The first thought that crossed my mind during the opening scenes of the Incredible Hulk was Bill Bixby. Though the memory is almost gone, it was the TV series Bruce Banner whom I thought of - his eyes when he goes berserk; his ‘you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry’ remark; and that Gamma experiment which as I recall also happened in a lab and a chair similar to this 2008 incarnation.

My guess is that in Marvel’s desire to erase the negativity of the first film they reverted to some old formulas. Edward Norton’s Bruce Banner reminded me somewhat of Bill’s because he was a man on the run; weighed down by his conscience because he injured some loved ones; and perpetually scared that the monster created from the Gamma experiment will rise again.

Ironically, I like this incarnation of the Hulk because Bruce Banner has some fighting spirit. He has learned methods of self control but when he’s pissed he’s pissed – not much anyone can do there.

Compared to Eric Bana (Hulk 2003), I like Edward Norton better as Bruce Banner. He has more of that scientist quality, or maybe a geek is the right term. Norton, perhaps in large part due to the script, has a clearly defined Bruce Banner compared to Bana’s: he is a man on the run, a scientist frustrated in not finding a cure. I know who Edward Norton is and I am into the story.

Former Lord of the Rings star Liv Tyler is on hand as the unlucky love interest of the Hulk a.k.a Bruce Banner. I said unlucky because she always seems to be crying which is understandable considering her problem.

Over all she delivered her role well as Betty Ross but I am not totally sold, as they say, with her scenes together with Edward Norton. I feel their pain alright but I am just feeling the love. Probably it’s because I am still for 2003’s Betty Ross, Jennifer Connelly.

William Hurt (General Ross), Tim Blake Nelson (Samuel Sterns), and Tim Roth (Emil Blonsky/Abomination) round up the rest of the important characters. All are able actors and all played their roles well for this film.

My biggest reservation of the film by far is the effects especially regarding the Hulk. He seemed too light and agile for a monster his size, maybe for a monster period. Sometimes I think this version – the Hulk character – is too human.

But over all Incredible Hulk (2008), is more loyal to the comic that the 2003 version. It is full of action, scenes are nicely paced; its characters well defined, you’ll know where everyone is. Personally I really liked the cat and mouse game Banner does with the government, including this whole story line of the monster within. I was really a fan of Bill Bixby’s Hulk growing up. Subsequently to Lou Ferigno’s too…no CGI can replicate him (as Hulk).

If can be mobile like Po the Panda, do a split, do kung fu, in spite of my bulging tummy I’d be a happy man. Alright, maybe minus the splits.

Kung Fu Panda rocks! It’s somehow like the old Cris Farley (remember him?) movie Beverly Hills Ninja but a thousand times better and guaranteed to make you laugh.

The movie is set in ancient China, a country we all know from Jacky Chan movies, is the birthplace of kung fu. I like the use of animals as kung fu masters, each representing a style made popular in the kung fu genre: tigress, viper, crane, cricket, and monkey. It may not original using animated animals doing martial arts but Kung Fu Panda is certainly the funniest.

And that amazes me always, laughing at jokes that would have otherwise corny when used in real life movies. Animation provides the greatest chance for the “suspension of disbelief” if I got the term right.

Take Viper (Lucy Liu) for example; now how much offense can a snake do, other than maybe hug you to death. Or Mantis (Seth Rogen); even if I were left only one finger I’d still out weigh him, and still, like Viper he’s a kung fu master.

Why look far for impossible stunts by animals when you can just look at Po (Jack Black)? Now I don’t remember panda’s being aggressive; a bear maybe but not a panda, but, Po is the much prophesied Dragon Warrior.

It may not always work. I may not laugh or cry as much as I used to with animation like I did when I was a child. But given a good script an animated film can work wonders. Kung Fu Panda’s script was perfect.

And the script called for Jack Black (as Po) all the way. Fans of Angelina Jolie, Lucy Liu, and kung fu comedian Jacky Chan might be disappointed considering the lack of screen time for their favorite actors. Honestly, I even had to look up IMDB to find out who played Tigress; more to the point, I was confused throughout the film if it’s a tiger or a tigress.

For Po, there was no mistake; the facial expressions, the voice, the tummy, it was Jack Black. Po is Jack Black maybe even more because I don’t remember laughing so much at his movies, until now. He was both funny and cute that I had this urge to buy a teddy bear of all things.

Lastly, what’s an animated movie without a lesson? Well, Kung Fu Panda has one. I won’t tell you because suffice to say it is very important as much as it is common, so much so that anyone else telling you this lesson would be labeled a nagger.

But not this film, the lesson was delivered in a fashion that was both unique and direct to the point.

Now that’s perfection worthy of kung fu. . . . maybe not.

Watching the TV series Numbers should tell you that math can be applicable in just about anything. For me, Math remains to still be understood as I barely passed it during my school days.

21 is a film a team of card counters (student geniuses) from M.I.T who went into Vegas to win big money using high level math. The interesting part is (and I’m still googling my way if) it was real. But suffice to say from the few readings I came up with a group of students did test themselves in Vegas with a system so effective they got away with millions.

Now before I bore you into thinking that this is a movie full of math, it isn’t. 21 while being about blackjack and Vegas is also about the journey of lead character Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess). A nerd by all accounts he dreams of getting into Harvard Medical School to fulfill dreams of becoming a doctor. But going to Harvard needs money and scholarship applications are fierce.

His luck would change in the class of Prof. Micky Rosa (Kevin Spacey) who just happens to be a former card counter himself. Apparently still unable to resist the lure of money in Vegas, this math professor holds clandestine meetings with his select group of students, teaching them techniques and later on make money in actual casinos.

Simple enough? Not so, if watched Robert De Niro’s Casino. Ben Campbell represents the average guy, a nerd, who follows all rules and does all the hard work. He is good with numbers which is why he made the team. The question now is how will he survive what can be described as the jock’s world of Micky Rosa and Las Vegas. How will straight average guy fare with all the rich people, big bouncers, and all the street smart people in Las Vegas?

