A TWIST IN A FAIRY TALE

MOVIE REVIEW:

FROZEN

Review by:

G.P. Manalo

Starring:

Kristen Bell

Idina Menzel

Josh Gad

Jonathan Groff

Santino Fortana

If there are other things Disney is truly trademarked for besides Mickey Mouse it is the Disney Princesses. For almost 8 decades, Disney has brought magic and wonder through these princesses, even having a tradition out of it. But as years come by the Disney Princess movies have become more different, making their princesses be stronger instead of waiting for their princes to save them.  It wasn’t until 2009 where Disney was slowly forming itself back to the Disney we once known since the animation renaissance. Frozen, somewhat broke 8 decades of tradition in a good way as it put twists to the assumptions and conclusions of the people who have explored this kind of boundary before and at the same time have that same magic and wonder from the Disney animation renaissance. Granted there are still a few flaws that does not put on par with the film.

Frozen tells the story of two sisters, Anna (Kristen Bell) and Elsa (Idina Menzel). Elsa was born with supernatural powers where she has the ability to create ice and snow. But when one accident occurred between the two sisters, her parents decided to hide her from the outside world and even her own sister. When Elsa is finally coroneted as the queen of their kingdom, she is forced to come out of hiding and in an unfortunate timing made her lose control of her powers and made their kingdom put to an eternal winter. Anna embarks on a journey with the help of her newly founded friends, Kristoff (Jonathan Groff), Sven and a snowman named, Olaf (Josh Gad) to find and reconcile with her sister who has isolated herself to the dangerous Icelands where she built her new kingdom.

An adaptation/re-imagining of Hans Christian Andersen’s The Snow Queen has been in talks ever since the 40s and even Walt Disney himself couldn’t seem to have a crack at it. Like most Disney Princesses movies (or Disney movies in general), the source material it is based on is very much loosely based on it (Sleeping Beauty and The Little Mermaid being one of them), As I do my research on The Snow Queen (by research I mean, other sources than Wikipedia), an adaptation about the Snow Queen does seem too “out there” to have a motion picture out of it. Nonetheless, despite its difficulty to bring a property like The Snow Queen, writers Jennifer Lee (of Wreck-It Ralph fame) still puts most of the elements together and tell a good (and kid-friendly) enough story with the material.

Instead this film feels like it is making fun of other Disney Princess films or at least putting a twist to it, almost how the Shrek movies did to the fairy tale characters. One of the notable examples was, Elsa’s characterization, she would’ve been the plotting pointy nosed witch who cursed the land for revenge of shunning her from society but instead made her a misunderstood person, other examples would be the film making fun at how fast the princess falls in love with a prince without knowing who he is, and other things that I shouldn’t be mentioning anymore. The film does a terrific job to put those in-jokes play a huge part in the film’s storytelling.

Granted, the storytelling part is not necessarily perfect when it does have its fair share of flaws; from the first half it does feel clumsy though not as messy when it comes to the exposition. Introducing the characters other than the two leads, felt rushed and some unnecessary elements weren’t really needed for them, the villain on the other hand felt short-handed; the villain was disappointing in this movie due to the lack of screen time and not having the proper introduction for them.  Despite this film being a musical and all they didn't give the villain a song either to shed some light on their motivations. The film was too busy raising some elements from the “Snow Queen” storyline. It could’ve been better if this film was told without elaborating the fact that “this is based on the Snow Queen” because the movie can do better without it. Ironically enough, the film didn’t develop the character of Elsa that well. I left the theatre wanting more from her character (exploring her abilities and back story), you never really get to know her side of the things that much throughout the film, making it a bit difficult to understand more to the character. Despite the first half’s clumsiness, the second half kicks into high gear for a more emotionally driven film, though the ending does ruin it a bit because of how rushed it is.

Speaking of musicals, the music in this film had that touch of a broadway musical. Having some of the cast and crew as veterans of broadway musicals as characters speak through song (which i'd like to call Les Miserables-ing) much like Beauty and the Beast had back then and if you thought the songs in Tangled and Princess and the Frog were a lackluster, Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez (both being fresh from “The Book of Mormon” fame) gave this film a lot of memorable songs (a lot of people will be singing “Let it go” once they go out of the cinema, that’s for sure). In every song of the film the expressiveness feels dominant in both melody and voice, giving real emotions to the rather obvious lyrics. The music in this film is on the level of Disney classics like Lion King and Beauty and the Beast (both having broadway productions themselves) I can totally see a marquee one day where it will say “Frozen on ice”.

The performances were also amazing in this film, Broadway veteran Idina Menzel stealing the spotlight in most parts of the movie, but it was really Josh Gad's adorable snowman character, Olaf. Him having a role as a comedy relief felt genuine and not forced with modern jokes that feels irrelevant in the timeline. Every time he enters the screen is a scene stealer and you just feel like giggling by his presence. The rest like Kristen Bell's Anna, giving a lot of spunk and empowerment that could shut feminists up while the other supporting cast such as Santino Fontana, Alan Tudyk and Jonathan Groff were also great in this film even though their characters were lacking development.

