kevin_newdirections Reviews

Victoria & Abdul (2017)

Sweet take on colonialism

[7/10 · 4 October 2017]

It is quite remarkable that back in 1997, Judi Dench earned her first Academy Award nomination as Queen Victoria in the British drama Mrs. Brown. Twenty years later, her career comes full circle as she reprises the role in Stephen Frears' Victoria & Abdul. Focusing on her twilight years, the queen has grown to be a self-confessed cantankerous and dispirited woman - a narcoleptic who struggles to stay awake during an honorary lunch. It is a role that's surprisingly stripped of vanity and to think that Dench will give something less (after having played the role before), her insanity speech towards the end tells that it would be unwise to rule her out in the coming Oscar season.

If strictly taken as a comedy, this film bears a positive message. We witness one of the unlikeliest friendships to go down in history - Queen Victoria and an Indian peasant named Abdul Karim (Ali Fazal) whose sole business in England is to deliver a ceremonial coin as a token of gratitude for her reign. Next thing we know, the Queen has taken a liking to the servant and he quickly gains rank in the household from a servant to her personal munshi(i.e. spiritual adviser). "Everybody I love die and I just went on and on. What is the point of all this?" the queen cries to which Abdul responses with, "Service, your majesty. We are all here for a greater purpose." It is actually quite beautiful to see two worlds colliding, a moment when the audience briefly forgets the concept of imperialism. No race, religion or culture is subordinate to another when it comes to changing one's perspective in life.

However, the problem with having this jaunty theme is that it operates on a subject matter that can never sugarcoat colonization as... adorable. Albeit colonialism is considered to be a relic in the past, its offspring racism remains to be prevalent in the society and others can easily take this film in the context of "whitewashing British imperialism". The Queen's bond with Abdul may be more of a mother-foster son relationship, but this again is susceptible to misinterpretation. By treating Abdul as the Queen's "exotic pet", what does he gain apart from the great privilege of serving her? Is the special attention enough to make him oblivious to the horrors of British colonialism? The fault lies on the two-dimensionality of Abdul as his motives are not fully-fleshed. Abdul's Indian friend complains that the British empire has done little favors for their country so where does his puzzling devotion for the Queen truly come from? Abdul has always been presented in a cheery perspective but the film never really traces back to his domestic life to justify this disposition.

Lee Hall's script is on the account of Abdul's journal found only in 2010 and it will be a stretch to paint the whole story with that source material alone. The film acknowledges its limits as the opening disclaimer confesses, "based on true events.. mostly." Viewers are expected to take everything with a grain of salt. When the film starts to show that it can't even get its facts straight - the Queen's secretary blurts out, "But mangoes only grow in India!" (Uhm… mangoes grow in most tropical countries too!), the authenticity is further reduced. I am inclined to believe that more elements of this film might be fictional than what I expected to.

Victoria & Abdul is worth seeing for its impeccable costume and production design, its leads' endearing chemistry and Frears' delicate directorial touch. It aims to be poignant yet refreshing as it is more invested in laying out the dynamics of imperial households than tackling more serious topics on hand. Perhaps the film works best if treated as a satirical revisionist period piece, otherwise it just settles for a crowd-pleaser that gives the perception that colonialism is oh-so-charming when in reality, it is anything but.

The Magnificent Seven (2016)

A reminder to Donald Trump that America was once founded upon immigrant spirit

[8/10 · 2 October 2016]

A cowboy pub falling silent upon the entrance of a stranger, dueling gunslingers amid the tune of plucked banjo strings, and horses galloping across desolate deserts and mountains – there is a certain sense of gratification brought by Western films. One of the few Westerns this year is Antoine Fuqua's The Magnificent Seven, a remake of John Sturges' film of the same name, which in turn is a remake of Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. The plot and formula is as vintage as it gets: it hearkens back to the dark history of western colonialism where pillaging, stealing and killing is at its peak. Corrupt industrialist Bartholomew Bogue (Peter Sarsgaard) along with his immigrant crew lays siege to the mining town of Rose Creek, and slaughters any local who attempt to stand up against him. "I seek righteousness… but I'll take revenge," a vindictive Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett) asks for the help of warrant officer Sam Chisolm (Denzel Washington) and together, they assemble a ragtag band of outlaws and transform their folks of farmers into fighters.

Seven should not receive any complaints from the "racial diversity council" (if there's such a thing) as minorities here are well-represented reminding Donald Trump that America was once founded upon immigrant spirit. Chisolm as the Seven's leader is a man of color and the rest is a rainbow coalition: pyromaniac/"world's greatest lover" Josh Faraday (Chris Pratt), sharpshooter cleverly named as Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke), grisly tracker Jack Horne (Vincent D'Onofrio), knife-wielding Korean Billy Rocks (Byung-hun Lee), Mexican outlaw Vasquez (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo), and a Comanche warrior who calls himself Red Harvest (Martin Sensmeier). In favor of the big action sequences, the film does a grocery-shopping style of recruitment that character motivations are not properly fleshed out. Most characters get the shorter end of the stick when it comes to development that they remained to be an archetype all throughout: The Guy Who's Good at Knives, The Guy Who's Good at Bow and Arrow, The Mexican Guy, The Bear Who Wears Human Clothes, and so on. The film never really went deep on the psyche of these men – why did they decide to risk their lives over some random town, along with others which they may or may not get along with? The sense of brotherhood does not sell much as well in the rare scenes where they get to talk as a team. Hence, when the film needs to create a sense of loss in the end, there's little impression left.

Much of the character development went to Pratt's character and the actor who employs card tricks at one point, has a contemporary brand of humor to belong in the Western genre. This is basically Star Lord wearing a vest and a revolver. Still, he remains to be the most likable character in the film (though not as close as his role in The Guardians of the Galaxy). In his third collaboration with Fuqua after Training Day and The Equalizer, Washington donning an all-black suit and a bolero hat while sitting on his midnight steed has a commanding screen presence more fitting for this genre. His performance occasionally veers to dull nobility but when his twist is revealed, the character is given a new depth.

Fuqua does not need the trick of quick cuts and shaky cams (see every Jason Bourne movie made), to showcase firepower in broad daylight. Farraday remarks at one point, "I've always wanted to blow something up." This is perhaps Fuqua's directive vision in Seven – it is lock-and-loaded with impressive artillery to ratchet up on the exhibitionist and unceremonious kills done in an uncanny precision. This should make Rambo curl up in a corner. When it comes to its explosive finale, the irony befalls – the noble seven fights for the town's ownership but with all the bombing, stabbing, bow-and-arrow- ing and bullet-spraying done, half of it is reduced to flaming wood chips, there's practically nothing left. This over-extended gunfight can numb the senses and occasionally lose one's geographic bearings, but it is still extremely entertaining.

Expect no glorious road to redemption here like in Django Unchained, clichés are also abound, but Fuqua knows how to stage his crowd-pleasing action scenes, The film is highly aware on what it aspires to be – a wild western ride. By the end of the film, a voice-over declares the following sentiment with such grandeur and pride: "They were… magnificent." Yeah, no. Frankly, this film does not live up to its name but entertaining, fun, or modest would be the more faithful representation to it.

Sully (2016)

"I don't feel like a hero. I'm just a man doing his job."

[8/10 · 17 September 2016]

Suly opens with Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger (Tom Hanks) having a PTSD-induced, 9/11- reminiscent vision of a plane crashing into a Manhattan skyscraper. This is the "what-if" scenario that haunts the titular hero after successfully landing the engine-blown Flight 1549 on the chilly Hudson River, and miraculously saving all 155 souls onboard. As he snaps back into reality, we will soon learn that the "untold story" lies on the aftermath of the averted tragedy. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) starts to investigate and finds results that does not jibe with Sully's estimation: the left engine is still operational and he could have landed the plane on the nearest airport instead of risking passengers' lives with a forced water-landing. "Over 40 years in the air, but in the end I'm going to be judged on 208 seconds," Sully laments and sadly, he's right. Has there been a lapse of judgment on his part? Or could this be NTSB's attempt to use him as a scapegoat against the future lawsuits that will be filed? Director Clint Eastwood may put you into the mind of Sully, yet you won't be able to conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Eastwood turns this feature film into an introspective character study narrated in a contemporary fashion. He feeds his viewers with seamlessly-integrated, piecemeal flashbacks that takes us to the events on that fateful afternoon. He does not take the route of presenting a straightforward inspirational tale but he's more interested on a bigger issue here – man's internal turmoil to redeem himself. As we witnessed in his previous works like American Sniper, this is where he shines best. Still, he remains simple as a filmmaker. The restrained execution of plane crash may not please fans of extravagant tent-pole films but the wave impact brought by the musical scoring and sound editing is impressively realistic and accurate.

Hanks shines as well in this yet again perfectly-tailored role – a brave, diligent and sturdy ordinary American hero facing against insurmountable odds. It's already a cliché thing to say that Tom Hanks is a brilliant actor but what I like about his performance is that it does not scream of: "Look at me! I'm a great actor! Give me an Oscar!" He can be minimal in his acting – during an intense bird-engine collision scene, he stoically yells "Birds." and still, he sells a nuanced depth into the character. The same can be said to the underrated Aaron Eckhart as co-pilot Jeff Skiles, the funny guy who mocks the things that Sully is often too nice to say. He earns the film's final laugh.

Whereas Hanks has weathered rougher storms in his previous travel-disaster films like Apollo 13, Cast Away and Captain Phillips, Sully, however, offers less dramatic weight. We already know by now that everything will turn out fine in the flashbacks so the suspense gets to be partially ruled out. It can also be a bit underwhelming that the closest thing you'll have here for antagonists are the suspicious bureaucrats (Mike O'Malley, Anna Gunn, and Jamey Sheridan) armed with computer simulations that should put Sully's career and pension at risk. The depiction of investigation somehow appears to be exaggerated for the sake of adding tension. The straw villains here will probably have more social relevance when they are viewed as Eastwood's take on modern cynicism: that even the noblest of men can still be subjected to harsh scrutiny.

Just when Sully is on the verge of becoming a saccharine adulation to its hero, Sully gives credit where credit is due, "I don't feel like a hero. I'm just a man doing his job." He's right. This is not only the story of a man saving 155 souls but this is the story of a whole community coming together in the midst of tragedy – his co-pilot, the passengers, the flight attendants, the radio operator, the ferry boat captain, the coast guards and even the bit- players, no matter how thinly-sketched as they may be. Eastwood may not succeed in offering much meat for those who are expecting of a shocking conspiracy, but the fact that he's been able to effectively deliver the human element from a 208-second incident in such a short run- time is praise-worthy enough.

