We watched The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug in 3D last night. I wish I can make a more lengthy review of the movie, but I just don't have the energy right now. We just came from an 8-day vacation and I'm still both reeling from the wonderful places we've been to and tired from travelling and changing hotels every two days.
Anyway, back to my review. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is the 2nd installment in The Hobbit movie trilogy. This alone is a reason why you should see the movie, because the you won't know the whole story if you won't watch all films in the series. Also, in the fashion of the Lord of the Rings franchise, you can count on The Hobbit movies to be adventure-filled and enthralling as you delve into the fantasy world of dwarves, elves, wizards and even the orcs. And The Desolation of Smaug matched, if not exceeded, its predecessor in terms of exciting action, more interesting characters and superb storytelling. In fact, I think this is a better, more fast-paced movie than the first. But I find both movies to be great and didn't really find any major flaws.
Watching The Hobbit movies (and LOTR movies for that matter), makes me feel like what I felt when I watched Cinderella for the first time: magical. From the stunning visuals, to engaging characters - I love Thorin Oakenshield and fact that he look so kingly and has a commanding presence despite being a few feet short, to the heart-stopping adventures - the seemingly impossible-to-overcome hurdles and dangers that Bilbo and the dwarves have to face, everything was pure magic.
In this movie, you'll get to see Smaug up close, and I thought he was beautifully done and he perfectly depicted what a menacing and terrifying fairytale dragon should be. He has the looks and voice of a dragon and was easily the highlight of this part of the story. And Legolas was here too, along with the other Wood-elves, most notable of which were Tauriel and Thranduil, King of Mirkwood and father of Legolas. I feel their involvement will explain why the wood-elves and the dwarves were not exactly the best of friends in the first LOTR movie.
The Hobbit movies, much like the LOTR trilogy is the kind of movies that stay with you, that you would want to watch over and over again. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is a perfect middle-movie in this trilogy: it picks up where the journey of Bilbo, Gandalf and the Erebor dwarves left of with more intense action, it introduces new characters that will play pivotal roles in the story (like Bard and the rest of the Lake Town people), it ties some loose ends that the first movie left behind and it ushers in the next film in the series - the all-important conclusion that will decide where The Hobbit trilogy will rank among the greatest fantasy-adventure franchise in movie history.
Overall, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is a highly-recommended movie of the year and watching it is a must especially if you've seen the prequel. We watched it in 3D, but I think it won't make much difference and you won't miss anything if you watch it in 2D, at least.
Showing posts with label MoviesTV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MoviesTV. Show all posts
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Monday, December 2, 2013
Movie: The Hunger Games - Catching Fire
We watched The Hunger Games: Catching Fire on its 2nd showing night (and I'm only writing about it now?!) with free tickets courtesy of Nuffnang Philippines (thanks! thanks!).
I haven't read the book so I was a little surprised why the first movie was much anticipated, not knowing that it was based from a very popular cult-followed novel. When we finally saw it much much later, I thought it was really great, one of those movies with a good solid story and an effective cast, lead by the lovable Jennifer Lawrence. The characters were played out well, each artist seem to fit the role, and I really enjoyed the flamboyant make-up and costumes (reminiscent of Star Wars), and the different personalities that tied the whole story together.
When the sequel, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, hit the cinemas, I wasn't sure if we'll watch it or not. Despite a nice first outing, I still wasn't converted as a member of the fan club, nor was my husband, so you can say we weren't exactly thrilled. But then came a Nuffnang movie contest and thought I'd give it a try again (after joining 2 of their previous contests and lost). Luckily, I was one of the 100 winners, which gave us a reason to go see it.
The second installment of The Hunger Games opened to the lives of Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark after they both won the killing contest. In the first movie, their tandem - or should I say "loveteam" because there seemed to be a brewing affection between the two (at least, it was true for Peeta) - broke the rules of the game, which requires that only one winner, the last surviving individual, will be proclaimed at the end. But Katniss refused to kill Peeta, Peeta refused to kill Katniss and both decided that they'll just commit suicide by eating poison berries. Apparently (not sure how it was explained in the book), having two winners instead of having no winner is more favorable for the Capitol so they concluded the game and declared both Katniss and Peeta as victors.
But President Snow see Katniss as a threat and a possible key figure in a rebellion. This, along with the love triangle between Katniss, Peeta and Gale is the focal point of the film. As I said, I find the first half of the movie slow, but still necessary as it builds up the story. A number of new and interesting characters are introduced, but of course, a handful of the old favorites are still there and are equally delightful.
The pacing picked up during the second half when the actual games started. I think how the game was portrayed here is better than how it was on the prequel. Lots of exciting and heart-pounding actions, new dangers and a better game plot (I love the clock idea). Being someone who hasn't read the book, everything that transpires in the game made me hold my breath, bracing to see what will happen next.
Fans of the book claimed that this movie is a faithful adaptation, but whether that's the case or not, I believe the film is strong on its own account. Everything seemed seamless, even the character development, which a lot of high-profile movies suffer from, was very well done. It is easily one of the best films of the year (and we've had a lot of good ones this year).
What I really like about the movie is the twist (which, of course caught me by surprise because I didn't know that was coming) and how the story, just when it was really heating up, was ended abruptly, leaving the audience wanting for more (which means, that yes, we'll be watching the next installments).
Overall, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire provides a great cinematic experience. If you like a combination of heart (love and drama), intelligent story, thrilling actions, political undertones and enjoyable characters - The Hunger Games movie franchise is something that you should see.
I haven't read the book so I was a little surprised why the first movie was much anticipated, not knowing that it was based from a very popular cult-followed novel. When we finally saw it much much later, I thought it was really great, one of those movies with a good solid story and an effective cast, lead by the lovable Jennifer Lawrence. The characters were played out well, each artist seem to fit the role, and I really enjoyed the flamboyant make-up and costumes (reminiscent of Star Wars), and the different personalities that tied the whole story together.
