The Interpreter --- needs further translation....

© Universal Pictures

Title:
The Interpreter (B+)
PH Release Date:
April 20, 2005
Actors:
Nicole Kidman, Sean Penn, Catherine Keener, Max Minghella, Jesper Christensen
Director:
Sydney Pollack
Story and Screenplay:
Scott Frank, Charles Randolph & Steven Zaillian
Producer:
Kevin Misher et al.
Studio:
Universal Pictures


© Universal Pictures

“Vengeance is a lazy form of grief”

Oh, c’mon! If given the chance to drown somebody who killed someone I love, there’s no way I’m holding back. Sometimes, the only way to get serenity, is to put to rest the one who caused your agony, or at least make them feel the same anguish they brought you. If karma won’t come to them, then be the karma that will bring them down. I’m going nowhere here, oh right, the review.

In the movie, Kidman plays the role of a UN interpreter Silvia Broome, born in America but raised in Africa. Accidentally, she overheard a threat to the life of Motoban leader Zumie to whom she is somehow connected with. Sean Penn's character, is out to find the truth behind her claim, judging her entirely different from the way she does it. He looks, she listens. What started to be considerably a rumor, ends up to be their only lead to a convoluted plot.




© Universal Pictures

The movie to say at least is promising. It is a good flick. The first half spells a great political thriller that seemed of very new concept because of the gorgeous backdrop of the UN NY Office. The crew is very lucky to obtain permission to shoot inside one of the most guarded buildings in the world, cuz it brought life to the movie and made it more believable and interesting.

The story did work during the beginning. It was spanking new, gripping, and commendable, frame-by-frame. However, the movie started to falter during the final 30 minutes on its way to the ending. After the blast, the movie seemed to have been too shattered by the explosion that its characters seemed to have turned stupid all of a sudden, doing things that are way far out of their dispositions.


© Universal Pictures

I honestly think this movie was rushed. They were trying to avoid losing the interest of the viewers so they tried to hurry down the conclusion. They succeeded on not losing the viewers interest, but they were also successful in disappointing them and turning the good impression it made to utter frustration. I won’t say that it fell into the cracks of second-rate thrillers, but in this time where free TV offers the same degree of intelligent thrillers, the challenge to be great is higher and the movie failed to reach its peak.

Legendary film director Pollack can still handle the lenses so well despite his age. It’s important to note that he has been making movies since the 50’s, that’s why Eastwood said, compared to him he’s just a kid. If Clint regards me as such, I’m oughta be worried, cuz he’s like putrefying, that will make me what???? A lot of the films he made I haven’t seen yet so I don’t know how to compare this one. It is certainly of different degree than Tootsie, or Out of Africa. A good script is needed to make a thriller but I do believe greater responsibility and credit lies to the director. He was able to pump up this movie from start to finish, even in the latter parts. However, the homestretch was truly all rush and no essence.


© Universal Pictures

The scoring was great, this is something that TV lacks, and it was wise of them to have James Newton Howard on board to make that clear edge. However, I thought the editing in the final half of the movie, at best, was as good as those seen on TV. The production and design blended well with the movie, but one thing I’m just confused of is that on one scene where Silvia finds out that Zumui (not sure) was coming, the representative of Motoba’s sign was Philippines. What’s up with that??? It was really weird, it was shown pretty clearly and it just doesn’t add up. Since when did our country become a part of Africa??? I don’t remember Jinky Oda sitting as our president. And oh, if you try to be more observant, you’ll notice that the seat of our country’s UN rep is actually in the middle row of the middle column. That was a nice thing to learn.

Nicole Kidman is as captivating as before. You just can’t take away your eyes from the screen everytime she’s on it. It may not be an Oscar-worthy performance because of the character but she sure delivered the goods and I ate them all. Sean Penn is good, he’s character is trying to be compassionate which I believe will not take him much effort to do since he was so concerned about pointing out how great Jude Law is. I really can’t get over this one. It was just totally uncalled for and it destroyed my view of him drastically. He’s a great actor but get a life! According to a cast list I saw online, Richard Gere was part of the movie but I never saw him. Not on a cameo role, nothing. His name was also not in the credits so I guess they just made a mistake. But I don’t know, take a good look and tell me if you see him.


© Universal Pictures

A pumped up thriller that sadly, runs out of gas on the way to the finish line. A socially relevant movie that may not directly point out important issues of our time but touches them with complete care, which for me is more than enough. Not a moment of boredom and incredibly entertaining almost till the last frame. It’s one of the better modern thrillers around and I say a must-see. That is the truth, and it needs no translation.

Grading Sheet:
Story – 16%
Screenplay – 16%
Direction / Execution – 17%
Acting – 19%
Technical Aspect – 17%
Total: 59% = B+

Thelma & Louise --- a uniquely poignant buddy road movie

© MGM


Title: Thelma and Louise (A-)
Release Year: 1991
Actors: Susan Sarandon, Geena Davis, Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsen, Brad Pitt
Director: Ridley Scott
Story and Screenplay: Callie Khouri
Editor / Music: Thom Noble / Hans Zimmer
Design / Photography: Norris Spencer / Adrian Biddle
Producer: Ridley Scott and Mimi Polk
Studio: Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer

“I’m not sorry that son of a bitch is dead, I’m just sorry that it’s you who did it not me.”

