Huge persuasive advertising bringing about excitement and high anticipation, the Silver Surfer looking strikingly sleek in the trailers, everyone else talking about this movie not opting for any movies to watch but this and ultimately not having much of a choice as almost all movie houses are showing just this movie, not to mention the gorgeous leading actress; name every reason why you should watch this movie, this movie has it. But does it live up to its hype? I don’t think so.

Yeah it’s better than the first of the series yet not enough an apology for how bad the first turned out to be. In fact, it’s still disappointing. Talk about great action, this movie does it in precision but does not really have it in abundance. Talk about solid special effects, it’s at par with other great rival comic book movies——the big guns like Spider-Man, Batman and X-Men. But lacking character development, cheesy script with despicable and campy gags push this movie down to just another comic book movie.

It seems Hollywood’s getting more and more obsessed nowadays with the “look/style” shelling out huger amounts than ever to ensure its success (not to mention advertising and marketing) brushing aside substance, which what really gives lasting admiration in my opinion. Watching this movie and listening to the actors deliver their cheesy, childish, gawky lines was giving me this discomfort soon developing into a feeling of deep and bitter anger and ill-will for not being hinted beforehand that the movie’s target audience are the Cartoon Network fans——as how it appeared to be.

The saving grace is the Silver Surfer brought to life with real intense precision true to the Marvel Comics character beloved by fans worldwide. Thanks to the visual effects house Weta Digital. But apart from the precision of the dimensional representation, the Silver Surfer’s appeal comes from how a multifaceted and tragic a character he is. Heroic having sacrificed himself to serve Galactus in order to save his planet yet destructive coz in so doing, he’s annihilating all other worlds. Looking at the world and humanity in an outsider point of view but still feeling compassion, Silver Surfer’s an interesting and fascinating character you would want the movie to revolve just around him. Yet to the dismay of many, the movie is still all about the Fantastic Four now dealing with the downside of being famous and a celebrity also neglecting yet another interesting character Dr. Doom.

Looking forward not to the third installment but to a Silver Surfer movie sometime in the future.

Permanent Link here



TV Series Review: Prison Break (Season 2)
Rating: 8.5/10
Directed by: Kevin Hooks, Brett Ratner, Michael Watkins
Reviewed By: Jonathan O. Susvilla
Posted 5/27/2007

Prison Break’s Season 2 premier episode seems not to have sustained the momentum of the Season 1 conclusion but inciting viewers to think about what happens next, the succeeding episodes don’t fail to engage the viewers.

Picking up from where Season 1 left off, the plan of breaking out is realized. And Linc, Michael, Sucre, C-Note, Abruzzi, Haywire, Tweener, and T-Bag are on the run. Agent Mahone, officer in-charge, is into the pursuit mission. From simply getting invisible to digging up what will make one invisible and disappear is what can sum up this Season’s goings on. That’s just Plan B for Michael and Linc, who slowly knowing nips of details about Steadman’s “murder,” have high hopes about Linc’s case turned around if only with tangible substantiation of his innocence. That’s aside from keeping their loved ones safe at the same time. Tweener and Haywire are off the loop not long after the break out. So is T-Bag who has this time to dejectedly suffer the consequences of his unfriendliness toward Abruzzi back in Season 1. Now all the others, including T-Bag who manages still to be on the loop, head toward the spot where the huge sum is buried hinted by the incapable, almost a fugitive himself, the aging Charles. Minus Abruzzi also who opts for revenge than leaving immediately with his family.

Feeling betrayed and used, Sara who’s unwillingly just brought into this whole mess returns to her addiction before she comes to realize she may have been made an accessory to the crime but never betrayed. And Warden Pope, who Michael deceived, cleans up his ranks and soon opts for retirement. Bellick, laid off as a result of the clean up, partners with Roy resolute to pursuing the escapees for the reward money. And the partners having knowledge of the huge sum settle not just for $100,000 per head, thus, join the gang in their journey toward the site of the far bigger sum.

With their names now in the America’s most wanted list, also all authorities notified of the escape and Mahone being on the case who by the way is as smart as Michael, not getting caught seems unworkable. And twice is it unworkable for Linc and Michael who also have the people behind Linc’s conviction to elude. Slowly we see the fugitives ensnared one by one. In the end, somebody’s plan again is carried out but with side misfortune that serves as a premise to the succeeding season’s storyline. It hints of more exciting tough stab of breaking out again.

Season 2 delves into the individual lives of the inmates hinting viewers of rationale behind some of the characters’ conduct. Especially that of T-Bag’s. New characters are put in as every episode slowly sheds light to Linc’s frame up. One of which is that of Filipino actor Reggie Lee’s Agent Bill Kim—a character who will be despised for sure.

Improved acting is one thing in plain sight amongst the cast. Although less exhilarating than Season 1, intelligent writing is still carried on. Witty turns of phrase with a tone of sarcasm from T-Bag’s character bring about silent snickers.

Apart from Heroes, Prison Break is still the most worth-watching TV Series to date. The adrenaline rush is still there. It still is very addicting.