When the sequel, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, hit the cinemas, I wasn't sure if we'll watch it or not. Despite a nice first outing, I still wasn't converted as a member of the fan club, nor was my husband, so you can say we weren't exactly thrilled. But then came a Nuffnang movie contest and thought I'd give it a try again (after joining 2 of their previous contests and lost). Luckily, I was one of the 100 winners, which gave us a reason to go see it.
The second installment of The Hunger Games opened to the lives of Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark after they both won the killing contest. In the first movie, their tandem - or should I say "loveteam" because there seemed to be a brewing affection between the two (at least, it was true for Peeta) - broke the rules of the game, which requires that only one winner, the last surviving individual, will be proclaimed at the end. But Katniss refused to kill Peeta, Peeta refused to kill Katniss and both decided that they'll just commit suicide by eating poison berries. Apparently (not sure how it was explained in the book), having two winners instead of having no winner is more favorable for the Capitol so they concluded the game and declared both Katniss and Peeta as victors.
But President Snow see Katniss as a threat and a possible key figure in a rebellion. This, along with the love triangle between Katniss, Peeta and Gale is the focal point of the film. As I said, I find the first half of the movie slow, but still necessary as it builds up the story. A number of new and interesting characters are introduced, but of course, a handful of the old favorites are still there and are equally delightful.
The pacing picked up during the second half when the actual games started. I think how the game was portrayed here is better than how it was on the prequel. Lots of exciting and heart-pounding actions, new dangers and a better game plot (I love the clock idea). Being someone who hasn't read the book, everything that transpires in the game made me hold my breath, bracing to see what will happen next.
Fans of the book claimed that this movie is a faithful adaptation, but whether that's the case or not, I believe the film is strong on its own account. Everything seemed seamless, even the character development, which a lot of high-profile movies suffer from, was very well done. It is easily one of the best films of the year (and we've had a lot of good ones this year).
What I really like about the movie is the twist (which, of course caught me by surprise because I didn't know that was coming) and how the story, just when it was really heating up, was ended abruptly, leaving the audience wanting for more (which means, that yes, we'll be watching the next installments).
Overall, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire provides a great cinematic experience. If you like a combination of heart (love and drama), intelligent story, thrilling actions, political undertones and enjoyable characters - The Hunger Games movie franchise is something that you should see.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Movie: Thor: The Dark World
Thor: The Dark World reminds me why I like the Marvel Comics movies better than their DC Comics counterparts - because they are a lot more fun to watch. I'm sure many will claim that The Dark Knight is better than all of the Marvel movies combined, and I won't argue on the merits of the film. But when I watch a superhero movie, I want to feel like I'm watching a superhero movie and not a dissection of the superhero's human persona (whether they're actually human or alien). I want to feel excited when the superhero appears on the screen. I want to feel giddy like her leading lady.
And this 2nd installment of Thor does exactly that, and interjected of a number of witty jokes and funny scenes, like they did in the 1st movie, which somehow makes it feel similar but still different. One big difference is that most of the scenes take place in Asgard. And I mean, ASGARD because it looked absolutely majestic and breathtaking. The way they created this otherworldly realm is truly a visual feast. I am not fond of watching in 3D because I get nauseated after, but I really appreciate the grandiosity of the Asgard sceneries behind my 3D glasses.
Another plus point for me is Loki. Maybe it's just me, but he looked really cute here (the hair?). Thor is as hunky and handsome as ever, and can still sweep you off your feet, or should I say fly you off to another world like what he did to Jane, but Loki exuded a different charm. Proud, sly and treacherous, but somehow softened and vulnerable, the least liked Loki shares the spotlight with his more popular brother. And there's something about his smile, something that I find quite attractive.
And speaking of attraction, of course there's the interrupted love affair between Jane Foster and Thor. Jane remained beautiful, smart, spunky and kick ass, despite being supposedly a damsel in distress in this movie. But while I still get that "how lucky she is to have Thor" thoughts whenever Thor comes to her rescue, I find something is lacking in their chemistry. It seemed to me that they were just acting out their feelings, instead of actually feeling them.
Also, I wish they had pursued the love triangle angle between Thor and Jane, and Sif (Thor's female friend) to add intrigue to the story. I thought they laid it out in the beginning, with Sif seemingly flirting with Thor and later, giving Jane that "so it's you" look when she came to Asgard. But that was it. No catfight ensued, too bad. Or maybe, it's just a prelude to the next sequel.
And then, there's Darcy (the crazy, nosy intern) and her intern (yes, the intern got herself an intern) and Erik, who has somehow gone insane after being under Loki's control in The Avengers movie, Thor's circle of friends, Odin and Frigga and the rest of the cast that as a whole complements the film.
But! One thing that I find weak, and perhaps a major flaw in this movie, is the plot. While the villain, Malekith and the Dark Elves, looked menacing and destructive enough to pose a threat not only to Asgard and Earth, but to the whole universe, the story is nothing new. You get an old enemy with an oath of vengeance, you get the lady love involved and in danger, you get a dashing superhero to save her while saving the universe. It's old, and a rehash of a rehash or a rehash of another story. And the solution to the problem had me scratching on the head. I mean, I've seen that transport-the-enemy-to-somewhere-else-because-he's-too-powerful-to-be defeated resolution used in a number of movies already.
But of course, this is not the kind of movie that you need to analyze and dissect and interpret. It is straightforward, a story for the kids, as some would complain. But the visual imagery, the stunning effects, the exciting action, the comical lines, and for the ladies: Thor's heart-melting stare and Loki's mischievous but cute smile, added the needed dimension and entertainment-value that the plot lacked.
Thor: The Dark World, like it's predecessor, is a fun movie to watch. I had expected the humor and visual effects, and it didn't fail me. It's not exactly mindless as most "straightforward" movies go, but you might need to loosen up and leave your analytical, puzzle-solving hat at home. It's an eye-candy, yes, but also very entertaining and action-packed, so just enjoy the ride! And definitely, it's a must watch for superhero-comic-turn-into-movie fans out there.
