May the Odds Be Ever in Your Favor by Issa Perez de Tagle The Hunger Games (2012) D: Gary Ross S: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth In a year not too far into the future, America has been engulfed in the fire of human destruction, and out of its ashes, the dystopian society of Panem has arisen. Here, the elite live in the Capitol in blissful detachment at the expense of the commoners who break their backs to provide for them in separate districts. As a constant reminder of the power and dominion of the Capitol, a male and female child are annually selected from each district and pitted against one another in a televised battle to the death until only one survives. The subject matter seems a bit graphic for something geared towards young adults, but author Suzanne Collins has tapped into something that everyone can relate to. In her work, she satirizes our generation’s fascination with so-called reality television and our blind contentment with a status quo that benefits a few while the rest suffer. In every page of her book she seems to ask us when we all became so jaded to the plights of the world. The question now is whether or not this film, as an adaptation of that novel, carries across the same message. I would say, to some extent, it does. All the basic plot points of the story are represented on screen, which should please any fan. The set and costume designs were a creative mix of inspiration ranging from the Industrial Era to a Lady Gaga music video. Gary Ross also used some ingenious methods of telling certain back stories he couldn’t give much screen time to. I particularly appreciated how he hinted at what happened to Katniss’s father by timing it when Katniss was in a delusional state. However, from here on out, it’s pretty much hit and miss. Take the casting for instance. A lot of them were spot on: Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket, Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman, and Willow Shields as Primrose Everdeen. A select few were pleasant surprises, including Lenny Kravitz as Cinna and Jennifer Lawrence herself as Katniss Everdeen. Lawrence in particular far surpassed any of my expectations and eradicated any of my previous doubts of her capability to portray Katniss faithfully. She was strong yet vulnerable, quiet yet calculating, and fierce yet compassionate. It really is amazing to watch how she handles herself onscreen. She is certainly cementing herself as a Hollywood A-lister. However, her leading men leave quite a lot to be desired. It seems like whatever it was they did in their auditions to impress their filmmakers will forever be a mystery, because not an inkling of it was shown in the movie. Josh Hutcherson is mildly charming but altogether seems too young for Lawrence’s Katniss. Their chemistry is almost nonexistent, and any romantic interaction they have onscreen looks almost incestuous. Liam Hemsworth as Gale fares no better. I would say he does even poorer. He fails to embody Gale’s inner fire, his eyes blank and his demeanor almost cowardly. Whenever the camera comes in for a close-up of him, he just ends up looking vacantly stupid. At least that’s when the camera manages to find its focus because there was a terrible amount of “shaky camera” effect going on in this movie. I’m sure the purpose was to mimic how some reality shows are shot today and give the film a kind of indie feel to it but it came off as forced and sometimes confusing. All in all, it just took away from the gravity of certain vital events in the story. It didn’t help that there was a marked lack in violence shown onscreen. But this is somewhat forgivable since this would deny most of the target audience the chance to actually watch the film. (All the same, I do secretly hope they release a less watered down version of the action sequences in a DVD cut.) After all, this is supposed to be a story that goes beyond the carnage. You see this in perhaps the most poignant scene of the movie wherein Katniss salutes the district of a fallen comrade, causing them to band together against the Capitol. It’s just a shame that scenes like that were so few and far between. By focusing too much on bombarding our senses with rich visuals and heart-pounding action, the filmmakers underdeveloped their key characters and seemed to have forgotten that the strength of its source material was in the fact that it was so rich in social commentary and exposition on human nature under adversity. If only there was a little more self-awareness on the part of the tributes or a more adequate display of the desperation of the district people, there would be more depth to their situation and maybe this would also help fill in the gaps in the actual narrative . So, while The Hunger Games is infinitely smarter than any teen-novel-turned-movie, it fails to be something more than just another entertaining summer blockbuster. It’s a good film. Sadly, it could’ve been a great film. I just hope that since Lionsgate is obviously completing the franchise, the succeeding films don’t get lost in the fight and miss their purpose for taking arms.

May the Odds Be Ever in Your Favor
by Issa Perez de Tagle

The Hunger Games (2012)
D: Gary Ross
S: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth

In a year not too far into the future, America has been engulfed in the fire of human destruction, and out of its ashes, the dystopian society of Panem has arisen. Here, the elite live in the Capitol in blissful detachment at the expense of the commoners who break their backs to provide for them in separate districts. As a constant reminder of the power and dominion of the Capitol, a male and female child are annually selected from each district and pitted against one another in a televised battle to the death until only one survives.