Permanent Link here



Movie Review: 300 (2007)
Rating: 8/10
Directed by: Zack Synder
Reviewed By: Jonathan O. Susvilla
Posted 03/13/2007

Shot almost entirely indoors, the Zack Snyder’s film adaptation of Frank Miller’s graphic novel “300” brings memory of “Sin City”, the Quentin Tarantino (well, alongside Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez) film adaptation of the graphic novel of the same; hip and visually remarkable. Artistic in its noir-ish quality, it’s truly a visual feast for the eyes. Fighting scenes are superb making all other action/war movies look like girls’ catfights (now that’s sexist). Never has an epic war movie been this violent, brutal, enthralling and eye-popping. Yes it lacks character depth yet that’s something not expected of a movie like this anyway. This testosterone-charged flick gets you off your seats in intense excitement. Kickass fighting, fighting and more fighting is what this movie is all about. Though it may offer not much story to tell, its spectacle deserves awe and appreciation.

Based on fictionalized history, this ballsy film accounts the glorious and tragic battles of the 300 Spartans led by King Leonidas in the point of view of the Spartan soldier, Dilios, during the time Persian King Xerxes demands tribute and submission of all kingdoms. A Persian messenger heads to Sparta to relay the message. Outraged, Leonidas kicks the messenger down into the chasm alongside his men. Anticipating retaliation from Persia, Leonidas devices a battle plan he introduces to the priests who in turn consult the Oracle about it. The Oracle disapproves of the march against Persia but Leonidas dismisses this and prepares his men even without the council’s sanction. Thus marking the start of the many battles the stuck-up Spartans won mostly. Impressed by the Spartans’ victories by far, Xerxes approaches Leonidas personally promising affluence and power if only Leonidas will bow down. At home, Leonidas’ wife, Queen Gorgo, gathers support for Sparta to send reinforcements.

Frank Miller, growing up, first came across the Spartans when he saw “300 Spartans,” a 1962 film by Rudolph Maté. His subsequent research brought him to the clashes between Xerxes and the Greeks. His graphic novel “300” is mainly about the Battle of Thermopylae but adorned with fictitious events and creatures/characters saving him from disparagements on the precision of his depiction. The Persian King Xerxes is interestingly portrayed as an obscure individual with streamlined eye brows, longer nails, even wearing make-up different from what History books make us picture him. A manifestation some postulate of Miller’s being a homophobe.

Spartans here are depicted as the perfect warriors being very well-trained, fierce and fearless taught never to retreat nor surrender and dyed-in-the-wool to combat. Violence here is massive in the stylized battles. Heads, limbs cut off, bodies pierced by spears and raining arrows and blood squirting immeasurably are all shown unrestrictedly and excessively as if it won’t be at the mercy of censorship. It’s a helluva war movie. This is apparently all that Miller fans ever wanted it to be. Dragging scenes to facilitate character development would have been a bore especially for a movie like this anticipated to be all about quickly getting on with beheading, skivering, and bloodletting. But the movie, more than just a battle, talks about sacrifice. Leonidas and his men are doomed to fail from the start. Knowing his 300 men can’t overthrow the countless Persian army, he knows they’re on a suicide mission. Yet he presses on sentient himself of this foolish mission’s upshot— igniting and uniting the whole country.

A triumph, the movie is about giving the audience the chance to experience something different—the battles, the landscape, the feel. It is set to become a classic looking handsome a compilation of meticulously accomplished images joined together to create a film. I don’t know how much of the film has been faithful to Miller’s “300” but it’s reminiscent of “Sin City,” which is believed to really have been. This film with its excessive, never-before-seen, exquisite violence, aside from its noir-ish look, ear-breaching musical score and vainglorious, kick-ass turns of phrase, is a must-see. Yeah!

Permanent Link here



Submitted Movie Review: Swimming Pool (2003)
Rating: 8/10
Directed by: Francoise Ozon
Reviewed By: Kathleen J. Compuesto
Posted 02/25/2007

The latest and a top contender on my selectively short nevertheless well-deserved director-slash-to-die-for-genius list would be French director-writer Francoise Ozon. His body of work is volatile and exceptional, it’s almost infuriating he’s blessed not only with rare talent, but ruggedly-handsome good looks as well. After seeing his films, only to discover he’s the man responsible for them is quite inconceivable, since no two are alike in style, story or script. For instance, the debut of “8 Femmes” in 2002, showed a charming and quirky 50s inspire whodunit mystery musical with an all-star female French cast including Catherine Deneuve, Emmanuelle Béart, and Virginie Ledoyen (from The Beach). In comparison, his recent venture, “5x2”, had the typically bland European aesthetic and played by unfamiliar actors, but skillfully gave a deconstructed narration on the five different events of a degrading relationship in which the end was the beginning and the beginning was the end. Opening with a scene in some depressingly stale motel room where we witness the hostile and awkward last encounter of an ex-couple going for one final romp just after they’ve settled their divorce papers, and eventually concludes with the touching truth of how they innocently fell in love.

