplay, while masterfully written, pales in comparison to some of the gems out there now. The real heart of the movie lies in two genius performances. But while Geoffrey Rush is his usual magnificent self for the entire movie, the real star really lies on the blustery, short-tempered and flawed King George VI as portrayed by Colin Firth. As a result, half-way into the movie there was no doubt in my mind that he would win best actor. (the fact that he did win every acting award pre-Oscar). His acting goes beyond just the need to do a scene where the character breaks down in tear. His character plays very similar to that of Jesse Eisenberg’s Mark Zuckenberg. It’s all about a constant attitude and characterization that envelopes the entire movie. Colin Firth disappears into a role that is so very different his comfort zone, you can’t help but savor every scene he is in. In a lot of ways, his performances make a pretty good script looks better than it actually is. In the light of things though, I don’t really believe the movie deserves either Best Picture or Best Director (Both of which I’m probably rooting for Social Network to win), but it does well as a contrast to its darker, more intellectual counterpart and rival. And in the end, it is still a very excellent piece of filmmaking worth watching. 9/10

REVIEW: The King’s Speech

The King’s Speech is predictable oscar bait. This is an observation, not a complaint. There has never been a lack of inspiring british drama during Oscar seasons, but The King’s Speech delivers one of the more intelligent and inspiring one in recent years.

The story itself is very predictable, and not once does it bother to spin you into a I-can’t-wait-to-see-what-happens-next mode. There’s nothing wrong with that. But unlike it’s main Oscar competition, The Social Network, the movie never grabs you by the throat and never lets go. It’s more beautiful than gripping, more inspiring than intriguing. And at the end of the day, The King’s Speech is a beautifully shot, inspiring film that takes liberties of a story that seems ripe for Oscar pickings.

The King’s Speech is not all that unique. And the screenplay, while masterfully written, pales in comparison to some of the gems out there now. The real heart of the movie lies in two genius performances. But while Geoffrey Rush is his usual magnificent self for the entire movie, the real star really lies on the blustery, short-tempered and flawed King George VI as portrayed by Colin Firth. As a result, half-way into the movie there was no doubt in my mind that he would win best actor. (the fact that he did win every acting award pre-Oscar). His acting goes beyond just the need to do a scene where the character breaks down in tear. His character plays very similar to that of Jesse Eisenberg’s Mark Zuckenberg. It’s all about a constant attitude and characterization that envelopes the entire movie. Colin Firth disappears into a role that is so very different his comfort zone, you can’t help but savor every scene he is in. In a lot of ways, his performances make a pretty good script looks better than it actually is.

In the light of things though, I don’t really believe the movie deserves either Best Picture or Best Director (Both of which I’m probably rooting for Social Network to win), but it does well as a contrast to its darker, more intellectual counterpart and rival. And in the end, it is still a very excellent piece of filmmaking worth watching.