The subject matter seems a bit graphic for something geared towards young adults, but author Suzanne Collins has tapped into something that everyone can relate to. In her work, she satirizes our generation’s fascination with so-called reality television and our blind contentment with a status quo that benefits a few while the rest suffer. In every page of her book she seems to ask us when we all became so jaded to the plights of the world. The question now is whether or not this film, as an adaptation of that novel, carries across the same message.

I would say, to some extent, it does. All the basic plot points of the story are represented on screen, which should please any fan. The set and costume designs were a creative mix of inspiration ranging from the Industrial Era to a Lady Gaga music video. Gary Ross also used some ingenious methods of telling certain back stories he couldn’t give much screen time to. I particularly appreciated how he hinted at what happened to Katniss’s father by timing it when Katniss was in a delusional state. However, from here on out, it’s pretty much hit and miss.

Take the casting for instance. A lot of them were spot on: Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket, Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman, and Willow Shields as Primrose Everdeen. A select few were pleasant surprises, including Lenny Kravitz as Cinna and Jennifer Lawrence herself as Katniss Everdeen. Lawrence in particular far surpassed any of my expectations and eradicated any of my previous doubts of her capability to portray Katniss faithfully. She was strong yet vulnerable, quiet yet calculating, and fierce yet compassionate. It really is amazing to watch how she handles herself onscreen. She is certainly cementing herself as a Hollywood A-lister. However, her leading men leave quite a lot to be desired.

It seems like whatever it was they did in their auditions to impress their filmmakers will forever be a mystery, because not an inkling of it was shown in the movie. Josh Hutcherson is mildly charming but altogether seems too young for Lawrence’s Katniss. Their chemistry is almost nonexistent, and any romantic interaction they have onscreen looks almost incestuous. Liam Hemsworth as Gale fares no better. I would say he does even poorer. He fails to embody Gale’s inner fire, his eyes blank and his demeanor almost cowardly. Whenever the camera comes in for a close-up of him, he just ends up looking vacantly stupid.

At least that’s when the camera manages to find its focus because there was a terrible amount of “shaky camera” effect going on in this movie. I’m sure the purpose was to mimic how some reality shows are shot today and give the film a kind of indie feel to it but it came off as forced and sometimes confusing. All in all, it just took away from the gravity of certain vital events in the story.

It didn’t help that there was a marked lack in violence shown onscreen. But this is somewhat forgivable since this would deny most of the target audience the chance to actually watch the film. (All the same, I do secretly hope they release a less watered down version of the action sequences in a DVD cut.) After all, this is supposed to be a story that goes beyond the carnage.

You see this in perhaps the most poignant scene of the movie wherein Katniss salutes the district of a fallen comrade, causing them to band together against the Capitol. It’s just a shame that scenes like that were so few and far between. By focusing too much on bombarding our senses with rich visuals and heart-pounding action, the filmmakers underdeveloped their key characters and seemed to have forgotten that the strength of its source material was in the fact that it was so rich in social commentary and exposition on human nature under adversity.

If only there was a little more self-awareness on the part of the tributes or a more adequate display of the desperation of the district people, there would be more depth to their situation and maybe this would also help fill in the gaps in the actual narrative .

So, while The Hunger Games is infinitely smarter than any teen-novel-turned-movie, it fails to be something more than just another entertaining summer blockbuster. It’s a good film. Sadly, it could’ve been a great film. I just hope that since Lionsgate is obviously completing the franchise, the succeeding films don’t get lost in the fight and miss their purpose for taking arms.