‘Variable change’ is the term used in the movie. It is perhaps Prof. Rosa’s number one tip in making a killing at the Black Jack table, to always account for variable change. But the term doesn’t just apply to cards; it applies to anything in the story. And it was a fun and interesting ride to see how Ben Campbell picked up on the variable change.

I mistook Jim Sturgess for a rookie actor thinking this is one of those movies who wanted to try out new blood in order that attention is focused on the story. Looking at his profile in IMDB he has a portfolio of a dozen or so films. He came off ok but there was just no ex factor there, his two buddies at MIT were more nerdy than he was.

Kevin Spacey and Laurence Fishburne (who played Vegas security officer Cole Williams) were great. And so was leading lady Kate Bosworth who played Jill Taylor one of the Black Jack team. She has the tendency to overshadow Jim but then again maybe that was what the filmmaker intended.

Chemistry wise the entire ensemble was great. They jelled. Jim’s apparent lack of personality was the only weak link I can think of but the story was interesting enough that I didn’t mind, too much.

I’d give this movie five stars if I can actually use this card counting thing to win myself some money. As it is I only have my friends to gamble with, and as it turns out that’s all I need, especially in enjoying a movie like 21.

There is a joke that goes: ‘Doc it hurts when I do this’; Doctor answers, ‘stop doing it’. Corny yes but what if you can’t do anything. What if you can’t stop that pain and it’s your own doctor that is giving it to you.

The backdrop of the story of Awake is a phenomenon called Anesthesia Awareness. The name itself betrays what is wrong with experiencing the phenomenon; when you are under anesthesia you shouldn’t be aware.

Clay Beresford (Hayden Christensen) is the unlucky man about to on the operating table for an open heart surgery – a heart transplant in fact. For transplant patients getting on the table to get a replacement organ is actually a hopeful event except for Clay who became painfully aware (when he shouldn’t) that his heart was going to be taken out.

Awake is not all about a medical anomaly. Clay Beresford does have a life besides having a bad heart – he is rich, handsome; he has a powerful mother and a loving sexy wife. Nice life right? Not entirely as this life will give you the twist and turns of a potentially good story, which I won’t tell you for obvious reasons.

If I did tell you then the potential would be lost as I would have robbed you of the suspense. Furthermore, my choice of the word ‘potential’ comes from not liking the rest of the movie’s elements. Besides the stories’ anesthesiologist the two other things that were wrong are the two lead actors, Hayden Christensen and Jessica Alba playing Sam Lockwood.

The two are a great looking couple onscreen but unfortunately they are great only physically. Hayden has a nice face; you can sense the emotion. Physically he did great as Anakin Skywalker, but he has this voice that just made my most hated voice list – Leonardo DiCaprio and Keanu Reeves comprising the rest of my list. Jessica, well, I’d die for a date but I won’t bet my life that she can get an acting award.

Overall I wouldn’t recommend this movie, if only for the reasons mentioned because of Hayden and Jessica. Watching your surgeons would be better if we are to believe the stats at the end of the film.

Lastly, based on experience, thank God for anesthesia that works!!!

Compared its Da Vinci Code riding predecessor, National Treasure: Book of Secrets is more appropriate of being called ‘national treasure’, because this time the treasure searched for was entirely American. Allusions to American Revolutionary figures in part one I believe were merely a side story as the fabled (and more European) Templar Treasure and mysterious organizations such as the Freemasons were the true crowd drawers.

Treasure hunter Benjamin Gates (Nicholas Cage) this time solves a more personal history puzzle when his ancestor during the American Civil War Era was declared an accomplice in the Lincoln Assassination. A trail left from a ‘missing page’ of John Wilkes Booth’s diary leads him to Europe and back; from places hallowed by history like the Buckingham Palace and the Oval Office. And like part one he just broke in, took what he wanted; with great care to the historical artifact of course.

The entire crew is back for this second run around through American historical landmarks. Ben Gates will not be able to go anywhere with his tech wiz sidekick Riley Poole (Justin Bartha). If Indy breaks into ancient temples solving ancient riddles, for Gates he needs good old 20th century computer hacking. And most important Riley gives the film just the right amount of laughs, I like him perhaps better than most.

German hottie Diane Kruger is back as fellow history buff and girlfriend Abigail Chase. Patrick Gates (Jon Voight) and ‘newcomer’ Emily Appleton (Helen Mirren) complete the crew.

While many of the characters are said to learned persons in history, masters of dead and extinct languages; and many of the sites are real and more tangible than 3000 year old dead cities; make no mistake in swallowing the films’ historical allusions hook, line, and sinker. Don’t swallow especially on the ‘Book of Secrets’ which points to many well known American conspiracies.

But that is the bread and butter of National Treasure: Book of Secrets like its predecessor; it is a wild goose chase involving many conspiracies – or what I sometimes call as historical possibilities.

Bob Woodward of the Washington Post once wrote of history that no one may never get a precise “engineer’s drawing” of events. Memory, Perspective, and Self-Interest always plays a part. That is not to say I believe in what National Treasure says, but it is to say I enjoy at being pointed out what is possible.

I find the film fun and enjoyable even though it has given me nothing new from part one – that is besides the conspiracies and locations used. Ben Gates and crew are a fun group of guys they jell really well. Strange that even though I expect nothing new I look forward for an implied part 3.

Till then, I’ll hit the real history books.

If we judge based on the performances of past resurrected franchises such Rambo, Rocky, Terminator, and Die Hard, the Indiana Jones sequel would be on top. It came off in a shape fairly resembling its former self. I guess we can thank almighty Steven Spielberg for that feat. But then again, even Spielberg has his limits.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is the fourth installment in the series; the first after 19 years because The Last Crusade was in 1989).

The story takes place after the world war; a time of nuclear bomb testing, a cold war between America and the Soviet Union, and Communist Witch hunts. In the middle of all this Indy is kidnapped by Russians en route to taking over a secret army base. These Russians as it turns out were looking for the alien bodies in Roswell. Later on it turns out that aliens too are behind an ancient lost city in the jungles of South America.

