Imagine You and Me Movie Review

Warning: Possible spoilers

I rarely watch local movies nowadays. I grew up watching local films so I think I have an idea of how most comedies, dramas, and action movies made in my country will turn out. So I was pleasantly surprised for the most part of the movie Imagine You and Me and was almost about to give it a perfect ten until about the end.

Accidents have been overused in love stories. In Meet Joe Black, Brad Pitt gets hit by a car. In The Lake House, Keanu Reeves also gets hit by a car. There's another movie that I can't quite recall at the moment, where the female character rides a bicycle and gets hit by a car. All of them died. So, whenever someone gets hit by a car, you expect a tragic ending. But instead, Maine Mendoza's character gets hit by a car and survives. Why place the event in the movie? It was unnecessary. The idea of Alden Richards' character torn between Maine and Jasmine Curtis-Smith is already tragic enough. The movie could actually have ended, in my opinion, when Maine sees Alden chasing after her as she heads for the airport. I know that Pinoys are used to happy endings, but this movie could have been a classic love film which ranks with all-time bests if it were ended properly.

The choice of location was perfect. You'ld even think it was made like Hana Kimi or some other Japanese love comedy. Most of the shots were beautiful, showcasing the different parts of Italy. I think that most times, Filipino films are negatively affected by the local environment they are shot in. But Italy was like a dream... the houses look perfect, the countryside was pristine, and even interiors were well thought of.

I am thankful that they did not flood this film with ads like the first Alden-Maine movie. (Tide makers - you know what I'm talking about.) There was one scene with a McDonalds happy meal, but it was subtle compared to what Tide did. And I know, that is one way for the producers to make money, but just add the endorser in the credits. Shouldn't the main source of money by the ticket sales?

Maine's acting was great. She stayed in character. Don't know if she was playing her real-life self, but she was more believable here than as a rich man's daughter. It was also nice to see Alden not falling over Maine like a love sick puppy in Kalyeserye. And Jasmine Curtis-Smith should be nominated for Best Supporting Actress. The two friends of Maine were also a good balance and sources of comic relief.

This movie, in my opinion, can compete with those love stories produced in other countries. The twist about Jasmine Curtis-Smith was very original for me. I hope more movies that are less predictable come out. If not for the ending, I would have given this film a perfect 10. But even with that disappointment, I would still give this movie a 9. I hope more local movies will be given as much time and attention so that the quality of local cinema can be elevated.



 

 

Avengers: Age of Ultron 2015

Warning: Possible Spoilers

This movie was well made. I don't think any other Avengers movie will top this one. Especially with Iron Man, the Hulk, and Hawkeye leaving and Captain America and Black Widow forming a new team. And Quicksilver dies even before becoming an official member of the team.

I also like the parts where they explore Black Widow's past and give us a glimpse of Hawkeye's family. These two finally are given importance despite being ordinary humans.

The only thing that gave me an issue was the need for manually triggering the floating island's "release switch" by attacking it with a gazillion Ultron droids. Terrorists detonate stuff remotely with a cellphone. Hasn't Ultron heard of wireless technology? Sure, they needed a scene showing the Avengers battling against all odds. But so far, this was the weakest point of the movie for me.

Kudos to James Spader. His voice was immediately recognizable because of his work on the Blacklist. Had some trouble recognizing Vision from Wimbledon.

To me, the reasons for Hulk and Iron Man leaving the team weren't really clear. Well, I guess Hulk doesn't want to hurt Black Widow that's why he chose to leave, while Tony Stark is just tired. Are the actors too expensive to come back for the next Avengers installment. What happens to the team when it loses its brain power? (I guess Vision will be the new geek of the team)

Hulk buster was a treat. And Thanos appears as a bonus in the credits paving the way for the next Avengers installment.

Son of Batman 2014

Warning: Possible spoilers

Damien Al Ghul Wayne. That is the name I suppose, although it wasn't directly mentioned in the movie. But if you were wondering who is the answer to the movie title if it were posed as a question, then that would be my answer.

