Reviews

I gotta be honest, the film in totality felt rushed & uneven. Visually speaking, the CGI overload was distracting. It's not bad, better than Jack the Giant Slayer that's for sure, but the overall flavor felt so cluttered and artificial. The Moors creatures are adorable though!

There are several factors that made this movie disappointing, if not a failure, but the ultimate crime they did in this big-budgeted fumble of a movie is the overuse of narration. I could only take so much storytelling from a boring voice and several minutes into the movie I was sitting, my mind slowly getting numb, while the lady next to me was busily munching on her extra crunchy corn chips, and I wonder - does Hollywood really think that the audience are stupid? Everything is spoon-fed. Please SHOW, don't tell. Considering it's Stromberg's directorial

debut, maybe it's his way of avoiding the seemingly intimidating task of just doing a few minutes worth of montage. I'm pretty sure half of the film would be unnecessary if they did less narration. That way, Stromberg could have added more interaction between Maleficent and Sleeping Beauty - I totally enjoyed Vivienne's scene with Jolie, and I would have appreciated more scenes like that.

As the credits rolled, I felt nothing. In fact, I have forgotten half of the film already. The first act was kind of shaky for me, like I wasn't too sure what to feel - should I be bored or what? I really didn't know. Add in Sharlto Copley's weird accent that was so distracting that if it's possible to reach in and grab his messy hair I would have - so I could've karate-chopped his Adam's apple! I don't know if he really has some foreign accent in real life, but it's like he's destined to play characters with weird distracting squeaky voices/accents. Yeah, he totally ruined the Oldboy remake for me. Elle Fanning, while being a good actress in her other films, seemed to pale in comparison whenever she's sharing screen time with Jolie. It also seems like she was just an afterthought when they made the screenplay - like "oh wait, we forgot to add Sleeping Beauty! You know, the actual protagonist in the story?" Yeah. Her character was so dry, Fanning really couldn't do much but skip-pity hop in the moors playing with troll-like creatures. Baby Aurora had more character development than her. It felt like a big chunk of the film was spent showing Maleficent blowing some fairy dust and making people sleep and make them float around like puppets. The ending was so blah I just wanted to get out of the cinema already. I mean what's up with (spoilers alert) pretty boy prince (who can't act even if a machine gun is pointed at him) making gooey eyes with the newly-crowned Not-so-sleepy-Sleeping Beauty after we have established the fact that his kiss didn't pass the "true love kiss"? I don't know what that means, except that maybe there really is no true love except parental love, so why not marry the first handsome prince to come our way? I don't know. I didn't get that.

I still feel that despite the shaky direction and screenplay (not to mention the sometimes cringe-worthy script) it's still one of the better re-telling of a classic fairy tale. The sole reason for that is Angelina Jolie as the titular character. Suffice to say, she owned this role! I do think that this movie doesn't deserve her, but it's really nice to see her play a role that only the likes of Johnny Depp might consider, and kick ass with the limp material they provided her with. Without her, this film would be total trash. At least now we know she can do quirky costumed character roles. I could easily get lost and forget about the effects and side characters just by looking at her expressions. Okay, I admit that when she wailed a few times I thought it was a bit cheesy. But damn it she saved this film even if the jilted lover angle is so clichéd!

Maleficent is not terrible. But with its huge budget and one of the biggest A-listers in the universe as the lead with a bunch of little popular names around her, and some seasoned technical people behind the camera/script, this could have been better. Way better than the lackluster spectacle (forgive the oxymoron) that it actually is.

Wait, haven't I seen this before? Oh yeah that has Gerard Butler in it and this one has ships and a forgettable protagonist as flat as a cardboard that not even Eva Green bouncing up and down his man pole could spark some life in him.

It's not for the lack of trying, because it's evident from the gazillion gallons of blood used in this movie that they truly wanted to make a good film. Too bad that Zack Snyder did all of that in 300. It's nice to see some familiar characters with the addition of Eva Green (though I'm not entirely sold with her character, it's just that she's the only memorable one), because without them, it's like watching shirtless amateur actors with acting worthy of a TV movie. The whole duration of the film I was wondering how the hell did Noam Murro bag this gig and if he really thought that all the non-stop blood-spurting & Eva Green's boobs will ensure positive critical & box office reception? It earned more than 300 million dollars so I guess it worked. LOL.

Oh and by the by, I could suspend my disbelief with almost everything, but I just couldn't force myself to believe that horse will gallop so valiantly in that ship, plank to plank, and run through fire, and jump into the water. Unless he is a Spartan.

Snyder's 300, despite my "meh" attitude towards his green screen visuals, is still a solid action-pumped entertainment mainly because of Gerard Butler (and good ol' Fassie!). Now, without Snyder behind the camera and Butler on the screen shouting crazy yet awesome stuff like "Tonight we dine in hell!!", 300: Rise of an Empire crumbles to dust even before managing to actually rise. I was at least expecting some sort of "THIS. IS. SPARTA!", what I get is a half-hearted lame speech about democracy from Mr. Cardboard Man (gosh I don't even know his name).

