THE COMING STORM

MOVIE REVIEW:

THOR: THE DARK WORLD

Note: I do not own any of the pictures in this review, they are officially distributed by Marvel Studios, Disney Co., and Paramount Pictures.

By:

G.P. Manalo

Director:

Alan Taylor

Starring:

Chris Hemsworth

Tom Hiddleston

Christopher Eccleston

Natalie Portman

Two years ago, Kenneth Branagh’s Thor brought the Shakespearian speaking and hammer wielding badass to life in the silver screen and made the character a more popular character (along with other characters such as Tom Hiddleston’s Loki, Anthony Hopkins’s Odin and the Warriors Three) than before while making Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston a household name in Hollywood. It is now Alan Taylor’s (fresh from directing episodes of Game of Thrones) shot at continuing what Branagh has started as he moved on to a more different throne exploring a more functioning world in Thor: The Dark World. Alan Taylor literally brought more life to the world of Thor and the same fun it predecessors (Thor 2011 and Avengers) had.

In Thor: The Dark World an ancient army known as the dark elves led by Malekith  the Accuser has reawakened in present time to re-claim a powerful force/artefact known as the Aether to once against extinguish all of the nine realms in its convergence. Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) finds herself reuniting with Thor (Chris Hemsworth) after an encounter of a strange phenomenon that has something to do with the Aether in Midgard (Earth). As the all-father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins) discovers the re-awakening of the ancient threat; Thor must embark on a journey that will need help from his brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston) whom he couldn’t really trust at all after the events of the past two films. Together they will stop the threat and save the nine realms. 

Thor: The Dark World is somewhat an improvement of the first film; when the first Thor film is a bit of a smaller world in a lonely town in the desert and scenes of just Odin’s palace and the rainbow bridge. Thor is a universal adventure as it does feature a fully functioning world and even have good character moments. Alan Taylor applies everything he has learned while directing episodes of “Game of Thrones” as he brings massive action scenes and a profound drama (by profound, I don’t mean it in a Shakespearian way) and even some plot twists (and comic book nods) that will make you go “By Odin’s Beard!”.

As action-blockbusters come and go “Thor: The Dark World” follows a simple formula of “bad guy getting something to destroy the world; hero is gonna stop the bad guy from getting it and save the day”. It is very much as one would say it “by the numbers” or “generic” but in all fairness, the film does stand out very strong on its own, granted it wasn’t necessarily a perfect movie as it does have its fair share of strength and weaknesses.

On the plus side, the performances are still strong and some cases better for both returning and new characters in this film though one character wasn’t as properly developed as the rest of the characters in this film, One of which being Christopher Eccleston’s Malekith never being properly developed as a villain. Returning characters that had less to do are more developed but it is more than a blessing but can be a curse itself as it didn’t provide any room for a new character like Christopher Eccleston’s Malekith the Accursed felt very to develop, sure enough he did do some monumental things a villain could do for our hero but in the end he leaves off being an expendable yet generic villain.

Thor is now a different character in this film than his first outing as he grows into a more mature and powerful warrior and It is show through Chris Hemsworth’s performance physically and emotionally while sharing very good chemistry with both Natalie Portman and Tom Hiddleston. Tom Hiddleston still continues to steal the show as the charismatic yet dastardly God of Mischief, Loki though he had little time he makes the most out of his scenes in hilarious, action-y and emotional moments in the film. Natalie Portman has more to do than being the clichéd “love interest” as she does share a believable romance with the titled character and have more of a personality. Returning characters such as the Warriors Three (Jamie Alexander, Zachary Levi replacing Josh Dallas and Ray Stevenson) had more time to shine along with Idris Elba’s Heimdall, Anthony Hopkins as Odin and even Rene Russo’s Frigga.  While Kat Denning’s Darcy is less annoying than the last film (gladly, she didn’t reference “Instagram” in this new film) and lastly, I noticed Stelan Skarsgard was off in this movie, his character was literally a huge change from the first film and The Avengers, they didn’t really address why his character became “like that” in this new film, the comedic timing and story line around him felt awkwardly placed for the most part (though he did share one good joke with Thor in the latter half).