113
You is Kind, You is Smart, You is Importantby Issa Perez de Tagle The Help (2011)D: Tate TaylorS: Emma Stone, Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, Bryce Dallas Howard It’s the 60s in Mississippi and the goal of every respectable woman is to have a perfect household. But perfection can’t be achieved without the right kind of help, which is the kind that doesn’t use your bathroom.  That is one of the many unspoken rules of etiquette a homemaker expects from her maid, something that we Filipinos should be more than familiar with, given that this household hierarchy still exists in our nation more than fifty years later. And as widespread as the acceptance of these rules might be, the question of justness still remains, a question that Skeeter (Emma Stone) bravely tries to answer differently from her peers. She teams up with maids Aibeleen (Viola Davis) and Minny (Octavia Spencer) to write a book divulging all the violations of fundamental human rights happening in the most basic form of society. From this improbable alliance, a remarkable sisterhood emerges, instilling all of them with the courage to transcend the lines that try to define them, and the realization that sometimes these lines are meant to be crossed, all while giving us all something to snicker at underneath the comfort of our covers. The Help is certainly well-acted. I particularly enjoyed the performance of Bryce Dallas Howard, who plays a deliciously evil Hilly Holbrook, proving that one should never trust anybody who wears too many floral prints. Another standout is Octavia Spencer’s portrayal of the fiery Minny, who will have your jaw dropping in shock or pounding your knees in fits of laughter. I was also pleasantly surprised by Jessica Chastain, who plays Celia Foote, someone easily mistaken as the typical dumb blonde but shows there’s more hiding in that head aside from tons of hairspray. She could have easily been lost in her character’s comic relief but she emerges as one of the more memorable characters in the film. As for the movie’s top-billed actress, Emma Stone’s Skeeter is somewhat underwhelming, but just like the character she portrays, she merely is a vessel to help tell the stories of others. In which case, she serves her purpose adequately.  Before the end of the film’s two-hour run, it’s more than clear who the real star is. It is none other than Viola Davis, who gives such a god-honest performance as Aibileen Clark. She infuses her character with a quiet yet formidable amount of strength, sincerity, and overwhelming compassion. Aibileen may not be a woman of many words but the few she utters are the ones that mean the most. There’s no question on the entertainment value of this movie. The costumes, the scenery and the lush use of color lend it a timeless yet whimsical quality. The dialogue is whip-smart and the pacing is well-timed. But perhaps its lighthearted take on serious issues is its own detriment. One might even go so far as to say that it trivializes the very plights it aims to expose.  If you’re looking for something that packs more of a punch, it would probably be best to turn to other films like, say, The Color Purple. But if not, then this is certainly a lovely movie of self-empowerment that will delight the whole family and perhaps impart the lesson that we should think twice before mistreating the help, lest they make us eat exactly what we dish out.

You is Kind, You is Smart, You is Important
by Issa Perez de Tagle

The Help (2011)
D: Tate Taylor
S: Emma Stone, Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, Bryce Dallas Howard

It’s the 60s in Mississippi and the goal of every respectable woman is to have a perfect household. But perfection can’t be achieved without the right kind of help, which is the kind that doesn’t use your bathroom. 

That is one of the many unspoken rules of etiquette a homemaker expects from her maid, something that we Filipinos should be more than familiar with, given that this household hierarchy still exists in our nation more than fifty years later. And as widespread as the acceptance of these rules might be, the question of justness still remains, a question that Skeeter (Emma Stone) bravely tries to answer differently from her peers.

She teams up with maids Aibeleen (Viola Davis) and Minny (Octavia Spencer) to write a book divulging all the violations of fundamental human rights happening in the most basic form of society. From this improbable alliance, a remarkable sisterhood emerges, instilling all of them with the courage to transcend the lines that try to define them, and the realization that sometimes these lines are meant to be crossed, all while giving us all something to snicker at underneath the comfort of our covers.

The Help is certainly well-acted. I particularly enjoyed the performance of Bryce Dallas Howard, who plays a deliciously evil Hilly Holbrook, proving that one should never trust anybody who wears too many floral prints. Another standout is Octavia Spencer’s portrayal of the fiery Minny, who will have your jaw dropping in shock or pounding your knees in fits of laughter.

I was also pleasantly surprised by Jessica Chastain, who plays Celia Foote, someone easily mistaken as the typical dumb blonde but shows there’s more hiding in that head aside from tons of hairspray. She could have easily been lost in her character’s comic relief but she emerges as one of the more memorable characters in the film.

As for the movie’s top-billed actress, Emma Stone’s Skeeter is somewhat underwhelming, but just like the character she portrays, she merely is a vessel to help tell the stories of others. In which case, she serves her purpose adequately. 

Before the end of the film’s two-hour run, it’s more than clear who the real star is. It is none other than Viola Davis, who gives such a god-honest performance as Aibileen Clark. She infuses her character with a quiet yet formidable amount of strength, sincerity, and overwhelming compassion. Aibileen may not be a woman of many words but the few she utters are the ones that mean the most.

