Lemony Snicket's unfortunate movie

Title:
Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events (B)
PH Release Date:
February 23, 2005
Actors:
Jim Carrey, Meryl Streep, Emily Browning, Liam Aiken, The Hoffman Twins, Timothy Spall, Billy Connolly, Catherine O’ Hara, Jennifer Coolidge
Director:
Brad Silberling
Based on the novels:
Bad Beginning, The Reptile Room and The Wide Window
Editor / Music:
Michael Kahn / Thomas Newman
Design / Photography:
Rick Heinrichs / Emmanuel Lobezki
Producer:
Jim Van Wyck
Studio:
Paramount



“we’re very concerned, but not concerned enough to have a good ending…”

Funnyman Jim Carrey is back on the big screen. After playing a man who’s crazy about Kate in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, he takes probably the most challenging and unlike him role of a man who (in the most discreet terms) can be describe as utterly crazy and pure evil. And he’s not up against any heroes alright, neither is he making another appointment with God, he is up against what might be his biggest adversaries yet---- the Bauedelaires children. A young inventor, a bookworm and a cavity free baby just what are the chances of Count Olaf to realize his wicked plans?

Based on the novels I haven’t read (that’s breaking news), this series of unfortunate events may just be the biggest adventure you’ll see on the big screen--- or not. What started to be a brilliant movie just burst into tiny bits like that freakin’ doorknob.



Going into the cinema, I expected a movie that if not better than any Harry Potter films, at least of par. It definitely had the same eerie feel and maturity as the Prisoner of Azkaban and perhaps as lavish or more lavish production wise, but the resemblance ends there. The protagonists: Violet, Klaus and Sunny are just not as engaging as Harry, Ron and Hermione, except for Sunny (The Hoffman twins) who like the kid in Meet the Fockers never fail to make you smile or laugh. Violet’s (Browning) character is too stupid to be an inventor, and Klaus Aiken) could have been a good character if portrayed by a better actor.

The story is not bad at all; I dig all the craziness and wickedness of the picture. It’s definitely a good concept that was very well introduced but as the movie goes along, the pieces just don’t’ add up together to form any good sense. The characters were there, the plot is well made but a lot of the questions needed to be answered were just left behind. I do not know if they’re reserving these for the series’ future but it was most definitely not a good move. To achieve a wide permanent audience, they must first be able to make sure that they make this movie engaging enough for all of them so they would come back. Just like what was done with the first Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings.



Brad Silberling (Moonlight Mile, City of Angels) is probably one of the most-talented young directors around. I am a huge fan of a lot of his work. I don’t believe that it was his fault; it was more of the screenwriter’s. He managed to depict this crazy world where children are barely heard and eccentric characters are everyday people. He managed to tell a good story for the first half of the movie and I think he did his best to end it well but the script just won’t allow him to.

The production design of this movie is way too fabulous. At some points, though not entirely, that it was better than the Prisoner of Azkaban. They created this wonderful imagination into reality and there was not a nanosecond that I thought it was faked. It felt so real. The music is great. The editing needs some improvement but a lot of cool choices. The cinematography is very good as well but could have been better. But what gives this move the edge is really the art direction. It really is unbelievable.



Jim Carrey could have not been more perfect for the role. I don’t see anybody else playing Count Olaf. There can only be one self-absorbed and wicked actor in this whole wide world and that is he. This is the perfect role for him cuz it gives him the chance to fully release himself. It’s almost as if there’s no boundaries in this role. That he can do everything he desires, go as crazy as he wish and have as much as fun as he wanted. And he definitely did. And I believe the audience will too. I did.

Meryl Streep is so fun to watch as Aunt Josephine. Most of the time you see her in roles that features her as this very strong character. This time she plays exactly opposite of that. She plays an obsessively paranoid woman who sees every appliance inside the house as a murderer. She’s that paranoid that she lives over the edge of the clip with a house that can go down faster than a speeding bullet. She played it well but it’s not exactly one of her best performances but she was fun to watch.



Emily Browning is okay. I guess the character is really not as winning as Hermione but she gave a fair performance. Which is probably the best I can give for Liam Aiken’s performance. He’s not in any way as good as Neeson or in any way as charismatic as Clay and he can’t carry the character. Most of the times I found him irritating rather than appealing. Which is probably what I can say the least for The Hoffman twins. They were the absolute belles of this movie. I loved every sound they made and every flinch of their hands. They probably gave the most consistent performance. Ahehe…

A fancy austere farce that will be very enjoyable in beginning, but in the final minutes will be anything but pleasant. Not exactly something that you would like your kids to see since it becomes a little brutal but with guidance it will be a treat for children. It’s a lot funny, and a lot enjoyable, it’s just really unfortunate that it did have an unfortunate ending and unfortunately if you watch it you would have to see the unfortunate ending unfold, how unfortunate!

