Movie reviewer: A glimpse into the mind and workings of J.Co.

Not only have I developed keen sense of what makes a movie great by watching so many of them, and not only do I know how to write about them, there's one other thing that makes me an ultimate authority when it comes to movie reviews:

I love movies of every kind.

Except musicals. There, I said it. Get over it.

From sci-fi to chick flick (or rom-coms, as most of them are being nicknamed nowadays), from mystery to war, action to drama, even from horror to b-rated (amazing how often those two coincide, actually), I will watch just about any movie under the sun.

There is something about memorizing lines of comedies and going through dialogue with my sister (also an avid movie watcher) or friends, even after we just watched the movie or a particular scene, that is so enjoyable. Call it innocence. Call it not having anything better to do, I don't know. All I know is I once went through the entire Men In Black movie while reciting every line (with the exception of the cuss words, which, in turn, cut out 10 percent of the lines...and that's only a slight exaggeration). That's one of my most proud accomplishments. Please, no sympathy.

What's great about watching a movie is seeing how a director and writer try tackling a particular subject, event or whatever the topic. It's interesting to see what parts of a character's development are shown and what are left out. Or whether the director lets the audience in on what's going on, or whether the audience is just coming along for the ride. There are so many mechanics that go into making a movie, and every time, I am anxious to see how the story is delivered and progresses, how attachments to the characters are formed, and how the ending will tie all of it in.

Reviewers and critics these days are no fun. That's not what this blog is about. Sure, I'm a critical person, but I think what's getting lost in reviews these days is trying to consider what function a movie is trying to perform. Not all movies are trying to garnish Best Picture noms. Not all movies are trying to make statements. Sometimes movies just take us through a storyline, cliched or not, just for the sake of telling a story. That really is the most important part of a movie. I'd rather watch a movie with a well-told story and nothing else than a terrible movie with good actors or lots of special effects (though I do appreciate those very much). After watching a movie, I'm just concerned about whether the movie accomplished what it set out to do.

There are several movies deemed to be "great" that I haven't seen. There's several terrible movies that I shamelessly admit I have seen. What's I've learned - and hope everyone else gets through this blog - is that my opinion is what matters. I'm not going to let the writings of the great Roger Ebert dictate what I should and shouldn't see, or how I should feel about a certain flick. That's what I'd encourage everyone to do: like what you like without remorse. Having said that, I'm also careful not to see movies just because my friends are seeing it because, honestly, sometimes they'll see stuff that I'd never see. Don't get me wrong, I've got an open mind, but I can only take so much Will Ferrell crap before I want get a plane of my own, fly to Beverly Hills, ring his doorbell and just punch him in the face.

On that note, I think it's important for you readers to know the actors/actresses I generally despise and the ones I can't get enough of:

First, there's the "Movies I'll see just because this actor is in it" type, whether they deserve this status or not (most of them do):
Actresses - Kate Beckinsale, Rachel McAdams, Natalie Portman, Reese Witherspoon, Julia Stiles (there are a few others, but these are the main ones). Also, I don't go screaming "I got to see her", but Anne Hathaway is remarkable.
Actors - Brad Pitt, Tom Hanks, Hugh Jackman, Ed Norton, Will Smith, Robert Downey Jr., Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio (moreso because of his more recent pictures). Honorable mentions: Matt Damon, Gerard Butler (He's almost there).

Secondly, there's the up-and-comers, the new wave of younger actors/actresses who are becoming mainstays:
Actresses - Emma Stone, Mila Kunis, Ellen Page, Zoe Saldana. Amanda Seyfriend may be added to this list soon.
Actors - Justin Long, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ryan Gosling, Jesse Eisenberg. Honorable mention: John Krasinski.

Okay, now for the bad. These are a few of the "I don't care for them at all, even though most people love them" actors:
Ben Affleck, Mark Wahlberg, Steve Carrell, Kevin James, Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn
Actresses - Jennifer Aniston, Scarlett Johansson, Halle Berry, Julia Roberts.

And finally, these are some of the actors who get no respect from me, and I rather wish they'd quit making films:
Will Ferrell, Matthew McConaughey, Ryan Reynolds, Sarah Jessica Parker, Megan Fox (She shouldn't even count as a real actress).

There will be plenty of time for more fleshed out lists of best/worst actors/actresses, as well as lists of favorite movies.

Here's a hint: Star Wars is the greatest set of films. Ever. No debate.

Thanks for checking out the blog, and enjoy!

Harry Potter saga ends where it should've began

Please note that several major spoilers are in this review.