The writing of the film delivers the fun of the last film with its well-timed (enough) humor and bigger action scenes. The film as a comedy as well, the comedy is bettered here; there were some well-timed scenes that feature one-liners, references, cameos and jokes that weren’t really forced in a moment of the film. Though most of the time it began to fall flat because of it being misplaced for the most part. Like in Iron Man 3, where somebody assumingly dies and the next scene would be one big joke. Thor: The Dark World functions more of a sci-fi soap opera and a fantasy-action film as if it is a mix of Lord of the Rings and Star Wars/Star Trek along with the vibe Game of Thrones (with Alan Taylor’s direction). In what Thor seem to be a smaller film than this one due to its location being focused on Earth than the other 8 realms, the mythology in Thor: The Dark World was brought to life in this new film. The special effects and the set design was able to bring Asgard to life as a living and breathing world (than in the first film being just an interior of the palace and the rainbow bridge) as it does show more of what is in Asgard and some of the realms of the nine. The action scenes in this film are bigger and better (with the help of it its bigger budget) as it re-captures the fun and excitement from The Avengers’ Battle of New York and the first scene in Thor where he battled the frost giants, right from scene one the film never stops in giving you the action.

In conclusion, Thor: The Dark World is a near-perfect experience and a solid entry in the franchise. It’s one of those rare movies in the winter season where it felt like a summer blockbuster. Alan Taylor along with the reunited cast were able to deliver a fun and intriguing superhero film, though minor flaws that I did address did ruin the experience for me quite a bit. Thor: The Dark World is something to be experienced in the big screen, If you are disappointed with the current Phase 2 film we had so far this year, this could certainly change your mind about it and will probably make you stay until the next one in this episodic saga. 

As always, make sure to stay until the end of the credits, there are actually 2 credits scenes this time and they are more relevant as a continuation for future films. 

MY RATING:

4/5 - FOR THE WIN!

AN EERIE PAST

MOVIE REVIEW:

CARRIE (2013)

By:

G.P. Manalo

Starring:

Chloe Grace Moretz

Julianne Moore

Gabriella Wilde

 

Carrie has been released the same year with 2 horror-remakes and it happens to be both good (Fede Alvarez’s “Evil Dead”) while the other being terrible that it shouldn’t even be referenced ever again (“Texas Chainsaw 3D”). I am happy to report that this film is definitely not like the case of Texas Chainsaw 3D. Though it does seem to be an unnecessary move to re-visit property, due to the fact that the 1976 original cult classic has already done the job of doing not only a faithful remake but also being one of the best horror films of all time. Kimberly Peirce’s version of Carrie does suffer the horror re-make situation where it didn’t really do much of a job for it to separate itself from the original and all it ever did was update the story in modern times with “state of the art” special effects.

Carrie is based on the novel by Stephen King with the same name and it is about a tormented girl named Carrie White (Chloe Grace Moretz) who is raised by an (extremely) religiously devoted mother (Julianne Moore) who is seen as an insane woman by the community as well and the very existence of her daughter and everything she does is seen as a sin.  Carrie only has a few weeks left till the end of her senior year with prom and graduation on the way. Carrie is the definition of an outcast, day after day she is easily bullied by the entire school and even the neighborhood. But little do they know that she is blessed with the gift of Telekinetic powers. After one incident in the girl’s shower room, one of the girls who were part of the incident had a change of heart and ends up helping Carrie. One of her good acts was making her boyfriend, Tommy invite Carrie to prom for one night that she will definitely remember. But the other girl, Tina who was suspended for the same incident has plotted her revenge.

I wasn’t really looking forward to Carrie due to the fact that it is rather unnecessary to re-make this movie. The film does follow the story very well from both the original film and the book. Fans of the book will be happy that it is a very faithful adaptation (though the ending could be a bit of a love-hate relationship for you). They did follow the themes and the significant events were done justice. But I left the theater going, what is the point anyways when there is already a movie that did do the same thing and have done better.

As re-makes come and go, Carrie does stay true to the source material and somewhat lives up to Brian De Palma’s original film. There were some strokes in the film that made this movie feel fresh and it is the setting. The modern setting does help this movie a lot than it being an exact copy of the old one. Bullying has evolved throughout the years through different ways than shouting names and punching someone silly now with the existence of modern technology and social media, and this film does show the extremes of modern-day bullying. That certain element does make this film very relevant for the audiences now. Because of the setting and the situations being displayed in the film, the amount of emotionality really does live up very well and it became very powerful scenes in the movie (up to the point where it is rather disturbing to watch for the most part). Other than that, the film still isn’t different than the original. As I reflect on the thought of it being taken place in modern times it does condescend itself quite a bit, since if she was bullied like that and the video going viral in the internet. We could’ve seen people in this movie be walking around in t-shirts that say #SaveCarrie as some sort of online campaign.

