November 19, 2011
I stopped reading the Twilight books after "Eclipse." That book bored me to death and terminated any interest of reading the last book, "Breaking Dawn." We went to watch "Breaking Dawn, Part 1" just tonight because my wife really looking forward to it. I was grateful that I had not read the book, because curiosity about how the story would turn out was the only thing that kept me watching.
The entire sequence from their wedding in the woods to their honeymoon in Brazil was maybe 45 minutes too long. They could have cut and compressed all of that hilariously cheesy stuff and maybe "Breaking Dawn" could have only been one movie, instead of two parts. As with the first three books, Bella continues to row her boat between the two rivers. Yes, even after her wedding to Edward, she continues to flirt with Jacob! Yet these two guys remain incredibly and illogically loyal to her. Anyhow, that was what Stephenie Meyer wrote, so fans of the book will be expecting that.
The part about Bella's baby and how it was born was at least suspenseful. But this part only started maybe in the last 30 minutes of the whole film. The fight scenes with the wolves and vampires were too close-up to be clearly exciting. The medical aspects of the C-section were not to be taken seriously. The artificially white faces of the vampires especially on Carlisle and Emmett were awfully distracting. However, the make-up and special visual effects on Bella's look during the pregnancy were realistically eerie. Jacob's imprinting scene was also quite well-executed.
Kristin Stewart was as bland as ever as Bella. Robert Pattinson was as cheesy as ever as Edward. Taylor Lautner does a bit better as Jacob, maybe because of how "nobly" his character had been written. Most of the other supporting characters, human, vampire and werewolf get a line or two. Memorable one-liners from Billy Burke as Bella's dad Charlie, and Anna Kendrick as Bella's friend Jessica before and during the wedding, made me laugh out loud.
This movie is strictly for the entertainment of Twilight fans who will love it. It is up to par and keeps the spirit well with the rest of the other Twilight films. For non-Twilight fans who haven't read the book though, at least this installment does manage to keep your interest. I have no idea what else is left for Part 2 to tell. It felt like they could have ended the franchise with this one already since the love story seems to have been settled (if not only for financial considerations). My wife will of course see this whole film differently though. Hehe...
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
There Be Dragons
November 14, 2011
This is a movie that has been well-endorsed by the Catholic Church here in our country. It is supposed to deal with the life of a saint, St. Josemaria Escriva, the founder of the controversial organization, the Opus Dei. I must admit that even if I had friends who were members of Opus Dei, I do not really know much about them or about their organization, only what I hear from the outside. I am mostly interested to learn the historical milieu of this film that is why I wanted to watch this.
The story is told in flashbacks from the point of view of one Manolo Torres as his estranged son Robert interviews him about his friend Josemaria Escriva (who was then already on his way to becoming a saint in 1982). Manolo and Josemaria were childhood friends. Class differences broke up their friendship as the kids grew up. The outbreak of the Spanish Civil War broke them up even more, as Josemaria went into the priesthood and Manolo went with an anti-clerical militia group. Important revelations about Robert himself would also surface as his father begs for forgiveness for his past.
It felt ironic that Escriva was not exactly the central character of this movie since all the publicity was about him. We do see the beginnings of his organization of lay workers who lived together, much like today's Opus Dei centers. But other than that, Escriva was merely a side character in the main story of Manolo and his efforts to find redemption for his terrible decisions in his life. You will not really learn much detail about Escriva or the Opus Dei by watching this film, but you may be inspired to learn more about him. In fact, during the latter third of the film, the character of Escriva was not even on screen until the epilogue.
The story was admittedly very slow to unfold (nearly two hours), but we are treated to some masterfully beautiful cinematography. I was excited to see the name of Roland Joffe as the director. It had certainly been a very long time since he gave us classics like "The Mission" and "The Killing Fields," and you can really see his classy touch here. For a film with heavy religious undertones, I was surprised to learn that Joffe was an agnostic. That may actually have been good for this film, as it did not go overboard with religious propaganda. The acting of the leads Wes Bently (as Manolo) and Charlie Cox (as Escriva) were proficient though a bit wooden. I also welcomed the unexpected presence of exotic Bond Girl Olga Kurilenko as Ildiko, the tragic woman in Manolo's life. Overall, I think this movie is worth the time to watch, and maybe even re-watch.
