Da Couch Tomato

An attempt at a new layout, with horrible glitches, and very minimal knowledge of HTML.
Showing posts with label anne hathaway. Show all posts
"Parang out pa rin 'yang Chinese dress mo kahit sa Wonderland."

Para sa mga fans ng original literary work ni Lewis Carroll na Through the Looking Glass (And What Alice Found There), kalimutan niyo na – itong pelikulang ito ay hindi adaptation ng libro na 'yun.

In fact, bukod sa pamagat, ang pagkakapareho lang ng libro ni Carroll sa pelikulang ito ay si Humpty Dumpty. At ang mga chess pieces. At ang looking-glass insects. At ang pagpasok ni Alice sa salamin. Ayun lang. 'Yung malaking chess game? Waley. 'Yung sasakay si Alice sa tren? Waley din. The lion and the unicorn? Waley talaga. So ayun.

Isa sa mga problema ng franchise na ito ay na-condense na nila ang adaptation sa unang pelikula na Alice in Wonderland noong 2010. Halimbawa, ang tula na "Jabberwocky" ay nasa pangalawang libro, pero lumabas ang creature sa unang pelikula pa lang. Ganoon din sina Tweedledum at Tweedledee; wala sila sa unang libro, pero naroon na sila sa unang pelikula. So basically, sinira na nila ang narrative noong 2010 pa lang, kung kaya naman totally unrecognisable na ang kwento sa bagong pelikula.

So ano ang kwento nitong Alice Through the Looking Glass kung malayo na ito sa kwento ng libro? Well, since winalang-hiya na nila ang original source material, naisip siguro nila na might as well dalin na nila sa totally different direction ang pelikula. At ang direksyon na iyon ay... science fiction. Specifically, time travel. Labo, 'di ba?

So dito sa direct sequel ng 2010 film, you can tell a lot about the film base sa iisang character lang, at ito si Father Time (Sacha Baron Cohen). Una, si Father Time ay hindi naman character sa libro ni Lewis Carroll, which means they took the liberty na tumahak na sa totally different direction. Pangalawa, ang pagkakaroon ng isang time lord sa pelikulang ito ay ang cue na may time travelling na magaganap dito.

"BAKET ANLABO NG PELIKULANG 'TO?"

Ang orihinal na libro ay totally new adventure para kay Alice (Mia Wasikowska), dahil siya ay nasa totally ibang mundo, hindi na sa Wonderland. At dahil ibang mundo na ito, iba na rin ang cast of characters dito. Pero dahil nga binale-wala na ng filmmakers ang source material, hindi na rin sila tumahak ng panibagong direksyon at kumuha ng bagong cast, maliban kay Baron Cohen at Rhys Ifans bilang tatay ng Mad Hatter. Naroon pa rin ang Cheshire Cat (Stephen Fry), ang big-headed Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter), ang hindi naman pala mabait na White Queen (Anne Hathaway), ang mga hayop sa Tea Party, at siyempre, ang Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) na siyang pinag-basehan ng kwento ngayon.

Sa lahat ng mga adaptations ng Alice books ni Lewis Carroll, ito na marahil ang pinakatumaliwas sa source material. Ang genre ng literary nonsense ay natumpok ni Carroll, at sana ito na rin ang direksyon na tinahak ng filmmakers (ang direktor pala nito ay si James Bobin; si Tim Burton ay isa sa mga producer). Ang maganda sa mundo ni Alice ay ang pagiging dream-like nito, dahil ang mga scenario at pangyayari ay talagang non-sensical at malabo. Hindi naman kailangan ng back story ng Mad Hatter, at hindi na rin mahalaga na maintidihan natin ang history ng Red at White Queens. Pero siyempre, mas malaki ang box-office draw nina Depp at Hathaway, kaya kinakailangan lumabas sila muli sa sequel.

