Tarzan, Ghostbusters receive revitalizing shots

The Legend Of Tarzan

Having read the original origin story of the Edgar Rice Burroughs classic, I initially thought the movie was a direct adaptation of that material. Good thing it wasn't. The Legend Of Tarzan is set years after the main character already embraced his nobleman heritage as Lord Greystoke and living quietly with his wife Jane (Porter) in their London estate.

This time, the former Lord Of The Jungle goes back to Africa that is under the threat of slavery under the Belgian empire. But behind the sinister takeover is a deal with the fabled Leopard Men's leader to have Tarzan delivered over to him in exchange for the diamonds of Opar that the Belgians want. 

When I saw the trailer I thought Christoph Waltz played D'Arnot, the French military official who was one of the jungle lord's true friends in the series. It turned out he played the film's main antagonist. With his trademark deadpan delivery and quiet menace that became a trademark; that also made perfectly cast as Blofeld in the recent Bond film. His Leon Rom is the perfect counterpoint for Alexander Skarsgard's Tarzan. While the villain is a frail, small man who relied on his wits and cunning, the protagonist is a force of nature who utilized his physical conditioning and instinct to get things done. Solid cast all around. Samuel L. Jackson, as always, is a scene-stealer. 

The original screenplay independent to Burroughs' established series is an admirable take on the legendary character. For that alone, the movie is a must-see.

Ghostbusters

Melissa McCarthy was the main reason I dropped all apprehension about the movie. Spy turned me into a fanboy while Kristen Wiig's involvement in films I liked of late like The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty and The Martian also helped in upping the optimism despite a sizable chunk of the original series' fans crying blasphemy about a remake (Strike 1) that replaced the original cast with an all-female group (Strike 2). Whatever.

No less than the original cast members, with the exception of the recently departed Harold Ramis and Rick Moranis (who refused to participate), showed their support by doing cameos in some key scenes in the story. 

Greatly entertaining and buoyed by a talented cast with impeccable comedic timing. Perhaps the most surprising revelation is Chris Hemsworth's self-deprecating humor that made him likable in ways his portrayal of Thor cannot. That, and the creepiest dweeb of a villain portrayed by Neil Casey make the film a laugh riot and one of the best comedy movies of the year.

The Conjuring 2

The thing about watching a lot of horror films, you tend to develop a kind of fright threshold not unlike some pharmacological concoctions a person uses to gradually increase the dosage of the drug to get the desired effects. The normal dose just wouldn't cut it anymore. 

Same with horror movies. You get introduced to some novel way of getting spooked, the next time it happens, it almost becomes an afterthought. Maybe that's why the first installments are the most memorable in an established series. There were a couple of these fright-fests I watched at a young age that made it almost impossible for me to take a piss in the middle of the night for fear of what ungodly abomination would grab my ankles from under the bed, or meet face to face in the darkened hallway on the way to the bathroom. Notable among these were The Exorcist, The first installment of Peque Gallaga's Shake Rattle and Roll series, and The Shining. There were others like George Romero's Night Of The Living Dead or John Carpenter's The Thing, but the antagonists on those were physical beings that cannot teleport to a place you consider to be a safe haven. There's just something about a good ghost story that inspires the inner masochist in people via scaring themselves to death. Even the popular Japanese ghosts from The Ring and The Grudge are set for a grand smackdown this month.

And ghosts and a good ghost story is one of director James Wan's many core competencies (The other is fast cars and death defying stunts that will put Looney Tunes characters to shame.).

The first Insidious movie was, and will always be the testament to Wan's exceptional talent in crafting spooky atmospheres, well-placed jolts that follow a cleverly-placed misdirection, and good storytelling. The offshoot film that followed the series, The Conjuring and its sequel, continues in the same vein, this time focusing on the real-life exploits of paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren. In The Conjuring 2, the couple assists a family in the receiving end of a deadly poltergeist activity in London, 1977.

