Colombiana :: A 63 Review

My expectations towards movies tend to go down when it comes to certain genres. Girls with guns is one of them. I don't expect great characters and I certainly don't expect Academy Award, masterpiece writing. Originality comes second to action so for movies like Colombiana, I simply won't treat it as art. But what I do expect is fun and a basic, building storyline that follows the hollywood plot structure. Too bad this film is just a continuous loop of shitty writing.

The story starts with an unnecessarily long exposition. It tries to set up the stage for a revenge film but it just drags on and on. To make a long story short, a little girl's parents are betrayed by a gang boss and are killed. The girl moves to Chicago where she asks her uncle to train her to become a killer. The writers could've really condensed the plot of this film or even, the editors could've cut down the movie's running time.

Now when we finally see the adult version of our protagonist, things actually improve for a bit. The jail scene is what I like to call it and it's the best scene in the whole movie. It introduces the protagonist as an intelligent and stealthy badass and convinces the audience that she can do what she's meant to do: kill people. This was quite entertaining.

Then we're introduced to Zoe Saldana's boyfriend whose name I've forgotten (we'll get to the crappy characters later) and they have a little romantic moment. I didn't know how this subplot contributed to the main story...but then we moved on to Zoe Saldana killing more people. Unfortunately, this action sequence is the typical fat guy lying in bed with two prostitues while the protagonist takes down the guards. We've seen it before in the video game Hitman and it's all boring...and soon stupid.

Zoe points a gun at her target and says, "it doesn't matter who I am." Wait, what? This is the perfect example of how stupid the dialogue is in this film. Of course it's important who she is. Imagine if Inigo Montoya killed Count Rugen without identifying himself. The most important thing about revenge is that you're getting back at someone and letting them know that they've got what they deserved. But hey, that line sounded pretty cool in the trailers right? Zoe Saldana says, "I'm not going to kill you," as she shoots the glass floor and her target falls into the shark pool. No, Zoe. That's killing someone. Batman leaving Liam Neeson in a falling train is "not killing" someone but deliberately shooting the glass floor so that your target falls into a pool of sharks IS indeed, killing someone. But hey, that sounded cool in the trailers right?

So naturally Zoe goes back to...her boyfriend. They have sex and we get to see some nudity and...now I see the reason behind this boyfriend character's existence. The audience needs nudity. After the nudity Zoe has a conflict with her boyfriend because he feels as if he doesn't know her that well. Obviously Zoe has being hiding her true self because she's a super efficient killer. But then...why have a boyfriend? Oh right, nudity. Of course.

Then Zoe goes to kill another target. Then she comes back for more sex. Then she goes to kill another target. Then she comes back for the sex. Do you see what I mean when I say that this movie is a loop? It's just killing and having sex and killing and having sex over and over again. This isn't building anything. 

More stupid writing: the cops are incredibly stupid in this film. They conveniently wait for Zoe to kill 23 people before starting to do something about it. And all the while Zoe's Uncle tells Zoe she's going to draw attention to the family (you think?) Zoe's pretty cool with that until shit gets down and she drops to her knees and cries, "I didn't know!" (I laughed) You didn't know? What about the fact that you've been told multiple times that this would happen?

Anyway, moving on to finishing this half-assed review. Finally, in the climactic scene Zoe goes for her last target, her last revenge. But by this time, we're tired of seeing the routine. This scene sucks harder than any other scene. It is proof that this movie just went in loops instead of building a story. The whole movie's just a flat line. The characters are either stupid or unnecessary and the dialogue they share is either stupid or unnecessary. Avoid this movie - it fails as an action film! 

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark :: A 63 Review

Yes! I was really looking forward to this one because it reminded me of 'Vanishing on the 7th Street' (to which I give more credit than it deserves for the sake of cheap thrills). But let's hold on a second because this movie is neither good nor scary.

The only reason why darkness is even in the title is because the monsters (or should I say little tooth fairies) are afraid of the light. But there are so many scenes where this one rule is broken. Sometimes these little devils will avoid the light as if they've seen the poster for the new Michael Bay movie. Other times they'll just walk up to someone and stick a fork in their feet.

Let me just say how much I TRIED to enjoy this movie. They take so damn long to start this thing (by long I mean really boring exposition) but the movie never amounts to anything. There's no suspense; no genuine effort to make us care about the people who'll die. Seriously, I care just as much about the little girl that's supposed to be the protagonist as the first guy that gets killed first. And besides, am I supposed to be afraid of tooth fairies now? These things are like 6 inches tall yet nobody stomps on them like a bunch of bugs.

This movie...ugh, it has no identity. What's it trying to accomplish? Is it trying to scare us? Well, no because after the monsters are revealed to be little tooth fairies, we're pretty much comfortable with staying in the spooky mansion. So is it trying to tell a fairy tale? I mean the garden scenes are really reminiscent of Pan's Labyrinth but then there's no real exploration or any mystical adventure. So...is it trying to be a family drama? Not really because the focus is on the not-so-scary tooth fairies rather than the development of the characters. Bottom line: this movie has no focus.

The ending is anti-climatic yet they try so hard to throws us on to a pandemoniac scene. And all the while I'm just wondering, "leave the damn house, why don't you?" I mean I understand why they didn't do it the first time considering how expensive the house was but I'm pretty sure that the life of your child is worth a lot more than the stupid house. Oh right, I forgot Guy Pearce is portraying the typical doubtful father who will never believe his daughter's stories.

**Spoilers here** The stereotypical wise old man gets slashed and hacked by these creatures in the house. Guy Pearce assumes it's "just an accident". What's this, Final Destination? He was slashed and stabbed by forks and knives, that's no accident! This should at least be investigated as attempted murder. **Spoiler ENDS HERE**

 Guess what, moron? If a little girl tells you that there are killer tooth-fairies in the basement, then there are killer tooth fairies in the basement so abandon the precious house and find another house.

This film gets ridiculous to say the least. Katie Holmes says she has "a good idea" and gives the little girl a camera for her to take pictures of the creatures (for proof to show the father). That's a little bit more than just stupid. If I see Jason Voorhees in my house with a machete I'm not going to take photos of him as proof so I can convince my dad to GET OUT. My first response would be to leave right away and bring my family with me. But wait a second, they do that in this film!! But why did the little girl go back to her house? Did she leave her Macbook behind? That would at least explain something! Why? These characters have no logic! They never explain anything! One moment they do something and in the next moment they press the undo button to everything they've accomplished. Imagine if Harry Potter found a Horcrux only to put it back where he found it.

I walked into this film with the wrong idea. This is partially the marketing's fault and the TITLE's fault. Why is this film called "Don't be Afraid of the Dark?"It's not about the dark and I'm not afraid of anything after watching this film. This is what a misleading plot and a group of stupid characters (portrayed by good actors) will do to you; it will disappoint you. This is what the Miami Heat fans must feel right now.

