Film Review: "Dai-Nihonjin"

Starring: Hitoshi Matsumoto, Riki Takeuchi, Ua, Ryūnosuke Kamiki

Director: Hitoshi Matsumoto

Initial Release Date/s: 06/02/07 [Japan]

Running Time: 113 Minutes

The Land of the Rising Sun maybe a small archipelago, in contrast to its other fellow-First World countries. But its dreams, will and creativity, are far larger than all First World countries combined. And no one, I means no one, can deny that.

Presented to us is a mockumentary film-style that follows the life of Masaru Daisato [Matsumoto]. He looks like your average Japanese man walking around town, going to his favorite ramen shop, or tavern, sometimes sleeping in house/office, and at times wondering the streets as a form of  leisure. Daisato also has a daughter, which he really loves dearly, with his estranged wife. He rarely gets to see her due to his unusual occupation. Now you begin to wonder, why would a documentary film is perusing around town with this typical? It’s revealed that Daisato is a superhero. Yes. You heard me say it, “superhero.” Daisato – or “Big Man-Sato,” as he is referred to by the public – comes from a long line of “Big Men,” which are these giant humanoid beings that grow to an exponentially high size, through the aide of high-voltage electricity. His job, when transformed into this 30 meter high meta-human, is to defend Japan from the constant terror of mythological monsters, called daikaiju [which means strange beast, or monster, in English], that come from ancient Japanese folklore. The main thing that makes his job a little bit harder than most is that he is the last of his kind. His grandfather, called Big Man IV, is still alive, but is at the edge of senility and resides in a retirement home. Our hero is more of an antihero, because he is more stricken by melancholy than heroic valiance, and fights with ennui. To top it all off, he not only has to face giant demons, but his inner-demons as well, like alcoholism, depression, and his flip-flop celebrity status, which is where the majority of his income comes from.

The film in itself is a satirical symbol of capitalism in contemporary culture, Japanese pop culture, Japanese values towards familial relationships, and the internationally popular Japanese’s monster film industry. The two main aspects which I want to talk about is the satirizing of the monster film industry and capitalism. For the monster film industry, the production uses CGI, by creating the giant for of Daisato and the daikaijus. The strange beasts are given these very, very peculiar attributes, which are distinct human features [commonly the face], and sometimes bizarre modus operands [i.e. sleeping, coitus]. I found that to be creepy, yet hilarious at the same time. The mockery of the capitalist aspect was showcased when Kobori (Ua), Sato’s manager and publicist, suggests places where to put advertisements on his body. Now you know why I said that a huge chunk of his income is derived from his celebrity status. Not only that, but his hard work doesn’t really equate to his typical Japanese governmental employee’s salary really help him make a good enough living. Daisato comments to the interviewer that during the heyday of the Big Men, when his father and forefathers donned the hero’s burden, they were usually given stuff for free and rarely had to pay for anything at all.  It’s usually difficult for him to get good ads, because of his reputation as a mockery, rather as a hero, which are revealed through a series of fake street interviews with paid actors to be like random citizens. Big Man-Sato’s fights with the monsters are usually broadcasted across Japan [probably the World], but at 2 in the morning, the videographer comically comments that the weather report gets higher ratings than his fights.     

What I also loved about this film is the explanation of how Daisato, transforms into Big Man-Sato. This in my opinion is way better than other superhero transformation, ever. What happens is he gets alerted by the government, through phone mostly, and travels all the way to a far out electrical power plant. When he gets to the power plant, he is clothed in religious garments, which preps him for blessings, yet he and several others admit that it is useless in modern times, but must still does it because of respect for tradition. After the long blessing ceremony, he disrobes, and gets inside a giant purple brief and has electric clamps attached to his nipples – I kid you not! As soon as all is set in order, a person in the control station flips a switch that lets high volts of electricity surge into his body, thus causing him to become this physically towering monster deterrent. It is also noted that the specific branch of government he works for is called “The Ministry of Monster Prevention,” which is subsidized by Japan’s Defense Ministry.

Generally speaking, I say that this film is absolutely brilliant and a piece of comedic, nestled between dark humor and outlandish gags, with satire as a its predominant character.  You can compare the qualities of this film’s protagonist to the central character summer-action/drama, Hancock [2008], played by Will Smith, but Hitoshi Matsumo’s portrayal has a more multi-dimensional depth. The film garners a sense of humor; only a few would get, at first, but none the less sneaky. Every moment in this film is out righteously surprising, and definitely worth paying your undivided attention to.  

Verdict: A Must See!

Film Review: "The Campaign"

Starring: Will Ferrell, Zach Galifinakis, Jason Sudeikis, Dan Aykroyd, John Lithgow, Dylan McDermott, Karen Maruyama

Director: Jay Roach

Initial Release Date/s: 08/10/12 [United States]

Running Time: 85 Minutes


With only four months left until the citizens, ages 18 and above, in the United States of America make a decision as to whom their Commander-in-chief for the next 4 years shall be. The comedy film genre decides to take advantage of the situation, and act as the social shaker and palette cleanser, for what the US is about to face.

Four-time incumbent Democratic Congressman of the 14th district of North Carolina, Camden "Cam" Brady (Ferrell), is gunning for fifth term unopposed, and hopes that will lead him into becoming a future Vice Presidential candidate. But tragedy strikes his political aspirations as a infidelity/sexual scandal reaches the media and public, which damages his law abiding, good husband image. Taking advantage of the opportunity are brothers that are two crooked businessmen,Wade and Glen Mocht (Aykroyd & Lithgow), persuade Marty Huggins (Galifinakis), the Tourism Director of Hammond [a town, part of District 14] and the son of their business associate, to run as the Republican ticket and Cam's opponent. The conniving brothers fully fund Marty's campaign, so that he can unknowingly owe them political favors, like sell parts of the 14th District to China to cut shipping costs for their company. Marty announces his candidacy and opposition towards Cam's fifth term, which leads to a slew of ugly smear tactics, and bending of character morals [which are very obscure in films by Galifinakis & Ferrell]. The film also follows their various attempts in trying to swoon their constituents, working on their public image, and trying to balance their odd families' lives.

