Fantasy by Superheroes Pack

If I get to pack and sell DVDs, I'd have a Fantasy by Superheroes Pack. Why and what the heck is "fantasy by superheroes"? Early March 2013 saw Bryan Singer and Sam Raimi tackled fantasy stories with versions of Jack and the Beanstalk and The Wizard of Oz, respectively. Both directors are known for their superhero films, X-Men and the massively masterful and original Spider-Man trilogy, again, respectively. Bryan Singer gave an update to the fairy tale and titled it Jack The Giant Slayer and Sam Raimi made a prequel to the 75-year-old film and titled it Oz The Great & Powerful. By the time I wrote this, Jack's trajectory is worst than John Carter but Oz is looking to the 4th best March opening. But let me tell you, both films although both fairy tales, are so much fun in their own way. Apparently I'm an enormous sucker for fantasy films.

Jack the Giant Slayer
The story is your usual bedtime story Jack and the Beanstalk but with a kingdom and more giants. Nicholas Hoult stars as the title role and newcomer Eleanor Tomlinson as Princess Isabelle, the damsel in distress to be saved. The rest of the cast is quite stellar, that includes Stanley Tucci, Ewan McGregor, Ian McShane and the instantly recognizable voice of Bill Nighy. Jack accidentally grew the magic beanstalk and with it lifting his house and the adventurous souled Princess to the skies, to Gantua-the giant's land. Apparently, Gantuans and men have a complicated legend that could ignite war at any time. And this beanstalk is that path to war.

Jack the Giant Slayer is a fun yet serious epic of a fairy tale. It actually could be really violent with all the gruesome death that mostly appear off-screen, then it's only a PG-13 movie. The casting is spot-on. Nicholas Hoult fits the part, Stanley Tucci is amazing as always, it's nice to see Ewan McGregor back in action, Bill Nighy is perfect as the giant's voice, and Eleanor Tomlinson is sweet (and so cool in that gold armor) and it's frustrating she isn't getting much films in the near future. The story could be more epic though. I kinda loathe a bit of the battle scene with that drawbridge (you got to see for yourself and wonder: it's men vs giants). The designs were great but the Bill Nighy voiced, two-headed giant was not the best. The animated prologue may be like a cheaply-made animation but the rest of the CGI (the giants and the beanstalk) was smooth. Stay tuned for the cool ending (although it may nuked the fridge a bit). It is actually quite a normal film when you think of it but it's definitely a fun one. Nicholas Hoult is definitely not this year's Taylor Kitsch (I loved Warm Bodies too) and we need Eleanor Tomlinson in more movies! Jack the Giant Slayer: rated 3/4.


Oz The Great and Powerful
For this film, I got press screening tickets! So I watched it for free and in 3D. I have never watched The Wizard of Oz (cue the surprise sfx). The story is about Oscar Diggs (James Franco), a circus magician who's transported magically into the land of Oz where he met witches, flying monkey and a china girl (not Chinese girl). He arrived there and the citizens of Oz thought that he's the one that would save Oz from the reign of the evil witch. Oscar was doubting but then he saw the treasure of Oz and decided to be that saviour. In his quest he also questions himself whether to be just an ordinary man or a great one.

Oz the Great and Powerful is a super fun, fairy tale adventure with crazy imagination and great CGI. In a few times, the tone of the film shifts jarringly but most of the time it can keep up with the rest of the film. The climax of the film is the best. Sam Raimi definitely nailed it. The cast's best performances goes to Rachel Weisz, Michelle Williams and Zach Braff. For the exception of Zach Braff, his early scenes is a stealer and his Finley the flying monkey is one of the best bits of the whole film. James Franco and Mila Kunis' performance is sometimes uncertain. Mila Kunis isn't like herself in this film. She isn't like the girl we saw in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Black Swan or even Date Night. You may argue that this is a different role but maybe it's the role that constrain her to rise to her full potential. As I have said before, Finley the flying monkey is one of the best things. Add the China girl to the list because they made a great team with Oscar. There's many laughs to be found here with its funny dialogues. There's also a fun Bruce Campbell cameo but I missed the Oldsmobile Delta cameo. One other thing that bothered me was that due to the heavy CGI, some parts didn't look smooth. Albeit its little drawbacks, I enjoyed this film thoroughly. When you compare this to Jack The Giant Slayer, this film is much more superior. Oz The Great and Powerful: rated 3/4.

