The Wolfman (2010)

The Wolfman (2010)


Lawrence Talbot returned home after receiving a letter from the fiance of his brother, Ben Talbot, informing him of his missing brother and pleading him to help search for him. Upon returning home, he met his father, Sir John Talbot whom he has never kept in touch for years. He soon learned of his brother mysterious death, believing it to be murdered by a mad man or as some villagers believe, killed by the gypsy's bear. His brother's fiance, Gwen Conliffe, once again pleaded with Lawrence to search for the real cause of her lover's death. Lawrence agreed and went out to the gypsy camp to learn more about his brother's visit to the camp prior to his death.

While in the camp, he soon learn from a gypsy named Maleva, of a beast, the Wolfman, a transformation from a cursed man into a wolf like creature under the light of the full moon. The beast then arrived and rampaged the camp. In the midst of the chaos, a boy ran from the camp and was pursued by the beast. Lawrence gave the beast a chase but ended up being attacked and bitten by it. He survived from the attack, now knowing that the beast was responsible for his brother's death, but was disappointed that the beast was still out there. During his recovery from his wound, he began to discover something more horrifying than facing the beast itself, becoming the beast itself.

Directed by Joe Johnston, the same guy who directed Jumanji, Jurassic Park III and Hidalgo, this remake of the classic horror film stars Benicio Del Toro as Lawrence Talbot, Anthony Hopkins as Sir John Talbot, Emily Blunt as Gwen Conliffe, Hugo Weaving as Inspector Francis Aberline of Scotland Yard and Geraldine Chaplin as Maleva.


I was very excited when I read the news of this movie being a proper horror film with a very famous monster taking the limelight. It's not a film being a crossover of an all-star monsters of horror like in Van Helsing and not being a false distorted form of werewolf which loses every nature of being horrifying to become an eye candy in New Moon. This Wolfman goes back to what makes Werewolves one of the most horrifying creatures that emerged from Hollywood history. I applaud the filmakers for the direction they are going and the vision they had, because I absolutely hate the Lycans of the Underworld and what they've done to the Werewolves in New Moon... I especially hate what they've done to vampires and witches, because they've absolutely lost all sense of being scary. Even the Mummy is no longer scary. So, I was hoping this movie will do much justice to all the horror monsters out there.


Let's see Jacob from New Moon take on the legendary Wolfman.
Coming out from the cinema, I had mixed feelings about the movie. The movie was good in general, but I felt it still didn't define the meaning of horror as how the original 1941 movie did in its time. I would definitely praise the film for its slow revelation of the monster. There was enough tease in the first half of the film and to finally shock us when the monster's full face is revealed. Wait...the monster showed his face halfway through the movie? No, a matter of fact, the monster showed his true form even before you've watched the movie. Yup, it's on the poster even before you bought the tickets or step anywhere close to the cinema! The monster in all of its glory! So, when watching the movie, there was no real shock. I'm going to blame this on the publicity department, because I really love the direction of the slow revelation of the monster on screen. I could very well turn into a Werewolf and hunt the people responsible for the unashamed spoiler they did to me and the movie audience.

Another aspect I would praise the film for is the art direction. Many of the shots are creepily beautiful. I love the mist in forest, the set design of the interior of the buildings, especially the Talbot manor, the use of lighting of the moon, even the costume the actors wore were absolutely amazing (The tiger skin Anthony Hopkins had, speaks volumes about his character). I especially love the color palette the movie uses. The choice of colors played a lot in painting the scene to be dark and creepy in nature without having much of use of black. The night exteriors emits a shivering cold environment with the use of dark blue and the interiors have an eerie surrounding with a dim lighting from candles, fireplace and even from sunlight through the curtains. There's a gothic and dark feel to the environment, and I believe it's also the choice of the Victorian setting adds to it, rather than having it take place in the 40s as in the original movie.

