A Quick Message Before 2012 Hits...

Yes, I know. This is the first post I've written since November. And we're only minutes away from 2012. It is pretty great that the blog has gotten this far. Ish. Ever since it started in late July, I've been proud to bring my opinions of the latest films that were present this year. Some of them have gotten praise, while others have been criticized. I'm fine with that. It's all part of life anyway. I know I was making progressively less when September hit, but I like to sort-of think of that as a little hiatus. I've been taking a longer one after the Twilight review. To make things short, I just want to say to whoever read the blog, thank you. Have a safe and happy new year and we'll see you all in 2012.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn- Part 1: Movie Review

Directed by Bill Condon
Screenplay by Melissa Rosenberg, based on the novel by Stephanie Meyer.
Running Time: 117 minutes (1h, 57 mins.)
Rated PG-13 (for disturbing images, violence, sexuality/partial nudity and some thematic elements).
Distributor: Summit Entertainment

Here we go again. We get another one of these films. You know, the one with the sparkling vampire and the girl who falls madly in love with him. When you really think about it, you gotta wonder why anyone, especially a mother of three, write this? That question won't really matter to anyone anymore since it's a worldwide success and it's making teen heartthrobs out of almost every young cast member involved. So now we come to the first part of the final film in the series, which means Summit Entertainment used the Harry Potter trick in order to make more money. Does it work? Not to sound like every other film critic but keep reading to find out...

If you're a fan of the series, then you already know the story. If not, then here's this brief description. Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), along with everyone close to them, must deal with a chain of tragic consequences brought on by their marriage and their unexpected pregnancy, which will lead to a childbirth that could kill her. If anything, just watch the trailer and the countless television spots. They help. Now, I want to make clear that I am not a fan of the Twilight saga. Even though I don't exactly mind seeing the movies, I think we all know that they're the franchise that made vampires lame. The countless Twilight wannabes don't help either, especially The Vampire Diaries. Worst. One. Yet.  True Blood is more of a better show. At least some of the vampires on that show are badass. But we're not talking about those two, so let's get back to Twilight.

As you know, this is the first part of the film, which I felt was weird because it seemed like everything big in this part happened. Yeah, I know Harry Potter did it, but they had enough material to split it into a two-parter. This however, doesn't. As I mentioned before, the two-parter trick was obviously done by the studio to make more money off this franchise, but it probably could have worked better had it been one long movie. Then again, with the exception of the fans, why would anyone want to sit through two-and-a-half to three hours of this? The performances are more of the same. Kristen Stewart is a notable example, at least in some scenes. I never liked her character and this film didn't change that at all.

In the first film, she was a little crazy. In New Moon, which is the worst film in the series, she went beyond crazy and acted like a total bitch. In Eclipse, she's still a bitch, always pitting the vampire and the werewolf against each other. In this one, she proves herself as needy, an example being a montage of scenes set during the aftermath of their time...you know...under the covers. After their first night of doing it, Bella wants it again and Edward refuses, only to give in later. Taylor Lautner starts okay, but gets progressively worse as the movie goes on. Most of his dialogue doesn't work and his character still constantly has hissy fits, especially in an unintentionally hilarious scene involving him in his wolf form and the rest of his wolf pack. When it comes to the three of them, Robert Pattinson was probably the better performer. Supporting is the same, not that it's a bad thing to these guys: Ashley Greene, Elizabeth Reaser, Peter Facinelli, Anna Kendrick, Billy Burke, Sarah Clarke and Kellan Lutz. As for Michael Sheen, I wondered why he was credited because he isn't even in the entire film. The only time you ever get to see him is right after the credits, which you should probably stay for if you want to get an actual hint of what will happen in part two.

