Iron Man 2

Well, since I wasn't able to go last weekend due to my trip to Disneyland, I finally got around to seeing Iron Man 2. Maybe I was kind of expecting this to top the first the one, but I was a bit disappointed. But that doesn't mean the movie was not good. It is certainly fun to watch, and Robert Downey Jr, the main attraction, does not disappoint. However, I thought that the story was weaker than the first one (It was a bit dummed down...with more humor and wisecracks, and the villain was not very intimidating or very interesting.), but it was still solid. I guess I am complaining because of the quality of the first film, but this one is worth seeing, and even if you don't like it, you cannot deny that Robert Downey Jr is worth everything. While I thought the cast did their job well, and the action scenes were well executed (But short in length at times), I can't help but feel nostalgic for the first one. Tereance Howard, who played James Rhodes in the first one, passed on this film, and that's quite sad, actually. I would have loved to see what we would have done with this film. All in all, a fun film, though I definitely was more captivated by the first one. Two and a half stars out of four.

The Princess and the Frog Review

So last night, I saw the Disney's The Princess and the Frog with my nieces. And I can sum up the experience like this:

It was like reliving my childhood.

Okay maybe that sounds corny. But it shows that Disney can go back to creating magic that was such classics as Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. Sure, the film does not really live up to those two classics, but it stands on its own, and it was a HUGE improvement over such films as Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear and *Shudders* Home on the Range. When you saw any of the previously mentioned films, you can tell that the magic of the Disney Renaissance was gone. This is why I was so happy with the film: it went back to the roots and to the genre that started full-length Disney animated films: the princess genre. The film was beautifully animated with rich visuals and it was refreshing to see a good, old-fashioned hand-drawn animated film again, and it succeeded for me because it was a fresh take on a fairy tale. It was not set in a far-off land and the Princess of the story was not dreaming of finding her Prince Charming or having an adventure. The Prince was not a man wanting to be tied down to the woman he loves (At least in the beginning), but was a notorious, fun-loving playboy. The movie is set in New Orleans in the 1920s (Kudos to whoever came up with that!) and the main character, Tiana, dreams of having her own restaurant. While the music was not very memorable, like say Be Our Guest or Part of your world, it was charming and worth listening to. The story was very entertaining and had a lot of charm. The characters were engaging and like Disney Princess stories of the past, they had the essential ingredients intact (IE, the princess, the prince, the fairy godmother, "the king", the sidekicks, ext.). The villain, was the most disappointing aspect of the movie. While he was very menacing, charming and cruel, his motivations were a bit dull. Other than that, the film was a lovely homage to Disney movies of the past and and an entertaining entry to the line of Disney Princess movies. Three and a half stars out of four.

My Mash: *SQUEALS*!!!!

		I will marry Orson Welles .
		After a wild honeymoon, We will settle down in Rome in our fabulous Apartment.
		We will have 10 kid(s) together.
		Our family will zoom around in a Black Rolls Royce .
		I will spend my days as a Model, and live happily ever after.

A Crow remake - seriously?/The Wolfman Review

Hi everyone! I have lots on my mind right now, so I would like to start off with the recent news regarding a reboot of The Crow. Based on a graphic novel, the 1994 film starred the late Brandon Lee, who was killed during filming by the failure of a prop gun, and since his death, there has been numerous new regulations regarding props in film. I remember that Brandon Lee stated in interviews that he was working very hard on the film. Now, I feel as if the news of his remake will make us question Brandon Lee's legacy. I understand that The Crow is a graphic novel and a film based on it could go in many directions, but given the circumstances of the previous film, I feel that this remake might devalue not only the 1994 film - which was an excellent film - but also the memory of Brandon Lee, whose final performance was extraordinary and it truly showed how much he cared about the film, the material and his work. I do not know what to think of this "reboot" (As if we needed another one after hearing of the Spider-Man, Clash of the Titans and Fantastic Four reboots, LOL), but The Crow and Brandon Lee will always go hand in hand for me.

Second: I just came back from The Wolfman, and I have got to say, I was disappointed. First off, the story had various plot holes and inconsistencies, and the film felt lost sometimes, and unlike the original 1941 film, I really couldn't feel for Larry Talbot - and I think that was really important to achieve. While there was a lot of gore and violence, there was practically little scares. The cinematography was nice and special effects were good sometimes, but it was murky it a couple of scenes (You will know if you see the film). Bencio Del Toro did not impress me and the rest of the cast also seemed lost (The best performance was by Hugo Weaving as a Scotland Yard detective). The editing felt awkward and so did the direction, and while the structure of the film was not totally unbalanced, you can't help but ask yourself, "What is the film trying to do, and where is it going?". Overall, a very disappointing experience in what could have been a solid horror/ "monster" film. Universal has disappointed with their recent monster films - The Mummy Returns, Van Helsing, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (Gee, was THAT ONE really necessary?) - and now, The Wolfman. There might still be hope though, for a solid re-visioning of the Universal Monsters for today's audiences. I rate the film 1 and a half stars out of four. After this sour experience, I need me some Lon Chaney, Jr, my Blue Moon CD and some American Werewolf in London camp fun, LULZ!

My Brand New 31 Days of Oscar list =)

Inglourious Basterds

So, I had the opportunity to see Inglourious Basterds last night. Okay: I am not a huge fan of Quentin Tarantino - though I thoroughly enjoyed the Kill Bill films, I couldn't even finish watching Pulp Fiction or Jackie Brown, and I did not like Reservoir Dogs very much (Dodges the things the fan boys will inevitably throw at her ^_^...), so I really did not know what to expect of this film. His films are structurally eccentric, and very violent, but the man can write dialogue and I highly appreciate his style, because he made it his own . This film is no exception - and it was highly entertaining and engrossing. There's your classic mix of pure Tarantino in Inglourious Basterds: graphic violence and unconventional storytelling and narrative, but there are also certain twists, which I will get to in a moment. I enjoyed the performances, and although Brad Pitt is the star and is developing seriously great acting skills, this movie belonged to Christoph Waltz, in a very strong performance as a villainous Nazi SS agent - he was evil, menacing, cunning, cruel and convincingly displayed all those traits. While there were a lot of characters, I think the script did well in balancing them and the story was entertaining and exciting, and as I said before, I think Tarantino is a great dialogue writer and can convincingly intertwine storylines.

Now for that "twist" ( Now, I would've gotten this if I had remembered the "Once upon a time" line in the trailer) - when you're dealing with Quentin Tarantino, you know he is going to think out of the box, and in this film, he seriously played with history, but however, the outcome was creative and it was an entertaining fictionalized war film. Three and half stars out of four.

Sherlock Holmes

Yikes! Long time, no see! I apologize for the lack of posts, but I have been really busy lately, first with school, then with the Holidays - it's really been a busy year for me. I really do miss blogging here, so I'll get to it.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to see Sherlock Holmes yesterday. I came with one conclusion: Robert Downey, Jr is AWESOME - and he has demonstrated that he has tremendous capacity and depth. I liked the chemistry between him and Jude Law, who played Watson - it was one of the film's highlights. The story, while it dragged a little bit sometimes (No big deal, though), but was actually very solid - and in the end, it came together nicely. It was a very interesting take on the of my favorite literary characters ever. The special effects were great, but the slow motion was not really necessary in some scenes. It was, I admit - my first Guy Ritchie movie ever, and I went to the movie with lower expectations, but it was certainly a very entertaining picture, with a very charming cast. Three stars out of four.