Oscars Predictions and WINNERS!

I have watched all of the Best Picture nominees except for Michael Haneke's Amour. That's a rare feat for me really. Wohoo. I guess I'm so ready for the Oscars this Sunday night/Monday morning! In the meantime I'd like to make a guess on who's going to win and also weighing all the possibilities. Mind you I'm only doing the categories that I can actually assess and that does not include all those technical stuff like sounds or foreign language films, although I know Amour is going to win and Paperman too for Best Animated Short. the number in the brackets are my count, (predictions/results).

Best Picture
I'm going to go between Argo, Silver Linings Playbook and Zero Dark Thirty. Argo is a fine thriller and a crowd-pleaser. I loved the film. But as I watched SLP and ZDT, Argo fades. Playbook is a more down to earth film and it's pleasant in its own world. Zero Dark Thirty is a more masterful, intense film than Argo. However, it would be a no-brainer if Ben Affleck or Kathryn Bigelow are nominated, which would lead to Argo win. But I'm guessing that Argo could still win without the Best Director nom. ZDT has too much controversy around it and it's hurting the film. Playbook is not the kind of film that wins Best Pic. Hence, Argo fuck yourself.
WINNER: ARGO (1/1)

Best Actor in a Leading Role
My shortlist of the nominees are Hugh Jackman and Daniel Day-Lewis. In Les Miserables, Jackman's effort is strenuous and worth applauding for. It was a hard task. But then, put the master Daniel Day-Lewis himself in the mix and Jackman's chances of went zero dark thirty. I'd be so surprised if DDL don't bring the statue back.
WINNER: DANIEL DAY-LEWIS (2/2)

Best Actress in a Leading Role
It's very obvious that two rising actress Jessica Chastain and Jennifer Lawrence are in a tight race for this one. To be honest, it's hard to pick one between them. But then if you look at the Globes, SAG, BAFTAs, the Oscar goes to Katniss Everdeen.
WINNER: JENNIFER LAWRENCE (3/3)

Best Actor in a Supporting Role
This is tricky. Right when the first trailer for Django Unchained came out, I thought DiCaprio would finally score an Oscar. But the reality speaks different. I'm a fan of Christoph Waltz, but I get the feeling that his role as Dr. Schultz is more of a leading role material rather than supporting and it's basically a kinder Hans Landa in western time. I'd say the Oscar would go to Tommy Lee Jones in Lincoln because his role is important in the film and he plays it well.
WINNER: CHRISTOPH WALTZ (3/4)

Best Actress in a Supporting Role
Anne Hathaway. I Dreamed a Dream. Enough said.
WINNER: ANNE HATHAWAY (4/5)

Best Director
Similar to my pick for Best Picture, the race would be limited to Ben Affleck or Kathryn Bigelow. But then both of em arent nominated. My pick would go to Ang Lee for his amazing effort to film the said unfilmable book. It was a remarkable feat and the film itself is jaw-dropping. David O. Russell may sneak in though. And I wouldn't pick Steven Spielberg (although I'm a big fan), because Lincoln works because of DDL.
WINNER: ANG LEE (5/6)

Best Adapted Screenplay
Argo would walk away with the Oscar although I prefer David O. Russell's Silver Linings Playbook. But Chris Terrio's closest opponent would be Tony Kushner for his near-history-lesson screenplay for Lincoln. It was an eye-opening, rich screenplay. Still, Chris Terrio for Argo.
WINNER: ARGO (6/7)

Best Original Screenplay
I would pick Quentin Tarantino. His controversial work on Django Unchained is an amazing work. His closest opponent would be Mark Boal on the equally controversial and amazing Zero Dark Thirty. But since this is for original screenplay, I'm going for Quentin Tarantino.
WINNER: DJANGO UNCHAINED (7/8)

