E.T.'s herritage

I know that outer-space civilizations are a fascination for most of us and especially for Hollywood producers, but the recent bombardment of not so brilliant movies to the utmost, with some exceptions, makes me ponder. Luckily (or not) they came up with variations of the subject:

• the classical fighting of the invasion: Battle for L.A.
• superpowers movies: I am Number Four
• save your sorry behind: Skyline
• 10 paces duels: Cowboys & Aliens

...and many more that I've probably left out; not talking into account what's to come in 2012 (Chronicle, Battleship...)

So, where does this invasion come from?

I am here to expose 2 theories (probably one more plausible than the other, but who knows)
Firstly, all of this redundancy is another repercussion of the excessive consumer society, hitting this time the movie industry. There's a couple of alien movies that worked; people get intrigued by the subject, then less imaginative directors come up front with copycats of the movie concepts and the cash continues to flow. This pattern can be applied to any film genre especially correlated with the increasing amount of motion pictures coming out each year.

The less rational explanation but my favorite, since I have a certain weakness for the Conspiracy Theory, is that someone wants us to be prepared. If you look back this trend started along with the rumor about 2012, the start of a new era, which was also subject of a movie; at that time there was "The day the Earth stood still" and it escalated from there. If you add the latest discovery of the twin planet ("Another Earth" rings any bell?) and the current economic and social instabilities all of this seems to make sense. Maybe some major stuff is awaiting and we should get used to the idea.

Actually the whole reasoning of the second theory could serve as fuel for the first, and probably it does, but that doesn't mean that it is faulty to 100%. What do you say?

Comprehension is optional, laughs - mandatory - The Rum Diary

Acting: 4.5/5
Story: 3.5/5
Perception: 3/5
Rating: 4.5/5

A washed-out novelist ends up a journalist in a 1960s Puerto Rico, where he tries to keep is slightly strait between hangovers, fishy business and feelings.

The entire package has a absurd touch added to it which is mainly the humor source. The story in it self is catchy but there is the casual unsurprising nonsense coming to the surface from time to time. The problems appear when the editing or the imaging in themselves twist even more the already existing absurd. And these will make you switch from laughter to frown in a blink of an eye.

One thing still remains certain, the actors were up to the task, rendering the said absurd 'more real'. Their play is pretty natural given the conditions which makes the scenes look more plausible. Aside Depp, one of the masters of this 'entangled genre', his fellow 'dizzy' journalist-reporters (Rispoli and Ribisi, which sound like a circus duo) deliver an amusing show. The rest of the crew have a descent performance as common representatives of their character types.

I believe that not all of the twists are supposed to be understood, but the film could be a good entertainment for some time spent between buddies.

Heads/Tails

Acting: 4/5
Story: 4.5/5
Perception: 4.5/5
Rating: 4.5/5

Treating with a delicate in a way that the public will not be overwhelmed nor outraged is never easy. When it is about one of the most terrifying diseases of our times the job is even more difficult. A 20 something guy finds out that he has cancer and that his chances are 50%, him coping with the news and the entire situation gives us a movie.

To be honest I was having high hopes for this one, and it didn't disappoint me at all.
First of all the acting was right as it should have been, it was natural and not a all forced. There were hesitations in the dialogs but they had their perfect timing. The central duo was some sort of ying and yang, control/chaos. If you can easily become attached to the main character, the situation was quite different with the other one. Gordon-Levitt had the easier job in terms of likability, nevertheless he backed it with some serious interpretation. Rogen on the other hand, played the same role he always does: he was in charge with the less-conventional humor, which from time to time seemed to be pushed a little bit too far.
The psychiatrist girl was the balance that the main character needed for the bro-duo to work, she was innocence working with a couch.

What made the film follow its natural path was very well timed alternation between emotional, ironic and crude moments. There was never an over accumulation of neither of these, and that makes you stick to the story bearing both hope and compassion.

Villains're gettin' softer...

Wits: 4/5
Story: 2.5/5
Perception: 4/5
Rating: 3/5


It seems that the animation villains got all soft by the end of 2010. This one, a blue light-bulb-headed alien, doesn't really know which path is the one to choose.

The big letdown of the movie was the story, which lacked some spark because it seemed both very predictable and drawling; this made me loose patience at times.

