Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

a movie that could have delivered a lot ended up lacking. the first scenes held a lot of promise - we find the gang headed to the Quidditch World Cup. we see the PortKey, the magical tents, the stadium itself, the entry of the rival teams... the suspense builds up, we're going to see a good sports game, folks!, and then.....!

it's back to the tent. what the---?

transition could also use a lot of work. characters needed more introduction, like Barty Crouch Jr. the actor playing Albus Dumbledore needs to be replaced! can't they find another Richard Harris? Hermione had some moments where she went overboard with waxing sentimentality, but I am blaming the director and scriptwriter on that one.

and for crying out loud, why do the Gryffindors always have the Slytherins as their classmates in virtually ALL their classes? i suppose they needed to feature draco malfoy, but Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs need exposure, too! that said, i don't it was even identified that Cho Chang was a Ravenclaw. or Hufflepuff... see what I mean? Cho Chang herself was a disappointment. i was expecting to see some acting chops from her, like how she really like cedric over harry, but it wasn't the case. hope they are able to use her more for the next film (if there is one) "Order of the Phoenix". honestly, i'm not looking forward to this one. by far, it's the darkest and most boring of the lot.

the movie also has to establish why Harry stays in Hogwarts. you'd think he would have stayed away from the place, with killers left and right, just going after him. they could emphasize more on his awe over magic. the tent scene was a good starter, so was the part where he first saw his gills. but it didn't end right. they could've have change the dialogue wherein, instead of Hermione sadly saying next year is gonna be different, they could have given that line to Harry. then Hermione and Ron would drape their arms in comfort over their buddy and remind him of their loyalty and friendship. a bit corny, but it will drive the point how Harry should be in Hogwarts.

also a point to consider: they have to establish the fact that he couldn't wait to get out of the Dursley home. this is nitpicking, but they should always remember that there are non-HP fans watching the movie as well. also, they should point out how harry is improving in his magic. he is, after all, already in his 4th year.

with all this negative comments, you'd think this isn't a recommended movie. not that it was a bad film altogether. it was actually watchable. but being a big harry potter fan, it does disappoint when you know the movie version of a book could do so much better. at least, the camaraderie between ron and harry is always a nice thing to watch.

Chronicles of Narnia

good movie. it was all the more enjoyable having my sister with me to watch it.

critics have reviewed it as riding on the marketing of the Passion of Christ. why, because it's Christian? i haven't read the books yet (i mean to), but from my understanding, this is clearly meant to be Christian in the first place. yes, Aslan (the lion) sacrificing himself and then rising again was an allegory to Christ. yes, those on the lion's side, despite being frozen by the witch, who were brought back by the "breath of life" were an allegory to the faithful who will join Christ. yes, the fact that edmund returned to his siblings with Aslan's blessings was an allegory to a sinner pardoned.

all said, i'm glad it's presently doing well in the box office.

National Treasure

stars: nicolas cage, diane kruger

first thought. this was a disney movie?? but then, of course, it had some cheesy lines. and then nicolas cage. i haven't seen this guy for a while. maybe because i avoided him. diane kruger? just pretty. i never felt she portrayed the intelligent woman she was supposed to be. ack. don't focus on the characters.

putting that aside, this was a fun movie. outrageous plot, YES, but enjoyable. for me, it was also more of it being a nice follow-up to my recent reading of 'da vinci code' (journal entry to follow). all that supposed conspiracy, myths, mysteries, clue-solving, theories, and suspense (sort of). i'm a sucker for those.

spoiler alert ahead, though (and don't read this if you haven't watched it). just don't be misled by the title. because by no means is the national treasure being spoken of is THE national treasure of the US. the riches and wealth were originally hidden in solomon's temple (jerusalem), found by the templar knights who were initially looking for the holy grail. so that makes it the treasure of israel in the first place.

and for that matter, ANY material wealth or treasure doesn't not rightfully belong to its current owner. i for one have a trouble believing that first world countries got to where they are out of sheer hardwork. history pa lang, you could clearly see how most have just deceitfully outwitted (scammed if you will) other nations out of their own previous wealth and riches.

ironically, i'm in a first world country writing this. sigh.

Closer

stars: julia roberts, jude law, natalie portman, clive owen

definitely one of the most honest movies i've watched. ever. everything about it were real, the characters, the relationships. kudos to all 4 actors for playing such intense roles. heck, even the title itself is something to applaud. rather than resorting to using catchy gimicky phrases or lame one word names, it opts to convey its underlying irony.
on the surface, however, i was impressed with clive owen's acting. won't give away on what his role was, but he was intense. maybe because that was just what the character called for, but there's no doubt he delivered.
i have to admit i was also smitten with jude law. no, make that shaking-my-head-in-disbelief, biting-my-nails smitten with jude law. why? the man is simply gorgeous. oh, for sure he's a good actor; i saw him first in the "talented mr ripley" and he did quite well in that movie. but he didn't strike me so much then as he did with this one. really gorgeous. and i bet my ass he's charming too.
sienna miller sure is lucky. must have strong knees, too. small wonder she hasn't fainted.
anyway, must make it a note to watch "alfie", "i heart huckabees" and "sky captain and the world of tomorrow".