Full review: http://www.filmpolicereviews.com/reviews/sully

Mechanic: Resurrection (2016)

Should not disappoint Statham fans, but it badly needs a plot overhaul

[6/10 · 12 September 2016]

Watching this film without having seen the trailer made me ask these following questions: Is this the film where Statham is a no-questions-asked transporter of precarious things? Or maybe this is the crazy Statham film where he needs to constantly keep his adrenaline flowing either by getting into fights or electrocuting himself? How about that Statham movie where he stars along with a bunch of washed-up 90's action stars? As I sit in the theater, deliberating which premise I should hold on to before the movie starts (a film titled Mechanic: Resurrection definitely sounds like a sequel), a realization struck in my mind: Maybe, I keep getting confused which Statham film is which because Jason Statham is a typecast actor who ALMOST plays the SAME character EVERY movie.

Of course, there are a few exceptions to this, like last year's Spy, where Statham shows his comedic quips. However, with the excessive amounts of killshots here in Resurrection, he steps back again into being a relentless killing machine. Then again, this film won't fare better without him – he's mostly better than most of the films he's in, no matter how stereotypical his character can be. He may not be have a vast emotional range but his brute finesse along with his cockney accent warrants credibility to the anti-hero roles that he usually play. Still, one actor can only do so much.

To answer my question earlier, apparently, this is the Statham movie where he plays Arthur Bishop, an assassin who terminates his targets in a way that it will look like an accident. (Don't bother remembering the first film, this one feels like a stand-alone.) In here, the retired mercenary is blackmailed into killing three elusive criminals by some generic villain named Crain (Sam Hazeldine). If he fails to do so, the bad guys are going to kill his girlfriend, Gina (Jessica Alba), a woman that he basically met several hours ago. The two bonded over a Thai song and next thing, they hook up, they're in love and they're willing to die for each other – that level of cringe-worthiness. Neither does flaunting Statham's and Alba's beach bods help in pleading an appeal to their chemistry. If you don't buy the feeble romance subplot, the rest of the action that follows will have no drive at all.

What's shocking is, despite all the globe-trotting this film has to offer (Brazil, Thailand, Malaysia, Australia and Bulgaria), Resurrection still comes out as flat. Director Dennis Gansel clearly tries to outdo bigger tent-pole action films like James Bond, Jason Bourne or Mission Impossible with all the over-the-top action sequences but plot-wise, it won't even match by an inch. Even the direction and cinematography look as uninspired as its screenplay. I enjoyed, however, a showstopper Ghost Protocol-inspired scene where Bishop flushes out a man from a high-rise pool. Apart from that, it will be hard to suspend disbelief in all of the far-fetched tricks. Especially in the film's opening sequence where Bishop smoothly jumps from a cable car to a flying paraglider. As if it's as simple as playing hopscotch.

Mechanic: Resurrection should not disappoint Statham fans and I will still put this in my bin of guilty pleasure mindless action films, only to re-watch if I have nothing better to do. If only the film had a flash of ingenuity, this could have turned out different. Otherwise, if you want this to be both high on adrenaline and intellect, send it to a screenplay mechanic for it badly needs a plot overhaul.

Full review: http://www.filmpolicereviews.com/reviews/mechanic-resurrection

Train to Busan (2016)

The buzz for this film is totally worth it.

[8/10 · 8 September 2016]

Nothing turns me off more than when zombie films gradually derail from character development and fall into the trap of gorefests and amusement killing just for the sake of it. Train to Busan, however, restores my faith in the sub-genre as director Yeon Sang-ho does not treat his characters as mere cannon fodder. Each character arc is well-contemplated, the established relationships may not be equally potent with each other, but for a film to wrestle with so many of them while successfully maintaining the edge-of-the-seat tension, the result is quite brilliant.

We can see positive character growth in the main protagonist, Seok- wu (Gong Yoo), a divorced, workaholic fund manager/"corporate bloodsucker" who consistently neglects his daughter Su-an (Kim Su-an). We get to know that he's not exactly father-of-the-year material, he buys his kid a Nintendo Wii for her birthday oblivious to the fact that he already one to her earlier the same year. He reprimands her daughter's misplaced kindness during the zombie invasion, "In times like this, you have to think for yourself first." Few scenes later, the girl says to him, "You only think about yourself. That's why mommy left." Boy, he just got "re-educated" This kid is going to be her dad's moral compass throughout their eventful ride to Busan.

Busan also includes a group of archetypal commuters to make this horrendous experience relatable to a wider audience: a pregnant woman (Jung Yu-mi) who's heavily relying on her brawny husband (Ma Dong-Seok), a pair of elderly sisters (Ye Soo-jung and Park Myung- sin), a pair of high-school sweethearts (Choi Woo-sik and Ahn So-hee) and a stern-looking businessman (Kim Eui-sung). The last person to hop in, however, is a girl with a strange bite on her thigh. We know where this heads now but the train crew seems to be more alarmed at the presence of a homeless man (Choi Gwi-hwa) hiding inside the washroom. Alas, once the infected girl rips the throat of her first victim and the zombies start to chomp and multiply (Hold the door! Hold the door! Hodor!!!), the film starts to categorize its characters: the selfless and the self- serving. These zombies may be the film's antagonist but there is a much more unsettling beast at the face of damnation: society quickly adepts to a new set of morals. Earning his spot as one of the most hated cowards in history, Eui-Sung's businessman character is the epitome of greed in this film. As he literally flings his fellow survivors to the undead for the sake of self-preservation, the point is clearly made that this is a dog-eat-dog world, whether it is the apocalypse or not.

Whereas its obvious competitor World War Z shows a city-wide scale of apocalypse, Busan proves that confining it to a smaller scale is not a hindrance to deliver well-choreographed and jolt- inducing action sequences. Needless to say, my favorite part of this film is when the three male characters start to navigate their way through the carriages, each station proving to be more difficult than the last one. It certainly helps to know that these morphine-driven, break- dancing zombies have a flaw to them: they can only see or hear but they can't smell… and they're also not taught how to open doors. Once those rules are established, director Sang-Ho levels the playing field by turning tunnel drives into game cheats, washrooms into sanctuaries and luggage compartments into unlikely safe passages.

Train to Busan may not reinvent the zombie sub-genre per se but director Yeon Sang-Ho has a clever use of technique for this film to work both as a grisly form of entertainment and as a potent social allegory as well. For that, he solidifies his spot as a go-to- director when it comes to zombie films. The buzz for this film is totally worth it.

Ignatius of Loyola (2016)

Sets the world on fire

[7 September 2016]

The most earnest moment in Ignacio De Loyola comes from a scene where the eponymous saint asks a prostitute to visualize God sat on an empty chair and think of the things that He would say to her. She replies with:, "He doesn't care who I was or where I've been, He only cares where I'm going." And in those words, the essence of the film is captured – no one is too far gone in God's eyes. Just like a sword forged in fire, St. Ignatius is hammered with blows of misfortunes that disguise as a trajectory towards his greatest achievement – The Society of Jesus (Jesuits). Paolo Dy's Ignacio De Loyola humanizes a saint's life beyond a piece of a holy statue. It works as an invitation to examine oneself, a challenge to "set the world on fire" with God's fervor.

Born into a regal and wealthy family, Iñigo López de Loyola (Andreas Muñoz) is a proud Spanish knight who draws chief delight in his military profession, a young man who pursuits a life of fame and vanity. Instead of earning his desire for a hero's death during a battle in Pamplona, he ends up crippled when a French cannonball shatters his right leg. Boredom and frustration starts to seep through his soul in a way pain does to one's body so he forces himself to read the books he has at hand: The Life of the Christ and The Lives of the Saints. After a spiritual calling compels him to live a life bound by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, he is faced with allegations of blasphemy, and plagued by his inner demons, which he has to conquest as he tries to listen to the voice of God.

Dy and his wife Cathy Azanza's script exudes some flashes of brilliant poetry. It even surprises with a handful moments of humor and some lines which I hope are inspired by Sun Tzu's Art of War. (one of which is "If your enemy is angry, then you have already won.") However, it has the tendency to oversell its message that at times the dialogues seem to be mere discussions of theology. The excessive third person narrations are also occasionally distracting. Narrations like "Iñigo dons his new armor, he opens the door…" assumes that the audience is blind to acknowledge what is happening on-screen. It is squandering Muñoz, who is already an excellent actor, for the script to spell out his every single emotion.

While it is a smart choice to focus on a certain phase in Iñigo's life – his conversion from being a sinner to a saint – the film is yearning for a more solid story. The first half has a slow pace and you can tell it as the days are evidently passing by. As the story trudges along Iñigo's early life as a soldier, his conversion, his Spiritual Exercises and his encounter with The Inquisition, the plot structure suddenly looks strange when it gets to the blood-curling climax which actually happens on a flashback (or is it a dream sequence? I'm confused up till now). The story doesn't really need to be that linear, however, the over-reliance on flashbacks breaks the emotional momentum when it gets back to the present.

While Dy's efforts to handle such a gargantuan religious biopic occasionally fall apart, Ignacio De Loyola manages to deliver its greatest gift to its audience – the deep understanding for discernment. Our souls are continually drawn into two directions: towards goodness and towards sinfulness but if we peel away the many layers of our desires, fears and ambitions, we'll find God there. Hence, every word and every action should be done for His greater glory. The analogy of the Ignatian spirituality and watching a movie is really not that hard to follow. In the cinemas, you will be faced to choose between the two: a mainstream film or a religious film full of philosophical and theological substance.

Full review: http://www.filmpolicereviews.com/reviews/ignacio-de- loyola

The Secret Life of Pets (2016)

A Toy Story for Pets

[6/10 · 7 September 2016]

A Toy Story for pets. There, I've gotten it out of the way – the classic Disney film that every critic will mention in reviewing Yarrow Cheney's and Chris Renaud's The Secret Life of Pets. Perhaps cracking early the plot resemblance spoiled my high hopes for this film. We have two rival dogs vying for pet owner Katie's attention, a Jack Russell terrier Max (Louis C.K.) and a huge shaggy mongrel Duke (Eric Stonestreet) – the Andy, Woody and Buzz Lightyear in this version. The clash of these two mismatched dogs leads them at the mercy of 'The Flushed Pets', a gang of sewer-dwelling, human-hating animals led by a fluffy sociopath bunny Snowball (Kevin Hart) – yet again similar to Toy Story 3's group of road-abandoned toys led by Lotso bear. Max's disappearance sets his cutesy neighbor toys, I mean, pets to go for an adventure all over New York City in the hopes of finding him. The Secret Life of Pets just aims to be a fun, harmless, kiddie movie and it easily achieves that goal. Standing next to Toy Story, however, this appears to be the less remarkable model.

