Reviews

I would like to describe the animation into two words based on currently available technology: amazing rendition. The birds and the seaside look realistic. I find the environmental lighting surreal such that the whole scenery is picturesque enough for a photography enthusiast. The expressions on the faces of the characters bring humanity to the screen, and through the little bird - through the events of learning and of immersing oneself for the first time with something new and essential - the natural values of this humanity unfolded. It is amazing overall.

Although I have a complain with the realism of the story line given the realistic rendition; and of course, minus the generally accepted "poetic license" of giving the animals the near-human reactions, the events are too good to be true for a small bird. Perhaps this is the part where they want things to be surreal in order to deliver the ultimate message. However, may we not stretch the reality threshold a little much further for an animation with a realistic rendition such as this? Setting my complain aside, this is a memorable animation almost comparable to what "For the Birds" has achieved from the comical side of the spectrum.

About the general impression, from my perspective, it didn't work quite well with me. It is hard not to make the first film as a point of comparison; I find the first one really memorable with its more evident child-like approach to the story. Sure, I find the second one more sophisticated crime-busting-plot-wise, but this is more talky for an "Incredibles" film, wherein I find the action-packed facet quite unsatisfying. I would love to see more witty action scenes for Jack-Jack, that are comparable to those of Dash in the first installment. For me as a person who considered "The Incredibles" as one of his favorite Pixar film, apart from a sophisticated plot, at least one really satisfying action scene makes an "Incredibles" movie complete. Sad to say, I wasn't able to get enough of that same energy that I found in the first installment, and at some moments, I was even bored with the more talky parts of the film.

At the bottom line, I find this film solid and good enough for family entertainment, but then, here I am hoping for more witty adrenaline-packed scenes especially for Jack-Jack. There are some character-development issues especially for the villain, which at the end made her impact to the story rather so-so than awesome for an ordinary person. However, indeed, there's always a silver lining, and I'm hoping that the next one wouldn't disappoint.

Focusing your film on a generally considered boring activity such as exam-taking is on the surface a somewhat misguided notion of entertainment. But then, couple it up with cheating schemes usually makes it a potentially thrilling movie; after all, it really depends on how you execute it. The good thing is that in this film it somehow showed quite clever schemes, but what was really clever is how witty the film gets in order to deliver its weighty message about exam-taking and the so-called success in life in general.

The cheating schemes, especially in the latter part of the film, were delivered with Argo-ish thrill (speaking of the film "Argo") wherein it feels contrived, and of course flawed and inconsistent when it comes to the details; but in contrast to the Argo experience, I find this more enjoyable in a sense that it doesn't have those glaring historical inaccuracies that Argo had (well, this is not a film adapting a specific real-life event from the past unlike Argo).

This film doesn't try hard to be relevant and doesn't convince you to the notion that "hey, I have intelligent characters, and I am showing you exceptional schemes; so you should be amazed" but you can rather sense the good time that they had making this. What's compelling however is that they were able to entertainingly deliver (developing odd characters with awkwardly good chemistry and showing an engaging take on outrageous schemes) their message about what really matters despite the achievements without that self-righteous take. Although the ending feels like a "quick fix" to the meticulously presented moral murkiness and interesting characters, the experience was already fun and memorable.

Given that Studio Ghibli is in hiatus in creating its own production (it has collaborated in the film "The Red Turtle" this year 2016), I thought that it will take time before we see another animation gem from Japan. Well, it's refreshing to find out that we soon have another animation on a level at least at par with one of Studio Ghibli's best outings.

It didn't really get my attention at first since it seems that it's like your typical teen movie about young love or another so-so film with outrageous story-line -- taking note of the body swap plot. The first part is apparently absurd because what just happened is that they have swapped bodies, which might be just another layer of a character's dream or might be the actual thing that is happening in the story. That "absurdity" made me curious; and given the edgy editing, interesting characters, and funny dialogue, I was immediately hooked until I get even more intrigued because it seems predictable but at the same time it seems exactly the opposite. Well, I'm happy to tell everyone that it did impress logically and creatively speaking. The welcomed confusion from the beginning was totally paid off by a transcendental revelation, making the whole experience -- with the sky, the comet, the thread of time, the music, the tragedy -- like a dream in itself. After that high point, I didn't really bother how it is going to end because I found myself cheering already on how did things unfold with substantial originality.

Although I find the ending conventional and a bit melodramatic for me, and also the first half quite uneven in style, I think I have found another animation gem just like the first time I discovered Studio Ghibli's gems in the past. This film reminds me of Studio Ghibli's "Whisper of the Heart" combined with the creativity of "Inception", and the sophisticated plot of "Interstellar". We might not see another full-length feature from Hayao Miyazaki anymore, but cheer up because we might see another one from Makoto Shinkai. Hopefully he will rise in the same heights as Miyazaki, and he doesn't have to be the next Miyazaki, really, because "Your Name", as Shinkai's breakthrough at new heights, is something different and compelling in a different way.

It's finally here, and one of the usual questions would be: is it a worthy addition to the series?