Besides that the rest was more than OK. The voicing was chosen with pinpoint accuracy. And the majority of the puns had the right amount of wit. What I enjoyed even more was the general sarcastic/parody sense of humor in relation to the movie genre.

I can't voice an opinion on the 3D, but regarding the score: AC/DC, Guns'N'Roses...sound more than appropriate for a villain centered movie.

Maybe this movie wasn't that lucky, and got me on a bad day...so I think you should give it a chance; probably I would do the same one day or another.









Details - Spoiler Alert!!!

The No, You Can't posters were awesome
His introductions were appropriate for a Super-Villain
For the quotes - it's easier :p

If it ain't original at least let it be Big...

Acting: 3.5/5
Story: 3/5
Perception: 5/5
Rating: 3.5/5

I live under the impression that the reboots are the word of order, some of them already came up, most are to come.
On paper Tron Legacy is not said to be a reboot of the original Tron, but more of a follow-up. A follow-up that can be understood without seeing the first one and which follows the same path: the main hero gets sucked into the digital world where he has to fight the virtual despotic villain controlling it in order to save the outer world. This time it will be the former main character, new one's dad, and a native hottie that will help the young hero to accomplish the task.

The movie has a Disney predictability all the way from the beginning and each tile comes down at the expected moment; this could come up from the lack of originaliity. At some points the story gets a bit slower than what I was expecting and it lingers in some wannabe emotional moments which I found somewhat boring.

The acting was ok in general. As figured Bridges was top-notch, as for the two youngsters, the hotness level compensates some inaccuracy in their authenticity.

These were the less positive points of the film, but when it comes to the visual effects and to the music they're awesome. The 3D is fully justified, rendering the virtual world so touchable and almost real. Moreover, Daft Punk's sound is in perfect harmony with the whole picture and the emotional intensity. Solely CGI Bridges aka C.L.U looks as if it was designed a couple of years ago.

Interested in game/action/geek/effects...movies, go see it; if none rings a bell skip it.










Stuff - Spoiler Alert!!!

The end doesn't look like a Disney type one: the father had to sacrifice himself
"Do you know Jules Verne? What's he like?"
Never forget however advanced the technology a good knock always makes it respond.

Passive introspection

Here is something that's been making me wonder for some time now: Does our subconscious have masochist traits?

When I let my mind wander around, at least once a week it comes up with some dumb event from the past which I regret it happened. Moreover, it makes me relieve the strange feeling that I had about myself even enhancing some discomforting aspects.

What is strange is that pleasant memories usually need to be triggered by an event or an interaction with a person or an object. In general they don't pop-up in moments when the active part of the brain is on stand-by.

So, is it in our nature to be self-doubtful, insecure and disappointed of ourselves? Or is just me the one who has all these weird passive behavioural manifestations? The thing is that I'm quite happy with what I am...but maybe my inner-self thinks otherwise...

Perfection is Madness

Acting: 4.5/5
Story: 4.5/5
Perception: 4.5/5
Rating: 4.5/5

Living in the world of showbiz is known to be tough, by adding the pretentiousness of the target audience your environment gets one step closer to hell.
A perfectionist ballerina receives the most desired part in the business: The Swan Queen. This means that she has to be the incarnation of both purity and darkness. A drop of schizophrenia is all that's needed to turn her upside down and make her almost live the part up to the last detail, thus giving us a twisted disturbing psychotic experience.

I will not hide it from you the movie is good, but creepy. There are some wicked paranoid scenes that mesmerize you, but others seem one drop (and many more blood ones) too much. But I should have saw it comming since the director is the one that did Requiem for a Dream. And probably that is why it didn't appeal to me at a maximum potential even though the adequate setting was in place.

It is as clear as daylight that Natalie Portman does the movie...with some help from her mentor to the dark side, and also counterpart, Mila Kunis. She shares her internal struggle in a brilliant manner, so much that you would wonder if she didn't need therapy after the shooting was done. In addition, the whole part looks as if it was written for her, so fragile on the outside but capable of an extraordinary metamorphosis. On the other hand Cassel didn't impress me as expected and the mother freaked me out a couple of times, even when she was supposed to act normal. So as the first one didn't look involved enough the latter has overplaying too much.