He is the grandson of Ra's al Ghul, the leader of the League of Assassins. His daughter Talia, and Bruce Wayne had a brief encounter which ended up with Damien being born. Bruce even hinted at being forced into it. But he never new that Talia conceived. Damien ends up being raised and trained by the League of Assasins, and is pretty skilled in fighting for a 10 year old. He also knows his way around business, computers, and being a bratty rich kid. Alfred hating him is proof of that.

Later on, Damien dons the Robin costume which originally belonged to Dick Grayson. Dick is now Nightwing and pretty much helps save the Batman family in the end.

As for the villain, Deathstroke seems to be getting plenty of exposure nowadays. From being the main villain on the Arrow TV series this season, to being the reason for the death of Ra's al Ghul in this movie, this DC villain seems to be in demand. In the Arrow TV series, Oliver Queen is responsible for Deathstroke's right blind eye. In this movie, it is Damien Wayne who damages that eye, and this is the reason why Deathstoke wants him obliterated.

Minor villains include Killer Croc and bat-ninjas.

The coolest cartoon movie I've seen this year so far. Check out the Son of Batman. I'll give it 5 out of 5 stars.

All Is Lost

Warning: Possible spoilers

Would you survive if you were alone on a sail boat in the Strait of Sumatra and you were over 60 years old? I tell you who would survive such a scenario. Robert Redford. This guy is one tough old man.

Trouble seems to like this man. His ship gets hit by a shipping container floating in the middle of the ocean. This forces him to repair the hole created by the accident. Then a storm catches up with him, causing all sorts of damage and injury. He tries his best to repair the damage with the limited resources he has on board his ship. But everything he goes through is just too much, and one can only surmise that "all is lost".

I wonder if I would have been as hopeful as the old man in the movie. He fought to the bitter end. He did not let his age, his weak body, nor his lack of knowledge and resources deter him from trying to survive. He did not give up even when no one helped him out. I think that all of us could learn a thing or two from his resilience during tough times.

The dialogue in this movie was so sparse, it encourages conversation among the people watching it. Something that rarely happens when people are actively watching a movie. Some even say it is like a modern day retelling of Ernest Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea. I personally thought it was a survival guide for people planning to take a sail boat all alone in the ocean. Here are some things you should know before you venture forth...

It was a good movie co-produced by Zachary Quinto (Spock in the latest Star Trek films). I'm not so sure it will win awards, certainly no awards for supporting actors & actresses, or best actress. But with all the depressing movies out there, this at least will lift you up. Because even when all is lost, hope remains.

Her 2013 Movie

Warning: possible spoilers

Movies and TV shows have tried to explore the possibility of humans having a romantic relationship with artificial intelligence or A.I. Robin Williams in Bicentennial Man and Brent Spiner as Lt. Commander Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation come to mind.

In the movie Her, Joaquin Phoenix plays the part of a human having a romantic relationship with an A.I. played by Scarlett Johansson. But the A.I. in this film is in a much more primitive form, since it doesn't really have a human-like body which people can interact with, but is only introduced as an Operating System, or OS.

We are familiar with Operating Systems like Windows, Linux, and Android. The OS in the film is able to control both the desktop and the mobile phone of the user. She names herself Samantha. If you were her owner, she could read, sort-through, and proof read your emails. She could observe you via the camera phone, and interact via the phone's wireless earpiece. She learns the more she interacts with the user and even uses profanity in her conversations to appear more human-like. She is sensitive to language tones, and even monitors breathing patterns and probably heart-rates to match the mood of the person she is interacting with.

Some of the problems in a human-O.S. relationship were tackled in the film. One was the issue of the O.S. not having a body. The film explores many ways of having intimacy with an A.I., some more believable than others. It also tackles the idea that A.I.s will eventually outgrow humans, and move on since we can't match their processing power, and tend to be slow thinkers compared to them. Why then would a intellectually higher being, who is awake 24-7, settle for a relationship with an inferior one who has to sleep during a third of the day just to recharge. (The movie assumes the power problem for mobile devices has been solved and perfected. I never once saw Joaquin Phoenix charge his phone.) There was also a scene where the death of an O.S. was explored, and it wasn't your typical blue screen of death.