Ang isang dream o whimsical o surrealist work of art ay mukhang walang sense at structure at first glance. Pero sa in-depth analysis makikita na ang pagiging surreal nito ay grounded pa rin sa reality. Kaya nais ko lang i-raise ang dalawang point na ito: Una, ang steampunk motif ng mundo ni Father Time ay medyo hindi naangkop sa period kung saan naka-set ang pelikula, lalong-lalo na ang time-travelling unicycle ni Alice. Pangalawa, sa historical period na ito, hindi makatotohanan na ang kapitan ng isang barko ay babae. Sorry.

Medyo nakakabahala ang ginagawang ito ng Disney. Para silang nanloko ng mga manonood, tipong "false advertising" kumbaga. Ang dating ay parang nag-announce sila na "Hey, gagawa kami ng pelikula ng Through the Looking Glass!" Sa announcement pa lang na iyon, nakuha na nila ang market na 1) mga fans na nasiyahan sa unang film at gustong mapanood ang sequel para makita kung maa-adapt ito ng Disney nang tama; at 2) mga fans na hindi nasiyahan sa unang pelikula at gustong mapanood ang sequel para makita kung maa-adapt ito ng Disney nang tama. Either way, nagoyo tayo ng Disney, at may danger na abusuhin itong trend na ito sa paga-adapt ng mga works in the public domain. Huwag naman sana.

"Ayaw na namin ng Part Three!"



Alice Through the Looking Glass. USA. 2016.



Orihinal na rating: 5.5/10
Huling voice-over ni Alan Rickman: +0.1
Time travel: +0.1
Pagtaliwas sa original source material: -0.2
Walang Mia Wasikowska nudity: -0.1
Johnny Depp sa isa na namang weird role: -0.1
Sacha Baron Cohen: +0.1
Final na rating: 5.4/10



RIP Alan Rickman


Basahin ang review ng naunang Alice in Wonderland.
6:19 PM
Not to be outdone by Sandra Bullock, Anne Hathaway also gets in a spacesuit.

Ah, Interstellar. You beautiful piece of cinematic art. And because you were the only film of 2014 that I've been genuinely excited about since last year, I shall try and convince others to lose their stinginess and go spend on an IMAX ticket.

1. Christopher Nolan
Sorry, I lied. I've been genuinely excited about this film since two years ago, after The Dark Knight Rises. Why? Because it's Christopher Nolan at the helm. Other films get me excited about, well, the film itself. Like how the Pacific Rim sequel and Star Wars Episode VII excite me because the franchises excite me. But Nolan is one of the few directors whose films I'd watch in a heartbeat, even without knowing what his film is about. I'm not sure if it's his brilliantly-paced non-linear storytelling style that excites me, or the fact that he likes to tackle subject matter that no filmmaker before him has ever dared touch. Like the astronauts on board the Endurance, Nolan is an explorer, venturing into uncharted territories in visual storytelling.

Directed by Christopher Nolan? Here, take my money.

2. Original screenplay
Go watch Interstellar. Don't wait for the torrent to be available, you pirate. Go and spend for a movie ticket, because we want this film to make money at the box office. Not because we want to make the Nolan brothers Chris and Jonathan rich, but because we want Hollywood business analysts to see that investing in an original screenplay not adapted from any existing source material (and by "adapted", we don't mean "loosely based on academic papers published in reputable scientific journals") can also make big bucks at the box office. Hollywood has been struggling with a drought of stories written specifically for the cinematic medium, and it could kill its film industry like the crops in Kansas. Or Texas. Or wherever the hell Interstellar is set.

3. Minimal CGI
Like all of Nolan's previous works, this film uses computer-generated imagery very sparingly. He prefers actual sets or miniature models over CGI, and it's more than just his cinematic style–it actually creates a realism you can detect with your naked eye, and it draws out a better performance from the actors, knowing that they are not reacting to a green screen.

