2011 Movies
Click titles for reviews of the 9 Oscar 2012 Best Picture Nominees:
Midnight in Paris (2011)
The Tree of Life (2011)
The Descendants (2011)
War Horse (2011)
The Help (2011) Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (2011) (2011)
Hugo (2011)
Moneyball (2011)
The Artist (2011)
The Tree of Life (2011)
The Descendants (2011)
War Horse (2011)
The Help (2011) Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (2011) (2011)
Hugo (2011)
Moneyball (2011)
The Artist (2011)
Take This Waltz (2011)
So it began on that plane ride home, the spark of interest, that unmistakable chemistry. The undeniable physical attraction between 28-year-old freelance writer Margot (Michelle Williams) and her seatmate, the handsome and brooding stranger, Daniel (Luke Kirby). Sure, Daniel is attractive and very interesting, but Margot's never going to see him again, right?
Not exactly. Daniel turns out to be Margot's new neighbor in their charming neighborhood in Little Portugal, Toronto-- just a few houses from where Margot and her husband of five years, Lou (Seth Rogen), are residing. And so we wait, with bated breath, if Margot will give in to the temptation.
Written and directed by Sarah Polley, Take This Waltz explores love, desire, marriage and fidelity with such heart and deep understanding that we, for a moment, lose our moralistic judgments; instead, we are pulled into the struggle of Margot and Daniel as they battle with their painful dilemma. Polley, who seems to have mastered the human behavior, as well as the science of love and chemistry, has made use of naturalistic dialogue and subtleties loaded with meaning, which makes Take this Waltz absorbingly believable; will make you forget that you are watching a movie.
Williams, Kirby, and Rogen are perfectly cast in this film and give impressive performances. Williams have great chemistry with Kirby that every scene of them together cackles with tension; and her warm, loving relationship with Rogen is also felt. This is perhaps William's most emotional role by far. Although a bit self-conscious, with obvious attempts at being cute in this film, Williams still has managed to bring forth multiple layers of conflicting emotions that she earns our deep sympathy. Here she is, a complex character in a cozy and extremely playful--almost immature--relationship with her sweet and uncomplicated husband, yet you can strongly sense that her mind is across the street, on Daniel; an irresistible invitation to something new and exciting. The noticeably slimmed down Rogen, as always, is lovable in this film, providing comic relief and charm to the character, but it is Canadian actor Luke Kirby who gives the most impressively natural performance in the film that you forget that he's just acting. Comedian Sarah Silverman, as Lou's sister, also gives memorable performance.
Premiered at the 2011 Toronto Film Festival, Take this Waltz is a heartfelt and intelligently written story that will make you fall in love, cry, laugh, and will break your heart. And supported with emotional music, poetic imagery, and wildly eye-candy visuals (think Pinterest images), this movie will stay with you for a long, long time.
4 out of 5 stars
Not exactly. Daniel turns out to be Margot's new neighbor in their charming neighborhood in Little Portugal, Toronto-- just a few houses from where Margot and her husband of five years, Lou (Seth Rogen), are residing. And so we wait, with bated breath, if Margot will give in to the temptation.
Written and directed by Sarah Polley, Take This Waltz explores love, desire, marriage and fidelity with such heart and deep understanding that we, for a moment, lose our moralistic judgments; instead, we are pulled into the struggle of Margot and Daniel as they battle with their painful dilemma. Polley, who seems to have mastered the human behavior, as well as the science of love and chemistry, has made use of naturalistic dialogue and subtleties loaded with meaning, which makes Take this Waltz absorbingly believable; will make you forget that you are watching a movie.
Williams, Kirby, and Rogen are perfectly cast in this film and give impressive performances. Williams have great chemistry with Kirby that every scene of them together cackles with tension; and her warm, loving relationship with Rogen is also felt. This is perhaps William's most emotional role by far. Although a bit self-conscious, with obvious attempts at being cute in this film, Williams still has managed to bring forth multiple layers of conflicting emotions that she earns our deep sympathy. Here she is, a complex character in a cozy and extremely playful--almost immature--relationship with her sweet and uncomplicated husband, yet you can strongly sense that her mind is across the street, on Daniel; an irresistible invitation to something new and exciting. The noticeably slimmed down Rogen, as always, is lovable in this film, providing comic relief and charm to the character, but it is Canadian actor Luke Kirby who gives the most impressively natural performance in the film that you forget that he's just acting. Comedian Sarah Silverman, as Lou's sister, also gives memorable performance.
Premiered at the 2011 Toronto Film Festival, Take this Waltz is a heartfelt and intelligently written story that will make you fall in love, cry, laugh, and will break your heart. And supported with emotional music, poetic imagery, and wildly eye-candy visuals (think Pinterest images), this movie will stay with you for a long, long time.
4 out of 5 stars
Mission Impossible 4: Ghost Protocol (2011)
A glimpse of the teaser scene, when Tom Cruise is scaling Dubai's Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world, is probably enough to convince you that it's going to be this year's most jaw-dropping action scene. And with two-time Academy Award nominee Jeremy Renner included in the picture, fans of the movie franchise, as well as action/espionage movie enthusiasts, will have no reason not to see Mission Impossble 4: Ghost Protocol-- enhanced in an IMAX theater, and actually partially filmed using IMAX cameras.
Super-spy Agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise, who did all of the stunts in this movie) returns to the big screen after five years, in Ghost Protocol, this time working equally with a team, alongside Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead), and Paula Patton (Precious). In this fourth installment, Hunt's agency, the IMF (Impossible Missions Forces), is disavowed-- blamed for the bombing of The Kremlin in Moscow (The U.S. counterpart of the White House), the U.S. president initiating the black operation "ghost protocol." With no back-ups, stripped off their gadgets, and no support from the U.S. government, the four-person rogue team works hand in hand, making do with what they have, to clear the agency's name and chase the villain in a seemingly impossible mission to save the world.
Ghost Protocol, directed by Brad Bird (his first time to helm a live-action movie after captivating the world with his Oscar-winning brilliant animation films The Incredibles and Ratatouille), is a whirlwind fast-paced action flick intended to tense your muscles, keep you at the edge of your seat, and leave you breathless...and also laughing from time to time. The first scene is instantly a Brad Bird trademark: humorous, light, and entertaining-- a prelude to the rest of the movie's mood and feel. Simon Pegg's appearance alone in the opening scene, as the tech savvy agent, already spells out comedy.
If you haven't seen, or can barely recall, the first three Mission Impossible movies, this is probably the most action-packed... and the most light and playful. And with the movie writers ridding us of serious and complex mysteries in the plot, Ghost Protocol is almost like the live-action counterpart of the The Incredibles-- an enjoyable popcorn movie. Not much thinking is required here; apparently, it only wants you to experience the adventure of a team of highly skilled agents with no time to lose, trying to catch a villain with a cliche-ish evil agenda. So if you're looking for a mentally stimulating, or a challenging unpredictable mystery plot, then you're not going to find it in here-- because Ghost Protocol is only about fun, action, and entertainment-- and it fairly succeeded in its intention. It's engaging, tensing, and oftentimes funny, with seamless special effects, beautifully choreographed one-on-one fight scenes, and delightfully impressive displays of modern technology.
The team has good chemistry. Renner adds spice to the movie without outshining Cruise; Pegg is an effective comic relief; Patton, though, as the female lead, lacks personality and is too teary eyed, but is fairly in sync with the dynamics of the team.
As the last Hollywood blockbuster movie you will see in the cinemas this year, Ghost Protocol is a fitting year-ender for movie buffs out to be solely entertained and de-stressed in the holiday season. If you want to be taken from the heart of Moscow to Dubai, to India, in a breakneck-speed ride of spy action, suspense, and comedy in a light story, then seeing Ghost Protocol is a mission that you must choose to accept.
3.5/5
Philippine theatrical release: December 16th 2011
My PinoyExchange post
Super-spy Agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise, who did all of the stunts in this movie) returns to the big screen after five years, in Ghost Protocol, this time working equally with a team, alongside Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead), and Paula Patton (Precious). In this fourth installment, Hunt's agency, the IMF (Impossible Missions Forces), is disavowed-- blamed for the bombing of The Kremlin in Moscow (The U.S. counterpart of the White House), the U.S. president initiating the black operation "ghost protocol." With no back-ups, stripped off their gadgets, and no support from the U.S. government, the four-person rogue team works hand in hand, making do with what they have, to clear the agency's name and chase the villain in a seemingly impossible mission to save the world.
Ghost Protocol, directed by Brad Bird (his first time to helm a live-action movie after captivating the world with his Oscar-winning brilliant animation films The Incredibles and Ratatouille), is a whirlwind fast-paced action flick intended to tense your muscles, keep you at the edge of your seat, and leave you breathless...and also laughing from time to time. The first scene is instantly a Brad Bird trademark: humorous, light, and entertaining-- a prelude to the rest of the movie's mood and feel. Simon Pegg's appearance alone in the opening scene, as the tech savvy agent, already spells out comedy.
If you haven't seen, or can barely recall, the first three Mission Impossible movies, this is probably the most action-packed... and the most light and playful. And with the movie writers ridding us of serious and complex mysteries in the plot, Ghost Protocol is almost like the live-action counterpart of the The Incredibles-- an enjoyable popcorn movie. Not much thinking is required here; apparently, it only wants you to experience the adventure of a team of highly skilled agents with no time to lose, trying to catch a villain with a cliche-ish evil agenda. So if you're looking for a mentally stimulating, or a challenging unpredictable mystery plot, then you're not going to find it in here-- because Ghost Protocol is only about fun, action, and entertainment-- and it fairly succeeded in its intention. It's engaging, tensing, and oftentimes funny, with seamless special effects, beautifully choreographed one-on-one fight scenes, and delightfully impressive displays of modern technology.
The team has good chemistry. Renner adds spice to the movie without outshining Cruise; Pegg is an effective comic relief; Patton, though, as the female lead, lacks personality and is too teary eyed, but is fairly in sync with the dynamics of the team.
As the last Hollywood blockbuster movie you will see in the cinemas this year, Ghost Protocol is a fitting year-ender for movie buffs out to be solely entertained and de-stressed in the holiday season. If you want to be taken from the heart of Moscow to Dubai, to India, in a breakneck-speed ride of spy action, suspense, and comedy in a light story, then seeing Ghost Protocol is a mission that you must choose to accept.
3.5/5
Philippine theatrical release: December 16th 2011
My PinoyExchange post
The Ides of March (2011)
The political drama The Ides of March will dazzle you with its impressive cast ensemble: the wunderkid Ryan Gosling with George Clooney, flanked on either side by Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Jeffrey Wright, and Marisa Tomei. And with an intriguing plot that promises an exciting twist, you can sense an Oscar buzz-- even from the thrilling trailer alone.
Adapted from the Beau Willimon play Farragut North, and directed and co-written by Clooney, The Ides of March is about Stephen Meyers (Gosling), a young ideological hotshot junior campaign manager for democratic presidential candidate Morris (Clooney). In the heat of the Ohio presidential primary, Meyers is suddenly caught up in a political entanglement and becomes an unwitting pawn and a reluctant player in the dirty game of politics. Would he survive? Or shoot himself in the head?
The movie opens with Gosling (who is noticeably cute here), the poster boy of young incredible talent, giving campaign speech on Morris' irreligious sentiments. And from then on, we watch with bated breath whether Clooney can pull off a political drama without boring or shortchanging us.
The Ides of March provides sparks of interest, building little bits and pieces of tension and excitement in the midst of mundane happenings and mundane dialogue. It feels like we are forever waiting for an explosion, or an extraordinary event. It's revealing small tricks and surprises here and there, yet you're still waiting for other tricks up its sleeve. But there is none. Like, that's it? Wasn't that just the...er...appetizer to the main course? Alas, the main course never arrives.
The Ides of March is a one-dimensional story with--let me borrow a critic's phrase-- "soap-operatic twists." It's cliche-ish, masked by elegant shots and critically acclaimed performers. The actors were perfect, and Gosling is superb. There are two satisfying scenes in the film, though: Hoffman's speech on trust and loyalty, and Gosling's eyes in the kitchen scene with Clooney, his eyes speaking a thousand words and repressing conflicting and unpredictable emotions, which have more depth than the entire film itself.
2.5/5 stars
Adapted from the Beau Willimon play Farragut North, and directed and co-written by Clooney, The Ides of March is about Stephen Meyers (Gosling), a young ideological hotshot junior campaign manager for democratic presidential candidate Morris (Clooney). In the heat of the Ohio presidential primary, Meyers is suddenly caught up in a political entanglement and becomes an unwitting pawn and a reluctant player in the dirty game of politics. Would he survive? Or shoot himself in the head?
The movie opens with Gosling (who is noticeably cute here), the poster boy of young incredible talent, giving campaign speech on Morris' irreligious sentiments. And from then on, we watch with bated breath whether Clooney can pull off a political drama without boring or shortchanging us.
The Ides of March provides sparks of interest, building little bits and pieces of tension and excitement in the midst of mundane happenings and mundane dialogue. It feels like we are forever waiting for an explosion, or an extraordinary event. It's revealing small tricks and surprises here and there, yet you're still waiting for other tricks up its sleeve. But there is none. Like, that's it? Wasn't that just the...er...appetizer to the main course? Alas, the main course never arrives.