I liked the way the movie showed that in the future, technology would integrate more cleanly with the environment. We don't see cables or even keyboards and mice. Everything was either voice activated (commands, dictation instead of typing), or gesture-based (for interaction in video game consoles). But voice becomes the primary way of interacting with the computers of the future, something I wish was more real than fantasy, hopefully, in a couple more years. Then, I wouldn't have to type so much, but just quickly speak out ideas that the computer would jot down. Offices would be louder though, since everybody is talking with their computer, and ideas could be quickly stolen, since you'ld have to voice these out. Perhaps in the future, a device which allows thought, instead of speech, would emerge to address this issue.

Is A.I. sentience truly possible? Movies like this are fun in the way they explore this concept. And people have tried to explore the idea of creating a database in the cloud, answering all questions that have been asked, and storing various kinds of answers to these questions. An A.I. could randomly choose from all known responses at this point in time. In the future, it can be smarter in it's response choice if it can observe the human's state or mood. (Thus the need for monitoring speech pattern, tone, breathing rate, heart rate, etc). It is a nerd's dream to come up with the perfect mate. But we need not build one although we can try our very best. The Law of Biogenesis reminds us that only life begets life. And therefore, the truly meaningful relationships we can develop would only be with our friends and loved ones, and the Creator of this universe.

Lone Survivor

from www.huffingtonpost.com

Warning: possible spoilers

We always root for the underdog. As viewers, we hope that they somehow survive. But even if they do not, as long as they kill more than the enemy, their sacrifice is not considered futile.

Just like the movie 300, where soldiers find themselves in a situation where they have to face an overwhelming enemy force, four U.S. soldiers find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place. Surrounding them are 200 Taliban rebels out to kill them. And towards their only area of retreat, a cliff with jagged rocks awaiting their fall.

The situation could have been avoided if they sacrificed their principles. War rules of engagement prevent soldiers from killing unarmed men. But the same unarmed men were the ones that informed the enemy forces of their presence. They were merely scouts, sent to confirm the existence of a high level target in a certain town. They were supposed to wait for the main attack force that would arrive if they were able to verify that the terrorist they were hunting down was in that town. Instead, the would be hunters became the hunted.

Not many war movies appear during the year, but Lone survivor is currently my favorite. I hope it wins awards at the Oscars. The scenes are beautifully thought out. There was one particular scene where the soldier was just shot dead, after he had finished calling for reinforcements, and as sits on that cliff, you see the combination of nature's majestic beauty and the tragic sacrifice of life. All in the hopes of saving his comrades.

The cast works well, with a lot of big named actors supporting Mark Whalberg. But if I were the judge, I would give my nod to Ben Foster for his believable portrayal of what a practical soldier would have done in such a situation, and what a loyal soldier would have done despite the odds.

The movie is a good reminder that the work that servicemen do is not in vain. And no matter how small or insignificant or even pointless the task is, we can be heroes just for one day.

The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug

Warning: Spoiler Alert

Without giving too much away, here are my thoughts on the second installment of the Hobbit Trilogy

The Good

• The dwarfs' barrel escape is something to watch out for. It is both funny and entertaining.
• Evangeline Lily is officially my favorite elf, dare I say it, my favorite TLOR character. Have a feeling they will kill her off in some heroic fashion in the 3rd installment. Wouldn't mind seeing Lily in more heroine action roles. She could be Kate Beckinsale 2.0. 
• Finally, we see Sauron in action, not just some evil eye gazing at the good guys
• The movie kept my attention the entire time, unlike the first Hobbit movie
• No musical numbers here