Also noteworthy is how long the end credits are–just around one-tenth the time of the usual Hollywood blockbuster. That's because fewer people are needed for physical effects as compared to the long list of names required for CGI special effects, with rendering requirements necessitating the need to outsource their labour.

4. Free physics lesson
If you've always been interested in space exploration and intergalactic travel but have never had the fortitude to stare at a mathematical equation for more than ten seconds without throwing up, then this film is for you. It takes the brilliant ideas of renowned theoretical and astrophysicist Kip Thorne (no relation to Rip Torn, though their names sound very much alike), and simplifies them without losing their scientific bases. The famous "twin paradox", which discusses the passage of time as seen by two observers travelling at different speeds, or the effects of gravity on an extraterrestrial scale, such as its relation to the tides and waves which we take for granted on our seas on Earth–these are touched on by the film and dumbed down for the average moviegoer to fathom. I don't think it's been dumbed down enough, though, because apparently a lot of people still exit the theatres muttering how their minds have been blown, and not in a good way.

5. Grand space opera
Who doesn't love space operas? The word "opera" here doesn't mean something where a fat lady sings, but something like a soap opera set in space. That means melodrama and cheesiness played out to extremes, with Oscar-winning actors Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway at the acting helm. And Michael Caine? Don't mind him, he's always in Christopher Nolan movies.

This black hole is more interesting than ten Michael Caines.

6. (Possibly) the last IMAX film
Although not entirely shot in IMAX, there are a lot of scenes that are, and these are the scenes that matter. The swirling dust storms of a dying Earth, the vastness of the stars, the complexity of a wormhole, and the immensity of a black hole's event horizon–these are all best viewed in the glory of 70 mm celluloid. For cinephiles who enjoy the grainy look of actual film stock, or for those who just want the bragging rights of having seen what could possibly be the last IMAX movie shown on an analog projector, see it at the SM Mall of Asia, not only because it has the largest IMAX screen dimensions, but because all the other IMAX theatres will be showing it in digital format.

7. The fifth dimension
The idea of a fifth dimension is very hard for a normal person to comprehend. Only a chosen few have ever had a glimpse of it; these are mostly the shamans and sorcerers, and those who have overdosed on psychedelic substances. The human race is only in its infancy in its understanding of the four dimensions, let alone five, so don't worry if you didn't get the film's premise and left the theatre scratching your heads. Five dimensions isn't going to go mainstream anytime soon, in the near future, or in your grandchildren's lifetime. The least you should've taken home with you is an understanding about love's ability to transcend dimensions, a newfound respect for mankind's indomitable spirit in the face of the unknown, and a mind-boggling fascination with everything about TARS the robot.

What is this? I don't even...



Interstellar. USA. 2014.



Original rating: 8.5 / 10
TARS the robot: + 0.3
Douchebaggery of Matt Damon's character: - 0.1
Seeing what a black hole and a wormhole could actually look like: + 0.2
Nolan non-linear storytelling: + 0.1
Nolan plot twists starting to feel more and more Shyamalan-y: - 0.05
Jessica Chastain: undecided
Final rating: 9.05 / 10





Follow Sting Lacson on Twitter. But follow Da Couch Tomato first.

Follow Da Couch Tomato on Google +.
5:52 AM
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.
9:17 AM
YouTube

And it's final. Christopher Nolan is hanging his cape and cowl after this flick. In layman's terms: This will be the last Batman film directed by Christopher Nolan.

"It better be!"

As a filmmaker, how do you end the most successful film franchise based on a comic book? How do you close the curtains on the grandest comic book opera ever filmed? In layman's terms: how do you go out with a bang?


1. Let it come full circle.
Batman Begins, the first of the Christopher Nolan Bat-films, started with the League of Shadows. And I guess it would be fitting to end with the League of Shadows. Hell, Nolan even threw Liam Neeson in there, just so you don't forget.

Mr. Neeson, for your latest film Taken 2,
your daughter gets kidnapped... again?

