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

28 Days Later

Gone are the days of the clumsy, lumbering zombies, popularized by Michael Jackson's "Thriller" video. The new zombie is fast, furious, and full of...rage.

Incidentally, the name of the zombie virus here is also called "rage". And it suits them quite well. All the infected here have the ability to run like Olympic sprinters. That should be enough to freak anybody out.

So Danny Boyle shows us his range as a director. And for pulling off a successful horror flick slash zombie fright fest, Danny Boyle cements his status as one of my favorite directors. Ever.

Great cinematography from Anthony Dod Mantle, who seems to work pretty well with the digital video medium. No wonder he had Slumdog Millionaire perfected. He's had years of practice already.

All the girls will be getting a treat in this film, seeing a few seconds of Cillian Murphy's schlong, and several shots of butt exposure. For the guys, there's no treat at all. The black girl never showed anything remotely sexy, and the young girl Hanah was...too young. But these are not the reasons that you should be watching this in the first place. You should watch this because it's 1) a zombie flick; 2) Cillian Murphy is in it; 3) Christopher Eccleston is in it; and 4) it's directed by Danny Boyle. Actually, just the fourth reason should be reason enough.


*pic from best-horror-movies.com


28 Days Later. UK. 2003.


Rating: Eight out of ten.
Cillian Murphy's hair: Nine out of ten.


**Because it was Halloween, a zombiefest was appropriate. Thank you to my friend Camsy for hosting it, although it was quite late.

This is It

This is it, really. The King of Pop's last moments alive.

As far as documentaries go, there is nothing really special about this particular film. And since I've started on that note, let's get the not-so-good stuff out of the way.

First of all, this documentary has no plot. Well of course, that is to be expected, as this is not a narrative. But still, sometimes you just get the feel that it's just footage pasted together. Then again, the filmmakers didn't make any promises on this. They just said at the onset that this will be a film chronicling the dress rehearsals for Michael Jackson's comeback tour.

Second...wait, there is no second not-so-good stuff. Everything else is good from here.

And the one thing that this documentary can offer that other documentaries can't: the multiple sides of Michael Jackson. Not just Michael Jackson the King of Pop. There is more to him than that.

First, there is MJ the performer. All the rigs, the effects, the visual cues---these are all Michael. You will see his total devotion to his craft. And although they form a big part of it, it's not the dancers that make the show a success. As director Kenny Ortega said, the dancers are extensions of Michael. They are extensions of the Man.

Second, there's MJ the singer. At fifty years old, he should be conserving his voice during dress rehearsals. Yet he couldn't help himself, and gave excellent vocal performances for some of the songs that had the dancers and crew cheering in the background.

Third, there's MJ the musician. For those of you who still doubt Michael Jackson's songwriting, you will hear him say it himself: "That's how I wrote it." So he did write his own songs. And he knows his songs inside-out. He knows how funky he wants the bass line for "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'", and how lethargic he wants the piano for "The Way You Make Me Feel". And of course, the musicians must yield to the Man. He wrote those songs anyway.

Fourth, there's MJ the artist. Just seeing the tricks MJ had up his sleeve will make you really disappointed that the world would never, ever experience another Michael Jackson concert. The videos he shot for this would've gone to waste were it not for this film. He remade the "Smooth Criminal" opening number to have himself digitally inserted into old film noir footage, and he also had "Thriller" re-shot---in 3D. Oh, what I would've given to see his show.

And lastly, there's MJ the prophet. Michael Jackson has been doing his "Save the Earth" advocacy long before Al Gore even conceived of An Inconvenient Truth. And with his Church of Rock approach to life, from his "God bless you" and "Love one another" messages, it becomes clear that with his death, the world has lost a messiah named Michael.

Upon leaving the theater, you would either be 1) wiping a tear from your eye; 2) smiling fondly at memories of Michael; or 3) moonwalking across the cinema lobby. And I personally would light a candle for MJ, for it's like I lost...a brother.

R.I.P. Michael Jackson.


*some info from michaeljackson.com
pic from nydailynews.com


This is It. USA. 2009.


Rating: Eight out of ten.

Meet the Natives. Season 1, Episode 2.