And this 2nd installment of Thor does exactly that, and interjected of a number of witty jokes and funny scenes, like they did in the 1st movie, which somehow makes it feel similar but still different. One big difference is that most of the scenes take place in Asgard. And I mean, ASGARD because it looked absolutely majestic and breathtaking. The way they created this otherworldly realm is truly a visual feast. I am not fond of watching in 3D because I get nauseated after, but I really appreciate the grandiosity of the Asgard sceneries behind my 3D glasses.
Another plus point for me is Loki. Maybe it's just me, but he looked really cute here (the hair?). Thor is as hunky and handsome as ever, and can still sweep you off your feet, or should I say fly you off to another world like what he did to Jane, but Loki exuded a different charm. Proud, sly and treacherous, but somehow softened and vulnerable, the least liked Loki shares the spotlight with his more popular brother. And there's something about his smile, something that I find quite attractive.
And speaking of attraction, of course there's the interrupted love affair between Jane Foster and Thor. Jane remained beautiful, smart, spunky and kick ass, despite being supposedly a damsel in distress in this movie. But while I still get that "how lucky she is to have Thor" thoughts whenever Thor comes to her rescue, I find something is lacking in their chemistry. It seemed to me that they were just acting out their feelings, instead of actually feeling them.
Also, I wish they had pursued the love triangle angle between Thor and Jane, and Sif (Thor's female friend) to add intrigue to the story. I thought they laid it out in the beginning, with Sif seemingly flirting with Thor and later, giving Jane that "so it's you" look when she came to Asgard. But that was it. No catfight ensued, too bad. Or maybe, it's just a prelude to the next sequel.
And then, there's Darcy (the crazy, nosy intern) and her intern (yes, the intern got herself an intern) and Erik, who has somehow gone insane after being under Loki's control in The Avengers movie, Thor's circle of friends, Odin and Frigga and the rest of the cast that as a whole complements the film.
But! One thing that I find weak, and perhaps a major flaw in this movie, is the plot. While the villain, Malekith and the Dark Elves, looked menacing and destructive enough to pose a threat not only to Asgard and Earth, but to the whole universe, the story is nothing new. You get an old enemy with an oath of vengeance, you get the lady love involved and in danger, you get a dashing superhero to save her while saving the universe. It's old, and a rehash of a rehash or a rehash of another story. And the solution to the problem had me scratching on the head. I mean, I've seen that transport-the-enemy-to-somewhere-else-because-he's-too-powerful-to-be defeated resolution used in a number of movies already.
But of course, this is not the kind of movie that you need to analyze and dissect and interpret. It is straightforward, a story for the kids, as some would complain. But the visual imagery, the stunning effects, the exciting action, the comical lines, and for the ladies: Thor's heart-melting stare and Loki's mischievous but cute smile, added the needed dimension and entertainment-value that the plot lacked.
Thor: The Dark World, like it's predecessor, is a fun movie to watch. I had expected the humor and visual effects, and it didn't fail me. It's not exactly mindless as most "straightforward" movies go, but you might need to loosen up and leave your analytical, puzzle-solving hat at home. It's an eye-candy, yes, but also very entertaining and action-packed, so just enjoy the ride! And definitely, it's a must watch for superhero-comic-turn-into-movie fans out there.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Movie: Insidious - Chapter 2
Insidious, Insidious, Insidious. I liked the first chapter (although not as much as I liked The Conjuring - read my review here) so when I learned about the Insidious Chapter 2, you could say I looked forward to watching it. The fact that it was directed by the same person who directed The Conjuring - James Wan - and that Insidious Chapter 2 was no. 1 in the US during its opening week added to the anticipation.
I find the first Insidious movie a pretty decent horror flick, with an original plot, a good cast ensemble, and dotted with a couple or more scary scenes that were actually scary. The only thing that disappointed us, me and my husband, and made us laugh (yes, we laugh at horror movies that don't live up to our expectations), was how the ghosts were made-up. I mean, literally the ghosts' makeup. I thought it's the case of having too much that they look funny instead of scary. They looked like clowns or Heather Ledger's Joker, which I think was intentional - a lot of people are scared of clown-looking ghosts apparently - but it just didn't work for us.
So expecting that the 2nd installment will most likely have the same clown-ghosts, I counted on James Wan's earlier success with The Conjuring, to build up my anticipation and somehow, to make me believe that this movie can be better than the first. It can even surprise us, and beat The Conjuring in our scoreboard.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. I remember reading a review somewhere: "Just because it's not as scary as the first one, it doesn't mean it's a bad movie". And this is exactly how I feel. Like the first movie, Insidious Chapter 2 employs the same old-style scare tactics (with less clown-looking ghosts, yay!), has the same reliable cast that delivered good performance, and a solid story that picks up from where the first left off, which even went further by explaining some of the events in Chapter 1.
It is a good movie on its own. But it's just not as creepy and goose-bump-eliciting as it's predecessor. For me, it was the extended focus in the astral/spirit world that diluted the scare intensity of the entire movie. Even in the first chapter, I find the haunted house to be the better stage to launch effective jolts and jumpy, haunting scenes than the dark, unchartered spirit realm.
So is Insidious Chapter 2 worth watching? Yes, I can say that, especially if you enjoy the first film and would like to know what will happen next. But don't expect too much. Also, a bit of a spoiler: that scene of the white lady in the trailer, for me, is the lone scary scene in the entire movie. There were a few that came close, but that was it. So really, don't expect too much.
I find the first Insidious movie a pretty decent horror flick, with an original plot, a good cast ensemble, and dotted with a couple or more scary scenes that were actually scary. The only thing that disappointed us, me and my husband, and made us laugh (yes, we laugh at horror movies that don't live up to our expectations), was how the ghosts were made-up. I mean, literally the ghosts' makeup. I thought it's the case of having too much that they look funny instead of scary. They looked like clowns or Heather Ledger's Joker, which I think was intentional - a lot of people are scared of clown-looking ghosts apparently - but it just didn't work for us.
