JUSt ANOthER fiLM JUNkiE

Taken 3

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 16:00:00 +0000

When Common Sense Gets TAK3N Away
by Reymundo Salao

Taken 3 is the third and final installment in the Taken trilogy which stars Liam Neeson as Bryan Mills, an ex-government operative who has been fighting kidnappers who targeted his daughter in the previous two films. Inasmuch as I think the trailer pretty much gives out a spoiler to the movie, let's just say that Mills (Neeson) is being framed for a crime he didn’t commit, and now everybody seems to want to kill him. The story did divert from the first one, but it's still quite familiar coz this time it looks like it's ripping off "The Fugitive". [hit the jump to continue]

It's no surprise that this third movie is as awful as the second one; it's coz it's directed by the same director; Oliver Megaton, who also directed “Transporter 3”, and the similarly awful 2007 adaptation of the videogame of the same name; "Hitman".

This movie looks exactly like one of those straight-to-video action movies. Remember those never-heard-of films by Wesley Snipes or Steven Seagal? Remember how awfully-made those movies were? Well Taken 3 feels like those movies. Except that this one has louder explosions and big stunts, it has a whole lot larger budget; the kind of budget given to a movie that's gonna hit number one at the box office charts the week it gets released. And mission accomplished for Liam Neeson and its director Megaton, because it did hit that number one spot.

The movie just flat out insults its audiences' intelligence with its dumbness. There are scenes that just does not bother to stitch some sense into it; We often see Liam Neeson seem like he died in some crash, but the film doesn’t bother to lay out the credibility of how he survived. Except for the fact that: he's just Liam Neeson... He doesn’t need to explain how he survives any danger. We see Neeson get into situations wherein, for example; he’s trapped in an elevator shaft inside a building, we see him panicking and trying to get out, seconds later, the building explodes and is overwhelmed with fire. Then we cut to a scene where Neeson is very much alive, looking neat and dapper, without any explanation whatsoever as to how he survived.

There are some scenes here that are too ridiculous to the point that it suddenly looks like a scene from one of those “Fast and Furious” movies. At one point, Neeson's car just bumps into a section of another vehicle and immediately sends his car flung to the other side of the freeway. It's as if the vehicle he bumped into instantly transformed into a stunt ramp. It's the same kind of circus you get from the “Fast & Furious” movies, but while that one was working with some kind of cartoonish fun, this had to exist in the supposedly-brooding world of the Taken universe.

This movie also has a lot of predictable stereotypes; the villain that escapes on his private mini-jet plane with the leading lady held hostage, the handsome side character who is "secretly" the main villain, the "former Soviet assassin turned mercenaries" villains (even though, let's face it: most Soviet assassins should be more or less in their retirement age by now!), and of course, there's also the good old big twist that makes the story needlessly complicated.

Even though the film was awful, I was trying to have fun with it. Believe me: I also wanted this to be a good movie! But, aside from the crazy ridiculous scenes, the rest of the movie seemed a bit too awful and boring. The first Taken movie boosted Liam Neeson's career; this one seems like it wants to end it.

Seventh Son

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 16:00:00 +0000

The Seventh Son is the First Awful for 2015
by Reymundo Salao

The Seventh Son is one of those movies with trailers that are unquestionably awesome, but the finished product itself, the film in full, is officially my first bad movie of the year. [hit the jump to continue]

In the "Seventh Son" Jeff Bridges plays this old man warrior named John Gregory who is a Spook, or (in the context of the film) is some kind of witch-hunting knight (They don't really tell you what these guys are, except that a whole lot of these Spooks are already dead). Sir Gregory is in pursuit of this Witch named Mother Malkin who transforms into a dragon, and is bent on bloody vengeance. This villain isn't exactly excited of planning any other thing on her agenda, aside from vengeance against Sir Gregory. Some of you could already be keen enough to guess why these two are really bent on killing each other.

In order to effectively accomplish his mission, he will need the aid of an apprentice, one who is a seventh son of a seventh son (It's not exactly explained why that should be the qualification of what he's seeking, except only that he mentioned in passing that seventh sons are supposed to be exceptionally strong and/or skillful (in fighting). Then we are introduced to the title character named Tom Ward, who has a Luke Skywalker backstory; he's a farmboy who aspires that he is meant to do great things, and get away from his dull farmboy lifestyle... and then around 20 minutes later, when we see him being trained as a warrior, he complains that he is "not meant to be doing such things"

Later, they both are teamed-up with a third ally who is Sir Gregory's silent companion; an orcish fellow named Tusk, who obviously just looks like a tall, bulky man with an orc mask. Of course he's silent and doesnt say a word because perhaps this might give away the fact that he's just wearing an orc mask!

Things get complicated when Tom meets a young witch named Alice, and they fall in love... in such an awkwardly unnatural manner. This part creates that young-adult-romance Twilight-esque aspect that, in concept already is a bad idea, and when executed in cinematic direction looks worse.

The villain Mother Malkin is played by Julianne Moore, who despite her prowess in acting, looks awful in this. It's because the character just looks like Julianne Moore in stylish evil witch gown and make-up. Kit "Jon Snow" Harrington makes a very brief appearance here only for a minor role. I'm amused that Djimon Hounsou is in here too, applauding him to be a regular in a lot of big fantasy-sci-fi-genre movies. The lead Ben Barnes and the leading lady Alicia Vikander were both kinda "meh, whatever" But it really is Jeff Bridges that steals this awful show. In some scenes, he seems to be doing his very best Gandalf impression, while in some scenes, he's doing the good old ruthless mentor figure schtick. But what is most distinct about his performance is that he seems to be making up this distinct accent, voice, or manner of speaking which is just hilariously distracting (he sounds like a character in a children's cartoon). After a while, whether or not he secretly intended it to sound funny, I just found myself laughing at his performance.

The film is directed by Sergei Bodrov who directed "Mongol". I can imagine that perhaps on text, the (bare framework of the) story has potential. The relationship and dynamics between Sir Gregory and Tom Ward, and between Gregory and Mother Malkin, there's something underneath that feels like it could have been a better movie. Add it up with the fact that it has awesome visual effects in some areas, many of the other creature designs and costumes were impressive; especially the ones we see in the trailer.

Unfortunately, Seventh Son feels like it was directed by a 12 year old sword-and-sorcery fantasy geek who doesn't know how to tell his story. My ultimate sentence: This feels nothing more than just a TV movie that you can watch while multitasking.

300: Rise of an Empire

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 06 Mar 2014 16:00:00 +0000

300–2: Simply the Spectacle
by Reymundo Salao

While I'd like to call it as "300-2" as a corny joke, “300: Rise of an Empire” was not the “joke” I thought it would be. This is a movie that functions both as a prequel and a sequel to the 2007 movie adaptation of Frank Miller's “300” graphic novel (which is an adaptation of the classic movie "300 Spartans" which depicts the Battle of Thermopylae, which was part of the Second Persian Invasion of Greece. 300: Rise of an Empire centers on the stories of the Greek hero Themistocles, the Persian "god-king" Xerxes, and his female general Artemisia, and how their fates are tested during the Second Persian Invasion of Greece. Once again, we see bloody warriors in slow-mo and surreal sword-battle action with this sequel. (Here we go again. As if we needed to have a sequel to 300...)
[hit the jump to continue]

I thought I was probably going to dismiss this film as an immensely unnecessary sequel. A sequel which comes awfully too late, right when everybody else has already gone weary of seeing the imitated look of the first movie (from that TV series Spartacus to The Immortals, to The Legend of Hercules). But 300: Rise of an Empire did not turn out to be the garbage I was expecting to see. While I would not say that it was a good movie in critique standards, I wouldn’t deny that I did find myself having a great time with the movie. The key is to appreciate it for what it was: a cheap standard, eye candy spectacle. And even though it was just that, I can appreciate the effort to try to elevate it to a more respectable degree.

Apart from the expected eye-candy, new director Noam Murro manages to inject some sense of graphic novel poetry just like the first movie. Dare I say that this movie has a little more narrative content than the first movie. While the first movie seemed to go straight to the themes of valiant bravery, courageous sacrifice and war, the narrative of this sequel goes around telling back-stories of a couple of main characters. Many of these narrative details have flaws, but just when these flaws begin to be annoying, it conveniently shifts gear to distract and please you with its "video game action sequences" which are often entertaining (not unless you are not a fan of barbaric action) to watch.

There is a focus in the naval battles in this movie. And because of that, we get to see a more interesting and refreshing style of action; one that has an emphasis on strategy and ways of outwitting the enemy. Unfortunately, these scenes of battle-strategy never last too long and would soon give way to the expected bloody swordfights.

Aside from the few silly little flaws here and there, the movie's more glaring flaw lies on the use of CGI blood effects which makes the blood splatters look like strawberry jello. I am also not quite happy as to how the movie consciously chose not to give itself a properly wrapped-up ending, and seems to obviously open itself to a possibility of a sequel, which is a lame attempt to drag on and extract each and every last drop of this cash-cow for as long as it can.

The cast? The not-so-popular lead Sullivan Stapleton as Themistocles was good enough. Lena Headey and Rodrigo Santoro both, as expected, hit their marks. But Eva Green, as a major villain named Artemisia, was such a delight to watch and could definitely embody that intimidating ultra-femme-fatale look, she knows how to project the kind of impact and charisma for such her role. Plus, she looked alluringly awesome in her female warrior look.

Overall, 300: Rise of an Empire was spectacular and just bloody-action-fun without having to go down to the level of "Michael Bay stupidity" just to please its audience. It may not be all-great, but it certainly isn’t a waste of time. I give it a simple little thumb-up.