The first trailer of this film went viral before and it promised something different: the simple proclivities in the life of domesticated animals – an obese tabby cat raids the remaining contents of a fridge, a dachshund uses an electric mixer to give himself a back massage, a seemingly innocent poodle head-bangs to System of a Down, and so on. These scenes may be smaller in scope but it generates more excitement. To my surprise, the teaser trailer is actually what transpires in the first ten minutes. When the film starts to send the pets to the metropolis, only to follow a highly- derivative story- line, I would rather have them stay inside the house and continue their silly lifestyles.

Sure enough, the plot rip-off from multiple films (aside from Toy Story, I also got vibes of Stuart Little 2, Babe: Pig in the City and even Fight Club at some point) results to a disjointed film. The friendship between Max and Duke is hastily built around a dream sequence of dancing wieners or what could have been an unintended and subtle promotion to the upcoming Sausage Party. The half-heart attempt for Duke's character development goes nowhere in favor of a crazy car chase. (I'm getting tired of animals knowing how to drive cars at their first try. It only works in the Looney Tunes universe.)

The Secret Life of Pets remains to have a high-appeal for children and avid pet-lovers, but it's lacking the big underlying social allegory that only adults can get. The viewing experience is tantamount to watching cat videos – it's a healthy dose of distraction but it also leaves no recollection of substantive material. Sadly, this is not the secret life that I was expecting of.

Full review: http://goo.gl/lEPZmN

Ben-Hur (2016)

Jesus please resurrect this film

[8/10 · 3 September 2016]

Concept-wise, this strangely-refreshing interweave of Ben-Hur's story to Jesus' life has the potential to work out just fine. Director Timur Bekmambetov acknowledges the pressure of living up to the 1959 Academy-Award winning classic by starting the film with a flash- forward of the iconic chariot scene, hinting us on the blood sport to come. From there, I perceive that Ben-Hur wants to be a serviceable Hollywood remake. When it gets to the point when the main storyline nears to an end, it suddenly unwraps its true agenda: Ben-Hur wants to preach. There's nothing wrong with that. I personally prefer films with message, no matter how overt they can be at times. But it's drastic and disappointing end, makes the religious theme feel shoe-horned. Ben- Hur takes a while to get its proper footing and when it does, it picks up the pace in an increasing momentum only to stumble upon reaching the finish line.

To be fair, I bought the brotherhood love and the political difference that caused the gash between Judah Ben-Hur (Jack Huston) and his adopted Roman brother Messala (Toby Kebbell). Judah's arc is a quest for vengeance. Falsely accused of treason by his own step-bother, the Jewish prince returns from his five-year exile to challenge Messala in a sport where killing is allowed and vengeance can be coated with grandeur – the chariot racing. On the other hand, Messala is not a single note evil character. He betrays his foster family because of his loyalty to Governor Pontius Pilate (Philip Asbaek) and his desire to earn his own name. These are fully- fleshed characters and both actors are committed to their roles (they sometimes even make up for the weak dialogue). Hence, the story of brothers turning back against each other is already a strong material.

However, it's difficult to say that removing the Jesus subplot will make this film better and more focused. Will Ben-Hur still be Ben- Hur without Christ on it? I don't think so. I actually didn't mind that Jesus's role here is more of a phantom figure – Jesus (Rodrigo Santoro) crosses Judah's path a few times to spout some biblical passages and enact moments from the Gospel. This is no secret so don't go berserk on me: In the film, Jesus gets crucified on the cross. From there, it is revealed that His significance to Judah's story is to quench him from his thirst for revenge and turn this tale of suffering into a tale of forgiveness. Am I supposed to feel awed in witnessing a mini-remake of Passion of the Christ or am I supposed to feel awed because Judah's "healing" feels earned? It fails to convince on a plot-perspective. The resolution between Judah and Mesalla is even harder to swallow. The last minute change of heart or say, "miracle" here happens in a snap of a finger. Ben… huh?

Ben-Hur certainly boasts its climatic and violent chariot race scene but I would say that I'm particularly more impressed with the galley scene. This event which transpires for five years is deftly- condensed within minutes without sacrificing any dramatic tension. The transformation of a wide-eyed prince into a weathered and experienced slave is one of the pivotal moments for Judah. Enter a sea skirmish and we see fire arrows shot and oil tars dripping, then down to the moment when Judah and the slaves are dragged underwater shackled to each other. That, I believe, is an excellently-directed scene.

Ben-Hur is not entirely a bad film. I am appalled by some of the critic reviews that I read online, calling this movie "soulless" and "empty" when clearly it is not. There's vengeance, hope, despair, resilience, forgiveness, humility, etc. The fault of Ben-Hur lies on its misguided ambitions which led to its terrible ending. It's unfortunate that this movie flopped big time on the box-office, despite its strong appeal for Christian movie-goers. Maybe Jesus can resurrect this picture with immense DVD sales around Christmas and Easter season for the years to come.

Full review: http://www.filmpolicereviews.com/reviews/ben-hur

The BFG (2016)

A whizzpopper it is!

[8/10 · 31 August 2016]

The odd sight of BFG's "frobscottle" – a green fizzy drink where the bubbles go down instead of up, speaks to the tonal dissonance that normally shouldn't work in this feature film. From the get go, The BFG begins like a classic, possibly dark, tale set in the cobbled streets of a 19th century London. Around the "witching hour", an insomniac orphan named Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) is snatched from her bedroom by a scraggly-looking giant (Mark Rylance in motion capture) and takes her to the Giant Country. Director Steven Spielberg's then subtly builds up from the photo-realistic "dream tree" sequence to author Roald Dahl's otherwise, abrupt and wacky setting change – a modern-day Buckingham Palace where BFG consumes his royal breakfast at peace while the Queen of England (Penelope Wilton), her generals and pet corgis fart green clouds in satisfaction. Is this the same film that I walked into? The BFG will probably be best remembered for its short moments of silliness yet that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Spielberg devotes the film's first hour in introducing us to Giant Country – its Hobbit-ish surroundings, glowing orbs and all to keep us visually entertained. For a while, the magic slowly starts to run thin and I was worried if The BFG will wake up from its frolic dream state and start working on its plot. Not to say that the singular performances from its leads are nothing short of spectacular, but this is the type of children's film where its plot offers no serious stakes and any sense of danger can be dismissed as a mild threat. The oohh-so-scary "cannybulls" which go by names Fleshlumpeater, Bloodbottler, Gizzardgulper, Childchewer, etc. are portrayed as merely comical dumb bullies weak enough to sustain the third act's liftoff. Sure enough, the film's straightforward and childish resolution involving the military will only sell to a bunch of eight-year olds. Spielberg choose to shy away from the potential grotesquerie in Dahl's fictional world and makes this film more harmless. Hence, if you're looking for that needed sense of adventure, The BFG can be a bit lackluster.

Still, Spielberg's childlike sense of wonder and emotionally honest storytelling allows him to transform into a dream catcher. The BFG, as a bottled piece of a captured dream unmistakably radiates with the classic Spielbergian magic that we've all come to know and love. The unlikely bond between a young girl and a giant transcends to the mature themes of finding friendship amidst loneliness and learning to stand up for yourself. It may not earn the timeless, universal appeal of the closest Spielberg classic that comes to mind (E.T.) but this frothbuggling (i.e., silly in Gobblefunk) tale gets the warm and fuzzies going. A whizzpopper it is!

Jason Bourne (I) (2016)

Strong force of motion with hollow emotional connection

[5/10 · 21 August 2016]

Matt Damon has said in his previous interview, "We have ridden that horse as far as we can. So, if there's going to be another one, then it would have to be a complete reconfiguration." Hence, upon seeing Jason Bourne and realizing that there's no story here that director-writer Paul Greengrass has been dying to tell, I'm going to assume that Damon broke his vow. Jason Bourne could have been an easy a front-runner to this year's best action films, however, the exploitation of the hero's murky past as a thriller gold mine reminds us how exhausting this franchise could be. And that's coming from someone who liked the first three films.

The film opens with amnesiac assassin Jason Bourne's (Matt Damon) voice in the background, "I remember. I remember everything," he says. Well, apparently, he does not. Living off-the-grid for roughly a decade now, Bourne is brought back to the manhunt when his former colleague/Treadstone operative Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles) hacks the CIA database and incidentally discovers something intriguing in Bourne's past. Believing that Parsons is an accomplice of Bourne, cyber-ops division head Heather Lee (Alicia Vikander) traces the security breach and brings the issue to the attention of CIA director Robert Dewey (Tommy Lee Jones), who orders the retrieval of the confidential black-ops files and for Bourne's death as well. Pursued by a relentless hit-man referred to as "The Asset" (Vincent Cassel), Bourne must yet again find the missing piece of his psychological puzzle all while trying to outwit the CIA.

Perhaps the biggest mistake of this sequel begun when Greengrass and editor Christopher Rouse decided to co-pen the script as it is evidently clear here that the uninspired plot is constructed to cater the lavish action set pieces instead of the other way around. Confused Bourne is surrounded by exceedingly familiar scenarios derivative from its predecessors: CIA officers barking orders in surveillance tech rooms, clandestine meetings in crowded places, high-speed car chases, fist-fights, and tons of Hollywood-level property damage. At one point, in an attempt to outdo the Fast and Furious franchise, a hijacked SWAT truck effortlessly rampages like a bowling ball through a line of civilian vehicles. Not to mention another scene where Bourne knocks off a hulking bruiser with just a single punch, this franchise starts to lose control, even to the point of defying the laws of physics.

Neither does the nauseating cinematography help in making this film to be consistently appealing. Greengrass subjects his viewers into the heart of the chaos by zooming in and out on shaky action sequences a-la-documentary style but the thing is, he doesn't know when to stop and he doesn't really seem to empathize for his audience at all. Combined with Rouse's two-seconds per frame editing which passes as cheat-codes, this vertigo-inducing end product undercuts rather than serves its real purpose.

