District 9 (2009) | REVIEW

Director : Neil Blomkamp.
Writers : Neil Blomkamp, Terri Tatchell.
Cast : Sharlto Copley, Jason Cope.
Rating : Rated R for bloody violence and pervasive language.
Runtime : 112 minutes
Tagline : You Are Not Welcome Here.




REVIEW

Gritty, violent, and disturbingly realistic. These are probably the best ways to describe District 9, the Peter Jackson-produced sci-fi 'steadycam' thriller that has been avoiding the major spotlight until now. Helmed by relative unknown Neil Blomkamp, District 9 is the story of an alien community that has been suppressed and exploited over the last 20years in a philty quarantine "suburb" known as District 9. Things go horribly wrong when Wikus Van De Merwe, officer in charge of the relocation of the aliens to District 10, finds himself a capsule that acts as the key in the struggle of rights between the humans of Johannesburg and the aliens.

I'll go out on a limb here and state that District 9 is to date the best film of 2009. Movies that were given the advantage of over-the-top fanfare and hype failed to deliver the goods. While some flicks like Star Trek, Harry Potter, and Watchmen (to a certain extent) managed to gain overall positive reviews, others like Wolverine, Transformers, and Terminator Salvation failed to deliver the expected goods in full. District 9 manages to do the impossible; to squeeze fresh juice out of a plot that has been extensively used time after time over the last 50years or so.

The best part about D9 is that it isn't set in Washington or Manhattan or Chicago. And this time the aliens are at the mercy of the humans instead of vice versa. While it is shown throughout the film that the aliens (or "prawns" as they are called) are more technologically advanced than us, they are forced to succumb to degrading conditions and painfully biased rules that they are forced to follow... which brings us to the 'message beneath the movie's surface'.

District 9 is a disturbing reflection of racial violence and suppression that takes place all over the world. Instead of using a race that we're familiar with, Peter Jackson and Neil Blomkamp metaphorically use aliens as a community that is forced to adhere to unreasonable laws and succumb to exploitation by a governing power. The message is so tactfully delivered that it doesn't seem evident at all until dug into. This just proves that the storytelling and character development in D9 is fantastic stuff. You genuinely care for each character and the film skillfully takes the viewer and immerses him / her in the flow of it all. It's a beautiful tale, really, which has its fair share of emotion, action, suspense, and adventure.

My only issue with the movie is that it can get a bit too sci-fi during certain scenes. I'm aware that this is afterall an alien movie but it's grounded with such realism that when you're suddenly introduced to elements that may be a little over-the-top, it seems weird. But it's a minor issue and only nagged me for a couple of seconds, which is a very, very good thing.

All in all, D9 is a must-watch for anyone who enjoys a good movie with good acting, great soundtrack, and a fresh story. Almost all these actors are 'unknowns' which makes the flick all the more believable. And if you think that the effects in this are going to be bad because of it's low budget (30mil, I think) then you should think again because Peter Jackson knows his way around these things (and apparently so does Neil). Lord Of The Rings was considered somewhat low-budget when compared to its scale, and look how that turned out! The movie isn't a kid's movie, it won't appeal to young children so keep them away until they turn 18 or something.

Trust me, you won't regret watching District9.
------------------------------------------
Wrap : I give District9 a 4.9 out of 5.0. It's amazing, what's left to say.

Wachowski Bros + James McTiegue = Superman?

I've never been a major Superman fan for a number of reasons but that doesn't mean I didn't have my fun with Superman Returns. I thought it worked the first time around but then on DVD it just sucked because it got boring faster than a speeding bullet. And with the poor reception it received, there's no wonder why there hasn't been a follow-up to Superman Returns...until now.

Here's the condition of things: If they guys at Warner Bros. fail to churn out another Superman flick by the end of 2011, they no longer have the rights to the big boy in blue. That's right. The original creators (or their heirs) will then own Superman again and can damn well do anything they please with the character. Jerry Siegel and the Siegels can then sue Warner for damages and profits that they did not get from franchises like Smallville and all those animated Superman flicks. That's a court order. So what's the best way to make sure Superman doesn't zip away from the hands of Warner? Make another movie, of course! So now that the title is sizzling hot again, directors are being hunted down and Brandon Routh is biting his fingernails in pure anticipation.

Here's the interesting bit. IESB reports that Warner and the gang are in "serious talks" with the Wachowski Bros and their buddy of buddies, James McTiegue! That's right. The guys who brought us the awesomeness of the Matrix and made bullet-time cool before it was even considered a standard procedure in all action flicks may be the ones to helm the sequel to Superman Returns, currently titled The Man of Steel. The bigger possibility is that the bros will produce the flick while James directs it. James McTiegue has some pretty cool credentials himself considering directed V For Vendetta and the upcoming Ninja Assassin.

Fans and studios alike want Superman to follow in the steps of The Dark Knight and probably stand in that league, which is all good except for one major fact that's staring everyone right in the face; Superman doesn't do grit! Here's what Superman (the character) needs : Flaws. People want their heroes to have vices, flaws, and human pain. Superman needs more than just Kryptonite as a weakness. And a movie like Superman doesn't have to be dark and serious and gritty. It needs to be balls-out super CGI all over the place, colorful and epic fight scenes, large over-the-top scenarios and scenic landscapes; all done with so much tact that it skillfully avoids being cheesy. This is wishful thinking but he also needs to wear something a bit more contemporary...like black instead of blue and those ridiculous red trunks just have to go!

Anyway, if the Wachowskis are confirmed as the directors of the next Superman then I'm all in! These major comic fans know exactly what they're doing and we all know that they know how to blend story with extremely good visuals. It won't be long before we hear more news since I'm sure Warner Bros. doesn't want to let an asset as huge as Superman just drop out of their grip.

Say "Hello" To The NEW Michael Jackson.

This has nothing at all to do with movies but then again this is a blog hosted on Blogspot for crying out loud, so I'm allowed to rant. Sue me.

I've always been a fan of Michael Jackson. I've enjoyed his music for the last 15years (relatively short amount of time compared to those who are much older than I am), and never once have I deemed any of his songs 'boring' or 'outdated'. That being said, I think I'm allowed to hate the way things are going as of late ever since the King of Pop decided to Moonwalk his way to the afterlife. Ah, but is the King really dead? How ironic is it that the death of Michael Jackson was also his official rebirth?

Attendants at music outlets are moonwalking (or trying their best to do something that at least resembles a moonwalk), almost every store in every shopping complex have his tracks playing and there's not a turn you can take that won't lead you into a 'Beat It' or 'Black Or White'. Electronic stores that sell TVs have his stunning Bucharest concert on and so do video / DVD stores. Everyone's talking about Michael Jackson and his music. His albums have skyrocketed to the top of iTunes and Amazon purchases over the last two weeks and there's not a single newspaper or tabloid that you can find that isn't buzzing about MJ. It's like Jackson fever all over again. All his albums have been re-released and I've also seen some new releases that I'm sure I haven't seen before such as an album called 'Michael Jackson : King Of Pop' with a red casing and a picture of Michael dancing.

What's more, it has been reported that Neverland Ranch will be out of debt in the next two months if sales of his products continue this way.

But here's the ******-up part. Michael Jackson will live on for decades to come through his music and he'll keep his spot more than Elvis or Sinatra with the help of the Internet and easier access to his music. The sad part is that future generations will be fed with a "new" Michael Jackson. Or worse still, a 'false' one. Yep. In times to come, people who have never really known or cared (or probably were too young to know) about Michael will buy into this newborn hype. They will buy his albums, listen to his music, watch his concerts, and be fed a newer and more marketable image of MJ. News has come out that a new MJ album featuring some of the tracks from his vault that were unreleased in previous albums will be out soon. That's all good except for one thing; there's a damn good reason why he didn't want to release those tracks. That reason being he probably thought they all sucked! So music labels will push these new, unreleased tracks to consumers and fans alike and said albums will sell like hotcakes. The harsh truth is MJ never wanted those tracks out, so why buy them? We don't even know where the royalty is going.

So will I be buying his "Tribute" album that's bound to come out? Nope. I think there are "cheaper" ways to attain such albums. Make no mistake, I own all his original albums, but only because he knew of them and had control over them. An unreleased-tracks album? A tribute album? What's the point really? It's just a bunch of songs compiled by some guy behind a desk at a music label company. We don't even know what Michael intended for those songs or if he ever wanted anyone to listen to them.

Last week I watched Larry King send a bunch of people into MJ's home at Neverland Ranch and give viewers a "exclusive inside look" at Jackson's residence. Nice going, Larry. Barge into the house of a guy who's no longer around and who had 15 locks on his damn door to emphasize privacy. Yes, privacy. No, no, don't respect that, Larry. Do what you have to do. Invade ahead!