Apart from its visuals, the sound is quite superb as well. When I meant sound, I meant the sound that the Wolfman makes. He doesn't woof and doesn't pant. He growls, breathes, roars and yes.... howls... iconically! The sound is the key feature in creating the monster. This movie pulled it off perfectly in creating the sounds of this monster. When you think this monster sound takes the limelight, you forget every pant, heavy breathing from other characters around that also adds much to the scene. Much of the time, I'm unaware of the soundtrack and the music being played. And that's a good thing! Compare this movie's transformation scene to that of the 1941 one that uses intense music to make it horrifying. I have to mention this again, the HOWL is awesome!


T...H...X...
When speaking about the creation of the monster, I have to also praise the make up department. That is one absolutely amazing werewolf make up! It's funny to think back in 1941, they have to rely on heavy make up to make their man as much as a wolf, and here we are in the 20th century with computer generated creatures are made with very detailed realism, we could easily (and terribly) turn a man into a wolf (New Moon). The filmakers chose instead to go back to the basics in creating this monster and never have a non-CG creature looks so amazing. I absolutely love it when films resort back to make up, puppetry, models and suited man, because there's a certain magic behind them that CG can't give. What do you think makes Chewbacca, ET, R2-D2, The Terminator, Aliens and Lord of the Ring's creatures so special? It takes certain skill, commitment and devotion from the make up department, the actor behind the mask/suit and the sound department to pull off the perfect creature. It's an art form which could very well be lost in the future with the advancement of CG.


Transformers!
Why then do I have mixed feelings? Well, there were plenty of drawbacks from the films as well. Like I said, I didn't feel one bit scared from the movie. I don't know if the film is just not scary or the monster formula loses its touch in our modern era cinema. They definitely got the monster formula right, from its slow revelation of the monster to it's horrifying acts not clearly seen and to be left in the imaginations of the viewers. But somehow audience today has gotten use to it that bringing back the formula doesn't give the impact it originally have. There was plenty of blood being spilled, which used to give the "OMG" experience but today's audience are very much desensitized, unless you squeezed enough blood out to make audience uncomfortable like Quentin Tarantino would do...still no horror from that, just discomfort.

SPOILERS AHEAD

The story also suffered a little. The story did a good job in setting up the introduction of the characters and their roles and their contribution to the story, but I felt it could have been better. I loved the build up to the transformation of Lawrence into the Wolfman, especially with the idea of not showing the Werewolf true form until the scene of Lawrence's transformation. I also love that the story goes more than just about a man turning into a monster, but also the discovery of something more sinister in the history of the Talbot family. However, the revelation that Lawrence father was in fact the Werewolf that murdered his mother and brother, as well as the showdown between Lawrence and his father as werewolves felt rather silly. I would very much prefer to only have one Wolfman around at a time. Or have the revelation that the Wolfman that murdered Lawrence brother was actually his father, after having that Wolfman killed and transformed into his father in human form. That would have not only left Lawrence shocked at the discovery but also to the audience. Only then have Lawrence turned into the Wolfman.


Like father, like son...
Another part of the story I didn't like was the poor execution of the romance. I liked the idea where the romance between Lawrence and Gwen was necessary for the downfall of the beast, because it is only Gwen whom Lawrence loved, could be up close to the beast and finally shot him right through the heart. However, the build up of the romance between Lawrence and Gwen at the antique shop was badly handled. I didn't find it believable, as much as the short lived love between Lawrence's brother and Gwen... How did they even end up being engaged?


Puppy love?
There was also the aspect of psychological fear in Lawrence dealing with him being the Wolfman, and dealing with the horrifying revelation about his father and the death of his brother and mother. It was an interesting plotline which I believed also failed horribly in execution. His hallucination and nightmares he gets from the treatment he received at the mental institution, felt like it was meant for cheap scare and shock. However, done properly, the beast could not only be horrifying on the outside but also on the inside. It could have given a lot of depth to the monster and also to the character of Lawrence.