This is a movie that has been well-endorsed by the Catholic Church here in our country. It is supposed to deal with the life of a saint, St. Josemaria Escriva, the founder of the controversial organization, the Opus Dei. I must admit that even if I had friends who were members of Opus Dei, I do not really know much about them or about their organization, only what I hear from the outside. I am mostly interested to learn the historical milieu of this film that is why I wanted to watch this.
The story is told in flashbacks from the point of view of one Manolo Torres as his estranged son Robert interviews him about his friend Josemaria Escriva (who was then already on his way to becoming a saint in 1982). Manolo and Josemaria were childhood friends. Class differences broke up their friendship as the kids grew up. The outbreak of the Spanish Civil War broke them up even more, as Josemaria went into the priesthood and Manolo went with an anti-clerical militia group. Important revelations about Robert himself would also surface as his father begs for forgiveness for his past.
It felt ironic that Escriva was not exactly the central character of this movie since all the publicity was about him. We do see the beginnings of his organization of lay workers who lived together, much like today's Opus Dei centers. But other than that, Escriva was merely a side character in the main story of Manolo and his efforts to find redemption for his terrible decisions in his life. You will not really learn much detail about Escriva or the Opus Dei by watching this film, but you may be inspired to learn more about him. In fact, during the latter third of the film, the character of Escriva was not even on screen until the epilogue.
The story was admittedly very slow to unfold (nearly two hours), but we are treated to some masterfully beautiful cinematography. I was excited to see the name of Roland Joffe as the director. It had certainly been a very long time since he gave us classics like "The Mission" and "The Killing Fields," and you can really see his classy touch here. For a film with heavy religious undertones, I was surprised to learn that Joffe was an agnostic. That may actually have been good for this film, as it did not go overboard with religious propaganda. The acting of the leads Wes Bently (as Manolo) and Charlie Cox (as Escriva) were proficient though a bit wooden. I also welcomed the unexpected presence of exotic Bond Girl Olga Kurilenko as Ildiko, the tragic woman in Manolo's life. Overall, I think this movie is worth the time to watch, and maybe even re-watch.
Trespass
November 11, 2011
I was curious to watch "Trespass" because of the interesting casting of Nic Cage and Nic Kidman. I was a bit wary about Nic Cage, as his films lately have been a bit on the hammy side. Despite his leery reputation though, it is a wonder that he continues to get a lot of work, but good for him. Another curiosity about this film was the name of Joel Schumacher as director. His was a big name in directing box-office hits in the 80s and 90s. The last of film of his I had seen was when he directed Gerard Butler as "Phantom of the Opera."
"Trespass" turned out to be a film about a family whose beautiful suburban house was intruded upon by a gang of desperate amateur robbers. The robbers were quite violent and brutal the way they treated diamond trader Kyle Miller (Nic Cage), his glamorous wife Sarah (Nic Kidman) and their rebellious young daughter Avery (Liana Liberato). Things got a little more complicated when it was revealed that one of the robbers Jonah (Cam Gigandet) had a psychotic crush on Sarah.
The performances were over the top and unconvincing, both of the victims and the intruders. Nicole Kidman reminded me of her debut performance in "Dead Calm" as the victim of a psycho guy in love with her. However, she definitely loses her subtlety as well as any sexual tension as a victim here. Nicolas Cage was typically florid in his acting. You don't know where from his business background he got his extreme gung-ho bravado in facing these robbers! It was good to see Liana Liberato again after her memorably disturbing debut film "Trust." She had her good moments here. Cam Gigandet was appropriately creepy as the deluded Romeo. Jonah's brother and gang ringleader Elias was well-played by Ben Mendelsohn, whom I just realized was one of the sons in another crime family in "Animal Kingdom."
This was probably one of the noisiest movies set in a single house that I have seen. Everyone was always hysterically screaming and shouting at the top of their lungs. Despite the brutality of the robbers, it was a wonder how the victims also had the guts to stand up to them. The Millers were daringly answering and fighting back in spite of the guns brandished by the bad men in their faces! I must say this whole thing was highly improbable and unrealistic. Watch this at your own risk. Strictly for fans of the two Nics.