Slow in pace yet seductively intriguing, Francoise Ozon’s much-acclaimed Hollywood release “Swimming Pool”, is a psychological thriller laced in ambivalence. A weary mystery writer in the midst of quitting, Sarah Morton (Charlotte Rampling) jets of to the south of France, to her publisher’s countryside home in the hopes of finding inspiration for her forthcoming novel. Stereotypically, Sarah personifies the prim and proper dinosaur mind-set of uptight British principals. While on the other hand, the publisher’s daughter, Julie (remarkably portrayed by Ludivine Sagnier), is an exaggerated embodiment of the sensually-charged, laissez-faire French impudence. Julie’s unexpected arrival immediately brings tension, and prompts Sarah to base her new book on the reckless and audacious daughter, whose exploits are practically the equivalent of the town slut. While the author further studies her character, she begins to fixate over her subject and spies on Julie one night in the living room couch with the latest run of the mill conquest. A bare drunken image of the couple is reflected in the foreground off a glass door and aptly mirrors Sarah’s suppressed uninhibited desires as she watches closely in the shadows. This unyielding however subtle sexual innuendo is what the French do so well; and became the film’s battleground for beauty and power, youth and experience, freedom and morality, as both women recognize the parallels of the other’s nature and face their inner demons. Ultimately, Julie, upon discovering she was to become Sarah’s next topic, did what any proud muse would do- play the card of the drama queen, blow her persona out of proportion, and commit a sacrifice for “art’s sake”.

In “Swimming Pool”, the suspense is neither contrived nor standard, because the mystery is gently divulged in unpredictable details that creep up at you with each little neurosis and repressed anxiety. Then just as you’re ready to nod off from the monotony of mundane scenes, the plot reels you back in with another upsetting turn. So, in a worst-case scenario, what does happen when you throw a pair of polar opposites in some isolated location for an unbearably lengthy period of time with nothing much to do but indulge in idleness, curiosity, and sunbathing? Francoise Ozon’s unresolved answer was a murderous catastrophe of cabin fever delusion. You’re left to question whether all that you just saw was real, and if you’re hallucinating and as disturbed as all the other characters, creating the whole story itself in your own little head! This basically, my dear audience, is the simple magic behind any brilliantly accomplished film- the mere suspension of your disbelief. And for those with an intelligently discriminating palette, it’s quite a remarkable feat to suspend that much jaded disbelief. That ability to unintentionally forget who you are for the approximated 90 minutes leaving all your woes, then to completely fit into someone else’s proverbial shoes and in delight, voyeuristically sink into fantasy.

Permanent Link here
Review submissions can be sent to this email address: admin(at)toyski.com


Movie Review: Bridge to Terabithia (2007)
Rating: 8.5/10
Directed by: Gabor Csupo
Reviewed By: Jonathan O. Susvilla
Posted 02/21/2007

Its advertising campaign may have misled many, necessitating moviegoers with excitement to catch it on its first day of showing hoping for a wild special effects fantasy film, yet the film doesn’t fail to blow them away. I, for one, am more-than-satisfied a misled moviegoer. Yes the film does feature gigantic monsters, magic and fairy tale might but only in small nips. It’s not all about enchantment as what it has been campaigned to be about but the expanse of one’s imagination and the mind’s possibility to process responsibility, love and grief. It may not be the film many anticipated it to be but its moving and compelling story makes them reconsider and have them glued on to their seats deeply appreciating this heartbreaking production in the end. The film effectuates a sense of warmth and good feeling.

Jesse is a middle school boy living with a financially struggling family and is coping with bullies at school. Considering all his other siblings are girls, he grows isolated not mingling with anybody even in school and just preoccupies himself with his artworks. Leslie, a new girl in school who defeats all the other boys in a supposed “boys only” race, tries to befriend him but he shows no interest in her. Persistent, Leslie is able to draw him by offering a stick of gum. The two start hanging out together and eventually become best friends. This marks the start of them spending the time together venturing into the woods and eventually making a whole world—Terabithia.

The film doesn’t bank on special effects in raking appreciation but on developing characters that are definitely going to stay in the audience’s system long after the movie has ended. Compelling, the film has achieved developing two intelligent characters that will be remembered and loved. Impressive acting from a cast of youngsters is what bowled me over the most. Anna Sophia Robb gives Leslie a vibrant life giving a definite and sharp performance. Josh Hutcherson as Jesse is as always concentrated and focused. Bailee Madison as Jesse’s younger sister May Belle surprisingly amused me with her convincing performance, reminds me of Holden’s little sister Phoebe in “Catcher in the Rye.” She’s definitely going a long way.

The film touched on Jesus and the Bible in one of the discussions these youngsters have. A number of people may dissent Leslie’s views on this sensitive topic but the film sides nobody anyway. This one scene, which others consider a flaw, just further establishes the recognition that these youngsters have a mind of their own.

This film shouldn’t be missed.

Permanent Link here



Movie Review: Pan's Labyrinth (2006)
Rating: 9.5/10
Directed by: Guillermo del Toro
Reviewed By: Jonathan O. Susvilla
Posted 02/20/2007

Truly a break from a flood of conventional movies in the previous months, “Pan’s Labyrinth” is refreshingly remarkable and impressive and is such an achievement in filmmaking, easily becoming one of my all time favorites.

In 1944 Spain, Ofelia is brought to a military outpost right in the middle of a forest to join her viciously violent army stepfather, the fascist Captain Vidal. Joining her is her feeble widowed mother now bearing the captain’s son. Faced with her stepfather’s cruel worldview, Ofelia recoils into a magical fairy tale introducing her to a world she is told was once her domain—she’s a princess. Now to reclaim her rightful throne, she must perform a series of daunting tasks that a crafty faun has convinced her to carry out. Hence, the film posts a dichotomy between reality and fantasy that’s aimed at illustrating the uplifting and comforting power of imagination, as well identifying real life’s monsters by confronting fascism in WWII-era Spain.