9/10

2 notes

REVIEW: TANGLED Disney’s 50th animated feature starts off engaging and promising. But what I hoped to be another jewel in the Disney’s princess slate is bogged down by a less stellar second half that threatens to be derivative Disney fodder. Let me get one thing out there first. Tangled is a gorgeous movie. While I was cynical at first of the concept of Disney’s first 3D princess, this film made a believer of me. The creativity put into this film is evident with extremely fluid animations and breathtaking sceneries. In fact, the lantern scene took my breath away and rivaled that of many of Disney’s former prince-princess scenes. (It’s less than memorable song kind of kept it from being a “Magic Carpet Ride”). The character designs are as charming as the writing and there is a certain feel attained in this 3d movie that is unique: it’s that the animation-though 3d, feels very 2D-ish at the same time. The effect, though subtle, makes the movie feel both like a step forward and homage to past animations.  Still, it’s not without fault. With the exception of the lantern scene at the castle and the gorgeous tower in the middle of a hidden valley, there are very little landscapes that really put the graphics to the test. Don’t get me wrong, I love how beautiful everything is put in, but a limited environment makes me feel as if the movie missed an opportunity. One of the biggest problems with last year’s Princess and the Frog was that Disney seemed to force the movie to tackle a very straight line with it’s princess. They changed her name to Tiana to avoid racial criticism and pushed the theme to a very white-collar feel. It was refreshing to have a princess attempt to push a more mature theme- but at the same time I just never fell in love with her. While I can’t say that I fell in love with Rapunzel’s character, she is far more loose and charming, easier to root for and as a result, a much more likable princess, even the traditional sort of way. At the same time, the entire movie is very entertaining. Propped up with a supporting cast of funny animals (both Max the horse and Pascel the Chameleon are adorable) and a charming prince, the movie does not lack in the “Aaaaawww.. LOL!” moments. In fact, I laughed more here than I did with last year’s princess film. Still, a lot bogs down what could have been an astounding princess film. One is a lackluster second half. After the lantern scene, the movie seems to go on autopilot, moving along the Disney-cliches up until the obligatory prince-princess final scene (complete with a Beauty and the Best homage). Now that normally wouldn’t be such a big problem. After all, it’s to be expected of all Disney princess movies and if you’re not expecting a bit of Disney cheese then you’re delusional. (In fact, nostalgic Disney cheese is one of the things I look forward to). But the film attempts these things in ways that we’ve all seen so many times before, I can’t help but feel that it sacrificed a lot of the charm it had in the earlier scenes simply to execute essentially the same ending we’ve seen hundreds of times.  Had this story and ending been played out decades ago it would probably be as legendary as Alladin or The Little Mermaid. But it played now, and right now- even if the audience expects the same Disney princess themes to be prevalent- it doesn’t excuse the film makers of at least trying something new with the formula or at least push it with the same energy present in the earlier scenes. Also another problem is a list of less-than-memorable songs. While all the songs were OKAY, there was no magical tune that defined the film. In my opinion, that’s one of the essential things that separates a good princess movie from a great one. Alladin had it’s Magic Carpet Ride, Beauty and the Beast had it’s Ballroom dance and The Little Mermaid just wanted to be part of our friggin world. But I don’t remember much of the songs of Tangled. Sure, they were catchy and funny. But they weren’t iconic. Which is sad, considering that had an iconic song been matched with the aforementioned lantern scene, it would have recreated classic Disney magic. Finally, there’s my small gripe of the title. As some of you might know, Tangled was originally titled Rapunzel but was changed to appeal more to teenagers- how, I’m not sure. It may be the kid in me, but that change is stupid. Rapunzel is Rapunzel, and changing the title to a more force title like Tangled will do nothing to change the movie’s prospect. Imagine if we changed “Alladin” to “Genied”, Beauty and the Beast into “Furried” or Sleeping Beauty to “Knocked Out”. It’s just dumb, and it deprives once again the film of a more iconic and classic feel. Still, if I were to choose between this film and Disney’s entry last year, I’d choose this. It’s a fun romp, that still manages to capture the classic feel of Disney’s older princesses. At the same time, it’s a gorgeous step forward visually. And while a slightly disappointing story and musical component may stop it from being a classic, it’s sure as heck won’t stop it from being a magical fun time. 8/10

REVIEW: TANGLED

Disney’s 50th animated feature starts off engaging and promising. But what I hoped to be another jewel in the Disney’s princess slate is bogged down by a less stellar second half that threatens to be derivative Disney fodder.

Let me get one thing out there first. Tangled is a gorgeous movie. While I was cynical at first of the concept of Disney’s first 3D princess, this film made a believer of me. The creativity put into this film is evident with extremely fluid animations and breathtaking sceneries. In fact, the lantern scene took my breath away and rivaled that of many of Disney’s former prince-princess scenes. (It’s less than memorable song kind of kept it from being a “Magic Carpet Ride”). The character designs are as charming as the writing and there is a certain feel attained in this 3d movie that is unique: it’s that the animation-though 3d, feels very 2D-ish at the same time. The effect, though subtle, makes the movie feel both like a step forward and homage to past animations. 

Still, it’s not without fault. With the exception of the lantern scene at the castle and the gorgeous tower in the middle of a hidden valley, there are very little landscapes that really put the graphics to the test. Don’t get me wrong, I love how beautiful everything is put in, but a limited environment makes me feel as if the movie missed an opportunity.

One of the biggest problems with last year’s Princess and the Frog was that Disney seemed to force the movie to tackle a very straight line with it’s princess. They changed her name to Tiana to avoid racial criticism and pushed the theme to a very white-collar feel. It was refreshing to have a princess attempt to push a more mature theme- but at the same time I just never fell in love with her. While I can’t say that I fell in love with Rapunzel’s character, she is far more loose and charming, easier to root for and as a result, a much more likable princess, even the traditional sort of way.

At the same time, the entire movie is very entertaining. Propped up with a supporting cast of funny animals (both Max the horse and Pascel the Chameleon are adorable) and a charming prince, the movie does not lack in the “Aaaaawww.. LOL!” moments. In fact, I laughed more here than I did with last year’s princess film.

