Predators

Imagine walking around in a thick jungle full of heat, dampness and mortal danger, minding your own business, when suddenly you find yourself running from a huge dog equipped with long bony spikes protruding from its face and back. That dog wants to eat you. What do you do?

What DO you do?

You call Arnold, because He is your only hope.

Watching Predators will generate the feeling you now have in your gut.

The original still stands today as one of the best science fiction movies ever made, and one of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s best works, right up there with Conan the Barbarian, Terminator 2 and True Lies (I omit Total Recall because it did not stand the test of time like the above four).

Predators is a sequel/remake/reboot type of film that, although not bad at all, goes the safe way and keeps the themes of the original while changing the characters just a little bit. It takes place on another planet, but a jungle is a jungle so who cares?

The themes are survival in the face of impossible odds (just like every American film made in the last 100 years), teamwork, mystery, guns and violence. Please feel free to comment if you can find more. I think like I’m stretching this already though.

The team of usual suspects (the quiet, super awesome loner, the heavy weapons guy, the useless civilian, the crazy mental guy, the badass leader, the pretty girl, etc) must face three of the Nameless Aliens we have come to know and love. This time around however, the humans are not Marines or police officers but scum, killers, rapists, assassins, themselves predators and chosen by the Nameless Aliens as game for the hunt.

Very little is known about the characters on screen. We do not have much background, aside from their daily job and some of them have family. All we know is that they are all killers, except for Topher Grace’s character who is a doctor. In fact, the last words of the movie are from the two main characters who finally reveal their name to us. I suppose this is so that we don’t identify with murderers, god forbid we should go home, get our shotgun out of the closet and begin pumping lead into strangers…

That being said, the absence of identifiable characters doesn’t really hurt the film. This picture is about big guns, gore and special effects, not much more, and on this level it succeeds very well. There are some clever strategies used to survive, mostly from Adrian Brody’s character, and a few twists, although predictable, bring some welcome spice to the story.

For those who enjoyed the original, this is a step down, except for the visuals and acting. But it fills a whole for the lovers of violent science fiction films.

7/10

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1

Note: To be enjoyed to its fullest, this review must be read with a thick English accent.

I have seen all the previous films, but I have read none of the books. The reason for this is that books are usually better than the films they inspire and I wanted the movies to motivate me in reading thousands of pages and be awed by the words.

The problem is that I didn’t enjoy any of the Harry Potter films. All except for The Goblet of Fire and The Order of the Phoenix, which I enjoyed more. Not to say that they were particularly good movies for me, but they were more interesting and fun, and almost made me want to read the complete works of J.K Rowling. “Almost” means I didn’t.

The worst of the series, for me, was The Half-Blood Prince, which was a complete bore from start to finish. I mean, why Harry couldn’t simply ASK Dumbledore who the f*** the Half-Bloody Prince is, because the movie would be over? That’s a pretty thin excuse for a screenplay. And just when our bifocal-wearing “hero” finally realizes he could ask his old friend, the man dies, after 12$ and almost three hours of my wastable time that I could’ve spent plucking my chest hair, going out for a quick session of waterboarding or watching reruns of Dancing with the Stars.

Speaking of heroes, Hermione is the real hero of this series. She solves all the problems while Ron, drooling, stares at her boobs and Harry, also drooling, looks up at the skies looking for Death Eaters in the hopes he can cast the only spell he apparently knows, Expecto Petronum.

So, as one can imagine, it is with some reluctance that I stepped into the theatre last night.

Maybe it was because my expectations were low, but The Deathly Hallows – Part 1 was actually very good, probably the best film of the franchise.

Since the second film of the Harry Potter franchise, all have been darker than the previous, according to everyone. Well, Deathly Hallows is no exception. In fact it’s the darkest of them all. Many characters die, some more important than others, the film begins with somewhat of a torture scene involving a very cold Severus Snape, and we even get to see blood in this one!

Most noticeable is the acting performance of the main cast, which has been greatly improved. The year break seems to have paid off, with Daniel Radcliff doing theatre and Rupert Grint featured in a movie or two. Emma Watson has been great from the start, although her constant frown in Deathly Hallows will tire some people. Hey, she’s sad ok!

