Ten Thumbs UP!

Up is probably my most anticipated Pixar movie since The Incredibles (and yes, it's because I prefer animated movies featuring people instead of animals or inanimate objects because I'm unimaginative like that, LOL). And it finally hit Manila this week (again, why the delay?) so I (kinda) lined up to go watch cute Russell and the colorful balloons up in the sky (how can I resist balloons and clouds and blue skies?). :)

We all know the Pixar genius is in its appeal to kids of all ages, and Up delivers in true Pixar form. It is a touching movie interspersed with witty lines and humor and severe cuteness (Russell is just too adorable), and one that will manage to make you realize a thing or two about life.

If you wanna know what I gathered from it,

1. Sometimes, life gets in the way of our dreams. But sometimes it can give us much more happiness than any adventure can.
2. Material possessions should never be something to be attached to. Sometimes that in itself gets you stuck. And maybe the less attached to them you are, the higher up you can go.
   
3. Most people are deliberately annoying for a reason. And it's usually because they lack attention. Some deserve to be indulged (like Russell), but some should also just be ignored (like that former movie star). Moral of the story: if you have to be annoying, at least be sure you're doing it cutely. :)
   
4. In the same manner, some people are grouchy for a reason, and it's because life might have kept them on a perpetual bad mood. The bravest of us will dare tear that grouchiness facade down and provide a reason to be in a good mood again.
   
5. Leadership based on fear will never last. Leadership based on earned respect, on the other hand, does. Atta boy, Doug!
   
6. Sometimes, the villains in our lives are the ones we least expect them to be.
7. Sometimes all we really want to do is think only of ourselves. But where's the fun and adventure in that?
8. Age is just a number.
   
9. When you meet a talking dog and a colorful chocolate-eating bird, you can't not keep them. But sometimes those that we want and care about are happiest in situations when we have to let go of them.
   
10. South America is America!!! Only South!!!

If you have to watch just one animated movie this year, you should definitely make it Up! :)

...Read more

Time is Nothing. And The Time Traveler's Wife?

When I finally read Audrey Niffenegger's The Time Traveler's Wife, I wasn't exactly blown away the way fans of the book were. It wasn't necessarily a bad book, and the central plot can never make the book average or ordinary. But while it won't make it to my list of favorite books, I still recognized the very unique, very original love story, and as a hopeless romantic, how can you tear yourself away from a story that narrates how to make an incredibly difficult love situation work?

For my thoughts on the book, and the movie,

In TTTW, I was most marveled not by the fact that Henry can time travel, but that there was a girl who has loved him, and only him, all of her life (reminds me of one girl in particular, no, not me :P). There is something incredibly romantic, albeit idealistic, about having thought of yourself in relation to only one partner in your entire life but Clare did so, even if it entailed lots of waiting, and lots and lots of patience. While some cynics may argue that this was forced to her as a six-year old, I'd like to believe she had a choice each and every time, to meet that time traveler at the meadow, and she could have easily opted not to. Henry too, after meeting Clare for the first time chronologically, had the choice not to believe her, but he did, and while their story is largely fatalistic, it never seemed forced on either Henry or Clare.

In an attempt to establish that amidst the couple's extraordinary situation, they still struggled to live normal lives, TTTW often seemed like it was bogged down with day-to-day details that I sometimes wish some things were made a little more grandstanded. Which is why I had such high hopes that the movie adaptation could come out much better than the book, given its inherent license for histrionics. Unfortunately, the movie chooses to be somewhat downplayed, when it could have shown the audience one powerful scene, after the other. I could go on and on about which particular scenes could have packed more punch but I might be killed for excessive spoilers (LOL).

Furthermore, the movie could have opted to deviate a little from the book and could have made that work (a happier ending would have been nice), and yet it chose to be quite faithful to it. While there were some cuts and tweaks, they were incredibly minor to be anything effective. Even that slight tweak to the finale seemed too faithful, and unfortunately less powerful, that maybe they should have just stuck to the book on that one. Or still added the book's finale as the final, final scene (which I secretly hoped was gonna be shown after the credits since it was my favorite part of the book). And why oh why did they even forget to use the "time is nothing" line (or did they, and I just didn't hear it?)?

And lastly, the effects could have used a little more work. While the vanishing effect for Henry is as good as it can get (at least for me), I wished they brought in the Benjamin Button crew for prosthetics because it is incredibly distracting to observe that a 20-something Henry had the same deep wrinkles as the 30-something and 40-something Henry. It was as if the movie capitalized on Eric Bana's boyish looks and then crossed its fingers the audience would be convinced enough with mere hair changes. And to think Brad Pitt was actually an executive producer in the movie so it was not difficult or far-fetched to have the movie tap into the Benjamin Button magic.

For all my complaints, it is still an Eric Bana movie (and I love Rachel McAdams too), and one I would have watched even if everyone had told me not to. Maybe the movie just thought of compensating for its shortcomings through Eric's multiple clothes-less vanishing scenes. So watch if you're an Eric Bana and/or Rachel McAdams fan or if you're too lazy to read the book (though the movie might confuse you if you haven't read the book) or if you really absolutely must see how the movie adaptation of the book is. Otherwise, maybe you are better off watching some other movie showing in town at the same time, like say, Up. :)

P. S. I agree with Buzzsugar, a TV series based on TTTW after the movie? Definitely overkill.

...Read more

My Very Literary Take on My Sister's Keeper

There are times in my life when I'm the mood to make myself cry (or try to), and for two years now, it always happens around July (because I always wanna check that I still have a heart before my birthday? :P). As if on cue, My Sister's Keeper comes to the big screen. I've heard good reviews on the book, knew a little about the story and thought I'd pull what I'd like to call a Kite Runner (i. e., watch the movie first, then have the movie convince me to read the book, the way The Kite Runner worked for me). Also, because I was of the impression it is a movie about sisters (something I can relate to because I heart my sister and would be willing to give her my kidney if she needs it, even if I'm scared sh*t of surgery), I really had high hopes it is the movie that finally makes me cry (unfortunately/fortunately, noone was willing to bet that I would).

So what happened? If you wanna know...

Imagine my disappointment when the movie did not even make a dent. I think part of it was the awareness that the movie had tearjerker strewn all over it, and me just being, well, me (totally empathy-challenged). After reading about the differences between the movie and the book (thank you, wikipedia), I realized it was because the movie played out quite expectedly. And while I usually prefer that movies are not that faithful to the books they were spun from, I actually wished this particular one stayed faithful to the ending.