This is what the Harry Potter saga should’ve been like all along.

“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” had the kind of ending the series desperately needed: wand-wielding wizards take part in battle, and Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) himself finally meets with Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) to settle their score once and for all. Staying true to the saga, the action wasn’t overdone, and the plotlines came to the forefront. 

Potter and his two friends, Hermoine Granger (Emma Watson) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint), set out to finish what they started in Part 1 of the series finale, which is finding and destroying the Horcruxes that hold part of Lord Voldemort’s soul to be able to finally take down the dark lord. This journey on which the group embarks while scouring for these pieces easily is the defining event in the series.

It’s also nice that Part 2 took off right after the events of Part 1, something the series seriously needed before. There’s isn’t half an hour to 45 minutes of wasted movie time that plagues the first several movies of the saga.

While much might be talked about the growth of the three main characters (both in the movies and in real life), the finale, like the rest of movies, is carried by the supporting cast. Fiennes shows different sides of Voldemort that bring new emotions in play. Once perceived as ruthless, Fiennes reveals an almost hurt, wounded Voldemort, though it doesn’t diminish the character’s evil persona. Alan Rickman brings a weighted sense of redemption to Professor Snape.

The rest of the movie’s puzzle pieces fall perfectly into place. Snape, who seemingly betrayed everyone of Hogwarts by killing Dumbledore at the end of the sixth movie, turns out to reveal a significant, though blatantly obvious, truth that Potter and Voldemort are connected closer than they thought. This knowledge makes Potter’s reunion with Voldemort all the more significant, though the grand moment is made anti-climactic when Potter kills himself (he comes back to life, though. More on that later).

There’s other, more thrilling sequences in the last half an hour of the movie that bring a definite end to Potter’s seven-year journey in Hogwarts. The movie does, however, pull a Lord of the Rings: Return of the King—there were two or three false endings before it finally wrapped up with Harry and the gang seeing their children off to Hogwarts to begin their own journeys. This was quite annoying.

While the finale was a fitting end to the saga, that doesn’t redeem the series, nor does it make the series realize its full potential.

First of all, the series absolutely punishes viewers for not having read the books. There also are so many characters and events that aren’t given any kind of context that it goes beyond frustrating and into the territory of terrible film making. The finale does nothing to reverse this trend, either.

There are two major discrepancies (there’s actually more, but I’ll focus on the two that bothered me the most) that may or may not have been answered in the books, but for the purposes of the movie, were problems. Potter dies, but somehow comes back to life. How? It’s never really explained, though it’s possible that Voldemort only destroyed the part of Potter’s soul that was connected to him (that’s pretty flimsy if that’s the case).

The other issue I had was regarding the Elder’s Wand. Somehow Harry was the true owner of it. When did this happen? Why didn’t his ownership prevent it from being so powerful for others throughout the movie? It’s inexplicable and lazy writing, if you ask me.

Despite all that, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” was one of the two or three best Harry Potter movies and a fitting conclusion to an otherwise scattered, directionless saga that seemed to drag too long before coming to this point. Honestly, the saga would’ve been better with just the first one and parts 6 and 7. But then again, I’m someone who thinks the legacy of the Harry Potter Saga won’t ever come close to the likes of Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, the new Batman movies and other truly great franchises.

Kunis, Timberlake sparkle in "Friends with Benefits"

I have a theory on this one. During their time on the set of “Black Swan”, Mila Kunis and Natalie Portman talked to each other about making identical movies. They probably even had a little contest between each other on which one would have the better movie. 

Portman thought she and Ashton Kutcher would be perfect together and it would be a can’t-miss flick. Thus, “No Strings Attached” was made. Not a great movie, though better than most gave it credit for. Portman was still good. She did as good a job with that one as anyone else could’ve done.

Kunis liked her chances with Justin Timberlake. And six months later, we got “Friends with Benefits.”

Kunis definitely won the bet.

“Friends with Benefits” outdid its predecessor in several ways and turned out to be a quite the charmer. The movie had zippier dialogue and funnier jokes (though nothing was as funny as the period mix in “No Strings Attached”). Kunis and Timberlake demanded screen time together with a charming chemistry that produced moments of joy, sorrow, attraction, reservation, hurt and betrayal.

It might be shocking to say, but Timberlake actually played the part. Seldom did I feel like it was just Timberlake reciting lines and singing (yes, he sings a little bit). He actually came across as a guy who was really trying to figure things out and learning to handle adversity when it came his way.