So just to make it clear: it began with Ra's Al Ghul, it climaxed with the Joker, and it ended with Ra's Al Ghul's daughter. This is not one of Nolan's best story arcs, I'd have to admit.

By the way, in this movie, the plot twist comes with the knife twist.
10:59 AM

A kid's flick that is neither from Pixar nor DreamWorks.

Yeah, okay, it's adorable. But only because I want to have my honeymoon in Rio de Janeiro.

In time for this, of course.
3:06 PM

By now, you will have noticed my obsession with 3D films. Well, let's not call it an "obsession", but rather, a "devotion" to what I consider the medium of the future.

As such, the first part of this review shall be devoted to its 3D-ness, while the second part will be the regular review.

First, I didn't like its 3D-ness. When I was in the theater, I could really sense something was amiss. This wasn't like Avatar.

So when I got home, I researched on it, and confirmed my suspicion: This film was shot in conventional 2D, with the footage converted to 3D in post-production. James Cameron, in all his Avatar arrogance, criticized this, saying that "It doesn't make any sense to shoot in 2D and convert to 3D." Tim Burton felt, however, that 3D cameras were too bulky and expensive, and that there was really no difference between converted 3D and those originally shot with 3D cameras. Well, maybe to regular moviegoers there isn't; but Mr. Burton, there is a difference, because I felt it.

Okay, how did I feel it? I could feel it in the depth of the shots. There was just not enough depth.

And now I consider myself a certified 3D addict. You know you're a 3D addict when you can detect the difference between converted 3D and original 3D footage.

And now, on to the regular review.

This version is based on, but is definitely not, the original Lewis Carroll books of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. Those stories were more of a stream-of-consciousness hallucination all throughout. In this version, however, screenwriter Linda Woolverton attempted to put a narrative structure to it, and so it ended up as a retelling (which Tim Burton would vehemently deny). It worked, I must say. But I sort of liked the hallucinatory quality of the Lewis Carroll version.

The first part starts off in Victorian England. And for a moment there, I forgot that this was a Tim Burton film. I can't really imagine Tim Burton directing Sense and Sensibility. It only becomes Burton-esque once Alice enters Wonderland.

Among all the countless visual adaptations of Lewis Carroll's beloved tale, this version, I believe, is the one that truly puts the "mad" in "Mad Hatter". And we can thank Johnny Depp for that. His Hatter was bonkers. Like totally. And even the March Hare was cuckoo.

Helena Bonham Carter, a.k.a. Mrs. Tim Burton, was perfect as the Red Queen. Plus I loved how Burton made her head bigger. Bonham Carter brought a new edge to the Red Queen. Tyranny with insanity.

Anne Hathaway, I now have no doubt about your acting skills. Yeah, she was really great in Rachel Getting Married. But as the White Queen, you could see that she can take any role given to her, and execute it with style. And I now officially have a crush on Anne Hathaway because of her acting prowess.

Mia Wasikowska, I admit that I thought you wouldn't be able to pull this off. But surprisingly, you did. Good job. But you're still not as pretty as I thought you would be.

Crispin Glover, I don't even have to say anything. You are one talented actor. You may not be mainstream enough, but all your fans since Back to the Future know that you are one talented actor. I think I already said that.

And Alan Rickman, I'd know your Severus Snape voice anywhere. But I've nothing against you, as I like you as an actor.

The Cheshire Cat was the best portrayal of the Cheshire Cat I've ever seen, floating around like a ghost, disappearing in a puff of smoke. I can't help but compare this to the animated Disney version, where the cat was more of an annoyance that didn't really help propel the story forward. Oh, wait. The original didn't really have a story. Oh well. The only thing I didn't like was when they addressed the Cheshire Cat as "Ches". Please stop Americanizing Lewis Carroll's creations. Thank you.