SPOILER ENDS HERE

Another complain I have is the acting in the movie. The movie have a good array of cast, but somehow they fail to deliver. I'm not sure if its the director's or the actor's fault. I find it very very interesting that they cast Benicio Del Toro as the Wolfman, possibly because he is a big fan of Hollywood movie monsters and I believe that's a good key, because you really want someone who knows the original monster and knows the importance of delivering that same monster in this film. I believed he took his role as the monster very serious, and he really did deliver an epic performance as the monster but somehow I find him as the human Lawrence not as superb. His performance was very bland as a normal person, but when he's in the role being sick, tortured or undergoing the transformation and being the full formed monster, his acting was superb.


Anthony Hopkins as Sir John Talbot
Anthony Hopkins, one of the heavyweight actors in Hollywood, delivered his performance rather well but not really at the top of his game. He shaped out his character as a villian and a disturbing distant father very well. He gives you the feeling that inside him was very much a monster, perhaps more monstrous than the Wolfman. As for Emily Blunt, her performance was felt very bland as well. I don't buy her feelings for Lawrence or his brother. The only time I did see something in her acting was when she hid behind the tree trying to escape the Wolfman. Other than that, there's was hardly anything to commend about.


Emily Blunt as Gwen Conliffe
And then we have Hugo Weaving, I'm most displease with his performance because it reminded me so much of Agent Smith from The Matrix. He was different in Lord of the Rings, different in V for Vendetta... But this Inspector Francis Aberline of Scotland Yard has too much of Agent Smith in his mannerism and execution of his lines. You would probably feel it is actually Agent Smith with a fake moustache. This movie could have been a potential ground for him to portray a different character and to show his skills as an actor.


Hugo Weaving as Agent Smi-Inspector Francis Aberline of Scotland Yard
Overall, I can say the film is good, not the best though. They will definitely scare some people in the audience but likely too, the film won't scare most of the audience. Whether or not you come out of the cinema feeling like a Wolfman yourself, it is a film worth to enjoy as a homage to the classic horror film and as an interesting work of art. I do hope Universal Studios will do more remake films such as this. I would love to see a remake of Dracula and Frankenstein in the future.

I would give this movie out a 7 of 10 silver bullets.

Now a little treat:
THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE WOLFMAN BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES!

Pride and Prejudice (TV MiniSeries) (1995)

Adapted from the book "Pride and Prejudice" written by Jane Austen, this romance story follows Elizabeth Bennet and her four other sisters as they go through a season of courtship and marriage, as well as their family's relationship with two particular gentlemen, Mr Bingley and Mr Darcy, who newly arrived to their estate located near the Bennet's. The story also deals with the virtue of women, moral uprightness and the manners of the society during the turn of 19th century. This BBC six episodes television drama is adapted by Andrew Davies, produced by Sue Birtwistle and directed by Simon Langton. The cast includes Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennet, Colin Firth as Mr Darcy, Susannah Harker as Jane Bennet, Crispin Bonham-Carter as Mr Bingley, Julia Sawalha as Lydia Bennet, Benjamin Whitrow and Alison Steadman as Mr. and Mrs. Bennet, Lucy Briers as Mary Bennet, Polly Marberly as Kitty Bennet, Adrian Lukis as Wickham and David Bamber as Mr Collins.


The daughters of Mr and Mrs Bennet:
(From left to right)Lydia, Jane, Mary, Kitty and Elizabeth
I have not been a fan of romance themed movies but I am absolute captured by the richness of the story, characters and their relationships in this movie adaptation of the book. The movie overall story is divided into six parts which made each episodes start and end satisfyingly. Each episodes consisted of its own unique subplot but doesn't run away from it's main story. More than just a romance story between Elizabeth and Mr Darcy, but the story delved into capturing the romance of the 18th century; the importance of family status, the golden virtues of a woman, the importance of a married women and its implication to the family, the status of a society as well as dealing with aristocrats of that time and the manners and society rules in courtship and marriage. The movie takes you back in time and gives you a glimpse through the eyes of Jane Austen and her surroundings when she penned the novel.