The Ides of March is a one-dimensional story with--let me borrow a critic's phrase-- "soap-operatic twists." It's cliche-ish, masked by elegant shots and critically acclaimed performers. The actors were perfect, and Gosling is superb. There are two satisfying scenes in the film, though: Hoffman's speech on trust and loyalty, and Gosling's eyes in the kitchen scene with Clooney, his eyes speaking a thousand words and repressing conflicting and unpredictable emotions, which have more depth than the entire film itself.
2.5/5 stars
The Adventures of Tintin (2011)
Blisterin' Barnacles!
In the mood for an animated cinematic masterpiece? For an ultimate adventure experience? Then let us thank Steven Spielberg for bringing to life the beloved 1940's Hergé serial comics in motion-capture 3D animation: The Adventures of Tintin.
The famous young redhead sleuth/journalist Tintin (Jamie Bell of Billy Elliot) and his fox terrier partner, Snowy, are enjoying a day in a European flea market when Tintin falls in love with a model ship of the legendary double-deck, 50-gun, three-masted Unicorn, and he promptly purchases it. Immediately, he is surrounded by threats.
And thus begins the fast-paced, whirlwind adventure of Tintin and Snowy, as they are swept away in a centuries-old mystery and legend, with the company of the perpetually drunk Captain Haddock (the brilliant motion-capture master Andy Serkis [LOTR's Gollum and Caesar of The Rise of the Planet of the Apes]), assisted by incompetent inspectors, the Thompson twins (the British tandem of Nick Frost and Simon Pegg), and chased by the shady Sakharine (Daniel Craig).
Only Spielberg can pull off something like this, to absorb us in a thrilling, action-packed adventure in a visually dazzling world. Produced by Lord of the Rings' Peter Jackson and written by Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish, the movie is a cinematic delight, an awesome 3D experience. Despite its modern treatment of motion-capture 3D, the atmosphere of the movie is still charmingly old-fashioned because of the period setting, bringing back good ol' times of simple-structured childhood stories of mystery and adventure, treasure hunts, pirates, and faraway lands.
The Adventures of Tintin, based on three of the original comic books: The Crab with the Golden Claws (1941); The Secret of the Unicorn (1943); and Red Rackham's Treasure (1944), is oftentimes hilarious, charming, a delightfully escapist adventure. And with the 3D experience, will transport you into its world; as if you're suddenly on board the Karaboudjan, in the heat of the Sahara desert, and in the mystical fictional Moroccan town of Bagghar, and of course, in charming Old Europe.
Highly recommended for loyal Tintin fans and animation junkies-- and, of course, for adults and kids who have an unquenchable thirst for adventure. Spielberg did it again. Definitely one of the best movies of 2011 that even 3D haters would enjoy in 3D... and only in 3D. A must-see!
5 out of 5 stars
Still showing in Philippine theaters.
WATCH THE TRAILER
In the mood for an animated cinematic masterpiece? For an ultimate adventure experience? Then let us thank Steven Spielberg for bringing to life the beloved 1940's Hergé serial comics in motion-capture 3D animation: The Adventures of Tintin.
The famous young redhead sleuth/journalist Tintin (Jamie Bell of Billy Elliot) and his fox terrier partner, Snowy, are enjoying a day in a European flea market when Tintin falls in love with a model ship of the legendary double-deck, 50-gun, three-masted Unicorn, and he promptly purchases it. Immediately, he is surrounded by threats.
And thus begins the fast-paced, whirlwind adventure of Tintin and Snowy, as they are swept away in a centuries-old mystery and legend, with the company of the perpetually drunk Captain Haddock (the brilliant motion-capture master Andy Serkis [LOTR's Gollum and Caesar of The Rise of the Planet of the Apes]), assisted by incompetent inspectors, the Thompson twins (the British tandem of Nick Frost and Simon Pegg), and chased by the shady Sakharine (Daniel Craig).
Only Spielberg can pull off something like this, to absorb us in a thrilling, action-packed adventure in a visually dazzling world. Produced by Lord of the Rings' Peter Jackson and written by Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish, the movie is a cinematic delight, an awesome 3D experience. Despite its modern treatment of motion-capture 3D, the atmosphere of the movie is still charmingly old-fashioned because of the period setting, bringing back good ol' times of simple-structured childhood stories of mystery and adventure, treasure hunts, pirates, and faraway lands.
The Adventures of Tintin, based on three of the original comic books: The Crab with the Golden Claws (1941); The Secret of the Unicorn (1943); and Red Rackham's Treasure (1944), is oftentimes hilarious, charming, a delightfully escapist adventure. And with the 3D experience, will transport you into its world; as if you're suddenly on board the Karaboudjan, in the heat of the Sahara desert, and in the mystical fictional Moroccan town of Bagghar, and of course, in charming Old Europe.
Highly recommended for loyal Tintin fans and animation junkies-- and, of course, for adults and kids who have an unquenchable thirst for adventure. Spielberg did it again. Definitely one of the best movies of 2011 that even 3D haters would enjoy in 3D... and only in 3D. A must-see!
5 out of 5 stars
Still showing in Philippine theaters.
WATCH THE TRAILER
The Help (2011)
In this century when racism starts to feel sooo old and primitive, we are reeled back in time during the 1960's civil rights movement in The Help, based on Kathryn Stocket's novel of the same title.
Skeeter (Emma Stone), an independent 23-year-old aspiring writer, lives in Jackson, Mississippi, in a Desperate Housewives-like setting, where white families each have their own black maid.
Skeeter is different. Not only is she still single and refuses to conform with her shallow and pretty young suburban mom friends, but she is also sympathetic to the plight of the discriminated black maids. Fueled by the unexplained disappearance of her own beloved black nanny, she risks imprisonment by secretly recording the black maids testimonies and experiences in the hands of their white masters, and writing a book about it.
What could have been a touching, courageous, and inspiring movie, The Help, directed by Tate Taylor, is lacking and shallow. With such a sensitive and immensely profound subject such as racial discrimination, it does not emotionally connect. Sometimes you feel a tiny spark of emotion, but it immediately dissipates and do not blossom into a gripping experience. Emma Stone is unfitting for the role, her eyes devoid of depth in emotionally laden scenes. The treatment may be light and comedic, still this painful period in history should still be palpable, the fear and compassion for the discriminated group of people should rise to surface and hit you. Nothing.
Oscar-winner Viola Davis, as one of the the helps, delivers a stunning performance despite the surprisingly trite screenplay. But because of the almost dry screenplay, you only see Viola Davis as an admirable actress and not as her character Aibileen, a woman with a broken spirit. A waste of incredible talent. Another engaging and credible performer is Bryce Dallas Howard (who played vampire Victoria in the Twilight movie franchise and Rachael in 50/50) as the "godless" Hilly, the leader of the suburban pack. A talent to watch out for.
The Help, in its entirety, is a disappointment, a self-aware movie that you will finish dry-eyed and unsmiling. Yes, it can hold your attention towards the end, but it's not soul-satisfying.
2 out 5.
Trailer
Skeeter (Emma Stone), an independent 23-year-old aspiring writer, lives in Jackson, Mississippi, in a Desperate Housewives-like setting, where white families each have their own black maid.
Skeeter is different. Not only is she still single and refuses to conform with her shallow and pretty young suburban mom friends, but she is also sympathetic to the plight of the discriminated black maids. Fueled by the unexplained disappearance of her own beloved black nanny, she risks imprisonment by secretly recording the black maids testimonies and experiences in the hands of their white masters, and writing a book about it.
What could have been a touching, courageous, and inspiring movie, The Help, directed by Tate Taylor, is lacking and shallow. With such a sensitive and immensely profound subject such as racial discrimination, it does not emotionally connect. Sometimes you feel a tiny spark of emotion, but it immediately dissipates and do not blossom into a gripping experience. Emma Stone is unfitting for the role, her eyes devoid of depth in emotionally laden scenes. The treatment may be light and comedic, still this painful period in history should still be palpable, the fear and compassion for the discriminated group of people should rise to surface and hit you. Nothing.
Oscar-winner Viola Davis, as one of the the helps, delivers a stunning performance despite the surprisingly trite screenplay. But because of the almost dry screenplay, you only see Viola Davis as an admirable actress and not as her character Aibileen, a woman with a broken spirit. A waste of incredible talent. Another engaging and credible performer is Bryce Dallas Howard (who played vampire Victoria in the Twilight movie franchise and Rachael in 50/50) as the "godless" Hilly, the leader of the suburban pack. A talent to watch out for.
The Help, in its entirety, is a disappointment, a self-aware movie that you will finish dry-eyed and unsmiling. Yes, it can hold your attention towards the end, but it's not soul-satisfying.
2 out 5.
Trailer
Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 (2011)
The climax of the movie up to its ending was beautifully orchestrated. Dramatic. Emotional. Intense. And a good ending can redeem the whole movie (or an entire movie franchise?) from its flaws. I cannot think of a better way to end the movie. The cut was perfect. It has almost made me...a fan. Gasp!
Breaking Dawn 1 is the first half of the final Twilight saga novel. Bella and Edward get married (leaving Jacob and Team Jacob heartbroken). They go on a honeymoon in a breathtaking isolated Brazilian island, dangerously consummate their love-- and Bella, still human, gets miraculously pregnant with something that is called either one of the following: fetus, thing, baby, monster, him, half-human, half-vampire. But whatever it's called, it's a huge threat to Bella and the Cullens.
In Breaking Dawn, directed by Bill Condon (Gods and Monsters), the movie essentially has the same feel as the previous ones; the somewhat teen-angst raw treatment, the folk and alternative-rock soundtrack (but way better this time), and the vampires still have faces that look like they were covered with flour (but the white stuff do not reach their neck). Robert Pattinson still could not act, and of the three lead stars, Taylor Lautner (Jacob) remains to be the only "normal" actor, capable of speaking through his eyes.
The movie has a lot of visual delights; from the tasteful and elegant wedding production, to Bella's absolutely perfect wedding gown (It's wonderful how they tease you with the small details of her dress before revealing all of its splendid gorgeousness), to the gloomy Forks landscape and its omnipresent grey skies, and the exotic honeymoon destination.
Nothing much happens in the first half of the film, except watching with interest some newlywed couple with a problem with their sex life, Jacob jealous, shots skipping between the Cullens and the wolf pack, but there were some scenes that were kind of boring and a bit dragging. The action only picks up when Bella becomes pregnant, escalating right until its engaging climax, which is chillingly realistic-- the movie's treatment suddenly shifting to an almost horror genre, yet at the same time emotionally gripping.
Breaking Dawn is more dramatic than action-packed, the sparse humor funny, and its an engaging movie in its entirety. And the subtle yet achingly beautiful musical score by Carter Burwell heightens the emotional scenes, almost sweeping you off with the seemingly Shakespearean- and Wuthering Heights-inspired passionate love story of Bella and Edward.
And like they say, "editing is the soul of the cinema," and Breaking Dawn's excellently edited last part, with superb special effects, will make twi-hard fans look forward to the second and final part of the Twilight movie franchise next year.
To the fans, of course you'll watch it. To those who aren't fans but are being dragged by your twi-hard friends, or daughter, or wife, or girlfriend to see the movie? Don't worry, you won't hate it. Do not expect depth and Oscar-worthy performances, but Breaking Dawn has fairly done it's job in giving you temporary escape and entertainment.
Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn's worldwide release is on November 18, 2011.
My PEx post
Breaking Dawn 1 is the first half of the final Twilight saga novel. Bella and Edward get married (leaving Jacob and Team Jacob heartbroken). They go on a honeymoon in a breathtaking isolated Brazilian island, dangerously consummate their love-- and Bella, still human, gets miraculously pregnant with something that is called either one of the following: fetus, thing, baby, monster, him, half-human, half-vampire. But whatever it's called, it's a huge threat to Bella and the Cullens.
In Breaking Dawn, directed by Bill Condon (Gods and Monsters), the movie essentially has the same feel as the previous ones; the somewhat teen-angst raw treatment, the folk and alternative-rock soundtrack (but way better this time), and the vampires still have faces that look like they were covered with flour (but the white stuff do not reach their neck). Robert Pattinson still could not act, and of the three lead stars, Taylor Lautner (Jacob) remains to be the only "normal" actor, capable of speaking through his eyes.
The movie has a lot of visual delights; from the tasteful and elegant wedding production, to Bella's absolutely perfect wedding gown (It's wonderful how they tease you with the small details of her dress before revealing all of its splendid gorgeousness), to the gloomy Forks landscape and its omnipresent grey skies, and the exotic honeymoon destination.
Nothing much happens in the first half of the film, except watching with interest some newlywed couple with a problem with their sex life, Jacob jealous, shots skipping between the Cullens and the wolf pack, but there were some scenes that were kind of boring and a bit dragging. The action only picks up when Bella becomes pregnant, escalating right until its engaging climax, which is chillingly realistic-- the movie's treatment suddenly shifting to an almost horror genre, yet at the same time emotionally gripping.
Breaking Dawn is more dramatic than action-packed, the sparse humor funny, and its an engaging movie in its entirety. And the subtle yet achingly beautiful musical score by Carter Burwell heightens the emotional scenes, almost sweeping you off with the seemingly Shakespearean- and Wuthering Heights-inspired passionate love story of Bella and Edward.
And like they say, "editing is the soul of the cinema," and Breaking Dawn's excellently edited last part, with superb special effects, will make twi-hard fans look forward to the second and final part of the Twilight movie franchise next year.
To the fans, of course you'll watch it. To those who aren't fans but are being dragged by your twi-hard friends, or daughter, or wife, or girlfriend to see the movie? Don't worry, you won't hate it. Do not expect depth and Oscar-worthy performances, but Breaking Dawn has fairly done it's job in giving you temporary escape and entertainment.
Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn's worldwide release is on November 18, 2011.
My PEx post
What's Your Number? (2011)
What's Your Number? showcases Captain America Chris Evans' nakedness. No. Actually, it's a rom-com starring 35-year-old Anna Faris as Ally Darling, a blond dimwit who, after having read in a magazine that an average woman has only slept with 10.5 men in her lifetime, goes berserk. Especially when the same article says that if the number goes beyond 20 and she hasn't met her soulmate yet, she is doomed to eternal singlehood. Ally's number is already 19.
Shamed and determined that the 20th guy she's going to sleep with should be The One but drunkenly sleeps with someone not obviously The One, she then backpedals and hunts down past lovers, in hopes that she should have already met him. Assisted by her barely clad Calvin Klein-like model next-door neighbor, Colin (Chris Evans), a womanizer and incessant eater, Ally reunites with her oddball ex-lovers with predictable results, while we patiently wait for her to predictably hook up with Colin and realize that her soul mate is right under her nose all along.
What's Your Number?, based on Karyn Bosnak's book 20 Times a Lady, is a screwball comedy that elicits a few snorts and chortles. It's a senseless plot that aims to charm and tries too hard to be cutesy and adorable and funny through the Ally character, and makes use of Chris Evans as its marketing strategy. There are moments of laughter indeed, but this is a movie to watch in a rather awfully boring day or if you need a break between emotionally draining films. But it's a must-see if you have a serious crush on Evans and you think that Faris is always adorable and funny.
2.5/5
Shamed and determined that the 20th guy she's going to sleep with should be The One but drunkenly sleeps with someone not obviously The One, she then backpedals and hunts down past lovers, in hopes that she should have already met him. Assisted by her barely clad Calvin Klein-like model next-door neighbor, Colin (Chris Evans), a womanizer and incessant eater, Ally reunites with her oddball ex-lovers with predictable results, while we patiently wait for her to predictably hook up with Colin and realize that her soul mate is right under her nose all along.
What's Your Number?, based on Karyn Bosnak's book 20 Times a Lady, is a screwball comedy that elicits a few snorts and chortles. It's a senseless plot that aims to charm and tries too hard to be cutesy and adorable and funny through the Ally character, and makes use of Chris Evans as its marketing strategy. There are moments of laughter indeed, but this is a movie to watch in a rather awfully boring day or if you need a break between emotionally draining films. But it's a must-see if you have a serious crush on Evans and you think that Faris is always adorable and funny.
2.5/5
50/50 (2011)
Death and humor. Cancer and wit. 50/50 beautifully and effortlessly blends two completely opposite experiences into a moving drama-comedy that will put a lump in your throat and induce belly laughter.
Adam (Joseph Gordon Levitt), a sort of uptight radio journalist, is suddenly diagnosed with spinal cancer, at the age of 27. With 50/50 chances of survival, we watch how Adam copes as he faces his uncertain future, and how the cancer affects his best friend (Seth Rogen), his longtime girlfriend Rachael, a fake person played credibly by Bryce Dallas Howard (Ron Howard's daughter), and his mother (Angelica Huston), and his futile and frustrating therapy sessions with a 24-year-old medical doctor (Academy Award nominee Anna Kendrick).
Inspired by the true story of comedy writer Will Reiser (a friend of Rogen's), 50/50 is intelligently written by Reiser himself and effectively performed by its talented cast, portraying a sensitive subject matter such as cancer and death with care, compassion and inoffensive humor.
A good movie does not spell out its story; rather, it should naturally unfold before your eyes. In 50/50, directed by Jonathan Levine, you don't see things in plain view, you notice them beyond the surface. You feel the emotions behind moments of silence, you catch real feelings behind masks and pretenses, and you understand what is said between the lines. You feel whether a touch is awkward or fake or genuine. This subtle and indirect approach to an emotionally stirring story always hits you stronger than straightforward expressions, and 50/50 did a very good job.
Gordon-Levitt carries his role with depth and naturalness, earning your sympathy despite his character's detachment towards his smothering and worried mother. Rogen, on the other hand, delivers much of the film's comedy. Give Seth Rogen witty lines, and it always works a hundred percent. In this film, not only will he crack you up, he will also break your heart.
50/50 will give you scene after scene of unexpected laughter and tear-inducing moments. This will go down as one of the most memorable and heart-rending tales of love, friendship, and the very real and scary prospect of losing someone.
4.5/5 stars
Trailer
Adam (Joseph Gordon Levitt), a sort of uptight radio journalist, is suddenly diagnosed with spinal cancer, at the age of 27. With 50/50 chances of survival, we watch how Adam copes as he faces his uncertain future, and how the cancer affects his best friend (Seth Rogen), his longtime girlfriend Rachael, a fake person played credibly by Bryce Dallas Howard (Ron Howard's daughter), and his mother (Angelica Huston), and his futile and frustrating therapy sessions with a 24-year-old medical doctor (Academy Award nominee Anna Kendrick).
Inspired by the true story of comedy writer Will Reiser (a friend of Rogen's), 50/50 is intelligently written by Reiser himself and effectively performed by its talented cast, portraying a sensitive subject matter such as cancer and death with care, compassion and inoffensive humor.
A good movie does not spell out its story; rather, it should naturally unfold before your eyes. In 50/50, directed by Jonathan Levine, you don't see things in plain view, you notice them beyond the surface. You feel the emotions behind moments of silence, you catch real feelings behind masks and pretenses, and you understand what is said between the lines. You feel whether a touch is awkward or fake or genuine. This subtle and indirect approach to an emotionally stirring story always hits you stronger than straightforward expressions, and 50/50 did a very good job.
Gordon-Levitt carries his role with depth and naturalness, earning your sympathy despite his character's detachment towards his smothering and worried mother. Rogen, on the other hand, delivers much of the film's comedy. Give Seth Rogen witty lines, and it always works a hundred percent. In this film, not only will he crack you up, he will also break your heart.
50/50 will give you scene after scene of unexpected laughter and tear-inducing moments. This will go down as one of the most memorable and heart-rending tales of love, friendship, and the very real and scary prospect of losing someone.
4.5/5 stars
Trailer
In Time (2011)
In a dystopian future, time is gold. No, time is money, to be accurate.
To control the Earth’s population, men are genetically engineered to stop aging at 25 years old, and from then on, their days are numbered. Literally. A phosphorescent digital clock on their forearm starts the default time at 51 years and begins to ominously tick to their demise. And since time is the currency (4 minutes for a cup of coffee, 2 hours for a bus ticket, 1 minute to use the payphone, etc), the poor die early and the rich live forever. It’s a caste system separated by Time Zones, the New Greenwhich (Greenwhich Mean Time?) being the time zone of the richest, the residents are centenarians, Hollywood celebrity-looking men and women with hundreds and thousands of years on their forearms, where time is slow and men gamble for leisure... (CLICK HERE to read full review).
To control the Earth’s population, men are genetically engineered to stop aging at 25 years old, and from then on, their days are numbered. Literally. A phosphorescent digital clock on their forearm starts the default time at 51 years and begins to ominously tick to their demise. And since time is the currency (4 minutes for a cup of coffee, 2 hours for a bus ticket, 1 minute to use the payphone, etc), the poor die early and the rich live forever. It’s a caste system separated by Time Zones, the New Greenwhich (Greenwhich Mean Time?) being the time zone of the richest, the residents are centenarians, Hollywood celebrity-looking men and women with hundreds and thousands of years on their forearms, where time is slow and men gamble for leisure... (CLICK HERE to read full review).
Puss in Boots (2011)
El gato!
Who the heck does not know the swashbuckling, debonair, fighter and lover Puss in Boots? The guys behind the now-over Shrek series gave our favorite Espanol outlaw gato his own full length feature film knowing very well how the delightfully contrasting character of Puss, the generic orange-and-white tomcat with the deep and sensual, latin lover voice of Antonio Banderas, has captivated the world, going down as the cutest animated thing in animation history.
In Puss in Boots, a prequel to the Shrek series, we are reeled back in time to discover the roots and the legend of Puss and his Corinthian-leather boots and how he came to be an outlaw. And then we are shot back to present day where Puss is reunited after seven years with his childhood friend-turned-enemy: the breakfasty smelling Humpty Alexander Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis), a bad news egg with self-esteem issues and whose self-pitying nature has evolved into the dangerous geek-outcast-turned-mastermind-terrorist kind. A minion and a sidekick by nature, Puss reluctantly agrees to team up with the apologetic Humpty to the greatest score ever: steal the magic beans from an old, ugly, and burly married couple, Jack and Jill (Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris), climb the beanstalk, and snatch the golden eggs from the sky castle-- the stolen goods a way to redeem Puss' reputation in his hometown of San Ricardo. But the heist team also involves what Puss lovingly describes as an "attractive devil woman," Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek).
Twisting our beloved childhood fairy tales for humor is the core element of the film's screenplay. However, it will barely tickle your funny bone (unless you laugh easily). Although the popular fairy tale characters are impressively expressive and creatively modified, and the plot well-crafted, the humor is thin and some of the lines are plain and predictable that those looking for gut laughter will go home unsatisfied. Puss and Kitty Softpaws' playful banter and inside jokes are targeted to the adults but can only go so far as to make us smile. Probably the best laughter-inducing factor here is Humpty, whose uncoordinated and limited movements due to his shape will crack you up all the time.
The Dreamworks animation is superb; the details, the colors, and the effects are polished, rich and vivid, and the trip up to the sky castle is breathtakingly beautiful. And with the 3D effect, Puss' cuteness was multiplied a hundred times, the cuteness making you a little crazy and you just want to grab the gigantic 3D face of Puss and smother him with kisses.
Puss in Boots, directed by Shrek director Chris Miller, is a film oozing with cuteness in every corner, making your dopamine levels go all silly but will leave you itching for more wit and humor. Recommended for cat lovers, visual people, the kids, and the kids at heart, Puss in Boots is a visually striking, unexceptional adventure story more fitting to be watched in 3D for maximum visual experience.
6.5 out of 10 stars
Who the heck does not know the swashbuckling, debonair, fighter and lover Puss in Boots? The guys behind the now-over Shrek series gave our favorite Espanol outlaw gato his own full length feature film knowing very well how the delightfully contrasting character of Puss, the generic orange-and-white tomcat with the deep and sensual, latin lover voice of Antonio Banderas, has captivated the world, going down as the cutest animated thing in animation history.
In Puss in Boots, a prequel to the Shrek series, we are reeled back in time to discover the roots and the legend of Puss and his Corinthian-leather boots and how he came to be an outlaw. And then we are shot back to present day where Puss is reunited after seven years with his childhood friend-turned-enemy: the breakfasty smelling Humpty Alexander Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis), a bad news egg with self-esteem issues and whose self-pitying nature has evolved into the dangerous geek-outcast-turned-mastermind-terrorist kind. A minion and a sidekick by nature, Puss reluctantly agrees to team up with the apologetic Humpty to the greatest score ever: steal the magic beans from an old, ugly, and burly married couple, Jack and Jill (Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris), climb the beanstalk, and snatch the golden eggs from the sky castle-- the stolen goods a way to redeem Puss' reputation in his hometown of San Ricardo. But the heist team also involves what Puss lovingly describes as an "attractive devil woman," Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek).
Twisting our beloved childhood fairy tales for humor is the core element of the film's screenplay. However, it will barely tickle your funny bone (unless you laugh easily). Although the popular fairy tale characters are impressively expressive and creatively modified, and the plot well-crafted, the humor is thin and some of the lines are plain and predictable that those looking for gut laughter will go home unsatisfied. Puss and Kitty Softpaws' playful banter and inside jokes are targeted to the adults but can only go so far as to make us smile. Probably the best laughter-inducing factor here is Humpty, whose uncoordinated and limited movements due to his shape will crack you up all the time.
The Dreamworks animation is superb; the details, the colors, and the effects are polished, rich and vivid, and the trip up to the sky castle is breathtakingly beautiful. And with the 3D effect, Puss' cuteness was multiplied a hundred times, the cuteness making you a little crazy and you just want to grab the gigantic 3D face of Puss and smother him with kisses.
Puss in Boots, directed by Shrek director Chris Miller, is a film oozing with cuteness in every corner, making your dopamine levels go all silly but will leave you itching for more wit and humor. Recommended for cat lovers, visual people, the kids, and the kids at heart, Puss in Boots is a visually striking, unexceptional adventure story more fitting to be watched in 3D for maximum visual experience.
6.5 out of 10 stars
Drive (2011)
Ryan Gosling playing a nameless special kid simply called "Driver," a full-time car mechanic, a part-time Hollywood stunt driver, and moonlights as a getaway man in midnight heists. Enough to see the film, right? Okay, go ahead and watch the trailer first. You are now excited, I presume? Come on! Gosling, a very special actor playing a very special kid in heist-riddled L.A., involved in a dirty job that goes wrong, sucked in an intricate web of masterminds, double-crossing and shadowy criminals-- and to make it more rich and complex, falls in love with the Brit version of Katie Holmes: Carey Mulligan. And! It's directed by a Cannes Best Film Director, the Danish Nicolas Winding Refn. To those unfamiliar with Refn (Pusher 1996), then Drive will be your first taste of the European director's style.
If you are expecting a heart-pounding, high-adrenaline car chase, or a direct-to-the-point suspense, then you're in for a dose of a different film adaptation of the novel by the same title. Because it's quiet, devoid of emotion and facial expression from Gosling (which was intentional), and it kind of recalls Sophia Coppola's excruciatingly pretentious Somewhere; but along with the constant hum of the car engine, we are bombarded with Refn's playlist of eighties electro music sung by various female artists, interspersed with throbbing, ominous musical score intentionally misplaced for art's sake.