This is obviously a great show. There is a lot to learn from these natives. A lot. And on their visit to working class Manchester, we realize that Western culture cares more about pets than about humans. Which is crazy, really.


*pic from tvblog.it

The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle by Haruki Murakami

I always find it hard to tell the difference between magic realism and fantasy. If they're both the same or if one is under the umbrella term or not. Stuff like that. Sometimes, I feel that magic realism is used to classify random weird things happening in literature. Like that time Gabriel Garcia Marquez had to ride a boat inside his home because it started raining inside his home. (But I actually believe that rowing a boat inside a house is plausible. I mean, Marquez was born quite well-off, wasn't he?) Sometimes though, I feel that magic realism is used just so that one would sound lit-smart. And maybe, if I would ask them to define it, they'd go "It's when things that don't normally happen, happen inside this setting wherein people perceive it as normal." And I'd go, "But isn't fantasy like that too? Sometimes people don't question the 'abnormality' of it." And then they'd go, "Blah, blah, blah, yakitiyak." And then they'd look at me with I-can't-believe-you-don't-get-it eyes. And then I'd look at them with I'm-pretending-I'm-not-thinking-that-you're-pathetic eyes.

And then both of us would go home and search magic realism in wikipedia.

Anyhow, I believe that The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle falls under magic realism. Just as long as you didn't grow up watching anime, playing family computer, or watching Takeshi's Castle and other "weird" Japanese game shows. But if you did, you'd probably think this is as normal as pooping.

In all honesty, I was hesitant to do a review on this book because in all honesty, I am the opposite of the compulsive liar---I feel the need to be totally honest and I end up oversharing. I was hesitant to do a review on this book because I know I have to tell you, my imaginary audience, that his writing reminds me of---get ready for this---my writing.

Don't scoff.

No, I'm not saying I'm great and all. Or my short stories (the former ones anyway) are well-written, cohesive, profound, poetic, or whatever. No. That's actually it. My (former) short stories weren't all that. That's the problem. Some of them had illogical images inserted in every scene just so that the story would say that This Is A Metaphor. And some scenes had characters popping out of nowhere, because aside from these sudden characters being a metaphor, the main character needs to vent out, other substories are needed to be told (for more This Is Interesting points), and somewhere along the way, there's that implication of the usual being alone and alienation.

I'm sorry if I'm saying all of this as if these are bad things (maybe they are, maybe not, depends which intellectual you're talking to, haha). I'm just tired of being sad, or other things being sad, that's all. Not that I'm looking for happy-gooey escapism either. It's just that I was disappointed with the main guy being blah-type sad (the kind of sadness that doesn't really scream sadness but you can see that he's awfully sad anyway). I really do believe that Toru Okada, the main guy in this novel, is to blame for his being lonely. And for his disintegrating marriage. And for other "weird" stuff happening to him.

I didn't really dislike him in the beginning though. Just in the last parts of the novel. I thought that the marriage angle was going good until his wife started blaming herself for everything (which she really shouldn't, I'm all for eternal love but her husband was mistaking disinterest with complacency and trust---which by the way, the novel tried to cover up by saying he wanted to have sex with teh wife and teh wife was the one who declined because of *insert obvious spoiler here* but not looking for the missing cat in the first place was a warning sign right there and then). Plus it just got knight-in-shining-armor-y---I'm going to save my wife! And she wants to be saved! Then everything felt like a metaphor. And then the novel's supposed to be important because of the Japanese history it contained. And then I felt guilty for not being interested in the history part, aside from the torture one soldier had to go through. And then I felt more guilty because I was entranced with violence. And then I justified myself by saying that's one of the things the novel wants to showcase anyway---what actual individuals had to go through under such environment.

But amidst all of this, would I read Murakami again (you know, for pleasure and not for parading pretend-coolness)? Um, maybe. I would try to read the one with the lesbians or the one that's supposedly popular with teenagers. Because I like lesbians. And teenagers. Um, not in the creepy way.

Also, reading how sort of a half-fairy tale, and half-knight in shining armor, this novel got, it'd be interesting to know how he handles lesbian and teenage characters in other books.

He handles characters in The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle pretty much okay. Only sometimes I feel as if everyone's talking the same way. Except the teenage character.