The story revolves around Harry being the target of Voldemort’s minions. The Dark Lord needs to kill him, you see, to regain his full power. oooOooOooh.
But Harry now knows of a way to destroy his arch nemesis once and for all, and he sets out to find the last of the Horcruxes and destroy them, with the help of his friends Hermione and Ron.

However, through their travels and escapes, Harry, Hermione and Ron stumble upon information concerning the Deathly Hallows, three powerful magic items given to three brothers by Death itself. The Elder Wand, the most powerful wand in existence, the Resurrection Stone, which can bring the dead back to life, and the Cloak of Invisibility which, as the name implies, can make one invisible. Someone with these magical artifacts can actually become the Master of Death. Guess who wants them for himself… That’s right. RON!

No, I’m kidding.

It’s Voldemort of course.

So now Harry needs to find the Horcruxes and the Deathly Hallows before Voldemort, or… the movie is over.


Here’s where I go “WTF?”

Even though Harry uses a cloak of invisibility throughout the entire series, no one in Deathly Hallows even wonders if the cloak they’ve been using for ten years is that same cloak of invisibility. WTF?

The story feels more like an adventure compared to the other movies. Being out of Hogwarts and surviving on their own, without the safety net of teachers, brings an extra sense of peril for the teenagers, peppered with a few very funny scenes, including one at the very beginning when all of Harry’s friends drink a polyjuice potion that turns them all into Harry clones. The process of this is hilarious and very well made.

There is some truly beautiful filming in Deathly Hallows. Hermione sure knows where to plant her tent: on the edge of a rocky cliff overlooking a valley of hills, in a picturesque forest of tall, thin trees beside an icy, slow-flowing river. Wiki says filming took place entirely in England, but I suspect many of those awesome shots were done in New-Zealand, as some are reminiscent of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

As is the case for the previous Harry Potter films, the best thing going for Deathly Hallows is the cast. A lineup like this is simply biblical: Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman, Bill Nighy, Robbie Coltrane, Warwick Davis, Michael Gambon, John Hurt, Brenden Gleeson, David Thewlis, Rhys Ifans, Miranda Richardson and Jason Isaacs.
The only ones missing are Sir Ian McKellen and Dame Judy Dench!

The special effects are also very good, with the CGI characters of Dobby and Kreater taking the cake. The filmmakers could’ve drop Verne Troyer in a suit and we wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.

The movie ends with a good cliff hanger but it doesn’t feel like a middle part, aside from the fact that the story doesn’t end here. It lasts almost three hours, including previews, but I could’ve taken another thirty minutes or more. It’s that good.
There is still a lot of dialog but I found myself much more interested in what the characters had to say then I did for the previous Harry Potter movie. Ron’s whining was less annoying, probably because his reasons are good this time around and he is actually useful here.
I enjoyed the fact that they are travelling outside of Hogwarts for a change and the real danger they are in this time.
Finally, Voldemort is much more prevalent in Deathly Hallows and Ralph Fiennes is a really great actor. He is creepy and evil, a perfect performance for the character.

Until next time…

8.5/10

The Expendables - A Movie Review

First Blood, Cobra, Commando, Raw Deal, Die Hard, Missing in Action. They just don’t make them like they used to. So, here comes The Expendables!
Did we really need a ‘80s action film? With the recent great war films and documentaries, like The Hurt Locker or Apocalypse!, one has the right to ask the question, and the answer after watching Sly’s latest work, is a resounding YES!

The Expendables is a man’s film, the Sex and the City for guys, the Sense and Sensibility for the BBQ and Football lovers.
With motorcycles, lots of guns and a few babes, ultra realistic violence and super-human one-man-armies, this film is the perfect guy movie, dropped in our muscular lap just in time to prevent every guy from turning gay (not that there’s anything wrong with that…) amongst all the super pink and sterilized romantic comedies, 3D children’s films and PG13-rated “action” movies.

The plot is simple and serves only as a means of lining up action sequences and a few touching male bonding scenes. The film is actually more a tale of friendship than a revenge/kill-the-bad-guys story, and much like Stallone’s two previous efforts (Rocky Balboa and Rambo), The Expendables has more sensibility to it than the films which it is inspired from, and those few scenes also serve to balance the rhythm of the film so that the viewer is not overloaded with explosions and gore, which there are plenty of, especially in the last half hour of the movie.

