DCT Season 2 Episode 15: Top Gun: Maverick IMAX (2022), or Tom Cruise Will Always Find a Way to Run In His Movies

Da Couch Tomato Podcast Season 2 Episode 15, discussing Top Gun: Maverick, the sequel to the 1986 film Top Gun. Dapat ba itong panoorin sa IMAX? Oo sana, kung may budget. Para makita niyo ang ganda ni Jennifer Connelly and her gracefully-aging face at ang medyo lolo muscles ni Tom Cruise. Pakinggan din kung bakit tingin namin isa itong magandang sequel, kahit na 36 years ang pagitan nito sa unang pelikula.

Sting Lacson's rating : 8.2/10

Rachel's rating: 8.7/10

Final rating: 8.45/10

Help our podcast and get up to 80% off on Lazada if you shop using this link: https://bit.ly/3p4Ur5K

Random Thoughts: Alita: Battle Angel 3D, or It Is Possible To Fall In Love With a Robot

YouTube

"Let's see them boob–URK!"

•I love Japanese manga. True, I haven’t read that much; just a handful, maybe. But that’s only because of the scarcity of mangas when I was growing up. Apparently, manga has a wealth of material that can be translated into cinematic narratives, and Hollywood hasn’t even begun to tap into that potential yet.

•These Mexicans are really good filmmakers. Let me run down a few names here: Del Toro. Cuarón. Iñárritu. Okay, wait… Apparently, director Robert Rodriguez is Mexican-American. Still, there’s Mexican blood in there. Why are these Mexicans such good visual storytellers?

•Okay, so James Cameron produced this film. Great. I mean, Cameron might be a bit lacking in the narrative aspect of his films to elevate them into cinematic masterpieces. But the guy knows his craft. The guy knows filmmaking. From the technical to the technological, the guy knows everything about film. Which is why I can’t wait for the Avatar sequels.

•All right, so this is actually one of the very, very few films this year (and these past few years) that was actually shot on native 3D (meaning actual stereo 3D, using two cameras). One thing I’ve noticed, though, is that real 3D seems a bit mild, unlike converted 3D, which tends to pop out exaggeratedly. The reason for this is that with converted 3D, the stereographers have more control over the elements, so they can choose which element they want to bring to the fore and which they want to subdue. With native 3D, the lens separation happens during filming, leaving the stereographer with very little room to manipulate the stereo effect.

•Andy Serkis used to be the king of motion capture acting. Well, maybe not the king, but he was Hollywood’s go-to guy after showing us what motion capture can do with his performance as Gollum in The Lord of the Rings movies. Even during 2013’s Tintin, Serkis still outperformed everybody. Now, however, that doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. Did you know it’s called “performance capture” now? They don’t just capture an actor’s body movements, now they can capture even an actor’s facial expressions. Although I think there are two possible reasons why Alita’s facial expressions look so realistic: 1) Rosa Salazar, aside from being a good actress, is also a very talented performance capture artist; or 2) the technology has advanced so much to the point that even regular actors can be as good as Andy Serkis was ten years ago.

•My god, Weta is awesome. They were already awesome since The Lord of the Rings, but now they’re even more awesome. I can’t think of a word better than awesome, but if there was such a word, Weta would be that. The special effects in this film are just so flawless. I’m pretty sure Weta would be the ones handling the Avatar sequels, and I’m just really excited to see how good the technology would be by that time.

•Okay, so I guess it is possible to fall in love with a robot. I used to be very vocal about my opposition to any form of human-robot romantic relations, even if it was with the formless artificial intelligence in 2013’s Her. But Alita: Battle Angel seems to have shown me that I shouldn’t speak with finality, because it is possible. Take Alita, for example. Sure, she’s got huge eyes, but you’d get past that after a bit. Alita had me with her smile. Why did the filmmakers have to make her so photorealistic? Damn you, Weta.

YouTube

Yoga with Adrienne Alita

Alita Battle Angel. USA. 2019.



Original rating: 8/10
Christoph Waltz: +0.1
Jennifer Connelly: +0.1
Mahershala Ali: +0.1
Character designs: +0.1
Final rating: 8.4/10

Review: Noah, or How the Hollywood Style of Adaptation Was Applied to Biblical Narratives

YouTube

The art of adaptation has many forms (I am of course talking of adaptation in its literary sense). Adaptation is the process by which a work is transposed from one medium to another. For example, a novel can be adapted from a stage play, or a poem can be adapted into a short story. And movies can be adapted from almost any medium under the sun.