soaring high with THE AVIATOR

Title:
The Aviator (A)
PH Release Date:
February 23, 2005
Actors:
Leonardo DiCaprio, Cate Blanchett, Kate Beckinsale, John C. Reilly, Alan Alda, Alec Baldwin, Jude Law, Gwen Stefani
Director:
Martin Scorsese
Story and Screenplay:
John Logan
Editor / Music:
Wayne Wahrman / Howard Shore
Cinematographer:
Robert Richardson
Producer:
Charles Evans, Michael Mann et al.
Studio:
Miramax



“some men dream the future, he built it…. now, see how he did it.….”

Leonardo and Martin teams up once for the second time to bring into the big screen the life of the aviation tycoon Howard Hughes. What I expected to be three hours of never-ending drama became three hours of spellbinding storytelling.

Howard Hughes Leonardo DiCaprio), he can be summed up in three words: eccentric, playboy and honest. He’s known for his odd behavior and craziness. He cares so much about aviation that he’s willing to go bankrupt for the sheer sake of it. This may not be the reason why some of the finest woman during her time where linked with him including Gene Harlow (Gwen Stefani), Kate Hepburn (Cate Blanchett) and Ava Gardner (Kate Beckinsale), but they sure did love something about him. With all the craziness surrounding him, will he ever be able to come out of it alive?



Honestly, I didn’t expect to like this movie at all. Martin and Leo, just doesn’t work perfectly fine for me. Gangs of New York is not exactly one of the best movies for me. The first time I heard about this movie, I just wanted to say to Martin to just give it up, they ain’t gonna give the bald man to him, I’m sure he will have it too, bout 20 years from now, just like what happened to Peter O’ Toole, but he just won’t give up, now I’m hearing talks bout another team-up with Leo again, well, after watching this movie… do it grandpa!

The story is staggering. I am not completely familiar with Howard since all this shit happened years before me but I could hardly believe that all this did happen. One may say it’s impossible but if you watch the movie there’s no way you would think that. How a man pioneered aviation, battle an airplane company and a senator and make movies while dealing with his own oddity do seem implausible but it was real in this movie.



Martin may not be recognized by the academy but we all know who revolutionized movie directing and continues to do so since the 1970’s. Despite his age, he still manages to exemplify moviemaking at its finest. What I loved about his directing was that it doesn’t lavish in way too much with the emotions of the character. He doesn’t force the audience to get too close with them but simply allow them to look at them, carry your own judgments, and with that it made the viewing pleasurable. Unlike A Beautiful Mind, it's lesser drama and more story. Despite the length of the movie, I did found myself wanting for more. I was that awestruck that I just wanna see everything.

The movie captured the 20’s, 30's and 40’s so beautifully. The production design is as glamorous as the era and the cinematography just made it look so easy and so smooth. I don’t know if all the planes featured in the movie were all real or if some were CGI but if they are, man, they looked genuine to me. The sound was also great and the editing was very good as well. It’s one of the most refined movies last year.



Never liked Leonardo as an actor, I don’t maybe cuz I’m so pissed off with him ever since I saw him in that car scene on a humungous boat. I never thought he would be able to come up with a performance far better than what he gave in Catch me if you can. I adored him in that movie. The one that made me believe that he’s not just a pretty face. This time he proved that once more. He captured every inch of everything of this great man. I cannot believe he is capable of acting that consistent. He was very effective in the breakdown scenes and up to now I’m still in awe. After seeing this movie, I wouldn’t mind if he wins the Oscar. The difference between his performance and Jamie Foxx is that it wasn’t much of an imitation, they both delivered the character so well, Leo as an actor, and Jamie as an imitator. But Jamie has the edge because the figure just died almost a year ago and his lived decades ago.

Cate Blanchett is one of my favorite actresses, however, in this movie, I felt as if she was not herself. I didn’t even felt like she was Kate Hepburn, all it seemed to me was that she was having a language impediment. I found it totally weird. One thing I do admire though was that she was consistent, at least that I give to her. Right now, I am most definitely sure that Natalie Portman should win the Oscar. Kate Beckinsale did fine although this role didn’t really gave her much chance to prove anything acting-wise cuz it was so simple but she did it fine. Alan Alda gave an Oscar-worthy performance and so did John C. Reilly who’s snubbed this year. Gwen Stefani was nothing more than an extra in this movie.