Whew! What did I do??? Wahehe.. Such strong words ei? Believe me there’s to this movie than fierce words and female angst. It’s a story of friendship, love, but most of all self-emancipation.
It revolves around two friends. Thelma (Davis) , the naïve one, married to a bigot husband who treats her as a housemaid more than a housewife. And Louise (Sarandon), a highflier waitress with a dark Texas past. The latter decides to embark on a journey one weekend and convinced the former to come with her. Fed up with her husband and hungry for the world she rarely knew, Thelma decided to come with her. A bar incident forced the two to change their small trip to a hurried departure. As they drive their way to Texas, they meet a handsome young lad named D.J (Pitt), who caused Thelma some fun but ignited more trouble. The two women from Arkansas now became the modern Jessie and James of the Southwest.


© MGM

The beginning of the movie was a little peculiar for my taste. The acting, the direction, everything was unrefined and odd for my vision and feel. But as the movie went along, my senses went along with the ride. I prepared myself for the feminist outlook of it but I wasn’t ready for the whole 90’s flava of this flick. Man, those clothes! I see these characters look at the mirror, try to be pretty and all, when all they primarily need is a good set of new clothes. I mean c’mon, what were they thinking???

Seriously now, I love this movie. Despite being released more than a decade ago, the blow is still there. The beginning of the movie kinda felt a bit dull and ordinary, but as the movie progress you understand as to why it was done that way. Scott makes an incredibly emotionally affixing environment together with Adrian Biddle and his photography. Despite the good editing and brilliant capturing of the striking splendor of the West, the music sucks. Picking up form what Simon said, “There are good and bad country songs”, the ones featured in this movie were the cream of the CRAP.



© MGM

The story of this movie may bear a lot of resemblance to the buddy film genre but the approach Callie Khouri used in the movie made it look like its never been done before. A lesson to be learn by many writers, if you’re gonna write about something that’s already been dealt with, make sure you make it look like it’s never been done before. Now how do you that? By re-examining the faults, re-establishing advances and adding edge that the viewers will not expect. And I certainly did not expect that ending. I heard about it, but as I watched it, I was still convincing myself that maybe I heard wrong, but when they finally did it, man, I cried! It was the strongest moment of the movie and one of the best endings I’ve ever seen in my entire life.

Brilliant may not be enough of a word to describe the performances of both Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis. This is certainly the pinnacle of their careers. Susan carried the character oh so well, especially during the brief transformation from being subtle to fierce on the parking lot scene. Geena Davis handles her character so well, her consistency with the way she conduct the progress of her character from tamed to unfettered. They both do exceptional jobs that asking who did better is like asking how one can put the whole sea in a drinking glass. Too bad they were up against Jodie Foster, probably if not both of them were nominated as Best Actress in the 1992 Oscars and one’s just a supporting role, they’ll both win. If I were given the chance to vote that Oscar year, I’d rather save myself from the burden of choosing between the two and give it to a performance just as great, in that case, Foster’s.


© MGM

Harvey Keitel gave a strong support and yup, that’s him, Brad in his breakthrough role as J.D. The role was so perfect for him. And man, the abs was there to make an impression. Michael Madsen looks really great in this movie. I never thought he's that goodlooking when he was abit younger. A good performance as well.

A brilliant script, a brilliant director and beyond brilliant acting. What more can one ask for except better music??? The ending alone makes this movie an absolute must-see. It’s a great part of the progress of filmmaking and dude, this is history here. If this movie fails to touch you, it is not the movie's fault. You’re simply incapable of feeling anything besides your loins. (why am I a feminist all of a sudden???)

Grading Sheet:
Story – 16%
Screenplay – 19%
Direction / Execution – 17%
Acting – 20%
Technical Aspect – 15%
Total: 87% = A-

Michael Collins --- a great man, a good movie

© WB

Title: Michael Collins (A-)
Release Year: 1996
Actors: Liam Neeson, Aidan Quinn, Stephen Rea, Alan Rickman, Julia Roberts, Brendan Gleeson, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers
Writer & Director: Neil Jordan
Editor / Music: J. Patrick Duffner et al. / Elliott Goldenthal
Design / Photography: Anthony Pratt / Chris Menges
Producer: Stephen Wooley
Studio: Geffen Pictures and WB

“I hate them for making hate necessary”

Damn! I love that line! I’m perplexed as to why I do not feel exactly the same about the movie. Don’t get me wrong, I like this movie. I believe it is one of those hollywood biographies that remained faithful to the history books. Not that I have a lot of idea who Michael Collins is, but just because there wasn’t much forced improbabilities to augment the dramatic effect. I know this may come as a shock to many of you, but I’m afraid I won’t be able to dig deeper into the authenticity of the movie (yeah right!). However, I can compare this one with a movie top billed by the same lead.