The director this time around is Bill Condon. You might know him as the director of Gods and Monsters, Kinsey and Dreamgirls. Like the second film, it's looks like anyone could have directed this. At least in the first film, Catherine Hardwicke put some of her own visual style into the mix. Same with David Slade in the third. I think they should get someone like Zack Snyder to direct one of these films. I know it's too late now, but come on, think about it. Melissa Rosenberg returns as screenwriter and the script this time isn't that bad. Yes, despite some unintentionally funny scenes, there are also scenes that do contain some of the emotional, character-driven depth that was missing from the others. I do have to say the action scenes aren't shot that well. They're set in places so dark, I almost thought I was watching the film in 3D.

I didn't expect too much from this film, seeing as it's a Twilight movie. They were scenes that worked and they were scenes that didn't work. There are moments of interesting intensity (especially the scenes with Bella and the growing demon baby) and moments of unintentional laughter. I found myself in a mixed bag with this fourth entry, so I think the least I can give it is **1/2 (Two stars and a half).

The Descendants- Movie Review

Directed by Alexander Payne

Screenplay by Payne, Jim Rash and Nat Foxon, based on the novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings.

Running Time: 115 minutes (1h, 55 mins.)

Rated R (for language including some sexual references).

Distributor: Fox Searchlight Pictures

(Note: This is a slightly edited version of the original Toronto International Film Festival review that was posted 2 months ago).

In a career that spans almost twenty years, The Descendants is Alexander Payne's fifth film. After the critical, commercial and Oscar-winning success of Sideways in 2004, I was starting to wonder how come it was taking so long for him to make another film. I guess he was just taking a break and a long one at that. I know that he was working on a draft of I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry with his writing partner Jim Taylor, but then Adam Sandler came in and started, in Payne's words, "sandlerizing" the script and along with Taylor, he produced this year's Cedar Rapids. But now we come to this film, which happened to premiere at one of the most popular film festivals in the world. Mr. Payne, it's good to have you back.

The film stars George Clooney as Matt King, a land baron and the head of an Hawaiian family with many descendants, which of course is where the film's title is taken from. His wife, Elizabeth, is suffering a coma due to a boating accident and the doctors tell him that there's no way that she'll come back from it. This is a way for him to re-connect with his two daughters: 10-year-old Scottie (Amara Miller), who first meet when she's picked up from school and 17-year-old Alexandra (Shailene Woodley), who returns home from boarding school. When Matt tells Alexandra the bad news about her mother, she doesn't seem to care, due to her and Elizabeth arguing over Christmas. Matt didn't know what the argument was about, until now. Alexandra tells him that they were arguing due to the fact that Elizabeth was having an affair with another man. Now, Matt is trying to find the man she was sleeping with while at the same time trying to figure out what to do with their last piece of land.

Like I said before, it's good to have Alexander Payne back in the game and it's clear that his talent hasn't slowed down at all, even after a seven-year hiatus. He brings us a movie that explores the relationships between the family and makes it hilarious and heartbreaking at the same time. Payne takes the setting of the film and clearly states in the script that Hawaii isn't paradise. While I'm on the subject of the script, I also want to make a quick mention that one of the writers of the film, Jim Rash, is known best as Dean on Community. That's a surprise. George Clooney's character says, "Paradise can go f%$k itself", one of the lines that stayed with me throughout the screening. Speaking of Clooney, his performance is great and I would rank it one of his best. Payne stated at the TIFF Q&A that Clooney was the actor he had in mind when the script was being written. Clooney could get an Oscar nomination for this.

Some of his shine, though, is stolen by the young actors in the film. Many of the great scenes come from Shailene Woodley, Amara Miller and Nick Krause. Woodley has obviously played a teenager before, all thanks to that crappy pregnancy show, The Secret Life of The American Teenager, but unlike that show, she truly embodies the actions of a teenage person. Basically her performance is surprisingly excellent. She has the chance of getting an Oscar nom. Then we have Miller, who makes her screen debut. She's good here too. But the one who really has a breakout role is Krause, who plays Sid, Alexandra's friend. His lines range from "Sup, bro" to "I didn't know old people hit like that" to even talking about his mentally challenged brother.