To his credit, Damon remains to be a solid movie star even if he's operating on a weaker material. The man on action may not speak that much (he reportedly had only 25 lines), but when he does, he makes the most of it. Bourne is much buffer and tougher here, however, a less interesting character compared to those of, say, Die Hard or Taken where the protagonists have at least someone to fight for. Consequently, emotional pull strings are harder to sell for the lone-ranger Jason Bourne. The film even squanders its remaining shred of emotional investment by reducing Stiles' reprising character to a plot device in favor of a rising female star. Oscar- winner Vikander does her best in portraying a steely-eyed and cunning CIA specialist but standing next to Jones' world-weary and cold persona, it's blatantly clear here that she's miscast for she's too young to play a role similar to Joan Allen's in Supremacy and Ultimatum.

The film also tries to be socially relevant by poking on the issues of public safety and personal privacy through the introduction of a social media platform called the "Deep Dream" but such concept never really came into life. Perhaps this half-heart attempt can be said the same to the fake propulsion that's happening in Jason Bourne – it's a strong force of motion but with a hollow emotional connection. Whatever joy you initially feel upon seeing Jason Bourne again on-screen is spoiled by the realization that this sequel offers little motivation to explore the titular hero. Yet again, if soulless, non-stop action is your thing, then welcome to paradise.

Full review: http://www.filmpolicereviews.com/reviews/jason-bourne

Ghostbusters: Answer the Call (2016)

Gags, guns, ghosts, girl power

[8/10 · 2 August 2016]

Upon release of the allegedly "lousy" trailer of Paul Feig's gender- bender reboot of the 1984 classic, Ghostbusters, netizens immediately imagined numerous ways how it could go wrong. Sure enough, this controversy is addressed during the film with a misogynistic, break-the-fourth-wall YouTube comment to a ghost footage, "Ain't no bitches gonna hunt no ghosts." Perhaps, this where the reboot shines best – it is unapologetically confident and goofy at the same time. Ghostbusters gets the business done by strapping on a proton pack and carefully aiming at its themes – gags, guns, ghosts and girl power.

One step away from earning her tenure, physics professor Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) is dragged back to the world of paranormal investigation when her friend Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) and an eccentric engineer, Jillian Holtzmann (Kate Mckinnon), coerced her to accompany them into a historic New York mansion believed to be haunted with ghosts. As the group witness and upload online a malevolent ghost attack, enthusiastic transit worker Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones) signs up for action and even provides a vehicle for their adventures – her uncle's hearse, soon refashioned to Ecto-1. Also enlisted as the group's secretary is the unbelievably stupid Kevin (Chris Hemsworth) who is hired mainly due to his physicality made of "pure muscle and baby-soft skin." (as Erin points out). One thing leads to another and "The Conductors of Metaphysical Examination" opens in business with the mission to capture ghosts using proton packs and an array of unstable-looking equipment. It doesn't take a while before the media starts dubbing them as the "Ghostbusters."

If there's something wrong with this movie, it's definitely not the four perfectly-cast female leads. They are in fact the film's greatest strength. Wiig's underplayed style of comedy may be outshined by other casts but she's also allowed by the script to occasionally lose control. I'm pointing out to a hilarious scene when she hysterically warns people to evacuate the city while being dragged by a couple of security guards. McCarthy may be more restrained here compared to her role in Spy and Bridesmaids, but she still manages to be sharp and snappy especially in picking fights with her delivery boy over the number of wantons in her soup. Jones' loudness never comes as annoying to me. Her reaction when a gremlin/dragon (or whatever that thing is, does that qualify as a ghost?) perches on her shoulders is one of the film's best moments. Special commendation to Hemsworth for taking on a role that does not rely mainly in the looks department but also one that requires comedic chops to pull off. His character though is just too stupid to be real: He hangs up the phone whenever he's overloaded with info and stops to grab a sandwich amidst an action-packed fight. The real MVP, however, is McKinnon. She could be babbling instructions how to operate gadgets or just there in the background munching Pringles ("Try saying no to these salty parabolas.") still she constantly steals scenes with her punk swagger.

Ghostbusters is a seminal classic that requires to be approached with care and consideration. Director Feig's challenge here is not to capitalize mainly on nostalgia but also to add something refreshing to the franchise. Feig does an excellent job in casting and introducing more ghost-busting gadgets but the script itself (co-written with Katie Dippold) could have use more ingenuity. By the third act, the comedy is slightly trampled by the gorgeous and glowing CGIs that the film obviously laid most of its budget for. I generally enjoyed more the first half a.k.a. getting to know the ghostbusters part. When it comes to paying homage, this reboot certainly does not forget and includes copious amounts of cameos from the original cast (eight, if I'm accurate) most of which, however, fall flat. Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, Slimer and this time, her female counterpart is also present in this film – these are the moments when the movie stops to wink at its established fan base. I just hoped that Feig has more confidence in his current cast than being too subversive to its predecessor. Smart choice, however, on using more of the original "Ghostbusters" theme sung by Ray Parker, Jr. rather than Fall Out Boy's version (The former is way better and that, I can agree with the majority.)

Purists who believe that Hollywood is doomed to the endless stream of recycling old films will still be hard-pressed to care about this reincarnation, or will even metaphorically spout torrents of ectoplasmic green slime after seeing it. Still, this is Feig's so far most visually engaging film. Did I laugh? A lot of times, actually. This is worth watching for the four female leads alone and for that, it is safe to say that this reboot of Ghostbusters successfully passes the torch to a new generation. This is no masterpiece but it's a solid piece of summer entertainment.

"Bustin' makes me feel good!"

Full review: http://www.filmpolicereviews.com/reviews/ghostbusters

Eye in the Sky (2015)

The true war is not in the battlefield, it is in the conference room.

[10/10 · 2 August 2016]

How many calls does it take to release a single hellfire missile? How many approvals does it take to sanction the potential death of an innocent in order to kill high-profile terrorists and therefore prevent a terrorist attack from happening? For an average citizen, all these logistics seem to be a straightforward "due process." Eye in the Sky, however, tells that it is never simple. It is a meticulous decision making done by military personnel and government, all of whom having their own moral and political ideologies. Director Gavin Hood (Ender's Game, Tsotsi) and screenwriter Guy Hibbert offers no easy choices here. Eye in the Sky is a highly compelling thriller film that opens doors for conversation the moment you leave the theaters.

Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) commands an operation tasked with capturing a group of high-level Al-Shabaab extremists meeting in a safe house in Nairobi, Kenya. When Powell's team discovers the terrorists prepping suicide vests inside the compound, she decides to change the mission objective from "capture" to "kill". However, such revision in the "rules of the engagement" requires approval from several officials across the globe. Circumstances further escalate when a native young girl (Aisha Takow) enters the blast radius. Meanwhile, drone pilot Steve Watts (Aaron Paul), along with his partner Carrie (Phoebe Fox), shoulder the burden of clicking the trigger and unleashing the hellfire missile. In this time-sensitive political buck passing, everyone has a chance to play god and decide the fate of others'. No matter what decision they choose, one thing is for sure: there will be ramifications and no one will leave emotionally unscathed.

Eye in The Sky builds its momentum in an excellent pace. Although the characters are in different locations, the use of phone and conference calls make them appear as though, they are all in the same room. As the philosophical ping-pong ensues, this film removes any bias and empathizes on each key player. Helen Mirren's steely- eyed character embodies a methodical conviction that is clearly not driven by blind militarism. Her presence alone elevates this film. Alan Rickman, in his final on-screen performance (that alone should persuade you to see this), plays a veteran who has experienced war both as a general and as a soldier. In his controlled, dry voice, he delivers the film's most memorable quote, "Never tell a soldier that he does not know the cost of war." Aaron Paul may be confined sitting in his quarters for most parts, but he effectively displays anxiety (similar to his role in Breaking Bad) that you can feel the internal turmoil going on in his head. This film also proves to be gripping on a ground level with the tense action scenes courtesy of Barkhad Abdi (last seen as a ship hijacker in Captain Phillips) playing a Kenyan operative who controls the black beetle drone – the film's "eye in the sky".

So much is going on in this film beyond the moral case of "sacrificing an innocent's life for the greater good." Before it jumps to the "acceptable" collateral damage, the characters debate on the legal and political facets of the situation: Do we have the legal right of killing terrorists by drones and depriving them of the due process? Supposing that the innocent girl dies and a footage ends up on YouTube, who wins the propaganda war? Making such a calculated risk requires that lawyers agree on the legality of the "strike" and for politicians to step in to see how it will play in the media. Frankly, there are no right and wrong answers, only points and counterpoints.

Eye in the Sky could have delivered more emotional impact if it delved more in its characters on a personal note. Still, it is impossible to come out of this film without your soul shattered in some way. The film ends with the line "Get some sleep. See you in 12 hours." These characters may be able to get back to safety of their homes but guilt and sorrow will follow them wherever they go. Eye in the Sky proves that waging a war from the comforts of your chair is no easier than fighting on the ground. The true war is not in the battlefield, it is in the conference room.

Full review: http://www.filmpolicereviews.com/reviews/eye-in-the-sky

Dukot (2016)

Squandered opportunity to dissect moral ambiguities

[6/10 · 23 July 2016]

In a society where crime has inevitably become a way of life, director Paul Soriano (Kid Kulafu; Thelma) presents his latest film, Dukot, as a peephole into the traumas of abduction. The film delves into the psyches of both victims and perpetrators to show that evil persists in all social classes. Though Dukot can do more with dissecting its moral ambiguities, it makes it so at the expense of advocacy squandered.

Based on true events, Dukot centers on the kidnapping of Carlo (Enrique Gil), the son of a corrupt customs official, Charlie Sandoval (Ricky Davao). With both families of the captors and the captive in the throes of compromising their moralities, will the unforeseen tragedy cost Carlo's life?

The film's story, although typical, is a welcome addition to the local crime-thriller genre – with its excellent direction and cinematography. The aerial shots, obscure perspectives, and pulsating score effectively fill the air with dread and tension– Dukot is doubtless a technically well-crafted film.