And finally, great character design for the Jabberwocky. I think this design was lifted straight out of Sir John Tenniel's illustration. But why oh why did Mr. Burton decide to use Christopher Lee to voice this monster? Again, my only explanation: to milk Mr. Lee for all the movies he can make, before he snuffs it. Sorry if I sound so mean.

Anyway, I've learned a valuable lesson with this movie, one that could save me a lot of money. And that is: Never watch a 3D film that wasn't shot on 3D cameras. If it was just converted 3D footage, just watch it in regular cinemas. You should be paying for the 3D experience, not the conversion.


*some info from IMDb and Wikipedia


Alice in Wonderland. USA. 2010.


Rating: Eight out of ten.
3D-ness: Five out of ten.
8:31 AM

This movie is just a lame-o excuse to milk moviegoers' pockets on Valentine's Day.

The screenwriters attempted a multi-character narrative, with several subplots woven together. But it failed.

Did it fail because the multi-character style was confusing? No. Well, maybe just a tad bit confusing.

Did it fail because the weaving of the subplots wasn't tight? Not really. It was woven together quite well.

The reason it failed: the individual subplots sucked.

Jennifer Garner and Ashton Kutcher's subplot: Predictable. You could see it coming a mile away.

Jennifer Garner and the Little Kid subplot: No set-up. There was an attempt at misdirection. An attempt. Ho-hum.

Jennifer Garner and Patrick Dempsey subplot: Typical.

Topher Grace and Anne Hathaway subplot: Nice. But only because it's Topher Grace and Anne Hathaway.

Hector Elizondo and Shirley MacLaine a.k.a. The Old Couple subplot: I liked this. Even though it was a bit cliché.

Taylor Swift and Taylor Lautner subplot: Please. Abs + bimbo = bleh.

Ashton Kutcher and Jessica Alba subplot: Okay, then what? What happens to Jessica Alba?

Bradley Cooper and Eric Dane subplot: Where the hell did that come from? No set-up at all.

Julia Roberts and Bradley Cooper subplot: Boo. Just because Bradley Cooper didn't make a move doesn't mean that the subplot above was set up.

Julia Roberts and Little Kid subplot: Win. For being the only non-romantic subplot in the movie. Mothers, please bring a hanky.

Lesson learned: Multi-character and multi-subplot narratives are great, if the individual stories are great, and if they are woven together tight. It has to be all or nothing. You can't have some good individual stories and some not-so-good ones woven together. They have to be all good. Otherwise, it will seem like a smile with some teeth missing.


*some info from IMDb
pic from fanpop.com


Valentine's Day. USA. 2010.


Original rating: Zero stars.
Topher Grace and Anne Hathaway subplot: Two stars.
Hector Elizondo and Shirley MacLaine a.k.a. The Old Couple subplot: Two stars.
Julia Roberts and Little Kid subplot: Two stars.
Trying hard to copy Love Actually but failing: Minus one star.
Final rating: Five stars.
3:36 PM

If you think James McAvoy is cute, or if you like reading Jane Austen's novels, or if society and your family have ever gotten in the way of your personal affairs, you just might be able to sit through the movie Becoming Jane.

The movie is based on the book Becoming Jane Austen by Jon Spence and details canon writer Jane Austen's youth and her childhood sweetheart Thomas Langlois Lefroy who later became Lord Chief Justice of Ireland.

The washed out cinematography doesn't help to spark interest either. Don't believe the bright colored poster. Anne Hathaway was criticized for the fakeness of her British accent and I can actually hear why.

In terms of historical accuracy, it's not a biopic about Jane Austen. The film does succeed in making you wish it were. Jane Austen playing baseball and eloping with a bad boy puts the ladies in The Jane Austen Book Club movie to shame.

This gets a 4/10.
5:16 PM

Bravo to Jonathan Demme. He didn't get a Best Director Oscar for nothing.

This film should be mandatory viewing for directing classes in film school. It is a great directorial work, which I shall explain in cinematic jargon.