As before, the beauty of Wan and his writers' execution of the story is not on what is presented onscreen but on the mystery behind what these ghost activities are trying to communicate. My only complaint about it, being a longtime viewer of films of this type, is that there are no more genuine fright that stays with you long after you have left the theater. Maybe its the sleek Hollywood production feel to it or that the main characters are played by well-known actors that makes it feel all the more like any other summer blockbuster you see in your mall cinemas. And I can't help but notice the same actor playing all the main boogeymen in all of Wan's movies. From the Darth Maul-like demon in Insidious to the hanged witch in The Conjuring. This time around the guy is playing a demon garbed in a nun's frock. That took another part out of the fright aspect. At least for me.

Time to go scouting again for obscure titles with no-name actors headlining them. Might be a gamble on potential turkeys (most of the time they really are turkeys) but when you hit paydirt with a good one, you can pat yourself on the back for another sleepless night and the inability to take a piss at the unholy hours just before dawn.

Captain America: Civil War

*POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD

Having recently watched the movie and expecting it to be spectacularly good based on the Facebook posts of contacts who have already seen it ahead of me, I expected a bit of jaw-dropping experience from the entire proceedings. While it obviously ticked off the necessary features in the checklist found in every Marvel blockbuster movie especially The Avengers series, there's something about the entire movie I can't quite pinpoint as I left the cinema that I felt was somewhat lacking. 

The movie was not horrible. Far from it. It was brilliant in the way that it made the audience think about opposing ideas that have equal gravitas and well-taught out arguments. There's no easy way to choose a side considering the very ideas both are espousing are simply two separate parts of a perfect set-up. Tony Stark (Iron Man) argues about the need for some PR gloss by playing along with the UN for a much-needed security initiative to check the movements of a super-powered but dangerous team, and Steve Rogers (Captain America) counters with the notion that having a panel or an agency dictate when they need to move can be disastrous considering the institution they might answer for might be compromised anytime by both deadly threats or simple politics. One goal, different methods. This is the fundamental conflict that drives the entire movie forward. The main villain itself is simply reduced as a catalyst for the final showdown between the two heroes on opposite sides of the argument.

I guess my main objection about it is that I can't help that the movie ended in a cliffhanger that was not the least bit satisfying. I've had my fair share of 'bitin' endings in the past---especially on most European movies---that didn't have me scratching my head out of frustration. Even the thought of a sure installment in the Avengers franchise where you know for sure that the team is gonna be okay anyway, changed the fact that there was something off about the picture. 

I'm just nitpicking on trivialities here but I felt the movie should have been an Iron Man movie instead of Captain America. Near the end of the movie, Stark receives a letter from Rogers about why he did what he did, and all the other lofty ideals Captain America is known to spew out. But the overwhelming sentiment I had about it was that some sort of injustice was done to Stark considering he saw his parents murdered for the first time. Like the idea of them dying from an accident wasn't traumatic enough, his own friend took the side of his parents' murderer, justified or not. And all he got in the end was a letter of apology. That left a stale taste in the mouth. 

Having said all that, it made a good introduction for Tom Holland's Spider-Man and Chadwick Boseman's Black Panther. 

Still, Team Tony rules.

Midnight Special

I'm sure it will end in a cliffhanger that does not explain anything about some curiosities audience members will definitely ask about, like the supernatural circumstances surrounding the main character and who he really is. In short, it will be an ending that me and a movie-fanatic uncle jokingly refer to as A European Ending. The type where everything ends abruptly without further exposition of things and ditching that spoon-fed scenario where that ever-annoying "What happened in the end" query from less-engaged audience members always ask. Which is totally fine by me. Because judging from the brilliant second trailer I watched repeatedly ever since, those concerns are, to be blunt, trivial and unimportant. At least in the overall scheme of things, or in the context of the whole movie.  While those factors are interesting tools to give spice and propel a good story, they are simply incidental and mere tools that highlight the core of a seemingly sci-fi adventure fare: A family drama. 

