RandomFilmReviews!

District 9 (2009) | REVIEW

2009-08-27T23:22:00.003+08:00

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?

2009-08-02T16:36:00.004+08:00

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.

2009-07-13T02:55:00.002+08:00

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.

2009-06-26T12:16:00.007+08:00

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

2009-06-26T00:26:00.005+08:00

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

2009-05-25T23:24:00.003+08:00

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

2009-05-20T01:48:00.000+08:00

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

2009-05-15T19:09:00.004+08:00

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!

2009-05-11T22:13:00.003+08:00

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

2009-05-10T16:21:00.003+08:00

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

2009-05-05T00:33:00.007+08:00

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

2009-04-29T14:35:00.006+08:00

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

2009-04-28T19:58:00.003+08:00

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?

2009-04-28T02:09:00.003+08:00

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

2009-04-27T16:06:00.004+08:00

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.

EARTH HOUR 2009 | Make A Difference.

2009-03-24T17:00:00.005+08:00

This isn't movie related, but it does relate to each and every one of us who live on this planet and call it home. On March 28, 2009 a global election will be held and it's for the sake of Earth's future. The only thing you are asked to do is turn off your lights for one hour. That's not too much to ask for, right? Please click the banner below to find out if your country or city is participating in this historical global movement. Over 1000 cities worldwide are already involved.

Governments need to know we care, huge names need to make statements, and it's high time we do a lil' something for the only home we have. So don't take this lightly. WWF and the organizations involved need all the support they can get. There's no spending on your part either, so the economy isn't an excuse. Maybe you'll miss a TV show or two. Tape it, record it, DVD-it, there's always a way.

Your switch is your vote. Take the effort, turn off your lights, bear the dark for an hour, and proudly say that you were one of the billions who stood against global warming. Don't be left out!

Watchmen (2009) | REVIEW

2009-03-17T00:04:00.005+08:00

Watchmen; one of the most celebrated graphic novels of our century. Penned by visionary comic artist Alan Moore, Watchmen tells the tale of a disbanded group of costumed vigilantes who find that one of their own has been brutally murdered. Rorschach, one of its members, smells a conspiracy and invites former partner, Nite Owl, into the mix. The investigation leads into details and revelations far more complex that any of them could have possibly imagined.

Helmed by director Zack Snyder of 300 fame, Watchmen (the movie) is a visually stunning adaptation of the graphic novel, which literally brings the characters out of the pages of the book and gives them life on screen. Although it does fall short in a number of aspects when it comes to character development and bringing all the essences of said characters to the big screen, it still stands as an epic retelling of the Watchmen story and Zack Snyder has promised a more comprehensive DVD release (rumored to be nearly 4hours long) which will dwell deeper into the alternate 80’s era in which the Watchmen live.

Rorschach. Everyone knows that there isn’t a Watchmen novel without Rorschach, no matter how anyone tries to deny it. Say that the other characters matter as much or say that they all form a complete puzzle, which may be true, but without Rorschach the tale would be just that; another tale of superheroes. Played by Academy Award-nominated Jackie Earle Haley, Rorschach is the engine to the events that unfold after Edward Blake’s (The Comedian) death. Constantly suspecting a conspiracy and a blatant attack on costumed crimefighters, the vigilante sets out to solve the mystery of the murder. And to tell you the truth, the movie itself wouldn’t have been as good if Rorschach wasn’t played as well as he was. Jackie Earle captured the violent, deranged, ugly yet compelling essence of Rorschach, which is what really shines throughout the film. Through the writings of his journal the audience sees how chaotic the world is and almost relates to Rorschach despite his complete lack of mercy and tolerance for those he despises.

The score and soundtrack for the film is beautifully picked and composed. The themes are rugged and gritty while still maintaining its quality and not sounding like a cheap production with half-baked heavymetal artistes. Tyler Bates does an awesome job at composing. The music is almost addictive and the songs fit in all the right places. There’s music and then there’s deep music that triggers emotions, and Watchmen uses the latter.

What Watchmen fails to do, however, is keep the audience focused on the actual plot all the way. While those who have not read the graphic novel may not realize this, there is much more to Watchmen than what was seen on screen. While it may seem like a simple story on the surface, beneath that surface is a hoard of subliminal messages dealing with politics and the way the world is affected by self-righteous politicians, homosexual rights, vigilantism, and the nature of human beings itself. Every character depicts a different moral and portrays views from different angles. There’s the narrow-minded, right-wing-mentality Rorschach who will compromise for no one, there’s the Night Owl who finds comfort in having a secret identity so that he can find solace without the mask when he doesn’t need it, Dr. Manhattan, while trying his best to aid them, sees time as absent and the human race as a degrading, selfish species, and The Comedian who calls his violent ways a tasteless parody of mankind itself. There’s a lot more but those are just a few examples. The graphic novel tells each tale perfectly, and seamlessly binds them into a whole. There’s a whole back-story to the psychiatrist who deals with Rorschach, and the African-American teenager who reads The Tale of the Black Freighter, a tale within the Watchmen story that acts as a parallel image. While it’s almost impossible to get all this onto the big screen, not getting it out there does damage the story in more ways than one and fans of the novel are sure to get a little pissed off.

Watchmen’s core isn’t really about the death of The Comedian. That is only the surface story. By the end of the graphic novel, readers are able to piece together all the parts perfectly and what they have in their hands is a work of art; a compelling narrative of the world and how the existence of superhuman beings would have impacted history as we know it.

This isn’t the average Superman or Spider-Man story. In Watchmen we get to truly see how people would react to the reality of having masked vigilantes and crimefighters walk among them, and it isn’t a pretty sight. It’s sort of X-Men meets Batman meets V For Vendetta. Also, Watchmen completely debunks the notion that superheroes have to look good, smell good, be good, and always do good. Watchmen is a frightening depiction of ordinary people who take up mantles as a means to assert justice, only to realize that reality isn’t like a comic book. When crimefighters fight they sweat, they may smell, they probably don’t look that great, they get fat when they’re lazy, they have weaknesses, they are tempted by vices like we all are, and at times they can even be a little psychotic when under intense pressure.

While the graphic novel makes clear that The Comedian’s death is only the beginning of a chain of events that lead to an ultimate revelation, the movie fails to explain this to the audience and in turn misleads them in more ways than one. The audience is intrigued and captured during the prologue where The Comedian is violently killed, and then halfway through the movie they’re not sure where this is going anymore. The Comedian’s death fades into the background and a number of smaller, lesser stories arise, none of them going as deep as they should due to cinema time allowance. This compromises the movie, and leaves the audience a little confused and somewhat frustrated. By the end of it all, the movie looks more like a documentation of vigilante origin stories instead of an actual movie, as a whole, with a flow. This, however, doesn’t happen in the novel because there is no time or page allowance to begin with. The stories dwell deep, and each character is explained for a specific reason. And they all form a whole.

All in all, Watchmen is a visually stunning adaptation, one that Alan Moore should at least give a shot at watching instead of ignoring all the way. It still is a very well-done film, with actors that are almost perfect for their roles. It’s a realistic analysis of the co-existence of people and a group who choose to be different; one that will make you think of supeheroes in new ways, and probably change your perception towards them, too. Not all superheroes have noble aspirations, and endings don’t always have to be happy. That being said, the movie is definitely worth a watch. In fact, it’s not to be missed. I’m waiting for the DVD to see if what Snyder has promised really comes to be; a 4hour long Director’s Cut of the movie which seamlessly integrates the animated Tale Of The Black Freighter within its plot. I’m sure the DVD version of the film will be way more powerful than what was seen in cinemas. Don’t miss this flick, watch it on the big screen, the sound and music is amazing, and the visuals are worth looking forward to. Watchmen may not be perfect and may not be as compelling as its source material, but it’s one heck of a film and if all else fails, good ol’ brutal Rorschach won’t and is bound to keep you watching all the way. Watch the Watchmen and have fun!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrap : I give this flick a 3.9 out of 5.0. While it has a lot of quality and is great eye-candy, it had the potential to be much, much more. The source material is powerful, gritty, and haunting. I’m hoping the DVD fares better. Until then, 3.9 it is. Maybe I’ll review the DVD version when it’s out. But for now I feel the movie could have been much better than what it is right now.

Extra Bit : During the trailers, Zack Snyder is marketed as 'the visionary director of 300’. When asked about this, Zack admitted to being a little embarrassed as to why Warner would call him that, seeing as he has only made three major movies to date (Dawn of The Dead, 300, Watchmen), which hardly even qualifies someone to be a visionary. You’ve gotta’ respect this guy. People would gobble up false interpretations like that and use it to their advantage, yet people like Snyder who worked wonders with 300 just keeps himself glued to the ground and admits that the spiced-up credits in the trailers are merely marketing methods. That’s awesomeness right there. Snyder is currently working on a 3D animated film called The Guardians Of Ga'Hoole, due 2010.

Me? Critical?! Meh....

2009-02-28T21:44:00.006+08:00

I was speaking to a friend (let's call him Z) the other day and he said he was looking forward to X-Men Origins : Wolverine more than anything this year. I agree it's a slow year for blockbusters but I disagree on the fact that Wolverine's going to be good. So I told Z that everything about the movie is going wrong and it looks like it's going to be one of those 'fun flicks' that gets really old, really fast, even the second time around. By this time Z's already set on having an argument and gives me a good lecturing on why Wolverine's the coolest badass mutant superhero on the planet and how I'm too critical for my own good. Take note that Z didn't like Transformers because it didn't have proper character development. Yeah. Anyway, I'm overcritical says he, and that I should learn to loosen up and bask in the hype more.

So me being me, the fan of comic characters and superheroes alike, wondered how bad could it be to just not find faults with the Wolverine flick. Besides, Hugh Jackman's a great actor, I love the X-Men, and Wolverine's my favorite character next to Batman. Then I stumbled upon this photo today and hated myself for actually even considering thinking highly about the Wolverine movie.

Uh-huh. For some reason people think it's cool when Wolverine looks like a model for Hugo Boss. I've hated almost every picture I've seen from the film to date. Sabretooth looks too clean and the fight sequence between the two is lame. Come on! It's Wolverine and Sabretooth. Screw the martial arts thing....go at it like rabid dogs! Like animals! Anyway, this is just to clarify that I'm not overly critical about stuff. I love Transformers and Michael Bay. Say whatever you want about the man, he knows how to create a fun, entertaining, film. And I cannot wait for Transformers 2. If you need more pics of Wolverine flexing his abs and showing his glistening muscles, check them out HERE. If Superman were in these poses I wouldn't care because he's just like that' ; a self-absorbed &^%$. Wolverine, on the other hand, doesn't have time for photoshoots. Just my opinion.

"Promise me, love, that we'll be together again. Don't go."
"Don't stop me you handsome chunk of feral meat. Look at my eyes and tell me you love me."
"I love you, you unhygienic man with yellow fingernails yet perfectly shaped sideburns."
"Grrr....."
"Grrrowll...."
"It's on...."

Slumdog Millionaire | REVIEW

2009-02-24T15:31:00.005+08:00

I've been so busy lately with pending work that I haven't had time to write reviews. Plus WrestleMania 25 is just around the corner so my focus has been on my pro-wrestling-based website, which you can visit here. Anyway, with all the buzz circulating the critically acclaimed Slumdog Millionaire, I thought I might as well review it and put in my 2cents worth. The success of this movie is unprecedented, and as of yesterday it's the winner of a stunning 8 Academy Awards! Wow. And for a movie that almost never got released due to studio conflicts. The tale of the movie Slumdog Millionaire is like a parallel to what happens in the film itself. A basic underdog story.

This Flick Is About...
------------------------------------------------
Set and filmed in Mumbai, India, Slumdog Millionaire tells the story of a young man, Jamal Malik (Dev Patel) from the slums of Mumbai who appears on the Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? and exceeds people's expectations, arousing the suspicions of law enforcement officials. During the interrogation at the poilce station, Jamal goes back into his past and explains how he came to know of the right answers.
-------------------------------------------------

Now, while Slumdog is an incredibly good movie with a nice storyline and just a feel-good aura despite its dark moments, it isn't the greatest movie in the world. I might get crucified for some of my following comments due to the fact that there's an unwritten law now that states nobody should say anything negative about Slumdog Millionaire because it's just not the right thing to do. Heck, even celebrities adore it! John Legend was raving about it, Angelina Jolie said she loved it, and the kids from the flick are now the cutest kids on the planet. Dev Patel is getting contracts shoved in his mailbox and is already slated to play a role in M.Night Shyamalan's Avatar. All good, all good, and well deserving of the lot...but that doesn't mean the movie doesn't have its flaws.

For one, I didn't really quite like some of the acting in the movie, especially that of Madhur Mittal who plays an older Salim, Jamal's brother. Anil Kapoor plays the host of the famous gameshow and does a fantastic job at it. And Dev Patel nails most of his parts.

If there's one thing that stands out in Slumdog, it's the music and the score. I'd say the most deserving winner in this whole gig is composer AR Rahman who wrote the songs and composed the music. The man's a musical genius! His reputation in India (especially South Indian cinema) is off the hook, and he's known there as their most beloved musician to date, and to see him walk on stage and accept a Golden Globe and now two Oscars is really something. The man earned his way up and this is his much deserved mega breakthrough; to be recognized on a global stage for his efforts. Well done, sir!

Speaking of breakthroughs, this is something that director Danny Boyle definitely needs; a clean slate. While he did make some pretty good flicks lately in the form of Sunshine, he also made 28 Days Later. Yikes.

Back to the movie. There's actually three stories at play in the movie; all revolving around Jamal. One tells the story of his past, one of him in police custody, and during his time on the gameshow. The editing is really something and almost seamless. There are no jumpy or choppy scenes which is what I really like. In that respect, the movie is really well done. Another thing I like is the color of the movie. There's an orange tan throughout with some gleams here and there, kind of like Michael Bay lighting with a little of Man On Fire. I'm not sure if I'm getting this through properly, but you'll get it when you watch it. The color tone really suits India. I've been there and the way this movie is set really captures the atmosphere and rush of the country. Speaking of which, there was some controversy that surrounded the title of the movie and how it wrongly depicted India as a slum nation. Well, India is not. It's rapidly developing and I think whoever created said controversy has...

(A) nothing better to do in life
(B) no female companion to spend his free time with
(C) not yet understood the objective of the movie. It's called 'Slumdog Millionaire' for a reason
(D) not yet realized that he's a tool
(E) All of the above

I'd go for (E). Computer has locked in the answer. Patience. And I've just won myself a Million Dollars in cold hard cash!

Anyway, people should be more lighthearted about this stuff.

The thing about Slumdog is that it's been done before. Yeah, that's right. To be honest, there are a lot of South Indian Tamil films and North Indian Hindi movies that depict a somewhat similar plot and have deeper storylines. Slumdog integrates a basic Indian love story with some twists and Western influence, plus the fact that they all speak fluent English halfway through the movie, even amongst family. Don't get me wrong, I know the people of India know to speak excellent English. And there's no reason why a boy from the slums shouldn't be able to learn fluent English...but among brothers, too? It's a bit hard to accept. The flashbacks show the bros speaking in Hindi when all of a sudden they only exchange words in Englsih with each other when they're teens. Seems a bit odd. It would have been better if there was a mix, like their conversations are mostly in Hindi with a bit of English here and there...just among the brothers at least. Would have been more realistic if you ask me.

On a whole, I wasn't thrilled beyond belief by Slumdog Millionaire. I enjoyed it and think it's a beautiful movie and a solid tale of love, affection, and how no one should be underestimated because of their roots. But I don't think it deserved the 10 Oscar nominations and definitely don't see why everyone's raving about it. 5 Oscars, maybe. Oscars for AR Rahman, no questions asked, definitely. In my opinion, Hollywood is in a Bollywood phase right now just like they were in a martial arts phase back in Bruce Lee's time. Plus there's politics and the fact that India's Reliance group has literally pumped billions of USDs into Hollywood's machines. They say there's no creative hold, but who are we to demand real answers, right? I could be wrong and maybe I just don't see what others see, but trust me, 6months down the line there will be a boatload of people who will find all sorts of ridiculous faults with Slumdog just because they want to be unique. In the next 5 years we'll see numerous Hollywood / Bollywood collaborations, some of which are already in the works. Mickey Rourke is set to star in a Bollywood director's project and Amitabh Bachchan is rumored to be in talks to star with Johnny Depp in Shantaram, due in 2011.

All in all, a pretty nice movie and definitely worth the watch. Not the greatest thing in my books but deserving of a few awards and whatever due credit. This is definitely a blessing for India and its filmmakers, some of whom deserve an opening such as this to be able to transcend to global grounds. I just hope we don't see a lot of song / duet sequences in the next Pirates Of The Caribbean. Or worse *gulp* the third Batman flick. Who knows...maybe a Transformers dance sequence with Megan Fox in a Saree, even? Never ever say never, folks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Slumdog Millionaire gets a 3.9 out of 5.0. Like I said, I was hyped about it yet didn't see what all the craze was about. Nice movie, but not something I haven't seen before. For Hollywood this is unique and something utterly different, yet for the people who have seen Hindi and Tamil cinema, it's kind of the same, minus the songs in the middle. 3.9 it is. Don't kill me, alright? Take it easy.

The Black Eyed Pea...Vega?!

2009-02-08T01:00:00.003+08:00

When I first started playing Street Fighter a long time ago, Vega used to be one of my favorite characters. I'm not sure why. The fact that he hides his 'perfect face' behind a mask so that it doesn't even get scratched is kinda' pathetic. Maybe his claws reminded me of Wolverine or something. But in any aspect, he was one of my favorites. Things have changed and soon, we'll have a new Street Fighter movie in cinemas. No, wait...let me rephrase that. We'll have a Chun-Li movie in cinemas, I'm not sure why. A Street Fighter movie would have Ryu and Ken.

Vega's in the flick, though. And I'm not sure how this went unnoticed or maybe it's the fact that nobody really gives a damn because the trailer's a major put-off, but Taboo from the Black Eyed Peas is playing Vega. Read that line again. Nevermind I'll just rewrite it. Taboo of the Black Eyed effin' Peas is playing the Spanish fighter, Vega. How? Why? When? And what for, is beyond the question. So Will.I.Am lands a role in X-Men Origins: Wolverine as some supposedly badass mutant and Taboo lands a role in The Legend Of Chun-Li as Vega? I can't help but laugh. At least Will.I.Am received some media buzz regarding his role but this? People had to find out it was him from some random production image that surfaced online. That's just lame.

I understand that back when 2D gaming was considered high-tech and Chun-Li's helicopter spinning kick was the only glimpse of pornography that was free and readily available, this would have been a big deal. But right now, I don't think so. I would have loved to see a new Street Fighter movie if it was done right, but this looks like something I wouldn't even buy on DVD. Seriously. That goes for Dragonball Evolution, too. If they had done that the way 300 was shot, in pure badass greenscreen, it would have been awesome. Or even a cool anime-style movie, or Western-anime ala Gotham Knight. Or even full-3D, but grittier than all the Pixar stuff, obviously. How awesome would that have been, huh?

*sigh* That's Hollywood for ya'.

Rise Of The Lycans Is Cool! (My Bad...)

2009-02-05T00:25:00.003+08:00

Three posts ago I made a statement saying that Underworld : Rise Of The Lycans would suck beyond belief and would definitely seal at least one nail in the coffin (no pun intended) of the Underworld franchise. Don't get me wrong, I love the Underworld movies. I think they're great in their own unique way and director Len Wisemen clearly knows how to create a very Gothic feel for his films. I also like the mythology and back stories that were created for the franchise which gave it a lot of depth. But the way Rise Of The Lycans was marketed made my interest fade and after seeing the borrowing of visuals from the Van Helsing poster, I was almost certain that this movie was bound to blow. Add to the fact that Rise Of The Lycans isn't helmed by Len Wiseman, but is instead the project of the guy who worked on the special effects for the Underworld movies. That being said...

I clearly underestimated the whole thing and I am going to state right now that Underworld : Rise Of The Lycans is a sound installment for the franchise and can clearly say that it has a good storyline, a nice sense of Gothic grittiness all over it, and the potential to even spawn another sequel / prequel / sequel. I'll review the flick soon. Make sure you catch it while it's still in cinemas. Be warned, though, that if you're not a Underworld fan you will hate this film with a burning passion. And as for the visuals, well, lets say that they could have done MUCH better if they had the financial backing. Let me rephrase that. The visuals sucked! Other than that, pretty awesome movie for me.

There's another Underworld film coming out (possibly in 2010) and this time it's the sequel to Underworld : Evolution. Yep, that's right, more Kate Beckinsale in tight leather outfits. Mmm...

Transformers 2 Superbowl TV Spot!

2009-02-02T13:02:00.003+08:00

Hollywood craves the Superbowl, needs the Superbowl, and major blockbusters will always use the Superbowl as a huge advertising platform. The event reaches out to TV viewers in the United States unlike any other show. And here we have probably the biggest TV Spot from the Superbowl ; Transformers : Revenge Of The Fallen!

There's nothing much to say other than the short 30-second clip has the sweet scent of awesomeness all over it, is loaded with explosions as only Michael Bay can deliver, and has fantastic visuals of giant robots destroying each other. Wow. And Megan Fox. Wow!

Enjoy!

Wolverine & The Mutant Bandwagon

2009-01-18T16:28:00.006+08:00

This promotional pic for the upcoming X-Men Origins : Wolverine was sent to SuperheroHype by Hugh Jackman himself. The guy's awesome I tell ya'. He acts, he's hosting the Oscars this year, he's in all sorts of magazines, guys think he's badass, girls think he's uber-charming, and homos Google him at night when they're alone. And he still finds time to send the guys at SuperheroHype an E-Mail. Seriously, how cool is that?!

Anyway, everything in the promo pic looks awful except for Hugh Jackman who -once again-looks unkept, bulked-up, and perfect as the ferocious, feral slash-o-holic. For some reason everyone's looking at their shoes, or maybe they all winked at the same time. Ryan Reynolds looks like an emo-case and the rest just look, well, too lame to actually be in this movie. If there was a band called Wolverine & The Mutant Bandwagon, this would seriously be on the front cover!