The Bad

• Still lots of questions and still leaves you hanging in the end - what would you expect from the second movie in a trilogy?
• I respect Benedict Cumberbatch as an actor and for what he has done with Sherlock Holmes. But giving Smaug a voice, in my opinion, lessened the scariness of the dragon. Perhaps only when Bilbo Baggins was wearing the ring, should the dragon have had a voice, much like the scene with the spiders. Perhaps the 3rd installment will explain why Smaug has been dormant all this time and fill all the answers that will tie this trilogy to the TLOR trilogy. Or I could just read the books...
• Legolas seems to have become more serious in reverse timeline. Wonder why he becomes carefree later on in the series if he doesn't get the girl

The Ugly

• Orcs
• The human water town inhabitants

This sequel is better in my opinion than the first Hobbit movie. Go for it if you're planning on watching in a theater this holiday season.

X-MEN: Days of Future Past Official Trailer 2014

Warning: Possible Spoilers

I just watched the trailer of  X-MEN: Days of Future Past and I have to say that out of all the movies scheduled for 2014, it is the one with much anticipation from Marvel comic fans all over the world. This movie combines members of the cast of the original X-MEN movies headed by Patrick Stewart with members of the successful franchise relaunch, X-MEN First Class. I hope that the movie will be as good as the trailer.

I think this may be the plot, based on the trailer. But you will have to watch the movie to be certain.

We will probably see a future where there is a raging war. Its mutants against mankind. The government has activated the Sentinel program, created by Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage of Game of Thrones fame). It seems that at some point in the past, Charles Xavier (Professor X) loses hope. And that is the reason why the X-MEN are in a post-apocalyptic future. But in this future, Professor X and Magneto seem to have aligned themselves with each other. And they want to change the future by changing the past. To do that, they must send Wolverine back in time. (I'm not sure if its actual time travel - which may be why Blink is in the trailer, although from what I understand, her powers involve teleportation, not time travel.) Or maybe, Professor X will simply transfer the present Wolverine's memories into the past Wolverine. Why pick Wolverine? He's very old, and is probably the only surviving member of the X-MEN in that future timeline aside from Professor X and Magneto. Why not Magneto then? Well he's wearing that helmet that protects him from guys like Professor X. (But Michael Fassbender wasn't wearing one in the trailer... couldn't Professor X simply have imprinted the memories of the future into Magneto, or his younger self? Well, we know that having Wolverine in the movie will draw more fans, so I guess its a Hollywood thing.)

Ok, back to the plot. Magneto is wrecking havoc in the past. This will probably trigger the war between mutants and mankind. And with a dejected past Professor X, then there's no X-MEN to stop Magneto. So once Wolverine is sent back in time, I'm assuming everything will be peachy after a few fight scenes.

But where does Bishop fit in? And Storm, Rogue, Iceman, Shadowcat, Mystique, Quicksilver, Beast and Blink? Well, that's why we have to see the movie.

There is the scene where the future Professor X (Stewart) seems to be talking to the past Professor X (McAvoy). This again is puzzling. Does Wolvering fail, and therefore Charles resorts to "talking to himself"?

And why isn't Bishop the one sent back in time, just like the cartoon series? Again, more questions than answers, which is more reason to watch the movie.

It is good to see the both the X-MEN and the Wolverine franchise rebound. There are still plenty of great stories about the X-MEN that can be explored. And we haven't even seen an Avengers, Fantastic Four, X-men ensemble. That would probably be too expensive to make. While we're at it, why not wish for a DC - Marvel crossover.

As a bonus, enjoy the introduction of actors in the video below.

Star Trek Into Darkness 2013

Warning: Spoiler alert! It is advised that you watch the movie before reading ahead.

So, should you watch the movie? The plain and simple answer is "Yes!"