A movie of epic proportions that never seemed to lose energy. A fascinating story that deserves to be seen by everyone. It proves how far determination can take you, that no matter how seemingly impossible it is or how much people underestimate and try to stop you, as long as you believe in what you do, you can get there. It’s one of the, if not the best film last year that will definitely keep you pump up till the very last frame. So come aboard and have a great flight…

Ray --- almost as genius as the man himself

Title:
Ray (A-)
PH Release Date:
February 16, 2005
Actors:
Jamie Foxx, Regina King, Kerry Washington, Clifton Powell, Harry Lennix, Terrence Dashon, Larenz Tate
Director:
Taylor Hackford
Story and Screenplay:
James White
Editor / Music:
Paul Hirsch / Craig Armstrong and Ray Charles
Cinematography:
Pawel Edelman
Producer:
Howard Balwin, Stuart Benjamin
Studio:
Universal Pictures



“promise that you’ll never let no one treat you like a cripple again, that you’ll always stand on your own two feet….”

Every now and then, comes a real musician. Someone who knows music, creates music and defines music. Ray Charles is one of those few individuals who reached that level of musical artistry. Artists owe to him the privileges they are lavish with today. The music fans owe him the evolution of Soul and Gospel music. But the people of Georgia, owe him the parity within their state today. These and a lot more were captured in this wonderful epic vis-à-vis a musical genius.

Guilt-stricken for the death of his only brother since he was young, Ray Charles Robinson (Jamie Foxx) tried to find his way in the world: a world with no mother, no brother, and no light. His talent with the keyboards will take him places that he never thought possible including the world he wished he never knew, the world of heroine. As he soared high in success he ascended high in addiction. Will he be able to free himself from the guilt of his brother’s death? Will he be able to escape the craving for the substance that served as his diversion from his bothered past? And how far will his music take him?



If it is difficult to reach your dreams when you’re a degree holder, attractive and fit, what more when you’re an orphan, blind and black? Like in the case of Ray Charles. Normally, one would have given up all his dreams, knowing that his handicap would never allow him to achieve those goals. Ray Charles didn’t, and thank God he didn’t…

The movie began with an immediate look on how people perceive blind people, useless and always needs assistance. Then slowly, they presented his murky past in a gradual manner, throwing in scenes of his childhood. It was very effective. That style they used in the beginning. Bringing in flashbacks, as his past continuously haunts him wherever he go. Here we saw how Ray Charles truly was and how his past and inability to deal with it led him to his success and downfall.

The script would have not been able to hold it all alone since there were parts when it falls apart, lures too much into one idea that unlike heroine, do not becoming addicting. It somehow slipped away from its goal during the latter parts of the script, concentrating more on too many things then left them all behind. A lot of the subplots were not resolved, from Jeff, Quincy, to his arrest. Plus, some of the characters were underdeveloped, and completely overlooked.



The scenes with his mother could have been really great but was kinda overused as it went along. You kinda grow tired from all the running around in circles by the character. If not for the beauty of the music, one can fall asleep cuz it became redundant in the latter part. Academy Award winner Taylor Hackford (Teenage Father, 1978) did a wonderful job handling such a delicate script. Although he was not completely successful in saving that part of the movie, he managed to leave me awake.

The movie wonderfully depicted Ray Charles’ time. From the moment of his childhood to the early 70’s. The sound was great especially the music. The editing is good as well. The photography simple but ain’t overly done which is better than attempting way too much. Overall it was very simply done which I liked.

Jamie Foxx gave the greatest performance of his life in this movie. I did not believe he is in any way capable of giving in that much. It was no less than the incomparable Ray Charles from beginning to end. I’m still in awe with just how brilliant he is. Imitation is very tricky. When you do it good it will be fabulous, but if you fail, you fail miserably and there’s no doing that moment again anymore. And Jamie managed to do a fantastic imitation for almost two and a half hours. It was so great that I no longer thought he’s Jamie Foxx until he removed those specs on the final scene. He kinda lost the aura when he removed the glasses.




The actress who portrayed his wife also did an amazing job, very heartfelt performance. But I was truly blown away by the performance of the actress who played Ray’s mother. She was slamming good. She’s very unique, very real acting. She made my favorite scene in the movie truly remarkable. When Ray was trying to learn how to walk alone and she was watching him do it by himself, that scene was superb.

A great story of a great man. This story is already great, but the fact that it did happen in real life makes it so much better. The first half of the movie will give you the time of your life, but as it goes along you may start to feel a little bored but not way too much that you’ll fall asleep. I recommend everyone to see it, even if it is just for Jamie Foxx’s performance or the story alone. There’s so much to learn from this movie and so many great moments. Passing this one out will be a wrong mistake (hahaha!) so what are you waiting for? Hit the road Jack!