Children’s imaginations have always fascinated storytellers but rarely have the imaginings of a child been fused into inspiring and creepy perfection as with Guillermo del Toro’s “Pan’s Labyrinth.” That is if we’re taking the happenings here as just a product of the imaginations of the 12-year old girl protagonist. The film creates confusion in the sense that it ends without clearly telling whether all the fantasy characters and events exist only in the imagination of Ofelia, or if she’s the only person aware of all of them. The confusion here is intentional and probably necessary. In the end, no matter how you want to believe things here unfurl, it is emotionally draining.

The clear-cut distinctions between reality and fantasy result to the audience following two sections that don’t interlock keeping them glued the more until the end. Beautifully shot, well written and very well acted, this film is one addition to a growing number of films by Mexican directors making movies that are unconventional thus starting a trend.

Permanent Link here



Movie Review: Casino Royale (2006)
Rating: 8.5/10
Directed by: Martin Campbell
Reviewed By: Jonathan O. Susvilla
Posted 11/27/2006

Early negativism and questioning reactions to starring Daniel Craig as the new Bond started to proliferate even before it was announced. Displeasure and disapproval to casting this blond as Bond were evident in various internet polls. In MSNBC’s Who Should Be the Next Bond Poll, Craig ranked the 7th getting 12 times less the votes of Pierce Brosnan. Oh well, until Bond was named. And the name is Craig, Daniel Craig. In protest, websites like Danielcraigisnotbond.com and the now disabled Craignotbond.com have openly been urging a boycott of the new Bond film. Even after the latest Bond film could be shown, negative reactions still lingered. Partly, blame can be put on Sony just ditching Brosnan who’s by the way rumored to have $41M asking price. Or maybe on the idea of many that Craig is just not good a Bond.

Indeed, Craig is NOT a good Bond. He’s a GREAT Bond! Best Bond since Timothy Dalton (of course that’s objectionable). More manly, we see a rugged Bond who is refreshingly not much relying on gadgets engaging on an excitingly rare hand-to-hand combat. You think you know Bond. Not until you see this reinvented Bond.

It’s back to the basics in Martin Campbell’s “Casino Royale.” We are introduced to a Bond before he holds his license to kill and just elevated to the ‘00’ status. His first 007 mission brings him to Madagascar to spy on a terrorist Mollaka. As things don’t go as planned, Bond investigates on his own to track down the terrorists connected to Mollaka. He is led to the Bahamas encountering Dimitrios and his girlfriend, Solange. He realizes that Dimitrios is involved with Le Chiffre, financier of the world’s terrorist organizations. Intelligence reveals Le Chiffre plans to raise money through a poker game. Le Chiffre losing spells his organization’s letdown. Now Bond is assigned to play against him and so the fate of the world depends on this poker game.

Exploring the early career of 007, “Casino Royale” offers a lot of top-notch action other Bonds sure couldn’t carry out. Craig’s James Bond is rough, dangerous, full of energy, swift and more real. He’s totally the Bond we wanted others to be but never were. And ultimately, this new Bond flick is a drama happening inside Bond explaining or justifying how he has become a womanizer as we all know him to be. There’s just no denying “Casino Royale” gives new life to the Bond franchise clichéd in its previous offerings.

Maybe it’s time Daniel Craig’s detractors give up the hoo-ha. Coz hey let’s face it, he’s the “best” Bond, James Bond.

Permanent Link here



Submitted Movie Review: Marie Antoinette (2006)
Rating: 4/10
Directed by: Sophia Coppola
Reviewed By: Kathleen J. Compuesto
Posted 11/12/2006

Think of a lavish and towering wedding cake, and imagine frame after frame of screaming candy-colored pastels and layer over layer of ornate patterns ranging from florals and toile to lace and brocades to embroidered tapestries and gilded engravings. This is “Marie Antoinette”, the latest movie version depicting the life of the teen-age 18th century French queen and in a nutshell, its Titian meets MTV. The opulent production value of this biopic with its seemingly intoxicated cinematography is a visual overdose worthy of the refined decadence of the courts of Versailles during Louis XVI’s reign. The romantic imagery, such as a glimpse of satin gliding playfully across blades of grass, is precisely how I pictured this era in my childhood fantasies and the ethereal lighting is reminiscent of an opium induced dream. The sheer splendor of this film will leave you catatonic and in tears- but ‘tis far better to cry for beauty than it is for sorrow.

Director Sofia Coppola, being Hollywood royalty herself, has once more teamed with My Bloody Valentine’s Keith Sheilds, who’s previous efforts include the musical score for “Lost in Translation”. Shying away from cliché classical crescendos and decrescendos, Sofia’s uber-cool soundtrack preference has always impressed and her latest 80s synth-pop offering is a completely novel approach to recent epic blockbusters. Employing new wave, goth and post-punk tracks was an austere contrast to the delicate Rococo aesthetic, but the intricate flourish of a new wave melody suitably complimented the film’s grandeur and manic punk drumlines will never fail to get your hearts racing. I jumped up from my seat when I heard my latest shower song, which is the New Order cover of their former band Joy Division’s Ceremony, played during a montage for Marie Antoinette’s birthday celebration and literally shrieked in ecstasy when a minuet rendition of Siouxsie and the Banshees’ Hong Kong Garden introduced the opening shot of the masquerade ball scene. The Sex Pistol-esque title card was a sneak peek into the film’s hedonism and edge, which is fittingly symbolic in fact of the notoriety and excessive behavior of Marie Antoinette, the original punkette in a corset and petticoats…God save the Queen.