In hindsight (seeing the movie whole) I would have to agree with some opinions that the alien body and the alien angle should have been kept hidden till the very end. Alien beings and ancient civilizations is a topic very familiar to me and presume so do most of the sci-fi loving public. Perhaps, it was at the point when I knew of alien angle the movie lost much of its thunder.

Action wise Harrison Ford who is already a whopping 66 years old pulled it off, well barely. I was not fully sold because I am not blissfully ignorant of his age, and sometimes it comes to point that I ask myself should an old man be still doing that. Shia LaBeouf of Transformers fame provided some great comic relief as Mutt Williams. Cate Blanchett who is always a bright spot acting wise played top villain Irina Spalko. Cate really did well on her accent.

The film is nicely paced, full of movement. It had mystery (which I unfortunately found out to quickly), it had puzzles, and it had the action the franchise was known for. How you receive it, I suppose, will depend on how much of a fan you are. Are you type who will say ‘welcome back’, or, ‘you’re just too old for this.’

And fans will surely notice the amount of CGI used in the film. For some odd reason, and I realized this only after watching a bootlegged DVD of National Treasure: Book of Secrets, the CGI doesn’t work for me. I found myself throughout the film guessing how much CGI is in a scene than being engrossed in the story, maybe even try to solve the puzzles before Indiana Jones could.

Granted that National Treasure did not call for a fantastic and outrageous environment as much as Kingdom of the Crystal Skull did, it really doesn’t feel right to go all high tech. Continuity issues come to mind at least style wise. Whatever the ancient civilization the first three Indiana Jones movies did greatly using old style film effects.

Furthermore, the change of style indirectly confirms in some ways that Indiana Jones, more to the point Harrison Ford can no longer hack it. In the right setting, the right story, the right character, CGIs can be magic; but that is not how this franchise was known for.

Indiana Jones is known for making history fun and interesting. We love Doctor Henry Jones, Jr. for his bravery, daring, but most of all his brains in uncovering a world which could just be literally beneath our feet.

And Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has been fun. But hopefully our favorite archeologist and part time teacher will now make teaching a full time job.

Except for mild surprise that Tom Cruise was not able to lock on the Iron Man movie, I had no opinions of Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark when the movie was just green-lighted for live action production. Honestly, I had Patrick Bergin in mind for the role back in the mid 90s when Marvel seemed to be hot on making a movie of their characters. The mustache was the clincher.

Thankfully I had no Hollywood producer to hear my choices because I loved the performance of Robert Downey, Jr.

I was hooked to Tony Stark in the trailer alone with colorful shades and his answer to being the Da Vinci of the time as “ridiculous” because he doesn’t paint. The answer had humor, arrogance, confidence, and maybe even a dash of humility (maybe). Not the swab, debonair type of playboy, Downey’s interpretation of weapons manufacturer Tony Stark was unexpected but a refreshing one nonetheless. It was a style all his own; and it was perfect.

Which is more than I can say for the portrayal of Jim Rhodes, played by Terrence Howard. As much as I admire Mr. Howard, seeing a few of his works; his voice was just wrong; reminds me of Mike Tyson. For Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) the bald head and the full beard worked greatly for him. Gwyneth Paltrow could be better but then again she’s just a secretary/personal assistant in Pepper Potts.

The transformation of Jarvis from the comics’ human butler to the movies’ Artificially Intelligent house was a stroke of genius; it gave Stark a separate identity from DC Comics gadget wielding hero Batman. It even enhances the character of Tony Stark as a technological genius, while, at the same time points to the tragedy of being a man “with everything and nothing.”

Iron Man has a nice pace to it. You won’t get that dragging feeling as the story was always moving. The movie’s high point is in its technology and action scenes. Tony Stark disassembling the engine of his Hot Rod; and later on his weapons to make his Mark 1 armor, certainly made me itchy for a wrench or ratchet even though I have nothing to use it on.

The film’s villain could be better. He may have played his role well but unfortunately the character was not developed well enough that he was menacing; someone that you could hate, but more importantly fear.

Ultimately, the Iron Man’s number one failing also came from the personality of its main character. Tony Stark in this film is a carefree character. He has humor; he loves women; he is arrogant; he just has this aura of just being a fun guy. Not a care in the world. This carefree character is so strong that his failings – the alcohol, the apathy in who he sells the weapons to, the lack of a real relationship – seem non-existent. Overall there’s this general feeling that Stark always gets what he wants.

Even when he’s captured; when felt regret at seeing his weapons in the wrong hands, and later on used against civilians; even when he was obsessed with creating his armor; you won’t get the feeling that Tony Stark was never a broken man. As serious as he was in these very serious scenes the personality of the happy go lucky, billionaire, playboy, always wins.

And that is not entirely a bad thing. Who wouldn’t want to be a billionaire playboy with a personal plane and high tech gadgets? This film was a joy ride for me. And it will be too especially to those who like technology and are fans of the comic book. But if the franchise is to go to greater heights it needs to put more seriousness in the character and the issues involved in the story.

Weapons, women, and alcohol, are after all serious business.

On the surface The Other Boleyn Girl seem like your typical love triangle – two sisters battling for the heart of one man. And had the film been titled something more common as “The Other Woman”, and set in a period more contemporary, it could make some money here in the Philippines. But being a historical drama of Henry VIII’s England, I seriously doubt it’ll make decent money.

Natalie Portman plays the ill fated Anne Boleyn, 2nd wife of King Henry VIII who in turn is played by Eric Bana. The other Boleyn girl, Mary, is played by Scarlett Johansson.

I don’t know enough of the historical accounts pertaining to the triangle to make a critique of the film’s accuracy. Safe to say, that based on many Hollywood films inspired from historical figures and events, I’d read first before accepting any of it as fact.

What is certain is that Henry’s original wife Catherine had not given him a son and obsessions of that day especially for kings was producing an heir – a male heir. From the royal problem comes a plot, if you will, of winning the king’s bed, gain wealth and favor, maybe even produce a son.

On that description alone I guess you can say this film is a social-climbing chess game. Unfortunately it is disappointing because the story was confined only to the Boleyn family.