This post does not purport to justify one sister's death over the other (and now, I read like a risk disclosure statement? :D). After all, it is particularly difficult to think of death as justified, especially that of a young girl. However, from a completely literary perspective, there is an element of surprise in the book's ending, and it is it that could have brought out more emotions, mine in particular.

I'm not a fan of Jodi Picoult, but after reading the book, I can now see how a fan can be enraged with how the movie adaptation completely ripped off the book. In fairness to the movie though, to capture what makes the book a good read is incredibly tough. Because the central conflict is such a morally, ethically and emotionally gray matter, the devil is truly in the details, in the introspective look into the characters, which is not something easy to capture visibly, except in the form of memories (which the movie had a loooot of). The good thing about the movie though is that it attempted to eject humor and playfulness amidst such sad circumstances better than the book did.

As with most adaptations, the movie also had to sacrifice some subplots for conciseness and so the movie won't run 4 hours long (duh!). The most notable of these left out subplots is the Campbell-Julia love story (the lawyer and the guardian ad litem who is not even in the movie). While I like their story, I appreciate its exclusion from the movie because it focused the spotlight on the Taylor-Kate love story (that the book rushed), which is just simply sweet and cute, however short-lived. :(

Armed with a hindsight of 20/20, would I have watched the movie after having read the book? Probably out of curiosity, but not with as much eagerness. I'm hoping the next movie I see based on a book turns out to be much better than the book.

Now go ahead and make my wish come true, The Time Traveler's Wife. ;)

...Read more

Half-and-Half: My Take on HP6

Finally! A Harry Potter movie comes to theaters after months of gentlemanly letting others (read: Twilight) screen first (or was it the other way around?). Which begs the question... Was it, or was it not worth the wait?

In my opinion, the best thing about the 6th Harry Potter installment is the cinematography and special effects, so much so that minutes into the movie (up until the bridge scene), I actually felt like I already got my money's worth. It is also my favorite among the dark HP movies (i. e., 2-6) and I can't help but be a little pleased that the overall darkness and disturbia factor was a few notches lower than the spooky, spooky trailers. It is still dark and disturbing on several counts, but I am most relieved that the young Tom Riddle seemed more like a disturbed boy than the devil incarnate.

The characters have also upped their game, most notable of all, Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), who is the ray of light in an otherwise dark film. (him and the snogging and rom-com aspects of the film, LOL). I liked the cocky, Felix felicis-filled Harry too, and Helena Bonham Carter as the lukaret-and-pure-evil Bellatrix Lestrange is eerily fascinating and commendable (oookay, why does she fascinate me? Hmmm...). Of course, the brightest acting gem is Alan Rickman as Severus Snape (a. k. a. The Ultimate Popopo-Poker Face), and if the cards are played right, he just might reduce me to tears in HP7 (LOL).

Of course, the movie is not perfect. The much-publicized Harry-Ginny kiss fell short (waaay short), that I feel there is more emphasis on the Ron-Hermione love story than the Harry-Ginny one (and may be rightfully so for most). I also wished the finale was more grandstanded, but then that might be a consequence of my high expectations of the death and funeral scene that stemmed from waaay back when I first read the book. While the Avada Kedavra still got a gasp of surprise from me (okay, more like a teeny-tiny squeak), I still expected a more dramatic, more torturous scene, and a more grandiose tribute to the Greatest Wizard of His Time. And while HP6, true to form, is of epic length, it still felt too concise, so much so that in order to appreciate and understand the movie, I think one might have to have read the book.

For all its shortcomings, HP6 is still a must-watch. But then again, even if the reviews were bad, I'm sure people will still flock to watch this movie. After all, it is a Harry Potter movie, and one that is a long time coming for fans.

Now please don't make us wait forever for the two-part last installment. :D

Well Hello, Angels & Demons

Anyone who has ever read Dan Brown's two most popular novels will agree that Angels & Demons is more movie material that The Da Vinci Code. Which is why I was looking forward to this movie more than I did Da Vinci (that and the fact that back then I still haven't accepted that Nicholas Cage wasn't Robert Langdon, haha). I also expected that the movie would be better than its precedent, which shouldn't be much of a challenge. To me at least, the only redeeming value of Da Vinci was that breathtaking view of the Louvre in its closing scene.

The reviews for Angels & Demons weren't very good though, and I thought I'd be incredibly disappointed. In fairness to the movie, I think it delivered better than Da Vinci (again, not such a difficult task), and as far as adaptations go, it did a pretty good job plotwise (see, this is the reason why you shouldn't be reading reviews prior to watching a movie), complete with hi-tech tweaks (cool password key and anti-matter thingie!). Bottom line, I liked it but I didn't love it (and maybe the low expectation setting was a factor), and for more of my rants, raves and spoilers...

• Tom Hanks was still lousy (and no, I'm not holding a grudge because of Nicholas Cage, seriously). It is a sad thing to note because I think he is a great actor (he was amazing in The Terminal), but as Robert Langdon this time around, there were a lot of times when he was even more irritating than the head of the Swiss Guard (whose job was supposed to be the pest of the movie). I totally agree with Buzzsugar, he did talk a hell of a lot. It might have been okay if it's truly educational but by golly, everyone who was watching the movie probably already read the book (or if they haven't, I doubt they're much of a trivia or history buff). P. S. Did they really have to show him swimming in those trunks?! Could he have been approached by the Vatican police at a coffee shop or something?
• Thanks for not exploring the love story angle between Robert and Vittoria, or I would have rolled my eyes a full 360. P. S. Vittoria was pretty and intelligent and all, but no, she didn't stand out as a character the way Sophie Neveu did. But then again, Audrey Tautou is Audrey Tautou. Maybe they should have gotten Monica Bellucci? Never mind, waste of talent on such a forgettable role.
• Ewan McGregor as the Camerlengo proved to be a gem, and he played the good-yet-not-so-good boy part extremely well, that I think the movie was as much his as Tom Hanks'. And it seemed apt that he was the only one who rode that helicopter high up in the sky (kudos on that plot tweak).
  