The storyline and the term “timeline” are virtually interchangeable in this case. I recommend you log on to Wikipedia since they probably would have a juicier account on Marie Antoinette. Sofia definitely could take a few lessons from daddy on character development (since in my opinion, Francis Ford Coppola’s Micheal Corleone of the “Godfather” is the most well written character in film history ever). The legend of the scandalously extravagant “first lady” of Versailles was both lost in the uninspiring acting of the Kirsten Dunst, playing the title role, and the inconsequential and one-dimensional depiction of Marie Antoinette’s character itself. Her royal highness’s development was lost midway in the film, somewhere during either one of her shopping sprees or parties. Eventually, Sofia neglected to give any substantial foundation and insight into the queen’s struggles. She furthermore failed to clarify how each critical ordeal, such as the death of Marie Antoinette’s mother and youngest daughter, would cause a spoiled, immature and self-gratifying monarch to bow humbly before a disgruntled mob and remain loyally steadfast beside her ambiguously gay husband from an arranged marriage, while the whole palace basically falls down around them in the midst of a revolution to overthrow the royal family. Perhaps, focusing ten more minutes on dramatizing the particulars of the downward spiral of Marie Antoinette’s queenly rule would have ended the film with a more lasting impact- this is after all a tale of reign and ruin. Sofia was simply ineffective in adapting her usual blasé, I’m-trying-to-make-this-seem-as-effortless-and-natural-as-I-can story telling with a chronological and detailed history of an iconic figure. I assume finding the balance between a formulaic narrative and experimental treatment was an endeavor of epic (no pun intended) proportions and more than she actually took for granted.

Following in the infamous “misquote” from Marie Antoinette: "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" {“Let them eat cake”) is exactly what Sofia Coppola has managed to deliver—CAKE! To feed a starving population of eager new-found fans indulgently, well-decorated high-cholesterol fluff. I say: “Off with her head!”.

Permanent Link here

Review submissions can be sent to this email address: admin(at)toyski.com


Movie Review: The Prestige (2006)
Rating: 9/10
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Reviewed By: Jonathan O. Susvilla
Posted 11/05/2006

Just a few movies make you really think and leave you thinking even after the lights go up. “The Prestige” is an intellectually ballsy movie that’s among them. Startlingly sharp, this movie will keep you guessing until the end and at some point, make you feel it’s too much for your brain to comprehend.

The onset justifies the growing bitter rivalry between the two apprentices of Cutter (Michael Caine) a magician who conceives, steals and modifies magic tricks but prefers to carry them out behind the scenes. Now performing magicians themselves, Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) try to edge out each other by surmounting the other’s acts reaching to a point of sabotaging each other's performances. Robert, always outdone and driven by jealousy now witnessing Alfred’s most recent act he accedes to be the greatest magic trick he has ever seen, fritters some time discovering the mystery behind it. Still unsure how Alfred carries out this one trick, Robert is led to Nikolas Tesla’s (David Bowie) invention which easily spells success and recognition in his succeeding performances, ensnaring Alfred to a crime thus convicting him effectively and securing Alfred’s “defeat”. Twice as cunning, Alfred realizes the design, gets away with the crime and emerges to be the true Prestige.

The story’s twists and turns enhanced by the astute storytelling technique keep your brain cells engaged. Dragging scenes accomplish effective character development fostering compelling storyline and characters which by the way are also portrayed very intensely and maturely. From being Wolverine, a big step up is evident in Hugh Jackman’s acting who this time around gives a standout performance. He and the rest of the cast carry out sneaky performances effectively revealing multiple faces furthering the illusion. Thanks also to its top notch director Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan Nolan who both have since “Memento” provided evidence of their skillfulness.

A refreshing break from sequels, prequels and movies of recycled materials, “The Prestige” is by far the best film this year.

Permanent Link here



Movie Review: Crank (2006)
Rating: 6.5/10
Directed by: Mark Neveldine, Brian Taylor
Reviewed By: Jonathan O. Susvilla
Posted 9/30/2006

It’s totally crazy, raw and stupid—that’s a good thing. This is one so unHollywood a Hollywood mayhem you’d wanna start a chaos inside the moviehouse in heart-pounding excitement. Swift, non-stop and wildly aggressive, “Crank” sets a new standard for action movies (making others look so old). You’d never thought a movie that is pointless, and with no redeeming value can be well, so fun. It’s excessively unreasonable and stupid, and that’s the whole point of it. This is a rare in-your-face, over the top action that knows what it wants and knows how to get it done. Dementedly original!!

The “Transporter” star Jason Statham plays the professional assassin Chev Chelios who wakes up realizing he has been injected with a high-tech poison, which a doctor later says should kill him within an hour. Not unless he keeps his adrenaline pumping. Thus off he goes to seek for revenge on Ricky Verona (Jose Pablo Cantillo) who admits injecting the poison onto Chev while seeking for ways (making out in public included) on how to keep his blood pressure from going down.