King Henry’s choices were of historical significance after all and I would have wanted that it be shown in a much clearer light than just mentioning in passing. Because of the Boleyn girls, Henry challenged the all powerful Catholic Church essentially giving people every where the choice of following their own conscience. No scene was made to that effect except a line that to ‘break from Rome would isolate England politically’.

Furthermore, the Boleyn family were not the only contenders for the kings bed. The other challengers were mentioned by name but unless you are British such names will have no impact. If such scenes were present it could have given more political intrigue and suspense.

While I appreciate the logic that the film might be meant to focus only on the Boleyn sisters, there wasn’t enough sisterly relationship scene for me to be affected on their estrangement. Acting wise, however, the sisters were great. They didn’t mesh perhaps in large part because of a substandard script but they were great individually. Natalie Portman was particularly scary as the scheming Anne Boleyn and Scarlett was ok as a low key Mary Boleyn.

Eric Bana did well enough as Henry VIII though his role could use some more spicing up to make himself more kingly. Apart from the garment and people bowing down he could be just any other man having trouble with two pretty women. There was one element that I intrigued me and I have seen before on movies with kings and royalty - this film had the same pitiful element of kings, queens, powerful people being isolated. Henry VIII is as much a toy as he is god on earth.

The Other Boleyn Girl can be dragging for those who are not verse with England or Europe of those days. Though I don’t consider it perfect or fantastic, I liked it because it gives me an actual picture (which has to be verified ofcourse) of people I have studied and read about. Movies certainly beat reading dates and names ofcourse.

But still reading is best . . . .

Potentially John Rambo could have had more punch than the boxer movie Rocky Balboa, but it’s a dud. At least with Rocky you had some nostalgia albeit forcefully jammed down the movie goer’s throats with some old clips and locations.

This movie is emotionally dead. Such a big waste of opportunity if you think about it considering its intent was, like Rambo III, to try to bring attention to a war torn country: Burma in this case. But when part III succeeded, part IV failed.

John Rambo had the usual elements of war. There was all this brutal killing of civilians, but the problem is none of whom were any character of note. Genocide notwithstanding I did not feel any emotional connection to slain civilians – who were they; why were the soldiers killing them; what do they do.

And other than having innocents I cannot relate with and probably the biggest problem of this movie is that there is no worthy villain that the audience can hate. On paper, Major Pa Tee Tint (Maung Maung Khin) is supposed to be Rambo’s main enemy. Other than doing young boys at night, I have no idea what this character is supposed to do. I can’t remember if he even fired a gun or even discussed strategy with his men. This Burmese major is so forgettable that I had to look up at imdb.com if this character even had a name.

The main character, John Rambo, is the only thing right in a movie filled with disappointments only because Stallone looks and feels the part. But unfortunately at least for this sequel the character looked old. I don’t mean physically old, though Stallone has aged a lot since the last sequel; but old because of the lack of fire that was so loved of John Rambo.

Maybe it was the lack of action sequences. Maybe it was the bad script. John Rambo no longer impresses me with fear as a Vietnam Vet and Green Beret with emotional issues. He no longer elicits empathy as a man with nowhere to go. But apparently he has a father no one knew in past sequels. And again like the rest of the film, I saw no father nor heard any talk of who he is.

There is just no depth in anyone in this film. It’s like all the life went with actor Richard Crenna (god rest his soul) who played Col. Trautman, Rambo’s sidekick and Commanding officer. Now there was the time when this franchise had decent banter.

The movie ends with Rambo walking into the farm of his father. If we go by Stallone’s age, that father should be just about 80 years old. Maybe the character has other family, then maybe Rambo is his only heir, but hopefully this is the end of the road for our favorite Green Beret. Let him just be the son he never was to his father. No more missions!

Let’s not resurrect characters that should have been retired already!

‘If you can go back in time and change anything, what would it be?’

You cannot, obviously.

Atonement is a film about wanting to go back, but maybe the more accurate description is it’s a film about being burdened with a pain in the past. As in life, there is not much the lead can do. What is done is done; there is no going back.

We make amends, do penitence; then maybe fate will look kindly, and give back that which was destroyed. Maybe . . .

This film, however, is primarily a love story while being about pain and penitence. Cecilia Tallis (Keira Knightley) and Robbie Turner (James McAvoy) play the star-crossed lovers separated by a childhood misdeed and the Second World War. They are very capable actors backed up by an equally capable cast that is if you don’t mind the accent. It’s an all British cast.

I sometimes find myself needing more concentration in an all British movie; with the accent and the use of words. But this film is ok, no danger of nosebleed for just understanding the dialogue.

The concept of Atonement is perfect. Like any movie, any story, we look for the challenges and the conflict. In love stories the conflicts you see are warring families; one lover rich and the other poor; or other lovers, but what greater challenge is there than a world at war. How can you find love in all that hate?

In some ways the same can be asked of the lovers in the film: ‘how can you find the love?’ Sure Cecilia and Robbie longed for each other excruciatingly in the war scenes, but I never really felt the attachment on their relationship. Poof they’re in love and poof World War II.

Cinematography is great. There were nice scenes of aristocratic England; the Dunkirk evacuation; and World War II era London. The film’s musical score has one unique element to it; the sound of a typewriter. That should give you a hint of what the ‘atonement’ is.

What I find unfavorable about this film is the storyline. It needs some getting used to, but honestly at times, when I recollect, I find it horrible. Sometimes the story goes forward, then it rewinds again, this time through the eyes of another character. While ultimately it builds up to the twist in the end I find that it interrupts my momentum in getting a feel for the character.

I was so dazed in fact that I find myself saying ‘what!!!’ in the end. With so many backwards and forwards, I didn’t realized I had already reached it.

Fortunately, what I know is I’ve reached the end of my review.

I looked the movie up on imdb.com and was only to happy to see the quote I loved and decided to start the piece with it.

“In all the years you've been doing this, how often can you say that we've produced truly legitimate intelligence? Once? Twice? Ten times? Give me a statistic; give me a number. Give me a pie chart, I love pie charts. Anything, anything that outweighs the fact that if you torture one person you create ten, a hundred, a thousand new enemies.”