The 17th century style of courtship
As mentioned in the title, the limelight of the story is on the Elizabeth's prejudice against Mr Darcy and Mr Darcy's pride that has left him 'rather disagreeable' by many people around him, especially to Elizabeth. That being painted in their relationship, made their romance story interesting to follow. Their relationship can also be compared that with the almost-perfect loving relationship of Elizabeth's oldest sister, Jane and Mr Darcy's friend, Mr Bingley, and as well compared on the other end of the scale, Elizabeth's flirtatious youngest sister, Lydia and her relationship with men. Setting up Elizabeth and Mr Darcy's relationship is one of the finest stroke from Jane Austen's creativity, and the cast who played them, did a brilliant job in portraying their characters.


Mr Darcy and Elizabeth
However, the conflicts and the tensions of the story are more than what is between Elizabeth and Mr Darcy but also the struggle in the Bennet family when it comes to marrying their daughters, keeping their family's integrity and reputation, as well as dealing with people of a higher class. Not only do these conflicts captured the settings and time of that era but they add tension to many of the character's relationship. It is worth to take note that Jane Austen contrasted the lives of the Bennet's family with that of Mr Darcy's, the character of Elizabeth with that of her sisters and every relationship in the story compared with one another. Jane used them creatively in the plot to flesh out and reveal much of each characters as well as keeping the story engaging. I believed the movie fleshed them out very well.


Distress in the family.
The characters in this film, much like the book I believe, were very well written, adapted and cast. Elizabeth and Mr Darcy showed great character development, from their introduction that captured each of their characteristics to their first meeting in the ballroom that carried forth the tension into their relationship with one another. Each characters in the film are unique on their own and they play a great role into the story. The actors and actresses who played them were absolutely brilliant, especially Jennifer Ehle, Colin Firth and Alison Steadman in their respective roles. Annoying as Mr Collins' character can be, I also find it quite interesting that David Bamber could pull off his role very well.


"Oh, what a man have I become."
The characters were very well developed in the story, and they can very well be contrasted to flesh out more of their characteristics. Take for example Elizabeth, she is depicted to be a headstrong woman with a wit, a sharp tongue and a person who speaks her mind while at the same time, she's caring and love her sisters and have a very compassionate side. Compared that with her oldest sister, who is more gentle and soft spoken, and that with her two youngest sister, Lydia and Kitty, who are more playful and couldn't care less of a woman's virtue. Elizabeth too, can be compared with the sisters of Mr Bingley, who lived in a more high class society, and her friend, Charlotte, who appeared to be very much content with her life.


A sisterhood's moment in the garden
Comparison too can be found between the men, like Mr Darcy, Mr Bingley and Mr Wickham. Relationships too can be compared with one another; the relationship with Mr and Mrs Bennet in a 20 years old marriage, the relationship with Mr Bingley and Jane, Elizabeth and Mr Wickham, Elizabeth with Mr Darcy, Lydia with a soldier from the regiment, Mr Darcy and one of Mr Bingley's sisters. So, there's much to appreciate from the novel and the film. Like a work of art, every time you look, there's so much that can be analyzed.


Mr Bingley and Mr Darcy
Captured in this film as well, is the detailed 17th century backdrop. The film crew went great length to create the props and the costumes, and scout for locations that pretty much makes you feel like you're watching a film that was captured from that era, rather than that of 1995. I love every details of each scene, especially the ones that involves dancing.


Jane and Mr Bingley dancing
I believe that to speak well of the movie is to speak well of the book. I find the story very engaging and the characters and setting quite fascinating. My utmost praise goes to the cast and their faithful portrayal to the book and as well as the great lengths that the crew members went to create a believable romance of that era and to bring forth a faithful adaptation. Fans and readers would definitely not be disappointed, and I believe romance-movie goers would definitely find this more favorable film than the present day romance films. Perhaps, the drawbacks in this film are the old appearance of the film's quality, which cause many of the modern viewers preferring the 2005 version, and the sophisticated english jargon in the lines, which may be quite difficult to hear. But that can be solved by turning on the subtitles. If that can be overcome for the viewer, the lines written can be a plus point and be as fascinating as watching the drama in the movie. Overall, I would give this a 7 out of 10 Mrs Bennet's nerves.


