REUNION

MOVIE REVIEW:

MONSTERS UNIVERSITY

By:

G.P. Manalo

Starring:
 

John Goodman

Billy Crystal

Helen Mirren

If nothing told us anything about Pixar for the past two years it is that, Pixar has lost their streak of quality animated films and compromised the fact that they are mortal. Monsters University is Pixar’s second shot at making a film that is either a prequel or a sequel (hurry up with the Incredibles 2 movie). With Monsters University in theaters right now it does show that the Pixar we know and love is slowly coming back to the best qualities we loved about Pixar.

In Monsters University, Pixar takes us back to the world behind our children’s bedroom closets as it shows our two protagonists from the first film, Mike Wazowski and James Sullivan return to the big screen in their younger years as they attend college in the most prestigious universities of their world, Monsters University. Mike Wazowski has always dreamed of becoming a scarer and join the scaring program in Monsters University and there he meets a natural-born scarer named James P. Sullivan. As we know from the original Monsters Inc. they were best friends until the end (They wouldn’t have nothing without each other after all) but in this prequel it shows that they weren’t really the best of friends when they first met. But they must put rivalries aside when they are threatened to be kicked out of the University as they participate In the school’s “Scare Games” where they must not only prove to be the scariest monsters of the school but to also help their fraternity build up into something the university didn’t expect them to be in order to survive the games.

I was rather skeptical going in to this film, Monsters Inc. is one of those few animated films that I keep close to my heart and I do not want to see it get ruined right before my eyes. I had big expectations going in and at the same time was also stopping myself from judging it badly if it was because of Pixar’s recent track record. But as the first 5 minutes of the movie as it starts I find myself (actually) enjoying the movie and throughout the film there was this big smile on my face (it’s this feeling called “happiness”, I believe) which means that I did enjoy this movie from start to finish. Is it Pixar’s best or at least be as great as the original Monsters Inc? I can say that it is close to that level. Is it at least in the level of Pixar’s best? Not really but at least it’s not part of Pixar’s string of mediocrity.

The story of Monsters University is a solid one, it’s not really the deeply told animated coming-of-age film nor is it an original one as well, and it’s more like a family-friendly version of “Revenge of the Nerds”. The film is told in a rather familiar buddy-underdog-formula that we have seen being told in past films. One can say that the formula has been done to death but for the film it is actually an advantage and it did work in the long-run in order to tell the story of how two friends came to be and the antics they have to go through as they build the relationship that we have seen from this film’s previous predecessor. Throughout the movie you can literally sniff the things that are about to happen, but there was that one twist that surprised me and there were some clever nods of the original Monsters Inc. throughout the film that will get you off guard (a couple of cameos made me laugh).

The film brings a decent amount of depth and heart to the formula and it did result to an entertaining animated film as a whole. At some point of the film, I wanted to complain of it having a cookie cutter ending by that one particular part of the third act that I thought would end from there, but there was this (closer to being mind-blowing) plot twist that surprised me and I thought it ended that way perfectly. The movie is not as genuinely funny as Monsters Inc., It wasn’t necessarily unfunny as a whole, there were jokes that fell flat though the film’s comedic element is more clever in-jokes that most monsters do in the background (which is better than car puns in Cars 2, that’s for sure) than it being laugh-out-loud funny (but I did laugh at Squishy during his scare simulation).

Pixar came a long way from making humans look like deformed plastic toys themselves to now where they can actually put humans (that looks like exaggeratedly designed humans), objects, and creatures in a very colorful yet believable setting. The animation is beautiful for this film, vibrant colors, tons of things to look at every inch of detail and also the designs of the monsters are very unique and creative. I like how they made Mike and Sully (and a few cameos from the past films) look young in this prequel and most of the monsters in the film are both genuinely scary and creatively designed.

I can’t really go in to detail with the voice casting that much because the voice acting in this movie is very top-notch. Each character had a fitting voice and I would give props to the voice actors for that. It’s good to hear Billy Crystal and John Goodman in the sound booth again as Mike and Sully. Billy Crystal returns with a really high-pitched version of Mike Wazowski. Newcomers like Helen Mirren as Dean Hardscrabble was great despite the fact that her character is a bit under-used. Peter Sohn as Squishy, Joel Murray as Don, Sean Hayes and David Foley as Terri and Terry and also Charlie Day as Art were all great as the outcast frat members of Oozma Kappa; the writing gave them some genuinely funny antics with those characters throughout the film. Lastly, Nathan Fillion as Johnny Worthington of the big fraternity of the film was a good villain in the film, he is the generic frat-bully, he did some things that people like him would do in movies like Animal House or (again) Revenge of the Nerds.

In the end, Monsters University is nothing original but enjoyable nonetheless. From this movie I can tell that Pixar is slowly coming back to their roots and they did deliver a solid prequel from its beloved predecessor. Pixar never goes wrong with the CGI-Animation from its attention to detail and ingenuity. The writing is solid as they take advantage of the generic buddy formula to deliver an entertaining film with its. Fans of the original Monsters Inc. will be happy that “Monsters University” is in fact a very good movie; just don’t expect this to be as great as the original. 

