In Review: The Amazing Spiderman

The Gist

Bigger but not exactly better, the reboot to the Spider-man franchise lacks the humor of its predecessor, but the good casting choices--particularly the pairing of Andrew Garfield with Emma Stone--makes the movie entertaining and gripping in its own right, one rife with heart and action.

The Good

• that on-screen chemistry between Garfield and Stone
• nicely cast
• a gripping plot

The Bad

• Can be dismissed as unnecessary reboot due to its predecessor having a better lead and an overall better treatment of its material.
• Never quite establishes its characters, failing to cite a reason why Peter stands up against the bullies but not criminals.

Synopsis

Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is a normal highschool student living with his Aunt May (Sally Field) and Uncle Ben (Michael Sheen) after his mother and father left him to them at a very early age. Peter grew up with this chip on his shoulder, always having a gap to fill. In pursuit of filling that gap, Peter stands up to the bullies in search of human intimacy or purpose--and it doesn't always go well. This particular trait caught the attention of his highschool crush, Gwen Stacy (Emma Watson), who happens to be an associate at Oscorp where his father's former lab partner, Dr. Curt Connors, works as head of human tissue regeneration research. In search for answers, Parker takes to asking Connors himself and, in the process, got bitten by a radioactive spider that starts his life as a rebel and as Spider-man.

Teenage Dirtbag

Considering that Spider-man was in highschool in the comics when he got bitten by the radioactive spider, it surprised me that Sam Raimi had a mostly late 20s cast on his 2002's Spider-man (Maguire was 27 then and Peter Parker was 16). Webb decided to go with teenagers this time and chose a mostly younger-looking cast. You might be surprised to know, however, that Andrew Garfield is actually 28 when he was cast and Stone, 22. Though because of perhaps how skinny Garfield is, and how--well--young Stone is, they actually look the age for the comic book hero reboot.

It Takes Two to Tango

For some reason, when you say Spider-man movie, the scene that pops to my mind is that upside down kiss between Tobey and Kirsten circa 2002. And that's because the first movie is so iconic and fun, it imprints itself to memory very easily. And also probably because it follows the comic book canon more closely than this reboot. I cannot say the same for this reboot. As with most Marvel movies nowadays, a lot of elements has been lifted from the Ultimate Marvel series. The darker tone of the movie probably had been derived from Ultimate Marvel timeline, and I wouldn't say that Marc Webb had an easy time with this. Storytelling for a great part of the first hour is a bit sloppy and leaves mess like a toddler, not really provoking one to think or at least enthrall its audience. But it gets better after the first hour.

Casting Garfield is both good and bad. On the good side, Garfield can be a really charming teen who is unsure about life and has a natural rebel in him that fit Marc Webb's idea for the refresh. On the other end, he can be a bit dull, not having the same humor and finesse that Tobey's Parker has. At best, he is full of angst and determined, though he works best paired with Emma Stone. Their pairing was a blessing to the movie, as on-screen, the pair really works--making for a cutesy couple with a believable tension and grip.

Martin Sheen was, well, mostly angry and detached as Uncle Ben--almost always strict and ready to reprimand Peter, but caring nevertheless. Just not sure is Sheen was proper for the role, I was expecting him to implode and I was disappointed when he didn't. Sally Field was far far from the Aunt May in Sam Raimi's Spiderman. This one was more antagonistic or at least less expressively caring for Peter, as opposed to the snoopy and sneaky, overly protective Aunt May in Raimi's.

On the plus side, technically, this is a better film compared to Raimi's, given the technological advances from 2002 to 2012. The CGI is more believable. And I have to give it to Webb (he, btw, directed 500 Days of Summer) for taking on an enormous job, and coming out nearly unscathed--giving Spidey more grit and making Peter less of a nerd but more of a rebel. Sure, it is similar to Raimi's, but it had a notably darker undertone, which might be how this new franchise is going to be. He did manage to translate the material to film albeit rather confused and dull at time, and at the obvious risk of being compared to the fun ride that was Raimi's Spider-man. Webb's was an antihero, a defiant kid who always had a piece of him missing, while Raimi's was a geek who loved the world, got powers, and forgot the very lessons that made him. Sure, this adaptation has its weaknesses, but in the end, comes as a whole, capable of delighting and entertaining--and at its best parts, it really is good: the last few scenes are actually very heartfelt and at one point cute, making you want to hug along with Peter and Aunt May.

Though you'd know there is a sequel only because it's a franchise, not because you really want to see one.

My verdict:

A slow Marvel with grit, but does get boring and confused. I had fun but can't really recommend it. A passing mark of 4/5.

In Review: The Hunger Games

The Gist

Armed with a good material, The Hunger Games manages to keep itself tense and entertaining throughout its whole running time, with notes of cleverness here and there. And though not without a few minor niggles (particularly its inability to go darker given its nature), it manages to avoid entering soppy territory and holds the audience's interest for a sequel.

The Good

• interestingly dark premise that works
• intended for younger teen audiences, but with enough grit and lack of cheesiness found in its contemporaries that make it work for a wider audience
• thrilling and tightly plot; tackles political and emotional issues, too

The Bad

• needs more grit and gore for the topic it deals with
• may not be so suitable to the younger audience it originally targets

Synopsis

The story is centered around Panem (once North America) and its 13 districts that revolt against its capitol some 74 years ago (the 13th district was destroyed during the war). After the districts were defeated, as punishment, the capitol stages an annual death match competition comprised of 2 representatives (1 boy and 1 girl aged 12 to 16) from the different districts that survived the war. During the day of the "Reaping," a day where representatives are randomly chosen, Katniss, a girl from District 12, volunteered to be a tribute after her younger sister "Primrose" was randomly picked. Chosen along with her was a baker's son, Peeta. Together, they are thrust into the death ring with only advises from a District 12 champion Haymich to save them from imminent death in the competition.

Catching Fire

I cannot state how much I do not like Jennifer Lawrence, how unenamored I am by her presence. In the two movies I've seen her appeared on (X-Men: First Class and Like Crazy), she played villain which did not help. Her catty demeanor on-screen, cold facial features, and her lack of overall appeal made me disheartened that she was picked for this movie to play lead. It however works at some level. Given that Katniss was not very likeable in the story. And that she did try her best to be, though you can see through it. That's Jennifer Lawrence through and through and she nails that part. The anti-hero. But here she was softened. She was cunning, but a little less cunning than necessary. There's a certain innocence and lack of commitment to murder that made her perfect-imperfect for the role, and as usual that angst / ferocity that make her scary to pick a fight with. Unfortunately, the story says that people liked her well enough to root for her and her young love with Peeta. As a blonde, Lawrence is likable, a bombshell, but when she goes brunette and tomboyish, all that likability is thrown out the window. The overall effect: to me, when the credits rolled, I still could not like her nor Peeta. I wanted her and Peeta to live, but I could not see any reason why I wanted to root for them other than the fact that if they die, then there's no sequel to an interesting story. I like the idea and the personality of the characters (how they both schemed to get support from the audiences), I just am not sure they were properly cast.