Best Animated Film
Once again, not Pixar's year. My pick goes to Wreck-it-Ralph, definitely the best of the bunch and also the film itself is a feast for the eyes, ears and feelings.
WINNER: BRAVE (7/9)

Best Cinematography
Life of Pi by Claudio Miranda. Everything in the film is literally too amazing to be ignored, like this picture above.
WINNER: LIFE OF PI (8/10)

Best Production Design
It'd be a close race between Les Miserables and Anna Karenina. But Joe Wright's film set in 'stage world' is the more superior, so Anna Karenina.
WINNER: LINCOLN (8/11)

Best Costume Design
Two Snow Whites in one category is super rare. Both of the movies are costume heaven. But Anna Karenina is more of a costume heaven.
WINNER: ANNA KARENINA (9/12)

Best Make-up
My initial pick would be Cloud Atlas but it was snubbed. So, I'd go for The Hobbit for it's dwarves alone (well not alone, there's 14).
WINNER:  LES MISERABLES (9/13)

Best Editing
Zero Dark Thirty takes this one for sure. Proof? Fast forward to the last 45 minutes.
WINNER: ARGO (9/14)

Best Original Score
Thomas Newman's new musical direction for James Bond films is great, using experimental and electronic sounds and mixing them up with amazing visuals on-screen. I'd say Skyfall would win but then Mychael Danna's work on Life of Pi also can't be ignored.
WINNER: LIFE OF PI (for this I'm half right) (9.5/15 jk 9/15)

Best Original Song
Let. The. Skyfall. Win.
WINNER: SKYFALL (10/16)

Best Visual Effects
My pick would be the flawless effects on Prometheus. But the Academy tends to ignore big movies/blockbusters (evidence: Tron Legacy snub in 2011). Richard Parker may take this one home instead.
WINNER: LIFE OF PI (11/17)



Hmm, so from the 17 categories I predicted, I got 11 right. Make it 13 with the obvious winners Paperman and Amour. Quite good, huh?
Also, quick bits from the big night:
- Jennifer Lawrence tripped but still managed to be fabulous.
- Daniel Day-Lewis joked and I laughed hard. So much class.
- Oscars opening this year wasn't flashy-quite disappointing
- Seth MacFarlane is a nice host but I'd turn to Ricky Gervais for offensive jokes
- Bond tribute sucked but Shirley Bassey is amazing, Adele too, as always.
- LesMis tribute wowed although the whole music concept flunked hard
- There's a tie in the Sound Editing category between Skyfall and ZDT
- Kristen Stewart and Daniel Radcliffe is like fire and water; cold and hot; vampire & wizard
- Michelle Obama is in the show!
- Tommy Lee Jones finally laughed
-  The biggest winner of the night is Life of Pi (4) and then Argo and LesMis (3), Lincoln, Skyfall and Django with two.

and I'm just going to put this video here for the world to see

That's What We Do

It was a good day to spend Valentine. Rather than eating chocolates, we got to see John McClane himself in his biggest action yet in yippie-ki-yay Mother Russia! I watched Die Hard trilogy on TV (I wasn't even born when With A Vengeance came out) and fun fact, I first learned the word 'vengeance' from the third film's title; like the first time ever I saw that word. I enjoyed the trilogy--back then, my favorite was the third, but when I revisited them, I got to say the first one was crazy intense. I may be one of the few who actually loved Live Free or Die Hard with its bombastic, over-the-top-of-the-top action that may have confused John McClane with Ethan Hunt. Plus, the fifth one is one of those Hollywood films that arrived on time in Japan. It's big for me. And I'm on spring break. And there's no other movies in Japan. No Warm Bodies, no Hansel & Gretel, hell there's even no Nic Sparks' film for Valentine!

The story is that Jack McClane (Jai Courtney-the assassin from Jack Reacher) is apparently some covert CIA agent in Russia and is in prison (hmm, similar to that film with the spectacular set piece in Burj Dubai). John McClane Senior isnt aware that his son is the 007 of Plainfield, New Jersey, so he flew to Russia to help his son. There he immediately found himself in trouble involving some conspiracy within two partners that implicates Chernobyl. Yep that's the whole story. It's that simple and short.