Sid is kinda stupid, but he shows a smart side as well. I think Krause is one of the best things to come out of this entire film. Oscar, pay attention to him too. There are also some fine performances that come from Judy Greer, Matthew Lillard and Beau Bridges. Phedon Papamichael is the cinematographer behind this film and he renders the Hawaiian landscapes and mountains wonderfully. Papamichael last collaborated with Payne on Sideways and he did a great job there. Its Hawaiian-like score also stayed with me, long after I left the theatre.

The Descendants is definitely one of my favourite films this year. It's an intelligent portrait of a man and his not-so-perfect family that's often funny and often sad. It's very clear that Alexander Payne, Fox Searchlight, the cast and the rest of the crew truly have an Oscar contender on their hands. I give the film a very enthusiastic **** (4 stars).

A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas- Movie Review

Directed by Todd Strauss-Schulson
Written by Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg
Running Time: 90 minutes (1h, 30 mins.)
Rated R (for strong crude and sexual content, graphic nudity, pervasive language, drug use and some violence).
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures (New Line Cinema)

The darkness of Halloween is out of the way, so now it's time to get right into the joy and bright lights of Christmas. The jolly songs on the radio, the stores filled with big toys and games, the various amounts of drugs spread onto a toddler...you probably wonder why I mentioned that last part, aren't you? Because of these guys. The Cheech & Chong of our generation are back and this time, they're holding nothing back, especially in 3D.

Set six years after their zany escape from Guantamano Bay, Harold Lee (John Cho) and Kumar Patel (Kal Penn) have been estranged from one another, replacing each other with different friends and living completely different lives. While Harold has a great job in Wall Street, a big house and is now married to Maria (Paula Garces), Kumar is living a nasty apartment and spending all his days getting high. Things change on Christmas Eve when a mysterious package brings the two guys together and when a joint burns down Harold's father-in-law's (Danny Trejo) Christmas tree, they travel across New York City to find the perfect one. Through their mission, trouble ensues at every single turn.

If you've seen the first two films, then you know what to expect. If you're new to this franchise, prepare to get shocked, because this time around they're really pushing the envelope, one notable example being a baby getting exposed to marijuana, cocaine and ecstasy. Expect parent groups to be all against that. Another example is the 3D. It may be unusual that a film like this would be filmed in the format, but it does work really well. While it makes fun of the technology, it also embraces it, having many things fly at us like weed smoke and splattering eggs.

John Cho and Kal Penn still have the chemistry that drove the first two films and of course, back from the dead is Neil Patrick Harris. Harris plays himself once again: the drug snorting, very heterosexual version of himself. Here in this, he makes fun of his real-life public image, pretending to be gay. NPH pushes that further when he sexually assults a Rockette. Danny Trejo is perfectly used as Harold's menacing father-in-law. We don't see too much of Paula Garces as Maria, just like the first two films and Danneel Ackles returns as Vanessa, Kumar's on-off girlfriend.

Directing this time around is Todd Strauss-Schulson. This is good direction, especially when this is his feature-film debut. The writing is funny, filthy and inventive. Writers Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg send up many references to Christmas classics like A Christmas Story and even going into a claymation sequence, which lasted a bit shorter than I expected it too. I liked it, but Community did it better. Just saying.

I liked this film. Sure, it doesn't live up to the first, but it's slightly better than the second. While many people might be offended by what happens in the film, there are many people who know how to take a joke and have a good time. I am one of those people. I give the film *** (3 stars).

Johnny English Reborn- Movie Review

Directed by Oliver Parker
Screenplay by William Davies, story by Hamish McColl.
Running Time: 101 minutes (1h, 41 mins.)
Rated PG (for mild action violence, rude humor, some language and brief sensuality).
Distributor: Universal Pictures

For many who don't know, Johnny English Reborn is a sequel to Johnny English, the spy parody which was released eight years ago. But I guess the first film wasn't the most memorable of Rowan Atkinson's wacky characters, which explains why I, like everyone, was surprised that a sequel was getting developed after all those years. This isn't Hollywood's doing, by the way.