Dukot is anchored by earnest portrayals from its cast. Enrique Gil wears a face glum with mental and emotional anguish. (At one point, he gets beaten up, and we guys get to relish that moment when we all look better than him. Ha!). Being silent for most of the film, his role demands more skill and nuance, which the young thesp ably delivers. Ricky Davao's two-faced character of both a model father and a corrupt government official may not be fully utilized by the plot, but he plays a huge part when it comes to reflecting the viewers' fright. Playing the role of Carlo's sister Cathy, Shaina Magdayao showcases the most range of emotions of guilt, fear and courage. Ping and Alex Medina's menacing delinquents ground the film on reality yet they keep from the pratfalls of becoming one-sided villains. Christopher De Leon strays away from his brash stereotype, and this time embodies a subdued sinister to his character.

This film heavily invests on the parallelism between the two contrasting households: the captors' and Carlos'. In one scene, Carlo witnesses a birthday party of one of his captor's family member, which makes him long the familial love he has been receiving but has taken for granted. The film also establishes a similarity in the characters played by Ricky Davao, Christopher De Leon and Ping Medina, despite their varying moral codes–that even a corrupt government official or a ruthless hostage can be steadfast fathers who will go beyond unimaginable lengths for their family's welfare. While Dukot raises interesting questions about what makes a good father and whether a good motive justifies a heinous act, it fails to offer any solid answer.

The subject of corruption is also put forward, even showing flashbacks of under-the-table transactions which are explicitly directed towards the "untouchable padrinos" in government. At that point, the film seems to concoct a connection between the abduction and the prevalent corruption, but this idea is completely dropped by the third act. Although a direct connection is not necessary for the film to make sense, the disappointing resolution falls short of delivering the social allegory it is trying to build. Moreover, some scenes proved irrelevant rather than beneficial. In one scene, Carlo sneaks in an official receipt which indicates his current location. In another, he tries to lure a deaf girl with paper planes to aid his escape. But none of those ruses really pay off. The movie opens with a grainy footage of an ATM attack, but it is never mentioned again. In the end, all of these half-baked elements, which were intended to add juice to the story, ends up feeling like afterthoughts that were squeezed in to elevate a thinly scoped plot.

Dukot can be commended on injecting fresh ideas into the local mainstream industry, and it shows Soriano's maturity in his craft. However, the script lacks the guts to deliver a story as dark and gritty as its visuals. Dukot holds back on depicting hostility and violence that could have rendered audiences more upset and unsettled about today's reality the moment they exit theaters.

http://www.filmpolicereviews.com/reviews/dukot

Ice Age: Collision Course (2016)

I would rather see a Scrat spin-off movie than having another Ice Age sequel

[4/10 · 19 July 2016]

The Ice Age franchise, now roughly 15 years old, started with the journey of Manny, Sid and Diego rescuing a human infant back in 2002. Since then, these mammals have been subjected to a meltdown, a dinosaur invasion, and a continental drift. By then, you'd think it'd be best for the gang to resume their peaceful off-screen lives until their extinction, but no, Blue Sky Studios draws one last breath from its cash-cow franchise. Tagged as the fifth and "defining" chapter of the series, Ice Age: Collision Course, sadly, unlike good wine, does not age well. What was fun a decade ago is now quickly losing its appeal. While kids will still probably enjoy this, not everyone buys that mediocrity can be casually brushed off because it is intended for kids.

Collision Course kicks off with a Scrat prologue, an extended cut of the short film, "Cosmic Scrat-tastrophe", released last year. The saber-toothed squirrel inadvertently starts a spaceship with his acorn, catapults himself to space and radically arranges the Milky Way in the process. This chain of cosmic events also sends a huge asteroid to earth. Down below, Manny (Ray Romano), Sid (John Leguizamo) and Diego (Denis Leary) must face this disaster while dealing with their own midlife problems. Meanwhile, Buck (Simon Pegg), who appeared in Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, returns and claims to know how to divert the huge asteroid away from earth. Joined by their family and friends, our mammal heroes embark on a perilous path to save the world from an impending meteor shower. Will this mark the end of the Ice age? One certainly hopes so.

This sequel follows the same set-up as the previous films: a global catastrophe looms, but the characters are too preoccupied with their respective dramas that the gravity of the situation doesn't really stick. As if taken straight from a sitcom, Manny and his wife Ellie (Queen Latifah) are troubled because their daughter Peaches (Keke Palmer) wants to move out with his annoyingly upbeat fiancé Julian (Adam Devine). Diego and his girlfriend Kira (Jennifer Lopez) are having some pre-parenthood issues. And Sid, well, Sid is just there, being pathetic, until they throw him a girlfriend.

If there is one thing that has continually progressed in this franchise, it is the animation, which is, however, pretty much a given nowadays.

Of course, Scrat and his Sisyphean quest for that elusive acorn remain to be the only selling point for me. For 15 years, I have been bewildered why he just won't eat that damn acorn already. Blue Sky Studios should have made a spin-off about his character rather than put out this sequel. If you've reached the point when you would rather watch a silent comedy for hours rather than invest in the main story, something is clearly wrong with the script.

Ice Age: Collision Course fails to reinvent itself to sustain genuine excitement even from its loyal fanbase. With the number of characters jammed in this sequel, not much time is spent on exploring more important themes. Save for some Looney Tunes-esque sideshows, the storyline is running out of steam and is definitely not close to the quality of Pixar films. The harsh cold truth is this: the Ice Age franchise has run its course and exhausted its options, ultimately freezing itself from the hot stuff it once was.

Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016)

It's like attending a fancy tea party wherein fact you are expecting for a heavy sumptuous lunch.

[6/10 · 11 July 2016]

Alice (Mia Wasikowska), now a buccaneering ship captain, is summoned by Absolem (voiced by the late Alan Rickman, RIP Professor Snape) back to the whimsical world of Wonderland to cheer up the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) who is apparently dying from a broken heart since none of his friends believe that his presumably dead family might still be alive. With the Hatter being her "truest friend", Alice decides to agree with the White Queen's (Anne Hathaway) "unpossible" plan to go back in time to the day the Jabberwocky attacked to save Hatter's family from being killed. Doing this requires Alice to borrow (or steal if the former does not work) the Chronosphere, a gold orb that is in the possession of Time (Sacha Baron Cohen), the human clock of Wonderland. The said orb transforms into a vehicle that will allow Alice to traverse the oceans of time. Not heeding Time's warning that, "You can't change your past, but you can only learn from it," Alice will soon realize that her rash actions impose danger to the existence of Wonderland.

When a sequel uses time-travel as its gimmick, one can get the impression that a franchise may be starting to run out of ideas. What's disappointing is that given the wealth of possibilities in Caroll's work, screenwriter Linda Woolverton chooses an antiquated trick that is best left to Back to the Future. I may have only read plot summaries of Caroll's work but that is enough for me to learn that this film is just loosely based on its source material. The only same thing that both happened in the film and the novel is that Alice slips through the liquid surface of a looking glass. Furthermore, it is rather odd to name the film after an object that plays such a small role in the film. For example, Harry Potter films don't end up being titled with, "Harry Potter through the Brick Wall." See how odd it could be? Anyway, believe it or not, this sequel has more structure than the last one. Saving the Hatter's family is clearly the MacGuffin of the story, but what the script asks Alice to do is to be basically a tour guide to the origin stories of the White Queen, the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) and the Mad Hatter. It is more disappointing once you learn that the root of all evil involves a stolen strawberry tart to which the film comes up with a rushed resolution in favor of scenes that add little value to the story. I'm referring to that episode of Alice in the asylum that should be best left in the cutting floor.

If there's anything to be excited for with this film it's that Alice Though the Looking Glass is filled to the brim with Wonderland characters both old and new, from the Cheshire Cat to Humpty Dumpy. Depp, as the Mad Hatter, ceased to be a human being in his films a long time ago, especially here because you barely recognize the actor due to the heavy make-up. And, I'm not exactly sure if that's a compliment. He can't seem to get away from this type of façade to the point that his acting becomes somewhat artificial and calculated. However, as the story forces the Hatter to be sad for most parts of the film, he actually becomes more bearable when subdued. Hathaway, with her matching jazzy fingers, puts on a delicate performance that she almost fades in the background and Bonham Carter's shrieking voice of insanity is a welcome repeat. Sacha Baron Cohen as Time, who happens to have an inscrutable thick German accent, is amusing. Despite being marketed as the villain of this sequel, he is actually more of the good guy here than Alice who is messing with the timelines. Alice, however, has a disappointing characterization. She proves to be an intelligent and a strong leader in the real world but when she gets back to Wonderland, she makes a lot of hasty decisions. Wasikowska is a wonderful actress but sometimes she acts too patronizing as if she's talking to an infant during the entire film.

Much like its predecessor, this film has a lot of visual feasts to offer: lavish and intricate costumes, expensive production sets, dazzling cinematography, etc. However not even sensory overload and the script's occasional fancy wordplay can compensate for an underwhelming story. It attempts to flesh out some messages on loss and acceptance but my emotional engagement stays behind the glass for me to fully grasp it. Watching Alice Through the Looking Glass is like attending a fancy tea party wherein fact you are expecting for a heavy sumptuous lunch – it is far from being a terrible sequel, however, it is by no means a good Disney classic.

Full review: http://www.filmpolicereviews.com/reviews/alice-looking-glass

The Achy Breaky Hearts (2016)

A propaganda to eradicate the stigma associated with single women

[7/10 · 7 July 2016]

Perhaps a popular opinion nowadays is that traditional marriage has partially lost its allure, most especially to an unprecedented portion of millennials. With its concept constantly reshaping over time and across cultures, society is now capable of embracing new ideas on love and sometimes even deposing traditional marriage as its highest ideal. But old beliefs die hard. On the other hand, an unpopular opinion is that society still marks a prescribed marrying age for both sexes. This even takes a harsher toll for single middle-aged women, who are perceived with ticking clocks above their heads and even tagged with derogatory terms such as old maids or spinsters. Antoinette Jadaone's The Achy Breaky Hearts, can be regarded as propaganda to eradicate the stigma associated with single women. That staying single is more than just a social status rather a description of a strong-willed person who does not need to depend on the intimacy from a lover to be happy. Its ultimate message is commendable. The execution, however, is an entirely different aspect.