Still, a lot bogs down what could have been an astounding princess film. One is a lackluster second half. After the lantern scene, the movie seems to go on autopilot, moving along the Disney-cliches up until the obligatory prince-princess final scene (complete with a Beauty and the Best homage). Now that normally wouldn’t be such a big problem. After all, it’s to be expected of all Disney princess movies and if you’re not expecting a bit of Disney cheese then you’re delusional. (In fact, nostalgic Disney cheese is one of the things I look forward to). But the film attempts these things in ways that we’ve all seen so many times before, I can’t help but feel that it sacrificed a lot of the charm it had in the earlier scenes simply to execute essentially the same ending we’ve seen hundreds of times. 

Had this story and ending been played out decades ago it would probably be as legendary as Alladin or The Little Mermaid. But it played now, and right now- even if the audience expects the same Disney princess themes to be prevalent- it doesn’t excuse the film makers of at least trying something new with the formula or at least push it with the same energy present in the earlier scenes.

Also another problem is a list of less-than-memorable songs. While all the songs were OKAY, there was no magical tune that defined the film. In my opinion, that’s one of the essential things that separates a good princess movie from a great one. Alladin had it’s Magic Carpet Ride, Beauty and the Beast had it’s Ballroom dance and The Little Mermaid just wanted to be part of our friggin world. But I don’t remember much of the songs of Tangled. Sure, they were catchy and funny. But they weren’t iconic. Which is sad, considering that had an iconic song been matched with the aforementioned lantern scene, it would have recreated classic Disney magic.

Finally, there’s my small gripe of the title. As some of you might know, Tangled was originally titled Rapunzel but was changed to appeal more to teenagers- how, I’m not sure. It may be the kid in me, but that change is stupid. Rapunzel is Rapunzel, and changing the title to a more force title like Tangled will do nothing to change the movie’s prospect. Imagine if we changed “Alladin” to “Genied”, Beauty and the Beast into “Furried” or Sleeping Beauty to “Knocked Out”. It’s just dumb, and it deprives once again the film of a more iconic and classic feel.

Still, if I were to choose between this film and Disney’s entry last year, I’d choose this. It’s a fun romp, that still manages to capture the classic feel of Disney’s older princesses. At the same time, it’s a gorgeous step forward visually. And while a slightly disappointing story and musical component may stop it from being a classic, it’s sure as heck won’t stop it from being a magical fun time.

8/10

3 notes

REVIEW: GREEN HORNET When I heard Seth Rogen will be taking up the green overcoat to become the Green Hornet, I just knew this was going to be bad. It was a miscast of utter proportions. It wasn’t even a Heath Ledger type miscast where at least some people thought it was an interesting choice. Because no amount of weight loss could change the fact that behind the green mask… is Seth Rogen. Fortunately, the movie is not all bad. It’s entertaining enough, and due to Rogen’s script, has some pretty zany zingers to it. The action scenes themselves were commendable, but I have to say they were severely misused. And here’s why. This reinvention of the Green Hornet attempts to place itself in a genre of its own, a pure out comaction- or maybe acmedy if you want- in which it tried to blend it balls out comedy with some actually cool action sequences. This sounds a lot better on script, because the movie ended up being pretty mediocre as both. As a comedy, it had its moments sure, but it also became increasingly frustrating. The idea that the Green Hornet is now a bumbling, spoiled brat annoys to no end. And the fact that Rogen is the Hornet makes it feel all the worse. It’s not that Rogen is not a good actor, he’s a good comedic actor. He plays bumbling idiots well, and he writes stupid raunchy characters well enough. But this is horribly misplaced by making the Hornet that character because as the main hero, I feel not a single amount of connection with that character. Most of the time, I was cheering for him to take off the mask and give it to Kato himself. In fact he could have given it to a hobo and he would have made a better Green Hornet.  The rest of the characters are no better off. The villain, Bloodnovsky, is a huge waste. Sure he had some cute lines, though a lot of it seemed forced, cheesy and plain. But my biggest regret is that the great Christopher Waltz, the man behind that glorious Nazi of Inglorious Basterds, is given so little to work with. We could have gotten a villain that actually inspired fear and dread rather than a bumbling idiot who wishes he could inspire fear and dread (No, I’m not kidding. He actually spends half of his scenes asking his own henchmen if he’s scary enough). Not only does this make a very lame villain; but the lack of any actual depth to his character is maddening. He’s a plastic cardboard. This is such a serious waste of potential.  Much less a waste of potential is Cameron Diaz, who in turn doesn’t have that much potential to begin with. She is, however, a complete waste of space. Really, she serves no integral role in this film. Apparently, she was placed in this film as a brainy journalist from whom the Hornet secretly asks for criminal advises. Yup. That’s it. In fact the film goes out of it’s way to emphasize the fact that the woman has no love interest with either of the heroes. The complete lack of any history or depth to her character makes me wonder all the more- why the hell is she there in the first place? (Aside from the obvious ploy to add a female face in a male-dominant cast) The only bright spot in this cast is Kato who, as played by Jay Chou, is surprisingly entertaining. I was disappointed that Stephen Chow dropped out as Kato, but in the end I think it was an actually good choice. Stephen Chow is a comedian, and his presence in that role would have, like Rogen, overly cartoonized the character. The fact that Jay Chou strikes a good balance of funny, serious bad-assness and actual character depth makes him the only character in the film I could connect with. With that said, I have to admit, a good amount of the comedy here did make me laugh. But that does not make this movie a good film. It detracts a lot of the seriousness in it, pushing the scenes beyond the confines of plausibility to the realms of just plain stupid. In fact, I would have sacrificed half of the comedic value to give some screen times to more serious, in-depth scenes. Just think about it, had Seth Rogen not-been cast as the Hornet, had an actor with good comedic timing but also, and more importantly, a nuanced and emotional vulnerability would have done wonders for the film. Think of what Robert Downey did for Tony Stark. The character manages to be funny, emotional and bad-ass all at the same time. Had they strived to strike that balance with the Hornet, who is the heart of this movie, they would have made a film infinitely better. And more importantly, it would have given me a very entertaining film that I would have actually taken seriously. And had they struck out some of the fats and unwanted globs of the film (Diaz’s character) while putting a bit more effort in a villain that actually poses a threat, this would very well have been the surprise Superhero hit of the year. It would have done for the Green Hornet what Downey did for Iron Man. Instead, we get a bumbling movie whose biggest achievement is to make you laugh for a bit and show off a bit of flashy slow motion fights. 5/10