There’s no question on the entertainment value of this movie. The costumes, the scenery and the lush use of color lend it a timeless yet whimsical quality. The dialogue is whip-smart and the pacing is well-timed. But perhaps its lighthearted take on serious issues is its own detriment. One might even go so far as to say that it trivializes the very plights it aims to expose. 

If you’re looking for something that packs more of a punch, it would probably be best to turn to other films like, say, The Color Purple. But if not, then this is certainly a lovely movie of self-empowerment that will delight the whole family and perhaps impart the lesson that we should think twice before mistreating the help, lest they make us eat exactly what we dish out.

43
Which Witch?by Issa Perez de Tagle This generation’s cinematic images of supernatural beings have certainly evolved since the days of their caricature predecessors. Vampires, for example, are no longer like Nosferatu with his billowing cloak, distorted features, and undeniable thirst for blood and pain. Now, they are depicted as brooding, conflicted creatures that get butterflies in their stomachs, crave normalcy, and, at times, shimmer in the sunlight. Werewolves have also radically changed from the days of Lon Chaney Jr.’s The Wolf Man or even Jack Nicholson’s Wolf. They are now beautifully tanned teenage boys with ridiculous sets of abs. It would make sense then that witches, who share much of their mythological territory with these creatures, would also undergo a similar revamp. Perhaps the first time any of us encountered a witch would be in our story books and the Disney films that adapted them. They were usually fearsome queens who had some major attention issues. If you looked better than them or forgot to invite them to a party, that was it: you were cursed to eternal slumber. You have to give these ladies points for being hardcore bitches through and through. They were so evil that parents even used them to scare their children into eating their vegetables. My personal favorite from this brood would have to be Maleficent of Sleeping Beauty. I’m not going to lie: she totally gave me nightmares when I was three. There was just such a delicious vindictiveness to her character that no other Disney villain has quite measured up to. The voice work of Eleanor Audley was so flawless and the animation was so perfect that if there ever were a witch who could kill just by staring at you, I’d put my money on her. Another enduring witch stereotype comes from the largely successful 30s film adaptation of The Wizard of Oz. Margaret Hamilton’s Wicked Witch of the West single-handedly changed the way witches looked for decades of Halloweens that followed. Her trademark green skin, pointed black wardrobe, and menacing cackle helped create such an iconic character, which inspired a book and a Broadway musical that were written almost 70 years later. But because witches back then were just supposed to be bad, they didn’t need exposition to tell us why they did what they did. They were simply a key element of any fairytale to oppress the pure-hearted princess or the hapless traveler for no apparent reason but because they could and the story needed conflict. There was, however, a more comical portrayal of the silver screen spell-caster; one I like to call the “house witch.” She’s basically your average struggling Stepford wife with a special bag of tricks to keep things under control. Probably its most popular incarnation was Elizabeth Montgomery’s Samantha in the 60s sitcom Bewitched. (Nicole Kidman took on the role for the 2005 film adaptation). I also fondly remember the 1942 romantic comedy I Married a Witch, starring the gorgeous Veronica Lake. Her character Jennifer is burned at the stake by the pilgrim Wooley family. In return, she curses them so that all the men from their line would marry the wrong woman and be miserable. (Because, of course, the worst thing in the world is to have a poor marriage, right?) Things change, however, when Jennifer is reincarnated only to fall in love with the latest Wooley descendent played by Fredric March. It wasn’t until the 80s that witches got a little more exciting. They acquired something very vital to their persona: sexuality. The first film that comes to mind is The Witches of Eastwick. Michelle Pfeiffer, Susan Sarandon, and Cher, play three strong vixens, who are seduced by the devil and end up forming some sort of polygamous Mormon household. All women use their powers according to his bidding. That is, until the ladies decide to turn the tables. Then of course there’s the cult classic Elvira: Mistress of the Dark, where Los Angeles TV horror hostess Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) quits her job after being sexually harassed by the station’s owner. She inherits a very special recipe book from her late Aunt Morgana before moving to Fallwell, Massachusetts. There, plentiful laughs and mishaps occur as the sexy and brazen Elvira creates an instant uproar among the town’s repressed teenagers and conservative citizen after she discovers that her aunt’s book is more than what it appears. But possibly the most drastic change to the Wiccan image came from the 90s. Courtesy of 1996’s The Craft and 1999’s The Blair Witch Project, witches gained a disturbing sense of dark realism. It was almost as if that girl who wore too much black lipstick in English Lit class was really putting hexes on people or that the abandoned house down the road wasn’t all that abandoned. The idea of witches no longer just belonged in story books and whimsical movies. They felt real. They became real. They were now part of our society, and we had better not piss them off. However, my favorite incarnation belongs in the 2000s, thanks to one J.K. Rowling. With her books on the big screen, she was able to highlight what fascinates us the most about these gifted people. She was able to take magic—like the ability to move objects or to fly—and spin a story so fantastic yet so relatable that it revitalized literature, cinema, and witch lore in the most phenomenal of ways. The term witch is no longer an insult hurled at you by a bully at school; now it can mean sexy, fierce, or just downright awesome. Which witch are you?