Typical of Hollywood, this is just another cheap attempt to cash in on a successful movie, bungling its simple formula, and inadvertently killing (hopefully for eternity) this franchise.

My Rating: 1.5/5

READ MORE OF MY REVIEWS AT: http://strangereview.blogspot.com/#sthash.k9wDSUgJ.dpuf

A surprisingly good horror flick that both tickles your mind and chills your spine, which in today's trend (horror genre) is pretty refreshing - and rare.

For the hardcore horror fans who don't flinch at the sight of Sadako's hairy face or accidentally crap their pants while watching The Exorcist, well they may scoff at this movie's lack of scares. But for me, who screams at the sight of my own shadow, Oculus is just the right amount of creepy & thrilling.

Sometimes it's a bit weak, but the acting & superb editing keeps you glued and at the edge of your seat. The score which gives you a sense of foreboding also adds to the impending doom that has been masterfully manipulated by the director using a series of flashbacks intertwined with the siblings' present & increasingly is-it-delusion-or-is-it-really-the- mirror dilemma.

Karen Gillan deserves a mention for an excellent performance as the lead character.

And I'll seriously be on the lookout for Flanagan's future projects.

My Rating: 4.5/5 - It's not the best horror film ever and I doubt if it's gonna be a cult classic, but for the genre it belongs to it surely deserves better recognition.

READ MORE OF MY REVIEWS ON BLOGGER: http://strangereview.blogspot.com/#sthash.k9wDSUgJ.dpuf

Large-scale, more ambitious, yet as tight & tense as the first one - Berandal is a must-see even for those who aren't into Asian movies. If The Raid hasn't changed your mind, this one will.

This is best seen uncut and subbed. Never watch a foreign movie with English dub.

I really loved The Raid despite the lack of plot & dialogue. I couldn't imagine how Gareth Evans could up the ante and make an equally engaging action movie. Now, obviously trying for complexity & character development, Evans serves us, not only a platter, but a buffet of interesting characters, unending action & gore, and a storyline that's bigger than a dilapidated building with cramped hallways. It may take several minutes into the film to be able to memorize all those names (especially if you're also trying to recall the names in the first film) but hey you know what? It doesn't matter. The minute the action starts, every little detail in your mind melts as you witness an insane amount of bone-crunching, blood-spurting, throat-gashing, jaw-breaking, ball-breaking, hammer-gouging scenes for more than two hours. While that amount of time may usually be a weakness to typical action flicks as they may need some time to cool down, Berandal just keeps on going and going and going with the same intensity as when it started - that is if not more.

Iko Uwais as Rama is better than ever, and the new cast is absolutely charming in a gory way.

I've read that Berandal was supposed to be a stand alone film but Evans decided to connect The Raid with it to make it a part of the trilogy. Well it shows, because there are times when Rama just disappears from the story and the film focuses on Uco (Arifin Putra), Bejo (Alex Abbad) and their "family" issues, which sometimes makes Rama a supporting character, and not the major driving force to the film's plot. And as much as I love Mad Dog, his sudden appearance seems out of place. It's like he was put there just because he played a vital and unforgettable role in the first film, and even though his scenes were relevant to Berandal's plot, it just felt forced.

I also felt that sometimes the hand-to-hand combat was a bit repetitive but maybe that's me being sleepy & tired. My favorite is Hammer Girl and I would have wanted more scenes with her smashing and puncturing skulls & bones. Even if they seemed a bit too "graphic novel", being there more for style than anything else, she & baseball bat man are scene stealers. I just wonder how kick ass they would be if their enemies have guns. Then again we have to suspend our disbelief (as usual) since guns were rarely used in here.

Still, The Raid 2 is in my list of best action films of all time - The Raid still a notch higher in my book though.

READ MORE OF MY REVIES ON BLOGGER: http://strangereview.blogspot.com/#sthash.k9wDSUgJ.dpuf

Sometimes, I think Michael Bay is really just a teenage boy on crack who is obsessed with his robots & cars & explosions - like a kid playing with his toys & bumping them against each other and not caring about anything else. Because that's evident yet again in his recent blockbuster movie, a term that I will grudgingly use in this post. It's not a movie, it's more like an extended video of metal clashing against metal & mind-numbing explosions, and product placements here & there - this is not a film, it's an over-sized boy's overindulgent wet dream.

Now, now, I don't hate this film - even if it's really stupid & loud & everything seems to be irritating. To be fair, Mark Wahlberg & Stanley Tucci made this one bearable, and some times fun. The daughter, boyfriend, & goofy friend on the other hand are incredibly stupid. And I definitely prefer this than that awful third installment. No, I don't hate it. Because the graphics are really awesome, the autobots are cute, & like I've said, Wahlberg & Tucci's charisma won me over. But that's about it, aside from those I've mentioned - this is a pretty shallow & forgettable film.