Mr Darcy


An awkward moment


"Yes, I find this Pride and Prejudice novel rather amusing."


"Farewell! I shall be back in 2005 with the face of Simon Woods!"

Universal Soldier (1992)

Private Luc Deveraux, a soldier from the Vietnam war, tried to save innocent civilians from being murdered by his sergeant, Andrew Scott who had become psychological and murderously insane from the war. Their confrontation had left them dead and their bodies were taken into a top secret military project to create the perfect soldiers, called the Universal Soldiers. In this project, Luc and Andrew were resurrected from the dead, with their minds wiped and their bodies super enhanced with strength that goes beyond any ordinary human being. They were programmed to follow orders and carry out missions of military purposes.

During a terrorist event at the Hoover Dam, the Universal Soldiers were called in as an elite counter-terrorism unit. They completed the task with minimal efforts, proving the success of the project. TV journalist, Veronica Roberts, who was recently fired from her job tried to pick up a story on the Universal Soldiers which ended up causing her to be pursued by the military's Universal Soldiers. Luc, under the codename GR44, was initially sent out to capture Veronica, decides to protect her as he begins to regain his memories, especially that of his final moments in Vietnam. He begins a search of his previous life; to find his home and find his family. However, Andrew, universal soldier GR13, while pursuing Luc and Veronica, also begins to regain his memory back and decides to take control over the leadership of the project.

Directed by Roland Emmerich and produced by Mario Kassar, this movie stars Jean-Claude Van Damme as Luc Deveraux, Dolph Lundgren as Andrew Scott, Ally Walker as Veronica Roberts, Ed O' Ross as Colonel Perry, Jerry Orbach as Dr Christopher Gregor, Leon Rippy as Woodward and Tico Wells as Garth.


Jean-Claude Van Damme as Universal Soldier GR44
I'm actually quite surprise with this film. Before watching it, I had a notion it will be a B-rated movie filled with mindless action. I don't deny that there were plenty of that but I was very much entertained by the concept and the story behind it, and there were plenty of action in this movie to keep you from being bored. I, at first refuse to watch it, but Terh Ren insisted that I watch it before watching the lastest of the series, Universal Soldier: Regeneration (Entitled as: A New Beginning in Malaysia) which was released just few days ago. I was expecting it to be something in between Terminator 2, from its cyborg look and Arnold Schwarzenegger's Commando being a mindless muscleman with guns action flick.


The plot is simple to understand and it is very much an action orientated movie with a good enough story to keep it alive. The scene where the movie introduces the Luc and Andrew's background in Vietnam, felt very high class, much like a scene from Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now. It sets up the conflict between the two characters very nicely and how it passed on to the present day of 1992. Apart from the introduction scene, the rest of the movie felt very much like a B-rated sci-fi movie. The concept of superpowered men has been used very often in movies while the reason behind the superpowers varies. This one however, involves the resurrection of the dead, their mind wiped and reprogrammed to make superhuman more like robots which then make it feels like you're watching a rip off version of Terminator 2, which had Arnold Schwarzenegger being a robot behind the human skin. The problems and conflict arose from the Superhuman project when the soldiers begin to regain their memories back, made the story quite interesting and compelling enough to watch and follow.


Andrew and Luc in Vietnam
The plot device involving being chased by the villian and having the hero running away or/and protecting the target has been used many times before, especially in the Terminator Series. This plot device called for a lot of action sequences, which there are plenty to feed the action hungry viewers. From explosions, gun fires and even hand to hand combat (and plenty of kicks from Van Damme), this movie falls very nicely in your typical action movie category. There's nothing dazzling or groundbreaking in the effects, stunts or the action sequences, so don't expect too much from this movie. Keep your mind open and enjoy the ride.