Swapping blonde for brown, Lawrence dwarfs her age, and her
likability as well.

Live Fast, Die Young, Make a Pretty Corpse

Director Gary Ross (who directed Pleasantville and Seabiscuit) has crafted a taut and intense thriller here. What he ended up ultimately is a product with enough depth but not not enough teeth. It doesn't go soppy and soap operatic and it does have enough heart, but it lacks that shock required from a theme as dark as throwing teenagers in a death match. What happened to mental and emotional torture? It seems as if Peeta was the only one affected by this and that no one in the battlefield seems to be affected. No one cried because they know death is imminent. Just Peeta. All the time. So does that mean Peeta is the coward of the bunch or has their lives gone so warped forward into the future that kids are not afraid of death, and, in fact, excited to kill.

The supporting cast was good. Elizabeth Banks cast as Effie Trinket was a delight, while Woody Harrelsen as Haymitch seems like a spot-on slacker who does not want to show how much he cares for his countrymen, children, who would die very soon. Josh Hutcherson who played Peeta Mellark did very well, in my opinion and is the figure of human frailty and suffering throughout the movie, the perfect underdog. Former Legend of the Seeker star Alexander Ludwig did well as support rather than lead as he played Cato. Again, my complain here was how Lawrence's character of Katniss was written. She needs to show strength, cunning, and perseverance because she is highly outclassed and outnumbered by her competition. But instead, she was depicted more as lucky, which is not someone who'd root for in a society where strentgh is a value. I am not sure, I have not read the books, but something tells me they softened Katniss for the younger audiences.

Pacing was done well and the set design was elaborate. The dialogues were pretty good and the adaptation was fine and easily digestible. The cinematography is also grand to say the least. Plot is tense and tight, the storytelling enjoyable and entertaining, but ultimately failed to evoke further depth and human pathos. It could have been the best movie, but somewhat, I felt there was some Hollywood hesitation here and there, wanting to make a more rating-acceptable adaptation, for which I wish they get over with the next installment.

My verdict:

Like Katniss's arrows, there were a lot of good hits, and a lot of misses and opportunities past. It could easily have been the movie of the year, but instead we are assured that the series is in good hands. I am staying tuned for more. A passing and recommended mark of 4/5.

In Review: My Week with Marilyn

The Gist

Williams' glowing transfiguration to Monroe will leave spell-bound throughout the whole movie and that alone is enough reason to watch and recommend the movie.

The Good

• spell-binding performance by Michelle Williams
• perfectly cast, with Redmayne, Caine, Brannagh, Dench, and Watson doing solid work all the while allowing Williams to completely shine

The Bad

• would need you to suspend your disbelief in the events that happens (as this is a memoir of Colin Clark), lest, take it as a fan fiction of sorts.
• though is pleasurable to watch, does not completely achieve a climax

Synopsis

Colin Clark, 23, applies to be a production assistant in Olivier's production of The Prince and the Showgirl. During the course of things, Olivier and Monroe's professional relationship are marred by Monroe's stage-fright and Olivier's impatience. Feeling a need to help Monroe, Clark "takes sides" with Monroe and in the process, spends a flirtatious week with her. The movie recounts that week.

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes

My reaction when Williams was cast as Monroe was apprehensive. Sure she's blonde, American, a female, and has full lips, but that's about it. Williams is a good actress, but a bit too far from looking like Monroe, much more carrying her charm and allure. This is me coming from watching her in "Blue Valentine" where she played a sappy housewife who couldn't seem to attract even the flies. And remember how pathetic the housewife she played in Brokeback Mountain was? That, plus the fact that if anything, Williams does not in any bit look like Monroe. But alas! Williams manages the impossible: she recalls Monroe from the dead and becomes her! Complete from accent, diction, speech, gait, and allure. She even managed to be really sexy, though not Monroe-sexy. That transformation alone got me hooked throughout the movie's 1 hour and 40 running time. I believed it was Monroe I was watching the while time.

Seems legit

Whose Side are You On?

Marilyn explains the kind of behavior that Monroe brings to the set, which is consistent with the literature written about it: habitually late, difficult to work with, struck with stage-fright; albeit, I find it all too condensed that one will have to imagine how she became lovable, how she became the most famous woman on Earth. The movie does not bother to explain it in length, but assumes you have a basic knowledge about Monroe before you jumped in to watch the movie.

The script is fair enough, with Williams squeezing the most potential out of it. Some may bemoan the lack of depth, but it didn't really bother me as I am taking this as a biopic for which witty dialog do not really suffice or happen often, but when they do, they do. What really brings the work to life is Williams' channeling Monroe into being. It is impossible to imagine anyone playing the role. As mentioned above, she got everything spot-on, from the raspy, breathy speech pattern to the flirtatious gestures. She brings Monroe to full life when she performs a dance routine number that Monroe played on The Prince and the Showgirl. Branagh's and Dench's performance of Olivier and Thorndike were laudable, too, while Redmayne, albeit outshone by Williams, did relatively well, too.

Costume and set design were also great and add to authenticity of the movie, while the pacing is fluid and simple, which helps a lot to enjoy the movie. There are great sparks of comedy in the movie and like most of Marilyn movies, this one is light, with the darker areas mostly reflecting on Monroe's inability to cope up with her stage-fright and being near impossible to work with. It is however impossible to decide which part of the film is the climax. For most of it, the film goes on to become delightful that there is no discernible climax, but rather a series of playful scenes during the whole filming, guided by Curtis' tight direction.

My verdict:

A biopic, albeit dubious but a really enjoyable one, powered by a glowing transfiguration of Williams into Monroe is not something you'd like to miss. A passing and recommended mark of 4.5/5.

In Review: The Descendants

The Gist

A non-cheesy trage-comedy, The Descendants is one of those rare films that is mildly lying and mildly telling the truth--it does take life's tragedies with seriousness, but ends up with a childlike self-laughable behavior. Truly one of 2011's best films.

The Good

• pleasant and realistic script, serious but with a heart and candidness
• excellent performance from Clooney and everyone involved.