For those who have followed Harry Potter, I think the answer is yes, and in fact this is an interesting addition that would appeal more with the older audience. Although a bit predictable, the film has a solid climax, and has a rather compelling conclusion. The film was able to establish a starting point for Grindelwald's story, but I have to admit that the character's demeanor as I saw it in the last part of the film spoiled my anticipation to see more of him. For the rest of the audience, it is understandable that Grindelwald is not that interesting based on how the film developed the character. Moreover, he is quite familiar already given that we had Voldemort. So this makes Grindelwald no longer unique, and I find it important that in the succeeding films, J.K. Rowling should present a fresh and compelling case for this character. The dark apocalyptic theme is already worn out, but I'm optimistic that Rowling could give the much needed twist.

I find the creatures interesting, but the scenes involving the search for the creatures on the lose are quite slow, and sometimes feel flat at times; and at one point, I did wonder when the film will finally take off. At least, the Niffler, the kleptomaniac creature, did steal the show. Maybe the problem is with how Redmayne carried Newt Scamander in those scenes and how Yates handled the subtleties of the writing. The script contains many amusing lines that are subdued (might be actually challenging for the director to carry out), and I think that there are a lot of misses in hitting the intended impact.

Generally, the leads did a good job, and what compensates for the low points is the presence of Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), who mainly provided the comic relief. Top that with his love interest, Queenie (Alison Sudol), and we see an amusing and compelling subplot. Eddie Redmayne's Newt and Katherine Waterston's Tina did not really stand out, but I think they did something adequate. However, it would have been better if we see more compelling performances like in their last scene.

After the first two-thirds of the film, I felt relief that the film finally embarked on its take off. With the film's central plot revolving on a particular dark beast, I find the character development to be adequate. Lots of cliché surround the plot, coming especially from DC and Marvel movies, but I think this one has established a unique case such that it generally transcends those cliché. I also think that Yates did a good job in handling the more action-packed parts of the film, and I think that the final third is great and memorable enough to compensate for the lows of the earlier parts. Moreover, watch out for Ezra Miller's Credence and Samantha Morton's Mary Lou in the darker aspects of the story.

The effects are generally topnotch, and there are parts of it that came close to something groundbreaking. There's actually a wow in the production design and we see this at the last part. Cinematography's good, and New York City is a nice backdrop for the story, although the script could have made use more of its culturally complex identity. Also worth mentioning is the music that seamlessly blends with that of the Harry Potter world, especially with the work of John Williams; and more remarkably, James Newton Howard has offered us with iconic themes.

At the bottom-line, the future of this series looks good although some are skeptical on how the story can be stretched. However, if one is familiar with the background stories of Harry Potter, Dumbledore's backstory is particularly interesting, and it did raise a lot of questions. In this case, the material is not really a problem, and hopefully, Rowling together with the cast and crew will live up to the expectations. The first offering as a whole is not really a wow but is memorable enough to be worthily labeled as part of J.K. Rowling's wizarding world.

Watching the first "Conjuring" movie on DVD was driven by the motivation to scare a friend, who is known to be entertainingly frightened. I am not a fun of horror movies because of their usual shallow story-lines and cheap tricks. Plus, the hype that surrounds them annoys me since a lot of them are just plain cash-making machines, e.g. "The Blair Witch Project". So I was surprised that "The Conjuring" movie has this interesting story-line and lingering creepiness, which was achieved without relying much on visual effects. Indeed, "old-school" darkness and shadows are scarier than trying-hard CGI monsters. And after the movie, we ended up scaring each other with that brilliant "clap scene". So I think this time, it's not bad after all to watch the sequel, "The Conjuring 2", in a movie theater (given that we have the same director, and of course, the same people who portrayed the Warrens).

The second movie started with the controversial Amityville Horror case, in which the Warrens were also involved (their most widely known case). In these kind of supernatural cases, people are divided between those who considered the case a hoax and those who believed it to be true, aside from being don't care or neutral. In this case, the film takes the side of the Warrens who considered that something demonic was behind the killings. In our case, as an audience, we are more on the neutral side, just plain listeners to one side of the investigation while seeking entertainment value; somewhat akin to watching a cultural film and being immersed with the cultural point of view in question.

For the Warrens, it seems that the Amityville Horror case has greatly affected them, especially Lorraine, who saw premonitions of her husband's death. Then, after that, the film moved to the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, where something paranormal is happening in a public housing unit in London. This is where the film developed the Hodgson family (and it did well enough to make us care about their struggles). This is set in the late 1970's, and remarkably the production values are high because the setting really looked like we are really in the 1970's (and they showed photographs when the end credits rolled) and the camera work is successful most of the time to create tension and suspense. However, what's missing in this film when compared to the first one is an iconic scare scene, e.g. the "clap scene". We practically saw nothing new except a more stylish camera work, more masterful suspense, and a different story-line. The good thing was that most of the scares are effective enough to elicit reaction from the audience (in many occasions, I laughed at the reaction in many false alarms and unexpected scare moments, and that was fun), and the high point of the film was particularly intense (but quite short for our taste). Moreover, we get to see a good attempt at combining horror and comedy, e.g. when the Hodgsons ran away from their house after a disturbing poltergeist activity. James Wan, indeed, improved in his skills as a director, although not much in mixing sentimentality (but I think that Elvis Presley tribute as a way of cheering up the Hodgsons is OK).