Released almost ten years ago, this movie didn’t make quite a stir as other biographical movies. We know how much the Oscar love biography movies, but somehow this movie didn’t quite ignite as much passion from them unlike its main character. What was the factor that immobilized its ride to the top???

Easy, the movie was released three years after the wide scale success of Schindler’s list. Liam Neeson played the title role and earned praises for his performance as a “savior” during the Ghetto era. This time, he’s also the savior. He even has a much greater responsibility. He’s the key towards the autonomy of Ireland. The range of emotions he needed to convey was wider since the character dealt with not just the depression, but with romance and friendship as well. Simply put, it just didn’t come first.

I love Schindler’s List. It’s one of the best movie ever made. I think that the story of Michael Collins is quite more important, but the story of Schindler was illustrated in a much dramatic scenario. I cried a river for that movie and in this one, I shed not even a single tear. It was touching, it was engaging, but there was not enough dramatic spur to make me cry. It didn’t leave quite as much of a mark, and since people already saw a better film than this, the expectations were much higher, and disappointment came closely behind.


© WB

In comparison to our national heroes, Michael Collins is like a combination of Andres Bonifacio and Jose Rizal. During the beginning of the movie, he was pretty determined to fight for their independence and kill for it. In the final half of the movie, he made a turn into Jose because even if his objective is still self-rule, he compromised his beliefs and settle for what he thought is better than going into war. But at the end of the movie he kinda became Marcelo H Del Pilar, killed by a supporter of the gibberish president of their republic. Rings a bell doesn’t it? I never imagined how much similarity we can come up. He also dies at a much younger age than Del Pilar. He died at 31.

The ultimate strengths of this movie are its cinematography and musical score. It may not be as brilliantly shot as the movies today but it was very well done. I did like Neil Jordan’s direction and writing, but I really felt that it lack that emotional clout it needed to make it that memorable. It was gripping especially in the battle scenes but there’s gotta be more.

Liam Neeson was good. During the first half, I felt awkward listening to his bizarre Irish accent, but as the movie went along the discomfiture waned. Not a better performance than Schindler’s but good enough to establish him as one of the most persuasive actors around. Although I believe Russell Crowe could have done a much better job. Good performances from the supporting cast except for two people whom I thought could have done so much better. First, Alan Rickman, I thought it was a weak performance. The umph factor wasn’t there. In some of his scenes I just wanna hit him in the head and tell him to give more. Another disappointment was Julia Roberts. Yup, my dear Julia. Okay, I appreciate the fact that Julia tried to sing, operative word is try, aside from the catastrophe on that area, she also failed to capture the essence of the role. It was a very blunt performance. Very ordinary, very weak, very forgettable. Maybe another reason for its failure, a movie with a weak performance from Julia is bound to be doomed.

A movie about a man whose love for country and its people goes beyond what he wants and needs. A compelling story need be known by all. See this movie without any Schindler’s list thought behind to preclude any possible discontent. Just enjoy it for what it is and realize the lessons in life that we often ignore. It takes a nation to make a change, but only one man to pioneer it. Watch how he did it.

Grading Sheet:
Story – 18%
Screenplay – 17%
Direction / Execution – 17%
Acting – 18%
Technical Aspect – 18%
Total: 86% = A-

A Guy Thing---- a bad thing....

© MGM

Title: A Guy Thing (C-)
Release Year: 2003
Actors: Jason Lee, Julia Stiles, Selma Blair, Lochlyn Munro, Thomas Lennon
Director: Chris Koch
Story and Screenplay: Pete Schwaba / Matt Tarses et al.
Cinematography: Robbie Greenberg
Producer: Roger Bimbaum et al.
Studio: Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer

There’s something interesting about Jason Lee and Julia Stiles that enticed me to see this movie. Selma Blair playing the prudish girlfriend again (Re: Legally Blonde), I thought was just the icing on cake. What I didn’t know is that the cake was all icing but no chiffon.

The story revolves around Paul (Lee), an incredibly stupid character who happens to be also so nice and afraid of taking risks. After his bachelor party, he woke-up the next day in bed with another woman named Becky (Stiles). She’s a happy-go-lucky lass who happens to the ex-girlfriend of a steroid dependent police officer. Things get crazy as he found out that the woman he thought he slept with is actually the cousin of her fiancée Karen (Blair). Now, he tries to find ways to keep everything a secret from his girl while at the same time escape the jealous ex-boyfriend from butchering him. And the audience is left with the arduous challenge of who can stand this movie longer.


© MGM

When you have a not so exceptional concept, one must make sure to find a way to recompense through the screenplay. If the screenplay is also not that great, then at least hire a great director to add some much needed flavor. In case there’s still nothing special about the director, hire great actors. And if still no luck, just make an animated movie. At least in a way it’s just proper to ask for people’s money to reimburse for the effort.