So expecting that the 2nd installment will most likely have the same clown-ghosts, I counted on James Wan's earlier success with The Conjuring, to build up my anticipation and somehow, to make me believe that this movie can be better than the first. It can even surprise us, and beat The Conjuring in our scoreboard.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. I remember reading a review somewhere: "Just because it's not as scary as the first one, it doesn't mean it's a bad movie". And this is exactly how I feel. Like the first movie, Insidious Chapter 2 employs the same old-style scare tactics (with less clown-looking ghosts, yay!), has the same reliable cast that delivered good performance, and a solid story that picks up from where the first left off, which even went further by explaining some of the events in Chapter 1.
It is a good movie on its own. But it's just not as creepy and goose-bump-eliciting as it's predecessor. For me, it was the extended focus in the astral/spirit world that diluted the scare intensity of the entire movie. Even in the first chapter, I find the haunted house to be the better stage to launch effective jolts and jumpy, haunting scenes than the dark, unchartered spirit realm.
So is Insidious Chapter 2 worth watching? Yes, I can say that, especially if you enjoy the first film and would like to know what will happen next. But don't expect too much. Also, a bit of a spoiler: that scene of the white lady in the trailer, for me, is the lone scary scene in the entire movie. There were a few that came close, but that was it. So really, don't expect too much.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Movie: The Conjuring
Everytime we watch a horror movie, we're almost prepared not to get scared. Yes, you got that right, NOT to get scared. Like most of you, we've seen a lot of horror movies, both Asian (Japanese, Thai, Korean) and Western (American, British, Spanish) and sometimes we can't help but think that most plots, twists, jumpy scenes, ghost make-ups, and almost all elements in a horror movie have been used, reused and abused that they will hardly make you wriggle in your seat. They have become so predictable and tiring, often following the pattern of the successful horror films that preceded them, and that takes away the fun in watching these scary flicks.
Then we watched The Conjuring. I remember reading about this movie on Yahoo, where I learned it's relation to Amityville: the couple who investigated the Amityville haunting were the same couple featured in The Conjuring. While I don't exactly find the movie The Amityville Horror, um well, horrifying, ghost detective stories have always piqued my interests. My husband wasn't too thrilled to watch it though, after a handful of not so impressive horror movies that we cared to watch in a moviehouse. But one boring day in a shopping mall, he didn't want to go home yet and The Conjuring was in the Now Showing list so...
The plot and premise of the movie was nothing new, the scare-tactics were also old-school, but everything was in the right place at the right time, and they wove the right mix of suspense, creepiness and horror that we found ourselves holding on to each other tightly and bracing ourselves for the next scary scene. It was a very good horror movie. The last time we got this scared was with Shutter (Thai movie), and it's been a while.
Was it predictable? Let me put it this way, I was enjoying being scared so much that I didn't want to predict what will happen next or how it will end. It's like watching a ghost reality show where I secretly wish that they were able to actually capture something really scary. And there were a lot of those in this movie. Some scenes were familiar, in fact, they reminded me of other popular horror movies. You get a bit of The Exorcist here, Sixth Sense there, Paranomal Activity, Insidious, etc. but still The Conjuring was able to hold it's own and carve a solid place in the horror movie genre.
One thing that I really really like about this movie is the characters acted "normal". When they hear strange, suspicious sounds in the middle of the night, they don't bring camcorders, they don't navigate their house with flashlights, they do what anyone would do, they TURN THE LIGHTS ON. That's something that a lot of horror movies don't do nowadays because darkness has always been an effective environment to build tension, but there are times when it just looks illogical to keep the lights off. The Conjuring wasn't afraid to scare in broad daylight. Of course, there are some scenes that demand darkness. And those scenes are the ones you should watch out for.
Acting, pacing, sound effects (much of it was just silence which I think is way more effective), camera panning (those contributed a lot), everything was executed so well that makes this movie one hell of a horror film. I can't say enough how good it was, so just watch it. If you're a horror movie buff (the ghost, possession, exorcism type), who like us have been waiting for that film - that film that will scare you and scare you well - you're in for a treat.
Then we watched The Conjuring. I remember reading about this movie on Yahoo, where I learned it's relation to Amityville: the couple who investigated the Amityville haunting were the same couple featured in The Conjuring. While I don't exactly find the movie The Amityville Horror, um well, horrifying, ghost detective stories have always piqued my interests. My husband wasn't too thrilled to watch it though, after a handful of not so impressive horror movies that we cared to watch in a moviehouse. But one boring day in a shopping mall, he didn't want to go home yet and The Conjuring was in the Now Showing list so...
The plot and premise of the movie was nothing new, the scare-tactics were also old-school, but everything was in the right place at the right time, and they wove the right mix of suspense, creepiness and horror that we found ourselves holding on to each other tightly and bracing ourselves for the next scary scene. It was a very good horror movie. The last time we got this scared was with Shutter (Thai movie), and it's been a while.
Was it predictable? Let me put it this way, I was enjoying being scared so much that I didn't want to predict what will happen next or how it will end. It's like watching a ghost reality show where I secretly wish that they were able to actually capture something really scary. And there were a lot of those in this movie. Some scenes were familiar, in fact, they reminded me of other popular horror movies. You get a bit of The Exorcist here, Sixth Sense there, Paranomal Activity, Insidious, etc. but still The Conjuring was able to hold it's own and carve a solid place in the horror movie genre.
One thing that I really really like about this movie is the characters acted "normal". When they hear strange, suspicious sounds in the middle of the night, they don't bring camcorders, they don't navigate their house with flashlights, they do what anyone would do, they TURN THE LIGHTS ON. That's something that a lot of horror movies don't do nowadays because darkness has always been an effective environment to build tension, but there are times when it just looks illogical to keep the lights off. The Conjuring wasn't afraid to scare in broad daylight. Of course, there are some scenes that demand darkness. And those scenes are the ones you should watch out for.