You guessed it. I'm groggy. It's 3A.M in the morning. Over the last two weeks I've seen the MJ craze get a new injection of Life. And it's cool to see the man get the spotlight that he has truly earned and his albums sell off to fans by the masses. It's all good. But it's just hard to digest that in the midst of all this, there's a new image of Michael being created. And soon it'll be shoved down the throats of naive consumers. A cleaner Michael, a more "social-friendly" Michael. And a more "marketable" Michael to those who are eager to listen to new material from the man. By new I mean songs that he probably thought were so bad that he decided to lock them up in a vault and not even release them despite going downhill financially faster than a freefall. Go figure.

More movie reviews will come soon.
Just had to get this off my chest, people. It is a blog, afterall. Whatya' lookin' for...accurate content? :P

Goodbye, Michael Jackson. And Thank You For The Music.

What a sad day it is for each and every person who has ever listened to and enjoyed a song by Michael Jackson. I didn't expect to see headlines on TV that read "Michael Jackson Dead At 50" today. I guess the boy who never wanted to grow old never really did. Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, is now immortal through his music.

I'm not even sure where to begin. I woke up in the morning only to watch Larry King have Celine Dion on the phone giving her thoughts on Michael Jackson's passing. What a wake-up call; it shocked the sleep right outta' my system. It was so shocking that, in all honestly, there was very little sadness. Not because I wasn't sad, but because it's still hard to digest that there's footage of MJ's body being taken into an ambulance. Who would've thunk, right? Now I'm not going to go into Michael's troubled life or his alleged criminal records. Unlike so many of those who were 'close' to him who will no doubt give their supposed condolences to CNN over the next week or so, I have honestly never cared about who Jackson was behind the curtains. I could care less about what people accuse him to be. All I knew was his music was inspirational, and he showed people what good music sounded like.

"Dangerous" was my first ever pop album on cassette. It was my first ever cassette, actually. I've played that thing so many times that the tape actually snapped! And although my taste for music has lead me away from pop and into the metal scene, I have and always will make exceptions when it comes to the King of Pop, and I'm sure anyone who has ever listened to his beats can't help but at least tap their shoes when one of his songs starts to play. I know I do.

Like so many have said before, the music industry today is fragmenting as we speak. And although it's a natural act of evolution, it's also the reason why we will most likely never have another Sinatra, Elvis, or Michael Jackson. I guess today really does mark the end of an era with the passing of the last great music icon. With a quarter of a billion albums sold over the course of his life, Michael Jackson will never be forgotten as he has sealed his mark in the history of modern music.

There's not much more to say. It's funny how just last week I was watching his popular "Dangerous" concert in Bucharest from 1992 and thought to myself, "God I wish this guy would make just one more solid album", despite knowing that he was in bad shape. The irony of it is Michael Jackson announced just recently that his world tour starting July 8 would be the official curtain call. It looks like there is no real curtain call for MJ. People will always crave that one last performance to no end.

Controversial to the core, weird, sometimes insane, a solid entertainer, a phenomenal dancer, and one heck of a musician. Michael Jackson was the definition of a superstar. I'm sure the guys in Heaven are cheering at the sight of a kickass Moonwalk right now. I think I'm in unison with the world when I say "thank you for the bombastic costumes, the white gloves, the zippers and crotch-grabs, the 70degree bends, the moonwalks, the tiptoe-ing, the weird stories, the hats, the awesome dance moves, the expensive and extensive videos, the fantastic concerts, and of course...the phenomenal, iconic, definitive, distinctive, sense of music".

Goodbye, Michael Jackson. Rest In Peace. You will most definitely be missed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today also marks the passing of Farah Fawcett, one of the original Charlie's Angels. Farah was 62 when she succumbed to cancer. I never really got to enjoy Farah's films during her prime as I wasn't even born yet, but I've been keeping up with her progress and have heard and read a lot of good things about her.

Rest In Peace, Farah.

Transformers : Revenge Of The Fallen (2009) | REVIEW

Director : Michael Bay.
Writers : Ehen Kruger, Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman.
Cast : Shia LeBeouf, Megan Fox, Josh Duhamel, Peter Cullen, Hugo Weaving.
Rating : Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, language, some crude and sexual material, and brief drug material.
Runtime : 150minutes
Tagline : Revenge Is Coming.

This Flick Is About....
Two years after the first movie, Sam Witwicky is ready to go to college and resume life as a normal teenager. His hopes are thwarted when the evil Decepticon forces return to Earth on a mission to take Sam Witwicky prisoner, after the young hero learns the truth about the ancient origins of the Transformers. Joining the mission to protect humankind is Optimus Prime, who forms an alliance with international armies for a second epic battle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REVIEW

Oh God, where do I even start with this one. Transformers : Revenge Of The Fallen is by far the biggest blockbuster of 2009. It will be the first to surpass the $300mil mark and will go on to make tons of cash despite the sour reviews and fanboy lashing that it has been on the receiving end of. Let's just say Revenge Of The Fallen (TF2) is a "good news, bad news" deal. Let me start with the good news first.

Warning : Minor spoilers follow.

The good news is that if you wanted more action in a Transformers movie, then you've been delivered a shipload of nonstop pound-for-pound action, explosives, and Megan Fox in TF2. There's no slow moments, there's no stopping for a break. The action starts at the very beginning (I'm not kidding when I say the very beginning!) and does NOT stop until the credits roll. So if that's what you wanted, it'll be delivered on a silver platter via Revenge Of The Fallen. Is non-stop action a good thing for me? That's like asking a male if he has testosterone. Of course it is! But, and this is a major but, I'm also a fan of proper writing and storylines. I'll get to that later. Now for more good news.

The CGI and FX were insane (in a very good way)! A lot of people told me that the trailers looked too colorful for their own good and I even sensed a bit of 'cartoon' influence when I saw the bright, colorful posters but the CGI in the flick is amazing. It is beyond realistic and if you thought Michael Bay would weasel his way through this one with a lot of night-time action scenes, you're wrong because most of the flick takes place during broad daylight, which makes it even cooler. One of the things I like about Bay is that his 'worlds' are massive in scale. He doesn't contain his movies in one place. The characters travel great distances across contrasting environments and in Michael Bay's world, even the Transformers look small when taken from his chosen angles. It's stuff like this that makes Bay's work (and the dozens of animators and compositors behind computer screens, burning their eyes out) look hyper-realistic.

What else is good? Optimus Prime and the dozens of other robots that make their mark in this flick. The fight scenes with Optimus are so intense that it's hard not to want to rewind that scene in the cinema and watch it again! Or at least wish that there was 10 more minutes added to that fight scene. Either one would work.

Of course there's also Megan Fox. How could anything with the words Megan and Fox in them possibly be bad? Unless Fox refers to 20th Century Fox that is. How could anything with the words 20th and Century possibly be good?

The soundtrack for the film is decent. I liked the score from the first movie way more, but I'm not complaining about this one either. Linkin Park, however, need to buck the **** up! I used to actually like these guys at one time. Seriously, you can do better than New Divide, Shinoda!

Now *sigh* on to the downsides of Transformers : Revenge Of The Fallen. I hate to say this but there's more downsides to this flick than I expected. First, the writing is all over the place. Unlike the first movie which is neatly composed and smoothly delivered, TF2 feels rushed, choppy, and downright messy. Due to the infamous Writer's Strike, Orci and Kurtzman were forced to finish the script in time for shooting to commence; hence the screenplay which feels like it's 5 stories mashed together as one. The movie itself feels terribly rushed. I'm not sure if the headfirst dive into the action from the very beginning was intentional or just Bay's way of covering up for lack of story. I don't think so and / also speaking of which...

...there's too much story in Transformers : Revenge Of The Fallen. Yup, you read that one right. A Michael Bay movie with too much going on. This is what happens when people keep hounding the poor fellow for character development and proper plots and whatnot. Here's what you get for saying that Michael Bay is only good at blowing s**t up! He gives you a story that revolves around the humans with a lot of character development and emotion and halfway deep storylines, and just like everything else he does, he gives you a bombastic amount of it! It so happens that when you force Michael Bay to tell a decent story, you create a catastrophe. What has happened in TF2 is that there's too much buildup from too many standpoints and most of them end up being irrelevant.

For instance... Sam's 'going-off-to-college' is built up to the point where you think it's a massive deal, only to find out that that part goes to waste because he's forced to leave college not even halfway through the film. There's a small-sized Decepticon bot that Megan Fox 'trains', forces to spill information, and then it's never seen again. We see a hot-as-hell female chick turn into a Cybertronic robot-being with a tongue as a whip with the tip still being a fleshy tongue only to find out that nobody cares to explain how Transformers can suddenly take human form. Nobody in the film even seems to give a rat's behind about those details. So if the robots can take human form, why not just hide as humans instead of large vehicles? There's also the part where Optimus narrates about how the Autobots have been working with the secret organization NEST over the past two years to hunt down the remnants of the Decipticons. That's all good but he also mentions that they are still in hiding, kept in secret from the world. Wait just a minute ... didn't these giant robots have an all-out war in the first film? If all methods of spreading the news fails, doesn't word of mouth count? Or YouTube for that matter?