Plot: 1/5

Characters: 1/5

Performances: 5/5

Specifics: 1/5

Theme: N/A (What was this about?!!)

Overall: 1.5/5

Rise of the Planet of the Apes :: A 63 Review

I've heard people say this is the Dark Knight of the year. Needless to say this movie was great but this is no Dark Knight. This review will at times will make it seem like I didn't like the movie. However I thoroughly enjoyed it and consider it to be one of the better summer films of this crappy film year.

I'm not sure where to begin. How do I review this without being redundant. There are already many things said about this film. Yes, this is a movie where the story gets very personal. The audience can become sypmathetic towards Caesar, the ape. The movie feels extremely short which has its pros and cons. The exposition, although argued to be long didn't feel that way. The exposition is the reason why we feel bad for the ape. It's also the reason why this movie feels anti-climactic. You expect the apes to take over the whole city by the end of this movie through various battles but it's actually a tease. The apes don't do much destruction; it's rather the virus (I'm not spoiling anything by the way) that does the damage.

The movie's a fun flick with distinguishable actors...except maybe Tom Felton. He's just playing a Muggle version of Malfoy in this movie. Does he really have to be that over-the-top? I guess that all contributes to the satisfying ending he gets. As for Andy Serkis, he's great at what he does as usual. You can't really call it a performance because it's so real. The special effects in this movie are amazingly good.

Personally I don't think the ape should've become *that* smart. If you've seen the movie you know what I'm talking about. He acts more human than he should've by the end. It provoked laughter in my theater...maybe it was too much. But that's a personal thing.

The major problem I can think of is James Franco's rash decisions. He's quick to change his mind through various stages of the film without much explanation. In one scene he's trying to do something that contradicts what he wanted to do before. And there's not a lot of motivation or logic involved here and I'm just like "why?" His character feels a little rushed.

However these addressed problems are, again, minor. They do not distract me from being entertained. I don't think this is a landmark film; it's got some memorable scene but this is something I wouldn't choose to watch again for some time (although I wouldn't mind watching it again).

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (ugh, I still hate the title though) has definitely brought attention to its franchise and probably gained a new fan base. I can see a sequel in the works with a new trilogy. For what I've seen, I'm all in for a sequel. Just bring a little more action next time that's all.

Cowboys & Aliens

No, seriously where are they? There are more Indians in this movie than cowboys. I see one cowboy and that's Harrison Ford. All the other non-alien characters in this movie are just wearing western clothing but act like any other American. Where's the western accent? Not that it would've improved the movie but I'm making a point that the selling point didn't work. This is not a western.

The opening was one of the greatest openings I've seen in a movie. It's right there with 'Predators' and 'The Half Blood Prince' in terms of movie openings. It begins with a lot of energy as we're quickly introduced to the main character who wakes up in the middle of nowhere. Perfect. Some bad guys appear with guns and Daniel Craig doesn't hesitate to kick some butt. Sadly this is one of the few good things about this movie.

The biggest problem are the characters. I'm fine with Daniel Craig. I'm one of the few people I know to like his performance in the 007 movies. But why is he playing James Bond in this movie? What's Olivia Wilde doing here, she didn't do anything! She's just standing around in the background. Wilde can be confused with other women in this movie various times. Where are the characters? I see one: Harrison Ford.

There are no explanations whatsoever in this movie. It's almost as bad as 'Vanishing on the 7th Street' in terms of explaining plot threads. Why are some characters able to save themselves from death? Why can't they do it the second time? And the amnesia Daniel Craig is suffering from is so plot convenient! The memories come back any time the plot needs it to. For example, the aliens attack and abduct the towns people. The survivors need to chase after the aliens, their motivation being that they need their loved ones back. But uh-oh, wait a second! Daniel Craig is suffering from amnesia, he doesn't know anybody. So..let's give him back a part of his memory of him being abducted by aliens so he can join the party. This is BAD WRITING.

This movie reminded me so much of 'Terminator Salvation'. Some action scenes in fact are very similar. These scenes are great eye candy and they present good special effects. But it's just like 'Terminator Salvation' or 'Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides'; there are lots of things going on but we're not entertained.

To break it down, here are the things I liked about this movie. I liked Harrison Ford and Sam Rockwell. I liked the aliens and their technology. I liked the opening and the concept of this movie.

It seems like the movie was just made for the sake of its creative concept. Nothing is really developed here. I haven't seen the source material but I've heard it's nothing like the movie and in fact that the movie was better.

This is not a terrible movie but I didn't leave the theater satisfied. This should've been the 'Predators' of this year. I had high hopes for this movie; I liked the casting and the filmmakers, what happened?

Captain America: The First Avenger :: A 63 Review

Original View Date: July 29th, 2011



SPOILERS throughout review.

Plot (4/5):

The writing is extremely intelligent. The writers have turned the cliches around into wit. I walked into the theaters thinking Captain America being the silliest superhero of all time. I'm pretty sure it's a common thought. He doesn't have any "super' powers, he wears silly colors and has a shield for a weapon. Okay the silly costume stays but they gave him a sillier suit in the beginning just to make it relatively cool. And the whole 'Captain America' concept is very creatively done; the real life comic books, TV shows are shown as fiction within a fiction. Great, great work! I thought this movie was very short despite the average running time but unlike Thor which I thought was lacking, Captain America felt short because it was entertaining.

Characters (3/5):

Captain America is the most likable superhero. Maybe he's too perfect personality wise. We don't like Iron Man in a way because he's a playboy. We don't like the Hulk because he can lose it sometimes. We don't like Thor because he is arrogant. Captain America is...a great force of resilience. You cannot unlike that guy. This movie made him out to be a great leader, someone we can finally appreciate for being in the Avengers. The primary concern here is the Red Skull. He is extremely underdeveloped, his origins remain slightly touched and he proposes almost no threat.

Performances (5/5):

Hugo Weaving is a great actor. His German accent is 100% believable and I laud him for it. I loved Hayley Atwell.

Specifics (4/5):

I am so glad that I did not watch this movie in 3-D. There was only one scene where I thought was legit but it made me laugh. I knew it was coming, I joked about it before coming in and I joked about it when it came out. A shield comes flying right at us and I screamed "oohhh nooo I should have watched this in 3-D!" Great fun.

Theme (4/5):
Resilience, patriotism (minimal; thank God and the writers), leadership etc;

Overall (4/5):

Compared to the other Marvel Studios films, I'd say this one takes 2nd place right under 'Iron Man' (2008). 'The First Avenger' is smartly written, dramatic, heroic and entertaining.

Marvel Studios Film Ranking (so far):

1. Iron Man (5/5)

2. The First Avenger (4/5)

3. The Incredible Hulk (3.5/5)

4. Thor (3/5)

5. Iron Man 2 (3/5)

* Note: all these films were liked if not loved. These ranks are simply relative positions I would place them in if I had to.