No, I am not against style, or unconventional filmmaking, or a different contemporary approach to what should be expected as your normal Hollywood action-thriller. But do I appreciate Refn's style? No. It's utterly distasteful, like swallowing bitter medicine that you just want to get over with as soon as possible. It's highly pretentious, too artsy-fartsy that it robs us of every bit of emotion. I don't care how artsy-fartsy you wanna go, but please don't take away the emotions. Picture this: slow, languid movements with background music; Gosling most of the time quiet, with a deadpan expression; Gosling driving or thinking with 80's discotheque kind of music in the background; small stunts here and there, interrupted by raw and very graphic violence; a sickly looking Mulligan who is equally quiet and has no chemistry at all with Gosling. The bad guys (not that Gosling isn't a bad guy himself in the movie) are the only ones who give life to the film, but hell, they're so ugly to look at.
Drive is something you'd watch slouched in your cinema seat (never on the edge), and watch Refn's artwork unfold before your eyes: an orchestra of bad music with a creative slideshow of violence, Gosling's stony and cold expression, set in totally depressing LA locations. Yeah, it's got a real story-- a good one, actually, which makes it a tad better than Coppola's non-existent story in Somewhere. But it could have been delightful if it were directed by let's say...John Woo? Who the hell needs artsy-fartsy in a simple action-suspense movie?
In the movie, one of the criminals tells Driver that in the 1980s, he used to produce movies, and he recalls: "One critic called them European,” he said.
Then he adds: “I thought they were shit.”
That's exactly what Drive is. Not my words!
1 out of 5 stars
If you are expecting a heart-pounding, high-adrenaline car chase, or a direct-to-the-point suspense, then you're in for a dose of a different film adaptation of the novel by the same title. Because it's quiet, devoid of emotion and facial expression from Gosling (which was intentional), and it kind of recalls Sophia Coppola's excruciatingly pretentious Somewhere; but along with the constant hum of the car engine, we are bombarded with Refn's playlist of eighties electro music sung by various female artists, interspersed with throbbing, ominous musical score intentionally misplaced for art's sake.
No, I am not against style, or unconventional filmmaking, or a different contemporary approach to what should be expected as your normal Hollywood action-thriller. But do I appreciate Refn's style? No. It's utterly distasteful, like swallowing bitter medicine that you just want to get over with as soon as possible. It's highly pretentious, too artsy-fartsy that it robs us of every bit of emotion. I don't care how artsy-fartsy you wanna go, but please don't take away the emotions. Picture this: slow, languid movements with background music; Gosling most of the time quiet, with a deadpan expression; Gosling driving or thinking with 80's discotheque kind of music in the background; small stunts here and there, interrupted by raw and very graphic violence; a sickly looking Mulligan who is equally quiet and has no chemistry at all with Gosling. The bad guys (not that Gosling isn't a bad guy himself in the movie) are the only ones who give life to the film, but hell, they're so ugly to look at.
Drive is something you'd watch slouched in your cinema seat (never on the edge), and watch Refn's artwork unfold before your eyes: an orchestra of bad music with a creative slideshow of violence, Gosling's stony and cold expression, set in totally depressing LA locations. Yeah, it's got a real story-- a good one, actually, which makes it a tad better than Coppola's non-existent story in Somewhere. But it could have been delightful if it were directed by let's say...John Woo? Who the hell needs artsy-fartsy in a simple action-suspense movie?
In the movie, one of the criminals tells Driver that in the 1980s, he used to produce movies, and he recalls: "One critic called them European,” he said.
Then he adds: “I thought they were shit.”
That's exactly what Drive is. Not my words!
1 out of 5 stars
No Strings Attached (2011)
There are bad movies that quickly fade from your memory, movies that are quickly filed under the Forgettable Movies Folder. But there are bad movies that you will always remember. And one of them is No Strings Attached.
Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher are oddly paired up in this very confused romantic comedy about friends. With benefits. Yup, no romance. Just sex. Just like Timberlake and Kunis' Friends with Benefits.
Natalie, whose head is strangely too big in this movie (literally) plays a neurotic MD who is emotionally messed up and is terrified of commitments (it makes her throat constrict or something) while Kutcher plays her lovestruck sex buddy, who follows Natalie like a lost puppy, hoping for a real romantic relationship.
So what makes No Strings Attached an unforgettably bad movie? Weird casting, confused genre, totally off music, desperate humor, and badly written story. The film markets itself as a romantic comedy, but the movie is as messed up and confused as it characters, inserting melancholy music (as if someone is dying) in comedic moments, or humor that simply pops up in unexpected scenes...in a bad way. Kuchter is anything but funny. Instead, in this comedy, he is a serious lovelorn character, devoid of sense of humor, as if he were acting out a script of a heavy drama movie rather than a comedy. And Portman's character does not match her somber, serious drama-face, her playful antics will make you look away in embarrassment.
And the story, my goodness. Not only is it confused, it's pretentious and trite, with scenes desperate for laughs, desperate for approval, and trying too hard to be cute and un-cliche-ish, embarrassingly pointing to itself, saying, "I'm so funny, this is your cue to laugh! Ha! Ha!" "Look, we are so original only we thought of a period (i.e., menstruation) mix!" Enter music: Leona Lewis' "Bleeding in Love."
No Strings Attached is one of those films that makes me a bit angry because it's pretentious and incredibly bad, like an insult.
0 out of 5 stars
Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher are oddly paired up in this very confused romantic comedy about friends. With benefits. Yup, no romance. Just sex. Just like Timberlake and Kunis' Friends with Benefits.
Natalie, whose head is strangely too big in this movie (literally) plays a neurotic MD who is emotionally messed up and is terrified of commitments (it makes her throat constrict or something) while Kutcher plays her lovestruck sex buddy, who follows Natalie like a lost puppy, hoping for a real romantic relationship.
So what makes No Strings Attached an unforgettably bad movie? Weird casting, confused genre, totally off music, desperate humor, and badly written story. The film markets itself as a romantic comedy, but the movie is as messed up and confused as it characters, inserting melancholy music (as if someone is dying) in comedic moments, or humor that simply pops up in unexpected scenes...in a bad way. Kuchter is anything but funny. Instead, in this comedy, he is a serious lovelorn character, devoid of sense of humor, as if he were acting out a script of a heavy drama movie rather than a comedy. And Portman's character does not match her somber, serious drama-face, her playful antics will make you look away in embarrassment.
And the story, my goodness. Not only is it confused, it's pretentious and trite, with scenes desperate for laughs, desperate for approval, and trying too hard to be cute and un-cliche-ish, embarrassingly pointing to itself, saying, "I'm so funny, this is your cue to laugh! Ha! Ha!" "Look, we are so original only we thought of a period (i.e., menstruation) mix!" Enter music: Leona Lewis' "Bleeding in Love."
No Strings Attached is one of those films that makes me a bit angry because it's pretentious and incredibly bad, like an insult.
0 out of 5 stars
Friends with Benefits (2011)
Friends with Benefits defines the modern romantic era: the shameless, acceptable lifestyle of today's dating scene. Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis are two young professionals who met post-heartbreak, clicked, and decided to just be friends---and enjoy a sport together: sex with each other. No strings attached. No emotional investment. Just pure, unadulterated sex. And, of course, their friendship gets predictably complicated.
There's definitely something unique about this "post-modern" romantic comedy. No, it's not the story. What's surprisingly new here is that it's taken the term "quick-paced" into a whole new meaning. It is breakneck-speedy. Literally. The shots and scenes edited and cut with crazy speed that the movie feels like a two-hour trailer. Never seen anything like it before. Before you can appreciate one scene or one shot, it's already skipped to another.
Directed by Will Gluck who brought us the hilarious Easy A, Friends with Benefits prides itself for being smart-alecky and witty and unorthodox and cool, even casting Patricia Clarkson as Mila Kunis' "cool" mom, as if to further reiterate the movie's "coolness" and bring back some good stuff from Easy A-- even adding a cameo of Emma Stone to thrill the fans, but it only came off as a sad corny cling-to-the-past.
But Friends with Benefits lacks that unique intelligent wit and delicious substance that Easy A has satisfied us so richly. It's got too many romping scenes (of course!) but they are somehow used to make up for its lack of a great screenplay . The characters have presence, yes. Mila Kunis is entertaining to watch (her wafer-thin Black Swan body still intact), her bright personality filling the screen. Timberlake, who I honestly find incredibly unattractive, reminds everyone that he's a musical individual and from time to time would belt out lines in his high-pitched unattractive voice, which makes my skin crawl. Woody Harrelson as a refreshing GQ sports editor incites a good chuckle, though.
Aside from that, there's nothing in the movie that sticks. It's self-conscious. And it will take you, wide-eyed, in a whirlwind ride towards the end: the scenes are too fast, the characters talk too fast, the music too fast, like the movie is in a annoyingly terrible hurry to bring you to its end-- as if fearful that you might notice what it lacks: a very good story.
1.5 out of 5 stars
There's definitely something unique about this "post-modern" romantic comedy. No, it's not the story. What's surprisingly new here is that it's taken the term "quick-paced" into a whole new meaning. It is breakneck-speedy. Literally. The shots and scenes edited and cut with crazy speed that the movie feels like a two-hour trailer. Never seen anything like it before. Before you can appreciate one scene or one shot, it's already skipped to another.
Directed by Will Gluck who brought us the hilarious Easy A, Friends with Benefits prides itself for being smart-alecky and witty and unorthodox and cool, even casting Patricia Clarkson as Mila Kunis' "cool" mom, as if to further reiterate the movie's "coolness" and bring back some good stuff from Easy A-- even adding a cameo of Emma Stone to thrill the fans, but it only came off as a sad corny cling-to-the-past.
But Friends with Benefits lacks that unique intelligent wit and delicious substance that Easy A has satisfied us so richly. It's got too many romping scenes (of course!) but they are somehow used to make up for its lack of a great screenplay . The characters have presence, yes. Mila Kunis is entertaining to watch (her wafer-thin Black Swan body still intact), her bright personality filling the screen. Timberlake, who I honestly find incredibly unattractive, reminds everyone that he's a musical individual and from time to time would belt out lines in his high-pitched unattractive voice, which makes my skin crawl. Woody Harrelson as a refreshing GQ sports editor incites a good chuckle, though.
Aside from that, there's nothing in the movie that sticks. It's self-conscious. And it will take you, wide-eyed, in a whirlwind ride towards the end: the scenes are too fast, the characters talk too fast, the music too fast, like the movie is in a annoyingly terrible hurry to bring you to its end-- as if fearful that you might notice what it lacks: a very good story.
1.5 out of 5 stars
Horrible Bosses (2011)
The unforgettable Hangover has somehow set a precedent for the kind of comedy that uses character and personality for its humor, making use of the dynamics between a group of your standard American male buddies, the coarse interaction and exchanges between them, especially when they are put in a predicament. This is the sort of comedy we revere: wit over slapstick; exchange of dialogue meant to elicit gut laughter. Hot Tub Time Machine, one of the Hangover copy-cats, for example, failed miserably in this genre, desperately attempted to hit the Hangover mark--or even surpass it--but ended up a sad comedy, a cheap imitation of the real thing.
So what about Horrible Bosses? This time we are presented with only three friends, basically three good, sort of naive, white guys, whose distinct personalities and dynamics we will rely on until the end of the movie: the serious, deadpan Nick (Jason Bateman); the small and whiny Dale (Charlie Day); and the cool and slightly smug Kurt (Jason Sudeikis). The predicament? Each has a horrible boss that, initially, they hypothetically wanted to murder-- until it has developed into a real, concrete plan.
Nick's boss is a suave, sneering, cold and mean-spirited Kevin Spacey, imprisoning Nick into a life of hell; Dale's is a hot nymphomaniac, dirty-mouthed Jennifer Aniston, who is constantly sexually harassing him (which should be every male's fantasy except for the monogamous Dale); and Kurt's employer is a balding cokehead idiot played by Colin Farrell. The guys pay the services of a random black guy, Academy-Award winner Jamie Foxx (whose name in the movie you gotta find out for yourselves), to fulfill their desire to wipe their bosses off the face of the earth.
So is the movie funny? It is! It carries you towards the end. But is it thigh-slapping hilarious? Does it evoke lingering laughter, the kind that even when the scene is already over, you are still laughing? Uh....not really. There are absolutely some guffaw-inducing scenes and you will definitely hear yourself laughing-- but the punchlines never seem to hit squarely on the center of your gut (some are even discriminating). And it's self-conscious, the scenes screaming, "I am a movie that is so damn funny, aren't I?!?!" like an aggressive, desperate performer, only capable of eliciting a collective chortle and sparse howls of laughter from those who laugh easily.
The guys are likable enough, but Day's high-pitched exaggerated onscreen persona has become tiring halfway into the movie, his whiny voice like nails on a blackboard. The boss characters are extreme, too unrealistic to be appreciated-- except Kevin Spacey who is stupendous (as always). Also, there are too many sexual content and vulgar language that the movie should be stamped a good R rather than a surprising PG-13.
Horrible Bosses is funny and entertaining. Never boring. Unpredictable punchlines, yeah. But no sidesplitting laughter. Just some good-natured LOLs.