There are two or three pretty good fight scenes also, most notably one involving Jet Li and Dolph Lundgren, two well-established action stars and both martial arts experts in their own disciplines. It would’ve been very much appreciated to have a few wide shots of this scene but unfortunately they fight in very close quarters and the camera is too close and shaky for the viewer to really appreciate this scene. It’s not a complete failure, but the director (Stallone) could've given us a few more open shots of this great and much anticipated fight.

The Expendables is also a very funny movie, with most jokes involving the real life quirks of the many stars gathered for this picture. Randy Couture reveals the story behind his strange ears and we find out what Arnold Schwarzenegger’s problem is. He also appears very thin, frail and his acting is, well, pretty bad. But it’s fun to see him on screen with Sylvester Stallone and Bruce Willis in the same 3-5 minutes scene.

The highlights of the movie are the realistic violence, the relationships between the characters and how they were written, especially for Sylvester Stallone and Jason Statham, Terry Crews and his amazing “canon-gun”, Dolph Lundgren who is quite obviously having a tremendous amount of fun, a series of jokes and events involving Jet Li’s height and of course Mickey Rourke who, again, gives an absolutely amazing performance.
The less shining elements are the one-dimensional villains led by Eric Roberts, the fact that mercs are all killing people for a living and for the most part don’t seem to be traumatized by this at all (although this is addressed in a very touching scene with Mickey Rourke) and the length of the movie. It’s a lot of fun and another thirty minutes or so would’ve been great.

The Expendables is violent and funny with a simple story filmed with skill and obvious enjoyment. It’s a movie for guys, the kind they don’t make anymore with a sequel on the way, and the only thing missing is Chuck Norris. Then again, a two-second movie is not very profitable…

Go see it today!

8.5/10

Prince of Persia, The Sands of Time – A Movie Review

Prince of Persia, The Sands of Time (Popsot) is a film based on a video game remade by Ubisoft in 2003 from an older game, Prince of Persia, from 1989.
As a videogame-to-film piece, Popsot comes out somewhere on top of the pile, possibly even eclipsing Tomb Raider 1 as the King of the genre.
Not only does the general story follow that of the Ubisoft product, some filming techniques even mimic visuals from the game, such as the “preview” sequences from its console cousin. The use of acrobatics is also a welcome addition to the film. Although not as prominent as in the game, in which it is the core gameplay element used to solve puzzles and advance the story, it was a nice touch to make it one of the more important character traits of Dastan, the titular Prince of Persia of the movie, without overdoing it.

The characters are well written and acted, with a solid cast who seems to be having a lot of fun with the material, with one exception being Ben Kingsley, who has this look on his face like he is wondering what the heck he’s doing in these clothes? The special effects are on par with a summer blockbuster, meaning they are big, loud and feel like way too much icing on a good cake, which is to be expected with this type of film.
The movie is non-stop action, from the first minute to the very last second, with barely any filler to speak of. The script goes to the point, does what it is supposed to and stays true to the source material in a way that is rarely experienced in a film based on a video game.

Prince of Persia, The Sands of Time is a fun time at the movies that should not be missed on the big screen for its visuals and sounds. It will shine a bright, warm light on a rainy day of summer.

7.5/10

Movie Review - Clash of the Titans

I did not remember the first 1981 film enough, so I went to Wikipedia to find out what were the main differences in the story. This film review will therefore take this into consideration.

I’m a big fan of the video game God of War. I read some time ago about a movie in the works based on the game, with bloggers and forumites debating on many websites on who should play Kratos, who should direct the movie, what it should be about, how much of the game’s story should be covered, if it should be rated R or PG-13, etc.

With Clash of the Titans, there is no more need for a God of War movie, as this is basically it. Only the names have been changed to protect the “innocent”.

The story does not take much time to tell as there isn’t much meat in this regard for this remake. Based on what I’ve read and what I remember, the 1981 original had a much more fleshed out story, with more events and characters, more fights and more creatures.