On another note, I was browsing through the web for more on this movie and found myself this fan-made poster. It's fake and some guy had it made on Photoshop. So why's it here? Simply because if this poster was indeed official, I'd be more than psyched about this flick. Seriously. The color, the almost violent picture, the wolf's shadow and the way it forms a mask that pays homage to the masked Wolverine in the cartoons / comics. This is how a Wolverine movie should be hyped; not with some indy-band photoshoot. And the sheer rage on Wolvie's face is crazy; you can almost sense that he's gonna' sink those claws into someone's flesh and bones any second now! Yikes.

Wolverine is due on May 1, 2009.

The Economy Must Be Worse Than I Imagined....

2009-01-15T23:57:00.003+08:00

I understand that America is going through a pretty bad phase right now and I feel sorry for all who are affected by this time of crisis, I really do. And when major billion-dollar companies can crumble overnight, what's to stop big machines like Hollywood from lowering their costs for advertising, marketing, and overall film budgets?

That being said, there's a difference between lowering costs and deliberately being cheapskates. Take the new French poster for Underworld : Rise Of The Lycans, for instance. We see the death-dealing vampire chick and then we see the werewolves in the background. At first glance I knew there was something ver familiar about those werewolves and I also knew that it had something to do with Van Helsing. I looked up the Helsing posters and lo and behold; same werewolves!

I'm not kidding, folks. Whoever markets this gig actually took the werewolves out of the Helsing poster and placed them in the Underworld poster. I don't call that budgeting, I call that being cheap and stupid. I liked Underworld, had fun with Underworld 2, and wanted to give this Underworld prequel a go...well not anymore. I'm not spending my cash on something that dares to look embarrassingly low-budget to the world. Either they borrowed the werewolves from the Van Helsing poster, or the same people are handling marketing for both flicks, or they just used images off the same library. Whatever the reason, they suck.

And now this movie sucks.

Transformers 2: The Hype Has Begun!

2009-01-10T16:23:00.004+08:00

As promised by Michael Bay himself, the first teaser poster for Transformers : Revenge Of The Fallen has hit the web and Bay really seems to understand what the word 'teaser' means.

The poster is nothing more than a black sheet with the movie's title and two glowing red robotic eyes that stare right back at you. So there's nothing much to see there except for the fact that those eyes look pretty damn cool.

A part of me says that Bay jumped into this sequel way too soon. Transformers hit cinemas in July 2007 and its sequel hits theaters worldwide barely two years later on June 26, 2009. This movie could go two ways; a 90minute no-brainer flopfest OR a 120minute masterpiece with sh*t blowing up in ways you cannot imagine, robots becoming cars and vice versa, complete chaos and destruction, and Megan Fox! Seriously, to those of you who say Transformers had no storyline and no proper character development, I request you to please for Heaven's sake lighten up! It's Transformers, not Citizen Kane! Giant robots from a robot planet that battle it out amongst their clans on our home planet with the aid of a human kid and his superhot girlfriend. That's all you need to know.

Mark your calendars. June 26, 2009. The hype has begun, my friends. Roll out!

2009 Stuff.

2009-01-07T23:34:00.003+08:00

Hey, everyone! New year, new resolutions, and a whole new slate of movies to anticipate and look forward to this year. Updates have been slow, yes, but the holidays are always a time of laziness and kickin' back. You understand.

Anyway, 2009 has some pretty cool flicks to offer although it's pretty obvious that this year pales in comparison to last year or more even to the whopper year that was 2007. That year was a crazy ride for movie buffs, huh? POTC : At Worlds End, Spider-Man 3, Ocean's 13, Bourne Ultimatum, Harry Potter & The Uncountable Sequels, Die Hard 4.0, Shrek The Third, 300, Transformers, I Am Legend, Ratatouille, The Simpsons Movie...*pant pant*. Crazy ride indeed.

Then in 2008 we saw the birth of Marvel's 'new Spider-Man' when Robert Downey Jr. donned the metal suit and became Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk cleared-up its horrid reputation as a movie, Wall-E took in serious cash, Kung-Fu Panda had some pretty cool moves, and we were treated to this lil' gig called The Dark Knight which now domestically ranks as second highest grossing movie of all time, right under Titanic.

Because of the writer's strike, however, Hollywood's machines were slowed down a level and the effects of that are still being felt. Prince Of Persia decided to jump over to 2010 so that's out. We have Watchmen (March 2009). Hopefully the courtcase between 20th Century F**k *cough* I mean Fox and Warner Bros. settles soon and the movie doesn't get delayed or *gulp*...cancelled. :(

Then there's X-Men Origins : Wolverine (May 2009) which looks like fun, although I'm not gonna' set my hopes up too high. We have the bound-to-be-awesome Transformers : Revenge Of The Fallen. That one's gonna' be so. effin. cool. indeed. absolutely. definitely. uh-huh.

Other movies worth a mention are Terminator : Salvation starring Christian Bale, Monsters vs. Aliens, UP, Disney's The Princess & The Frog in which they go back to their 2D animation roots. Awesome! There's Public Enemies starring Johnny Depp and Christian Bale. Don't miss that.

Although this has nothing to do with movies, God Of War 3 comes out this year. Then there's the fifth season of LOST. One's a very cool videogame and the other is probably the best damn thing writen for television. LOST is amazing and I have yet to see anything that embeds a compelling story / plot, writing, and character development in a TV series as good as LOST.

Below are movies that you should avoid at all costs in order to save your eyes, brains, money, and sanity.

Dragonball(sack) : Justin Chatwin as Goku. *laughter*. I would have watched a 3D animation Dragonball if I had to but live-action. Who greenlights stuff like this? Dragonball is cool, no doubt, but a live-action movie?! Remember Mortal Kombat? *shudder*

Street Fighter : Legend Of Chun Li : A movie about Chun-Li? I mean yeah, it was cool in the videogames when she did that helicopter kick and showed us 'more' of herself. It was like porn in an era when there was access to none. But a movie just for her? That's like Cyclops without the X-Men. Nobody gives a rat's ass.

Avoid anything related to Uwe Boll, Eddie Murphy and his multiple roles in a single movie (again), and Mike Myers trying to be funny while not voicing Shrek. Please, you'd rather just burn your 20 dollar bills.

Have a fun year!

X-Men Origins : Wolverine | Official Trailer!

2008-12-16T01:44:00.004+08:00

X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE HD

Next year's lineup of summer blockbusters doesn't seem as hot as this years or better still last year's, but there are some pretty good ones in there. I cannot wait for Watchmen, to be honest, and Transformers 2 is next in line. Terminator Salvation looks like a boatload of fun, and so does 2012. And then there's this guy played by Hugh Jackman. Feral, roughneck, animalistic, and full of rage. Yep, Wolverine gets his own flick come May 1 2009 and here's the film's official trailer.

I'm really liking how Hugh Jackman has dived into the character and amped up the pissed-off aura. Nice. This is the best he's looked as Logan / Wolverine. Gambit looks cool (although I still say Josh Holloway would have been a better 'ragin' Cajun'). And as for the rest of the cast, they look incredibly cheap. Will.i.Am? Maggie Q? Ryan Reynolds? Sure, Reynolds makes an awesome Deadpool but these faces are so familiar that they do nothing but make this flick look like a celebrity TV commercial. Will.i.Am? Seriously? Are they gonna' feature one of his songs during the credits? Will.i.Am?!

The last time I set my hopes too high on an X-Men movie I was disappointed beyond belief. And let's not even bring Spider-Man into this. Ugh. So far Wolverine looks decent, if not pretty good, and I'm hoping the flick turns out to be something I'd like to own on DVD as well. We'll just have to wait and see how this plays out. Mind you, next to the Bat, Wolverine is my favorite comic book character.

You can watch the trailer in HD glory on their MySpace page HERE (you'll have to add them to as friends, though), or you could wait until the official site has it up over HERE.

Quarantine [2008] | REVIEW

2008-11-27T01:14:00.002+08:00

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

2008-11-24T12:10:00.003+08:00

"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!

2008-11-12T11:15:00.002+08:00

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

2008-11-08T19:18:00.002+08:00

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

2008-11-02T20:38:00.003+08:00

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.

For The Love Of GOD, man!

2008-10-23T22:48:00.003+08:00

Before you even begin to think that this is a review of the (laughs) third installment in the Anaconda series, I ask of you to not to insult me. Why in the name of all things holy would I review Anaconda 3? It's probably as entertaining as getting stabbed. In the face. Multiple times. But I may review this film one day, but I have a life right now and Anaconda 3: Offspring was only just released on DVD, which means it would be incredibly lame, pathetic, and sinful of me to actually even take a look at this piece of crap so soon.

Maybe one day when Hollywood no longer exists, or the day before Armageddon, or when someone offers me a new house, a key to the Playboy Mansion, a new BMW and a shipload of money...maybe then I'll watch Anaconda 3: The Offspring. Or maybe it'll just be on a day when I'm in the mood for some laughs via unintentional comedy.

Anyway, the reason I brought up this post is because there are mysteries in the world that need solving, and fast. One of them is why David 'Multitasking' Hasselhoff would even sign on for this movie. It looks like something I could produce with the pocket money that I saved for over the last 10 days. It takes no brains, some cameras, Final Cut Pro trial version, and Photoshop for that f**kin' cheesy-cheap poster. I mean what the @#$%, right? Can you imagine the brainstorming that must've taken place to conjure up Anaconda 3?

Director : Hey so, let's make Anaconda 3 because...well, it's easy and I wouldn't have to write a script which also means I don't need any writers.
Crewmember : Yeah cool....that's revolutionary AND environmental friendly 'cause no script means no paper...hence no trees need to die.
Director : Yes, that too. So...it's Monday today and I have....let's see, eighty-seven bucks in my wallet and a twenty dollar bill in my piggy bank so...let's get rollin' fellas!
David Hasselhoff : Wait...what do I get paid?
Director : Paid?
David Hasselhoff : Yes, paid. For acting in your snake gig.
Director : You're David Hasselhoff...why on Earth would anyone pay you anything anymore? Heck, you should pay us to be in this!
David Hasselhoff : But I thought....
Director : Silence! Now back to work. Here's the plan. Five idiots get into a jungle, lose their map and their boat and their equipment. Make sure we have a chick in there who's willing to bear her golden globes for free. Ermmm....let's see. Yes, get the snakes to squish them just like all the other snake movies only this time *snicker snicker*... the snake also BITES them! It has fangs, surprise!!

(excited mummer in the meeting room)

Director : Oh and since we don't have any money...make sure the CGI isn't too costly. Make the snakes look like they were cut out of some cheap Playstation 2 videogame or something. Alright, people....let's get ourselves up and rollin' and we'll have that DVD out by next week, max!

Okay so maybe it wouldn't have been exactly like that. It would have been even funnier. But hey, for those of you out there who don't care about your eyes, I suggest you go pick up this thing. It's a perfect way to go blind on purpose. And if you actually pay for this movie, E-Mail me and tell me about it. I could refer you to the nearest psychiatrist 'cause there is definitely something wrong with anyone who takes out any amount of cash for Anaconda 3.

OH, and if that isn't enough, this was shot back to back with....Anaconda 4 : We're Retarded. Anaconda 3 is out on DVD and will play on some TV station in the US sometime soon whereas Anaconda 4 gets released on TV and DVD sometime next year. Unbelievable.

Is 'Batman 3' Already In Pre-Production?!

2008-10-22T11:30:00.002+08:00

Call me whatever you wanna' call me but I've never been so hyped about a piece of news as I am right now. Well, maybe I was this hyped when I read about news regarding The Dark Knight prior to its release. Yeah, I guess I was. But who cares...I'm stoked again so here it is:

Numerous sources from within Chicago are stating that pre-production for the third installment in Christopher Nolan's record-setting Batman series will start as early as .... (wait for it, wait for it).... January 2009! Wha..? How? Why? Which? Where? Honestly, I don't know but that's what all the buzz is about. A bunch of crew members have already been called for hire regarding the third installment and trustworthy sources such as BatmanOnFilm have been able to get a word or two out of these people, who claim that pre-production will commence in January with filming beginning as early as summer 2009! As much as I'd like to believe that this is true, I also don't wanna' get caught up in a wave of rumors that are going to turn out to be just that; plain ol' rumors.

My logic tells me that these are just rumors blown out of proportion. The fact is writers David Goyer and Jonathan Nolan have denied the existence of a finished screenplay. Director Christopher Nolan hasn't even spoken since The Dark Knight's release and sources claim he's on a long vacation. He hasn't even signed yet. Christian Bale hasn't signed on yet. So how would anyone start pre-production if any of these huge pieces of the puzzle haven't boarded the ship yet? Again, I don't know. But weirder things have happened so I wouldn't be surprised. Maybe they kept in under wraps on purpose? Maybe Batman 3 was planned all along? Who knows, right.

Either way, there's a very small possibility that Batman 3 will be released in 2010. A 2011 release date is more likely, despite the fact that they may begin principal photography by summer next year. We'll just have to wait and see.

Will the 'Hulk' Be A Villain? + Captain America Makes Cameos!

2008-10-17T11:19:00.006+08:00

If you've read a bunch of The Avengers comic books you'd know that in a number of instances the big green behemoth we call 'The Hulk' has posed a threat to his own team due to his lack of control over his own powers and instincts. This was even writen into the storyline for the Ultimate Avengers animated movie (which is an awesome flick by the way). So there's no real surprise when ideas of the Hulk being an unofficial bad guy in the upcoming Avengers movie are being thrown around.

Mark Fergus spoke to MTV about his belief that the Hulk should be the villain in the upcoming AVENGERS movie that is being built towards: "I hope ‘The Avengers’ embraces that... You don’t want like 10 super-badass good guys fighting together. Where’s the fun in that? Let’s break it off a little. Friends or colleagues who become enemies is always an interesting thing because you know it’s based on love and friendship and that’s always the worst thing to have turn bad — is someone you actually care about and someone you actually believe in.”

**Spoiler Alert!**
Louis Leterrier added: “I left the door open for whoever’s going to direct ‘The Avengers’ with our last shot. Edward [Norton] and I, we consciously decided to make the last shot of the movie when he opens his eyes and he smirks at the camera... Is he enjoying it? Is he malicious? That’s what’s great about Edward. You don’t know if he’s a good guy or bad guy. He’s always on this edge and we’ve been sort of surfing that edge, that very thin edge during the entire movie.”
**Spoilers End Here**

This sounds pretty interesting to say the least. While I'd like to see The Hulk smash and bash with the rest of the gang, having someone like him go out of control would be awesome as well. It could be like a side-story. Either way, the Avengers is bound to be huge.

The Avengers is set for a summer 2011 release. Before that happens though, we'll have to go through Iron Man 2, Thor, The First Avenger : Captain America, and the rumored Ant-Man. There's no real sequel talk for The Incredible Hulk, but things could change.

Now for the juicy bit:
Check out these two stills. It looks like Captain America did make some rounds in both The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man. Tony Stark seems to be working on a shield of some sort with a half finished star emblem in the middle, while Cap's Hulk cameo comes to us exclusively on DVD via a scene that was deleted from the movie's theatrical release, in which Bruce Banner spots what looks like a man frozen in thick ice. Nice stuff.

'300' Sequel / Prequel Talk

2008-10-16T13:28:00.006+08:00

There are some movies out there that just need sequels. They deserve sequels and crave sequels and can't exist as just one movie. They need closure and continuation. Imagine if Spider-Man or Iron Man or Batman Begins or Matrix Reloaded or POTC: Dead Man's Chest didn't have sequels (some of which are being made as I type this). How boring would that be, huh?

But then there are movies that don't need sequels. Not only do they not demand sequels, they shouldn't and cannot have sequels. Or even prequels, for that matter. I'm talking about movies like '300'. For those of you who haven't watched '300', please do. It's a beautiful movie and I don't mean Titanic beautiful...I'm talkin' hack and slash, visually stunning, epic beautiful. None of that mushy stuff. But as great as '300' is, it doesn't need a sequel, prequel, spin-off, TV series...nothing! It's absolutely fine the way it is and that's with just one single movie. Just one '300'. Just 2-hours of sweet blades and spears and 10,000 ways to effin' slash a sonoffab***h in half. That's '300'.

But hey, Hollywood is Hollywood and money is money so...why not make a sequel and possibly damage an awesome movie, right? There's been a lot of talk lately about a 300 sequel / prequel and needless to say, Zack Snyder as the director would be inevitable. According to the producers and Snyder himself, they've thrown some ideas around and Frank Miller is interested in penning the graphic novel as an addition to '300'. Zack says that he wouldn't direct if Miller isn't writing the graphic novel. Once that is done, the movie will be based on it. So while this seems pretty much as if the producers respect the integrity of the film, I'm still baffled as to how they're even gonna' churn a story out of this. Despite '300' literally rewriting the historical events that it was originally based on, it still is a period piece...so what more can be done there? The war afterwards? Or a story on how King Leonidas came to be the king of Sparta? His past wars, maybe? While the movie may turn out to be as stunning as '300', it's still a very unnecessary project. There's really no need for this!

When asked about reprising his role as Leonidas, Gerard Butler said that he doesn't see this project working out too well and would be skeptical about reprising the role. Finally, a dose of common sense! Gerard Butler is the man!

Speed Racer (2008) | REVIEW

2008-10-08T20:38:00.004+08:00

I was one of the many, many people who deliberately missed Speed Racer in cinemas because of other huge summer blockbusters that were being screened at the time. I managed to get my hands on the DVD a couple of weeks ago and what I saw thereafter amazed me! I honestly regret not watching Speed Racer in a theater and on a bigger screen because it's a beautiful movie. It's a pile of fun, there's all the elements of the age-old TV show, and the effects just blend in so well. I enjoyed the movie so much that it makes me feel bad for the Wachowskis due to the fact that Speed didn't grab as much as it should have in terms of boxoffice revenue.

This Flick Is About...(NO SPOILERS)
---------------------------------------------
Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch) is an 18-year-old whose life and love has always been racing. Racing is "in his blood": his parents, Pops (John Goodman) and Mom (Susan Sarandon), run an independent business building race cars; and his older brother, record-setting racer Rex Racer (Scott Porter), was killed in Speed's childhood in the running of the Casa Cristo, an incredibly intense cross-country racing rally notorious for rough and foul play. Before his death, Rex was rejected by his father for his choice to run the Casa Cristo, and publicly defamed for appearing to cheat underhandedly in a race. Now, Speed Racer is quickly sweeping the racing world with his artistic skill, driving the Mach 5 of his father's design, but remains interested only in the art of the race and the well-being of his family. Trouble brews when an acclaimed businessman named Royalton offers Speed a place in his multi-billion dollar racing league.
----------------------------------------------

Let me begin by saying that I was never a fan of the Speed Racer anime TV series. In fact I was never interested in this movie from the beginning thus the decision to let it pass in cinemas. But having watched the movie I can now understand why the series holds a cult following and although I know the movie deviates a lot from the cartoon, the essence is the same and I'm guessing a lot of fans were at least pleased by what the Wachowski brothers brought to the big screen. The movie has been described as 'cotton candy' because of its colors and special effects, and I agree with the term...which is not necessarily a bad thing. We've grown so accustomed to heavy plots and gritty drama that we sometimes tend to forget what movies were designed for in the first place; fun! And Speed Racer offers a bundle of fun for those willing to temporarily let go of logic, science and whatnot and just sit back, relax, and have a good time. That being said, Speed Racer was (though lighthearted) too technical for its own good. The Wachowskis try too hard to implement complicated storylines into a movie that doesn't demand it. There's too much talk about stocks, shares, industrial market values and how racing influences the growth of companies, so much so that the plot could get confusing at times. In that respect, don't take the movie too lightly and pay a little attention to the details when watching.

While some people didn't appreciate the way Speed Racer was shot which was almost completely in front of a greenscreen, therefore allowing the cartoonish effects, I simply adored it. To me it just sinks it so well with the film and turns Speed Racer into pure eye-candy. It's gaudily colorful on purpose and it creates an alternate world in which Speed and the rest of the gang live in, making the flick even more fun than if it were set in an ordinary world. The colors are vibrant and the race scenes are brilliantly done to show the velocity in which the Mark 5 travels. For those of you who own a Blu-Ray player, please take advantage of the way this movie portrays itself and watch Speed Racer in full-fledged HD; even if you end up hating the movie you'll probably love the visuals.

Speed Racer doesn't boast a stellar cast or any Oscar-worthy performances, it just brings a number of good actors together to form a family-friendly movie. Seeing Christina Ricci as a lighter character was like a breath of fresh air; she's always the brooding emotionally-tormented girl who earns the audience's sympathy in the end. This time she's just an average girl in a cartoon-like world. Matthew Fox does a great job as Racer X and Warner couldn't have asked for a better Speed than Emile. Susan Sarandon and John Goodman play perfect parents, so at least there's no bad acting in this film.

On a whole Speed Racer is a very enjoyable movie if you're a person who is able to let go of what we call 'science and logic', for as long as the film lasts. Try not to think about the physics of things and don't ponder too deep into the depth of storytelling. This flick is best enjoyed when you're able to bring out the kid inside of you. And frankly, you'll enjoy a lot more movies that way.

Unfortunately, Speed Racer's worldwide gross didn't even reach its estimated budget of about $120million. It still baffles me as to why the studios decided to release Speed Racer in the midst of blockbusters like Iron Man and Indiana Jones 4, knowing all too well what happened to Superman Returns when they gambled their fate on 'the fanboys' who were suppoed to flock into cinemas to watch the Man Of Steel fly again. Speed Racer and Superman do have a fan following and are icons in their respective genres, but characters like these are often labeled 'boyscouts' and they don't seem to garner much attention these days. A Christmas release or an early 2009 release would've fetched the film the revenue that it rightfully deserves. It was bad marketing plus stiff competition that eventually led to Speed Racer being deemed a major flop at the boxoffice, speeding out as soon as it sped in.