The music contributed a great deal to the atmosphere (it is after all a ballet themed movie) and as a fun fact (if fun could be an appropriate term) the score is the one from Swan Lake but played backwards and distorted; so sometimes this thing can have a meaning. Also the theme picks up the pace at the critical spots so there is some kind of a warning of what might come.

The filming was good with the exception of some exaggerated closeups that were somewhat invasive on the perspective.


This one should definitely be seen, probably only once (at least in my case), but prepare to have shivers down you spine and to hear a lot of people startling.










Personal Thoughts - Spoiler Alert!!!

Some unnecessary bloddy scenes: the former ballerina stabing her face and the finger pealing 
Real world or imagination?: the same face stabbing scene, the X (as in drug) scene
At some point I had a Fight Club revelation, which proved to be only half true
The Black Swan dance (Act 2) is amazing, the proof that the metamorphosis was done 
Cassel's hands look huge compared to Natalie's face
Mirrors were everywhere and made stuff creepier
The movie has the most beautiful posters: the whole bunch of them; Variations:

and others...

The movie is a real Swan Song. ;)
I had to turn on the light while writing the post

A briliant perfomance doesn't always need a good Speech

Acting: 5/5
Story: 5/5
Perception: 5/5
Rating: 5/5

Things have got more serious, more Oscar-moody.
In modern day monarchies, the crowned-head are there to sign papers and talk. But what happens when your speaking abilities aren't so functional and your country is preparing for one of the most difficult periods of the human history...you hire Barbosa as your therapist.

This is that kind of movie that makes your spirit feel energized by the time the credits start rolling. Everything is so smoothly harmonized from the general ambiance up to the characters' play. The entire picture seems to capture every spot as if it would be directly connected to your mind.

Coming back to the interpretations, they are all pure gold. It is a little bit intriguing that a cast individually known for less serious productions builds up perfectly this story, no wonder that they've been all nominated for their respective categories.The irony/self-irony lines juggle were brilliant.

Colin Firth's stammer made have throat aches as if I was the one with a temper attack due to a speech impediment. Geoffrey Rush gave the impression that there were actually two main characters all along this movie, but the King has to take more credit. And Helena Bonham Carter proved she is actually normal by giving a solid distant but caring future Queen representation. 

To fuel my skeptical being I found that there was one twist-turn too much for my taste, but that's only because I enjoy looking for the pin in the haystack. So stop reading this and go to see the movie, that come back to read the footnotes.










Thoughts on stuff - Spoiler Alert!!!

Is it me or half of the British+Irish solid actors have had a role in Harry Potter?
Is it OK to laugh at the Hitler bit? Even more: Is it OK to consider the one's not laughing, and acting shocked, as uptight?
Probably the cursing part could be considered as a cheap laugh...but it was a damn good one ;)
The movie was approved by Queen Elisabeth II before it was released to public


 
 

Who said that Owls can't live amazing adventures...

Wits: 4.5/5
Story: 4.5/5
Perception: 5/5
Rating: 4.5/5 


Ever wondered what the Lord of the Rings would look like if the characters were animals, here is the owl version of it. Inspired by a book series, which focuses on these birds, the movie follows the story of a young owlet who believes in the legends that he grew up with. After he is kidnapped, more of owletnapped, by the evil ones of his kind, he discovers that the stories had a spark of reality and his dreams seem to be more palpable. I imagine that by now, you all know that this is going to end with an epic battle.

The movie in its whole is simply beautiful. Every scene, shot, detail is so perfectly drawn and rendered that I regret not seeing it in a 3D theater; I believe it would have been breathtaking. Snyder's touch for picturing combats (already seen in 300) doesn't cease to impress, the liveliness of the action making you forget that the bloody effects have been dimmed due to the presence of young audience. And all of this with...Owls.

The story includes many motives already seen in this kind of production and it has a quite predictable ending, but so did Avatar, and on a much larger scale. But it's awesome imaging made millions of people consider it as the best movie in history. You should know that for me this one is better than Avatar, since it has less common characters, and also because there's no Deus Ex Machina, a safety situation solving trick that I personally hate.

I would have liked some more character development, especially for the group of friends deciding to make the voyage; but anyway, the voices were compatible with the perception of the characters.

So, this is very artistic pretty educational jewel, to be appreciated by kids and adults alike; probably less for boy teenagers.









Details - Spoiler Alert!!!