We are again served with the typical Hollywood recipe, which is the tale of an ordinary working man (in this case a fisherman) destined to topple an evil invading force (in this case Hades, God of Death, elder brother of Zeus and Poseidon, and Ruler of the underworld) that threatens to destroy/change his way of life, against all odds, using powerful weapons (in this case a magical sword) and his friends who all die, sacrificing themselves for the Hero (except, always, The Girl), who in the end triumphs and rides away on a horse towards the sunset (no shit, this is still going on after 100 years of movie making!).

His family murdered by a God, Perseus (whose name can be pronounce differently depending on the actor speaking it, apparently…) seeks revenge and finds the means to accomplish his goal with the rebellious warrior-citizens of Argos. After an ultimatum issued by Hades in the name of the Gods, Perseus sets out with a band of merry men to kill Medusa and retrieve her head, in order to turn a monstrous creature into stone, saving the city-state of Argos and its Princess.

That’s it. He even gets The Girl (who is actually his cousin or sister if you think about it…), too!

Reviewers have been very harsh for Clash of the Titans, but I personally had a great time and I would’ve liked another half-hour or so. It was a lot of fun and it ended too soon in my opinion. It felt as though large chunks of Perseus’ adventure have been edited out, like something was missing, but the whole still felt as it's holding together.

I remember the original having many more encounters with wondrous creatures such as the Cyclop. With this version, we get giant scorpions, Medusa and the Kraken, with in-betweens against confrontational Argosians and dialogues which are all mostly heard in very generic scenes that could’ve been picked from any medieval/fantasy-ish movies such as Braveheart, LotR, Willow or Kingdom of Heaven.

These three action set pieces are very well done and should satisfy the FX junkies out there. The fight scene with Medusa is especially intense and sees the demise of the entire party save our hero. The final battle however, although quite beautiful, is somewhat anti-climactic as the entire sequence lasts about thirty seconds and involves the simple pointing and shooting of the Medusa Head. I must say I was expecting some jumping-on-back and sword slicing from Perseus but alas, I sat disappointed.

There is also a very good battle with Calibos, so far one of the better villains of this year’s movie offerings. Deformed by Zeus’ wrath and empowered by treacherous Hades, Calibos sets out to kill Perseus and who’s blood in the sand births huge, powerful scorpions and another very good action scene.

Clash of the Titans is a pretty decent popcorn film that serves impressive visuals and action set pieces in a very entertaining package. It’s a by-the-book Hollywood blockbuster that doesn’t surprise much, but if taken for what it is and not some artsy-fartsy oscar-grabber, it should leave most of these viewers with a pleasant aftertaste.

Enjoy!

7.5/10

TV Review - Legend of the Seeker

Ever since the (great) ending of Battlestar Galactica I have been looking for a replacement show, and there are a few very good options that come to mind. Chuck, Spartacus, True Blood, etc.
Being currently in a “fantasy-type” mood and watching films such as The Lord of the Rings and The Sword and the Sorcerer again, I heard through the grapevine about this little known show called Legend of the Seeker (LoS).
Starring Craig Horner, Bridget Regan, Bruce Spence, Tabrett Bethell and Craig Parker, the show is based on the Sword of Truth novels by Terry Goodkind, and tells the tale of a young woodsman who is destined to save the world from an evil and powerful tyrant.
Sounds familiar? Of course it does. It’s high fantasy!

My wife and I have been calling he show “Shire Wars” because it really is Star Wars set in The Shire. Not a single episode airs without us pointing to the TV screen and shouting things like “This is where they shot the Insects coming out of the ground scene in LotR!” or “This is where they run across the plain after leaving the mines of Moria towards Lothlorien in LotR!” or “If you want him, COME AND CLAIM HIM!!!” – Because that river from LotR is filmed very often in LoS. Add to this a glowing sword, a wizardly mentor teaching the youngling how to use and control his powers, a badass loner that joins the group after reluctantly helping out, hidden family relations, Ewoks and Gungans (no, not really), etc and you really have Shire Wars!

That being said, Legend of the Seeker has managed to keep me watching religiously for almost two seasons now and this is not an easy task to accomplish. I’m very picky (and yet I watch Smallville. Go figure).
Produced by Sam Raimi and his team, who gave us Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warrior Princess, the show is more serious than these two previous works with more action and risky subjects. Sword fighting is plentiful and filmed quite well for the most part, using slow motion techniques akin to those found in films such as 300.
We even have a wizard (of the first order, no less…) who actually uses fireballs and teleportation!