It’s the breakneck editing that makes the ride so engaging. Its brutal turbulence and foul language make it a perfect movie for anybody who has just undergone detox, a dating couple, priests and nuns, and children below 13. Daym, I’m just kidding.

What’s so beyond me, Lion’s Gate didn’t seem to have promoted this movie at all.

Permanent Link here



Movie Review: Cavite (2006)
Rating: 7/10
Directed by: Ian Gamazon, Neill dela Llana
Reviewed By: Jonathan O. Susvilla
Posted 8/31/2006

This review appears in the December 2006 Issue of Our Own Voice.Click here.

In a movie that took just 10 days to make and with just roughly a $7,000 budget, one would think there's not much to anticipate. But with creativity and an inventive idea, this movie takes micro financed filmmaking to the next level. Only Blair Witch Project (1999) thus far, pulled off a similar feat under similar circumstances. With the advent of digital technology, filmmaking becomes more and more accessible even to newcomers, Ian Gamazon and Neill dela Llana. A perfect blueprint for filmmaker hopefuls who don't have the means and armed only with an idea, Cavite is bold, cunning and develops into a convincing thriller.

A movie that will keep foreign tourists away from Cavite—or worse, the Philippines as a whole—Cavite is more than just a political thriller. It exposes the deteriorating outskirts of Metro Manila, and projects its, thus vindicating what critic Claire Danes wrote about Manila; a piece that earned her a persona non grata status. Though some shocking claims in the movie about the country are exaggerated and inaccurate, disturbing scenes reveal realities that undeniably exist. Filipinos are either unaware or apathetic to the point of ignorance.

Adam (Gamazon) works at a San Diego Harbor as a Security Guard, which allows him an inordinate time for video games and a sure fire way to grow a noticeable paunch. His mother calls from the Philippines with the news that his father has been killed in a bus bombing. His girlfriend in the meantime has decided to have an abortion, informing him only after the fact. Bombarded by bad news, Adam flies home to attend his father's funeral. He arrives at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport and is waiting to be picked up. When a cell phone rings, an Abu Sayyaf member on the other line informs him that his family has been kidnapped by their group. Now Adam is forced to follow their instructions or his family will be killed.

On a public jeepney, as instructed, Adam is led down the streets of Cavite City . He is introduced to the populated city slums where the toilet is just mostly anywhere, solid wastes float alongside children swimming in swamps, children ready to sell themselves for prostitution abound, and extreme poverty is sweeping. On foot, Adam is tested in ways both silly and horrendous as to how far he will go to save his family. He later learns that the whole misfortune is to a certain extent linked to a vendetta for an act his father committed years back. In the end, Adam is made to do something he'll never forget.

The movie illustrates how severe extremist rebels can be and how far they can go just to see their plans carried out. The movie both rationalizes and criticizes terrorism in the country. The film exposes the decades old rationale, " Mindanao belongs to the Muslims" to support terrorist tactics legitimizing a call for Jihad (Holy War in defense of the Islamic faith). A lapsed Muslim himself, Adam counters with an interesting definition of Jihad: "I struggle everyday of my life to better myself. That's Jihad, not the way you do it."

The retelling of the many atrocities committed on the Muslim people in Mindanao by the military and the lack of government reforms maintains interest in the film's narrative. Without taking sides, the movie in the end shows Adam's girlfriend Dana (Dominique Gonzalez) explaining her reasons for ending her pregnancyt: "I panicked when I found out I was pregnant. You know, I'm ashamed for saying this and I'm even ashamed for thinking this, but I can't have a baby that's Muslim. I never thought I'd have to say that but I can't help the way I feel."

The film's flaws are evident; the filmmakers' budgetary constraints notwithstanding. The script's lapses in the grammatical use of Tagalog is irksome. For a Filipino moviegoer, listening to a speaker's intonation and unacceptable accent can be an uncomfortable viewing experience. Errors in translations show up in the English subtitles. But all these are barely discernible to most viewers of foreign films and can even be dismissed if one thinks about what this movie has accomplished: an exposé of the country's ills via a terrorist vendetta plot.

Though already seen in various horror films, Cavite 's edgy camerawork with no known focus is fitting, thus notable, enhancing the distress suggested by the situation. Gamazon, as Adam, the protagonist, somehow scores an almost convincing portrayal of a victim terrorized by fear and the unknown. Add to that the raw third world setting, which elevates the audience's dread of the unknown. Whatever message the filmmakers wish to impart to their audience, it is channeled tactfully, and avoids the temptation to being preachy.

This review appears in the December 2006 Issue of Our Own Voice.Click here.



Permanent Link here



TV Series Review: Prison Break (Season 1)
Rating: 9/10
Directed by: Kevin Hooks, Brett Ratner, Michael Watkins
Reviewed By: Jonathan O. Susvilla
Posted 8/21/2006

Originally planned for just a 13-episode run, Prison Break was extended to 22 episodes stretching it to a full season run. The undeniable popularity propelled Fox to do so. A break from cheesy and mediocre TV shows and series flooding the boob tube lately, Prison Break is a gem that really stands out. Though seems to have just borrowed the plots of Alexander Dumas’ Count of Monte Cristo and Stephen King’s Shawshank Redemption combined, Prison Break is still very addictive, engaging, and engrossing.

