Movie Review: Dear John

This was a wonderful and heartbreaking story. It wasn't perfect - far from it actually - but I fell in love with it immediately.

I haven't read the book - written by Nicholas Sparks - but the plot, I thought, was absolutely stunning and fairly unpredictable. The storyline was engaging and somehow took me on an emotional journey from start to finish. I also loved the touching subplot, which made the movie that much more interesting.

The narrative was also good at the beginning although as the story progressed, it started jumping into scenes that I lost track of its essence including the awkwardly-executed twist that lead the film into a murky second half. Having said that, the love story at its core was charming and endearing.

The two leads, Channing Tatum and Amanda Seyfriend, did surprisingly well in their roles. I have to say that the chemistry between them was believable, intense and undeniably noteworthy. I thought that it was certainly the best thing about this film. Individually, Tatum came through pretty well. He emerged as seething with emotion, but strong in holding back. Seyfried, on the other hand, wasn't distinctive but adequate and very sincere.

The real remarkable performance, however, was given by the incredible Richard Jenkins as Tatum's father. He delivered a remarkable performance that, though limited in duration, was packed with emotion and honesty. I thought that his powerful performance resonated in every single second he was in.

Yes, it may have been a little dramatic at times and the feel-good ending was a bit far-fetched and trite, but everything else considered, this was worth seeing. Maybe not as good as The Notebook but it has its own charm to boot. I was satisfied - to say the least.

RATING: 7/10

Movie Review: Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief

Oh my Gods and Goddesses! Haha.

I've never been a big fan of Greek mythology, so based upon that criteria I've never been a big fan of movies about the subject. And although it did have its fair share of plot loopholes for me to ridicule, I thought the movie was decent - at the very least. Not bad but far from excellent.

Plot wise, it was extremely straight forward - though it was nothing I would not expect from a movie like this. The story, I thought, was a bit thin, flat and two dimensional. I was told that this was an adaptation from a book but the screenplay was lacking. The whole 'demi-god camp' with hundreds of God offspring seemed a little peculiar, considering the limited amount of Gods to begin with. And the fact that the whole thing took place in the United States ALONE struck me somewhat odd.

The action and fight scenes left much to be desired. So much potential wasted from start to end. To say that it met the basic action fight scene requirements for a movie in this genre would be somewhat of an insult to its contemporaries. I thought that the choreography of the 'sword fighting scenes' for instance were a bit disjointed thus allowing it to feel staged.

On the other hand, the visual effects, while nothing groundbreaking, were done to an acceptable level. I was extremely impressed with the mean looking design of the Underworld. The scoring wasn't overbearing but nothing memorable aside from the misplaced Poker Face and TikTok. Haha.

The casting ensemble was done correctly. I thought Logan Leman did a fantastic job as the lead. He was certainly convincing enough and he kept things moving along over some rough spots with plenty of charisma and twinkle. Also, the veteran actors were well within their comfort zones so they did okay. Believable but sorely lacking in depth and emotions.

As a single movie for a bit of Hollywood entertainment, it was fine. It did feel a bit empty with some cheap thrills and cheap laughs but that didn't surprise me at all. Simply put, it was a mind-numbingly raw experience from beginning to end.

 RATING: 6/10

Movie Review: Valentine's Day

On paper, a lot can go wrong when you have too many A-list actors and too many parallel stories to deal with. Much to my surprise, this was actually a good movie. It was entertaining and not overly schmaltzy!

Frankly, the film was so predictable, contrived and cliched that it probably described the celebration of Valentine's Day itself. And while the story may be a little too common - what movie isn't these days? - it was only fair to say that it had a few nice surprises up it's sleeves too.

I thought that majority of the movie was cleverly written with the storylines segue into each other effortlessly. It was littered with fantastic humor and kept me laughing all the way. Yes. The story did move around a lot from character to character - thus less character development - but I felt that there was a decent effort to get that coherent story where the parts add up to a whole.

The cast, obviously, was the strongest thing about this film. I thought that almost everyone gave compelling performances, apart from Jessica Alba who looked bored and unenthused in the movie, thankfully, she only had a small part. Ashton Kutcher was very good and he pulled off one of the bigger roles really well. I fell in love with Jennifer Garner all over again and Jessica Biel had charisma to spare. I loved Bradley Cooper and Julia Robert's storyline. Taylor Swift was surprisingly funny and annoying, although I think she was supposed to be. Anne Hathaway, Jamie Foxx, Queen Latifah and Topher Grace weren't so bad either. Sadly, Taylor Lautner and Kathy Bates were underused. Also, Hector Elizandro and Shirley Maclaine's storyline should have been fleshed out a bit more, I think.

Overall, a definite guilty pleasure. I found just about everything I expected to find in a movie of this sort. It's more meaningful to reiterate that this flick was well made, capably acted, plenty of good laughs with some tender moments and sweet poignant surprise twist at the end. Quite well done!

 RATING: 8/10

Movie Review: Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs

Prepare to get served.. literally! Haha.

At first, the whole premise sounded a little too peculiar and odd for my taste [no pun intended]. However, this film surprisingly made me become a child again. It was imaginative, funny and a good eye candy. What's there not to like?

Not only was the film quirky and had that thoughtful and imaginative storyline, it also exuded humor through its likeable characters, discerning messages and vivid visual style. I found the jokes to be in good taste and genuinely funny - having both slapstick humor and more subtle satirical jokes. There was undeniably a lot of ingenuity and cleverness that was wraped around the film.

Visually, the animation and style of the film wasn't at par to the usual Pixar movies - though I think comparing it to those productions would be a bit unfair. I thought that there was something very old-fashioned in the film's look and the way it was animated. The character design, for instance, was just fairly average. While I've seen more impressive stuff done by Pixar, watching the giant food rain was an absolute blast, to say the least.