Without the totalitarian, xenophobic and tyrannic political rulers and regimes throughout history the villain personifications would have lacked models
Thank God there's Wikipedia to understand what the main word of the story, gizzard, the gut from an owl's point of view; on the other hand how some magical metal could affect the insides of a bird, that's pure mystery 
'You're gonna give her daymares!'

Is giving up on stuff really the answer?

It was planned to write one day about the burring environment issue and the exasperating reasoning related to it. The next video was quite the last drop:




There's only two words for it: high-quality-custom-made BS.
First of all, it was one of the most politically cliched speech I've ever heard on the matter. All that was said was, poor people (especially Chinese), poisonous plastic, democracy (as if it had something to do), the little bottle, and the 2nd rate comedian puns; and NO real information to support any of these. The clamshell example reminded me of what a "world renowned scientist" and also dictator-wife once said: "How comes that cows make ammonia by themselves and you need all these high pressure and temperatures?" By the way, Biomimicry is the fundament of most of the human inventions, and it's being used without bearing a pompous name for centuries and centuries: planes are an obvious example of this.

On a more general scale the majority of the environmental talk are turned about plastics and I know you might say that I'm biased, but all of this is not about one product but more on a mentality. It goes like this: Something (plastic, cars, cow dung...) pollutes and it is bad, let's get rid of it. Well, my answer is the last 150 years are the source of this menace, technology is bad, rocks were alright, let's get back to the stone age.

What I don't understand is this tendency to advertise a backwards trend, when all it is needed is to go forward and improve the existent solutions or come with brand new ones. Of course, that what is superfluous needs to go and that can be pretty easily spotted. Let's take the example of plastics: for the technical solutions it is slightly impossible to revert to previous materials like metal or wood, but on the other hand some extra layers of packaging should go away. There are very few who could really do 180° and give up the cosines and easiness of today's comfort, probably very determined people and Amish communities; but for the basic somehow selfish human being, like myself, this is unimaginable: I mean why should we give up on stuff, which are about 75% useful, when we can do better? The military research still advances so new inventions should come up sooner or later.

Also, the ones involved in decision taking processes ought to be less biased (especially from a monetary point of view) and once a decision has been taken a whole mechanism should be put in motion to watch how things are done. Like for the chemicals inside toys and for waste disposal: every step has to be registered and so, no mistakes, involuntary or not, should appear. Example: companies should be forced to obey the stricter rule between the one of their country of origin or the one where they're selling the product; that's how regions with looser legislation won't end up with rejected batches from other corners of the world. The reasoning should be done on a planetary scale not on a petty wallet-size one. It may sound utopic but I still keep some hope on the human preservation reflex.

Another thing is about education: people should me more informed in a responsible way about everything coming in contact with them. This should be done in an instructional manner, without any materialistic or apocalyptic witchcraft-style way: plastic bottles are bad, they have chemicals in them! The thing is, that everything has chemicals in them and instead of seeing all this like kryptonite, we should learn to read a label and not take everything for granted.

In my opinion the major workshops of the present are: recycling - the intelligent way (not dumping into a hole and covering it up), non-fetishist or snotty alternative sources of energy, better fuel to energy ratio machines, less greed and dumb money-digging and population positive awareness.
To conclude, we generated our own freaking geological era, we can't go back, we should go forth but leave the blindfold and the spiked-boots behind.

You Got Stung

Acting: 3/5
Story: 3/5
Perception: 4/5
Rating: 3/5 (3.5 on the big screen)


Far from being an intellectual movie once, but frankly it was just what I was looking for.It has a Kick Ass touch to it, but doesn't reach the same level of originality.

So, a non-hero figure plays a non-hero main character who realizes that he hasn't been living his life as he should after his father's death. And he does this, as the pure megalomaniac that he is, by becoming a superhero armed with stubbornness, self-esteem up the wazoo and a very skilled partner. All of this with a little media manipulation on the side.

The story was all right, not much plot entanglements, just a couple of aces up the sleeve. But its rhythm was quite intense, so the movie was nicely dozed up in action. The action trio, the good guys and their nemesis, were well sketched and the actors playing them did their job decently. In general the characters worn their comic-book hero costumes with the right amount of behavioral exaggeration.