Another good stuff is the performance of the whole cast, with the special mention of Madison Wolfe, as Janet - the main target of the poltergeist(s) for possession - and Frances O'Connor, as Peggy Hodgson - the struggling mother of four, who was at her wits end to provide for her children. Then, as usual, we got good performances from Vera Farmiga, as Lorraine Warren, and Patrick Wilson, as Ed Warren. Even though we more or less saw related scare scenes before from other movies, e.g. The Exorcist, many of the scares are still effective. However, it is during the time when it attempts to use more CGI that the film loses its effectivity, e.g. the Crooked Man scene. In contrast, we experienced more chills when a shadow was employed, e.g. the nun scene where the demonic, in a form of a nun's shadow, slowly reaches for an eerie nun portrait, and places itself behind it. It is in the "old-school" style where Wan's technique is most effective, and in this manner, I find the first "Conjuring" film to be more creepy than this one. And also, the big difference is that in the first one we don't have much idea about the villain until the climax, but in this one, we more or less have a good idea about the villain's identity and how it looked like given Lorraine's premonitions and an image from one of Ed's dreams. And finally, we find a haunted farmhouse, with centuries-old tale and more ominous villain, to be more creepy than a suburban tale with a less compelling villain background story. However, given the suburban setting, the feat is remarkable, and we had fun watching it.

My first exposure to this Rudyard Kipling story was from the video game back in the 90's. That game, albeit short, has been challenging and engrossing at the same time. The story was nice; there were lots of memorable characters, and overall, I thought that it was a good game. However, the game experience wasn't actually enough to bring me to the nearest theater. What I found really interesting was the visuals that I saw in the trailer, so the hope that it is going to be a good film overall comes along with it. With the big names in the film industry in it, at least in the voice actors' department, I was hoping that the production values will be high.

I recently watched the animated film released back in the 1960's. Story- wise it is faithful to the main points that was told in the video game and in the animated film. So many films have failed to re-create or match the quality of the revered previously released films, but this one has become one of those few films who did justice to its prior counterpart. In fact, the live-action version was made sophisticated enough to appeal to the adult audience, and children might get really scared at this one.

It contains one of the most impressive CGI in the recent years and it is comparable to the feat that Life of Pi has achieved, in fact more challenging given several animal facial expressions and interactions to take care of. An especially notable technical achievement was the temple scene with King Louie and lots of monkeys in it. The scene contains several CGI interactions, e.g. monkeys against Baloo and monkeys against the temple ruins. And I thought the compositing was topnotch even during the destruction of the temple with lots of debris around. The rendering of the animals were also topnotch, and one of the most memorable, technically, artistically and character-wise, was Baloo. I never thought that Baloo would be that interesting in the live-action version.

The voice actors behind the CGI characters - with special mention of Bill Murray as Baloo, Scarlett Johannson as Kaa, Ben Kingsley as Bagheera, Lupita Nyong'o as Raksha, Idris Elba as Shere Khan, Christopher Walken as King Louie - did not disappoint; and of course, Mowgli (Neel Sethi) did well too (look at that stamina and convincing CGI interaction). The dialogue was surprisingly fun, and it was also notable that the heavier scenes were toned down. There were lots of things to enjoy in this film, and credit should be given to its director for coordinating many things in this film to work, both technically and artistically.

If there is a problem with this film, then it has something to do with the rendering of the more serious scenes and plot development. And also, the film left me asking for more on those chilly scenes, such as the one with Kaa, and the jungle chase scenes. Not bad though, but perhaps there were opportunities to turn this film into a gem, more than just being a solid family film. Anyway, I had a great time watching this film, and it is highly recommended especially for CGI enthusiasts.

The second installment tackled mainly the story of Po, particularly about his origin and what happened to his parents. This is another journey in "getting to know oneself" story-line, and in this third installment, a similar story-line was told. Albeit similar, it was rather told in another level of perspective, a supposedly more profound perspective. More profound in a sense that the knowledge of oneself reaches a certain threshold such that the responsibility to share it with others comes in at a ripe time and becomes another level of journey in "getting to know oneself". Then, it becomes pedagogical, and the film's story shows us a compelling idea of the true meaning of teaching. Teaching in a sense that you transform others, not to become like the teacher, but to become like themselves with their own potentials realized.

Compelling as it may seem, the way of telling in this third installment is rather too simplistic given the weight of the perspective being tackled. It falls quite short of the depth that the first movie has given us despite the similarly comical approach that characterizes a Kung Fu Panda movie. Despite this little "disappointment", the movie was rather enjoyable, and the introduction of new characters and a new place was rather refreshing. The pitfall, however, is that the villain was kind of boring, wherein nothing is really different from the same greedy villain we saw in the second movie. And also, the movie feels a little bit short in a sense that the pacing was fast, and we had the eventual confrontation between the villain and the hero too soon before we get fully satisfied with the laughs, the action scenes, and the weighty story. In short, the movie kind of left us asking for more. Despite all of these, I still would like to say that the third installment is a decent and an enjoyable addition to the Kung Fu Panda series.