Hype Tripe :: Paranormal Activity 3

I know there are movie reviews that are long overdue at the moment but this is something I wanted to do for some time. Something new besides reviews, keep my blog going with different posts. So I've come up with "Hype Tripe". This is where I'm going to let out all my nerdy excitement I have for an upcoming movie.

Here I go:



OH MY GOD!!!!!!! PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3!!!!!!!!!
...This is where I'm going to talk about what I expect from an upcoming movie and why I look forward to it.

Paranormal Activity was one of my first horror movie experience in the theaters. I know there is a large group of people who dislike this movie but in my defense most of these people probably didn't watch it in the theaters. If they did, then that's fine but if you hate this movie and you haven't watched it in the theaters I suggest you give it another try..during midnight with all the lights out and just you versus the large HD TV with surround sound. I'm not defending this movie as a film but it's a fun theater experience.

Paranormal Activity 2..eh, not as scary. I couldn't sleep for two days after I watched the first PA but the sequel did not have the same effect. I was quite thankful for that because the entertainment value was still there. I had fun during the sequel and on the bright side I'm glad that I could go to sleep without much trouble.

The best part about Paranormal Activity is that everyone tenses up in the theater when it becomes night time. And during the day everyone relaxes. It's a cycle of suspense and I love watching these movies with my friends because we're all enjoying the scares together. That's the fun part of it and I'm glad these movies are bringing such memorable experiences for me. I do not think these movies have re-watch values (I've tried it; it's not as good) but a one time viewing is perfect for a Friday night.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 :: A 63 Review

Original View Date: Today

It's been Ten Years...

10 years ago I sat, totally absorbed by what I had just seen. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's (or Sorcerer's) Stone had just become my favorite movie, pushing Star Wars down to 2nd place. The Harry Potter franchise has grown with me as I traveled around the world; I had grown up with this series. Yes, this is like the "Star Wars" of this generation; we would look back at this, 'Deathly Hallows Part 2' and feel the nostalgia. Over the 10 years this franchise has brought joyce, laughter, tears and pure awesomeness to various theater screens and now it's time to say goodbye. But like Neville Longbottom has said Harry Potter will stay in us. The franchise will continue to grow through our memories.

Review (SPOILERS):

Plot (3/5):
I don't want to start off with the negative side of the film but let's get over with it. The plot of the film is quite nit pickable; this I find is the novel's fault not the filmmakers'. The things that bothered me were minor such as students still attending Hogwarts at a time like this...which is ridiculous. Hey, remember when in the fifth movie Seamus said his mother didn't want him to come back to Hogwarts? Well, that was when Voldemort's return was controversial. Now he's taken over everything and we see little first years in their Hogwarts robes. Also the movie does feel a little rushed and Harry goes through finding the Horcruxes quite conveniently by entering into Voldemort's mind...and he couldn't do this before because? See it's minor things like this but like I said before I had the same questions when I was reading the novel. As an adaptation I think the movie was extremely well done. It starts off right where we left off and is a non-stop action flick from start to finish just like it should've been. The only thing I wanted a little more was closure. Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is a perfect example of ending a franchise. It took time and the transition was smooth and we had time to say goodbye. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows ends roughly 5 minutes after Voldemort is defeated and the '19 years later' sequence is quite short. It would've been better if it had been exactly like the book: adding more dialogue between characters that mentions Neville being a Herbology Professor and getting to know the childrens' names (not just Albus-Severus). Overall it's a satisfying ending that we can all embrace.

Characters (5/5):

The characters have brought total brilliance to the screen. This is the final, the most dramatic and emotional chapter. Every piece is put together, revealing the whole picture. They still managed to put in a few laughters here and there among the sad moments and thrilling battle sequences. Severus Snape's death is tragic and even the most stoic man on earth would shed an empathetic tear during his flashback scenes. On top of that all this is the final Harry Potter movie...the final conflict, the final facebook---I mean face off, the final battle...it's all over. Harry's character learns of Snape's identity and the two interacting right before Snape's death is great closure between the two. All these emotions put together form a masterpiece film.

The downside is the relationships being shown on screen. None of them have developed steadily over the movie franchise as they have in the books. They seem random and very unrealistic (especially during the 19 years later sequence). I know this was a continuing problem from the previous films but I'm adding the fact that it didn't work till the end.

Performances (5/5):
Multiple scenes gave me chills running down my back. The child actors we've seen in the first movie have grown up to portray their characters for the last time. Danielle Radcliffe is at his peak performance as Harry Potter; my favorite scene delivered by Radcliffe is when he walks out from the group of other students and faces Snape. The lines are bold and memorable and leads to a duel between McGonagall and Snape. Wasn't a big fan of some of the lines still; things like "That's my girlfriend!" coming from Rupert Grint and his character chasing after THREE enemies. Sure it made the theater laugh but to me it came off as a one liner. But seeing that Grint is the best actor out of the trio I don't blame his performance but the script. Ralph as Voldemort is still a little over the top (I think he screams "NYEAAA" about seven times in this movie). Still, these are just nitpicking criticism; all the actors were FINE.

Specifics (4/5):

The make up for this movie was recognizably bad in the Limbo scene - Albus Dumbledore looked awful. I liked how the movie was battle from start to finish and the number of combatants was delightful. I just wished they showed more specific duels between characters. I know that we don't see Lupin or Tonks die in the books but it would've been dramatic to see their actual demise/sacrifice. There was a lot of focus on Harry finding the Horcruxes but I would've liked to see in between shots of people engaging in fights...kinda like Lord of the Rings. They could've squeezed more things into this seeing that it's only 131 minutes long (and it didn't even feel that long!). What I wanted the most was closure with my childhood heroes. Remember when the Return of the King took about a 40 minute epilogue? I wanted just half of that: 20 minutes isn't too much to ask for...no amount of Potter is too much. Voldemort's defeat was a little too short and the movie ends about 8-9 minutes after his death so it felt like a horror movie ending: movie ends when villain dies. These are the bits the movie could've improved on.

The super awesome things about this movie are 1) the soundtrack, 2) the huge scale, 3) the final battle. I loved the Half Blood Prince opening and I liked the Order of the Phoenix opening as well...it looks like David Yates is awesome with Harry Potter openings. This opening was good too; the dramatic music played as the traditional sky sequence was shown...and then it faded into a Hogwarts surrounded by Dementors. I LOVED the soundtrack; the Prince's Tale scene is where it can be most appreciated. Above in the criticism section I did talk about the improvements they could've made with the final battle. However the battle was still satisfactory. The scale was huge and I really got the feeling that this was going to be it. The battle we've waited for...the one we didn't get at the end of Half Blood Prince. Everything that I had imagined while reading the book came to life. Great job and much better job with editing this time.