REVIEW: GREEN HORNET

When I heard Seth Rogen will be taking up the green overcoat to become the Green Hornet, I just knew this was going to be bad. It was a miscast of utter proportions. It wasn’t even a Heath Ledger type miscast where at least some people thought it was an interesting choice. Because no amount of weight loss could change the fact that behind the green mask… is Seth Rogen.

Fortunately, the movie is not all bad. It’s entertaining enough, and due to Rogen’s script, has some pretty zany zingers to it. The action scenes themselves were commendable, but I have to say they were severely misused. And here’s why.

This reinvention of the Green Hornet attempts to place itself in a genre of its own, a pure out comaction- or maybe acmedy if you want- in which it tried to blend it balls out comedy with some actually cool action sequences. This sounds a lot better on script, because the movie ended up being pretty mediocre as both.

As a comedy, it had its moments sure, but it also became increasingly frustrating. The idea that the Green Hornet is now a bumbling, spoiled brat annoys to no end. And the fact that Rogen is the Hornet makes it feel all the worse. It’s not that Rogen is not a good actor, he’s a good comedic actor. He plays bumbling idiots well, and he writes stupid raunchy characters well enough. But this is horribly misplaced by making the Hornet that character because as the main hero, I feel not a single amount of connection with that character. Most of the time, I was cheering for him to take off the mask and give it to Kato himself. In fact he could have given it to a hobo and he would have made a better Green Hornet. 

The rest of the characters are no better off. The villain, Bloodnovsky, is a huge waste. Sure he had some cute lines, though a lot of it seemed forced, cheesy and plain. But my biggest regret is that the great Christopher Waltz, the man behind that glorious Nazi of Inglorious Basterds, is given so little to work with. We could have gotten a villain that actually inspired fear and dread rather than a bumbling idiot who wishes he could inspire fear and dread (No, I’m not kidding. He actually spends half of his scenes asking his own henchmen if he’s scary enough). Not only does this make a very lame villain; but the lack of any actual depth to his character is maddening. He’s a plastic cardboard. This is such a serious waste of potential. 

Much less a waste of potential is Cameron Diaz, who in turn doesn’t have that much potential to begin with. She is, however, a complete waste of space. Really, she serves no integral role in this film. Apparently, she was placed in this film as a brainy journalist from whom the Hornet secretly asks for criminal advises. Yup. That’s it. In fact the film goes out of it’s way to emphasize the fact that the woman has no love interest with either of the heroes. The complete lack of any history or depth to her character makes me wonder all the more- why the hell is she there in the first place? (Aside from the obvious ploy to add a female face in a male-dominant cast)

The only bright spot in this cast is Kato who, as played by Jay Chou, is surprisingly entertaining. I was disappointed that Stephen Chow dropped out as Kato, but in the end I think it was an actually good choice. Stephen Chow is a comedian, and his presence in that role would have, like Rogen, overly cartoonized the character. The fact that Jay Chou strikes a good balance of funny, serious bad-assness and actual character depth makes him the only character in the film I could connect with.