Intelligent and well written, every episode carries importance revealing stimulating pieces to solve the beguiling puzzle of who really murdered the brother of the Vice President of the United States. Lincoln Burrows (Dominic Purcell) is accused of this murder and was sentenced to death and is now waiting at Fox River prison facility for his execution. Though with the evidence all pointing to him as blameworthy, Linc (as he is called) asserts he never committed the crime and maintains that the evidence was planted. Convinced by this, the structural engineer Michael Scofield (Wentworth Miller), Linc’s brother who goes by his middle name as his last name, staged a bank robbery pleading guilty eventually knowing he’d be put to the same prison facility. He earlier designed an escape having tattooed his entire body with the structural design and details about the facility determined to salvage his brother from the anticipated execution.

As Fish’s (Michael Scofield is referred to as) plan step by step unfurls, more and more inmates dig the scheme, thus more and more enlist themselves seen sometimes to pose as a threat to the success of breaking out. Meanwhile, the brothers’ childhood friend now a lawyer Veronica Donovan (Robin Tunney) works outside to unravel the mystery behind the murder as she herself is eventually convinced of Linc’s innocence. Season one ends with the realization of the plan and a teasing revelation of the conspiracy behind Linc’s conviction. This storyline has been exploited many times but has always been refreshing and gripping even though only slight deviations have been employed on some. Though far-fetch, the storyline is made persuasive by the weaving subplots that integrate some real life drama carried out by first-rate writing.

Part of the success of the series can be attributed to the compelling performances of its cast. Wentworth Miller is convincing as the confident, composed, clearheaded, and sometimes masterly Michael Scofield. John Doe star, Dominic Purcell takes on Lincoln Burrows acting out enigma, despair and elation with ripeness. Robin Tunney as Veronica Donovan is immersed bringing about a sincere performance and so are most of the rest of the cast members.

The musical score stirs up memories of Shawshank Redemption’s musical scoring composed and imagined perfectly and prudently to complement the emotions of the different scenes.

Receiving a number of citations from different award giving bodies and brandishing a growing viewership the world over, Prison Break Season 1 has spawned a follow-up (Season 2) which premieres August 21, 2006 in the US. Local channel Crime/Suspense currently airs Season 1 episodes back-to-back.

Permanent Link here



Movie Review: The Ant Bully (2006)
Rating: 6/10
Directed by: John A. Davis
Reviewed By: Jonathan O. Susvilla
Posted 8/7/2006

A genre only Disney seemed to have an interest in years back now seems to be a bee in everyone else’s bonnet as well. A report says 30-40% of the films released and to be released this year will be family-oriented. In effect, you’ll see more kids disturbing your watching on weekends. This year’s nth movie of this genre and the nth movie as well released with a technique Pixar pioneered, The Ant Bully is another movie you’ll be watching together with kids you don’t know bursting in laughter here and there even on scenes that don’t seem funny at all. Well, for movies like this, they’re the target market after all.

The shortest full-length animation this year with just 90mins running time, The Ant Bully is just another cartoon movie with not much inventiveness to offer. The ants you see in this film call to mind Antz (1998), to which some of them might have starred in already. You see, they just look alike. The theme is close to that of Over The Hedge’s (2006) with a similar setting and coincidentally, a similar villainous exterminator. As it’s based on a children’s book by John Nickle which I haven’t read, we can only speculate how much of the idea was original. Well, you be the judge.

The movie tells the story of Lucas, a bullied geeky youngster. His bully is bigger than he is so in turn he can’t retaliate. He turns his frustration on creatures smaller than him—ants—causing a big disorder in their colony. The Ant Wizard Zoc (voiced by Cage) in the meantime comes up with a potion to make Lucas shrink to their size so they could eat him. A terrible flood in the colony pushes Zoc to continue on with his plans. Lucas is now brought to the ant tribunal for his trial. The wise Ant Queen decides to make Lucas live with the ants and become an ant himself. Hova (voiced by Roberts) volunteers to oversee Lucas. This marks Lucas living the life of an ant and eventually thinking the way ants do.

Its storyline and script still inferior to that of any Pixar (still to beat) movies, the movie boasts on a message that attempts to preach the whole world touching on Karl Marx's ideas criticizing conformity, selfishness and pushing on teamwork without neglecting individualism and specialization. It also poses a political message. The Head of the Ant Council laments: "To attack without provocation, without reason, because they can—it's barbaric."

Gone are the days when voice talents audition for the role. Now we have roles appointed to the stellar voice talents. At least for productions outside Pixar. As a result, not so compelling voices deliver the lines. Take the case of Nicholas Cage taking on Zoc and that of Julia Roberts’ taking on Hova. They were dreary and at times, bland. The majestically dull delivery of lines of Meryl Streep as The Queen could be easily done by just anyone her age (almost). Anyway, they weren’t really paid for their voices, but more for their names. Nevertheless, the casting agent actually scored big in choosing Bruce Campbell to voice Fugax, a haughty hunter ant. In him is where the movie really comes to life. By far only Pixar and old school Disney are best at casting who (not Who) as who.

Not to be denied though, animation was top-notch being crisp, visually fascinating and engaging. It sure wasn’t cheap. But this does little in making this movie really memorable and moving it out of the norm of "Just Another Cartoon Movie."