Luc taking aim.


The Van Damme's Kick
Apart from its serious story and action-packed sequences, there were plenty of humorous moments in the film to allow the audience to mentally rest and prepare for the next adrenaline rush. Those humorous moments include the bar fight and some of the interactions between Luc and Veronica. The scenes weren't over the top funny which made watching them quite amusing and enjoyable but some of the lines being said were quite lame, especially the lines that come out of Andrew's mouth. Andrew made too many jokes during the killing scenes and fighting scenes, which became quite annoying. But I don't blame him, I blame the writers of the screenplay.


"Look who's laughing now"
The character of Luc, Andrew and Veronica were neatly carved out and their characters' development were handled very well. Some of the side characters, like Colonel Perry, Dr Christopher Gregor, Woodward and Garth have a very small significance in the movie, mostly to support or to flesh out the portrait of main characters and their history. Some of the other characters in the movie were merely for humor, like the people in the bar, the man at the gas station and the couple in the motel room.


Luc contemplating of his previous life.
One of problems I have with this movie was Van Damme's acting. He showed no expression and his line's delivery were flat. I would pass it off when he was portraying the robotic nature of the universal soldier, but when he was suppose to be apparently more human, especially when he was wholly human in the Vietnam scenes, his lines and acting were still very flat. The only positive point for him being there was his delivery in action sequences. The rest of the cast members were good in acting out their roles as compared to Van Damme, especially Ally Walker and Dolph Lundgren. But I believe the limelight goes to Dolph Lundgren's potrayal in his character. Despite having mentioned his badly written lines and the wrong timing of his jokes, he played the psychologically insane Vietnam War sergeant very well, and every delivery of his lines were good, though not perfect, but was very much better than Van Damme's.


Dolph Lundgren as the insane Sergeant Andrew Scott


Veronica overlooking the carnage done by Van Damme
Overall, the film is enjoyable and not to be taken too seriously. If you look pass some of the violent scenes and the language used, it is a very entertaining movie, especially those who love to see some action (I do feel there are better action films out there) or Van Damme executing some of his moves. Not the best around nor does it come close to being epic, but it makes a good film to watch with your popcorn. I would give this film a 6 out of 10 severed ears on a string.


Universal popcorn!

The Prestige (2006)

(In Michael Caine's Voice) Every reviews consist of three parts;

The first is the Pledge, the reviewer shows you a movie, what appears to be of an ordinary title with an interesting poster and a trailer, and maybe it comes with a brief summary of the story.

The second is the Turn, the reviewer takes what you know about the movie and tells you about his opinion from his background and insights of the movie, turning the movie into something extraordinary.

The third and the last act is called the Prestige, where you wouldn't clap yet until after you've sat down and watched the movie.


Takes place in the beginning of the 20th century, The Prestige, adapted from the book of the same name by Christopher Priest, is a story that follows two magicians, Robert Angier and Alfred Borden and their rivalry and obsession for the best magic act that has led to them to destroy their lives and the lives of people around them. Directed by Christopher Nolan, this movie stars Hugh Jackman as Robert Angier, Christian Bale as Alfred Borden, Michael Caine as Cutter, Scarlett Johansson as Olivia Wenscombe, David Bowie as Nikola Tesla, Andy Serkis as Alley and Rebecca Hall as Sarah Borden.

This movie is truly a work of a genius. It is very neatly crafted, cut and almost beautifully poured itself out of the screen that make this film truly one of the finest I've ever seen. All the cast in the film gave their best performances, especially to the three heavyweight Hollywood actors; Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman and Michael Caine. But this movie ultimately belongs to Christopher Nolan, he is the artist behind this artwork. Christopher Nolan proved himself to be one of the top filmmakers of our time.