Constantine --- a one-way ticket to hell

Title:
Constantine (C)
PH Release Date:
February 16, 2005
Actors:
Keanu Reeves, Rachel Weisz, Shia LaBeouf, Tilda Swinton, Pruitt Taylor Vince
Director:
Francis Lawrence
Based on:
Characters from DC comics’ Vertigo Hellblazer
Story and Screenplay:
Kevin Brodbin and Frank Cappello
Editor / Music:
Wayne Wahrman / Brian Tyler
Design / Photography:
Naomi Shohan / Philippe Rousselot
Producer:
Lauren Shuler Donner, Akiva Goldsman et al.
Studio:
Village Roadshow and Warner Bros.



“the wager between heaven and hell is on earth…. And the test of sanity happens inside the cinema”

Marvel is a true force in making comic book heroes come to life…. DC comics has been trying to keep pace with them and releasing a gothic like character who’s not from Gotham city and is anonymous to a lot of people is their new response… Once in a while there comes a movie who happens to be as bad as its trailer, at times, even worst….. this is one of them…..

A “new plan” is making waves in the man’s world. It’s Constantine’s (Reeves) job to solve it out. He’s been attempting to buy his way too heaven since he’s bound to go to hell for a mistake he did in the past. He meets Angela (Weisz), a police detective out to prove that her twin sister did not commit suicide, instead, was influenced by some demonic creatures. Together they try to find the pieces of the puzzle with signs revealing themselves to them. Will they be able to put the pieces together just in time before they’re the one who turns into pieces?



The first time I saw the trailer for this movie, all I said was what the fuck? I barely understood what the whole thing was trying to imply. That Constantine is sorta demon hunter who’s about to save the world from those who plan to purge it. I totally said that this movie‘s bound to be a bummer…. And man was I right!

The story was something straight out from a Joss Whedon script (Buffy and Angel) and Constantine is like a character that out of the 7 seasons of Charmed, failed to be featured in any one of them. The story is as old as Madame Auring, good versus evil, heaven and hell. There wasn’t really anything interesting to start with in this movie. It’s doomed from the very beginning.



I hope the writers do realize that their script is flawed, to say in most decent terms. The characters were developed well enough, but the process is way too excruciating for the audience to handle. They tried to make the characters explain everything that’s been going on. Plus, the lines were way too cheesy, they’re trying so hard to make the Constantine character look cool….

Constantine: Do you believe in demons?
Angela: No
Constantine: You should, it believes in you…

Gimme a break… they could have done better than that….

If I’m not mistaken (which I rarely am) this is Francis Lawrence’s first movie. And there’s no explaining needed why this is only his first. What they do need to explain is why they have to make him direct at all. He has no style, everything were like pieces from different action-adventure movies. There’s one from Giant movies, there’s one from the Matrix and others. They were a couple of well-executed scenes but the bad ones were more apparent. He’s a poor storyteller, I don’t know whether it’s his attempt to make the movie dark that’s why he tried to keep the mood of the movie a little monotonous, but it was definitely a wrong move. The movie did become monotonous.



The sound of the movie needs a lot of work. During the beginning, I can barely hear the dialogues, which is very frustrating. The editing isn’t far behind. Scenes were coming from all over the place. The photography is the one thing admirable about this movie. A lot of Gothic sceneries, which were very interesting but also adds to the monotony at times. The visual effects were very good as well. They made Los Angeles look like hell (but I thought that’s hell on earth already?). The cinematography was very average, a better cinematographer may have made this movie more interesting.

When I was younger (about the same size I am now) I admire Keanu Reeves, not because he’s a good actor but because he’s gorgeous. Who wouldn’t wanna look like that? People are divided when it comes to him, it’s either you’re a pro or con, no in-betweens. The cons believe he’s just an overpaid pretty face. The pros oppose them by saying that he’s just misunderstood. Well, after watching this movie, I say he’s more of an overpaid old faced. You’ll see how old he really is in this movie. The facial lines are so making its way. And it’s painful to sit for two hours and see Keanu try to be this sinister character and all. Weisz, as an actress needs a lot more credit, though she did fine in this movie, it was definitely below par of the others she already showcased.



If your instinct is telling you to skip this movie, follow it. It’s one of the movies that need better in every department: better writer, better director, and better actors. I don’t think anybody will enjoy this movie at all. It’s not dark enough for weirdos, and it’s not entertaining enough for the normals, it’s just not fit for anyone to see. If in this movie turned LA into hell, believe me when I say it can turn the cinema into one, and you would have to sit in for two hours of it…

Sideways --- a tasty wine and a main entrée

© Fox Searchlight Pictures
Title:
Sideways (A)
PH Release Date:
Not available
Actors:
Paul Giamatti, Thomas Hayden Church, Virginia Madsen, Sandra Oh
Director:
Alexander Payne
Based on the Novel by:
Rex Pickett
Screenplay:
Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor
Editor / Music:
Kevin Tent / Rolfe Kent
Design / Photography:
Jane Anne Stewart / Phedon Papmichael
Producer:
Michael London
Studio:
Fox Searchlight


© Fox Searchlight Pictures

“She kisses different, she tastes different and she fucks different….”