Acting, pacing, sound effects (much of it was just silence which I think is way more effective), camera panning (those contributed a lot), everything was executed so well that makes this movie one hell of a horror film. I can't say enough how good it was, so just watch it. If you're a horror movie buff (the ghost, possession, exorcism type), who like us have been waiting for that film - that film that will scare you and scare you well - you're in for a treat.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Quick Reviews: Movies of the 1st Half of 2013
One of our favorite things to do to distract us from work is to watch movies, whether in the big screen or in our computer monitor. But I've been a terrible blogger and I couldn't immediately review all the movies we've seen this year, after we saw them. Which is how it should be, because movie reviews are meant to help people decide whether a particular film is worth the trip to the cinema or not (or whether it's worth the bandwidth or not, in the case of downloading movies from the internet).
So I'm not sure how these quick reviews can help, but I'm dishing them out anyway. Here are the movies that we've seen for the first half of 2013.
Mama
Genre: Horror
Medium: PC
Verdict: If you want to something to watch for fright night and will make you scream your lungs out or sleep with the lights on, I wouldn't recommend this movie. But if what you're looking for is a sad and grim tale that both tugs at heartstrings and send a few shivers down your spine (although I wouldn't expect much, I thought the scare tactics were just "the usual"), somewhere along the lines of The Orphanage, you may want to consider Mama. The plot is different though: a spirit bound to earth because she's looking for something important to her, intertwined with the story of two very young children who grew up alone in the wilderness. That seemed promising enough. But regardless of the plot and even with great acting from the cast (the two children especially), I still wouldn't classify it as a strong horror movie. For me, it just wasn't riveting enough. It started out nicely, effectively building mystery and interest in Mama and her tragic fate. But when she finally appeared, it was almost funny. And sadly, that's the part I remembered the most.
Hansel and Gretel
Genre: Action
Medium: PC
Verdict: I love Jeremy Renner in Hurt Locker and The Avengers, but outgrew my feelings after Bourne Legacy and this. Hansel and Gretel didn't pretend to be a great movie, although I thought it leveraged on the trend of retelling fairytales and making them dark or serious and at least PG-13, to generate interest. But the original tale of Hansel and Gretel was pretty dark on its own, so all they needed to do was to show blood and some fancy fighting skills. It's pretty straightforward and average, and it offered nothing new or something that will make you go "Wow". Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) looked so old here, older than in the Taken movies. Not that it affected the movie, but I just want to say.
The Haunting in Connecticut 2
Genre: Horror
Medium: PC
Verdict. If you've watched first haunting and didn't like it, don't watch the second. Although the stories are not connected, the executions were both lame. The only thing that kept me watching was Mr. Gordy. But even my curiosity for Mr. Gordy didn't keep me from falling asleep in the middle of the movie. Good thing, I woke up in time to see him save the little girl and her mother.
Dark Skies
Genre: Suspense/Sci-Fi
Medium: PC
Verdict: This was actually quite interesting at the start and got me hooked right away - weird things happening in the house, parents acting possessed - premises that kept me wanting to know more. Until they brought out the youngest son's drawing. That sort of curtailed the fun and mystery for me because clearly you can see from the drawings that there will be an abduction. And I wasn't even surprised who got abducted. It became pretty predictable after that. But despite the effect of the "drawings", I still think this was a decent sci-fi/suspense movie with a bit of drama. At some point, I sympathized with the family's struggle to keep a normal life amidst the weird things happening to them. I was almost wishing that Fox Moulder would come up and sort them out so they can finally live in peace.
Jack The Giant Slayer
Genre: Fiction/Adventure
Medium: Cinema
Verdict: Another fairytale reinvention, although it's not much of a reinvention as the story is fairly the same. They just made it grander, more elaborate and the giants more menacing. But it didn't appeal even to the kid in me.
Oz The Great The Powerful
Genre: Fiction/Adventure
Medium: PC
Verdict: Two things I don't like in this movie: James Franco and Sam Raimi. Two things I didn't like about this movie: everything feels superficial and bad acting (except for Rachel Weisz). Despite the vivid colors, the movie was flat and lifeless. Maybe Oz needs to be told again, by someone who has a better vision of the story. Someone who can give it a heart.
G.I. Joe Retaliation
Genre: Action
Medium: Cinema
Verdict: Read review here.
To be continued (2nd half of 2013)
So I'm not sure how these quick reviews can help, but I'm dishing them out anyway. Here are the movies that we've seen for the first half of 2013.
Mama
Genre: Horror
Medium: PC
Verdict: If you want to something to watch for fright night and will make you scream your lungs out or sleep with the lights on, I wouldn't recommend this movie. But if what you're looking for is a sad and grim tale that both tugs at heartstrings and send a few shivers down your spine (although I wouldn't expect much, I thought the scare tactics were just "the usual"), somewhere along the lines of The Orphanage, you may want to consider Mama. The plot is different though: a spirit bound to earth because she's looking for something important to her, intertwined with the story of two very young children who grew up alone in the wilderness. That seemed promising enough. But regardless of the plot and even with great acting from the cast (the two children especially), I still wouldn't classify it as a strong horror movie. For me, it just wasn't riveting enough. It started out nicely, effectively building mystery and interest in Mama and her tragic fate. But when she finally appeared, it was almost funny. And sadly, that's the part I remembered the most.
Hansel and Gretel
Genre: Action
Medium: PC
Verdict: I love Jeremy Renner in Hurt Locker and The Avengers, but outgrew my feelings after Bourne Legacy and this. Hansel and Gretel didn't pretend to be a great movie, although I thought it leveraged on the trend of retelling fairytales and making them dark or serious and at least PG-13, to generate interest. But the original tale of Hansel and Gretel was pretty dark on its own, so all they needed to do was to show blood and some fancy fighting skills. It's pretty straightforward and average, and it offered nothing new or something that will make you go "Wow". Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) looked so old here, older than in the Taken movies. Not that it affected the movie, but I just want to say.