Rendition is named after a legal jargon of the same name wherein United States security agencies outsource their torture of terrorism suspects to countries that are more lenient to more ‘physical methods’ of persuasion. The quote mentioned above was said by one of the main characters questioning the practice.

This film deserves the highest credit for being relevant to the times as it tackles sensitive issues especially torture. Would you torture a suspected terrorist for information? But often there is the argument that dehumanizes suspects. Why should it bother you that a terror suspect is tortured? And that is often followed by- maybe you’re a terrorist yourself for showing pity to these people.

Hard questions. I certainly won’t have pity on a man who will be so willing to blow himself up or order others to do the same. But on the chance that I am wrong what will I do? Let him go or kill him, and yes, I will most likely create enemies as stated by the quote above. What makes a person guilty anyway with this method called ‘rendition’? Oh yes did I mention there was no trial . . .

Rendition has a good cast of actors but my applause goes to husband and wife, Anwar El-Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally) and Isabella Fields El-Ibrahimi (Reese Witherspoon). Both have ably shown the emotions that come with being the wife of a husband who disappeared and accused of being a terror suspect; and being a man who was tortured, wondering if he’ll see his wife and child again.

The film had this flashback that seemed highly irrelevant but placed as the movie’s special twist. Even now I question, what the point of that flashback is, but, with all the relevant legal, moral, ethical, political and practical pitfalls of rendition that this movie has brought into light I guess I can overlook a bad movie timeline.

As I end this piece let me use a quote I have used before: He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. (Friedrich Nietzsche)

If blowing planes and killing innocents can be considered as monstrous, what can be said of a government picking people off the streets? If it’s the right thing to do then everyone should take part in it.

This movie was a surprise in a low key kind of way. Actually, I was waiting for good old western style shooting; gunfights; cowboys; especially when one of the most popular leading men around, Brad Pitt, is the lead as Jesse James. I wanted action and I wanted to be dazzled. Instead, what I got was a puzzle, skillfully crafted, that I wanted to solve and savor even long after I have finished the movie.

And the puzzle is; who was the bad guy? A strange question if you think about it since the demarcation lines between good and bad are always evident in movies. But strange as it is, it is the only question that came to mind when I finished watching the film.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is all drama; mostly talk, all throughout. Besides being a tale of the final years of the famous outlaw it is also a character sketch of the main protagonists: Jesse James and his killer Robert Ford. And it was one great sketch.

I got the feel of who Jesse James was, or at least what he could have been in his final years: An outlaw, fearless, charismatic, smart, famous, and in more ways than one, crazy.

Brad Pitt’s portrayal of Jesse James was somewhere between fare and good. The only problem in his acting is that he was Brad Pitt; and unfortunately, he will always be such in whatever role he takes. As Jesse James, he got the melancholy and the craziness just right, plus there was a touch of a calculating mind underneath, which seemed to surface as he talked with his men. Perhaps most important was the charisma the outlaw had, and of course Mr. Pitt has a steady supply of that.

Backing up Pitt was a great ensemble of actors, some looking as ignorant and as lacking in hygiene as people of the old west might be. Leading the pack is Casey Affleck (yes he is Ben’s brother) playing the role of James’ assassin, Robert Ford.

Apparently, Ford was a fan of the outlaw and was a one time gang member. Affleck was wimpy, obsessed, and totally lacking in a sense of self worth as his character, Ford, followed the outlaw, hoping to get a touch of ‘greatness’ by being one himself.

So take your pick. Is it the man who got what he wanted, when he wanted? A man who made a name uniquely his own; all the while eliciting both terror and admiration from those who learned of his exploits.

Or, do you want the man who has no life but to follow another. A man who rid the world of a killer but at the same time, killed a friend.

And the bad guy is. . . totally up to you.

I have search my memory and I have come to the conclusion that Lion for Lambs is the first Tom Cruise starring movie that has made me think – all thanks to Robert Redford who directed it.

But I must warn Cruise fans out there Lion for Lambs doesn’t have much of a story; no cat and mouse suspense; no death defying action; no sex. The film isn’t about making Tom Cruise looking cool. It’s a debate film, if that is the appropriate description; as all of the characters at one point or another have engaged in a debate with fellow characters. And the issue of the day is the War on Terror.

What mimics as a story are two underprivileged young men, who, to the surprise of many of their classmates sign up for an unpopular war. Yet even they as characters are not exempt from debate. They defended their point of view to their classmates and to their professor, Stephen Malley (Robert Redford).

I was grasping for an analogy and the best I can come up with is an editorial column. But these columns are often one sided regardless if its argued from all points of view; the publisher’s/paper’s point of view has to stand out. An editorial column brings arguments derived from issues of the day and afterwards the paper makes a case of their own.

Lions for Lambs is surprisingly fair to all sides; it is balanced. Now that’s not something I can say for the creations of anti bush filmmaker Michael Moore.

Arguments for the war can be seen in the scenes involving Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) and reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep). Sometimes the hawkish Irving seems right and sometimes the anti-war Roth gets the better of the argument. If Irving in the end looks like an ambitious presidential aspirant it doesn’t rob the impact of the characters arguments.

Professor Malley’s own “debating” scene is about the undecided which represented by his student. This is the debate, the part of the movie which is most relevant to everybody. It’s the one to watch.

The undecided student, or maybe disheartened is the more appropriate word, is really about the common man. Many are disheartened and yet many of them passionate, but instead of engagement they choose to stay out, be uninvolved, and all the while criticizing.

The films tagline gives the message in a nutshell: if you don't STAND for something, you might FALL for anything.

Acting wise nothing negative can be said of Redford, Streep, and Cruise. They were perfect. I liked Meryl Streep as a reporter, the way she wore her glasses, asked the questions, and played with her pen. Maybe the surprise here is Cruise. There is not much change in the way he acts, moves, or handles himself; but the role is just perfect for him.
Lions for Lambs is not a film I’d recommend for everybody especially at today’s movie prices. It’s the type film where you might get “nosebleeds” as my friend would describe it.

But if you’re not into the movies for fun then by all means watch it. It’s a thinking movie and the way that society is going, we really have much to think about.