I could go on. Megatron is apparently the disciple of The Fallen as it is revealed in TF2. And it's because of this that the Decipticons have been searching Earth all this time; to recover a way to avenge The Fallen's defeat and see his rise once again. It's funny how nobody mentioned anything about this Fallen fellow in the first flick. Not even a hint.

There's also the fact that there was way too much comedic relief in the movie; so much to the point where it lacked seriousness even at dire moments. And Ramon Rodriguez? (plays Sam's roommate, Leo) I compare him to a vacuum cleaner. Why? Because the guy can suck and blow at the same time (and this is in the most insulting and non-sexual way). Halfway through the movie I was hoping that a Decepticon would blast his head off but unless this is Friday the 13th, we all know that the funny guy never dies. Speaking of comedy, there are the Twins, Mudflap and Skids, two Autobots who constantly try to beat each other into a pile of scrap metal. I like them, a lot even. Problem is a huge number of people don't and have compared the duo to Jar Jar Binks and Wato from Star Wars. That's like comparing something to piles of garbage. There's also the issue of the twins speaking in a horribly racist ghetto accent. Not to mention that they mention more than once that they're not the smartest of Autobots to begin with. *sigh* Not very smart on your side, Mr.Bay.

The biggest downside, however, comes via the part where there's too much of a spotlight on Sam Witwicky instead of any one of the Transformers. Optimus shares some amount of the attention but others like Ratchet, IronHide, and even Bumblebee get so sidetracked that they seem like the guest stars in their own film. Emphasis on Megatron is scarce and the only real character buildup is Starscream's. This is what made the movie feel badly disconnected. The first film revolved around the arrival of the Autobots and them resuming their battle with the Decipticons and the resurrected Megatron. TF2, however, deals with the comeback of one bitter Fallen. Yet, it feels as though Sam's story and life is more important to the world than that of the Transformers and their quest to protect our planet from a force that wants to destroy it. In the rush of all things, it seems as though the titular characters of the film aren't given enough development.

The acting wasn't bad, though. Shia really gave his best in my opinion. Megan Fox...all she had to do was be hot. What annoys me is that she's found a way to keep her white pants perfectly spotless and her lipgloss from fading even though she's spent a lot of time in the simmering desert, running through small villages that are being blown up...constantly. Megan, you always seem to impress me. In all seriousness, the acting was more than decent. You've gotta' give the guys credit. It isn't easy showing that much emotion on set when you've got nothing to work with except a greenscreen and your imagination. Sure, it was easy to do when you were 4. But as you grow the world becomes more logical and realistic. You realize that maybe that cardboard box isn't a rocketship. Or there are no dragons. Or Belle from Beauty & The Beast may just be a cartoon, not a real person who you can fall in love with and marry and have babies with! Maybe people at Disney just draw those things and you can't really meet Belle unless it's some hag at Disneyland trying to be her! It's not the kid's fault, damnit!

Back to story...

TF2 is far from logical. You should have guessed that when you saw giant robots on the poster. It's a sci-fi gig. Nevertheless, there are plotholes the size of ancient pyramids themselves. There are continuity errors from the first flick, there's change in character for some of the Decipticons (or just Starscream who shows more resemblance to the cartoon now), and there's just too much going on to begin with. A simple story with twists and turns would have done the trick. I, for one, never complained about the first Transformers not having enough story. For all the people who did, this is all your fault! Why'd you have to go and send Bay violent messages? Still, there's no reason for you not to go watch Revenge Of The Fallen.

Optimus Prime alone is worth the show. There's enough eye-candy in there to last you the entire two years before Transformers 3 comes out (rumored 2012). The fight scenes are amazing and the long climatic end is everything you could ask for from a robot war. It's an all-out fight to the finish. The movie's ending seems rushed for some reason but like I said, it had poor writing to begin with. Bay wanted to speed up Transformers 2 and I guess he didn't completely comprehend the consequences that would follow.

With that said, and in a shocking revelation, I'm going to say that I loved Transformers : Revenge Of The Fallen. Sure, there were plotholes. There were major **$#ups. It was a messy movie. But I enjoyed it a little more than Watchmen and Terminator Salvation and way more than X-Men Origins Wolverine. For some reason I can't seem to hate the Transformers. I had my fun and I'm definitely planning on giving it a second go. Maybe even a third. I can't wait for the third flick, which I'm sure will be the best of the trilogy. I'm not a major Transformers fan so I might not know how good or bad Bay is at retaining details, so forgive me if I'm ignorant. If I were to give you some advice I'd say "Turn your brain off, don't bother about technical details, love the Autobots, hate the Decipticons, and enjoy the whole damn show!"

Wrap I give Transformers : Revenge Of The Fallen a 3.3 out of 5.0. I would have given it a higher rating if they hadn't messed up the storyline so much. It gets a 3.0 because it does what films were meant to do from the start; deliver a good time at the movies. Revenge Of The Fallen is the definition of a popcorn film and it isn't out there to win any Oscars for Best Film. It's out there to give you some fun, blow stuff up skyhigh, and make a lotta' money! With that said, I'm about to book tix for my next show. Roll out!

Star Trek (2009) | REVIEW

Director : J.J Abrams.
Writers : Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci.
Cast : Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, John Cho, Eric Bana, and Leonard Nimoy.
Rating : Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content.
Runtime : 127minutes
Tagline : The Future Begins.

This Flick Is About...
James T. Kirk (Chris Pine), whose father had perished in an ambush by a rogue Romulan ship captained by Nero (Eric Bana), is led to join the Starfleet on board the USS Enterprise and follow the footsteps of his late father. There, he meets a Vulcan named Spock (Zachary Quinto) and conflicts emerge between the two because of their different conditioning. But the issues on board the Enterprise must halt as the team are met by an enemy who is far more dangerous, and far more familiar, than they would have imagined.
---------------------------------------------------------

REVIEW

I've never been a Trekkie, or for those of you who don't know what that means, a fan of Star Trek. I'll probably never be a Trekkie. And I don't think it's justified or decent of me to say that I'm a Trekkie just because I watched the latest movie in the series decades after the lore began. There are people out there who have redecorated their homes to look like the USS Enterprise so those are the real Trekkies.

What I am, though, is a person who thoroughly enjoyed the new Star Trek movie by J.J Abrams. I've never watched a full episode of any Star Trek series, I've never had one 'Trek action figure, I've never read a comic even remotely related to Star Trek, and I don't know anything about its mythology. Stuff like "Resistance is Futile", "Where no man has gone before", "James T. Kirk", "Enterprise", "Nemesis", "Spock", and "Sulu" ring a bell and somehow I know they're related to Star Trek, but how and in which way has always been beyond me. So this review is from a complete layman's point of view. From a non-fan, if you will. If there's any continuity error or something I missed, it's only because I've never been attached to the series as a fan.

The things that got me interested in this movie were the fantastic trailers and J.J Abrams. I began enjoying Abrams' work ever since Lost began about 5years ago. For those of you who have not seen Lost, I suggest you rectify the situation as soon as you can. It is, to me, the best show on television in terms of writing and quality, and besides the soap opera with steel chairs that is Monday Night Raw, Lost is awesome. And Spongebob. And Nitro Circus. And Punk'd. Back to topic, I've always enjoyed Abrams' work. Cloverfield was amazing, I don't care what people say. So when I heard Abrams was behind the new Star Trek I was excited, naturally. And Abrams didn't disappoint.

Star Trek is one of those few movies that can be enjoyed by those who have loved Star Trek for eons and those who have never been a fan, like myself. It has a good plot, a structured storyline, a good cast, and the visuals are off the hook. The cinema is the best place for Star Treak, unless you have a HD 120" Plasma TV alongside a 13.1 DTS enabled sound-system in your hometheater setup.

And while this was an attempt to get more people into the Star Trek fanbase, there are some nods in there that only Trek fans will understand and that's awesome because it shows that this isn't a whoring out of great material just to make a couple of extra bucks. No, this is a movie that took effort, great writing, and a lot of money to make, with the fans in mind. Leonard Nimoy returns to play an older version of Spock, and how great must that have felt for the fans who have watched Nemoy play the character in numerous versions all these years.