ZOMBIE-ISH

MOVIE REVIEW:

WORLD WAR Z

By:

G.P. Manalo

Starring:

Brad Pitt

It seems that for the past decade zombies have been making a huge takeover in pop culture nowadays; from books, videogames, TV shows and movies, World War Z seems to be a new entry to the genre as it adapts a really famous novel by Max Brooks into a huge summer blockbuster.

World War Z is (loosely) based on a book with the same name by Max Brooks. It’s about a zombie outbreak that has ravaged the earth and humankind doesn’t have a fighting chance against the undead. The United Nations recruits an ex-military soldier, Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) to help them figure out more about the zombies for them to fight back.

This movie is definitely nothing like the source material, that does take modern horror literature to the next level. From where I was standing the movie has a small percentage of it being accurate to the book even though there were very few hints or small crumbs of things that were in the book, But I try to act “Professional” about this kind of situation because I don’t want to compare the book to the movie because there is no point in doing so. That being said, The movie was definitely not the World War Z adaptation that I wanted but I still (marginally) enjoyed it for what it is anyways.

Instead of the movie having an (interesting) political narrative (which I heard was cut off and at the same time the main reason why they re-shot large portions of the film.), the movie was instead told like a videogame where one man will go to different places and at the same time he will encounter a zombie attack without getting hurt at all (until the third act where he rides a plane), it’s more of a rinse-and-repeat progression. It was good at first but as it goes on it became boring on a few set pieces, there was never that tense feeling in an action set piece, you barely root for the main character going out of the situation because you never felt the stakes were high or even a hint of suspense on that point because of how “invincible” the main character is (think John McClaine surviving a truck “accident” and lives without a scratch in that Generic Bruce Willis action movie).

The story literally felt like an anthology of things that we have seen in zombie movies from the past, I would’ve liked to see the “political” aspect of the book for film for it to at least be a fresh take on a zombie film (even if it will be boring or not) but when we do, instead we got generic military dialogue. They did do some genuine enough things with the existing elements and it was handled decently enough to progress the film. The even worst part of the narrative is the fact that The movie lets you assume more than seeing it happen in the movie; It seems that they are saving up most of the things that they want to explain in this movie for the existing sequel and they handled that aspect very cheaply in the movie as it ends on a one-note basis and the ending didn’t really feel fulfilling that much.  But what saved this movie was the third act of the film, as I watch the third act of the film I would’ve liked the movie to be more of that. More of those stealthy missions and showcasing practical zombie, hand in hand combat. There was more suspense in set pieces like that than what we had in the first half of the movie and Brad Pitt’s character wasn’t very stoic and invincible as the first and second half tells him to be, they actually show some vulnerability of the character.  It was very interesting to watch him go through various situations and I was rooting for him from those moments. 

When a zombie movie is PG-13 it is a very bad sign, a zombie fan will be disappointed on the fact that this movie is bloodless, not even a hint of gore. The movie censors the scenes of zombies eating people in a way on how the Hunger Games censors kids killing each other. And the way they censor it is the “artistic” camera technique known as Shaky Cam and the zombies would travel as a group like how a swarm of bees would travel together and pile on one person. Things like that took me out of the first half besides the fact that some of the situations that occur were overdone here and there. I do wish that the zombies could've been practical in most scenes, the CGI zombies were rather distracting for the most part. 

Brad Pitt is the focal point of this film, for the material he was given he was pretty good in the movie, not an oscar worthy performance but still great, he was able to carry the film. The first thing I didn’t like about the movie as I go in to it is the fact that they brought in a family in this story, and my first impression of this movie was it being like that bad Roland Emmerich film, 2012. The fact that they gave this character a family didn’t really work out very well after the first 30-40 minutes of the movie. Without the family in this movie, that movie could’ve been better without them. Throughout the movie they only exist through phone calls and even the dialogue between them would be rinse and repeat (“Hey how are you and the kids?”, “Are you okay?”, “Yeah.”). They should’ve explored more with Brad Pitt’s character as a “soldier”, the movie should’ve been better off that way but to say the least they did handle the family aspect decently enough through the first half. 

In the end, World War Z was a bad adaptation but not a terrible film in the process for purists of the novel you will definitely not enjoy this film if you want the movie to stay true to the source material. It is difficult to depart myself from comparing this to the source material it was based on, it is definitely not the World War Z adaptation that I wanted but I still marginally enjoyed it anyways. This movie could’ve been better in an R-Rating (especially when it’s a zombie film), the effects of the zombie swarm and the shaky cam did take me out in the movie. Even if it didn’t follow the story of the source material the movie did tell an interesting enough story of humankind’s last stand in the zombie apocalypse. The movie is a rental at its best than a cinematic experience. 

THE GOOD:

+BRAD PITT’S PERFORMANCE

+THE THIRD ACT
+SOME ENJOYABLE ACTION SEQUENCES

THE BAD:

-REPETITIVENESS

-DISTRACTING STORYTELLING AND CAMERA WORK

-UNECCESSARY ELEMENTS

-DEVELOPMENT

-ENDING

MY RATING:

2.5/5 – RENTAL!