With that said, I have to admit, a good amount of the comedy here did make me laugh. But that does not make this movie a good film. It detracts a lot of the seriousness in it, pushing the scenes beyond the confines of plausibility to the realms of just plain stupid. In fact, I would have sacrificed half of the comedic value to give some screen times to more serious, in-depth scenes. Just think about it, had Seth Rogen not-been cast as the Hornet, had an actor with good comedic timing but also, and more importantly, a nuanced and emotional vulnerability would have done wonders for the film. Think of what Robert Downey did for Tony Stark. The character manages to be funny, emotional and bad-ass all at the same time. Had they strived to strike that balance with the Hornet, who is the heart of this movie, they would have made a film infinitely better. And more importantly, it would have given me a very entertaining film that I would have actually taken seriously.

And had they struck out some of the fats and unwanted globs of the film (Diaz’s character) while putting a bit more effort in a villain that actually poses a threat, this would very well have been the surprise Superhero hit of the year. It would have done for the Green Hornet what Downey did for Iron Man. Instead, we get a bumbling movie whose biggest achievement is to make you laugh for a bit and show off a bit of flashy slow motion fights.

5/10

2 notes

REVIEW: HEREAFTER I admit I am a huge Clint Eastwood fan. And his films have always captivated me, regardless of what he tackles. Still, I have to be brutally honest when I say that he completely missed the mark with Hereafter. Hereafter’s plot has three threads: A has-been psychic attempting to cope with his abilities, a twin who has lost his other half, an a French anchorwoman who barely survives a Tsunami.  With that said, each premise has it’s high points, yet not a single one of them manages to get me involved. The fact of the matter is, Hereafter feels like a movie that tries too hard yet doesn’t try at all, if you get my meaning. On one hand, it really attempts to push the lives of these people and connect them with the concept of death and loss. But given the amount of time it pushes it, it never seems to click into place partly because the film seems to just muddle through the paces. The drama all seems very predictable, despite being heartfelt. And while you may at times feel for the characters, you can’t shake off the feeling that these kinds of stories have become pretty common. On the concept of the afterlife, Hereafter makes a big ruckus about it, and is interesting enough. Yet it flaters when it tries to go deeper into what the afterlife may be about. The film never could decide just how far it wanted to push the topic, and its branching story lines practically ensured the lack of consistent escalation in terms of plot. At one point it attempts to dip into the scientific reasoning of life after death, but then just drops it completely with a safe “it’s just hard to explain for science” conclusion of the matter. It attempts to tackle it in the philosophical context, but this is nothing really new. It never invokes a deeper discussion nor a debate on the topic. In fact, the film features several scenes that seemed to stretch the theme far too thin before changing gears completely. What’s even sadder is that a slow-pace and a predictable story also blemishes an otherwise decent production. That said, the most I can say about this film is that it is serviceable. In fact, that might as well be the perfect way to describe the movie. The acting was commendable, but never remarkable. The script was well-made, but never groundbreaking. The story was interesting, but never compelling. And as the end credits rolled, I couldn’t place just how the movie effected me. It didn’t move me, it didn’t entertain me, it didn’t captivate me nor did it make me think. It was just… there. If this is Eastwood’s version of an afterlife, then perhaps dying is an far duller event than expected. 5/10

REVIEW: HEREAFTER

I admit I am a huge Clint Eastwood fan. And his films have always captivated me, regardless of what he tackles. Still, I have to be brutally honest when I say that he completely missed the mark with Hereafter.

Hereafter’s plot has three threads: A has-been psychic attempting to cope with his abilities, a twin who has lost his other half, an a French anchorwoman who barely survives a Tsunami.  With that said, each premise has it’s high points, yet not a single one of them manages to get me involved.

The fact of the matter is, Hereafter feels like a movie that tries too hard yet doesn’t try at all, if you get my meaning. On one hand, it really attempts to push the lives of these people and connect them with the concept of death and loss. But given the amount of time it pushes it, it never seems to click into place partly because the film seems to just muddle through the paces. The drama all seems very predictable, despite being heartfelt. And while you may at times feel for the characters, you can’t shake off the feeling that these kinds of stories have become pretty common.