Thor: The Dark World

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 01:00:00 +0000

THOR 2 is ANOTHER MAGNIFICENT SUPERHERO MOVIE
by Reymundo Salao

In THOR: THE DARK WORLD, the Dark Elf Malekith sought to return the universe to a state of pure darkness. To do this, Malekith has to wield the power of the force called the Aether, which has embedded itself within the body of Jane Foster. Thor has to do everything to protect Jane Foster, preserve the peace of Asgard, and ensure that the universe does not fall into sheer darkness, and to do this, he must seek the help of his brother Loki. [hit the jump to continue]

On the outset, we can clearly see that Thor 2 has all the epic action and the visually attractive thrills. Thor 2’s action is adamantly and deliciously satisfying. There are more than enough monsters and creatures this time. There are battle sequences that are close to fantasy sci-fi that reminds us of Star Wars. There are so many things happening in Thor 2 that it feels jampacked with enough content.

But apart from all the visual richness, the movie is surprisingly rich with character development. That is not surprising, considering that they have hired one of the main directors of the TV hit series “Game of Thrones” Alan Taylor to helm this sequel. Taylor’s history in that series managed to have somehow made its way into the more plot-based aspects of this movie. In context, this movie is actually pretty dark in tone, but Taylor somehow knew how to balance it in such a manner that it does not feel depressing. His icebreakers are daring, the way it would insert some light-hearted humor right after a really dramatically dark and heavy scene, it's risky, but Taylor has somehow managed to make it work. And as an improvement from his history in Game of Thrones, Taylor surprisingly gets to prove that he knows how to use some high adrenaline action to make his rich story-based movie delightful to all kinds of audiences.

The movie never fell short of telling the dramatic aspects of the story. In comparison to the first movie, Dark World does not have to go through the introductory phase of storytelling, and focus more on building up the deeper aspects of character drama, and balance it with all the action and obligatory spectacle. Not to say that the first movie was weaker; part 1 had its own theme, which was in itself, had strong dramatic aspects. But Dark World explores further twists and character growth.

We get to see more the dynamic relationship between Thor and Loki, and how it is defined by a distinct sort of mixture of brotherly love and hate. We get to see Thor’s stubborn love for Jane Foster. And we see a more complex focus on Loki’s psyche. Thor: The Dark World boasts the strength of an absolutely well-written script.

To sum up the movie in simpler, but geekier terms, Thor: The Dark World is a mixture of Game of Thrones, Star Wars, and your standard fun superhero movie. It is a must-see, and is surely one of those movies that challenge the title of being one of the ten best superhero movies of all time.

[by the way, there are two extra post-credits scenes in the movie. One is right after the animated credits scene. The other is right after the full credits itself.]

Salvi: Ang Pagpadayon

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 13 Sep 2013 06:06:00 +0000

RISING FROM THE ASHES
by Reymundo Salao

The story of SALVI is set in a post-apocalyptic world, and civilization has seemingly become non-existent. Most of the characters cannot even remember (or choose not to remember) how the world has come to that bleak point. The main character of the movie is a girl named Salvi, who chooses to make herself look like a boy, and sets out on a journey to search for her missing sister who was kidnapped long ago by a marauding gang from the “Campo”. Along the way, she meets a thief named Abet who knows the location of the Campo. Salvi’s journey leads her to a slave camp run by a transvestite queen named Madonna. There, they meet another mysterious companion named Kardo. Salvi soon faces the end of her journey with horrifying revelations.[hit the jump to continue]

[note: I rarely write reviews for movies directed by Iloilo directors, simply because it is not easy to call out on the flaws of the works of other Iloilo artists. It is a rule that I usually keep, especially because I myself sometimes get involved in local indie projects. Many people usually take criticism in unfavourable light; but there are others who take criticism as their own basis for improvement. I admit it would be easier for me to write this review because I loved the movie, it was also easier because I was sure that the cast and the crew would be open-minded about any criticism that would come their way. Anyway, I hope you guys will understand ;) ]

What I can tell you now is that SALVI: ANG PAGPADAYON is a movie that we Ilonggos can really be proud of. It is magnificently made movie, beautifully shot and brilliantly directed. And as far as Ilonggo movies go, this easily stands as the best.

Much of the movie’s strengths rely greatly on how masterful the visuals are handled. The cinematography is awesome and it really knows which color tone to use and what kind of visual atmosphere it chooses to evoke. All this, plus the set design, make-up and costumes that create a convincing post-apocalyptic scenario. The creation of the movie seems to have the kind of discipline found only in international standard movies. Such discipline in technicality that is rare in Philippine cinema, and oftentimes absent in mainstream Tagalog movies.

The direction is done with such discipline and patience, that it does not get too excited with its concept, and strives to create something that has some trace of originality despite the fact that many audiences have already seen so many post-apocalyptic Hollywood movies before. SALVI looks fresh and refreshing to those in search of something different from your run-of-the-mill Pinoy movie. TM Malones’direction also employs practical techniques that are efficient; such as the simple trickeries with the camera during moments of gore, and in the scene on the rickety-looking bridge.

On the other hand, SALVI has its imperfections too. I felt that the story needed to have more plot details to make the movie richer. I wish there could have been more scenes with Madonna and his/her gang, just to answer the questions that bother my mind while I am watching the movie; what is it that makes her powerful? What makes her the boss? What were those seeds supposed to be? These details seem to be understood only by making our own assumptions, instead of having the movie deliver the story as intended to be. Other sections of the story needed to have such details as well. But for a movie that is a director’s first full-length feature film, these imperfections can easily be overlooked by how good all its other factors are. Anyway, to normal audiences, these imperfections can easily be ignored.

The cast did a great job. Brittany Marie Baldoza as Salvi and Rodgee Borja as Kardo did a fine job in their roles, as well as Joan Paulette Mary Libo-on as Ama and AC Vergara were spot-on in their roles. Ducky Pamplona as Madonna looked very beautiful even for a transvestite. And Marcel Milliam as Madonna’s right-hand man/woman and slave-driver Lexie has effectively injected a fierce ruthlessness blended well with what a post-apocalyptic tranny thug could look like. Allain Hablo as Kapon and his right-hand man played by Mik Lang stood out as characters that drew much impact. I would have loved to see more screentime of Hablo as such a scary villain. But the one who really stood out as the best performer among the cast is Ulysses Apocay, Jr. As Abet. He delivers his colourful character effectively; full of life, humor and incredible weight of character that he delivers in such an effortless natural ease.
SALVI: ANG PAGPADAYON is indeed a landmark in Ilonggo cinema. Sure there have been many other Ilonggo movies that have come and gone before, but this stands out as the best. It is an epic made through simplicity, it is a work where each centavo spent is made priceless, it is a harbinger of great things to come in Philippine cinema. I could not help but liken the movie’s setting to some metaphorical view of Philippine cinema: From the ashes of destruction (of the old image of Philippine Cinema), we Ilonggos rise to create a new age in cinema. SALVI: ANG PAGPADAYON is a movie that should not be missed.

On The Job (OTJ)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 03 Sep 2013 07:25:00 +0000

ON THE JOB is MAGNIFICENT;
The Shining Hope for Pinoy Mainstream Cinema
by Reymundo Salao

The story of ON THE JOB tackles the controversial issue of prison detainees being secretly slipped out of prison to serve as hired assassins. And once their job is done, they secretly slip back to prison and pretend that they have been there all the while. The syndicate that runs this operation is powerful enough and rich enough to easily mobilize such operation. The movie has a story that promises itself, not to only raise people’s eyebrows in approval, but also promises to be a classic. [hit the jump to continue]

ON THE JOB is a magnificent piece of work. It blends all its factors into a level of perfection. Beautifully shot, and extremely well-directed. Erik Matti and cinematographer Francis Ricardo Buhay III managed to use the right kind of style to make slum, urban, and prison settings to look astounding. Impressive also, are the shift of visual moods that swing from the more gritty locations, to the more grandiose and upscale world of politicians who serve as infamous puppetmasters in the story. Screenwriter Michiko Yamamoto (writer of Ang Pagdadalaga ni Maximo Oliveros and Magnifico) and Erik Matti weave an intriguing story that mirrors a controversial issue and is also one rich with thrilling action and dramatic suspense.

Off the intro sequence itself which is a collage of news clips and footages, you could tell that this has some heavy political issues raised. The political drama in this movie is so relevant that it taps on the issues of how military generals are so influential to the point of being the ones who control secret syndicates.

OTJ has a story that is not so difficult to understand, but it would be better if the audience would be more attentive to the little details of the movie, in order to appreciate the technical depth of the story as well as the dramatic connotations. Little details in the story, such as the fact that Joey Marquez’s character has a son that is involved in drugs, that the father of Piolo Pascual’s character was murdered, that the family of Gerald Anderson’s character thinks he’s working in Dubai. These little layers of the movie make the story more thought provoking and give a strong impact.

It was so refreshing and applaud-worthy to see such stellar cast playing really fine acting roles that do not involve the typical tagalog drama. The main cast really take their roles to heart; Piolo Pascual plays a ranking NBI agent torn between his love for his family, his commitment to his job, and the memory of his father. Joey Marquez sheds his old bungling comedy image and replaces it with the angst of a cop frustrated with the hierarchies of the system, while he is trying to track down the hitmen responsible for the recent murders. Joel Torre seems like the perfect father figure and could pass off as the main character of the four, except for the moral issue of him being a hitman. And Gerald Anderson stays true to his role of being youthful, reckless, clumsy, but dangerous.

Leo Martinez and Michael de Mesa are also magnificent, playing figures that are moving things in the political world,. Shaina Magdayao, Angel Aquino, Rayver Cruz, and William Martinez also have significant roles in the movie. Such a strong cast for a movie with such crime themes that remind me of great Hongkong crime noir movies such as Infernal Affairs and Hardboiled.

The musical soundtrack features some of the country’s best bands, their tracks placed into sections of the story with appropriate perfection, and the musical scoring by Erwin Romulo is slick and really embodies the irreverent mood of the story.