The first portion was a little bit confusing and awkward for me. After all I'm quite new to the details of many business terms. The good thing was that I learned a lot, and now I have a good idea on how did the American economy fall in 2008. Then, there was this quite complex film editing style, which I came to appreciate much later in the second portion of the movie, when the characters have become more developed. The pacing is actually quite fast in the first part, wherein they introduced one character, develop it a little, introduce another one, develop it, and then go back to the previously introduced character, develop it further, and so on. It didn't work quite well for me at first, wherein there were some jokes that doesn't seem to have a good timing, e.g. they turn out to be tepid and dry, but then when they do hit the timing, they can give you some really good laugh.

What was consistent however was the strong performances of the cast. These became more compelling in the second portion of the movie since they were augmented by more developed characters and better pacing and editing style. We get to see more scenes that give room for contemplation as well, and we get to see some outrageous sides of the unique characters who have foreseen the disastrous results of the business craziness that was going on. Now, you get to feel really sad about the consequences of the fraudulent actions of the people in Wall Street, but then you really get to laugh as well with the unexpected twists in the situation and conversation such as the sudden appearance of Selena Gomez. For me, the unique mix of order and chaos in this film is an extraordinary feat for the film's director, Adam McKay.

The subject matter is both relevant and important, given the current situation in the U.S., and despite being a little bit self-righteous for me, I think the movie was able to handle it very well. As a person not so familiar with a lot of business terms, I have become more familiar with mortgage bonds, and was able to use "CDO" and "synthetic CDO" in a sentence. At least, as an ordinary person, I might not be easily intimidated by these words anymore. Perhaps a second viewing will do the trick of appreciating the first portion more, but then all throughout you can say that its strongest side was the writing, and I think it is one of the best written movies of the year.

From the opening of the movie, you already have a good idea that the work is masterful. From the shots of the flowing water in the middle of the forest to the shots of the mountains and the sky, the technical achievement is impressive, most notably the camera work and the visuals. It started great, and then augmented by Leonardo's performance, it retained its strength towards the end. Although it's not much on the writing department, with some forgettable conversations, its driving force is the visuals, and perhaps it can be even told well as a silent film, although we might miss the aptly written film music. The point here is that this is one of the best directed films of the year and in many years. One notable scene is the raid of the American natives against a band of White hunters. Albeit small in scale, it felt grand and challenging to shoot, given the unique angles and action sequences. It was rather a gory scene, which Alejandro Inarritu masterfully mixed with artistic values.

There were a lot of other scenes with bloodshed and gore, and in terms of effective use of visual effects, it is the battle with the huge bear that stood out among the rest. If we talk about the most violent among them, one cannot rule out the combat in the last part of the movie. Although it is not really as violent as most of Tarantino's movies, one cannot help to notice the director's fascination of the artistic value of blood in the snow.

Apart from the direction, there were two other strong driving forces in the movie: DiCaprio's performance and the cinematography. The role was definitely challenging, but then it was a bull's eye. The other characters were not developed well, but you will not be bothered by it because the plot is simple. Miss some of their conversations and you won't miss a lot. It was after all a director's film about survival and revenge, impressively made.

I saw it, and I liked it. It is such a good family film with high production values. It is mainly about a child, albeit small for his age, who showed to other people what determinism - or in a more religious perspective, faith - is all about. Sounds cliché and predictable, but what makes this film good is how it was told through a little boy, through his innocence and simplicity. Indeed, much can be learned from a child, despite the character's shortcomings for just being an ordinary boy in the neighborhood. The little boy was bullied for being 'little', and he cannot be even considered smart for his age. The setting was World War II, the time when able-bodied men were sent to war in the Far East. The boy has an older brother who satisfied the age requirement, but wasn't able to make it for being flat-footed. So their father was sent instead, and this was heartbreaking to the little boy.

There was hatred of the Japanese almost everywhere, and well, predictable enough, there was a Japanese living in their village who have sided with the Americans. The vengeance for their father was directed to this Japanese, which lead the brothers in committing a crime. The older brother was imprisoned and being a religious family, the little boy had to serve penance for the delinquency that he has committed. From this part, everything almost revolves around a list and the determination to fulfill what was on the list. The good thing is that this was well-acted and well-directed. If there is something to dislike, then some would probably believe that it is the contrived plot marked with a lot of coincidences. For me, however, these coincidences are pleasant contrivances in a sense that they are used to illustrate something valuable in our humanity. The illustration was compelling in a sense that it was used in context with the innocence of the boy. This made things amusing because the coincidences made him believe in himself for having extraordinary powers. Perhaps the village people are foolish enough for crediting the little boy for the atomic bomb. However, it can also be viewed as words of encouragement to the little boy and a celebration of the coincidence amidst depressing times. There is a lot of humanity in this film. If you believe in a supreme being, you will see faith, and if you do not, you will see determination. The turn of the story at the end can be considered cliché, but then by that time the film had successfully made its point already.

P.S. I also think that this is one of the most underrated films that I have ever seen.