For those of you who haven't watched this yet, please do because it's 2+hours of lighthearted fun that has nice acting, a good storyline, and beautiful visuals. I'll definitely give Speed Racer a second watch whenever I'm free because it's worth the time. It's probably not going to win any awards but who cares, right? A good time at the movies is all we need and is all that matters anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : I give Speed Racer 3.8 out of 5.0. I would've given it a higher rating if it didn't complicate the plot. Not that I don't like a good storyline, but sometimes things are better kept simple. Speed Racer is a movie that I would absolutely love to see a sequel to.

Pathology (2008) | REVIEW

2008-10-03T23:39:00.004+08:00

In my previous review I stated that Doomsday was gory beyond belief, which I now humbly take back. Pathology makes Doomsday's level of gore look somewhat mediocre and puts the word 'nauseating' on an all-new level. I decided to watch Pathology after hearing a positive word or two about it, saying the movie was chilling and a 'real thriller'. In my opinion whoever said it was 'chilling' clearly didn't understand the meaning of the word because 'disgusting' or 'repulsive' or 'vomit-inducing' would be all the more befitting. I've stated this before and I'll state it again; I like horror movies that respect the genre as an art, but I don't like movies that merely use blood and severed limbs to cause a scare or two during the course of the film. It's relatively easy to affect a person using excessive amounts of blood. Real horror isn't easy.

This Flick Is About...
------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of medical residents studying pathology devise a deadly game: to see which one of them can commit the perfect murder. When med school student Ted Grey (Milo Ventimiglia) graduates top of his class he joins one of the nation’s most prestigious Pathology programs. With talent and determination, Ted is quickly noticed by the program’s privileged and elite band of pathology interns who invite him into their crowd. Intrigued by his new friends he begins to uncover secrets he never expected and finds that he has unknowingly become a pawn in their dangerous and secret after-hours game at the morgue of who can commit the perfect undetectable murder. As Ted becomes seduced into their wild extracurricular activities the danger becomes real and he must stay one step ahead of the game before he is the next victim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

As always, it's a pretty decent plot that just doesn't form well on screen. I'm not sure what director Marc Schoelermann was trying to achieve when he made Pathology but it sure as hell wasn't intended to get people more accustomed with doctors or anyone remotely involved with the med business. What disappointed me was the fact that I expected something innovative from this film. I liked the plot and the fact that it didn't involve an army of undead people hunting down innocent med students in a locked-up facility. That would be the norm. I admired the fact that in this rare case, the bodies stay dead and the students are the ones who are up to no good. Unfortunately for me though, I started hating the film halfway into it. I hated the direction the story was taking and the overdose of dead bodies that were being gruesomely dissected for no apparent reason. A large chunk of the movie merely incorporates useless scenes of mashed internal organs and bloated brains that ooze out of half-naked people on a table. No, it's not funny and it's not amusing. Pathology sets a sense of discomfort within you and one main cause for that is the fact that you just can't bring yourself to eat or drink anything during the course of the movie. And that sucks, seriously! Popcorn, snacks, and drinks are a part of the moviegoing experience. *sigh* Maybe I should've anticipated stuff like this...seeing as it is called Pathology for a reason, right?

Another thing this movie goes a lil' overboard with is the sex. Yes, sex is a part of Hollywood and nearly all movies have some part of it embedded in them. This one has a lil' too much of it, and though I'm no boyscout myself, I know when a movie is trying to push itself via an overload of nudity. And this one has a boatload! But are they all hot? Nope. Just to clear things up; corpses are not hot or sexy no matter how nude they are. Severed people are not hot either. Alyssa Milano and Lauren Lee Smith are hot, yes, but the amount of scenes of them having sex with their respective partners were enough to lengthen the flick by a bit. Like I said, I'm no boyscout to complain about the purity of film but when there's obviously way more nudity than is needed it gets annoying. Making a good horror film is difficult to do. Making an ordinary horror show with lots of barenaked ladies is easy to do and puts money in the bank. It works, but it's not something I'd like to admire.

I think the only aspect of Pathology that got my attention is Michael Weston who plays Dr. Jake Gallo, the main villain in this movie. Then again, there really isn't a good guy in Pathology which is also a downside because you don't actually root for anyone; which is boring and messes with your sense of direction during a film. You always need someone to root for; be it a bad guy, a good guy, or an anti-hero. Back to Michael Weston. He does a good job at being bad so I guess kudos should go to him. The guy comes off as a mentally-f***ed psycho really well. And yeah, the soundtrack's pretty decent since it helps with getting the depressing mood of the film going. That's plus-point number two.

Put the whole picture together and I'd say you're better off skipping Pathology. And yes, for those of you who are easily nauseated by blood, take a step back and go watch something else. I'm not against gore in a movie but when there's way too much of it even though the scene doesn't require such a thing then it gets irritating. Sure, it's called Pathology and bodies are what make the title possible but c'mon...there are more creative ways to make a horror movie about pathology-related stuff than to show the audience one too many scenes of internal organs being brutalized! The flick is highly disturbing and will haunt your memory for some time...these aren't easy scenes to forget.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Pathology gets a 1.2 out of 5.0 because to me, it's a story that could've been finished in less than an hour yet it drags itself longer by adding sex and unnecessary gore. There's very little story and I still don't understand what the movie was trying to prove, making it something I find ineffective and downright boring. Not to mention I can't get a bunch of these images outta' my head! Damnit! So my advice is if you haven't watched this flick, there's no real need to do so at all.

God Of War Is Doomed!

2008-10-01T13:56:00.003+08:00

It looks like my favorite videogame series of all time has been doomed to become a PG-13 insult of an adaptation on the big screen. Brett Ratner, the man who royally f*cked the X-Men franchise up the @$$, has confirmed his involvement with the God Of War movie. I literally yelled out a dozen 'No!s' when I read the news this morning and it was the equivalent of having your lil' hopes taken out of you and then having them stepped on, spat on, and puked on. Brett Ratner is that bad; I have no liking for the man nor would I care if for some reason he never made another movie ever again. Which I doubt will ever happen since the pr*ck loves to poke his nose into everything that's good in this world. By the way, this news comes from UGO. Brett hasn't confirmed his spot in the director's seat but he could be producing...all the same for me.

I don't understand how Sony would even allow someone like Ratner to take one of their most prized possessions and literally turn it into garbage. What calibre does Ratner have to begin with? What has he done so far that proves himself as an acclaimed filmmaker even? Rush Hour movies? Red Dragon? Music videos? For Mariah Carey?! Seriously? You need someone like Zack Snyder / Ridley Scott / Peter Jackson / Darren Aronofsky...someone who can visualize the size and proportion of ancient Greece and bring those breathtaking visuals to the big screen. That's calibre! That takes imagination.

The reason I adore the God Of War series is simply because it's epic in its own form. As CNN quoted "God Of War reminds us why we play videogames in the first place." And it's true. The game is story-driven, there's heavy Greek mythology involved, the hero is in fact an anti-hero who is a complete badass. He's a no-bullsh*t hack n' slash rugged to the core sonoffab*tch. There are Gods and Titans and epic battles with some of mythology's most horrid beasts. What more could a Lord Of The Rings-esque movie need?

*sigh* I guess I'll just have to play the third and final game in all its glory and then watch the franchise get raped on screen. What had the potential to turn into an epic, 10-hour long trilogy will now be nothing more than a PG-13, mediocre, brainless action flick with intentional and lots of unintentional humor, a sinfully sexy lady sidekick / love interest, and a Kratos who cracks witty jokes while trying to come off as badass. Ratner will have some hack who knows nothing about acting to portray Kratos, someone like Nathan Jones or Vin effin' Diesel, while the other characters will be played by former sitcom / TV series actors. The female lead's shoes will be filled by someone who looks like Mariah Carey if not Mariah herself. The DVD will have deleted scenes that make absolutely no sense at all and then he'll churn out a sequel that reeks of even more horsesh*t.

For those of you who don't know, God Of War tells the tale of Kratos, a former Spartan warrior and captain who pledged his allegiance to Ares in return for victory at war. Kratos' path turns into a vengeful one when he is tricked by Ares into slaying his own family. He then vows to destroy Ares and eventually bring all of Olympus down with him.

Thank you, Mr.Ratner, for being a jackass.

More Cap'n Jack Sparrow!

2008-09-29T17:00:00.001+08:00

Yeah, it's true. Johnny Depp has officially signed the papers and will reprise his role yet again as the eccentric Captain Jack Sparrow in what is now being called Pirates Of The Caribbean 4 : Milking The Cash Cow.

There's no official title yet, no word from director Gore Verbinski, and there's a major possibility that Kiera 'I won't wear corsets' Knightly will NOT be coming back this time around...which also means that there's no use for Orlando Bloom @ William Turner anymore. But, in any event, Pirates 4 is sailing ahead and I'm pretty sure principal photography isn't very far away. Johnny Depp once said that despite his love for Jack Sparrow, he wouldn't want to return for a fourth installment or a spin-off because it would stereotype him. I guess the character made more of an impact than he had imagined, for Disney and Jerry Bruckheimer must have unloaded so much cash into his bank that Depp will now be able to purchase his very own private island somewhere in the Caribbean.

Oh wait, he already did that months ago....*sigh*

There's a lot of skeptical feelings regarding a fourth installment and rightfully so. After At Worlds End failed by a couple of inches to deliver what was promised, I guess fans feel that a trilogy is all the franchise needs. Me? I honestly wouldn't mind another Pirates flick! Something tells me the fourth installment will be much better than the third, and I'm sensing a fifth episode will inevitably ensue afterwards.

Doomsday (2008) | REVIEW

2008-09-28T00:01:00.008+08:00

Woah...long time no update. I know. Same ol' excuse; I've been extremely busy. Anyway, I checked out the unrated version of Doomsday yesterday and decided that I have to review this flick one way or the other; it's just too damn bad to let pass! I know there are people out there who probably enjoyed the film but in all honesty, 30minutes into the movie and I began hating it! Before I go on...

This Flick Is About......
-------------------------------------------------------
Doomsday is a 2008 British science fiction action film written and directed by Neil Marshall. The film takes place in the future, where Scotland has been quarantined due to the onset of a deadly virus. When the virus emerges in London, political leaders send Major Eden Sinclair (Rhona Mitra) to Scotland to find a cure based on evidence of survivors. Sinclair and her team run into two groups of survivors, marauders and medieval warriors. This is obviously where Sinclair's mission gets tough as she has to overcome the odds that are stacked against her and derive a cure out of all the madness that has blanketed Scotland!
--------------------------------------------------------

That synopsis rocks, to say the least. It makes for a very enjoyable movie based on a specific theme with its own twists and turns. Sure, movies set during post-apocalyptic events are a dime a dozen in Hollywood and the genre itself has become somewhat of a shortcut for directors hellbent on making a mainstream breakthrough, but who doesn't enjoy a good flick based on the sort of plot described above? End Of Days? I Am Legend? Mad Max? Yeah they all have their downsides but they all make for excellent popcorn movies to say the least. Doomsday could've been in the 'enjoyable popcorn movie' league, but instead they decided to fall under the 'gritty, gruesome, and pointlessly gory' category for some reason. Let me elaborate.

See, in my opinion, there's horror / gore / disgusting-ness with a concept and then there's the type that makes no sense at all. While Doomsday markets itself as a unique take on the post-apocalyptic scenario, it falls short in every single way possible. It doesn't deliver, it doesn't entertain as much as it disgusts the audience, and it doesn't portray itself as a relatively different sort of movie. It comes off as a B-grade no- brainer that initially had the potential of being something special. The posters were good, the marketing was done well, and for some reason Europe seems more believable as a nation hit by Armageddon so Doomsday has all the right ingredients. Europe, the apocalypse, bad guys, and a hot chick. So why did it fail? Because there was a good theme, a nice plot, a solid concept, but horrible execution. What could've been pulled off in 15minutes was dragged to form a near-2 hour mesh-up of disturbingly gory scenes. It's actually hard to eat anything while watching this film. Is it really that repulsive, you might ask. Well, yeah! Without spoiling anything, I'm gonna elaborate on a single scene from Doomsday which will give you an idea of what I'm talking about. In this scene, a bunch of people fry a man, set him on their table, start to slice his crispy lil' self up and then begin having him for dinner. Want me to repeat that? Yeah, they fry the guy and then begin eating him. Unless you're Hannibal Lecter (who'd probably have an eruptive orgasm if he read what I just had to say / watched the movie), this is just way more disturbing than Doomsday should have been.

I'm not against extremely horrific films. But like I said, there's gore based on concept and then there's just pointless blood and severed limbs. I loved 300 and that had violence from start till finish. It had severed limbs...but ones that were necessary to the film. What kind of a war epic doesn't have severed limbs? What is this, a pillow fight? So in 300, gore and violence and flying heads were expected and accepted. They didn't overdo it, either. As demented as this may sound, the brutality in 300 is art in its own form. It's perfectly balanced. The same goes for movies like Saw or Hostel or something that tells you straight off that you should expect eyes popping out of sockets, knee caps getting crushed by sledgehammers, and nude chicks getting stabbed in the shower so many times that it isn't funny or sexy anymore. Doomsday, however, is marketed as something with more action and kickass violence. Instead, it just pulls through with so much unnecessary blood and so many brutalized bodies that it gets annoying and boring. Where are the cool fight scenes? Where are the awesome weapons that nuke the ugly bad guys? Where's the logic for Pete's sake? I guess in an effort to create a cult-following director Neil Marshall gave his film an overdose of needless puke-inducing scenes which eventually killed the movie overall.

Does the film has any good sides? I like Rhona Mitra, that's one good thing. I like the concept behind the film and the basic idea of it. And I like the consistency of grittiness. But take note, none of these simple positive pointers will save any part of the film. The acting is mediocre and the soundtrack isn't anything beyond the ordinary. Rhona Mitra tries to pull off the 'Selena (Underworld)' look too much that it eventually becomes embarrassingly obvious.

Leave it to me and I'd say you're better off not watching Doomsday. But since that's just my take on things, you know how to watch it without having to waste any money. To me, it isn't worth the time and it doesn't live up to expectations if there actually were any in the first place. Doomsday could've been something big, something special, but it ends up being a montage of uselessly bloodbath-ish scenes that seriously get on your nerves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Doomsday gets a 1.0 out of 5.0. Why not lower? Because despite all its flaws it had (like I said) a concept to it and hey, at least Rhona Mitra tried. Miss this and you are missing absolutely nothing, people.

Why So Serious?

2008-09-13T01:10:00.003+08:00

I know, I know...I haven't posted anything new for a really long time now, and it's not because I don't want to. There's a whole pile of movies that I wanna' review and talk about. But sadly, something got in the way.

I've had these weird symptoms lately and decided to see a doctor about it. The man couldn't help me, said he hadn't seen anything of the sort. He referred me to a psychiatrist and that's where the news broke. The big news.

Yes, folks...it's true. I have been diagnosed with a severe case of Battinuous Obsessiculos. In simpler terms it means I'm suffering from 'Severe Dark Knight Obsession'. *weep weep*. Sorry. It's all a bit too emotional. I've been unable to update the blog ever since, but no worries, I will find a way to review flicks once again. I will triumph! Soon. The doc also told me that I'm not the first to be diagnosed. There's been a massive, worldwide outbreak ever since July 18 2008. That date rings a bell for some reason. Symptoms include [1] searching for Batman 3 related news once every 2 hours [2] talking about TDK at least a dozen times during the day, probably half a dozen times in my sleep [3] not getting hyped about Wolverine despite the leaked footage being coated in coolness [4] awaiting The Watchmen, but awaiting the Dark Knight DVD even more [5] Unable to stop watching TDK in theaters even though other potentially nice movies are being screened.

A vaccine hasn't been found yet, but they say the symptoms may ware off within a couple of months. It will surface once again when the third Batman comes out, though. *Sigh* Oh well, that's life for ya'. Gotta' just take it like a man. Unless you're a girl. Then...you'll just take it like a girl...I guess.

P.S : The Dark Knight is being re-released in January 2009, just in time for Oscar nomination season. Warner just wants people to remember TDK when voting. Yeah 'cause, it's such a small movie that people could easily forget, right? Plus, they're looking to make a lil' more cash outta' it. Poor fellas. All that effort put into a movie and what did they get back? A measly $500million in the United States alone. $920million worldwide. That ain't nothin', right? Peanuts. Hopefully more people will give this relatively-unknown movie a chance and hopefully TDK makes more money...since Nolan's practically homeless now. Poor guy.

The Brown Bunny (2003) | REVIEW

2008-08-27T14:31:00.004+08:00

I like independent flicks despite the common belief that they're boring and monotonous. Not all of them are. But when they decide to be, then they go all out, full-fledged, and will make sure that they bore the life outta' you. The Brown Bunny is beyond monotonous. It's slower than the speed of a sedan being pushed by a 5-year old kid. And it's heavy. If you're going to watch The Brown Bunny, I suggest you do it on a completely free day because if you're busy and have someplace else to go, you won't make it 30minutes into the movie. Be warned. This is not your regular dose of boredom. Nope, this is something else.

You're probably getting the notion that I hate this small project by director Vincent Gallo who also plays the lead in The Brown Bunny. I don't. I kinda' like it. I made myself free one day and decided to watch this thing just to see what it was all about. The story never picks up, the acting never changes, and the emotion of this film is sandbagged, heavy, and depressing. There is very little dialogue throughout and no uber-fantastic shots and camera angles. It's just a very straight, very direct approach at the independent market that doesn't rely much on fancy camerawork or experimental shots, so don't expect any. The Brown Bunny doesn't even reflect the modern, hyperactive side of the American lifestyle. It portrays a sort of laid back, dull version of an America that we hardly ever see portrayed on film.

This Movie Is About...
_________________________________________
Bud Clay (Vincent Gallo), a motorcycle racer, undertakes a cross-country drive, following a race in New Hampshire, in order to participate in a race in California. All the while he is haunted by memories of his former lover, Daisy (Chloë Sevigny). On his journey he meets three different women, but is unable to form an emotional connection with any of them.
_________________________________________

A very short synopsis, yes, but that's basically all what The Brown Bunny is about. There is, of course, one other thing that Vincent Gallo's film is known for, and it's probably the only reason why this movie received more publicity than it should have, and that's the controversial fellatio scene between Chloë Sevigny and Vincent Gallo. In more sophisticated terms for those of you who only know porn-slang, there's a scene in The Brown Bunny where Vincent Gallo actually receives a blowjob on camera. Not on the camera, I mean it was recorded on film. Now I've got your attention, haven't I? I'm pretty sure I know what's next in line on your *cough* Ares or *ah-choo* Limewire list of movies. ;)

Of course, Chloë Sevigny became a controversial figure in Hollywood after accepting to literally blow Gallo on film, but she's still an actor and I'm guessing she did receive some pats on the back for being the daring type. It's confusing, really. You can have unlimited amounts of sex scenes in a film despite it not being a porno, you can hint at all sorts of positions, but someones shunned in the same industry when she decides to take things further? Maybe it's because the film suddenly looked too pornographic to be a independent gig that was filmed at Cannes. Also, said scene is probably the reason why Kristen Dunst and Winona Ryder dropped out of the project for seemingly 'unknown reasons'. Speaking of Cannes, it's a well-known fact that Vincent Gallo and megacritic Roger Ebert had a bitter fallout after Ebert's negative comments on The Brown Bunny. And trust me, the rivalry was effin' hilarious. Here's how it goes:

A war of words then erupted between Gallo and film critic Roger Ebert, with Ebert writing that The Brown Bunny was the worst film in the history of Cannes, and Gallo retorting by calling Ebert a "fat pig with the physique of a slave trader." Ebert then responded, paraphrasing a statement attributed to Winston Churchill, that "one day I will be thin, but Vincent Gallo will always be the director of The Brown Bunny." Gallo then claimed to have put a hex on Ebert's colon, cursing the critic with cancer. Ebert then replied that enduring his colonoscopy would be more entertaining than watching The Brown Bunny. Gallo subsequently stated that he had been misquoted, and that the hex had actually been placed on Ebert's prostate, and that the whole thing had been meant as a joke which was misinterpreted by a reviewer.

Of course, the two made peace afterwards when Gallo re-edited the film and screened it again, this time earning Ebert's respect and praise.

The Brown Bunny is a very different kind of movie, meant only for those who are willing to sit through it till the end. It has a very depressing nature, very slow pace, little dialogue, and a disturbing, haunting conclusion. Like most indy flicks, its response were at extreme ends. Some love it, some hate it, and there are little to none in the middle category. As far as acting goes, kudos go out to Chloë Sevigny because in my opinion, she's the one who really does the acting in this movie. Watch it if you're into independent filmmaking or if you don't mind indulging in different genres for the sake of knowledge. Otherwise, you will not enjoy The Brown Bunny one damn bit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : The Brown Bunny gets a 3.2 out of 5.0. It isn't very entertaining, but Gallo had put a lot of effort into his lil' project. Not having special effects and camera tricks may seem all too easy, but it is in fact harder to do because you're not allowed or don't have the budget to rely on technology to save your @$$ when in a tight spot. Taking all that into account, The Brown Bunny is worth a peek.

P.S : In Richard Schickel's documentary Welcome to Cannes, there is mention of a rumor launched during the Cannes Film Festival by French filmmaker Claire Denis, who directed Trouble Every Day, a movie featuring Vincent Gallo. According to Denis, the penis appearing on the infamous fellatio scene is a prosthetic stolen from the set of Trouble Every Day. So the next time you see a porno and say "Damn that's huge!", think again. In this business, porno or not, filmmakers always have ways to make you see what they want you to see.

One Missed Call (2008) | REVIEW

2008-08-25T23:44:00.004+08:00

Okay before I review this piece I'm gonna' go out and say that I'm not a huge fan of the horror-genre. I'm the picky type that enjoys a certain type of horror upon the various others. I like thrillers mostly. But every once in a while I like to indulge in a pure, bloody, horror-fest just to see what scariness in Hollywood means these days; just to update myself on how far a director can take his horrific visons and to what lengths he's willing to go to frighten the daylights outta' the audience. Apparently directors don't try very much these days as I was incredibly disappointed by what One Missed Call had to offer a couple of rainy nights ago. I had the perfect setting for a horror flick; midnight, no lights, rain outside, a bag of chips, and brother and a cousin. I did my part, but I guess whoever made One Missed Call forgot to bring the horror along, so we were left there like a bunch of idiots yawning and droopy-eyed, waiting for the flick to come to an end.