I’m not saying that the actors in this movie were bad, cuz God knows how much I adore Julia Stiles. In fact, I think the acting is the strength of this movie. If not for the three, people won’t even waste a nanosec of their time to see this flick. Jason and Julia’s chemistry actually worked which prevailed me from trashing this movie to permanent oblivion. However, the number of times I actually felt delighted by this movie was like a hairpin in a haystack. The haystack is the incredibly maddening minutes where the characters dwell on stupid charade of immense excess.


© MGM

An ordinary concept, a baloney script and a blue-collar director, now what does that spell??? An astonishing travesty that can cause one to kill himself or others. I speak for everyone, this ain’t just a guy thing, even girls would feel exactly the same way I feel about this movie. Now, seeing this movie, that, is a bad thing.

Grading Sheet:
Story – 10%
Screenplay – 9%
Direction / Execution – 10%
Acting – 15%
Technical Aspect – 12%
Total: 56% = C-

First Daughter ---- first-rate disappointment

© 20th Century Fox
Title: First Daughter (C-)
Release Year: 2004
Actors: Katie Holmes, Michael Keaton, Marc Blucas, Amerie, Margaret Colin, Lela Rochon Fuqua
Director: Forest Whitaker
Story: Jessica Bendinger and Jerry O’ Connell
Screenplay: Jessica Bendinger and Kate Kondell
Editor / Music: Richard Chew / Michael Kamen & Blake Neely
Design / Photography: Alexander Hammond / Toyomichi Kurita
Producer: John Davis et al.
Studio: Regency Entertainment and 20th Century Fox

“…I’m still gonna stay with you, not because I have to, but because I want to”

Oh, how sweet, and how I wish I could be as amiable. But there are tons of reasons that forbid me to be so after watching this movie. If there’s anything that I am glad about, it will be the fact that my decision a couple of months ago to skip this movie was substantiated.

I love Katie Holmes. For me she’s an angel. She’s the sweetest thing that ever ensued from television. Dawson’s Creek is one of my favorite shows of all time. I grew up watching that show, which means I grew up watching Katie. I stood by her even though thousands of people deemed that she can’t act (God, I’m so emo). That’s how much I adore her, but I’m afraid that adulation will not be enough to save this princess from falling from grace.


© 20th Century Fox
Katie plays the role of Samantha, the first and only daughter of the incumbent president of the USA, Mackenzie (Keaton). She’s about to experience her first real walk in the world, alone--- or so she thought. She enters college, a time in once life where one learns how to be independent, something probably she won’t learn since 24/7 secret service is on her tail. A lot of things happened and I don’t wanna transmit any of the burden from what I saw, to you so I’m just gonna cut it short and say that this movie is truly nonsense.

I never thought I’d see a movie cheesier than any Hallmark movies I’ve seen. I mean really, the first half of the movie was like a never-ending conclusion to a rom-com/self-evaluation movie. You know how movies of this type works, the lead ends up telling about what she have learned. This one didn’t settle for one scene alone of never-ending lessons but for the entire half of the movie. And then, what makes it so much more exciting is that the final half felt really felt like a Hallmark movie. Too much drama that’s nothing but plain drama.

Forest Whitaker needs to learn a lot more. Not that I am singling him out, cuz I honestly believe that the script plain sucks. And what’s even funnier is that it took two people to make up the story and another two to write the screenplay. Wow, it did work.


© 20th Century Fox
I feel really bad for all the actors in this movie especially Katie. Man, I do hope she survives this disaster and actually land a good role someday. Michael Keaton was actually good in this movie that came as a surprise. This one won’t pass as rom-com too, cuz the chemistry was not just there. Katie and Marc as a couple is not just convincing. They’re as cold as any straight man would feel towards Madame Auring.

The movie tried to be so nice and all which they succeed of doing, however instead of ending up as heartwarming it became too cheesy to handle. I don’t know about Chasing Liberty cuz I haven’t seen it s I can’t really compare them from one another and speculate who copied who. But if it is almost as the same as some people say, I say watch the one which stars the one you idolize. Press Chasing for Mandy and press First for Katie. As simple as that. As for the ordinary viewers who don’t care about either of the two, you can skip this one without being left guilt-stricken that you didn’t support the first family or your country.

Grading Sheet:
Story – 12%
Screenplay – 9%
Direction / Execution – 10%
Acting – 15%
Technical Aspect – 13%
Total: 59% = C-

Ring 2 ---- makes sense why it doesn't make sense

Title:
The Ring 2 (B-)
PH Release Date:
April 13, 2005
Actors:
Naomi Watts, David Dorfman, Simon Baker, Elizabeth Perkins, Sissy Spacek, Emily Van Camp, Kelly Stables
Director:
Hideo Nakata
Based on the film:
“Ringu”
Screenplay:
Ehren Kruger
Music / Cinematography:
Hans Zimmer / Gabriel Beristain
Producer:
Michael Macari Jr. et al.
Studio:
DreamWorks Pictures



“fear comes full circle my ass!!!”

