Antichrist, controversial? Not so.

Lars von Trier's Antichrist is a jarring film about sex, the power that comes with it, and how people deal with such power. It also deals with the nature of man - what is good, evil and if either/both are inherent in us.

I like it because it made me think. I like it because it didn't disappoint. I was expecting to throw up for some graphic scene or another, but I didn't. It was tolerable. I just don't get where the controversy lies. Is it because shock art is overrated? But I *was* shocked at some point, so that makes it effective, doesn't it?

It wasn't as graphic as I was made to expect it to be. Battle Royale had more senseless, supposedly ickier gore and violence in it, and I'd laughed and snored my way into that film. The graphic scenes in this film came naturally to the story. If Freud had been watching, he would be slow-clapping in his seat; in his head thinking, "BRILLIANT." After all, he'd maintained that sex and aggression are natural in human beings.

There were definitely scenes where we - the Mogwai audience of ten - would be induced to a collective gasp, to which I think, would cause Von Trier to snigger to himself. I'd think he'd be glad that he managed to jolt us back to our senses - with the omnipresence of violence not just in the moviehouses but in our own homes in the form of primetime news desensitizing a majority of us. The frequency and intensity of the collective gasps increased as the film progressed. It was like Von Trier was consciously and continuously pushing the characters, the film, and the audience towards the edge - a feat made successful by a crowd wincing and groaning in unison.

Some critics are saying Antichrist is not any different from Von Trier's early works, which makes it pretty dull and redundant. Others even go as far as calling Von Trier as being boxed into his own creative playpen, unable to go beyond what he has produced before.

In my opinion, if that's what the guy wants to do, what gives him pleasure, what flays his Muse to life, then fine - let 'im at it. The artwork is always the artist's prerogative. It's up to the artist when he/she wants to move on to a different subject matter. If he/she ever wants to.

Sure, the critics' job is to show the artist where he/she is at fault. But an artist (ideally) must never change what he/she intuits as his/her work for the sake of pacifying the critics. (Futile, because they never get completely appeased.) It's the artist's duty to him/herself and the art form he/she married to progress - grow - in one way or another. Stasis is never a good thing, especially in art; so it would be the artist's loss if decides against stepping out of his/her comfort zone (ah, that term.).

But I digress. Going back on topic -

I attempted tabula rasa throughout the film, but couldn't help but snicker in some of the scenes and go, "Seriously!?" in my head. Reminds me of when Sir Doy commented in his Writing for Film class, "Since when has violence become so funny?" But while I get where this film's violence is coming from, there a couple of things I don't quite understand:

- The psychology of the characters. Why is the wife like that? Had she been psycho even before their kid died, or was the psychosis an effect of the guilt over the kid's death?
- The husband's dream sequences. I know they mean something. (They must.) But I'm not sure what, exactly.
- The choice of symbols. The fox, the doe and the crow. Are they or are they not representations of the Three Beggars? If yes, why did he choose those animals out of so many others? The doe for grief, the fox for pain and the crow for despair. I don't get it.

Other things that distracted me constantly were a couple more technical stuff: jump cuts, 180-degree line-crossing, and continuity slips. Maybe it's part of the whole feel of the movie - disjointed, chaotic - or maybe I'm just too used to clean-cuts from the usual Hollywood fare or maybe the auteur just doesn't care in particular, but the intermittent disconnection from what should have been a relatively-smooth plot kept me from thoroughly immersing myself in the milieu.

But I suppose I should still be glad that there was an actual story to be pulled away from in the first place. Coming off from a couple of Cinemalaya films I'd seen before, I'd prepared for the possibility that this film would be so esoteric, the plot would practically be non-existent, and where the auteur would just be stringing you along for a ride in his train of thoughts, but to no particular end or effect.

My take on indie films is that they are still films. Films are still vehicles for stories, and telling stories is a sense-making activity. That said, even indie films, no matter how experimental or confounding, must still create some grain of sense in the end. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time, effort and resources.

Did Antichrist make sense? To some degree. The treatment made sense, but the nitty-gritty of the story... not quite.

I think there are two things Von Trier was trying to get at in this film:
1) Shock the audience. 2) Profundity.

Did he succeed? On the first count, somewhat. I gasped along with the crowd towards the end, after all. On the second, most likely. But not in a particularly good way. Either it's so profound I don't get the whole of it, or I'm that ignorant to not see what's supposed to be right in my face. The subject of the story is profound enough, it's just the execution that I'm having trouble with.

I'd watch it again, but only because I didn't get the whole gist of it the first time.

I give it FOUR STARS for effort, and because I believe there's a lot more that can be gleaned from this after the shockwaves have settled and the mechanics of the story have been understood a lot better.