This Movie Is About...
_____________________________________
One Missed Call is the 2008 American remake of the Japanese film Chakushin Ari. Elizabeth Raymond (Shannyn Sossamon) is terrified by the deaths of four friends, three of which she personally witnessed, after they received chilling phone calls apparently from themselves in the future, showing the exact time of their deaths. After every death, a small red candy is found in the victim's mouth. Beth reports these strange occurrences to the police; however, they think she is delirious. Detective Jack Andrews (Edward Burns), however, believes her, stating that his sister died in a similar way. Together, they begin to unravel the mystery of the chain of calls, but are unsure if they can figure it out before Beth's phone starts to ring the same eerie tune.
_____________________________________

I admit, getting eerie voice messages that tell you the exact time of your impending doom is freaky. The basis for this story is somewhat acceptable. It would have made for a good film. I haven't watched the Japanese version but I can boldly state that it would have been way better than the American remake. Hollywood should just stop with these damn Japanese remakes and conjure their own horror. Hey, SAW worked fine and is still spawning sequels, Hostel seems to be doing great with its fans, and although I'm not a fan of either series, I'm certain they do a better job at scaring people than One Missed Call did. Let me start dissecting this flick piece by piece just so that I can tell you how bad it really is. Before that, a little bit about the movie's tagline...

One of the taglines for One Missed Call is 'When the call goes straight to voicemail, your world goes straight to hell.'

Seriously? I mean c'mon ...I've seen horrible taglines but this just kicks them all in the crotch! I'm still not sure if whoever the f*ck wrote this sh*t down meant for it to be a joke or really thought it was an intelligent tagline. It looks like something Ben Stiller would use for a nutty comedy movie which would eventually tank at the box-office. Get someone with an imagination to write a tagline next time! A tagline is a vital marketing asset, it's what people remember when they look at a poster, and it's supposed to create an interest inside their heads. Imagine if the tagline for Superman Returns read "When Superman flies, you can feel the wind blow in your face." People wouldn't watch a movie that said that...heck they'd hate the movie even before watching it if it had a tagline of that sort. See what I mean? What kind of a douchebag wrote that tagline down? Sheesh....

On to the acting. Being brutally frank, I haven't seen more straight-faced people ever in one movie. The actors in One Missed Call are intensely lame. Elizabeth is the name of the main character and she sees her friends die after receiving eerie messages of themselves on their cellphones. Watch the flick and you'll see that she shows no signs of trauma, sadness, or restlessness whatsoever. It's annoying to see someone behave so f*ckin' stiff when in reality they'd be suffering from intense hysteria! And it's not only her, by the way. The entire boatload of actors in this project are so bad at acting that you get the notion that they'd rather be someplace else. You get the feeling of detachment from the movie which causes you to not give a damn about the characters. Imagine if you hated every single character in a movie. Would you give a crap if they died? Nope. The same applies here. The story is mediocre, the horror is cheap, and the execution of the entire film is very amateurish.

With all that being said, there are but a few scary instances in One Missed Call. They're not worth watching the movie for, but they deliver a fright or two. Which brings me to the part of 'cheap horror'. It has become a popular trend these days for directors to just use hideous faces and ghoulish figures to inject fear into people and frighten them a little during a movie. They use CGI to tweak with movements of characters and the way their body suddenly juts or shudders when they walk, giving them an abnormal strut that makes them look scary or chilling. It does the job, but it's the equivalent of taking the easy way out. It's simple to get an audience to shut their eyes at the sight of a moving corpse, or bite their fingernails when a hideous creature leaps towards the hero. It's relatively easy to create a cliffhanger ending just so the audience could chatter about it after leaving the theater hall. People fail to realize that horror, like every other film genre, is an artform. It has a science to it, and an art even. It needs to be taken seriously in order for it to be wholesome, as grisly as that sounds. People like Wes Craven and Alfred Hitchcock understood that art and delivered stunning horror masterpieces that remain as benchmarks today. One Missed Call will be forgotten as soon as the next day, or after a week at most. Horror flicks seem to be the target of unknown directors eager to break into the business because it's easy to scare an audience. It's movies like these that have damaged the genre and have taken a large number of people away from it.

The only good thing about One Missed Call is its poster. That creepy poster alone gives me more chills than the entire movie. Oh, and just so you know, One Missed Call wasn't screened for critics and the press beforehand. I guess even the studios knew that this movie was gonna' bomb big at the box-office!

There's nothing much to say about One Missed Call other than it's a waste of time and money. It scares you using creepy-looking things and hideous faces, but there's nothing much to use your brain for during the movie. The story is slow, mostly boring, while the acting doesn't help the film's already suffering existence one bit. Other than one or two genuine frights and bumps, this movie is passable as a flick that does not have to be seen by anyone who knows what a good movie is. There's a whole island of good horror films out there to choose from, and unfortunately for One Missed Call, it forgot to get off the boat on that island. It's just sailing off to Boringland. Don't bother about this flick. It isn't worth your time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : One Missed Call gets a 0.2 out of 5.0 for the rare scares that it has in offer and for at least having an eerie-looking poster!

Batman 3 Fan Art....Amazing Stuff!

2008-08-23T02:29:00.004+08:00

Okay a very quick update and I'm off to finish my stuff again. I just had to post this. This person on devianArt has been illustrating posters for quite some time and ever since he put up his latest works of art that unofficially relate to the inevitable third Batman flick, sites like JoBlo and Slashfilm have picked up his work and in return have sent him shiploads of traffic. Sure, there are some flaws here and there but this dude's got some serious talent! I practically work on Photoshop every day and yet have not a clue on how he conjured-up these posters! Effin' realistic stuff. The third Batman film is supposedly called 'Gotham City'...which in my opinion would blow because it reminds me of that retarded R.Kelly song from the Batman & Robin (*ugh*) soundtrack. Don't remember that one? Let me torture your senses a bit. Here are the lyrics : "City of justice *yeah*, city of love. City of peace, for every one of us...'cause we all need it *uh* can't live without it...Gotham City, *oh yeah*."

City of justice, love, AND peace? Is he singing about a different Gotham City? That corny sonoffab*tch.

Anyway, click HERE to see a lot more of his work including posters featuring The Riddler, some Wonder Woman art, and even 'The Dark Knightress'(?). Oh, and there's this one shot with Batman and Catwoman together which looks completely awesome! Oh...I do disagree on The Riddler casting though. In Nolan's world, nobody looks that simple or that true to the comics. Call me cliche', but Johnny Depp would be my pick for a Riddler. The man would totally own the role. Plus, should a third installment happen, you need someone who can make a villain top The Joker...and we all know that's gonna' be harder than getting to the top of Mt.Everest. Enjoy the artwork. Click HERE to see the rest.

PS : I always envisioned a Harley Quinn in Nolan's Gotham, and in all honesty, I've always wanted her to look as creepy as she does in the poster above. A guy with a slashed-up face and clown makeup is one thing...but the eerieness of a girl with the same features can send shivers down your spine! Creeeepy...

"F*ck DC Comics", says Rob Downey Jr.

2008-08-16T02:31:00.008+08:00

I'm not sure how to interpret this lil' snippet from an interview Robert Downey Jr. (RDJ) did with Moviehole, because all of it seems pretty genuine and down-to-earth until he explodes at the end bit. Here's what I'm talkin' about:

It's a well-known fact that RDJ's brain-to-mouth filter is sometimes turned off and he says things that downright offends people. If he doesn't like something, he'll just say it to one's face without having to kiss any ass. It's cool to know that people like RDJ are in the biz and still maintain their policies. It's cool. But is it still cool when you say something likewise about a certain small movie called The Dark Knight and DC Comics in general? Here's the snippet.

"My whole thing is that that I saw 'The Dark Knight'. I feel like I'm dumb because I feel like I don't get how many things that are so smart. It's like a Ferrari engine of storytelling and script writing and I'm like, 'That's not my idea of what I want to see in a movie.' I loved 'The Prestige' but didn't understand 'The Dark Knight'. Didn't get it, still can't tell you what happened in the movie, what happened to the character and in the end they need him to be a bad guy. I'm like, 'I get it. This is so high brow and so f--king smart, I clearly need a college education to understand this movie.' You know what? F-ck DC comics. That's all I have to say and that's where I'm really coming from."

Ooof, talk about sharp words! As much as I love The Dark Knight, I'm not gonna' jump to conclusions and say that RDJ is a jerk and whatnot. He's obviously not into that sorta' storytelling and that's fine. But "F*ck DC Comics"? Looks like Robbie won't be working for those guys anytime soon. It's not like he cares anyway...there's like what, five more Iron Man movies to go? What I'm coming to is that, you don't play a comic character and then say 'F*ck DC". No, that's wrong in more ways than one because like it or not, DC pioneered the superhero concept. Superman, anyone? Yeah, I hate the boyscout in blue, too, but it's well-known that had it not been for the perfect nature of Superman, imperfect superheroes wouldn't have been conjured from Marvel's side of things. And Iron Man is one of the most imperfect of them all; a multi-billionaire alcoholic playboy. Heck, he's Marvel's version of Batman for cryin' out loud! So to say "F*ck DC" would be like not giving a sh*t about where your now pop-culture-icon status character comes from.

And just to rub it in, Rob Downey may have lost some merit points among the fanboy nation for his comments. There were tons of friggin' death threats sent to the inbox of a reviewer who accused Chris Nolan of being a 'con artiste' more than a director. The Dark Knight has become so monumental that saying anything negative about it is like using racial slur in public! Heck, it's so huge that I will hereon refer to The Dark Knight only as 'The Greatness'. The Dark Kni**cough** I mean 'The Greatness' is so cool that it may very well be the second, if not highest, domestic grossing film of all time.

In other related news, The Greatness is now being researched as an effective alternative cure to many of Earth's incurable diseases. We may very well be on the verge of a universal vaccine. Fans of the film have been quoted saying that they feel immensely happy and only now realize that God truly loves them. Speaking of God, it has been said that The Greatness is in fact, a gift from up above to us humans for finally taking the effort to take care of nature. A group of people saw God form from clouds ala Mufassa in The Lion King, He smiled, winked at them and gave them the thumbs-up, eventually saying "You deserve it, fellas...here are your free passes for the IMAX screening." Oh, watching it also gives you a sure-shot seat in Heaven.

...What was this post about again? I vaguely remember something about Robert Downey Jr...hmm....

Van Helsing (2004) | REVIEW

2008-08-16T01:30:00.001+08:00

Wow, it's been a long, busy week. Apologies for the lack of reviews.

I was going through some of my old DVDs the other day and came across Van Helsing from way back in 2004, starring Hugh 'Wolverine' Jackman and Kate 'Underworld' Beckinsale. Seriously, it's weird seeing Kate in this flick after you've watched Underworld because it just feels like she's gonna' pull out those guns, rip off that medieval outfit, reveal the skintight black leather underneath, and start firing away at those flying undead b*tches! But in all seriousness, I've decided to review Van Helsing today because I enjoyed the movie to the point that I picked up the DVD and I still love it as a fun film. I'm part of a minority, I know, 'cause critics and filmbuffs had very harsh things to say about Helsing and I remember thinking to myself, "It wasn't really thaaat bad!"

This Movie Is About...
_________________________________________
The year is 1887. A monster hunter working for the secretive 'Knights Of The Holy Order', Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) is sent out on his most challenging mission ever; to face the epitome of all evil in the form of Count Dracula in the unholy land of Transylvania. But Helsing finds himself up against more than just one foe when he comes to terms with Dracula's undead brides and the Wolfman. His only allies are Carl (David Wenham), his weapons inventor, and the newly-met Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale). Anna is one of the last of the Valerious family, along with her brother, Velkan (Will Kemp). Their family has been trying to kill Dracula since their ancestor swore to God that their family would never enter heaven until Dracula was dead.
___________________________________________

Pretty decent storyline, isn't it? A lil' corny, maybe, but makes for an overall thrilling ride, doesn't it? I'm not a fan of director Stephen Sommers and I admit, I expected something grittier or at least somewhat darker in tone when I first saw the trailers for Van Helsing. Seeing as the movie was more of an action /adventure gig than a horror / thriller thing, I'm surprised I wasn't disappointed in the end. In fact, I remember walking out of the cinema feeling good about the movie. I actually wanted to watch it again and hence, the DVD. In all my times watching it, I've never been bored by the scenes or the overall length of the movie which spans a little over 120minutes. To me, Van Helsing is the kind of movie that is watchable a number of times and then some, simply because it delivers a lotta' fun and fast action scenes with a lot of adventure to it. There are battles with the wolfman, with Dracula's brides, meetings with Frankenstein, so on and so forth, and although the CGI was only decent and nothing special, it's an enjoyable ride in the end.

Speaking of CGI, let me elaborate on that a bit. When it comes to making a sci-fi horror show, there's a fine line between seeming realistic and looking obviously artificial. Some directors compromise on visual effects due to financial constraints and fail to realize that once something in a scene looks fake-ish and the audience recognizes it, the whole effect of the scene is lost and the feeling of a 'movie' comes to mind. And that's bad. If there's one thing I've learnt as a film student / editing student / moviebuff... CGI, edits, transitions, and Matchmoving work best when they are invisible to the viewers' eyes. And when I say invisible CGI I don't mean the object itself has to be transparent, but the audience must never think of how the CGI was done or notice cuts in between shots. Unfortunately for Van Helsing, the CGI is obvious if not downright bad. It's clear that more preference was given to the Wolfman because it / he looks pretty decent in the film, and I'll let Frankenstein's monster pass too, but the vampiresses and Dracula's beastly side have a very rubbery texture on them. There's no roughness ala real skin and the color could use more shading to make it blend with the real world.

What I like a lot about Van Helsing is the soundtrack. Alan Silvestri does a great job composing a sort-of medievel theme blended with the right instruments that just fits in so well with the movie. Heck, the soundtrack accounts for 30% of why I liked the movie in the first place!

When it comes to flicks like Van Helsing, nothing much can be said about the acting skills. I'm a huge fan of Hugh Jackman and he's one of the few who have taken the time and effort to study a comic character (in his case Wolverine) and then do justice for that character on screen. Jackman's great in Swordfish, The Prestige, The Fountain, and he doesn't fail to give Van Helsing his best as well. The good thing about Jackman is that you never tend to interrelate his characters. I don't know about you but I don't see Wolverine in Helsing or Helsing in Robert Angier (The Prestige). Still, I wouldn't say that Jackman gives a stellar performance in Van Helsing simply because movies like Van Helsing don't demand incredible acting skills and people like Hugh Jackman know that well enough to not overdo his roles.

If you haven't watched Van Helsing or just never cared to do so because of all the negative reviews, I assure you, it's not all that bad. Rent it out on a lazy weekend maybe. It's one of those films that don't need your full attention or concentration. It delivers a very simple storyline about good versus evil and how vampireesses always look so damn hot in their skimpy attire. Why is that, anyway? Why do filmmakers make female vampires look so hot with their cleavages and revealing outfits, when they know that people (especially men) are going to have a hard time admiring them because we all know that underneath that incredibly gorgeous bod is a hideous, bloodsucking beast that has fangs, claws, and likes to shriek! Why, damnit, why?! Also, just because I still like Van Helsing doesn't mean it doesn't have its downsides. CGI is one of them. The other is multiple uber-corny scenes. Some are just downright mediocre and ultimately cliche'. And the trio that play Dracula's brides aren't good actors. They couldn't act if their lives (no pun intended) depended on it. And to be honest, Frankenstein can get annoying sometimes because he's pathetic. No really, as in naturally, his character is pathetic. Like I said, don't set your bar too high for this flick. It's fun, enjoyable, and Van Helsing's weaponry is so effin' sweet, but if you expect too much you're gonna' end up very pissed and 130minutes-less in the end.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : I give Van Helsing a 3.1 out of 5.0. It's a very cool adventure movie that goes well on those days when you just crave something casual to watch without the depressing, heavy drama. I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel to this, but that's highly unlikely due to the poor response this flick received. *Sigh* Too bad, then. A TV series called Transylvania was planned and actually had Stephen Sommers direct six episodes before studios decided to pull the plug on production. There was also the rumor of a direct-to-DVD sequel but that rumor has been debunked as well. I'm happy for the last two statements I just made. Transylvania?! Who's bright idea was that?!

R.I.P, Bernie Mac

2008-08-09T23:29:00.003+08:00

Bernie Mac, the actor and comedian who teamed up in the casino heist caper "Ocean's Eleven" and gained a prestigious Peabody Award for his sitcom "The Bernie Mac Show," died Saturday at age 50.

The comedian suffered from sarcoidosis, an inflammatory lung disease that produces tiny lumps of cells in the body's organs, but had said the condition went into remission in 2005. He recently was hospitalized and treated for pneumonia, which his publicist said was not related to the disease.

"The majority of his core fan base will remember that when they paid their money to see Bernie Mac ... he gave them their money's worth," Steve Harvey, one of his costars in "Original Kings," told CNN on Saturday.
Mac went on to star in the hugely popular "Ocean's Eleven" franchise with Brad Pitt and George Clooney.

His turn with Ashton Kutcher in 2005's "Guess Who" topped the box office. It was a comedy remake of the classic Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn drama "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" — with Mac as the black dad who's shocked that his daughter is marrying a white man.
Mac also had starring roles in "Bad Santa," "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" and "Transformers."

Mac was born Bernard Jeffrey McCullough on Oct. 5, 1957, in Chicago. He grew up on the city's South Side, living with his mother and grandparents. His grandfather was the deacon of a Baptist church.

In his 2004 memoir, "Maybe You Never Cry Again," Mac wrote about having a poor childhood — eating bologna for dinner — and a strict, no-nonsense upbringing.
"I came from a place where there wasn't a lot of joy," Mac told the AP in 2001. "I decided to try to make other people laugh when there wasn't a lot of things to laugh about."
Mac's mother died of cancer when he was 16. In his book, Mac said she was a support for him and told him he would surprise everyone when he grew up.
"Woman believed in me," he wrote. "She believed in me long before I believed."

Rest In Peace, Bernie Mac.

Early 'Joker' Concept Art For TDK!

2008-08-09T19:58:00.004+08:00

Freaky, huh?

It's clear now that Christopher Nolan and the gang were sure from the start with the new, scarred-face look that we now see on The Joker. But wouldya' take a look at the horribly disfigured face on your left? Taken from The Art of The Dark Knight, available in all major bookstores, this is just one of the many pre-Ledger designs that made it to the semi-final stages of the film's designs. And yes, it actually made it that far. Can you imagine what it would have been like if this concept actually made it to the screen? There goes your PG-13 right there and in comes a certified 'R' for Restricted! Also, if this concept made it, I'd say there would have been a major backlash from the fans. Some would have loved it, a huge number would have wished the crew stuck to the more 'clownish' wardrobe. This early concept of The Joker would fit better into a Lionsgate horror flick...he looks more like a zombie than an actual human being.

Remember, in essence, The Joker looks like nothing more than a clown in a purple suit, and what's more fun-loving and innocent than a clown, right? That's the irony of it all. It isn't his appearance that's supposed to frighten us, it's the mental state that he's in; cold, calculating, maniacal, and capable of giving you a psychological mind-f*ck. As they say, 'evil dwells in the mind'.

To see more early designs, click HERE.

Also, if you'd like to see a better shot of The Joker without makeup and in police attire, click HERE. It's a scene from the movie. And seriously, he looks chillingly eerier without the makeup than with it on. I'm happy Nolan made the right choice with his final decision. It isn't about creating a scarier Joker, it's about staying true to the essence from the source material. Physically, in The Dark Knight, The Joker varies a great deal from the comics, but the spirit and essence of the character is the best that has ever been portrayed on screen.

Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny | REVIEW

2008-08-07T18:50:00.003+08:00

*Hehehehe*.

I still find myself chuckling over this movie. Not that it's that funny, but when you have Jack Black tackling just about any damn thing in the world there's bound to be a lot of memorably laughable stuff that follows.

Okay, here's what Tenacious D in The Pick Of Destiny is all about. It's not like it matters anyway... but just so you know.

JB (Jack Black *duhh*) leaves his highly-religious family for Hollywood with hopes of forming the world's most awesome rock band. There he bumps into acoustic guitarist KG (Kyle Gass), who is unemployed and lives off his parents. But lo' and behold...the duo find that fate has brought them together for they both bear birthmarks on their behinds that, when put together, read 'Tenacious D"! [Refer to the poster and you'll see what I mean]. Together, they set out to find The Pick Of Destiny, made from a piece of Satan's tooth, believed to be the source of supernatural radicalness that all Rock legends seem to have.

Birthmarks on their asses? Satan's tooth? Pick Of Destiny? Kyle Gass?! Guitar??! Now, tell me that isn't some completely random mumbo-jumbo sh*t! Or rather, tell me that isn't some effin' awesomeiculous random mumbo-jumbo sh*t! If you decide to watch Tenacious D, make sure you're not one of those people who looks for intelligence or compelling story arcs or subliminal messages in a film. Just say "F*ck that smartassness" and you'll have some fun, seriously. This is Tenacious D we're talking about, not The Aviator. Sometimes it's good to not expect anything from a film because only then will you be able to fully enjoy a messed up yet uber-cool flick like Tenacious D in The Pick Of Destiny. Also, don't even bother trying to make this a family film because it's not. It's not one of those cute kiddie films, either. It's not a romantic comedy by far. It's just....blehoo-hoo. I don't even know where this movie fits!