With special effects taking over mainstream movies nowadays it has become one of the excuses to re-make a film that didn’t really have the kind of technology it had back then; updating the film with special effects doesn’t necessarily better the film from the original. That being said the special effects of the film does bring a lot to this movie, in the famous prom scene when Carrie clicked she really clicked, the scenes of her punishing the bullies made DePalma’s version look like movie for kids. The special effects in this film were very good, though it does take away the grit and believability quite a bit in most scenes. The film was entertaining especially the film’s big finale that does feature Carrie using her powers in creative yet cruel ways.

The film is actually well acted and it is because of the two leads of Julianne Moore and Chloe Grace Moretz. Granted, Chloe Moretz is no Sissy Spacek as she goes into the role of Carrie White Though she (Chloe) does bring enough to the role for it to be a good performance, going back to the modern setting of this film, the writing was able to give the film a lot of sympathy for the character. But the one who really stood out was Julianne Moore as Carrie’s mother Julianne Moore brought a terrifying performance in this role; she has a haunting presence throughout the film. People have complained about the bullies being too extreme, I never really heard them say that they have read the book but Stephen King shows no difference when it comes to writing his antagonists, his antagonists are as extreme as the bullies are in this film (so there’s that).

Nonetheless Carrie is a very decent and entertaining enough re-make of De Palma’s classic, maybe not as great of a re-make as this year’s Evil Dead (Kim Pierce’s Carrie doesn’t really offer much as a re-make; granted, it does have great performances, a faithful adaptation of the Stephen King novel and some entertaining special effect sequences but as a re-make there should be more than that. The film recreates too much of the 1976 classic, and that is the reason why this film suffers heavily, it may have been taken place in the year 2013 but the film felt like it was still living in the past (like having a mind of a 54 year old man in a body of a 4-year old). I would recommend you see this version before seeing the classic; it will ruin your experience as you watch this version. 

MY RATING:
NOT THAT BAD, NOT THAT GOOD! - 3/5

THE IMPOSSIBLE SCENARIO

MOVIE REVIEW:

GRAVITY

By:

G.P. Manalo

Directed By:

 Alfonso Cuarón 

Starring:

Sandra Bullock

George Clooney

I’ve always wanted to be an astronaut when I was a kid, but after seeing this movie – not anymore (better yet re-think about that career). A film like Gravity can do that to you; this film shows the utter terror, the isolation, the sound of silence or basically every fear of going to space as an astronaut. It is shown very well in this movie through the “out of this world” visuals (I’m pretty sure you knew I was going to say that at one point of this review), the writing and even Alfonso Cuarón’s direction. But most of all, it is because of the performances of the two actors, Sandra Bullock and George Clooney in this roller coaster thrill ride.

In Gravity, a Medical Engineer, Dr. Ryan Stone along with a crew of astronauts was assigned to repair a satellite above earth. But when a horrific accident occurs, it damaged their space shuttle heavily leaving her and a veteran astronaut, Matt Kowalski working together to survive the impossible.

The film is very much “direct” at what it does as a film; it is very much minimal (straightforward) in a good way. It wasn’t like Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey nor is it like Moon where it is very much a deeply told film where it is layers upon layers of elements that make you think. It doesn’t take time to establish the characters neither, The film begins with a few lines of dialogue and then goes on to the destructive scenes we keep seeing in the trailers (I suggest you only see the first one, the rest shows too much) and yet the experience surprises me, I’ve barely knew a thing about these characters in the first place and me along with a theatre full of people are actually rooting for the characters to actually get out of these stomach-churning situations.

It could be because of the visuals in this movie, the kinds of visuals in this film are something you could see in a James Cameron film where it is very much realistic, a blend of both practical and computer generated effects. I’ve read somewhere (it was a reddit post if I can remember) that this film was almost impossible to be even made years back because the kind of technology he needed barely exists. Whatever technology they used for the visuals is definitely a game changing technology. The visuals helped the environment feel believable, making the experience better. The attention to detail is quite admirable from the beautiful view of the planet earth, the starry skies of outer space, to the destructive debris of destroyed space shuttles. I would’ve loved to experience this in IMAX 3D (but the IMAX theatre near me is still in its digital conversion), it may have been a treat to see it in that format.