The Bad

• has dragging parts near end, with an unsatisfying ending
• will not feel long, but will dilly-dally on a lot of occasions

Synopsis

Matt King, father of two girls, a local Hawaii lawyer, and a failing husband, is the sole trustee of an inherited Hawaiian land, of about 25,000 acres. Having thought of no better way to resolve their problems with the rule against perpetuities, the King clan decided to sell their property to a local developer, Dolitzer for half a million dollars. During the course of the bidding, Matt's wife gets into a motorboat accident, which left her in a coma, which if she ever recovers from, will leave her in a vegetative state, leaving Matt to execute her living will of disconnecting her from the machine. On the course of accepting the bitter truth, Matt fetches her daughter from her boarding school and embarks on a journey to inform everyone about his wife's fate and dealing with his family's ancestral property.

Pleasantville

When one thinks of Hawaii, all we ever think of is parties, fun, pinacoladas, beaches, surfing, and other recreational activities. Media has done very little to expose the other side of Hawaii, that is the political dealings, the common life of the residents, and the problems that Hawaii faces, in general. Alexander Payne depicts part of that undiscussed side of Hawaii in a very lifelike light, using a realistic script that reflects American values with a Hawaiian flavor. The result is a finely-crafted mix of unexpected humor in tragic circumstances.

Surf's Up

I am not a big fan of Hawaii-based films (or TV series or TV series episodes for that matter). There is a weird feel in Hawaii being American and smack right in the middle of the Pacific. It's an uneasy mix of culture and humidity and vibrant colors that don't really go well altogether. Anything set in Hawaii makes me feel uneasy and humid and to some extent, feels corny, shallow, and predictably a surfer or beach movie. That is to say, that to me, watching The Descendants felt initially like that. But the thing with The Descendants is that it's actually a movie that normalizes Hawaii, make the beaches as commonplace and as uninteresting as a heavy traffic in New York. In a way of saying: it's a drama set in Hawaii, and not a surfer movie with some drama. Heck, even George Clooney, who is normally polished and gleaming, is disheveled and slob-looking here. That is how bigwigs in Hawaii looks like, apparently, as his character explains.

If only we can all get paid to look like slobs.

What's gonna surprise you as the movie goes on is how the dialogues, at their most pedestrian ("motherless whore," "you are such a retard"), becomes humorous and entertaining.

The whole cast did well on their parts, though I have to note Shailene Woodley and George Clooney's acting. Here, Clooney plays a vulernable and uncertain father, quite unsure of what he is doing and what he is to do after he gets the news about his wife. This is quite an opposite to the roles he has played in Michael Clayton, The Ides of March, Ocean's Eleven, and Up In the Air, where he plays a suave successful man who's figured out everything only to learn a lesson in the end. Kudos, too, to a relatively unknown Nick Krause, who did great on his role as Sid, the equally lovable and detestable friend of Alex (Woodley), for providing most of the movie's comic reliefs and that rare wisdom amid stupidity.

Scene-stealing Sid played by Nick Krause

Near the end, the story will slow down and mostly rely on visuals for the resolution. And speaking of resolution, I'm not sure I'm a big fan of the way the movie ended. Sure, that's how life is sometimes, we peek in the middle of the story and the end for us is up to how much we are allowed to peek into the lives of these characters. It's just that the ending felt kind of undone and could've been done better.

In a sense one can say that the movie was effortlessly done. There are sparks of brilliance here and there, but one may need to dig the sand for those. It's in the normalcy and how Payne managed to capture the human response to tragedy that makes this movie shine. How genuine the characters are and how relatable they are. There was very little cheesiness too as there was grit, but those worked exactly for the better.

My verdict:

A comedy amid tragedy, hindered by some dragging parts and a nonchalant ending. A passing and recommended mark of 4/5.

In Review: Hugo

The Gist

A 3D wonderment at its finest, Hugo is a family film that, while entertaining and rewarding, may discuss too many things all at once to mask its huge fanaticism for the magic of cinema.

The Good

• fine 3D experience, at a running time of more than 2 hours, it doesn't wear your eyes down
• an innocent film with a heart of a child, eager to discover new things
• finely cast with great performances from Butterfield and Moretz

The Bad

• the semi-fictional viewpoint may seem dubious for cinephiles who know the story behind Melies
• initially focuses on existentialism then does a turn for movie preservation; should have focused on one thing intensely

Synopsis

Hugo Cabret spends most of his days stealing bread and milk and winding the clocks secretly in a French train station to avoid being placed in an orphan home. His father, a clock maker, perished in a fire and left him to his drunk uncle who has been missing for months. One day, he was caught by toy shop owner George Melies who confiscates all his belongings, including his father's notebook that has all the notes on the automaton they have been working on. To get back his notebook, Hugo enlists the help of Melies' granddaughter Isabelle and together, they embark to a journey that shows them the wonder of cinema.

Not Like the Movies At All

Scorsese, famous for his gangster films, surprises everyone by directing an adaptation to a children's book, The Invention of Hugo Cabret. The book itself is based from the later life of George Melies after his decline in the industry. Scorsese followed the same course as the book did and the result was a family-friendly film. Sadly, if you know the true story of Melies and how he suffered, and how unromantic everything was going for him, you would feel as if the movie had trespassed on a lot of things that Melies has gone through. But, if you didn't know about those, you'd most likely enjoy yourself. Sorry.

Cinemagical

The problem with me reviewing this movie is that I know the real story of Melies and for me, the inclusion of fictional elements seem like an affront on the history of cinema, although a little mellowing does not hurt anyone, but this is real life that Selzsnick "fixed." Trying my best to be objective, I would like to commend on the casting of Asa Butterfield, Chloe Moretz, and Ben Kingsley into the film. Sacha Baron Cohen was typically annoying, but I guess it worked for the better of the film. And while I am here, might as well comment on how much Kingsley looks like Melies.

Not sure if Ben Kingsley or George Melies...

The pacing of the movie will initially feel slow, but actually, you wouldn't notice the running time of 128 minutes as events unfold fast enough. Butterfield's innocence also helps a lot in the movie as you will be engaged watching him.

Initially, the movie will existentialist, dealing with one's purpose of being here with analogies from machines and clockworks. Then the focus would soon turn to the cinema, forgetting the existentialist premise it initially started on. The later parts of the movie are generally dangerous due to their inaccuracy. If people were to take these accounts as true, given that Melies was a real person, one might not completely understand the real story of Melies and conclude this to be true. Nevertheless, the depiction and re-enactment of the early days of cinema were delightful and as poignant, making Hugo one loveletter to the joy of the movies, just like The Artist.

The 3D in Hugo is liquid. It does not hurt your eyes much as would other 3D movies. 

My verdict:

A family affair with a historical and existential twist. Not bad, could've been better. A passing mark of 4/5.

In Review: Haywire

The Gist

Neatly done, tense, and well-directed, Haywire works in spots and keeps it going until you figure out the whole scheme of things; unfortunately, it leaves a few spots unchecked with gaping empty spaces and the large lack of emotional range makes for a somewhat shallow experience.