There's a lot to be appreciated in this film, particularly the themes that is played out in the film. The broad theme that is played out in the film is the three part of the Magician's Act. Narrated by Michael Caine in the beginning of the film, the act involves the Pledge; where the Magician shows you something ordinary, The Turn; where the Magician takes the ordinary object to do something extraordinary, and The Prestige; where the Magician then brings back the ordinary object to the way it was, which in a disappearing act means to make it reappear again. To the magician, the Prestige is what mattered most. Watch closely, as the theme involved more than just making a bird disappear and reappear again as performed by Michael Caine in the beginning of the film, but it stretches out to Transported Man trick performed by both Robert and Alfred and it also goes further to reflect much of their lives during the course of the film. The tricks performed in the film goes more than just impressing audiences, but they convey a much larger message in regards to the film.


Underlying Message?
Another theme being used in the film was sacrifice. How much would a Magician sacrifice to bring forth a good trick? The theme is more than just a Chinese Magician performing the Fish Bowl appearing trick as a result of pretending to be cripple for the rest of his life,but it also reflects how much would Robert and Alfred sacrifice for their perfection of their tricks, to what extend would they go to reach for it and how others would suffer because of it. Other theme involved were obsessions, duality and many more which I probably did get to catch which need to be watched closely.


Chung Ling Soo performing the fishbowl trick
The characters in the film were very well developed. Each character's relationship played a huge role in the movie and each character's development progressed very well as a result from events in the film. Robert and Alfred's character is meant to be studied and contrasted. Robert's character fell from "not wanting to harm a bird" in his tricks to "getting his hands dirty" for the perfection of his tricks. Alfred, however, was very much devoted to magic that his wife, Sarah and his daughter began to suffer at his expense of keeping his secrets. The rivalry between Robert and Alfred escalated in tension from one event after another, which ended with their lives being at stakes. Characters such as Nikola Tesla, were used to strengthen Robert's obsession, and very much parallels Robert himself. And his story behind his rivalry with Thomas Edison reflected Robert's rivalry with Alfred. However, Fallon, despite appearing almost insignificant, will be revealed to have a greater role than you might expect. As for Cutter, he plays the role of a guide and a father-like figure to Robert.


"I love you"


The Professor


Olivia
Another aspect of the film that I would praise, that I believe it's the stroke of Christopher Nolan's genius is the second-replay value. After having gone through the first run of the show, you'll be expose to an interesting twist and revelation in the end. And if you were to watch again, with the revelation in your mind, you're then invited by Christian Bale in the beginning of the film, "Are you watching closely?" The non-linear narrative would then make much sense, as well as certain key scenes begin to impress on you much heavier than it did before.


"You caught me in the wrong mood last week"



So, if you have already watched it on the first run, do watch it again.

Overall, this film is truly a work of art that really stands out from other films. This is one of those films that you requires you to watch closely (couldn't have been emphasized enough by Christian Bale) and take some time to think over it over the themes, and only then can you appreciate it as it is. I would praise the films for its execution of its theme in various levels and the great replay value it offers. These, I believe, are the film's strongest points. The minor setback really is the non-linear narrative which can be difficult initially to understand and place which event came first and which one came later. But watching it a second time pretty much fixed that properly. I would give this film a 10 out of 10 no-ordinary rubber balls.

So, like I was saying....


The Pledge


The Turn


The Prestige (The scene that follows this)  

 

Cloudy With A Chance of Meatball (2009)

Yup, what an introduction! From the trailer and from the movie title alone, you'll know the whole idea driving the story is "Food falling from the sky." It's so outrageous that it works! Comparing to other 3D animated cartoons, this may not top Pixar's work but it certainly does top most of Hollywood's best attempt at 3D cartoons that does not have Pixar's thumbprint. I have actually come to believe that every other 3D cartoon other than Pixar may not actually fare well (Except for the first two Shrek movie, but I've also lost faith in the Shrek series after the third movie). So, when I first started watching "Cloudy", I didn't have any good expectation of it. But as the film progresses, I actually begin to enjoy it.