The film Noah from director Darren Aronofsky is one such example, coming out as the second of at least three films this year adapted from biblical sources. Understandably, viewers would tend to compare Noah with other biblical films such as The Passion of the Christ, The Last Temptation of Christ, and The Prince of Egypt.

There are some films which are considered modern-day adaptations of Biblical stories, like the obvious modern-day Christ narrative The Matrix, but in my opinion, these aren't so much adaptations as modern-day retellings. Yes, they may be similar, but they are distinct. Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet is a modern-day adaptation, while Romeo Must Die is a modern-day retelling of William Shakespeare's classic play. So where does the difference lie?

Jam the Hype

"Adaptation? Retelling? I'm confused now."

Blood Diamond

This is the film where I thought, "Wow, Leonardo DiCaprio has matured, finally."

And it's not because he speaks with a Rhodesian accent here. I haven't really heard authentic Rhodesian, so I wouldn't know. But you can sense Leo's dedication to the art of acting, and it shows in every movement of his body, every twitch of his muscles.

I think Orlando Bloom could've taken lessons from DiCaprio. Leonardo DiCaprio is living proof that great actors are made, not born.

Jennifer Connelly always looks good on camera. I've liked her since Labyrinth. And she ages with such grace, I envy Paul Bettany.

I like Djimon Hounsou when he acts normal. But when he starts shouting like a madman, like that "Give us us free" mode, he can sound pretty annoying. It's like a caged animal that will kill the first person it comes into contact with. Now isn't that frightening?


*some info from IMDb
pic from jasoncollin.org


Blood Diamond. USA/Germany. 2006 (2007 Philippines).


Rating: Six and a half out of ten.

Labyrinth

And now, we give praise to Jim Henson, patron saint of puppeteers. That is, if Jim Henson were Roman Catholic.

Again, this film was from the golden age of pre-digital special effects. Everything here was old school, except for the computer-animated owl in the opening sequence. I've been told that that was the first attempt at creating photo-realistic digital creatures for full-length films.

Jim Henson's creature workshop must be a great place for a grade school field trip, especially if you grew up knowing Jim Henson's name. Young kids right now will probably never know how much that man contributed to the art of cinema.

The characters in this film will all go down as classic, especially Hoggle. Which is why for me, first-class animatronics is better than first-class CGI. You can really tell the difference. Thanks to the brilliant muppeteers Dave Goelz, Steve Whitmire, Kevin Clash, and Frank Oz (all legends in their field), and to the excellent creature designs of the great Ron Mueck.

Jennifer Connelly is a pretty good actor, by the way. Well, she was only sixteen when this came out. And she was my first Hollywood crush. But her costume here in this movie---it's so eighties. But of course. This was 1986.

And finally, the great David Bowie. The soundtrack played a big role in the film's success. Well, it's Bowie. His portrayal of Jareth the Goblin King is not one of his best acting gigs, but it's pretty entertaining, and it's not half as bad as the critics say. Bowie is Bowie. I believe he's the only one who could've pulled off that hair. But Bowie's crotch is another story. Pretty distracting, if you ask me.


*some info from IMDb
pic from twincities.decider.com


Labyrinth. USA. 1986.


Rating: Eight and a half out of ten.
Bowie's hair: Eight out of ten.
Bowie's crotch: Three out of ten.

The Day the Earth Stood Still(1951) vs. The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

It's only been a few hours since I've seen the original 1951 version of The Day the Earth Stood Still. Like a lot of people who have seen the remake, I thought the new film was okay with the regular amount of plot holes and exaggerations that always seem to hound Hollywood movies. I read some articles on the new movie and how they were disappointed with this version and how they longed for the older version. As it was, I watched the original version expecting a much better film than Keanu's version or at least a better movie overall.

So was it?

In a word, no.

Unlike a lot of movie fanatics, I am not swayed by the idea that the older version always trumps the new one. I do not care about thinking that the original had a lot better plot or had better actors or that they had to make do with what they have back in the day. To put it bluntly, The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) is a disappointment.

The two versions are actually two very different movies. The only thing that they truly shared are the title, character names, the idea of destroying mankind and the anti-climactic ending (the 1951 version trumping the new one on this aspect).