I am glad that Erik Matti has changed the way I look at him as a director. When he was working with fantasy movies, I see him as immensely unoriginal and derivative. I hated his approach, even in the popular Tiktik: The Aswang Chronicles, I frown at it with disgust. In his earlier erotic works, he has shown us that he has an eye for great cinematography, but those flicks he made still did not amount to something impressive to stand apart the usual big name tagalog film director. But then again, it can be assumed that he was working with big producers that had their claws wrapped around tightly around his neck. That is the usual fate of film directors in mainstream tagalong cinema; to be slaves under the bidding of producers who think they know what they’re doing, so much so that it becomes a case of pre-judging a movie, not on who directed it; but on who is the producer first. Perhaps this time, Matti has found a producer that could give him enough freedom to do his work, or to bland well with his approach, because ON THE JOB really proves to us that he can work like a genius.

Some people who have described this movie as a return to the classic 80’s Pinoy action movies may not have remembered how those old movies were; Most of those old tagalog action movies were too plain, too stereotypical, and too predictable. In contrast; OTJ breaks the norm and defies the stereotype; it is highly unpredictable, uniquely realistic and very unclear who the good guys actually are, which is a good thing actually. We can safely say that ON THE JOB is that great cinematic hope to change the game in Philippine cinema.

The Conjuring

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 24 Aug 2013 19:07:00 +0000

THE CONJURING OF A CLASSIC
by Reymundo Salao

THE CONJURING is a supernatural horror movie about the paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren (played by Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga) who come to the assistance of the Perron family (Ron Livingston and Lili Taylor), who are experiencing increasingly disturbing events in their farmhouse in Harrisville, Rhode Island in 1971.

James Wan has already gained enough recognition when he had his breakthrough creation; the SAW movies. But Wan's other movies that followed, such as INSIDIOUS, had diverted from the more visual elements of horror and into the more cerebral and dramatic elements, gradually gaining a strong understanding of what really makes his audiences be haunted by the sensation of Fear. [hit the jump to continue]

Apart from having a cast that really delivers the acting chops to convincingly bring to life this insidiously haunted tale (yes, all of them are superb in this movie), Wan himself knows how to create the perfect mood and setting for what could possibly be one of the best ghost movies since THE POLTERGEIST. This movie is truly frightening, and with the fact that it injects all elements of what a really good scary movie should simply be (minus the unnecessary gore), it easily establishes itself as a true horror classic. THE CONJURING is one HELL of a ghost horror masterpiece.

The Conjuring weaves a story based on actual events and actual people, and that is one factor that makes the movie incredibly appealing to many people. Because we would sometimes lazily leave off and ignore the duty of confirming the validity of whether the movie did mirror the actual events or not, as a result, we simply assume these adaptations to be accurate depictions of reality. That way, we get to grasp the idea that what horrors that are happening on the screen may happen to us. The level of paranoia gets to the audiences and makes them experience the fear first-hand.

But the story is so engagingly good and so dramatically rich, that some skeptics will surely feel that the movie injects a large chunk of edits and additions in order to make it cinematically suspenseful enough and so structurally ideal for what a horror movie could do.

The movie delves into ghost horror territory then injects some elements of witchcraft and exorcism in such a way that makes perfect sense, and does take the eerie sensation evoked by the film into a more heart-pounding kind of horror; a gradual horror ride that starts mellow then transcends to be mindblowingly scary. And the movie achieves this without the use of flashy computer-generated effects. Instead, it employs good old, tried and tested horror movie effects gimmicks

THE CONJURING proved that it does not take some grand budget to make a really good, really effective horror movie. Most of the effects in this movie have been made by really simple tricks that could easily be achieved by a shoestring budget.

Director James Wan has proven that his mastery in horror is not dependent on gore elements and shock factor; he has proven that he really understands what truly gets his audiences scared. And over the course of his filmography, he has remained consistent with his quality and gradually evolving upwards, culminating into the kind of discipline he injects into THE CONJURING. It is now easy to assume that James Wan truly is the new master of horror.

Kick-Ass 2

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 14 Aug 2013 22:00:00 +0000

A Kick-Ass Sequel
by Reymundo Salao

The sequel to 2008's KICK-ASS simply titled KICK-ASS 2 is loosely based on the comic book of the same title, and follows the story of superhero wannabes Dave Lizewski who gets on a green costume and calls himself Kick-ass, and Mindy Macready who is known as Hit Girl.

The story picks up some years after the events of the first movie. Mindy is now raised by his father's best friend Marcus, who struggles to push Mindy into a life of a normal young teenager, an attempt to give her the innocence her father deprived her of. Dave, on the other hand, has been trying to continue his secret life of costumed crime-fighting as Kick-ass, and has had the opportunity to team-up with other costumed crime fighters.
Meanwhile, Chris D'Amico, the son of the crime boss that Kick-ass and Hit Girl put away, is having an obsession of vengeance towards Kick-ass. He also puts on a costume, baptizes himself as a supervillain named 'the Mother##cker' and has hired all sorts of dangerous criminal psychos into his gang of supervillains, declaring war against costumed superheroes and Kick-ass.

Just like the first movie, it is not easy to classify KICK-ASS 2; it could perhaps be best described as a comedy with some really dark action elements, and cold-blooded violence. A more simple way to describe it is that it's a violent superhero comedy that will most probably find its market among teens and lovers of the superhero genre. The comedy elements and the colorful costumes may be bothersome for audiences who are not open-minded towards this genre. But it really is a well-made story about characters who are trying to find their true identity and the consequences of whatever reckless lives they live.

The first movie set the bar too high that although KICK-ASS 2 was a spectacularly excellent movie, there are several un-ignorable flaws that make it less perfect. In as much as the film did have some coherence and consistency, I felt that it needed a whole lot of extra minutes. It makes me wish that a longer and a more unfiltered cut is still out there waiting to be unleashed when the DVD comes out.

One of the new characters introduced was the role played by Jim Carrey, named Col. Stars & Stripes, who did what he does best in his later movies; create a character that does not sound and act like his usual roles. Inasmuch as the character he made had a strong screen presence, I felt that we needed more scenes with him in order to make him more charismatic and for the audience to invest some more sympathetic attachment to him. The same goes out for the subplot in the movie involving Mindy (Chloe Moretz) being tormented by her High School bullies; I felt that it lacked the emotional impact that could have made it way better.

But aside from the flaws, KICK-ASS 2 was still a strong superhero movie. There was still the intensity and suspense of the action; the sense of nervousness not knowing what will happen next. Much of the movie's strength lies on how good the source material is. Mark Millar (the writer of the comicbook/graphic novel) has a material that creates twists, turns, and action suspense that can keep your balls sweating.

Sadly, I think the movie would not be appealing to those who have not watched the first movie, or have no appreciation for superhero movies. But if you have watched part 1, and/or love superhero movies, this movie is a great sequel with enough spectacular action to really give you a deliciously bloody good time.

Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 00:03:00 +0000

PERCY JACKSON’S LUKEWARM SEA
by Reymundo Salao

In PERCY JACKSON: SEA OF MONSTERS, Percy Jackson, son of Greek god Poseidon, embarks on a journey with his friends to retrieve the Golden Fleece to save a magical tree containing the spririt of Zeus's daughter Thalia who died at the gates of Camp Half-Blood whilst saving Annabeth and Luke and Grover. This tree protects their training ground, Camp Half-Blood. They must travel to the Sea of Monsters to save it, and find the challenges that may await them.

This movie, which is directed by Thor Freudenthal (Diary of a Wimpy Kid) is a sequel to PERCY JACKSON AND THE OLYMPIANS: THE LIGHTNING THIEF, the second movie to what is expected to be a long line of Percy Jackson movie series, based on the Percy Jackson series of books by Rick Riordan. [hit the jump to continue]

I have not seen the first movie, nor have I read the book. Regardless of which, I enjoyed SEA OF MONSTERS nonetheless. The few references to the previous movie did not pose as a hindrance to understanding the movie. One has just to use some common sense to understand that many of these characters do know each other from the previous adventure, and some may have existing qualms to settle.

This movie pretty much works in a very satisfactory manner. It is not impressive at all; but it is not ugly, revolting, or dull either. Although it has some epic scenes, it does not seem to be the kind of movie that has an obligation to deliver epic action, but it sure does go the distance and meet you halfway with its eye candy.

Speaking of eye candy, there are some creature designs that raised my eyebrow with delight, such as the design of the mechanical bull, and that of a big bad main character at the climax, which reminded me of classic Marvel/DC comics.

The cast include Logan Lerman as the title character Percy Jackson, Brandon Jackson as the Satyr Grover Underwood, and Alexandra Daddario as Annabeth Chase. The actors and actresses may have substandard acting abilities, but they are never annoying and/or boring to watch. Somehow, they can still get your sympathy in some way, with just enough charm to keep you from having thoughts of walking out on the movie.

It can be fairly argued that this movie seeks to be “the next Harry Potter” acknowledging the strength of the young adult audience demographic that has made the Harry Potter series immensely successful. Although it could not reach near the level of Harry Potter, it does deliver something close to it, if not in quality, but in format instead.

PERCY JACKSON: SEA OF MONSTERS is the kind of movie that will have mixed reactions; because at some points, it is simply fun, while at some points it just feels like a TV show. It’s a cute little movie to waste your time with; but if you have other things to do, or other movies to watch, you won’t be missing much by ignoring PERCY JACKSON. All in all, it is a mildy nice little fantasy adventure that is best recommended for young teen audiences

The Purge

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 02:00:00 +0000

Inhuman Nature Unleashed
by Reymundo Salao

THE PURGE is more of a slasher suspense thriller, but not as gory as the standard slasher movies. Much of the movie's strength centers on the thrilling suspense, build-up of things to come, and how the story and the events in the movie unfold. The twist and the turns that are sure to generate an audience reaction, whether their reactions may hate the movie or admire it.