First of all, for a movie with no seemingly cohesive plot/script, T:AofE is pretty darn long! I kept on looking at my watch and wonder when the hell will the movie end? I get that Bay caters to people who love these robots & explosions & action, but Jesus H. Christ this guy doesn't know the meaning of subtlety! Granted that the CGI is amazing, in my opinion, and the robots are slick & mesmerizing, but the thing is, when they clash and wreck things, all becomes a blur that you won't even care what the hell is happening, not to mention the fact that since the characters aren't fully fleshed out - so whatever is going on in the screen, my reaction most of the time is a nonchalant "eh?" and an occasional "meh". There's too much of everything that the only feeling I've had halfway through is "jaded."

You know you're looking at something attractive, but your brain becomes muddled as if it has short-circuited because of the garbage that it's trying to process, so half of the time you just sit there, munching on some overpriced popcorn, wondering if seeing this mind-numbing mess of a movie really worth it? Then again you can't think because your brain is temporarily fried.

Who cares about plot & characterization? This is an action movie about robots and that's all that matters! Note that that's the usual argument of Transformers' fans and while they may have a point, however superficial, of course it's ultimately flawed. To all the fanboys out there who accuse critics of being a bunch of arrogant pseudo-intellectuals for wanting something more than bangs & booms, be a little more open-minded and see the view from the other side. Is it really wrong to want something more than clichéd characters/plot, cheesy dialogue, & shaky action (because I admit that during scenes where Bay just goes crazy & just puts every robots, ammos, grenades, & cars he has altogether - it all becomes a mess)? After all, we all paid for tickets. But then again, by this time you already know how Michael Bay works & how much fudge he doesn't give, so seriously, this is a losing battle. I say, critics, back the hell off because no matter what you say you won't win this war. And that's quite obvious.... After 4 blockbuster Transformers movies.

Let's face it, this franchise is nowhere near extinction and we will still be on the lookout for Transformers 5 despite the spider sense ringing inside our heads warning us to stay the hell away from it. Maybe that's Michael Bay's real (and only?) talent, that is, to successfully lure us into his trap with colorfully-wrapped candies - which if you think about it - too much will give you diabetes. Here's a nice thought to end this review: Wouldn't it be intriguing to see someone else direct Transformers, to maybe prevent us from having gangrene?

READ MY FULL REVIEW ON BLOGSPOT: strangereview.blogspot.com/2014/07/transformers-age-of-extinction- 2014.html#comments

This movie is beautiful despite the fact that it depicts the dirtier aspects of our country - geographically, politically, socially speaking. Seriously, this movie is a must-see for everybody. I wish I see more of this in mainstream Pinoy cinemas. Everything is well put together, the music is exciting, the editing and cinematography is professionally done, the story is tight, the camera-work is engaging (a work of art, a labor of love. It's that good), the opening scene captures your attention, and the ending leaves you satisfied (or wanting more). It's perfect.

• read my full review on Blogger: http://strangereview.blogspot.com/2014/01/on-job- 2013.html#sthash.GKoXwyiy.dpuf

This may be actually the first time that I'll complain of an adaptation (of a book that I love) being unnecessarily prolonged. Seriously, a trilogy??? Of one little book?! While the first installment was enjoyable though in a juvenile way, it becomes apparent in Desolation of Smaug the fillers that Peter Jackson has to add just to make the main plot last all the way to the third installment. And that irks me. It really does. It would have been kick-ass if it was a two-part adaptation, but a trilogy it never should have been.

Despite my issues, I didn't regret seeing it (you should too, if only by principle) and I would still watch the last installment. Imagine us audience being Radagast The Brown when he asked "What if it's a trap?" and Peter Jackson as Gandalf The Grey replying "It's undoubtedly a trap." The Hobbit trilogy indeed is a trap disguised in more or less 9 hours of CGI-fest, beautiful elves, cute dwarfs, an amusing hobbit, & a majestic dragon set up by PJ to make us say "Shut up and take our money!"

my full review on Blogger: http://strangereview.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-hobbit-desolation-of- smaug-peter.html

As a movie, it may be lacking in action by today's standards, but for me, it's easily one of the best I've seen. Maybe I'm biased. But I don't think so. lol. It's not perfect, but watching it again 25 years later, I gotta say that it stood the test of time and it's a movie that's still relevant today as it was in 1984. Today's definition of fantasy or family movies involves mindless comedies or stunts with an overdose of CGI. If I'm gonna compare it to food, those are junk foods. TNES is one of the main course. It makes you full. You need to digest it to absorb the nutrients. It's not a momentary hunger fix, or sugar-spiker. Its impact is long-lasting. Like a lifetime in fact.