• Is it just me or was the assassin (Nikolaj Lie Kaas) hot? I loved the way he shot at people, all swift and skilled (whaaat?!) and his gun was so nifty! Also loved how he had a (kinda) redeeming factor about him in the end when he didn't kill the unarmed duo signifying how the job was just a job. Awww, so sad to see you explode. P. S. Thank you for not bothering to explore the grudge-because-of-the-Crusades angle. It was okay in the book but would've been too much on the movie on top of everything else.
• But hey Mr. Hot Assassin, disgusting first murder! Ugh! Rats! *cringe* And many more disgusting scenes of dead people. Nightmares, nightmares.
  
• Some humor was injected, mostly by Tom Hanks, and two in particular made me laugh in the single bout way (as in heh vs. hahahaha): Vittoria tearing that page off Galileo's book, and Vatican cop not being able to breathe inside the Vatican Archives. Oh and Robert jumping through hoops to crash a glass wall inside the Vatican Archives so as not to die of suffocation, only for the electricity to come back up again after he has successful done so. Poor gigantic cabinet full of ancient historical documents.
  
• Half the movie was shot in the dark, and while I understand that it might have been necessary plotwise, did it really have to be that dark on sooo many scenes? Jeez!
  
• But hey, when it was bright, the cinematography was beautiful. Not night-shot-of-the -Louvre beautiful but still beautiful (as in I-so-wanna-go-to-Rome beautiful). I especially like the last scene where the new pope makes his first ever appearance to the people. It felt, well, heavenly. And of course, fantastic antimatter explosion up in the sky. Soooo, well, heavenly still (ummm, what's wrong with me?).
• I like the subtlety of the message in new Camerlengo's teeny-tiny side story (Cardinal Strauss, Conclave presider) whose own desire for power almost rendered him powerless to have Patrick disqualified for election as Pope. And tsk, that would have been extremely unfortunate. Hence the speech on how religion is flawed because men are flawed, including himself (or something like that).
• Finally, loved that they spared the life of one of the four Preferiti because it's just more bright and shiny that way (the least they could have done after showing us all those dead people, LOL).

All in all, I think the movie also took a friendlier view of the Church than Da Vinci did. They even passed on the pope-as-a-dad angle. But maybe the movie would have been much better if Nicholas Cage played Robert Langdon (and here I go again). Hehehe. And also, if it had more lighting.

Ummm, next stop, Digital Fortress? Deception Point? Ha! Never mind.

Ultimate P. S. Also grateful the movie did not go on forever. Expected it to be looooong. To me at least it didn't feel long. So very grateful. ;D

...Read more

\ | /

As a kid, Wolverine was an X-Men character that I was indifferent towards. That all changed when Hugh Jackman personified him in a series of X-Men movies. With that said, I can say Hugh was really the driving force behind my desire to watch the movie X-Men Origins: Wolverine (it is his movie after all), so much so that even when the leaked copy landed on my desktop (quite literally, haha), I resisted watching (which is something considering my extremely low EQ). The second reason I was interested to watch was because of Gambit, who is incidentally my favorite guy X-Men character as a kid.

Thankfully, Wolverine and Gambit did not disappoint. In fact, those two alone made the movie absolutely worthwhile to watch. I could watch Gambit's cards and staff scenes over and over again, and Hugh is Hugh (swoon!). Ryan Reynolds was a nifty bonus, and even if he just had one remarkable scene and a smittering of wisecracks, he is still absolutely worth mentioning. Sabertooth did good as well, even if I'm still trying to reconcile the fact that he and Wolverine really were brothers.

Because the characters were amazing, it was easy to overlook the fact that some movie essentials seem to be amiss. Like logic in the plotline (Wolverine just left the love of his life to die in the woods which was how they were able to pull that off?!) and extremely flimsy explanations (The name Wolverine came from a love story about the moon?! Seriously???!) or non-explanations of things. The special effects weren't that great either. All these never really hit me until I was forced to think about the movie more (i. e., right now). Nonetheless, the movie was pretty darn entertaining if you were willing to check the overcritical hat at the door and just have fun watching Wolverine snarl and bring out the claws.

In a nutshell, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is the perfect movie to watch when you just wanna unwind and soak up on Vitamin A. *wink, wink*

Vicky Cristina Barcelona: Unsettlingly Beautiful

I never really knew what to expect from the movie Vicky Cristina Barcelona, except that it had an art film vibe to it. I expected to doze off a little the way I usually do with drama movies, but surprisingly, the film was able to hold its own in the interest sustenance department (says the narcoleptic). If I were to describe Vicky Cristina Barcelona in one word, I would say it was PASSIONATE. In fact, I don't think I've ever watched a film with that much passion in a really long time.

In a nutshell, the movie is about two close friends named Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and Cristina (Scarlett Johansson) who spend a summer in Barcelona (hence the *gasp* title). They both get involved with a Spanish painter named Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem, who is a dead ringer for Jeffrey Dean Morgan, a. k. a. Denny Duquette in Grey's Anatomy) in different ways - Vicky in a confuse-me-before-and-after-my-wedding sort of way, and Cristina in an, err, slightly more tangled love web with Juan Antonio and his ex-wife Maria Elena (Penelope Cruz).

Curious?

Anything that involves psychotic, suicidal/murderous exes would probably be too much to handle in a movie (fortunately/unfortunately though, the only "crime" of passion was an accidental bullet to the hand), but for some reason the neurotic undertone in this movie struck me as appealing. I never really liked Penelope Cruz, but in this movie, she was particularly noteworthy as the beautifully eccentric Maria Elena. Ironically, it was also only in this movie that I've actually found her beautiful, in the divinely gorgeous sense. I also liked the character and beauty of Rebecca Hall (whom I never really knew before this movie) as the serious, level-headed Vicky, who wanted nothing in her life but stability. Even Scarlett, whom I never really appreciated as an actress seemed perfect for the role of the carefree and spontaneous Cristina.


In conclusion, the movie starred very beautiful people and this is actually the only point of my post. Hahaha. :P Kidding aside, I liked Vicky Cristina Barcelona not only because of its physical beauty with its beautiful actresses and picturesque backdrop, but also because of its beautiful, open-ended, thought-inducing story. It attempted to explore the various intricacies of love and relationships (love as a commitment, love as passion, love as a feeling, love as a choice, love with no bounderies, etc., etc.) which is a lot to handle in less than two hours, but this unsettlement is what makes the film different... in a stunningly good way. And why not? As the movie puts it, only unfulfilled love can be romantic.

