Quarantine [2008] | REVIEW

In an era where horror is looked upon as the 'quick-buck' genre and scary movies are normally more boring or funny than actually being frightening, there comes a film that takes horror up a notch and proves to us that when done right, horror films can really send your internals trembling from fear. I had plenty of expectations before watching Quarantine because of its tempting trailer and I think you would've guessed by now that I was very pleased, and am still shuddering, after watching it. Quarantine is a true-to-the-core, straight to the point horror flick that deserves a viewing.

This Flick Is About...
--------------------------------
Reporter Angela Vidal (Jennifer Carpenter) and her cameraman Scott Percival (Steve Harris) are doing a report on the night shift of a Los Angeles fire station, when suddenly the crew is called upon to rescue an injured old woman from an apartment. Angela and Scott follow the firemen into the apartment only to witness first hand the killing of an armed policeman by the old woman herself, who looks to have been infected by some kind of sickness. They soon find out that all the apartment's residents have been locked in from the outside and there is much more brewing inside that they could possibly imagine.
----------------------------------

While horror may not be my favorite genre, I've always appreciated directors who could deliver a proper frightfest. By that I don't mean excessive gore or a 90-minute slideshow of hideous faces, but rather a story-based movie that uses the elements of our worst fears to give an audience something that'll really haunt them for days to come. That is why people watch a scary movie, isn't it?

Quarantine is the Hollywood remake of the 2007 Spanish blockbuster, [REC] which received a massive amount of positive reviews from critics and audiences alike, making it one of Spain's greatest-known films and an instant cult classic. [REC] has even been spoofed and a teaser poster for a sequel was recently revealed. [REC] is currently infamous for delivering a super-real movie experience to horror fans in Spain and also internationally, rivaling the ghoulishly gritty stuff that comes out of Japan and the Asian region. And while those who have watched [REC] will certainly not enjoy Quarantine due to it being almost 98% similar to the original, it still holds up as a very solid frightener in the books of horror fans. The 'shaky camera' technique seems to be getting popular around filmmakers, and while Cloverfield is more popular today for causing nausea and dizziness, Quarantine sticks to the safezone and doesn't go overboard with the shakiness, making it watchable by almost anyone. That being said, the 'shaky camera' is the pivotal aspect of the film that gives it the edge it needs. It creates a sense of uncanny realisticness.

Quarantine doesn't have any background music, which is something that makes perfect sense. Imagine if it did have music. How lame would that be? It would crush the entire atmosphere of the flick into a pulp. Instead, Quarantine integrates hyper-real sound effects, giving it that extra sense of reality. The acting is top-notch. It's sad how these relative unknowns get no recognition whatsoever after movies like Quarantine and Cloverfield. Sure, there are no Daniel-Day Lewises in there but it isn't easy playing a normal person. It isn't easy pulling off extremely natural emotions and reactions. You have to work extra hard to make sure you're not overdoing anything because exaggerated acting is acceptable in dramatic films, but not in flicks like Quarantine that play off as 'legitimate footage'. The entire cast do an excellent job playing a group of trapped apartment residents who know nothing of what's happening and only have a limited amount of space to run and hide in.

Speaking of limited space, the claustrophobic technique does justice to yet another horror movie! This is the gazzilionth time I'm saying this, but the 'trapped in a small space' feel works wonders in horror movies. Running from a killer in an open field is one thing, but running from a bloodthirsty predator inside a closed environment with nowhere to run is an all new ballgame.

Ask me and I'd definitely suggest giving Quarantine a good viewing. It's worth the time and money. If you're the daring type then watch it at night, alone, in the dark. If it's playing at the local cinema, all the better, because this film can be destroyed with interruptions like the mailman or the dog barking or that phonecall that always comes in during the climax of any film.

This film is not for those who are easily frightened by horror movies and a big 'no-no' for those who avoid horror films because of the fear that the scenes will haunt them at night. Take my word for it, the scenes in Quarantine or even [REC] will most definitely stick in your memory for some time. They'll make their presence known when you're walking to your car in the empty carpark after working late, and you'll probably feel silly for carrying that baseball-bat-shaped steering lock around 'just in case'. But that's what makes horror films so great, doesn't it? It's the fact that they really give you the chills.