Theme (N/A):

Death, love, family...the typical Harry Potter stuff. It continues on to the final chapter but I don't really want to talk about it when I can talk about the awesome battles...besides I already talked about how emotional this movie was in the above sections.

Overall (4/5):
A satisfactory ending to my childhood franchise, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 proved that splitting the adaptation in two was a great idea. There is room for improvement but this was certainly an event we will remember. Still, the Half Blood Prince remains as my number one favorite Harry Potter film.

Objective and Subjective

I've just realized that even though I might give two movies the same rating, I feel bad giving such a score to a movie that I liked. For example, Transformers 3 and Green Lantern are at a similar level in means of objectivity. By objectivity I mean that I judge a movie by its plot, characters and theme. Therefore things that work and things that don't. However I have realized I occasionally feel more lenient towards some of the "bad" films I've seen. I'll refer to my previous example: I liked Green Lantern but I hated Transformers 3...despite the fact that they are on similar levels in means of objectivity. So by liking Green Lantern more I have a personal liking towards it and therefore like it subjectively. ** The entertainment factor has the biggest impact on the subjectivity rating as well as my willingness to like the film. I would never like a Michael Bay movie.

In conclusion I have decided to rate a movie by both objective standards and subjective standards. Movies will still be rated from a scale of 1 to 5.

So for the previous movies I have not rated subjectively here I go:

Sanctum - Objective Rating: 1/5 | Subjective Rating: 1/5

Unknown - Objective Rating: 2/5 | Subjective Rating: 2/5

127 Hours - Objective Rating: 5/5 | Subjective Rating: 4/5

True Grit - Objective Rating: 4/5 | Subjective Rating: 5/5

The Green Hornet - Objective Rating: 3/5 | Subjective Rating: 4/5

The Adjustment Bureau - Objective Rating: 3.5/5 | Subjective Rating: 5/5

The Fighter - Objective Rating: 4/5 | Subjective Rating: 2/5

The King's Speech - N/A I'd like to disregard my previous review as I wasn't being fair. But I did not like the movie.

Vanishing on 7th Street - Objective Rating: 2/5 | Subjective Rating: 3/5

World Invasion - Objective Rating: 2/5 | Subjective Rating: 3/5

Fast Five - Objective Rating: 3/5 | Subjective Rating: 3/5

Thor - Objective Rating: 3/5 | Subjective Rating: 4/5

Source Code - Objective Rating: 3/5 | Subjective Rating: 3/5

Pirates of the Caribbean 4 - Objective Rating: 2/5 | Subjective Rating: 3/5

X-Men: First Class - Objective Rating: 4/5 | Subjective Rating: 5/5

Scream 4 - Objective Rating: 3.5/5 | Subjective Rating: 4/5

Kungfu Panda 2 - Objective Rating: 2.5/5 | Subjective Rating: 2.5/5

Super 8 - Objective Rating: 2.5/5 | Subjective Rating: 2.5/5

Super 8 :: A 63 Review

Original View Date: June 17th, 2011
SPOILERS throughout review.


Plot (2/5): It's a nice mixture of Steven Spielberg's style with that of Abram's. Both filmmakers seem to have touched the film equally and it comes off as a good combination of mystery and sci-fi...until the end. There is an initially good build up but like a typical Abram film, we get tired of the movie. I don't mind suspenseful mystery but if we're going to be dragged along for two hours without a lot of answers I expect a worthwhile shock in the end. This movie's ending is a dud.

Everything is rushed at the end. It's a last minute theme rush which leads to an abrupt ending. How did the children communicate with the alien anyway? Even Michael Bay explained how the Autobots learned english from the internet. The monster alien thing in this movie has no consistency; some people he'll just eat on the spot, some he'll keep and some he won't kill if they start talking in English.

This is another LOST flashback. Interesting exposition that leads to a crappy ending.

Characters (3/5):
The characters really reminded me of Goonies. These are young kids swearing, bundling together and getting into trouble. Charles is one character I find really relatable. His obsession to make a film and his need for "production value" mirrors the young filmmakers.

But on the negative side let's just say that the dynamite kid can be categorized with Jar Jar Binks and the racist twin robots from Transformers 2.

Performances (4/5):
Great child actors were cast for this film. All of them were great...except for the dynamite kid whom I detested.

Specifics (3/5):
The only lovable part of this film is the post credits scene. Having experience being a child filmmaker in school, I know what it's like to be like Charles. And his finished product is absolute hilarity.

Theme (2/5): I see a few nudges here and there but it's really hard to find any significance in what the characters are doing. Like when Joe lets go of his mother's picture, what was the point of that? I know the dramatic music is playing but what has an alien monster leaving earth got to do with it? More explanation please!

Overall (2.5/5):
Another huge let down. I'm not a fan of Abram's style but I liked Cloverfield for its POV atmosphere. This, Super 8 has a long drag of mystery that fails to surprise. Not enough wonder, not enough explanation and a dead ending all contribute to Super 8's failure.

Kungfu Panda 2 :: A 63 Review

Original View Date: June 7th, 2011

SPOILERS throughout review.



Plot (2/5):

"Forget everything about the past. Because you will discover things that will make you question your sanity." - Scream 3. Looks like the Kungfu Panda franchise did not follow the cliche rule. This is the second installment and

we get some answers about Po's origins. And so does it work? Sort of. Not really. Po's origin story goes like this: Lord Shen, a peacock goes around killing every panda because the soothsayer said that a black and white warrior would kill him. So Po's birth parents sacrifice themselves to save Po and place him in care of the Mr. Ping.

First of all, how many times have we seen this type of origin story? Harry Potter, Prince of Egypt to name a few. Not only that, introducing this storyline was badly done. We go into the second act and The Furious Five and Po already defeat Lord Shen (which makes the main antagonist not that threatening) and Po suddenly is "disturbed" by the symbol Shen is wearing. This causes him to have a flashback...but he gets cut off. Throughout the movie he keeps getting these flashbacks but it's really hard to feel sympathy for him at all. It's extremely unrealistic that he would recognize any of this and recall his memories of him being a baby. Not to mention how random the solution is to this disturbance. Po eventually uses "inner peace" which we're told takes decades to master. Po just learns it out of nowhere and conveniently sees more of his past. *sighs* And in the ending we find out that Po's father is still alive.

More minor problems: we have two new characters, Kungfu masters who are unwilling to help. Where were these "masters" when Tai Lung escaped from prison? And how does a cannon get rid of Kungfu? It doesn't. It DEFEATS Kungfu in terms of strength but that doesn't mean it'll wipe out Kungfu. Kungfu was never a weapon in the first place, it was a mental training and a guideline for life.

Kungfu Panda 2 has a lousy script.