Read my FULL REVIEW on Blogger, thanks!

http://strangereview.blogspot.com/2013/12/starting-my-own-christmas- tradition.html

Zack Snyder has got style, that's for sure. But my problem with him is that his movies are all gloss and pretty pictures, but lacking in substance. Maybe it's his trademark, but this is the reason why it's hard for me to warm up to him. Too bad, because I was expecting something that will raise the standards & revitalize the inexplicably humdrum trend of the Superman franchise and I thought the time has come. Not this year. Man of Steel is simply another superhero/blockbuster movie that's high on repetitive explosive action and booming sound effects, but sadly low on any lasting impact.

This movie had all the ingredients to be another benchmark for superhero movies that could have redefined the Superman franchise. But unfortunately, it's just another explosive movie that relies heavily on CGI & mindless action to cover up the fact that it's riddled with plot holes & boring one-dimensional characters, massacring its source material. Didn't live up to expectations. It's as lame as that neck snap. Like its poster, this movie is all just a blur.

my full review on Blogger :) http://strangereview.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-man-of-steel-2013.html

"Eyes bright, chins up, smiles on. I'm talking to you Katniss." Still sulky, still independent, still a pain in the ass - it's so fun to watch Katniss Everdeen (played by the ever so charming Jennifer Lawrence) annoy the hell out of President Snow and his Stormtroopers - er, Peace Keepers, once again.. and kick some baboon's ass.

Francis Lawrence sitting in the director's chair seems to be a good choice (but it would have been interesting if David Cronenberg or Alfonso Cuaron, who were also considered, have been chosen). But I'm happy with Lawrence's work. Catching Fire is a huge improvement over Gary Ross' The Hunger Games. The returning cast did a way better job than what they did in the first movie. Screenplay was essentially faithful to the book. Of course changes were made, but that's necessary. I have no complaints regarding that.

It's not a perfect film nor is it a perfect fantasy/sci-fi story - but considering its source material, they can only do so much, and they did more than enough, more than I've expected. And I left the cinema satisfied.

Read my FULL REVIEW on Blogger, thanks! http://strangereview.blogspot.com/2013/11/catching-fire-2013-much- better-more.html

Don't mind the fact that this is a low-budget film made in 1963. Or that Arch Hall Jr. has a cheesy filmography to boast (or not) about. The Sadist is one of those B-movies that stands the test of time and deserves every bit of recognition it could get. The only thing that's dated in this film, aside from the clothes, is the Coca-Cola bottle.

It's seriously one of the most tension-filled movie I've seen from start to finish - especially that climax! Modern film makers could learn a thing or two from this little black & white exploitation movie that's unfortunately, undeservingly buried in obscurity - unbeknownst to most people.

This movie is suspenseful and thrilling from start to finish. It has no gore (you can see a bit of blood in some scenes but that's about it), no over the top violence, no sex, it was made in the 60's with a budget of more or less 33,000 dollars - and yet, the terror is so thick, the scenes are taut - this is a truly well-directed film and in my honest opinion, a far more superior movie than most big-budgeted horror- thrillers nowadays. The extra long climax was one of the most well- executed scenes I've seen.

go here for my full review :) http://strangereview.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-sadist-is-best-torture- you-can.html

That's actually the most deceitful movie tagline of all time -- and I'm not amused. Using a gazillion gallons of fake blood is not terrifying. A deadite basically knocked-off from The Exorcist isn't terrifying. A series of quick "scary inserts" and loud sound effects supposedly meant to make the viewers jump off their seats isn't terrifying. Lots of severed limbs and vomiting isn't terrifying. NO. NO. NO! Not one bit in this movie is terrifying!

Okay, I'm not at all a biased reviewer. So let me start with the good points. First of all, the cinematography/photography & lighting is really good. It definitely has that eerie atmosphere fit for a horror movie, and there are great shots that add to the visual quality of the film. But then again, there's a shot somewhere which greatly reminded me of The Walking Dead, is that a good or bad thing? I don't really know, but it makes it less special. Secondly, it's really nice to see a movie which utilizes practical effects rather than an overload of CGI (that to me is the bane of today's film industry), which is also a nostalgic nod to the Raimi original. Third, is the smart decision not to do a FULL REMAKE of the original. Alvarez did a slightly different take on the story and mood, and that to me is his advantage - because seriously, who could ever replace Bruce Campbell or remake the original Evil Dead?

Since this is a splatter horror flick, then let's consider the gore. Yes, it's gory, especially made obvious by the veritable fountain of blood. But is it cringe-worthy? I don't know if I'm too old for this or I've seen too much gory movies, but this didn't do anything for me. The only genuine reaction that this movie elicited from me was when Mia was trapped in that small niche and Abomination Mia was plunging that big ass machete or something, hitting Mia in the leg and arm. That's it. Otherwise, the gore was over-the-top it became funny at times, which considering the serious tone they presented to us, I'm sure it's unintentional. There's just too much blood and repetitive crap that after a while there's really no more shock value.