On the concept of the afterlife, Hereafter makes a big ruckus about it, and is interesting enough. Yet it flaters when it tries to go deeper into what the afterlife may be about. The film never could decide just how far it wanted to push the topic, and its branching story lines practically ensured the lack of consistent escalation in terms of plot. At one point it attempts to dip into the scientific reasoning of life after death, but then just drops it completely with a safe “it’s just hard to explain for science” conclusion of the matter. It attempts to tackle it in the philosophical context, but this is nothing really new. It never invokes a deeper discussion nor a debate on the topic. In fact, the film features several scenes that seemed to stretch the theme far too thin before changing gears completely. What’s even sadder is that a slow-pace and a predictable story also blemishes an otherwise decent production.

That said, the most I can say about this film is that it is serviceable. In fact, that might as well be the perfect way to describe the movie. The acting was commendable, but never remarkable. The script was well-made, but never groundbreaking. The story was interesting, but never compelling. And as the end credits rolled, I couldn’t place just how the movie effected me. It didn’t move me, it didn’t entertain me, it didn’t captivate me nor did it make me think. It was just… there. If this is Eastwood’s version of an afterlife, then perhaps dying is an far duller event than expected.

5/10

2 notes

REVIEW: THE TOURIST As the final scene dimmed, the credits began to roll and the light sprang to life. I turned to my mother beside me and asked her what she thinks. She said she loved Angelina and Johnny, but it was a by-the-book spy movie. To me, calling it that is an insult to all mediocre spy movies and books. The Tourist would like to think it’s clever. All throughout the film, it winks, cajoles and flirts with the audience. It makes use of two glamourous leading stars, a gorgeous backdrop set in romantic Venice and a plethora of pseudo-charming scenes. In a way, it was like a little brat screaming at you to admit he’s cute. The plot, for one thing, is mind-boggling bad. No, it’s not mind-boggling, since at least that would mean they’ve simply over-thought the plot. No, it’s just mind-bogglingly bad. That simple. The amount of plot holes in this story is amazing, and every character in this film is constantly oblivious to the silliness of what’s happening. This is made all the more unbearable by a surprise ending so bad, I guessed it within the first ten minutes. And even then I hoped it wouldn’t be the case, because that being so was not only completely illogical, but it also negates whatever little emotional investment I had with the characters. The movie isn’t without it’s good points though. Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp are two of Hollywood’s biggest stars for a reason. And that’s because even in this trainwreck, I couldn’t bring myself to despise them. Johnny Depp in particular blinks and dances himself through the scenes. Half of me thinks it is one of his laziest performances to date. Sadly, it also happens to be the best performance in the film. My biggest frustration with this film isn’t the thought that they didn’t think through the film carefully. Rather, it’s that they didn’t even try, which is exactly how it feels. And shame to the film’s two stars for letting themselves cajoled into this disaster. I know everyone makes mistake, but I just can’t believe that somewhere along the line, not a single person thought to himself that maybe, just maybe, this movie isn’t such a great idea after all. 3/10

REVIEW: THE TOURIST

As the final scene dimmed, the credits began to roll and the light sprang to life. I turned to my mother beside me and asked her what she thinks. She said she loved Angelina and Johnny, but it was a by-the-book spy movie. To me, calling it that is an insult to all mediocre spy movies and books.

The Tourist would like to think it’s clever. All throughout the film, it winks, cajoles and flirts with the audience. It makes use of two glamourous leading stars, a gorgeous backdrop set in romantic Venice and a plethora of pseudo-charming scenes. In a way, it was like a little brat screaming at you to admit he’s cute.

The plot, for one thing, is mind-boggling bad. No, it’s not mind-boggling, since at least that would mean they’ve simply over-thought the plot. No, it’s just mind-bogglingly bad. That simple. The amount of plot holes in this story is amazing, and every character in this film is constantly oblivious to the silliness of what’s happening. This is made all the more unbearable by a surprise ending so bad, I guessed it within the first ten minutes. And even then I hoped it wouldn’t be the case, because that being so was not only completely illogical, but it also negates whatever little emotional investment I had with the characters.

The movie isn’t without it’s good points though. Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp are two of Hollywood’s biggest stars for a reason. And that’s because even in this trainwreck, I couldn’t bring myself to despise them. Johnny Depp in particular blinks and dances himself through the scenes. Half of me thinks it is one of his laziest performances to date. Sadly, it also happens to be the best performance in the film.