The premise of the movie was simple. Jamie (Kunis) is a recruiting shark who convinces Dylan (Timberlake) to move to New York and take a big job at GQ magazine. As Jamie woos Dylan, they start to open up to each other and realize they want the same thing at this particular point in their lives: sex without the emotional attachment that comes from relationships.

Sound simple enough? Of course not. Sure, they both enjoy the physicality of this endeavor, but eventually, things get too close for comfort. As they threaten to cross the threshold from sex partners to being a couple, true feelings throw a curve ball into the mix, and now they’re left sorting out the mess.

What makes “Friends with Benefits” work is how the characters change their approach through the course of the story. Kunis gets hurt, and it shows. Timberlake gets bitter for a little bit, and it shows.

It also helped that when trouble arose, there actually were sorrowful, emotional moments off of which they played. The bad stuff that happened in “No Strings Attached” just felt like the next step in the movie. In “Friends with Benefits”, Dylan’s father, Mr. Harper (Richard Jenkins), had physical issues that truly left a mark on Dylan. Though a bit predictable, his father’s predicament gave him a better perspective of his own situation, which, in turn, helps both him and Jamie.

The rest of the supporting cast rounded the movie nicely. Woody Harrelson plays Tommy, a co-worker of Dylan’s who is gay, and is convinced Dylan is gay, or least tries to convince Dylan of this. Jenna Elfman plays Dylan’s sister, who thinks he and Jamie are perfect for each other and enjoys talking about her brother to Jamie (where has Elfman been, and why has she only been in two movies the last seven years? She deserves more work).

The story ends in a typical cliché rom-com way (actually, there’s a scene at the end of the credits, which I’m proud to say  that, out of the 75 or so people who came at the same showing, I was only one who got to watch it). But even that seemed fitting for the story. Whether it was the solid delivery of the lines or just quick style by which they were delivered, “Friends with Benefits” just clicked.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes: No animals were used during the making of this film

Not only is “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” a modestly great reboot of a franchise that desperately needed it, but it also was a big step forward in the CGI world.

Caesar and the rest of his ape teammates were created using flawless digital work from the mind of Andy Serkis, who used motion-capture technology to play the role of the ape leader. It absolutely worked in bringing realistic facial expressions and movements to light. From hand-to-hand combat to free roaming jungles, this is one of the finest uses of CGI to date.

In fact, that seemed to be the theme with “Rise” throughout the film: realism. The story centers on the work of a scientist who searches for the cure to Alzheimer’s disease. Instead, he discovers a serum that heightens intelligence to unprecedented levels. Of course, this was most prevalently evident with Caesar, who became more than an ape who understands voice tones and a few simple signs. He learns to communicate with the scientist (Will Rodman, played by James Franco). Caesar even begins to understand his place his society, which is little more than a pet who needs to be kept on a leash.

And therein lays the conflict. Caesar’s emotional outbursts lead to exile, a seemingly low-brow asylum for apes. From there, Caesar, in a sense, starts plotting his path to freedom, and he brings his fellow prison mates with him – and teaches them a thing or two along the way.

But the true beauty of the story is how closely we become attached to Caesar. Reality tells us that, yes, he’s just an ape, and apes have their place. That may be true, but it’s startling how emotional it is when Caesar shows how he feels betrayed by Rodman. And how sorrowful he looks to be tamed and mistreated when placed with apes of much lower intelligence (that includes the humans who run the place, too). In one scene, he uses chalk to draw a picture of a window that he used to stare through back at his home, and it’s touching to see just how badly he wishes to be there one more time.

The rest of the cast serves more as a function than it does an integral part of the movie. That’s not a bad thing, either. The story and development of Caesar is at the forefront, and that’s the way it needed to be.

In fact, it’s fulfilling when a prequel/reimagining of a prequel gets it right. Caesar’s rise seamlessly leads into the saga of the Ape movies. In fact, after discussing with my father, it actually mixes up a little of what we know in regards to how the apes take over. Sure, there’s going to be a war, but during the credits, it’s shown that the virus that was used to make the apes more intelligent – which has adverse effects on humans – spreads throughout the world, both infecting more and more people and apes alike. This isn’t to suggest that there isn’t a war, but the virus becomes a serious concern for humans (though not in the degree of, say, a “Resident Evil” or “28 Days Later” virus.

The movie makes several references to the saga, including the classic “Get your hands off me, you damn dirty ape” line that actually seemed out of place considering it was said during a somewhat serious moment. Still, the film as a whole had a plan, and executed it quite nicely.