In the screening i went to, there were shrieks and even the occasional "ay puta!" from the audience. It puts me and the audience in a sense of "what will happen next?". The effects gave little details and they were very much enhanced with the cinematography, putting the action right at the audience. There was this one particular scene that featured the subject witnessing the debris and the wires just shifting onto them and the entire time everything was silent, there was the very presence of explosions but no sound could be heard since they are in space. Little details like that makes the inner science geek (whom I have met until now) giddy. Cuaron definitely gives the audience an experience that the audience has probably not seen before. 

But the element that really put this film in its true potential is the performances of the two leads. I’ve always thought that Sandra Bullock should be in movies where she can really give her all (dramas or thrillers) than in romantic comedies or comedies in general (granted, she is great in those kind of films). From her performance in this film, it really gives a lot of emphasis to every traumatizing situation in this film, and her performance is definitely Oscar worthy for this film. George Clooney on the other hand was more of a device for Sandra Bullock’s character to remain calm in order to contain her will to make it through the impossible scenario. Clooney’s calm and reassuring character worked well for his performance as some people (even I myself) find him to be fitting in this kind of role.

In the end, I tried to rack my brain to know what I didn’t like about Gravity. This film is hands down the smartest sci-fi film we have this year I admire its simplicity in the writing and direction very much as it is enhanced with state of the art visuals, and Oscar worthy performances. I highly recommend you see this in the biggest screen possible, according to a friend of mine “see this with the extra stuff (3D, IMAX, D-BOX, what have you), it is definitely worth the price of admission”.

THE GOOD:

+ SIMPLISTIC STORYTELLING

+EXCELLENT PERFORMANCES

+OUT OF THIS WORLD VISUALS

+WELL PACED

THE BAD:

-NONE

MY RATING: 

5/5 – EPIC WIN!

EARLY ADAPTER

MOVIE REVIEW:

JOBS

By:

G.P. Manalo

Director:

Joshua Michael Stern 

Starring:

Ashton Kutcher

Josh Gad

Dermont Mulrony

Ever since the late and great Steve Jobs passed away 2 years ago, I’m pretty sure I was one of those people who called the fact that they’ll make a movie about him. But a year later we instead got a biographical novel by Walter Isaacson about his life. We can all agree that after reading that novel, there is great potential that this will be brought to life very well with the right people. This film is Joshua Michael Stern’s shot at bringing one of the greatest innovators of our time be brought to life in film for us to delve into the private life of Steve Jobs himself. Instead we have a straightforward yet very simplified biography that tethers away on the potentials of the different stories they are telling.

Conflicts and drama ensues with Joshua Michael Stern’s Jobs as it tell the real life story of Steve Jobs (a surprising performance by Ashton Kutcher), beginning with him being a drop out student into one of the greatest innovators and visionaries  of the 20^th Century.

Like most “true to life”/biographical films the studios will obviously have liberties over that story. From past biographical films, most changes do work and most of the time it would feel genuine than it is “Hollywood-ized”. The problem with Jobs is that, the story felt lacking. There was a scene where Ashton Kutcher quotes “let’s make the small things unforgettable” and yet the film barely makes the big and small ideas be what is promised.The film felt like one direct line and yet there is a large gap between scenes that felt empty.

Unlike the Social Network where the film would only tell the story of how the most popular social network came to be and what happens to Mark Zuckerberg behind the scenes (or court houses). Jobs, on the other hand tell everything in the range of 22 years of Steve’s lifetime. The film is very ambitious on the significant events of Steve Jobs’ life but instead the movie felt like they were rushed cliff notes; They would bring up one idea and rush it to move on to another idea without any impact to the story or the characters at all.