*Edited because writing cannot be done in a vacuum.

See, Fallen, dear. This is why Revenge is bad.

In watching that horror horrible movie House of the Dead, my friends and I learned that we can get out of the cinema with our sanity intact and movie ticket cost reimbursed within the first ten minutes of the film.

In Transformers 2: Revenge of The Fallen, the first explosion came SIX minutes into the film. Maybe that should have clued me in?

Needless to say, what everyone with half a mind said was true. It WAS an orgy of robots, explosions, and exploding robots. I told R I was coming in there for the effects, and on that level, I didn't feel disappointed AT ALL. The effects were nice, like J (plus everyone and their mother) said. But like the saying goes, too much of one thing is bad. In this case, very bad.

Mr. Michael Bay, sir. There's such a thing as overkill, y'know? Well, okay. Either you knew it and that was the whole point of this sequel, or you didn't and you just went overoverboard. Any which way, I can say without doubt in your mind that what you said in that interview was true. You DID enjoy making this movie. You delved into your fetish for blowing things up SO MUCH that you forgot how to tell a proper story.


Anyway, before anything else, lemme get fangirlism outta way:
- John Turturro = Stellar. I love you always.
- Shia = Brilliant. Really. I just hope he finds himself a Coppola/Scorsese/Burtonesque director. (Read: Run away from The Bay, kid. RUN AWAY.)
- Bumblebee is the coolest Autobot on Earth. I'm sure he'd make a great fillet-o-fish. Or rellenong bangus, at that.
- Tyrese is hot.
- Josh Duhamel is hotter.
- Optimus is HOTness ROBOFIED.


And finally, Angel's list of things to get revenge on:
(If there's a pun somewhere there, it's intended, yes.)

Also - { SPOILER ALERT! }

- The bad guys outnumbered the good guys by a MILE. It was kinda understandable though, this being a movie about the bad guys getting revenge and all. But glossing over the good guys like that? Yurusenai. I didn't even catch the name of that Corvette! That's my car!

- WHERE WAS ARCEE?! I've been expecting some hardcore female Autobot action and WTF happens? What? That's right. Nothing. With a capital N. Apparently, she was supposed to be a three-in-one deal; prolly why the rider holograms all looked alike. An attempt at the Maiden-Mother-Crone archetype? Wow. Someone ought to win a teddy bear for that.

- Was Michael Bay channeling Chekhov with all those anti-climactic funny inserts or have I had too much Fiction class? Hmm. Probably not. Because if he did, the way Megan Fox impossible-to-be-true body was slathered all over the motorcycle in the beginning should have had her riding Arcee towards the end.

- Circly-round shots are dizzying. Especially when the moment you're circling and trying to preserve is along the lines of Megan and Shia all kissy-kissy and cheesy-cheesy with lines like "I adore you. That's the same as the other word." John Lloyd called. He wants his line back. Also - barf bag, please?

- Where are the Autobots? What? Aren't those guys Decepticons?

- Oooh, me boss pala si Megatron? Ay, wait. Basag na pala sha. Sus. Fine. Tara, uwian na.

- Jetfire would be how a fanboy would look like if he were a robot and he got old. I knew the moment Optimus died that someone was gonna have to sacrifice a life. But it just HAD to be the fanboy, hadn't it?

- Megatron (matapos i-talk-to-the-hand at isnabin ni Optimus): "WAH STARSCREAM! UWI NA TAYO! Me Part 3 pa naman eh!"

- On that note, Starscream should get the Dakilang Julalay Award of The Year. Bagong bayani ng mga inalisputang robots yan.

- The epic-est fail of all "epic" battles: Optimus vs. The Fallen. It's like the story of my lovelife too: It was over before it even started.

- Also, Sam's death and resurrection with the Prime brothers? I can't decide whether it's simple deus ex machina or Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows meets Dumbledore in the afterlife.

- Sooooo, yeah. Where was I? Right. Questions. Where did that chihuahua-acting Decepticon go right before they hung out the Pyramids? And Sam's roomie - Whasisname - where'd he go after S7 guy (Turturro) went all hero-ey? Answer me those, and I'll tell you why Sam continued dragging Mikaela across the desert while he had Bumblebee drive his parents off to safety.

Answer: It's so the 14-year-old boys can FINALLY see how her boobs jiggle as she runs off in slow-effin-motion.

Gah.

I shouldn't even say this anymore, but since Pointing Out the Obvious is Aki's Useless Skill #57, I'll go ahead and say it anyway.

Sequel sucked. I liked the first one better; Megan was definitely hotter there.