The Haunting in Connecticut 2
Genre: Horror
Medium: PC
Verdict. If you've watched first haunting and didn't like it, don't watch the second. Although the stories are not connected, the executions were both lame. The only thing that kept me watching was Mr. Gordy. But even my curiosity for Mr. Gordy didn't keep me from falling asleep in the middle of the movie. Good thing, I woke up in time to see him save the little girl and her mother.
Dark Skies
Genre: Suspense/Sci-Fi
Medium: PC
Verdict: This was actually quite interesting at the start and got me hooked right away - weird things happening in the house, parents acting possessed - premises that kept me wanting to know more. Until they brought out the youngest son's drawing. That sort of curtailed the fun and mystery for me because clearly you can see from the drawings that there will be an abduction. And I wasn't even surprised who got abducted. It became pretty predictable after that. But despite the effect of the "drawings", I still think this was a decent sci-fi/suspense movie with a bit of drama. At some point, I sympathized with the family's struggle to keep a normal life amidst the weird things happening to them. I was almost wishing that Fox Moulder would come up and sort them out so they can finally live in peace.
Jack The Giant Slayer
Genre: Fiction/Adventure
Medium: Cinema
Verdict: Another fairytale reinvention, although it's not much of a reinvention as the story is fairly the same. They just made it grander, more elaborate and the giants more menacing. But it didn't appeal even to the kid in me.
Oz The Great The Powerful
Genre: Fiction/Adventure
Medium: PC
Verdict: Two things I don't like in this movie: James Franco and Sam Raimi. Two things I didn't like about this movie: everything feels superficial and bad acting (except for Rachel Weisz). Despite the vivid colors, the movie was flat and lifeless. Maybe Oz needs to be told again, by someone who has a better vision of the story. Someone who can give it a heart.
G.I. Joe Retaliation
Genre: Action
Medium: Cinema
Verdict: Read review here.
To be continued (2nd half of 2013)
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Quick Reviews: G.I.: Joe Retaliation
I think most of my Quick Reviews will comprise movies. I just don't have the time to digest movies as much as I would like to. And the efficacy of doing movie reviews is in the timing - while the movie is at least being shown in cinemas - so it makes no sense to delay this post.
Some of you have probably seen G.I. Joe Retaliation already but for those who haven't yet, here's my take:
The Good
The Bad
Some of you have probably seen G.I. Joe Retaliation already but for those who haven't yet, here's my take:
The Good
- Action scenes, lots of them. I like the ninja fight at the side of the snow mountain.
The Bad
- The story (It's flat, predictable, the usual stuff that's already been used in a lot movies.)
- The script and lines (Not witty, jokes not funny, the dialogues for the most of the parts were flat out boring, except maybe the one about "Korea" - just because it's very timely)
- The acting and casting (I just still can't see Dwayne Johnson as an actor. For me, he's still The Rock and his movie acting is as good as his wresting acting. The girl who portrayed Lady Jane was kickass, but not 'kickass' kickass enough. And Bruce Willis, didn't add anything to the cast or the movie. The villians were boring and did not appear as terrifying as they should be for a group who plans to blow up the whole world.)
- No character development (the clash between Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow, that's a worn-out plot already)
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Movie: Rurouni Kenshin
Rurouni Kenshin is my favorite anime series of all time (hubby likes it, too). So much so that we had Kenshin and Kauro action figures as caketoppers atop our wedding cake. When we learned that the live-action film will have an exclusive screening on SM Cinemas, we got excited and marked the date on the calendar.
But alas, despite our intentions to watch it on the first showing day, work got in the way and it wasn't until 3 days later, a Saturday, when our schedule permitted us.
SM got the exclusive rights to screen the Rurouni Kenshin movie but it had limited run in some SM Cinemas near us, so we decided to head to SM Mall of Asia, where it is shown in 4 cinemas. We got there at around 12:30 p.m. and learned that the 2 p.m. schedule was already full. It must be a hit, I thought.
We bough tickets for the 5 p.m. slot and spent the next 4 hours strolling inside the mall. We honestly thought we were still early when we came up at 4:30 p.m., but was surprised to find a long queue waiting outside Cinema 1, where the 5 p.m. schedule will be screened. We even had to double-check if all these people were really lining up for Rurouni Kenshin. And they were. It was a hit indeed.
Rurouni Kenshin is the fictional story of Himura Kenshin, a legendary swordsman hired by the government as an assassin during the Meiji Restoration period. After killing so many people, he decided to become a wanderer and vowed never to take another soul again. Rurouni Kenshin loosely translates to Kenshin, the Wandering Swordsman, or simply Kenshin, the Wanderer. Here in the Philippines, the anime series was called Samurai X, referring to the X scar mark on Kenshin's face. And perhaps, an allusion to Kenshin being an ex-samurai.
Obviously, the movie also revolved around that story. They chose to tell the Takeda/Opium arc, where Kenshin and his friends fought Kanryu Takeda's group to stop them from peddling opium, and the Udo Jin-e arc, where he had to deal with Jin-e, another samurai murderer from his past, who believes that they who lived by the sword can never turn their backs from killing.
These story arcs were separate from each other, but in the movie, they were combined as a single story. As such, modifications in the story and some characters were inevitable, but forgivable because I understand that they had to compress everything into a 2-hour movie.
For example, Jin-e was not part of the Takeda's band of hired bodyguards. But in the movie, he was the leader of the group, replacing Shinomori Aoishi. The Oniwabanshu (Oni) group members were also misrepresented. There's a masked man, who at first we thought was Hanya, but had the hair and cape (in black) of Hiko Seijuro. When he revealed his face, his silver spiked hair resembled that of Enishi (Tomoe's brother), had a scarred face (which I couldn't identify), but talked like Aoishi.