Christoph Waltz embodied perfectly another villain caricaturisation; he reminds me of Hugo Weaving's Agent Smith. Kato was a very good surprise, with his witty replies and his numerous aptitudes; the English difficulties bit was something that I didn't really followed. Actually the average was lowered by Rogen, which was only decent as I've said before, because there were some exaggerated features that were too exaggerated. Cameron was a cute accessory and intrigue source of the movie but hasn't a crucial part.

On the sensory side, first of all the 3D is borderline worthless, but the film has good shots and cool effects, especially when it involves Kung Fu or the Black Beauty; by the way, besides the Bat-Mobile there is no other cooler car. There were a couple of editing or conversion errors, but you won't find them unless you're really looking for them.

If you're seeking a movie for a buddies cinema-night, take your shoot with this one: you'll have a very good time.










Pros and Cons - Spoiler Alert!!!

I didn't get the trunk multiplication effect from the first combat and mainly because it never occurred again afterwards.
Chudnofsky's introduction scene is purely brilliant 
For further reference, polycarbonate is one of the toughest plastics out there (especially transparent ones), but don't take your chances to stop bullet after bullet
Cameron's age ambiguity 31, actually 36...well make more of a 40

Sometimes titles don't say anything....

Acting: 3.5/5
Story: 2/5
Perception: 3/5
Rating: 3/5 

It seems that I'm crossing shallow waters cinematographically speaking, and this time I stumbled upon a so-called spy movie.

I guess everybody remembers Ethan Hunt and his exploits which first were Mission: Impossible and later became Mission: you're shitting me (no good pun was found). Well, in this one the lord of scientology embraced the same occupation. Only that now, not only he seems to be SuperHunt on steroids aka Roy Miller aka you'll find out by watching, but also...on shrooms.
So the superspy wackjob bumps into an innocent damsel, who will inevitably be dragged into his patriot-gone-rogue or the other way around act.

I guess that all the borderline superhero abilities showed mainly by Cruise, were intended to deliver the impression of an ironic depiction of spy movies; but the story still kept a seriousness aura around it, which was somewhat opposed to the fact that I don't recall an instant when the main male character was bleeding.
Cameron Diaz's character had her own annoying part: the impossibility of following instructions which was intended to be funny, but failed to do so after a couple of occurrences.

Even with all these imperfections the movie still remains pleasant to watch, but anyway none of those can compare with the exasperating effect of the blackouts cutting of the crucial moments.

So, if you have to watch it you shouldn't despair, it's easily bearable; you could even see it on your own without any external constraint if you're not looking for anything subtle. One more thing, how in Tom Cruise's name did they come up with the title?!?!?!










Stuff - Spoiler Alert!!!

"I'll kill myself and then her" "I did, but I asked him to stay in the booth" with their respective tones
The talk with the hired gun on the train is to dumbest thing a person could have done in this kind of situation, yet not a funny cliche, but that doesn't stop them from using it; luckily the "Oh my God! Just die!" scene came after to improve the atmosphere
The car-ride on the truck scene looked pretty smooth and cool
 

More of an A- but still a good time

Acting: 3.5/5
Story: 4/5
Perception: 3.5/5
Rating: 3.5/5

From time to time one needs to relax his/her synapses in a slight active manner; that's where teen comedies step in in my case. And when they're more than bearable the whole situation gets even better.

This one's about the stigmatization in the high-school world and the power of rumor over the one of facts. Inspired by the Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, Emma Stone tends to assume the supposed trollop role and play by accordingly. This makes her bargain her fake promiscuity, in the detriment of her former nonexistent but still clean-cut image; and soon the whole deal goes to pot.

I found Olive to be very genuinely played, in opposition with the rest of the characters who seem more or less hyperbolized. Intentioned or not, the behavioral or the situational absurd fuels a lot of laughter.

Special mention for the parents and their very unconventional parenting skills and for the chapter titles and their quite snobbish complexity, which I sometimes employ as well. There were some goofs in editing but they're overlookable.

There's nothing more to add, a cool light movie for those in need of unwinding...










Quotes - Spoiler Alert!!!

The Sexy Silk entrance coupled with the Anagram dialog are pure gold...for this type of film of course :)
"A is for Awesome"
 "Is there an Olive here?/There's a whole jar of them in the fridge"
"This is public school. If I can keep the girls off the pole and the boys off the pipe, I get a bonus."
"So, what's with your new look? It's very whore couture."
"You dress like a stripper/...a highend stripper"