Characters (3/5):
Lord Shen is not even a bit threatening. He is practically already defeated in the second act. The up side for this section is Kungfu Panda himself. He's still adorable...but let's hope Kungfu Panda 3 is on hold. I cannot possibly laugh at more fat jokes anymore. Kungfu Panda is getting old now.

Performances (4/5):
Very hard to judge the performance of voice acting but I'd say all the voices match well with the characters...especially Po. Kungfu Panda is still Kungfu Panda. Funny, cute and lazy as we want him to be. Still, not a big fan of the grumpy voice work of bulgy characters.

Specifics (3/5):
The kid friendly action scenes are pretty entertaining to watch. It's creative how the Furious Five and Po work as a team to fight their enemies. The comedy is still good, not as funny as the first but scenes that reference old Kungfu movies are where the comedy is top notch. When Po is fighting alongside his friends he says all of their names just like how Kungfu masters call out animal names that are named after their moves. Funny!

Kudos to good 3D, epic action scenes such as the tower collapsing.

Theme (2/5):
Inner peace...already touched on that. It doesn't work. It's too abrupt and just like the first movie Po never really discovers anything through character development but comes through a sudden realization. Lazy writing, lazy writing. The father-adopted son relationship is explored here and emits a cozy feeling but doesn't touch the heart.

Overall (2.5/5):
Not as good as the original and just flat out unentertaining. There's a lot happening but everything goes by so quickly and the themes aren't explored well enough. Kungfu Panda 2 is a summer disappointment.

Scream 4 :: A 63 Review

Original View Date: June 14th, 2011

SPOILERS throughout review.



Plot (4/5):
Scream 4 is extremely intelligently written and has the brutal moments the fans crave for. It feels like a low quality B-movie by the end and it certainly didn't have me leave the theater in a good mood. As a then-average-viewer (I'm a big fan of the Scream series now) I found the satirical writing extremely clever. Wes Craven twists and turns cliches into great moments with such simple alterations. For example instead of having the killer come out from the back, have him come directly from the front. It's a jump scare and a good laugh at the same time.

Let's get to our biggest question: how can the same crap happen to the same girl four times? Well, the movie acknowledges this too. The characters know this has happened way too much...but you know what? With all the fun that's happening this question can be overlooked.

Scream 4 is not just a lazy slasher film. It may seem like a simple kill and run kinda film but it can outsmart you sometimes. By the way, the plot twist turns out to be stale yet it was unexpected. It's been done before but here I am writing about how I got fooled twice!

Characters (3/5):
The franchise characters are back and I can imagine the nostalgia factor the fans would feel. Scream 4 has its basic slasher characters. It has the suspicious boyfriend who climbs into windows at night. It has the two movie geeks who know all the new rules. Basically all the characters from the first film are back in different..."characters". We certainly get a diversity and while it's starting to get old, it's still fun nevertheless.

Performances (4/5):
Highly laudable performances are seen in Scream 4. The casting seems greatly done; all the killers who reveal themselves get into character really well. It's disturbing just to see their facial expressions change and it's that moment where we all went "oh, damn she's not the same person we thought she was. She's a psychopath."

By the way it was great seeing Courtney Cox again...miss her from 'Friends'. Glad she's on good terms with her husband, David Arquette who's also a major character in this movie. The duo will always be the icons of this franchise along with Sidney Prescott (Campbell).

Specifics (3/5):
Let's just say the opening is a super kick-ass way to start a movie. The satirical part of the movie is the best I've seen so far from this franchise. The jokes are hilarious and the purposely used cliches are likewise enjoyable through groans and predictions.

Theme (3/5):
I felt a little tingling at the end where it looked like the filmmakers were going somewhere with the story. There was a slight feel of "theme" in Scream 4 towards the end. They didn't really focus on it and believe me none of us want any of that in a Scream movie. But the "moral" I saw was along the lines of this "publicity might look nice but it sure is a hell hole". It was nice coming from a horror movie and certainly adds to the high quality satire.

Overall (3.5/5):
Hilarious, smart and full of tension, Scream 4 is perfect for friends to watch together on a weekend night. Kudos to Craven for keeping this franchise alive.

X-Men First Class :: A 63 Review

Original View Date: June 1st, 2011

SPOILERS throughout review.

Note: When I first watched the movie in the theaters, X-Men First Class was at an unbelievable 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Plot (4/5):

It's a blast! I was never bored or uninterested; this movie has very few flaws. This X-men movie serves as a prequel to the rest. It's about Charles Xavier starting his school for mutants all the while exploring Magneto's origins. It's riveting to see the friendship between Charles and Erik while knowing they will break apart soon. The tension between the two builds up while they still get their friendly moments.

The biggest problem I had was Mystique's decision to join Magneto. I understand that the writers wanted to keep the running time short. However Mystique was an underdeveloped character. Her scenes feel extremely rushed, especially when Mystique decides to leave with Magneto even at a circumstance where her brother is lying on the ground with a bullet stuck in his hip. No, the writers do not completely neglect Mystique. She gets a few scenes where she shows that she wants to be accepted in society. But this is a point where Erik has suddenly gone off track from the original mission; it was an unexpected event. She's given a sudden choice whether to stay with her brother she was living with since they were children or to go join Magneto in wiping out the human race. Mystique is actually a nice person in this movie and I hated to see her just leave the stage like that. It was a moment that made me question the movie but it was overlooked. I mean there are so many redeemable qualities in this film.

Characters (4/5):

This movie really reminded me of the Star Wars prequel movies as Erik here is the Anakin Skywalker of this movie. He can't let go of the past, he's hungry for revenge and he's got a dark side in him which will eventually cause him to turn completely. We all know how this character will end up but the movie makes us to not want him to change. It's been done before but it always works so well and the climax of this movie just proves how well their characters were developed.

Despite Charles and Erik being well developed, Mystique is yet missing something. In fact the whole X-men students are underdeveloped. They aren't really distinguishable except through their powers and we don't really see them interacting.

Performances (5/5):

The child actors were great in setting the mood (especially Erik). The tension, the anger, the grief, the humour...I felt them too. The performances were convincing and the casting was well chosen.

Specifics (5/5):

The action sequences are amusing, the soundtrack is awesome and the special effects were used well in quantity and in quality. There are some sequences where the CGI can be really appreciated (for example: the climactic scene where missiles are fired towards the mutants and Magneto stops them in mid-air). The movie is very smart with action sequences; it's magical to see what the mutants can do by combining their powers.

Theme (4/5):

Yeah, yeah, yeah the theme of the X-men franchise is getting stale...the whole process of overcoming insecurities and dealing with being a minority. But you know what? It still works and it's still believable when characters are undergoing their internal conflicts. Beast and Mystique are the key players here and their subplot works in building the theme. Also the whole Cold War background works amiably, especially when Charles and Erik are going through a cold war of their own.