As an example the film brings up his biological mother but instead the writing made it metaphorical when he was under the influence of drugs as he look up to the clouds. Another would be the Microsoft and Apple rivalry, a topic that could’ve been a large plot point and an impact in Steve’s life would instead be done through a phone call and soon enough the film never brought it up again (along with him screwing over Apple’s founding members and his ex-wife along with his biological daughter). There was never a sense of time as well. From the first hour you’d be in 1974 and the next 20 minutes would be 1984 already. I never felt Steve Jobs’ growth as a human being, I never felt the importance of the company or why their tech matters (I dare you to drink every time they say IBM in this movie), nor did I feel his relationship with the characters around him because of how rushed the movie was. It would be both the directing or writing fault of the film. Maybe it’s also because they don’t have the rights to the biographical novel and they end up doing what they have.

Despite the film’s lackluster story, the performances were just “alright”. Ashton Kutcher did a good enough impression of Steve Jobs, just from the distinct walk and how he say vowels was very much spot on, he played the Steve Jobs The Hippie Jesus just right but the businessman Steve Jobs - not so much. I would've liked to see Jason Schwartzman play him but Ashton Kutcher was still good in the role. I do like how he can do roles like this than being "the party guy" in every movie/tv show. There were numerous articles and even in the book brought up on the times where he would lose his cool and how people would label him as an “asshole” because of how hard he is to work with despite his approachable appearance. It was done here in the movie but like most ideas of the film that brings up, it wasn’t executed or handled properly. Him being an asshole was overbearing in this film (it took over a huge portion of the film). For the most part it was interesting but never did I feel the growth of the person because of the large gaps of the film. I think the other ones who stood out in this movie as well were Josh Gad, Dermont Mulrony and even J.K. Simmons.  

Jobs has potential to be one of the best true to life stories/biopics especially with all of the material it is carrying, instead the film took a rather lazy route for it to rushed and unexplained, though the performances did save this from being a bigger disaster. If you’re an Apple fan and want to know more about Steve Jobs, I suggest you buy Walter Isaacson’s biographical novel than seeing this. If you were patient for the releases of the Iphone's new generation every year then I’d wait on something worth your while for a second generation of a Steve Jobs film written by Aaron Sorkin, adapted from the book by Isaacson with Steve Wozniak’s seal of approval for that project.

THE GOOD:

+ALRIGHT YET SPOT-ON PERFORMANCES

+A COUPLE OF MOMENTS

THE BAD:

-RUSHED STORYLINE

-SLOW PACING

-BIG ON IDEAS, TERRIBLE EXECUTION

MY RATING:

2/5 - MEH!

WHY BEN AFFLECK IS A GOOD CHOICE FOR BATMAN

MOVIE-TORIAL:

BEN AFFLECK IS BATMAN

"The geek community is divided" 

Disclaimer: All the photos are not mine.

By:

G.P. Manalo

I woke up that morning to open my Facebook account to numerous posts about Ben Affleck; I started to wonder what it is all about until I read the words “Batman” and “Ben Affleck” being associated to those posts. Next thing you know I saw a headline in the morning news stating the fact that it IS official that he has signed up the very role. In the announcement it is also announced that he will have a 13 picture deal one of them being In “Batman vs. Superman” in July 17^th, 2015 as the Caped Crusader though no further word if the 13 appearances will be a stand-alone role or cameos and it is also not announced whether or not he’ll be directing something related to that character.

I was very much in the middle at that point, as I have read through the same story in three different film websites I have observed that there are more negative than there are praises. There were possible death threats, plans of boycotting the film and even a petition to make him sign off the role (last time I checked it was more than 10,000 signatures). As I have reflected on the fact that there is nothing we can do about it, maybe it was a decent choice to have Affleck as Batman, and so I have 4 reasons why he is so.

4.  WE DON’T KNOW ANYTHING

All we know so far that Ben Affleck will be playing the iconic character but filming the movie haven’t really started yet and the movie is still 2 years away from now. That being said we still have yet to know anything about him being in that role through set pics, trailers, previews, or anything the studios to release to market the film. It’s not really a good argument to say that “he sucks” when we haven’t see anything of him in the project

We’re also not the best at predicting whether or not he’ll be good on the role or not, if we looked back from other actors in Comic book films like James McAvoy (from Wanted to X-Men First Class), Halle Barry (from Catwoman to X-Men 3… never mind), Nicholas Cage (from Ghost Rider to Kick-Ass to Ghost Rider again). Actors have been through at least one shitty film (in someone’s opinion atleast) at some point but that doesn’t mean they’ll be shit again, though it is a gamble. In a similar topic Michael Keaton, Heath Ledger and Christian Bale were given a lot of similar criticisms for their roles and they ended up surprising the nay-sayers and dubbed them to be the definitive versions of the characters they have portrayed. Though I will give the nay-sayers credit that George Clooney did sucked as Batman. That being said we have to wait and see before we have our final judgments and if you happen to have a time-travelling DeLorean to argue with this statement you can freely kick me in the balls and say that I’m wrong.