And finally, what makes the movie particularly memorable for me is how Vicky and Cristina were basically the same people as they were before that summer in Barcelona. Most vacation movies are all about transformations and self-reinventions, which, while not necessarily bad, are typical. When sometimes, a radically different experience does not teach you something groundbreaking about yourself but merely affirms who you are and want you want (or not want) out of life and love.

All in all, Vicky Cristina Barcelona is not a light movie to watch but if you're looking for a passionate, raw take on love and humanity, it will give you just that.

...Read more

Hello Jacob! :P

Looks like someone's blooming! I sort of bashed him before and were one of those who wished they'd recast Jacob, but it seems, Taylor Lautner isn't so bad. Well, I did say they can make him "grow" handsome. :) So how long again before we get to watch New Moon?

In other news, Robert Pattinson needs to shave and Kristen Stewart needs to wash her hair.

Oh, I'm Into You

Ah, the wonders of lowered expectations. The movie reviews for He's Just Not That Into You (HJNTIY) was just not very good. Enough for me to not expect much from it. And part of me really just wanted to watch out of sheer loyalty and support for the book (I'm a Leo, hear me roar! Haha). Another part wanted to conjure an epiphany. Just kidding. Although incidentally, if you wanted one you could probably have gotten it fifteen minutes into the movie with half your attention focused on something else entirely unrelated and much more pressing. Because by its nature, the movie is just epiphany-laden.

The Bad. It is pretty long. But not in an I-wanna-walk-out-already-and-go-home-sorta-way. Just longer than the usual talkies and romantic comedies about relationships. But then again, there are a number of storylines, people! Furthermore, the presentation is pretty kalat if I do say so myself. Which is rather unfortunate coming off from a pretty great introduction. I felt like the dividers (i.e. phrases giving instances of when he is just not that into you) were confusing, if not misplaced. The movie also did a psuedo-cross between an actual movie and a documentary and while the subjects were pretty funny and enlightening, it just felt like the film was trying too hard to be so many things at the same time. I also have to say that the movie was a star-studded waste, in the sense that they could have utilized less popular actors and still provide essentially the same finished product. I get that this would affect the commercial viability of the movie, but where's the confidence in that? The book was a freakin' bestseller. They should have sold the idea, not the actors. Jeez. In all honesty, the only two actors I strongly believe should be in the movie (i. e. not to be replaced by less popular ones) would be Ginnifer Goodwin and that Alex guy (Alex in the movie, not IRL, haha). Who are incidentally not the bigger stars in the cast. Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Connelly, Drew Barrymore? Totally underutilized (Drew especially) and most probably overpaid. Scarlet Johanson and Ben Affleck? 50-50. Or scratch that, maybe 75-25 for Ben Affleck (because of the cargo pants scene, which is just so romantically cute). Hahaha. But then again, maybe I just missed Ben. :P

The Meh. The Jennifer Connelly and Scarlet storylines. Maybe it's a personal non-inclination but regardless... m-e-h. And to reiterate, they could have made this movie cheaper. Wait a minute, is this why the movie is in the premiere theatres?! Hmp! :)

The Good. As a general rule, I don't like it when movies are too faithful to the book. Because really, what's the point? And in my opinion, it is this particular movie's strongest point. Others may argue that given that the book is technically self-help in nature (i. e., no actual storylines), the movie really won't be faithful to it. Touche. But sentiment-wise, the movie really shifted course from the book by being much more optimistic. And I suspect this was opted for commercial purposes too, because who really wants to watch a movie telling you to kill all hope (I do, I do, I do! Hahaha!)? The optimism is most evident in the closing narration which I quote below.

Girls are taught a lot of stuff growing up: if a boy punches you he likes you, never try to trim your own bangs, and someday you will meet a wonderful guy and get your very own happy ending. Every movie we see, every story we're told implores us to wait for it: the third act twist, the unexpected declaration of love, the exception to the rule. But sometimes we're so focused on finding our happy ending we don't learn how to read the signs. How to tell the ones who want us from the ones who don't, the ones who will stay and the ones who will leave. And maybe a happy ending doesn't include a guy, maybe it's you, on your own, picking up the pieces and starting over, freeing yourself up for something better in the future. Maybe the happy ending is just moving on. Or maybe the happy ending is this: knowing after all the unreturned phone calls and broken-hearts, through the blunders and misread signals, through all the pain and embarrassment... you never gave up hope.

In a sense, the movie was also fairer than the book. In fact, there was even a plotline referring to a she (i. e., she's not just that into you if she's not sleeping with you - which Renil points out is really much more realistic than the he version). Which was a good move because in reality, there are heartless bitches in the world too (maybe a 1:3 ratio with the jerks, haha). So guys, it's really okay to watch the movie too. It will only bash you 85% of the time. Haha. Plus, if and when your significant other pressures you to get married, you can quote Ben Affleck's character like it's the best anti-marriage position ever. Just make sure you both stop watching the movie after that boat scene or all hell will break loose. Hahaha.

The Particularly Noteworthy. Ginnifer Goodwin's character Gigi, may seem to be the most pathetic of them all, but she also is the most endearing. And her plotline, especially the Alex twist, was too darn funny and heartwarming. In fact, they could have made a shorter movie out of this plotline and it might just work. Yes, it's quite exaggerated but throw in the Alex angle and it really becomes cute. :P Whatever anyone's take is, the Gigi-Alex plotline really just drives home this sweet truth: no matter how much of a turn-off, and how majorly pathetic/dramatic/ridiculous/borderline psychotic you are, if he's smitten, he's smitten. You still won't be able to drive him away. A caution to the severely optimistic: Gigi may have been Alex's exception, but you aren't necessarily his. Kill all hope, kill all hope! Hahaha. :) As the book and movie echoes consistently, assume to be the rule, never the exception. You're upside is that you'll be pleasantly surprised if he ever does decide to brave things for you (but then don't expect to be surprised, duh). Because the downside to the contrary is just too much wasted time and energy on your part.

All in All. Despite the fact that I have my personal complaints over the movie, I actually liked it enough that I'd watch it again on DVD (c'mon buzzsugar, you really won't call it back?). I'd recommend it especially to the people who haven't read the book. :)

P. S. Yes, one storyline deliberately not discussed. :) It just doesn't fall under any of the subcategories, okay? Hahaha. =))

P. P. S. Seriously, Myspace?! When was this movie made, 2004? :P

...Read more

My Own Confession :D

I was just too darn looking forward to watching Confessions of a Shopaholic. It is to me in 2009 what SATC was in 2008, i. e. the ultimate chick flick. The reviews have been mixed for this film - 3/4s of the world frown upon showing a movie about excessive spending in the midst of an economic meltdown. The other quarter argue that it is escapism at best, which is essentially like shopping to most girls - retail therapy wonder.