Overall (4/5):

This is the fifth and so far the best X-men movie ever made. It's background of the Cold War fits in so well with the "cold war" going on between the mutants. Very emotionally gripping and entertaining film with excellent performances delivered by the actors.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides :: A 63 Review

Original View Date: May 21st, 2011

SPOILERS throughout review

Plot (3/5):

Being the first Pirates film to follow a novel, this installment has the best plot structure. It's still overly complicated but it's certainly toned down to a notch. The problem surfaces when a few subplots are forced into the main story. This would be the unconvincing romance storyline between the Phillip (the priest man) and a mermaid named Syrena. Interesting and quite engaging choice of romance but not at the right place; this film should've just been an adventure film. There's still a little too much going on and a little too much exposition we don't need. If the film was just an intense race between the Spanish, the English and the pirates, it could've been a very successful adventure film.

Characters (2/5):

The problem with Jack Sparrow in this film is that he has become an uninteresting character. He still does the same thing: he waves his arms around, drinks and is the comedic antihero he was. However this has grown to be stale. There is too much Jack Sparrow that we do not want: unfunny and over-doing it.

Penelope Cruz portrays the oh-so-cliche female lead who is an ex-love interest to the protagonist and now has to work with him. This has been done before so many times and so much better. While the physical atmosphere of the couple is cute and humorous, it takes up an excessive amount of screen time without really developing anything. Cruz's involvement is very appreciated though.

Blackbeard was the villain we wanted. His introduction is very well done: nobody on the ship has seen him and he stays in his cabin until a mutiny occurs. The camera slowly reveals the angry antagonist and he is extremely vicious. In fact the film proves it by showing a scene where he executes a man. But then again we have already seen Davy Jones, we've seen Feng and we've seen the scarier pirates. Blackbeard is just not as threatening when the protagonist is in control of him (if Sparrow doesn't lead him to the Fountain of Youth, Blackbeard will die).

Performances (4/5):

Despite the weaker characters, the cast is doing fine. Ian McShane is right on for Black Beard and Penelope Cruz is right on for Angelica. I was not pleased with the stereotypical accent they gave Cruz. There is a stale performance from Johnny Depp; this is not a criticism towards Depp but the screenplay for the lack of freshness of his character.

Specifics (3/5):

Lots of visually stunning action. Once again it's a film with lots of fights that are cleverly done with outstanding stunts (just think of the first battle between Sparrow and Will Turner in the Smithing room in the first movie; On Stranger Tides is full of action sequences like this). However more does not necessarily mean better in this case. A lot of the action is not entertaining. Part of the reason is because this series has been old and has lost its adventurous freshness. On Stranger Tides is a standard addition to its franchise. The mermaids were one of the new things we've seen and the film because more engaging in the second act. One thing this film has done well is building suspense. We see that in the introduction of Blackbeard and in the mermaid scene.

By the way, the music is still awesome.

Theme (1/5):

Why? Why did they attempt to bring in a moral into the film near the end? It was completely out of the blue. The attempted theme is brought to us by Jack and his first mate who come to a conclusion that nobody should know too much about how their lives will end and that life should be enjoyed at the present. No, just no. A silly approach with no transition. The movie does not show Jack learning this value and there is no character transition or experience that would allow him to think like this.

Dialogue (N/A)

Overall (2.5/5):

It's better than the first Pirates film as this one didn't leave a lot of unwanted questions that weren't answered. The entertainment value however is lacking compared to the previous installments. The third act is quite redemptive in bringing this film up to an okay summer flick.

Source Code :: A 63 Review

Original View Date: May 6th, 2011



Plot (4/5):
Our protagonist Stevens is trapped in a capsule by the government; he is given a mission to explore the past event (this is not time travelling, only a projection of the past in which he can explore in) in which a train bombing has occurred. Every time he goes back, he has eight minutes to gather more information and find out who bombed the train so that the police can arrest the bomber in the real world. 'Source Code' certainly has an interesting premise. However I feared that maybe the movie might pull a 'Sucker Punch' on me; the mission can get extremely repetitive. But thankfully the film knows how to cut to the chase by the third or fourth time Stevens is sent to the past. It's also fun to see how Stevens learns what's going to happen so by the next time he goes back to the past, he knows they are going to happen. He acts like a god or rather like a man who's playing a video game and using the method of trial and error; this is awesome for the audience to see because everyone has thought about gaining omnipotence. The film can be humorous, suspenseful and likable. It's unfortunate the film pulls a stunt at the end with a huge lack of information and that's a big minus.

Characters (1/5):
The character development for this film is quite terrible. First of all the protagonist is involved in a conflict with his father and this distracts him many times during his mission. Unfortunately we never get a scene of this actual conflict and it's not enough for us to care. For a conflict so impacting (as Stevens wastes trials of going back to the past a few times) the film lacks too much to have an emotional scene at the end. It's not sympathy provoking; how can it be when we don't even know what happened? Secondly, the worst aspect of this film is the chemistry between Jake Gyllenhaal (Stevenson) and Michelle Monaghan's character (Christina). There is NO reason for their characters to fall in love. After all it's an eight minute projection Stevenson is going through and Christina's memories reset every trial. What can he do in eight minutes to fall in love her? He's busy looking for the bomb most of the time where is the time?? Where did the sudden kiss come from? This movie is abysmal with its characters. The antagonist can be interchangeable with anybody as he has no characteristics at all.

Performance (5/5)
Give the actors credit for trying hard and making a believable performance despite the fact that the screenplay is a mess at attempting "characters". Gyllenhaal is a great actor, he's great in this film, again it's just a shame his character is so badly written.

Specifics (3/5):
I so wish they would've just stopped the film when the plug is pulled on Stevens and everything goes into freeze frame. This way the movie doesn't have to lack information to explain the ending and it creates an open ending for audiences to discuss much like Inception.

Theme (3/5):
The themes are quite similar to The Adjustment Bureau. Free will, destiny, etc etc; Not fully developed due to the lack of character development as mention above. The film tries to have a moral by the end.

Dialogue (3/5):
Not so good from time to time. There are a lot of lines that 1. don't move the story forward, 2. reveal a character, 3. create tension. So basically a lot of clutter that we don't need. Also Stevenson does get a handful of one liners that just seem random and unnecessary. Regardless, the dialogue doesn't bother me much.

Overall (3/5):

This is just an average summer flick. There is no outstanding quality to this film for me to laud. It doesn't call for a second view or more but it's safe to say I had fun in the theaters.