My biggest frustration with this film isn’t the thought that they didn’t think through the film carefully. Rather, it’s that they didn’t even try, which is exactly how it feels. And shame to the film’s two stars for letting themselves cajoled into this disaster. I know everyone makes mistake, but I just can’t believe that somewhere along the line, not a single person thought to himself that maybe, just maybe, this movie isn’t such a great idea after all.

3/10

4 notes

REVIEW: EASY A Easy A references John Hughes in this movie. In fact it references him a lot. As painful it is to have heard that Hughes passed away so young back in 2009, a lot of people fondly remember his 80’s teen comedies. Comedies that bordered on raunchy but were never downright skanky. Comedies that ran on charm rather than overplayed dick jokes. And, most importantly, they were comedies that captured perfectly the ache of growing up in your teen years. If that was the case, Easy A may be one of the best John Hughes movie John Hughes never made. And more than anything so far, the most fitting tribute. The movie is chalk-full of laughs. And a lot of these laughs don’t rely on dirt. These laughs rely, instead, on a quick-witted script and charm. These laughs rely on intelligence, as parallellisms to Hawthorne’s The Scarlet letter are hilariously set akimbo to a bombardment of “sluts” and “skanks”. But none of these would have been anywhere near as good as it is had it not been for the astounding portrayal by Emma Stone. This movie will make her career, and shows the potential of what could be one of the most charming leading ladies of our generation. There is no possible exaggeration in praising her performance here, you can’t help falling in love with her as she weaves her cinematic magic to the audience. The movie has it’s flaws, that’s for sure. It has a tendency to stretch itself out too thin, has a penchant for exuberance past the point of exuberance. And it’s second half verges on dismantling itself with a bit of lazy storytelling. All of which are completely overlooked simply because the film, just like its leading star, is just so damn likable. A lot of people look down on teen comedies, no doubt brought about by the notion that teen comedies are just the same raunchy comedies without middle-aged men with mid-life crisis and with more college boobs. While that may be true a lot of the times, the notion, and the movies that have promoted the notion, is a tragedy to the overlooked genre. As Emma’s character- Olive- muses, “why can’t life be like an 80’s movie”. Because those movies had the teen genre right. They had the raging hormones, but the pain and angst that came with it. They had the charm and the brains, but was always, always about the heart. With that the case, I cannot emphasize on my delight of seeing a good ole 80’s teen movie in 2010. 9/10

REVIEW: EASY A

Easy A references John Hughes in this movie. In fact it references him a lot. As painful it is to have heard that Hughes passed away so young back in 2009, a lot of people fondly remember his 80’s teen comedies. Comedies that bordered on raunchy but were never downright skanky. Comedies that ran on charm rather than overplayed dick jokes. And, most importantly, they were comedies that captured perfectly the ache of growing up in your teen years. If that was the case, Easy A may be one of the best John Hughes movie John Hughes never made. And more than anything so far, the most fitting tribute.

The movie is chalk-full of laughs. And a lot of these laughs don’t rely on dirt. These laughs rely, instead, on a quick-witted script and charm. These laughs rely on intelligence, as parallellisms to Hawthorne’s The Scarlet letter are hilariously set akimbo to a bombardment of “sluts” and “skanks”. But none of these would have been anywhere near as good as it is had it not been for the astounding portrayal by Emma Stone. This movie will make her career, and shows the potential of what could be one of the most charming leading ladies of our generation. There is no possible exaggeration in praising her performance here, you can’t help falling in love with her as she weaves her cinematic magic to the audience.

The movie has it’s flaws, that’s for sure. It has a tendency to stretch itself out too thin, has a penchant for exuberance past the point of exuberance. And it’s second half verges on dismantling itself with a bit of lazy storytelling. All of which are completely overlooked simply because the film, just like its leading star, is just so damn likable. A lot of people look down on teen comedies, no doubt brought about by the notion that teen comedies are just the same raunchy comedies without middle-aged men with mid-life crisis and with more college boobs. While that may be true a lot of the times, the notion, and the movies that have promoted the notion, is a tragedy to the overlooked genre. As Emma’s character- Olive- muses, “why can’t life be like an 80’s movie”. Because those movies had the teen genre right. They had the raging hormones, but the pain and angst that came with it. They had the charm and the brains, but was always, always about the heart. With that the case, I cannot emphasize on my delight of seeing a good ole 80’s teen movie in 2010.