7/10 stars
Showing in Philippine cinemas on September 21, 2011
So what about Horrible Bosses? This time we are presented with only three friends, basically three good, sort of naive, white guys, whose distinct personalities and dynamics we will rely on until the end of the movie: the serious, deadpan Nick (Jason Bateman); the small and whiny Dale (Charlie Day); and the cool and slightly smug Kurt (Jason Sudeikis). The predicament? Each has a horrible boss that, initially, they hypothetically wanted to murder-- until it has developed into a real, concrete plan.
Nick's boss is a suave, sneering, cold and mean-spirited Kevin Spacey, imprisoning Nick into a life of hell; Dale's is a hot nymphomaniac, dirty-mouthed Jennifer Aniston, who is constantly sexually harassing him (which should be every male's fantasy except for the monogamous Dale); and Kurt's employer is a balding cokehead idiot played by Colin Farrell. The guys pay the services of a random black guy, Academy-Award winner Jamie Foxx (whose name in the movie you gotta find out for yourselves), to fulfill their desire to wipe their bosses off the face of the earth.
So is the movie funny? It is! It carries you towards the end. But is it thigh-slapping hilarious? Does it evoke lingering laughter, the kind that even when the scene is already over, you are still laughing? Uh....not really. There are absolutely some guffaw-inducing scenes and you will definitely hear yourself laughing-- but the punchlines never seem to hit squarely on the center of your gut (some are even discriminating). And it's self-conscious, the scenes screaming, "I am a movie that is so damn funny, aren't I?!?!" like an aggressive, desperate performer, only capable of eliciting a collective chortle and sparse howls of laughter from those who laugh easily.
The guys are likable enough, but Day's high-pitched exaggerated onscreen persona has become tiring halfway into the movie, his whiny voice like nails on a blackboard. The boss characters are extreme, too unrealistic to be appreciated-- except Kevin Spacey who is stupendous (as always). Also, there are too many sexual content and vulgar language that the movie should be stamped a good R rather than a surprising PG-13.
Horrible Bosses is funny and entertaining. Never boring. Unpredictable punchlines, yeah. But no sidesplitting laughter. Just some good-natured LOLs.
7/10 stars
Showing in Philippine cinemas on September 21, 2011
Crazy, Stupid, Love. (2011)
Crazy, Stupid, Love., infamous for its punctuation-riddled period-ending movie title, could mean two things: love is theoretically crazy and stupid and the movie title was just intended to irk the most humorless of copy editors. Or it's a multiple-themed movie that focuses on the crazy, the stupid, and love. Period.
Nevertheless, Crazy, Stupid, Love.'s playful title should not only cause an amusing double-take, it should be cinched. Yes, you should buy its marketing strategy of a movie title because it's going to be one of the best movies you will see this year-- and could possibly be fondly classified under your favorites in the multiple-genre of contemporary romance, drama, comedy. And Crazy, Stupid, Love. is romantic, poignant, hilarious.
Cal Weaver (Steve Carell) and his wife of 25 years, Emily (Julianne Moore), are sitting across from each other in a restaurant to start a seemingly perfunctory romantic dinner, the air heavy with dullness and tired ritual of a too-comfortable, too-stable marriage. And then out of the blue, Emily blurts out that she wants a divorce. And also confesses to having cheated on him to a co-worker named David Lindhagen (the last name's pronunciation is more complicated than it seems).
And thus begins Cal's devastating and painfully slow fall into the depression pit. He begins to frequent a single's bar, drunkenly blabbering about his wife and David Lindhagen-- until he finally caught the attention and sympathy of a ladies' man: the young and well-dressed Jacob Palmer (the ultra talented Ryan Gosling), a suave, smooth-talking player who offers the depressed Cal a chance to reclaim his manhood and win his wife back. What follows is a riotous Mr. Miyagi-like training of the ways of the modern playboy, with Jacob a hilarious cross between GQ's Style Guy and Esquire's Ask Nick Sullivan, with his blunt insults and sheer honesty, while solving the sartorial and romantic issues of the geeky, reluctant, fashion no-no Cal.
Crazy, Stupid, Love., although it centers on Cal, also revolves around other romantic sub-plots: Jacob Palmer, whose picking-up-women days abruptly ends when he falls in love with the quirky Hannah (Emma Stone); and Cal's 13-year-old son who is smitten with their 17-year-old babysitter Jessica (America's Next Top Model Cycle 11 Analeigh Lipton).
Crazy, Stupid, Love. delightfully and serendipitous-ly put together all my favorite--and talented--actors in a heartfelt and intelligently written screenplay by Dan Fogelman (Tangled) under the directorship of Glenn Ficarra and John Requa of the not-much-talked-about I Love You Philip Morris. The movie's got well-developed characters played exceptionally well by all, and I mean by all the actors. The movie also stars Kevin Bacon, Oscar winner Marisa Tomei and a famous singer that I will let you find out for yourself. But Carell of course stands out, delivering a brilliant performance of his endearing character with a combination of sympathetic and hilarious, comical and serious, the intensity of his agony displayed with beautiful subtlety. In fact, the whole movie focuses on subtlety; small gestures and fleeting eye movements that hide feelings of gigantic proportions.
Crazy, Stupid, Love. indeed is a surprisingly touching love story that will make you cry, laugh-- or cry and laugh at the same time. There are scenes that are a hairline away from turning into a cornball, but with much relief, it doesn't go there. Crazy, Stupid, Love. is a witty, heartwarming, lingering story of the common truth about pain and love, the crazy and stupid things we do for love-- and that love does in fact makes us crazy and stupid. Sometimes.
Must-see.
9.5/10
Nevertheless, Crazy, Stupid, Love.'s playful title should not only cause an amusing double-take, it should be cinched. Yes, you should buy its marketing strategy of a movie title because it's going to be one of the best movies you will see this year-- and could possibly be fondly classified under your favorites in the multiple-genre of contemporary romance, drama, comedy. And Crazy, Stupid, Love. is romantic, poignant, hilarious.
Cal Weaver (Steve Carell) and his wife of 25 years, Emily (Julianne Moore), are sitting across from each other in a restaurant to start a seemingly perfunctory romantic dinner, the air heavy with dullness and tired ritual of a too-comfortable, too-stable marriage. And then out of the blue, Emily blurts out that she wants a divorce. And also confesses to having cheated on him to a co-worker named David Lindhagen (the last name's pronunciation is more complicated than it seems).
And thus begins Cal's devastating and painfully slow fall into the depression pit. He begins to frequent a single's bar, drunkenly blabbering about his wife and David Lindhagen-- until he finally caught the attention and sympathy of a ladies' man: the young and well-dressed Jacob Palmer (the ultra talented Ryan Gosling), a suave, smooth-talking player who offers the depressed Cal a chance to reclaim his manhood and win his wife back. What follows is a riotous Mr. Miyagi-like training of the ways of the modern playboy, with Jacob a hilarious cross between GQ's Style Guy and Esquire's Ask Nick Sullivan, with his blunt insults and sheer honesty, while solving the sartorial and romantic issues of the geeky, reluctant, fashion no-no Cal.
Crazy, Stupid, Love., although it centers on Cal, also revolves around other romantic sub-plots: Jacob Palmer, whose picking-up-women days abruptly ends when he falls in love with the quirky Hannah (Emma Stone); and Cal's 13-year-old son who is smitten with their 17-year-old babysitter Jessica (America's Next Top Model Cycle 11 Analeigh Lipton).
Crazy, Stupid, Love. delightfully and serendipitous-ly put together all my favorite--and talented--actors in a heartfelt and intelligently written screenplay by Dan Fogelman (Tangled) under the directorship of Glenn Ficarra and John Requa of the not-much-talked-about I Love You Philip Morris. The movie's got well-developed characters played exceptionally well by all, and I mean by all the actors. The movie also stars Kevin Bacon, Oscar winner Marisa Tomei and a famous singer that I will let you find out for yourself. But Carell of course stands out, delivering a brilliant performance of his endearing character with a combination of sympathetic and hilarious, comical and serious, the intensity of his agony displayed with beautiful subtlety. In fact, the whole movie focuses on subtlety; small gestures and fleeting eye movements that hide feelings of gigantic proportions.
Crazy, Stupid, Love. indeed is a surprisingly touching love story that will make you cry, laugh-- or cry and laugh at the same time. There are scenes that are a hairline away from turning into a cornball, but with much relief, it doesn't go there. Crazy, Stupid, Love. is a witty, heartwarming, lingering story of the common truth about pain and love, the crazy and stupid things we do for love-- and that love does in fact makes us crazy and stupid. Sometimes.
Must-see.
9.5/10
Cowboys and Aliens (2O11)
The title alone says it all: Cowboys and Aliens.
So if you are hurrying to the cinemas to get yourself a deep, complex, and intellectually satisfying conspiracy-mystery story, hold your horses; just go back home and go through your DVD collection of The X-Files.
But if you want pure Spaghetti Western, of outlaws and tough ranchers, of saloons and tumbleweeds, of Apaches and a lone desert, and the glorious sounds of gunshots and explosions and boots on gravel-- only with the addition of extraterrestrial biological entities--then this is your thing.
Cowboys and Aliens is simply that: bang-bang and boom and wide open spaces and gross villains. It's an action-filled adventure story that refreshingly brings back our love for the Old West (although this one tries to be a little more serious and deep, but failed in that part).
It's 1873 in New Mexico Territory and Jack (Daniel Craig) wakes up in the desert injured, his memory wiped out and a stubborn futuristic electronic bracelet on his left wrist. But he still has his tough-guy, don't-mess-with-me attitude intact-- which he brings to a town called Absolution, where he encounters a variety of characters that he'd eventually team up with, including the feared Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford) and an openly staring and creepy woman (Olivia Wilde) who has an annoying mysterious agenda. Tension flares between the new stranger and the townsfolk, until alien spaceships arrive, bombing everywhere and starts abducting the folks. And thus begins the united cowboys' war against the aliens while Jack solves the mystery of his identity.
Cowboys and Aliens, directed by John Favreau (Iron Man), runs 118 minutes of Western fun that will sustain your attention til the end. The aliens do not look anything new (except some disgusting detail), Daniel Craig effectively epitomizes an Old West outlaw-hero, Ford's presence brings fondness instead of fear, and Wilde's character portrays the film's trying-hard conspiracy element.
Hats and horses and guns and explosions, Cowboys and Aliens will entertain the Spaghetti Western fans but might bore or disappoint the sci-fi conspiracy buffs. But if you're a fan of both Western and alien films, you'll enjoy the movie in the cinemas just fine.
So if you are hurrying to the cinemas to get yourself a deep, complex, and intellectually satisfying conspiracy-mystery story, hold your horses; just go back home and go through your DVD collection of The X-Files.
But if you want pure Spaghetti Western, of outlaws and tough ranchers, of saloons and tumbleweeds, of Apaches and a lone desert, and the glorious sounds of gunshots and explosions and boots on gravel-- only with the addition of extraterrestrial biological entities--then this is your thing.
Cowboys and Aliens is simply that: bang-bang and boom and wide open spaces and gross villains. It's an action-filled adventure story that refreshingly brings back our love for the Old West (although this one tries to be a little more serious and deep, but failed in that part).
It's 1873 in New Mexico Territory and Jack (Daniel Craig) wakes up in the desert injured, his memory wiped out and a stubborn futuristic electronic bracelet on his left wrist. But he still has his tough-guy, don't-mess-with-me attitude intact-- which he brings to a town called Absolution, where he encounters a variety of characters that he'd eventually team up with, including the feared Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford) and an openly staring and creepy woman (Olivia Wilde) who has an annoying mysterious agenda. Tension flares between the new stranger and the townsfolk, until alien spaceships arrive, bombing everywhere and starts abducting the folks. And thus begins the united cowboys' war against the aliens while Jack solves the mystery of his identity.
Cowboys and Aliens, directed by John Favreau (Iron Man), runs 118 minutes of Western fun that will sustain your attention til the end. The aliens do not look anything new (except some disgusting detail), Daniel Craig effectively epitomizes an Old West outlaw-hero, Ford's presence brings fondness instead of fear, and Wilde's character portrays the film's trying-hard conspiracy element.
Hats and horses and guns and explosions, Cowboys and Aliens will entertain the Spaghetti Western fans but might bore or disappoint the sci-fi conspiracy buffs. But if you're a fan of both Western and alien films, you'll enjoy the movie in the cinemas just fine.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)
Rise of the Planet of the Apes is one of those rare films that you just know would be good based on the trailer alone.
Whether or not you're a fan of the Apes cult movie franchise, Rise of the Planet of the Apes will satisfy your craving for a quality B-movie summer blockbuster experience at the cinemas. It's not mind-blowing awesome, but it's a delicious ticket-worthy movie experience with a lingering effect.
In Rise of the Planet of the Apes, we are on Planet Earth, in present-day San Francisco, where hot scientist Will Rodman (James Franco) experiments on chimps as part of his fervent research to cure Alzheimer's, a disease that inflicts his father (John Lithgow). A supposedly failed experiment leads Rodman to bring home a baby chimp and names him Caesar-- the genesis of a cataclysmic future with apes.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a reboot of the Planet of the Apes movie franchise based on Pierre Boulle's novel La planete des singes, and serves as the foundation of a new Apes series. It has a good cast, and Franco, after his failed stint as a superbly weird 2011 Oscar co-host, has redeemed himself in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, reminding us that he's a versatile actor-- and that he should stick to this craft.