Thor :: A 63 Review

Original View Date: April 30th, 2011

Plot (3/5):

Thor's origin story is quite different from other superheros. Partially because he already is one. The plot focuses more on the transition of character rather than the super power obtaining process. Therefore the story might feel like there hasn't been much of a change. Personally I never got the feeling that Thor was a superhero from this movie. The first Act of Thor is purely about him in Asgard and is overly developed. Not much information and too much screen time. This becomes a problem because Thor and Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) lack character development and chemistry. They do go through the basic formula and requirements for the film to be entertaining and it works; it's not that they don't have anything, it's that they lack substance. The movie feels very short and is enjoyable to a degree. It's not as mind blowing as I had hoped for.

It's also fun to imagine how 'Thor' takes place in the same universe as Iron Man's. While Iron Man was all scientific, 'Thor' is a myth and it's interesting how the films cross over each other.

Characters (2/5):
Again, because of the unnecessarily long first act, 'Thor' has very little time to develop its characters. It's hard to see the reckless, arrogant god transform to a humble, mature superhero. What was the motivation for his character change? Was it just merely the punishment of being banished from Asgard? Probably not. Portman's character's purpose was to help Thor transform him to a better person. However they lack a lot of chemistry; they only get one scene together and it's just not enough. Yes, Thor shows that he has become self less by sacrificing himself for Jane but that shows that he loved her. Thor was loving before and in addition when did he fall in love with Jane? Again the problem all originates from the fact that the movie has a lot of its screen time taken away from the first act. I truly believe that the writers were capable of developing better characters however from the result, Thor is quite underdeveloped. Also the movie has a lot of supporting characters that add pretty much nothing to the story. All of Thor's god friends can be replaceable with each other and as for the character Darcy, she is not essential either. Another huge problem is that I didn't get a good sense on the antagonist's motives and intentions. Loki is a sympathetic villain, yes but does he want revenge on his foster father Odin for hiding the fact that he was a frost giant? Or does he want to wipe of the frost giants? Or both? Well, it doesn't really matter because the humans on earth aren't much in danger. Loki sends the Destroyer to kill Thor not the humans which is why Thor doesn't feel like he's "saving" the world. Loki's character wants to prove himself worthy; but he's hostile towards both the Asgardians and the frost giants so that cancels his motive out. There's a lot of problems to mention in this section.

Performance (5/5):
Solid performances. No, don't expect an Oscar nomination from Anthony Hopkins. He's not portraying a groundbreaking character like Hannibal Lector. He's just doing his job, acting suitably for Odin. And Chris Hemsworth is likable, funny and convincing. The true star I must say is Hiddleston though. He's a true sympathy provoker. Heimdall is also quite the badass; not much acting is required but the actor does his job of being emotionless.

Specifics (3/5):
The action sequences were there. The climactic battle was underwhelming but the dramatic confrontation between Thor and Loki makes up for that. I didn't watch the film in 3-D but from what I've seen, it's quite meaningless. The scenery is beautiful and the computer graphic images do look like a video game here. It's all very metal-y looking but it didn't bother me. The Iron Man references are humorous and I liked how Marvel is starting to combine these universes together (even the Hulk is mentioned).

Theme (4/5):

Arrogance, selfishness, and humbleness; these are the reoccurring themes. They are easily identifiable as the protagonist and the antagonist go through the same stage of wanting to prove themselves. However Thor is the one that makes the better choice and changes for the better.

Dialogue (4/5):

Funny dialogue as expected from the trailer. This is basically the same typ of dialogue from the other Marvel movies. Not as much one liners as an action flick but still there for humour while the dramatic moments remain dramatic rather than becoming corny. Good script.

Overall (3/5):

It's a fun flick that I won't mind watching twice or three times. I tried not to compare it with 'Iron Man' but we all know that this is inevitable...and 'Thor' is not as outstanding. So far I like what Marvel is doing and I'm hyped for the 'Avengers'. How Thor is going to go back to earth and join the Avengers, we have yet to find out.

Fast Five :: A 63 Review

Original View Date: April 22nd, 2011

Plot (1/5):
As a franchise, I like how the films all connect now. However the Fast and Furious series are starting to look like the Saw series. Let us hope it ends soon before it's too late.

First of all the problem with this film is that it consists of a plot that is unnecessary. This story only exists because the studio wanted a sequel. Why does Toretto need to steal cars from a train? The flow of the plot becomes worse when its driving force becomes the want for revenge on the crime lord, Reyes. Revenge for WHAT? Toretto is the one that stole the cars that Reyes was after.

Another big issue is that the protagonists spend so much time trying to come up with a way to covertly steal Reyes' money. Almost 50% of the movie is them trying to find a way. They figure out that they can't do this with their cars so they take up another 15 or so minutes to steal police cars for the job. However in the end they just brutally attack Reyes with armored cars and forcefully steal his money. So what was the whole point of the second act? Nothing.

The plot is suffice enough for the fans to follow but it's filled with clutter.

Characters (2/5):
Here we have a box of new yet old characters. We have the female cop who is determined to fight for the law due to the murder of her husband. She is, of course, going to be sympathetic towards Toretto and become the more reasonable one. Yes, we've seen this character before. Next we have the bulky badass cop portrayed by The Rock. Have we seen this character before? Yes and I think he's in the same movie! This is just another Vin Diesel. No joke; during their dog fight it's hard to tell who is who.

But the most terrible thing by far is the friendship that is developed between Toretto and The Rock. Unnecessary, unconvincing and so out of the blue. The Rock is an unreasonable character that has a reputation of catching every one of his targets. It's so out of character that he becomes lenient towards Toretto just because he saved his life. That did not work out which is why I disliked the ending. Also another problem with The Rock: why does he shoot Reyes in the end? I mean, Reyes was bleeding and begging for mercy and he just kills him. Okay, I know The Rock is badass but he's supposed to be this brute force of justice. That was so out of character.

And how or when the hell did Han get the hot girl? When he stared at her on the beach?

Performance (3/5):
There is a dramatic scene with the baby O'Connor is going to have. This allows more personal interaction between O'Connor and Toretto. While the scene itself is unnecessary the audience gets to see different aspects of Toretto's character. Overall, it's your standard action performances.

Specifics (5/5):
If there's one thing this movie does really well, it's the action. This is what I came to see and the movie delivers. The action scale has been enlarged to the maximum. I can't see the next film do top Fast Five. Fast Five is a blast. It's a non stop action surfeit. Simply mind blowing and brainless, just the way I like it.

Theme (1/5):

Cool cars and hot girls.

Dialogue (1/5):
I PROMISE...that the dialogue isn't the selling point here. Like all Fast and Furious movies this has plenty of one liners, stupid lines that are unnecessary. The thing that still bothers me the most is when the camera cuts to each driver in the race and every one of them has something to say at that moment. Things like "Don't make it too easy for me, boys!" and "Not this time!" It's stupid.

Overall (3/5):

Pretty damn entertaining and the flaws can be disregarded easily. They are nothing major; they are merely things that bothered me throughout the film. Fast Five is probably the best out of all five.