Though the traditional 2D animation is shelved in a generation of 3D animation, the animation in the film gives more finesse when it comes to bringing a world to life in animated form. The animation is just beautiful in this film, people in the past few months have been shredding this movie due to its similarity to the recent Disney Princess Film, Tangled. But we can say the same thing during the renaissance where they recycled animation and designs being similar themselves. The character designs are unique enough, having fun characters that do fit their personalities.

Nowadays, Disney Princess films tried to be that nostalgic film and at the same time thinking forward as it empowers the princesses than just someone who waits for their princes to rescue them, making them doing better things without those princes. Disney's Frozen is a great film, following up to Disney's successes (I'm fully aware Planes came out this year, but I'm still pretending that movie does not exist). Frozen is a film where you truly feel that Disney is coming back to form. The film tells a satisfying enough story with a very creative twist of two sisters of royalty, not to mention this can inspire children/girls to channel their inner strength than waiting for their prince charming and fix their problems. The film is packed with laughs, beautiful imagery and songs that'll get you tapping your feet and be in awe. This is definitely fun for the whole family, I can see two bickering sisters getting along after seeing this movie (somehow, but then again I don’t understand women very well) and when kids do pull you into watching this movie you’ll actually find yourselves having a good time, I should know because I’m a 17-year old boy who pulled my mom into watching this movie with me and she ended up enjoying the heck out of it.

THE GOOD:

+ A SATISFYING RE-IMAGINING OF THE SOURCE MATERIAL

+ NOSTALGIC FEEL OF OLD DISNEY PRINCESS FILMS

+ GREAT CHARACTERS AND PERFORMANCES

+FANTASTIC MUSICAL NUMBERS

+ GORGEOUS ANIMATION

THE BAD:

-       LACKING STORY AND CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

MY RATING:

4/5 – FOR THE WIN!

TAKING OFF THE KID GLOVES

MOVIE REVIEW:
THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE

The following images are not by me for they are officially released by Universal Studios

Review By:
G.P. Manalo

Directed by:
Francis Lawrence

Starring:
Jennifer Lawrence
Josh Hutcherson
Donald Sutherland

Of all the Young Adult novel adaptations, the film adaptation of Suzanne Collin's best-selling Hunger Games series feels different among them (because the love triangle doesn't beat you in the head like most YA novel adaptations do) , it is pretty rare to have success out of a property like the Hunger Games when it is living in a world of a male dominant industry (and when they do have a woman as the lead, she is not the strongest *cough* Twilight *cough*). One of 2012’s biggest surprises was the young-adult novel adaptation of Suzanne Collin’s “The Hunger Games” being a worldwide hit, as it impressed both fans and non-fans of the novel combining over $700M worldwide, though a vast majority still hunger for something more out of the first film. With Gary Ross out of the director’s chair and I am Legend’s Francis Lawrence in, the second instalment of the mega-hit franchise takes a huge upgrade under his helm as it takes off the kid gloves and start doing serious business.

After the events of the first film, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) could never have been more grateful for surviving the 74th Hunger Games after pulling off a Romeo and Juliet-esque stunt and now they must go through a Victory Tour and all of their problems will be done. But what they didn’t know was that their so-called “stunt” has inspired Panem to revolutionize against the Capitol and Katniss becoming their symbol of hope. President Snow (Donald Sutherland) is displeased with the idea of a revolution. As much as Snow wants to kill her, he does not want a martyr. After listening to the advice of the new gamemaker Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman) President Snow announced that the 75th year of the games will be “different” as it becomes an “all-star” game where the tributes will be existing victors as they are pitted together once again in the arena for a free-for-all killing spree; Katniss and Peeta found themselves fighting for their lives once again.

This film is a huge improvement of its predecessor. When I say that this movie “take off the kid gloves” (compared to the last film), I really mean it. It’s amazing how the franchise has become more mature as it goes on. This film has less laughs, less mushiness (the romance being more believable than the last film), and goes on a more a darker route. Under the helm of Francis Lawrence he gives the film a more emotional environment, giving more emphasis to the depressing reality of living in a world like Panem. In the first half of the film, it felt like it was some sort of political message to the world we are currently living in. It has a lot to say about how the media are more of a device to distract the masses in seeing the reality they are living in with the private lives of people more famous than them and how manipulative the totalitarian government really is but also how far they can go to retain their power as it gives emphasis on the dystopian theme of both the films and the novels. 

In early reviews, most critics have compared this to The Empire Strikes Back (also known as Star Wars Episode V, just so you know). This being a stronger film than the first one, and some other comparisons such as the big threat, one of the themes of the film (and the book it is based on) is knowing who the real enemy is, meaning the enemies in the games aren't going to be developed more than they were in the first film and instead give the screen time to the real enemy, The Empire The Capitol. Like in the original Star Wars trilogy from The Star Wars (Episode IV), they made you be aware of the threat like them exists but it wasn't until the second film where they really go on full force and start getting their hands dirty. The Capitol (the government atleast) aren’t screwing around anymore, in this film they feel like they’re Nazis; they just go in to houses destroying their belongings, gunning and beating people down unfairly. 