 3. HIM BEING IN SHITTY MOVIES IS NOT A GOOD ARGUMENT

This other reason is why I liked Ben Affleck as both an actor and a solid choice for the role and it is because he is an experienced and a much older actor. Say what you will about him being in Daredevil, Gigli or Pearl Harbor (ENOUGH! With the Phantoms joke) but those movies were more than 10 years ago and for the few years not only has he been a fully established actor but also one of the best filmmakers of our time for delivering films such as The Town and Argo (I have yet to see “Gone Baby Gone” in all honesty but I heard it’s one of his better films).

Overtime, he has lived through all of his mistakes and he has grown to be a capable and mature person and actor and if you have listened to his speech during this year’s Oscars his maturity as both an actor and person is very much evident in that speech.

      2.   HE’S AN EXPERIENCED FILMMAKER

Like I said earlier, the success of his films like Argo, The Town and Gone Baby Gone he has established himself as an experienced and one of the best filmmakers of our time. Though it is a gamble for Ben Affleck to be the same level of good as he is as filmmaker than in a movie when he’s not directing, writing or involved in anything important behind the scenes (like a coffee boy). He is a better filmmaker than Zack Snyder therefore even if he is just an actor he can still have the power to pitch ideas for the director and the screenwriter to atleast help them deliver a quality superhero film (maybe it’s three years too early to give this movie an Oscar nomination).

I believe he is mature and aware enough to set his ego (which I’m not sure if he does have or not) aside and that his ideas will be added for bettering the movie than it is to make this movie be more about him, this is a Man of Steel sequel after all.

1.  HE’S NOT THE BEN AFFLECK WE KNEW YEARS AGO (Translation: He can act!)

For argument sake this was a surprise to me because I never saw “Batman” through Affleck’s other films, that is pretty much why I was in the middle at first. If we could define “Batman” it is that he is a dark and brooding character and at the same time he wears a mask that makes him a different person entirely. Most people commented on this statement as they compare his performance as George Reeves in 2006’s “Hollywoodland”, they commented on how in one scene where he is performing as “Superman” where he was all campy and more of a show off at some point and then there was a conflicted yet scared look in his eyes as a kid wishes to shoot him. That is why people say that he is good for the role, in that one scene shows how he can fully suit the dual personality Batman has, and re-watching Hollywoodland again I highly agreed with the statement they made.

This being promised as a different version of the Batman we know from past incarnations. I really hope that his tactician side of Batman will actually see the light of day in this new version of the character. We have already seen the dark and brooding side of Affleck through his role in Daredevil…. A bit.   

His films that are considered to be good like Good Will Hunting, Argo, Gone Baby Gone, The Town, Hollywoodland, and Shakespeare In Love it is that he was given the right material. Ben Affleck may not be the best actor out there nor is he the worst. Films like Gigli and Daredevil are not his fault, he was just following the material he is given. He doesn’t necessarily have the chops like Daniel-Day Lewis to completely be a different person entirely, I have faith that the material he will be given will be great since he is tethering away from that statement he said about not playing a superhero again due to his previous attempt. Him accepting the job could mean that the material he is given is good for him to be back under a different mantle of a superhero.

Conclusion:

My opinion may or may not change anyone’s mind, “Haters gonna Hate” after all. My judgments are not necessarily final after all and maybe soon enough when I see some early set pics and footages of it with the power of the Internet. I still wish it was a different choice like Josh Brolin but it could've been worse like the other choice that is Ryan Gosling. Something like this isn’t really a good thing to rage about in this kind of time. Hopefully good things will happen to those who wait. I would like to hear your thoughts though, what do you think of the casting choice? and if you like to debate with me, you may freely do so.

NOSTALGIC HORROR

MOVIE REVIEW:

THE CONJURING

By:

G.P. Manalo

Directed by:

James Wan

Starring:

Patrick Wilson

Vera Farmiga

Lily Taylor

One would say on where the horror film genre is going downhill due the fact that it is satirized by found footage films, torture porn,  and re-makes that doesn’t really live up to its predecessor. Once in a while there would be that one horror film that would truly stand out and it is The Conjuring. Director, James Wan was able to deliver yet another spine-chilling, well-crafted and intense horror film for the genre.