------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : I give Quarantine a whopping 4.3 out of 5.0. Some people will say that that's unfair considering it isn't in the league of any major blockbusters. I beg to differ because I don't compare Quarantine with Man On Fire or There Will Be Blood or Children Of Men. I compare Quarantine with other horror movies like 30 Days Of Night, I Am Legend, Cloverfield, and The Mist. In those respects, Quarantine is a very gritty horror movie that delivers what it said it would. Any flick that rattles your bones, triggers your adrenaline, and sends your heart skipping a beat every 10minutes is a successful horror movie. And Quarantine is a very disturbing, fear-inflicting, edge-of-your-seat thriller that will keep your fingernails in between your teeth from start to finish.

The Happening [2008] | REVIEW

"What just happened?" was the question on most people's minds after they had a viewing of The Happening and no, they were not referring to the film's storyline. And they were not in a positive mood. The question was more like, "What the f**k was that all about?!" It's safe to say that M.Night Shyamalan's latest project turned out to be his worst so far, trailing a series of letdowns that came after Signs. Personally, I enjoyed The Village and had a really good time watching Lady In The Water. I'm not sure why these movies tanked so badly but I'm guessing a lot of moviegoers expect a lot from Mr.Shyamalan after the masterpiece that was The Sixth Sense.

This Flick Is About...
--------------------------------
In Central Park, New York City, people inexplicably begin committing mass suicide. First they become disoriented and motionless, before resorting to the most convenient means of killing themselves. Initially believed to be a bioterrorist attack, the pandemic quickly spreads across the northeastern United States. Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg), a high school science teacher in Philadelphia, receives news of the pandemic at school and decides to leave the city by train with his estranged and well-nigh-unfaithful wife, Alma Moore (Zooey Deschanel). They are accompanied by his friend and fellow teacher Julian (John Leguizamo) and his eight-year-old daughter Jess (Ashlyn Sanchez). The train abruptly stops in the small town of Filbert, Pennsylvania, after the crew mysteriously loses radio contact with civilization.
---------------------------------

I skipped The Happening in cinemas and decided to give it a go on DVD in spite of all the awful reviews I had heard from people who paid for tickets at the local theaters. I had nil expectations and decided to see just how badly M.Night screwed this one up. To my surprise, this flick isn't all that bad. In fact it's quite fun, but maybe that's because I expected next to nothing from it. Let's dwell.

I'm not a big fan of Mark Wahlberg. The man just puts me off. I've seen some of his interviews and he's kinda' like a big, pompous jerk. I think the role that best portrays him is his role from The Departed; arrogant, cocky, brash, and just your average dose of jackassism. Mark just comes off as a Matt Damon wannabe with some elements of John Cena in his tone of speech. Maybe because he's from Boston, too? He's always going on and on about how badass he is and how he loves bashin' heads just because he's from Boston. Come on! You're a grown man with kids and a wife and a decent family! Bashing heads in movies doesn't make you a badass! Jeez louise! John Cena, Matt Damon, and Mark Wahlberg would make awesome brothers if they acted in the same flick; with Wahlberg being the a$$hole of the lot. The very fact that his brother is one of the New Kids On The Block just repulses me! Have you seen the new old New Kids On The Block? They're not friggin' kids anymore! They're all buff, bearded, and are a bunch of losers who dropped out of mainstream radio the day boybands died! And the fans that attend their 'make-a-quick-buck-reunion-concerts' are aunts and 45-year old women / virgins!

Anyway...back to Wahlberg. Yes, I don't like him, but I can't help but like his character in The Happening. It's a different Wahlberg in there. A better, calmer, more down-to-earth Wahlberg. And it's nice. It'd also be cool if he was like that in real life, so I wouldn't have to endure his "I like beating on people" interviews whenever I'm watching Jimmy Kimmel Live!.

While I liked The Happening to a large extent, I agree that it is probably M.Night's worst movie to date. I'm a big fan of his and I like the way he makes his films but there's just something that doesn't click with The Happening. The acting? The way it's shot? I don't know. It comes off as a very amateurish project; something that would have made bank if it was Shyamalan's first attempt to break into mainstream Hollywood. The story isn't too bad. It's thrilling and keeps you wondering, but it isn't frightening enough is most cases. The idea behind the film is scary, yes. The thought of an event like this really happening (no pun intended) sends shivers down my spine but the film itself isn't so fear-inducing. There's a lot more gore compared to M.Night's previous projects (it is his first R-rated project), and more so since I checked out the Unrated Edition on DVD. But overall, there's nothing too great about The Happening.