I was curious to watch "Trespass" because of the interesting casting of Nic Cage and Nic Kidman. I was a bit wary about Nic Cage, as his films lately have been a bit on the hammy side. Despite his leery reputation though, it is a wonder that he continues to get a lot of work, but good for him. Another curiosity about this film was the name of Joel Schumacher as director. His was a big name in directing box-office hits in the 80s and 90s. The last of film of his I had seen was when he directed Gerard Butler as "Phantom of the Opera."
"Trespass" turned out to be a film about a family whose beautiful suburban house was intruded upon by a gang of desperate amateur robbers. The robbers were quite violent and brutal the way they treated diamond trader Kyle Miller (Nic Cage), his glamorous wife Sarah (Nic Kidman) and their rebellious young daughter Avery (Liana Liberato). Things got a little more complicated when it was revealed that one of the robbers Jonah (Cam Gigandet) had a psychotic crush on Sarah.
The performances were over the top and unconvincing, both of the victims and the intruders. Nicole Kidman reminded me of her debut performance in "Dead Calm" as the victim of a psycho guy in love with her. However, she definitely loses her subtlety as well as any sexual tension as a victim here. Nicolas Cage was typically florid in his acting. You don't know where from his business background he got his extreme gung-ho bravado in facing these robbers! It was good to see Liana Liberato again after her memorably disturbing debut film "Trust." She had her good moments here. Cam Gigandet was appropriately creepy as the deluded Romeo. Jonah's brother and gang ringleader Elias was well-played by Ben Mendelsohn, whom I just realized was one of the sons in another crime family in "Animal Kingdom."
This was probably one of the noisiest movies set in a single house that I have seen. Everyone was always hysterically screaming and shouting at the top of their lungs. Despite the brutality of the robbers, it was a wonder how the victims also had the guts to stand up to them. The Millers were daringly answering and fighting back in spite of the guns brandished by the bad men in their faces! I must say this whole thing was highly improbable and unrealistic. Watch this at your own risk. Strictly for fans of the two Nics.
In Time
November 7, 2011
When I first heard about this movie entitled "In Time" and its sci-fi concept of humans live to the age of 25, I sort of imagined a story sort of like "Logan's Run.". This made me want to catch it. After watching the film, that it wasn't really quite the "Logan's Run" scenario that I expected it to be. I was amazed at how innovatively the writer and director Andrew Niccol (he of "Gattaca" and "The Truman Show") presented his highly original concept of how our future may be.
"In Time" presents a very interesting world of the future where human aging stops at 25 years old. After that, you can survive only with the amount of extra time you have earned and saved from your daily livelihood and other activities. Time is therefore their currency, and one's remaining time is marked on a glowing digital clock on one's forearm. When you are very rich in time, you can certainly live forever. When you run out of time, you die that very instant. Ingenious!
Will Salas is a guy from the poor side of town. His mom (played by younger actress Olivia Wilde) dies out because her clock ran out before she and Will were able to get together on the night of her birthday. Will resolves to avenge her death by fighting the very system that their society runs on. Taking with him the daughter of a rich banker named Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried) as his lover and partner-in-crime, the pair goes on a spree to steal deposited time in banks and in turn give it away to those poor in time. The Time Police led by dedicated officer Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) and a gang of time extortionists led by Fortis (Alex Pettyfer) provide the exciting conflicts and consequent cat-and-mouse chases that propel the story forward.
The movie looks very slick and polished in terms of its overall look, camera work and colors. As the cast members are ALL young, it was certainly a very handsome-looking world indeed that they have created. It was obvious that Niccol had fun in showing people from different generations all portrayed by actors in their twenties, such that you really could not guess how one character was related to the other.
When I first heard about this movie entitled "In Time" and its sci-fi concept of humans live to the age of 25, I sort of imagined a story sort of like "Logan's Run.". This made me want to catch it. After watching the film, that it wasn't really quite the "Logan's Run" scenario that I expected it to be. I was amazed at how innovatively the writer and director Andrew Niccol (he of "Gattaca" and "The Truman Show") presented his highly original concept of how our future may be.
"In Time" presents a very interesting world of the future where human aging stops at 25 years old. After that, you can survive only with the amount of extra time you have earned and saved from your daily livelihood and other activities. Time is therefore their currency, and one's remaining time is marked on a glowing digital clock on one's forearm. When you are very rich in time, you can certainly live forever. When you run out of time, you die that very instant. Ingenious!