Which Witch?
by Issa Perez de Tagle

This generation’s cinematic images of supernatural beings have certainly evolved since the days of their caricature predecessors. Vampires, for example, are no longer like Nosferatu with his billowing cloak, distorted features, and undeniable thirst for blood and pain. Now, they are depicted as brooding, conflicted creatures that get butterflies in their stomachs, crave normalcy, and, at times, shimmer in the sunlight. Werewolves have also radically changed from the days of Lon Chaney Jr.’s The Wolf Man or even Jack Nicholson’s Wolf. They are now beautifully tanned teenage boys with ridiculous sets of abs. It would make sense then that witches, who share much of their mythological territory with these creatures, would also undergo a similar revamp.

Perhaps the first time any of us encountered a witch would be in our story books and the Disney films that adapted them. They were usually fearsome queens who had some major attention issues. If you looked better than them or forgot to invite them to a party, that was it: you were cursed to eternal slumber. You have to give these ladies points for being hardcore bitches through and through. They were so evil that parents even used them to scare their children into eating their vegetables.

My personal favorite from this brood would have to be Maleficent of Sleeping Beauty. I’m not going to lie: she totally gave me nightmares when I was three. There was just such a delicious vindictiveness to her character that no other Disney villain has quite measured up to. The voice work of Eleanor Audley was so flawless and the animation was so perfect that if there ever were a witch who could kill just by staring at you, I’d put my money on her.

Another enduring witch stereotype comes from the largely successful 30s film adaptation of The Wizard of Oz. Margaret Hamilton’s Wicked Witch of the West single-handedly changed the way witches looked for decades of Halloweens that followed. Her trademark green skin, pointed black wardrobe, and menacing cackle helped create such an iconic character, which inspired a book and a Broadway musical that were written almost 70 years later.

But because witches back then were just supposed to be bad, they didn’t need exposition to tell us why they did what they did. They were simply a key element of any fairytale to oppress the pure-hearted princess or the hapless traveler for no apparent reason but because they could and the story needed conflict.

There was, however, a more comical portrayal of the silver screen spell-caster; one I like to call the “house witch.” She’s basically your average struggling Stepford wife with a special bag of tricks to keep things under control. Probably its most popular incarnation was Elizabeth Montgomery’s Samantha in the 60s sitcom Bewitched. (Nicole Kidman took on the role for the 2005 film adaptation).

I also fondly remember the 1942 romantic comedy I Married a Witch, starring the gorgeous Veronica Lake. Her character Jennifer is burned at the stake by the pilgrim Wooley family. In return, she curses them so that all the men from their line would marry the wrong woman and be miserable. (Because, of course, the worst thing in the world is to have a poor marriage, right?) Things change, however, when Jennifer is reincarnated only to fall in love with the latest Wooley descendent played by Fredric March.

It wasn’t until the 80s that witches got a little more exciting. They acquired something very vital to their persona: sexuality. The first film that comes to mind is The Witches of Eastwick. Michelle Pfeiffer, Susan Sarandon, and Cher, play three strong vixens, who are seduced by the devil and end up forming some sort of polygamous Mormon household. All women use their powers according to his bidding. That is, until the ladies decide to turn the tables.