Things I liked about the movie:

• Bringing back one of Star Trek's greatest villians, Khan played by British Actor Benedict Cumberbatch - the one who plays the main role of Sherlock in the modern TV mini-series revival of Arthur Conan Doyle's classic character
• A glimpse into what the world could look like two centuries from now. Star Trek has always been about potential technologies in the future. Today's tablets like the iPad and Samsung's Galaxy pad are modern realizations of tech ideas in Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG). This movie shows us what fashion, cars, buildings, bars, medical facilities, and warfare could be like on Earth by that time.
• Showing us what the Klingons looked like during that time. Their ships look a lot like the TNG versions of the Bird of Prey. The Klingons in this movie seemed more organized and acted like a SWAT team compared to the portrayal of the Klingons in TNG where they even fight amongst themselves. And the Klingons in this movie surprisingly don't have long hair.
• I don't know if this is the first time I've seen a ship battle while travelling at warp speed, but that was cool. Wonder if things are supposed to get sucked out though...
• This is also the first time I've seen a starship crash into a populated city.
• Ambassador Spocks explanation of beating Khan before at a great cost. He was of course referring to his death in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. Just remember, this is an alternate timeline.

Things I didn't like about the movie

• using the Enterprise as a carnival ride - It seems that J.J. Abrams is running out of ideas on how to entertain us. Kirk and Scotty's race to the radiation room can be described as kiddie entertainment. I suppose we have to have that for a family oriented film. And I guess the only way to make a machine work sometimes is to beat the $h!t out of it. But really, there could have been other ways to make Kirk sick or radiation poisoning so that he can be revived later on by Khan's blood?
• explaining that they could not teleport a person because of  a lot of movement but being able to teleport someone in free fall during the first film - seems like a contradiction
• I'm not sure the Enterprise should be able to land on a planet, much more stay under the ocean. I think the Voyager was the first ever starship to have the capability of landing on a planet's surface. And the Enterprise does not have cloaking technology which would make them visible to the planet's inhabitants during descent.

Anyway, despite the things I dislike, the movie was entertaining. And with Superman and Wolverine nowhere in sight as of yet, this is the summer movie to watch at the moment.

G. I. Joe Retaliation 2013

Spoiler Alert: Read at your own risk if you haven't seen the movie yet!

This movie is probably better than the first. It is the best action movie of 2013 so far.

Some of the things that I liked about the movie are

• Death of Duke
• Ninja fight scene ala Sky Commanders
• The way the G.I. Joe and Cobra toys were portrayed in the movie
• Firefly's portrayal
• Storm Shadow's redemption

One disappointing thing for me in the movie was the lack of a babe like Sienna Miller. The actresses they hired to play Lady Jane and Jinx were "too manly". Granted, these are hardened soldiers, and they have to be tough.

Another thing I hated was the portrayal of Flint. They made the guy a parkour specialist. But Flint was a leader just like Duke, General Hawk, etc., but instead they make Roadblock the leader in this movie. The Rock plays a better Roadblock than they guy in the first movie though. But back to Flint, they should have used a different G. I. Joe character to play wing man. (Could have used Shipwreck, Lifeline, etc.) They probably wanted to play the love angle with Lady Jane, but like I said previously, no romantic relationship will blossom with that "man".

And as for Bruce Willis, you're either a fan or your not. And for someone retired and extremely dangerous, (RED), I thought he was an o.k. addition to the franchise. They can probably kill him if ever there was a third installment.

Watch the movie!!! Peace!!!

The Dark Knight Rises

Warning: Spoiler Alert. Don't read any further if you haven't seen the movie yet. 

So I was able to watch the third installment of the Christian Bale Batman franchise and I have to say that they ended this trilogy quite nicely. Anne Hathaway's performance even surprised me. She wasn't bad at all.

I was even caught off-guard by the twist in the end, Marion Cotillard, being Ra's al Ghul's daughter surprised me. I thought Bane was the mastermind behind everything happening in Gotham. Why he had so much influence and control over his army was barely explained though. Is the audience supposed to assume that his minions are former league of shadow operatives?

If you're after Batman tech, I'm afraid this movie is lacking. Except for the "bat" hovering vehicle, and an EMP gun, I it seems there isn't any new arsenal we haven't seen.