I don't know if it's just me, but I find the acting in The Happening very awkward. I'm not sure if it's that or the way the shots are composed or even if I should call it unique, but the whole movie moves forward in a very odd manner. The acting is supposedly very natural but to me it seems too rehearsed, or too pushed. Some scenes were a tad corny and some were just blatantly, what's the word for it, weird. Maybe M.Night composed those scenes as such on purpose. Maybe not. It doesn't really harm the movie in any way because at times it seems very realistic, but at times also just comes off as awkward and not how someone would react or respond to a certain event.

On another note, Zooey Deschanel is adorable!

The soundtrack for The Happening is something I really love. It's amazing how it compliments the visuals. The tunes are more symphonic and melodic, all played in low key to give it that depressing feel. It creates an aura of tragedy and sadness throughout the movie. It's awesome.

There's isn't much more to say about The Happening other than the fact that M.Night could have done better. He's taking a step away from his safezone with Avatar, which seems promising enough. Hopefully M.Night sees more happy faces with that one. He's also producing six or seven horror-based mini-movies (I think that's what they're called) called The Night Series. All movies supposedly interlock with one another in some way and will be directed by different directors. It looks like M.Night is going the Stephen King / Spielberg way with this approach.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : I give The Happening a 3.0 out of 5.0. It isn't as bad as most people claimed and it definitely didn't suck balls or whatever. There's a good basis to the story, some frights here and there, and somewhat realistic / unique / odd / experimental acting in a lot of scenes. The soundtrack was good, visuals were decent. The Happening is a disturbing take on what the apocalypse may be and makes for a fun popcorn flick for a Friday night at home.

P.S : The tagline for this movie reads, "We've Sensed It. We've Seen The Signs. Now...It's Happening."

How corny is that, eh?

'Batman' Sues Warner Bros!

And no, I'm not talking about Gotham City's silent guardian. Apparently there's an oil-producing city in Turkey that shares its name with the caped-crusader, and the mayor of said city has decided to 'take legal action' against both Warner Bros. and director Christopher Nolan for using the name 'Batman' without informing them.

Please hold on while I burst into uncontrollable laughter, roll on the floor, hit myself on the head with a f**kin' hammer, and sedate myself with a high dosage of sedatives to calm myself down and also reduce the intense pain my ribs feel due to said hysteria. *deep breath* *inhale* *exhale*

Now, back to our story. Although Warner Bros. has yet to issue an official statement, the trades have picked up this piece of ridiculous information and I have to say, it served pretty well as an alternative to laughing gas. Here's a snippet of the article, the juicy bits at least.

Huseyin Kalkan, the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party mayor of Batman, has accused "The Dark Knight" producers of using the city's name without permission. "There is only one Batman in the world," Kalkan said. "The American producers used the name of our city without informing us."

No one from the town of Batman has explained why it took so many years to take legal action. Batman first appeared as a comicbook character in 1939 and the "Batman" TV series started in 1966. Tim Burton's first bigscreen rendition for Warner Bros. came out in 1989. Undoubtedly the fact that "Dark Knight" is about to pass the $1 billion mark at the B.O. played a part in stirring the ire of the Turkish hamlet.

The mayor is prepping a series of charges against Nolan and Warner Bros., which owns the right to the Batman character, including placing the blame for a number of unsolved murders and a high female suicide rate on the psychological impact that the film's success has had on the city's inhabitants.

Former natives of Batman are also said to have encountered obstacles when attempting to register their businesses abroad.

It took these guys 70 years to realize that their city shared names with one of the world's most popular superheroes, and yes, The Dark Knight's ridiculous chunk of boxoffice money definitely has something to do with it, but I'm betting this crazy courtcase goes nowhere! And they're blaming crime rates on Batman movies, too? I blame aliens for bringing The Backstreet Boys back because God knows they've passed their prime by a lightyear...who should I sue, huh?