The story has a premise which is well-thought-of and unique in the horror/slasher genre. The setting is in some near future (in an almost-present-day setting), crime and poverty has been eradicated because the government has imposed that one night every year, the annual purge is held, a night when, not only is it legal for a citizen to kill somebody or anybody, it is even encouraged as a civil right. In that evening, all emergency services; ambulances, the fire department, and the police are temporarily suspended. [continue after the jump]

The story's focus is centered upon a family whose patriarch played by Ethan Hawke is a wealthy businessman and developer of security services. On the evening of the Purge, his family becomes the target of a group who demands a specific thing from the family.

Unlike the premise, the main story itself is weak, as rendered by its unimpresive script. Oftentimes, its main characters make annoyingly illogical decisions. On the other hand, the story takes a better, redeeming route when it reaches the final acts. By the end, I loved the movie, although I acknowledge that the middle part had moments that pissed me off.

On the background of the story is a thought provoking (semi-subliminal) message about peace, order, and the psychological urge for violence.

Although the movie has some flaws, I consider it a must-see if only for the strength of its unique premise. With a premise like this and its surprising success in the US box office, It's no surprise that there will be sequels of it soon. Especially if you love scary movies with some deep psychological meaning, don't miss THE PURGE

The Wolverine

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:30:00 +0000

An Excellent Hardcore Noir Movie
by Reymundo Salao

THE WOLVERINE seeks to revitalize the comic book character Wolverine with a treatment designed to correct the wrongs of the previous movie, one that will render it "done right this time" And yes, it does accomplish that job.

The movie has various plots and subplots, in such a way that still has some sense of order; you have a family at the crossroads of betrayal, a character who is interested in Logan's mutant abilities, Logan himself trying to survive the fact that he can be mortally wounded, even be killed. He is also facing a haunting past that frequently visits his dreams. All its subplots are layered one over the other in a way that is not confusing and manages to let the story run in a fluid consistent manner. [continue after the jump]

The action was great; the stunts and the choreography were awesome that it had me cheering a lot in various parts of the movie. It never underestimated its audience by being honest with the necessary violence. There is no cartoony way of trying to hold back the action in order to maintain some kid-friendly rule. Although it cheats its audiences by controlling violence boundaries and sparing the audience the scenes of gore or excess bloodbaths, it still manages to maintain the presence of the violent action itself; the kind of violence necessarily inherent in what a Wolverine movie should have. (What? Do you expect to make a Wolverine movie without all the slicing and stabbing?) And yes, for those not familiar with the comics, do not be shocked; Wolverine does kill.

Aside from the action, The Wolverine is more character-driven. People who expect the same kind of "fantastic fun" in other superhero movies may find the movie dragging, or even mediocre. Especially in the first half of the movie wherein which I loved the drama and the complex evolution of fates, following the journey of one man who is lost and feeling cursed by the pain of the past, and the fact that he has to live with it (eternally).

For me, the weaker parts of the movie were when they brought out the big special effects; the big fight with Viper (Viper herself felt like a B-movie character) and the Silver Samurai. The movie's strength really is in the character development and the more hardcore non-fantasy action. With a character like Wolverine, as is in the comics, his best stories do not involve big monsters or apocalyptic scenarios; Wolverine is more complex than Superman or Spider-man. He is animalistic, savage, yet he maintains his sense of morality and honor. Character-wise, he is more grounded in reality with the fact that he really does not have some quest to seek out and rid the world of evil as a costumed superhero; he just does that as he goes along the way.

James Mangold manages to create a movie that is faithful, in essence, to the comics; and reflecting the gritty, violent and noirish aspects of what a Wolverine movie should be. But at the same time, he manages to make an action-drama with great character development and an awesome script. My verdict; this is feels like the Wolverine movie his fans are waiting for; dark, gritty, brooding, and with the right amount of simplicity. It’s a must-see for fans and those who seek to be surprised that superhero movies can be a source of good drama as well. But for those looking for the usual Hollywood Summer movie, this might fall short on expectations.

Additional Notes: In the story's continuity, events in THE WOLVERINE happen years after the events in the movie X-MEN: THE LAST STAND. Jean Grey (Famke Jansen) often appears in Logan's dreams as some sort of haunting conscience, injecting an interesting psychological aspect in the movie. Aside from that one detail, the story does not oblige you to watch the previous movies, and can be considered as a stand-alone movie. There seems to be no reference to the movie X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE which is better off forgotten or considered to 'not have existed.' Audiences are advised to stick around in the post-credits to find an extra scene which seems to be a bridge scene to the upcoming movie X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST

Odd Thomas

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 02:54:00 +0000

Sommers Light
by Reymundo Salao

Based on a Dean Koontz novel of the same title, ODD THOMAS is about a short-order cook who moonlights as a clairvoyant who is able to communicate with dead spirits, and oftentimes act in aid of the police in solving crimes and bringing spirits to rest.

The difference between Odd Thomas and the typical horror movie character who is able to communicate with the dead is that whenever the dead does seem to ask help from Odd, he really does something about it. And with the anticipation that his quest will often lead him to trouble, he knows he to throw a punch or two. He's not exactly the kind of one-man-army type of hero, he's quite the opposite actually; but he at least knows how to handle himself when facing bad guys. [read more after the jump]

Anton Yelchin gets to show that he has the potential to be the star of his own movie, his charisma gets to carry the story and immediately lets you follow him through with ease.

Addison Timlin as Odd's girlfriend Stormy Llewellyn, does a satisfying performance despite the fact that in some scenes, her acting does not really come off as good, but easily redeems it with some degree of charming cuteness. By the end of the movie, she has proven to be that great factor that has made the love story aspect of the movie really good.

The movie has a light tone, one could mistake it to be comedic at first. But what it really is, is the tone from the perspective of a main character who does not see his plight in a bleak manner, unlike how it is portrayed in other horror movies. The route of the story takes you to several suspenseful moments, but not the usual apocalyptic set pieces like those in most of Sommer's movies. In this movie, Sommer gets to deliver some smart storytelling techniques that has more the element of innovation rather than flashy CGI.

ODD THOMAS is a good horror-suspense adventure movie. It's light, and a bit more wholesome than your usual horror flick. It almost feels like a mellow comic book movie; mildy surreal, thrilling, and never slows down for dull moments. It is very simple, but achieves to deliver a nice little horror-adventure tale despite its humble scale. It proves that Stephen Sommers is a director that can indeed do a good movie with rich character-development, and proves that he does not necessarily need big special effects to achieve hsi target. But then again, this movie does have a simple and limited scale. It's a great movie, but only in a TV-movie quality kind of way.

Man of Tai Chi

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:03:00 +0000

...FIGHT!!!
by Reymundo Salao

MAN OF TAI CHI is Keanu Reeves' directorial debut, with Tiger Chen as the lead, and also stars Karen Mok and Hai Yu, who is known for his various Shaolin roles in kung-fu movies from the 80's till the present.

The story centers upon a practitioner of Tai Chi named Tiger, who gets tempted into the world of an underground illegal fight club organized by Donaka Mark. And as he gets to become more of the champion, he also gradually loses his own discipline as a Tai Chi practitioner. MAN OF TAI CHI is simply about one man's seduction to the dark side, and its symbolic evil seducer is played by Keanu Reeves. [continue after the jump]

There is a tone of simplicity in the movie; it does not aspire or have pretensions to achieve anything else except for just being a straight-to-the-point martial arts movie. And it does accomplish its task with flying colors. But despite its simplicity, the evidence of achieving an impressively well-directed movie is clear; the story of its main character is weaved beautifully, following him in his life from being a sort of an underdog in his menial job, from being a simple humble man, and into his journey into darkness, his innocence gradually being corrupted.

What was also interesting is that the film's main protagonist, Tiger Chen, does not look like your typical action hero, he even has little mannerisms that oftentimes make him look awkward and wimpy. But that changes whenever he makes his Tai-Chi stance, as he becomes a force of sheer power. It should also be noted that his acting in this movie was spot-on good.

I loved that Karen Mok was the police protagonist who is investigating the illegal fight club being run by Donaka. It felt like she is portraying the exact same character she played in the 2002 Hong Kong action movie SO CLOSE. Plus, she hasn't looked like she aged a day from that role

As for Keanu Reeves, his acting in this movie is very conservative, in an almost intentionally dry manner that is fit for the kind of villain that he wishes to portray; uncomplicated and plain.

On the other hand, what he may lack in acting, he compensates in how well he has directed this movie. I honestly wonder if he'll consistently establish himself to be the Ben Affleck of action movies.

The Martial Arts is immensely awesome. Reeves is working with the best; Yuen Woo-Ping whose name is almost legendary in the world of Martial Arts movies is the fight choreographer in this movie. The man is a god when it comes to Martial Arts Movies, there's no margin for error with him in your movie.

The movie's only demerit was that the action scene with Iko Uwais (star of The Raid: Redemption) was not as satisfyingly long as expected. But that's a tiny nitpick that does not shake the film's flawlessness.

This film has not yet been released in the US, so its a treat to see this movie already. MAN OF TAI CHI is a delightful treat for those who love seriously good martial arts movies.

Pacific Rim

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:00:00 +0000

Only for the Robots and Monsters
by Reymundo Salao

PACIFIC RIM is a robot-versus-monsters movie directed by visionary film director Guillermo Del Toro who is well-known for immortal fantasy and horror films such as Cronos, Pan's Labyrinth, as well as Blade 2 and the Hellboy movies. It stars Idris Elba, Charlie Hunnam, Rinko Kikuchi, Charlie Day, and Burn Gorman.

Anticipated and forseen to be one of the gigantic movies this year, PACIFIC RIM hopes to attract the fans of big destructive monster flicks like Godzilla, and fans of flashy robot movies like the Transformers movies, as well as fans of mecha-sci-fi, and mecha anime, from the classic mecha anime of the 1970's Voltes V and Daimos, to the recent Gundam generations. [full review after the jump]

I actually loved the concept. If I were to judge the movie only by concept and eye candy factor, the movie does score high. But unfortunately, I was not impressed by the rest of it. The movie suffers from bland acting and a sloppy script. There is a lack of chemistry between the main characters Becket and by Mako; actor Charlie Hunnam and Academy Award Nominated actress Rinko Kikuchi (for her performance in the movie BABEL) are certainly great performers, but their acting in this movie feels so uninspired and so amateur-ish.