The one that started this Jap spooky craze is back for its preordained sequel. This time, DreamWorks hired the same man who brought these movies into life. Hideo Nakata, director of the original The Ring. Will his presence result to a mind-blowing sequel? Or will it be as dumb and dull as the original Ring 2???

It’s hard to say. I saw the first The Ring two and half years ago and I can’t compare it to the original one, cuz the stupid me was able to see Ring 2 and Ring 0 but not the its predecessor. But I did like the movie. The idea of being slaughtered 7-days after watching a shampoo video (the hait combing thing) is definitely better than any slasher movies in existence. However, the script wasn’t really able to establish the movie as sensible. It’s a never ending “How can that be???” and “How come???” I did like Gore Verbinski’s (Pirates of the Carribean, The Mexican) keen visual direction but man, he’s not much of a storyteller. And Hideo Nakata was not that different.



Picking up six months after Rachel Keller (Watts) managed to have a well scene with Samara (Stables), she and son Aidan (Dorfman) tries to start anew. They relocate to Oregon, it may not have the world's best coffee (they’re form Seattle remember?) but definitely away from their dreadful past--- or so they thought. Just a few days after moving in, a mysterious death occurred involving two teenagers and a videotape. Who else can it possibly be??? She then tries to find out if the girl in desperate need of an ambush makeover is really back, only to realize that she’s not making any visits, she’s planning to stay for good (without reservations--- that’s awful).

The movie’s script is a bottomless well of plot holes, that even Samara, with her flexible joints and sticky hands won’t be able to get out of. Don’t you just love it when she tries to crawl out of the well??? Anyways, it was like a work of an amateur, though it actually makes more sense than the first one, she wasn’t able to completely cover the subplots, that oh right, she made herself! She writes about killing somebody and not telling us how it ends up and adds up to the story??? Honey, you’re not a God, you can’t just kill people and throw them on the street, have some decency and burn them.




And man, this girl have some man issues, Naomi’s characters always ends up with a dead boyfriend, or in this one just a potential boyfriend, imagine that! So much for her happy ending ei? And speaking of boyfriend, there was once scene that I found really, really terribly odd, the dinner scene where Rachel tries to talk her son into calling her mommy. The dialogue was good, but man, it felt like Naomi was flirting with his son. That was really funny, and Micheal Jackson was like, “How come she gets to do that and I can’t???”

I thought the characterization was a bit inconsistent, disregarding the fact that Aidan is actually switching characters. And oh, just in case you didn’t notice, Samara’s real mother (yup, she’s adopted) was played by Sissy Spacek. Yup, that’s her in the white dress and the ambush makeover bound hair (too much promotion here). For the first time, we’re seeing the real Sissy Spacek again. Back on her Carrie roots, she wasn’t causing any fire this time though.

I say there was a bit of improvement visually, the eerie feeling was totally there when they want it to be and they’re still able to move me to the edge of my seat. I guess it was a good move in the part of the producers to hire a new director cuz if Gore was given the same script, oh, we’re up for some treat, another The Mexican ei??? Hideo Nakata wasn’t that bad, but not so good either.



Naomi Watts is such a doll. 9 out of 10 of her shots, I have to convince myself that I’m not seeing Nicole Kidman. Probably because they’re both Aussie and they’re really, really good friends that they start to look so much alike. I mean, seriously, they look so identical. She did a wonderful job, well, she’s kinda a second-rate Nicole in a way, picking up roles which Nicole so humbly throws around, but I think she’s a really fine actress. If Nicole is inexistent, she’ll probably do better. I wonder how they end up so close when almost everyone thinks of them as rivals???

David Dorfman is really a creepy kid. If this kid lives next door, I’d probably order my sister not to play with him. He talks old, he acts old and he looks old. He’s not cute at all. But he was very good, I thought the role was right for him. Some camera conscious shots but it was fine. The rest of the cast were really supporting cast, as in like legs of the chair that you can still sit on even if they’re gone (what an analogy). And oh, Kelly Stables deserves an Oscar for her look. I wonder how she looks like on a daily basis. Got no time to look.



As far as I am concerned, this movie didn’t fail to scare me at least once, but I don’t think it was enough for me to really like it. There’s just more time that it makes no sense than it actually makes sense. Too much preparation may have killed this movie, not taking yourself so seriously sometimes is really essential. I mean c’mon it’s a fictional horror flick, cut the audience some slack. It did come in full circle, no, not fear, but bewilderment.