Will Salas is a guy from the poor side of town. His mom (played by younger actress Olivia Wilde) dies out because her clock ran out before she and Will were able to get together on the night of her birthday. Will resolves to avenge her death by fighting the very system that their society runs on. Taking with him the daughter of a rich banker named Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried) as his lover and partner-in-crime, the pair goes on a spree to steal deposited time in banks and in turn give it away to those poor in time. The Time Police led by dedicated officer Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) and a gang of time extortionists led by Fortis (Alex Pettyfer) provide the exciting conflicts and consequent cat-and-mouse chases that propel the story forward.
The movie looks very slick and polished in terms of its overall look, camera work and colors. As the cast members are ALL young, it was certainly a very handsome-looking world indeed that they have created. It was obvious that Niccol had fun in showing people from different generations all portrayed by actors in their twenties, such that you really could not guess how one character was related to the other.
In my opinion though, Justin Timberlake looked miscast as the hero Will Salas. I was thinking that maybe it could have been better if JT and Alex Pettyfer traded roles. JT could probably have played the antagonist role more credibly. Cillian Murphy though was perfect in his role, especially with his characteristically intense face. Amanda Seyfried has really gone a long way from "Mamma Mia."
Save for some quibbles about how easy it seemed to take time away from a person and how careless some characters are about their time, I was nonetheless thoroughly entertained by this stylish Bonnie and Clyde meet Robin Hood story in a futuristic Logan's Run setting. The imaginative creativity of Andrew Niccol is very commendable. His incisive social commentary about the gap between rich and poor in the script would also not be lost on the audience.
Save for some quibbles about how easy it seemed to take time away from a person and how careless some characters are about their time, I was nonetheless thoroughly entertained by this stylish Bonnie and Clyde meet Robin Hood story in a futuristic Logan's Run setting. The imaginative creativity of Andrew Niccol is very commendable. His incisive social commentary about the gap between rich and poor in the script would also not be lost on the audience.
The Thing (2011)
November 9, 2011
I had no idea that this was supposed to have been a prequel to a more famous 80s movie of the same title. That film was directed by John Carpenter and starred Kurt Russell. I have NOT seen that film, so I had no idea what this film would be about, except that it is probably a monster movie given the title and the poster.
The story revolves around a group of scientists studying an alien preserved in a block of ice somewhere in the Antarctic. We soon would discover that this alien had the ability to copy human cells and turn into human clones, and kill. The first half of the film was very interesting in that once these scientists found out what the alien could do, they started to become paranoid about each other, giving the film a very tense and claustrophobic feel. Later on though, it becomes a typical monster movie where the members of the team are killed one by one until only one person remains at the end.
I felt this one was a so-so thriller. The CGI monsters were so obvious and grotesque in a very fake plastic way. The premise of the alien ability to transform into humans though was very good, but being a prequel, it is not original then. As this 2011 film is meant to be a homage as well as a prequel, I guess the next step for me is get a copy of that 1982 classic film and see how this one ties into that one. Maybe then I might have a better rating for it, but not now.
I had no idea that this was supposed to have been a prequel to a more famous 80s movie of the same title. That film was directed by John Carpenter and starred Kurt Russell. I have NOT seen that film, so I had no idea what this film would be about, except that it is probably a monster movie given the title and the poster.
The story revolves around a group of scientists studying an alien preserved in a block of ice somewhere in the Antarctic. We soon would discover that this alien had the ability to copy human cells and turn into human clones, and kill. The first half of the film was very interesting in that once these scientists found out what the alien could do, they started to become paranoid about each other, giving the film a very tense and claustrophobic feel. Later on though, it becomes a typical monster movie where the members of the team are killed one by one until only one person remains at the end.
I felt this one was a so-so thriller. The CGI monsters were so obvious and grotesque in a very fake plastic way. The premise of the alien ability to transform into humans though was very good, but being a prequel, it is not original then. As this 2011 film is meant to be a homage as well as a prequel, I guess the next step for me is get a copy of that 1982 classic film and see how this one ties into that one. Maybe then I might have a better rating for it, but not now.
30 Minutes or Less
November 2, 2011
I went into this movie not knowing much about it, aside from the story was about a guy forced to rob a bank. I totally did not expect that this would be the film that it was -- a black comedy about two pairs of lazy losers.