Wanted: Storytellers

Strong on visual effects, weak on story.

Wanted is an almost-two-hour movie about a loserly guy who finds out one day that he, apparently, hails from a long line of uber-cool (and cold-blooded) assassins. He is taken under the wing of his recently-assassinated, previously-unknown father's friends, and is then tasked with avenging his father's untimely death and the betrayal made upon The Fraternity. As he is geared up for the final battle, he is shown the inner workings of the secret group formed by Weavers, and discovers how this group acts as agents of Fate. In the end, he comes face-to-face with the assassin; whose dying breath causes the life that he has finally learned to embrace to, once again, unravel like torn silk before his very eyes.

In the world of myths, this is an ugly duckling story made cool, contemporary and testosterone-loaded with lots of guns, bruised-and-bloodied faces, guns, and more guns. (The highest point the protagonist (James McAvoy) needs to reach, after all, is to be able to curve a bullet around an obstacle to hit the target spot-on.)

While the movie started off with a visual feast and adrenaline-pumping stunts, it failed to maintain that amount of excitement and energy to the very end.

It *is* remniscient of The Matrix and Fight Club; but more of the former than the latter, since this was less mindfuck, more visual grandiosity.

Not that this one's effects would give The Matrix a run for its multi-million money, but it did a good job in making James McAvoy look cool in a shooting spree, and Angelina Jolie become the Goddess of All-That-is-Cool-and-Spiffy in her crazy-hot-chick-driving-the-speeding-red-car moment. (Then again, saying that 'Angelina Jolie is cool' is a redundancy.)

The movie started to become dragging towards the middle, making it the epitome of anti-climactic. Think racecar zooming off at incredulously high-speed only to end up crawling to the finish line with a coughing engine.

Unfortunately, at the same point where the movie is supposed to be shining its brightest did it begin its downward spiral to obscurity.

The ridiculously befuddled ending makes you think that the filmmakers expended all their creative energy to keep their viewers' attention during the first 15 minutes of the film, and then either got too confident that they've manage to fully entrance the audience or ran out of enough mojo to keep the action coming.

I wish they spent more time on establishing characters and forming an actual plot than in stitching together montages of training, assassinations and the like.

The actors were so-so in this. Don't expect any Oscar nominations headed your way, kiddies. James McAvoy either looked stressed or full of teenage angst. Angelina Jolie was of her usual stoicism, peppered with coyness and some cream-puffish-mushy personality. Morgan Freeman was, well, Morgan Freeman.

The only utterly brilliant aspect in all this that I cannot find fault in was the editing. With the story freely moving from the present to the past in pseudo-montages, it didn't become a confusing jumble of images and events. Instead, it provided the audience with a sort of stream-of-consciousness viewing experience wherein the audience was seeing/experiencing/re-experiencing whatever it is that is running through his head during these moments.

In conclusion, I would recommend this movie to people into mouth-agaping stunts and effects and/or Angelina Jolie. But if you want to be over-the-top wowed-out, then this movie is not for you.

sweep me off my feet, why don't you?

THE DARK KNIGHT IS AWE.FRIGGIN.INSPIRING.

I was thinking of criteria by which I could judge the films I'll be reviewing in the future, and even though I've managed to think stuff up, using them for TDK might come out farce-ish.

Coz, really. The Dark Knight is THE BEST film to come out (so far) this year.

As in.

Do you feel me frothing at the mouth? Because, really. I am.

To save your monitors from getting flooded with my gushiness, I'll just list down my notes in parts:


The Villain
The Joker was disturbia personified. Heath Ledger was PERFECT for the role. How sad is it that he had to pass away so soon? No more sequels for his freakishly sane Joker, THAT sad! His performance was nothing short of phenomenal. It was so far-off from Jack Nicholson's version, that the earlier version, despite its merits, pales in comparison.

Heath Ledger's The Joker isn't your garden-variety demented villain because he's simply not demented. He's a genius who reads a lot of Thomas Hobbes/Xun Zi/Freud, and his apparent dementia is really just a nasty side-effect of his starkly different worldview and opinion of mankind.

He's not someone you should pity or hate. He's actually someone to admire and look up to. In a somewhat sick and twisted way.

I love the person who provided for the The Joker's new-and-improved personality, and Heath Ledger for doing an unparalleled job in breathing life into the character. It's really unfortunate that he had to exchange *his* life for The Joker's.


The Hero
Christian Bale as The Batman managed to stand up to Heath Ledger's stellar performance. He put up a very, very good fight on two levels: as the hero of the story and as the actor playing the title role. He managed to steal his equal share of the limelight even if the movie started with Heath/The Joker. The Batman's deep, gruffy voice was something that the other Batmans didn't have. It was unsettling at first, but it grows on you, so that was fine.

