Sorry it's been a while

Hello Netizens!

On behalf of Charlie, we would like to apologize for our delay in blogging for this year. We've been caught up with our personal lives and haven't really gotten ourselves up to speed with what's been going on in our favorite blogs. Today, however, was a good day because I accidentally stumbled upon a good movie. And if you're an avid reader of PBoaS - specifically, my part of the blog - you'd know that my titles are always related to the movie I blog about. And with that, we move on to the movie review.

Yeah, I'm putting the poster first, because I already wrote my intro to the movie.

Anyway, G.I. Joe: Retaliation lived up to its name. If you saw the first movie, you'll know how much of a snooze-fest that movie was no matter how action packed it was. The story of the first movie was so bland, Gordon Ramsay would have thrown it out of Hell's Kitchen because it wasn't seasoned. And because this movie's subtitle is "Retaliation", it's definition according to the dictionary of wordnetweb.princeton.edu is "Action taken in return for an injury or offense". To which, of course, it did with the first movie. But there is one question that hasn't been answered. "If the movie was able to retaliate from the first movie, did it qualify as a great action movie"? My answer to that is this: "It's not a 'Great' action movie, but it's up there."

Why do I say that? Simple, because the first part of the movie was a bit confusing. Sure you're re-introduced to the "G.I. Joe" and are given a quick background of the story, but I kinda got confused because I don't remember anybody from the cast. In fact, I didn't know Channing Tatum was part of the original movie up until before we entered the cinema. To which I might say that his appearance in the movie gave all the meaning of the word "Retaliate" to the story. If you notice, he's not in the poster. Guess why. :D

Now, without going into too much detail to the movie, let's focus on the appearance of Dwayne Johnson and Bruce Willis. As most (if not all) of you would know, these guys are up there when it comes to bringing action into action movies. Sure they've mellowed down a bit once in a while, but hey, when a movie needs someone to increase the testosterone, you get these guys into the mix and you're all set. In fact, I think "The Rock" should have been included in "The Expendables 2". Can we get a third movie and put him there? Even if it means him as a villain?

Also, a friend of mine pointed out the actions scenes that one would expect in an action movie. Personally, I think it's great that they mixed it up. But if you're going to go Asian, there's one small requirement to being Asian (pun not intended), and that's "If you're going to make action scenes, the only reason you die is because you got beat up by the enemy, not because of human error". 'Nuff said.

Last thing I'd like to point out is the presence of the two ladies in the posters. I'm not sure how they fit into the story, aside from putting hot girls into the mix, but I'm glad there wasn't any unnecessary "guy-girl relationship" going on. Sure there was a little bit of chemistry between certain cast members, and they tried to put a little romance into the movie, but because they're soldiers, it's more appropriate to kick ass instead of kiss around. I'm not saying I don't like such scenes, but I would have hated this movie if they put that scene because it wouldn't have fit into the story.

Overall, I'd rate this 7/10 stars. It's not the best action movie, but it's pretty much up there for keeping to the story.

P.S. - my title is "it's been a while" because "it's been a while since I saw a decent action movie.. :D"

The Epitome of Redemption

The following information is the greatest shock to my life. As someone who studied in a private school, I am expected to know what the story is about, without having the need to see this movie. What took me by surprise is that those whom I have observed to have also come from not so humble beginnings, are not aware of what the movie was about at all.

On one hand, I shall admit that it has been a while, and I am not as familiar to the story as I once was. But to go as far as to ask if this was a horror movie is utter disrespect to the writer of the book (Victor Hugo). 

Now then, to the review proper.

As most of you will know, this is not just a book, for it is also a broadway musical. And a damn good one too. So once again we have the conflict of having a musical moved from theater to wide screen. And quite frankly, while I am torn by the idea of moving them, I will admit that this will suffice for me since it doesn't usually come by where I am. And I'm happy with this because this movie was also able to get significant awards in the 70th Golden Globes.

Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway won in their respective categories of Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress. Now, while some of you are curious as to why Hathaway is only a supporting cast, it is very simple. The story's actual heroine is Amanda Seyfried's character. In the movie, she doesn't have much of a role, but I'm damn sure the musical would show you why she's a significant character to the story. Also, the movie itself was given praise as "Best Motion Picture for Comedy or Musical". But for the "overall motion pictures", it failed to win in that category.

Now, if you're wondering why Jackman and Hathaway won their awards, let me break it down to you. Hugh Jackman won best actor for one simple reason. He's Hugh Jackman. If you can't comprehend that, then you can "go f*** yourself". Seriously though, Hugh Jackman knows very well how to sing. And since the movie was more oriented to his character more than the rest of them, his acting skills were put to the test, and it paid off.

As for Anne Hathaway, you have to see it for yourself to understand it. The movie in itself lacked the creativity of having multiple camera angles. This is probably to keep it from becoming too much of a movie, and too little to be a musical. Their director of photography also focused on too much of something. And that something is "depth". 85% of the movie shows only the singing characters, while the background is kept in a blur, thereby making the audience only see the singing of the characters, and not the surroundings of the scene (which is technically what you would do if you were in a theater). And among those who sang in the movie (yes, including Hugh Jackman), Anne Hathaway was the only one who was able to not just sing her part, but to actually put emotions in a scene where all you see is a black background, her head, and her bare shoulders (okay, maybe a little cleavage too). Don't get me wrong. Almost everyone who had solos were able to deliver in their singing. It was just Anne Hathaway who was able to pull it off perfectly.

Now, why did I say "almost everyone"? Simple, someone failed at it. And all fingers point to Russell Crowe. Though Crowe was able to sing in the movie, there were certain instances where a man with a more powerful voice was required to fully grasp the emotion of the song, and that power was outside (in my opinion) Crowe's vocal range. In fact, his solo probably had the least emotion of them all, and so most of his parts were (to a certain degree) dull.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but most of my paragraphs start with either "now", or "as". If you have, then good for you, if you haven't, then you probably just looked at all my previous paragraphs and maybe (just maybe) gave at least a small giggle. The movie has that too. If you look at it based only on what I have told you so far, you'll know that the story would have been a drag. And everyone would fall asleep right after Hugh Jackman meets the younger character of Amanda Seyfried. Well I guarantee you that you won't fall asleep. Besides the excessive singing throughout the movie, there is also another source of entertainment in the movie, and they are provided for by the great Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter. Normally, when people see Helena, their instinct is to look for Johnny Depp or Tim Burton. Thankfully, neither of the two are in the movie. But that doesn't mean Helena's style changed. She's capable of pulling of only one character, and that is the "semi-crazy or entirely crazy woman". Well, her character isn't exactly crazy here, but she isn't of the norm either. Sacha, on the other hand, is known for comedic characters, and they don't always have a pattern. Which is why Sacha was able to entertain everybody in the movie. Although he used bits and pieces of his other characters, he was able keep the integrity of his character throughout the movie. Although I do feel at times that he didn't really memorize his script. 

My last point of the movie will be if it will make you cry. Quite honestly, I'm not sure myself. My companions claimed that they didn't, while I shall admit and say that tears rolled down my eyes in the ending. And I actually saw another man wipe his eyes when he stood from his chair and walked away from the cinema. So if you're going to ask me if it will make you cry, my answer is "it will be entirely up to you". Honestly, I couldn't care less if you cried or not. What I would only care about is if you didn't like the movie. And if in case you didn't, then you better have a damn good excuse as to why.

Actually, it isn't funny at all

When someone asks you a question which leads to a series of stories, the normal response is "it's kind of a funny story". And people think that you're trying to make a joke. But in reality, you're not. You just don't know how to tell the story, so you say "it's funny". Well, in this movie, I didn't find any part where I could laugh so hard, I'd gasp for air. I didn't feel the urge to laugh at all. Okay, maybe I smirked, but that's about it.  