I like the first trilogy more than the second one (prequels), and given the quality of the prequels, I even thought that they were unnecessary. At least the last film of the prequels (Revenge of the Sith) is decent enough, but it rather looked like an animated film. Among the Star Wars films, I like Empire Strikes Back the most, and I though that it was an amazing feat given the technology at that time (of course, A New Hope was a monumental film and a historic one).

Now, we have another film, The Force Awakens. The battle was between the Resistance and the First Order. Although, the film is entitled "The Force Awakens", we don't really see much of the process on how the Dark Side has risen again. In fact, it was already powerful enough to destroy the Republic. So much has happened already, and we were introduced to Darth Vader's successor, Kylo Ren, and to another Death Star. The First Order was already looking for Luke Skywalker (who has subjected himself into an exile) in order to prevent the rise of the Jedis, and hence there was this race to capture a droid, BB-8, which happens to contain valuable information about Luke's whereabouts. Personally, I would like to see how the Dark Side crept through the galaxy to reach and transform Kylo Ren (although we have hints of that in the movie's climax) and all the related stuff given the title. In that aspect, something about The Force itself, I think the film fell short to deliver.

Although something is missing, the film delivered a rather solid storyline with some engaging action scenes and excellent visual effects (one of the year's best or perhaps it is the year's front-runner). It doesn't look like an animated film, and it looks more like A New Hope or Empire Strikes Back, albeit obviously far more superior in the technicals. The story also reminded me of the first two films of the first trilogy, with striking similarities that will make you feel that it was some sort of a remake, but a really good one. We were actually introduced to new characters; the one that stood out among the rest was the gifted Rey, an orphaned woman from the desert planet Jakku. She happens to be sensitive with The Force, but I don't think her character in relation to The Force was developed well. We were also re-introduced to some of the iconic characters of the original trilogy: Hans Solo, Princess (General) Leia, Chewbacca, C-3PO, R2-D2, and of course Luke Skywalker. It was great to see them again, and I think overall it was a good Star Wars film and a good start for a new series of Star Wars films.

However, one question lingers in my mind, is there something novel and monumental about the film with respect to the previous Star Wars films? I'm beginning to think that there's none. Even the film music was not fresh enough; no iconic themes were introduced, and it seems that John Williams just recycled the music from Empire Strikes Back and Revenge of the Sith (although I think the music was used well). Setting these things side, I have to admit that I have enjoyed the film, but just my two cents, it could have been a great Star Wars film if the director J.J. Abrams introduced something truly original.

What caught my attention at first was the remarkable trailer of this movie (I thought that the cinematography was impressive). With Ron Howard as its director, this film has been one of my most anticipated movies of the year although the only background that I know is that there was this acclaimed novel entitled "Moby-Dick" by H. Melville. Well, it was actually based on a non-fiction book by N. Philbrick of the same name, which was published in the year 2000, and was actually an acclaimed book also by winning the U.S. National Book Award for Nonfiction. The background of the movie was indeed "acclaim-material".

I was specifically expecting some underwater scenes that could bring up something mysterious, something similar to the trailer. Well, it actually started with mystery because Brendan Gleeson's character, the old Thomas Nickerson, seem to have dark secrets about his whale-hunting past. It was during the time when Herman Melville (played by Ben Whishaw) himself was looking for an inspiration for his novel. The movie dedicated most of its time on Nickerson's past, when he was a cabin boy on the sunken whaling ship Essex. It was actually a compelling story, but I think it was told in a rather tedious and unremarkable manner. However, the director succeeded in bringing the immersive experience of the whaling expedition, the details of it which includes going inside the whale's body to get the oil. It was realistically rendered, with some impressive effects, but sadly it was rather turned dull by the so-so screenplay. Chris Hemsworth's Owen Chase, as the First Mate in the expedition, was a compelling performance though.

It was a philosophical story, basically grounded on human greed and how Mother Nature responded to it, teaching us some lesson. It sounds ordinary, but with the combination of a good direction and screenplay, one can actually extract something compelling about it. With regard to this film, an unremarkable screenplay rather made it ordinary despite its technical and artistic achievements.

A story about feudalism in Japan is something that I find interesting. The era, when the shogun reigned, when feudal wars sparked here and there, was full of chaos and bloodshed. "Chaos" and "bloodshed" are common catchphrases, but what draws me to these stories is that this era in Japan is something mysterious for me. Perhaps, it is the effect of the country being not too open during that period, and the main question is: What happened in Japan's deep countryside when the shoguns reigned? Although the Western world has their own share of wars, the wars in Japan were arguably more bloody and violent. When depicted in film, it becomes a piece of entertainment in many dimensions. As we all know, what usually makes these films good is a profound story about trust and betrayal, coupled with the showcase of sword-fighting skills and war strategies. The inner conflict and the clash of philosophies are more interesting than the physical depiction of the war itself.