The Good

• succeeds largely at being a tense thriller
• action sequences are well-done, makes complete use of Carano's fighting prowess

The Bad

• Carano's emotional range rival that of a teaspoon
• largely unemotional script, unemotional characters that don't evoke your empathy

Synopsis

Mallory Kane (Carano) works as an agent for a private contractor working for the government operated by her ex-boyfriend Kenneth (Mc Gregor). After her last mission in Barcelona contracted by Rodrigo and Coblenz (Banderas and Douglas), Kane plans to retire, which Kenneth accepts, asking one last mission from her, a paid vacation of sorts to pose as the wife British agent Paul (Fassbender) who's meeting crimelord Studer to get further intel on his operations. As the night progresses, Kane discovers something that leads to events going haywire.

Carano, the film's main star, is not an actress, but an MMA fighter.

Why so Serious?

Soderbergh apparently saw Carano battle it out at the Octagon and thought of making a movie centered on her hand to hand combat skills. The result is Haywire, and as expected, Carano as a seasoned fighter and her own stuntwoman is excellent. But as an actress, the depth of emotions she displays on this film is questionable. The camera loves her, and Soderbergh focused on that and avoided placing any scene that would require much acting effort from Carano. In doing so, the movie felt dry and shallow towards the end.

1, 2, Punch

Carano delivers punch per punch as I said above. The fight scenes were cool and believable, and unlike big budgeted thrillers that contain one explosion after another and one car chase scene at least for good measure, Haywire is more of a Jason Bourne movie where the action scenes are stripped down to hand to hand combat.

Most of the tension in the movie comes from the fact that people want to kill Mallory Kane and that every step she takes, they were able to track her and that they beat her up real bad when they get to her. Eventually this ploy loses its effectiveness that at the end, it kind of becomes dull that when Soderbergh tries to pull it off again, it goes flimsy and pointless.

A lot of the problem of with Haywire comes from the fact that Soderbergh failed to make Carano "act" the way an actress would. And while she is not expected to do such, the movie suffers from this fault. Eventually, everyone in the movie ended with 3 emotions: angry, serious, or in pain dying, because if they showed anything more, it would greatly upstage Carano. Another fault was that the characters were poorly developed. Aaron (Tatum) dies and we feel no empathy. As far as Soderbergh suggests, he and Kane only had a one-night stand, yet Soderbergh thought it would be necessary to play a flashback of them kissing to emphasize Kane's sadness from Aaron's passing. Sadly, Soderbergh could've built on this to make this more evocative. But he hasn't and chose to point that out anyways.

Other than those, Haywire is thrilling and would work most of the times. Just don't expect great depths.

My verdict:

A thriller made lame by a surprising lack of emotional range, Haywire works best when it features its fight scenes. A passing mark of 3.5/5.

In Review: The Artist

The Gist

Primarily a visual and auditory feast, The Artist is a riveting and entertaining tribute to old Hollywood, peppered with heart-rending scenes and profound humor only to be ended very lightly for the premise and story line it took.

The Good

• stimulating, riveting, good-natured, and easy to follow story
• not much dialogues to closely follow as it is a silent movie, making it more stimulating as you don't need to process words, but just gestures and orchestral pieces.
• completely replicated the magic of old Hollywood films, from charming stars to lively storyline

The Bad

• quite weird to experience a silent movie in an age where everyone talks even when they don't need to.
• unknown actors can alienate moviegoers if not for the Hollywood hype
• too light an ending

Synopsis

George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) meets a fan Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) after a screening of his silent film "A Russian Affair" in 1927 when a crowd pushes her into bumping him while the press where taking pictures outside the theatre. The funny encounter lead to another when Peppy was taken as an extra in Valentin's film, "A German Affair," which lead to an intimate moment between her and Valentin that encourages her to pursue stardom--initially taking extras then slowly graduating to larger supporting roles. By 1929, talkies (movies that feature speech) had started becoming popular; George Valentin vehemently rejects this as he sees talkies as nothing more but a fad--ultimately separating him and Kinograph which has decided to produce only talkies from then on. By this time, Miller has grown in popularity and has been signed on by Kinograph as one of its main stars in the talkies era. Not one to admit defeat, Valentin starts his own production of a silent movie entitled "Tears of Love," which apparently launches the same time as Peppy Miller's lead role debut in Kinograph's talkie, "Beauty Spot." What follows next is a series of heart-rending events that tests the friendship of The Artist and the Aspiring Beauty.

Silence is Golden

The Artist's main strength lies in the fact that it is for a good long time speechless. Sometimes, dialog cards are shown as with silent movies, but what really makes up for The Artist's voicelessness is the music they used and the highly enticing visuals. Dujardin and Bejo make up for a really charming pair and Uggie the dog is no different as he is very delightful and dear that you actually watch for when he is coming back on-screen. An article from CNN explains why The Artist works in a time where we have 3D in our movie houses (see here). And I would have to agree that it goes beyond "shutting down the surround sound." it's replicating what has been lost so magically well, it screams brilliance and ingenuity.

Sad Movies Make me Cry

After I've seen Roman Holiday early this year, I have concluded that films made during the Golden Age of Hollywood were clean and innocent--untarnished with violence and sex as with the movies we have today where the virtue is more often than not, "the dirtier, the better." How Audrey Hepburn managed to sleep in Cary Grant's room, drunk with drugs, and not get raped at all is impossible had Roman Holiday been remade in 2012. And this innocence is also present in The Artist. It's a movie made in our time, but was taken from another. And this magic that we miss is what makes this work irresistible.

The irresistible pair of Dujardin and Uggie tries to placate
the angry wife to no avail.

You also can find the similar charm in Jean Dujardin's portrayal of George Valentin and Berenice Bejo's Peppy Miller. Their flawless portrayal will fool you into believing that they really belong to the 1920s. Valentin has that charm reminiscent to Bogart's and Grant's, the charm absent in today's leading men who are more of gritty personifications of Hollywood and whose life outside the camera is one for evading it. Not to mention the Tintin-Snowy-like partnership between Uggie the dog and Dujardin makes for adding color to the black and white flick.

Miller fantasizes an embrace from Valentin only to be surprised
by a lack of knock from reality.

And speaking of adding color, there are too many visual delights in The Artist--enough to justify your seeing a black and white film. One of the most memorable ones being Peppy Miller making love to Valentin's coat. The way Hazanavicius pairs that particular scene with the "Scene d'Amour" score used in Vertigo is haunting and impeccable. The spare dialog, which you can count as they are flashed through dialog cards, are written well. They come as trickles in summer and completes the overall silent cinema feel. There are also some imaginative use of dialog and sound in this film as it is about the transition from silent films to talkies. The way sound was used to convey certain scenes is brilliant and worth writing home about.