THE REAL SUPERMAN RETURNS

MOVIE REVIEW:

MAN OF STEEL

By:

G.P. Manalo

Starring:

Henry Cavill

Amy Adams

Michael Shannon

Kevin Costner

Russell Crowe

After much anticipation, Man of Steel is a rather ambitious comic book film as it re-introduces the Iconic superhero to the audience yet again in a possible “Batman” approach (at first).  It has been years since Superman wowed critics, fans or casual movie-goers in his cinematic form. It must be a challenge to bring back an Icon with a stature like Superman with a big-screen re-telling that could become relevant to a newer generation yet again; the conflicting fact about this is the fact that it is taking a huge leap of it following the footsteps of Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight Trilogy”. Fortunately enough, Man of Steel is the probably the best Superman movie since Superman II though that is not saying that much but there was still that driving force me in me that I could’ve got a little bit more from the movie.  

Man of Steel – Is a reboot-retelling of the origin of the iconic superhero, Superman, the last son of krypton. As the planet Krypton slowly die, Jor-El and his wife Lara took their only child and sent him to earth who are meanwhile found by a human couple, the Kents. As he grows up discovering his powers it conflicts him in using those powers to help people who are not really ready for a savior like him. He wanders the world in different names and occupations when that one job leads him to a reunion with his real father and there he discovers his purpose as well and now he is forced to face a threat to mankind named, General Zod and his own Kryptonian army in a mission to destroy and re-create Krypton out of Earth.

I welcomed Zack Snyder to direct this movie in open arms, sure he made one bad movie but there is a possibility that he could do it again but I remain optimistic about the choice directing this film, I was happy to know that this was more of his “baby” than Nolan’s but there was still that great fear in me when I heard that phrase. As much as I want to say that he is a great visual director, I never thought that he was the kind of guy who would bring great performances (Rorschach, Dr. Manhattan, and Comedian were great but they’re 3/6 of the Watchmen who stood out in the film) in his movies. But I was happy to know that he did live up, he was able to deliver a rather satisfying and probably the best Superman movie we had since 1980.

Superman is not Batman, that’s for sure. I never really like the comparison due to the film’s previews showcasing the fact that this new take on Superman that is rather edgy, realistic and dark. Superman was never the edgy or emo type, even if his life was a tragic one like Batman’s, Superman sees positivity out of it and remains his moral fiber and the movie somewhat portrays both tones uniquely and I didn’t expect that it’d go well. I also don’t like the word “Realistic” around Superman, Superman is a god-like being who comes from another planet with powers like shooting laser beams from his eyes, Ice breath, super strength and flight, and invincibility not to mention his weakness is a rock with five different colors (and a red sun). I don’t think realistic is the right word, if we would go back to the tagline of “Superman: The Movie” it is told that you “Will BELIEVE a man can fly”. Believe is the definitive word for Superman; make me believe that his planet is more than just white crystals, make me believe that there was some sort of progression as his powers develop, make me believe that his weakness is a frickin’ rock, or maybe even that despite his perfections he can still be a vulnerable man. In this movie, I did believe that this man existed in that world; as a matter of fact they did tell a good and a fresh enough take in telling the story of this character.

Henry Cavill closely embodies Superman/Clark Kent/Kal-El from his moral fiber to his country boy personality better than Brandon Routh but unfortunately it is in that level so far, we still have yet to see from him playing this character especially when I’m going to say that he is in the level of Christopher Reeves (or maybe yet, better than Christopher Reeves) though he does closely embody the Superman we know through his mannerisms and personality enough in this movie, like I said we have yet to see more from the actor especially how they did set-up this character for the sequel. They brought out an “interesting” take on Superman in this film. From the first half, Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman does seem to be that likable guy but when the second act comes to play it felt like he was a different character, he did some questionable things that purists or casual fans in general will be pissed off about (not in a slap-in-the-face Mandarin way, don’t worry). I do like the story they tell for him in this movie where the focal point of the narrative is him finding his purpose in this world, and I thought that was handled very well in the film and the way it is built up from the first half. 

Michael Shannon as General Zod is very under-used in this movie and Michael Shannon is actually one of my favorite actors; he wasn’t really the dastardly-cliched-campy villain that General Zod was in past incarnations (or super villains in general), here he is more portrayed as this lawful-evil who just wants order for his planet through his clouded ideas. As a “villain” I would compare him to 2009’s Star Trek, Nero; like Nero he did some monumental things here and there but there was never this emotional weight or impact on the character that much, you leave the theater wanting more from the character (especially when it is from a very talented actor), though for the material the actor was given he was still able to pull off a decent enough performance. But Antje Traue’s Faora was more of the villain you wanted Zod to be in this movie, she was doing all the dirty work and she gets more blood on her hands more than General Zod in this movie. Her performance was also great in this movie; hopefully I’ll see more films from the actress soon.

Amy Adams’s version of Lois Lane is an interesting one, she’s not the typical “damsel in distress” type in this movie, and she was more relevant and involved around the situations in this film and I’m glad that they actually made her a stronger female character in this film, though Amy Adams' performance is a mix between almost bland and decent at the same time (hope that makes sense at least). Lastly, the two fathers: Kevin Conroy’s Pa Kent and Russell Crowe’s Jor-El were easily the best things happen in the movie. Both of them pulled off an surprisingly exceptional performance in this movie and it is probably the best version of those characters in a live action incarnation by far as they bring so much emotional weight throughout the movie.