Permanent Link here



Movie Review: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Rating: 6/10
Directed by: Gore Verbinski
Reviewed By: Jonathan O. Susvilla
Posted 7/14/2006

Exhibiting the most impressive opening turnout thus far (despite the PG-13 rating in the US), Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest proves to be more entertaining than the prequel yet lacks zest. Indeed it’s funny. To people who don’t want to think, that is. Capt. Jack Sparrow’s character, which drew on an Oscar nomination for Johnny Depp in the first installment, is rather hideous than adorable. Keira Knightley, Oscar nominee for pulling off an impressive acting in Pride and Prejudice, this time shows off more of her cleavage than her acting prowess. Orlando Bloom is confused if he’s doing comedy or drama. Everyone seems to be just toying with their roles—oh well, it’s comedy after all—except for Billy Nighy who takes on Davy Jones (well, thanks to CGI) and Naomie Harris as the Voodoo Priestess.

The movie picks up exactly where the first installment left off. Initially a bit incomprehensible (which is good), the script later deteriorates as obviously the creativity of the writers saturates. The movie’s late parts resort to slapstick scenes stretching the movie to 2 hours and a half ending with a cliffhanger—their way of telling you are necessitated to watch the final installment but you have to wait for a year. Some scenes are just replications of the first one. And oh, Mackenzie Crook’s character (Ragetti) with an eyeball that literally pops out, truly that’s funny. But I’ve already seen that in Hercules (The Fates).

Noteworthy are the special effects, the best since LOTR. You see Davy Jones acting even though you don’t see Bill Nighy’s face at all. Jones’ crew, a bunch of pirates sworn to lifelong servitude, appear rather interesting than scary—that’s a good thing. The giant octopus called the “Kraken” isn’t that impressive though. Anaconda is more scary and believable.

Just a few including Jerry Bruckheimer was seeing a movie based on a Disneyland attraction/ride can turn out HUGE. Now we have this sequel which is even bigger—at least in the box office. And there’s one more they’re helming to be shown next year. Are you watching the third installment? I am, just for the heck of it.

Permanent Link here



Movie Review: Superman Returns (2006)
Rating: 8.5/10
Directed by: Bryan Singer
Reviewed By: Jonathan O. Susvilla
Posted 6/29/2006

Slick, polished and stunning, Superman Returns pulls off a feat that sets it at par with other excellent modern Superhero films like Spiderman 1 & 2 and Batman Begins. A lot of believable flying and his powers this time realized convincingly because of present technology in filmmaking, Superman fans wouldn’t be dismayed.

Picking up where Superman II left off, Superman Returns now stars Brandon Routh as the Man of Steel himself, returning to Earth after spending years on Krypton to confirm if indeed he’s the last of his kind. As Clark Kent, he returns to work for the Daily Planet and soon realizes Lois Lane is already engaged to Richard White and has even a kid.

Meanwhile, Lois Lane is aboard a Boeing 777 covering a spacecraft launch when a massive odd black out triggers a malfunction in the pilot control putting everyone aboard in jeopardy. Superman’s grand rescue efforts (the biggest scene) mark his surprising return to a world where people are used to not having him around anymore. This reunites Superman and Lois Lane who herself has learned to move on and even hate Superman for leaving and not even saying goodbye.

Now back in the business of helping people, Superman is in the news everywhere. Traveling across continents in just minutes, Superman is spotted the world over even in places like Manila, Philippines. Lois Lane, now reunited with Clark Kent in the workplace and appearing undaunted by Superman’s return, communicates interest in covering the unusual black out actually assigned already to Clark Kent as she as told will cover Superman again. With Lois Lane’s insistence to identify the cause of the black out, she puts herself in a trap reuniting her with Lex Luthor who uncovers his evil plan in front of her and her son—who by the way poses a very interesting innate ability that is really something to look forward to. Superman’s big mission this time is to rescue the two and stop Luthor from fully realizing his design.

Brandon Routh closely resembles the late Christopher Reeve and some scenes make you believe you are seeing the latter. Relatively a newcomer, Routh truly personifies the socially inept Clark Kent and the calmly confident Superman making him fittest for the role among others who voiced out interest or were considered to star as this franchise’s protagonist. Seeing this hit coming, Warner Brothers was quick to have him sign for three other films including Superman vs Batman that is definitely something to watch out for. The pretty Kate Bosworth stars as Lois Lane who initially pulls off an OK acting but later becomes plain and dour. Genius Kevin Spacey is perfectly cast as Lex Luthor combining humor and menace.

Though there may be dragging scenes, the movie as a whole is a triumph. A far cry to the filmmaking feats of X-Men I and II, which took into service the same team who’s behind Superman Returns. It’s clear Superman had a good deal with Bryan Singer (who left the X-Men franchise for Superman) and X-Men had not so good a deal with Brett Ratner to finish the last X-Men installment (who left Superman as he and the Warner Bros execs could not agree on who to cast as who). Superman Returns takes a compelling, serious, and intelligent approach to the hero’s known powers, keeping away from the sometimes far-fetched and random manifestation of power witnessed in previous Superman films.

Well, Superman is back! Make your way to a movie house to show you welcome him home. :)

Permanent Link here