When I saw the 97-minute-running time on IMDb, I was a bit disappointed. But then I would still give it a go. After I saw the whole film, I didn't know how to feel. The story is quite good but is still able to be explored more. That's a shame. The story has an unforeseen twist and that's nice but then it does not live up to the potential. It's also a shame that Sebastian Koch (The Lives of Others) is wasted like that. He could be a more entertaining, [spoiler alert!] heinous villain in so many ways. The secondary villain--Alik, the dancer--is also wasted. He already had the template of a crazy villain but then--kaput. Also, it's a shame that the relationship between McClane Senior and Junior is barely touched. The film did try to explore that but if you want to be entertained by metaphor, a suitable one would be: the scientist only made a hypothesis without conducting an experiment to prove it. The film is also a waste of the R-rated rating with only a bit of blood splatters, some use of the word 'fuck' and only two uses of mo-fo, that already includes John McClane's 'how you doin'?'(read: catchphrase)

There are many logic issues like driving overnight from Russia to Ukraine, and the comfort of finding the exact car (and stealing the exact keys to it) that has shotguns and leather jackets and also exposing your body to radiation in Chernobyl. The action scenes are sometimes good and sometimes boring. To be honest, there are only few scenes of action. Mostly it's just John McClane and son shooting random things and avoiding to be killed like jumping from buildings and windows. The whole film felt like destruction porn. Maybe it wants to compete with The Matrix Reloaded's highway of hell scene. John McClane himself destroyed so many cars just as he landed in Russia, not to mention the villain who wants to 'fly', he destroyed more. Nevertheless, the action managed to be entertaining. Although John Moore's direction is annoyingly chop-chop and desperately wanted to be gritty, it's not as bad as Taken 2. Bruce Willis may be the only 80's/90's action hero that is still relevant doing this kind of crazy thing. He did his best as John McClane but, again, the script prevents him from doing his usual antics. Jai Courtney is definitely the next Sam Worthington, he's good. For the sixth entry, may I suggest bringing back Len Wiseman? Wiseman is a toned-down Michael Bay and his direction fits Die Hard 4.0 nicely. Or just have Michael Bay for the next one; surely it would be the most badass and explosion-filled Die Hard ever made. And give Bonnie Bedelia a cameo please. I'd like to see the complete McClane family. A Good Day to Die Hard may hit a franchise low but surely it embraces the 'die hard' title. This movie is just for fun. A Good Day to Die Hard: rated 2.5/4

BONUS!

As I have promised, let me throw in shorties of Gangster Squad, Mama and double bonus: Zero Dark Thirty in this post!

1. Gangster Squad

A super cool, stylized gangster drama and action courtesy of the Zombieland director. However, cool doesn't make up for the lack of the story. The premise does promise a great film, yes but more drama between the multiple protagonists may do some good. Maybe more screen time for Gosling and Stone would do some good too. The cast is amazing as promised. The film is kinda worth waiting for after the delay but still the story is the biggest problem here. But I'd watch it again just to see how cool this film is. Last word, does the slow-mo machine gun battle reminds you of the first Community paintball? Or is it just me? Gangster Squad or in Japan called L.A. Gang Story: rated 2.5/4

2. Mama

I guess it's a must for every actress to star in a horror film someday in her career. Jennifer Lawrence already did in the thank-God-it-is-a-good-one-and-I-loved-it House at the End of the Street and now it's Jessica Chastain's turn. I guess looking at Chastain's filmography so far, it's a safe bet that Mama is not going to disappoint and it's produced by Guillermo Del Toro. I'm so hooked. And yes, right from the start it's already intriguing. Starting with the twin Jaime Lannisters and creepy kids, it's the real horror film unlike those found footage films. Jessica Chastain is kinda hot in her different look here. The film is largely dependent on scares and sound effects but the actual scary bit is maybe one or two. That's what you get with PG-13 I guess. Mama:rated 3/4.