James Bond : Quantum Of Solace | REVIEW

I'm not big on the whole James Bond series. I like a lot of the movies in the franchise, my favorite being Casino Royale. I know a lot of people dislike 'Royale because it isn't James-Bond-ish enough without the unbelievably high-tech gadgetry and invisible cars but I seemed to enjoy it a whole lot. I like the way Daniel Craig brings a new, fresh side to Bond. When it comes to Quantum Of Solace though, he's the only good thing that the film has to offer in terms of performance and overall showmanship. Coming out of Quantum I felt terribly disappointed and utterly confused at what I had just witnessed. Let me just say that this isn't going to be a positive review.

This Flick Is About...
-------------------------------------------
Quantum of Solace (2008) is the 22nd James Bond film by EON Productions. The sequel to the 2006 film Casino Royale, it is directed by Marc Forster, and features Daniel Craig's second performance as James Bond. In the film, Bond battles Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a member of the Quantum organisation posing as an environmentalist, who intends to stage a coup d'état in Bolivia to take control of its water supply. Bond seeks revenge for the death of Vesper Lynd, and is assisted by Camille Montes (Olga Kurylenko).
-------------------------------------------

I was surprised to see the amount of publicity and advertising tie-ins Quantum received. To me it looked as if Quantum was very much under the radar for a significant amount of time until recently with only an average amount of promotion going on. Apparently I was wrong and Quantum Of Solace had made tie-ins with Sony HD, Shell Petroleum, Heinz, and a whole bunch of other major brands, some of which have their own custom ads with Daniel Craig in them. I guess they were betting on the success that Quantum was sure to have. I'm not sure how good it's going to fare overall but to me this is a movie I'm bound to forget over the next year or so.

Quantum Of Solace doesn't feel like a standalone movie. It doesn't have the qualities of an individual movie nor does it have anything definitive to look forward to. It felt very much like an extension of Casino Royale; like something that would fit perfectly if inserted in the 'Special Collector's Edition Director's Cut with over 60-minutes of Extended Footage' DVD. And worst of all, it doesn't feel at all like a James Bond movie. While Casino Royale was grittier than any Bond film before it, it still portrayed Daniel Craig as a very suave, charming secret agent...and those characteristics are essential in order to come off as James Bond. People have to understand that an established character such as James Bond can be modified over the ages but cannot be completely altered. In Quantum Of Solace we see very little of Bond's 'Casanova' traits and way too much of a revenge-seeking secret-agent gone crazy. There are no sporty cars, no fancy gadgetry, no slick weapons, and yes, the Bond babes have been gritti-fied as well. It just takes away from the flow of the franchise and gives us somewhat of an alternate version of the man with a license to kill.

While I like gritty drama and deep storylines, Quantum Of Solace isn't exactly the movie in which I wanted to see either of those. I enjoyed the feel of Casino Royale and it was a highly entertaining flick to say the least but its sequel almost put me to sleep. The plot is too complicated for its own good and the character development feels rushed. It's a mixture of typical action-flick with the intelligence of a Bourne movie multiplied by 10. And that's not good. Nobody walks into a 007 film wanting an overdose of story. We want a good story, a smart plot, major twists, a superbad villain, a hot Bond babe or two, some slick weaponry, and cars so expensive that they'd even bag the hottest chicks for ugly people. That's Bond. James Bond.

The soundtrack for Quantum Of Solace isn't anything special. Heck it's not even worthy of a Bond film. It's not catchy and it doesn't stick out in any way.

The action is good but not distinctive. It feels repetitive. We've seen this stuff in Casino Royale already! The fight scenes are also nothing to look forward to. There's nothing new that this movie has to offer in terms of stunts or big action scenes except for one or two still hardly memorable instances. I read somewhere that Dominic, the major baddie in Quantum Of Solace, is meant to be a major step away from other Bond villains. He's meant to be the villain in disguise; a lay person in the eyes of the people. Seriously, I didn't know he was the villain at all until halfway through the flick when I realized that I'm not gonna' get to see the real villain because there was none. This Dominic person hardly seems like a threat at all. He's bad but not bad enough to oppose James Bond. How would you feel if they made a movie about Superman battling some bank robber? Not very entertaining, is it?