This is Ferrell's second time doing a film and playing a character that hails from the U.S. American South, which reinforce typical blue collar stereotypes in the U.S., since "Talladega Night: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby" [2006]. Some folks might find some familiarity in Will playing a politician, because of his impressions as former President of the United States, George W. Bush, Jr., in his stint on "Saturday Night Live" and comedy website "Funny Or Die." But like all his of characters, he plays the loudmouth, supercilious halfwit. As for Galifinakis, it's interesting to see him play a character, which he rarely seems to produce. Zach's character portrayal of Marty Huggins is like an amalgamation of a mild-mannered Paul Lynde and some stock character from a Seth MacFarlane cartoon series.

The creators of this crazy political satire was none other than, Shawn Harwell & Chris Henchy, who are writers for the popular HBO comedy series, "Eastbound & Down." The director of the film is known as the director for the Austin Powers and the first three Focker films, Jay Roach. The some of the jokes and gags felt like they were excess jokes for some fake news show, but rewritten for people who could not relate to political humor. The film had some decent jokes, and a plethora of crazy quotes, but the scene that really made me laugh was when Marty Huggins has an awkward conversation with his dad on a fishing boat. I also chuckled louder than usual when Uggie, from "The Artist" [2011], got punched by Cam.

Still, the film may not be as sound, plot-wise. Yet it does present itself as a way for people that rarely indulge in politics, to start knowing what's going around them, politically. Especially, with the upcoming National Election, which will most likely help, or stagnate the current economical status of the United States.


Verdict: See it on DVD/Blu-Ray/Netflix.

Film Review: "The Bourne Legacy"

Starring: Jeremy Renner Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton, Stacy Keach, Zeljko Ivanek

Director: Tony Gilroy

Initial Release Date/s: 07/30/12 [NYC Premier], 08/05/12 [Philippines], 08/10/12 [International]

Running Time: 135 Minutes

Thirty two years after Robert Ludlum first published the initial installment of his Bourne book series, a succesion of four films arose. He never lived to see a single one of them on the silver screen. Granted that this one, the fourth and latest installment wasn't his work per se, but the first of many expansion stories written by Eric Van Lustbader, which is still built out of the world Robert had created. You can almost say that it's a reboot, but we'll just call it as it is, a Legacy. 

The date may not have been specifically stated, but the events occur at the time Jason Bourne set chaos onto Operation Blackbriar. At this point, the media and public are gaining awareness of this black ops that is stirring itself around the World. As the sustainability of the operation deters, the CIA decides to shut down the program by eliminating all lose ends, which also includes its operatives. As agents of Operation Outcome are slowly being eliminated, one sole experiment manages to survive, his name is Aaron Cross (Renner). Another expendable individual in the operation is a researcher, Dr. Marta Shearing (Weisz), survives a wild murder-suicide in the research facility that works on the drugs that gives the operatives of Operation Outcome "super spy" abilities. Being the only survivors of this massive governmental cleanup conspiracy, they fly across the globe, to the Manila, Philippines [of all places], in hopes of stopping their hunters and escaping the evil eye of Big Brother.

As a joke, Paul Greengrass, the director of the last two films of the Bourne film franchise, called this fourth addition "The Bourne Redundancy." If you have seen the first three, then you would definitely chime in agreement with Greengrass' comments. The plot of this film is very weak and has multiple holes. If you strip away all of the action and thrill, the entire story would just be about an extremely dangerous and violent drug addict on a crazed hunt for his fix. I mean, Renner's character could've just died, and let the off-camera character of Jason Bourne do what he was doing, which is financially and physically cripple the ringleaders of these black ops.

Here's a fun tid bit you can share amongst your friends, in your next social event, if your topic is about The Bourne Legacy. The book this movie is supposedly based from has a completely different story, characters, and premise. Go ahead, check it out.

I was born and raised in Manila, which was where 50% of the film takes place. I was happy to see my hometown/country in the mainstream spotlight. The sights, atmosphere, sound, and somewhat feel had a great impact on me. Seeing several known actors from the Philippines on screen was also great. But what I really wanted to know is, who suggested a very long car chase scene? Seriously, it felt like a filler after the first 2 minutes passed. And on top of all of that insanity, Gilroy tried to attempt to mimic Greengrass' "shaky camera" technique that he used dominantly in the last Bourne movie, which made watching this particular chase scene even more difficult to watch. Hay nako!

All flaws and trivia aside, I'd say that I really liked Rachel Weisz's performance in the film. She was the stand out figure in this entire flip of an action film. Rarely does one see a sole female carry that much weight and responsibility in an film of this particular nature. Jeremy Renner is not too far off, but seeing him play the same role in different titles is getting a bit too much for my liking. Typecasting much?...oh wait, this is Hollywood we're talking about hear.

The other thing that I didn't like about the film was the ending. I almost felt cheated, and you will most likely feel the same if you see it too. Sure it had a soft spot in the end to properly compliment the gritty middle, but it doesn't dignify the film genre of action and adventure. It almost felt like a bad ending to a James Bond movie. If theses guys are planning on sequel to this, then they better find a better way to properly work on their closing scenes.

Overall, the film was an action-packed adventure. Guns, drugs, a girl, motorcycles, third-world country, and corrupt government conspirators, reminded me of my childhood just watching Chuck Norris films that were also shot mostly in the Philippines. It does fit the mold of a typical Summer film, and will most-likely be the least memorable in the franchise.

Verdict: See it when it's on cable/satellite. 

Film Review: "LOL"

Starring: Miley Cyrus, Demi Moore, Douglas Booth, Ashley Greene, Ashley Hinshaw

Director: Lisa Azuelos

Initial Release Date/s: 02/10/12 [India] & 05/04/12 [United States]

Running Time: 97 Minutes

When I first heard about an American remake, for 2008 French coming of age "dramedy" LOL (Laughing Out Loud), I automatically though of the chaos that comes with cultural translations with films. It's safe to say that what the French say in their native tongue has the same meaning, but in a different context.

