Review: Epic 3D, or Just What Is So Epic About This Movie, Anyway?

Christoph Waltz Fans

If it's so epic, why's it in lower case?

Upon hearing the word "epic", the first thing that comes to mind (at least to English majors) is Beowulf. Or the Iliad and Odyssey. "Epic" suggests some grand narrative encompassing decades, or even millennia. So what makes this movie "epic"? Because it's definitely not the scope.

EPIC COSTUMES
Costume design was excellent, at least for the Leaf Men, whose wardrobe looked like a Westerosi tailor married a Middle-Earth seamstress and they set up shop in Fern Gully. For the villainous Boggans, not so much, although to be fair, they had animal skins on. You can also expect Queen Tara's white petal gown in next year's Oscars.

BNL Mag

"Don't even think about it, Gaga." -Beyoncé

Les Misérables

Working Title/Cameron Mackintosh

The success of Les Misérables stems from the great directing of Tom Hooper. As a musical, it strays away from becoming merely a stage performance filmed on camera. Other movie musicals tend to be either “more movie than musical” or “more musical than movie”. Hooper’s Les Mis (yes, I get tired of typing the accented “é”), however, succeeds in becoming a perfect hybrid, becoming, in my opinion, a great example of musical cinema.

Working Title/Cameron Mackintosh

Nothing says "cinema" more than Russell Crowe's mug.

Dear John

Well, what can I say? Channing Tatum is a hunk. He can dance (and you know what they say about good dancers, harhar!), he can make you swoon, and even punch someone in the face for you. At least for the last part, his character in the movie can. Hehe.

Dear John is a story about a Special Forces Army Sergeant John (Channing Tatum) and a college student Savannah (Amanda Seyfried) falling in love during spring break. They carried on their relationship writing letters to each other, while she's at school and he's in Germany to finish his 12-month enlistment in the army. Surprisingly, unlike most long-distance relationships, it worked. Until 9/11 happened and John had to go back to war again.

Apparently, it's based on a Nicolas Sparks book, whose narrative I hear the movie was not very true to. Hell, when are you people going to get it? The book is never the same as the movie. They are two different mediums; what worked for the book might not work for the movie, so get over it. They can be both wonderful in their own way.

What struck me the most is the scene where John totally breaks down reading his letter to his father (Richard Jenkins) at his father's bedside in the hospital. It's probably the first time he opened up to his father after drifting apart for years. Tear-jerker. I felt both their pain—the pain of a father wanting to console his son, and the pain of a broken heart—right through the screen. And what's ironic about it is, "Two weeks together, that's all it took, two weeks for me to fall for you," Savannah said, before they went on with their long distance thing.

It takes a moment to fall in love, probably a second to break someone's heart, and exponentially more to feel the pain.


Dear John gets six out of ten for all of the above, especially for Tatum’s hot bod (Sorry!).


Postscript: Acting-wise, Jenkins did really great playing a man with autism. Tatum could be getting better. Seyfried needs to play more diverse roles or she’ll be stuck in rom-coms, and that would be a waste of talent and a pretty face.


*photo from allmoviephoto.com

Jennifer's Body

Basically: Jennifer and Needy are BFFs. Jennifer is turned evil by some indie band. Jennifer starts eating boys. Needy, of course, is sad (hell, her name is Needy). Needy fights Jennifer when Jennifer targets her boyfriend.

I liked it. I almost loved it but there were parts where I wanted to sleep. And honestly, there was only one good scary-give-goosebumps scene.

But I liked it. I like it because I do agree with this blog post, saying that it's the horror flick that should be post-Buffy. I like it because as someone who grew up watching scary and teen flicks, Jennifer's Body actually felt like a warm embrace that I belonged to. I like it because the wit and the jokes weren't in-your-face, like the overrated Juno (sorry, stinglacson, I think it was mostly because of Ellen that it got that Oscar).

And more however, I feel I partly like it because I have to defend it from these people.

I believe that Jennifer's Body doesn't really aspire depth. At best, I see it is a montage of every Hollywood teen and horror element from every Hollywood teen and horror flick I've ever watched. It was bordering on camp. Before watching it, I thought it was going to be camp. But it wasn't. It had become much more original that that. By being a montage, it actually managed to produce something different altogether. And it surprised me. Because I hated Juno being overrated and I was expecting this good premise of a flick to disappoint me, and you don't usually get something different altogether from montage. You get... a montage, not something fresh.

But amidst the Hollywood obsession of Hollywoodizing Asian horror flicks, Jennifer's Body, fresh in its glorification of all that has been used up, should receive a nice welcome. (I remember feeling this way about the first Pirates of the Caribbean. That flick─with the swordfight scene─was a very, very nice welcome amidst all the Hollywood Kung Fu exploitation.)