3. Zero Dark Thirty.

Kathryn Bigelow's latest. An Oscar nom. An Oscar snub. Jessica Chastain is so cool here. The movie is amazing. The last 30 minutes is just the most intense moment you could have while watching a film. The supporting cast is also nice with Kyle Chandler and Mark Strong to name a few. I cannot say anything more. The Academy totally snubbed Bigelow. Also I'd pick Zero Dark Thirty over Argo for Best Picture. Ben Affleck could have the Best Director (if he's nominated) but ZDT for Best Picture. It's just crazy good. Ah-MAY-zing! Zero Dark Thirty: definitely four out of four.

The Baddies

I would dedicate this post to the films that have successfully disguised themselves as 'worth-watching' or 'a good time' or 'starring celebrities' that actually made me watch them. I would start from the year 2008. One film per year. Starting now. The thing is, I don't watch that many bad movies,  and sometimes, I kinda like the bad movies. For example, although people say it was bad, I enjoyed Battleship and John Carter. Although it was extremely disappointing, I won't say The Last Airbender is 2010's worst. So for the movies featured in this post, you guys are exceptional. For the record, spoof movies are not worthy of even mentioning.


2008: The Mummy 3: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
First of all, no Rachel Weisz. Second, it's in China. Third, the O'Connell son is already big and Brendan Fraser did not get old at all. The fun and adventure is lost. Everything is just a derivative of the previous movies. It has a disappointing climax and Jet Li doesn't even speak. So bad. So bad. I wonder if they still maintain the Egypt setting, what would go wrong? I loved the first Mummy by the way. It's just soooo much fun.
Runner-up: Seven Pounds

2009: Dragonball Evolution
A cheap, and bad adaptation. I'm not familiar with the original comics but I know enough and it's not like it's depicted in the film. The special effects are bad and it puzzles me why Chow Yun-Fat and Emmy Rossum wants to star in this film.
Runner-up: none. this is unanimous.

2010: Dear John
I have to go with this Nicholas Sparks' novel which I watched in the cinemas! It was boring. I don't even know what happen in the end. Everything just got to be romantic but in the end, it doesn't make sense. Also, the so-called dear John letters scenes are only present for maybe 5 minutes. No hard feelings for the always stunning Amanda Seyfried though. Footnote: I enjoyed The Notebook, but this movie made me hate the name Nicholas Sparks.
Runner-up: hmmm, again, can't think of one.

2011: The Three Musketeers
Directed by Paul WS Anderson and starring quite a lot of big names. I actually wanted Mads Mikkelsen to win and that is a bad omen when you wanted the villain to win over The Musketeers. Also, Anderson's 'expose your wife' scheme was later copied by Len Wiseman in his remake of Total Recall. Orlando Bloom was drunk all the way through. Logan Lerman was definitely desperate after Percy Jackson bombed. All in all, it's torture to watch all this talents in a bad movie like this. Oh, did I mentioned that the score is a rip-off between Hans Zimmer's Pirates of the Caribbean and Sherlock Holmes? And, oh, I almost forgot the bad special effects.
Runner-up: The Smurfs

2012: Resident Evil: Retribution
God, another Paul WS Anderson film. The other Anderson directors actually have great movies under their belt (that's Wes and PT for those unaware). What makes RE 5 bad is that the film is of no importance to exist. This whole thing could be explained in a montage. I actually have a review for this film, so go ahead and check.
Runner-up: Paranormal Activity 4



And if I have to pick the worst film from these films, I'd pick The Three Musketeers.
By the way we're still on for Die Hard 5 review later this week along with late reviews of Gangster Squad and Mama.

Holmes for the Holiday

Sherlock craze: round two. Or maybe round three after the initial craze initiated by Robert Downey Jr.'s rendition of the famed sleuth. This time may not be as contagious as the Cumberbatch's Sherlock craze, but it's enough to make me buy a vest just to microscopically copy Jonny Lee Miller's Sherlock's sense of fashion. Yep, this craze is generated from my unplanned CSI: Sherlock, or popularly known as Elementary, marathon in my spring break holiday. From now on Downey Jr.'s Sherlock is Exhibit A, Cumberbatch's is Exhibit B, and Elementary's is Exhibit C--or just A, B, and C. In this post, I'll just solely focus on Exhibit C, the latest depiction of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's creation, only with a new twist: in America.