Lola (Cyrus) is a lively teenage girl living in Chicago, Illinois with her mother, Anne (Moore), and two younger siblings. She does her best to juggle school, family, social life, and lovel ife, while living in this world that is highly dominated by online social networks. The story begins during the first semester of a new school year, and breaking up with a sleazy, cheating boyfriend. To top it all of, her mother is dating her ex-husband, which is her father, and falling for her ex's best friend/bandmate. Her world is set into a spiral as she tries to figure out how to balance everything.

Like the original it has the same plot [With some minor tweaks] and director, which is a very rare instance. But does this mean that the film has the same gist, which it's far-flung original counterpart had? Unlike its original counterpart the film doesn't takes place in France, but Chicago, which was coincidentally colonized by the French. Though the film does have scene that were shot in France, which acted as the parallel of the educational trip to England for the original film. Needles to say, the production almost felt similar, with the use themes like metropolitan private schooling, upper-middle class high-end apartments, and contemporary teenage urban fashion.

It's so hard to give the film it's own distinguishing identity at first, because its doing its best to stay faithful to the original. Almost every aspect is translated through the production, but not performance-wise. In the 2008 version, Lola is played by Christa Theret who properly conveys her emotions and body language to create a vivid caricature of the contemporary teenager that's blooming in the modern Parisian culture. Miley Cyrus does her most, but it is not enough. Her performance feels more cold and forced, which makes it very difficult to get invested in her character. I have no problem with Demi Moore's portrayal of the mother, because I saw it as poetic justified compliment to Sophie Marceau's portrayal of the mother in the French version. I really can't say much about the people playing the circle of Lola's friends, because their performances felt a little forced as well. When I first saw the French version three years ago, the original portrayers of Lola's friends were exceptional and had amazing chemistry, which cant be seen or felt in this remake. I really hope that the ones in charge of casting for this film take a long hard look at themselves and the original film.

The other thing that really irked me about this current version was the lack of boldness. Granted that this film was meant for an American audience, and not the overtly liberated, new wave Europeans, its toned down atmosphere was very evident. There was sexuality in this film, but completely desensitized. I also know that the drug policy differs from country to country, but that was the beauty in the original. How do you desensitize sex? That was the entire of the film: To create a window of opportunity between parent-cild to talk about theses particularly sensitive topics. I bet that the director had a feeling of constraint with the American studio executives telling her to lower the level of eroticism, which is prominent in French films.

I always think it's an awful idea when a film is taken from its country of origin, then translated to fit a certain market. It looses its originality and initial cultural impact in the translation. From films like Death at a Funeral [2007], Le Diner de Cons [1998] andStanno tutti bene [1990], to name a few, are evidences that films translated from their original to fit the American demographics is very difficulty due to humongous cultural differences. Please World, leave each other's works alone, and just use the subtitles, or at least learn the language if you're willing to really indulge

Verdict: Don't rush, take your time.

Film Review: "The Watch"

Starring: Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, Jonah Hill, Richard Ayoade, Rosemary DeWitt, Will Forte, Nicholas Braun

Director: Akiva Schaffer

Initial Release Date/s: 07/27/12 [United States]

Running Time: 102 Minutes

They said that it was way too big too fail - They were correct!

In the fictional town of Glenview, Ohio, Evan (Stiller) is the town's most active resident. Evan is in almost every community-related activity, to starting organizations around the area, creating a seat in local office for him to hold, and becoming the Senior Manager at the local CostCo. To top it all of, he's also married to a beautiful wife, Abby, who wants to start a family, but unaware that her husband is sterile. Everything almost seems a bit too perfect [excluding that whole sterile part], until the night guard at CostCo gets killed and skinned. This prompts Evan to start a Neighborhood Watch. To his surprise, only three quirky locals join him in his suburban crusade. The volunteers are composed of Bob (Vaugnh), a tough loving father and artificer, Franklin (Hill), mentally stressed Police Academy reject, and Jamarcus (Ayoade), a recent divorcee from England with a secret that would shake the entire group.

The group embark on a series of local patrols, until they run over something. Upon investigation of what they thought they hit, they discover a green gooey substance that smells like "cum" and alien-like chrome orb. As it turns out, the group finds out that orb is this weaponized lazer emitter that eradicates its targets. Little do the members know as to what they have uncovered is something larger than a grumose local homicide, but an invasion from aliens.

SNL writer/director and member of comedy rap trio, Lonely Island, assumes the position of captain in this inevitable shipwreck of a film. The constant and horrendous use of phallic humor is more juvenile, than funny. At almost every scene you can one or the other member of the cast telling jokes about penises [and the occasional testicles] for cheap laughs. The plot had some many plot holes, a blind person could notice them. It was sad to say I barely laughed through out the entire ordeal, except when Stiller's character whistled the icon tune from Close Encounters of the Third Kind [1977] to peacefully communicate with the man-eating alien. 

The character development was another disappointment on its own. It was almost like the direction and pace they used was making each character stale. From Jamarcus' big reveal, to Evan admitting his sterility to his wife. The lack of build-up on those pivotal situations was dispiriting, to say the least. I really expected a lot from Ayoade's first major performance in his major movie across the pond, but I was let completely let down. Why Moss, why?

To top that all off, the blatant product placements were the most appalling. Yes, CostCo, you have everything, we get that! And Magnum condoms, we get it, you have sizes that even walruses could fit [Oh God, now more of the "Got Protection?" bill board ads of this movie are making more sense than the film!]. We don't need you telling us every 7-9 mins. about yourself. Gosh, get a life!

One can't solely put the entire blame on the production's head, because they did in fact take on one of the most difficult crossover genres in film, the "SciFi/Comedy" genre. It's a given that in this day and age critical and box office success with SciFi/Comedy isn't so easy. Take a look at these recent films in the same genre, Paul (2011), and Meet Dave (2008), none which lived up to their respective hype and studio budget. One might go on and say that these guys did not research, and just let the sponsors worry about everything in the longrun. This makes me really sad, as a big fan of both movie styles.