The story is pretty original. Despite the end-credits mentioning it as being based from a book, it really is loosely base. In the book, there were no crazy scientist, no cute weather reporters, no insane inventions and no mutated food monster, just purely food falling from the sky. The writers of the movie took that and added a whole new story behind it. So, this is not about "how-loyal-is-this-film-to-the-original-book," because the fans of the book will probably be horribly disappointed....that is, if there are fans to the book, cuz I have never heard of it until I look it up online in relation to the film. But as a film, a cartoon especially for kids, it's enjoyable, and I believe many kids will love it. The story is creatively handled, served with many memorable moments like the Jello Playground and the Burger falling from Heaven, with a side dish of a good amount of lighthearted humor as well as non-overuse parody from other movies and on different cultures, a spoonful of good character development for all the characters (except the mayor) and the chemistry and relationship they all have, a dash of romance between the guy and the girl and to top it off, an interesting twist to how everything was resolved.


The characters' design were simple, yet lovable. The key to their characters' design was not so much of how real they look, but how fluent they moved and how their facial expression was captured along side with the actors and actresses voice talent. The actors and actresses may not be at the top of their game but they certainly did enjoy themselves playing the characters, which ultimately made their characters and the story very much enjoyable! I especially love Earl, the policeman and Sam Sparks, the weather reporter. Earl's overactive body language and Sam's eye's movement with facial expression were animated unbelievably superb! The voice acting award (if i do have one) goes to Mr T who played Earl. I have to admit that the character Earl borrowed heavily from Mr T himself, but that doesn't mean it's unoriginal,I believe it worked well as a parody to Mr T himself and great as a character on its own. It didn't bothered me at all that the design, manners and characterization was borrowed from Mr T. Mr T owned the role, and he owned the line "FLIIIINT LOOOCKKWOOOD!" and do the eye thingy.

Another character design that I love was Flint's dad. Those missing eyes! It worked! The eyes only come into view to work in certain key scenes, like the Flint's promise to his dad.


There were plenty of moments that makes watching this film quite cinematic. What good movie does not come with romance? The romance between Flint and Sam was quite well handled and turned out to be pretty cute as well. It was really sweet of Flint to build an entire Jello Castle for Sam, and it was a great moment too to see Sam sharing her nerdy side and finally found someone who saw beauty in that. Ah, sweet romance!


Another element to this movie is HORROR! Yes, horror! Not only this movie plays out like a disaster movie of unimaginable catastrophes. But they've made food appear quite frightening. I mean, how would you feel if your roasted dead chicken becomes alive? Not just one, but a hoard of them!


What if they have the ability to eat MAN?!


Is this right for kids to view?

How about Gummy Bears ripping your wing apart?




Scary? Hehe...
Moving on.... there are plenty of parodies as well. Here are the two I especially like:


The Heart Ripping Action from Temple of Doom!


The Death Star like Explosion from Return of the Jedi!
I'm pretty sure there are more good parodies to many different movies and TV series...(Power Rangers' morphing action?)...for the keen observer...

Overall, this is a fun movie to watch. I believe any kid will enjoy this movie, and it's a perfect film for the family to watch. "Cloudy" may not be groundbreaking or anywhere close at being anything like Pixar, but this one definitely fare better than most 3D animated films out there. I wouldn't ask for more from this movie but, I do hope Sony Picture Animation will come up another creative and original production such as this. They've gone a long way from "Open Season" and "Surf's Up". I have to say, I still enjoy this movie very much even after watching it a second time to write this review. So, I'm going to give a rating of 8 out of 10 Flint Lockwood Diatonic Super Mutating Dynamic Food Replicator (FLDSMDFR for short).


Some Captured Moments...


That definitely calls attention.


Wish I can surprise my girl with something she likes...like this! But not a Jello castle...something else.


Poor Guy...


Mr T Action


My Favourite: Ocular Trauma!