When I first found out that Isla Fisher was cast for the role, I really thought to myself, "why her?" I liked her in Wedding Crashers and loved her as April in Definitely, Maybe (I looove Definitely, Maybe!!!) but I seriously wondered whether she could pull off the role of adorably wacky Becky Bloomwood. Well, shame on me. The movie was surprisingly incredibly funny, and 99.99% of the comedic value in the movie emanated from Isla as Becky. While some stunts were hovering toward slapstick already, it was fun nonetheless. Afterwhich I therefore conclude, they couldn't have picked a better Becky.

Suze was also a pretty good complement, even if her moments were fleeting. I actually liked Krysten Ritter since way back in Gilmore Girls days, and she fitted the role of Suze to a T. My personal preference for Luke Brandon was Dermot Mulroney (okay fine, maybe he is a bit too old to play the part), and I was actually thinking that the Luke in the movie (Hugh Dancy) would turn out to be a non-character but he actually did grow on me even if I preferred him to be much more grouchy. Hahaha. :)

All in all, the movie was fun (yes, second time I said that). And waaaaay funnier than I expected it to be (this too, haha). And it is very rare to say this but I wish the movie were longer. In fact, shopaholics might be disappointed to note that there is not that much shopping scenes in the movie (just a lot of animated manequins, haha). Sure, there was this huge almost-catfight over those boots, but to me, there was still less shopping than expected considering how Sophie Kinsella's Becky Bloomwood used to rationalize and agonize over a lot of impluse purchases (some utterly ridiculous). But I guess in light of the current recession, that would be too much.

The movie merged the first two Shopaholic books. Which begs the question... would there be sequels for Shopaholic Ties the Knot and Shopaholic and Baby (Shopaholic and Sister deliberately excluded, haha :P)? But then, I don't think they should (too typical). Let us all just remember Isla Fisher as Becky Bloomwood in that way. Her outfits were too colorful but what the heck? Becky was a colorful character. :)

Loops and Shuffles

I predicted that Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist would at best make me go all eeeeeee! and want to be a teenager again. There are moments when it did, especially because Michael Cera is ten times more adorable in this movie than he was in Juno. Sigh! Michael Cera makes me even more sure to go for the nice guy this time (this time? next time? *shrug*). :P

The movie itself was unconventionally, realistically adorable. The supporting cast was a fistful of fun (they're not a fistful of a--holes, contrary to how Norah put it), filled with a quirky yet charming gum-obsessed (ick!) best friend and gorgeous gay bandmates. That Tris girl was also so effectively annoying I wanted to go ahead and punch her myself (so mature, I know :P). And I genuinely applauded when Nick just took off and left her there. Atta boy! :) Some of the scenes were a bit on the eew side, but I couldn't help but marvel at the symbolisms (the gum and the search for Fluffy/Caroline especially) that made this movie special in a world were romance and romantic comedies run rampant. I also love that the movie basically happens in just one night (technically speaking, just the significant bulk of it though). Because really, sometimes, it only takes one night to change your life (WTH, WTH, WTH?! Where is my one night? Hahaha).

And while this is a movie about teenagers, it is not just another teen movie. Yes, the characters may be teenagers, but their predicaments are not exclusively for teenagers only. Because when do you really stop going around circles, start letting go of the past and allow yourself a fresh new shot at happiness? To me at least, that was the movie's fundamental question.

P. S. I'd love to read the book they based this movie on too. I hope I find it. :) Tsk, tsk. Here I go with the books again. :)

Not Bad, Australia

It seems as if I have too much time in my hands, because I can now afford to watch movies of epic lengths. In fairness to Australia, it was much better than I expected it to be. I expected to sleep through parts of the movie (or leave early if necessary, haha), and yet I didn't. Which just goes to prove that my subconscious thinks Hugh Jackman is sexier than Brad Pitt (Yes, I'm pinning this one on my subconscious. So when is that Wolverine movie showing again? :D).

Now back to Australia... I must say I'm glad I watched it. Even if the trailer wasn't that appealing and I really watched it only because it's a Hugh Jackman film (my heart literally stopped when he showed up at that ball all clean-shaven and every bit gorgeous). However, I must say Nicole is perfect for the part of an English aristocrat and she proves yet again that she is regality personified. I especially loved the funny kangaroo scene.

I was also in awe of that black horse Capricornia (or at least that's what I thought I heard it was called). I never knew I'd find a horse so beautiful, and yet I saw it and was utterly amazed at how perfect it looked. The droving scenes are also pretty exciting, even when my initial reaction was that it would be tiring to watch herds of cattle being moved to a faaaar location for days.

While the plot is nothing extraordinary, the themes of love and solidarity are nothing new, after all, the historical and cultural circumstances did provide a fresh, educational take. It was also easy to pinpoint when the movie can be cut to shorten it. The return to Far Away Downs could have been a perfect happy ending. And yet, the movie continued on, in a spectacle of this-and-that-being-dead-and-alive-after-all-only-to-be-(probably)-killed-again. But then again, had they nipped it at a typical happy ending, the movie wouldn't be anything special. Because much of the emotional beauty in this movie were in those scenes when the happy backdrop started to fade.

All in all, it's a good movie that was worth the 2 hours and 35 minutes of my time. Sure I kept on telling myself that I was gonna hurl if I hear one more instrumental tune of Somewhere Over the Rainbow. But it was Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman at their romantic best. In a scenic, scenic tale. I'd be willing to take a little cheese with that. :)

...Read more

The Sleep-Inducing Case of Benjamin Button

True to my narcoleptic nature, I feel asleep while watching Brad Pitt in his critically acclaimed movie. And that probably means I have no authority to make a movie review because I missed bits and pieces of the film. I must say though that the movie wasn't necessarily bad. I really just expected more from it. And while I understand why the movie had to be long (we're talking about an 80-year lifespan here), the movie was just too long (almost 3 hours), and there were a lot of dragging scenes that it could have done away with.