A seemingly interesting buddy movie made by an incredibly talented director needs no thinking twice if you consider seeing it. I have been waiting for this movie to come out since the buzz is so great for such a little film. However, due to the unwavering fact that generally, Filipinos don’t appreciate artsy partsy type of movies. Desperate times call for desperate measure, that’s why I ended up roaming the streets of Quiapo to find that green cover with two men inside a wine bottle. And thank god I found one….

Miles (Giamatti) is a junior high teacher and an unsuccessful novelist who finds his two years of divorce recent. Jack (Church)vis a flopping actor who’s getting married in a week but plans to shag away his single hood. Together they travel the grapevines of California, looking for that special wine which eventually became a hunt for women. Miles needs to find someone new but failing to grasp that idea while Jack fucks around when he needs to prepare for his wedding. Will these two realize how much they’re getting them all wrong, doing what the other one’s suppose to do, before they screw everything up?


© Fox Searchlight Pictures

Knowing that it’s American culture at its fullest, I prepared myself to be disappointed cuz as far as I know; I’m not as equipped with all the things that surround them as a nation. I’m a Filipino and relating to the things they say may be quite difficult. I sure am glad that this one tasted just right….

Don’t remember seeing any of Alexander Payne’s movies… (I’m going to see About Schmidt this week) but based on how they describe his style, I believe I will truly like them all. This movie, contrary to my initial judgment, don’t just dwell on American culture… it tackles life in general, for everyone, of any race or culture. I don’t think the characters are in any way unique, cuz for me, they’re embodiment of any adult struggling through life. It showed how most of the time we are more stupid than wise and more amusing than boring. And that’s the strength of the movie it’s exceptional realness.


© Fox Searchlight Pictures

Thanks to the director’s ability not to overdo any scene of the movie. There was no effort at all to be anything, to be smart or witty, nothing. He presented the movie just as it was supposed to be. He allowed the audience to just simply peek at these characters existence, sometimes leading you to judge them but most of the time leads you to associate yourselves with them. Then you’ll get the chance to fully examine even your own existence. How generous you are to yourself and what your true priorities are and whether you’re doing anything to achieve them.

I see nothing wrong with the script. I thought it was outstanding. However, it will be impossible for me to compare it to the novel cause just like any other time, I haven’t read it. The characterization was great. Nothing more nothing less. Gave the audience exactly what they needed. Everything went smooth, except in the middle part, when the characters took a melodramatic turn, which somehow manage its way out of the screen into the audience, making the movie a little boring. Other than that, I saw nothing else worth ranting about except maybe the already brilliant ending. It was totally great, totally remarkable but I thought Payne could have added something more, a little click from the doorknob would do it for me, not leaving too much doubt in mind (really trying not to spoil it for you).


© Fox Searchlight Pictures

Despite the fact that the film is low budget, I have no grumble against any technical aspect of the movie. The cinematography and art direction, though very simple, captured the right mood of the movie. It needed to appear real and clear and it did just that. The sound adds the cool factor to it. The editing ain’t bad at all either.

Paul Giamatti was awesome. He so knows the character oh so well. I couldn’t believe he didn’t get nominated for an Oscar. Damn old Clint! Man, it must have been so frustrating for him especially since he’s not exactly the matinee idol type, and roles like such come oh so rarely. I do hope his work in Cinderella man (Crowe-Zellwegger-Howard-Grazer team-up) will be just as friggin’ brilliant and he won’t get snubbed again. Thomas Hayden, well, during the beginning I was kinda irritated by him, but as the film went along he started to grow on me… however, compared to Giamatti, he’s far less…. Virginia Madsen did very well in this movie. Very subtle performance but effective. Sandra Oh was good, I just really find her face weird that’s why even in some of her serious scenes I kinda ended up chuckling… but she did quite well, not Oscar worthy but good enough.


© Fox Searchlight Pictures

A well written, directed and acted movie. Smooth in approach but punches heavy duty. Certainly a must-see for everyone, especially for those whose in that moment in their life when it feels like it ain’t getting any better, that everyday seems to follow a boring pattern that will probably last until your demise. Because at the end of the movie, it does give you hope: that life, just like any bottle of wine, given the time to flourish… will taste good.