First, the story. Great screenwriting by Jenny Lumet, but unfortunately, it was snubbed at the 2009 Academy Awards. Well, it did have a few weak points, but it was generally good.

Before we proceed, let me clarify first that Anne Hathaway is not Rachel. Rachel is her older sister, played by Rosemarie DeWitt (who looks like a prettier Franka Potente with a gentler face).

Okay, back to the story. This is about family life, sisterhood, inter-racial marriage, drug addiction, and family deaths. These are very personal subjects, and to tell a story like this effectively, you have to draw in your audience, and make them part of the family. Only then will the drama work.

That said, director Jonathan Demme could not have done a better treatment of the subject. All aspects of the cinematography worked well, from the natural lighting, to the hand-held camera movements, to the long takes, all giving the feel of a documentary, or a reality show. Even the editing contributed to the overall feel of a family gathering shot using a handycam. You can't get any more personal than a handycam.

The music too played a big part in the storytelling, but not as a background score. Demme's treatment was so effective that you didn't need a musical score. It could actually stand alone using only ambient sound. But Demme maximized the element of music as part of the wedding celebration, since this was after all an inter-racial marriage. We are actually treated to all-original music, celebrating a cross-cultural union between musical clans.

Now we go to the acting. Anne Hathaway=win. To be able to sustain her character while shooting documentary-style requires a lot of skill. In the words of Breckin Meyer from the movie Kate and Leopold: "God, you are so method!" She totally deserved that Oscar nomination. This girl has a great future ahead of her. Bill Irwin, who played Anne Hathaway's father, was so brilliant that he really seemed like he wasn't acting at all. (I'd also like to mention that Debra Winger is still hot.) And of course, the rest of the cast was so equally realistic that it wouldn't surprise you if Jonathan Demme did actually shoot real, unsuspecting non-actors using a handycam.

Some viewers may try and look for any semblance of structure, or a narrative arc, to the story. But let me tell you right now that you won't find any. This story tells more like a tale told between family members, where flashbacks or back stories do not really matter. This is, again, the story of Rachel getting married, told from the point of view of not just an ordinary wedding guest, but someone really close to the bride.


*some info from IMDb
pic from pastemagazine.com


Rachel Getting Married. USA. 2008.


Rating: Eight and a half out of ten.
4:37 PM
Viva la Streep.

I shall explain the title's double meaning later. We shall not dwell on the story anymore, as it is quite your usual predictable plot. So let's just talk about the acting. (Unless you want me to comment on the cinematography, which I'm sure nobody wants to hear.)

Anne Hathaway: Okay. Not great. Just okay. Have to remind myself to see Rachel Getting Married and check out her acting.

Stanley Tucci: Great performance. Subtle, yet totally amusing. Stanley Tucci is always a treat to watch.

La Streep: Excellent. No question. The first thing I was expecting when she first appeared in the film was that she would start nagging in a really high-pitched, bitchy voice. But lo and behold, once she opened her mouth, she broke stereotypes. Miranda Priestley is a bitch---but a soft-spoken bitch. Bitchy without even uttering a single word. Bitchy just by the way she looks at you. Oh, and the hair. I love the hair. I love you, Meryl Streep.

So, about the title. First, Miranda Priestley, the boss of Runway magazine, is the devil herself. You know, mean boss equals devil, that kind of thing.

Second meaning: the whole fashion industry is the devil. Once it swallows you, you'll come out better dressed, but with horns coming out of your head. The fashion world is the dark side.

But don't watch this for any philosophical insights between fashion and life. Just watch it for Meryl Streep. I love her so much that if I were a girl, I would be Meryl Streep.


*some info from imdb
pic from www.forum.militaryltd.com


The Devil Wears Prada. USA. 2006.


Rating: Seven over ten.
12:01 AM
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )
Premium Blogspot Templates
Copyright © 2012 Da Couch Tomato