Grading Sheet:
Story – 14%
Screenplay – 13%
Direction / Execution – 14%
Acting – 16%
Technical Aspect – 16%
Total: 73% = B-

Le Divorce - say NO to custody of this movie

Title: Le Divorce
Release Year: 2003
Actors: Kate Hudson, Naomi Watts, Jean-Marc Barr, Stockard Channing, Glenn Close
Director: James Ivory
Story and Screenplay: Diane Johnson / James Ivory et al.
Music / Cinematography: Richard Robbins / Pierre Lhomme
Producer: Ismail Merchant et al.
Studio: Fox Searchlight

That’s the bad thing about love, you end up getting hurt the only way to escape it is if you die (or kill yourself)

Hmm… something I somehow agree on. What? It’s true. How I wish I have the balls to do it (yes I have them but they’re not made for such purpose). Despite the fact that I was able to relate to that one line, this movie was a complete waste of time. It was two hours of agonizing incomprehension. Not that I am incapable of understanding, but the movie certainly went all over the place and I mean all over without really making itself clear at any point.

This all happens in France, okay it’s not in French and even if some lines were, there were subtitles, just in case you’re thinking that it’s the reason why I didn’t understand it, cuz poor riddler no nothing more than English. It was about two stepsisters Isabel Walker (Hudson), a young chic lady about to try his luck in France and Roxy (Watts) a poet who was about to be deserted by her so grateful French husband. Wait, before I continue I’m gonna tell you everything now so you won’t have to waste your time seeing it. It’s enough that I have to sit thru this for two hours (riddler cares).



I don’t know how to decipher this cuz I have at most very little knowledge of France and its people, that’s why I dunno if men on that side of the planet are that worth it to be tagged as pigs. I can hardly believe what I was seeing in this movie. And the family was even supportive of it. But somehow despite the situation of Roxy, the movie failed to draw sentiments form the audience. I say it’s not Naomi’s fault but the script and the director’s. Don’t worry though, the writer found a way to make this guy pay, just to show that justice exists. “He’s a very bad guy, he must be punished” maybe that’s what went on the writer’s mind so she kills the character and throws him in garbage. This is via the husband of the woman he cheated with.

On the other hand, Roxy had an affair with the 70 yr.old uncle of her sister’s husband, which by the way don’t look anywhere near 70, he’s like 50 or something. And just like the character, the movie takes on something new that they won’t be able to handle. This film portrayed these characters as stereotypes of the young American women. One who has no direction and a poet who ends up trying to kill herself but fails. What is it with people that they think writers always kill themselves??? And that American women are mere whores without any sort of refinement? I dunno this movie is crazy and I’m getting crazy just thinking about it.



And oh, by the way, on, the side, they also tackled a fight over a painting and insanity. This movie tackled a lot of things and I greatly feel for the actors in this one. I love Kate and Naomi. In have high respects for Channing and Close but I don’t know what came into their minds doing a movie like this.

Just so I won’t waste any more of your time and my time as well, just don’t see it. I’m pretty sure in the first 30 minutes of it, you’d start to feel like you’ve been watching this movie for three years. Yeah, it delivers quite a few laughs but it cannot compensate for the length of boredom you had to endure. A comedy of manners that just have no manners. I already signed the divorce papers for this movie, siting irreconcilable differences. Don’t make the same mistake that I did. Watching a movie is a commitment and this one’s offering no pre-nup.

Grading Sheet:
Story – 14%
Screenplay – 9%
Direction / Execution – 12%
Acting – 15%
Technical Aspect – 15%
Total: 67% = C

Election --- political satire at its best

© Paramount Pictures

Title:
Election (A)
Release Year:
1999
Actors:
Reese Witherspoon, Matthew Broderick, Chris Klein, Jessica Campbell, Mark Harelik
Director:
Alexander Payne
Based on the Novel by:
Tom Perrotta
Screenplay:
Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor
Editor / Music:
Kevin Tent / Rofle Kent
Design / Photography:
Jame Ann Stewart / James Glennon
Producer:
Albert Berger et al.
Studio:
Paramount Pictures and MTV Films


© Paramount Pictures

“You can’t interfere with destiny, that’s why it’s called destiny”

As a matter of fact, that fact matters. And if only Mr. McAllister did take this thought into consideration, he may have had the same pathetic life he had before.

This movie was released several years ago. Reese was not yet an A-list star but was a few years away from her Legally Blonde fame. In this movie she plays a character bizarrely different and somehow the same from Elle Woods. She plays Tracy Flick, the epitome of a high school overachiever. Smart, determined and nerdy but without those big glasses and messed-up hair. She’s been part of every student government project and considerably ubiquitous. In her senior year, as envisaged by everyone, she runs for presidency of the student council---- unopposed. Who would wanna fight a woman who treats this election like the Apprentice???


© Paramount Pictures

Mr. McAllister (Broderick), because of his combined irritation, anger, envy and disgust for Tracy, found the guy who would go head-to-head with her. Paul (Klein) is not much of your average jock because besides playing football and screwing around, he’s extremely nice and caring for his sister. He is the most popular guy in school and his injured legs and inability to play no more makes him more beloved by all, not withholding the fact of course, that he is stupid.

But the competition doesn’t end there as Paul’s dyke sister, Tammy, all of a sudden decided to run for president. Not because she’s interested in politics, besides Rosi O Donnell’s cause, but simply because she wants to get back to his brother and her former girlfriend who’s now his brother’s bitch, Lisa. All these characters were all wonderfully portrayed by the actors and brilliantly depicted by Payne on screen.