Another glaring deviation was the inclusion of Jajime Saito, who didn't appear originally in any of the two arcs, but later at the beginning of the Shishio/Kyoto arc. For me, his inclusion was to pander to the fans. Sure, it would be nice to highlight the long-time rivalry between Kenshin and Saito, but the movie had too much going on already, to put a proper light on this angle. As a result, the duel between Kenshin and Saito, which to me is one, if not the best fight scene in the series, wasn't given justice. It wasn't even close to the real sword fight.
But as far as fighting scene goes, everything else was superb. Kenshin fought they way he fought in the series. I read somewhere that they used minimal CGI and relied mostly on rope-technique for the fighting scenes. The stance was perfect, the speed, the agility, the sword technique - it was believable. All that's missing was Kenshin's eyes turning amber when he turns into Battousai.
Casting and character portrayals were commendable as well. Sansouke and Yahiko were hilarious, Megumi was foxy and Kauro was cute and feisty. Together with the perfect setting, it's as if you're watching a live-action of the anime series (well, it is a live-action film of the anime series). What I also love is the small, subtle details that are distinctly Rurouni Kenshin (especially Kenshin's Oro face).
It is a great movie but it's not perfect. One flaw that others usually point out is the weak character development. There were a number of characters introduced without properly 'introducing' them. As a fan, it's easy (and fun and nostalgic, too) to identify these characters and understand their roles in the story. But it can be confusing if you're not familiar with the series. Also, I find some characters were not really necessary to the movie story, but it was delightful to see them in the movie nonetheless.
Rurouni Kenshin was a great movie adaptation of an equally great anime series. It stayed as faithful as possible to the plot and characters, and Kenshin's story was told beautifully while preserving the heart and soul of the series. But more than anything, it is a wonderful fan movie, made by a fan, for the fans. It's a good example of why anime series must be made into movies by people who know them by heart.
Here's hoping to a part 2 and 3. I'd love to see the Shishio/Kyoto arc and Tomoe/Enishi/Kauro arc on the big screen.
But alas, despite our intentions to watch it on the first showing day, work got in the way and it wasn't until 3 days later, a Saturday, when our schedule permitted us.
SM got the exclusive rights to screen the Rurouni Kenshin movie but it had limited run in some SM Cinemas near us, so we decided to head to SM Mall of Asia, where it is shown in 4 cinemas. We got there at around 12:30 p.m. and learned that the 2 p.m. schedule was already full. It must be a hit, I thought.
We bough tickets for the 5 p.m. slot and spent the next 4 hours strolling inside the mall. We honestly thought we were still early when we came up at 4:30 p.m., but was surprised to find a long queue waiting outside Cinema 1, where the 5 p.m. schedule will be screened. We even had to double-check if all these people were really lining up for Rurouni Kenshin. And they were. It was a hit indeed.
Rurouni Kenshin is the fictional story of Himura Kenshin, a legendary swordsman hired by the government as an assassin during the Meiji Restoration period. After killing so many people, he decided to become a wanderer and vowed never to take another soul again. Rurouni Kenshin loosely translates to Kenshin, the Wandering Swordsman, or simply Kenshin, the Wanderer. Here in the Philippines, the anime series was called Samurai X, referring to the X scar mark on Kenshin's face. And perhaps, an allusion to Kenshin being an ex-samurai.
Obviously, the movie also revolved around that story. They chose to tell the Takeda/Opium arc, where Kenshin and his friends fought Kanryu Takeda's group to stop them from peddling opium, and the Udo Jin-e arc, where he had to deal with Jin-e, another samurai murderer from his past, who believes that they who lived by the sword can never turn their backs from killing.
These story arcs were separate from each other, but in the movie, they were combined as a single story. As such, modifications in the story and some characters were inevitable, but forgivable because I understand that they had to compress everything into a 2-hour movie.
For example, Jin-e was not part of the Takeda's band of hired bodyguards. But in the movie, he was the leader of the group, replacing Shinomori Aoishi. The Oniwabanshu (Oni) group members were also misrepresented. There's a masked man, who at first we thought was Hanya, but had the hair and cape (in black) of Hiko Seijuro. When he revealed his face, his silver spiked hair resembled that of Enishi (Tomoe's brother), had a scarred face (which I couldn't identify), but talked like Aoishi.
Another glaring deviation was the inclusion of Jajime Saito, who didn't appear originally in any of the two arcs, but later at the beginning of the Shishio/Kyoto arc. For me, his inclusion was to pander to the fans. Sure, it would be nice to highlight the long-time rivalry between Kenshin and Saito, but the movie had too much going on already, to put a proper light on this angle. As a result, the duel between Kenshin and Saito, which to me is one, if not the best fight scene in the series, wasn't given justice. It wasn't even close to the real sword fight.
But as far as fighting scene goes, everything else was superb. Kenshin fought they way he fought in the series. I read somewhere that they used minimal CGI and relied mostly on rope-technique for the fighting scenes. The stance was perfect, the speed, the agility, the sword technique - it was believable. All that's missing was Kenshin's eyes turning amber when he turns into Battousai.
Casting and character portrayals were commendable as well. Sansouke and Yahiko were hilarious, Megumi was foxy and Kauro was cute and feisty. Together with the perfect setting, it's as if you're watching a live-action of the anime series (well, it is a live-action film of the anime series). What I also love is the small, subtle details that are distinctly Rurouni Kenshin (especially Kenshin's Oro face).
It is a great movie but it's not perfect. One flaw that others usually point out is the weak character development. There were a number of characters introduced without properly 'introducing' them. As a fan, it's easy (and fun and nostalgic, too) to identify these characters and understand their roles in the story. But it can be confusing if you're not familiar with the series. Also, I find some characters were not really necessary to the movie story, but it was delightful to see them in the movie nonetheless.
Rurouni Kenshin was a great movie adaptation of an equally great anime series. It stayed as faithful as possible to the plot and characters, and Kenshin's story was told beautifully while preserving the heart and soul of the series. But more than anything, it is a wonderful fan movie, made by a fan, for the fans. It's a good example of why anime series must be made into movies by people who know them by heart.