In the wake of all this ridiculousness, I'd like to leave with a relevant quote, "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." That ladies & gentlemen is how you properly meld science fiction and comedy. Thank You, Mr. Douglas Adams!


Verdict: See it when it's on cable/satellite.   

Film Review: "The Dark Knigh Rises"

Starring: Christian Bale, Anne Hathaway, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Gary Oldman, Marion Cotillard, Morgan Freeman, Michael Cane, Tom Hardy, Alon Aboutboul, Matthew Modine, Juno Temple, Cillian Murphy, Liam Neeson  

Director: Christopher Nolan

Initial Release Date/s: 07/16/12 [International] & 07/20/12 [United States]

Running Time: 165 Minutes

While reading this, you may tell your self, “Hey this isn’t a film review...this…this a comic book fan comparing details!” If that is the case, I apologize, but that wasn’t my intention. I’ll try to do my best and separate my comic-book-self from my movie-self.

Taking place 8-years after the events of “The Dark Knight” [2008], the streets of Gotham are clean of mob-related criminals & high-profile crimes. Bruce Wayne (Bale), or his alter-ego vigilante Batman, is retired from crime fighting as the result of an intricate cover-up that he and now-Police Commissioner Gordon (Oldman) created, for the benefit of the citizens of Gotham. This results in Batman becoming both a myth, and a criminal. In another part of the World, an infamous mercenary, named Bane (Hardy), turns the wheels of an intricate master plan to bury Gotham city and Mr. Wayne. It is revealed that Bane was a disbanded member of the League of Shadows, an organization that was lead by Ra’s al-Ghul, the man who trained Bruce and tried to destroy Gotham city in Nolan’s first Batman installment, “Batman Begins” [2005]. Alfred (Cane) tries to stop Bruce from going back to his life as the Caped Crusader, because he made a promise to the Waynes that he would protect Bruce at all costs. Another person-of-interest in the movie is a local thief with skills that are very similar to that of a cat who is personally known as Selina Kyle (Hathaway). Evil insiders in Wayne Enterprises’ executive branch employ Selina to steal the fingerprints of Bruce, so they can use it in Bane’s nefarious stratagem to deplete Mr. Wayne’s assets. Her price is a program that was created by one of Wayne Enterprises many contractors, that wipes an entire person’s electronic database clean, as if “to start over.” What she doesn’t know is that she is being duped and her services are directly building the base of this evil scheme, which is just about to unfold in front of Gotham’s shady mug.

Given that this is (probably) Christopher Nolan’s last time in directing a Batman film, you can really understand why he went all out. Properly dubbed by fans and recognized by several members of the comic book world as “Earth-Nolan/Nolanverse,” which is one of the many multiple universes in the DC Comics’ spectrum of Multiverses. It is widely considered to be the best universe for any DC film franchise. This gives Nolan the abiity to create, write and change characters from the comic book for the films’ advantage. The film introduces iconic names from the comic book, like Bane; Selina Kyle [plays Catwoman, but is strangely never directly mentioned as “Catwoman” throughout the film]; Holly Robinson (Temple); and Miranda Tate/Talia al-Ghul [Cotillard], to name a few, while introducing new-new key figures to the franchise as well, like Robin John Blake (Levitt) [No relation to the any of the Robin characters, which is Batman’s usual sidekick]; Deputy Peter Foley (Modine); Dr. Pavel (Abutbul); the Pit/Prison; the Bat [Batman’s flying vehicle]; and many other of Nolan’s touches to film. Some reintroductions of R’as (Neeson) and Scarecrow (Murphy) were very much surprising, which kind of gives the franchise an almost full-circle story. The director really made it HIS FILM, to somewhat separate itself from the comics and give it his own accent. The way he spread out his ideas for each character’s back-story into this very complexly intertwined bundle that connects one to the other in a tight fashion is very classic Christopher Nolan.

The movie is an ambitious piece against all of the other major superhero films that have come out this year, and directly take them head-on. Surrounding itself in it’s own chaos, it encapsulates itself entirely, leaving you breathless during certain scenes. Some parts were light, but the one that made me chuckle was when Hathaway’s character disappears without alerting Batman, which leads him to say in his awkwardly grungy voice, “So that how that feels.” It’s an obvious nod to a particular scene in the legendary, 1995 “Kingdom Come” comic book story arc, where Superman leaves Batman in his Batcave without any forewarning, to which he replies the same phrase.

The film is set as the stage for an assortment of great character performances, but there are two particular actors that seem to awkwardly standout from this ensemble cast. No, surprisingly, it is not Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It is Christian Bale & Tom Hardy, who play their respective masked personas: Batman & Bane. If you’ve seen all of the Batman films by Christopher Nolan, you would notice that infamously cracking deep hoarse voice Bale uses for the Caped Crusader, which is done by a computer program during post-production. Hardy’s on the other hand is more ambiguous, but still awkward, when heard. I felt no fear of whatsoever, when i heard him speak. It almost sounded like the cross between an angry man from the Eastern bloc and Sean Connery. Nolan’s complete abandonment of the original Bane, which is a steroid-induced super villain from South America. But then again, the movie is set in the “Nolanverse.” None of the performances in this final installment had the same caliber as the one showcased by the late Heath Ledger, in his portrayal of The Joker, in the last film. I think I should give Marion Cotillard’s performance a big thumbs up, but it is still overshadowed by the thumbs up the world and I gave to good ole’ Heath.