Furthermore, I will go ahead and say that, with all due respect to Brad Pitt, I don't think he deserves an Oscar for the movie. I don't really know who he's up against, and yet, I really, really don't think he deserves an Oscar. Although I was absolutely amazed by how they were able to successfully make him look really younger in the movie. Hmmmm... I wonder if his trusty wrinkle iron had anything to do with it. Hahaha. I really had to plug that in, eh? ;D

Whatever my complaints are, I do appreciate that at its very core, the movie is a story of universal love, however unconventional the circumstances are. And it is the type of powerful love everyone would want to have. One that knows no distance, no time limit, no end. One that requires genuine sacrifice for what's good for the beloved. Even my momentary drifts while watching the movie did not stop me from catching that.

P. S. I didn't know Benjamin Button's family really made buttons!!! Hahaha.

Bride Wars (Spoiler Alert!)

Sometimes all I need to be convinced to watch a movie is the title and the lead actress. And when you throw in Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson in a movie entitled Bride Wars, I'm in. I don't remember having watched either of them as brides before, and it seems like it might be a great chick flick.

Interested?

The storyline, as might be gleaned from the title, is about BFFs who ultimately become archenemies because their weddings are set at the exact same place and date. Anne is stunning as usual, and while her beauty is not exactly conventional for most, she is still one of my favorite faces in Hollywood. Unfortunately, while it was nice to see Kate Hudson sport a stronger character than her usual roles, I can't help but think that her fiercened-up look didn't quite suit her. After all, her charm has always been girl-next-door-ish, and so the bangs, dark eyeliner and contacts combination just didn't sit well.


And while I didn't exactly expect an earth-shattering plot, I also can't help but wish the antics the girls pulled were more outrageous. Even the catfight was nothing worth mentioning. The only thing probably worth mentioning is seeing Anne sport that bright orange tan (yes, she's still beautiful). They're grown women for crying out loud! Why did it seem like they can't even give Regina George and Cady Haren a run for their money? It might be bad enough if it were to happen in real life, but nothing great to watch in a movie. One scene worth mentioning though was seeing Anne dance that dance when she crashed Kate's bachelorette party. Atta girl! Who knew she had that talent?

The surprising twist for me was seeing Bryan Greenberg (a.k.a. Jake of OTH). From scene one, I was kinda hoping he'd end up with Anne in the movie, and true enough, he did! Yey!

Sadly though, Bride Wars is nothing but a DVD movie. A DVD movie you watch when you have time to kill and nothing better to do. Oh well, let's just hope the other chick flicks to come are better. Next stop? He's Just Not That into You. This one better not be another star-studded waste.

...Read more

On My Radar: The Movie Version of "Veronika Decides to Die"

While having my daily dose of sugar, I came across this preview of the movie version of Paolo Coelho's Veronika Decides to Die. Which is right up there as one of my favorite books ever.

I was quite surprised to know about this because last I checked the brilliant Mr. Coelho wasn't too keen on bringing his books to the silver screen. But I'm glad he changed his mind. Because I'm excited to see how this adaptation would turn out to be... I know how there's the great likelihood that the movie goes to debauch the book, but I think it's a good risk to bring Veronika's story out there especially since it's not really one of Mr. Coelho's more popular books. When it should be! In my opinion at least.

I'm excited sure, but I can't help but wish they chose a different actress... I mean, Sarah Michelle Gellar? Why her? Why not Rachel McAdams or Leighton Meister? Oh well, maybe she'll prove me wrong. And I would be happy to be wrong. As long as the movie turns out to give justice to the book. Fingers crossed. Target release date is March 2009. Can't wait!

For the interested, click here.

Coming Soon... Can't Wait! :D

Like the passionate movie-goer that I am, I’m making a list of my must-watch movies for the rest of the year. All of which I intend to watch in one way or another (there are different ways of watching? LOL). Here goes:

Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2

Who? America Ferrera, Amber Tamblyn, Alexis Bledel, Blake Lively, Jesse Williams

When? August 2008

What? It's been three years since the lifelong quartet of best friends established the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. Now they face the biggest change of all: college. Carmen is studying drama at Yale, Tibby is learning to direct at NYU, Bridget is getting to know her grandmother for the first time, and Lena is torn between two romances. Through it all, the girls maintain their bond despite the distance between them, and use their friendship (and pants) as a source of strength in the face of their obstacles.

Why? I’m an Alexis Bledel fan! I absolutely adore Rory. Plus Serena‘s in the movie too. And Ugly Betty! The first Sisterhood was okay but not exactly amazing, so I hope this one can actually top it’s precedent. The trailer actually shows much promise. And it’ll hit theaters really, really soon. :D

The House Bunny

When? August 2008

Who? Anna Faris, Emma Stone, Rumer Willis, Kat Dennings, Katherine McPhee, Monet Mazur

What? It's about a Playboy playmate (interesting already, boys?). The playmate, Shelly, gets kicked out of the Mansion (for being over-the-hill at 27), and in the midst of her oh-so-sexy despair, she runs into a group of girls with a conveniently matching problem. Seven uncool sorority girls are about to lose their house unless they can whip up some new pledges. Enter the new house mother! Between Shelly's social skills and the girls' sense of individuality, they have the perfect ingredients for the ultimate sisterhood.

Why? It sounds like shallow fun with a sexy twist to the been-there-done-that sorority plot! Plus, Anna Faris is funny. But then, this is just a DVD movie expected to bring a few shallow laughs. :D

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist

When? October 8, 2008

Who? Michael Cera, Kat Dennings

What? Michael Cera stars as Nick, the bumbling, unlucky-in-love teenager (who's also a guitarist in a band — geeky-hot!) who's still hung up on his ex-girlfriend. But then Norah (Kat Dennings) asks Nick to be her temporary boyfriend so it looks like she has a date, and it works out well for both of them when Nick's ex-girlfriend sees them together and becomes jealous. From there, Nick and Norah have a long night of strange, funny adventures and, as the trailer declares, "every night has a playlist." There's music and comedy and young love.

Why? I happened to like Michael Cera in Juno, and based on the trailer, the girl seems pretty interesting too. And it seems like it’s not your average teeny-bopper movie. But then, this might be a DVD movie too.

Flash of Genuis

When? October 25, 2008

Who? Greg Kinnear, Lauren Graham, Dermot Mulroney and Alan Alda

What? Honestly, if one were trying to get folks excited about a movie, a good way to fail would be to say it's about the guy who invented the intermittent windshield wiper systems used on cars. But what if we're told the movie stars Greg Kinnear as the inventor and the lovely Lauren Graham plays his wife? Add to that a real-life David vs. Goliath tale in which Goliath is the auto industry stealing the windshield wiper idea from David, and we're getting toward a movie worth talking about.