But I don't want to be obsessed with the form, like this post did. Not that there's anything wrong with forms (I like forms). I think this flick can also merit from the angle of this-is-not-a-horror-flick but more on this-is-actually-a-story-about-two-bestfriends, or this-is-much-more-feminist-than-Juno-can-ever-be.

First off, boys were objectified as much as Jennifer's body. And I'm not only saying that because she's literally eating them. Each boy stereotype was nailed to its one dimension-ness: the dumb jock, the emo kid (he even whimpers "Do you even know my name?" before sex), the good boy-next-door boyfriend, and even the foreign exchange guy. It was a girl, also, who tried to save these boys.

Second, sure, that lesbian sex scene seemed uncalled for. But that would probably reinforce Adrienne Rich's theory on lesbian continuum (or was it another feminist? I should learn to namedrop properly). But that sex scene actually epitomizes all the years they were there for each other, now more than ever--with Jennifer turning demon and all. I mean, don't heterosexual relationships do that? If this were a boy and a girl bestfriend, and they finally give the audience the satisfaction of ending the sexual tension--that of course, proves that they somehow love each other in a romantic level too--would people protest and say, oooh, lesbian exploitation (which of course, is another layer, for in the discussion of form, this lesbian exploitation is actually a satirical poke on porn objectifying lesbian relationships [girls fight then they have sex], the same way the audience were supposed to objectify Jennifer's body)? Besides, the sexual tension between them had been established from Fox' first appearance.

MY Amanda Seyfried of course handles her Needy's purpose very well. As men continue to drool over Megan Fox' only purpose of being the shallow Femme Fatale, MY Amanda Seyfried holds up to her role of "saving" Fox from these drooling men. In the flick, it was men who exploited Jennifer (it was a double exploitation, if the ritual of offering her body to the dark demony depths of hell didn't feel like a funny yet depressing, creepy parody of gang rape--they were laughing and singing to her, mocking her before killing her-- then I'm overreading again or I've been reading too much news) and used her to achieve stardom. It was Needy who tries, first, to save her, and then second, to try kill Jennifer amidst her love for her (oh those childhood bestfriend flashbacks actually work and tug the heart), and then third, to avenge her bestfriend. And MY Amanda Seyfried did all that with just this pretty look in her eyes. She shows off great admiration and loyalty for Jennifer but does not border on creepy obsession. She holds up to the role of beauty subdued by her consent to make Fox stand out more than her.

This is really Needy's story, more than anything else. It cannot be too emphasized how much her life changed after the indie band exploited Jennifer. How the can of worms were opened--when she finally let out how Jennifer had never been a really good bestfriend, and how they still loved each other, how they were still BFFs after opening that can. After trying to kill each other.

By the way, I am so not overreading. I just make it sound heavy. Which it is. The flick is for light watching like a stroll on some capitalist-owned park, but it has more depth than it aspires to have.

8/10

Mamma Mia!

Contrary to popular belief, males who like musicals are not gay.

Musical films have experienced a resurgence recently, and I'm not sure what brought about their new rise in popularity, but it seems that they're here to stay. I think it's the fusion between Holly- and Bollywood.

Anyway, this film is based on the musical of the same name, and as the title suggests, it is scored with music from the Swedish band Abba (the two male members of Abba in fact also make cameo appearances in the film).

Surprisingly, this film has now become the highest-grossing film musical of all time (how could it ever beat The Sound of Music?) and yet I do not consider this film a personal favorite.

First of all, I find it problematic when writers try to craft a musical around a pop band's discography, like what they did with The Beatles in Across the Universe. I believe it limits the story that can be crafted out of it, and it would take a genius to pull it off perfectly. And for me, this film comes off as a bit forced. But Abba seems happy about it, so why bother?

Performance-wise, Meryl Streep delivers a great performance, and though she is getting older, she still has the vibrancy of youth. It's not something that can be altered by plastic surgery; I'm talking about the inner youth from within. Meryl Streep still has it in her. Amanda Seyfried's performance is okay, to put it bluntly. It didn't suck, but it didn't stand out either. But her three possible fathers in the film are another matter altogether.

Critics lamented the fact that three talented gentlemen not known for their singing abilities were cast in a musical of this caliber (this was actually produced by Tom Hanks and his wife Rita Wilson). I mean sure, Colin Firth knows a little guitar, and Stellan Skarsgård has some moves, but I pity Pierce Brosnan, whose singing has been compared to "a braying donkey" (ouch).

Production-wise, the film's setting limited the production, as everything took place on the Greek island of Kalokairi. So all the dancing and singing was confined to that location. And it is my opinion that Abba's songs are too colorful to be limited to such a small space.

Finally, when reviewing a musical, one cannot avoid comparing it with other musicals of its time. And my standard for modern musicals is still Hairspray. At least Hairspray had all original songs. Like I said, it is a very difficult task to construct a decent musical out of an existing band's discography, and this film is no exception.


Rating: Three stars.