Jodi Sta. Maria plays Chinggay, a mid-30's single jewelry store manager who is often bombarded with the painfully annoying question, "Kailan ka ba mag-aasawa?" (When are you going to settle down?). She, along with her group of empowered girlfriends/Titas of Manila (or whatever hipsters call them nowadays), initially rationalizes the perks of being single only to end up wallowing in self-pity upon realizing what it really feels like to be with someone. Desperate to get rid of the social pressure, she makes it a goal to find "the one". But as the narrator says, "when it rains, it pours," life suddenly presents her not only one, but two very viable options: a potential love from her customer Ryan (Ian Veneracion) whose recent rejection from a marriage proposal brings them closer together, and a rekindling old flame Frank (Richard Yap), her "scammed investment" in love who claims to be a changed man now. With Chinggay's dormant heart loveless for almost seven years, nothing beats experiencing this level of euphoria again. But love is a gamble, you win some, you lose some. Will she roll the dice with the risk of potentially getting her heart broken again?

Blockbuster hugot director and screenwriter Antoinette Jadaone takes on a relevant social topic – singlehood as a midlife crisis, and blends it well with fan service – #TeamTisoy vs. #TeamChinoy, as they dub it. While the undying elements of Pinoy rom-coms are yet again present such as the protagonist's circle of friends acting as a moral compass and a family subplot that affects the protagonist's beliefs, these are all actually contributory to the plot. Throw some cued love songs and a script that oozes with fun sarcasm and hugot-lines, The Achy Breaky Hearts manages to be emotionally engrossing especially in its first half. However, it struggles to be persuasive up until the end. Chinggay comes down to her realizations but never really owns any of them as the film's resolution is not a direct result of her free will. Moreover, the film speaks more volumes when Chinggay is all by herself. One could wish that the film delved more on the subject of single women struggling to comply with social standards.

Underneath the layer of romance and excitement lies the twinge of reality that love is a wager you place, you tear your heart out and slap it down hard, with the hopes of getting reciprocated. On a closer inspection, this is not only a story of a woman choosing between two men, but also a woman choosing to be happy even in solitude. Do we have to be subversive to societal norms and expectations in shaping our decisions when it comes to love? The film answers with a blatant "No." And despite having the tendency to force-feed the "love yourself" mantra to its audience, The Achy Breaky Hearts supplies the positive energy needed to be categorized as a feel-good movie.

The Legend of Tarzan (2016)

Is that him? I didn't expect it to be that way.

[3 July 2016]

When it comes to recycling yesterday's heroes, one can wonder if there's still a place in contemporary cinema for Edgar Rice Burroughs' century-old, Tarzan. Arguably, the last thing viewers want to see is another exhausting reiteration of his origin story – a pratfall that David Yates (director of the last four Harry Potter films) avoids by liberating Tarzan from a brainless feral child to a socially conscious "modern" Englishman in Warner Bros.' The Legend of Tarzan. Yet, so as to not alienate those who are either born today or lived in a jungle for years, the film wisely uses strategically-placed flashbacks to fill his backstory and at the same time jump right into this re-imagined tale. The concept is admirable, however, these vines of flashbacks alone are not sturdy enough to sustain the swing from classic to modern without dropping its true spirit of adventure in the process.

With the all being "King of the Jungle" monicker now in the past, Alexander Skarsgard plays the new and improved Tarzan or more precisely for this interpretation, John Clayton III, the fifth Earl of Greystoke. John receives and summarily declines an invitation from King Leopold of Belgium to be the emissary in an expedition to the Congo. He is, however, persuaded by an American soldier-turned- humanitarian George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson) who suspects that the Belgian King is enslaving the region's people. Unbeknownst to John, he is actually being lured under a false pretense in order for the King's envoy, Captain Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz) to hand him to a tribal chief whose plotting revenge against Tarzan (for reasons that will be explained later in the film). All this in exchange for loads of diamonds that will be used to finance the King's burgeoning slave trade. Reluctantly taking his wife Jane (Margot Robbie) with him, Tarzan will be forced to peel off his layers (or his shirt to be more accurate) and revert to his animalistic state to fight for the country he once grew up in, now endangered of slavery.

Yates undeniably has a firm grasp of cinematic detail as evidenced by the sublime shots of the Congo's vast green jungles and its thin serpentine rivers. However, despite the cinematic storytelling and cutting-edge technology, the film still needs a slightly more aggressive and adventurous filmmaker. For brief moments, you witness what Yates aspires the film to be – Tarzan swinging from vine to vine, fighting apes, etc. but most action scenes lack the excitement that its obvious competitor, The Jungle Book, excelled in earlier this year. Perhaps this is hampered down by a melancholic and introverted version of Tarzan who sustains his serious tone all throughout the film to the point that viewers will struggle to scratch anything beyond this surface. Skarsgard certainly can't be faulted in his characterization as he delivers the brawn and brain as the new Tarzan. One can only imagine the rigorous training he went under to achieve his physical state. Only if his actual character generates more emotional connection than his abs, the film will be better served.

Jane represents an era of women in film who are trying to break free from the damsel-in-distress trope and jump into to a modern-day empowered heroines. Robbie is as feisty as sultry in her character but no matter how tough and self-assured Jane is in verbal sparring whilst shackled in chains, the plot can't find any use to her other than being the captive to lure Tarzan, an idea that she spits out but at the same time mocks her during the entire film. Her captor, Captain Rom, armed with a deadly rosary made from Madagascar spider silk, is played by Oscar-winner Waltz who is slowly becoming a household villain these days. He carries his sneers and other evil mannerisms almost identical to his previous roles. No different is Samuel L. Jackson doing his umpteenth variation of a Samuel L. Jackson character. His presence is obviously for the sake of racial awareness — as his character Williams happens to be a real-life historical figure who exposed slave trade in African-American history — and also to draw comic-relief from a film that is crying out for humor. It is odd, however, that some of its sparse humor are anachronistic for the current setting, with William's comments like, "Should I lick its balls as well?" in trying to appease an enraged orangutan.

The Legend of Tarzan finds its new footing in cinematic history by taking the eponymous hero to a new canvas in the attempts of exploring a different playing field. Yet, despite the impressive visuals and its noble intention to tackle the atrocities of human slavery and mineral exploitation, the resulting picture ends up too sentimental to have fun and a bit dull to engage in what could have been nothing but a missed opportunity to re-introduce him to a younger generation. At one point in the film, Tarzan does his signature yodel to which Captain Rom responds with (non-verbatim), "Is that him? I didn't expect it to be that way." In a way, this is a metaphor of how this film surprisingly fails to register compared to my memories of the original.

Full review: http://www.filmpolicereviews.com/reviews/the-legend-of-tarzan

Central Intelligence (2016)

The hit-to-miss ratio is surprisingly higher than you expect.

[7/10 · 23 June 2016]

When a film has a tagline as witty and sharp as Central Intelligence's – "Saving the world takes a little Hart and a big Johnson" — something tells me that the producers came up with that pun first and decided to commission a script around it after. True enough, this film is an excuse to have Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and Kevin Hart play delightfully silly characters amidst a fairly disposable plot. It really doesn't matter because you won't see this film for a complex plot, you'll see this film for some good laughs. The hit-to-miss ratio is surprisingly higher than you expect.

In Central Intelligence, Johnson plays a formerly morbidly obese high school student named Robbie Wierdicht (yes, it's pronounced as Weird Dick, hah!) who was subjected to a horribly cruel prank twenty years ago. He now resurfaces as Bob Stone, a herculean CIA agent who decides to reunite with his only friend in high school, Calvin "The Golden Jet" Joyner (Hart) — back then Central High's "most likely to succeed" student. Ironically, he is now living an unexceptional adult life as a mid-level accountant stuck in a rocky marriage. Little does Calvin know, what started as a mysterious Facebook friend request to a casual catch-up is Stone's silent attempt to enlist Calvin as his unwilling sidekick in a deadly mission to track down stolen U.S. satellite codes and stop a wanted kingpin called the "Black Badger" from obtaining them.

In his previous comedies (Ride Along and Get Hard), Hart is often portrayed as a fast- talking shtick at the center of attention. In this film, We're The Miller's director Rawson Marshall Thurber, who co- wrote the script with Bob Fisher and Steve Faber, breaks this stereotype by subduing Hart to a serious straight-up role and giving the goofy prankster role to Johnson (responsible for pulling off most of the verbal and physical gags). The role reversal works with the slapstick comedy thanks to both actors' exhilarating chemistry and sharp performance. Their size juxtaposition alone is a joke in itself. "Pint-sized" squeaky-voiced Hart, with all his outbursts and babbling, mixes panic and rage probably better than any actor. As for Johnson, he keeps up with expectations here whether by simply donning fanny packs, unicorn t-shirts, and uber-tight pajamas; or flaunting his cartoonish manliness against a character who is surprisingly sensitive and still embarrassed with his past. Central Intelligence is given more depth when it deals with our main characters' high school baggage – Calvin's frustration on his life turning not the way he expected, and Bob's self-esteem issues due to the serious and lasting effects of bullying.

Don't get me wrong, the exhausting espionage plot struggles to have any shred of intelligence to it. It is quite perfunctory to the point that it might as well fade into a background noise. It even falls apart to utter nonsense by the end when the plot twist is revealed and judging by their focus on comedy, the filmmakers seems to be fine leaving the plot holes unpatched. Neither are the villains written with deep thought as they are all cardboard bad guys who are homophobes, bullies, mercenaries or a combination thereof. Apart from the comedy itself, the film apologizes in its shortcomings by boasting a roster of cameos that I'll leave unmentioned for the sake of surprise.

You can groan at its dumb plot, get antsy over action scenes where no one (not even trained CIA gunmen) can shoot straight or frown at Calvin and Stone whispering strategies whilst pointed with guns, but Central Intelligence is hard to dislike because Johnson and Hart shine perfectly in their roles and hence, elevate this film from subpar to moderately enjoyable. Without them, this film will be as useful as a bag of rocks. That being said, Central Intelligence can be a good distraction during a hot summer day.

The Nice Guys (2016)

A thrilling mix of slapstick comedy, action mayhem and '70s extravaganza, with lead characters who are completely devoid of any equanimity.