*reposted from CH's blog*

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

stars: jim carrey, kate winslet

okay folks, i hardly do this, but i highly recommend this film. really. jim carrey represses his normal goofy comic self to play a vulnerable character very much in love with kate winslet's offbeat spontaneous moody personality. and don't be intimidated by its title. despite impressions that it might be another random gimicky attempt on the part of producers, it really has purpose and relevance.
it's also a movie i can afford to be philosophical. what it is is another relationship film that you might not want to watch with your bf/gf, but this is a lot less dramatic or overwhelming than 'closer'. no, erase that. you CAN watch this with your better half. it gives a light look on how love and happiness are feelings that you shouldn't try so hard to rationalize or speculate. just enjoy it and the person you're with. these are experiences that you shouldn't miss out on. it doesn't guarantee a safe, smooth ride all the way. it's really a rollercoaster, which means people shouldn't be afraid of trying it. this is life. LIVE IT.

Ocean's Twelve

stars: george clooney, brad pitt, catherine zeta-jones, julia roberts.. and a lot more.

FINALLY watched it. the euphoria was there when i got the DVD copy in my hands.. and then the few minutes of watching go by...
what is about sequels? they have a lot of hype, but they have a lot of bad rep, too. and for this one, i would say... i have to agree (winces, while ducking for cover).
somehow, i felt myself reduced to just watching the actors having all the fun for themselves. and this fun is not inside the film itself, but in making it. and horror of horrors, not even brad pitt could stop me from yawning and fighting the urge to press the forward button. maybe i should have watched this in the movie (the theatre experience plus the crowd can change one's outlook on a film).
i don't want it to sound bad, but the comparison is inevitable, and it was found to be a little disappointing, especially the part when they describe how they pull out the big heist. the gang's all back but the show lacked the ingeniousity(?) of the first. i got particularly distracted by bernie mac's role in the film. if you call it a role. more like guest-appearance, actually. i could say he only got 10min max exposure time, and even then it wasn't enough to give any idea on what his specialty or contribution to the group.
or maybe it was because of catherine zeta jones. save for 'the mask of zorro', CSJ prescence in movies tend to be, what, overwhelming? like 'the haunted mansion' (ack.. teka.. tama ba to.. can't remember. basta with liam neeson and owen wilson), 'terminal', and 'entrapment'..
gaaaa! i dunno!!! but watching oceans 12 had sorta was close to bordering the popular notion that sequels are nothing more than additional vehicles to milk more money out of movie-goers suckers like me, who persist to believe (or be blind) that it's worth the watch.

Taxi

they don't say it, but this is a women-empowering movie. all the females are strong and capable of handling each other. male counterparts, natch. queen latifah, you rule!
of course, the title calls to attention to the other star in the film - the freakin' taxi!! even non-car afficionados can't stop themselves from marveling at the sheer complexity and awesomeness of the splendid vehicles featured in the film. it had the same effect as 'fast and the furious', where to be sure, it WILL have you noticing cars with more scrutiny and respect.
i won't focus too much on some absurdiness on the plot, characters, and the possibility of cars driving too fast in new york. overall, the movie was a fun one to watch.

Sin City

SIN CITY -- words fail me with this one. first of all, i went to see it for all the hype. had i been a frank miller fan, i would've enjoyed the film.
not that i'm saying i didn't. story-telling was done well, especially when the ending narration ties up with the introduction. it's set in a dramatic black and white setting, with splashes of bold color in between scenes for contrast and highlight. the characters are stereotypes, but well-cast (this in itself is a feat since there were many of them in the film). then there were some that moved stiffly, but it was understood to be done so only to capture that perfect perspective shot of that scene. the movie aims to be dark and succeeds. grotesque scenes are carefully edited, but is poignant enought to stir your imagination with its sick horror. it also successfully woves 3 stories in it (the first being the best one for me) and takes that faithful step to make the artist's work (or ink, rather) come to life. at one point, i even half-expected narration boxes to appear on the screen.
so, i appreciated "sin city" for all those (and maybe more). yet they are logical reasons, i suppose, and that perhaps be why i couldn't enjoy it completely. the experience for me was lacking. but to another, it may have been different, and i wouldn't begrudge that person for liking it more than i do. really.
now the actor that made the most impact on me? benicio del toro. he just has this commanding on-screen prescence. he fits as the sly scroundel who loves working in the shadows. the lowlife scary creep you would want to hit back if only you had the guts to. the perfect enigmatic villain.
and then there's elijah wood. he must be determined to show his versatility as an actor to shed his good hobbit status. what exactly his role was in the movie, you just have to see.

Finding Neverland

finally, watched this movie! johnny depp was good, and it offered a look on the genius that was jm barrie. while it also gave me a subtle look on victorian life (i love period pieces!), it also made me realize how much i missed theatre. the live acting on stage, the dialogue, the props. i remember as a kid watching lisa macuja and her grace on stage. sigh. wish i had been one of those first people to see peter pan on stage.
sadly, this wasn't the box-office hits (surprisingly, i don't think any of this year's Oscar-nominated ones were). of course, it had none of that wham-bam action, or achingly-bittersweet romance, or laugh-out-loud comedy. but it was a life story. it had its lessons to share. too bad some people decided to pass up on it.