Take away the supernatural powers, government conspiracies, and religious cults and it comes down to a simple, but engaging story about a small family's struggle to protect their only child at all costs. And the inevitability of letting go of our loved ones. And it's not like Jeff Nichols broke any new ground in terms of making this type of movie. The director said he made an homage to the kinds of movies he saw growing up in the 80s. Similar themes had already been explored by the likes of ET, Starman, and J.J. Abram's own homage to the genre: Super 8. All had elements of fantasy and sci-fi wizardy and share of its "freaks" who reinforces the bonds of the humans they interact with in one way or another. Midnight Special certainly belongs to this pantheon. Where a young boy with mysterious powers attracts the attention of everyone.

You see a divorced father with his son in tow, escaping from both the government (who think his son is a weapon) and a religious cult (who thinks his son is the messiah) across the US with some hair-raising cat and mouse chase that put everyone's life at risk, with a few glimpses of the boy's power every now and then. As played by Michael Shannon, the father takes a desperate race against odds that are increasingly going against him to take his gifted/cursed son to a predetermined site chosen by the boy. Will it save him? Kill him? All of the above? Those questions are---while significant---hardly important.
 
What we have instead is a gripping synopsis on the type of futile struggle every parent must do to shelter their children from whatever impossible threat that comes along. Be it the external forces like the ones given in the film or the very nature of the child himself that hinges on self-destruction any given second. It's all these and more until the end where the only question that matters is the one only a parent will ask.

Robocop 2014

At first  I thought MGM decided to mock their famous Lion with a bizarre soundclip that replaced the trademark growl.

Turned out it was Samuel Jackson's Pat Novak. The guys's pre-broadcast mouth calisthenics that produced all that sound. It's there where I concluded Jose Padilha's remake of the 1987 Paul Verhoeven classic was a different entity altogether. 

Like the 1987 incarnation, the upgraded version never fails to underscore media's role into molding the public to puppets dancing to the tune of the most powerful corporations. That of course, and the neverending romantic theme of every successful fairy tale about the ages-old question of what makes us all human. 

The over the top R-18 violence that made the 1987 version so compelling was toned down for a more PG-friendly version this time. OCP is still the evil corporatation, and in place of the 'Old Man' we have a Steve Jobs-like CEO named Raymond Sellars. I never really liked Michael Keaton before The Other Guys but his performance in RoboCop made me a fan. The guy managed to make the character a very likable villain. Along with Jackie Earle Haley's mercenary and company military tactician and Jay Baruchel's goofy marketing executive, the film had all the makings of a very compelling movie by virtue of its villains (no Clarence/Jones but equally good) but somewhere in the middle the entire thing goes...level.

It's not that the movie was bad. In fact it's good---if it didn't have the specter of the original hanging around the back of your head to compare it with. The story and the overall direction of the new one is totally different in tone and even in story than its predecessor. That alone is reason enough why the movie is an excellent stand-alone entity on its own. I guess my major gripe about it is that the main character somehow lacks the charisma and bad-assness you'd expect from it. Granted that it's somehow a major improvement over the original considering it can move faster and has a whole lot more sophisticated access to technology and weaponry. I can't blame the actor (Joel Kinnaman) if that was how the character was written. You just can't empathize with it enough. Desensitized? Probably.

Had it not been for Gary Oldman's character, the film would have been a total waste.  Dr. Norton is the moral and humanist center of the story. They detached it, because RoboCop seems to be more like a machine in this version despite his human memories being intact.

There are a lot of allusions to the original other than the shared similarity of the characters' names. In place of the notorious 'Directive 4' we have the red band. Still a powerful tool to remind our hero that he's still just a product and still in the mercy of the company that made him. Good action/drama film overall. If only you haven't seen the original to compare it to. You just can't avoid it.

The Amazing Spider-Man

There were the doubts about how someone known primarily for 500 Days Of Summer could possibly pull off a seemingly ambitious superhero blockbuster flick like The Amazing Spider-Man.