Why? Greg Kinnear is a great actor so I believe he can do justice to his role. And I adore Lauren Graham (I am a Gilmore Girls girl, okay?). Throw in Dermot Mulroney and you’ve got a done deal. He is the obnoxious auto company executive right? Or Greg’s lawyer? Or whatever role it is that could make him ooze with snobbish appeal? Swoon alert!

He's Just Not that Into You

When? October 2008

Who? Ben Affleck, Jennifer Aniston, Drew Barrymore, Scarlett Johansson, Justin Long, Jennifer Connelly, Ginnifer Goodwin, Kevin Connolly, and Bradley Cooper.

What? All I know is that the bestseller hits the big screen. And all I need to know to wanna watch anyway. :D

Why? I loved the book (I’ve always said it’s just as enlightening as any Paolo Coelho novel), and I’m excited to see how they take this to the big screen. Plus, I miss Ben and Jennifer Aniston, and I'm wondering how well they’ll gel together. Yeah, I’m first-names basis with Ben. Hahaha. The trailer looks pretty interesting and the cast is quite star-studded. :D

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

When? November 21, 2008

Who? Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe, Jim Broadbent, Rupert Grint, Tom Felton

What? As Harry Potter begins his 6th year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, he discovers an old book marked mysteriously “This book is the property of the Half-Blood Prince” and begins to learn more about Lord Voldemort’s dark past.

Why? I’ve seen the trailer and agree that it seems darker than it’s predecessors and even bordered on disturbing as it shows the life of the young Tom Riddle. Creepy as this may be, I’m still watching it for the love of Harry Potter.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

When? November 26, 2008

Who? Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Tilda Swinton, Elle Fanning, Jason Flemyng, Elias Koteas

What? Based on the 1922 short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald, Benjamin Button (Pitt) is born as a feeble old man, and ages in reverse until he becomes a baby at the end of his life. This causes complications when he falls in love with a 30-year-old woman (Blanchett). Fitzgerald has noted that “This story was inspired by a remark of Mark Twain’s to the effect that it was a pity that the best part of life came at the beginning and the worst part at the end.

Why? A pretty interesting plot plus a stellar cast. Brad Pitt is Brad Pitt (and it‘s been a while since I’ve watched a new movie of his), and then there’s Cate Blanchett who I hope doesn’t get sidelined in this movie because it seems like the plot will focus on he-who-ages-in-reverse. However, I know better than to underestimate Cate Blanchett, who is (in my opinion) one of Hollywood’s greatest actresses.

The Time Traveler’s Wife

When? November 2008 (estimated)

Who? Rachel McAdams, Eric Bana, Ron Livingston

What? Based on the novel by Audrey Niffenegger, The Time Traveler’s Wife is a romantic drama about a Chicago librarian (Bana) with a gene that causes him to involuntarily time travel, and the complications it creates for his marriage.

Why? It’s Eric Bana! Plus Rachel McAdams! I rest my case. Hahaha. The plot is fairly unconventional. Who knows, it might inspire me to read the book too. The way the movie version of The Kite Runner led me to the book.

The Day the Earth Stood Still

When? December 12, 2008

Who? Keanu Reeves

What? A remake of the classic 1951 sci-fi action film by Robert Wise, which is considered one of the best Science Fiction films of all time and was debated for it’s religious symbolism and many interpretations. Reeves will play Klaatu, an alien who arrives on Earth accompanied by a large humanoid robot named Gort, with a warning to world leaders that their continued aggression will lead to annihilation by species watching from afar.

Why? I miss Keanu! And did he ever portray an alien ever? Hahaha. I know it’s been noted that he has only one facial expression. But still… I miss Keanu! And the trailer is amazing! And I really really miss Keanu!!! Hahaha. :D

Angels and Demons

When? December 19, 2008
Who? Tom Hanks

What? The movie version of The Da Vinci Code sequel.

Why? I didn’t know until recently that a movie was in order. Eeee! I liked this book more than TDVC. And my stand has always been that it is more movie-material than TDVC is. Is it too late to request that they replace Tom Hanks with Nicholas Cage (sorry Tom!)? And who will play Vittoria?

Don’t think I didn’t notice that there’s nothing for me to watch in September. So sad! :( It’s a good thing my favorite shows will have season premieres then. That ought to keep me occupied and happy. :D

Such Cliches

While catching up on my well-missed dose of sugar, I stumbled upon a list of the 10 Most Overly Used Rom-Com Gimiks. Ah, the perfect post for someone who not only wishes to shallowfy her posts (they're too serious!), but also is a sucker for romantic comedies (jeez, I'm such a girl!). My own comments are in italics...

1. Ending Up With A Guy That Kinda Ruins Things

You know what's not romantic to me? When a guy puts me out of business rendering me unemployed (You've Got Mail). Or when a guy interrupts my cab ride on the way to a promising job interview and insists I stay with him How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days). (Why can't he go with her?). Or when a guy steals my idea for an ad campaign and gets me fired with his secret mind-reading abilities (What Women Want). Time for a leading man who's not all "take, take, take".

Of course it works because we all love conflict. Besides, pulling through eventually (as long as the conflict's not too serious or disturbing) is something that's pretty darn awww-inspiring. Haha. Especially if the jerk looks like Matthew Mcconaughey. :P

2. Cinderella Redux Stories

Hey look, I was charmed by the prostitute who gets the handsome, wealthy man in Pretty Woman like the rest of the world but the grown-up Cinderella story gets old pretty fast. The hotel maid/prostitute/stripper/poor girl getting rescued by rich guy story is played. Next!

I do agree that this is wee-bit soap operatic. Besides, there is nothing more pathetic than a girl wanting to be rescued by her "Prince Charming." We know better right? :D But then, the polar opposite (successful rich girl rescues gigolo/house boy/poor guy) won't sell either. It will also shatter the oh-so-delicate male ego. :P

3. The Makeover

I love What Not to Wear and those makeover episodes of Oprah. But when the woman's (99.9% of the time, it's the woman's) makeover is central to a rom-com plot line I start to

lose interest. Not only is it terribly retro for a guy to only see the beauty in a girl after she takes her glasses off and puts on lip gloss, but it's completely unoriginal and predictable at this point.