The technical aspects of the film, which I found to be quite intriguing, were the choice equipments of Christopher Nolan. The basic 35mm film was utilized in the film, but so was 70mm film, which was paired with IMAX cameras. It really showed how willing the director was, in creating a large-scale panoramic tale for the audience. The other thing that also makes it even more intriguing is that he didn’t shoot the film in 3D, which is usually associated with IMAX technology and their large theaters. It’s amazing as to how he persuaded the film’s distributor, Warner Bros., to put it in all cinemas that had an IMAX theater, or two. I myself was lucky enough to see the film in an IMAX theater and fully immerse myself through the dream of what its creator had intended it to look like. It wasn’t aesthetically different from other films shown on an IMAX screen, but it was a strong and revolutionary artistic statement towards the current direction of the film industry. Mr. Nolan has even gone and been quoted by saying, “I never meet anybody who actually likes the format,” referring to the 3D-format that is popular in today’s blockbuster movies.

The film gives itself an open-window for a possible follow-up, or even a crossover [i.e. Justice League of America], but it’s too early to tell if Nolan will dawn the directorial cape if a dream sequel comes to fruition. Boasting a running time of 165 minutes, including credits, the film stretches itself on ends and gives the viewers of a wide view of a dark world searching for light within itself. Feeding the viewers at their seat's ends with overly dramatic thrills and plot twists that make you wonder what smoke and mirrors the director and writers used. It may not be as epically prodigious as it’s predecessor, but it does have that strong impression that satisfies a large cult movie following.

Final Verdict: A Must See!

Film Review: "To Rome With Love"

Starring: Woody Allen, Jesse Eisenberg, Alec Baldwin, Penelope Cruz, Ellen Page, Roberto Begnini, Allison Pill, Fabio Armiliato Falvio Parenti, Alessandro Tiberi, Alessandro Mastronardi  

Director: Woody Allen

Initial Release Date/s: 04/20/12 [Italy] & 06/22/12 [Limited United States]

Running Time: 95 Minutes

A Summer love intricately latticed with Spring fever, whilst relaying a kind of story telling that is all too familiar to the avid modern and post-modern cinema patron. Delivering shades of hues that mimic the sociological aspects of two cultures, melting and winding themselves to create a forceful impact upon the viewers' mind.

Roma, the Eternal City, of lights, love, culture, and adventure, which is where the film takes place. In this particular telling, we have a Surrealist outlook with the filtration of classic & modern Romanticism. The film is framed into 4 distinctly vivid tales of romance that have no physical connection of whatsoever, yet it protrudes the superficial and feel as though they were almost one and the same. One can almost say that the plot is highly inspired by the classic Italian parable of The Decameron, by Giovanni Boccaccio.

One tale revolves around an aspiring architect (Eisenberg), an American student studying in Rome (Grewig), a pseudo-intellectual young actress (Page), and an acclaimed architect who acts like the Jiminy cricket of the three aforementioned personalities (Baldwin). Their tale is about sexually repressed feelings and the desire to indulge themselves through traditional unrealistic amorous notions, and nothing more. The next tale is of a simple middle-class Italian man (Begnini) who transforms into this mega celebrity, overnight, for being...famous, and no other reason. It’s like a reflection on how the public reacts and lives vicariously through the modern celebrities’ lives.  The third one tells us of a newlywed Italian couple (Tiberi & Mastronardi) from the province. They're on their honeymoon in Rome, but also seek a new life there as well. A prostitute (Cruz) manages to find herself in this tale, acting as one of the major wild cards in this account. The fourth episode in this framed story begins when an American tourist girl (Pill) meets this local man who is "pro bono leftist" lawyer (Parenti), and they fall in love with each other, like in a typical Romantic tale. You can almost say it was kismet. They quickly plan to get married, so she invites her parents over to meet him and his family. Her father is a retired musical director that specializes in avant-garde Operas (Allen) and her mother is a psychiatrist (Davis), while his mother is a typical Italian housewife and his father is a local undertaker who turns into an amazing tenor while bathing in the shower (Armiliato). I believe that covers the entire basic skeletal structure of the film.

It was really a treat to see Woody Allen on-screen in one of his films. Like all of the characters he writes, the neuroticism never escapes their personalities. From the character he portrays himself, to the ones that are being portrayed by the American and Italian main actors. I have to applaud his performance though, because it was very entertaining. But then again, is it really acting when you play a fictionalized version of yourself? Well, at least I got to see Jesse Eisenberg in a Woody Allen film in my lifetime, but I would like to see more screen time for him. Hopefully they do a movie together, again.

The film's plot was interesting, but I felt it could've gone further and deeper. At certain moments in the film, the blur between reality and surreality was a bit of a hurdle, but easy to conquer as time progressed. Cultural subtexts that compare Modern Roman culture to American culture are highly showcased in the film, which gives off a distinct sense of tethering towards one another. One culture seems to be yanking the other culture by saying, "Hey, you got that from us!" While the other is yelling, "Well, we made it better!” as their retort. It all seems to be squeezed in, and each story could've stood on their own. One can only wonder how far those could've gone.

Some of that classic Woody Allen humor runs rampant in the film, which gives it this brightly palatable whim. To the vivid portrayal of characters with strange moralistic senses, which creates the introspective views of how humans really think without being too obvious. Though this may not be as what I had expected, from Mr. Allen and his powerhouse cast, it still has a charmingly appealing nature that is almost natural in all of Woody’s films. Somehow it manages to drown the viewer in the midst of a sea with multiple stories and a table-full of characters. Overall, this film is a crudely amiable manifestation of the human need to find that storybook feeling of Romance, in today's times. I really had high hopes for this movie, but after seeing it, I just don’t know where those hopes went.

 

Final Verdict: See it on DVD/Blu-Ray/Netflix.

Film Review: "Brave"

Starring: Kelly McDonald, Emma Thompson, Craig Ferguson, Billy Connolly, Julie Walters

Initial Release Date/s: 07/10/12 [Seattle International Film Festival]

Running Time: 93 Minutes

Pixar has sealed its fate. They have commanded their destiny, as the true powerhouse of 3-dimensional computer animation. Yet, Its latest feature does not live up to its name by tottering itself as either one of the production's best or not even close.