[9/10 · 8 June 2016]

It is 1977 in Los Angeles. The music is funky, the sky is smog-ridden, corruption is rampant, and pornography is as thriving as the automotive industry. Private investigator Holland March (Ryan Gosling) is hired to investigate the apparent suicide of a famous porn star named Misty Mountains. The trail leads him looking for a missing Amelia Kuttner (Margaret Qualley), the daughter of the Chief Head Justice. Meanwhile, Amelia, who doesn't wish to be found, hires a burly enforcer Jackson Healy (Russell Crowe) to keep March out of her tail. As Amelia suddenly vanishes, the wild goose chase for her intensifies, and several parties of interest are thrown into the mix. Caught in the middle of a killing spree, Jackson and Holland, along with his persistent daughter Holly (Angourie Rice), are forced to team up as they uncover a shocking conspiracy linked with higher ranks of the government.

Shane Black effectively hits the audience's spot by creating hilarious characters and putting them in awkward situations. The hapless nature of the duo adds to their likability. Jackson, and most definitely, Holland don't have the skillset of James Bond or Jason Bourne, making them stumble their way through each location and rely on dumb luck as coincidences turn into clues and mishaps turn into leads. The plot, however, could have used more editing, especially in the starting and closing parts where the story gets a bit shambolic. Indeed, The Nice Guys can be a confusing film that each found clue sends the plot to an entirely new direction, and events only start making sense toward the end. Black could have easily spun his film as a crime thriller, which would have served the general plot better. However, his intention here is not to make a point about government conspiracies; rather, he wants the audience to focus more on the comedic detours of the characters. For that reason, this film fares better as a comedy than a mystery.

This film won't work without the fantastic chemistry and dynamic energy that we get from its leads. Jackson (Crowe) is the more rational and grounded guy, whereas Holland (Gosling) is the accident-prone, world's worst detective that holds them down. They don't strike as caricatures for there is a duality in their study; deep-down, these are damaged persons. Holland struggles in his profession and at the same time fails in responsible parenting, and Jackson is world-weary and exhausted of living an amoral life. Crowe does not play an upfront fancy character, but he deliver good comedic talents surprising for a first-timer in the comedy genre. Yes, his IMDb profile clearly states that Mr. Russell Crowe has not done comedy up until now. His stone-faced reactions to Holland's mishaps caps off the impact of each comedic scene. On the other hand, although we've recently seen Gosling's comedic chops in The Big Short, here, he sheds all his vanity and delivers an impeccable performance, from pained squeals to lost breath gags. His relationship with his thirteen year old daughter Holly is also an interesting study. Holly is well aware of her father's shortcomings but accepts him for who he is and acts as the self-appointed brains of the group. She is that rare kid who had to grow up fast but at the same time retain her pristine beliefs. Young actress Rice holds the heart of the film and deserves every right to be on the main poster with the two leads.

The Nice Guys is gloriously violent yet still raucously funny. Mixing these two elements – violence and comedy – is a tricky task especially in a neo-noir setting (unless you're homeschooled by Quentin Tarantino). Black expertly directs classic action sequences (fistfights, shootouts, car chases, building drops) and stuffs them with a stream of verbal and physical gags to look adorably desperate. With a gaudy production that pays homage to the glitz and glamour of the '70s – hippie fashion, boogie music, vintage cars, and even lesbian mermaids (if that's, you know, your thing) –, this film is a lovely mess I can't wait to revisit. For once, I am not moaning over the idea of The Nicer Guys roaring down the freeway.

Full review: http://www.filmpolicereviews.com/reviews/the-nice-guys

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows (2016)

TMNT 2 Out of the Shadows honors the "cartoon spirit"

[8/10 · 5 June 2016]

TMNT 2 is silly and flamboyant enough to work as a live-action cartoon movie. It embraces its crazy plot (the story operates in a world where mutant turtles have been taught martial arts by a mutant rat, 'nuff said). However, the film suffers a lot of what we can call "convenient circumstances" — unaddressed plot holes are deliberately ignored by forgetting events and characters being conveniently placed at locations to advance the plot without explanation whatsoever. Also, it may be nitpicking but there's no attempt to explain how these turtles become experts in crafting CIA-level tech.

The level of humor in this film is clearly catered to a young audience. For adults, you may get a healthy dose of nostalgia if you were once that kid who were really into the cartoons, otherwise you'll find the script stale. The fun interactions between the brothers are still present but what gives them more depth here is when they start to experience teenage anxiety – issues of belonging and identity. I'm keeping it vague so as not to spoil anything, but yes, they actually have a subplot this time! Sadly, things aren't sustained as the film rushes through, ending it in favor of a big climactic action sequence.

Speaking of action sequences, the movie never strays away from the basic Michael Bay blockbuster formula (he's the producer, of course): over-the-top CGI-heavy destruction, one action set piece after another. If the first TMNT movie offers a fun-filled chase down a snowy mountain, the most adrenaline-pumping action sequence here starts with skydiving and ends with a waterfall jump. The film also takes the liberty in ripping-off previous blockbusters – a retrofitted garbage-slash-war truck (Mad Max), a via inter-dimensional sky portal alien invasion (The Avengers) and a police car chase/prisoner escape scene (The Dark Knight and Fast and Furious). And as if to acknowledge the debt, Raphael mutters to himself, "What would Vin Diesel do?"

Remarkably, there is an improvement in the CGI department, more specifically with the look of the ninja turtles – less gritty, more friendly-looking. The voice actors are not to be faulted in giving better distinction to their characters' personalities –the leader (Leo), the muscle (Raph), the brains (Donnie) and the wild one (Mikey). And just to make sure that viewers won't be confused again, they are re-introduced twice in the film (which is odd). Megan Fox, as the main human protagonist, however still fails in-I can't believe I'm about to say this- effectively engaging the audience. She fares better as an anti-hero or villain (Jennifer's Body). Her sex appeal is even pushed to a breaking point during an inexplicable costume change scene to a sexy school-girl outfit to keep the males awake. Will Arnett's character Vern, sidelined as an comic-relief is a good choice for he does little to advance the plot. Stephen Amell obviously got the role of Casey Jones due to his physical work in "Arrow" and the fact that they needed someone equally attractive as Fox. He does his best, especially in action scenes, but him joining forces with the turtles is rushed and poorly done. Shredder, recast with Brian Tee, returns as a human and not some sort of a transformer is still lackluster as a villain. Super-villain Krang who looks hideous and remotely realistic could've better served with a more fleshed-out backstory. Of all the villains, arguably the comical mutant duo, Bebop and Rocksteady, steal the show.

There is no doubt that Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows is better in nearly every way than its predecessor. It is turtle-focused and it re-wires the franchise to the right direction. I am not all "Cowabunga!" for this sequel (the plot still rots my brains), but if you're looking for two hours of frothy entertainment and 'Bay'-esque action sequences are your guilty pleasure, bring some pizzas because you're in to a one (s)hell of a ride.

Full review: http://goo.gl/xoNRno

Warcraft (2016)

Still short of the champion we are hoping for in video-game adaptations

[7/10 · 30 May 2016]

As soon as the movie kicks-off, Warcraft wastes no time and plunges its viewers in a headfirst gryphon- ride into its mythical realm. This might be overwhelming for the uninitiated but for the devotees of the RPG, they will immediately embrace its world in the first minute. The orc world Draenor is on the brink of extinction and sinister orc/warlock Gul'dan (Daniel Wu) uses his soul-sucking magic to open a green portal that will send the orc horde to the human world, Azeroth. Chieftain of the Frostwolf Clan, Durotan (Toby Kebbell), questions the brutal ways of his clansmen and believes that co-existence without bloodshed is possible. On the other end of the spectrum, Knight Anduin Lothar (Travis Fimmel), along with the Guardian of Tirisfal, Medivh (Ben Foster) and the young mage Khadgar (Ben Schetzner) have been sent on a collision course by King Llane Wrynn (Dominic Cooper) to stop the "plundering, dimension-hopping" orcs. This conflict leaves the half-orc, half-human slave Garona (Paula Patton) somewhere in the middle, torn which side to choose.

What elevates Warcraft from a typical fantasy film is that it offers something refreshing with its plot: the blurred sides of good and evil. Just like the game you will find yourself rooting for either race – the humans or the orcs, based on what morals you personally believe in. Of course notwithstanding that there is a main antagonist, these two battling races are essentially just beings fighting for their survival whom the evils of war find a way to corrupt.

Director Jones is tasked with balancing the lore and the soul of the film. It is clear how much love Jones has for this universe and his team's visual effects do an incredible job in translating this love on-screen: from the primitive textures of the orc world to the glowing whoosh of magical spells. This attention-to-detail is impressive especially with the orcs: from their freakishly huge hands, hulky robust physiques, up to the rings attached to their tusks (yes, there are). Blended with a pulse-pounding musical score from Ramin Djawadi (Game of Thrones musical composer), Warcraft is easily one of this year's biggest films that established aficionados will be more than willing to pay for.

At times though, the source material may be just too rich that it becomes a disadvantage in effectively telling its story. For the first installment, Jones wrestles with so many characters, locations and subplots which result in fast-paced story-telling, offering no breathing room and ample time to fully- develop most of the characters. (Think of a one full season of GOT jammed into a two-hour film.) While there are a lot of scenes with exposition and minor characters are also used as plot-devices to get us emotionally invested, they all seem not enough as they are merely short backstories and fragments of characterizations. Hence, by the third act when some of these characters are lost, the emotional punch is weaker than how it should have been.

Warcraft ultimately feels like a sequel where audiences are expected to do their homework on the world's history rather than a franchise-starter that effectively builds up characters for the next film. This movie would have been better served if it was thirty minutes longer (hoping for a director's cut) or best, it's depth could have been better highlighted as a well-funded TV series. With all the things it aspires to be in such a short run time, the end product comes out as a boisterous and flashy piece largely stripped of poetry compared to LoTR and GoT. Impressively staged yet disengaged, Warcraft is still short of the champion we are hoping for in video-game adaptations.

The Angry Birds Movie (2016)

Rage-fueled violence is the key to some of your problems

[6/10 · 19 May 2016]

Set on Bird Island, where flightless multi-coloured birds are perennially friendly and giving out hugs for free, Red (Jason Sudeikis) lives the life of a social outcast for harboring an overwhelming amount of anger. Judge Peckinpah (Keegan-Michael Key) then sends him to anger-management classes under Matilda (Maya Rudolph), and there he meets yellow speedster named Chuck (Josh Gad), a literally explosive budgie named Bomb (Danny McBride), and a grunting giant maroon bird named Terence (Sean Penn). Along then comes a pirate ship of green pigs captained by Leonard (Bill Hader) who introduces them to a "new technology". While the other birds welcome their arrival, Red grows suspicious of the pigs' true nefarious intent.