The Phantom of The Opera ---- a ghastly Broadway apparition

Title:
The Phantom of the Opera (B-)
PH Release Date:
February 9, 2005
Actors:
Gerard Butler, Emily Rossum, Patrick Wilson, Minnie Driver, Miranda Richardson
Director:
Joel Schumacher
Based on the Novel:
‘Le Fantome De L’ Opera by Gaston Leroux
Screenplay:
Andrew Lloyd Webber and Joel Schumacher
Editor / Music:
Terry Rawlings / Simon Lee
Design / Photography:
Anthony Pratt / John Mathieson
Producer:
Andrew Lloyd Webber
Studio:
Odyssey Entertainment and Warner Bros.


“No more talk of darkness, Forget these wide-eyed fears. I'm here, nothing can harm you -my words will warm and calm you.”

The second longest running Broadway show, seen by almost 80 million people worldwide is now in the big screen. Everything seems old except the actors…, will it be as much of a hit as the play? I don’t think so….

Set in Paris during the 19th century, a lovely young woman named Christine (Rossum) finds herself in the spotlight after the lead opera singer Carlotta (Driver) walked out from the rehearsal. She’s an instant hit, thanks to her “angel of music” (Butler) who taught her how to sing. But the “angel” ends up falling for her and found himself awfully jealous as the young maiden showed mutual attraction to her childhood sweetheart Raoul (Wilson). He then contrives an elaborate plan through a play to obtain Christine. Will his plan succeed and live happily ever after with her? Or will he perpetually be the phantom of the opera?

Never seen the play but I do know the story…. Never been to Broadway but I know how it works…… Never been so disappointed after watching a musical in my entire life, until today….

Yes, we do not question the genius of Webber and his eclectic imagination… but we do question his ability to write a screenplay, and Schumacher’s ability to direct. The good thing about the movie is that it was faithful to the theatrical burlesque the bad thing, is that it was too faithful to the theatrical burlesque.



From beginning to end, you just get the feel that it’s way too theatrical. Yes, it’s a musical, but that doesn’t mean that everything you have to say is melodic. And the sad thing is that it incessantly uses the same music and just changed the lyrics…. I know I use to say a lot of times that I do get sleepy, but on this one I really fell a sleep for about 2 minutes… the boredom got me…

Webber and Schumacher just didn’t make the right choice of stickin’ up with the old stuff. They should have kept in mind that theatre and film are way too different from one another. There are so many advantages with moviemaking and they fail to capitalize on that. The ending, they made a boring play adaptation. I don’t know whether they were scared to go out of the box or Webber is just way too toffee-nosed that he insisted on doing his version and discarded any attempts on bringing in something new, whether it’s a new song, lines or scenes.

Schumacher’s direction can be best described as stiff. He’s no Luhrman or Marshall. He uses too much close-ups, poor camera movements and rigid storytelling. Yes, the art direction is good, the cinematography.. not so, that’s why I am wondering why it’s nominated for an Oscar. The score is good as well, but I doubt its chance of winning. The editing, well, the connection between scenes were there, however, I do believe better scene choices could have been made.



Gerard Butler as the phantom just didn’t work for me. His acting is so taut, poor expressions and the voice just ain’t that good. There was only one scene where I found him effective, ‘twas during that watching the monkey music box right before Christine bid farewell. Besides that, ‘twas all, how would I say it—appalling. Emily Rossum, such a lovely girl, very young and fresh, needs a lot of work especially in singing and the acting is still kinda stiff. Patrick Wilson, gorgeous in layman’s terms. May need more work, but if his purpose was to please the audience with his looks, he definitely succeeded. These three, I’m afraid, have no charisma or the chemistry to nab your interest. They all just looked like actors from a mediocre staging of the play. So I guess, when they made one aspect of the movie to be all-fresh, they failed miserably.

Minnie Driver is such an irksome actress. I dunno if it’s because of the way she looks, or her chestnut British accent, but it’s all rubbish. I thought her acting in this movie is way to irritating than her in real life. Yes, the character is suppose to be that way but I don’t think she pulled it off. Miranda Richardson, may just be the only one who gave a laudable performance. However, I don’t think it’s good enough for me to consider a saving grace from all this crap.

If you love Broadway musicals and Andrew Lloyd Webber’s works and expecting to see something exactly like it, then you’ll love this movie. This one’s made just for you. If you love film musicals, I say watch it just so you’ll have something to compare with and since it’s the only musical released in 2004. I won’t categorically advice couples to see this movie because it’s not as romantic as you think. They were able to pull off one romantic scene and I believe it’s only because the song is just exquisite, probably Webber’s best. That scene when Christine and Raoul sang All I ask of you. However, after that scene everything’s back unerringly the way they were before--- boring, overstressed and almost nothing like a mere Broadway phantom for over 2 hours.