9/10

5 notes

REVIEW: WINTER’S BONE Winter’s Bone got rave reviews back on in the year, and subsequently took home the big prize in Sundance. Several months later, it’s become a footnote in the Oscar race. You know, the film critics will put among the nominations if they couldn’t think of any other film. And for good reason too. While there has been the rare indie film here and there that went on to be a serious Oscar contender (Juno comes to mind), it is very rarely the case. This is mostly because while Sundance does showcase tremendous films, it is held so early in the year that the movies featured there has to be completely and utterly unforgettable if it’s to remain with everyone all the way until the end of the year. This is not one of those kinds of films. Sure, one can call it a hard-hitting film as it deserves to be called one. The film revolves around Rolly Dee, a 17 year old girl who is the sole caretaker of two younger siblings, an incapacitated mother and a rotting house left to her by her missing drug-dealer of a father. Things get worse when the police show up, telling her that unless her father appears in court, they are taking the house away. Forced into a dire situation, Dee traverses the cold mountainsides and visiting whatever sparse neighbors she has, a skeletal image of what family she has left. Eliciting a frigid cold atmosphere, the film thrives in setting the tone, and while its cast remains sparse, it really changes the discussion on what a family really is (not the blood relative kind). The pace of the movie is frigidly slow. In fact, it bordered on dullness, and just barely makes up for it by providing an eerie and foreboding sense of hopelessness made all the more felt by a nuanced performance by Jennifer Lawrence. Does she deserve a nomination for this? Probably. But while a powerful performance, it’s by no means revolutionary, thriving instead on a steady stream of feminine will and intuition in the face of tremendous darkness.  Still, despite a harrowingly beautiful screenplay, great performance and a directoral tone that hisses like the cold winds of the mountainside, this film is nonetheless- for me- completely forgettable. And while at times captivating, it is just as much feels like a movie trying too hard to stretch its plot outside its limits. I can imagine the story events here occurring in far less a theatrical time. But there you have it. Is the movie good? It has it’s effect, certainly, and a timely modern feminine lead. Still, just about every part of the film doesn’t seem to try to break any new mold, make a refreshing new take. Even the screenplay, while good, does so with a story that trods along. This isn’t a movie most mainstream movie goers will appreciate. Even I think it’s a but underwhelming. In a race of Oscar contenders this strong, this film is neither good enough nor bold enough. 7/10

REVIEW: WINTER’S BONE

Winter’s Bone got rave reviews back on in the year, and subsequently took home the big prize in Sundance. Several months later, it’s become a footnote in the Oscar race. You know, the film critics will put among the nominations if they couldn’t think of any other film. And for good reason too. While there has been the rare indie film here and there that went on to be a serious Oscar contender (Juno comes to mind), it is very rarely the case. This is mostly because while Sundance does showcase tremendous films, it is held so early in the year that the movies featured there has to be completely and utterly unforgettable if it’s to remain with everyone all the way until the end of the year. This is not one of those kinds of films.

Sure, one can call it a hard-hitting film as it deserves to be called one. The film revolves around Rolly Dee, a 17 year old girl who is the sole caretaker of two younger siblings, an incapacitated mother and a rotting house left to her by her missing drug-dealer of a father. Things get worse when the police show up, telling her that unless her father appears in court, they are taking the house away. Forced into a dire situation, Dee traverses the cold mountainsides and visiting whatever sparse neighbors she has, a skeletal image of what family she has left. Eliciting a frigid cold atmosphere, the film thrives in setting the tone, and while its cast remains sparse, it really changes the discussion on what a family really is (not the blood relative kind). The pace of the movie is frigidly slow. In fact, it bordered on dullness, and just barely makes up for it by providing an eerie and foreboding sense of hopelessness made all the more felt by a nuanced performance by Jennifer Lawrence. Does she deserve a nomination for this? Probably. But while a powerful performance, it’s by no means revolutionary, thriving instead on a steady stream of feminine will and intuition in the face of tremendous darkness. 

Still, despite a harrowingly beautiful screenplay, great performance and a directoral tone that hisses like the cold winds of the mountainside, this film is nonetheless- for me- completely forgettable. And while at times captivating, it is just as much feels like a movie trying too hard to stretch its plot outside its limits. I can imagine the story events here occurring in far less a theatrical time. But there you have it.

Is the movie good? It has it’s effect, certainly, and a timely modern feminine lead. Still, just about every part of the film doesn’t seem to try to break any new mold, make a refreshing new take. Even the screenplay, while good, does so with a story that trods along. This isn’t a movie most mainstream movie goers will appreciate. Even I think it’s a but underwhelming. In a race of Oscar contenders this strong, this film is neither good enough nor bold enough.

7/10

1 note