The film's is based in Medieval-era Scotland, during the 10th century. Merida (McDonald) is the name of the protagonist, she is a princess that wants to break from tradition by not being "betrothed" to unite the kingdom that her ancestors had built from ages ago. Her mother & kingdom's reigning queen, Elinor (Thompson), is a very uptight, conservative lady who has been grooming her since she was a wee-one. Making her act more like a "lady," rather than what she wants to be, an adventurer-slash-equestrian-archer.

On the day Merida was to be wedded to one of the first-born son's of the leaders of the other 3 clans, she runs away and manages to stumble upon a witch's home through the guide of these will-o'-the-wisp. She requests for a spell from the witch, to help change her mother's mind about the decision of giving her hand in marriage. The witch grants Merida's wish and gives her this enchanted pastry. But all goes awry when her mother eats a slice of the magical quiche and turns into this large black bear. The thing is that Merida's father, King Furges (Connolly), does not know about what has occurred and he absolutely despises bears, because one took his left leg. Little do they know, is that same black bear was a prince of an older kingdom, that turned into a bear by the same hex. It's up to Merida and Queen Elinor to journey on this quest, to find a way to reverse the enchantment, before the second sunrise, or she becomes a bear forever.

It's no mistake that Pixar has outdone itself in the design department. Lush greenery, well-detailed characters with perfectly rendered hair, flawless lighting, and amazing voice acting was the film's true showcase. Sadly it's the plot that falls, which snips my plethora of praises for this Oscar-caliber animated film. It sort of feels generic, story-wise. It's like they decided to take their parent company, Disney's route, and assemble something for this summer's box office. It definitely is a visual masterpiece, but it doesn't live up to hype or standards of Pixar filmography that millions and I have grew up with.

The character developments weren’t special, and too by-the-book for Pixar’s standards. Where are the wild card characters, which Pixar is known to conjure? I get that Pixar bases their story off of an old Scottish folklore, but did they have to call it by the book. It was highly unlike them to create such basic personae. All I saw was a rebellious princess, an overprotective parent, a wily family, and villain of unfathomable strength.  

Even though the film's plot and typical folkloric archetypes may not have been something to truly marvel at with awe, they still had a that cute Pixar charm. The crowd favorite, which is the traditional pre-movie Pixar shorts, was another spectacle to behold. Aptly titled, “La Luna”, for it's lighthearted story and bright array of three simple characters. Initially premiered at the Annecy International Film Festival of last year. This is my first time viewing this particular animated short. I also caught a quick whiff of it, because of its nomination for Best Animated Short in the 84th Academy Awards.

I really found myself immersed in the folktales of Scottish history through the movie. The wide range of digitally generated images was something to truly behold. Then it really got me to thinking about what lies ahead for Pixar: Have they lost touch? What has Cars 2 [2011] done to their psyche? Are they goanna concentrate on the digital aspects? Will they ever recover from that automotive disaster? Only time can tell and answer those questions. But even after seeing "Brave," I know that they can return with that great counter-punch and take back their rightful spot as the Royals of Digitally Animated Films.


 Final Verdict: See it on DVD/Blu-Ray/NetFlix.

Film Review: "Beasts of the Southern Wild"

Starring: Quvenzhane Wallis, Dwight Henry, Gina montana, Joseph Brown, Levy Easterly 

Director: Benh Zeitlin

Initial Release Date/s: 01/20/12 [Sundance Film Festival] & 06/27/12 [Limited United States]

Running Time: 92 Minutes

I found myself watching something with a gritty charm and childish quality. I also found myself strongly absorbed, from the film's start, to its end. Encapsulated in a dystopia that seems truer than what most perceive, while delivering a strong flare of pulsating emotions.

Loosely adapted from a stage play, called “Juicy and Delicious” [awesome titles], by film's co-writer, Lucy Alibar. The film is panned to a cool visual tone, properly complimenting the heavy-set drama. Showcasing stunning & shockingly astounding footages, makes you feel well-immersed in its awe-evoking atmosphere Some scenes hold a genuine feelings and light-hearted humor, which act as tiny palette cleansers.  The movie had almost a Slumdog Millionaire [2008] quality, mixed-in with some The Road [2009] and Water World [1995].

The film's story revolves around a curious and fearless 8-year-old girl with a brown wavy afro that's as big as her personality, and as peculiar as her name, Hushpuppy (Wallis). She lives with her father, Wink [The writers of this movie choose the most interesting names] (Henry), in " the Bathtub" – a Delta community south of Louisiana. The whereabouts of Hushpuppy’s mother is not directly discussed in the film. It can only be assumed that she is either left or had died. Wink’s love for Hushpuppy can only be described as tough; because he does his best to prepare for when he will inevitable pass away & for the unwinding of the universe. Hushpuppy finds out that her father is gravely ill, but is not sure as to what it exactly is. During this period, a quarrel occurs between the two and the universe suddenly begins to fall apart. This particular incident causes a violent storm that floods the Bathtub, and releases these prehistoric creatures, known as Aurochs, which are portrayed as these primitive giant ancestors of modern bovines. At this point, Hushpuppy, Wink, and the other survivors of the Bathtub, go on adventures in hopes to make their lives better without having to leave the Delta that they love so much. Little do they know that what awaits for them is a world of fantasy and surprising twists.

Plot–wise it was kind of hard to keep up, because the film seems to pan from reality, to flashes of bizarre surrealism. The themes introduced, like climate change, social schisms, and an allusion to metaphysics. Though most are approached through a child’s perspective, and the paintbrush of a post-Katrina Louisiana wetland, it almost completely understandable. Yet I seem to feel that the story could’ve told more.