Also notable here is this Batman is one of the most humanified. I haven't seen Batman Begins (I know, I suck. Not a fan of Katie Holmes kase eh.) so I'm not sure how it compares, but from the ones I've seen before (Val Kilmer's, Michael Keaton's and George Clooney's) his is the least stiff. It might have something to do with the fact that his Bruce Wayne is also the most human. (Gotta credit the well-developed plot and great characterization.) This Bruce Wayne wasn't just all angst and snobby riches; he actually has a pretty wide array of emotions: jealousy, envy, kindness, generosity, helplessness and all other stuff from the spectrum of feelings. There was Bruce Wayne's characteristic dry wit and maangas persona, but his humanity shone through very clearly.

[On a more girly note, Christian Bale is one of the hottest Batmans EVER. Even without tons of fanservice moments (i.e. moments of half-nakedness), Christian Bale was oooooozeeeeng with sexiness. Haha.]


Others
Harvey Dent/Harvey Two-Face to me as a viewer was a sad happening, but as a writer/filmmaker, was a giddy development. This is where that wonderfully-run plot comes in to receive its trophy.

Alfred took his share of the limelight, and shone not just as the perennial sidekick, but as one very talented and experienced PERSON.

Lucius Fox was as maangas as you could imagine Morgan Freeman becoming. Problem is that I kept forgetting who he was in the movie, and kept thinking of him as Morgan Freeman. (There was a point where Bruce Wayne mentioned Lucius, and I was like, "Who? Oh. Morgan Freeman.") It's not really good if you see the actor instead of the part he's playing. I'm beginning to think that he's getting typecast unto these sorts of caretaker-ish roles. This is remniscient of that part he played in 1408, albeit less scare-inducing.


Technicals
Visual effects were THE BOMB. I was literally clapping joyfully at every carchase, building explosion and gun firing. Especially astig moments for the next Batman movies to top are:

*The kidnap of Lao in Hongkong (Love that return-to-airplane move!)
*The transfer of Harvey Dent to County Jail (I clapped when he flew out with a trike.)
*The tracking room/monitors
*The final showdown of Batman and The Joker

I should also say that my hat's off to whoever is in the idea pool who thought of Lucius Fox's designs and The Joker's explosive schemes.


Plot Runs
The movie ran for about 2 hours and a half. On paper, it might seem very LOTR-ish long, but really. The two hours were well worth it. If you're depressed, stressed or just simply bored, this is one of the best escape movies out right now. I was so into it that I didn't even call out what had happened to Commissioner Gordon (How could I have NOT seen THAT coming?!), and the two hours were more than enough to establish the relationships among all the characters, do some foreshadowings (A lot, actually. Anton Chekov would be so proud.) and provide basis for all other events that would follow. Script wasn't really riveting, but it fit just right. I ended up liking that "You either become the hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." line in-movie even if it seemed really long and awkward in the trailer. The best script came at the end, when Gordon was explaining what Batman is to Gotham. It came out so nicely that I cried at the end of the movie because of it. (Such a girl.)

Sooo there. Gushing over. Do I re

Save Now

ally still need to make a wrap-up? I'll just end up being redundant here. Anyway.

Go pick your ass up and watch The Dark Knight. I promise to give you a refund if you leave the theater disappointed after.

Yes. It's THAT good.

racing OUT.

Speed Racer is a live action movie trying to pass itself off as an anime.

Granted, that the basis for the movie IS a 60's anime. But couldn't the Wachowski Brothers handled it a lot more along the lines of say, The Matrix? (They used 'the makers of The Matrix Trilogy' as a marketing tool, anyway. They could've at least lived up to it.)

Not to say that Speed Racer is a bad watch, but it wasn't awfully good either. If you go in there expecting to be wowed by effects, mise-en-scene, or God forbid adrenalin-pumping car chases, then you're pretty much in for disappointment.

If, however, you just want to see real people (like Rain *squee*) roleplaying anime characters, then you're pretty much set.

Unfortunately, I went in there with the first mindset, and so the rest is history.

...

Well, okay. A bit more detail then.

Production design was a cross between Dr. Seuss' The Grinch and Spy Kids in 3D. Colors were exaggerated to the point that you'd think pastels were banned in their world, and primary colors were oh-so-in. The houses in the neighborhood looked like cutouts, and the cars looked cartoony when taken out of the race circuits and into the streets. The Royalton lab looked painstakingly like it was a wing in Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.