I had the same doubts at first but were quickly dispelled by those small promotional clips taken from the movie they released gradually up until the opening date. Most notable of them was the clip  where Spider-Man was trolling a carjacker. So far so good. At least they got the trash-talker aspect and sense of humor of the character right. Whenever Tobey Maguire tried those one-liners off the Sam Raimi version, it came off being delivered by a nerd trying so hard to be cool. Granted that Peter Parker was a real nerd, he was one without any of those cliched social handicaps filmmakers try so hard to hammer down the heads of the audiences to the point of actually preaching how great it is to be one. He's a nerd, but not of the Big Bang Theory-variety. With over a truckload of re-invention and reboots ranging from comic books, TV shows, the occasional direct to video B-movie treatments to Sam Raimi's version, the last thing the world needs is another 'reboot' of an established franchise.

But the movie is everything the first three were not: It's better.


Rabid comic-book purists will no doubt complain again about the entire re-invention of the Peter Parker backstory and how un-Norman Rockwell-esque the treatment of the hero's relationship was to his aunt and uncle up to the inclusion of a conspiracy theory regarding his parents' disappearance, but it's all irrelevant yapping at this point. 

Webb and his pool of writers created a fresh and grittier take on the evolution of the iconic web-slinger. There's a certain realistic feel to it that's apparent and devoid of any excessive melodrama or long speeches on nobility. And Parker naturally gets back at the bullies who made his life miserable and exacts a level of enjoyment for his small revenge; as any normal person who suddenly discovered the power to fight back, would do. 


But the two lead actors [Andrew Garfield/Emma Stone] were perfect for the parts they played. Specially Stone, who did not come off as the token hysterical neurotic female lead with a sense of entitlement despite knowing her partner's nocturnal activities and responsibilities.


The fight sequences with the Lizard, which most people actually go for in movies like this were excellent. And the Spider-Man contortions made famous in the comics when he was web-slinging was given due recognition specially in the ending. It also showcased Peter Parker's scientific wizardy and his creation of the web-shooters. Without a doubt this Spider-Man is better compared to the one-dimensional version Raimi introduced. Webb and the others hit all the right note with this first installment, and a possible inclusion to The Avengers.


And basing from the extra footage at the end credits [as with all Marvel movies], looks like The Green Goblin is up next. I hope they still get Willem Dafoe for it. 


Minus that horrendous helmet, this time.

Face-offs: 1

There are a lot of movies that featured memorable fight/action sequences. These are the ones that came to mind on such short notice. I'm sure I missed out on a few excellent ones but we can always create a new list. Preferably on the next five of the list's continuation.

Gun-Kata duel, Equilibrium

Of course Gun-Kata is a load of BS director Kurt Wimmer invented to make the action scenes in his Dystopian film more flashy and palatable to the movie-going public. Lucky for him lead actor Christian Bale was involved or else the film would be a total disaster. It's an ambitious film, and entertaining mostly because of the unique blend of weird samurai style melee fighting and calculus shooting.This is also the film that convinced me Bale could pull off a decent Batman. His cleric (killer mode) is a lot more Batman than Batman, actually.

Train, From Russia With Love

The titanic faceoff between two elite killers in the 2nd film installment of Ian Fleming's quintissential spy is, up to now, voted as one of the most intense and realistic celluloid fights of all time. Robert Shaw's SPECTRE assassin Red Grant, had been pursuing Sean Connery's 007 in the course of the movie to terminate him. In the train, disguised as the M16 agent he killed, engaged Bond in a hand to hand combat to the death. Grant with his trademark garrote/wristwatch and Bond with his knife/gas/briefcase. No quarter, winner take all.

Mall skirmish, Terminator 2: Judgment Day

This is one of the breathtaking sequences in James Cameron's sequel to his killer cyborg movie in 1984. Up until then we didn’'t know squat about the new villains' abilities. Until his T-800 nemesis (Schwarzenegger) cratered him full of shotgun blasts. What follows is the two terminators’ introduction to each other’s capabilites and limitations by throwing each other around, while retaining a sense of stylish aesthetic that still looks cool more than 20 years after its release.

