Once in a while..

I barely manage my blog nowadays because of the upcoming exam I will take. Study here, read there, solve everywhere. Good thing I have spare time to update this site and apply some minor changes. I wrote many ideas in a piece of notebook and contained it there in the meantime. Priority must come first, and that is to pass my licensure exam. Anyhow, here are the updates:

~Changed template
~Fixed bugs in particular for pictures
~Modified Movie XPerience page
~Modified 2011:Book Challenge page
~Added content in Movie XPerience. Details here.
~Added content 2011:Book Challenge. Details here.

Have a nice day! =)

Battle: L.A.

A few movies showcased this type of film. Same plot, same mission. Aliens invade our planet with their own motive of who-knows-what. Humanity, of course, will not allow that. Then countless battles will pop out and voila, it's either we get annihilated or the invaders flee out of Earth. Does Battle: Los Angeles, in some way, managed to have something new that they can show the audience? Or is it still the same alien-versus-human type of film with no substance, just linear in any way.

Battle: Los Angeles is about the story of an alien invasion on the city of angels where Marine Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz (played by Aaron Eckhart) and his new band of comrades try to counter enemies they never expected. Initially reported as meteor showers, these things (and beings) from outer space landed in different parts of the world, particularly in bodies of water, to have their ultimate mission in effect -- to get our water supply.

To be frank, the film lacks something in the story. Its concept may not be original but the story can show more only if they managed to have more inputs. The CGI was great in every aspect as seen on some scenes. Sound effects also got its proper ranks in line with its great scenes.

Like Sucker Punch who copy-cat some of game elements, this movie also did the wrong thing. Not only that, Resistance 3 is being promoted in the movie. What a tactic for Sony.

Hate to say this but Battle: L.A. will last its charm only for a single viewing. Another round and you'll throw it all up.

Ups:
~Great action scenes with regards to CGI
~Eckhart's role fits him


Downs:
~Story
~Nothing special except the SFX


My rating of the movie ~ 7/10


Recommendation ~ Watch District 9, instead. =)

Sucker Punch, yeah right...

I watched the movie yesterday (March 27th) along with my brother in Mall of Asia. And yes, we literally experienced this in IMAX. So yeah, to cut the chase, the movie itself is an abysmal. No more, no less.

The film is all about Babydoll portrayed by Emily Browning (The Uninvited) who was sent to an institution for the mentally insane by her uncle (stepfather actually). Poor old Babydoll, of course, wanted to escape the asylum. Hence, she created an alternate reality in her own mind to plot a strategy in order to break out along with her fellow inmates namely Sweetpea (played by Abbie Cornish), Rocket (played by Jenna Malone), Blondie (played by Vanessa Hudgens), and Amber (Jamie Chung); and by doing so, they need to collect things that can aid them in their so-called "plan".

It was only natural for any of us to have an eye-candy for this film's trailer. Hell, it was great. Stunning visuals, artistic sceneries, and the like. Plus one if the director was the one who made 300 possible. But all of these were obliterated by the story itself. Movies circling around the theme of a mental institution are common nowadays. A protagonist inside of it wanted to get out is a common goal in any related movies out there. So they say.

There are lots of downside in Sucker Punch. Emily Browning is a beaut. Yes she is. But her acting? Come on! It's a no no. Her face is angelic, some people may say that. But the moment she started to make face to have our sympathy for her, I started to be angry instead of showing pity. And it sucks when she does that. Her sworn portrayal of the lead is surely a waste. Another casting problem is of Carla Gugino who played the role of Madam Gorski (one of the institutions doctors). As the story impliedly tell the audiences, Madam Gorski is somehow a russian. Gugino is in no sense a russian, by the way. And when she started talking in the film in a russian accent, it irritates me a lot. Why Zack Snyder, why?

Action sequences are not that "great" to watch. Fighting samurai warriors thrice the size of you with one using a huge overrated machine gun, battling your way in to the enemy's base where your enemies are in fact dead and looked like bunch of Helghasts from Killzone 2 (and yes, Radec look-alike is also there too), killing a dragon to obtain gems inside its throat, and stopping a train with a ticking time bomb inside of it before it hits a city -- these are the film's "worlds" that Babydoll and her colleagues must travel.

The real deal for the movie is the god-damn story! No substance at all. Few minutes after the movie started, I felt that the film would be a huge disappointment and I even predicted the ending. And I was right, it was a BIG disappointment and the movie in its entirety is damn predictable. The story was not well-written. It's like an Inception "wanna-be" where in the former the protagonist dreams and in the latter, the lead role imagine things. 300 was adapted from the comics and so as the Watchmen. But Sucker Punch? Where did that come from?! Good job Snyder, good effing job. Tsk Tsk.

Ups:

~Pretty chicks

~Good graphics

Downs:

~Story

~Castings

~Action sequences

~Adaptations of action games and some movies

~Excessive use of "slow-motion" sequences

My rating of the movie ~ 5/10

Recommendation ~ Watch Shutter Island, instead. =)