World Invasion :: A 63 Review

Original View Date: March 26th, 2011

**It has been a while since I've watched this film but I've just been so busy over the month. I still think this movie is fresh in my mind for me to review it**

Plot (3/5):

This is a pass. In some aspects World Invasion (or Battle: Los Angeles) is old and in some aspects it's new. It's old because it's just another war film. That's right, it's a war film - not an alien invasion film but a war film. Surprisingly to my liking, these aliens don't kick the tar out of the humans like most. This is where the film is quite new; the battles are quite even and the story focuses more on the marines than the aliens. Great, so we'll get some characters instead of people keep yelling "oh shit" right?

Characters (2/5):

No. While it's not the typical alien victims that we see throughout the film, it's the cheesy marine troops. Beside being cliche as they can possibly be, these marines are poor characters. They do not change throughout the events of the film and all of their characterization comes from their cliche past. These characters range from a "soon-to-be-a-father" marine to a "I'm-sad-because-I-lost-my-brother-in-war" marine. The film shows all these people in the beginning but they are not distinguishable at all.

Performance (3/5):

Unfortunately nothing special comes to my mind. I'm numb to these same old characters that I've already seen before. I can't condemn them for the performances that are necessary but I can't praise them either. Eckhart makes a pretty good marine though.

Specifics (2/5):

The action sequences are entertaining to watch and some scenes are extremely suspenseful. Praises go to the filmmakers for suspense they created before finally revealing the alien. CGI effects are used for aliens and destroyed cities etc; Some scenes lack clear images and it is impossible to tell what's going on. The camerawork is downright AWFUL. It's handheld almost all the time and so unnecessary! This is almost as bad as Cloverfield, a film which required this type of camerawork, but I fail to see why this film had to use it. It's so bothersome and it adds to the loud and obnoxious sequences the film often show.

Theme (2/5):

Marines never give up. The theme is obviously the loyalty and the fighting spirit the marines hold in their hearts. This works sometimes as the marines show bravery during battle as well as loyalty and sacrifice (cliche, cliche, cliche) but sometimes this theme backfires. For example, "Marines don't retreat!" Next scene: marines yelling the word "retreat" and running away from alien fire.

Dialogue (1/5):

Yeah.

Overall (2/5):

It's not bad. It's entertaining and suspenseful at times. It's the artistic aspect the film fails on but the fun factor is solid!

Vanishing on 7th Street :: A 63 Review

Original View Date: April 1st, 2011

After seeing the credits roll, my thoughts were, "this is either sensational or abysmal." It is a shame to say that 'Vanishing on 7th Street' is indeed a poor film.

First of all the premis was interesting. The trailer motivated me to go out for a casual viewing and there wasn't much time for excitement or expectations so I'd say this film did get a fair reviewing chance. Once the plot is set there isn't much to it. There's no explanation, no story; just characters surviving. It almost feels like a survival camp and it's a great thrill ride.

However that is all you're gonna get from this and the best part is you won't know this until the end. The ending is unexpected and thought provoking. It's just too bad that there aren't enough information given in the film for the thought to be complete. This was the biggest problem. The film, while trying to be allegorical cannot be because it focuses on being suspenseful than being meaningful. I thought the mysterious girl was a total slap on the face. I expected so much and the last five minutes, the climax, was killing me; I was desperate for an explanation...and the movie never gives it to you.

The characters are cliche and the situations brings out the worst cliches out of them. The panic they go through when they first see each other, the sudden outbursts and the slow process of becoming insane. Fortunately the actors are good performers and are in character all the time.

The lighting was creepy throughout the film and the soundtrack is mind blowing good. The two go hand in hand and set the uneasy atmosphere. However the film can go over board with this by ending the scene with a black screen. There are about twenty black screens throughout the whole film and it gets really, really, really old.

'Vanishing on 7th Street' had so much potential yet it failed because the filmmakers were lazy. A stronger plot, a little more detail (not a lot) and explanation could've turned this blockbuster movie into a masterpiece: thrilling and thematic. Instead 'Vanishing on 7th Street' is another 'Next'.

Oh, and the film broke my third rule: never have sudden kisses that pop out of nowhere.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆

The King's Speech :: A 63 Review

Original View Date: March 23rd, 2011

Talk about an overrated movie. I couldn't help but feel angry at the Academy Awards when 'Inception' lost the 'Original Screenplay' award to the 'The King's Speech' or when James Franco lost to Colin Firth. But I hadn't watched 'The King's Speech' at the time and you could say I was being unfair. But now that I've seen this film, I now state that I shall never, NEVER trust the Oscars again.

No, 'The King's Speech' is not a bad movie. In fact I think all those nominations are pretty legit. But I fail to see any of the spectacular aspects that allowed the film to win four big awards. This is not a film I would've seen if it weren't for the Oscars. Again, it's not that the film is bad but '127 Hours', 'True Grit' and 'The Fighter' were so much more suitable for the Best Picture.

In order to give this film a fair review I shall never mention the Oscars from this point.

I'd say the most plausible part of this film is the overall feel. It's elegant and royal and it's British in the early 1900's. The soundtrack is terrific and complemented well with the mood of the background.

I wasn't attracted to the plot at all. This is a personal problem however it became the movie's when it failed to entertain. I'm not an action junkie and I am capable of being entertained with drama which is why I love 'Rocky' and 'Gran Torino'. Not a lot of comedy which the trailer had promised and not a lot of drama I must say.

The dominant theme I'm seeing is the friendship between two people who are placed in different social classes. However I really felt they missed a note towards the climax. The film feels like it's progressing without eminently finishing its subplots or conflicts.

Colin Firth's character's problems were just repetitive, not sympathy provoking. Personally I never found his character likable even till the end. Firth delivers but this is his same old role again. Rush's character is much more pleasant and relatable to his shortcomings. The two actors have good chemistry as the two leading roles.

'The King's Speech' is an underwhelming, quality drama; definitely not the 'best' but there are redeemable aspects of the film.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

The Fighter :: A 63 Review

Original View Date: March 20th, 2011

There is nothing much to say about The Fighter. It's not as good as I thought it would be; this story has been done better before. Due to its dark setting, profanity, sex and drugs are evident. Despite this, the film delivers it's theme and message.

The Fighter will bring you frustration, laughter and joy at the right times. The performances are laudable. Christian Bale steals the spotlight from Mark Wahlberg who doesn't really shine. The screenplay can be sloppy with some of its dialogue. The only problem I had with this film is that I wasn't very entertained though like all the boxing films I've seen, the climactic match was breath-taking.

The Fighter can be cliche from time to time and the fact that this story has been done so many times before does not help. The sudden kiss between underdeveloped characters at an exposition stage bothered me; it's so out of character. But that's just my two cents. The Fighter is almost flawless.

Rating: ★★★★☆