Then of course there’s the cult classic Elvira: Mistress of the Dark, where Los Angeles TV horror hostess Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) quits her job after being sexually harassed by the station’s owner. She inherits a very special recipe book from her late Aunt Morgana before moving to Fallwell, Massachusetts. There, plentiful laughs and mishaps occur as the sexy and brazen Elvira creates an instant uproar among the town’s repressed teenagers and conservative citizen after she discovers that her aunt’s book is more than what it appears.

But possibly the most drastic change to the Wiccan image came from the 90s. Courtesy of 1996’s The Craft and 1999’s The Blair Witch Project, witches gained a disturbing sense of dark realism. It was almost as if that girl who wore too much black lipstick in English Lit class was really putting hexes on people or that the abandoned house down the road wasn’t all that abandoned. The idea of witches no longer just belonged in story books and whimsical movies. They felt real. They became real. They were now part of our society, and we had better not piss them off.

However, my favorite incarnation belongs in the 2000s, thanks to one J.K. Rowling. With her books on the big screen, she was able to highlight what fascinates us the most about these gifted people. She was able to take magic—like the ability to move objects or to fly—and spin a story so fantastic yet so relatable that it revitalized literature, cinema, and witch lore in the most phenomenal of ways. The term witch is no longer an insult hurled at you by a bully at school; now it can mean sexy, fierce, or just downright awesome.

Which witch are you?

186
Friendship Has Its Benefits by Issa Perez de Tagle No Strings Attached (2011)D: Ivan ReitmanS: Natalie Portman, Ashton Kutcher “Can sex friends stay best friends?” This movie’s tagline asks the perennial question of whether or not two people can have sex without love getting in the way. Now, I’m sure that there are many of you who can testify in the affirmative. Unfortunately for this film’s leads however… they can’t be part of that concensus. On paper, Emma Kurtzman (Natalie Portman) and Adam Franklin (Ashton Kutcher) had every excuse to keep things strictly “business”. Emma was a Medical intern with major intimacy issues, working crazy hours. Adam just got badly burned by his own father who seemed to think it was a great idea to hook up with his son’s ex. Most importantly, they’ve been friends since summer camp days, randomly meeting each other every few years through sheer coincidence. So basically, they’re both horny with a lot of baggage, and they’ve known each other since forever but not really. Then why, to quote Portman’s character, can’t they just have sex? Maybe it’s like looking for missing keys or socks. When you’re looking for them, they’re nowhere to be found but give yourself a few days to forget about them, and voila! There they are in plain sight. The point is, both Emma and Adam stumble upon something neither of them was searching for. But it’s really more of how each character deals with what they find that makes this rom-com a little better than the others of its ilk. (Although maybe it helps a lot that Jennifer Aniston isn’t in this.) Again, Portman proves what a gem of an actress she really is. She delivers laughs, blushes and tears in all the right places and brings a rare touch of depth that typical rom-com characters don’t have. Watching her stuff her face with donuts while weeping to “Bleeding Love” is perhaps the best moments in this film.As for Kutcher, I believe it’s an accomplishment that he managed to NOT completely annoy me throughout this movie. I was honestly afraid that he’d drag Portman down to his vulgar level but instead she lends him a bit of her class. Their chemistry might be a bit on the bland side though. For two extremely hot actors, they didn’t really generate much heat together. But the coupling is pleasant enough that it won’t bother you too much. One could argue that the main formula deviation of No Strings Attached is the role reversal: the guy is the clingy one and the girl has all the commitment issues instead of the other way around. Although that may be partly true, they also have the advantage of having a decent script and a likable supporting cast to help them along. Or maybe Portman is just that good. I haven’t quite decided. Honestly, I think this is a chick flick that guys can take their girlfriends to watch and not feel completely tortured for an hour and a half. Not to say that it doesn’t have the usual rom-com pitfalls. It still suffers from cheap jokes, severe predictability and obvious lack of originality — just not as glaringly as the others in the same genre. It even manages to pull some of them off. I actually really laughed in some parts.  Obviously, there are very few commercial rom-coms that I truly find endearing these days. But this one… I have to say, wasn’t half as bad. So I think it’s safe to conclude that Emma and Adam aren’t the only ones who’ll find themselves pleasantly surprised by the time the credits start rolling.