It has been a busy decade for Sherlock Holmes himself. With his first re-emergence to the public in 2009, it is quickly followed by a more faithful yet modernized adaptation in 2010, and then both of them gave birth to sequels until finally the most loose and modernized adaptation arrived in 2012. (You can name the titles without me spelling it out for y'all). I have compared and contrasted Exhibit A and Exhibit B last year and now with Exhibit C in front of my eyes, I am very much compelled to compare and contrast again. Starting now!

1. Sherlock Holmes

Jonny Lee Miller stars as Sherlock Holmes in Elementary. Fun fact: he and Cumberbatch once switched roles in Danny Boyle's production of Frankenstein. Anyway, he is Sherlock Holmes that we know like in Sherlock and Sherlock Holmes however, this one was an addict and looks to be more dangerous and intimidating than the previous two. Also, Exhibit C has a more active sexual life than Exhibit B. However, this Sherlock, although resourceful with the internet and stuff, shockingly uses Bing instead of Google--an action which is done by only one person: Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker. Moreover, I feel that Exhibit C lacks the personality and charisma that are present in A and B. Or is it too soon to judge Jonny Lee Miller's Sherlock? Or is it because it's Jonny Lee Miller? In Sherlock Holmes and the sequel, the detective is highly enjoyable because of Robert Downey Jr's demanding screen persona, which is the mix of traditional Sherlock traits and Tony Stark and the coolness of Downey Jr himself. In BBC's Sherlock, Benedict Cumberbatch managed to make Sherlock Holmes himself, because when you watch Sherlock, you cannot compare it with the movie version. Also, Cumberbatch's deep voice and his super crazy fast talk and a superb screenplay supported him. Maybe we are still expecting some surprises in Elementary's Sherlock.

2. Dr. J. Watson

I can't write John Watson because as we all know, it is Joan Watson in Elementary. Yes Watson is a woman in the US version of Sherlock Holmes. This move is a desperate move to put as much distance between this and the two adaptations that came before it. They already move the location to New York and now Watson's gender is altered. Maybe this decision is made to have Watson and Holmes in a romantic situation, a situation that would put the show on the same level with the likes of Castle and Bones. Anyway, Lucy Liu's depiction of Watson is not better than Jude Law and Martin Freeman. Once again, we may be too soon to compare or maybe the screenplay is not giving Liu's Watson enough capacity to develop. However I must say, Holmes and Watson's relationship is quite good in Elementary. No matter how smart Sherlock is, without Watson he would be lost in some cases. Holmes even influenced Watson on her deducing abilities.

3. The Show

Without the characters Holmes and Watson, this show would be just another episode of CSI: NY. It is quite shocking for me to find out that this US Sherlock TV series turned out to be just another procedural drama. But then, the cases are more than your average procedurals. Plus, the Sherlock factor definitely boost its uniqueness. Characters from Doyle have already been featured or hinted or mentioned which doesn't make this show 'stole' Britain's finest detective and put him in New York. Names such as Sebastian Moran, Irene Adler and Sherlock's nemesis himself, Moriarty have already been mentioned in the show. However I'd like to see more surprises and crazy twists in the show because sometimes it's too predictable and a bit boring to keep carry on as a 'CSI with higher IQ'. At least House half-ripped off Sherlock and made it so extremely interesting (so my friends said). I love the opening scenes by the way, it's like some machinery taken out of an OK Go music video. Also, I'd like to say that I don't want to see any more subliminal advertisement in the shows I watch. Once is enough, Microsoft Surface (see Episode 9).

Let's see how Elementary turns out in the upcoming episodes. Can't wait to see Moriarty in New York!
See you next week for A Good Day to Die Hard review along with the late Gangster Squad and Mama reviews.