Directed by Rupert Wyatt (The Escapist), Rise of the Planet of the Apes is unpretentious, quick-paced, emotional, and heartfelt, and incites moral and social questions, awareness of animal treatment, with an emotional portrayal of human-beast relationship. And with CG animation that brought us Oscar golds Avatar and Lord of the Rings, the apes in the movie are realistic and soulful, more chilling and admirably expressive, and it becomes a thrill to observe Caesar's intelligence advance to human level.
Indeed, Rise of the Planet of the Apes has the power to hook you from beginning to end with its potent storytelling. It's got the right blend of sci-fi thriller, drama, and action, and will perhaps give birth to a new generation of Planet of the Apes fans.
Whether or not you're a fan of the Apes cult movie franchise, Rise of the Planet of the Apes will satisfy your craving for a quality B-movie summer blockbuster experience at the cinemas. It's not mind-blowing awesome, but it's a delicious ticket-worthy movie experience with a lingering effect.
In Rise of the Planet of the Apes, we are on Planet Earth, in present-day San Francisco, where hot scientist Will Rodman (James Franco) experiments on chimps as part of his fervent research to cure Alzheimer's, a disease that inflicts his father (John Lithgow). A supposedly failed experiment leads Rodman to bring home a baby chimp and names him Caesar-- the genesis of a cataclysmic future with apes.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a reboot of the Planet of the Apes movie franchise based on Pierre Boulle's novel La planete des singes, and serves as the foundation of a new Apes series. It has a good cast, and Franco, after his failed stint as a superbly weird 2011 Oscar co-host, has redeemed himself in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, reminding us that he's a versatile actor-- and that he should stick to this craft.
Directed by Rupert Wyatt (The Escapist), Rise of the Planet of the Apes is unpretentious, quick-paced, emotional, and heartfelt, and incites moral and social questions, awareness of animal treatment, with an emotional portrayal of human-beast relationship. And with CG animation that brought us Oscar golds Avatar and Lord of the Rings, the apes in the movie are realistic and soulful, more chilling and admirably expressive, and it becomes a thrill to observe Caesar's intelligence advance to human level.
Indeed, Rise of the Planet of the Apes has the power to hook you from beginning to end with its potent storytelling. It's got the right blend of sci-fi thriller, drama, and action, and will perhaps give birth to a new generation of Planet of the Apes fans.
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)
As a movie created for fanboys, Captain America: The First Avenger has spread a buzz of excitement in the Marvel fandom, triggering that all too familiar childhood feeling of idolizing a favorite superhero, and the giddiness that comes along with seeing the hero in action, i.e, saving the world against evil.
Captain America: The First Avenger introduces the origin of the iconic patriotic guy circa 1941, clad in the American flag motif, with his indestructible shield, and how he came to be a superhero.
It’s World War II, and stick-thin Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) wants more than anything to join the military-- his wafer-thin build, including a plethora of health problems, not stopping him from trying to enlist. Despite repeated rejections, his desire and determination to fight the Nazis are not deterred, until ultimately, he is finally recruited by Dr. Erskine (Stanley Tucci), who notices that despite Rogers’ physical build that is similar to that of a concentration camp prisoner rather than of a military man, he’s got a heart of a true soldier.
Erskine turns out to be a creator of a super-soldier serum for a top secret government project to defeat Hitler, the Nazis, and Johann Schmidt a.k.a The Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) and his evil Hydra organization. Rogers volunteers for Operation: Rebirth, and the somatic cell engineering turns him from a 90-pound boy into a manly all-American beefy super-soldier Captain America. And thus begins his adventure.
Captain America: The First Avenger, directed by Joe Johnston (The Wolfman, Jurassic Park III, October Sky, Jumanji), is not a bad film, but it lacks the superpower punch that elicits the wide-eyes and the oohhs and aaahs expected from a superhero film. After Rogers’ physical makeover, my excitement has waned. The fight scenes are like huge theatrical Broadway shows, or an extension of Captain America’s initial task to travel the country in a promotional tour to sell war bonds. The action scenes did not feel real, like an elaborate cosplay with super effects. Even the villainous Red Skull did not induce fear and hatred, his presence weak and almost boring. The fight scenes are incredibly light and child-friendly that I was almost expecting KLAPOW, BAM, KA-POW to pop everywhere. There was no tension, no fear, no intensity.
Captain America: The First Avenger is not a movie that will grip you (when the end credits began rolling, the super fan in my row, in his Captain America costume, exclaimed, "I am underwhelmed."), but it will take you just fine through the end. The winning factor of the movie is that it elicits a lot of LOL's and is fairly well-paced and visually pleasing. It’s a very, very light and simple wholesome comedy-adventure movie that kids will enjoy with the family. But even the little kiddos won’t hide when The Red Skull appears.
3D is unnecessary and even makes the film's contrast darker. But in a “secret surprise scene” after the end credits, Marvel fans will surely feel a surge of excitement.
Captain America: The First Avenger introduces the origin of the iconic patriotic guy circa 1941, clad in the American flag motif, with his indestructible shield, and how he came to be a superhero.
It’s World War II, and stick-thin Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) wants more than anything to join the military-- his wafer-thin build, including a plethora of health problems, not stopping him from trying to enlist. Despite repeated rejections, his desire and determination to fight the Nazis are not deterred, until ultimately, he is finally recruited by Dr. Erskine (Stanley Tucci), who notices that despite Rogers’ physical build that is similar to that of a concentration camp prisoner rather than of a military man, he’s got a heart of a true soldier.
Erskine turns out to be a creator of a super-soldier serum for a top secret government project to defeat Hitler, the Nazis, and Johann Schmidt a.k.a The Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) and his evil Hydra organization. Rogers volunteers for Operation: Rebirth, and the somatic cell engineering turns him from a 90-pound boy into a manly all-American beefy super-soldier Captain America. And thus begins his adventure.
Captain America: The First Avenger, directed by Joe Johnston (The Wolfman, Jurassic Park III, October Sky, Jumanji), is not a bad film, but it lacks the superpower punch that elicits the wide-eyes and the oohhs and aaahs expected from a superhero film. After Rogers’ physical makeover, my excitement has waned. The fight scenes are like huge theatrical Broadway shows, or an extension of Captain America’s initial task to travel the country in a promotional tour to sell war bonds. The action scenes did not feel real, like an elaborate cosplay with super effects. Even the villainous Red Skull did not induce fear and hatred, his presence weak and almost boring. The fight scenes are incredibly light and child-friendly that I was almost expecting KLAPOW, BAM, KA-POW to pop everywhere. There was no tension, no fear, no intensity.
Captain America: The First Avenger is not a movie that will grip you (when the end credits began rolling, the super fan in my row, in his Captain America costume, exclaimed, "I am underwhelmed."), but it will take you just fine through the end. The winning factor of the movie is that it elicits a lot of LOL's and is fairly well-paced and visually pleasing. It’s a very, very light and simple wholesome comedy-adventure movie that kids will enjoy with the family. But even the little kiddos won’t hide when The Red Skull appears.
3D is unnecessary and even makes the film's contrast darker. But in a “secret surprise scene” after the end credits, Marvel fans will surely feel a surge of excitement.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011)
When David Yates started directing the Harry Potter movie franchise, he gave a realistic feel to the wizarding world in the big screen, bringing to life the palpable magic that we felt in Rowling’s novels. Yates, since the fifth movie installment, smoothly fuses the real world that we know with the dead seriousness of the Harry Potter mythology. His realistic, serious treatment of his Harry Potter films transcends its fantasy genre; gluing what is real and not into a believable magical world that the books have transported us to, as if he and Rowling are one in their storytelling.
In the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, the epic finale of the Harry Potter movie series, Yates has done, in my opinion, his greatest Harry Potter film—and rightly so, because a series of masterpiece should be ended with a masterpiece.
In HP7.2, in the last hunt for the horcruxes to ultimately finish the Dark Lord, you get hooked right from the beginning. We are given scene after scene of wow-inducing high emotions, with the melancholy undercurrent that IT ALL ENDS right now.
What is beautifully rendered in the movie is Voldemort’s sinister presence and the dark magic that is cloaked in every scene; the evil more alive and bone-chilling, therefore a real threat to our beloved heroes and the wizarding world. The elegant, sophisticated musical score was perfectly synchronized with the scenes, heightening every dangerous, vulnerable, frightening, and proud moment, as we are reluctantly brought to the inevitable end of our journey with Harry Potter.
The battle at Hogwarts was impeccably recreated, the danger and tension tangible and exciting. Emma Watson (Hermione) incredibly lost her theatrical acting and became a natural, and the magical creatures became more than just costumed puppets but creatures with souls.
But there were a few things that Yates strangely did not work on: he dismissed Ron and Harry’s years of strong relationship, and Ron, our favorite sidekick, was most of the time relegated in the background. Even when Harry leaves to be killed by Voldemort, we didn’t get Ron’s in-depth emotions, nor his and Hermione’s up-close emotions when Voldemort pronounced him dead. That was quite alarming. And when He Who Must Not Be Named was finally defeated into smithereens, finally ending the long agonizing decades of his torturous presence and finally freeing the wizarding world of his evil, we were not shown an intense collective relief from the wizarding world---when Harry came back from his one-on-one battle with Voldemort, the folks acted as if Harry just came home from playfully rolling in the Forbidden Forest dirt.
However, in its entirety, the well-crafted film, the excellent screenplay has surpassed these flaws, and we leave the cinemas planning for our second, third movie-watching.
The book, and now the film, has finally ended. But this great contribution to the literary world that opened the imagination of every age, race, and culture will be eternally present, its magic lasting forever.
Again, cheers to the genius of JK Rowling, and to the masterpiece that is Harry Potter!
In the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, the epic finale of the Harry Potter movie series, Yates has done, in my opinion, his greatest Harry Potter film—and rightly so, because a series of masterpiece should be ended with a masterpiece.
In HP7.2, in the last hunt for the horcruxes to ultimately finish the Dark Lord, you get hooked right from the beginning. We are given scene after scene of wow-inducing high emotions, with the melancholy undercurrent that IT ALL ENDS right now.
What is beautifully rendered in the movie is Voldemort’s sinister presence and the dark magic that is cloaked in every scene; the evil more alive and bone-chilling, therefore a real threat to our beloved heroes and the wizarding world. The elegant, sophisticated musical score was perfectly synchronized with the scenes, heightening every dangerous, vulnerable, frightening, and proud moment, as we are reluctantly brought to the inevitable end of our journey with Harry Potter.
The battle at Hogwarts was impeccably recreated, the danger and tension tangible and exciting. Emma Watson (Hermione) incredibly lost her theatrical acting and became a natural, and the magical creatures became more than just costumed puppets but creatures with souls.
But there were a few things that Yates strangely did not work on: he dismissed Ron and Harry’s years of strong relationship, and Ron, our favorite sidekick, was most of the time relegated in the background. Even when Harry leaves to be killed by Voldemort, we didn’t get Ron’s in-depth emotions, nor his and Hermione’s up-close emotions when Voldemort pronounced him dead. That was quite alarming. And when He Who Must Not Be Named was finally defeated into smithereens, finally ending the long agonizing decades of his torturous presence and finally freeing the wizarding world of his evil, we were not shown an intense collective relief from the wizarding world---when Harry came back from his one-on-one battle with Voldemort, the folks acted as if Harry just came home from playfully rolling in the Forbidden Forest dirt.
However, in its entirety, the well-crafted film, the excellent screenplay has surpassed these flaws, and we leave the cinemas planning for our second, third movie-watching.
The book, and now the film, has finally ended. But this great contribution to the literary world that opened the imagination of every age, race, and culture will be eternally present, its magic lasting forever.
Again, cheers to the genius of JK Rowling, and to the masterpiece that is Harry Potter!
Super 8 (2011)
It's 1979 in a quiet American suburban town and a group of filmmaking youngsters become unwitting witnesses to a spectacular midnight train crash. Almost immediately, they find themselves against an invisible menacing figure and a small-town conspiracy, while coming to terms with their coming-of-age issues.
Written and directed by J.J. Abrams (with Steven Spielberg as executive producer), Super 8 clearly aims to entertain in a nostalgic fashion, meant to bring back warm memories of Spielberg classics and good ol' blockbuster thrills from the Pre-Digital Age. The charming--and winning--element of Super 8 is its intentional simple story structure; not crafted as a profoundly complex sci-fi, but as a refreshing "blast from the past" movie experience. It's funny, heart-warming, and edge-of-the-seat suspenseful. The film's objective was to be simple, Spielbergian, and nostalgic. And Super 8 has succeeded.
Conspiracy, adventure, the classic menacing villain, the small-town charm, and the timeless lure of a close encounter of the third kind make Super 8 a refreshingly entertaining cinematic experience.
Paul (2011)
If your idea of a hilarious comedy is one riddled with humor based on empty expletives and mockery of Christian fundamental beliefs, then Paul might just be the movie for you.
Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz British team Pegg Simon and Nick Frost gives us Paul, a story about a close encounter of the third kind. Graeme Willy (Pegg Simon) and Clive Gollings (Nick Frost) are two English Comic-Con sci-fi geeks who embark on a road trip to the US of A for a tour into the UFO heartland on board an RV. Their sci-fi fantasies are rewarded way beyond their expectations when not only do they get a snapshot of each other in Area 51, but they also accidentally meet an alien fugitive named Paul (the generic "little green man," with stringy limbs, a bulbous head, and a captivating pair of huge almond-shaped eyes), who joins the geek fanboys so they could help him escape from the men in black.