One minor quibble though about the movie was that at some point there was perhaps an excess of originality that I felt the movie crammed as many ideas as conceivably possible. I sometimes found myself overwhelmed and desiring some filler scenes [not good] to give the movie more of a flow.

Still, the movie was unique, original and it didn't try to imitate anyone else. And despite the fact that it wasn't particularly complex and thought-provoking, it was still a very entertaining and effective animated film. Oh, and did I mention the film was a visual feast - again, no pun intended? Ha.

 RATING: 7/10

Movie Review: Paano Na Kaya

Star Cinema never ceases to amuse me. Really. I thought that they were able to produce yet again another decent to good movie - a feat which I think other local mainstream movie outfits struggle to achieve.

Frankly, this movie wasn't life-changing, more so, something profound. I thought the premise wasn't out of the ordinary - which didn't shock me - but I found the plot pretty convincing and the subject matter surprisingly mature. And yes, it wasn't the most original and sometimes almost predictable, sterotypical and cheesy, but I couldn't care less as the story managed to give a consistent feel of reality. It may cringe some for being too schmaltzy, but that happens in real life! Haha.

Acting wise, the cast did shockingly well. I thought that the chemistry between the leads was palpable. Kim Chiu gave a somewhat formidable performance in this film. I, personally, never considered her as an actress with substance and depth but she's slowly proving herself to be a worthy actor. Gerald Anderson, on the other hand, had his moments. He held his own next to Kim Chiu's dependable performance. I seriously saw major improvements from his previous acting stints.

One quibble I had though with the movie was the overwrought script. Initially, there was really something good and at times brilliantly witty in the writing but the script just didn't hold up. And although that was basically harsh reality talking, the dialogues could've been better. Also, the production design was just too quirky for my taste.

I'm not going to lie - tweak minor facts in the storyline and you've just probably saw a movie about my lovelife. Haha. The same reason why I didn't care much about how obvious the story was and other movie technicalities. I excruciatingly enjoyed everything as a whole.

The movie had its own mishaps but it was generally forgivable, at least to me. Ha. It was a simple love story that was well complemented by a good cast, a decent story and a solid direction. It is what it is. Haha.

RATING: 6/10

Movie Review: Legion

The suck-factor of this movie was biblical! Pun intended.

Seriously. This was one abysmal storyline. God is fed up with humanity so he decides to destroy it. He sent a flood the first time, and now God sends his angels to wipe out the entire human race on earth as if everybody was bad. WTF!

And not only was the plot somewhat religiously insensitive, but almost everything went unexplained for nearly half the film. No grasp on the basics of competent storytelling.

The characters simply appeared, delivered a five minute pointless character traits and then CHAOS! Heck, I didn't even see any reason why I need to know too much about these people. For one, they just don't matter in the larger scheme of things; and secondly, they were killed in such "blink and they're dead" moments that I wonder why I even bothered to learn their names in the first place, much less where and how they grew up.

Moreover, I, for one, can only suspend my belief up to a certain point. So I just don't understand how a woman on her last trimester could be so agile and had that superhuman ability to give birth in a minute. Not only was she able to pop that thing out like a torpedo, but she was up and running minutes after giving birth without any sort of medical care or whatnot. Unbelievable.

To be fair though, the movie started off quite well with an interesting potential but faltered in execution for the rest of the film. The acting was mostly decent - especially Paul Bettany who, I thought, had the right combination of leading man good looks, physicality and acting chops. The entertainment value was also evident.

I also loved that the film offered action scenes I've not seen before. Angels clad for battle with an armour and a combat weapon - and of course, the metallic wings used both defensively and offensively in quite elegant ways. It was indeed interesting but that's not saying much about the movie.

Sadly, I can find better action with a more compelling storyline in Daybreakers. I mean, if you have to see a grown man with wings this week, a safer bet would be Tooth Fairy. Hahaha. Enough Said.

RATING: 5/10

Movie Review: Daybreakers

It didn't suck! Haha.

No creature in the history of film or television has been represented more than vampires. They're everywhere! And over the past few years, the vampire story had already lost it's balls. It became almost a caricature of itself. Instead of an undead dying when they set foot in the sun, they sparkle like back-up dancers of Adam Lambert. Haha. I believe this movie was a return to its original form.

Surprisingly, the film wasn't your typical cliché-ridden vampire horror. Clearly, it had some sensible writing involved here. The script was loaded with unpredictable twists and shocking reveals - even horrific mutant creatures appeared out of nowhere with perfect timing.

I thought that it did an exceptional job of taking the conventional vampire premise to something new and fresh. The story was strong and entertaining despite its obvious ending and the social commentary was upfront but not preachy.

The plot itself was efficient, but it was the visuals that delivered the goods, I believe. The sheer starkness of the visuals kept my attention the whole time. I thought that the desaturation technique - which was used in Underworld - was much cleaner and sleeker in this film. Also, the special effects and action scenes were top-notch, particularly a gruesome set-piece near the film's climax. Sweeping cinematography, crisp editing and a masterful musical score. It was technically spot on.

The acting, on the other hand, was decent. I thought that everyone, especially Ethan Hawke, settled into their roles really well, giving their characters substance and backing. It wasn't the movie's strongest suit but competent nonetheless.

To me, this film passed a key horror movie test: when you leave the theater, the outside world does not look quite as reassuring as it normally does. Ha!

Largely, it was indeed a superbly fresh and entertaining vampire experience. A unique twist in what was becoming an overworked genre. Well worth seeing.

RATING: 8/10