Friendship Has Its Benefits
by Issa Perez de Tagle

No Strings Attached (2011)
D: Ivan Reitman
S: Natalie Portman, Ashton Kutcher

“Can sex friends stay best friends?” This movie’s tagline asks the perennial question of whether or not two people can have sex without love getting in the way. Now, I’m sure that there are many of you who can testify in the affirmative. Unfortunately for this film’s leads however… they can’t be part of that concensus.

On paper, Emma Kurtzman (Natalie Portman) and Adam Franklin (Ashton Kutcher) had every excuse to keep things strictly “business”. Emma was a Medical intern with major intimacy issues, working crazy hours. Adam just got badly burned by his own father who seemed to think it was a great idea to hook up with his son’s ex. Most importantly, they’ve been friends since summer camp days, randomly meeting each other every few years through sheer coincidence. So basically, they’re both horny with a lot of baggage, and they’ve known each other since forever but not really. Then why, to quote Portman’s character, can’t they just have sex?

Maybe it’s like looking for missing keys or socks. When you’re looking for them, they’re nowhere to be found but give yourself a few days to forget about them, and voila! There they are in plain sight. The point is, both Emma and Adam stumble upon something neither of them was searching for. But it’s really more of how each character deals with what they find that makes this rom-com a little better than the others of its ilk. (Although maybe it helps a lot that Jennifer Aniston isn’t in this.)

Again, Portman proves what a gem of an actress she really is. She delivers laughs, blushes and tears in all the right places and brings a rare touch of depth that typical rom-com characters don’t have. Watching her stuff her face with donuts while weeping to “Bleeding Love” is perhaps the best moments in this film.

As for Kutcher, I believe it’s an accomplishment that he managed to NOT completely annoy me throughout this movie. I was honestly afraid that he’d drag Portman down to his vulgar level but instead she lends him a bit of her class.

Their chemistry might be a bit on the bland side though. For two extremely hot actors, they didn’t really generate much heat together. But the coupling is pleasant enough that it won’t bother you too much.

One could argue that the main formula deviation of No Strings Attached is the role reversal: the guy is the clingy one and the girl has all the commitment issues instead of the other way around. Although that may be partly true, they also have the advantage of having a decent script and a likable supporting cast to help them along. Or maybe Portman is just that good. I haven’t quite decided.

Honestly, I think this is a chick flick that guys can take their girlfriends to watch and not feel completely tortured for an hour and a half. Not to say that it doesn’t have the usual rom-com pitfalls. It still suffers from cheap jokes, severe predictability and obvious lack of originality — just not as glaringly as the others in the same genre. It even manages to pull some of them off. I actually really laughed in some parts. 

Obviously, there are very few commercial rom-coms that I truly find endearing these days. But this one… I have to say, wasn’t half as bad. So I think it’s safe to conclude that Emma and Adam aren’t the only ones who’ll find themselves pleasantly surprised by the time the credits start rolling.

135
Don’t Judge a Movie by Its Title by Issa Perez de Tagle I Am Number Four (2011)D: D. J. Caruso S: Alex Pettyfer, Dianna Agron, Timothy Olyphant, Teresa Palmer and Callan McAuliffe Based on the New York Times best selling novel by Pittacus Lore, I Am Number Four follows the story of John Smith (Alex Pettyfer), a 15-year old alien from the planet Lorien, and his guardian, Henri (Timothy Olyphant), as they run from the Mogadorians. The Mogadorians are responsible for wiping out Lorien and are now hunting down John and the other eight teenage Loriens living on Earth. These teens have special powers called “legacies” and are protected by a charm, which only allows them to be killed in a set order. At the start of the film, the first three kids have been axed, leading us to John who is, as you might have already guessed, Number Four. John is tired of running and yearns for a normal life, especially after falling for beautiful and artistic Sarah (Dianna Agron) and finding a true friend in Sam (Callan McAulliffe). He soon realizes that running only gets you so far before things catch up with you and confrontation is sometimes the only way to deal with a problem. Luckily for him, Lorien Number Six (Teresa Palmer) tracks him down and gives him some much-needed back-up. The plot isn’t anything brand new to us. Fans of Superman, Roswell and The X-Men, to name a few, will probably see familiar story elements here and there. But then again, in the day and age of constant remaking… I suppose this really isn’t too big of an issue. What could be an issue, however, is whether or not this film is a welcome addition to the teens-with-superpowers genre. And I would say… yes, it is. I must admit, I actually really enjoyed watching this flick. This comes as a surprise to me because I literally had no expectations of this movie. I basically went to watch it because it seemed like there would be lots of mindlessly fun things like huge explosions and insanely hot people running around the screen (which it has plenty of - just to be clear). Maybe it was Alex Pettyfer’s abs, Dianna Agron’s cuteness or Teresa Palmer’s badass-ness (personally, I thought she totally stole the show) but there was definitely something there that kept me compelled throughout the film. It also got me interested enough to want to check out the book after seeing it.  Then again, that could also be because the film leaves you with a lot of unanswered questions. I suppose they wanted to have plot points for a sequel or two to tie up but, on the whole, I find it unbalanced. It moves a bit slowly in the beginning yet it still doesn’t manage to give you enough information to help you understand certain aspects of the story if you haven’t read the book. You keep hoping they’ll explain things in the coming scene but the next thing you know, shit has hit the fan and you’re lost in bright lights, laser beams and hundred-foot monsters. In the end, I can’t help but feel that this movie would have done so much better as a TV Series. That might not be too much of a good thing but it’s not too much of a bad thing either - especially if you consider the fact that Smallville is finally wrapping up. I Am Number Four definitely offers a lot in terms of entertainment value for its target audience, but perhaps the benefit of having entire seasons to fill would give it enough time to develop its story and characters more fully. 