What if you had the world to yourself? Too big? Then, make it a city; let’s say New York – all its money, cars, art, buildings, weapons; everything is yours.

I can’t help opening this piece with material wealth because it stood out in the trailer; the aircraft carrier, the sports car, the laptop…

When I was in high school, I had this fantasy of being trapped in a mall and helping myself out to all the goodies. I am Legend main character, Robert Neville (Will Smith), has all the wealth of New York and is obviously feeling empty. He talks to a dog, sometimes engaging in full debates; he arranges mannequins in a video store as if they were fellow patrons; and he watches reruns of NBC news!

My two favorite shots would have to be Neville sleeping in a bath tub and the noise all around is that of a jungle; and the other is a shot of money scattered, millions of dollars worth. The message is obvious – material wealth is nothing if you’re alone.

Issues tackled in the film; its plot; I have seen tackled numerous times in many films: last man on earth, apocalypse, meaning of money and relationships when alone. I am Legend is a cross between Cast Away and 28 Days Later. It’s not as dramatic compared to the former and not as horrifying compared to the latter. Cast Away and 28 Days Later are good films by the way like this one which I am reviewing now.

I can’t promise much of the kick-ass action or comedy Will Smith is known for because for much of the film it’s a monologue that is if you don’t count the dog barking. But somehow I loved it; Smith actually pulled it off. How many actors do you know can capture your attention for almost two hours, all by themselves?

My respect for Will Smith has certainly grown in this film as he had convinced me for the duration of the film, the enormity and the pain of being alone. It helps that the movie had good visuals and cinematography.

So with that being said, watch this film with good company: a date, a friend, a love. It’s a nice film. You may enjoy it or you may get bored, but whatever happens, it’s nice to have somebody.

All Smith had was a dog.

Independence Day’s opening sequence is incredible; one of the best I remember. Dozens of fifteen square mile saucers landing on earth from a mother ship that seems to half the size of the moon; a musical score in the background giving you a feeling of dread; and a line from an R.E.M song “it’s the end of the world as we know it…”

It’s both scary and in some strange way festive, which, if you think about it, seems unfitting in a story that is about worldwide destruction. In this case, the pair of emotions worked because, in all likelihood, a real alien presence would arouse both fear and joy.

Are they good are, are they friendly? Do they even have mouths with which to talk to? By any stretch of the imagination when alien existence is proven true it will be a world changing event that has never been seen before.

Effects wise, there can be no mistaking of the feeling you get the look of the saucers; it was all fear. It was done very convincingly that the viewers may ask themselves how they would react if it was real: city-sized saucers are indeed hovering all over many of Earth’s capital cities; more so when they destroyed many of the planet’s recognizable landmarks.

The destruction of famous landmarks was a nice touch though I wish they’d made it more global; maybe a shot of the Eiffel Tower or the Coliseum. Independence Day has had portions where people of all nations work together, so why not show a shared grief.

The characters are very well portrayed and are simple enough to understand. There’s a stripper, an environmental geek, an indecisive president; there is no character too complex that’ll give you a headache on how they fit in. Everyone is straightforward and simple plus they mesh which is very important.

Of the lot, I don’t like Bill Pullman, the indecisive president. He was meant to look weak as president but unfortunately he doesn’t come off strong at being a pilot which should have been - in the characters own words - his forte.

An old movie buddy of mine cry often cried out imperialism in the many films that we have seen. Independence Day is such a film. The world may unite under such conditions, under the American flag even, but does it have to be under the 4th of July. But it’s an entertaining film I told her so why ruin the fun with such thoughts, which is not to say she was wrong in her assessment.

She enjoyed the film as much as I did. It’s only now, a decade after the film was first shown, that I think of hidden messages and motives.

Why? Caused enjoyed it then; the film was that good that my mind was not floating around on things not seen on screen. That is my barometer, if my mind does not fly off then the movie was/is an entertaining experience.

The Kingdom is not a very good film in spite of being relevant with the times. It’s a donut because it started big and ended great, but it had no fulfilling content in between.

There is an historical recap at the opening credits where you’ll get some highlights encompassing almost a hundred years of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; from the colonial days to the crash landing planes of September 11.

There was a small portion in that intro about oil which got my interest. Tackling it would have given the film more personality in the sense many people are already alleging that American interests are not about peace and democracy in the Middle East but securing oil interests. Saudi is after all the leading oil producer in the world.

Issues of that nature, sadly, were not tackled. After the opening credits, history lesson, and a perfectly executed terrorist attack in the opening sequence the rest of the film is all about explosions, guns, and CSI-like investigations.

Jamie Foxx plays, Agent Ronald Fleury, the head of the FBI team sent over to Saudi to investigate an attack against US citizens. He’s a great actor with an Oscar statue to prove it. I liked him best in his role as a cab driver in Collateral. He and Tom Cruise had good chemistry as taxi driver and cold blooded assassin exchanging (or debating) views on life and morality.

There was a nice opportunity for a love-hate relationship in The Kingdom in Agent Fleury and Colonel Faris Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom). An FBI agent and a Saudi colonel; worlds apart; they could have done some meaningful passionate exchanges of concerning both cultures and yet there was none.

Chris Cooper (Agent Grant Sykes), Jennifer Garner (Agent Janet Mayes), and Jason Bateman (Adam Leavitt), round up the rest of the FBI team. I like Cooper and he was his usual best. Can’t say the same for the former Alias star; her performance was fine but the role itself lacked depth. If Alias fans are hoping for some kick-ass performance from their hero they will be disappointed because there just isn’t much of her.

Jason Bateman is just an odd man out for me. They were trying to have him as comic relief and his humor is just wrong in the situation they are in. Overall the collection of actors just didn’t blend as well as they should.

There is nothing spectacular, no suspenseful cat and mouse chase. When you finish watching this film you will get to the conclusion that ineptitude and perhaps cultural backwardness is the chief hurdle in the investigations; and it takes an ‘enlightened’, capable, FBI agent to truly get to the bottom of a terror attack. All Agent Fleury had to do was to give one honest statement to a Saudi Royal and that’s it. The investigation goes on high octane.