We also have a bunch of uninteresting characters that I really couldn't care less seeing them getting hacked, bashed, slashed, nail-attacked etc. Alvarez spent a good chunk of the first act trying to establish an emotional connection with the characters, but they're still so severely underdeveloped. Mia was okay. Now, I'm not saying that Ash and his gang were the epitome of fully fleshed out characters, of course not. But Raimi didn't focus on that, he didn't expect us to invest on the characters' personal lives. He gave us a fun-filled, gory, scary cabin action. 2013, on the other hand, tried to add depth, but failed. It's a wasted opportunity really. They could have just spend the time telling us more about the demon, (no Deadite term referenced at all) instead of wasting our time making us like characters which are utterly, so painfully unlikeable.

I don't like it. I don't hate it. I don't care about it. Those expecting a good remake or just a good horror flick, turn around, this is not it. Unless you enjoy a movie with lots of blood, dismemberment, & stupid characters, then fine. Go ahead, feast on this mother-effer.

If you want to read my full review, and read more about my comparison, click here. thanks! http://strangereview.blogspot.com/2013/08/evil-dead-2013-why-this- remake-is-so.html

Luis Buñuel, probably the king of surrealist films, opens Belle de Jour, his first color film, with a couple of lingering shots and minimal sound which makes me feel like I was thrown in a different world or staring at beautiful paintings - which rightly sets the mood for 100 minutes of pure surreal movie experience.

On the film's technical aspects, there is no background music except for the all-important bird/bell sounds; and the cinematography & lighting are not as visually satisfying as other films i've seen. It's probably intentional on Buñuel's part, I wouldn't know.. but it doesn't affect the quality of the film at all. The smooth/uninterrupted editing, I think is nicely done because the transition between Belle's fantasies & realities looks seamless which adds to the film's puzzling "which is which" reality. But the "fantasy" scenes, in my opinion, are just excellent in its simplicity, not too much garish artsy fartsy touch, but enough technical creativeness to give the audience a pure surreal treat.

Not a bad choice for a Buñuel virgin. I thoroughly enjoyed seeing his masterful manipulation of his surrealist techniques and his tasteful execution of "sexual depravities" without having to resort to showing any nudity or crass sex scenes. At the end of the film, it's interesting to note that in a way, this is like a mix of Inception, The Housemaid, and Mulholland Drive, but satisfyingly less complicated. It doesn't mean that it won't leave you scratching your head, as Buñuel decides to keep this film open to your own interpretations.

Catherine Deneuve IS Belle de Jour. I just love her in this one.

Really, it's A GOOD DAY TO WRECK CARS. That's the only thing I enjoyed in this movie.

I know that in a typical Hollywood action movie, an intricate plot seems to be the director's last priority. Just put in a lot of action scenes, a lot of gunplay, a lot of explosions, and who cares about the plot right? I for one can easily forgive a plot less action flick as long as it delivers on other aspects. But really, Yippe Ki-Yay Mother Russia?? Really?? A sign of a lazy plot is when it involves the CIA and stereotyped Russia. That's just so archaic. They weave this Chernobyl mastermind plot, yes it may sound exciting, but then they just leave it as it is. With no real villain, no real terrorist threat, no real conflict, and no surprise twists.

The characters are severely underdeveloped, and if this is the first time you'll watch a Die Hard movie, you might not wanna watch the others because John McClane here is just so blah. His one-liners are basically hit or miss, and his stupid "I'm on a vacation!!!" line uttered ad nauseum almost made me wanna stop the movie just to go online to rate AGDTDH 1 Star on Rotten Tomatoes. Jai Courtney as Jack McClane has the right build to be the next Bruce Willis, but his character is just so unlikeable, and the father-son conflict felt forced.

The action scenes distracted me from the blandness of the script, but I'm not saying it's something to be impressed about. They messed up a lot of cars and a big ass helicopter that's all i can say.

There's nothing more to say about this film because as soon as that credits rolled up, I have forgotten most of it.

The Verdict:

Forgettable plot, weak script, underdeveloped characters. A prime example of a mediocre movie carrying a big title. Bruce Willis felt like a side kick here and it seems like it's a set-up for Jai Courtney to take over. I think it's A GOOD DAY TO END THIS FRANCHISE. But since they're still making Die Hard 6 - maybe they can use this movie as reference on what NOT to do when making sequels. John Moore should take a sabbatical and reassess his life's ambitions.

As the taglines imply, this movie will keep you floating in a weird & troubling dream-like state of mind. It's dark - technically and thematically speaking. It requires an open mind, a desire to watch something new or challenging, and rapt attention for the viewer to fully appreciate it. Eraserhead is the kind of film where you can analyze it for years and still you wouldn't be 100% sure. Watch it with ten of your friends and you'll get different opinions and interpetations.