The premise of "Azumi" is rather compelling because it is about young assassins. They were children used by the Tokugawa shogunate - deployed as assassins in their teenage years - to assassinate feudal lords who were capable of initiating another large-scale conflict. I was curious on their character development and the possible inner conflict that may arise when they face the world. The film did tackle these things, but the result was rather disappointing. Although there were some profound scenes, it did not delve into these things deeper, and generally, the portrayal was rather uneven and touched only the surface. It went more to the typical action movie side, and went further even beyond believability in the combat skills and endurance of its characters. As the film progresses, I'm becoming convinced that I am just watching an action fantasy flick despite its compelling historical references. If you are looking for an action movie and you don't really care about the story that much, then you may find this film thrilling; although you might be disappointed if you are looking for realistic fight scenes. In fact, it's the thrill and mystery together with some intriguing characters that enabled me to finish watching this film.

The story reminds me something about Aladdin, Paulo Coelho's "The Alchemist", Alibaba or anything that has something to do with Arabia. Probably because the movie has something to do with sand, lots of sand. We have sand in an hourglass, and literally, those are the "sands of time". In this movie, arguably, the source of the conflict is the mysterious dagger in which the fate of the whole human race depends. If this falls into the wrong hands, disaster for the whole world is imminent. The dagger has something to do with the so-called "sands of time", which in turn, has something to do with time travel. However, this time travel is only towards the past, towards the very beginning of an ancient legend involving the wrath of the gods against the human race. It's an interesting legend. And for most children, this story will be enjoyable as a bed-time story from Persia. This is not the most interesting part of the movie though because there is a more compelling story about trust and betrayal, told through the household of the Persian royalty. There is really nothing special about the movie, but it has a story that was entertainingly told under the twist of an ancient legend. If you like adventures set in the desert involving interesting characters and funny encounters, then this film serves as an entertaining popcorn flick.

I don't like sci-fi films that much, but these days we have films, which what I thought to have a good combination of creativity and realism such that they are too good to ignore. Both "Gravity" and "Interstellar" have been considered iconic films in this genre, and this year, we have another one, albeit not as iconic, under the title of "The Martian". Although it doesn't have the technical novelty in the same degree as that of "Gravity" or the edgy plot that we have encountered in "Interstellar"; nonetheless, "The Martian" manages to be as amazing. The plot is simple, but yet we are treated with a good, if not impressive, execution of the simple and subtle things in the story. It is simple yet brainy. The story basically deals with the humanity's way of solving problems in order to survive. Solve the bigger problem by decomposing it into smaller problems, and then solve them one by one until you have solved enough problems that will probably enable you to survive.

It revolves around a scientific expedition to Mars, which was unfortunately hampered by the inaccurately predicted Martian storm. That storm was strong enough to destroy their launch pad, and this forced the crew to leave the Martian research unit. However, during the untimely evacuation, a crew member was hit by debris and was left behind. He was presumed dead, but was later discovered alive through the satellite images received by the Earth. The surviving crew was already on their journey back home when they learned that he was still alive. However, they were facing a difficult logistics problem for his rescue, given the expensive space mission and the distance between Earth and Mars. It would take at least a year at best for a supply or rescue to reach the planet, and perhaps, by that time Mark Watney was already dead.

The film focuses on the survival efforts - sounds tedious and depressing for a film to depict - but like the case of other great films, the journey was rather engaging and enjoyable, kudos to the performance of Matt Damon as Mark Watney and the achievement by Ridley Scott as director. Furthermore, the experience was enhanced by the excellent use of visual effects and music. Although, the approach can be considered minimalist, the thrills brought by this film are satisfying. I found the survival process in itself enjoyable, and what makes it even more interesting is that it is not all about the efforts of one man alone, but also the efforts of the people in the Earth to bring Mark Watney back home alive. Matt Damon was surrounded by a compelling supporting cast (to name a few: Jessica Chastain, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Jeff Daniels), and of course a compelling combination of different subject matters: astrophysics, rocket science, botany, chemistry, mathematics, and supercomputers.

However, for those who expect a big dose of action and emotions, they may rather find this film disappointing or a bit unfulfilling. There are lots of powerful scenes wherein the director should have managed to bring the experience into full blast but rather chose to "soft-pedal" them. Not bad though, but I thought it could have been more amazing. Moreover, the first two-thirds of the film tried to avoid the cliché often associated with films under this genre, but unfortunately it sort of fell to the "Hollywoodish" formula in the end, e.g. the scene with the big crowd in the New York Times Square. However, I still say it was an amazing film. This is one of Ridley Scott's best, and I wouldn't be surprised if it gets a lot of attention in the awards season.

I like Japanese folk tales because of their simplicity and unique wisdom. It also gives me the opportunity to imagine impressive landscapes in rural and premodern Japan. 'The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter' is one of those really old folk tales, which dates back in the 10th century. So even before watching Takahata's 'The Tale of The Princess Kaguya', I think I will most probably like the film too because it was adapted from a folk tale. Well, it turned out to be one of the artistically unusual animated films that I have ever seen.

First impression was it felt like an old Japanese painting that came to life, but then later on, it felt like a dream rather than a painting. It was that good, and it mainly succeeds as a cultural film. This is a must-see for animation and Japanese folk tale enthusiasts.