I hate to say it, but what I love most about Star Trek is the visual eye-candy. Great story aside, the visuals are phenomenal. There are only a handful of directors in Hollywood that can visualize scenes, scenarios, and sequences with such profound imagination and perfection, and JJ is one of them. He knows what looks great and what looks real. And he knows how to make real look great. He doesn't do cheesy, he doesn't do playful bombarding of colors to make it look cool. The guys behind Star Trek literally visualized what the black holes, the warp speeds, Earth, and especially Nero's ship would look like and let me tellya'; Nero's ship is scary! Steven Spielberg can do real and great (Jurassic Park). Michael Bay (hate him all you want) can do realistic and great (Transformers) (although I'm not sure if that's completely him or a team of people who abide by his every order, all he has to do is blow s**t up), David Slade, Robert Zemeckis, and the Wachowski Bros can do real and great. I would say Peter Jackson but Lord Of The Rings isn't in the modern world so it wouldn't be fair. What I'm saying is it takes creativity to produce scenes and visuals like the ones in Star Trek. The camera angles, the movements, the cinematography, and the CGI is amazing.

The soundtrack was handled in the best of ways. Nothing over the top yet nothing too subtle. Perfect. Michael Giacchino handled the score, and needless to say I've enjoyed his work for some time now too, even before I knew who he was actually. Michael is quite a name in the videogame industry with such titles like Medal of Honor and Call Of Duty, and if any of you were lucky enough to have played Chaos Island : The Lost World (strategy) about 10years ago, you should know that he composed the score for that game too. He's also the guy behind the soundtrack for Lost and Alias. The guy has a perfect sense of where to rise, where to dip, where to slow down and where to quicken the pace. He understands that music is as important to the film as the visuals. Compose the wrong music and you could damage the scene so horribly that it could portray itself as something completely different.

As for the technical side of things, there's nothing much to say. It's awesome.

Acting is good. I wouldn't say these guys are the best of actors but they do their jobs really well. Karl Urban is a nice addition to the cast. My only issue lies with John Cho as Mr.Sulu. I know Mr.Sulu is a huge character in the Trek universe, so why cast Cho? Sure, he plays the role well, but I know too many people (including myself) who see Harold whenever I look at him. You know, as in Harold & Kumar. He may not be comedic relief in the movie, but by just looking at him you're thinking of too many hilarious antics on the road to White Castle that you can't help but not take the man seriously. Speaking of comedic relief, Simon Pegg is a great addition to the set.

While Star Trek did great among critics, some fans were not too happy with the 'alternate timeline' issue. J.J. Abrams and the crew decided that they would incorporate a way to make this Star Trek a fresh start so that no one could scream "canon!". It detaches itself from all other Star Trek movies and creates its own timeline as an alternate reality, therefore changing a lot of history. Some fans loved the fact that they could look forward to all-new adventures, while others were devastated by the fact that all those decades of what they knew might just end up being obsolete. So there's an issue there, but looking at the ratings and the boxoffice income, I doubt it's much of a big deal. "Alternate reality" is a safe way of saying "you can choose the one you prefer".

So that's that. I cannot really comment on what the story missed or what it had because I can't relate to any source material. For me it was a great movie, very enjoyable by anyone and everyone who loves a good time at the movies. You don't have to be a Trekkie to love this flick; it's just awesome as it is. There's great nods to the Trekkies of old, new intros for the newcomers, and just action and adventure all-around.
----------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Star Trek gets a 4.6 out of 5.0. My only concerns are with casting John Cho, and that lil' bits and pieces were not explained well enough and seemed to only cater to the ones who knew stuff about Star Trek...or maybe that's just me. Visually stunning scenes, great score, decent cast, fun movie for everyone, Trekkie or otherwise.

WHO SHOULD THEY PLAY? | #3

Alright, in my last WHO SHOULD THEY PLAY? post I mentioned Alexander Skarsgard and how he should take on the role of Marvel's hammer-wielding superhero, Thor, only to find out a couple of hours later that he actually is in the running to play Thor! Talk about a weird, awesomely-coincidental moment right there! What are the odds, right? Check out IMDB or any other Skarsgard-related page and you'll probably see those rumors, too.

Anyhow, here's #3.

Jason Statham. Venom. Awkward casting, don't you think? For some reason I think it's perfect and just what Marvel needs. For some reason Sony Pictures has decided to roll out a Venom spin-off movie that will involve only the titular anti-hero character and no Spider-Man. Well I'm sure there will be a cameo of some sort but still, this feels wrong all over. After the massive
&*^%-up that was Spider-Man 3, who wouldn't be weary of Sony and their idiotic tactics to milk the Spidey cow of all it's money? They literally screwed the character (Venom) in Spider-Man 3, gave him less than 15minutes of screen-time, have the guts to roll out Spider-Man 4 (due 2011), and have the sack to actually consider a Venom movie?! Is that compensation due to the intense guilt they feel for ruining a massive fan-favorite? Nah...

Nevertheless, I'd say a good Venom flick should have Jason Statham step into the shoes of Eddie Brock aka Venom. Now I know Topher Grace played Venom previously but as much as I didn't mind him in the role of Eddie Brock, he's still a scrawny lil' kid who wouldn't have even been considered for the part if Tobey Maguire wasn't also timid-looking and scrawny himself. Since Tobey won't be playing a part in the Venom movie, why not do the titular character some justice and let a man with some abs and who actually goes to the gym a lot play Venom? Eddie Brock has always been ripped in the comics.

Plus most of Venom's scenes will be CGI / greenscreen / motion capture / etc. All Statham has to do is play Brock well enough. And, Jason Statham has never really tested the waters in the superhero genre yet so it'll be a good opportunity to show a lil' extra acting skills and roleplaying styles. He has the facial features, he's got the appropriate torso, and it'll be something different for moviegoers and fans alike; Jason Statham as Venom. Why? Why not? I think it'll be pretty cool. I'm not a fan of Jason Statham. To be honest I don't like most of the movies he's been in. But he fits as Venom for some reason.

How awesome would scenes of Venom jumping rooftops and swinging ala Spider-Man be? Jason Statham / Eddie Brock is running on rooftops, taking giant leaps from one top to the other. His hyper-sensory "spider-sense" is tingling and the symbiotic suit takes over...mid-air! Within seconds Eddie Brock is transformed into the psychotic dual-minded monster known as Venom! They are now Venom, leaping off a skyscraper, webbing walls as they literally swing and soar through the city, evading cop attacks and dishing out violent, vigilant justice to evildoers. Sweet!

Seven Pounds (2008) | REVIEW

Will Smith is one of those rare people that have a special quality to them in no matter what they do. He made good music, he's a great actor, and from what we know he's a really fun person to be around. When I heard that he and director Gabriele Muccino (Pursuit Of Happyness) were going to reunite to make Seven Pounds, I was really happy. The ending of Pursuit Of Happyness was spoilt for me because of some Reader's Digest article that they had to write about it and how it was based on a true story, but nevertheless, I still enjoyed it.

Then I heard a lot of bad reviews about Seven Pounds and how it isn't like Pursuit Of Happyness and how it's not at all what they expected. I was disappointed, but I have learnt to always, always check out a flick for myself before judging it prematurely or based solely on the opinions of others. Not because I don't trust them, but because expectations vary and the liking of a movie is ultimately subjective. Here's what I think of the film.

This Flick Is About....
--------------------------------------------------------
An IRS agent named Ben Thomas (Will Smith) with a fateful secret embarks on an extraordinary journey of redemption by forever changing the lives of seven strangers. He goes all-out to hand pick these strangers and tests them in various ways, watches them, just to see if they are deserving of the extraordinary sacrifices and gifts that he's willing to give and do for them.
---------------------------------------------------------

What shines out in most Will Smith movies is Will Smith's ability to absorb his character and become that role. He may look the same across different films, but the character and approach is totally different. Smith has a charm unlike any other actor and I think the reason why he's the highest paid in Hollywood is because he's highly bankable. He is watchable by not only adults but teens, tweens, boys, girls, youngsters, middle-agers, husbands, wives, grandmas, and grandpas. Everyone can enjoy a Will Smith movie. It's also normally always family friendly with little swearing, hardly any nudity, and sensual (not sexual) scenes. There's more lovemaking than all-out rampant "doggy-style-ing". I'm not judging other flicks that incorporate this in their movies *cough cough horror flicks cough cough*, but what I'm pointing out is that his films have quality pouring out of their pores. Movies with Will Smith sell because of Will Smith and how it's normally always a great flick. And most of the time it isn't some lame no-brainer that he's in; it's always a deep story with all the aspects of a beautiful film and anything anyone from any age group could ask for. So there was Hancock, big deal, it's just his way of having fun!

In Seven Pounds, Will Smith portrays Ben Thomas, an IRS agent who "tests" people to see if they deserve the "gifts" that he has in store for them. And when you see these "gifts" it will touch you emotionally and provoke your thoughts, believe me. And since we're on the topic of acting chops, Rosario Dawson does an A+ job portraying Emily Posa as well. And a notable mention is Woody Harrelson as the blind customer service representative, Ezra.