90% of it was shot in chroma. Chroma keying was nothing out of the ordinary for the Wachowskis - clean, fuzz-free an' all that. The chroma shots had the Wachowski stamp on it; one of the few that actually had it. Scenes in montages (which composed like, 50% of the movie) weaved into each other beautifully. The rate of change in scenes per frame sometimes got a tad overwhelming, but it was still a pretty good attempt at something cool and innovative. (I haven't seen anything like it before.)

The race circuit scenes was also handled well enough, though it was nothing extraordinary. Having been shot on chroma, and looking obviously CG'd, there wasn't much to be exhilirated from.

Gotta give them credit for trying to stay loyal to the genre of anime though.

I do wish they took a page out of Quentin Tarantino's book and transmuted the anime version the way Kill Bill was done. Or a page out of their own, and created something close to their crowning glory, The Matrix. (Oh, wait. There *was* a Matrix moment there - in one of the fight scenes where everyone was frozen in the air for a couple of beats while the camera dollied around them. Hello, bullet speed. I wish it wasn't just *that* that they took from earlier work.) Or, at least had the race circuit scenes similar (in concept) to the way the Initial D live action was done.

Then again, this is a PG movie. It's supposed to be for kids. (Christina Ricci, poster girl of Eternal Childism, is there, for crying out loud.) Maybe the only reason why I'm not awed by it is because *I'm* not part of their target audience.

(Actually, the movie's target audience is also a bit confusing. Sure, it's for kids. Sure, it has morals. But Christina Ricci in plunging necklines and short leather skirts, getting all sexually wound up, and a kid upping his middle finger at a grown adult? Mixed signals, baby.)

Hmmm. Yeah.

I just hope Dragon Ball's live action (with Buffy's Spike as Piccolo?!) turns out better.

Racing OUT.

Speed Racer is a live action movie trying to pass itself off as an anime.

Granted, that the basis for the movie IS a 60's anime. But couldn't the Wachowski Brothers handled it a lot more along the lines of say, The Matrix? (They used 'the makers of The Matrix Trilogy' as a marketing tool, anyway. They could've at least lived up to it.)

Not to say that Speed Racer is a bad watch, but it wasn't awfully good either. If you go in there expecting to be wowed by effects, mise-en-scene, or God forbid adrenalin-pumping car chases, then you're pretty much in for disappointment.

If, however, you just want to see real people (like Rain *squee*) roleplaying anime characters, then you're pretty much set.

Unfortunately, I went in there with the first mindset, and so the rest is history.

...

Well, okay. A bit more detail then.

Production design was a cross between Dr. Seuss' The Grinch and Spy Kids in 3D. Colors were exaggerated to the point that you'd think pastels were banned in their world, and primary colors were oh-so-in. The houses in the neighborhood looked like cutouts, and the cars looked cartoony when taken out of the race circuits and into the streets. The Royalton lab looked painstakingly like it was a wing in Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.

90% of it was shot in chroma. Chroma keying was nothing out of the ordinary for the Wachowskis - clean, fuzz-free an' all that. The chroma shots had the Wachowski stamp on it; one of the few that actually had it. Scenes in montages (which composed like, 50% of the movie) weaved into each other beautifully. The rate of change in scenes per frame sometimes got a tad overwhelming, but it was still a pretty good attempt at something cool and innovative. (I haven't seen anything like it before.)

The race circuit scenes was also handled well enough, though it was nothing extraordinary. Having been shot on chroma, and looking obviously CG'd, there wasn't much to be exhilirated from.

Gotta give them credit for trying to stay loyal to the genre of anime though.

I do wish they took a page out of Quentin Tarantino's book and transmuted the anime version the way Kill Bill was done. Or a page out of their own, and created something close to their crowning glory, The Matrix. (Oh, wait. There *was* a Matrix moment there - in one of the fight scenes where everyone was frozen in the air for a couple of beats while the camera dollied around them. Hello, bullet speed. I wish it wasn't just *that* that they took from earlier work.) Or, at least had the race circuit scenes similar (in concept) to the way the Initial D live action was done.

Then again, this is a PG movie. It's supposed to be for kids. (Christina Ricci, poster girl of Eternal Childism, is there, for crying out loud.) Maybe the only reason why I'm not awed by it is because *I'm* not part of their target audience.

(Actually, the movie's target audience is also a bit confusing. Sure, it's for kids. Sure, it has morals. But Christina Ricci in plunging necklines and short leather skirts, getting all sexually wound up, and a kid upping his middle finger at a grown adult? Mixed signals, baby.)

Hmmm. Yeah.

I just hope Dragon Ball's live action (with Buffy's Spike as Piccolo?!) turns out better.