Atkinson returns as Johnny, who disappeared from MI7 long ago and is living in a remote area in China. But when the agency learns of an assasination attempt on the Chinese premier, English is the only agent in contact and he must swing back into action to stop it. That's pretty much the whole premise. With that premise comes much of Atkinson's signature slapstick humor. This however features nutshots, English falling down constantly and a urinal joke. Now from that whole description, you probably think I hated this film as much as I hated Spy Kids: All the Time in the World. No, I didn't. 

As Spy Kids 4 was a unnecessary sequel filled with unoriginality and a bunch of jokes involving poop, flatulance and barf, Johnny English 2 has some originality left in it- even if it is a spoof. It still suffers some problems. Mainly its script. While it has some funny moments, it never really goes anywhere and has a lot of cliched moments. Then again, it is a spoof, so you never really know if it making fun of those cliches or it's just in there. There's also a scene where English is attacking the elderly mother of MI7 Head Pamela Thornton (Gillian Anderson, with a British accent and being unamusing). That was obviously ripped from Austin Powers.

While Atkinson does good as usual, the rest of the cast sometimes fail to keep up. I already mentioned Anderson, but there's also Dominic West and Rosamund Pike, both of them great actors. West tries too hard to be funny. As for Pike, although she has some fine moments, it seems like this role is just a way for her to relive her Bond girl days. I did like Daniel Kaluuya, who played English's new partner. His scenes with Atkinson provide some laughs. Oliver Parker is the director of this, though it would have been more nicer if they brought Peter Howitt, the director of the first film, back. I guess he didn't want to do this one.

Let me just end this review by saying that while I did laugh, I didn't laugh enough. Despite it being another one of those spy movie spoofs, it's hard not to point the cliches involved in this. Some of the performances aren't really in touch with the film and the script gets tiring. I like how it's slightly darker than its the first, but overall I didn't get a whole lot much from this film. I give it ** (2 stars).

Footloose- Movie Review

Directed by Craig Brewer
Screenplay by Dean Pitchford and Craig Brewer, story by Dean Pitchford.
Running Time: 113 minutes (1h, 53 mins.)
Rated PG-13 (for some teen drug and alcohol use, sexual content, violence and language).
Distributor: Paramount Pictures

Out of all the films Hollywood recycled for this generation, Footloose is probably one of the oddest. I know many people who love the 1984 original, despite some of its cheesiness and its silly plot. Personally, I think the original is decent stuff and something that shouldn't be attempted to remake. Looks like Paramount didn't listen to that last part. What's next: Flashdance? Oops.

For those who haven't seen the original and don't know what the plot is: Big-city guy Ren McCormick (Kenny Wormald) moves to the small southern town Bomont to live with his aunt, uncle and cousins. When Ren finds out that dancing and loud music has been banned due to a car accident that killed five teenagers three years ago, one of them being Rev. Shaw Moore's (Dennis Quaid) son, he decides to challenge the law and during that time, falls in love with Ariel (Julianne Hough), the reverend's troubled daughter.

Now, I'm gonna keep this review brief since I have another film to screen. I mentioned before in this and in an earlier post dating back to August that a remake was unnecessary, but after watching this, I am surprised. With the exception of Fright Night, most remakes this year have been pretty underwheming. Luckily, this isn't. Sure, it's has the same silly plot and there's still some cheese, but between the cheese is some grit. Yes, I'm saying this remake is a bit more grittier than the original.

The performances are pretty good. Kenny Wormald and Julianne Hough are fine as the leads. This is bound to make Wormald a big star, much like what the original did for Kevin Bacon. Same for Hough, who with the number of roles she's been getting lately will be much bigger than the original's Lori Singer. Dennis Quaid is good as Shaw originally played by John Lithgow and Andie MacDowell is fine as Shaw's wife. Miles Teller is great as Ren's friend Willard, which was originally played by the late Chris Penn. Teller played the same role in the stage musical version.