Most of the time, the pacing was at cruise speed, which allowed the environment to breath. We see beautiful landscapes done in watercolor and simple strokes, and generally, they looked more like an artist's sketch in a good way. These were accompanied by the relaxing sounds of nature, and the outcome has effectively immersed the viewer into its dreamy scenes. The experience was made even better because of its notable music. Combine these with its topnotch voice talent (Japanese version) and well-written dialogue arguably results to one of the most remarkable films in the animation genre.

Although the theme is rather familiar, the film has given not just a good story to tell but a memorable experience. It is mainly about the search for happiness, and it has allusions to religious teachings about the person's earthly life, where there are sufferings and impurities, and the afterlife in heaven, where there are only peace and happiness. In fact if this theme is told in a motion picture, the result will most probably be just so-so. In this way, the film has achieved a remarkable feat and has ended it memorably with delightful tunes and scenes that elicit reflection on our life in this world. There was a certain facet, where the film didn't quite hit its target though. This was during the scenes where the emotions should have been powerful, but since you don't really have a good clue on what the character was talking about, these scenes rather felt a little bit awkward. Perhaps, the other world, where the princess came from, was not developed well at that point. This issue is easy to set aside though because the overall viewing experience has been great already.

As a person who have some inclination towards instrumental music, it was not hard to notice the impressive music that Joe Hisaishi has composed in this film. This is arguably one of his best works among the Studio Ghibli films that I have seen. In the case of Isao Takahata's directing achievement, this is comparable to his solid work in the 'Grave of the Fireflies'; perhaps even matched it. Nonetheless, this film is indeed a fitting finale for his career in the animation industry, and this is one of the films that he will be remembered best.

When we want to give a tribute, we usually want it to be something memorable. In the case of Miyazaki, this tribute is telling a creative story that transcends reality. This happens to be a story about Japan's visionary engineer of aviation. His dream was to ride the wind. Although he couldn't be a pilot, his poor eyesight did not hinder him from pursuing this dream. This led him to design airplanes instead, with the aim of bringing any ordinary person to experience traveling in the sky. But in his time, planes were not made to pursue this dream but rather they were made to bring destruction. We might expect that this tribute would be in a form of an accurate account of Jiro Hirokoshi's life, but since this was helmed by a visionary artist, the result was rather an imaginative depiction of the protagonist's life.

Just like Miyazaki's previous work, the storytelling is engrossing, and we are in for a visual treat. The difference, however, is that we no longer have the essence of a fairy tale on the same level as that of Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle. The film was more serious, and it actually ended with a tragic tone, although it is far from the depressing mood of Takahata's Grave of the Fireflies. This is Miyazaki in his more introspective side about dealing with social issues such as war. You may also observe that more weight is given to the dialogue for the story's progression, and we even have a dose of politics involving Germany and Japan together with the technicalities about aircraft design.

Unlike, Howl's Moving Castle, the film is evenly paced, but when compared to My Neighbor Totoro, the visuals are given less opportunity to breath. Although the film is rather inaccurate as a biopic, the story about Hirokoshi's love interest made the film more compelling. The accuracy is beside the point though because what we are really witnessing is Miyazaki's vision, his very own tribute to Hirokoshi (and as the end credits say, it is also a tribute to Tatsuo Hori).

For those who have enjoyed Miyazaki's film for its fantastic side, you might miss it here. He tackles a more mature theme this time, and arguably this is his most complex film in terms of writing. Although I think it is not as good as Spirited Away, it still deserves to be considered as one of his most notable works.

I have to admit that I don't watch a lot of Philippine movies, and the willingness is even lower when it comes to the romance genre. In that department, they tend to follow the same formula over and over; and generally, it's not hard for them to be tagged "cheesy". Finally, after a period of hibernation towards watching Filipino movies in their theatrical release, we have decided to watch a Filipino film. We came up with a shortlist, but then a rather cheesy title took the number one spot. All right, let's try this one if we can bear it. But then, it turned out to be an irony because it was rather refreshing to watch. Yes, it's enjoyable and memorable.

What stood out is the insightful and introspective take on rather mundane things about relationships and life in general. The film even reminded me of Linklater's Before Sunrise and Before Sunset. Just like these films, the driving force is the dialogue, and in many occasions, the writing is smart and funny. The film's prevailing tone is a fun and thoughtful joyride. Aside from literally traveling with the characters, you become part of the protagonist's soul-searching after her failed long-term relationship. You're in for a treat with interesting characters, engaging dialogue, and some breathtaking scenery. Worth mentioning is the Sagada trip, which showcased impressive directorial shots. In terms of the performances, it felt like Angelica Panganiban took the wheel, and her partner played the role of a passenger reacting to her driving skills. They were put together in a fateful encounter, and the combination rather worked out well given the risk of being contrived. It worked best when the dialogue is minimal.

Although it was not devoid of cheesy conversations and perhaps ineffective jokes, it contained several well-paced scenes, just like in Coppola's Lost In Translation, that allow us to contemplate about the truths that the film has brought up rather indirectly. In fact, certain scenes, just like the one on the streets of Baguio about 'the heart' and 'the arrow', were reminiscent of the creativity of Gondry's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Also, the guitar background music has set a similar tone. If the film's rough edges were polished, it had some striking qualities of a film widely considered by international critics as a masterpiece. However, in itself, it is already a refreshing turn in the direction of Philippine cinema. If you're looking for a film to enjoy under the turf of quality storytelling, this film will definitely deliver.