Based on the true case files of Ed and Lorraine Warren tells the story on how they successfully unfold the case of a wrathful spirit. In 1971, Carolyn and Roger Perron moved to a desolated house that happens to be inhabited by demons. Night after night the family has been experiencing strange and violent phenomenons, the family started to consult to two paranormal investigators to examine the house and defeat the evil spirit once and for all.

For the past few years, James Wan has proved that he can deliver a well-crafted modern horror film. He showed it through the original Saw film and Insidious. He knows how to terrify his audience through his slow shots and dead silence without the use of the cheap and overly-used “jump scare”. The film may have had hints of Tobe Hooper’s Poltergeist or William Perdkin’s The Exorcist but James Wan is not really the typical director where he would take all of his inspirations and just put it on-screen without giving any depth at all, he takes all of those and craft it with something fresh enough for the audience.

Horror films are not really famous for being gory in an over the top manor nor is it famous for jump scares. Horror films are famous for showing you haunting imagery and intensity though without those elements it is surprising that this film has an R Rating at the cinemas for having horrific imagery. There were a couple of jump scares in the film but they weren’t really cheap per say, they were actually well placed.  The film does feature horrific enough imagery and like I said earlier it was set-up very well through it’s slow pace and dead silence without the high-pitched musical accompaniment. I also admire that James Wan uses practical effects to back up the imagery of that very scare without the use of CGI effects (though the crows scene at the end ruined it though). The demonic hide and seek aspect of the film was very well handled because of the direction it was given.

The film definitely has a lot of terrifying enough imagery, not really the kind of imagery that will haunt me for days after watching the film. I didn’t enjoy enough of the scares of the film at the first half of the film because I was very much spoiled by the trailers (I was supposed to avoid the trailers but The Great Gatsby screening was playing the trailer where it spoiled almost everything), if I didn’t watch that one trailer I would’ve enjoyed the film, I highly recommend you avoid the trailers and when you go in blind I’m pretty sure you will enjoy this film more than I did. I’m not going to downgrade the film for that; I will definitely blame the film’s marketing team (and probably even myself).

The film is a good kind of throwback horror; it’s not the kind of throwback horror film where there would be elements of classic horror films to be jumbled into one film without giving depth to those elements. The setting of the film does show it’s authentication to the retro 70s classic horror films. Yes, this is definitely nothing like an original nor is it a groundbreaking horror film and yes, the typical ghost story clichés like an abandoned house, the possession, the hidden basement, etc. but they all those clichés do have enough depth for it to be a satisfying whole.

The performances are the best part of the film and it is the reason why the setting is very much believable and it is all thanks to Chad and Carey Hanes’ script. Not being the typical modern horror movie, the family is very much believable and not really a cast of fresh faced and talentless actors. The family felt like a real family, when things go down you can really feel the sense of fear on their faces and their family dynamic was well executed (not to mention there are very good kid actors in this film, and that’s a rare case in film nowadays). Lily Taylor is very much the focal point of the entire family and continuing my statement of the family being believable, she was the best out of the family and it is with the help of her believably vulnerable performance. My last commendations will be for Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga, I liked how well written these two characters were, and they were definitely the best part of the film. They both share a good on-screen chemistry.

In the end, The Conjuring is an enjoyable horror film. Like I said earlier, it is definitely not the best nor is it a ground breaking horror film but it is the best kind of horror film that is very much a nostalgic one. The film is filled with scary enough imagery that will keep your spine tingling for the entire experience and performances that will make the setting and the scares be believable. I highly recommend you see this while it is out in the theaters and see it with the biggest group possible. 

THE GOOD:

+VERY GOOD PERFORMANCES

+DECENT AMOUNT OF DEPTH

+SCARY ENOUGH IMAGERY

+DECENT YET NOSTALGIC STORY

THE BAD:

(NIT-PICKS)

-A LITTLE BIT DEVELOPMENT BEHIND THE GHOST  STORY ITSELF
-A BIT SLOW PACED AT SOME POINT

MY RATING:

4.5/5

THE LITTLE PLANE THAT COULD

MOVIE REVIEW:

PLANES

By:

G.P. Manalo

Out of all the animated features this year, Planes probably have the most controversial behind-the-scenes background to it before it was even released to theaters. This film was actually geared towards a Direct-to-DVD release and it ended up getting picked up by the Disney Company to forcefully release this in the theaters. From the quality of the overall film it does show that it is for that kind of release or maybe even a commercial for the toys.