  

Two of the movie’s leading performers, Quvenzhane Wallis and Dwight Henry, who are literally fresh in the business, manage to perform like veterans. Quvenzhane [Does movie run out of awesome names?] was 8, when the film was first shot, delivers an Oscar-worthy performance that made my goose bumps crawl like crazy. Her projection of words and actions made the movie what it was. The way she carried her character felt almost like the transformation of the smallest kid in the playground, into this larger-than-life superhero. Dwight, on the other hand, was just the owner of a local bakery, managed to deliver another quality performance too. His prtral of a strong-willed, but stubbornly loving father was truly a treat. And his "closing act' was truly the film's most touching moment. Their on-screen chemistry is something very great that it seems  to overshadow other father-child/mentor-student relation of films like “The Ballad of Jack & Rose [2005],” “Karate Kid [1984]” and “Pursuit of Happyness [2006].” I was surprised to find out that both had no formal training of whatsoever, which made their performances very special. The film doesn’t have long wordy dialogues between characters, but their performances felt so candid you wouldn’t care about the dialogues’ length.

The footages shot in the film were very brilliant. Fireworks; boars dressed as their Neolithic relatives; an assortment of swamp treats; a dog’s mangled carcass; and a brothel by the everglade, give a great sense of stunning imagery. Employing an almost Guerilla-style of filming, which is highly common in independent film culture, helps increase the emotional drama by tenfold. I can only imagine, how Quvenzhane felt when she initially saw the corpse of that dog with its organs scattered all over the mucky dirt road.

Given that the film was a first for the general cast and most of the production crew, you would imagine it to be something less. But you are dead wrong, if you think that. Entwined by a spectrum of fantasy, drama, and profundity, into a tale of heroism. “Beast in the Southern Wild” is something bigger than it’s small budget and small-scale setting, because of its large heart, which puts a great emphasis on its endearing spirit.

Final Verdict: A Must See!

Film Review: "The Amazing Spider-Man"

Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Dennis Leary, Martin Sheen, Sally Fields

Director: Marc Webb

Initial Release Date/s: 06/13/12 [Japan] & 07/03/12 [United States]

Running Time: 136 Minutes

 

For a DC man, it's difficult for me to praise a Marvel film, like what I'm about to do.

Looking back at it's former franchise, this latest reboot of the Spider-Man title is a distant forerunner. Granted that the previous franchise's first installment was one of the greatest things to happen to the comic book film genre and summer box-office opener standards, while its following sequels weren't as explosive. This quick comeback is one to be remembered, for several summers to follow.

As a child, his parents, due to mysterious reasons, abandoned Peter Parker [Garfield]. He is personally left, by his parent, in the parental custody of his father's brother, Ben [Sheen], and his wife, May [Fields]. Even after turbulently confusing childhood, Peter manages to become a well-learned teenage boy, with an affinity for photography and a crush on a delightfully cute schoolmate, Gwen Stacy [Stone]. The story picks up when Peter discovers a leather satchel that belonged to his father, which had a secret compartment with research notes that had a peculiar equation written on one of the papers. He later finds out that his father, who was a scientist, worked with this man named Curtis Connors [Ifans]. When Peter tries to visit Dr. Connors in his office, at Oscorp, he stumbles upon this room with genetically engineered spiders that are spinning these industrial-strong webs. Due to his awkward clumsiness, he causes a stir in the spider's den, which leads him to the iconic "spider bite" that transforms him to (you guessed it) Spider-Man. Curtis Connors, on the other hand (pun intended) was continuing the research that him and Peter's father were doing, before he went away.

The film was NOT the debacle, which I thought it would be. Instead it weaved an intricately intriguing lattice-of-a-plot by harnessing it's characters' development elegantly, which is very rare nowadays. The casting may have looked a bit iffy, when they initially came out in early trailers, but the end product was something to lo' and behold. As a comic book fan, this is something that really caught my eye, and undying attention. Though the film may not have been 100% faithful to the old panels'n'pencil, it was still a very interesting take on such an iconic franchise.

I don't usually dwell into the romantic aspect of an action film, but the director, Marc Webb, did an excellent job in directing the chemistry between Peter and Gwen. Both performers played off of each others' character, so well. It's gonna be hard for non-comic fans to see Gwen die (Almost every comic fan knows this) in either the next, or following sequel.  The production house should really work hard on how to properly "off" her, and introduce Mary Jane into Peter's life. Emma Stone should really be commended for her role, in this film, as she managed to bring in her quirkiness and perfect comedic timing. The awkward humor brought in by Andrew Garfield was something to also be noteworthy of, because it brought a sense of juvenility to the story of a young Peter Parker.

I also liked the subtle nods to several things in the Marvel, particularly the Spider-Man universe, without really over saturating it with needless references to giveaway as to what will occur in the sequel. This gives the film a teasing atmosphere for what is to come in future installments. I would really love to see how this coincides with the Avengers film franchise, since I see a lack of the Stark Tower in the fictional Manhattan skyline. And, it's always amusing to see Stan Lee lend his presence to a Marvel film.


Another aspect that surprised me the most was how much the film made Los Angeles look like New York city. Yes, over the course of shooting the film was reportedly being shot, on location, in Los Angeles. Especially when news got loose that South Grand Avenue was being used for one of Spider-Man's stunt scenes. The only thing about the digitally modified skyline of NYC, was Oscorp. Tower. It looked like a CGI-sore-thumb sticking out.

The (unbiased) spats I have for this film are with how rushed they were in trying to reboot the Spider-Man film series. But then again, the last one, which was five years ago, was too horrendous to even try to remember. Another spat goes to Aunt May. Sally Fields is one of the most outstanding actresses to date, but the managing of her character could've been better. Hopefully, future installments will put more depth into her character, and the iconic grey hair in a bun. My cinephilic senses are tingling, and they tell me that this film has proven base as to how superhero movies should be handled in the coming future. Let's hope that the future sequels, will not repeat a half-decade-old mistake.

Now all I have to do, is wait until the "Rising," and give my final verdict as to which film deserves to be personally called: "Superhero Film of the Year." 

Verdict: A Must See!  