On to the story. To me it's an awesome story. It's suspenseful, it's deep, and it shows genuine human emotion. A lot of people think that acting is the equivalent of lying and therefore there is no real human emotion involved. That's probably true when it comes to a lot of movies. And that's also why a selected few make it to the top and stay there as evergreen titles. They show real human emotion even if it's acted out. That isn't easy to do yet it's all over the place in Seven Pounds. It's in a lot of scenes and indirectly tells you what Smith's character is going through.

What about the soundtrack? Soundtrack's great. It's a shame when movies integrate music that doesn't belong to the visuals but this flick does nicely with the score. Very soothing at times, and at times very sentimental. It helps carry the feelings from the characters across and to the audience. I couldn't help but notice some elements of the Troy soundtrack in there but that's not saying that it didn't work. It worked perfectly.

So why didn't Seven Pounds make bank? Why didn't it become a major hit? Why didn't people like it?

Here's the problem, I think. Many people tend to expect the wrong things from the wrong movies. It's the reason why people complain beyond need about Transformers being an absolute no-brainer. I ask, what else can you expect? What else would work in the same scenario? When studios declared that Seven Pounds would be the re-teaming of Will Smith and Gabriele Muccino, many expected another Pursuit Of Happyness, with the underdog story and the similar movie flow. The idea is to let go of those expectations. Not the expectations of seeing a good movie, but the expectations of seeing the same movie. Watching the film without relating anything to Pursuit Of Happyness might help because it clearly isn't a sequel in any form. Don't expect Ali from I Am Legend and don't expect Pursuit Of Happyness from Seven Pounds, get what I mean? Trust me, doing that makes one enjoy a movie much more!

Make no mistake, I'm not asking anyone to accept certain loads of crap that come out of Hollywood. Spider-Man 3? X-Men 3? Ghost Rider? These are movies that were, how do you say, &&^%^ed-up. Like I said, always expect a movie to be decent. People shouldn't settle for crap because that's why studios keep making them, but don't expect actors to always play their roles in a certain way or directors to direct in a certain way.

That being said, Seven Pounds does have a downside; the way it's taken. It uses an unorthodox style of filmmaking and editing because it's one of those "we see one drastic scene in the beginning and then a whole flashback begins leading up to that scene again" type of movies. It doesn't follow the traditional timeline. There's the "now" and then some flashbacks. The problem arises when the movie moves without a point for a while. We see Ben Thomas doing all these things but we don't know why. And that's okay for a while but then it starts to get not only confusing but also a bit frustrating. There should always be a destination point. People should know where the movie is headed. Yes, the motives are revealed step by step throughout the flick and by the end you understand the entire picture perfectly. What I'm saying is, the revelations start to show after a little too long.

There is, of course, another problem. Seven Pounds aims very much towards the heart at the expense of the mind. What may seem emotional, heart-warming, and touching at first might turn out to be not too logical when analyzed. There are a lot of loopholes when it comes to thorough explanations and "do-ability" of certain deeds. You'd have to watch it to understand what I'm talking about. There are dozens of good questions that could be asked about the movie's plot and how he got this person to do this and how "that would never fly in the real world", and the people behind the movie would probably never be able to answer. So take note, skip the logic in some parts. Enjoy it for what it is; emotions and drama.

All in all, Seven Pounds is a wonderful movie. I've always loved Will Smith's films and this one's no different. Seven Pounds has a great story, great actors, and all the emotion you expect from a movie such as this. My opinion? Go watch it whenever you get a chance. It might not be Ali or Pursuit Of Happyness, but it's good nonetheless.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : I give Seven Pounds a 3.8 out of 5.0. The movie only falls short in terms of audience understanding of the movie's build-up and the logic that's misplaced in certain agendas. Otherwise, it's a great movie, I don't care what "the critics" or "good moviegoers" have to say. My principle has always been that a film should be enjoyed thoroughly before it's dissected into bits. Watch it, enjoy it, and maybe analyze it later. Don't look for the slightest faults in real time when it's playing on the screen during your first viewing. How can anyone enjoy anything that way, seriously?

Till' next time, all!

Disney Returns To 2D!

And I couldn't be happier. I'm a sucker for good ol' fashioned Disney 2D animation. Some of the best animated motion pictures I've seen are all in 2D, and only a couple of 3D animations stand up to those cartoons of old. I've watched Beauty & The Beast so many times I can remember the scenes in perfect sequence to this day. And what about Peter Pan, Hunchback Of Notre Dame, Aladdin, and the grandmaster of Disney's 2D flicks, The Lion King? All instant classics, all loved to this day. Which brings me to my topic.

This holiday season, Disney returns to its roots and brings one more magical fairy tale to life on the big screen. The Princess & The Frog tells the tale of a prince who is cursed to remain a frog until a beautiful princess gives him / it a passionate, lusty kiss. Okay maybe not so lusty unless you get The Princess & The Frog Unrated, Uncut, Uncensored, but still...a kiss. Instead of telling the age old story, Disney goes a step further and shows us what happens after the kiss. You wanna' know? Watch the first trailer above.

Also note that this happens during the Jazz Age in New Orleans so expect some jazz musicals, voodoo, and singing crocodiles. Princess Tiana is also Disney's first ever African-American princess. These guys really pay attention to people around the world. There's a Middle Eastern princess, a gypsy, I'm not sure what Pocahontas is, a lioness, and now their first African-American princess. Nice.

Anyway, enough talk! Enjoy the trailer. It gave me goosepimples. Especially the opening montage. It's so nice to see Disney and their 2D again. Hopefully there's more to come. :)

Contact (1997) | REVIEW

Beautiful, emotional, gripping, and out of the ordinary; these are the core elements that make Contact what it is. Based on the Pulitzer-prize winning book of the same name, Contact is a portrayal of the human spirit and the will to discover the true meaning of our existence, and if we are truly alone in this endless universe. Before I even start this review I'm going to recommend this movie to anyone who hasn't seen it before. Contact is something that you definitely want to watch one way or the other.

This Flick is About...
Dr. Arroway (Jodie Foster) has always been obsessed with finding life apart from that on Earth. When her SETI program at Puerto Rico is halted by Dr.Drumlin, the financier, she and a small team decide to move to New Mexico to pursue their mission independently. After years of searching and while on the brink of certain failure, Arroway discovers a transmission hailing from Vega, a zone 26 lightyears away from Earth itself! This leads to a chain of events; conflicts and discoveries all revolving around what may be the grandest discovery of our generation.
-------------------------------------------------

While the plotline above may sound like this movie is all about "little green men", I assure you that it's not. Director Robert Zemeckis knows exactly what he's doing and the result is a fascinating film about the will to endure, curiosity of the unknown, human relationships, and the constant clashes between theories of science and the existence of God. Every issue is beautifully tackled and interpreted in a way that seems seamless and whole. Nothing seems rushed or forced down. The runtime for the film spans a whole 150minutes and every minute is used to its fullest potential. There are no empty moments and boring, unnecessary talk. There's no violence or sex or nudity for the simple sake of promotion and marketing.

Hence, Contact is a movie's movie. It can be enjoyed by those who adore casual movies. At the same time it can be analyzed to the core by film students who demand that their "test subjects" offer a storyline with depth, character development, expositions, conflicts, reversals, and resolutions. Contact it not just the common man's movie, it's also a critics' movie; a movie that was marketed well, hyped-up, and promoted nicely amidst other giants like Titanic and The Lost World : Jurassic Park in the same year, making itself a bleeding target for the sharks cum critics in the business, yet comes off as such a wholesome piece of work that even critics cannot help but admit that Contact definitely "connects".

When it comes to acting and performance, Contact delivers very nicely. Jodie Foster does a great job at pulling off a confrontational, passionate astronomer while Matthew McConaughey is perfect for the role of Palmer Joss, a man who holds a "Masters in Divinity" yet isn't the average priest you see in churches. He's a charming, open-minded believer who insists that some things in the universe cannot be explained or proven. For instance, God. Other supporting actors include James Woods, John Hurt, and William Fichtner (who does a wonderful job at playing Arroway's teammate, Kent, who is blind yet has a remarkable sense of hearing).

While I've never been a major fan of Mat McConaughey, I've enjoyed some of his roles to a great degree. While his role as Van Zahn in Reign Of Fire is probably the one I like most, there's just something about him that fits perfectly into Contact. He brings a balance to it and the way he pulls of his character as Palmer Joss is great. There's that confidence of knowing for sure yet he doesn't come off as arrogant or pompous. Something worth watching out for.

When it comes to music, score, and sound effects, Contact is amazing. Audio is delivered in stunning DTS whereas the music is emotional, riveting, suspenseful, and acts like a perfect soulmate to the visuals; they complete each other is all I'm saying, I don't care how corny it sounds. A movie like Contact demands a well-planned, thoroughly prepared score. Sound effects need to be realistic if not hyper-real, and anything otherwise could jeopardize the film to a massive extent. The composer on board is Alan Silvestri, a person whose music I have enjoyed for many years now. Yet for Contact, we don't really feel Silvestri's signature touch, which is all the more amazing. It simply proves that a person like Alan Silvestri is versatile and works according to the current case.