The movie's great concept cannot save how messy the script is. The story is good, the script is bad. The flow of the story is never fluid, as if it lacks some extra scenes that could have made some story details make sense (I hope that there will indeed be a full uncut version of this movie to be released later on, on home video perhaps). The film has a really poor character development; the motivations of the characters are never built-up well enough, thus making these characters be devoid of audience sympathy. They quickly devolve into cardboard characters; lifeless and boring.

It is the eye-candy that really is PACIFIC RIM's saving grace. But even that needs a little improvement. In one way or another, it commits the same mistake the Transformers movies do; the shooting of action scenes too close to the jaegers (machines/robots), which only makes some of the action sequences difficult to appreciate visually. Having most of the action scenes at night does not help as well. If only they could have avoided those sequences that appear to have been shot too close to the jaegers/kaijus.

I confess I did have high hopes for this movie because it's a Guillermo Del Toro movie. I wanted so much to love it and to forgive whatever little flaws it had. I even set my bar low enough to find enough good things in it; but I could not go down low enough to lie to myself about how much the movie felt so disappointing. In the end, it felt like a Michael Bay movie without the corny fratboy jock humor and the overbloated sexuality.

It is only the action and the eye-candy that carries much of the weight that makes the PACIFIC RIM worth the price of admission. If you ask me, PACIFIC RIM is a movie that deserves to be watched in the theaters (hell, if given the chance to watch the movie again in IMAX, I'll do so). But do not expect it to be a good movie whenever there are those moments in the film where there are no robots or monsters on the screen.

World War Z

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:06:00 +0000

Simple but Kinetic
by Reymundo Salao

In World War Z, the world has been plagued with a deadly and rabidly contagious virus and has put the world in an apocalyptic zombie state. While the remnants of the government and the military are picking up the pieces of civilization and trying to ensure their own survival, Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) has been chosen to be sent across the globe to find a cure for this zombie virus. World War Z, directed by Marc Forster, is based on the popular novel of the same name by Max Brooks. [full review after the jump]

I must admit that I am not familiar with the novel from which it is based on, so my opinions may not necessarily be similar to one who is familiar with the novel.

Simple and typical may be what I may describe this movie. World War Z is good enough not to fall on the classification of lousy or awful. At least it does not drag; the movie is engaging and never ever slows down to cause the slightest bit of boredom. At best, it feels like what I imagine would be a perfectly well-made zombie video game adaptation. I'm sure that the movie has some intellectual or subliminal message hidden in and around the movie, or whatever message the writers want to convey. Whatever it may be, we could not really notice that since the pace of the film is fast and hyperactive. But at least it's never chaotic and messy.

On the horror aspect, it effectively does generate some screams and shouts. The scares are moderately efficient, and the zombies do indeed manage to be horrifying, even though they did not need to be extra disgusting and/or gory.

Although this may be considered as a zombie movie, it never crosses beyond its PG-13 rating. Meaning, it does not have the usual gore and violence other zombies have. Whatever violence the movie has is never focused or highlighted. It's a horror movie that may be considered "pretty safe" for a younger audience.

The problem with World War Z is that it's blown its wad by showing some of the best money shots of the movie on its trailer. The flooding stampede of zombies is the film's most impressive and unique eye candy. We've already seen fast zombies, we've also already seen extra-strong zombies (in "I Am Legend" they're not exactly zombies, but they have similarities with the zombies in this movie), but we've never seen them like this, the way World War Z presents them. On one point of view, it's refreshingly unique, on another point of view; it's a childish, over-bloated exaggeration of the concept.

But the flooding, stampeding zombies; that's the movie's one ace card. Aside from that, the movie is pretty simple horror suspense. What happens in the end is not your typical summer blockbuster climax scene; there's nothing extraordinary, like a big boss fight of some kind. With the way it was executed in the end, it felt like an indie horror movie.

But just because it has a quiet ending, it does not mean that it was a bad movie. The ending is consistent and fluid. It's not something impossible, incredible, explosive, or cartoonish. It's simple, and it makes sense that way in a manner consistent with the movie's tone. Overall, World War Z is a moderately good zombie movie; entertaining enough to be worth your money and time. But you will not be missing out on anything if you happen to skip it.

Man of Steel

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:30:00 +0000

Superman's Epic Restart
by Reymundo Salao

The last Superman movie "Superman Returns" was, in so many ways, a failure. The problem was that it followed the formula of the old Christopher Reeve Superman movies; a formula that is already severely outdated.

When Christopher Nolan, director Zack Snyder, and writer David Goyer were assigned to work on a new Superman movie, they focused on rehashing the entire Superman franchise, identified the flaws, avoided the corniness of the previous movies, and never ignored the source material. [the rest of the article after the jump]

Nolan, Snyder, and Goyer are a powerhouse; all three are experienced with working on superhero/comic book material. Nolan on the Dark Knight movies, Goyer on Batman and Blade, and Snyder on 300 and Watchmen. One could argue that this was a foolproof team. No doubt, the result was that they had created one of the best superhero movies, a worthy adaptation for a fictional character this popular.

'Epic' is easily a term that best describes the movie. A storyline that starts in incredible chaos, boils in emotional character development laced with a script very rich in heart and thought, and follows the journey of a protagonist that embraces the ideals of being a savior.

The storyline is more rounded, and makes perfect sense. Everything that felt so ridiculous before in the Superman mythos, now made sense; from his superhero costume, to the reason why Superman's weakness can be caused by Kryptonite is even addressed. It feels like all the characters are properly fleshed out. The villain has a reasonable motivation, and the back characters have their own opinions to share, that all made sense.

The movement of the story is kinetic. It moves along without dragging down. Each and every flashback adds to the emotional depth of what or who Superman is. Each and every turn may not seem like a big event, but it adds to the important details of this world.

And the Action? Oh the action is beyond perfect. It was phenomenal. Finally, we get to see a Superman battle in the kind that we only have witnessed in the comics and animation. Now we get to see it in a movie with all the superior special effects and the direction under the helm of Zack Snyder, who did practice restrain from his usual slow-mo visual effect that had been negatively criticized before. We used to complain that Superman merely looked like he was modeling in the previous movies; now we finally get to see him punching something. And, damn, does he punch a lot of things in this movie.

Henry Cavill is spot-on perfect for the role of Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman. He looks like he does embody a sincere urge to do good, plus, he has an angle that makes him look like Christopher Reeve. Russel Crowe does also shine as Jor-El. Diane Lane does heartwarming sequences as Clark's mother, Kevin Costner and Lawrence Fishburne both are also well-fit for their role. Amy Adams, on the other hand, as Lois Lane did well, except that she did not seem to have the energy of what we would have expected for a typical Lois Lane. Although, she is capable of doing so, if we base it on her previous roles in other movies. Perhaps she could do better in the sequel. In contrast, Antje Traue delivered a memorable performance as villainess henchwoman Faora. Acting-wise, all praises go to Michael Shannon as the main villain Zod. Granted, the role itself requires him to go ballistic in his acting anyway, but it does fit Shannon's forte of playing over-the-top roles in a manner that is immensely enjoyable to watch.

Perhaps my only complaint on the movie is that the music was not very anthemic as what is expected of a Superman movie. Most people have not yet forgotten how memorably distinct the old Superman theme music is, and oftentimes consider Superman himself and the music inseparable. Hans Zimmer's treatment of the music for this new Superman is fine, but somewhat bland. It merely feels atmospheric and very ambient in a "wallpaper music" sort of manner, than something that could carry or energize a scene.

Aside from these ignorable little flaws, MAN OF STEEL is close to perfection. It does make up for all the lousy flaws of previous Superman movies, and successfully brings back life into the legacy of Superman for a new generation.

Fast and Furious 6

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 26 May 2013 17:41:00 +0000

Big Dumb Fun, As Usual
by Reymundo Salao

FURIOUS 6 seems to be the original title of the movie. As if its producers were too afraid to be teased that it was a corny transition from the title of the previous movie FAST FIVE.

Fast Five had put the Fast and Furious franchise out into the ranks of mainstream Hollywood blockbuster. And it was indeed a tough act to follow. The series had built up all these characters which, by the last one, we already grew to love. Furious 6's great potential is that it maintains the positive energy out of its main characters. We love their screen presence and how they interact with each other.[read the rest of the article after the jump]

Much of the movie's charm is not the kind that can grab the attention of somebody who is not familiar with (or a fan of) the Fast and Furious series. The movie has a lot of corniness; up from Dom's repetition of their "family" mantra, to the 'superman' scene. It probably takes for one to be familiar with the series' brand of cartoony corniness in order to easily swallow it with a smile of appreciation.

But if you simply are looking for a dumb fun action movie, Furious 6 would definitely be something worth watching.

Whereas other critics might have frowned at the improbability of several (incredible) action scenes, I on the other hand, would choose to swallow all the fantastic stuff as long as these are done well. What I was frowning about was the execution; not the intention. One or two action sequences looked sloppy to me. Some of the action sequences looked blurry. There was an evening car chase scene wherein I could not tell one vehicle from the other because they were all black cars, and many of the camera shots were static. In another action sequence, this time involving an aircraft, the same thing. And there was a part where (Tyrese was using some kind of harpoon gun, and ) I could not see what exactly he was shooting and aiming for.

Another complaint I have is the movie's handling of tone. I appreciate how positively heartwarming and oftentimes comedic its characters are. But when something tragic happens to one character in the movie, there is such an insensitive treatment as to how that tragedy is approached.