See http://youtu.be/VDVVAuz1v7U for the first encounter between the two cyborgs

Coliseum, Return Of The Dragon

Bruce Lee's best film, in my opinion is this. Not onlybecause he beat he crap out of everyone’s totem of machismo Chuck Norris, but broke the man’s spirit first. One of the best choreographed and realistic hand to hand movie fights that not only gave a sense of satisfaction by seeing the arrogant bad guy beaten, making you feel a bit scared for the protagonist because of his own formidable skills.

Intro, Blade 2

Wesley Snipes’ underrated Marvel half vampire hero is all swagger and precision. He knows how to make the character more intimidating than the monsters he kills on a regular basis. The first sequences of him storming a vampire mafia stronghold is gleefully brutal. Nothing like seeing monsters pissing their pants because of a hero a lot worse than they are. Snipes’ own martial arts flare of punishing the villains with extreme prejudice is an added bonus.

Theed Duel, The Phantom Menace

While the entire movie leaves a lot to be desired, the deadly dance between Jedi and Sith was best exemplified by the energetic and ballet-like lightsaber fight against a deadly Sith warrior played to feral perfection by Ray Park. Despite it being choreographed to appeal more to style than actual reality [you can practically see the actors aiming their strikes at their opponent’s blade rather than their opponent], it’s still an arresting sight, specially if you were weaned to the first trilogy’s brand of conservative lightblade duels.

Battle Of Pelennor Fields/The Rohirrim, The Return Of The King

Nothing can match the epic grandeur of the arrival of Theoden’s forces just as Gondor is about to fall. And the battle the followed shorty thereafter. And the Nazgul is always a sight to behold.

Phantasm

‘Let me liberate you from this flesh construct that binds you to time and space. All that is unknown will be known to you once more…’ – THE TALL MAN

Phantasm was a 1979 film from a relative unknown named Don Coscarelli. It is one of the most unique, strange, and bewildering contribution in the world of popular film boogeymen populated by the likes of A Nightmare On Elm St., Friday The 13th, Haloween, and Hellraiser.

Chief of it is the film's antagonist. A tall, lanky geriatric mortician sporting a Prince Valiant haircut simply called The Tall Man. Wearing black suits a size too small and with the habit of pillaging graveyards and turning corpses into pint sized-zombies, and using their brains to power his floating metallic orbs. A graphic scene involving these deadly spheres drilling into the head of a victim and sucking out the blood from them is a gory, but amusing bit of cinematic creativity. You'd feel the tongue in cheek humor like the creators were having a joke while conceptualizing it.

Angus Scrimm as the nefarious Tall Man

It's the same tone that separated the film among the pack. It knew about the seeming absurdity of the premise and decided to inject a few self-deprecating humor while it had fun scaring audiences out of their wits.

Thanks in no small part to Angus Scrimm's portrayal of the villain. The Tall Man is unnerving, weird---in a funny way---while at the same time able to conjure just enough fright, especially when he's in pursuit. Always in that wide, steady and purposeful stride with the echoing TOK-TOK-TOK of his heavy- cleated boots. Never ran. Not that he needed to, in the first place.

As with all other monsters in the genre, the guy seemed to magically teleport into that place where you thought you were the safest.

Unlike the motormouthed Freddy Krueger, or the one-track mind of Jason Voorhees, The Tall Man’s motivations are slightly a bit more complex than just thoughtless mayhem. You never quite know what the guy is up to; even when you know mankind’s best interest is the farthest thing in his head. He goes from town to town, harvesting graves and leaving a wasteland that almost wipes out a town’s population and leaving not more than a few ‘lurkers’[undead rejects] in them as well.

But what really set the movie apart was that the series [all four of them] had a comic book approach to it that references the classic hero vs arch –enemy routine that promises a perpetual conflict between the opposing sides. The film’s protagonist trio – A young boy, his elder brother and their ice cream vendor bestfriend have been steady characters in all the series. Whereas in other fims in the genre, the average shelf-life of the main characters were two movies at most. The actors even aged in it. By the time the fourth installment came [1998], Scrimm’s appearance was in stark contrast to his 1979 incarnation.