When it comes to CGI it's hard to judge. I remember thinking when I first watched it all those years ago that it wasn't the best of visuals, even bad at some points. I watched it again recently and as you can expect, some instances have bad CGI implementation and this just damages the scene and breaks the believability of the audience. What surprises me is that back in 1997, movies were already integrating graphics and visuals that were so breathtaking that they stand as benchmarks even up to this day! Titanic, anyone? Or how about The Lost World? It would have been great if more attention was given to the CGI in Contact, but maybe that's just the budget acting as a restraint. Nevertheless, there are some visuals in there that are worth taking a look at and if they all fail, the acting and plotline alone are enough to save the day.

Speaking of CGI, it was interesting to see a very familiar name in the end credits when I watched the DVD recently. "Additional effects By WETA Digital, New Zealand". And after more than a dozen names roll up it says "and Peter Jackson." For those of you who don't know, Peter Jackson is the director of this trilogy called The Lord Of The Rings. You might have heard of it. ;) And WETA were the ones behind the effects and visuals. While this comes as an interesting piece of information, it also explains the crappy CGI in some scenes. While Lord Of The Rings had amazing visuals because of the extensive miniatures, some CGI in it was bad. Some.

Another bothersome part about the movie is John Hurt. The man is beyond corny in this movie. I'm not sure what or why, but every time he appears on screen the movie feels like it's taken a diversion into "Cheap Land". It's like there's a road of pure quality and Contact is on it when suddenly there's a detour and it falls into "Almost Failure Lane", then finds it's way back onto Quality Road again. Watch it and see if you can relate with me on this topic.

There's not much more to say about Contact. You have to watch it in case you haven't already. It's a beautiful movie. It has everything from character study to proper, well-planned development, an interesting story arch, good music, great acting, and characters that you genuinely care for.
------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : I give Contact a 4.2 out of 5.0. Its shortcomings lie in CGI and some minor corny instances. Otherwise it's a thought-provoking movie which can be interpreted in numerous ways yet enjoyed by those who just want to watch a movie for fun. It works both ways. Contact is so good that it has been compared to some of Steven Spielberg's work, particularly Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, which is saying a lot. And the person who made this comparison is none other than Roger Ebert, the so-called master critic. When it comes to good films, Contact stands as one of the elite. It may not be a landmark movie, but it's definitely worth a watch for anyone who loves an extraordinary story.

Who Should They Play? | #2

Okay, a post ago I had the first Who Should They Play? article up and a number of you seem to agree with me on the Rodrigo Santoro playing Prince Of Persia bit. So on to the second article.

Many of you may not know Alexander Skarsgård and I didn't either before True Blood, a series about vampires and how they coexist with humans in the near future. Kind of like Watchmen, only this time it's bloodsucking undead beings instead of the regular masked vigilantes.

Anyway, Alexander Skarsgård would be the best damn person to portray the Norse God Thor on screen. Marvel has confirmed that Thor will make his on-screen debut in 2011 as another segment in the "Avengers saga". So it will be Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Captain America, The Incredible Hulk, Ant-Man, and Thor that will ultimately form the mondo-blockbuster pinnacle of superhero movies, The Avengers. There's already a rumored Avengers 2, too.

Alexander was born in Sweden in 1976. What's awesome about that photo is that he definitely looks the part and could definitely pull off the accent. Plus he isn't as famous as Robert Downey or Edward Norton which is a good thing. There were rumors of Daniel Craig and Brad Pitt being offered the role of the hammer-wielding superhero but they turned it down; a fact that I am so happy about. Great actors, yes, but I'd rather look at Thor as Thor and not see Pitt in there somewhere. Also, there were huge rumors stating that Triple H would play Thor and that Marvel and the WWE superstar were in good terms after Blade : Trinity. That rumor has since been put to rest and other options are being looked into. Thank God! Wrestling fan I may be, but wrestlers should keep their acting chops confined to the ring.

So there it is. If I were to cast Thor, I'd pick Alexander Skarsgård. :)

UPDATE Wow. You wanna' know what's crazy? Crazy is when I mention Alexander Skarsgard should play Thor out of sheer instinct only to find out for myself a couple of hours later that the man is indeed the frontrunner for the role! I'm not even sure how I missed this, but his page on IMDb states "Thor" as the first movie, with "rumored" in brackets. Wow. Talk about a "what are the odds" coincidence, right? Looks like Marvel and director Kenneth Branagh have the same person in mind. :)

X-Men Origins : Wolverine (2009) | REVIEW

I just got home from watching X-Men Origins : Wolverine and am happy to say that my sheer hate for it from before has subsided to a huge degree. In fact, I had a lot of fun and the movie is very enjoyable. A word of warning though, enter the cinema with an open mind and DO NOT connect this movie with the comics and graphic novels. And focus only on Wolverine, Sabretooth, and William Stryker because the other mutants aren't handled in the best of ways. Grab a cup of coffee because this is going to be quite a long review.

This Flick Is About...
X-Men Origins : Wolverine goes way back before the time of the X-Men trilogy and dwells into the shrouded past of Logan / Wolverine; a past that he still tries to recover in X-Men : The Last Stand. We finally see the tragedies that take place and what drives Logan to participate in the infamous Weapon X project. The movie focuses on Logan's complicated relationship with his brother, Victor Creed, his alliances and enemies, and how he ultimately becomes the indestructible mutant that he is today.
----------------------------------------------------

The movie is very loosely based on the Origins graphic novel in which fans get to see Logan's childhood for the first time. I say loosely because that's what it is. It may even be an understatement. While they keep the bone-claws intact, we are introduced to Logan's brother immediately, Victor Creed, who eventually becomes the bloodthirsty Sabretooth. While rumors in the comic world state that Sabretooth may have some connection to Logan's childhood, there is absolutely nothing about the two being brothers. That's just pushing it. There's also a mixture of tales from other comics and graphic novels, but the stories, relationships, and timeline of events are drastically changed to cater to a wider audience.

In order to fit as many mutants in, the source material is compromised to a massive degree and what we have is an alternate version of Wolverine's past. That's why it's essential for anyone who watches this to completely take the comics out of their heads. If you watch this as a die-hard fan you will hate it with a burning passion. I mean it. As an adaptation the movie is screwed beyond belief but as a standalone movie where liberties are allowed to be taken, it fares very well and is a film that's packed with awesome scenes and a lot of fun.

To my surprise, Sabretooth was handled very well. He's vicious, animalistic, bloodthirsty, and selfish; all the traits that make the beast who he is in the comics. I'm not sure why he runs around on all fours, though. I'm not going to spoil anything, but they tend to screw him up too, in a way. Gambit could have been better. While Taylor Kitsch does an okay job at playing the card-chargin' Cajun, he doesn't fully pull off Gambit's swiftness or slickness. I still say Josh Holloway would have been awesome for the role. The chemistry between him and Hugh Jackman is just something that's waiting to happen one way or the other. Anyway, if Gambit ever gets recast, Josh will be the way to go. Danny Huston does a good job (not at all his best effort) at playing the forever-manipulative William Stryker, pioneer of the Weapon X project, and Will.i.am isn't too bad either. Dominic Monaghan plays Chris Bradley / Bolt (a not-too-popular mutant in X-Men lore) and Kevin Durand plays The Blob. They, too, do pretty well.

Now you're probably thinking, "Didn't you just say they weren't handled too well?" If I answered that I'd spoil the movie for you and the fun of watching it so I won't. And now you're saying, "Hey, what about Deadpool? You forgot Deadpool?" No, I didn't really. Let me first say that Deadpool is awesome in this flick. Ryan Reynolds fits perfectly into the boots of the 'mean-mouthed merc'. But (aha, there's a but), if you're going in there to watch Deadpool and Deadpool alone, be warned. I'm sure what conspires around this character will not be digested too easily with the fanbase. That's all I can say without ruining the plot.

So most of the characters are played pretty well, what about Hugh Jackman as Wolverine? Make no mistake, this is the best version of Wolverine that has been put on screen to date. It is on par with Logan's introductory scene inside a steel cage in the first X-Men and there's more rage and anger and clawing and scratching than X-Men 2. Way more. I'm not even going to comment on X-Men : The Last Stand because I hate Brett Ratner and I hated Wolverine in it so, there you go. Jackman does an awesome job. Nothing to worry about from that aspect.

The finalized CGI in the movie looks so much better than what was shown in the trailers and clips. There are some bad parts and lousy effects, sure, but overall it's good. When I say 'good' I hope you understand I mean compared to the trailers. The 'Phoenix' scenes in X-Men : The Last Stand had CGI that was a dozen times better than Wolverine. Compared to the bad shots we saw in the trailers, the finalized CGI is okay.