And that guy who totally doesn't talk.

But it's interesting enough. Enough that I had to babble in this review because I still can't figure if I like it or not. It's interesting, and has some strong images, but then I wasn't totally giddy to write a review on it.

Best read if there's a storm though. With the no electricity style. I remember being freaked out then. That must be something, I guess.


p.s.
No, I'm not sure what the Wind-Up Bird stood for. If you do, please leave a comment. (Or I should just probably head to Wikipedia, haha)


6/10

Entourage. Season 2, Episode 9: The Boys are Back in Town

Okay, so what happened to Emily? I was kind of rooting for her and E to hit it off. There seems to be a lack of good women in this series. And now I can't decide which is better: Vince Chase as Aquaman, or Vince Chase as Pablo Escobar.


*pic from HBO

(500) Days of Summer

When I first heard of the title, just the title, I thought it would be like another horror flick. You know, like 30 Days of Night.

However, this is not a horror flick. They call it a rom-com. But I don't. To me, it's a beautiful love story. Beautifully written, and beautifully directed.

We can praise this four ways.

First, non-linearity. Hooray for postmodern storytelling. Because love is meant to be told in emotional outbursts, not in some predictable timeline.

Second, great soundtrack. Rarely do I get excited about film soundtracks, and this is one of those times. And they actually used a song by Patrick Swayze. R.I.P. Swayze.

Third, excellent performances. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is actually a great actor, and I've already seen this ever since he played Cobra Commander in G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra. And Zooey Deschanel---I love her. I even wrote a poem for her. Well, it's a rap verse, but who cares.

Fourth, great story. As in it was a really great script. Well, you can always expect great scripts from Fox Searchlight. Plus the fact that this was actually based on real people and inspired by real events makes it even more heart-wrenching. And that clincher at the very end, the very last words of the film---I love it.

Now, if you've been in love, or if you haven't been in love, or if you don't believe in love, this film is for you. That's why this film worked. It caters to everybody, while making them feel that their stance on love is actually the correct one.


*some info from IMDb
pic from scene-stealers.com


(500) Days of Summer. USA. 2009.


Rating: Nine out of ten.
Dance number in the park: One point deduction.
Using a Hall and Oates song in the dance number: Half a point.
Using 2D and not CGI to animate the bird in the dance number: Half a point.
Final rating: Still a nine out of ten.

Glee Season 1, Episode 8 Mash-Up

image from: http://starrystairs.tumblr.com/post/220188396/rachel-hes-made-his-choice-he-doesnt-care


I was waiting for the first season to end before I do a review in a sort of "In Defense of the Glee Hype" tone, or any other hype for that matter (maybe the Twilight movie, High School Musical, or heck, even the emo scene). However, circumstances of friends fawning over Glee and other friends declaring their hate for (or boredom over) it made it seem like the right time to make a bit of a "neutral" assessment of the hype. Still, more however, watching the latest episode was a bit of bad timing for whatever defense I wanted to make. Because from every angle I look at it, this is by far the suckiest I've watched. It especially falls flat on its face after the previous most coherent episode Glee has shown. This episode is very, very, very frustrating. Because just as I thought that it's giving me something giddy---Sue Sylvester dancing, Noah and Rachel actually fulfilling a proper role of a TV couple exuding chemistry and hotness, and coach of the football team being less annoying---it takes it easily away because, that's just it. I don't know why the writers of this episode take it away. They were holding onto something good and then they fumble, dropping the ball, not knowing where to take the good things in life, mainly those I've listed above. This is a very confusing episode. No, not in a sense that it confuses me, more like it confuses itself... Oh, is that why they entitled it "Mash-Up"? Because "Mash-Up" products are supposed to go together. Not like "The Thong Song" or My Fair Lady. But that was the point of the episode. So...maybe they're doing a meta...Bleh. Anyway, good points: One, Kurt's cuteness. My! I could do a thousand icons on just one scene with Kurt in it. His facial expressions can be divided into a hundred icons. Two, Noah's musical number. Yes, yes, you are far more interesting and bad-ass than the wimp of a quarterback. Now to the really, really, and I do mean really, bad point: The ending. It was so brady bunch-y. I know this is supposed to be a good feel yadida show, and I'm all for sunshine and halos and angels, as Rachel would say, but I draw the line on brady bunch-y feel. The only shows who have the right to do that are the eighties shows, Disney series, and of course, The Brady Bunch.