Suck it, Gandalf!

Legend of the Seeker takes some risks with the material, as we often learn that children are being raped, tortured and killed (without actually seeing it on screen, but still… I’m a dad so it affects me). The D’Harans, a cruel people led by Darken Rahl (Craig Parker) who seeks to rule the world, are truly vicious and a real challenge for our heroes. Here, we are far from the normal bad guys who are usually nothing more than bumbling fools and sword fodder. They pose a real threat; killing and torturing the people of the Midlands in order to spread fear and seize power.

You know, like America. There. I said it.

The first season introduced us to the characters while laying down the story of how Richard Cypher (Craig Horner) and his new friends, the Confessor Kahlan Amniel (Bridget Regan) and the Wizard Zeddecus Zul Zorander (Bruce Spence) used wits and good nature along with the Sword of Truth to slay Darken Rahl and free the people of the Midlands from his tyranny.

Yes, season one concludes with the slaying of the main villain. But remember, Death is only another part of a journey. Or something to that effect…

Each episode is pretty much a stand alone affair, with minor scenes that follow the thread of the main storyline. Some episodes are more centric to the core story, but those seem to show up at the beginning and end of the seasons and in the middle, around hiatus, with a nice little cliff hanger to keep us waiting for a few weeks or months. 35 episodes in total have aired as of this writing and a third season has been announced but unconfirmed.

The characters in Legend of the Seeker are an interesting bunch. From the leads to the supporting cast, everyone was meticulously written and shines onscreen thanks to some pretty fancy acting, especially for a show like this (high fantasy on TV? Come on!).

Richard Cypher is our Seeker, the good hero, pure of heart and mind with a streak just mean enough not to give him nightmares of all the bad people he has killed. No Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for our Seeker. Craig Horner plays the role with passion. We can see how much fun he is having with it. He is however one of the weaker actors of the cast and his work has suffered since the end of the first season. Let’s just say he over does things sometimes and leave it at that.

Kahlan Amniel, the Mother Confessor who can bend men to her will with a single touch, turning them into slaves who will do anything, obey her every command without a sigh, a complaint or a ball scratch. “Can you stop watching the game and take out the garbage sweetie?” “Yes Mother Confessor”. It IS high fantasy… Bridget Regan is the shining jewel of this distribution. She masters the character completely and her performance is only more appreciated when the script demands some variations, such as when Kahlan is being impersonated by a con artist, or when her personality is split between two copies of her body. I can’t wait to see what Ms. Regan does next.

The Great Wizard of the First Order Zeddecus Zul Zorander serves as the Obiwan/Gandalf of the story, a mentor to the Seeker who has many secrets of his own. Most notably, Zedd is Richard’s Grandfather (don, don, don, doooonnn) and can actually throw fire balls/stream known as “Wizard’s Fire”. He is wise but also serves as comic relief on many occasions. Bruce Spence is best known for his roles in Mad Max 2, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (he played The Mouth of Sauron) and Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith (he played that tall ugly red and white guy who’s people is under siege from General Grievous). He handles himself well but the long white hair doesn’t suit him. He should tie them in a pony tail.

Darken Rahl is the main antagonist in The Legend of the Seeker. He is pure evil, demonstrated by his willingness to send out parties of soldiers to murder little babies in the middle of the night in order to avert a prophecy that predicts his own death at the hands of one of those babies. Well, when one of them grows up, I mean he won’t be killed by an actual baby. That WOULD be silly and it would make the story very short. Lord Rahl is a powerful wizard and a very capable swordsman. Craig Parker, who played Haldir in LotR: The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, is pretty good with Rahl. His contained performance shows a calm dictator with a glint of madness in the eye, like if a monster was ready to jump out of his skin at any moment.

Cara is a Mord’Sith, a cast of women who serves as Lord Rahl’s personal protectors. Mord’Sith use pain and suffering to make people do their bidding, unlike a Confessor who uses love and compassion for the same purpose. Cara uses two Agiel as weapons; they cause her constant pain which she can withstand because of her training, and she is completely devoted to Richard, who she thinks is the new Lord Rahl. She is quite stunning, and a real badass. This is Tabrett Bethel’s first major role, having done some minor acting in the past, along with modelling and cheerleading. Of the main cast, despite her awesome role, she is the weakest so far, with a very small range of expressions. We actually call her Zoolander because she always has the same face on.