The movie surprisingly showed you more of Krypton in this movie for the first 20 minutes of the movie, I love how they showed Krypton as an actual functional world from showing you the culture, some back-story, and even the inhabitants of the planet, but when you do go to earth it immediately cuts to Kal-El being an adult and his early life acts as cliff notes in the movie as it is featured through a series of flashbacks. It was clever for the few flashbacks in this movie but then there were more and more flashbacks coming in and you end up wishing that most of those flashbacks could;ve been combined together in the first hour or so to build up Superman more as a character in the movie, the final cut was satisfying (at some degree) anyways. The storytelling is not as complex as I thought it would be, to the film's credit the movie is actually linear and simply told.

Zack Snyder is a great visual director and he has shown that in his past movies (he even makes owls fighting look cool in 3D). The first and second half was this emotional uprising of the character and then the third act of the movie was this huge and fast paced-adrenaline filled action set-pieces. this movie is action packed, In fact this is the most action-packed Superman film by far.  The fight scenes in this movie are insane and I was very happy to see Superman punch something in this movie. As much as I enjoyed the third act of the movie, I just wished the movie had room to breathe. The movie didn’t really stop for a break to build something up and when it did it is faster than a speeding bullet (see what I did there?). There was an unnecessary scene in the climax of the movie and I wished that scene could’ve been better if they were to keep that scene alone in the movie. The action scenes are incredible nonetheless especially that final fight between Zod and Superman where it is in a Transformers-esque scale (don't worry you can tell what's going on). 

Lastly, Hans Zimmer's score is brilliant as always. Is it in the level of the original score? not really, which is quite a challenge to build a theme as iconic as the original. it's like what my friend said about Zimmer's difficulty in making a score "It's like God told a man to build a mountain and he gives you pebbles to build one". The score somewhat has that prevailing-glorious feel to the score and most of the time the music would catch the emotional state of the scene. 

In the end, Man of Steel is definitely a great superhero popcorn action flick. It is the best Superman movie we have since Superman II; I highly recommend you see this immediately in the theaters. Though it may not be the Superman movie where it is a deep and emotionally driven Superman flick, it is enough to be so. But It is the most action-packed Superman film in this movie, it explores to many things where you think they won’t explore throughout this movie. It is an interesting version of Superman that does take center stage in this movie. There was also some stand out performances coming from Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner while the rest still do a great job in this film. I enjoyed this movie very much for what it is and I was very happy to see Superman again gracing our theaters in his glory once again, because the last time I saw him on theaters. He almost put me to sleep.

THE GOOD:

+THE PERFORMANCES

+ACTION – PACKED (ENTERTAINING ACTION SEQUENCES)

+THE MOST INTERESTING VERSION OF SUPERMAN IN YEARS
+SIMPLE STORYTELLING
+HANS ZIMMER'S SCORE

THE BAD:

-MOST THINGS COULD’VE BEEN DEVELOPED

-NEEDS A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM TO BREATHE

MY RATING:

4/5 – FOR THE WIN!

PROPOSTERONE

MOVIE REVIEW:

FAST AND FURIOUS 6

By:
G.P. Manalo

Starring:

Vin Diesel

Paul Walker

Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson

“The Fast and Furious” films have come a long way from being a throw-away-repetitive action film to being a rather clever and enjoyably exhilarating action film since “Fast Five” and it is all because of director, Justin Lin who did take a whole new road for the franchise. Fast and Furious 6 seem to be filling up holes from the past 3 films and at the same time continue to deliver the “badass” action film as its past predecessor.

The Fast and the Furious 6 – When an international group of terrorists (Luke Evans and the Wild Bunch) seeks to threaten the world, Lt. Hobbs (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson) forced Dom Toretto (Vin Diesel) and Brian O’ Conner (Paul Walker)  to reassemble their "Rio-heist" team and when they do stop this group of terrorists they will get full pardons for their past actions.

Honestly, going into Fast Five I thought that it will be just another one of those action movies where I’d get out of it and say “It’s just an action film that you have to leave your brain outside of the theater and enjoy the utter stupidity on screen” but it actually wasn’t – technically. Fast Five knew what it is, it is self-aware that “yeah, we have our own laws of physics” and that it is a dumb yet enjoyably exhilarating ride of your life and Fast and the Furious 6 was definitely an enjoyable roller coaster ride I ever have so far in 2013.

If you are expecting the Oscar Season will be early this summer you will definitely leave the theater disappointed  if you are expecting that as you watch this film because Fast & Furious 6 is not entirely the art-house film you are expecting it to be. The film offers larger than life action scenes regarding cars, a tank and a plane, men and women beating the shit out of each like they’re Godzilla and a random monster (at the same time) that will probably piss off every physicist out there.

The action in this film is everything you wanted for a summer movie blockbuster and they are definitely worth the price of admission and there are tons of non-stop action sequences in this film. If you thought the first 4 films in the franchise are pretty boring for just two (or more) cars just going at each other wait till you see what this film will offer (especially the second half of the film). Thankfully, the action scenes in this film are coherent; you can tell exactly what is going on without the help of “artistic use of the camera” (Shaky Cam) or speedy jump cuts.

The plot is solid, the film did have a decent amount of substance as it does deliver a surprisingly good family element in the film due to the cast’s well fleshed out chemistry to one another, If you have been following the franchise from the very start and you have been invested by the characters in the past films, the investment does pay off. This film did fill up most of the holes the past 3 films have and you will be surprised who and what will pop up in each scene if you have been following the film from the very start (which I do recommend for a better experience).