First few minutes, I was reminded of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. The long, lingering shots. The seemingly random images or sequence. The unsettling sound. It takes you out of your movietime comfort zone. And I liked it. So I continued watching.

Eraserhead is terrifying in such a way that it takes you in, unsettles you, includes you in Henry's nightmarish world, and fascinates you with it's striking visuals and camera shots, unnerves you with the grating almost mechanical musical score, and keeps you intrigued with its two lead stars: Henry and the baby. I sat and watched, fascinated & unnerved at the same time, not wanting to see the ugliness of it all and yet I know for sure that I will watch this again as soon as possible. And therein lies this film's beauty.

Really not for everybody.... But I suggest you watch it if only to see Jack Nance's enigmatic facial expressions and cool hairstyle. That's one movie character I will never forget. And this is one movie that I will continue to re-watch for reasons pretty much like why people keep on looking at works of art, as if there's a secret hidden in it.

WHAT I FELT AFTER WATCHING:

I felt cheated. It was 2 hours 10 minutes of my life and it was wasted for this junk. I rarely regret spending my time watching movies, even the crappy ones, but after the credits rolled i looked at my brother (who was laughing probably from relief that the movie is finished), and i was like "WTF was that??" Andrew Niccol damn you for insulting your viewers, by making this subpar film, and writing a lazy ass screenplay that obviously just heavily relies on its existing book fanbase to fill in the blanks and forgive your lack of character/plot depth and development."

THE VERDICT:

Two hours and ten minutes is too long for a movie with a sloppy script, lazy editing, boring scenes and dialogues, so-so cast, uninspired acting, forgettable cinematography, unfocused plot, minimal action scenes, and whatever musical score. It's like watching a flat line in a heart monitor, hoping for that spike or beep, but unfortunately it didn't happen. The whole movie is just one long painfully boring 2-hour flat line.

The movie version is a toned-down, infinitely cleaner & more positive take on Ellis' disturbing novel - it still has captured the decadent lifestyle of the characters, but less of the shock value the novel has presented. I say "more positive" because the characters had redeeming qualities here, which the novel lacked, and the ending was kind of a happy ending despite of what happened. The movie, I felt, went on a cowardly path because it basically changed everything in the book. The Blair-Clay approach of the movie is so typical of Hollywood and it's one of the movie's aspects that I really didn't like. Two things that make this movie legit and worth watching though is the music which gives you that wonderful 80's vibe, and Robert Downey Jr.'s moving performance.

The movie revolves around two siblings - an insulin-dependent Hansel with big guns, and a foul-mouthed cleavage-showing Gretel armed with a crossbow - abandoned by their parents when they were kids and lured by a house made of candy only to be imprisoned, enslaved, and fattened by an ugly witch.

The idea of the classic fairy tale characters as bounty hunters is interesting (as fairy tales nowadays are being turned into something darker or modern, whether in TV or movies), but the movie itself is sloppily made to the point of being irrelevant and forgettable. It has its rare funny moments, and the action and gore, while it is not fantastic, are enough to keep you tuned in (but only because of the movements, which your eyes are forced to follow), and Gemma Arterton as snarky bitch Gretel is fun to watch. But this is one hot mess of a movie with little or thin plot and cartoonish villains with no backstories other than that they are bad, ugly witches who abducts children, and two protagonists that are as developed as a rock, and I wouldn't watch it again even if I see it on cable.

Foul-mouthed, deglamorized, angry at the world - is Melissa McCarthy getting type-casted? I hope not because as much as I enjoy her as a comedy actress, seeing her in the same abrasive role for several movies straight makes her less appealing for me. Having said that, her role here is a big improvement over Identity Thief, because her delivery in this movie is more spot on in an over-the-top crazy way. Sandra Bullock, still better in Miss Congeniality, has her funny moments as well. Marlon Wayans is surprisingly watered-down and ain't that a breath of fresh air? haha.

The film's use of clichéd materials is probably intentional and two formidable female characters in a man's profession is parallel to the movie's buddy-cop genre where men are usually casted. It could have been (& should have been) the start of a new thing in this genre had this movie been handled better, but seeing that it's already a success & buzz of a rumored sequel is already floating around, then I guess we will see more of these two, hopefully with a better, more polished sequel.

The Verdict: Bullock-McCarthy proved to be a worthy duo in a male- dominated genre but there's only so much they could do to elevate this rather predictable and average movie. They have done their part with their trademark comedic timing & passable chemistry, but overall, this movie has more miss than hit. The Heat has several hilarious moments & surprisingly witty lines but I blame the script & direction for this generic, crass, & slightly out-of-sync comedy.