Loser Pair #1 is composed of Nick (Jesse Eisenberg), a pizza delivery guy and Chet (Aziz Ansari), his school teacher best pal and brother of his dream girl. Loser Pair #2 is Dwayne (Danny Mc Bride) and his best pal Travis (Nick Swardon), a couple of no- good bums. One day, Dwayne concocts a bright idea to kill his father to get his money. To do that he needs to hire a killer. To pay the killer, he will have to abduct someone, strap a bomb on that person and coerce him to rob a bank to get them the cash. That unfortunate someone turns out to be Nick, because he can deliver a pizza for the titular "30 minutes or less". I know that story line sounds harebrained and absurd, but believe it or not, that is exactly what you get.
In all its silliness, this movie was actually quite an entertaining one with its hilarious one-liners. For me though, it was marred by a lot of unnecessary dirty language. Was this supposed to be cool? It was not for me. I was reminded of another over-the-top buddy heist movie "From Paris With Love", but this was on a smaller scale and you do not have any character as cool as John Travolta's here. I actually liked the sidekick characters (Chet and Travis) more than the main guys (Nick and Dwayne). These sidekicks had more funny lines and likable personalities. Overall, the many unexpected surprises this film delivers makes this viewing quite a fun ride.
I went into this movie not knowing much about it, aside from the story was about a guy forced to rob a bank. I totally did not expect that this would be the film that it was -- a black comedy about two pairs of lazy losers.
Loser Pair #1 is composed of Nick (Jesse Eisenberg), a pizza delivery guy and Chet (Aziz Ansari), his school teacher best pal and brother of his dream girl. Loser Pair #2 is Dwayne (Danny Mc Bride) and his best pal Travis (Nick Swardon), a couple of no- good bums. One day, Dwayne concocts a bright idea to kill his father to get his money. To do that he needs to hire a killer. To pay the killer, he will have to abduct someone, strap a bomb on that person and coerce him to rob a bank to get them the cash. That unfortunate someone turns out to be Nick, because he can deliver a pizza for the titular "30 minutes or less". I know that story line sounds harebrained and absurd, but believe it or not, that is exactly what you get.
In all its silliness, this movie was actually quite an entertaining one with its hilarious one-liners. For me though, it was marred by a lot of unnecessary dirty language. Was this supposed to be cool? It was not for me. I was reminded of another over-the-top buddy heist movie "From Paris With Love", but this was on a smaller scale and you do not have any character as cool as John Travolta's here. I actually liked the sidekick characters (Chet and Travis) more than the main guys (Nick and Dwayne). These sidekicks had more funny lines and likable personalities. Overall, the many unexpected surprises this film delivers makes this viewing quite a fun ride.
Puss in Boots
November 1, 2011
When we first saw the trailer for Puss in Boots, I can't say I was really excited to see it. But of course, the kids wanted to see it so we did (in 2D only). I must say, we all had a mighty good time! No regrets at all in watching this animated fantasy-Western adventure.
We see Puss' humble origins as a kitten growing up in an orphanage in the Mexican town of San Ricardo. He develops an unlikely friend in one odd egg named Humpty Alexander Dumpty. Circumstances eventually break up the two friends. After several years, Humpty seeks out Puss (with the help of sultry seductress Kitty Softpaws) to convince him to help get Jack's magic beans from Jack and Jill. I know this sounds like a messy mishmash of fairy tale characters, and it was. The artists also take liberties in their visual interpretation of these characters, including the Golden Goose (which I personally found corny).
Thanks to the Shrek films, we already know Puss in Boots and what to expect from him. His Zorro-like swashbuckling exploits, his charm with the ladies and his cute wide-eyed pleading look are all here, and Antonio Banderas too! Selma Hayek voices Kitty delightfully. This new character is quite likable, and you would like to see more adventures of the two cats. As for Humpty (voiced by Zach Galifianakis of "Hangover" fame) though, here lies the prickly problem. You may or may not like him, both his look and his character. Humpty can really be annoying!
There are so many hilarious isolated situations that could make you laugh out loud. I certainly did at several points. My favorite funny moment was that when Humpty changed into his Golden Egg costume. I'm sure you can get an absurd image just by reading that last sentence. Haha! His line when he was running and commented that he needed powder to prevent friction in his pants (he was apparently not wearing underwear) really made me guffaw! You have to hear it to believe that a line like that made it into a children's cartoon flick.