As the movie moves to nearer and nearer to conclusion, heart-rending scenes will pour in more and more often, and given how likeable Dujardin has made his character, it will be impossible to not empathize. This exercise in empathy is however ruined by the too light-hearted ending. In my opinion, the movie could still have ended positively without feeling too hastily done. I really wouldn't mind extra minutes just for a better ending as I am enjoying myself anyway. Although, I must say, the last scenes in the ending were revelatory enough to placate me.

My verdict:

The Artist is a brilliant and ingenuine loveletter to the magic of early cinema powered by charming characters and a wonderful pairing of visuals and musical score. A passing and recommended mark of 4.5/5.

In Review: Sherlock Holmes, A Game of Shadows

The Gist

If you can forego little character development, use of incredible foresight and other improbable plot devices, then A Game of Shadows will prove to be a palatable popcorn movie, rife with action and thrills and an effective chemistry between its leads, that course perfectly served after the draining holiday offerings of the past film fest.

The Good

• fast-paced and action-packed
• Downey's charm and Law's dead-on timing and effective humor wagon for Downey is still easy to appreciate and has not yet trudged the lines of annoyance.

The Bad

• almost cartoonish improbability of some plot devices and scene progressions
• little use of other cast members; largely non-nefarious villain

Synopsis

Sherlock Holmes (Downey Jr.) traces a sequence of bombing and assassinations to one man, Prof. James Moriarty (Harris), whom his lover-adversary, Irene Adler (McAdams) is working for. As this early part of the plot unravels, Holmes requires the services of his assistant and dear friend, Dr. Watson (Law), who is to marry. Unfortunately, Watson refuses to participate and Holmes seems to rest his case, even offering to bring Watson to his "stag party," which is apparently a visit to a casino where one of the clues to his new case is at in the form of a gypsy fortune-teller, Madam Simza (Rapace). As Holmes digs deeper into his case, the newly-married Watson is forced to join his friend in a case big enough to start a world war.

Bad Bromance

Like the first installment, on-screen chemistry between Downey Jr. and Law is familiar to that of man and wife, which is to say that they're both effective and believable. While often Watson has to play comic relief on which Holmes pulls his tricks on, he is shown to be more hands-on in this movie, being allowed to use his own form of deduction he grew from watching Holmes; Holmes on the other hand is shown to be a more devoted friend than a jackass as he is shown in the previous installment. This is the case perhaps because Holmes does not have any lady in this film. Watson marries here, but for most of the time, he does not endeavor in any on-screen romance with his wife, either. So what it lacks in romance, Guy Ritchie fills in with action and brotherhood. I do not mind, I like the burger better without the cheese.

19th Century Fringe Science

It is both a blessing and, er, a curse that Shadows was shown late here in the Philippines due to the annual Metro Manila Film Fest. What's good about that is that you get to see reviews ahead of watching the movie, what's bad is you'd get spoiled. For weeks, I instead just watched the tomatometer (in Rotten Tomatoes) for this movie to battle it out for freshness. Unfortunately, the movie has bordered the rotten territory and I eventually lost interest, given how not enthralled I was with the first film. Now that I have seen it for myself, I do not understand why the critics were not pleased. What I will do is attempt to discuss probabilities why they did not like it all while reviewing it.

First (and least important) of all, the musical score was not really memorable, albeit for an action flick such as this, it does not always need be, as long as it plays at the right time and helps build up the thrill. During the holidays, I've seen some old movies myself and what I noticed is that films back then rely heavily on dialog and acting. There is little to no musical score unless the film itself is a musical or comedy, and even then, most scenes are left out without any background music, especially if it has a dialog. For modern movies, however, music is key albeit it is most of the time not noticed on first viewing. For a casual moviegoer, music is merely a natural addition, the salt to the dish, that if left out, may make the dish bland. Did Shadows have enough music? Not that you'd notice. It's mostly noise, explosions, grumbles, and bantering.

Second, while Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. were terrific in their roles and have a convincing chemistry, they barely had anything bright to say. Unlike the first movie where wit is present and the jokes are actually based on smarts, this one goes more for banter and a bit of slapstick. Don't get me wrong, the dialog is not bad, but if you compare it to the previous installment, this one falls flat on the smarts department. Funny, yes. Smart, I have my reservations.

Third, If you'd give props to Downey Jr. and Law, the rest of the cast inspires your ho-hum. You wouldn't particularly like Watson's wife (I actually didn't), nor will you find Mycroft Holmes (Stephen Fry) irresistible. He does not provide any good insight as the Mycroft Sir Arthur Conan Doyle painted. He was instead depicted as streaking government official with minor importance to the storyline. Another troubled character is that of Madam Simza's. The writers did very little for the audience to like her and she is also not blessed with a good character development. Noomi Rapace, who appeared in the Swedish version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and its sequels, was wasted in this film. Her facial expressions were either angry or pondering angry. Given that Sim is quite an important character in this film, she could've been given more character depth. Although I find it relieving because I dislike her based on the trailers as she's replacing Rachel McAdams as the movie's dame. And speaking of McAdams who plays Irene Adler, I actually personally like her; There is something charming about her, something charming about the way she plays Irene Adler. Then boom, she is given very little screen time! Injustice! And last for this barrel: Jared Harris who plays the main antagonist, James Moriarty. While you couldn't fault Harris' acting, there is something about the way the movie played out that didn't seem to make him menacing at all. You will know he's the villain, but you couldn't hate him so much. He's just not that detestable. He suggests that he lacks a soul, but he does not show it so much. The way his character was written just did not allow that. It's possible that his character's screen time is sacrificed to focus much on Holmes and Watson. But either way, Ritchie should have made him more menacing, more cold, more nefarious. He just didn't become any of those. He's just that. A token villain.

Fourth and last, this Sherlock is possibly a psychic who has insanely inhuman foresight. That plus the several practically improbable plot devices running throughout the film, which can be excused as passable.

Luckily for me, I was able to look beyond those and enjoyed the film thoroughly. If the film had any dragging moments, they were very few and very little to be noticeable, to destroy the movie. The real challenge perhaps is the suspension of your disbelief, which more often than not can be accomplished if you get too engrossed with the movie. Gladly, the movie is engaging enough that you can easily forgive its various flaws if it does engage you. If it doesn't, I think you can still appreciate the fight scenes, the destruction, the trickery, and some semblance of play on logic in the film. Ultimately, I find this film more memorable than the last one as this one just makes you wish for a third installment while the first one makes you wish that that's about it.

My verdict:

A passing and recommended mark of 4/5.