How about a guy who actually falls for an unattractive girl and then falls out of love after she undergoes a major revamp? How crazy-cool is that?

4. The Entire Plot Based on A Lie

Oh man, the big elaborate lie kills me because you can already map out how the whole story will unfold, and where's the fun in that? In Never Been Kissed it's just a countdown until Michael Vartan's character finds out Drew Barrymore's character's secret. Then it's just a matter of time before he loves her anyway. There have got to be better, more creative ways to drum up some romantic conflict than this...right?

Totally! No wonder why so many people make false pretenses!

5. The Hatred That's Actually "Love"

Have you ever fallen in love with someone you've really, truly hated? I mean, really hated? We don't need the main characters to do horribly nasty things to each other so that it'll be a pleasant surprise* when they realize they're in love.

*It's never a surprise.

Hey, I happened to enjoy What Happens in Vegas! It was fun and funny! But I totally agree that while people actually sometimes opt to deliberately annoy the people they like (think kindergarten days) or how someone you like/love can easily tick you off (it's disappointment masked as anger), it really is hard to believe you can be secretly in love with someone whose guts you absolutely, sincerely hate. Newsflash: The line between love and hate ain't that thin.

6. The Race to the Airplane

Stop me if you've heard this one before: "Faith rushes to board Peter's flight to Boston which is on the verge of taking off. As Faith boards the plane, Peter turns to see her. They kiss and the passengers and crew erupt into applause for the two lovers. The last shot of the film is of the plane flying out into the sunset."

Yeah. Thought so.

I also think this one is tacky. Because realistically speaking, there's very little chance you actually make it to the airport in time. Unless you can fly. And even if you do, are you really gonna work out your issues and kiss in front of a bunch of strangers? Seriously?!

7. Falling in Love With a Man-Child

Guys who refuse to grow up are...sexy? Sure, some men have that childlike vibrancy, a youthful joie de vivre. But some actually behave like children — and still get the girl in these movies. Why would these highly successful, smart women in films like Fever Pitch be attracted to someone who lives at home and/or sits on the couch with his stoner friends all day? Are women just supposed to settle? Food for thought.

No we are not! We deserve men, not boys. And besides, how realistic is it for a man-child to actually grow up in such a short period of time? Growing up is a process and no, love is not enough. Besides what that man-child feels for you ain't love, missy.

8. It's All Based on a (Totally Implausible) Bet

It's funny that movies continue to include plots revolving completely around ill-advised, unrealistic bets which, once won or called off, somehow result in love.

This is the tackiest of all the rom-com gimiks in my opinion. Because really, it just is. 'Nuf said.

9. Letters From Dead People

This isn't necessarily a trend yet but the notes-from-a-dead-lover tactic used in P.S. I Love You felt gimmicky. It seems like it would only mentally mess up a grieving widow, rather than help her. Hollywood should nip this one in the bud.

I actually wanted to read the book because of the letters (I love letters!). Except to say letters such as these are better left to books, I don't think I have a right to comment on this one.

10. The "Sassy" Best Friend

This is probably most tiresome of all. The BFF to the main character is usually quirkier, funnier, less conventionally attractive and way more interesting to watch than the main lady. Yet she's sidelined and often saddled with the schlubbiest guy in the room in the end. Like all of these, it's just gotten so old.

While this is the most common element in rom-coms, all I can say is that the colorful sidekick has actually saved one too many movies from being doomed to hell as a giant waste of time. But then again, they're supporting actresses for a reason, and shouldn't be the highlight of a movie.

With these said, while I won't ditch rom-coms for being too susceptible to cliches, I'm all for originality and unconventional, wonderfully twisted plot lines.

For the actual Buzz Sugar slideshow (complete with pictures), click here.

A Knight's Tale

As expected, my first actual (read: non-introductory) post is a movie review. While I concur that my movie of choice is not exactly the freshest one to hit theaters, I still would like to put my two cents in (you can opt not to read anyway if you don't wanna). :)

Let me just reiterate that I really did not expect greatness from The Dark Knight (TDK) but I was nonetheless blown away. It was not a movie I anticipated to watch in SATC fashion since I'm not really a Batman fan (I'm more a Superman or X-men kinda girl). I wanted to watch it for one reason, and one reason alone: Heath Ledger's final performance as The Joker. I'm one of those people who was saddened by his death because he truly is a talented actor. He had me since the time he sang Can't Take My Eyes off You in 10 Things, and never really lost me even when he kissed another guy in Brokeback. Of course, the free movie tickets were enticing too (thanks SCB!).

While TDK is technically a superhero movie, it stands out because it's nothing like the ones we've been accustomed to seeing. It doesn't warm you up inside or make kids jump up and down wanting to be a superhero. In fact, it is not a movie for kids at all. It actually deals with sad, sad realities and ironies in life in a way that makes you ponder long after you've left the cinema. While to some this just seems downright taxing, I think it was precisely the right kind of approach to take. After seeing one too many superhero movies, even Batman movies for that matter, it's time to try a different strategy. Because realistically speaking, how can Batman in his standard black suit (yet again) give Iron Man (in full ostentatious grandeur and cockiness) a run for his money? The answer? He doesn't. His story can always take a different route. One that tells us viewers that we are cerebral and mature enough to handle our espresso with no milk in it.

And while Batman is the superhero, TDK is not so much his movie but The Joker's. As far as villains go, The Joker is, after all, the most disturbing kind. His motives are complex and unintelligible, which also makes him utterly unpredictable and unstoppable. He may not have any uncanny powers that could render him invincible, but that is what makes him all the more realistically bothersome. And Heath Ledger was utterly convincing in his performance as The Joker - funny yet disturbing, and every inch true to form. I really hope he wins an Oscar for his performance because he was without a doubt, the star of the movie (sorry Christian Bale... for what it's worth I think you look hotter now than before, save for when you speak in your raspy Batman voice :D)

All in all, TDK is one of those movies absolutely worth watching in 2008. It is absolutely worth watching, period. However, watch when you're chirpy, positive and rested because it is a thinking movie tainted with gloom. Some scenes are quite stressful to watch and the movie is rather lengthy. I actually thought it ends with the emergence of another popular Batman nemesis but in retrospect, I was glad it didn't. Bittersweet as TDK is, no superhero movie is quite like it.