Not to mention the tone does get a bit darker, but not the kind where it feels  "in your face" like most people would call "Nolan knockoffs". The dark tone does benefit for the film's storytelling. The first film was a clunky one but after seeing this movie I’ve learned to appreciate the first one quite a bit because of this film and it is because I get to understand the underlining story more in this film. The first film builds up a lot of things; dropping hints of what’s to come for the future films, building up the world and the list goes on. Catching Fire continues to flesh out the world of Panem, thanks to a bigger budget; the film’s special effects gives it that sci-fi feel that feels absent for the most part of the last film.

The last film was entitled The Hunger Games but ironically that part of the film was the most underwhelming part despite making the build up from the start feel like false advertising towards the end. As I went out of the film, I left the film saying that the games were the best part of the film.  Like what Haymitch said in this movie “Last year’s games was child’s play” and it does show in this film. The games in this movie are bigger and better in this film (in both design and how it will be played), since they’re gonna kill adults now, that means no more “shaky cam” which is another plus from me. Right from the part when Katniss is about to rise to the game floor, my heart was just pulsating because you know that shit is about to go down, and it never stops from the start as every step of the way is another nightmare waiting for them.

Fans of the book will be happy that this film stays true to the source material, as a reader of the books, I’d say that this film is 95% accurate to the book because it does leave a couple of key elements from the book (both having something to do with Haymitch and District 13). As the film ends, mentioning that one “thing” made one part of that ending feels abrupt because it wasn’t properly built up. Granted, this is just a minor complaint. Nonetheless they were still able to tell a perfectly paced adaptation (honestly, it never felt like I was there for 2 hours and 40 minutes).

The performances are also better in this film (not saying the performances in the last film aren’t great at all). Jennifer Lawrence continues to impress me in every film she is in proving that she is not only owning the role of Katniss Everdeen but also being one of the best actresses of this generation. Her character as the focal point of the film is the reason why The Hunger Games franchise is different than other young adult novels and it is that her character is not overbearing. The writing for this film doesn’t beat you in the head that “hey, look at how strong this female character is!”. Her performance brings Katniss’s character to life even more; sure she shoots arrows as perfect as Legolas, but she’s not really that tough as nails type, in performance she shows that she is indeed human and vulnerable, doing everything to protect the ones she holds dearly. The most noticeable improvement was Josh Hutcherson as Peeta Mellark, he left me a bad taste in my mouth in the last film, I remember saying that he is in fact replaceable. After seeing him in this movie, I’d take it all back. The script was able to give him more charisma and charm, making him relevant to the storyline and showing what he is capable of as a character, not to mention he shared a better yet believable chemistry with Jennifer Lawrence’s Katniss.

The film has an even bigger cast, having both old and new faces gracing the screen. the one who really stands out among the  cast is the big bad Donald Sutherland. Donald Sutherland as President Snow is illustrated more as the big villain in this movie and he has that sinister presence that felt absent in the last movie and I'm glad they gave him more to do in this film. Woody Harrelson still stands out in most scenes, though I do wish he was developed a bit more, Elizabeth Banks has a bit more to do than going “la-di-da” in the background (which I’m glad because Effie just disappeared in the book and never mentioned again), Lenny Kravitz was good for the little time he had, Liam Hemsworth feels like he took the back seat in the first half of the film making the love triangle around Peeta and Gale feel clunky, while Stanley Tucci continues to steal the show. Among the new faces who did stand out was Sam Clafin as fan-favorite character Finnick Odair. I was very much skeptical at first about the casting choice for him at first, Sam Clafin actually owns the role, he is exactly the way i pictured him to be as i read the book. Others who did stand out and spot-on were Jena Malone’s (whom i'm glad they put her in a good movie) Johanna, and Jeffrey Wright's (who i thought was a deep voiced David Cross at first) Beetee.

In the end, The Hunger Games - Catching Fire is the best film in the series so far and it is definitely the "Empire Strikes Back" of the series, Director Francis Lawrence has given the series a better direction. The film is packed with suspenseful action that will truly start your heart racing as Katniss rise above to the arena, a good social and political commentary about our easily distracted society we are currently living in, great performances and a better look at the world of Panem. Granted, I still think most things in the first half feels rushed and some key elements from the book were left out but that's just me nit-picking and i'd leave that as a minor complaint. I highly recommend you see this movie, if you are a fan of the series you will definitely love this movie as it is accurate to the books this time even if you haven't read the books and enjoyed the movies you will definitely enjoy it nonetheless. But those who thought that the last film was either lacking or terrible, i'd suggest you give this film another chance and see this, surely this film could change your mind about the franchise.

THE GOOD:

+IMPROVES THE FLAWS OF THE FIRST FILM

+ GREAT PERFORMANCES

+A GOOD SOCIAL AND POLITICAL COMMENTARY

+HEART-RACING ACTION SEQUENCES

+BETTER SPECIAL EFFECTS

+ ACCURATE TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL

+PACING 

THE BAD:

-RUSHED MOMENTS

MY RATING:

4.5/5 - FOR THE WIN!

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!