Take note, Tenacious D isn't the type of funny that makes your ribs hurt. Well, it probably would be if watched while consuming a certain herbal extract. And I'm not talking about Ginko Biloba. That's what I've heard from a bunch of people I've spoken to. But in a normal state, Tenacious D is 'rib-tickling' funny. It's random, it's silly, it's rude, crude, vulgar, and sometimes it's so effin' stupid that you can't help but laugh out loud or at least have a few chuckles. It's yet another story that revolves around Jack Black's love for Rock and Heavymetal that's bombarded with nutty humor, mixed with crazy comedy, and the result is a movie that some will absolutely love and the rest will definitely hate. It just depends on which category you fall under. If you only watch stuff that delivers a deep meaning to it ala There Will Be Blood, then Tenacious D isn't something you'd like. If you only prefer a certain kind of comedy, you probably won't find Tenacious D funny. Most people I know aren't specific enough to discard this flick and neither am I, which means I thoroughly enjoyed this movie from start to finish.

I've always found Jack Black's comedy to be really enjoyable, and since he's in this gig with Kyle Gass it's all the merrier! Jack Black's one message is that you don't have to look great to be a rockstar. You could be hairy and fat just like the dude and still headbang! At least some people find JB acceptable as an occasional rockstar, whilst never in your wildest dreams would you have imagined Kyle Gass as a 'rocker' had not you known the man. Just look at him, people! Overweight, balding, innocent-faced acoustic guitarist. And he's in a two-person band known as Tenacious D! Doesn't that completely rock, literally? It just comes to show that aaanybody can hit a chord if they wanted to. Kyle Gass rules!

There's nothing more to say about Tenacious D except that if you're looking for a fun movie to watch with your friends, your date, or a group of people who just wanna' watch something cool, find a way to get your hands on Tenacious D in The Pick Of Destiny. Expect lots of swearing, utterly baffling songs about 'stuff', Bigfoot, erections and how they can get you out of a difficult situation, d*ck references, pot, the devil himself, car chases, guitars, cameos, and a museum. Can't piece them all together? Watch Tenacious D in The Pick Of Destiny and you'll see a much clearer picture and how they all fit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Tenacious D in The Pick Of Destiny gets a 3.2 out of 5.0. Like I said, it's mostly enjoyable but it isn't really the kind of humor to get you rolling on the floor and squirting Coke outta' your nostrils. It's humorous enough to make you laugh out loud, though. I would have rated it higher since I did have a good time watching it...but there really isn't anything more to base the ratings upon. No storyline, no solid plot...nothing. Which is cool with me but y'know, it wouldn't be fair for other movies that actually took the effort to come up with a screenplay ;)

Daredevil (2003) | REVIEW

2008-08-04T17:55:00.003+08:00

I call Daredevil a complete mockery of comic books and an overall terrible film. Some of you may agree and some may not. To me, Daredevil has nothing to offer but boredom and corny scenes that you could sincerely laugh at.

A lawyer known as Matt Murdock was blinded as a child but his other four senses obtained superhuman sharpness, and he learned to perceive his surroundings by human echolocation. Now, isn't the mentioned kickass basis more than enough to spin an incredibly good film on screen? Yes? Unfortunately, Daredevil isn't an incredibly good film and quite frankly, it sucks major balls. The Director's Cut is slightly better than the theatrical release, but that doesn't justify a whole bunch of other mistakes the film had to 'offer'. When casting began, Ben Affleck seemed to be the perfect choice for Matt Murdock by day, and Daredevil by night. Oh, how wrong those casting directors were.

Daredevil starts out like any other mediocre Marvel movie back in the day; an origin story. It shows you how Matt developed his amazing ability and there's a whole boatload of corniness that tags along with it. And then on to the main course of the film blah blah blah. Now, how in the name of all that is holy did director Mark Steven Johnson and his crew pick Michael Clarke Duncan to play Kingpin? An African-American Kingpin? If this was the Green Lantern I'd understand because there are a number of Lanterns but alternate Kingpin(s), too? What's next, a Chinese Wolverine? A Mexican Batman, maybe? How about an Indian Tony Stark, fellas? I'm not being a racist, but why not try to stick to the source material just a lil' bit? This is a drastic change we're talking about! Now on to Bullseye. I, for one, was not all against Collin Farrell as Bulseye. He gave the character some realism and a nice edge, but it didn't last long. Soon you begin to wonder how much better Bullseye could have been and then Collin seems to reek as the character. Jeniffer Garner as Elektra isn't all that badass, either. She's too Alias for the role, if you know what I mean. You could pick her out of the TV series and put her in Daredevil and no one would be able to tell the difference in character. She's too soft in Daredevil and that's not who Elektra is at all. Elektra, in the comics, is a very tactful assassin and except for certain special situations, she hardly feels compassion or love for anyone or anything. Garner hardly fits the role or does the character any justice. And who can forget, Ben Affleck as the masked crimefighter himself. Other than the occasional brooding, Affleck does nothing to show the torment that his character is facing as a blind dude who has to battle injustice. It isn't easy. Not one bit. Affleck looks like he doesn't even give a sh*t about the character and probably just did it for the loads of cash since comic adaptations had already become the in-thing by 2003. I'm being brutally frank when I say he seems like a f*ckin' douchebag playing Daredevil! Stick to Hollywoodland-type stuff, you ruiner of good characters!

Some of you may label me as a person who rates a movie on an extreme level and you may say that Daredevil wasn't as bad as I condemn it to be. Hear me out when I say that Daredevil is an okay popcorn flick when it stands alone, but compare it to the source material or even imagine the endless possibilities that could have been achieved on screen and you'll see why I hate this movie. A weak Elektra, corny supervillains, and a very ordinary superhero. The movie does absolutely nothing to show-off Daredevil's athletic abilities, his speed, his agility, or even his uber-cool slickness when it comes to jumping rooftops at high velocity. I'm sorry to say this but Elektra should have been portrayed by someone like Angelina Jolie. Jeniffer Garner is hot in her own way but Elektra needs to be portrayed by a person who has an incredible sex appeal that's just overflowing, and you know what I mean when I say Angelina Jolie has a sex appeal of that magnitude.

Even when it comes to methods of filming there's nothing cool about Daredevil. I've read a whole series of the DD comics entitled Guardian Devil and you can just sense the immense potential radiating off the story arcs and the very pages of those books. The kind of shots that could have been taken and the sort of scenarios that were just begging to be let loose on the big screen were never even looked at let alone given a chance to take form. Imagine Daredevil crouched on a large crucifix atop an old church, looking down upon Hell's Kitchen (which is changed to downtown Manhattan in the movie just 'cause it had to be a f*ckin' PG-13) for evildoers. He spots one, and swings down as the camera takes a full 360degree turn around him. He uses his signature multi-purpose 'billy club' to grab onto a stone gargoyle and leaps from perch to wall to railing and then freefalls downwards, landing right beside the thief. Using just a single lash of the club, he injures the knee of the wrongdoer and, as corny as it sounds, saves the day. So maybe the scene is cliche', but the cinematography would have rocked! There was nothing of this sort in Daredevil the movie which left me extremely disappointed after the film was over. Plus, the costume looks f*ckin' retarded and is obviously too tight for Affleck, making him appear like a complete tool. If they took some time to refer to the comics they would know how to develop a costume that looked rugged and yet comfortable...not some tight spandex that looks like it belonged to a costume-party male stripper during Halloween month.

There's just one too many downsides in this flick to oversee / ignore. Sure, some nice parts here and there but overall it was (in my opinion) a disaster. Nothing feels right, the storyline is wasted beyond repair, and the character development is awful. I didn't care for the good guys, the bad guys, the dumb guys, or even the extras. It's a numb movie that leaves you wanting to see some really memorable scenes but instead there are none. Halfway through the movie you wish Ben Affleck would disappear and someone worthy of the role would step in and take it off from there. An explanation wouldn't even be necessary. Bad cinematography upon everything else and just a very bad movie. Not for the non-comic fan and an insult to people who have followed the Daredevil chronicles for oh, so long. If you haven't watched this then don't even bother. You're better off waiting for a remake which will probably be extraordinarily enjoyable since Marvel Studios seem to be doing a pretty decent job of late. Daredevil would have been a good film if it had come out in 1995 when movies like The Phantom were considered 'cool comic movies'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Daredevil gets a 2.0 out of 5.0 for offering a minimal amount of good scenes here and there and if it had not been for Bullseye, this movie would have ended up as a worse pile of whatever than it already is. Go remake this one, Marvel, it's in desperate need of a makeover!

Reign Of Fire (2002) | REVIEW

2008-08-04T00:01:00.002+08:00

I'm not sure why Reign Of Fire was bombarded by moviegoers and critics alike when it is, in fact, a very good post-apocalyptic vision of the future if said apocalypse were to be caused by fire breathing dragons. I'm going to do all I can to defend this movie because to me it wasn't just entertaining but it was also highly realistic. C'mon, how many movies have you seen over the past decade or so that doesn't feature either annoying talking dragons or annoying talking dragons that are hardly even frightening? Don't give me Dragon Wars aka War Of The Dragons as an example because the CGI in that gig isn't really all that good. Now, on to Reign Of Fire and what you should expect.

During Underground construction in London around the year 2008, a huge, hibernating dragon is discovered and springs to life, instantly incinerating all construction workers with its fiery breath. The only survivor is 12-year-old Quinn Abercromby, whose mother was chief of the construction crew. The dragon escapes, and soon thousands of them work their way through Europe and eventually the rest of the world, burning everything, feeding on the ashes, and multiplying at an exponential rate. 12 years later, in 2020, the adult Quinn (Christian Bale) runs a medieval stone castle in Northumberland, a lonely bastion of mankind, afraid of the sky and the dragons that could attack any time. Their hope is to outlast the dragons, wait until they die out again and go into hibernation. But things are not as easy at they seem and Quinn realizes that he'll have to find a way to battle the beasts instead of having to let his people starve to death due to the depleting food supplies.

Now, isn't that a kickass storyline or what? Screw that Eragon bullsh*t, this is the kind of dragon story I really like to see! Sure, the movie isn't built on a huge budget but the CGI is pretty decent and the entire feel of the movie does a pretty good job at sending a message to the audience about the type of suffering these people are going through. They could be the last remaining people of the human populace for all you know and now even they're in trouble. And you get to sense their fear of the sky and how they're always paranoid about being attacked by the horrid beasts.

When it was released back in 2002, Reign Of Fire didn't boast an all-star cast. In fact, it couldn't boast anything at all because (relatively) the only known name in the film was Matthew McConaughey, and even he isn't considered top-tier material. Just six years after its release, two of the main actors in Reign Of Fire have become pop-culture icons. Christian Bale is one of them, fondly known now as the Batman. And then there's Gerard Butler who is affectionately known as the man who made "This is SPARTA!" into one of the most popular quotes in modern Hollywood history, King Leonidas of the highly-successful 300. Being the dedicated professionals that they are, both Gerard and Christian put up a good performance in Reign Of Fire, making their characters very grounded and believable.

What I like most about Reign Of Fire is the the balanced grittiness of it. From the opening scene right up to its climax, the movie sets a very brood-ish tone that revolves around desperation and depression of mankind in the dying efforts to survive this hellish outbreak. The existence of these dragons are briefly and scientifically explained and there's no mumbo-jumbo about kiddy wizards and silly-looking goblins and kinda-scary prophecies (Not that there's anything completely wrong with any of those, I love sci-fi, but sometimes uniqueness is better). Reign Of Fire is a raw vision of what may come to be if such terrifying creatures were to be unleashed unto the world.

On to my favorite part; the dragons of course! Unlike recent designs that show dragons as decorated animals with blue eyes and shiny horns and even cyan-colored feathers, the wyvern-like beasts we see in Reign Of Fire are a number of times more frightening with their black skin and reptilian movement. They can't talk, they can't communicate with the humans, and no, there are no good dragons that suddenly fly to the rescue of Quinn and his fellow survivors. These are horrific things with minds as sharp as raptors, and senses of sight and sound that surpass any known living animal. I name these dragons the best I've seen on screen and it's scary to even wonder about the possibilities of a species such as this actually coming to life...or even coming back to life.

While it isn't a real problem for me, Reign Of Fire lacks epic-scenery action scenes. We see a few glimpses of London ablaze but that's just about all we see of the full-scale destruction that the dragons can wreak. There are, of course, more scenes with the dragons and humans battling those dragons but there's hardly any wide angles where we get to see exactly what these creatures have done to the world. Unlike what's depicted on the poster, there are no scenes of military war units fighting the dragons or even the dragons swarming in groups and setting cities on fire. That's probably why a lot of people didn't enjoy this flick. I, for one, don't care much about the mentioned downside and like the movie just as it is. Sure, it would have been cool to see said epic battles but think about this; would you rather see a huge battle scene with sh*tty CGI or tactful action scenes with good CGI? Give these guys a break. They worked with $95million and although it may seem like a lot, in Hollywood it's next to nothing in terms of paying for high-end visual effects.

I guess I'm a minority when it comes to my love for this film. It only took in a pitiful $85million at the box-office which is almost $10million short of the budget. Like I said, a pity. I'm not even sure how a poster with firebreathing dragons unleashing hell in central London couldn't pull enough people to see it! Was it the bad marketing? The bad trailer? I know this isn't Titanic by any means but c'mon...nobody went to see this movie?! It was a pretty good movie! It works well as a casual movie, as a serious movie, as a weekend movie or even a good weekday movie, even a damn lazy-day movie! It integrates good acting with a believable storyline and decent visual effects. It sets a continuous, gritty theme from start to finish and is fulfilling and entertaining. What more could you want from a flick? It's weird that stuff like Eragon gets a whopping amount of cash despite using leftovers from the Lord Of The Rings set but movies like these that portray uber-realistic dragons make nothing but peanuts. *Sigh* Anyway, give this thing a chance. Go watch it and I'm sure you'll find it to be a good use of your free time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Reign Of Fire scores a 3.8 put of 5.0. It would have done way better if a lil' more epic-ness was embedded into it but still, I love the movie the way it is. Good stuff, good stuff.

P.S : It was this movie that made me recognize Christian Bale as an actor with a certain quality to his methods and although I had mixed reactions when I heard the news way back in late 2003 that Bale would play Bruce Wayne in the then-upcoming Batman Begins / Batman 5 / Batman Year One, I knew for sure that he wouldn't make a mess of the role ala George Clooney or Val Kilmer. Val Kilmer? Ugh...!

A Venom Movie?! ..... Seriously?!

2008-08-01T19:20:00.003+08:00

My oh my oh my, talk about milking a character down to its very last drop for the simple sake of earning a quick buck. The Hollywood Reporter has announced that Sony Pictures is moving forward with their rumored solo-Venom project as a spin-off the Spider-Man series. I'm sure there are those who would feel extremely excited about this news but for me it's some really horrible stuff to hear about. Here's why...

Venom to Spider-Man is like The Joker to Batman. Like Sabretooth to Wolverine. Megatron to Optimus Prime. Like Darth Vader to Luke Skywalker except they're not related. Arch enemies, basically. Over the years, Venom has created a fanbase that rivals even Spidey's own and once Spider-Man 2 was outta' the way, people were dying to see Venom on screen because of their immense trust in director Sam Raimi and his credibility. Well, credibility my ass because Sam Raimi decided to follow in the footsteps of George Lucas and literally f*ck-up the character so bad that die-hard Spidey fans began having fantasies of torturing him in their own perverted ways.

As a Spider-Man fan, I hate Spider-Man 3 with a burning passion. I'm not sure why Sony Pictures would even think a Venom movie would do well on its own. Remember Catwoman? Or Elektra? Yeah, exactly! Apparently the guys at Sony are looking for a writer to rewrite the initial screenplay and they're also looking for someone to play Eddie Brock. That's right, people, Topher 'That 70's Show' Grace will not reprise his role as the symbiote-loving jobless reporter.

So if I'm getting all this correctly, Sony Pictures wants to 'remake' Venom, so to speak, without having to actually correct their mistakes in Spider-Man 3. They just wanna' patch things up with the fans and then allow Spider-Man 4 to run its course in 2011? My opinion would be to just screw this flick over and get straight to Spider-Man 4. Keep Sam 'the walking d*ck' Raimi as far away from the franchise as possible. Venom's a great villain, an amazing character (one of my all-time favorite comic characters, actually)...but he cannot carry a movie on his own. I would love for them to do justice for the character the way Marvel Studios has done with Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, but logically speaking, how well can a solo Venom movie do without Spider-Man?

But then again, I could be wrong. Sony could pull this off pretty well.

..............

Nah....who am I kidding.

Extra Note : Oh, and you have to check this sh*t out. While browsing the net I came across a really awesome 3D render-thingy of Venom, done by some guy for his college project or whatever. And boy oh boy is it some sweet lookin' stuff. Seriously, this dude's version of Venom would have looked so much cooler on screen than whatever Sam Raimi had to offer.
Here's the URL : http://animation.art.br/3dart/venom/venom.htm

No Country For Old Men | REVIEW

2008-07-31T22:47:00.003+08:00

I'm sure that in your your mind you have No Country For Old Men associated with good praise, critical acclaim, and tons of awards from numerous guilds and associations. Well then you know all there is to know about No Country For Old Men because in my opinion, those are the only things that stand out in this movie. It's a highly intellectual film with lots of subliminal messages in accordance to the evolution of violence amongst the human populace and it has some terrific acting. But other than all those amazing technical aspects that judges at award ceremonies look into, the film didn't stick in my memory for more than half a day...and that's bad. In my opinion, if a movie lingers at the back of your head for a day, two days, or more, then it has proven to be a powerful movie. If you can just get up, walk away, and forget a movie in such a short time despite the award-winning performances then something has to be not right, right? Here's what No Country For Old Men is all about.

No Country for Old Men is a 2007 crime thriller film adapted for the screen and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, starring Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, and Javier Bardem. Adapted from the Cormac McCarthy novel of the same name, No Country for Old Men tells the story of a botched drug deal and the ensuing cat-and-mouse drama, as three men crisscross each other's paths in the desert landscape of 1980 West Texas. The film examines the themes of fate and circumstance the Coen brothers have previously explored in Blood Simple and Fargo. Tommy Lee Jones plays Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, Josh Brolin plays Llewelyn Moss and Javier Bardem plays Anton Chigurh.

You've probably heard that Javier Bardem's performance in this is a surreal feat, and you heard correctly. He plays Anton Chigurgh, a psychotic murderer who is on a killing spree (thank you Captain Obvious). I emphasize the word 'psychotic'. The man is insane! I don't want to compare everything to The Dark Knight but I just have to this time, bear with me please. I compare Anton to The Joker in more ways than one and you'll see what I mean when you watch the film. I'm not going to spoil anything but let me just give you a brief explanation. They both portray unstoppable forces that act according to instinct alone and not reason. The only reasoning they have is their own and there is nothing one can do to negotiate or 'buy them off'. That's how powerful their characters are. Oh and Anton also flips a coin to decide one's fate. Sound familiar?

Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin play their parts pretty well, too. When it comes to acting, No Country For Old Men exhibits some very fine performances. There's practically zero music in the film. Some effects here and there which act like background tones but that's it.

Now...here's the downside, in my opinion.

There's no doubt that No Country For Old Men is a quality-coated flick. But what's the use of so much quality when the film does nothing to affect you in any way? Right, there is no use. Although I know some people liked the movie to a great extent, I doubt even they would watch it for the second time in the next year or so. To be honest, this film does not cater to everyone's tastes. It has been produced to cater for those who look beyond the screen and into the technical details of a movie. It's done for people who love deep, dark messages that hide within a film. It's a movie that works well for critics who look for intellectual value and nothing more. It is only powerful for those who want to see that sort of power come from a movie. And for me, No Country For Old Men didn't fare well. Oh, don't get me wrong, I love slow, heavy, brooding movies with little dialogue. I enjoyed Letters From Iwo Jima, Flags Of Our Fathers, Zodiac, and Babel all the same. I like limited-release films, too. In fact, Children Of Men and The Fountain are some of my most-liked movies ever. So my dislike for No Country has nothing to do with the grittiness of the film or the heaviness of it or even the little dialogue. It's just not something I find appealing or exciting. If I wanted all message and no magic, I would have picked up the novel instead. Film is supposed to, arguably, deliver something more than the pages of a book. That's why comic movies are major hits. You've seen Spider-Man in still images, but watching him in motion on the big screen is something special altogether, isn't it? That's what I'm saying. No Country is a good adaptation. It's a wonderful film in terms of quality. But enjoyable it is not. And that is what makes me dislike a movie.

I don't expect every film to be a pop-corn blockbuster with radical CGI, extreme violence, lots of cleavage, and giant f*ckin' robots, but a movie has to be enjoyable to a certain extent. It doesn't have to be funny or sexy or pure eye-candy, just enjoyable. Zodiac has none of the mentioned, but it's enjoyable despite its heavy tonal value and the movie's slow pace. Although Javier Bardem's character in No Country is frightening and gripping, nothing of it sticks in your head for more than 15 minutes after the film. Well, that was the case with me anyway.

All that being said, No Country For Old Men should be viewed for the stellar performances alone. The film is highly realistic in terms of facial expressions and overall acting. But remember, it's not a film for everyone. Some may like it for the integrated messages. Some will enjoy the way it was filmed. Some will salute the acting. But very few will actually enjoy the movie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : No Country For Old Men gets a 3.8 out of 5.0 for being a film that has a heavy storyline that doesn't depend on violence or sex to pull it along. Not that there's anything wrong with the two but it isn't easy to gain an audience without the said aspects or to tug a film along. No Country did that and it's something to admire, at least. It has quality and great acting. Need a film to review for a college assignment? This is the perfect choice. Need a light flick after a long day at the office? Stay away from No Country!

P.S : Javier Bardem would make a kickass Kratos. For those of you who don't know, Kratos is the lead character in the God Of War videogame franchise and is one of the top badasses character-wise. Hack and slash brutality with twin blades, baby! Javier seems to have the right jaw / facial characteristics to play the role. Let's hope the rumored Bret Ratner doesn't f*ck up this movie (God Of War) for me the way he did with X-Men : The Movie That I Want To Forget.

Effin' Violent Punisher : Warzone Trailer!