 

I’m not really going to go into detail with the cast that much, for the material they were given they did give out a solid performance and as I said earlier I thought that they did work well together, they literally do feel like a family. These people are not the best actors but their real life charm does work in the film (though I don’t know if Paul Walker even has charm due to his stoic personality). Action stars like Vin Diesel, Dwayne Johnson, Paul Walker (kinda an action star) were all badass as always and also the rest of the team. While the returning cast like Michelle Rodriguez also did a solid performance as she does go back with a reveal that is rather passable, Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris were the two people that I noticed the chemistry between characters and both of them did spew out very good comedic dialogue together.  The remaining cast leaves off as just “solid”

New comers like Luke Evans and Gina Corano were just average from the material they are given. I liked Luke Evans as a villain in this film; he is the most fleshed out villain in the series, I’ve always thought the past 5 films didn’t really have much of a villain in the past films (Braga was not even close). In this film we get a villain where he actually gets his hands dirty and actually does something that just sitting down in a chair barking threats and orders. Gina Carano on the other hand is yet to impress me in future films, she still haven’t convinced me that she is an action star just yet but she is physically impressive in this film as she goes toe to toe with most of the cast in this film.

In the end, I enjoyed Fast and the Furious 6 very much. It is the most fun I had in the summer and I’m sure you will have fun too in the theaters. It is meant to be experienced in the big screen and I highly recommend you see it in that format. If you were never a fan of the Fast and the Furious films, I don’t think this will change your mind about the series and if you are expecting this to be an Oscar winning film that scientifically makes sense then you should avoid the film. The film lives up to the title because it is definitely fast and furious (and it is the sixth film of the series) as it features well shot and exhilarating yet larger than life action sequences, a solid story, great characters, and it did do a good job at being what it is. Overall it is a well-constructed action film for what it is and I highly recommend you go in to the film expecting that for you to enjoy it.

NOTE: Stay for the after credits scene, the reveal was very surprising… (If you don't have friends who spoil you that part of the movie... Thanks a lot, Lee) 

THE GOOD:

+ FUN ACTION SCENES

+ SOLID PERFORMANCES AND STORY

+ GOOD CHARACTERS AND CHEMISTRY BETWEEN THEM

+ SELF-AWARE

THE BAD:

NONE.

MY RATING:

(FOR WHAT IT IS)

5/5 – EPIC WIN!

THE LEGITIMATE SEQUEL

MOVIE REVIEW:

THE HANGOVER PART III

By:

G.P. MANALO

Starring:

Bradley Cooper

Zach Galifianakis

Ed Helms

A movie like the Hangover wasn’t the kind of movie that you would expect to have a sequel (that will meanwhile form a trilogy). Long-story-short The Hangover is one of the best comedies out there but not something to give sequels to especially when it’s just a re-hash of its predecessor for the sake of getting even greater amount of cash. The only thing worth thinking about for a guy like me (who wasn’t a fan of the last film) is the legitimacy of this film as a sequel. Will this be the actual Hangover sequel or will it just be Hangover 1.9?

The Hangover Part III – The Wolfpack is back for one last adventure together; this time there is no wedding, no bachelor party, and no hangover. Alan has to be taken to a rehab facility because of his “odd” behavior.  They are meanwhile given a mission by a crime-lord known as, Marshall and that mission is to find Leslie Chow and his stolen stash of money from him for 3 days or their friend, Doug will die.

I was expecting a lot from this movie, from the previews I can tell that this could possibly be a legitimate sequel than Part II was supposed to be as it retires from the formula of the original and be a different movie and have a legitimate continuity as a sequel is supposed to be. Thankfully that did came true, I can say that this is a better sequel and movie than the last one but that is not saying much.

The movie is definitely different from the past two movies, like I said there is no hangover but just crazy shenanigans. The way it was executed was rather ballsy; the road it took us to is rather different than your average comedy, the movie is more of a thriller than a comedy but when they do plaster some bits of comedy in that road it did feel out of place, you feel the absence of the comedic element throughout the film when you watch intense scenes. When there was comedy in most of the intense scenes of this movie, I had the feeling of the movie not knowing its true identity, I would’ve liked it if they did stay with the thrilling element of the story but perhaps it is the writing’s fault for not thinking of something clever to pull off in the thrilling set-pieces.

The comedy on the other hand was lacking, there were a few hard laughs here and there (I think the part where I laughed the hardest was the post-credits scene), Most of the jokes feels forced in a lot of situations, the jokes overstay its welcome, there were a few jokes in the movie where it was a good and funny joke but they keep going instead of stopping in the punch line.  I believe those are my gripes about this movie. I was very much entertained with the action set-pieces throughout the movie, there was this one scene in Las Vegas where it was the edge-of-your-seat type of an action scene (almost felt like that Dubai Tower scene from Mission Impossible IV). Story-wise I thought that this movie did have a few genuine twists and the continuity did work, they don’t feel shoe-horned in the movie (like every re-hashed element from The Hangover Part II), the things where they would mention most of the things that happened in the past two movies actually helped progress the story, than it is shoe-horned in some way for the sake of being there for no reason at all. The movie having no hangover didn’t really bother me (It was a ballsy choice). I can see why people will be bothered by the fact that the one thing that made this movie what it is, is not in the movie.  