In Review: Drive

Drive, Refn, 2011

The Gist

Tight plot, solid acting, great script, curious characterizations, intense actions scenes, tasteful violence, and stylishly executed gore, these are the ingredients of the awesome sauce the powers Drive. With those in its engine, Drive propels itself into the realm of rare skillfully done and curiously entertaining action movies.

The Good

• fast-paced, beautiful cinematography, great narration
• solid acting with a great script to back it up
• remarkably entertaining for the amount of silence it has

The Bad

• the beginning chase scene has this very weird background music literally made my ears painful

Synopsis

The Driver (Gosling) works as a repairman at a local car repair shop owned by Mr. Shannon (Cranston) who was impressed by his driving skills. On the side, The Driver works as a stuntman and occasionally moonlights as a getaway wheelman for robbers. Impressed with The Driver's driving skills, Bernie Rose (Brooks), a businessman, along with his business partner Nino, a mobster, agreed to purchase a stock car for 300,000 USD for The Driver to race. Things however start to get messy as The Driver began to get involved with his married neighbor Irene (Mulligan) and her son Benicio. Soon, The Driver finds himself helping Irene's husband, Standard (Isaac), outsmart mobsters who he owes protection money from. This gesture of neighborly spirit soon ignites the fire to a bomb of grisly events.

Shut Up and Drive

Can I just excuse myself and say I've developed what we call a man-crush proper on Ryan Gosling for this movie. Seriously, Gosling outdid himself here. And to phrase it as a friend have put it, "Gosling did the as-is-were-is acting." It was as if he wasn't acting. It was so effortless and so effective anyway. It was like bland acting that finally found its proper spot in the world, like an idea that found its time. He was bad as Clint Eastwood, or as dashing as Harrison Ford without so much as an effort or a quotable line. He stood there with his bomber jacket, hair all combed, and killed people. He just had presence and it made the whole movie sing.

It's an Arms Race

What Refn did with Drive is reminiscent of a Tarantino film or something like an Eastwood. Both of which I enjoy greatly. Drive is classy and artsy and atypically cold and silent for an action film. It has guts but does not brag about it, nor did it need flashiness to get attention. It was an experience for me that I am liking a film with very little dialogue and whose main character is 1. unnamed and 2. bordering mute. But what it lacked in dialogue, it made up for wit and composition. The soundtrack spoke for it and so as the beautiful cinematography. It kind of brings you back to the 80s and makes you question exactly when the events in the movie happened.

A lot of the credit goes to Gosling's performance, true, but Cranston, Brooks, and Perlman also did well. Perlman was as every bit detestable as Gosling is every bit charming and worth rooting for. They both have their deep resolve and it was clearly fleshed out in the movie. Mulligan for all the screen time she had performed her role of damsel in distress well. In a sense, you would wish that the two end up together in the movie, especially near the end, and maybe it wasn't Mulligan herself or Gosling making you think so, but the way the movie has been so well put together that you wouldn't mind that most of the time, all the two lovers did were stand and stare at each other.

The narrative, well, it's dry, but the cinematography as mentioned above is worth noting and more than makes up for it. Drive isn't so fast-paced or dragging, it just speeds in the right direction with the proper amounts of Adrenaline rushes here and there. And those were also executed very well. The gore is not so distracting, but is tasteful enough to merit artsy status. The execution of the action scenes are also very fine and well thought of that they make your heart rush everytime there is.one. As for the ending, it was perfect.

In summary, how do I put Drive? Well, it's a movie I'd watch over and over again.

My verdict:

A flying and recommended mark of 5/5.

In Review: Bridesmaids

Bridesmaids, 2011, Paul Feig

The Gist

A comedy about the coming-of-middle-age drama that a person can have littered with affecting and real characters, Bridesmaids is a film with a punch, an oomph, and a genuine heart. Its own brand of humor, though not always high above there, is guaranteed to work.

The Good

• affecting characters, relatable and real
• great script; humor is incredibly good
• good acting

The Bad

• use of gross humor may not appeal to everyone
• not a lot of recognizable stars used, may be an off-putting factor for some

Synopsis

Annie (Wiig) was only too delighted when she found out that her childhood bestfriend Lillian (Rudolph) is getting married and that she has been selected as the maid of honor. What with nothing right happening in her life right now (her bakery closing down after the recession, losing her boyfriend, losing all her savings, being involved with an uncommitting single man, and working as a sales clerk in a jewerly shop),  this is nothing but a welcome relief from all the plunge she's been having. During the preparations for the wedding, Annie meets the other bridesmaids: the perky Becca (Kemper), the hungry angry tired Rita (McLendon-Covey), the spirited Megan (McCarthy), and the beautiful Helen (Byrne). Throughout the whole preparation, Helen and Annie continue to argue on how to prepare for the wedding, with Helen almost always stealing and outdoing Annie's ideas. And while the whole ordeal of the wedding preparation is going on, Annie continues her descent to rock-bottom, which tests her faith in herself and in her friendship with Lillian.

There's Something About Annie

Kristen Wiig is just so charming here in her own screwed up "Carrie Bradshaw" way. Where Carrie makes The Annie she plays mirrors certain types of people who are really wonderful beings but don't see it and instead choose to screw up their lives. And basically, the whole film is like a de-glamourized Sex and The City with a character whose main goal in life is to make poor choices and mope about it. In a way, Annie is charming and annoying, and she alone runs this show. And until you're there watching the movie, you wouldn't know how compelling Wiig can be.

The Next Sweetest Thing

The movie gave its lead star, Wiig, enough floor to shine, but that didn't stop the others from being equally charming. Byrne had her screen time as the movie's main antagonist by simply being so enviable, rich, successful, and scene-stealing, she's evil. McCarthy plays an angst-ridden tomboy who's just about as annoying as she is surprising. Let's not also forget the men in the background: Chris O'Dowd plays a charming British policeman, Nathan Rhodes, and Jon Hamm's portrayal of Ted couldn't be any more detestable.

Some gags are reminiscent of Cameron Diaz-starrer The Sweetest Thing, and I can't help shake off seeing some Sex and the City wit and writing here and there--just like how Wiig talks to herself from time to time when she speaks out her mind to herself--probably also because the movie has women on the forefront. Working hand in hand with the well-written script and punchlines is the equally fluid narration. It's neither too fast nor too slow, though for some scenes, you kind of get the point and you wish they hurry up and show you the next ones already. The plot and execution is effective in a way that you will both hate and empathize the lead character, and makes for an affecting movie.

The only problem with Bridesmaids? Well, there's the relatively unknown cast. It's like watching an HBO TV-movie for some. None of my officemates apparently know Kristen Wiig and that can be off-putting for them. I mean sure, she's pretty big in Saturday Night Live, but for those who don't know she exists, and most of the other cast members for that matter, why would one watch this movie? Then again, so was Superbad when it was released in cinemas.