The artwork was of course flawless. The textures are palpable. The action sequences are exciting and funny at the same time. The fight scenes mixed with dance moves were quite interesting to watch as well. The 2D version was adequate enough to enjoy the adventure. Overall this is a fun movie to watch with the whole family.
When we first saw the trailer for Puss in Boots, I can't say I was really excited to see it. But of course, the kids wanted to see it so we did (in 2D only). I must say, we all had a mighty good time! No regrets at all in watching this animated fantasy-Western adventure.
We see Puss' humble origins as a kitten growing up in an orphanage in the Mexican town of San Ricardo. He develops an unlikely friend in one odd egg named Humpty Alexander Dumpty. Circumstances eventually break up the two friends. After several years, Humpty seeks out Puss (with the help of sultry seductress Kitty Softpaws) to convince him to help get Jack's magic beans from Jack and Jill. I know this sounds like a messy mishmash of fairy tale characters, and it was. The artists also take liberties in their visual interpretation of these characters, including the Golden Goose (which I personally found corny).
Thanks to the Shrek films, we already know Puss in Boots and what to expect from him. His Zorro-like swashbuckling exploits, his charm with the ladies and his cute wide-eyed pleading look are all here, and Antonio Banderas too! Selma Hayek voices Kitty delightfully. This new character is quite likable, and you would like to see more adventures of the two cats. As for Humpty (voiced by Zach Galifianakis of "Hangover" fame) though, here lies the prickly problem. You may or may not like him, both his look and his character. Humpty can really be annoying!
There are so many hilarious isolated situations that could make you laugh out loud. I certainly did at several points. My favorite funny moment was that when Humpty changed into his Golden Egg costume. I'm sure you can get an absurd image just by reading that last sentence. Haha! His line when he was running and commented that he needed powder to prevent friction in his pants (he was apparently not wearing underwear) really made me guffaw! You have to hear it to believe that a line like that made it into a children's cartoon flick.
The artwork was of course flawless. The textures are palpable. The action sequences are exciting and funny at the same time. The fight scenes mixed with dance moves were quite interesting to watch as well. The 2D version was adequate enough to enjoy the adventure. Overall this is a fun movie to watch with the whole family.
Dolphin Tale
October 28, 2011
This is a nice little inspirational movie that had a relentlessly positive message, and an exuberant talented cast (led by Morgan Freeman, Ashley Judd, and Harry Connick, Jr.) to boot. While the title and the poster already tells you what to expect, the movie actually had a multi- layered plot, all of these sub-stories drive home the same positive message of hope and redemption in the face of adversity.
The main story of course is that of Winter, a young dolphin whose tail got caught and seriously injured in a crab trap. Sawyer, a young boy with school and father issues, grows very attached to this dolphin that he saved. When Winter's tail was eventually amputated, Sawyer sought the help of the prosthetics expert at the veteran's hospital to come up with a prosthetic tail so the dolphin could swim normally again.
To thicken this simple and straightforward main plot, the script gave us several supporting stories. We get the story of Sawyer's older cousin Kyle, the very marine hospital itself, as well as the very community of Clearwater, Florida -- all of whom get into some problem which threatens to destroy them. We get to witness how these "broken" people had the will to rise above their difficulties and move on with their lives.
There was of course no surprises anymore how this will end. However, the story telling was engaging without being too pushy or cheesy with its message. The kid actors were very natural and not annoying, especially the young man who played Sawyer, Nathan Gamble. I think it is a very good family film where important lessons about life can be learned by all. Once in a while it is quite refreshing to watch a happy positive film so reinforce the belief that not all hope is lost in this seemingly sad and cruel world of ours.
This is a nice little inspirational movie that had a relentlessly positive message, and an exuberant talented cast (led by Morgan Freeman, Ashley Judd, and Harry Connick, Jr.) to boot. While the title and the poster already tells you what to expect, the movie actually had a multi- layered plot, all of these sub-stories drive home the same positive message of hope and redemption in the face of adversity.
The main story of course is that of Winter, a young dolphin whose tail got caught and seriously injured in a crab trap. Sawyer, a young boy with school and father issues, grows very attached to this dolphin that he saved. When Winter's tail was eventually amputated, Sawyer sought the help of the prosthetics expert at the veteran's hospital to come up with a prosthetic tail so the dolphin could swim normally again.