The series has a dreamy, and predominantly melancholic tone to it more than outright terror. Don Coscarelli is fond of long, drawling footages of bleak landscapes and isolation mostly focused on A. Michael Baldwin’s character Mike, who had been the target of the Tall Man’s pursuit since the first film. There are times when the movie even feels like a Joy Division or The Cure video, with all the footages of landscapes devoid of human habitation and complete solitude. It’s closer to David Lynch than Clive Barker or Wes Craven.

Even the origin of the villain or his relation to one of the characters has no visible explanation.Whether the guy is an alien, demon or death himself. The only clue is that there is vital information for whatever plans he has on Mike’s [Baldwin] head. That Mike might even be of the same origin as the Tall Man remains vague, despite the latter extracting one of the killer spheres in his head by the end of the fourth film.

In a lot of ways it’s one of the best films to have come out of the last 30 years. Just on the out of world premise to it that is as confounding as anything Terry Gilliam did and just as funny in some parts as Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead. It’s one of the better big ‘indie’ films ever made. I doubt if the premise was pitched in today’s gore and sensory overload-addicted climate, it would get any kind of approval then go straight to the can in favor of celluloid cruds big on explosions, more explosions and sub-par storyline.

It’s not without its flaws, and there are surely enough of them to go around in the series, but as with any other films boxed in the same genre, the demographics for this kind of movies aren’t exactly moustache-twirling cineastes. To go watch it and expect any profound statements on the human condition other than watching it for thrills would be an exercise in stupidity. In fact going out to watch any films with that kind of mindset is ridiculous.

Unless you’re paid to be like that.

'No'

The last time George Lucas  decided to improve the aspects of his original trilogy, fans (by this I mean people who loved the original set from 1977-1983) were outraged as to why he even bothered with 'fixing' something that isn't broken in the first place.


I had no problem with it at first. This was a chance to see the originals in the theater, the way they were meant to be seen, anyway. 


The only one I was lucky enough to catch on its original theatrical run was Return Of The Jedi in 1983. I was 4. Didn't even know what I was watching was the last part of an epic trilogy. Just that it completely blew my mind, specially those humming lightsabers and how bad guys can actually redeem themselves in the end. 


The earlier films, I watched repeatedly on the VCR. 


The 1997 special editions had, as was previously reported before they opened, some pretty good upgrades and additional scenes that were previously envisioned by Lucas back in '77 but was unable to do so due to the limitations in special effects technology then.

CGI Stormtroopers on CGI dewbacks absent in the original version

That was okay as far as I'm concerned. Who would not want a little additional refurbishing or addition to the landscapes you practically knew even in your sleep? As long as it did not interfere with the story or any major character's presentation.


What raised the red flag for me while watching it in the theater, particularly on A New Hope (Episode IV), was the scene where Han Solo was confronted by one of Jabba The Hutt's henchmen (Greedo). In the original '77 version, Solo shot the villain first.


On the upgraded version, the scene was played out in a way that made me suspect a defect in the movie reel they were using. There was an awkward shift in Solo's head that made it look as if he evaded Greedo's blast first, and fired his own to kill his nemesis. 

Turns out Lucas did not want him to look too ruthless by firing off first.

That scene turned everyone's favorite smuggler/gunslinger from a badass, tako-no-shit kind of person to a boy scout with a tough exterior. Whatever convoluted sense of morality Lucaswanted to impart on the Solo character, totally destroyed how people knew him.

For starters the character really is unlikeable. At least at first. He's supposed to be the balance to the all around good guy country boy hero in Luke Skywalker. You're supposed to view him as an opportunistic scumbag until the end when he turned out to be a great person after all. 


What's even more puzzling is that this is hardly one of the 'technological setbacks' Lucas kept complaining about that he wanted to improve. This is already about changing characters'  motivations and actions. 