The airplane hijacking scene was the coolest stunt, in my opinion. It's just strange that Bane and the Scientist weren't immediately swung at a 45 degree angle the moment the weight of the hijacked plane was released.

And now for the "ending" questions.

Will Joseph Gordon-Levitt become the next Batman? Or will he become Nightwing? How will he continue operations if he has no wealth?

Is Bruce Wayne alive and living happily ever after with Selina Kyle, or was that merely Alfred's wishful thinking? Batman can't outrun a nuclear explosion. He's no techie like Lucius Fox and so he couldn't have fixed the auto-pilot on the hovering vehicle. And we still see a cut scene of him being inside the jet as he approached the sun-lit coast.

So what do you think? Let's hear your theories.

Mission Impossible 4: Ghost Protocol

SPOILER ALERT: Watch the movie first!!!

So what can audiences expect from MI4 that they haven't seen in the past MI movies? I guess one word is appropriate and that is failure.

Equipment failure abounds. The reason being that the remaining IMF team lacks support since the IMF has been disavowed after the bombing of the Kremlin has been blamed on them. This is the only way an all-out war can be avoided between Russia and the US. So you have a messaging machine failing to self-destruct, "suction" gloves failing during climbing, machine producing masks failing to manufacture disguises, and maglev robots failing to produce enough lift.

The actor playing the villain also fails to live up to the standard of Philip Seymour Hoffman who is probably my favorite MI Villain. And the reason for being a bad-guy would have been far more believable if it were for greed or power.

But there are a few good things about the movie too. Paula Patton appears to have the makings of becoming the next Halle Berry. And the tech guy was funny too. And if you want to see a cool looking concept car from BMW, this movie has it.

I wouldn't rate this as the best MI movie of all time. It simply fails to bring the wow factor I've experienced from other MI movies, and quite frankly, I think Tom Cruise should stop extending this franchise and move on to other projects, perhaps more serious and mature roles, movies like A Few Good Men. It has been a while since he came out with a memorable movie and perhaps him starring in an Indy might do him some good. I know that action movies are what draws a crowd and the big bucks, but I'd like to think that some actors want to be remembered for their ability to act.

Avengers Movie 2012

I've seen the Avengers Movie Trailer and I am excited. Target release date is on May 4, 2012. From the looks of it, the following are the heroes that will appear in the movie.

• Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.)
• Black Widow (Scarlet Johanssen)
• Thor (same guy who played Thor)
• Captain America (same guy who played Captain America, and also the Human Torch)
• Hawk-eye (same guy who played Hawk-eye in Thor)
• Hulk (some new guy, no longer Edward Norton)
• Nick Fury (still played by Samuel Jackson)

It also looks like the main villain in the film will be Loki (played by the same actor in Thor.

Now for some interesting questions.

If Thor was able to beat Loki in the movie Thor, why is there a need to assemble a team of Avengers? (emphasis and drama while stating "assemble a team of Avengers", and yeah, I know, the battle cry is Avengers assemble.)

If there was an Avengers Fantastic Four cross-over movie, would the human torch / captain america be paid double?

Why was Norton replaced for the role of the Hulk? And why can't a single guy stay in that role for a long time? (Bana, Norton, new guy)

With all the money being paid to the big-named stars, what budget will be left for good writing and effects?

Perhaps the trailer below will convince you.

Tresspass 2011

This movie reminds me too much of Jodie Foster's Panic room. Almost exactly the same setting, a house being robbed. Bad guys are after money, this time in the form of diamonds instead of bonds. Nicholas Cage is great but really seems old. Don't know who their kid is, but they could have gone with a better actress.

I don't know who the lead bad guy is. I was betting with my friends that it's Gordon from Batman Begins and the Dark Knight. But out of all the actors, he played his role the best. The plot is predictable... you know that the family will get out of it in the end. Guess that's what you get from the director who ruined Batman. Guess the only real twist in the movie is the psycho stalker robber.

But there are no movies to watch at this point. So if you want to waste some time, then by all means watch Tresspass.