FLASHBACK: Life is beautiful but short of aesthetic value

Title:
La Vita E Bella (Life is Beautiful) (A-)
Actors:
Roberto Benigni, Nicoletta Braschi, Giorgio Catarini
Director:
Roberto Benigni
Story & Screenplay:
Roberto Benigni, Vincenzo Cerami
Editor / Music:
Simona Paggi/ Nicola Piovani
Cinematography/ Photography:
Tonino Delli Coli/Danilo Donati
Producer:
Elda Feri et al.
Studio:
Miramax


"The bigger it is the lesser you see it – obscurity"

Six years ago, an Italian movie made Oscar history by being the only second foreign language film to be nominated for Best Picture (Crouching Tiger made it three), and that’s not it, a crazy little old man jumped around the seats when his name was announced as Best Actor. It was this movie and Roberto was the name of the actor.

1939, near the beginning of the Second World War, Guido Orefice (Benigni) together with his brother traveled to Arezzo. He meets Dora (Braschi), a schoolteacher. He was love-struck and immediately found ways to entice her amidst the fact that she’s engaged to an official he previously had a run in with. Soon they married, had a son, and build his dream to have a bookstore. All’s well until they were sent to a concentration camp, despite her not being a Jew, Dora asked to be included with them to not be away from her husband and son. Guido strived to make it appear as if they’re competing in a game to protect Giosue (Catarini) from all the adversity and revulsion of their situation. Will his antics be enough to protect his son from reality? Will they survive the competition and win the one thing his son so greatly desires--- a real tank?

Failed to see this movie years ago and always find some excuse not to watch it cuz I don’t like Roberto Benigni. I have something against jolly people. But I have to taste for myself whether this movie really deserved all the accolades it received or if it’s nothing but another overly celebrated exotic dish…



Basically the movie is divided into two parts: the romance and the desolation. The romance is from the beginning to almost half of the running time. It introduced the characters, outlined the flow and made the audience feel relaxed with all the quirkiness and freshness of Benigni’s eccentric character. At first, I had a hard time catching up with the subtitles cuz they came in and out so fast but a few more scenes and I coped up. Like I expected, the character just didn’t tickle my prickle well enough, a few scenes made me laugh, smart ideas were presented, the lines were clever but it just wouldn’t get through to me…

The desolation part came as a surprise, I thought the movie was all about the romance but I was wrong. I was starting to think that I may be right, this film can possibly be nothing but an overrated piece of shit, but the second part have proven otherwise. It showed the infinite power of love, how much it can strengthens us when all we have left is hope. It featured a man’s true love for his family and how much he’s willing to give, though at times he doesn’t make the smartest decision, chooses the one he thinks will benefit them the best that will eventually… just watch the movie.

The film is idiosyncratic. It was able to make a comic ambiance under a hideous situation, which kinda worked and kinda didn’t. You see, it was a definite diversion from all the depressing war movies, but just as Guido tried to stop his real emotions of fear, anger, and despondency, I felt the same emotions wedged inside of me. It remained there and until the end of the movie it barely came through. Maybe its because I’m a very emotional person and I need to channel my sentiments through tears, I don’t really know. But one thing I am sure of is that it failed to move me as much as I though it would.



Benigni’s direction was a bit odd. I believe he’s better as an actor. The photography was okay; how I wish it just captured the beauty of the city more, however I wouldn’t really know how Italy looks like during the 40’s. The cinematography was weak. Poor camera movements, at times a little peculiar, at times very ordinary. I’m kinda thinking that these three elements could be the reason why it wasn’t as affecting as I though it’ll be and it can be. Plus, the editing isn’t that flawless either. Much of the movie’s faults really lie on the technical aspects. It’s a good thing the Oscar-winning score was great.

Roberto was good. He was very consistent, gave adequate emotions the entire time and he’s like Tom Hanks in a weird way. I would say he deserve the Best Actor award. Nicoletta’s reserved emotional portrayal is astounding. The kid was very good as well.

Ghetto movies always make me cry (wahehe) but this one barely did, and I won’t say that it’s because the story wasn’t moving enough but just because the movie, in general, failed to achieve that effect. It was a finely written, wonderfully portrayed but feebly made movie. Sometimes great story are just not enough for a movie to succeed, that’s why it’s a motion picture and not a novel. In the hands of a Jeanne-Pierre Jeunet, this movie will truly deliver. But the message remains very clear, that life is truly beautiful! Have as much as fun as you can, for what will come tomorrow is ambiguous. So grab life today, as if there is not one awaiting you tomorrow.