Direction comes from Craig Brewer, who also wrote the screenplay with the original film's scripter, Dean Pitchford. Brewer knows things about music, as we learned from his last two features: Hustle & Flow, which brought us into the rap music world (and which got rap group Three 6 Mafia an Oscar win) and Black Snake Moan, which featured a lot of blues music. Here, it's country, rock and some rap. Brewer directs it well, even a little better than the original's Herbert Ross. In this new version, Brewer shows the car accident that caused the ban of dancing and the opening credits, where we see a bunch of feet dancing along to the title song (Kenny Loggins' original version, Blake Shelton's version appears at the end), is set on the dance floor which is unlike the original.

I'm not exactly sure if this is a better version than the original because despite some changes (especially the dancing), it does feel like the original. However, I had a lot of fun with this one. There are good performances, some awesome choreography (by Jamal Sims) and good direction. Anyone who's fresh to this will enjoy it and anyone who's seen the 1984 film will likely enjoy it as well. The audience in my screening was a mix of both those people and they clapped right after the movie was over. I give the film *** (3 stars).

Trailerpalooza Exclusive: The Avengers

It's time. You know you've been waiting for it. And now it's finally here. The first trailer for The Avengers has just been released on the web. It's enough to satisfy the fanboys (me included) out there for now, but you know that one trailer won't be enough sooner or later. You can read my opinion of it after the jump, but now, without further ado, here is a Trailerpalooza exclusive: the first official trailer for one of the most highly-anticipated films of next year: The Avengers.

Now, let me give my own opinion on this. Like I said, one trailer isn't enough, so I'll be expecting a few more as the time goes by. Not too much, though. We don't want the advertising campaign to be like Green Lantern (Not that I'm insulting the movie. I didn't think GL was bad. But it could have been better). Like many who watched the past Marvel Studios films, I have been waiting for this film since the first Iron Man in 2008 and so far from this trailer, I like what I see. Only problem is why couldn't this be filmed like the other Marvel films: in the 2:35- 2:40 aspect ratio. 1:85 is okay, but for a film like this, it just doesn't seem right. I expected more of a bigger scope when I see this in the theatres, but you know, what can you do?

It's great to see everyone back: the always brilliant Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, the two Chris's (Evans- Captain America and Hemsworth- Thor), Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow (in that same black suit, Score!), Jeremy Renner returns as Hawkeye after that brief cameo in Thor, Mark Ruffalo replaces Edward Norton as the Hulk, which is sad, but I trust Ruffalo to play this well and after all those cameos (except for Iron Man 2), Samuel L. Jackson's back as Nick Fury. Tom Hiddleson returns as Loki, the mischieveing, evil brother of Thor. We hear him in the beginning. The only person missing from this trailer is Cobie Smulders, who plays S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Maria Hill. Hopefully, we see her in another trailer.  It's gonna be nice to see her transition from TV star (you probably know her as Robin on How I Met Your Mother) to major movie star.

The director and screenwriter is Joss Whedon, who is loved by the fanboy commuinity. Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a fine show, Dollhouse was pretty good, but for me, Firefly was one of his best. Although sadly cancelled after one season, he continued where the final episode left off on the big screen with Serenity, which I also liked. To see him direct this is pretty cool, especially since a long time back, he was supposed to make a Wonder Woman movie (with Smulders in mind), but that never came through (Since David E. Kelley's television pilot was scrapped, I hope that Warner Bros. lets Nicolas Winding Refn do the Woman Woman movie). I can't judge Whedon's direction or writing, mainly because it's a trailer. I just hope that he'll do a good job. Also on a side note, for those who want to know the song playing in the trailer, it's Nine Inch Nails' awesome opus, "We're in This Together" from their 1999 album, The Fragile.

Well, that's it. That's my whole opinion on the first Avengers trailer. Hopefully, this trailer satisfies you. If it doesn't, then I wish you luck. The Avengers hits theatres May 4, 2012.