2008-07-30T09:58:00.004+08:00

I've decided to use this blog to not only post reviews but also share some film-related uber-coolness that I find on the Net every now and then. I started off yesterday with some leaked footage from the highly-anticipated X-Men Origins : Wolverine due out next summer, and today I have the Red Band trailer for The Punisher : War Zone, due out this December. Step aside, kiddies, coz' this trailer has blood, guts, gore, and is pumped with disturbing violence! Honestly, I didn't care much for the new Punisher movie but after seeing this Red Band sh*t I am seriously hyped! I like Thomas Jane as an actor, he's a pretty cool guy and really takes care of his roles, and I kinda' liked his version of The Punisher...up until now. Sorry, Jane, but the new dude looks like he could eat your Punisher for breakfast. And take a look at the new villain, Jigsaw! He's called that 'cause his face looks like pieces of cloth stitched together as one. Holy ugliness, baby!

For those of you who were like me and didn't give a rat's ass about this flick, it's time to take some notes. The Punisher : Warzone is a sort-of-remake of The Punisher series which doesn't directly connect to The Punisher from a number of years ago. It isn't an origin story, either. It stars Ray Stevenson as Frank Castle aka The Punisher and he's not the only one who's gunning for revenge in this movie. His nemesis, now known as Jigsaw, is hellbent on destroying Frank for making his face look hideous. The film is directed by Lexi Alexander of Green Street Hooligans fame and is distributed by Lionsgate Entertainment so expect plenty of broken bones, severed limbs, punctured body organs and bleeding eyes.

It's gonna' be awesome. I hope.

Leaked Wolverine Footage!!

2008-07-29T20:28:00.004+08:00

Update : As predicted, the footage as been removed for the time being from the source sites and also from platforms like YouTube. For those of you who watched it, good for you. For those who didn't, don't worry...for what goes on the Internet, stays on the Internet. It'll pop up again soon enough. Who knows, a HD trailer might be out pretty soon, too!

In case you didn't already know, Hugh Jackman made a surprise appearance at the recent Comic Con and revealed some kickass footage from next year's summer blockbuster, X-Men Origins : Wolverine. It isn't in the best of quality since it is a bootleg version but at least it's watchable. Extra info for those who were not following the developments of this flick, Wolverine is a prequel that takes place almost 20 years before the first X-Men movie. We finally get to dwell deep into Logan's shrouded past and see what the mysterious Weapon X project that coated Logan's bones with Adamantium steel is all about.

You can watch the footage in two parts HERE and HERE. Watch them A.S.A.P coz' they're bound to be removed.

What has me hyped the most is the fact that we'll see glimpses of Logan's childhood, taken off the pages of the critically acclaimed 6-part Origins comic series. Also, a bunch of other muties make their on-screen debut in the flick. Ryan Reynolds plays Deadpool, The Blob is in there, and yes...we finally get to see Gambit. You read right, guys, Gambit! Oh, and there's a new Sabretooth in this played by Liev Schreiber. I have to say, I like the new version better than the one Tyler Mane put up.

Despite all its kickassness, I always tend to wonder what an [R] rated Wolverine movie would be like. F*ckin' badass is what it'd be like! I like the footage that I saw, no doubt, but wouldn't it be totally awesome if they made a brutal, hack and slash, don't-give-a-sh*t version of Wolverine on screen, the way he's supposed to be? *Sigh*. Anyway, other things I'm not digging despite their uber-coolness are Gambit being in the flick and Deadpool without a mask. A pre-cancer Deadpool, maybe? Deadpool without the scars is like Batman without his parents getting killed. And as for Gambit, as much as I've always wanted to see the character on the big screen, how's he even Gambit 20 years before the first X-Men movie? What does that make him in the present, 48 years old?! I know Logan and Victor Creed aka Sabretooth age slowly, but Gambit, too? Wha....?

Nonetheless, kickass footage and Hugh Jackman promises us a lotta' berserker rage, so let's keep our fingers crossed!

X-Men Origins : Wolverine is due to rip some flesh on May 1, 2009. It stars Hugh Jackman as the berserker-bound mutant and is directed by Gavin Hood of Tsotsi and Rendition fame.

National Treasure 2: Book Of Secrets | REVIEW

2008-07-29T17:17:00.004+08:00

Conspiracy theories, ancient civilizations, government secrets, and ridiculously bad hairdo's. Yep, Nic Cage is back to reprise his role as Benjamin Gates, and this time there's an all-new, very personal treasure hunt in store for the history-lover and his troop. The second installment in the National Treasure series, Book of Secrets sees Ben Gates' family dignity threatened when a black market dealer Mitch Wilkinson shows one of the 18 missing pages of John Wilkes Booth's diary, with Thomas Gates' (Ben's great-great grandfather) name on it, convincing everyone that Thomas was a conspirator in the Lincoln assassination. Ben sets out to prove the innocence of his great-great-grandfather. Of course a one-man show wouldn't cut it so let's bring back Ben's trusted sidekick Riley Poole (Justin Bartha) and Ben's now-separated wife Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger) to even things up a bit. And also throw in Ben's parents played by Jon Voight and Helen Mirren to add some spice. Didn't read that correctly? Yes, I said throw Ben's parents in on a life-threatening journey to God-knows-where just to add some spice. No joke. Hey, Indiana took his old man on a quest for the Holy Grail, so there's no reason for Ben Gates to not do the same, and double it up even!

Anyway, National Treasure 2 didn't fare so well with the critics. They complained of the plot being repetitive and slow. I can relate to that in some aspects, but I still don't seem to understand why people make such a big fuss about movies like National Treasure. See, there are movies that were made to be highly-intellectual, and then there were movies that were produced to become a commercial blockbuster success. National Treasure falls under the latter category. You don't go looking for logic in Transformers now, do you? It's not even logical to begin with! The same goes for National Treasure. Despite the fact that it deals with real-world conspiracies and heavily guarded secrets that are believed to be linked to secret societies, it is without a doubt a popcorn commercial flick. There's nothing serious to it. So why bother looking into all the minor details, right? Just sit back, relax, and enjoy the movie while it lasts. Sure, some movies are incredibly bad, but National Treasure doesn't fall under that line. It's fun to say the least. It starts off slow but it eventually picks up after a while so no worries.

There's nothing special about the acting in National Treasure except for the fact that Helen Mirren and Jon Voight always bring a notch of better quality to most movies. I've never been a fan of Nicolas Cage. Yeah, he was great in Con Air and City Of Angels, but then he decided to put himself in stuff like Ghost Rider and Next, both of which completely reeked of rotten vegetables mixed with expired Thousand Island Sauce. And some stale milk. Back to Cage, yes, I don't like the man. But you know what makes things worse? His hairdo. I mean, seriously, why? What's with the lack of sideburns (it's not always a bad thing but in his case it definitely is) and the incredibly awkward haircut? Of all the hairstyles in the entire world, couldn't they have come up with anything other than Nic Cage's ridiculous hairdo? Not only is the man's acting somewhat annoying with his monotonous way of speaking, his hairdo just puts you off entirely. Sheesh!

There really isn't much to say about National Treasure : Book Of Secrets except that it's entertaining and is a fun watch as long as it lasts. I still like the first installment better in terms of storyline and the depth of the characters. In terms of action and adventure, Book Of Secrets has plenty of action / chase scenes; none of which I found intriguing or captivating. It's just a very simple movie that tries to radiate a sense of complexity by integrating controversial secrets and historical conspiracies. It isn't complicating at all, by the way, just fun and worth a peek. Still, I'd say if you haven't watched it yet then it's better that you keep this in store for one of those incredibly boring days when all you need is something light and casual.

Oh, one thing I'd like to point out here is the soundtrack. I like the music composed for Book Of Secrets. In fact, it's too good for the movie. Listen to the music accompanying the credits whenever you get the chance. It sounds befitting of a movie that revolves around an epic journey to new lands in the early 12th century or so...something that would do well with huge ships and adventures at sea. You get the picture. Again, watch Book Of Secrets for the popcorn value of it and nothing more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : National Treasure : Book Of Secrets gets a 2.9 out of 5.0. I liked it, but it isn't anything special and I wouldn't watch it again anytime soon. It's only good the first time around, let's just keep it at that. Plus, did I mention that Nicolas Cage pisses me off? Not all the time, but have you seen Ghost Rider? Ugh.

COMCAST & The Dark Knight

2008-07-28T18:15:00.003+08:00

The Dark Knight is doing great at the box-office, already at a groundbreaking 314million in the United States alone! Can you say, "Woah"?

Anyway, Comcast is tied-in deep with The Dark Knight and they currently have a boatload of TDK-related sites running, most of which are definitely worth a peek or two. The ones that stand out are the 6 Comcast Exclusive Videos that show behind-the-scenes footage, some short documentaries, and even the Making of The Clown Masks which tells you how those silly-yet-disturbing Joker-goon masks were designed and made. You can view the videos at http://www.comcast.net/thedarkknightmovie/#/videos/exclusives.

Comcast has also launched its TDK online game called Gotham City Street Chase, one that allows visitors to play as Batman on the Batpod. The goal is to catch The Joker who has just hijacked a police car. But before you get to the Clown Prince Of Crime, you have to destroy a number of his goon-cars that keep throwing grenades out at you in the middle of the street! Give the game a try. A word of warning though, it's addictive! Wanna' play? Head on over to http://www.comcast.net/thedarkknightmovie/game/.

For the 4 people out there who don't know, The Dark Knight is the follow-up to Christopher Nolan's critically acclaimed Batman Begins. It stars Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart, and of course, the late Heath Ledger in his final role as The Joker. The film released in the US on June 18, 2008.

A huge thanks to Victoria of Rocket XL for contacting me and sending over the full details on Comcast's TDK tie-ins!

The Mist | REVIEW

2008-07-24T17:54:00.003+08:00

Phew! Well The Dark Knight is finally over and God was it a good movie...all three times! Anyway, as much as I'd love to talk about it, I'm gonna' go ahead and actually review a movie this time instead of brag about how well The Dark Knight did at the box-office. I'm not even gonna' say that it reached a whopping $203million in just five days within the US alone, which is the fastest a film has actually reached that amount in the history of Hollywood cinema.

Oops....

Anyway, I watched The Mist the other day on DVD and found that it was a really good horror / suspense / sci-fi flick. Stephen King is a f*ckin' weirdo, I tell ya', but that didn't stop him from raking in a lotta' cash via his famous and infamous horror novels. That being said, I hated Dreamcatcher. That movie was good for the first half-hour or so, and then it started getting messy, and by the end I wasn't just disappointed but also irritated. Fortunately for me, however, The Mist didn't fail to keep me entertained and it's one of those movies that will stick in your memory for some time. Without spoiling anything, I'll just say that the resolution in this film will f*ck your brains into a pulp. Seriously. I can't say anything more because if you expect something extremely cool then it'll probably not be as cool when it actually happens, get it? Let's just say it's one of the best, and brain-numbing, conclusions I've seen in a while. It's cool.

So what's The Mist about? Well, to put it very simply, by deciphering the code within its title we understand that The Mist is, well, about a strange mist. *Show sudden burst of shock and surprise* Who would've thunk, huh? The Mist is about mist? As in fog? Wow, what is Hollywood coming to these days? These titles that throw you off! Sheesh.

Back to story, The Mist is based in the small town of Shreveport, Louisiana (although this is never officially mentioned), which is slowly engulfed by a strange mist following a violent thunderstorm the night before. 95% of the movie takes place inside a local grocery store in which a large number of townsfolk are trapped and unable to escape due to the near 0% vision outside. To make matters worse, strange sightings of horrid creatures occur which send the people into a panic frenzy. The townsfolk must not only endure the phenomena but also survive the mist and the evil that lurks within it.

Thomas Jane plays a commercial artist named David Drayton, who is also stuck / held up in the store with his 5-year old son due to the blinding mist outside.

I've said this numerous times and I'll say it again. The claustrophobia-effect works! Unlike horror movies in which a bunch of teens are running from coast to coast trying to escape a chainsaw-wielding masked madman who's also a zombie that endured a tragic death and came back to life for some reason, The Mist revolves around a group of townspeople inside a grocery store who are unable to get out due to the fear of dangerous creatures that lurk inside the mist. For all we know, the entire world could be blanketed, which makes the tale all the more creepier. The 'trapped inside a small space' effect really brings a stronger vibe to a horror film. It deems the victims helpless.

I'd say the acting in The Mist is surprisingly good. It just comes to show that the smaller flicks should also be given a chance. There's no outstanding performances here but overall the acting is believable and is not overdone. Marcia Gay Harden (like there weren't other names in the entire world) plays a religious fanatic named Mrs. Carmody in this one and she does a fine job. I'd say her role stands out the most.

As for CGI, The Mist doesn't deliver mind-blowing effects and whatnot, but keeps the stuff simple and passes some work over to animatronics. The graphics aren't top-notch, but they're not horrible either. They're believable and that's all that counts, right? Don't expect anything frightening from the creatures in this movie because it isn't the creatures that are meant to scare. Well, at least they didn't do it for me. The scariness comes from the fact of not knowing what else dwells in the whiteness outside the confinement of the store's glass walls. Now that's scary.

Downside? Stephen King and the people who adapt his work, in this case director Frank Darabont of Shawshank Redemption fame, normally push the boundaries between reality and sci-fi too far. I'm not gonna' spoil anything for any of you guys but I think you can relate to me when I say that Stephen King never keeps a theme going straight. It's always the case of half the film being a perfect mixture of horror, reality, and strange phenomena and then suddenly a stroke of extreme sci-fi. Kinda' like Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. One more example would be The Forgotten. Have any of you seen The Forgotten? It sucks, people! The Mist doesn't suck, though. It only gives you the feeling of slight discomfort as though the movie is suddenly drifting too far away from its original thematic value that you were getting well-accustomed to for over an hour or so. I always tend to flow more with a movie when it tells you right from the start what its core is all about. I'm not saying I like my movies spoilt by knowing the ending, no, I love suspense...I'm just saying that if it's a sci-fi movie it better be from the very beginning. If it's more of a historical-mythological deal then don't suddenly bombard us with stories of aliens, that's all I'm saying. Unless, of course, said movie is Aqua Teen Hunger Force-related. That show is the randomest piece of brain-mush I've seen to date! Anyway, you'll just have to watch The Mist to find out what I mean in full, and no, I didn't hint at anything Mist-related above.

There's nothing much to say about the technical aspects of The Mist. In fact I don't prefer looking into all that while reviewing a movie, even though I am a film student so to speak. The essential aspect of a film is to what extent it can entertain and that's mostly all I care about when I watch something. Indeed, effort put into the movie deserves its own credit, but that's where my 'Wrap' comes in. When it comes to The Mist there's nothing special about the camera angles or acting or filming techniques. It's just an entertaining, frightening, bizarre movie from the minds of Stephen King and Frank Darabont. I'd definitely recommend this film to anyone who loves a movie that keeps you glued to your seat for about 2-hours.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap The Mist gets a 3.7 out of 5.0. It's fun the first time around but there's nothing in it for a second round, much like all other horror films. It's just something fun to do on a weekend night with the lights off. Unless you have a girlfriend. Pretty chilling stuff. The movie, I mean, not the girlfriend.

The Dark Knight Rages Through The Summer!

2008-07-21T14:34:00.003+08:00

I always try to keep this blog / site strictly for the reviews, but I can't help myself...being a fanboy and all. The Dark Knight, to date, has already broken 5 records! And it has only been showing for a mere 3 days! Honestly, I anticipated big bucks and a lot of good reviews across the Net...but never in my wildest imagination had I expected it to tear through the summer like a effin' thunderbolt. I didn't underestimate it, but I was afraid that the Spider-Man 3-effect might repeat itself again this year. Lots of hype = disappointment. Hooray for me because my expectations paled in comparison to what the new Batman film had to offer! The Dark Knight has taken in ...

[1] Most Domestic Screenings (USA) - 4,366 cinemas nationwide, surpassing even Pirates Of The Caribbean : Dead Man's Chest which released in 4,362 cinemas.

[2] Midnight Record - The highest-grossing movie for a midnight (12.01A.M) opening, taking in an unprecedented $18,489,000 at the box office. The 12:01 a.m. grosses soared past the previous record of $16.9 million, which had been held by Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith since May of 2005.

[3] Opening Day Record - $66.4 million in a record 4,366 theaters (including 94 IMAX theaters) nationwide. That's $7million more than Spider-Man 3.

[4] Opening Weekend Record - $158.4 million to top Spider-Man 3 for best opening weekend at the box office. That's the biggest opening weekend of all time! The weekend estimates show Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins follow-up more than $7 million ahead of the $151.1 million first weekend for Spider-Man 3 in May of 2007. Worldwide, The Dark Knight has made $198.3 million +.

[5] Best Debut In IMAX Theaters - The Dark Knight has also broken Spider-Man 3's record ($4.7 million) for best debut in IMAX theaters with $6.2 million in 94 locations.

The Dark Knight has also been placed at #1 on IMDB's Top 250 Movies Of All Time List, sending even The Godfather to #2! Heck, this new Batman flick has even been called the Godfather 2 of the comic movie world, and I wouldn't be surprised if soon people started to call it the all new Godfather of our era!

The Dark Knight is not just a comic movie, folks, and I say this not as a Batman fan. It is a gripping tale of crime and terror and corruption, and most of all, it acts like a very haunting reflection of today's society. The Dark Knight will linger in one's memory for days and probably weeks, and needless to day, so will Ledger's frightening performance as the creepy, deadly Joker. I was shocked beyond belief when I saw this, and I didn't know what to think for the next 24hours except for the fact that I loved it but couldn't digest the fact that it is, after all, a Batman movie. It's bittersweet. This may be Heath Ledger's final big-time performance, but it'll linger in a moviegoer's mind for as long as movies remain. I hate to say it but I doubt even Christopher Nolan will be able to top his own movie with a third installment. If this is a way to end the series, it's probably the best damn way possible!

The Dark Knight | REVIEW

2008-07-17T18:50:00.003+08:00

This is probably my favorite review to date. After years (yes, ever since Batman Begins) of waiting, I finally watched The Dark Knight a couple of hours ago, and you know what, it was nowhere near as to what had initially expected! But did that stop me from loving it? Not one bit! The Dark Knight raises the bar for all future comic adaptations and puts a heavy challenge on the table for future competitors. It is Christopher Nolan's uncompromising take on Batman and the intense chronicles that he has to face as Gotham's silent savior. It spans for a solid 152minutes and even if you go in an average moviegoer, you're sure to come out a fan of the Batman. Here's the NON-SPOILERISH LOWDOWN:

The Dark Knight opens with Batman, Lieutenant James Gordon, and new district attorney Harvey Dent beginning to succeed in rounding up the criminals that plague Gotham City. They are unexpectedly challenged when a mysterious criminal mastermind known as the Joker appears in Gotham. Batman's struggle against the Joker becomes deeply personal, forcing him to "confront everything he believes" and to improve his technology to stop the madman's campaign of destruction.

What Christopher Nolan does is he takes these 'hard-to-believe' elements from comic books / graphic novels and gives them an excellent grounding, making every single lil' detail believable and uber-realistic. There's nothing that Nolan does not explain in this flick, be it Batman's high-tech inventory of weapons and gadgetry or the fact that a masked crusader protects the people of Gotham. Nolan also boasts his aggressive nature of shooting a movie and making it believable by using a minimal amount of CGI; so little that you'll hardly ever notice it's there. The cinematography is top-notch and certain instances such as the opening bank-heist scene just 'scream' out the names of some of Hollywood's all-time greats a la Michael Mann. The seamless cuts and wide angles of the cityscape blows The Dark Knight out of the 'comic-movie' league and puts it someplace much higher. There's a touch of quality to it that is hardly seen in ordinary adaptations, and trust me, I love comic adaptations...but never have I seen such standards and such effort put into any of them. And this is not because I'm a Batman-fan or because I am fanatical about this movie, no, it's because the film really is a stroke of genius.

I once thought that Batman Begins was dark and gritty. That was before I laid my eyes on its sequel. The Dark Knight is darker, grittier, and I dare say it's even disturbing. There's very real emotion throughout the course of the film and that emotion radiates far enough for the audience to relate to. The movie sinks deep into a level of reality unlike any other comic adaptation before it, and brings to us a vision of Gotham as though it is a real metropolis on this planet. The characters talk about crimelords and politics and corruption and the fact that a masked-man jumps off rooftops to protect their city from evil. It's sometimes too real to digest, which makes the movie disturbing in many ways. It's not a bad thing though, because it proves that the film has power to tweak with one's emotions and perspectives. We've always known comic adaptations to be fun and action-packed, deep down and at the back of our heads we always know that things are going to be fine in the end. Films like those deliver more of the 'fanboy goosebumps' and 'geekasms' because no matter how heavy they get, they never manage to alter your emotions to the extent that you're actually disturbed about it. The Dark Knight is different. It holds that energy and although some people may hate it for said reason alone, I'd like to think that a movie with the power to meddle with my feelings must be somewhat special to say the least.

When it comes to acting, The Dark Knight boasts performances that are surreal. It's obvious that Heath Ledger's final performance as the Clown Prince Of Crime is the main attraction of this show, but I won't say that he steals the spotlight. Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Gary Oldman reprise their roles as Bruce Wayne / Batman, Alfred, Lucious Fox, and Liutendant Jim Gordon respectively, and they all hit their roles spot-on yet again. Aaron Eckhart is the f*ckin' Harvey Dent in more ways than one! When he's doing good for the betterment of Gotham you can't help but vouch for him, but when his 'other side' is revealed you want to hate him yet somehow relate to his sympathetic side! Despite the fact that I pay a lot of attention to continuity, Maggie Gylenhall (although not a babelicious, bootylicious, sexy lil' vixen), does justice to the role of Rachel Dawes. In fact, it would have been great if she had been picked to play Rachel in Batman Begins to begin with. And now, on to Mr.Ledger. His performance alone tells you a number of things about the man. He was fearless, intense, and dedicated to his craft. Unlike the versions brought to life by Nicholson or Romero, this new take on The Joker shows you a psychopath without a path. A madman who isn't really mad or crazy. And this, folks, is by far the most disturbing part of the movie. The Joker is so hyper-realistic that you tend to wonder about the possibilities of his existence in our real world. And frankly, you wouldn't want that to happen after going through The Dark Knight.