From a technical standpoint the film looks really bad. The editing is almost amateurish, the transitions are poor and low-budget-like, and these ruins scenes that could have looked better. A lot of shots are left lingering until the scene grows stale. Some shots make scenes look cheesy while others were obviously done with very little care. X-Men Origins : Wolverine makes it clear that there was a troubled set, conflicting opinions, clashes of power, and 'too many artists on one canvas'. I dare say that Gavin Hood will not return to direct a sequel. While certain sequences in the film look very planned and clean, others look rushed or just neglected. It's as if Gavin just wanted to get this over with because he's not a fan and I'm guessing producers were getting their heads up in his @$$ a lot.

What bothers me is that comic book adaptations have evolved from being just corny movies for little kids who cheer for men in tights. Movies like Batman Begins and The Dark Knight showed us that movies based on comics deserve great directors, proper filmmaking, and phenomenal acting. Christopher Nolan chose to actually respect the character's dignity, incorporate good acting, do without bad CGI, and actually give a $h*t about the filmmaking process. Hugh Jackman once said that Wolverine would be inspired by Batman Begins. In that case it should have been a good flick first instead of being whored out as a cash cow. Even if it isn't a commercial blockbuster, it will be respected and a good sequel will garner a wider audience. Are studios so oblivious that they learn nothing from other movies?!

Speaking of Batman, one of the things I love about The Dark Knight is the fact that after watching it, my childhood fantasies of running around in a black cape and attacking bad guys now have a huge question mark slammed behind it. For the first time, you don't want to be Batman. You finally understand that it's a burden, a responsibility, and even a curse at times. People's lives hang in the balance, you are always blamed no matter how good you are, and in the end you sacrifice the simple pleasures of a normal person. That's exactly why I also love Watchmen. And that's what I expected most from Wolverine when I first came to know it was being made. Wolverine is tormented. His history is a mess, he's emotionally-scarred, and his thoughts are constantly ravaged by incidents that he will never forget even if he tries to. X-Men Origins fails to deliver this message. It is a weak attempt at explaining Wolverine's past and why he is who he is in the present. The explanation as to why he loses his memory is outwardly stupid and the storyline of his childhood and early years is so badly contorted that it doesn't make half the sense that the graphic novel does.

Another very bothersome part of the movies are the powers given to the mutants. Gambit has telekinesis for some reason, and is also an acrobat who climbs walls and performs stunts in mid-air. Gambit, my friends, transfers energy into external objects and aims them at his opponents. He cannot control where they hit once they leave his hands, he can only aim at will. I don't even want to touch on Deadpool because it would ruin the storyline. Sabretooth has cat-like claws that can extend, not to mention that he's Wolverine's brother which is just wrong all over.

The rage that Wolverine shows after the Adamantium bonding is awesome, but the film fails to keep that momentum going. While in the comics he hunts deer and wild animals just to survive the cold and the outdoors, he does nothing of the sort in the movie. Why, because kids will not relate to the killing of deer? Well Wolverine isn't supposed to be a kid's hero to begin with; and that is something that studios have yet to comprehend.

Still, I had fun. Why and how is beyond question. I just did. I am actually more satisfied with this flick than X-Men : The Last Stand, maybe because Wolverine is portrayed properly. And like I said, I was able to completely forget about the comics and the lore behind Wolverine. I watched is as though I was watching a Wolverine that I didn't know about; as if it was my first time learning about his past. Add to that the fact that I expected nothing or (if possible) less than nothing from the film. I hated it without even giving it a chance, and I guess that turned out to be a blessing in disguise. It made me appreciate whatever happened on screen even though I knew it wasn't the best of things. It was good compared to the lousy imaginations I had of it in my head.

I like the soundtrack for X-Men Origins : Wolverine. It doesn't have a signature theme like all three X-Men films but it does suit the flick pretty well. It's kinda' grungy, kinda' packed with that energy, and kinda' emotional at times when it needs to be. It's not the best of scores but it's far from being bad.

I gotta' say that this movie was very wrongly marketed, though. The over-the-top cheesy posters with the meaningless posing and Creed-music-band-like photoshoots really made people puke a little. The movie is way more serious and portrays Wolverine much better. I guess I haven't emphasized this enough; Wolverine does not wait for effin' photoshoots! If the ad campaign behind this was taken care of in a better way, it'd definitely have more people interested.

That's pretty much all there is to say about Wolverine. It's a load of fun, it has it's good moments and it's bad moments, but I think overall the good overshines the bad (thankfully). It's not the grittiest of movies but I think it is the darkest among Marvel movies [Punisher(s) excluded]. But all in all, it's a fantastic watch and a great popcorn movie. It has a lot of action, a lot of good fight scenes, and my biggest fear of Victor Creed being a douchebag was diminished. He's good and the Logan / Victor fight scenes are not bad.

Also, have some patience and wait for the credits to end. There's more after the names are done.

An interesting bit about this is that there's more than one version of X-Men Origins : Wolverine. That's right. I guess in order to counter the loss due to the leaked copy, director Gavin Hood and Fox have made "multiple" versions of the flick, all incorporating different 'secret endings'. That means the one I watched may be different from what you watched or are about to watch. Maybe different regions carry different prints? That's cool and all, but it's a sleazy way of getting people to go watch your movie. You say "multiple prints" loosely so that people just keep spending their cash to go watch the whole movie over and over again and for all you know, they've already seen that secret ending a couple of times over...so what now, go watch it again for the 11th time? Anyway, some of the bad stuff mentioned above may be done right or corrected or brought justice to via the alternate endings (which might explain more) but I'm writing from what I saw. So stay in your seat until all the creds are done, and then go watch it again and tell me which one you saw, alright?

I'm just going to wait for the DVD in which I'm sure I'll get "20minutes of extra, never-before-seen footage and All 5 Secret Endings in a Two-Disc Special Edition Collector's Adamantium Steelbox Casing" which will cost me a fortune.

Also, keep your eyes open for a surprise or two, a lot of mutant cameos, and some cool nods to comic fans and the lore of it all in general.

My suggestion? Screw the leaked version like I did and go watch it the way it should be watched; in a cinema! It's probably the best popcorn movie this year...until Transformers : Revenge Of The Fallen comes out. No one makes popcorn flicks like the 'Bay Man'!
--------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : I give X-Men Origins : Wolverine a good 3.7 out of 5.0. Remember, as an adaptation of ANY of the Wolverine-related comics, it seriously sucks. Trust me, you do not want to connect this with any timeline or any version of the comics. Forget what you know about Wolverine and take this as a version created for film and in connection with 20th Century's X-Men universe. As a standalone film it's just tons of fun. I'm all in for a good sequel, and although as a fan I think the film could have been ten times better and more faithful to the comics, as a regular film buff I'm glad to the fact that I was able to let go of all expectations and because of that my love for the character on screen is restored. :)

Who Should They Play? | #1

I've decided to start a new column / special / thing on this site called "Who Should They Play?", and the first edition under this title starts today. Who Should They Play will feature actors put next to characters that they are most suited for, in my opinion anyway. Not that any of you might care, but it's a blog so you can comment as you wish below. :)

Anyway, the characters featured will most likely be from comic books, graphic novels, and video games...because I can't just turn around and say "Russel Crowe should play Harrison Ford!" That wouldn't make any sense now, would it? What I'm trying to say is the fitting of actors to their characters has to make sense. Not just random thoughts. Now, on with the article!
-----------------------------------------------------

Rodrigo Santoro as the 'Prince of Persia'.

I'm completely aware of the fact that Jake Gyllenhaalidon'tknowhowtospellhisname is playing Prince Dastan (where did that name come from anyway) in the upcoming Prince of Persia flick, produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. That's your audience-magnet right there. Jerry Bruckheimer. All they have to do in the trailer is have a huge sequence that says "From the creators of Pirates Of The Caribbean" and you're sold. That line equals huge lumps of money just pouring at their feet.

Anyway, Jake is playing the Prince and although I've seen photos of him in character which look pretty good, I don't understand how a full-blooded Caucasian male could so easily pass as a Persian prince. Maybe they'll tan him for the movie, but still. There are actors out there who look Persian, have played a Persian, and would be better off having this role. Hence I bring you Rodrigo Santoro. You may or may not know him. If you can't recognize the man, he played King Xerxes in 300. Ah, now you know.

Rodrigo is a good actor. We've seen how he can pull off Persian. He completely disappeared into his role as Xerxes. He did well on Lost a couple of seasons ago. And if you look at that picture on the left, he suits the role more than Jake does. Now I can hear a bunch of you saying "You douche, the Prince movie is based off the NEW Prince Of Persia game where Dastan doesn't look like that anymore!" To that I say, too bad. Sure, the new Prince may look like Jake, but how cool was the older-looking Prince of Persia. Rugged, badass, heroic, and with two sweet blades. I'm a sucker for awesome-looking swords and daggers and blades.