Anyway, so was Bridesmaids a success? A resounding yes. Would I force my friends to watch it? A louder yes to that.

My verdict:

A passing and recommended mark of 4.5/5.

In Review: Puss in Boots

Puss in Boots, Chris Miller, Dreamworks (2011)

The Gist

Nothing as charming, inventive, or groundbreaking as the original Shrek or Shrek 2, but Puss in Boots has its own brand of charm that will make you sit through an hour and a half, laughing silly over screwed up fairy tales and Spanish-accented cats who can put up a good swordfight.

The Good

• charming storyline
• great 3D animation
• witty lines and comedy without overusing slapstick

The Bad

• it's your typical Dreamworks animated film: funny, a bit charming, but not completely "there"

Synopsis

Prior to the events of Shrek 2, we meet Puss in Boots, a suave and charming outlaw slash "swordscat," out swashbuckling and running from the law. On one of his sojourns, he heard that the murderous lovers "Jack and Jill" have the mythical magic beans that he has been looking all his life. In an attempt to steal, Puss meets Kitty Softpaws and an old friend Humpty Dumpty who connive with him to perform the greatest heist in the times of yore. Unknown to Puss, old wounds run deep, and what seems like the heist of the century is about to turn into something unexpected.

Catfights and Spotlights

Latino / Latina cats in the land of screwed up English fairy tales are not far from happening, and when you have those, you expect showmanship no less, and well, gladly, Banderas and Hayek deliver (or rather the animation department does). What made me think, really, is why Dreamworks chose to make a movie about Puss. Surely, Puss is adorable and was a scene-stealer in Shrek 2--what with his cute kitty eyes trick that has managed to recur in this film still to a great comic effect--but the Shrek franchise has gone so passe that one can help but wonder, "is this just another effort to milk the green cow?" Luckily for Puss in Boots, that is not the case, though I now fear an inferior sequel to ruin everything that the first movie was.

A Cat's Tale

Maybe I am growing too old to be as fascinated as the 15 year old me who saw the first Shrek movie and had fun with how they reworked the fairy tale characters. Puss in Boots is enjoyable, for sure. But it's nothing groundbreaking as the first two Shrek movies.

On the plus side, great voice acting as usual from Dreamworks. There are some winning moments and witty ones that deserve praise, and some that don't really feel all too well, but there's more of the former than the latter. The animation is also solid and polished and the 3D made it shine. The script is also good, though a tad bit predictable as the story progresses, which, as you seat through the movie, will make you think that you really are an adult to be watching this.

And I think that's the problem with Puss in Boots. It does not have the charm of say, "Toy Story 3," or the affection of "How to Train Your Dragon" to warrant you not feeling too old for a movie like this. Sure it is rife with comedy, sure it is delightful, sure you'd wanna finish it and not feel ripped off after, but it does not have the oomph you wish it had. Then again, you probably knew that from the beginning and you're not too expectant by the time you're in the movie house, anyways. So what gives, just sit and enjoy.

My verdict:

A passing mark of 3.25/5.

In Review: Friends with Benefits

Friends with Benefits, Will Gluck, 2011

The Gist

Filled to the brim with hilarious pop culture references, humorous dialogues, a little helping of romance here and there, and a great chemistry between Kunis and Timberlake, Friends with Benefits is an endearing rom-com that won't miss any chance to make you laugh. Falling in love with it is, however, an option.

The Good

• really great chemistry between Kunis and Timberlake
• humorous exchange of dialogues with proper pop culture references
• character development is well done, not a flat rom-com as it discusses things other than love

The Bad

• may feel a typical rom-com at times

Synopsis

Dan Harper (Timberlake) is employed as an Art Director of an L.A.-based blog that hits over 6 million views per month. Head hunter Jamie (Mila Kunis), reeling from a breakup, is overjoyed when she finally convinces Dan Harper to try out an interview as an Art Director for GQ Magazine, based in New York. Dan apparently wants to escape L.A. due to a recent breakup and while he feels that New York is not where he belongs, he thinks he might as well give it chance--partly thanks to Jamie's charming personality and persistence. As he settles himself down in New York, his friendship with Jamie grows into something that comes with benefits. They then both learn the hard way that sex and friendship are things that get sticky when mixed.

No Complications

What is so fun about this movie? It is unpretentious and simple. It's a rom-com that talks about sex and you get what is promised. There's also good character development to back up the good dialogues and some background plots that the movie don't take much time to focus on, but make the movie more fleshed out.

Hook Me Up

It's unanimous that Timberlake's and Kunis's chemistry are perfect and that without them, the movie would have been an absolute snooze fest. There is something magical about how easily they connect on-screen and how pleasant they look together. This also helped their acting, which I can only describe as spot-on.

The movie is really actually shallow and feel good, not much depth and can actually feel like a spent rom-com, especially with the cliche advise-realization of never letting go of that someone you want just because you are afraid. Yes, we heard that in every rom-com (like for instance Crazy Stupid Love), and while it is generally true, you'd wish sometimes that they come up with something better. But of course, this didn't stop the movie from being enjoyable. Actually, you will forgive it in the end for using the cliche as the execution of everything that follows and preceded it are very stylish and well-thought of.

Apparently, the director of FWB is the same director of one of my 2010 favorites: Easy A, so now I can't help but compare the two. Emma Stone has a cameo in the movie and Patricia Clarkson assumes the role of a messed up mother on this one as she did on Easy A. Another thing in common with Easy A and FWB is the extensive use of background plots that don't really add much to the main plot, but helps well in developing the characters' background story. Also, in both movies, there is an adorable kid throwing funny lines. And while Easy A is better in every way, it can't also be denied that FWB shines in its own right by being unpretentious and well-thought of. By admitting to itself that it is a rom-com made to make people laugh and believe in love, and commits to that admission, FWB is able to deliver a good movie.

Would it be worth your penny? Probably if you need a laugh. Kunis and Timberlake also bare plenty of skin in this movie and I mean plenty. So if you actually are curious, then it might be something you would want to pay for and see. With this movie, falling in love with it is not promised, but laughing is guaranteed.

My verdict:

A passing and recommended mark of 4/5.

In Review: No Other Woman

No Other Woman, Ruel S. Bayani, 2011

The Gist

An eat your heart out bitch-out fest powered by great performances from Anne Curtis, Cristine Reyes, and Carmi Martin, No Other Woman is a brave take on the subject of infidelity; All at once witty, comic, and powerful, it begs to have the audience asking why it ended with a fizzle instead of a bang that it deserved.