Don’t Judge a Movie by Its Title
by Issa Perez de Tagle

I Am Number Four (2011)
D: D. J. Caruso
S: Alex Pettyfer, Dianna Agron, Timothy Olyphant, Teresa Palmer and Callan McAuliffe

Based on the New York Times best selling novel by Pittacus Lore, I Am Number Four follows the story of John Smith (Alex Pettyfer), a 15-year old alien from the planet Lorien, and his guardian, Henri (Timothy Olyphant), as they run from the Mogadorians. The Mogadorians are responsible for wiping out Lorien and are now hunting down John and the other eight teenage Loriens living on Earth. These teens have special powers called “legacies” and are protected by a charm, which only allows them to be killed in a set order. At the start of the film, the first three kids have been axed, leading us to John who is, as you might have already guessed, Number Four.

John is tired of running and yearns for a normal life, especially after falling for beautiful and artistic Sarah (Dianna Agron) and finding a true friend in Sam (Callan McAulliffe). He soon realizes that running only gets you so far before things catch up with you and confrontation is sometimes the only way to deal with a problem. Luckily for him, Lorien Number Six (Teresa Palmer) tracks him down and gives him some much-needed back-up.

The plot isn’t anything brand new to us. Fans of Superman, Roswell and The X-Men, to name a few, will probably see familiar story elements here and there. But then again, in the day and age of constant remaking… I suppose this really isn’t too big of an issue.

What could be an issue, however, is whether or not this film is a welcome addition to the teens-with-superpowers genre. And I would say… yes, it is. I must admit, I actually really enjoyed watching this flick. This comes as a surprise to me because I literally had no expectations of this movie. I basically went to watch it because it seemed like there would be lots of mindlessly fun things like huge explosions and insanely hot people running around the screen (which it has plenty of - just to be clear).

Maybe it was Alex Pettyfer’s abs, Dianna Agron’s cuteness or Teresa Palmer’s badass-ness (personally, I thought she totally stole the show) but there was definitely something there that kept me compelled throughout the film. It also got me interested enough to want to check out the book after seeing it. 

Then again, that could also be because the film leaves you with a lot of unanswered questions. I suppose they wanted to have plot points for a sequel or two to tie up but, on the whole, I find it unbalanced. It moves a bit slowly in the beginning yet it still doesn’t manage to give you enough information to help you understand certain aspects of the story if you haven’t read the book. You keep hoping they’ll explain things in the coming scene but the next thing you know, shit has hit the fan and you’re lost in bright lights, laser beams and hundred-foot monsters.

In the end, I can’t help but feel that this movie would have done so much better as a TV Series. That might not be too much of a good thing but it’s not too much of a bad thing either - especially if you consider the fact that Smallville is finally wrapping up. I Am Number Four definitely offers a lot in terms of entertainment value for its target audience, but perhaps the benefit of having entire seasons to fill would give it enough time to develop its story and characters more fully. 

89

© 2009-2010 Pelikula Tumblr · Powered by Tumblr, Inc. · Theme by Kenna Marcelo