SPOILER [highlight the blank portion to read spoilers]
After what happened to Gisele (Gal Gadot), the movie doesn't give her a tone of grief long enough for her character's fans to mourn over. The seemingly immediate jump to the barbecue scene made it look like no one really cared about her loss. This is kind of depressing because the previous movie (Fast Five which was a surprising hit) had established a loveable team that its audiences grew to love. to not give her her due spotlight just pisses onto what rich character development the previous movie made.

The epilogue scene revealing Han's fate in Tokyo Drift and the revelation of Jason Statham was also a scene that did not seem to have made a fluid transition into the movie. It was sloppy and looked amateurish.

All in all, I enjoyed and liked (not loved) the movie; but I would rather safely not recommend it those unfamiliar of the series. It's a movie that serves its core fans well, but could run the risk of disappointing those new to the series. Furious 6 was only "Good" but it could have been better.

In addition, I noted that these Fast and Furious movies are beginning to have the same gimmick with Paul Anderson's Resident Evil series: he injects a cliffhanger immediately at the end of one movie, so that you will be excited to see the next movie. Yes, there will be a Fast and Furious part 7. And many of you already know who is going to be on it...

Star Trek Into Darkness

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 20 May 2013 02:00:00 +0000

...INTO MAINSTREAM
[A Spoiler Review]
by Reymundo Salao

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is the follow-up to the 2009 reboot/restart (and at the same time brilliantly serving as a sequel to the original series), making it the second movie of this generation's Star Trek. Because the 2009 movie was such a magnificent piece of work, it just makes sense that there are certain expectations that should, in one way or another, be satisfied. With that being said, Star Trek Into Darkness delivers with just enough satisfaction to please the mainstream audience. It was fun, explosive, and spectacular. Personally, I (and a whole lot of people who have watched it) really found it enjoyable. But I cannot deny that it is a very flawed movie.

This is a spoiler-heavy review; I will be revealing several plot elements for this movie. If you do not want to be spoiled, read this article only you have already seen the movie.[read the rest of the article after the jump]

Primarily the only mistake the movie ever makes is that it forces upon itself several factors about the old Star Trek movie: Wrath of Khan. To the point that the movie feels less original, and feels like it sacrifices sensible story writing just to make way for references to Wrath of Khan. And why the hell would you want to remake Wrath of Khan anyway? It is the one movie that all Trek fanatics (Trekkies & Trekkers) consider as the one sacred movie of the entire Star Trek series; why would you want to burden yourself with redefining what is already defined as perfect? In addition, this is an alternate universe anyway; why not make something new out of the Khan characters? Instead, the movie tried to recreate their own version of the Spock-Kirk Death farewell, and the literal wrath of Khan itself?

For a moment during the initial portion of the movie, I thought the movie was indeed boldly going where no one has gone before--- by having Khan and Kirk fighting side-by-side. That would have been a unique twist. Instead, it led back to Khan being the main baddie, and diminished Khan from being a complex character into a simplified treacherous villain. The death scene of Kirk was kind of pathetic too; it was a card played too soon in this generations' Star Trek series. Bringing it out now, when these characters still need to be developed long enough like the old Star Trek did, only lessened the impact of a death scene that was not even been taken seriously …because we immediately see Kirk get brought back to life. One might try hard NOT to compare it with Wrath of Khan, but given the film's style and direction, the movie itself irresistibly makes you compare it with Wrath of Khan.

Even though you have not seen Wrath of Khan, you might still notice other inconsistencies in the movie; Khan's superhuman abilities seem to be diminished when faced with the Wrath of Spock, Spock's awkward screaming of the name "Khan", and the obvious plot elements that play into the movie (McCoy randomly experimenting with Khan's blood in order to revive some space gerbil of some sort).

But with all the demerits it has gained, and with all the missteps, the film still does soar despite its mangled self. The film still does deliver solid character development on Kirk's character most of all. It gave remarkable performances from the Star Trek main cast, and villains Peter Weller and Benedict Cumberbatch whose performances are memorable. Plus, the movie was electrifyingly filled with an immense amount of action-adventure that makes it feel less like a Star Trek movie, and more like a Star Wars movie. All the demerits I mentioned are dwarfed by how spectacular the movie is; these demerits are merely nitpicks when compared to how great the movie is; what they do is merely keep it from being perfect; that would probably sum up my verdict of this movie. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS almost was, but fails to be perfect; but it still is a damn good movie.

Iron Man 3

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:00:00 +0000

The Trials of the Man, Not the Armor
by Reymundo Salao

The problem with many superhero movies is that they are too conscious of what they are; too conscious of being a superhero movie. And although it is oftentimes best if a superhero movie is faithful to the comics, it should also be noted that it would be far more greater if its priority is making a great movie, period.

More recently, the thing that has made superhero movies and sci-fi-fantasy movies fail is that they (the producers) seem to be too concerned about how they can make extra money out of a single movie; from the merchandising, to the toys, to the potential sequels, and spin-offs. The best example of this failure is the 2011 movie Green Lantern, which did all that. Iron Man 3 seems like the kind of movie that prioritizes the main movie and its storyline first, and put all the eye-candy, and all the fancy garbage on the background as just an additional flavoring.
Iron Man 3 seems to take the route of making the audience just forget about Avengers for a while, forget about the whole Marvel universe for a while, and just focus on this very interesting and very dramatic story that it is trying to tell. Such a sentiment is reflected in one scene in the movie where Tony Stark feels that sense of annoying nausea whenever people (and children) try to ask him about the events that transpired in the Avengers movie. And prefers not to talk about it. This was how director Jon Favreau felt when he was shooting Iron Man 2. He felt that he was being bombarded with commands to inject a whole lot of Avengers elements in the second movie, and felt that he was hindered in trying to tell the story that he wanted to tell in Iron Man 2. It is believed that this was the reason why he left the director's helm to Shane Black. But Favreau still does appear in the movie (reprising his role) as Happy Hogan, Tony Stark's former bodyguard (now, Pepper Pott's).

Iron Man 3's storyline stands on its own feet. And tells a good one at that. At the center of it all is Tony Stark--- The Iron Man; a man who must face the monster he created from the past, and must fix his life with the woman he loves. His monster is nothing more than Aldrich Killian a scientist whose contempt for Stark is a product of Stark's own doing. Meanwhile, the United States is being harassed by a mysterious terrorist figurehead who calls himself The Mandarin.

Iron Man 3 is mature storytelling, and takes Iron Man away from his fancy special effects, making him get into action even without the aid of his armor. As a character, this reinforces the idea that Iron Man is not just the armor, but the man himself, Tony Stark. How he handles himself without his armor, and how his willpower and his wits are the driving force of his heroism. Iron Man 3 significantly decreases the Iron Man scenes and focuses more on Tony Stark who gets into action a lot without the armor. If you look at the movie, it tries to tell you that it wants to focus more on the story than the action. But on the contrary, there are two major action scenes which are heart-pounding with suspense; one is the helicopter attack scene on Stark's home, and the other is the Airplane rescue scene. Iron Man 3 has darker themes in comparison to the previous movies. The comedy is still strong, but there is a level of maturity that is uniquely reminiscent in Shane Black's previous works in writing movies like Lethal Weapon and The Last Boyscout. Even in scenes involving Stark having a conversation with a kid, they're scenes with the kind of humor that does not dumb down just because there's a kid involved. Rather, they're scenes that give a subtle mix of mature drama and comedy.

Director Shane Black really does manage to create something new to the Iron Man franchise, yet does not stray too far off to be alienated from the tone of the entire series. It's like a consistent deviation. Pulling this off, I believe Shane Black has managed to achieve what other superhero movies (except arguably Dark Knight Rises) had not easily achieved; a simply good third chapter.

Expendables 2

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 06:42:00 +0000

EXPENDABLES 2 IS PERFECTLY BALLISTICALLY FUN
by Reymundo Salao

A good sequel is one that takes notes from its previous mistakes and consciously and obviously improves on it. Expendables 2 does just that and more. This sequel is like a billion astro-fireworks far above the previous film. This movie makes the other one look extremely dull, tastelessly bland, and utterly joyless. EXPENDABLES 2 does it right this time and manages to be more than just a better movie. It’s Incredibly and Ballistically Fun!
Anybody who tries to seriously judge this movie from a serious critic standpoint would simply find himself/herself looking and feeling stupid. The movie is one of those movies that you should not take seriously. Right off the bat, the violence is so unapologetic, so much so that it already has this surreal adult-cartoon vibe, the kind of thing you see in adult-oriented violent video games and Pinoy action comics from the late 80's. Some people may call it stupid; I call it immensely fun. It really is a cartoon for boys and men who love ballistic action. As the first action scene begins, I could not help but comment that this movie is just like that GI Joe cartoon I watched when I was a kid, but the difference is this one has an insanely pumped-up degree of explosive action and violence. The ridiculousness of the movie just enforces the idea that this obviously does emulate 80’s big action movies.

It’s not just the action; it’s everything about the movie, including its characters, and its story. The dialogues have that snappy wit and the characterizations are clearly defined. All that characters have a personality that shines enough for the audiences to notice and root for. The humor is spot-on funny. The references or the uses of famous lines and quotes from memorable movies may sometimes feel forced, but you quickly forgive it because it has that air of self-consciousness as if it was winking at the audience, looney tunes style. Even though there are absurd nitpick areas of unbelievability, it never goes out of being too fantastically absurd, and could be justified and argued with a thin line of plausibility.

The movie never takes itself too seriously. Even in some scenes which require a degree of heavy drama, it never dwells too much on that aspect because it will only cost the movie to drag, and besides, the audience gets what the scene is about; there's no need to elaborate on minor details that are self-explanatory.

Chuck Norris’ addition to the ballistic fray adds that slice of semi-surreal humor. Appearances of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis all pay off better this time because now they all get to do action scenes. I was quietly geeking out in awe at the fact that all these icons are having this big battle sequence fighting alongside each other. Action junkie orgasm indeed. But my favorite of all is Jean Claude Van Damme's appearance. I felt that Van Damme's role here is such a breakthrough performance that I guess that he could easily relaunch his career this time, in villain roles. It's because he really does make an immensely effective villain here. I think Van Damme should always play villains from now on.