The Good

• great acting and chemistry between the characters
• the script is brilliant, most likely to spawn facebook and twitter status
• a heavy drama that does not go dragging until the end
• set design and costume is proper

The Bad

• very traditional Filipino and dragging ending

Synopsis

Ram Escaler (Ramsey) is a married furniture dealer not above using his good looks and charm to sell expensive furniture to a mostly female clientele. A faithful husband, Ram has since foregone his promiscuous ways and has been faithful to his wife, Charmaine (Cristine Reyes). Luck smiled at his fortune when a client came to his shop to add him to the shortlist of bidders for supplying furniture to a luxury beach resort. Along the way, Ram meets with the Zalderiaga heiress, Kara (Anne Curtis), who helped him secure the deal all the while seducing her way to his heart.

Primetime

In a nutshell, No Other Woman is very soap operatic. In case you've seen those soap operas from the 90s where they fire one verbal missile after another, it's gonna feel like that, though to a good effect. It's a bitchfest where the words have fangs and nails that sink to the skin; and given you are in a safe distance, it is very fun to watch. Kudos to the wonderful dialogues and perfect delivery. The execution of each wonderfully written line gives meat to the whole worn-out skeletal plot of infidelity, and sometimes provides a good comic relief, too.

Not with a Bang, but with a Fizzle

I have bemoaned the way the movie ended long before I even started typing words into this review, so I might as well get this out of the way as soon as possible. The ending is just bad. This is why: the start of the movie is mellow, progressing slowly to a bang, then another bang, then another bang, then the director decides he had enough and ends it with a slow and dragging fizzle that wants to discredit the prior scenes. There was no heavy consequences to face for the characters to end. It felt kind of too redemptive, kind of formulaic and feel-good, felt like a foreign body to a good film. They could've simply ended it at the confrontation scene and made a short scene that discusses the consequences each character now face, but no, the director decided to expand it some more which made for a dragging ending. For me it ended on the last confrontation scene between Charmaine and Kara. That scene is such a climax, everything else after it grew bland.

Anyway, that was how much I despise the ending. Everything else is perfetto. Anne Curtis gave the performance of her life in this one, playing an heiress hell-bound on getting what she wants and ending up a lovely trainwreck. Cristine Reyes who plays a demure housewife also did very well with this one, though not as fine and experienced as Anne. Carmi Martin's portrayal as Cristine's nouveau rich mother delivers one of the most memorable lines in the movie: "I-packup mo na yang Lucy Torres mo, ilabas mo ang Gretchen Barretto mo; ako na'ng bahala sa red stilettos mo." The moviehouse went howling at that. Derek Ramsey didn't do half-bad either, but the women owned this one. Completely.

I would also like to commend the costume design, even if just for Anne Curtis' wardrobe. She did feel like a New Yorker, though with the kind of climate we have here, and yes at the beach, too, it's kind of odd to actually be wearing those. The wardrobe made her look more assertive and bitchy and Westernized, just the kind of girl who'd play mistress and deny that fact to herself.

As I've also noted earlier, the script! Such a thing to be a classic soon. The lines are bound to make it to facebook and twitter shamelessly. The delivery also meant those lines weren't wasted and such a chemistry  hero-villain was made apparent thanks to those lines.

So did it feel like a two-hour seater? Not really. Save for the ending which felt dragging (whose only redemption were Kara's hospital scenes where she is shown completely debased and powerless). As usual with Star-VIVA films, they are edgy but still has that tiny little error which is brought about by Star Cinema's need to be formulaic, commercial, and family-values concerned. The good thing about it is that 3/4 of the movie is so good, you wouldn't mind the dragging ending. It could've been better, then again, it could've been worse. So now, I need to write down my rating.

My verdict:

A passing and recommended mark of 4/5.

In case I haven't spoiled everything for you, here is the trailer for No Other Woman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF-PUiKSn54

In Review: Fright Night (2011)

Fright Night (2011), Craig Gillespie

The Gist

An action-dark-comedy movie with some thriller and suspense elements along the way does not make a horror movie scary, but whatever, this movie contains an amazing performance from Colin Farrell that more than makes up for the lack of the much expected spook.

The Good

• good acting, particularly from Farrell
• great effects
• has some comic moments in it that makes it more appealing to non-horror movie fans

The Bad

• not scary enough
• does not deviate much from the 1985 film in terms of resolution

Synopsis

Charlie Brewster (Anton Yelchin) is having the time of his high school life. He's with the prettiest girl in school and has since forsaken his nerdy ways and friend, Evil Ed Lee (Christopher Mintz-Plasse). However, things change when a new guy named Jerry (Colin Farrell) moves into their neighborhood and the disappearance of his classmates (and soon even Evil Ed) soon becomes too apparent to ignore. Upon Evil Ed's goading and help, Charlie soon finds out that Jerry is a vampire who is out to eat his mom and the whole neighborhood and that with him as the next target, it might be too little too late to take matters into his own hands.

Scary Movie

What went wrong? I really don't know. I don't expect myself to get frightened when I watch scary movies, but this one just didn't give me any. I wanna be like at the edge of my seat frightened the way I was with Insidious, but that didn't happen. There was not much scare after scare after scare affair. And it probably is also for the good. Else it would have been something less of a veritable and credible film. Then again, a credible film does not have a douchy resolution. Also, probably because I've been watching too many True Blood that vampires like this one on the movie does not call to mind much need to be scared. I'm used to them in TV and also, the possible lack of gore on this one did not help either. The scariness did feel like a 1985 affair and so as the ending that I can't help but feel that I did watch the 1985 version (although they differ in a lot of ways).

Turn off the Lights

Not much notable acting going on besides Farrell and David Tennant. But mind you, Farrell owns this one. He was so detestable in the movie, just like how most of the vampires are in True Blood. I mean, why can't you just die, dude, you've been staked by a mile post. And each time he gets back up, you just know trouble is gonna happen and you can't help but root for Yelchin and hi girlfriend. And that's the role of the villain, to be hated and make you root for the heroes, who are thankfully not hate-able (cause some heroes in movies are just begging to be hated).

David Tennant on the other hand lends some comic relief and "character that badly needs redemption" feel to the movie and he did those roles very well. At some point you will be annoyed at him and at some point you will wish him well even if you know he's a total douche.

Pacing was a bit fast and you won't know an hour and 40 has elapsed when the credits start rolling. The effects are also very well done and lends a proper feel for the movie. Character development is also well done, which helped make rooting for Yelchin easy. The script is fine but not as noteworthy as you would like. But still none of these can hide the fact that this is a horror movie without much horror and with that, how easily forgettable it is. It is not a bad movie, just one you won't remember for long.

My verdict:

A passing mark of 3.5/5.