Much like the mobile game, though less addictive, The Angry Birds Movie can be entirely summarized as 'colorful angry birds sling-shotting themselves at greedy pigs.' The film's slim plot is brought to life by bloating the movie with "Looney Tunes"-slapstick humor, bird puns, and a barrage of pop-culture references. While this is never a good sign of assured storytelling, most of the gags are actually hits than misses. Two of the funniest scenes involve Red, Chuck and Bomb's discovery of the Lake of Wisdom and a mama bird regurgitating food into her children's lunch boxes (talk about biological accuracy). The movie is clearly aimed at children, with all the bright colors and its simplistic plot; yet some of its content is actually directed to adults. Take for example the allusions to The Shining and Fifty Shades of Grey', 80's song choices like Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up" and Red responding to a bad news with, "Pluck my life." (Good luck to all parents on explaining that line.)

By the third act, the movie starts to re-enact the game and we witness the angry birds in action, as they whirr their way through the pig town's citadel and blowing stuff in a Rube Goldberg fashion. You will be laughing hard at this point either because a.) these birds really do have bird brains, or b.) reality dawns on you that the film's plot is downright nonsensical. It is hard to take this movie seriously because it is so ridiculous and so unfocused—haven't I mention a scene where the pigs start singing a Blake Shelton song out of nowhere?

On a technical note, the team behind The Angry Birds Movie does an impressive job on the animation, from the feathery texture of the cutesy birds to the vibrant tropical setting. The voice cast willingly throw themselves into the silliness of the script. Jason Sudeikis as Red shines in sarcasm, Josh Gad (whose voice we previously heard as Olaf in Frozen) lends a hyperactive voice to Chuck, Danny Mcbride steps aside from his usual foul-mouthed character and portrays a dim-witted voice in Bomb. Peter Dinklage ironically playing the Mighty Eagle brings a comedic yet majestic voice to his character.

While these are welcome compensations, all the sticks come crashing down when the film goes against the virtues that it is fighting for in the beginning—empathy and friendship. It imparts a murky message to its young viewers that rage-fueled violence is a key resolution to problems; not exactly a child- friendly thesis as compared to those of the other two animated films earlier released this year: Kung Fu Panda 3 (believing in yourself) and Zootopia (accepting diversity).

The Angry Birds Movie lacks genuine inspiration, telling a sagging narrative kept afloat by a steady stream of visual gags and stray media references. "Anger is weed growing in our garden," says Matilda. And just like suppressed anger, I'll have to pluck this movie out of my top recommended animated features.

Full review here: http://www.filmpolicereviews.com/reviews/the-angry-birds-movie

Just the 3 of Us (2016)

99.99% Tried and Tested Rom-Coms

[7/10 · 7 May 2016]

Just the 3 of Us tells a typical love story that hopeless romantics will certainly dig within the first fifteen minutes – a stranger walks into your life, opens up your heart, and changes you forever. Cruz plays the ambitious airline pilot Uno Abusado, determined to earn his captaincy only to have his plans derailed after a drunken one-night stand with a random girl, who is later revealed to be Mercado's C.J. Manalo. Three weeks later, C.J. drops the bomb at Uno: She is pregnant and he is the father. This forces them to face their responsibility under the same roof until a proper paternity test can be administered.

We've attested in previous movies that Cruz and Mercado are versatile actors that have a lot more to offer outside the rom-com realm (see: Honor Thy Father and Rosario). On the other hand, director Garcia-Molina seems unable to crawl her way out of her comfort zone, with her subsequent offerings proving tedious and formulaic. The movie bears CGM's trademarks all over: Polar-opposite strangers falling in love with each other? Check. Lead characters whose emotional core relies on virtues of family and forgiveness? Check. Friends (which must at all costs include a token gay friend) who motivate the lead characters toward the right track, because apparently they can't seem to make wise decisions on their own? Check. While, yes, the market for local rom-com is lucrative, it is sad that this generation may never be used to films outside this genre soon.

While the film shines more in its small comedic moments, the dramatic aspect of the story does not take flight to make things truly memorable. The conflicts here seem too mechanical – a cost paid to easily showcase the duality of the characters. Initially, Cruz's character Uno is unbelievably rude as he keeps pushing C.J. away for a large amount of screen time (mainly because the film's comedy is mostly drawn during these parts). But when the film comes to his deus ex machina-like change of heart, things begin to feel abrupt and contrived. Mercado's character, meanwhile, does not paint a good picture of empowering feminism. What image it manages to portray is that some women nowadays are willing to swallow their pride just to attach themselves to an attractive and successful man.

Just the 3 of Us achieves its goal of showcasing everything that should be expected of a John Lloyd-Jennylyn movie, but sadly, it stops there and refuses to break free from the conventions of its genre. Still, it's an entertaining piece that isn't short of charm. The problem lies on these cutout stories that's being produced year-round. Should these 99.99% tried and tested rom-com products carry on in the future, with fans that go buy into it, we can expect no new stories, only new characters (if we're lucky).

Full review here: http://www.filmpolicereviews.com/reviews/just-the-3-of-us

The Huntsman: Winter's War (2016)

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, which next sequel is yet to fool?

[6/10 · 17 April 2016]

2016 so far marks as the year of sequels and reboots – some are well-crafted but most are either disappointing or simply unnecessary. The Huntsman: Winter's War, which serves as both the prequel and the sequel (a "sprequel", if you may call it) to Snow White and the Huntsman, may not be highly-anticipated but it proves to be more entertaining than its gloomy predecessor, with a visual flair surrealistic enough to distract you from its flawed narrative.

The Huntsman: Winter's War feels the need to validate its existence by borrowing elements from other superior fantasy films. But still in the process, it fails to deliver a solid plot with a strong emotional core the way Maleficient or Frozen does (it is impossible to unthink of Frozen for Elsa's evil version is here). Cedric Nicolas-Troyan, who was the special effects supervisor in the first film, makes his directorial debut and it is crystal clear here that his top priority remains to be the visual spectacle, leading to a classic case of style over substance. The visuals are lavishly done and that is a welcome treat for as long as the quality of direction is not traded-off. Equipped with extravagant and intricate costume and design set pieces, some scenes can be practically edited and turned into one big production of a perfume or cosmetic ad.

Another thing that the film can boast is the star power cast that it manages to assemble. The four main leads here play characters that are not exactly engrossingly-written, however they still manage to dig deep into them and give viewers something to sink their teeth in. Chris Hemsworth is a far better protagonist than a disinterested Kristen Stewart in the first film. His reputation for playing Thor in Marvel's cinematic universe gives him a bullet-proof assurance that he can deliver even the corniest lines with the help of his rugged charm. Notwithstanding a clumsily-penned love story arc, he strikes a decent chemistry with Jessica Chastain. Chastain surprisingly takes part in here (considering that fantasy genre is not in her wheelhouse) and she convincingly portrays a driven and earnest action heroine. Both Hemsworth and Chastain are however burdened with a Scottish accent throughout the film. Emily Blunt as a conflicted antagonist having unjustified actions brings a roller- coaster of emotions from vulnerability to wrath in her craft. Her on-screen sister, Charlize Theron, who is obviously not dead from the trailer may have a lesser screen time but she is still poised to steal the show with her menacing death-stares and spiky tentacles. She even remains to be lethal in a liquid gold form. The digitally- shrunk quartet of dwarfs, Nion (Nick Frost), Gryff (Rob Brydon), Doreena (Alexandra Roach) and Bromwyn (Sheridan Smith) are a welcome addition despite being obviously there for comic-relief for they add little to nothing to the plot.

Still, not even the winning combination of visual effects, costume design and great casting can salvage an under-directed sappy fantasy story of love that conquers all. This is yet again a generic cash- grab product of Hollywood. Time to chant the words: Mirror, mirror, on the wall, which next sequel is yet to fool?

Full review: http://www.filmpolicereviews.com/reviews/huntsman-winters-war

The Jungle Book (2016)

Forget about your worries and your strife...

[9/10 · 9 April 2016]

To those who still hold any degree of skepticism for Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book—Disney's live-action adaptation of the Rudyard Kiplingclassic—I say just sing along to "Forget about your worries and your strife…" That's a guaranteed earworm from this really good film. Complete with splendid sound design and flabbergasting CGI wizardry, director Favreau, with cinematographer Bill Pope, deftly crafts this spectacle not only to dazzle viewers but also to enhance its dramatic agenda.

With an excellent voice cast, The Jungle Book presents a colorful array of memorable characters. Idris Elba as Shere Kahn is chillingly formidable with his guttural threats. Ben Kingsley brings nobility and wisdom in the sleek jungle cat Bagheera. In her short sequence as the python Kaa, Scarlett Johansson delivers the film's backstory with a magnetic voice. Giancarlo Eposito's Akela and Lupita Nyong'o's Raksha supply the fierce patriarch and protective maternal vibes needed by their characters. Christopher Walken as the mafia-king orangutan waiting for extinction is an oddly delightful sight, especially when he starts to sing. Bill Murray as the manipulative sloth bear Baloo is a crowd favorite as he blurs the line between being annoying and adorable. Even the lesser animals (porcupine, pygmy hog, squirrel, etc.) manage to steal the show as sources of comic relief.

In his first feature appearance, Neel Sethi as young Mowgli is tasked with selling the wonder and portraying the humanity of this tale. Considering that he is basically working within the confines of his imagination and a green screen room for the entire film, he manages to make everything believable: the beauty and danger of the jungle, his kinetic and charismatic character, and his deep connection with the animals. Of course, this is owed in large part to Jon Favreau's direction's too. A magical scene in the film (and my favorite!): an infant Mowgli and Bagheera's innocently touches Bagheera's face. It's a sweet moment, a reminder that the there's a seed of humanity in each of us.

Although the film comes a bit dark, fans are not robbed of iconic songs such as "The Bare Necessities", "I Wanna Be Like You," and a jovial musical scoring for the film (thanks to John Debney). Old as it may, the story of The Jungle Book remains an affecting contemplation on the virtues of family, self-growth, and man's progress at the expense of nature. The Jungle Book successfully opens a new chapter in cinema's visual storytelling prowess. It deserves to be seen, and unequivocally needs to be experienced in 3D or better, an IMAX theater. It is immersive, it is enchanting, and it is wonderful.

Full review here: http://www.filmpolicereviews.com/reviews/the-jungle-book