Film Review: "Gegen Die Wand"

Starring: Birol Ünel, Sibel Kekilli, Meltem Cumbul, Catrin Striebeck, Stefan Gebelhoff, Güven Kiraç

Director: Fatih Akın

Initial Release Date: 04/12/04 [Berlin Film Festival]

Running Time: 123 Minutes

A magnificently beautiful passenger liner sailing across the Atlantic; A luxurious Northeast African city; Some greeting card office in America; A Sex Pistols Concert; The psychiatric ward at a German Hospital, what do those five specific venues have in common? All are places where strange, but interestingly complicated romantic relationships began.

“Are you Turkish? Would you marry me?” Those are the last few words Cahit Tomruk would ever expect to hear from a random woman, but then again he was inside a psychiatric ward. After surviving a failed attempt at suicide, by a direct head-on drunk-driven collision with his car and a wall, Cahit is brought to this medical facility, where he meets a fellow-psych ward patient, Sibel Guner. She is the woman who awkwardly asks Cahit to marry her. Sibel is admitted to the same hospital, due to attempting suicide as well, by slashing her wrists.

Growing up in a very conservative Turkish household in Germany, Sibel has always felt disenfranchised from her family. This is why she is very distressed. The only thing keeping her from running away her family is the love she has for her mother. It is through her idea of marrying Cahit, a German-Turkish man; she can be liberated from the household. The thing is, Cahit doesn’t want to be married. He recently lost his wife, which the film sadly does not reveal. This is why he acts out by diverting his attention to alcoholism and cocaine. The other reason Cahit does not want to marry Sibel, is because he despises the Turkish culture and it’s people, which is the most ironic plot device in the entire story. Even though he was born in a small province, in Turkey, he speaks the language poorly. The only thing truly attaching him to his Turkish heritage is his best friend, Seref, who also acts as his Jiminy Cricket.

For some reason Cahit feels pity for Sibel, which is why he decided to marry her. He manages to persuade her family, even though he is 20 years older than her. They have a civil wedding, followed by a big Turkish reception. This plays as a nice contrast to the cultural aspect of the film. Sibel also invites her cousin, Selma, to be her witness at the wedding ceremony, and also acts as Seref’s female counterpart. After they wed, Sibel finally feels liberated and doesn’t feel the need to cut her wrists anymore. As for Cahit, he still drinks heavily, smokes like a chimney, and managed to get his “new wife” hooked on cocaine.

During the course of their “marriage,” Sibel sleeps around with other men, which they both agreed upon before tying the knot. At times, Cahit would accompany Sibel to dance clubs and watch her hook up with other men. Cahit also does some other extra marital sexual encounters with a friend of his former deceased wife, which he’s been probable having sex with a few years/months after she passed away. Even though the two haven’t had a true intimate connection with each other, and have been treating the streets of Hamburg like the temple of Dionysius. They still manage to slowly fall for one another, but it doesn’t manifest overtly fast.

During one evening, when both already have strong feelings for each other, yet the manifestation wasn’t obvious. Niko, one of Sibel’s many one-time sexual partners, falls madly in love with her and finds out that she is married to Cahit. Both men are patrons at this bar, which is where Niko goes to verbally taunt Sibel’s estranged husband, by calling him a “pimp” and other derogatory terms. In a fit of drunken rage, he smacks an ashtray to his harasser’s temple, killing him instantly. Sibel reaches the bar, only to find Niko’’s lifeless body and her husband hovering over the lifeless body.

Cahit is sent to prison, and the Sibel’s father and brother disown her completely. With nowhere to turn, she leaves Germany and goes to Turkey, in Istanbul, to live with Selma. Over there she kind of turns into what Cahit was in the start of the film; always self-abusive through intoxicating substances. Her fits of inebriation and rebellion cause her to alienate Selma, and get viciously beaten and stabbed by a group of men.

After a long unspecified duration of time, the Cahit is released from prison. He tells Seref that he really loves Sibel, and he wants to go after her, in Istanbul. Seref calls him crazy, but he retorts by saying that it is through his love and the letters of Sibel that kept him going in Prison. Seref understands his best friend’s wishes and gives him the money to buy a ticket to Istanbul. Once he gets to Turkey, he meets up with Selma, but is shocked to hear bad news. He finds out that Sibel has a daughter and a boyfriend. This doesn’t stop him from seeing or contacting her.

He manages to contact her, and they rendezvous at the hotel he is staying at in Istanbul. This is where they have their first moment of sexual contact. After they make love, she asks him about his plans. He tells her that he will go to his place birth, Mersin, which is also in Turkey. She tells him yes, and he tells her to meet him at the bus stop with her daughter. While packing she hears her child playing with her boyfriend, then she contemplates about her decision. Then, we see Cahit leaving on the bus, alone.

Sibel Kekilli’s (Yes, her character has the same name as her) performance was very enticing. Her range and depth was very thrilling. The way she manipulated the audience in a provocative fashion, was seductive to me. At first, she appeared to be this terribly insane woman, but in the long scheme of things she was just distressed and troubled from familial pressure and society. Her performance was the real standout factor in the entire film. Yes, all the actors and actress performed amazingly, in this film, but Sibel’s performance was just too riveting.

The film had some very strong scenes. From the scenes where a lot of blood was used, which sets as the film’s dark tones. Including the rampant drug-driven sexual encounters between Catih and Maren, where one of their trysts lead to a game of backgammon. My favorite scene is where Catih confronts Selma. The film’s language constantly pans from German to Turkish, which adds more to the film’s very rich diversity. But during their small (but powerful) chat, both sporadically break into small bursts of dialogues in English, which shows how the intensity of the scenario is developing.

This was the fourth film by Fatih Akın, who was it's director and writer. Basing some of the scenarios from his life as a Turkish German, Fatih manages to bring the viewers into a perspective only a few can witness. From the blatant racism towards the Turkish community in Germany, to the conservatism that strongly practiced in a Turkish German household. The film speaks more about culture than it does about Cahit & Sibel’s relationship. The usage of a Turkish band performing local songs, along the riverbanks of the Blue Horn as they are facing away from the famous Blue Mosque, from the beginning of the film until the credits hit was genuinely poetic.

Verdict: A Must See!