A Very Long Engagement --- a lingering Frech rendezvous

Title:
A Very Long Engagement (B+)
PH Release Date:
February 2, 2005
Actors:
Audrey Tautou, Gaspard Ulliel, Dominique Pinon, Jodie Foster, Chantal Neuwirth
Director:
Jean-Pierre Jeunet
Story:
Based on the novel by Sebastien Japrisot
Screenplay:
Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Guillaume Laurant
Cinematography:
Bruno Delbonnel
Producer:
Bill Gerber and David Puttnam
Studio:
Warner Bros.



“From the heartache began a journey of hope…”

From comedy to drama…. The Tatutou-Jeunet team-up tries their luck with their adaptation of Japrisot’s acclaimed period novel. A mix of drama, humor and breathtaking cinematography, this movie promises another artsy partsy experience that only French cinema offers best… the hype is astonishing but I’m afraid the movie didn’t quite live up to it….

1920, the First World War is over, but Mathilde’s long search ain’t coming near to its end. Her fiancée Manoche has been missing for quite sometime, believed to be dead together with 5 more prisoners to be executed. But Mathilde’s not giving up, she searches for every clue from everyone related to the prisoners to prove that her intuition ain’t fooling with her. Her search takes her to many highs and lows, sometimes draws her close to him, and at times farther away. As she continues on, the grotesque image of war is shown and her enduring love promoted. Will her search lead her to the truth that will fulfill her dreams? Or will be a reality that will burn them down?




Amelie is one of my favorite movies of all time. It’s the best comedy I’ve seen and remains on my Top 10 list (wherever that is). This fact made this movie a certified must-see for me. The hype is overwhelming, Oscar buzz were everywhere and expectations are immense. Did it succeed in living up with the expectations? Not quite… but it did succeed on quite a few things…

First, in making a reputable adaptation of the novel (not that I have read it) but based on my critics instinct (this is so lame) they followed the storyline well enough.
Second, in matching the same visual excellence of Amelie, of keeping that caliber of art direction and cinematography rarely seen in movies today. With CGI almost ruling the world of moviemaking, this movie’s a proof that we could achieve cinematic excellence without much CGI. Third in being a French film from top to bottom. Fourth, in showing that Audrey can pull off such a role and finally, the most important of all. They’ve proven that Jodie Foster can really speak fluent French.



However, the movie failed in some of the most important aspects. First, in writing. A lot of times I thought that it was too knotty. Exaggeration was mammoth. If the writing was much more simpler, it would have fit perfectly with the whole aura of the movie. Second, in proving Jeunet’s versatility in direction. This movie showed that he's not as equipped when it comes to drama. I dunno if it’s just the material, but I doubt it. The humor was so premature, barely got through to me. Most of the times I found it odd rather than amusing. Third, in touching the audience. Amelie was a comedy but the impact was very strong. This one, as I’ve mentioned barely got through me. It is certainly not me, I was more than glad to welcome any movie especially this one since its “predecessor” is very close to my heart. The only time it thrived on its attempt to affect was that jail scene with Tina, when she read that note from the locket that said “Vengeance is nonsense. Don’t waste your life on me”, or something to that effect. A lot more of that delivery could have made this movie eminent.

If we are rather I am to judge this movie from its technical aspect. This film is definitely an A+. The photography was brilliant. That Sepia like appearance and breathtaking sceneries were too great to miss. The hue was just flabbergasting. The cinematography’s the best one I’ve seen this year, and I would have slit my throat if it wasn’t nominated for an Oscar. The score was beautiful. I thought it gave the perfect mood. It’s frustrating to know that it wasn’t nominated but whatever! But if we’re talking about the direction, well, I say it’s good, but just not good enough.



Audrey’s as exotic as ever. At times I think she wasn’t able to match the age she’s suppose to play, at times I do. Up to now I haven’t decide which is which. The acting could have been better but I think its good enough. Josh Hartnett I mean Gaspard Ulliel, really need not to act that much cuz the role is not that challenging. I kinda found his acting odd. Jodie Foster did a fine job. She speaks French alright! And she’s hot too. I love her. Eat your heart out Meg Ryan, or you can call Hannibal Lecter to do it for you. But I think the best acting came from the one and only moving scene in this movie, I dunno what her name is but she plays Tina Lambardi if I’m not mistaken.

A film of visual and audio excellence. It’s a real French treat. If you love Amelie you’ll appreciate the movie for the elements of that film still comes through in this one. It needs a lot of attention though at times it might fail to hold yours. The subtitles come and go very fast so it needs concentration. If you’re not the type who digs movies that’s melodramatic, skip this one. It’s neither a date movie, nor a barkada type. Prepare to be a little exhausted, the engagement is truly quite long. One thing I failed to mention---- they lived up to the title.