To thicken this simple and straightforward main plot, the script gave us several supporting stories. We get the story of Sawyer's older cousin Kyle, the very marine hospital itself, as well as the very community of Clearwater, Florida -- all of whom get into some problem which threatens to destroy them. We get to witness how these "broken" people had the will to rise above their difficulties and move on with their lives.
There was of course no surprises anymore how this will end. However, the story telling was engaging without being too pushy or cheesy with its message. The kid actors were very natural and not annoying, especially the young man who played Sawyer, Nathan Gamble. I think it is a very good family film where important lessons about life can be learned by all. Once in a while it is quite refreshing to watch a happy positive film so reinforce the belief that not all hope is lost in this seemingly sad and cruel world of ours.
Paranormal Activity 3
October 25, 2011
I was not really planning to watch "Paranormal Activity 3." I had seen the first two installments of this series, and well, I think I have already seen the best of it, and it is not really much. Before it opened though, critics were giving it an A rating. Then it actually opened to record October box office numbers. So I thought, maybe there is something in this movie after all, so hence I watched it.
The story brings us back to 1988 when Katie and Kristie (the sisters from the first two movies) were still little kids. Their dad Dennis decides to film their bedrooms and dining room 24/7 after hearing strange noises during the night. Those scenes where the ghost was terrorizing little Kristie in the kids' bedroom were quite a good scare. Their mom Julie is the skeptical one, until much later she too would be convinced via a grander show of the ghost's power in the kitchen. These "ghostly" scenes were variations of similar scare tactics we have seen before though. We also meet the girls' mother Lois as she gets into the action.
And as it was in the first two films, the suspense was suspended for almost an entire hour before anything remotely exciting even happens. I have to admit though there were some pretty unexpectedly spooky scenes in the last twenty minutes or so. While I found this installment definitely better than the Part 2, it is not exactly something I would rate an A. It is okay though, and good for a short squeamish time towards the homestretch. That is, if you can sit through the tedium of the first hour (much like what you sat through in the first two PA films).
I was not really planning to watch "Paranormal Activity 3." I had seen the first two installments of this series, and well, I think I have already seen the best of it, and it is not really much. Before it opened though, critics were giving it an A rating. Then it actually opened to record October box office numbers. So I thought, maybe there is something in this movie after all, so hence I watched it.
The story brings us back to 1988 when Katie and Kristie (the sisters from the first two movies) were still little kids. Their dad Dennis decides to film their bedrooms and dining room 24/7 after hearing strange noises during the night. Those scenes where the ghost was terrorizing little Kristie in the kids' bedroom were quite a good scare. Their mom Julie is the skeptical one, until much later she too would be convinced via a grander show of the ghost's power in the kitchen. These "ghostly" scenes were variations of similar scare tactics we have seen before though. We also meet the girls' mother Lois as she gets into the action.
And as it was in the first two films, the suspense was suspended for almost an entire hour before anything remotely exciting even happens. I have to admit though there were some pretty unexpectedly spooky scenes in the last twenty minutes or so. While I found this installment definitely better than the Part 2, it is not exactly something I would rate an A. It is okay though, and good for a short squeamish time towards the homestretch. That is, if you can sit through the tedium of the first hour (much like what you sat through in the first two PA films).
Killer Elite
October 23, 2011
Now that I have seen more than one Jason Statham movie, I already know what to expect. A Jason Statham action movie is old-fashioned (no special effects), macho, slam-bang action where Mr. Statham kicks some serious ass in an almost superhuman way, and convinces all of us that he can really do these things. "Killer Elite" is no different.
In this action flick, the story revolves around Jason being pulled out of secret agent retirement because his mentor Robert de Niro got kidnapped by a Osama Bin Laden look-alike who wants to avenge the murder of his sons by some British guys. Clive Owen is also an agent from another organization who is checking out the actions and dealings of former agents like Statham was. Of course there would be some convoluted double-crossing in this battle of wits and brawn between secret agents.
Of course there is the typical explosive car chases and foot chases. Jason was awesome in that scene where he was tied down to a chair and he was able to fight his way out as only he can. To neutralize all the testosterone going on, there was the lovely Yvonne Strahovsky in yet another typical action flick cliché as the hero's girlfriend in peril. As the senior agent, De Niro's scenes are fewer than those of Statham or Owens.