The Beatles: Rock Band

Sum this up in five words:

I. Want. This. For. Christmas.

This game was released as a tool to introduce a new generation to the music of The Beatles, but I think it's safe to assume that the older fans (like me) would enjoy this even more.

A true Beatlemaniac (like me) could actually close his/her eyes when selecting a song, because said Beatlemaniac would actually know all the songs in the playlist.

The Beatles: Rock Band includes the option to perform three-part vocal harmonies, which was not present in previous Rock Band games. This way, you could get to sing "Paperback Writer" the way it's supposed to be sung.

I loved the game so much, I wish I didn't have to go home from my friend's house. I wish I didn't have to put down the bass. I wish I could be Paul McCartney forever. Well, not really, as Sir Paul doesn't look too good now, does he?


*some info from Wikipedia
pic from eatsleepgeek.com


The Beatles: Rock Band. 2009.


Rating: Nine and a half out of ten.

Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea

By Mary Quite Contrary
Thu, 15 Jul 2010, 14:24.

... aka Gake no ue no Ponyo - Japan (original title)
... aka Ponyo on The Cliff By The Sea - Australia, International (English title)
... aka Ponyo on The Cliff - International (English title and informal literal title)

Once upon a time, a fish wanted to see the world above the sea. She was still young and had to escape inside a jellyfish when her father wasn’t looking. In the shallow waters, she got trapped inside a jar while managing to escape the junk boat’s net (used to sweep the trash underwater). Fortunately, a little boy found her. He hit the jar with a stone to free the fish. When he cut himself on broken glass, the fish licked his wound and it healed instantly. The little boy then knew, that the fish was special. He placed her inside a bucket and promised to protect her no matter what.

Inspired by Hans Christian Andersen’s The Little Mermaid, it’s both weird and wonderful that Disney was open to producing another remake of the fairytale with the master of classic Japanese animation. Hayao Miyazaki never ceases to take my breath away. He breathes life into every detail. His works possess a holistic perspective of the world and its inhabitants, be it animal, human or spirit. His stories are told with disarming sincerity.

Ponyo upset the balance of nature the moment she loved this little boy who lived on the cliff by the sea. At first, I thought it was supposed to be a kind of suspension of disbelief that the fish had a human face because when Sosuke showed Ponyo to his mother, she only told him that she’s pretty. But one of the old ladies was shocked to see that it has such a face and said that "Fishes with faces bring tsunamis," and so I realize that the story intended her to be magical. By tasting human blood and eating human food, magical creatures become partly human. One cannot be magic and human at the same time. The old lady was right: the moon pulled tides into roaring mountains; comets are drawn to the Earth. Destruction awaits the universe, which only a boy can undo. Indeed there is a way out, but not without dire consequences. Fujimoto and Gran Mamare (Ponyo’s parents) have to test the boy’s love. If genuine, Ponyo will be human. If not, she will turn into sea foam. Surprisingly, Gran Mamare (who is like the goddess of the sea) didn’t mind if her daughter does become sea foam, where we all originated. She will become one with the sea.

There is a backstory to this film that is left to the viewer’s imagination. The romance between Gran Mamare and Fujimoto, who, stated in the script, was once human. In another story, he might have been a sailor who fell in love with the sea.

Gake no ue no Ponyo is the 3oth film that Studio Ghibli has produced. The power of animation is in the creation of a universe entirely its own. It transforms human values like kindness, courage, trust, love, and elevates it. It is no longer just human, nor does it know physical bounds. Miyazaki weaves an intimate connection using hand-drawn animation and his trademark storytelling about humanity being a cog in the universe. A cog that is capable of destruction and redemption. At the core of his worlds, there exists a magic beyond time, which connects the human cog with everything else in the universe. Miyazaki shows us the way, this time into how a great love can happen even to a five-year-old boy and a fish.

Sources: Disney, IMDb

(Read more on Ponyo after the jump.)