In different ways whether we are aware of it, computers have influenced a lot on the way how we live in this world. As a person who have been at some point interested with computers, I have come across a person named "Turing" alongside with "von Neumann", "Pascal", etc. He's one of the brilliant minds in the history of computers. Mix this person with the themes of war such as cryptography, the Nazis, and "top-secret" operations, will lead to an interesting topic to talk about; topic that is usually made into "B" movies. You can have it at the "Imitation Game", but then in one of the unusual cases, we encounter here a film that is more than a thrilling "B" movie with similar theme.

We get to know "Enigma", a machine built by Germans to encrypt and decrypt secret codes. The codes when decrypted by the Allied forces will greatly increase their chance to win the war against the Nazis, who dominated Europe during the second World War. If you are thinking that war between humans and machines is something futuristic, this film shows us that it has already happened in the middle of the 20th century. It happened, as the way how the film put it, between the brilliant minds of Britain and a German machine; and this led to a question: how can humans beat a powerful machine? Turing's answer was simple: build another machine. Of course, realizing this adversary machine to beat Enigma is such a risky endeavor that will require a lot of brain resources. This is the struggle that the film tackled at its core together with the different dimensions that come alongside it.

We might expect some mathematics, but then the treatment is almost the same as that of "A Beautiful Mind". However, this film has a more sophisticated and realistic take on telling the story of an unusual person. What is even more compelling is that it is a well-crafted mix of victory and tragedy. We get to see the impact of the war and the personal struggles of those who were tasked to solve the "puzzle" at Bletchley Park. Among those struggles, we get to realize that Alan Turing's life was far from the story of a victorious war hero. We get to see how harsh the society can be to those who are considered different and how somebody can lose his purpose despite the gift and achievements. We see all of this accompanied by the remarkable performances of Benedict Cumberbatch and Keira Knightley and the above average technical achievements. What can be easily recognized to be topnotch are the film's cinematography and music.

It's not wholly entertaining though because it can be a bit slow at times and uninteresting. If you are looking for some engaging academic discourse about computers and war strategies, you might not get your fix because it tends to tackle the social dimension more and it can be inaccurate at times in historical details. And in the last part, it felt like there is some imbalance though since earlier we get to see its matter-of-fact and neutral treatment on the more sensitive matters.

At the bottom-line, I think the film succeeds in its in-depth take on a person whose purpose in life was not fully realized amidst his/her gifts. Overall, it is a memorable film.

As an avid reader of the Harry Potter series, I'm a bit disappointed the very first time I saw it. At first, I find the minimalist approach rather awkward given the "loud" first two films. When compared to the experience I had with the book, it lacked the powerful drive of the story. It was also disappointing to find out that they excluded many twists and other amusing details that were found in the book. I thought that the film brought injustice to an avid reader, but I also thought that it was also unjust to undermine the film's quality.

The visuals were impressive, and the unique storytelling was a breakthrough in the series. It was certainly better than the first two because it was a sublime Potter movie, a film that may be enjoyed both by children and adults alike. It's quality is close to the films that you see in a critic's top ten of the year; and yes, it can be a critic's fave.

I watched the film for the second time, no longer as an avid reader; thereby watching the film just the way it was, as a standalone film without any comparison to the book. The experience was much better this time. Disappointment transformed into amusement and even admiration. There were lots of humor "bits" in it and most of them were not easily noticed (some were rather dry actually). They could be found even in scenes where they were least expected. Just let the director take you, and you may find amusement in many of its details. I think that Harry Potter was at last given a chance to show its magnificent and competitive side in this adaptation.

Relative to the performances in the first two films, the acting has improved. Harry, Ron, and Hermione owned their characters more. The new Dumbledore was energetic, and I thought he was fascinating although he wasn't able to get the mysterious and gentle side of the late Richard Harris' Dumbledore. Not all acting were very convincing for me, but at least it was much better this time. The direction was great. Alfonso Cuaron gave a sophisticated approach to the film; it was also a film that adults may enjoy too. The musical score was minimalist, and it had many "little" tunes in it. Additional themes were composed by John Williams, and I could remember best the music during Buckbeak's flight and the theme during the time when Harry and Lupin were talking about Harry's parents. What I find lacking in the score, however, was a unifying theme given a more varied landscape of music. Speaking of the effects, Buckbeak, the Whooping Willow, and the dementors were the most impressive creations. The downside, however, happened during the werewolf scene. Other than that, the scenes looked vibrant, and they were colored such that they looked less monotonous, as opposed to the palette of the first two films. Hogwarts and the surroundings looked better in this film.

The third film improved many things about a Potter movie. It was not close to the book's power but it managed to capture its essence. As a film, it was a bit short to be called a masterpiece, but the production quality was already remarkable for a Potter movie. It could disappoint as many fans as it could, but I think it was generally a good movie to watch. To the avid readers, may a modified viewing approach work on you; but I think this movie will work best on those who have not yet read the book but who have seen the first two films already.