But if I were made to choose between the closing scene/statement and the entire film I would choose the ending. It’s a one liner said twice in the course of the film in whisper; only in the end was it disclosed. This one line was said in time of grief by both American and terrorist; it is a true sentiment by many people. We have much reason to worry.

“Don’t worry”, it goes, “we’re going to kill them all.”

It is not often that you will see a unique idea in movies nowadays, especially when an adaptation of a book, television show, or comic character can guarantee money. But thankfully, once in a while you will find courageous and inventive filmmakers that can treat you with a sight you have never seen before.

Pixar fits the bill as one of those brave filmmakers, and their unique idea is Ratatouille; a story of a rat named Remy who dreams of being a gourmet chef at a French restaurant. And before you say filmdom has many famous rats before, let me quash that idea now because it has never seen a in this fashion; doing something so unthinkable. Remy being a rat is prevented by all known civilized norms never to handle human food yet that is what he dreams of doing in Paris, home of the best chefs in the world.

Typical of many animations especially those associated with Pixar and Disney, Ratatouille gives a lesson, which is to chase your dreams in spite of the obvious physical and cultural restrictions.

It was a crazy idea if you’d think of it. Paris, food; of course a rat will be the last thing you’d expect or want in the picture but that is just what gave life to this film. Furthermore, it has the same quality of humor, color, and style we have all loved in the films of Pixar which was behind hits like Toy Story, The Incredibles and Finding Nemo.

Ratatouille has one drawback, if you can call it that; and it lies in the unique if not crazy concept itself: A rat that can cook. It was a successful gamble if you look at the over all product; the humor and the lessons. However, unlike Mickey Mouse or any famous rodent that the entertainment world has conjured up, the story of Remy does not give you the excuse that it is a make believe rat that you are actually watching. In spite of a preposterous idea that any animal can cook, the story and the animation tell you that it’s a real rat.

Except maybe for the eyes and the color, Remy looks like your common, ‘sewer’ variety kind of rat. Animation especially computer generated ones like this film take pride in the realism they are able to create, but there were points in this film that I believe they were too good. There was a scene in the movie when a ceiling caved in exposing a whole army of rats, and another where the rats were cooking. By any stretch of the imagination I don’t like my ceiling to fall and have a hundred rats on my bed. Neither do I wish to dwell one nanosecond in the thought a rat (a sewer rat), no matter if it spends a year taking bath, handled my food.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not grossed out by the film. I may have grimaced a few times at the scenes I have mentioned but overall it was a night of smiles and delight.

A line from Anton Ego’s critique at the end of the film truly captures it all. To criticize this movies insignificant faults does not matter in the grand scheme of things. It matters more that we all have had the benefit of courageous creative minds like those in Pixar. In the end from their creation Ratatouille, (quoting from Ego) “I experienced something new”, an extraordinary movie from a singularly unexpected topic.

Before Russell Crowe took a stab at a Roman Emperor and was remembered for eternity for an Oscar award, he played a real life, down and almost out, former employee of a tobacco company in The Insider.

Crowe played Jeffrey Wigand a whistleblower that broke open the case versus the tobacco companies; the allegation was that the companies have long known the obvious for years – cigarettes kill. And not only do they know, the movie says, part of their marketing strategy was to make the product more addictive, thereby increasing their profits.

The Insider is not a mafia story or of spies and assassinations, but the effect is almost the same. When in a movie about the mafia or CIA, you’ll have the thrill of the hero, who is often a little guy, not knowing where the attack is going to come; in Insider, you’ll know it can happen to you. There may be no assassinations but there were death threats which could have carried out by the villains of the story – the tobacco companies.

Wigand faced an enemy more real to you or me. He faced a big corporation making millions of dollars all throughout the world. It was a corporation that had its fingers in government, from lawmakers to law enforcers; and it also had some influence in the media. Granted the tobacco companies were not an all powerful entity who controlled everybody, they were enough to handle a lone disgruntled employee with a conscience.

The hero of the story faced death threats, lawsuits, economic pressured; and for a man with family, a mafia style hit would have been more manageable. At least he would be dead. Instead, his wife left him; from a corporate job he makes do with as a chemistry professor to pay for bills. Wigand survives law suits with pro-bono attorneys, good as they are; it is not an ideal situation for anybody. He faced death threats almost every night. It may be psychological ploy but then again with millions of dollars involved, it may be not.

There were no bullets in this movie unlike other heart pounding movies I have liked in recent years, and nobody even got killed. It was suspenseful nonetheless but in a more realistic way. Courts and character assassination are just as scary as being shot at in the streets.

Newspapers since the time of President Estrada have seen whistleblowers. They are not the perfect people and the stories they tell may not be all that true. But I wonder what there life is like. In a high stakes game with powerful people and money that reaches the millions, its nerve racking I am sure.

The Insider gives me an inside view of what its like knowing to much against powerful people. A mafia story would just have a killer dressed up as a priest or anything to get an open shot; in this film it’s the system and all the lawful recourse for all citizens that can be used as a killer. It’s all about money, or as they say in tagalong pera pera lang.

Russell Crowe did not win in this film but he was nominated in the year prior to his winning role as Maximus of Gladiator. However, in my view, it was the better of his two performances. He was not dashing and heroic but depressed and out of his mind which is what the character demanded on him; and he played it perfectly.

Crowe had an excellent supporting cast as well. And none was better than Al Pacino who played the better ‘fighter’ of the two. Pacino played Lowell Bergman was the 6o minutes producer whom Wigand had confided in this inside story. Don’t get me wrong but calling Bergman a better fighter was not my way of diminishing the courage of Wigand who is the true hero, but being part of the media he knew what the high stakes game is all about.

Bergman was instrumental in helping Wigand and in general the case against the tobacco companies, but more importantly in addition to Wigand he was the only other character in the movie who fought for what was right. It was a fight I had hoped Mike Wallace – excellently played by Christopher Plummer – would have taken up with more zeal, but sadly it was not.