Here's hoping to a part 2 and 3. I'd love to see the Shishio/Kyoto arc and Tomoe/Enishi/Kauro arc on the big screen.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Movie: Sinister
Okay, this is a first. Not that it's the first movie that I've ever watched, just the first movie that I'll be reviewing.
Sinister:
Hubby has been telling me about this new horror flick, which he said looks promising. We are somewhat horror-movie fanatics, with me favoring the ghost-ridden ones and him, the bloody gory varieties (Well, not always. He just really like the Saw franchise. A lot).
But more often than not, we are disappointed with how most horror movies turned out. Let's just say, we didn't get scared or "entertained" by most of them. Some felt like a rehashed of other movies even if the stories were different and others, if they didn't suffer from predictable plots or bad plots to begin with, were more of a comedy than a horror movie. Honestly, there were quite a few movies where instead of trembling with fear and being scared shit out of our brains, we were laughing our hearts out.
So. I finally saw the trailer of Sinister when we watched Taken 2. The movie looked solid and prompted me to checked its rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I thought it was good enough. I didn't checked on IMDB because I didn't want run into spoilers.
I went to see the movie armed with the knowledge that the main character, played by Ethan Hawke, is a writer and that they moved to a house where a family was murdered before. The trailer seemed to suggest that it's the house that's haunted and it's the daughter that's possessed, or at least she will play a key role in the haunting/possession/whatever it is that will take place in the house.
The movie opened to a good appetizer of a scene, setting a mood with intrigue and an impending horror. But as it unraveled, it became fairly predictable quicker than I expected. Which was a bad thing for me, because I love figuring out horror movies. More than the jumpy scenes and scare tactics, a good horror movie for me is where I am caught unaware of the plot twists and how it got there. Halfway through the movie, I knew I was bored.
And I kept asking hubby why in most horror movies, they won't turn the lights on. Would be a lot creepier if Ethan's character turned the light on and the ghost appeared an inch away from his face DESPITE the light. They should learn to do ghost makeup that looks good in the light.
If there's one thing that I liked about Sinister, it's the musical score. It's, well, very sinister and lent the necessary eerie background to some of the supposedly scary scenes (with that, I think there were just two). The ending was not happy but something that you knew would happen.
I really want to discuss more points about the movie but I couldn't find a way to do so without giving spoilers. So. Overall, it's okay I guess. Certainly not something that will keep me awake at night or spawn nightmares inside my head. Not something that will rank high up on my top horror movies list and not something that I will recommend to someone who wants more than the usual hair-raising movie experience. But I still think it's a decent horror movie.
Sinister:
Hubby has been telling me about this new horror flick, which he said looks promising. We are somewhat horror-movie fanatics, with me favoring the ghost-ridden ones and him, the bloody gory varieties (Well, not always. He just really like the Saw franchise. A lot).
But more often than not, we are disappointed with how most horror movies turned out. Let's just say, we didn't get scared or "entertained" by most of them. Some felt like a rehashed of other movies even if the stories were different and others, if they didn't suffer from predictable plots or bad plots to begin with, were more of a comedy than a horror movie. Honestly, there were quite a few movies where instead of trembling with fear and being scared shit out of our brains, we were laughing our hearts out.
So. I finally saw the trailer of Sinister when we watched Taken 2. The movie looked solid and prompted me to checked its rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I thought it was good enough. I didn't checked on IMDB because I didn't want run into spoilers.
I went to see the movie armed with the knowledge that the main character, played by Ethan Hawke, is a writer and that they moved to a house where a family was murdered before. The trailer seemed to suggest that it's the house that's haunted and it's the daughter that's possessed, or at least she will play a key role in the haunting/possession/whatever it is that will take place in the house.
The movie opened to a good appetizer of a scene, setting a mood with intrigue and an impending horror. But as it unraveled, it became fairly predictable quicker than I expected. Which was a bad thing for me, because I love figuring out horror movies. More than the jumpy scenes and scare tactics, a good horror movie for me is where I am caught unaware of the plot twists and how it got there. Halfway through the movie, I knew I was bored.
And I kept asking hubby why in most horror movies, they won't turn the lights on. Would be a lot creepier if Ethan's character turned the light on and the ghost appeared an inch away from his face DESPITE the light. They should learn to do ghost makeup that looks good in the light.
If there's one thing that I liked about Sinister, it's the musical score. It's, well, very sinister and lent the necessary eerie background to some of the supposedly scary scenes (with that, I think there were just two). The ending was not happy but something that you knew would happen.
I really want to discuss more points about the movie but I couldn't find a way to do so without giving spoilers. So. Overall, it's okay I guess. Certainly not something that will keep me awake at night or spawn nightmares inside my head. Not something that will rank high up on my top horror movies list and not something that I will recommend to someone who wants more than the usual hair-raising movie experience. But I still think it's a decent horror movie.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Movies-TV: GMA News TV
Looking forward to this. I am. Definitely.
Will ABS-CBN's ANC follow suit?
Update: I just learned that TV5 launched their Aksyon TV today, beating GMA News TV's kick off by a week. Although Luchi Cruz Valdez is one of my favorite journalists, I still think that TV5 has a lot of grounds to cover before they measure up to GMA's standard in news and documentary. I also wonder why ABS-CBN hasn't entered the ring yet? Network wars, as sickening as they are, always make Philippine Television a little more interesting, don't you think?
Will ABS-CBN's ANC follow suit?
Update: I just learned that TV5 launched their Aksyon TV today, beating GMA News TV's kick off by a week. Although Luchi Cruz Valdez is one of my favorite journalists, I still think that TV5 has a lot of grounds to cover before they measure up to GMA's standard in news and documentary. I also wonder why ABS-CBN hasn't entered the ring yet? Network wars, as sickening as they are, always make Philippine Television a little more interesting, don't you think?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)