 Before I go into detail with the cast, the other main gripe I had with this movie is the fact on how they take Zach Galifianakis and Ken Jeong’s character to center stage too much. Admittedly they did have their moments, but the way they were focused gratuitously was unpleasant to watch. Zach Galifianakis’ Alan had the change of character in this movie where he is an asshole that is not the loveable type that he was in the first one, we’ve seen it in the second one and the way they handled that in this movie is even worse. It was bearable to watch him do some first world problem type of jokes and the obliviousness of the character did go out of hand that it ends up being annoying (my friend even labeled him as “the type of guys he would kill” that’s how annoying he was). What’s even worse is that his attitude was more of an excuse as a plot device, which was handled very poorly in the movie due to the lack of cleverness the writing did give him in this movie. Ken Jeong’s character is the focal point of this movie, he was funny for the most part in this movie but like Alan they went really crazy with his character, his character did have some moments where I laughed out loud in the theater but most of the times it is rather bearable to watch as well, the cast in every 10 seconds of the movie stresses the fact on how crazy or out of his mind, he is and they would say it out loud for the audience to understand.

 

The remaining cast like; Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Justin Bartha were just riding the train for this. Like I said earlier, the movie spends it’s time on doing comedic timing. These 3 actors had some little time to shine when it comes to comedy; they were more in the awkward position of the joke while Zach Galifianakis and Ken Jeong do their thing. John Goodman felt a bit under-used I wished they explored his character a little bit more, I would’ve like to see him bring out his comedic chops (maybe in a Big Lebowski-esque way) but he is more of the thriller-element than being the comedic element of the movie. Even, Melissa McCarthy is in this movie for the latter half, she felt like she was shoe-horned in there just to be a plot device for Zach Galifianakis’ character’s story, like John Goodman I was expecting that she’d bring out some of her famous comedic chops (especially when she was in a movie that is almost similar as The Hangover) as well but the writers didn’t really give her anything to do that much. Lastly, there were many cameos here from the first movie and those cameos did work and I enjoyed their scenes.

In the end, I enjoyed this movie to a limited extent (not really saying that much); the movie was lacking in laughs due to the mediocre writing as it never really decides the identity that the movie would keep. The movie was entertaining as it features (surprisingly) intense action, a few hard laughs and some chuckle-worthy jokes. Though most of the jokes in this movie feel forced as it left off being I wasn’t really expecting anybody to pull off an Oscar-worthy performance in a movie like this, the cast is still a stellar cast as they are talented (comedically). This is probably the best rental experience you can ever have if you are a fan of the first movie only but if you love the two movies and you want to see the story conclude, I’d say that you should wait for the ticket prices to go down.  Is it still unnecessary for this movie to have a trilogy? Yes, but now that it went too far it is too late to say, it is a solid conclusion to an unnecessary trilogy.

THE UPS:

+THRILLING ACTION SEQUENCES

+SOME FUNNY MOMENTS

+MOST OF THE PERFORMANCES IN THIS MOVIE
+GENUINE TWISTS
+STORYTELLING

THE DOWNS:

-FORCED PERFORMANCES

-FORCED COMEDIC TIMING

-THE JOKES OVERSTAYS ITS WELCOME

-A BAD MIX BETWEEN THRILLER AND COMEDY

- UNDER-USED COMEDIC ACTORS

MY RATING:

2.5/5 – RENTAL!

GLITZ AND GLAMOUR

MOVIE REVIEW:

THE GREAT GATSBY

(3D)

By:

G.P. Manalo

Starring:

Tobey Maguire

Leonardo DiCaprio

Carrey Mulligan

I believe that it is a challenge to adapt a literary classic with a stature like F. Scott Fitzgerald’s literary classic “The Great Gatsby” which is also known as “The book that many teenagers were forced to read in High School”. The Great Gatsby is such a beloved property that the fans are saying that this is one of those books that are rather “un-filmable” even if they did more than 3 film versions of the novel in the past. And of all the people to pick up this property is, Baz Luhrmann. Who is known for delivering energetic and over the top movies (haven’t seen Australia yet) that made us look at our watches for more than 5 times while watching his movies. The only thing worth expecting in properties like this is the fact that “Did this movie do the book justice?” (Or atleast “Did this movie not make F. Scott Fitzgerald roll in his grave?”)

The Great Gatsby – Is based on a book with the same name by F. Scott Fitzgerald, it follows an ambitious young man, Nick Carraway as he moves to a place next to a palace-like mansion owned by a mysterious man named, Gatsby. When he begins question about the mysterious man who lives next door to him, he was invited to his larger than life party that he throws every weekend. When he finally meets him in person not only does he discover more about him but also leads him to a risky scandal of Gatsby with Nick’s second cousin, Daisy who happens to be the wife of an wealthy and aggressive businessman, Tom Buchanan.

I was expecting a lot from this movie since I have re-read the movie just recently (If I said that my English teacher didn’t force me to read this, will you be surprised?). The movie seemed to have the (what I liked to call) Baz Luhrmann clichés as I see the previews, the movie felt like I will have a lot of pretty things to look at, there will be some stand out performances, it could possibly bore me, and there will be some over the top stuff. Most of these things did come true… Unfortunately.