I've always said that a soundtrack makes or breaks a film. James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer take on the daunting task (again) of composing tracks worthy of Chris Nolan's and Batman movie standards. Let's not take Batman & Robin into account, shall we. The soundtrack does a great job at sending goosebumps down your spine. It helps a whole lot in setting the mood for a scene. Kudos to the men behind the music because the music for this film rocks! Not literally as in Metallica, I mean, just rocks!

I'd say the only downside to The Dark Knight was Batman's suit. I like the way his suit was in Tim Burton's films. I even liked the one in Batman Begins. The new suit isn't a disaster, but I've always been a fan of the cloak that covers his shoulders more than the cowl that hangs over them...y'know what I mean? Plus, the head-wear is so tight that it affects the way Batman speaks. Sometimes it's as though he has a lisp, which annoyed the heck outta' me! The thickness of his voice is fine, but screwing with the pronunciation is not a good thing. They should have done something about that. It's not enough to spoil the flick, but it's noticeable.

On a whole, The Dark Knight is bound to go down as a trend-setter. Comic adaptations hereafter will strive to be as bold and as daring as the 'Knight. Again, I love comic adaptations. I enjoyed Spider-Man 1, 2, and I can't wait for part 3. Huh? What? Did you just say part 3 was out more than a year ago? Venom? Sandman? You mean that load of horsecrap was actually Sam Raimi's work?! What the f*ck was he smokin', eh? Anyway, back to Gotham...The Dark Knight is a must-watch for not only Batman fans, but also for fans of comic books and movies in general. It's not comical, it's not sci-fi. It's very real and very intellectual. It surpasses all limitations of being a comic film except for one. The gore factor. Since this doesn't have a [R] on it, they had to do a bit less with the blood. Still, it doesn't affect the movie much. There's more than one story arc in this film since it has so many characters to deal with. But no matter how complicated it gets, the basis of The Dark Knight is the struggle that Batman has to go through in order to remain as Gotham's guardian, and certain decisions he has to make which will, at times, cause an initial negative reaction instead of a positive one. The Dark Knight truly is something special, and it makes me happy to know that although it's different from what I had expected, it still kicks all sorts of ass and is a new entry into my list of favorite movies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Yes, The Dark Knight gets a full-fledged 5.0 out of 5.0! Don't call me biased, there's no prejudice in this rating! When it comes to The Dark Knight, you can literally see the effort and good use of finance oozing off the screen. It takes a lot of craft and serious thought to pull off something of this stature, and Nolan has managed to do that. The downside of Batman's voice isn't even enough to bring this baby down because it has so much more good in it. From acting to camera work to effects to the pace and the flow of the story, The Dark Knight nails all of em'. It gets my perfect rating, I'm gonna' watch it again soon, the 2-Disc Special DVD is going into my collection, and it makes me happy to know what somewhere out there Tim Burton is nodding in appreciation at the trend and theme of Batman that he created nearly 20 years ago. It also makes me effin' glad to know what somewhere out there Joel Schumacher is being called an @$$hole for almost killing the Batman franchise if it had not been for Christopher Nolan. Now...when is part 3 due?

P.S. : It's a shame that Heath Ledger isn't around to see this. I don't care if he wins a effin' Oscar or not, his performance was phenomenal. Hats-off to the man, and if there are award ceremonies up in Heaven I'm sure Heath just got nominated.

R.I.P, Heath Ledger.

Batman : Gotham Knight | REVIEW

2008-07-14T01:39:00.004+08:00

If you've been reading most of my reviews (especially the ones to do with comic books and superhero movies) then you should know by now that I am fanatical about the upcoming Batman installment, a nifty lil' film entitled The Dark Knight, due out in a couple of days. I watched Batman Begins the other day for God-knows-the-how-many-eth-time and also recently managed to get my hands on Warner's latest direct-to-DVD animation entitled Batman : Gotham Knight. Why is this animated feature so important, you ask? Because according to the filmmakers behind it, Gotham Knight acts like a bridge between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Yes folks, The Dark Knight doesn't happen immediately after Batman Begins. In fact, if you've been following the viral marketing, you'll see that a lot happens in between the two films.

Batman : Gotham Knight can be compared to The Animatrix in a lot of ways. It basically shows six interlocking stories from the minds of some of Hollywood's big-shots and also some big names from the world of cartoons and comic books, one of them being Bruce Timm. Ring a bell? If you were a fan of Batman : The Animated Series then you've surely noticed this guy's name during the credits as the one responsible for storyline and artwork. He has also worked on a bunch of other high-profile comics and animated TV shows.

All the six episodes in Gotham Knight incorporate different art styles and portray Batman from different angles, sinking deep into the character unlike any other animated film before this. Most of the time, the artwork builds a very gritty, harsh image of Gotham...the city Batman would give his life to in order to protect and save from the criminals that run it. The only other medium that portrays the Dark Knight in a similar fashion would have to be comic books and graphic novels. Although there are no major references to Batman Begins, Gotham Knight tells the 'in-between' story of how Batman's work affects certain individuals either positively or negatively and also how the people of Gotham react to their new urban legend. All six episodes are written and directed by different teams of people, so Batman's suit, his looks, and his gadgetry might vary as the episodes change. It's a very dark story that tells people the reality of being a 'hero' in a place like Gotham City. The truth is, not everyone (including the good guys) are happy about the Batman's presence in town.

The only other Batman animated feature that I personally think is extremely dark and in some cases even adult-oriented would have to be Batman Beyond : Return Of The Joker (uncut), in which the story even goes to extreme lengths to explain Robin's 'murder'. Second in line would have to be Mask Of The Phantasm. The distinction between Gotham Knight and other animated features is that Gotham Knight seems very real; too real sometimes. All episodes use anime-style artwork in various styles so you can expect some extent of hyper-realism. In many ways, Gotham Knight gives us a raw, uncensored look at the Batman and how he takes responsibility for his role as the 'Dark Knight of Gotham'. It's probably how Batman should have always been portrayed. The entire film deals with Batman's internal conflicts as well as his motives that are constantly being questioned by the citizens of Gotham. You'll also see villains from Batman's extensive rogues-gallery, such as Killer Croc, Scarecrow, Deadshot, and The Man In Black.

Although Batman: Gotham Knight isn't a must-see in order for you to understand The Dark Knight, it is a must-have for any avid Bat-fan. It's a completely different trip into the darkness in which Batman dwells. Also, Kevin Conroy reprises his role as the Bat, so you know it's gonna' sound good. Who's Kevin Conroy? He's the guy who voiced Batman in all the animated series since 1992 including Justice League and Justice League Unlimited. He also voices Bruce Wayne in Batman Beyond. Quite frankly, Kevin Conroy is the voice of Batman and one that nobody has been able to top till this date...not even, I dare say, Christian Bale. The only downside to this flick would have to be its short runtime (around 75minutes) and its tendency to step away from the live-action movies. The various art-styles and constant changing of the way Batman and his surroundings are portrayed in each episode give you the feel that Gotham Knight doesn't connect well with Batman Begins or even the upcoming The Dark Knight. Overall, it's a worthwhile watch and something that every comic / superhero / Batman fan should watch whenever they get a chance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Batman : Gotham Knight gets a 3.9 out of 5.0. It integrates some eye-candy-ish anime artwork and some very nice storylines. It's more adult-oriented with realistic violence. Plus, it portrays Batman the way the 'Knight should rightfully be portrayed. Like I said, it isn't something essential to Christopher Nolan's Batman series, but it's surely a must-see.

P.S : You probably know what I'm gonna' say now, don't you? I just reviewed Gotham Knight which means I've just watched it...which means that I am all set for The Dark Knight. Tickets are in hand, all that has to happen now is time. It's gonna' be awesome!

Hellboy 2 : The Golden Army | REVIEW

2008-07-11T20:29:00.005+08:00

Before I go on, I wanna' say that I didn't really fall into the category of people who enjoyed the first Hellboy movie. Don't stop reading, Hellboy fans, just hear me out. To be brutally honest, I never really cared much for the characters or the movie itself. I've watched it twice and it never appealed to me as a worthwhile film. I'm not saying that it's a bad movie, only that there was nothing in it that interested me via the trailers, and I was still not pleased after watching the movie in full.

But today was completely different. Because today, despite my complete disregard for the Hellboy series, I sat through the entire near-two-hours of Hellboy 2: The Golden Army. And it wasn't half bad. Actually, it was good. I really enjoyed it and because of that, I have a new appreciation for the first film, too. I kinda' realize now that although I don't like comedy and humor in between intense action scenes, in Hellboy's case it cannot be helped because that's exactly what Hellboy does and it's who he is. I've had a friend explain this to me before, but I guess I needed to see Hellboy 2 to have my perspectives altered.

Hellboy 2 is based upon the characters from the Hellboy comic series by DarkHorse Comics. It tells the story of mythological harbingers of death known only as The Golden Army. When a truce between humanity and an invisible realm of fantasy is broken, destruction threatens the Earth. A leader from the realm, Prince Nuada, defies his bloodline and summons the feared army to lay waste. Hellboy (Ron Perlman) must confront Nuada and his army, being backed by his team members from the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense: Liz Sherman (Selma Blair), Abe Sapien (Doug Jones) and Johann Kraus. The team travels between Earth and the fantasy realm, battling fantastical creatures. The relationship between Hellboy and Liz is also questioned, and so is the destiny of Hellboy himself.

Although Hellboy is the protagonist in Hellboy 2 : The Golden Army, my favorite character in this flick would have to be Prince Nuada, the bad dude with the weirdly white face and the eerie eyes. The same thing happened in the first movie, in which my favorite character was Kroenen, the kickass yet horribly ugly dude with the wickedly slick hands that wield those uber-cool blades and daggers. In Hellboy 2, Prince Nuada is a baddie with an edge. Wanna' see fast and incredible fight-scenes? Watch Prince Nuada take on his enemies. Solid, kickass sh*t, I tell ya'. Some movies offer plain, blunt fight-scenes, but Hellboy 2 delivers fight-sequences that are choreographed so well that it happens in a beautiful (not sure if you can call violence that) flow.

What's also cool is Abe Sapien. He's the aquatic 'brains of the bunch' and we see a lot more of Abe in the second installment of the Hellboy franchise. We also see more emotion from him, more talk, more input, more everything. And it's cool because I like Abe's character. He reminds me of
C-3PO in certain instances, but Abe's isn't as talkative. Doug Jones plays the 'fishstick' and a bunch of other creatures, and as always, he does it with ease and perfection. In fact, all the characters and strange creatures in Hellboy 2 fit in so well! Nothing seems overdone or pushed beyond its capacity.

The visual effects in Hellboy 2 have improved drastically since the first film. There's a fine blend between CGI, animatronics, and the real deal which gives Hellboy 2 a perfect touch of professionalism. Unlike lame CGI which damages the entire film, Hellboy 2 integrates CGI only where it has to, leaving the rest of for animatronic workers and make-up artistes. This gives all the characters in the flick a concrete feel, not making anything look funny or out of place or fake-ish.

But unfortunately, there is a downsides to Hellboy 2. I wasn't satisfied with the climax of the film. It runs smoothly all the way but for some reason, in my opinion, it doesn't deliver a powerful climax. It's as though the peak of the story was cut-short. I was expecting something big, something more, but was kinda' disappointed when the movie seemed to end too quickly. I'm not sure if more will be shown in the unrated version of the DVD, but as far as the climax is concerned, there's a lingering feeling that Hellboy 2 could and should have delivered way more than it did. I'm not sure if it's just me, or if more people feel the same way.

Hellboy 2 is the uncompromising, raw, unfiltered vision of Guillermo del Toro. After his massive success with Pan's Labyrinth (which I hate with a passion despite all the raving reviews and critical acclaim), del Toro was given the freedom to take the Hellboy series in his own direction. He did. And it worked so well that Hellboy 2 kicks some serious ass. I admit, I have a new perspective towards the directing abilities of Guillermo and hopefully with Peter Jackson by his side, he'll be able to weave The Hobbit into a masterpiece that is befitting of Lord Of The Rings standards. I notice now that del Toro's films have a certain touch to them, much like the films of Steven Spielberg have a certain thematic value to them as well. This second installment has sparked some serious interest in me towards the Hellboy series, and you can be rest assured that I'll be hyped for Hellboy 3 when it's due. Watch this baby on the big screen because it's all worth it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Hellboy 2: The Golden Army gets a 4.3 out of 5.0. It's entertaining, it has an interesting storyline, good CGI, and nice acting. Hey, it made a person (like me) who didn't give a sh*t about the series actually pay attention to it and like it in the end...that has to account for something right? Pretty damn nice, folks!

P.S : Come this very day next week, I would have already watched the greatness that is The Dark Knight. Twice. The viral marketing ( which I now pronounce the grandest, greatest marketing machine in the history of Hollywood) is over, the clock is ticking, and we're only less than a week away from what could be the greatest blockbuster of the summer! Just look at what The Joker has done to http://www.thedarkknight.com/ and all the sites on http://www.whysoserious.com/. Argh, the anticipation is effin' torture!

The Haunting | REVIEW

2008-07-08T12:29:00.003+08:00

I remember watching The Haunting way back in 1999 and decided to give it another look a couple of weeks ago. It's perfectly clear now that horror and spookiness fade with time. Have you watched the 70's version of The Omen in recent times? Not scary, I tell you. To be honest, The Haunting still gives me the chills, especially when watched at night in the dark. It's probably the best way to watch a horror movie. It's nowhere near anything Stephen King-related, but it serves well as a spooky horror film. It's also a remake of the 1963 horror film of the same name, based on the novel by Shirley Jackson entitled The Haunting Of Hill House. Here's the synopsis for The Haunting, NO spoilers, as always.

When her invalid mother dies, Eleanor "Nell" Vance (Lili Taylor) joins an insomnia study run by Dr. David Marrow (Liam Neeson) at Hill House - a secluded manor in Massachusetts. Upon arrival, Eleanor meets two other participants, Theo (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and Luke (Owen Wilson). Unknown to the participants, Dr. Marrow's true purpose is to study the psychological response to fear. Each night, the caretakers chain the gate outside Hill House, preventing anyone from getting in or out until morning, when the caretakers open the lock. There are no working telephones inside Hill House and cell phone service is unavailable there. The house was chosen because of its isolation from the outside world. Needless to say, there's more to Hill House than one might perceive. It has a somewhat unholy history, which the 'guests' will soon find out first hand.

I'd put The Haunting in the same category as Wind Chill (which I have also reviewed), meaning that it isn't a scary movie but instead a spooky movie. Here's a quick lesson on the difference between spooky and scary. Spooky is something chilling, dependant on the atmosphere and settings of the film, whereas scary relates to the more frightening aspects like blood and gore and peeling flesh and whatnot. The Haunting is a bona fied spooky movie, which for me is a good thing. See, it's way harder to make a spooky movie than it is to make a scary or frightening one. Throw in some hideous faces, hollow eye sockets, fangs, blood, lots of bloody corpses, and you've got yourself a certified horror-fest that will shock the living cahoots outta' anyone... which, in my opinion, is easier to do than making an ordinary atmosphere seem eerie, chilling, or at some instances, frightening as well. It takes effort, good acting, the right settings, proper cinematography, and a solid soundtrack to pull off a well-done spooky movie. And The Haunting has done that. It has a great cast and like I've said in a couple of reviews before, the isolation factor really works well. It's always scarier when you're stuck in a hole, unable to escape, while being hunted and haunted by things that go 'bump' in the night. Now that's scary. Or spooky. Or both.

Catherine Zeta Jones is always a pleasure to watch...and I mean that in a good way. No, really. Really. Liam Neeson plays the 'doctor with a secret' well, and Owen Wilson is just a nice addition to the entire project. When it comes down to the cast, The Haunting doesn't seem to have a problem.

Keep in mind that this is a flick from 1999 so CGI isn't really the stuff you see in today's summer-fever-films. That being said, the visual effects in The Haunting are not all that obvious. Sure, some downsides here and there, but for a movie that released almost a decade ago, whatya' expect? Good graphics for its time, though. Nothing bad at all.

For those of you who have yet to watch The Haunting, I say go for it. It has quality that is sometimes missing in the entire shipload of recent horror films. So many horror movies over the course of the last 5 years have been so bad that they hardly scare you anymore. The cheap thrills and 'boo'-effects, sure, but most movies only last as long as it's on screen...it fades from memory the moment you're out the cinema door. There are exceptions of course. Anyway, The Haunting may not be the scariest piece of work in recent memory, but it's surely NOT a waste of time. It has the potential to leave an impression for a while, at least. The perfect way to watch it would be at night, lights off, girlfriend or boyfriend or both (whichever makes you happy), and some popcorn...or any other snack, whichever is easier to get.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : The Haunting gets my 3.9 out of 5.0. I enjoyed it a decade ago, and I guess I still do today.

P.S : Nine days away from The Dark Knight. Now that puts a smile on my face.....

The Scorpion King | REVIEW

2008-07-03T12:34:00.004+08:00

As you may not may not know, I'm a pro-wrestling fan. I enjoyed watching guys like The Undertaker and Stone Cold Steve Austin beat the living craploads outta' each other back in the late 90's and early 00's. Wrestling's been a lil' down lately, but one guy's career seems to have picked up tremendously. His name is Dwayne Johnson, better known to the millions of wrestling fans as The Rock. Having said that, I hereby declare The Scorpion King a complete waste of time. Seriously.

The Scorpion King is a spin-off the famous Mummy series, and if you recall well, we get a glimpse of 'The Scorpion King' himself during the prologue of The Mummy Returns. We see him again in the end, but technically it's not him at all...just some oversized 3D thing that has metal legs or something like that. It looked awfully fake-ish too. Anyway, unlike The Mummy Returns, The Scorpion King is actually the good dude in this flick. Obviously. Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson plays Mathayus, the last true Akkadian mercenary, who is assigned to kill Memnon's sorcerer whose prophetic powers allow Memnon to rule his empire with an iron fist. Mathayus sneaks into Memnon's camp and finds his way to the sorcerer's tent. However, his plans change when he discovers that Memnon's sorcerer is actually a beautiful sorceress called Cassandra. Having second thoughts about a kill for the first time, Mathayus and his brother are discovered by Memnon's people and their plans foiled. Mathayus loses his brother in the battle, yet manages to escape. He must now find a way back into Memnon's territory to avenge his brother's death and stop Memnon's reign once and for all.

Sounds like a pretty decent story, huh? Full of intense action, one hot Kelly Hu, and The Rock making an impact on the big screen. Right? Oh, how wrong you are. Despite all the hype and excitement, for me, The Scorpion King fails as a good movie. It's mediocre to the bone, it has lame comedy, and very poor acting skills. Being a wrestling fan, I enjoyed cheering for The Rock back in the day, and I had expected him to at least bring some quality to the big screen. He didn't and neither did any of the other cast. Kelly Hu is in there, Michael Clarke Duncan is in there, Bernard Hill is in there...and they all look like they don't even want to be in this gig. I was disappointed beyond mention after watching this movie in the theater. I even wondered if a refund was possible. Dwayne Johnson can try to remove 'The Rock' from his name all he wants, but till this day, he's portrayed the same characteristics in every movie he's acted in and to be honest, he's always playing 'The Rock'.

The Scorpion King was directed by Chuck Russel. I figured maybe this guy would do the movie some justice and pull it off well since this is the same guy who helmed The Mask and big-time actioners like Eraser. I wasn't expecting highly intellectual and superb quality stuff; all I wanted was a fun movie ala The Mummy Returns, something that I could enjoy or at least watch again on TV. Needless to say, I never bothered to watch The Scorpion King again. Ever.

What confuses me is why would The Rock make a complete jump from wrestling and enter a platform where nobody gives a s**t about him? I'm not saying this because I enjoy watching WWE, but because it's seriously baffling. Here's a guy who has reached an iconic status in the world of sports-entertainment. Anybody who's anybody, wrestling fan or not, knows who The Rock is. And they know his catchphrases, his taunts, and his popular gestures. In wrestling, he reached a realm beyond that of superstardom. So why quit so soon? I understand that people have dreams to achieve and want to move away from an industry once they've done all there is to do, but I still feel what The Rock did was absurd. If he had at least done some indies, or played characters that were hard to play and that needed surreal acting abilities, then it would be understandable. Being called 'the next Arnold' is not something I'd call an achievement. It's subjective, but I don't think the poeple who called The Rock that were praising him when they said it. The Rock *cough* I mean Dwayne Johnson has even been nominated for a f*ckin' Razzie Award for Worst Actor. He left a legion of fans and an industry where he was an icon + future legend for this? Seriously confusing stuff, people.

The reason I brought up the whole back story about The Rock is because there's nothing much to say about The Scorpion King, other than the fact that it's really not worth the time or money. It's silly, it's not all that humorous, and it's ultimately incredibly predictable. The best time to catch this would be when all other channels are showing reruns and / or there's nothing else to do. Your car has been washed, you've given your pet a bath, no homework, no housework, girlfriend / boyfriend / husband / wife has left you or doesn't want sex, you're done walking around in circles, you're tired of stealing the neighbor's car, porn isn't amusing anymore, you've looked at the sky long enough, and boredom seems to be killing you slowly....only then will The Scorpion King act as a worthy last resort.

Okay, in all seriousness, it isn't a disaster. It isn't Epic Movie. Now that was a effin' disaster. The Scorpion King is basically fun if there's nothing else to do and you're halfway bored to death. Okay, so maybe it is that bad. Watch it for the mere sake of watching something.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : I give The Scorpion King a 1.2 out of 5.0. I hated it.

P.S : Bad movies aside, we're only less than two weeks away from this year's summer phenomenon, The Dark Knight...which is going to kick all kinds of ass! Young, old, male, female, animal, mutant, alien...all kinds of ass from all sorts of places. Oh, the anticipation!

Blood & Chocolate | REVIEW

2008-06-30T23:41:00.003+08:00

There’s something very cool about werewolves. They’re scary, yes, but are also cool in a way. And please, if any there’s anyone who’s a werewolf and is reading this post, please don’t come after me for saying you’re cool. I like to see you guys on TV, where you can’t leap at me with bloodshot eyes and razor-sharp claws. Let’s just keep it at that, alright, I never said I had any intention of meet any of you in person. Are we clear? Alright? Alright.