Joining the trio of their mad race to Paul's mother ship is dorky Ruth (Kristen Wiig), a one-eyed Baptist (her one eye symbolical of her singular perspective on life). After a brief debate on Creationism versus Evolution, her lifelong beliefs are ultimately shattered by Paul, yet her broken faith was instantly replaced by a sense of ultimate freedom to commit sins, particularly spitting out cuss words and fornicating, implying that Chistian faith in general is based alone on fear of God's punishment. She then goes on forming weird unnatural combinations of dirty words to make up for lost time, aiming to charm the audience, but is downright corny. Chasing after them are the MIB, led by Agent Zoil (Jason Bateman) and his two goofy underling agents (SNL’s Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio) who act like retards to give us slapstick comedy, Ruth's fanatic Bible-thunping gun-waving father, and a couple of rednecks.
Written by Frost and Pegg, and directed by Greg Mottola (Superbad and Adventureland), the film's premise of two geeks, outcasts all their life, and now in the middle of a wild adventure with an alien (voiced by Seth Rogen) who unexpectedly has a very American, very human behavior (reminds you of Roger of American Dad), has a lot of comedic potential. But the movie is painfully cliche-ish, with expletives-based humor as well as anal probe jokes repeated a hundred times that it's become tiring and embarrassing. It's filled with stereotypes: all Comic-Con fans look like losers, all Christians or Creationists are fundamentalist nut jobs-- and even Sigourney Weaver's cameo is a stereotype in itself. The only unorthodox part of the the film is Paul the alien; the pair's expectations of what's an alien like is shattered because aliens are, in truth, English-speaking, rude-humored, weed-smoking, madras-wearing Hollywood consultants.
There are plenty of movie references for the pleasure of movie buffs, the CGI alien looks flawless and adorable, and the wide open skies of Nevada brings back warm memories of X-files and memorable quality stories of extraterrestrial biological entities, and there are a few good laughs. But in its entirety, the movie is a horrifying mix of bad comedy. The characters are underdeveloped, offers obscenity and slapstick over wit and substance, the jokes are old and cliche-ish, and it is subtly preachy of Darwinism. Paul is definitely not a result of "intelligent design."
Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz British team Pegg Simon and Nick Frost gives us Paul, a story about a close encounter of the third kind. Graeme Willy (Pegg Simon) and Clive Gollings (Nick Frost) are two English Comic-Con sci-fi geeks who embark on a road trip to the US of A for a tour into the UFO heartland on board an RV. Their sci-fi fantasies are rewarded way beyond their expectations when not only do they get a snapshot of each other in Area 51, but they also accidentally meet an alien fugitive named Paul (the generic "little green man," with stringy limbs, a bulbous head, and a captivating pair of huge almond-shaped eyes), who joins the geek fanboys so they could help him escape from the men in black.
Joining the trio of their mad race to Paul's mother ship is dorky Ruth (Kristen Wiig), a one-eyed Baptist (her one eye symbolical of her singular perspective on life). After a brief debate on Creationism versus Evolution, her lifelong beliefs are ultimately shattered by Paul, yet her broken faith was instantly replaced by a sense of ultimate freedom to commit sins, particularly spitting out cuss words and fornicating, implying that Chistian faith in general is based alone on fear of God's punishment. She then goes on forming weird unnatural combinations of dirty words to make up for lost time, aiming to charm the audience, but is downright corny. Chasing after them are the MIB, led by Agent Zoil (Jason Bateman) and his two goofy underling agents (SNL’s Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio) who act like retards to give us slapstick comedy, Ruth's fanatic Bible-thunping gun-waving father, and a couple of rednecks.
Written by Frost and Pegg, and directed by Greg Mottola (Superbad and Adventureland), the film's premise of two geeks, outcasts all their life, and now in the middle of a wild adventure with an alien (voiced by Seth Rogen) who unexpectedly has a very American, very human behavior (reminds you of Roger of American Dad), has a lot of comedic potential. But the movie is painfully cliche-ish, with expletives-based humor as well as anal probe jokes repeated a hundred times that it's become tiring and embarrassing. It's filled with stereotypes: all Comic-Con fans look like losers, all Christians or Creationists are fundamentalist nut jobs-- and even Sigourney Weaver's cameo is a stereotype in itself. The only unorthodox part of the the film is Paul the alien; the pair's expectations of what's an alien like is shattered because aliens are, in truth, English-speaking, rude-humored, weed-smoking, madras-wearing Hollywood consultants.
There are plenty of movie references for the pleasure of movie buffs, the CGI alien looks flawless and adorable, and the wide open skies of Nevada brings back warm memories of X-files and memorable quality stories of extraterrestrial biological entities, and there are a few good laughs. But in its entirety, the movie is a horrifying mix of bad comedy. The characters are underdeveloped, offers obscenity and slapstick over wit and substance, the jokes are old and cliche-ish, and it is subtly preachy of Darwinism. Paul is definitely not a result of "intelligent design."
Something Borrowed (2011)
Rachel (Ginnifer Goodwin) is an average-looking, rule-following, hardworking Manhattan attorney who's "way past her prime child-bearing years" and is still loveless. With her sensible clothes and plain features, could there be any hope for a romantic love for her?
Darcy (Kate Hudson) is Rachel's best friend since childhood. Fun, spontaneous, glamorous, and sexy, Darcy is the complete opposite of Rachel. She lives the good life and seems to be a magnet for good luck. And while Rachel looks like a spinster-in-the-making, Darcy is soon to be married to the seriously handsome Dex (Colin Egglesfield). And Rachel, of course, is her maid of honor.
But on her 30th birthday, after the surprise party thrown for her by Darcy, Rachel unexpectedly ends the night sleeping with Dex—whom she's been secretly in love with. For years. And to her amazement, Dex feels the same way.
Based on Emily Giffin's unforgettable best-selling romantic dramedy novel, Something Borrowed is a beautiful, heart-rending story of friendship, self-realization, morals, and the complexity of love and relationships. I have read and loved the book, and the movie adaptation did pretty well (brought tears to my eyes in some parts), except for Goodwin (House, MD) who, in my opinion, was a bad choice for Rachel. With her annoying high-pitched perky voice and emotionless eyes, she was incredibly disappointing. She lacked that transformative power that defines a real actor; instead, she looked fake; twisting her facial muscles or wetting her eyes to project the appropriate emotion, yet her eyes say nothing at all. Fortunately, the rest of the main cast were fantastic—including funny guy John Krasinski (The Office)—that Goodwin, miraculously, can be endured.
Directed by Luke Greenfield (TV Series Aliens in America), Something Borrowed is a mixture of trite and original, silly and profound, corny and witty. Also, Rachel's character in the movie lacked that consistently repressed tortured feeling of being in love with your best friend's fiance, which was pretty weird. But because the base storyline is good and the film's positive elements outshine the flaws, it comes out a very good romantic dramedy. The real beauty of the film, however, lies in the subtleties: the body language, the small gestures, those split-second facial expressions that are dead giveaways of someone in love. Those small magic moments are breathtaking. And that should be entirely credited to the perfect romantic hero, Colin Egglesfield; his character Dex exhibited emotions with believable depth, supporting the emotionless Goodwin, enough to make you fall in love.
For the fans of the best-selling novel, you must see the movie. For the hopeless romantics who've never heard of the book, still see the movie.
Darcy (Kate Hudson) is Rachel's best friend since childhood. Fun, spontaneous, glamorous, and sexy, Darcy is the complete opposite of Rachel. She lives the good life and seems to be a magnet for good luck. And while Rachel looks like a spinster-in-the-making, Darcy is soon to be married to the seriously handsome Dex (Colin Egglesfield). And Rachel, of course, is her maid of honor.
But on her 30th birthday, after the surprise party thrown for her by Darcy, Rachel unexpectedly ends the night sleeping with Dex—whom she's been secretly in love with. For years. And to her amazement, Dex feels the same way.
Based on Emily Giffin's unforgettable best-selling romantic dramedy novel, Something Borrowed is a beautiful, heart-rending story of friendship, self-realization, morals, and the complexity of love and relationships. I have read and loved the book, and the movie adaptation did pretty well (brought tears to my eyes in some parts), except for Goodwin (House, MD) who, in my opinion, was a bad choice for Rachel. With her annoying high-pitched perky voice and emotionless eyes, she was incredibly disappointing. She lacked that transformative power that defines a real actor; instead, she looked fake; twisting her facial muscles or wetting her eyes to project the appropriate emotion, yet her eyes say nothing at all. Fortunately, the rest of the main cast were fantastic—including funny guy John Krasinski (The Office)—that Goodwin, miraculously, can be endured.
Directed by Luke Greenfield (TV Series Aliens in America), Something Borrowed is a mixture of trite and original, silly and profound, corny and witty. Also, Rachel's character in the movie lacked that consistently repressed tortured feeling of being in love with your best friend's fiance, which was pretty weird. But because the base storyline is good and the film's positive elements outshine the flaws, it comes out a very good romantic dramedy. The real beauty of the film, however, lies in the subtleties: the body language, the small gestures, those split-second facial expressions that are dead giveaways of someone in love. Those small magic moments are breathtaking. And that should be entirely credited to the perfect romantic hero, Colin Egglesfield; his character Dex exhibited emotions with believable depth, supporting the emotionless Goodwin, enough to make you fall in love.
For the fans of the best-selling novel, you must see the movie. For the hopeless romantics who've never heard of the book, still see the movie.
Water for Elephants (2011)
It’s America during the Great Depression, and Jacob (Robert Pattinson), a young and handsome Cornell veterinary student, suddenly finds himself an orphan, out of school, and homeless. And one fairy tale-like evening, he hops on a train and joins the spectacular Benzini Brothers traveling circus, where his life is about to change.
Based on Sarah Gruen’s bestselling novel, Water for Elephants is a dramatic love story reminiscent of Titanic—it’s the present day and an old Jacob recalls the “famous circus disaster of all time,” and he was there, “right in the middle of it.” And then we are sent back in time, in 1931, in the enchanting world of the “most spectacular show on earth,” to find a young educated Jacob as a circus runaway locked in a love triangle between the circus’s beautiful blonde star attraction, Marlena (Academy-award winner Reese Witherspoon), and her husband, August (Academy-Award winner Christoph Waltz), the sadistic circus impresario.
The elegant cinematography indeed catches the eye. The film is visually pleasing, beautifully rendered in harmonious hues, the play of light and shadow and colors aesthetically correct; the brilliant skies, billowing circus tents, the dank circus train of roustabouts, the breathtaking costumes, and the animals almost mystical in appearance. Also, the slow, languid movements of the circus characters—as opposed to the common noisy, energetic and chaotic portrayal of circuses—serve as a refreshing change and project an almost dream-like feeling.
While both Titanic and Water for Elephants tell a cliché love story—and both a period drama--Water for Elephants, unlike Titanic, failed to deliver that lingering emotional impact and ignite even the smallest romantic spark—with Pattinson and Witherspoon lacking chemistry (the blossoming romance and the building tension missing). Pattinson, who only showed credible acting in 2010’s Remember Me, fizzled again in this movie, confirming that his acting skills solely rely on the director. But he was acceptable enough in this movie since the characters—and even the story—lacked serious depth anyway.
Water for Elephants, directed by Francis Lawrence (I Am Legend), is a one-dimensional story that is forgettable—lacking that punch; the romance, humor, magic, and adventure only seemed to stay onscreen and failed to make its way to the heart. Except for Christoph Waltz. Aside from the secondary star of the movie—the exceptionally talented circus elephant Rosie, who evoked “ooohs” and “ahhs” from the moviegoers whenever she performed her adorable tricks—Christoph Waltz was the attention grabber, the star attraction in the show, frighteningly effective as the cruel antagonist, his multi-layered character almost as frightening as his Jew Hunter role in Inglorious Basterds. This is an actor who can independently bring life even to the most mediocre screenplay.
Alas, the love story of Jacob and Marlena, the most essential part of the movie, failed to rise to the surface and was not passionate enough. And even their infidelity did not earn my sympathy despite August’s murderous nature. Water for Elephants is rather run-of-the-mill, and you will leave the cinemas feeling nothing. Unless, of course, you are a Twilight fan.
Based on Sarah Gruen’s bestselling novel, Water for Elephants is a dramatic love story reminiscent of Titanic—it’s the present day and an old Jacob recalls the “famous circus disaster of all time,” and he was there, “right in the middle of it.” And then we are sent back in time, in 1931, in the enchanting world of the “most spectacular show on earth,” to find a young educated Jacob as a circus runaway locked in a love triangle between the circus’s beautiful blonde star attraction, Marlena (Academy-award winner Reese Witherspoon), and her husband, August (Academy-Award winner Christoph Waltz), the sadistic circus impresario.
The elegant cinematography indeed catches the eye. The film is visually pleasing, beautifully rendered in harmonious hues, the play of light and shadow and colors aesthetically correct; the brilliant skies, billowing circus tents, the dank circus train of roustabouts, the breathtaking costumes, and the animals almost mystical in appearance. Also, the slow, languid movements of the circus characters—as opposed to the common noisy, energetic and chaotic portrayal of circuses—serve as a refreshing change and project an almost dream-like feeling.
While both Titanic and Water for Elephants tell a cliché love story—and both a period drama--Water for Elephants, unlike Titanic, failed to deliver that lingering emotional impact and ignite even the smallest romantic spark—with Pattinson and Witherspoon lacking chemistry (the blossoming romance and the building tension missing). Pattinson, who only showed credible acting in 2010’s Remember Me, fizzled again in this movie, confirming that his acting skills solely rely on the director. But he was acceptable enough in this movie since the characters—and even the story—lacked serious depth anyway.