The first scene caught me off-guard, feeling and sensing the real people behind the hypnotic yet grotesque rotoscope animation. At first it might distract or feel weird seeing shakiness all over and big eyes seemingly pulsating in and outside the lines of their faces, but after the initial unsettling cartoonish vibe, everything just becomes more surreal. It's art, and it's beautiful.

Richard Linklater's attention to details with his cameraworks and cinematography gives you a unique experience, but what makes his movies stand the test of time is his script. As taut as a newly-adjusted guitar string, his dialogues/script reverberates from your ear into your mind & into your soul, and it will be hard to shake it out of your system . It's as real as life, as tight as Superman's spandex. It's a fantastical feeling. At some point while watching I ask myself, if this is done without the animation, would it be the same movie? No. What makes Waking Life as surreal & beautiful as a famous work of art is the fusion of its unique animation, script, & the music. The fast-talking, quick-paced documentary vibe, the use of musical instruments that stirs at your soul, the fascinating animation, and the thought-provoking dialogues worked perfectly for me. As one character has said, "Don't ever be bored!" And I wasn't.

As the writer character in the movie said, the greatest story ever told is "people, gestures, moments, bits of rapture, fleeting emotions." You don't need a coherent plot or a named protagonist for this kind of movie, all you need is to clear your mind and enjoy this wonderful, cerebral dream-like experience. And before you drift off, DON'T FORGET, which is to say, REMEMBER, because remembering is so much more a psychotic activity than forgetting, the iguana will bite those who do not dream.

The first 40 minutes, I was excited & impressed. I like James McAvoy, I think he's a really good & charismatic actor. And Vincent Cassel, in my opinion, always delivers. The movie pumps you up with an intriguing storyline, flashy & artsy camera shots & angles, thrilling scenes backed up with a really good musical score. Then enter Rosario Dawson. It has been a steady downward spiral from that point on. No, it's not because of her, although I thought she looked a bit tired 90 % of the film. It's the plot and the shameful use of hypnotherapy as the driving force of the whole movie. Hypnotherapy as the structure of the movie? That makes the plot shaky at best. The moment Rosario inserted herself in the scheme I found myself shaking my head more and more.

Trance almost had everything that makes a movie work. Good cast, great direction, interesting cameraworks, good editing, stylish neo-noir execution, and really great music. Unfortunately, like poor Tin Man without the heart and The Lion without courage, this one has a weak script which essentially takes away the soul of the movie. It's a classic case of style-over-substance, easily disguised as a mind-bending intellectual movie with the use of "is this real?" sequences, change of perspective, and thrill rides, that can masterfully dupe the audience into thinking that they're watching Leo with a Spotless Mind.

Danny Boyle has style, that's for sure, but he should have given equal attention to the plot as he did to his camera shots & artsy vibe of the whole film. It's not at all bad, the music and style is enough reason to enjoy this movie and send you in a 100-minute trance-like state, but after the credits roll, like a snap of a finger, you wake up after that trippy ride, shake your head, look around, and mutter, "Seriously?"

Mama may not be the perfect horror flick, but it sure has all the right elements of a good movie. The horror is palpable, the story is well- crafted, the cinematography is perfect for the setting, the music/ambient sounds are chilling, and while I can't say that the whole cast gave a solid performance I think it's safe to say that the two girls are the stars in this movie. I love that the terror is almost tangible perfectly backed up by the dark yet stunning visuals reminiscent of Del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth. Not a disappointing first film for Andy Muschietti, because even though the elements in this movie are not original, he has managed to put in his own flavor, twist an already familiar bits & pieces from popular horror movies and turn it into something effectively chilling without making us feel cheated. The clichés worked. At least for me. I'm looking forward to another Del Toro-Muschietti collaboration.

check out my blog for the full review :) http://strangereview.blogspot.com/2013/06/mama-2013.html

I watched this expecting something that is in the category of "worst movies ever made" basing from reviews and ratings I have read, and even though it has a current rating of 4% (critics) & 30% (audience) in Rotten Tomatoes, I'm a bit ashamed that I don't think it's that bad. Yes the humor in this film ranges from offensive to downright nasty, but once you let go of your righteous indignation, I think it's quite enjoyable. Now, before you brand me as a mindless dumb ass with no taste in movies for saying I've enjoyed this one, stop right there and let me explain :)

I'm not saying this is a masterpiece. It has no plot, only themed skits. The story lines are ludicrous, the jokes are offensive & tasteless, but what made this actually funny is that IT'S MEANT TO BE LUDICROUS AND OFFENSIVE. The big names obviously didn't do this for the money or prestige, so the fact that they're there means they're just having fun (either that or they're really good friends with the producers/directors) & makes me wanna have fun as well.