This is everything you would expect in a Jason Statham action movie, plus the star power of Clive Owen and Robert de Niro in there to boot. Not bad at all for its adrenaline rush. I do wonder how much of the "True Story" this was based on was actually in the film.
Now that I have seen more than one Jason Statham movie, I already know what to expect. A Jason Statham action movie is old-fashioned (no special effects), macho, slam-bang action where Mr. Statham kicks some serious ass in an almost superhuman way, and convinces all of us that he can really do these things. "Killer Elite" is no different.
In this action flick, the story revolves around Jason being pulled out of secret agent retirement because his mentor Robert de Niro got kidnapped by a Osama Bin Laden look-alike who wants to avenge the murder of his sons by some British guys. Clive Owen is also an agent from another organization who is checking out the actions and dealings of former agents like Statham was. Of course there would be some convoluted double-crossing in this battle of wits and brawn between secret agents.
Of course there is the typical explosive car chases and foot chases. Jason was awesome in that scene where he was tied down to a chair and he was able to fight his way out as only he can. To neutralize all the testosterone going on, there was the lovely Yvonne Strahovsky in yet another typical action flick cliché as the hero's girlfriend in peril. As the senior agent, De Niro's scenes are fewer than those of Statham or Owens.
This is everything you would expect in a Jason Statham action movie, plus the star power of Clive Owen and Robert de Niro in there to boot. Not bad at all for its adrenaline rush. I do wonder how much of the "True Story" this was based on was actually in the film.
Real Steel
October 17, 2011
The Hollywood sports movie typically follows the triumph of an underdog against all odds. We have seen it in "Rocky," in "Mighty Ducks," in "Cool Runnings," even in "Ice Princess," and so on and so forth. As it was quite evident in its trailer, "Real Steel" will undoubtedly follow this same tried and true formula.
Despite being very predictable, and yes, cheesy, "Real Steel" still succeeds to entertain the audience. I believe this is mainly because of the interesting premise of robot boxing replacing conventional boxing in the near future (this movie is set in 2020). The special effects of these robot boxing matches were very exciting and exhilarating. The action in the boxing ring still remains raw, palpable and realistic, even given its mechanical fighters. This is definitely NOT like the messy Transformers.
A big factor is also the goodwill and charisma of lead actor Hugh Jackman in the two aspects of his character Charlie. He had earnest performance as the father trying to establish a relationship with an estranged son. He also had a very energetic performance as an ex-boxer now the controller of a Robot Boxer. He is very likable in both aspects, as well as with his chemistry with his co-stars, Dakota Goyo (who played his headstrong son Max) and very pretty Evangeline Lilly (who plays his girlfriend Bailey).
Therefore despite already knowing how this film will end, even as early as the trailer several months ago, I would say that it will still be worth one's time to go and watch the awesome action sequences on the big screen. I think these adrenalized action scenes strike a good balance with the rather hokey yet unavoidable (given the father and son theme) melodramatic scenes. There is something for everyone here.
The Hollywood sports movie typically follows the triumph of an underdog against all odds. We have seen it in "Rocky," in "Mighty Ducks," in "Cool Runnings," even in "Ice Princess," and so on and so forth. As it was quite evident in its trailer, "Real Steel" will undoubtedly follow this same tried and true formula.
Despite being very predictable, and yes, cheesy, "Real Steel" still succeeds to entertain the audience. I believe this is mainly because of the interesting premise of robot boxing replacing conventional boxing in the near future (this movie is set in 2020). The special effects of these robot boxing matches were very exciting and exhilarating. The action in the boxing ring still remains raw, palpable and realistic, even given its mechanical fighters. This is definitely NOT like the messy Transformers.
A big factor is also the goodwill and charisma of lead actor Hugh Jackman in the two aspects of his character Charlie. He had earnest performance as the father trying to establish a relationship with an estranged son. He also had a very energetic performance as an ex-boxer now the controller of a Robot Boxer. He is very likable in both aspects, as well as with his chemistry with his co-stars, Dakota Goyo (who played his headstrong son Max) and very pretty Evangeline Lilly (who plays his girlfriend Bailey).
Therefore despite already knowing how this film will end, even as early as the trailer several months ago, I would say that it will still be worth one's time to go and watch the awesome action sequences on the big screen. I think these adrenalized action scenes strike a good balance with the rather hokey yet unavoidable (given the father and son theme) melodramatic scenes. There is something for everyone here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)