The plot line of the original version is this: aliens arrive on Earth because of a couple of recent developments---Man's discovery of Atomic Energy (this is 1951 after all) and Man's recent fascination with rockets and going to space. The two combined is what troubles these aliens. They do not care about the planet and unlike the new film, talk about Earth only as a whole and almost never as Earth and Mankind. They fear that soon, Earth would be arming these rockets with atomic warheads and begin destroying other planets.

And so they bring in Klaatu, played by Michael Rennie, a rather less stoic or more human version of Keanu Reeves. The purpose, supposedly was that to tell the world leaders of this problem and that the world as a whole should accept their proposal or risk annihilation.

This is where the plot bogs down and yet gets glazed over by every single film critic I've read. The proposal is essentially to stop this scientific development because they would be considered as a threat to the peace and stability of the universe. In a modern day analogy, this is the same as when the US does not want other countries to develop nuclear weapons because they threaten the peace and stability of the world as a whole. While the idea may be good, it does not alter the fact that in both cases, the people (or aliens) ordering this shutdown in development have the exact same capability as that which they do not want others to have.

The hypocrisy of this alien is therefore omnipresent as they do not want us to develop these capabilities (which we are nowhere near having especially at that time) because we "might" destroy other civilizations (that we do not even know exists) or else we ourselves, the entire Earth, will be destroyed.

In a sense, the new version is even a plot upgrade from the old one as at least the new one makes more sense. In the new version, we are asked to reform our ways because we are destroying our planet and I suppose, these Aliens are life protectors or something. I personally do not like the moral posturing of the new version. While I like the idea that we should change our ways, I do not understand why the Aliens seem to care about what we do. It would have been a much better idea if the Aliens wanted to annihilate mankind because we are destroying our planet and that if we do succeed in killing Earth, it would cause some cosmic catastrophe of some sort (like a black hole) which would disrupt life on their planet. That would have been less preachy.

Back to the 1951 version, Klaatu just wants to talk to the people and say these things and in a sense, he was able to do so in the end. However, there is nothing that would show any resolution to the story. No, it's not not the kind of lack of resolution that makes you think "Hmm... what could possibly happen?" It's the kind of lack of resolution, that makes you think "WTF?"

The musical score of this 1951 movie is top notch from start to finish. They always put you in the right mood that seems to warn you of an impending doom which eventually never happens.

A lot of people think that Keanu's The Day The Earth Stood Still is a bad remake of an awesome film. In truth, 2008 is an okay version of a slightly below average 1951 version.



The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951): Three Stars.
The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008): Three Stars.
At Gunpoint: 2008 over 1951.

The Day the Earth Stood Still

I saw this film after the nauseating camera movement of Quarantine, and I thought to myself, "Finally, a proper movie."

But that's all this is---a proper movie. Not even a great movie. Just proper.

First of all, it's a sci-fi flick. Very few science fiction movies can come up with something original this day and age. Aliens and spaceships and aliens and saving the earth and more aliens---this is basically what this film is in a nutshell. Well, this actually is a remake of a 1951 film of the same title, directed by Robert Wise (who directed The Sound of Music). This 2008 version was directed by Scott Derrickson, and what he did was to update some themes in the old version to make it more relevant to today's audience.

Okay, let me stop pretending I know a lot about the original 1951 version, so for a comparative analysis between the two films, just read this excellent review.

Let's just go directly to the aspect that I love to criticize the most: acting. First of all, Keanu Reeves. It might be just me, but I really think that Keanu Reeves has a very limited acting style. I know he tries hard, God bless him, but somehow it seems his best performance was playing Ted "Theodore" Logan of the Bill and Ted films. Now Jennifer Connelly is another story. I've loved her since Labyrinth, and her Oscar win for A Beautiful Mind cemented her status as a really talented actress. I think it's in her eyes, which does half of her acting for her.

Another Oscar winner in this film is the wonderful Kathy Bates, but I believe her role in this film as the US Secretary of Defense downplays her acting abilities. Veteran John Cleese makes a very short appearance as some Nobel Prize-winning scientist, while Jaden Smith (son of Will Smith and Jada Pinkett) gives an annoyingly good performance. His acting is so effective that you'd hate the brat.

Anyway, before the holiday lineup invades the movie theaters, go see this movie if you love effects-driven films, or if you want to see Keanu Reeves's handsome mug on the big screen. But for the true science fiction fans, the only thing worth waiting for right now would be the remake of Frank Herbert's Dune.


Rating: Three and a half stars.