It happened again in The Empire Strikes Back. Several key changes in the dialogues were noticeable. A bid for political correctness, most likely. Whatever 'upgrade' Lucas did in the effects department were surely eclipsed by the new things old characters were saying. In other words, the brilliant screenplay of Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan were not spared from the 'refurbishing'.  


But the worst part of it in the best part of the film as well.


This time in the climactic fight between Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker in Bespin's Cloud City. 


In the 1980 version, instead of giving in to the temptations of power his father promised him if he turned to the dark side, the young warrior from Tatooine chose death by quietly jumping off the small platform he was holding unto. 


In the 'improved' version, Lucas decided to insert a long girlyman scream as he was falling to the chasm. It also sounded distrurbingly similar to the Emperor's own freefall screams when Vader threw him to his own death in Return Of The Jedi.

Gone was the brave freedom fighter who defied the lures of power. In its place was someone who was probably about to go on traipsing in to the dark side for all we know, and just slipped.

Even Lucas realized how stupid the move was and decided to remove it in the subsequent DVD releases.

But what really is infuriating about all these changes is how the guy's obsessive drive to 'perfect' the materials that practically does not need it as far as fans---the real owners---are concerned. Even that kind of motivation or drive is forgivable. At least that shows you the depth of the man's dedication to his art.

However, marketing ploys are another thing. Specially on specialty products like this you know for a fact are held in high esteem by rabid fanboys who'd automatically gobble anything remotely attached to the series.

Insanity for your art is one thing. Butchering a beloved piece of work to sell more of it, is another.

A few days ago news about the Blu Ray version of Return Of The Jedi caused another stir when a leaked footage of the scene in question was seen by most fans. 

Perhaps Mr. Lucas felt slighted about the negative reactions to Vader's prolonged "NOOO!" in Revenge Of The Sith, that he decided to rub it in by letting the iconic character at it again just to get even.

Or maybe he's just being magnanimous by offering audiences countless options on how they want their Star Wars served. Like a twisted version of the Choose Your Own Adventure series.

In any case, if there's any Lucasfilm movie that badly needs a major overhaul, it's Howard The Duck.

Spellbound

Aside from Alan Rickman's Snape sharing a striking resemblance to Trent Reznor (circa 94's Self-Destruct tour), Celia Rodriguez and Joey De Leon's genetic offspring, the rest of the final movie installment for JK Rowling's titular wizard had plenty of other visual spectacles that tops all the other films in the series. Understandably so because as far as endings go, the second part of The Deathly Hallows ends with a bang.


The movie starts off immediately following the events of Part 1. Voldemort retrieving the Elder Wand and the protagonist trio on the quest to find and destroy the remaining horcruxes (items where Voldemort hid pieces of his soul) to have a fighting chance against their enemy. There was always an impending sense of doom one can feel while watching, like someone or something was lurking in every corner out to make another famous character disappear from the series forever. 

This is, after all, the second part of one story (and the last act of an entire series, at that). If there's anything to be gleaned about storytelling is that the boring part usually happens at the first act and it's all hyperkinetic pacing and climax at the end. At least when done properly. And David Yates and the screenplay by Steve Kloves handle the tale with just the right amount of precision and pathos to make even non-fans of the series appreciate what the characters are going through.


The cast members could practically do their respective roles in their sleep. But it was Alan Rickman's portrayal of Snape that got the most reactions from people. Especially so for those who had not read the books and got the surprise revelation about his role on the entire story. It was one of the most heart-rending vindication ever captured on film since Darth Vader came to his son's rescue and threw the Emperor to his death.


It's one of those things that make watching movies on the cinema worthwhile.

X-Men: First Class

Perhaps the most astonishing thing about Matthew Vaughn’s take on the recent installment of the X-Men franchise is the director’s audacity to actually take a well-established series and wrench it out of its mold, and reshape it into a brilliant and original near-reboot that is a far-cry, yet similar in tone to the ones that Brian Singer did. 