Water for Elephants, directed by Francis Lawrence (I Am Legend), is a one-dimensional story that is forgettable—lacking that punch; the romance, humor, magic, and adventure only seemed to stay onscreen and failed to make its way to the heart. Except for Christoph Waltz. Aside from the secondary star of the movie—the exceptionally talented circus elephant Rosie, who evoked “ooohs” and “ahhs” from the moviegoers whenever she performed her adorable tricks—Christoph Waltz was the attention grabber, the star attraction in the show, frighteningly effective as the cruel antagonist, his multi-layered character almost as frightening as his Jew Hunter role in Inglorious Basterds. This is an actor who can independently bring life even to the most mediocre screenplay.
Alas, the love story of Jacob and Marlena, the most essential part of the movie, failed to rise to the surface and was not passionate enough. And even their infidelity did not earn my sympathy despite August’s murderous nature. Water for Elephants is rather run-of-the-mill, and you will leave the cinemas feeling nothing. Unless, of course, you are a Twilight fan.
Justin Bieber: Never Say Never (2011)
I only found out that he’s Canadian and a YouTube-created
pop star the day before I watched the
screening of Justin Bieber: Never Say
Never. Prior to that, all I know is that he’s a mysterious global phenomenon
of a blonde-helmet-hair catering to the 16-year-old-and-below demographic with
his “Baby, baby, baby noooo”—a song that always sends shivers through my jaws
but is actually the anthem of tweens wordlwide . And, yes, I recently heard
that he’s Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson and Beatles combined, and I was flabbergasted.
Who does this Bieber think he is? This androgynous baby-faced teen
that spews the kind of songs that have the annoying power to stick to your head?
Is this Justin Bieber the Manny Pacquiao of Pop Culture? And he’s only 17 and still alive—and already he's got a biopic? In 3D?
Screening Day. I snapped on my 3D glasses, the “unbelieber” that I was, while the rest of the teen-filled cinema cheered wildly. And on the screen came this incredibly cute little boy, his round eyes so visible and adorable without the patented hair. Then my jaw dropped when the toddler began beating the drums. And instantly, you realize that behind the bubblegum exterior that frightens away the alternative music-loving people is a seriously musically gifted boy. And with that kind of talent, comes respect. And you watch the rest of the film with respect for the boy.
Justin Bieber: Never Say Never is a documentary of the teen heartthrob; a biographic timeline of his instant rise to fame, interspersed with concert clips, and a countdown to his sold-out concert at the “World’s Most Famous Arena,” the Madison Square Garden, where superstars like U2, Rolling Stones, and Michael Jackson have performed—proof that Bieber has reached the pinnacle of success.
The ultimate Bieber fans, of course, already know by heart the history of the child star. But be assured that the movie is not just some Bio episode in full-length. “Beliebers” will be treated with a bunch of concert performances, mostly 3D images of Bieber floating out of the screen, so close that you can relive your dream and pretend to touch his hand; intimate behind-the-scenes footages; home videos where you can get a glimpse of the homelife of the boy wonder; and like sprinkles to your chocolate ice cream, you will be treated with guest performances from Boyz II Men, Miley Cyrus, Jaden Smith, and of course, The Mentor: Usher. Also, there are life-sized Bieber 3D scenes solely created for this movie that I’m sure the fans would delightfully indulge in—Oh, and of course, scenes of a shirtless Bieber.
Justin Bieber: Never Say Never, directed by Jon Chu (Step-Up), threads together Bieber’s short history in an engaging and clear fashion. The transitions between interviews and home videos and the wild concerts were swift and smooth right until the culminating scene. Bieber’s life story is not exactly unique and awesome, but Chu succeeded in producing a streamlined storytelling of the Bieber Fever phenomenon that will tickle your funny bone and will warm your heart. And he reveals the human being behind the pop-packaging. After watching the movie, fans would definitely want a real Bieber concert experience more than ever, as the 3D makes them one step closer to the real thing. “Unbeliebers,” on the other hand, will enjoy the cute and funny clips of the obsessed fans, be entertainingly educated on Bieber’s bio, and will realize and admit that the boy actually possesses real talent—if you strip away all that pop overload.
Hearing “Baby baby baby noooo” might still make an “unbelieber” cringe, yes . . . but after watching the movie, you will start caring about Justin Bieber. Never say never!
Screening Day. I snapped on my 3D glasses, the “unbelieber” that I was, while the rest of the teen-filled cinema cheered wildly. And on the screen came this incredibly cute little boy, his round eyes so visible and adorable without the patented hair. Then my jaw dropped when the toddler began beating the drums. And instantly, you realize that behind the bubblegum exterior that frightens away the alternative music-loving people is a seriously musically gifted boy. And with that kind of talent, comes respect. And you watch the rest of the film with respect for the boy.
Justin Bieber: Never Say Never is a documentary of the teen heartthrob; a biographic timeline of his instant rise to fame, interspersed with concert clips, and a countdown to his sold-out concert at the “World’s Most Famous Arena,” the Madison Square Garden, where superstars like U2, Rolling Stones, and Michael Jackson have performed—proof that Bieber has reached the pinnacle of success.
The ultimate Bieber fans, of course, already know by heart the history of the child star. But be assured that the movie is not just some Bio episode in full-length. “Beliebers” will be treated with a bunch of concert performances, mostly 3D images of Bieber floating out of the screen, so close that you can relive your dream and pretend to touch his hand; intimate behind-the-scenes footages; home videos where you can get a glimpse of the homelife of the boy wonder; and like sprinkles to your chocolate ice cream, you will be treated with guest performances from Boyz II Men, Miley Cyrus, Jaden Smith, and of course, The Mentor: Usher. Also, there are life-sized Bieber 3D scenes solely created for this movie that I’m sure the fans would delightfully indulge in—Oh, and of course, scenes of a shirtless Bieber.
Justin Bieber: Never Say Never, directed by Jon Chu (Step-Up), threads together Bieber’s short history in an engaging and clear fashion. The transitions between interviews and home videos and the wild concerts were swift and smooth right until the culminating scene. Bieber’s life story is not exactly unique and awesome, but Chu succeeded in producing a streamlined storytelling of the Bieber Fever phenomenon that will tickle your funny bone and will warm your heart. And he reveals the human being behind the pop-packaging. After watching the movie, fans would definitely want a real Bieber concert experience more than ever, as the 3D makes them one step closer to the real thing. “Unbeliebers,” on the other hand, will enjoy the cute and funny clips of the obsessed fans, be entertainingly educated on Bieber’s bio, and will realize and admit that the boy actually possesses real talent—if you strip away all that pop overload.
Hearing “Baby baby baby noooo” might still make an “unbelieber” cringe, yes . . . but after watching the movie, you will start caring about Justin Bieber. Never say never!
Unknown (2011)
Since most of us couldn't stop talking about the unforgettable action-suspense thriller Taken (2008) for a week after seeing it in the Cinemas, it's no surprise that we've gotten all excited about Liam Neeson's newest suspense flick, Unknown, hoping it would be an equally edge-of-the-seat thriller, the kind of escapist adrenalin-booster romp that we crave as a break from the everyday humdrum.
This time, in Unknown, Liam takes us to the cold, grey ominous streets of Berlin as Martin Harris, an American botanist that is scheduled to attend a Biotechnology summit in the city, where the greatest scientific minds of the world will merge— the hot topic being the genetically-altered crop that could end world hunger. Harris brings along his wife Liz, Mad Men's January Jones, who looks particularly too young for the aging Neeson. Upon arrival in the snowy, blistery streets of Berlin, the red flag of suspense promptly raises as Harris accidentally leaves behind a suitcase before embarking on a taxi to the hotel. Then a string of events quickly picks up; Liz has some trouble checking in the hotel, Martin, upon realizing that he left his suitcase back at the airport, frantically hails a taxi with a woman driver (Diane Kruger), and they get into a harrowing accident. When Martin wakes up from a coma sans ID, January Jones is looking at him quizzically—and in her arm, is a less handsome Martin Harris (Adian Quinn) that she claims to be her husband. Suddenly, no one knows who he is. The only one who can possibly help him pick up the pieces of the mystery is the Bosnian illegal immigrant taxi driver.
Directed by Jaume (House of Wax), the movie lacks that smart, polished, elegant feel despite the exciting mystery, and even the strong visual presence of Bruno Ganz and Frank Langella did not elevate the movie into a classy, quality film that you expect. The action scenes were a bit sub-par to the point of okay-let-us-get-done-and-over-with-the-car-chase sort of impatience, and there were character flaws and inconsistencies, also lacking in depth and richness. Diane Kruger, Neeson's staunch ally, weirdly seems to be the hero in the film and should have taken up the movie poster instead of Neeson. In fact, the only one actor who showed exemplary performance, albeit her strange superhero role, was Kruger, with Neeson's character and performance only secondary. And January Jones was the annoying part in the film, a frosty blond that couldn't act. What's wrong with her?
Despite the unpolished feel of the movie, the nightmarish sense of losing your identity is still palpable and unsettling in Unknown, and will keep you guessing towards the unpredictable end. Was Harris' identity really stolen? Or has the accident altered his mind-- yet a conspiracy still exists? Mystery and conspiracy buffs will find the film titillating as the puzzle was laid out very well in the story, and the foreign eerie streets of Berlin actually enhanced the espionage, atmosphere of the film. Also, there were a few heart-stopping, stressful kind of suspense as Harris was being hunted by the mysterious bad guys. It's the slightly flawed characterization, as well as the action scenes that came short, that reduce Unknown into almost TV movie-like instead of a blockbuster cinematic experience, but it will nevertheless hook you until the end.
Do not expect a mind-blowing high-quality action thriller with a smart and savvy screenplay, but Unknown is still fairly a good mystery movie; enjoyable in a conventional level that, if you're looking for a suspense and mystery fix, backdropped with the refreshingly beautiful German city, it will fairly do its job. Choosing Unknown as a Friday night movie date is a safe, worth-it experience, but not something that you will giddily talk about afterwards. It is entertaining, but not wildly entertaining.
Perfect Sense (2011)
Imagine an apocalyptic scenario when one by one you lose your human senses. First, you lose your sense of smell, then your sense of taste...eventually losing all five of your senses. Just when you have fallen in love with someone.
The BBC film Perfect Sense is a disconcerting romance set in Glasgow in the midst of a worldwide epidemic of an unknown disease that eliminates the senses, each sensory loss is preceded by an extreme emotional outburst. It's a highly tragic time for a chef (Ewan McGregor) and an epidemiologist (Eva Green) to fall in love.
In Perfect Sense, directed by David Mackenzie (Young Adam), it's not really the love story that emotionally connects to the viewers, but the extraordinary and frightening concept of losing what mankind needs not only for survival but for pleasure, presented in a raw, creative and poetic style that actually heightens our emotions and senses. We watch a world in its momentary phase of madness and chaos as the symptom of losing one's sensory begins. Intense grief suddenly seeps in, followed by losing your entire sense of smell. Intense rage, followed by losing your sense of hearing, and so on. After each loss, we fear for the worst sensory loss.
The film is also some sort of a scientific speculation in itself, imagining how people would react to losing their senses and how they will adapt to this collective tragedy. It explores the human psyche of coping and adapting, carrying our emotions throughout the sequence of events, the sadness and horror inflicting us, and sometimes the humor of it. Yes, there were moments that are absurdly funny, but quickly replaced by perplexity.
The film's atmosphere is reminiscent of the dystopian film Never Let Me Go but much more emotional and engaging. Perfect Sense, with a clever, poetic, and inspired screenplay by Kim Fupz Aakeson, and a moving musical score, is more frightening than any other recent apocalyptic films I've seen. Its intimate, dramatic and poetic treatment will take you on a scary and melancholy journey, but the value and beauty of life--and love-- are still resonant and profoundly felt.
One of the best films I've seen this year.
4.5 out of 5 stars
The BBC film Perfect Sense is a disconcerting romance set in Glasgow in the midst of a worldwide epidemic of an unknown disease that eliminates the senses, each sensory loss is preceded by an extreme emotional outburst. It's a highly tragic time for a chef (Ewan McGregor) and an epidemiologist (Eva Green) to fall in love.
In Perfect Sense, directed by David Mackenzie (Young Adam), it's not really the love story that emotionally connects to the viewers, but the extraordinary and frightening concept of losing what mankind needs not only for survival but for pleasure, presented in a raw, creative and poetic style that actually heightens our emotions and senses. We watch a world in its momentary phase of madness and chaos as the symptom of losing one's sensory begins. Intense grief suddenly seeps in, followed by losing your entire sense of smell. Intense rage, followed by losing your sense of hearing, and so on. After each loss, we fear for the worst sensory loss.
The film is also some sort of a scientific speculation in itself, imagining how people would react to losing their senses and how they will adapt to this collective tragedy. It explores the human psyche of coping and adapting, carrying our emotions throughout the sequence of events, the sadness and horror inflicting us, and sometimes the humor of it. Yes, there were moments that are absurdly funny, but quickly replaced by perplexity.
The film's atmosphere is reminiscent of the dystopian film Never Let Me Go but much more emotional and engaging. Perfect Sense, with a clever, poetic, and inspired screenplay by Kim Fupz Aakeson, and a moving musical score, is more frightening than any other recent apocalyptic films I've seen. Its intimate, dramatic and poetic treatment will take you on a scary and melancholy journey, but the value and beauty of life--and love-- are still resonant and profoundly felt.
One of the best films I've seen this year.
4.5 out of 5 stars