In above the world of Pixar’s “Cars”: “Planes” explores the life of a big-hearted crop duster named, Dusty Crophopper who has always dream of being part of a global air race. That dream comes true when he was able to compete in the qualifiers for the big race. Though the odds are not in his favor when he revealed that he is actually afraid of heights but with the help of a retired Navy Corsair, Skipper he will help him prepare for the most dangerous race of his life as he competes with aggressive competitors and dangers throughout the race.

This movie is nothing special to begin with, the formula for this movie is something we have seen a bunch of times. In fact this is pretty much like this year’s “Turbo” or more so a blatantly re-written version of 2006’s Cars but less of the heart and wit of both films, both films seem to know what it is doing; the story is rather metaphorically constructed and the drama is genuine along with the comedy. This on the other hand is the exact opposite of the things both of those films have done correctly.

The story is the weakest part of the film: The film follows the typical sports underdog story (I shit you not, the film even mentioned that this movie is “Like Rocky” at some point), it doesn’t have enough heart or depth to shadow all of the clichés the film is carrying in order to bring something (somewhat) fresh or new to the audience. The film tries to put something new but those elements are pretty much the reason why this film is mediocre. There were added elements like the fact that the main character couldn’t reach his dream is because of his fear of heights. That element felt shoe-horned in the film for no particular reason.  Though one element of the film where the main character has this mentor relationship with a Doc Hudson-ish character was pretty much the most interesting part of the film.

Racing plays a huge part to the world of cars and also above it (Unfortunately). I would’ve asked for more of the story than it is a racing film because if there is “so much to explore” in this world I would like to see it with a different story other than racing. That being said the race is very uninteresting, due to the lack of depth and heart there wasn’t really any suspense or drama throughout the race, The race is just one direct line that rarely has substance. 

The comedic element of the film is also weak; if you got TIRED of the car puns in the Cars movies, then puns about planes will annoy you as well. The jokes in this film couldn’t really find it’s rhythm for it doesn’t have a beginning and end, the best example for it was that there were a couple of cars that would talk gibberish for a solid minute in one scene and I just sat there asking myself  "Is this suppose to be funny?". What’s even worse is that the jokes in the film are satirized by commercialized (you’re gonna see a lot of commercial products here and there through Plane puns) and stereotypical jokes as well. This being a kids movie, I’m surprised that they rely a lot on the reference a couple of 80s movies like Top Gun (2 of the actors were actually in this movie) and Rocky; those references are pretty much years ahead of the age of the film's age democratic. 

The animation could possibly be the saving grace of this film, the animation is very nice to look at though there were a few shots where the background would look like a cardboard cut-out, also the characters aren’t also refreshing to look at; at some point you could’ve sworn that every plane look alike (I know it is rather Planecist of me, but it’s true). Though there were a couple of shots in this film of the Planes flying were captured very well. I’m not going into detail with the vocal performances though they are rather decent.

The overall quality of this film is a definite equivalent to a Direct-To-DVD film and at the same time a commercial for toys that will sell more than the movie itself is an example of a film going "by the numbers", there was barely any heart or depth to make this movie be interesting for the entire hour, the comedic element and the animation of the film rarely stalls the audience to forget the fact that this film is terribly cheap nor did the film’s colorful cast of characters and the world itself as well. It's a gamble to have kids enjoy this film, I was actually in a screening where the kids are dead silent while the father behind me was trying his best to make it atleast interesting for the kids to "enjoy". This is probably a better movie if you experience it as a home (for free) experience than it is a theater experience. 

THE GOOD:

+A FEW GOOD SCENES OF ANIMATION

+"OK" PERFORMANCES

+THE LATTER HALF OF THE FILM

THE BAD:

-UNINTERESTING STORY

-NON-GRIPPING RACE 

-CARDBOARD ANIMATION

-TERRIBLE COMEDIC ELEMENT

MY RATING:

2/5 - MEH!