© Paramount Pictures

Sideways was a great movie. But Election is much better than Sideways. I never thought High School could be depicted with so much wit and artistry besides the usual cheerleader stuff. Although there was still stereotyping, it didn’t seem too overly done or wearing to see. Taylor and Payne’s team-up is a certified knockout all the time and despite a few glitches in direction overall he was very effective, he was able to mix the suspense with the comedy which is not that easy to do but he did effectively.

The writing is one of the best I came across with. It was such a brilliant script. Despite the oddity of the characters they all seemed so real. You may not relate to them or know someone exactly like them, but you’ll believe they exist. I only found one flaw in the script with regards to Paul’s sister but it’s hardly noticeable except I noticed it.

Everyone in the cast gave stellar performances. Something I never thought I would ever say but there I’ve said it. Even Chris Klein gave a convincing performance. I never considered him as an actor but after this movie, he may have a shot. Broderick is the perfect man for the role, that susceptible look he has is terribly hard to find. Witherspoon never fails to amaze me except for Legally Blonde 2 which is not exactly her fault but more of the writer’s.


© Paramount Pictures

This is one of the best comedies I’ve seen. The best Teen comedy ever! And Payne’s finest movie to date (out of the two of his movies i've seem). This movie will make you laugh, make you sad and make you think. I thought it’s kinda predictable heading towards the end but wait till you see the end of that whole travesty. This movie gets my vote and I believe yours as well.

And like any other dumbass who saw this movie, I’m still wondering what’s the difference between moral and ethics. You bet!!!

Grading Sheet:
Story – 18%
Screenplay – 19%
Direction / Execution – 18%
Acting – 20%
Technical Aspect – 17%
Total: 92% = A

Closer --- a crazy but honest look on modern relationships

Title:
Closer (B+)
PH Release Date:
April 6, 2004
Actors:
Julia Roberts, Jude Law, Natalie Portman and Clive Owen
Director:
Mike Nichols
Story and Screenplay:
Based on the play by Patrick Marber
Editors:
John Bloom & Antonia Van Drimellen
Design / Photography:
Tim Hatley / Stephen Goldblatt
Producer:
Mike Nichols et al.
Studio:
Columbia Pictures



“If you believe in love at first sight, you never stop looking.”

Interesting thought, but it actually makes sense. The same goes with the movie. Some said that this movie came as a disappointment from the previous works of Mike Nichols (Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, Carnal Knowledge) especially since this is his first release after the much-acclaimed Angels in America, which I am yet to see and if HBO won’t show it this summer I’ll be compelled to make that guilt-bound trip to the no-Hook pirates. I have no right to compare any of his works from this movie because I have not seen any of them.

Based on what I saw (dah! in this movie), he’s definitely the type who loves to take time in developing his characters. He divulges in every aspect of the people within his movie. He does it pretty well and he makes directing seem so easy, especially in the beginning of the movie.

The film is written by the same author of the play it was based from. I say it definitely showed that it was a playwright’s work. The lines were provoking and brutally honest, sometimes going way over the board, which if translated into my language--- give me more! At times it does seem too theatrical but it’s all good. Any movie that includes the line: “Now fuck off and die you fucked up slack!” is music to my ears.



I do find one thing weird about this movie. I didn’t feel like Julia Roberts is actually the lead actress. Correct me if I’m wrong, which I don’t think I am but still do in case I am --- wrong, that is, but I felt like the story rotates more about Natalie’s character.

The story works this way. Dan, wonderfully played by Jude Law (I hope Sean Penn’s happy now) met Alice (played by the cunning Natalie Portman) via an accident. Dan, is an obituarist, the job with the real graveyard shift, while Alice is an American who made her way to London to pursue her dream which occasionally is my dream as well, to strip. They “fell in love” had a good thing going right until Dan met Anna, (beautifully depicted by Roberts) a photographer who enjoys taking pictures of strangers especially if they look like me. Weird as it may seem, but these characters seemed to have been gifted with intense sense of betrayal. If treachery has a smell, they’d be the K9 that can locate them



I wish I do have what they have, but as the movie showed, being honest usually don’t work all the time. Dishonesty can sometimes be the sincere way of showing you care and love the person (did I really say this?). This is the type of movie cynics love. It gives them reassurance. Love is not a fluke it’s nil. Just like Dan who seem to think that the newest girl that caught his eyes is the one he’s looking for. Or like Alice, who insists she’s in love with someone as long as she doesn’t feel like leaving them.

Despite being a character-driven film, it seems odd that Anna was not much developed. Larry is such a unique character (intensely portrayed by Clive Owen). He’s the epitome of what an ordinary man usually is and what an ordinary man usually is not. He enjoys being vulnerable, which is definitely not a manly character and he never accepts defeat.