First thing’s first, I have read the book but I don’t want to compare this and the book way too much because I don’t think that there is a point to it, that being said I thought that this movie did the book justice – for the most part. The movie did feel like it was almost adapted word for word, there are most lines that I remember was said in the book, the way Carraway narrates and describe his experiences and also The way they did set the stage for the Great Gatsby himself and his continuous obsession for the one thing he holds on to was set up really well. Though It didn’t really hit the right notes as the book did, the film carries everything important about the book but there wasn’t really a huge impact due to the pacing of the film. The film would begin energetically and towards the mid-section of the film it would be slow and presentation-like (where they would switch from one scene to the next), the film ends that is rather rushed and you left wishing that the ending could’ve been handled a tad bit better.

At first, what worries me was Baz Luhrmann’s direction in this movie; he’s more of a stylistic director (don’t get me wrong the visuals he handled in his past movies were pretty good to look at) but when he does actors the tendency of the performances would rather be “over the top” like his visuals. From what I heard from the critics, The movie is “style over substance” as the movie showcase the parties in the first half it did felt like that (which did work on scenes like that), in fact it was like an extended music video especially in the second and the last third of the movie, the visuals made this movie look cartoony which made it very distracting to look at, though most scenes that did feature the cartoony visuals did work and were entertaining to look at as it brings the familiar landmarks and scenery of the book to life in this movie. I thought the style brought the partying aspect of the movie to life well, since one of the concepts of the movie is about “Old Money” and how far people would go with that much money and power like Gatsby so I thought the style as they feature the parties (and the story itself during the second and third act) did work.

We’ve seen Baz Luhrmann tackle this kind of story before of lost love or romance in general, I thought Baz Luhrmann handled that aspect well in the movie. His modern-esque direction worked really well in the narrative of the movie and it somehow gave us a fresh enough take on the literary classic, though this film is still told a bit exaggerated from start to finish. When I did mention an extended music video I was also referencing the music in this movie. The music in this movie is a love-hate relationship to me; the music has this jazz feel that is really authentic to the timeline, but in the mix there’s a lot of modern sound to it (from Jay-Z, Beyonce, Will.I.am., etc.) which for the most part didn’t really fit very well. I thought the addition of jazz-hip-hop songs was a very ballsy move for this movie. I was fine with most of the choices as long as that move wasn’t done just to cash in for the soundtrack sales. The visuals in this movie are a little bit over blown, most of the time they will look good while others could've been easily filmed without the green screen,  they are rather distracting to look at.

The performances in the film have both weak and great performances; most of them are even perfectly casted as their characters. I thought Leonardo DiCaprio is perfectly casted for the great Gatsby himself, If I can remember reading the book and heard that Leo was chosen for the role I can actually envision him as Gatsby the entire time of reading the book. Like I said earlier, they did handle his side of the story well enough and he is literally the best parts of the film. But Leonardo DiCaprio was not the only one who is the best in this film, Joel Edgerton’s version of Tom Buchanan is depicted well on-screen and Joel Edgerton surprisingly did a very good performance (he came a long way from being young Uncle Owen in the trilogy that needs to be forgotten). Though Tobey Maguire’s Nick Carraway was just “OK”, he’s one of those characters where I wished the filmmakers would have taken liberties on.  He is still a (bit) one-dimensional character, he wasn’t also properly developed when he is around characters and presenting the story itself, him having an impact or a real relationship with one of the characters were rather vague. Carey Mulligan’s Daisy is also just “alright”, her performance was a bit over the top and cartoonish at some point.

In the end, The Great Gatsby is a faithful enough adaptation to F.Scott Fitzgerald’s literary classic. It does feature monumental imagery and scene from the book that will make the fans of the book be happy of what they just saw. Though the scenes of the monumental events of the book was rather lacking in terms of impact and development as you do leave the theater wanting more from the film. Though the characters are well casted enough and most of the performances were rather weak with a few considerations like Leonardo DiCaprio and Joel Edgerton. If you are a huge fan of the book, this could be both a love-hate relationship for you, if you are just a casual film-goer it’s not really something to rush to the theaters.

THE GOOD:

+BOTH DECENT AND GREAT PERFORMANCE

+THE VISUALS

+MUSIC

+FAITHFUL ENOUGH TO THE BOOK

THE BAD:

- MESSY PACING

-LACKING EMOTIONAL WEIGHT

-MOST OF THE VISUALS WERE OVERBLOWN 

MY RATING:

3/5 - NOT THAT BAD, NOT THAT GOOD

DYNAMIC

MOVIE REVIEW:

STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS (3D)

Starring:

Chris Pine

Zachary Quinto

Benedict Cumberbatch

4 Years Ago, J.J. Abrams Star Trek (2009) was one of the best examples of a “franchise reboot done right”, But he also made a dead franchise be relevant for both the fans of the old (maybe a fraction of the fans) and casual movie-goers in general. And now he returns into the universe again to continue the adventures of the (fresh-faced) crew that we know and loved as he promise the sequel to a larger scale as he bring us into a speedy warp, the only question floating into everyone’s mind (besides John Harrison being Khan or not) Is that “Will J.J. Abrams do it again?”

Star Trek: Into Darkness – takes place years after the first movie as it follows Captain Kirk and his crew of the enterprise. In this, they face a highly unlikely threat known as “John Harrison” as he threatens a personal vendetta against the federation by wreaking havoc. Kirk and his crew are meanwhile assigned to go through enemy lines to find and terminate him but when they do meet him he leads them to a discovery that will cost their lives.