EXPENDABLES 2 does really deliver what it sought to promise from the day the first movie was ever conceived. If you love the icons of 80’s action, this is the movie that you have been waiting for; a definite must-see for all you fun-loving action junkies. EXPENDABLES 2 does really get the mission accomplished.

The Bourne Legacy

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:15:00 +0000

LEGACY ABUSED
by Reymundo Salao

The Bourne Legacy is the continuation of the Jason Bourne series, set in the Bourne universe and continuity, and having all the similar characters. But this time, the character spotlight is not on Bourne but on several new characters. Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz) is a scientist who works with genetic enhancements for secret government assassins, Eric Byer (Edward Norton) is the head of an agency that is bent on cleaning up all the information mess that has leaked through the media and various other information leaks that have been caused by the aftermath of the Jason Bourne fiasco. And our main protagonist Aaron Cross/Kenneth Gibson (Jeremy Renner) is an agent/assassin who must find out why someone is trying to kill him and other operatives like him.

Obviously, the movie is a must-watch to many of us Filipinos because the movie is partially set (and shot) in our country, specifically Manila and Palawan. And it is indeed such a delightful treat to watch a big Hollywood movie action set piece in places that are familiar to many of us Filipinos. It was worth it to see a big thrilling chase scene in urban villages and atop squatter rooftops, and an action-packed motorcycle chase scene in EDSA. But, Filipino setting appeal aside, judging the movie on face value is a different story altogether.

The Bourne Legacy is a movie that initially shows promise with its espionage appeal and thrilling intrigue. But its relatively good build-up is immediately diminished when the story closes with an abrupt ending and is never given any sense of satisfying closure. This plays out similar to many other movies that have come out lately that seem to be designed to be series franchises. I hate that it feels like a mere fragment of a bigger story which is only better if we are told the story in its complete form. The initial build-up and the initial introduction of the plot seemed very intriguing; conspiracies, assassins, spies, exposes; all great material for a story-driven espionage tale. Sadly, the end seems to never go anywhere with all those factors. At least, there was progression and movement, I give it that. But then you go along with the story's movement, but when that end point of the movie comes, you want to stand up, scratching your head, and say out loud "hey, wait, it's over?!"

As far as character development goes, the film cannot even make up its own mind on which name to refer to our main character (Aaron Cross or Kenneth Gibson?). The story initially convinces you that Cross (let's just call him Cross, okay? coz I get confused and start calling him Bourne) is an interesting character. Unlike Bourne, he is a man who seems to be constantly curious. Unlike your standard assassin, he seems to love asking questions. But then when moment came when it starts to tell his backstory, what we see is a vague cliche and surprisingly empty. There is a flashback scene with Cross and Byer (E.Norton) that we don't even fully understand because they were discussing something vague, they were in a time and place which is vague; the movie tells you they know each other, but we don't know how: Were they friends? Was Cross a subordinate of Byer? Are they relatives? Were they soldiers? Encyclopedia salesmen? the movie never answers those questions--- all you know is that they knew each other, and they're talking about something vague.

The film works more as just an espionage movie than an espionage-action movie like the previous Bourne movies. And whenever there's an action scene, its not very satisfying. Only the chase scenes in Manila stood out as impressive. [Some heavy spoilers coming, skip to the final paragraph to avoid them] "He is treadstone without the inconsistency" ...that actually referred to the LARKX agent, which were supposed to be far more bad-ass assassins, but then again, we didn't really see anything impressive with that one LARKX agent. We would have wanted to end the long thrilling chase scene with at least an epic hand-to-hand fight scene. But we were deprived of that because mister "treadstone without the inconsistency" merely just died because he was a lousy bike driver.

There is no closure as to the agency running after him as well. The fight scene could have been substituted by an ending that could have given the movie a well-made storyline-driven and dialogue-driven dramatic close. Instead, what we get is a scene that seems to end without permission and expectation from the audience.

Ultimately, THE BOURNE LEGACY was depressing because we desperately wanted this movie to be great because it was shot here in the Philippines, and hey, I was ready to welcome Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz with open arms to take over the Bourne series. Yet, there it is; actually a very very bland, very very pale comparison to the previous Bourne movies; I hate to sum it up in a single word: Disappointing. But hey, at least you'll get to see Manila in action, so for that: the movie is still worth seeing.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 03:30:00 +0000

We're Way Past Telling Jokes Now
by Reymundo Salao

Christopher Nolan has revolutionized superhero/comic book movies and elevated it from the status of merely just great movies, and into prestigiously high-end respectable cinema. The Dark Knight, which is the second movie (in what is now considered a trilogy), was considered a milestone in cinema history; with the idea that one of the greatest movies ever made is based on a comic book superhero. Now, the third becomes the conclusion to what is now one of the greatest trilogies in cinema.

I had already surrendered to the idea that Nolan would never ever come close to achieving what he had ever done in The Dark Knight. Inasmuch as Nolan is a great director, I felt he'd have already used his "lightning in a bottle". And I knew that when I walked into the final chapter, my expectations should not be merely bent on comparing it with the previous movie.

Speaking of expectations, I should also wash my mind off of trying to anticipate what the movie is all about or what characters they will be playing. That is how I actually judge movies; I walk in as an audience, who merely tries to enjoy the movie--- and not as a critic trying to consciously nitpick and outwit the essence of the movie (or base it on the hype that surrounds it).

From a geek fanatics' point of view, it would be surmised that this would have been mildly based on the graphic novels The Dark Knight Returns or the Knightfall storyline. But this really is its own creature. Although it has some few elements that are mildly familiar with many Batman storylines, this has its own story, its own surprises, its own conflicts, and its own twists. This is the culmination of a storyline that is a continuation of the first two movies.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES begins eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, with a psychological journey of Bruce Wayne from living in self-haunted misery, still grieving over the death of Rachel, and retired from being the Batman. Gotham has been living in peace, and living with the lie about Harvey Dent. Elsewhere, the thief known as Selina Kyle is becoming a tool that will lead to events that will eventually lead to the rise of the mysterious terrorist known as Bane; the man who will bring Anarchy into Gotham.

I was extremely impressed how Nolan has created a movie that is as epic and as grand as The Dark Knight. It's mind-blowing for me how I felt that Nolan has made lightning strike twice, and has managed to conclude his Batman trilogy with a truly magnificent movie chapter. Director Christopher Nolan has completed his trilogy; his trilogy joins the ranks of the very very few movie trilogies in cinema history that are flawlessly magnificent (I count only 2- The Godfather & Lord of the Rings... on the other hand many argue that Godfather 3 was bad, but I still respected it). THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is a must-see movie. This could potentially be the best movie of the year for me. (From this point, this article could contain very mild spoilers)

Unlike, movies like say Avengers, which is an extremely spectacular movie that is purely entertaining (my example is my other favorite movie of the year so far), The Dark Knight Rises is serious cinema that tells a very serious story. It's something that does not promise cheers and howls; but can promise an ovation (which is not common here in Iloilo), or at least the urge to talk about it afterwards. It is heavily dramatic; Almost all of it's characters are at a certain point of emotional desperation. And its script are as powerful as the actors and actresses that are equally powerful in their acting. There are several emotional scenes that are even tear-jerking. The reason why Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy works is that at its core is real human drama; real people with real emotions and real pain.

The movie goes to really really dark places. Batman Begins may have been a wake-up call that Batman is not for kids, and its sequel (The Dark Knight) may have pondered on the concept of viewing crime, violence, and death with a demented sense of humor, but in this final chapter, we're way, waaaaay past telling jokes. In this movie, the good dies, the heroes get broken, the helpless are left to suffer, and there is always that air of both desperation and futility that fills the tension of the storyline; in this movie, anarchy does reign. Although it does not cross the line of gore, and is not explicitly visual, there is an unseen, but overlooming presence of violence. As Bane grabs someone's throat, or someone's face, then cuts away immediately; or as Bane explains how order crumbles down; Although these may not be vivid; but all the same, its terrifying.

The movie is tense and thrilling in such a grim manner. There are moments when our heroes are in situations which leaves you thinking 'how the hell are they going to resolve this?' It plays with audience emotions and expectations. Many of the twists are clever and are brilliantly thought of. On the other hand, there are some others that were easy to guess because fans have been anticipating too much what roles some characters are playing long before the movie even got released (that's why I wash my mind of anticipations; to feel the thrill of the movie's surprises).

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is phenomenal; a perfect conclusion to a truly great masterpiece of an epic trilogy.

The Amazing Spider-man

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:59:00 +0000

Not-So-Amazing
by Reymundo Salao

The Amazing Spider-man is designed to be a reboot of the Spider-man franchise, to erase off and disregard the previous one. This should have been probably be expected to be a better take on the Spider-man franchise. Unfortunately, it's barely good, just a tiny bit above satisfactory. No; it's not a bad movie... It was just not good enough.

The movie has a vast playing field for nitpickers picking on little negative details of the movie; such as the lack of real motivation on the villain's part, or something as insignificant as Peter's distracting hair looking like a birdnest helmet. But aside from nitpicks, the film has several serious flaws.
The movie starts out great. I could see how it endeavors to create this serious storyline that delves into the angst of Peter Parker, into the history of his father, and into his relationship with Gwen Stacy. But the movie later drags in a very slow pace. It was just not practical enough in wasting time over scenes and subplots that are neither entertaining, nor valuable to the main plot of the movie. It was as if director Marc Webb was given a long, dense story... but then they did not even make an effort to shorten for the sake of cinematic brevity.

It opens several plot points and goes nowhere with them. And those unresolved plot points are sloppily left hanging, making the movie look unfinished despite its really long running time. It's a movie that needs a sequel, because plot-wise, it could not stand on its own feet. Most of the really good series/franchise movies may have hanging storylines too, but their writers and directors know how to give them a chapter closure. Take a look at The Matrix part 1, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (part 1), Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope (The first movie & the first chapter of the original trilogy), and the first Harry Potter movie. In those movies, not all the questions are answered, not all the mysteries are solved; but by the end of the movie, there is a satisfying sense of closure.