Anyhow, there you have it. In my opinion, Rodrigo Santoro should have played, or should play (in case of a remake / reboot / sequel / actor dropping out) the Prince Of Persia.

Constantine 2 Coming Soon?

This news definitely made my day.

SCI FI Wire talked to X-Men Origins: Wolverine producer Lauren Shuler Donner about the possible Magneto film and asked whether Constantine 2 was still in the cards. About Magneto, she said: "I don't know. We have a great script. Honestly, we have all been just so focused on getting 'Wolverine' out that we didn't take the time to sit down and explore 'What are the movies we're going to do next within the genre?' We will do that. We will do that. We all want to. 'Magneto' is a fantastic script, and hopefully we'll make it. I don't know."She added that Constantine 2 is looking "very good. Thinking about it. Looking for a writer."

I emphasize on the part where Lauren speaks about Constantine 2 'looking very good'. I'm not sure why sequels to the better movies from this genre never get made as fast as they should. It's almost as if people like crappy movies and lousy trilogies. Just a couple of days ago disappointing news about a 30 Days Of Night sequel was out, saying that it will most probably be a straight-to-DVD release! Sam Raimi, producer of the flick, even told his director "not to judge the DVD market so quickly, especially the sci-fi genre." Yeah, Sam Raimi's a real &%$in' messiah. The straight-to-DVD market equals cheap, low-grade movies that have lousy visual effects and wouldn't make a buck's profit if they were released in cinemas.

Anyway, movies like Sin City 2, Constantine 2, and 30 Days Of Night 2 get put on hold while the second and third Twilight movies are already in the making? Way to go, Hollywood. I honestly think director Francis Lawrence did a great job with both Constantine and I Am Legend (except for I Am Legend's puke-like CGI), and it would be great if he helmed the sequel to Constantine as well. of course Keneau has to play the part as well...unless they're going to screw this one up with a 'Adventures Of Young Constantine' type of flick.

Oh and honestly, and I would like to see a Magneto movie. Not that 20th Century Fox is going to do it any justice but a guy can hope, right? A lot of people seem to not give a rat's@$$ about the 'master of magnetism' but I think his past would make a great story. The prologue to X-Men was probably one of the best scenes in the entire trilogy. If the movies stayed with that tone they would still carry value and not look like a brigade of over-the-top corniness. Ian McKellen sucks as Magneto, but a prequel would mean a better suited actor. Of course, Fox will turn this into a s**tgig before you can even say 'magnets' and in the end it'll turn out being an alternate version for X-Men 5.

*sigh*. Enough ranting and raving. Let's hope Constantine 2 gets made, Sin City 2 and 3 roll along with the rumored Johnny Depp playing a part, and 30 Days Of Night 2 gets a proper theatrical release. People need to start watching better movies. And vampires need to be scary and mean and just plain anti-social...not some 80's hairdo teengirl heartthrob who hunts deer for lunch. It's a vampire! A v-a-m-p-i-r-e! Dracula? Friggin' evil, man! Guy turns into a bat in a second and sucks your blood. A vampire! Argh!

Punisher : War Zone (2008) | REVIEW

It's been a pretty long time since I've had a review up. My apologies (I say that a lot these days). I'm literally drowning in work, work, and more work...plus I'm up to a couple of new projects that I haven't really decided on yet. Anyway, I managed to allocate some time to watch Punisher : War Zone on DVD the other day since I've been wanting to for quite some time, and I hate to say this but Marvel &^$$%-up yet again. I guess you can't really expect much from a movie like Punisher but I had my hopes up for a few reasons. [a] Lexi Alexander; if you've seen Green Street Hooligans you know what I'm talking about. The lady knows what violence is. [b] Ray Stevenson; I'm not hating on Thomas Jane but this dude looks like he was born to play Frank Castle. [c] A solid [R] rating; meaning there's all the room for the revenge-crazed vigilante to do all the bodily damage he wants to on his foes. Anyway...

This Flick Is About....
Punisher : War Zone stars Ray Stevenson as the vigilante who's avenging the tragic deaths of his entire family by a group of mobsters. The ex-army personnel has a high-tech infantry of weapons at his disposal and plans on doing whatever it takes to mark and exterminate all the scum that made him the loner that he is today. Punisher : War Zone is not a direct sequel to the first Punisher movie starring Thomas Jane, but isn't an origin story either. In this installment, Frank Castle must take down the 'resurrected' villain known as Jigsaw, a criminal mastermind whom Punisher disfigured.
----------------------------

While I'm not a big fan of movies like Rambo and typical 'actioners', I enjoy movies that have good fight sequences to offer, especially those that are choreographed so well that every move works in a flow, causing the next strike and acting as a reaction to the previous action. The Incredible Hulk had amazing action sequences. It wasn't just shaky, fast-moving cameras. It was more precise, focused, and like a series of moves that were sewn together so well that they formed a whole beautiful (if that's what you wanna' call it) scene. 300 did the same thing, with sheer awesomeness. Punisher could have done the same thing, but decided not to. When people kept saying the new Punisher was awesome in terms of violence and gore, it had me excited. Not that I'm a sicko or anything, but because that's exactly what the Punisher does. I have to admit, the movie does have it's cool parts that are awfully gritty and violent and just plain scary, but those scenes are not even close to being enough to save this flick.

What the Punisher does have, in fact, are very brief scenes of terribly violent actions. That's it. No good fight scenes, no slow-mo beautiful shots, no clever camera angles. It just has short moments of the Punisher blowing some guy's head off or decapitating someone or shoving a chair into a person's skull. And while those scenes successfully make you say "Woah!", it only lasts as long as it stays on screen and the residual value is incredibly small. Once that's done it's back to square one; boredom.

The score for the movie is very nice. It reminds me of Batman Begins. But then again, not every movie demands a James Newton Howard-ish score. The Punisher needs a grungier soundtrack. And while some scenes are backed by hardcore metal tracks from the likes of Slipknot, a lot of scenes have very emotional, orchestral music that doesn't fit. Punisher needs a soundtrack like 300; powerful, gritty, grungy, and not one like The Lion King.

The acting (my God) is bad. Ray Stevenson does an okay job I suppose. The Punisher isn't really a very charismatic character so I guess it's fine. Dominic West plays Jigsaw which was a good call because he's able to handle the character well. Then there's Wayne Knight who plays 'Micro', and he's fine. As for the rest, it's just a barrage of mediocre 'I'm-trying-too-hard' type acting that easily puts you off. Julie Benz is by far the worst. She looks like she's reading off a blurry teleprompter that's too far away.

Doug Hutchison plays 'Loony Bin' Jim, Jigsaw's brother, who's a psycho mental patient. He manages to pull-off the psycho part well but when it comes to the dialogue and the accent, it just bothers me. I suppose since they're all in a mob it's supposed to be one of those 'New York-ish', Italian-ish, accents. Whenever Looney Bin talks, though, I'm not sure if he's really Italian or half-Hispanic or semi-English or just plain Irish. It's really annoying listening to him speak. You want Punisher to walk in there and blow his jaw right off not because he's a bad guy but because the way he speaks is just really, really annoying. I'm not sure if it's just me, though. Maybe one day he'll be honored with a Nobel prize for uniting the world by merging every accent known to man in one sentence of speech. Hmm.

You're probably wondering, "Is Punisher a fun movie at all?" The answer is "somewhat". By that I mean it depends on your mood and situation at the time. If you rented a bunch of movies from NetFlix and your list has The International, 12 Rounds, Halloween, and Punisher : War Zone, I suggest you watch all the other movies first and then see if you still have time for Punisher. Whereas if your list has Rogue, Street Fighter : Legend Of Chun-Li This Movie Is So Damn Bad, The Grudge 3, and Punisher : War Zone, then Punisher ranks as the first movie you should watch. It's a gem among bad movies, is what I'm saying. I like the colors and it's fun when you have time to spare on a free day. With work on your hands though, this movie is a waste of time.

On a whole, Marvel and Lionsgate blew it again with yet another Punisher movie. To be fair, Punisher isn't really a very interesting character to begin with, but he's definitely more badass than what Ray Stevenson had to offer. While he looked the role, he was incredibly laid-back for a man who had his family gunned down and is on the path of absolute vengeance. There's also some subliminal message about God and religion and how killing for a just cause is fine and whatnot. I wasn't really interested nor did I have the time to decipher a message that a movie like Punisher had to offer.
--------------------------------------------------
Wrap : I give Punisher : War Zone a 2.0 out of 5.0. It had its moments, it's a good movie to watch when there's nothing else to do, and the color / tonal value of the flick was nice to see. The acting was bad, storyline was terrible, and the violence wasn't what I expected it to be. There's artistic violence and just plain "Yikes" moments, and Punisher had a lot of the latter. Like I said, this is a movie you could do without if you can't find the time. There are a lot of better films out there.