I recommend this movie for those with the taste of a more intellectual danger; one that doesn’t deal with bullets and whole scale massacres of family members. It’s a must also for Russell Crowe fans as it brought the Australian actor to the spotlight. The Insider was the first of his three consecutive Oscar nominations, and second time’s the charm with Gladiator. He seems to have lost with a close margin in his third nomination in A Beautiful Mind but was so respected by his director Ron Howard, who dedicated his own Oscar that year to his lead actor.

And what of real life ‘insiders’ we often see in the news? Do we believe them or not? Do we admire them? On a case to case basis, I think, we can trust their testimonies to have some truth in it. Conspiracy is often only uncovered by a co-conspirator. Truth can come from unexpected and very brave sources.

Within a Minute: The Making of Episode III

The ‘making of a movie’ is a guaranteed staple on TV even before the film hits the theaters. It is advertising; it’s raising the hype; it’s showing every little tidbit of how our beloved stars go about in their job. Did he do his own stunts; how much was she paid; what new things did he learn – they all show this in the making.

My interests are more than what happened behind the scenes. As a mass communication graduate, I have developed an interest in the technical aspects of film making. I do love to learn what my favorite stars do on films like any other fan but since I have made some school film projects of my own with my classmates, intellectual curiosity made me more curious as to how professional make theirs.

Within a Minute: The Making of Episode III, in my mind, is the ultimate in-the-making specials you will ever see. The only catch I think is the availability. I saw it on my original copy of Episode III and memory eludes me if this special of if this special of Star Wars Revenge of the Sith ever made it in any form on TV as regular movie advertisement.

Unlike other in-the-makings that I have seen, Within a Minute gives you technical step by step accounts of how the fight scene of Episode III was made. It was called Within a Minute because their primary focus was on the fight scene of Obi Wan and Anakin, particularly the part when they came on a narrow ledge which then broke of because of the lava.

Even if they focused on a minute, it goes without saying, that the movie making process is true throughout the film.

What astounds me in this special was that it took more than an hour to finish. The topic was only about a minute’s worth of the final product, the movie we all love, but explaining how that minute was made actually took longer than the title would suggest.

Movie making is not all point and shoot as we all want to think of Hollywood; all the glamour and big bucks. Making millions through a film is a long arduous process.

There are many people and many stages than one goes through in filmmaking even just one short portion of it. You have directors, producers, assistant directors, sound editing costume, carpentry, stuntmen, make-up, concept artist, production assistants, welders, painters, catering . . . How long the list is may actually bore you but each is an integral part of film making.

Every part, step, manner of filmmaking is explained in a concise manner in Within a Minute. From the script to the re-shoots, every person responsible for the stage of production explains how and why they do it, and somewhere along the lines you’ll have some actor’s inputs too. Unlike other ‘in the makings’ which act like a empty meaningless photo shoot only with a moving watching this special can give you more understanding of the film Episode III and filmmaking as well.

If there is anyway that you can see this special other than buying yourself an original DVD then do so, but if not then buying the original is not a bad buy really. Who knows maybe you’ll end up making films one day . . .

Finally, finally, some prospect of combat!

Four films have past with only a hint of the real danger, but not now. The nameless enemy, or rather He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, is no longer just a whispered legend wreaking havoc by proxy, but up and about the world of wizards bringing death.

A pity Harry Potter is still not up to the task in combating the now fully corporeal Lord Voldemort but that is to be expected. He is a boy after all, and like all beings he must earn his “spurs” as they say, before he can ever be called a match for the top bad guy. Besides what would the much publicized 7th installment be for if he marches for the big fight jut now.

But for this particular installment Harry’s struggle seemed especially hard; to be honest he seemed a little shell shocked after his first face to face encounter with Voldemort in the last sequel, The Goblet of Fire. He may have survived but he did not go unscathed: he was cut, he was surprised, he was scared, and the worst of all a friend died protecting him.

The Ministry of Magic proved no comfort as they scoff at the idea that the Dark Lord is back even with the dead Cedric as evidence.

In a traumatizing time, friends would have helped but unfortunately they came in short supply without Ministry virtually calling him a liar. Thankfully the Order of the Phoenix was there for Harry, partly because Sirius Black and Dumbledore being members.

Emotionally the movie gave me a sort of anticipation with side amassing forces to counter the other. However, without the Ministry the Order, or the good guys, were handicapped; forced to recruit clandestinely. I liked the almost ‘spy thriller’ appeal to it, meeting secret places, using codenames, and all that.

For Harry this proved an important stage. In the first sequel he had an almost messianic reputation, but because of humble (actually abusive beginnings) he didn’t have the sense of entitlement or confidence needed to be a ‘chosen one’. He wanted to be alone at some points in this film not because he thinks he can but because he though no one else could get hurt. The resolution in the end was that he learned to lead, as all heroes should.

Daniel Radcliffe, unfortunately, has not improved in his acting; but the ensemble and the way this whole franchise was created seemed to have masked that fact. I always get the ‘suspension of disbelief’ as I believe they call it, and eagerly watch what happens next to our boy wizard Harry.

Gary Oldman remains a gem of an actor. I liked him the best of the entire supporting cast who were all great seasoned actors. I miss the old Dumbledore Richard Harris; his voice and looks are far better than Michael Gambon - plus watching gave me a sense of calling him the new guy.

I have heard many comments that this Harry Potter sequel proved inadequate, but then most of them are ardent fans that have followed not only the movie but the book. Maybe if I were in the same shoes or if I have read all books – especially the Order of the Phoenix – then I would feel the same. Experience has taught me that books are always better than their movie adaptations.

My glee comes from the opinion that the other four sequels were lacking in danger. Sure Harry had his enemies and threats in the previous sequels but with all this talk of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named always gives me a feeling that it’s missing something. The other four feels like practice or a field trip into a world of wizards.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix gave me some if not all of what I have been craving in this franchise: danger, deceit, conflict, battles, and end-of-the-world consequences. It leaves you hanging in the end, but hey, that’s why they call it a sequel.

But don’t worry; if the reputation of Deathly Hallows can be captured accurately on screen, then you wouldn’t want to miss this step, sequel number 5, of what has proven to be a truly magical story.