Rating:
“Midnight in Paris” is a charming little movie that takes us through the most substantial days in the life of Gil (Owen Wilson), an American in Paris. If you are suddenly reminded of the 1951 Gene Kelly musical, then I commend you. The heroes of both movies are struggling artists who hunger for an inspiration the size of a city. That the capital of France is universally regarded as a stimulant of our mind’s creativity offers no mystery. Elegant by day and dashing by night, Paris is a city of history and architecture, of fashion and romance, of music and dancing, of wine and art. Gracefully photographed by director Woody Allen and cinematographer Darius Khondji, the movie might just prevent arguments between newlyweds who can’t agree on their honeymoon destination.
Gil is an established screenwriter who dreams of writing a novel. He believes that his stay in Paris will provide the atmosphere he needs. Joy and excitement is seen in Gil as he wanders through the city streets. But he is alone in his admiration. His fiancée, Inez (Rachel McAdams), is unsupportive and unfaithful; her eyes drawn by the intellect of another man. Her parents, who are skeptical and obnoxious, are not helping. Straying away from the discouragement, he finds a place of stillness and insight. Every midnight, in the same, empty street, Gil is picked up by the same, classy car, which transports him to 1920’s France. This change in era makes it possible for Gil to become acquainted with some great men of literature, like Ernest Hemingway and T.S. Eliot. That is one awesome car ride. In my country, all unusual cars that pick you up around midnight will probably keep you there until your family comes up with the ransom money.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Midnight in Paris (Quick Review)
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Tangled
Rating:
Walt Disney Animation Studios has regained its touch and reclaimed its glory. After a decade of churning out animated flicks that only served as a shadow to the works of Dreamworks, they have finally created something that deserves a place in my heart. Yeah, I agree how the latter part of my previous sentence was covered with cheese. But that’s how the movie made me feel – Cheesy. I developed affection for its characters, and I felt the loss in its tragedy. Also, I released a couple of blushes towards its romance. As the loveless chap that I am, I’m usually unaffected by mushy moments in movies, but not this time. “Tangled” is just too darn adorable.
Let me share with you a quick story. My childhood was blessed beyond grace, for it was nurtured by a loving, gentle woman: my mother. As amazing as she is, we abide by the truth that nobody’s perfect, and my dear mother had poor discernment when it came to animated movies. She was numb to the genre; identifying animated characters as nothing more than plastic objects. So you could tell that I was filled with delight when she informed me that she had enjoyed “Tangled”. The makers back at Disney must have done something incredibly right. I mean, even I had a special fondness for the movie, where most of it is directed at its young princess. If Rapunzel ever gets thrown into the real world, like Amy Adam’s Giselle in “Enchanted”, I’ll be the guy to catch her. And now this movie review has extra cheese.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Rating:
It was in 1887 when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle first began to author Sherlock Holmes, a fictional detective that would later be regarded as a treasure by the literary scholars of then and now. A hundred and twenty-two years pass by, and the concept of the Holmes character has been reduced to a business strategy, thanks to Guy Ritchie’s “Sherlock Holmes” of 2009. The detective has been given a modern makeover, and now shares many attributes similar to your average ass-kicker. Pity.
Nonetheless, my rule to view each film with an open mind allowed me to enjoy Ritchie’s adaptation as an action film with an unabashed marketing advantage. I was humble enough to admit my admiration for the 2009 movie, rewarding it with a positive rating. It was possessed with great energy and crazy humor, much of which was contributed by an ecstatic Robert Downey Jr. But this incoherent and sloppy sequel is a jab to the senses, doubling the madness while forsaking the few charms that occupied the original. Vapidly designed as nothing more than an overcooked version of its successful predecessor, “A Game of Shadows” is an annoying attempt at a second run at the box office.
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
It was in 1887 when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle first began to author Sherlock Holmes, a fictional detective that would later be regarded as a treasure by the literary scholars of then and now. A hundred and twenty-two years pass by, and the concept of the Holmes character has been reduced to a business strategy, thanks to Guy Ritchie’s “Sherlock Holmes” of 2009. The detective has been given a modern makeover, and now shares many attributes similar to your average ass-kicker. Pity.
Nonetheless, my rule to view each film with an open mind allowed me to enjoy Ritchie’s adaptation as an action film with an unabashed marketing advantage. I was humble enough to admit my admiration for the 2009 movie, rewarding it with a positive rating. It was possessed with great energy and crazy humor, much of which was contributed by an ecstatic Robert Downey Jr. But this incoherent and sloppy sequel is a jab to the senses, doubling the madness while forsaking the few charms that occupied the original. Vapidly designed as nothing more than an overcooked version of its successful predecessor, “A Game of Shadows” is an annoying attempt at a second run at the box office.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Final Destination 5 Movie Review
Rating:
It’s fascinating to notice that the “Final Destination” movies don’t really contain a bloodthirsty villain. They all start out with a teenager’s premonition of an ill-timed freak accident that’ll potentially kill dozens of innocent people. None of the soon-to-be victims probably deserve to die that way, but things like that happen in reality. The premonition offers a last-minute escape, and a small group of fortunate individuals make it to safety. They have cheated Death itself. That’s where Death steps in. He, or she, or it, reclaims what destiny owes him by setting up new, improvised accidents that should be enough to kill the survivors. Death is just catching up with his job.
It is an original and exciting premise that sparked attention when it was first introduced back in 2000. Eleven years and four sequels later, and we’ve just about lost its point. Maybe there isn’t a point to begin with. The “Final Destination” movies exist exclusively to perform fatal experiments on the human body. Within its head is a sadistically curious brain that asks questions like: “What would happen to a perfectly healthy male Caucasian if he gets in the way of barbed wire that’s flying towards him at 70 miles per hour?” “And what would an 18-year-old’s face look like after it is repeatedly shot by a nail gun at point black range?” Where do the film’s writers get their inspiration? The deleted scenes of “Jackass”? The diary of Chuck Norris? Where?