When initial news about the prequel hit, it was greeted by an onslaught of dismissive and vitriolic kiss-offs from fans and casual moviegoers alike. Largely because it looked like it was jumping into the trend of putting out prequels with the hope of ressurecting a dying, or already dead franchise, and because Brett Ratner’s ‘Last Stand’ did not generally sit well with most critics and fans of the comics. It left a bad taste to most that any mention of making another movie remotely connected to the franchise is deemed to be a guaranteed failure.

But in 2010 Matthew Vaughn directed and produced Kick-Ass. A very underrated, but excellent and ultraviolent and funny movie that talked about extreme superhero fanboy fantasies. In a way it is a lot more ambitious than actual superhero movies. Here was a guy making a superhero movie about average people trying hard to be superheroes in a ‘realistic’ world and actually coming across the screen as such. As far as misifts doing things for the greater good is concerned, the guy is no stranger to the material.

Early reviews from advance screenings had critics comparing Vaughan’s work from JJ Abrams’s Star Trek. That was all the guarantee I needed to conclude the film won’t be a letdown. Or at least a minor disappointment at worst. 

The fact that I’m not a Star Trek fan and I walked out of that movie happy with what I saw is no easy feat for a director--- to make an almost exclusive series with a rabid fanbase palatable to the average moviegoer who couldn’t care less about quantum physics, technobabble coming from pointy-eared Vulcans, or the fact that the film is often identified with 40-year old geeks living in their mother’s basement. 

The film did not require a first-timer to read through all the fanfiction and sift the entire Star Trek Wiki before watching it just to get a rudimentary grasp on what he’s about to see. And that is the mark of a good movie. Or at least for an adaptation of an established material. 

And it it precisely the reason why Vaughn’s take on the ‘origin’ of the seminal super group worked. I was seated next to moviegoers I knew who, based on their comments, had zero knowledge about the main characters yet managed to appreciate and empathize with them (“Sana wag mamatay si Charles”, “Ay… naging magkalaban pala sila?”). Even cheering constantly that proved to be a little annoying. But I do understand their enthusiasm. It is a genuinely good movie after all.

A large chunk of the credit goes to the two lead actors. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender (Professor Xavier and Magneto respectively) work through the tale of two friends-turned bitter enemies with great precision. It’s great to watch the two bounce off each other’s differences and complement the other’s shortcomings. It contrasted the different circumstances on how the two men were brought up: Xavier in a life of wealth and surrounded by people who loved him; and Lehnserr being a concentration camp lab rat and holocaust survivor-turned Nazi hunter.

Kevin Bacon’s Sebastian Shaw was unfortunately not given that much breathing room as far as showing off or engaging other mutants in a titanic face-off of pitting his full power against his enemy’s (presumably Magneto) than his henchmen. The little-known Riptide and Azazel had the most fun. But as the leader of The Hellfire Club, he nailed the smug, arrogant air of the mutant aristocrat with a crazed Darwinian theory about human evolution that ultimately found its way to Magneto.

As for the discrepancies with the comics/continuity that most purists have been complaining about, what can I say? Go make your own damn movie.

Goodbye horses

i recently watched a defective pirated dvd of clerks 2 and basing from what i have seen, it sucked. yes, that's just as direct and bullshit-free as i can make it. i don't think a richard corliss, roger ebert or peter travers crappy impression would give it the respect it deserves so i might as well just get to the point and drop the pretentious movie critic bit and say that yes, it sucked. for me, anyway. aside from the occasional pixelating of the picture (it was a pirated copy after all), the story failed to keep me interested like it did the first. not that it was totally crap; maybe i exepected too much from kevin smith -- beause i really enjoyed jay and silent bob strikes back ---but this sequel to his 94 masterpiece fell flat for me. i especially liked that jay impression of silence of the lambs's jame gumb; complete with the q lazzarus hit 'goodbye horses. i don't know. maybe it's old age or i'm starting to evolve into someone with a questionable taste in movies.
=========
by the way --- q lazzarus. now that's cult music.
cool.