With a concept such as the Spider-man, you have the advantage of tapping a wide number of audience demographic. Children would naturally love the superhero aspect, teens would identify with the angst and the love story aspect, and adults would appreciate the storyline, the sci-fi aspect, or merely the fun adventure expected from a Spider-man movie. Unfortunately, this movie seems to satisfy just that one demographic, the teens, and disregards the rest.

It takes a long time to get to the action, then by the time it gets there, before you'd think the pace would shift, it reverts back to teen soap opera drag every time he removes his mask. The more serious subplots such as what really happened to his parents, or the real issue about Oscorp is really treated as a backstory.

If I was to calculate and gauge the movie's audience reaction, it would probably be like this: If you were a kid under 10, you might find the movie boring, if you were over 20, it might feel satisfactory, and if you were over 30, it kinda gets annoying. It's the teenagers who would relate and adore this movie.

The movie has a really slow pace that drags along the teen aspect; teen angst and teen love story. I could be more forgiving if it was a good teen story. But then, they paint Peter Parker with some sort of an unlikeable asshole factor. His road to "becoming' Spider-man was not very inventive either. It was very "80's superhero movie" even in the scene where the citizens working in construction give Spider-man a hand, it was perplexingly cheesy.

I was really hoping that my initial impressions of the movie were proven wrong. All in all; The Amazing Spider-man is not much of anything; barely good but not amazing. It's supposed to be the other way around; a superhero movie packaged in teen flick marketing. But with how this movie looks like, it really was a teen flick packaged in superhero marketing.

The CABIN in the WOODS

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 05:04:00 +0000

The Horror Movie to End all Horror Movies
by Reymundo Salao

Last Wednesday, we watched THE CABIN IN THE WOODS. The very next day; Thursday, we immediately went back to Robinson's cinema and watched it again, dragging friends along who were eager with curiosity. They went out as pleased as we were. Yes, this movie is THAT good; it's something that is almost THE perfect fun horror movie experience. So far this year, there was only one other movie that gave me a knee-jerk reaction of "hey let's watch this movie again" and that movie was THE AVENGERS...whic is actually interesting, because that movie was directed by Joss Whedon. And Joss Whedon is also the writer and the main producer of THE CABIN IN THE WOODS, produced under Whedon's production outfit: Mutant Enemy. This certainly is Joss Whedon's year. Its director is Drew Goddard who directed Cloverfield. With Goddard's groundbreaking treatment of suspense plus Joss Whedon's creativity, you can expect something that will indeed be a movie that will get you talking about it.
[read the full review after the jump]

THE CABIN IN THE WOODS is one of those movies that actually works best if you walk into it without knowing anything about it. (Of course, it goes without saying that you would have to watch it from the very beginning, and not just simply walk in the middle of the movie). I would even encourage those who are indeed planning to watch it, to avoid watching its trailer, because it kinda spoils the surprises that the movie has in store for you. All you need to know about the movie from its spoiler-free synopsis is that it's about a group of youngsters out on a summer getaway trip to a very distant cabin in the woods, never realizing that a terrifying horror awaits them. Yes, from the outset, it is presented as a typical and cliche horror movie. In fact, it pays homage to typical horror flicks at first, but then it takes it to a higher level and creates this masterpiece. When you are done with the movie, you will also realize that THE CABIN IN THE WOODS is the horror movie to end all horror movies. It actually goes beyond the horror genre; It splits genres and becomes this spectacular controversy.

This is going to be just like my review on PROMETHEUS, which is sort of a reverse format; meaning, I'll be giving my verdict on the first part and the other latter half of this review will be containing spoiler discussion and details about the movie. My verdict is already obvious; THE CABIN IN THE WOODS is a must-see movie, especially if you consider yourself a lover of horror movies. But then, if you are looking for a movie that goes beyond the ordinary storyline, this is also most especially for you.

By the way, it should be noted that this movie was actually shot and completed in 2009 (that's why Chris Hemsworth doesn't look like Thor yet). But it was shelved for a moment because its production company MGM (Metro Goldwyn Mayer) which has been having financial problems for years already, has filed for bankruptcy in 2010. This is also the same reason why production for The Hobbit and the newest James Bond movie Skyfall got delayed. July 2011 Lionsgate Films acquired distribution rights for the film and finally released it this year. [from this point on, it's SPOILER territory]

What's most interesting about the movie is that it throws in homages and references from previous horror classics. An almost countless number of homages. You have something out of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre there, you have something from Hellraiser, Silent Hill, The Ring, Stephen King's It, Bats, Anaconda, and a number of many other things that you could sit and jot down enumerating them right after you watch the movie. Even the literal cabin in the woods itself is the cabin used in Sam Raimi's Evil Dead movies. The movie is oozingly dense with all these horror tidbits....actually, we are seriously planning on buying the book which serves as the visual companion for the movie. One that will explain the various nightmare creatures in the movie and how the dynamics and technology of the cabin work.

The movie is not merely a horror movie; but it has various comedy and sci-fi elements. When you take a step back and look at the film from a different angle, the film is also a tale about ethical conflicts. Does the suffering of a few worth in exchange for the doom of the great many? It is that kind of movie that makes you think about it and incites the desire to discuss it right after you're done watching it. One critic even calls it "the thinking man's horror movie" while in my favorite website spill.com, one of their critics cites that it is a "game-changer; you will never watch another horror movie the same way after this". For me, it will surely be one movie that is already a classic. Don't miss it.

PROMETHEUS

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:22:00 +0000

PROMETHEUS IS BOTH CURIOUSLY THOUGHT-PROVOKING AND IMMENSELY THRILLING
by Reymundo Salao

First let me tell you right off from this point that this review will contain few minor spoilers at the end part of this article, so it would make sense to tell you now my verdict for PROMETHEUS, which really was a great movie; two thumbs up, I recommend it for those who love smart intellectual sci-fi movies AND lovers of sci-fi horror at the same time. There have only been a very few horror/suspense movies out there that have that capacity to really make their audiences scream in thrill. This movie had made me scream and shout at the movie's intense horror moments; it's something that not many movies can do anymore. I recommend this movie as a great watch with a crowd of friends that can scream with you inside the theaters in the horror moments, but can also shut up during the intellectual dialogues.

This movie was originally conceived to be just a prequel to ALIEN; the 1979 sci-fi horror classic directed also by Ridley Scott that spawned sequels and created a phenomenon which spread through comics, video games, and crossovers (its more popular one is the Alien vs Predator franchise). PROMETHEUS was originally meant to explore the origins of the Alien xenomorph. But Ridley Scott wanted to explore a much bigger storyline. He wanted to tell a grander story. Oh, you still have the alien xenomorph in a very very small role, but the movie's focus is not just on that thing. It's going to be like that upcoming Bourne Legacy movie that tells you that you will not see Jason Bourne in that movie, but it takes place in the same universe of the Bourne movies. In fact, just forget about the idea that this movie has anything to do with the Alien franchise, because it can stand well on its own feet.

The story of Prometheus begins with scientists discovering a pattern in ancient carvings that suggest that the beginnings of human civilization, or human existence itself, originated with alien beings from a distant solar system. Our scientists venture to that place in sheer scientific curiosity, to get some answers. But unbeknownst to them, the corporation that funds their expedition also would like to get their hands on whatever truth that might be discovered. They will soon find out that this expedition may lead them to inevitable doom.

In the case of typically other movies, the concept of making a science fiction movie that intends to tell a deep, thought-provoking theme always runs the risk of being too boring for mainstream audiences. Movies like “Gattaca” and “Contact” are both movies that had told very deep intellectual stories, but they always get to be dismissed by mainstream audiences as dragging and too talky. Ridley Scott dodges this flaw with how he approaches Prometheus. He attempts to tell a really thought-provoking story, one that digs deep into where we as humans come from, while he also keeps the audience engaged in such an emotional mix of interest, curiosity, suspense, and thriller.

The first half gets you invested in the sheer amount of scientific curiosity as to what kind of beings our protagonists might meet. While the dialogues that elaborate on where we as humans come from were kept at a minimum, and there was really not enough oral discussion that plays with philosophies. On the other hand, the film seems to address that issue in a subtle and indirect manner via the character of David who is a robot, specifically on how the humans nonchalantly assume his robotic insensitivity and how David compares himself with humans; little scenes that many of you may pick-up as little bits of meaningful dialogue.

Once the movie takes its turn that leads you to horror, that curiosity is quickly mutated into thrill and paranoia. The movie reveals some few scary new creatures that will leave your face grimacing throughout many parts of the movie. Oh don’t worry that the alien xenomorph will be playing a tiny role; because the movie will introduce you to a nastier creature; one that will surely give you nightmares.

Michael Fassbender is spotlight-stealing amazing, and pretty much carries such a strong impact compared to the other characters. Charlize Theron is effectively cold and unsympathetic; I could not help but joke that she's the descendant of the Evil Queen in “Snow White & the Huntsman” which I just saw a few days before this. Guy Pearce is transformed into a really old man in this movie effectively. Idris Elba made me applaud him for such a clever booty call pick-up line in the movie. And then there's Noomi Rapace who does a great job as the movie's main protagonist. (Minor Spoilers coming up...)

If there was one tiny thing that I was kind of disappointed about; it was the fact that, yes, the movie does set out to answer some questions. But when we reach that climax point, the questions are not given much of a satisfying answer. It feels as if it answers it partially, but opens bigger questions to be answered. The movie ends with two reactions; one is that we will get to those answers in the sequel. My other reaction is: the journey to find out the truth is long and difficult. The characters set out to find out the truth, but many of them died before getting there. One character set out to find the truth so he could live forever. What he got was a quote from his daughter that a king retires; death is in the natural order of things.