The show is based on the “Sword of Truth” series of books by Terry Goodkind. I recently began reading the first writing, Wizard’s First Rule, and I enjoy it very much. For me a book needs to captivate me within the very first pages or I will abandon it, much like a television show and this book, just like its small screen counterpart, has done just that.
Despite its many flaws, The Legend of the Seeker is one of the best High Fantasy-set television shows ever made, with high production value, great writing, very decent acting overall and just loads of fun to watch.
Legal mumbo jumbo has kept a confirmation for a third season from being set and the terrible timeslot is surely hurting the ratings, but I can only hope it will return and continue this great story for a few more years.

8/10

Airbourne – No Guts, No Glory – A Review

The band is best known for being an almost illegal mimic of AC/DC, as well as their musical contributions to video games, with pieces such as Too Much, Too Young, Too Fast and Runnin’ Wild, both from their first album.

No Guts, No Glory (NGNG) is very similar to their first effort but it feels dirtier, heavier and mostly faster. The guitar is clearer, less gritty and their sound, one can tell, is getting more focused and unique, taking a slight departure from the obvious inspiration that is a certain Australian quintet.

What strikes me the hardest about NGNG are the lyrics. They are very dirty, with many innuendos to sexually explicit situations and desires, and barely contained references to alcohol and drug abuse. I usually don’t mind these things, especially the sexual innuendos, but drug usage is another matter. I don’t care about pot or other “small” stuff but when it comes to mixing hard liquor with heavier drugs which can potentially cause death, I draw the line.
Also, even though I don’t expect grandiose lyrical poetry with deep thoughts on politics, religion and heavy philosophical questions from Airbourne, for me there is a limit to how graphical the innuendos can be. Am I comfortable singing those words from Armed and Dangerous or Chewing the Fat in the car with the windows down and my little girl sitting in the back? I am with AC/DC (Given the Dog a Bone, Beating Around the Bush) but in this instance, no.

Musically, the album is very good, especially for lovers of true, hard, real, rock. Comparisons to AC/DC are inevitable, with some pieces, such as Back on the Bottle, that contain riffs and sounds that could be considered plagiarism in a very near future. Towards the end of Bottle, for example, there is a piece of the track that is exactly like one from Let There Be Rock, especially the live version of this song from the album of the same name.
Airbourne are faster than AC/DC. A journalist once said in an interview that the band was like AC/DC on a 12 pack of Red Bull. Airbourne also lacks the blues influences of their older cousin; perhaps this is what gives them a faster sound. To me it’s like they replaced the blues of AC/DC with 80’s hair metal from bands like Cinderella or Ratt.
Also, there is no denying Joel O’Keefe’s talent. He is a fantastic guitar player, capable of great speed and complexity with good riffs and melodies that grab the ear and never let go, complemented with a loud, raunchy voice, perfectly suited for Airbourne’s style of dirty rock. No Guts, No Glory takes full advantage of those talents to give us loud, no bullshit hard rock.

Personally however I preferred Runnin’ Wild, Airbourne’s first album, over NGNG because it was a little bit slower, with some tracks contrasting with the rest of the album with increased fury and speed (Runnin’ Wild, Girls in Black), taking the listener by surprise and making for some nice variety. There are no such moments on NGNG, as all the tracks are pretty much the same.

Not that this is a bad thing, since all the tracks are good. They rock, they make you want to pump up that volume and scream those dirty words like Joel O’Keefe while driving down the highway, with no filler tracks, present on too many albums, even AC/DC’s.

I discovered Airbourne a few months ago and they have become my favourite new band. I love their dirty rock sound and although they are a little bit too fast for now, I really can’t object to a replacement of my true favourite band when they decide to hang up their instruments.

No Guts, No Glory is fun, loud and dirty, just like a true rock album should be.

8/10

2010! Woohoo!

Happy New Year EVERYONE!

2009 was one of the worst and hardest years ever for me, and I am glad it's over. 2010 is beginning on a much better note and hopefully I will be able to keep it that way.

Screw you 2009, may I never see your fucking face again!