I'm sure Quantum Of Solace will do well because of the name value it carries and a lot of people will adore this new title in the Bond line of films because of how gritty it is and how much darker it is compared to Casino Royale but I'm certainly not on that bandwagon. Casino Royale was as gritty as it could get for me in terms of a James Bond movie. Anything more wouldn't seem like a Bond movie at all. Quantum Of Solace crossed that line and guess what...I came out wondering if what I saw in there was really a James Bond movie or just something else with Daniel Craig in it.

James Bond is too gritty in Quantum. He's also too sad, too angry, too upset, and very heartbroken. I understand that that's how someone would react after the events of Casino Royale but come on, people! This is James 'f**kin' Bond we're talkin' about...he doesn't have to pull a Daniel Day Lewis on all of us. Everyone is upset in this movie. M is upset, James is upset, the babes are very upset, the villains are upset, some older characters come in and even they're upset! Where's the fun, then? Sure, it's a rebooted gritty take on the Bond films but there's surely room for some fun, right? This movie's just full of anger and vengeance being vented out in every direction possible and it isn't fun anymore.

Hopefully Bond 23 will have more to offer. Hopefully it lightens up, offers more coolness, and delivers a story that is smart yet understandable. I'm not ashamed to say that I understood very little of what was happening in Quantum Of Solace and you could ask me right now and I'd answer clearly that I don't even know what the heck the 'Quantum of Solace' even means! This isn't a movie I'm gonna' watch again (not anytime soon anyway), and like I said, it feels very much like an extension of Casino Royale. It feels nothing like a good sequel and it definitely isn't solid enough to stand on its own two legs.
-------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Quantum Of Solace gets a 2.8 out of 5.0. It had some decent visuals and a couple of good (but not memorable) action scenes. Daniel Craig did a great job at least. His acting was really good and although he wasn't really the Bond that I was expecting, he did a great job being pissed off. I bet the audience could really sense his anger coming off the screen. He's probably the only thing that saves this film, in my opinion.

Why 'Rhodey' Was Recast In Iron Man

There's been a lot of talk lately on why Terrence Howard was booted off Iron Man 2, and it has been a 50-50 deal so far. Some sources side Terrence whereas some side Marvel Studios and even support the 'out with Howard, in with Cheadle' move. As of now, Don Cheadle has been confirmed as the replacement for Terrence Howard and needless to say Cheadle's gonna' be the one who steps into the uber-awesome WarMachine armour that was so shamelessly hinted in Iron Man. A recent article on Entertainment Weekly has this to say about the situation:

Hollywood insiders believe the exit stems from Terrence Howard's difficult behavior on the set of Iron Man. But those with intimate knowledge of the situation suggest a far more dramatic backstory: Howard was the first actor signed to the film and, on top of that, was the highest-paid. That's right: more than Gwyneth Paltrow. More than Jeff Bridges. More than Robert Downey Jr. And once the project fully came together, it was too late to renegotiate his deal. It didn't help that, according to one source, Favreau and his producers were ultimately unhappy with Howard's performance, and spent a lot of time cutting and reshooting his scenes. (Favreau could not be reached for comment, while Howard's publicist says: ''Terrence had a tremendous experience working on Iron Man.'')

So basically it says that Terrence Howard was being a glorified @$$hole on set. I'm not so sure I believe whatever Entertainment Weekly has to say because Howard doesn't look like a person who'd be a prick, but then again who am I to judge. Surprisingly enough, fans of the series seem pretty happy about Marvel's decision. Also surprising is that a large majority have commented on Terrence Howard's voice being too 'sissy' for the role. If you ask me, continuity means a lot. Recasting a side character doesn't create such an impact but recasting someone as integral as Col' Jim 'Rhodey' Rhodes (who eventually becomes Iron Man's most trusted sidekick') is a major mistake. It'd just seem weird after this. Terrence and Downey had already established their chemistry with each other on Iron Man. Seeing Cheadle suddenly step in would be awkward to say the least. But all that being said, given the choice, I would have voted for Don Cheadle to be cast as Jim Rhodes from the start. I didn't like Marvel's decision at first, but come to think of it, the man is taller, more muscular, and seems to fit in the role of Tony Stark's friend better than Terrence did. I'd like to say there's a certain quality to Don, but I'm not so sure what it is.