Recently, I rearranged my movies based on certain genres. I have the usual action, comedy, drama, etc., but then I also have separate locations for movies that I absolutely enjoyed like LOTR, or any movie produced by Marvel. And then, I have this one set of movies which I labeled as "Smart" movies. I made that genre up because these are movies that make me think. These are movies that have a deep message embedded in its story. It's more than just about making a movie. These movies either had ideas, or morals, or both.

When I first saw that Zach Galifianakis was in this movie, I thought "Oooh! Another comedy with Zach!". Boy was I wrong. Most people think Zach's only good for comedy. I myself thought like that. However, his acting skills are beyond what I expected. I mean, it's one thing to be "Alan" in "The Hangover". It's another to be "Ethan Trembley" in "Due Date". But to be "Bobby" in this movie, is probably his best performance yet. In fact, he deserves an award for best supporting actor in a DRAMA for this one. Zach showed (us) that he can do more than just comedy.

Now, on to the movie itself. Since it's based on the novel with the same title, I thought "daaammmmnnn dude! you thought of that?!". It's actually a very interesting format. To see the people inside a psychiatric ward in another perspective. To see how and why they got admitted. To see if you yourself can find the means to cure your own depression. I actually understand what the protagonist goes through because he helped these people by listening to them and figuring out how to help them. And in doing so, he was able to help himself. Sure he has other real world problems to fix, but that doesn't mean he can't face them now. He may not have been able to face them before, but the experience he obtained in five days was well enough to make him a better person.

Oh, let's not forget Emma Roberts, daughter of Julia Roberts. She's an eye candy to the movie, and she did well in being a suicidal teenager (with lack of actual suicide attempt footage for her character), but both she and Keir Gilchrist couldn't possibly match the acting prowess of Zach. 

Overall, this is a great movie. It will start out dull at first, but you have to take a step back to see how amazing this movie actually is.

When music is part of the big screen

When my friends started posting about this movie, I didn't really give much attention to it at first. But then again, as a movie fanatic, I shouldn't let this opportunity slide.

In the height of the craziness of singing and singing groups in television, this movie decided to come out and join the band wagon. But they didn't go the same direction. Instead of making stories about growing up, finding your sexuality, or even about falling in love, they just stuck to the original theme of the movie. Singing.

Pitch Perfect is a movie about a singing group that wanted to redeem itself after an embarrassing loss in the previous year. Like any other collegiate group, it struggles every year to get back to the finals, and every year, they change their line-up because some of them graduate from college on that year.

Anna Kendrick stars as the young college freshman who only entered college at the request of her father, who teaches in the university. But like any other American, they have other plans. And for her, it's to be a DJ in LA. But like most movies, fate has other plans. And it was a bet from her dad that changed everything.

Before I go on and spoil the rest of the movie, I did a small background check on casting Anna Kendrick. It's one thing for an actress to be able to sing. But having known a certain actress who decided to give singing a chance (and lose whatever respect I had), I was a bit hesitant on the casting choice. But then I read that she was a musical theater actress before moving to the movies. And she's a Tony Award winner. Kudos to her for her brilliant performance before entering the movies. But she didn't stop there. She was also nominated for "Best Supporting Actress" for a movie with George Clooney. That put the cherry on top of the reasons why I like her.

Well, besides her, everybody in the cast has a musical background. So at least there wasn't any ghost singers in the entire show. But then again, there was one flaw to the story.

The single flaw that I found in the movie was that the resolve was much too convenient. It didn't have that "we did it out of hard work" feel. It was more of "hey, this happened, now we can win" feel. The conclusion to the story was nice, but still, if they didn't do it like that, then maybe I would have deemed this movie as awesome.

Don't get me wrong, the movie is great. Especially if you love music and singing groups. But if you want a movie with a great story, this isn't it. But if you stick around to the ending, you'll know it's still good.