Blood & Chocolate is the story of young Vivian, a member of a supernatural race called the loup-garoux, better known as werewolves, who hide their true identity and live as members of the human populace. Her family is murdered in the United States because of their bloodline, yet she survives and is brought back to Bucharest where werewolves are revered rather than shunned. But unlike others in her clan, Vivian sees no sense in the violent, animalistic killings, and her meeting with a graphic novelist only amplifies her doubts towards the ways of her people.

I heard very bad things about Blood & Chocolate. I heard that is has a bad storyline and isn't up to standards, being hyped as a movie from the creators of Underworld and Underworld Evolution. Personally, I like Blood & Chocolate. Seriously. I’ve begun to notice that movies outside the mainstream pipeline really tend to concentrate on powerful storytelling rather than being bombarded with pointless CGI and visual effects. Blood & Chocolate is helmed by Katja von Garnier, a German director whose only other American production is Iron Jawed Angels (2005). She does a wonderful job at composing very beautiful shots. I just like the camera angles and overall cinematography. It may have been produced by the ‘Underworld-guys’, but it’s nowhere near the Underworld budget. Yet it looks beautiful in terms of color and the way the scenes are shot in Bucharest. You have to see it to know what I’m talking about. If there’s one thing I like from these smaller productions that never get a proper mention compared to bigger blockbusters, it’s the cinematography. There’s a lot of focus on the color of things, the way the sunshine bounces off certain objects and the way the lights look at night. It makes a film look very real, very down-to-earth, but it’s not overdone meaning the film is still very pleasing to look at.

What really impressed me was the fact that Katja von Garnier was adamant to use real wolves while filming. She could have easily vied for CG wolves which would have made filming much easier in terms of training the animals and getting them to cooperate. It’s not as easy as one might think. Remember the scene in Transformers where Sam Witwicky is being chased by dogs? Those dogs actually began chasing him, for real! And dogs are supposed to be domestic animals. Back to Blood & Chocolate, yes, real wolves were used instead of 3D ones. And to top that, Katja actually took the bandwagon to Bucharest to shoot this thing. She had other options, but she wanted to shoot in the same location that the movie was based in. And Bucharest is certified eye-candy, or in this case, eye-chocolate.

The downside to this movie is the deviation from the original source material, which in this case is the novel of the same name written by Annete Curtis Klause. It deviates to such an extent that it can hardly be called an adaptation at all. It merely draws inspiration from the novel while changing everything from names to pivotal characteristics and characters' relations to one another. In fact, the main baddie in Blood & Chocolate is somewhat of a good guy when it comes to the novel. There’s just too many differences to list down here, and also listing them down would spoil the movie for you. For those who have read the novel, Blood & Chocolate is a disappointment to say the least. But if you look at it as a standalone film that has not a single connection to the origins, then I’m sure it’s enjoyable. It’s likeable because it isn’t the regular werewolf story. It tells a different tale about the seemingly bloodthirsty creatures. They have traditions and culture and are, at times, more blessed than cursed.

Because of its relatively low budget, Blood & Chocolate doesn’t depend on high-end CGI to deliver its story. That’s why the film looks grounded and realistic. Of course the transformations into werewolves apply some visual effects, but the filmmakers were smart enough to not make it look amateurish. Take a look and you’ll see. Again, it’s not top-notch effects, but it’s nice to see that directors like Katja know how to work around a low budget; something that some directors might perceive as a nightmare.

Not everyone liked Blood & Chocolate, as it bombed at the box-office. It received a shipload of negative feedback and was very poorly accepted by moviegoers. Only a selected bunch seemed to enjoy the movie as much as I did. Sure, I like big-budget productions too and Blood & Chocolate wouldn’t ever make it into my list of Top-20 movies, but it isn’t a complete disaster as some would deem it. It has a good story, believe it or not, and it applies a very nice way to tell it. Ask me and I’d say “go watch it”. I’m not sure if it’s worth buying the DVD, but in this modern era, there are other ways of watching a movie. I’m not saying any more. Give it a peek and you might find that it’s a pretty good piece of work.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Blood & Chocolate gets a 3.3 out of 5.0. Trust me, it’s better than you’d expect it to be. Unless your expectations are way outta’ proportion.

Midnight Express | REVIEW

2008-06-29T12:03:00.003+08:00

Here’s a review all the way back from 1978. If you were born in that year you’d be 30 now. I’m about to review Midnight Express, a film that screened three decades ago and received a majority of positive feedback from movielovers and critics alike. It just goes to show that film withstands the test of time and is appreciated long after its era under the limelight. I wasn’t even born in 1978, yet I’ve seen this movie and I like it quite a bit, even though the cinematography is somewhat out of date and there’s no fancy CGI to aid the visual aspects of it. Sometimes it’s just nice to look at ‘real’ more than ‘implan…..*Ehem, cough*.’ I mean, ‘CGI’.

On October 6, 1970, during his departure from Istanbul, US citizen Billy Hayes is arrested by the Turkish police for trying to smuggle several bricks of hashish taped to his body. His prison sentence spans for four years, despite attempts by his father and his lawyers to bail him out. In prison, Billy is subjected to humiliating brutalities including sexual assault and intense physical torture, not to mention having to put up with a prison informant / worker by the name of Rifki (played by Paolo Bonacelli). I’ve seen evil villains, cruel villains, cunning villains, and lousy villains…but never have I seen a villain / bad guy with a face that I’d like to use as a punching bag. I mean this guy is so f*ckin’ annoying that you just wanna’ gut the dumb b**tard! And I don’t mean I wanna’ gut the actor, I’m saying I feel like effin’ kickin’ Rifki’s jewels up into his throat. You know, I really need meditation lessons. Back to the story. Just when Billy thinks he’s home bound, his sentence is extended to a whopping 30 years by the jurisdiction in Ankara. It’s too much for our hero, and he knows now that his only way out is via the ‘midnight express’. That’s prison slang for ‘escape’. But escaping his far from easy.

Midnight Express is a story based upon the book by Billy Hayes of the same name. Billy Hayes’ book, in fact, is based upon his true life experiences while he was locked away in an Istanbul prison. The book was brought onto the big screen by writer Oliver Stone and director Alan Parker. Although it received critical acclaim in terms of storyline and acting, it was bombarded by Billy Hayes himself for being, to a large extent, inaccurate. The movie deviates from the book's accounts of the story, especially in its portrayal of Turks, to such a level that many have criticized the movie version, including Billy Hayes himself. Later both Oliver Stone and Billy Hayes expressed their regret on how Turkish people were portrayed in the movie. There are plenty of man-on-man sexual-assault scenes in the movie which depict the Turkish police as monsters, whereas there is no account of sexual assault in Billy Hayes’ book. Instead, he actually admits to having consensual sex while in prison. I guess the filmmakers really had to improvise on this bit, because it’s only now that the world is opening up to new norms, whereas a protagonist who willingly has sex with other inmates wouldn’t have set well three decades ago. There are, of course, other issues such as the portrayal of the Turks in Midnight Express which caused the film to receive a lot of criticism. Some call it more of a hate-story. Some call it racist. Some, including Billy Hayes, say that the Turks were made to look like barbarians rather than real people, which according to the author is a very harsh, untrue depiction of them.

The film won Academy Awards for Best Music, Original Score (Giorgio Moroder) and Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium (Stone). It was also nominated for Best Actor in a Supporting Role (John Hurt), Best Director, Best Film Editing and Best Picture.

Although Midnight Express is entirely based in Turkey, the movie was almost entirely filmed in Malta after permission to Istanbul was denied. Some scenes were shot in Libya, while the background scenes of Istanbul were shot by a crew pretending to shoot footage for a cigarette commercial. Talk about taking risks, huh?

I’d say Midight Express is a pretty decent film and is a must-watch for people who enjoy rich storytelling and good acting. But for those who just want casual films and nothing heavy, Midnight Express may not be the best thing to put in the DVD player. It’s very heavy with a lot of emotion. You can just feel the weight of the emotion gripping onto the film. It relates to a person’s worst fears; stuck in a foreign prison so far away from family and friends, a foreign culture with alien-like law and order, slapped with a 30-year sentence in a place that is hellish in nature (as depicted in the film, of course). Alan Parker does a great job directing and Brad Davis just blends as Billy Hayes, which makes the movie all the more powerful. Plus, there are supporting roles by Randy Quaid and John Hurt. Although most of the movie is powerful, some of the cinematic energy from back then has changed, turning serious scenes into hilarious ones. The following scene may be a bit spoiler-ish, but I’m going to go ahead and describe it anyway. Billy’s girlfriend comes to visit him in prison after a couple of years, and since there’s no porn in prison, Billy’s more interested in what’s underneath her dress than her face. Instead of getting mushy, Billy gets straight to the point and asks her to unbutton her top. So she does, crying at the state her now extremely horny her boyfriend is in, and actually presses her left breast onto the glass barrier that divides the inmates from the visitors. And our friend Billy is trying his level best to get a hold of it, while she keeps pressing herself onto the glass harder! *Guys, stop touching yourselves, please….for Pete’s sake! This isn’t the erotic fanfiction section, alright?* What I’m trying to get as is that, while this may have been an extremely sexy scene back then, it transcends as effin’ hilarious in the modern day! I couldn’t help myself from laughing and rolling on the floor. I laughed so hard that my ribs were aching and I felt my belly, *cough*, I mean abs, splitting in half! Not only did this scene look too dramatic for its own good, it was also spoofed in Cable Guy, in which Jim Carrey does exactly what Billy’s girlfriend does in this scene! And I watched Cable Guy first so you can imagine my reaction. So yes, you may have a good time watching this and it’s heavy, sure, but this one scene is enough to turn this flick inside out, upside down, and before the end you’ll probably find all the heaviness gone because you’ve laughed your ass off.

Go watch Midnight Express. No, not for the Cable Guy-spoof scene, but for the quality of the film. Old movies have a certain quality that is sometimes missing in modern-day flicks. I’m not saying I don’t like new movies, in fact I love them more, but you can sense the passion in the filmmaker by watching movies like Midnight Express. And although it was way before my time, I enjoyed it. Not a casual watch, for sure. It requires some patience and focus in order to be enjoyed to its fullest potential.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : I give Midnight Express a 4.0 out of 5.0. Some of the film’s initial impact is lost over time as the style of filming grows old. It’s still a very nice movie and it is a must-watch for movielovers.

P.S : I guess those of you who like the TV series Prison Break will enjoy Midnight Express. I heard somewhere that Midnight Express is what inspired the hit TV series. Not sure if that's true, searched around but couldn't find confirmaion.

Charlie & The Chocolate Factory | REVIEW

2008-06-26T14:04:00.003+08:00

Not everyone has the ability to take a role by the throat and completely own it. Very few do, and Johnny Depp is one of them. The man can take up any role, any character, and blend into it better than a chameleon on the bark of a tree. His acting skills are so good that you never relate one character to another from his other films. You never compare Jack Sparrow to Sweeney Todd, or Edward Scissorhands to Ed Wood, or any of his characters to the very strange Willy Wonka.

Charlie & The Chocolate Factory sees young Charlie Bucket (Freddie Highmore) win a trip (along with other children from around the world) to the mysterious yet amazing Chocolate Factory owned by the one and only Willy Wonka. It seems the factory has reopened after a long age of problems, and Willy Wonka has invited a lucky few (those who get a Golden Ticket in their chocolates) to go on a tour with him at the factory. The factory itself is an amazing place filled with rivers of chocolate and trees made of pure candy. It is everything Charlie had dreamed of; a world away from the harsh burdens of life, the poverty and the limitations it causes. And to his delight, Charlie is given an opportunity to stay at the factory and work for Willy...with one condition. He must abandon his family forever. So what does poor Charlie Bucket do? You'll have to watch and see.

Charlie & The Chocolate Factory doesn't rely much on storyline. It's more eye-candy (no puns intended) that anything else. Tim Burton takes a step back from the dark and deadly, presenting something more colorful, more vivid, and more kid-friendly than anything he's ever done before. But, he is Tim Burton, and you can take away the darkness and the shadows and the horrors, but you can never separate Tim Burton from his first love, Mrs.Weridness. Charlie & The Chocolate Factory, no matter how colorful, is still weirdly disturbing. It's not a bad thing, but it just goes to show that Mr.Burton will always be Mr.Burton.

Like I said, the spotlight here once again goes to Johnny Depp. He completely revolutionizes Willy Wonka without actually destroying the actual character. For those of you who don't know, this film is a remake of the original Willy Wonka which came out in 1971, in which Willy was played by Gene Wilder. Although the original Wonka was also strange and eccentric in his own special way, he was never as disturbing and antisocial as Depp's portrayal of the factory owner. Take note that this was after he played Captain Jack Sparrow, a character that is now a pop-culture icon. Yet he still manages to pull off Willy Wonka so well that you hardly ever relate him to Jack Sparrow in any way. You'll also notice that Helena Bonham Carter is in this movie as Charlie's mother. She will later go on to play Mrs.Lovett in Sweeney Todd alongside Johnny Depp, who plays Todd.

Despite there being not much of anything in Charlie & The Chocolate Factory, it still proves to be a fun watch. A word of warning though, it gets boring at times. There's no real storyline to this thing until more than half the movie is done, and most of the time I kept asking myself, "Why is all this happening? Is there a point to all this?". Of course you envy the fact that we don't have chocolate factories that look like Willy Wonka's where you can bathe in raw chocolate and drink from chocolate rivers, but other than that the movie hardly takes any form or shape until towards the end of the story. Oh, and then there's the Oompa-Loompas, cute little knee-high men who work at the factory. They are not cute, they are not adorable because they look like grown men, but they sure are funny. They're one of the best things this film has to offer. I'm not even sure why I like them so much. Funny looking lil' things.

The score, like most Burton films, has a somewhat sinister ring to it. Nothing evil or deadly, but it's like one of those carnival fun-houses that turn out to be not so fun after all. You know, those horror movies that use jolly things like clowns to scare the living daylight outta' one's rear end. Something like The Nightmare Before Christmas. The music for Charlie & The Chocolate Factory is befitting of the film's theme, yet it's not the most carefree music in the world. There's always some weirdness to it.

I guess Charlie & The Chocolate Factory is a worth a peek for anyone who enjoys Tim Burton's unique view on things. It has his weird touch to it. And it shows. The acting is good from both Depp and Highmore, and the settings are, as I mentioned, eye-candy. It's not all visual effects and high-tech CGI, but it's fun to look at and admire as a good result of strange imagination. Give it a shot, it's not all that bad.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Charlie & The Chocolate Factory gets a 3.8 out of 5.0. I enjoyed it, although some instances almost put me to sleep. Depp is awesome, as always. Johnny Depp has so much talent that if he donated just a portion of it to Steven Seagal, Steven would win as Oscar immediately. Johnny Depp has so much talent that it's contagious. That's why out of work actors want to touch him.

P.S : If Christopher Nolan plans on having The Riddler in the third Batman installment, Johnny Depp would make a kickass Riddler. He has so much talent that he's a walking riddle himself; how could anyone have so much talent? He's that talented, people.

Wind Chill | REVIEW

2008-06-26T00:10:00.003+08:00

Seriously, I did not expect a damn thing from this flick. It was one of those things that I watched to let the time pass. But some movies just seem to have surprises in store, and whatya' know, I actually enjoyed Wind Chill. In fact, I was spooked during certain instances.

George Clooney and Steven Soderbergh are among the producers of the project (who knew, huh), while Emily Blunt and Ashton Holmes play the leads. Wanna' know what their names are in Wind Chill? Well, Emily plays 'Girl' and Ashton plays 'Guy'. Yep, that's who they are throughout the flick, just 'guy' and 'girl' and that's their names in the credits. Come to think of it, most of the credits say 'Police Officer', 'Pickup Truck Guy', 'Store keeper' etc, even though some of them are pretty important people in the movie. Here's what you need to know about Wind Chill.

It's a horror movie. It's not a documentary about the Earth's climate shift by Al Gore, just so you know. It's a spooky horror movie that happens during a 'wind chill'. Thank you Captain Obvious. In this film, a young woman from a northeastern college shares a ride home to Delaware for Christmas with a strange young man she meets from their school 'Ride Board'. After a few hours of driving, the guy detours to what he considers a shortcut, Route 606. He almost gets rammed by a truck, dodges the oncoming vehicle, causing his car to crash and break down in the middle of nowhere. It's getting cold, and a wind chill has been reported. That's when the 'fun' begins. Strange figures begin to appear, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that something is horribly wrong. It looks like the wind may bring with it more than just a freezing cold breeze.

I compare Wind Chill to movies like Whisper and 30 Days Of Night in the sense that these flicks really nail the 'claustrophobia' effect. The 'stranded' or 'isolated' angle really works well when it comes to horror movies because it gives you a feeling of 'nowhere to run'. It's like one of those nightmares where you're running in circles, unable to escape whatever it is that's bugging you. Another similarity those films named above is the 'winter-time effect'. It works both ways. In a Christmas movie, winter works as a beautiful, cooling time of the year, whereas when it comes to scaring people's guts out, the winter season delivers the 'cold', 'white', and 'difficult to move around' feel. Get what I mean? It tells the audience that it's not a good time to be stranded somewhere because it's cold, it's dangerous, and it's not easy walking to nearby towns because the snow prevents things like that.

Wind Chill, although simple and relatively low-budget, is creepier than a lot of other horror movies I've seen over recent months. I emphasize the word 'spooky' and not 'scary'. Scary would be 30 Days Of Night, Nightmare On Elm Street, and anything by Stephen King. Scary has the 'gore-factor', the blood, and the gutted guts. Spooky, on the other hand, is not so much the ugly faces and the fangs, instead it focuses more on the eeriness of the surroundings including the type of climate and the locality in which the main characters are in. Wind Chill is a certified spooky movie.

I wouldn't say that the acting in Wind Chill is Oscar-material. It's nothing special, but it's good. Both Emily Blunt and Ashton Holmes do a great job at being frightened people in the middle of No-Man's-Land. To make the film all the more realistic, very little music is used. This, too, is another plus-point for Wind Chill.

I'm not sure what the bad points are in Wind Chill, though. It's far from being perfect, but when you expect nothing from something, I guess the bad points don't really show because you've expected them all along. That being said, Wind Chill is definitely worth your time, and it's a pretty cool (no pun intended) film to watch at night if you're up for some frights. A very mediocre movie that seems to deliver more than it should, or more than it was initially meant to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Wind Chill gets a 3.6 out of 5.0. Not the best horror movie in the world, but a worthy-watch.

Babel | REVIEW

2008-06-25T01:45:00.001+08:00

Before I go on with this review, I want to make it clear that Babel will not appeal to every movie fan, instead it is meant for a selective group of people with a specific taste in film. I'm not discriminating or saying some people are better than others, I'm only saying that movies like Babel are made with a selective group of moviegoers in mind. It's how horror movies are made for horror-fans, and do not appeal for those who dislike the genre. Babel works the same way. It's a very flat, very slow, very artsy film that delivers a powerful yet subtle message. And it's heavy, meaning it isn't a casual watch.

Babel is a story that intersects a number of incidents involving different groups of people all around the world, that somehow interconnect to one another. In a way, Babel draws inspiration from the 'six degrees of separation', a phenomenon that deems the world as a 'small place' in which everyone knows everyone else in one way or the other via their own personal networks. It simply says that everyone's action will cause a reaction, and even though you may not realize it, your actions are being felt by someone, somewhere. Pretty deep, huh? I know, that's why I like Babel a lot. I've heard a lot of people call it 'boring' and 'slow' but I guess not all movies can be fast and furious now, can they?

Babel stars Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett (they will star together again in The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, which looks totally wicked, people. Watch the trailer, the music alone makes it epic!). Don't expect the Oceans trilogy 'Rusty' side of Brad Pitt, don't expect the warrior-style Brad from Troy, don't expect Brad to flirt around ala Mr & Mrs Smith...instead expect Brad to be a very concerned father who's wife (Cate Blanchett) has had a shooting accident in southern Morocco. Needless to say, the duo pull it off really well. Babel has an ensemble cast, meaning Brad and Cate are not center of attraction. Every angle has its own story and every story has its pivotal characters. Every character is important enough to drive the story forward.

The music invented for Babel is breathtaking. It isn't fast-paced or loud, instead it's a perfect fit for the mood of the movie. It managed to bag an Accademy Award for Best Original Score in 2007. In fact, the movie was so well received by critics and guilds alike, that it had been nominated for 7 Accademy Awards. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Film - Drama.

Is Babel a family-flick? Nope. You can pass on the swearing, but you can't pass on the sexual content. And I mean full-frontal Japanese nudity is what's in this flick. Is it fun? Maybe, depends on your taste and what you'd expect from a movie. Is it something you can watch at any given time? Nope. Babel works well when you have time on your hands, your mind isn't pre-occupied, and there's some peace and quiet around. Is it worth that amount of time? Sure as heck, yeah. As I said, Babel caters to a certain group of moviegoers. If you're at home with your girlfriend and what you need is that casual movie for you and her to sip Coke and eat popcorn to, Babel's not the movie to slip into the player. And girls, if you're home alone with that guy of your dreams and you need a movie to play, Babel's not the right one. In fact, no movie is the right one for that situation. He's too busy fantasizing about the possibilities of the 'home alone' advantage to focus on anything else.

All in all, Babel is a movie that's worth a watch. If you favor good storylines, Babel will deliver well to your expectations. It takes a lot of effort to pen a story that diverts into so many different sub-stories. Director Alejandro González Iñárritu really did a good job on this one. The multi-narrative drama completes González Iñárritu's "death trilogy," which also consists of Amores Perros and 21 Grams. Allocate some time to give this piece a peek and you'll see that good storytelling always shows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Babel gets 4.6 out of 5.0 for being a really interesting tale. It has a dedicated cast, a fantastic score, and is a wonderful thought-provoking movie on a whole.