The movie did show a lot of potential but started to stumble on the way to the finish line. Good thing that Damien Rice’s music was there to pick it up and instill that final twist with a little more blow. Disappointing it may be to some (specifically me), but despite all the fuck, suck and cock going on there was nothing of that kind shown in the movie.



Honestly, this is not the type of movie your barkada will love, but if you’re an emotionally charged up brokenhearted lovefool, don’t forget to bring someone with you. Just in case. If you wanna see Natalie Portman do the nasty with the post, watch the movie. And if you wanna see characters make a fool of themselves because of love, or brutally honestly speaking, see your mirage, go… come closer…

The Pacifier --- a traditional waste of family time

Title:The Pacifier (C)
PH Release Date:March 30, 2005
Actors:Vin Diesel, Lauren Graham, Brittany Snow, Faith Ford, Carol Kane, Brad Garrett, Max Theriot, Morgan York
Director:Adam Shankman
Story and Screenplay:Thomas Lennon et al.
Cinematography:Peter James
Producer:Roger Bimbaum et al.
Studio:Walt Disney Pictures



"this movie is so dumb i have no quotes at all"

Since I’ve been bedridden (for real!!!) for the past couple of days. I needed to find a remedy for my filmtosis (n., a disease caused by the lack of movie viewing pleasure on a Wednesday) So I decided to watch this movie since they say laughter is the best medicine. I’m not a fan of Vin Diesel, or of any man who have boobs bigger than my mother, but I was willing to give him a shot. This will be the first time I’ll see him do comedy (and hopefully some real acting). And I terribly wish this will be the last (Ms. June will kill me).

Vin plays the Navy SEAL Shane Wolfe who hardly recuperated from his first-failed mission. Now, here’s where you immediately know that this is not your regular Vin Diesel movie, because instead of his character dwelling on his lost he immediately grabbed the newest mission and do it without any feeling of remorse towards the family of the scientist who died and his fellow officers as well. Simply put, no big boi drama.

This new mission with the family of the scientist is something he had never done and was not specifically trained to do but because Vin’s character should be the hero, somehow he managed to do it all so well. And I mean really well. With him even directing a play. It doesn’t get any more seamless than that. And with a man being able to handle kids and babies oh so well, he should be the perfect man. That’s when you’re hit with the hard reality that this is a flight of fancy.



If you are still contemplating about how the movie might end you must have been born yesterday or simply hit yourself so hard on the head that even the simple task of picking your nose you can hardly manage to remember how to do. If the latter has not been administered on you yet, I’ll be more than glad to do it for you-- free of charge!!!Adam Shankman directed this movie, and as mentioned in the poster, it was directed by the director of Bringing Down the House. Adam Shankman directed this movie which means he directed Bringing Down the House. Korek!!!!! (with the hastiness of Kris Aquino’s version). One thing I so wish the producer of the next film he directs never do, is put “from the director of the pacifier” cause that will immediately decipehered as a sign of distress.

I dunno what school this director came from, maybe from outer space but man, Joyce Bernal could have done a much better job. Visually he’s not totally bad, but the storytelling, man, he sucks bigtime. I mean, I dunno what exactly he’s trying to do, he attempts to depict an ordinary and predictable storyline into a more ordinary and more predictable movie. How honest of him. If I was to judge this flick on sheer visual development, this movie will receive a staggering D.



I mean c'mon, as if the storyline is so complex that you would have such a hard time to develop it. And mind you, I dunno how crazy this sounds but this sounds Whitney Houston type of crazy for me, it needed four people to write this movie. The more really is the manier but not necessarily merrier. That’s like saying that we need 20 writers to have a really good script.

Vin is typecast to play only two roles. First, an officer, not necessarily a virtuous one, and second, a wicked character, may be a rebel of some sort or a fugitive. In this movie, they can’t claim that he’s playing anything new. Just because he is changing diapers, it doesn’t count as a new role. If you’ll ask me whether he was able to pull it off, c’mon, as if it’s that hard to utter ” eew!” when you see a poo-stricken diaper??? Now, if Vin Diesel was trying to throw some gags of his own, now that’s worth critiquing.

The movie’s fortunate to have such an incredible support cast, from Lauren Graham (Gilmore Girls) to Brittany Snow (8 Simple Rules). I dunno about Brad Garrett because I never liked him as an actor. I have something against hairy men (not really fond of cookie monster). No, seriously, I dislike him immensely (not hate, didn’t your parents told you we should never hate nobody?), I think he’s OA, and overly conceited. I may love Raymond but I don’t like him.



This movie had a lot of potential, casting is good, take away Brad Garrett and his character as well, fire the director, get a new one, choose one scriptwriter and this movie will be better. Instead of taking on so many things at the same time, it would have been best if they used the ever-effective tool in making such comedies work---- babies. And if you think about it, or simply take time to read it, this movie is entitled the pacifier!!! Dah???!!!!


Grading Sheet:Story – 12%
Screenplay – 12%
Direction / Execution – 10%
Acting – 15%
Technical Aspect – 12%
Total: 61% = C