The fact that the people behind this movie included scat/toilet humor, incestuous jokes, nudity/sexual content, graphic violence, racial slurs and other derogatory terms etc. etc. reinforces the idea that this film doesn't take itself seriously and they probably just made that movie to test the limits of the audience's ability to take offense. Like a nuisance candidate in a typical Filipino presidential elections/campaign, you know they're up to no good, but it sure is damn entertaining to watch them on national TV. Stupid and shameless yes, but a big props to them for having balls.

The Verdict: Consider yourself warned. Leave your brains in the freezer or under the couch before watching this film because you don't need to do any form of thinking. Seeing Gerald Butler as a foul-mouthed, 2 1/2 feet tall leprechaun, or Hugh Jackman with balls hanging in his neck are signs that this movie doesn't aspire to be anything other than of shock humor value. Obviously it didn't work with most people, but I suggest you try it, who knows, maybe you can enjoy some tasteless comedy once in a while.

My Rating: 2.5/5 - I can't guarantee that this movie will make you laugh (i think you have to be in the right mood to be as lenient as I was), if you're easily offended or disgusted, then skip this one.

Considering that this is a low-budget film, with a draft idea written overnight with Psycho as the model in mind, and a final script made in a few days, - the result is surprisingly good. Dialogue is a bit stilted, and the plot is simple, the "big reveal" is not surprising, but Francis Coppola has managed to use everything to his advantage. Castle Haloran is a perfect setting for the Gothic ambiance of the film, shots were done in such a way that maximized the creepiness of the surroundings/props, and for a movie that's from the 60's it has a good dose of violence and blood and shows its lead actress in her undergarments.

The story is simple yet eerie and dark, the characters are interesting to watch, and the horror scenes are chilling and effective without being campy. What surprised me a bit is the lack of red herring in the plot, I guessed who the killer was really early on and I kept thinking that it's too easy, that I will be proved wrong. But there was no surprise twist. The result of a rushed script.

But underneath the seeming simplicity of the plot and the stilted dialogue, lies a chilling story of a family plagued with an unspeakable horror and tragedy mingled with, as the title suggested, dementia. I really like the camera angles, the play on shadows/darkness, the dark looming facade of the castle, the perfectly placed "scares", the right amount of violence which I'm sure made the audience from that era cringe, and the tension-building musical score.

The Verdict:

This film is by no means along the level of Psycho, but it is relevant in its own way as this marks the debut of Coppola, and it's refreshing to see his take on a low-budget horror film and observe his techniques early in his career. He took the Gothic, risqué, and psychological elements of Psycho and put in his own flavor - the result is a cult classic horror movie that is still worth watching today especially if you are a fan of the horror genre or of Coppola.

Well what I didn't expect was that this seemingly average film with all it's simple elements or limitations has managed to turn it into something complex and with thrilling unpredictability. I was shocked - to actually see this masterpiece hiding in obscurity, and enjoy it immensely. Everything about it screams classic, and yet it's techniques are even better than most modern movies. The director is a genius. The story itself, instead of sticking to the formula of its genre, has written a convoluted story of human morality, obsessive love, betrayal in such a way that you really can't predict what will happen; and made it so thrilling that you find yourself on the edge of your seat, waiting for the scene to unfold. What also made this film more interesting is that the villain is a female sexual predator with a seemingly unstable personality - which defies how Korean women at that time should act in society. This antagonist gets what she wants and she took control and made everyone around her submissive to her wishes. I wouldn't expound on the plot/story anymore. You just have to watch it.

The acting is great. One of the best from any cast I've seen. Even the children were so damn effective (esp the boy). The housemaid, hands down, is the star of this movie. She is so freaky and terrifying, but still managed to evoke my sympathy. The couple did great too. Each one of them are worthy of praise because if handled sloppily, their characters will lose something. Whether they'll lose the sympathy from the audience, or credibility. Superior acting. (I've read that the actress who played the housemaid has been so effective that women hated her so much that movie producers were hesitant to cast her in other projects. Her career went to a screeching halt. Pity.)

My favorite aspect of this movie is its camera works. Wow. I really love it. It reminded me of Hitchcock, with its playful camera angles, & uncommon camera movements, zooming in and out from one room to another in a fluid technique. Every shot has a purpose, even the littlest, seemingly random things in the house helped in adding to the sinister feel of the movie. Add in the piano sounds properly injected in scenes, the result is an ominous, creepy mood all throughout. The editing is very clean and seamless. I really like that fade out-fade in transition of scenes. Unlike the movies nowadays with their lazy editing.

This film has been restored and the result was great with sharp black & white photography, and even with those scenes that are patchy/blurry, the product is magnificent. The lighting is great. Again, this is a superior movie, can't stress that enough. :)

The Verdict:

This is a great film. So simple and yet so complicated. It teaches you that love should be taken seriously and treated responsibly, and that one mistake, whether it's intentional or not, could turn your world upside down. A brilliant, timeless masterpiece that must have been controversial during its time, and still relevant in this modern age.