What can I say? It’s almost impossible to not to anticipate for this movie (In my list of anticipated movies of 2013, this is my second most anticipated movies of the year.). All the secrecy (Thanks for fluffing it out EW), every trailer just made the movie look EPIC (until I stopped at the third trailer) gets me excited for this movie. And now that it is finally here…. All the excitement was worth it, I’m very happy to say that this movie is an exciting thrill-ride and probably one of the best movies I’ve seen this year.

The movie is literally energized, from start to finish expect really intense and and at the same time the movie would stop necessarily to give development and emotional depth to the characters and yet it didn’t feel forced at all (*cough* G.I. Joe: Retaliation). That’s what I love about the original series, TNG and the 2009 Star Trek, the crew’s dynamic was the one that drives the stories, it is the heart and soul of each incarnation and it really shows in this movie even more than the last one. Everyone had their moment to shine even if it was just a brief but relevant and entertaining sequence. The dynamic of this crew of people was so well done that you are very much attached to these characters in every dangerous situation they are in (So attached, that at some point I almost shed manly tears in this movie)

I honestly thought there wasn’t a bad performance in this movie at all. Chris Pine did a very good performance in this movie (surprisingly). I did nit-picked the fact that for the lesser part of Star Trek 2009 that they gave emphasis to him being a rule-breaker/asshole too much and be an excuse that this was Kirk before we knew him as a matured person (and maybe with a speech impediment), here he is a rule breaker but his action makes sense they are not just benefiting for himself but for others, I like how they give emphasis on how this character did mature in this movie. But what I love the most that revolves around his character is his chemistry or should I call it “Bro-mance” with Spock, the writers built up a very good friendship around these two characters. Zachary Quinto is great as always that you feel like that he is born to play this role as he did nail the original Spock’s nuances.

Speaking of nuances, Karl Urban as Bones was also brilliant in this film; the writers blessed him with Bones’ amusing classic one liners and out-of-nowhere metaphors. Simon Pegg as Scotty; also shared a great amount of hilarity as he boldly go in his own journey at some point of the movie. Zoe Saldana as Uhura I felt a little bit under-written, she came off as a bit of that naggy girlfriend from the first half of the movie, she did show some relevance for the most part. There were more moments for Anton Yelchin’s Chekov and John Cho’s Sulu and like I said most characters did do stuff in rather brief moments but they were good enough moments for their development.  There were new comers in this movie such as Robocop himself, Peter Weller as Marcus who had a titular role in this movie was good for the most part, and also Alice Eve as Carol who did not really do much in the movie other than to look hot and have a bit of relevance. But the one who really stole the show in this movie is (BBC) Sherlock himself, Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison. I thought he was a great villain in this movie; in fact he is everything a villain was to me. He had that brilliant on-screen presence from the intimidating deep voice to the unpredictability on his face.

If Star Trek fans thought that the last movie had less to offer for them wait till you see the fan-services in this movie, most fan-service/tributes in this movie felt like a love-letter to the one that is referencing it to. The movie had a checklist full of references to the original series and movies that will likely make a Trekkie (or a Trekker to some who preferred it to be called that way). The movie is straight-forward in a good way that it did felt like an extensive episode of a tv show at some point, the plot is simpler and easier to follow than the last one (honestly, it took me two viewings to fully understand the last one) you can sniff most of the things in this movie if you are familiar with previous Star Trek lore, though there were a few moments in this movie where it did caught me off guard. J.J. Abrams continues to prove that he can be a great action director, the movie is literally a thrill-ride with almost never-ending action set-pieces, the movie is 2 ½ hours long but it felt like less than that. This is a thrill ride that has the right amount of substance than being a mindless movie that the previews advertise it to be. I watched this movie in 3D, I would’ve loved to see this movie in IMAX 3D but I unfortunately don’t have the money right now to watch movies in IMAX but the regular 3D was a decent experience. It could be just me because in the first 30 minutes in this movie where there were some dark scenes I can barely see what’s going on in those scenes, there were also some long stops where you feel that the 3D felt unnecessary, though there were great shots in there as well of spears being thrown at you (that spear in the beginning made my brother dodge it), some space debris, volcano ashes and lens flares (and there I thought lens flares in 2D weren’t enough).

In the end, I definitely loved and enjoyed this movie very much. This movie is a perfect example of a Summer Blockbuster, its action packed but with the right amount of substance to it.  J.J. Abrams (I can’t wait to see what he will do Star Wars Episode VII) did a brilliant job directing this movie as he gives us a roller coaster ride of a movie, it’s everything a summer movie should have and it is intense and almost larger than life action set pieces that will very much entertain you. There’s many to offer for Star Trek fans new and old and also for casual movie-goers alike. I highly recommend you this movie immediately, avoid seeing this in 3D it’s not really something to pay full price for. Enjoy this movie in 2D and for 2D alone (I heard IMAX 3D is great but that’s not for me to judge.).

THE GOOD:

+THE DYNAMIC BETWEEN EACH CHARACTER

+FAN-SERVICE

+EXCELLENT WRITING AND DIRECTING

+THE PERFORMANCES

+BRILLIANT ACTION

THE BAD:
-NONE

MY RATING:

5/5 – EPIC WIN!